Conference considers plans
for the Newport Ship
The Newport Ship in its Context
- Research, Conservation and Display
UWCN - 10th May 2003
1. "Need the excitement be a nightmare?"
by George Lambrick
Andrew Marvell (L) acting Director of GGAT
talks with George Lambrick (R)
The theme of managing the risk of making exciting archaeological discoveries during new development projects was the theme of George Lambrick's opening address in which he examined the archaeology and significance of the Newport find in the context of wider principles of archaeological conservation and planning. At the outset he praised the great achievement of Newport City Council the Save Our Ship Campaign and all the archaeologists and other specialists who had taken the project so much further forward than originally envisaged. But it has been a struggle - even if not a nightmare - and there are lessons to be learned. Issues include the inherent problems involving the procedures for heritage management; the need to keep an eye on the bigger picture; the management of risk; ensuring that decisions are informed by adequate information; recognition that the experience may not be a "one off" but a part of a continuous process, and, the ability to operate at different scales.
He suggested that when it comes to advising on new development archaeologists are "experts in the past looking into the future" and speculated as to whether planners understand the basis of archaeologists' predictions? - Or whether archaeologists are as rigorous as they might be in presenting their assessments. The standard definition of risk is the likelihood of a defined hazard occurring. Like any other risks in the eyes of a developer, archaeology can be seen as a hazard - and engineers for large infrastructure developments often see archaeology as one of four key risks that are difficult to control, the others being unexpected geological conditions, dealing with services and disruption by protestors. In Newport's case the location of the new Arts Centre development, centred as it was right over the site of the former Moderator Quay at the heart of the mediaeval port, raised a significant possibility of uncovering ancient remains. Newport City Council had even been alerted to the possibility of major find. What perhaps could not be anticipated was that the deep excavations for an orchestra pit would by chance almost exactly frame the 25 plus metre hull of a mediaeval merchant ship.
But there are many the well documented examples of unexpected discoveries causing difficulties and the remains of ships buried in estuarine sediments, which are inherently difficult to detect archaeologically but potentially extremely well preserved time capsules of the past are good examples of. In such cases the practicalities of making sure planning decisions are well informed and the danger of subsequent delays to the development process, put a particular onus on decision-makers to allow adequate time for additional exploratory trenches and decisions on the possible need to investigate and/or preserve discoveries. In Newport it would appear that these principles were not fully followed in the early stages, and the strength of the public interest when news of the discovery leaked out demonstrated how significant such discoveries can be.
Mr Lambrick continued by defining some of the post-planning practicalities that are involved in cases of this sort. Since archaeological excavation and construction requirements are largely incompatible and contractual compensation for delays to the building programme leads to increased expense, it is best to ensure that archaeological work is fully integrated to the building contractors programme with allowances for unexpected discoveries where identifiable risks remain. Insurance against such risks can be effected, but is not well developed.
To reduce the potential for conflict and encourage good practice, it is essential for roles and responsibilities of all involved are clearly defined - and as far as possible separated to avoid conflicts of interest. This helps to ensure clear recognition and acknowledgement of the need to foster a spirit of collaboration, compliance, consistency and coherence in resolving different competing interests. Key roles include those of:
1. Client/Developer
2. Curator/Planning authority
3. Construction contractor
4. Consulting archaeologist
5. Contracting archaeologist
6. And significantly, the Campaigners.
Newport had done an enormous amount to facilitate some excellent archaeology and there had been much excellent collaboration - especially between the construction contractor and contracting archaeologists. But there had also been confusions of roles - especially with the City Council effectively acting both as client and curator and Cadw (despite having advised on the granting of substantial extra public money for the project) not acting as a supervisory curator or consultant for either Newport or the National Assembly.
George Lambrick (L) in discussion with Bob Trett (C) Chair of GGAT
and Paul Flynn (R) - Member of Parliament for Newport West
A Vision
In suggesting a way forward Mr Lambrick stressed the value of developing a Conservation Plan as a framework for decision making in which it the principal requirement is to "understand what it is that you have got". Such plans typically:
- Assess the significance of the find,
- Define issues of vulnerability,
- Develop an overall vision and policy,
- Prepare a project development plan to include business planning, access provision, work schedules,
- Consider the requirements for implementation planning and review.
Mr Lambrick said it is essential to develop a "vision" for the project that takes account of both the archaeology and the public interest both now and for future generations. A key principle of Conservation Plans is that they involve consultation with all stakeholder interests to ensure that they have real support and credibility. A definition of the long-term goals should be stated in which options need to be kept open: it was already clear that decisions like the one not to look for the stern of the ship had foreclosed some possibilities. Final decisions on where and how to display the ship should be based on a full assessment of all the conservation, access and interpretation needs and opportunities in the light of the archaeology of the discovery, not pre-empted by convenience.
He concluded by considering questions of where Newport might go next. He perceived the need to still "tell the whole story". A conservation plan is required, one that will embrace a new consensus; that will project a vision that responds to and attempts to fulfil the public's aspirations; that addresses the need for "strategic conservation" and eventual display; and importantly, that leads to the development of an interpretation strategy.
Finally, he stressed the significance of Newport for its repeated finds of boats and ships and as a medieval port, that now demands a considered strategy for the archaeology of the whole of the Newport foreshore - a proposal that is already being implemented through a project commissioned by Cadw.
George Lambrick is Director of the Council for British Archaeology
Summary of the presentation prepared by Ron McCormick
10th June 2003
To view a Powerpoint slide show of George Lambricks key points
Individual papers
1. "Need the excitement be a nightmare?" by George Lambrick
2. Excavating the Ship by Kate Howell
3. The Wood Record by Nigel Nayling
4. Waterlogged Wood Conservation - an Overview by Kate Hunter
5. The Post Excavation Process by Sean McGrail
6. Future Planning Considerations for the Newport Ship by Gustav Milne
The Newport Medieval Ship in its Context
- Research, Conservation and Display
Saturday 10th May 2003
University of Wales College Newport
Caerleon,
Newport,
South Wales, UK
Organised by UWCN in association with
the Friends of the Newport Ship
and Chepstow Archaeological Society
