19th February 2006, 02:40 PM
Quote:quote:. Does the idea of digging it all up mean more to some than letting the general public know about it and preserving it for future generations to see. This is how it sometimes appears to people outside the profession.
Need I point out the old cliche that archaeology is a destructive process. To find out about what we are hoping to "preserve" we have to "destroy" a part of it. And then we can't even be sure that the part we saw is representative of the rest. A balance must be struck. Non-destructive techniques have come a long way, but usually need to be confirmed with destructive excavation techniques.
I presume we are not talking here about Pompeii-style upstanding masonry structural remains that the public can enjoy if preserved; but the more ubiquitous British cut feature archaeology that is much harder to present to the public for their enjoyment. Even British sites with that potential (I'm thinking the timber structures at Coppergate) are seldom preserved in-situ for the public's enjoyment. The costs would be astronomical. Flag Fen is decaying as we speak. In fact I'm struggling to think of a below ground archaeological site (non-masonry) that has been succesfully preserved in-situ AND is open for public enjoyment. Anyone?