 Welcome back. We're now going to have a couple of papers on the theme of development archaeology within the planning framework. Starting off with Francis, who's known to many of you, I'm sure. Francis works extensively in the commercial sector doing polylithic archaeology primarily in Kent, but with Foray's arm elsewhere. He was a graduate at the Institute back in my day, and we worked together on many projects. So I'm sure what Francis has to say will be stimulating and hopefully controversial. So I'll pass on to Francis. Just to remind you, you've got 15 minutes maximum both yourself and David before we open up the floor to questions. Noting the clock currently says 12 minutes past 12. I'll bear that in mind. Thank you. The eagle-eyed pedants among you, which probably most of you are considering are academics, will notice that the title is not as-built. It is now Polylithic Archaeology and the Planning Framework, and that's a bit more slightly bigger than the Polylithic Archaeology and the British Planning Framework, which I was firmly told wasn't allowed because England and Scotland and Wales have got different frameworks. So I did change it to English, but then that didn't filter through, so we've just got now the General Planning Framework. None of those titles are what I was initially told to talk about, which I think was the wish there just to be a bit of light relief to go through a couple of nice commercial projects and admire them, but I'm afraid I wanted to look a bit more under the hood at the curatorial framework under which Polylithic Archaeology is done in a development-led context. And I think that will be productive in the context of today's aims and hopefully there will be elements of controversy, which some of which at least Martin might take a particular interest in in due course. I find this very helpful. Many people will think it's bleeding obvious or already know it, but I'd worked in the business for 12 years before Andrew Lawson actually spelt this out. And it was very helpful to me that these are the glossary and cast lists of the people who make the smooth running of the curatorial process work. And these terms have specific roles attached, OK? The curators are the people in unixial authorities who fundamentally police the system. It's they decide whether a developer is asked to dig a hole in advance of a development or not. And they decide whether further work is required and its scope. So curators are mostly in unixial authorities who impose architectural conditions are absolutely fundamental to what is or isn't done. So that's the curatorial role. And of course, the story of England also has a curatorial role in setting research frameworks and guidelines. Consultants sometimes could be confused with specialists. Their specific role is generally a go between between developers and curators. In terms of, you know, when you're building a supermarket, Sainsbury's don't retain an archaeologist. So they hire an archaeological consultant to negotiate with the curators about the scope and scale of work to do. So that's the specific role of a consultant. And then the contractors are generally the people who do the work, the commercial units. And they're generally hired by consultants on behalf of their clients, the developers. And then specialists are lonely people at the very end of the chain who sometimes get involved by the contracting organisations when they feel there's a specialist need that they recognize they don't cover. Or it may be that the curatorial authority will recognize there's a need for a particular specialist and dictate that that should happen. Or it may even be the consultant themselves who recognize there's a paiglythic, for instance, in this context need, although of course other specialists are right there, and request involvement of a specialist as at some stage in the process. So creating the historic environment, it's not a new problem. And it was first recognized in the later Victorian era and the first Shedger of Monuments Act that there was this conflict between development and heritage which needed some addressing. And as it's well known, Pitt Rivers was the first inspector of ancient monuments and there was a list of 80 castles which should not be built over or through by roads. This picture is one of my favorite. This is the A2 being cut in the Swansea area in 1906. And if you read the local papers, there's quite a lot of conflict between people being slightly upset about the demolition of ancient woodland and also the remains of, say, Watling Street, which is that road in Kent, which goes through it. So it was on the radar then. And then if you rapidly fast forward about 60 or 70 years, we have the rescue era of the 1970s where you had basically quite an unstructured framework of lots of local groups doing voluntary work, scrabbling around in front of bulldozers, saving quernstones and what have you. And out of that chaotic mess evolved the 1990s, which is an absolutely seminal watershed moment curatorially where archaeology in general became more integrated into the planning process. And quite surprisingly, this is the lady whose authority this happened under. You might think that the last thing that administration might have wanted was more red tape in terms of archaeology and archaeologists. It's actually PBG 16 of 1990, which dictated that archaeology would be a major condition as part of the planning process was on her watch. And following that, we had a whole series of strategic documents and guidelines, which dictated the framework under which archaeological conditions are imposed upon development of archaeology. And then most recently, we have this tone here, which is the current iteration of this framework, which dictates various principles which guide curatorial thinking in terms of planning applications. The key point here, this is all general principles. And as you'll see at the bottom, I think one of my take home messages is that the polythic is the same but different. It is guided under the same archaeology. Polythic work is carried out under the same principles that guide your earthworks and your mosaics. It's all historic environment. There are some differences of detail, but the same principles apply. And they can just see a general list of the principles. The concept of importance is very important in determining what happens. And there is this presumption of preservation for very important remains. And there's a decision to be made for less important remains, et cetera. We've been instructed we mustn't read out lists of bullet points. So you can whip out your mobiles and take a quick snapshot or we can return to that later. But the last point that's important is research frameworks, which are negotiated in situations like this about help decide what is important and what our research priorities are as a subject. And then that guides into curatorial thinking about the impact of the development on a part of the landscape and what might need to be done to mitigate it in terms of addressing important priorities. So, and just back to the paganithic in general, contrary to the earthworks and mosaics, there is a fundamental difference in the paganithic is that there aren't earthworks and built things and monuments in that sense. It consists fundamentally of objects found in natural sediments and that is an important difference which has methodological implications for how we deal with it. So you have flint tools and fawn remains found in these deposits and interpreting them is the game we play as palithic archaeologists. There's a wide array of supporting evidence, pagan around evidence which will waft across us, bulls, teeth, ostracods, insects, that horrible thing, and codon and as is well rehearsed and totally correct, it's a very important aspect of paganithic archaeology using this evidence for dating and for landscape and climatic reconstruction and also for understanding taffanomic processes because I think one of the differences of paganithic archaeology is you've got a wider array of taffanomic depositional processes operating in terms of site formation and you need to unravel that to interpret the human evidence. Research frameworks, as I alluded earlier to research frameworks, there's a continuing evolution of research frameworks and so there should be, else we'd still be researching the same priorities as in the 19th century and I believe days like this are an important part of evolving research frameworks but since the 1990s it has again wafting through us variety of strategic documents that have guided the practice of paganithic archaeology in a development-led context that is the most recent iteration. Right, perfect. So just some random highlights of this. In terms of nationally important remains, there's often a big dichotomy presented in terms of considering paganithic evidence of undisturbed primary context sites like Boxgrove here. Everyone agrees, very important, thorough excavation, mitigation but they're a slightly mythical beast because even Boxgrove, that landscape there, is a palim-assessed. It's not one afternoon, although there is very one rare horizon of Boxgrove. This is one afternoon in the horse poetry site but undisturbed primary context is just one of the 1998 criteria for paganithic importance so one has to think about other types of important evidence how they contribute to research agendas. Yes, and you can see in terms of research agendas in 2008 there's all of those identified themes which are recognised as priorities and every palithic site one has to consider whether the evidence addresses them. So, for instance, the paleo-environmental evidence clearly has an important contextual role in providing the stage on which palithic occupation took place even if it happens that there's no artefact at that spot. Of course, as I was discussing with David Miles at Tea Break this is the same for other periods if you've got an iron age deposit with paleo-environmental remains even if you don't have a wheel, whatever, barrier what are they called, chariots, that's it, a chariot barrier in it. Nonetheless, it's providing important evidence about the context of iron age occupation. Soon we'll get on to the more controversial bits. So, just to keep points this follows on from what other people were saying in the previous session. The points about natural you often, as an archaeologist, see natural at the bottom of the section but natural is the natural habitat of the paleolithic and we talked about the importance of lurs and the rolling heathlands, et cetera and I think this is crystallised in a curatorial research framework which I did for the southeast region in the deposit-centred approach the paleolithic occurs in Pleistocene deposits so one needs to consider the full range of these deposits and their contained evidence to do with understanding the paleolithic and considering the importance of the remains I can hear the chair getting restless so we'll push on to the more controversial bits so firstly I thought I'd just present some textbooks some examples of curatorial practice and so first we'll get a really example of some really good ones and then I'm slightly scratching my head on this one I think they're rather than showing a wholly blank screen I think almost every site you can see or experience I've been involved in you know you can say there are some things which could have been done differently or better but I think this is one of the best not in terms of the archaeology so much of course I fully defend the archaeology which I think is slightly overlooked in that this is I believe a strong case for occupation of Britain before Linford in that post-Ipsychian pre-Linford period which I think is often overlooked but curatorially I think this was good because from the very beginning of the process there was consideration of the paleolithic potential and it was built in at every stage so you know at some point I said this won't be the cheapest work you've ever done but it will be I believe the best and costane to the credit said right you do what you think is best but at every stage of the process there was consideration of the paleolithic special case or needs and Swanson School I think was another good and that was done with Liz Dyson of Kent County Council and then there's not many others now before I get on to the less exemplary examples I need to emphasise that I think very good archaeology was done in all of these but I think there's benefits to being gained from a constructive criticism in a no-blame way of some aspects that could maybe in retrospect we could learn from and I see Helen is in the audience here and I emphasise that Helen was the greatest supporter of the elephant side and I'm very grateful for all the work that was done but I still think that looking back and I think the project was exemplary I think in the wider curatorial framework going back to before Helen's involvement the elephant side we could learn from some things which could have been done differently so the absolute elephant I expect when I was asked to talk people thought I'd just ramble on about the elephant again and it's an excellent site but I myself am not blameless on this my very first bit of archaeological specialist work involved in the curatorial process was to make to consider different route options for the railing through the absolute valley and as part of that I prepared a map showing where I thought important deposits that I don't sure were and one thing I hadn't learnt at that stage was you shouldn't rely on BGS mapping so I relied on the BGS mapping of the Boynhill Terrace and the area where the elephant was found was just a big white blank of tannet sand so it was off my radar then and I think the preparation of that map took that area off the whole curatorial radar for considering archaeological impact of the railing project and then fast forward that was 1992 I did that fast forward to 2003 and you've got Wacken Grape 35 tanners hoaking out large chunks of ground in that area without any consideration that there might be something there and then there was a slight the convoluted chain of investigation that ultimately led to the site being recognised as important and then this exemplary work done there what was it that had been recognised one minute and it's not just that site many other sites there's one curatorial gap between areas red line areas of development outline and areas where development impact takes place but bullies trying to stop me talking about Harnan Harnan is another exemplary another site very exemplary work has been done sorry Charlie but it should be emphasised that this was not found by the smooth running of the curatorial process it was found because someone accidentally set up a tripod and trod on a handax and then someone said crikey I don't want to swear like some others said crikey there's a handax we need to involve some polythic specialists and then once that step had taken place we conducted an exemplary series of investigations which led to investigation and publication of this fantastic site which is a new box scope in many ways but nonetheless the curatorial process from the beginning had not run smoothly on that one I think last slide series of bullet points we can ask about research I'll just make one point in my remaining minus minute but people often talk about research they say this is research you can't do research in a development led framework I do think that's particularly pernicious misrepresentation because every time you do any investigation it's research in a sense you're learning something and I think in terms of development led work or even research work you're addressing questions and trying to find data which contributes to answering them and I think that is the business of archaeology directed within the framework of research guidelines and priorities research is not a bad thing and there are many other points there we can talk about them later in the long half hour of discussion time right, thank you Francis thank you for keeping time we're now going to move on and David from inwrap is going to give us a talk about the French experience of Paleolithic evaluation in the context of developer funded work David works at inwrap and the team covers the sort of northern France Picardier area and I think we'll see quite a contrast to some of the things that we've been talking about this morning so thank you David thank you Matthew good morning everybody thank you to Clive and Matt to invite us to show you our work in northern France I will not speak about our famous record on northern France I will not speak also about the planning the agenda in France in general because we have to speak in one week I think I will explain it but I will speak about our methodology we use to detect the politic sites in northern France and particularly in northern France so our current methodology come from a long background coming from the 19th century but also we have a long experience before the 1917 1970 I called it gathering archeology at this time period we just have gather information from archeological sites due to the the site has been destroyed by for example these examples the quarry of clay on gravel and the antiquaries of this time period on the politic specialist of this time period just by the objects coming from the workers of the quarry exploitation so after in northern France we have a period around the 70s and the 80s with a safety rescue archeology for this time period the sites has been not detected before they have been destroyed and we have a chance like for Biasch for example in the building one of the workers found many for now remains and called the original service of archeology and allows us to make a brief excavation but absolutely not a predictive excavation we just was just able to excavate a part of the site and the many parts of the site has been destroyed the first test of preventive archeology in northern France has been made during the well way TGV north on France at this time period we have just a test we have just I think 30 test pits made during this railway diagnostic with different techniques used depending on the different actors working on this project what is interesting at this time period is to show people go down in the test pits yeah that's amazing so it's 10 meters deep and they go to dig it on the background so this old school technique is not our technique now and we the archeologists for this projects has been discovered several sites but only one has been excavated because of problem of money at this time period also and they decided just to make one excavation on the large area and not a little window on many sites but it's a choice it was a choice the very beginning interesting methodology has been developed during another highway project in the Saulton pass on northern France during the A5 feed work with a particular technique we don't use now with a trench going to the to the chalk to the natural settlement in the secondary and tertiary deposits we have a good idea of the stratigraphy with this technique we also we also able to to go to dig and to test the area on the with the security safety mode on the trench but it's a long time to go and we don't make all this trench on all the on the track and on the project so it has been abandoned after this project and it costs also a lot we have a good example after in 1991-1992 for the southern part of A16 on the northern part of A16 what it's interesting they use the same absolutely the same technique it was a geologist which made the test pits with approximately the same technique deep test pits in the southern part of the highway and in the southern part he didn't fight any lithic artefact in situ and the three sites has been discovered during historic diagnostic and excavation and in the other part the northern part of the the highway 54 deep test pits has been made and he discovered two sites but only one excavation has been made it's also a problem of cost so with the same technique we have completely different results depending also with the preservation of the lithic sequence all the deposits in general and also in the human presence or absence in this territory and we made some other tests with pretty okay with tests with a different type of test pits pyramid I can say pyramid larger pyramid on the right and also we have a terrible accident in Ansocogell in the 90s with two people so he decided to try to have other solutions to gather on the test pits so he tried but it's completely abandoned this technique was completely abandoned I think the first real project with a very high level of planning for archaeology and a really preventive archaeology as we can say and imagine today it's the highway in the end of the 90s and the beginning of the new century approximately 4000 test pits has been made on this project corresponding to 78 days 15 sites have been discovered and 6 exhibitions has been made but what is interesting I want to point here is the choice which has been made there here we have in red the area which the project got down to the actual surface so the part of the place of the deposit has been destroyed here we have the potential area with geomorphological situation and potential archaeological pistos and deposits and here we have the map of the test pits which have been made on the project which it's interesting it's okay some positive test pits has been located to the geomorphological sensitive area but also we can find here and here some test pits with positive results but absolutely not detected in the pre-diagnostic approach so just a few words about our current methodology and the example of the Canalsenor Auroch project we divided our methodology in four times pre-diagnostic the excavation and the post-escavation words so for the first part we make a pre-diagnostic in each project for detecting and to make an assessment of the previous knowledge accumulated like here in Catini in the references and we have also a archaeological map in France in general and we make also pre-diagnostic prospect for some part of the landscape and we have a look also to the geological favourable areas using the geological map and the other data coming from the BRGM on the oldest excavation or test pits after when we make a diagnostic we have three types of teams first one just have a look to the historical periods using superficial linear trenches as you can see it and it corresponds to approximately 10% of opening of the area the second team to the people who are interesting in mesolithic sites and he used trenches, test pits and large windows the third team is just focused on the political occupation using deep test pits I showed you before and we have this methodology now with all becats completely for each test pits all the record on the different units has been described and this all these test pits has been created to the synthetic stratigraphic seconds of Northern France when it's possible to have a primary good idea of the potential dating of the layers present and just a few slides to finish when we have to compare the results for example with the A29 here in red and the CS and the canal senor project now the canal senor project now is not finished yet it's approximately 60% made for the diagnostic but it's approximately the same long project so it can be compared we made in the 19s less test pits and we discovered probably less sites too but we don't exactly in the same position we have different sequence on different sequence for playstation and the playstation sequence has been less preserved in this part of the record so we can compare exactly but what it's interesting here it's this number I think it's the 0.06% it's the area we opened in the diagnostic for in the canal senor project and we find approximately 15% test pits with the industry and this methodology allows us to make a big excavation in a large area for instance we digged free body excavation in this project of canal senor so in just few words to finish two provocative question is northern France not the story's word for Baltic archaeology as you dreamed our methodology is quite okay but we have also some problems as you can see here because here is the most density of test pits area we have on the canal senor project as you can see we detected here positive test pits which allows us to launch the excavation here for the middle Baltic site of Avrakur but as you can see here we have the deep test pits and just close to 50 cm we have a locus of upper politic locus absolutely not detected during the diagnostic so okay we have a good methodology but not probably for all the records and second point I want to launch too is the black hole archaeology I think it's a perspective on future direction because we have a good record as you know for the oliglacial, the interglacial 2 now of the playstone second but we have a yiatws here during the plain ilatial phase and this black hole in settlement dynamics has been to has to be test for the future have we really a yiatws of human occupation more than once during this plain ilatial phase or is it just not a fact of our methodology of our methodology and another black hole is a landscape approach here we have the example of Avrankour army on the 2 sector of Avrankour we have 400 meters between the 2 and just 2 meters between Avrankour army we have here in the valley Hermeside we have knapping activities we have Avrankour 1 with butchery activities only very short butchery activities and here we have just in Avrankour 2 butchery activities and resharpening activities but what and what were they what were Neanderthals used the area between these sites it's a good question and probably an opportunity to us to have a overall a wall landscape approach here on this project we have to dig all these parts but it has a cost so we will see thank you for your attention thank you well thank you David Francis would you like to come up here wherever you are we're going to open up the floor for questions now been asked can people identify themselves when they speak so that there's a that's in the record I've got a couple of points I just might want to throw out for people to think about one of which was something that Francis picked up on we don't critique our projects how many times have we seen the site reports and we've actually gone back and said well in print this is where it failed it's not popular obviously because somebody's paid for the work and they don't want to be told that it's not it could have been done better perhaps so that's something to think about the other thing that's coming out of a lot of the talks this morning is really what's the basic unit of analysis that we're targeting in developer funded work it's not the lithics it's the landscape we're being told the context is important now this has fundamental implications for what a development control officer would ask for but I think it's something that is coming out of all of these talks and maybe we would like to focus on that but I don't want to push you down particular avenues so I'll open up the floor now to questioning Hannah I think I think we saw with Terminal 5 a big change in the way that the commercial archaeological sector took on board a lot of academic research questions and were much better with those certainly now the other thing in the room is HS2 so given that this is a big broad coming infrastructure project given what you've learnt from the answers from your deaf aid so having been working in the local authority closing to races given what you've learnt from the big infrastructure projects and parts how many should we go about approaching the paleolithic HS2 should I go first? I don't mind who goes first I guess it's 25 years since my initial bit of work for HS1 in 1992 which I refer to nearly 25 years how would I approach HS2 My first my first thing would be to find a paleolithic specialist and pay them huge amounts of money seriously I guess it's the lines on maps paleolithic potential and character areas thing is to look at the geology overlay that with the historical environment record of paleolithic finds with all its warts and flaws which hasn't been mentioned today but which has been mentioned at similar seminars over the last two years is that the historic environment record is quite flawed from a paleolithic point of view and would benefit from a tidying process but obviously that's a big project in itself which cannot be done before HS2 and they say look at the geological mapping look at the character of the geological areas and the record of paleolithic finds and consider the types of Pleistocene deposit present where they are likely to extend beyond where they are mapped and then consider looking for paraothic sites on that basis just right off the top of my head I know that HS2 probably goes to the Chilterns which is this upland landscape where you might have occasional brick earth type patches with Worthington Smith type sites you probably goes through areas of river valleys where there might be places which are very varied Pleistocene fluid deposits are very varied character and you have different sorts of paraothic archaeology within them maybe concentrations within gravels maybe fine grained horizons where you might get less disturbed evidence within build-ups of predominantly gravel deposits and I think you've also got glacial landscapes as in the Wallstonian which I know is a whole can of worms probably called I think deposits associated with that cold episode might be impacted by HS2 roots I just don't know but then you might have glacial deposits which might be hiding paraothic archaeology underneath them in buried channels so essentially I suppose my starting point would be to take the deposit-led approach as characterised in the south-east regional research framework and apply it to the HS2 footprints is that helpful David, do you have that? I guess that's obviously just the very starting point and then you get some character areas and then you look at them most carefully I think one of the things that David, am I correct in saying that in France and your model you have a team that's dedicated to the pileolithic and they come in after the historical archaeologists sort of mesolithic archaeologists have been on so you're a dedicated team and maybe a dedicated team to HS2 and I think one of the strengths of HS1 was an overview of the whole route from a geoarchaeological perspective in an early stage that then dictated packages of work now I think maybe Crossrail didn't work in quite the same way sorry if anybody's responsible for that in the audience but you definitely need an overarching framework which is what Francis was saying for the whole thing otherwise it becomes a piecemeal subdivision of bits really and I think bits of it will be missing then in that case so that's what I would do and put a team in place to deal with that because it is so specialised Yes, what we have like experience in France in general what we have a look to is when we have a region when we have not this system of dedicated team with politic team dedicated only to a politic and to search and to detect a politic archaeology we didn't find any politic sites and just one on two in ten years so that's our problem in the other region in France in general not in south western France because we have a dedicated team but in many parts of France we don't have a dedicated politic archaeological team and we don't find any politic sites so yes I think it's one part of the solution Can I just add something to this discussion I have forgotten what it was going to be the first point is perhaps to build into the thinking about dealing with a politic archaeology on HS2 the likelihood that unexpected discoveries will be made despite your best efforts beforehand so to somehow factor into the big strategic planning dealing with and budgeting for late Peter Drewitt who was an influence of mine in the early 80s at the Institute of Archaeology he created, I thought, a brilliantly simple and short overarching research framework for HS1 which I felt that some people were quite critical of what was going on and what was going on and what was going on and what was going on I felt that some people were quite critical of that it was a very very simple and useful approach of landscape zones periods of potential and building from that different strategic approaches to investigating those periods and I thought that was a brilliantly useful piece of work underpinning it from the beginning Matt, you had a quick question team three how big is team three all those things are one of the teams how many members of staff what kind of ranges specialist do you have on call to form that team it depends also on the area but for Northern France we have two poetic archaeologists so Johnny Closhtown and me now in a wrap and we also have two geomorphologists and we are completely we change the wall between the two but in the ideal system we have one poetic specialist and one geomorphologist and one technician with us to make other test pits that's the ideal system I think depends what we have now in Northern France what it's very important to notice also the example of the A15 shows us it's to to sensibilise sensibilise also the historical specialist when they made their trenches they also detect poetic sites or sedimentary or the places and they are the first in our system people they go to the field and they can also give us many information for the after for the intervention of the third team for the poetic team so yes we have discovered many sites also thanks to the archaeologist the historical archaeologist so that's another point make it back there Nick Barton I wanted to ask you a couple of questions I'm not sure I understood exactly what you said but I know the pain system is very different in France but leading on from what Francis said is there anything to be learned from your experiences with these sites coming up so that the last minute a new site comes up that was unexpected were you allowed enough time was there enough money and resources available for that that's number one question number two question I saw you dealt some fearsome deep holes very scary but presumably those would be very well below anything necessary in advance of the road that was being put in so to what extent was this an opportunity that you had you weren't always able to excavate sites and was that purely financial that you wouldn't be able to excavate sites or was that for other reasons the first question was on the unexpected ah yes did it did you get enough time to excavate some resources you mentioned another chaotic site that came up and was not expected in an area were you able to spend enough time to develop and allow you to do this it's not just an example it's an example of many cases I think we are very good to to with these techniques of test pits or regular test pits approximately 50 to 100 meters between two test pits we are able to detect persistent place on many more middle places but what we what we have in the upper partic record it's much more very concentrated area and in a 4, 6, 10 20 meters square meters and it's very very difficult to detect it with test pits and yes it's a problem but if we make much more test pits it's pretty impossible because the cost of this technique in terms of time and money and so it's a ratio between between the time we have the money we have and the efficient to detect the sites but effectively we have some sites we are not able to detect with this technique but it's quite different with a high project like Canal Centre Europe with 100 kilometers long and a very very small project as many buildings around the site the cities or in the cities are just 1,000 meters squares so we don't have this problem for this little area we explored also in diagnostic so the problem of concentration area like upper partic site in large unusual scale we have to diagnostic yes it's a problem but I have not the solution yet for the second part of your question about unexcavated it's another problem of the system and it's completely different in France in the system because the regional service of ACOG decided if there is or not an excavation but the law actually the current law allows us just to dig a site which will be destroyed in preventive archaeology so we have detected many many many sites a long list of sites but they don't they will not be destroyed by the building so we didn't have the opportunity to dig it in the preventive archaeology framework one last question before Liz over there sorry I didn't sorry I didn't your question yes it's a good question when we have a look to the background on the historical background of our methodology when we have the A15 on the A29 and so on we they decided only to to go on the north east part north east slop deposits in the landscape and the problem with this approach of okay we have the sequence with the sequence in the north east oriented slop deposits if we just have a look to this slop deposits oriented to north east we just have early glacial vexalions occupations and if we proceed like that we just we're in for the model all the time and what it's interesting also to to talk just a few words about planning it's in Canal Centre Europe project first team of the Canal Centre Europe decided to make a map with the ideas on the theory of Pierre Antoine with the north east model of the symmetric valley with just thick sequence preserved on the north east oriented slop deposits and okay they said oh okay Arcogis will do just they test it on this part so we will have some days I don't know how many but some days to make this 10 slop deposits oriented north east on the on the project and we will have just excavation on this this part of the project but when we have a look back now with this data they proposed to the Canal Centre Europe project on the valley gap de France when we made our test pits we don't have any early glacial vexelion occupations in this in this area because it's not this symmetric valley system as in the western part of the some valley it's another system all the system with the middle play stores and deposits so now we can make a we can't make a copy and past of systems which has been made on a part of the record just a part and we have many exceptions many more exceptions that really modeled landscape in reality okay thank you and Francis better break for lunch now any questions addressed to these guys during lunch and I'd just like to thank them both for their very informative and interesting presentations thank you