archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, oslo, norway. 2005-2008 a balance...

20
Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort. Tori Falck Jostein Gundersen PIANC, 2013-11-20

Upload: cecily-gallagher

Post on 15-Jan-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the

immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway.2005-2008

A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort.

Tori FalckJostein Gundersen

PIANC, 2013-11-20

Page 2: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Constructing the immersed tunnel

Page 3: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

The immersed tunnel project 2005-2008

• Tre entrepriserHavnelageret, Sjødelen, Sørenga

Sørenga

Open water enterprise

Havnelageret

Page 4: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Planning - scoping

• Results of analyzing core samples for dinoflagellate cysts and spruce pollen.

• Indicating precence of sediments from warm period in medieval times (AD1000-1300)

Page 5: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Pockets of ballast sand and flint deep down in the clay

Page 6: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Coerced situation – from surveying to monitoringResults from mapping:1)Acoustic sub-bottom profiler fails to define the contents of the sediments.2)Core samples concludes that the sediments consists of layers from the medieval period.Conclusion: 1) There is a potential for archaeological remains in large parts of the tunnel route (shipwrecks).2) There is no secure evidence to divide between high potential and low potential.3) The archeological project is defined as monitoring: Salvage of archaeological remains emerging in the process of dredging.

Page 7: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Archaeologists monitor the work on site.

Requirements:The archaeologist require direct visual and physical access to all dredged sediments.The archeologist has the power put the work on temporary hold if there are finds or to rule out possible finds.

Basic needs and resources:Enough crew for the continuous monitoring and for readiness if there are finds.

Method and basic requirements:

Page 8: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Dredging: Different situations

Page 9: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Dredging: Different situations

Page 10: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Dredging: Different situations

Page 11: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Custom made sieve

Page 12: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Health and security: Balancing on the barges

Page 13: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Boat: ca.1620

Page 14: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Results: Mass material – harbour finds

Type NumbersCeramics 3811Glass 2072Clay pipes 743Shoes 349Other 185Totale 7160

Page 15: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Results: Boats

Page 16: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Conclusion – Lessons learned

• Best practice is to finish the archaeological work before the construction work starts

• Adequate mapping should be a piority.• Achieve a good understanding of the

stratigraphic situation.• Priority on health and security. • Good communication between participators in

all chains of the work process.

Page 17: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Boat: 1789/90

Page 18: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Boat: ca 1800

Page 19: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Boat: ca 1840

Page 20: Archaeological monitoring of the dredging for the immersed tunnel, Oslo, Norway. 2005-2008 A balance between rescuing cultural heritage, cost and effort

Boat: ca.1665