# Talk:Amnya complex

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)

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)
I think it sounds very good.★Trekker (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree too. – Joe (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
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)