To Dig or Preserve

[John Wells]

I think johns approach only goes so far, he's publicising sites not researching them.

I totally disagree.


Our original intention back in 2007 was indeed to publicise archaeological sites. But I believe that aerial photography from the near-UV to thermal infra-red, and geophysical techniques, are research tools.
It is a bit like telling a medic that if he uses photography or X-rays, he is not researching a medical condition until he cuts into the flesh.


Back to the original thread, the preservation of sites for the future, and potentially less damaging techniques of investigation, is thought provoking.
It conceptually moves archaeology from the medical equivalent of anatomy to surgery, where one targets an area and is guided by the Hippocratic Oath in relation to doing no harm.

These days, using photographic techniques to make 3D models, it can be quick and easy to record the topography, and detail of a site.
Techniques of 3D imaging the internal structure of a feature is bound to improve with time and, most importantly, with increasing resolution. With increasing resolution comes the possibility of precision keyhole sampling in solid material, as well as cavities.

Currently, the techniques of geo-spatial location and of laboratory investigation of gathered artefacts leaves onsite, in-situ investigation, for the most part, somewhere in the Stone Age, where even antlers and flint tools can do the job ;o)

Technology should be welcomed with open arms for what it can do onsite, as previously mentioned in just one area of endeavour:
http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/showthread.php?...on-PLOSone

Kite aerial photography has shown that the inertia in taking up 'new' techniques is not related to either cost or difficulty of use. It is more to do with mindset and education.
The first book on kite aerial photography was published in 1890!

© Wellcome Library, London.
Kite aerial photograph taken at an archaeological site with the 'kite camera', at Segadi, Jabel Moya, Sudan. 1913