Talk:Archaeological record

Info about Nomenclature... section.....
--222.67.216.199 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=archaeological+nomenclature&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.216.199 (talk) 04:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+archaeological+classification&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.216.199 (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+archaeological+catalogue&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+archaeological+cataloguing&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

Lots of material removed
Because this article has gone without references for so long it risked deletion, I have stripped it back to just a basic definition supported by sources. It should be expanded to re-incorporate some of the stuff that was there about what kind of things make up the archaeological record (artefacts, biofacts, etc.) but this time with more detail and, of course, references. There is probably also a section on different theoretical views of the nature of the archaeological record, which the Patrik article discusses (as of 1985 - there would have to be a more up-to-date source used too). But writing a section like that in a jargon-free and understandable way is far beyond my ability... — Joseph Roe Tk • Cb, 19:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)