Talk:Red Lady of Paviland

Archaeology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wales Mid‑importance

	Wales portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discovery

When and where was this discovered? -- Infrogmation 16:29 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe this has now been added. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Human Fossil

The Red 'Lady' was the first human fossil to be recovered anywhere in the world. Is that not worth mentioning? 87.115.79.248 (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Do you have a reliable source for that? If you're not sure how to add it to the article with the citation, place the link here and someone will do it for you. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed found a reputable source for this statement and have therefore edited the document to include it.Boatgypsy (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points

Firstly, the article on William Buckland states that the remains were discovered in 1826; this article says 1823. Do we have a definitive date? Secondly, is the map directly relevant? It shows sites of cave art, but doesn't show Paviland, and doesn't seem to relate directly to this article's subject. Is there a better map showing the location that should be used? Finally, I'd like to add either "scare quotes" or the word "so-called" before the words Red Lady of Paviland in the first line. Would there be any objections to this, or any preferences? As the article makes clear (indeed, later in the sentence) the remains are those of a man rather than a "lady", although obviously the term "Red Lady.." is the one commonly used. The title on its own does not recognise that, and I think we should try to minimise any confusion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected the Buckland article as 1823 seems to be the correct date and have added a reference here. I'm not too keen on the map as the article doesn't really mention Palaeolithic art. "So-called" sounds colloquial and the first sentence is too long in any case and could probably be rewritten.

This book published by Harvard University Press looks like it would be useful to anyone who plans to expand or reference the article and Google books has a preview. Nev1 (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel 4 seem to have deleted the relevant news page, but this and this (both reliable sources) have 1823. The current map seems to serve no useful purpose. I'm not too keen on “so-called”. That is how it is known. Confusion should be avoided through well written text. Daicaregos (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, Buckland's DNB entry doesn't mention Paviland at all; but an article in The Times of 1912 refers to his discoveries there 'as far back as 1823' so I think that must be the correct date. Anyway the article quotes remarks on the Red Lady from Buckland's Reliquae diluvianae, and the DNB entry dates that to 1823. RLamb (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mammoth

The article says the mammoth skull was lost. The BBC series 'A History of Ancient Britain' claims (though without much explanation) to bring the mammoth skull/bones back with the Lady's bones. Has anyone a reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.17.219 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Required

In the section titled Findings, this article says that the Red Lady is, "the oldest anatomically modern human remains found in the United Kingdom." The article on Kents Cavern says of the jawbone found there that it is, "the earliest anatomically modern human fossil yet discovered in North-West Europe." Both those statements cannot be simultaneously true and one of them, at least, will need to be amended. Cottonshirt τ 05:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the answer is that the Red Lady is the oldest skeleton. Kents Cavern was only a jawbone. I will get Sykes book shortly, given as the source for the Red Lady statement, and then should be able to amend. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found the answer. The claim that the Red Lady is the oldest dates to 2006, when the older Kents Cavern fossil was believed to be Neanderthal, but it is now thought to be modern human. I have removed the claim. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paviland burins

The article needs to cover more than just the Red Lady. Eg "Previously thought to be unique to Paviland, Paviland burins are now known to be an important feature of the Aurignacian of Belgium and Britain. Given that the Paviland burin technique is likely to be culturally bounded, this geographical range is indicative of close cultural affinity between these two regions. In palaeogeographical terms, this cultural affinity may be linked to movement in and around the now submerged Channel River valley. It is therefore possible that Paviland burins may be present in other Aurignacian assemblages, most likely in the north of Europe". "On The Technology Of Late Aurignacian Burin AndScraper Production, And The Importance Of The Paviland Lithic Assemblage And The Paviland Burin" by R. Dinnis.[1] Doug Weller talk 15:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Lady of Paviland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923173544/http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba61/feat3.shtml to http://www.archaeologyuk.org/ba/ba61/feat3.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red Lady of Paviland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090529061043/http://www.explore-gower.co.uk/Content/pa=showpage/pid=33.html to http://www.explore-gower.co.uk/Content/pa=showpage/pid=33.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Use of term "BP"

This seems like a term that will not be understood by the majority of non-specialist readers. I believe it should be either explained or replaced with a simple BC date, if somebody would care to do so M.T.S.W.A. (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just edited the term as requested.Horatius At The Bridge (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of Sex and Gender

The article states ” Buckland's treatise misjudged both its age and sex.” This misjudgment was based on accompanying artefacts, not an assessment of the skeleton. As per the Gender Archaeology Wikipedia page that would be classed as a misjudgment of gender. The article does not link to any studies or sources that suggest the anatomy of the skeleton was assessed. Mattevansc3 (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]