17th October 2012, 09:24 PM
Doug Wrote:It is when you take into account the advances in methods. Imagine if everyone in the 18th and 19th centuries, hell even 30 years ago, "archaeologists" had held off on using dynamite, paying labours by the number of gold objects they found but not for charcoal bone, etc., cutting through the "boring" layers to get to the "good" stuff, etc. how much more we would know today.
Pretty sure in 50 years our grand kids will be shaking their heads and saying, %)"?%* idiots.
That being said there is a trade off. Stuff rots, tomb robbers, etc. etc. at some point you need to dig it, it is reaching the point were you don't lose to much but our methods are the best. That though is an art and not a science .
Thing is though, if we carry on via that principle will anything ever get unearthed?
Granted, one question is should it even be unearthed?? But let's say for the argument's sake it should, in 50 years time our grandchildren may very well be saying "we should leave this incase better methods come along..." - and then in another 50 years the same, etc. etc.
I'm not saying we should run around dragging everything out the ground of course, but if roads/houses/whatever need to be built, and there's archaeology present, then it makes sense (to an extent) to salvage it