Talk:List of archaeologists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Indexes
WikiProject icon This alphabetical index of Wikipedia articles falls within the scope of the WikiProject Indexes. This is a collaborative effort to create, maintain, and improve alphabetical indexes on Wikipedia.
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated List-class)
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.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


A more efficient way of creating lists of archaeologists would be, at first, to create separate lists for living and deceased archaeologists. The "living" category could also include some indication of current status: practising, retired, academic affiliation, areas of research and activity. Likewise, deceased archaeologists should have a brief indication as to their years of birth and death, areas of research and activity, etc. Comments / suggestions? Pjamescowie 11:55, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A good idea, as it will keep seperate the arguments of "so and so has not earned a space here yet" (for living, practising) and those over past archaeologists whose career and 'fame' are bickered over in detail. Kilr0y 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't really agree. I think a composite list is okeh. (We might want to add a second version of the list: arranged by DoB.) In any case, I have started adding dates, nationalities, and specialties. The idea is that the very minimum is given, allowing the list reader to scan through to find people of interest. Kdammers 08:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


Why don't we list von Daeniken? He's a fraud and not a trained archaeologist, but the public sees him qas an archaeologist. (Cp. the discussion in German Wik). Kdammers 07:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Kdammers: Because the purpose of this rather futile list is to give credit to real archaeologists and inform the public of who they are, not to keep misguiding them by giving un-due credit to one of the biggest insults to the field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that was even suggested. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up needed[edit]

Some of the entries here are spurious - Lara Croft?!?! On a quick look, at least one of the names is linked to a page about a non-archaeologist. The list needs to at least be what it says it is: a list of archaeologists. What the criteria for inclusion might be is open to interpretation, but I would suggest that somewhere the criteria ought to include being involved in archaeology. Or is that just pedantry? Iain1917 06:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant mischaracterization[edit]

The page description current reads "Archaeology, originally an amateur pastime, is becoming increasingly popular, and it is now possible for archaeologists to become minor celebrities as a result of media exposure."

This assertion is misleading on several levels. While professional, scientific archaeology does have roots in being something of a "pastime," in many cases what people in the 19th and early 20th centuries were calling "archaeology" was often antiquarianism, and antiquarians should generally be kept in their own section or on a separate this page.

Additionally, although excavation pursuits continued to be dominated by those wealthy enough to pursue it as the field passed from the realm of antiquarianism to a more solidly scientific study, the main idea of the sentence - implying that archaeologists can receive celebrity status - is absurd. People don't become archaeologists to gain fame. Statements like this belong on the pseudoarchaeology page.

Additionally, I have added Clarence Bloomfield Moore to this list. I realize some would argue that he represents more of an antiquarian than a professional archaeologist, however I feel that A) his work more closely represents the spirit of scientific archaeology, and B) his detailed records spanning 20 or so years of research in the southern United States remain a critical line of data even to this day. In many cases his writings remain the only significant or extant source of information we have on sites long destroyed. He is a crucial figure in North American archaeology. Frito31382 20:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC), updated 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the unencyclopaedic statement and added André Parrot Alexemanuel 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

List of fictional archaeologists[edit]

Somewhere on Wik there is (or was) some sort of List of fictional archaeologists. It should be given at the bottom of the LOA page.Kdammers (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Avocational and pseudo archaeologists?[edit]

I'd like to see pseudo archaeologists such as Thor Heyerdahl not be added to the list. I removed his entry today, and have since been reverted by Kdammers (talk). We discussed it a little at my talk page. I'm of the opinion that all such embarrassments to the discipline such as Hancock, Von Daniken, etc. shouldn't be on the list. Rather than turn this into a revert war, I'd like to get some more input from the community and come to a concensus on the matter. Thanks. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. This is a list of archeologists, not of people like Heyerdahl or Sitchin. Dougweller (talk) 06:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Only archaeologists should be on a list of archaeologists. Erich von Däniken, Thor Heyerdahl etc., are not. Daicaregos (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the list should be just for archaeologists; you wouldn't find a reliable source seriously describing pseudo-archaeolodgists as archaeologists. Nev1 (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm interested to know what the cut-off criterion for inclusion on the list is, or should be. For example, would Stuart Wilson (archaeologist) qualify? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
For modern archaeologists, they'd surely need qualifications; for the first archaeologists, this would be much more problematic though. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Why is this titled avocational and pseudo archaeologists - the two are completely different! Being avocational does not preclude having proper archaeological standards. Having recently been part of a research project looking at competence in archaeology, I think there are a number of criteria, but they are not exclusive. Having qualifications per se isn't a requirement, although these days the vast majority of current archaeologists do have. However, many people have qualifications in archaeology but are not archaeologists in that a large proprtion of people taking archaeology as a degree course do not go on to practice archaeology. Professional membership of a bona fide professional organistion like the IFA is a good criteria, since this requires validation and covers professional standards as well as knowledge and training. Publication in proper peer reviewed academic archaeology journals is also a good criterion. Viv Hamilton (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi, all. I'm going to be reformatting this page to contain more information, a la List of improvisational theatre companies. Thanks! SMSpivey (talk) 03:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. When you do it, please be sure to retain information on dates, nationality, and specialty. I've been slowly adding this info, so that the first part of the alphabet is pretty well covered. what other categories of information if any are You thinking of? Kdammers (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I was thinking of having Name, Birth year, Geographic area (with option of "general" for people who just study a particular technical subject), Technical expertise (with option of "general" for people who study everything in Mesoamerica, for example), their Graduate School (with option of "avocational" for self-taught or those who predate formal training), and References. I was toying with the idea of a notes section or perhaps combining Geo area or Tech expertise into a column called "major contributions". WHEW! What do you think? I'd love to work with you together on this if you'd like. I can set it up on a random userpage, because it will take a while to work out with wikiformatting. Also, do you think it should just be a really long table? I'm leaning towards that. SMSpivey (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I think a series of smaller tables would be easier to edit. Same as how it's set up in alphabetical order now, divided by letter. Would be easier to add new entries. All of the other stuff sounds good tho, way to go Kdammers!.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I just worry that by making smaller tables, it will eliminate some of the usefulness of sorting. They will be permanently sorted by alphabet, you know? SMSpivey (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd say separate smaller tables in alphabetical order. I've used some Wik lists that are made this way, and it has been possible to search through them (by scrolling and by search terms) globally. In fact, to the user they look like one long table. In any case, by setting up the dummy site You mention, we can see how it works and how cluttered or scannable a particular version is. Kdammers (talk) 07:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


(fl. 1850?) British; Britain, channel Islands, stone age; or is this supposed to by Lucas or F. C. Lukis, 1788-1871, Kdammers (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Red links[edit]

Should this list include archaeologists that do not yet have a WP article? If so, what criteria applies? I did look up a couple of names that are red links, and found that they are archaeologists, although I cannot judge their "eminence". Including only people who have an article in the English WP would make maintenance simpler, but might unfairly exclude archaeologists not well known in English-speaking countries. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And I found an answer here. Persons listed should either have an article in WP, or a citation to a source establishing notability in the field. -- Donald Albury 00:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes Wik guidelines are too stringent. I have looked at some of the red entries, and some have been really significant. For example, Bartres had nothing, even though he is a very well known figure in the history of Meso-American archaeology. If I hadn't written a stub for him just a little while ago, he would be subject to removal by some-one blindly following the policy. So, I ask that people be cautious in eliminating red peo: Checkple before erasing. For example, check standard books for older people if you are lucky enough to be near a major library. For contemporary people, a professional evaluation using SSCI and Google Scholar could lead to a decision to make an entry or eliminate from the list. Kdammers (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I was working on the basis of the comments above. I will note that this is a very serious problem on many lists of people. Dougweller (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
As the guideline says, a citation should be sufficient to keep someone on the list. Without at least a citation, how is a reader to tell that a name really belongs on the list. Yeah, that may put archaeologists from some countries at a disadvantage, but that is inherent in requiring verifiability in an English-language encyclopedia. -- Donald Albury 22:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Guidelines are not chiseled in monoliths. All I am asking for is a >considered approach<, where-in rather than simply erasing red entries, we do a little foot-work: Check in a decent relevant source before erasing. If the person is noteworthy even if there is no Wik/En entry, don't erase it (even if you don't feel able at the moment to write a stub). One source to check would be other Wiks, especially the Wik of the language the archaeologist presumably speaks. Please note that I am not saying all the red entries should remain -- but neither should they automatically go. Maybe we could put citations in as stop-gap measures, though they would clutter up the list. Kdammers (talk) 04:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, all it takes is a citation to a reliable source. Everyone on this list needs to meet the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics), which can only be established by citing reliable sources. Our verifiability policy places the burden of providing sources on an editor who wants to retain any challenged material. However, I will limit myself for now to adding [citation needed] tags, rather than removing names without an article or citation to a reliable source. -- Donald Albury 11:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Gordon R. Willey[edit]

I have no idea how it happened, but we did not have Willey on this list! This even though we have a lot of current people. I'd like some help with checking that we don't have any other embarrassing omissions. So, could some of you check that the top archaeologists in your area are on the list?Kdammers (talk) 02:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Browne[edit]

Should we add Thomas Browne? His Urn Burial is a careful archaeological work. Kdammers (talk) 02:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert clean-up[edit]

I reverted the clean-up becuase a number of prominent individuals were included in the removal:

finlayson, Gamble, GARDIN, Gibbon, Hole, Lamberg-karlovsky, Leone, probably Barry Lewis, Lip, MCKERN (originated of the Midwest taxonomic system), MILLON, Yoffe, probably Zimmerman, and ZUBROW. A number of eastern European archaeologists were removed, but I am not a specialist in that area to be able to judge. How-ever, at least one has moderate-length articles in Wik articles in languageS from that area. Kdammers (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

We would still need reliable sources for them, which we didn't have. I kept everybody with either an English article or a reliable source. The one person which had a French Wikipedia article as a "source", fr:Jean-Claude Gardin, does not seem to be the subject of enough third-party coverage to be notable. All the French sources are bibliographies or texts written by Gardin, not about him. Huon (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have time to check all of these now,but Mark Leone has an article: Mark P. Leone. Maybe some of the others are like that. Mirza Hasan Ćeman has articles in two SE European languages. I have no idea why Gardin does not have more of an article in the French Wikipedia, since he was a significant, internationally known theorist about thrity years ago.Kdammers (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I have fixed the Leone link, but I'd expect many of the redlinks I removed indeed were non-notable. Lists such as this one tend to accumulate some non-notable cruft if they're not watched closely. For example, Ron Rule seems to be more of an "e-Commerce Expert" than an archaeologist, while Yun Ki-Hyon seems to be primarily a poet - provided that's the right Yun Ki-Hyon, which I cannot determine. Huon (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In fact I think Ron Rule added himself in 2006 where I see an IP, (talk · contribs) adding not just Ron Rule but also his websites. This has been here for over 5 years, an example of why all entries must have either articles or sources showing the subject meets notability. This means removing now some names for which articles can be created or other evidence provided, but this needs to be done for each of them or we may find we have a number of entries who clearly do not belong here. There are over 80 red links with no sources - some may not be archaeologists (perhaps added as a joke, it happens), some may be but don't meet our criteria - self-added, friends, whatever. For instance, Katie Nielson may be the 2004 BA graduate who got an award mentioned here[1] and here[2]and added here[3]. I see no way in which she belongs in this list. Lots of editors think they can add anyone to a list. I agree with Huon, these red links should be removed. Also, being in another language version doesn't mean they are notable by our criteria although it does give us a source of information perhaps. Why not move these to a sub-page of this page and go through them? Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Dougweller and will list the removed entries in a subsection of this talk page. Huon (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Removed entries[edit]


I relisted Julie Stein as she is definitely an international "A-list" archaeologist and geoarchaeologist, who is more well known, regraded, and published than many of people currently on the list. For example, she was the 1999 Rip Rapp Archaeological Geology Award winner among many other awards. Paul H. (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


The last three or four edits are vandalism. I know how to roll back one edit but not more than one. Can some-one please clean this up?Kdammers (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for being on an "eminent archaeologist" list?[edit]

What are the rules for inclusion on this list? Is the list just the names of some notable archaeologists that have been randomly gathered or cherry-picked and given the accolade of "eminent" based on an editor or twos' feelings? Or is there an RS basis for listing these archaeologists as "eminent"? As opposed to merely notable?

Can a reader take absence from "A list of eminent archaeologists" to signify that any missing archaeologists are considered non-eminent? Israel Finkelstein is on the list. Neil Silberman is not. William G. Dever is not. Baruch Halpern is not. How did Finkelstein become eminent? What does Finkelstein possess that Silberman et al lack?

Is this better "A list of some notable archaeologists"? If it's not then the criteria for inclusion need to be made explicit to avoid misleading readers. (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a thorny issue we have looked at before but not truly resolved. Doug Weller suggested that archaeologists who have Wik articles or significant supporting links be the only ones to be included.

The issue of "some" is a problem endemic to Wikipedia lists. We can easily overlook some-one. So, I think we have two issues: type 1 and type 2 errors. To avoid omitting good candidates, we need to keep looking in Wik and elsewhere; to avoid including "lesser" archaeologists, it seems we need at lest to abide by Weller's criteria. Can and should we tighten them? I don't know. But see the list of culled names earlier on this talk page for a perspective. Kdammers (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Dimitri Nakassis[edit]

Should we make a Wik page for and then include this archaeologist recently in the news?Kdammers (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Relevant archaeologists?[edit]

The following archaeologists are on the list, but have neither a Wik page nor external links. They should either have this changed or be cut. Please help.

  • Derrick P. Whitlow, I
  • Henrieta Todorova
  • Tiziano Fantuzzi
  • John Winter Crowfoot
  • Paolo Biagi

Kdammers (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


  • Carl Steen

Todorova now has a ref (obit).

Yes check.svg Done. Huon (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


Biagi is a red-link with no outside ref. He does have an extensive list of achievements at, but they probably do not qualify as a ref for Wik. Pretty much if not exactly the same information is given at Can we use this site?Kdammers (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Biagi's faculty page at Ca' Foscari can be taken as a reliable source for the factual details of his career, and there are a numerous items on there which meet WP:PROF so he's notable. So it's an absolutely valid redlink. Joe Roe (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I would encourage removing all redlinks from lists like these, they only lead to bloat. If he is notable he should have an article before being included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm with Maunus. Regarding Biagi, quote WP:PROF: "once the facts establishing the passage of one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources, non-independent sources, such as official institutional and professional sources, are widely accepted as reliable sourcing for routine, uncontroversial details". Even the extremely lenient PROF requires some independent coverage to establish notability. I see none so far. Huon (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I like redlinks, but see the wisdom in excluding them from lists. Paolo Biagi is no longer red. His fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of London (sufficient to pass WP:PROF#C3) is independently verified on the Society's website. Joe Roe (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It's sort of been the practice here to include redlinked people if an external reference adequately (true, not something we have established) supports the significance of the archaeologist. So, I would no like to see names that have citations removed just because they are redlinked. I would also ask that any redlinks that have no citations and are removed be included on this talk page unless they are clearly spurious (I believe Doug Weller did this a few years ago, and the removals can be seen on this talk page, some of them in the meantime having turned blue).Kdammers (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2016 (UTC)