Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:33, 13 June 2013

Archaeology Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology Project This page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

• WT:ARCHAEO

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Archaeology/Archive Box

Infobox merger

A question for the members of this project: Is there any reason why {{Infobox ancient site}} and {{Infobox archaeological site}} can't be merged? They pretty much cover the same ground but with the difference that {{Infobox ancient site}} seems to focus more on the archaeological status of a site whereas {{Infobox archaeological site}}, confusingly, focuses more on the sites geography. What's more, while the latter looks good, it seems to be specifically skewed towards Hellenistic sites. What are others' thoughts. ClaretAsh 11:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I heartily agree. The two should be merged. The language of the resulting template needs to be elastic enough to deal with sites of all periods from all regions. My extra wish would be for some flexibility in the 'archaeologists' and 'excavations' fields as, at a site such as Pompeii this would be lists of hundreds, where as most sites would only have one or two.... PatHadley (talk) 09:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with merge and need for flexibility. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

When I get time, I'll do a mock up of some sort of unified infobox and see what others think. ClaretAsh 23:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. I think I'll let someone else do it. I know next to nothing about archaeology, which became more apparent when I read over the infoboxes. ClaretAsh 07:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at Template talk:Infobox ancient site for my migration proposal. AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

ASPRO chronology

We have a new editor, A Timelord (talk · contribs) who has, in his words, started a time war, changing dates to Aspro chronology using "cal BCE". I'm not convinced this is a good idea. Any comments? Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

For a start that article needs to explain the difference, & no I don't think it is a good idea, though if the cal BCE dates were added in brackets with a link that would be fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is odd and very tricky. The intricacies of radiocarbon calibration is beyond many archaeologists. It is particularly difficult at the beginning of the Neolithic and cal/uncal dates are not used consistently by archaeologists or palaeo-environmentalists working in the area. Dialogue is definitely the first step. PatHadley (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

He's continuing to do this. I really don't think this is going to be helpful to our readers. See his comments at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Ancient Near East#ASPRO chronology where I also raised this issue. Dougweller (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

God help us, a French Timelord! Pat, & probably you, will know how standard this timescale is - not very I think. We seem to have consensus so far here that he should stop for now. Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, because the Maison de l'Orient et de la Méditerranée has around three hundred archaeological researchers in Lyon, France and that it's chronology was compiled by the venerable Jesuit archaeologist Francis Hours and developed by Oliver Aurenche for the period in question, it should be the most accurate and up to date in the world and I second the motion raised by A Timelord (talk · contribs) to change the timeline to ASPRO chronology as A Timelord (talk · contribs) suggests. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Um, Paul, I don't mean to be rude, but 'consultant archaeologist'? I thought that you, like me, was an amateur (in the US, 'advocational') archaeologist. In any case, we should use commonly accepted terminology no matter what our thoughts are as to what is most accurate. If it is the most accurate, I expect it will gradually get into the literature as a standard and then we can use it, although perhaps even then only as an alternative. I don't think adding calibrated BCE years is going to help our readers. Dougweller (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to invent the term 'Consultant archaeologist for Misplaced Pages' and change my Facebook status and job title to such in order to assist you with the actions that this A Timelord (talk · contribs) editor seems to be creating. The term does seem to be unique, but is the most accurate response that I can think up for what is going on. Otherwise we will have a load of editors going around changing the time on pages to that which is not the most accurate and authoritative in the world. This would seem to include A Timelord (talk · contribs)'s strong proposal, and I suspect ultimate objective, which is to change the entire of Wikpedia's dating system to BCE/CE, if you hadn't noticed. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol. Ok, thanks. I have noticed his agenda. However much I prefer BCE/CE, we can't and shouldn't do that. I find it a bit hard to take him seriously however, and with all the good faith in the world.... Dougweller (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You are still assuming A Timelord (talk · contribs) is male, no matter how funny you think that is. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to have been gone three and a half days! I now suggest we change the timeline terminology preference to cal. BCE for all articles referencing periods until the end of the ASPRO Chronology. A Timelord (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose that. My understanding is that cal BCE dates are not (yet) consistent between various labs etc, nor are they used as standard among professionals, never mind the the fact that most general readers have no clue what they mean, and will get little help from the ASPRO article whereever that is. At the most they should be given as a 2nd alternative. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no clue what they mean also Johnbod, the C now appears to reference both Jesus Christ and James Christ, which is surely not logical for all those labs and professionals to be using? A Timelady (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

SPI raised, although this looks simply like trolling and maybe ANI would have been a more suitable alternative. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Turns out it's Paul Bedson (talk · contribs) trolling us. Dougweller (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well I didn't see that one coming. Way to waste everyone's time, Paul... joe•roe 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And indefinitely blocked at ANI for this & creating a hoax article. The Admin blocking him thought it might be a compromised account but a 2nd Admin, who was about to block, pointed out it is clearly him but that he also clearly has problems: "given his response , and the fact that it took five edits to put up six words, it looks like he's still away with the fairies/on the happy pills/celebrating the arrival of his firstborn or whatever it is that set his feet on this ruinous path." Something is clearly wrong with him. Since this is Wikiproject archaeology, and he mainly edits & creates archaeological articles, I'll copy my ANI comments here: "His edits are a mixed bag. He's admitted in the past that he is here to publicise the (fringe) ideas of Christian O'Brien & has used DYK to push them and related fringe stuff, he's pushed other fringe stuff also but at the same time has created some decent articles although I've had serious concerns though about his use of sources at times. Hopefully that's improved but I've stayed away from him for quite a while." Dougweller (talk) 09:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Fringe/cult/pseudoarchaeology - help needed

We've lost most of the editors keeping an eye on fringe archaeology articles, and few editors at WP:FTN get involved in them, probably because of lack of expertise in this field. I really could use more eyes on some of these articles. Ica stones is a case in point. I've raised some issues on the talk page about it and at WP:RSN but literally no one interested in archaeology has responded. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to help. The problem for me is spotting where we're having issues. I don't have (or particularly want) a lot of fringe topics on my watchlist and while I do try to drop by WP:FTN, WP:RSN, etc. they move a bit fast for my usual level of activity. Since you do seem to keep on top of these things, perhaps you could post them here as they come up? It doesn't have to be an explicit call for "backup". Or if we're feeling really adventurous maybe we could set up some sort of fringe archaeology taskforce with a list of high risk topics for Special:RecentChangesLinked use. joe•roe 20:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Tumuli in the UK

Hi Archaeologists,

I've been working on a list of scheduled monuments, a lot of which are burial mounds. I'm trying to link the EH descriptions to suitable articles. Bowl barrow was easy enough, but I've also got saucer barrow, ring cairn and round cairn to find. I have some ideas but it would be great if someone with the right expertise could help? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you found the EH thesaurus: http://thesaurus.english-heritage.org.uk/ ? It is completely useless for search but has the definitive definitions of a huge range of monument types PatHadley (talk) 10:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd not seen that one before, however I've seen the Monument Class Description site (http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/mcdtop1.htm) which seems similar. Rubbish search facilities seem to be a common feature of EH sites:) From what I've read, I think it should just be a case of a few redirects and bit of article expansion. I think the cairns are just barrows with a greater stone content, but for instance I don't think that I could link round cairn to round barrow. The problem is that there are dozens of barrow articles and I'm not the best person to start messing with them. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Template problem

I notice on the Amrit (DYK today) page that in the infobox template (Infobox_ancient_site) there is a field titled "Alternate name". Two problems: "Alternate" doesn't mean "Alternative" (it means one after the other, as in the hours of the day alternate between am and pm). But "Alternative name" is itself wrong if – as here – there is more than one name. So I would change this to "Other name(s)". Can this be addressed and the template changed? Ericoides (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

N.B. the template's protected, so we need an admin to change it. joe•roe 19:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I think alternate is an accurate usage: "Serving or used in place of another; substitute: an alternate plan." And a quick search on google will reveal that "alternate names" is commonly used. Yazan (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@Zozo2kx Ah, you're right. I had always assumed that it meant one after the other – and that the distinction with "alternative" was a useful one to make – but I see that I was wrong and that it means "alternative" as well. A pity. Still, "name" should be "name(s)"... Ericoides (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alignment (archaeology)

This is being used as an example of an unreferenced article tagged for a very long time (since 2006). Anyone want to have a go referencing it? Dougweller (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Pictish Mithraism

We're not sure what to make of this, and could use some eyes on it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This article is WP:FRINGE and wholesale copyvio from the probable author's own book draft (you need to rename the file to .pdf to read it). Random example below, 1st passage from the Misplaced Pages article, 2nd from the pdf at pictish-mithraism.com:

The earth was considered to be at the centre of the universe with the Classical Planets (including the sun and moon) variously rotating around the earth in one direction and the Firmament (Celestial Sphere) rotating in the opposite direction. This is easy to represent in two dimensions as a dot and two concentric circles.

The earth was considered to be at the centre of the universe with the planets (including the sun and moon) rotating around the earth in one direction and the firmament (Celestial Sphere) rotating in the opposite direction. This is easy to represent in two dimensions as a dot and two concentric circles.

The article should be deleted immediately. BabelStone (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Really, this article should never have been accepted for creation at WP:AFC. BabelStone (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pictish Mithraism. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Solutrean hypothesis

Stanford's new book is out and beginning to appear in our articles. I've run into a problem because there is mention in the news media of a flint 'dagger' found in Virginia and made out of French flint. This is true, but evidently Stanford, although he believes the context is secure, recognises that it isn't bulletproof and that he doesn't have a 'smoking gun'. Take a look at this forum which of course we can't use but provides some background (including a bit of confusion that seems to get cleared up). I'm being told on the talk page that since it's in reliable sources it should be in the article, but the sources don't mention the context problem. If anyone has the book that would be marvelous as I think Stanford is upfront about the problem, but even the best newspapers aren't necessarily interested in the details, just the exciting bits. Dougweller (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The genetic post at the end is quite compelling reading. I guess we can safely say the there is no conclusive evidence for the Solutrean hypothesis, and quite a bit of counter-evidence. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox castrum

For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox castrum, currently used in a series of articles on Roman castra. For example Porolissum.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Template for discussion: Template:Infobox dava

For those interested, there is a request for deletion on Template:Infobox dava, currently used in 91 articles about Dacian cities/fortresses.--Codrin.B (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Marija Gimbutas

Could use some eyes on it, someone is adding material that doesn't discuss Gimbutas and "In the light of this genetic confirmation, debate over the Kurgan hypothesis can be regarded as settled. The hypothesis is confirmed by linguistics, archeology, and moleculary biology. One would be hard pressed to name another social science hypothesis as strongly confirmed as Marija Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis.". Dougweller (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused - I can't see this quote in the current version. It's not a period/area I know much about but she is a lightning rod for controversy. I'll see if I can stir more knowledgable archaeologists into wiki-action with a chance to fix this! PatHadley (talk) 08:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

They restored the OR without the editorial comment. Thanks. I'll take it to WP:NORN as they've restored it. Dougweller (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The source I finally was able to read does mention Gimbutas, the question is whether the paragraph in question represents the sources correctly. I'm holding off from NORN until I can get a better hold on this.

"Although Gimbutas argued for the Kurgan hypothesis on linguistic and archeological grounds, contemporary molecular genetics supports her central thesis of a mass population movement accompanying the spread of the IE languages. The Y-Chromosome Haplogroup R1a1a, a sub-clade of R1a, is correlated to IE speakers and spread from a Eurasian and probable Siberian origin. This molecular phylogeny indicates an expansion of males from the Kurgan culture as the dominant mechanism of IE spread. Semino, O.; Passarino, G; Oefner, PJ; Lin, AA; Arbuzova, S; Beckman, LE; De Benedictis, G; Francalacci, P et al. (2000), "The Genetic Legacy of Paleolithic Homo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective", Science 290 (5494): 1155–59, Bibcode 2000Sci...290.1155S, doi:10.1126/science.290.5494.1155, PMID 11073453. Copy can be found at http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ConciseMacedonia/Y_Hromosomes.pdf. 10 skeletons from Andronovo culture (South Siberian, i.e. "Kurgan") were sequenced and 9 of the 10 carried haplogroup R1a1a. C. Bouakaze et al, First successful assay of Y-SNP typing by SNaPshot minisequencing on ancient DNA, International Journal of Legal Medicine, vol. 121 (2007), pp. 493-499; C. Keyser et al, Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, Human Genetics, vol. 126, no. 3 (September 2009), pp. 395-410." This can be found at www.hamagmongol.narod.ru/library/keyser_2009_e.pdf. It does mention the "steppe hypothesis" but isn't use for that. The first pdf I'm not sure about. But this is genetics, so I should ask someone who knows more about genetics and maybe shouldn't have bothered people here. Dougweller (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Archaeo-genetics is tricky - there is still a massive tendency to oversimplify and equate 'archaeological cultures' (which are modern theoretical constructs) with ancient self-identifying 'peoples' and therefore language groups and ehnicities/genetic groups. I doubt I need to point out the numerous problems with this chain of reasoning. On here I guess we should represent these views once published - but in this case I think they belong on the Kurgan hypothesis page rather than on Gimbutas' bio. Thanks for sorting it out Doug PatHadley (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug asked me to have a look at this discussion, presumably because I have worked on R1a controversies before. I basically agree with what you are both saying. To add to what PatHedley says, not only are single genetics articles often over-stated and therefore needing to be used with some caution, but these particular genetics articles are old by the standards of this field. There is no consensus in genetics articles that anything has been definitively proven concerning this matter. OTOH, mentioning R1a studies within articles about "steppe hypotheses" seems valid. It is certainly a popular and oft-repeated proposal. But it is always very difficult to justify saying that a controversial subject has been settled. Proving consensus is always pretty difficult, and trying to argue that there is a consensus does not add much to most articles, and is arguably not an "encylopedic" way of writing. The sourcing has to be strong in order to say that. But in this subject there definitely is controversy still. Sorry to use a blog to cite some more recent sources, but it is handy, because this is a blog which summarises a lot of published articles: http://dienekes.blogspot.com/. You can search on "R1a". The latest article today is one about Afghanistan which says, just as a good example of non-consensus

The prevailing Y-chromosome lineage in Pashtun and Tajik (R1a1a-M17), has the highest observed diversity among populations of the Indus Valley . R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant . R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought , expansions from the Pontic Steppe , bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India.

Personally, FWIW, I would say R1a as it is defined by the papers we can cite today is much older than Indo-European, probably Middle-Eastern or Caucasian, but in coming years a better understanding of the branching WITHIN R1a might lead to much more realistic ideas about Indoeuropean dispersion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Shall I remove it again? There may be some resistance. :-) Dougweller (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

At least in its current form it seems inappropriate to me. There might be sources who mention Gimbutas in a genetics context. In fact I am almost certain of it. So maybe something can be salvaged.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Petroglyph Point

Would you please take a look at Talk:Petroglyph Point Archeological Site see if the article fits into the Archaeology project and if the importance scale is appropriate? Thank you ... --Bobjgalindo (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Because as far as I can see the site doesn't have any major scholarly significance and isn't well known outside its local area I've changed the importance from high to low, but it is definitely in our scope. We do need clearer guidelines on assessment. joe•roe 06:19, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joe, Sorry got all confused about the names of who was contributing to what thread there.

Anyway we need someone else to weigh in on this thread above, to improve your suggested guidelines which are in my opinion already much better than the current ones. Or perhaps you should just update the current ones to include your guidlines, and have anything else that is not covered using the old guidlines. EdwardLane (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:HighBeam

Misplaced Pages:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Misplaced Pages editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Giants of Monte Prama

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in Italian. Click for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the Italian article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Misplaced Pages. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 810 articles in the main category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization. Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content in this edit is translated from the existing Italian Misplaced Pages article at ]; see its history for attribution. You may also add the template {{Translated|it|Giganti di monte Prama}} to the talk page. For more guidance, see Misplaced Pages:Translation.

Can someone help? Thanks --Shardan (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Trefael Stone

Could somebody create an article for Trefael Stone? It seems relevant enough: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18172598. Best regards. 85.50.248.101 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Serer

I am finding some remarkable claims for this culture. Timeline of Serer history says: The Serer ancient culture of burying its death accompanied by grave goods, totemism, symbolism such as the serpent (the symbol of the Pangool in Serer religion, ancient Serer saints and ancestral spirits), etc., is not unique to the Serers, but may suggests the existence of the Serer religion, or Serer and African religious behaviour at least during the Middle Paleolithic Era or Middle Stone Age (roughly 300,000 to 30,000 BCE) if not much earlier. According to scholars like Narr and McMahon, although religious behaviour may have occurred during this era, it was not until the succeeding era (Upper Paleolithic, roughly corresponding to the Later Stone Age) that there was undisputed evidence of signs of religious behaviour or religious development. However, some of the earliest evidence of religious symbolism is attributed to the Middle Stone Age in Africa. One of these being the historical site of Thiemassas and the Serer religious depictions especially on the Tassili n'Ajjer with the symbol of the Pangool.

In the section on proto-writing in History of writing, I found: In Africa, they may have emerged much earlier such as the Serer Raampa, from the Serer representation of their Pangool (the ancient Serer saints and ancestral spirits) on the Tassili n'Ajjer c. 10000 BC. I removed that - all of this seems to be one author's speculation, and if it isn't discussed in other reliable sources it doesn't belong here.

Our article on Reincarnation has: About 10,000 BCE, the ancient Serers depicted rupestral engravings of the Pangool on the Tassili n'Ajjer, represented by "man" and coiled "snakes" (the symbol of the Pangool). This era marks the development of Serer religion and the concept of ciiɗ (reincarnation).

A Google books search so far doesn't back any of this claimed time depth, eg chapter 2 in . I'm struggling with the Tiemassassien claims also, for which I can only find 4 sources, all in French. But some of the claims are extraordinary, and I would expect to find at least some mention of them in academic English language sources. Dougweller (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Price, Joan A., "Sacred Scriptures of the World Religions: An Introduction", Continuum International Publishing Group (2010), p 2, ISBN 082642354X
2. Harder, Ben, "Evolving in their graves: early burials hold clues to human origins" (about Middle Paleolithic and formation of religion)
3. Narr, Karl J., "Prehistoric religion : The beliefs and practices of Stone Age peoples", (in) Britannica.com
4. ^ McMahon, Robin,"On the Origin of Diversity", p 72, Filament Publishing Ltd, 2011, ISBN 1905493878
5. Gravrand, Henry, "La Civilisation Sereer - Pangool", vol.2, Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines du Senegal, 1990. pp, 9, 20 & 77, ISBN 2-7236-1055-1
6. Cite error: The named reference Serer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
7. Gravrand, Henry, "La Civilisation Sereer - Pangool", pp 180, 305-402
8. Gravrand, Henry, "La civilisation Sereer - Pangool", Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines du Senegal, (1990), ISBN 2-7236-1055-1. pp 9, 20, 77
9. Gravrand, Henry, "La Civilisation Sereer - Pangool", vol.2, Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines du Senegal, 1990. pp, 9, 20 & 77, ISBN 2-7236-1055-1
10. Gravrand, Henry, "Cosaan", p 62-87
11. Gravrand, Henry, "Pangool", pp 150-172

Well, there is the "snake temple" in Botswana, dated at 70 000 YBP and possibly older. Whether it has anything to do with the Sere culture is anyones guess. World’s oldest ritual discovered. Worshipped the python 70,000 years ago. Reference: Coulson S, Staurset S, and Walker N. 2011. Ritualized Behavior in the Middle Stone Age: Evidence from Rhino Cave, Tsodilo Hills, Botswana. PaleoAnthropology 2011:18–61. Available from: here. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That example is a very good one as it exemplifies my concern. Take a look at Tsodilo#Alleged as site of earliest known ritual -- seems that this is really much more recent (disclosure, I'm the one that tracked down the more recent research)Robbins, Lawrence H. Alec C. Campbell, George A. Brook, Michael L. Murphy "World's Oldest Ritual Site? The "Python Cave"" at Tsodilo Hills World Heritage Site, Botswana NYAME AKUMA, the Bulletin of the Society of Africanist Archaeologists| June 2007 issue67 Dougweller (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should be aware that the article you cite is criticizing press articles rather than the scientific work done in the cave by Coulson & Co. Coulson answerd the critique here. You may note the actual article I linked to above is from 2011, 5 years more recent than the Robbins & al. I'm not saying Coulson is right on all counts (I'm not an archaeologist, this is well outside my field of expertise), but much of the critical points mentioned in the "Alleged as site of earliest known ritual" section does not actually falsify her conclusions.

All this does not appear to have anything to do with the Serer people though. If this is connected to any modern group at all, it would be the San people (Bushmen). Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Though not a prerequisite, it would have been immensely appreciated had the OP decided to consult me as the author of the articles in question. The relevant articles are referenced with reliable sources and where possible, with external links for other editors to examine the sources themselves. I'm affraid it is not my responsibility if an editor is unable to read French. One would find that, the Serer people are most numerous in Senegal (a French speaking country) and this would explain why many Serer sources are written in French. Furthermore, the majority of scholars of Serer history are French or French speaking people, not English. Archaeological Serer history (or sites) can be found in many French scholarly works some of which include : Professor Charles Becker, "Vestiges historiques, trémoins matériels du passé clans les pays sereer", Dakar (1993), CNRS - ORS TO M; Professor Cyr Descamps, "Contribution a la Préhistoire de l'Ouest-sénégalais; Cyr Descamps, Guy Thilmans and Y. Thommeret, "Les tumulus coquilliers des îles du Saloum (Sénégal), Bulletin ASEQUA, Dakar, Université Cheikh Anta Diop, Dakar, 1979, n° 54; among many others. The English link cited by the OP (above) is the work of Professor Galvan. That work deals primarily with the Serer land inheritance system, through the Lamanic lineage, which I'm sure the OP is well aware since they have also contributed to the article States headed by ancient Serer Lamanes. I thank them for the great work they have done in that article and all articles they had contributed in which Serers are mentioned. Furthermore, the content and refs removed in certain articles include the works of the anthropologist Professor David Maranz. I will not be edit warring over that and will just let that past. In all my edits regarding Serer articles, I have never mentioned the snake temple in Botswana, and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Indeed, one will not even find this temple in Serer articles. I am interested in improving the Wiki project, not to push POV and I hope that the OP can appreciate that. My thanks to everyone who participated in this discussion and sorry for coming in late.Tamsier (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably should have let you know, and of course you never mentioned the snake temple. However, without writing we simply cannot be certain about what an engraving meant to the people who engraved it 12,000 years ago. Maybe "This era marks the development of Serer religion and the concept of ciiɗ" is what someone actually said, but that is simply that person's opinion and should be stated as such. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks for sending me a message. I have no objection to that and thanks for your help so far. Just a heads up, Tiemassassien is an industry/civilisation. It takes its name from the historical site of Tiémassas (following its French spelling in Senegal, var : Thiemassass the root of Thies). The name was originally proposed by Descamp which was peer reviewed. In this Senegalese government website , Iba Der Thiam is referring to it. Sorry it is in French. It is merely referring to the controversial nature i.e. which period to assign it to. There are two main competing theories : the Descamps camp and the Dagan camp. The issue has been addressed in Timeline of Serer history and Serer ancient history. See those more infor. Best Regards. Tamsier (talk)

New articles on megalithic structures

Hi, I have recently created a number of new articles about megalithic structures, translated from German Misplaced Pages. Whilst I was able to track down most of the terminology, I am not a historian and would appreciate any expert eyes out there just to check they make sense (and spot the inevitable typos!). The articles are:

• Nordic megalith architecture
• Megalithic entrance
• Great dolmen
• Guardian stones
• Polygonal dolmen
• Rectangular dolmen
• Simple dolmen
• Ernst Sprockhoff
• Ewald Schuldt

Many thanks in advance. Bermicourt (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Olmec colossal heads FA nom

Hi all. I've just posted Olmec colossal heads as a Featured Article Candidate and invite any comments on its review page. Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Antilia well

I noticed a commons category for Antilia well but not a corresponding English wiki entry. When I google it I get some hits (enough to convince me the term is used by at least a few people), but a whole lot less than I expected. By any chance does this type of well go by another name? (If דם we should obviously link the two). The Hebrew wiki has a very good article, but it's completely unsourced and it has no interwikis. The basic gist is that it's a type of well where the bucket is pulled up on tracks, and then when it reaches the top it spills out and the water is used to water a field or other large area. It also appears to sometimes operate on a water wheel. Just curious to know if anyone knows of a more common English name for this. --Bachrach44 (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Nazareth Archeology

I have some concerns about sourcing for the Nazareth article which I am discussing at Talk:Nazareth. I would like someone with a bit more experience in this area take a look -- my expertise is in technology and engineering, not archeology. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dunhuang Project editing event

Hi all,

This is to let you know that I've been working with the International Dunhuang Project group at the British Library to plan a multi-day editing event in late October focused on Central Asian archaeology (details). As well as contributions from IDP staff, we're hoping to get involvement from academics and students at UCL, and planning a session for interested Wikipedians.

If you're interested in taking part (online or offline), or you'd like further information when we've more details organized, please let me know or sign up here. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• As a quick followup, this is happening next week - anyone in London is very welcome to come by! Drop me a message if you're interested.

I'm currently organising some of the preparation for next week, and one of the things we're looking at is images. The IDP has a very large collection of manuscript and artefact images, as well as a lot of site photographs, historic material from expeditions, etc. We're hoping to upload a lot of this during the week, but if there's anything specific you'd like to request, please let me know and we'll bump it up the list. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox artifact

{{Infobox artifact}} has been nominated for deletion as redundant with {{infobox artwork}} -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_9#Template:Infobox_artifact link to template discussion Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Shell jewelry anyone?

I am a biologist and part of the gastropod project and the bivalve project. I am thinking about starting an article on shell jewelry, and I know that topic is of great significance archeologically speaking. Is there anyone in this project who might be interested in working on that article? Invertzoo (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on this one on and off for several years User:Heironymous Rowe/Mississippian culture shell engravings, but as of yet haven't had time to finish it. And am probably not gonna have enough free time anytime soon. Maybe some of the information I have collected would be of use in a general article about the subject, this one is Mississippian culture specific. I will get around to finishing and going live with this one, eventually. Shell gorget may also be of use. Heiro 20:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Another article of possible interest to a biologist with the gastropod and bivalve project is Mississippian culture pottery, a hallmark for which is the use of ground shell as a tempering agent. Heiro 20:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much Heiro! As you can see, over the last hour or so I quickly threw together a stub and launched it just now. It's very minimal but it is at least a beginning on a very large subject. Of course there could eventually be a special article on the role of shells in archeology and anthropology, or similar, because there is so much to be said on that subject. Of course I am not really at all familiar with the literature, not like you are! By the way, you will see I already have Heishe, Dentalium shell, Wampum, and Shell gorget listed as "see also"s. Anyone at all who wants to add anything helpful to the article is more than welcome of course! Best wishes to you, Invertzoo (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I looked at your draft of "Mississippian culture shell engravings", and it is so fabulous! Maybe you should trim off the unfinished parts and put it up anyway? It's really, really nice! Gorgeous photos too. Invertzoo (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Review requested at User:Oddacon/Archaeocryptography

There's an article User:Oddacon/Archaeocryptography at WP:Articles for creation; I'm no expert, but it looks a little WP:Fringey. Can someone take a squint? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It does to my amateur eyes seem fringe - but I wonder if that is just that the article is not well written, and that if the article set out to describe how calculating stellar alignments or whatever, and comparing those to various dimensions of buildings might possibly give rise to deductions about the intended use of a structure. Then it might not be so fringe like. I gather for example that several pyramids may have been build to scale and placed to match the stars of orion's belt (that in itself may be fringe - but how they might have gone about proposing that doesn't seem so fringe to me(unlike the current state of the draft article)).EdwardLane (talk) 14:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The Orion correlation theory is one of Graham Hancock's and is definitely fringe, as is this. There is no legitimate field of academic study that seeks to 'decode' monuments and this article is based purely on works by fringe authors (i.e. Carl Munck, Hugh Harleston Jr., Richard C. Hoagland). joe•roe 18:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No vested interest in the orion thing, it gets mentioned on the odd tv documentary as a possibility. Is there a field (or even a 'real' name for the field) of academic study that looks for paleo-astonomical data and looks to see if there are 'alignments' for stone circles or whatever? So that archaelogists can say "oh yes this clearly a ritual site, because the notch in the hill there, and the pointy stone here, lined up the rising sun on the equinox (6000 years ago) with the front door of this building" or whatever similar stuff is said...? If that field of study does have a proper name then it seems like the 'archaecryptography' should probably redirect there (and have a subsection describing/debunking the fringe version). EdwardLane (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you are referring to Archaeoastronomy. • Astynax 17:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes that looks to about cover everything encyclopedic I might have imagined that proposed article had been intended to talk about. Though the term 'archaecryptography' is one I'd not heard before it might be worth making a redirect for that to Archaeoastronomy as a way of keeping the pseudoscience fringe from spawning the article again? EdwardLane (talk) 09:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Caixa de Rotllan: review

Hello,
Caixa de Rotllan is the first article I wrote in English ("my" fr:Caixa de Rotllan is a featured article) so, I would like a review of its style: if my English is not so bad, I'll continue to translate it from French. What do you think of it? --El Caro (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

So far so good, though it needs inline citations of course. Minor languages points (& I didn't really see any) are easily cleared up, so long as the meaning is clear. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the review. I'll add citations in the main text, not in the lead section, as we should do to write good articles. --El Caro (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification of user conduct discussion for Paul Bedson

There is an ongoing user conduct discussion regarding Paul Bedson, which may be of interest to members of this WikiProject, since Paul contributes to many archaeology articles. It can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Mes Aynak

Someone probably ought to take a look at the page, it's likely to get a few extra hits come january, and it's mostly uncited EdwardLane (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Cult archaeology alert

This Friday night the History Channel presents 'America Unearthed' "n AMERICA UNEARTHED, forensic geologist Scott Wolter, a real-life Indiana Jones, will reveal that the history we all learned in school may not always be the whole story. Across the country, ancient symbols, religious relics and unexplained artifacts suggest that civilizations from around the world have left their mark for us to find today. Wolter not only digs through the surprising burial ground that is America for arcaheological secrets, but he also uncovers compelling evidence that pre-dates the official "discovery" of the New World and turns a lot of what we think we know about American history on its head. America Unearthed proves there is a lot we don't know about our past, and that people have gone to great lengths to cover up these mysteries.". It will also include claims that the Mayas visited Georgia. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A "forensic geologist"... brilliant. joe•roe 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Need subject expert concerning Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gregory Deyermenjian

A couple of us have uncovered a large set of articles which seem to be promotional for Gregory Deyermenjian and which have probably been edited by him or by close associates. We need expert assessment of the articles from someone who is familiar with the state of Incan archaeological studies. It would be simplest if the discussion were conducted at the WP:FT/N section linked above. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles at AfD

I've taken Ixiamas Fortress, Ruins of Miraflores, Madeira Fortress, Trinchera Fortress and Petroglyphs of Quiaca to AfD as I am concerned that no reliable sources mention them. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Madeira Fortress
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Yuri Leveratto
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Petroglyphs of Quiaca
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ruins of Miraflores
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Labyrinth City
• Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Trinchera Fortress

Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Mari, Syria collaboration

I am interested in bringing the ancient city of Mari, Syria to GA status, but it's a project well beyond my individual efforts and would probably require some help from people who have some expertise on the subject. I will post this at the WP:ANE as well, just thought to drop a note here to see if anyone is interested as well. Many thanks. Yazan (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Meteoric iron

There is an article about meteoric iron, which is the material iron meteorites are made of. The article has a section about cultural usage of this material. Could somebody look over the section and make sure that it is adequate from the perspective of archaeology? --Tobias1984 (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Links to Archaeology Magazine

Recently I added an Archaeology citation to Bethlehem of Galilee. After a while, I checked the article again and was shocked to find that another editor had commented out my citation because it "gives malware warnings in some anti-virus software." (diff). After a quick Google search, I discovered that the Archaeology website has indeed been inadvertently distributing malware recently. The Google Site Report states that the site had been listed for "suspicious activity 5 time(s) over the past 90 days". Moreover, it would appear that this isn't the first time either: Avast Anti-Virus Blog.

According to Google, over 800 Misplaced Pages pages contain citations linking to Archaeology. So what does this mean for all these pages? Has Archaeology fixed its malware infection and taken reasonable precautions to prevent its re-occurrence? Or should links to the magazine's website be removed for the safety of Misplaced Pages's readers? --Mike Agricola (talk) 00:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

first 120 volumes of the Archaeological Journal are now available to view online at the ADS.

From the UK mailing list, FYI, Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Subject: RAI Archaeology Journal now online at ADS To: <ADS-ALL@jiscmail.ac.uk>

The ADS and the Royal Archaeological Institute (RAI) are pleased to announce that the first 120 volumes of the Archaeological Journal are now available to view online at the ADS.

The RAI are a leading national archaeology society and have annually published the Archaeological Journal since 1844. The journal contains papers on the Institute's interests, which span all aspects of the archaeological, architectural and landscape history of the British Isles. It presents the results of archaeological and architectural survey and fieldwork on sites and monuments of all periods as well as syntheses and overviews of such work in the British Isles.

This is an excellent resource for all those interested in British archaeological, architectural and landscape history as well as the development of the disciplines themselves. Follow this link to take a look. link

Best wishes

Katie Green Communications and Access Manager

File:Treasury big2.jpg

File:Treasury big2.jpg, a former featured picture candidate from 2005, has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The notice on its page has been changed to a proposal that the image be moved to Commons. That would be OK, as the image would still be accessible. There are surely some articles that could use this image. • Astynax 05:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hillforts research project

Hi all,

I've been in touch with someone at Oxford working on a project to produce an atlas & database of all extant hillforts in Britain and Ireland (see here). They're currently getting started and are interested in the long-term possibility of putting some of the information on Misplaced Pages, either as per-site pages or by creating composite lists on a county or regional basis.

If you've any ideas for interesting things we could do with this content, or ways to incorporate it effectively into WP articles, please do let me know and I'll pass it on to them - it's unlikely they'll be doing much until they've done the research, but now's a good time to plan ahead :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow! Great news that they're opening up this data! I wasn't quite sure how it was going to be used - the current link I have is here. It would be great to have some sort of automatic data transfer for the key sites (not sure every hillfort will satisfy notability) and use it as an opportunity to set an exemplary standard for templates and metadata quality for archaeological sites generally (which are currently all over the place! PatHadley (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We haven't really talked the intricacies of data licensing yet, but I'm hoping that will come along :-). They're certainly thinking in the right direction and keen to get material out there... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly interesting. You won't need to be told this would be a great source anyway, but if we can utilize stuff directly that's a game-changer. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I just stumbled onto Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Historic Sites, I didn't know it existed, I guess there is some overlap between historic sites and archaeological ones. Anyway I thought I'd mention the project as they might also be interested. EdwardLane (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Prpposed merge of Parietal art

Is there any reason not to merge the neglected Parietal art (almost no hits) with the much viewed rock art? Is there a real difference? Most of Parietal art just covers the European Upper Paleolithic, & could be used to bulk out the rather weedy Rock art in Europe. There seems to be a case for throwing in most of Petroglyph too, leaving a list of sites. Then there's Cave painting .... Too many half-started articles. Johnbod (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

sounds sensible to me, but I am not well informed on the matter EdwardLane (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I think when most people think of cave art, they think of the European caves such as Lascaux and Altamira. Those caves are striking, because the art is figurative and representational in a way that most rock art isn't. My personal preference, and bias (having read a couple books on European cave art), would be keep separate cave art and rock art. The Cave painting article is in fairly good shape. I'd be inclined to merge parietal art with the current Cave painting article, since there is considerable overlap, and move the point about rock art to our article on Rock art. There seems to be a useful distinction between rock art and petroglyphs, given that the latter entails engraving. Maybe keep these separate but be sure to have a prominent pointer in the rock art article to the petroglyph article? TimidGuy (talk) 17:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Categories relating to archaeological hoaxes/forgeries

There is a discussion at WP:NPOVN#Hoax Categories vs NPOV - Bat Creek inscription that is relevant to this project. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hyperdiffusionism in Archaeology

Editors here might be interested in this new article. Glad to see it although it needs work. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hyperdiffusionism currently redirects to Trans-cultural diffusion, where the section so-called is all I think a summary of stuff covered in the new article. Perhaps it should go there instead? Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans

Could we get a few eyes on the info at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans#New study about hpalogroup A00. --Moxy (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Lissanoure Castle

Lissanoure Castle is an family estate near Loughguile, County Antrim, Northern Ireland link here --> I would really like this to become an article but I not sure really how to start it off I am used to Aviation. I have been to Northern Ireland a number of times and have passed the castle myself but I have not found any links to the castle. Not am not sure how to start if off so I am asking for anyone one that can help me in making Lissanoure Castle article. I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Myland1111 (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2013 (GMT)

Note that the above editor has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of community banned editor User:Ryan kirkpatrick. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thierry Jamin

Found this at Portal talk:Archaeology which is the wrong venue: Hi,

Sorry if my english is bad. I think it's urgent to review this article. I'm pretty sure that Jamin wrote it himself, lying as usual. Almost all sources quoted were published by Jamin in his sites granpaititi, pusharo, inkari. Some sources don't talk about what they are supposed to back up.

Please see this article from the Ministerio de la Cultura de Perú, so that you can understand the difference between what this article (and Jamin publications in general) claims, and what archaeological authorities say.

El Comandante (talk) 07:18, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Copied it here. I'm not sure about the dispute (see the article's talk page) other than I think the article needs. work. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Human–goat sexual intercourse - deletion discussion ongoing

• Human–goat sexual intercourse

Deletion discussion ongoing about whether or not this article page should exist.

Please see deletion discussion page at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Human–goat sexual intercourse, if you wish to voice your opinion. — Cirt (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wadi al-Jarf

If anybody would like to help out at Wadi al-Jarf, an Ancient Egyptian port on the Red Sea coast that has hit the lay media, please do. There are links to the articles in the stub, which are open source at least for now. Abductive (reasoning) 02:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Iberian woman 100 A.D.jpg

File:Iberian woman 100 A.D.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Libyan Fragment.jpg

File:Libyan Fragment.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Archaeogenetics of the Cucuteni–Trypillian culture#Recent edits and WP:BRD

Hi all

A discussion has started due to recent edits that have been challenged.

Would any interested parties please join the discussion.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Jewry Wall Museum

The article for the Jewry Wall Museum has been proposed to be merged with the article for Jewry Wall, which is covered by your wikiproject.

The discussion can be found at Talk:Jewry_Wall_Museum#Merger_proposal if you would like to contribute.

Many Thanks
Rushton2010 (talk) 15:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Mars Statue Wareswald.jpg

File:Mars Statue Wareswald.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

File:SpiritCaveMan.jpg

File:SpiritCaveMan.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Revamping WikiProject Archaeology

Hi all,

I would really like to get more energy and coordination going on WP Archaeology! I've begun a redesign of these project pages in a sandbox and would love to have feedback/improvements and move toward a more coordinated approach. This should also help tempt more archaeologists and wikipedians to contribute to this content! In particular I'd like to get comments on an organisational table for the content on the past. This might be based on this table but it may be easier to work through the kinks in a public googledoc. This may also get better input from archaeologists unfamiliar with mediawiki markup. What does everybody think!? PatHadley (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Mediating Disputes Over "La Ciudad Blanca"

I'd like to ask if you'd be willing to mediate disagreements that I'm having with another Misplaced Pages editor over the article on La Ciudad Blanca, one that falls under the WikiProject Archaeology for its content about archaeological sites in Honduras. The other editor and I have been going back and forth in edit wars for the past few weeks. Although we thought we'd reached an understanding, it hasn't worked. Most of the debates appear on the talk page for the article, although some also appear on each of our user talk pages. My principal complaints are that: 1) his editing of the article has been based heavily upon a popular magazine article, not reliable scholarly sources; and 2) that he continues to revert a large number of what I consider to be improvements to the article. He has accused me of inserting a personal POV, while I have denied that and have countered that in fact what is happening his that he is editing the article to reflect his POV. Ideally, the article should be as neutral, correct, and factual as possible as well as being based on reliable sources. Any help on this article from someone experienced with issues of both archaeology and especially pseudoarchaeology would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Hoopes (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class Archaeology pages
• NA-importance Archaeology pages