Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology/Archive 2

Category Cleanup
I have been working in Category:Archaeological sites and its derivatives to make sure that articles are in the most specific category they qualify for. This is not being limited to significant sites, but significant sites may be listed in higher level categories also. Pschemp | Talk 05:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Heritage Management
I've done some general and POV tidying on Cultural resources management. This article is categorized as archaeological sub-disciplines. Should I just add the project archaeology tag to its discussion page? Not sure how it works in terms of bringing existing articles under the project banner? Viv Hamilton 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Archaeological looting in Iraq
Hello. I've just begun reading and quite thoroughly enjoying Roger Atwood's "Stealing History." Thus, I will probably in the near future be creating and editing quite a number of pages on various aspects of the looting problem. I was hoping to ask for some help in expanding and improving both my article on Archaeological looting in Iraq and on mentioning the looters and the effects of their actions on the article pages of the individual archaeological sites. Thanks. LordAmeth 00:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

List of archaeological periods
I have renamed and restructured these articles - so we now have a formal Levantive article, North American article and a start of one for Mesoamerica. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page)  12:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Indo-European languages
Hi, User:Kintetsubuffalo just put a tag on Talk:List of Indo-European languages identifying it as part of this WikiProject. That seems misplaced since it's just a list of languages and has nothing at all to do with archaeology. Proto-Indo-Europeans might be of interest to this WikiProject, though. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Archaeological sub-disciplies
In the list of articles, I've added Landscape archaeology and Urban archaeology under archaeological practice, and moved Maritime archaeology to that group. These are all categorised as archaeological sub-disciples. If anyone has any better thoughts on how they should be listed please improve! Viv Hamilton 10:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

proposed merging Archaeoinformation science into Computational archaeology
I proposed merging archaeoinformation science into computational archaeology, which is part of this WikiProject. The discussion is at Talk:computational archaeology. Joriki 06:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is or ought to be a subtle differentiation between the two. Computational archaeology should mean number crunching i.e. all the various computationally intense analyses and computer models that support archaeological research.  Archeoinformation science wouldn't necessarily include the mathematical modelling implicit in computational modelling, but should include the management of (unstructured) information such as archaeological reports.  I'm not sure the difference is strong enough to support having two articles, but if anything I would suggest keeping information science as the main term Viv Hamilton 08:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Mesoamerica
Hi all, this to advise of a recently-developed WikiProject which would be related to this one, namely WikiProject Mesoamerica. This project has as its scope the improvement in content and coverage of articles etc relating to the region and its historical cultures and civilizations. Archaeology is of course one discipline which provides information on Mesoamerican topics, however other disciplines such as history, geography, anthropology, linguistics, epigraphy etc are relevant to the project also. Cross-collaboration and participation is invited, anyone interested in the archaeology (or other fields) of this particular region is welcome to look around the project's pages and contribute (Note that there's also a sub-project, WikiProject Aztec, in operation as well, looking at Aztec-specific material.) Regards, --cjllw | TALK  08:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Locations featured in Time Team
I have created and populated this new category Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 04:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Now marked for deletion - which would be a shame! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that it is trivia, but it would make a better list - not all of the locations are notable in their own right. Viv Hamilton 22:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical archaeology
hi everyone, I just joined today. I'not a native speaker and a complete novice to working with Wikipedia, so I apologise for the enormous amount of mistakes I'm bound to make either in English or at Wikipedia ;-).

I noticed that there's no mention of Historical Archaeology untill now, unless you count the mainly British way of captioning this under Post-Medieval archaeology. Americans, Australians and a lot of Europeans call it Historical Archaeology however. Maybe an idea to add the alternative term to this subject?

I miss the Historical Archaeology mentioned in the regional archaeology subcategories of North America as well as South America. At the moment it's "indians" galore, visitors of these wikipages might come to the conclusion that no other research areas have been studied. A lot of people (f.i. James Deetz, Leone, Kathleen Deagan) have been carrying out historical archaeology in the America's. Why not pay attention to their research?

I miss the very well established African American archaeology and Caribbean archaeology as separate sub-categories within the regional divison. I do understand that you might want to categorise them under the regions North and South America, but I think this is unwise. The main argument against placing African American Archaeology under North America: - African-American people do not only live in North Americaq, but in Meso-America, the Caribbean and South America as well. In each of these regions special attention has been given to the archaeological research of African-American peoples.

Caribbean archaeology has a very distinctive research history when compared to the other regions to the south, west and north. Broadly one can state that only the last few decades (or years) some islands have their own residential privately funded and/or government-appointed archaeologist. Most research has been carried out by visiting researchers (of whom not even all were archaeologists/anthropologists) or local amateurs, in the good sense of the word of course.

As for archaeological theory, I stumbled upon a "new approach" called symmetrical archaeology. I'm not quite sure it is entirely new or should be added to critical theory. I'm not that up to date on this theory-stuff and don't really get a lot of theory at our Uni. Symmetrical Archaeology was however presented at TAG and SHA-conferences in 2005 and 2006. Maybe also something to look into?

My final thoughts: the regional North-South division of the Americas. I've been reading a lot of papers and books on the archaeology and history of the Circumcaribbean area, and have the strong feeling that you might consider dividing The America's into 4 regions. Most of the researchers there do the same. The regions broadly are: North America, Mesoamerica, South America and the (Circum-)Caribbean.

I'm glad to help out, but I haven't got a lot of time as I'm preparing my final thesis. I can help out with some of the relevant papers / references and the occasional bit of text. Just let me know.

BlaaatBlaatBlaaat

Lumps of stuff with people buried in them
I have been trying to figure out the proper categorisation scheme for mounds containing graves. At the moment I have found burial mound, tumulus and kurgan, which seem to be being used interchangeably. Can someone point me to a definitive description of what the difference is, or which is preferred usage. In particular, I just noticed that wiki commons has two categories, tumulus and burial mound, competing for people to add examples to them. While that is there not here, the pictures end up here. What does anyone suggest as preferred naming scheme? Sandpiper 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * American archaeology tends to use "burial mound" by preference, if the primary function of the mound is deposition of human remains. Mound is used generally for any deliberately constructed pile of dirt.  Old World archaeology tends to use tumulus as a generic term for piles of dirt that involve burials.  Kurgan is restricted to the Kurgan Burial culture and related groups of Indo-Europeans and the peoples that descend from the Indo-Europeans, as far as I know.  As you have perhaps noticed, the "tumulus" and "mound" articles need some work.  Perhaps in response to your query I will work on those articles.  So to answer your question, it really depends on which area you are in as to which term is preferable.  TriNotch 01:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back, though that sounds awfully like throw a dice. However, I think I will push for burial mound on commons as the main category name. I would anticipate that this will spring up sub-categories in the future, and this seems to be the most self-explanatory generic starting point. I did find the proliferation of mound-type articles here very confusing. I am still not convinved I have found them all. Also, i am not sure if the categorisation clearly allows someone to search for articles about specific mounds, which I was also trying to do. Sandpiper 12:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some edits to the relevant articles (especially mound) that clarify things a little bit. I would suggest "mound" rather than "burial mound" for the category, since mound is more general and does not imply the inclusion of human remains... This being important because a significant fraction of known mounds never had a single burial. Incidentally, effigy mound needs quite a bit of work, but I don't have any books on the subject, so I can't get to it right now. TriNotch 17:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Category tidy-up
I put some suggestions for tidying up the categories on Portal_talk:Archaeology - Viv Hamilton 16:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology wikiproject?
I just made a proposal for an anthropology wikiproject on the "list of proposed wikiprojects" page. If you're interested, you can sign up at our entry and on the temporary project page. Thanks. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright and Royalties on Archeological Objects and Sites and images of them
I would like to ask for your help. I have published some photos from archeological sites and museum objects but later discovered that this is contrary to the domestic law in various countries. Please see the request of deletion of images of archaelogical sites and museum objects from Greece I started in the commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/%CE%A6%CE%95%CE%9A:_%CE%92_1491_20051027. Could you contribute in this? Does anyone know if there is copyright on archeological discovery, excavation, restoration and exhibition? Is there such thing as royalties stemming from cultural property? Many users deny such questions, arguing that if they accept the domestic laws of states and practices of museums as legitimate, then Wikipedia will be stripped of much of its content. Do you agree? --Conudrum 23:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Key articles list - periods and stages
There seems to be a problem with the articles and periods section of the key articles. Stone age seems to be a reasonable parent article for the first half of the list, but then what about the Three-age system article, instead or as well as Prehistory. However, looking at the List of archaeological periods, what we have listed here is the European view, so presumably we should also include archaic period, (which needs a clean-up or merge) formative stage, lithic stage etc. Needs some serious clean-up or perhaps a true parent article on Periods in archaeology or we could expand the List of archaeological periods, to provide an explanation, and wikify the right hand column Viv Hamilton 17:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How many layers are considered appropriate?


 * For example, we could have a major parent category which was prehistory. That could contain articles like 'prehistory' or 'three age system'. It could also have subcategories like Stone Age (which would then get subcategories of palaeolithic, mesolithic, neolithic), Bronze Age, Iron Age.


 * It is true though that is a Euro-centric viewpoint and we need to work out a way to incorporate the systems of other regions. I bow to the judgement of those with greater expertise in those areas though for those. Silverthorn 09:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Deciding which articles should be key in this is beyond my expertise. I have however, wikified the List of archaeological periods and given it an expanded top section, which should help to explain the relationships.  Viv Hamilton 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Locating classical ruined cities?
I have a bit of a problem, and I'm hoping some Archeology buff might be able to help :)

I'm currently involved with the the Classical warfare task force of the Military history WikiProject. I'm looking to expand the article on the Mercenary War in Carthaginian history. I'd like to create and add some maps about the conflict to the article, similar to the ones that I added to the Third Servile War article. However, I don't know where some of these cities are! While Tunis and El Kef have survived into the modern era and are easy to locate, I have little idea where to locate Utica and Hippacritae, or even where the Bagradas River might be, or the canyon known as "The Saw" - location of the Battle of "The Saw". I suspect they might exist only as archaeological sites. Does anyone have any idea how I might be able to track the location of these down? - Vedexent 13:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

UNreferenced articles
I've noticed a number of archaeology articles that have no references whatsoever:
 * Landscape of archaeology
 * Landscape archaeology
 * Archaeological field survey
 * Excavation
 * Artifact (archaeology)
 * Manuport
 * Feature (archaeology)
 * Archaeological plan
 * Assemblage
 * Archaeological industry
 * Langdale axe industry
 * Cultural-history archaeology

These articles need to have references added so that the content in them can be verified by those who are not already familiar with the topic. This list is incomplete (many many more archaeology articles need attention), and many of these articles need some other attention, to copyedit content and check them against each other for overlaps and gaps in coverage. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * doing what i can in the methods and principles cat.. i think I have transgressed npov a few times. need someone to have a browse through *Excavation and most of the linked articles which I have or am modifying. my style is poor but the framework is a good one i think? Boris 23:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have just accessed this talk page as the next stage in my attempts to get an almost totally unreferenced article (Deva Victrix) referenced. The background is that this article is about the Roman City that eventually became Chester, and, as such, also falls into the Cheshire WikiProject. One user, without a user page: User:Chestertouristcom, who also seems to be greatly concerned with an external tourist site (Chester Tourist Site) has added most of the information in this article without giving anything like sufficient numbers of references or citations. The user has responded neither to messages on his/her talk page nor to email requesting them to start adding the references (both happened in February, 2007), and the article has been flagged as having no references since January 2007. It seems that adding references and citations is quite difficult for someone else to do retrospectively, especially if, like most of us in the Cheshire WikiProject, they are unfamilar with the subject, and so unless some means of verifying the information can be done, it might be better to delete all the information and start again. However, I want to try to avoid this if possible, and so I'm asking (begging really) if anyone can assist in improving this article by suplying citations and references, or suggest what other way forward there can be? Many thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RE; UNreferenced articles
I have expanded Excavation, Archaeological plan and Archaeological section .Given a single reference, though I am far from happy with my intermediate results or the general organization of topics relating to methodolgy. most topics relating to excavation concepts and method can be verified through the molas manual.Boris 17:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

methodologies
the rationale for creating Dating methodology (archaeology) amongst other heavy edits and new articles was to try and draw together the myriad pieces on various methods, many of which do not seem to explain how they are used in archaeology, also to try and patch over some obvious admissions such as the concept of residual information or finds, which is a pretty central concept in dating and excavation. the methodology cat in general could do with being more detailed and comprehensive compared with the introductory articles on archaeology. while most users may want to know about Mesopotamia etc. after a while they may come to ask "how do they know that culture x existed 3000 yrs ago" or "how exactly does that process work". I am also trying to avoid creating small articles on every term without some larger pieces on how these various concepts work together. its ok creating apiece on this or that form of dating or technique but they should be designed in such a way they can be brought together to form a larger block of interconnected knowledge especially in areas such as methodology and even more so in a inter-disciplinarian science like archaeology. the function of doesn,t seem to work IMO as a tool for understanding how archaeology functions in detail as a discipline in its current form. So to this end i working on a framework of articles that attempt to link together in a logical way. my weakness is my writing style is appalling along with my spelling. I also have a limited time frame for substantial wiki editing at the moment due to injury but shortly i will not be able to put as much time in. I have done a fair bit of reorganising stuff but would appreciate some feedback and follow up if people have the time cheers Boris 12:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Stub split
Owing to the large number of stubs in, the stub sorting wikiproject has split the category by creating a sub-type for , with the template euro-archaeology-stub. Hopefully this will make it a bit easier to find stubs relating to particular areas of expertise. The European ones were chosen to split out simply by weight of numbers - about 1/3 of the archaeology stubs relate to Europe. It may be that more subtypes like this will be splitout if the numbers build up again - if you wish to suggest any such splits, please feel free to do so at WP:WSS/P. Grutness...wha?  03:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * hopefully we can remove a lot of the method and principle stubs out of stub status pretty soon. archaeology methods and principle +practice+sub disciplines+science can all be chucked into a archaeological techniques cat? Boris 16:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Northeast Asia-related articles
Hi ! I and some editors have been working on some Northeast Asian stuff, and would appreciate if those who may be interested would make constructive comments, corrections, assess relative importance, etc. Here is a partial list of some: Thank you! Mumun 17:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Jeulmun pottery period
 * Mumun pottery period
 * Daepyeong
 * Songgung-ni
 * Igeum-dong site
 * Yoshinogari
 * Bangudae Petroglyphs
 * Lower Xiajiadian culture
 * Kim, Won-yong
 * Richard J. Pearson
 * K.C. Chang
 * Korean Archaeological Society
 * Kaogu (journal)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

What are the holy grails of archeology?
Could some from your WikiProject have a look at the list of holy grails related to archeology, to see if there's anything missing or out of place? Thank you. –MT 05:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Professor Bruce Trigger
Professor Bruce Trigger passed away recently after a long illness. He was truly a great Canadian and giant in world archaeology. Let us honour the great contributions to world archaeology made by Professor Trigger by expanding the Bruce Trigger article and give a more detailed accounting of his work. Mumun 11:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)