ENHANCING THE VALUES OF URBAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES PRACTICAL GUIDE

APPEAR - Accessibility projects. Sustainable preservation and enhancement of urban subsoil archaeological remains EUROPEAN COMMISSION Community Research Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Enhancing the values of urban archaeological sites A practical guide

Research report n 30/3 Editorial and scientific coordination: Mireille Fohn (), Marianne Tinant, Anne Warnotte Editors: Part 1: Pierre Hupet, Anne Warnotte, Valerie Wilson Part 2: Pierre Diaz Pedregal, Tatiana Hachimi, Jacques Teller, Valerie Wilson Contributors: Mikel Asensio, Laia Colomer, Pierre Diaz Pedregal, Sandrine Le Boutt, Tatiana Hachimi, Sophie Lefert, Jean-Marc Lotard, Antoni Nicolau i Mart, Jorge Ruiz-Jimenez, Nolia Sanz, Jacques Teller, Catherine Zwetkoff , Valerie Wilson Translation (French to English): Valerie Wilson, Maryse Jadoul

September 2005
1

APPEAR The APPEAR project is funded by the European Commission

Fifth Framework Programme: Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development Accessibility projects. Key Action 4: the city of tomorrow and cultural heritage Sustainable preservation and Action 4.2.3: foster integration of cultural heritage in the urban setting enhancement of urban subsoil Contract n EVK4-2002-00091

archaeological remains
Project web site: www.in-situ.be

Project Coordinators In Situ, Centre de recherche archologique, Belgique - Scientific Coordination Anne WARNOTTE, Mireille FOHN (), Marianne TINANT, Pierre HUPET In collaboration with the Ministre de la Rgion wallonne, Direction gnrale de lAmnagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine Danielle SARLET, Jean-Marc LOTARD Universit de Lige - Center for Urban Governance Studies,Belgium - Administrative and financial coordination Catherine ZWETKOFF, Jacques TELLER, Sophie LEFERT, Tatiana HACHIMI

Project Partners Institut de Cultura de Barcelona - Museu dHistria de la Ciutat de Barcelona, Spain Antoni NICOLAU I MART, Nolia SANZ, Laia COLOMER Rseau Alliance de Villes Europennes de Culture, Hungary Eszter SARKADI, Leona PLL International Council on Monuments and Sites Jean-Louis LUXEN, Consuelo LON LOZANO Regione Autonoma Valle dAosta - Dipartimento Soprintendenza per I Beni e le Attivit Culturali, Italy Gianfranco ZIDDA, Francesca MARTINET English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England), United Kingdom David MILES, Valerie WILSON In Extenso, Prservation des Biens culturels, France Pierre DIAZ PEDREGAL, Sandrine LE BOUTT Universidad Autnoma de Madrid - Psicologa Basica, Facultad de Psicologa, Spain Mikel ASENSIO, Jorge RUIZ-JIMENEZ

European Commission Research Directorate General for Belgium Michel CHAPUIS,, Project Officer Michel.Chapuis@cec.eu.int

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION PART 1 - METHOD A STRUCTURED APPROACH The players Strategic management Operational structure Chronological sequence Operating procedure The action plan A systematic process Evaluation of the results THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF THE PROCESS Phase 1 - Assessment Statement of knowledge Objectives Operating procedure Stage 1 - Organisation Emergence of the idea to enhance The advocate The advocate's role Decision-making structure Stage 2 - Execution The site and its context Stage 3 - Evaluation Phase 2 - Feasibility studies Feasibility and viability analysis Objectives Operating procedure Stage 1 - Organisation Providing an effective organisational structure The project owner Project steering Specialist services The stakeholders Three methods for developing a strategy Stage 2 - Execution Heritage significance of the remains The site within its setting Stage 3 - Evaluation PART 2 - THREE CASE STUDIES INTRODUCTION TRANSFORMING SITES INTO MUSEUMS AND SETTING UP NETWORKS ARCHITECTURE AS A DRIVING FORCE DECISION-MAKING AND CONSERVATION PART 3 - MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT AND ITS PARTNERS THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT THE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM 5 7 9 9 10 10 11 11 12 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 18 20 21 24 26 26 26 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 34 36 42 45 47 48 49 50 51 53 53

INTRODUCTION
The main aim of the APPEAR project is to help design and achieve urban archaeological enhancement projects. Since the 1960s urban archaeology has become of increasing concern in Europe. Many excavations have taken place in the historic heart of our towns and result in asking the questions: when is in situ preservation of the remains desirable? Can we integrate these remains into the contemporary urban environment? How can these remains be made accessible, understandable and enjoyable to the widest possible audience? Urban archaeological discoveries can pose problems but our buried heritage also has the potential to act as a driving force for sustainable development. In recent years there has been a significant increase in public interest in the past in general and archaeology in particular. As a result many sites have opened to the public and associated museums and visitor centres have enjoyed a boom period. This enthusiasm probably coincides with a need to define our identity as globalisation trends are eroding local cultures. Towns face the danger of bland standardisation. However, cultural tourism is developing new approaches to aspects of heritage which have been long-forgotten or neglected. These approaches promote the idea that archaeological sites, if well-presented, can help to improve both the quality of life and people's sense of identity. Such sites can also provide imaginative educational and economic opportunities. The intrinsic value of the archaeological heritage and the opportunities offered by its exploitation make the issue of its integration within the urban structure unquestionable. The motives and the approach of the different key players involved in archaeological heritage management (decision-makers, specialists, citizens, etc.) may vary but the objectives are the same: to protect, to conserve, to understand and to value. The APPEAR guide suggests methods of action and a framework for applying them to be used when carrying out urban archaeological enhancement projects. It leads the user through the actions to be carried out from the emergence of the idea for a project through to the opening of the site to the public and its routine operation. The originality of this perspective lies essentially in the intended approach. Based on the knowledge and the practical experience accumulated, anchored in reality and the complexities of the real world, this approach is the result of an interdisciplinary co-operation and interaction with experienced stakeholders. The guide tries to answer the needs of all those involved whatever their field of activity. It does not pretend to provide ideal answers, but to help people find practical solutions adapted to the situations they face. The aim is to give strong reference points and useful examples for enhancement projects. The document presented today is a working document. It represents part of the practical guide that will be delivered at the end of the project. The comments of the readers would be most welcome and will be taken into consideration to improve the quality of the final version.

PART 1
METHOD

A STRUCTURED APPROACH
The APPEAR method is for use with projects for enhancing urban archaeological sites. It takes into account all the factors, issues and interests likely to occur at various times and in different ways throughout what can often be a long and complex process. It has three aims: - Balancing the need for protection of the remains with allowing maximum access to them, - Ensuring the site's harmonious integration within the town as a significant part of the heritage, - Balancing all costs and benefits generated by such projects. The proposed method is based on the principles of strategic management. This encourages the adoption by urban communities wishing to reinforce and promote their identity of a policy for the enhancement of the archaeological heritage which is mindful of the preservation of the remains, their reasonable exploitation and their promotion. There are legitimate reasons why a decision-maker, public or private, shows little enthusiasm to engage in projects where the benefits are sometimes speculative and not easily quantifiable, where the costs cannot always be accurately calculated, and where there is nothing to guarantee the desired result. This justifies the need to resort to a systematic method capable of reconciling contradictory approaches, establishing a dialogue between diverging interests and creating a coherent project where there are likely to be incompatible viewpoints. Strategic management is now a recognised technique which allows public and private bodies to put their resources to best use to reach clear goals, taking into account local economic, social, statutory and cultural constraints. During the last twenty years this technique has been much used by multinational organisations concerned with adapting their decision-making process to cope with the increasingly complex environment within which they operate. The APPEAR method is therefore based on this strategic management model adapted by a number of researchers from different disciplines for the specific needs of the subject matter: the enhancement of urban archaeological sites. It offers a structured mechanism for users to establish the goals to be reached within their areas of expertise and to conceive and execute appropriate actions to reach these goals with realism, flexibility and creativity, essential elements in the successful completion of enhancement projects.

THE PLAYERS
The APPEAR method will underpin the thinking and actions of all interested parties, whether public or private, likely to contribute to the emergence and execution of an urban archaeological enhancement project. It does not favour one participant over another. It facilitates exchanges between individuals and organisations defending a legitimate interest and/or having a particular skill and who are willing to enter into a structured approach.
9

Potential users of this method are many and varied and belong to three categories which are not necessarily mutually exclusive: political and administrative, service providers and the urban community. The roles and responsibilities of each of these categories can sometimes be taken on by the same players, sometimes simultaneously. Exchanges between these three categories, whether harmonious or conflictual, are a reality in most urban projects. - Political and administrative: a public decision-maker generally steers the project and makes decisions throughout, helped by specialist advisers either working for the administration or contracted by it. - Service providers: Specialists taken on to undertake specific tasks. - Urban community: individuals and groups who declare an interest in the project and who are capable of influencing its outcome in a positive or negative way. They can become involved at various stages of the project, when they feel implicated because the site is of value to them, or because they have relevant knowledge about it, or because they wish to adjust the decision-making process towards the interests they are defending.

STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Every urban archaeological enhancement project is complex because: The archaeological site is often unstable, Project aims, resources and results are often multiple and interrelated, The participants involved are varied and numerous, The approach is multidisciplinary and one of partnership, It generally has a long-term nature.

The combination of all these factors produces an unsettled environment and raises unexpected social and technical problems which can undermine the decision-making process. The APPEAR method addresses this complexity by identifying, assessing and reducing the uncertainties in a planned and collaborative way.

OPERATIONAL STRUCTURE
The players are called upon to deal with a number of more or less complex issues throughout the process, either successively or simultaneously. These relate to six fields of expertise involving a significant number of disciplines. The actions undertaken within each of these fields must be thought through to establish the goals to be achieved, the resources available and the methods to be used. The six fields of expertise are: 10

Organisation and management, Preventive conservation, Archaeology, Urban and architectural integration, Presentation of the site to the public, Cultural management.

These fields of expertise and the disciplines they call upon must use an approach which cuts across them all to deal with the potential enhancement of the archaeological site. All the disciplines involved must adopt a new way of looking at things to address the main issue adequately. Problems raised by each area of expertise and proposed solutions must be compared across the board to ensure the quality and coherence of all results.

CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE
The APPEAR method also follows a sequential process which allows the players to ask the right questions at the right time. The development of the project is based on a chronological sequence consisting of six phases covering the entire process from the emergence of the idea through to the opening of the site to the public: Assessment, Feasibility studies, Definition of options, Project Design, Execution, Site management.

Each phase is further divided into three stages to make the process clearer, help deal efficiently with all aspects of the issue and decide on the relevant steps to be taken in relation to the objectives: - Organisation: identification of the players and their interactions; choosing and setting up the working structure. This basically means deciding on the method of functioning to be used by the decision-maker to ensure controlled and acceptable decisions, - Execution: definition and execution of key actions in order to supply the players with all the information they require to make informed decisions. This is the work programme for achievement of the short, medium and long-term goals, - Evaluation: analysis, synthesis and correction of the decisions made throughout the progress of the project in relation to the intermediate and specific aims assigned to each phase. The results achieved during the organisation and execution stages are assessed to produce the most relevant decision regarding continuation of the process.

OPERATING PROCEDURE
To be really effective in the context of enhancement projects, prior to any intervention strategic management must be based on a reflective process which can be embodied into an operating procedure. This consists of considering the issue to be dealt with, the objective that needs to be reached and the methods to be used to achieve it. It is a conscious and continuous management activity - anticipating, complementing and supporting the decision-making process. The procedure therefore needs to be set up during the organisation stage when the players involved agree their methods of operating and interacting. But its content and
11

outcomes obviously extend into the execution and evaluation stages because the agreed operational and decision-making methods govern the three stages of each phase. The efficiency of the reflective process depends on the forward looking attitude of the players and the amount of precision they give to the operating procedure. The procedure is neither fixed nor purely descriptive: it is constantly evolving. Strategic management adapted to the needs of the enhancement project is supported therefore by a number of logical, inter-connected and evolving procedures, one for each phase. The purpose of the procedure put in place by the players at the beginning of each phase is to define the issues and their major components and to anticipate some of the questions to be asked. Suggestions for the procedures for the six phases are presented in this guide. They have been developed as far as possible given the general and abstract nature of this type of practical guide and users will have to refine them depending on the specific characteristics of the situation they face. How does a procedural approach satisfy the demands of strategic management? Why and how are the procedures specific to each sequence? The inter-connected procedures form the basis of the APPEAR method, each aiming towards three objectives set for the short-term (ST), medium-term (MT) and long-term (LT): - Objective 1 (ST): the objective to be reached at the end of the phase, - Objective 2 (MT): the anticipated objective for the next phase as suggested by the current phase, - Objective 3 (LT): the ultimate objective (the opening of the site to the public) insofar as it can be reasonably predicted during the current phase. The operating procedure for each phase follows an identical pattern and regulates the actions in each stage: organisation, execution, evaluation. Each stage raises a number of questions about the players, their interactions and/or the fields of expertise subject to the reflective process. These questions and the anticipated answers form the basis for the operating procedure in any given phase.

THE ACTION PLAN

The operational response to these questions is carried out through a series of actions designed to take the project forward. These inter-related tasks make up the action plan for the phase. There are three types of action, some belonging to a particular phase, some not: - Those that are closely linked to a particular phase and which, if not done or done badly could compromise the smooth transmission to the next phase. For example, it is difficult to imagine that the Assessment Phase might come to a dead end because of the failure to assess the archaeological importance of the site,

12

- Those that theoretically fall within a phase, but which might be done, totally or in part, during an earlier or later phase either because it is not possible to do otherwise or because doing it at a certain time and in a specific context will improve the effectiveness of the decision-making process, - Those that are recurring or constant because they cut across the whole process. Recurring does not necessarily mean uniform. It is likely that certain elements will raise similar questions during the various phases of the decision-making process, but that the answers to these questions - what to do and how? - will vary depending on the issues being addressed in each phase. One of these is assessing the value of carrying out a certain action at a certain time. This kind of assessment is obviously necessary in reaching a compromise between the costs and benefits generated by any action. The precise contents of the action plan will be defined according to the operating procedure laid out for each phase. Answers to the questions raised by the procedure depend on the characteristics of the case and its context as interpreted by the players.

A SYSTEMATIC PROCESS
Breaking the process down into procedures follows strategic management methodology. It is valid for all the phases of a project and for all projects targeted by this guide. The process is therefore systematic. The methodology relies on two assumptions: Dividing the process into units helps highlight the compulsory elements, the unavoidable key moments,and the issues to which the players and especially the decision-maker will have to pay particular attention. As mentioned above, the issues to be addressed lead to a certain number of tasks generated by the following questions:what are the short,medium and longterm objectives? Why one action rather than another? How to achieve it and with whom? Breaking down the process also imposes planning which serves several purposes. It: - Reduces uncertainty by developing the ability to anticipate, - Reduces confusion by enhancing the effectiveness of the methods in relation to the objectives, - Reduces diversity by encouraging convergence of differing viewpoints, - Involves the players in the execution of the tasks they have planned.

EVALUATION OF THE RESULTS

The complete process is supported by a cycle of synthesis, evaluation and validation of the results, including the possibility of correction and adjustment for each phase. The players, and particularly the decision-maker must ensure throughout that the objectives, methods and deadlines are respected at the same time as maintaining the flexibility required by all long-term projects. Execution of the actions contained in the plan are subject to a similar cycle with the interim results of each one being compared with the others from the procedure, to facilitate co-ordinated development of the project: have the objectives been met? If not, why not? What needs to be done to correct this ?
13

Evaluation looks at three aspects: - Reliability: reliability of the information gathered depends on the quality of the data collection which can be adversely affected by lack of a specific skill or because of inad equate resources. Unreliable results bring error, divergence and instability, - Validity: validity of the results depends on the relevance of the indicators chosen to measure it. A result can be reliable but not valid. On the other hand, an unreliable result cannot be valid. A critical index of the validity of a result, from the point of view of the decision-maker, is the agreement of the players on the relevance of the indicators. Disagreement on the issue can lead to conflict about the facts which can degenerate into conflict about the skill of the specialists, - Usefulness: piecemeal results are not useful to the decision-maker or the other players because they don't allow effective answers to be given to questions which generally cut across the board. The decision-maker does not the have the expertise or the time to work on synthesis and integration in the place of the specialists. It is for this very reason that the APPEAR method recommends the formation of a working group right from the start of the Assessment Phase.

14

THE FIRST TWO PHASES OF THE PROCESS

ph1} ph1} ph1}

PHASE 1 - Assessment STATEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE

OBJECTIVES The main purpose of the Assessment Phase is to produce a statement of knowledge: what is known about the site and what still needs to be known? Preliminary investigation of the issues relating to an enhancement project needs to identify the characteristics of the site and its general context as well as the amount of information available. This helps to assess the site's importance and decide whether enhancement of the remains should be considered and for what reasons before any major financial commitment. At this stage, the statement of knowledge is general, questioning and forward looking. - General: the Assessment Phase is done at a very general level. It depends on available skills and resources: what human, technical and financial means are readily to hand? How much time is there in which to make a decision? It also depends on how advanced the archaeological research is: has this site been known about for a long time or was it a chance discovery during development work? Are the excavations proposed or underway? Can the site's importance already be predicted or is it still unknown? Note that although this phase enables objective assessment of certain issues, it does not have the scope to resolve all the conflicts of interest or opportunity which have sometimes been in existence for a long time and which require more in-depth study. - Questioning: this phase is all about asking questions: what do we know about this site at the moment when the idea to enhance it first emerges? Do we know enough about it to make a decision as to whether the remains should be opened to the public? If not, what other information do we need? Is it possible to get that information? If yes, is enhancement necessary, useful or desirable? - Forward looking: if at the end of this phase the decision is taken to continue with the project, any unanswered questions and initial suggestions for enhancement solutions help prepare the Feasibility Study Phase: how will the site be made available to the public?

ph1}

OPERATING PROCEDURE This first phase, which must lay the foundations on which the whole process for the following phases will be built consists of three stages: organisation, execution and evaluation. - The first stage looks at the players and their interactions: who are they? How do they act? With what resources? At this stage, the players are probably relatively few in number and their relationships fairly informal. There is still no developed structure or organisation. The decision-making process is embryonic or even totally nonexistent. The basic organisational structure must be put in place to allow the first players to take action.
15

- The second stage consists of the execution of key actions. These are essentially to gather relevant information to provide a better understanding of the site and its context and to give strength to arguments in favour of, or against further action. Several fields of expertise are already set in motion. - The third phase reports on the initial results. The data are analysed and the findings summarised to enable assessment of the viability, validity and usefulness of the results. This evaluation is crucial to make the correct decision at the end of the phase.
ph1 - st1} ph1 - st1}

STAGE 1 - ORGANISATION
EMERGENCE OF THE IDEA TO ENHANCE

The circumstances in which the idea to enhance a site first emerges vary widely. It may originate with the archaeologist faced with a more or less chance discovery during excavation work. The discovery can come as a complete surprise for some or for all. It may be that prior studies could have indicated the possibility of such a discovery (see part 2: the Rose Theatre, London, p.50). On the other hand, it often happens that the archaeologist or project owner has no means of predicting the discovery. The idea to enhance might also not be a new one but might be put on the agenda, or come back onto the agenda as the result of a change in the political context. In this case (see part 2: Vesonne, Prigueux, p.49), the remains have been known about for years but the idea to enhance does not lead to an assessment until the right" people have become interested.

The idea might come from a higher decision-making body in the context of the strategic management of cultural policy (see part 2: the Museum of Caesaraugusta, Saragossa, p.48) or even because it is considered as a potentially attractive element in a development programme. This decision-making body can be public (political or administrative) or private (a project owner not affiliated to an organisation or the developer). THE ADVOCATE The concept of enhancing the archaeological remains will emerge thanks to an advocate who will carry the project through. The identity of this advocate is as variable as the circumstances from which the concept emerges. It might be an archaeologist, an architect, a project owner, a local councillor, a resident or other individual. It can also be an organisation, a company or a specialist public or private institution. It can even be a developer who sees the added value that might be generated by the integration of the remains into the development programme. Obviously the identity of the advocate will impact on the way the project is carried forward from the outset. Their motivation, based on their cultural or professional background will determine the basic choices made during the early phases.

ph1 - st1}

16

ph1 - st1}

THE ADVOCATE'S ROLE The advocate is the first to suggest the idea of enhancement and acts as the hub for a core of supporters of the project. He/she puts in place a framework for the project and suggests methods to rally support from other people whose passive or active participation is considered important for the project. The identity of the advocate is critical for three reasons: - Project initiation: the advocate's motivation depends on his/her knowledge, skills, discipline, and/or on the organisation to which he/she belongs or represents. These act upon the advocate's judgment and conception of the various issues at stake and determine the methods available to reach the desired goal. All these factors play a decisive part in the way the issue of the future of the remains is addressed. Their interaction has a considerable influence on the way in which the question of an opportunity for enhancement will be initiated and on the basic options adopted by the players. The initial framework, whether accepted or contested by those involved, already provides a somewhat irreversible positive or negative bias to the project from the outset. Therefore this key role of the advocate is critical to the rest of the process. - Presentation: the advocate needs to present the case effectively to gather support from others with the necessary skills and resources to take the project forward. For example, the community archaeologist needs to persuade the local authority to leave enough time for proper archaeological investigation. The local inhabitants, motivated by an archaeological discovery which has a symbolic value for them need to sensitise the relevant authorities, motivate the archaeologist or persuade the contractor to suspend development. Presentation of the argument is influenced initially by the way the project has been set up and later by the aims of the advocate. It also depends on the nature of those to be persuaded and the relationship between them and the advocate. Even the way the arguments are presented can irreversibly affect the outcome of the discussions. - Activation: he advocate must be prepared either to transfer the project into the public domain or to keep it private. There are different ways of doing this: political negotiation, motivation of citizens, formal or informal lobbying, etc. The method chosen is also critical in as much as it uses specific techniques which are likely to have a lasting impact on those involved and the way the project develops. The means used to motivate other players also affect their number and diversity. On the other hand, the greater the number of players the more likely is the risk of destructive conflict. This risk is minimal when those involved consist of a small number of people from the same background eg. specialist or political, and as long as there is no controversy or public dispute. A small number of like-minded players will put forward similar arguments and will develop roughly compatible approaches. On the other hand, potentially destructive conflict can often be generated by large numbers of players with a range of interests.

17

This does not mean that the initial concept is better developed behind closed doors. The consistency, acceptability and viability of the project depend on opening it up to others who can add to the process at least as much as they make it more complicated. The process needs to have limits set but it should not be immured.
ph1 - st1}

DECISION-MAKING STRUCTURE The time allocated to the Assessment Phase is often very short. The number and diversity of the people likely to be involved is therefore probably fairly small, and interactions between them likely to be informal. Project organisation assumes that the advocate identifies as soon as possible the financial, material and intellectual resources available for the Assessment Phase before allocating tasks, responsibilities and resources. The aim of the initial investigations is to provide the basic specialist information needed to decide whether the idea of enhancement is worth pursuing or not. The allocation of resources during this phase raises at least three issues: - Who decides? - How are decisions made? - On what matters? These issues, which recur throughout the decision-making process, are already relevant during the Assessment Phase. The answers have an effect on the social acceptability of the decision to move on to the Feasibility Studies. Dealing with them from the start of the project can be decisive because experience has shown that the validity of a decision can be questioned even during the Assessment Phase by those aware of the existence of the remains. Identification of the relevant players and scrutiny of their arguments in case of controversy dictate the depth of investigation required. Some key actions benefit from being instigated during the Assessment Phase especially in cases where conflicts might occur. Two of these key actions are of primary importance: - Setting up the working and steering group, - Organising the participation of the stakeholders. Most of the actions are generally constrained by the statutory framework and organisational culture within they are carried out. This includes the legislation and regulations governing the subject area and all the customs and practices, which are not necessarily codified but which serve as accepted standards. The two key actions above merit a closer look because it is in these areas that the advocate has a certain margin of manoeuvre and they will influence the strategic quality of the decision-making. The Assessment Phase requires an initial identification of suitable players with specific skills together with an assessment of their intellectual, material and possibly even finan18

cial resources. Knowing these players allows anticipation of the processes they will activate, the arguments they will develop, and evaluation of the risk of conflict. The first key action is to set up the working group, usually consisting of specialists, which will operate throughout the life of the project. The advocate should make good use of the informal nature of this group where possible to encourage the sharing of knowledge which will contribute to make this future hard core" a learning group. A
ph1 - st1}

Key action - Set up a working group

Field of expertise: organisation and management Drawing up a list of specialists should be done as soon as possible so that the advocate can estimate the level of research required. It is possible that this highlights the existence of hitherto unknown players who need to be included. Once the key players have been identified, a working group can be set up to help the advocate. It will operate on the principles of "working together". Note that although this concept will be used throughout the process it will not necessarily have the same objectives or the same level of requirement during each phase. During the Assessment Phase, this notion of "working together" concerns a small group of people who, in the worst case scenario have only their link to the advocate or decision-maker as a common denominator. These isolated individuals need to be brought together as a working group to discuss essential issues, making use of their knowledge and experience even if at this stage all the required areas of expertise are not yet assembled. Because it is an ad hoc group created for the purpose, it functions informally without hierarchical structure or professional baggage which might restrict the flow of ideas. The crucial thing is to bring a transverse and interdisciplinary view on the issues to be addressed to provide a forward looking perspective on the site and its context. Selection of the specialists is obviously crucial because they are expected to provide a personal and collective commitment to the co-production of knowledge. So that the concept of "working together" doesn't just remain on the wish-list and withstands the test of time the advocate must lead the group to follow a strong, coherent idea based on a spontaneous and charismatic vision. This key action will be continued and expanded during the next phase, therefore it is essential to assess correctly the resources available and the obstacles likely to affect the working group's performance.

A The second key action relates to the management of the project. Management takes on a strategic meaning if it is continuous and functions in such a way as to foster mutual learning and an openness to non-specialist players. The chances of success for strategic management are largely influenced by these two elements.

19

A
ph1 - st1}

Key action - Identify the stakeholders

Field of expertise: organisation and management The advocate also needs to take into account the expressed or perceived viewpoints of all the other stakeholders, including all non-specialist individuals and organisations which might rightly have a valid claim to participate. This issue cannot be ignored, otherwise one runs the risk of fostering conflict all the more destructive because it plays on values and emotions. Quite apart from the potential risks faced by the remains, the consequences of this type of conflict should lead the advocate to avoid it by preventive action through consultation of the urban community. To reduce the risk of conflict, all players that might be involved in the process should be identified, their motives understood and their intellectual, material and financial resources assessed. This preliminary assessment enables the advocate to evaluate the need to find further stakeholders or to involve them in participatory consultation.

A After completion of these two key actions, a list of actual and potential players and their level of involvement or capacity for action is available. Identification of the players is not complete at this stage but the advocate and/or the decision-maker has something on which to base their thoughts about the relations to be established with the specialists and with the urban community. The importance which the quality of the expert advice solicited by the advocate has for the rest of the process cannot be over-emphasized. Because the timeframe for this phase is generally very short, the results are likely to be basic. Therefore it is vital that the advocate bases his/her arguments on sound expert advice which cannot be challenged.
ph1 - st2}

STAGE 2 - EXECUTION
The execution stage deals with the main themes that need to be examined and the key actions to be carried out within the various disciplines. The results of the Assessment Phase will inform the decision to move on to the next phase or not. For this reason, the key actions below should be arranged in order of importance. Priority key actions which must be undertaken need to be distinguished from those that bring added value to the discussion. Strategic management of the process calls for three questions to be answered by the advocate, the steering group and/or the decision-maker: - Why should one task be carried out rather than another? - How should it be undertaken? - What are the short, medium and long-term goals?

20

ph1 - st2}

THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT

Key action - Understand the site Field of expertise: presentation of the site to the public Key action - Understand the state of preservation of the remains and their environment Field of expertise: preventive conservation Key action - Understand the urban and architectural context Field of expertise: urban and architectural integration Key action - Understand the social, cultural, economic and political context Field of expertise: organisation and management

ARCHAEOLOGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND URBAN PLANNING Integration of archaeological research and urban development management is crucial: It provides information about a town's past. This information can be useful when assessing the likelihood of finding archaeological remains and for better management of these remains during the urban planning process. Archaeological information management systems such as Urban Archaeological Databases, archaeological maps and GIS (Geographic Information Systems) are essential to record and manage information about past, present and future excavations. These systems also help identify those areas that must be investigated prior to development. The main objective of urban archaeology is not to preserve all archaeological remains but to document them accurately and fully regardless of their perceived importance and their ultimate fate.

The idea to enhance archaeological remains first emerges when their importance is recognised or sensed. This importance is based on the intrinsic qualities of the site and the benefits that may be derived by the town from its preservation and its display to the public. The intrinsic attributes of the site - its age, size, state of preservation - might be anticipated prior to excavation on the basis of existing knowledge or might emerge during excavation. Besides these objective attributes, there are other qualities which derive from the opinion that different individuals and stakeholders have of the site's characteristics and their potential. These are largely subjective and changeable, and are dependent on the cultural context, social trends and political and economic forces which are also constantly shifting. It is nevertheless vital to assess the importance of these qualities correctly when making a decision about the future of the remains. Because the time and resources allocated to the Assessment Phase are generally limited this evaluation requires care and discernment on the part of the advocate and the working group. The aim is to understand the site and its context so as to gather rapidly the information required to put forward convincing arguments for implementing or abandoning the idea of an enhancement project. The following must be taken into account: The nature of the remains, What is known about the remains and the state of progress of research and publication, Their state of preservation and the risks affecting their survival, The relationship between the site and its context.

Putting together this information will inevitably highlight gaps in knowledge. Their extent and the impact they might have on the decision-making must be fully understood. Some of these gaps may have to be filled to avoid prejudicing the project at a later stage. This means identifying the necessary resources and the potential constraints affecting the acquisition of this additional information.

21

A
ph1 - st2}

Key action - Understand the site

Field of expertise: presentation of the site to the public Understanding the significance of the site is essential when assessing its importance and its potential for enhancement. It would be deceitful to display remains to the public that are not well understood. Understanding must be based on sound archaeological, scientific and historic research, not on unfounded theory and is closely linked to the state of progress of research and publication about the site. The research should give an understanding of the historic events witnessed by the remains and answer some basic questions: What type of site is it? What period are the remains? Who lived in it or used it? This leads to consideration of the specific characteristics of the site: - Does the site belong to a common type with a relatively limited distribution? - Have the remains witnessed an event of particular significance to the town or the area? - Or can they be linked to wider historic events or periods? The nature of the remains must also be considered: their size and extent, their physical and aesthetic qualities, how easy it is to understand the different periods represented, their individuality. All these aspects help determine how easy it will be to make the site understandable and attractive to the visitor at the same time as respecting its integrity. The resulting report must show clearly and objectively that the site is sufficiently well-recorded and important to merit preservation and enhancement of the remains or that further research is required.

A
ph1 - st2}

Key action - Understand the state of preservation of the remains and their environment
Field of expertise: preventive conservation It is important to prepare a report on the current state of preservation of the remains and their immediate environment regardless of whether an enhancement project is undertaken or not. This report represents a snapshot of the site at a certain point in time and becomes the reference point against which the future studies and proposals for enhancement or reburial will be assessed. The ancient and recent history of the remains and the circumstances in which they were excavated greatly influence their state of preservation. The aim of the Assessment Phase is to understand these fluctuating elements so as to facilitate the interpretation of the analytical data which will be gathered if the decision to enhance the site is taken. At this stage, the work consists of putting together a statement of information currently available and that still to be acquired whichever option is to be pursued. The programme begins with the definition of the operational objectives: - Describe the physical, chemical and biological environment of the site on the basis of the information available. The summary of the deterioration factors wich will be provided in

22

the guide can be used as a guide to the parameters to be explored, - If necessary, produce a report on the current state of the excavated remains destined for in situ display. Several methods are available to achieve these objectives: - Collection of locally held data, - Initial specialist consultation, - Consultation of specialist services (local weather station, geology and mining research laboratories, urban and regional technical services, etc.), - Using the APPEAR Guide information sheets (conservation section). The results of this investigation are to be incorporated into a summary report acting as a reference document for all the data (statistics, list of competent specialists, addresses, etc.). This report should ideally also include an opinion on opening the site to the public from the viewpoint of the site's conservation. If reservations are expressed, recommendations about the measures needed to ensure the long-term protection of the site should be added.

A
ph1 - st2}

Key action - Understand the urban and architectural context

Field of expertise: urban and architectural integration Assessing the potential for integration of the archaeological remains within the urban and architectural context provides a general outline of the characteristics of the site in relation to the town. This facilitates the development of arguments in favour of, or against enhancement of the site. The architectural and urban context is examined on three levels: - The general level: the town and the region, - The surrounding area level: the locality or district, - The local level: the immediate vicinity of the site. Based on the type of town being considered, the following questions can be asked: - The location of the remains: are they close to the historic centre of the town? What use and functions do the adjacent areas serve? What activities are undertaken in the area? Are these compatible with the integration of a heritage site? - How accessible is the site and the area surrounding it ? What are the access routes ? What are the circuits used by the people passing through the area? Are these likely to encourage visitors? - The visibility of the remains: are they of significance to the area? Do they represent a reference point and an attraction? - Their impact on the surrounding area: do the remains affect the urban unity and cohesion? If so, in what way? Is the surrounding area able to integrate the remains? The strong and weak points of the case will emerge from this assessment. General recommendations for the management of these can be made together with the identification of those areas requiring further investigation if enhancement goes ahead.

23

A
ph1 - st2}

Key action - Understand the social, cultural, economic and political context
Field of expertise: organisation and management Enhancing an archaeological site is brought about by a number of social, cultural and economic choices which are sometimes difficult to justify. It involves major investments rarely repaid by direct returns. On the other hand, it can generate indirect benefits for the locality, the town and the region. It is often difficult to identify the factors likely to influence this choice, because they are usually part of more complex issues affecting the town. It is useful, though, to look at some of those factors which, if correctly understood give an indication of whether the general context for enhancement is favourable or not: - What role do history, heritage and culture play at the local, surrounding area and general level? Do they present a potential for development? Does the town have a cultural tourism policy? How would an enhancement project fit within this? Are there other projects with which this one could form a partnership? - Is the social context compatible with the conservation and the enhancement of the remains? Does the site have a special significance for the inhabitants and the town? What are the risks of rejection? Who would be the potential public? - Is the economic and political climate favourable to an enhancement project? Is it stable enough? Does the town have the resources to implement it? How do the costs balance with the benefits? At this stage, most of the answers are based on common sense and a knowledge of the general setting. If there is enough time, they can be augmented by opinion polls from local inhabitants, those who use the town, cultural heritage and tourism professionals, politicians etc. The results may be rudimentary and provisional but they nevertheless bring useful information to the advocate, the steering group and/or the decision-maker.

A
ph1 - st3}

STAGE 3 - EVALUATION
The advocate, supported by the working and steering group, now has a certain amount of information available to argue the case for continuing the project or not. This information must be analysed, summarised and evaluated by the multidisciplinary group. Given the short amount of time usually allocated to the Assessment Phase the advocate generally has to make this evaluation in a hurry and alone. Two points are essential: - Evaluation examines the reliability, validity and usefulness of the results. But as these results are often general and rudimentary at this stage, the quality and experience of the specialists provide the only real guarantee of their reliability and validity, - On the other hand, the advocate must produce an integrated and comprehensive sum mary. This is of critical importance for the decision-maker as the only thing that provides a clear overview of the project.

24

On the basis of this evaluation, the relevant authority answers the following question: can or should the archaeological remains be considered for enhancement? The decision-maker has two options: abandon the idea or allocate the necessary resources to undertake feasibility studies to examine in more detail all the implications of an enhancement. The choice assumes that a clear reconciliation between the strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities associated with such an enhancement has been carried out during the Assessment Phase. The decision-maker then informs those involved of the option chosen. This can prove delicate if it is not the outcome expected by the specialists and/or the urban community. The reasoning and the social acceptability of the decision depend on the way the decision-maker integrates all the expressed points of view. This in turn depends on and explains the importance of the concept of "working together" and joint steering from the outset. The relevant authority needs to demonstrate that the decision respects the following conditions: - It has taken the consequences of each option into consideration and ensured that as many different points of view as possible have been taken into account, - The likely outcome of each option has been measured in relation to the most optimistic and the most pessimistic scenario. There is often no convergence between the best technical option and the most socially desirable one. The decision-maker may need to weigh up all the arguments to reach a compromise between something of a lower technical quality which is still socially acceptable. This demonstrates the qualitative nature of strategic management which is based on a planned and consultative process. The decision made at the end of the Assessment Phase is often difficult. It requires a subtle mix of caution because of the incomplete nature of the information and of forward thinking justified by the potential interest of the project.

25

ph2} ph2} ph2}

PHASE 2 - FEASIBILITY STUDIES FEASIBILITY AND VIABILITY ANALYSIS

OBJECTIVES At the end of the Assessment Phase, the decision-maker decided to study in more detail the possibility of enhancing the site. The decision was taken on the basis of an initial report. This is used as a starting point to define the nature, the aims and the scope of the studies to be undertaken to understand the reasons motivating the opening of the site to the public and to assess the consequences of doing it. The second phase looks at the possibility of enhancing the site through a feasibility analysis. Unlike the Assessment Phase, the feasibility studies involve significant investment of skills, resources and time because they cover all the issues raised by an enhancement project. The objectives, which will develop as the phase progresses are to: Define and put into perspective the expectations of all those involved, Define and put into perspective the underpinning issues, Define and put into perspective the opportunities and constraints, Analyse predictable consequences and assess remaining uncertainties, Decide on tolerance levels and sketch out appropriate solutions.

At the end of this analysis all the information needed to make a decision is gathered together. The purpose is to set out the possible options in keeping with the characteristics of the site and its context and the concerns of the decision-maker. This will act as the project specification for all those who will work on the site. In rare cases, results of the feasibility studies lead to abandoning the idea of enhancement for financial, technical, scientific, administrative or political reasons. However, when the result does lead to agreement on the feasibility of a project, the decision-maker needs to have all the information required to feed into the Definition of Options Phase. This possibility justifies it being carried out with the utmost care. No sizeable project should economise on the preliminary studies which are a crucial complement to the Assessment Phase.
ph2}

OPERATING PROCEDURE The feasibility studies are based on certain working assumptions modified to take into account the specific characteristics of the situation. Discovery of archaeological remains in towns is usually as a result of excavations associated with property development, or, in the case of heritage sites as a result of a campaign of restoration. Once the idea to preserve and display the site is taken up, two scenarios are considered: Integrating and enhancing the remains within the new development as originally designed, or, in the case of restoration within the same building, but adapted for the purpose. Abandoning the original development plan and designing a new building which meets the conservation and display needs of the site.
26

In rare cases, an enhancement project might have been planned and excavations undertaken with this in view. The working assumption then is for the development of new cultural facilities or the modification of an existing building, or even a combination of the two. These options do not exclude consideration also being given to the creation of archaeological reserves or excavation for scientific research and/or prior to the construction of any infrastructure. The feasibility studies follow the three stages of strategic management: organisation, execution, evaluation. The first stage reviews issues relating to the players and their interactions. A fairly complex organisational structure needs to be put in place at this point, capable of compiling in-depth information from various subject areas, of uniting the players around a coherent project, and of feeding into an acceptable decision. Unlike the Assessment Phase, this requires numerous and varied players with different motivations and following different, sometimes opposed agendas which will have to reconciled. The second stage is the execution of the relevant key actions. These will provide in-depth information allowing the players to perfect their knowledge about the site and its context so they can choose with confidence the most relevant options. Several fields of expertise are called upon to expand on the basic investigations carried out in the Assessment Phase. The third stage consists of the evaluation of the results. The information is analysed and summarised to assess its reliability, validity and usefulness and presented as a report. This evaluation is vital for making the right decision about the options which are now becoming clearer. The final choice of option will be made during the next phase according to the project specification which is now drawn up.
ph2 - st1}

STAGE 1 - ORGANISATION
The Assessment Phase saw the creation of an informal working and steering group activated by the advocate, responsible for gathering initial information regarding a potential enhancement project. During the Assessment Phase, the advocate and this group have engaged in a learning process which encouraged consistency in the project and effectiveness in the decisionmaking process. What happens to the advocate and those surrounding him/her at the beginning of the feasibility studies? To answer this, we need to look at the context in which the studies are carried out.

ph2 - st1}

PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE The site and its context, when examined in terms of an enhancement project constitute a complex issue, calling upon a wide range of people from very varied backgrounds. Most
27

of them are not involved on a full-time basis: they hold other roles within their field of expertise, their discipline and/or the culture of their institution. The decision-maker is therefore at the centre of a system where individuals from different backgrounds and with different ways of thinking and operating interact. All these players will have varying degrees of input in helping advise and steer the project. The differences, potentially even the antagonisms arising from the organisational affiliation of the specialists can be partially overcome by their scientific affiliation, thereby encouraging a drawing together of sensibilities. The structure put in place to manage the whole process must encourage this coming together of viewpoints and the flexibility of the interactions. Organisation of the project assumes that the intellectual, technical, material and financial resources needed for the feasibility studies are identified as soon as possible. Identifying and allocating these resources places two demands on the decision-maker: - The team must be able to see the project through. This type of project can take several years, - The teams make-up must allow flexibility in the management process because the general context of the project is likely to evolve over time. The outcome of the feasibility studies therefore relies on the relevance and effectiveness of the organisational structure put in place to carry them out. Their usefulness will partly depend on the ability of those involved to work together from the outset and to avoid individualistic practices which are contrary to the principles of strategic management. If the key actions are badly planned or badly co-ordinated, they run the risk of not providing adequate answers to questions which called for significant investment. Certain key actions relating to this organisational structure therefore need to be undertaken at the beginning of the Phase. They are an extension of those undertaken during the Assessment Phase and will be carried through into subsequent phases. These include development of the structure for steering the project and for introducing the concept of working together. These key actions condition the quality of the results and the viability of the project. If the players do not devote the appropriate effort and resources to these the work will be haphazard and disorganised, and may lead to a potential growth of conflict which paralyses the process and creates an urban blight. The key players, individual and institutional, and the measures needed to optimise their relationships are described below.
ph2 - st1}

THE PROJECT OWNER No allocation of resource can be made before the designated project owner has been formally appointed and accepted. The project owner is the central figure in this phase and has overall responsibility for the project.

It might be someone who has been involved since the Assessment Phase. If so, this ensures continuity. It could be the advocate. In that case, as in the Globe Theatre (see part 2: the Rose Theatre, London, p.50) that person will consider that he/she has a mission to
28

carry through while at the same time avoiding major ruptures. The resourcefulness of the advocate/project owner, including the search for resources, will likely match his/her involvement in the project from the outset. The project owner can be a public figure (see part 2: Vesunna, Prigueux, p.49) or a pri vate individual or institution (see part 2: the Rose Theatre, London, p.50). The difference is significant. A public project owner has to take into account the public good and cannot divorce this aspect of their function, whereas a private project owner can. One should not prejudge the real motivations of either but the differences do have a bearing on project management, because the private owner, with the exception of certain statutory constraints, is likely to have a greater degree of latitude than the public owner. Given the range of options available, the meaning given to certain concepts contained within the guide are as follows: - The person taking on responsibility for the work will be appointed as project manager, and must therefore be a named individual, - Usually the project manager works under the authority of the project owner who has the power to make decisions. The project owner is usually, but not always a figure head. Unless otherwise specified, the term decision-maker refers to the project owner and vice-versa. Note that in some cases the project manager and the project owner are the same person. The role and identity of these two functions will be determined at the start of the project. The project owner is responsible for allocating the necessary resources. If resources are lacking he/she can call upon an investor to subsidise all or part of the costs in exchange for a share in the future benefits. Various arrangements can be contemplated: mixed investment (public/private); non-profit making public or private investment by endowment; private funding for profit managed by a commercial company; or any other method put in place to best serve the needs of the project.
ph2 - st1}

PROJECT STEERING Only in exceptional circumstances will the project owner have all the intellectual and technical resources needed for the feasibility studies so other players are called upon for their expertise. These specialists either work in the public domain (public authorities, universities, etc.) or in the private domain (private companies, consultancies, etc.). Some are called upon to form a core group around the project and the project manager. It is this group that will make decisions about the areas to be investigated. The project manager will follow the development of the studies and will control the progress of the project through this group. Membership of the group, as already stated, must fulfil the needs of continuity and flexibility. Members should be selected on the basis of their expertise in the various disciplines and for their ability to co-operate to produce the information required by the decision-maker. Project owner, project manager and this core group constitute the three elements which form the structure responsible for steering the project. The group can call upon other
29

specialists if necessary, either temporarily or on a permanent basis. It can also welcome other stakeholders, whether non-specialists or those with hands-on experience. A
ph2 - st1}

Key action - Set up the core group

Field of expertise: organisation and management To set up the core group, the project manager may benefit from a certain latitude to choose players who are already sympathetic to the project. In other cases, some of the members might be imposed without any guarantee of their commitment. In any case, the project manager has to motivate the group so that its members are willing to invest the necessary time and effort, to learn to work together and to adopt new ways of doing things. Setting up this core group is essentially using human resources management techniques. It highlights two partly related issues: the choice of people with the right qualities and the development of their interactions. In some countries, this structure is split into a scientific committee and a steering committee to assist the project owner and his/her delegate throughout the life of the project. This split, which needs to be taken into account on a case by case basis, emphasises two requirements incumbent on the project manager. One relates to the quality of the work, the other to the relevance of the decisions: - Operational requirement: the project manger must call upon specialists who will help formulate the questions to be answered, identify the resources and the methods to do this, and carry out the necessary tasks, - Decision-making requirement: the project manager must ensure that the structure enables him/her to steer the project effectively, through correct evaluation of the results, in such a way as to guarantee the appropriateness of the decisions. The core group is responsible for setting up the operating procedure, which includes the following: - To help the project manager develop an operational and decision-making process which is successful, legitimate and recognised as such, - To organise and ensure execution of the relevant action plan for each phase, - To ensure that the objectives, resources and deadlines are met or modified in accordance with the work programme and with the principle of flexibility required by any long-term project.

A
ph2 - st1}

SPECIALIST SERVICES The operating procedure demonstrates the need to carry out certain key actions to increase understanding of various aspects of the issue. These key actions target specific areas and require specific skills which are provided by specialist services. Generally, the members of the steering group do not act as specialist services themselves.
30

Their mission is to organise and control the process. Sometimes, however, the project manager may call upon the expertise of one or other member of the core group, who then acts as a specialist service for a specific task. On the other hand, it is sometimes useful for a specialist service provider to join the core group to train those who will carry out work in subsidiary areas. The progress of the work of the specialist services needs to be regularly monitored to ensure the coherence of the final results.
ph2 - st1}

THE STAKEHOLDERS The stakeholders may declare an interest in becoming part of the process from the outset. The advocate may have had to limit their involvement during the Assessment Phase through lack of time. It is not unusual, however, for the stakeholders to force the advocate into discussion during this phase where conflictual or controversial situations exist. It is therefore desirable for the advocate to take the initiative from the start, even if at a superficial level. Whatever the case, the decision-maker has to engage in a participatory method at the latest during the Feasibility Studies Phase if he/she intends to integrate the viewpoints, expectations and hands-on experience of all stakeholders. There are three aims: - Identifying the expectations of the stakeholders with regard to the enhancement project and more widely to the town, - Answering questions about issues of concern to the urban community, - Integrating the expectations, knowledge and suggestions of the stakeholders into the report on options at the end of the phase. The stakeholders, or some of them, were identified during the Assessment Phase. The benefits of identifying additional stakeholders should be thought about from the start of the Feasibility Studies Phase and implemented with great care if considered necessary. The project manager then decides the way in which they will contribute, ensuring that the method chosen is accepted by all parties. Care should be taken at this stage to ensure compatibility between the method chosen for participation of the stakeholders in this phase and the methods that will be used in future phases. For example, public consultation should be used with caution. Although it is great favourite of citizens not wishing to be left out, rather than encouraging consensus it often exposes or increases any latent conflict. Using it runs the risk of compromising the chances of success of a participatory approach later in the process. The decision-maker needs to have a clear vision of what he/she wishes to undertake, regardless of the way in which it is done, to avoid the counter-productive effects of an illprepared choice.

31

A
ph2 - st1}

Key action - Introducing the organisational structure to the stakeholders

Field of expertise: organisation and management This key action is carried out in three steps: 1. Preparing the programme Before starting any participatory programme, a specific objective must be defined, possible ways of doing it must be identified and selected, and a timetable set. The objective can be the clarification of an issue or seeking a consensus. The distinction between the two is important. The former can be resolved by a one-way process (informing, consulting). The latter, however, requires debate between the parties, and although it is a more restrictive it leads to codecision. The process is clearly interactive and takes time to get used to. The possible ways of carrying out the participation depend on certain criteria. Who is going to take part? What issues are to be raised? Will the process take place in a conflictual environment? What are the available resources? The choice is also subject to the procedural expectations of the stakeholders. In this respect some methods are more valid than others. The decision-maker must take all this into account even to the extent of setting the agenda with the stakeholders if they wish it. 2 . Executing the programme This consists of opening the participatory process and monitoring its progress. Recommendations about particular actions depend on the method selected, the context in which it operates and which phase is being covered. There is one common denominator, however: the nature of the actions proposed by the decision-maker must be such as to convince all the stakeholders that practical organisation of the participation is not aiming to exclude certain people or categories of person. The programme must be carried out in good faith and be seen to be doing so. The decision-maker therefore needs to ensure those responsible for applying the chosen method/s respect the spirit as well as the letter of the law, taking particular care to ensure that programme presenters have the relevant skills. 3. Evaluating the programme A report detailing the demands and motives expressed by the participants is produced. This has two parts: individual and collective concerns about the enhancement project on one hand, and individual and collective concerns about the method of participation itself on the other, to enable the process to be amended if necessary.

32

ph2 - st1}

THREE METHODS FOR DEVELOPING A STRATEGY The number and diversity of those potentially involved partly explain the complexity of this type of project. The decision-maker and/or the project manager can use various strategies to manage its development: - They might choose a centralised and interventionist process based solely or mainly on technical expertise. This approach generally leads to disappointing results, - They might be advocates of a strong project with a daring vision that they manage to impose. This less formal strategy is pushed forward by the charisma of its promoters, - They might implement gradual adjustments as the project progresses based on perceived changes to the setting and a learning process. This is the pragmatic approach. In reality, the strategy finally adopted is usually a combination of all three. Centralised planning based exclusively on expertise is no longer considered viable. This method of project management does not sufficiently take into account the autonomy of the individuals responsible for its execution. In addition, strict adherence to the plan requires individual and collective acceptance from its users, a condition which is not encouraged by centralised planning. Experience shows that a project is more likely to succeed if it is activated by a leader with a clear vision, supported by a coherent and watertight programme, and mindful of building an efficient and dynamic consensus. The success of the method rests on the quality of the working together element which will make the steering group a structure that learns, alone capable of usefully exploiting the range of knowledge and experience. One of the key actions is therefore to define the condition of such a structure. A

ph2 - st1}

Key action - Working together

Field of expertise: organisation and management Setting up the core group and selecting specialist services are without doubt of primary importance. But their mode of functioning still needs to be established and geared towards working together. This mode of functioning is that of a learning structure. It is essential because numerous fields of expertise are called upon to produce the integrated knowledge vital for the decision-maker. To provide something useful, the players need to develop an interdisciplinary approach, the only way of adequately answering questions which cut across the board. Such an approach does not in any way detract from the quality of knowledge provided by individual disciplines. Rather it enhances it by giving it collective depth. The structure is a learning one when its members are able to test their theories by confronting them with those of their colleagues. Operating like a think-tank, the learning structure does not compile a catalogue of knowledge but digests it and puts it into perspective. This assumes

33

a method of operating and a frame of mind encouraging freedom of expression and the bringing together of diverging opinions. Applying the principle of working together is a must at least for the three elements forming the steering group and the specialist services. It is strongly recommended, however, that it should be extended to all parties involved.

A
ph2 - st2}

STAGE 2 - EXECUTION
The key actions in this phase build on those from the previous phase, the results of which are used as the basis for an initial definition of general objectives and the issues to be addressed. It will be possible to identify the fields of expertise required, to decide on the tasks that need to be carried and their specific aims, based on the working assumptions formulated above (see Operating Procedure). Execution and the amount of detail required by the tasks depend on the scope of the earlier report and on the complexity of the issue. The purpose of the feasibility studies is to formulate the priorities and guiding principles which will mark the involvement of the players throughout the project. They will also fix the levels of tolerance to be respected by all the players, and suggest possible solutions for the enhancement work. In other words they identify the options to be retained and the conditions for each one. The investigations fall under two themes: - Heritage significance of the remains, - The site within its setting.

ph2 - st2}

HERITAGE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REMAINS

Key action - Identify the sites values Field of expertise: presentation of the site to the public

The heritage significance of a site is based on the values placed upon it by an individual or group of individuals and it is these values that justify a sites importance. At the end of Phase 1, the archaeological remains were considered significant enough to think about their enhancement and display to the public. This decision was brought about by highlighting some of their values. Assessing the feasibility of an enhancement project is based on an objective analysis of these values and it is on the results of this assessment that the major decisions about the management of the site will be made. The values of a site depend mostly on the different sectors of society, their perception of the archaeological heritage and their interest in it. Note also that these values can generate conflicts of interest which may be prejudicial to the protection of some of them. It is vital to ensure that the use to which the site is put does not sacrifice any of the values that contribute to its heritage significance.

34

A
ph2 - st2}

Key action - Identify the sites values

Field of expertise: presentation of the site to the public The aim of this key action is to understand the heritage significance of the site through its values. This must include comparative studies. At site level, this means assessing the sites different components and ranking them in order of importance. At local or regional level the site as a whole is assessed to compare its values against those of other archaeological or cultural sites around it. Identifying the main interest groups for whom the site is important whether they are responsible for its upkeep or they have a particular link to it and their involvement in the decision-making process is vital to bring out all the nuances attached to the values and to make them universally understood. Sensitising the different groups to the values that are significant to others may contribute to their modifying their views about the site and will encourage a balanced protection of all its values. Which part of the site and which period remains should be investigated? What should be preserved and how? How should the remains be interpreted to ensure public access? These and other questions need to be asked about the following values: historical, scientific, aesthetic, social, symbolic, economic and educational. Assessment of the values is carried out in three steps: - Step 1 - Describe the site in detail. It may be useful to refer to the synopsis of results produced during the Assessment Phase, - Step 2 - Identify the values among those listed above that are relevant to the site, for whom and why, and any potential areas of conflict of interest between them, - Step 3 - Produce a report listing and describing the values assigned to the site, and defining the implications of these in terms of opportunities and constraints for the enhancement.

35

ph2 - st2}

THE SITE WITHIN ITS SETTING

Key action - Assess the archaeological potential Field of expertise: archaeology Key action - Identify the factors of degradation and their method of operation Field of expertise: preventive conservation Key action - Analyse the urban setting Field of expertise: urban and architectural integration Key action - Identify the potential user Field of expertise: cultural management Key action - Asses the potential for partnership Field of expertise: organisation and management Key action - Identify the variables of the sociopolitical, economic and institutional context Field of expertise: organisation and management

Recognising a set of values and setting down the implications they have for the preservation and display of a site to the public is the first stage in the process of assessment which must guide the future project. The second stage clearly sets out the issues to be resolved and areas of concern. An indepth analysis of the sites physical state, its archaeological potential and factors likely to impact on the protection of the sites values is undertaken. The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints of the archaeological, technical, social, cultural, political, legal, administrative and financial issues on which the feasibility of the project depend will be clearly laid out. The assessment of the projects validity requires a study of the likely changes to the existing context. This process requires the involvement of specialists from different skills areas. The issues and possible solutions identified by each within their own field of expertise must be compared as often as necessary to ensure the quality and coherence of the overall results. A
ph2 - st2}

Key action - Assess the archaeological potential

Field of expertise: archaeology As the idea for enhancement takes shape, an inventory of the archaeological potential of the site should be drawn up. This serves three distinct but related and often contradictory objectives: 1. Making the proposed enhancement efficient Analysis will establish and focus on the archaeological resources which can contribute to the success of the project. Discovering previously unsuspected or under-estimated potential can lead to the modification of the original ideas for enhancement.

36

Note that the success of the project sometimes requires that some remains be sacrificed in order to display others. 2. Continuing scientific research A survey of the research potential of the site enables researchers to think about the future of their work. This can follow the direction of their own discipline the development of methods of excavation or analysis or acquisition of new knowledge, and can lead to a reassessment of the site or contribute to the development of other disciplines; the site then becomes the focus for experimental studies. Apart from the contribution to knowledge, the research can also be considered an asset for the enhancement. 3. Creating archaeological reserves Using archaeological sites for whatever reason (enhancement or research) progressively destroys them. Thought should therefore be given to a methodical preservation of whole areas of the site to preserve certain types of heritage. This can highlight the precarious nature of this nonrenewable resource and the relationship between its use for research and the results obtained. The interactions between the above can lead to conflict. The aim is to gather information so as to find a balanced solution. The studies should be carried out by specialists, including archaeologists and people working in the fields of earth sciences, science, etc.). They will describe the number, significance and characteristics of existing or suspected elements (landscapes, buildings, occupation layers, geological horizons, etc.) and will define the relevance they have in a regional context and beyond.

A
ph2 - st2}

Key action - Identify the deterioration factors and their method of operation
Field of expertise: preventive conservation Conservation is a constant battle against all the factors which contribute to the deterioration of heritage objects under the care of site managers. This fight will be all the more efficient if the adversaries have been clearly defined and the methods used to wage it have been thoroughly established. But before establishing the fighting methods, the deterioration factors which threaten the site must be identified, starting with the visitors! The physical, chemical and biological processes will be described together with their possible interactions. It is through these that the deterioration factors pose a threat to the remains. Carrying out an analysis of the state of preservation of the site represents a useful starting point as it allows an initial assessment of the factor-risk-impact causal chains which need to be explained. Every deterioration factor poses a potential danger to the remains. A danger can be defined as that which threatens or compromises the safety or existence of someone or something in a tangible way. A danger is also the situation that results from it. A risk is defined as a more or less foreseeable possible danger. In other words a risk constitutes the potential that the danger represented by the factor of degradation materialises. If the risk is realised, one talks of impact. Risk is therefore a potential danger, whereas impact is an actual degradation.

37

Characterisation of a risk tied to each deterioration factor is based on two main steps: - Identification of the potential danger or, in other words, of its consequences translated in terms of impacts, - Determining the probability of the danger occurring. Taken from the point of view of the conservation of the remains, the analysis must establish links with other areas of the proposed enhancement project to allow an overview of the different parameters involved. The paradoxical issue of visitors for whom the site has been opened, but who, by coming, represent a danger to the conservation of the remains, has been mentioned. There are other contradictory situations that exist and which the feasibility studies must attempt to identify. From the conservation point of view, the Feasibility Studies Phase effectively constitutes a statement of all the deterioration factors which threaten the remains and the interactions between these factors. The programme begins with definition of the operational objectives: - To produce an analysis of the state of preservation of the remains in the structural (including hydrogeological parameters), climatic (including urban pollution parameters) and biological domains, - To identify the deterioration factors, their method of operation and their interactions. Possible methods of action include the following: - Set up a multidisciplinary panel of specialists each responsible for an analysis within their own speciality, - Carry out a campaign of data collection, at minimum for the climatic, hydrogeological, chemical (gaseous pollutants) and biological parameters, - Internal seminars for bringing together all the information gathered during the analyses. The reports of the analyses including any recommendations, the multidisciplinary summary and all the date stamped information from the various monitoring campaigns can be entered into a database available to all the project partners.

A
ph2 - st2}

Key action - Analyse the urban setting

Field of expertise: urban and architectural integration Integration of an archaeological site within a town needs to reconcile the traces of a distant past with a modern, constantly evolving environment at the same time as providing adequate conditions for the sites conservation. This means some sort of intervention on the area surrounding the site. This key action consists in looking beyond the visual and sensory impressions gained previously to read and understand the site and its context together with their relationship at different levels. All the factors likely to impact on this intervention are analysed to assess the short, medium

38

and long-term consequences. The following elements need to be considered: historic and geographic, technical and environmental, architectural and urban landscape use, as relevant to the way the town functions and the uses to which it is put. The results of this analysis are then compared with the working assumptions to determine the feasibility of the project and to set its conditions. Particular attention should be given to the architectural envelope in which the site will be protected, preserved and displayed. Its design will greatly influence the way in which the site is integrated into, and accepted by the town; the physical and intellectual access for the public; and the creation of controlled environmental conditions. The aim is to define a set of criteria which will be used to guide the choices made during the projects later stages to ensure an architectural development which will respect the values given to the site and contribute to its harmonious integration.

A
ph2 - st2}

Key action - Identify the potential user

Field of expertise: cultural management Local inhabitants, tourists of all nationalities, amateurs and professionals, children and adults, of all nationalities, alone, in groups or with family, able-bodied or handicapped... Each and every one of these needs to be convinced and brought on board to ensure the success and durability of any cultural programme. It is necessary to identify the visitors from the categories above who are likely to be interested in the enhanced site and to understand what motivates their interest. This is based on a survey of the potential public and their general characteristics: their profile, tastes, preferences, the way they spend their leisure time etc. Identifying the non-users, in other words those who are unlikely to visit the site and for what reasons can also be informative; as can be finding out peoples preconceived ideas about archaeology in general and about this site in particular. A survey of the potential public uses the same methods as visitor surveys: questionnaires, individual and group interviews are those most often used. The difference lies in the content to be assessed and sample size. At this stage the aim is to gather information about the individual and collective expectations of the potential public so as to be able to concentrate on them and meet them. Particular attention should be given to the needs of the community, especially those people who show a particular interest in the site. This approach is closely linked with that for assessing the heritage significance of the site. The results should give an indication of the cultural facilities needed. They will also serve to develop a user policy to allow the site to play a real role in generating the anticipated social and economic effects. The relevance of this policy will largely depend on the aptitude of the players responsible for the feasibility studies to foresee clearly the opportunities based on the expectations of the identified or targeted users, the potential for enhancement of the site and the collections, the capacity of the architectural envelope and the proposed method of operating.

39

Thinking about a public policy in advance gives time to think about the activities likely to attract different types of visitor and to explore possible partnerships for their development early in the enhancement process.

A
ph2 - st2}

Key action - Assess the potential for partnership

Field of expertise: organisation and management The success of an enhancement project largely depends on its being well integrated within the local or regional heritage, cultural and tourist framework. Except for exceptional sites, ensuring satisfactory levels of visitor numbers can be difficult to guarantee without integrating the project into a network of neighbouring heritage and cultural attractions. A network offers choice and encourages discovery of all the sites. As long as the infrastructures for welcoming the public and a variety of activities in the neighbouring area are available, it encourages longer stays and contributes to the development of a sustainable cultural tourism. A reduction in the costs possibly even in investment because of reduced need for space and facilities requires rationalisation. A system of shared management and centralised co-ordination of financial, technical and human resources essential for the daily running of heritage and cultural sites can be of great help. A centralised structure responsible for administration, conservation, restoration, scientific research, promotion and activities for all these places allows the mobilisation of skills and means which would otherwise be impossible. The aim of this key action is to ascertain the elements likely to influence the type of facility envisaged and to align it with the existing cultural offer with a view to potential partnership. This means carrying out a comprehensive survey of heritage, cultural and tourist sites, including type of attraction, what they offer the public and how they operate. This should lay out the constraints and opportunities to be taken into account when considering partnership. It will help answer the following questions: - Can a complementary relationship be established between the site and existing heritage, cultural and tourist attractions? - Is the projected facility likely to fill a gap in what is currently on offer, or will it create competition? - Is there an existing policy for signing, information, promotion and activities? If so, how could the site be incorporated into this structure? - Is the existing scientific and administrative management run as a centralised system? Examining the possibility of partnership points the way to certain choices crucial for the sites intrinsic attractiveness and which will have an impact on the cost of implementation of the anticipated facility.

40

ph2 - st2}

Key action - Identify the variables of the sociopolitical, economic and institutional context
Field of expertise: organisation and management Whatever the theme, it is clear that each of the key actions described above requires a systematic study of a wide range of internal and external factors likely to influence the subject matter. This systematic study is based on the initial observations made by the advocate during the Assessment Phase in the key action Understand the social, cultural, economic and political context. It is recommended that an exhaustive analysis of certain factors be undertaken during the feasibility studies, to feed into the investigations and to inform the different disciplines involved. This demonstrates again the need for strategic management which is alone capable of understanding the facts and their context in an evolving process. The feasibility and viability of the project depend largely on the ability of the players to analyse and integrate changes which will affect the projects development within its setting. These changes reveal the positive and negative tensions between the forces interacting throughout the town and giving it its identity. They mainly relate to three areas: 1. The socio-political context - The distribution of power: what is the degree of autonomy enjoyed by the local authorities? Does it encourage heritage management compatible with the local socioeconomic characteristics? Or does it pose problems with consistency? - The schedule of priorities: are the priorities based on qualitative keys mainly developed by supranational bodies (Council of Europe and/or European Commission) for preventive, even proactive protection? - The legal framework: does the legal framework allow integration of heritage into the larger whole of all the collective goods to be protected, and into the urban fabric, by exchanging the culture of prohibition for that of negotiation? Is there a community development plan or other urban planning system? If not, is the evolution of the context predictable? - The functioning of networks: how are the relevant political networks organised? Are they fixed at the political, geographic, social, cultural or professional level? What are the links between politicians and administrators? - The public/private relationship: how do private players and public authorities collaborate on the protection and enhancement of the archaeological heritage? Is the action undertaken primarily private or public? 2. The institutional context What formal or informal institutions and organisations are involved with the project? What resources do they have within each field of expertise, taking into account the opportunities, requirements and constraints with regard to the project? This analysis must also look at the future. Examining only the current relationship between project and resources without allowing the possibility of adjustment or extension must be avoided. A dynamic and proactive vision constitutes the main ingredient of a robust project resistant to the hazards of the setting and the institutions which belong to it.

41

3. The economic context What are the short, medium and long-term predicted budgets? Is there a risk of creating an urban blight if insufficient funds are made available to finish the project and ensure management of the site once opened to the public? All these issues mobilise a multidisciplinary group legal, political scientist, economist - who will work together. They can resort to numerous tools such as the Delphi method, or Future Search Conference (planning and conflict resolution method). At the end of this transversal action, the steering group will have a list of key factors and variables for the subject area, and an assessment of the complexity and dynamics of the system in which the project is run.

A
ph2 - st3}

STAGE 3 - EVALUATION
The objective of the feasibility studies is to define the limits and requirements of the project and to give an idea of the various options for the next phase to build on. The results are summarised, highlighting the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the enhancement project (SWOT analysis). This summary provides an outline of the guiding principles and the conditions of the projects execution and should enable every person involved to take up their role and responsibilities as set out in the project specification. This summary is vital for the decision-maker to make an informed decision about the future of the remains. He/she will need to demonstrate the decision respects the following condition: - It has taken into account the consequences of each option and as many points of view as possible, - Likely outcomes of each option have been estimated on the basis of worst case, and best case scenarios. In the absence of convergence between the best option technically and that which is the most socially desirable, the decision-maker will look at all the arguments to make a choice which may be technically less than perfect but that is still socially acceptable. The project owner who has invested heavily in this second phase will find it difficult to abandon the project on the basis of complaints about the feasibility studies. The project will be taken up except in exceptional circumstances. That is why it is important to suggest solutions to potential problems, and to anticipate questions about the feasibility and reliability of the project. - The feasibility of the project will be submitted to a standard financial and technical evaluation. This is not unusual but essential. - The viability of an enhancement project, however, raises specific and often complex questions. It relies on the project meeting in a sustainable way the requirements and

42

constraints imposed by the site, and adapting to a changeable context. The capacity for adaptability means that certain decisions may have to be revisited if they no longer provide satisfactory solutions to new situations. It is the project owners responsibility to inform those involved of the decision. Note that the expectations of the stakeholders are probably greater now than at the end of the Assessment Phase because the project steering system has come into full effect. To consult the stakeholders and then ignore their opinions will surely lead to destructive conflict. The project owner must, therefore, explain the decision together with all the elements necessary to establish its relevance and validity.

43

PART 2
THREE CASE STUDIES

INTRODUCTION
USING EXPERIENCE IN THE FIELD AS A TOOL FOR REFLECTION
For about fifty years towns which have undergone multiple changes, have experienced significant modifications in terms of their underground infrastructures. On the occasion of these interventions numerous archaeological sites have been brought to light. At the same time our relationship towards archaeology and the environment has evolved. All these changes have led more and more stakeholders involved in the management of urban archaeological sites to highlight some problems. The APPEAR project, dedicated to the enhancement of urban archaeological sites, aims to give orientations for this complex and multidisciplinary matter by providing a guide of good practices for the various stakeholders concerned. As the project was designed to be dynamic and interactive, it is anchored in reality through case studies carried out on the field. Different urban archaeological sites were selected throughout Europe so that each partner could conduct studies in their own field of expertise. All these experiences and existing practices produce a considerable quantity of information that can be used for other cases as the themes addressed are relevant to other situations. The nature of the remains, the analysis of the decision-making processes, the urban integration, the conservation of the remains and the display of sites to the public are addressed and make it possible to create a framework for reflection. Of course, within this framework, there is some overlap and links between the different issues dealt with. Each case addresses the whole phenomenon in a particular way and tends to favour one theme or another. The city of Saragossa above all dedicated itself to set up a network of sites, the Vesunna Museum in Prigueux focused on architecture while at the Rose Theatre in London conservation is the most important concern.

47

TRANSFORMING SITES INTO MUSEUMS AND SETTING UP NETWORKS

THE FORUM,THE FLUVIAL PORT,THE BATHS AND CAESARAUGUSTAS THEATRE MUSEUMS, SARAGOSSA (SPAIN)
The city of Saragossa has a great cultural and archaeological heritage from different periods including Roman remains, Islamic remains, the work of Goya and sculptures of Gargallo. The Roman period of Saragossa started in 15 BC under the reign of Augustus. The Roman city expanded between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. This is the period when the Harbour along the river Ebro and the forum were built. Nowadays, the authorities of the City of Saragossa have built a Roman Walk that represents a link between five roman archaeological remains: the Forum, the Roman Harbour, the Roman Wall (*), the Roman Baths, and the Theatre. This is the result of a very active cultural policy supported by the EU URBAN programme and focused on cultural heritage as a development tool. The enhancement of the Roman remains started in 1991 with the Forum. It took three years before the place became a site museum. In 1999 the enhancement of the Roman Baths was achieved and the place opened to the public. In 2000 it was the turn of the Roman Harbour. Finally, in 2003, the Theatre Museum opened its doors to visitors. In order to avoid a lack of communication between architects, archaeologists and the people in charge of the display and preservation issues, the authorities set up a multidisciplinary team. Efforts were made to create a homogeneous display mainly relying on audio-video devices in order to pass on scientific information in an attractive and comprehensible way to the visitors who are not necessarily aware of Roman culture. The historical centre of the city is the second largest in Spain after Seville. Remains are adequately integrated within the urban setting through a well-adapted signalling system that materialises the network of Roman sites. This network also relies on a common entrance ticket as well as on common leaflets. All these elements help visitors to imagine the former Roman city as a whole. It is also interesting to notice that the Roman Walk comes within a wider offer made of other thematic walks about other cultural sites. This enhancement policy has a great and positive impact on the image of the city. (*) The Roman Wall as a remain that is not situated underground is not directly taken into consideration under the APPEAR project.

48

ARCHITECTURE AS A DRIVING FORCE

VESUNNA, A GALLO-ROMAN MUSEUM, PRIGUEUX, FRANCE
Prigueux, a city of 35,000 inhabitants in the south-east of France, has some archaeological remains dating from the Roman Period. The most famous of them is the Vesunna Tower and the domus, i.e. a richly decorated Roman villa. The domus was first discovered in 1959 and the site was periodically excavated for about forty years. During this long period of time this part of the city was like a no mans land squatted by homeless people. In the 1980s the city authorities became aware of the problem and started to think about the enhancement of these Roman remains. In 1989 the deputy mayor for Culture decided to enhance the Gallo-Roman heritage of the city. In 1991 a study was launched in order to examine if it was worth developing the site and consider the different possibilities of enhancement. At first it was to become an annex of the Muse du Prigord. In 1993 an international architectural contest was organised. The choice was based upon a sketch project. The Atelier Jean Nouvel won first prize and became responsible for the architecture as well as for the display of the site. The project relied on the concept of a giant umbrella covering and protecting the remains, i.e. a sort of archaeological greenhouse. The project was mainly funded by the French State (40%). Then the relevant Region, Dpartement and City each contributed 20%. In 1996 the project was stopped for two years because an inspector from the Monuments et Sites was opposed to Nouvels project. In 1998 the Commission suprieure des Monuments et Sites allowed the continuation of the project. In 2000 the glass and concrete building was started. In 2003 the display which is based on rough, natural and simple materials like wood and metal, was completed. The ceiling reproduces the plan of the Roman villa. Visitors are allowed to walk on wooden walkways through the remains. The objects found during the excavations are shown in glass and wooden vitrines. The enhancement of archaeological remains in Prigueux has put the focus on a magnificent architecture. But to a certain extent it does not always meet all the requirements in terms of preservation. For instance, there are vibrations in the vitrines when visitors walk on the walkways. In terms of management the site is run by Semitour, a mixed (public/private) company. The opening of the museum in 2003 was a great media event.

49

DECISION-MAKING AND CONSERVATION

ROSE THEATRE, LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM
The Rose Theatre represents a unique survival of the remains of an Elizabethan theatre, a type of wooden building that was very successful for a short period of time during the 16th century. William Shakespeare probably performed here as a young actor before he became a universally renowned playwright. In 1605 the Rose Theatre was dismantled and only the foundations were left. They were preserved until recent times in waterlogged deposits on the south bank of the Thames. This part of London has seen many changes throughout the centuries including the erection of many later buildings, especially warehouses and offices. During the late 1980s and the early 1990s the sudden rise in the real estate market brought a new wave of development. In 1989 an old office building was demolished to be replaced by a new office block. The remains of the Rose Theatre were discovered by archaeologists towards the end of 90 days of excavation granted by the developer prior to building work. The unexpected discovery raised much public interest including the involvement of the acting fraternity. Significant media coverage was given and preservation and display of such significant remains were demanded by many. While discussions about its future were underway site preservation became a matter of grave concern with the gradual decay of the waterlogged remains exposed to the air. After a succession of emergency decisions it was decided to rebury the remains under protective layers of sand, cement and water integrating a monitoring and hydrating system. The developer agreed to modify the design for the office block to avoid further damage to the remains which now lie in its basement. Many public and private players have been involved in this complicated issue that is likely to last for years. At the end of the 1990s it was decided to create a display for the site in order to raise money for further excavation and permanent display. In 1999 the Rose Theatre was opened to the public with a temporary exhibition. In 2001 it was shut for budget reasons and a search for new long-term solutions was launched. The main problems are the preservation of the site, the extent of the excavations, the solution for enhancement, and above all how to finance all these.

50

PART 3
MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT AND ITS PARTNERS

51

THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT

As soon as the validity of research on the enhancement of urban archaeological sites was accepted, pooling the knowledge and experiences gained on different European sites was essential. The APPEAR Project was thus the brainchild of In Situ Centre for archaeological research. The project was presented to the European Commission on the 15th October 2001, in response to the call for tenders by the Research Directorate General. It started on 1st January 2003, its duration is three years and its budget 1,725,120 EUR. Developing a meaningful dialogue between archaeologist and citizen is the central theme of the APPEAR project as seen through the issue of accessibility projects. This expression refers to all the actions which, together with the research progress, aim to conserve, integrate, enhance and exploit urban subsoil archaeological remains so as to make them available to the largest number of people in the context of the towns sustainable development. Display of the remains includes making them visible, attractive and understandable in a way that is compatible with their conservation and their scientific use.

THE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM

The project research consortium consists of nine partners from six European countries Belgium, France, Hungary, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. The consortium is multidisciplinary. It brings together researchers belonging to the six main fields of expertise involved in enhancement projects: organisational management, conservation, archaeology, architectural and urban integration, display of the site to the public and heritage management. In Situ - Centre de recherche archologique, Belgium Scientific Coordinator Anne WARNOTTE, Mireille FOHN (), Marianne TINANT, Pierre HUPET In Situ is a non-profit association under Belgian law and was set up in November 2001 by the Archaeological Institute of Liege, well-known for its significant role in developing archaeology in Wallonia. For several years the working group connected with this association has been developing research activities concerning the study, conservation and enhancement of the urban archaeological heritage within the framework of a programme funded by the Heritage Division of the Ministry of the Walloon Region. By promoting the exchange of knowledge and experiences acquired in these fields, In Situ intends to promote the research for, development and implementation of efficient and innovative resources to improve practices in this regard. c/o Service de lArchologie du Ministre de la Rgion wallonne Avenue des Tilleuls, 62 B-4000 Liege Belgium Tel.: +32 (0)4 229 97 45/46 insitu@win.be http://www.in-situ.be
53

In collaboration with the Ministre de la Rgion wallonne - Direction gnrale de lAmnagement du Territoire, du Logement et du Patrimoine Danielle SARLET, Jean-Marc LOTARD Service de lArchologie du Ministre de la Rgion wallonne Avenue des Tilleuls, 62 B-4000 Liege Belgium Tel.: +32 (0)4 229 97 20 jm.leotard@mrw.wallonie.be http://mrw.wallonie.be/mrw/ Universit de Liege - Centre for Urban Governance Studies (CUGS), Belgium Financial and Administrative Coordinator Catherine ZWETKOFF, Jacques TELLER, Sophie LEFERT, Tatiana HACHIMI The Centre for Urban Governance Studies was created as an association of two research laboratories of the University of Liege, namely LEMA and SPIRAL. LEMA is a research centre from the Department of Architecture and Urban Design specialised in the development of decision-making tools for the management of sustainable urban projects. SPIRAL is conducting research on how to set up tools to facilitate knowledge transfers within the scientific community and to final users (administrations and citizens) in the field of risk management. The association of these two centres within CUGS provides the required interdisciplinary basis for the development of research work concerning urban governance with a view to helping municipalities and local authorities to assess the suitability of new urban developments promoting the sustainable exploitation of urban and architectural cultural heritage. Chemin des Chevreuils, 1 - B52/3 B-4000 Liege Belgium Tel.:+32 (0)4 366 94 99 cugs@lema.ulg.ac.be http://www.lema.ulg.ac.be/cugs Institut de Cultura de Barcelona - Museu dHistria de la Ciutat de Barcelona (ICUB-MHCB), Spain Antoni NICOLAU I MART, Nolia SANZ, Laia COLOMER The City History Museum of Barcelona was opened in 1943 and its objectives are the conservation, integration, documentation, enhancement and diffusion of the urban heritage of Barcelona. We define ourselves as a Museum of museums, as we have a network of museums, interpretation centres and archaeological sites that show a range of periods of the city: from Roman to Modern Times.
54

Plaa del Rei s/n E-08002 Barcelona Spain Tel.: +34 93 315 11 11 museuhistoria@mail.bcn.es http://www.museuhistoria.bcn.es Rseau Alliance de Villes Europennes de Culture (AVEC), Hungary Eszter SARKADI, Leona PLL The AVEC network was created in 1997 following the initiative of five European cities and is now made up of 25 members (cities, countries, provinces/dpartements, regions) in 9 different countries (Spain, France, Italy, Portugal, Croatia, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Romania, Russia). It aims to gradually cover the whole European territory (+/30 countries), with the partners (1 to 5 per country) highly motivated by the cultural, social and economic enhancement of their heritage within the framework of sustainable development. The AVEC status is called French Association (1901 association law). Its members are territorial communities. Its head office is located in the Tours City Hall (France) and the general coordination is carried out in Pcs (Hungary), where the Presidency is also held. AVEC works in partnership with international organizations (Council of Europe, UNESCO, ICOMOS, etc.), governments and specialized private and public bodies. Esze Tams u. 5. H-7624 Pcs Hungary Tel.: +36 72 511 485 sarkadie@mail.datanet.hu http://www.avecnet.net International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Jean-Louis LUXEN, Consuelo LON LOZANO The International Council of Monuments and Sites was founded in 1964 as a NGO as a result of the adoption of the Venice Charter. This international forum brings together people working in the field of cultural heritage conservation and is active through 120 National Committees and 22 International Scientific Committees. The World Heritage Convention has nominated ICOMOS as the advisory body for the UNESCO World Heritage Committee. Rue de la Fdration, 49/51 F-75015 Paris France

55

Tel.: +32 (0)2 413 29 69 bgp@cfwb.be http://www.international.icomos.org Regione Autonoma Valle dAosta - Dipartimento Soprintendenza per I Beni e le Attivit Culturali (RAVA), Italy Gianfranco ZIDDA, Francesca MARTINET The Surintendence of the Cultural Goods and Activities Department in the Autonomous Region of Aosta Valley is responsible for managing cultural heritage. The work group connected to this Institution, along with its public and private partners, carries out interdisciplinary operations on national and international level relevant to preserving and enhancing archaeological sites in the urban setting. Besides strictly archaeological operations, it has acquired significant experience in areas regarding the active management of archaeological heritage for public transmission. Place Deffeyes, 1 I-11100 Aosta Italy Tel.: +39 (0)1 65 272 292 g.zidda@regione.vda.it http://www.regione.vda.it/amministrazione/struttura/12_i.asp English Heritage (Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England), United Kingdom David MILES, Valerie WILSON English Heritage is the Government's statutory adviser on the historic environment. Working in partnership with the central government departments, local authorities, voluntary bodies and the private sector it aims to conserve and enhance the historic environment, broaden public access to the heritage and increase people's understanding of the past. It does this through such initiatives as giving conservation grants and providing advisory and education services; identifying buildings, monuments and landscapes for protection; and caring for over 400 historic properties. 23 Savile Row W1S 2ET London United Kingdom Tel.: +44 (0)2 392 856 759 valerie.wilson@english-heritage.org.uk http://www.english-heritage.org.uk

56

In Extenso, Prservation des Biens culturels, France Pierre DIAZ PEDREGAL, Sandrine LE BOUTT In Extenso is a Paris-based agency specialised in the preservation of cultural heritage. It uses the expertise of people working in the field of preventive conservation (an architect and a restorer) and scientists (a physician and a microbiologist). Rue du Rhin, 9 F-75019 Paris France Tel.: +33 (0)1 53 198 181 pierre.pedregal@conservationpreventive.com Universidad Autnoma de Madrid - Psicologa Bsica, Facultad de Psicologa (UAM), Spain Mikel ASENSIO, Jorge RUIZ-JIMENEZ The UAM research team works in the visitor studies field. It develops several projects on procedural, conceptual and attitudinal contents about different kinds of exhibit subjects and carries out exhibit evaluations. Visitor studies and exhibit evaluations are two complementary fields with a wide set of techniques and methodologies. Visitor studies provide a sociological approach to visitor characteristics and study the problems of understanding, misconception, conceptual change and theory redevelopment of the exhibit message providing solutions for the detected problems. Cantoblanco E-28049 Madrid Spain Tel.: +34 914 974 096 mikel.asensio@uam.es http://www.uam.es/centros/psicologia/paginas/index3.html

57