{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024390243902439025, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0015735641227380016, 'mean_word_length': 5.235294117647059, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Relax, Don’t Do It: A Future for Archaeological Monitoring

Preservation in situ and the monitoring of archaeological sites have become important themes since the acceptance and implementation of the Valletta Treaty. In the last few decades, our knowledge of degradation processes has increased manyfold, and a range of techniques have been tested and applied for use in both assessment and monitoring. Despite these successes, all is not well. First, we have little notion of the speed of the decay processes involved. This makes it difficult to distinguish between acute and protracted degradation. Apart from that, many assessments and subsequent monitoring projects rely (too?) heavily on complex and costly specialist technology. For any future preservation — in situ — projects low-tech observations together with best estimates of decay rates and archaeological site information should be combined to make an accurate assessment of the effects of decay on the archaeological record. Monitoring for preservation purposes is only appropriate if (1) decay processes occur within a relevant and measurable time scale, and (2) if mitigating actions can be taken or preservation ex situ can be performed (i.e. a rescue excavation) if significant degradation takes place.