1st June 2007, 05:29 PM
I think there is a difference in the mind-set between archaeologists and conservation practitioners.
As an archaeologist, my own personal view (and not that of my employers!) is that the act of archaeology itself is a destructive process, and the only was in which archaeological material can realistically be preserved is by record. That is to say we excavate, record, analyse and PUBLISH our results. I am not opposed to progress and development on archaeological grounds - I only ask that the archaeological remains (whether below-ground or standing buildings) are adequately recorded and published.
Physcially saving bits of archaeology (ie. preservation in situ) is usually fraught with difficulty. This can either be because the original environment in which the archaeology was formerly preserved has been lost (ie. de-watering of waterlogged deposits - see the PARIS volumes for details of this), or because the item(s) themselves have been removed from their original context. In the case of monuments and buildings, many on the conservation side seek to remove later additions and 'take the building back' to a so-called original form; as an archaeologist I like all the accretions and additions which tell the story of the development of a particular building. But as long as I have had the opportunity to record all of the phases of construction and use, and can use that to interpret the human history of the site, I am not too bothered about the future use of the site.
[Having said that, I do have an aesthetic sense which prefers old buildings and gradually-developed landscapes to newly manufactured ones, but that is a different matter].
The discussion on Britarch has pointed out that relict landscapes may survive beneath waste heaps from mining. This is certainly the case for all types of built up ground - ranging from the survival of early plough marks under bronze age burial mounds, to the preservation of entire villages under mining spoil. Again I think the point is that such landscapes should be recorded before being buried; there is no presumption against development per se.
After all, it pays for most of our wages!
As an archaeologist, my own personal view (and not that of my employers!) is that the act of archaeology itself is a destructive process, and the only was in which archaeological material can realistically be preserved is by record. That is to say we excavate, record, analyse and PUBLISH our results. I am not opposed to progress and development on archaeological grounds - I only ask that the archaeological remains (whether below-ground or standing buildings) are adequately recorded and published.
Physcially saving bits of archaeology (ie. preservation in situ) is usually fraught with difficulty. This can either be because the original environment in which the archaeology was formerly preserved has been lost (ie. de-watering of waterlogged deposits - see the PARIS volumes for details of this), or because the item(s) themselves have been removed from their original context. In the case of monuments and buildings, many on the conservation side seek to remove later additions and 'take the building back' to a so-called original form; as an archaeologist I like all the accretions and additions which tell the story of the development of a particular building. But as long as I have had the opportunity to record all of the phases of construction and use, and can use that to interpret the human history of the site, I am not too bothered about the future use of the site.
[Having said that, I do have an aesthetic sense which prefers old buildings and gradually-developed landscapes to newly manufactured ones, but that is a different matter].
The discussion on Britarch has pointed out that relict landscapes may survive beneath waste heaps from mining. This is certainly the case for all types of built up ground - ranging from the survival of early plough marks under bronze age burial mounds, to the preservation of entire villages under mining spoil. Again I think the point is that such landscapes should be recorded before being buried; there is no presumption against development per se.
After all, it pays for most of our wages!