Jump to content

Talk:List of archaeologists/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

A more efficient way of creating lists of archaeologists would be, at first, to create separate lists for living and deceased archaeologists. The "living" category could also include some indication of current status: practising, retired, academic affiliation, areas of research and activity. Likewise, deceased archaeologists should have a brief indication as to their years of birth and death, areas of research and activity, etc. Comments / suggestions? Pjamescowie 11:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A good idea, as it will keep seperate the arguments of "so and so has not earned a space here yet" (for living, practising) and those over past archaeologists whose career and 'fame' are bickered over in detail. Kilr0y 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't really agree. I think a composite list is okeh. (We might want to add a second version of the list: arranged by DoB.) In any case, I have started adding dates, nationalities, and specialties. The idea is that the very minimum is given, allowing the list reader to scan through to find people of interest. Kdammers 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Clean up needed

Some of the entries here are spurious - Lara Croft?!?! On a quick look, at least one of the names is linked to a page about a non-archaeologist. The list needs to at least be what it says it is: a list of archaeologists. What the criteria for inclusion might be is open to interpretation, but I would suggest that somewhere the criteria ought to include being involved in archaeology. Or is that just pedantry? Iain1917 06:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional archaeologists

Somewhere on Wik there is (or was) some sort of List of fictional archaeologists. It should be given at the bottom of the LOA page.Kdammers (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Quacks

Why don't we list von Daeniken? He's a fraud and not a trained archaeologist, but the public sees him qas an archaeologist. (Cp. the discussion in German Wik). Kdammers 07:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Kdammers: Because the purpose of this rather futile list is to give credit to real archaeologists and inform the public of who they are, not to keep misguiding them by giving un-due credit to one of the biggest insults to the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.96.78 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that was even suggested. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant mischaracterization

The page description current reads "Archaeology, originally an amateur pastime, is becoming increasingly popular, and it is now possible for archaeologists to become minor celebrities as a result of media exposure."

This assertion is misleading on several levels. While professional, scientific archaeology does have roots in being something of a "pastime," in many cases what people in the 19th and early 20th centuries were calling "archaeology" was often antiquarianism, and antiquarians should generally be kept in their own section or on a separate this page.

Additionally, although excavation pursuits continued to be dominated by those wealthy enough to pursue it as the field passed from the realm of antiquarianism to a more solidly scientific study, the main idea of the sentence - implying that archaeologists can receive celebrity status - is absurd. People don't become archaeologists to gain fame. Statements like this belong on the pseudoarchaeology page.

Additionally, I have added Clarence Bloomfield Moore to this list. I realize some would argue that he represents more of an antiquarian than a professional archaeologist, however I feel that A) his work more closely represents the spirit of scientific archaeology, and B) his detailed records spanning 20 or so years of research in the southern United States remain a critical line of data even to this day. In many cases his writings remain the only significant or extant source of information we have on sites long destroyed. He is a crucial figure in North American archaeology. Frito31382 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC), updated 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the unencyclopaedic statement and added André Parrot Alexemanuel 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Avocational and pseudo archaeologists?

I'd like to see pseudo archaeologists such as Thor Heyerdahl not be added to the list. I removed his entry today, and have since been reverted by Kdammers (talk). We discussed it a little at my talk page. I'm of the opinion that all such embarrassments to the discipline such as Hancock, Von Daniken, etc. shouldn't be on the list. Rather than turn this into a revert war, I'd like to get some more input from the community and come to a concensus on the matter. Thanks. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. This is a list of archeologists, not of people like Heyerdahl or Sitchin. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Only archaeologists should be on a list of archaeologists. Erich von Däniken, Thor Heyerdahl etc., are not. Daicaregos (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the list should be just for archaeologists; you wouldn't find a reliable source seriously describing pseudo-archaeolodgists as archaeologists. Nev1 (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what the cut-off criterion for inclusion on the list is, or should be. For example, would Stuart Wilson (archaeologist) qualify? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
For modern archaeologists, they'd surely need qualifications; for the first archaeologists, this would be much more problematic though. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this titled avocational and pseudo archaeologists - the two are completely different! Being avocational does not preclude having proper archaeological standards. Having recently been part of a research project looking at competence in archaeology, I think there are a number of criteria, but they are not exclusive. Having qualifications per se isn't a requirement, although these days the vast majority of current archaeologists do have. However, many people have qualifications in archaeology but are not archaeologists in that a large proprtion of people taking archaeology as a degree course do not go on to practice archaeology. Professional membership of a bona fide professional organistion like the IFA is a good criteria, since this requires validation and covers professional standards as well as knowledge and training. Publication in proper peer reviewed academic archaeology journals is also a good criterion. Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Reformatting

Hi, all. I'm going to be reformatting this page to contain more information, a la List of improvisational theatre companies. Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. When you do it, please be sure to retain information on dates, nationality, and specialty. I've been slowly adding this info, so that the first part of the alphabet is pretty well covered. what other categories of information if any are You thinking of? Kdammers (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I was thinking of having Name, Birth year, Geographic area (with option of "general" for people who just study a particular technical subject), Technical expertise (with option of "general" for people who study everything in Mesoamerica, for example), their Graduate School (with option of "avocational" for self-taught or those who predate formal training), and References. I was toying with the idea of a notes section or perhaps combining Geo area or Tech expertise into a column called "major contributions". WHEW! What do you think? I'd love to work with you together on this if you'd like. I can set it up on a random userpage, because it will take a while to work out with wikiformatting. Also, do you think it should just be a really long table? I'm leaning towards that. SMSpivey (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think a series of smaller tables would be easier to edit. Same as how it's set up in alphabetical order now, divided by letter. Would be easier to add new entries. All of the other stuff sounds good tho, way to go Kdammers!.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I just worry that by making smaller tables, it will eliminate some of the usefulness of sorting. They will be permanently sorted by alphabet, you know? SMSpivey (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say separate smaller tables in alphabetical order. I've used some Wik lists that are made this way, and it has been possible to search through them (by scrolling and by search terms) globally. In fact, to the user they look like one long table. In any case, by setting up the dummy site You mention, we can see how it works and how cluttered or scannable a particular version is. Kdammers (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lukis

(fl. 1850?) British; Britain, channel Islands, stone age; or is this supposed to by Lucas or F. C. Lukis, 1788-1871, http://www.c-s-p.org/flyers/9781847183576-sample.pdf? Kdammers (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this list include archaeologists that do not yet have a WP article? If so, what criteria applies? I did look up a couple of names that are red links, and found that they are archaeologists, although I cannot judge their "eminence". Including only people who have an article in the English WP would make maintenance simpler, but might unfairly exclude archaeologists not well known in English-speaking countries. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And I found an answer here. Persons listed should either have an article in WP, or a citation to a source establishing notability in the field. -- Donald Albury 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes Wik guidelines are too stringent. I have looked at some of the red entries, and some have been really significant. For example, Bartres had nothing, even though he is a very well known figure in the history of Meso-American archaeology. If I hadn't written a stub for him just a little while ago, he would be subject to removal by some-one blindly following the policy. So, I ask that people be cautious in eliminating red peo: Checkple before erasing. For example, check standard books for older people if you are lucky enough to be near a major library. For contemporary people, a professional evaluation using SSCI and Google Scholar could lead to a decision to make an entry or eliminate from the list. Kdammers (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I was working on the basis of the comments above. I will note that this is a very serious problem on many lists of people. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As the guideline says, a citation should be sufficient to keep someone on the list. Without at least a citation, how is a reader to tell that a name really belongs on the list. Yeah, that may put archaeologists from some countries at a disadvantage, but that is inherent in requiring verifiability in an English-language encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Guidelines are not chiseled in monoliths. All I am asking for is a >considered approach<, where-in rather than simply erasing red entries, we do a little foot-work: Check in a decent relevant source before erasing. If the person is noteworthy even if there is no Wik/En entry, don't erase it (even if you don't feel able at the moment to write a stub). One source to check would be other Wiks, especially the Wik of the language the archaeologist presumably speaks. Please note that I am not saying all the red entries should remain -- but neither should they automatically go. Maybe we could put citations in as stop-gap measures, though they would clutter up the list. Kdammers (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, all it takes is a citation to a reliable source. Everyone on this list needs to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which can only be established by citing reliable sources. Our verifiability policy places the burden of providing sources on an editor who wants to retain any challenged material. However, I will limit myself for now to adding [citation needed] tags, rather than removing names without an article or citation to a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gordon R. Willey

I have no idea how it happened, but we did not have Willey on this list! This even though we have a lot of current people. I'd like some help with checking that we don't have any other embarrassing omissions. So, could some of you check that the top archaeologists in your area are on the list?Kdammers (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Browne

Should we add Thomas Browne? His Urn Burial is a careful archaeological work. Kdammers (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert clean-up

I reverted the clean-up becuase a number of prominent individuals were included in the removal:

finlayson, Gamble, GARDIN, Gibbon, Hole, Lamberg-karlovsky, Leone, probably Barry Lewis, Lip, MCKERN (originated of the Midwest taxonomic system), MILLON, Yoffe, probably Zimmerman, and ZUBROW. A number of eastern European archaeologists were removed, but I am not a specialist in that area to be able to judge. How-ever, at least one has moderate-length articles in Wik articles in languageS from that area. Kdammers (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We would still need reliable sources for them, which we didn't have. I kept everybody with either an English article or a reliable source. The one person which had a French Wikipedia article as a "source", fr:Jean-Claude Gardin, does not seem to be the subject of enough third-party coverage to be notable. All the French sources are bibliographies or texts written by Gardin, not about him. Huon (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to check all of these now,but Mark Leone has an article: Mark P. Leone. Maybe some of the others are like that. Mirza Hasan Ćeman has articles in two SE European languages. I have no idea why Gardin does not have more of an article in the French Wikipedia, since he was a significant, internationally known theorist about thrity years ago.Kdammers (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the Leone link, but I'd expect many of the redlinks I removed indeed were non-notable. Lists such as this one tend to accumulate some non-notable cruft if they're not watched closely. For example, Ron Rule seems to be more of an "e-Commerce Expert" than an archaeologist, while Yun Ki-Hyon seems to be primarily a poet - provided that's the right Yun Ki-Hyon, which I cannot determine. Huon (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In fact I think Ron Rule added himself in 2006 where I see an IP, 67.78.4.162 (talk · contribs) adding not just Ron Rule but also his websites. This has been here for over 5 years, an example of why all entries must have either articles or sources showing the subject meets notability. This means removing now some names for which articles can be created or other evidence provided, but this needs to be done for each of them or we may find we have a number of entries who clearly do not belong here. There are over 80 red links with no sources - some may not be archaeologists (perhaps added as a joke, it happens), some may be but don't meet our criteria - self-added, friends, whatever. For instance, Katie Nielson may be the 2004 BA graduate who got an award mentioned here[1] and here[2]and added here[3]. I see no way in which she belongs in this list. Lots of editors think they can add anyone to a list. I agree with Huon, these red links should be removed. Also, being in another language version doesn't mean they are notable by our criteria although it does give us a source of information perhaps. Why not move these to a sub-page of this page and go through them? Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Dougweller and will list the removed entries in a subsection of this talk page. Huon (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed entries

References

  1. ^ Casey, Joanna C.V.
  2. ^ http://www.humanities.org.au/Fellowship/FindFellows/tabid/123/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1108/Connah-Graham.aspx
  3. ^ www.southampton.ac.uk/archaeology/about/staff/cg6g11.page
  4. ^ http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Claude_Gardin
  5. ^ http://anthropology.umn.edu/people/facultyprofile.php?UID=gibbo001
  6. ^ http://pittsburgh.academia.edu/BryanHanks/CurriculumVitae
  7. ^ http://artsfaculty.auckland.ac.nz/staff/?UPI=shol058
  8. ^ http://www.yale.edu/anthro/anthropology/Frank_Hole.html
  9. ^ http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=PE3EPxwAAAAJ&hl=en, http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Lamberg-Karlovsky,+C.+C.
  10. ^ "Ezra Zubrow Elected Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London". University at Buffalo. 2011-03-29. Retrieved 2012-01-03.
I relisted Julie Stein as she is definitely an international "A-list" archaeologist and geoarchaeologist, who is more well known, regraded, and published than many of people currently on the list. For example, she was the 1999 Rip Rapp Archaeological Geology Award winner among many other awards. Paul H. (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

The last three or four edits are vandalism. I know how to roll back one edit but not more than one. Can some-one please clean this up?Kdammers (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for being on an "eminent archaeologist" list?

What are the rules for inclusion on this list? Is the list just the names of some notable archaeologists that have been randomly gathered or cherry-picked and given the accolade of "eminent" based on an editor or twos' feelings? Or is there an RS basis for listing these archaeologists as "eminent"? As opposed to merely notable?

Can a reader take absence from "A list of eminent archaeologists" to signify that any missing archaeologists are considered non-eminent? Israel Finkelstein is on the list. Neil Silberman is not. William G. Dever is not. Baruch Halpern is not. How did Finkelstein become eminent? What does Finkelstein possess that Silberman et al lack?

Is this better "A list of some notable archaeologists"? If it's not then the criteria for inclusion need to be made explicit to avoid misleading readers. 203.7.99.17 (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue we have looked at before but not truly resolved. Doug Weller suggested that archaeologists who have Wik articles or significant supporting links be the only ones to be included.

The issue of "some" is a problem endemic to Wikipedia lists. We can easily overlook some-one. So, I think we have two issues: type 1 and type 2 errors. To avoid omitting good candidates, we need to keep looking in Wik and elsewhere; to avoid including "lesser" archaeologists, it seems we need at lest to abide by Weller's criteria. Can and should we tighten them? I don't know. But see the list of culled names earlier on this talk page for a perspective. Kdammers (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dimitri Nakassis

Should we make a Wik page for and then include this archaeologist recently in the news?Kdammers (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant archaeologists?

The following archaeologists are on the list, but have neither a Wik page nor external links. They should either have this changed or be cut. Please help.

  • Derrick P. Whitlow, I
  • Henrieta Todorova
  • Tiziano Fantuzzi
  • John Winter Crowfoot
  • Paolo Biagi

Kdammers (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Also:

  • Carl Steen

Todorova now has a ref (obit).

 Done. Huon (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Biagi

Biagi is a red-link with no outside ref. He does have an extensive list of achievements at http://www.unive.it/data/persone/5591081/curriculum, but they probably do not qualify as a ref for Wik. Pretty much if not exactly the same information is given at https://www.harappa.com/experts/paolo-biagi. Can we use this site?Kdammers (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Biagi's faculty page at Ca' Foscari can be taken as a reliable source for the factual details of his career, and there are a numerous items on there which meet WP:PROF so he's notable. So it's an absolutely valid redlink. Joe Roe (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I would encourage removing all redlinks from lists like these, they only lead to bloat. If he is notable he should have an article before being included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Maunus. Regarding Biagi, quote WP:PROF: "once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details". Even the extremely lenient PROF requires some independent coverage to establish notability. I see none so far. Huon (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I like redlinks, but see the wisdom in excluding them from lists. Paolo Biagi is no longer red. His fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of London (sufficient to pass WP:PROF#C3) is independently verified on the Society's website. Joe Roe (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's sort of been the practice here to include redlinked people if an external reference adequately (true, not something we have established) supports the significance of the archaeologist. So, I would no like to see names that have citations removed just because they are redlinked. I would also ask that any redlinks that have no citations and are removed be included on this talk page unless they are clearly spurious (I believe Doug Weller did this a few years ago, and the removals can be seen on this talk page, some of them in the meantime having turned blue).Kdammers (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of archaeologists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Articles missing from the list

This PetScan query lists all the articles in Category:Archaeologists and its subcategories that are not linked to from this page. There are currently 3208 missing (89% of all articles on archaeologists). So we have a long way to go! – Joe (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Richard Hodges

* John Bryan Ward-Perkins (1912–1981) British; architectural history

I imagine it was a mistake. Restored. – Joe (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We have one entry that is a red link that does not have a ref.: Rodrigo Silva Brazilian; Middle East, Israel, Biblical archaelogy [archaeology]37.99.84.190 (talk) 02:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of archaeologists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

We currently have two archaeologists with no links: Ferenc Horváth and Rodrigo Silva. The former has a lot of publications, but I haven't seen any secondary mention of him (I don't read Hungarian); the latter is a problem to isolate without knowing about Brazilian academia/museums or biblical archaeology. Can anyone help out here? Kdammers (talk) 08:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Rodrigo Silva was deleted in September, he should be removed from the list. I don't think Horváth is notable. – Joe (talk) 10:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

As far as I can tell these five random nationalities are the only ones that have separate lists of archaeologists. The main list is not very long (it doesn't need to be split) and already includes the nationality of the people on it, so I don't see any encyclopaedic value in these cross-categorisations at the moment. The national lists are also all short, very incomplete and poorly developed (no leads etc.) All they're doing is creating extra editorial overhead; you have to remember to add new biographies to multiple lists, and most of us are bad enough at remembering to add them to the main list. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Since there are no objections, I'll start merging them. – Joe (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
when you add, them, include dates, nationalities and fields. Otherwise, we have to hunt through the whole list to fill in the missing data. Kdammers (talk)`
I'm just doing an initial merge of the lists as they appear in the source articles, Kdammers. I'm afraid I don't have the patience to hunt down the details either (I'm also not a big fan of the way they're presented here). – Joe (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Then someone else has to clean up your data dump. Kdammers (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not a "data dump", I'm merging existing articles. If the missing information bothers you so much, you can do something about it. Otherwise, rude talk page comments achieve nothing. – Joe (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
No one objected because probably no one who knows of this topic knew about the merge. However, it is probably a good idea to have a single database of all archaeologists (and as others note above) and distinguish their nationalities accordingly. I only came here because some archaeologists are not designated as such in the categories that are assigned in their articles. But to have a central repository is what the integration of technology and encyclopaedia is all about, so merging all of the separate articles into a primary is a worthy effort... Stevenmitchell (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Finished with Australia. Klbrain (talk) 14:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Coughenour?

https://inews.co.uk/news/technology/chance-coughenour-google-arts-culture-digital-archaeologist-lion-mosul-496964Kdammers (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't have a WP article. There are a very few re-linked names on the list, but I would hold off adding this name unless you see evidence that he meets the notability criteria for academics. - Donald Albury 10:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
He's a long way off meeting WP:PROF [4], so it would have to be the WP:GNG. Personally I'd like to see a few more sources for that. – Joe (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
As I wrote (but the software blocked or erased), he is 'new' and not traditionally significant, but his unique work at Google is what made me ask for input. Kdammers (talk) 10:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

James Osborne?

University of Chicago; American; Anatolia, space-and-power67.209.131.126 (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

He doesn't have a WP article. Lists such as this generally require that a person be notable (in the Wikipedia sense), which is best shown by having an article based on reliable sources that demonstrate notability. If he meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) or Wikipedia:Notability (people), then consider starting an article about him. - Donald Albury 13:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Ron Wyatt ?

This adventurer has a Wikipedia article. Ron Wyatt claimed that he found the Ark. At best, he can be called an amateur archaeologist. I doubt he qualifies for our list, but I wanted to raise his name for consideration by others. 13:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If this was a list of "pseudoarchaeologists", he would qualify. But I don't think he belongs here. Did something go wrong with your sig, User:Kdammers? Heiro 15:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I guess so (on both counts). I did the four tildes. Kdammers (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Weird. Heiro 15:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Alexandre Lenoir

Should we includeAlexandre Lenoir? Kdammers (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Is he really even an archaeologist, seems more like he should be described in that article as painter and an Antiquarian? Especially since the OED didn't even use "archaeologist" until 1824. He's described here as a "medievalist". But here and at Britannica as an archaeologist. So maybe I'm wrong in that assessment? It just seems like the term is being applied backward to someone who may not have had that term used for him during his lifetime, for something that didn't even exist as the discipline we know as "archaeology" now. I guess technically since so many WP:RSs call him an "archaeologist", we should too, it just seems like a stretch to me. Heiro 15:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Your response is like the way I feel. I'm on the fence, but I tend toward not including him. Does any-one else have comments? Kdammers (talk) 04:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I agree he's more of an antiquarian. The antiquarian–archaeologist distinction is a bit blurry but worth maintaining since sources generally emphasise the professionalisation of the discipline in the late 19th century as a significant break. Maybe we should have a list of antiquarians though? – Joe (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I hadn't run across this particular problem yet, so wasn't sure how to proceed. I did a google search while writing my earlier response, and in just the first page or two of results couldn't find anyone calling him an "antiquarian", even though that seems more like what he really was. In fact the vast majority of stuff I did find dealt with his career as an artist and his being one of the first museum curators. I'll go along with whatever the consensus is, but I think your idea of a List of antiquarians has merit. To me he doesn't really fit on this list (archaeologists), but a list of proto-archaeologists or antiquarians would be perfect for him. Also, that article on him seems heavily weighted toward this issue, and barely mentions his career as an artist. I think an expansion in that direction is needed, and would probably help clarify his position as more of an antiquarian than an actual archaeologist.Heiro 19:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Nankela

The Namibian archaeologist Nankela recently had her entry removed because there is not Wikipedia article about her. The fuller story is that there was a long article about her that fairly recently got moved to draft status because some of the (key) information about her did not have references. The Wikipedia note at the top of the draft page says it could take some months to review the article. A laudatory article (with mention of some of the 'unreferenced' content) from five years ago, before she had finished her doctorate, appeared in this source, which appears to be general-interest outlet on Namibia: https://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?page=archive-read&id=143261 . She seems significant to me, but this is outside my geographical areas of knowledge. Kdammers (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The source above is described in Wikipedia as "The Namibian is the largest daily newspaper in Namibia." I guess that makes it an acceptable secondary source. Kdammers (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately several new page reviewers are far too quick to move things to draft these days. A few missing references shouldn't be enough of a reason and if there is doubt about her notability it should be discussed at AfD. I've moved the article back to mainspace and re-added it to the list. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both for spotting this and looking into it. There looked to be enough in the article to demonstrate notability, so I was surprised to see it moved to draft space. I'm glad it's now been restored as it looked like inconsistent to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Dirk HR Spennemann

I have added Spennemann's area of interest based on his Wikipedia article. How-ever, I don't see why his is listed on the archaeologists page (maybe because he is an assistant prof. of cultural heritage management - ?). Does any-one object to removing him?Kdammers (talk) 04:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I say keep him there. Spennemann has written extensively on archaeological practice and theory and undertaken important fieldwork and research in archaeology. See for example https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/14868097; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Dirk_Spennemann/publications; https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7665132/; https://australianarchaeologicalassociation.com.au/journal/wave-action-impact-on-archaeological-sites-in-a-freshwater-reservoir-the-case-of-lake-hume-new-south-wales/; http://www.asha.org.au/pdf/australasian_historical_archaeology/06_04_Gerharz.pdf; Garyvines (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Mass update?

There are about 700 entries on this list, but according to PetScan, Category:Archaeologists contains at least 4,000 eligible for inclusion. Should we consider a tool-assisted, mass update of the list using the category/Wikidata?

One obvious issue is that with 4,000 entries the list would be too long and need to be split and subdivided in some way, so perhaps we should consider that first? – Joe (talk) 08:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Using Wikidata to automate maintenance the list would make it easier to keep up to date. I think that Women in Red use ListeriaBot to create their lists, and it could do something similar here. Last I checked, ListeriaBot isn't allowed to run in mainspace on the English Wikipedia, but we could have the list on a subpage of the Archaeology WikiProject and copy it over here periodically.
As you say, 4,000 entries makes for a chunky list and it would be slow to load on its own. Splitting by period or nationality could be tricky. Would an arbitrary split in the alphabet work (ie: A–I, J–R, S–Z)? Richard Nevell (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I initially created a list of Australian Archaeologists but it was merged with this list [5]. This was in table form and more comprehensive with details of training, areas of interest and specialties, which made it more useful for understanding the range and development of the field, and at one point had nearly a hundred entries - [6]. I would much prefer to see it split out again.Garyvines (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
This list (List of Archaeologists) is lean (dob/dod), nationality, specialty), making it easy to navigate, with links to the individuals for more details. Re-creating various national (or area or topic or florit) lists and linking to them, which would be much shorter, with more details sounds like a sound idea to me. Any issues such as mentioned by Richard Newell could be dealt with in the individual lists by 'specialists' without creating issues on this list. Kdammers (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
I also prefer the "lean" style used here. There is no need to use a giant table for information that can be easily summarised in prose in one or two sentences.
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) has some guidance on long lists and seems to recommend alphabetical splitting (e.g. A–I, J–R, ...) in most cases. Splitting by nationality sounds simple but I think we'd quickly run into problems. A surprising number of subjects have unknown, multiple, historical, or otherwise not straightforward nationalities (e.g. Vikentiy Khvoyka). I'd say in at least half the biographies I've written, the subject's nationality isn't explicitly stated in sources, and I've had to infer it from where they were educated, which is fine for a category here and there but not so solid if we're using it as a primary index characteristic. And we'll end up a few long lists for e.g. the UK and US, and many tiny ones for e.g. Kosovo and Côte d'Ivoire. That'll be harder for readers to navigate than an alphabetical list because they'll have to know two pieces of information (Surname and nationality) to find someone instead of just one (Surname).
I definitely don't think it's a good idea to maintain multiple, overlapping lists. The handful of nationality lists that were merged here were all extremely incomplete, and essentially nobody except their creator updated them. I think information on notable archaeologists within a national tradition is better integrated into our Archaeology in*/Archaeology of* articles.
In any case, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. Maybe 4,000 will be manageable in a single list. I'll look into setting up ListeriaBot to suggest missing entries. – Joe (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

von den Driesch

@Kdammers: von den Driesch is on the list twice, under D and V. I don't think it really matters, but if we follow WP:MCSTJR she should be under D. – Joe (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I propose that we follow APA and Harvard styles here (cf. https://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/2011/08/10/referencing-dutch-flemish-german-names-in-the-harvard-system/). This consistent with WP:MCSTJR. That means we go with D since she was not American. I made the change. Thanks for giving me the heads up. Kdammers (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

What about Hilary du Cros ? Kdammers (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology and other material cited in du Cros's Wikipedia page go with D. Kdammers (talk) 13:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Kathleen Martinez

Could someone knowledgeable about Egyptology chime in on whether Kathleen Martinez rates being on the list? Kdammers (talk) 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, what about Henry Salt, a 19th-century Egyptologist? Kdammers (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
What about Basil Brown, he of Sutton Hoo fame? Kdammers (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Ina Plug

Ina Plug? Kdammers (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

As Ina is an archaeozoologist they fit comfortably within this list's scope. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Vincenzo La Rosa

There is an entire book about the career of Vincenzo La Rosa, but there is not even an entry in the Italian Wikipedia. Vincenzo La Rosa (1941- 2014): Un archeologo tra Sicilia e Egeo ed. Lucia Arcifa and Pietro Militello. Praehistorica Mediterranea 9. 2021. Kdammers (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Earl & Ann Morris

US - SWUSA - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/land-ancient-ones-ann-axtell-morris-cinematic-treatment-180978344/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.176.138.66 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for bringing these to our attention. Both have WP articles, and I have added them to the list. - Donald Albury 18:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

George McJunkin ?

Should George McJunkin be included? While he didn't do a lot in archaeology, his discovery of the Folsom Site was pivotal in New World archaeology.2600:6C67:1C00:300:2570:CCB6:26F5:F03F (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Borchardt

Should Paul Borchardt (1886-1953) be included? He does have an entry as an archaeologist in Wikipedia, but the entry doesn't convince me -- It's a lot about speculation and a mistake (Or do we just accept any-one who is primarily an archaeologist as long as s/he has a Wikipedia article? Any thoughts?). He seems his notoriety (i.e., reason for having an entry in Wikipedia has more to do with being a Jewish spy for the Nazis. Kdammers (talk) 23:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I do not have access to any of the cited sources, but the article indicates he trained as a geographer. Based on our WP article, he looks like an armchair archaeologist, with no indication of any training or experience as an archaeologist. I guess it hangs on whether any reliable sources call him an archaeologist. - Donald Albury 14:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Aslan

Should we include the current head of research at Troy, Rüstem Aslan? https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-search-of-troy-180979553/?utm_source=pocket&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=pockethits Kdammers (talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Entry needed

Galina Ivanovna Matveeva 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F8C3:7FAD:52C:189C (talk) 13:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not see an article on the English Wikipedia for that person. Can you point us to an article on another language Wikipedia about her, or to reliable sources that establish her status as a notable archaeologist? - Donald Albury 17:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Springer Verlag says Galina Ivanovna Matveeva (1933–2008) (Fig. 1) was a Professor and Chair of Russian History at the Samara State University, candidate of historical sciences (scientific degree Ph.D.), founder of archaeological scientific school in Samara State University, President of the Samara Archaeological Society, and the author of more than 120 scientific works and manuals.""Here is her obit in an archaeology journal: Памяти Галины Ивановны Матвеевой (1933-2008) (arheologija.ru) 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F8C3:7FAD:52C:189C (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
OK, I have added her. It looks like there should be enough material out there for an article about her, although mainly in Russian. - Donald Albury 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Nandadeva Wijesekera

This person's name was recently removed because there is no article about that person and no outside citation. How-ever, the name is in a lot of Wikipedia articles. If any-one (such as the person who originally added the name) feels there should be an article, please write one. Then the name could be re-added. Kdammers (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Longacre

I have re-added the leading New Archaeologist Longacre with different references, though I don't know why Thoughtco (mentioned in a Wikipeida article about the company that owns it) should be considered unreliable. Kdammers (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about Thoughtco (previously About.com) in general, but most of their archaeology content was written by archaeologist K. Kris Hirst and is absolutely reliable. – Joe (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Datuk Dr Siti Zuraina Abdul Majid

She is called a historian in this article which lauds her archaeological work: https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2022/09/833048/renowned-historian-honoured-archaeological-discoveries . Should we add her (She doesn' have a Wik page)? Kdammers (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Kathryn Sampeck awarded British Academy Global ProfessorshipKdammers (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Kdammers (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Ghulam Mohiudeen Hakeem

Is he significant enough? https://kashmirobserver.net/2023/01/08/former-director-archaeology-ghulam-mohiudeen-hakeem-is-no-more/ 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:618D:3A7E:5451:6D73 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the obituary does not give any information on what he did as an archaeologist. I suggest first looking for reliable sources describing his work as an archaeologist, and then see if there is enough material from reliable sources to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for a WP article about him. - Donald Albury 17:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

J. W. Powell?

Powell was a significant researcher and explorer for the Smithsonian. Does his archaeological work qualify him for inclusion?2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D44:D7F8:84F1:F3FB (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hamoudi ibn Sheikh Ibrahim ?

See https://Indiana Jones and the nature of archaeology: Fact and fiction in early 20th century fieldwork | The Past (the-past.com) and https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hammoudi_ibn_IbrahimKdammers (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

John Lloyd Stephens

John Lloyd Stephens was a key figure in Mayan archaeology. But should we consider this explorer an archaeologist? Kdammers (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Miljana Ristic

I suggest we remove Miljana Ristic: There is no link. She appears to only have a bachelor's degree and no publications. Kdammers (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Wing

Needed: Elizabeth Wing, a leading zooarchaeologist. Kdammers (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Gene Savoy

Douglas Eugene "Gene" Savoy (May 11, 1927 – September 11, 2007) was an explorer and led significant archaeological digs in Peru. Should he be listed?Kdammers (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Peter L. Storck

Peter Storck has done field work and published fairly extensively on Paleo-Indians (e.g., Journey to the Ice Age: Discovering an Ancient World). Should he be added? Kdammers (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

In antiquity

I recommend that we add Khaemweset, the first Egyptologist, and Nabonidus, the first archaeologist. Are there any objections? Kdammers (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Necmi Karul

Director of Göbekli Tepe. But he does not have a Wik page.Kdammers (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_archaeologists/Archive_1&oldid=1254965166"