Talk:Journal of Field Archaeology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Archaeology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Routledge?[edit]

@Randykitty: I'm a bit confused by your changing the publisher from Taylor & Francis to Routledge. I realise Routledge is now owned by T&F, but the journal's website says e.g. Trustees of Boston University and our publisher Taylor & Francis and the editorial cited for the publication history also says Taylor & Francis. No mention of Routledge as far as I can tell? – Joe (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Routledge is indeed not an independent publisher any more, but an imprint of T&F. All of their social science and humanities journals/books/handbooks are published under this imprint. Indeed, the cover of this journal prominently displays the Routledge name. So saying that this is published by Routledge is just a tad more precise than saying T&F. All Routledge is T1F, but not all T&F is Routledge... --Randykitty (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Classical archaeology ?[edit]

Hello.

I'm not sure of the meaning of "classical" in "it has been cited as an example of a journal that bridges the divide between anthropological archaeology and classical archaeology".

If this "classical" is used in the sense of "normal", then a link to "classical" archeology (in the sense of "archeology of the classical era") is not pertinent.

Regards, Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 15:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No it's used in the sense of archaeology of the classical era. – Joe (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]