The preservation of archeological sites does not always overlap with the conservation of biodiversity. At the most basic level, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization separates cultural heritage sites and natural heritage sites: Of 981 heritage sites, 759 are cultural, 193 natural, and only 29 (2.65%) have mixed properties (whc.unesco.org/en/list). Cultural conservation and biodiversity conservation have overlapped in the sustainable use of natural resources (Timmer and Juma 2005), but shared targets of elevated conservation importance for both archeological and biodiversity priorities are still few.

[fullclear]

The first archaeological dig I worked on, I could probably have used a little less biodiversity. Or at least fewer horseflies. And fewer trees. The site was a Gallo-Roman farmstead in what had become a forest. The roots of the trees were pulling apart the remains of the building. However, the trunks were thick and the roots had come to support parts of the walls, even as they were prising the bricks apart. A similar effect is even more visible in places like Ta Prohm. For archaeologists the natural environment can be a pest.

In their paper Biodiversity and Archeological Conservation Connected: Aragonite Shell Middens Increase Plant Diversity, Vanderplank et al. point out that an archaeological site is not always good news for biodiversity as humans tend to clear sites of anything they think gets in the way. Finding a site where the conservation priorities for archaeology assist biodiversity is rare, but it seems to be the case in Baja California.