20th February 2006, 02:45 PM
Preservation in situ and display (whether under glass floors or otherwise) are two different things.
If you are going to display archaeological remains that are currently underground, by definition you will have to partially destroy it through excavation to find and expose the 'sexy' features, usually masonry, that you want to show to the public. What you do end up displaying may give a false impression of the site in archaeological terms, as it will usually omit all of the non-masonry elements. If archaeology of sufficient 'sexiness' is known about in advance of the project, then it is quite likely to be scheduled anyway, and planning permission would never be granted.
If you are going to 'preserve in situ' successfully, that means that you are not going to excavate the site at all, and that you can ensure that the buried deposits are stable in their present condition. If you 'preserve' a site from development that is undergoing active erosion, say from dessication or ploughing, then what you are doing is allowing it to be gradually lost without record. Under such circumstances (very common in the UK), there is a far greater benefit to the national heritage in investigating the site now.
Contrary to popular belief, developers are often quite keen on preservation in situ, seeing it as a cheaper/quicker option than excavation. This does not apply in historic town centres, but it often does where space is less constrained. For instance, highway designers are often happy to bury archaeological remains under an embankment, or out-of-town retail park developers may be happy to rearrange their layout so that the archaeology is under the car-park, or something else with no deep ground disturbance.
Under these circumstances, if preservation in situ is not the chosen option, it will usually be because the curator has advised that (say) burial under a highway embankment is not acceptable because it would forever deny access to the remains - no matter how well preserved.
In my experience, I spend more time explaining to developers why they can't preserve in situ than why they should.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
If you are going to display archaeological remains that are currently underground, by definition you will have to partially destroy it through excavation to find and expose the 'sexy' features, usually masonry, that you want to show to the public. What you do end up displaying may give a false impression of the site in archaeological terms, as it will usually omit all of the non-masonry elements. If archaeology of sufficient 'sexiness' is known about in advance of the project, then it is quite likely to be scheduled anyway, and planning permission would never be granted.
If you are going to 'preserve in situ' successfully, that means that you are not going to excavate the site at all, and that you can ensure that the buried deposits are stable in their present condition. If you 'preserve' a site from development that is undergoing active erosion, say from dessication or ploughing, then what you are doing is allowing it to be gradually lost without record. Under such circumstances (very common in the UK), there is a far greater benefit to the national heritage in investigating the site now.
Contrary to popular belief, developers are often quite keen on preservation in situ, seeing it as a cheaper/quicker option than excavation. This does not apply in historic town centres, but it often does where space is less constrained. For instance, highway designers are often happy to bury archaeological remains under an embankment, or out-of-town retail park developers may be happy to rearrange their layout so that the archaeology is under the car-park, or something else with no deep ground disturbance.
Under these circumstances, if preservation in situ is not the chosen option, it will usually be because the curator has advised that (say) burial under a highway embankment is not acceptable because it would forever deny access to the remains - no matter how well preserved.
In my experience, I spend more time explaining to developers why they can't preserve in situ than why they should.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished