From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should there be a citation after "Although many scientists have claimed to have succeeded in finding sounds from ancient pottery"? Fonny (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Misleading article?[edit]

As far as I can tell, this word has been used hardly at all except as the title of the one book. For Wikipedia to state that it is a field seems misleading. (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar has quite a few hits with "archaeoacoustics" in the title. I think the way in which the word "field" is used isn't really misleading: "This is an interdisciplinary field which includes areas such as archaeology, ethnomusicology, acoustics and digital modelling, and that is a part of the wider field of Music Archaeology." It's in a conversational tone (doesn't look like a formal definition), and it's also identified as a subfield of something. So I wouldn't read the word as a field in the narrowest, most pedantic sense. But maybe you can think of a better word to use here? We can't call it a "niche" or anything like that as that wouldn't be a neutral description. Hans Adler 00:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

removing PROD[edit]

I've contested the PROD for this page... however, I still have serious concerns about the current state of this article. Preliminary searches on Google Books and Google Scholar indicate that the term is at least a legitimate one used in scholarly works, but I do not know that it's being used in the same way as in those sources. Frankly, it sounds a lot like a WP:FRINGE theory. We do have articles on scientific fringe theories, of course, but the article would need to be re-written in a fairly major way to reflect that properly. I've had this page on my watchlist for a while because it struck me as a bit suspicious the first time I read it and I had hoped that I would get up the gumption to investigate it more thoroughly. That hasn't happened and I'm not sure it will happen any time soon. Still, IMO, this article needs a rewrite, not a deletion. Matt Deres (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)