User:Joe Roe/Archaeology conventions

Draft guidelines for writing articles about archaeology.

Neutrality
Articles on archaeology should be written from a neutral point of view

Identifying reliable sources
Articles about archaeology in the news media, including most popular science sources, are generally unreliable and should be avoided.

Dating and chronology
When reporting the dates of events and periods in the past, use a calendar era that is familiar to the general reader. Usually this will be either the Common Era (BCE/CE) or Anno Domini (BC/AD) system.

For topics concerning the remote past, it may be more intuitive to write dates using the Before Present (BP) era or, informally, as "years ago". In this case, write 3000 yearsBP or 3000YBP or 3000years before present but not forms such as 3000 before present and 3000 years before the present. If one of the abbreviated forms is used, expand and link to Before Present on first use: The Jones artefact was dated to 4000Before Present (BP), the Smith artefact to 5000BP. "Years ago" or "years old", e.g. the site was occupied 4000 years ago or the artefact is 5000 years old, can be a more approachable alternative, if you are sure that the -year difference between the formal "Present" (1950) and actual current year is not significant.

If a source reports dates in BP and the article uses BC(E), or vice versa, converting between the two is an acceptable routine calculation. To convert a date from BP to BC(E), subtract 1950. To convert a date from BC(E) to BP, add 1950. If the date has been rounded to the nearest century or millennium, add or subtract 2000 instead (e.g. the 3rd millennium BP refers to the 1st millennium BCE, not 1050–50 BCE).

Radiocarbon dates
Individual radiocarbon dates from primary sources, whether calibrated or not, should not be included in most articles. The interpretation of these dates requires expertise and contextual information which is not available to the general reader. Instead, use date ranges supplied by reliable secondary sources that have interpreted the radiocarbon data for us.

Sometimes it may be appropriate to discuss individual radiocarbon dates, for example in articles about artefacts or sites where they have been the subject of substantial discussion. In these cases, refer to the calibrated (calendar) date ranges reported in the source (e.g. 2097–2050 BCE; sometimes called the "two sigma"/2σ range). Do not calibrate raw radiocarbon dates yourself, as this is original research. Other information commonly included alongside radiocarbon dates in scientific literature, such as the laboratory ID, measurement error, or calibrated probability distributions, are generally not useful or meaningful to the general reader and should not be included.

Uncalibrated dates in "radiocarbon years" should only be included if there is no calibrated or secondary interpretation available. They should be accompanied with some indication for the reader that they are not measured in ordinary years, for example a link to radiocarbon calibration.

Pots are pots, not people
Take care to distinguish the physical evidence, concepts, and analytical categories that archaeologists use to draw conclusions about people that lived in the past from the people themselves. For example, the Bell Beaker culture is a modern name for a set of artefact types associated with a distinctively-shaped cup, not an actual society or ethnic group. It makes sense to talk about Bell Beaker artefacts or the spread of the Bell Beaker culture but not Bell Beaker people or the migration of the Bell Beakers. An archaeological site is not a settlement, but may contain the remains of a settlement.

Consequently, use the present tense for things that exist in the present, like archaeological sites, cultures, industries, and types:


 * The Bell Beaker culture is an archaeological culture of Western Europe.
 * The Bell Beaker culture was an archaeological culture from Western Europe

Notability
There are no specific notability guidelines for archaeology topics. The following section includes information on how other notability guidelines are typically applied to archaeology.

Archaeologists
Biographical articles on archaeologists are usually assessed against the notability guideline for academics (WP:PROF). They may also qualify for inclusion under the notability guidelines for authors (WP:NAUTHOR), specifically the criterion that an author is presumed to be notable if they have written a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [that has] been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews or an independent and notable work, or the general notability guideline (WP:GNG).


 * Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of London is generally accepted to meet criterion 3 of the academic notability guideline (elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association). Fellowship of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland does not, as its membership is not selective.
 * Book reviews in academic journals can count towards WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and the WP:GNG, but are often overlooked in articles for deletion discussions.

Sites
Most archaeological sites can be assumed to be notable as former populated places. Excavations of sites usually generate multiple scientific publications, which meets the general notability guideline. A site that has been legally recognised, for example listed on a national or international heritage register, is very likely to be notable. Newly discovered sites, or sites only noted in a survey and not studied further, may not be individually notable, but can often be included in an article about the place or region in which they were found.

Artefacts and fossils
Individual fossils, artefacts, structures and other objects from archaeological sites can be independently notable if there is significant, in-depth coverage of that object specifically in independent reliable sources. However, remember that not every notable subject has to have a standalone page. It is often better to cover an object within the article on the site where it was discovered, even if it is independently notable, to give the reader more context and avoid unnecessary content forking.

Note also the requirement for independent sources; when assessing the notability of an object, take care to recognise sources that have a vested interest in its significance. These could include press releases from the person or institution that discovered it or the a museum, private collection, or auction house holding it.

Background
The study of the physical anthropology of individuals excavated in an archaeological context is not a recent phenomenon. Since the 19th century, skeletal (especially cranial) and dental morphology have been analyzed and compared to other ancient humans and also modern populations, often in a racial framework. Morphological analysis has, however, been seen as problematic for several reasons, not only because the usefulness of racial categories came into question in the mid 20th century, but also due to possible non-inherited (environmental, nutritional etc.) factors on skeletal morphology.

In the 21th century, the successful extraction and analysis of DNA from ancient humans (aDNA) has provided a sharp tool for studying the ancestral relations between ancient humans and modern populations which allows – in theory – to uncover ancestral connections in a much more fine-grained way than previously was possible with the study of skeletal morphology.

Archaeogenetic studies cannot be separated from modern archaeological research. Archaeologists provide the context for the studied individuals, allowing geneticists to categorize and cluster individuals by age, region and cultural context. In turn, geneticists discover ancestral connections between individuals from different ages, regions and cultural contexts, and thus enable archaeologists to get important insights about ancient migrations and their connection (or lack thereof) with the spread of things and ideas.


 * [...] (Add more about simplistic models, co-option of problematic theoretical framworks etc.)

Archaeogenetics is a rapidly evolving field. Cutting-edge research results of today can become outdated, of marginal interest or simply proven wrong within a short time. E.g., the study of uniparental haplogroups which dominated aDNA research in the first decade of the 21th century has much decreased in importance with the emergence of full-genomic studies, and is now seen as just one particular piece in the puzzle in the study of ancient genomes.

Nevertheless, in spite of the rapid pace of research, some stable key insights have emerged in the last ten years (e.g. the two major population turnovers in ancient Europe from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age), and it is these (at least temporarily) stable mainstream insights that Wikipedia can present as established knowledge in an encyclopedic manner.

Presenting archaeogenetic research in archaeological articles
Archaeology and archaeogenetics study the ways of life and the (pre-)history of ancient peoples. Archaeological articles should present this window into the past, and not elaborate on the publication history of aDNA research.

As of now, the prevalent writing style has been of the following type (omitting endless lists of Y-haplotypes):


 * A study published in 2015 has shown that the population of the Afanasievo culture originates from the people of the Yamnaya culture. Another study in 2015 said the same in a somewhat different way. A study in 2019 also said that the population of the Afanasievo culture originates from the people of the Yamnaya culture.

This is the result of editors slowly having accumulated unfiltered findings from the (then) latest articles that happened to include Afanasievo individuals their samples. In this illustrative case, the virtually unadmixed genetic continuity from the Yamnaya to the Afanasievo populations has indeed become mainstream wisdom and found its way into a secondary source, which allows for a encyclopedic presentation entirely in Wikivoice:


 * The analysis of the full genome of Afanasievo individuals has shown that they were genetically very close to the Yamnaya population of the Pontic–Caspian steppe.

In-text attribution should be reserved to less established and still controversial/tentative findings. Note however that it is the very latter that may give undue weight to low-impact or even fringe views; the necessity of in-text attribution is thus already a red-flag and might indicate that time is not ripe yet (and maybe never will be) for including a particular piece of research into Wikipedia.


 * [...] (Add more about data-combing, haplogroup spamming etc., OR/SYNTH, hijacking articles; populations are datasets, not "peoples")