Talk:Archaeoastronomy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

This person keeps undoing my addition here:

"AHD (American Heritage dictionary) is no authority on astronomy. if it was by the Oxford Conference, it would be OK"

AHD is just a dictionary - they're not Archaeoastronomers. Oxford doesn't even have an online definition at all. And the one provided here is actually closer to astrotheology. I'm just trying to help out with more accuracy. Why does a dictionary now need to be an authority on Archaeoastronomy? That utterly makes no sense whatsoever.

The comment, "Clive Ruggles argues it specifically is not the study of ancient astronomy" is diametrically opposed to the very word itself as the word "archaeoastronomy" comes from the Greek, archaio meaning ancient or old, astro meaning star and nomos meaning law. Instead of inaccurately trying to say what Archaeoastronomy is not - why not accurately define what it is?

One may look at the photos here & see that the RHUD definition is the best, most accurate definition:

"the branch of archaeology that deals with the apparent use by prehistoric civilizations of astronomical techniques to establish the seasons or the cycle of the year, esp. as evidenced in the construction of megaliths and other ritual structures."

Also, the American Heritage definition is good too:

"The study of the knowledge, interpretations, and practices of ancient cultures regarding celestial objects or phenomena."

In the section titled, "Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines," they can't even agree on what Archaeoastronomy is. Here's a thought for starters, break down the word itself as mentioned above.

Throughout this article there seems to be an effort in some sections of this article to deny or omit the fact that Archaeoastronomy specifically incorporates astronomy, archaeology i.e. megaliths and other stone structures, along with astrotheological religious concepts. One doesn't even need to be an Archaeoastronomer to see that this article is very contradictory and needs work with accuracy. However, other sections are well done.

The definition by Clive Ruggles:

"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."

is far to vague to be of any use - "sky" and "skies" is not helpful at all. That's why the Random House Unabridged and American Heritage definitions are far better as Ruggles definition is actually a poor definition of astrotheology rather than Archaeoastronomy. I am merely pointing out the obvious here. --204.15.226.234 (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Two IP addresses for clearly the same editor. Who is possibly this one: [1] Doug Weller (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

"Scholars in the field may have a better grasp of the subject than the American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition"

This comment is absurd when one reads this article containing so much contradictory information. For example, as already made categorically clear, In the section titled, "Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines," the scholars cited here can't even agree on what Archaeoastronomy is. This article is a degradation and embarrassment for Archaeoastronomers. It appears that Random House Unabridged Dictionary does, in fact, have a better grasp of the subject as their definition is superior as it's far more clearly defined which enables others to better understand what Archaeoastronomy is. I thought that was important - guess not.

"Two IP addresses for clearly the same editor. Who is possibly this one"

You show no concern about the facts presented. Simply make the necessary corrections and adjustments. If you don't like the way I added the info, that's fine go ahead and add the corrections how you best see fit but for christ sakes, fix the inaccuracies here.

I have Clive Ruggles book "Records in Stone" right here next to me and it's full of stone megaliths from around the world with solstice and equinox alignments along with lunar and other astronomical alignments and more. The Clive Ruggles explanation rigidly adhered to here is a major disappointment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.15.226.254 (talk) 17:57, 15 September 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 {{Fact}} 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)

why GA status is undeserved, for now

I believe it is appropriate to make a case against restoration of Good Article status, so long as several issues persist with no resolution in sight. No tolerance has been shown for inclusion of minority opinion or for contributions made in the interest of neutralizing the article's point of view. WP:EQ#A_few_things_to_bear_in_mind

In my reading of the article as it is now constituted, exposition is often choppy and erudite, detrimental to ease of comprehension. Sentences strung together can often appear as non sequiturs --- clarity of the narrative subordinated to footnote count --- leaving gaps and nagging questions unanswered in many readers' minds.

All reference to a profound debate that gripped all of British society, science and academia across three decades in the last half of the 19th century, changed astronomy and spun off enlightened and diversified fields such as archaeoastronomy has been thrice excised from the article's History section. The reason given for deletion is that the sourced reference only discusses pyramid metrology and is, thus, unrelated. But in whose opinion? Sanitizing the past by ignoring certain foundational influences, is expedient in that it gilds the science's nobility. In the same way chemistry shuns its dark legacy of alchemy, British astronomy's near obsession with the Great Pyramid from Oxford University astronomy professor John Greaves through prolific author and international astronomy lecturer Richard Anthony Proctor certainly can be ignored; but should it be in an impartial, historical account? Superficial acknowledgements of Charles Piazzi Smyth and Proctor later conceded in the History section completely gloss over the reformation --- if not renaissance --- in that

...Great Pyramid metrology worked its way into the pages of mainstream periodicals, was debated in scientific and religious journals, caused conflict and controversy in British learned societies, inspired the founding of an institute and journal in the United States, attracted the attention of some of the most respected men of the age...

according to The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1890, the secondary source written by University of South Carolina historian Eric M. Reisenauer citing many other relevant primary sources. I have repeatedly fought the stubborn reasoning for deletion, i.e. Metrology is not archaeoastronomy, by pointing out the broader discussion, but to no avail. The reasoning persists. WP:IDHT is a disruptive pattern of behavior. Likewise, topical quotations by University of Calgary professor emeritus of archaeology David H. Kelley have been systematically banned as contrary to the establishment's prevailing POV. The first attempted introduction was to offset an attack on Barry Fell in the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section authored by Steve McCluskey. After twice purging Kelley McCluskey agreed to drop the Fell criticism, "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." But his collaborator restored the offending material and even racheted up the vitriol when he wiped clean a rewritten balance of Fringe including a different quote by Kelley. The rewrite provided a more comprehensive perspective on the Ogham-archaeoastronomy-in-America claims than merely dwelling on the multiple failures of the WV site. Kelley emphasized archaeology's natural inadequacies in dealing with intangibles:

The problem is in the fact that there are influences, but they don't show up in 'dirt archaeology.' Basically, they show up in ideological materials: mythology, astronomy, calendrics. These are precisely the areas which are hardest to deal with archaeologically. And so they don't get much attention from traditional archaeologists.

When the WP article authors purge all traces of Kelley and every uncomplimentary mainstream news media report about archaeology's myopia w/r/t diffusionism, then the article's neutrality is being sacrificed to preserve an institution's unblemished reputation. WP:NPOV. And when such a blindspot colors the evaluation for claims for either non-indigenous archaeology (the Solutrean hypothesis) or non-indigenous archaeoastronomy (CO/OK sites), then science fails the public trust.

My early January rewrites of the article's introduction and History sections preserved all references and retained a good proportion of the expository points made in those sections prior to January 5. The reversion on March 16 preserved none of mine. I vetted my proposed changes online before instituting them, but no such reciprocity was extended prior to the Ides of March wholesale revisions by two collaborative authors, exclusive of any other. Additions continue to be made absent of advance vetting or discussion. Invariably, whatever I've proposed has been shot down in discussion, subject to unreasonably extreme standards for compliance, freshly invented challenges, and ultimately, deletion, purges and excisions.

WP:OWN#Multiple_editors exactly captures the essence of the battle to get a word in edgewise in a possessive climate. I have appealed to dispute resolution in the RfC, editor assistance and request for mediation. My recent attempt to include a coherent stand-alone essay was bounced as non-encyclopedic, however it made a perfectly logical case for why a professional astronomer can be a better judge than archaeology in exceptional cases. Maybe yet another rewrite will comply. I suppose the issue is how does one turn the mirror of criticism on an academic institution in Wikipedia, when the popular media already recognizes the problem? Is archaeology a sacred cow immune to questions about its invincibility? When is the exception of breaking the rules permissible to make an article better or to overcome a hostile climate facing an editor prone to tilt at windmills? -- Breadh2o (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The basic problem appears to me to be that you still don't understand what Wikipedia is and more specifically What Wikipedia is not. Or alternatively that you do and want to change it, which isn't going to happen. Maybe the Daily Grail's Red Pill would be a better place for you, I don't know. But Wikipedia isn't a place where anyone can put an argument or an essay.Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug, could you provide a WP policy or guideline that prohibits anyone (those without academic credentials) from contributing? I understand stand-alone essays don't work, but neither have appends or insertions to existing paragraphs, even when notable and referencing verifiable and reliable sources. -- Breadh2o (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o's comments should be taken with a grain of salt. He has been pushing his idiosyncratic POV on both the article and the talk page since he first arrived on Wikipedia. His actions have been discussed in both an informal RfC and a formal RfC on this talk page, a discussion on the No Original Research/Noticeboard, and a report on the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents. The quality of the article has been supported,[2] while Breadh2o's edits[3] and comments[4] have been criticized by a range of users while none have come forward to support his actions. It is correct that his edits have been deleted, but this has been done in the interest of writing a coherent and well documented encyclopedia article. His edits would have had a better chance of being accepted if he had paid attention to the various wikipedia policies that have been discussed in this page. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Of the 3 respondents, Wandalstouring did not unconditionally support your article as he sidestepped choosing heroes, and Bwwm criticised only my April 4 paragraph based on the Reisenauer reference. Indeed, My April 10 revised lead to History may have remedied Bwwm's issue. Each guy posted once only. Neither participated in consensus building, unlike respondent 3, Doug Weller with whom I've dialogued. Based on his website, he's not only firmly within your camp, but he also lives near Alun's alma mater. Yes, the UK midlands are a big place, just as I noted Denver is, in response to your side's veiled hints I might have vandalized the site March 30 based on Alun's IP sleuthing.

Nevertheless, to claim three and a half weeks after my RfC posted, the consensus is pro-Alun and Steve and anti-me is pretty thin. It was bad form for me to undo a revert by a sysop without first reading her reasoning. I won't be doing that again. Just pay attention to my reasoning above for why the article is deficient. While I may not be a member of the club, sometimes it is important to pay attention to what outsiders are saying, even people passionate about archaeoastronomy who have experienced first hand the kind of bias TIME, the BBC and the Atlantic report on. This article needs to reflect more truth and spend less energy worrying whether archaeology has been sufficiently sanctified and whether the historical genesis of archaeoastronomy has been sanitized enough to please sensitive scholars needing a safety cushion to distance the science from pseudoscience. -- Breadh2o (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o said: "This article needs to reflect more truth..." (my italics).

This gets at the core of his problem with Wikipedia. He objects to citations and wants the truth – as he understands it. This is addressed at the somewhat paradoxical opening of the Verifiability policy:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiability" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

This policy has been discussed and refined for years and is a core Wikipedia policy as a tool to eliminate POV pushing and original research. (For details, see the discussion and links to the archived discussions at Talk:Verifiability). Breadh2o's edits were removed for those reasons. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some interesting points.

One is I clearly made a mistake not commenting in January. The reason I didn't is that I thought the comments on the draft made off-wiki were unduly hostile and I didn't fancy a fight around New Year. It looked as though the author had serious issues with archaeologists and personal issues with me.

Another point is the lack of tolerance. Despite claiming a lack of tolerance changes have been made. He's raised the lack on consensus on the origins of archaeoastronomy, and while he didn't provide a reference I have gone out and found a couple which show the variety of opinion. SteveMcCluskey has added Proctor to the history section. Personally I'm not convinced he's that relevant, but I think that the consensus is against me on that so I've conceded without a need to make a big deal about it. My opinion may change when I get Michell's short history out of the library and then I might agree with the others. I think the fact some people are willing to go out and seriously look at Breadh2o's claims, despite consistent personal attacks, is indicative of tolerance. Therefore I'm wondering exactly what it is that we're not tolerating.

Breadh2o's edits seem geared towards criticising archaeologists, particularly those who find his own theories unlikely, rather than about archaeoastronomy. He's entitled to his opinions, but Wikipedia is not the place for setting the world to rights, nor is it a venue for original research. Support for his position seems to rest on abuse and edit-warring, which is why I re-instated SteveMcCluskey's full section on Barry Fell. It was referenced and accurate on the subject of archaeoastronomy, and I felt that if people were going to be harassed then it would be best to be harassed for a higher quality entry.

The other points would make this post long and tedious. For instance the comprehensive rebuttals of the reliability of Breadh2o's citations have been commented on above and below. He also appears unaware of a recent update on the WP:NORN page.

It is disturbing that he's taken the intention to re-write history as his favourite quotation on his userpage. It would be a bad idea if he intends to use this as inspiration to push a novel synthesis. Alun Salt (talk) 08:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Two more policies seem relevant to the deletion of Breadh2o's edits.

The first is the Undue Weight section of the NPOV policy, which states that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Critiques of mainstream archaeology belong in articles devoted to such critiques, not here.

The second is the section of the Verifiability policy, Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which applies specifically to "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or ... when proponents of such claims say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

Deletions of these edits conform to Wikipedia policy and provide another reason for granting good article status, rather than a reason for opposing it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First I'll address Alun. If you think George Orwell's quote on my user page is to be taken literally, entitling me to rewrite history, let me clarify. It mocks authoritarian attempts to warp history. Read 1984. The attacks on Barry Fell now stand unrebutted thanks to your restoration of your POV and the surgical excision of my balancing act that would put the lingustic debate in context. That's how you want it, and since I don't see Steve reiterating his earlier agreement with me to pull the lingustics out of the archaeoastronomy article, that's how it is. Very interesting! You'll note I'm not performing disruptive edits, as it appears WP:OWN prohibitions don't apply here, granting carte blanche. Maybe that's not how it is, but that's how it seems to me. Yeah, I have some pennance to perform since I undid Kathryn NicDhana's revert. I have followed her advice because I don't want to be a bad Wikipedian. Steve McCluskey's token mention of Proctor ignores the grand, nationalistic debate that inspired Proctor's rebuke of Piazzi Smyth. As I said, McCluskey's tip-of-the-cap still totally ignores the fundamental cultural, social and academic dynamic of the age (1859-1890) that fostered the climate from which archaeoastronomy, among other diversified scientific fields, emerged. But no tolerance will be given to any linkage to Great Pyramid studies dating back to Greaves in the mid-1600s, because that's a scholatic no-no in attempts to shine and polish the pristine heritage of the science. Let's avoid granting any credit to the giants (as wayward as they might have been in their age, judged by the prism of modernity) upon whose shoulders we stand today!

Now, Steve. I find it curious that if we accept the WV site qualifies as having sufficient gravitas to pass the Undue Weight threshold you cite, the other claimed Ogham-archaeoastronomy-in-America sites which have garnered media coverage at least an order of magnitude greater should be purged. But I can imagine the reasoning. Isn't it much better for your article's standing in the eyes of archaeology to attack the failures of Barry Fell than to concede any successes? The US Forest Service which protects with an iron gate the lone site on public land of half-a-dozen related archaeoastronomy petroglyphic panel alignments, officially states the Crack Cave petroglyphs "are brilliantly lit for 10-12 minutes soon after sunrise, only to fade until the next Equinox." But success is not something the Fringe archaeoastronomy section intends to broach. Better to confine the discussion to bashing Barry Fell and non-indigenous archaeoastronomy. The more notable examples would only distract from the section's purpose. It just works better that way. When I attempted a stand-alone rebuttal, well, the sysop intervened, calling it non-encylcopaedic.

Yes, the claim is exceptional. The Atlantic article from January 2000 I have repeatedly attempted to cite in quoting David H. Kelley's topical remarks on archaeology's inadequacies w/r/t evaluating astronomy, includes a picture of the Nosepointer Cave immediately next door to the Anubis Cave, both of which have Ogham and equinoctial shadow play alignments that work. CBS News documented Crack Cave and Anubis Cave alignments in March 1987. These finds are notable, far eclipsing the failed WV example you've chosen to exclusively highlight as definitive. I dispute this. The sources, the Atlantic and CBS News, are exceptional. I could include a primary source, McGlone and Leonard 1986 book, but that has been previously excised by you guys, as well. I would trust Wikipedia will deny Good Article status as long as this kind of editing by fiat continues. I'm protesting, but I'm on hiatus from editing; I must in order to have the priviledge of establishing just cause here. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article? Actually Terrible Article

It smacks of open bias. Authors have worshipped at the alter of Ruggles without even identifying in their running narrative who their Deity is. Is Ruggles uniquely qualified to parse what is and what is not archaeoastronomy. Where is the balance?

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."[5] My opinions lie with his that in this ethnically disputed area, "it's right to be very cautious."[6]. 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[7], 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. WP:Point#Gaming_the_system 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. WP:Point#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27 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 - [8]. 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)

Guthrie I know about, and maybe peer review suggested he wasn't an expert on genetics. I know Alice Kehoe thinks the Kensington Runestone is genuine, but what are these articles that were rejected about? Are they in her new book?Doug Weller (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

(undoing indents)

Thanks for the ref to the transcript of the video. I must say, I find the brief soundbites from Mark and Newman not to be convincing evidence of intentionality. Robert Mark only says:

We never know when we look at one of these sites, for sure, that what we’re seeing was intended, but I think this is a fairly convincing site, in terms of the interplay of the sunlight on the petroglyphs.

"A fairly convincing site" is not a strong statement of intentionality. Elizabeth Newman says a bit more:

The light being focused on that area and the petroglyphs being within that area indicates that it most likely was put there with that purpose because of the time of the year and this day being equinox. When the sun was up a little bit after the horizon you could see that it was along the curvature of that one petroglyph, which was also indicative that it was being utilized.

Again we have a fairly subjective discussion of the appearance of the site. There is no comparison with how the appearance changes at other times of the year -- essential to demonstrate the intentionality of a seasonal equinox marker. There is no comparison with what portion of the surface is marked by petroglyphs and what is free of petroglyphs, what portion is marked by a light/shadow interaction at various times of the year and what portion is free of such interactions, essential if we are to know whether such interactions occur by chance.

It's this kind of rigorous analysis of intentionality that rock art sites require and that video presentations are not conducive to. That's one of the reasons academics rely on the written word. Video is a great teaching tool; it is not a good tool for analysis.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I'm not suggesting that breadh2o is tied to whatever Deloria said. The point I wanted to make, clearly badly, was that it was another reference with no relevance to archaeoastronomy. The criticism of the video shows, by its own terms, it's not a reliable source. I have no doubt there's a lot more to the Crack Cave Ogham idea than shown in the video, but we don't have the references for it. If breadh2o can point to reliable sources to support his claims then I'm happy. Alun Salt (talk) 09:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In my third rewrite to contextually balance Fringe Archaeoastronomy, my footnoting of The Diffusionists Have Landed is specifically to cite David H. Kelley's comment on archaeology's natural blindspots w/r/t intangibles such as mythology, astronomy, calendrics. In Steve McCluskey's argument (launched 17 days ago) for archaeology's primacy as an authority to determine what is mainstream archaeoastronomy, and thus, implicitly and pejoratively, what is not, Kelley's remarks are particularly germane and offset an otherwise skewed POV suggestive of an infallibility of authority. Alun Salt has warned me, This is an article on Archaeoastronomy not all that is wrong with North American archaeology and McCluskey has scolded over at WP:NORN#OR_in_Archaeoastronomy.3F Breadh2o tries to push the POV that his bête noir, the archaeologist, can have nothing to do with archaeoastronomy. However, I believe when those who sit in judgment harbor long-standing anti-diffusionism prejudices highlighted in TIME's Who Were The First Americans? and the BBC's Stone Age Columbus - transcript then judges can and rightfully should be judged, as Kelley does in an authoritative, professional and succinct, on-point quote. Kindly avoid over-polarizing my position w/r/t archaeology, OK?

Now, w/r/t Vine Deloria, Jr.'s remarks accompanying Kelley's in the Stengel article for the Atlantic, his comments

There's no effort to ask the tribes what they remember of things that happened. 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.

would seem to be relevant to the context you have set forth in History of archaeoastronomy, to wit, In the New World, anthropologists began to more fully consider the role of astronomy in Amerindian societies. This approach had access to sources that the prehistory of Europe lacks such as ethnographies. It appears, as a scholar, DeLoria has a less-than-flattering opinion about the due diligence or thoroughness of archaeologists and their brethren, anthropologists, to examine certain Native American ethnographies which conflict with the professions' entrenched and demonstrative opposition to all things diffusionist.

I have not yet attempted any insertion of DeLoria into the article, but I think a case could be made along the same logic justifying the Kelley quote. Salt and McCluskey have elected to initialize Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other discliplines and Fringe archaeoastronomy within the article and have populated these with text only they have written (with the exception of the Fringe balance I keep trying to squeeze in edgewise) and citations that establish what it is they want to establish. Some egalitarianism needs to be exhibited by them WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY if their POV is found to be deficient, as I believe it is. To discriminate and exclude relevant context from reliable sources can be indicative of WP:OWN

I think it is not in my best interests to prolong discussion about Crack Cave and Ogham archaeoastronomy in America since it is WP:OR and I have no intent to violate OR prohibitions within the article. I do cite the McClone/Leonard book reference and CBS News report as compare and contrast to the failed companion claim of archaeoastronomy in WV, but it all resides under the Fringe heading, and Steve McCluskey has said he's happy I have kept it there. I've said what I've said about the CO/OK sites in response to direct queries from Weller and McCluskey. To prolong the discussion does not appear, in my opinion, to conform with the spirit of what Discussion is about. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had the sensation of a little bulb turning on in my brain. I think I might be able to see where the misunderstanding is, following this edit. This following is not meant sarcastically, but could be easily read as such. Think of it as an insight to the slowness of my brain.

Because the discussion has been under the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section I thought Breadh2o was referring to fringe archaeoastronomy. This has been the source of my misunderstanding because when Kelley refers to astronomical interpretations pf Ogham being wrong and relying on distortion of data I haven't seen how Breadh2o could argue that Kelley supports fringe archaeoastronomy.

If you read Breadh2o's citations of Kelley as comments about fringe Archaeoastronomy, they make sense, because Kelley is talking about Archaeoastronomy not fringe Archaeoastronomy. It could be germane in the Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines section. This would make sense as Breadh2o is very clear on the need to chastise archaeologists rather than mainstream archaeoastronomers.

Now going back to the Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines I think I can see Breadh2o's point. The section is a justification of Archaeoastronomy's relationship with other disciplines, but mainly Archaeology because that's the best documented. It's only within the past few years that some university Astronomy departments have accepted archaeoastronomy papers as valid research. I don't have a citation for that though which means I can't put it in. Anyway the view archaeoastronomers have from the inside is the need to justify the subject to the other disciplines. From my POV it's banal to point out that your typical Archaeologist or Astronomer isn't an archaeoastronomer, because I run into that on a daily basis. In my position it's as obvious as pointing out Britney Spears isn't an archaeoastronomer. The view of someone who isn't in academia would be different because from the names alone it should be clear we're in the room next door. So pointing out that one reason for mutual incomprehension could be the inadequacies of Astronomers and Archaeologists would be useful.

Would a paragraph on the failure of some astronomers and archaeologists to engage with archaeoastronomy be helpful? I can't place where the Aveni quote on anthropologists being more helpful than astronomers is from, but there's also room for MacKie's "Wise Men in Antiquity", and from Childe and Atkinson on statistics. And of course Kelley.

Alternatively if I still misunderstand Breadh2o then he can clear it up by

• saying exactly where Kelley defends fringe archaeoastronomy.

and

• Giving a verifiable citation where Deloria supports non-Amerindian archaeoastronomy because, as Breadh2o makes clear, archaeoastronomy is not archaeology.

Alun Salt (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there's something of a breakthrough and maybe there isn't. So let me try again to clarify. The Kelley quote I have cited would work either in Fringe archaeoastronomy or Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines. Kelley is pointing out that archaeologists have shortcomings evaluating intangibles, "ideological materials: mythology, astronomy, calendrics". Partly for convenience, partly for courtesy to Alun and Steve, I have kept Kelley's quote in a tidy contiguous packet, segregated from the bulk of what they have authored. There are only 2 places now in the article where my words appear. The relevance of his remarks to archaeoastronomy is this: when archaeologists judge elements of astronomy (to be either mainstream or fringe) it's likely they'll be doing so outside-their-comfort-range. We all know archaeologists live to unearth artifacts! Now when it comes to astronomy suggestive of a non-indigenous origin, as my lead in to the Kelley quote establishes w/r/t the WV and the comparative Ogham archaeoastronomy in CO and OK would suggest, the analysis by archaeologists is to positively IGNORE it (or relegate it to the Fringe dustbin) because it cannot be. Sort of like the story of primitives on the shoreline unable to see arriving ships from the Old World (the invisibility complex) because it is not within their scope of reality. That's how Kelley's quote works seamlessly in Fringe archaeoastronomy. I understand Alun's confusion why I would use Kelley when he is dismissive of the archaeoastronomy claims w/r/t the WV site. My first attempt to bring a different Kelley quote from the Quarterly Review of Archaeology in defense of Ogham in America was wiped. I could try reintroducing that one, as well, but I doubt it would survive. My point is Kelley has said a lot of things about a lot of things...and in the context in which I have placed his quote and what it says, there is nothing being said or implied pro or con w/r/t the WV site in particular. I'm clearly using the quote to explain Kelley believes archaeologists are handicapped in handling astronomy issues (let's call it archaeoastronomy since that's the hybrid term for it). And in the separate, yet preceding portion of my exposition, in the context of a foreign origin, one almost can expect such examples to be clumped in the fringe bucket, as a matter of expediency. That's all. For Alun to misconstrue my use of Kelley as a defense for Fringe archaeoastronomy is yet another example of his WP:POINT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27. Maybe the satisfactory solution would be to rework Kelley as a new and independent paragraph with a lead-in other than, "An American archaeologist actually trained to recognize Old World scripts is University of Calgary Department of Archaeology Professor Emeritus David H. Kelley who believes the dilemma centers on exactly what constitutes acceptable evidence:" perhaps the following, instead: "Archaeoastronomer and epigrapher David H. Kelley, Professor Emeritus of the University of Calgary's Department of Archaeology, suggests those who determine what is fringe archaeoastronomy, may be handicapped when it comes to unfamiliar intangibles unlike the artifacts they unearth and analyze:" Would this help?

Vine Deloria, Jr., on the other hand, questions the ability of archaeologists and anthropologists to neutrally listen to all of what Native Americans have to say about life in America before Columbus. Deloria says his fellow Native Americans claim visitors came through their lands, perhaps even ancestors of the tribes came down the St. Lawrence seaway. (The value of ethnographies was raised in the History section Alun penned, so this has relevance) But to hear the cherry-picked ethnographies maintained institutionally, that's as whitewashed as some people want this article to be. Breadh2o (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

(unindent) Saving countless electrons, here it is in a nutshell: WP:Ownership_of_articles -- Breadh2o (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what the discussion has established. Breadh2o seems to accept that the claims regarding astronomical Ogham have no support from outside the fringe. and that he has no interest in defending Barry Fell. Therefore it would seem reasonable to return to the 22:35 20 March 2008 version of fringe archaeology. If that's agreed then someone can edit that and we can move on to the Metrology section. I won't edit straight away in case breadh2o has something to add, because it's possible I've misunderstood him. Alun Salt (talk) 09:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Alun, I object to yet another attempted reversion of the Fringe Archaeoastronomy section in order to purge it of justified and relevant context, supported by reliable sources including a book, a 1987 CBS News report, contemporary articles in mainstream print and a quote from archaeoastronomer David H. Kelley, essential for fairness and WP:NPOV. You are indefatigable in your crusade to sanitize this section to sanctify archaeology as a primary and infallible judge for what qualifies as mainstream archaeoastronomy. I have just added a justification at the end of Talk:Archaeoastronomy#Fringiness_.28part_2.29 for retention. Furthermore, I propose a parallel justification to include Vine DeLoria Jr. as an offset to what I believe is the myth postulated in History that American archaeologists and anthropologists have fairly examined the body of existing ethnographies in concluding the only archaeoastronomy in the Americas necessarily must have been by the hand of Native Americans. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY is noteworthy. -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:35, 4 April 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)

I'm commenting here based on a notice I saw on the History of Science portal. In my opinion, the relevance of metrology to the history of Archaeoastronomy is not demonstrated in the paragraph provided, and until it is done so, it should not be included. The other elements are clearly relevant and have been demonstrate to be so. There is obviously a long history to this dispute which I cannot possibly go through, but I believe Alunsalt et al are correct in their approach to the article. --Bwwm (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Calling for Closure

This discussion has been going on, in various venues related to the dispute resolution process, for quite some time and we have pretty well reached the point where the same thing is being said over and over again. It is time now to see if we can arrive at consensus. Thus far only a few editors: User:Alunsalt, User:SteveMcCluskey, User:Breadh2o, and User:DougWeller have participated actively in the discussion. In addition, a few other people have commented, [9] [10] and with the exception of Breadh2o all have endorsed the position of Alunsalt and SteveMcCluskey on the editing of the article. Despite this apparent consensus, Breadh2o repeats the same arguments for his unorthodox thesis.

As I read the discussion, Breadh2o stands by himself against the other members of the Wikipdeia community who have expressed their position on these debates. It is time for us to move on and resume editing the article in a productive fashion in accordance with the consensus expressed here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

From WP:RfC: "RfCs are not votes. Try to have a discussion, rather than a "yes/no" segregation." I have had discussions with Doug Weller which I feel have been constructive for both of us. Breadh2o (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion Breadh2o refers to has not been about Archaeoastronomy nor the topic of the RfC. In fact discussion of the RfC has returned to familiar ground. Once again he is citing articles on Metrology and the Solutrean hypothesis which have already been dismissed - and this has been accepted by every editor who's commented since the RfC opened. I think it's reasonable to ask again What does consensus look like? I'm not sure what Breadh2o is aiming to achieve. As the tone of the RfC seems is about two editors it is possible he's confused an RfC with a Wikiquette alert or a Request for Arbitration. Closing the RfC will not prevent Breadh2o from discussing Ogham or anything else with anyone.

I have avoided editing the article while the RfC has been open, to allow other editors to see the disputed sections. Following the responses and Breadh2o's failure to provide anything new to support his claims I can't see any reason for this to continue. Unless Breadh2o has a compelling reason I'll start editing the article again shortly. Alun Salt (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

My minority opinion questioning archaeology's impartiality in distinguishing mainstream archaeoastronomy from fringe is relevant to the Fringe section Steve McCluskey established only 3 weeks ago. However, McCluskey thinks dissent must be swept into the dustbin of deletions for any number of scholastic reasons; after all, it's just my "unorthodox thesis". "Unorthodox" perhaps within provincial, mainstream archaeology which also sweeps evidence of diffusionism into the dustbin. However TIME magazine and The Atlantic have blown the whistle on archaeology's and anthropology's thick-headedness, as has the University of Calgary's professor emeritus of Archaeology David H. Kelley. Invariably, McCluskey turns a deaf ear on all of this and decides Wikipedia readers must not hear about this inconvenient truth. Alun Salt persists in his characteristic mischaracterization of The battle of the standards: great pyramid metrology and British identity, 1859-1890 as nothing more than an article about Metrology, a simplistic and irrational interpretation as anyone who actually reads the article with comprehension soon discovers. It covers a contentious and formative era in British academia that reformed and modernized astronomy. But you would not know about if you trusted Alun's superficial description. Just like Alun doesn't want Wikipedia readers to grasp any of the context when he resumes his editing. First on the list will be to sanitize the History section eliminating this important key to the origins of archaeoastronomy, antiquarianism, which even the WP article on archaeology acknowledges was the fore-runner to modern archaeology. Alun has telegraphed his intent to delete it and Steve wants to similarly excise my balance in the Fringe section. Alun also chooses to superficially describe the essence of the BBC Horizon's Stone Age Columbus transcript as merely --- his words, "the Solutrean hypothesis" --- because that masks the embarrassing quotes it contains from Smithsonian chief archaeologist Dennis Stanford about the institutional intimidation within the tight brotherhood of archaeologists when any renegade member dares to dig below the Clovis layer for the truth about ancient diffusionism. When he's done with Round One of his intended edits, the archaeoastronomy article will be sanitized again, its sole authorship restored exclusively to the Salt/McCluskey tag team, which will defend it's integrity against any suggestion institutional archaeology may not be infallible. And, by persisting in a pattern of mischaracterization of the sources I cite, the ignorance they prefer to maintain, and the spin they want to present free of minority perspective, they will have prevailed in accomplishing their holy grail, except it violates WP:OWN. Yes, Alun, I object to your sanitizing history and yes, Steve, I object to your sanctification of archaeology. Readers deserve better than the distorted perspective you'll present, if left unchecked. Breadh2o (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Breadh2o, if you have an example of pre-Clovis archaeoastronomy it might be relevant. This is an article about archaeoastronomy, not archaeology.

I've done some minor edits, like correcting the Eogan reference which has been sat here for while. To address Breadh2o's concerns when I edit the history section I'll just use sources from archaeoastronomical publications. Alun Salt (talk) 07:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the WV discussion from Fringe archaeoastronomy as it is fundamentally unfair of the exclusive authors of this article to attack without permitting context and balance to stand. To restore only the authors' possessive perspective and exclude mine in minority opposition would constitute a clear violation of WP:OWN.

As far as Alun's conclusion that consensus has been reached on my RfC, I might interpret things a bit differently, as Alun is fond of doing when it comes to mischaracterizing my references. Only Doug Weller engaged in a discussion, and he pretty much only engaged with me. Doug actually aligned himself with Alun and Steve over at WP:NORN, not technically here in the Discussion. The other two were drive-bys that did not engage. The German Wandalstouring seemed ambiguous and did not specifically declare for Alun and Steve, saying only, "In my opinion the article is doing fine. It's not ready for FA class, but the approach is OK" and the other Bwwm may well have been a sock puppet as his activity log shows he started on Wikipedia the same day I filed the RfC. And 3 responses, two of them questionable, is not a very good showing in half a month. So you have Doug Weller versus the Sunday vandal who clearly did not care much for Alun and Steve's self-serving authorship. That, of course was deleted. I think, if you're keeping score at home, the score is 1 to 1, not a consensus. Breadh2o (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOUP The references are verifiable and relevant to archaeoastronomy, which is the subject of the article. More can be added. Alun Salt (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess the irony is lost on you re: WP:SOUP and WP:TE when you restore your side's exclusive POV and concurrently delete minority opinion balance in taking the steps you have unilaterally chosen this morning, without official consensus. WP:POINT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27 is just as disruptive according to Wikipedia. And you have never chosen to get my points. Obfuscation is wonderful. Breadh2o (talk) 11:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of irony, to accuse others of refusing to get the point, which involves "sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error." and tendentious editing which involves "accusing or suspecting other editors of 'suppressing information', 'censorship' or 'denying facts'", when this seems a perfect description of Breadh2o's repetitious criticism of attempts to remove irrelevant and/or unsupported materials from this article, is truly ironic. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You would be correct if what I have contributed was irrelevant. But the two tiny contributions of mine wiped clean this morning were relevant. You and Alun have been on this crusade for weeks and I have met every challenge you've thrown in my path. But you judge none as sufficient. You keep resetting the height of the bar to the standards you alone determine. Everything I have included, everything taken away today, had multiple supporting, verifiable and reliable sources. Everything. It just never met the arbitrary standards for your Magnus Opus' POV, therefore it's gone. Decision of the authors who unilaterally assert ownership of this article and this forum is final. How can scientists who cling to such narrow perspectives and refuse to tolerate dissent be trusted with communicating the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? It's a fair question to ask today. Breadh2o (talk) 13:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The citations I provided in the history section were all from archaeoastronomical publications where someone explicitly said 'X was the first archaeastronomer', or similar. The best you've come up with in the history section is a historian talking about astronomers speculating on metrology. You've been asked for evidence that someone is talking about the history of archaeoastronomy, but haven't provided a reference. You've said there wasn't consensus about who was the first archaeoastronomer, but you haven't provided a single reliable reference to back that up either. I've added two. Clearly I've been listening to you.

As for Ogham claims, you've been asked for evidence of pre-Clovis archaeoastronomy to show the link is relevant and ignored it. The idea that the two aren't connected isn't just the opinion of Steve and myself. The link between Ogham-in-America and pre-Clovis material was called 'preposterous' by you. Yet we're back to it again. You don't even seem to be listening to yourself. Is it possible that a reason why people referencing the archaeoastronomical literature disagree with you is that you could be wrong?

The ad hominems are now tedious. Give them a rest. Alun Salt (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ogham-in-America reference has now been restored with the Barry Fell bashing that Steve had agreed previously to remove to avoid my inclusion of a companion defense. Now, the attack is back. My context has been trashed, as I predicted it would. Makes my point. You only want readers to grasp what it is you present as authorities. What true scientist filters unfavorable data to skew experimental outcomes? Breadh2o (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA Alun Salt (talk) 15:24, 9 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: [11] "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)

Reliable Sources

While working on another project I came across the discussion of Science article in the popular press in Reliable source examples. It makes some good points:

Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They may emphasize the most extreme possible outcomes mentioned in a research project and gloss over caveats and uncertainties.... Also, newspapers and magazines sometimes publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report details of the methodology that was used, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not the best sources for scientific and medical results, especially in comparison to the academic literature.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Which certainly matches my experience of dealing with archaeology news.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. WP:RS addresses the reliability of specific source types. The Scholarship sub-section states: "Many Wikipedia articles rely upon source material created by scientists, scholars, and researchers. This is usually considered reliable, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories." Reliability of specific source types next discusses News organizations: "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. When citing opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines, in-text attribution should be used if the material is contentious."

USC Professor of History Eric Reisenauer's article published by the University of Michigan Press is clearly scholarship. TIME, the BBC, CBS News, and The Atlantic all represent the high-quality end of the mainstream news organizations market. As Clive Ruggles and David H. Kelley are professors emeriti with standing in the field of archaeoastronomy, I don't believe a citation of Ruggles' book can be interpreted as a comparatively stronger reference than a periodical's quote from Kelley. Let's agree for the sake of argument that the points each make have equivalent merit.

I will offer to reformat the contentious material from News organizations as in-text attribution rather than footnotes to comply with WP style recommendations, of which I was unaware until today. Shall I do so? But if your point is that perhaps journalism references do not have the gravitas of scholarly references, I believe WP policy contradicts such an opinion. Further, if you are advocating the excision from the archaeoastronomy article references from news organization because they are somehow less reliable than strictly scholarly references you have chosen (perhaps motivated by the prospect of earning Good Article status for what you and Alun have composed by yourselves up to now), may I suggest you review WP:IMPERFECT?

I imagine the reason why WP welcomes News organization citations while placing some conditions on the reliability of scholarly citations is that journalism, as the fifth estate, is a check-and-balance on the universe of people, events and ideas it is expected to examine. Sometimes, organizations and groups (whether political, academic, social or intellectual) can trend toward insular or provincial, not seeing the forest for the trees. This manifests as institutional myopia, reading too much of one's own press releases or sticking to what may appear internally as sacred ground rules, but which may appear to the outside world as internalized dogma. I believe archaeology's monomania to have authority and control over a range of subjects (one being archaeoastronomy and another being pre-Clovis theories and their possible implications for Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact) is a very good reason to heed what's being reported in 21st century mainstream media about this matter. Breadh2o (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We've both been quoting various subsidiary essays and guidelines. Let's go to the authoritative source, the policy statement Wikipedia:Verifiability, which has this to say:

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications....

The policy considers journalistic sources acceptable in academic fields, but unambiguously describes peer-reviewed publications as "usually the most reliable sources". --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One would not normally expect a peer-reviewed journal or conclave to be critical of widely held tenets of the institution it serves. By and large, members of the archaeological and anthrpological communities dismiss as an institution the viability of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact. To frame the dispute realistically requires verifiable third party sources, otherwise, were we to restrict the discussion to peer-review, academic articles and books, the article would be silent on the matter and the reader left uninformed. I have cited reliable sources with established track records of fact-checking and verifiability from the high-end of the new organizations market. If I could put my hands on an archaeological journal critical of archaeological dogma, I'd do it, but none exist to my knowledge. Breadh2o (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it a reasonable inference from your discussion that "peer-review, academic articles and books" are silent on your position regarding trans-oceanic contact? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's what I know: Guthrie and Kehoe submitted articles to peer-reviewed archaeology journals with evidence hypothesizing diffusionism. The journals refused publication. I've been told in discussion that Stanford has cleared the hurdle and gotten his Solutrean hypothesis published, but Doug Weller says it's not catching on. To answer your question, no, it is not a reasonable inference. I don't know of the existence of any archaeological peer review consensus favoring diffusionism, except for acknowledgement of L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland, and I believe there was reference earlier to a possible mid-Atlantic landfall just ahead of Columbus, but I cannot pinpoint it. Do you know of anything peer-reviewed supportive of pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact outside these? Would love to hear about it.

On the matter of your latest citation from WP:V#Reliable_sources I note the chosen qualifier for most reliable sources is usually not always. Here's a good exception to the rule, I think. Judges can be blind to their own biases, or, if recognizing a bias, recuse themselves from comment and leave it up to others in a neutral position to divine the truth. In this case, the fifth estate can serve as an authority. I don't know if WP's listing of most reliable sources is necessarily intended to be prioritized or ranked by the order mentioned. In any case, my citations meet and exceed sufficiency and should not be subject to removal simply because you might not think them to be up to the seemingly high standards you apparently want to apply. I don't know why we have to set the bar so high when somebody tries to get a word in edgewise to improve the article you guys have authored and seem so protective of.

Pardon me if I'm a bit suspicious, but I get the sense from your direction in this thread that you have a gem of a peer-review piece blasting diffusionism and particularly pre-Columbian trans-Atlantic contact inside-out. Your question appears to seek a concession. It would then follow, with adherence to the argument you have constructed thus far that anything peer-reviewed must accordingly trump the 5th estate. You'd have the ammunition to shoot down any lesser-reliable source with the unveiling of this gem, right? It may well backfire given the prologue established that archaeology sitting in supreme judgment, with a dog in this fight, may not be the impartial and infallible institution it purports to be. Is there such a declaratory article waiting in the wings? Breadh2o (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We don't know why those articles were turned down. It could be archaeological dogma, or some other conspiracy to hide the truth. Or it could just be they weren't very good. It's not really a concern here, this isn't the place to discuss the injustices of peer-review. If, as you say, there's no discussion of this in the peer-reviewed literature then it's not notable under WP:FRINGE and we can move on. Alun Salt (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The citations from mainstream media, TIME, the BBC, CBS News and The Atlantic demonstrate that diffusionism and archaeology's resistance to evidence of diffusionism have achieved WP:N, unmistakably. Breadh2o (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The absence of citations in peer reviewed literature is a strong indication of lack of notability of "archaeology's resistance to diffusionism." Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that that topic were notable, it would most properly belong in an article on archaeology or diffusionism or perhaps even on pseudoarchaeology. Placing it in an article on the interdisciplinary subject of archaeoastronomy seems like an attempt to use the archaeoastronomy article as a coatrack to present another dispute. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that assertion is Alun suggested and you followed through with an initialization of the topic of Fringe Archaeoastronomy within the larger article. For you to then arbitrarily wish to exclude minority POV that have verifiable sourcing and qualify as notable on the subject you have elected to highlight, is indicative of WP:OWN. Furthermore, WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:IMPERFECT apply, as I have previously mentioned. Breadh2o (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffusionism isn't Archaeoastronomy. Would the Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact entry be more suitable? Alun Salt (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My discussion of diffusionism within the archaeoastronomy article is thus: archaeology's myopia about a thorny issue (entrenched opposition to said diffusionism) as it relates to the impartiality of the institution's judgment w/r/t what distinguishes mainstream vs. fringe archaeoastronomy. I keep trying to find ways to communicate that my contributions are intended to neutralize POV, not to push for my beliefs. There's popular media that supports some of what I am saying. You disagree. OK? But I am going to fight what I consider to be the dual edged sword of your sanitizing the article OR asserting exclusive ownership of the article. For you to characterize my efforts as pushing diffusionism as a subject alone into the archaeoastronomy article, is as superficial as claiming Reisenauer's article is about nothing more than pyramid metrology. I really wish I could help you understand the distinctions, but you revert to superficiality. WP:POINT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27 I've tried my best to clarify my stand here as trying to help, not hurt, the article. I'm afraid your inability to appreciate the distinctions and justifications I have attempted to make in assorted different ways, is exhausting my ability to accomplish a real breakthrough in understanding. Regardless of what I say, it's not good enough or doesn't reach you. I'm sorry. I've done all I can. Breadh2o (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note, WP:Coatrack is no more than a controversial essay, as the essay template at the top of WP:Coatrack states: "Heed them or not at your own discretion." On the other hand, Wikipedia:Content forking, a content guideline, states:

"Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing."

Wikipedia:Content forking essential nulifies WP:Coatrack. travb (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Metrology is not Archaeoastronomy

The latest edits by Breadh2o once again repeat his claim that the study of the metrology of the Great Pyramid has something to do with archaeoastronomy, tracing that tradition back to Oxford astronomer John Greaves's Great Pyramid surveys. A recently published study of Greaves's work makes it clear that his surveys were concerned with dimensions and had nothing to do with astronomy.

Thus the Great Pyramid was but one of many similar massive stone structures which in Greaves’s view served as everlasting metrological standards. It is impossible therefore to recruit Greaves into the militias of modern Pyramid devotees, as some of them, and of their critics, have gladly done. Peter Tompkins, a spy turned guru, had argued that Greaves “hoped to find in the Great Pyramid a datum that might help to establish the dimensions of the planet” and that he brought instruments “for obtaining the declination and right ascension of the stars above it.”⁵⁴ Daniel Boorstin, in a popular essay on the history of Western pyramidomania, also claimed that Greaves sought clues in the Pyramid for the precise dimensions of the Earth.⁵⁵

Unfortunately for both Tompkins and Boorstin, nothing of the sort is to be found in the pages of the Pyramidographia. It seems that Greaves consciously avoided placing his study in any astronomical-astrological context. For example, he explicitly discounted Proclus’s argument (in his commentary on Plato’s Timaeus) that the Egyptian priests were making astronomical observations atop the pyramids (73).

...Yet the Pyramidographia is indeed innocent of any astronomical, geodetic, let alone Hermetic elements. Greaves’s technique of standardization could have functioned, in principle, on any random stone slab.⁵⁸

⁵⁴ Peter Tompkins with Livio C. Stecchini, Secrets of the Great Pyramid (New York, 1971), 21, 24.

⁵⁵ Daniel J. Boorstin, “Afterlives of the Great Pyramid,” Wilson Quarterly, 16 (1992), 130-39; and see Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science (New York, 1957).

...

⁵⁸ The anonymous work, based on Greaves’s Pyramidographia, The Origine and Antiquity of Our English Weights and Measures: Discover’d by Their near Agreement with Such Standards That Are Now Found in One of the Egyptian Pyramides (London, 1706), and its 1727 and 1745 subsequent editions is wrongly attributed to him.

(Shalev, Zur, "Measurer of All Things: John Greaves (1602-1652), the Great Pyramid, and Early Modern Metrology", Journal of the History of Ideas - Volume 63, Number 4, October 2002, pp. 555-575, quotation at pp. 572-3)

There are earlier precursors of archaeoastronomy, but John Greaves is not one of them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • I agree. I'll add that having a quote about the pyramids being used for observation is ridiculous. Maybe in an article about the history of knowledge about the pyramids, but not here where it looked as though it might be fact.Doug Weller (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It would help me if you listed the specific factual inaccuracies within my lead paragraph deleted by Alun today in the History of archaeoastronomy section. To continue the implication Reisenauer's article is merely about metrology is a claim I have effectively discreditted. WP:POINT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27 However, this does not prevent regurgitation of a lame and superficially-phrased broadside each time I attempt to get a word in edgewise about the social climate and scientific preamble that fostered new fields such as archaeoastronomy.

A couple weeks ago I expressed an opinion that narrative style really ought to trump maximum footnote count in content creation for Wikipedia. When Alun restored his version of History this morning, readers were left with a string of dull prose, i.e. the term was first used by somebody at someone else's suggestion - footnote - another guy - footnote - said somebody - internal link - was the first - a fifth guy - footnote - said a sixth guy - internal link - was the father - the second guy cited above - footnote for his quote - says an seventh guy scored as first archaeoastronomer. Readers, understandably, are confused by competing academic claims and have absolutely NO contextual preamble to what may have led to the spontaneous genesis of archaeoastronomy. But the footnote count is fabulous!

My preamble, rubbed out by Alun except for my first sentence now restored by Steve, second-guessing his collaborator, would have filled a glaring contextual hole you could drive an archaeological front-loader through, referencing an incisive secondary source by an historian and a primary source who broke with the delusional astronomer Piazzi Smyth and his ilk to actually advance the science of astronomy. And when Proctor quotes Proclus, this is extremely relevant to the article, Greaves discounting Proclus notwithstanding. I find a double-standard in the critique above when Greaves is lauded here, but claimed as irrelevant there for not having the foresight to perform archaeoastronomy when he traveled to Egypt in 1637 to survey the pyramids. Look, I understand that raising the specter of pyramid metrology is a burr in the saddle of academics who are intent on not only achieving Good Article status here, but also want to distance themselves in 2008 from anything smacking of psuedoscience way back when. That's always a problem when you're dealing with history, Steve, as you of all people should know. We like our versions sanitized, vindicating the high standards modernity sets for science. Unfortunately, chemistry has to admit there was a tradition of alchemy in its past. And astronomers in Britain from Greaves to Piazzi Smyth to Proctor, and yes, even Lockyer, were interested in Egyptian monuments, some of them even obsessed. Trying to whitewash history with selective deletions is a disservice to readers, no matter what excuse is used, superficially or otherwise to justify it. Just as telling only your side of the Ogham-in-America controversy and leaving companion claims in Oklahoma and Colorado out of the mix. That is not scientific impartiality. That amounts to editing with a point-of-view. -- Breadh2o (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I was glad to use your opening sentence, as it raised the point that Michell was of the opinion that archaeoastronomy went back 200 years. Checking his book I found the the figure he pointed to was Stukeley.

As I've said several times before, there were many precursors of archaeoastronomy. The problem with your introductory essay was that it selected one of them and advanced the view that the students of the pyramids were the force behind archaeoastronomy. This lack of balance is a clear example of POV pushing. Since many of the precursors were antiquarians (proto archaeologists), their appearance reflects the complex interdisciplinary nature of archaeoastronomy then and now.

Anyone who's read Lockyer will soon become aware that he studied the orientation of the pyramids and Stonehenge and churches. If you would be willing to find the documentation to support the idea that Proctor (or someone else) investigated the astronomical principles underlying the pyramids, that would clearly deserve mention as one of the precursors of archaeoastronomy. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Where exactly in my prelude does it suggest, as you claim, the students of the pyramids were the force behind archaeoastronomy? I also note with interest that you continue to re-fashion my opening line (pirated and restored) to slant things just a bit. Now it reads there were no professional archaeologists two centuries ago. The History section of the WP archaeology article states, thus,

It was only in the 19th century that the systematic study of the past through its physical remains began to be carried out. A notable early development was the founding in Rome in 1829, by Eduard Gerhard and others, of the Institute for Archaeological Correspondence (Instituto di corrispondenza archeologica or Institut für archäologische Korrespondenz).

Professional or otherwise, there were no archaeologists around then. Subtle, but telling, when it comes to presenting a POV. As stated in my original sentence, we're talking 1777 because Michell's quote in the book cited by Bostwick was originally published in 1977, last reprinted in 2001. Bostwick, BTW, makes the chronological error of claiming Michell made his remarks just 2 decades ago in his 2006 citation. Actually, closer to 3. And, by the way, you're welcome. Breadh2o (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA WP:OWN Alun Salt (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

ditto, my sentiments precisely. I call 'em as I see 'em. And I'm the one that keeps getting squelched by you guys! -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions by User:Breadh2o

OK, Breadh2o. You didn't respond to my explanation on your talk page, and seem intent on revert-warring without any discussion: [12], avoiding the issue (unencyclopedic tone, POV issues) in your edit summaries. So I'm bringing it here for the group to take on. Breadh2o just added a long section that, while adding some sources, is unencyclopedic in tone and is more of an essay. Look it over and see what you all think. I have no desire to revert-war on this, but B, it's not acceptable in the form it's in, and others shouldn't have to rewrite it for you. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

History of... quote

The John Michell quote at the beginning of that section and the following explanation is very confusing, because no date is given but the text refers to two hundred years before the quote was made. Is that quote from this John Michell? The footnote gives a 2006 reference and the subsequent discussion is about people more than 200 years earlier than now, but considerably less than 200 years earlier than Michell.--ragesoss (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually Bostwick who is quoting Michell. It may have made more sense when the history started with Nissen ~150 year ago, but even then it wasn't perfect and with the updates it has got even more confusing. It's probably time to change the quote. Most of the time writing this entry has been spent looking for an alternative. There's

It is interesting to note that archaeoastronomy developed largely because of the interest and work of people outside the social sciences. (Sinclair 2006:17)

...though I should point out I could be biased as I'm currently employed by a department of astronomy :) Perhaps Michell has something better? I'll also add that I was lacking imagination when I put the quote up for Major topics of archaeoastronomical research. I'm sure there's something better than that.

I'm also wondering if the curly quotes template would be better for the quotes. Alun Salt (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, the text should clearly identify the date of both the Michell quote and the Bostwick quote, and be explicit that the overall quote is of Bostwick (i.e., in the text and not just the footnote). It seems like a good quote for introducing the topic (although it would be fine without it), but it needs to be contextualized better.--ragesoss (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've added attributions in brackets at the end of each quote. Hopefully that makes things a bit clearer. Alun Salt (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Query about external link

http://www.iol.ie/~geniet/eng/aarde.htm is a personal website, and it was added by the author see [13] - unless this guy is a well known expert, it fails the criteria for external links, let alone other problems. Comments?--Doug Weller (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The web site is hosted by Victor Reijs, who is a serious amateur in archaeoastronomy. He mainly approaches it from the quantitative perspective, typical of the older "green archaeoastronomy", but his site is serious and links to other serious sites. I'd be willing to keep it despite the problems you mention. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV and balance

I am replying here to a discussion that began at User talk:Breadh2o#April 2008.

Breadh2o argues that NPOV is achieved merely by some kind of quantitative balance, requiring that the article include a critique of the "bias and dogma ruling archaeology today." That is not what NPOV means; it requires treating alternative points of view impartially and with respect. A good example of how that is done is the article on Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, which deals with the evidence for the Norse settlements at L'Anse aux Meadows and at the Kensington Rune Stone in Minnesota, the claims that Olmec statues have African features, the claimed Ogham inscriptions in the Virginias and elsewhere in America, and many others. Significantly, at no point in this article do we find attacks on the biases of the academic establishments that challenge these claims. Rather we have a balanced presentation of the evidence pro and con. It is that kind of balance -- that kind of NPOV -- that we are trying to achieve in dealing with Archaeoastronomy in this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The above significantly mischaracterizes my efforts. Here's the sentence, not just the predicate, in context: "Anyone reading the TIME or the Atlantic article understands there's bias and dogma ruling archaeology today." Here's what I am on record seeking: "Let me clarify what I want and expect: fairness and balance." The article written by McCluskey and Salt posits that archaeology is the primary authority in granting authenticity to archaeoastronomy raising this point as a legitimate issue to address from the standpoint of minority opinion if that opinion arises from more than a tiny minority, can be substantiated as notable, and has verifiable and reliable sourcing. The article written by Salt and McCluskey also attacks claims of Ogham-archaeoastronomy-in-America but chooses to limit the attack, which includes their attack on Barry Fell's linguistics, to only the narrowest and poorest example, excluding discussion they don't want readers to consider. They choose to define their issues. They choose to restrict where those issues naturally lead. I think a 3 to 5% set aside in the article to present balance on these subjects is reasonable and proportional. They prefer zero tolerance for that with which they disagree. -- Breadh2o (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My point is simple; articles on disputed issues do not achieve NPOV by claiming that one side is ruled by "bias and dogma." Thus materials concerning the concept that "there's bias and dogma ruling archaeology today" have no place in this article.

You continually refuse to get the point (ironically, this is something you have commonly accused me and Alun of). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the link you gave to support your claim that Alun and I posit the view that "archaeology is the primary authority in granting authenticity to archaeoastronomy." The link points to a section that does not support such a monolithic view but instead discusses the contributions of a wide range of disciplines to archaeoastronomy, including archaeology, cultural anthropology, history, including the history of specific regions and periods, the history of science and the history of religion, the relations of astronomy to art, literature and religion, and astronomy. Please read your sources carefully before you make claims from them. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the section Archaeoastronomy and its relations to other disciplines differently I suppose. The early footnotes all support archaeology's dominance over astronomy as authoritative on this field. There's a smattering of other claims from art history to the history of science, but the thrust (with one paragraph devoted exclusively to how archaeology views its role in the subject) seems undeniable that archaeology asserts its supremacy here. Even the WP article on archaeology claims archaeoastronomy to be a "branch" of its domain. Let's not quibble about this. I think archaeology believes itself to be of controlling authority. This is fair game for dispute from a minority stance, especially given professor emeritus of archaeology David H. Kelley's insights on its shortcomings,

The problem is in the fact that there are influences, but they don't show up in 'dirt archaeology.' Basically, they show up in ideological materials: mythology, astronomy, calendrics. These are precisely the areas which are hardest to deal with archaeologically. And so they don't get much attention from traditional archaeologists.

which has been purged repeatedly from the article.

When a discipline such as archaeology has the reputation to resist and reject evidence on the basis of a bias, then, particularly when we are dealing with archaeoastronomy that appears non-indigenous and, is thus contrary to core beliefs of the institution, this qualifies as notable and relevant within the context of the archaeoastronomy article. There's no wiggle room here. It is relevant and pertinent to this topic. -- Breadh2o (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding SteveMcCluskey's views on archaeological dominance of archaeoastronomy this quote may be helpful: 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. I read that as suggesting that Steve McCluskey doesn't think that archaeoastronomy is purely archaeological.

As for the footnotes, the relevant notes in the current version are 36-54. Of these just footnote 40, Paul Bahn, is from an archaeological publication. If you look through the references you'll find that they tend to be from archaeoastronomical publications. Alun Salt (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes I noted Steve's advice to tone down stronger assertions to said claim in your first draft mid-March. But the general position remains, no other discipline or field rivals archaeology's (or its parent science, anthropology's) primary authority over archaeoastronomy. I don't believe that's my misreading the general thrust.

The discussion also examined the relative number of papers written by specialists, putting archaeologists on top of the heap in terms of page count. Look, I understand you don't perceive the "bias and dogma" TIME, the Atlantic and, from an intimidation standpoint, the BBC transcript reveal within archaeology. But the Fifth Estate has spotlighted what true-believers within the club won't acknowledge. It's human nature. But in writing the best article on archaeoastronomy, we should all accept best scientific practices, should we not? If there's something that colors results, i.e. limiting examinations of Ogham-archaeoastronomy-in-America to only obvious failures, then is science being true to its nature. If we refuse to note how the warts of archaeology may impact consideration of certain evidence, is that being scientific? No, I say, it is not. Knowing the control factors and an appreciation for all data points is a far better approach -- Breadh2o (talk) 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Archaeoastronomy is now at Peer-review

I've put up a PR request for feedback on the article. Hopefully this will generate more comments on the article and help with the FA application. I think it's too late to aim for the article to be FA on June 21, but perhaps Sept 21 or Dec 21 are feasible. Alun Salt (talk) 09:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How is the orientation measured?

I think this should be a chapter or an own article because this is the greatest problem for most archaeologists or enthusiasts.

• Do I look directly into the sun with the theodolite (won't this hurt the eyes?).
• How do I calculate based on the data I derived with a theodolite or compass.
• What's the average error of measurements? What does this mean for interpretations?

Thank you Wandalstouring (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. There are brief mentions of measurement techniques in the section on Alignments but perhaps it wasn't where you expected to find it or didn't provide sufficient details.

Detailed procedures of observational and computational technique opens a whole range of mathematical, astronomical, and statistical details, probably calling for something outside this article -- perhaps an article on archaeoastronomical method and practice.

There may be more general interest in the question of the error of modern researchers' measurements and the related one of the precision that could be attained by early observers in laying out their orientations. That later issue has been somewhat controversial, but the consensus seems to be that repeated observations can produce alignments with a precision of a fraction of the Sun's diameter while individual observations are less precise because of day to day variations of atmospheric refraction. I notice the terms accuracy and precision do pop up from time to time, so some general discussion of the kind of precision we're dealing with could probably be fit into the current article with careful work.

I'd appreciate your comments on these ideas. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been excavating and had to find out that many archaeologists understanding of measuring instruments is rather limited. The section on alignment is quite clear, but not enough for someone who wants to work on the field. Since the information on measuring techniques is not easily derived from literature about archaeoastronomy I would support an article that explains the measurements, calculations, errors and provides citations of reputable sources (very useful because wikipedia usually can't be used directly as a source). Thanks a lot. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Wandelstouring's comments are significant, because there is an awkward paradox associated with measuring techniques at those particular archaeological sites which are supposed to have been used for the measurement of astronomical alignments on the horizon.

The problem is that it is more difficult to make consistent observations of celestial bodies when they are on the horizon

(e.g. more reliable data could be obtained by measuring the same bodies at their meridional altitudes.)

If there were knowledgeable astronomers in pre-history, it raises the question - why would they allocate considerable resources for the construction of observation sites which had such notable disadvantages? sgn. J.Fowler

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.150.29 (talk) 09:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)