2nd February 2009, 01:36 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Posted by diggingthedirt:Quote:quote:Can anyone think of an example where trenches have been opened at evaluation stage and the archaeology has been so significant that the development could not proceed?I certainly know of cases where the development has had to be relocated/realigned to avoid the archaeology following trial trenching. This happens quite often on linear infrastructure projects (roads, piplelines, flood defences).
I have been involved in several of these, but the best example was a proposed on-line upgrade of a road to motorway, where the motorway was realigned (off-line) by about 500m, and the archaeological site has since been Scheduled. Quite controversial, as the realigned route had much greater impact on other aspects of the environment than the original route (including requiring the demolition of several houses and a cafe, much greater land-take and loss of a badger sett).
It is harder on non-linear developments, where there is often only one site available. However, many large-scale developments go through a site selection process that includes an environmental 'due diligence' process, and this often involves archaeological DBA. Minimising environmental risk (including archaeological risk) is often a major factor in site selection.
'Environmental risk' in this context means risk to the project (additional cost, delays, or difficulties in getting consents as a result of environmental issues), rather than risk to the environment, but the effect is the same.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Hi 1man1desk, I hoped you'd make it on here!
That is interesting - there has only ever been 1 case in Ireland, and that was the Hiberno-Norse settlement discovered outside Waterford on the N25. Following Department Policy of 'Preservation in Situ' the NRA originally proposed an engineering solution with the site preserved under the course of the road. This was opposed by the National Museum and the academic community. Then 'Preservation By Record' was proposed, with the NRA taking direct control, and international team appointed to manage the excavations. In the mean time a highly active lobby group - Save Viking Waterford - had organised and were lobbying extensively against this option. They considered that commercially funded excavation was a poor relation to academic archaeology, and that the site could be preserved and excavated in the future. They also based arguments on the loss of amenity value of the site as a future open air museum. The minister made a final decision to move the road, not because of the value of the archaeology, but because of the risk that even if the site was excavated and the road-take cleared of archaeology, there was no guarantee that the pressure group would not gain enough public momentum to halt construction. Add to 'Environmental Risk' the risk of negative public reaction.
I have to say that I find the risk management model problematic. It assumes to know in advance a knowable quota, that can then be managed or avoided. Perhaps in your work this has proved to be true?
In Ireland, it is the unknown archaeology that cause all the problems. Whilst the assumption of known surface archaeology to unknown subsurface archaeology works in some landscapes, it is wildly off in others. If we redesigned these roads so that instead of avoiding all known archaeology they actually ploughed straight through, we'd be excavating less sites in the long run! The upside is that this new data is re-shaping our understanding in a way that was inconceivable just a decade ago. The engineers are delighted.
1man, do you think that commercial archaeology, and in particular infrastructural archaeology, is good value for money?