To Dig or Preserve

[Dinosaur]

The whole sites always been known to be under threat, it's pretty obvious where the river wants to be and that's at the back of the site...interesting to see what the ramifications of radical river-realignment will be for the next SAM (a biggy) half a mile downstream...

[barkingdigger]

Ah well, even "preservation in situ" can't stop the forces of nature! Any silly Knut could see that...

(Ok, bad pun on rivers and tides, but I never said the jokes were good! Still, ya gotta take yer gags where ya can get 'em...)

[Tool]

OK, I'm going to have a little ramble here. But before I start, I'll say now that I would never suggest that every Tom, Dick and Harriet should go forth and dig willy-nilly. However much Willy might like it. No, every intrusive work should, of course, be appropriately planned, targeted and most importantly be justified by increasing our knowledge and understanding. And if a site (use whatever definition you like) can be understood whilst leaving some/most undisturbed, then it's a win-win. Also there just ain't enough people and money around to do justice to more than a small portion of what is buried out there. But...

1. Preservation in situ isn't preservation. As mentioned before, even if we don't touch it, it is still degrading. And not all actions can be easily monitored, even if there are regular inspections. How would you know what the water table is doing in that area from a quick site visit?
   
2. It's been said more than once that we're not the best archaeologists that will ever be, nor do we fully utilise all existing technologies. That will be the case at every single point in the future. Because there will always be a new technology on the horizon, a better technique being developed. And the best way to develop these techniques and technologies? By doing the job, assessing the shortcomings, and working with the sectors that may help us improve. So to wait for the time of perfect archaeology is a fools errand.
   
3. Archaeology is about learning. Not about sitting on stuff. You can only learn by asking the questions and looking for the answers. Yes, this damages the stuff, but that's the deal - learn and damage, but record and publish. Isn't that what archaeology is? It's always going to be a pay-off. And as mentioned above, it is possible to learn from a site without totally obliterating it, and things like KAP, Google earth, LiDAR, geophys, dare I say it even metal detectorists all help on this front.
   
4. Maybe a wee bit controversial, and possibly also a little tongue-in-cheek, what's the point of leaving interesting stuff in the ground when we can get in there and learn?
   

Right, that's me rambled out. I look forward to the replies! :face-approve:

The above post may, or may not, be the opinion of the Tool.

[Unitof1]

cant say that I like the everybody is in it together while we watch it being swept away. I think that anybody should be allowed to dig without the need to produce an archive if no body is willing to pay for the archive. It is the lowest form of archaeology and probably only of some benefit for an individual but it is still archaeology and better than nothing and it just might generate some interest to funded an archive in hindsight.

[Dinosaur]

Afraid I'm at least partially with Unit on this one, if the stuffs getting destroyed anyway, any sort of record is better than none. Frankly a lot of the watching-brief end of 'proper' archaeology merely consists of "there was a brown layer on top of a black layer, at this depth below ground level, and I fished this bit of pot out of the spoil", am fairly certain the average society member could manage that?

[RedEarth]

There seems to be some discrepancy with the notion of 'preservation in situ' creeping in here. If something is just under the ground in an area of very underexploited countryside it will probably survive quite nicely - everyone on here should be aware of how quickly material degrades once it comes out of the nice stable soil.

On the other hand if it is being regularly ploughed/has a river cutting through it/is subject to night hawking/regularly hit by meteorites/has a nest of giant termites on it etc etc it is under threat and needs to be considered differently.

There are obviously some dubious decisions being made in planning terms allowing sites to be preserved in environments where that is clearly unlikely, but nothing is perfect. There are plenty of good reasons for digging sites that could otherwise be preserved, as long as it is done well and is fully funded.

[Unitof1]

I agree

everyone on here should be aware of how quickly material degrades once it comes out of the nice stable soil.

I would go further and suggest that all materials and records and archive are in an almost vertical decline once out of the ground as well
but

If something is just under the ground in an area of very underexploited countryside it will probably survive quite nicely

I see this as impossible to know and if I was to base a judgment based on whats observed on material out of the ground I would argue that all material and contexts in the ground are in the same rate of decline if not greater given the unknowingness of under the groundness must surely be.

[Dinosaur]

Rabbits and badgers are one of the larger threats to our below-ground heritage, SAMs/preserved-in-situ-archaeology are just a safe haven for them to run amok...no, am not prepared to get drawn into the rights and wrongs of the badger cull...

[Wax]

Eat the rabbits b..... the badgers and JCB the Scheduled Monuments (in a controlled way and fully recorded) :face-stir:

[Tool]

There are a couple of genuine issues with Scheduled Monuments - how many are actually what they are said to be, and how many are actually within the scheduled area. I know of one that may well not be within the scheduled area simply by the fact the person who originally discovered the site used a gateway as one of his reference points. By the time it was surveyed for scheduling a 'new' gateway had been added to the field and the old one fallen into disuse. So, the same measurements were used, but off what is quite possibly a totally different point.

As to the rabbits, I'm game! Could do with some cheap/free food. And let's face it, they do breed like, oh what are them funny furry hoppy things that dig up the ground? And re. badgers - you can tell they're old, because they're still in black and white.