|Historical digging was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 30 November 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Excavation (archaeology). The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.|
|WikiProject Archaeology||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:|
- 1 Comments
- 2 future technologies
- 3 references for excavation
- 4 expanding links for a fuller understanding of stratigraphic relationships
- 5 just letting everyone involved know
- 6 Historical development
- 7 Maybe useful pix
- 8 Article title
- 9 What's the point of merging Historical digging with this article ?
- 10 Copyvio templates
I would also suggest regional categories for this article, as european methodology differs from that of north american and other regions. I would be glad to do a write up on north and meso american methods. Actualities 21:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- That would be interesting. I suggest a description contrasting the methods used to dig into Monks Mound, the USA's largest mond. 126.96.36.199 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
no excavation? don't believe it!
--Yak 22:20, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)
I would like to see a page for Excavation (Construction)
I disagree with the very first statement made on the page as well.
1. Excavation is the best known and most commonly used within the science of archaeology. In this sense it is the exposure, processing and recording of archaeological remains.
Excavation is best known and most commonly used within the Construction Industry.
--Warperbs 14:45, Mar 24, 2009 (UTC)
- This article is about basic excavation methods, for survey techniques and technology take a look at Cnyborg's excellent work at Archaeological field survey. adamsan 17:24, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
references for excavation
there is not enough emphasis in the project in general concerning the use of stratigraphic relationships and phase as a logical methodology in excavation or interpretation Boris 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
just letting everyone involved know
article under heavy development and modification also mass rationalization of entire methodology category at hand, being rather unilaterally active but my editing behavior is dictated by an overview of the editing and contrib frequency of other contributers and a window of opportunity I have with my own personnel time.. i may not be able to contrib in a months time or so due to other commitments. sorry for stepping on toes etc.Boris 10:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
my efforts are better spent concentrating on pulling the methodology aspects together across the category:methods and principles in archaeology (i hate that title btw) rather than write a concise history of excavation that someone else can source and do a better job than me anyway. Boris 09:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe useful pix
The following pictures may be useful to be used in the article. They are taken 67 years after excavation.
--Soroush83 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- After waiting a few months, I moved the article. In fixing the double redirects, I saw that there is a redirect page called Archaeological excavation, which I think in the end might be the most sensible title.
What's the point of merging Historical digging with this article ?
As I went through Historical digging and Excavation I am forced to conclude that both are very different types of pursuits and one is not a subset of the other. Historical digging seems more like an amateur bobby collection sort of exercise while Excavation is more scientific and professional. The treatment of recovered artifacts is quite different, I presume in historical digging its the property of the finder while that is never the case with Archaeology. Yes, Archaeology has something to fear from historical digging but that should be more of a reason why both articles should not be merged. It will simply give more credibility to historical digging than it deserves. Wikishagnik (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've removed both of the copyvio templates for the following reasons:
- Second section: the page says that it was copied from Wikipedia, so there's no copyvio either way.
- First section: we started with text that was gradually edited to produce the text that appears on the other page. They're committing a copyvio by copying our article without performing the attribution that's required by our GFDL and CC-by-sa licenses.