PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 22, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Alcester Flood Risk Management Scheme, Warwickshire: Archaeological Test Pitting and Geotechnical Investigations

View Full Paper
AHAndy HowardPRPhilip Roberts

Key Points

  • To assess archaeological features in Alcester related to flood risk management and inform future works.
  • Five window sample boreholes drilled with accompanying test pits dug at 1m x 1m each.
  • Test pits excavated to depths of 1.2m-1.22m, following health and safety protocols.
  • Photographs taken, and archaeological records made at each pit site.
  • Identified Roman activity (1st-4th centuries) and post-medieval modern activity (17th-20th centuries).
  • No evidence of medieval activity found.
  • No indications of marshland during prehistoric/early Roman periods, reducing further geoarchaeological investigation needs.

Abstract

Five window sample boreholes were drilled within the boundaries of the two scheduled monuments and therefore each required a hand dug test pit to be excavated in advance of the coring. Prior to excavation all test pit locations were scanned using a Cable avoidance Tool (CAT) in order to identify any unknown services. Each test pit was hand excavated to a depth of between 1.2m and 1.22m bgl in 0.3m spits and measured 1m x 1m at the base of the pit. A step, measuring 0.5m and excavated to a depth of 0.6m, was dug in each pit to meet health and safety requirements and aid access and egress. Each distinct deposit from the test pits was stockpiled separately on plastic sheets for ease of reinstatement. The exact location of the window sample boreholes and subsequent test pits were decided by the Project Engineer. The archaeological work was carried out by hand by two archaeologists (the Archaeological Team). All archaeological features/deposits were investigated and recorded solely within the confines of the trial pit under the methodology described in the WSI and taking account of the safe working practices outlined in the approved Risk Assessment Method Statements (RAMS) document (Roberts 2019). The results will inform the need for, and scope of, any subsequent archaeological investigations should a new defense along the current embankment emerge as the preferred option for the final scheme. Following the completion of the archaeological investigations, each test pit was backfilled in spits and of 0.3m in thickness and tamped down. After backfilling they were handed over to the GI Team to carry out their work programme. Photographs were taken at the location of each of the pits both before excavation and after reinstatement. A section was drawn on permatrace at a scale of 1:10 of each pit illustrating the depositional sequence and a complete and full archaeological record made at each location. The five test pits located along the food defences surrounding Alcester identified a mixture of Roman activity dating to between the 1st and 4th centuries (WS21 and WS23) and post-medieval and modern activity from between the 17th and 20th centuries (WS10, WS17 and WS25) the latter consisting of a sequence of made ground and occupation/midden deposits. No evidence of medieval activity was present. The geoarchaeological monitoring of the 15 boreholes found no evidence to support the suggestion that the area was marshland during the prehistoric/early Roman period. The stratigraphy of the flood banks was relatively consistent and comprised from the ground surface: modern material/made ground; fine-grained, minerogenic alluvium; river terrace sands and gravels; and Mercia Mudstone bedrock. On the basis of the fieldwork carried out it is likely that any groundworks for proposed embankment improvements will impact on surviving Roman archaeological deposits. However, the lack of any evidence of wetland environments negates the requirement for any further geoarchaeological investigations within the construction corridor as it is currently identified.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Howard et al. (2023) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ff39dd674f7c03778c6a1https://doi.org/10.5284/1142031
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper