30th September 2013, 01:11 PM
archaeologyexile Wrote:I do not,question your enthusiasm or your commitment, just the utility of what you do, without excavation nothing is added!
Have to say I'm with John on this.
Discovering the location and extent of previously unknown or even known archaeological remains (for instance SM's) is the first salvo in the war of saving archaeological remains from destruction. Or indeed in the campaign to understand.
Informing the county/ National parks archaeologists is the second.
Site visit to look at exposed bits/molehills is the third (though is usually can be done during the first)
Monitoring the condition of the remains through time (and making lots of noise about bits at risk) is the fourth.
Comparison/synthesis with similar stuff thereabouts is the fifth.
Targeted excavation on bits at risk is the sixth.....etc etc
Excavation alone never results in a full understanding of the archaeology.
I see excavation as only one tool in a whole arsenal of weapons of mass protection.
It has its advantages, but, like a nuclear weapon, should be a last resort as it is so destructive.
Besides, seen much work on understanding upland landscapes without any excavation. Think medieval field systems/ settlements, or landscapes of mining remains.