Talk:Rescue archaeology

Does the title of this page need to capitalized? --Smack 03:10, 8 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

No. I've moved it. --GRutter 13:56, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

added K and J

The field archaeology that occurs in Japan and Korea is largely emergency archaeology. I have edited the article to reflect this. Mumun 無文 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not "for-profit"

Lead: "Rescue archaeology ... is state-sanctioned, for-profit..."

Not so. Maybe in the US? At least in Israel, and quite likely in other countries too, it is quite the opposite of "for-profit": the construction contractor or landlord would have to pay from his own pocket for the national archaeological authority to execute the dig (unless that is understood to be "for-profit", which it's not; just covers the costs). Arminden (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No rescue excavation in Germany, other European countries": wrong, at least as a general statement

"Many European countries, such as, e.g., Germany, practice virtually no rescue excavation (though there is extensive research archaeology)."

So what happens when construction work hits on archaeologically important findings? Statement is a) unsourced, and b) factually wrong; at the very least wrongly worded, maybe means to say: construction is halted and the excavation is executed as a research dig – but it doesn't say that. I know for a fact from specific sites that in Germany that is very much the case. It also contradicts the previous sentence: "largely restricted to... Western Europe", of which Germany is quite a large part. Arminden (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Undue, strict UK & US focus. Israel and Jordan have it, maybe more of the Levant; Egypt?

"The term, and indeed the practice of, is largely restricted to North America, South America, Western Europe, and East Asia..."

What about the Levant? Israel is a focal point of international archaeological work, and rescue archaeology is a central part of its relevant legislation, derived from both Zionist interest in the topic, and British Mandate traditions. Jordan also has it, for similar reasons. We should look into and check about former French mandate areas such as Syria. The distinction might need to be made between what the law says and how well it is implemented.

What about Egypt?

With the Southern Levant and Egypt, two of the most archaeologically essential parts of the world are left out of the article, which has an undue focus on UK and US. This is a major flaw of the article.

@Kpflude and Viv Hamilton: hi. I see you are among the last Mohicans among those who've contributed more substantially to the article, maybe you want to look into these issues. You might also know who else to ping about it. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 09:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]