26th September 2013, 09:40 AM
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.
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.