|WikiProject Archaeology||(Rated B-class, Top-importance)|
Quality of the article
Well, we can all definitely tell where this author is coming from. I do find this synopsis to be very much in 'one camp', and I am seeking to dispute the objectivity of this article. Yet rambling on and ruffling my feathers wont solve the issue, so I shall work on a counter article.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 6 October 2005
- Please work on the existing one instead. I agree that much of the article seems to have been edited by someone with a one-dimensional view of post-procesualism, I've been putting off digging out my theory books to tackle it for ages now. I may make a start at the weekend. adamsan 21:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
Not only is this poorly written and not in Wikipedia style, but it also has vague claims and factual inaccuracies (post-processualism becoming unpopular in the US? what?). I discussed the topic with an archeologist (Professor Nerissa Russell at Cornell) who does field work at Çatalhöyük (a post-processualist pilot site), and I'm going to try to rewrite this article as a stub (because I'm not an archeologist, and the state of this article doesn't encourage constructive addition, but rather stifles it: it produces the reaction "aughhh... where do I begin??"). EDIT: I have done so. ~rezecib (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
"Postprocessualism has become dominant in Europe, with some archaeologists speculating that the rise of postprocessualism there may be a direct result of anti-American sentiment."
This seems like a pretty bizare claim. Does anyone have references to tie it to a specific individual? VoluntarySlave 04:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently Ian Hodder in an unreferenced entry in Çatalhöyük #Archaeology.
—6birc (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It's great to see someone whip the archaeological theory articles into shape, I think it's very hard to write them in away that's not made completely unintelligible by jargon, but this manages it. It might be an idea to put in a discussion of some of the main sub-strands, which would also provide some more concrete examples of post-processual interpretation. Overall I think this is a really good article though. Maybe you should submit it for GA review. —Joseph RoeTk•Cb, 11:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- As the editor responsible for pretty much all of the recent additions and tidy up, many thanks for your kind words. I think there are still some more things needed to it, for instance an expanded criticism section, so would advise against submitting it for GA or any other review just yet.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC))