1st June 2010, 04:58 PM
Yep. Preservation in situ is a complex issue. It still should be done though. Surely its not that difficult to deal with the problems.
here's a for instance, an evaluation near Hull for yorkshire water found a well-preserved IA/RB settlement. We advised them on the cost to preserve by record. They decided to buy the field next to it as it was cheaper...hence the site got preserved in situ from that development.
Not sure on the issue of there no longer being a condition on the planning application for future work on the site...surely thats up to the planning bods and county archaeological teams to deal with.
As for the other 'practical' issues of actual depth during construction etc. Your right, that should be taken into consideration by the consultants and checked by monitoring archaeologists.
Things like compression and de-watering are taken into account, well at least in my experience.
here's a for instance, an evaluation near Hull for yorkshire water found a well-preserved IA/RB settlement. We advised them on the cost to preserve by record. They decided to buy the field next to it as it was cheaper...hence the site got preserved in situ from that development.
Not sure on the issue of there no longer being a condition on the planning application for future work on the site...surely thats up to the planning bods and county archaeological teams to deal with.
As for the other 'practical' issues of actual depth during construction etc. Your right, that should be taken into consideration by the consultants and checked by monitoring archaeologists.
Things like compression and de-watering are taken into account, well at least in my experience.