5 ms·

Was the site under threat of looting or construction, or was this a massive stewardship failure? For context, once upon a time, archaeologists "carefully" used

Was the site under threat of looting or construction, or was this a massive stewardship failure? For context, once upon a time, archaeologists "carefully" used dynamite, and excavated entire sites. Leaving nothing at all behind, but for a few "carefully" washed and polished artifacts (the "important" trophies, like weapons and jewelry), and perhaps some "carefully" hand-drawn sketches of some big things (formerly) at the site. Nowadays, archaeologists "carefully" crack open an anaerobic site, ... and I just don't have the heart to finish this post. Does anyone have a good link on archaeological ethics, and limiting excavation to only threatened sites? The idea is to avoid unnecessary excavation, because it destroys vastly more information than it preserves. Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later. This article is ghastly, close to parody. Picture of volunteer displaying "the icing on the cake" trophy in ambient atmosphere, sitting on newspaper, the 'who cares about dirt?' brushed off, at best coarsely sieved, then discarded on a big pile. The Birley quotes... show no recognition that anything unfortunate has happened.

kijin 9y ago
If we follow your logic, when do we ever get to excavate anything? We can always anticipate even better technology that could capture even more information. But if we keep waiting, we'll end up with no information at all. The article seems to suggest that the archeologists broke through a concrete barrier during routine excavations at an already heavily disturbed site without realizing that the soil underneath was anaerobic. In that case, it might be better to dig up everything as quickly as possible, since the soil is no longer anaerobic and there will be nothing to see if you wait too long.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I read OP as suggesting that we prioritize sites threatened by nature, and work to leave some sites pristine.
  - mncharity 9y ago
    Since at least the 1970's, there's been a trend towards the current "Archaeological Ethics, Principle No. 1: Stewardship - The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record." And the mantra "excavation is destruction". As non-invasive archaeology advances, and technology progress in general accelerates, the range of plausibly ethical excavation seems to narrow. Towards a limit of rescue-only. Of sites threatened by whatever - looting, construction, climate change. Or here, by surprised archaeologists. A perhaps overly-aggressive excavation for large artifacts, seems to have become a challenge of molecular archaeology rescue. And there seems no awareness of that change. Just happiness at finding well-preserved curios.
dvtv75 9y ago
I suggest you discuss this directly with archaeological faculty at a university, rather than making claims about dynamite - e.g. those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists. Modern archaeologists do share your distress over most of what you've claimed. For instance, you say "Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later." A not-insignificant amount of archaeology is performed because of an imminent threat to a site, be it natural (rising oceans) or man-made (highways). I recall reading about (what I consider to be) significant Roman sites in London being destroyed after examination because a developer had a building plan for that particular location. Even Time Team would dig up mosaics in a field, record everything meticulously, present their findings to the public (in a rather unscientific manner), and then bury it again, to protect it. Go and expand your horizons, instead of making decisions based upon incomplete information. You have some pleasant surprises waiting for you.
- dogruck 9y ago
  Archaeology is a new and evolving field. In years past, people we certainly would categorize as archhiologists did use dynamite. (study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture) And OP's general point remains valid -- scientific instruments and methods evolve. Worth considering "why now?"
- delazeur 9y ago
  > I suggest you discuss this directly with archaeological faculty at a university, rather than making claims about dynamite - e.g. those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists. Modern archaeologists do share your distress over most of what you've claimed. My experience with academic archaeologists has been that they are pretty myopic on this. They like to dismiss past archaeologists as treasure hunters, but they are also eager to get their hands on all the data they can without much regard for the locals or for preservation. They usually justify this by pointing out that they aren't looking for treasure, in the traditional sense.
  - mncharity 9y ago
vacri 9y ago
You complain about not waiting for new tech, and then complain about not using current tech. What use is future tech going to be if it's applied with the same kind of people? Also, what kind of tech are you expecting to be developed that will be available to archaeologists? It's not like they get CERN's budget.
- mncharity 9y ago
  > You complain about not waiting for new tech, and then complain about not using current tech. Excavation is destruction. One tries to maximize the value (by documentation, etc), and minimize the loss (by preserving samples, and leaving most of the site for future archaeologists). Minimum viable destruction. When it's an excavation of choice, and not necessity (rescue archaeology of a threatened site), what threshold of acceptability should be used, has been a subject of disagreement. > budget Areas with limited funding depend on the tech of others. As construction as-built documentation gets bulk incremental imaging, 3D reconstruction, and data management, so will archaeology. Same with radar mapping of ground, and of walls. As pro-ams get high-resolution multispectral imaging, so does archaeology. As molecular biology costs continue to decline by orders of magnitude, it changes biology research, medicine, ... and archaeology. And so on. > What use is future tech going to be if it's applied with the same kind of people? I don't quite understand the question. But one thing that changes is knowing what's valuable to retain. With pollen dating, there's effort to sample for pollen. If isolated seeds gain value in some context, or tiny fragments of bone or insects, then there's more incentive to conserve them. Grabbing samples against unknown future opportunity is done, but without knowing what it will be used for, or what properties will be needed, it's rather haphazard.
davidvaughan 9y ago
I get the impression from the article that they weren't expecting an anaerobic space: "Archaeologists lifted up a piece of concrete flooring while exploring the foundations of the fourth-century stone fortress. They were struck by a layer of black, sweet-smelling and perfectly preserved anaerobic soil in an area where it was completely unexpected".
- mncharity 9y ago
  Nod. And given rare, that could well be a reasonable standard of care. Sh*t happens. What I found disturbing was the absence, at least in this reporting, of any "but the unfortunate part of all this is...", or "we're now striving to rescue what we can". Just, "omg, excellent curios!", with seemingly no recognition of loss.

kijin 9y ago

If we follow your logic, when do we ever get to excavate anything? We can always anticipate even better technology that could capture even more information. But if we keep waiting, we'll end up with no information at all. The article seems to suggest that the archeologists broke through a concrete barrier during routine excavations at an already heavily disturbed site without realizing that the soil underneath was anaerobic. In that case, it might be better to dig up everything as quickly as possible, since the soil is no longer anaerobic and there will be nothing to see if you wait too long.

dogruck 9y ago
I read OP as suggesting that we prioritize sites threatened by nature, and work to leave some sites pristine.
- mncharity 9y ago
  Since at least the 1970's, there's been a trend towards the current "Archaeological Ethics, Principle No. 1: Stewardship - The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record." And the mantra "excavation is destruction". As non-invasive archaeology advances, and technology progress in general accelerates, the range of plausibly ethical excavation seems to narrow. Towards a limit of rescue-only. Of sites threatened by whatever - looting, construction, climate change. Or here, by surprised archaeologists. A perhaps overly-aggressive excavation for large artifacts, seems to have become a challenge of molecular archaeology rescue. And there seems no awareness of that change. Just happiness at finding well-preserved curios.

dvtv75 9y ago

I suggest you discuss this directly with archaeological faculty at a university, rather than making claims about dynamite - e.g. those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists. Modern archaeologists do share your distress over most of what you've claimed. For instance, you say "Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later." A not-insignificant amount of archaeology is performed because of an imminent threat to a site, be it natural (rising oceans) or man-made (highways). I recall reading about (what I consider to be) significant Roman sites in London being destroyed after examination because a developer had a building plan for that particular location. Even Time Team would dig up mosaics in a field, record everything meticulously, present their findings to the public (in a rather unscientific manner), and then bury it again, to protect it. Go and expand your horizons, instead of making decisions based upon incomplete information. You have some pleasant surprises waiting for you.

dogruck 9y ago
Archaeology is a new and evolving field. In years past, people we certainly would categorize as archhiologists did use dynamite. (study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture) And OP's general point remains valid -- scientific instruments and methods evolve. Worth considering "why now?"
delazeur 9y ago
> I suggest you discuss this directly with archaeological faculty at a university, rather than making claims about dynamite - e.g. those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists. Modern archaeologists do share your distress over most of what you've claimed. My experience with academic archaeologists has been that they are pretty myopic on this. They like to dismiss past archaeologists as treasure hunters, but they are also eager to get their hands on all the data they can without much regard for the locals or for preservation. They usually justify this by pointing out that they aren't looking for treasure, in the traditional sense.
- mncharity 9y ago

vacri 9y ago

You complain about not waiting for new tech, and then complain about not using current tech. What use is future tech going to be if it's applied with the same kind of people? Also, what kind of tech are you expecting to be developed that will be available to archaeologists? It's not like they get CERN's budget.

mncharity 9y ago
> You complain about not waiting for new tech, and then complain about not using current tech. Excavation is destruction. One tries to maximize the value (by documentation, etc), and minimize the loss (by preserving samples, and leaving most of the site for future archaeologists). Minimum viable destruction. When it's an excavation of choice, and not necessity (rescue archaeology of a threatened site), what threshold of acceptability should be used, has been a subject of disagreement. > budget Areas with limited funding depend on the tech of others. As construction as-built documentation gets bulk incremental imaging, 3D reconstruction, and data management, so will archaeology. Same with radar mapping of ground, and of walls. As pro-ams get high-resolution multispectral imaging, so does archaeology. As molecular biology costs continue to decline by orders of magnitude, it changes biology research, medicine, ... and archaeology. And so on. > What use is future tech going to be if it's applied with the same kind of people? I don't quite understand the question. But one thing that changes is knowing what's valuable to retain. With pollen dating, there's effort to sample for pollen. If isolated seeds gain value in some context, or tiny fragments of bone or insects, then there's more incentive to conserve them. Grabbing samples against unknown future opportunity is done, but without knowing what it will be used for, or what properties will be needed, it's rather haphazard.

davidvaughan 9y ago

I get the impression from the article that they weren't expecting an anaerobic space: "Archaeologists lifted up a piece of concrete flooring while exploring the foundations of the fourth-century stone fortress. They were struck by a layer of black, sweet-smelling and perfectly preserved anaerobic soil in an area where it was completely unexpected".

mncharity 9y ago
Nod. And given rare, that could well be a reasonable standard of care. Sh*t happens. What I found disturbing was the absence, at least in this reporting, of any "but the unfortunate part of all this is...", or "we're now striving to rescue what we can". Just, "omg, excellent curios!", with seemingly no recognition of loss.