Excavation as a last resort - do you agree?

Bog Butter

Are we not a little to emotional when it comes to archaeology? Should we not be a little more scientific and foresnsic?

Why adopt a the policy of excavation as a last resort?

Why just leave archaeology there untouched?

Is it not better to gain for more knowledge through excavation?

What's the point of being emotional about saying: 'let's leave it, it's heritage'?

How does this benifit us?

Your views are appreciated.

Riamfada

I agree fully, when it comes to sub surface features I see no reason for preservation in situ. Bigger sites however could be visually damaged and I wouldnt like to see an precident for people ripping down ruined towerhouses. I like them. Dosnt have eny economic merit, but then other than reports that will be read my a minority of people, archaeology has no economic merit at all :P

mdebets

I obviously would love to see as much sites being excavated as possible, but there are a few practical reasons, why preservation in situ might be the better solution in some cases.

1) Excavations are destruction. If you excavate a site fully, you can't come back in 10 years time and re-excavate the site with newer methodologies. If you leave parts of the site preserved in situ, this is still possible.

2) There is already a backlog in publications. This would be even bigger if more sites needed to be excavated. So preservation in situ might be better, as it allows to come back when the post-excavation and publications are done. Excavations without publications are as bad as no excavations. They should really introduce a rule that you only get a new excavation license when you have published your last one. This would sort out this problem.

3) Money is not infinitive. So some preferences need to be set, to spend this money in the best way. To leave some sites or parts of site in situ and concentrate on sites that promise more new results is a better way to spend this money.

dr gonzo

Yeh i agree with this too, ive often heard people say that something shouldn't be excavated without giving me a better reason then simple sentimentality however as mdebets says they are of course entirely destructive so i appreciate people being as cautious as possible.

In saying that the only time i can really see a problem is earthworks or something like that because then you're stuck weighing up the preservation of historical remains in the form of the earthwork itself vs the possible yield of archaeological goods beneath. Tough call.

gravensteen

I don't think we can be too shovel happy with excavations (where the money is available, because of course money is probably one of the biggest issues). We do have to remember that our techniques aren't perfect. Like mdebets said, excavation is destruction, and if we fully excavate a site now, all that's left for future archaeologists are site reports.
Site reports are written by archaeologists - by people. Data may speak for itself but interpretation can shout pretty loudly over it.
I think it's fair to say that the archaeology of some periods in some parts of the world has been damaged somewhat, or at least held back, by the domination of 30,40,50 year old site reports and interpretations.

Leave something for later, if it's possible to do so!

Nebit

statistically:
1/3rd of a site is excavated and recorded
the 2nd is never recovered
and the 3rd is destroyed during excavation.
Therefore in theory it is better if a site is left untouched for as long as possible, until better methods of excavation are discovered.

i will also agree with an above sentence about the natural beauty of things, for example, Tara, if we were to excavate, yes we might gain more information but then there will be no features to look at when we are done. Also there's an economic issue concerning sites such as that.

Quite often however one can tell a lot from a subsoil site by its appearance on the ground above, folklore, place-names, where its located, nearby monuments (excavated or otherwise) etc.

in my opinion, although i love excavating, I think it is laziness when an archaeologist argues that excavation is the only way to know something about a site. True it is the best way to gain knowledge about an individual site but its also the quick way of doing things, and often nearby sites which may have significance to the site are left out.
There are other non-intrusive methods such as Geophysics which can tell us a lot about a site.

gravensteen

Nebit wrote: »

True it is the best way to gain knowledge about an individual site but its also the quick way of doing things, and often nearby sites which may have significance to the site are left out.
There are other non-intrusive methods such as Geophysics which can tell us a lot about a site.

i definately agree here. far too many sites have been studied in isolation.

Riamfada

gravensteen wrote: »

i definately agree here. far too many sites have been studied in isolation.

There is a huge move lately for exactly the opposite with HLC reports now examining large areas, with entire counties done now. These are tools for planners and archaeologists for future construction.

I dont believe in excavation for the sake of it at all but I do believe that the OP was stating that we are a little emotionally investted in the preservation of minor subsurface features in infastructural projects. I also believe that some people put archaeology and heritage before other considerations when we must recognise that it is not the primary concern of most other people in the country. It was very famous professor from an english archaeology TV show that convinced me of that and another famous retired professor from Mayo who showed me that contemporary communities derserve the right to exist even if it means the destruction of archaeology and a change to the historic landscape.

gravensteen

Grimes wrote: »

contemporary communities derserve the right to exist even if it means the destruction of archaeology and a change to the historic landscape.

I don't disagree but that's not the issue here, is it? Where excavation can be avoided, surely non-impact is the way to go.

AudreyHepburn

As an archaeologist I think that how you approch a site depends on the nature of the site and also whether or not the investigation is academically or developer led.

In the last ten years or so, the boom in new roads and construction of new buildings has meant that most sites have been subject to rescue archaeology, that is excavation with aim of simply getting everything uncovered, recorded and up out of the ground as quick as possible before the developers move it and destroy everything.

For me, where possible I think it's best to study a site or object in situ as this allows to learn more about the site/object not just individually but in the context of it's surrounding landscape and any other sites/objects around it.

mdebets

gravensteen wrote: »

I don't disagree but that's not the issue here, is it? Where excavation can be avoided, surely non-impact is the way to go.

I have to disagree here. As much as you are able to get informations from a site by non-invasive methods, there is nothing that replaces excavations to investigate a site.
Of course you can't and shouldn't excavate all sites (mostly lack money) or a site fully (to leave possibilities for future improvement in techniques). You should therefore excavate as much as possible within these constraints, even so this means destruction of the site. You'll always be able to re-built it afterwards (see Mound of the Hostages or Newgrange for good examples)

Smartypantsdig

Grimes wrote: »

There is a huge move lately for exactly the opposite with HLC reports now examining large areas, with entire counties done now. These are tools for planners and archaeologists for future construction.

I dont believe in excavation for the sake of it at all but I do believe that the OP was stating that we are a little emotionally investted in the preservation of minor subsurface features in infastructural projects. I also believe that some people put archaeology and heritage before other considerations when we must recognise that it is not the primary concern of most other people in the country. It was very famous professor from an english archaeology TV show that convinced me of that and another famous retired professor from Mayo who showed me that contemporary communities derserve the right to exist even if it means the destruction of archaeology and a change to the historic landscape.

Are you quoting Seamus Caulfield here? He is a bit of a dinosaur in some ways but I always agreed with his views on living communities being put to the fore under all circumstances. These communities are creating the past of the future, so to speak.