Main | Discussion | Monitoring | Outline | Participants | Project organization | Assessment | Resources | Showcase |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Archaeology page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Archaeology Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying. /info/en/?search=Saltovo-Mayaki
'A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined three males of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture buried in Belgorod Oblast, Russia between ca. 700 AD and 900 AD.[3] The sample of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroup R1.[4] The three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the haplogroups I, J1b4 and #Haplogroup U7|U7a4.[5]
The mtDNA that have been extracted from Belgorod Oblast belonged to haplogroups I (i4a) and D4m2 and not U7'U7a4.
Haplogroup mtDNA U5 been found among Saltovo-Mayaki but not in Belgorod Oblast.
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)
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). –
T
C
Memoire
16:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC).
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 [1] 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 [2]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. [3] 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
[4], 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)
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)
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/?title=Augustus_Le_Plongeon&oldid=457751620]. CoyoteMan31 then changed it in a series ol edits. [5] 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)
I'm writing an article on a local scheduled monument, User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle and want to use [6] 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)
{{HERR |num=315821 |desc=Pinxton Castle}}
Main | Discussion | Monitoring | Outline | Participants | Project organization | Assessment | Resources | Showcase |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Archaeology page. |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | Archaeology Project‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This page has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying. /info/en/?search=Saltovo-Mayaki
'A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined three males of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture buried in Belgorod Oblast, Russia between ca. 700 AD and 900 AD.[3] The sample of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroup R1.[4] The three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the haplogroups I, J1b4 and #Haplogroup U7|U7a4.[5]
The mtDNA that have been extracted from Belgorod Oblast belonged to haplogroups I (i4a) and D4m2 and not U7'U7a4.
Haplogroup mtDNA U5 been found among Saltovo-Mayaki but not in Belgorod Oblast.
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)
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). –
T
C
Memoire
16:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC).
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 [1] 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 [2]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. [3] 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
[4], 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)
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)
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/?title=Augustus_Le_Plongeon&oldid=457751620]. CoyoteMan31 then changed it in a series ol edits. [5] 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)
I'm writing an article on a local scheduled monument, User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle and want to use [6] 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)
{{HERR |num=315821 |desc=Pinxton Castle}}