Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Afghanistan Antiquities at Risk

Hi folks . Wikimedia Switzerland and the International Council of Museums are collaborating on a project I think might be of interest to the WikiProject. In response to the Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan, they have started 'Afghanistan Antiquities at Risk'. The aim is to share information around antiquities trafficking, specifically focused on the Red List of ICOM regarding the Afghanistan Antiquities at risk to make trafficking harder.

They're inviting people to contribute images, data, and of course write articles. There's plenty of scope for editing. It looks like we don't have an article on the illicit antiquities trade (only the antiquities trade more broadly) for example. When editing it will be important to provide the human and social context, so that these are not presented as 'just' objects.

Full details of the initiative and how to join are available on meta-wiki: meta:Wikimedia CH/Afghanistan Antiquities at Risk. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC) (posting here with my Wikimedia UK hat on, but this is very much something I'm also interested in as a volunteer)

Journal of Archaeomythology

I've raised the issue of this journal at WP:FTN - it's got no impact factor but is used a lot in our articles. I'd appreciate some comments from members of this project. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This journal does not appear in any peer-reviewed search engine I have. I went to the 2021 volume and looked at the authors of the articles. Most of them are novelists, linguists, artists, and healers. Only two had a Ph.D., one of them with archaeology but not as the primary subject. Since my examination was not thorough, I wouldn't discredit this journal, but it seems it doesn't involve a lot of archaeologists and most of the authors are not contributing to peer-reviewed archaeological journals (or any archaeological journals at all). Also, it seems this journal has a strong bias towards feminist agendas. There is of course no problem in female studies in archaeology but I've never seen so many feminist-themed articles in one journal and in my opinion the reoccurrence of agendas in journals (such as those trying to prove biblical traditions for example) is a red-light.

Therefore, it seems this journal (which nonetheless looks interesting) may be of use in Wikipedia if someone with more knowledge in the fields of arts would give credibility to the writers, but it seems a bit problematic to use this source for archaeological articles, at least not as a main source of information.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of art, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Old split proposal, is there interest?

List of mummies has an old split proposal from 2016 proposing to create a dis page for the mummies. I am not an expert in the field nor an enthusiast so idk if this would be useful or a good idea, but would like to remove the split tag to clean the backlog. I'm messaging here hoping there will be some discussion on the matter, and if not please ping me back and I'll delete the split tag. Thanks! A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Talk 12:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: added the tag. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The split (to 4 lists) happened years ago. Whether a disam page is needed I rather doubt; the top of the page does that job. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The tag can be removed as for lists have since been created, but I would approve of disam page. The main issue is that "List of mummies" is too broad of a topic, I mean are we talking about Egyptian mummies? Bog bodies? Buddhist mummies? Tarim mummies? How long do you suppose this list would be if we lumped together every mummy found in existence? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I take it you haven't actually looked at the page? Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I did... we are pretty much saying "Here is a list of mummies that excludes A, B, C, D...." Why not just make a disamb page to link the lists? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good. Well, if you want to go to the trouble of setting up another hoop for readers to jump through, go ahead. Unless there are rules against "List of ..." disams, that is. Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I also want to add that "list of mummies" would also include DNA-tested mummies, and animal mummies. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Well only the first is a list, & that should be mentioned. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Seeking assistance: copypasted Kosovo archeology articles

Hello, I noticed that a handful of Kosovo-related archeology articles have been directly been plagiarized from [1]. I first noticed some awkward/non-WP word choice and phrasing, which I attempted to remedy on Copper, Bronze and Iron Age sites in Kosovo, but I noticed that literally everything has been ripped from that PDF. The source was published in 2012, and each article was created in 2013. Not entirely sure how to proceed... as a side note, since the source was produced by the government of Kosovo and based on the diction, I would assume that this was issued for the purpose of establishing a historical identity and international recognition. Seeking help with these...
Here is the list of articles that I noticed have these issues:

• Harilaq Fortress
• Nikadin (archaeological site)
• Çifllak (archaeological site)
• Çifllak (archaeological site)
• Paldenica (archaeological site)
• Poslishte (archaeological site)
• Pestova (archaeological site)
• Archaeology of Kosovo
• Late Antiquity and Medieval sites in Kosovo
• Copper, Bronze and Iron Age sites in Kosovo
• Municipium Dardanorum
• Vindenis
• Roman heritage in Kosovo

At least this article isn't a direct copy of the text:

• Neolithic sites in Kosovo

-PerpetuityGrat (talk) 15:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC), updated list-PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The book doesn't actually seem to have a copyright notice, or anything about copyright. I suspect in reality the Kosovan government is only too happy to have the publicity, but if the WP copyright police find out they will all vanish in a puff of smoke. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure they would, as I suspect at the time of publication they were increasingly (and likely still are) trying to develop international recognition. And while the copy-pasted articles may not be explicit copyvios, wouldn't Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources still apply here? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Kosovo states that "Official materials published for the information of the public" "do not have copyright protection and are thus in the public domain," which seems to place the source document in the public domain. That, of course, needs to be confirmed by someone familiar with copyright law in Kosovo. - Donald Albury 22:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Regardless if it is in the public domain or has no copyright protections, doesn't Wikipedia:Plagiarism come into play? Just seems like the laziest form of editing to massively dump a textbook into WP via a handful of articles. How did this even go unnoticed for years after the article creations? --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The source in question has been cited in the articles (under the name "Kosovo Archaeological Guide") since 2013, so it is not plagiarism. The relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources. The citations should have linked to the source, but the citations were in the articles by March of 2013, and the web page did not show up in the Internet Archive until October, 2013, so it is possible the Archaeological Guide to Kosovo/Kosovo Archaeological Guide was not yet on-line in early 2013. There was a time, many years ago, when Wikipedians were encouraged to copy material from reliable sources in the public domain (cf. Template:EB1911). The main thing I see here is to link the citations to the on-line source, and clean up the articles, recasting the text as needed to an appropriate tone for Wikipedia. - Donald Albury 15:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Is the future virtual excavation?

Might want to update some articles with this.Why archaeology will be the next harbour for technology Doug Weller talk 15:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can see technology reducing the extent of excavation, but I think it will be a while before non-invasive scans will be able to reliably identify buried items. I recently cited this article, which reports how ground penetrating radar scans were used to infer the structure of a mound based on one scan closely parallelling a trench. In any case, I doubt non-invasive scans will be able to do things like identifying the cultural affinities of buried shards, or determining radiocarbon dates for buried charcoal layers. Such scans would be useful for locating optimal places to dig. - Donald Albury 16:19, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Funny article. The first half describes well-established technology that I think we already have decent coverage of (Remote sensing (archaeology)), then veers deep into sci-fi territory:

We can therefore envision that in the near future archaeologists will deploy legions of tiny bots that will perform archaeological operations while documenting each step of the process. They would be used to collect samples (for example – DNA testing) without disturbing the integrity of the site.

A fleet of autonomously flying small drones equipped with thermal infrared and hyperspectral sensors, programmed to work as a unit will detect subsurface architecture with unparalleled accuracy in a matter of minutes while producing 3D scans.

Artificial intelligence will then produce an on-site report based on all the collected data, which would be then analysed by researchers.

Absolutely barmy! – Joe (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Another pair of eyes on Troy?

I was wondering if someone could have a look at Late Bronze Age Troy, which recently replaced an older article that was just about Troy VII. I wrote most of the text using handbook articles as my key sources, but I'm not an archaeologist so I want to be sure I didn't misunderstand anything and in particular that the use of terms like "layer" are correct. Botterweg14 (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

http://beyondnotability.org/

Quick headsup on http://beyondnotability.org/ - new three year UK-based research project exploring the histories of women active in archaeology, history and heritage as revealed in the archives of the Society of Antiquaries of London and the Royal Archaeological Institute. Their wikibase is at https://beyond-notability.wiki.opencura.com/wiki/Main_Page --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks for mentioning the project. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

With "notability" in the name I wondered if there was a Wikipedia element to the project, but other than using Wikibase it doesn't seem so? – Joe (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Emma Bridges, who does #WCCWiki things is on the steering committee, so maybe they have ideas in the pipeline, but not announced? Lajmmoore (talk) 11:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Either way, we should keep a close eye on their database for red lists and sources! – Joe (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled across this announcement which includes the line "[the project] will tell their stories and map them using linked open data, ensuring the information is discoverable and accessible through Wikipedia". Very encouraging Richard Nevell (talk) 18:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi y'all. I would like to remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.

WSC is organized every two years, and people from all countries can upload files (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are also set up, for example for USA or Ireland. These national competitions (when they exist) act as an additional incentive to participate.

We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on enWikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice descriptive image or video to Commons, please consider to submit them using the WSC interface, you might win a prize.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Seven-dots glyph

A bit of a mess as it even drifts into the "7 Hathors", which is to do with 7 but not dots. So far as I can see this refers to a symbol known as "sibittu", eg "The Pleiades is a galactic cluster of over four hundred stars, with five to seven stars visible to the naked eye as part of the constellation Taurus. From as early as the Old Babylonian period, the symbol of seven dots is known as sibittu, literally, ‘group of seven’. According to E.D. van Buren, the symbol evolved from the seven pellets or pebbles used in casting lots for divining the fate of individuals, to the rosette-star of lshtar, and finally, with the growing Babylonian interest"[2] but that isn't even mentioned. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

New Roman villa report

Greetings all. I'm typing this to, if nothing else, vent a little. After the many excellent news reports today of the fancy Iliad mosaic found in a recently excavated villa in Britain (for example BBC, Guardian, iNews, Times) I whipped up a new page (Rutland Roman villa) thinking I might submit it to DYK or the current news places. Now, I announced and linked this new page via my personal twitter account. A friend who is reasonably senior in Historic England then got in touch asking me to re-name the page, remove all references to the specificity of the site, and generally tone it TF down. Turns out that the press release was a carefully crafted work which omitted certain details on the site which are readily found in the public domain. Like, for example, that the site had been identified on Google Earth in 2018, 2 years before the finder stuck a spade into it. The request came as part of an effort to prevent night-hawking on the site because it seems they have genuine fears for it.

Now, I'm a bit ambivalent because I don't want to be complicit in damaging an incredible archaeological asset and generally have real-life professional ethics to consider, but also am annoyed that H.E. are able to lean on me through a personal relationship to amend the page. All the information is easily found in the public domain, on H.E.'s own press release and (importantly) the web page of the Scheduling so collating it together here on the Wiki was not complicated work. I have acquiesced to their list of demands requests purely for personal reasons and moved/renamed the page to call it the 'Rutland Roman villa' (despite there being at least four other Roman villas in Rutland!) on the promise that is what they will be referring to it as (though, I see, haven't yet done so). This is all a bit dicey as far as the Wiki is concerned. I suspect I should now self-flag as COI on this score and generally stop messing about with the page. I here leave it to you excellent humans to do whatever you think appropriate. Zakhx150 (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. If HE are putting details on their press releases and/or listing entries, it's a little absurd for them to expect Wikipedia not to report them. I can't imagine that the number of people who decide to steal from a scheduled historic monument just because they stumble across its entry on Wikipedia; anyone who is seriously planning to commit that kind of crime is perfectly able to read Historic England's scheduled monument database. That said, if this is all they want removed, then eh, I don't see that it's a crucial piece of the article and we can probably do without it if we want to be extra cautious.

As for the article name: I'm not a great fan of "Rutland Roman villa", because as you say it's somewhat vague. I don't think there's any obviously better name, though, so I would suggest waiting until it becomes more clear what name is being used in reliable sources and then move the article if necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for those thoughts @Caeciliusinhorto:. The article name is a really unhelpful request from HE as they haven't yet deigned to call it anything specific. The ephemeral 'villa in Rutland' swerves the issue entirely. The email I got said that various stakeholder heads had all had a chat and agreed that my original article was "unhelpful" to their problem of announcing-but-not-breaking the site. Whilst I'm pleased that Wikipedia is deemed to hold power in such circles, they are clearly missing the bigger point that if this site is that much at risk then they perhaps might mitigate it in obvious ways rather than hiding behind carefully chosen words in a press-release. As you say, wrong-uns will be wrong-uns and can easily find this sort of site.Zakhx150 (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I can understand their desire to protect the site and avoid nighthawking. There is a certain dissonance between hosting a map of the site on the Historic England website and objecting to broad information about location being included on Wikipedia. Granted, the two sites do have different reach, but the National Heritage List for England is well indexed by search engines; I wonder if they have active a no-index option for some pages as it's not showing up, though it could be because the page is only a couple of days old. I should also say that creating an article was a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and of course you would go to the source material to find out more. I imagine others will follow a similar pattern, regardless of good or bad intention. If they included a request to be vague about location in their press release, seeing something less vague (but by no means precise) may have alarmed them and prompted a strong response. If they happen to chance across this discussion, I'd be happy to discuss Wikipedia with them. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything useful to other add, other than to say that I think that these are nonsensical and unprofessional demands from HE and I'm sorry that you had to deal with them. – Joe (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Ditto @Zakhx150: what a situation - sorry this has happened to you. Will keep an eye Lajmmoore (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts y'all, its appreciated.Zakhx150 (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Just to add - I just looked properly at this - it's on TV next year! This request of you makes no sense, if they're happy to literally broadcast a programme about the site. Lajmmoore (talk) 12:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Agnes Hsu-Tang

Over at Women in Red, there's been a call out for sources for this Chinese-American archaeologist and philanthropist Draft:Agnes Hsu-Tang Lajmmoore (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Sumerian King List has an RFC

Sumerian King List has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Chaco Culture National Historical Park Featured article review

I have nominated Chaco Culture National Historical Park for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

African Archaeological Review

FYI! The African Archaeological Review has a number of papers permanently open access, and is running OA for new papers for three month periods, to support access to the work of African scholars. Link is here and I'm sure many of these publications could be linked to existing Wikipedia articles. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Recent edit to Prehistoric religion

I'd like some comments on WP:RSN#Query about new source for Prehistoric religion. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at WP:FTN#2350 BC Middle East Anomaly another comet/airburst claim

About a stub putting forward a Velikovskian claim. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

GA nomination in need of editing

Hello! I reviewed Marguerite_Gautier-van_Berchem for a GA nomination some time ago, and think it has GA potential but still needs some work. As the author hasn't been able to tackle the edits, I will have to close the nomination soon, unless any other editor is able to take them on and save it from having to go through the renomination process later on! Sharing here as the subject is of interest for this WP, especially for the Women in Archaeology task force. Thanks! Eritha (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Kamoya Kimeu

Kamoya Kimeu's article could do with a lot more infomation being added to it. He's clearly just as significant as the Leakeys in paleoanthropology, but his entry is currently poor. I did some tidying today, but my knowledge of that area is so poor I'm cautious to make further changes. (& happy new year all) Lajmmoore (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that History of music, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Interesting article on how belief in pseudoarcheology is spreading

It discusses how much social media is spreading these ideas, and this is also interesting: "researchers like Miami University’s Card fear that for some people, alternative history — especially the belief that archaeologists are conspiring to hide the truth from the public — can be a gateway to other kinds of misinformation."[3] Doug Weller talk 17:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We also get a mention:

Other battles are fought on Wikipedia, where editors look to the consensus of professional archaeologists in deciding whether to label something “pseudoarchaeology” or list it as a credible theory. When Graham Hancock’s Wikipedia page was edited in 2019 to include references to him engaging in pseudoarchaeology, it set off a stream of furious commentary on Reddit, with one poster calling it “attempted character assassination.”

– Joe (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Contributors to British Numismatics

Hello all! The British Numismatic Association has just launched a new database of contributors, which might be of interest to this project too! Lajmmoore (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this Lajmmoore, looks like a really useful resource. Most (or all?) of the links seem to go to "placeholder" biographies for now, but we could maybe start by using it to expand list of numismatists? – Joe (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Obelisk making technology in ancient Egypt has no sources

I don't know if we have another article covering this it could be merged to. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the history, this seems to have been a low-level magnet for original research and fringe coatracking for some time, and the latest version has a bit too much of an "archaeologists baffled" tone for my liking. I've redirected it to obelisk for now. If anyone can add sources, I'd suggest a better title would be just Egyptian obelisks. – Joe (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. An option would be a section in Obelisk. With of course sources. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ceremonial stone landscape

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism#Ceremonial stone landscape. Doug Weller talk 09:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting book online

Key Concepts in Public Archaeology Edited by Gabriel Moshenska downloadable by chapter, or the whole book at [4]. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The first link returns a 404 on the Jstor site, but the second link works just fine (signed in to Jstor). - Donald Albury 16:02, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: sorry, there was a space missing, I've fixed the first link. It's open access, you don't need to be logged in. I just tested it logged out. Doug Weller talk 16:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: no problem. Open access is good. - Donald Albury 16:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller/Nationalist archaeology

I've started a draft, mainly copied from the article Nationalist historiography but that needed some work as there was some dubious material. It is meant to be ultimately called Nationalism in archaeology which I belatedly realised is the most common name. There's a plethora of sources, many listed at User talk:Doug Weller/Nationalist archaeology. Shall I go ahead and put this into article space now? I've already got a lot of the sources and am developing my ideas about how to structure it, but I'd love some help. I can provide some of the sources I list. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey Doug Weller - this is such an interesting topics, I'd be happy to help out, but probably would need a couple of weeks to get other things out the way. I imagine it could attract quite a lot of attention, so perhaps we should work on it a bit more before moving it to mainspace? I'll think about structure in the week, and then see you your draft's talk page! Lajmmoore (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: waiting sounds a good idea, I'm sure it will attract attention. Doug Weller talk 17:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of discretionary sanctions for the area of the Ancient Egyptian race controversy is under discussion

See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Doug Weller talk 10:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

NAGPRA and Professor Elizabeth Weiss

This might be worth mentioning in the NAGPRA article. I don't think much attention is being paid to the article itself.Responding to Claims of Archaeological Racism SAA statement. Review of their book here. Doug Weller talk 12:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:FTN#Comet fringe being added to Hopewell tradition, sadly from WAPO

Doug Weller talk 14:07, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Norte Chico

I have nominated Norte Chico civilization for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Norwegian rock art

I am looking for someone that might be interested in a collaboration to write/translate 14 articles about some of the most important rock carvings in Central Norway. As a part of my job for the county council, I am writing a series of articles about the 14 sites that is about to become a part of The rock art trail ("Bergkunstreisen") in Trøndelag.

Currently, I'm working on the 8th article in norwegian, and there is an overview of all of them in no:template Bergkunstreisen. I'm also gathering pictures from museum archives and old books in categories at Category:Rock carvings in Trøndelag.

Some sources are in english, and i could supply you with books both in pdf and print, if it might be of interest. Anyone? Bw --Orland (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Nationalism and archaeology created

Not a terribly good stub but loads of sources on the talk page and further reading. Health permitting I'll work more on it after I finish Gunung Padang which is coincidentally an example. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Doug Weller just an apology from me - I wanted to work on it, but time got in the way. I'll try and add to it now it's live. Thanks for all your work so far. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

@Lajmmoore: doesn't it always. No problem. Doug Weller talk 17:42, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Anna Balkanska

Is the subject of Draft:Anna Balkanska notable? Draft in need of some love to get it promoted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Kernosovskiy idol

Hello all, I started a page for the Kernosovskiy idol, but am drawing a bit of a blank at other pages I can embed it in. If someone has five minutes to take a look, it would be apprecited Lajmmoore (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Saving Ukrainian Cultural Heritage Online/Articles about museums

Hello all, I'm working with a volunteer collective to work to try and digitally preserve as much of Ukraine's cultural heritage as possible, with a collective called SUCHO, lots of work has been done in the past few days, and there's now a project set up on meta and one aspect of that is a list of 100 museums without EN pages. If people feel inclined, I'm sure help would be appreciated! (Will cross-post in Museums) Lajmmoore (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Major changes at Hadrian's Wall could use a review

See this page's history I reverted one edit which replaced a discussion on Broad vs narrow wall which attributed interpretations to named archaeologists to stating those interpretation as fault without attribution with the edit summary "sorry, but I think the edit lost useful information, including mention of the archaeologists}User:Rjdeadly. who has made these edits reverted me saying " then put them elsewhere". As I felt that replacing what were clearly interpretations as statement of fact, I reverted again saying "how about discussing it on the talk page tomorrow you’re also stating interpretations as fact. That was reverted with the message "be constructive rather than destructive". User:Dudley Miles has commented on the talk page saying "Rjdeadly has made many extensive edits since 19 February, some of which change referenced text, presumably distorting the sources, and others are unreferenced. Doug Weller has reverted some which have been re-reverted. Some of the edits may be valuble but it would require a lot of work to find which ones and I would like to hear other editors' views. Dudley Miles (talk) 9:17 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)". I agree that some may be valuable, but given there are so many and reverting this editor will probably cause contention, other eyes would be usueful. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet

This is the best example I've seen of why we should never use the media as a source for archaeology. The main discussion is at Talk:Mount Ebal‎. See [5] for a discussion of the problems by Christopher Rollston who himself says "that there was some sort of Exodus, and that there was also some sort of entrance into the land of Canaan for at least some of the Proto-Israelites, and that there were at least some battles as part of that" so he can't be accused of being a "Bible denier" as the Creationist who found it (out of context) has accused others of being. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Interesting question. Is this sort of sensationalist claim, intended I think to help prove claims about who should rightfully be in control of the land of Israel, covered by ARBPIA? Personally I think these origin stories/myths are in this case covered, but I don't know if there would be consensus about them. If I have time after my cancer surgery I must try to work on Nationalism and archaeology. Doug Weller talk 11:15, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Cart ruts in Malta

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)

Do these changes make sense

See [6]? 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)

White Sands fossil footprints

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 archaeology

See [7][8] [9] [10] for its use at Pompeii. China may start large scale production of these.[11] 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)

Shouldn't we have an article on religious landscapes?

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)

Combe Hill at FAC

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 cities

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 nanotubes

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

Women in Red - Ancient women

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 sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

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

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

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?

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 First

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. [12][13]).

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. [14]) 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?

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.[15] I can find more. And here's a scientific article on crystals using that terminology.[16]. 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 redux

I'm not sure how we should handle the claims that are repeated in a number of articles[17] 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 [18] and a response to that critique here and a current list of citations.[19] Doug Weller talk 12:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Assistance

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?

It's a site called Powars II with a red ochre mine. I haven't found it in any article.[20] and a lot more here. Doug Weller talk 15:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Problems over sources and claims in Sinhala language and Tamil inscriptions

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[21]. 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 Tutankhamun

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 article

I know that all museums aren't about archaeology, but itooks both notable and very relevant.[22][23][24] 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)

Alas2022

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)

See Talk:Copper Hoard Culture#Requested move 5 July 2022

It has been proposed in this section that Copper Hoard Culture be renamed and moved to Copper hoard culture. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

An experiment is casting doubt on the history of stone tools

See [25]

“Archaeologists have long believed the knowledge of how to make stone tools — what kind of materials to use, where to find them, and how to reshape rocks to make something useful — was the collective effort of many individuals working together and learning from each other. A new set of experiments where volunteers were brought into the lab to make stone tools suggests that may not be the case. The results were published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Science Advances. Archaeologist William Snyder, one of the co-authors, tells IE "we have shifted the timeline of the beginnings of cognitive humanness forward in time by hundreds of thousands, if not even one million years." Doug Weller talk 17:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't suprise me much to be honest, the fact that other apes seem to be able to figure out some tool use shows that our distant ancestors almost certainly could to some extent too.★Trekker (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

List of oldest continuously inhabited cities

I despair about this article. See this current version claiming Matera to be ridiculously old with poor sources.[26]. I’ve had continual problems with Argos which I’ve tried to fix with the “recycling” language. I’m discussing Matera with the new editor who added it. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I did not intend to promote any misinformation on the article, it seems to me that this dispute arises mainly from what defines a "city", correct me if I am wrong. As an Italian, it is possible for me to contact the Italian Ministry of Culture for archeological information, if the sources I provided don't seem to be accurate. I have created a space on the Talk Page to discuss this. Limonizia (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Limonizia They aren't a reliable source, sorry. Doug Weller talk 06:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I do not know how many similar articles there are. I stopped following List of North American settlements by year of foundation about ten years ago after tiring of fighting the many questionable claims that landed there. - Donald Albury 22:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Albury we need to provide a definition for the list. See also Proto-city, population size is not sufficient. Doug Weller talk 07:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: I'm not sure where to start. It has been 60 years since I had to report on Mumford's The City in History for a class, and I have read little, if anything, on the subject since then. Any suggestions for sources? - Donald Albury 12:25, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

When the article lead section starts off with saying "this is generally disputed", that actually seems to indicate that either the title should be more descriptive (maybe explain that it's claims, not universal truth) or that it should all go to WP:AFD. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I had a skim through the article talk history and it seems apparent that nothing is being done to really address the article's fundamental issues... continuously :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said, providing a better definition of a city might help. But it is a continuous problem. Doug Weller talk 09:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:RSN#Is the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs a reliable source for archaeology?

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Vinkovci claimed as " continuously inhabited for over 8,200 years"

Ran into this being listed at List of oldest continuously inhabited cities as a city for that long.[27]. I removed that also from the city's article but was reverted by User:Joy with the edit summary "both sources are scholarly and both were published in reasonably reputable publications (mainstream newspaper and an old academic journal of a mainstream university), dismissing them out of hand is not actually supported by WP:EXTRAORDINARY, please present a modicum of sources that in any way contradict these instead," a response to my edits summary "remove poorly source nationalist claims about age, one is a priest with no qualifications, the other some newspaper article and says " 8,200 years, which is confirmed by archaeological finds dated at intervals of less than 50 years " - an incredible claim needing extremely strong sources".

The two sources are "Jutarnji List; (newspaper) (2014) Slavonci iz vremena piramida (Slavonians from the time of the pyramids) {“Vinkovci su najstariji trajno nastanjeni europski grad, s poviješću duljom od 8200 godina, što potvrđuju arheološki nalazi datirani u razmacima kraćim od 50 godina”, otkriva nam Aleksandar Durman, profesor na Odsjeku za arheologiju Filozofskog fakulteta u Zagrebu... Vinkovci is the oldest permanently inhabited European city, with a history of more than 8,200 years, which is confirmed by archaeological finds dated at intervals of less than 50 years ”, reveals Aleksandar Durman, professor at the Department of Archeology at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb"}"[28]

and [https://hrcak.srce.hr/118837 | language = hr | title = Prilog poznavanju povijesnog razvoja kršćanstva na vinkovačkom prostoru: kontinuitet društvenoga i urbanoga života oko gotičke crkve sv. Ilije (Meraja) u Vinkovcima | first = Krešimir | last = Bušić | journal = Croatica Christiana periodica | volume = 26 | issue = 50 | year = 2002 | issn = 0350-7823 | publisher = Catholic Faculty of Theology, University of Zagreb Croatica Christiana periodica, the source, is the journal of the Institute for Church History of the Catholic Faculty of Theology in Zagreb. Bušić may well bo a good source for church history, but not for archaeology. Doug Weller talk 11:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Re-posting from Doug's talk page: I reverted this edit but one part I missed in the edit summary (because it was getting too long already) is that directly below there's another source showing settlement at 5480 BC which is 7,000 years ago as well, and then there's further sources for later prehistoric settlements below that too. Certainly there's room to dispute Durman's extra millenium, but it should be with academic sources, as opposed to just saying it's nationalist. Prehistory doesn't have much to do with nations, but I generally get your point that it can be part of some sort of a biased narrative. Nevertheless, the article doesn't cite the local Vinkovci politicians boasting about it, but a professor from a reasonably reputable Zagreb institution that shouldn't be assumed to be part of some sort of a petty propaganda effort.

One way we can say Durman is not sufficient is if he has a conflict of interest, as he's been collaborating with local archeologists there, and has published several works specifically about it, and plans to publish more. So it can be a case of academic self-promotion. But that has to be actually clear from something other than editorial judgement, otherwise we're just arbitrarily censoring what seems to be mainstream scholarship.

(end repost)

I tried to browse a bit for more online sources about this continuous claim, but I couldn't find any discussion on that continuity claim quickly. It would be great if we could find something that at least discusses the matter, so we don't have to do any inference ourselves. Maybe there's just a generic relevant standard in archaeology that could explain this? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

To clarify the Bušić source somewhat, it comes from the introduction to a paper about the history of Christianity in the area, and states that historians were dependent on archaeologists in examining this, but does not provide specific footnotes in that introduction. Scholars named in the footnotes of the section about prehistory, where the Starčevo culture is mentioned, include half a dozen from Croatia, one of whom is also Durman; works cited span the late 1970s up to very recently. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Our article says: "The area around Vinkovci has been continually inhabited since the Neolithic period. The Sopot culture eponym site is Sopot, an archeological site near Vinkovci, which was dated to 5480–3790 BC." How near is near, I wonder. Johnbod (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's slightly upriver Bosut, within the administrative boundaries of today's city and within 5 km of its center. I can't paste a permalink, but it's verifiable if you do a lookup of "Rudina Sopot" at https://geoportal.dgu.hr/ the map portal of the Croatian State Geodesic Administration. Although, I'm not sure geographic precision is at stake here, I think it's more important whether it's likely that the continuity claim is true (or indeed relevant). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joy agreed. That's the main issue. It is really difficult for archaeologists to ascertain whether an area has always been inhabited. It would require massive and expensive excavations. And extensive, digging in just one area would be unlikely to produce the resultes. It's easy to say when habitation began. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course if you can dig through the central area of a city, you should be able to get to an area where it wasn't a city, then an area where at that point no one lived. Note that Vinkovci was built on the ruins of Cibalae/Cibalis.[29] "One of the fundamental problems involved in researching Roman Cibalae lies in the fact that it extends beneath modern-day Vinkovci." Our article actually says that Vinkovci was "made a municipium " which is apparently wrong. The paper I'm citing mentions someone calling it a village in the 18th century, calls it a town elsewhere. The lead says "The city's registered population was 28,247 in the 2021 census, the total population of the city was 31,057,[citation needed] making it the largest town of the county" which is a bit confusing to say the least. Ah, you wrote that in 2011. This IP edit[30] says it was called Cibalae, but there's no source. Until 2007 when an IP edited it[31] it said "The site of Vinkovci was inhabited since the Roman period." The IP changed that to "The site of Vinkovci was inhabited well before the Romans arrived Roman period The area of the town has been inhabited continually from the Neolithic period.". Unsourced at that time. Interesting how these major changes can take place in an article. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

And if you want to know what I used for a spade, it's a Chrome/Firefox extension. See Wikipedia:Who Wrote That?. Doug Weller talk 16:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, that bit about the population is the distinction between the total city administrative area and the specific settlement called Vinkovci that is within the area. In the case of Sopot, it's within the settlement of Vinkovci (the other settlement, Mirkovci, is located well to the east). In general, I think the contention of every source describing this continuous human inhabitation refers to the general area of today's town, because it's likely unclear what was the exact territorial extent of each of these notable iterations - the settlements of the various prehistoric cultures, the Roman settlement, the early medieval village known as Meraja, and in turn the village recorded as Winkowcze/Vinkovci a fair few centuries later that grew into the town as it is today. I agree that it's more likely than not that there were times of discontinuity of human habitation in the last 8,200 years, but I don't feel comfortable disregarding what appear to be folks who are the local scholarly authorities on the topic without a specific other source that at least discusses that from the opposing side of the argument. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

(Confirming the first part, DerTorx apparently added that in [32] --Joy [shallot] (talk))

So basically there's been settlement there more or less continuously. But clearly not as a city, right? Doug Weller talk 08:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure, the language used in the above sources is reasonably vague, for example the Jutarnji list article describes Sopot as veliko naselje (lit. large settlement) and the Starčevo culture findings located in today's city center as a višeslojno naselje (multi-layered settlement). I think it's a bit of an organic WP:SYNTH issue, the topic is formatted after today's city, so the phrasing liberally becomes applied to history. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

37,000 year old human site in Colorado

Just ran across this: Human Occupation of the Colorado Plateau ~37,000 Years Ago. Published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution. I don't know the journal, and the topic is outside my usual editing area. - Donald Albury 01:33, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Discovery of the tomb of Tutankhamun is now at FAC

Feel free to give your input here. A. Parrot (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Bat Creek inscription#Requested move 21 August 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Bat Creek inscription#Requested move 21 August 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 09:53, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Muisca raft

I'm planning on expanding Muisca raft, and I'm doing a review of the current references. I don't think they are great, and I'm probably going to be shaking things up a bit. I've left a note on the talk page with my assessment of the references. If someone from this project is interested, I'd love to have someone double check my assessments. Thanks and hope y'all have a great day. GuineaPig_C77 (𒅗𒌤) ☕ 09:36, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Popular articles

There is now a bot-updated list of WikiProject Archaeology articles sorted by page views (max 1000): Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Popular pages. – Joe (talk) 08:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

German Wikipedia artcile about Tiwanaku needs editing

The German Wikipedia article about Tiwanaku needs siginficant editing. I was looking at the German Wikipedia article about Tiwanaku for recent information and found that it has several pargraphs discussing the claim that many of its building stones are manmade blocks composed of synthetic geopolymers. This concept is incorrected presented as being main-stream, instead of fringe, science and given undue weight for such fringe science. Paul H. (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Stone balls

Can anyone think of a better title for Stone ball (disambiguation)? It's not a disambiguation page, but was evicted from its previous title of Stone ball in 2020 to make way for an archaeology article. Certes (talk) 10:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Certes: That page was moved there after after a discussion here. Apart from the over-long external links section (which should be split into the respective articles), why do you say it isn't a disambiguation page? – Joe (talk) 11:55, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

A disambiguation page would list topics which are commonly referred to by the ambiguous term "stone ball". No one visiting Rock City, Kansas says "I'm going to Stone Ball", and Kugel fountain doesn't mention stone balls. It's more of a list article or perhaps a broad-concept article. The list of artificial stone balls might sit better in Petrosphere. After removing it, along with its external links, perhaps the page could become a List of natural stone balls (even if they're not archaeology). There are plenty of options, but I don't think a dab is the best one. Certes (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Artificial stone balls as a broad-concept are already covered at stone ball, which is linked from petrosphere. If there aren't any remaining valid disambig. Stone ball (disambiguation) was kept to disambiguate artificial and natural stone balls. Obviously bad entries like Rock City, Kansas should be removed, but I think there is still plenty left to disambiguate after that? – Joe (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll just reformat it in line with MOS:DAB and leave it in place as a dab. Certes (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Anyone interested in fixing List of oldest continuously inhabited cities?

This keeps getting edited by people who don't understand the words of the title. Or use poor sources. All the edits since my last one need examining I think, and even then there are a lot of problems.[33] As an aside, the claim atsAmesbury seems feebly sourced and is copied at Oldest town in Britain. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Search for and excavation of remains of Richard III

Another editor and I are in disagreement at Talk:The Lost King#Langley as "leader" as to whether it is appropriate to say that Philippa Langley "led the search" to find Richard III's remains in 2012. Other views welcome. GrindtXX (talk) 11:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Human history#Requested move 16 October 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Jerusalem Post an rs for archaeology?

See [Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Jerusalem Post unreliable for archaeology?]. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at RSN of an archaeologist's blog

At WP:RSN#Is self-published blog source reliable on Göbekli Tepe Doug Weller talk 10:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Planned removal of archaeology material from Glyph

There is a discussion at talk:Glyph#Article scope and set index that members of this WP may wish to give a view (or better still, an improved proposal). The proposal is to remove the short section about glyphs in archaeology (really only two lines about Maya script at present) from the article, limiting it to marks for communication. Clearly incised forms of writing (like Hieroglyphs, Maya script (as a form of writing) and Ogham) will remain within its scope. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Student project developing a fake archaeology wiki

Obviously no good as a source, but loads of reliable sources.[34]. But it looks as though it might have been inactive this year. (Also I may have mentioned this before, if so, apologies.) Doug Weller talk 17:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Praise for this project from an archaeologist

Participants in this project might be pleased to read what Kansas archaeology professsor John Hoopes has to say in a recent Slate interview about Graham Hancock's Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse. He's properly critical and points out a lot of the logical flaws in the series as well as the bleached-underpants origins of Hancock's theories in white-supremacist historiography. At the end the interviewer, Rebecca Onion, asks him where readers/viewers should go if they want more and better information on the subjects the series covers:

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.

Maybe you guys should put that on the main project page ... Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Human history, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

White Sands fossil footprints - new research challenging the dating

[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363885949_Deep-water_delivery_model_of_Ruppia_seeds_to_a_nearshoreterrestrial_setting_and_its_chronological_implications_for_Late_Pleistocene_footprints_Tularosa_Basin_New_Mexico Deep‐water delivery model of Ruppia seeds to a nearshore/terrestrial setting and its chronological implications for Late Pleistocene footprints, Tularosa Basin, New Mexico]

CUP: [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/abs/critical-assessment-of-claims-that-human-footprints-in-the-lake-otero-basin-new-mexico-date-to-the-last-glacial-maximum/7EC770BAF784D0FF813711CD63C126F6 A critical assessment of claims that human footprints in the Lake Otero basin, New Mexico date to the Last Glacial Maximum]

[https://www.heritagedaily.com/2022/11/new-research-questions-dating-of-ice-age-footprints-in-north-america/145212 NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONS DATING OF ICE AGE FOOTPRINTS IN NORTH AMERICA] Doug Weller talk 13:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Using Sanskrit scholar to dispute what archaeologists say

Can we use a Sanskrit scholar to dispute what archaeologists say about a geographical identification of bridge with religious relevance?

Discussion is at Talk:Adam's_Bridge#Break. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you acquianted with the discourse on the Historicity of the Homeric epics? We are talking about epical geography; so, Classicists/Sanksritists/.. will have a say. ANyways, opinions are welcome. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Student-created pages on African archaeology

Hello all, This twitter thread lists a number of pages on sites in Africa recently created by students. The pages are good, but most could do with adding more links to them and usual neatening up, if anyone fancies getting involved? Lajmmoore (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I was looking for more about the course to see what articles might still be in Draft, but I can't find it at Wiki Education. The only courses listed there in African Archaeology since 2015 have been taught by Kate Grillo. - Donald Albury 00:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the guy. He seems to be teaching at Ghent University, and though his thread mentions Wiki Education a lot, I think they can only set up US courses on their system. But there's no reason they can't have a central page somewhere listing articles. Why not approach him? Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Pedra Furada new research suggests early tools made by Capuchin monkeys

See [35]. Doug Weller talk 19:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What is prehistory?

There's a discussion at Talk:Timeline of prehistory#If we're not going to call this page Timeline of human prehistory which has come up because the article says "This timeline of prehistory covers the time from the appearance of Homo sapiens 315,000 years ago" while Prehistory says "Prehistory, also known as pre-literary history, is the period of human history between the use of the first stone tools by hominins c. 3.3 million years ago and the beginning of recorded history with the invention of writing systems."

These two articles should surely have the same definition. But I'm not sure what it should be. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Archaeology on Wikidata

I recently learned that there is also a Wikidata:WikiProject Archaeology on Wikidata, which might be of interest. – Joe (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for undeletion/Mount Ebal curse tablet

A peer-reviewed article has been published about the mount ebal curse tablet. The page could be considered for undeletion.

https://heritagesciencejournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40494-023-00920-9 https://www.jns.org/scholars-expound-on-mount-ebal-curse-tablet-with-oldest-hebrew-text/ Patrick.N.L (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Assistance required to end deadlock in merger proposal discussion

I've been editing the articles relating to the Scythians over the course of several months, and since most editors tend to favour splitting pages after they reach a certain size, I split two further pages, Iškuza and Scythia, covering the phases of Scythian history respectively in West Asia and in Europe, out of the main page covering the Scythians.

However, trying to split it has resulted into three articles, with both Iškuza and Scythia requiring large amounts of material regarding the role of the prior and subsequent histories of the Scythians in the creation and destruction of those states copied from each other and from the Scythians page to exist since they are both about immediately preceding/succeeding states created by the same continuous population group. And because Iškuza and Scythia both cover immediately preceding/succeeding but also partially overlapping parts of the history of the Scythians, multiple sections and sub-sections of each page covering the culture, population, external relations, etc of these states also had to be copied from the Scythians page (e.g. the "Background" sub-section and "Society" section in Scythia, and the "Origins," "Impact," and "Legacy" sections of Iškuza). Moreover, the Scythia page as it exists now also functions as a WP:Semi-duplicate, given that most of the information relating to this polity also is also the same basic information that is required on the Scythians page.

Given this resulting situation, I have started a merger proposal to resolve this issue, per WP:MERGEREASON: Overlap, Context, not because I support a merger for the sake of merging itself, which I do not favour, but because Iškuza and Scythia require too much context and the information on these pages is too intertwined with each other.

The problem is that, despite months having passed, the discussion for the merger proposal is still at a deadlock, with three users opposed to the merger, and three users (including myself) in favour of it. In this difficult situation, I have been advised to bring this issue to the various WikiProjects which are relevant to Scythians as a way to possibly resolve the deadlock, and all good faith assistance to reach a consensus would be much welcome. Antiquistik (talk) 18:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I plan to create a category about racism related to archaeolgy, should it be "Racism in archaeology" or "Archaeology and racism"

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

My initial thinking is that 'archaeology and racism' is the broader of the two, so I'd go for that as it could include racist uses of archaeology which deviate from how the archaeologists envisaged. I guess it depends on what kind of scope you had in mind. Do you have particular articles you'd expect to appear in the category? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell Moundbuilders, Great Zimbabwe, Flinders , Pseudoarchaeology, Ancient Apocalypse to name a few. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Assistance requested for Semi-Protected Edit request on Ötzi

A unregistered user is arguing that the information about Ötzi's axe being cold-forged is out-of-date. It is unclear to me whether the source they cite is sufficient to support the conclusion that Ötzi's axe was definitively not cold-forged. Hoping someone with expertise in the area can review and update the article as necessary. See Talk:Ötzi#Was the axe cold forged?. Will crosspost on Wikiproject Anthropology GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Archaeology articles needing attention

As new participant, I have to say I was surprised to find that only 31 archaeology related articles were listed as needing attention. My personal experience of articles relating to Roman archaeology and to specific Roman and RB sites in Britain, is that nearly all of them require attention. From many conversations with colleagues over the years, I'm not on my own in thinking this. I suspect we all know why this problem occurs, but my question is how can best ensure accessible and understandable content that is at the same time sufficiently detailed, accurate, and up to date? I've started making edits to some of the worst articles I'm aware of, but on my own this will take years, if not decades!

I would be interested to know the thoughts of others. Viator ab Eboraciensis (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The 31 pages in Category:Archaeology articles needing attention are just scratching the surface. There's a list of articles with all sorts of issues that need fixing, from copy editing to input from experts. It's a long list, and some of them take a considerable time to fix. I'd recommend prioritising working on pages you're interested in. Other project members may have brighter ideas! Richard Nevell (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the list - that seems more realistic. Working on what I'm interested in, and have knowledge of, makes much sense. So I chose one to start with, Derventio Brigantum, which has two specific issues, and resolving them probably involves changing the title. First, Derventio Brigantum is a modern construction and not in common usage- we have no record of the second element 'Brigantum' being used in the Roman period, and therefore for me should not be used as the title of an article. More important, however, is that the article is about the Roman site at Malton, a very outdated view, since current thinking is that Derventio is Stamford Bridge, and Malton is Delgovicia, based on a logical interpretation of a part of the Antonine Itineraries by John Creighton. The article on Stamford Bridge quite rightly states that it was Derventio, but this of course contradicts the two articles for Roman and modern Malton. The simple solution would seem to me be to change the title from Derventio Brigantum to Roman Malton or Malton (Roman) , since Delgovicia already has its own article, which is just as out of date, but I don't know if that would be considered acceptable. All advice welcome, since this one is tying me in knots! Viator ab Eboraciensis (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Most wp articles "need attention", but tagging them is unsightly and very unlikely to produce results, so most people don't bother doing it. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

& just to add @Viator ab Eboraciensis - welcome! I generally work on biographies of women archaeologists, but feel free to reach out with any questions! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Viator ab Eboraciensis I too am really please to hear this. It's an old interest of mine but I've been so busy on other things I never was able to tackle it properly. Nice to hear someone is going to be doing this. Doug Weller talk 17:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Archaeology and racism is now live

I still have a lot of plans for topics to be covered. It needs categories, etc and links to other articles, some of which I'll do tomorrow. I haven't even added the Wikiproject but no time, I have to cook dinner! Doug Weller talk 17:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

An editor added the project. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I also wish to thank those that helped me. User:Donald Albury, User:A. Parrot and User:Valjean gave me valuable advice on the talk page, User:Hoopes did also off-wiki and added some citations, and User:Nishidani in particular who also gave me valuable advice and some content editing which enabled me to move it to article space. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Topper site article is embarrassing

Hardly any sources, little discussion. I don’t know enough to edit it, Doug Weller talk 20:33, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

And one source is not about what it is cited to for (ownership of the site), and another is a group blog, but none of the content that is sourced to those two is necessary to the article. In the "Pre-Clovis dispute" section, the Smallwood article cited at the end does not mention anything about pre-Clovis. I have not been able to look at the Goodyear article cited in that section, as it is not available for my level of Jstor account. There seem to be some older articles about pre-Clovis at the Topper site in Google Scholar. I'll list any I can access on the article's talk page. Donald Albury 23:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Over the years, I have collected about couple of dozen papers, book chapters, and articles about the Topper Site including review papers from both sides of the age controversy. If it would help, I can work on this article and share some PDFs. In the past, I have worked as an archaeological geologist which would be helpful. Paul H. (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks both. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

That would be great. I am limited to what I can find on-line. I have listed what I've found on the talk page, although I'm not sure yet how much access I have to all of those items. I did a little editing last night, but it looks like you have access to much wider range of sources than I do. Donald Albury 13:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you try the Wikipedia library? Or WP:Resource request? Doug Weller talk 10:37, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I did access Waters et al. through the Wikipedia library. I haven't tried the library for the Goodyear article, but I have previously found that if my Jstor subscription doesn't give me access to an article, neither does the library. Perhaps User:Paul H. has access to it. Donald Albury 13:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

I have a PDF copy of Goodyear. A link for email contact can be found on my user page. Paul H. (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Open Context web site

@OCEric: has added a link to the Open Context web page in several articles related to archaeology. While I find availability of the information on the site exciting, I am concerned that this is not a reliable source, as this page states that anyone can publish their research on the site. I would like to discuss how and when we can use the site in articles about archaeological sites. Donald Albury 01:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Probably it is all primary source information. The username suggests a COI. Handle with great care, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is me https://opencontext.org/about/people

Open Context is referenced by the NSF (https://beta.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/archaeology-archaeometry-0), and by the US State Department (Resources | Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (state.gov))

"Anyone" can publish with us, but all data are subject to editorial review and acceptance, and we have an editorial board (https://opencontext.org/about/people), and yes, we provide primary source information for archaeology.

The research data and media published by Open Context is open data, so we have a mission aligned with the Wikipedia mission. If providing links to primary source material relevant to the various articles I edited is a conflict of interest, please let me know. I don't want to spam the Wikipedia. Your advice will be most welcome about better ways to contribute to archaeology on the Wikipedia. OCEric (talk) 03:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

PS. I just updated my Wikipedia user profile to give you some background about me OCEric (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with what Eric says above; Open Context is a reliable but primary source in most instances. @OCEric: You have a conflict of interest, but as long as you follow the guidance at WP:LINKSPAM and WP:SELFCITE (basically: only add links or citations to Open Context when they genuinely improve the article), I think you're good. Welcome to Wikipedia! – Joe (talk) 07:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

OK. I think, at a minimum, Open Context entries may help me find sources I was not previously aware of for a given site. A nice feature is that I can search using site numbers for sites in the US, which sometimes are the only identity given for a site mentioned in a source. Donald Albury 13:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please keep in touch if you have a question about use of Open Context. If you're interested in finding sources to published literature (and some government records, and some museum collections), we have records of more than 15K US sites (mostly with trinomials) that link to journal publications etc: https://opencontext.org/query/?proj=52-digital-index-of-north-american-archaeology-dinaa&prop=dc-terms-is-referenced-by&geodeep=9#tab=0/aq=dc-terms-is-referenced-by/ovgrd=oc/zm=4/lat=37.72/lng=-96.99/ov=sqr OCEric (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Help with article

See also: Draft:Updown Girl

A couple of months ago I submitted an article on the 'Updown Girl', a young Anglo-Saxon girl whose remains were found in a 7th c graveyard near Updown Farm in Kent. She was found in the 1980s but it's only recently that DNA analysis showed she was of partly-African descent - cue stories in the press. The article was rejected on grounds of notability though. Could someone help improve it? Do I just need better sources? RLamb (talk) 10:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the draft?★Trekker (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

As far as sources, I found:

DNA from skeletons ‘challenges perceptions and understanding of ancient England,. Cotswold Journal, October 22, 2022

Updown girl: DNA research shows ancient Britain was more diverse than we imagined. The Conversations, November 4, 2023

Gretzinger, J., Sayer, D., Justeau, P., Altena, E., Pala, M., Dulias, K., Edwards, C.J., Jodoin, S., Lacher, L., Sabin, S. and Vågene, Å.J., 2022. The Anglo-Saxon migration and the formation of the early English gene pool. Nature, 610(7930), pp.112-119. (open access paper - PDF)

Secondary sources that are needed to establish notability for a Wikipedia article might be "Unappreciated Subcontinental Admixture in Europeans and European Americans: Implications for Genetic Epidemiology Studies". and "Ancient genomic research - From broad strokes to nuanced reconstructions of the past." Paul H. (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This was reported in Current Archaeology issue 392, p39. in the article by Duncan Sayer, Dominic Powlesland, and Allison Stewart. This is not a scholarly journal, but I have always found it to be accurate.

Updown, near Eastry in Kent - Grave 47 -remains of a young girl aged 10-11 years old. ‘She was buried in fairly typical style with a finely made decorated pot, as well as a knife, spoon and bone comb placed at her waist on the left-hand side. Her DNA…. 67% Continental Northern European (CNE)…33% West African ancestry, most closely related to present-day Esan and Yoruba populations…. Her burial took place around the early 7th century, placing her African ancestor (probably on her father’s side, as her mitochondrial haplogroup, which reflects the maternal line, is typical of a Northern European ancestry) in the first half of the 6th century – perhaps her grandfather?’

There is also a brief mention on the website of the University of Central Lancashire [36] which I used as a reference when I added this to Black British people. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The cemetery itself is notable as it is protected as a scheduled monument. I expect that Updown Girl should be notable as well, but would having an article on the cemetery put the draft on the individual burial at risk?

I've been reading up on Sonia Chadwick Hawkes recently and could create a stub on Updown cemetery if it would help. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Just as an update, we now have an article on Updown early medieval cemetery and the Draft:Updown Girl has been fleshed out. It could probably be published as it is, but I would delay a little while as I understand there are plans to publish more research on Updown Girl later this year and I'd be inclined to incorporate that once it's available and then take it to DYK.

More could be added on the cemetery's article, including clarifying the relationship to other nearby burial sites, but I think it largely stands on its own. The article on Updown Girl is distinct enough to be a standalone page, and goes into more detail than the article on the cemetery could accommodate. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Evidence of absence needs a section on archaeology

This is about the old claim that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In archaeology there are many times when that's wrong. These articles discuss the issue. [37][38] Anyone have time to add a section to the article? At the moment I am concentrating on pseudoarchaeology. I'm getting overwhelmed with sources. Love the Wikipedia Library! Doug Weller talk 08:12, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Giant skeletons (United States)

Fringe nonsense. Doug Weller talk 18:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Nazario Collection

I've raised this article at WP:FTN#Nazario Collection. I think it relies on the media far too much, among other issues. Doug Weller talk 14:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Now at WP:RSN#Nazario Collection and use of YouTube (and the media). It's largely based (85 citations) on a conference speech 7 years ago, the rest mainly on the media. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Article creator arguing that it's ok to use the media for archaeology because our guidelines don't discuss use of the media. Shouldn't they? Doug Weller talk 07:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Possible fringe material about Tiwanaku added its article bibliography

An IP editor keeps adding a book that the best that I can tell is a fringe book about Tiwanaku and Atlantis to the bibliography section of the Tiwanaku article. The book is "Cerqueiro, Daniel: Tiwanacu una nueva revelación. Ed. Pequeña Venecia. Buenos Aires (1997). ISBN 987-9239-02-4." The first time it happened at June 10, 2023, 12:37 and the second time June 13, 2023, 13:52. At best, the book does not add anything to the dicussion about Tiwanaku. At worst, book is fringe material about Tiwanaku and Atlantis. Could someone look into this book and act accordingly. Paul H. (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Altiburus

An article which may be of interest to members of this project—Altiburus—has been proposed for merging with Althiburos. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Keszthely culture

This article has been completely rewritten in a way that flatly contradicts earlier versions. More eyes would be welcome. Srnec (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Credibility bot

As this is a highly active WikiProject, I would like to introduce you to Credibility bot. This is a bot that makes it easier to track source usage across articles through automated reports and alerts. We piloted this approach at Wikipedia:Vaccine safety and we want to offer it to any subject area or domain. We need your support to demonstrate demand for this toolkit. If you have a desire for this functionality, or would like to leave other feedback, please endorse the tool or comment at WP:CREDBOT. Thanks! Harej (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Etruscan Language

DEcipherment of the Etruscan language. Velthuru (talk) 20:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Peopling of the Americas needs eyes

A lot of good faith edits from a new editor, I think overuse of media. Doug Weller talk 06:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Tell es-Sultan

Tell es-Sultan is in the news because it has been listed as a UNESCO World Heritage Site. There is some IP-related vandalism to keep an eye on, but it also occurs to me that the article is woefully incomplete for such an important site. – Joe (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Isis shipwreck

Hello, I was amazed that the article about the wreck of the Roman ship Isis had little to no details about the discovery of the wreck in 1989. I've added a brief blurb, but it could really use updating , see here: [39] Oaktree b (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Circumpolar Stone Age

It's weird that Circumpolar Stone Age is a red-link, not even going to a section somewhere. I'm not sure this term is used much any longer, but Googling for it shows that it was in common use in pretty prominent source materials well into the mid-20th century. Looking around, there seems to have been a particular theory behind this which has been somewhat cast aside, but not entirely. Here's the abstract of a paper from 2010 (available in full text here: [40], from an entire book on the subject, Circumpolar Reappraisal: The Legacy of Gutorm Gjessing (1906-1979)): "In 1944 Gutorm Gjessing proposed the first comprehensive study of circumpolar Arctic cultures that used broad anthropological methods—ethnography, archaeology, and geography—in an attempt to construct a unified theory for Arctic cultures and prehistory. Although flawed as an over-arching theory, his landmark 'Circumpolar Stone Age' still challenges us to search for underlying themes and trends in Arctic anthropology. Recent advances in environmental studies, anthropological theory, new data from the Eurasian Arctic, and realization that regional development and southern interactions played larger roles than circumpolar contacts have replaced the earlier emphasis on migration and diffusion as processes that governed Arctic cultural studies in the mid-20th century. Nevertheless, the widespread distribution of shamanism, reindeer herding, and sea mammal hunting, and similarities in technology, social life, religion and folklore remind us that Arctic cultural development has a global quality perceived first by Bogoras and Gjessing that continues to distinguish it as a distinct sub-field ofanthropology." Bogoras surely refers to Vladimir Bogoraz AKA Waldamar Bogoras, a Russian anthropologist known for studies of the Chukchi people in Siberia.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hood 1995 also describes it as a significant historical theory:

One of the earlier systematic attempts to account for these similarities was the Norwegian archaeologist Guttorm Gjessing's (1944) notion of a Circumpolar Stone Age [...] Progress in regional archaeology eventually revealed the inadequacies of Gjessing's diffusionist model, but the core idea of relating cultural similarities to common adaptive needs was taken up by subsequent generations of researchers.

Sounds like it's worth an article. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Eric H. Cline

Can anyone help with this edit? [41]. I guess we need sourcing for "He is perhaps best known for his work on the Late Bronze Age Collapse which took place after 1200 BC". Certainly correct, but..I don't know about the other changes. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RSN#Seemingly reliable Wiley publication promoting archaeological nonsense concerning Gunung Padang

Here is what I posted there.

Gunung Padang is a fairly recent megalithic site. However, geologist Danny Hilman Natawidjaja author of "Plato Never Lied: Atlantis Is In Indonesia" has claimed it to be much older and to be a buried pyramid. This is nonsense but he along with a number of other authors have had recent work published in a Wiley peer reviewed journal an article backing that claim.Geo-archaeological prospecting of Gunung Padang buried prehistoric pyramid in West Java, Indonesia concluding that "The oldest construction, Unit 4, likely originated as a natural lava hill before being sculpted and then architecturally enveloped during the last glacial period between 25 000 and 14 000 BCE" and buried 9,000 years ago. See also [42] which is not an RS itself but has good background material and sources. I expect attempts to add this to the article Doug Weller talk 10:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Jason Colavito notes that "Danny Hilman Natawidjaja, the Indonesian government-affiliated geologist who claims Gunung Padang in Indonesia is a prehistoric pyramid complex that coincidentally makes Indonesia the oldest civilization on Earth, published a new paper repeating the claim, to the delight of Graham Hancock, who claims it is “vindication” of his speculations. However, Natawidjaja only provided radiocarbon dates for organic material buried within the hill of Gunung Padang without providing evidence of human occupation at the time or of human deposition of the organic material." Doug Weller talk 08:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think Wiley and the like publish as much as they can get away with these days. That's where the money is. – Joe (talk) 09:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Shinichi Fujimura

Is the creator of the Japanese Paleolithic hoax. His blp described him simply as an archaeologist in the lead although he is/was an amateur as the hoax article says. I've added amateur but the infobox still calls him an archaeologist and I don't know what to change that to as it looks as though that's how he earned his money. I also see that the hoax article has a lot of cn tags. I'm far behind in doing things I've told others I will do so I'm not able to fix those at the moment, sorry. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Borobudur Featured article review

User:SandyGeorgia has nominated Borobudur for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Requested merge discussion input needed

There is a split discussion and debate following a long standing merge proposal and a reversal of the subsequent merge. Additional input is required to put this issue to bed. Please comment on the following: Merge Siega Verde to Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley (The target would be Prehistoric Rock Art Sites in the Côa Valley and Siega Verde). Discussion is >>>HERE<<<. Request was dated March 2023. Thanks to all who can participate. GenQuest ^"scribble" 04:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Western Wall

Western Wall 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. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Archaeology by country

I've created a list of "archaeology of..." articles at archaeology by country – there's far too much red! – Joe (talk) 10:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

this is so cool @Joe Roe - is there a good "Archaeology of ..." in your opinion to model red ones on? Lajmmoore (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Good question... Archaeology of the Philippines maybe? But it's far from complete. Honestly, I've sat down to try and write them before and drawn a blank. It's hard to know where to start with these big topics. They also combine at least two distinct topics: the archaeology of the country (overview by period, notable sites and discoveries) and archaeology in it (history of research, organisations and legislative frameworks, notable archaeologists).

See also a related set of move requests: Talk:Pre-Columbian Belize#Requested move 3 January 2024. – Joe (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I wish I had more knowledge of my own country's archeology so I could write an article on it.★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Possible archeological articles

I am a student editor and created a page that I believe should have archeological significance. I am also adding to a page that additionally has some archeological significance. I am still trying to improve the Mater Matuta page and would appreciate feedback if you have interest on the talk page. The other page is Swaddled infant votive Thanks for any thoughts you can provide, WikiTikiTavi63 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Hillfort or "hill fort"? Wikipedia search on the two spellings brings up different articles

Inspired by digging for Britain I'm trying to write more about Mither Tap. I thought about creating a category for Pictish hillforts - but should it be Picitish hill forts? Searching under both spellings seems to bring up separate articles, which is a correct search but not good. [43] [44]. Is this a real problem that needs fixing? Doug Weller talk 14:41, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

??? Hill fort has redirected to Hillfort since 2016. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know one isn't wrong as such, but looking over the bibliographies of a couple of recently published articles hillfort is much more common, eg 1 and eg 2. One word is also preferred by the Hillforts Studies Group and the Atlas of Hillforts (an AHRC funded project centralising information on hillforts in Britain and Ireland). Richard Nevell (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell. Thanks. What do you think about having an RFC on this? I think we need consistency if only because search ent work as it should if we don’t have consistency. Doug Weller talk 20:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm in favour of consistency. Would an RfC be held here or another venue? Richard Nevell (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Here I believe. I don’t think we have an MOS or article guidelines to add it to, which is a shame.

@Joe Roe: what do you think? Doug Weller talk 21:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

• I don't believe we should impose a single spelling when the relevant RS don't seem to. But I too think "hillfort" is now dominant. It also has the advantage of being only(?) used for prehistoric or early Europe, while "hill fort" means rather different structures in the context of say Early Modern South Asia. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod The search problem doesn't bother you? We also have separate categories for hillforts and hill forts. Doug Weller talk 07:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not all that much - such things are common and inevitable. But if you want to go round taking out all the spaces, please go ahead, but please add links, which many, like Mither Tap, currently lack. As for the categories (I wish you would provide links!), I can find Category:Hill forts, but where is Category:Hillforts? Ideally something should be done to put eg Maiden castle and Bukit Malawati in different categories. Many of the international examples at Hillfort seem from the photos to be on very flat landscapes, btw; I don't know how inclusive we should be there. Johnbod (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod Sorry about the lack of links, ironically there are a number of "Maiden Castles" Mither Tap is a redirect, what link do you want. There is no category Hillforts, but there are categories such as Category:Hillforts in Monmouthshire.. Maiden Castle, Cheshire is interesting. All the citations say "hillfort', not "hill fort", and the navbar is "Iron Age hillforts in England" includes entries with both hillfort and hill fort. Geographical distinction may work although I'm still not sure about the main category. Bukit Malawati is not a hillfort or even a hill fort, that needs to be changed. visitselangor.com. isn't a reliable source, reliable sources just mention a fort. Doug Weller talk 16:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Now you've really confused me, but whatever. Obviously I want a link to hillfort wherever your link ends up, which has the unlinked term in the text. Bukit Malawati most certainly is a hill fort; that is the standard term for the hundreds or thousand of forts on hill tops across Asia, and you can't just wave in an imperialistic way & say they've got their terms wrong (it was us who gave them the term in the first place). It is ones in Europe where hills seem noticeably absent. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod I'm disappointed at your lack of good faith and what could be construed as a personal attack., I would never have expected that of you. I would not change the description of Bukit Malawati if it had been sourced, and I looked for sources under both spellings of Malawaati. Searching again all I can find is mentions of both forts, described as forts or fortresses, except for [45] which only mentions one fort and calls it a hillfort. I don't think that's enough if all the other sources I found at GBooks and GScholar don't user the term. Are you saying we should use it anyway as ithey were forts on a hill?

  I also note that Hillfort says that "A hillfort is a type of earthwork used as a fortified refuge or defended settlement, located to exploit a rise in elevation for defensive advantage. They are typically European and of the Bronze Age or Iron Age. Some were used in the post-Roman period. The fortification usually follows the contours of a hill and consists of one or more lines of earthworks, with stockades or defensive walls, and external ditches. If enemies were approaching, the civilians would spot them from a mile away." The forts at Bukit Malawati don't seem to have been earthworks.

  I see now I've gone down a rabbit hole. If that's the definition, than Mithen Tap and Tap o' Noth fail that as they are not earthworks. Tap o' Noth even has vitrified walls, ie, it's a Vitrified fort. These are usually found on hills but that's not a surprise, a lot of castles have been built on hills as they make good defensive positions.

  See also Hillforts in Britain which says that "Various archaeologists operating in Britain have criticised the use of the term "hillfort" both because of its perceived connection to fortifications and warfare and because not all such sites were actually located on hills". Doug Weller talk 08:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I looked at Hillfort again and it says "Bronze Age and Iron Age hillforts are widely found in Ireland. They are large circular structures between 1 and 40 acres (most commonly 5–10 acres) in size, enclosed by a stone wall or earthen rampart or both." So despite the lead, not necessarily earthworks. Doug Weller talk 17:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I need to stop reading related Wikipedia articles. I was doing a Google search on definitions of hillforts and found this. Hillforts in Britain says "The spellings "hill fort", "hill-fort" and "hillfort" are all used in the archaeological literature. The Monument Type Thesaurus published by the Forum on Information Standards in Heritage lists hillfort as the preferred term. They all refer to an elevated site with one or more ramparts made of earth, stone and/or wood, with an external ditch. Many small early hillforts were abandoned, with the larger and greater ones being redeveloped at a later date. Some hillforts contain houses.

  Similar but smaller and less defendable earthworks are found on the sides of hills. These are known as hill-slope enclosures and may have been animal pens." Doug Weller talk 17:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I think we all knew hillfort is a vague term, even if not quite as vague as a read of the lower reaches of hillfort would suggest. You still seem to be telling Asia they aren't allowed to use the term. I suggest you stop doing this, or write to Mr Modi or UNESCO, asking them to rename the Hill Forts of Rajasthan World Heritage Site. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod this isn’t helping at all. Again, you should know better. You could contribute to this discussion, you’re intelligent. I never said that, but I would like to know how you would define a hill fortand if you think it doesn’t matter if sources, in this specific case, don’t use the term. Doug Weller talk 19:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  (ec) No, I agree this isn't helping at all. Not my fault I think! Any fort (broadly defined) on a hill (broadly defined) is likely to be called a hill fort in several parts of the world. Since Bukit Malawati (picked at random from the category) seems clearly to be a fort, and on a hill, and no doubt there are RS saying so and using the term somewhere. So UNESCO isn't good enough for you? I don't really know what you are arguing about, except you always seem to feel the need. I introduced Asia as a reason to prefer "hillfort", as I don't think that form is often seen in Asia. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Actually that’s a good reason to use hillfort. I think we should concentrate on the British Isles, probably Western Europe as well because of cultural/ethnic similarities. I’ve been doing some research into the issue of construction and definitions. Doug Weller talk 21:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, TWICE, but what you for some reason started trying to argue with. Hillfort does indeed "concentrate on the British Isles", and perhaps the forts in marshes in Northern Europe should be shipped out somewhere. The article might benefit from a more local rename. I'd avoid spending too much time trying to find tight definitions - I doubt they can be sustained. Johnbod (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

  I hate to butt in, but that's not at all what Doug is saying; he's only addressed the use of the term "hill fort" on the specific article Bukit Malawati, not the entire category of Asian hill forts. To call his comments "imperialistic" and misconstrue what he's saying is pretty unfair. sawyer * he/they * talk 19:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  Not my interpretation of what he's saying. Perhaps he should clarify his views on Hill Forts of Rajasthan. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Johnbod you’re misinterpreting me. I was only referring to one specific site. If you aren’t going to engage in the issue of what is a hillfort I don’t see any point in discussing this further with you. Sources do matter, you can’t just say that there must be one out there and we need to look at the majority of sources. Doug Weller talk 20:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

  I repeat, you should clarify your views on Hill Forts of Rajasthan. Johnbod (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

• I think consistency across categories and trunk articles (lists of hillforts etc.) would be nice, at least, and "hillforts" seems the obvious choice. – Joe (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah I'm inclined to agree here, particularly in the case of categories & lists. While 100% consistency isn't super practical, I think it's worth trying to achieve consistency at least for navigational purposes. sawyer * he/they * talk 16:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I agree. It makes sense to at least attempt to be consistent.RegentsPark (comment) 20:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional opinions requested on Neolithic long house

I'm having a bit of a strange dispute over weasel wording and revert warring on the Neolithic long house, and would appreciate some neutral input here: Talk:Neolithic long house. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 06:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Upvoting British Archaeological Reports at Wikipedia Library

Hello folks, whether you use the Wikipedia Library or not, up voting A suggestion to partner with British Archaeological Reports could be really useful for editors like me who do use them. Please take a look, sign in, scroll down and upvote here Lajmmoore (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Done and thanks for signposting the suggestions list. Love this! Zakhx150 (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I've upvoted it too. They also have an extensive international series so it's useful beyond a UK context. I think the request is for the British series so it might be worth either having another request or bundling the two together. Richard Nevell (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

"Groups"

This Category:Archaeological artefact groups, does it make sense? Is "groups" a proper description of these articles? What inclusion criteria would apply? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I see most of the articles in that category are about "wares", which is a restricted set of artefacts. There a number of terms used to name collections of artefacts that appear to have a common source: "traditon" (i.e., Cochise tradition), "culture" (i.e., Poverty Point culture), and "complex" (i.e., Old Copper complex) are used in the titles of a number of Wikipedia articles, "period" (i.e., Mount Taylor period), "pattern" (i.e., Post Pattern), "horizon" (i.e., Millingstone Horizon), and "focus" (i.e., Goodall focus) are less frequent. Do you have a suggestion for a better term? "Assemblages" is used in the literature for sets of artefacts collected from a single site, so that doesn't cover what are usually called "traditions" or "cultures". Maybe someone else knows of a better term. Donald Albury 16:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I was asked at my talk, & replied: :Not much [sense] - I mean I can see the idea, but.... There is also Category:Archaeological artefact types - arrow, adze & so on. That's much better populated; the "groups" should either have about x10 the members, or probably nothing. I must confess I find it irritating that our archaeological editors tend to only categorize their stuff in archaeology trees, and not in the wider categories for the type of thing. Also I'm not aware that "group" has a particular meaning in A - or one that would be right for these. Pottery wares are more a "type", I'd say, with "group" being a much small number of distinctive finds. None of the articles in the cat use "group" I think, while several use "type" and/or "style". Are you asking the wikiproject? Some sensible people there. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC) copied Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Birka female Viking warrior

I have been working on the article on the Birka female Viking warrior, and I am trying to put more information from academic sources instead of newspapers. I could use the help of someone with more knowledge of archaeology and DNA analysis. I am not sure how to include the information about the population comparison from the study. It seems to be saying that she was northern European, but the jargon is not clear to me. I am also unsure of the title. It seems to have a NPOV problem, as the identification of her as a warrior is controversial. How are similar articles usually named? Tinynanorobots (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I am currently an Archeology Major, and your article was a great read. The details you put into talking about what she was buried with really dipicts the type of warrior she was. [[User:Krobich2 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Krobich2|Krobich2]] (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Krobich2 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move

Please note the RM for this article: Talk:Birka_female_Viking_warrior#Requested_move_25_November_2023. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed redraft of an article on a medieval castle

Hi folks, I've drafted an article where I have a conflict of interest to manage. The situation is outlined at Talk:Lowther Castle Stead, explaining the COI, and there's a link to my sandbox where I prepared the daft. The current article is just a handful of sentences long. I'd welcome any feedback on the article to check it for neutrality and tone. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Begazy-Dandybai culture and Talish-Mughan culture

It seems to me that these titles should use endash rather than hyphen as the two elements are independent and equal, per WP:ENDASH. Any thoughts? Colonies Chris (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and made the changes. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Precolumbian archaeologists

A new IP editor has been adding this category to various articles, such as Toribio Mejía Xesspe. One problem is that the category doesn't exist; the other is, it doesn't really fit with the present scheme of archaeologist categories, which seem to be done more by country or region. All of the articles they are tagging are South American; to me, "Precolumbian" could refer to anywhere in the Americas. It isn't a terrible idea to have a category for South America in "Category:Archaeologists by region of study", or even perhaps to divide it into pre- and post-Columbian categories. Do people have suggestions about how to rationalize the categories? Or should we just delete their changes, or create the new category and live with the hodgepodge? Brianyoumans (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The wide, spreading tree of Category:Archaeologists has many mighty limbs, including "by region of study" and "by period of study", so I don't see why we shouldn't have one (perhaps we do somewhere). We have 35 in Category:Phoenician-punic archaeologists. We have 91 in Category:Mesoamerican archaeologists, and cats for "Californian" and "of Baja California". Johnbod (talk) 23:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed there's Category:Archaeologists by period of study, where a new Category:Precolumbian archaeologists would fit perfectly. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Archaeology of the U.S. and by U.S. state

I noticed there is a severe lack of standalone archaeology articles for each U.S. state/territory (and not one for the U.S. as a whole). Shouldn't this be remedied—especially for states with heavy on the archaeological study? The only standalone article I could find was Archaeology of Iowa, and the only list-class is List of archaeological sites in Tennessee. Most Archaeology of X pages redirect to that state's history or prehistory article. None make any mention of historiography. There's a golden opportunity here for content creation and expansion if anyone is interested; I am going to do ones for South Dakota, and perhaps as a project we can consider making a breakout article at Archaeology of the United States (which currently redirects to Archaeology of the Americas). – TCMemoire 16:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC).

@TCMemoire: See also archaeology by country – there's red all over the place. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: Good point, and many of those redirect to history articles or even categories... Archaeology (and the historiography of it) seems to truly be a massive hole in the Wiki's coverage as a whole. This would be a huge undertaking but an important one. Maybe we could make this a focus of the WikiProject, and perhaps interest other folks from other projects to help out? Something like an edit-a-thon? – TCMemoire 20:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Imo modern political boundaries are a poor way of dividing up archaeology, especially sub-national ones. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I am aware of a couple or so sources covering archaeology in Florida, and their coverage of topics that are not confined to Florida is truncated at the state line. I think it would be more useful to write about "schools" of archaeology. Sometimes, national boundaries do separate approaches to archaeology, but I think it would be rare to find such differences between states in the US. Donald Albury 23:52, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

(ec)Yes; I'll allow exceptions like "A of Hawaii" or Alaska, but generally achie cultures span several states, and a section in "History of Foo" is probably best. User:Wetman used to talk scornfully of Dinosaurs of Minnesota - whether this actually ever existed I don't know. I'd say the same for flora and fauna articles. Johnbod (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the US states are not a priority. But the situation there is a bit special, with them being recent creations of a colonial power. In Europe and West Asia, dividing the archaeological record along national lines is the rule rather than the exception. – Joe (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It is? Italy, Turkey & maybe Spain, but not Ireland, German-speaking countries, the Low countries or Scandinavia. Nearly all modern countries except Egypt are "recent creations" really. Obviously much detailed records of sites etc are done nationally, but the kind of overviews our articles should be involve trans-national cultures. Johnbod (talk) 09:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what type of coverage you're talking about. If you want to describe how e.g. the Ertebølle culture gave way to Funnelbeaker, then I agree that'd be better off in something like Prehistoric Scandinavia. If you want to talk about the history of the discipline, key figures, institutions and legal frameworks, sites of particular heritage value, etc., then I think you'd have a much easier time separating the archaeology of Denmark from the archaeology of Sweden. Also in West Asia: Ancient Levant, but archaeology of Jordan and archaeology of Syria, and so on. Don't know about further afield. – Joe (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

That sort of article should be "A in Foo" rather than "A of Foo", imo, the latter covering the stuff found and the former the people finding it. Johnbod (talk) 09:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but I took a look through all the existing archaeology and prehistory of/in articles recently and didn't find a single one that consistently made that distinction. Since we have so few, I figure it makes sense to start building coverage in one article (archaeology of seems the most common) and then split if needed later. – Joe (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Transgender archaeology

I started a page for this research area, since its distinct from queer archaeology and more specific than gender archaeology Lajmmoore (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I am curious what that topic would cover. I know there are occasional findings that do not fit the traditional division of labor narratives, such as a woman being buried with armor and weapons, but how much discussion has there been in reliable sources describing such as "transgender"? We have to be careful about projecting modern concepts onto historical or archaeological evidence, and must rely on solid reliable sources. Donald Albury 16:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I thought starting an article that provides an short introduction to subject, as well as providing links to a wide range of papers across periods would be useful for everyone curious Lajmmoore (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What is a "homestead moat"?

I know what a Motte and bailey is, but am struggling with the term "homestead moat". This is relevant to my draft User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle which at the moment calls it both a motte and bailey and and a moated site. This source[46] seems almost confused as I am at the moment, using both terms and saying " The earthworks have been identified as a possible motte and bailey, but the evidence for this, both from the earthworks and excavated evidence, is very weak. It is best regarded as a homestead moat on the available evidence." See [47]which also uses both terms and says " It is termed 'Moat' on the Ordnance Survey map, but it is certainly not to be included under Homestead Moats'." Not a lot of help.:) There's also this.[48] There's certainly a moat there. Some images at User talk:Doug Weller#My draft User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle - I must go take another look before it gets overgrown again as it's only a few minutes drive from home. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi. The below papers should help with with the term "homestead moat". One has a PDF linked to it. I will see what can find for the other two.

Johnson, E., 2017. Moated sites in the Wealden landscape. Lived Experience in the Later Middle Ages: Studies of Bodiam and Other Elite Sites in South‐East England, pp.158-170.

Platt, C., 2010. The homestead moat: security or status?. Archaeological Journal, 167(1), pp.115-133.

Williams, A., 1946. A homestead moat at Nuthampstead, Hertfordshire. The Antiquaries Journal, 26(3-4), pp.138-144. Paul H. (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Paul, they look useful. Doug Weller talk 21:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I can help with access to PDFs of the latter two, but the first one that Paul linked to probably has what you need: The term ‘homestead moat’ has been given to the sites that fall under a lower-status category [7 references]. However, the use of the term ‘homestead moat’ is ambiguous. It often does not differentiate between what may be a peasant’s dwelling place, a lesser manorial centre or even an ecclesiastical centre.

The National Heritage List for England has descriptions for various 'asset types'. 'Homestead moat' isn't in the list, but 'homestead' and 'palisaded homestead' are:

HOMESTEAD — A small settlement, usually consisting of one dwelling with ancillary buildings.

PALISADED HOMESTEAD — A small, defensive settlement, usually consisting of one dwelling and ancillary buildings, surrounded by a palisade.

So reasonably homestead moat (or moated homestead) would be "A small, defensive settlement, usually consisting of one dwelling and ancillary buildings, surrounded by a moat." Richard Nevell (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

New List on Archaeologically Attested Women

Our class developed a new list on archaeologically attested women for a WikiEdu project. I added it to the Project:Archaeology using our List's talk page, but is there something else we need to do to get it linked over here? It's also been added to the Category:Archaeology.

Here it is: [of Archaeologically Attested Women from the Ancient Mediterranean Region] --EtruscanMayhem (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi EtruscanMayhem. What a great idea, thanks for letting us know about it. The {{WikiProject Archaeology}} template you put on the talk page marks the article as of interest to this project and is all that's needed. – Joe (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Great, thanks! EtruscanMayhem (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

San Pedro Mountains Mummy

Hi all. Eyes needed here, given bizarre its an alien type conspiracy theories. Joe and Doug, ye are good at dealing with with this stuff, would appreciate help. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

There endless number of web pages about the "Pedro Mountain Mummy" of Wyoming. Two of the more interesting are "The Tall, But True, Tale Of A Little Mummy Discovered In Wyoming, Now Lost In Time", Jack Nichols, Cowboy State Daily, June 17, 2023, and The Pedro Mountain Mummy by the Wyoming Historical Society. The latter is cited in the Wikipedia article and has a bibliography of primary and secondary sources. The Wyoming Historical Society concluded: "The mummy,..., would be subject to the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act as it is almost certainly the body of an American Indian child taken from a grave."

Paul H. (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks, I found this after checking to see whether Ceoil had edited since I raised the issue on the article talk page. I rewrote this article so it looked like this. (The previous version reflected an injudicious expansion in its text.) I do not understand why Ceoil cut so much from the article (cumulative change after reinstatement of a couple of refs by a bot). I can see some justification for introducing a section titled Theories, but the Wyoming Historical Society source among others makes clear that the interpretations are intertwined with the history, and the cuts have removed the scientific analysis of the mummy that is the basis for the statement in the intro that it's an anencephalic baby, and lots more beside, even who "Gill" is. And I thought I'd done a pretty good job of rewriting it from references, leaning most heavily on the Wyoming History Society one. Rather than revert, I'm struggling to understand so as to avoid whatever flaws the article had after my rewrite. (And thanks very much for the Nichols source, Paul H..) Doug Weller, Ceoil may have meant you, and I was considering pinging you to the talk page, but judging from your edits to the article and its talk page, and the thanks you gave me for my initial large edit, you have it watchlisted. Is the underlying concern one of notability/hoax? If so, I think the removals have worsened the situation rather than improved it, but I found sufficient sources to be entirely satisfied that it's received significant coverage outside the Fortean/fringe communities. And Ceoil didn't cut the material on the second mummy. If I mucked this up, please tell me. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I just happened to see this, I'm not a regular member here, but... it looks to me like you didn't really mess up. I do agree that the sentence about the second mummy was not germane to the subject, but other than that, I don't think the changes made to what you did were improvements.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, ugh I messed up here, had read the article literately the day before you cleaned it up, and in a late at night edit removed paragraphs that that had been dodgy before your edits. To be clear the work since has resolved my concerns. So thanks :) Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Amnya complex

Hello all. The article on Amnya complex describes it as the oldest fort in the world. I've suggested a change of wording on the talk page, in case anyone would like to contribute their thoughts on how to phrase the claims. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"was" vs "is" for individual ancient human skeletons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Looking over various Wikipedia articles, it seems standard to describe the skeletons of individual prehistoric humans in the present tense as is done in Cheddar man, Magdalenian Girl, Tianyuan man etc. Under this understanding, I changed the writing for the Arlington Springs Man (a 13,000 year old skeleton known from the Channel Islands of California) to describe it as a skeleton in the present tense. @GreenC: reverted me with the edit summary They are the remains of an individual human being and needs to be treated as such. This is not an article about a dinosaur, rock, or woolly mammoth. This is why NAGPRA exists to deal with the dehumanizing of Indian ancestors as merely relics or old bones stored in a warehouse [49], which I consider to be rude and insulting, given the current wide use of the present tense to describe prehistoric human remains in Wikipedia articles. There's no reason to treat the remains of ancient Native Americans any different than those of other prehistoric humans, so I think having a broader discussion regarding the stylings used to describe the remains of prehistoric people is appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I expect that some editors active at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America will want to be involved in the discussion. I know I'm not the only editor following both projects. Donald Albury 21:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I will do so. I should note that I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding this issue, only that there should be consistency between the treatment of articles of Native American and non-Native American human remains. I should note that a complete list of such articles can be found at Category:Homo_sapiens_fossils (I would support renaming this category, as it includes obvious non-fossils like human mummies). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustus_Le_Plongeon&oldid=457751620]. CoyoteMan31 then changed it in a series ol edits.[50] 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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 [51] 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)

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)

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

@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.[52] 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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)