Talk:Earthworks (archaeology)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Untitled
[edit]Please see: de:Landgraben, an article about barriers. -- Simplicius 11:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
paragraph order
[edit]It seems to me that the paragraph order is now wrong, so I'm changing it back. If I'm missing something, please leave a note here. Rjm at sleepers 07:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies Rjm; I meant only to bump the picture up to the top right of the page. Oxonhutch 08:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Singular or plural
[edit]In my experience, archaeologists tend to talk about earthworks (plural, and often without an article) rather than an earthwork (singular and requiring an article). This seems to me to be a good reason to use the plural in the article title. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Obviously, "earthworks" is often used when there is more than one "bump in the ground". But so is "earthwork", singular - it's perfectly acceptable to say "an earthwork" when there is only one bump, and all dictionaries I've seen would use the singular form rather than the plural. It's not as though the plural form is the only one used, and the guidance at WP:SINGULAR says: "Use the singular form: Article titles are generally singular in form, e.g. Horse, not Horses. Exceptions include nouns that are always in a plural form in English (e.g. scissors or trousers) and the names of classes of objects (e.g. Arabic numerals or Bantu languages)." So, I have a strong preference to use the singular form here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- My impression is that archaeologists use the plural even when there is a single "earthwork". Talking about an earthwork would make me expect a reference to military fortifications. On the other hand, since there is a redirect, I don't suppose it matters too much. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Electromagnetic surveys
[edit]I have removed the following
- Archaeological features, including earthworks, are often found by archaeologists using electromagnetic surveys or EM surveys [1] This is done by creating a magnetic field underground by applying an electric current that has a known frequency and magnitude through a sending coil. The currents spur a secondary current in underground conductors that is picked up by a receiving coil. This measures the conductivity of the ground to detect changes that can be underground earthworks. [2]
The refs do not support the idea that earthworks (as defined in this article) are detected by EM surveys. Earthworks are surface features, while EM surveys detect sub-surface features. This paragraph would be better placed elsewhere. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ Dalan, Rinita. "Defining archaeological features with electromagnetic surveys at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site". Retrieved 13 April 2012.
- ^ "Electromagnetic Surveys". Retrieved 13 April 2012.
"Known as barrows in England"
[edit]I'm not an expert but I'm pretty sure "barrow" refers specifically to burial mounds (marked on OS maps as "Tumulus"). Offa's Dyke, for example, and the dozens of Iron Age hill forts dotting the English and Welsh countryside, are not called barrows as far as I know. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Indeed. The text was added in this edit in 2012, with an offline citation which I suspect does not make exactly the same point. Is it best to remove the sentence, or reword it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- I suspect the statement about North America is also incorrect but I know nothing of North American archaeology, so I've left that part in. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)