Talk:Relationship (archaeology)

Comments
slight edit of RJP, good rewording but slightly incorrect, contexts need not be apparently distinctive of relationships solely apparent in section "side of trench" a balance between a more scientific jargonese and laymans talk very very slightly to informal given the degree of increased rigour to all the excavation related stuff I have added? thoughts? Boris 22:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

site formation
going to use this "Archaeological material would, to a very large extent, have been called rubbish when it was left on the site. It tends to accumulate in events. A gardener swept a pile of soil into a corner, laid a gravel path or planted a bush in a hole. A builder built a wall and back-filled the trench. Years later, someone built a pig sty onto it and drained the pig sty into the nettle patch. Later still, the original wall blew over and so on. Each event, which may have taken a short or long time to accomplish, leaves a context, a deposit of material, on the site." cut and pasted into excavation under section site formation Boris 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

potential merge with Archaeological association
I have suggested on the Archaeological association page that it be merged with this one - any objections? Ninafundisha (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)