Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Archaeology

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Archaeology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Archaeology This page is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. 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

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Rebecca Onion (November 18, 2022). "The Ancient Absurdities of Ancient Apocalypse". Slate (magazine). Retrieved April 5, 2023. Oddly enough—and I know journalists might bristle at what I say—Wikipedia is the very best source. It's maintained by nerds, and archaeology Wikipedia is maintained by archaeology nerds, and the articles on it are good! I have a feeling they'll get even better because of this series, because people will want to make sure the information is in there for viewers who may be Googling it.

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Teqoa (ancient town)#Requested move 25 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 21:52, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Montpelier Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Please add more sources. Thank you in advance. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sexual diversity in the Huancavilca culture#Requested move 21 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Abesca (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles titled 'Archeology of "Country name", which is grammatically wrong - it should be Archeology in "Country name". Who wants to do a widespread name change? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have different connotations, but both are grammatically correct. -- Avocado (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They have different meanings, not connertations, which dictates their use in a sentence, which makes the current title grammatically wrong. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To be obnoxiously pedantic in ways that I admit are not meaningfully relevant to what was probably your intention in opening this conversation: while there's an argument to be made that in some cases they are semantically incorrect representations of the article contents, those titles are legitimate syntactical constructions and thus grammatically correct. "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is also grammatically correct. -- Avocado (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that depend on the topic of the article? Looking at my bookshelf, I have Archaeology of Precolumbian Florida, Archaeology of the Everglades, Archaeology of North Florida, and Archaeology of the Florida Gulf Coast. If the topic of the article is about what archaeologists have found in a given territory, then I would say that "of" is appropriate. If the article is about the development and practice of the discipline of archaeology in a given territory, then I would say "in" is appropriate. Donald Albury 15:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has also been taking place on the Talk:Archaeology of New Zealand, but I suggested it move here as it affects more than one article. All the "Archaeology of…" regional articles seem to be a summary of the history of archaeological investigations in that country over the last century or two, and a list of notable artifacts and sites excavated, arranged chronologically: e.g. Archaeology of Qatar. Are there any regional articles that the community considers exemplars of this structure, that could perhaps go in the project showcase? —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 07:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I first noticed this issue on the NZ article so I raised it there first, before realising it affected many other articles, which led me to mentioning it here too. I think Donald Albury is correct in that the different usage, of 'in or of', can depend on what the writer has in mind when writing. They have different meanings depending on the context. My reading of all these articles is that archeology refers to the subject in a broad sense, not to individual sites/digs. The examples given here where 'archeology of COUNTRY NAME' is used in publications is about various sites within the country, making it possibly correct. I put an AI answer on the NZ archeology article, repeated here, which sums it up neatly I think. "The phrase "archeology of something" typically refers to the study or examination of a specific subject or culture, while "archaeology in something" usually indicates the practice or application of archaeological methods within a particular context or location." My understanding is that all the wikipedia articles refer to the subject of archeology in all its uses, within a country, making 'archeology in' a better choice. The question to be addressed then is what exactly are all these wikipedia articles meant to be aboutabout? An analogy makes it clearer. Change archeology for history - 'History of Canada' and 'History in Canada' are more obviously about different things. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I added three new studies to Talk:Ucanal. May anyone be willing to incorporate them into the page? RanDom 404 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Kia ora all,

I'm currently funded a day a week for the next few months by Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand (announcement here) to work with a local historical archaeology company in Christchurch and improve the coverage of New Zealand archaeology a little. The treatment of New Zealand archaeologists and archaeology in Wikipedia is pretty average, and there's almost nothing about historical archaeology for example. I have access to the expertise, publications, and library of this team of archaeologists until July, and will be giving a presentation on Wikipedia and how they can get involved at their national conference. If anyone's interested in helping create or improve articles around New Zealand archaeological topics, please feel free to add yourself to the list of participants and lend a hand. There are lists of people that need articles and better Wikidata, and articles on particular sites and finds that need creating. The Journal of Pacific Archaeology is now open-access and we're hoping to work with the editors to get papers published in there better-cited in Wikipedia. Any help is appreciated! Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's exciting news. As of writing, the journal is mentioned on 38 English Wikipedia articles, which get an average readership of 10,500 per day. Nearly half of those lacked DOIs so I've added those (ideally this search should have zero results).

There's a lot of scope for improving Wikipedia from those sources. Are there plans to add images from the journals to Commons since they're now under an open licence (leaving images where there's a third-party copyright of course)? Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The images are not as simple as we might hope: the actual copyright owner is almost always a mystery, and so we can't credit them as required by the licence. And despite the open licence, it's unlear that people supplying images in every case realise they'd be released under CC-BY. Many of the maps and diagrams are based on copyrighted originals, which may or may not have been adapted with permission. I've approached the current and former editor of the journal, who may be able to help with approaching authors and securing reasonable-resolution images from them. This of course takes a quite a bit of time and emailing. I'm concentrating on some image collections of objects uncovered in post-earthquake excavations in Christchurch we may be able to get an open licence for. — Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• I, on and off, have been making lists of Heritage New Zealand-listed sites by territorial authority. There's a lot of archaeological sites on these lists (for instance, dozens of middens and many earth ovens in List of historic places in Clutha District; but there's often literally no information available about these beyond an entry in the NZHL. Is there a database somewhere that might have reports on these individual sites? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 06:36, 18 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I am working on a new article about the Roman city of Hebdomon.

The city, also known as Septimium in Latin, was an important administrative and military center adjacent to Constantinople during late antiquity and the Middle Ages of the Roman and Eastern Roman Empires.

I know that the history of Hebdomon is included in the history section of Bakırköy, but I find it insufficient. There is a great deal of information that could be added specifically about Hebdomon in its own article. Many Roman emperors were proclaimed there, and several monuments and other notable places were erected on the site. Short excavation campaigns, notably the French work in 1922 and further investigations by the Turkish Republic in the 1950s, uncovered inscription fragments, cisterns, and structural remains; any photos, maps, or reports on these digs would be welcome.

I am a fairly new editor, so I may have made mistakes here and there. That is why I need your help to improve this article. I welcome critique, advice, or any information you can provide.

Also note: this article is a work in progress and may be incomplete. Contributions and reliable sources are welcome to improve it.

Many Thanks! WikiArtax (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is really solid work for a first article! You've got the essentials down w.r.t. markup, structure, citations, etc. Someone who's a bit more knowledgeable about the field and familiar with the details of how we structure archaeology articles in particular can probably offer more specific feedback. To a generalist editor like me, a couple things jumped out upon a first skim:

• Hebdomon experienced its best period in the age of Justinianus. -- This sentence currently stands alone, and it begs for further explication. What was so great about this period? What happened after to cause a decline?
• The table of emperors proclaimed there feels overemphasized relative to the rest of the article. That sort of formatting would be appropriate for a standalone list or perhaps even for a section in an article much longer than this one; but as it is, it overwhelms the rest of the article. I might suggest omitting the images or even converting the table to a bulleted list. (This is a subjective reaction, fwiw -- not a rule or convention.)

Those are nitpicks, though. Keep up the good work! -- Avocado (talk) 11:21, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have opened a move request in Talk:Giovanni Battista de Rossi, and I would appreciate your input. ~2026-19871-57 (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Etruscan Museum#Requested move 16 March 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]