Recently, the archaeology team at Social Consulting Group was commissioned to develop a protocol for the management of incidental archaeological findings for a corporate group in Latin America. This undertaking involved a comprehensive review of national regulations in each jurisdiction, as well as current technical debates regarding preventive archaeology. We would like to share a brief reflection emerging from this exercise, which we believe will be of significant value to companies tasked with implementing preventive archaeology programs in any of their forms or stages.
“Preventive archaeology (also known as commercial archaeology or professional archaeology) was born during the 1960s to address the loss of archaeological records in areas subject to urban development, primarily in cities. After a difficult start, preventive archaeology has been the branch of the archaeological discipline that has grown the most in the last fifty years. Two have been its fundamental principles: conditioning new construction on prior excavation and ensuring that developers bear the cost of these excavations.” (Rodríguez Temiño, 2022, p. 139).
Thus begins Ignacio Rodríguez Temiño’s discussion on the public utility of preventive archaeology. For those unfamiliar with the concept, preventive archaeology is a research model oriented toward preventing impacts on material cultural heritage, primarily in the context of civil works, natural resource exploitation, or soil displacement. Unlike academic archaeological research, preventive archaeology functions as a safeguard for a nation’s historical heritage; when employed, it does not stem from a scientific research question, nor does it choose the site of investigation. Instead, it adheres to the specific parameters of the engineering project of which it is a part. Consequently, the scientific nature of preventive archaeology processes derives more from the techniques and analytical methods used to catalog artifacts and extract information from them than from the social context of its origin.
This assertion is not without controversy, as some authors maintain that preventive archaeology must encompass the entire “scientific research cycle”; therefore, they insist that the funders of these projects must also guarantee publication in academic journals (Ramos et al., 2023). Beyond the debates regarding its scientific character, preventive archaeology possesses a public value that should not be overlooked. Its parameters must correspond to the scope and type of engineering works to ensure the protection of archaeological pieces that hold not only scientific but also patrimonial value. Therefore, we must analyze how preventive archaeology programs are deployed within the framework of engineering project planning and execution, segregating their stages and defining the utility of each.
Below, we provide a synthetic explanation of two ways in which preventive archaeology programs are commonly understood, based on an analysis of various regulations across Latin America and Europe. From our perspective, the goal is not to choose one over the other, but rather to apply them correctly at each stage of project development and planning.
Generally, preventive archaeology programs are regulated by public institutions. In most cases, they form part of the environmental assessments required to obtain licenses for the execution of various types of projects. The fundamental principle of these programs is to anticipate any impact on archaeological heritage. To this end, archaeological professionals must implement procedures that summarily include the following aspects:
Consolidation of secondary diagnostic information
In-situ analysis (surveys or surface diagnostics)
Design of programs for the management of incidental findings
Depending on the country, public institutions will require compliance with specific procedures regarding preventive archaeology; for instance, Peru requires the development of a Surface Archaeological Diagnosis (DAS), which leads to further measures based on the DAS findings—cf. Archaeological Evaluation Project, Archaeological Monitoring Plan, and Archaeological Rescue Project. Similarly, in Colombia, project owners must submit an archaeological diagnosis or survey—depending on the type of project—accompanied by an Archaeological Management Plan. Other countries, such as Ecuador, focus their regulations on the development of procedures for incidental findings.
Although many countries, such as Ecuador, do not mandate an ex-ante procedure to foresee impacts, it is crucial for project owners or managers to implement prospective diagnostics based on primary or secondary information to accurately anticipate areas with archaeological potential. Furthermore, these analyses are essential for avoiding cost overruns due to unforeseen expenses, as most legislation assigns the financial responsibility for the rescue and disposal of archaeological artifacts to the project developers. Likewise, it allows for determining the feasibility of areas for project development.
While prospective diagnostics may be an indispensable tool for project planning, they do not exhaust all precautionary measures: strategies must also be designed to prepare project operators to act in unforeseen circumstances. Procedures for incidental findings are strategies aimed at managing unexpected encounters with archaeological material, seeking to mitigate major impacts, restore damages, and safeguard the discovered heritage. These programs include training and specific guidelines on how to proceed when archaeological artifacts are found, ensuring regulatory compliance by project developers.
Social Consulting Group offers specialized services in the design and implementation of preventive archaeology programs, tailored to the specific stages and requirements of each project. Our team consists of professionals in preventive archaeology with extensive experience across the infrastructure, natural resource extraction, and agribusiness sectors. Working alongside them, our team of social and environmental experts contributes their knowledge of international standards and project management to ensure that companies fully meet their responsibilities and contribute to the safeguarding of national cultural heritage.
Ramos, A., Belmonte, A., & Aznar, J. (2023). El origen del ambientalismo arqueológico en la obra pública española (I). La Arqueología Preventiva en el planeamiento de la Autovía A-92 Baza-Puerto Lumbreras (1988-1994). Antiquitas, 335, 163-188.
Rodríguez Temiño, I. (2022). Arqueología preventiva: Una revisión crítica. Revista d’Arqueologia de Ponent, 32, 139-152. https://doi.org/10.21001/rap.2022.32.8
