Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

Active discussions
MainDiscussionMonitoringOutlineParticipantsProject organizationAssessmentResourcesShowcase
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Project-class)
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Biblical archaeology needs a rewrite to remove the essay style materialEdit

In February 2013 an editor added a large amount of text translated from elsewhere[1] that reads like an essay and is almost certainly confusing to the average readere. Eg:

"In order to understand the significance of biblical archaeology it is first necessary to understand two basic concepts: archaeology as a scientific framework and the Bible as an object for research. Archaeology is a science, not in the Aristotelian sense of cognitio certa per causas but in the modern sense of systematic knowledge.[1] Vicente Vilar expands on this point by stating that archaeology is both art and science: as an art it searches for the material remains of ancient civilizations and tries to reconstruct, as far as possible, the environment and the organizations of one or of many historical epochs;[1] as a relatively recent modern science, and as Benesch has said, it is a science that is barely 200 years old but that has, however, substantially changed our ideas about the past.[2]

"One might think that archaeology would have to disregard the information contained within religions and many philosophical systems. However, apart from the great deal of factual material that such systems generate (such as places of worship, holy objects and other scientifically observable things), there are other aspects that are equally important for scientific archaeological investigation such as religious texts, rites, customs and traditions. Archaeologists and historians commonly use myths as clues to events or places that have become hidden in the background, a process that Rudolf Bultmann calls "demythification" – the most notable example being Homer’s poems and the myth-infused city of Troy. This contemporary perception of the myth, mainly developed by Bultmann, has encouraged scientists such as archaeologists to examine the areas indicated by the biblical tales.[3][4][5]"

Anyone interested in cleaning this up? I don't have the time sadly. Too many brushfires to put out on Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

It was translated from the Spanish WP (an FA) and is a hell of an improvement on what was there before. It has a Continental tone in parts, like those quoted. Some bits have already been cut - maybe more could be, or go to the bottom. Needs an expert really. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The article is a bit confused and needs some rearranging, pruning, and rewriting. Does anyone fancy a bit of bold editing? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll take a look.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 13:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the the lead section and boldly removed many things that seemd irrelevent or poorly written. I would appriciate if someone would step in to help becuase I don't have much interest nor much knowledge about Biblical Archaeology so other than copying straight from sources it would be OR.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Is Iran actually the home of the world's most ancient civilization?Edit

See [2]. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Well if the Organization of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance says so, it must be, right? Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC invitationEdit

Hello, everybody. There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Molossians#RfC about inclusion in the lead of mention about the historical origins of this group in which members of this wikiproject could contribute and provide new perspectives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Rattle pendant?Edit

The numerous press articles in the last couple of days about what we are for now calling the Peebles Hoard all say that it includes a rare rattle pendant.

Quote from the Belfast Telegraph ref:

"Evidence of a decorative “rattle pendant” from the harness was also discovered – the first one to be found in Scotland and only the third in the UK."

So it obviously seems to be a tightly-defined thing. I can't find anything on a google search which would help to identify just what this is, to create either an article or a linked sourced subsection within an existing article. Can an archaeology expert with a shelf-full of books help out here perhaps? Where were the other two in the UK found? PamD 07:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple of sources on Google Scholar:
And Higgins mentions this as one of the few example from Britain:
Thrane, Henrik (1958). "The rattle pendants from the Parc-y-Meirch hoard, Wales". Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. 24: 221–227. doi:10.1017/S0079497X00016820.
There's probably enough for a short article. I can send you the PDFs if the articles if you don't have access? – Joe (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I've had to remove a lot of copyvio from SacsayhuamánEdit

Copied in 2010 from Ancient Cuzco: Heartland of the Inca By Brian S. Bauer - most of the stuff about its construction. Doug Weller talk 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nebra Sky Disk dispute over new datesEdit

I've added this to the article talk page: The State Office for Monument Preservation and Archeology Saxony-Anhalth as issued the following press release.[3] "In an article by Rupert Gebhard and Rüdiger Krause, published today in the journal "Archäologische Informations", it is postulated that the Nebra Sky Disc, which is dated to the Early Bronze Age (around 1600 BC), would only be dated 1000 years later to the Iron Age. The colleagues not only ignore the abundance of published research results in recent years, their various arguments also are easily refuted. Gebhard and Krause put forward several key points as a platform for this thesis.

In particular, the correlation of the Sky Disc with the other discoveries of the hoard, whose Bronze Age age is not in question, is put in doubt. Claims are that the soil attachments on the Sky Disc do not correspond with those of the other findings and that the geochemical analyzes of the metals do not support their coherence.

Both of these statements are demonstrably incorrect. According to an essay by Dr. Jörg Adam (then State Office of Criminal Investigation of Brandenburg), who conducted the investigations of the soil attachments for the Regional Court of Halle as an expert, and who was not quoted by the two authors, "altogether ... therefore an origin of both the soil attachments on the Sky Disc (Sp 1) and on the sword (Sp 2) from their presumed location (the extraction point of VM 1) is to be regarded as very probable ... An exceptional position is occupied by the soil attachments on the ax (column 3). A large proportion of the properties and characteristics determined, also indicate that the origin of these soil attachments from the Mittelberg appear probable «. Since the inquiry of the court of first instance was limited to these three objects back then, the other accompanying findings were not examined by the expert at the time and therefore should not be used as an argument against the coherence of all the finds. In view of this, the claim of the two authors that the chisel must be separated as not belonging to the hoard, is not comprehensible.

Furthermore, the statement that the geochemical analysis of the metals argues against the coherence of the findings is misleading. Already in 2008 and 2010 Prof. Dr. Ernst Pernicka and other colleagues demonstrated "that the copper of all parts of the hoard comes from the same storage location". The Mitterberg in the Salzburg region has long been proven to be a deposit whose copper production ended at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. In addition, Pernicka states: "Analyzes of Celtic [Iron Age] copper alloys show quite different compositions of the main components as well as trace elements and lead isotope ratios". Therefore, from a metallurgical point of view, dating the Sky Disc to the Iron Age is clearly out of the question.

A final argument put forward by Gebhard and Krause is that the Nebra Sky Disc appeared as "a perfect foreign object" in the symbolism of that period. While this is true, this also applies to every unique discovery. The Sky Disc of Nebra would be a foreign object in any prehistoric period.

Due to lack of space, we refrain from discussing the many other inconsistencies in the content of the article here.'We would be happy to provide you with the above publications for your further information as downloads:

Jörg Adam, Forensic Investigation of Earth Attachments on the Sky Disc. In: Harald Meller / François Bertemes (eds.), The departure to new horizons. New perspectives on the European Early Bronze Age. Final conference of the FOR550 research group from November 26th to 29th, 2010 in Halle (Saale). Conferences of the State Museum of Prehistory in Hall 19 (Halle [Saale] 2019).[4]

Ernst Pernicka / Christian-Heinrich Wunderlich / Alfred Reichenberger / Harald Meller / Gregor Borg, On the authenticity of the Nebra sky disk - a brief summary of the investigations carried out. Archaeological correspondence sheet 38 (2008) 331–352.[5]

Ernst Pernicka, Archaeometallurgical investigations on and on the hoard of Nebra. In: Harald Meller / François Bertemes (eds.), The reach for the stars. International symposium in Halle (Saale) 16. – 21. February 2005. Conferences of the State Museum for Prehistory Hall 5 (Halle [Saale] 2010).[6]

Ernst Pernicka / Joachim Lutz / Thomas Stöllner, Bronze Age Copper Produced at Mitterberg, Austria, and its Distribution. Archaeologia Austriaca 100 (2016) 19–55.[7] Doug Weller talk 11:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Schöningen forest elephant merge discussionEdit

Based on the notability discussion that happened during the withdrawn DYK nomination, I have started a merge discussion on Talk:Schöningen forest elephant, input is requested.--Kevmin § 15:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

New fellows of the Society of Antiquaries (2020)Edit

All red links this year! [8]:

Most of the fellows appointed last year (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology/Archive 9#New fellows of the Society of Antiquaries) are also still red links:

– Joe (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying.

'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.


Anyone interested in this, could you check the recent edits?[9]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:36, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to the project page "WikiProject Archaeology".