Neville Agnew 2001

“Methodology, Conservation Criteria and Performance Evaluation for Archaeological Site Shelters,”
Conservation Management of Archaeological Sites 5, 7-18.
See full text

A classic and fundamental formulation of principles to be followed in the use of shelters to protect archaeological sites. Dealing exclusively with broad base shelters, it assumes that implementation takes place only after excavations have been completed, rather than concurrently, in which case it is important to articulate the conservation needs for an architect who come in, extrinsically, from the outside (p. 7f.).

Five criteria are spelled out (p. 8), which are prioritized in order of importance (see also p. 9):

1. effective protection;
2. “in harmony with the context of the site and the landscape”;;
3. serve well the “interpretive/display function”;;
4. provisions for adequate maintenance;
5. monitoring based on clear “qualitative and quantitative indicators”.

The author then provides examples where the decision to use shelters proved to be the wrong one, showing how wrong initial decisions may develop a negative multiplier effect (p. 13). In the process, other criteria emerge, such as the need to involve all the stakeholders from the beginning (p. 13) and the need for adequate security (p. 14).

It is a singular fact that shelters have escaped the normal validation routine of planning, testing and monitoring, for a variety of reasons: “Often there is a naïveté when it comes to designing and constructing shelters which translates into a self-deception that the shelter will function well. Perhaps this arises from a natural enthusiasm for the project, the opportunity to create the shelter, and the lack of perceived need for review and critique” (p. 14). The almost total lack of research on shelters, in contrast with other types of conservation, is probably “due to the fact that shelters are invariably constructed in response to an immediate need as a once-only enterprise” (p. 15).

While sophisticated monitoring is desirable, one should not discount simpler evaluation approaches: a “‘hard’ assessment is clearly the most important, and convincing, but ‘soft’ assessment, based on subjective judgments, are also valuable and should not be overlooked” (p. 18).