The Potential of Integrated Urban Deposit Modelling as a Cultural Heritage Planning Tool

Abstract

Researchers investigating human settlements from an archaeological perspective have long recognized that the urban landscape provides a particular set of challenges and demands. Building on the formative Arup study [Ove Arup and Partners (1991) York Development and Archaeology Study (London: English Heritage)], urban deposit modelling as a heritage planning tool has been developed for some time; however, its use has not become widespread. There are however recent intellectual and technical developments that enhance integrated deposit modelling and reveal potential as a curatorial tool for the management of the historic environment. These relate to three key developments: the improvement and enhancement of 3D modelling and visualization techniques, conceptual changes around categories such as 'made ground' and the formation of research agendas for the urban historic environment. This paper will explore an example of the difficulties inherent in combining differently scaled datasets whilst also outlining the potential and the significance of urban deposit modelling in, often deeply stratified, historic northern European cities.

Deposit modeling for archaeological projects: Methods, practice, and future developments

“…Deposit modeling is not a new technique and builds upon well‐established techniques used by the wider geological science community. Within the Historic Environment sector, it has been applied to further understand archaeological records within a variety of terrestrial environments including peatlands (Chapman & Gearey, ), river valleys (M. R. Bates & Bates, ; M. Bates & Stafford, ; Brown et al, ), and urban settings (Amato et al, ; Mozzi et al, ; Neal, ), although in some investigations the analysis and visualization of sedimentary sequences is not directly referred to as an archaeological deposit model. They also form a staple part of the corpus of data produced by marine archeologists during the investigations of now‐submerged landscapes both in northern Europe (e.g., Bicket & Tizzard, ) and more globally (Bailey et al, ).…”

Using geoarchaeological deposit modelling as a framework for archaeological evaluation and mitigation in alluvial environments

“…Within geoarchaeological deposit models the dynamic nature of sediment deposition/erosion is considered the fundamental issue for both urban (Neal 2014) and non-urban environments (Hijma et al 2009). In this sense the current landscape cannot be used as an analogue for the past, as the landscapes from previous periods are buried under the modern topography and hidden from view: they cannot only be recorded from the surface and require a mixture of surface survey combined with intrusive data collection.…”

Geoarchaeological Core Prospection as a Tool to Validate Archaeological Interpretation Based on Geophysical Data at the Roman Settlement of Auritz/Burguete and Aurizberri/Espinal (Navarre)

“…A typical application is related to the reconstruction of the past landscape and its relationship to archaeological record (e.g., [13,14]). In some projects, sediment coring is used as a cost-effective archaeological evaluation tool to delineate archaeological sites, analyse sediment or soil sequences and built geoarchaeological site formation models, which can be used to support subsequent excavation work or further research (e.g., [11,15,16]). …”