Talk:Archaeoastronomy

Spelling

Which spelling is more correct, or at least more often used: Archeoastronomy or Archaeoastronomy? This article can be filed under either spelling, and a redirect applied to the other. -- April

Google finds 12,300 for Archaeoastronomy, but only 1,420 for Archeoastronomy. So the article should probably go under Archaeoastronomy, unless someone has a good reason for preferring the other spelling. --Zundark, 2002 Jan 29

Science News made reference to the term as ethnoastronomy in 1987, but I haven't seen it used that way. Perhaps the page could mention it in passing. --Viriditas 04:22, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This article is kind of Anglocentric. Several Chinese astronomers have published in the last few years, usually in "Astronomy and Astrophysics - a European Journal"

I'll try to hunt up a few references. Also there is recent work on transits of Venus that should be mentioned. See:

[1]

among many references. The first recorded transit was in 1639

eclipses

Do these things belong on this page?

1. use of eclipse records to date historical events
2. use of historic eclipse trajectories to study past earth rotation

I'm not cluey enough about either to add them myself. --Zero 12:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy should keep to the ancient practices themselves, it seems to me, but an aside on modern uses of ancient astronomical records, now just hinted at here, would be useful, and an emphatic link to Chronology, where the employment of this dating technique in the hands of historians is worth all the detail you can give it! --Wetman 18:21, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nabta Playa

Can someone verify the edits regarding Nabta Playa ? I refer you to User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Wizzy…☎ 09:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Possible re-write

I've written a "What is archaeoastronomy?" page for my own site. I'm happy to put it in Wikipedia, but this would mean a major re-write of the existing article, the creation of an extra page and culling of many external links. You can see the text at http://archaeoastronomy.co.uk/archaeoastronomy/

I'd also pull the Some Old / New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored sections into a new page called Sites of Archaeoastronomical Significance and link to it via a See Also section. As for the external links most of them would go. I'm not convinced we need four separate links to James Q Jacobs's site. Many of the other links are very specific rather than being relevant to Archaeoastronomy in general. They might be good pages, but DMoz would be a better place to list them. The references would be replaced with the references used for the entry.

What is missing from the entry would be reference to things like the Orion's Belt theory. While I don't agree with them, people looking up von Daniken may refer to Wikipedia. A sub-section on pseudo-archaeology with links to the pseudo-archaeology entry and author pages like Bauval etc could be appended without problems.

I realise people will correct it as soon as I put it up, or that I could just put it up and leave it for someone to revert. I just thought with it being a big change and me being new here it would be a good idea to put up a notice first. I'm not trying to arrogantly run roughshod over the previous entry without consultation. If there's no major concerns then I'll add it in a couple of days. --Alunsalt 16:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the subject to comment on your content, but the philosophy of wikipedia is to be bold. The existing article is not much better than a stub. There is a biggish leader and then lists of links - a structured article will be an improvement. Of course the revision shouldn't include original research - but the proposed article appears to contain sufficient references that I assume this is not the case. If you are considering removing material, one way is to move it to this talk page, so that someone who strongly feels it is important doesn't need to revert your edit and can simply re-edit the old stuff into a suitable place in the new article. You could do the same with the existing external references. If you think the references are useful but very specific, one way to handle this is to use sub-headings under heading of external links - see Underwater archaeology for example. The some old/new world sites article might be best as a List of... article? You may get objectors to the idea of an article on pseudo-archaeology (either because people believe it and object to pseudo, or they believe it is pseudo and object to its inclusion at all). Personally I agree with you, but it needs to be carefully worded. Viv Hamilton 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The new version is up for people to pull apart. I don't know if it's over illustrated. Having previewed it uncountable times I've just realised the headings may not be up to style --Alunsalt 11:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Alun, the new version is much better organized than the old one. It's focus on academic archeaeoastronomy is a radical change, but on balance, one for the better. Thanks much, Steve McCluskey--141.153.125.219 00:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Previous State of Entry

Below is cut'n'pasted the previous version of the Archaeoastronomy entry so that anyone can put stuff back in if they feel it's should be in the new entry. My plan is to use the category page for Archaeoastronomy to help link in material so I'll be flitting round other relevant entries to make sure they have an archaeoastronomy category link later. The only major cuts will be in external links which will be heavily pruned. I'll be cutting links that aren't to archaeoastronomical sites and to sites concerned specifically with one culture. For instance some of the James Q Jacobs links might be better on the Maya calendar page. I've stepped down the headings to fit them below the one which starts this section.--Alunsalt 08:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy (also spelled Archeoastronomy) is the study of ancient or traditional astronomies in their cultural context, utilizing archaeological and anthropological evidence. Archaeoastronomy examines archaeological sites for evidence of astronomy in remote cultures, and anthropological and ethnohistorical evidence for evidence of astronomical practices in living cultures. The study of the astronomies of living traditional cultures is sometimes called Ethnoastronomy. Archaeoastronomy also focuses on modern astronomy, employing historical records of early astronomical observations to study past astronomical events, and employing astronomical data to clarify the historical record.

In the study of solar, lunar, and stellar alignments of monuments, numerous claims have been made that the megalithic monuments, such as Nabta Playa, Stonehenge and Newgrange, represent "ancient observatories," but the extent and nature of their use in that regard needs careful definition. Certainly, they are aligned with particular significance to the solstitial points.

The early development of this aspect of archaeoastronomy was influenced by Alexander Thom's studies of megalithic monuments of Britain, published in Megalithic sites in Britain (Oxford, 1967). Thom employed detailed surveys and statistical methods to investigate the calendric and astronomical functions of numerous Neolithic monuments. He claimed that these monuments incorporate alignments to points on the horizon where the sun and moon rise and set at seasonal extremes like midsummer, midwinter and the equinoxes. In addition to his work on Neolithic astronomy, he also proposed the megalithic yard as a standardized unit of measure. Although his work greatly influenced the development of archaeoastronomy, many of his conclusions (especially those implying highly precise observations) have been widely questioned.

Anthropological and ethnohistorical methods have been used to study astronomies in a wide range of cultures. Typical studies have examined the astronomical and calendric practices of the Hopi and Zuni of the Southwestern United States; the astronomy and cosmology of the Andean villagers of Misminay; the calendrical and divinatory practices of modern Maya priests, and the ambiguous lunar calendar of the Mursi of southwestern Ethiopia.

Archaeoastronomy has also considered the extensive records of ancient China for references to "guest stars". "Guest stars," or star-like objects which appeared in the night sky, were of great interest to the observers of ancient China and were often dutifully recorded. These events have been associated with many transitory phenomena, such as comets and, particularly, supernovae. Besides the insights such records provide into the significance of celestial phenomena in ancient cultures, they have also been found useful by modern astronomers.

Some Old World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored

• Angkor Wat
• Arkaim
• Ballochroy
• Borobudur
• Carnac, the Grand Menhir Brisé
• Great Pyramids of Egypt
• Kintraw
• Minard, Brainport Bay, raising methodological issues
• Newgrange
• Nabta Playa
• Sarmizegetusa Regia, Romania
• Stonehenge and other structures apparently aligned to astronomical bodies and/or events

Some New World sites where archaeoastronomy is being explored

• Cahokia, City of the Sun.
• Chaco Canyon, cardinal orientatons, meridian alignment, inter-pueblo alignments
• Chichen Itza, the caracol
• Monte Alban, zenith tube
• Teotihuacan, the pecked-cross circles as survey-markers
• Uxmal, Venus alignment of the "Governor's Palace"
• Xochicalco, zenith tube
• Many Maya sites that have an E Group (see Maya section on E Groups)
• Tiwanaku, the Kalasasaya and its alignments

Some artifacts that throw light on archaeoastronomy

• Ancient calendars based on astronomical observations
• Antikythera mechanism
• Nebra skydisk

References

• Clive Ruggles, Astronomy in Prehistoric Britain and Ireland
• Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture [2]

External links

• The Solstice Project
• Mesoamerican Archaeoastronomy, a Review of Contemporary Understandings of Prehispanic Astronomic Knowledge.
• Archaeogeodesy, the area of study encompassing prehistoric and ancient place determination, point positioning, navigation (on land or water), astronomy and measure and representation of the earth.
• ArchaeoGeodesy v2006.3.24, Ancient Monuments Spherical Trigonometry Calculator, an easy-to-use Excel spreadsheet featuring hundreds of ancient monuments.
• Epoch 2000, an Excel spreadsheet for calculating temporally variable astronomic constants.
• Clives Ruggles webpage: bibliography and synopsis of his course at Leicester University
• ISAAC, The International Society for Archaeoastronomy and Astronomy in Culture.
• Babylonian and Indian astronomy
• International Institute of Astroarchaeology
• "The House Of The Sky" - An essay exploring ancient astronomy, myths of the Deluge and the mythical stories of mankind's past and future
• Traditions of the Sun - NASA and others exploring the world's ancient observatories.
• Space Imaging's Ancient Observatories gallery - Satellite pictures of ancient observatories.
• Astronomical alignments of ancient structures - essays about ancient astronomy.
• Tulum - Mayan Mystery - Amateur archaeoastronomy from the archaeological site at Tulum.

Note: I don't recall this last entry being in the article I replaced. It's been added, unsigned, by E. Wayne. --Alunsalt 13:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Ethnoastronomy

Well, the recent change by Melchoir has raised the issue to the fore. Is Ethnoastronomy a separate entity from archaeoastronomy, deserving its own article, or is it part of it? Since it is already covered (to some extent) in this article, perhaps we should make the connection clearer. For the moment, I'm going to remove the disturbing red link to the non-existent article on Ethnoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey 13:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I have no idea, personally. But whatever the decision is, the intro must reflect it. Currently, we have an article on A that states "A is related to B, C, and D", while C and D are links to other articles and B is not. The omission frankly screams! Melchoir 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the opening paragraph to reflect these comments. Take a look at the change to see if it deals with the problem adequately. --SteveMcCluskey 21:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! Melchoir 21:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Article

Congratulations to Alunsalt and indeed all contributors to this beautifully-written article: it makes for a compelling, well-structured and very informative read, and is sumptuously illustrated. I've listed it as a Good Article since it meets all the criteria. However, despite its ample good points, it only just satisfies the broadness criterion in my opinion. In particular, the following points need addressing when further developing the article:

• Most pressingly, how scientific is archaeoastronomy? To what extent are conclusions based upon individual opinions?
• Which academic centres are the most prominent for archaeoastronomical research? This is vital for context.
• There are no direct quotations either regarding the discipline itself or from eminent archaeoastronomers.
• A section is needed which elaborates on how archaeoastronomy compares and contrasts with each of its closely-related disciplines, as suggested in the introduction. In particular, what sources tackle the ethnoastronomy/archaeoastronomy debate and among whom is there "no consensus"?
• What are the major achievements within the discipline?
• In ===Displays of Power===, the sentence "The use of astronomy at Stonehenge continues to be a matter of vigorous discussion" is opaque and needs context.

Some stylistic points of note:

• There is Wikipedia consensus that footnote numbers should be placed after punctuation marks in the prose (except for brackets).
• A redirect for ethnoastronomy is appropriate at the moment.
• There should be a small introductory paragraph to the section ==Major topics of archaeoastronomical research==.
• The image of Machu Picchu is beautiful, but it doesn't bear any obvious relevance to the prose it illustrates.

Anyway, I had a thoroughly good time reading this article, so cheers, and well done again. --Vinoir 16:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. The footnotes and redirect are in place. Perhaps a methodology section would tackle both the scientific/historical nature of archaeoastronomy and be a place to discuss ethnoastronomy? Clive's quote on archaeoastronomy spanning unbridled lunacy to something else (I'll have to look it up) would be a good intro to the methodology and arguments over how scientific one can be. --Alunsalt 17:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff. A ==Methodology== section sounds ideal. If you ever need me for follow-up to the above comments, I'll be happy to oblige. Probably the article will also be large enough for peer review at that point, and I think that Featured Article status is a realistic prospect for the article. --Vinoir 20:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to make a note of what I added, and to spellcheck. I'll try and do the latter tomorrow morning. Added are Methodology and Recreating the Sky sections. I wanted to try and show there's more to method than just measuring alignments, and try and get away from the astronomical shopping list idea. As a result I'm not happy with either section as they stand, but they're up for anyone else to knock about. I'm off campus at the moment too, but when I'm back possibly next week, I'll try filling out the references.

Other sections I thought to add are Major archaeoastronomical sites which could briefly discuss Stonehenge, Chichen Itza and Giza with links through to the main articles and also an Archaeoastronomy and Archaeology section for the end to say that while you can't use purely astronomical data to turn the archaeological world upside down, some things do make more sense when astronomy is considered e.g. Maya Venus Star Wars, Iron Age roundhouses and Polynesian navigation.

Should this article discuss problematic cases?

I've been following recent changes to the article over at Hindu astronomy, where there has been an effective rebuttal of the attempts to use archaeoastronomical methods to push the date of Indian astronomy back by over two millennia. Lying behind these attempts is a nationalist agenda to grant Indian astronomy priority and make it the source of Greek and Babylonian astronomy.

I don't like to see archaeoastronomy tarred by this kind of foolishness, yet the late David Pingree, an expert on Indian astronomy — who also did solid research on Greek, Babylonian, and even medieval European astronomy — spent a page of an excellent article on early science condemning "the scholars who perpetrate wild theories of prehistoric science and call themselves archaeoastronomers." (Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," Isis, 83(1982):554-563, esp. p. 556; reprinted in Michael H. Shank, ed., The Scientific Enterprise in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 2000), pp.30-39.)

Perhaps the thing to do is add a section dealing with fallacies in Archaeoastronomy and discussing those standards that can help a reader critically evaluate such weak research. --SteveMcCluskey 21:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I thought a section on pseudo-archaeoastronomy might be useful, but I'm not sure I'm the person to write it. I'll look up that article because I haven't read it and it looks really useful. --Alunsalt 18:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Write More on the 'Astrological Significance' of These Sites?

It seems that most of these sites were built for these cultures to express their 'cosmic admiration' or 'cosmic awe' for their God(s), so possibly these sites have much more astrological significance than people (i.e. modern, highly skeptical scientists) give them credit for. Perhaps we should include more about the astrological significance of these amazing structures in the main article. For instance, we know that many archaeoastronomical sites are astronomically amazing and significant in that they uncannily line up with the cycles of the sun, moon, and planets, but WHY would these cultures go through the laborious process of building these sites if they didn't attach any astrological and/or spiritual significance to them? Thank you for your time and suggestions. --172.150.63.12 06:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's sorry you don't have a user name so I could contact you directly. Perhaps there could be a section on the use of early astronomies for prognostication. There are two problems. First, for most archaeoastronomical sites we don't have enough cultural context to say anything specific about the purposes to which they were put. The second, and related, problem is to find secondary accounts regarding this topic in reliable sources that could be cited in the article. I know the use of the Maya material for prognostication has been talked about by Tony Aveni and others but I'm pretty much at a loss for any good material on the other sites under discussion here. --SteveMcCluskey 17:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be delighted to read more on the astrological significance of the sites, if it can be verified from a reliable source. As Steve says, there's not the cultural context there. For instance it would be weird if there wasn't some rich symbolism in the night sky of the builders of Stonehenge, but the complete lack of historical records means that we will never know what it was. Additionally ancient people are very good at being weird and proving everyone wrong.

There is also a danger that in specifying astrology rather than ritual you risk putting a modern preconception back onto the past. Astrology is not a universal belief system, in the case of Graeco-Roman astrology it relies on some fairly basic assumptions about the use fo mathematics which don't transfer to other cultures. I'll give it some thought. I did wonder if something could be added in the Displays of power section. Unfortunately the only suitable thing I can think of is some work on the Tellus relief at the Ara Pacis, but that's not verifiable as it hasn't been published yet. --Alunsalt 13:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Good article status questioned

This article's status as a Good Article has been disputed. Please see the current discussion at WP:GA/R If you feel that you can improve the article so it meets good article standards please do. If you would like to contribute to the discussion of this article, please see good article reviews. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Per consensus reached here, the article has been delisted. Giggy ^Talk 22:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus was reached and archived within a couple of hours as far as I can tell from the discussion here. I accept the decision, and probably would have voted for delisting, but it may have been better to let people who'd worked on the article know that the discussion was underway. It might be helpful if are people who noted the missing citations edit the article to point out where the problems are. I could certainly fill out some citations for some statements, but for the next few months I doubt I'll be bothered. I don't think anyone was being intentionally rude, but giving 24 hours notice might make people in other time zones feel their contributions are valued. --Alunsalt 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry you didn't get a notice. Generally you recieve one when it's listed, but this time Zeus1234 missed it. If you like, I'll un-delist it, and give you a few days to make changes etc. Giggy ^Talk 06:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Per your comments on the GA/R review, the article has been delisted. The discussion, now in archive, can be found here. Once you are able to work on the article and correct the issues, you may renominate it at WP:GAC. Please see the GA criteria to assist in bringing the article up to GA quality. Best regards, LARA♥LOVE 03:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Definition, Genesis and Intentionality of archaeoastronomy

According to Emeritus Professor of Archaeoastronomy at the University of Leicester Clive Ruggles,

Archaeoastronomy is the study of beliefs and practices relating to the sky in the past, especially in prehistory, and the uses to which people's knowledge of the skies was put.

To me, at least, Ruggles' thumbnail definition seems more inclusive than what the lead paragraph of the WP article implies. Specifically, archaeologists tend to dismiss any otherwise legitimate instance of potential archaeoastronomical inquiry absent an archaeological or accepted, localized anthropological component, such as a priori excavations or established cultural context. Is the archaeo- prefix appended to root word, -astronomy, meant to confer an archaeological blessing antecedent to any such study? Or, rather, is the term implicit of a form of early, "archaic" practice, as distinguished from the practice of "modern" astronomy? This relates to my second issue, the characterization of the genesis of archaeoastronomy, as it appears in the lead sentence under the WP article's heading History of archaeoastronomy:

Archaeoastronomy is almost as old as archaeology itself.

: a statement which is not only vague, but misleading, as well. The term used to describe this specialized field of study originated in the late 20th century, while archaeology as a discipline defined by that term has been around much longer. Considering folks have been digging things out of the earth and salvaging shipwrecks in shallow waters for ages, a sloppy form of archaeology has been practiced for a long, long time. Among noted antiquarians participating in the unnamed field of what was to later become archaeoastronomy was Everett W. Fish, M.D., whose 1880 book The Egyptian Pyramids: An Analysis of A Great Mystery predated by fourteen years the WP article's citation of Norman Lockyer's work on Egyptian temples. Yet Fish is unacknowledged and deserves credit for what might well have inspired Lockyer for all we know. I note with interest Alun Salt's archaeoastronomy "arguably" confers the honor of "first archaeoastronomer" on Lockyer, when this is demonstrably incorrect based on a reading of the Fish .pdf accessible in the external link above. Further, Salt borrows generously phrases from his own home page to populate the WP article. If credibility counts, a wholesale review/revision is warranted, for example, emphasizing the fact that neither Fish, nor Lockyer, nor Alexander Thom, nor Gerald Hawkins were archaeologists, or supplicated themselves to archaeologists in order to perform their research and publish. Perhaps it takes a scientific edge possessed by medical doctors, astronomers, physicists and engineers to achieve pioneering studies in spite of archaeology.

Has anyone wrestled, as I have, with the irony of somehow trying to unnaturally weld archaeology to astronomy resulting in the odd-fellow derivative, archaeoastronomy? Just consider how practitioners of each field posture themselves in their studies and what they choose to observe, respectively. An archaeologist's posture is generally downward, deeper into the earth, and their focus is to note in detail and to preserve tactile things from any alteration; while an astronomer's posture is upward and outward into the skies above, and their focus is with changing and dynamic, usually cyclical, celestial phenomena, decidedly non-static and untouchable. In the end, archaeoastronomy is neither a hybrid merger of a discipline and a science, nor is it something to be considered in a clinical, academic vacuum absent an appreciation for myth, mysticism and astrology which played strong roles in ancient cultures. When complex petroglyphic sundials and shadowcasts tied to annual cusps such as the solstices and equinoxes, alongside translated messages in a Celtic alphabet known to exist in western Europe but which archaeologists admonish us has no business appearing in mid-America presumably cocooned from global diffusionism by ancient seafarers, this too must qualify as deserving serious archaeoastronomical research. Why permit the agenda of archaeologists or anthropologists to summarily veto legitimate inquiry into a collection of related anomalous sites simply because they are systemically disinterested in investigating such treasures (or unable to do so authoritatively) themselves?

A very important aspect of archaeoastronomy not addressed in any detail in the WP article is the issue of intentionality of solar or lunar alignments. Purely random instances of observed alignments should be ignored; but what criteria applies to establish genuine confidence that carefully documented phenomena with gnomen and target (and, in some of our cases, even translatable written clues) were intentionally conceived and recorded for posterity by human design? I can propose some guidelines by others, but first I choose to telegraph my perspectives for invited feedback. Later, upon reflection, I may proceed to bring some balance to the WP article on archaeoastronomy, now largely influenced by Alun's pen.Breadh2o (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not so much a case of borrowing phrases from my site. If you read above I put a draft of a re-write up on my site because it was a radical re-write and I didn't want to simply dismiss the previous entry without discussion. A flip through the history should show that that version went up more or less word for word. The article has been edited since then. For instance someone contacted me in distress that Lockyer wasn't the first archaeoastronomer and a while back I corrected it read put Heinrich Nissen (1864) in that place, which remains in the current article. He examined the alignments of Greek temples, and his book is avilable via Google Books. I can expand on that in the entry if you like. Alternatively the block could be deleted if it is too confusing.

If you can improve the article, with references from reliable sources, then please do. I still haven't got round to writing up the brief discussion of archaeoastronomical sites - which is an obvious hole. There's still no discussion of self-proclaimed archaeoastronomers and their more wild claims, like the Orion's Belt theory, which is a valid topic of interest. So I'm sure there's plenty of room for improvement. --Alunsalt (talk) 17:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Breadh2o

It helps readers to follow the course of the discussion if you place your additions after your earlier comments and after other editors' replies. That chronological sequence helps. As it is, you've buried your replies of 30 December in the middle of a text dated 28 December, where they may be overlooked and where their relation to Alunsalt's comments might be missed. Little things like this help clarify discussions of articles on the talk page.

You raised the important issue of intentionality. A useful place to start would be the discussions between Brad Schaefer and Anthony Aveni in the Proceedings of the Seventh Oxford Conference on Archaeoastronomy: Viewing the Sky Through Past and Present Cultures, pp. 27-83. I also commented on their discussion in an essay review in Journal for the History of Astronomy, 38(2007): 229-236.

I would be careful about dismissing the role of professional archaeologists in archaeoastronomy. Archaeoastronomical research is increasingly addressing those questions about cultures that concern archaeologists while archaeoastronomy is increasingly cited by professional archaeologists, who had previously neglected it. These citations seem to reflect the increasing quality and conceptual sophistication of archaeoastronomical work as it addresses the interaction of astronomies and cultures. This article should reflect those rigorous standards. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on WP protocol for chronological postings. I've locked my introduction above and will make no further changes to it. I felt it appropriate to strike-text as an acknowledgment of Alun's valid point on the public preview before article replacement. Sorry, Alun. W/R/T archaeology becoming more open-minded about archaeoastronomical novelties without first satisfying requirements either 1-) supportive of Native American practice, or 2-) coincident with *verifiable*, portable artifacts matching the non-indigenous culture responsible for the sundial petroglyphs, I haven't seen any such attitude moderation here in mid-America. Maybe you have some anecdotal stories to encourage me. Meanwhile, for some insight on predictive, institutional behavior even when their own brethren upset the apple cart, please see BBC: Stone Age Columbus - transcript. As Smithsonian archaeologist Dennis Stanford puts it, "When you dig deeper than Clovis a lot of people do not report it because they're worried about the reaction of their colleagues." Breadh2o (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Starting 2008 with a project to gain consensus on a wholesale rewrite of sections one and two of the article. Please preview and provide feedback, public or private, to me. Thanks and Happy New Year to all. Breadh2o (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be putting up a revised version shortly. I left the previous edits up for so long as breadh2o was working on them and I thought adding in corrections as he worked would be disruptive. The biggest addition are the Sites of Archaeoastronomical Interest. I don't think these are finished versions but it's better than nothing and provides a seed to work from. The photos are all on the right because effectively it's a list and I think it looks neater. If someone else doesn't and thinks clear tags are a problem they can change it. Citations have been added bumping it up from 31 in the current version to 57.

More controversially I've pretty much reverted the additions by Breadh2o. The reasons for this are WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. An awful lot of text added by breadh2o seems to be opinion. Some of it is opinion I wholeheartedly agree with: The undisciplined mind can fall victim to delusion... yes indeed. Other parts are clearly Original Research. As an example as requested I put in a reference in English to the first archaeoastronomer being Heinrich Nissen. The reference is Clive Ruggles who Breadh2o seems happy with in other contexts, so I was mildly dismayed to see that deleted and replaced by his advocacy for Fish. It's an interesting discussion. What is it that makes something archaeoastronomy and something else antiquarianism? If I ever get round to writing an archaeoastronomy textbook I may explore that, but at the moment following WP:OR and WP:RS I think Clive Ruggles is the better source. Elsewhere, I'm not convinced that articles like an undergraduate essay on the internet is really a reliable source. Following WP:RS I've gone for academic journals rather than self-published websites.

There are also problems with phrasing. We have sentences like: His work ultimately was vindicated by investigative digs led by archaeologist Euan MacKie, who then proceeded to author new prehistories of Britain,[7] citing Thom's research. I think that's probably more emphatic than MacKie would say. The reason I say this is that the section which previously read: "broadly accepted Thom's conclusions" was written by Euan MacKie when he edited this entry and was a watering down of the unqualified use of the word accepted.

As far as links go, I've followed WP:NG. Some of the links I've deleted are good. Some are junk. What they all have in common is that they are are not about archaeoastronomy generically. They should be listed under the relevant pages.

I am also aware that my spellchecker and the titles of some books are causing concern. To quote from breadh20's notes

::::: The author's Anglican roots are further betrayed in the second sentence ending with "colonisers", instead of colonizers, as is the preferred spelling in the country having been colonized, some from Iberia and France, as well. I may be criticized (criticised) here as one, lone, over-sensitized (sensitised) Yank in an age of political correctness...

I can assure Breadh2o I am not currently, never have been and never plan to become a member of the Church of England. If he means I'm English, then I can reassure him that's not the case either. However my spellchecker is set to British English. Apple haven't set out to annoy Americans by means of provocative spelling. Wikipedia draws editors from all over the world. Not everyone will be equipped with American spellchecking software and I think we may collectively need to brace ourselves for that and deal with it as calmly as we can.

On the whole I think breadh2o's criticisms have helped make this a better cited article and have helped clarify some issues. If there is a serious problem with the edits we could see if people from the Archaeology and Paranormal WikiProjects can make some helpful suggestions. Alunsalt (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

...and now it's live. Alunsalt (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun: Nice job tidying up the article and restoring its focus. Perhaps now we can work to bring it back to Good Article status and beyond. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun: I question your neutrality, as you have impugned mine. Good article status was, afterall, revoked on your watch. So I endeavored to provide more balance, insight, and a practical, yet broad perspective and overview at the beginning. I vigorously dispute your assertion my revised introduction and history segments, well annotated, violated WP guidelines for verifiability, avoidance of original research or failure to cite reliable sources. Where's the beef? My brief segment on the controversial nature of this science, which you deleted, did touch on opinion, not my own, mind you, but opposing viewpoints, well-articulated by authors who themselves provided multiple citations. Our readership deserves to understand the cross-currents that, indeed, separate you and me. Ironically, deletion precisely makes my point by its present invisibility: archaeologists like to remain in absolute control of this field.

As for an implicit contention that your neutrality surpasses mine, I must disagree. While Clive Ruggles is an authority (also your professor at the University of Leicester), you do not provide any actual title or authoritative context for him other than to cite Steve McCluskey's acknowledged editorial. Is citing an editorial any less a violation of WP guidelines than citing a graduate student's research paper? You also singled out Hopi skywatching in your introduction, to the exclusion of other specific examples. Fully one-third of the citations in your introduction point to S.M. McCluskey, including the one on his Hopi research. Steve congratulates you immediately above my post for "restoring focus". I suppose it is implicit my introduction was comparatively unfocussed in citing only Stonehenge, Newgrange and Chichén Itzá. It is futile, I understand, to attempt to override your reverts herein, when tag-teamed by such collegial pals.

You are a graduate student studying archaeoastronomy with respect to Grecian Temples. As such, it is understandable why you would elevate Heinrich Nissen as the first archaeoastronomer, who happened to share your narrow interest. (You still don't give any credit to his astronomy expert B. Thiel, author of the alignment tables in Heinrich's book, but then, archaeologists sometimes have a blindspot w/r/t lowly astronomers). So it comes as little surprise that you would also choose to dismiss in whole my alternative historical genesis, logically constructed, foot-noted and reliably annotated. The huge metrology debate that swept England in the mid-1800s based on competing interpretations of proportions in the Great Pyramid seems irrelevant to you, and therefore by proxy, should be as well to the entire Wikipedia readership. But to me, even with Clive Ruggles' blessing of Heinrich, the emotion and intensity of the metrology debate looms much larger as a definitive catalyst that launched the eventual field (yes, that may have been mid-wifed as antiquarianism) than Nissen's book, that has yet to even be translated into English (hardly the earth-shaking tome you believe it to be).

Finally, at the very end, readers are treated to a Barry-Fell-bashorama citation 99, which is really nothing more than an isolated skreed by an archaeologist named W. Hunter Lesser, pretty typical. The substance of Lesser's article is far more obsessed with childish name-calling than actual discreditation. It is an opinion shared by most archaeologists who prefer to think of diffusionists as legitimate whipping posts. Yes, Barry Fell made mistakes, but authorities in your field, Alun, such as David H. Kelley have come to Dr. Fell's defense, too. On 29 June 2006, you wrote on this very page:

I thought a section on pseudo-archaeoastronomy might be useful, but I'm not sure I'm the person to write it.

Well, you managed to insert a requisite dig for the team! From my point of view, archaeologists are often too quick to condemn new ideas merely because they fail to fit the mold of their entrenched dogma. And this IS a systemic problem in the field of archaeology, whether you're prepared to acknowledge it or not. Peer review is protectionism in the name of perpetual preservation (of dogma).Breadh2o (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving back to GA status

The next steps I can think of are expanding the intro. I think one or two of Rolf Sinclair's articles on the nature of archaeoastronomy would be good for that along with the Ruggles quote on sanity and lunacy when I can find it.

Another section might be Archaeoastronomy: Sub-discipline or Inter-discipline? This could tackle Breadh2o's concerns about definition in more depth, add in discussion about its connection to Ethnoastronomy, the arguments over Intentionality and something about where the major centres are as Vinoir suggested. This could be a diplomatic problem as centre = one paid staff member for many archaeoastronomy hubs. If it closes with a mention that the dispersed and specialised nature of the centres is due to the history of archaeoastronomy's development then it would sit neatly at Section 1 and lead on to History of Archaeoastronomy at Section 2.

It may be helpful to pull in some people from the Paranormal and Archaeology WikiProjects for reviews after this for extra opinions.

I have to admit I'm not that bothered about GA status itself. I was rather non-plussed by the insta-stripping of GA status and the lack of constructive criticism by the editors voting. On the other hand it's a handy goal for improving the article which is something I can be interested in. Alunsalt (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun –

I think you're on the right track here, although I'm a bit uncertain about how typical Sinclair's two main essays, in the Oxford 5 and Oxford 7 volumes are. Sinclair approaches the discipline as a scientist, and tends to see its practitioners as doing something like what astronomers do. In this regard, my essay about dissertations and theses pointed out that the authors of dissertations and theses in the field described what they were studying as archaeology, cultural anthropology, history, the relations of astronomy to religion, literature, or art, and astronomy – in that order. (S. C. McCluskey, "The Study of Astronomies in Cultures as Reflected in Dissertations and Theses," Archaeoastronomy: The Journal of Astronomy in Culture, 18(2004): 20-25)

In addition to Sinclair's essays, the article could also draw on the essays of Aveni, Iwaniszewski, and Gingerich in World Archaeoastronomy (Oxford 2), that of Ruggles and Saunders in Astronomies and Cultures (Oxford 3), those of Carlson, Murray, and Ruggles in Archaeoastronomy, vol. 15 (Oxford 6), and that of Iwaniszewski in Calendars, Symbols, and Orientations (SEAC 2001). Also, despite their flaws, the recent debate between Schaefer and Aveni (and maybe my reveiw in JHA) has something to offer. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought Schaefer and Aveni's essays would be very helpful in the new section 1. I'm wondering if Archaeoastronomy and its relationship with Archaeology would be a better heading. It would help tackle some of the question 'How scientific is archaeoastronomy?' which Vinoir posed. For the Intro I thought three paragraphs One saying briefly that Archaeoastronomy is the study of ancient astronomies. I think there was a short pithy sentence that I was going to lift from Sinclair for that. If not then there's plenty of other sources. The second that it's a distinct subdiscipline of archaeology (to cover the methodology section) and then third mentioning the contributions it can make to landscape archaeology and cognitive archaeology (covering themes/sites for research). I think that would cover the details in brief and then in depth discussion of what Archaeoastronomy is, with all the various names and approaches, sits in section 1? I think I can grab a copy of Oxford 2 next week from the library, but I'm not sure about Oxford 6. I'm up with ill relatives today, which means I only have time for easily interrupted work like this, so it may be done tonight. Alunsalt (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the new intro. Also to take on board Vinoir's request for quotes about archaeoastronomy I've added relevant quotes at the top of each section. Wikipedia was happy about line breaks, so the names are in the citations rather than next to the quotes. I think I'll need to come back to that.

I've added a stub of what I was going to suggest as the new section 1 which I was going to try and tackle the science vs. culture element in. I'll try and expand that when I have time. I thought there was a paper in the Oxford V book saying that only 28% of delegates were archaeologists, 27% were astronomers etc... to explain the diversity of approaches, but I seem to have lost it. Alunsalt (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving to GA?

I've changed the references to Harvard style as that's the favoured style for Featured Articles. If I'd realised it would have over 100 references I would have done it sooner. There's one tag regarding archaeologists and statistics. I was thinking of using Clive Orton's book for that but I'll want to check it before I add it in. Hopefully I haven't messed up other references. I've been using Ruggles 2005 as a last resort as I'm not in the UoL library at the moment. When I am I can replace some of those references with full articles. I think I also need to flip through the 97 and 99 SEACs and the Oxford II volume again. Adding in some Milone and Kelley could be a good idea, though in many places their own references are somewhat dated.

Looking at the GA criticisms:

GA Reassessment committee

• More citations - done

Vinoir

• How scientific is archaeoastronomy? To what extent are conclusions based upon individual opinions? - tackled to some extent with the Archaeoastronomy and other disciplines section.
• Which academic centres are the most prominent for archaeoastronomical research? - omitted centres can be one member of staff and finding secondary sources suitable for WP:RS would be difficult to impossible. I know Colgate was a major centre, but proving it is another matter.
• There are no direct quotations either regarding the discipline itself or from eminent archaeoastronomers. - added I didn't think this was too important, but I think the quotations do add something so I was wrong there.
• A section is needed which elaborates on how archaeoastronomy compares and contrasts with each of its closely-related disciplines - tackled to some extent with the Archaeoastronomy and other disciplines section. I think there's room for an Ethnoastronomy article on Wikipedia, but I don't fancy writing it yet.
• What are the major achievements within the discipline? - done but I appreciate there are possibly other examples to use. I'm really not keen on the Archaeoastronomy = Stone circles cliché, but I realise other people are.
• In Displays of Power, the sentence "The use of astronomy at Stonehenge continues to be a matter of vigorous discussion" is opaque and needs context. - deleted See immediately above, it appears as a major site as it would be stupid not to list it.
• Stylistic notes - tackled The Machu Picchu photograph is replaced with the very relevant Karnak. When I have free time I'll flip back through my South America notes and put more about Inca / pre-Inca material into the article. I don't think the gap is a problem for GA, but it is for FA.

Breadh2o

• Spelling - I saw where it said colonised and zedded it.
• Dismissal of the 'alternative historical genesis' - Yes. WP:OR
  • English language sources have been used for reference as requested. Unfortunately even today some major articles written by Europeans are written in their own languages.
• Why is archaeoastronomy not legitimately the exclusive sub-discipline of Astronomy? - tackled in the references and the Archaeoastronomy and other disciplines section. It's a perfectly sensible question which is why I put this section in.
• The refusal of archaeologists to accept theories put forward by breadh2o. - no action There's not a lot I can do about this, and this is really discussion about the article rather than problems in archaeoastronomy. In your own links you show us that people working in the field think your claims are unreliable. WP:RS is applicable here particularly the section on scholarship and self-published articles.
• The use of Steve McCluskey's work - noted That's really down to the fact that I know Clive Ruggles' and Steve McCluskey's work best. There's also people like Anthony Aveni and it's really impossible to write a credible archaeoastronomy entry without heavily referring to the work of those three. Steve McCluskey's here and willing to edit. I'm not omniscient and can make mistakes, so I thought it best to put in stuff I know can be corrected. The same goes with Euan MacKie's material which he corrected.
• Narrow focus - see below This may be a perspective issue. I'd argue this version of the article is more inclusive as it included opinions of astronomers as well as others. The Oxford conferences, where a lot of the references are pulled from, were around 1/3 astronomers 1/3 archaeologists/anthropologists and 1/3 other according to Gummerman & Warburton 2005.

Now this last problem is a bit to-may-to to-mah-to. We could make this adversarial but I'm assuming like me, breadh2o wants a better article than to grind an axe. Would now be a good time to call for other editors to look at this entry from the Archaeology and Paranormal wikiprojects? We can point them at the article as it was left and they can look at the recent edits and see if they can suggest ways to pull in material to see what works and propose other improvements. We can also notify the editors who read this article in the past. Does this sound like a way forward? Alunsalt (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

And while writing this up I see I've been corrected on the style guidelines. I was following from observation of recent FAs. Still, I think it improved many of the citations I made so it's not a complete waste of time. :) Alunsalt (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun, You are correct. I do not wish to be adversarial, but I am passionate about accuracy and balance. To that end, I have just appended your segment on Fringe Archaeoastronomy. It is a distinct disservice to provide only archaeology's institutional dogmatic POV and ignore a comprehensive and, dare I say, more enlightened POV.

You assert above that my alternative write up on the English metrology debate as genesis for archaeoastronomy violated WP prohibitions on original research. This is false. From the moment I initially uploaded my replacement to your version on January 5, I included as my very first reference (itemized as #2 on the list) a lengthy article by Eric Michael Reisenauer, "The battle of the standards": great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1890, The Historian 2003, ["HighBeam Encyclopedia] whose relevant points to archaeoastronomy's emergence I summarized, including a tenuous thread as far back as Oxford Professor of Astronomy John Greaves and Leonardo's friend Gerolamo Cardano. This debate eventually led to Lockyear's 1894 work, which you are happy to acknowledge, though you somehow rationalize Proctor, Fish and Piazzi Smyth antecedent works have no relevancy. I am astonished at the omissions you made and again, the elevation of Nissen above this much more pronounced national dialogue in Merry Old England that preceded the German. BTW, you failed to respond to my emphatic objection to NOT giving an iota of credit to B. Thiel, Nissen's astronomy expert who appears to have done the heavy-lifting that supported Nissen's writings!

I stand by my guns on archaeoastronomy necessarily being seen as independent from the direct purview of archaeology. Archaeology is demonstrably heavy-handed when it comes to acceptance of bold, new theories. Plus, an archaeologist's indisputable perspective is downward into terra firma, not upward toward the firmament which is precisely what inspired the ancients to build and carve. Astronomers have much more in common with the people who left the memorials and devices behind, the body of contemporary literature by the archaeological community notwithstanding. It's intuitive and grammatically obvious: the root of archaeoastronomy is astronomy, as it rightfully should be.

The refusal of archaeologists to accept ideas outside-the-box is analogous to the Mac/Windows debate. I'm happy to see that you have come over from the Dark Side, as I have since the 486, Windows 3.1. Welcome! Now, try to "Think Different" about archaeology as Dennis Stanford and David H. Kelley do! What took you so long? :-) From pictures on his website, Clive Ruggles had an iBook laptop nearly a decade ago.

We can be civil, yet disagree. I'm still a bit perturbed by your choice to fully eliminate my excellent exposition and comprehensive introduction that, unlike your erudite replacement verbiage, actually grabbed the new reader and opened with an egalitarian overview. The self-serving slam on Barry Fell was the last straw, unwarranted and unbalanced. Barry cannot be lumped in with the fringees who advocate UFO's and Atlantis. To paint him as some kind of nut case cultist leader is adolescent at best. He was a Harvard Professor who advanced some very good theories which archaeologists find threatening. When I put together my version, I left in, in fact, enhanced, heinrich Nissen's role and the Google book in German I turned up. I even let your closing line in the History section intact which led nicely into Methodology. You however, obliterated every last word of mine. It is a characteristic of your side that I point out...and then even when I do, Steve M. stifles balance. Breadh2o (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Briefly WP:OR states Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. I think what you've said is interesting and if/when I write an archaeoastronomy textbook I could address those issues about what it is that make something archaeoastronomy or not. As it is Wikipedia isn't the place to debate that. I've put in research from a secondary source with citation. I don't have a secondary source crediting B.Thiel with the work.

The self-serving slam on Barry Fell was the last straw, unwarranted and unbalanced. And unwritten by me. If you click on the history tab above the articles then you'll see I work under the username Alunsalt. If it isn't listed as being that editor then there's a good chance I didn't write it. I think there's one edit on history where I forgot to log in. If an edit is listed under another editor's name then I certainly didn't do it. I hope this helps. Alunsalt (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, "The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1890" is in print. I tend to link to online versions when possible to permit users to validate source and content rather than ISBN library searches, but call me new-fashioned. Eric Michael Reisenauer, "Historian -Albuquerque then Allentown", Vol. 65, Part 4, pages 931-979, ISSN 0018-2370, Michigan State University Press, 2003. This should put to rest your expressed concern that I was in violation of WP:OR in my History section of the Wikipedia article that was live from January 5 until March 16 this year. The story is not my original research nor my opinion, merely a connect-the-relevant-dots timeline in terms of personalities and events cited by Reisenauer related to a rising interest in what was later to be popularly known as archaeoastronomy. It predated Nissen's work.

I'll even go a step further to show my good faith, Alun, and, in the interest of bettering the WikiPedia article, help you out with the B. Tiele source you're missing. And, if you consider scans by Google Books as qualifying, this is even better than a secondary source, it's the genuine German text. "Das Templum: Antiquarische Untersuchugen, Astronomische Hulfstafeln" appendix for Astronomical Tables by Dr. B. Tiele (pp. 233-246). Now, if you could just get your hands on an English translation, we'd all be able to understand Nissen's and Tiele's collaboration. Otherwise, I am afraid that even with Dr. Ruggles' kind blessing, this obscure document published after the onset of the sweeping cultural debate in the UK hardly --- not to mention one of your favorite terms, arguably --- qualifies Heinrich Nissen as first archaeoastronomer. I named other deserving candidates in the article you wiped out. Too bad the Wikipedia readership has been deprived of these insights, in your desire to elevate a personal mentor in Greek Temple alignments --- your particular field of study --- to that pedestal. C'est la vie. I've learned today, you can't fight a determined tag team out to squelch anyone with a POV that may not align with theirs, i.e. mainstream archaeology. Breadh2o (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm obviously not being very clear. I think your work was an original synthesis, because you were picking and citing original sources and joining the dots, hence WP:OR. I think it's an interesting synthesis. I think it raises some strong points, but Wikipedia isn't a research publication. The reason I cited Clive Ruggles' source rather than citing the Google Books scan is that it would be Original Research and my opinion as to whether Nissen was an archaeoastronomer or not. But as I said this is one opinion and another. I've filled in the final fact tag, I'll contact the various WikiProjects with an interest in this article for a wider opinion. Alunsalt (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You would benefit, Alun, from actually taking the time to read Reisenaur's article. I know it is very lengthy, but it's in English, not German and easy to follow the thread. You would then grasp that I faithfully stuck to his exposition in my distillation of select convergences and divergences of special relevance to antiquarinism/archaeoastronomy whatever embryonic thing you want to call this emerging science back then. Undoubtedly, there are other resources that would corroborate this metrology debate, not the least of which would be newspapers. So, I don't think you can assert that I was taking liberties and massaging the facts. Reisenaur even mentions my guy, Dr. Everett Fish, and the other players on your side of the pond that you have ignored, precedent to Lockyer. In your History segment you awkwardly introduce him without a mention of what influences he was subjected to. I assure you there was plenty that came before Lockyer just woke up one morning and decided to open shop in English archaeoastronomy. Read the article and judge for yourself. You are assuming I am unethical simply because we don't share the same perspectives. Breadh2o (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've read it. Twice last night and again this morning. It's an article about metrology. I've judged for myself like you asked and it is very interesting. I can see why you're joining dots and making inferences, but nevertheless you are. For comparison I've just pulled John North's Stonehenge off the shelf. Flipping through the index I can find an entry for Stukeley on page 234. I've had a quick look and it mentions in August 1721 William Stukeley noticed that the alignment to the Heel Stone from the centre of Stonehenge ran to the midsummer sunrise, while out with Roger Gale. He published his book in 1740. Now I could join the dots and say here's a person discovering an astronomical orientation, ergo he's the first archaeoastronomer. But it would be original research because John North does not say if Stukeley was the first archaeoastronomer. We have the archaeological site, the astronomical observation, and the guy doing it, but not the statement that Stukeley was an archaeoastronomer. On the other hand we do have recent publications from secondary sources which say someone else was. So do I list Stukeley? WP:OR would say not.

One reason for not listing Stukeley is that he could be insufficiently scientific, or his influence too tenuous. Then we're into a debate over how scientific is scientific enough. I can see arguments from Stukeley up to Thom depending on how you want to go. so we're back to personal opinion again. That's why we're using secondary sources. We are not discussing the nature of archaeoastronomy here, we're discussing how to best write an article on it.

As I mention below I've put out a call for people in related projects to look over the article, so hopefully that may help. In the meantime you may wish to browse the Policies and Guidelines. Alunsalt (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking the time to read Reisenauer, associate professor of History at the University of South Carolina, Sumter. Alun, you and I disagree on many things including our subjective interpretations of whether I am over-reaching to cite and summarize his work as it applies to archaeoastronomy. I feel comfortable and perfectly ethical in a sense that I am within a reasonable "six degrees of separation" or LESS to make the points that there was groundwork underway in England for what was to evolve into archaeoastronomy, going back as far as Greaves who spawned intellects, among others, such as Lockyer, your first acknowledgment of an English-speaker who did not, after all, spontaneously arrive in 1894 to declare the dawn of a new science in the UK. To ignore what led up to Lockyer, IMHO, is a glaring oversight one that Reisenauer reasonably and clearly fleshes out for our benefit as students. Without the antecedent of my thumbnail summary attributed to this history scholar, there's many missing links in your version of history which I consider wanting. To not supply a larger perspective is to leave Wikipedia readers poorer in their efforts to grasp the genesis of this science. Is it more important to enlighten or to be rigid sticklers to WP policies that may be somewhat unambiguous? As I gather, the prime directive here is "to be bold". Breadh2o (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(Moving the indents back) Unike Alun, I only took a quick look at Reisenauer's historical essay discussing Nineteenth-century British discussions of metrology. Like him, my reaction was: this seems interesting, but what does it have to do with archaeoastronomy? I'm beginning to see a pattern in your edits of using the archaeoastronomy article to discuss contested issues which have only the most tenuous connections with archaeoastronomy: e.g., the metrology debate and the linguistic debate about New World inscriptions. We could spend a lot of time tracing the precursors of archaeoastronomy to Stukeley and others, but that would involve a lot of original synthesis from the primary sources, which doesn't belong here.

When you looked at the Policies and Guidelines, you seized on the fifth one; but the first one is more relevant here: Wikpedia is an Encyclopedia. We're all trying to write an Encyclopedia article on archaeoastronomy here, so let's get on with it. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you guys props for insisting on a strict interpretation of the WP guidelines. Style, among other things, separate us. Clearly, an erudite and dry article chock full with over a hundred footnotes will be praised by an audience of scholars such as yourselves. Undoubtedly, it will meet and surpass WP guidelines and may earn restoration of a GA trophy. Best of luck. I just want it to be balanced. If that makes me an anarchist or a pest, deal with it. I feel I'm having to deal with excessive autocratic nonsense from a couple of article overlords. Unlike you, my style is more laid-back, along the lines of James Burke and his "Connections" series on television. I think the majority of those who come to Wikipedia want to be informed, read and understand what's presented (helped along by a logical and uncluttered exposition) and, indeed be entertained, if possible with clever anecdotes and insights. I absolutely support the Wikipedia mission and I think my wiped intro, which WAS absent footnotes, but chock full of internal explanatory term links, gave a real nice, clear roadmap anyone could understand. My history wasn't bad, maybe not perfect, but at least I attempted to include in a nice flowing sense, references and every point made in the previous, late 2007 version. There was no reciprocity when Alun wiped my stuff on St. Patrick's Day and essentially restored his original segment, still jerky due to an abundance of non-sequiturs. But style is not everyone's forte. I think you lose a lot by not being reader-friendly. I believe I'm the better writer. Humility has never been my hallmark. Breadh2o (talk) 23:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Appending my position above after a good night's sleep. It boils down to this. At least to me, a good narrative, well constructed to flow naturally from point-to-point, and sufficiently, but not overly-annotated, always trumps a choppy, difficult-to-follow exposition that appears to have been assembled for the benefit of maximum footnote count, which though meticulous and salutory, places the narrative in a clearly subordinate role. I believe Alun and Steve are more concerned with achieving an A+ grade from the WP editors (obsession with restoring GA status yanked from the article they were largely responsible for last summer) and pandering to fellow academics who expect PhD level (practically every word attributed to the lips of a quoted master-authority), than actually providing a readable and informative article that can be digested by a curious high school level reader. When I speak of choppiness and non-sequiturs in the history segment, it's not only what led up to Lockyer's spontaneous mention out of nowhere, it is also the unsatiated hunger for an answer to the question of "Why?" in the reader's mind following the statement "The claims of Hawkins were largely dismissed" before the article jumps to "Nevertheless there was evidence of widespread interest in astronomy..." Footnote 17 (Antiquity 49 "Moonshine on Stonehenge" which takes the reader to an internal WP link describing what Antiquity is, does NOTHING to inform the readership. How about a quote or summary here?

Another issue I've harped on, but perhaps not very succinctly, is the Clive Ruggle authoritative crediting of Heinrich Nissen as first archaeoastronomer. I am not questioning whatsoever that he DID, however, once again, the casual reader who is attempting to get a sense for the genesis of archaeoastronomy as a science, following the footnote first to Notes below, then cross-referencing alphabetically to Ruggles 2005 among the dozens of links jamming the References below that list and gets no further than an ISBN number. How helpful is this, except to perhaps scholars with Ruggles 2005 on their bookshelf? Not Very! This also begs the question of what is the driving essence that so qualifies Nissen for this great honor in the untranslated "Das Templum: Antiquarische Untersuchungen"? The reader doesn't know, and I'm not so sure many people can find the answers without a possible run to the library to pick up Ruggle's reasoning. Again, massive contextual gaps within the history article to naturally arising "huh?"s lead to a very choppy and uneven exposition. Is this really informing the WP readership.? There's an inordinately drawn-out string of sentences about people like Euan MacKie and Clive Ruggles second guessing Alexander Thom that seems overly detailed, perhaps deserving its own separate topic down-article, something of an interruption in its minutia to the general historical background exposition. Yes, I get it again, as I got it the first time Alun published the sentence before my 2008 rewrite that "a re-evaluation of Thom’s fieldwork by Clive Ruggles argued that Thom's claims of high accuracy astronomy were not fully supported by the evidence." But footnote 20, cross referenced to Gingerich, O. (24 March 2000) leads the reader to a review of Ruggles, not Ruggles actual re-evaluation. OK, well, good, at least it is accessible on-line, but one needs to read through 7 paragraphs, including a discussion of the Rollrights (which I have visited thrice in my life) and several other interesting sidecar items before getting to the meat to which the WP article citation refers. Wonderful, however a short quote within the WP article to put some contextual meat on the bones would have been oh-so helpful to the reader rather than a herky-jerky flow. The average person coming to the WP site to understand the genesis of archaeoastronomy, I posit, does not wish to be constantly side-tracked by minutia possibly buried somewhere in the extraordinarily deep bank of references, before they encounter the next footnoted sentence, often equally as vague and wonting for context. Do you begin to get my point? The effort to string together fabulously referenced material is fabulous, yes. The article, itself, however, is not. Breadh2o (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy's relation to other disciplines

I'm not particularly happy with the article's recurring claim that "Archaeoastronomy is a distinct sub-discipline of Archaeology." Some of it is, but not all practitioners of the field see it that way. In a recent review of the Oxford V and VII volumes in Journal for the History of Astronomy, I presented several different people's views that placed it variously in the intellectual traditions of archaeology, of cultural anthropology, or of art history and art criticism.

Both volumes under review open with reflections by various observers considering the present state and future directions of archaeoastronomy.... [T]here are essays by the physicist Rolf Sinclair (V, 3-13 and VII, 13-26), the archaeologists George Gummerman and Miranda Warburton (V, 15-24), Todd Bostwick (VII, 1-10), David Whiteley (VII, 85-102) and Victor Fisher (VII, 103-12), and the art historian Richard Poss (V, 81-98). A recurring theme in these essays is that archaeoastronomy is best understood as a specialized subdiscipline contributing an astronomical dimension to archaeological understandings of cultures and societies. Gummerman and Warburton viewed archaeoastronomy as part of an archaeology informed by cultural anthropology. Thus “to truly comprehend a culture we must have some sense of its cosmology – the group’s conception of themselves in relation to the heavens” (V, 15-16). Bostwick, “an archaeologist trained in the early 1980s to believe that archaeology is anthropology or it is nothing,... argue[d] that archaeoastronomy is anthropology – the study of human behavior in the past and present” (VII, 3). Whiteley made the boldest statement of this when he titled a section of his chapter on the interpretation of rock art “Archaeoastronomy is archaeology, or it is nothing” (VII, 90). Whiteley carried this argument further, maintaining that as a social science archaeoastronomy is “necessarily concerned with patterns of behavior, not random, isolated, or idiosyncratic acts” (VII, 89). Many anthropologists, most historians, and particularly this reviewer, would not be willing to accept this abandonment of a concern with the local and contingent, which returns in Poss’s recommendation that Anasazi rock art be read employing “the hermeneutic traditions of western art history and art criticism” (V, 97).

I'd like to add something like that to this article to avoid tying archaeoastronmy exclusively to archaeology. Any comments? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had chance to pick up that edition of JHA yet, the UoL library is making it extremely difficult to pick up journals till it fully re-opens in April, but I'm happy with the argument you're making. 'Specialized' certainly seems a better word than 'distinct' but I agree the the problem is further than that and the section needs a major re-write and probably a new title. I was trying for something which tried to show that Archaeoastronomy wasn't a discipline of its own but associated with social studies. Would Archaeo-astronomy or Cultural Astronomy? be a better title and direction to move in? Alunsalt (talk) 09:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I can't get to it right away, but for the moment I'll signal the change by changing the title of the section from "Archaeoastronomy and its relationship to Archaeology" to "Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines". That will even leave room open for -- heaven forfend ;) -- its relationship to Astronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's a first cut on the revised section. I also moved it since it fit logically after the history and before the methodology sections. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. It's like getting a free lecture :) Alunsalt (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is archaeoastronomy not legitimately the exclusive sub-discipline of Astronomy? Archaeo is the adjective or modifier. Astronomy is the root. Think of Paleobiology. With all due respect to Whiteley's opinion, Scott Monahan says: Paleobiology is biology, or it is nothing. Afterall, no one discusses astroarchaeology seriously. If they did, then maybe Alun could legitimately assert it is a subdiscipline of archaeology. Until then, you'll hear me protest any attempt to hobble the science as an exclusive hand-servant to the whims and prerogatives of archaeologists. Remember, they look down deep into the ground for answers. Astronomers look up into the skies for answers...as did those ancient people who cared about what was above, not below, and memorialized their thoughts in stone. They were astronomers first and the first astronomers. Think about it. Breadh2o (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

My answer is an empirical one. The study of archaeoastronomy dissertations I cited in the article shows that very few writers of dissertations characterize what they're doing as astronomy. A recent study of citations that I did for a talk, but since I didn't publish is Original Research which I can't cite in the article, shows a similar pattern where archaeoastronomy articles are predominantly cited in anthropology, archaeology, and history journals; citations in astronomy journals are rare. (Incidentally, the study also showed a rise in citations by archaeologists in the last decade, which matches Fisher's discovery of the increasing presence of archaeoastronomy in archaeology textbooks). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

One more point, you say that because these ancient people were astronomers, investigation of their activities should be astronomy. There are two answers. First, from what we know from ethnographic and historical studies, these people were not professional astronomers; they were unspecialized learned people, widely trained in religion and the study of their natural environment -- including the celestial environment. Secondly, even if we were to grant that they were astronomers, the study of their activities is as properly part of the study of archaeology and anthropology as the study of modern astronomers is properly part of history -- specifically the history of science. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Tools such as radio telescopes, the Hubble orbiter, and computational power do not an astronomer make. The astronomers of the past arguably spent a larger portion of their lives watching the skies than any astronomer today. They may not have known what we know today, but to diminish their ingenuity and ability to accomplish so much with so little is an absurd techno-centric claim. I am amazed at how proud modern astronomy is and how quickly it writes off early astronomers as primitive and ill educated with a tendency toward astrology. Yet for them, THAT was the proxy for reality and explaining celestial mysteries. Today, we have mindless mass media and opinionated and often biased WikiPedia articles to serve as our proxies for reality. Carry on. Breadh2o (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes or Harvard Referencing

Thanks for adding the bibliography, but I note the comment about preparing to convert the article "to Harvard references as per FA guidelines". I'm a footnote fan, they leave the article cleaner when there are many citations, but I'm not dogmatic on the issue. I only note that both footnotes or Harvard references are acceptable in the Featured Article Criteria, so there's no need to make the major effort to convert all the references. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see you're combining Harvard with footnotes. It works well. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, yes I'm trying not to lose any information along the way. It helped tidy up some of the references I'd put in. Alunsalt (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:ARCHAEO does note that the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team is looking for Harvard style referencing on the Archaeology article.Doug Weller (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Barry Fell Epigraphic debate

As interesting as the discussion of the reactions to Barry Fell may be to the debate on New World epigraphy, they really are off-topic to a discussion of archaeoastronomy. The only rationale for including them is the brief comment on "Cult archaeology" in the discussion of West Virginia petroglyphs. I'll re-edit that section to remove the offensive language and delete the lengthy response.

The removed section might be meaningfully incorporated into the article Barry Fell, where those issues are discussed, or perhaps into other articles dealing directly with Epigraphy or New World prehistory. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Well, this is all very interesting and telling. Attacking the opposition is OK until someone tries to balance the equation and math. Then, instead of letting the readers decide, the tag-team in charge rubs out the balance and rewrites the offensive text that otherwise would have stood as gospel. I know when I'm out-numbered. Thanks for abetting Alun in his POV. Breadh2o (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against you presenting your defense of Barry Fell, just put it in the context of a discussion of North American epigraphy, not of archaeoastronomy. I will revert again. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, Well I DO have something against an intolerant decision to smear by association Barry Fell in the Wikipedia archaeoastronomy article that autocratically insists on removing a to-the-point rebuttal, and goes further to demonstrate that even a couple of leading, respected archaeologists ACKNOWLEDGE their field is wrong-headed to be so close-minded. If you delete the balance, I will delete the smear that you choose to leave in place. That's fairness, not one-sidedness! I do not understand this autocratic refusal to accept dissent! Breadh2o (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, since I don't really care about the Barry Fell issue here, I've removed all references to the linguistic claims and focused solely on the archaeoastronomical interpretation of the WV site. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

I've put out a call to the various WikiProjects to have a look at the article with the following message:

Hi all, this is a request for comments on the Archaeoastronomy article which is listed under this and a few other WikiProjects. It used to be a good article, then it was reassessed. It's been re-written. Suggestions for improvements to regain GA status and move on further are extremely welcome.

In particular you may want to examine the article for POV. There is an argument put forward that current article is biased in a way that the previous version was not. You may want to see the Talk Page for more on that. Sometimes an outsider's view can bring a fresh perspective on such arguments.

Thanks, Alunsalt (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Fresh pairs of eyes may be able to see something we've overlooked. Hopefully we can take the suggestions on board and look to see what we need to do for GA and A status. Alunsalt (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Search for Precursors

I'm confused by Breadh2o's position. He maintains that archaeoastronomy is a sub-discipline of astronomy, not that of archaeology and other disciplines. Then he goes on and adds sections to the article maintaining that the roots of the discipline are found in nineteenth century discussions of metrology, which have little, if anything, to do with astronomy.

If we want to trace the roots of archaeoastronomy, it would be helpful to trace a whole range of antiquaries throughout Europe who studied the astronomical orientation of ancient and medieval structures. Off the top of my head, the earliest is the thirteenth-century French cleric, Guillaume de St-Cloud, who discussed the reasons why churches were (and sometimes were not) oriented to face due East. We could add John Aubrey (1626–1697), Henry Chauncy (1632-1719) and William Wordsworth (1770–1850) without any difficulty; I'm not certain without further research but I think William Stukeley (1687–1765) would also fit here.

Off hand, I feel such a search for precursors is a futile exercise, but from my reading of the early 20th c. literature, I think the antiquaries researching orientations are more significant contributors to the development of archaeoastronomy than those investigating metrology. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Steve, First of all, I'm confused that you're confused! The common thread that binds Greaves, Piazzi Smyth and Proctor (as well as Lockyer saluted for his later 1894 book by Alun Salt - you must concur with your close collaborator, after all!) is that all FOUR were astronomers, not archaeologists. That coincidence implicitly makes my point: the indisputable genesis of what is today archaeoastronomy, forged in an emotional and historic national debate that rocked England in the mid-1800s (and I have taken great pains not to violate WP:OR prohibitions --- as Alun has repeatedly chided me --- to presume, in my humble and uncredentialed opinion, these gentlemen to have been archaeoastronomers) owes much to these astronomers and, by proxy, their particular field. Now, if you believe the scales should be balanced with prominent archaeologists, be my guest. I've reliably sourced an esteemed USC historian with an article in print (and conveniently online) published by the University of Michigan Press, as you and Alun have demanded so that my offsets comply with WP guidelines. I will continue to make contributions in places where I feel your blindspots or myopia generally lead to an archaeologically-centric POV, that I find somehow untenable, notwithstanding the volume of relative dissertations and volume of noise coming from this camp of preservationists. That, to me, does not seem a rationalization to put the reins of control in their hands, much like giving rioting inmates keys to the penitentiary. Basis of our inability to see eye to eye on much. I have merely identified the same movers and shakers, including Everett Fish, named in Reisenauer's analysis that give important antecedent context to not only Lockyer's (Alun's earliest UK character) arrival on the scene, but also his 1894 publication's Egyptian locus. What am I failing to do to improve the article or to confuse you? BTW, click through to the Proctor internal WP link. This guy was an international lecturer on many diverse astronomy topics and a prolific writer. Could be much more significant than Lockyer, had he gotten Lockyer's press.

Also, I disagree that a search for percursors is a futile exercise. What spawned this whole field of archaeoastronomy actually goes back centuries. It did not spontaneously arise. Again, I admire James Burke and "Connections". That's what this is all about...and I think WP readers appreciate as comprehensive and logical a layout of the groundwork as can be presented so fundamental questions of origin are not left unanswered. Please elucidate for my benefit why my addition has confused you. Please add your own reliably sourced context if you believe it is necessary. Over and out. Breadh2o (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this needs to be emphasized: It is not the fact that astronomers participated in the metrology debate, per se, over metric versus English measurements that matters. The secular/religious and economic communities had their particular POVs, as well, as these individually refracted POVs related to the grander British identity crisis. It's how the UK astronomers and Dr. Fish in America framed their arguments for the Pyramid's purpose and function, something essentially novel for the era (1859-1890) that Reisenauer has examined, that is of relevance to the AA genesis topic here. In the St. Patrick's day massacre of history section I provided an exposition with selected quotations from Proctor and Fish to establish the hooks that bring this home, not the broad spectrum metrology debate that apparently Steve has found confusing and off-topic! If quotations by Proctor and Fish should be restored in the current article's context to make this clear, I will be happy to do so, however I may well risk being ruled out of bounds on a technicality. Is this another Catch 22? Breadh2o (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue with the fact that Greaves, Piazzi Smyth and Proctor were (like Lockyer) astronomers; the point I have made repeatedly is that the study of early metrology is not archaeoastronomy. If you were to limit your discussion to the clearly astronomical elements of their research, it might contribute something worthwhile to the article. Dragging the discussion of metrology into the article does not assist the points you are trying to make. Of course, if you wish to discuss these three as precursors they are certainly not the only ones to be considered. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look over Lockyer's books. I can see references to Petrie's work and to Stukeley, and a diagram after Piazzi Smyth in the Egypt book, but that's it. Nothing from Proctor or Fish, but the search on Google Books is a bit iffy, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

On the other hand I've had more or a look around and found Wikisource had an article from Proctor, The Pyramid of Cheops, from the North American Review. The second half is about how the astronomical features of the pyramid were important for how the place was used. The reason I've been citing secondary sources is that I've been trying to make clear that it's not just my opinion that 'X said this' or 'Y said that', but I'm happy for Proctor to be mentioned as an archaeoastronomer before Lockyer on the basis of that. I think that makes Breadh2o's point better than Reisenauer. I'm still not convinced on Fish. Astronomical orientation is mentioned but only in relation to his argument about metrology as far as I can tell. Alunsalt (talk) 15:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

response to Steve McClusky: Piazzi Smyth was more a demagogue than astronomer in the metrology debate, agreed. However, the Proctor and Fish passages, quotes and citations wiped in my previous version speak to your point above, well taken, astronomical elements of research within the larger pyramid metrology debate might contribute to the article. Clearly, IMO, they do. Do you then "greenlight" restoration of my exposition of such within the deleted, previous History? By restoring, we may mitigate yours and perhaps others' "confusion" about relevance of Reisenauer's work to this topic. Furthermore, spotlighting his chronology of an unquestionably profound and formative era in the UK from 1859-1890, is there any doubt, given Reisenauer's focus on some of the most respected men of the age, Proctor, Bonwick and Fish that the table was set for Lockyer a mere 4 years after this era's end?

Ironically, restoration seems especially appropriate, given your choice last Tuesday to grace the top of the History segment with Todd Bostwick's 2006 quote: In his short history of 'Astro-archaeology' John Michell argued that the status of research into ancient astronomy had improved over the past two centuries, going 'from lunacy to heresy to interesting notion and finally to the gates of orthodoxy.' Nearly two decades later, we can still ask the question: Is archaeoastronomy still waiting at the gates of orthodoxy or has it gotten inside the gates? Covering an historical timeframe in this segment back to as early as 1806 (or earlier, if by Michell's reckoning) might be expected, thus, by readers. Furthermore, Michell's perspective is of particular encouragement to me as someone in the uncredentialed minority attempting to tone down what would otherwise be this article's POV which rallies for archaeology's dominant influence in the management and control of AA over astronomy. Unequivocally, this gem of a quote by Bostwick works in my defense as set forth in bold text in my earlier reply to Steve in this thread, i.e. the contention that pioneering influences directly from the field of astronomy are of noteworthy significance to a discussion of AA's genesis. To wit, 'Astro-archaeology" as described by Michell had nowhere near the traction, prestige or orthodoxy of the present and universally accepted appelation, archaeoastronomy. Again, I say what we term it does matter to what it is. "Archaeo-" is the grammatic modifier. "Astronomy" is the root of this field. We must ponder the reason why a bad term evolved to a better one. Breadh2o (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Like Alun, I'm willing to see presentations based on primary sources that a particular scholar studied the orientation of the pyramids. The further interpretation, however, that pyramidology influenced the development of archaeoastronomy is a matter of interpretation, and as the No Original Research Policy points out, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". I see several possible interpretations:

• The students of the pyramids inspired the work of Lockyer and others to develop further this line of research into the pyramids. (I know of no secondary source advancing this view).
• The students of the pyramids were dismissed as cranks (there are abundant secondary sources (e.g., Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Dover, 1952, pp. 173-185;Corinna Rossi, Architecture and Mathematics in Ancient Egypt, Cambridge Univ. Pr, 2004, pp. 201-2; I. Bernard Cohen, The Triumph of Numbers: How Counting Shaped Modern Life, W. W. Norton, 2005, p. 20) supporting their fringe nature) and consequently
  • They were generally ignored by mainstream scholars (no sources I know advance this position) or
  • Mainstream scholars (Lockyer et al.) engaged in their research to counter the claims of the pyramidiologists. (no sources I know advance this position)
• Mainstream scholars were unaware of pyramidology and their research developed as an independent line of research growing out of other problems. (I know of no secondary source addressing this question).

Establishing a verifiable case for any of these positions requires extensive research into the secondary literature. The fact that Breadh2o could only find works tying the pyramidologists to metrology suggests that the their relation to archaeoastronomy may not have been studied at all. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of Reisenauer's work is illustrative: "The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1890" It is fundamentally unfair to characterize the work as isolated to the pyramid metrology debate tit-for-tat. It speaks largely to how British identity, including astronomy's role in academia, was morphing as a consequence of a debate that consumed all of England and even spilled across the Atlantic (please see my chosen excerpt, if it has not yet been wiped).

From paragraph 30: Dr. Everett Fish in his book on the Great Pyramid noted that "any person who desires to study the Pyramid should investigate [British-Israelism]--for it is rapidly assuming importance in the ethnology of Europe." (109 footnote ref to Everett W. Fish, M.D., The Egyptian Pyramids: An Analysis of a Great Mystery (Chicago, Ill., 1880), 64.)

Ending the sixth paragraph from the end: In 1883, Proctor published his own book on the purpose of the Great Pyramid, which seriously challenged many of the assumptions of the metrology idea and substituted for it a theory of his own that both he and the bulk of his reviewers felt better fit the known facts. (128 footnote: Richard A. Proctor, The Great Pyramid: Observatory, Tomb, Temple. Most reviewers found Proctor's theory that the pyramid served these three purposes more convincing than the metrological theory of Piazzi Smyth. See the reviews in The Academy 22 (23 December 1882): 443-44; British Quarterly Review 77 (April 1883): 244; and The Literary World 14 (5 May 1883): 139. One reviewer remained skeptical, however, contending that not only did Proctor fail to prove some of his main points, he unfairly characterized a number of Piazzi Smyth's arguments, Scottish Review 2 (May 1883): 174-79.)

Reisenauer is a secondary source referencing many primary sources. To restrict the WP History segment for archaeoastronomy merely because it may not comport with the parameters and interpretive hurdles one side prefers to define and enforce on another is unacceptable. I appeal to reason! Reisenauer's work HAS relevance and signficance to archaeoastronomy's development, with a gravity unmatched by, for example, Heinrich Nissen and his untranslated work's undisclosed context within this article. By the way, Tiele's tables on Greek monumental orientations seem to point in every imaginable direction of the compass. What does this imply I wonder? I wish Salt and McCluskey would delineate context and relevancy to the same standards and degree expected of me. But that would be my imposing my expectations for clarity and relevance on them, right? Breadh2o (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the modifier to the Other researchers followed... sentence because but there is no consensus he was first is tautological when read with the previous sentence and Reisenauer's article is not about archaeoastronomy it's about metrology. Alunsalt (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Golly, what a surprise, Alun, that you would strike my stuff AGAIN. My statement is valid. There is no consensus. Clive Ruggles is the only citation and does not himself constitute consensus. In fact, In light of Reisenauer, Piazzi Smyth, the 26 year old prodigy Astronomer Royale of Scotland and professor at the University of Edinburgh may have preceded Heinrich with his original 1864 publication, before he fell under the spell of John Taylor and went looney tunes later in his career as a pyyramidologist. But WP readers will never get to consider any of the possibilities that you could possibly be wrong, "Others may follow" implies a leader. I only pointed with my qualification of your assertion, the jury is still out. Exposition is straight ahead in the next paragraph that may contradict your claim. But then you're know-it-all and you know it. Breadh2o (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringe Archeoastronomy

I am editing my way through the Astrological Ages topic and am trying to deal with fringe theories. I would like to move the following from the Age of Leo to Fringe Archeoastronomy. Is this reasonable?

Leo and the Great Sphynx

The Great Sphinx is a statue with the face of a man and the body of a lion. Carved out of the surrounding limestone bedrock, it is 57 metres (185 feet) long, 6 m (20 ft) wide, and has a height of 20 m (65 ft), making it the largest single-stone statue in the world. The Great Sphinx is one of the world’s largest and oldest statues, yet basic facts about it such as the real-life model for the face, when it was built, and by whom, are debated. These questions have collectively earned the title “Riddle of the Sphinx,” a nod to its Greek namesake, although this phrase should not be confused with the original Greek legend.

The Great Sphinx is commonly accepted by Egyptologists to represent the likeness of King Khafra (also known by the Hellenised version of his name, Chephren) who is often credited as the builder as well. This would place the time of construction somewhere between 2520 BC and 2494 BC. Because the limited evidence giving provenance to Khafra is ambiguous and circumstantial, the idea of who built the Sphinx, and when, continues to be the subject of debate. One well-publicised debate[8] was generated by the works of two writers, Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, in a series of separate and collaborative publications from the late 1980s onwards. Their claims include that the construction of the Great Sphinx and the monument at Tiwanaku in modern Bolivia was begun in 10,500 BC; that the Sphinx's lion-shape is a definitive reference to the constellation of Leo; and that the layout and orientation of the Sphinx, the Giza pyramid complex and the Nile River is an accurate reflection or “map” of the constellations of Leo, Orion (specifically, Orion’s Belt) and the Milky Way, respectively.

Their initial claims regarding the alignment of the Giza pyramids with Orion (“…the three pyramids were an unbelievably precise terrestrial map of the three stars of Orion’s belt”— Hancock’s Fingerprints of the Gods, 1995, p.375) are later joined with speculation about the age of the Sphinx (Hancock and Bauval, Keeper of Genesis, published 1997 in the U.S. as The Message of the Sphinx). By 1998’s The Mars Mystery, they contend:

…we have demonstrated with a substantial body of evidence that the pattern of stars that is “frozen” on the ground at Giza in the form of the three pyramids and the Sphinx represents the disposition of the constellations of Orion and Leo as they looked at the moment of sunrise on the spring equinox during the astronomical “Age of Leo” (i.e., the epoch in which the Sun was “housed” by Leo on the spring equinox.) Like all precessional ages this was a 2,160-year period. It is generally calculated to have fallen between the Gregorian calendar dates of 10,970 and 8810 BC. (op. cit., p.189)

A date of 10,500 BC is chosen because they maintain this is the only time in the precession of the equinoxes when the astrological age was Leo and when that constellation rose directly east of the Sphinx at the vernal equinox. They also suggest that in this epoch the angles between the three stars of Orion’s Belt and the horizon was an “exact match” to the angles between the three main Giza pyramids. This time period coincidentally also coincides with the American psychic Edgar Cayce’s “dating” of Atlantis. These and other theories are used to support the overall belief in an advanced and ancient, but now vanished, global progenitor civilization.

• Additional Note

The astrological ages are already debatable and it does not help the Astrological Ages topic to include such fringe theories as the above - which appears a far more suitable topic for Fringe Archeastronomy. Terry MacKinnell (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems broadly ok to me. While I don't agree with the theory, I think someone looking for information on the Orion Correlation Theory could be expected to look in the Archaeoastronomy entry, so it's a hole that needs to be plugged. Someone may want to add in a Krupp sentence later. In the longer term it might be worthwhile setting up an OCT entry and trimming the entries referencing it on other Wikipedia entries back a bit. Ironically it gets far more space on Graham Hancock's page than Robert Bauval's even though it was Bauval's idea.

I think von Däniken is another entry missing from the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section. Possibly a bland sentence with a wikilink might be enough to avoid inflaming believers and sceptics alike. Alunsalt (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My only comment would be that the article should not be populated with extensive details of every fringe theory, any more than it is with extensive details of more mainstream positions. A brief summary of the theory and its critics would be more appropriate. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put together an OCT page from cut 'n' pastes from Bauval and Hancock's pages. We now have something to link through to without losing information. The OCT page may need editing, but I'm sure it will attract people. Alunsalt (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Clovis Material does not discuss Archaeoastronomy

I've deleted the section which references the sites on the Solutrean hypothesis and Kennewick Man as neither site discusses Archaeoastronomy Alunsalt (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Alun, you say you don't want to engage in an edit war. Yet, the truth is, demonstrated again, that what you don't want is anything that is contrary to the agenda you and fellow overlord Steve McCluskey approve. You consider yourselves empowered as judge, jury and executioner to include any example you and your colleagues determine is laughingstock material in your little Fringe arena. But when someone comes along with legitimate material that shows archaeologists can be just as silly in their behavior, it is intolerable and ruled out of bounds. This rises to the level of abuse and I have no alternative but to alert WP the two of you, as close collaborators are exerting undue autocratic control. You will never achieve GA status as long as you persist in this heavy-handed editing.

What you have done, essentially with your latest wipe is to sanitize the reputation of archaeology, as if they have no culpability in squelching new thought, as you like to squelch uncomfortable tendencies such as intimidation that run rampant in the mindset of many dogmatic archaeologists. I use the Soultrean hypothesis as an example of heavy-handedness by archaeology to lock the door of peer review and bury their heads in the sands and dirt they feel so at home at. If this material is not restored, as it meets all WP criteria for inclusion, in a reasonable amount of time, you will be flagged for abuse as will your partner, Mr. McCluskey.

There is no point in my trying to balance or improve this article any more. Control freaks are in charge. There is relevance to what I have set forth, as the Talk section demonstrates. There is evidence of unilateral and autocratic moves, as the history logs demonstrate. You are wrong-headed to be so close-minded, but you have elected to show this over and over and over again.

I'm out of here and you are on notice. Breadh2o (talk) 21:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible you're thinking of another hypothesis? Dennis Stanford and Bruce Bradley have a couple of articles on the Solutrean hypothesis in World Archaeology among other places, so your citation would seem to have nothing to do with archaelogical peer-review nor archaeoastronomy. If you want to take to take this to WP:WQA or WP:MEDCAB I'm happy to accept arbitration. Alunsalt (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

There's another odd edit in that someone claiming to be breadh2o has now edited the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section which is also under the RFC. I've reverted it. It's clearly not Breadh2o who did this edit because he's stated: For the record, I have unequivocally renounced in my RFC that the TIME article and (according to Mr. Salt's latest addition herewith, the BBC's Stone Age Columbus - transcript regarding the Solutrean hypothesis), supports the claims of Barry Fell. The edit in contrast once again brings up Lemonick and Dorfmann in the context of Ogham inscriptions. For clarity the Lemonick and Dorfman article talks about:

• Page 1 Kennewick Man
• Page 2 Kennewick Man
• Page 3 Kennewick Man and Clovis
• Page 4 Clovis and Pre-Clovis material
• Page 5 Palaeoanthropology, Dispersion and Genetics - in a pre Clovis context
• Page 6 Genetics, Siberian Origins for Amerindians, the Solutrean Hypothesis
• Page 7 Pre-clovis sites
• Page 8 Archaeology, Linguistics with no mention of Ogham, Genetics and a model of colonisation with pre-Clovis dates.

There is no connection with Archaeoastronomy nor Fell's claims so it's clearly not Breadh2o who put this up. Seeing as we found there is a second, anonymous, individual who did a messy edit yesterday it is possible that Breadh2o's account has been hacked. Another reason to think it is not Breadh2o that has done this edit is that Breadh2o is aware that Kelley does not support Fell's astronomical ideas, while the editor operating under Breadh2o's name clearly isn't aware of this, or else hasn't realised this is an article about archaeoastronomy. Would it be sensible to conclude that any peculiar edits by "breadh2o" could be the edits of someone else who wishes to be disruptive?

The other explanation is that breadh2o has decided that he won't accept the result of the RFC or WP:NORN, but that's unlikely as he's debating there with vigour. Alun Salt (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I missed the mention of CBS in WP:NORN. It turns out breadh2o was editing one of the sections under the RFC after all as well as trying to connect pre-Clovis material to Archaeoastromy after all. My mistake. WP:DE might be helpful here. I'll leave the revert standing seeing as it's under the RFC which breadh2o started. I assume he wouldn't be happy if I corrected the History of Astronomy section while the RFC is active for the same reason. That's 30 days from its application, unless breadh2o accepts that Wandalstouring and Dougweller show a consensus and removes the RFC earlier. It would also seem I've taken WP:AGF a bit too far. Alun Salt (talk) 11:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Alun Salt reads my cited articles with only the narrowest of all possible perspectives, essentially in denial that TIME's article discusses multiple, substantially differentiated individual cases of potential pre-Columbian contact with North and South America. I urge impartial third parties not to rely on his superficial page-by-page summary above to reach any conclusions, but to actually read the article itself paying particular attention to the headings, Who Really Discovered America, Cruising Down the Kelp Highway, Multiple Migrations and Out of Siberia. Do Alun Salt and I live in parallel universes? In my opinion, he reads material that disturbs his world-view without granting the context one iota of validity. Sadly, he is also continuing to harangue me for somehow using TIME and the BBC citation as support for Barry Fell. As I spell out in the No Original Research message board the Barry Fell dispute has expired since Steve McCluskey withdrew it from Fringe Archaeoastronomy, unless he and Alun Salt intend to restore it in which case I will attempt another balancing act to neutralize their POV. With Alun's predictable, characteristic erasure of my third major effort to remedy their unilateral and unbalanced exposition yesterday, I am going to restore my append. And this is why: Mr. Salt intentionally or unintentionally misconstrues the TIME and BBC articles' merit to the discussion of Fringe Archaeoastronomy, to wit, these speak directly to tendencies among professional archaeologists to rush to judgment in their dismissal of nearly all claims that imply pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact with the Americas. Yes, Barry Fell believed in these ideas independent of the recently revived interest by science in diffusionism since his death in 1994. But my citations are not defending Barry Fell, only awakening the discussion to the truth archaeology is no angel when it comes to dispassionate impartiality. Since Mr. Salt and Mr. McCluskey have persisted in sanitizing their one-sided attack on the WV claim by Gallagher by repeatedly deleting my offsets, there is no other remedy particularly in light of the RFC which speaks to their heavy-handed deletion of context they consider contrary to their purposes, but to disallow their posturing to continue. My points in the Sunday balancing act have 4 direct parallels to the WV site they cite: 1-) suspected archaeoastronomy, 2-) suspected Ogham accompanying it, 3-) suggestive of a pre-Columbian contact, and 4-) nearly contemporaneous identifications in the mid-1980s. I move into a discussion with citations for why archaeology can and does exhibit subjectivity in its knee-jerk dismissal of sites such as WV, CO and OK, then conclude with a 2000 spot-on quote from University of Calgary Professor Emeritus David H. Kelley explaining succinctly why the otherwise acceptable evidence associated with mythology, astronomy, calendrics is so difficult for archaeologists to judge in the context of what they are familiar with. There can be no question, we are tackling the soft underbelly of the process that supposedly designates distinction for fringe, on-topic, on-point, relevant, you-name-it. That Alun does not seem to like the balance I provide is understandable, but for him to characteristically misconstrue and mischaracterize my citations and to squelch my justifiable balance AGAIN to further his POV, is a disservice to readers going forward, and empowerment for his objective (along with Steve McCluskey) to lock content and deny opponents a say in the matter. I do not believe any rational Wikipedian dedicated to this encyclopedic mission can tolerate such ongoing abuse of the first magnitude. BE BOLD and listen for a change! Disruptive edits cut both ways. Breadh2o (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the sections put up for as part of the RFC, and so will be reverted again. If it were not then I'd still question the references which have nothing to do with Archaeoastronomy for the reasons above nor claims of Ogham in North America. This is an article on Archaeoastronomy not all that is wrong with North American archaeology. Alun Salt (talk) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What is at stake here is not what the thread title implies. At issue is whether archaeology is fair and impartial in its claimed authority to determine what meets the standard for fringe archaeoastronomy. Heed Kelley's quote which persuasively argues that archaeology may be ill-equipped to judge astronomy-related finds. Kelley is a qualified expert. Like it or not, here's an archaeologist who knows a bit more about Old World epigraphy than most of his colleagues. Remember, he's the one who broke the Mayan code. Breadh2o (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. What's at stake here is how can we best write an article on archaeoastronomy. That's why the bulk of the citations in the article come from archaeoastronomical publications and why discussion about things that aren't about archaeoastronomy aren't seen as relevant. There are citations from people who trained in science and moved into archaeoastronomy like Aveni, Hoskin, Krupp, McCluskey and Ruggles. If you have citations that fit WP:RS that's great, but this is not a soapbox for rectifying injustices in Archaeology. Alun Salt (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And I insist you maintain a provincial, narrow and biased POV. To exclude Kelley's on-point rebuttal to your intent that archaeology is entitled to make judgments on archaeoastronomy amounts to bias. I know you want to exclude the warts associated with your argument, but it is not simply going to wash here. You sanitize archaeology, and when difficulties arise as noted by experts and periodicals, these are conveniently disposed of promptly by the home team. Shame, shame, shame Breadh2o (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Fringiness: Who decides? What constitutes fringe? Do shades exist?

Last night I read over WP:FRINGE seeking some answers. It's a complex puzzle and I realize no standardized guidance can definitively serve to settle all scientific disputes. So, with this in mind, some comments about fringe theories within archaeoastronomy. Let me begin by emphasizing a couple of acknowledged points from my version of the article's introduction that was live from January 5 through March 16. 1-) Localized cultural context provided by archaeology and anthropology is often essential to interpret what might otherwise remain a mystery. AND 2-) Archaeoastronomers must apply scientific rigor in determining whether observed solar alignments, for example, meet criteria for intentionality. The undisciplined mind can fall victim to delusion, however some imagination is useful in grasping how people of the past might have recognized the complexities of time and marked their lives in ways different from ours. My first statement underscores that I acknowledge archaeology should have its say w/r/t archaeoastronomy. My second statement speaks to the inevitability of truly fringy New Agers, perhaps even certifiable wackos, who may creep into the field seeking attention.

David H. Kelley is as much a professor emeritus of archaeology as Clive Ruggles is of archaeoastronomy. I enjoy reading them both. Kelley's quote in footnote 114 that archaeology may be handicapped in evaluating claims involving the intangibles of mythology, astronomy and calendrics has just as much merit as Ruggles quote in footnote 9 that problematic amateurs, even lunatics can threaten to besmirch archaeoastronomy. So who decides what is fringe? That's the consensus we must all reach as responsible editors if that section is to stand within the best possible article that can be written on archaeoastronomy in Wikipedia. Somebody has to take the reigns of authority. I happen to believe leaving it all up to archaeologists to make the call is a mistake. And I suspect there are many so-called archaeoastronomers running around who are deep down inside hard-core archaeologists pushing an agenda of absolute control over archaeoastronomy. Allowing this is akin to putting the FBI in charge of the Washington DC fire department, if I could make such an analogy. Sure, the FBI probably knows something about fire safety, but you'd really rather have a fire fighter who's familiar with the territory and is trained in specific containment and control techniques if your house if burning down. An FBI agent knows which end of the hose to pick up, but ultimately may botch the objective of saving property and lives.

WP:FRINGE discusses obvious and non-obvious examples of fringe theories and refers to some methods of determining whether some fringe citations deserve mention in WP articles, primarily based on notability and secondary sourcing. Any fringe theory having failed peer review should qualify. Other outrageous fringe theories may or may not, and notability is usually a deciding factor. Let me stipulate that what is listed now in the topic sub-heading qualifies as fringe, even the precision equinox alignments in CO and OK, though far more convincing than the missed alignment in WV. However, can we also agree this is not as fringe as Von Daniken? Or Atlantis? Or extra-terrestrials from UFO's mandating the sacred inch inside the Great Pyramid? I think we can and should! There are reasonable gradations of fringiness and to fail to somehow distinguish one most-curious example from the truly nutty ones is unfair. That's why I add my append, to make an important distinction. With a broadening acceptance of Old World pre-Columbian contact with the New World (in spite of a palpable, residual resistance coming from much of old school archaeology, as cited in my TIME, BBC, Atlantic articles and the David H. Kelley quotes I keep trying to include) the family of Ogham-related archaeoastronomy sites are not sheer lunacy and do not deserve the ignobility of indistinction from truly crackpot ideas floating about. There is science behind it, including nuclear resonance dating of the patina and BLM opinion favoring intentionality. I cannot say anything about this myself because that would be Original Research, of course. However the jury is still out. And professional archaeologists are in lockstep refusing to peer review it. This is classic Catch 22 and explains much of the injustice that academics never sense. Breadh2o (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Is this 'family of Ogham-related archaeostronomy sites' in North America? Because if it is, unless I have missed something, you seem to be stating as fact something that is definitely contentious and the form of Ogham that is claimed to exist at those sites is not one that is accepted as Ogham. If you mean something else, my apologies.
  • There is nothing approaching a broadening acceptance of Old World Pre-Columbian contact with the New World with the exception of the Norse and perhaps some earlier European contact in the 15th century, eg from Bristol, etc. Stanford's Solutrean hypothesis is not gaining more adherents, and research reported in the last few months and weeks makes it even less likely. And your BBC transcript on Stone Age Columbus is simply flat out wrong about what it said about Haplogroup X. It's interesting that you chose the 2002 BBC programme, which says "It seemed there could now be no doubt. Some of the earliest Americans were really from Europe. The DNA proved it" rather than the 2004 PBS/Nova version which is more tentative "So X could have reached the Americas through Asia, or across the Atlantic directly from Europe. The DNA could not provide a storybook ending." If I had done that, given your other jibes, you probably would have accused me of choosing the one that fitted your preconceptions.Doug Weller (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, Doug, visit Old News. Our bibliography is extensive and videos, informative. You and I may be talking about different families or the same. Let me know what's so contentious, please. Breadh2o (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising some interesting issues about the development of this argument. The question of intentionality is a good one that has been debated in the field from (at least) Oxford I in 1981, where the role of statistical methodologies for determining alignments was an active object of discussion, through Oxford 7 in 2004, with the great methodological debate between Tony Aveni (an astronomer turned anthropologist) and Brad Schaefer (an astronomer). It would not be too difficult to incorporate additional well cited materials on intentionality (perhaps into the methodology session).

When we get beyond that into the question of fringe I think there's some need of clarification. You say "any fringe theory having failed peer review should qualify [as fringe]."; as I read WP:FRINGE#A note about publication, it is the lack of peer reviewed publications, not criticism in peer reviewed publications that is the indicator. And even the appearance of a fringe article in a peer-reviewed publication does not necessarily give a concept mainstream status.

Turning to the specifics of rock art sites, the discipline of archaeoastronomy has always had troubles coming to grips with them. In part this is because there is little in the way of well defined statistical methodology, analogous to that developed for alignments, to determine the intentionality of light and shadow interactions. At the moment it's very much a matter of subjective in this area; for these, Brad Schaefer's advice that "a word of ethnography is worth a thousand alignments" is very helpful. In this regard, the Colorado / Oklahoma sites are very weak on ethnographic support. The dating of the sites, whether by patination studies or any other method, can only provide a date; it doesn't answer the question of who made them or what purpose they were made for. If they can be shown to be intentional solar alignments, the parallels extending all the way go Baja California point to an indigenous origin.

As to pre-Columbian contact, the claim that the Irish were responsible for these sites rests on disputed linguistic evidence and, as Neil McEwan said a decade ago on the academic listserv, CELTIC-L, "It's funny, you don't see Native Americans going about claiming to have put up Stonehenge, do you? We owe them at least the same forbearance in return."[3] My opinions lie with his that in this ethnically disputed area, "it's right to be very cautious."[4]. I still see this concept as well beyond the fringe. In this regard, I am happy that when you added a discussion of these sites[5], you placed them in the section on fringe archaeoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

When I first put up David H. Kelley's quote stating I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham, it was quickly rubbed out from the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section. In 1987 I interviewed Robert Meyer, professor of Celtic Studies at Catholic University of America, in Oklahoma's Anubis Cave where he stated, It is certainly true Ogham. They are as important as the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical criticism. Meanwhile, Harvard Professor of Linguistics and the Classics, Calvert Watkins asked by the state archaeologist to weigh in on the suspected Colorado Ogham, denounced it and in his illustrated letter showed the all world he didn't even know the correct number of strokes for the Ogham letter D, among other scholarly mistakes. There is contention over the linguistics, yes, but there is no question that Kelley is one of the few American archaeologists who is trained to recognize non-indigenous scripts. Now, as far as the family of archaeoastronomy with purported Ogham inscriptions, there are 6 strong sites isolated within about a hundred miles of each other in a concentrated region preserved as nearly pristine since Plains Indians roamed it. Ogham in no way resembles the abundant Plains Indians' pictographs of the region. The alignments are precise and clean and have mythical context associated with them, only it's not Native American. Some constellation charts reflect distinctively European configurations. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. This is far too politically contentious for archaeologists to show any serious interest, other than to dismiss it out of hand. It is anomolous, not Native American archaeoastronomy. And just to let you know, we've discovered some of that too, at the Pathfinder caprock, associated with Changing Woman mythology of the Navajo, which could be far more significant (and whose sun dagger does cast a much longer pierce through mythological petroglyphs), than Fajada Butte. Breadh2o (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Factual question - what exactly is Kelley's training in old world scripts that you mention? And although you call him an archaeologist and was a professor of archaeology, his work seems to be mainly in the field of epigraphy, calendrics, etc.

For those who are unaware, one of the main problems with 'American Ogham' is that unlike recognised Ogham, it lacks vowels.

Yes, I know Robert Meyer disagreed. But then why should anyone regard him as an expert on Ogham? Eg, from a friend on Usenet (no use as a source, I know, but ok here)

• Robert Meyer, mentioned above [described as 'the late Robert Meyer, who held the Celtic Chair at the Catholic University in Washington, D. *C.' -- BMS], personally told the authors that he did not believe the Ogam alphabet derived from the Latin, because a scholar adapting an existing alphabet to form a new one for writing Old Irish, as OHehir claimed, would not have incorporated the unused letters NG, Q, and Z, and he would have included P.'

• Meyer is wrong on at least two counts: there are very good reasons for the ogam alphabet to include Q and not P. Proto-Indo-European */p/ was lost in Celtic. It was eventually restored to Old Irish as a result of borrowings from Latin, but the earliest borrowings replaced Latin /p/ with the sound represented by ogam Q (on which more in a moment). Thus, there was originally no need for a character to represent [p].

• Q was used to represent a voiceless labiovelar stop, a continuation of PIE */k^w/. In Old Irish this fell together with the simple velar stop /k/, but in Primitive Irish the two were still distinct. Thus, there *was* need of a separate character for this sound.

• As for NG and Z, these characters are not reliably attested in the early monument tradition, and their values in the later manuscript tradition may not match their original values.

This is Robert T. Meyer (1911-1987) who translated some early Irish works, some works by the early Christian writer Palladius, and the life of S. Anthony attributed to Athanasius. None of his publications seem to be about Ogham (not just because of the above comment but a search, and also Diakonia: Studies in Honor of Robert T. Meyer, has nothing on Ogham. There seems to be no reason to consider him an expert (or a reliable source for that matter in this context). Any more than I would consider you an expert on Native American anything.Doug Weller (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

We could bring Barry Fell into this as well, but I believe Salt, McCluskey and I have reached a truce with respect to this epigrapher, for the sake of keeping the discussion more or less focussed on archaeoastronomy. Kelley appears a better choice, especially as he has archaeological credentials to boot. But if you wish to debate Fell, I'm happy to do so offline and privately. The Ogham Tract in the Book of Ballymote contains more than one hundred varieties of Ogham, including a consonantal version. (On my first video, trailer, an example of consonantal Ogham from the manuscript is shown highlighted in orange that comes toward you in the squeeze zoom effect.) I have never attempted to cite Meyer within the body of the archaeoastronomy article, so debating his credentials is a moot issue w/r/t the work at hand. Meyer may not have been an expert in Ogham, but as we show, neither was Harvard Professor of Linguistics and the Classics, Calvert Watkins, who should have been given his illustrious position. Breadh2o (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Clive Ruggles quote highlighted by breadh2o applies to academic archaeologists and astronomers as much as amateurs. I think there's a couple of other places where he says that some archaeologists and astronomers get extremely credulous when examining archaeoastronomical claims.

As for the Ogham, we have the citation brought by breadh2o which showed Kelley is against astronomical interepretations of Ogham so I'm not convinced it's a good idea to suggest he's supporting Ogham as evidence in an archaeoastronomy article. As far as I know without Kelley there are zero reliable sources arguing for archaeoastronomical Ogham. It's possiblehe changed his mind and now supports it in his big expensive book. I'll check next time I can grab a copy but I'm not optimistic. The linguistic debate may be interesting but linguistics != archaeoastronomy.

My own opinion is that massive pre-Columbian contact from Europe is not as pseudoarchaeological as Von Däniken, but it is considerably more so than some Atlantis claims. For clarification I think that Nick Thorpe and Peter James have some interesting ideas about Atlantis being related to Tantalis in Turkey and another claim, that it was all an allegory invented by Plato, is even more plausible. How many people make a consensus? Alun Salt (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, in Stengel's article Kelley disputed Barry Fell's linguisitic interpretation of the WV site. You guys have already ripped it in the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section. I won't dispute that or deny that you scored a basket. Perhaps Gallagher got too enthusiastic and Barry Fell goofed or the ancient artist/author was illiterate, incompetent and didn't quite get the solstice right. I dunno, not my battle to fight. My citation of Kelley's remarks (footnote 114 inside Fringe Archaeoastronomy) to the January 2000 article The Diffusionists Have Landed is instructive, I feel, in showing where archaeologists might have a blind spot in interpreting an intangible such as astronomy. Thus, Kelley does complement the Ruggles quote, that's all. I wasn't intending to rerun our battle on linguistics, here. However, since you raised it, and since no professional archaeologist to my knowledge has heeded in the past twenty years a suggestion from USGS's Robert K. Mark (PhD Geology) that perhaps some digs might be made at the Crack Cave where he evaluated the equinoxial dawn alignment to be intentional, let's tackle the ensemble. We don't have artifacts...no professional will dig at these sites. We don't have enthnographies -- oh wait a minute --- maybe you missed the part in Stengel's article regarding Native American activist Vine Deloria, Jr., a member of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe of North Dakota (the following intensively pertinent as well to what Steve McCluskey cited above in the UseNet remarks he fielded):

Deloria chastised the archaeological and anthropological establishment for embracing the monocultural implications of the Bering Strait hypothesis. "This migration from Siberia," he wrote, "is regarded as doctrine, but basically it is a fictional doctrine that places American Indians outside the realm of planetary human experiences." A natural storyteller, Deloria takes obvious pleasure in drawing a listener into his tales with dramatic turns of phrase and deft modulations of his gravelly voice. He delights in irony, savors the unpredictable, and rewards surprise that is expressed at his many unexpected opinions with a mischievous "Aha!" You might think an Indian wouldn't feel such a way, he seems to be saying, but you never bothered to ask, did you? Deloria bridles at what he sees as the reverse racism implicit in the establishment's dismissal of all things diffusionist. To him, the mainstream academic position that defends the Clovis-only hypothesis smacks of paternalism. He marvels at "the isolation of archaeologists today," and has written, "I have in the neighborhood of 80 books dealing in one way or another with Precolumbian expeditions to the Western Hemisphere." These books, he says, range from utter nonsense to some quite sophisticated reinterpretations of archaeological anomalies in light of new findings. But the archaeological establishment will have none of it, to Deloria's frustration. He laments, "There's no effort to ask the tribes what they remember of things that happened." In contrast to tribes in the area where Kennewick Man was found, he argues, "numerous tribes do say that strange people doing this or that came through our land, visited us, and so on. Or they remember that we came across the Atlantic as refugees from some struggle, then came down the St. Lawrence River, and so forth. There's a great reluctance among archaeologists and anthropologists to break centuries-old doctrine and to take a look at something new."

So in lieu of artifacts and a comment from a Native American professor at the University of Colorado whom you would probably just as soon ignore as well, all we're left with at the CO/OK sites are what appear to be alphabetic captions in a voweless Celtic alphabet that DO translate in phrases about "the balance day", "sun", "the Noble Twins (Gemini)" and the like, and some carvings of constellations based on European configurations. I can see why this holds no interest for professional archaeoastronomers such as yourself. ;-)

Oh, one last thing, Alun, Ruggle's blessing of Nissen as first archaeoastronomer != a consensus. It's a sensitive issue, I know, from having seen this clarification within your history abruptly wiped by you. I would expect if you grant yourself the luxury of citing a single authority to make your points, you would be egalitarian enough to extend that courtesy to me as well, without making a issue of it with phrases such as, As far as I know without Kelley there are zero. He may be a minority of one, but he is no less an authority than Ruggles. As you aptly ask, rhetorically, How many people make a consensus? --(Breadh2o (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

At the beginning of your last you raised the important point that Robert Mark, a USGS Geologist, found the astronomical indications at Crack Cave to be intentional. Could you provide a published source for this important bit of evidence, preferably one in a scholarly article or site report? If you could cite his report and place it in the context of the discussions over intentionality of archaeoastronomy, it could be a valuable contribution to the article.

The intentionality of the constellation figures you mentioned is a more tricky matter. There are claims of petroglyphs depicting constellations from Sweden to Switzerland, but they are not generally accepted in the discipline. Constellations are something of a Rorschach test, and it's all to easy to extract an appropriate constellation from any set of rock markings. Even in contexts of medieval manuscripts (where I've done some research) that depict constellations accompanied by texts telling when they rise and set each month, there's sufficient ambiguity that there can be different identifications of which constellation was intended. When you have the whole sky to pick from, almost any set of rock markings will match some constellation.

On other matters, if we begin to use the purported translations of the Celtic Ogham, we get into the whole morass of the reliability of the translations and the translators (including Barry Fell in the Colorado case at least). The translations could most charitably be described as disputed evidence supporting the astronomical interpretation of these sites, probably more accurately as dubious evidence. I don't think it contributes much to the archaeoastronomy at the sites.

I know your site is called "archaeoastronomy.com" and it also supports the Celtic migration hypothesis. That does not mean that an article about archaeoastronomy should go off on the tangent of the Celtic migration hypothesis. They're two very different things. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Mark and Evelyn Newman of the USGS observe then opine thus on video (that's the medium I work with, as scholarly journals tend to shun this material) about half way into Old News trailer (total running time 3 minutes) the first selection of 18 at Old News videos. You may also download transcripts of the entire documentary in PDF form on the site's bibliography page. I would be happy to mail you a complimentary DVD of the hour and a half program by first class mail tomorrow, if you ask for one at our feedback site, leaving address particulars.

You can examine for yourself the Rorschachs constellation petroglyphs in videos 8. the Noble Twins, 9. Mithras, sun god, and at the very tail of 15. Celts & Indians. All videos are exactly 3 minutes in length.

Oh, and by the way, Barry Fell is not responsible for all the Ogham translations at the Colorado and Oklahoma sites. Epigrapher Phil Leonard of Utah did some important translations independently. You probably are unaware of the split between the Western Epigraphic Society (me, McGlone, Leonard and Gillespie) and Barry's Epigraphic Society. Believe it or not, there was not perfect harmony in the mid-1980s. Some of us knew we had to distance ourselves from some of Dr. Fell's representations. -- Breadh2o (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok re consensus. The line was deleted because it was tautological. If Nissen is arguably the first archaeoastronomer then that would imply the statement is debatable. Adding "Others followed but there is no consensus he was the first." just re-iterates what was said - except you haven't included a citation of a different opinion to back up your claim. In fact so far you have provided zero references saying "Someone Else was the first archaeoastronomer." If you have Kelley saying someone else is the first archaeoastronomer, that's fine. If you have a reference from Kelley supporting an astronomical interpretation of Ogham, that's great. However, without these references from Kelley you have zero references which is why I said "As far as I know without Kelley there are zero reliable sources arguing for archaeoastronomical Ogham", because you are without Kelley. Kelley may even be on the opposite side because of statements like Kelley disagrees with Fell's theory that the Grave Creek symbols represent some sort of astronomical text. The discussion here is not about the state of archaeoastronomy, it's about writing an entry about archaeoastronomy. Is it reasonable to cite Kelley as supporting an astronomical interpretation when we have one quote saying he doesn't and zero quotes saying he does? If you have references stating one position, like Pyramidology had no major influence on serious scientific work and zero saying it did then it is reasonable to say that Pyramidology was important? That's where consensus comes in. Consensus here would be whether or not the statement is reasonable in an Wikipedia entry on archaeoastronomy. This prompted you to make an RfC and so far we seem to have two people, Wandalstouring and Dougweller, against your statement in the RfC and and zero named editors in favour it.

Vine Deloria was an interesting person as far as I can tell from a skim around the web. There's an error in the article you cite, he was a Professor of Law rather than History, but that's a reasonable mistake to make. I think he's had articles in American Antiquity and Archaeoastronomy (USA). I'm not aware of his writing anything supporting your claim of an astronomical interpretation of Ogham, but if you have a reference then I'll accept you have a non-zero figure. You may also want to cite Deloria's other astronomical hypothesis in God is Red, that white people are descended from extra-terrestrials. He follows Sitchin, who I find less entertaining than Von Däniken. To be honest I hadn't realised that American Ogham was related to the ancient astronaut idea, but if it is then I'll accept that. I think it's more likely that you're not aware of what Vine Delouria has written. If I'm wrong and you're seriously arguing for an extra-terrestrial origin for American Ogham, then I would change my opinion and say that your ideas are at least as pseudoarchaeological as Von Däniken.

The videos? The astronomy doesn't look that impressive, but I may be biased after hearing the comment that there was a New Moon in the sky before sunrise in the Crack Cave video. I think the speaker meant to say crescent moon because New Moons never appear in the eastern night sky. Observations of one equinox on one year aren't compelling by themselves. I'd assume there's more to it than that but that's not presented in a usable form. Alternatively if you take the view that mis-writing a 'D' in Ogham invalidates your claim to be taken seriously as one video does, then I suppose we must dismiss the people in the Crack Cave video as fantasists. Personally I think that would be a bit over the top, but I realise not everyone agrees. I'm even less impressed though because we've gone over the whole self-published sources thing before. Some sort of peer-reviewed publication would be a better source. If Vine Deloria can get published in American Antiquity then it would suggest that a publication in an archaeological or historical journal somewhere is a reasonable goal for a ten or twenty year long research effort.

As for the failure of Archaeologists to excavate Celtic / Phoenician / Extra-terrestrial archaeological sites in Colorado, there's not a lot that we can do about it. We're not here to set right the injustices of the world, we're here discussing what could make a better archaeoastronomy article. What sort of result would we say is a consensus? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm serious. If a Von Dänikenite comes here and argues and argues and argues, do we have to wait until he goes away before consensus is reached? Alun Salt (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

By pointing out there was no consensus on Nissen as the first archaeoastronomer, I felt readers were better informed than sole reliance on the obscure term, "arguably". Last August 21, when editors yanked Good Article status of your version of archaeoastronomy, Laura Love warned: It is not always necessary that every paragraph have at least one reference, although it is generally preferred. However, terms like "alleged" and "argued" require citation. Alleged by whom? Argued by whom? These questions need to be answered with citation. Technically, you met the standards by citing Ruggles 2005, the lone source. I could have inserted, as you turned the phrase against me w/r/t Kelley, other than Ruggles, there are zero, but instead I felt justified in telegraphing the coming Reisenauer insert as germane to the debate (where I did plant citations) without the discourtesy of interrupting the flow of your exposition. Proctor may be an alternate candidate, we have yet to arrive at a consensus, and if so, chronologically should be mentioned by all rights ahead of Lockyer. I noted in my edit synopsis that the remedy I elected was a courtesy not to disrupt your paragraph one.

I have often mentioned the double standard enforced here: one for me, the other for you. Let's talk tautology, shall we? Because you find Vine DeLoria's remarks to Stengel offensive, you are compelled to diminish the man's reputation by citing other views in other works. Not content with that alone, you also imply that by citing Deloria in Stengel's article, therefore the CO/OK archaeoastronomy I happen to advocate is tautologically equivalent to Extra-terrestrial archaeological sites in Colorado. Your tortured rationalizations invariably mischaracterize what it is I am saying. See my opening paragraphs in this thread. I am trying to raise some reasonable guidelines on distinguishing shades of fringiness, and am valiantly working to keep this on an adult level. However, you seem intent on unwinding anything I put forth as nonsense. Alun, not every citation I make has relevance to the Ogham side-car issue applied to archaeoastronomy. Kindly read DeLoria in the context presented, having nothing to do with Ogham, though perhaps in alliance with a belief there was pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact based on an admittedly imprecise Native American ethnological reference. DeLoria is not alone in sharing a distaste for demonstrable heavy-handedness of archaeology and its persistent dogmatic views that often sweep the truth aside. I understand you don't like DeLoria's remarks and want desperately to discredit his opinion in any way possible, but let's deal with what he is saying here.

Since you persist on making Ogham my albatross, some facts in response to your latest pincushion parries. I mentioned Calvert Watkin's erroneous notation for the Ogham letter D was among several scholarly mistakes. He also insisted vowels must always be present and incised (stem)lines can never be present, contradicted by the primary source of the 14th century Ogham Tract of the Book of Ballymote and the secondary source of the antiquarian writings of R.A.S. Macalister, Studies in Irish Epigraphy parts 1 & 2 (1897, 1902) and The Secret Language of Ireland (1937). Watkins letter along with some amazing errors by other presumed scholars can be found in a 20 page PDF I have assembled and posted in my bibliography.

Please stop haranguing me over minutia such as whether there was a new moon or a crescent moon in 1984 at the fall equinox observation at Crack Cave. I understand your point about documenting multiple equinox observations of the alignment phenomena, and I assure you I have done this due diligence. In the documentary, we even address the quadrennial drift of the Anubis Cave's thumbpointer shadow fit in the dangling moon petroglyph, a horizontal alignment on the rock panel. In 2007, graced with clear skies and an equinox that came a mere 15 minutes before last direct light on the horizon, it was a terrific fit. Shall we talk about archaeoastronomy and give Barry Fell and Ogham a rest? It's arcane, complicated and somewhat off-topic, and really should be subordinated to the task at hand, writing the best article we can about archaeoastronomy! Do we have consensus? -- Breadh2o (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Just before we give Ogham a rest, let me cite something by Kevin Jones (not an academic but he's the author of a well known short essay on Ogham on the web). He was involved in a discussion on Usenet about something Larry Athy (Scott may know him, I doubt others will) had claimed about the Book of Ballymote having a form of Ogham lacking vowels - [6]. Basically what he says is that what you find there is not an Ogham without vowels but instead without the normal symbols for vowels, goes on to discuss the possible reasons why there are Ogham inscriptions without vowels (abbrevations, really gibberish, etc) and some tests for Ogham. I don't want to get sidetracked by this also but did want to expand what Scott has written.Doug Weller (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, sorry I am unaware of Athy. I will mention Hebrew began without vowels. The addition of vowels to round-out and expand the subtle variations of sounds, historically comes after a primitive version of an alphabet possessing only the harsh consonantal sounds, gains initial traction. If anything, this would argue for greater antiquity of the presumed Ogham in America and might even, oddly enough, point to a reverse migration of the language eastward across the Atlantic. I can't say this was not possible. More likely, I think, a group of explorers perhaps traders from Ireland or Iberia coming to America used a primitive shorthand in archaeoastronomy where no monuments were to be erected. Or they were influenced by conventions of Native Americans to memorialize things with petroglyphs instead of monuments. Or the the priestly literate class were concerned about keeping arcane secrets from semi- or non-literate folks. The speculation can go on and does, all over the chart. I don't pretend to have answers. That's why help is needed to interpret the clues we have. Breadh2o (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fringiness (part 2)

Since this section is getting long and hard to edit, I'm breaking it here.

Alun's comments on the self-published videos illuminate the controversy.

I don't think it's quite fair to expect Breadh2o to support every flaky thing that Vine DeLoria has said, DeLoria is a respected student of Native American culture but like many in ethnic studies, he occasionally goes off the deep end. It is quite reasonable, however, to ask that citations for this article deal with what (if anything) DeLoria has said about archaeoastronomy.

On the point that peer-reviewed sources are a better source than self-published sources, I fear Alun is being too kind. Wikipedia policy on self-published sources is much stronger:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Since this is an article about an academic discipline, the further criteria of WP:RS#Scholarship are especially relevant.

Finally, we should all remember that talk pages are not intended to debate the subject discussed in the article; they are intended to discuss how to improve the article. I've added the template with appropriate details to the head of this talk page.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

So far as the article goes, there is no way under Wikipedia policy that something that Robert Mark said on a video can be used as a source. Nor, I believe, can anything Robert T Mark said or wrote on Ogham - see WP:Sources "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." And he was not an Ogham specialist.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 15:45, 2 April 2008

I genuinely believe, Steve, you are beginning to grasp the dilemma faced by amateurs doing the best job they can in an adversarial climate run by academics. I understand why Mark and Meyers remarks on video cannot be included in WP. And I think you understand this technicality does not otherwise impugn the concept that a circumstantial case can be made favoring the validity of the CO/OK archaeoastronomical phenomena (plural because there are multiple examples in a tightly defined region, largely undisturbed by intrusive modern development). I just hope there can be some more preservation for unprotected sites. Only the Crack Cave on BLM land has an iron gate. The problem for us persists. No scholarly advocate will come forth to help in the monumental battle against entrenched resistance by mainstream academics. The personal risk it too high. The mathematics of reality grind away, year after year. Gillespie predicted it would take a generation to win some semblance of respect. Well, that's where we are a generation later. Thanks for being somewhat sympathetic. Breadh2o (talk) 15:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand you have a difficult problem, but you don't enhance your credibility with academic archaeologists or historians by associating your archaeoastronomical claims with the dubious ones of Celtic migration. As I read through the 1977 correspondence with the State of Colorado posted on your site, the exasperation of those academics in the face of determined advocates of these fringe theories was apparent.

I'd like to see well documented studies of the archaeoastronomy of these sites; amateurs like yourselves can write them up and submit them to professional journals. You may think it a waste of time, but until you make a reasoned and focused case for these sites, academics will consider these topics an equally great waste of time.

Until such reliable sources are produced, this topic doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources are essential to broadcast journalists. That's where my career began. I make my livelihood in internet, broadcast and cable video media today. My passion to inform and enlighten the public drew me to Wikipedia, as a diversion from my work. It has become a bit too time consuming, lately. ;-) I don't claim to have scholastic credentials. I don't claim to be neutral in some things I advocate and other things I critique within the confines of Discussion, where consensus should be built. When it comes to actually posting or deleting stuff in the archaeoastronomy article, I, like you, want to be fair and balanced. It is possible undue emphasis or omissions will occur and the great thing about Wikipedia is responsible editors will soon let you know about it. Ideally, articles should be self-healing and improve as time goes on.

In the mid-1990s, research chemist Jim Guthrie, an expert who has been published in other peer reviewed publications, submitted articles to Current Anthropology and American Antiquity on HLAB21 (human lymphocyte anitgens) a genetic marker found in the American southwest including southeastern Colorado, that advanced the theory of diffusionism. Both journals refused to publish. Alice Kehoe, has submitted articles challenging a number of archaeological tenets that insist on independent inventionism. She, too, has been refused publication in peer reviewed journals. Guthrie worked closely with epigrapher Phil Leonard on the Colorado archaeoastronomical finds that preceded his submissions. The track record for articles hinting at diffusionism is instructive. Why bother? No one is interested. Minds have been made up. Dennis Stanford can take a stab at playing Sisyphus because of his prestige and standing in the archaeological brotherhood. Scott Monahan hasn't a snowball's chance. And I don't have a university research grant or a benefactor paying me for my time and trouble.

Now, as a documentarian and reporter, my scholarship in no way approaches that of Guthrie, Kehoe or Leonard. My expertise is documenting things on video for mass audiences. The academic community insists on reams of stuff printed in black and white to establish anything as valid. Video is an anathema to scholastic work. However, no printed documentation, no matter how many photographic images, charts, statistical tables and citations included, can match the power of video to establish, with time lapse, the drama and precision of an archaeoastronomical alignment. No printed quotation of a reliable source such as Robert Mark can capture the nuances of voice, inflection, facial expression, body language as well as a video archive that preserves it, unedited as if you were watching him live. I'm not quibbling with the need to establish veracity in the medium academics feel most at home with, despite its shortcomings w/r/t video, footnoted, posted on WP, endlessly debated at the sacrifice of millions of cyber-electrons. Just accept this: video is power. And I will likely prevail in accomplishing better persuasion of the masses if I do so responsibly with my camera, my editing and my writing, than any Wikipedia article can hope to accomplish scouring all the libraries in the world to prop up the dying belief America was largely isolated from contact by ancient seafarers before Columbus. This is the way media is evolving, like it or not. For me to try to overturn attitudes that are frozen in place in a forum known to be hostile to diffusionism, is a waste of my time. If there is a scholar who wants to advocate for the very realities I have committed to video in a responsible fashion, kindly step forward. Otherwise, we shall ultimately go our separate directions. I cannot fight a fair fight on academia's turf and I understand this. No university grant funds me for my time. I do this because I have passion about the subject and I believe the trends are clear, history is going to accept pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact and perhaps even Ogham archaeoastronomy in Colorado and Oklahoma, long before archaeology pulls its head out of the sand. -- Breadh2o (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC: When does close collaboration by two academics rise to abuse?

Template:RFCsci Is content of the archaeoastronomy article being managed to advocate for the interests of two close collaborators responsible for the recent rewrite and is abuse occurring by their removal of material in compliance with WP guidelines that appears not to match the POV of Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey? I am excusing myself from further contributions to this article, pending comment. I feel my efforts to add balance and offset a demonstrably archaeologically-centric attitude have been frustrating. I am expected to exceed reasonable standards to get any contrary word in edgewise in the article they are clearly managing to promote their ideas and POV. When an opposing POV does survive for a while, I am intensively challenged up and down, and by this yardstick and that, until they rationalize a reason to delete. Yes, I have strayed from being civil, at all times, and I am sorry, but when you're getting beat up by bullies it's pretty hard to stay kind to the opposition. This is an intolerable situation and discourages good writers without matching academic degrees from making any meaningful contributions. I would hope there is an alternative to the professional jihad against me and my material being waged in order to sanitize the article, make archaeology appear saintly, and extinguish any hint of dissention in the POV being promulgated by these two. I may return after spring break. I may not. I simply ask for the indefinate postponement of granting GA status to the article being fashioned by Salt and McCluskey. They have pushed Hopi skywatching as a topic to the intro (Steve has done research on this), bumping Stonehenge, Newgrange and a famous Mexican archaeoastronomy site far down-article. They've spotlighted in archaeoastronomy History the German author of an obscure and untranslated text on Greek Temple alignments, elevating him to the pedestal of first archaeoastronomer, though this is by no means a consensus view. (Alun cites his professor at Leicester as the sole authority here and won't tolerate an observation there is no consensus. Interestingly, Alun is also doing his post-graduate student work on Greek temple alignments.) They poke fun at pseudo-archaeoastronomy, but will not accept any rebuttal that entrenched archaeological dogma demonstrably chills research in other areas than archaeoastronomy by intimidation. The Smithsonian's top archaeologist says as much on the BBC and TIME magazine concurs archaeology has been in an intellectual straightjacket for nearly the past century, but you'll never read it here on the archaeoastronomy site. That fact has been deleted. They continue to pile on about fringe archaeology however, sealing the case that archaeologists are protecting us all from rampant fraud. Salt and McCloskey have meticulously footnoted their material in a desperate desire to win restoration of a GA medal for their work. But the article's readability is...well...just try reading it for yourself. PhD's will love it! Others, a great cure for insomnia! Instead, try the Talk threads over the past 5 days for a laugh or two. They're pretty revealing. Breadh2o (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Breadh2o for taking this to mediation. I think his idea of looking over edits is a good idea, even back as far as his arrival. For brief introduction I'll try and give a summary of my edits.

In late December the article was still clearly half-finished, for example the Sites of Archaeoastronomical Interest were missing which was a fairly obvious omission from the article. Breadh2o arrived and I hadn't fixed the article by this stage so I was happy to listen. I wasn't impressed with his proposed edits. He text seemed dated as far as archaeoastronomy went. The idea of a shopping list approach to ancient astronomy where you approach a site with a list of astronomical phenomena and cross off the ones you find has been superseded by more interesting questions. I appreciate that there were mentions of three sites in the introduction but saying

::Three examples of archaeoastronomy-in-action, solstice sunrises in summer at Stonehenge, in winter at Ireland's Newgrange and equinoxes at the Mayan El Castillo at Chichen Itza, Mexico, have become famous, attracting the scientifically-inclined as well as general tourists.

does not, to me, tell me much about archaeoastronomy, nor the sites themselves, nor about the article below. It's not awful, but it's nothing special either. As far as the sources went I do not think that a couple of websites, one an undergraduate essay, and a reference to a book on pyramidology are reliable sources. Given how he introduced himself I thought this could lead to an edit war. I thought it best for me to give him time and space to see if it improved as he worked on it and correct the article later.

In correcting the article I took on board previous critiques of the article by other Wikipedians. From the GA reassessment the clear message was that more citations were needed. Vinoir had also given some helpful directions when it came re-writing. I also thought that Breadh2o had raised some good questions and tried to address these. Writing the article has meant that there has to be extensive citation of secondary sources - and that any fact subject to challenge needs to be references. In terms of what I've written about I thought it best to go with what I know. There are plenty of citations for Aveni, McCluskey and Ruggles. That's because they've been writing on the subject for decades over a wide area of topics, but if you look at the bibliography you will see plenty of other references. In the longer term I'd like to replace the Ruggles 2005 citations with other citations on the same topics instead, but I'll also want to check them first if I'm including them.

Breadh2o's first article edit on his return was to cite an article as supporting Fell's work, which states "Fell's work [contains] major academic sins, the three worst being distortion of data, inadequate acknowledgment of predecessors, and lack of presentation of alternative views." and "Kelley disagrees with Fell's theory that the Grave Creek symbols represent some sort of astronomical text." Kelley thinks there may be Ogham inscriptions in North America which puts him in a set of one (as far as I know) amongst archaeologists, but it's hardly support for his archaeoastronomical ideas, which are the subject in an article on archaeoastronomy. Another article cited as support for Fell was a TIME article on Kennewick Man (around 9000 BC). Other quotes put in relate to the Solutrean hypothesis of North American settlement (around 17,000 BC). Ogham dates from the first millennium AD. This kind of argumentation seems to be a fairly obvious example of the Galileo Gambit, but I'm not even sure if the argument breadh2o wants to put in is about archaeoastronomy at all.

This seems to be typical of Breadh2o's edits. His other belief is that metrology is deeply important to the history of archaeoastronomy. There isn't any actual evidence of this, and evidence against it, but this doesn't seem to matter.

Now there is the problem of how to deal with fringe theories. One would be to wipe them out without debate. There's evidence of this in some places. Another would be to try and discuss the issue to clarify why something should stop in. The talk board above shows some attempt at this, and this is I assume what breadh2o refers to when he says that he's: "intensively challenged up and down, and by this yardstick and that, until they rationalize a reason to delete." Actually I've been trying to find a compromise and a reason to keep some of breadh2o's work.

I have to admit helping breadh2o at this stage is not appealing. He is quite an angry editor. His arrival came with him accusing me of sneaking material into Wikipedia. His comments on his proposed changes were eccentric. Eventually this got to the stage where I deliberately didn't revert some peculiar material he put in to avoid provoking him and got blamed for it anyway. I don't want to enumerate every issue with breadh2o's tone, third parties can look into that, but I am now wondering if he simply came to Wikipedia for a fight. I am apparently 'a noisy blogger'.

I've tried other means of negotiation. I thought that he might feel that I was performing for the public. I therefore contacted him on his talk page so that he didn't feel as though he was being publicly upbraided. This hasn't worked either. I've tried leaving stuff for him to correct himself. For example the issue that eventually lead to breadh2o seeking mediation I asked if he could clarify the relevance of Kennewick Man to Archaeoastronomy. The response was:

::I am almost certain that I never linked Kennewick Man in any way whatsoever with Fell's claims for Ogham in America. Maybe both relate to being pro-diffusion, but direct linkage...I don't think I'd try fooling anyone. That's preposterous even to me. Are you confusing me with somebody else here. Let's see the the timestamp and sourcing on that one, if you please.

Well, see above. I've placed calls for comment on all the relevant WikiProjects.

The only time I've deliberately provoked him for the sake of a response was last night when I said that I didn't think that two archaeologists publishing in a peer-reviewed archaeological journal was relevant to a claim that archaeologists use peer-review to keep out non-archaeologists. This is because I'm not interested in a long edit war and if he's willing to accept mediation then that's a step forward.

SteveMcCluskey and I are working together on this article, as the talk above makes clear, but as two independent people. A reason we might seem to be working closely is because we're both referring to evidence. I'm happy to take advice on this because it's not just breadh2o who'll have an interest in this article. If we can get it to FA status then it'll also be a very attractive target for cranks who want to push their own pet theories. Some advice on how to politely tackle this with the minimum of disruption would be helpful. Alunsalt (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have little to add to AlunSalt's comments, except perhaps to note as background that, as the title of Todd Bostwick's introductory essay to the Oxford 7 proceedings, ""Archaeoastronomy at the Gates of Orthodoxy," implies, Archaeoastronomy has always been trying to establish its credentials as a reputable academic discipline. That makes its practitioners sensitive to fringe elements within the field. The repeated instances where Breadh20 "rail[s] against academic archaeologists" (numerous examples are easily found by searching on "archaeolog") has intimations of the kind of anti-establishment fervor often associated with pseudoarchaeology.

Breadh2o took exceptional offense when I introduced two examples of "Fringe archaeoastronomy" assuming they were directed at him. In fact, I chose one concerning Vedic Archaeoastronomy because I had seen discussions of the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia and felt it would contribute to those discussions by putting them in a larger context. The other one I chose for the simple reason that I had used the example before in a lecture and had the material conveniently at hand. Breadh2o took that as an opportunity to spring to the defense of Barry Fell against the archaeological establishment.

When asked to provide sources, Breadh2o cited material which, while reliable, had little to do with the topic under discussion. When that material was deleted, he diverted his attention to a claim that footnotes damaged the style of the article.

Breadh2o also asserted that AlunSalt elevated Heinrich Nissen to the pedestal of the first archaeoastronomer because Nissen's work on Greek Temples matched Salt's. In fact, a check of the edit history reveals that AlunSalt's original major revision of the article credited Lockyer as the first archaeoastronomer; only later in response to complaints did he replace Lockyer with Nissen. The accusation was patently false.

The general tenor of Breadh2o's intemperate comments and repeated edits without reliable sources comes close to disruptive editing, but I hope we do not have to ask for the sanctions mentioned there.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I implied from my citation of TIME's Who Were The First Americans? that I was saying Kennewick Man is evidence supportive of Barry Fell’s Ogham-in-America theory, please accept my sincere apologies. TIME opened with the Kennewick Man update, but enlarged to a broader discussion of how the New World may well have been visited by foreign sailors long before Columbus, based on interesting new archaeological and genetic evidence. Independently, in the 1970s, epigrapher Barry Fell used linguistics and claimed some megalithic constructs in America led to an identical conclusion. Regardless of how such a theory achieved its notoriety, the vast majority of American archaeologists find any such proposition, other than a brief Viking encampment at L’Anse Aux Meadows, Newfoundland, around 1000 CE, to be doctrinally impossible. My citing of both the TIME article and the Atlantic’s The Diffusionists Have Landed were done to offset and balance Fringe Archaeoastronomy's raison d'etre that false claims are problematic to the scientific field's integrity. As with the famous example of geology’s once-entrenched opposition to Plate Tectonics theory, my point was that a dogmatic, institutional POV may well blind archaeology, particularly as it seems Alun Salt and Steve McCluskey think it should have authority over archaeoastronomical claims. Perhaps the fault is not with claimants, but with self-appointed professional referees. In our present dispute, the same attitude seems behind the nixing of my efforts to balance the Wikipedia article. Indeed, the BBC Horizon Stone Age Columbus - transcript quotes the Smithsonian's top archaeologist as admitting intimidation is a way of life in the world of archaeology, as he notes w/r/t the Soultrean hypotesis and the worry about what colleagues might think if you challenge the dogma and actually investigate. If intimidation is there, it's in archaeoastronomy as well, and the management of the Wikipedia archaeoastronomy article, too. Empowered in an authoritative role, a mainstream archaeologist tends to bury any POV found to be personally distasteful, and, by deduction, irrelevant. My effort to modify the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section with a later attempt to balance was likewise excised by Alun. Now, it is again a pristine, sanitized version, leaving no hint archaeological dogma might have any role in assigning a convenient perjorative to works they may choose to ignore, as they choose to ignore ideas they find unpalatable.

Even more dishonestly, Alun Salt twists my intent to his advantage in my citation of The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1990. he claims I did so because I believe metrology is deeply important to the history of archaeoastronomy. But I am distinctly on record as noting the full breadth of the article's title as illustrative, then stating, It is fundamentally unfair to characterize the work as isolated to the pyramid metrology debate tit-for-tat. It speaks largely to how British identity, including astronomy’s role in academia, was morphing as a consequence of a debate that consumed all of England and even spilled across the Atlantic, and then I proceed to cite quotes and footnotes that validate this point without any trace of ambiguity and which stopped that thread cold. It was not about metrology as much as maturing points of view in mid-century British astronomy. Archaeologists would prefer to strike any reference to pyramid astronomy because they equate it with quackery. But ignoring history by whitewashing it or attempting to delete it, does not make it untrue. Breadh2o (talk) 05:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm an archaeology student from Germany (where archaeoastronomy is still seen rather skeptic), so hopefully I'm up to a professional challenge. In my opinion the article is doing fine. It's not ready for FA class, but the approach is OK. The section on methodology definitely needs some expansion. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The recent anonymous edit reflects the views expressed in this discussion by Breadh2o; perhaps he unintentionally neglected to log on; perhaps it was intentional; perhaps it was someone else who shares his views. In any event, such a major edit during a RfC is inappropriate; I will revert it for now and invite discussion concerning it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I got an odd and anonymous email a quarter of an hour later from the same IP address. It's a real puzzle. Who do I know in Denver, Colorado, who'd be stirred enough to read an obscure blog post buried in the depths of my website, but at the same time would lack the wit to be able to read the sentence he quotes? I think that may forever remain a mystery.

On a completely unrelated note, Breadh2o sincerely apologises for linking the TIME article on Kennewick Man (and earlier proposed colonisations like the Solutrean Hypothesis) to Barry Fell and then a couple of sentences later states that Fell's proposed 1st millennium AD voyages were an identical conclusion to the palaeocolonisation theories. I find this confusing but given his sincerity it's possible we're talking past each other. I see there's an Original Research Noticeboard at WP:NORN, would a note on there be of help? To help keep things cool I'm happy to leave the current metrology paragraphs in till the RFC expires or if there's a consensus, or if it turns out 19th century metrology is relevant to the history of archaeoastronomy after all - seeing as Breadh2o has done the same. Alun Salt (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it wasn't me who posted the anonymous edit that Steve trashed, nor the email that Alun got. I have hosted archaeoastronomy.com for more than a decade, my name is Scott Monahan, and when I contribute to Wikipedia I try to always use my handle breadh2o. That stuff is not from me. Denver's a big city. And, yes, Alun, you do talk past me because you have yet to read Reisenauer's article with comprehension. I cannot help you understand when you prefer to read with blinders on, insisting, for the sake of expedience I suppose, on the narrowest of interpretations you can conjure. Astronomers in the mid to late 1800s in England underwent a renaissance that the author clearly lays out, thanks to the metrology debate. Either re-read the article or pay atttention to my specific citations and footnotes from Reisenauer in the above thread. Breadh2o (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply saying re-read the article again isn't really productive as a request as it gets no more relevant each time I read it. I know you say your claim is implicit in the paper, but implicitness is in the eye of the beholder and I think an explicit reference is necessary. Unfortunately the explicit references point in the opposite direction. To help bring some fresh eyes in I've posted to WP:NORN. It may be they can explain the relevance better. Alun Salt (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

From Reisenauer, 6th paragraph from the end (once again for clarity, please pay attention this time) and I quote: In 1883, Proctor published his own book on the purpose of the Great Pyramid, which seriously challenged many of the assumptions of the metrology idea and substituted for it a theory of his own that both he and the bulk of his reviewers felt better fit the known facts. (128 footnote: Richard A. Proctor, The Great Pyramid: Observatory, Tomb, Temple. Most reviewers found Proctor's theory that the pyramid served these three purposes more convincing than the metrological theory of Piazzi Smyth. See the reviews in The Academy 22 (23 December 1882): 443-44; British Quarterly Review 77 (April 1883): 244; and The Literary World 14 (5 May 1883): 139. This is merely one of many examples I could pull from the article to support its relevancy to changing attitudes within the British astronomical academic community prior to Lockyer. But I have to laugh that you never think to hold yourselves to the same higher standard applied to me in incessantly demanding I justify my citations' relevancy and my exposition, almost word by word. You guys are fond of applying this yardstick and that --- I think across my backside --- indeed! But, when are we all going to be treated to some accountability from you guys in explaining the relevancy (or lack thereof) of Heinrich Nissen's astronomer B. Tiele's Greek Temple compass orientation tables that point to virtually every direction under the sun? Still waiting for some reciprocal accountability from the home team of Salt & McCluskey! First, I suppose it might be useful to get your hands on a translation of Nissen. Think you could swing that? Breadh2o (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a reliable source crediting Thiel with archaeoastronomy as mentioned on March 20. In fact I don't know of any source crediting Thiel but I do have a source crediting Nissen which is why I credit one and not the other. The exact quote is "Heinrich Nissen, professor of history at the University of Bonn. deserves more than anyone else to be recognized as the earliest pioneer of modern archaeoastronomy." (Ruggles 2005:312)

Regarding your Reisenauer citation, I've read it closely yet again and still find no reference to archaeoastronomy. This could be a problem because archaeoastronomy is not the same as history of astronomy. So I've read Proctor's The Great Pyramid: Observatory, Tomb, Temple. which is online at the University of Heidelberg as well. It's interesting, but is it archaeoastronomy and even if I think it is would it count as original research if I concluded that he was an archaeoastronomer? It could be just my opinion, but I doubt you'd be happy for my opinion to be sole arbiter of what is and isn't in this article. You mentioned plate tectonics earlier and that's a very apt problem. If you read WP:FRINGE then plate tectonics is a very specific example of something which was right, but would not have been included in Wikipedia until it found wide acceptance elsewhere. Whether or not Proctor was an archaeoastronomer, we seem to lack the citations to show it is so. We can wait and see what WP:NORN comes up. Alun Salt (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

RFC requires stability of disputed sections

I've reverted the article for three times today and run into WP:DGAF. Breadh2o has issued an RFC on the article, specifically with regard to the History and Fringe sections of the article. This is understandable. While I wouldn't say that Wandalstouring and Dougweller's comments are enough to constitute a consensus, they have not been supportive which leaves Breadh2o in a minority of one regarding his position. More opinions from the RFC and WP:NORN may change that, but it undermines Breadh2o's RFC if he's editing the disputed sections. In fact it looks a a pretty clear attempt to disrupt his own RFC, which seems very strange. Until the RFC expires or is withdrawn then I suggest that the disputed sections are left untouched to allow comment. Much as I disagree with the metrology citations I'm not removing them till the RFC goes. Alun Salt (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I am here to establish that your side has taken repeated unilateral action to delete my balance of your one-sided POV regarding the topic of Fringe Archaeoastronomy twice preceding the RFC. To leave this section in an unbalanced state is disgraceful. You may be right, you may be wrong. I, too, hope for a neutral declaration on the RFC, but in the meantime, you are using technical tools to preserve your POV above all challenge. What I have to contribute is vital to the topic. All I see you doing is maneuver to preserve a bias. Breadh2o (talk) 15:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about a ref

Can someone with access to Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy check something out? Our ref says the article "Prehistoric and Early Historic Cultural Change at Brugh na Bóinne" is by Grogan and on pages 126-132, but this listing says Eogan and 105-132. I notice they've published together in that journal before. — Laura Scudder ☎ 22:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't check that till early April. I wonder if it could be a two-part article as Gabriel Cooney cites it in his 2006 Antiquity paper, but I may have messed up that reference. Alunsalt (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, a PhD dissertation on the web from U. Minnesota (John Angus Soderberg, Feeding Community: urbanization, religion, and zooarchaeology at Clonmacnoise, an early medieval Irish monastery, 2003) cites it as:

Eogan, G. 1991. Prehistoric and Early Historic Culture Change at Brugh Na Boinne. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 91 C: 105-132.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This might be the clincher; Gabriel Cooney, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy Vol. 107C, 215–225, cites it with Eogan as the author

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Eogan looks ok to me. Alun Salt (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the copy in our library. The article "Prehistoric and Early Historic Cultural Change at Brugh na Bóinne" is by George Eogan on pages 105–132. It includes an appendix, "Radiocarbon dates from Brugh na Bóinne", by Eoin Grogan on pages 126–132. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

You don't want too many, but is this of any use? "Astronomy before History, by Clive Ruggles and Michael Hoskins, a chapter from the Cambridge Concise History of Astronomy, Michael Hoskin ed., 1999Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is offsite canvassing allowed during an RFC?

Scott refered me to Old News, where I found this: [7] "29 March 2008, Attention fellow Wikipedians: please help save the archaeoastronomy article from being hijacked. I have posted a Request for Comment on the discussion section for this article, When does close collaboration by two academics rise to abuse? and am soliciting whatever support you can add in my battle with two authoritarians now in control. Thank you! Scott Monahan, director Old News, WP user breadh2o" When I last saw someone doing something not quite so blatant, an administrator wrote "Off-site canvassing is in fact a block reason,".

He may not be aware of the WP:CANVAS rules. I linked to them in the header of a section on this page but that may not have been clear enough if it was just read as a notice to all that a request had been made. It's possible to question what I've done there as I notified the WikiProjects, but there are five of them which may make it Excessive Cross-posting. The problem is omitting some WikiProjects could be seen as stacking the deck. There doesn't seem to have been any noticeable effect so perhaps the simplest solution would be for breadh2o to remove the call after reading WP:CANVAS himself. Alun Salt (talk) 15:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am unaware of this prohibition. In good faith, therefore, I will pull this appeal off-line within a few minutes. This might explain what happened on Sunday with the vandalism and if so, my apologies. I was merely trying to balance the input, which otherwise might have been strictly academic, regarding my RFC. I presumed some valid Wikipedians unknown via this Talk page, might come to my assistance in trying to maintain balance. Breadh2o (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to cut Breadh2o some slack, as I was unaware of the WP:CANVAS rule until this discussion came up. I tried to make my friendly notices calling for participation on the five WikiForums Limited in scale, Neutral in message, and Nonpartisan in audience, but since I didn't mention them here, that violates the transparency criterion. Breadh2o's announcement was Biased in message and Partisan in audience, but let's move beyond that. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, that srt of mistake is easy to do, so as you say, let's move on. I'm pleased you've agreed to take it off-line, Scott, not everyone would agree to do that.Doug Weller (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)