## 1 Introduction
However, as stressed by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [50], these documents and guidelines are often too vague and fail to define specific actions, as in the case of the EU Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) [54] or the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NPEA) backed by a sequence of cultural heritage management acts issued between 1930s and 1970s [50]. The lack of protocols may also affect the implementation phase of infrastructural projects funded by international bodies in charge of financing and often supervising dam construction such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank or the Inter-American Development Bank [31]. In best scenarios, practitioners and consultants can rely on general guidelines concerning the importance of considering the safeguarding of cultural heritage in the case of large-scale construction activities [31; 55]. In summary, there are currently few legislative frameworks, and no action protocols guiding operators through a workflow to efficiently document, safeguard and monitor archaeological sites and cultural heritage in its widest definition under threat from dam construction. Even more problematic is the situation in several regions like South America, Middle East and South-East Asia, as well as Africa [50], where the majority of poor countries often face under-resourced heritage management and where large-scale hydraulic infrastructures are likely to occur at present and in the future, because they represent an opportunity  
Figure 1: Graphic representation of (**A**) the widespread distribution of dams and reservoirs whose construction and filling process damaged cultural and archaeological heritage sites, and (**B**) examples of sites that were either affected, totally or partially submerged or relocated. Notation: (1) Gardiner dam; (2) Houtribdijk dam; (3) Atatfurk dam; (4) Three Gorges dam; (5) Fort Peck dam; (6) Oahe dam; (7) Aswan dam; (8) Nurek dam; (9) Tarbela dam; (10) Zeugma; (11) Hasankeyf; (12) Leshan; (13) Habuba Kabira; (14) Merowe dam sites; (15) Abu Simbel; (16) Missouri dam sites. The map is not exhaustive and intentionally provides a sample for demonstration purposes only. For an exhaustive list of the main dams and archaeological sites located in the region of the case studies that are presented in this paper see [34] and the OrientDams GIS repository ([[https://www.orientlab.net/orientdams/orientgis-map/](https://www.orientlab.net/orientdams/orientgis-map/)]([https://www.orientlab.net/orientdams/orientgis-map/](https://www.orientlab.net/orientdams/orientgis-map/)), last accessed on 16 January 2022). for economic benefit and national development. In these cases, if heritage management is under-resourced and heritage legislation is ineffective, then archaeological/heritage considerations will be easily bypassed. In this context, the debate regarding damages to cultural heritage is still given little attention in social, political and scientific agendas. This trend is certainly one of the main reasons for the lack of understanding of the quantitative and qualitative damages entailed. Furthermore, there should be more awareness about the scale factor implied by dams construction, given that their effects are extensive and very large areas may be impacted. Critically, these infrastructure projects affect watercourses, i.e., environments which have been favored areas for settlement for millennia, and thus with potentially disproportionate impacts on local archaeology. Current counter-actions mostly rely upon methodologies and timing of rescue archaeology [56; 57] and they consist of ground survey activities, sometimes integrated with aerial imagery.