Talk:Archaeology

From whence this obsession with the correctness of the British version of spelling vs the American version? There was no standard for spelling when the American colonies were founded in England or in America. The language has evolved separately ever since. The Oxford Dictionary always provides the British spelling first and Webster's always provides it second. So what. Let's just agree to accept both versions and let it go at that. This is a CP kind of stupidity. PoorEd 16:23, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I saw no good reason to move a perfectly well spelled article to a different spelling. Had it been created as Archaeology, it would have stayed that way.  Ironically, of course, I created it from a red link spelled without the redundant "a". Oh well, c'est la vie. human  16:41, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Haha, and of course that red link was at pseudoarcheology. Which is highly ranked by Google ;) human  16:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Eh, it isn't British, it's Greek. I always wince when I see "archeology" or "encyclopedia" or "pediatrics" or even "pedophile". It's just so wrong. All of them attempt to shoehorn the 'αι' sound in to a single letter 'e', and it doesn't really work. -- 16:42, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That's funny, I pronounce all those words with either a long or short "e" sound. human  17:01, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * The word archeology is based on Greek roots. The word as we have used it is English. English is based on largely Latin and Germanic roots of words, with a lot of other roots thrown in, including Greek. And you will find that the pronunciation is the same which ever way it is spelled. Just as colour is pronounced exactly the same as color, center the same as centre. PoorEd 11:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, and as far as my comment re: pronunciation, above, I don't claim to pronounce those words correctly -- that's just how I say them. human  15:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Hrm, I've observed the pronunciation to be markedly different between the UK and the USA. -- 15:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That is true, but in the vast majority of cases that has nothing to do with spelling. English spelling has very little to do with pronunciation for the same reason that the word "ghoti" can be pronounced "fish". This coversation should probably be taking place in a linguistics forum. PoorEd 15:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * "I've observed the pronunciation to be markedly different between the UK and the USA" - hasn't everyone who has heard both accents? human  19:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Lucy
Not sure what Lucy has to do with archeology. I suppose you could get a dig in here about grave robbing.  Rational Ed faith 21:39, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, yes. Much as astronomy owes a lot (observationally) to astrology, archeology grew out of the practice of graverobbing.  (see Egyptology...).  Modern archeologists are much more sensitive to who might be related to the bones they dig up than arkyologists of yore.  And Lucy might be all of ours' grandma, so maybe it's ok... human  21:43, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't get it at all. Why should we be pissed at Richard Leakey? What did he do? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 06:34, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I wasn't suggesting we should be pissed at Richard Leaky. I was suggesting that Leaky was committing anthropology, not archeology, when he discovered Lucy. The grave-robbing comment was just being snarky. Archeology is actually the study of the artifacts left by humans, not thee humans themselves Rational Ed faith 12:25, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Looks more like paleontology to me.--Bobbing up 15:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Right, fossils and all that.  Rational Ed faith 15:18, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
 * So perhaps Lucy shouldn't be on the Archaeology page? Or perhaps I'm missing a subtle joke here.--Bobbing up 16:26, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I hope you get the joke, at least (it's really funny!). Whether it's on the right page or not is another issue. human  17:01, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
 * Human remains are within the field of archaeology as well. Besides, wasn't it Donald Johnson et al. who discovered Lucy? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 23:56, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

Silver
I don't think so: Almost entirely (supposedly) "amusing" and very short on facts and reasonable discussion. No mention of anything actually archaeological. Rather than "silver" it ought to be "Fun". 10:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's very little in it for a graded article. 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed bronze too. Not quite "Crap:" space quality, but not any good yet - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Human was up late, drunken editing again. 11:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Human hates the system, so I assume it was intentional. 12:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

External link
Does this reasonable site belong here or on the pseudoarchaeology page (and even elsewhere)? Anna Livia (talk) 09:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)