Talk:Archaeobiology

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Environmental Archaeology
These are pretty much synonymous. Environmental archaeology is far more commonly used (46 million google hits. ~6400 for 'Archaeobiology) and has several inter-language links. However, this article has some decent content that should be kept. PatHadley (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, Archaeobiology and Environmental Archaeology are two different field of research, with methods and subject of research that may partly overlap. They largely investigate palaeoenvironment or palaeoethnobotany/palaeoeconomy. But this does not mean that they may be considered as the 'same thing'.

I don't understand how archaeolobiology and environmental archaeology are different disciplines - to me, they're the same thing. I'd recommend merging as well. Ninafundisha (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2015 (UTC)