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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Just want to let you know — because this is a secluded location, getting a photograph of the site is likely to be very difficult. As you can see here, it's possible to get pictures of the site, but as one would have no real reason to photograph this site if one didn't know about its significance, finding a free picture will be extremely unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Not too sure about this but you might want to search WikiCommons for a public domain photo. In certain cases (if the permission meets WC's requisites), photos from Flickr can be used if moved to WC with the right permissions. Additionally some photos that are produced by the U.S. government (read geological services or park management) might qualify under a certain permission if they are commissioned or taken for government work. --Morenooso (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Problem is that I've searched and not found anything. The only images that I've found are (1) this one, copyrighted by the Wyoming state government, and (2) ones such as the link I gave above; while it's published by the NPS, I get the impression that the authors were not working for the NPS, so the work is likely under full copyright. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You would be surprised. I am trying to remember what which CA wikiproject RR article has a map image that is PD because it was commissioned by the CA state. It's been a while since I dealt with the CA WP in those terms and the image permissions may have changed. I just did an advanced search on Yahoo for PD images and none were available. Doing the same search only for websites that are dot gov yields dot gov search. It may be that one of those 50 plus sites has something. They also might be possible reliable source documents. --Morenooso (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I looked through plenty of sources; among other things, Wyoming doesn't release its images into the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
"The cliff is Tertiary period tuff and tuff-breccia of volcanic origin."
I am confused over "tuff and tuff-breccia". Is "tuff-breccia" a combinant material distinct on its own, or is the cliff a mixture of tuff and breccia? If the latter, then the "tuff-" prefix seems redundant. If not, why is tuff-breccia linked to breccia, which has no mention of tuff?
Actually, the tuff article has a long and rather rambling section on breccia that doesn't describe the material very well, and the breccia article eventually mentions volcanic debris. Perhaps a more layman-like description of "volcanic ash mixed with larger rock fragments" would be more clear to the reader. Acroterion(talk) 12:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"... appears to have originated from nearby debris fans formed where ..."
"The period of occupation at Mummy Cave includes the latter portion of the Pinedale glaciation, followed by the Altithermal, then a cooler climate from about 1000 BC."
This seems out of place here; the cave was not mentioned to be occupied until now, which would beg the question of the period of occupancy (the lede is a summary and one should assume that sometimes readers just jump into the main text). I suggest moving this to the Results section, as this statement is dependent on the findings of the investigation. Furthermore this singular sentence is out of place as a paragraph on its own here.
I'm doing a little more reading on the climatology issue to see where this might better fit. I think it needs a little more context, but haven't found quite the right way to introduce it. Acroterion(talk) 14:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Moved to the Results section and rephrased. The discussion in the source is a sort of parenthesis that doesn't need any more weight than has already been given. Acroterion(talk) 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"The investigation was led by Robert Edgar from 1963 to 1965."
This perhaps begs for precision: "The investigation of the cave was led by Robert Edgar from 1963 to 1965." or such.
"Once the context of the strata were established ..."
Is "context of the strata" a common phrase? Why not "Once the layers of rock beneath the cave floor were established, ..." (note the comma as well).
It is if you're an archeologist or if you're (like me) a non-archeologist who had read too much jargon. and had started to incorporate it into the article. Changed to "Once the layers of alluvium in the cave floor were established ..." Acroterion(talk) 18:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"Excavations were terraced in 4-to-6-foot (1.2 to 1.8 m) levels on the 5-foot (1.5 m) grid."
I doubt excavations (activity) can be "terraced" and certainly not "on" the grid. Perhaps, "The excavations terraced the cave floor into 4-to-6-foot (1.2 to 1.8 m) levels within the grid."?
Went with "The excavations terraced the cave floor into 4-to-6-foot (1.2 to 1.8 m) levels, following the established reference grid." Acroterion(talk) 18:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"... cultural zones while sterile layers ..."
How were these areas classified?
More archeological jargon that crept in. Ity should be some thing like "...artifact-bearing layers while vacant layers ..." or something that means something. Acroterion(talk) 19:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Changed to "... artifact-bearing layers while layers devoid of artifacts ..." Acroterion(talk) 12:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"1965 saw the removal of layers 24–28 from the central area of the alcove."
"... and that spoils disposal would need to be addressed."
Context need to be given to spell out that the spoils disposal here meant the larger amount of dirt and rocks from the full dig. Did they expect to go for a full dig when they started? Did they plan for it, or was it something that just had to be done?
I got the impression that they hadn't planned that far ahead, and went: crap, what are we going to do with all this stuff? Acroterion(talk) 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Went with "... a considerable quantity of excavated debris ..." Acroterion(talk) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"The excavation of Mummy Cave yielded a nearly continuous succession of artifacts over 9000 years, ..."
Note the ambiguity: the dig has gone on for 9000 years?
Revised to clarify the the artifacts span 9000 years, not the dig. Acroterion(talk) 21:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"... the stone points found at Mummy Cave have been used to set the standard for point typology in the region."
What are "stone points" and "point typology"? This also applies to the "points" in later sentences.
Stone points, my nemesis. I'll see what I can do. Acroterion(talk) 18:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a number of revisions to make it clear that we are speaking of stone projectile points, and that these are arrow and spear points. I got rid of the first "point typology" (the word "typology" is almost always a sign of jargon in any case) and changed "set the standard for point typology" to "set the standard for classifying stone arrowheads and spear heads." I've also added a link to Iowa archeology to provide some context on the Simonsen Site until someone writes an article on that place. Characteristics of points such as side-notched points are covered in the linked projectile point article. Acroterion(talk) 12:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
"In layer 16, radiocarbon dated to 5630 BC, a new type of point appeared, the Blackwater side-notched point, implying the arrival of a group from eastern Nebraska or western Iowa, replacing the previous group which may have moved to the north."
This sentence is too fragmented to read smoothly.
Split into two sentences and rephrased. Acroterion(talk) 21:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
"... imply a return of the previous inhabitants, the easterners having moved on to the central Columbian Plateau."
This could be better phrased in eliminating the noun-plus-gerund in the ending clause; i.e. "... imply a return of the previous inhabitants; the easterners had moved on to the central Columbian Plateau." (See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing).
Speakers of what is now called Uto-Aztecan language, formerly called Shoshonean, of whom the modern Shoshone are descendants. In the context of the archeology, the source is speaking of a culture, rather than the literal Shoshone; I've used the Shoshone language link as the best internal representation of the culture, and have included the word "culture." Acroterion(talk) 20:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
" ... used as a home base for hunters operating at higher altitudes."
Noun plus -ing, suggest: "... used as a home base for hunters to operate at higher altitudes."
How do you use this system to source the NHRP's "placement [of the cave] on the National Register of Historic Places in 1981"?
Two ways — (1) click "Name" under "Search by Category", when there select "State and Resource Name" and proceed from there. (2) click "Download Center", then select "All NRIS data in dbf format", and download the database, which gives dates for when all National Register properties were placed on the Register. The information was derived from the (2) option; if you want to download it, look in the "CERTDATE" column of the "PROPMAIN" table for the date on which any property (including Mummy Cave) was certified as being on the National Register. Except for the location data, the information given in the infobox was taken from this infobox generator run by User:Elkman, which takes data directly from the (2) database; of course, you can verify the information yourself if you have the database. Although I've downloaded the database myself and set it up to be able to use it properly, I don't remember how to set it up (I must note that you need to have Microsoft Access; I'm not sure whether OpenOffice can open it), so you'd probably do well to ask Elkman if you need help; I needed his guidance when I did it. Sorry, but I don't know too much about the way databases work. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe the site has undergone changes. After selecting "State and Resource Name", I am brought to an interface that has no "Download Center". Instead it asks for the state code and the site's name; entering "wy" and "Mummy Cave" would bring me the listing. I believe, however, that this is quite a convoluted sourcing (you have to at least inform the verifier how to navigate to the interface...). Might I suggest using the corrected Wyoming state site above (http://wyoshpo.state.wy.us/NationalRegister/Site.aspx?ID=324), which has the registration date as well, instead? Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No, because the source provided is the official source for the National Register, unlike the Wyoming site, which is entirely dependent on it and thus not official. Nyttend (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I do not think "official"-ness plays a part here since Wikipedia's verification policy is based mostly on reliability. Both are reliable sites (otherwise why would the Wyoming site be used?). I would think that the National Register is a primary source (since they are the direct source of the information—they created it), but the Wyoming site is one too (they parrot the National Register, and as a official state body would have an image of reliability to uphold). I am not going to put this as an opposable issue, as you can see, the reference section in the checklist below is an "aye" (since both sites in my view are equally reliable, just that the link to one is not as accessible as the other), but I am leaving it unstruck in case others would like to comment on this. Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
That's not what I meant to convey; sorry for confusing you. My reason for saying what I did is that the National Register database, being the official source, is more reliable — (1) it defines what's on the Register and what isn't, and the dates it gives are by definition correct, and (2) when we derive our pages from the database directly, there's only one chance to have a transcription error, but if we derive our pages from a page derived from the database, there are two chances for transcription errors. Nyttend (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The theoretical permanent link to the NRHP nomination is here . However, the National Park Service has a blanket policy of restricting data on archeological sites to prevent pot-hunters from ruining the sites, so there's no document available. This despite the fact that the site's fully excavated, has been featured on an award-winning poster by the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office, and is clearly shown on the location map associated with the Husted article. Acroterion(talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The problem was likely a changed URL; I've fixed it. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Just in case this was missed; I asked in the checklist below if all the major points on Mummy Cave are reported in this article, based on the Google Book hits. Are they? Jappalang (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Looking through the list of hits, I couldn't find any that could be used; there's no way that I can do anything with snippets and "no preview available". Or did you mean something else? Sorry if I misunderstand you. Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
However, we do already use some of the Google Books sources; "The archeology of Mummy Cave, Wyoming: an introduction to Shoshonean prehistory", hits #1 and #3, is cited 22 times, while "The Mummy Cave Project in Northwestern Wyoming" and "Mummy Cave: prehistoric record from Rocky Mountains of Wyoming", hits #5 and #7 respectively, are cited 6 and 1 times respectively. Nyttend (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I've made a general check, and have found no new, substantive sources. Searches reveal either copies of the Husted paper, or passing references to the Husted paper and the Wedel article in Science. Since the Mummy Cave sequence is a standard reference point for prehistoric chronology in the past 2000 years, this stands to reason. Acroterion(talk) 14:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Not an opposable issue, but is it possible to get a photo of the cave entrance?
Just read the Talk page; still, it would help to improve the page if one would hike there and take a shot. Jappalang (talk) 07:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I definitely agree, but I'm in Ohio and Acroterion is farther east, so it's going to be a long hike :-) Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
I might be in the area sometime this summer, but it won't be this week. It's right along the highway, so it's more like finding the right place, parking and taking a pic. Acroterion(talk) 17:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The image policy asks us to state the data used to create the image (for verification). How easy it might be derived is not the issue here. Jappalang (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
We currently have multiple FAs (for example, Mackinac Island and Chicago Board of Trade Building) that use dotmaps with identical sourcing. Furthermore: the Wyoming locator map template was changed just a few weeks ago; the previous map (which was also an SVG) has direct US government sourcing, and it also shows a map of the United States with Wyoming highlighted. I've undone the edit, since I think the old map is superior, even if we're not concerned with sourcing issues, and since (as far as I can see) the change was never discussed nor even really explained. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The principle of WP:Other stuff exists apply to those FA that use dotmaps without adequate sourcing (Commons policy only asks for proof of self-work, Wikipedia asks that the information for the map should be included). While others might have overlooked those details when evaluating FAs (also note that several older FAs or even current ones carry images that are possible copyviolations as well because no one bothered to check), that does not mean we should ignore the policy. Regardless, the map reverted to is indeed sourced and much better (it shows where the state is in the US). Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)