Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Archaeology page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 90 days

Shortcut

WT:ARCHAEO

This page has been mentioned by a media organization:

Rebecca Onion (November 18, 2022). "The Ancient Absurdities of Ancient Apocalypse". Slate (magazine). Retrieved April 5, 2023. Oddly enough—and I know journalists might bristle at what I say—Wikipedia is the very best source. It's maintained by nerds, and archaeology Wikipedia is maintained by archaeology nerds, and the articles on it are good! I have a feeling they'll get even better because of this series, because people will want to make sure the information is in there for viewers who may be Googling it.

Saltovo-Mayaki

u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Saltovo-Mayaki

'A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined three males of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture buried in Belgorod Oblast, Russia between ca. 700 AD and 900 AD.[3] The sample of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroup R1.[4] The three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the haplogroups I, J1b4 and #Haplogroup U7|U7a4.[5]

The mtDNA that have been extracted from Belgorod Oblast belonged to haplogroups I (i4a) and D4m2 and not U7'U7a4.

Haplogroup mtDNA U5 been found among Saltovo-Mayaki but not in Belgorod Oblast.

Longyou Caves

Hello, the article for Longyou Caves is poorly written and sourced, but appears to refer to a real archaeological site. The sources are weak and somewhat suspicious, repeating a claimed age that does not appear supported by any scholarly work I could find (see talk). They also all refer to a vague story about its discovery in 1992, and how it was unknown until then, but other sources seem to refer to a similar cave in the same town that possibly goes by the same name and that seemingly has a well attested history. And the surrounding area appears to be full of caves, but sources seem to distinguish these caves, but again with little support.

An expert that could evaluate the sources, locate other reliable sources, or put these caves in context would be a big help in improving this article. The article seems to be the basis of a lot of pop-pseudoscience articles suggesting aliens and whatnot, which is doing the opposite of what Wikipedia should be doing. Carleas (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Le Plongeon amateur or not?

Over the years the word amateur has been added and removed, Just recently it was added and then removed by [[User:CoyoteMan31], first on the basis that he was paid to excavate, then with the edit summary ") This is the summary of the article. The assertion that Le Plongeon was an amateur is not supported by the article below, nor by biographer Desmond who is used in this article, nor by other Le Plongeon biographers such as Brunhouse, not even by the text of the article you cite, which notes Le Plongeon did the first "systematic excavation" of Chichen Itza", that last bit being I think clearly OR.

I can find a number of sources using amateur, some of which I've added to the talk page. I note that one of the sources calling him an amateur is also cited from a blog dated Nov 14 2011. At that point the article said amateur.]https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Augustus_Le_Plongeon&oldid=457751620]. CoyoteMan31 then changed it in a series ol edits.[1] which replaced both amateur and archaeologist with antiquarian. I'm not sure at the moment when antiquarian was again changed. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless argument - generally the only people "professionally" engaged in archaeology at this date were the labourers with spades. Does adding "amateur" point to gentlemanly disinterestedness, or incompetence? Readers may think either. The word should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with antiquarian. It's the usual way of distinguishing work in the era before archaeology was systemised as an academic discipline. And as Johnbod says, before that happened the amateur/professional distinction doesn't make much sense. – Joe (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe Actually I wasn't arguing. I was thinking we could say described as both, since that would follow the sources, but I think antiquarian would be best. Doug Weller talk 17:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have removed amateur, I did that because it was there some time before but I didn't restore it when it was removed again as I realised sources backed both. Doug Weller talk 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first reply was from Johnbod, in case you missed the signature. – Joe (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone help me with Template:Historic England research records

I'm writing an article on a local scheduled monument, User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle and want to use [2] as a source. It looks like I should use the template as it is Hob Uid: 315821 ( Historical Object Unique Identifier). I might be able to figure it out given time, but I struggle with the more complicated templates for some reason, so if anyone could help me with this I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. The document is a bit bizarre and not lay friendly - the source data is hard to interpret but Derbyshire County Council archaeology department is going to help me. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug, I was involved in updating this template after the Pastscape site became part of the Research Records site. I'm intrigued as to why the template instructions are not clear to you, but I am happy create the cite here:

{{HERR |num=315821 |desc=Pinxton Castle}}

Thanks TiB chat 13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappedinburnley thanks. Probably I’m just exhausted. I’ll look again. Doug Weller talk 20:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, not a problem. I know exhaustion well myself at the moment, I've just recovered from the new Covid. It is not as bad as original Covid, but the brain fog is the same. As it seems I don't need to rewrite the template instructions, I've spent a little time looking at this interesting little site. I notice that it is close to Brookhill Hall, possibly the replacement for this site? I also see Range Farm used to be just next door.[3] I'm doing a bit of abbey stuff currently, could this be the site of a monastic grange? I'm watching your draft, if I think I can help I will.TiB chat 09:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trappedinburnley So sorry to hear about your covid. It's a bit scary hearing that people near me are getting it. Any idea how you caught it? At least I've had the vaccine. It is close to Brookhill Hall, but the evidence doesn't really support it being anything large so far as I can see. I think some sources mention Range Farm, I need to check. Doug Weller talk 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that source does say near Range Farm. It also says that an Inspector in 1959 said "I am of the opinion that the site was the residence of a local officer of Sherwood Forest as it is strategically placed at the edge of the forest. (5)" Doug Weller talk 10:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, I never figured out where I got the dreaded virus. The government does not seem overly concerned, the advice now is go to work if you feel well enough. Sorry to be depressing, but my understanding is that Covid will be like Flu and keep coming back. On the topic at hand, the Sherwood Forest bit seems interesting, but being such a famous forest, surely someone else would have made that connection?TiB chat 13:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TrappedinburnleyMaybe the new government will do something but I doubt it. I understand that the lack of vaccine uptake makes new varieties mote likely and I blame the government for that. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinxton Castle is now live

I've had a lot of welcome help with this, including above and a lot on my talk page, including some help 5 minutes ago from User:Odysseus1479 who is offering to collaborate on a site plan, which would be great. I've got a number of photos including one I took today and there are some on Commons for a nice gallery. I didn't think I'd get it finished before I start chemotherapy tomorrow but User:KJP1 came along to help with the final writing and User:Tryptofish did some proof reading, so I made my self-imposed deadline. It's taken me forever to write this article on the only local scheduled monument, but the help I've had since starting has been tremendous. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia, working together with like-minded editors. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page looks great, Doug. Glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with the treatment @Doug Weller, will be thinking of you! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The collaborations are indeed always the best. Hoping the next bout of treatment is similarly successful. Are you at Christies? Their standard of treatment is very high. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@[[User:KJP1|KJP1] King’s Mill in Mansfield. Doug Weller talk 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Routledge in the french version

Hello !

This year, i did a massive work to expand the article of Katherine Routledge, leading to a better version of the actual understanding about her work. But, i did it in french, in the french version. The biography of Katherine reveal a societal Matilda effect about her work and her impact on the easter island archaeology.

I kindly suggest you to expand the english version with it :) Nanoyo88 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nanoyo88: Wow, fantastic job there, it's certainly a huge improvement over what we have now on enwiki. I imagine it would take quite some time to translate and it's beyond my very poor French abilities to do so, but I've added {{expand French}} to the article and cross-posted this request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green. Hopefully that will tempt someone. – Joe (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! I often expand article with the english version, then doing more research to expand it again. I did it for many subjects about africa. Not much about archaeology, but there's plenty of works to do there too. Nanoyo88 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ascalon#Requested move 20 July 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ascalon#Requested move 20 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Human history and Wikipedia history writing has major problems

I believe that human history has become a nadir of problems that English Wikipedia has with writing about history. The article itself (at least the recorded history part) is mostly just a collection of historical events that are considered notable and relevant for inclusion by individual editors. The view of professional historians is being toned down, ignored or selectively presented to fit individual opinions. Several users also appear to be engaging in some sort of campaign against the validity of the entire sub-discipline of world history. The impression I'm getting is of openly disparaging and hostile view of academic historians to an extent that in other fields of research would be considered fringe. Peter ^Isotalo 12:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please name these users or withdraw this claim. Doug Weller talk 12:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I thought it was only an issue of specific individuals, I would have named them. The problem is systemic at human history since it seems it's become the standard approach to the article by pretty much everyone involved.

If you disagree, feel free to point it out at talk:human history. Peter ^Isotalo 13:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From your posts to User:Joe Roe you seem to consider him one of them. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"If I thought it was only an issue of specific individuals, I would have named them."

This is not an appropriate discussion for this forum, Doug. Consider removing your replies and responding elsewhere. Peter ^Isotalo 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be specific on what you see as problems. And do not be dismissive of Doug's comments, he is one of our most experienced editors. Unless you can point to specific examples of what you see as problem editing, your criticism will not result in any action. Donald Albury 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative would be for you to make or propose edits that you think will improve an article. See the advice at Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. You can be bold and make changes to an article that conform with our policies and guidelines, although other editors might disagree with those changes and revert them. For major changes, I would recommend starting discussions on the article's talk page to see if you can gain consensus for such changes. The best way to help mold Wikipedia is to bring strong reliable sources and cogent arguments in support of changes you want to make, and to convince other editors of the value of those changes. Donald Albury 17:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming this would be seen as a call to action over at talk:human history. Why are you replying to this here? Peter ^Isotalo 18:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Isotalo You weren’t specific. Again I don’t even know which discussion there you are referring to. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm sorry for being vauge about that. I thought it would be obvious to anyone reading the text it was a call to action to check out talk:human history. That's what I always do when someone refers to issues with an article on a WikiProject page. Peter ^Isotalo 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update on the women in archaeology task force

Hello everybody. Remember WP:ARCHAEO's women in archaeology task force, created in 2016? To my shame I've not been very good at keeping the project pages updated or highlighting progress, but nevertheless slow and steady progress has been made! Over the last eight years, task force participants have:

Created ~~164~~ 174 new articles on women in archaeology
Reduced the number of red links on the WikiProject Women in Red Archaeology Redlist from 106 to 25
Tagged and assessed all 1117 articles in the project's scope
Collaborated on the overview article women in archaeology
Brought nine articles up to good article status Anna Apostolaki, Elizabeth Pierce Blegen, Marguerite Gautier-van Berchem, Jacquetta Hawkes, Sonia Chadwick Hawkes, Semni Karouzou, Margaret Ursula Jones, Winifred Lamb, and Lamia Al-Gailani Werr
Highlighted multiple articles on the main page's Did you know? section

This means that we are very close to completing two major milestones:

76.4% of the red links on the WikiProject Women in Red Archaeology Redlist have been turned blue – only 25 remain
86.1% of articles in the project's scope have been raised above stub class – only 157 remain

This has me thinking that with a concerted effort we stand a very good chance of clearing the remaining red links and stub articles by the end of the year. If anybody is interested in helping out? Pinging task force participants: @Ninafundisha, MauraWen, Zakhx150, SusunW, PatHadley, Richard Nevell, Lajmmoore, Mehmuffin, Archeofemme, Matildas2021, Ozrock21, Schmindia, Eritha, Clmorgan, and Ittybittykittycommittee: – Joe (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is so awesome, thanks for pulling this together @Joe Roe: - I added 10 more biographies I've started so we're at 174 now (I totally forgot about adding them here, my bad). If others thought it useful, I could propose to the wider group of Women in Red that we do archaeology as a theme later in the year? Or we might want to plug away ourselves? I am happy either way! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea. We did it 2016 and it worked well, and I'd say enough time as passed that we might be able to get on the rotation again! – Joe (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see the progress, and helpful reminder as I've just spotted that I haven't contributed to this area since the start of last year! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nice reminder for a push. Calling dibs on Betty Baume Clark unless anyone wants to tell me they've drafted it? Zakhx150 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crack on @Zakhx150 - I dropped a note about editing with Women in Red's wider community here Lajmmoore (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did the thing, huzzah: Betty Baume Clark. Will try for another.Zakhx150 (talk) 12:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm that Women in Red has supporting this effort on their October event listing Lajmmoore (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prehistoric Armenia - lead could back an editor's claim that Göbekli Tepe is Armenian

Having encountered an editor who thinks that Göbekli Tepe is an example of Armenian architecture, I found this. The lead states that

"Prehistoric Armenia refers to the history of the region that would eventually be known as Armenia, covering the period of the earliest known human presence in the Armenian Highlands from the Lower Paleolithic more than 1 million years ago until the Iron Age and the emergence of Urartu in the 9th century BC, the end of which in the 6th century BC marks the beginning of Ancient Armenia."

Taken literally that does suggest that Göbekli Tepe is Armenian, which is silly. Another issue is he idea hat there were humans a million years ago. We developed not more than 300,000 years ago. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a problem: "On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the Step Pyramid of Saqqara"

See [4] Also [On the possible use of hydraulic force to assist with building the Step Pyramid of Saqqara]. Doug Weller talk 13:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by that disclaimer from the PLOS ONE editorial board. In the "interests of transparency" they've published a paper they still have questions about. Donald Albury 14:53, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Albury Good catch, missed that. Doug Weller talk 14:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see it (the disclaimer), now. Donald Albury 15:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help for GA Review: Machu Picchu

Hello! I’ve nominated the Machu Picchu article for Good Article status, and it’s currently awaiting a review. I would greatly appreciate feedback and support from the community to help improve the article and move it towards Featured Article status. Thank you! --JustEMV (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open CCI investigation

Hi folks, in July a contributor copyright investigation was opened; the articles effected largely related to archaeological sites in Israel. The list of 99 potentially effected articles can be found at the investigation page: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20240707.

User:GreenLipstickLesbian has done some excellent work dealing with what looks to be about half the list. I am gradually working through. Part of the challenge is that some of the sources are in Hebrew rather than English; Google Translate is hit and miss with Hebrew to English but shows that some content has been lifted directly from the sources or some minor changes made.

If anyone has the inclination your help would be very much appreciated, but at the very least I wanted the WikiProject to know that there is some copyright clean-up going on in our area of work. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Submerged bridge constructed at least 5600 years ago indicates early human arrival in Mallorca, Spain

See [5]/ Doug Weller talk 12:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Archaeoastronomy

Archaeoastronomy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]