Talk:Teleilat el-Ghassul

Source failed verification
"Teleilat el-Ghassul...is the type-site of the Ghassulian culture... which flourished in the Southern Levant during the Middle and Late Chalcolithic period (c. 4400 – c. 3500 BC)." ref: Bourke, Lawson, Lovell & Hua (January 2006). "The Chronology of the Ghassulian Chalcolithic Period in the Southern Levant: New 14C Determinations from Teleilat Ghassul, Jordan". Radiocarbon 43 (3),.

Source failed verification. The paper doesn't contain any Ghassul dates from the 4th millennium, only from the 5th. I'm not capable to figure out what if anything can be gained from it about the dates when the period started and ended, it deals mainly with correcting a faulty set of dates from the 1980s which seems to concern the transition from Neolithic to Chalcolithic. Bourke has a 2007 paper on precisely that topic, also very technical, which does confirm a 4500-4400 BCE beginning of the Chalcolithic period at the site, or a 4500 BCE transition from Neolithic to Chalcolithic (p. 25, right column). So more useful here, but only for the starting date, not for the end of the Chalc. Maybe I'm overlooking smth, the papers are extremely technical. Any ideas? Arminden (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Low importance?
hi. I have no clue about Wiki criteria in this regard, but how is the type-site for Ghassulian, one of the most fascinating archaeological civilisations in the Middle East's history, of "low importance" on WikiProject Archaeology? Thanks, Arminden (talk) 14:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)


 * See the Importance scale of WikiProject Archaeology. Low-ranking translates to "Subject is notable, but not particularly so. Is likely to primarily be mentioned in specialist literature." For higher rankings, it needs to be mentioned in "general texts" (Mid), "archaeology textbook"s (High), or "any basic encyclopaedia" (Top). Dimadick (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You mean like Encyclopaedia Britannica and Larousse? Webster's has Ghassulian. Shall I look for more? Arminden (talk) 14:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really. You can re-rate it yourself. Dimadick (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Went for "high", although one might argue for "top" (Britannica, Larousse, Webster's), but let's be moderate. Arminden (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)