This assessment analyzes archaeological findings in a specified location, highlighting significant features encountered.
The works were undertaken in accordance with a Location Specific Written Scheme of Investigation (LSWSI) (Document no. 1EW03-FUS_CNA-EV-REP-CS07_CL24-000030) and in accordance with Technical Standards for Specification for historic environment project plans (Document No. HS2HS2EVSTD000000036) and Specification for Historic Environment Investigations (Document No. HS2HS2EVSTD000000035) and relevant CIfA Standards. The methodology is set out in full in the FCCF (1EW03-FUS-EV-FRM-CS07_CL24-000009), an abridged version is provided in the LSWSI (Document no. 1EW03-FUS_CNA-EV-REP-CS07_CL24-000030) and a brief summary is provided below. Four mitigation areas (C32079; C32099-C32101) were stripped using a machine fitted with toothless bucket. Archaeological features were identified and recorded and a sampling strategy agreed with the stakeholders. Hand excavation of features was completed with associated recording. All machine excavation in C32079 and C32101 was undertaken with a 15-tonne 360 excavator fitted with a 2.2m wide toothless ditching bucket. Machine excavation in the southern two thirds of C32099 was undertaken with a 15-tonne 360 excavator fitted with a 2.2m toothless ditching bucket and with a 8-tonne 360 excavator fitted with a height restricted 1.5m toothless ditching bucket across the northern third of the area which was directly under the high voltage overhead lines. Soil was stripped in sequential strips and loaded into 12-tonne rearward-tipping dump trucks. Machine excavation in C32100 was undertaken with a 15-tonne 360 excavator fitted with a 2.2m wide toothless ditching bucket with soil bunded directly to the side of the excavated area due to the limited space available for excavation in this area. Topsoil and subsoil transport and storage is described in detail in the Southam Central Soil Resource Plan (Document No. 1EW03-FUS_CNA-EV-PLN-CS07_CL24-000007) and the Southam Central Archaeology Flood Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan (Document no.: 105363-PEF-ZZ-XX-RP-D-72001) All machine excavation was carried out under the constant supervision of suitably qualified and experienced archaeologists. Deposits were removed in spits, the depths of which were determined by the supervising archaeologist. Each spit was examined carefully to assist in the retrieval of archaeologically significant artefacts. Machine excavation ceased at the top of the first significant archaeological horizon or the geological substrate, whichever was encountered first. Archaeological hand excavation was carried out in compliance with the GWSI: HERDS and the Technical Standard Specification for historic environment investigations (Document No. HS2-HS2-EV-STD-000- 000035; section 4.14 and 4.17). All investigation of archaeological levels were by hand, with cleaning, examination and recording both in plan and section where relevant. All spatial setting out and archaeological surveying was carried out using a Trimble RTK GNSS with accuracy within 1 mm Ök, where k is the total distance levelled in kilometres. Within significant archaeological layers, the minimum number or proportion of features required to meet the aims of the evaluation were hand excavated. Pits and postholes were typically subject to a 50% sample by volume, at sufficient frequency to characterise the archaeological activity across the Site. Linear features were sectioned as appropriate. More complex features were subject to 100% hand excavation. Bulk samples were collected at volumes sufficient to carry out volumetric analysis of the archaeological deposits and finds. For non-waterlogged deposits bulk samples were taken in the range of 40-60 litres. Where contexts had a volume of less than that stated above then 100% of the context was sampled. Each bulk sample only contained sediment derived from a single context. Where waterlogged deposits were encountered, sample sizes were in the range of 10-20 litres.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cathy MacIver (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: