Talk:Aerial archaeology: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:34, 5 January 2010

History Unassessed

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The aerial photos (APs) chosen to illustrate aerial archaeology aren't really representative, in my opinion. Okay, the first one shows an amphitheatre, giving us its ground plan - but this is an already excavated feature, so already known to archaeology. The great thing about aerial archaeology is its use as a tool for discovering sites and identifying previously obscure features not readily apparent from ground level. The second shot merely shows an aerial view of a town - albeit an old, historic town. Again, not representative of what aerial archaeology can show most usefully. How about some photos of earthworks, lynchets, soilmarks, cropmarks etc - the common forms of archaeological features that APs are good at showing? 86.148.48.248 (talk) 09:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 06:03, 24 October 2008 edit Grahamec (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 229,351 edits add project		Revision as of 09:34, 5 January 2010 edit undo 86.148.48.248 (talk) poor choice of photographs Next edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WikiProject History}}		{{WikiProject History}}

			The aerial photos (APs) chosen to illustrate aerial archaeology aren't really representative, in my opinion. Okay, the first one shows an amphitheatre, giving us its ground plan - but this is an already excavated feature, so already known to archaeology. The great thing about aerial archaeology is its use as a tool for discovering sites and identifying previously obscure features not readily apparent from ground level. The second shot merely shows an aerial view of a town - albeit an old, historic town. Again, not representative of what aerial archaeology can show most usefully. How about some photos of earthworks, lynchets, soilmarks, cropmarks etc - the common forms of archaeological features that APs are good at showing? [[Special:Contributions/86.148.48.248\|86.148.48.248]] ([[User talk:86.148.48.248\|talk]]) 09:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)