Archaeological mitigation at the Alqueva Dam
Há 15 anos, mais precisamente em Fevereiro de 2000, tive oportunidade de participar activamente num colóquio internacional organizado na Universidade da Flórida, por iniciativa do Prof. Steven Brandt em colaboração com Fekri Hassan (Instituto de Arqueologia do University College de Londres), dedicado ao tema "Cultural Heritage and Dams". Contando com a participação de arqueólogos trabalhando em contextos geográficos e situações muito diversas, consideraram os organizadores que seria importante a divulgação das comunicações então discutidas bem como as respectivas conclusões, através da sua publicação em livro: "Damming the past". Infelizmente, para além do Relatório submetido pelos organizadores à World Commission on Dams, e apesar de ter chegado a estar anunciado pela respectiva editora (Rowman & Litlefield Publishers), o livro em causa, tanto quanto seja do meu conhecimento, nunca chegou ás livrarias. Resta apenas disponível em PDF e facilmente localizável na NET, o referido relatório. Não havendo muita informação disponível em inglês sobre o projecto arqueológico do Alqueva e uma vez que o texto que então preparei para o "Damming the past" acabou por nunca ser publicado (em contrapartida, publiquei um artigo na ALMADAN, nº11, 2002, "Património Cultural e Barragens", pp74-77, onde refiro a experiência e as conclusões do Colóquio da Flórida), aqui fica o texto original então enviado aos editores.
 |
| António Carlos Silva, fazendo a sua intervenção no colóquio de Fevereiro de 2000, na Universidade da Flórida |
Archaeological
mitigation at the Alqueva Dam (Alentejo-Portugal), the last "big one"
of Western Europe
The decisions, always problematic and sometimes
painful, taken everyday by archaeologists all over the world in the exercise of
his "metier", specially on salvage archaeology or impacts mitigation,
are naturally conditioned by a complex set of factors. There is no big drama on
that. It's part of real life. The important, however, is to be so awareness as
possible of those factors that interfere at the moment on the options and to be
able of assessment, at his own level of work and responsibility, about the
different and possibly contradictory values in presence. At last, the
archaeologist must be wise on the complex and collective process of making
choices or taking decisions. Among some more visible conditions that influences
the archaeological work, like the insufficient funding, different political
priorities, interference with vital community needs or resources, private rights
or interests, the framework of Archaeology as a scientific discipline and a
cultural activity, at each moment, is also an important one. I mean by that,
for instance, the methodological and scientific approach; the previous
archaeological record of the territory, the legal framework of the country; the
heritage agencies importance; the social development of the profession of
"archaeologist"; the recognition and interest of the public on their
own cultural heritage. In fact, it’s not possible to understand the conditions
of a specific project, like the Alqueva Dam mitigation process, without a
summary reference to the recent transformations and actual context of the
Portuguese Archaeology. In other hand, is also important to have some
information about the social, economical and political circumstances related to
the origin of the multi-purpose water resource plan of Alqueva in order to
understand some restrictions on the archaeological scope. Creating the biggest
artificial lake in Europe (25 000 ha) and causing an enormous archaeological
impact by flooding hundreds of Kilometers of the Guadiana banks on a SW Iberian
territory full of History, these old project from the fifties, many times
postponed, brought to the Portuguese archaeologists at the end of the XX
Century, an extraordinary challenge. Meanwhile, the recent lessons learned at
the Côa Valley, with the unique Paleolithic rock art discoveries during the
construction of another big dam, had also relevant influence in the Alqueva
archaeological project (ZILHÃO, 1998). For one time, the phenomenon of social
recognition of the cultural heritage importance, even in the presence of the
powerful hydroelectric lobbies, had open some doors allowing new logistical
conditions of work for the Portuguese archaeologists. But the economic and
social costs of the abandon of the Côa Dam construction at the same year of
resuming the Alqueva project, by other hand also limited the capacity of
archaeologists having a more important word on the final decision process. In fact,
and despite the general consciousness of his large impacts over the
archaeological record, the Alqueva Dam was an old demand of the Alentejo region
-one of the most depressed of the European Community- and considered the last
hope of development. It was, indeed, a social reality that the archaeology
couldn't at all ignore.
1. Cultural Heritage Management and Salvage Archaeology in
Portugal
Until
the 1970’s didn't exist in Portugal any practice to prevent archaeological
impacts related to the large-scale works or vast territorial development plans.
During several decades the law, dating from1932 and inspired by the old
“antiquary archaeology”, only established some measures of safeguarding legally listed objects and classified sites
such as “national monuments” or “of public interest” (Law 20 985, 7/03/1932).
In the case of the occasional discovery of archaeological artifacts,
"objects" which were deemed to have an artistic or historic value,
the perspective that prevailed was the recovery for public collections without
any concern for the depositional context. Similarly, within the Public
Administration, no agency existed with the competence or the means to safeguard
or manage the archaeological heritage. The framework of State concerning
“cultural heritage”, a very limited concept at that time, was under control of
a consultative “Commission” of notable figures, politically dependent on the
National Ministry of Education. In the case of archaeological heritage the law
gave to the National Museum of Archaeology (Lisbon) great responsibilities but
the Museum had neither the structures nor the means for that task. In fact,
archaeological activity, from research to conservation, depended almost
exclusively on the work of a few university professors and on the interest of
amateur archaeologists, from a great variety of professional backgrounds.
Despite the individual merit of some archaeologists and the development of a
couple of significant projects, particularly from the 1960’s onwards, the lack
of interest of the Portuguese fascist state on archaeological heritage
management explains the great weakness in archaeological research during almost
all of the 20th century. On the contrary, scientific archaeology had
an auspicious beginning in Portugal in the second half of the 19th
century which culminated with the holding in Lisbon of one of the most
important scientific meetings of the period (1880 - IX Session du Congrés Internacionale d´Anthropologie et d´Archéologie
Préhistorique) with very important cultural resonance at the time (FABIÃO,
1999).
When,
in 1974, the dictatorial regime of 1926 to 1974 was toppled, the timid
political and economic opening-up attempted by the regime following the death
of Salazar (1970) had already had some effect on the development of new
archaeological projects. Some of them resulted from international co-operation
(such as the “Fouilles Luso-Françaises de
Conimbriga” or the excavations by the Deutschen
Archaologischen Insituts at the Copper Age settlement of Zambujal) and contributed
greatly to the updating of methods and practice for the new generations of
archaeologists. The first interventions in “salvage archaeology” also occurs, a
new field of the archaeological work developing in Europe at the time,
particularly in France. It is the case of the survey project of the Rock Art of the Tejo Valley (Fratel Dam)
or the Archaeological Project of Sines
(Alentejo). This one, an intensive field survey on the context of a great
industrial development project promoted by the State in a rural region close to
the Southern coast of the country, represented in Portugal, the first salvage
Archaeology project executed under a professional standard (SILVA & SOARES,
1981)
Despite
the political and institutional disruption brought about by the Revolution of
25 April of 1974, it was only in 1980, within the framework of the creation of
a new cultural heritage agency that the first public services were instituted
with any capacity on "salvage archaeology" approach: the Regional Archaeological Services, with
headquarters situated in the North, the Center and the South of the country.
These small institutions, inspired by the French model of “Circonscriptions archéologiques”, allowed the professional
engagement of several archaeologists, having been responsible for the
progressive expansion of the concept and practice of "salvage
archaeology" throughout the 1980’s. This phase in the recent evolution of
Portuguese archaeology, trying to keep pace with the dramatic economic and
social transformation related with the integration into the European Community
in 1986, raised the need for new legal instruments. In 1985 a new
"National Cultural Heritage Law" (Law 13/85, 6/7/1985) recognized the
specific characteristics pertaining to archaeological vestiges, and enshrined,
for the first time, the need for the realization of preventive archaeological
work in the case of projects which have a significant impact on topography or
on the landscape (“In the case of
large-scale projects, public or private, it is obligatory to provide budgeted
means necessary for the realization of archaeological surveys and eventual
rescue excavations through a series of plans, specifically approved by the
competent services of the Ministry of Culture, that are judged to be necessary.”
Law 13/85, Artº 41, nº2). Although this standard has never been the object of
regulation, the obligation to undertake studies of “Environmental Impact Assessment” in the case of planned works, was
introduced in the same year of 1985, through an European Community Law
(85/337/EC). This environmental legal obligation progressively led to the need
for planned assessment of archaeological impacts in relation to a large number
of works or projects. Sadly, the Regional
Archaeological Services, torn between bureaucratic management problems and
the demands for scientific treatment of results from tens of excavations,
showed themselves incapable of responding to the ever-increasing needs for
fieldwork. The absence of tradition on “contract archaeology” and the professional
weakness in this sector, virtually non-existent outside the universities or a
few state agencies, explains the situation of crisis. Despite new legal
frameworks, and even increasing interest of the public, now we recognized that
the archaeological involvement in that period of great economic development
that the country experienced in the first decade of EC membership (1986-1995)
was very limited causing important losses in the national archaeological
heritage. An important dossier concerning Archaeology
and Environmental Impact Assessment published in 1995 by a non-governmental
organization, denounced the gravity of the situation (RAPOSO, 1995). Based on
the analysis of more than two hundred EIA’s reports, the dossier shows that the
great majority of those environmental studies had never taken into account the
archaeological perspective, very few included archaeologists in their technical
teams, rarely the conclusions were based on fieldwork and, even in cases which
archaeological impact situations were detected, the recommendations for
mitigation were normally ignored. In spite of those limitations, the
environmental assessment practice generated new job opportunities for the
increasing number of archaeologists graduating from the universities, contributing
to the development of salvage archaeology in general (ARNAUD, 1994). At the
beginning of the 90’s was founded the first professional association (APA - Associação Profissional de Arqueólogos),
and there appeared in the market the first enterprises seeking to respond to
the needs of “contract archaeology”. Nevertheless, several problems seriously
limited the efficacy of archaeological impact studies in relation to
mitigation. We can highlight the disengagement of the environmental and
cultural heritage State agencies or the lack of methodological standards
regulating this new activity. It is within this context of growing demands of
salvage archaeology, faced with the weakness of State agencies, that it is
possible to understand the successive grave errors and omissions that
surrounded the whole process of archaeology survey in the Côa Dam Project
(1990-95), after the amazing Paleolithic Rock Art discoveries. Reacting to the
exceptional curiosity of the media, the Archaeological Heritage Management theme
encroached on the political debate itself with an intensity not seen before,
even at an international level. Thus, the immediate suspension of work on the
Côa Dam, was the first major decision of the new government which emerged from
the elections of October 1995 (ZILHÃO, 1995). Furthermore, significant
alterations in the archaeological structures within the Ministry of Culture
were proposed. A new agency was created in 1996 (IPA – Instituto Português de Arqueologia) to supervise archaeology in
Portugal with the special purpose of maintaining and updating the
archaeological inventory and of participating in the environmental assessment
politic including the archaeological impacts mitigation. Although submitting to
a different philosophy, the new Institute recaptured the experience of
decentralization of the former Regional
Archaeological Services, setting up small teams of archaeologists in
different locations throughout the country.
In spite of certain problems of institutional articulation and the fact
that there remain important legislative omissions, the qualitative leap in
efficacy in the control of and participation in salvage or contract archaeology
is evident today in Portugal, contributing to an expansion within the sector.
2
Cultural Heritage Management and Dams in Portugal
Considering
the lack of others energetic resources, the construction of large dams for
hydroelectric power was one of the great political “banners” for the economic
development of Portugal in the 20th Century. But, until the 1980s the assessment of
environmental or archaeological impact in public works, was not even provided
for. Furthermore, the same thing happened in relation to the direct impacts on
people, on their houses and on their land, problems which was easily "resolved"
under a politically dictatorial regime (1926-1974). Among others which sadly
became well known was the case of the of Vilarinho
da Furna, a village with old traditions on communitarian life subject of an
important ethnographic study by 1940 (DIAS, 1983) and three decades later
submerged under a reservoir. Citing the Portuguese geographer, Orlando Ribeiro,
in the preface of a recent edition of that study, “Vilarinho da Furna no longer exists; it did not decline because it was
abandoned by its inhabitants but because a dam sank it under the water which
drowned smallholdings and houses and even the cemetery situated at the highest
part of the village. Not even the dead escaped, and of the living, nobody
cared; the derisory compensation payments paid, each one grabbing what he could
…”
In
spite of the large number of dams constructed throughout the country,
especially in the North where the rivers network is denser, the first case
where measures for archaeological mitigation were taken dates only from the
beginning of the 1970s, and results from fortuitous circumstances. During the
construction of a dam at Fratel on the Tejo river, very close to the frontier
with Spain, a group of History and Archaeology students from the University of
Lisbon discovered, almost by accident, numerous rock engravings, on banks of
schist which the fluvial erosion had revealed, practically at river level. The
operation to survey and register them (exact location, photography and molding
in latex) that followed between 1971 and 1973, despite the scientific
importance of the discovery had an exclusively voluntary character with minimal
official involvement. In 1976 there was a first attempt for a planned
archaeological survey in the area of a Dam under construction (Alvito-Alentejo).
This project involving a small team of archaeologists was designed to serve as
a test for future actions, particularly for the already foreseen Alqueva Dam.
But the Alvito project was soon abandoned without visible results, due the lack
of institutional framework. Maybe, because that failure, in the same year the
first construction works was started on the Alqueva Dam without any kind of
planned measures on salvage archaeology. But this case will be discussed later.
Although
legislation for environmental impact assessment was only introduced into
Portugal in 1985, the establishment of the Regional
Archaeology Services, at the beginning of the 80ths, created the
conditions for the realization of the first archaeology studies in relation to
the construction of dams. In 1982, the Archaeological Service of the North, in
collaboration with the University of Minho, started an archaeological survey in
the area to be flooded by the Pocinho Dam, on the River Douro. During this
survey were discovered and recorded several rock engravings dating from the
Bronze and the Iron Age in a site near the area were a decade later would be
discovered the Paleolithic Rock Art of the River Côa, a tributary of the Douro
(BAPTISTA, 1983). At the same time, a multidisciplinary team completed the work
of surveying the area to be flooded by the Torrão Dam, under construction on
the River Tâmega, another tributary of the Douro (ABRANTES, 1988). These two
examples correspond to a phase in which, despite the absence of specific legislation,
the state heritage agencies, normally in co-operation with the state-owned
power company, were able to put into practice, minimal plans for impact
mitigation. With the publication of the first legislation on
"environmental impact assessment" in 1985 (85/337/EC) the
responsibility for preventive studies on archaeological impacts began to be
progressively transferred to the construction promoters. Thanks to the new
legal framework and despite a considerable lack of previous experiences and
methodological standards, the demand of those kind of preventive surveys began
common. However, the situation was not very clear concerning the financial
responsibility for the mitigation phase when it involved the need of large
archaeological excavations. That aspect was particularly relevant in the case
of large-scale development plans, like the dams construction.
By 1990s, a case was going to
assume great relevance to this question contributing to dramatic changes. As a
result of a preliminary archaeological survey of the Côa Dam area, a study
conducted under contract by the University of Minho, the archaeological
importance of the Vale do Rio Côa was registered- without the Paleolithic rock
engravings having been identified at this phase- and a deepening of the archaeological
study of the valley was recommended. The Cultural
Heritage Institute, through the Regional
Archaeological Service of the North, assumed direct responsibility for the
“Côa Archaeological Project” (1990),
establishing an agreement for the research financing with the Dam promoter
company (EDP). An archaeological team was formed to carry out the mitigation
process, but the fieldwork, including new surveys, was conducted without any
external control. The first engravings in Paleolithic style appear to have
already been observed in 1992, the year in which the construction of the Dam
was decided, but the news of their discovery only came to the scientific
community and to the public, like a bombshell, in November 1994. This fact,
aggravated by the bitter argument surrounding the attribution of a chronology
to the engravings, gave rise to great public controversy greatly intensified by
the media. After new discoveries and international appeals, the Socialist Party
government, elected on October 1995, decided abandon the Dam project when
almost US$150 million had already been invested. The Côa case, whether for the
extraordinary way that the media took it over, in particular on television,
where it frequently received headline news coverage, or for the high financial
and political costs which it occasioned, could not have failed to have
important consequences in the realm of the management of archaeological
heritage in Portugal. Although the legal framework has not been so far altered,
we have observed on the side of the project promoters, public or private, a
special attention to questions concerning archaeological heritage. However,
given the recognized insufficiency of legislation in this realm, there are
worries that the safeguarding of archaeological heritage could be reduced to a
situation of only secondary concern. In fact, despite the legal obligation to
include the archaeological impacts surveys on the environmental assessment
studies, the process control as the final decision, including the determination
of the mitigation measures, depends exclusively on the Ministry of the
Environment, which, in Portugal, has neither the competence nor the material
resources for the cultural heritage management (RAPOSO, 1985).
3.
Archaeological management at the Alqueva Dam
3.1. The antecedents
The
idea of constructing a large dam on the Guadiana River, with the aim to
exploiting the important though very irregular hydro-power potential of this
Southwest frontier river between Portugal and Spain, already has a troubled
history of many decades. The plan for this work is to make use of the
geomorphic characteristics of the basin of the Central Guadiana and install
here a gigantic reservoir (4,150 hm3) as an answer to the serious traditional
insufficiency of water in the Alentejo region. This fact, however, implies the
drowning of a vast area, approximately 250km2 (25,000 ha, including 3,000 ha in
Spanish territory), giving rise to one of the largest man-made lakes in Europe
and bringing with it major impacts on the natural, cultural and social
environment. The engineering construction presents no special technical
characteristics. Its vastness resides in its exceptional future reservoir
which, when it is completely full, have an effect as far as the ruins of the 15th
century Ajuda Bridge, about 100 km to the NE of the dam wall. For several
reasons Alqueva Dam is currently far from reaching a consensus by the
Portuguese public. Nevertheless it represents a long-standing social aspiration
of the Alentejo, one of the poorest regions in Europe, in the grip of serious
problems of depopulation and economic depression. It is particularly stressed
by the project opponents, in the face of the chronic problems of the
agricultural surpluses of the EU, the inadequacy of the irrigation development
plan, formulated fifty years ago, and based on a forecast for the intensive
exploitation of fertile, well-watered land. The main argument on the part of
its defenders, however, is the strategic importance that large reserves of
water will assume in the 21th century, in particular in the southern
regions of Europe.
The Dam project, when
formulated in the 60ths, had planned no previous archaeological
studies despite the gigantic size of the flooded area and the aware warnings of
some archaeologists. In1976 the Dam construction began without any kind of
archaeological mitigation activity. Only in 1979, after a temporary suspension
of the project -that lasts during fifteen years- the University of Evora made a
first attempt of archaeological assessment. Supported only by bibliographic
data, this preliminary study proved the archaeological relevance of the
territory menaced by the Alqueva Dam and the need of an appropriated mitigation
plan. Despite that study limitations it led to important changes in the
official planing of the Dam. In 1980, reflecting the renewal of the policy for
the management of cultural heritage, the Council of Ministers, in the absence
of any legal framework for the situation, decided, through a specific Resolution (Nº 395/80, 21/11/1980) that
the archaeological studies considered necessary at the Alqueva territory should
be undertaken, and that the respective costs should be provided by the Dam
budget. However, this ministerial "resolution" had no immediate consequences
because the Alqueva Dam project was facing new delays caused by financial
difficulties. In 1985, on the eve of Portugal’s entry into the European
Community, and in the expectation of financial support, the Alqueva Project was
submitted to a first Environmental Impact
Assessment study, in accordance with the European Directive 85/337/EC. The archaeological component
of the study, a preliminary field survey of the 250 km2 project area, permitted
to record about two hundred sites of archaeological or ethnographic interest in
the area to be flooded. It also proposed, as mitigation process, the deepening
of the surveys and the execution of a large number of archaeological
excavations (MASCARENHAS, 1986). Nevertheless the political indecision relative
to the Alqueva Project, was not favorable to the fulfillment of the
archaeological recommendations of the EIA. Only in 1989 and 1990, was possible
to undertake new field surveys directly promoted by the Regional Archaeological
Service. Seeking to cover some of the most evident gaps in the archaeological
record it was then possible to enlarge around 50% the available database. But,
for lack of funding, the fieldwork was once again cancelled without the
objective of an integral survey of the zone having been reached (SILVA, 1999).
Responding
to the Portuguese request of European financing for the Alqueva Dam, the EU
Commission imposed to the Portuguese authorities new environmental studies,
including the territory to be reclaimed by the Irrigation Plan and the Spanish
lands menaced by flooding. The new studies were contracted between 1993 and
1994 and for the first time the archaeological impacts assessment included the
areas situated downstream from the Alqueva dam. Although those studies were
mainly based on bibliographical data, the conclusions also pointed to a high
level of negative impacts, stressing again the need for the deepening of the
archaeological work. At last, in 1995 the Portuguese Government decided
formally to restart the construction of the Alqueva Dam, establishing, for this
purpose, a public company, EDIA (Empresa
de Desenvolvimento e Infraestruturas de Alqueva). At the time the
Government, in an election year, was under strong criticism from the
archaeologists, ecologists and the public in general about the Côa Dam
controversy. In that political context, the importance of the archaeological
heritage of the Alqueva area could not be ignored, and in May 1996 an
archaeological department was created within the new company. The priority of
the new service was to improve the archaeological database concerning the area
to be flooded. With that purpose, the field walk was restarted immediately. At
the end of 1996, the surveying phase was considered concluded and the
organization of all of the records and information accumulated since 1985
having been completed, including the archaeological material collected during
diverse phases of the survey. The archaeological data were completely published
at this time and disseminated at an archaeological conference (November 1996),
organized in order to discuss the mitigation strategy and to prepare the
archaeological management plan (SILVA, 1999).
3.2. The
Mitigation Plan
By
the end of 1996 the cultural heritage database of the Alqueva area had reached
1,300 records, including archaeological sites (from Pre and Protohistoric,
Roman and Medieval times), ethnographic structures (including about one hundred
water mills) or relevant artifacts finds. But by some criteria, such as the
nature of the remains, their cultural or scientific potential, or their
topographic position in relation to the future reservoir or others facilities
and infrastructures, only about one third of those sites were selected for some
kind of mitigation trough the principle of "data recovery". Even so,
a gigantic task had to be faced, considering the short time, about five years,
before the beginning of the inundation process. Besides those obvious
difficulties, "many sites versus short time", others problems also
demanded an adequate strategy. I emphasize, for instance, the recent tradition
and weakness of contract archaeology in Portugal and the high probability of
new and important archaeological discoveries during the mitigation process,
demanding capacity of organizational adaptability.
Organization
and strategy:
i. Centralized co-ordination
of the mitigation process through a light but experienced archaeological staff,
a division within the Environmental and Cultural Heritage Department of the
public company responsible for the Alqueva Project (EDIA); this division has the scientific support of an
independent scientific commission;
ii. Co-operation and direct
communication between the EDIA archaeological division and the archaeological
agency within Ministry of Culture (IPA) based on a special agreement, lessening
the weight of the archaeological bureaucracy and making easier not only the
permission and validation processes but also the eventual planning changes;
iii. High capacity to manage
great quantities of geo-referenced data, including the archaeological and
topographical features, supporting the planing and decision making process;
iv. Resort almost exclusively
to "contract archaeology", in different ways and forms, (including
private firms or public institutions) to develop research projects previously
identified by thematic or geographic criteria, or to execute specific tasks,
like geophysical surveys or other scientific works;
The
Plan
We have considered three
different levels of intervention, also corresponding to different mitigation
approaches:
i. Projects directly related
with the construction work, within the "reservoir" area or along
others infrastructures or facilities, like the new roads, irrigation canals, or
even a new village construction; others projects interacting with specific
sites demanding a special approach like the legal classified monuments;
ii. Pluri-annual
archaeological research projects, based on chronological and territorial
criteria, focusing in a certain share of the archaeological database, designed
and executed by autonomous teams contracted on a public application basis; in a
first three years round – at several situations prolonged to four or even five
years- the teams have given priority to the field work according the
vulnerability and relevance of the sites (surveying, recording, sampling and
excavating); meanwhile the contracts also foresee the costs for future material
analysis and publication;
iii. Protection or adaptation
of relevant sites or structures for the flooding effects and according the
local communities interests, design of cultural heritage projects for selected
sites or monuments along the future reservoir banks; at last, museums
facilities planning, compensating the loss of significant cultural resources;
3.3.
The field work:
The
"Mitigation Plan" was approved by the Ministry of Culture in June
1997 and guaranteed the financing by EDIA it was thus possible to begin the
first mitigation actions, namely the intensive archaeological survey in the
areas affected by the construction works. Curiously, the validation by
systematic sounding of surface vestiges at the chosen emplacement of the
village projected for resettlement of an old village located within the future
reservoir, led to the discovery and excavation of a roman rural house (III-IV century
AD). Still in 1997, systematic data recovering by excavations or other
methodological means, begun on more relevant sites, like the pre-historic
"Megalithic enclosure of Xerez", the Calcolithic fortified settlement
of "Porto das Carretas" or the roman site of "Castelo da
Lousa".
Several bureaucratic problems
delayed until the beginning of 1998 the start of the majority of the projects
that involved a call for public application At last, on March 1998, sixteen
archaeological contracts were signed with independent teams. With these
contracts, together totaling about 4 million US$, the Dam company committed
itself to financing, over a 3 year period, a high number of archaeological
excavations on a large number of sites, previously identified in the Mitigation
Plan. However the projects evolution would have to depend on the field
observation, archaeological testing or on research design, in order to take the
best scientific profit of an exceptional situation. This contract malleability
permitted successive goals and financial adaptations and one third of the
projects were prolonged to 4 years, and two projects even to 5 years. Naturally, the financial value of the
contracts varied somewhat, between about 50,000 US$ and 500,000 US$. But the
strong and exceptional investment of public funds demands an increase in
knowledge about the past of the territory to be “lost”. For that purpose, and
besides all these field activities, the study of the materials and the
publication of the final reports, with the financing also guaranteed by EDIA,
are already on way with the signature of several new contracts. Only with the
cultural and scientific data dissemination, the mitigation process is really
finished.
3.4.
Mitigation over the Spanish border
Contrasting with the Roman and
Islamic times, the Guadiana river became, partially, a border between the new
Christians kingdoms of Portugal and Castilla in the XIII century AD. Besides evident reflexes on the
archaeological record of the Alqueva territory resulting from dramatic changes
on the settlement strategy, before and after the frontier dawn, this
geopolitics feature has also consequences on the project management. In fact,
about 12% of the planed reservoir is today Spanish territory and, according to
the EC laws and the Portuguese-Spanish treaty on the commons water share,
Portugal is responsible for the whole Alqueva impacts mitigation costs.
Nevertheless and despite the awareness of the cultural impact dimension on the
Portuguese side, only in 2000, after 3 years of conversations it was possible
to promote a general archaeological survey of the Spanish territory menaced by
the flooding and an area, for geographical reasons, up to that date forgotten
by the archaeologists. The strange delay could be justified above all by
diplomatic handicaps. As long as relationships between the two countries
depends on international affairs, the cultural resources management on the
Spanish side is under the jurisdiction of the Extremadura Regional Government.
Meanwhile the 2000-year survey conclusions permitted to discuss and prepare a
specific two years mitigation plan (2001-2002) that started with the systematic
record of an important Pre-historic rock art site (Molino de Manzanez)
conducted by a Badajoz Museum team. But several others archaeological sites
were selected for sounding or excavation, like a new Calcolithic settlement
(San Blas), a large roman site (El Pico) and an Islamic village (Castillo de
Cuncos). The watermills of the Spanish border, similar to them of the Portuguese
side were also object of record.
Table
1- Mitigation projects in the “reservoir” area (1997-2002)
(Portugal & Spain)
Cultural theme
|
nº
projects
|
nº
sites a
|
Paleolithic
|
2 (1) b
|
37
(15%)
|
Recent
Prehistory /settlements
|
6 (1)
|
45
(19%)
|
Recent
Prehistory/megaliths
|
4
|
17
(7%)
|
Prehistory
/ Rock Art
|
2 (1)
|
4 (2%)
c
|
Protohistory
|
2
|
24
(10%)
|
Roman
|
6 (1)
|
45
(19%)
|
Medieval/Modern
|
4 (1)
|
53
(22%)
|
Old
Military structures
|
1
|
9
(4%)
|
Sheperd
shelters
|
1
|
6
(2%)
|
Water
mills
|
2 (1)
|
- d
|
Total
|
30
|
240
|
ª - sites tested or partially excavated;
b - projects on Spanish territory;
c -
systematic survey and record
d - systematic survey without excavations
(about 100 ethnographic structures recorded)
Table II -Evolution of the archaeological
record of the Alqueva reservoir
4.
The Alqueva Dam lessons
The
flooding process started, on a slowly way, in February 2002 but it is very
early to make an evaluation of the results of the process, since it is still
underway. Some projects, namely in Spain, are finishing the archaeological
excavations (Summer 2002), while the
others are already preparing the final reports publication. But we can make a
short list of ours present impressions about the scientific developments, the
cultural resources management new practices, and, at last, the social losses or
profits.
The
scientific developments
It is obvious that, despite the
inevitable loss of a significant part of the potential archaeological register
of the area, which will be flooded, under normal conditions and for exclusively
scientific motives, it would never have been be possible to realize, in this
interior zone, an investment in archaeological research of this kind and
dimension. And the surveys and excavations discoveries, even before the
additional laboratory research, can be considered extraordinary. We can now
objectively speak about Middle and Upper Paleolithic settlement at the Guadiana
basin. Besides several sites presenting lithics remains it’s confirmed the
Upper Paleolithic classification of some engravings among the large Rock Art
Complex recorded at the Guadiana edges. But the most significant discovery on
Ancient Prehistory is dated from the Epipaleolithic period. An unique site,
Barca do Xerez, conserving habitat structures and fauna remains in a rare state
of preservation was found on the Guadiana edge, bringing new data for the
understanding of the economic and social changes that had open the way to the
Neolithic process along this interior territory (ALMEIDA, 1999). The Alentejo
Megalithic phenomenon was well known after many years but on the contrary the
settlements of the dolmens builders were almost a mystery (GOMES, 2000;
OLIVEIRA, 2000). With the systematic surveys of the Alqueva territory, the
numerous excavations of Neolithic and Calcolithic habitats, (GONÇALVES, 1999;
VALERA, 2000; 2001) and at last, the discovery and record of a large Rock Art Complex,
on his most impressive part cultural and chronological related with
Megalithism, that situation has changed dramatically allowing new explanation
models for the Recent Pre-historic settlement strategy. Alongside the Guadiana
river, at the top of the hills, several fortified sites dating from the last
Millennium bC were recorded but no one was been object of archaeological
research before. The excavations made by two different teams, brought new and
relevant data about the Bronze and Iron Ages at the SW of Iberia (ALBERGARIA,
2000). The Alqueva territory is not far way from the old town of Emerita
Augusta, the capital of the roman province of Lusitania, established by the
first Emperor near the Guadiana river. But only one site, "Castelo da Lousa",
was recorded and partially studied (WHAL, 1985). The systematic surveys and the
numerous excavations conducted at the project area by four different teams
revealed us an unexpected and dense network of roman farm houses (GOMES, 1999;
LOPES, 2001). The archaeological record shows that this settlement density had
last during the medieval times, contrasting with the actual poor demographic
situation, a consequence, among others reasons, of the XVII and XVIII century
frontier wars.
“Cultural
Heritage Management” practice
For the first time in
Portugal, it was possible to integrate amid the Dam Company organization (EDIA)
an archaeological staff reporting to the Administration board. That innovation
brought evident advantages, namely direct access to planning activity and other
vital information. Although a very light structure, the archaeological division
had the adequate skills to identify the mitigation priorities, the capacity to
choose the convenient solutions and the financial means to contract well trained
archaeological teams. However, it is now evident that a distribution for a
longer period of a so big investment on money and field work would have had
great scientific and magement advantages. The time handicap, resulting from the
political and economical hesitations surrounding the Dam project, reflected
negatively in the mitigation process, reducing the field research phase to a
short period of 3 years, at last prolonged in some situations to 4 or 5 years.
Today it seems to us that it would have been very advantageous to have
proceeded the current archaeological phase through at least two years of
intense survey, supported by tests, soundings or geophysical methods (CZAPLICKI 1989). Any way, considering the urgency of
developing a plan for rescue excavations, which was also essential to inform
financial negotiations, and conscious about the limitations of our
archaeological knowledge of a so gigantic territory, our main concern was
improve and organize the field walk database. In consequence, we implemented an
open information system, able to be permanently updating with new data, and a
management strategy adaptable to eventual changes on the working plans. The
integration of the spatially referenced archaeological data in a Geographic
Information System, with access to different layers of digital information,
including accurate aerial photography survey of the project territory, allowed
us to control permanently the sites information, after his position in space
(SILVA, 2001). Crossing the archaeological information with the project
development digital plans and other spatially referenced environmental data
such as elevation, vegetation, hydrology and land use, we can have a first but
very rigorous assessment of eventual impacts. Today the GIS are essential tools
as decision support systems in cultural resource management and rescue
archaeology (ALLEN, 1990). But this is especially true in territorial
multipurpose development plans leading with large amounts of archaeological
information, as the case of Dams. Even not using in the Alqueva case predictive
modeling for site location studies, the use of GIS, integrating all the
information disposable at the moment, is revealing to be very useful for locate
areas sensitive to the presence of archaeological sites in advance of
development, avoiding those areas or planing the archaeological mitigation.
At the Alqueva Project
we also tried to go far beyond the traditional concept of “archaeological
salvation by the scientific record”. Anticipating the flooding effects we have
prepared and executed a plan for damage minimization. Considering the cultural
relevance of the archaeological structures, their localization on the dam
reservoir, or their nature, we have designed different approaches. Simple
reburial of the excavated sites, trying to reproduce the former topography of
the soil; reconstruction of the original “tumulus” that in Pre-history covered
and protected the “dolmens” (Figure 6); or
in a very special case - maybe an world premiere- an experimental project,
conserving for an uncertain future the architectural remains of a republican
roman site, “Castelo da Lousa”, under a gigantic “sand sarcophagus”.(Figures 4 e 7). At last, some archaeological
features and, in one exceptional case, an entire monument, the “Xerez
Cromelech”, were removed for future museum care (Figure
3).
Social
losses and profits
Despite
the dimension of the Alqueva archaeological scientific damages, we didn’t feel
no special concern about it from the local population. With very few exceptions,
like the monumental roman "Castelo da Lousa" or the "Megalithic
Enclosure of Xerez", both publicized for tourism purposes, the rich
archaeological resources of the area were practically unknown until the Alqueva
surveys. By other hand, on the last 50 years, especially after the economic
ruin and abandon of the numerous water mills of the Guadiana, the local
inhabitants begun loosing all the traditional connections with the river, on the
economic as well on the cultural field. Today the last millers are dying, and
with them the memory of a complex system of life is vanishing forever, even
before the coming flood. The few
fisherman with small and ancient but well adapted boats that insist on his
traditional work, are also very old and upset with the water pollution or the
EU rules. In conclusion, on the people opinion, the biggest social impact of
the Alqueva Dam results mainly from one village inundation obliging the
resettlement of about 400 persons. For that reason a new village is under
construction, trying to reproduce the original urban structure but improving
the quality of life of the inhabitants. A museum constructed between the
relocated cemetery and the reconstructed sixteen-century village church will
try to keep the memories of the submerged village. But, in spite of the careful
and expensive resettlement program, nobody at the Luz (Light) village seems
to be happy with the perspective of the forced house move that had begun in the
2002 Summer.
Although
the large majority of the local population is not aware about the material
vestiges of their own cultural heritage, or by, other words, about their own
archaeological resources, we think that is the archaeologists responsibility to
explain his job and to justify the large funds, supported by the taxpayers,
spent on Archaeology. So, every phase of our project has been object of some
kind of information dissemination among the public in general, sometimes with
the support of the mass media: we can refer the organization of two
archaeological expositions, the edition of thematic brochures and posters free
delivered on the schools, and even the production of two television programs in
co-operation with the national TV network. For a most specialized public we
have organized three archaeological conferences (1996, 1999 and 2001) always
with a large and interested attendance, especially from archaeology students.
We have also edited the two first volumes of a new scientific collection (Memórias d'Odiana, according to the
Latin and Islamic names of the Guadiana River), created exclusively for the
Alqueva final reports dissemination.
Last
lesson
In
spite of the so far recognized success of the Alqueva Archaeological project,
there is something that we have learned and nobody can ignore. On this kind of
big public works, with a so large territorial impact, however the money and
work spent on archaeological survey, more we can, at last, be aware about the
real dimension of the scientific data losses and cultural heritage damages.
Even the exceptional dimension of the research investment, at many field
archaeological actions we feel only have opened thin windows to the sites
knowledge, indeed. Rarely we have had the opportunity to cross new scientific
doors... In conclusion, in spite of the job opportunities created for tens of
archaeologists and technicians far away from the big cities; in spite the many
lessons learned on the archaeological management practice; and in spite the
effective improvement of the Alqueva territory past knowledge, we can't, in conscience,
recommend our experience elsewhere. Maybe the best way to avoid the huge
cultural heritage losses due to big dams is to avoid big dams, if socially
acceptable.
Post Scriptum
Subsequently
to the redaction of the first draft of this paper, several open-air locations
with prehistoric rock art (most of them presenting Neolithic engravings,
recording anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and abstract motifs) were identified in
the territory to be flooded by the Alqueva Dam, first in the Spanish sector of the
reservoir (October 2000), after also on the Portuguese sector (April 2001).
This event, used by anti-dam environmentalist groups, encouraged by the media
curiosity about a so-called “second Côa affair”, had brought some
national and international controversy namely among the archaeological
community. Of course, the situation deserves here a short explanation. As it’s
common on this kind of archaeological projects acting in large territories, it
was expected the possibility of new and significant finds during the mitigation
phase. So, different contracts signed with the archaeological teams included a
component of further survey that occasionally made possible new discoveries of
major sites for some cultural periods (see graphic bellow) and later object of some
kind of mitigation work, increasing the archaeological mitigation budget by
30%. But, showing other obscure purposes besides the archaeological heritage
interest, the promoters of the “Guadiana rock art safeguard” campaign, at any
other former situation had demonstrated public concern. Even after the calm
down of the minds, we must stress the following facts:
a)
In absence of significant evidences after different survey projects, the Mitigation
Plan publicly discussed and approved by an independent scientific comity in
1997, didn’t foresaw new specific work on this matter.
b) The rupestrian art finds, both on the Spanish or the Portuguese
sector, are constituted by isolated rock panels, sometimes forming large sets,
lying in the river bed and regularly under water in the winter. The great part
of the finds is located on the tail of the reservoir, a section of the Guadiana
with some recognized gaps on the archaeological assessment phase. In fact, a
new field-walking project on the Spanish territory (10% of the Alqueva
reservoir) was just beginning (after years of “diplomatic” talks) when the
first discoveries of rock art were made. By other hand, the North sector of the
Portuguese part was surveyed in the 80ths and, by different reasons, namely the
shortage of time, was out of the large field revisions made by our own survey
team in 1995/96 (see Table II).
c)
In both situations, a good interaction between the heritage administration (IPA-
Portuguese Archaeological Institute and the Direccion General de Patrimonio
de Extremadura, Spain) and the archaeological coordination of the Alqueva
Project favored an open and quickly public circulation of all relevant
information but also an immediately field research reaction. Two big teams of
experimented archaeologists, directed in the Spanish sector by a specialist of
the Badajoz Museum and in the Portuguese sector by the Director of the CNART
(Centro Nacional de Arte Rupestre), had made new specific and systematic
surveys on the Guadiana River and his tributaries and achieved the
archaeological record of all the engravings panels in the meantime recognized.
The fieldwork was conducted during several months in 2001 and both teams had
finished their work some months before the flooding process start (February
2002). Now, like the others archaeological teams involved on the Alqueva
project, they prepare the final reports for proper publication.
REFERENCES
ALLEN, K.; GREEN S.; ZUBROW, E.
(1990)- Interpreting Space: GIS and
archaeology. Taylor & Francis, London
ALMEIDA, F.; MAURÍCIO, J.; SOUTO, P.; VALENTE, M.J.
(1999)- Novas perspectivas para o estudo do Epipaleolítico no interior
alentejano: notícia preliminar sobre a descoberta do sítio arqueológico da
Barca do Xerez de Baixo, Revista Portuguesa de Arqueologia, V.2, nº1, p.
25-38, IPA, Lisboa
ARNAUD, J. (1994)-.A componente arqueológica no processo de AIA em
Portugal, in Avaliação do Impacte
Ambiental. CEPGA, Lisboa
BAPTISTA, A. M.(1983)- O complexo de gravuras rupestres do Vale da Casa
(Vila Nova de Foz Côa) Arqueologia, 8, p.57-69, GEAP, Porto
CZAPLICKI, J. (1989)- "A contractor's
perspective of two approaches to cultural resource management in Arizona" in
Archaeological Heritage Management in the Modern World. edited by H.Cleere. UNWIN HYMAN, London
DIAS, J.(1983) - Vilarinho da Furna,
Uma aldeia comunitária, IMPRENSA NACIONAL, Lisboa
FABIÃO, C. (1999) – Um Século de Arqueologia em Portugal-1, Almadan,
IIª Série, 8, p.104-126, CAA, Almada
GOMES, M.V.( 2000)- Cromeleque do Xarez, a ordenação do caos,
Memórias d’Odiana, 2, EDIA, Beja
GOMES, S.; BRAZUNA, S.( 1999)- Ocupações romanas da margem direita do
Guadiana, Almadan, IIª S., 8, p. 207-209, CAA, Almada
GONÇALVES, V. (1999) - Reguengos de Monsaraz, territórios megalíticos,
MNA, Lisboa
LOPES, C. (2001)- Mundo rural em Pax Julia, estrutura e funcionamento,
ERA Arqueologia, 3, p. 132-149, Lisboa
MASCARENHAS, J.; SOARES, J.; SILVA, C.T. (1986). O património
Histórico-cultural e os Estudos de Impacte Ambiental: proposta de metodologia
para a avaliação do impacte de barragens. Trabalhos de Arqueologia do Sul 1, p. 7-16, Évora
OLIVEIRA, J.( 2000)- A Anta da Fábrica da Celulose, Memórias
d’Odiana, 2, EDIA, Beja
RAPOSO, J. (1995) Avaliação de impacte ambiental e património cultural.
Almadan, IIª S. nº4, p. 60-86,
CAA, Almada
SILVA, A. C. (1999) - Salvamento Arqueológico no Guadiana.
Memórias d´Odiana 1, EDIA, Beja
SILVA, A. C.(2000) - Inventário arqueológico-actualização, Memórias
d’Odiana 2 , EDIA, Beja
SILVA, A.; PERDIGÃO, J.(2000) – Aplicação dos Sistemas de Informação Geográfica
à minimização dos impactes arqueológicos, Actas do 3º Congresso Peninsular
de Arqueologia, Vol. X, ADECAP, Porto
SILVA, C. e SOARES, J. (1981) – Pré
história da Área de Sines, Gabinete da Área de Sines, Lisboa
VALERA, A. (2000)- Moinho de Valadares e transição Neolítico Final/
Calcolítico na margem esquerda do Guadiana: uma análise preliminar. ERA
Arqueologia, 1, p. 24-37, Lisboa
VALERA, A. (2001)- A ocupação pré-histórica do sítio do Mercador
(Mourão). ERA Arqueologia, 3, p. 42-57,
Lisboa
WHAL, J. (1985) – Castelo da Lousa, ein whergehoft
Caesarish-Augusteischer zeit, Madrider Mitteilungen, 26, p.149-176, DAI,
Madrid
ZILHÃO, J. (1998) The
rock art of the Côa valley, Portugal. Significance, conservation and
management. Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites, V.2, nº4, p. 193-206, James &
James, London
