Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Archaeology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

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: 3 months

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.

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]

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

See [1] 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]

Hyperbole, typos ("wholistic"?) and a lot of basic civil engineering boo-boos infest this so-called "paper". It reads like a History Channel script. I could shoot a thousand holes in their dam theory alone. Never mind that there is no distribution system for the supposed water treatment system, nor any reason to have a settling pond to float big rocks with "pure" water instead of dirty, and you can ignore the fact that their timescales and labor estimates do not agree with any other source. One known fact I recall from my limited knowledge of Egyptology. In this section of the river at this time period, this bank was "taboo" for the type of habitation such a facility would benefit. 98.97.57.29 (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeology at Women in Red

hello all, just a note to build on the above discussion for Wikiproject Archaeology's Women's Taskforce, is that supporting the initiative in on the event list for next month at Women in Red. Hopefully we can support this project to de-stub and create some new article to reach your goals, and you are of course extremely welcome to join us! Lajmmoore (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Otra Banda – 4,000-year-old site in Peru

Announcing new article La Otra Banda, about a 4,000-y.o. temple discovered in northwestern Peru. Your contributions to this article would be welcome, as would in-links from other, related articles. Mathglot (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudoarchaeology

Any comments on the removal of alternative names here? [2] Doug Weller talk 16:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, having five synonyms in the first paragraph is not recommended by the MOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a timeline

Is there something similar to List of archaeological periods but which aligns the different time periods? After seeing Mesoamerican chronology, I'm looking for something like a table with Africa/Americas/Asia/Europe across the top, and then you can look down the list and see at a glance that the Archaic period in Mesoamerica aligns (or doesn't align) with whatever period you're looking at in a different part of the world. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Burney Relief

Burney Relief 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) 16:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Ahmad Hasan Dani

Ahmad Hasan Dani 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) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Hobman

I just created a stub for Bob Hobman, a sailor who has made a number of voyages on recreations of prehistoric boats. Any help with expansion would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Routledge

Hello, I am a French speaker and have worked on Katherine Routledge's article on the French Wikipedia. I don't have a strong enough command of English to consider translating it into English myself. I'm leaving this message because I'm also surprised by the article's importance ranking within the project.

Considering that Katherine Routledge led the first scientific expedition to Easter Island, she is, by definition, a pioneer. But more than that, her research serves as a foundation for the entire field of subsequent archaeological study—even to this day, due to the rediscovery of multiple documents since the 1970s. This is asserted by Jo Anne Van Tilburg and various academics who have critiqued her book Nanoyo88 (talk) 07:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in thinking Tartessos needs to be cleaned up to remove media sources?

I just removed one on that basis, we should have peer reviewed sources, especially as the media sources may have been challenged. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Event on 19 November with the Archaeology Data Service

Wikimedia UK and the ADS are collaborating to run an online editathon next week. The aim is to add DOIs to references where there are PDFs in the ADS. There is a registration page on Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/help-the-ads-improve-dois-on-wikipedia-tickets-1075492820979

Project members are very welcome to join us - it will begin with a brisk how to edit section but the main focus will be on adding DOIs.

But importantly I'd like to ask that if you know archaeologists or enthusiasts who might be curious about Wikipedia please let them know about the event. I think this should be a low-barrier way to get started and I hope that folks will leave the session feeling that they have helped Wikipedia's readers and the ADS by making the resources easier to find. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Nevell and Richard Nevell (WMUK): Sounds like a great event, unfortunately I couldn't make it but I'd love to if you do something similar again. How did it go? – Joe (talk) 08:38, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a group of eight of us and we made some good progress. The outreach dashboard hasn't caught up, but I think we added more than 100 DOIs. It mostly focused on journals hosted by the ADS as those are most commonly used on Wikipedia out of their various datasets. As the DOIs link to the ADS and their scans, it's been making the references more accessible.

I'm keen to run it again and the ADS are open to it time permitting. There might even be trowel-shaped USB sticks up for grabs! Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50 unreferenced archaeology articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles is currently holding a backlog drive, as part of which I'm trying to work through unreferenced archaeology articles. There are only about fifty left – would be great if we could get rid of them all by the end of the month! – Joe (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for much, but I was at least able to give mortarium a once over. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dating archaeological sites

Ran across something today that annoyed me. The cited source says, The site is believed to have had its pri[n]cipal occupation between AD 1250 and 1550.[3] That became The site was occupied between 1250 and 1550, ... in the Bottle Creek Indian Mounds article. And today the article was moved from Category:Populated places established in the 13th century to Category:Populated places established in 1250 and from Category:Populated places disestablished in the 16th century to Category:Populated places disestablished in 1550, which I believe is much too specific for dating an archaeological site. I have reverted those changes, and also removed the existing Category:1250 establishments and Category:1550 disestablishments. I understand that editors in good faith see dates in an article and want to brings categories into line with those dates, but that can be a problem if they do not understand that dates for archaeological sites are almost always approximate and often very broad estimates. I realize this is not one of the big problems in WP, but, as I said, it annoyed me, so I wanted to vent. Donald Albury 16:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody look at Bottle Creek Indian Mounds and offer an opinion on the dates of establishment and disestablishment for the site? - Donald Albury 00:58, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Inscriptions and Herostones" articles

I've noticed a pattern of articles with titles ending in "Inscriptions and Herostones" or "Inscriptions & Herostones". I've copyedited and fixed bare URLs on a couple, but now that I've discovered just how many there are I believe some larger effort may need to be put towards them. They all follow a similar format. They need copyediting, often rely on one source. The articles should at least all follow the same naming convention, which I am dealing with now (shortening, lowercasing letters which should be, and splitting "hero stone" into to words). I didn't know where to ask because there's not one single talk page for such a group. Here's an example: Gulakamale (Bengaluru) Inscriptions and Herostones. I've been told to post this here (from the Wikipedia:Help desk, and it may be good to post it to Talk:Kannada inscriptions or Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics as well. Tolozen (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To update: I moved each article to one ending in "inscriptions and hero stones", but other than that have left them unchanged. Tolozen (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying all titles to ensure consistency is fine, but removing (Bengaluru) from the title causes ambiguity in locating the place. The talk page suited for this is discussion is Talk:Inscription Stones of Bengaluru Udaya Kumar P L Pluday (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]