|
|
Post by Wakeyologist on Mar 19, 2004 14:53:50 GMT 1
Many plans have been put forward to keep the city of York damage free from flooding and preserving the structures that are there but what affect would this have on the archaeology preserved beneath?.... what would cause the greater damage the disasterous floods or the drying out of the ground?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toby on Mar 20, 2004 11:22:53 GMT 1
The flood defences are already in place. Ask the people of Selby and they will let you know about it. They were put in after really bad flooding in '82 (I can't remember exactly). York has always flooded (you can see it in the archaeology) and always will, there is nothing they can do for certain parts of the city.
Recently (post 2000) a few other places have had flood defences put in and the arechaeologcal impact has been taken into account. A lot of the work is desk based assessments... but it all depends on how the defences are constructed.
Flood defences do not dry out the ground unless piling is used during the construction. The city policy allows a certain percentage of piling to take place. Piling is very bad for archaeology as it changes the water table and thus organic deposits degrade..... As you can guess I am not a big fan of preservation in-situ by piling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Katherine on Mar 23, 2004 10:58:01 GMT 1
One of our volunteers (who often gets flooded) has suggested that flood defences (so long as not piled of course) may even be beneficial if they keep conditions underground consistant. However, have no idea how correct this is, if there has been any work done to study it, or if there ever will be. It's an interesting idea though. Any thoughts on this one?
|
|
