Comment by mncharity | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mncharity | Hacker News Reader

Was the site under threat of looting or construction, or was this a massive stewardship failure?

For context, once upon a time, archaeologists "carefully" used dynamite, and excavated entire sites. Leaving nothing at all behind, but for a few "carefully" washed and polished artifacts (the "important" trophies, like weapons and jewelry), and perhaps some "carefully" hand-drawn sketches of some big things (formerly) at the site.

Nowadays, archaeologists "carefully" crack open an anaerobic site, ... and I just don't have the heart to finish this post.

Does anyone have a good link on archaeological ethics, and limiting excavation to only threatened sites? The idea is to avoid unnecessary excavation, because it destroys vastly more information than it preserves. Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later.

This article is ghastly, close to parody. Picture of volunteer displaying "the icing on the cake" trophy in ambient atmosphere, sitting on newspaper, the 'who cares about dirt?' brushed off, at best coarsely sieved, then discarded on a big pile. The Birley quotes... show no recognition that anything unfortunate has happened.

I suggest you discuss this directly with archaeological faculty at a university, rather than making claims about dynamite - e.g. those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists. Modern archaeologists do share your distress over most of what you've claimed.

For instance, you say "Information which could have been captured with improving technology, if only the excavation had happened later." A not-insignificant amount of archaeology is performed because of an imminent threat to a site, be it natural (rising oceans) or man-made (highways). I recall reading about (what I consider to be) significant Roman sites in London being destroyed after examination because a developer had a building plan for that particular location.

Even Time Team would dig up mosaics in a field, record everything meticulously, present their findings to the public (in a rather unscientific manner), and then bury it again, to protect it.

Go and expand your horizons, instead of making decisions based upon incomplete information. You have some pleasant surprises waiting for you.

Archaeology is a new and evolving field. In years past, people we certainly would categorize as archhiologists did use dynamite.

(study of human activity through the recovery and analysis of material culture)

And OP's general point remains valid -- scientific instruments and methods evolve. Worth considering "why now?"

> I suggest you discuss this directly with archaeological faculty at a university, rather than making claims about dynamite - e.g. those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists. Modern archaeologists do share your distress over most of what you've claimed.

My experience with academic archaeologists has been that they are pretty myopic on this. They like to dismiss past archaeologists as treasure hunters, but they are also eager to get their hands on all the data they can without much regard for the locals or for preservation. They usually justify this by pointing out that they aren't looking for treasure, in the traditional sense.

> My experience with academic archaeologists has been that they are pretty myopic on this.

I wonder if anyone has done a survey of views? There is some "do no harm", exploit non-destructive techniques, and reserve excavation for rescue archaeology. But seemingly a variety of other standards of care for site conservation and consumption.

Not my field, but one thing I've anecdotally seen underappreciated, is the rate of change in molecular biology, and thus eventually in molecular archaeology (aka bioarchaeology outside the US). Where over a mere decade or two, "can't imagine doing X" can change to "doing X costs years and millions", and then to "new trainee can casually do X in an afternoon", and even to "X is a field-deployable box". With a potential impact... for example, it turns out tooth calculus preserves DNA. So from millennia old teeth, one might sequence the owner, their mouth microbiome (with health information), and the species they've been eating. Grabbing a few soil samples might be ok if you're thinking pollen, but rather less so if a single tiny rat incisor might tell you so much. And proteomics is just getting started. And in addition to biology, there's improving imaging, inorganic materials analysis, bulk data management, robotics, and so on. Aggressive excavation, with 'DSLR, eyeball, sample bagging, brush, sift, and float', while largely unchanged for decades, seems rather more problematic if one looks ahead?

> those who used dynamite were treasure hunters, for example, not archaeologists.

This is actually not completely true. Heinrich Schliemann, for example, was widely known and criticized for destroying the ruins of Troy at Hisarlik with dynamite.

Schliemann's case is not that simple, Calvert and Schliemann's work happened before Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Tessa Wheeler and their student Kathleen Kenyon transformed it from amateur antiquarianism to the systematic professional research field we now know. As Stuart Piggott later noted "Wheeler was looking for a professional job [in Archaeology] where the profession had yet to be created".

If we follow your logic, when do we ever get to excavate anything? We can always anticipate even better technology that could capture even more information. But if we keep waiting, we'll end up with no information at all.

The article seems to suggest that the archeologists broke through a concrete barrier during routine excavations at an already heavily disturbed site without realizing that the soil underneath was anaerobic. In that case, it might be better to dig up everything as quickly as possible, since the soil is no longer anaerobic and there will be nothing to see if you wait too long.

I read OP as suggesting that we prioritize sites threatened by nature, and work to leave some sites pristine.

Since at least the 1970's, there's been a trend towards the current "Archaeological Ethics, Principle No. 1: Stewardship - The archaeological record, that is, in situ archaeological material and sites, archaeological collections, records and reports, is irreplaceable. It is the responsibility of all archaeologists to work for the long-term conservation and protection of the archaeological record by practicing and promoting stewardship of the archaeological record."

And the mantra "excavation is destruction". As non-invasive archaeology advances, and technology progress in general accelerates, the range of plausibly ethical excavation seems to narrow. Towards a limit of rescue-only. Of sites threatened by whatever - looting, construction, climate change.

Or here, by surprised archaeologists. A perhaps overly-aggressive excavation for large artifacts, seems to have become a challenge of molecular archaeology rescue. And there seems no awareness of that change. Just happiness at finding well-preserved curios.

You complain about not waiting for new tech, and then complain about not using current tech. What use is future tech going to be if it's applied with the same kind of people?

Also, what kind of tech are you expecting to be developed that will be available to archaeologists? It's not like they get CERN's budget.

> You complain about not waiting for new tech, and then complain about not using current tech.

Excavation is destruction. One tries to maximize the value (by documentation, etc), and minimize the loss (by preserving samples, and leaving most of the site for future archaeologists). Minimum viable destruction. When it's an excavation of choice, and not necessity (rescue archaeology of a threatened site), what threshold of acceptability should be used, has been a subject of disagreement.

> budget

Areas with limited funding depend on the tech of others. As construction as-built documentation gets bulk incremental imaging, 3D reconstruction, and data management, so will archaeology. Same with radar mapping of ground, and of walls. As pro-ams get high-resolution multispectral imaging, so does archaeology. As molecular biology costs continue to decline by orders of magnitude, it changes biology research, medicine, ... and archaeology. And so on.

> What use is future tech going to be if it's applied with the same kind of people?

I don't quite understand the question. But one thing that changes is knowing what's valuable to retain. With pollen dating, there's effort to sample for pollen. If isolated seeds gain value in some context, or tiny fragments of bone or insects, then there's more incentive to conserve them. Grabbing samples against unknown future opportunity is done, but without knowing what it will be used for, or what properties will be needed, it's rather haphazard.

I get the impression from the article that they weren't expecting an anaerobic space: "Archaeologists lifted up a piece of concrete flooring while exploring the foundations of the fourth-century stone fortress. They were struck by a layer of black, sweet-smelling and perfectly preserved anaerobic soil in an area where it was completely unexpected".

Nod. And given rare, that could well be a reasonable standard of care. Sh*t happens. What I found disturbing was the absence, at least in this reporting, of any "but the unfortunate part of all this is...", or "we're now striving to rescue what we can". Just, "omg, excellent curios!", with seemingly no recognition of loss.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com