19th September 2005, 01:37 PM
Troll/Venutius/Mercenary,
I agree with you in most respects, but I think you may be underestimating the frequency of 'preservation in situ'.
The thing is, most people working on the contracting side of archaeology never get to hear of it when this option is chosen, precisely because it doesn't lead to the commissioning of an archaeological project. It does get into the public domain, but usually only in the form of an Environmental Statement chapter, which isn't exactly wide publicity.
I know of several projects where decisions were made to alter scheme designs or alignments, sometimes in ways that had very big price-tags, in order to avoid nationally-important (or sometimes only regionally-important) archaeological sites.
Two examples:
1. an upgrade-to-motorway road scheme, on which a previously-unknown nationally-important site had been identified. The HA project manager was shown the lie of the land (the site itself being invisible), and he immediately decided to realign his proposed motorway 500m to the east, although this created significant costs and other difficulties.
2. a County Council highway scheme whose route crossed a SAM. The SAM is long and narrow, and there is no way round without trashing an equally-important SSSI. The Council agreed to put in a bridge (price - ?1.5-?2 million) instead of their proposed culvert (price - circa ?100K), completely spanning the monument - all negotiated and agreed with EH.
Just two out of several examples.
Looks like the planners in NYCC may be taking a similar attitude at Thornborough.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
I agree with you in most respects, but I think you may be underestimating the frequency of 'preservation in situ'.
The thing is, most people working on the contracting side of archaeology never get to hear of it when this option is chosen, precisely because it doesn't lead to the commissioning of an archaeological project. It does get into the public domain, but usually only in the form of an Environmental Statement chapter, which isn't exactly wide publicity.
I know of several projects where decisions were made to alter scheme designs or alignments, sometimes in ways that had very big price-tags, in order to avoid nationally-important (or sometimes only regionally-important) archaeological sites.
Two examples:
1. an upgrade-to-motorway road scheme, on which a previously-unknown nationally-important site had been identified. The HA project manager was shown the lie of the land (the site itself being invisible), and he immediately decided to realign his proposed motorway 500m to the east, although this created significant costs and other difficulties.
2. a County Council highway scheme whose route crossed a SAM. The SAM is long and narrow, and there is no way round without trashing an equally-important SSSI. The Council agreed to put in a bridge (price - ?1.5-?2 million) instead of their proposed culvert (price - circa ?100K), completely spanning the monument - all negotiated and agreed with EH.
Just two out of several examples.
Looks like the planners in NYCC may be taking a similar attitude at Thornborough.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished