Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Discussion   Outline: The Past   Outline: The Discipline   Participate   Project organization   Assessment   Resources   Showcase  
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Curious object[edit]

Item found at Reculver in Kent, England, before 1784

Hi, I wonder if anyone here might know what the illustrated item is, or know someone who does! Presumably it's a badge of some sort. It was reported found "clinging to the tine of a harrow" at Reculver in Kent, England, in 1784, and is illustrated at Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica I, 1784, Plate V, fig. 8 (facing p. 85). There's no indication of its size but, given the size of the illustration in relation to the other items shown in the plate, I suspect the illustration in the book might be actual size (i.e. about half the size of the thumbnail image here). The description is here, and the plate is a couple of pages before. I've searched for this or any similar item online but not found anything terribly helpful. Any helpful thoughts gratefully received. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 11:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Based on the compass and square with an enclosed C/G at the bottom of the 4, Hebrew-like lettering and 6-pointed star, it seems to be Masonic and likely does not long predate the publication of the book. Perhaps someone familiar with such imagery may be able to tell you more. • Astynax talk 18:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the response – I'm sure you're right, having just had a look around at masonic symbols and their meanings online. I'm not aware of knowing any masons, but then I don't suppose I would be unless I were one, hmm a bit of a Catch 22 there. Thinking of the "G" between the compass and square, Reculver seems a bit of a remote spot to find a badge featuring a symbol that might have originated in North America and not been around very long in 1784 (per this). I'm very grateful, if you or anyone else think of anything to add please do. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Nortonius - have you found an answer to this? If not, you can certainly ask WP:WikiProject Freemasonry. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
That's very kind, thank you – I've got no further than what's here so that would be a good next step. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Problems with article about Secondary Burial[edit]

As stated in my comment , the article Secondary Burial seems to be a mixture of two different subjects. JRoseAndersen (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Requested move at talk:Neanderthal extinction hypotheses[edit]

There's a move discussion for Neanderthal extinction hypothesesNeanderthal extinction, where I'd like to have more input. --Cold Season (talk) 00:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

New article about Bronze Age site in Hungary[edit]

Százhalombatta-Földvár has just entered mainspace from AFC. The article needs quite a lot of help from subject specialists. It seems like the original author has listed practically everything that has ever been written about the site as references - the list is longer than the rest of the entire article! I've also tagged it for better categories, orphan, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

2013 paper on the Solutrean hypothesis[edit]

"Refuting the technological cornerstone of the Ice-Age Atlantic crossing hypothesis" Journal of Archaeological Science 40 (2013) [1]. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Internet Archaeology goes open access[edit]

Internet Archaeology has just announced that it is to become an open access journal. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


Speaking of Internet Archaeology (see above), I see that they are using ORCID identifiers. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}} (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). ORCID identifiers can also be added to biographical articles, either directly or via Wikidata. See WP:ORCID for more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the article on Sally Binford?[edit]

I don't have the sources for an article on her... anyone up to the challenge? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of Sally Binford, but you might try asking the History of Archaeology Network at UCL. Claire 75 (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Archaeological finds Roland de Vaux at Qumran[edit]

In the book is written - de Vaux died in 1971 without having published all of the material from his excavations...Although we still await a final excavation report, in 1994 Humbert and a Belgian archaeologist name Alain Chambon published a large volume described as the first in a series....Although this volume contains some previously unpublished information, there is still much that is unpublished and inaccessible.

As is currently the situation is with the full publication of all archaeological finds Roland de Vaux at Qumran? Published, planned to be published or unpublished, will never be published? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Danube civilization[edit]

I deleted an earlier version of this as copyvio. This version may not be copyvio but it is a mess. I can't find any consensus for a "Danube civilization" as a name for a set of related cultures. This seems to be related to Childe's Danubian culture but again I think that may be an obsolete term. The article also calls it "Old Europe" which this apparently reliable source[2] says "refers to a cycle of related cultures that thrived in southeastern Europe during the fifth and fourth millennia BC" but the article says " It was a cycle of cultures beginning around 7,200 BC, its time of peak was between 5,500–3,500 BC. At around 3,500 BC the civilization fell into decline, and by 3000–2700 BC only fragments of the civilization remained." The various linked cultures, eg Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, don't mention this. A lot of the sources don't seem to mention a Danube Civilization. The editor named the article "Danube Civilization on the basis that Harald Haardman calls it that. Haardman seems to be, for these subjects, a fringe write who argues that it all started with Noah's flood 9000 years ago.[3] The author of the article, User:Lactasamir is I'm sure trying to write a good article but only seems to have a superficial knowlege of the subject (I wouldn't claim much more either, but I do know quite a bit about archaeology in general). I can't find a consensus for any of these titles, which makes it difficult. "Danube Valley cultures" would at least not suggest that there is one, so a move might be a good start. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Hello Dougweller :) if you read the sources you will se that what i wrote, are what the reliable sourses say. The term Danube civilization or old Europe civilization (another term) are used by scholars many places. see -

From the exhibition and book from Princeton University press. This exhibition focused on the period 5000-3500 B.C.[1]

Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis is a yearly journal centred on the Transylvania heritage [2]

Alfred J. Andrea, Ph.D. (1969) in History, Cornell University, [3]

Marco Merlini, Ph.D. is a cultural manager, journalist and archaeo semiologist. [4]

Marija Gimbutas, she called it Old Europe, the same civilization, different term. [5]

Brukenthal National Museum, Romania, with map of Danube civilization. Harald Haarmann is the leading expert on linguistics in the world. He does not advocate for the biblical flood, but The flood of the Black sea, see Black Sea deluge hypothesis Harald Haarmann believes this flood maybe where the roots of the biblical flood. The flood really happened, after the last Ice Age the sea level rose and flooded a fertile region, which today is called the Black Sea. The people of this region founded new settlements in the Danube Valley. That is what Harald Haarmann means. [6][7] Lactasamir (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Haarmann is not the leading expert on linguistics in the world, and even if he were, what does that have to do with anything? His linguistic speciality seems to be ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics, not writing systems. And he certainly is not an archaeologist. He thinks the Old Europeans went to Crete and founded the Minoan civilization - ah, I see you cited him. You wrote "Minoan civilization presents the most vital offspring of the old Danube civilization." He wrote "Ancient Crete presents the most vital offspring of Old European culture". Not only does he not say what you wrote, you used his language without attribution or quoting and that's still copyvio. He's not a reliable source for that claim and I'm reverting you there as well. Funnily enough, recent DNA studies show "The population showed particular genetic affinities with Bronze Age populations from Sardinia and Iberia and Neolithic samples from Scandinavia and France."[4] - not the Danube valley. The flood is disputed. You say that "Danube Civilization" and "Old Europe" mean the same thing, but you don't show any archaeological sources. Yes, a handful of people, mainly on the fringe, talk about this. You have exactly one archaeologist among your sources, Gimbutas. Andrea is a historian. Merlini and Haarman are of course colleagues so not surprisingly they agree, and neither is an archaeologist. There is no such thing as an "archaeo semiologist" - the only person claiming to be one is Merlin, who I see writes for the Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis which is not an archaeology journal or peer reviewed. I'm not finding any consensus that there was such a civilization (a very strong word & unudual for archaeologists to use for that period). Dougweller (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Some really broad statements presented as fact, eg "Old Europe was agrarian and peaceful" - one of the sources being a book by Mike Buttsworth published by -- Buttsworth press. Ironically his book is an attack on Gimbutas. And I repeat, most of the sources used in the article don't seem to discuss this "Danube Civilization" or "Old Europe". As for the list of the largest settlements, what's the source for them being part of a DC or an OE? And the cultures? Merlini isn't an archaeologist so he certainly isn't a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Please read the sources. Regarding the DNA of the Minoans, yes recent DNA studies show the population was close to the people of Sardinia, Iberia, Scandinavia and France. But the highest frequency of sharing (33%) is with the Neolithic populations of Southern Europe (Balkans).[8] Have a nice day :) Lactasamir (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Could be, but it's off-topic anyway. Haarman isn't a reliable source for that, and the DNA studies don't discuss a DC. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


  1. ^ "The-Lost-World-Old-Europe". 
  2. ^ "Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 2008". 
  3. ^ "World History Encyclopedia". 
  4. ^ "Introduction to the Danube script from the book Neo-Eneolithic Literacy in Southeastern Europe". 
  5. ^ "The Gods and Goddesses of Old Europe: 7000 to 3500 BC Myths, Legends and Cult Images". 
  6. ^ "introduction and acknowledgement". 
  7. ^ "Foundations of Culture: Knowledge-construction, Belief Systems and Worldview in Their Dynamic Interplay". 
  8. ^ "A European population in Minoan Bronze Age Crete".