Jump to content

Talk:Amnya complex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 02:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Generalissima (talk). Self-nominated at 16:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Amnya complex; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.
Overall: Excellent article and interesting hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. sawyer * he/they * talk 18:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Amnya complex/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sawyer-mcdonell (talk · contribs) 03:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Opening comments - looks like a super interesting topic; I've been enjoying following your progress on it. Excited to dive into it! sawyer * he/they * talk 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sawyer-mcdonell: Made changes as requested. :3 Generalissima (talk) 15:44, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Generalissima looks great! Happy to pass this :3 sawyer * he/they * talk 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Perhaps explain what the "incised" and "comb stamp" ornamental traditions are, since they don't have articles
Resolved
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Not violations of MOS at all, but I think the archaeology, history, and background sections could probably be merged, perhaps into one 'history' section with subsections? Let me know what you think.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Can't access or read some of the sources, but I did spot-checks with the accessible sources and it looks good to me! (Note for anyone else reading this: I asked off-wiki & the Russian sources were translated by some Russophone friends)
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. The background could be a bit more in-depth I think; pp. 1384-1385 of the Piezonka et al. source has some interesting information about Siberian ancient fortifications that could be good to include.
Resolved
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Nothing too technical or overly-detailed, which is easy to accidentally run into with archaeological topics :)
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Awesome that you found all those CC pictures, really got lucky :)
7. Overall assessment. Awesome work. Very interesting read !!!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The oldest known fortification in the world?

[edit]
tl;dr: I've suggested new wording for the article which changes one of its claims

Hi folks, I think we need to take a look at the claim that Amnya I is the oldest fort in the world. At approximately 8,000 years old it is certainly towards that end of the scale and it is an eye-catching claim. I'll go into the situation in a bit more detail below.

What does the article say

The article contains the following two claims:

Amnya I is the oldest known fortified settlement.

In the lead, no reference given due to WP:LEADCITE and as its a summary of the next bit...

As well as the oldest known settlement of Northern Eurasia, the Amnya I fortification is the oldest fort discovered anywhere in the world, and the northernmost Stone Age fort.

In the 'Archaeology' section and referenced to two sources:

Nalewicki, Jennifer (December 19, 2023). "World's oldest known fort was constructed by hunter-gatherers 8,000 years ago in Siberia". LiveScience. Retrieved February 11, 2024.
Borzunov, V.A. (2020). Древние укрепления лесной полосы Урала и Западной Сибири. Т. 1 : Неолит и энеолит [Ancient forts of the forest zone of the Urals and western Siberia. Volume 1: Neolithic and Eneolitic] (in Russian). Yekaterinburg: Izdatel'stvo Ural'skogo universiteta. ISBN 978-5-7996-3058-4.

What do the sources say

I don't have access to the Borzunov source, but the LiveScience piece is available online. The headline mentions that the site is the World's oldest known fort and the claim is also found in the body of the article: Hunter-gatherers built the oldest known fort in the world about 8,000 years ago in Siberia, a new study finds.

The LiveScience article is essentially a summary of the research published in Antiquity, but the claim that Amnya is the oldest known fort in the world doesn't reflect what the paper in Antiquity says. Its conclusion states

The enclosed hunter-gatherer settlement of Amnya in the west Siberian taiga is one of the oldest-known fortified habitation sites in the world. (emphasis added)

That dilutes the claim a bit. The Antiquity paper has gone through peer review, while a quote for a press release has the purpose of grabbing your attention.

It's worth noting that the press release about the research includes a quote from Tanja Schreiber, one of the authors of the paper, "Through detailed archaeological examinations at Amnya, we collected samples for radiocarbon dating, confirming the prehistoric age of the site and establishing it as the world's oldest-known fort" (emphasis added)

Despite that, I think we should follow what the article in Antiquity says on this. Does Borzunov address the claim?

A new wording

It is certainly significant that Amnya I is amongst the oldest known fortified habitation sites, but stating that it "is the oldest known fortified settlement" or "oldest fort discovered anywhere in the world" goes beyond what the Antiquity paper says. There is also the issue that Jericho (Tell es-Sultan) may have fortifications that date from the 9th/8th millennium BC, which would clash with the claim in this article.

For the lead and the main body of the article I suggest shared wording that reflects the Antiquity article.

Amnya I is the oldest known fortified settlement, as well as the northernmost Stone Age fort
would become
Amnya I is one of the oldest known fortified settlements, as well as the northernmost Stone Age fort.
and
As well as the oldest known settlement of Northern Eurasia, the Amnya I fortification is the oldest fort discovered anywhere in the world, and the northernmost Stone Age fort.
would become
As well as the oldest known settlement of Northern Eurasia, the Amnya I fortification is one of the oldest known fortified settlements in the world, and the northernmost Stone Age fort.

The issue with dealing in absolutes such a x is the oldest y is that you need to litigate what counts and what doesn't count. The issue of whether Amnya I is the oldest fortification would require discussion of other fortifications which is secondary to the research documented in Antiquity. I used Tell es-Sultan as an example above but even in that case the purpose of the wall around the settlement isn't universally agreed to be defensive. Ofer Bar-Yosef has suggested it was related to agricultural practice. There may have been fortifications at 6th-millennium BC Tell es-Sawwan (mentioned in passing here). There are at the very least other contenders, and it's not a clear cut situation.

Indicating that a site is amongst the oldest is much less controversial, gives the reader enough context, and avoids getting bogged down in the detail about what counts and what doesn't in this regard. It doesn't make for nearly as eye-catching a headline, and LiveScience wasn't the only place to focus on the age: [1] [2] [3]

So what do folks think of my suggested wording change? I've also added a note to WP:ARCHAEOLOGY in case folks there have a view on this. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your research on this! I agree with your point here looking at it a bit closer, and think the rewording is pretty good. And since you were curious, Borzunov calls it the "northernmost known Neolithic fortification of the world and the oldest fortified settlement of northern Eurasia". Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it sounds very good.★Trekker (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was straightforward! I've gone ahead and changed the text as outlined above. Thanks folks. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Amnya_complex&oldid=1222927312"