This document discusses how engineers can help archaeologists by some simple improvements to geotechnical recording – and why it is worth doing.
Chapters:
1 Summary
2 The Context – Collaboration between archaeologists and Engineers
4 Outcomes
5 Sharing geotechnical archives
9
Introduction
Archaeological remains can impose a big risk and cost on development. The more we know about a site before development begins the better these can be managed – and that can matter to our developer clients.
Geotechnical engineers gather a lot of data, from pits and boreholes. Archaeologists can use this data to assess development sites and this can benefit the engineer and their client because a project is less likely to be delayed by unexpected discoveries. Sharing geotechnical data with archaeologists is therefore a good idea and, for some, planning together is already routine.
The things geotechnical staff record, however, could be better adapted to the things which archaeologists need to know. They don’t do this because they don’t know what these are, they would worry about the extra cost and, anyway, they don’t think that archaeology is their concern.
There are two reasons why engineers should help archaeologists by adapting the way they record. Firstly because it can produce large savings to the client and, secondly, because it takes remarkably little effort.
Almost everything that an archaeologist wants to know can be recorded by using the criteria of BS5930. And the few extra things that might be useful are easy to gather and are often noted by competent engineers in any case.
English Heritage has recently commissioned a study from Terra Nova Ltd, an AGS member, which looked at this question, comparing what engineers and archaeologists record and asking both professions about better ways to work together. The study, which you can read on this website , concluded that many engineers and geotechnical site crews are keen to help.
The things which archaeologists most want to get from a geotechnical log are:
The accurate location of the pit or borehole (including its precise height OD)
The colour and texture of each unit
What kind of inclusions each unit contains (most of all, the presence of modern debris like ring-pulls and plastic so that the archaeologist can concentrate on the interesting, older deposits)
How compact and stony each unit is
How much organic matter is present (none, little, much, almost entirely organic)
How moist each unit is (feels dry, feels wet, water visible)
How sharp is each boundary (diffuse, gradual, sharp)
All except the last two can be recorded from BS5930 – which means that the engineer doesn’t need to learn a new way of working, just make sure the standard is used fully.
Now we need more practical experience of how engineers and archaeologists can integrate their work.
If you are a geotechnical engineer, you can help us by talking to the consultant archaeologists early on in a project, by sharing your data with them and by recording what they need. And then telling us your experiences.
Please let us know what you think. Would you be willing to record a bit differently if it would help your clients to manage archaeological risks? Perhaps you already make collaboration with archaeologists a key feature of your work? How well does it work, what are the problems and what could be done better?
Sending us an e-mail, with your thoughts, will help us to develop and promote good practice.
David Jordan