[In light of projected dams that risk inundating World Heritage sites
in the ANE, see
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/news/article.asp?idart=9394
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/archaeology/archeology.asp ]
Regarding the construction of Dams and reservoirs in general:
First, it is my opinion that if the construction of a dam and reservoir is
important for the communities and country that it supports, then it should
not be blocked because archaeological sites will be inundated (unless, of
course, there are feasible alternatives).
Second, I would like to point out that we have very little idea what the
effect of submersion is on archaeological sites. I have pointed this out in
a conference paper given at the MIT Conference on Deep Water Archaeology in
2002. Yes, it is true that 'wetsites' and underwater terrestrial sites have
been excavated, but none of those sites have been explored BEFORE they were
inundated. Without a comparison of the before and after, it is unclear what
type of damage will occur to a site. In fact, if we take wetsites as an
example, there is a surprising level of preservation, particularly of
organic materials such as textiles and basketry. Given the right
conditions, the submersion of a site may be a blessing, protecting it from
looters and inexperienced archaeologists until such time as either the
reservoir is drained or when techniques and technologies of submerged
terrestrial site archaeology are perfected.
In my paper I suggested that before we operate on the assumption that
submersion is the destruction of a site, and perform destructive salvage
operations, a study of the effects of submersed terrestrial sites must be
done. And really, there is one very ideal location for this
study/experiment to take place: Lake Nasser, Egypt. Because of the
extensive work done in Nubia on the sites before submersion, one could
(theoretically) lead an expedition to examine these sites after 40+ years of
submersion in order to determine what effect the submersion has had on the
sites. I hypothesized based on a few smaller studies of wetsites that there
would be a surprising degree of preservation, particularly if silt had
covered the site within a few years of submersion.
To offer an example that is slightly different, but perhaps applicable, I am
currently excavating Predynastic and Early Dynastic material at Mendes in
the Egyptian Delta. It is clear for a number of reasons that the watertable
over the last 5000 years had fluctuated and at times had covered the
material that I am excavating. As of the beginning of our work in the
mid-1990's (and to this day), the watertable has been 3m lower than where we
are excavating. There is no indication that the high water table has had
any effect on the cultural remains that we are finding. That includes
mudbrick, cylinder seal impressions, animal bone, pottery, etc.
Until I pursue the suggestions that I have made regarding Lake Nasser or
someone else does, I can't help but wonder if salvage operations to 'save'
sites from submersion are the best approach. If the mosaics at Zeugma were
never salvaged (I don't mean left exposed, I mean had the earth removed from
them), would the water have destroyed them? If not, they would still be in
their archaeological context for further study... (I don't criticize the
excavators of the site; I mean it only as an example)
Matthew J. Adams
The Pennsylvania State University
This is an issue which requires some debate. Simply covering up a site with water doesn't necessarily entail its "destruction". In some ways and in some instances, it may actually preserve the site. We feel there needs to be some distinction between actual destruction of a site and it simply being inaccessible, the latter of which we think is not necessarily a bad thing given the unending (and demonstrable) destruction of sites we humans have been engaged in.