Archaeological sites
Since 2003, the Ministry of Culture coordinates all archaeological research. In 2005, when the EIA was updated, more than 300 archaeological sites has been uncovered, 240 of which were situated in the reservoir area. However 60% of reservoir area had yet to be surveyed for archaeological sites. The area of study extended to approximately 15 km^2 on both sides of the Tigris River and covered the dam area, the access roads, the borrow pits, the DSI camp, the workers camp and some surroundings. Satellite images showed many mounds (tells or tepes) in areas not yet explored. Until 2005, Turkish and international universities conducted the research.
The EIA report divides archaeological sites discovered into four categories based on their characteristics:
|
Impacts of the project
The EIA report considers flooding to be the most destructive impact of this project on archaeological sites. Based on previous incomplete surveys, 83 sites would be completed submerged, many more partially.
However flooding is far from the only source of impact on cultural heritage. Other impacts include:
The EIA recognizes that this project will undoubtedly have high negative impacts on the archaeological sites and the information they hold for understanding the history of the Middle East and of the Western World.
However flooding is far from the only source of impact on cultural heritage. Other impacts include:
- Removal of soil, and construction material at dam site.
- Road construction and transmission lines.
- Landslides and erosion of the shores around the reservoir in the future. This will affect sites not directly flooded.
- New roads and new bridges will have to be built, adding to the risk of valuable site destruction.
- Use of the reservoir water for small scale private irrigation, the circulation on the reservoir for commercial fishing, leisure or transportation purposes might have negative effects on cultural resources.
- Yearly draw-downs will expose some parts of monuments or villages, weakening them considerably.
- Contemporary agricultural practices are already damaging archaeological sites.
The EIA recognizes that this project will undoubtedly have high negative impacts on the archaeological sites and the information they hold for understanding the history of the Middle East and of the Western World.
Mitigation
COMPLEMENTARY STUDIES
A complete and in-depth archeological survey should be completed in the area. The research must last less than 2 years so enough time is allowed for excavations before impounding of the dam. Most mounds will require three seasons of research to be thoroughly surveyed.
All the data collected from previous studies must be made available. During this study all layers, representative of different periods must be explored equally. Past surveys concentrated mainly on a single period in order to answer one archaeologist’s question.
Surveys should follow the following steps:
The research should proceed first on the camps, construction facilities, dam site and borrow areas as these will be the first at risk of destruction by heavy machinery. The team should also evaluate the archaeological potential along the access road to the construction site and along the transmission line. The Ilisu Consortium must notify the researchers of any modification to the building plans.
In the reservoir area: the team must select archaeological sites to be investigated and documented before the start of impounding, to save any valuable archaeological remains before the reservoir will make them inaccessible. In a normal situation the mitigation consists in keeping the remains in situ and protect them which is impossible here since flooding and erosion will damage or destroy the remains. The report recognizes that avoiding the dam construction would be the ultimate mitigation.
Around the limits of the reservoir: researchers must evaluate the consequences of yearly drawdowns. Archaeological investigation should also be performed for any development linked to the reservoir (new pier, bank consolidation, new bridge).
At dam sites and borrow pits: extensive surveys of the area must be conducted to define the areas to protect during construction. Excavations if necessary should be done.
A complete and in-depth archeological survey should be completed in the area. The research must last less than 2 years so enough time is allowed for excavations before impounding of the dam. Most mounds will require three seasons of research to be thoroughly surveyed.
All the data collected from previous studies must be made available. During this study all layers, representative of different periods must be explored equally. Past surveys concentrated mainly on a single period in order to answer one archaeologist’s question.
Surveys should follow the following steps:
- Analyzing aerial photographs
- Carrying out helicopter surveys to pinpoint areas of interest.
- Performance of on-the-ground field examinations where all artifacts will be collected and registered.
- Soundings or test pits should be dug to sample cultural layers.
- Recording of information in standardized files.
- Mapping the sites with GIS.
The research should proceed first on the camps, construction facilities, dam site and borrow areas as these will be the first at risk of destruction by heavy machinery. The team should also evaluate the archaeological potential along the access road to the construction site and along the transmission line. The Ilisu Consortium must notify the researchers of any modification to the building plans.
In the reservoir area: the team must select archaeological sites to be investigated and documented before the start of impounding, to save any valuable archaeological remains before the reservoir will make them inaccessible. In a normal situation the mitigation consists in keeping the remains in situ and protect them which is impossible here since flooding and erosion will damage or destroy the remains. The report recognizes that avoiding the dam construction would be the ultimate mitigation.
Around the limits of the reservoir: researchers must evaluate the consequences of yearly drawdowns. Archaeological investigation should also be performed for any development linked to the reservoir (new pier, bank consolidation, new bridge).
At dam sites and borrow pits: extensive surveys of the area must be conducted to define the areas to protect during construction. Excavations if necessary should be done.
This table represents the guidelines given by the EIA report to the archaeological team. Depending on the remains and artifacts found, different measures should be taken.
OTHER ACTIONS
Planning the budget and payments: In 2005 only surveys in Hasenkeyf were financed on a long term basis and even then the payments were always late. For all other sites the authorities allocated money annually, but the amount of money and date on which is was to be received were never determined. As a result the archaeological teams never knew if they would continue their work the following year. Progress was slow. This EIA report suggests that coordinators be assured of adequate financing for 3 year terms at least. Furthermore payments must be made early in the season to hire local workers preferably from the villages of Ilisu and Koçtepe. The report predicted the budget of these operations would amount to 20.5M US$ over a period of eight years (excluding Hasankeyf). An extra 10M US$ would be necessary to save sites after impoundment.
Hiring a full time archaeologist: this position should be held during the construction period by a professional hired by the Ilisu Consortium. His/her tasks will include:
Planning the budget and payments: In 2005 only surveys in Hasenkeyf were financed on a long term basis and even then the payments were always late. For all other sites the authorities allocated money annually, but the amount of money and date on which is was to be received were never determined. As a result the archaeological teams never knew if they would continue their work the following year. Progress was slow. This EIA report suggests that coordinators be assured of adequate financing for 3 year terms at least. Furthermore payments must be made early in the season to hire local workers preferably from the villages of Ilisu and Koçtepe. The report predicted the budget of these operations would amount to 20.5M US$ over a period of eight years (excluding Hasankeyf). An extra 10M US$ would be necessary to save sites after impoundment.
Hiring a full time archaeologist: this position should be held during the construction period by a professional hired by the Ilisu Consortium. His/her tasks will include:
- Coordination with the Ministry of Culture, the DSI, the Ministry of Defense, and between all archaeological investigations (including excavations at Hasankeyf) as well as regional museums.
- Implementation of complementary studies, supervision of research, update of the database and the maps, coordination of monument relocation.
- Coordination of ethnographical investigations prior to any investigation.
- Preparation and publication of a synthesis of the work done and of the results after construction period.
Critique
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
- The report considers the potential impacts caused by developments linked to the reservoir such as bridges, piers.
- It also suggests that the borrow sites be surveyed.
- Finally the report encourages the employment of local population.
WEAKNESSES
- No suggestions made to survey sites outside of the reservoir area. According to the report, sites outside the reservoir area will not be impacted by the project.
- The public was never consulted.
- Owing to the fact that construction had already began, only a certain proportion of sites can be surveyed and analysed properly.
- The budget proposed does not cover data analysis and publication.
- Monuments, like caves, that can not be relocated were ignored.
- The report only advises hiring one full time archaeologist for the whole operation, which seems insufficient. Furthermore it is suggested that this archaeologist conduct ethnological studies, a task we believe should be left to an ethnologist.
- Risk of anarchic tourist development that could further destroy artifacts.