An Archaeological Evaluation at Billington Rough, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire. (SP 4595 9575)
James Harvey
For Mr P.J.Sherwin
Planning Application No. 05/0431/1/PX
Checked by Project Manager
Signed: ......................��� Date: �����
Name: ���������������
University of Leicester Archaeological Services
University Rd., Leicester, LE1 7RH
Tel: (0116) 2522848 Fax: (0116) 2522614
ULAS Report Number 2005-156 �2005
Contents Page
1. Summary 1
2. Introduction 1
3. Background 2
4. Aims and Methods 4
5. Results 5
6. Discussion and Conclusions 11
7. Archive 12
8. Acknowledgements 12
9. Bibliography 12
Appendix 1 Design Specification (including the Brief) 13
List of Figures and Plates
Figure. 1 Site location Scale 1:50000 3
Figure. 2 Site Location showing the proposed development area Scale 1:2800 3
Figure. 3 Trench Location Plan Scale 1:2500 5
Figure. 4 Section of Trench 1 showing cut feature 6
Figure. 5 Section of Trench 6 showing banking material 10
Plate. 1 Showing the excavation of Trench 5 into the side of the adjacent bank 7
Plate. 2 Showing the excavation of Trench 5 into the side of the adjacent bank 10
An Archaeological Evaluation at Billington Rough, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire. (SP 4595 9575)
By James Harvey
1. Summary
An archaeological evaluation was undertaken by ULAS on behalf of Mr P.J Sherwin on land Billington Rough, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire (SP 4595 9575) prior to redevelopment. The site is of known archaeological significance, located in the bounds of Billington Rough, a well-documented medieval/post-medieval pond. Also there are other prehistoric and Roman sites in the vicinity.
Six trenches were machine excavated within the development area. However no clearly significant archaeological features were present. It is likely that land-use has prevented the build-up or survival of organic deposits associated with pond silting. The likely course of the original steam was observed along with some evidence of medieval ridge and furrow.
The site archive will be held by the Historic & Natural Environment Team, Leicestershire County Council (Accession Number X.A194.2005).
2. Introduction
This report presents the results of an archaeological evaluation undertaken by ULAS
at Billington Rough, Elmesthorpe, Leics. (SP 4595 9575, fig. 1 and 2) which was undertaken in advance of the creation of new fish ponds, a barn and hard standing. The development area has been identified as an area of archaeological potential from information held in the Leicestershire and Rutland Sites and Monuments Record. It indicates that the site is located within the area of a large medieval and post-medieval pond (Billington Rough).
Blaby District Council requested a programme of archaeological work as a condition of planning permission (see Appendix 1). The work was carried out between the 17th and 20th October 2005 on behalf of Mr P.J. Sherwin and followed the Design Specification for Archaeological Work.
3. Background (Taken from Browning 2003)
Elmesthorpe is located in the district of Blaby, 12km southwest of Leicester (SP 4595 9575, figs. 1 and 2). A desk-based assessment had been undertaken for the proposed development area (Browning 2003) which has indicated that the site is located within the bounds of Billington Rough, a previously Scheduled Ancient Monument (LE73). It has been argued that Billington Rough was formerly a large shallow fishpond with traces of 16 small islands. It appears to be the pond referred to by Nichols as the �old pool� and H artley produced an earthwork survey of the site (fig.1 in Appendix 1), which was later published. His plan of Billington Rough shows a large irregular shaped enclosure surrounded by a bank. At its longest, it measures more than 200m. The remains of 16 small islands were observed located at intervals around the edge of the enclosure and a stream runs through the centre, flowing from west to east. Another stream follows the shape of the southern bank, curving northwards to run parallel with the northern stream as they both head east away from the earthwork (Hartley 1989, 62). Ridge and furrow, the earthwork remains of medieval ploughing, were seen abutting the northern bank on a northeast to southwest alignment. Similarly orientated traces are also visible within the earthwork, apparently interrupted by the islands.
There is also evidence for prehistoric and Roman activity in the vicinity of the site. Several archaeological features, possibly prehistoric or Roman in date have been identified as cropmarks. An undated ditch has been observed as a cropmark south east of Billington Rough (LE68). To the north east a rectangular enclosure was identified, west of Wortley cottages. In the wider archaeological landscape, a cropmark of a rectilinear enclosure is located south east of Barwell church (LE2800). There is also a probable site of prehistoric occupation, signified by a flint scatter that includes a horseshoe scraper (LE74). A Roman Mortarium associated with a collection of oyster shells was found directly to the south of Billington Rough (LE9329).
Figure. 1. Site location Scale 1:50000
Reproduced from the Landranger OS map 129 Nottingham and Loughborough area 1:50000 map by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of The Controller of Her Majesty� s Stationery Office. � Crown Copyright 2002. All rights reserved. Licence
number AL 10002186.
Figure 2 Site Location showing the proposed development area Scale 1:2800
Elmesthorpe was not specifically named in the Domesday Book, but is likely to be the settlement named as �Chircheby�. This consisted of 2 � pl oughlands and was owned by Hugh de Grentesmainell, a knight who accompanied William the Conqueror during the Norman invasion. The manor was passed down through successive families, a document of 1376 showing that Edward, Prince of Wales had owned it. Nichols tells us that traces of the old village remain by a kind of hollow-way, which was one irregular street. He mentions that the old hall �stood on an eminence and was a very large and extensive building� (Nichols, 1811, 605) . The remains of the porters lodge were taken down in 1750 so it may be assumed that the hall was removed at some time prior to this. At the time of Nichols, there remained traces of the extensive �pleasure-grounds� that indicate that the old hall was a �large and commodious residence� (Nichols 1811, 605). Several fis hponds are mentioned ranging from small ones to those encompassing 6 or 7 acres. Nichols describes �the old pool�, (Billington Rough) which in his day was drained but still had �26 islands in it, which are very conspicuous�with trees growing on th em, although now a meadow� (Nichols 1811, 605). An old cottage, pulled down about 1765, formerly stood by the �old pool�. He also describes the nearby Reed Pool, which contained a floating island; this was �let dry about 1710�.
The Tithe map of 1852 was the earliest available map showing the proposed development area. This clearly depicts the field boundaries dividing the earthwork into two, which demonstrate that it was no longer in use as a pond. The stream defines the northern and southern boundary of the field. The accompanying Award states that the land was pasture, known as �Rough Meadow� and that a ti the of one pound and two shilling was apportioned to the Rector. Traditionally, tithes were levied at 10% of the annual income from the land. Later ordnance survey maps show that the field boundaries have changed little since 1852.
The Ordnance survey Geological Survey Of Great Britain Sheet 169 indicates the underlying geology was likely to consist of alluvium from the former stream overlying Mercia Mudstone. The proposed development site consists of an area of c.2.62 ha of land located south of Billington Road East and currently has two large modern fish ponds located inside it. The site is bounded on the north by a stream and elsewhere by the old pond earthworks that are well over a metre high in some areas. The development area itself is reasonably flat at 95m OD. 4. Aims and Methods
This work follows on from the desk-based assessment (Browning 2003), which together with this evaluation satisfy the specification for archaeological work at the site (see appendix 1). The purpose of the evaluation was to ascertain by trial trenching whether archaeological deposits were present. If so, the character, extent and date range of any deposits identified would be established, in order to assess their significance (see Appendices, Design Specification). Recording of these deposits would be carried out as appropriate, and an archive would be produced. The work followed the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) Standard and Guidance for
Archaeological Evaluations, and adhered to the University�s Health and Safety policy.
The evaluation was to comprise the excavation by a JCB type machine with toothless ditching bucket of trial trenches totalling c.260m� (one 50m x 1.5m, two 30m x 1.5m and three 20m x 1.5 trenches). These trenches were to be excavated under archaeological supervision until archaeological deposits, undisturbed strata or c.1.2m (whichever is higher) were encountered. Some of the trenches were to be moved from their suggested locations due to the fact that an additional pond had been recently created within the study area and also that original pond had increased in size. The trenches were positioned to avoid the dredging mounds that were located adjacent to the ponds. The depth of the trenches also meant that a larger machine with a 1.8m wide bucket was needed to excavate four of the trenches. The trenches were surveyed in, and tied to the site grid using a Leica TC Total Station EDM (fig. 3).
5. Results
Trench 1
Trench 2
Trench3
Trench 5
Trench 4
Trench 6
Figure 3 Trench Location Plan Scale 1:2500m
Trench 1
Interval from SW end 0m 3m 6m 9m 12m 15m 18m 20m
Topsoil depth 0.30m 0.24m 0.30m 0.22m 0.28m 0.40m 0.47m 0.40m
Subsoil depth 0.48m 0.40m 0.40m 0.42m 0.60m 0.73m 0.65m
Top of natural 0.48m 0.40m 0.40m 0.42m 0.95m underwater Not reached Not reached
Base of trench 0.48m 0.40m 0.40m 0.42m 0.95. 1.00m 1.15m 1.15m
Trench 1 measured 20m x 1.5m and was on a northeast-southwest alignment. The topsoil consisted of a greyish brown clayey loam with occasional inclusions of small subrounded stones. This varied in depth from 0.22-0.47m and was removed to reveal a light brownish grey silty clay subsoil with occasional small angular stones that varied in depth from 0.40-0.73m. The natural substratum consisted of an orangey yellow sandy gravel. One side of a cut feature [3] was observed 9.5m from the southwest end of the trench that cut the natural substratum. The other side of the cut was not observed as the feature extended beyond the northeast end of the trench. The cut was linear in nature and the suggested orientation of the feature was southwest- northeast. Excavation of the southwest side of the feature was attempted and a mid grey clayey silt deposit (2) was encountered with organic inclusions comprising of twigs and leaves. This deposit varied in depth from 0.42-0.76m and overlaid a dark blackish brown peaty deposit (1). This was almost completely made up of organic material that was recorded to a depth of 1.1m but the trench started filling with water so excavation was abandoned (fig.4). The excavated part of the cut revealed that the side sloped gently and was slightly irregular in nature. The feature was located directly south of the present course of the stream that dissects the site. The stream has clearly been straightened through Billington Rough and this may well be contemporary with the construction of the earthworks on the site. A likely interpretation of the feature encountered is that it is a part of the old course of the river that has silted up. Unfortunately no dating evidence was recovered from the deposits although samples have been taken that may yield a radiocarbon date.
Figure 4 Southeast Facing Section of Cut [3]
Topsoil
SW NE
Subsoil
[3] (2)
(1)
Metres
0 5
Plate 1 showing part excavation of organic feature in Trench 1
Trench 2
Interval from S end
0m
5m
10m
15m
20m
25m
30m
Topsoil depth
0.30m
0.22m
0.14m
0.20m
0.20m0
0.19m
0.32m
Subsoil depth
0.40m
0.30m
0.24m
0.31m
0.36m
0.29m
0.40m
Top of natural
0.40m
0.30m
0.24m
0.31m
0.36m
0.29m
0.40m
Base of trench
0.40m
0.30m
0.31m
0.37m
0.40m
0.41m
0.42m
Trench 2 measured 30m x 1.5m and was on a north-south alignment. The trench kinks 6m from the north end to avoid a shallow modern linear feature. The topsoil consisted of dark brown loam with rare inclusions of large subrounded stones. The topsoil varied in depth from 0.14-0.32m and was removed to reveal a dark greyish brown clayey silt subsoil that contained rare small subrounded stones. This varied in depth from 0.24-0.40m and overlaid natural substratum that consisted of a pinkish brown clay. As mentioned previously, a shallow linear was observed at the north end of the trench that contained fragments of ceramic land drain suggesting that it was a fairly recent intrusion. No archaeological finds or features were located in this trench.
Trench 3
Interval from SE end
0m
5m
10m
15m
20m
25m
Topsoil depth
0.23m
0.20m
0.24m
0.22m
0.27m
0.30m
Subsoil depth
0.40m
0.45m
0.55m
Furrow
0.58m
0.49m
Top of natural
0.40m
0.45m
0.55m
0.54m
0.58m
0.49m
Base of trench
0.40m
0.45m
0.57m
0.60m
0.60m
0.49m
30m
35m
40m
45m
52m
0.31m
0.30m
0.25m
0.28m
0.27m
Furrow?
0.65m
0.43m
0.52m
0.52m
0.55m
0.65m
0.43m
0.52m
0.52m
0.60m
0.65m
0.60m
0.52m
0.52m
Trench 3 measured 52m x 1.8m and was orientated northwest-southeast. The topsoil consisted of a dark greyish brown clayey loam with occasional inclusions of small to large subrounded stones and rare large pebbles. The depth of the topsoil varied from 0.22-0.30m and was removed to reveal a mid brownish grey silty clay subsoil that contained rare small subrounded in stones and varied in depth from 0.40-0.58m. The subsoil overlaid the natural substratum that consisted of pinkish brown clay. Possible faint traces of northeast-southwest orientated ridge and furrow were observed in this trench. Faint ridges can be seen as earthworks along the trench and at least three furrows were observed that cut the subsoil and the undisturbed natural geology. No archaeological finds or features were located in this trench.
Trench 4
Interval from E end
0m
5m
10m
15m
20m
25m
28m
Overburden
0.49m
0.40m
0.35m
0.27m
0.29m
0.45m
0.75m
Topsoil depth
0.71m
0.68m
0.59m
0.64m
0.52m
0.68m
Not reached
Subsoil depth
0.98m
0.87m
0.77m
0.76m
0.74m
0.81m
Not reached
Top of natural
0.98m
0.87m
0.77m
0.76m
0.74m
0.81m
Not reached
Base of trench
1.01m
0.90m
0.81m
0.97m
0.92
0.84m
0.95m
Trench 4 measured 28m x 1.8m and was orientated east-west. Directly beneath the turf an overburden of mixed soil and redeposited natural clay was revealed. This
measured 0.29-0.75m in depth and overlaid the real topsoil that consisted of dark greyish brown loam with rare inclusions of small subrounded stones. The topsoil varied in depth from 0.52-0.71m and was removed to reveal a mid greyish brown silty clay subsoil with rare inclusions of small subrounded stones. The subsoil varied in depth from 0.74-0.98m and overlaid the natural substratum that consisted of pinkish brown clay. The overburden clearly represented recent activity and this was confirmed by Mr P. Sherwin who indicated the material had come out of the recently dug pond and had been spread across the area in order to reduce the boggy nature of the ground (P. Sherwin pers.comm. No archaeological finds or features were located in this trench.
Trench 5
Interval from S end 0m 5m 10m 15m 20m 24m
Topsoil depth 0.20m 0.33m 0.48m 0.30m 0.37m 0.36m
Subsoil depth -------- -------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Top of natural 0.20m 0.33m 0.48m 0.30m 0.37m 0.36m
Base of trench 0.24m 0.49m 0.48m 0.35m 0.37m 0.36m
Trench 5 measured 24m x 1.8m and was orientated north-south. The topsoil consisted of a waterlogged dark grey peaty loam with a high density of organic inclusions. The topsoil varied in depth from 0.2090.48m and directly overlaid the natural substratum that consisted on pinkish brown clay and drift gravels. No archaeological finds or features were located in this trench.
Trench 6
Interval from SW end
0m
5m
10m
15m
Topsoil depth
0.18m
0.22m
0.23m
0.20m
Subsoil depth
-----------
0.39m
0.40m
0.36m
Top of natural
0.18m
0.39m
0.40m
0.36m
Base of trench
0.24m
0.40m
0.49m
0.45m
Trench 6 measured 15m x 1.8m and was orientated northeast-southwest. The topsoil consisted of dark brown clayey loam that had occasional inclusions of small-medium subrounded stones. The topsoil varied in depth from 0.18-0.23m and was removed to reveal a dark greyish brown silty sand subsoil that varied in depth from 0.36-0.39m. This directly overlaid the natural substratum that consisted of pinkish brown clay with lenses of reddish brown medium sand. There was no subsoil at the southwest end and
it was here that the trench partially cut through an earthwork mound. The earthwork consisted of a of mixed reddish brown sandy gravel and yellowish brown clay deposit (5). This was clearly redeposited natural that had been placed directly on top of the existing natural substratum (fig. 5). The earthwork does not seem to be a part of the bank that surrounds the southern end of the site and Mr Sherwin suggests that it could be the resulting spoil left from a recent cut that has been put through the bank nearby (Sherwin pers. comm.). No dating evidence was recovered from the deposit. No archaeological finds or features were located in this trench.
Figure 5 Southeast Facing Section of Banking material (4)
Topsoil
(4)
SW
NE
Natural
0 1 2
Plate 2 Showing the excavation of Trench 5 into the side of the adjacent bank
6. Discussion and Conclusions
There was a high potential that the site would yield archaeological deposits related to the �old pool�, however the evaluation produced disappointing results as the trenches failed to reveal any clearly archaeological deposits associated with the pond. In fact no artefacts of any antiquity were seen. All the trenches were excavated in the base of the supposed pond where it was anticipated that organic deposits relating to the silting up of the pond would be encountered. A silty subsoil was seen in the majority of the trenches (there was none present in Trench 5), this layer was generally quite thin and very homogenous. The trenches were relatively shallow (except Trench 4 that had modern overburden) and there were no deposits observed in any of the trenches that could be clearly represented layers of pond silting. Also there was no evidence that natural substratum had been excavated into as a part of the pond construction as it was very clean and flat. Trench 1 did contain a large and deep cut with organic remains although it is likely the feature represents the original watercourse that crossed the site. It seems feasible that the straightening of the river may have coincided with the construction of the earthworks at the site and therefore it is possible that radiocarbon dating of the organic deposits collected during the evaluation could provide a date for the activity.
Possible ridge and furrow was seen in Trench 3. Hartley recorded ridge and furrow at this location and also to the north of Billington Rough, both on a northeast-southwest alignment. The plan shows the islands interrupted these earthworks and this may suggest that the pond post-dates the ridge and furrow.
Trench 6 partly cut into a mound that is located near to one of the islands described by Nichols and planned by Hartley but no dating evidence was recovered from the mound material. It is not clear whether this mound represents one of the islands or whether it is a modern spoil heap resulting in a cut into the bank nearby.
Despite the wealth of documentary evidence that interprets the earthworks at Billington Rough represent the visible remains of a large medieval or post-medieval fishpond; the evaluation has done little to provide any additional support for this argument. There are a number of possible explanations why no evidence of the pond was found during the evaluation. It now seems likely that the pond was not excavated, that the ground was already suitable to hold water and that the banks were built up around that ground in order to accomplish this. This would explain why the natural substratum was found to be undisturbed. The reason that no clear layers of pond silting were observed may be a result of the modern landscaping that has occurred on the site during the last century that could have destroyed the deposits. It is unclear how long the pond was in use for and how well it was maintained during that time. Also some ponds were periodically drained, ploughed and sown with a crop as this provided very fertile ground. All these cases could mean that there was insufficient time for the build-up of the deep organic deposits generally associated with ponds.
7. Archive
The site archive will be held by Leicestershire County Council, Historic & Natural Environment Team (Accession No.X.A194.2005). It consists of trench record sheets, site records, plans, and digital photographs. A brief summary of this report will be published in the Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society in due course.
8. Acknowledgements
Fieldwork was carried out by the author with assistance from Dave Parker. Patrick Clay also of ULAS, managed the project. I am also grateful to the client Mr P. Sherwin and his family for their co-operation during this evaluation.
Bibliography
Hartley, R. F. 1987 The Medieval Earthworks of North-East Leicestershire. 9.
Leicestershire, Museums, Arts and Records Service. Archaeological Reports Series.
Astill, G. 1988 �Fields� in G. Astill and A. Grant (eds.) 1988 The Countryside of Medieval England Blackwell pp62-85
Browning, J. 2003 An Archaeological Desk-based Assessment For A New Dwelling At Billington Rough, Billington Road East, Elmesthorpe. ULAS Report No. 2003-116 (Unpublished)
Clarke, R. 2005 Brief for Archaeological Trial Trenching at Chircheby Fisheries, Billington Road East, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire
Clay, P. 2005 Design Specification for archaeological work. ULAS Specification Number 05/614.
Hartley, R. F. 1988 �Medieval Fisheries and Fishponds in Leicestershire (including Rutland)� in M. Aston (ed.) 1988 Medieval Fish, Fisheries and Fishponds in England. BAR British Series 182 (ii).
Nichols, J, 1811 The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester. Volume IV part ii. (Sparkenhoe Hundred).
Morgan, P., (ed) 1979 Domesday Book. 22. Leicestershire. Philimore and Co. Ltd.
Stamper, P. 1988 �Woods and Parks� in G. Astill and A. Grant (eds.) 1988 The Countryside of Medieval England Blackwell
10. APPENDIX II Design Specification (including the Brief)
UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES
Design Specification for archaeological work
Job title: Billington Rough, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire NGR: SP 54595 9575
Client: Mr P.J. Sherwin
Planning Authority: Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
P. A 05/0431/6
1 Introduction
1.1. This document is a design specification for an initial phase of archaeological field evaluation (AFE) at the above site, in accordance with DOE Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PPG16, Archaeology and Planning, para.30). It addresses the requirements for a archaeological evaluation as detailed in the Brief for Archaeological Trial trenching at Chircheby Fisheries, Billington Road East, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire (Leicestershire County Council, 25.7.2005 � hereinafter the �brief� ) for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council following Planning Policy Guidelines 16 (PPG16, Archaeology and Planning), para.30.
1.2 The definition of archaeological field evaluation, taken from the Institute of Field Archaeologists Standards and Guidance: for Archaeological Field Evaluation (IFA S&G: AFE) is a limited programme of non-intrusive and/ or intrusive fieldwork which determines the presence or absence of archaeological features, structures, deposits, artefacts or ecofacts within a specified area or site on land, inter-tidal zone or underwater. If such archaeological remains are present field evaluation defines their character, extent, quality and preservation, and enables an assessment of their worth in a local, regional, national or international context as appropriate.
2. Background
2.1 Context of the Project
2.1.1 The proposed development site is located in an area of medieval fishponds formerly part of a
scheduled ancient monument(figs.1 and 2). It consists of an area of c.2.62 ha. A desk-based assessment has been undertaken for a previous application. This indicated that Billington Rough was formerly a large shallow fishpond with traces of 16 small islands. It appears to be the pond referred to by Nichols as the �old pool�. Hartley produced an earthwork survey of the site, which was later published. His plan of Billington Rough shows a large irregular shaped enclosure surrounded by a bank. At its longest, it measured more than 200m. The remains of 16 small islands can be seen located at intervals around the edge of the enclosure and a stream runs through the centre, flowing from west to east. Another stream follows the shape of the southern bank, curving northwards to run parallel with the northern stream as they both head east away from the earthwork (Hartley 1989, 62). Ridge and furrow, the earthwork remains of medieval ploughing, can be seen abutting the northern bank on a northeast to south-west alignment. Similarly orientated traces are also visible within the earthwork, apparently interrupted by the islands. The occurrence of ridge and furrow at the base of fishponds has sometimes been taken to suggest that the fishponds were periodically drained, ploughed and sown with a crop (Astill 1988, 79). However, in the case of Billington Rough, it
seems probable that the ridge and furrow pre-dates the pond. The pond earthworks have apparently obliterated the ridge and furrow, except for faint traces on one (potentially very low) (ULAS Report 2003-116).
2.1.2 Planning permission has been granted for the creation of new fish ponds, barn and hard standing.
2.2 Geological and Topographical Background
The Ordnance Survey Geological Survey of Great Britain, Sheet 169 (Coventry) indicates that the underlying geology consists of alluvium over sands and gravels.
Figure 1: Earthwork survey of Billington Rough by R. F. Hartley (published in Hartley 1989,62)
Scale as indicated.
Fig. 2. Location of the development area 1986 Ordnance Survey map Leicestershire Sheet No. SK6723 with development area outlined (Scale 1:2500)
3. Archaeological Objectives
3.1 The main objectives of the evaluation will be:
� To identify the presence/absence of any archaeological deposits.
� To establish the character, extent and date range for any archaeological deposits to be affected by the proposed ground works.
� To produce an archive and report of any results.
3.2 Within the stated project objectives, the principal aim of the evaluation is to establish the nature, extent, date, depth, significance and state of preservation of archaeological deposits on the site in order to determine the potential impact upon them from the proposed development.
3.3 Trial trenching is an intrusive form of evaluation that will demonstrate the existence of earth- fast archaeological features that may exist within the area.
4. Methodology (Brief 9)
4.1 General Methodology and Standards
4.1.1 All work will follow the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) Code of Conduct and adhere to their Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluation (1999) and the guidelines for Archaeological work in Leicestershire and Rutland (Leicestershire County Council 1997).
4.1.2 Staffing, recording systems, health and safety provisions and insurance details are included below.
4.1.3 Internal monitoring procedures will be undertaken including visits to the site by the project manager. These will ensure that project targets are met and professional standards are maintained. Provision will be made for external monitoring meetings with the Planning Archaeologist, the Planning authority and the Client.
4.2 Trial Trenching Methodology (Brief 9)
4.2.1 Topsoil/modern overburden will be removed in level spits, under continuous archaeological supervision, down to the uppermost archaeological deposits by JCB 3C or equivalent using a toothless ditching bucket. Trenches will be excavated to a width of 1.5m and down to the top of archaeological deposits.
4.2.2 The trenches will be backfilled and levelled at the end of the evaluation.
4.2.3 The study area covers c. 2.62 ha. A c. 1% sample of the area is proposed, the equivalent of c. 260 sq metres. Three 20m x 1.5 m, one 50m x 1.5m and two 30m x 1.5m trenches are proposed (Fig 3). These are targeting the extensions to existing ponds, two areas of new ponds, a tree planting are and the barn. These may be modified in the light of on site constraints.
4.2.4 Trenches will be examined by hand cleaning and any archaeological deposits located will be planned at an appropriate scale and sample-excavated by hand as appropriate to establish the stratigraphic and chronological sequence. All plans will be tied into the Ordnance Survey National Grid. Spot heights will be taken as appropriate.
4.4.5 Sections of any excavated archaeological features will be drawn at an appropriate scale. At least one longitudinal face of each trench will be recorded. All sections will be levelled and tied to the Ordnance Survey Datum, or a permanent fixed bench mark.
4.4.6 Trench locations will be recorded using an electronic distance measurer. These will then be tied in to the Ordnance Survey National Grid.
4.4.7 Particular attention will be paid to the potential for buried palaeosols in consultation with ULAS'senvironmental officer.
4.4.8 Any human remains will initially be left in situ and will only be removed if necessary for their protection, under a Home Office Licence and in compliance with relevant environmental health regulations.
4.3 Recording Systems
4.3.1 The ULAS recording manual will be used as a guide for all recording.
4.3.2 Individual descriptions of all archaeological strata and features excavated or exposed will be entered onto pro-forma recording sheets.
4.3.3 A site location plan based on the current Ordnance Survey 1:1250 map (reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO) will be prepared. This will be supplemented by a trench plan at appropriate scale, which will show the location of the areas investigated in relationship to the investigation area and OS grid.
4.3.4 A record of the full extent in plan of all archaeological deposits encountered will be made. Sections including the half-sections of individual layers of features will be drawn as necessary, typically at a scale of 1:10. The OD height of all principal strata and features will be recorded.
4.3.5 A photographic record of the investigations will be prepared illustrating in both detail and general context the principal features and finds discovered. The photographic record will also include 'working shots' to illustrate more generally the nature of the archaeological operation mounted.
4.3.6 This record will be compiled and checked during the course of the excavations.
5. Finds and Samples
5.1 The IFA Guidelines for Finds Work will be adhered to.
5.2 Before commencing work on the site, a Site code/Accession number will be agreed with the Planning Archaeologist that will be used to identify all records and finds from the site.
5.3 During the fieldwork, different sampling strategies may be employed according to the perceived importance of the strata under investigation. Close attention will always be given to sampling for date, structure and environment. If significant archaeological features are sample excavated, the environmental sampling strategy is likely to include the following: i.
A range of features to represent all feature types, areas and phases will be selected on a judgmental basis. The criteria for selection will be that deposits are datable, well sealed and with little intrusive or residual material.
ii. Any buried soils or well sealed deposits with concentrations of carbonised material present will be intensively sampled taking a known proportion of the deposit.
iii. Spot samples will be taken where concentrations of environmental remains are located.
iv. Waterlogged remains, if present, will be sampled for pollen, plant macrofossils, insect remains and radiocarbon dating provided that they are uncontaminated and datable. Consultation with the specialist will be undertaken.
5.4 All identified finds and artefacts are to be retained, although certain classes of building material will, in some circumstances, be discarded after recording with the approval of the Senior Planning Archaeologist. The IFA Guidelines for Finds Work will be adhered to.
5.5 All finds and samples will be treated in a proper manner. Where appropriate they will be cleaned, marked and receive remedial conservation in accordance with recognised best- practice. This will include the site code number, finds number and context number. Bulk finds will be bagged in clear self sealing plastic bags, again marked with site code, finds and context numbers and boxed by material in standard storage boxes (340mm x 270mm x 195mm). All materials will be fully labelled, catalogued and stored in appropriate containers.
6. Report and Archive
6.1 The full report in A4 format will usually follow within eight weeks of the completion of the fieldwork and copies will be dispatched to the Client, Senior Planning Archaeologist; SMR and Local Planning Authority.
6.2 The report will include consideration of:-
� The aims and methods adopted in the course of the evaluation.
� The nature, location, extent, date, significance and quality of any structural, artefactual and environmental material uncovered.
� The anticipated degree of survival of archaeological deposits. � The anticipated archaeological impact of the current proposals.
� Appropriate illustrative material including maps, plans, sections, drawings and photographs. � Summary.
� The location and size of the archive.
� A quantitative and qualitative assessment of the potential of the archive for further analysis
leading to full publication, following guidelines laid down in Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage).
6.3 A full copy of the archive as defined in The Guidelines For The Preparation Of Excavation Archives For Long-Term Storage (UKIC 1990), and Standards In The Museum: Care Of Archaeological Collections (MGC 1992) and Guidelines for the Preparation of Site Archives and Assessments for all Finds (other than fired clay objects) (Roman Finds Group and Finds Research Group AD 700-1700 1993) will usually be presented to within six months of the completion of fieldwork. This archive will include all written, drawn and photographic records relating directly to the investigations undertaken.
7 Publication and Dissemination of Results
7.1 A summary of the work will be submitted for publication in the Transactions of the Leicestershire Archaeological and Historical Society (�Brief� 15.7). A larger report will be submitted for inclusion if the results of the evaluation warrant it.
8. Acknowledgement and Publicity
8.1 ULAS shall acknowledge the contribution of the Client in any displays, broadcasts or publications relating to the site or in which the report may be included.
8.2 ULAS and the Client shall each ensure that a senior employee shall be responsible for dealing with any enquiries received from press, television and any other broadcasting media and members of the public. All enquiries made to ULAS shall be directed to the Client for comment.
9. Copyright
9.1 The copyright of all original finished documents shall remain vested in ULAS and ULAS will be entitled as of right to publish any material in any form produced as a result of its investigations.
10. Timetable
10.1 The trial trenching is scheduled to start in early - mid October.
10.2 The report will be ready within three weeks of the completion of fieldwork. The on- site director/supervisor will carry out the post-excavation work, with time allocated within the costing of the project for analysis of any artefacts found on the site by the relevant in-house specialists at ULAS.
11. Health and Safety
11.1 ULAS is covered by and adheres to the University of Leicester Archaeological Services Health and Safety Policy and Health and Safety manual with appropriate risks assessments for all archaeological work. A draft Health and Safety statement for this project is attached as Appendix 1. The relevant Health and Safety Executive guidelines will be adhered to as appropriate. The HSE has determined that archaeological investigations are exempt from CDM regulations.
11.2 A Risks assessment will be completed prior to work commencing on-site, and updated as necessary during the site works.
12. Insurance
12.1 All employees, consultants and volunteers are covered by the University of Leicester public liability insurance with Gerling Insurance Service Co. Ltd. and others (leading policy no. 62/99094/D). Professional indemnity insurance is with Sun Alliance, �10m cover, policy no. 03A/SA 001 05978. Employer�s Liab ility Insurance is with Eagle Star, cover �10m. Copies of the certificates of insurance are provided.
13. Monitoring arrangements
13.1 Unlimited access to monitor the project will be available to both the Client and his representatives and Planning Archaeologist subject to the health and safety requirements of the site. At least one weeks notice will be given to the LCCHS Planning Archaeologist before the commencement of the archaeological evaluation in order that monitoring arrangements can be made.
13.2 All monitoring shall be carried out in accordance with the IFA Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluations.
13.3 Internal monitoring will be carried out by the ULAS project manager.
14. Contingencies and unforeseen circumstances
14.1 In the event that unforeseen archaeological discoveries are made during the project, ULAS shall inform the site agent/project manager, Client and the Planning Archaeologist and Planning Authority and prepare a short written statement with plan detailing the archaeological evidence. Following assessment of the archaeological remains by the Planning Archaeologist, ULAS shall, if required, implement an amended scheme of investigation on behalf of the client as appropriate.
15. Bibliography
Astill, G. 1988 �Fields� in G. Astill and A. Grant (eds) 1988 The Countryside of Medieval England Blackwell pp62-85
MAP 2 The management of archaeological projects 2nd edition English Heritage 1991
MGC 1992 Standards in the Museum Care of Archaeological Collections 1992 (Museums and Galleries Commission)
Nichols, J, 1811 The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester. Volume IV part ii. (Sparkenhoe Hundred).
RFG/FRG 1993 Guidelines for the preparation of site archives (Roman Finds Group and Finds Research Group AD 700-1700 1993)
SMA 1993 Selection, retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections. Guidelines for use in England, Wales and Northern Ireland 1993 (Society of Museum Archaeologists)
Patrick Clay Director
ULAS
University of Leicester University Road
Leicester LE1 7RH
Tel:0116 252 2848 Fax: 0116 252 2614
Email: pnc3@le.ac.uk
� ULAS 21/9/2005
Fig 3 Suggested trench locations. Original scale 1:1250.
APPENDIX I
Draft Project Health and Safety Policy Statement
Job title: Billington Rough, Elmesthorpe, Leicestershire NGR: SP 54595 9575
Client: Mr P.J. Sherwin
Planning Authority: Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council
P. A 05/0431/6
A risks assessment will be produced by on-site staff, which will be updated and amended during the course of the evaluation.
1. Nature of the work
1.1 Brief description of the work involved e.g.
The work will involve machine excavation by JCB 3C or equivalent during daylight hours to reveal underlying archaeological deposits. Overall depth is likely to be c. 0.5 m with possible features excavated to a depth of another 1m. Trenches will not be excavated to a depth exceeding 1.2m. Spoil will be stockpiled no less than 1.5 m from the edge of the excavation, the topsoil and subsoil being kept separate. Remaining works will involve the examination of the exposed surface with hand tools (shovels, trowels etc) and excavation of archaeological features. Deeper features will be fenced with lamp irons and hazard tape. Three staff will be used on the evaluation.
1.2 Overhead electricity wires crosses the site from east to west. The trenches will be excavated
no less than 7 metres from their line. The machine will only travel beneath the cables following construction of �goalposts� to en sure the machine is clear of the wires. The goalposts are to be supplied by the client.
2 Risks Assessment
2.1 Working on an excavation site.
Precautions. Trenches to not be excavated to a depth exceeding 1.2m. Spoil will be kept 1.5m away from the edge of the excavated area to prevent falls of loose debris. Loose spoil heaps will not be walked on. Protective footwear will be worn at all times. Hard hats will be worn when working in deeper sections or with plant. First aid kit to be kept in site accommodation/vehicle. Vehicle and mobile phone to be kept on site in case of emergency.
2.2 Working with plant.
Precautions. Archaeologists experienced in working with machines will supervise topsoil stripping at all times. Hard hats, protective footwear and hazard jackets will be worn at all times. Machine driver to be suitably qualified and insured. If services or wells are encountered machining will be halted until extent has been established by hand excavation or areas where it is safe to machine have been established. Overhead power lines are present to the south of the areas to be evaluated. The machine will maintain a distance of at least 10 m to the north of the powerlines.
2.3 Working within areas prone to waterlogging.
If waterlogging occurs on site preventing work continuing it is proposed to excavate a sump, suitably fenced and clearly marked to enable the water to drain away. If this is insufficient a pump will be used. The sump will be covered when not in use and backfilled if no longer required. Protective clothing will be worn at all times and precautions taken to prevent contact with stagnant water which may carry Vialls disease or similar.
2.4 Working with chemicals.
If chemicals are used to conserve or help lift archaeological material these will only be used by qualified personnel with protective clothing (i.e. a trained conservator) and will be removed from site immediately after use.
2.5 Other risks
Precautions. If there is any suspicion of unforeseen hazards being encountered e.g. chemical contaminants, unexploded bombs, hazardous gases, work will cease immediately. The client and relevant public authorities will be informed immediately.
Corporate Division
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN P.O. Box 35 9 South Parade
Leeds LS1 1JW Tel: (0113) 2915010
Fax: (0113) 2830251 E-Mail: sam.nappey@ars.aon.co.uk
30 November 2005
Our Ref: EU/SN/Ext 5010
Dear Sirs
University of Leicester � Liability Insurances
We act as Insurance Brokers for the above and can confirm that we have arranged on their behalf the following liability insurances:-
Employers Liability
Insurer : Zurich Insurance
Policy Number : J0198732
Expiry Date : 31 July 2005
Indemnity Limit: : �10,000,000 any one occurrence
Extension : Indemnity to Principal
Public Liability
Insurer : Gerling Insurance Service Company Ltd
Policy Number : 62/99094H/D
Expiry Date : 31 July 2005
Indemnity Limit: : �10,000,000 any one occurrence
�10,000,000 any one period for Products Liability
Extension : Indemnity to Principal
Liability assumed under Contract or Agreement We trust that the above information is sufficient for your needs if not, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
Miss Sam Nappey Account Handler
Education Unit
Corporate Division
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN P.O. Box 35 9 South Parade
Leeds LS1 1JW Tel: (0113) 2915010
Fax: (0113) 2830251 E-Mail: sam.nappey@ars.aon.co.uk
30 November 2005
Our Ref: EU/SN/Ext 5010
Dear Sirs
University of Leicester � Professional Indemnity Insurance
We act as Insurance Brokers for the above and can confirm that we have arranged on their behalf the following insurance:-
Insurer : Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance London
Policy Number : PI45000A
Expiry Date : 31 July 2005
Indemnity Limit: : �10,000,000 any one claim and in all
We trust that the above information is sufficient for your needs if not, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Yours faithfully
Miss Sam Nappey Account Handler
Education Unit
APPENNDIX II
BRIEF FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRIAL TRENCHING AT CHIRCHEBY FISHERIES,
BILLINGTON ROAD EAST, ELMESTHORPE, LEICESTERSHIRE
Planning Permission: 05/0431/1/PX
Change of use of existing ponds to sport fishing (ponds 2 & 3), creation of new pond for sport fishing (pond 8) and 4 ponds for breeding fish
(ponds 4, 5, 6 & 7). Erection of barn incorporating toilet block, machinery store, feed store. Surfacing existing track way across
Billington Rough and provide hard standing for up to 3 vehicles close to the fishing pegs. etc.
Historic and Natural Environment Team, Environment and Heritage Services,
Leicestershire County Council
Prepared on: 30 November 2005
BRIEF FOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRIAL TRENCHING AT CHIRCHEBY FISHERIES, BILLINGTON ROAD EAST,
ELMESTHORPE, LEICESTERSHIRE
1. Summary of Brief
1.1 The development site has been identified as an area of significant archaeological potential based upon assessment of archaeological data held by the Leicestershire & Rutland Sites and Monuments Record, and the conclusions of a Desk-based Assessment (DBA) prepared for the developers by the University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS Rep. No. 2003/116).
1.2 In consequence the Senior Planning Archaeologist, Historic & Natural Environment Team (HNET), Leicestershire County Council,
has recommended the need for a further phase of post-determination archaeological investigation comprising, as appropriate, a programme of exploratory trial trenching, to provide an adequate sample (minimum c. 1% by area), and any necessary sampling (e.g. for palaeoenvironmental evidence and archaeological science techniques).
2. Appendices for reference as part of this Brief (to be supplied by the applicant)
I. General location plan.
II. The site layout plan.
III. Development details
3. Site location and description
3.1 The development site comprises some 2.62ha of land located c. 250m south of Billington Road East, Elmesthorpe in the District of Blaby, Leicestershire. The site lies within the former Scheduled Monument of Billington Rough, believed to have been an artificial fish and wildfowl pond constructed and functioning during the medieval and post-medieval periods. The former pond is bisected by a central watercourse, running approximately west to east, which forms the northern boundary of the development site.
4. Geology
4.1 The drift and solid geology of the site is likely to consist of alluvium from the former stream overlying Mercia Mudstone (Geological Survey of England & Wales, Coventry, Sheet 169).
5. Site Constraints
5.1 No constraints have been established by, or notified to HNET, Leicestershire County Council. Appropriate liaison and on site investigation should for part of any project specification, to ensure thorough understanding of any issues relevant to the completion of the archaeological investigation.
6. Historical and Archaeological Background
6.1 The developer has submitted a desk-based assessment of the application area prepared on their behalf by the University of Leicester Archaeological Services (ULAS Report 2003/116). This has indicated that the site lies within an area of archaeological interest likely to containing evidence of the medieval and post- medieval pond (Billington Rough). Potential archaeological remains of this and earlier periods have been recognised within the application area and its immediate vicinity.
7. Previous work and archaeological survey
7.1 No known archaeological work has been carried out on the site.
8. Planning Background and Requirement for Work
8.1 Proposals have been submitted to Blaby District Council for the creation and fishing and breeding ponds, the erection of a barn and associated access and parking (Planning application no: 05/0431/1/PX). This follows an earlier pre-application consultation for the current site which led to the preparation of the recent Desk-based Assessment.
9. Methodology
9.1 A minimum 1% sample of the site (c. 260m2), should be evaluated in accordance with advice given for �rural� excavation in �Guidelines and Procedures for Archaeological work Leicestershire and Rutland� (Leicestershire County Council, 1997).
9.2 Some flexibility in the actual size, number, orientation and location of some evaluation trenches may be required if made necessary by the location of service pipes, cables and earlier foundations.
9.3 If possible, the trenches should be excavated by a machine using a toothless grading bucket and under the constant supervision of a professional archaeologist. Machine access to the site may be restricted and access should be discussed with the prospective developer.
9.4 The trenches should be excavated to the top of the natural or to the top of archaeological deposits, whichever is encountered first. Wherever archaeological deposits are encountered the trenches should be cleared by hand and the deposits planned and recorded to an acceptable standard (see �Guidelines and Procedures for Archaeological Work in Leicestershire and Rutland� , copies available on request).
Excavation of archaeological deposits should be limited to resolving questions relating to their date, nature, extent and condition. If burials are encountered during the fieldwork these should not be excavated and recording should be limited to obvious detail such as position of the grave cut, alignment, burial position and stratigraphic relationships.
10. Site Access: Health and Safety
10.1 The archaeological Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that all works are conducted in accordance with a defined Health and Safety Policy. Contractors must observe all current safe working practices, whether required by their own policy or those of the principal development contractor (see SCAUM Manual, Health & Safety in Field Archaeology, 1997).
10.2 Before commencing work the Contractor must carry out a Risk Assessment and liase with the site owner, archaeological Consultants and the Senior Planning Archaeologist in ensuring that all potential risks are minimised. A copy of this must be given to the Senior Planning Archaeologist before commencement of Site works.
10.3 The prospective developer must provide all information reasonably obtainable on contamination and the location of live services before commencement of Site works.
10.4 No personnel are to work in deep unsupported excavations. Trench sides will be constantly assessed for stability and will have to be stepped, battered back or shored when there is risk of collapse.
10.5 All archaeological trenches will be backfilled upon completion. This is to be the responsibility of the archaeological Contractor, unless the prospective developer has given written instruction to the contrary.
11. Preservation in Situ
11.1 All excavation by machine and hand must be undertaken with a view to avoid damaging archaeological deposits or features which appear worthy of preservation in situ or more detailed investigation than for the purposes of evaluation.
11.2 The discovery of substantial structural remains requiring preservation in situ will entail detailed discussion between all relevant parties. The costs associated with excavating, conserving, and curation of other unforeseen objects or structures of national importance lie outside the scope of this evaluation.
11.3 Where structures, features or finds appear to merit preservation in situ, they must be adequately protected from deterioration.
12. Archaeological Sciences and Environmental Sampling
12.1 The minimum requirement for Archaeological Science and Environmental sampling during evaluation is that the archaeological contractor should commission programmes of investigation which are adequate to provide a sound basis for developing the Specification/Project Design for any subsequent excavation, or for
other forms of mitigation strategy, in particular in situ preservation. The results of these investigations will be presented in the Evaluation Report.
12.2 All such investigations during evaluation should be undertaken in a manner broadly consistent with the English Heritage document The Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage 1991).
12.3 All specialists (both those employed in-house by the contracting field unit or those sub-contracted) should be named in project documents. Agreement of specialists must always be obtained before their names are listed. Their competence to undertake proposed investigations, and the availability of adequate laboratory facilities and reference collections should be demonstrated. There should be agreement in writing on time-tables and deadlines for all stages of work.
13. Treatment of Finds
13.1 All finds will be exposed, lifted, cleaned, conserved, marked, bagged and boxed in accordance with the United Kingdom Institute for Conservation (UKIC) First Aid For Finds, 1998 (or subsequent editions) and the recipient museum�s guidelines.
13.2 Lifting of human skeletal remains should be kept to the minimum which is compatible with an adequate evaluation. At sites known in advance to be cemeteries, provision should be made for site inspection by a recognised specialist. Excavators must be aware of, and comply with, the relevant legislation and any Home Office and local environmental health concerns. Further guidance is provided in Church Archaeology: its care and management (Council for the Care of Churches 1999) and in English Heritage (2002 and 2002a), Guidance for best practice for treatment of human remains excavated from Christian burial grounds in England (The Church of England & English Heritage, 2005).
13.3 Where there is evidence for industrial activity, macroscopic technological residues (or a sample of them) should be collected by hand. Separate samples (c. 10ml) should be collected for micro-slags (hammer-scale and spherical droplets). Reference should be made the Centre for Archaeology Guideline on Archaeometallurgy (English Heritage 2001).
13.4 Subject to time constraints, samples should be taken for scientific dating (principally radiocarbon dating at the evaluation stage) in specific circumstances. This could apply where dating by artefacts is insecure or absent, and where dating is necessary for development of the Project Design/Specification for subsequent mitigation strategies.
13.5 Consideration should be given to the appropriateness of geoarchaeological assessment of buried soils and sediment sequences exposed during the evaluation. They should be inspected and recorded on site by a recognised geoarchaeologist, since field inspection may provide sufficient data for understanding site formation processes. Procedures and techniques presented in the English Heritage document Geoarchaeology should be applied (English Heritage 2004, Geoarchaeology. Using earth sciences to understand the archaeological record). Samples for laboratory assessment should be collected where appropriate, following discussion with the Local Authority.
13.6 Deposits should be sampled for retrieval and assessment of the preservation conditions and potential for analysis of biological remains (English Heritage 2002, Environmental Archaeology. A guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation). The sampling strategy should include a reasoned justification for selection of deposits for sampling, and should be developed in collaboration with a recognised bioarchaeologist. Flotation samples and samples taken for coarse-mesh sieving from dry deposits should be processed at the time of the fieldwork wherever possible, partly to permit variation of sampling strategies if necessary, but also because processing a backlog of samples at a later stage causes delays. Sampling strategies for wooden structures should follow the methodologies presented in English Heritage� s Waterlogged Wood (Brunning 1996, Waterlogged wood. Guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood).).
13.7 All finds which may constitute �treasure� under the Treasure Act, 1997 must be
removed to a safe place and reported to the local Coroner. Where removal can not take place on the same working day as discovery, suitable security will be taken to protect the finds from theft.
13.8 Unless otherwise agreed with the local authorities archaeological advisor, all identified finds and artefacts will be retained, although certain classes of building material can sometimes be discarded after recording if an appropriate sample is recommended by the recipient museum�s archive curator.
14. Post-excavation Work
14.1 According to standard procedure, excavation will be followed by a period of post-excavation processing. This should involve the cataloguing and analysis of any finds, samples and the preparation of the archive for the site report and deposition.
14.2 Artefacts, biological samples and soils should be assessed for evidence of site and deposit formation processes and taphonomy, and especially for evidence of recent changes that may have been caused by alterations in the site environment. Assessment should include x-radiography of all iron objects, (after initial screening to exclude obviously recent debris), and a selection of non-ferrous artefacts (including all coins). Where necessary, active stabilisation or consolidation will be carried out, to ensure long-term survival of the material, but with due consideration to possible future investigations. Once assessed, all material should be packed and stored in optimum conditions, as described in First Aid for Finds. Waterlogged organic materials should be dealt with following the guidelines.
14.3 Assessment of any technological residues should be undertaken.
14.4 Samples for dating should be submitted to promptly, and prior agreement should be made with the laboratory on turn-around time and report production, so as to ensure that results are available to aid development of specifications for subsequent mitigation strategies.
14.5 Processing of all soil samples collected for biological assessment, or sub-samples of them, should be completed. The preservation state, density and significance of material retrieved should be assessed by recognised specialists. Special consideration should be given to any evidence for recent changes in preservation conditions that
may have been caused by alterations in the site environment. Unprocessed sub- samples should be stored in conditions specified by the appropriate specialists.
14.6 Samples collected for geoarchaeological assessment should be processed as deemed necessary by a recognised specialist, particularly where storage of unprocessed samples is thought likely to result in deterioration. Appropriate assessment is to be undertaken. Where preservation in situ is a viable option, consideration should be given to the possible effects of compression on the physical integrity of the site and to any hydrological impacts of development.
14.7 Animal bone assemblages, or sub-samples of them, should be assessed by a recognised specialist.
14.8 Assessment of human remains will have been based partly on in situ observation, but where skeletal remains have been lifted assessment should be undertaken by a recognised specialist.
15. Reports
15.1 A full written report combining all stages of the evaluation should be prepared.
At least two copies shall be sent to the Historic & Natural Environment Team, Community Services, Leicestershire County Council, and one or more copies to the relevant local authority Planning Officer and/or Conservation Officer. If this report is to form part of a planning application, it is in the developer�s interest to ensure this report is prepared to an adequate standard (see �Guidelines and Procedures for Archaeological Work in Leicestershire and Rutland�) in order that ajudgement of the archaeological value of the site can be made as quickly as possible.
15.2 The report/s ought to:
Include
a) All trench location plans tied into the Ordnance Survey data b) Drawing and plans i)
c) A summary of artefacts by trench together with their interpretation d) Any specialist reports
e) A concise non-technical summary of the project results
ii) Assess
a) The archaeological significance of the development site and any archaeological deposits
encountered during evaluation
b) The evidence in its setting, regional context and also aim to highlight any research
priorities where applicable
c) The results from an Environmental and/or Archaeological Scienctific investigation
15.3 Wherever appropriate, outline the options for achieving the preferred option of preservation in situ of significant archaeological deposits.
15.4 Reports should include sufficient detail to permit assessment of potential for analysis. They should include tabulations of data in relation to site phasing
and contexts, and include non-technical summaries. The objective presentation of data should be clearly separated from interpretation.
Recommendations for further investigations, (both on samples already
collected, and at future excavations) should be identified and separated from the results and interpretation.
15.5 Understanding the current state of preservation of an archaeological site is necessary in any attempt to ensure its future preservation in situ or adequate recording during excavation. It is advised that those involved in evaluations and excavations should take all necessary steps to ensure that sufficient information is collected to provide a firm basis for informed decisions. Techniques for assessing the state of preservation will vary, depending on the type of site and its perceived importance. A cost- effective method of assessing the preservation of buried archaeological remains is to make use of information that should be included within specialist assessment reports. For example:
� are pollen grains well preserved, or is there a high proportion of indeterminate grains and those of durable taxa?;
� are plant macrofossils preserved by waterlogging, mineral-replacement or only in a charred form? If present, do waterlogged macrofossils shows signs of degradation?
The artefact conservation assessment should identify the degree of preservation of each material class recovered, and identify whether there is evidence contained in, for example, the nature of corrosion products on metalwork to suggest that the burial environment is changing, or has changed recently. A clear and concise synthesis of such data in the Evaluation Report, combined with assessment of site hydrology, will help to inform future site-specific management, particularly with respect to vulnerable materials that might be at risk from proposed re-development schemes.
15.6 The final report/s will be deposited with the Leicestershire and Rutland SMR no later than six months after completion of the project. This will be a paper copy of the report including its relevant accompanying plans.
15.7 Results of the project, even if negative, will be submitted for publication in the appropriate academic journals. Contractors are to provide a summary of findings to the �Transactions of the Leicestershire Historical and Archaeological Society� (c/o Richard Buckley, School of Archaeological Studies, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH).
15.8 A copy of the final report/s will be deposited in the National Monuments Record, English Heritage, Swindon. Where archaeological scientific investigation has formed an element of the project a copy of the report should be sent to: Dr J Williams, East Midlands English Heritage Regional Advisor for Archaeological Science.
16. ArchiveU U
16.1 The archive consists of all written records and materials recovered, drawn and photographic records. It will be quantified, ordered, indexed and internally consistent. It should also contain Site matrix, site summary and brief written observations on the artefactual and environmental data.
16.2 Archive will be prepared in line with UKIC Guidelines for the preparation of excavation archives for long term storage (1990) and �The Transfer of Archaeological Archives to Leicestershire Museums, Arts and Records Service� (LMARS 2001).
16.3 Deposition
16.3.1 The integrity of the site archive should be maintained. All find and records should be properly curated by a single organisation, and be available for public consultation.
16.3.2 Arrangements for deposition of the full site archive will be made with Leicestershire County Council Museums Service. The archive will be presented to the Assistant Keeper (Archives) within 6 months of completion of the fieldwork, unless alternative arrangements have been agreed in writing with the Senior Planning Archaeologist and archive curator.
17. Requirements (including responsibilities of prospective developer and Archaeological Contractor)
17.1 Appointment of Archaeological Contractors
17.1.1 The professional archaeological Contractors invited to tender for the work must be
able to demonstrate within their Project Design that they can provide staffing and expertise with the appropriate experience in dealing with technology of the type and nature required in this Brief.
17.1.2 Contractors will operate in line with professional guidelines and standards as stated in the Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA):
- Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Field Evaluations (1994, revised 1999),
- IFA Code of Conduct (1985, as revised 1997) and,
- IFA By-Law Code of Approved Practice for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology (IFA, 1990 as revised, 1998).
17.2 Pre-tender site visit
The Contractor must visit the site before completing any Project Design, as there may
be implications for accurately costing the project. This visit must be noted, along with any other relevant site details, within the Project Design.
17.3 Project Design
17.3.1 The Project Design will cater for full post-excavation analysis, reporting and deposition of the Site findings.
17.3.2 The Project Design must:
a) be supported by a research design, which sets out the site-specific objectives of the archaeological works,
b) detail the proposed works as precisely as is reasonably possible, and where appropriate, indicate clearly on plan their location and extent,
c) include details, including name, qualifications and experience of the Site director and all other key project personnel, including any specialist staff and subcontractors, will be included in the Project Design. The ratio of on-site
voluntary assistance must not exceed a ratio of more than 1:2 employed experienced staff,
d) detail archive deposition, publication and presentation,
e) provide a timetable for proposed works,
17.3.3 Checking of Project Designs
17.3.4 It is particularly important that all Project Designs, or those which the prospective developer wishes to consider, are forwarded to the Senior Planning Archaeologist for approval prior to the appointment of a Contractor.
17.3.5 Any changes the Senior Planning Archaeologist recommends to a preferred Project Design/s might have financial implications for the costing of the archaeological Contractor, changes to the Project Design will be discussed and agreed in writing by the Senior Planning Archaeologist and the archaeological Contractor.
17.4 Agreement
There must be a written archaeological agreement that satisfactorily implements the approved format and provides sufficient financial support for all aspects of the work including fieldwork, finds processing, conservation, specialist analysis, archiving, cataloguing, report work and long-term storage curation. The archaeological Consultant/Contractor must confirm in writing the Senior Planning Archaeologist that the prospective developer has signed such an agreement before the commencement of Site works.
18. Monitoring
18.1 The work undertaken by the archaeological Contractor, will be monitored under the auspices of the Leicestershire Senior Planning Archaeologist, or his representative, who is responsible for monitoring all archaeological work in Leicestershire and Rutland on behalf of the Local Planning Authority. Monitoring includes reviewing site work, the progress of excavation reports, archive preparation and final deposition.
18.2 Before the commencement of the project the Contractor must inform the Senior Planning Archaeologist, in writing, of the timetable of proposed works and ensure that the Senior Planning Archaeologist must be kept regularly informed about developments during Site and subsequent post-excavation work.
18.3 The Senior Planning Archaeologist will be given at least one weeks written notice of commencement of archaeological work.
19. Alterations to this Brief
19.1 This Brief is valid for three months (from the date below). If not tendered within this period the prospective developer will seek confirmation from the Senior Planning Archaeologist of its continued validity to the existing Site conditions. In addition the following apply:
19.2 Prior to the formal appointment of an archaeological Contractor, the Senior Planning Archaeologist reserves the right to alter this Brief if additonal information comes to light that may have a bearing on the scope and methods of work currently required. (e.g. Site construction constraints, foundation details etc).
19.3 After formal appointment, any alterations recommended by the Senior Planning Archaeologist which may affect the archaeological Contractor� s agreed Project Design (whether this be before commencement, or during the project), will be made in consultation with the archaeological Contractor and submitted to the Local Planning Authority. (This does not relate to the formal recommendations for further investigation (e.g. open area excavation) as a result of the findings of the project, for which the Senior Planning Archaeologist is responsible for advising staff on behalf of the Local Planning Authority).
20. Key Definitions
Senior Planning Archaeolgoist
Responsible for providing an archaeological curatorial planning service to Leicestershire districts. Advises on the nature of the work required and monitors projects from implementation to completion.
Archive Curator:
Responsible for the long-term curation of the archive in the recipient Museum.
Prospective Developer:
Person/group/developer commissioning the archaeological work.
Contractor:
Archaeological Contractor tendering to carry out the archaeological work and as appointed by the prospective developer.
Project Design:
Written document detailing the proposed work and as provided by a Contractor in line with the Written Brief provided by the Senior Planning Archaeologist.
The Senior Planning Archaeologist can be contacted at:
Historic & Natural Environment Team
Leicestershire County Council
Room 500, County Hall,
Leicester Road, Glenfield
Leicestershire
LE3 8TE
Telephone Number: 0116 2658322. Fax: 0116 2657965
Email: riclark@leics.gov.uk