Picked This UP From The BBC

Here's where you get off topic and off center....Keep it nice, keep it clean, no sniping, no flaming. After that, anything goes.

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Picked This UP From The BBC

Postby Minimalist » Sun May 04, 2014 8:46 am

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27236869

A Point of View: Is the archaeological dig a thing of the past?


I suspect that the answer is "no." But the new technology should enable more precise digging. As the article notes, once you dig something up you have to preserve it and that costs ( a lot ) of money.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15395
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Picked This UP From The BBC

Postby Frank Harrist » Sun May 04, 2014 10:24 am

We did remote sensing in Arkansas and it helped us determine where to dig. There was no "hit and miss" about it. Wherever we dug we found features and artifacts. It is a very useful tool, but in my opinion will never replace the shovel and the trowel. The pictures produced by these geophysical surveys are very vague and amorphous. To really "see' what's there you have to get down in the dirt. GPR or any of the other geophysical tools can't see well enough to tell a pot from a stone and most definitely cannot discern the designs on said pottery. It is a wonderful, time-saving tool and will be used more and more in the field, but will never replace the "digger".
Frank Harrist
 

Re: Picked This UP From The BBC

Postby uniface » Sun May 04, 2014 11:10 am

If the technology's improved as rapidly as other, initially crude technologies have been improved, it won't stay that way for all that long.
uniface
 

Re: Picked This UP From The BBC

Postby Minimalist » Sun May 04, 2014 2:31 pm

One should never say never but I can't imagine any technology which could read a cuneiform tablet underground even if it develops to the point where it can reliably find them.

I agree with Frank that it will save a lot of pointless digging in the wrong spot. There is not an either/or issue. Find an interesting anomaly and then dig it up and see what it is you have.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin
Minimalist
 
Posts: 15395
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Picked This UP From The BBC

Postby circumspice » Sun May 04, 2014 3:28 pm

Archaeology & its associated digs destroys as it preserves. Almost by definition, digging is destructive. However, you can't make omelets without breaking eggs. Sometimes a dig is a rescue dig, meant to remove the materials because they are obstructing 'progress' & will be lost or damaged irreparably if not moved. (think Aswan High Dam) In the old world it's not possible to preserve every archeological site in situ... There are simply too many of them, most of them in 'prime' locations. (if it was a good location for people in ancient times, it might still be a good location in present times) So we're reduced to choosing between the lesser of two evils. Personally, unless a site is vast, I think it should be moved to a protected location, or protected in situ if possible, to prevent theft & vandalism.
LUCEO NON URO
User avatar
circumspice
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Picked This UP From The BBC

Postby uniface » Mon May 05, 2014 9:34 am

How many more hundreds of thousands of Canfield points and cooking stones does anyone want or need ?


:cry:
uniface
 


Return to The 'Everything Else' Forum.....

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron