24th September 2013, 12:42 PM
RedEarth Wrote: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!