The proposed works comprised of five areas all narrow trenches running next to the church in the churchyard, wherever possible targeting existing drainage. 4.1.7 In total, the areas proposed would result in approximately 50m of trenching across the five areas, most of less than 10m in length and 0.5m in width, with an aim to maximise the likelihood of encountering the existing drainage pipes (Figure 2). The works will involve the clearance of any scrub or overgrowth in the area where the previous drainage service trench were and the subsequent excavation down to the drainage pipe where work can proceed to access the run of pipe crossing the churchyard (see Figure 2 for prospective trench locations based on drainage outlets). 4.2.1 Archaeological works will comprise a watching brief by an experienced professional archaeologist, for any days where groundworks are being undertaken. The archaeologist will monitor any groundworks within the area of impact (Figure 2). All works will be undertaken in accordance with the standards set out within the WSI provided by DigVentures and the requirements of Historic England. The Client will afford reasonable access in order that all archaeological features and deposits revealed during excavations and groundwork can be investigated and recorded appropriately. 4.2.2 All recording will be undertaken using DigVentures digital recording system, Diggit, supported by a digital photographic record that conforms with standard guidance (ADS 2022; CIfA 2023). A sufficient sample of each feature type/deposit will be examined in order to establish the date, nature, extent and condition of the archaeological remains. 4.2.3 Areas under archaeological observation will be surveyed using a GPS tied in with the Ordnance Survey. Variations to the WSI and Method Statement will be agreed in advance with the Client and Historic England. 4.2.4 In the event that unexpectedly complex and widespread archaeological remains are revealed, the Client and Historic England will be informed in order that the provisions of this WSI may be reviewed. 4.3 Human remains 4.3.1 In the likely event of discovery of any human remains, it is proposed that they will be left in situ, covered and protected, until the Client, Diocese, and Historic England have been informed and a Faculty obtained. Where works will unavoidably disturb them, the usual method employed would be that they would be fully recorded, excavated and removed from the trench, subject to compliance with the relevant Faculty issued by the Diocese, which will be obtained by DigVentures in advance. 4.3.2 Should human remains be excavated during the watching brief, all excavation and post-excavation will be in accordance with the standards set out in CIfA Technical Paper 13 Excavation and post-excavation treatment of cremated and inhumed remains (McKinley and Roberts 1993), as well as those provided by Historic England and Advisory Panel on the Archaeology of Burials in England (APABE) (Historic England 2018; APABE and Historic England 2017; APABE 2015; 2013). Appropriate specialist guidance/site visits will be undertaken by specialist staff at DigVentures. The final placing of human remains following analysis will be subject to the requirements of the Faculty issued by the Diocese, usually reburied as near to the point of removal as possible, in the church burial grounds. Six trenches were excavated to locate and assess the condition of existing drainage pipes around St Mary's Church. Trench 1 (40m long) successfully located the ceramic salt-glazed drainage pipe, revealing disarticulated human bones, which were temporarily lifted and reburied. Trench 2 was opened to trace the pipe westward it found no evidence of it and was backfilled. Trench 3 was opened to establish a new service chamber access point however it uncovered an articulated skeleton (SK3008) which was left undisturbed and reburied.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Ben Swain
Nat Jackson
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Swain et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
synapsesocial.com/papers/69ec5b3d88ba6daa22dacd24 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1141328