‘Site unseen’: the case for reburial of archaeological sites

Abstract

AbstractAbstractThe decision-making process for managing and conserving archaeological sites is increasingly accepted as being driven by a thorough assessment of values, physical condition of the resource and the management context. Reconciling the results of these assessments, which may point in different directions, to arrive at a decision that is most appropriate for the resource can be a complex process. When reburial (also referred to as backfilling) is being considered as an option for the preservation of an excavated site (especially long-term reburial), there are particular opportunities and constraints and a host of considerations (stakeholder, technical and management) that need to be taken into account if the values of a place are not to be compromised and stakeholders alienated. For, however beneficial reburial may be from a conservation perspective, it is generally viewed with scepticism or disfavour by those with legal authority over a site, and by those stakeholders who want access to the site for study, education or money-making. This paper examines the rationales for reburial, as well as the objections to it, and puts forth a decision-making model for reburial interventions that takes into consideration stakeholder, technical and management needs.