This redirect 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
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography
I am not convinced that this is a notable subfield. There are very few Google Scholar hits for arch[a]eogeography in English, and most seem unrelated to the school of thought described here. The listed sources are all French, which of course is fine if the archéogéographie is a notable concept in the French literature. But I'm struggling to see how it is different from Anglophone landscape archaeology and/or historical geography. If archéogéographie is just the French equivalent of those fields, or a minor theoretical spin on them, it should be covered in their respective articles rather than a standalone one. – Joe (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that it does merit its own standalone page in English. You are correct that most of the sources are in French, but the number of English-language articles and book chapters is increasing at a fairly steady (albeit slow) pace. Additionally, having an English-language standalone page increases the probability of more people finding out about archaeogeography as an approach to landscapes. Archaeogeography is not just the French equivalent of Anglophone landscape archaeology and/or historical geography, although it does incorporate elements and approaches from both. Archaeogeography is a more explicitly theoretically-savvy approach, and incorporates some of the more recent and significant thinking on the object(s) of archaeology. Claym-45 (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on what the source material says. For example, is there a source which says that archaeogeography is more theoretical than landscape archaeology and how it fits into the historiography of the subject? The Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology has an entry of landscape archaeology (the French term for which would seem to be 'archéologie du paysage'), but not archaeogeography.
I've looked through the English sources a few times but can't find an explicit explanation of how it differs (or doesn't differ) from landscape archaeology. They generally use both terms but not exactly synonymously. So I'm not sure what to do. – Joe (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
