Talk:Maritime archaeology
From Academic Kids
The Gustloff and the Goya, so far as I can tell, are dive sites but are not yet maritime archaeological sites - this is based on a google search. HJ, do you have web links that would prove that these belong on Maritime archaeology - this is not just a list of shipwrecks, after all. MichaelTinkler
It seems, that at present the Gustloff (Goya and General Steuben) sites are memorial sites. I can not tell for sure. user:H.J.
Should maritme archaeology include submerged cities like Alexandria? --rmhermen
Removed from page until we are sure that these are archaelogy sites:
- KdF Ship Wilhelm Gustloff,refugee ship,torpedoed
- Goya , refugee ship, torpedoed
- General Steuben, refugee ship torpedoed
Pulled out pending citation
I have pulled out the following paragraph, pending citation:
- For an exceedingly helpful map of some ancient maritime routes between 25 and 220 CE, please see Eurasian Trade Routes at the Time of the Eastern Han Dynasty (http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-jostenge/banas-Dateien/image002.gif), posted at Chinese-Western contacts and chess (http://www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-jostenge/banas.htm) by Peter Banaschak. Apparently, the maritime route leading to Lothal on this map (located southeast of Karachi, Pakistan) may be millennia older than this map suggests.
Reasons: (1) Original research. (2) Wikipedia is not a linkdump. (3) Wikipedia:Cite your sources. (4) Wikipedia:Check your facts. (5) Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. More paragraphs like this might follow. Additions like this really should be substantiated; they suspiciously look like non-notable fringe theories. — mark ✎ 21:35, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Other paragraphs pulled out pending citation from reputable, academic sources (for the same five reasons mentioned above):
- Ancient Seafaring
- In Lothal, India, there is secondary evidence of sea-going craft. Archaeologists have discovered a massive, dredged canal and docking facility at this coastal city of the Indus Valley. See Lothal and Indus Valley Civilization: Economy.
- Coincidentally, Lapis lazuli was being traded from its only known source in the ancient world – Badakshan, in what is now northeastern Afghanistan – as far as Mesopotamia and Egypt by the second half of the 4th millennium BC. By the 3rd millennium BC trade was extended to Harappa and Mohenjo-daro in the Indus valley.
- Sometime around the 13th century BC a "Suez Canal" was dug between the River Nile and the Mediterranean Sea. See Suez Canal. Egyptian pharaoh Necho II (610 - 595 BC) then completed the canal by extending it from the Nile to the Gulf of Suez, thereby allowing ship passage between the Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea. However, because the Nile deposits much sediment, the canal probably silted up quite quickly. It was restored several times, notably by Darius I, Ptolemy II and Trajan. But by the 8th century the Suez Canal had become unnavigable and likely remained so for the next thousand years.
- The earliest indications of shipbuilding in the Atlantic are attributed to the Saharan Mende-speaking peoples. Recent excavations point to a possible link between ancient Egypt and prehistoric Mende-peoples who may have migrated out of Sudan. See History of Ancient Egypt. Artistic impressions dating to between 10,000 and 8,000 BC depict Saharan men as wearing round helmets akin to those depicted in Olmec statues. See Olmec.
- Included in the nomes of ancient Egypt are names associated with harpoons. Actual harpoons dating to 3000 BC have been found in West Africa, indicating ancient seafaring as early. See West Africa: History.
Links to other Wikipedia articles do not constitute references and do not help to establish Wikipedia:Verifiability. More disturbing is the fact that this web of 'supportive facts' in several articles referring to each other has been added unilaterally by one user, apparently to lend the unsubstantiated statements the appearance of credibility. Edits like this are harmful to Wikipedia.
Some parts of the text may be usable. Therefore I have chosen to preserve the text here on the Talk page rather than deleting it. It should be noted however that anything should be carefully checked before being re-added.
There is still more that needs to be checked and most probably does not belong here because it either constitutes original research or is simply false or irrelevant. — mark ✎ 21:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oceanic archaeology
Has anyone got a reason why this should not be merged with Oceanic archaeology? adamsan 09:18, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
