19th June 2008, 05:17 PM
I have to echo the comments made by others, we don't know the background or details to the particular case referred to by the original poster. It would be wrong to apply a blanket rule, we need to tailor the mitigation to the individual case.
For example lets say initially there is a comprehensive desk-based historic environment assessment of the route of the pipeline. This is followed by a range of intrusive and non-intrusive evaluation techniques (fieldwalking, landscape survey, geophysics, test pitting, boreholes, evaluation trenching). This would allow a reasonable deposit model to be created of the pipeline route. Now lets say the deposit model indicates that a significant part of the route is in an area of deep deposits of made ground. The curator looks at the long section for the pipeline and compares this with the deposit model. It is clear that the pipetrech, chambers, drilling pits, etc. all lie within the made ground and do not reach the (potential) archaeological horizon. Would a watching brief be warranted along the whole length of the scheme - I would argue not.
For example lets say initially there is a comprehensive desk-based historic environment assessment of the route of the pipeline. This is followed by a range of intrusive and non-intrusive evaluation techniques (fieldwalking, landscape survey, geophysics, test pitting, boreholes, evaluation trenching). This would allow a reasonable deposit model to be created of the pipeline route. Now lets say the deposit model indicates that a significant part of the route is in an area of deep deposits of made ground. The curator looks at the long section for the pipeline and compares this with the deposit model. It is clear that the pipetrech, chambers, drilling pits, etc. all lie within the made ground and do not reach the (potential) archaeological horizon. Would a watching brief be warranted along the whole length of the scheme - I would argue not.