I have just watched the High Worsall episode on"the very best" DVD & there was a discussion between Tony & Mick about whether to excavate the North Row of the supposed Medieval village, which had well preserved earth works, or excavate the South Row, which was less well preserved due to farming. Mick wanted to preserve the North whilst Tony wanted to open a trench there as there was the possibility of better finds. As someone new to Archaeology i can understand both sides of the arguement but surely Archaeology is about finding out about the past, so the best thing to do is go to the place that would give best results.? I understand the need for conservation but surely excavating & finding out about things is a way of conseration. Conservation through recording and photos etc. I feel it would be a shame if Archaeological evidence was lost of forgotten just because someone thought it better left untouched? Some of these finds might not be around in a thousand years when the next future time team excavates? Would like views and ideas to convince me of the better way!!
That is a very good question but rather than me put my mudane blitherings down about what you have asked it would probably be better to wait for one of the resident archaeologists to answer.
That is a very good question but rather than me put my mudane blitherings down about what you have asked it would probably be better to wait for one of the resident archaeologists to answer.
I agree with Steffan. But i wouldn't dare call them "mundane blitherings" as i'm new . Any view would be appreciated.
This is one of the most difficult descisions in archaeology and often the hardest one to grasp (even for archaeolgoists)
To excavate the 'good' side would have meant digging into archaeology that is not threatened (yet) while it is better to deal with threatened.. (preservation is situ is a cry that you will often hear) A good archaeolgoist will get as much info from the north row as from teh sout.. so why damage the better preserved side when it can be maintained for 'future generations'.
In this case, given the choice I would agree with Mick Aston.. Dig teh damaged section.. as it is the bit that needs urgent investigation... Often Archaeology is reactive - and can be frustrating, when teh sites you would like to dig (in terms of an investigative project) have to move down the list to allow dealing with sites that are under iminent threat.
New you may be, but you're asking the right questions! And probably seeing for yourself that there isn't an ideal solution to them. It's all a question of weighing up each situation and deciding whether the benefits of digging (if it's in danger anyway, or if such important new information will be gained) outweigh those of leaving well alone. But it shows that the job must be done properly, and recorded fully, as one can't ever put it back as it was and have another go.
And 'OI!!! AJ - don't be so modest, your "blitherings" are no such thing. A "feel" for archaeology is just as important as all the education and experience in the world.
As said depends on the site. To further complicate things, or not as it may be, if the north and south sites are so different in their state of survial then a soil test could be handy to make your decision. If the soil has a nice stonking PH of seven then go for the damaged side of the site, if it was particularly acidic then you just as well evaluate the better preserved side as finds that help date the site would be at a minimum anyway.
im studying arcgaeology,but i fink tht it shudnt b excavated because excavation destroys, and with the geophysical surveying available it isnt necessary to excavate to undersatand a site
If I could be so presumptious as to bring the thread back onto topic
While geophysics is a lot more advanced then it used to be, we're still a long, long way from not excavating sites to get information from them, I'm afraid.
Originally posted by Chris D: If I could be so presumptious as to bring the thread back onto topic
While geophysics is a lot more advanced then it used to be, we're still a long, long way from not excavating sites to get information from them, I'm afraid.
Anyway, it would put me out of a job.
Er, yes, sorry - I was having a bit of a funny day.
Mick Aston never tires of emphasising that archaeology is destructive. The benefits of an excavation have to be proved to be worth this destruction. Some seem to take this too far and sites are left intact (unless there is a financial reason for developing the site and allowing a short rescue dig) for everyone to wonder about and try to interpret with very little data.
Geophysics can yield amazing results without causing damage. I thought the TT programme on the Gear hillforts were a very good example of this.
However, I am far from being against excavation of sites (including scheduled sites) but it has to be done properly. It must be planned, it must be fully recorded and it must be published as soon as possible. Years later is not acceptable and unpublished excavation is more akin to vandalism.
Geofizz - I am conducting some nearby can only teel you something is there (sometimes!! )
However there is only one way to find out if it is that period or this, whether it is a wall or a path.. a geolgical feature or a round house.. or a doocot.. or a windmill or a pond or a mine shaft or.... etc..
Geofizz is only (imho) a first stage.. but without excavation it is unknown age, type and survival..
well im studyinmg st sixthform, but surely the morphology of the site is going tro lend some clues to dare i mean u cn b pretty sure tht with a palying card shape u are bound to have a roman fort, i spose it does depend entirely on the site, i just think aswell given ppg16 aims for conservation rather than excavation less excavation need be caried out, it would save on a lot of monet also!
. Any view would be appreciated.
) 