Archaeology, Engineering and Environment

Bringing our site investigations together

David Jordan MSc MIFA FGS

Terra Nova Limited     www.terranova.ltd.uk     terra@terra.plus.com     01874 636345

While there are exceptions, many archaeological site investigations are poorly integrated into the rest of the development project. If an archaeological site investigation is required, during a development, it often take place quite late in the project and long after the geotechnical and geoenvironmental investigations. Thus archaeologists often find themselves recording archaeological remains in a hurry with the construction contractors close behind.

Archaeological geophysics is, likewise, usually planned and carried out quite separately from geotechnical and geoenvironmental survey. This makes some sense - the techniques which archaeological geophysicists use are adapted for the particular properties of buried archaeological remains and not for the geotechnical or contamination evidence which their colleagues seek.

But, while there are obvious reasons why archaeologists need to gather different data, in different ways, there are enough similarities to their investigations and enough opportunities to share resources and fieldwork to make such coordination worthwhile. Moreover, the separation of site investigations can lead to problems.

Firstly, it is wasteful. Archaeological site investigations often repeat operations, such as test pitting, which have already been carried out by the geotechnical and environmental teams. In some kinds of sites the intentions of the geotechnical and archaeological survey is very similar and a combined approach makes sense. Thus, for example, developments in our low-lying, historic city centres often require very full geotechnical studies because the sites are underlain by deep, complex Holocene deposits full of waterlogged peat, alluvium and buried archaeological remains, often of exceptional importance. Thus the more that the archaeologist can be involved in the design of the geotechnical investigation, and the more archaeologically useful the information thus recovered, the more efficient will be the overall site investigation. Moreover archaeological surveys can occasionally reveal information which is relevant to the engineer, such as the location of buried voids, which a test pit survey may easily miss.

Secondly, while archaeology is usually a small part of the costs of a development, it can be a very significant risk to the developer. The later archaeological site investigation is left in the progress of a development, the greater the likely cost of unexpected discoveries. Thus if the geotechnical survey, whether test pitting, boring or geophysics, is designed to gather basic data on archaeology as well, the developer would be forewarned of potential problems and could take steps to deal with them in plenty of time. It therefore makes sense to integrate the archaeological, geotechnical and geoenvironmental site investigations wherever possible, for the benefit of the developer and the archaeologist.

This paper gave examples of projects which have benefited from integration and the problems that can arise where it does not occur. It discussed how archaeological and geotechnical geophysics can be designed as a single package and the limits to such combined surveys. Finally, it described the wider initiatives, in site assessment and project design, which are intended to bring archaeologists and geotechnical engineers closer together.

Recent relevant publications include:

M J Davies et al., 2004   Mitigation of construction impact on archaeological remains   English Heritage

T Nixon (ed.), 2004    Preserving archaeological remains in situ?   Museum of London Archaeology Service