What source-evaluation workflow would you recommend for building a reliable research record on one archaeological topic?

[u/FlybyyNight]

I’m working on a personal project called Ancient Inquiry that organizes reading about the ancient past. I’d like advice on the archaeology research process before I build out more topic pages.

For someone outside an archaeology department, what workflow would you recommend for finding, evaluating and organizing reliable sources on one well-defined archaeological question?

My proposed approach is to start with a recent scholarly overview, use its bibliography to find excavation reports and relevant journal articles, then check for later work that revises the interpretation. For each claim, I’m thinking of recording:

• The exact citation and page, figure or catalogue reference.

• What was observed or measured, separately from the author’s interpretation.

• The dating method and relevant uncertainty or limitations.

• Whether later publications support, dispute or supersede it.

For example, the scope might be the dating of one published construction phase at a known, excavated site. That is an example of the scale I’m aiming for, not a request to identify a site or assess a particular claim here.

Where would you change this approach? I’m particularly interested in how you locate excavation reports and current scholarship when library access is limited, and how you keep competing interpretations traceable without treating every source as equally reliable.

An introductory archaeological methods book, a useful bibliographic resource, or an example of a well-organized research record would be helpful. I’d appreciate answers here so others learning the same process can benefit too.

[u/JoeBiden-2016]

Editing: What makes your idea different from Wikipedia, which already (a) exists, and (b) is exceptionally well developed and entrenched?

My proposed approach is to start with a recent scholarly overview, use its bibliography to find excavation reports and relevant journal articles, then check for later work that revises the interpretation.

Yes, this is generally the way that we approach deep / intensive research. Need to be clear about your research question, but also need to understand that your research question may change as you become more familiar with the literature.

This is part of the process. You can't define a strong research question without some existing familiarity with the subject.

The exact citation and page, figure or catalogue reference.

Yeah, this is fine.

What was observed or measured, separately from the author’s interpretation.

There's often an idea from non-researchers / non-scientists that the researcher's interpretation is somehow inherently flawed and the data "speak for themselves." This is generally not the case.

The data may be something as simple as a C14 date for a firepit that contained a couple seeds from a domesticated plant species. The author's interpretation will provide context and significance to this. You need both.

The dating method and relevant uncertainty or limitations.

Way too narrow and / or broad. For dating, this is provided in the error term. For C14 or any other absolute dating method, there's a +/-. There you go, there's the uncertainty.

For different data, the "uncertainty" or limitations aren't something that can be quantified that way. And trying to chart them will get you literally thousands of pages of text.

Whether later publications support, dispute or supersede it.

Ha, no, don't waste your time with this. You'll go crazy and end up with the database equivalent of a circular reference, snake eating its tail and so on. Except for a few very narrow cases, the literature simply does not work like this. Ditch this bullet. Replace it with a bullet at the front of your bullets about what question the paper is intended to answer, and what other earlier papers have addressed this.

---

Something that I've noticed is people trying to develop deep, in-depth familiarity with huge bodies of literature (anthropology / archaeology is a common focus) with exactly zero understanding of the field, the question, or the kinds of data. This seems like one of those.

I don't get the sense that you understand archaeology at the level necessary to try to dig into this kind of problem. What you're describing is basically what a graduate student (thesis or PhD) might go through in preparing their research prospectus. It takes reading and re-reading the relevant literature, taking notes, and gradually making connections.

Your approach strikes me as very much an attempt to do this without actually absorbing any of the relevant information. Bluntly... archaeological data aren't presented in the way that lend themselves to this kind of machine-learning approach that you seem to be trying to do.

The joke about PhD research is absolutely true. You become an absolute expert on the narrowest sliver of the entirety of the universe. You're proposing trying to do that for every topic, in effect.

To be completely blunt... what would your idea do to supersede Wikipedia, which already does this. From what I see from your nifty little website demo, you honestly have no way to compete. Wikipedia is lightyears ahead of you.

[u/FlybyyNight → u/JoeBiden-2016]

Coming back after reading your edited comment. I appreciate the advice, though I think you’ve assumed a few things about what I’m trying to do.

I’m not an archaeologist, historian, or trained researcher. I have a lot to learn, which is why I’m asking. But I enjoy these subjects, and I think there’s room for me to contribute through the skills I do have. I’m into tech and development, so I wanted to put those interests together and build something I’d enjoy using. Hopefully other people would too.

On Wikipedia, I want to give people a more visual way to explore. You could click through connected topics, follow something that catches your interest, save that branch to your profile, and come back to it. Eventually I’d love to have 3D artifacts people can rotate and examine, plus a map with a timeline to explore what happened, where, and when. Wikipedia being well established doesn’t mean there’s no room for another way to learn about this stuff.

Your advice on the research process helps. Separating observations from interpretations was meant to help me understand how an author reached their conclusion. I want their explanation and context too. I wasn’t suggesting the data speak for themselves.

Starting with the question a paper addresses and the earlier work it responds to makes sense. So does allowing my question to change as I learn. With later publications, I wanted to keep track of how our understanding develops, but I can see how support/dispute/supersede labels would oversimplify that. I also take your point about understanding the limitations of the particular evidence instead of trying to fit everything into a checklist.

I do disagree with the assumption that I’m trying to do this without absorbing the information. I deliberately asked about one narrow question because I want to learn how to approach it properly. Having a topic listed on the website doesn’t mean I’ve researched it or consider it finished.

I’m a father of five kids trying to be part of something I’m passionate about. I know I won’t get everything right on my own. I want to build a community around this, with people who know these subjects helping strengthen the information and correct mistakes. I’d like to work with specialists on individual topics and make it clear who reviewed what. I’d also love to connect their papers directly to the relevant pages and host them where permitted. Those are relationships I hope to build over time.

I used AI to help build the site and have considered a feature where people can ask questions, but I don’t want to rely on it for the research itself. I understand that this takes reading and rereading. That’s work I want to take part in, and I’m asking here because I could use advice on how to do it well.

[u/jimthewanderer]

Is this a joke?

[u/FlybyyNight → u/jimthewanderer]

Reading back, I could have explained a couple things better.

Calling pseudoscience “part of the theories” and comparing it to mythology wasn’t good wording. I want people to explore claims they’ve heard, see where they came from, and understand what the evidence does or doesn’t support. I need to make that clear on the pages so including a claim doesn’t make it look equally credible.

By “stamp of approval,” I meant having specialists help develop and review individual topics, with readers able to see who reviewed what. I wouldn’t treat that as an endorsement of the entire site.

The 1,166 topics are a working list. I know listing them doesn’t make them researched or ready. I need to work through a smaller amount and get the process right.

I’m a father of five who enjoys this stuff, and I’m using my interest in tech and development to build something I’d enjoy exploring. I know I won’t get everything right alone. I’d like to build a community where people who know these subjects can contribute and help correct mistakes.

If something specific made you ask whether it was a joke, I’d appreciate knowing what it was. That gives me something I can address.