Contents

Talk:Archaeological excavation

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology Top‑importance 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.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Historical digging was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 November 2011 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Archaeological excavation. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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: Archaeological Excavation, 2012

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 June 2020 and 3 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mrman0930. Peer reviewers: Pittarchy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That would be interesting. I suggest a description contrasting the methods used to dig into Monks Mound, the USA's largest mond. 207.193.87.114 19:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The following pictures may be useful to be used in the article. They are taken 67 years after excavation.

• 
  Excavations in Kohandezh, Neyshabur, Iran in 1940
• 
  Excavations in Kohandezh, Neyshabur, Iran in 1940

--Soroush83 14:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It seems as though the second paragraph is vague and needs rewritten to ensure clarity on this topic. I added a reference after the first sentence that may be utilized in the re-writing of this paragraph. Kww14 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excavation (archaeology) with Excavation (paleontology) all content is almost identical. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]