Property talk:P9047

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• List of values
• List of qualifiers
• Count

archaeological site of
at this archeological site the object has been uncovered

Represents	archaeological site (Q839954)
Data type	Item
Domain	archaeological site (Q839954)
Example	archaeological site of Kish (Q102885646) → Kish (Q132272) wrecks of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror (Q17984217) → HMS Erebus (Q512615) HMS Terror (Q141667)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties By value of property Most statements Fewest statements Most sitelinks Most linked wikis Total of sitelinks on items Most identifiers Fewest identifiers Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Database reports/Constraint violations/P9047 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 5,487 Main statement 5,476 99.8% of uses Qualifier 11 0.2% of uses
Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Type “archaeological site (Q839954)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “archaeological site (Q839954)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9047#Type Q839954, SPARQL

Value type “concrete object (Q4406616), human settlement (Q486972), architectural structure (Q811979)”: This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value concrete object (Q4406616), human settlement (Q486972), architectural structure (Q811979) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9047#Value type Q4406616, Q486972, Q811979, SPARQL

Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9047#Scope, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200), Wikibase MediaInfo (Q59712033): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9047#Entity types

Shipwreck

Hi, should we use this property for shipwrecks? I have RMS Empress of Ireland (Q1339472) or wrecks of HMS Erebus and HMS Terror (Q17984217) who are two national historic site of Canada (Q1568567). --Fralambert (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Since this property is your suggestion. What do you think? Like todays I splited Anthony Wayne Shipwreck (Q106205908) from PS Anthony Wayne (Q52279177). --Fralambert (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Scope of the property

@ChristianKl, IagoQnsi, Bouzinac, Kiril Simeonovski: Hi! I've just noticed the existence of this property and I'm not fully sure about its scope. Here my two hypothesis:

1. In Wikidata:Property proposal/archaeological site of the two examples I see seem to indicate that it should be used to link a specific item being instance of (P31)archaeological site (Q839954) to another item being a specific city/place.
2. However, in my watchlist I've seen edits like this, which seem to intend the scope of this property as proposed in Wikidata:Property proposal/type of archaeological site, so to link to a generic item indicating the type of archaeological site.

As of now, I have edited the value type constraint in order to align it to hypothesis 1), but I'm not sure if I'm wrong in considering hypothesis 2) not congruent with the original proposal. Thank you all, --Epìdosis 11:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC) P.S. When you propose properties related to ancient history, please {{Ping project}} Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Greece and Wikidata:WikiProject Ancient Rome

Epìdosis Thanks for asking this. I think your two hypotheses are pretty much the same. The property's description says "at this archeological site the object has been uncovered", which can be an ancient city, a fortification, a religious object or anything else. Some of these have known names so it's reasonable to use it in accordance with 1) but most of them haven't been named or the title includes the name so it's reasonable to use it in accordance with 2).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the edit in 2 is not in scope of the property and that it should always link to concrete instances (that's what the examples indicate). The concept 'city' is not a city. Whether or not something has a distinct name shouldn't matter for the claims. Keeping claims about the age of the archaeological site separate from claims about the age of the city is important and the name is irrelevant to that. I do see the constraint that Epìdosis added matches the original intent. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with this. If we restrict ourselves to using this property as advised in the examples only, then it would have very limited use to justify its existence. Also, please pay attention that the property proposal included an example that links from Teotihuacan (Q103133838) to Teotihuacan (Q172613) but these two items have been merged, which indicates that this may also happen with the examples given on top of this talk page. In any case, archaeological sites can't always link to something concrete because that thing in most of the cases doesn't exist any more or remained unnamed but this doesn't mean that the archaeological site is irrelevant itself. Most people think about archaeological sites as places that one day hosted advanced civilisations but that's outright wrong. Archaeological sites are places where even a single artifact has been uncovered. For instance, if you unearth a couple of coins in the yard of your house, then it's an archaeological site that merits further investigation. This suggests that there might have been something on that place but archaeologists still don't know what and that's why they use a simple classification of archaeological sites which includes types such as settlement, fortification, church, coins etc.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the merge by @Fralambert: on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q103133838&oldid=1330223022 wasn't a good idea. --Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 18:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

You know, you can umerged it if you want. Fralambert (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that many archeological site are not really famous. If I look about some Canadian indigenous site Waapushukamikw (Q23303435) is a quarry, Writing-on-Stone Provincial Park (Q8038519) is a rock art site, Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump (Q683110) is a buffalo jump (Q605981). None of them apply to a former settlement or even a place. At least if the place in question don't have such features, they would'nt be archeological site. Fralambert (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

It's up to archaeologists to decide if a place is an archaeological site or not and it's a clear-cut case if that's well documented in the literature. Also, archaeologists are those who decide about the periodisation and classification of archaeological sites.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)