1st June 2010, 01:27 PM
Preservation is situ is an annoying, but very important principle. It is better for the client as a minor alteration to the plans,( i.e. moving the footprint to avoid stuff) can work out cheaper. In the commercial world, its often better for the archaeology as it isn't subject to a rush rescue excavation.
Furthermore, as someone stated somewhere, archaeology is a limited resource, once its excavated its gone, destroyed, all context removed.
As scientific techniques, theories and technologies are getting more advanced every year it is important not to destroy all the evidence before better techniques can be used to extract more information.
Just look at the 'robbing' of barrow mounds when compared to modern techniques. If only they'd kept the rest of the bones and not just the skulls.
If we don't preserve in situ, future archaeologists will look back at us in disgust.
Furthermore, as someone stated somewhere, archaeology is a limited resource, once its excavated its gone, destroyed, all context removed.
As scientific techniques, theories and technologies are getting more advanced every year it is important not to destroy all the evidence before better techniques can be used to extract more information.
Just look at the 'robbing' of barrow mounds when compared to modern techniques. If only they'd kept the rest of the bones and not just the skulls.
If we don't preserve in situ, future archaeologists will look back at us in disgust.