Archaeological Ethics

I had a conversation with my aunt the other day about archaeological excavations. We were talking abou the Hippodrome in Istanbul and she didn't understand why it couldn't be excavated. I told her there were too many other historical monuments surrounding the Hippodrome and on top of the Hippodrome that it would be harmful to try to excavate it. She then asked me, "But aren't we losing knowledge by not excavating a site?" Yes. She was right. We are losing information and knowledge, but the Hippodrome is forever preserved by not being excavated. The outside walls of the Hippodrome in Istanbul have pretty much been defaced over the years. It's covered in posters, graffiti, and it seems that even homes used to be attached to the architectural wonder.

(The Hippodrome in Istanbul. Photo taken by me.)

If the past belongs to the world and the purpose of the past is to learn from it, what can we learn from sites that cannot be excavated? We can hault modern development like subway systems but we can't excavate the Hippodrome? Do governments and archaeologists have an obligation to excavate difficult sites if they can yield rich information?

Lastly, if the Hippodrome is such an important tourist site in Istanbul, how come the Turkish government doesn't try to clean it up a bit? But then again, one could say that the modern affects on the Hippodrome are just mere contributions to the sites' history.