archaeological strategy-- the good and the bad

[Minimalist]

IF all conditions were perfect (meaning you unlimited time, unlimited money, unlimited manpower, unlimited space to exhibit finds, to conserve those finds, etc, etc... then there would be no reason not to finish off a site.

Your question however is impractical. If you dig up 10,000 pieces of pottery you are holding out hope that the 10,001st will be earthshaking.

[AD]

how do we know that we are actually close to what really happened when we only have a partial story?

We always have only a partial story, no matter how much we dig up. And assuming that our current techniques and technologies will not be significantly improved upon is hardly a safe bet.

what is the benefit to the present if we leave information buried for future generations?

Well, there certainly is always the question "Who cares about posterity? What did posterity ever do for us?"

[War Arrow]

it seems that leaving sites partially unsearched is a style which hinders the quest of the archaeologist.

too much is lost by leaving grids untouched and especially context of the remians. how do we know that we are actually close to what really happened when we only have a partial story?

what is the benefit to the present if we leave information buried for future generations? i do not buy into this future technology crap because we do not know how long it will take to invent a better way of analyzing a site if one gets invented at all thus possible vital information and data is lost due to someone's 'good intentions'.

Arch has pretty much summed up my own thoughts on this.

[Guest]

Arch has pretty much summed up my own thoughts on this.

yet you voted against me. tsk! tsk!

[Leona Conner]

I agree that the IDEAL would be to dig it all up. But unfortunately life is not that black and white, there is just too much gray matter involved.

[Guest]

I agree that the IDEAL would be to dig it all up. But unfortunately life is not that black and white, there is just too much gray matter involved.

i know money is the key factor here and people would rather invest in a mini mall instead of an archaeological dig, that is sort of a given. but what other grey areas would we be talking about? beliefs? agendas? whether political or religious, qualifications?

obviously storage would be a factor which leads me to ask should we be more discerning in what is valuable and worthy of keeping? how many broken shards do we need?

i am sure you all have thought about these things, what would be a ideal answer? OH, i am not being elememtery here just pursuing the topic of dscussion.

[Frank Harrist]

I had to vote "depends". Leaving aside the fact that it always comes down to money so the entire question is moot, there is the fact that new techinques and technologies are being developed as we speak. Ten years ago remote sensing and geophysical survey were in their infancy. Now they are used on any dig with the proper financing and planning. Having used them myself I know the value of such devices. We couldn't have imagined such things when I was in school and now they are some of the most valuable tools we have. As fast as technology is advancing now I'm sure there will be more and more non-invasive ways to look beneath the surface in the near future. What if we did dig it all up and then discover that there were things which we couldn't see there and we destroyed them in our haste. They are lost forever after we plow through the dirt looking for the obvious,(to today's technology), evidence. I have stopped some of my own personal digs because what I was finding was over my head and I had to wait for help. Even the most educated and intelligent archaeologist will run into something they cannot understand and have to leave it until later when perhaps it can be better understood. As far as archaeology has advanced in the past few decades it is still a destructive science. We can't go back and put things the way they were in an attempt to see the whole picture again. Once it's dug up it's ruined.
There is also the fact that for every day spent in the field digging there are months, if not years of study and cataloguing which must be done with the information found. It's a pipe-dream to think that we even could dig up everything at once. It's impossible! There are still artifacts stored away from a hundred years ago which haven't been properly studied. How is that going to change now? We just dig it all up and store it away somehwere 'til we have enough money and people to properly study it, just adding to the stuff we already have unstudied? The whole question of this thread is phliosophical. like how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? It's a question which cannot be answered so it's stupid to even ask it. So I have to say, with regard to each individual site, it depends. As a whole , covering all of archaeology, it's a dumb question. We can only do what we can do and nothing more so why even dream of it?
Arch, this isn't anything against you. It's just an impractical question. Ideally we could dig it all up and instantly understand it and lose nothing in the process, but this is real life and it is anything but ideal.

[Guest]

Arch, this isn't anything against you. It's just an impractical question. Ideally we could dig it all up and instantly understand it and lose nothing in the process, but this is real life and it is anything but ideal.

i know it is nothing against me, i am simply asking for opinions and i certainly don't want people agreeing with me when they don't.

The whole question of this thread is phliosophical

i do not think it is philosophical but investigative. i am not a technology person and though some tools would help in deciding where to dig, it doesn't replace the old fashioned pick axe and chain saw--- i mean shovel and trowel.

We can't go back and put things the way they were in an attempt to see the whole picture again. Once it's dug up it's ruined

i disagree with this point also. if you catalogue something correctly, the picture doesn't change, it is there in the present as well as the future. too much is made of the 'destructive' nature, that comes with the field and is no more of a factor than anything else if dealt with properly. over-emphasizing it puts things out of perspective.

[War Arrow]

Arch has pretty much summed up my own thoughts on this.

yet you voted against me. tsk! tsk!

I did? Sorry about that, Arch. I put myself down for a depends rather than a yes for a number of reasons. Also you'll notice I selectively quoted those parts of your post that, as I say, summed up my own thoughts on this.

You said

also, future technology gets the shaft because the site has been destroyed along with the context of the artifacts because of the inquisitiveness of the past archaeological work. if partial recording and analysis works then a complete record would just be as valuable in the future.

which kind of threw me as it seems to advocate leaving things well alone for future generations, unless my reading is another one of those 'peoples divided by a common language' thing. Which I accept may well be the case.

Anyway, to clarify. I think providing absolutely every last scrap of data is recorded for the possible benefit of future generations, an excavation should proceed from start to absolute end. In an ideal world of course. The idea of waiting on some new, revolutionary method of analysis which may or may not come along in the future seems overly cautious.

My depends is extrapolated from 'it depends what you would call digging the place up in one go.' Archaeological investigation of a site should proceed at the pace dictated by what is being found, so digging it up in one go might take six months or twenty years - whatever is appropriate. I didn't want to add yes in case the yes option implied some guy in a hole chucking things over his shoulder onto two piles earmarked as 'might be something' and 'probably just a rock'.

So in other words I'm saying YES, let's dig it up, DEPENDing upon whether or not you're happy to abide by the above stated conditions. Sorry to sound so dictatorial. It's probably the residual arrogance of that old British Empire thing. We used to rule the world. Apparently.

[Minimalist]

The idea of waiting on some new, revolutionary method of analysis which may or may not come along in the future seems overly cautious.

You know, that sounds logical but I wonder if it is the real reason. New techniques can be applied to old artifacts, too. Given the fact that most archaeologists know right off the bat that they are underfunded one wonders if they do not simply make a conscious decision to dig and record in a specific spot.

"I'm digging here.....if you want to dig later you can dig over there!"

[Guest]

which kind of threw me as it seems to advocate leaving things well alone for future generations, unless my reading is another one of those 'peoples divided by a common language' thing. Which I accept may well be the case.

what i was getting at is that once you dig a square and leave the other one, the context has been ruined for the future dig and the future site supervisors have to rely on notes and drawings to help them with this so-called new technology and put things into perspective.

since the same work has to be done anyways, why leave it in the ground, subject to looting etc. when it all could be excavated and all data recovered instead of a part.

[Minimalist]

Well, this explains one particularly good reason.

Excavation is way ahead of preservation.


http://www.international.icomos.org/risk/italy_2000.htm

The lasting care and protection of other archaeological sites is not ensured, either. For instance, in Ostia Antica harmful vegetation is not regularly removed and ancient floors in Pompeii and other sites are being trodden on by tourists.

The extreme decay of the famous Pompeian decorative paintings during the past decades, which is revealed by a comparison of the present state with old photographs, can be partly attributed to the use of unsuitable conservation materials, such as liquid glass, resin varnish and wax coatings, and furthermore to salt crystallisation as the result of damp walls. The latter is mainly caused by inadequate roofing, some of which have been built with modern materials like reinforced concrete – these materials often do more damage than good. The use of unsuitable building materials like concrete for restoration also contributes to an increase of salt damage. Finally, causes of decay are also general neglect and vegetation that is not removed and thus breaks up the walls, as well as microbiological infestation from algae, fungi and lichen.

You see, the buildings need to be protected, too. Not just any artifacts that may be found within.

[Frank Harrist]

I'm talking about things in the soil or other unknowns which we may destroy in the excavation. This is a stupid discussion and I refuse to participate in it any further. Arch you live in some kind of fantasy world. Grow up, wake up, or shut up.

[Cognito]

This is a stupid discussion and I refuse to participate in it any further. Arch you live in some kind of fantasy world. Grow up, wake up, or shut up.

Frank, please stop being so subtle and let us know how you really feel, OK?

[Guest]

I'm talking about things in the soil or other unknowns which we may destroy in the excavation. This is a stupid discussion and I refuse to participate in it any further. Arch you live in some kind of fantasy world. Grow up, wake up, or shut up.

taking this a little too personal are we, frank?

i do not consider this stupid at all but as an investigative analysis of the way things are being done and what could be done to improve on the thinking that continues to allow artifacts and other archaeological data to be at risk of looters, weather and other destructive forces.

you can play with the soil all you want to, but i am more concerned about what is being lost while it sits waiting for some unthought of technology to be invented, manufactured then affordably priced so archaeologists can use it.

it is not a fantasy but a critical look at the procedure and the attitude while looking for better solutions of recovery instead of sit and wait.