Talk:Nabta Playa

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Egypt Low‑importance

	Egypt portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Egypt, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Egypt on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EgyptWikipedia:WikiProject EgyptTemplate:WikiProject EgyptEgypt articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Older discussions

The information in this article, some of it contributed by User:4.241.219.41, does not reflect mainstream archaology. I do not apply "Disputed tags." If I did, this would be a candidate for one. Much work is needed here, by a level-headed knowledgable editor. --Wetman 23:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, Wetman, and I do apply tags. See User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee for my reasons. — mark ✎ 19:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have applied the totallydisputed tag to the article, persuant to above and the ongoing RFC. Hipocrite - «Talk» 04:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason that the article specifically needs to adhere to mainstream archaeology. In fact, forcing it to would represent a distinct POV pushing. It should include whatever content possible that is verifiable, not original research, and presented in a neutral manner. KV(Talk) 20:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see any changes that he's made other than some renaming of titles and the removal of one word. KV(Talk) 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last 2 sections of the archaeoastronomy is nothing but esoterical speculations which ought to be erased. Siffler 17:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those "speculations" are what makes it notable, and must be included as per WP:NPOV. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean that they shouldn't be included. KV(Talk) 17:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The distances to the nearest stars were measured beginning in around 1835. If someone pretends that this had been done already several thousand years before, he should at least give some indications to the method applied. If not, then this ought not be included in a general encyclopedia. Siffler 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "they matched the distance of the stars from Earth on a scale of 1 meter = .799 light years within the our margin of error for the astronomical distances we have today." It does not state that they do absolutely represent that. That is left up to the reader. Is what is stated a fact? Yes. Are there reputable scholars who believe that it does represent that? Yes. Do we know exactly how? No. Why don't we know? Because it is prehistoric and the only thing from that age in the area that seems to have survived is the remnants of some camp fires and giant stones. If the article stated that they did it by using equipment that is equivalent to modern equipment, there is not enough proof of that and there would be a problem.

WP:NPOV clearly states "Let the facts speak for themselves". It also states "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." There is no need for the scientist to express the methods used, the facts remain that there is a high level of correlation. Should we leave out any reference to the miracles of Jesus just because the methods are not explained? Certainly, they should not be proclaimed as simply truth, but they should not be ignored because they are not reproducable with 1st Century technology to our knowledge. KV(Talk) 01:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked for original papers of the astrophysicist Thomas G. Brophy related to Nabta Playa. The only peer-reviewed contribution I could find was written together with his long-time collegue Paul A. Rosen: Thomas G. Brophy and Paul A. Rosen: Satellite Imagery Measures of the Astronomically Aligned Megaliths at Nabta Playa, Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 5(1) (2005) 15 - 24 http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/Issues/Past%20Issues/Volume%205%20No1%20June%202005/BROPHY.pdf I can find no mention of star distances in this article. According to GOOGLE, there exists an earlier book The Origin Map (which is, curiously not registered in the on-line catalogue of the Library of Congress). Might-be, there can be found his hypotheses like star distances. Siffler 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if any of this information is presented improperly...I came across a movie series called Magical Egypt Episode 3: Descent which contains a video interview of Thomas G. Brophy discussing a model of Nabta Playa. I also found that Google has scanned portions of Brophy's book Origin Map--Malig 03:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brophy & Rosen satellite imagery article

I couldn't get the pdf, but the html version is still at [1]--Doug Weller (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing

User:Mathilda37 added the following sentence to the Early history section: "The population appears to have consist of phenotypically varied Saharan and Nile valley people. Cranial analysis of slightly later populations nearby have shown the population to have been intermediate to ancient Eurasians and East Africans, the result of numerous back migrations from Eurasia into North Africa since the Pleistocene.", which was altered by 75.18.169.96 to: "The site was excavated by Fred Wendorf and John (Kim) Malville. Human remains were found at Nabta, but only the jawbone was left available to Wendorf to examine, the rest being confiscated by the Egyptian museum in Cairo. The study of this jawbone led Wendorf to conclude that the Nabtians were of sub-Saharan descent.". Both of these statements are unreferenced and evidently POV-pushing, but on the other hand they are not trivial. I removed them for now, but could someone more knowledgeable on the subject check out whether they contain any elements of verifiable facts? --Omnipaedista (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References/Cited Sources

I don't believe that a college student web page is a valid and reputable source for citation. Most of the info in the article is cited there. Please add citations from reliable sources (e.g. news articles, websites that solely operate in the field and are well credited, etc.). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.168.159 (talk) 08:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What website? What college student? I can't find what you are talking about. Dougweller (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text moved from article

Enigmatic features Both groups of researchers (Wendorf, Schild, Malville et al. and Brophy and Rosen) agree the most enigmatic features at Nabta Playa are the “bedrock sculptures” – these are sculpted lumps of bedrock that are underneath the playa sediments, and yet associated with the megalithic structures placed on top of the sediments. These bedrock sculptures are associated with several arrangements of megaliths, the most prominent of which called “Complex Structure A” formed the centerpiece from which all the alignments of megaliths radiated like spokes from a wheel. The dating of these features is problematic to the standard notion that all megalithic construction must belong to the Late Neolithic, after 5100 BC, or later, because the playa sediments above the bedrock sculptures preceded 5100 BC. Wendorf and Krolik (2001) thus write, “How and why the builders of these [complex] structures located the buried bedrocks is not known. They may have used probes or dug pits. . . . Whatever technique was used to find the bedrock, when it was located, a large and deep enough pit was dug to expose the entire circumference of the [bed]rock . . . up to 5 m [about 16 feet] in diameter at the base and 3.5 m [about 11 feet] or more deep. . . . Dug through heavy silts and clays, the pits required a major effort.” (Wendorf, F. and Krolik, H (2001) The Megalith Alignments. In Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Vol.I, pp503-521.) They postulated that the Late Neolithic builders somehow located and dug through the sediments to create the bedrock sculptures and then filled the sediments back in and built the megalithic arrangements on top of the sediments. Brophy and Rosen (2005), instead suggested, “it is reasonable to think that possibly something was constructed there before or during the playa sedimentation, and only the final stage of construction occurred at or after the end of the last major humid interphase”. Malville et al. (2007) concurred, writing, “It seems unlikely that the rocks had been found accidentally during excavation for wells, as these were in dunes at the edge of the playa and not in the playa sediments. It is conceivable that these round, large quartzitic lenses were part of the symbolic landscape of the Middle Neolithic and became significant before the establishment of the complex ceremonial centre. Perhaps their locations had been marked by rock cairns before gradual burial by playa sediments.” Thus both groups of researchers suggest that parts of the megalithic symbolic landscape at Nabta Playa predate 5100 BC. These features of Nabta Playa remain enigmatic, yet the site is slated for destruction as part of the Toshka Project in the region. In an effort to gain more data on these enigmatic features, Rosen and Brophy have attempted to use space based ground penetrating remote sensing (e.g. Rosen, Brophy and Shimada [2008] TerraSAR-X Spotlight Interferometric Observations of Archaeoastronomical Structures at Nabta Playa, Egypt. http://sss.terrasar-x.dlr.de/papers_sci_meet_3/poster/MTH0352_rosen.pdf).

Discussion

1.The citation style needs to be changed to match the rest of the article. A relatively minor thing but shouldn't be left for other editors to do.

2.The last source, a pdf, is apparently self-published - normally we wouldn't use this, and I'm not sure what the point is until it's published. That they've attempted to use a method isn't particularly important, although a publication of the results might be useful.

Professional conference proceedings are often referenced, in wikipedia, and in scientific literature.

3."The dating of these features is problematic to the standard notion that all megalithic construction must belong to the Late Neolithic, after 5100 BC, or later," - where is this found in the sources?

That reasoning can be found in Wendorf and Krolik (2001), and in Malville et al. (2007).

4."Thus both groups of researchers suggest that parts of the megalithic symbolic landscape at Nabta Playa predate 5100 BC." But that isn't what Melville et al say, they say "were part of the symbolic landscape of the Middle Neolithic" - if they meant to say megalithic I don't know, but they didn't and we should not be suggesting they did.

I don't understand this comment. Prior to 5100 BC, at Nabta Playa, is defined as Middle Neolithic. The features in question are megalithic. The statement was a simple logically following report on the publications.

5.The Toshka Project - this isn't sourced, is it still a threat? If so, can we have a current reliable source for it?

Toshka Project is a wikipedia page, also called "New Valley Project". Do you mean you require a peer reviewed source that explicitly states Toshka will destroy Nabta?

Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I didn't write half of the above. Note that the indented edits are someone else's. And that they don't actually answer my question. Eg for 3, I know that supposedly it is in the sources, but where? Quotes? (and by the way, books need page numbers if you cite them).

4 - missed the point entirely. Melville et al do not say 'megalithic symbolic landscape'.

5 - that's not a response to my question. I didn't ask for a peer reviewed source, I asked for a current reliable source.

2 - still missed the point about why it's being mentioned if it hasn't happened yet. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Research and Re-Writes Needed

This article needs more research and is not well written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.113.201 (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. What's all this nonsense about cromlechs? Cromlech is a Gaelic word meaning 'dolmen'. No problem to mention extreme speculations, star maps on the ground; but the space alien is dead, no point in flogging him. I would love to read a coherent and reliable article here.109.77.104.140 (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the cromlech, but I think that the criticism about aliens should be in the article as people might have found the claim elsewhere and come here to check it. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Just to say that I have the 2007 Malville article, and as I recall I'm the one who used it to edit the article. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it give a precise location? ♆ CUSH ♆

Does anyone have a precise location? ♆ CUSH ♆ 20:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOCATION? ♆ CUSH ♆

Location???

Can anyone confirm this <location> ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This site gives Nabta Playa's latitude and longitude as 22˚ 32' north, 30˚ 42' east. A. Parrot (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These coordinates are already in the article. But you do realize that for a stone circle with a diameter of only a few meters, coordinates that only give minutes are pretty useless? ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:17, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I was just supplying what little information I could find online, and (stupidly) I didn't see the coordinates we already have. I can't read the KML file you're asking about; is it more detailed? A. Parrot (talk) 22:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The KML shows a (vector) grid based on this map. ♆ CUSH ♆ 09:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the fool...?

On 2013/04/08 user Mace123 "corrected" the title of the scholarly volume Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara by Fred Wendorf and Romuald Schild to Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian and Nubian Sahara, because (says the edit summary) Nabya playa is in the lower nubian region of modern egypt but in early times it belong to sudan or the rest of nubia.Nabya playa is not ancient egypt it's Nubian. So Mace123 decided he knew what the title should be better than Wendorf and Schild. This is hysterical. Contact Basemetal here 15:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was only here for 23 edits. I've fixed it. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nabta Playa. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rhodes.aegean.gr/maa_journal/issues/past%20issues/volume%205%20no1%20june%202005/brophy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nabta Playa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806140123/http://www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html to http://www.comp-archaeology.org/WendorfSAA98.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nabta Playa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Chronology

The Relative Chronology section is currently empty. Mrericsully (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]