Picked This UP From The BBC

[Minimalist]

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27236869

A Point of View: Is the archaeological dig a thing of the past?

I suspect that the answer is "no." But the new technology should enable more precise digging. As the article notes, once you dig something up you have to preserve it and that costs ( a lot ) of money.

[Frank Harrist]

We did remote sensing in Arkansas and it helped us determine where to dig. There was no "hit and miss" about it. Wherever we dug we found features and artifacts. It is a very useful tool, but in my opinion will never replace the shovel and the trowel. The pictures produced by these geophysical surveys are very vague and amorphous. To really "see' what's there you have to get down in the dirt. GPR or any of the other geophysical tools can't see well enough to tell a pot from a stone and most definitely cannot discern the designs on said pottery. It is a wonderful, time-saving tool and will be used more and more in the field, but will never replace the "digger".

[uniface]

If the technology's improved as rapidly as other, initially crude technologies have been improved, it won't stay that way for all that long.

[Minimalist]

One should never say never but I can't imagine any technology which could read a cuneiform tablet underground even if it develops to the point where it can reliably find them.

I agree with Frank that it will save a lot of pointless digging in the wrong spot. There is not an either/or issue. Find an interesting anomaly and then dig it up and see what it is you have.

[circumspice]

Archaeology & its associated digs destroys as it preserves. Almost by definition, digging is destructive. However, you can't make omelets without breaking eggs. Sometimes a dig is a rescue dig, meant to remove the materials because they are obstructing 'progress' & will be lost or damaged irreparably if not moved. (think Aswan High Dam) In the old world it's not possible to preserve every archeological site in situ... There are simply too many of them, most of them in 'prime' locations. (if it was a good location for people in ancient times, it might still be a good location in present times) So we're reduced to choosing between the lesser of two evils. Personally, unless a site is vast, I think it should be moved to a protected location, or protected in situ if possible, to prevent theft & vandalism.

[uniface]

How many more hundreds of thousands of Canfield points and cooking stones does anyone want or need ?