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.


About the concept of Type or Typology[edit]

I have a question about the concept of Type or Typology

I think that the traditional concept in the old world(or not the United States Archaeological School) from the O.Montelius era is so different form the one of Unites States Archaeology.

Originally the concept of Montelius didn't include the different shape vessels(i.e. Bottle,Jar,etc.), but include only one vessles(ie.Only Jar). About the change of shpe (or adornment,etc.) of one Vessels(i.e.jar)from time to time, O.Montelius argued. This way is now using in the old world archaeology. Of course using "Type" concept of U.S's Archaeology , dpended on the archaeologist, it's school and the situation, if the site has not many complete or semi-complete vessels or is not investigated and accumulated the ceramic data, it can't use the traditional montelius Type concept. But, originally the Montelius's concept is very different form the U.S's Type copncept.

On the other hand, the traditional U.S's concept of Type(i.e.Southwestern archaeology) is very different from this concept of the Old Worldd Archaeology. In United States this concept include various vessel shapes from Bottle,Jar,etc. like as Krieger's concept or Gofford's Type-Variety concept. This concept across the various shape vessels.

I would like to hear the opinion about this theme.


Seeking any comments/opinions on a mild dispute regarding the Siloam_inscription, Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician_alphabet. The article had described the inscription as Paleo-Hebrew since it's creation. Recently, User:Oncenawhile added Phoenician Alphabet as a qualifier after Paleo-Hebrew. I consider this to be unnecessary as Paleo-Hebrew is already defined as a variant of Phoenician and the inscription is routinely described as Hebrew/Ancient Hebrew (which denotes Phoenician characters) (,, The additional information, in my opinion, comes across as confusing (why not tag modern English writings as "Latin alphabet"? etc) To me it does not jive with standard encyclopedia practice. Any insight would be appreciated. Thanks Drsmoo (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Drsmoo. My perspective on this is that the clarification is helpful because for more than half the time that the Siloam inscription has been known to modern scholars, its script was referred to exclusively as Phoenician. Use of the terminology "paleo Hebrew" for this artifact and other artifacts with the same script found within the borders of Israel started from the second half of the 20th century. Frankly neither term is perfect because both imply a relation to an ethnic group, without proof of that relationship. "Northwest Semitic script" is therefore quickly becoming more common in scholarly usage. Oncenawhile (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The comment about it being referred to in the past exclusively as Phoenecian is both untrue and irrelevant. What's meaningful is how best to explain it now. The term paleo-hebrew is the most accurate description of the language used. Drsmoo (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
not knowing much, and not wishing to cause offence as there seems to be some religious overtones to the edges of this thread (not from you guys but I saw mention of religious scholars) having had a quick squint at the pages for Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, abjad, and Phoenician alphabet I'm wondering if this question is effectively a discussion on whether to merge the Paleo-Hebrew and Phoenician pages ? I think those articles all have some good content, and it might be possible to merge them (probably under the Phoenician alphabet) with Paleo Hebrew as a redirect to that.
Incidentally I see that paleo Hebrew article says it is "an abjad variation of the Phoenician", but the abjad article says that old Phoenician was a 'true abjad' - so it seems that if that's the case then paleo Hebrew would be "a variation of the abjad Phoenician" (not, "an abjad variation of the (implied 'non abjad'?) Phoenician") ? EdwardLane (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Lothal FAR[edit]

I have nominated Lothal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl Peer Review[edit]

Hello! I'd like to invite interested editors to comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1. Thanks! RO(talk) 21:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Where is this project in the Wikiproject directory?[edit]

Somebody helped me find this project because it looks as though it's not listed in the directory. I assume that it should be, so who can take care of that? RO(talk) 18:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Philippine Jade Artifacts[edit]

Any thoughts about this article at AFC? My comments are on the draft page. Thanks, Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site[edit]

Could someone please take a look at this and see if it is viable? Many thanks.

User:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site (now at Draft:Laguna de Bay Archaeological Site)

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to Peer Review[edit]

I've had Wikipedia:Peer review/Chetro Ketl/archive1 up for a while now, but I still would like some more feedback before closing it in about two weeks. Thanks! RO(talk) 19:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 4[edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg
Newsletter • May/June 2015

Hello friends! We have been hard at work these past two months. For this report:

The directory is live!

For the first time, we are happy to bring you an exhaustive, comprehensive WikiProject Directory. This directory endeavors to list every single WikiProject on the English Wikipedia, including those that don't participate in article assessment. In constructing the broadest possible definition, we have come up with a list of approximately 2,600 WikiProjects. The directory tracks activity statistics on the WikiProject's pages, and, for where it's available, statistics on the number of articles tracked by the WikiProject and the number of editors active on those articles. Complementing the directory are description pages for each project, listing usernames of people active on the WikiProject pages and the articles in the WikiProject's scope. This will help Wikipedians interested in a subject find each other, whether to seek feedback on an article or to revive an old project. (There is an opt-out option.) We have also come up with listings of related WikiProjects, listing the ten most relevant WikiProjects based on what articles they have in common. We would like to promote WikiProjects as interconnected systems, rather than isolated silos.

A tremendous amount of work went into preparing this directory. WikiProjects do not consistently categorize their pages, meaning we had to develop our own index to match WikiProjects with the articles in their scope. We also had to make some adjustments to how WikiProjects were categorized; indeed, I personally have racked up a few hundred edits re-categorizing WikiProjects. There remains more work to be done to make the WikiProject directory truly useful. In the meantime, take a look and feel free to leave feedback at the WikiProject X talk page.

Stuff in the works!

What have we been working on?

  • A new design template—This has been in the works for a while, of course. But our goal is to design something that is useful and cleanly presented on all browsers and at all screen resolutions while working within the confines of what MediaWiki has to offer. Additionally, we are working on designs for the sub-components featured on the main project page.
  • A new WikiProject talk page banner in Lua—Work has begun on implementing the WikiProject banner in Lua. The goal is to create a banner template that can be usable by any WikiProject in lieu of having its own template. Work has slowed down for now to focus on higher priority items, but we are interested in your thoughts on how we could go about creating a more useful project banner. We have a draft module on Test Wikipedia, with a demonstration.
  • New discussion reports—We have over 4.8 million articles on the English Wikipedia, and almost as many talk pages as well. But what happens when someone posts on a talk page? What if no one is watching that talk page? We are currently testing out a system for an automatically-updating new discussions list, like RFC for WikiProjects. We currently have five test pages up for the WikiProjects on cannabis, cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and Ghana.
  • SuggestBot for WikiProjects—We have asked the maintainer of SuggestBot to make some minor adjustments to SuggestBot that will allow it to post regular reports to those WikiProjects that ask for them. Stay tuned!
  • Semi-automated article assessment—Using the new revision scoring service and another system currently under development, WikiProjects will be getting a new tool to facilitate the article assessment process by providing article quality/importance predictions for articles yet to be assessed. Aside from helping WikiProjects get through their backlogs, the goal is to help WikiProjects with collecting metrics and triaging their work. Semi-automation of this process will help achieve consistent results and keep the process running smoothly, as automation does on other parts of Wikipedia.

Want us to work on any other tools? Interested in volunteering? Leave a note on our talk page.

The WikiProject watchers report is back!

The database report which lists WikiProjects according to the number of watchers (i.e., people that have the project on their watchlist), is back! The report stopped being updated a year ago, following the deactivation of the Toolserver, but a replacement report has been generated.

Until next time, Harej (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

GT nom English Heritage properties in Somerset and FT nom Scheduled monuments in Somerset[edit]

Would anyone be willing to review a couple of nominations which are relevant to this project? I nominated English Heritage properties in Somerset as a good topic back in April and it has only received 2 comments, while Scheduled monuments in Somerset has been almost a month without any comments on its featured topic nomination. Any comments would be very welcome.— Rod talk 20:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


As battlefield archaeology is an article under your remit, you may be interested in the discussion about what the topic of "battlefield" is, at Draft talk:battlefield -- (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Prehistoric Egypt renaming[edit]

A discussion has been initiated for Prehistoric Egypt to be moved to Predynastic Egypt, see the discussion at Talk:Prehistoric Egypt#Requested move 27 July 2015 -- (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:Predynastic_Egypt renaming[edit]

"Category:Predynastic Egypt]] has been proposed for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_27#Category:Predynastic_Egypt -- (talk) 07:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)