Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology

2017 Edition
| Editors: Allan S. Gilbert

Site Preservation

  • Henk Kars
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4409-0_54

Definition

In situ preservation of archaeological heritage means the preservation of sites and remains in their original location within the burial environment, with the purpose of leaving archaeological sites intact, authentic, and as undamaged as possible. This is contrary to archaeological excavation, which can be seen as preservation ex situ.

Introduction

Subsumed within the idea of cultural heritage are structures, constructions, groups of buildings, developed sites, moveable objects, monuments of other kinds, as well as the context of all the aforementioned, whether situated on land or under water. This proposition was stated in the European Valletta Convention of 1992 (or the revised European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage) as well as in the World Heritage Convention of UNESCO, which also includes natural heritage. For many years, there has been an awareness of the importance of preserving ancient monumental buildings; however, most of our...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Bibliography

  1. de Beer, H., Christensson, A., and Jensen, J. A., 2008, Bryggen world heritage site: a numerical groundwater model to support archaeological preservation strategies, In Kars, H., and van Heeringen, R. M. (eds.), Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference 7–9 December 2006, Amsterdam. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies 10. Amsterdam: Institute for Geo and Bioarchaeology, VU University, pp. 95–100.Google Scholar
  2. Gregory, D., and Matthiesen H., (eds.), 2012. Special Issue: Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ: The 4th International Conference on Preserving Archaeological Remains “in situ” (PARIS4): 2326 May 2011, the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 14(1–4).Google Scholar
  3. Hollund, H. I., 2013. Are teeth better? A histological investigation of diagenesis in a set of archaeological bone-tooth pairs and the implications for sample selection in biomolecular studies. In Hollund, H. I. (ed.), Diagenetic Screening of Bone Samples; Tools to Aid Taphonomic and Archaeometric Investigations. PhD dissertation, VU University, Amsterdam, Department for Geo- and Bioarchaeology, pp. 45–59 Available: http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/40245
  4. Hollund, H. I., Arts, N., Jans, M. M. E., and Kars, H., Are teeth better? Histological characterization of diagenesis in archaeological bone-tooth pairs and a discussion of the consequences for archaeometric sample selection and analyses. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 23(6). doi: 10.1002/oa.2376.Google Scholar
  5. Huisman, D. J. (ed.), 2009. Degradation of Archaeological Remains. Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers.Google Scholar
  6. Kars, H., and van Heeringen, R. M. (eds.), 2008. Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ: Proceedings of the 3rd Conference 7–9 December 2006, Amsterdam. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies 10. Amsterdam: Institute for Geo and Bioarchaeology, VU University.Google Scholar
  7. Matthiesen, H., 2008. Detailed chemical analyses of groundwater as a tool for monitoring urban archaeological deposits: results from Bryggen in Bergen. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35(5), 1378–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Geo- and Bioarchaeology, Faculty of Earth and Life SciencesVU UniversityAmsterdamNetherlands