Depends on it's context
Look at the skulls found in London with the Crossrail works….washed out of a Roman cemetery over a thousand years ago, washed down the Walbrooke, but below the Bedlam ones….and only context said that so there was greater attention paid to details. Amazing stuff coming up, and astonishing amount of information about the layers of history on the city.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/roman-skulls-discovered-at-liverpool-street
If you read that article though, and find the whole thing fascinating, and all that history being revealed with careful investigation, excavation, reporting and recovery; yet all of it 'could' have been trashed, and the only bit 'worth' anything was a gold coin turned into a pendant.
Aye, makes you think, doesn't it ? How much more is out there ? and how much more information could we glean in the future as our techniques and research improves ? That's why archaeologist do not ever excavate an entire site. We leave for the future, and we don't disguise what we have excavated and pretend that it's pristine.
Once excavated the context is gone. The layers are destroyed, disturbed…..that's why we record with as many ways as we can. So that the details at least are there in the report for the future, not just the present interpretation.
M
Look at the skulls found in London with the Crossrail works….washed out of a Roman cemetery over a thousand years ago, washed down the Walbrooke, but below the Bedlam ones….and only context said that so there was greater attention paid to details. Amazing stuff coming up, and astonishing amount of information about the layers of history on the city.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/news/articles/roman-skulls-discovered-at-liverpool-street
If you read that article though, and find the whole thing fascinating, and all that history being revealed with careful investigation, excavation, reporting and recovery; yet all of it 'could' have been trashed, and the only bit 'worth' anything was a gold coin turned into a pendant.
Aye, makes you think, doesn't it ? How much more is out there ? and how much more information could we glean in the future as our techniques and research improves ? That's why archaeologist do not ever excavate an entire site. We leave for the future, and we don't disguise what we have excavated and pretend that it's pristine.
Once excavated the context is gone. The layers are destroyed, disturbed…..that's why we record with as many ways as we can. So that the details at least are there in the report for the future, not just the present interpretation.
M
Last edited: