 First of yet, thanks to Jim and Nabila and Gwilym for inviting us. Its title is The Digging Towards the Future, The Changing Role of Archaeology in Urban Planning. We're looking at a way of extracting more value, more of the values we interpret from archaeological sites in the design and planning process and the interdisciplinary side of that how we can develop a corporation to support the process, essentially. My name's Tom Davies. I'm an archaeologist, but I'm at the architecture school in Oslo. Well, I'm an architectural historian, working quite a lot with built heritage, but primarily modern stuff. But I've been, for a while now, researching underground structures in architecture and planning, which is kind of the theme that coincided with Tom's professional background. So that's the platform for this collaboration. Shall we go on the basis now? I promise to have a dynamic operation going on here. You may get it off when we fall over each other. What we're trying to explore here is the case for archaeology in providing a more leading role in urban development and how this might be brought about through certain new ways of thinking. We have listed three key questions. How can the value of archaeological insights come to better use in urban design processes? What is the current state of interplay between archaeology and urban design and how might this be developed further? And thirdly, what role do multidisciplinary co-operation and community engagement play in this? And at an overall scale, this is a highly relevant problem right now in planning. It has to do with underground issues such as flooding. I'm using here the example from Houston, Texas where they have annual problems with flooding and large surfaces and systems below ground which are capable of tackling the flows of water. There's also, in many cities across the world, a problem of heavy tunnelisation, tunneling, which makes it difficult to actually build new things around the city because it's full of holes. And also a problem that came up last year in Oslo. Private holes in the ground that comes from people digging wells or other installations to utilise energy on their own properties. But there is no coherent mapping system for this. It tends to happen sector by sector. Obviously there is now need for it. Every profession working below ground should collaborate more to create systems that allows planning to act more co-ordinated and more efficiently in big schemes. Thanks to you. Moving on. We're looking, I mentioned about how we might extract more value from sites through the design process and we're looking at kind of moving from preservation in situ and preservation by record as kind of established practice to what is kind of a bit anachronistically called preservation by design, but means in terms of inputting into design process from archaeological data. I just thought it would be to go through three just to recap what we mean by preservation in situ in terms of remains of high significance that have been worthy of preservation, UNESCO sites and so on. And then the recalls of professional archaeology a lot of the time of preservation by record that we clear sites and create records of them for prosperity. And then preservation by design, so we're kind of terming it, would be looking at places a little bit on what typically happens with standing structures where they're retained in part or whole or represented through landscaping elements when buildings are removed. But this goes further into the idea that you might be able to extend interpretation of values, stories and other aspects of site into the design process. So go beyond signage and internet representation of information from sites to actually include it in the design process with architects, planners and other agents engaged in that part of the design. We've been doing a bit of a literature review on this so I haven't been talking through some of the key texts we've been looking at. Yeah, my investigation into this issue started with this particular peer of Raymond Sterling, John Comedy an American engineer and American architect who founded the American Underground Space Center in the early 1970s in Minnesota. That was an effort to gather engineers and other disciplines working below ground, such as geologists to expand knowledge on what's below ground but also to think differently about the design potential to actually build different structures below the surface of the earth. This, of course, was fuelled at the time by the Cold War the need to build bomb shelters and so on which we'll get back to. But the point is that they were making already in the 70s what was that, and that's the quote from the book. Once you open a hole in the ground it should be used for as many purposes as possible whether it's archaeology or technical stuff or whatever. So they put to that at the earliest age and they made this list of potential and dangers that you need to think about when they released kind of a summary of the work in 1993 the so-called Underground Bible Underground Space Society which came out. This eventually, here's a picture, it eventually also sprouted different practices below ground. This is an example from Norway the big Olympic map that was used during the 1994 Winter Olympics. It was built by a company called Fortification AS who founded by the military events in the 70s and 80s to devise combinations of sports walls and bomb shelters below ground. And of course this has nothing to do with archaeology in the traditional sense. It's an excavation of course. It lost its enormous volume to the mountain. So I could, in case we could call it some kind of Cold War archaeology but the point is anyway that once you start digging for any kind of purpose it should be coordinated into a much bigger process than simply catering to one specific needs. I'm just going to mention also the current strong interest in the low ground structure in architecture. This is the work of a French architect called Dominique Perrault who has a project called Ongoing of Groundscapes which is a theoretical project collected in this book called model typographies but it also comes with a practical interest in designing for structures below ground. I'll have an example here if you push the next arrow. This is a part project in Paris that he designed and as you can see it's a submerged structure in a part. They also do buildings below ground and so on. And again it's a witness to a certain interest in architecture in working with other disciplines to be able to excavate and to possibly combine architectural design with archaeology and ecology and so on. I'll back to you. Taking the literature here we've been doing very broadly categorising how we've got the situation we're in today in terms of planning and archaeology. We've taken for a kind of the advent of archaeology in the 15th century which is very meticulous and object focused moving into 18th and 19th century refocusing on sites and the developments of early legislation which is engaging things like developing national identity and telling of stories of nations as they form in the late 19th and early 20th century. The early 20th century from what we were reading can be categorised by quite a high period where lots of other disciplines are drawing inspiration from archaeology. At the same time legislation is developing as archaeology develops its mandate and is supported by the State through legislation which begins to protect and develop protection of monuments first and then as the 20th century becomes more about the historical environment coinciding with this or alongside this archaeology shares space with a lot of other disciplines in the mid 20th century that are typically housed with anthropology and social sciences in different universities and then became as it distinguished itself and other disciplines did at the same time they can separate it into their own departments so there's a kind of hypothetical operation that actually reduces in the late 20th century. There's also reduced funding and the thing that I think is most relevant to today's situation is the way that preservation by record carried out through professional archaeology is very much supported by legislation and allows us to go in and do it and that gives us our mandate. It's what we're talking about and so the broadening support gives us more community, more interdisciplinary support alongside the support we have from legislation. So this would be effectively established archaeology as a discipline. We've gone from objects and monuments to historical environments and we've moved from a material focus to a focus on communicating the values of sites and not necessarily taking the materiality forward but the values of what those sites tell us. So I'm afraid we've already summarised the bottom part of that. So we did a kind of mapping of where and how much cooperation we have with different disciplines today. Green is obviously a high cooperation and we sit very comfortably with anthropology and ecology and consultancy in other areas and we borrow frameworks and ideology from each other. Geology, we saw earlier, sits in with archaeology companies in different ways and archaeology in other areas. And the yellow areas, things that we have input with so 3D modelling and TWA in landscape in terms of built heritage is setting in historic view stuff and then at the bottom of the table are areas that are more that we have limited cooperation with today and the thing that came through a lot in the literature was this idea of recentism that these red disciplines of social sciences and economic extent tend to work solely with technical sources therefore stopping in the early 1800s and not considering the economy's from Roman civilisation or earlier when we were explaining it. But we are also looking at how parent situation in terms of what we do with mitigation strategies and in-situ preservation and how work to reduce the cost of evaluation and preservation by record how we need to consolidate broader support. We show an interesting heritage but we are more concerned a lot of the time with working with the requirements of planning, archaeology and planning mitigation that we don't necessarily have enough space to discuss things fully and then we have benefits just digital development is cutting costs on engagement and bringing community and other disciplines into things reducing publishing costs and the bottom two points refer to broading of engagement increases support and the climatic situation at the moment and sustainability issues will produce greater interaction between disciplines naturally so there is a view towards the future so the different points we are thinking of in terms of preservation by design might implement a few things for example responding to demarcations of key boundaries in sites so historic precedent on sites determination of uses of new buildings or layouts carrying roads forward as we saw in an earlier presentation today and so different aspects of that nature and then materiality and also you could potentially look at the form and mass of earlier buildings and otherwise conveying stories to go through some examples of quite diverse examples of different approaches to this today this is from Antwerp a museum of the self and archaeology proposed for the tunnel system and the Antwerp it was quite an interesting idea and then moving on Of course there are already some examples where archaeology has been very tightly intertwined with other projects you probably know this one many of you in the year 2004 Olympics yielded new macrostations in Athens and they used the opportunity of course to not only take and estimate but also to make these new exhibition spaces where you can see the actual archaeological findings integrated in the metro architecture and it's not a very revolutionary form of exhibiting architectural findings but it's nevertheless an interesting example of a process where archaeologists work really really closely with transport planners and architects in designing these socks on the metro and it works exceptionally well as a place of communicating archaeology to an audience state where you can really take school classes and so on From my field built heritage has been more and more usual to work like this with structures that are all over there probably the most iconic example is the Berlin Wall and as you visit the so-called Berlin Mall at the bankstead, the memorial you can walk and see different versions of how the wall has been reconstructed along the route, for instance on the fence more just as markings in the form of paving on ground another example the last one from Berlin is the reconstruction or the reconstruction of an old prison in Moabit, a 19th century prison that was demolished and has now re-emerged as a manscaped sign project and you can still visit the site and you can experience the exact layout of the prison but it's definitely no longer a prison so it has to be radically transformed but through the sign building on history it can be read as a memorial site still in the temporary city of Berlin Right, now to conclude so I've summarised the points that we're making discussing archaeological data as a means of informing design process trying to put more community engagement as a way of building support behind this and it's not enough to be doing it just within the planning system as it is at the moment and also further develop support for the cooperation with other professions so thinking about that green amber red coding where we can build on that and then how we might involve other groups such as NGOs to assist in outreach and other tasks where there are established networks that sometimes we when we're not working closely with other disciplines and other groups end up doing things that other agencies might be able to support us with or do more easily because they have established networks that may be building those bridges we'd be able to save ourselves some working areas and refocus our efforts on the things that we need to spend time on so thank you very much for your time and attention