Invasive Sampling versus Object Integrity: A Final Response

In many respects I found the responses to my paper on the invasive sampling of archaeological collections reassuring. Rehren makes the excellent point that archaeological excavations can only be justified if the maximum information is extracted from the objects retrieved and that to achieve this aim, a full scientific study, often involving invasive sampling, is frequently essential. Schadla-Hall similarly argues that the scientific study of museum collections, with invasive sampling when necessary, continues to be important if the usefulness of the collections in contributing to our knowledge and understanding of the past is to be maintained. Further, Merriman emphasises that curators, conservators and archaeological scientists should all be working towards the common goal of ensuring good research rather than arguing about invasive sampling versus object integrity. However, in spite of these encouraging comments, I am still not entirely convinced that the concerns that I expressed regarding an increasing resistance to the invasive sampling of archaeological collections within some museums in the UK were without, at least some, justification.