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.
 

Corinthian Chytra[edit]

I wolud like to submit this image for your attention; it might be interesting to insert a date into this caption (as well as into the file description page on Commons). I was not able to find out more about the Chytra in general; perhaps a redirect page could be helpful. --Pegasovagante (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What's with the blobby black detailing? It looks like someone tried to restore it with a sharpie (or MS Paint)? Joe Roe (talk) 13:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

New book on rock art[edit]

New book, maybe relevant for rock art or a new article (I can't find an article on the Pecos mural but didn't look too hard): The White Shaman Mural: An Enduring Creation Narrative in the Rock Art of the Lower Pecos by Carolyn E. Boyd with Kim Cox, 2016, University of Texas Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Archaeological corpora[edit]

Please join the deletion discussion in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_21#Category:Archaeological_corpora. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Palestine Exploration Quarterly[edit]

Hi! Does anyone know if Palestine Exploration Quarterly would be considered a major journal in the field of archaeology? It is peer reviewed but I personally would describe it as a minor journal. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you could call it major. It's one of the oldest archaeological journals and associated with the PEF, so gets prestige from that, and it's certainly amongst the top tier of journals in Near Eastern archaeology. Joe Roe (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Glossary of archaeology[edit]

I've started a glossary of archaeology to help with those odd technical terms that need explanation but don't necessarily merit an article. Any help expanding it would be much appreciated! Joe Roe (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for the text?[edit]

I'm currently in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Tel Dan Stele (extending to other related articles, ie Merneptah Stele) involving sources. I attempted to add a source for the phrase "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel, the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith." The source was as follows: [1] At first, another editor on the page said the source contradicted the existing source. When it was pointed out that it doesn't, the editor then cursed me out and said the source was "irrelevant". The editor's objections are puzzling to me, claiming that "The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël" is "irrelevant" because "the only reference to the name Israel is referring to a combination of three sources at the same time", which even as a semantic argument seems to not make sense. We already know for a fact that the first three documents listed (along with the fourth) all independently mention Israel, and the other editor knows that as well, so it's unclear why that argument is being made. To me, this is a clearly reliable source that supports the text, but I'm hoping to get a third opinion. (Please note that "Shalmaneser III of Assyria"/"Assyrian royal annals" = Kurkh Monoliths) Drsmoo (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ FLEMING, DANIEL E. (1998-01-01). "MARI AND THE POSSIBILITIES OF BIBLICAL MEMORY". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 92 (1): 41–78. The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël in the mid—9th century, and the continuity of settlement back to the early Iron Age suggests that the establishment of a sedentary identity should be associated with this population, whatever their origin. In the mid—14th century, the Amarna letters mention no Israël, nor any of the biblical tribes, while the Merneptah stele places someone called Israël in hill-country Palestine toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. The language and material culture of emergent Israël show strong local continuity, in contrast to the distinctly foreign character of early Philistine material culture. 

Missing topics list[edit]

My list of missing topics in archaeology (and palaeontology) updated - Skysmith (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a useful resource. Where is the list compiled from? – Joe (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Various sources, including hardcopy dictionaries I have. No doubt some of those may just need a redirect and categories may not always fit but I have done my best - Skysmith (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Dealing with Creationist archaeology[edit]

Editors inserting material from Creationist archaeologists/researchers is a perennial problem. I've brought up the latest attempts to use such sources at WP:FTN#Fringe archaeology in biblical related articles. They range from people such as Bryant Wood to Ron Wyatt and Bob Cornuke, ie from people with decent degrees to those with no degrees. I'm not an editor who thinks we should never mention these people or their work - my view on fringe material is that where it is indeed well publicised then we have some sort of responsibility to help our readers understand why it's wrong. Thus we have articles on the most notable people and even mention their work in articles such as Jabal al-Lawz, where I think it should be discussed, and Marsaskala, where I'm not sure at all that it belongs.

During a search today dealing with the recent problems I found an interesting critique of one Creationist run dig[1], in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 147 2015 "EDITORIAL: DOCUMENTING ARCHAEOLOGY IN THE SOUTHERN LEVANT", by Adi Keinax-Sciioonbaert:

"for Khirbet el-Maqatir, the main motivation behind the excavations is, according to ABR’s Director of Research Bryant Wood, to “determine if Kh. el-Maqatir meets the Biblical requirements to be identified as the Ai of Joshua”. You may ask yourself, how objective is the collection of data in these excavations? Is it at all possible for an ardent evangelical mission to be impartial in its archaeological endeavours? I will be quick to reply: the answer is a loud and clear “No”" And I do not refer only to the archaeological methodology of stratigraphic exposure or pottery classification, but also to the types of data that are collected more diligently than others. Suffice it to say, subjectivity or selectivity are not limited to archaeologists with religious sentiments, political agendas or personal interests, but are in fact intrinsic to the archaeological discipline and exist at every level of archaeological work, posing a challenge to archaeological documentation, specifically in the region of the Southern Levant but also in general. But whether methodology-driven or value-based, how does subjectivity infiltrate into the archaeological record, and which factors have an impact on our collective corpus of archaeological data of the region?"

There's more in the editorial, including a discussion of excavation permits. I'm wondering if we should amplify Pseudoarchaeology#Religious motivations using the editorial I mention above.

I'm also wondering if editors here have any other advice on how to handle the issue - WP:Fringe is probably the relevant guideline, and WP:UNDUE relevant policy. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No interest? I'm wondering now about an article. Doug Weller talk 11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry Doug, I've been mulling this over since you posted it but I don't really have any bright ideas. My vague impression is that although mainstream archaeology is very sceptical of a lot of what happens under the rubric of "biblical archaeology", not a lot of that scepticism makes it into print. I was disappointed that the editorial you linked above seemed to drop the subject completely after the first paragraph. But if you want to write a section or an article on it I'd definitely be interested in helping out. – Joe (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: Missed this. Thanks, I probably will write an article or section at some point. There's also Hindu and Native American creationism, probably other forms. Doug Weller talk 11:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

400,000 photographs of archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales[edit]

In recent weeks, 400,000 images of finds, logged and photographed by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, have been uploaded to Commons.

They are now ready for further categorisation on Commons, and use in Wikipedia articles.

Please see this note on Commons and the project page there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:12, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a fantastic resources, thank you Andy and for the hard work! – Joe (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

American Schools of Oriental Research[edit]

Does anyone know how prestigious is the annual conference and presentation of papers at the American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR)? Would it be one of the most important conferences on the ancient near east?Korvex (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Korvex, the American Schools of Oriental Research has 3 peer reviewed journals. Its conference is prestigious but papers presented there at approved sessions and workshops (as opposed to poster sessions) would still fail WP:RS as unpublished. I'm guessing that you want to use evidence that a paper presented there adds to the reliability of the presenter, is that right? Doug Weller talk 11:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)