Talk:Amesbury Archer

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

text: *Removed the geology tag 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Restore/rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stones and bones 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  DNA puzzle