26th May 2006, 09:54 AM
Sorry, I totally disagree [edit- that was a reply to David, but mercenary got a post in while I was composing my thoughts]. Either we say we stand for "preservation in situ" and [u]all</u> that entails or we do not.
What was being highlighted in the Nosterfield experiment was the damage to subsoil deposits and not whether or not the loose finds get recovered.
Surely if we are claiming to be in any way "managing" the resource and at that by "preservation in situ"... this entails reducing or stopping damage to sites like this (especially those like here declared of 'national significance'). Surely we need to pay more attention to managing the cause rather than the effects.
Merely saying we (or artefact hunters and collectors) can pick all the finds out of the soil after the destruction is not "managing" the heritage (by which I have in mind the buried archaeology), its just a cop-out.
And if we admit that we can do nothing to halt such destruction, then as a means of 'preservation by record', picking the loose scattered and contextless finds out of the topsoil is absolutely no substitute for full and careful excavation of the threatened archaeology. "Better than nothing" is not an argument that we should be trying to use to justify our inability to come up with effective policies to actually protect what it is we claim to be protecting.
Anyway, how exactly would you see this mitigation policy being operated David? Who would finance it, how would the results and finds be archived, who would ensure the continuance of the "recording" alongside the annual deterioration of the archaeological resource under the ploughsoil? How would you see this "conservation measure" being co-ordinated on a county or regional basis?
Paul Barford
What was being highlighted in the Nosterfield experiment was the damage to subsoil deposits and not whether or not the loose finds get recovered.
Surely if we are claiming to be in any way "managing" the resource and at that by "preservation in situ"... this entails reducing or stopping damage to sites like this (especially those like here declared of 'national significance'). Surely we need to pay more attention to managing the cause rather than the effects.
Merely saying we (or artefact hunters and collectors) can pick all the finds out of the soil after the destruction is not "managing" the heritage (by which I have in mind the buried archaeology), its just a cop-out.
And if we admit that we can do nothing to halt such destruction, then as a means of 'preservation by record', picking the loose scattered and contextless finds out of the topsoil is absolutely no substitute for full and careful excavation of the threatened archaeology. "Better than nothing" is not an argument that we should be trying to use to justify our inability to come up with effective policies to actually protect what it is we claim to be protecting.
Anyway, how exactly would you see this mitigation policy being operated David? Who would finance it, how would the results and finds be archived, who would ensure the continuance of the "recording" alongside the annual deterioration of the archaeological resource under the ploughsoil? How would you see this "conservation measure" being co-ordinated on a county or regional basis?
Paul Barford