31st May 2004, 05:39 PM
I would agree with rkeyo that there is substantial public interest in archaeology and 'heritage' generally, and that this could be better utilised by developers. I think that drpeterwardle is off the mark when he states, rather sweepingly, that publicity from archaeological work in the UK is 'counter-productive'. I am aware of several sites, both traditional below-ground archaeology and historic buildings, where positive publicity about the historic aspect of the site in question has enhanced the marketability of the finished project. The classic case at the upper end of the market is the redevelopment of former industrial buildings to apartments; the marketing is very much focussed on the heritage angle. But this applies to other sites, too.
Moreover, the real value of archaeological investigation to the developer is not the 'academic' historical story that we all value, but the rather more prosaic (and, to the developer, useful) facts about (for example)
- the nature of the ground itself, including any voids, culverts etc. which need to be avoided/extracted/built around
- the depth of previous foundations, their nature and extent
- the historic likelihood of (for example) flooding
- previous land-use which might have caused contamination
and so-on.
Both destroyer and rkyeo seem to agree with me that some form of 'allowance' for the householder (at the very bottom end of the 'developer' scale) is appropriate. drpeterwardle seems to be talking about housing in the ?500,000 plus price range. What about Joe Bloggs in Rotherham, whose house is worth ?70,000 before extension, and ?90,000 afterwards? If he is spending ?15,000 on that extension, and happens through no fault of his own to be located on a Saxon cemetery, then the cost of archaeological intervention will be vastly disproportionate to his development costs and 'profits'. It was this kind of case study that I had in mind!
Finally, I have to concur with others that negative evidence is still evidence. Indeed I would question the appropriateness of watching briefs in many instances - perhaps I shall start another thread.
Moreover, the real value of archaeological investigation to the developer is not the 'academic' historical story that we all value, but the rather more prosaic (and, to the developer, useful) facts about (for example)
- the nature of the ground itself, including any voids, culverts etc. which need to be avoided/extracted/built around
- the depth of previous foundations, their nature and extent
- the historic likelihood of (for example) flooding
- previous land-use which might have caused contamination
and so-on.
Both destroyer and rkyeo seem to agree with me that some form of 'allowance' for the householder (at the very bottom end of the 'developer' scale) is appropriate. drpeterwardle seems to be talking about housing in the ?500,000 plus price range. What about Joe Bloggs in Rotherham, whose house is worth ?70,000 before extension, and ?90,000 afterwards? If he is spending ?15,000 on that extension, and happens through no fault of his own to be located on a Saxon cemetery, then the cost of archaeological intervention will be vastly disproportionate to his development costs and 'profits'. It was this kind of case study that I had in mind!
Finally, I have to concur with others that negative evidence is still evidence. Indeed I would question the appropriateness of watching briefs in many instances - perhaps I shall start another thread.