3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI read OP as suggesting that we prioritize sites threatened by nature, and work to leave some sites pristine.
- mncharity 9y agoSince 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.