preservation or thrown to the wolves?

[1man1desk]

Preservation in situ and display (whether under glass floors or otherwise) are two different things.

If you are going to display archaeological remains that are currently underground, by definition you will have to partially destroy it through excavation to find and expose the 'sexy' features, usually masonry, that you want to show to the public. What you do end up displaying may give a false impression of the site in archaeological terms, as it will usually omit all of the non-masonry elements. If archaeology of sufficient 'sexiness' is known about in advance of the project, then it is quite likely to be scheduled anyway, and planning permission would never be granted.

If you are going to 'preserve in situ' successfully, that means that you are not going to excavate the site at all, and that you can ensure that the buried deposits are stable in their present condition. If you 'preserve' a site from development that is undergoing active erosion, say from dessication or ploughing, then what you are doing is allowing it to be gradually lost without record. Under such circumstances (very common in the UK), there is a far greater benefit to the national heritage in investigating the site now.

Contrary to popular belief, developers are often quite keen on preservation in situ, seeing it as a cheaper/quicker option than excavation. This does not apply in historic town centres, but it often does where space is less constrained. For instance, highway designers are often happy to bury archaeological remains under an embankment, or out-of-town retail park developers may be happy to rearrange their layout so that the archaeology is under the car-park, or something else with no deep ground disturbance.

Under these circumstances, if preservation in situ is not the chosen option, it will usually be because the curator has advised that (say) burial under a highway embankment is not acceptable because it would forever deny access to the remains - no matter how well preserved.

In my experience, I spend more time explaining to developers why they can't preserve in situ than why they should.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[creetymus]

Troll, your views are at best foolish. As a former field archaeologist now training in the building profession the idea of glass floors(!) is ridiculous. Firstly, glass floors are extremely expensive, are prone to damage (unless you want to pay thousands more for toughened versions) and highly impractical. On top of that - who wants to sit in a room that appears to be plonked on mud/ sand / clay etc; not aesthetically pleasing. If sombody is daft enough to want a glass floor so they can stare at a few post-holes for the next twenty years do you expect the developer to carry the cost, they won't. If a new-build does have a glass-floor then will the public have full access to the building?

"Why do we as a profession assume that we have the right to completely eradicate town/city archaeology?" you squeal, but why should archaeologists insist on the right to preserve archaeology that is only interesting to other archaeologists?

By the way, are your floors made of glass?

[troll]

I have to admit-a bit snotty but some extremely valid points Creety!On the building issues, there are plenty of builders out there who would disagree with you.On the option of seeing heritage through the floor, I would argue that members of the public would also disagree with you.I never suggested that remains only admired by archaeologists should be preserved.The thrust of the opinions offered by the members of public in their newspaper correspondence rests on the simple concept:Why is it that when archaeologists have finished with their heritage- is there never anything left?We carry out the work in secret, passify a passionately interested public by offering idiot-guide open days and badly drafted press releases, destroy the finite resource in a competative environment then somehow transform archaeology into fantasy reports held in an office the public are unaware of.Creety-incorporating archaeology into new-builds is not "foolish".As an aside-I don`t squeal.Trust me on this.I`m not a Michelin tyre. Glass floors is but one option.Don`t throw the concept away without offering alternative solutions.1man1desk has made it clear that some clients are keen to retain some archaeology in new builds.Developers are adept in the art of doing things on the cheap.They`re also adept at coming up with budgets for things that provide PR.Lets humour them-it`s what members of the public have asked for.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[the invisible man]

I don't know what "plenty of builders" you know but you are better off talking to design professionals than your local builder. I can also assure you that glass floors are very expensive. Of course they have to be (more than) toughened but glass does not span very far when it has to allow for full floor loadings. You therefore have to have a lot of supporting structure. As I said before, in this country we have floor insulation to include and there are things like services all over the place which the layman probably won't know are there. Glass floors are also likely to be counter to the DDA in this country being hazardous to the visually imnpaired, as well as slippery. Of course it CAN be done in an appropriate and limited situation, which I would opine isvery rare.

The public will no doubt assume that "archaeology on display" means Eddie Izzard's little walls, something to look at. AS I said before, but 1man put far better, that in itself is partially destrutive and selective - and ignores any remains below the pretty bit. Unless you want to restore some as a replica of course.

However, all this glass floor nonsense is an aside. The real issues are summed up by 1man IMHO.

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[achingknees]

Have seen innovative displays preserved in basements - Holiday Inn in Bruges being best example. That said, in the UK I've seen some really crap attempts to preserve sites with glass floor type peep holes. Often they are unlit so you can see bugger all, and then when lit you get mould over the glass in no time. Anyway, the very process of excavation of most deposits means that you only know what you had once it's gone...

[troll]

Agreed on most points.Ok, if glass floors are out (in your opinion) what other options are available?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[diggerhobbit]

i agree with the glass floors problem, there were some incorporated into a development around the corner from where i work and they are terrible - cant see a thing. Unless the remains are 'fantastic' and upstanding rather than negative i cant really see the point - would it not be easier to persuade developers to organise more public open days, school days etc and then have specialised displays/posters discussing and presenting the archaeology that was found in the lobbies of these new buildings or temporary displays at local museums? i know this is coming away from your original proposals.....

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

[deepdigger]

Don't let em build where there is archaeology, thats the only real answer!

deep

[troll]

Greetings Deepy sir! Agreed,simple but desirable! Sadly-aint goin to happen.What can be achieved however is a system whereby the public are informed and, the arrogant monopoly of the commercial sector chipped away at.Good to hear from you!

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[achingknees]

quote:Originally posted by deepdigger

Don't let em build where there is archaeology, thats the only real answer!

deep

Trouble is the stuff, in some shape or form, is almost everywhere!