Indeed! An arguement I always found rather strange if honesty be just that!
From: Steven Burch <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Mon, 1 November, 2010 12:18:16
Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] "Losing" artifacts
I think the future gernerations/ better technology is ridiculous.. bearing
in mind that technology is forever eveolving and improving then it begs that
question of whether archaeology would or should ever be dug, because at some
time in the furture the technology will improve.. therefore the profession
of archaeology could well be considered redundant as a practical practice!
Just in case like...
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM, McCrone, Peter (NE) <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I believe that Bulleid and Gray, when digging at the Glastonbury Lake
> Village (from 1892 until about 1914) reburied a considerable amount of the
> pottery found (a lot of the undecorated stuff) and many of the wooden
> artefacts that the conservation technology of the time couldn't deal with.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: British archaeology discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of J DAVIS
> Sent: 31 October 2010 13:26
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [BRITARCH] "Losing" artifacts
> Actually, it's been a long-established English Heritage practice. When I
> was at EH many years ago (guardianship sites side of the work), our policy
> was to
> 1) avoid digging wherever possible because future generations will have
> better technology to investigate, analyse and conserve
> 2) don't dig up unless could afford to conserve, or
> 3) it would be lost within months if nothing done (for example, land about
> to slip into the sea).
> Conservation options always included backfilling.
> Best wishes,
> Janet E Davis
> --- On Fri, 29/10/10, Paul Boothroyd <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > From: Paul Boothroyd <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: [BRITARCH] "Losing" artifacts
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Date: Friday, 29 October, 2010, 16:36
> > This is a perennial problem which is
> > becoming worse as local authorities are encouraged to 'save'
> > money.
> > English Heritage are, I am reliably informed, starting to
> > rebury masonry on site once it has been recorded -it is
> > likely to be better preserved than scattered around the site
> > and can always be recovered in the future if necessary, and
> > doesn't take up precious storage space either.
> > With large amounts of pottery perhaps a similar idea could
> > be implemented!
> > Fragile and degradable artifacts would still remain to be
> > conserved and stored of course.
> This email and any attachments is intended for the named recipient only. If
> you have received it in error you have no authority to use, disclose, store
> or copy any of its contents and you should destroy it and inform the
> Nothing in the email amounts to a legal commitment on our part unless
> confirmed by a signed communication. Whilst this email and associated
> attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within the
> Natural England systems, we can accept no responsibility once it has left
> our systems. Communications on Natural England systems may be monitored
> and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for
> other lawful purposes.