> Though I believe a more proactive approach is probably not even feasible unless public funding increases by an order of magnitude, which is of course highly u

> Though I believe a more proactive approach is probably not even feasible unless public funding increases by an order of magnitude, which is of course highly unlikely. It may not even be the best method anyway: Preserving finds ex-situ is only a plus if that ex-situ storage 'outperforms' original site. And keeps doing so over time. Say eg. you have 1001 artefacts kept in climate-controlled rooms in a museum. Great! And now a fire (or flood, earthquake, thieves, vandals, whatever) comes along. Potentially many artefacts lost in 1 go. Which might not have happened had those artefacts stayed in their original locations. Remember items sat where found, for a long time. Over similar timespans a lot can happen to any alternative storage location. So unless threatened somehow, "just leave in place & document" seems like a sensible approach. And potential pollution with microplastics or whatever does not necessarily equate to "threatened".