Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

Add topic
Active discussions
MainDiscussionMonitoringOutlineParticipantsProject organizationAssessmentResourcesShowcase
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
 

Saltovo-MayakiEdit

u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/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.

Shouldn't we have an article on religious landscapes?Edit

The article Ceremonial stone landscape may well be controversial, but religious landscapes seem to be well researched in archaeology. Doug Weller talk 09:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, certainly we should. Why not write it? Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Lack of time, other priorities in real life and Wikipedia. But feel free to write it yourself. Doug Weller talk 16:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, but I won't. I wasn't the one who raised it. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I really don't think that suggesting an article might be useful means that the person suggesting it should write it. In fact, it seems obvious that if I felt I could write it I'd simply write it and then maybe mention it here. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
In fact I now see there is ritual landscape, which is a reasonable stub/start but needs expansion and globalization (but evidently not by me or Doug). As for the dubious Ceremonial stone landscape, this is a sceptical RS which might be used there. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Do these changes make senseEdit

See [1]? On an iPad and a bit groggy they seem off, particularly the ones for prehistory. Doug Weller talk 13:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

The added material in the Prehistory section appears to be based on 2008 newspaper reports on two or three papers published in Science. It would be much better to cite the Science articles as sources. Much of the other recently added material is unsourced. I'm running slow today on working my watchlist, but I'll try to check back on this later. - Donald Albury 17:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
It seems like the newspaper articles are the only ones that make a link to Addis Ababa specifically? Which is a bit silly: we know humans originated in East Africa, but you couldn't possibly pinpoint it to such a specific place. – Joe (talk) 06:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Which is why I would like to see what what the articles in Science say, if I had access to the journal, and knew what articles were being mentioned. There is also the issue that there have been new findings on the migrations from the Horn of Africa to the Arabian peninsula (and back) published since 2008. If I have time, I'll try to dig out some some studies that have been mentioned in a blog that I follow. - Donald Albury 14:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
They are:
1. Jakobsson, M., Scholz, S.W., Scheet, P., Gibbs, J.R., VanLiere, J.M., Fung, H.C., Szpiech, Z.A., Degnan, J.H., Wang, K., Guerreiro, R. and Bras, J.M., 2008. Genotype, haplotype and copy-number variation in worldwide human populations. Nature, 451(7181), pp.998-1003. (21 Feb 2008) Researchgate copy of Jakobsson et a. (2008)
2. Li, J.Z., Absher, D.M., Tang, H., Southwick, A.M., Casto, A.M., Ramachandran, S., Cann, H.M., Barsh, G.S., Feldman, M., Cavalli-Sforza, L.L. and Myers, R.M., 2008. Worldwide human relationships inferred from genome-wide patterns of variation. Science, 319(5866), pp.1100-1104. (22 Feb 2008) Cite Seer copy of Li et al. (2008). Paul H. (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Cart ruts in MaltaEdit

Mentioned in several articles but I think the main one is Ljubljana Marshes Wheel. I've just found a good source here if it interests anyone. Doug Weller talk 12:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The PDF file of this paper can downloaded from Academic.edu. a more recent paper about these features is:
Mottershead, D., Pearson, A., Farres, P. and Schaefer, M., 2019. Humans as agents of geomorphological change: the case of the Maltese cart-ruts at Misraħ Għar Il-Kbir, San Ġwann, San Pawl Tat-Tarġa and Imtaħleb. In Landscapes and Landforms of the Maltese Islands (pp. 103-116). Springer, Cham.
The Maltese cart tracks are also mentioned in:
"Carroll, F.A., Hunt, C.O., Schembri, P.J. and Bonanno, A., 2012. Holocene climate change, vegetation history and human impact in the Central Mediterranean: evidence from the Maltese Islands. Quaternary Science Reviews, 52, pp.24-40. The PDF is also available from Semantic Scholar. Paul H. (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

White Sands fossil footprintsEdit

I just created a brief draft for the recently discovered White Sands fossil footprints. Any help would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

  • @Thriley: Evidence for early human presence in the Americas is notoriously controversial and the news/pop sci media is notoriously bad at jumping on sensational findings in archaeology before they've been properly reviewed. I don't think it's a good idea to present the age of the footprints as a fact until it is accepted by other scholarly sources. Maybe it's too soon for an article at all, though the Smithsonian article suggests the footprints were known long before this study so there might be other sources. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Thriley: A person can find citations for additional sources by searching Google scholar in separate searches using first “White Sands National Park” + “footprints”; later “White Sands National Park” + “tracks”; and finally “White Sands National Park” + “Clovis”.
Bennett, M.R., Bustos, D., Odess, D., Urban, T.M., Lallensack, J.N., Budka, M., Santucci, V.L., Martinez, P., Wiseman, A.L. and Reynolds, S.C., 2020. Walking in mud: remarkable Pleistocene human trackways from white sands national park (New Mexico). Quaternary Science Reviews, 249, p.106610.
Bennett, M.R., Bustos, D., Pigati, J.S., Springer, K.B., Urban, T.M., Holliday, V.T., Reynolds, S.C., Budka, M., Honke, J.S., Hudson, A.M. and Fenerty, B., 2021. Evidence of humans in North America during the last glacial maximum. Science, 373(6562), pp.1528-1531.
The latest papers discussing the age of these tracks are:
Haynes, C.V., 2022. Evidence for Humans at White Sands National Park during the Last Glacial Maximum Could Actually be for Clovis People∼ 13,000 Years Ago. PaleoAmerica, pp.1-4.
Pigati, J.S., Springer, K.B., Holliday, V.T., Bennett, M.R., Bustos, D., Urban, T.M., Reynolds, S.C. and Odess, D., 2022. Reply to “Evidence for Humans at White Sands National Park during the Last Glacial Maximum Could Actually be for Clovis People ∼13,000 Years Ago” by C. Vance Haynes, Jr. PaleoAmerica, pp.1-3.
Unfortunately, I could not find accessible copies of the PaleoAmerica papers. The footprints are accepted as real and remarkable finds. It is the age that is controversial. Paul H. (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The use of robot dogs in archaeologyEdit

See [2][3] [4] [5] for its use at Pompeii. China may start large scale production of these.[6] I'm not sure where this would belong (I presume in Pompeii and of course its manufacturer's article. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Combe Hill at FACEdit

Combe Hill is a neolithic causewayed enclosure in the UK. Mike Christie has done an excellent job of expanding the article. In case anyone wants to take a look it's now at . Richard Nevell (talk) 07:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited citiesEdit

This article is a continual problem with people dating cities to the first signs of habitation, legends, etc. Suggestions that there should be a cutoff date, a limit to the number of cities, archaeological evidence, etc have been made at Talk:List of oldest continuously inhabited cities#Cut-off year would be extremely useful. Please! :) Doug Weller talk 08:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments wanted at WP:FTN#6th century BCE Carbon nanotubesEdit

Seems an extraordinary claim, possibly driven by politics. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red - Ancient womenEdit

hello all, next month's Women in Red theme in Women in the Ancient World - so its a great opportunity to add some women (& NB people) who we know about through the archaeological record - event is here Lajmmoore (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sourcesEdit

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

  • John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Possible hoax?Edit

Caernarfon Mithraeum is sourced exclusively to the person who is claimed to have discovered them. I worry this may be a hoax article, or the source unreliable. Sharing these here so editors with actual experience in the topic area can make out what the issue is. — Ixtal ( T / C ) Join WP:FINANCE! 23:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I've linked the online archive for the journal, which began publishing in 1846. I will leave judgment on the quality of the reported archaeology to others more familiar with Roman-era British archaeology. - Donald Albury 18:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Surprising support for Clovis FirstEdit

Late date of human arrival to North America: Continental scale differences in stratigraphic integrity of pre-13,000 BP archaeological sites The article concludes:

"The oldest evidence for archaeological sites in the New World with large numbers of artifacts occurring in discrete and minimally disturbed stratigraphic contexts occur in eastern Beringia between 13,000 and 14,200 BP. South of the ice sheets, the oldest such sites occur in association with the Clovis complex. If humans managed to breach the continental ice sheets significantly before 13,000 BP, there should be clear evidence for it in the form of at least some stratigraphically discrete archaeological components with a relatively high artifact count. So far, no such evidence exists. These findings support the hypothesis that the first human arrival to the New World occurred by at least 14,200 BP in Beringia and by approximately 13,000 BP in the temperate latitudes of North America. Strong evidence for human presence before those dates has yet to be identified in the archaeological record."

I'm sure this will be challenged. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a twist! I thought the Clovis-first thing was finally settled.
It did immediately stand out to me that all of their sites (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264092) are in inland North America or the East Coast, which even under the coastal model is supposed to have been settled "late". They didn't analyse any from South America, where the best evidence for pre-Clovis occupation is, though they did discuss Monte Verde in the text. It's also surprising they published this in PLOS ONE, which has developed a pretty bad reputation in archaeology recently – you would have thought that if their results were sound they could have aimed for a Nature or Science paper (cf. [7][8]).
I don't think we'll be waiting long for the challenge. – Joe (talk) 14:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
They also discuss Pedra Furada and Chiquihuite cave. I take your point about PLOS ONE. While I was making a milkshake it occurred to me that it would be interesting to know if European and Asian sites at these early dates (even 30,000 years ago) are as uncertain as the South American ones, or are they typically less controversial. @Joe Roe do you have any knowledge about such sites? Doug Weller talk 15:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a good point. I think there are similar debates about Australia (e.g. [9]) but I nothing comes to mind for places like Europe where Palaeolithic presence isn't controversial. Dates this early always come with big error margins, so who knows what would happen if we applied this level of scrutiny to all of them... – Joe (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Joe Roe Yes, this is something I hadn't thought about before. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Is a pyramidal flat top mound a pyramid?Edit

Platform mound says "It typically refers to a flat-topped mound, whose sides may be pyramidal." It also says "These platform mounds are usually four-sided truncated pyramids". A lot of our articles on North American "mounds" use the term pyramidal. Why not just pyramid? Doug Weller talk 12:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Because the platform would prevent proper flaring of the space-time energy? More seriously, it wouldn't fit with the geometric definition of a pyramid. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Keatinge so a number of those shown or mentioned at Pyramid need to be removed? It seems to me as though the geometric definition isn't always used in reliable sources, I see quite a few talking about flat-topped pyramids including The Oxford Companion to Archaeology p.141.[10] I can find more. And here's a scientific article on crystals using that terminology.[11]. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
So, perhaps we could use "flat-topped pyramid" or some other appropriate phrase when the item under consideration needs to be precisely defined, and "pyramid" alone when it doesn't, perhaps later in the same article. As indeed your excerpt from The Oxford Companion to Archaeology does. I'd prefer that to either trying to clean up Wikipedia with geometrical precision, or trying to redefine the geometric pyramid. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Some were probably more pointy originally, whether from erosion or deliberate flattening of the top. See Great Pyramid of Cholula now with a church on top. We should follow RS & be flexible here. Johnbod (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
In some cases, it might be a case of pure public relations / advertising. In press releases and tourist brochures, stating either a building or mound is a "pyramid," even if it is flat-topped or vaugely four-sided, attracts more public and press attention than calling it "pyramidal," "pyramid-like," or "platform mound." Also, I suspect that prehistoric platform mounds and other ancient structures are called "pyramids" to imply shared cultural traits that do not exist. Paul H. (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
I've never seen any press releases etc about these, so can't comment. And our articles on platform mounds don't mention shared cultural traits, nor do the reliable sources we use for them so far as I've seen. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ice Age footprints in White Sands National Park reduxEdit

I'm not sure how we should handle the claims that are repeated in a number of articles[12] User:Paul H added some sources in the thread above and pointed out that it's the age that is the issue, but this doesn't seem reflected in all our articles. I can find [13] and a response to that critique here and a current list of citations.[14] Doug Weller talk 12:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Article AssistanceEdit

Hello!

I just wanted to reach out and ask if anyone would be potentially interested in helping me improve my Wikipedia article Tenta, Cyprus? In particular, any further information about the 1947 excavation, architectural remains, artefacts, and protective shelter sections of the article? I have seen the advice many others have have received and would really appreciate the knowledge, perspective and assistance of the Wikipedians associated with this project.

Thank you, Cstylus (talk) 02:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oldest prehistoric mine in the Americas?Edit

It's a site called Powars II with a red ochre mine. I haven't found it in any article.[15] and a lot more here. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems over sources and claims in Sinhala language and Tamil inscriptionsEdit

Tamil inscriptions is currently the worst. Sources are mainly media, dates often contradict the main article date, lots of pov editing to push Tamil back as there is fairly large nationalist agenda to prove it the oldest language, eg[16]. See also Talk:Sinhala language#6th century BC dates based on dubious 6th century BC brahmi claims, Keezhadi excavation site and Talk:Tamil-Brahmi. So long as we allow usage of media reports we are going to have this problem. And, sadly official Indian government, including state governments, reports. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Peer review of Discovery of the tomb of TutankhamunEdit

See Wikipedia:Peer review/Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun/archive1. Some aspects of the tomb clearance were politically controversial at the time, and their treatment in the sources is changing as academia reassesses the impact of colonialism (I've put some more information about that on the talk page), so I'd like to have as much input as possible to make sure the article meets NPOV. A. Parrot (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Center for the Future of Museums - needs an articleEdit

I know that all museums aren't about archaeology, but itooks both notable and very relevant.[17][18][19] I ran into it reading this which is archaeology, even if fraudulent. Doug Weller talk 14:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Surely more in the wheelhouse of WP:MUSEUMS? Zakhx150 (talk) 08:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Zakhx150 posted there, but as it's relevant to archaeology and I used in Newark Holy Stones I thought I'd post here as well. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Alas2022Edit

Alas2022 was recently blocked as a sockpuppet of CadAPL and the 167 articles they created have been deleted under WP:CSD#G6. Many of these were decent articles on archaeological and historic sites in Syria, so we might want to look into rescuing some of them (per User:Mz7/G5 is not a firm rule). – Joe (talk) 10:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: was there anything lost of worth?★Trekker (talk) 10:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
All of them were short but good articles I think. I'd reviewed them and given Alas2022 autopatrolled a few weeks before they were blocked. But yeah the problem is now non-admins can't see them and I don't have time to look through them all... – Joe (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunate that it has to be this way, but I guess there is no real other alternative, we can't reward block evading and socking.★Trekker (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)