A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Archaeological …programmeofficers.co.uk/A2bean/CoreDocuments/M.8.pdf · 2019-09-11 · Bluewater Retail Park, a regional shopping centre

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements

Archaeological Management and Mitigation Strategy

September 2019 Document Ref: HE543917-ATK-EHR-XX-RP-LH-000001

Commented [NS1]: 1)Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19) The Archaeological Management and Mitigation Strategy (AMMS) included as Appendix B still has the same date July 2019 and Document Ref: HE543917-ATK-EHR-XX-RP-LH-000001 as the original draft even though it is supposed to have been updated – please could these and the document history section be amended for future versions to assist in keeping track of different iterations.

Commented [NS2R1]: Atkins 9/9: Updated to September 2019

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Archaeological Mitigation and Management Strategy

2

Notice

This document has been prepared for the purpose of the Public Inquiry in relation to A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet

Junction Improvements only and no third party is entitled to use it or rely on its contents for any other

purpose. Atkins Limited shall have no responsibility or liability to any third party arising from the unauthorised

use or reliance upon this document.


3

Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 6 1.1. Project Background 6 1.2. Scheme Overview 6 1.3. Roles and Responsibilities 7 1.4. Archaeological Summary 7

2. Purpose and Scope 9 2.1. Purpose 9 2.2. Compliance with technical standards 9

3. Archaeological Baseline 11 3.1. Previous Archaeological Assessment 11 3.2. Archaeological Assessment Undertaken for the Scheme 12 3.3. Topographical and Geological Background 12 3.4. Lower Palaeolithic 13 3.5. Middle Palaeolithic 15 3.6. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic 16 3.7. Neolithic to Iron Age 18 3.8. Romano-British 19 3.9. Early Medieval 21 3.10. Medieval to Modern 21

4. Potential Archaeological Impacts 23 4.1. Overview 23

5. General Methodology 34 5.1. Health and Safety 34 5.2. Fieldwork 34 5.3. Monitoring and Stakeholder Liaison 34

6. Monitoring of Geotechnical Investigations and Deposit Modelling 36 6.1. Overview 36 6.2. Aims and Objectives 36 6.3. Methodology 36 6.4. Recording 37 6.5. Deposit Modelling 37

7. Preservation of Archaeological Remains in Situ 38 7.1. Overview 38 7.2. Aims and objectives 38 7.3. Methodology 38 7.4. Waterlogged sequences 39

8. Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation 40 8.1. Overview 40 8.2. Aims and Objectives 40 8.3. Methodology 41 8.4. Fieldwork 41 8.5. Finds 42 8.6. Human remains 42 8.7. Environmental sampling 42 8.8. Recording 43 8.9. Backfilling and reinstatement 43 8.10. Reporting 43


4

8.11. Archiving 43

9. Construction Integrated Recording 44 9.1. Overview 44 9.2. Aims and objectives 44 9.3. Methodology 45 9.4. Fieldwork 45 9.5. Environmental sampling 47 9.6. Human remains 47 9.7. Recording 47 9.8. Reporting 47 9.9. Archiving 47

10. Archaeological Monitoring 48 10.1. Overview 48 10.2. Aims and objectives 48 10.3. Methodology 48 10.4. Fieldwork 49 10.5. Finds 49 10.6. Human remains 49 10.7. Environmental sampling 49 10.8. Recording 50 10.9. Reporting 50 10.10. Archiving 50

11. Finds 51 11.1. Overview 51 11.2. Methodology 51 11.3. Post-excavation 52

12. Human Remains 53 12.1. Overview 53 12.2. Methodology 53 12.3. Recording 54 12.4. Reporting 54 12.5. Archiving 55

13. Environmental Sampling 56 13.1. Overview 56 13.2. Methodology 56 13.3. Sampling of Pleistocene/Early Holocene Deposit Sequences 57 13.4. Post-excavation 57

14. Recording and Reporting 59 14.1. Recording 59 14.2. Human remains 60 14.3. Finds 60 14.4. Report preparation 61 14.5. Post Investigation Assessment and Updated Project Design 62

15. Archive Preparation and Deposition 63 15.1. Overview 63 15.2. Methodology 63 15.3. Physical archive 63 15.4. Human remains 65 15.5. Digital archive 65

16. References 66


5

Tables

Table 9.1 Minimum requirements for sample excavation 46


6

1. Introduction

1.1. Project Background

1.1.1. This Archaeological Management and Mitigation Strategy (AMMS) has been produced for Highways England in relation to the archaeological programme in support of the design and build of the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements (henceforth referred to as “the scheme”). The scheme requires a programme of archaeological management, investigation and recording to be undertaken during the detailed design and subsequent construction of the scheme.

1.1.2. The AMMS is a high-level document outlining the broad approaches to achieving preservation in situ of significant archaeological remains ay Ebbsfleet alongside the protocols to be followed with regard to monitoring this process during design and construction to ensure this aim is achieved. Outside of the Ebbsfleet Junction area the AMMS establishes the approach to mitigation by record of any archaeological remains that may be encountered during construction.

1.1.3. Individual Written Schemes of Investigation (WSI) will be prepared, informed by the AMMS, by the Archaeological Contractor(s) appointed to carry out individual workstreams covered by the AMMS.

1.1.4. The AMMS deals specifically with the detailed design and construction of the Scheme. Subsequent works for the management for the archaeological resource lie outside of the scope of this document.

1.2. Scheme Overview

1.2.1. In July 2017 the Secretary of State announced the ‘Preferred Route’ for the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Scheme. To improve capacity and manage forecasted increases in traffic, improvements to the A2 are required, including at both Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions. The Scheme is needed to support significant predicted future growth in the area, including development already underway at Dartford and Ebbsfleet Garden City; it forms part of the Kent Thameside Transport Programme (STP).

1.2.2. As shown on Figure 1.1 (to follow), the Scheme is located between Dartford and Gravesend in north Kent. Bean Junction is the first junction on the A2 to the east of the M25.

1.2.3. The A2 is a four-lane dual all-purpose road that currently reduces to three lanes through Bean Junction. The grade-separated junctions at Bean and Ebbsfleet are approximately 1.2 miles (2 km) apart. Bean Junction connects the A296 and B255 and provides access to the Bluewater Retail Park, a regional shopping centre. Ebbsfleet Junction connects the A2260 and Southfleet Road. Ebbsfleet Junction was constructed in 2005 to serve the Ebbsfleet International Rail Station and the surrounding Ebbsfleet Valley and Eastern Quarry developments that form part of Ebbsfleet Garden City.

1.2.4. The proposed improvements at Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions broadly retain the current layout. The roundabouts at both junctions will be enlarged and converted to full traffic signal control. Existing slip roads will be retained with some widened to include additional lanes along with roundabout links and approaches. Between Bean and Ebbsfleet, the existing hard shoulder will be converted to a running lane along the eastbound carriageway of the A2.

Commented [NS3]: Lis Dyson (KCC - 09/09/19): Re 1.1.4 – please amend – for archaeological remains non-designated archaeological remains of national significance should be treated in the same way as designated archaeological remains – this a fundamental principle of cultural heritage management in England as not all nationally important archaeological remains are designated.

Commented [NS4R3]: Atkins 9/9: Deleted last sentence to indicate scope is limited to the present Scheme’s design and build and not any subsequent works beyond completion of construction..


7

1.2.5. At Bean Junction, improvements include an additional bridge over the A2 adjacent to the existing bridge and a new slip road on to the A2 for eastbound traffic. Enlarging the Bean Junction northern roundabout will require the demolition of eleven properties (Ightham Cottages). At Ebbsfleet Junction the proposed improvements will include additional access to current and new developments.

1.3. Roles and Responsibilities

1.3.1. Highways England has appointed Atkins to provide specialist environmental consultancy expertise to assist with delivery of the scheme. The following roles and responsibilities have been identified:

• Highways England – commissioning body for the Scheme.

• Principal Contractor – the nominated contractor employed by Highways England to deliver construction of the scheme.

• Lead Heritage Consultants – Atkins, historic environment consultants to Highways England for the scheme.

• Archaeological Contractor(s) – the nominated archaeological company(ies) employed by Highways England to carry out archaeological investigations on the scheme.

• Statutory Consultees – Kent County Council Heritage Conservation Team and Historic England.

1.4. Archaeological Summary

1.4.1. The Ebbsfleet Valley and its environs has been a key area for Palaeolithic research for over a hundred years, and is well known for its wealth of Palaeolithic archaeological remains, discovered during quarrying that has been undertaken since the late 19th century; as well as more recent archaeological works undertaken in advance of the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), also known as High Speed 1 (HS1).

1.4.2. Extensive geoarchaeological investigations undertaken by Wenban Smith (2013, Chapter 4) following the discovery of the Clactonian elephant butchery site (the Ebbsfleet elephant) have resulted in detailed research into the formation of the Pleistocene deposits within and in the immediate vicinity of the Scheme. A review of borehole records alongside previous geoarchaeological/geotechnical investigations including the results of test pit and boreholes excavated at Northfleet West electricity substation plot north of the Site, (MoLA 2011); test pits and boreholes excavated in Station Quarter South (east of Southfleet Road) (Wessex Archaeology 2006) and Wenban-Smith’s detailed geoarchaeological landscape assessment undertaken in association with the Ebbsfleet elephant Site (Wenban Smith 2013) have been used to assess the potential for Pleistocene sediments and associated Palaeolithic potential within the vicinity of the Scheme.

1.4.3. The Ebbsfleet Junction occupies the lower valley slopes of the west side of the Ebbsfleet Valley and borehole records and archaeological investigations indicate potential survival of patches of sediments with Middle and Upper Palaeolithic potential in previously undisturbed areas. It is considered likely that any such deposits would be confined to the eastern end of the Scheme at Ebbsfleet, and even here would have a patchy distribution depending upon the extent of previous disturbance.

1.4.4. The Ebbsfleet Junction lies within a colluvium infilled tributary valley feeding to the Thames. To the north this valley has been shown to contain significant archaeology of Lower Palaeolithic, Middle Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and early Holocene (Mesolithic) date. However, the Scheme lies outside of the areas identified as having high or moderate Palaeolithic and early Holocene potential (Wenban-Smith 2013) and this appears to have


8

been confirmed by the results of recent archaeological evaluation undertaken to the north of the western roundabout at the Ebbsfleet Junction (Wessex Archaeology 2019).

1.4.5. Neolithic and Bronze Age activity is also identified in association with the Ebbsfleet valley and it seems probable that by the Middle Bronze Age ritual activities were becoming focussed around a system of pools within the headwater of the valley at Springhead where the Ebbsfleet Junction is now. This was developed further during the Iron Age and particularly in the Roman period with the development of the important roadside settlement and cult centre of Vagniacae which lies astride the Roman Watling Street (now broadly followed by the line of the A2). Aerial photographic evidence suggests that Watling Street may have kinked around the headwater of the Ebbsfleet with evidence for its line identified along the southern edge of the Ebbsfleet Green housing development. Significant Romano-British archaeology has been identified at Springhead, most of which is now Scheduled to the south of the Ebbsfleet Junction. Significant and schedulable quality Romano-British archaeological remains have, however, also been preserved in situ beneath the eastbound entry slip onto the A2 to the north of the junction. These include the remains of a Romano-British temple, lesser shrines and a mix of buildings associated with industrial and other processes, road surfaces and courtyards. Although previously investigated, these remains survive largely intact and lie protected by overlying ballast under the slip road and A2. Significant and schedulable quality Romano-British archaeological remains have also been identified north of the A2, close to Springhead Nurseries strongly suggesting that a very significant proportion of the Romano-British and earlier settlement and cult centre lie outside and to the north of the scheduled area.

1.4.6. Early medieval activity, including a 7th century Anglo-Saxon cemetery, has also been identified at Ebbsfleet with the burial evidence of this period extending into the area of the adjacent Springhead Quarter.

1.4.7. The Ebbsfleet Valley preserves a deep colluvial and alluvial record with important palaeoenvironmental potential within preserved waterlogged deposits. During the post-medieval period the wet nature of the local ground here was exploited to establish a series of watercress beds. The water table has more recently fallen, leading to the abandonment of these beds.

1.4.8. The western and central parts of the Scheme have undergone much less intensive archaeological investigation than has occurred at Ebbsfleet. However, they lie outside of the Ebbsfleet valley with its Palaeolithic through early Holocene to Romano-British potential, and hence are likely to be less archaeologically sensitive. Bean Junction lies on a ridge of slightly higher ground in proximity to the Scheduled medieval wood boundary of Darenth Wood, but otherwise the archaeological potential is estimated on available evidence to be much less in this area than around the valley head at Ebbsfleet Junction.

Commented [NS5]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19) - Approved

Commented [NS6]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Re 1.4.8 – add a caveat of ‘on present evidence’ for the second sentence.

Commented [NS7R6]: Atkins 9/9: Amended to “on available evidence”


9

2. Purpose and Scope

2.1. Purpose

2.1.1. Chapter 11 (Cultural Heritage) of the Environmental Statement (ES) for the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements (Highways England 2019) identified measures to be undertaken to evaluate, and/or mitigate potential impacts of the Scheme on the archaeological resource. The ES chapter also identified the requirement to preserve significant archaeological remains in situ through detailed design.

2.1.2. The purpose of this document is to set out the strategy for the planning and delivery of a programme of archaeological management and mitigation required for the delivery of the detailed design and build of the scheme.

2.1.3. This work falls into four broad categories:

• Identification of where the scheme will and will not have the capacity to impact upon hitherto identified and recorded archaeological remains;

• management of preservation of significant archaeological remains in situ within the design and construction process, particularly the schedulable Romano-British archaeology known to survive under the eastbound entrance slip onto the A2 at Ebbsfleet Junction;

• further evaluation, if and where required, to identify, characterise and establish the significance of hitherto unidentified archaeology (including through monitoring of GI works); and

• mitigation through archaeological investigation, recording and publication of any archaeological remains that cannot be preserved in situ within the scheme footprint.

2.1.4. This document does not represent a Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI); these will be produced for the individual evaluation and mitigation works by the appointed Archaeological Contractor(s). The WSIs will be forwarded to the Statutory Consultees (Kent County Council Heritage Conservation Team and Historic England) for their information and comment.

2.2. Compliance with technical standards

2.2.1. The Scheme is being undertaken under the provisions of the Highways Act (1980) and as such the appropriate guidance pertaining to cultural heritage lies within Volumes 10 and 11 of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB).

2.2.2. The approach to delivering archaeology for a road scheme of this type is outlined within HA75/01 of Volume 10, Section 6 of DMRB. All archaeological works will be planned, managed and undertaken based on the guidance provided by, but not limited to the following documents.

Commented [NS8]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 2.1.3 third bullet in brackets – change ‘likely’ to ‘including’.

Commented [NS9R8]: Atkins 9/9: Amended

Commented [NS10]: Rebecca (HE) 30/08/19: Approved

Commented [NS11]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/0919): 2.1.4 – we consider WSIs should be approved by the statutory consultees not just commented on – please amend. Road schemes should be subject to the same standards and transparency as other development.

Commented [NS12R11]: Atkins 9/9: Not amended - under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors.

Commented [NS13]: Rebecca: Similarly, I agree with Lis that – when referring to guidance and publications in accordance with which works will be undertaken – it would be appropriate to refer to relevant KCC guidance (which I believe Lis is going to share with you). Relevant points where this may need to be addressed in WSI include – pages 10-11, and page 41 - 10.1.2

Commented [NS14R13]: Atkins 9/9: Referred to in para 2.2.5


10

Legislation

• Highways Act 1980

• Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979

• National Heritage Act 1983

• Treasure Act 1996

• Burial Act 1857

Planning Policy

2.2.3. As the Scheme is being delivered under the Highways Act 1980, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is in effect disapplied; although HE will nevertheless seek to meet its requirements where appropriate.

Guidance

2.2.4. The following general guidance and standard documents will guide all work undertaken. Where relevant others, are referred to directly in the appropriate Specific Methodologies as set out in Section 7 of this Strategy.

• Chartered Institute for Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA), 2014a. Code of Conduct.

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014b. Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation.

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014c. Standard and guidance for archaeological geophysical survey.

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014d, Standards and Guidance for Archaeological Excavation

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014e, Standards and Guidance for and Archaeological Watching Brief

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014f, Standards and Guidance for the Archaeological Investigation and Recording of Standing Buildings or Structures

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014g, Standards and Guidance for the Creation, Compilation, Transfer and Deposition of Archaeological Archives

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014h, Standard and Guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials

• DCLG, 2018. National Planning Policy Guidance.

• Campbell, G, Moffett, L and Straker, V 2011 'Environmental Archaeology. A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, from Sampling and Recovery to Post-excavation (second edition)'. Portsmouth: English Heritage

• Historic England, 2008, MoRPHE Project Planning Note 3: ‘Archaeological Excavation’

• Historic England, 2011, Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation

• Historic England, 2015a. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide.

• Historic England, 2015b. Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance: For the sustainable management of the historic environment.


11

• Historic England, 2016. Preserving Archaeological Remains: Decisions-taking for Sites under Development.

• Museum of London, 1994. Archaeological Site Manual (Third Edition)

• Watkinson, D and Neal, V., 2001. First Aid for Finds.

2.2.5. Kent County Council have their own specification manual for archaeological investigation and recording, which must be followed in the delivery of WSI undertaken under the remit of this AMMS. This should include reference to the appropriate general, and Kent specific period based resource assessments of the South East Archaeological Research Framework.

3. Archaeological Baseline

3.1. Previous Archaeological Assessment

3.1.1. Extensive archaeological investigations have been undertaken in the vicinity of the Scheme over the last 100 years. Much of this work has been undertaken as a result of discoveries of Palaeolithic artefacts discovered during quarrying and gravel extraction. However, more recent archaeological works have also been undertaken during design and construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL/HS1), construction of Ebbsfleet International railway station and during upgrades of the A2. All of these works have been concentrated at the Ebbsfleet end of the Scheme with only a small portion of the Bean end of the Scheme having been archaeologically assessed.

Springhead/Ebbsfleet Junction

3.1.2. The Roman settlement and ritual site of Vagniacae at Springhead has been investigated from the 19th century onwards. Works associated with the A2 in the mid-20th century (HER Reference EKE8919) opened a large area of the Roman site, and subsequent archaeological investigations were limited to small trenches for services, although these found Roman remains (see section 5.4.4). Extensive investigations have been undertaken in the last decade in the Ebbsfleet valley in advance of the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and its associated infrastructure developments. The archaeological requirements of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link necessitated the following works:

• A geotechnical survey (EKE14724);

• field walking survey (EKE11611);

• watching briefs (EKE8576);

• strip, map and recording works (EKE8575); and

• four evaluations (EKE8529; EKE8568; EKE8582; EKE8919).

3.1.3. A desk-based assessment of the area to the west of the Ebbsfleet Junction also concluded that there was high potential for archaeology to survive in the area (EKE14673). Another desk-based assessment which partially included a section of the Ebbsfleet Junction evaluated the potential for Palaeolithic remains to be present and concluded that the potential for encountering archaeology of this date varied across the study area (EKE14689).

3.1.4. A geoarchaeological evaluation (EKE14065) was undertaken in 2010 immediately north west of the Ebbsfleet Junction. Remains from the Palaeolithic to the Roman period were encountered.

Commented [NS15]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): We welcome the inclusion in 2.2.5 of the need to follow KCC standard specifications and refer to SERF in WSIs.

Commented [NS16R15]: Atkins 9/9: No change required.

Commented [NS17]: Rebecca 30/08/19: Doesn’t specifically refer to KCC guidance, but may be encompassed in the broader phrase ‘national, regional and local policy and guidelines’ – I will defer to Lis to approve.

Commented [NS18R17]: Atkins 9/9: Text added to clarify


12

3.1.5. A watching brief at Springhead Service Station (EKE8398), on the A2, found no archaeological material.

3.1.6. Overall the results of these investigations suggest that a significant proportion, if not the majority of the buried archaeological evidence for the Romano-British and late prehistoric settlement and cult centre at Springhead lies outside and to the north of the scheduled area and to the north of the A2.

3.2. Archaeological Assessment Undertaken for the Scheme

3.2.1. Between 2017 and 2019 a programme of archaeological and heritage work has been undertaken to inform and support the Environmental Statement for the Scheme (Highways England 2019). These have comprised:

• A detailed desk- based assessment including in-depth analysis of the Palaeolithic potential of the area (AOC Archaeology 2018a);

• A geophysical survey undertaken on the area to the south of the Bean Junction in which plantings are planned (AOC Archaeology 2018b); and

• Archaeological evaluation and geoarchaeological test pits undertaken to the north of the western roundabout at Ebbsfleet (Wessex Archaeology 2019)

3.2.2. The desk-based assessment highlighted that the archaeological potential of the Scheme is largely concentrated around the Ebbsfleet Junction and includes known significant archaeology of Romano-British date preserved within the Scheme footprint, but could also include potentially important evidence for Palaeolithic and early Holocene archaeology and palaeoenvironment. However, the desk based assessment noted that the Scheme lies to the south of where significant Palaeolithic and early Holocene evidence has been identified as being present, during extensive archaeological investigation and deposit modelling, although it did note that the local drift geology was very variable.

3.2.3. The archaeological evaluation undertaken to the north of the western roundabout at Ebbsfleet appears to corroborate the findings of previous reporting and deposit modelling, including the work of Wenban-Smith (2013) and others that informed the desk based assessment. The evaluation demonstrated the presence of c. 3m of modern made ground and/or former quarry backfill overlying sterile Holocene colluvial deposits. No archaeological artefacts were recovered, and no potential Palaeolithic horizons identified.

3.2.4. The geophysical survey undertaken to the south-east of the Bean Junction was largely inconclusive and did not identify any anomalies of likely archaeological origin. Much of the area surveyed appeared to have been the subject of previous disturbance, potentially by an old works compound associated with past construction/improvement work on the A2.

3.3. Topographical and Geological Background

3.3.1. The Bean Junction is located on a ridge in the landscape between 50m to 70m AOD with a valley to its west. South of the A296/A2 the topography undulates from Darenth Country Park to the west of the Ebbsfleet Junction. Ebbsfleet Junction itself is located at between 30 to 40m AOD and occupies slightly lower ground forming part of the head of an infilled river valley associated with the Ebbsfleet. To the north of the A296, the topography is dominated by quarries; the western quarry has been developed as the Bluewater Shopping Centre and the Eastern Quarries are being developed for housing and mixed-use development.

3.3.2. In the early 19th century the Ebbsfleet was a small tidal stream less than 3km long, running northward from springs at Springhead to join the Thames. In prehistoric and Roman times

Commented [NS19]: 1)Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Re 3.2.1 - the desk-based assessment for the scheme needs to be updated and, as requested previously, a full assessment of the Palaeolithic potential along the scheme needs to be undertaken following KCC standard specifications. All Pleistocene deposits along the route should be assessed and evaluated; impacts could be caused by cutting back sections within the current highway boundary and off-line service diversions. Previous work has focussed on the Southfleet Road/Ebbsfleet valley area but there could also be potential at the Bean end of the scheme – a quick look at the BGS mapping shows Head deposits and undifferentiated river gravels neither of which have been assessed previously.

Commented [NS20R19]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding – This is neither reasonable nor proportionate given the limited footprint of what is essentially an on line improvement.


13

these springs formed a series of pools around which ritual activity became focussed (Wenban-Smith 2013).

3.3.3. The local solid geology comprises upper chalk locally overlain by sands of the Thanet Formation. The Bean Junction to the west is underlain by Seaford Chalk Formation. To the south of the Bean Junction, the dominant geology is Thanet Sand Formation, with small pockets of Lambeth Group sand and clay with the London Clay Formation shown to the east of the junction. At Ebbsfleet, the south east and east area of the junction is shown dominated by the Seaford Chalk Formation.

3.3.4. The Palaeogene and Late Cretaceous chalk and sand deposits are overlain in places by a complex sequence of Quaternary deposits mainly of alluvium, head and terrace gravel. Alluvium deposits are found locally around the River Ebbsfleet at the eastern end of the Scheme whereas terrace gravel deposits are more frequently located in the west towards Bean.

3.3.5. Colluvial deposits infilling a dry valley are mapped to the north of the Ebbsfleet Junction in the vicinity of Southfleet Road. This colluviation dates to the Holocene (younger than 10,000 BP). It should be noted however that geoarchaeological investigations within this locality (Oxford Archaeology, 2014; Wessex Archaeology 2011; Wenban Smith 2013) have revealed a drift geology at variance to that mapped by the British Geological Survey (BGS) and show deposits of Pleistocene Gravels to extend further south towards the Ebbsfleet Junction than is shown on current mapping.

3.3.6. Colluvial deposits up to a depth of 4m have been recorded on the lower valley sides within the Ebbsfleet valley. These colluvial deposits appear to have formed as a consequence of destabilisation of the valley sides following post-Roman ploughing (Wessex Archaeology 2004). The evaluation undertaken to the north of the Ebbsfleet Junction in support of the Scheme (Wessex 2018) confirmed that a considerable depth of colluvium was present forming part of the valley fill, but was overlain by significant modern made ground (up to 3m) or had otherwise been truncated by historic quarrying.

3.4. Lower Palaeolithic

3.4.1. The Ebbsfleet Valley is incised through a local landscape dominated by Thames sequences of the Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath gravel of the major Hoxnian interglacial, associated with Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11. The deposits consist of a sequence of predominantly fluvial silt, sand and gravel units laid down by the early Thames c. 400,000 BP.

3.4.2. The Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath formation is internationally recognised for its Lower Palaeolithic remains; it trends east to west parallel to the present-day course of the Lower Thames and is present at Swanscombe to the north of the Scheme. Lower Palaeolithic sites nearby within the Swanscombe terrace outcrop of the Boyn closest to the Scheme include Swan Valley Community School (Wenban-Smith & Bridgland 2001) Eastern Quarry B (Wessex Archaeology 2006) and Southfleet Road Widening (Wessex 2011); all located north of the Site on deposits previously mapped as Tertiary Thanet Sand (BGS 1998). At all three sites, fluvial gravels have produced hand axes and debitage comparable to material from the Swanscombe gravels of the Boyn formation. Discovery of this material has extended the known southern limit of the Thames channel of MIS 11 significantly further south than that shown on geological mapping. Wenban Smith (2013, 108) has mapped the known extent of the Boyn/Hill Orsett Heath formation and shows it to extend to within 700m of the northernmost elements of the Site (Southfleet Road).

3.4.3. No in situ Lower Palaeolithic artefacts or deposits are known from within the Scheme boundary although a total of 20 Lower Palaeolithic sites are known within 500m, including a Clactonian tool assemblage identified from the investigations undertaken at Northfleet West

Commented [NS21]: Lis Dyson: Re. 3.3.4/3.3.5 – again four probable dry valleys and two areas of undifferentiated river terrace sands and gravels are indicated by the BGS in the western half of the scheme – this should have been considered further in the detailed Palaeolithic assessment that we have requested but which doesn’t seem to have been carried out. Note that the BGS mapping relates to where Pleistocene deposits are outcropping – the same deposits could be present elsewhere at depth. It is unclear what the river terrace deposits relate to – it may be worth contacting Dr Francis Wenban-Smith, University of Southampton, who has carried out most of the Palaeolithic work in this area to see if he has any further information.



14

Substation/Ebbsfleet Green [Reference to added]. These primarily comprise finds of Lower Palaeolithic material including hand axes, lithic debitage and mega faunal remains and are concentrated to the north east near Swanscombe. Henry Stopes’ collection of Palaeolithic material from the 1890s includes two hand axes and nine flakes discovered from Treadwell’s Hop Ground approximately 100m north of the Scheme in the vicinity of Southfleet Road (Wenban Smith 2013). The oldest sediments recorded within the Ebbsfleet Valley are those at the Southfleet Road elephant butchery site (MKE43400), c 250m north of the Scheme, where a partial skeleton of an extinct straight-tusked elephant Palaeoloxodon antiquus was discovered at an elevation of 29m AOD in advance of works associated with HS1.

3.4.4. The elephant remains were found below fluvial gravels containing more than 30 Palaeolithic hand axes, five cores, 11 flake-tools and more than 120 pieces of flint debitage (Wenban-Smith et al 2006). The exceptionally high degree of artefact refitting and their presence in the same narrow band of sediment as the elephant bones indicate that the lithic remains represent on-the-spot knapping and discard, probably during the butchery of an animal that had become mired (Wenban Smith 2013, 457).

3.4.5. The lithic and faunal remains were found to be part of a deeper sequence containing artefactual and palaeo-environmental evidence revealing a complex sequence of Lower Palaeolithic sediments comprising eight sedimentary phases. The identified sediments have a high chalk content, and by association a high nodular flint content. This ready supply of raw materials in a valleyside context would have made the immediate environs of the Ebbsfleet Junction an attractive locale for early hominins.

3.4.6. Wenban Smith (2013) has undertaken detailed assessment of the Pleistocene sediment sequence at the Southfleet Road site with comparison to borehole records logged by the BGS and with reference to archaeological and geoarchaeological investigations in the vicinity of the Southfleet Road elephant site. These records have allowed the creation of a series of representative transects showing lithostratigraphic deposits running from west to east through the elephant site and the Ebbsfleet Valley (Wenban Smith 2013, Figures 4.35-4.36). The transect shows that to the north west of the Ebbsfleet Junction, the Thanet Sand bedrock generally occurs at an elevation above that of the most elevated parts of the junction (25m OD), at above 30m OD, but that the surface of the sand dips steeply eastwards below 20m OD at the elephant site, dropping further to the east to a level of 14m OD in the Springhead Quarter. The nearest available BGS records to the junction are currently derived from a test pit excavated in 1997 from an elevation of 21.3m OD adjacent to the west roundabout (TQ67SW692) c 375m south of the elephant site. The test pit revealed deposits of made ground to 2m underlain by sand head deposits to 4m at which depth the test pit was terminated. Identification of sandy head deposits is indicative that Thanet Sands in the immediate vicinity of the Site are located at around 19m OD and thus at similar levels to those found at the Southfleet Road elephant site. However, no indication of overlying Pleistocene deposits was found within the test pit. The test pits and trenching undertaken to the north of the junction to inform the Scheme (Wessex Archaeology 2019) confirmed the presence of deep deposits of recent made ground overlying Holocene colluvium.

3.4.7. Monitoring of geotechnical investigations by Museum of London Archaeology within the Northfleet West substation site north of the A2 located both north and west of the Ebbsfleet Junction also established that deposits across the majority of the area comprised colluvial sands and silts down to a depth of approximately 3m under which Thanet Sand deposits were encountered.

3.4.8. It has thus been established that Pleistocene deposits are absent from much of the area around the Ebbsfleet Junction (MoLA 2010-2011 and Wessex Archaeology 2019), although recent investigations to the south of the Scheme have now identified Pleistocene deposit

Commented [NS23]: Lis Dyson (KCC – 09/09/19: Paragraph 3.4.4 needs to be corrected – Palaeolithic hand axes were not found in association with the elephant remains but in the fluvial gravels overlying them. This is an important point in relation to the interpretation of the material culture of the site.

Commented [NS24R23]: Atkins 9/9: Amended


15

sequences from investigations on a Southern Water site [Reference to be added]. An archaeological watching brief was undertaken by Oxford Archaeology in 2014 during excavations to remove the former interceptors at the substation site. The main compound, located north of the A2, was again found to be within an area of low potential characterised by the presence of pre-Quaternary, Tertiary deposits (Thanet Sand) directly underlying modern made ground and plough soil.

3.4.9. The removal of Interceptor E which was located further north (approximately 250m north west of Ebbsfleet Junction) was subject to a watching brief as it was located within an area classified as of low potential characterised by the presence of thick colluvial sediments underlying plough soil and varying thickness of made ground. It was thought that any Palaeolithic sediments within this area would be reworked from older sediments. The watching brief uncovered no archaeological evidence or evidence for Lower Palaeolithic deposits, although later Holocene colluvial deposits were again identified (Oxford Archaeology 2014).

3.4.10. BGS borehole logs taken from between the east and west roundabouts at Ebbsfleet Junction reveal a more complex stratigraphy than seen to the north, comprising sandy alluvial clays to a depth of around 6m below ground level after which the underlying chalk bedrock was found. There is thus no indication within these boreholes of the occurrence of the Ebbsfleet Gravels or deposits that could be attributed to the Lower Palaeolithic although they represent only a very small sampling window. However, the test pits and trenching undertaken to the north of the junction to inform the Scheme (Wessex Archaeology 2019) confirmed the presence of deep deposits of recent made ground overlying Holocene colluvium.

3.4.11. Archaeological investigations around the Bean Junction are comparatively few. BGS borehole records from this area generally reveal a topsoil up to 0.3m deep overlying sands of the Thanet Beds to a depth of between 3-6m overlying chalk bedrock deposits with no evidence for likely Lower Palaeolithic deposits. A review of Lower Palaeolithic evidence within the vicinity of the Scheme thus reveals that Lower Palaeolithic remains are primarily associated with the deposits of the Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath formation which generally occur at a base level above 20m AOD and north of the Ebbsfleet Junction. Based on current evidence, including the results of the December 2018 evaluation (Wessex Archaeology 2019) it is unlikely that Boyne Hill/ Orsett Heath formation extends as far south as the Ebbsfleet Junction itself.

3.5. Middle Palaeolithic

3.5.1. Geoarchaeological studies undertaken by Wenban-Smith (2013) indicate that a landslide blocked off the Ebbsfleet and diverted it into a new channel. This created an embayment east of the Ebbsfleet Junction that served as a sump, accumulating deposits through the late Middle and Late Palaeolithic derived from deposition of fluvial sediments and colluvial/solifluction deposition down the sides of the Ebbsfleet Valley (Bridgland 1994).

3.5.2. The Ebbsfleet Valley thus preserves detailed stratigraphic sequences not found elsewhere in the main Thames valley where later activity has predominantly removed these deposits. The sediments occur at lower elevations than the Lower Palaeolithic deposits of the Boyn Hill/Orsett Heath formation, and mostly date to the younger periods MIS 8 through to MIS 2 (250,000-10,000 BP). Isolated patches of these deposits still survive in places despite the history of quarrying and CTRL and Ebbsfleet International station development and have produced rich Palaeolithic and faunal remains, including prolific Levalloisian flint artefacts and some key fossiliferous locations for MIS 7. Particularly important locations include: the

Commented [NS25]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): The Middle Palaeolithic section, 3.5, should consider the relatively recent finds from the M25/A2/A282 scheme in case similar depositional environments are present within the current scheme.

Commented [NS26R25]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding issue and not discussed previously with KCC – this can be looked into if KCC point us in the right direction for reporting.


16

Baker’s Hole Levallois site; the Northfleet Allotments site, and Ebbsfleet Channel Temperate Bed site (Wenban Smith 2013 18-20).

3.6. Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

3.6.1. Much of the data for these periods comes from studies within historic quarry/gravel extraction with not so much by way of recent scientific investigations. Further difficulties in establishing what may be the true picture derive from the fact that on high ground material of this date may have been denuded by slope wash and on low ground buried by deep colluviation. Further evidence, albeit not in situ, is often reworked into fluvio-glacial. Where material is deeply buried in colluvium it is unlikely to have been identified, unless the area also lies in a zone that has witnessed active quarrying and or aggregate extraction. Furthermore, it is highly likely that much human activity during these periods was located within areas that have now been inundated by the North Sea, English Channel and flooded estuaries.

3.6.2. Upper Palaeolithic can broadly be defined as c. 40,000 – 10,000 BP a period also identified as the Devensian. During this period there is intermittent/episodic movement of anatomically modern humans into Britain from the continent during warmer spells within a period of otherwise rapidly fluctuating climate. It can broadly be split into two relatively distinct periods separated by glaciations:

1) Early Upper Palaeolithic (c. 40,000 – 27,000 BP); and

2) Late Upper Palaeolithic (c. 13,500 – 10,000 BP)

3.6.3. During this whole period, Britain may only have had brief interludes between glaciations when it would have been climatologically suitable for human exploitation. Indications are that Britain was accessed from the continent via what is now the North Sea basin, which before sea level rise at the end of the last glaciation was a broad, gently undulating plain. This route was probably the path by which migrating herds exploited by hunter gatherer communities followed rather than the more difficult and deeply incised river systems now occupied by the Channel.

3.6.4. This orientation of access appears to have placed South East England, including Kent, on the margins of the areas of human exploitation compared with the north midlands, south-west and south Wales.

3.6.5. This is particularly noticeable for the Early Upper Palaeolithic where human activity in south-east England, based on presently available evidence, appears to be largely concentrated on the Lower Greensand geologies of Surrey and East Sussex. Even here, no examples of Aurignacian tools have so far been identified, in contrast with the evidence from the south west and South Wales.

3.6.6. The Late Upper Palaeolithic can itself be divided into two relatively short sub-periods. The first of these immediately succeeds the end of the last glacial maximum and can be dated from c. 13,000 – 12,000 BP. Like the Early Upper Palaeolithic, it appears that the main focus of human activity was again concentrated on game migration routes across what is now the North Sea basin and into the north midlands, south-west and Wales. Human activity of this date in south-east England, on the limited evidence available, again appears to be largely absent, and where present seems to be concentrated on the edges of the Weald.

3.6.7. A change appears to be discernible between 12,000 and 11,000 BP when evidence for colonisation of the extreme south-east of England becomes more visible in the archaeological record, albeit still relatively scarce compared to the midlands and south-west. This evidence points to the exploitation of fluvial environments as temperatures and

Commented [NS27]: Lis Dyson: Re section 3.6, much of the route passes through or across Head deposits which have been found in nearby investigations to contain significant late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic remains. A detailed Palaeolithic assessment following the KCC standard guidelines would follow a deposit-led approach to assessing potential for Palaeolithic archaeology within the scheme area – this assessment still needs to be carried out. The current assessment is both too generic and places too much emphasis on extrapolating from single test pits or boreholes without understanding the context; it does not seem to have been written by a Palaeolithic specialist.



17

sea levels rose. Some of the best evidence for this comes from deeply stratified sites within river valleys including within the upper reaches of the infilled Ebbsfleet valley at Springhead as well as further afield in Kent at Lullingstone and Riverdale. Perhaps the most well-known site of this period is, however, the sequences identified at Three Ways Wharf, Uxbridge within the Colne Valley to the west of London. Further examples have been identified at Staines and at other points along the south bank of the Thames. Deeply buried sites such as these have demonstrated how well preserved the palaeoenvironmental evidence at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary can be in the right conditions and that such evidence could be relatively common within infilled valley locations feeding to the Thames, including potentially within the infilled Ebbsfleet valley.

3.6.8. Archaeological investigations near the Ebbsfleet Junction have uncovered; Palaeolithic flint artefacts, a collection of Upper Palaeolithic flint blades, cores and debitage; burnt and worked flint (EKE14074); and non-specific prehistoric material (EKE14676). An investigation in the vicinity of Bean Junction also uncovered a small collection of prehistoric finds (EKE8389).

3.6.9. Geoarchaeological investigation at the Northfleet West Substation due north of the A2 (EKE14065) revealed the majority of the investigation area to be devoid of Pleistocene deposits and to be underlain by Thanet Sand deposits. However, fieldwalking across the site encountered Palaeolithic flint flakes in the plough soil and a dry valley filled with colluvial deposits crossing the area from north west to south east was observed. Within the colluvial deposits a possibility of encountering reworked Palaeolithic remains was identified (MoLA 2010). At the south-eastern part of the Northfleet site and adjacent to the A2 (Site) colluvial deposits were seen to extend to 2.6m below the road surface and were considered of likely Holocene date matching with others encountered further to the north and east (Oxford Archaeology 2014). Although no archaeological remains were located within these colluvial deposits, their presence is indicative that such deposits may extend into the Ebbsfleet Junction area and may preserve reworked Palaeolithic material. The most recent post excavation analysis [Reference to be added] of the evidence recovered from the area of the Northfleet West Substation and Ebbsfleet Green identified tolls that can be ascribed to long blade technology of late Upper Palaeolithic to early Mesolithic date.

3.6.10. An Upper Palaeolithic knapping site (MKE20294) was uncovered in the eastern area of the Site during excavations for the line of the CTRL. A collection of unstratified struck flints, and blades of unknown, Mesolithic and Palaeolithic date were found. The flint assemblage albeit essentially redeposited in slopewash deposits, was in a relatively fresh condition and a number of refitting pieces suggesting it had not moved far from the original place of deposition, are an important addition to the corpus of regional evidence late Glacial to Early Holocene transition (Wenban-Smith et al 2015). In the wider area investigations evidence of rare late Upper Palaeolithic activity at Springhead has been identified in the form of another long blade assemblage (Burchell 1957).

3.6.11. The borehole logs from geotechnical works (EKE8329) conducted during improvement works around the B255 (Bean Road) and A2 junction in the western of the Scheme in 1995 are recorded by the BGS. Borehole logs from the central part of this area (TQ57SE404) show topsoil directly overlying Thanet Beds. To the west of this, borehole TQ57SE403 shows topsoil overlying sandy clay to 1.3m below which laminated Thanet Sand deposits were observed. At the Bean overbridge (TQ57SE400), Thanet Beds were encountered directly below made ground at 2.7m.

3.6.12. The majority of the eastern part of the Scheme has been subject to previous investigation which has revealed colluvial and alluvial deposits surviving at depth. The CTRL studies identified a variety of deposits, which were rich in biological evidence and, owing to the burial of Pleistocene deposits by later Holocene deposits were well preserved. The depth and wider extent of the Upper Palaeolithic deposits protected by alluvium within the


18

Ebbsfleet Valley is less well understood than earlier deposits and those on the steeper hill slopes, primarily as a consequence of their burial beneath alluvial deposits, not attractive to mineral extraction and thus subsequently protected from development. Important remains are often patchily distributed, and their preservation can rely on the thickness of overlying deposits which in turn has been found to be highly variable (Wenban Smith et al 2010). Borehole logs held by the BGS undertaken in 1997 in advance of CTRL in the vicinity of the west roundabout at Ebbsfleet Junction (TQ67SW909) revealed a complex series of deposits underlying the topsoil comprising sandy flint gravels classed as ‘made ground’ to 2.2m below which sandy head deposits were encountered. Conversely borehole logs from a location adjacent to the south of the east roundabout at Ebbsfleet Junction (TQ67SW304) encountered Thanet Beds below made ground at a depth of 0.9m below ground level. The available borehole logs thus demonstrate considerable local variability in the depth and nature of deposits. The evaluation and test pits undertaken to the north of the western roundabout at Ebbsfleet Junction to inform the Scheme demonstrated the presence of extensive alluvium buried under a significant build-up of recent made ground and quarry fill (Wessex Archaeology 2019).

3.6.13. There is a relatively close correlation between activity of Late Upper Palaeolithic and that of the succeeding early Mesolithic although again the understanding of the Mesolithic in the south-east is hampered by a relative lack of current research. In the south-east of England there appears to be a correlation between Mesolithic activity and the presence of drier soil types, particularly where these are in association with nearby water sources and junctions between geologies that might afford a range of habitats for exploitation (Mellars and Reinhardt 1978).

3.6.14. Exploitation patterns appear to develop to throughout the Mesolithic in south-east England with activity of the earliest Mesolithic apparently largely confined to the Lower Greensand lower margins of the Weald of Surrey and East Sussex. Activity spreads later in the period onto the Weald itself with the identification of rock shelters and the exploitation on the edges of deeply incised valleys in sandstone areas, Ashdown Forest and near Horsham (Reynier 2005); sometimes apparently associated with woodland clearance (Scaife and Burrin 1983). Only relatively late in the period does activity seem to spread onto the coastal plain of north Kent, although it should be borne in mind that the coast was in almost constant process of inundation throughout this period with much evidence now located off-shore. Relatively significant evidence of this date has been recovered from within the colluvium infilling the Ebbsfleet Valley during the archaeological investigations at Springhead.

3.7. Neolithic to Iron Age

3.7.1. The relatively wide and sheltered tidal inlet of the Ebbsfleet that encouraged late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic activity, may have had a knock-on effect, drawing attention to the spring at the head of the Ebbsfleet as being situated in a natural amphitheatre. This then became a focus for ritual deposition in later prehistoric times before growing into a major Iron Age and Romano-British ritual temple complex at Springhead within and adjacent to the south of the Ebbsfleet Junction. Continuing deposition throughout the Holocene of silty alluvium and peat created a good environment for the survival of archaeological remains (Wenban Smith 2013) and well-preserved material has been excavated at Springhead as part of the CTRL project. The Ebbsfleet Junction lies on the lower western slopes of the Ebbsfleet Valley above the deeper alluvial and colluvial deposits that infill it but has nevertheless still been subject to some colluvial deposition. Excavations at the nearby Springhead Quarter revealed stratified colluvium to be a chalk flecked brown yellow clay to silt deposit and containing some small to medium sub-rounded gravel and residual late glacial flintwork (Wenban Smith 2003). The colluvium seals features


19

of Prehistoric and Roman dates and is thought to be a result of de-stabilisation of slopes during ploughing in the Roman period (Wessex Archaeology 2004).

3.7.2. The Ebbsfleet Valley also known as the location of the type‐site of a form of Later Neolithic decorated pottery (Ebbsfleet Ware) and a Scheduled Neolithic site is 200m north of the Ebbsfleet Junction (Neolithic sites near Ebbsfleet, NHLE No. 1004206). Neolithic activity in the area otherwise generally consists of a background ‘noise’ of residual pottery and worked flint in the fill of later features and colluvial deposits. Where sites are present, they appear concentrated at the valley bottom rather than on the slopes, most likely a bias of preservation produced by hillside erosion. However, three mint condition flakes and one piece of fire-cracked flint were present in the uppermost gravel at Springhead Quarter north east of the Ebbsfleet Junction on the east valley slopes and were interpreted as of later prehistoric, probably Neolithic date (Wessex 2004, 19). Geotechnical investigations undertaken at the base of the valley at Springhead also revealed a deposit of likely Neolithic or Bronze Age date sealed beneath 1.7m of colluvium (Wessex 1997).

3.7.3. Archaeological investigations around the Ebbsfleet Junction have uncovered a number of pits and ditches in which were found ceramic fragments dating from the Bronze Age to the Roman period (EKE14061). The CTRL excavations at Springhead revealed limited evidence of Neolithic deposits and a more varied range of middle to late Bronze Age features, the latter including pits, field system ditches and burnt mounds and two ring-ditches potentially focused around eight natural pools (MKE99362-Wessex Archaeology, 2008). Indeed, it may be argued that the ritual use of the landscape began in the Middle Bronze Age with the construction of barrows next to the springs (Wenban Smith et al 2015). Early and middle Iron Age activity in the vicinity of the Scheme is relatively scarce although by the late Iron Age the Springhead area was certainly becoming established as a significant focus of activity. This developed into the major Romano-British cult centre and associated settlement of Vagniacae.

3.8. Romano-British

3.8.1. The Ebbsfleet Junction lies immediately north of the Scheduled Monument known as Springhead Roman Site (1005140). This area is also crossed by Roman Watling Street (MKE4004, MKE20535) and includes a road junction between Watling Street and a branch road leading northward (MKE99389).

3.8.2. Historically the area around Springhead has been identified as the former Romano-British town of Vagniacae, or Springhead Roman Site (MKE1632). This is located at the head of the Ebbsfleet valley where it is crossed by the Roman Watling Street (MKE4004). First excavated in the 18th century, Vagniacae was identified as being a major religious centre during the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. Early investigations located a walled cemetery, a baths, burials, and a kiln (MKE1632). Vagniacae is considered to be of national importance due to its rich archaeological remains which include a mix of domestic, commercial, industrial and ritual evidence. The archaeological investigations undertaken in this area strongly suggest that a significant proportion, if not the majority of the Romano-British and late prehistoric settlement and cult activity lies outside and to the north of the scheduled area and to the north of the A2.

3.8.3. Watling Street (MKE4004) was historically thought to run east to west through the Scheduled Monument (1005140) and south of the Ebbsfleet Junction, however later research found that it made a dog leg through the settlement of Vagniacae (MKE1632). The settlement (MKE1632) seems to follow the route of the road (MKE4004) and there is little evidence to suggest that the settlement area extends further than 100m north and south of Watling Street (Boyle et al, 1995:1). Evaluation trenches (EKE8568) laid across the known


20

route of Watling Street (KME4004) in 2003 failed to find any trace of the road, although later ploughing may have damaged any remains.

3.8.4. During works for the A2 in the 1950s and 1960s, excavations by W.S Penn (EKE8919) found a complex of five temples, numerous buildings and a ditch. Within the footprint of the Ebbsfleet Junction are two features uncovered during these mid-20th century investigations. The first is a length of Claudian ditch (MKE20566) which was originally interpreted as a military ditch, however later investigations in the area indicate that the ditch may be associated with Watling Street (MKE4004) or the ritual settlement (MKE1632). The second comprises a number of Roman features including buildings, shops, flint, a pit, clay floor and a kiln (MKE20569). These features were then buried beneath the route of the A2.

3.8.5. A courtyard feature (MKE20564) was found during excavations of a gas trench on the northern edge of Watling Street (MKE4004). The feature (MKE20564) lies to the south of individual properties found later by Wessex Archaeology. A cable trench excavated in 1992 (EKE8929) uncovered a Romano-British surface (MKE20537) in the vicinity of Watling Street (MKE4004). On the north-eastern boundary of the Ebbsfleet Junction a group of chalk, brick earth and gravel pits (MKE20302) have been found and interpreted as possible sources for the building material for the Roman settlement. Roman building material and pottery was also recorded to the north-east of the Ebbsfleet Junction during a geoarchaeological investigation in 2010 (EKE14065).

3.8.6. Wessex Archaeology conducted initial archaeological evaluation at Vagniacae (EKE8529) in 1997 in an attempt to define the north-western limits of the Romano-British settlement. These initial investigation works identified that a road, ditches, wall footings, burials, post holes, pits and occupation deposits were concentrated towards the floor of the Ebbsfleet Valley. Stratified deposits were found to survive along the line of the Roman Road running north west to south east through the Springhead Nurseries. Further, more extensive, archaeological works were undertaken by Wessex Archaeology at Vagniacae from 2000 to 2003 in advance of the construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (EKE8581; EKE8582; EKE16205; EKE11611; EKE8575; EKE8576). These excavations uncovered stratified remains from the late Iron Age through to the Roman period centred on eight ceremonial pools (MKE99362 –Wessex Archaeology, 2008). Within the Site boundary, Wessex identified the following; eleven properties (MKE99407; MKE99409; MKE99410; MKE66424; MKE99403; MKE99402; MKE99401; MKE99400; MKE99397; & MKE99395); with surviving fence or property boundary lines (MKE99392); two Roman temples (MKE99355; MKE99370); a possible bath house (MKE99390); a road leading to a ritual pool (MKE99365); the remains of a 1st/2nd century aisled barn; the footings for a road side shrine and twelve coins (MKE99412); six early Roman burials (MKE99368); an early cenotaph (MKE99380) and a collection of Roman pottery and iron strap (MKE99967).

3.8.7. Although Vagniacae had long been recognised as ritual site, these excavations uncovered abundant evidence for domestic, commercial and industrial activities demonstrating the richness of the archaeological site at Vagniacae and its potential to inform about daily life in the Roman period as well as the more readily appreciated ritual elements. Evidence for domestic Roman activities within the footprint of the Ebbsfleet Junction was strongly associated with the eleven properties and included a bakery structure within Property 3 (MKE99400); domestic rubbish pits at Property 4 (MKE99401); brick earth quarries and domestic rubbish pits at Property 12 (MKE99410) and evidence for metalworking and a potential smithy at Property 10 (MKE99408). Roman inhumations were encountered within Properties 3 (MKE99400), 5 (MKE99402), 11 (MKE99409), and 12 (MKE99410).

3.8.8. A late 2nd century Roman stone temple 14m x 8m in size (MKE99355) was discovered beneath the eastbound A2 slip road within the Site during CTRL works. Coin evidence suggested that the temple was constructed in c. AD 180/190 and demolished a century or so later. The temple was aligned at right angles to Watling Street with the entrance facing


21

south-east and was built in two phases of construction. The central part of the building may have been re-used after the main period of demolition. The walls survived to a height of c. 0.5m and consisted of flint nodules and chalk set in lime mortar. The entrance had a vestibule with four entrances. Evidence of tiled flooring, painted wall plaster (with green and red paint and now conserved in-situ), was found. A number of pits and postholes lay south of the temple and two hearths north of the fence that was itself north of the temple, two of which appear to have contained neonatal burials. When the temple was demolished at the end of the 3rd century the tiled floor was removed and the plaster stripped before demolition. Much of the demolition rubble was used to create a platform in the middle of the temple and this seems to have remained in use, perhaps into the mid-4th century (based on coin evidence). Two more neonatal burials may have been found here. The temple site is the only area of the Springhead excavations where late 4th/early 5th century pottery was found and indicates that the temple may have remained a focus of activity even after the abandonment of the wider site. The temple was preserved in-situ below the new (existing) slip road at a shallow depth beneath shingle.

3.8.9. Occupation at Springhead appears to have diminished in scale by the mid-3rd century AD, although some activity including use of the aforementioned temple beneath the A2 slip road continued right up to the end of the 4th century. While it is acknowledged that some Roman remains may have been lost to post-medieval and modern ploughing, as well as historic road construction (EKE14059), excavated remains of the settlement were otherwise found to be in a good state of preservation. The late 2nd century Roman stone temple including associated conserved painted wall plaster is preserved in situ beneath the existing east bound A2 slip road. In addition, there are small areas within the eastern area of the Ebbsfleet Junction which are not recorded by the KCHER to have been subject to previous archaeological investigation (see Figure 3.2).

3.8.10. At the western end of the Scheme, previous works have found a limited amount of Roman material and it is possible that a field system identified from cropmark evidence (MKE 77177) may be of Roman date. No previous excavations are recorded in the central on line section of the Scheme; however since this area is some distance from the known extent of Vagniacae, Romano-British remains are likely to be less frequent.

3.9. Early Medieval

3.9.1. A large Anglo-Saxon Cemetery was recorded on the upper eastern slopes of the Ebbsfleet Valley during excavations at Springhead Quarter northeast of Ebbsfleet Junction although settlement itself seems to have been more dispersed. The cemetery dates to the 7th century and consisted of a total of 36 graves in two distinct groupings. Jewellery such as gold-and garnet buckles, of which a number were found, attested the high status of the cemetery. The cemetery has been shown to extend along the southern boundary of the adjacent Springhead Quarter.

3.9.2. More permanent settlement reappears in the late Saxon period, alongside the still-functioning route of Watling Street, the main link from London to Canterbury, in the form of a scatter of farmsteads. Two early medieval sunken houses or Grubenhäuser, (MKE20303; MKE99929) have also been found near the Ebbsfleet Junction (MKE20303; MKE99929).

3.10. Medieval to Modern

3.10.1. The Scheme is located between Swanscombe to the west and Northfleet to the east. Both of these settlements are recorded in the Domesday Book (1086), with Swanscombe being


22

tenanted by the Bishop of Bayeux and Northfleet being owned by the Archbishop of Christ Church, Canterbury in 1086 (OpenDomesday, nd).

3.10.2. The western area of the Scheme is located between two Scheduled portions of the medieval boundary for Darenth Wood (1013378). Another two Scheduled portions, which protect the remains of the boundary, are located further to the west. Excavations into the boundary found ceramic fragments dating from the 13th century, which concurs with the form of the boundary. Darenth Wood boundary (1013378) has been cut by historic and modern activity, most obviously by the A2 and by the A296.

3.10.3. Previous archaeological excavations within the Scheme boundary have noted a lack of post-Roman remains. The area was most likely located in agricultural or open land between settlements in the medieval period.

3.10.4. The post-medieval period saw growing exploitation of the area, although not necessarily any significant increase in settlement density until the twentieth century. Small-scale chalk quarrying continued in patches along the Ebbsfleet Valley throughout the post-medieval period. At Springhead, the first watercress industry flourished in the nineteenth century and the remains of watercress beds were discovered during evaluation in 1997 (Wessex 1997). Watercress cultivation in the Ebbsfleet Valley continued until the 1930s when the springs dried up as a result of pumping operations further downstream. In the wider area, 19th century industrial development of the cement works at Northfleet which produced ‘Roman’ cement heavily influenced the development of the landscape immediately adjacent to the Scheme with a substantial proportion of the Eastern Quarry being exploited for clay to supply as clay slurry to the cement works from around 1900.

3.10.5. The western end of the Scheme at the Bean Junction was constructed between 1967 and 1974. The area nearby was exploited for industrial purposes in the 20th century, with a chalk pit and works being located to the north and the urban sprawl to the east and west by 1991.


23

4. Potential Archaeological Impacts

4.1. Overview

4.1.1. During construction, direct physical impacts could occur to archaeological assets from site vegetation clearance, earthmoving operations, creation of site compounds, road and bridge construction, and excavations for provision of all associated infrastructures (gantries, signage, drainage, utilities etc.). Section 11.9 of the ES provides an assessment of the known heritage assets that are likely to be impacted by construction of the Scheme. These are summarised below:

Scheduled Monument of Darenth Wood woodland boundary [1013378]

4.1.2. This Scheduled Monument lies adjacent to both sides of the existing stretch of the A2 to the west of Bean Junction. The monument is not however continuous and is partitioned into two by the A2. The scheduled areas will therefore not experience any physical impacts during the construction of the Scheme and no direct impacts from construction are anticipated.

Scheduled Monument of Neolithic site near Ebbsfleet [1004206]

4.1.3. The Scheduled Monument includes two separate sites, the most southern site is located approximately 250 m to the north of Ebbsfleet South Roundabout. This monument will not experience any physical impacts during the construction of the Scheme.

Scheduled Monument of Springhead Roman Site (Vagniacae) [1005140]

4.1.4. The Scheduled Monument lies to the south of, and partially extends underneath the existing A2 at Ebbsfleet Junction where it borders Watling Street (Roman Road). No road re-alignment or new road construction will occur within the scheduled boundary.

4.1.5. The footing for a proposed MS4 cantilever gantry at Chainage 7146 will, however, be located within the Scheduled area alongside the eastbound carriageway of the A2. The area affected will be very small resulting in a very limited potential impact, but Scheduled Monument Consent will nonetheless be required, which will include the area of excavation and working area. Furthermore, any monitoring and/or archaeological works that may be required for footing for a new gantry within the Scheduled area are a condition of the granting of Scheduled Monument Consent.

Romano-British settlement at Springhead (Vagniacae) [MKE1632]

4.1.6. The non-designated asset stretches across the A2 at Ebbsfleet to the east of Springhead Nurseries and south of the A2, almost reaching the Pepper Hill Junction. It also encompasses the scheduled boundary of the Springhead Roman Site, and various other non-designated heritage assets of Romano-British date, which can be found within its defined area. Evidence from the investigations so far undertaken to the north of the A2 strongly suggest that a very large part, if not the majority of the Romano-British and later prehistoric settlement and cult site at Springhead lies outside and to the north of the scheduled area and to the north of the A2.

4.1.7. The non-designated asset could potentially experience physical impacts from enlargement of the Ebbsfleet South Roundabout and construction of an additional east bound slip road off this roundabout.

Commented [NS29]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Re 4.1.3 – amend - there will be physical impact due to changes in the waterlogged nature of the deposits which still needs to be assessed

Commented [NS30R29]: Atkins 9/9: No amendment - no dewatering requirement has identified by the geology/hydrology teams

Commented [NS31]: Lis Dyson: Re 4.1.5 – should add that further late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic remains could be found along the scheme but are most likely to occur in or close to deposits mapped as Head.

Commented [NS32R31]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding - This comment does not bear relation to 4.1.5

Commented [NS33]: Maria (Historic England): Similarly, a small point and something that is probably already understood, but it might be worth mentioning that the overall AMMS will need to include provision for any monitoring/archaeological works that may be required for the gantry works that are likely to take place within the scheduled Springhead monument (Page 24, 4.1.5); and which would also likely be a condition of any SMC (Scheduled Monument Consent) granted for these works.

Commented [NS34R33]: Atkins 9/9: This is indicated at 4.1.5

Commented [NS35]: Maria (Historic England): Some final small points - I note that 1.4.5 (page 7) states that most of the Springhead settlement and ritual site lies within the scheduled area to the south. In fact, due to a lack of more refined knowledge at the time of scheduling, more archaeology is actually believed to lie outside the scheduled area, to the north! This doesn’t change anything within the methodologies set out within the AMMS but is a point to note and perhaps worth amending for the sake of clarity

Commented [NS36R35]: Atkins 9/9: This is indicated at 4.1.6


24

4.1.8. Depending on the final design of the A2 eastbound slip road widening at Ebbsfleet Junction, the Scheme could directly impact heritage assets with the non-designated heritage asset of Vagniacae [MKE1632]. With its association to the scheduled Roman settlement at Springhead, any archaeological remains discovered would be considered of schedulable quality.

Watling Street Roman Road [MKE404]

4.1.9. The non-designated asset known as Watling Street runs across the Scheme at multiple points as it mainly follows the alignment of the existing A296 and A2. Although some sub-surface elements of Watling Street will have been destroyed as a result of previous modern carriageway construction, elements of the road may survive beneath the footprint of the Scheme. High status Roman burials have been found along the route of Watling Street in the wider area close to the Ebbsfleet Junction (Wessex Archaeology 2008) and thus the possibility of encountering Romano-British human remains associated with Watling Street cannot be ruled out.

4.1.10. The asset could experience physical impacts due to the works associated with the Ebbsfleet South Roundabout enlargement works and the construction of the new slip road from that roundabout joining the A2. With its association to the scheduled Roman settlement at Springhead, any archaeological remains discovered associated with this road at Ebbsfleet could be considered of schedulable quality by Historic England and Kent County Council.

4.1.11. Away from the Ebbsfleet Junction and immediate association with the Romano-British activity at Springhead the road, whilst still retaining some significance, would not be of schedulable quality.

2nd Century Romano-British temple at Springhead [MKE99355]

4.1.12. The non-designated asset is located under the existing A2 east bound slip road coming off Ebbsfleet South Roundabout, to the south of Springhead Nurseries. The stone temple measures 14 m x 8 m in size and has been subject to previous excavation and recording works as part of the CTRL scheme (Wessex Archaeology 2008). The unexcavated remains of the temple are nonetheless currently preserved in situ at a shallow depth beneath shingle under the existing A2 slip road. Groundworks required to construct the new slip road may result in physical impacts on this asset.

4.1.13. With its association to the scheduled Roman settlement at Springhead, any surviving archaeological remains associated with this temple could be considered of schedulable quality by Historic England and Kent County Council.

Hitherto unidentified archaeological remains

4.1.14. The Scheme lies within an area known to contain extensive archaeological remains dating from the Lower Palaeolithic onwards. The north-eastern area of the Scheme at Ebbsfleet Junction has the potential for the preservation of Lower Palaeolithic, Upper Palaeolithic and early Holocene archaeological and palaeoenvironmental remains as well as a potential for encountering Roman remains. Trial trench evaluation (see Section 3.2 above) undertaken in December 2018 to the north of the Ebbsfleet Junction strongly suggests that significant Palaeolithic and early Holocene evidence does not lie within the Scheme footprint in this area (Wessex Archaeology 2019).


25

4.1.15. The value of any potential remains is unknown. However, the Palaeolithic remains found north of the Scheme are of international significance (Wenban-Smith 2013) and the possibility that remains of high value would experience physical impacts due to the works associated with the Ebbsfleet South Roundabout enlargement works and the construction of the new slip road from that roundabout joining the A2 cannot be ruled out. Any hitherto unidentified Romano-British remains in the immediate vicinity of the Ebbsfleet Junction would be associated with the Romano-British settlement at Springhead and therefore likely schedulable.

4.1.16. Away from the Ebbsfleet Junction there remains a potential for hitherto later prehistoric, Romano-British and early medieval archaeology being encountered within the Scheme footprint. Any such remains would not be of the same significance as those associated directly with the Springhead site adjacent to the Ebbsfleet Junction.

Waterlogged deposit sequences

4.1.17. Waterlogged depositional sequences are known to survive within the headwaters of the Ebbsfleet valley and could contain significant palaeoenvironmental evidence. Although these sequences are present at depth and will not be directly physically affected by construction of the Scheme, there is a potential that local changes to the hydrological regime could occur, thereby resulting in potential de-watering.


26

In-situ HER NO. Report Name Archaeological Unit Archaeological Asset Current Ground Level

Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

No MWX20876 Wenban-Smith FF,. 2013. The Ebbsfleet Elephant: Excavations at Southfleet Road, Swanscombe in Advance of High Speed 1, 2003-4. Wenban-Smith F.F et al. 2006. The Clactonian elephant butchery Site at Southfleet Road, Ebbsfleet, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(5): 471-483.

Oxford Archaeology Numerous Palaeolithic handaxes (and other flint artefacts) from gravel overlying the Southfleet Road "Ebbsfleet elephant" site

23m OD. 26-28mOD TQ 61175 73260 Found in Trench D

No MKE99904 Wessex Archaeology. 2006. Station Quarter South, Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological Test Pits in the Location of the Elephant Lake Site..

Wessex Archaeology Palaeolithic ostracod and mollusc remains from dried lake-bed sediments near the HS1 Ebbsfleet elephant site

20m-23mOD TQ 6121 7331

Yes MKE99412 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Archaeological Works at Springhead Nursery (ARC SHN02) Interim Fieldwork Report.

Oxford and Wessex Archaeology

Roman road-side shrine, Springhead 5.90m OD-6.90m OD.

TQ 6095 7261 ARC SHN02

Yes MKE99968 Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link Archaeological Works at Springhead, Kent: Park Corner Road, Pepperhill Café, Pepperhill Tunnel, South of the A2, West of Springhead Nursery.

Wessex Archaeology Medieval tile kiln west of Springhead Unknown TQ 6095 7261 ARC WSN02

No MKE99967 Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link Archaeological Works at Springhead, Kent: Park Corner Road, Pepperhill Café, Pepperhill Tunnel, South of the A2, West of Springhead Nursery.

Wessex Archaeology Medieval Boundary Ditch, Near Springhead Nursery, Springhead

9.90mOD TQ 6151 7275 ARC WSN02 Wessex Archaeology Reference: 397504

MKE77177 Cropmark of a possible field system, Springhead

Unknown TQ 6139 7284

Yes MKE20569 Penn, W.S., 1965. Springhead–map of discoveries. Archaeologia Cantiana, 80, pp.107-17. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape.

Wessex Archaeology Area of Romano-British activity immediately north of the A2 at Springhead

Approx. 8.85m OD.

TQ 6196 7243 Penn: F32, F31

Commented [NS37]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Assessing a Roman religious centre and settlement as a series of individual heritage assets as in the table at the end of section 4 is not a very effective method – an area-based characterisation may be more helpful.

Commented [NS38R37]: Atkins 9/9: The purpose of this table is to identify what survives (or not) and the depth it is supposedly still preserved at.


27


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

Possibly some remnants

MKE43400 Wenban-Smith F.F et al. 2006. The Clactonian elephant butchery Site at Southfleet Road, Ebbsfleet, UK. Journal of Quaternary Science 21(5): 471-483. Wenban-Smith FF,. 2013. The Ebbsfleet Elephant: Excavations at Southfleet Road, Swanscombe in Advance of High Speed 1, 2003-4..

Wessex Archaeology Palaeolithic (Clactonian) elephant butchery site, Southfleet Road, Ebbsfleet

24-23m OD (sloping downwards, north-east wards)

22-26.5m OD TQ 61160 7327

Yes MKE20566 Penn, W.S., 1965. Springhead–map of discoveries. Archaeologia Cantiana, 80, pp.107-17.

Wessex Archaeology Length of Roman ditch at Springhead, Southfleet

Approx. 8.85m OD.

TQ 61883 72504 ARCSHN02


Romano-British bath-house found beneath current route of A2 at Springhead

11-10m OD. Unknown TQ 61729 7255


Area of probable Romano-British activity at Springhead, Southfleet

Approx. 8.85m OD.

TQ 61898 72444

MKE20567 Penn, W.S., 1965. Springhead–map of discoveries. Archaeologia Cantiana, 80, pp.107-17.

Romano-British ditch discovered during the 1960s at Springhead

Approx. 8.85m OD.

TQ 6190 7241


Roman shop beneath the A2 at Springhead Unknown TQ 61810 72487


Two Roman buildings found north of Watling St beneath the A2



Courtyard and well, probably of Romano-British date, at Springhead, Southfleet

12mOD. Unknown TQ 61629 7265


Area of probable Romano-British occupation immediately north of Roman Watling St, Springhead


MKE20537 Smith, V.T., 1997. The Roman Road at Springhead Nurseries. Arch Cant, 117.

Probable Romano-British surface observed during cabling works in 1992

Approx. 10.59m OD and 9.39m OD

TQ 61650 72642

Unknown MKE20294 Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link Archaeological works at Springhead Roman Town (ARC SPH00): interim fieldwork report. Wenban-Smith FF, et al.,. 2012. Prehistoric Ebbsfleet: Excavations and Research in Advance of High Speed 1 and STDR 4.

Wessex Archaeology Upper Palaeolithic knapping site, Springhead


Unknown TQ 6177 7261 ARC SPH00




28


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

Partially (Southern portion destroyed by A2 works)


None Roman building found west of Watling St, Springhead, B13

12m OD. Destroyed TQ 61656 72591 ARC SPH00

Partially, (Destroyed by pipeline)


None Large Roman building east of Watling Street, Springhead, B9

11m OD. Unknown TQ 61713 72571 Penn, B9

MKE20293 Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link Archaeological works at Springhead Roman Town (ARC SPH00): interim fieldwork report.

Wessex Archaeology Possible Mesolithic Finds, Springhead Unknown TQ 6177 7262 ARC SPH00

No MKE20292 Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link Archaeological works at Springhead Roman Town (ARC SPH00): interim fieldwork report.

Wessex Archaeology Palaeolithic Hand Axes, Springhead Unknown TQ 6178 7262

Unknown MKE1711 Romano-British kiln (site of) Unknown TQ 67 SW 87

Yes MKE4004 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Reports.

Wessex Archaeology Watling Street Roman Road From 10.0mOD gravel layer .

TQ 57 SW 247 ARC SPH00/ARC SHN02

Yes MKE20535 Wessex Archaeology. Sep 2005. Station Quarter South, Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report.

Wessex Archaeology Roman road north from Springhead Unknown Centred TQ 61503 72935 (214m by 460m) TQ67SW Line

ARC SPH00

Yes MKE9465 Oxford Archaeological Unit. 1998. Northfleet East - Pepper Hill Cable Diversion Works Pepper Hill, Kent Roman Cemetery First Interim Report. Oxford Archaeological Unit. 1997. Excavations at Springhead Roman Town, Southfleet, Kent. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2006. The Roman cemetery at Pepper Hill, Southfleet, Kent.

Oxford Archaeology Roman road, south from Springhead via Pepper Hill cemetery

From 10.0mOD gravel layer Original layer 13-14mOD.

Centred TQ 6180 7219 (155m by 596m) TQ67SW -Line

MKE20241 Watercress beds, Springhead evaluation, Gravesend, Kent

MKE1632 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape.


Vagniacae (Springhead), Iron Age and Roman religious centre

14m OD - 6m OD (multiple layers/depths)

Multiple depths

Centred TQ 6158 7252 (1010m by 725m) TQ67SW Area

ARC SPH00




29


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

No MKE99966 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape.


Large medieval trackway, Springhead 5.90m OD -6.10m OD.

Centred TQ 6165 7269 (118m by 149m) TQ67SW Area

ARC SPH00

Partially excavated

MKE99428 Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Archaeological Works at Springhead Nursery (ARC SHN02) Interim Fieldwork Report.


1st/2nd century aisled barn, Springhead 13m OD. Centred TQ 6156 7274 (13m by 11m) TQ67SW Area

ARC SHN02

MKE99408 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Reports. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief


'Property 10' including blacksmiths workshop at Roman settlement, Springhead

12-13m OD. Unknown Centred TQ 6159 7269 (62m by 26m) TQ67SW Area

ARC SHN02

Partially excavated

MKE99407 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief


'Property 9' at Roman settlement, Springhead

12m OD. Unknown Centred TQ 6162 7267 (24m by 24m) TQ67SW Area

ARC SHN02

Partially excavated

MKE99410 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Monograph: Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Reports. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief.



14m OD 10.10mOD- 9.10m OD

Centred TQ 6154 7274 (60m by 43m)

ARC SHN02




30


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

MKE99409 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Report. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief



13-14mOD. (east-west)

approx. 10.10mOD- 9.10m OD

Centred TQ 6158 7271 (73m by 40m)

ARC SHN02

Partially truncated




12-9mOD 5.90m OD- Centred TQ 6164 7269 (41m by 35m)

ARC SHN02

Partially truncated

MKE99400 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and NorthfleeB38t, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Reports. Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Archaeological Works at Springhead Nursery (ARC SHN02) Interim Fieldwork Report.



12-6mOD (sloping downwards, north-east wards)

7.50m OD - 5.40m OD

Centred TQ 6165 7266 (45m by 43m)

ARC SHN02

Partially truncated- Survival low

MKE99403 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Brief

Wessex Archaeology Property 6' at Roman settlement, Springhead


Unknown (not recorded)

Centred TQ 6161 7273 (46m by 35m)

ARC SHN02




31


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code


Wessex Archaeology Property 5' at Roman settlement, Springhead

9-12m OD 5.35m OD - 6.20m OD

Centred TQ 6163 7271 (42m by 32m)

ARC SHN02

MKE99393 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Archaeological Works at Springhead Nursery (ARC SHN02) Interim Fieldwork Report.

Wessex Archaeology Semi-sunken feature Roman building, Springhead

12m OD. approx. 10.10mOD- 9.10m OD

Centred TQ 6164 7267 (12m by 14m)

ARC SHN02

Yes MKE99392 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Archaeological Works at Springhead Nursery (ARC SHN02) Interim Fieldwork Report.

Wessex Archaeology Roman fence-lines / property boundaries, Springhead

7-10m OD. Various Centred TQ 6166 7264 (26m by 27m)

ARC SHN02

Yes MKE99397 Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Report. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief.

Wessex Archaeology 'Property 2' at Roman settlement, Springhead


9.33m OD -10m OD.

Centred TQ 6168 7264 (62m by 51m)

ARC SHN02/Trench2012TP

Yes MKE99395 Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Report. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief.

Wessex Archaeology 'Property 1' at Roman settlement, Springhead

11m OD-7mOD (sloping downwards, north-east wards)

4.96m OD -6.20m OD.

Centred TQ 6172 7261 (18m by 14m)

ARC SHN02

MKE99389 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief.

Wessex Archaeology Junction in Roman Watling Street, Springhead, Northfleet


Centred TQ 6160 7271 (99m by 143m)

ARC SHN02




32


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

Yes MKE99365 Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Quarter Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report. Wessex Archaeology. 2008. Archaeological Investigations at Springhead Quarter (Phase II), Northfleet, Kent: Archaeological Assessment Report and Updated Project design

Wessex Archaeology Early Roman road leading to ritual pool, Springhead, Northfleet


7.40m OD Centred TQ 6180 7258 (39m by 25m)

ARC SHN02

Yes MKE99392 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape

Wessex Archaeology Roman fence-lines / property boundaries, Springhead

12m OD-6mOD (various locales - sloping downwards, north-east wards)

Approx. 5.90m OD- 8.50m OD

Centred TQ 6166 7264 (26m by 27m)

ARC SHN02

Partially excavated

MKE99390 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Nursery, Southfleet : Interim Report on Archaeological Excavation and Watching Brief.

Wessex Archaeology Possible bath-house, Springhead, Northfleet 11-7mOD (sloping downwards, north-east wards)

4.96m OD -5.40m OD. (Trench2015TP)

Centred TQ 6172 7261 (8m by 9m)

ARC SHN02

Partially excavated

MKE99356 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2010. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The Late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon, and Medieval Landscape. Wessex Archaeology. 2003. Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Archaeological Works at Springhead Nursery (ARC SHN02) Interim Fieldwork Report.

Wessex Archaeology 2nd century Roman temple preserved beneath slip-road, Springhead

11-7m OD (slope)

4.96m OD -6.20m OD.

Centred TQ 6167 7265 (15m by 17m)

ARC SHN02

MKE814 Scheduling record: English Heritage. Register of Scheduled Monuments.

Darenth Wood medieval earthworks 85m OD (approx)

Unknown Centred TQ 5795 7269 (668m by 774m)

Partially excavated

MKE99362 Wessex Archaeology. 2004. Springhead Quarter Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report.

Wessex Archaeology Approximate location of springs and ritual pool in early Roman period, Springhead, Northfleet


4.96m OD -6.20m OD.

Centred TQ 6176 7261 (64m by 77m)

ARC SHN02

Yes MKE100308 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 2: Late Iron Age to Roman Finds Reports Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2011. Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley. CTRL Excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. Volume 4: Saxon and Later Finds and Environmental Reports.

Wessex Archaeology Roman roadside settlement, Springhead Approx. 10m OD northend.

Approx 8.40m OD - 8.60m OD.

Centred TQ 6161 7270 (216m by 189m)

ARC SHN02




33


Depth of Asset

Location of Asset

Site Code

Partially excavated

MWX20794 Sep 2005, Station Quarter South, Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report (Unpublished document). SWX12849

Wessex Archaeology Roman features at Station Quarter South, Ebbsfleet, Ken

10-9m OD. 0.5-0.6m BGL TQ 61488 72883

Partially excavated

MKE9465 Oxford Wessex Archaeology Joint Venture. 2006. The Roman cemetery at Pepper Hill, Southfleet, Kent.

Oxford Archaeology Roman road, south from Springhead via Pepper Hill cemetery

18m OD- 11m-OD (sloping downwards east-west)

From 10.0mOD gravel layer. Original layer 13-14mOD.

Centred TQ 6180 7219 (155m by 596m)

ARC SHN02

Yes MKE20535 Sep 2005, Station Quarter South, Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological Evaluation Report (Unpublished document). SWX12849

Wessex Archaeology Roman road north from Springhead 18m OD- 11m-OD (east-west)

10.0mOD gravel layer. 13-14mOD original layer.

Centred TQ 61503 72935 (214m by 460m)

ARC WSN02

Yes MKE4004 Watling Street Roman Road 30-55cm BGL.

Known as R2




34

5. General Methodology

5.1. Health and Safety

5.1.1. Health and Safety considerations will be of paramount importance in conducting all fieldwork. It is likely that following evaluation and GI monitoring works, all archaeological fieldwork will subsequently be conducted during the enabling and construction works and as such CDM regulations will apply. Safe working practices will override archaeological considerations at all times.

5.1.2. All work will be carried out in accordance with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992, and all other relevant Health and Safety legislation, regulations and codes of practice in force at the time for the fieldwork.

5.1.3. A Risk Assessment and Method Statement (RAMS) for the work will be prepared prior to the commencement of fieldwork and submitted to the Lead Heritage Consultant for review and acceptance.

5.1.4. Full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be worn by all archaeologists and monitoring visitors while on site and in line with Health & Safety requirements. Any specific PPE will be confirmed following appointment.

5.2. Fieldwork

Setting Out and Access

5.2.1. Digital copies (ESRI compatible shapefiles) of the agreed excavation areas, areas for archaeological monitoring and borehole locations to be monitored and logs assessed will be supplied to the Archaeological Contractor.

5.2.2. The Principal Contractor will be responsible for ensuring that areas of work are clear of all services, and individual work locations are scanned using appropriate cable avoidance equipment by an appropriately qualified member of the archaeological contractor’s team.

5.2.3. Areas of excavation, boreholes and structures subject to historic building record will be tied in to the Ordnance Survey National Grid and Ordnance datum. Any control points used to locate these relative to base mapping and/or absolute position on the Earth’s surface, must be located to survey-grade accuracy (±0.01m).

5.2.4. Access will be arranged by Highways England in advance of all site works and confirmed by the Lead Heritage Consultant.

5.3. Monitoring and Stakeholder Liaison

5.3.1. The Archaeological Contractor will liaise with the Lead Heritage Consultant in all archaeological matters concerning this project and will not contact Highways England or the any other archaeological organisations directly unless otherwise specified.

5.3.2. The Lead Heritage Consultant will ensure that monitoring visits are arranged as necessary with the Statutory Consultees.


35

5.3.3. The Lead Heritage Consultant will notify any changes to the programme, WSIs or working practices that may be required to the Principal Contractor and Statutory Consultees. Any changes to methodology and WSIs will be communicated to the Statutory Consultees prior to implementation for their information and comment.

5.3.4. The Archaeological Contractor will make at a minimum a weekly report to the Lead Heritage Consultant as to the progress of archaeological works. The weekly report will detail the progress of the archaeological works, staffing rates, estimate of percentage of completion and a brief report on any archaeological findings. The Lead Heritage Consultant will communicate these to the Statutory Consultees.

Commented [NS39]: Rebecca (HE) 30/08/19: Approve

Commented [NS40]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 5.3.3 – significant changes to WSIs or working practices should be subject to the approval of statutory consultees not just for information

Commented [NS41R40]: Atkins 9/9: No amendment - under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors.

Commented [NS42]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 5.3.4 – remove ‘as appropriate’

Commented [NS43R42]: Atkins 9/9: Amended,.


36

6. Monitoring of Geotechnical Investigations and Deposit Modelling

6.1. Overview

6.1.1. Geotechnical Investigations are being undertaken to inform the engineering options for the Scheme. These are mainly concentrated at the two junctions at Bean and Ebbsfleet although a small number are also planned for the central online section between the two junctions.

6.1.2. Monitoring of the excavation of geotechnical test pits and assessment of cores recovered from boreholes will constitute the first stage in the programme of archaeological works addressed by this AMMS. The monitoring will be undertaken during the geotechnical investigations to inform detailed design.

6.2. Aims and Objectives

6.2.1. Monitoring of the geotechnical test pits will inform on the local stratigraphy and identify if archaeological remains are present within the area sampled.

6.2.2. Assessment of the recovered borehole logs will provide a baseline deposit model for the entire Scheme length to better refine existing geoarchaeological datasets and to seek to identify areas where Palaeolithic and early Holocene deposits may be present. The retrieved data will be compared with existing work on the local palaeography and palaeoenvironment (ie Wenban-Smith 2013).

6.2.3. The monitoring of geotechnical test pits and assessment of borehole logs will inform the requirement for and design of subsequent archaeological works.

6.3. Methodology

6.3.1. The Archaeological Contractor shall provide a detailed WSI for the monitoring of geotechnical test pits and boreholes including log assessment specifying methodology to be utilised following the guidance of Ayala et al. (2007) and CIfA (2014).

6.3.2. A total of 21 geotechnical test pits will be subject to archaeological monitoring by the archaeological contractor during their excavation. A geoarchaeologist will observe the excavation of each test pit to identify the presence/absence of archaeological remains and to make a record of the stratigraphic sequence. Should archaeological remains be observed within the test pit, then time should be allowed by the geotechnical team for the monitoring archaeologist to investigate and record the identified remains.

6.3.3. In addition to this: 32 recovered rotary derived cores will be drilled from which the borehole logs will be made available to the archaeological contractor for assessment and comparison with the existing geoarchaeological datasets available for the Ebbsfleet area. The retrieved dataset should also seek to extend this understanding as far as is practicable westward to the Bean Junction.

Commented [NS44]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Section 6 – a detailed Palaeolithic desk-based assessment as noted above should be carried out before and inform the WSI for the geotechnical monitoring.

Commented [NS45R44]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding - noted

Commented [NS46]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): In 6.3.2 replace ‘’archaeologist with Palaeolithic specialist or Pleistocene geoarchaeologist.

Commented [NS47R46]: Atkins 9/9: amended to geoarchaeologist..

Commented [NS48]: Lis Dyson: Change 6.3.3 to allow the specialist archaeologist the opportunity to see and record the cores direct rather than just seeing the logs – logs recorded by geotechnical specialists can vary greatly in usefulness for archaeological purposes.

Commented [NS49R48]: Atkins 9/9: No amendment - WSI was completed earlier in the year and KCC asked for comment to inform the GI.


37

6.4. Recording

6.4.1. The sedimentary record shall be recorded through use of graphic logs and written description by the Archaeological Contractor’s suitably qualified geoarchaeologist. As a minimum, all logs must include the following descriptive information in a table format:

• Sample Unique Identification Number

• Location (XY coordinates)

• Level of the top of the sample (e.g. m OD)

• Depth for top and bottom of each lithological unit

• Depths for poor / no sediment retrieval

• Sampling locations.

6.5. Deposit Modelling

6.5.1. TBC

Commented [NS50]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19): Deposit Model Construction is marked as TBC – is there any more information available on this?

Commented [NS51R50]: Atkins 9/9: Watching brief on GI works presently underway and results expected, informed by borehole logs

Commented [NS52]: Lis Dyson (Historic England 09/09/19): Section 6.5 Deposit Modelling is missing.

Commented [NS53R52]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding

Commented [NS54]: Maria (Historic England): I understand that the results of geotechnical works will be used to inform final design, however it would be good to get confirmation that these will also be fed into and included within the final overall report for the scheme? Similarly, will the results of previous evaluation (already completed) and any further potential evaluation (before main project phase) be fed into and inform the final report? And how will these be reported on in the interim? It would also be helpful to understand how further geo-archaeological data from this scheme (e.g. boreholes, evaluation results) will be fed into the current deposit modelling we have for this area of Kent. To this end it would be useful if an additional section (6.5) was added to the AMMS to cover ‘Deposit model construction’

Commented [NS55R54]: Atkins 9/9: AMMS is an iterative document that is being informed by on going investigations and assessment and is informed by and will inform detailed design. GI monitoring is ongoing and we plan to build this level of assessment informed by the results of that. The results of the evaluation are also included within the AMMS archaeological baseline, which has overall been greatly expanded from the previous DBA


38

7. Preservation of Archaeological Remains in Situ

7.1. Overview

7.1.1. Significant and schedulable quality non-designated archaeological remains are known to have been left to be preserved in situ at the Ebbsfleet Junction; and particularly beneath the existing eastbound on slip to the A2 at this junction. These remains include:

• Foundations of a Romano-British temple;

• Remains of Romano-British houses with associated ancillary evidence including for industrial processes;

• Remains of Romano-British road surfaces/streets and associated property enclosures;

• Evidence for Roman-British ritual pools.

7.1.2. These remains are all associated with the Scheduled evidence for the Romano-British roadside settlement and cult centre at Springhead (Vagniacae) that lies to the south of the Ebbsfleet Junction.

7.1.3. Although these archaeological remains have been previously investigated, they were not fully excavated but left largely intact and in situ under the slip road, protected by a thin layer of shingle.

7.1.4. It is likely that the Romano-British evidence that is preserved under the slip road is preceded by prehistoric evidence that may inform on the early development of the ritual and cult centre which developed into the Romano-British settlement of Vagniacae.

7.1.5. These remains, although non-designated, can be attributed a very high significance due to their association with the adjacent scheduled monument and must be considered to be of a schedulable quality.

7.2. Aims and objectives

7.2.1. It is envisaged by this AMMS that these remains will remain protected and undisturbed by any groundworks or other construction activities for the Scheme. This will be achieved through detailed design coupled with an archaeological monitoring plan to be implemented during construction to ensure these remains are not accidently affected.

7.3. Methodology

7.3.1. The requirement for preservation in situ of these significant archaeological remains will be fully taken into consideration during the detailed design of the Scheme and included into the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). The requirement and specific design and construction protocols that will be implemented will be designed with consultation with the Statutory Consultees.

7.3.2. The Principal Contractor and all associated contractors working within the sensitive area during construction will be fully appraised of their responsibilities outlined within the CEMP

Commented [NS56]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Section 7 states that: ‘Due to the sensitivity of the archaeology and its shallow depth under the existing slip road all groundworks in this area of the Scheme will be subject to Construction Integrated Recording as outlined in Section 9.’ But paragraph 9.1.1 states that it is not expected that CIR will be required – presumably this is incorrect and needs to be changed?

Commented [NS57R56]: Atkins 9/9: Reference to CIR removed from Sec. 7

Commented [NS58]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19) 1) Section 7.3 Identifies a Construction Management Plan, but future potential works don’t seem to be included in this? Maria indicated that mechanisms needed to be in place regarding essential future works – is there a future works management plan? 2) Will Marias question regarding unintentional ground disturbance be included in the CEMP, or is there a specific reference in the AMMS?

Commented [NS59R58]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding 1) Requires further discussion within project team. 2) Additional text has been provided.

Commented [NS60]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 7.3.1 – and approved by.

Commented [NS61R60]: Atkins 9/9: No amendment - under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors.


39

with regard to preserving these archaeological remains in situ. Sensitive areas will also be mapped and fenced off during construction to prevent accidental disturbance.

7.3.3. Due to the sensitivity of the archaeology and its shallow depth under the existing slip road all groundworks in this area of the Scheme will be subject to archaeological monitoring. Any remains uncovered at a depth above the expected level will be immediately notified by the monitoring archaeologist to the Lead Heritage Consultant, Client and Stakeholders and groundworks in the area halted pending consultation regarding any changes to the strategy/approach. Design fixes will be considered, although at such a late stage in the process full preservation by record may be the only practicable solution.

7.4. Waterlogged sequences

7.4.1. TBC

Commented [NS62]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 7.3.3 – add notify consultees and agree changes with them.

Commented [NS63R62]: Atkins 9/9: Amended to note consultation but under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors.

Commented [NS64]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Section 7.4 Waterlogged sequences is missing.

Commented [NS65R64]: Atkins 9/9: Hydrology/Geology teams note no impact into waterlogged deposits or de-watering. This entire section can be deleted.


40

8. Archaeological Trial Trench Evaluation

8.1. Overview

8.1.1. At this stage it is not envisaged that any trial trench evaluation will be required. The area in which new plantings are planned to the south-east of the Bean Junction may potentially be an exception to this although even here geophysical survey of this area (AOC Archaeology 2018b) suggests that the greater part of this area has already been disturbed, potentially by previous road construction. The area that remains undisturbed is limited to the extreme southern part of this area.

8.1.2. The requirement to implement further evaluation, where appropriate, will be considered as the detailed design evolves.

8.1.3. Should it be necessary, trial trench evaluation provides a means of sampling a large area to record the density of archaeological features and finds and determine levels of recent disturbance. It is also employed to test the results of geophysical and topographic survey.

8.1.4. Trial trenching can help to identify the archaeological potential of a site and to locate specific zones of activity within the site.

8.1.5. For the purposes of this AMMS, trial trenching will be used to inform the need for further archaeological works and/or mitigation; and to allow for an understanding of the risks posed by the archaeology on site and therefore, to effectively inform detailed design.

8.1.6. A percentage of the specified works area is excavated by machine by means of linear trenches. All archaeological trial trenching will be carried out by the archaeological contractor in accordance with national, regional and local policy and guidelines and in particular will be carried out in accordance with the CIfA Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation (2014b).

8.2. Aims and Objectives

8.2.1. The purpose of archaeological trial trenching is to identify the presence or absence of archaeological remains and record any archaeological features and deposits within the sampled area. The findings of the investigation will then inform the need for further archaeological works.

8.2.2. The aims of the archaeological trial trenching within the specified works area will be:

• To establish the presence/absence of archaeological remains within the Site;

• To determine the significance, extent, condition, nature, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains encountered;

• To record and sample excavate any significant archaeological remains encountered;

• To assess the eco-factual and environmental potential of any significant archaeological features and deposits;

• To assess and investigate the palaeoenvironmental potential of the Site;

• To determine the extent of previous truncations of the archaeological deposits;

• To inform Highways England and Lead Heritage Consultant of the nature of archaeological remains within the specified area, thus allowing for a decision on the necessity for further works and/or mitigation; and

Commented [NS66]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): Section 8 needs to include a specific section on Palaeolithic archaeology; this should include reference to following KCC standard specifications for Palaeolithic investigations and be written by an appropriately qualified Palaeolithic specialist as this is a specialist area of archaeology, which is known to be particularly significant in this part of Kent

Commented [NS67R66]: Atkins 9/9: Added

Commented [NS68]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 8.1 should be amended – as the scheme has not been designed yet, impacts are not fully known and there may be a need for trial trenching in various locations. A full impact assessment needs to be undertaken when further details are available.

Commented [NS69R68]: Atkins 9/9: Highly unlikely as an online scheme. Potential exception to rule is plantings S of Bean Junction. Nevertheless a sentence has been added at 8.1.3 to address this and cover it off.


41

• To make available to interested parties, including Statutory Consultees, the results of the investigation.

8.3. Methodology

8.3.1. A WSI detailing the methodology to be used for the excavation and recording of the trial trench evaluation will be prepared by the archaeological contractor.

8.3.2. The sample requirements will be agreed with the Lead Heritage Consultant on a site by site basis; contingencies may be required where archaeological remains are encountered.

8.3.3. Trench plans will be set out prior to the commencement of the investigations. The trenches will largely target features identified through previous field investigations (i.e. geophysical survey). The remainder of the trenches will be located evenly across the Site with varying alignments to ensure for widespread coverage. The trench locations will be included within the WSI for the works which will be communicated to the Statutory Consultees for their information and comment.

8.3.4. Prior to the commencement of the archaeological works, the Lead Heritage Consultant will be notified so that monitoring visits can be arranged.

8.4. Fieldwork

8.4.1. The trial trench evaluation will adhere to WSI noted above, wherever reasonably practicable e.g. where site conditions and health & safety consideration allow. Any significant variations, such as movement of trenches or reduction of samples size due to site condition or live services etc. to the WSI must be agreed verbally with all relevant parties (i.e. Highways England and Lead Heritage Consultant) prior to the works, to allow for variations to be dealt with rapidly in the field. However, such agreements must be confirmed as soon as practicable by in writing.

8.4.2. On-site conditions, as well as the results of the geophysical survey, may mean that the trenches have to be re-located at the beginning of the works. The archaeological site supervisor will take that decision on site upon consultation with the Lead Heritage Consultant. Welfare will be sited on Site to minimise impact on the Site and the environment.

8.4.3. Service plans must be provided for the Site by Highways England. Buried services and overhead lines require appropriate buffers and this should be taken into consideration during the creation of the trenching plan. Trench locations will be CAT scanned before excavation and where overhead lines are present goal posts will be required to mark locations for plant crossings. Any plant crossing under an overhead line will require to be supervised banksman with the hydraulic arm depressed to the maximum extent. Crossings of underground services, such as high pressure mains, will also be strictly monitored and the necessary permissions sought.

8.4.4. The trenches will be opened using a mechanical excavator equipped with a toothless bucket. Trenching will be carried out under constant archaeological direction under the control of an experienced archaeologist. Plant of an appropriate size will be used and will be equipped with a 1.4-1.8m wide bucket in most cases.

8.4.5. Undifferentiated topsoil or overburden of recent origin will be removed in successive level spits down to the first significant archaeological horizon, or the natural geology, whichever is encountered first. Topsoil and subsoil will be stored separately and will be visually scanned and where appropriate subject to metal detecting.

Commented [NS70]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19): Approved

Commented [NS71]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 8.3.3 – should be agreed with consultees.

Commented [NS72R71]: Atkins 9/9: No amendment as no agreement required as under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors.

Commented [NS73]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 8.3.4 – add statutory consultees.



42

8.4.6. Trenches will be excavated only to a safe working depth, although can be stepped if deemed necessary. The trenches will be fenced from access with road pins and barrier mesh, if required.

8.4.7. Where structures, finds, soil features and layers of archaeological interest are exposed in the evaluation trenches, the archaeological contractor will observe, clean, assess, excavate by hand where appropriate, sample and record these features and finds. Archaeological features will be excavated sufficiently to identify and characterise, where possible, the nature, quantity and significance of the deposits as well as establishing date and depths.

8.4.8. The Principal Contractor and Highways England will be informed as soon as possible of the discovery of any significant archaeological remains, such as human burials or hoards, or changes in the programme of ground works on Site. Any such discoveries will also be communicated to the Statutory Consultees for their information and comment.

8.4.9. On completion of machine excavation, all faces of the trench that require examination or recording will be cleaned using appropriate hand tools e.g. trowels and brushes. All investigation of archaeological horizons will be by hand, with cleaning, inspection, and recording both in plan and section.

8.4.10. Where archaeological features are encountered the following samples will be excavated:

• Linear features: a minimum sample of 10% of their length, with a minimum individual slot length of 1m.

• The termini of any linear features: 100% excavated.

• Pits: a minimum of 50% and;

• Complex features (such as hearths): 100% excavated.

8.4.11. Significant solid or bonded structural remains, building slots or postholes will be preserved intact, even if fills are sampled.

8.4.12. A metal detector will be made available on Site to aid in the recovery of metal artefacts if required. The detector will not be set to discriminate against iron. Any metal detection will be undertaken by an experienced operator.

8.5. Finds

8.5.1. Full details of the specific methodology for archaeological finds is outlined in Section 11.

8.6. Human remains

8.6.1. Any human remains will be handled in line with the specific methodology for Human Burials in Section 12.

8.7. Environmental sampling

8.7.1. Where archaeological remains are uncovered, bulk samples will be taken from appropriate contexts for the recovery and assessment of environmental data. Provision will be made for column and other appropriate samples to be taken. Sampling methods will follow the specific methodology in Section 13.

8.7.2. Sampling will also be undertaken of natural deposit sequences where appropriate, such as where important palaeoenvironmental and/or sequence dating material can be recovered.

Commented [NS75]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19): Approved

Commented [NS76]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19) – Approved



43

8.8. Recording

8.8.1. Archaeological recording will comply with the specific methodology set out in Section 14.

8.9. Backfilling and reinstatement

8.9.1. Where backfilling is required, the excavated areas will be backfilled with the excavated material and compacted with the machine bucket only. If significant archaeology is identified, this will be covered and protected by terram, a protective geotextile, prior to backfilling

8.10. Reporting

8.10.1. Reporting of the archaeological works will comply with the specific methodology set out in Section 14.

8.11. Archiving

8.11.1. Archiving of the physical and digital record will comply with the specific methodology set out in Section 15.


44

9. Construction Integrated Recording

9.1. Overview

9.1.1. At this stage it is not expected that CIR will be required as part of this AMMS, but cannot be discounted until all detailed design, evaluative work through GI monitoring and any appropriate evaluation trenching has been concluded.

9.1.2. Construction Integrated Recording (CIR) is a programme of observation, investigation and recording of archaeological remains. It is used where the likely extent of the remains has been demonstrated, but it is not practical or appropriate to investigate in detail before the main construction programme (e.g. due to safety or logistical considerations or environmental or engineering constraints).

9.1.3. The Principal Contractor’s preferred method of working would be controlled as necessary to allow archaeological recording to take place to the required standard. The specified area will be machine stripped utilising appropriate plant fitted with toothless ditching blade under archaeological supervision to the first archaeological horizon, or to the natural geology where no archaeological remains are encountered.

9.1.4. All archaeological features will be recorded in plan and a sample of features will be excavated. The archaeological works will be conducted simultaneously with construction works and will be directed by an archaeologist. All Construction Integrated Recording will be carried out by the Archaeological Contractor in accordance with national, regional and local policy and guidelines.

9.1.5. If significant archaeological remains are encountered then full excavation rather than sampling may be required. Should such remains be encountered work will stop whilst an appropriate approach is developed in consultation with the Statutory Consultees.


9.2.1. The purpose of Construction Integrated Recording is to identify and record any archaeological remains within the specified area during construction works or site investigations. The works will aim to avoid delays and substantial impacts on the construction programme, wherever possible.

9.2.2. The aims of Construction Integrated Recording within the specified works area will be:

• To identify the presence and/or absence of archaeological remains;

• To provide a comprehensive record of identified archaeological features and analysis of the results;

• To determine the significance, extent, condition, nature, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains encountered;

• To record and sample or fully excavate any significant archaeological remains encountered;

• To assess the eco-factual and environmental potential of any significant archaeological features and deposits;

• To assess and investigate the palaeoenvironmental potential of the Site; and

• To make available to interested parties the results of the investigation.

Commented [NS78]: Lis Dyson: The objectives and methodology sections for section 9 should be divided into two phases – initial monitoring, evaluation and assessment followed by further excavation and recording as required.

Commented [NS79R78]: Atkins 9/9: Outstanding – if necessary this can be addressed in future iterations during detailed design.

Commented [NS80]: Lis Dyson (KCC 09/09/19): 9.1.3 should be amended – sample excavation may be inappropriate if nationally important archaeological remains are revealed and require excavation. Similarly Palaeolithic remains may require detailed excavation (add also to table 9.1).

Commented [NS81R80]: Atkins 9/9: New sentence indicating this - added to para 9.1.5 see highlighted text


45

9.3. Methodology

9.3.1. A WSI will be prepared in accordance with current policy and practice and investigations will adhere to the specific methodologies set out. However, the documents may be subject to change depending on the results of future works, such as geophysical survey, and developments in industry policies and standards. Any changes to the WSIs must be agreed in writing by the Archaeological Contractor, the Lead Heritage Consultant and notified to the Statutory Consultees for comment prior to the commencement of the works.

9.3.2. Prior to the commencement of the archaeological works, the Statutory Consultees will be notified.

9.4. Fieldwork

9.4.1. Construction Integrated Recording will adhere to the following methodology, wherever reasonably practicable e.g. where site conditions and health & safety consideration allow. Any significant variations, such as reduction of sample size due to site condition or live services etc. to the WSI must be agreed verbally with all relevant parties (i.e. the Employer, Statutory Consultees) prior to the works, to allow for variations to be dealt with rapidly in the field. However, such agreements must be confirmed as soon as practicable by in writing.

9.4.2. In areas subject to CIR, the construction works, and site investigations will be carried out under the direct supervision of an archaeologist working for the archaeological contractor. The archaeological contractor will be given prior notice of the nature of the construction work and site investigation works to be carried out.

9.4.3. All topsoil stripping will be monitored and directed by an experienced archaeologist. Archaeological supervision of topsoil stripping will be at a ratio of at least one archaeologist per mechanical excavator.

9.4.4. The removal of topsoil and overburden must be carried out using a mechanical excavator utilising a flat bladed bucket (toothless), and in horizontal spits. Plant will work away from, and not track across the, machined surface until the monitoring archaeologist has given permission to do so. Movement of plant over the remainder of the Site will be minimised to prevent rutting or damage to sub-surface archaeological features as far as is practicable.

9.4.5. A team of experienced archaeologists will carry out the archaeological works where archaeological remains are uncovered. The number of archaeologists should be proportional to the scale of the construction works and the number and scale of archaeological remains so as to ensure the requisite sample of features are adequately investigated and recorded within the necessary timeframe.

9.4.6. The Principal Contractor’s preferred method of working would be controlled as necessary to allow archaeological recording to take place to the required standard. In general, topsoil and overburden will be removed in successive level spits down to the first archaeological horizon, or the natural sub-stratum, whichever is encountered first. At this point, ground works will cease while archaeological recording is carried out where necessary.

9.4.7. If appropriate, hand dug test pits will be excavated through the machined surface to test underlying deposits for archaeological potential.

Commented [NS82]: KCC 09/09/19: 9.4.6 – add archaeological test pits will be excavated on the stripped surface where there is a need to clarify potential.

Commented [NS83R82]: Atkins 9/9: Sentence added to paragraph 9.4.7


46

9.4.8. Where no archaeological remains are identified within the works area, this should be noted in written records and photographs of the area will be taken to demonstrate the lack of features and deposits. The construction programme may continue in areas where no archaeological remains have been identified, so long as the archaeologist consents and the works do not preclude archaeological investigations on other parts of the Site from being carried out based on Health and Safety, access etc.

9.4.9. Investigation of archaeological horizons and features will be by hand. Minimum requirements for sample excavation will be limited to the works area and to the formation depth and follow national, regional and local guidelines as set out in Table 9.1 below.

Table 9.1 Minimum requirements for sample excavation

Feature type Minimum sample requirements

Complex/ significant features/ deposits/ artefact

assemblages/ artefacts

Sampling to be subject of further discussion with the Statutory Consultees

Hearths, ovens, kilns

100% of domestic/industrial working features (hearths, ovens). These are also to be sampled for archaeomagnetism as standard if appropriate (this applies to any in-situ burnt features unless agreed otherwise on-site following discussion).

Possible prehistoric roundhouses or other post-built structures

Total excavation of all post-holes, spreads/ occupation layers and cut features (e.g. ring-gullies) directly associated with structures. Metal detector to be used at all stages of excavation/ removal, for better artefact recovery (e.g. for droplets of bronze).

Possible cremation burials Total excavation; lifting of intact/ semi-intact pottery vessels with following micro-excavation in laboratory.

Linear features

Excavation by hand of sections across all termini, all junctions or intersections of cut features and, in the body of the features if datable, ancient and manifestly rich in ancient palaeoenvironmental remains, the following scope of works:

linear features <10m long: at least one 1.0 metre-wide section.

linear features >10m long: 1.0 metre-wide sections at maximum 10.0-metre intervals.

Partial excavations within a linear at junctions of cut features will not be a substitute for sections across the body of the linear, away from such junctions, because of possible contamination between intercutting contexts. With prior agreement with the Statutory Consultees, the remainder of the fills of large linear features may be excavated mechanically under close archaeological supervision and control and with thorough metal detecting.

Discrete cut features general

Total excavation by hand of all discrete, potentially datable and ancient cut features of less than 2 sq. metres plan area, and of such features manifestly rich in ancient palaeoenvironmental remains; except where deeper than 1 metre, when half-sections will

be acceptable.

Post-holes Post-holes probably associated with structures - complete excavation by hand.

Pits Default - half-section. Further sampling to be decided on basis of Health & Safety considerations/ vulnerability of fill/ contents. In general, all pits would be subject to this sampling; however, if


47

substantial numbers of pits are encountered then the local planning authority archaeologist will be consulted to establish percentage of pits requiring sampling to allow for characterisation.

Structural Features

All structural features will be fully revealed in plan and recorded. All individual elements including walls, floors, doorways, and any negative features will have context boundaries distinguished facilitating a full written, drawn and photographic record.

Demonstrably 19th/20th century features

If not evidently part of a structure, e.g. a structure of industrial archaeological interest, or if without good artefact assemblage, record and sample only that sufficient to confirm late date. If artefact-rich/ part of a structure, treat as with pits and post-holes above.

Highly/nationally significant features (e.g. high-status burials)

Highways England and Statutory Consultees, to be notified immediately on discovery/recognition. Strategy for excavation/scientific investigation/conservation etc to be agreed

before work resumes.

9.4.10. Where nationally significant remains are uncovered, further mitigation may be required. Highways England and the Statutory Consultees should be consulted as soon as possible and certainly prior to further construction works and site investigations within the specified area.


9.5.1. Where archaeological remains are uncovered, bulk samples will be taken from appropriate contexts for the recovery and assessment of environmental data. Provision will also be made for column and other appropriate samples to be taken of natural deposit sequences where appropriate. Sampling methods will follow the specific methodology in Section 13.

9.6. Human remains


9.7. Recording


9.8. Reporting


9.9. Archiving



48

10. Archaeological Monitoring

10.1. Overview

10.1.1. A programme of observation, investigation and recording of archaeological remains undertaken during construction where appropriate. It is used where archaeological remains have not been identified by a detailed desk-based assessment or field evaluation, but where there is a realistic potential for archaeological discoveries. The Principal Contractor’s method of working would not be directly controlled for archaeological purposes, unless important archaeological discoveries are found (in which case the site method may change to Construction Integrated Recording – see Section 9)

10.1.2. All work will be carried out by the Archaeological Contractor in accordance with national, regional and local policy and guidelines and in particular will be carried out in accordance with the CIfA Standard and guidance for archaeological field evaluation (2014b) and the CIfA Standard and guidance for an archaeological watching brief (2014c).


10.2.1. In line with CIfA standard and guidance (2014c), the purpose of archaeological monitoring is to:

to allow, within the resources available, the preservation by record of archaeological deposits,

the presence and nature of which could not be established (or established with sufficient

accuracy) in advance of development or other potentially disruptive works

to provide an opportunity, if needed, for the watching archaeologist to signal to all interested

parties, before the destruction of the material in question, that an archaeological find has been

made for which the resources allocated to the watching brief itself are not sufficient to support

treatment to a satisfactory and proper standard (ibid, 4).

10.3. Methodology

10.3.1. A WSI will be prepared in accordance with current policy and practice and all archaeological monitoring will adhere to the specific methodologies set out. However, the documents may be subject to change depending on future works and developments in industry policies and standards. Any changes to the WSIs must be agreed in writing with the Lead Heritage Consultant prior to the commencement of the works.

10.3.2. Prior to the commencement of archaeological monitoring the WSI must be communicated to the Statutory Consultees and with an indication of the timings of the work. Commented [NS84]: KCC 09/09/19: 10.3.2 – WSI to be

agreed with statutory consultees.



49

10.4. Fieldwork

10.4.1. The archaeological monitoring will adhere to the WSI wherever reasonably practicable e.g. where site conditions and health & safety consideration allow. Any significant variations, such as reduction of sample size due to site condition or live services etc. to the WSI must be agreed verbally with all relevant parties (i.e. Highways England, Statutory Consultees and Lead Heritage Consultant) prior to the works, to allow for variations to be dealt with rapidly in the field. However, such agreements must be confirmed as soon as practicable by in writing.

10.4.2. An archaeologist will be present to monitor all intrusive ground-works involving the removal of modern material, made ground, topsoil and subsoils (including any temporary works and site set up and demolition works which may have an impact on archaeological deposits) within the specified works area. They will be positioned at a safe distance, beyond the limits of the working area of any mechanical excavator. Should access to the machined area be required, the machine will cease operations and if necessary, relocate to ensure safe access.

10.4.3. Any machining undertaken under archaeological monitoring will be done, where practicable, with a flat bladed bucket (toothless) and in horizontal spits. The machined area should be exposed to a ‘clean’ state which allows for the identification, definition and investigation of any archaeological remains.

10.4.4. Should there be unsupported sections deemed unsafe by the onsite staff, no member of staff will enter the excavated area. In this instance recording of the excavated areas will be conducted from ground level unless shoring has been installed by a competent person.

10.4.5. In the event that significant archaeological remains are revealed, additional excavation staff should be made available. The groundwork in the location of the archaeology can be temporarily halted in order to determine the extent and character of any remains revealed. The degree of further work will be defined in discussions with the Lead Heritage Consultant, the Employer and the Statutory Consultees. Delays to development can be minimised by continuing to monitor areas of watching brief while the archaeological resource is recorded.

10.4.6. A full written and photographic record of the on-site works should be maintained at all times.

10.5. Finds

10.5.1. Full details of the specific methodology for finds is outlined in Section 11.

10.6. Human remains



10.7.1. Where archaeological remains are uncovered, bulk samples will be taken from appropriate contexts for the recovery and assessment of environmental data. Provision will also be made for column and other appropriate samples to be taken of natural deposit sequences where appropriate. Sampling methods will follow the specific methodology in Section 13.

Commented [NS86]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19) - Maria asked for inclusion of ‘and approved by’ – not included?

Commented [NS87R86]: Atkins 9/9: Not amended - as previously indicated. This scheme is being undertaken under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors. Highways England do not require approval although we will of course continue to consult


50

10.7.2. Any sampling of deep sequences (whether archaeological or natural) should be undertaken under the supervision of an appropriately qualified geoarchaeologist. The Archaeological sub-contractor should clearly identify this requirement in their WSI for any work undertaken under the provisions of this AMMS.

10.8. Recording


10.9. Reporting


10.10. Archiving



51

11. Finds

11.1. Overview

11.1.1. The following methodology will apply wherever finds are uncovered and collected. All finds will be treated in accordance with national, regional and local policies and guidance and in particular with CIfA’s Standard and Guidance for the collection and documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials (2014d), Historic England’s Archaeological Conservation guidance documents (English Heritage, 2006; English Heritage 2008; Historic England 2018); ICON’s professional standards and ethics (2014); and ICON Archaeology Group guidelines: A brief guide to the principles of archaeological conservation (2009).

11.2. Methodology

11.2.1. All finds shall be recorded by context; individually significant finds (“special finds” or “small finds”) shall also be recorded three-dimensionally using a sequence of unique numbers. To inform the investigation strategy finds processing shall be carried out during the course of the investigations and provisional spot dates and information provided to Highways England Lead Heritage Consultant who will provide the information to the Statutory Consultees as appropriate.

11.2.2. All identified finds and artefacts will be collected and retained. Certain classes of material, i.e. post-medieval pottery and building material, may on occasion be discarded after recording if a representative sample is kept. No finds will be discarded without the prior approval of the archaeological representative of the local authority and the receiving museum.

11.2.3. Any finds covered by the provisions of the Treasure Act (1996, amended 2003) and Treasure (Designation) Order 2002, including gold and silver, will be moved to a safe place and reported to the coroner's office according to the procedures determined by the Act. They will also be reported to the local finds liaison officer from the Portable Antiquities Scheme.

11.2.4. Exposed finds will be lifted at the end of each working day. Where removal cannot be undertaken on the same working day as the discovery, suitable security measures will be taken to protect the artefacts from theft or damage.

11.2.5. On site a representative sample of finds will be examined to establish the date range of the assemblage, with particular reference to pottery. In addition, the artefacts will be used to characterise the site, and to establish the potential for all categories of finds should further archaeological work be necessary.

11.2.6. All finds of gold and silver will be moved to a safe place. Where removal cannot be undertaken on the same working day as the discovery, suitable security measures will be taken to protect the artefacts from theft or damage.

11.2.7. Provision for onsite conservation and finds treatment, in addition to any scientific dating of materials uncovered, will be undertaken where appropriate.


52

11.2.8. All finds will be treated in a proper manner and to standards agreed in advance with the recipient museum. Finds will be retrieved and cared for in accordance with Historic England Archaeological Conservation guidance documents (English Heritage, 2006; English Heritage 2008; Historic England 2018); ICON’s professional standards and ethics (2014); and ICON Archaeology Group guidelines: A brief guide to the principles of archaeological conservation (2009).

11.2.9. The protection of all finds on site and during transportation to the post-excavation facility will be the responsibility of the Archaeological Contractor

11.2.10. Upon completion of the project, the landowner will be contacted regarding the preparation, ownership and deposition of the archive and finds. The local museum will also be contacted to ascertain whether deposition can be attained.

11.3. Post-excavation

11.3.1. Where artefacts are encountered and collected, a post-excavation research strategy should be prepared by the Archaeological Contractor following the completion of the on-site archaeological investigations.

11.3.2. Artefacts will be cleaned and conserved, where necessary, to allow for identification and to accommodate further investigation.

11.3.3. Post-excavation storage will be secure and appropriate to the material and significance of the object. Analysis will be in line with national best practice guidelines for artefact conservation and may include x-radiography and consolidation as part of the process.

11.3.4. All post-excavation work will be undertaken in accordance with Historic England Archaeological Conservation guidance documents (English Heritage, 2006; English Heritage 2008; Historic England 2018); ICON’s professional standards and ethics (2014); and ICON Archaeology Group guidelines: A brief guide to the principles of archaeological conservation (2009).


53

12. Human Remains

12.1. Overview

12.1.1. No known burial sites will be impacted during the works however ground works may result in unexpected human remains being exposed.

12.1.2. The following methodology will apply where human remains are encountered. All human remains will be treated in accordance with national, regional and local policies and guidance. In addition, all works will comply with the following relevant best practice guidelines:

• Brickley and McKinley, 2004. Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains.

• APABE, 2017. Guidance for Best Practice for the Treatment of Human Remains Excavated from Christian Burial Grounds in England.

• Historic England, 2018b. The Role of the Human Osteologist in an Archaeological Fieldwork Project.

• McKinley and Roberts, 1993. Excavation and post excavation treatment of cremated and inhumed human remains.

• Mitchell and Brickley, 2017. Updated Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains – December 2017.

12.2. Methodology

12.2.1. Any finds of human remains will be left in situ, covered and protected. An initial in situ visual observation and assessment of the remains will be carried out in order to inform the Lead Heritage Consultant, Highways England, the Statutory Consultees and notifiable parties. All works will cease within the area until consultation has been undertaken and provision made for an Osteoarchaeologist to attend the site.

12.2.2. Where human remains are encountered the Archaeological Contractor will inform the Heritage Lead and the Ministry of Justice and the local constabulary immediately.

12.2.3. If removal of human remains is deemed necessary following consultation with Highways England, a coroner’s licence from the Ministry of Justice will be required prior to the excavation and removal of the remains.

12.2.4. Human remains will be treated with dignity and respect at all times. It may be necessary to screen off the human remains from public view and other construction works and this will be arranged as soon as possible where required.

12.2.5. All articulated and disarticulated human remains, including structured burials and charnel, will be excavated and lifted in a logical and appropriate manner with the suitable tools. There should be an awareness that further human remains may be present within the surrounding area.

12.2.6. All articulated human remains will be lifted by hand by archaeologists or, if required, an exhumation contractor. Each excavated individual will be bagged separately and permanently labelled as to content and cross referenced with the archaeological records of the excavation (APABE 2017). Different skeletal areas and bones from the left and right sides will be bagged separately (APABE 2017, Annex S3, 38) and all bags labelled.


54

12.2.7. Unstratified disarticulated human bone is of limited scientific value (APABE 2017, 41) as there is often little opportunity to relate types of data together (e.g. number of individuals, bone size and age). Disarticulated bone will be rapidly screened when discovered and any anomalies, such as anatomically dissected disarticulated remains or remains thought to have been deposited within a deliberate deposit that may have cultural significance (APABE 2017, 44) will be brought to the attention of the Osteoarchaeologist who will determine the appropriate course of further investigation, in consultation with the Lead Heritage Consultant, the Statutory Consultees and Highways England. Any disarticulated remains will be carefully cleared from the spoil. Care will be taken to clearly differentiate disturbed but originally articulated human burials

12.2.8. All grave goods and associated exposed artefacts will be recorded and removed at the end of the working day to limit the risk of theft and disruption to the area. If this is not possible, security will be required and should be coordinated in conjunction with Highways England.

12.2.9. Samples may be taken from the fill around the head and around the torso and feet for the recovery of small bones/teeth and for the possibility of further scientific investigation (e.g. investigation of parasite flora) (APABE 2017, Annex S3, 38).

12.3. Recording

12.3.1. All human remains should be bagged and boxed with an assigned identification number or code.

12.3.2. All applicable pro forma record forms, including context sheets and skeleton recording sheets, should be completed. Written descriptions should include details about the human remains and their surrounding context as well as the degree of truncation and disruption. The location of all skeletons should be accurately located on plans and mapped using measured photogrammetry and tied in to the OS NGR, with levels given to AOD.

12.3.3. Photography is generally recognised as the best way to record in situ human remains. Only authorised photographs should be taken, and these should be carried out in a sensitive manner. A suitable scale should be visible in photographs. The photographic record would be provided jpeg and .RAW formats and all photographs would be taken at a minimum of 16 megapixels.

12.4. Reporting

12.4.1. Reporting of the excavation and/or removal of human remains will be incorporated into the relevant archaeological investigation report, or independent report if the investigations have been carried out separately.

12.4.2. All reporting will comply with the specific methodology set out in Section 14.


55

12.5. Archiving


12.5.2. Generally, human remains should be reinterred within two years. However, this time limit may be altered after consultation with the Ministry of Justice.


56

13. Environmental Sampling

13.1. Overview

13.1.1. Archaeological science refers to the science-based research methods used in archaeology in the post-excavation phase. Provision must be made during the intrusive on-site works, including trial trenching, Construction Integrated Recording and archaeological monitoring, to ensure that archaeological science can be comprehensive and accurate as the post-excavation analysis can greatly contribute to knowledge creation and can improve the understanding of a Site. The following methodology will be of relevance to environmental samples.

13.2. Methodology

13.2.1. All environmental sampling will be conducted in accordance with national, regional and local policies and guidance. All aspects of the collection, selection, processing, assessment and reporting on the environmental sampling shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles set out in Environmental Archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (English Heritage 2011) and with reference to the Association for Environmental Archaeology’s Working Paper No. 2, Environmental Archaeology and Archaeological Evaluation.

13.2.2. Historic England’s Science Advisor and Statutory Stakeholders should be consulted during development of environmental strategies within individual WSIs.

13.2.3. A site specific environmental sampling, processing and assessment methodology shall be prepared by a suitably qualified environmental archaeologist as part of any WSI generated by the Archaeological Subcontractor(s) under the provisions of this AMMS.

13.2.4. Provision shall be made for the removal of samples from all securely stratified deposits which shall be scatter sampled for retrieval and assessment of biological remains. A sampling strategy appropriate to the archaeological features and deposits will be adopted. Where appropriate natural deposit sequences will also be sampled should important palaeoenvironmental evidence and/or important sequence dating be possible.

13.2.5. As a minimum this will include bulk samples for most archaeological contexts as well as provision for column and/or other necessary sampling as set out in the paragraphs below. There may be a potential requirement for other types of sampling, for example using a grid techniques to sample surfaces and occupation layers. The processing and assessment of samples shall be undertaken in parallel with the trial trenching so that preliminary results are available to inform the development of the sampling programme. If these preliminary results indicate the need for a sampling strategy which deviates from the requirements set out here, this will require to be agreed with the Lead Heritage Lead Consultant.

13.2.6. Bulk samples will be taken using 10L plastic, lidded tubs (with handles) or securely fastened strong polythene bags (double bagged). All sample tubs/bags will be appropriately and clearly labelled with site codes, context details and sample information using permanent ink.

13.2.7. Bulk samples of dry context will be taken in the range of 40L-60L as appropriate. Samples of wet (i.e. waterlogged) deposits should total 20L. Where the context is of a lower volume, 100% of the context will be sampled.

Commented [NS88]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19): Final comment regarding now addressed in 13.2.2 - approved

Commented [NS89]: Rebecca (Historic 30/08/19) Notes the involvement of a suitably qualified environmental archaeologist for prep of documents, but Maria also noted this should mention their supervision and oversight on site?

Commented [NS90R89]: Atkins 9/9: Only if required (i.e. if sensitive palaeoenvironmental remains are identified). The SoCG has been amended.

Commented [NS91]: KCC 09/09/19: 13.2.2 – and agreed with statutory consultees.


Commented [NS93]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19) - Approved



57

13.2.8. Monolith and Kubiena box samples should be taken where necessary to allow for specialist analysis of deposits. The location and depth should be accurately recorded, and all samples should be taken with a 50mm overlap where more than one monolith is required. Column samples should also be taken down the length of a section where appropriate. These samples should be neatly packed and secured with plastic and rubber bands. All samples will be appropriately and clearly labelled with site codes, context details and sample information using permanent ink.

13.2.9. In waterlogged conditions, it is possible that timbers will survive below ground. Where there is potential for timbers to be dated, they should be sampled following guidelines in Waterlogged Wood: Guidelines to the Recording, Sampling, Conservation and Curation of Waterlogged Wood (Brunning and Watson 2010).

13.2.10. All samples will be recorded in a sample register forming part of the site record.

13.2.11. The Archaeological Contractor will be responsible for the safekeeping of all samples on-site and during transportation to the processing facility.

13.3. Sampling of Pleistocene/Early Holocene Deposit Sequences

13.3.1. TBC

13.4. Post-excavation

13.4.1. Where archaeological remains are encountered, a post-excavation research strategy should be prepared by the Archaeological Contractor following the completion of the on-site archaeological investigations.

13.4.2. Processing and assessment of samples shall be undertaken in line with the agreed strategy for the recovery and sampling of environmental remains and Environmental Archaeology: a guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation (English Heritage 2011). Subject to variations agreed in writing based on this, samples shall be processed and assessed under the supervision of the contractor’s palaeoenvironmental specialist(s).

13.4.3. Suitable samples for scientific dating shall also be recovered. Dating techniques shall only be applied where required to meet the aims and objectives of the investigations and on written instruction from the Lead Heritage Consultant. These may include:

• Radiocarbon dating;

• Radiocarbon dating (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry);

• Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL);

• Archaeomagnetic dating; and

• Dendrochronological dating

13.4.4. Appropriate techniques for assessment of the range, diversity, abundance and state of preservation of environmental remains should be employed. Such assessment must be sufficiently robust to determine the potential of the full range of environmental evidence for contributing to the existing or updated archaeological research objectives.

13.4.5. All processing, recording, cleaning, storage and conservation of samples shall be in accordance with the Chartered Institute for Archaeologist’s Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials (2014d).

Commented [NS95]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19): I am not clear if Marias concerns regarding previous sections 13.3.3 and 13.3.4 have been addressed – can you make clear to me what has changed in this section in response to her comments please?

Commented [NS96R95]: Atkins 9/9: SoCG and AMMS are clear that this level of detail will be built into individual WSI and not included within the AMMS which is an overall iterative framework document.

Commented [NS97]: 1)KCC 09/09/19: Section 13.3 Pleistocene and Early Holocene deposit sampling is missing; this should be cross-referenced with the Palaeolithic evaluation methodology requested for section 8.


Commented [NS99]: Rebecca (Historic England 30/08/19): Maria suggested a separate section was needed on this type of archaeology – I can’t see that this has been addressed as section 13.3.1 just says TBC; if it has, can you signpost me to which section covers this please?

Commented [NS100R99]: Atkins 9/9: The AMMS will include this (although it is highly unlikely that any such remains will be disturbed

Commented [NS101]: KCC 09/09/19: The Historic England Science Adviser’s comments for section 13 should be followed.

Commented [NS102R101]: Atkins 9/9: Sentence clarifying consultation with Science Advisor added at 13.2.2


58

13.4.6. The results of the sampling and dating of deposit sequences (both archaeological and natural) will be incorporated by a suitably qualified Geoarchaeologist into the existing deposit modelling for the area. The Archaeological Subcontractor(s) will clearly define the details of this requirement in their individual WSI undertaken under the provisions of the AMMS.


59

14. Recording and Reporting

14.1. Recording

14.1.1. All excavated contexts shall be fully recorded by detailed written context records giving details of location, composition, shape, dimensions, relationships, finds, samples, cross-references to other elements of the record and other relevant contexts.

14.1.2. Written and photographic records will be maintained at all sites, even where archaeological features have not been encountered, in order to document the scope of the works, their location and the presence/absence of archaeological remains.

14.1.3. The record of archaeological investigations will include, at minimum:

• The site/trench codes as defined by the Archaeological Contractor;

• the location of the works area;

• the date(s) of the works;

• personnel involved in the works;

• a description of the archaeological and/or construction works;

• scope of excavation works and depths, if applicable;

• degree of visibility and capacity to observe archaeological features, noting any areas where obstructions occurred and reasons for this;

• location and description of any archaeological remains;

• location and description of any modern remains; and

• areas and depths where archaeological remains were left in situ.

14.1.4. In order to achieve this, on-site recording of archaeological features, where not precluded by Health & Safety considerations, will consist of:

• Hand cleaning of archaeological features, sections and surfaces sufficient to establish the stratigraphic sequence exposed;

• Examination of excavated material in order to retrieve artefacts to assist in the analysis of their spatial distribution;

• Sample excavation of exposed features (see relevant methodology sections for minimum sample requirements);

• Completion of pro-forma record sheets;

• Plans and sections of all exposed archaeological features and horizons (including boundaries of natural) at an appropriate scale. A scale of 1:100 and/or 1:200 will be utilised to initially map the entire exposure and will be linked to detail plans at 1:20 of excavated features and sections at 1:10, if necessary. All features will be accurately tied into the Ordnance Survey National Grid and Ordnance Datum;

• A scaled photographic record of representative exposed sections and surfaces, along with sufficient photographs to establish the setting and scale of the groundworks; and

• A record of the datum levels of archaeological deposits.

14.1.5. Records will be produced using either pro-forma context or trench record sheets.

Commented [NS103]: KCC Lis Dyson 09/09/19: Section 14 – the various stages of report should also be sent to statutory consultees for comment and agreement.

Commented [NS104R103]: Atkins 9/9: Clarification stating all stages of reporting added at 14.4.4. For comment and not agreement Highways England do not require approval although Highways England will continue to consult. Under the provisions of the Highways Act 1980 final approval lies with the S of S for Transport not the LPA and their advisors.

Commented [NS105]: KCC Lis Dyson 9/9: Section 14, Recording and reporting, assumes that only evaluation fieldwork will have been undertaken but more detailed excavation could have been carried out. Paragraphs on further analysis, reporting and publication need to be added to this section (see also KCC standard specifications).

Commented [NS106R105]: Atkins 9/9: Section 14.5 Post Excavation Assessment and Updated Project Design already covers this. Minor amendments to Sec 14.5 made to clarify this further

Commented [NS107]: KCC Lis Dyson 9/9: A paragraph needs to be added stating that the copies of the reports when finalised will be provided to the Kent HER and digital datasets will be provided in a form appropriate for the HER.

Commented [NS108R107]: Atkins 9/9: Sentence added at 14.5.5


60

14.1.6. All written records should be completed with black or permanent ink and all drawings will be completed using a ‘hard’ pencil (recommended 2H or 4H). All documents will include the unique site code.

14.1.7. A record of the full sequence of all archaeological deposits as revealed in the investigation works will be made. Plans and sections of features will be drawn at an appropriate scale of 1:10 or 1:20, with sections drawn at 1:10.

14.1.8. A full photographic record will be maintained inclusive of working shots to represent the general context of the archaeological investigations. The principal features and finds will both be recorded in detail and in a general context. This will consist of SLR digital photography (using a minimum of a 16-megapixel camera) capturing RAW and JPEG data. An appropriate scale should be included in detailed images wherever possible.

14.1.9. Registers of all contexts, drawings, photographs, finds, and samples will be maintained in a standardised format.

14.1.10. Where archaeological features are encountered, linear features and occasional discreet features will be located using a GNSS GPS and tied into the National Grid. Where complex features or groups of features are encountered, these will be recorded at a scale of 1:20 on planning sheets, based on a 5m grid system. The grid will be used for planning features and all other horizontal control on site. Unless otherwise appropriate, all planning should be undertaken utilising GNSS GPS to provide ESRI compatible shapefiles.

14.1.11. For trial trenching, trench locations and the extent of the excavated area will be surveyed using a differential GPS. The actual areas of ground disturbance and any features of archaeological interest will be accurately located on a site plan and to a known, permanent location. This will also be required in cases where significant remains are uncovered during a watching brief. A site grid will be accurately tied into the National OS Grid and located on a map of the area.

14.2. Human remains

14.2.1. Any human remains will be recorded as per this methodology and in accordance with the Specific Methodology for Human Burials in Section 12.

14.3. Finds

14.3.1. Specific methodologies for dealing with finds is set out in Section 11. All finds recording on Site will include, as a minimum:

• the site/trench codes as defined by the Archaeological Contractor;

• the location of the works area;

• context number in which the artefact was found;

• designated find number;

• material type; and

• brief description of the artefact.

14.3.2. All finds will be labelled and bagged or boxed, where possible, with attached identification tags in plastic bags and entered into an on-site finds register and numbered accordingly. Any finds that are too large to be bagged will be labelled in an appropriate and visible manner with a finds tag.


61

14.4. Report preparation

14.4.1. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the Archaeological Contractor will prepare a fieldwork report within four to twelve weeks, this will be dependent upon the scope and nature of the fieldwork and upon the results of the fieldwork and external specialist reports. This timetable may be extended on those sites with extensive and significant archaeological remains; this will be agreed in advance with the Lead Heritage Consultant.

14.4.2. The contractor and the Lead Heritage Consultant should agree the reporting timescales in writing once work in the field is complete. Where appropriate an interim report will be provided.

14.4.3. The report will adhere to national standards and will include the following, as a minimum:

• Non-technical summary;

• Contents list;

• List of Tables, Figures etc.;

• Introduction;

• Summary of project background;

• Description and illustration of the Site location;

• Geology and topography of the Site;

• Archaeological and historical background details for the Site including relevant previous archaeological interventions;

• Statement of objectives and aims;

• Statement of methodology;

• Results and observations based on the quantitative and stratigraphic record with reference to any specific project constraints;

• Discussion of the results in terms of the location, extent, date, nature, condition, quality and significance of any archaeological remains identified during the works;

• Statement of archaeological significance and potential of the Site;

• Assessment of results in terms of the Site-specific aims and wider context;

• Conclusions and recommendations for appropriate further archaeological investigation and mitigation with reference to the specific aims and research agenda as set out in Section 4 of this Strategy;

• Bibliography;

• Acknowledgements;

• Site matrix, if applicable;

• Trench, context, find, drawing and photographic etc. registers, as applicable.

• A copy of the OASIS form.

14.4.4. Copies of the all stages of reporting will be sent to the Lead Heritage Consultant for onward transmission to the local Highways England and Statutory Consultees for comment; final copies of the report (paper & electronic) will also be submitted to be deposited in the Kent Historic Environment Record (HER).


62

14.4.5. Any significant variation in the project design, including timetables, proposed after the agreement of the proposals will be communicated by the Lead Heritage Consultant to the Statutory Consultees.

14.4.6. An OASIS form will be completed, and a paper copy will be appended to the report. An electronic copy of the post-excavation assessment report will be deposited with the Archaeological Data Service (ADS).

14.5. Post Investigation Assessment and Updated Project Design

14.5.1. On completion of the fieldwork a methodology for processing, sampling and the analysis of all artefacts and ecofacts recovered during the investigations will be determined, commensurate to the complexity and character of the data recorded. This will enable an informed decision to be made on the need for any further archaeological mitigation, assessment and reporting. Emphasis will be given to placing the results of investigations into the context of the archaeology of the area and include a statement on the archaeological significance of the results.

14.5.2. Within four weeks of completion of fieldwork a draft interim report will be prepared and submitted for review by the Lead Heritage Consultant. Following any necessary revisions, the Archaeological Contractor will submit a final version of the report within a further week of receipt of comment to the Lead Heritage Consultant for approval and issue to Statutory Consultees.

14.5.3. The reporting will include as a minimum:

• A non-technical summary;

• Introductory statements;

• The aims and methods used in the investigations;

• Methodology(s);

• Results and conclusions;

• A table summarising the deposits, features, classes and numbers of artefacts encountered and spot dates of significant finds;

• A synthesis of the findings and research aims achieved to date;

• Proposed further stages of archaeological analysis and reporting through an updated project design;

• A synthesis of the specific research aims that could be answered through implementation of the updated project design (UPD);

• Recommendations for any appropriate and proportionate further fieldwork and/or assessment to achieve the identified objectives within the UPD; and

• Proposals for deposition of the complete archive, including artefacts and physical and digital archive material.

14.5.4. Immediately upon completion of the finalised assessment report, the report and any data or other documentation produced during the post-excavation process shall be integrated into the site archive. The archaeological contractor shall store the archive in suitable conditions in a secure location until instructions are received from the Lead Heritage Consultant for its deposition.

14.5.5. Copies of final reports will be deposited with Kent HER accompanied by all associated GIS and other digital data in a suitable format.

Commented [NS109]: Maria (Historic England): I was also a little uncertain about the section entitled ‘Post Investigation Assessment and Updated Project Design” (14.5 page 55). Does this section apply only to archaeological evaluation done before the main phase of works? Could the two sections on reporting be combined or their different purposes clarified? Reporting on the deposit modelling, scientific dating, finds and environmental (and any other) assessments should also be included.

Commented [NS110R109]: Atkins 9/9: This has been updated to refer to “investigations” to cover off all potential archaeological workstreams with associated recording, assessment and updated project designs


63

15. Archive Preparation and Deposition

15.1. Overview

15.1.1. Archaeological material recovered from fieldwork is irreplaceable and data recorded during the course of fieldwork should be copied and held securely in a separate location in line with current good practice, until it can be deposited in an appropriate recipient repository.

15.1.2. All archaeological archives generated under the provisions of this AMMS will be collated together for ease of reference. The Archaeological Subcontractor(s) will clearly define this within their individual WSIs and the potential for archive handling and box charges allowed for in project designs.

15.2. Methodology

15.2.1. The methodology for archiving the physical and digital record is included in this section:

• Physical archive: All written records, drawings, and photographs as well as artefacts, eco-facts and environmental samples; and

• Digital archive: All ‘born digital’ material such as GIS files, survey data, digital images, databases, spreadsheets, LiDAR data, etc.

15.2.2. The paper and digital archive will be security copied via the Archaeology Data Service (ADS), the only accredited digital archive in the United Kingdom for heritage data. The digital archive copy will be prepared and deposited through ADS-easy 2.0.

15.2.3. All archiving will comply with national, regional and local standards and guidance. In addition, archiving will comply with the following guidelines:

• ADS, 2011. Guides to Good Practice;

• Brown, D.H., 2011. Archaeological Archives: A guide to best practice in creation, compilation, transfer and curation (Second Edition);

• Brown, D.H., 2011b. Safeguarding Archaeological Information. Procedures for minimising risk to undeposited archaeological archives;

• Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Standards and Guidance for the Collection, Documentation, Conservation and Research of Archaeological Materials; and

• Society of Museum Archaeologists, 1993. Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections: Guidelines for use in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

15.3. Physical archive

15.3.1. The physical archive for all archaeological investigations at every specified Site will comprise all artefacts, environmental samples and written and drawn records. It is to be consolidated after completion of each phase of archaeological works with records and finds collated and ordered as a permanent record which is accessible and secure.

15.3.2. The documentary archive includes written and drawn records and photography generated during Site fieldwork as well as associated site matrix, summary of key findings, photography, specialist reporting, specialist data and finds and environmental inventories generated during post-excavation.

Commented [NS111]: KCC 09/09/19: Section 15 – local museums are unlikely to be able to accept the archive from this scheme but KCC is hoping to have an alternative archive deposition scheme in place. The project should make provision to provide an appropriate box charge for archive deposition.

Commented [NS112R111]: Atkins 9/9: Noted


64

15.3.3. Deterioration and damage of all documents is to be avoided by ensuring that the site records, drawings and post-excavation records are stored in a secure and stable environment.

15.3.4. All documents will be appropriately labelled and include the site code and be consistent within the confines of the project. A contents list will be included within the archive.

15.3.5. Printed copies of any reports and publications, if applicable, of the archaeological investigations at each Site will be included along with all maps and figures associated with the reports.

15.3.6. In addition to deposition with the receiving museum, the documentary archive will be security copied as PDF/A files and deposited digitally, alongside “born digital” material, with the ADS.

15.3.7. The material archive refers to finds and environmental samples. This includes:

• Small finds;

• Bulk finds of material grouped by type i.e. ceramic fragments, animal bone, etc.; and

• Environmental samples, including thin-sections, and other environmental remains

15.3.8. Prior to fieldwork, the Archaeological Contractor will have storage facilities in place to temporarily house the Site archive for a period of one year from completion of fieldwork; this should be an appropriate period of time for archive preparation and deposition.

15.3.9. Archaeological finds rarely have any monetary value, but they are an important source of information for future research, included in museum exhibits and teaching collections. The Chartered Institute of Archaeologists (CIfA 2014) recommend that finds are publicly accessible and that landowners donate archaeological finds to a local museum.

15.3.10. All receiving museums require notification before fieldwork begins. The appropriate notification forms should be completed and discussions should be had with the museum to discuss arrangements as early as possible. On completion of the project, the archaeological contractor will discuss arrangements for the archive to be deposited with the corresponding local museum and with Highways England. This will be prepared in the format agreed with local museum services and following national guidance (ADS 2011 and Brown 2011).

15.3.11. Prior to the deposition of the material archive, all finds will be kept secure and clean, wherever possible. They will be recorded and catalogued and stored in suitable archive boxes or in conditions suitable to their material composition and size as per national guidelines.

15.3.12. All finds will be labelled, with reference to the accession number, and accompanied with catalogues and copies of specialist reports.

15.3.13. The retention, selection and dispersal of finds will be carried out after discussion with the receiving museum and relevant specialists prior to museum deposition.

15.3.14. In the case where finds are retained, landowner consent will be required to allow transfer of the finds. A Deed of Transfer will be drawn up by the relevant museum for signing by the landowner. The complete finds inventory and further finds information can be provided to the landowner, on request.

15.3.15. The Site archive will be deposited with the relevant museum within one year of the completion of all fieldwork (if no further work is required). It will then become publicly accessible.


65

15.4. Human remains

15.4.1. The specific methodology for human remains should be followed during the post-excavation stage. Human remains should be reburied unless exceptional circumstance call for their retainment for future study and this is agreed with all relevant parties. All ethical and conservation considerations must be carefully deliberated.

15.5. Digital archive

15.5.1. The Contractor will complete OASIS records for each individual phase of archaeological works resulting in a report as soon as possible after the completion of the works. All applicable sections of the record should be completed.

15.5.2. An electronic copy of the final report will be deposited with the Archaeological Data Service (ADS).

15.5.3. The digital archive shall include all relevant files.


66

16. References

ADS, 2011. Guides to Good Practice. Archaeology Data Service.

Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/46 (Accessed: 25 April 2019)

Andrews, P, Biddulph, E, Hardy, A and Brown, R, 2011 Settling the Ebbsfleet Valley: CTRL excavations at Springhead and Northfleet, Kent. The late Iron Age, Roman, Saxon and medieval landscape, Volume 1: The sites, Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph

APABE., 2005. Guidance for best practice for treatment of human remains excavated from Christian burial grounds in England. Historic England.

Ayala, G., Canti, M., Heathcote, J., Sidell, J. and Usai, R. (2007). Geoarchaeology: Using earth sciences to understand the archaeological record. Swindon: Historic England.

Baker, P. and Worley, F. (2014). Animal Bones and Archaeology: Guidelines for Best Practice. Swindon: Historic England.

Bayliss, A. and Marshall, P. (in prep.). Guidelines on the Use of Radiocarbon Dating and Chronological Modelling in Archaeology. Swindon: Historic England.

Boyle, A., Early, R., Booth, P., Campbell, G., Cropper, C., Dickenson, B., Jeffries, N., Mitchell, n., Roe, F., Salter, C., & Wilson, R. 1995. Excavations at Springhead Roman Town, Southfleet, Kent. Oxford Occasional Papers No. 1

Brickley, M. and McKinley, J.I., 2004. Guidelines to the standards for recording human remains. IFA paper, 7.

Bridgland, D R, 1994 Quaternary of the Thames, Chapman and Hall, London

British Geological Survey (BGS Survey) http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html

British Geological Survey, 1998, Dartford: England and Wales Sheet 271, Solid and Drift Geology, 1:50,000, British

Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham

Brown, D.H., 2011. Archaeological Archives: A guide to best practice in creation, compilation, transfer and curation (Second Edition). English Heritage.

Brown, D.H., 2011b. Safeguarding Archaeological Information. Procedures for minimising risk to undeposited archaeological archives. English Heritage.

Brunning, R., and Watson, J. (2012). Waterlogged Wood: Guidelines on the recording, sampling, conservation and curation of waterlogged wood, third edition. Swindon: Historic England.

Burchell, J P T, 1957 A temperate bed of the last interglacial period at Northfleet, Kent. Geol Mag 94,

212–214

Campbell, G., Moffett, L. and Straker, V. (2011). Environmental Archaeology. A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Methods, from Sampling and Recovery to Post-excavation, second edition. Portsmouth: Historic England.

CIfA (2014a). Standards and guidance for archaeological excavation. Reading: The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists

CIfA (2014b). Standard and guidance for the collection, documentation, conservation and research of archaeological materials. Reading: The Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html


67

CIfA., 2014c. Standards and guidance for commissioning work or providing consultancy advice on archaeology and the historic environment. Reading: Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

David, A. Linford N. and Linford P., 2008. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (2nd edn). Swindon: English Heritage.

DCLG., 2012. National planning policy framework in Section 12: Conservation and enhancing the historic environment. Department for Communities and Local Government.

Duller, G.A.T. (2008). Luminescence Dating: guidelines on using luminescence dating in archaeology. Swindon: Historic England.

Dungworth, D. (in prep.) Archaeometallurgy Guidelines, Second Edition. Swindon: Historic England (due 2015).

English Heritage 1991. Exploring Our Past: Strategies for the Archaeology of England. English Heritage.

English Heritage., 2006. Guidance on conservation area appraisals. English Heritage.

English Heritage, E., 2008. Conservation principles, policies and guidance. English Heritage, London.

English Heritage, 2011. Environmental Archaeology: A guide to the theory and practice of methods, from sampling and recovery to post-excavation. English Heritage.

Harris, E. C., Brown M. R. and Brown G. J. (1993) Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press Limited.

Historic England, 2008. Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment PPN 3: Archaeological Excavation. Historic England.

Historic England 2018. The Role of the Human Osteologist in an Archaeological Fieldwork Project. Historic England, Swindon.

Historic England (2004). Dendrochronology: Guidelines on producing and interpreting dendrochronological dates. Swindon: Historic England

Historic England, 2015, Management of Research Projects in the Historic Environment: The MoRPHE Project Managers’ Guide, Swindon, Centre for Archaeology Guidelines

ICON Archaeology Group., 2009. A brief guide to the principles of archaeological conservation. ICON.

ICON., 2014. ICON’s professional standards and ethics. ICON

Karsten, A., Graham, K., Jones, J., Mould, Q., Walton Rogers, P. (2012). Waterlogged Organic Artefacts: Guidelines on their Recovery, Analysis and Conservation. Swindon: Historic England.

Lark, R.M., Mathers, S.J., Thorpe, S., Arkley, S.L.B., Morgan, D.J. and Lawrence, D.J.D. (2013). A statistical assessment of the uncertainty in a 3-D geological framework model. Proceedings of the Geologists’ Association 124 (6), 946-958.

Linford, P. (2006). Archaeomagnetic Dating: Guidelines on producing and interpreting archaeomagnetic dates. Swindon: Historic England.

Mays, S., Brickley, M. and Dodwell, N., 2004. Human Bones from Archaeological Sites: guidelines for producing assessment documents and analytical reports. English Heritage.

McKinley, J. and Roberts, C., 1993. Excavation and post-excavation treatment of cremated and inhumed human remains. Birmingham: Institute of Field Archaeologists.

Medlycott, M. ed., 2011. Research and Archaeology Revisited: a revised framework for the East of England. ALGAO.


68

Mellars, P and Reinhardt, S 1978: Patterns of Mesolithic landuse in southern England a geological perspective. (In Mellars P (ed) The Early Post-Glacial Settlement of Europe)

Mitchell, P.D. and Brickley, M. eds., 2017. Updated guidelines to the standards for recording human remains. Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.

MoLA, 2010, Northfleet West Substation, Southfleet Road, Swanscombe, County of Kent: Geoarchaeological Evaluation Report, unpublished Highways England report.

MoLA, 2011, Northfleet West Substation (Phase 3), Southfleet Road, Swanscombe, County of Kent: An Archaeological Evaluation Report (Phase 3), unpublished Highways England report

MoLAS, 2003, Northfleet West Substation Site, Southfleet Road, Northfleet (County of Kent): an Archaeological Assessment, Unpublished Highways England report

MoLAS, 2006 Northfleet West Substation Site, Southfleet Road, Swanscombe, Kent: a Supplementary Archaeological Assessment, unpublished Highways England report submitted to Kent County Council

Reynier, M 2005: Early Mesolithic Britain; origins, development and directions. BAR British Series 393

Roe, D. A., 1968. A Gazetteer of the British Lower and Middle Palaeolithic sites. Council for British Archaeology.

Scaife, R and Burrin, P 1983: Floodplain development and the vegetational history of the Sussex High Weald and some archaeological implications. Sussex Archaeological Collections 121.

Schmidt, A. and Ernenwein, E., 2011. Guide to Good Practice: geophysical data in archaeology. Archaeology Data Service/Digital Antiquity Guides to Good Practice.

Schmidt, A.R., Linford, P., Linford, N., David, A., Gaffney, C.F., Sarris, A. and Faßbinder, J., 2016. EAC Guidelines for the use of Geophysics in Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider.

Society for Museum Archaeologist., 1993. Selection, Retention and Dispersal of Archaeological Collections: Guidelines for use in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Society for Museum Archaeologist.

Treasure Act 1996 (amended 2003). Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/24/contents (Accessed: 25 April 2019).

Treasure (Designation) Order 2002. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2002/0110424700/contents (Accessed: 25 April 2019).

Wenban-Smith, F.F. 1995. The Ebbsfleet Valley, Northfleet (Baker's Hole). In (D.R. Bridgland, P. Allen & B.A.

Haggart, eds) The Quaternary of the Lower Reaches of the Thames: Field Guide: 147–164. Quaternary

Research Association, Durham

Wenban-Smith FF, 2013, The Ebbsfleet Elephant: Excavations at Southfleet Road, Swanscombe in Advance of

High Speed 1, 2003-4, Oxford Archaeology Monograph No. 20, Oxford Archaeology, Oxford

Wenban-Smith, P Allen, P, Bates, M.R., Parfitt, S A Preece, R C Stewart, J R Turner, C And. Whittaker J.E

2006 The Clactonian elephant butchery site at Southfleet Road, Ebbsfleet, UK Journal of Quaternary Science

(2006) 471–483

Wenban-Smith, F, Stafford, E and Bates, M 2015 Prehistoric Ebbsfleet Excavations and Research in Advance of High Speed 1 and South Thameside Development Route 4, 1989–2003. Oxford Wessex Archaeology Monograph 7

Wenban-Smith, F, and Bridgland, D R, 2001 Palaeolithic archaeology at the Swan Valley Community School,

Swanscombe, Kent, Proc Prehist Soc 67, 219–259.


69

Wessex Archaeology 2011 South Fleet Road Widening Scheme, Swanscombe (Ebbsfleet) Kent. Report on

Archaeological Watching Brief and on Archaeological (Palaeolithic) Test Pit Evaluation.

Wessex Archaeology 2008 Station Quarter and Northfleet Rise Palaeolithic Archaeological Desk Based

Assessment and Deposit Model. Unpublished Highways England report.

Wessex Archaeology. 2009. The Temple Complex. Available at:

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/kent/ctrl/springhead/temples.html. Accessed on 19/09/2017

Wessex Archaeology. 2006 Station Quarter South, Ebbsfleet, Kent: Archaeological

Test Pits in the Location of the Elephant Lake Site, Unpublished Highways England report

Wessex Archaeology 2004 Springhead Quarter Ebbsfleet, Kent, Unpublished Highways England report

Wymer, J., 1999. The Lower Palaeolithic Occupation of Britain. Wessex Archaeology.

http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/kent/ctrl/springhead/temples.html.%20Accessed%20on%2019/09/2017

© Crown copyright (2019). You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected]. Printed on paper from well-managed forests and other controlled sources. Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363