8th June 2004, 11:31 PM
I appreciate that we all speak from our own experience. However, I would take issue with your statements as follows...
You say
"The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot".
Well, in my experience, historical analysis of previous land use can at least identify the POTENTIAL for the existence or otherwise of contaminated ground. Developers' understanding of the type of residues left by earlier industrial activity is often not as full as it might be - to a developer an iron foundry and a gasworks are equally uninteresting. But as archaeologists we know that these features leave entirely different levels of contamination - in the case of the latter potentially carcenogenic phenols, in the case of the former some harmless iron oxide.
You say
"Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed..."
Again, my own experience suggests that historical watercourses are often culverted, and older systems of both rainwater and foul drainage may be connected with these - as well as with relcit industrial leats, streams, and other features. Sites on or near historic watercourses (natural or man-made) often exhibit drainage patterns which relate to historic land-use patterns.
You say
"The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers..."
Certainly analysis of the load-bearing capacities of such features is the province of engineers, but the IDENTIFICATION of such features is often enabled by archaeological research.
In this last point I can use the example of one recent project with which I was involved, where the developers were extremely grateful for our diligent research in the record office coupled with trial trenching prior to redevelopment. Our estimates of the likely location, extent and nature of brick and concrete features enabled their QS to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of removal, and saved several weeks of expensive ground reduction.
As for the PR angle we will have to agree to differ - I think 99% is rather too high in my own experience, and would suggest 80% being nearer the mark.
(PS. Apologies for using CAPITALS for emphasis but I seem to only be able to get basic formatting at present.)
You say
"The idea that archaeology can help with contamination issues is that it cannot".
Well, in my experience, historical analysis of previous land use can at least identify the POTENTIAL for the existence or otherwise of contaminated ground. Developers' understanding of the type of residues left by earlier industrial activity is often not as full as it might be - to a developer an iron foundry and a gasworks are equally uninteresting. But as archaeologists we know that these features leave entirely different levels of contamination - in the case of the latter potentially carcenogenic phenols, in the case of the former some harmless iron oxide.
You say
"Similarly historical flood data is no use - the nature of run off has changed..."
Again, my own experience suggests that historical watercourses are often culverted, and older systems of both rainwater and foul drainage may be connected with these - as well as with relcit industrial leats, streams, and other features. Sites on or near historic watercourses (natural or man-made) often exhibit drainage patterns which relate to historic land-use patterns.
You say
"The nature of previous foundations and voids etc is the province of engineers..."
Certainly analysis of the load-bearing capacities of such features is the province of engineers, but the IDENTIFICATION of such features is often enabled by archaeological research.
In this last point I can use the example of one recent project with which I was involved, where the developers were extremely grateful for our diligent research in the record office coupled with trial trenching prior to redevelopment. Our estimates of the likely location, extent and nature of brick and concrete features enabled their QS to provide an accurate assessment of the cost of removal, and saved several weeks of expensive ground reduction.
As for the PR angle we will have to agree to differ - I think 99% is rather too high in my own experience, and would suggest 80% being nearer the mark.
(PS. Apologies for using CAPITALS for emphasis but I seem to only be able to get basic formatting at present.)