Posted by Sparky:
Quote:quote:Er...no brainer regarding preservation in situ. Can you imagine. Build over top of it with some sort of reinforcement. A few yeasr later, the road collapses or becomes pot-holed due to increased traffic and heavier vehicles. Roads Authority do what they usually do, i.e. fill in holes and re-surface. Souterain becomes unwittingly filled with hardcore and concrete.
Sorry. Just a hunger fuelled example of what might happen with preservation in situ and saving road builders a bit of cash.
Entertaining scenario, but not very realistic.
Firstly, any road that collapsed in that sort of way would result in huge PI claims against the engineers that built or designed the road. I work with these guys all the time - they aren't going to put something in place that would cause that to happen, because it would be professional suicide. I haven't come across such a thing in 15 years work on road schemes.
Secondly, 'some sort of reinforcement' means building a structure to protect the site, and that would certainly cost much more than excavating it in the first place - so no chance of saving the road-builders a bit of cash.
In any case, it wouldn't be the road-builders that either saved or paid extra, it would the the tax-payer.
The most significant case I have been involved in where the archaeology was felt to warrant 'preservation in situ' rather than excavation was a newly-discovered (but ploughed-out) Roman fort and vicus. The preservation method involved re-aligning the proposed motorway quite substantially, and that required compulsory purchase of a whole row of houses for demolition. The decision to preserve was made by the Highways Agency - in the circumstances, I argued for excavation.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished