Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Main Discussion Monitoring Outline Participants 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.

Help needed at Point Rosee[edit]

A discussion was initiated at Talk:Point Rosee#RadioCarbon Dates as the dates in the article contradicted the dates in the Nova/PBS program. I tried to correct this but was reverted. I can't find much written after the program was broadcast. Doug Weller talk 16:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Venus figurines[edit]

There is a discussion at Talk:Venus figurines regarding the inclusion of post-Palaeolithic figurines. Mr. bobby has been edit-warring for several years to try and remove any mention of them (not just in this article), and is at it again. Some more opinions would be appreciated. @Johnbod and Doug Weller: I think you have both edited the topic in the past. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Aurolithic civilization[edit]

A new(ish) editor adding fringe material on a 'Lost Aurolithic Civilization' to various articles, see Special:Contributions/Wikiknol. – Joe (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Please come and help...[edit]

There are requested moves at:

that would benefit from your !vote and rationale. Happy New Year to All!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  09:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Women in archaeology task force update[edit]

Just over a year ago I started a women in archaeology task force to improve our coverage of female archaeologists and women-related topics in archaeology. Since then, WIR's red list of women archaeologists has been halved, and members of the task force have created 32 new biographies. Two of those were featured at DYK and one (Margaret Ursula Jones) was brought up to good article status. We've also tagged and assessed all of the existing articles on women archaeologists (373 total), which helps the task force keep track of the level and quality of coverage. I therefore wanted to thank Ninafundisha, Zakhx150, and, especially, MauraWen, for all their hard work over the past year.

At this rate, I think we can aim to turn all the remaining links on the WIR archaeology red list blue in 2018. I'd also like to focus on improving existing articles. Currently only 12% of women in archaeology articles are classed as B or above, and only three are GAs or FAs.

If anybody would like to help, please do add your name to the participant list at WP:ARCHAEO/WOMEN. – Joe (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I want to thank Joe Roe for his help this past year. There is much to learn in writing a biography that meet's Wikipedia guidelines. I probably wouldn't have made it to biography #4 without Joe's sage advice and quick replies to my questions.
I am wondering, at the moment, if we will be able turn all the remaining red links to blue? A number of red list archaeologists are from countries like Japan and Italy, where source information, if available, is not in English. MauraWen (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The SPLC on the History Channel, pseudoarchaeology etc[edit]

"The modern far right is crisscrossed with pseudo-scientific research into lost Aryan super-civilizations, biblical giants, ancient astronauts and the occasional inter-dimensional alien." Great stuff. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC) anything about Area 51? Azd0815 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

New documentary on the Solutrean hypothesis[edit]

"CBC under fire for documentary that says first humans to colonize New World sailed from Europe". This discusses some of the racist users of the hypothesis. It's likely to bring new editors to the page who have little understanding of the subject or Wikipedia, plus hopefully some who do. I see the Haplogroup X argument is in the documentary, although you'd think they might have given up on that. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Good spot. In case it becomes useful, one of the few mainstream geneticists that agreed to be interviewed (and is clearly worried her interviews will have biased edits) has tweeted extensively to rebut the hypothesis: thread here PatHadley (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. I added a paragraph based on her paper to Haplogroup X (mtDNA) and to this article a while ago. Glad to see it's still there! Doug Weller talk 15:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Also see this. Ken Feder's involved with archyfantasies. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone have Current Archaeology for 2009?[edit]

I gave mine away. Looking for a review of Mike Ashley (writer)'s Mammoth Book of King Arthur.[1] The book is extensively used at Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ashley "is a leading authority on science fiction, fantasy, crime and weird fiction"[2]. I can't find his book used in reliable sources. I did find one review which isn't encouraging.[3] It seems to be used in a number of articles.[4] Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Misliya cave[edit]

In January 2018 it was announced that a fragment of a jawbone with eight teeth found at Misliya cave, Israel, have been dated to around 185,000 years ago with speculation that the Levallois culture might also be associated with early modern humans. This might require a rewrite of many articles. Recent African origin of modern humans states 'There were then at least two dispersal events from Africa to the rest of the world. The first wave took place between 130,000 and 115,000 years ago via northern Africa', which might need thinking about as the present evidence suggests an earlier migration. See , , and for information.2A00:23C4:D896:6000:28F4:632E:DF2D:14A3 (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Beringian[edit]

There's a merge discussion at Talk:Ancient Beringian about a merger with other articles. There's also a content dispute that could use more input. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Cradle of civilisation[edit]

A lot of changes including the time line. If anyone is interested they could use checking. Also some possibly POV edit warring. Doug Weller talk 07:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • February 2018

Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!

-— Isarra 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA)[edit]

This is missing from British Iron Age, see Talk:British Iron Age#No mention of the Late pre-Roman Iron Age (LPRIA). I just wish I had the time. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

"Anthropology professor is skeptical about LiDAR Maya hype"[edit]

That's the title of this article. It's an interview with Michael E. Smith who says at the end of the interview:

"these data have tremendous potential to contribute to our knowledge of the ancient Maya. They can revise our figures for Maya populations, for their farming systems, their housing and domestic organization, and other topics. But right now, these things exist only as potential results, not as actual findings. So that is the “no” sense of my answer. Right now, with the available information, we have no greater understanding of the Maya. That will have to wait until the hard work gets done. The LiDAR data have to be ground-truthed (checked on the ground), processed by computers and analyzed carefully.

It is significant that these finds are reported by the National Geographic Society, an organization whose interest in publicity and spectacular claims often takes precedence over their interest in solid scientific results. Many public announcements of archaeological findings are based on technical articles published in peer-reviewed journals. That is a sign that there has been a real advance, sanctioned by colleagues and journal editors. The new LiDAR finds have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, because they are still preliminary. Another feature of the hype that comes from an organization like National Geographic Society is that the finds are announced as if they were the first time anyone though to apply LiDAR to the Maya area. But in fact, archaeologists have used LiDAR in other parts of the Maya zone for seven or eight years now."

I just found a more detailed article by him.[5] Doug Weller talk 17:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I send invitations to new members for your project?[edit]

Hi, I have been working on recommending new members for your project for a while, and have sent some lists to @Joe Roe:. I wonder if you mind me sending invitations directly to save time and efforts of yours? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Bobo.03. You can for me. I didn't see anyone on the first list that I thought it was worth inviting, but maybe there are more on the second. – Joe (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Got it. Will do! Just wonder what kinds of editors are you expecting to invite? Bobo.03 (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
@Bobo.03: Nobody in particular, but the thresholds on the first set seemed very low, including users for example who had only made one edit to an archaeology-related article. I wouldn't want to bother people who just happened to edit a few articles in our project scope in the course of doing anti-vandal work, etc. – Joe (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: I see. Thank you! Yeh, the first set has some bug.. I've fixed them. Hope the second set would look a bit better. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Evidently James Mellaart faked a number of "discoveries" at Çatalhöyük[edit]

Which means it needs a rewrite.Famed Archaeologist 'Discovered' His Own Fakes at 9,000-Year-Old Settlement Doug Weller talk 11:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

This is amazing. BUt we can't rewrite untill we see how the archeological milieu reacts. The article says Ian Hodder has not commented yet for example.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes I think we need to be cautious. Mellaart was already a controversial figure and these new stories seem rather one-sided. – Joe (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I am now reading this[6], publishd by Zangger.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Also this[7]. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, they look useful. The first one didn't work for me, but I think it's this: [8]. – Joe (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Writing an article about a book[edit]

Currently I am in the process of producing a short documentary, with research and going to various universities and libraries my project of producing a documentary will eventually begin.

Regards Showerman05 Showerman05 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a proposal to create a new category Category:Prehistoric Black British people at Talk:Cheddar Man[edit]

Specifically Talk:Cheddar Man#(Very) dark-skinned inhabitant of Britain. It would set a precedent and I'm not sure a good one. Doug Weller talk 11:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Totally anachronistic. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Further discussion at Talk:Cheddar Man would be welcome, but I don't suggest starting a closely similar discussion here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)