Talk:Archaeology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic archaeology topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
Archaeology is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
plan of the stonehenge site
Archaeology Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Anthropology.

This project provides a central approach to Anthropology-related subjects on Wikipedia.
Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Significant overhaul underway

I have made some big changes to the structure of the article, and will continue to work on text. This is a good start, but many things need to be elaborated and clarified. This entry needs serious help! I am an archaeologist with training in North America, so the emphasis may have shifted somewhat. I'm hoping others will fill in information on the discipline in other world areas. I'm also unsure how to go about making significant changes without erasing previous text. I hope no one is offended - I'm just interested in getting this entry right. --Mybvega 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for starting this overhaul, this page really needed it. The changes are an improvement, but more work is needed.--NathanCraig 00:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance and Applicability

This section should be cut. Some arguments are blatantly incorrect while others are poorly articulated. 1) Writing begins about 3000 BC, not 3000 years ago. 2) All cultures produce histories (Salomon 1999; Wolfe 1982) even if some do not generate materialized forms of those histories. 3) The fallibility of the written record is not well presented. 4) Finally, the last section attempts a dual argument about nationalism and cultural reconstruction. These are both important issues, but they are not well linked in the text. I propose abandoning this section, creating new sections on history and prehistory which deals specifically with this complex and politically charged topic. I also propose creating a section that addresses archaeology and nationalism which is also a subject that merits discussion in a general treatment of archaeology. The issues of cultural reconstruction and the aims of research can be addressed under the existing section on theory. If I do not hear objection I will make these changes.--NathanCraig 06:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Salomon, F. (1999), "Testimonies: The Making and Reading of Native South American Historical Sources", written at Cambridge, in SALOMON, F. & SCHWARTZ, S. B., The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Cambridge University Press
  • Wolf, E. (1982), written at Berkeley, Europe and the People Without History, University of California Press

[edit] 'Science'

I notice in the opening paragraph it states that archaeology is a 'science'. Now, some archaeologists believe that it is (e.g. the processualist school) and some don't (the post-processualists), I think this should be reflected in the opening. I am going to be bold and change it to 'academic discipline' to be more neutral. If anyone has any problems with this I'm open to discussion. :)

This is a debate that has been very important in modern archaeology and should probably be given its own section after clean-up.Man from the Ministry 02:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I also added 'interpretation' to the brief list of methods in the intro, for the same reason stated above.Man from the Ministry 02:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Vsmith reverted my edit, because the term 'academic discipline' was disliked. If a better term can be decided, I'll go for it, but I still think 'Science' is the wrong term to have (at least in the opening paragraph).

In my opinion, 'academic discipline' is the most accurate description, for whilst excavation, lab-based research etc are all part of Archaeology, the subject itself is grounded in the traditions of publication and peer review.

I won't make the edit again without further discussion here.Man from the Ministry 11:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

How about field of study which may be science-based or ____?___ based. What goes in the blank? Vsmith 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

'Field of study' is good. I personally think that the positivist vs anti-positivist debate should have its own section, but if it is also to be included into the intro then I suggest:

'...Is a field of study which uses both scientific and interpretive methods to...'. For further clarification it would probably be good to follow that sentence with one noting that Archaeology falls into both the categories of Humanities and Sciences (For example, I am doing an Archaeology degree which is classed as a Humanities subject, but Science based degrees are just as common). Man from the Ministry 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, personally not into the positivist/antipositivist debate. Hmm... interpretive methods based on what, if not scientific evidence and data. Vsmith 16:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't dispute that most archaeological interpretation is taken from the results of scientific investigation, site diagrams etc, but the major point I'm trying to make is that certain archaeologists (e.g. Chris Tilley) hold that the interpretation itself doesn't have to follow the scientific method.
As an example off the top of my head, some of the interpretation work done on the Maeshowe neolithic tombs compares the layout of the tombs and that of the nearby neolithic Barnhouse Settlement. The argument goes that as they are remarkably the same, the tomb may in some way represent a 'house of the dead'. This is obviously totally unscientific, with no possibility of verification, but the post-processualist school argues that it is still valid as archaeology. Man from the Ministry 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds to me like a theory that could be verified at some future date. Deb 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well it is a theory, but the problem is that it is pretty much impossible to verify, because it is attempting to read the intentions and spiritual beliefs of humans that have been dead for thousands of years. This is where the debate comes in:
Processualists would argue that as it cannot be meaningfully verified it should be ignored, or at most be an interpretational footnote in a more scientific work.
The Post-Processualists would argue that even though it cannot be verified, such theories are important in the study of human history, through such methods as phenomenology.
For the record, I don't really hold to one view or the other, but hover somewhere in the middle.Man from the Ministry 13:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heritage Management

I added a link to the CRM/Heritage Management section to show that the latter is an academically accepted name in Britain (displayed as the title of a module of study). The link comes from SoGAER (School of Geography, Archaeology and Earth Resources) at the University of Exeter.

Note there is also a basic reading list at the bottom that may be further use in the article, if they can be got hold of.

As I am doing a module on this subject I may be able to help in cleaning up the section, but only from the British perspective. I have no knowledge of the American system.Man from the Ministry (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit: Added a link to a source for the PPG16 document and some internal links.Man from the Ministry (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Added some more references and internal links to the section. The United Kingdom and American sections could probably do with being divided into seperate subheadings, to prevent the section as a whole becoming too unwieldly.Man from the Ministry (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hatnote

The original hatnote was {{For|the magazine about archaeology|Archaeology (magazine)}}. The current one (with incorrect markup) leads to WP:CITE. I propose to restore he original. Please point out if I've missed the reason in the page history. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refimprove|date=July 2007 deleted

Needs to clearly state on discussion page where references are lacking. Otherwise this is usless information for the reader.--Rcollman (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are there so many references for the fact that archaeology draws upon geology? You'd think that this would be fairly obvious for a discipline that is popularly viewed as all about "digging things up". References in mid-sentence are also an eyesore. Unless there is a good reason to keep them where they are, I'd suggest moving them. Fuzzform (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)