In Situ Preservation as a Dynamic Process: The Example of Sutton Common, UK

By Van De Noort, Robert; Champman, Henry P. et al. | Antiquity, March 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

In Situ Preservation as a Dynamic Process: The Example of Sutton Common, UK

Van De Noort, Robert, Champman, Henry P., Cheetham, James L., Antiquity


The need for long-term in-ground protection of the archaeological resource, or in situ preservation, is a stated objective of national and international agencies concerned with the future of the archaeological resource. This is asserted in English Planning Policy Guidance 16, `Archaeology and Planning' (Department of the Environment 1990), by the Council of Europe in the Valetta Treaty (e.g. Willems 1998) and by the United Nations agency, the International Council of Monuments and Sites regarding the marine archaeological resource (ICOMOS 1996). Kenward & Hall (2000) recently highlighted the problems of in situ preservation within wet deposits by presenting the example of delicate organic remains in urban York. Evidence from insect remains in archaeological deposits demonstrated the possibility that there is widespread decay that has been initiated recently. The potentially unstable nature of the buried remains was also presented, and the lack of `properly funded' research into the problem of in situ preservation and in-ground decay was blamed.

Kenward & Hall commence a debate that is fundamental to the future of the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental heritage. We wish to develop some of their arguments, by looking at several basic characteristics of in situ preservation, the importance of site management and the need to develop a `science-based' approach to in situ preservation. We present the example of Sutton Common, an Iron Age site with variable preservation of waterlogged remains, located c. 40 km to the south of York. Here, we are providing the scientific input and advice in a large-scale experiment co-ordinated by the landowner in co-operation with a range of key organizations. The project is aimed at preserving parts of the organic archaeological resource, involving an integrated and dynamic process of monitoring and modelling the burial environment within the context of providing a combination of environmental, archaeological and community benefits.

In situ preservation as a dynamic process

Whether in situ preservation is achievable or not requires the aims to be placed within a contextual framework, e.g. the different types of material and information that are to be preserved. Kenward & Hall note that certain types of materials may be preserved to a greater degree than others, e.g. labile material is more prone to decay than robust remains. From this it may be understood that complete in situ preservation is unattainable due to partial decay at the time of deposition, but that it is possible to preserve certain materials indefinitely. At a lower resolution, the possibilities for in situ preservation may be understood in relation to different archaeological features within a site. For example, variable soil processes within pits will create different localized burial environments that influence the potential for the longterm preservation of material contained within, a phenomenon known to any archaeologist involved with the excavation of a well. Similarly, the likelihood of preservation of organic archaeological sites may be closely associated to their function and location. For example, the prehistoric trackways on the foreshore of the Humber estuary were built to allow crossing of intertidal creeks, and their rapid incorporation in the anoxic muds enabled excellent preservation (Fletcher et al. 1999). At the site level, it may only be possible to preserve certain areas due to a number of factors, not least the size of the site itself and its location. It appears that in situ preservation may only be usefully attempted within the context of resolution and an understanding of the material to be preserved.

The perception that archaeological remains can be preserved in situ without any form of management is unsustainable, a point that emerges clearly from Kenward & Hall's paper. A wide variety of environmental changes will impact on the burial environment of any archaeological monument.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

In Situ Preservation as a Dynamic Process: The Example of Sutton Common, UK


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?