Talk:Dating methodologies in archaeology

Discussion
the rationale for creating Dating methodology (archaeology) was to try and draw together the myriad pieces on various dating methods, many of which do not seem to explain how they are used in archaeology, also to try and patch over some obvious admissions such as the concept of residual information or finds, which is a pretty central concept in dating and excavation. the methodology cat in general could do with being more detailed and comprehensive compared with the introductory articles on archaeology. while most users may want to know about Mesopotamia etc. after a while they may come to ask "how do they know that culture x existed 3000 yrs ago" or "how exactly does that process work". I am also trying to avoid creating small articles on every term without some larger pieces on how these various concepts work together. its ok creating apiece on this or that form of dating or technique but they should be designed in such a way they can be brought together to form a larger block of interconnected knowledge especially in areas such as methodology and even more so in a inter-disciplinarian science like archaeology. the function of doesn,t seem to work IMO as a tool for understanding how archaeology functions in detail as a discipline in its current form. So to this end i working on a framework of articles that attempt to link together in a logical way. my weakness is my writing style is appalling along with my spelling. I also have a limited time frame for substantial wiki editing at the moment due to injury but shortly i will not be able to put as much time in. I have done a fair bit of reorganising stuff but would appreciate some feedback and follow up if people have the time cheers Boris 12:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Move to Dating methodology
The current name Dating methodology (archaeology) refers to archaeology while the dating methodology that is decribed in the article also implies geology, biology and other sciences. I propose to move the article to Dating methodology that reflects the contents more accurately. Dentren |  Ta lk  13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

About the relative methods
Quoting the words like the following: Relative methods-- ''Relative or indirect methods tend to use associations built from the archaeological body of knowledge. An example is seriation. Ultimately, relative dating relies on tying into absolute dating with reference to the present. One example of this is dendrochronology which uses a process of tying floating chronologies of tree rings together by cross referencing a body of work.''

As i know, dendrochronology refers to absolute dating, like carbon-14, a scientific way to determine the date. I've taken some archaeology course. So i guess, that the sort of dendrochronology is be stated in wrong phrase. trudylan|11:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trudylan (talk • contribs)

Rehydroxylation dating
Rehydroxylation dating for dating ceramic materials is discussed at Science Daily here; a copy of the paper that article refers to is available here, at one of the websites for the Royal Society. 68.167.252.230 (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC).

How about renaming "methodology" to plain old "method"?
Since this topic is about how something is done, how about replacing "Dating methodologies in archaeology" with "Dating methods in archaeology"? It's less pretentious, three syllables shorter, and easier to understand. Russbellew (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC) : Agree on all counts. Besides, it is more likely that readers would use "methods" as a search term. Kdammers (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Work needed
This article is missing a lot of methods. It needs a lot of work.Kdammers (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)