preservation or thrown to the wolves?

[Troll]

A handful of letters from members of the public appeared in a local paper recently.Redevelopment in a large city has revealed archaeology of some sexiness and the authors of the letters are asking why the remains could not be incorporated in the new build? An extremely valid question.Just why is it that the tenet "preservation in situ" is predominantly ignored in commercial archaeology? Why do curators feel that they have the right to utterly remove archaeology in advance of development? Why is`nt anyone out there asking developers to incorporate archaeology within the plans for new builds? Glass floors for example don`t add significant cost and can indeed be cheaper than blocks.The principle here is a sound one...."preservation in situ" is the thrust of PPG15/16.In commercial archaeology, the tenet is largely ignored in favour of complete removal.Why do we as a profession assume that we have the right to completely eradicate town/city archaeology? As issues such as tourism/education/citizenship/value of heritage is banded about in many a conference-commercial archaeology seems to opt out of any real local/social conscience and continues to pander to the needs of developers and clients.

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

[sniper]

or "preservation in situ" to mean we'll dig down to a certain level with the proviso that the developers are going to raft the foundations above that level and all archaeology that was not dug will sit under the rafts. All well and good until we discover that the developers have changed their minds and stuck 200+ piles through the whole site with no apparent comeback. Or a development to build new flats incorporating some late Medieval timberframed buildings. The new build is slapped right behind the timberframed buildings, totally obscuring the view of them for anyone outside of the new complex...

++ i spend my days rummaging around in dead people ++

[the invisible man]

I presume that some of the curators that contribute to BAJR can confirm that they are aware of the guidelines given in PPG15 and 16 and the various other applicable aspects of planning law. I have always imagined that they consider each case on its merits and decide on their recommendations appropriately.

Of course preservation insitu is nothing of the kind: there is no preservation at all. The remains are (at best) simply left where they are, which is not preservation. More probably they will suffer from alterations in the water table, piles, services, construction traffic dynamic loads and so on. It is difficult and expensive to make a building fly, so it will penetrate the ground at more points than you imagine. Basement levels and so on are also often desirable, especially in urban sites. Of cpourse, as a commercial archaeologist you will only be involved in cases where excavation is involved, and by definition not when preservation is required. I do not know whether you regularly scour all English and Welsh planning decision notices to examine the conditions attached thereto of course.

I am intrigued to learn that glass floors are cheaper than other forms of suspended ground floor, although I am not sure what one is supposed to be viewing if the "archaeology" is "preserved" insitu. How I wonder is the ground floor to be insulated? How are the services accomodated? How is the floor supported if not by the same means as any other suspended floor? Is a glass floor appropriate for all types of building? It might be rather strange in some buildings.

It might also be worth considering that development is not necessarily a evil and wicked thing. We all like to live in houses, use (directly or inddirectly) schools, offices, hospitals, leisure buildings, storage and distribution buildings, roads, railways and pipelines. Personally I find then so much more comfortable than the open air on all but the most pleasant and sunny days. BUt if we only ever built on hitherto unused ground, I suspect we would have run out of surface a long tinme ago.

I certainly agree that the system is far from perfect, and the fact that I am on here indicates ny interest in and concern for heritage, archaeology and the past. However I don't think that blind ranting and swiping at other, even if related, industries and professions is terribly constructive. Dare I also whisper that there are actually matters other than archaeology to be taken into consideration in the world?

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by troll

A handful of letters from members of the public appeared in a local paper recently.Redevelopment in a large city has revealed archaeology of some sexiness and the authors of the letters are asking why the remains could not be incorporated in the new build? An extremely valid question.Just why is it that the tenet "preservation in situ" is predominantly ignored in commercial archaeology? Why do curators feel that they have the right to utterly remove archaeology in advance of development? Why is`nt anyone out there asking developers to incorporate archaeology within the plans for new builds? Glass floors for example don`t add significant cost and can indeed be cheaper than blocks.The principle here is a sound one...."preservation in situ" is the thrust of PPG15/16.In commercial archaeology, the tenet is largely ignored in favour of complete removal.Why do we as a profession assume that we have the right to completely eradicate town/city archaeology? As issues such as tourism/education/citizenship/value of heritage is banded about in many a conference-commercial archaeology seems to opt out of any real local/social conscience and continues to pander to the needs of developers and clients.

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

This is covered by ethical practices teaching on Uni courses. There are books out there which cover the subject. This is why I can't understand why all archaeologists, curators etc. aren't crying out to preserve in situ more. Does the idea of digging it all up mean more to some than letting the general public know about it and preserving it for future generations to see. This is how it sometimes appears to people outside the profession.
The importance of archaeology and heritage can only be made known by those actually involved in the work. I know a lot of you feel, and care, the same way as me about it but, without your input in a big way, the general public largely remain in ignorance of what is happening. It is your profession that has most control over what developers are allowed to get away with and therefore your professions' responsibility to see that they do what is required.
I know you have organisations working in the background doing this work, but with more knowledge given to the non-archaeological/heritage public there would be a louder voice asking questions and demanding answers.

E
(rant finished for now)

[archae_logical]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

Dare I also whisper that there are actually matters other than archaeology to be taken into consideration in the world?

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

Of course there are other considerations but, too often, developers are allowed to lay down the rules as to what is important and how it should be treated. Yes we have to have places to live and roads, hospitals etc. but, with more thought to the placement of these when archaeology is found, there is the possibility of having more of our wants and needs fulfilled. Compromise is a good word seldom heard.
Why should a developer, or his contractor, be allowed to decide if something archaeological is important and how it should be treated, surely this is a decision to be made by people like English Heritage who are the country's guardians of heritage.
Maybe I live in a fantasy world where everyone is nice, but why shouldn't I believe that this is how it could be. Why should I have to put up with someone telling me my heritage isn't important just so they can make money from it.

E

[diggerhobbit]

The term 'preservation in situ' is becoming more and more ambiguous and in some instances is a blatant contradiction in terms. Just because some archaeology is left in situ does not mean that it will automatically remain perfectly preserved for future generations to learn from and enjoy. There appears to be many problems concerning the monitoring of remains at SAM's in more rural settings (ie changing water tables, animal burrowing etc) that attemting to monitor commercial remains would be a very expensive undertaking. Unfortunately, i dont see how archaeological deposits in an urban setting can ever truly be preserved untouched and remain stable - surely this would involve a full-scale monitoring programme being implemented with regular investigative surveys beings conducted? Pretty difficuly with a 5 storey building above it all, but i do agree that if some incredibly 'sexy' remains are found, they surely could somehow be incorporated into the plans, or even re-constructd elsewhere for the public to visit?

[mercenary]

quote:. Does the idea of digging it all up mean more to some than letting the general public know about it and preserving it for future generations to see. This is how it sometimes appears to people outside the profession.

Need I point out the old cliche that archaeology is a destructive process. To find out about what we are hoping to "preserve" we have to "destroy" a part of it. And then we can't even be sure that the part we saw is representative of the rest. A balance must be struck. Non-destructive techniques have come a long way, but usually need to be confirmed with destructive excavation techniques.

I presume we are not talking here about Pompeii-style upstanding masonry structural remains that the public can enjoy if preserved; but the more ubiquitous British cut feature archaeology that is much harder to present to the public for their enjoyment. Even British sites with that potential (I'm thinking the timber structures at Coppergate) are seldom preserved in-situ for the public's enjoyment. The costs would be astronomical. Flag Fen is decaying as we speak. In fact I'm struggling to think of a below ground archaeological site (non-masonry) that has been succesfully preserved in-situ AND is open for public enjoyment. Anyone?

[mercenary]

It does sometimes happen. For example the 12th century stone building preserved under the law courts in Norwich, which appears to be pretty coherent, has not had its stone robbed out, and has not been too damaged by later buildings. A bit of an exception I'm sure.

[troll]

Evening everyone and thanks for your responses.I did try and be clear that I asked why "we as a profession" assume the roles we do with a publically-owned finite resource.Please excuse me if my post resembled an attack on the nations Curators-far from it.With the level of current development nationwide and, with plenty more in the near future, much of the archaeology that could have been incorporated within new-builds(conservation and long-term monitoring accepted) will be gone for good.The term "preservation in situ" is embedded in the only flimsy protection we have.Members of the public have asked questions of us and I think we should at least have the decency to consider their opinions.I know of at least one new build (UK) that incorporated Roman archaeology into the structure of a new school.I was lucky enough to meet the architect who was very keen to see this happen.I suppose I have been spoilt by living abroad-Greece, Cyprus and thereabouts.....heritage is incorporated into new builds.Children can see the heritage they learn about through the classroom floors,public buildings incorporate archaeology, subways in Europe with wall-to wall stratigraphy,glass viewing ports set into pedestrianised urban centre walkways, information boards etc.Surely this is`nt rocket science? Of course we have to accept that there really is no realistic way of preserving some remains but, can we not at least make an effort?

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

[the invisible man]

Surely that is exactly what the planning process is for? The "value" (in all senses of the word) of any potential archaeological remains will be considered on an individual basis and a recommendation made, very possibly including mitigation. Are you suggesting that in every case where remains are possible (probably not known without evaluation) construction should be prohibited unless the building can span them without intrusion and display them (a group of postholes and/or a ditch or two?) through glass floors? Clearly this is a nonsense.

If however the thrust of your argument is that archaeology as a material consideration does not have sufficient weighting in comparison with other issues, that is a different question, with which I generally concur. But please recognise that there are other issues.

There are quite a few buildings in Europe that do not display archaeology through glass bits. Those that do will of necessity show a represention of the remains, and be partially detsructive in themselves.



We owe the dead nothing but the truth.