1          Summary

 

English Heritage has commissioned Terra Nova Ltd to look at the ways in which geotechnical records could be made more useful to archaeologists. This document describes the project and our conclusions. The outcome of this project will be most useful if you contribute your comments and ideas so please use the questionnaire and comments form at the end.

 

We carried out studies of geotechnical and equivalent archaeological records in Bristol and Dover. We then asked archaeologists, geotechnical engineers and drilling crews questions about how the two disciplines could be better integrated and, particularly, how geotechnical records could incorporate information which archaeologists could use. Their responses were largely positive but suggest that new criteria, procedures and structures need to be adopted if geotechnical records are to be more useful to archaeologists.

 

The potential for such records to improve our understanding and protection of our buried heritage is very great. There are a lot of geotechnical records in existence and being generated, often in places where archaeologists have had little chance to investigate.

 

Two new, simple recorded criteria, the fuller application of BS5930 and the accumulation of geotechnical and archaeological records, with widely acceptable agreements for deposition, will greatly help archaeologists to do their job – and so help improve the progress of projects and reduce the risk to developers. Some of these improvements may be achievable, others may not – but it will be worth trying.

 

A review of the geotechnical literature suggests that there are opportunities to combine geotechnical and archaeological practice more widely and this should be further investigated since it is clearly to the benefit of all concerned. Similar integration with geoenvironmental practice may offer similar benefits – but engineers know this already.

 

To make progress in these ways will require that geotechnical staff, site and supervising engineers and – crucially – the developers who pay for it all are persuaded that the benefits of better integration, recording and central archiving outweigh their costs.

 

For want of alternatives, central and local government may have to help pay for training materials to be created – and for existing geotechnical and archaeological data to be accumulated and turned into 3-dimensional deposit models as BGS, among others, has begun to do and probably with the BGS records at the core. The professional engineering and geological bodies will need to lend their support to our proposals if they are to be brought about but the benefits to their clients will, we hope, persuade them that this is worthwhile.