Heritage in Danger - Archaeology 09

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by BAJR Host

One I can think of is Crammond Roman Baths.. anywhere else in the world it would be a tourist site.. excavated partially in the 70s and 80s... still waiting.. in a pretty bad shape.

Archaeology is often most in danger once it has been excavated .. and no clear thought of what happens next is put together.

If this one passed under the radar, we might ask - what are the circumstances in which impact/preservation/mitigation situations become highly controvesial for the public? Is the 'danger' really only a question of perception. If you like the idea of a development (because it takes 30 minutes off your commute) the heritage impact will be percieved to be much less important than if you stand vehemently opposed to it. If so then this is a value judgement rather than a question of archaeological significance, and brings us back to the earlier question of dumping the pretence to 'preservation in situ/by record'.

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford

On the whole, yes.

But this will require us to stop thinking solely in terms of 'mitigation' and to think much more about 'research' and 'dissemination'. It also needs a pretty comprehensive philosphical and practical review of sampling, collection, retention and archiving strategies, policies and practices.

Doesn't a strategy of preservation in situ/record assert an intrinsic value for heritage independent of the fluctuating concerns of politics and economics? If this is a holding line, in the current climate do we really want to give this up?

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by Dirty Dave Lincoln

Hi there,
"Heritage in danger"
As a broad subject would this include standing heritage (buildings,castles,Stonehenge etc) as well as sites that have been uncovered in the past and left as such for the public to view? has anyone done a study of such sites in the urban setting to determine their deteriation from air pollution,vandalism etc?
I would have thought that there would be many such sites in danger of degredation, if not collapse due to neglect over the years.

Hi there,

yes this is a broad subject and needs pinning down. really we are just talking about the impact on heritage from development, usually large-scale infrastructural. You are right in that this may affect the amenity value of upstanding archaeology by impacting on the wider environs of a monument or building, but unlike the buried archaeology, it is unlikely to erase all physical presence of that monument unless the planners are from the Taliban. We're talking about what we destroy in order to bring about the future.

[Paul Belford]

quote:If you like the idea of a development (because it takes 30 minutes off your commute) the heritage impact will be percieved to be much less important than if you stand vehemently opposed to it.

I am not sure that this dichotomy is quite so clear cut. It is certainly possible to think of many reasons to support developments of various kinds. Not just because they shorten journey times, but because they provide housing, new transport, manufacturing jobs, 'green energy' or create new leisure facilities. It is still possible to support the idea of a particular development and at the same time recognise the significance of the heritage impact.

On the other hand one could vehemently oppose it for non-heritage reasons and not give two hoots about the heritage. (Think of Twyford Down or the Newbury Bypass - both controversial projects which were opposed on natural environment grounds but not on what we now call 'historic environment' grounds - despite the presence of various archaeological features like hill forts and so-on).

By the way I think that the scope of debate has changed part-way through. Forgive me if I appear to be splitting hairs, but...

The initial question was (my emphasis):

quote:Should we dump the notion of preservation in-situ and embrace new developments as an opportunity to investigate in a controlled way something that otherwise might disappear

To which I replied "yes", pointing out that this would require us to upgrade our response in terms of preservation by record. In other words if we are going to make controlled investigations of threatened heritage we need to make sure that the records of those investigations are appropriately thorough and well-archived.

A response to this was:

quoteoesn't a strategy of preservation in situ/record assert an intrinsic value for heritage independent of the fluctuating concerns of politics and economics? If this is a holding line, in the current climate do we really want to give this up?

I didn't mean to advocate giving up a "strategy for preservation in situ/record". Rather, I advocated a preference for "the notion of preservation by record" over "the notion of preservation in situ". (With the proviso which you have also quoted.) There seems to me to be a fundamental difference between those two ideas.

ANY system of historic environment protection will by its very existence assert an intrinsic value for heritage. This will be the case whether it is a system based on preservation in situ, by record, or - ideally - a combination of both. At one level the details of the system are neither here nor there, because the broader value to society will be determined not by historic environment professionals but by society at large.

Regardless of the 'current climate', we still need to be sure that our historic environment strategies are fit for purpose. The present system is flaky in many ways, as recognised by the HPR process, and should be updated.

[1man1desk]

Posted by diggingthedirt:

quote:Can anyone think of an example where trenches have been opened at evaluation stage and the archaeology has been so significant that the development could not proceed?

I certainly know of cases where the development has had to be relocated/realigned to avoid the archaeology following trial trenching. This happens quite often on linear infrastructure projects (roads, piplelines, flood defences).

I have been involved in several of these, but the best example was a proposed on-line upgrade of a road to motorway, where the motorway was realigned (off-line) by about 500m, and the archaeological site has since been Scheduled. Quite controversial, as the realigned route had much greater impact on other aspects of the environment than the original route (including requiring the demolition of several houses and a cafe, much greater land-take and loss of a badger sett).

It is harder on non-linear developments, where there is often only one site available. However, many large-scale developments go through a site selection process that includes an environmental 'due diligence' process, and this often involves archaeological DBA. Minimising environmental risk (including archaeological risk) is often a major factor in site selection.

'Environmental risk' in this context means risk to the project (additional cost, delays, or difficulties in getting consents as a result of environmental issues), rather than risk to the environment, but the effect is the same.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford

quote:If you like the idea of a development (because it takes 30 minutes off your commute) the heritage impact will be percieved to be much less important than if you stand vehemently opposed to it.

I am not sure that this dichotomy is quite so clear cut. It is certainly possible to think of many reasons to support developments of various kinds. Not just because they shorten journey times, but because they provide housing, new transport, manufacturing jobs, 'green energy' or create new leisure facilities. It is still possible to support the idea of a particular development and at the same time recognise the significance of the heritage impact.

On the other hand one could vehemently oppose it for non-heritage reasons and not give two hoots about the heritage. (Think of Twyford Down or the Newbury Bypass - both controversial projects which were opposed on natural environment grounds but not on what we now call 'historic environment' grounds - despite the presence of various archaeological features like hill forts and so-on).

By the way I think that the scope of debate has changed part-way through. Forgive me if I appear to be splitting hairs, but...

The initial question was (my emphasis):

quote:Should we dump the notion of preservation in-situ and embrace new developments as an opportunity to investigate in a controlled way something that otherwise might disappear

To which I replied "yes", pointing out that this would require us to upgrade our response in terms of preservation by record. In other words if we are going to make controlled investigations of threatened heritage we need to make sure that the records of those investigations are appropriately thorough and well-archived.

A response to this was:

quoteoesn't a strategy of preservation in situ/record assert an intrinsic value for heritage independent of the fluctuating concerns of politics and economics? If this is a holding line, in the current climate do we really want to give this up?

I didn't mean to advocate giving up a "strategy for preservation in situ/record". Rather, I advocated a preference for "the notion of preservation by record" over "the notion of preservation in situ". (With the proviso which you have also quoted.) There seems to me to be a fundamental difference between those two ideas.

ANY system of historic environment protection will by its very existence assert an intrinsic value for heritage. This will be the case whether it is a system based on preservation in situ, by record, or - ideally - a combination of both. At one level the details of the system are neither here nor there, because the broader value to society will be determined not by historic environment professionals but by society at large.

Regardless of the 'current climate', we still need to be sure that our historic environment strategies are fit for purpose. The present system is flaky in many ways, as recognised by the HPR process, and should be updated.

Thanks Paul, for taking the time to clarify the issues. I know from other topics that we share the same views with regard to ensuring that our historic environment strategies are fit for purpose. My problem here is that I have to explain this to a non-specialist audience. Without specialist training, this debate can appear overly concerned with nuances of meaning, which is perhaps why the sector has adopted engineer-speak as a common currency (see comments on 'Environmental Risk' above). Whilst I recognise that problems of practice and procedure can only be sorted out by getting into the nitty gritty detail, we're in serious danger of geeking out here and leaving the audience behind. How would you explain your notional preferences for preservation by record to my Nan, who thinks I'm a nice lad so but should get a proper job.

Criticism of infrastructure archaeology comes from both within and without the discipline. If the former is concerned with problems, practices and procedures, the latter is more difficult to pin down. It may be about value for money (from the construction industry and politicians) and it may also be a question of perception (from the general public, particularly those directly impacted by the development). Is there some way of linking up your vision for historic environment strategies that addresses both levels of criticism?

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk

Posted by diggingthedirt:

quote:Can anyone think of an example where trenches have been opened at evaluation stage and the archaeology has been so significant that the development could not proceed?

I certainly know of cases where the development has had to be relocated/realigned to avoid the archaeology following trial trenching. This happens quite often on linear infrastructure projects (roads, piplelines, flood defences).

I have been involved in several of these, but the best example was a proposed on-line upgrade of a road to motorway, where the motorway was realigned (off-line) by about 500m, and the archaeological site has since been Scheduled. Quite controversial, as the realigned route had much greater impact on other aspects of the environment than the original route (including requiring the demolition of several houses and a cafe, much greater land-take and loss of a badger sett).

It is harder on non-linear developments, where there is often only one site available. However, many large-scale developments go through a site selection process that includes an environmental 'due diligence' process, and this often involves archaeological DBA. Minimising environmental risk (including archaeological risk) is often a major factor in site selection.

'Environmental risk' in this context means risk to the project (additional cost, delays, or difficulties in getting consents as a result of environmental issues), rather than risk to the environment, but the effect is the same.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

Hi 1man1desk, I hoped you'd make it on here!

That is interesting - there has only ever been 1 case in Ireland, and that was the Hiberno-Norse settlement discovered outside Waterford on the N25. Following Department Policy of 'Preservation in Situ' the NRA originally proposed an engineering solution with the site preserved under the course of the road. This was opposed by the National Museum and the academic community. Then 'Preservation By Record' was proposed, with the NRA taking direct control, and international team appointed to manage the excavations. In the mean time a highly active lobby group - Save Viking Waterford - had organised and were lobbying extensively against this option. They considered that commercially funded excavation was a poor relation to academic archaeology, and that the site could be preserved and excavated in the future. They also based arguments on the loss of amenity value of the site as a future open air museum. The minister made a final decision to move the road, not because of the value of the archaeology, but because of the risk that even if the site was excavated and the road-take cleared of archaeology, there was no guarantee that the pressure group would not gain enough public momentum to halt construction. Add to 'Environmental Risk' the risk of negative public reaction.

I have to say that I find the risk management model problematic. It assumes to know in advance a knowable quota, that can then be managed or avoided. Perhaps in your work this has proved to be true?

In Ireland, it is the unknown archaeology that cause all the problems. Whilst the assumption of known surface archaeology to unknown subsurface archaeology works in some landscapes, it is wildly off in others. If we redesigned these roads so that instead of avoiding all known archaeology they actually ploughed straight through, we'd be excavating less sites in the long run! The upside is that this new data is re-shaping our understanding in a way that was inconceivable just a decade ago. The engineers are delighted.

1man, do you think that commercial archaeology, and in particular infrastructural archaeology, is good value for money?

[BAJR Host]

Now that is an interesting concept

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake