Our study shows that it is not, in principle, difficult to improve geotechnical recording to benefit archaeology. All the engineer need do is use the existing recording standard, pay particular attention to the observations listed above and add two, simple additional observations on each stratum – wetness and boundaries. But why should engineers and developers back such an initiative? Why make the effort to bring engineers and archaeologists closer together?
We think our proposals are in everybody’s interests but we don’t underestimate the difficulties. There are, however, examples of cases where integrating archaeology and engineering has helped projects to run more smoothly, as well as preserving remains.
Developers certainly stand to reduce their development risks if archaeological remains are better predicted by getting archaeologists involved in the early geotechnical investigations for a project.
Developers may also find that archaeological studies get less costly if they make use of improved geotechnical data because key information about buried remains may have already been gathered.
The engineer who makes sure that geotechnical and archaeological studies are coordinated may benefit from a more predictable project, less disrupted by unexpected archaeological discoveries.
The archaeologist benefits from fuller geotechnical records by being able to predict where evidence survives and plan their fuller studies in more detail and with more certainty. They can then advise engineers about the archaeological works which may be needed, earlier in a project, and start negotiating with the local authority earlier as well.
Perhaps we should be asking why it doesn’t happen rather than why it should?
Archives are a different matter. There is no doubt that accumulating geotechnical observations could greatly benefit archaeologists, engineers and planners. Previous efforts, especially by BGS however, have failed to make this happen more than sporadically and attitudes and objections seem rather entrenched. Changing this may simply not be possible.
Using such archives would also have its challenges. Building a 3-dimensional urban deposit model, which an archive should make possible, is far from trivial. Urban stratigraphy is often very complex and any realistic model must therefore be based on a large, dense archive and a lot of hard work if it is to be useful.
It isn’t at all clear who would pay for it and why – despite the utility, and potential commercial value to such a model. One group who are likely to benefit from archiving, and who are in a position to encourage – even require it – are the local authority archaeologists who are charged with planning for archaeological conservation. A comprehensive archive of borehole records could help them do their job by allowing them to work out how buried remains are distributed around their area of responsibility.
They may also be able to stimulate the development of archives and 3-dimensional deposit models because they can use their powers to require engineers to archive their data and allow public access.
For geotechnical companies and developers who drill boreholes with an eye to a future site development, however, geotechnical records are commercially sensitive and they may not be willing to see them made available to an archive until after the site has been developed and the data used. The data is often not theirs to release, in any case, but belongs to the developer for whom it was gathered.
Thus some sort of compromise seems likely to be needed, at the very least. In any case, archives may only be created and encouraged to grow, by public bodies, if developers and engineers are persuaded that it is in their own interests – and the experience of BGS isn’t encouraging.
A few British
towns and cities have accumulated combined geotechnical and archaeological
records but none has the quantity or density of the BGS archives. BGS has a
significant head-start here since it has accumulated tens of thousands of SI reports
and thousands of borehole records for many cities - nearly 10 000 borehole
records for central
It may be worth considering how geologists and archaeologists can develop a joint modelling format of equal value to both. The new 3-dimensional modelling system BGS is using may be useful to archaeologists and planners as well and BGS might find it useful to discuss with them the joint development of such tools.