To Dig or Preserve

[Unitof1]

(and now I am going to sound like Uo1)

my heart bleeds kev that must have hurt a little bit: what the preservation in situ brigade missed out is that we-archaeologists- "did" want to find out the answer to what ever was the reason that we went looking for what ever it was in the first instance of our existence.

what I mean IS:

if you are dropped on youR head as baby you want to know how....

[Tool]

Does this mean that because I want to know the answers to a lot of questions, and at least part of the answers are buried in the ground around me, but those answers won't be there for, in some cases, very long at all, I kinda agree with Unit?

The issue of dodgy interpretation has been raised. Does this really matter? It's the primary data that's important. In the form of archaeology in the ground that primary data is vulnerable and disappearing. If it is excavated and recorded as best we can with our current technologies then at least a facsimile of that data is available for interpretation in the future. And lets face it, interpretation is just that, and will change over time as new data comes forth.

[kevin wooldridge]

It's the primary data that's important. In the form of archaeology in the ground that primary data is vulnerable and disappearing. If it is excavated and recorded as best we can with our current technologies then at least a facsimile of that data is available for interpretation in the future.

My point was that we are not even using the full range of resources and technology currently available......most preservation by record is the bare minimum and the not the full Monty.... ask anyone who has ever tried to reconstruct a site from the archive record alone

[Tool]

I don't doubt that that is true. But the latest techniques and technologies will always be too expensive for widespread use (unless we all suddenly renounce money and everyone starts giving their products and services for free), so this point in the future where archaeology uses every available resource is a mythical place. Meanwhile, while we wait for this non-event, the stuff that gives archaeology, as a profession or vocation, its raison d'être is disappearing beneath our feet/houses/roads/ploughs/badgers... So, it's the lesser of two evils. Do the best we can with what we've got access to, or lose it altogether.

Also, preservation in situ is rather a misnomer. You're not preserving, you're allowing the continuation of the natural processes of degradation.

[barkingdigger]

Just to stir the pot, the biggest blot on the copybook of Preservation in Situ has been an almost wilfully negligent approach that sees urban sites "preserved" by deep piling that allegedly touches only a fraction but effectively buggers the rest, or sites where only the building footprint requires mitigation despite what we all know about the "collateral damage" caused by heavy plant moving around a soft-soil site, and many other such scenarios where the "in Situ" solution is just a whitewash to limit the pain for the developers in case they cry "foul" and trigger a review of Planning conditions. If it is correctly applied it can indeed preserve the archaeology until there is a true need to damage it, but I'd argue there are lots of sites where if we were honest we'd insist on a bigger excavation footprint because we know the "preserved" strat around the edges will get FUBAR'd anyway.

Of course, it would be very expensive to dig everything, and frankly the whole whinge about PiS is usually directed at digging perfectly "safe" (but juicy) Scheduled Monuments rather than at mopping up those sites that are getting developed to extinction. Who among us hasn't worked a site where some earlier well-meaning yahoo has already dug wall-chasing trenches that effectively obliterated any useful stratigraphic articulation between the important bits? If we charge ahead with digging anything we like, are we not doing the same disservice to future generations? It strikes me that ANY not-rescue excavation needs to be justified up the ying-yang before it can be even considered, since the castles and abbeys scattered round our countryside aren't often under any real threat. But where DC is involved, I'm all for bigger, better, full-on excavations instead of poxy little keyholes and "destruction in situ" as is practiced all too often...

And I defy anyone to demonstrate that any excavation carried out in the history of our profession/hobby has been total in its examination and recording of the features it removed. Even with the best will, we machine off "overburden" (eg. stuff later than what we're interested in, be it "modern" or just that pesky "medieval" crap masking the Roman stuff), we take less than 100% soil samples, and we decide on site what we will record. Our archives are thus a biased product, showing what we are interested in, and omitting things that don't catch our fancy at the time. Of course, other archaeologists may be interested in the stuff we ignored, but they are SOL.

As the First Law of Thermodynamics points out, "you can't win"...

[John Wells]

Here at West Lothian Archaeology, as a non-commercial organisation, we specialise in remote sensing techniques.
When you see robbed out local sites like Raven Craig Cairn:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/ravencraig.htm
you do feel that it would be good to bring in a team with status to excavate vulnerable sites of national importance, like the cairn near Broomy Knowes:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/riccartoncairn.htm


(Cairn top left with two people stood just below)

Peace Knowe Hillfort is to the immediate East:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/peaceknowe.htm
Cairnpapple to the SW:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/cairnpapple.htm
and Cockleroy Hillfort to the WNW:
http://www.armadale.org.uk/cockleroy.htm

Heritage funding is not necessarily a problem here in West Lothian, at the moment, as the county has been targeted by the National Lottery as a special case.
Local heritage groups have been approached by enterprising individuals proposing all sorts of projects, with absolutely no background in anything to do with our local heritage, purely as a means of employment.

Where are the commercial archaeology groups?

[kevin wooldridge]

Surely any case where there is 'preservation in situ' should be accompanied by statutory protection for the remains 'preserved', and ongoing monitoring (for which by the way both the developer and end-users of the development should bear the cost)...

[Unitof1]

you going to pay for all this monitoring then Kev. I imagine that it would involve an eh inspectors mileage allowance. What is it at the moment?

[barkingdigger]

Surely any case where there is 'preservation in situ' should be accompanied by statutory protection for the remains 'preserved', and ongoing monitoring (for which by the way both the developer and end-users of the development should bear the cost)...

Indeed it should! Once again, a reasonable concept is scuppered by poor practical application. And it begs the question of how sites under a shiny new building (whether rafted or piled) can be accessed for truly adequate inspection? In an ideal world the Local Authority, EH, HS, CADW etc need a lot more Inspectors and FMWs to provide an adequate level of monitoring, and on commercial sites this should incur a development cost. Sadly, I can't see it happening anytime soon.

As for Scheduled sites in the landscape (like John's barrow examples) we can only depend on the statutory bodies to keep an eye on them - see staffing point above. Preservation depends on stable conditions, so any site being actively eroded or looted is already failing the assessment of "preservation" and needs some form of intervention. However, it doesn't mean we should declare open season on all our protected sites!

[Edit: As I recall, EH pays the same 45p/mile for use of personal cars as everybody else - it's determined by HMRC rules! (Sorry, Unit...) Of course, they could claim "actuals" for public transport, or use an EH vehicle with no money involved. I expect that any self-employed bod would be costing these self-same rates into their own quotes, so there's no "advantage" for the "pension grabbers"!]

[Jack]

I have to say I'm shocked. To have so many archaeologist come out and say its better to dig everything up now than preserve at least some evidence for future archaeologists with better techniques.

Shame on you all :face-stir: (tounge in cheek)

We might as well go out at the weekend and dig holes in the middle of all our favourite barrows just in case there is any treasure left.