19th February 2006, 02:22 PM
The term 'preservation in situ' is becoming more and more ambiguous and in some instances is a blatant contradiction in terms. Just because some archaeology is left in situ does not mean that it will automatically remain perfectly preserved for future generations to learn from and enjoy. There appears to be many problems concerning the monitoring of remains at SAM's in more rural settings (ie changing water tables, animal burrowing etc) that attemting to monitor commercial remains would be a very expensive undertaking. Unfortunately, i dont see how archaeological deposits in an urban setting can ever truly be preserved untouched and remain stable - surely this would involve a full-scale monitoring programme being implemented with regular investigative surveys beings conducted? Pretty difficuly with a 5 storey building above it all, but i do agree that if some incredibly 'sexy' remains are found, they surely could somehow be incorporated into the plans, or even re-constructd elsewhere for the public to visit?