17th October 2012, 12:11 PM
notoverlookedfrontorrear Wrote:I dont think preservation in situ is necessarily good for archaeology in practice or principle
It is when you take into account the advances in methods. Imagine if everyone in the 18th and 19th centuries, hell even 30 years ago, "archaeologists" had held off on using dynamite, paying labours by the number of gold objects they found but not for charcoal bone, etc., cutting through the "boring" layers to get to the "good" stuff, etc. how much more we would know today.
Pretty sure in 50 years our grand kids will be shaking their heads and saying, %)"?%* idiots.
That being said there is a trade off. Stuff rots, tomb robbers, etc. etc. at some point you need to dig it, it is reaching the point were you don't lose to much but our methods are the best. That though is an art and not a science
.