Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

MainDiscussionMonitoringOutlineParticipantsProject organizationAssessmentResourcesShowcase

Saltovo-Mayaki

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

'A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined three males of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture buried in Belgorod Oblast, Russia between ca. 700 AD and 900 AD.[3] The sample of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroup R1.[4] The three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the haplogroups I, J1b4 and #Haplogroup U7|U7a4.[5]

The mtDNA that have been extracted from Belgorod Oblast belonged to haplogroups I (i4a) and D4m2 and not U7'U7a4.

Haplogroup mtDNA U5 been found among Saltovo-Mayaki but not in Belgorod Oblast.

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)

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[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [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)

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.[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)

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 [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)

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.[7] 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)