Archaeology
and the National Roads Authority, ed. J. O’SULLIVAN
Dublin, National Roads Authority 2003. National
Roads Authority Monograph Series No. 1. 119 pages, maps, colour illustration.
pb. ISBN 0-9545955-0-5 (€15) Proceedings of two seminars in 2002
on the National Roads Authority
As the foreword sets out, the National Roads Authority
in Ireland has a responsibility to uphold national heritage policy and
has become the single biggest funder of archaeological investigations
in Ireland. The purpose of the two seminars was to set out a newly evolved
methodology for commissioning archaeological assessments and carry through
archaeological investigations in relation to road schemes. A core concept
has been the establishment of a team of Project Archaeologists working
in accord with a Code of Practice. The shortfall on publication and
outreach is specifically identified, a problem which the NRA is clearly
aware of and intending to address.
The scene is set with an opening chapter on legislation
and policy, indicating that the Roads Act 1993 provides the statutory
basis for compliance with the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Directive. Provisions of this Act secure a legislative basis for EIAs
but it is made clear that the National Monuments Act also has a role
to play in controlling the impact on archaeological heritage of road
construction programmes, specifically by offering a mechanism for protecting
sites on the national list which come under threat. Further and in the
context of the National Development Plan the Minister for Arts, Heritage,
Gaeltacht and the Islands and the NRA have agreed a Code of Practice
for the conduct of archaeological work on national road schemes.
There follow brief notes on archaeological licencing
procedures and the role of the National Museum of Ireland in archaeological
excavations. The text on this latter seems to imply that the control
measures exercised by the museum largely relate to artefacts, rather
than the overall conduct of excavation itself.
In the description of the work of the NRA, the desire
to improve schedules, costs, methods and products is clearly set out
and one assumes that in this massive road building programme a steep
learning curve has been encountered. In what is described as ‘a
new strategy for testing and mitigation’, it emerges that there
is a stage of archaeological assessment which follows publication of
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). It is stated that ‘post-EIS
it is now practice to develop a strategic testing brief designed to
suit the needs of the individual scheme’ (testing is used in the
same sense as evaluation). This is somewhat worrying. It appears to
be in conflict with the normal implementation of the EU directive, which
requires that assessment of the impact, and the necessary mitigation
measures, are set out in the document. In purely archaeological terms,
it leaves the door wide open for the late discovery of an archaeological
entity for which preservation in situ is the only acceptable strategy.
A theme emerges here and later in the book which indicates that a primary
interest is to ensure the smooth running of projects and the reduction
of costs and risk by adequate levels of assessment. However in terms
of UK practice although there is an early stage of assessment, the full
level required for an appropriate environmental statement cuts in far
too late.
The new posts of Project Archaeologist are employed
by the Local Authorities that host National Road Design offices and
these appointments are equivalent to the curatorial or planning archaeologists
of the UK. Their role is mainly to take an overview of the approach
being taken to archaeology by the archaeological contractor, to supervise
the preparation of the Environmental Impact Assessment and to specify
and monitor all archaeological activities whether pre-construction,
construction or post-excavation related. The Code of Practice underpins
this whole realm. Much of the work is carried out by means of public–private
partnership schemes (PPP) and there is a very good description of the
contractual process in this area. The overall approach is to deal with
the greater part of the archaeological workload prior to handing over
to the PPP company, but there are arrangements in place to ensure that
any remnant of effort required forms part of the contract. Examples
are given of an archaeological work programme on PPP schemes.
The book contains a substantial section on archaeological
assessment measures which are based upon a document called the ‘Framework
and Principles for the Protection of Archaeological Heritage’.
This document defines the purpose of assessment and again the emphasis
appears to be on the reduction of risk, avoidance of delay and extra
costs. The description of techniques which follow, which includes a
section on terrestrial and waterborne geophysical survey is valuable
and informative. It is followed by a substantial chapter on post excavation
work, reporting, publication and dissemination. The section presumably
is particularly inspired by the NRA’s concerns over the failure
to deliver the goods. Overall, the work is undoubtedly intending to
serve as a Public Relations exercise emphasising the due regard given
by the NRA for the protection and recording of Ireland’s heritage.
It also serves as an introduction and handbook to those intending to
seek employment in the system, either as an individual or as a potential
archeological contractor.
It is surprising that no paper at the seminars was
concerned with the issue of effectiveness. Justification for money and
effort spent ‘upfront’ on development proposals is a very
live issue in the UK not only because of the risk element of expenditure
but also because this process itself has an impact on heritage. Yet
from the cover air photograph alone it is clearly evident that the Irish
methodology is far more intensive than that deployed in the UK and some
indication of the views of the practitioners would be most valuable.
Roy Canham
Wiltshire County Council
Review Submitted: March 2004
The views expressed in this review are not
necessarily those of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|