Talk:Richat Structure

Proposal To Start Automatively Archiving Discussions for this Talk Page - It is Getting Too Long

I propose that we start automatically archiving discussions on this talk page. It is getting unwieldy and too long to have discussions on it. I would do it. However, I have never been able to set automatic archiving up the times that I tried on oethr pages. Paul H. (talk) 01:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully the MiszaBot setup on the page will now work, once there are more than 4 threads. – SJ + 02:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Richat Structure

Richat Structure is an actual Structure within the geological formation known as the "Eye of Sahara", not the actual geological formation itself. Dating the soil beneath is not accurate at determining age.. Sumerians describe "Eye of Sahara" as a secondary asteroid impact(a "RicAchet" Latin O~A) before landing beside Ethiopia with both African impacts being the cause for both younger dryas sediment layers as well as glass fields in Egypt & Libya. See Phaethon for "Alternative History Revision" Imjustjamei (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources and explanations already provided within this very article, I do believe you have been misinformed. --Licks-rocks (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, you are flogging a dead horse because you appear to be discussing original research that lacks notability and vertifiable secondary sources. As a start, you need to get your ideas published in a reputable source such that other people, who judge them significant, can evaluate and comment on it in the scientific literature. In addition, Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your own personal research. Paul H. (talk) 16:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Air burst

Is there a possibility that this was formed from an air burst? If the material was fresh enough after an eruption, and an air burst happened close enough to the surface it could explain the shape, contents, and close proximity to the crater formed near by. 2603:7080:6A40:2E00:D4C6:4407:6FCA:3197 (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

The original surface overlying the Richat Structure has been destroyed by erosion over many millions of years. Any crater, volcanic or otherwise, was destroyed by erosion long ago. I would not be surprise if the rocks exposed at the surface now were a kilometer more or so below the surface at the time the Richat Structure was formed. I will have to look if anyone has either conducted any geothermobarometry work at or near this structure or otherwise the burial depth of these rock. A recent, open access, paper is:

Jourdan, F., Chazot, G., Bertrand, H. and Le Gall, B., 2024. How old is the Eye of Africa? A polyphase history for the igneous Richat Structure, Mauritania. Lithos, p.107698. Paul H. (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Fortresses, tumuli and rock art at the Richat structure

I made a page edit which mentioned the existence of 25 large stone fortresses which have been identified at the Richat structure and acknowledged by satellite archaeologist Sarah Parcak. I also included the existence of several thousands of stone tumuli which line the ring dikes and have been mentioned in an article by archaeologist Robert Vernet, beside also mentioning the presence of several rock art sites as identified by various archaeologists including Théodore Monod, which depict large wildlife, human figures and artefacts. I included the sources to all of these material facts at the site. Sadly, my addition was repeatedly deleted on grounds of being 'pseudoscientific nonsense', simply because it adds some more weight to the Atlantis interpretation of the Richat structure. I understand the need to exclude views which are outside of the academic consensus, but this seems unrelated to the objective existence of these archaeological features. Furthermore, they are tangible evidence against the false claim that 'no manmade structures have been identified', as is currently stated in the article. I was told to make my case on this talk page in order to gain a consensus for the inclusion of these archaeological facts with their academic citations. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Lets see the cites (note THEY must link the archaeology to Atlantis). Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Fortresses analysed by an archaeologist:

Sam Sheridan and Sarah Parcak (2020). "The Curse of Atlantis". Atlas of Cursed Places. Season 1. National Geographic. At the end of the episode Parcak shares her interpretation of the fortresses.

3D scans of several of these fortresses:

https://sketchfab.com/atlantistogether

Tumuli at the Richat structure:

Vernet, R. (2025). "Funerary Monuments of Central Mauritania: Inventory and Distribution". Arid Zone Archeology Monographs. 10: 129–151. (A map of the distribution of tumuli in Mauritania from this article can be viewed at https://prehistoireouestsaharienne.wordpress.com/2025/05/10/inventaire-des-peintures-rupestres-du-plateau-du-tagant/ (bottom of the page), which clearly shows their abundant presence at the Richat structure)

Rock art sites at the Richat structure:

Lluch, P.; Philip, S. (2003). "Six stations à gravures du N.E. de l'Adrar (dhar Chinguetti, Mauritanie)". Cahiers de l’AARS. 8: 87–96.

Mauny, R. (1954). Gravures, peintures et inscriptions rupestres de l’ouest saharien. Dakar: IFAN Dakar. p. 92.

Monod, Th. (1938). Contribution à l’étude du Sahara occidental : gravures, peintures, inscriptions rupestres. Paris: Éditions Larose. p. 173. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Until recently, we have resisted mention of the nonsense of Atlantis in this article at all. I wish we could go back to those heady days. Roxy the dog 15:00, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, one question quote where any of these sources say these are linked to Atlantis? Slatersteven (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I never said that these sources mentioned Atlantis. When I originally edited the page, I added the information about the fortresses, tumuli and rock art in the Archaeology section without mentioning Atlantis whatsoever. My current question is why these facts cannot be added to the article without making any connections to Atlantis. Still, a connection to Atlantis does exist because Plato's text mentions the presence of elephants, horses, chariots and warriors with javelins and small shields, all of which are also depicted in the local rock art. Of course this can only be a complete coincidence because Atlantis is clearly a fiction regardless of Plato's text repeating 20 times that it is based on a historical textual record, so it does not have to be connected to Atlantis in the article because that is clearly pseudoscientific nonsense. I just want to mention these details of the physical archaeology present as identified by qualified archaeologists. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Read wp:pr and wp:v. We can only say it is RS says it, not if we think it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it included both this and completely unsourced personal speculation that Richat structure is actually Atlantis, and to be honest given what you added into the Atlantis section I really don't trust your judgement about your intepretation of these sources. Anyone looking for an interesting discussion of the actual archaeology of the Richat structure may want to watch this YouTube video, which cites some good sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay so if the part pertaining to Atlantis is left out and only the fortresses, tumuli and rock art are mentioned with their respective sources, is there any ground left to deny these from being included in the article? Constantine Pontifex (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

As long as they are presented neutrally and do not reference explicitly or implicitly Atlantis in any way, then yes. The rock art seems unobjectionable for example, but the claim about "fortresses", which has been explicitly disputed, needs to be presented carefuly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

In reply to your edit 'The fortified enclosures haven't really been discussed properly in any reliable sources (the sketchfab doesn't clearly verify the information it is cited for, and National Geographic is like the History Channel, sadly prone to sensationalism these days) so I don't think they should be discussed unless reliable academic sources discuss them': the existence of the fortresses is a fact which can be easily verified by looking at their coördinates at Google maps ((21.12288, -11.37311); (21.05952, -11.44152); (21.06464, -11.40206); (21.09049, -11.45357); (21.01676, -11.43405); (21.01665, -11.43149); (21.04417, -11.48162); (21.12017, -11.27621); (21.12315, -11.27809); (21.11781, -11.27392); (21.12101, -11.28019); (21.1237, -11.28063); (21.01898, -11.4471); (20.92538, -11.41794); (21.41672, -11.22757) etc.). The National Geographic episode is the only source where an actual archaeologist talks about them, because a widespread Atlantophobia among archaeologists has prevented anyone from talking about them in fear of being seen as pseudoscientists. I deeply regret the existence of academic publications on them, but this does not negate their actual existence. If Steven Novella's blog was deemed a good enough source, then an interview with an archaeologist on National Geographic should also be sufficient due to lack of any better publications. I get the need for reliable sources, but the idea that if there is no academic publication to back something up makes it untrue, even if the contrary is easlily demonstrable, seems quite shallow to me. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What does he say about them? And read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Novella (a neuroscientist) did not mention the fortresses, but he was initially used as a source criticising the Richat-Atlantis hypothesis, until Hemiauchenia changed it to a book by Sean M. Rafferty, anthropologist of North American indigenous history (the footnote mentioning the ancient volcanic origin of the structure is not a strong argument against the Atlantis hypothesis because Plato's text describes that the inhabitants settled on top of an already existing geological feature, but whatever). Parcak, who specialises in archaeology using satellite data, identified them as cattle enclosures which due to the large amount of animal pens implied the presence of food, water and trade, which she used to argue for her proposed date of the structures. Until actual excavations take place and reliable reseach papers are published about them, this is the most credible source describing them, and their existence is a simple fact that has been verified by various YouTubers visiting them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0paOYeWCpgk&t=77s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cbUg5Suc80 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDZY4xxsf-c). The interpretation of their historical context is what remains up to debate, as I also described in my addition to the article. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

So, not forts? Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

??? I described them as fortified enclosures because that's the most neutral description of them Constantine Pontifex (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Made a post at RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#National_Geographic_Atlantis_documentary_for_Richat_Structure. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:18, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Sarah Parcak did not connect the structures to Atlantis, and in fact pushed the prevailing fictionalist stance. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Did she say they were 8,000 years old? Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Here is National Geographic's Youtube upload of the episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEtVdG0x6So The fortresses are discusses starting at 41:00 Constantine Pontifex (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Blocked in my country, so why not just answer? What does she actualy say (and in response to what?)?Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the YouTube video blocked? The National Geographic site is not accesible for many countries, but I believe YT is? Anyway, here's the transcript: Once our eyes got adjusted to the landscape, then hundreds and hundres of features started popping up, if not thousands (images of tumuli shown). In the heart of the Richat Structure are two absolutely massive, rectangular structures that look like they have rounded towers at the ends. To me that was one of the most exciting finds. These are pretty wild, and they're definitely ancient, they're not anything more modern. So we'll go to western most one, we'll zoom in: you can actually see the little animal pens. So this could have easily housed more than a hundred camels or donkeys. This wouldn't have been a place where you just kind of camp out for a night. They're clearly going to have food, there's going trading that goes on, there probably would have been wells there. In fact, previous research reports that were done, they said: you know, we've been there (Richat structure), we found handaxes from more than 100.000 years ago, we found neolithic blades, but absolutely no evidence whatsoever, until now, of any kind of built human structures in and around the Richat structure. But I think the story has changed. These probably date to 8.000 to 5.000 years ago. I'm super excited about what we found, that opens up, I think, a chapter of archaeology that archaeologists didn't know was there. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Video unavailable The uploader has not made this video available in your country Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Well, that's a shame, but in my previous message I sent a verbatim transcript of her comments on the fortresses, where she clearly states that they're man made (obviously), and that she estimates them to date to 8.000-5.000 BP. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

You can use a proxy service like Proxyium to access the video. Something being technically closed access doesn't make it unusable as a source, otherwise we wouldn't be able to cite many academic sources. That said having watched some of it, the tone of the documentary is almost entirely sensational and gives little space to the voice of experts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems to be an accurate quote enough for me to think we can add this as a wholly attributed claim. Slatersteven (talk) 18:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the episode has a sensationalist tone, but Parcak is an expert and her claims about the enclosures are not harmed by the rest of the episode and can be viewed regardless of Atlantis speculation (she doesn't say anything about Atlantis). That being said, Plato's text mentions the presence of guardhouses used by the horseman soldiers (also depicted in local rock art) on the smallest lang ring closest to the center (Critias 117c-d), which is exactly where this fortress is located. Of course this is just synthesising speculation and drawing parallels between a wholly fictional settlement and tangible archaeology, so there is no need to mention this parallel to Atlantis in the article, but the fortress in and of itself is verified to be real and thus a relevant part of the physical archaeology at the Richat structure. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

No, a structure is alleged to exist, she does not say what it might be. Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What?? Alleged? Anyone who has eyes to look at the videos I posted earlier of people visiting one of the structures, to view the satellite images of their coordinates and to look at the clip of Sarah Parcak will conclude that these structures exist for a fact. It is not alleged, it is demonstrably true. If you need a research paper from an academic journal to repeat the facts which I have demonstrated here in order to believe it to be truth and not mere allegation, you are clearly committing an appeal to authority fallacy. I believe that the previous doubts about Parcak as a source have been amended by the evidence I provided here, and thus the structures deserve to be mentioned on the Wiki page. Constantine Pontifex (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

That is wp:or youtube is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The publisher is National Geographic, not YouTube, that said I have strong reservations about the reliability of the documentary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that these structures exist, but that we need WP:reliable sources commenting on them in order to say anything about them. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Nor where they "the videos I posted earlier of people visiting one of the structures", that it not refering to A video. Slatersteven (talk) 19:19, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Are Sarah Parcak and National Geographic not reputable enough to comment on them? You previously stated: I do not think we get to decide to exclude an expert becasue we do not agree with them. And this claim was made by the archaeologist Sarah Parcak, who seems to be a somewhat well regarded aerial archaeology researcher. As far as I can tell there is not a better source for the claim. and if she straight up says, "these are 8,000-year-old man-made structures," I do not think we can exclude her claim. We would need to attribute it, not exclude it. and This seems to be an accurate quote enough for me to think we can add this as a wholly attributed claim. and As long as they are presented neutrally and do not reference explicitly or implicitly Atlantis in any way, then yes. So what's the final verdict? If no connections are drawn to Atlantis, why wouldn't Parcak suffice as a reputable source concerning the existence (and possible historical context) of these manmade structures? Constantine Pontifex (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

What has that to do with " Anyone who has eyes to look at the videos I posted earlier of people visiting one of the structures, to view the satellite images of their coordinates|", I do njot dispute here, I diuspute the idea anyone one has confirmed it. Slatersteven (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay I fail to see your point here (I was saying that the in situ videos and the satellite images are proof of their existence), but I take it that Parcak is a reputable enough source to include the existence of the structures on the Wiki page Constantine Pontifex (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

First although you have found a lot interesting stuff about regional archaeology, Hemiauchenia is 100 percent correct in agreeing "...with MjolnirPants that a sensationalist documentary is not a reliable source..." After watching it, it seems to be more aptly characterized as an adventure travelogue instead of a real documentary given the amount of fringe material; odd conspiracy theory about "nationalism" suppressing research; the storyline of being on a dangerous quest; wretched and superficial geoarcheological interpretations; and so forth involved. Finally, not only do we "...don't know the full context of what she (Sarah Parcak) actually said)", it is tactic of sensationalist, fringe videos to "trick" reputable scientists into participating in them in order to generate an undeserved sense of credibility to the video. Her participation alone does not make it a reputable source of information.

The structure lie within the frustrating position of knowing about something that belongs in a Wikipedia article from original research, but lacking the reliable sources needed to include it in an article. Paul H. (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)