Talk:Amesbury Archer

Untitled

Wessex Archaeology have a section on their page about him[1] called "press photos". I wonder what the terms of use are. Marnanel 16:08, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good idea, I've emailed the webmaster to find out whether we can use their pics on this page and also on Boscombe Bowmen. adamsan 01:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Exactly what qualifies this page as a geology article? I would have thought it was very firmly an archaeology page? Thefuguestate (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Removed the geology tag 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Restore/rewrite

I've restored a large amount of text that an IP user heavily edited back in February. If I'd not been without internet for the last 2 months I'd probably have flagged it as vandalism. The rewrite took out a lot of detailed information, especially about the finds and second burial, and seemed to replace it with a lot more prose and unsubstantiated ideas without references. Most importantly the 2 refs supplied in the opening paragraph (BBC and M Pearson) state the total opposite to the sentence they were referencing (His elevated status and propinquity with Stonehenge suggest the possibility he may have been involved in or even organized the building). There is now little doubt that the Archer arrived long after the main part of Stonehenge had been built. The BBC article even says: Professor Wainwright added: "Was the Amesbury Archer, as some have suggested, the person responsible for the building of Stonehenge? I think the answer to that is almost certainly 'no'".

In redoing the text I may have reverted some peoples subsequent genuine edits. Apologies if I have - I tried to avoid doing so, but say here if I did and I'll correct it (or you can do so yourself of course!). Regards Psychostevouk (talk) 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The process of building it was a long, long time. His proponquity in relation to the site suggests he MIGHT have been involved with it's building is perfectly factual, your blatant POV pushing and attempt to remove cited material notwithstanding. It doesn't matter what portion he might hav been involved in, either.66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've reverted your changes, see the edit summary. Psychosteveouk doesn't deserve your attack, either. And you removed section headings, cited material, and the link to the French article. Dougweller (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you redated him to 2400 BC -- since the sources say 2300, it would be interesting to know the reason for the change. Dougweller (talk) 21:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the material being used is mostly OLD. The newewst, most accurate dates, which I cited and now you and the other guy have removed, showed his estimed birth at 2400 (+/- 100), click and you will see as much, and that the bluestones were given exactly the same estimate date of creation http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7625145.stm And did not remove the portion of the secon burial, it was just in a rudimentary form. The other guy dressed the article up a bit, too bad he dressed it up in all the wrong clothes, and not by accident. You are on the wrong sied of truth on this deal. But I suppose I will labor to work within the confines of this formatting he has created as it clearly looks better. It will need to be correct and material he crudely removed withou re-instering returned.66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Phew, quite an accusation! Lets start with the reference. Using a BBC article in which Wainwright himself is quoted as saying "Was the Amesbury Archer, as some have suggested, the person responsible for the building of Stonehenge? I think the answer to that is almost certainly 'no'.", and then using it to ref the line His elevated stature and proximity in both time and place to Stonehenge have lead some experts to speculate he was one of the earliest people involved in its building, perhaps using his advanced metalurgical skills brought from central Europe based on your observation that the dates are broadly similar is nothing short of original research and POV, neither of which are popular in Wikipedia. Surely you must be able to agree with that? You can't use a ref as evidence of something it blatantly contradicts in the ref itself. The date of 2400BC in the BBC article is interesting and yes, it would normally be a suitable ref, but I'd rather use the ref of the people who excavated him in the first place - they're probably more in the know.

You'll notice I didn't remove the BBC link though, but I did reference it correctly to state that he may have been around when the bluestone that Darvill and Wainwright excavated was put up. There is no suggestion he was involved in it.

As for the rest of the article and the bluestones... well, I'll try not to let my own personal views of Darvill and Wainwrights amusing work get in the way here, but it can be quite difficult when you just happen to know how poor it is. They did receive quite a mauling in the archaeological community, but now isn't the time to discuss the reliability of the work. Fact is, they dated a single bluestone socket. The dates tell us nothing about the sarsens - they didn't excavate them. The fact they clung to their belief that any other elements of Stonehenge must have come after what they found is their own rather misguided POV though. Pearson is a very reliable source who has done more digs around Stonehenge than anyone else currently alive. The other contributors to the article are no schoolkids either and the article is less than 2 years old. This is hardly OLD.

Did you see the BBC Timewatch program about the bluestones dig? If you did I imagine we wouldn't be having this chat. Regards, Ranger Steve (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (formerly pychostevouk)

Is this a joke?? You are using bogus, out of date information and blatantly pushing a POV not backed up by current information and you dare continue to revert? Admins better do something with you and your blatant POV pushing and vandalism66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Er... yes...... Feel free to contact some admins. If not I'll do it in the morning if you prefer. Ranger Steve (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ya, do it, I'm sure you have some jingoistic British POV pushing mod in mind. Fact is, you are now vanadlizing this wiki, not at all aiding in its growth. Try actually reading the BBC cite and stop trying to rewrite the current establish science with your POV pushing66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice you haven't actually responded to my points and instead resorted to rather odd near-racist slurs. Fair enough Ranger Steve (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Now I'm making near-racist slurs? LOL. For what? Noting someone is pushing a nationalistic/nativist British biased POV, one that is completely removed from established science I might add? And I don't know where in the world you come up with the charge of "original research". You obviously have no idea anything about the archer, perhaps not aware he was from Central Europe and his metal working skills were not found in Britain prior to his arrival? I don't know if pretending to be knowledgable is your forte, but actual knowledge of acnient Britain definitely is not. Like I said, you need to go back and read, AND understand the cited material. You appear to have done neither and have no understanding of ancient Britain at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.29.150 (talk) 23:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect this guy is trolling, his contribution history is replete with accusations of pro-British bias. Justin talk 23:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

More like full of pertinent additions of information and editing. IT's unfrotunate that British POV pushing seems so obquituous however. I wish you would stop contributing to the problem. I will not stop combating it despite your obvious and belligerent edit warring and wiki-stalking me.66.190.29.150 (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Click23 (talk) 00:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Click, I have no intention of flipping out other this. To answer the IP users concerns over the editing and content of this article I'll make another reply though. To start with, lets stick with the content and the use of the BBC article as a ref. To repeat, the BBC article says the exact opposite of the line in the article you would like it to reference. If even Darvill and Wainwright - who have the most fanciful ideas about the Archer - can accept there is no evidence he had anything to do with Stonehenge's building, surely you must be able to? I've noted this comment from yourself on the Tyre talk page:

The problem isn't with legitimate cited information. The problem is, that wiki is claiming "something" is found in a cited source, yet the cited source does not contain the supposed "something". That's called lieing. Continue it if you wish, but don't you point your finger at me for trying to correct blatant lies and biases on wikipedia.

Perhaps you could remember that particular comment before you edit this page again? You see, this is where in the world I get the idea you are making original research. Assuming that just because the archer was around 4,400 years ago he must be involved with Stonehenge is a lovely little example that can't be backed up with evidence - mainly because there is none. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and as such should only contain indisputable facts, not opinions. We will probably never know if the Archer was involved in Stonehenge, or if he even saw it whilst alive. Darvill and Wainwright's dig has received rather short shrift in the archaeological community. Not easy to find references to that I grant you, but I imagine in the fullness of time, their work, findings and theories will be judged as unreliable. You see (whispered), they wanted to prove their theory and ended up fitting their findings around it - that's the problem with getting most of your funding from a TV company. Best not tell anyone I said this though, lets keep it our little secret.

As for the rest of your post, well it verges on offensive but I'm afraid if you're looking to start a fight you've come to the wrong article. It's quite a leap to assume I'm British at all - there's nothing here to suggest my nationality, so I assume you just have some problems with the British nation as a whole and have trouble repressing these feelings. As for my knowledge about the Archer, well I'd have thought it was fairly clear I know where he was from seeing as it's written in the article (I might point out though that it isn't a guaranteed fact he's from the Alps. His tooth enamel oxygen isotope analysis is most closely linked to the signature obtained from a central European Alps climate, but so far not all of Europe has been analysed. There are not as yet any records for the whole Iberian Peninsula, and when obtained for all we know they may provide a better match to the Archer's teeth.) I fully appreciate that the Archer wasn't British and the spread of metal working technology throughout Europe, probably arriving at Britain last, is fairly well known. I don't have any problem with that, mainly because it was several thousand years ago and has little to do with Britain's eventual spread across the globe. As for my knowledge of Ancient History, well I don't think anyone would claim to know everything about all the eras, but I do have a fairly good understanding of it, particulalry the Neolithic and Bronze Age. You see I like to edit articles when I know something about it, either professionally or purely from a recreational interest. I think its better than trying to push imaginative ideas on pages I know nothing about. See this page, or this one, or perhaps this one if you would like to question my knowledge of the area - surely they imply some sort of understanding of it don't you think?

If you require any help learning how to use and understand Wikipedia I'd be happy to assist. Starting out can be quite daunting, especially when one sees all the rules and guidelines. Don't worry, we've all been there and I fully understand how tricky it can be. I'd start with this page: Wikipedia:Tutorial. The main pages you'll need to read to help with this article are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Please at least glance at the first lines to get a general idea of them. Some other useful pages are here, here and here. Do feel free to spool through. Regards, Ranger Steve (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Combating British POV pushing with valid verbatim cites

I'm having to construct this section to list several facts, of which I will note the previous editor has tried to describe as "vandalism" then has the audacity to to make all sorts of absurdly hypocritical claims in his recent history. You cannot debate someone who refuses to acknowledge the current data, experts on the matter, and science of the times because the truth does not fit their agenda. I will detail facts and revert the removal of valid information as blatant vandalism.

The old estimations of dates are wrong; the new dates (per BBC):

"The radiocarbon date is said to be the most accurate yet and means the ring's original bluestones were put up 300 years later than previously thought.... Until now, the consensus view for the date of the first stone circle was anywhere between 2600BC and 2400BC...The result - 2300BC - is the most reliable date yet for the erection of the first bluestones... "between 2400BC and 2200BC" - but 2300BC is taken as the average... The date of Stonehenge had been blowing in the wind. But this anchors it. It helps us to be secure about the chronology of events. "

The importance and dating of the archer (BBC and Wessex article(s)):

BBC

"It's quite extraordinary that the date of the Amesbury Archer is identical with our new date for the bluestones of Stonehenge...These two things happening within living memory of each other for sure is something very, very important... I favour the interpretation that he was one of the earliest metal workers" --Dr. Darvill

Wessex

"The Archer is important because he is the first example of a powerful elite who may well have organised the erection of Stonehenge...It is possible that the Archer was linked closely to the stones: he may have had a hand in planning the monument, or at helping erect the stones...“He would have been a very important person in the Stonehenge area and it is fascinating to think that someone from abroad – probably Switzerland, Germany or Austria – could well have played an important part in the construction of Britain’s most famous archaeological site.” -- Dr. Fitzpatrick

And you can see from the last part from Wessex is the probable real reason that a certain editor is trying to sequester information from the article and acting in all manner of illogical ways, and instead turn it into a sham of an "encylcopedic" entry. Perhaps he has confused patriotic or jingoistic for encyclopedic. it's pretty funny that if Dr. Fitzpatrick or any actual expert in the field was editing this they would be invariably decried a "vandal" by an editor who claims things are "not sourced" when he can not even be bothered to read the sources supplied (or simply lies about their content).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7625145.stm http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/introduction.html Contributions/66.190.29.150 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Something I want to add, I'll "take back" having any issue with ranger steve's first major reversion a while back. I just noticed in the history that something obviously went horribly wrong with my edits several months back. Somehow I added to an older version of the page, for what reasons I cannot be sure. It was clearly some kind of mistake. I can tell this from the prose of the material that was not my own but was included in the "change", even things as silly as changing the "references" section to "reference" and deleting stuff like the bibliograph. So describing that as probable vandalism I have no issue with(I'd consider it such, too), though I'm at a loss to explain just how that happened, though I thnk it happened due to improper/buggy caching.

Nonetheless, I completely disagree with much of thing other things you have said your interpretation of the dates and assorted other issues I have brought up above.Contributions/66.190.29.150 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying hard to stifle my laughter now, so you'll have to forgive me. Also I'm well aware of how easy it is to misinterpret the mood of the written word, so be sure to read this as if it was being said cooly and rationally - not ranty. I wouldn't waste my time getting my heckles up over this! All of those quotes from Wessex that you list above are from pages that I have referenced in the article! I put them there (admittedly to ref different parts of the article, but they're still there). I'll also repeat - I didn't delete the original BBC article, but I did ref it correctly. That's hardly refusal to acknowledge the current data or experts in the matter is it? As for science of the times - the Wessex article is from several years ago, and yet you consider Pearson's work of less than 2 years ago as too old and out of date. I've never described any of the facts as vandalism - just your twisted take on them and your own (and admitted) edits to content.

I'm gonna repeat the problem here to make sure we all get it. You cannot use something as a reference when its content flatly contradicts the line in the article its referencing. That is what you keep doing and that is why so many people keep reverting it. Do you understand? Now if you wanted to use the Wessex page as a ref it might have been okay to put it to something like "His proximity to the stones leads some to think he may have been involved in its construction", but you didn't do that, did you? You used an inappropriate ref and when it was reverted, you resorted to insults.

More important is the reason I think you'll find most people with a bit of interest wouldn't include such a line anyway. We can tell hyperbole from solid fact. Just because the Archer and the stones were around at the same time means nothing. Perhaps in years to come, historians may link me with this, or this or even this! I was alive at the same time as all of them after all. There is simply no solid proof he had anything to do with Stonehenge's construction. And for what it's worth, for any quote you might be able to find, it's easy to get one opposing it. Here's a good ref from Julian Richards in his book Stonehenge: The Story So Far:

The term King of Stonehenge has been bandied around, but both the location and the dating of the burial do not support a close relationship with the building work that was going on at the time. The Amesbury Archer was buried at some distance from Stonehenge on the other side of the Avon, which may at this time have been a symbolic boundary. And by the time he was buried, around 2300BC, the sarsen structures were either well under way or perhaps even completed. So it seems unlikely that an incomer, even one as wealthy as this, would have been able to move in on and have any major influence over such a well established project as the building of Stonehenge. If human nature was the same in prehistory as it is today, then the establishment might well have snubbed such an ostentatious display of new wealth. Perhaps this is why he was not buried closer to Stonehenge.

Before you start slighting another famous archaeologist I suggest this time you go and find out who Julian Richards is. He's probably second to Pearson in terms of digs around Stonehenge (although he might argue to having done more - he led the Stonehenge environs project of the 80's). Anyway, the Wessex Archaeology article is linked in references and external links so that the reader can read the ideas in it and make up their own mind.

Of course, that's hardly the point though is it? Instead of researching this you wilfully deleted references because they didn't fit your take on the matter, added clearly POV material and then mercilessly insulted and aggravated other editors, something which seems to be your forte. Instead of answering comments on this talk page you resort to childish insults and some sort of notion that Wikipedia is run by members of the British National Party. Frightfully sorry old bean, but I don't think anyone here really understands why you think British nationality has anything to do with this content at all. How does our disagreeing with you imply that we are British biased? Wizard and all that but it doesn't even begin to make sense. Poor show old sport!

Now, having finally read some of the other references in the article (I think we can assume that you didn't before or you'd have used them) you try to claim some sort of knowledge of the field (at the same time as insulting everyone else's) although its fairly obvious that you've just been looking through the links trying to find some support for your own argument. If you'd done this originally it would have been called research. At this stage it's called childish. Do you know who Andrew Fitzpatrick is? Mike Parker Pearson? Darvill and Wainwright? Julian Richards? Mike Pitts? Do you have Pearson's ref that you so simply describe as too old, bogus and unreliable? Have you read any of the links above? Do you know anything at all about this subject matter? I suspect not.

Anyway, this is amusing, but your offensive attitude, open insults and odd behaviour do nothing for me. I note that you don't address the issues raised in posts, instead you seem to enjoy trying to draw an argument out and goad people into fights. You clearly like to try and start arguments on the pages you go to and you probably think you've got a good one here. Well, sorry but anything else you have to say will be purely one way from now on, although I imagine any edits you make will still be reverted if you carry on like this.

Oh and its incredibly generous of you to take back any issue with my original revert. Thankyou, but I don't buy it for a moment. Over 4 edits you systematically removed references and added content that had never been there before. Self explanatory really. Toodle pip old boy, must go and correct some misspellings of the word colour. And its aluminium don't you know! Ranger Steve (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Its pretty obvious you don't understand what a encylopedic article is from reading your response. BBC info is the newest most up to date stuff there is and Wessex is the about as high a quality cite as you can get. Saying nonsense like "Well I left it as a ref", while trying to gut everything useful found within it is absurd. You might as well call this your own website and say "you have the internet to check out any othe opinions". I will not tolerate your vandalism and feigning not understanding that you are wrong and the cites are quite clear in demonstrating just how wrong you are. Citing people offering insight who were under the MISTAKEN IMPRESSION the stones were several hundreds of years OLDER than they REALLY ARE, will not save you.And btw, debunking i more of your garbage strawman nonense, the sarsens were placed AFTER THE FIRST BLUESTONES. I'm highly disturbed you have had so many edits related to stonehenge and yet that long-time settled and common-knowledge fact has completely escaped you. Contributions/66.190.29.150 (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly basing your entire research off of one BBC article and have no understanding of Stonehenge WHS or this article. You are also extremely rude, not to mention grossly incorrect. I have nothing more to say to you. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if it helps see this BBC article. Notice its even more recent than the one you keep using. According to this the stones are hundreds of years older than you think they are. Ranger Steve (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bzzt. Wrong. Even if we were to assume they were perfectly correct, all it shows is that some bluestones were moved there earlier than stonehenge itself was errected. Building a pyramid is more than just moving some big blocks near the site. Stonehenge was no different. The blocks needed to be built, but then they needed to be constructed. It did not begind to be built until 2300. Again, and that's assuming they are perfectly correct. The 2 studies do not truly contradict each other but contain different bit of possibly factual information. It's even possible that there was a second set of stones brought in during 2300 to construct stonehenge.Contributions/66.190.29.150 (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And btw, if what they have proposed is representative of all the Aubrey holes, then they will have to completely re-write the current consensus on the order. If true, it means that phase one should include a bluestone ring. However, the fact is many of the Aubrey holes have already been excavated and found to NOT have any evidence of having held a megalithic bluestone. Kinda shoots a giant hole in the theory. But it doesn't change the fact there were some stones there at the date suggested. 66.190.29.150 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just had a really great idea - go to the Stonehenge page and discuss it there. I'm sure they'll welcome your factual input with open arms. Thank heavens for true wikipedians such as this! I repent for my Britishness! Ranger Steve (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stones and bones

I've reworded the intro and created a new section to incorporate the ideas about his relevance to Stonehenge. Any thoughts? Ranger Steve (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

DNA puzzle

The 2022 article by Fitzpatrick et al in Current Archaeology reports that the Archer's Y-chromosome DNA has been classified as R1b1a1b1a1a (Haplogroup R-L151) and the Companion's as R1b1a1b1a1a2c1 (Haplogroup R-L21). I would like to include this information in the article. There is a puzzle, however, since R-L151 is usually said to be not R1b1a1b1a1a but R1b1a2a1a, and R-L21 is not R1b1a1b1a1a2c1 but R1b1a2a1a2c. Can anyone throw any light on this? Kanjuzi (talk) 07:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I emailed the authors of the Current Archaeology article and received the following explanation from one of them: "This is due to different versions of the ISOGG nomenclature being used here. The one I use is much more recent than the one Wikipedia or the other sources use. While the names of the SNPs (R-L151 or R-L21) do not change, the same lineage can have different long haplogroup names depending on the version used, as new clades are discovered and the tree structure needs to be updated." Kanjuzi (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)