Talk:Archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This subject is featured in the Outline of archaeology, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, comprise Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
Archaeology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
          This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Archaeology portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Version 1.0 Editorial Team     (Rated B-Class)
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Archives
1, 2

Contents

[edit] Significant overhaul underway

I have made some big changes to the structure of the article, and will continue to work on text. This is a good start, but many things need to be elaborated and clarified. This entry needs serious help! I am an archaeologist with training in North America, so the emphasis may have shifted somewhat. I'm hoping others will fill in information on the discipline in other world areas. I'm also unsure how to go about making significant changes without erasing previous text. I hope no one is offended - I'm just interested in getting this entry right. --Mybvega 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this overhaul, this page really needed it. The changes are an improvement, but more work is needed.--NathanCraig 00:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance and Applicability

This section should be cut. Some arguments are blatantly incorrect while others are poorly articulated. 1) Writing begins about 3000 BC, not 3000 years ago. 2) All cultures produce histories (Salomon 1999; Wolfe 1982) even if some do not generate materialized forms of those histories. 3) The fallibility of the written record is not well presented. 4) Finally, the last section attempts a dual argument about nationalism and cultural reconstruction. These are both important issues, but they are not well linked in the text. I propose abandoning this section, creating new sections on history and prehistory which deals specifically with this complex and politically charged topic. I also propose creating a section that addresses archaeology and nationalism which is also a subject that merits discussion in a general treatment of archaeology. The issues of cultural reconstruction and the aims of research can be addressed under the existing section on theory. If I do not hear objection I will make these changes.--NathanCraig 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Salomon, F. (1999), "Testimonies: The Making and Reading of Native South American Historical Sources", written at Cambridge, in SALOMON, F. & SCHWARTZ, S. B., The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Cambridge University Press
  • Wolf, E. (1982), written at Berkeley, Europe and the People Without History, University of California Press

[edit] 'Science'

I notice in the opening paragraph it states that archaeology is a 'science'. Now, some archaeologists believe that it is (e.g. the processualist school) and some don't (the post-processualists), I think this should be reflected in the opening. I am going to be bold and change it to 'academic discipline' to be more neutral. If anyone has any problems with this I'm open to discussion. :)

This is a debate that has been very important in modern archaeology and should probably be given its own section after clean-up.Man from the Ministry 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also added 'interpretation' to the brief list of methods in the intro, for the same reason stated above.Man from the Ministry 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith reverted my edit, because the term 'academic discipline' was disliked. If a better term can be decided, I'll go for it, but I still think 'Science' is the wrong term to have (at least in the opening paragraph).

In my opinion, 'academic discipline' is the most accurate description, for whilst excavation, lab-based research etc are all part of Archaeology, the subject itself is grounded in the traditions of publication and peer review.

I won't make the edit again without further discussion here.Man from the Ministry 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How about field of study which may be science-based or ____?___ based. What goes in the blank? Vsmith 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

'Field of study' is good. I personally think that the positivist vs anti-positivist debate should have its own section, but if it is also to be included into the intro then I suggest:

'...Is a field of study which uses both scientific and interpretive methods to...'. For further clarification it would probably be good to follow that sentence with one noting that Archaeology falls into both the categories of Humanities and Sciences (For example, I am doing an Archaeology degree which is classed as a Humanities subject, but Science based degrees are just as common). Man from the Ministry 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, personally not into the positivist/antipositivist debate. Hmm... interpretive methods based on what, if not scientific evidence and data. Vsmith 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that most archaeological interpretation is taken from the results of scientific investigation, site diagrams etc, but the major point I'm trying to make is that certain archaeologists (e.g. Chris Tilley) hold that the interpretation itself doesn't have to follow the scientific method.
As an example off the top of my head, some of the interpretation work done on the Maeshowe neolithic tombs compares the layout of the tombs and that of the nearby neolithic Barnhouse Settlement. The argument goes that as they are remarkably the same, the tomb may in some way represent a 'house of the dead'. This is obviously totally unscientific, with no possibility of verification, but the post-processualist school argues that it is still valid as archaeology. Man from the Ministry 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like a theory that could be verified at some future date. Deb 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it is a theory, but the problem is that it is pretty much impossible to verify, because it is attempting to read the intentions and spiritual beliefs of humans that have been dead for thousands of years. This is where the debate comes in:
Processualists would argue that as it cannot be meaningfully verified it should be ignored, or at most be an interpretational footnote in a more scientific work.
The Post-Processualists would argue that even though it cannot be verified, such theories are important in the study of human history, through such methods as phenomenology.
For the record, I don't really hold to one view or the other, but hover somewhere in the middle.Man from the Ministry 13:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, this needs to be decided by looking for notable views in reliable sources. But may I suggest that there are two issues that complicate this, one has to do with natonal traditions of archeology, the other with national traditions of science. National traditions of archeology: in the UK I think archeology was traditionally associated with humanities like History and Classics; in the United States, with anthropology. National traditions of science: the American anthropological notion of science had its origins in the German notion ot science (brought over by Franz Boas and others) as "Wissenschaft" which encompassed both the nomothetic and idiographic "sciences." This diverges from the Anglo-French understanding of science, rooted in positivism and quantifiable models. Lewis Binford was certainly appealing to the Anglo-French notion of science in reaction to the earlier work of people like William Duncan Strong - but my sense is Strong considered himself a scientist, he just had a different view of science than Binford (one that did not depend on there being hypotheses). Similarly, post-processualism was certainly reacting against Binford, and a specific notion of what scientific archeology would be. But were all post-processualists invested in the claim tht archeology therefore is not a science? Isn't it possible that they too have a broader or looser understanding of "science?" Certainly, post-processualists are empiricists and rely on material evidence to support their arguments. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage Management

I added a link to the CRM/Heritage Management section to show that the latter is an academically accepted name in Britain (displayed as the title of a module of study). The link comes from SoGAER (School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources) at the University of Exeter.

Note there is also a basic reading list at the bottom that may be further use in the article, if they can be got hold of.

As I am doing a module on this subject I may be able to help in cleaning up the section, but only from the British perspective. I have no knowledge of the American system.Man from the Ministry (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Added a link to a source for the PPG16 document and some internal links.Man from the Ministry (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Added some more references and internal links to the section. The United Kingdom and American sections could probably do with being divided into seperate subheadings, to prevent the section as a whole becoming too unwieldly.Man from the Ministry (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hatnote

The original hatnote was {{For|the magazine about archaeology|Archaeology (magazine)}}. The current one (with incorrect markup) leads to WP:CITE. I propose to restore he original. Please point out if I've missed the reason in the page history. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refimprove|date=July 2007 deleted

Needs to clearly state on discussion page where references are lacking. Otherwise this is usless information for the reader.--Rcollman (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are there so many references for the fact that archaeology draws upon geology? You'd think that this would be fairly obvious for a discipline that is popularly viewed as all about "digging things up". References in mid-sentence are also an eyesore. Unless there is a good reason to keep them where they are, I'd suggest moving them. Fuzzform (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Current/Recent digs

I am hoping there is a possibility for us to display recent important digs. This could be aided by embedding archaelogical news feeds from the main Wikipedia page. This is something that would certainly interest me but I would like some feedback as I am pretty new... Any thoughts? Tallbert222 11:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The stuff on Wikipedia is supposed to be assessed in the light of the "long-term historical perspective", just like on a "real" (I hope I don't get into trouble for that) encyclopedia: details here. Reports of current events are not automatically disqualified, but it might prove "difficult to judge whether notability actually exists". I hope this doesn't read as too negative. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] dating Methods

A list of dating methods would be helpful. Understanding how archeologist do their work helps tell the good from the bad. I have provided a rough amature list but would prefer one that has been scrutinized and is more comprehensive.

Archeology dating methods
1. Carbon dating
2. Historical records and carbon dating on the records.
3. The lower you dig the older it is so if you find something close by to an item dated to one time frame then it will probably be dated to the same time frame.
4. Water erosion in combination with study of ancient climate.
5. tree rings which don't apply often but it may come in handy in some cases.
6. cross checking. Whenever possible it is good to cross check to make sure that different dating methods don't contridict each other.
Input from archeologist or related experts welcome thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There are scores of dating methods. There are numerous books on the subject. For starters, though, here's a web link: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/kevin.greene/wintro/chap4.htm#4. Wik already has an article on geochronology but apparently lacks one for archaeology. This is so extensive that a separate article is necessary. Just a few of the most salient ones should be on the main archaeology page.Kdammers (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
We already have Dating methodology (archaeology) which I think needs work. We also have Absolute dating where someone has added Amino Acid Racemization -- but I can find sources that say it can't be used for absolute dating, others that say it can. And we have Relative dating, all articles which need a lot of work. (We have Amino acid dating also, with no references). Doug Weller (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] aerial arch. photo

The picture of Solte is not a very good example for aerial arch. As far as I could see, there is no reference to the photograph in the text, and the photograph itself has no obvious specifically archaeological aspects to it (such as something reflecting buried features). The picture should be replaced or explained.Kdammers (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] question for people who watch this site

What is currently the best introduction to archeology textbook - the most current? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Probably the most used and frequently updated book is Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice by Colin Renfrew and Paul Bahn (Paperback - 19 May 2008) Doug Weller (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I know this is one of the best selling! Do most people agree it is the best? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I am specifically interested in the emergence of the first states. When I read Fagan's textbook almost thirty years ago he provided dates for the first states along the Nile, Tigris and Euphrates, Indus and Yellow Rivers. Are these still considered the first states? Has the dating changed? Renfrew and Bahn is a great textbook but it focuses more on methods and theory than on the actual findings. Where would I find the current state of knowledge in this regard? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You might want to look at Mehrgarh and Harappa in India or Nevali_Cori, Çatalhöyük and Göbekli Tepe in Turkey. Archeologist keep digging up more information whether these are the first states or not I don't know but they may be before Egypt and Mesopotamia as I was taught in school.

Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

'Current state' is mainly reflected in the journals, or a few books costing 3 figures each! Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Can anyone recommend and provide the citation for the most current review article? As for three-figure books, I go to a library! Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeological inventory

Is there anything about how they record and organize archaeological inventory? since this would surly be very large there would have a way to sumerize it. I have seen many hints of this in archaeology books but rarely a sumation of the inventory usualy just a few select items. An example of how this would be used would be the clovis point first found in New Mexico but later inventory showed it originated in the Chesapeake bay area. Petrie was also suposed to be the first to make a list of potery to show how culture evolved. I know this seems tedious but it must be an important part of how achaeologist do their work.

Thanks Zacherystaylor (talk) 06:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Databases. This might interest you [1]. Lots of use of statistics. [2]. Doug Weller (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sources and Links

I note that Archaeology magazine and other excellent sources are listed here. When Biblical Archaeology Review, the other prominent archaeology magazine in the US, was linked that link was removed.

I'm hoping to understand why.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.186.179 (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe Biblical Archaeology Review is linked from the more specialized article on Biblical archaeology. External links related to specialized topics in archaeology are better spun off to more specific articles. This avoids clutter and is more in keeping with Wikipedia policies, which discourage excessive external linking. Tapatio (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I see that Biblical archaeology has been moved to Biblical archaeology (excavations and artifacts), which is where the link to Biblical Archaeology Review is found. Tapatio (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Methods:Survey

The information in this section is dated as regards aerial photography. Remote sensing - which includes a wide array of data collection and imaging techniques, including satellite-based systems - would be a better scope. If such changes are made, they should also be reflected in the article on archaeological survey. Tapatio (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dholavira

The accompanying text for an image of Indus glyphs recovered at Dholavira suggests they are "perhaps 5000 years old". This is certainly controversial; the sequence of Harappan influence at Dholavira is divided into stages falling between I and IIIB. The earliest of these - I - dates to the early Harappan (in Mark Kenoyer's chronology), indicating a date of no earlier than ca. 3200.

[edit] Archaeometry?

(Section under "subfields"): I've heard the term "Archaeological Science" more; among real archaeologists, is Archaeometry more common? In any case, I don't think the sentence that "it is about measurement" does it justice, besides being true to the word root. However, I don't want to change it myself, because I'm not an archaeologist and maybe there is some historical application of the word. Anyone have a better idea on what this is and how to define it than I do? Awickert (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Archaeology"
Personal tools