Talk:Excavation (archaeology)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


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. 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

no excavation? don't believe it!

--Yak 22:20, Mar 31, 2004 (UTC)

Excavation (Construction)

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)

future technologies[edit]

can we have more info about possible future technologies, as well as info on the current state of the art, such as ground-penetrating radar? - Omegatron 17:14, Jan 2, 2005

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)
I am currently in the process of trying to raise the standard of this article to at the least the same level as Archaeological field surveyBoris 06:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

references for excavation[edit]

The MoLAS archaeological site manual MoLAS, London 1994. ISBN 0-904818-40-3. Rb 128pp. bl/wh is a good starting point for references Boris 22:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

expanding links for a fuller understanding of stratigraphic relationships[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Historical development[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Article title[edit]

I suggest this article be moved to Excavation (archaeology), since it looks to be essentially about archaeological excavation. -Eric talk 12:14, 17 March 2008 (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 ?[edit]

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)

Copyvio templates[edit]

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.

For these reasons, there's no copyright-based reason to object to the current contents. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Rewriting many sentences and tagging...[edit]

I placed several rewrite tags a few days ago and they were removed, claiming that they were not required. I put them back because of sentences like this:

Archaeological stratification or sequence is the dynamic superimposition of single units of stratigraphy or contexts.

I am well educated, but this really hurts my brain trying figure out what this means. There are many sentences like this throughout the article. These tags should be held in place for at least a month to give people the chance to work on them. Take care... Dinkytown talk 00:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what "dynamic" means here, otherwise it seems ok, if not unimprovable. The lead is way too short, for sure. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)