+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: To Dig or Preserve (/showthread.php?tid=5075)
To Dig or Preserve - Tool - 20th September 2013
Something else the 'preserve in situ' brigade also rather short-sightedly forget is that we are laying down yet more archaeology every single day. In 100 or 500 or 1000 years time most of the landscape we recognise today will be changed dramatically and irreversibly. Future archaeologists will have more than enough to contend with without all that lovely prehistoric stuff that is slowly dissolving into nothingness. Think of that road being taken out by Stonehenge. Today it's a blot on an historic landscape. Sometime in the future it'll be part of the puzzle of 20th - 21st century life, it will be part of an historic landscape in its own right. To my mind it is far better to investigate what we can now, even with whatever possible limitations there are to our methods, rather than risk it being lost forever both to the obvious deterioration by natural and human processes, and to the ever-increasing overburden of 'new' archaeology.
To Dig or Preserve - kevin wooldridge - 20th September 2013
One of the arguments often heard justifying 'preservation' is that at some future date we will discover a method or methods that will enhance our understanding and interpretation of archaeological sites. That may well be the case, BUT......as we are not even using all of the methods and resources available at present to look at interpret and understand our built and buried heritage, what certainty is there that we will do that in the future?
Lets face it (and now I am going to sound like Uo1) its all a con, sweeping our immediate problems under the carpet and hoping either that the issue will be forgotten or that nature will run its course and the 'problem' will simply disappear.....
To Dig or Preserve - Dinosaur - 20th September 2013
Tool Wrote:Something else the 'preserve in situ' brigade also rather short-sightedly forget is that we are laying down yet more archaeology every single day. In 100 or 500 or 1000 years time most of the landscape we recognise today will be changed dramatically and irreversibly. Future archaeologists will have more than enough to contend with without all that lovely prehistoric stuff that is slowly dissolving into nothingness. Think of that road being taken out by Stonehenge. Today it's a blot on an historic landscape. Sometime in the future it'll be part of the puzzle of 20th - 21st century life, it will be part of an historic landscape in it's own right. To my mind it is far better to investigate what we can now, even with whatever possible limitations there are to our methods, rather than risk it being lost forever both to the obvious deterioration by natural and human processes, and to the ever-increasing overburden of 'new' archaeology.
Have been eyeing-up the middle of a roundabout on an up-coming road scheme - it'll have a Roman road, whatever happened in the middle ages, a turnpike road, various versions of a crossroads, several early phases of a modern major trunk route and an early(ier) example of the existing roundabout, all in one little area. Bet we don't get to play with it though, it'll be deemed to have been trashed by, errr, road improvements...
To Dig or Preserve - RedEarth - 20th September 2013
Wax Wrote:I can indeed think beyond my own life time and it scares the s... out of me. As for the next 100 years it will either be the "Culture" or something to awful to contemplate. Either way I am not sure archaeology as we know it will be relevant. If it wasn't for all those Victorian barrow diggers we would nt have modern archaeology:face-stir:
I'm not sure I understand the first part of that, but never mind. Think of it another way though, if we carry on digging sites that we could be leaving alone the already struggling museums and depositories won't be able to cope so archives will be lost. You'd have to hope that all the digging was also guaranteed to result in publications of the highest quality, which of course is impossible (there are hundreds of sites worth of stuff out there now waiting to be published that probably never will be). So if the museums can't hold the archives and there's no certainty that the results will be published promptly and well, it's probably best to leave it alone. I also don't believe the last sentence - it's like saying if it wasn't for all the shaman we wouldn't have had microsurgery. I would think the work of a few individuals who really thought about what they were doing, rather than just ripping treasure out of the ground, made far more difference.
Kevin's statement that we aren't using all of the current methods to their full capabilities, while probably true, is true of almost everything. We could have a base on Mars by now, it's not technology that stopping it, its cost, and a will to do it. By contrast, geophys is now regularly used on sites, something people could only have dreamed of 20 years ago.
To Dig or Preserve - Dinosaur - 20th September 2013
Conversely, all those 'antiquarians' made at least some record, however slight, of vast amounts of archaeology which would have disappeared long since anyway courtesy of powered farm machinery - the vast majority of archaeological distribution plots (which, for instance, PM is based on) rely on those spots on a map for their baseline? Are you suggesting we ignore all the archaeology being swept away by modern development too?
To Dig or Preserve - RedEarth - 20th September 2013
Dinosaur Wrote:Conversely, all those 'antiquarians' made at least some record, however slight, of vast amounts of archaeology which would have disappeared long since anyway courtesy of powered farm machinery - the vast majority of archaeological distribution plots (which, for instance, PM is based on) rely on those spots on a map for their baseline? Are you suggesting we ignore all the archaeology being swept away by modern development too?
Your opening sentence is a somewhat optimistic way of looking at it - some antiquarians made very good records (they were the ones I was referring to, the ones who really moved things forward), some made very average records, some made records that are complete nonsense with even worse interpretation, some made hardly any record at all, and some made a record but didn't publish it and it is only known about because someone found it in an archive. Comparing that to work done in advance of modern development is baffling (although entirely understandable in some cases).
To Dig or Preserve - Wax - 20th September 2013
If it was nt for all the Shamanism we might not have modern mental health care (some might say we were better of with the shaman). As for the "Culture" reference read Ian M. Banks. And I truely believe if it was not for the experiments of the past we would not have our current technologies. If it was not for all the grave robbing in the 18th and 19th centuries we might not have modern medicine and I do know that statement opens a can of ethical worms and there are some boundaries that should not be crossed.
I agree there are issues with storage and publication but that is an excuse rather than a reason for preservation in situ. Kevin and Unit are right it is all a con "sweeping our immediate problems under the carpet and hoping either that the issue will be forgotten or that nature will run its course and the 'problem' will simply disappear"
Preservation in situ is a Red Herring meaning we have not got the resources to undertake the proper excavation and research so rather than state the truth lets come up with "preservation in situ" as a reason for not tackling the problem.
To Dig or Preserve - RedEarth - 20th September 2013
Wax Wrote:If it was nt for all the Shamanism we might not have modern mental health care (some might say we were better of with the shaman). As for the "Culture" reference read Ian M. Banks. And I truely believe if it was not for the experiments of the past we would not have our current technologies. If it was not for all the grave robbing in the 18th and 19th centuries we might not have modern medicine and I do know that statement opens a can of ethical worms and there are some boundaries that should not be crossed.
I agree there are issues with storage and publication but that is an excuse rather than a reason for preservation in situ. Kevin and Unit are right it is all a con "sweeping our immediate problems under the carpet and hoping either that the issue will be forgotten or that nature will run its course and the 'problem' will simply disappear"
Preservation in situ is a Red Herring meaning we have not got the resources to undertake the proper excavation and research so rather than state the truth lets come up with "preservation in situ" as a reason for not tackling the problem.
That is of course true that the things we take for granted today came about in part from experiment, but some of the experiments were surely total nonsense, and the people carry them out knew that. Those ones probably didn't move things forward. For instance the number of antiquarian forgeries that are now known.
Preservation in situ needs to be honest - if it is being done because we simply can't afford to deal with it now, there is nothing wrong people saying that. It's only a con if some other reason is given first.
To Dig or Preserve - P Prentice - 20th September 2013
Wax Wrote:...Preservation in situ is a Red Herring meaning we have not got the resources to undertake the proper excavation and research so rather than state the truth lets come up with "preservation in situ" as a reason for not tackling the problem.but this not to understand the fundamentals of nppf. the resources are available if the profit is big enough. if the options are limited the expensive ones will eventually become viable. it is up to the curators to insist that the best, most appropriate techniques are used however expensive they are.
To Dig or Preserve - Dinosaur - 20th September 2013
I'm sure everyone can think of examples on their patch where 'preservation in situ' meant the developer removing the 'preserved' archaeology as soon as the archaeologists were off site - I can think of several...