Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

Saltovo-Mayaki
u7a4 did not found in Belgorod Oblast like the editor is saying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltovo-Mayaki

'A genetic study published in Nature in May 2018 examined three males of the Saltovo-Mayaki culture buried in Belgorod Oblast, Russia between ca. 700 AD and 900 AD.[3] The sample of Y-DNA extracted belonged to haplogroup R1.[4] The three samples of mtDNA extracted belonged to the haplogroups I, J1b4 and #Haplogroup U7|U7a4.[5]

The mtDNA that have been extracted from Belgorod Oblast belonged to haplogroups I (i4a) and D4m2 and not U7'U7a4.

Haplogroup mtDNA U5 been found among Saltovo-Mayaki but not in Belgorod Oblast.

San Pedro Mountains Mummy
Hi all. Eyes needed here, given bizarre its an alien type conspiracy theories. Joe and Doug, ye are good at dealing with with this stuff, would appreciate help. Ceoil (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There endless number of web pages about the "Pedro Mountain Mummy" of Wyoming. Two of the more interesting are "The Tall, But True, Tale Of A Little Mummy Discovered In Wyoming, Now Lost In Time", Jack Nichols, Cowboy State Daily, June 17, 2023, and The Pedro Mountain Mummy by the Wyoming Historical Society. The latter is cited in the Wikipedia article and has a bibliography of primary and secondary sources. The Wyoming Historical Society concluded: "The mummy,..., would be subject to the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act as it is almost certainly the body of an American Indian child taken from a grave."
 * Paul H. (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, I found this after checking to see whether Ceoil had edited since I raised the issue on the article talk page. I rewrote this article so it looked like this. (The previous version reflected an injudicious expansion in its text.) I do not understand why Ceoil cut so much from the article (cumulative change after reinstatement of a couple of refs by a bot). I can see some justification for introducing a section titled Theories, but the Wyoming Historical Society source among others makes clear that the interpretations are intertwined with the history, and the cuts have removed the scientific analysis of the mummy that is the basis for the statement in the intro that it's an anencephalic baby, and lots more beside, even who "Gill" is. And I thought I'd done a pretty good job of rewriting it from references, leaning most heavily on the Wyoming History Society one. Rather than revert, I'm struggling to understand so as to avoid whatever flaws the article had after my rewrite. (And thanks very much for the Nichols source, .), Ceoil may have meant you, and I was considering pinging you to the talk page, but judging from your edits to the article and its talk page, and the thanks you gave me for my initial large edit, you have it watchlisted. Is the underlying concern one of notability/hoax? If so, I think the removals have worsened the situation rather than improved it, but I found sufficient sources to be entirely satisfied that it's received significant coverage outside the Fortean/fringe communities. And Ceoil didn't cut the material on the second mummy. If I mucked this up, please tell me. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I just happened to see this, I'm not a regular member here, but... it looks to me like you didn't really mess up. I do agree that the sentence about the second mummy was not germane to the subject, but other than that, I don't think the changes made to what you did were improvements.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yngvadottir, ugh I messed up here, had read the article literately the day before you cleaned it up, and in a late at night edit removed paragraphs that that had been dodgy before your edits. To be clear the work since has resolved my concerns. So thanks :) Ceoil (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

New List on Archaeologically Attested Women
Our class developed a new list on archaeologically attested women for a WikiEdu project. I added it to the Project:Archaeology using our List's talk page, but is there something else we need to do to get it linked over here? It's also been added to the Category:Archaeology.

Here it is: [|List of Archaeologically Attested Women from the Ancient Mediterranean Region] --EtruscanMayhem (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi . What a great idea, thanks for letting us know about it. The WikiProject Archaeology template you put on the talk page marks the article as of interest to this project and is all that's needed. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! EtruscanMayhem (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Amnya complex
Hello all. The article on Amnya complex describes it as the oldest fort in the world. I've suggested a change of wording on the talk page, in case anyone would like to contribute their thoughts on how to phrase the claims. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"was" vs "is" for individual ancient human skeletons
Looking over various Wikipedia articles, it seems standard to describe the skeletons of individual prehistoric humans in the present tense as is done in Cheddar man, Magdalenian Girl, Tianyuan man etc. Under this understanding, I changed the writing for the Arlington Springs Man (a 13,000 year old skeleton known from the Channel Islands of California) to describe it as a skeleton in the present tense. reverted me with the edit summary They are the remains of an individual human being and needs to be treated as such. This is not an article about a dinosaur, rock, or woolly mammoth. This is why NAGPRA exists to deal with the dehumanizing of Indian ancestors as merely relics or old bones stored in a warehouse, which I consider to be rude and insulting, given the current wide use of the present tense to describe prehistoric human remains in Wikipedia articles. There's no reason to treat the remains of ancient Native Americans any different than those of other prehistoric humans, so I think having a broader discussion regarding the stylings used to describe the remains of prehistoric people is appropriate. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I expect that some editors active at WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America will want to be involved in the discussion. I know I'm not the only editor following both projects. Donald Albury 21:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will do so. I should note that I don't have a strong opinion either way regarding this issue, only that there should be consistency between the treatment of articles of Native American and non-Native American human remains. I should note that a complete list of such articles can be found at Category:Homo_sapiens_fossils (I would support renaming this category, as it includes obvious non-fossils like human mummies). Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Longyou Caves
Hello, the article for Longyou Caves is poorly written and sourced, but appears to refer to a real archaeological site. The sources are weak and somewhat suspicious, repeating a claimed age that does not appear supported by any scholarly work I could find (see talk). They also all refer to a vague story about its discovery in 1992, and how it was unknown until then, but other sources seem to refer to a similar cave in the same town that possibly goes by the same name and that seemingly has a well attested history. And the surrounding area appears to be full of caves, but sources seem to distinguish these caves, but again with little support.

An expert that could evaluate the sources, locate other reliable sources, or put these caves in context would be a big help in improving this article. The article seems to be the basis of a lot of pop-pseudoscience articles suggesting aliens and whatnot, which is doing the opposite of what Wikipedia should be doing. Carleas (talk) 00:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Augustus Le Plongeon amateur or not?
Over the years the word amateur has been added and removed, Just recently it was added and then removed by [[User:CoyoteMan31], first on the basis that he was paid to excavate, then with the edit summary ") This is the summary of the article. The assertion that Le Plongeon was an amateur is not supported by the article below, nor by biographer Desmond who is used in this article, nor by other Le Plongeon biographers such as Brunhouse, not even by the text of the article you cite, which notes Le Plongeon did the first "systematic excavation" of Chichen Itza", that last bit being I think clearly OR.

I can find a number of sources using amateur, some of which I've added to the talk page. I note that one of the sources calling him an amateur is also cited from a blog dated Nov 14 2011. At that point the article said amateur.]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Augustus_Le_Plongeon&oldid=457751620]. CoyoteMan31 then changed it in a series ol edits. which replaced both amateur and archaeologist with antiquarian. I'm not sure at the moment when antiquarian was again changed. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a pointless argument - generally the only people "professionally" engaged in archaeology at this date were the labourers with spades. Does adding "amateur" point to gentlemanly disinterestedness, or incompetence? Readers may think either. The word should not be used. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd go with antiquarian. It's the usual way of distinguishing work in the era before archaeology was systemised as an academic discipline. And as Johnbod says, before that happened the amateur/professional distinction doesn't make much sense. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe Actually I wasn't arguing. I was thinking we could say described as both, since that would follow the sources, but I think antiquarian would be best.  Doug Weller  talk 17:22, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have removed amateur, I did that because it was there some time before but I didn't restore it when it was removed again as I realised sources backed both. Doug Weller  talk 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The first reply was from Johnbod, in case you missed the signature. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with Template:Historic England research records
I'm writing an article on a local scheduled monument, User:Doug Weller/Pinxton Castle and want to use as a source. It looks like I should use the template as it is Hob Uid: 315821 ( Historical Object Unique Identifier). I might be able to figure it out given time, but I struggle with the more complicated templates for some reason, so if anyone could help me with this I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. The document is a bit bizarre and not lay friendly - the source data is hard to interpret but Derbyshire County Council archaeology department is going to help me. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Doug, I was involved in updating this template after the Pastscape site became part of the Research Records site. I'm intrigued as to why the template instructions are not clear to you, but I am happy create the cite here:




 * Thanks TiB  chat  13:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Trappedinburnley thanks. Probably I’m just exhausted. I’ll look again. Doug Weller  talk 20:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller, not a problem. I know exhaustion well myself at the moment, I've just recovered from the new Covid. It is not as bad as original Covid, but the brain fog is the same. As it seems I don't need to rewrite the template instructions, I've spent a little time looking at this interesting little site. I notice that it is close to Brookhill Hall, possibly the replacement for this site? I also see Range Farm used to be just next door. I'm doing a bit of abbey stuff currently, could this be the site of a monastic grange? I'm watching your draft, if I think I can help I will. TiB chat  09:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Trappedinburnley So sorry to hear about your covid. It's a bit scary hearing that people near me are getting it. Any idea how you caught it? At least I've had the vaccine. It is close to Brookhill Hall, but the evidence doesn't really support it being anything large so far as I can see. I think some sources mention Range Farm, I need to check.  Doug Weller  talk 09:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually that source does say near Range Farm. It also says that an Inspector in 1959 said "I am of the opinion that the site was the residence of a local officer of Sherwood Forest as it is strategically placed at the edge of the forest. (5)"  Doug Weller  talk 10:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Doug Weller, I never figured out where I got the dreaded virus. The government does not seem overly concerned, the advice now is go to work if you feel well enough. Sorry to be depressing, but my understanding is that Covid will be like Flu and keep coming back. On the topic at hand, the Sherwood Forest bit seems interesting, but being such a famous forest, surely someone else would have made that connection? TiB chat  13:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @TrappedinburnleyMaybe the new government will do something but I doubt it. I understand that the lack of vaccine uptake makes new varieties mote likely and I blame the government for that. Doug Weller  talk 14:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Pinxton Castle is now live
I've had a lot of welcome help with this, including above and a lot on my talk page, including some help 5 minutes ago from User:Odysseus1479 who is offering to collaborate on a site plan, which would be great. I've got a number of photos including one I took today and there are some on Commons for a nice gallery. I didn't think I'd get it finished before I start chemotherapy tomorrow but User:KJP1 came along to help with the final writing and User:Tryptofish did some proof reading, so I made my self-imposed deadline. It's taken me forever to write this article on the only local scheduled monument, but the help I've had since starting has been tremendous. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia, working together with like-minded editors. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The page looks great, Doug. Glad to help. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the treatment @Doug Weller, will be thinking of you! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The collaborations are indeed always the best. Hoping the next bout of treatment is similarly successful. Are you at Christies? Their standard of treatment is very high. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @KJP1] King’s Mill in Mansfield. [[User:Doug Weller| Doug Weller talk 08:20, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Katherine Routledge in the french version
Hello !

This year, i did a massive work to expand the article of Katherine Routledge, leading to a better version of the actual understanding about her work. But, i did it in french, in the french version. The biography of Katherine reveal a societal Matilda effect about her work and her impact on the easter island archaeology.

I kindly suggest you to expand the english version with it :) Nanoyo88 (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow, fantastic job there, it's certainly a huge improvement over what we have now on enwiki. I imagine it would take quite some time to translate and it's beyond my very poor French abilities to do so, but I've added expand French to the article and cross-posted this request to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Intertranswiki and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Green. Hopefully that will tempt someone. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! I often expand article with the english version, then doing more research to expand it again. I did it for many subjects about africa. Not much about archaeology, but there's plenty of works to do there too. Nanoyo88 (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ascalon
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ascalon that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. --Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)