User talk:Rico Viviers

Out-of-place artifact
This article is as it says for artefacts. If you think that should include large masonry works, could you discuss it on the talk page first as that would change the focus. I'm assuming you were trying to say that as I wrote in my edit summary that it was state of the art but not really out of place, but I'm not sure. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I’m not sure if scale or materials are predefining factors for defining what is interpreted as an artefact, but I agree that architecture would be out of place on this page. Although not validated there are other masonry objects in the article of varying scale depicted as artefacts (Baalbek megaliths, Stone spheres of Costa Rica), as well as earthworks (Nazca Lines) which is a stretch. You have to agree that the article would be the poorer of it without mention of the Nazca Lines, however inappropriate. The artefacts found at Pumapunku are the disassembled parts of buildings which individually are out of place because of the way they were manufactured in context with the period. Perhaps the point would read better starting with, Pumapunku masonry artefacts:. . . Rico Viviers (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you want to move this to the article talk page so others can chime in? Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)