To Dig or Preserve

[RedEarth]

We might as well go out at the weekend and dig holes in the middle of all our favourite barrows just in case there is any treasure left.

Except they are probably going to be scheduled, so no we shouldn't.

[John Wells]

The concept of sites being monitored is relatively meaningless in practice. Those who come in to rip sites to bits do not have a two week excavation plan.
They are in and out at the blink of an eye, as was the case around 2011 at:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/castlegreg.htm ....and that is by a public road!

Another of our local sites has be churned up over years by 4x4 events, as I have mentioned on this forum before:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/castlethorn.htm
It took two approaches by Historic Scotland for the tenant farmer (Land owner Lord Torphichen) to stop running events through the central bit of this scheduled monument.
I think that it would be fair to assume that HS had no idea what was going on until they were informed. How could they know?
Kite aerial photography was useful for picking up the damage, as the farmer also contravenes the Scottish Land Reform Act by being not too friendly (with a range of threats) towards people walking in his 'back garden', the lower Torphichen Hills.

As well as the Cairn that I mentioned, there is also this relatively recent estate (late 1990s?):
http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/904...ivingston/
for which I have been told there are no records of any archaeological supervision!

Fortunately, all is much better in Wild West Lothian since the West of Scotland Archaeology Service was brought on board by the Council in 2004.
But one has to remain on guard, as old attitudes do persist in some quarters and we have been led a merry dance at times!

[Jack]

Except they are probably going to be scheduled, so no we shouldn't.

exactly.......and why are they scheduled? To preserve important remains in situ?

But yes, top work John, many sites are at risk from landowners, walkers, off-roaders, night hawkers etc etc etc. Even (especially) Scheduled monuments. These do need to be protected better.

Management of archaeological remains often falls to the bottom of the list below: making money (ploughing/ grouse shooting/ drainage etc), target practice (MOD estates), development, or even public access.

But to me this is a different argument. Where preservation in situ is not possible/ working, better management and/or excavation is of course vital

But, preservation in situ should be the overall aim in archaeology. We are not the best archaeologists/scientists that will ever be. There are indeed many techniques not being used as they are too 'untested' or too expensive. But equally we sample excavate and sample record and sample deposit. Much is thrown away, destroyed, missed, lost forever, because it is deemed not significant enough or isn't looked for.

How on earth can we know what will be significant in future studies? How on earth can we be applying all the techniques developed in the future?

We are just as destructive as the early archaeologists.

True, much is being destroyed/degraded, and this should be preserved as best we can. But where archaeology is not under threat, leave it the hell alone!

[John Wells]

There are few community archaeology groups that come close to having 'But where archaeology is not under threat, leave it the hell alone!' as their motto ;o)
Ours is one:
'Investigating (with emphasis on non-invasive techniques), recording and publicising the archaeological/heritage sites of West Lothian, and elsewhere.'
http://www.archaeolandscapes.eu/index.ph...ngdom.html

[pdurdin]

We are not the best archaeologists/scientists that will ever be.

You only tell us this after we've already paid those expensive enrolment fees for the School of Jack??

[P Prentice]

@ jack - do not students need to be trained? do not new techniques need to be tested? with all the scientific developments you foresee where will they be honed? surely we need to test some of the best sites on a regular basis. to up the commercial game we

[Jack]

You only tell us this after we've already paid those expensive enrolment fees for the School of Jack??

Grin.

You should have read the small print in the prospectus.

However, the post-grad course 'Archaeology and the invention of the time machine' may be of use........well worth it at a trifling 10000 galactic credits

[Jack]

@ jack - do not students need to be trained? do not new techniques need to be tested? with all the scientific developments you foresee where will they be honed? surely we need to test some of the best sites on a regular basis. to up the commercial game we need solid data driven evidence and that wnt happen on 'rescue' sites until the uni's have spent enough time prrooving it on their sites.
and their are plenty of local groups who are capable of doing a decent job (many more are not) given proper guidance and support. there is a market out there for that support

Yes absolutely, good point. Why not run training digs on the many sites under threat from erosion/farming/draining/robbing etc etc etc?

as John pointed out, many non-invasive work to do.

[Dinosaur]

Plenty of Scheduled sites suffer regular and on-going destruction, there's one near here which was partially excavated using government cash in the late 80s due to river erosion, but with all the exciting weather over the last few years it'll soon be back into the unexcavated bit, unrecorded human remains were seen eroding out as long ago as 2006! EH no longer has the cash to deal with such problems, so why not let someone else (e.g. societies) excavate and recover something (anything!) before such resources are lost?

[barkingdigger]

Plenty of Scheduled sites suffer regular and on-going destruction, there's one near here which was partially excavated using government cash in the late 80s due to river erosion, but with all the exciting weather over the last few years it'll soon be back into the unexcavated bit, unrecorded human remains were seen eroding out as long ago as 2006! EH no longer has the cash to deal with such problems, so why not let someone else (e.g. societies) excavate and recover something (anything!) before such resources are lost?

Sounds like a classic case of a site transitting from "Preserved" status to "Under threat" - put together a proposal & hit up the local Inspector for some SMC! The trouble is the cash - even a local society dig will generate costs in terms of infrastructure, specialist work, conservation of finds, etc.

And John is right - there is no real harm involved in non-intrusive aerial surveys or geophysics on "preserved" sites as long as they don't require clear-cutting or other prep work, so again the main limit on this sort of work is cash. SMC is put in place to force a reasonable consideration of proposals that will benefit the preservation of a site - if you want to work on one you need to demonstrate to the Inspector that your project a) won't unduly erode the site, and b) will bring research benefits. Sure, it means trenching is probably out of bounds on anything that isn't already under imminent threat of erosion, but there are plenty of threatened Scheduled sites out there for which intrusive works can be justified.

Pity EH no longer has the resources to do the work, or even to fund others to do it...