Enclosing is a decision that can respond to many different social and psychological reasons. Therefore, Sociology and Social Psychology cam help archaeology (if archaeologists let them).
A good example of this is the work of Tim Insoll (professor of the University of Manchester), that has been studying shrine contexts in Africa. I attend to one of his talks in Oxford and it became clear to me that there is a lot of matter in this kind of work that can be useful for the research of Prehistoric enclosures (maybe that is why he was invited to talk in a meeting dedicated to Prehistoric enclosures).
The shrine is a sort of memorial, monument or grave structure that encloses something, being to protect or conceal what is inside or to protect what is outside (from what is inside). In his studies in Africa, Insoll deal with a lot of different forms of enclosing: material ones, symbolic ones; evident or just suggested; completely involving the object or space, or just demark it. Sometimes those shines were made to protect what was inside, sometimes it was precisely the opposite.
Those examples tell us that we need to have a solid theoretical background about the phenomena of enclosing to approach enclosures, since the issue is not an easy one. Enclosing is a sociological and psychological problem. It is an attempt to control and conform, not the world, but the world as it is expressed by some ideas. They are built to prevent, to protect, to differentiate, to separate, to hierarchize, to impose pathways, to impose visibilities, to represent ideologies, to spatially materialize social and political structures, to communicate. The reasons for enclosing may be quite diversified and may respond to several different motivations.
There is a lot to learn in the social and psychological phenomena of shrining that can be helpful to researches that deal with prehistoric enclosures.
Detail of the shrine of plaques in Sousa Martins statue.