Talk:History of archaeology

Archaeology High‑importance

	This article 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content 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. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

This is a very English-oriented history. While I don't advocate the sort of list in the German Wik, I do hope that Scand., French, German and American efforts get added to this presentation.

List of years in archaeology[edit]

Note that the List of years in archaeology and associated sub-articles has been listed for deletion; see: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of years in archaeology. Personally I think the stubby state of those articles are more representative of the still stubby and spotty coverage Wikipedia has of the history of archaeology rather than this subject being unfit for timelines similar to a number of other topics so treated here, and therefore have voted to keep and helped expand some of the articles. Whatever your opinion, feedback from those interested in the subject is welcome. -- Infrogmation 18:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion - List of significant archaeological discoveries[edit]

List of significant archaeological discoveries is up for deletion as inherently POV or celebrity spotting. The text of the list claims that the listed items contributed to archaeology - if so it would seem more useful to reference such sites in context of the history of archaeology in this article. Viv Hamilton 14:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead?[edit]

Hi. Is anyone looking? This article seems terribly neglected. Does anyone read it, or ever edit it? This is an important topic (well, at least to archaeologists), and at present it is poorly represented on wikipedia. It should be long article, with sections on the history of archaeological thought, of archaeological fieldwork, of techniques, of interpretation, of theory. It should take account of the history of the discipline in the separate European countries with their separate intellectual developments, and in Asia, the New World, Africa and Australia, but also on the distinction between Classical archaeology and other archaeologies (in Europe), and on pseudo-archaeology and its public impact. It's a massive, massive topic. I'm willing to contribute. Is anyone else? athinaios 22:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does need work. It is worth noting that some of the material for the development of archaeology particularly in the 20th century and of theory exists in the other archaeological articles, so this article could have summary paragraphs, with links to those as main articles. I'm willing to help, but would rather not take the lead! Viv Hamilton 10:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this page needs work. One problem I see off the bat is that the history of archaeology and [Archaeological theory] go hand and glove with each other. Another problem is that the 'greats' (Boas, Dillard, Binford, Etc) of Archaeology are missing. It is like trying to talk about the history of physics and leaving out Newton, Mach, and Einstein or talking about the history of medicine without mentioning Koch, Pasteur, and Reed. Finally there is the feedback effect that anthropology and archaeology have on each other (Binford's and Dillard's long arguments over style and function case in point). SO to some degree I think some merging of this and the Archaeological theory article is needed before we can do anything else with this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think we should still retain the two articles. One way to tackle it would be for this one to have main-article references to Archaeological theory, and also Anthropology. Viv Hamilton (talk) 08:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Archaeological theory article suffers from huge gaps and is also in need of a major expansion. The periods of antiquities collection, Historical Particularism (also known as Boasian Archaeology), and System Theory Archaeology are totally missing. Even though it references Trigger's book it is way too vague on just how different theory is from one region to the next. I am going to pull the various headings from Trigger's book as well as some articles and see what we can do with them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll watch for your edits, and see if there is anything I can add to yours - let me know on the talk page if you have to stop partway through and would rather it wasn't touched until you can get back to it Viv Hamilton (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking using the talk page to decide what is relevant and what can be combined. The proposed sections are Antiquarianism (antiquities collection), Imperial synthesis, Cultural-historical (Historical Particularism), Functionalism, better explanation of New Archeology, System theory (covers Intersocial Contact, neo-historism, neo-Marxism, Contextual archaeology)--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous[edit]

I have a feeling that Flava Flave, Pokemon, and Chris Benoit have nothing to do with the origins of Archaeology...unless my textbooks were wrong.

Specifically, I am talking about the first paragraph of the Origins (Antiquities Collection Era) section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volker00 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit:

Well, I deleted that paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Volker00 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, some bozo vandalized the article a short time before you looked at it. The vandal has been blocked and the article reverted to the pre-vandalism version. Cheers, -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Helena[edit]

Helena, mother of Constantine I is listed in the English Wikipedia article as a(n early) patron of archaeologist as well as a discoverer of relics. Some pop articles call the mother of archaeology, the first Christian arachaeologist, the first archaeologist. This is certainly an exaggeration, but is she (at all) worth mentioning? Here are some articles about her: https://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/301-600/death-of-helena-1st-christian-archaeologist-11629654.html, https://www.qgazette.com/articles/st-helena-the-first-archaeologist/, www.ancient-origins/weird-facts/saint-helena-0017825 a Wik-blocked source), https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2014/08/st-helen-imperial-archaeologist.html, https://christianapostles.com/st-helena/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_3SMHcYA8I, and https://saxum.org/saint-helena-and-the-finding-of-the-true-cross/. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Helena does not use the words "archaeologist" or "archaeology," only discussing the discovery of the true cross in reserved tones. 199.127.133.181 (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the biography ("the English Wikipedia article")? I'd say worth a guarded mention, and here too. If she wasn't "the first Christian arachaeologist", who was? The details of her excavation are well covered in medieval accounts of her life. Johnbod (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a common enough factoid to be worth including it, even if it's just to explain that what she did wasn't really archaeology and she wasn't the first to do it. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]