Heritage in Danger - Archaeology 09

[diggingthedirt]

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/cardiff-2009/


I'm moderating the main debate at next months Archaeology Festival 09 (6th ? 7th February) and was hoping to get some quality BAJR input! The audience will be predominantly non-specialist, so I?m expecting a range of different views, and if for whatever reason you can't come along (perhaps you haven't heard about the cut-price BAJR entry deals???) this will give me a chance to represent some of your views come the big day. I'm looking for discussion points, case studies, ideas, real-world examples, shock slogans, token tantrums, knee-jerk reactions, in fact any response whatsoever, as long it helps me look like I know what I'm talking about! Some general background information follows this, and the abstracts for the session.

I'll report back after the event and let you know how it goes.

[diggingthedirt]

Background

The 'Heritage in Danger' session will discuss the potential conflict of interests that can arise when archaeological remains are threatened by new development. Highlighted by internationally visible cases such as the Tara/M3 issue in Ireland, the Stonehenge motorway debate in the UK and the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey, this will be the main debate of the festival and close the first day's proceedings. This session will be structured with two 20-minute presentations followed by 50 minutes of discussion, with the audience encouraged to participate and actively contribute. The session will begin with Professor Gabriel Cooney of University College Dublin (Case study 1 - the proposed new port development at Bremore) and Dr John C. Barrett of the University of Sheffield (Case study 2 - the approach taken by Framework archaeology at Heathrow Terminal 5). The two speakers will be supported by a discussion panel including Janet Miller of Atkins Heritage, Gwilym Hughes of Cadw, Christopher Jones of the Highways Agency and Dr Keith Ray, County Archaeologist, Herefordshire. Following an initial focus on the two case studies, the panel will discuss projects that are currently polarising the heritage community, and seek to find a middle ground where constructive debate might have a positive impact.


Summary

When large infrastructure projects are proposed, controversy is never far from the news. Headlines usually depict the impact of development on the historic environment as a conflict between preservation on the one hand and destruction on the other. Public opinion is polarised, and commercial archaeologists - engaged by the developer to service a planning condition - are caught in the crossfire.

Bremore port (Case study 1) offers the opportunity to discuss an infrastructural development at its genesis. Similar debates have focussed on contentious sites that have already been subject to a lengthy planning process. Significant discoveries at excavation-stage are seized upon by those opposed to development as 'showstoppers', but by the time the first excavators begin digging, the planning process is so advanced that subsequent public debate can make little difference. The proposed development at Bremore port is a challenge to the archaeological community to clarify the issues ? archaeological, social, political and economic - and present these to the wider public at the beginning of the decision-making process.

The innovative approach adopted by Framework Archaeology at Heathrow Terminal 5 (Case study 2) will provide a counterpoint to the Bremore discussion. Framework is a joint venture agreement between Wessex Archaeology and Oxford Archaeology to undertake work for BAA, and can be described as research archaeology delivered in a commercial environment. This project is often cited as a benchmark for what can be achieved by infrastructural archaeology in balancing the social and economic benefit of development against the knowledge-gain and wider dissemination of the archaeological results. A pioneering digital recoding system was developed emphasising the interpretative role of the excavator, with the fundamental objective of the project to construct an on-site human history of the human inhabitation of the landscape. The T5 project was highly commended at the 2008 British Archaeological Awards for 'the best archaeological innovation award'. Professor David Breeze, Chairman of the awards panel said "the whole project stands as an exemplary exercise in execution, interpretation and dissemination with absolute commitment to the highest professional standards at every point."


Case study 1: The Bremore port development

Gabriel Cooney

Drogheda Port Company in partnership with Treasury Holdings proposes to develop a world-class deepwater port, logistics centre and business part at Bremore in Fingal, north of Dublin. The project is proposed in three phases and Drogheda Port Company/Treasury Holdings state that it is intended that it would be designed and operated to provide the highest environmental standards and respect for the local community. The aim is to create a diverse business district around the port.

It is clear that here there is a potential conflict between the recognised value of the historic landscape and the needs of a major infrastructural project. As proposed the footprint of the port facilities will directly impact on the promontory at Bremore. Here there is a range and diversity of archaeological features of varying date, terrestrial and maritime, including a cemetery of megalithic tombs dating to the Neolithic. A significant additional factor is the possible relocation of Dublin Port to Bremore. This is based on the shortage of land for further port facilties in Dublin, the extension of the Dublin Bay Special Protection Area for wild birds and the enormous potential of the Dublin Port holdings as an extension of the high-end Docklands development.

Consideration of the development of the port at Bremore and assessment of its national strategic value should include not only its direct environmental impact but also the wider landscape impact of creating a new hub within the Dublin-Belfast corridor for industrial and quasi-urban activity in what is now a largely rural landscape north of the town of Balbriggan.

Case Study 2:

Heritage and Development - Resolving the Conflict? Heathrow Terminal 5 and beyond.

John Barrett

The conflict between the demands of heritage interests and those of the developer are normally depicted as a conflict between preservation, and destruction. The current solution to this conflict in relation to archaeological deposits is that developers are required to work towards a level of preservation commensurate with the importance of the archaeology. The key problem here is to determine levels of importance and to determine them in a way that the developer might recognise. An alternative is to cast development as building the social, economic and heritage environment where the latter is defined as an environment of inquiry, exploration and understanding of the past in terms that are understandable to the widest possible community, and not as the preservation of material remains whose value is often obscure.

[diggingthedirt]

So, who wants to kick things off?

Bare with me if I do a Paxman. This is my first thread on this site and I'm drunk with power.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

Hi there,
"Heritage in danger"
As a broad subject would this include standing heritage (buildings,castles,Stonehenge etc) as well as sites that have been uncovered in the past and left as such for the public to view? has anyone done a study of such sites in the urban setting to determine their deteriation from air pollution,vandalism etc?
I would have thought that there would be many such sites in danger of degredation, if not collapse due to neglect over the years.

[achingknees]

Urban archaeological sites stripped for evaluation and then left open waiting for the next stage of excavation. Could be a few years...Those colonising plants sure do mess up the 'ology.

[Paul Belford]

Has David Miles really retired?

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by Paul Belford

Has David Miles really retired?

Yes, DM has left the building.

[diggingthedirt]

quote:Originally posted by achingknees

Urban archaeological sites stripped for evaluation and then left open waiting for the next stage of excavation. Could be a few years...Those colonising plants sure do mess up the 'ology.

...Which is an interesting point. 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?

Should we dump the notion of preservation in-situ and embrace new developments as an opportunity to investigate in a controlled way something that otherwise might disappear unrecorded through erosion (natural processes), gradual mechanical degredation (such as arable ploughing and harvesting operations, or tree growth and replanting) or some other 'unseen' agency (dewatering, for instance)?

[BAJR Host]

One I can think of is Crammond Roman Baths.. anywhere else in the world it would be a tourist site.. excavated partially in the 70s and 80s... still waiting.. in a pretty bad shape.

Archaeology is often most in danger once it has been excavated .. and no clear thought of what happens next is put together.



?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[Paul Belford]

quote:Should we dump the notion of preservation in-situ and embrace new developments as an opportunity to investigate in a controlled way something that otherwise might disappear unrecorded through erosion (natural processes), gradual mechanical degredation (such as arable ploughing and harvesting operations, or tree growth and replanting) or some other 'unseen' agency (dewatering, for instance)?

On the whole, yes.

But this will require us to stop thinking solely in terms of 'mitigation' and to think much more about 'research' and 'dissemination'. It also needs a pretty comprehensive philosphical and practical review of sampling, collection, retention and archiving strategies, policies and practices.