To Dig or Preserve

[BAJR]

So we return to another big question, which we should all agree on... but suspect we won't. why oh why do we fool ourselves about mitigation to preserve in-situ. often beneath a large building/buildings or in a drying peat bog or in a field that is ploughed every year. sheduled monuments protect against (insert what here) but in terms of protecting against ploughing/erosion or criminals with detectors, they are hopeless.

rather than trying desparately to convince ourselves we are protecting for a time in the future... should we not treat this withering resource -- as an opportunity to carry out archaeology?

:face-huh::face-thinks:

[Dinosaur]

A big slice of a deeply stratified Roman town in Northern England is shortly to disappear beneath a motorway embankment unexcavated - excavation would have told us something, 'preservation in situ' means we'll never know...

[Steve H]

I totally agree Dinosaur, 'preservation in situ' only pleases the developers. This country is in a long-term economic decline, when are we ever going to have the money to dig big holes again?

[Unitof1]

good question hosty. Just had a look at the cod of conduck of ify and it does not really scream "preservation in situ". Havent looked at all the rest of the lets make it up as we go along rubbish but does? anybody know where the definitive source of "preservation in situ" may be found.

[P Prentice]

it died with ppg16 thankfully

[Dinosaur]

I've got to out-last a shiny new block of flats too, if I want to dig the rest of my 'in situ' pet castle and go looking for my missing trowel

[Tool]

With my wealth of experience... ehemm... I'm in the dig camp. Who knows when the chance will arise again, and who can predict that society will give a duck's dodah about old stuff in 10, 20, 100 years time? We've gone through periods before where old is bad, new is good. Who's to say that won't happen again? We should have faith in our abilities to dig and record. As long as we do it properly of course... The condition of that buried stuff can only get worse.

[Wax]

Too right Tool and who is to say with global warming, social break down and all the rest that future generations are going to face that any of them will care at all for the past. Make hay while the sun shines and keep us all in a job until retirement. Though of course they will be putting substandard far too expensive bland housing estates or offices on the site once we have cleared them.

[RedEarth]

Always entertaining and only slightly ironic when archaeologists can't think beyond their own lifetime, or even 100 years. It's a very complicated question. Just been looking at accounts of some work done about 100 years ago - perhaps if some of the sites in question had been left alone we'd have more to look at now, but but now they are all scheduled monuments so it's far from easy. Other scheduled monuments that have seen virtually no work are understood on the basis of virtually no evidence, so what exactly being preserved? On the other hand, a none-scheduled monument being laughably preserved in situ in an urban area that is bound to have some sneaky services stuck through in the next century is surely a bit pointless.

[Wax]

I can indeed think beyond my own life time and it scares the s... out of me. As for the next 100 years it will either be the "Culture" or something to awful to contemplate. Either way I am not sure archaeology as we know it will be relevant. If it wasn't for all those Victorian barrow diggers we would nt have modern archaeology:face-stir: