Indiana Jones and the on-site delay...

It can sometimes seem that archaeologists exist solely to frustrate planners and developers as they go about their business. Not so, says Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick

‘Why?’ Dave said turning to me in exasperation, ‘why do you keep putting these archaeological sites
in the way of my road?

His frustration was clear. In fact he had turned such a bright red that I was concerned for his health. But the leadin to a sequence of closure orders and a traffic management system straight from the spaghetti factory was not the time to tell Dave what he already knew.

The archaeological sites were there long before the road was planned. Systematic archaeological trial works would probably have identified the sites. Pragmatic risk management would certainly have reduced the risk of delay to programme. But the risk hadn’t been designed out. Instead it had been left to the construction stage.

Had these things been done Dave would still – I think - have grumbled about archaeologists, but his blood pressure would probably have been lower. And the risk to programme would certainly have been lower.

The story has, of course, a happy ending. The archaeology was sorted in time, the closures were implemented in the required order, and the DBFO came in on schedule and on budget. Perhaps more surprisingly Dave and I were still talking to each other at the end. But the story neatly illustrates the need to look at archaeology in design and construction as a risk.

Much of design and engineering is about identifying risk and managing it out. Archaeology is about the unknown. It is about discovering things. The public love it, but risk managers hate it. As archaeology, like ecology, is here to stay in construction, what is to be done? The good news is that some simple practical measures will go a long way towards reducing engineer’s blood pressure. It’s a tough enough job without handicapping yourself before you start.

The most important thing is to understand an abiding archaeological truth. ‘It’s not what you know about that you need to worry about. What you should worry about is what you don’t know about.’

If you have a systematic assessment of the archaeology you can approach it with confidence. But how systematic was the assessment? Was it possible to make surveys of all the land? Or, as there is no right of entry or permit to dig for archaeological works, was access withheld in some places?

The pricing schedule will tell you about the known archaeological sites. It won’t tell you about the unknown, or how to cost archaeology in the risk register.

This is where you need a good archaeological team. Your starting point is an organisation which is a registered organisation with the Institute for Archaeologists (IfA). This is your Kite Mark. But you also need to look closely.

It is not just about appointing good consultants, it is about having contractors you can trust. Together they will be able to give you a good assessment of risk. In order to get this advice you need people with experience of major projects, people who understand what actually happens on site. There is big difference between the design and construction stages so while you need archaeologists who understand design and who can work strategically with the statutory consultees and planners, you also need archaeologists who can deliver practical advice about logistics and release dates. The contractors need to be able to resource fieldwork and be reliable. As their off-site reporting may be tied into on-site project milestones, your archaeologists need to have a proven record of delivering high standard reports.

The good news is that more and more archaeologists now have these skills and experience. They understand their role in the design and construction teams and they know they have to keep the project moving at all times.

Dave (it’s not his real name, he is now very senior in major company) and I got along a lot better when he realised that I understood the role we had to play as part of the team. He was surprised that I was interested in how the whole project worked until I explained that I couldn’t offer the best advice if I did not understand what was going to happen where and when.

With that information I could assess the archaeological risk.

Despite this I have a sneaking suspicion that Dave still thinks I really did put those sites in the way of his road.

Dr Andrew Fitzpatrick is Head of Communications at Wessex Archaeology.

He has worked on many infrastructure projects including the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and the M6 Toll, where he was Project Archaeologist. He was Project Director of a review for the Highways Agency of the effectiveness of cultural heritage chapters in EIAs.