Talk:Pit-house

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pit-house article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archaeology Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page Improvements

I agree that the article needed improvement. My additions also require further refinement, organization, and better coding of the references. Some discussion of types and pictures would be useful. I would like to see the page moved to "Pit Structures". If people still wanted to use the term pit-house couldn't they simply link to pit structures and keep their language? If others agree, then I propose we move this page to pit structures.

Impressive work you've done! We've now got a large base of information to work with. Your addition contains highly technical data, so perhaps we can organize the skeleton, then incorporate the data/findings into the context of the sections. I have a feeling by the time this article's done, it will have grown several pages long. I agree on moving it. Have you noticed searching for "Pit house" (without the dash) brings up the article "Dugout (shelter)"? That article makes reference to pit houses under the People of the New World section. After this article is more refined, we can link it to here ^^. As for pictures, I'll see what I can find. Image editing isn't my specialty, but maybe a Sketchup model would serve nicely, especially to showcase the differences among cultures' architecture.User:BackToThePast 23:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I barge in, but I believe the word "Grubenhausen" is wrong. At least according to German grammar, it should be "Grubenhäuser" (or Grubenhaeuser), as it's the plural of "Grubenhaus". -- Firlefanz (who is German)

Expanding on the article

I propose going into more detail about how each culture used pit-houses and perhaps some pictures of each.

New Sections: "Types" or similar section going into detail about how each people used pit-houses i.e. Europe, North America "Construction" would provide a place to detail the construction of a pit-house, possibly with pics "See also", which would include a link to "Dugout (shelter)" "External links" to some sites with images and 3D models of real pit-houses

Introduction: At the beginning, it says "A pit house is a small house with double layered stone." This describes the sort of house usually found in Europe. Yet the next sentence, "It is dug into the ground and used by the Inuit people as places to tell stories, dance, sing and celebrate" focuses on only the Inuit's use of the pit-house. Changing cultures so quickly confuses people. What is (or what was) a typical pit-house? Using a prehistoric example would be a nice start, because those dwellings were common throughout the world far back in time, and served as the model for all later pit-houses. How about beginning the article with an introduction that doesn't center on a particular culture? Make a broad sweep of when, where, and how pit-houses were used across the world.--BackToThePast 15:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and shuffle two articles

I propose that the Dugout (shelter) article be used as a generic overview of the widespread archictectural type while the Pit-house article focus on the archaeological findings of these forms, particularly in the American Southwest. The Pit-house title might have to be changed. Opinions? WBardwin 01:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording?

The article says "In the nineteenth century, it was formerly considered" which would literally mean that the thought occurred PRIOR to the nineteenth century. Since I believe the author means it was thought in the nineteenth century, I am removing the "formerly". 68.55.132.231 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I have added the tags to propose a merger of Grubenhaus into Pit-house because these types of dwellings are the identical subject, Grubenhaus is the German name so I propose we keep the English translation and mention grubenhaus in this article as needed. Commons has categories for this subject under both names and they should be merged also. Jim Derby (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pit-house#Mammoth bone dwellings

Needs to be updated per:

"Archaeologists have discovered the remains of a 44,000 year old Neanderthal building that was constructed using the bones from mammoths."

From: Gray, Richard (18 December 2011). "Neanderthals built homes with mammoth bones". Telegraph.co.uk. London.

Original source: Demay, Laëtitia; Péan, Stéphane; Patou-Mathis, Marylène (2012). "Mammoths used as food and building resources by Neanderthals: Zooarchaeological study applied to layer 4, Molodova I (Ukraine)". Quaternary International. 276–277: 212–226. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.11.019. ISSN 1040-6182. jonkerz ♠talk 21:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pit-house. 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) 20:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excavation procedure?

Does the section on 'excavation procedure' really belong here? It reads like something out of an instruction manual, not an encyclopedia and although what is described is a valid method it is by no means the only method or even the most common one (eg in my experience digging alternate quadrants is more normal than leaving a central baulk, and A, C and X numbers is not a standard terminology). I think the whole section should be deleted or, failing that, edited to make clear who uses this methodology and where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.13.93 (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]