In most cases, the decision is to go ahead with the project in some form. Typically, then, measures are adopted to mitigate (i. e., reduce or compensate for) the project’s environmental impacts, including its impacts on archaeological sites. Sometimes archaeological sites can be buried and left for future study, or incorporated into planned parks or other kinds of open space. However, excavations or other studies to rescue archaeological data that would otherwise be lost are commonly included among impact mitigation measures. Sometimes these studies are hurried affairs that produce rather marginal data, but in countries with strong EIA systems that create orderly planning processes, there is usually enough time and money to conduct good archaeological research, carried through to include analysis and publication of results and the permanent care of recovered materials. As in the case of the studies done during EIA preparation, the funding for mitigation usually comes from the project proponent or the project’s financial backers, based on the principle that those who benefit from a project should pay to mitigate its impacts. In some countries, however, cultural ministries and other archaeological bodies are themselves expected to fund the work, which can create serious disconnects between the magnitude of a project’s impacts and the level of effort devoted to their mitigation.
Excavations conducted to recover archaeological data as impact mitigation are similar to excavations done for research purposes, with some important exceptions. In most cases the sites one is excavating will be destroyed when one is finished with them (or sometimes earlier), so there is pressure to be as complete as possible in the recovery of important information. Information may not be the only important thing to recover; it may be, for instance, that the site contains graves, and it is important to recover and relocate the bodies regardless of their archaeological research significance. Time may be of the essence, so expedited means of excavation may be employed - very large excavation teams, bulldozers and back-hoes, other heavy equipment. Sometimes, though it is not desirable, archaeologists find themselves literally working around the construction equipment as a site is destroyed.
Although archaeologists usually formulate research designs to guide their data recovery excavations, the fact that the sites are going to be destroyed creates an obligation to be attentive to other research interests as well. The archaeologist in charge may be especially interested in, say, the archaeology of the period 3000-2000 BCE, but if the site to be destroyed contains deposits from 1000 to 0BCE, these deposits cannot be ignored; they must be responsibly investigated. This argues for a team approach in which different specialists focus on different areas of interest, and some data recovery projects are organized in this manner. In other cases, the archaeologist in charge must try to do justice to whatever research interests are relevant to a site.
Sometimes excavations must be carried out under hazardous circumstances that a wise archaeologist would otherwise avoid - in areas polluted by toxic wastes, amid unexploded ordnance, even in the path of lava flows from an erupting volcano. On the other hand, excavations are often carried out in very public settings - at construction sites in the middle of a city, or along a busy highway, so archaeologists have to learn to relate positively to the public. Many archaeological data recovery projects include public involvement elements, featuring site tours, publication of nontechnical reports of results, and programs for volunteers.
World History
