Saving for posterity ?

wideford Jan 23, 2006 11:51:37

Watching the Time Team last night and there was the usual guff about putting the skeletons back in the ground and not excavating anything else, leave it all safe in the ground for folk in the future with better or less-invasive techniques. Such touching Victorian faith in the ever-onward progress of society. Of course you see where it is all coming from, the destruction of the likes of the barrow diggers. But picture another 100 years time they look back to now and condemn today's archaeologists for not having investigated "look what they could have done, the information that could have been saved if only they had seen the Act of X coming along and sweeping all conservation issues aside for practicalities". Also archaeology keeps on growing. It is not all that long ago since industrial archaeology, let alone that of World Wartime sites, was pooh-poohed. The number of sites is expanding with time. Tackle what we have now before the field archaologist disappears. No sense saving sites for a prudent posterity if the never get interragated anyway. Stop the rot before it is too late (I can see whole new type-sites only being recognised after the sites themselves are gone !!).

Littlestone Jan 23, 2006 12:43:11

Replying to wideford

>Stop the rot before it is too late...<

Well said wideford. I suspect the lack of archaeological investigation is due more to lack of funding than, as you say a, "... leave it all safe in the ground for folk in the future with better or less-invasive techniques." consideration. Lack of funding was certainly behind the decision to leave the remaining sections of the Mary Rose on the seabed rather than lift them - let's hope they're still there when funding does become available.

I've argued this before but we don't get to better techniques via some fanciful time machine, we get to them by building up information and skills in the here-and-now through hands-on investigation - and that applies to any field of human endeavour not just archaeology. We are where we are today because of the successes, failures and mistakes of our predecessors.

There is also another factor, leaving things untouched is not always the best way to preserve them. Without wanting to open an old can of worms again, invasive root action from the trees growing on East Kennet Long Barrow must be causing havoc to the interior; if something is not done to counter that damage <i>now</i> there might not be a barrow to investigate in a hundred years time.

PeterH Jan 23, 2006 13:55:52

Replying to wideford

Does'nt a lot depend on development for new buildings? When rescue archaeology is required, the developer now has to pay. That wasn't always the case so I see it as a major advantage. Then the archaeos have funds and limited time to excavate what will soon be destroyed. Developers are legally required to notify when they come across evidence of ancient sites. That relationship needs to be managed because if it breaks down then developers may be tempted to just bulldoze evidence away and say nothing in order to save time and money.
When sites are not threatened - like the East Kennet long barrow, I am all in favour of leaving them intact.