Standards for FieldArchaeology in theEast of England

by David Gurney

with contributions byStewart Bryant, Jenny Glazebrook,Andy Hutcheson, Peter Murphy,Ben Robinson and Jonathan Smith

East Anglian ArchaeologyOccasional Paper No.14, 2003

Association of Local Government ArchaeologicalOfficersEast of England Region

EAST ANGLIAN ARCHAEOLOGYOCCASIONAL PAPER NO.14

Published byALGAO (East of England region)Algao.cji@ntlworld.com

Enquiries about the Regional Standards should be addressed toArchaeology and EnvironmentUnion HouseGressenhallDerehamNorfolk NR20 4DR

Editor: David GurneyManaging Editor: Jenny Glazebrook

Editorial Sub-committee:Brian Ayers, Archaeology and Environment Officer, Norfolk Museums and Archaeology ServiceDavid Buckley, County Archaeologist, Essex Planning DepartmentKeith Wade, Archaeological Service Manager, Suffolk County CouncilPeter Wade-MartinsStanley West

Set in Times Roman by Jenny Glazebrook using Corel VenturaPrinted by Witley Press Ltd., Hunstanton, Norfolk

ALGAO East of England

ISBN 0 9510695 5 1

For details of East Anglian Archaeology Occasional Papers, see back cover

The Regional Standards have been published with funding from English Heritage, and the counties of theEast of England region: Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Suffolk

Cover picture:The Ordnance Survey benchmark on the Union Workhouse, GressenhallPhoto: David Gurney

Contents

Contents vList of Contributors vAcronyms viAcknowledgements viPreface viForeword, by Stewart Bryant vii

IntroductionThe Development of Regional Standards for

Field Archaeology in the East of England 1Professional Values in Development-Led

Archaeological Work, by Ben Robinson 2

Planning Guidance and the Historic EnvironmentArchaeology and Planning 3The Built Environment 3Regional and Local Planning Policy 4Future Developments 4

Planning ProceduresThe LGAOs Appraisal of Planning Applications 6The LGAOs Recommendations to the LPA 6Briefs and Written Schemes of Investigation/

Specifications 7The Tendering Process 7

Regional Standards1. General Requirements 82. Desk-Based Research 93. Non-Intrusive Surveys 10

Fieldwalking 10Metal-detecting 10Earthwork surveys 11Aerial photographic surveys 11Geophysical surveys 11

4. Intrusive Methodologies 11General requirements 11Evaluation 12Excavation 12

Archaeological Monitoring (WatchingBrief) 135. Urban Archaeology, by Andy Hutcheson 13

Recording 13Evaluation sampling 13Preservation in situ 14

6. Standing Structures, by Jonathan Smith 147. Finds and Conservation 158. Archaeological Science, by Peter Murphy 15

Specialists 15Geophysical prospection 15Scientific dating 16Geoarchaeology 16Botanical and faunal remains 16Human remains 17Artefact conservation and investigative

analysis 17Analysis of technological residues,

ceramics, glass and stone 179. Reports 17

Project summaries 18Reports on Evaluations by survey and/or

trial trenching 18Reports on Area Excavations 19Reports on Archaeological Monitoring

and Recording 19Report illustrations 19

10. Publication, by Jenny Glazebrook 19The principle of replacement by record 19Publication commensurate with results 20Publication to an acceptable academic

standard 20The integration of published reports and

project archives 2111. Archives 2112. Project Monitoring 22

Appendix 1. ALGAOEE contacts 23Appendix 2. Definitions 25References 27Index, by Sue Vaughan 30

List of Contributors

Stewart BryantCounty Archaeologist, Hertfordshire County Council

Jenny GlazebrookManaging Editor, East Anglian Archaeology

David GurneyPrincipal Landscape Archaeologist, Norfolk Museumsand Archaeology Service

Andy HutchesonDevelopment Control Archaeologist, Norfolk Museumsand Archaeology Service

Peter MurphyEnglish Heritage Regional Advisor for ArchaeologicalScience, Centre of East Anglian Studies, University ofEast Anglia

Ben RobinsonArchaeological Officer, Peterborough City Council

Jonathan SmithPlanning Archaeologist, Hertfordshire County Council

v

Acronyms

ALGAOEE Association of Local GovernmentArchaeological Officers for the East ofEngland

EIA Environmental Impact AssessmentHER Historic Environment RecordIFA Institute of Field ArchaeologistsLGAO Local Government Archaeological Officer

LPA Local Planning AuthorityMAP2 English Heritage 1991, Management of

Archaeological Projects, 2nd editionPPG15 Planning Policy Guidance Note 15PPG16 Planning Policy Guidance Note 16RPG Regional Planning GuidanceSMR Sites and Monuments Record

Acknowledgements

Thanks are due to the contributors to this document, and tothe members of the Association of Local GovernmentArchaeological Officers in the East of England (includingEnglish Heritage) who, together with their archaeologicaldevelopment control officers, provided a great deal ofuseful help and advice during its preparation. In particular,Richard Havis (Essex County Council) devoted mucheffort to the document and its application in the

development control/planning context. Thanks are alsodue to the archaeological contractors and consultantscurrently working in the region for their many helpfulcomments on the consultation draft, and colleagues withinthe Norfolk Museums and Archaeology Service for theirsupport and encouragement, especially Brian Ayers,County Archaeologist for Norfolk. The cartoons whichilluminate the text have been drawn by Piers Wallace.

Preface

Following extensive consultation, this document wasformally adopted by the Committee of the Association ofLocal Government Archaeological Officers for the East ofEngland at Bury St Edmunds on 12 September 2002. Itwas also agreed that it would be fully reviewed after 23years, and that the Committee would receive regular

reports on its implementation and comments received.These can be sent to the author at Norfolk LandscapeArchaeology, Union House, Gressenhall, Dereham, NorfolkNR20 4DR or by email to david.gurney@norfolk.gov.uk.

A copy of this document is also available as a PDF file,on the web at www.eaareports.org.uk.

vi

Forewordby Stewart Bryant

The Committee of the Association of Local GovernmentArchaeological Officers for the East of England hasproduced this document. It aims to fulfill the followingkey objectives: to provide a quick reference guide on standards

applicable to archaeological fieldwork and subsequentactivities, including development-led projects,research projects and amateur (non-vocational)activities. This has been organised thematically forease of reference in the widest possible range ofcontexts, and with a bibliography of the main sources.The document is to be kept under review and revisedand updated as necessary.

to provide a statement of the philosophy of theCommittee regarding field archaeology, especially theimportance of standards and research frameworks.

to implement Planning Policy Guidance in the region,with particular regard to securing the evaluation ofarchaeological sites prior to determination of planningapplications in line with PPG16.

to improve the standard of archaeological fieldworkand the quality of research in the East of England bystating the principles that underpin decisions made byarchaeological advisors to Local PlanningAuthorities.

to provide details of methodological fieldworkrequirements in key areas, and a benchmark againstwhich archaeological projects can be monitored andassessed.However, the document is not intended as acomprehensive guide to standards or as the minimumrequirement for standards and as such should not beused by itself as guidance for the preparation ofProject Designs or Written Schemes of Investigation.These documents should always be based upon thespecific and detailed requirements of Briefs producedfor individual projects, supported by and withreference to (where appropriate) these genericregional standards and Institute of FieldArchaeologists standards and guidance.

to move towards a greater clarity and consistency ofapproach across the region in terms of fieldworkmethodology, fieldwork standards and thedecision-making process for development-relatedarchaeological projects, at the same time recognisingthat the variable nature of the landscape, thedevelopment context and the archaeological recordwill necessarily always result in some differences ofapproach.

vii

Introduction

The Development of Regional Standards forField Archaeology in the East of England

Across the East of England region, archaeologists workingwithin Local Government are responsible for providingarchaeological advice to Local Planning Authorities(LPAs), developers (and their archaeological consultants)and a wide range of other bodies whose actions may havean impact on the historic environment.

The Association of Local Government ArchaeologicalOfficers for the East of England (ALGAOEE) seeks tosafeguard the historic environment by providing advice toLPAs on the archaeological implications of developmentproposals, and by ensuring that archaeological work withinthe region is conducted to the highest possible standardduring fieldwork, analysis and publication of results. Theircommittee has prepared a Regional Action Plan, oneobjective of which is to develop consistent approaches inthe region to the preservation and management of thehistoric environment within the planning framework(Association of Local Government Officers East ofEngland Regional Committee 2000, 2223).

The national Association of Local GovernmentArchaeological Officers has also published a Strategy20012006 (2001), and its aims with reference to FieldArchaeology are: to support the development of good professional

practice in the monitoring of archaeological fieldwork,ensuring that work is carried out to appropriate briefsand specifications;

to promote the framing of all projects within thecontext of national and local research agendas;

to work in partnership with the Institute of FieldArchaeologists (IFA) to ensure that professionalstandards are maintained throughout thearchaeological contracting sector.

Within these national and regional contexts, theprimary aim of this document is to promote best practice inarchaeological work in the region, and to assistprofessional archaeologists, developers and theirappointed professional archaeological consultants andcontractors with the provision of high standards of datacollection and report preparation. Although principallytargeted at, and of use with reference to, archaeologicalfieldwork generated by the planning/development controlprocess, its contents are broadly applicable to all fieldarchaeology projects undertaken by professional oramateur (non-vocational) archaeologists and for thisreason it has been arranged thematically.

The standards and practices that are documented hereare based upon well-established techniques andprocedures developed in the region since the early 1970s,and the first county standards document produced withinthe region (Norfolk Landscape Archaeology 1998).Expressed as a set of statements provided separately fromProject Briefs, these Regional Standards now definerequired policy for work within the East of England region

to which archaeological contractors and consultants (andothers) are expected to adhere. They also provide a manualof procedures that should reflect common practice familiarto competent professional and amateur archaeologists.

It is certainly not the intention that the production ofRegional Standards should stifle debate or discourageinnovation, and it is hoped that archaeological contractorsand consultants will continue to introduce new andalternative approaches and techniques in order to meet thewider objectives of Project Designs (also known asMethod Statements or Written Schemes of Investigations)or Project Specifications.

It is expected that all Project Designs prepared byarchaeological contractors or consultants will state that allworks will be carried out in full accordance with the Briefprovided by the LGAO and, where required by the Brief,these Regional Standards. Where alternative approachesor techniques are proposed, these should not be employedwithout the prior written approval of the relevant LGAO.

Archaeological contractors and consultants shouldnote that these Regional Standards stipulate basicmethodological standards. It is considered axiomatic thatall will strive to achieve the highest possible qualitativestandards and apply the most advanced and appropriatetechniques possible within a context of continuousimprovement. A primary aim will be to maximise therecovery of archaeological data and thereby contribute tothe development of a greater understanding of the historicenvironment. Monitoring officers will therefore seek andexpect clear evidence of commitment to the historicresource of the East of England, with Project Designsbeing drawn up within a context of added value.

Thus the Regional Standards are intended tocomplement the regional Research Frameworks, which arevitally important in setting the broad parameters forindividual projects and ensuring their relevance to widerarchaeological endeavour.

They also provide an explicit framework within whichthe quality of archaeological project work may beassessed. Obviously some aspects of the archaeologicalresource vary considerably across the region, and so localrequirements as expressed in Briefs and Specifications willalways take precedence. Nevertheless, developers,contractors and consultants working in the region have aright to expect some basic consistency in curatorialapproaches across administrative boundaries.

Adherence to defined standards alone, of course, doesnot guarantee the success of archaeological projects.Archaeological work is concerned with discovery anddemands that investigative approaches are examinedcritically, and modified if necessary, in response tocircumstances that unfold in the field. Recognition ofexceptional evidence, anomalous evidence, or comparativeevidence and the adoption of correct techniques for itstreatment, is dependent upon good national, regional, andlocal contextual knowledge. Agreed standards, however, atleast provide a vital part of a common dialogue within

1

which consensus regarding approaches to particulararchaeological tasks may be reached.

Archaeological advisors within local government seekto create a framework of knowledge and co-operationwithin which successful development-led and otherarchaeological projects can occur, and it is in this spirit thatthe Regional Standards have been adopted.

Professional Values in Development-LedArchaeological Workby Ben Robinson

ALGAOEE considers that all development-ledinvestigative archaeological work should make acontribution to archaeological research and to theunderstanding of the past.

ALGAOEE considers that all investigativearchaeological work should be undertaken to achievemaximum value within project resources. The value of aproject will be determined by the informational outcome the comprehensiveness of the record created,contribution to the archaeological knowledge base, andcontribution to public promotional/educational output.

ALGAOEE acknowledges the value of a thoroughunderstanding (by archaeological contractors, consultantsand curatorial staff) of the local and regionalarchaeological environment.

ALGAOEE welcomes new approaches toarchaeological investigation and the generation of newresearch questions by all those with an interest in theregions archaeology, where these have been formulatedthrough a thorough consideration of the regionsarchaeological resources.

ALGAOEE encourages the participation of all thosewith an interest in the regions archaeology in promotionaleffort, public events and exhibitions, research seminars,and educational initiatives.

ALGAOEE encourages the dissemination ofinformation regarding the regions archaeology withinlocal, regional and national publications.

ALGAOEE acknowledges the value of programmesfor the professional development of staff within curatorialsections, contracting organisations and archaeologicalconsultancies. The presence of such programmes and theirdemonstrable efficacy in regard to approaches to regionalarchaeology are an essential part of organisationaldevelopment.

ALGAOEE welcomes beneficial initiatives andpartnership between the regions voluntary andprofessional archaeological communities.

ALGAOEE expects all members of project teams todisplay an awareness of the local and regionalarchaeological context for their work. This awareness willbe commensurate with their responsibilities within theproject team.

ALGAOEE members recognise their responsibility toensure that staff taking on development control advisoryduties and a monitoring role for contractual work, areinformed of the wider national, regional, and localarchaeological context of their advice. It is theirresponsibility to ensure that advisory staff maintainawareness of national, regional and local researchpriorities.

ALGAOEE members have a responsibility to ensurethe validity and integrity of development control adviceand powers exercised within a monitoring role.

ALGAOEE members will encourage their staff withadvisory and monitoring roles to participate fully in localand regional research effort or technical development.

ALGAOEE members will encourage the flow ofarchaeological information between LGAOs, Sites andMonuments Records, Historic Environment Records,Urban Archaeological Databases and archaeologicalconsultants and contractors. They should ensure thatarchaeological knowledge and information isdisseminated equitably to all organisations and individualswith a legitimate interest in the regions past.

2

Planning Guidance and the Historic Environment

Archaeology and Planning (PPG16)

In November 1990, the Department of the Environmentpublished Planning Policy Guidance 16 Archaeology andPlanning (PPG16), which sets out the Secretary of Statespolicy on archaeological remains on land and how theyshould be preserved or recorded. It describes howarchaeological remains are a finite and non-renewableresource, highly vulnerable to damage and destruction, andgives advice on the handling of archaeological remains anddiscoveries under the development plan and controlsystem, including the weight to be given to them inplanning decisions and the use of planning conditions.Where nationally important remains and their settings areaffected by proposed development, there should be apresumption in favour of their physical preservation.

PPG16 also firmly establishes that archaeology is amaterial consideration in the assessment by a LocalPlanning Authority (LPA) of a planning application, andthat it is reasonable for the Planning Authority to requestthe prospective developer to arrange for an archaeologicalfield evaluation to be carried out before any decision on theplanning application is taken (PPG 16, para 21). On thisbasis, the impact of the proposed development on thehistoric environment can be assessed and an informed andreasonable planning decision can then be taken.

On sites where the physical preservation in situ ofarchaeological remains is not justified, LPAs will satisfythemselves before granting planning permission that thedeveloper has made appropriate and satisfactory provisionfor the excavation and recording of the remains. This isnormally secured by the imposition of an appropriateplanning condition (a negative or Grampiancondition) inline with The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions(Department of the Environment/Welsh Office Circular11/95, Appendix A, paras 5355), or an agreement underSection 106 of the Town and County Planning Act 1990. Inthese cases, a mitigation strategy will be devised tosafeguard the archaeological remains by means ofengineering solutions, by redesign to preserve any remainsin situ, or by the excavation of any remains and theirreplacement by record.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directivesand Regulations are also highly relevant to management ofthe historic environment, as these require EIAs to becarried out, before development consent is granted, forcertain types of projects which are judged likely to havesignificant environmental effects (see Directives85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC, Note on Environmental ImpactAssessment Directive for Local Planning Authorities(1999 EIA Regulations) (Office of the Deputy PrimeMinister 2002) and Environmental Impact Assessment(DETR Circular 02/99)).

Terrestrial and marine archaeological remains providea seamless physical and intellectual continuum. Themanagement of archaeological remains under water(including inland waters, estuaries and ports, intertidalareas and the territorial sea) will generally require

specialist advice and non-standard procedures.Government advice on coastal planning for localauthorities is given in Planning Policy Guidance Note 20,Coastal Planning (Department of the Environment/WelshOffice 1992), and English Heritage and the RoyalCommission on the Historical Monuments of Englandhave published a useful statement (1996).

There are also various codes of practice for particularforms of development, such as mineral sites(Confederation of British Industry 1991) or seabeddevelopments (Joint Nautical Archaeology PolicyCommittee 1995).

Works affecting Scheduled Ancient Monuments ortheir settings will require Scheduled Monument Consent,and in these cases English Heritage must be contacted.

The Built Environment (PPG15)

In September 1994, The Department of the Environmentand the Department of National Heritage also producedPlanning Policy Guidance Note 15, Planning and theHistoric Environment (PPG15). This provides a fullstatement of Government policies for the identification andprotection of historic buildings, conservation area andother elements of the historic environment. It complementsthe guidance on archaeology given in PPG16 and makesprovision for the appropriate assessment of thearchaeological implications and for programmes ofrecording of historic buildings.

Some standing structures are Scheduled AncientMonuments (SAMs) and/or Listed Buildings. Theoverwhelming majority of the built environment, however,is not covered by such designations. Despite this, many doretain an archaeological significance. It is important thatthis is identified at the earliest opportunity and thatappropriate decisions are taken by the LPA on the advice ofthe LGAO and/or other specialist advisers when a standingstructure is faced with a development proposal, demolitionor, in the case of listed structures, repairs.

Standing structures are as much a part of the historicenvironment as traditional below-ground archaeology.Hence the planning guidance and philosophies applied tosubsurface deposits and features should be applied in thesame manner. As a result, a similar process of appraisal,evaluation, and mitigation (where necessary) should beapplied to above-ground archaeology when faced with adevelopment or demolition proposal. This will includebuildings and other structures (see, for example, EnglishHeritage 1998 on twentieth-century defences).

PPG15 is complementary to PPG16 in that it concurswith the presumption of preservation in situ and thephilosophy of replacement by record when preservationin situ is not feasible or deemed not to be reasonable. ThePPG notes that early consultation with the LPA (and theLGAO) is desirable and that LPAs should expectdevelopers to assess the likely impact of their proposals onthe special interest (archaeological significance) of the siteor structure in question. Developers should also provide

3

such information or drawings as may be required tounderstand the significance of a site or structure before anapplication is determined.

When an LGAOs appraisal of an applicationconcludes that a development or demolition proposal hasnot yet been proved to have no impact on anarchaeologically significant standing structure, furtherinformation should be requested in advance ofdetermination to inform the decision-making process. Thisshould take the form of a Standing Structure ImpactAssessment (as part of an Historic Environment ImpactAssessment, when appropriate). Once the relevantinformation has been presented, an informed decision canbe made on the application, with the LGAO (and/or others)advising the LPA on this accordingly. Further mitigation ifnecessary can be secured through a Section 106 agreementor a negative condition on any planning permission in theusual manner.

Regional and Local Planning Policy

As well as the guidance on archaeology and the historicenvironment in the two PPGs, archaeological and builtenvironment interests are also safeguarded through thedevelopment of relevant policies within Regional PlanningPolicy Guidance documents and, by LPAs, throughStructure Plans and Local Plans.

Regional Planning Policy for the East of England iscurrently divided between two documents: Regional Planning Guidance Note 6: Regional

Planning Guidance for East Anglia to 2016 (RPG6)(November 2000) covering Cambridgeshire,Peterborough, Norfolk and Suffolk

Regional Planning Guidance Note 9: RegionalPlanning Guidance for the South East (RPG9) (March2001) including Bedfordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire,Luton, Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock.

From April 2001, the boundaries for RPG have beenbrought into line with those for the Government Office forthe East of England. In due course Regional PlanningGuidance (RPG14) for the East of England to 2021 willreplace RPGs 6 and 9. This is due to be published mid-2004.

In the meantime, the two current RPGs for the regionset out strategic aims and objectives for land use and

development within a sustainable framework, and providethe regional context for other strategies and programmes,complementing national planning policy guidance.

Objectives within the RPGs include the maintenanceand enhancement of the quality of the built environment,including historic settlements, buildings, parks andgardens, open space, conservation areas and archaeologicalsites. Policies within the RPGs refer to the generalmanagement principles for conserving and enhancing thenatural, built and historic environment, and theconservation of the regions built and historic environmentrespectively.

Further information and advice about archaeology anddevelopment within the East of England may be obtainedfrom the ALGAOEE contacts listed in Appendix 1.

Future Developments: Planning PolicyStatement 15

During 2003 it is anticipated that the Office of the DeputyPrime Minister will be issuing a consultation document ona review of PPGs 15 and 16, leading to the replacement ofthe PPGs by Planning Policy Statement 15: Planning forthe Historic Environment.

Planning Policy Statements set out the Governmentscore policies and principles on different aspects ofplanning. They should be taken into account by regionalplanning bodies, strategic and local planning authorities inpreparing regional planning guidance, structure plans,unitary plans and local development plans (andsubsequently regional spatial strategies and localdevelopment frameworks) and will be material todecisions on individual planning applications. Where thesepolicies are not reflected adequately in development plans,or taken into account in relevant development controldecisions, the Secretary of State may use his powers ofdirection to seek changes to the plan and may intervene inplanning applications.

PPS15 will in due course replace PPG15 Planning andthe Historic Environment published in 1994 and PPG16Archaeology and Planning published in 1990. It will be foruse by local planning authorities, other public bodies,property owners, developers, amenity bodies and allmembers of the public with an interest in the conservationof the historic environment.

4

5Flow chart illustrating a typical development-led scenario where a planning application is deferred for anarchaeological evaluation (right column)

Planning Procedures

The principles of archaeological appraisal ,pre-determination evaluation, and mitigation are wellintegrated into the local planning/development controlprocess, and have been accepted by a wide variety ofdevelopers (such as the amenity companies, ecclesiasticalauthorities, transport and environmental agencies) whowork outside the planning system. Developers areincreasingly aware of their responsibilities towards thehistoric environment, and are happy to accommodate bestarchaeological practice in preserving or recordingarchaeological remains.

At each stage of the advice process, judgements aremade about the value of the archaeological remains inquestion. The primary intention of this is to secure thepreservation of archaeological remains and, where this isnot possible, to achieve the creation of a meaningful recordthat will contribute to knowledge about the past.

Failure to meet the terms and conditions of planningobligations and agreements is a matter of formalenforcement within the Local Planning process. Outsidethis there are mechanisms for complaint and audit that seekto address shortcomings. These measures, however, cannotusually undo the effects of poor archaeological practice.Disputes occur at the cost of good working relationshipsbetween all interested parties, and seldom create aframework for efficient and productive archaeologicalwork.

The LGAOs Appraisal of PlanningApplications or Consultations

Archaeological development control advice is based upona thorough knowledge of the historic environment withinthe various administrative areas (either Counties, Districts,or Unitary Authorities). The regions Sites and MonumentsRecords (SMRs), Historic Environment Records (HERs),Urban Archaeological Databases and the NationalMonuments Record are the principal indices and theprimary tools for the initial appraisal of potentialdevelopment impacts.

Developers and LPAs consult the LGAO on thearchaeological implications of development proposals.Developers, their agents and consultants are encouraged toconsult the LGAO as soon as possible so that anyarchaeological interest is identified at an early stage, ratherthan when a site has been acquired and a planningapplication submitted.

Consultation with the LGAO prior to the submission ofa planning application is the most effective way ofprotecting the historic environment and managing risks.

The LGAO acts as a specialist adviser to the LPA, butthe LPA is responsible for the imposition of conditions, fordischarging conditions and, where necessary, forenforcement.

The LGAOs Recommendations to the LPA

The Appraisal by the LGAO will provide information onthe archaeological implications of the development and arecommendation to the LPA. This will usually result in oneof the following planning decisions: refusal of the application

deferral pending an archaeological evaluation or theassessment of a building

the imposition of a condition to secure the preservationof archaeological remains in situ

the imposition of a condition to secure theimplementation of a programme of archaeologicalwork or building recording

no archaeological recommendation

If a development site is known to or might possiblyinclude archaeological remains, an Evaluation will berequired before the LPA determines the application. Thismight involve an Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment,field survey, geophysical survey, trial trenching or anycombination of these. If important remains are then foundto be present and these cannot be preserved in situ, theapplication might be refused or granted subject to acondition for the excavation and recording of the remains.

On other sites of archaeological interest or potential,planning permissions may be granted subject to conditionsfor programmes of archaeological work. Developmentcontrol advice provided by archaeologists oftenculminates in formal planning agreements or conditions,the fulfilment of which requires developing agents toemploy archaeological consultants and contractors.

Any programme of work will naturally be informed bythe results of any pre-determination evaluation, but if thishas not been required the initial works will also be of aninvestigative nature and may therefore include desk-basedwork, surveys and/or trial trenching.

Following on from pre-determination evaluation, afurther phase (or phases) of archaeological work may berequired to complete a programme of archaeological work(and thus discharge the planning condition). This furtherwork might involve, for example, the excavation andrecording of defined areas, building recording, orarchaeological monitoring and recording (a watchingbrief).

The fieldwork phase of any project is usually followedby what is generally referred to as Post-Excavation,involving assessment, analysis, report/publication and thepreparation and deposition of the project archive.Although these activities take place off-site (and thus thedevelopment may have been initiated and possibly evencompleted while post-excavation work is in progress), theyare an integral part of the Programme of ArchaeologicalWork. Any archaeological condition on a planningpermission will not be fully discharged until the fullprogramme has been completed to the satisfaction of theLGAO and the LPA.

6

Briefs and Written Schemes of Investigation/Specifications

When a development proposal raises archaeological issuesthat require investigation, the LGAO provides a Brief orSpecification, an outline of what needs to be done or a moredetailed schedule of works respectively. The LGAO shouldprovide this within a reasonable period of time (this willvary according to the complexity of the case).

The LGAO will also be able to advise developers aboutthe appointment of an appropriate ArchaeologicalConsultant or Contractor (for ALGAO best practice in thecompilation of lists of contractors, see Campling 1999).

An Archaeological Consultant or Contractor canprepare a Project Design in response to the Brief orSpecification. It is advisable for this to be sent to the LGAOfor approval before costed proposals are submitted to theclient, considering the possible implications of itssubsequent rejection by the LGAO. The LGAO shouldrespond in writing to any documents submitted within areasonable period of time, with comments or approval.

It is expected that all projects will adhere to the projectmanagement procedures of Management ofArchaeological Projects (English Heritage 1991) and thatthis will be reflected in the structure and content of theProject Design.

The LGAO does not see project costings, nor doeshe/she give advice on the costs of archaeological projects.This is between a developer and their archaeologicalcontractor(s). A developer may wish to obtain a number ofquotations or to employ the services of an archaeologicalconsultant to oversee this process.

The Tendering Process

If a developer (or an archaeological consultant acting onhis/her behalf) intends to seek competitive tenders from anumber of archaeological contractors then it is bestpractice for the following procedures to apply: the developer should inform all the contractors that

they are in a competitive tendering situation and thedeadline(s) for submission of Project Designs and costsshould be specified;

contractors should forward their Project Designs to theLGAO for approval as required;

a developer should only appoint a contractor fromthose whose Project Designs have been approved bythe LGAO;

a developer should seek to appoint a contractor whowill provide a high-quality service, not just the lowestprice.

It is very important to note that the resources requiredfor the post-excavation phase of any project cannot bepredicted with certainty in advance, although indicativecosts for assessment, analysis, report, publication and thedeposition of the archive for an small evaluation project orwatching brief may reasonably be estimated at the sametime as the costs of fieldwork.

For excavation projects, archaeological contractors andconsultants should advise their potential clients that thecosts of post-excavation work can only be determined afterthe excavation has been completed and its results assessed.

The LGAO may be able to provide information(usually a list) about archaeological contractors andconsultants working in the region.

The Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) publishes adirectory of its members and Registered ArchaeologicalOrganisations (RAOs). Archaeological contractors andconsultants may employ staff who are Members (MIFA),Associates (AIFA) or Practitioners (PIFA) of the IFA andwho, as individuals, carry out archaeological work inaccordance with the Institutes Code of Conduct. Work byRAOs is only carried out by, or under the responsibility of,a suitably experienced corporate member (MIFA) withappropriate Areas of Competence. The RAO scheme doesnot itself define detailed standards for best practice, but itseeks to provide a general control against which adherenceto professional standards can be judged.

The Standing Conference of Archaeological UnitManagers has published guidance on competitivetendering in archaeology (1996).

The Institute of Field Archaeologists has published acode of practice for the regulation of contractualarrangements in field archaeology (1997b) and draftprinciples of conduct for archaeologists involved incommercial archaeological work (1998).

7

8Regional Standards

The Regional Standards have been ordered thematically,primarily because many of the topics addressed areapplicable to more than one form of archaeologicalfieldwork, including development-led projects, researchprojects and amateur (non-vocational) activities. Whereappropriate, project documents (development-led or not)may usefully refer to the relevant sections of the Standards.For example, an archaeological evaluation in a ruralcontext prior to the determination of a planning applicationmight find some or all of the following sections especiallyrelevant:

General Requirements (1.1 to 1.16)

Desk-Based Research (2.1 to 2.5)

Fieldwalking (3.1 to 3.7)

Metal-detecting (3.8 to 3.15)

Geophysical surveys (3.20 to 3.21)

Intrusive Methodologies (4.1 to 4.13)

Evaluation (4.14 to 4.18)

Finds and conservation (7.1 to 7.5)

Archaeological Science (8)

Reports (9.1 to 9.18, 9.25 to 9.32)

Publication (10)

Archives (11)

Project Monitoring (12)

and reference to these sections of the Standards may beincluded, where appropriate, in the project Brief or ProjectDesign.

1. General Requirements

1.1 It is advisable for Project Designs/MethodStatements/Written Schemes prepared by archaeologicalcontractors/consultants to be submitted to the LGAO (asadviser to the LPA) and approved in writing by the LGAObefore proposals or estimates of costs or quotations areprovided to the potential client. This is best practice in linewith the Institute of Field Archaeologists guidance(1997b), although it is recognised that practice across theregion varies. The requirements of the LGAOs Briefregarding submission of documents must be adhered to.

1.2 Project Designs will be rejected if it is determined thatthey:

are insufficiently documented

do not meet the requirements specified in the Brief orSpecification

fail to demonstrate the Archaeological Contractorscompetence and ability to undertake the project inaccordance with this Regional Standards document.

In the event of a Project Design being rejected by theLGAO the archaeological contractor or consultant will beinformed of the reason(s).

1.3 The LGAO may refer to appropriate researchobjectives in the Brief or Specification, or thearchaeological contractor or consultant will be expected toconsider what these might be. Either way, the ProjectDesign must provide a clear statement of the projects aimsand objectives within the context of national and regionalresearch frameworks, especially Glazebrook 1997 andBrown and Glazebrook 2000.

1.4 All projects must be undertaken in accordance withrelevant professional standards. IFA Membership andadherence to IFAs Codes of Conduct (IFA 1997a, 1997b)and formally adopted by-laws, guidelines and otherrelevant codes, standards and guidance documents areregarded as baseline standards and yardsticks ofcompetence and good operating practice. Archaeologistsworking on a project should not attempt tasks outside theirAreas of Competence.

1.5 Archaeological contractors/consultants are advised, asa matter of course during the preparation of ProjectDesigns, to inspect the site in question and undertakesufficient background research to familiarise themselveswith the archaeology of the site and its environs.

1.6 Where required by the LGAO in the Brief orSpecification, archaeological projects will be managedfollowing the guidance in English Heritages Managementof Archaeological Projects (1991) (often referred to asMAP2 and cf English Heritage n.d.).

1.7 Project Designs must provide details of:

the qualifications and relevant experience of the ProjectManager, project team, key personnel, subcontractorsand specialists

a timetable of work

the arrangements to provide the LGAO with therequired advance notice of the start of work andopportunities for monitoring. No fieldwork should becarried out with the required prior notification of theLGAO.

1.8 The Project Manager and any other supervisory staffwill ensure that all members of the archaeological team areappropriately informed as to the projects methodologiesand objectives.

1.9 Professional archaeologists in the employ of thearchaeological contractor must undertake all work beingundertaken to meet the requirements of the Brief orSpecification. Any additional work being undertaken bystudents or volunteer staff must be specified.

1.10 All archaeological work will pay due regard to Healthand Safety considerations. Guidance on Health and Safetymay be found in Standing Conference of ArchaeologicalUnit Managers 1997. Contractors must carry out Risk

Assessments for all activities, including arrangements forProject Monitoring by the LGAO.

1.11 It is the responsibility of the archaeologicalcontractor/consultant to ensure that adequate resourceshave been made available by the client to complete theprogramme of archaeological work set out in the ProjectDesign and to fulfill the Brief or Specification.

1.12 Any subsequent variations by an archaeologicalcontractor/consultant from an approved Project Designmust be agreed with the LGAO prior to implementation.

1.13 Briefs or Specifications issued by an LGAO areusually valid for a specified period from the date of issue.After that time, they may need to be revised to take accountof new discoveries, changes in policy or the introduction ofnew working practices or techniques.

1.14 Project Designs where required will include aprovisional programme for the Assessment and Analysisphases of the project (where appropriate), followingMAP2. The Analysis and Publication Programme will bereviewed at the Assessment stage.

1.15 For any project, all numbering and coding must becompatible with the relevant Sites and Monuments Recordor Historic Environment Record. The relevant SMR/HEROfficer upon request usually issues site numbers and,where appropriate, parish codes and starting contextnumbers. It is essential that archaeological contractors/consultants should obtain advice before numbers andcodes are allocated on site.

1.16 All project records must be clearly marked with therelevant County Number, civil parish name or code, sitename and date (following local requirements).

2. Desk-Based Research

Desk-based research is undertaken to determine, as far as isreasonably possible from existing records, the nature of thearchaeological resource within a specified area.

2.1 Archaeological Desk-Based Assessments (ADBA)must be prepared following the Standard and Guidance forArchaeological Desk-Based Assessments (Institute ofField Archaeologists 1999a). It is advisable to consult theLGAO to define requirements and, if necessary, submit aProject Design.

2.2 An ADBA will also make full and effective use ofexisting information to establish the archaeologicalsignificance and potential of the defined area, drawingupon some or all of the following sources:

a report of a site visit (compulsory)

the Sites and Monuments Record or HistoricEnvironment Record (compulsory)

available historic maps (compulsory)

geological maps

Ordnance Survey maps of the site and its environs

tithe apportionment, enclosure and parish maps

estate maps

documentary and cartographic collections held by therelevant record office

Local Studies libraries

historical documents held in other record offices, localmuseums, libraries or other archives

enrolled deeds

archaeological and historical books and journals

unpublished research reports and archives held byrelevant museums, local societies and archaeologicalcontractors and consultants

all sources of aerial photography, including theNational Monuments Record and the CambridgeUniversity Collection of Aerial Photographs (seebelow)

borehole and trial pit data

geophysical and/or geotechnical data.

2.3 Where an ADBA is required, staff with experience inthe preparation of such reports will be used. This mustidentify and plot:

all areas of known and potential archaeologicalsignificance within the defined area;

all areas where activities may have destroyed ortruncated archaeological remains;

any areas of known or potential ground contamination;

the scale and nature of the development proposal ifknown;

relevant constraints (e.g. Scheduled AncientMonuments, Conservation Areas and ListedBuildings). Where non-archaeological constraints areidentified (e.g. Sites of Special Scientific Interest, sitesof wildlife interest, protected species, Tree PreservationOrders, Countryside Stewardship Schemes,Environmentally Sensitive Areas), it is helpful if theseare included;

geology, soils, drainage, anticipated preservationconditions and variables affecting preservation ofbiological remains and organic artefacts;

any previous investigations in Archaeological Scienceat the site or immediately adjacent to it (cf 8. below).

2.4 Where an accurate plot of cropmarks is required, thiswill usually be prepared at a scale of 1:2500, or 1:10,000for larger relatively uncomplicated areas. In some parts of

9

desk-based research

the region, English Heritages National MappingProgramme (NMP) has been completed and in other areasit is in progress. Where NMP data is available, this must beconsulted.

2.5 All sources consulted must be listed.

3. Non-Intrusive Surveys

Field surveys of various kinds provide non-intrusive,non-destructive and cost-effective ways of collectingarchaeological data. Fieldwalking and metal-detecting canrecover information from artefacts on the surface of orwithin the ploughsoil or topsoil, whilst geophysicalsurveys can locate buried archaeological structures andfeatures.

The first two sub-sections below (3.1 to 3.15) refer toextensive surveys undertaken in order to acquire arepresentative sample of artefact type and size classespresent, to investigate locations and areas of occupation, toassess the effects of tillage on artefact distributions and todefine areas for possible further archaeologicalinvestigation.

Where, for other reasons, intensive transects or griddedsurface collection is required, this will be dealt with in theProject Brief or Specification.

On large or complex sites, a phased programme ofevaluation or excavation may be adopted. Where fieldsurvey or geophysical survey needs to be followed by trialtrenching or excavation, the trenching or excavationstrategy will be determined once the survey results havebeen assessed.

Fieldwalking3.1 Fieldwalking may only be carried out in suitableweather and light conditions, after appropriate cultivation,weathering and washing of the field surface. The surfaceconditions at the time of survey must be fully documentedin the report, along with other variables (e.g. weather, light,obstructions, topography, collector etc), and the impact ofthese variables on the recovery of data should be assessed.

3.2 Staff who fieldwalk must have experience of artefactrecognition.

3.3 The survey grid will be established by measured surveytechnique. In all cases work must be related to fixed points,plotted and fully documented so that, if necessary, theprecise locations of those surveys can be accuratelyre-established. It may be a requirement for fieldworktransects to be tied in to and aligned on the national grid. Inother cases, grids may be aligned on appropriate landscapefeatures.

3.4 Transects for fieldwalking should be at 20 metreintervals, unless otherwise specified. Search/collectionunits of specified length will be employed to locateconcentrations of artefacts.

3.5 The fieldwalkers will generally observe a 2 metre widestrip along each transect, thereby examining a minimum10% sample of the field surface.

3.6 Finds from each collection unit must be individuallybagged, numbered, labelled and marked by context, andrecorded on appropriate pro forma FieldwalkingRecording Sheets.

3.7 Where large amounts of e.g. post-medieval brick or tilefragments or burnt flints are not collected, the presence ofthis material must be recorded.

Metal-detectingSystematic metal-detecting recovers a range ofarchaeological objects that is complementary to thoseclasses of artefacts usually found by fieldwalking, i.e.flints, pottery and building materials. A metal-detectorsurvey may retrieve metal artefacts from the Bronze Ageonwards and coins from the Iron Age onwards. Some sitessuch as dispersed hoards of metalwork or coins andAnglo-Saxon inhumation cemeteries are more likely to belocated by metal-detecting than by any other technique.3.8 The recovery of archaeological objects located bymetal-detector is an activity which, for the purposes offield survey, is to be restricted to the ploughsoil. In theevent that an object or group of objects is located belowploughsoil depth, these must initially be left in situ whilearrangements are made for their recovery under controlledexcavation conditions.

3.9 Metal-detecting must be undertaken in appropriateconditions. Low stubble is often ideal.

3.10 Experienced and competent operators in the employof the archaeological contractor, using reliable andwell-maintained equipment, may only carry outmetal-detecting as a separate activity from fieldwalking.

3.11 The strategy for metal-detecting (transects, collectionunits etc) is broadly the same as that used for fieldwalking.The transects may be parallel to the fieldwalking transectsif units are being searched by fieldwalkers andmetal-detectorists simultaneously.

3.12 It is generally acceptable to discriminate against ironobjects.

3.13 It is generally acceptable to discard items of noarchaeological significance. However, when the date andfunction of an object is unknown or uncertain it must beretained for examination by finds staff and/or relevantspecialists.

3.14 A pro forma recording sheet will include details ofconditions, the equipment used, discriminator level,operator etc, and a general comment about any discardedmaterial.

3.15 All Treasure and finds of potential Treasure must bedealt with in accordance with the Treasure Act 1996 and itsCode of Practice.

Earthwork surveysFor defined levels of recording for archaeological surveys,see Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments ofEngland 1999.

3.16 Staff with appropriate survey and interpretativeexperience must be used in order to ensure uniformity ofresults.

3.17 Survey may be undertaken using instrumental and/orgraphic methods, depending on the topography and theexperience of staff. Whichever is employed, the surveymethodology and the format of the interpretative drawingsmust be agreed with the LGAO before commencement.

10

3.18 The preferred method will be specified in the Brief,but it may include:

digital data, where required, in a format to be agreedwith the LGAO

drawings on a film base at a scale of 1:1000, or 1:500 ifgreater detail is required

at least two National Grid intersections

earthwork features depicted by hachures

sufficient detail of the adjacent topography so that thesurvey can be easily related to present-day landscapefeatures

profiles across any earthworks

an analytical report presented as an integral part of thesurvey, with description and interpretation referencedby letters or numbers to the plan.

Aerial photographic surveysAerial photographic survey can be an importantcomponent of archaeological survey and may provide alevel of detail that cannot be achieved by other means.Where ground conditions are favourable, aerial survey canrecord evidence of geological disturbances, the periglaciallandscape, soil erosion and accumulation, and cut orembanked features.

3.19 All survey must be undertaken in accordance with theInstitute of Field ArchaeologistsTechnical Paper 12, Usesof Aerial Photography in Archaeological Evaluations(Palmer and Cox 1993) and the Council for BritishArchaeologys Aerial Archaeology Guidance Note (1995).

Geophysical surveysNon-intrusive geophysical surveys may provide a greatdeal of information about the extent and nature ofbelow-ground structures and subsoil features. They areoften therefore ideal (and cost-effective) techniques forsite evaluation. The three main techniques aremagnetometry (fluxgate gradiometer), magneticsusceptibility and resistivity. Careful consideration mustbe given to obtaining specialist advice, the appointment ofan appropriate contractor, and the selection of the mostsuitable and effective technique taking into account theindividual circumstances of each site. The results fromtest-pits or boreholes, if available, may assist with this. Seealso 8.3-8.6 below.

3.20 All survey must be undertaken in accordance with TheUse of Geophysical Techniques in ArchaeologicalEvaluation (Gaffney, Gater and Ovenden 2002) andGeophysical survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation(David 1995).

3.21 For best practice in the creation and use of digitalgeophysical data, see Schmidt 2001.

4. Intrusive Methodologies

General requirements

4.1 Project Designs must include details of:

the proposed locations and extent of trial trenches orexcavation areas (with scale plans)

the excavation and recording strategy

the arrangements for palaeoenvironmental assessmentand analysis (cf 8.16-8.19 below)

the arrangements to provide the LGAO with therequired advance notice of the start of work andopportunities for monitoring

the levels of intervention proposed in the excavation byhand of various types of contexts that may beencountered. In the case of Evaluations, where theobjective is to define remains rather than totally removethem, investigation should not be at the expense of anystructures, deposits, features or finds which mightreasonably be considered to merit preservation in situ.It is important, however, that sufficient work is done toallow the resolution of the principal aims andobjectives of the project

provision for the identification of artefacts

site security with particular reference to finds andrecords

conservation facilities and expertise, both for on-sitefirst aid for finds and as part of the post-excavationprocess

specialists who might be required to advise or report onarchaeological science or other aspects of theinvestigation

report strategy

archive strategy.

4.2 A mechanical excavator working under close andconstant archaeological supervision may usually removeall undifferentiated topsoil or overburden of recent originin spits down to the first significant archaeological horizon.A mechanical excavator with a wide ditching bucket withteeth removed will usually be used for this. In someinstances, topsoil layers may themselves requireexcavation, in which case this will be specified in the Brief.Any machine excavation of archaeological deposits (e.g.bulk deposits of little archaeological or environmentalpotential) may only be undertaken with the prioragreement of the LGAO.

4.3 Provision must be made for the cleaning by hand of thefaces of trenches and, where appropriate, the machinedsurface.

4.4 Unless specified otherwise in the Brief, the areasindicated on the scale plans accompanying a ProjectDesign will be excavated to natural, thereby recovering acomplete sequence of ground plans of any archaeologicaldeposits or features within those areas. However,investigation should not be at the expense of any structures,deposits, features or finds which might reasonably beconsidered to merit preservation in situ (cf 4.1).

11

4.5 Buried soils and/or specific contexts will be sampledand sieved or bulk-sieved in order to maximise the retrievalof artefacts and environmental evidence from significantdeposits (cf 8.12 below).

4.6 Provision will be made, where appropriate, forscientific dating and analysis, including C14,dendrochronological and archaeomagnetic dating (cf8.7-8.10 below).

4.7 Where deposits are encountered with the potential forproviding scientific dating evidence, palaeoenvironmentalevidence or other information related to archaeologicalscience (see section 8 below), the advice of the LGAO andEnglish Heritages Regional Advisor for ArchaeologicalScience must be obtained. An appropriate excavation andsampling strategy will be agreed and included in theProject Design.

4.8 Trenches or excavation areas must not be backfilledwithout the prior approval of the LGAO unless this isnecessary for safety reasons.

4.9 Where obstructions are encountered unexpectedly,minor variations to trench/area layout may usually be madewithout consulting the LGAO. However, any substantivechanges to the agreed strategy must be agreed with theLGAO before implementation.

4.10 Any human remains that are encounteredunexpectedly must initially be left in situ, covered andprotected (cf 8.20-8.25 below). If removal is necessary, thismust comply with the relevant Home Office regulations,Section 25 of the Burial Act 1857, the Disused BurialGrounds (Amendment) Act 1981 (where appropriate) andthe relevant environmental health regulations.

4.11 Archaeological contractors will employ standardisedand documented recording methods, generally utilisingpro forma recording sheets. Copies of these must be sent tothe LGAO for approval.

4.12 All archaeological contexts and artefacts exposed orexamined must be adequately surveyed, sampled, cleaned,planned, excavated and replaced by record on appropriatepro forma context, finds and sample sheets, by theproduction of plans, sections and elevations at appropriatescales and by black and white and colour photographicrecord.

4.13 An on-site index of plans and sections and otheron-site records must be maintained, and eventuallyincluded in the project archive.

EvaluationThis is an intrusive methodology which may be requiredprior to the determination of a planning application, withthe aim of informing the decision-making process on thebest course of action for an archaeological depositsequence to be affected by a proposed developmentprogramme.

4.14 Project Designs must confirm that the aim of the workis to create a full characterisation of the archaeologicalsequence and a model of the deposit history. Themethodology to be used must be articulated and the sourcesto be consulted listed.

4.15 Evaluation trial-trenching will recover as muchinformation as possible on the extent, date, phasing,character, function, status and significance of the site. Thestates of preservation of archaeological features ordeposits within the area indicated must be determined.

4.16 Evaluation trial-trenching will normally examine anappropriate sample (often expressed as a % of the area ofthe proposed development site) as required by the Brief orSpecification (cf Hey and Lacey 2001). The area of thebase of a battered or stepped trench will usually be thefigure used to determine if the sample has been achieved.In urban areas, smaller samples may sometimes bespecified taking into account the particular circumstanceson a site-by-site basis. Where the sample size is notstipulated in the Brief, a rationale for the sampling methodmust be provided based on knowledge and understandingof the surrounding archaeological resource.

4.17 Exceptionally, and only with the prior approval of theLGAO, the mechanical removal of archaeological depositsmay be permitted.

4.18 An archive and client report must be produced. Insome instances, publication of the evaluation results maybe required if no further work is undertaken and if theresults of the evaluation warrant dissemination of asynthesis of the results in an appropriate journal.

ExcavationAn Excavation may be required where it has been decidedthat any archaeological remains do not warrant physicalpreservation in situ, and that an acceptable mitigationstrategy is for these to be excavated archaeologically,replaced by record, assessed, analysed, archived and asynthesis of the results disseminated. For standards andguidance see also Institute of Field Archaeologists 1999d.

4.19 Excavation Projects will recover as much informationas possible on the origins, date, development, phasing,spatial organisation, character, function, status,significance and the nature of social, economic andindustrial activities on the site.

4.20 Excavation Projects will examine, excavate andreplace by record all archaeological features, deposits andstructures within the area indicated and to the agreed depth,assess their potential for analysis, undertake an agreedprogramme of analysis, produce a report (9 below), archive(11 below), and publication (10 below).

4.21 Archaeological contractors must provide sufficient,secure and separate accommodation for site records, andfor finds processing and finds storage if these activitiestake place on site.

4.22 Provision of access is an important tenet ofarchaeological excavation, and a Brief may includeencouragement to bring the circumstances, results,analysis and interpretation of archaeological work beforethe general public (open days, viewing platforms, sitetours, on-site provision of information and publicity(where allowed) in the local and national media).Opportunities should also be provided, where practicable,for local amateur archaeological groups to participate.This, it must be stressed, should in no way replace anyaspect of the formal costed works to meet the requirementsof the Brief or Specification.

12

Archaeological Monitoring (or Watching Brief)Archaeological Monitoring and Recording (or a WatchingBrief) means that an archaeologist must be presentthroughout or during certain specified phases of thedevelopment to record any features exposed or anyarchaeological finds.

In the event of the discovery of unanticipated remainsof national importance, discussions will take place (whichmight include the developer, the LGAO, the LPA andEnglish Heritage) on how these might be preserved in situor recorded.

For standards and guidance see also Institute of FieldArchaeologists 1999c.

4.23 During Archaeological Monitoring and Recording,provision must be made for an archaeologist(s) to bepresent during specified times and/or activities including,where required:

all areas of below-ground disturbance, includingexcavations, foundation trenches, service trenches,drains and soakaways

above-ground remains when the development affects abuilding of historic importance

pipelines and cable trenches.

4.24 Monitoring will be undertaken at the level or intensityindicated in the Brief or Specification. This may involveintensive monitoring (i.e. continuous presence duringactivities), regular monitoring visits or occasionalmonitoring (a programme of planned visits to coincidewith relevant activities).

4.25 The archaeological contractor must be in full controlof machining activity on the site.

4.26 Where required, all topsoil or spoil must be scannedcarefully by eye and surveyed by metal-detector during itsremoval.

4.27 Monitoring and Recording of a standing structure is aparticularly useful approach for small-scale, focusseddevelopments and repair proposals involving minimalopening up of discrete areas of a structure. It will generallyinclude, as a minimum:

monitoring of fabric intervention to structure

recording by photography and scale drawing of fabricrevealed, altered or removed.

5. Urban Archaeologyby Andy Hutcheson

The defining difference between an urban and any othersort of archaeological site is, of course, the past intensity ofuse. A less interpretatively-loaded description of such asituation could be intensively stratified archaeologicalareas. Regardless of the nuances of various definitions,the reality is that these stratified archaeological situationsrequire a specific set of approaches and skills. A ProjectDesign for a stratified site must therefore articulate amethodology appropriate to the nature of thearchaeological deposits to be investigated and theenvironment in which the work will take place.

There is a useful body of literature on methodologicalapproaches to the archaeology of towns, notably Harriswork on understanding stratigraphy (1975, 1979, 1984 and1993), Carver (1987; 1990), the Museum of Londonsarchaeological site manuals (Spence 1990; 1994), theproceedings of the Interpreting Stratigraphy conferences(Steane 1992, Barber 1993, Shepherd 1995, Roskams 1998;2000); Chadwick 1997, Thorpe 1998 and Roskams 2001.

Recording (evaluation and excavation)Recording of the contextual situation and the relationshipsbetween deposits is of primary importance in anyarchaeological investigation. The major difference in anurban environment is that the deposit sequence will usuallybe more complex. There are a number of methodologicaltools that can be applied to the recording of thiscomplexity. Most important of these is the record made ofthe relative position of a defined context in relation to therest of the sequence through the use of a stratigraphicmatrix. The construction and subsequent analysis of amatrix, both on site and in post-excavation, will greatlyenhance the interpretative value of the investigation andwill allow any future researcher to approach the primarysite record more easily.

Also of great value to both understanding the sequenceon site and creating an interpretable archive is a singlecontext planning methodology. Linking of these tworecording methods, along with the text record, results in apowerful interpretative tool for analysis of anyarchaeological deposit sequence. In many cases it may beappropriate to carry this further and utilise informationtechnology to assist in the process of understanding.

Evaluation samplingGiven the nature of the urban environment and thepotential necessity for deep trenches, evaluation will be arelatively more costly exercise in towns. The object ofevaluation is to characterise the archaeological sequenceand its present and future research value. In order toaccomplish this the entire sequence present within aproposed development area will need to be modelled. Thismay require a significant sample of the site and a detailedsynthesis of the results of evaluation with otherinformation held on the location in archaeologicaldatabases, documents and maps.

13

intensive stratification

Preservation in situThe aim of much evaluation in the urban context is todecide on the best course of action for an archaeologicaldeposit sequence affected by a proposed developmentprogramme. A range of possible solutions can beformulated to meet the challenge of reconciling thesurvival of a particular archaeological resource with theneed for development. Very often the choice of solutionwill rest on whether the development scheme can be builton top of the archaeological remains. Piling and minimallyintrusive foundation designs will be chosen for situationswhere it can be demonstrated that the remains can beeffectively preserved through such an approach. In caseswhere there are anaerobic conditions resulting in organicpreservation, evaluation must attempt to answer difficultquestions such as:

will the local environment be affected?

how can the environment be monitored throughout thelife of the building?

what will be the affect of this development on thesurrounding archaeological resource?

Approaches to evaluation that attempt to minimiseon-site costs through stepping of the trenches can defeatthe purpose of preservation. Destruction of part of thesequence without record is not an acceptable methodology,given the logic of the evaluation exercise. Shoring ofdeeply stratified evaluation trenches is usually the mosteffective way of characterising the resource whilstminimising its destruction.

There is presently a small but growing body ofliterature relating to the preservation of archaeologicalsites in situ (see Corfield et al. 1996).

5.1 All archaeological investigations of stratified depositsequences will construct an ongoing matrix of therelationships between the contexts defined within thetrench.

5.2 A single context planning methodology will normallybe used to ensure both a greater understanding of the sitesequence by the archaeologists carrying out theinvestigation but also so that sequential interpretations canbe reproduced.

5.3 Project Designs must confirm that the aim of the workis to create a full characterisation of the archaeologicalsequence and a model of the deposit history. Themethodology to be used must be articulated and the sourcesto be consulted discussed. Where the sample size is notstipulated in the Brief, a rationale for the sampling methodmust be provided based on knowledge and understandingof the surrounding archaeological resource.

5.4 Project Designs must confirm that where a sequence inexcess of 1.2m in depth is expected, provision for therequired methodology (normally trench shoring) has beenmade.

5.5 Project Designs must articulate the range ofpreservation considerations to be investigated and reportedon during the evaluation. In cases where organicpreservation in anaerobic conditions is likely, anappropriate range of scientific measurements andenvironmental tests should be built into the Project Design

and analysed for the report (e.g. pH and redox) as well as anassessment of organic preservation.

5.6 Excavation areas will generally be stipulated in thebrief. The stipulated area does not include steps for edgeprotection and a methodology for providing safeexcavation sides must be articulated in the Project Design.

6. Standing Structuresby Jonathan Smith

There is a variety of practice across the region with regardto the assessment and recording of standing structures. Insome authorities, the LGAO may only advise onnon-listed structures, while in others the LPAsConservation Officers may deal with above-groundbuildings archaeology.

6.1 Work must be undertaken in accordance with theguidance contained in the following documents:

Recording Historic Buildings; A DescriptiveSpecification (3rd edition) (Royal Commission on theHistorical Monuments of England 1996)

Analysis and recording for the conservation andcontrol of works to historic buildings (Association ofCounty Archaeological Officers 1997)

Standard and Guidance for the ArchaeologicalInvestigation and Recording of Standing Buildings orStructures (Institute of Field Archaeologists 1999e).

6.2 An archaeological contractor who is a suitablyqualified buildings archaeologist, conservation architect,or art historian will carry out all assessments andfieldwork. The LGAO will be able to advise on theappointment of an appropriate contractor.

6.3 Where a Standing Structure Impact Assessment isrequired, this will usually include, as a minimum, anArchaeological Desk-Based Assessment, an outlinephotographic survey, measured plans, elevations, or othersurveys representing the existing structure, drawings inplan and elevation indicating the proposed development,and a complete planning history of the site. This may berequired before an application is determined, in caseswhere the information has not already been included withan application. In the case of demolition proposals, theLGAO may wish to request a fuller level of recording atthis stage when the structure has potential forarchaeological significance.

6.4 The aims and objectives of a programme of workinvolving building recording will generally be to:

compile a comprehensive and high quality record of thestructures subject to the development/demolitionproposal

provide a comprehensive review of the local andregional historical context of the structures recorded bythe project in the resultant analytical report. This mustbe adequately detailed to place the findings of therecording in their context and to be able to informconservation decisions and the subsequentmanagement of the structures

14

produce a high quality, fully integrated archive suitablefor long-term deposition in order to replace by recordthe structures in their form prior to conversion,alteration, demolition or repair.

6.5 The contractor must complete the required surveys andsubmit the report prior to the commencement ofdevelopment or demolition of the structures subject to theapplication. Further recording may be required ofinterventions into the fabric of the original structure in thecase of alteration, conversion, and/or repair of the structurein question. This, if justified (particularly so with ListedBuildings and Scheduled Ancient Monuments), willcomplete the archive and facilitate its use as a futureconservation and management tool for the structure.

7. Finds and Conservationsee also 8.26-8.35 below

7.1 All finds work must be to accepted professionalstandards, and the Standard and Guidance for thecollection, documentation, conservation and research ofarchaeological materials (Institute of FieldArchaeologists 2001) adhered to.

7.2 Finds must be processed as soon as possible afterrecovery so that staff in the field can receive feedback andspot-dating of archaeological deposits being excavated.

7.3 During the assessment of metal finds, the advice of aprofessional conservator must be sought on conservationand x-ray requirements. All metal objects (except those oflead) must be x-rayed, and the x-rays included in the sitearchive as an integral component of the finds records (cf8.29 below).

7.4 No sampling or disposal of cultural material from anevaluation or excavation may take place without priorapproval by the LGAO and the intended place ofdeposition of the project archive.

7.5 All Treasure and finds of potential Treasure must bedealt with in accordance with the Treasure Act 1996 and itsCode of Practice.

8. Archaeological Scienceby Peter Murphy

To separate Archaeological Science from FieldArchaeology is of course artificial (for there are wideareas of overlap) but, for practical reasons and to avoidduplication, it is necessary in this document.Archaeological Science is here taken to include:

geophysics

scientific dating

geoarchaeology and soil science

analysis of botanical and faunal remains

analysis of human remains

artefact conservation and investigative analysis

analysis of technological residues, ceramics, glass andstone.

This section applies equally to both evaluations andexcavations, ranging from pre-determination evaluationsthrough to evaluations and excavations secured byconditions. Evaluations differ widely in scope, scale andobjectives. Small-scale initial pre-determinationevaluations are usually intended to establish whether anyarchaeology is present at all and in this caseArchaeological Science will often not be applicable. Forall subsequent fieldwork it certainly is.

Procedures for desk-based studies, evaluation andexcavation at coastal managed realignment schemes are tobe found in Trow and Murphy (forthcoming). Most ofthese procedures are also applicable at other types of sitewhere deep sediment sequences occur.

SpecialistsExcept in the field of artefact conservation, there arecurrently no professional accreditation schemes.Elsewhere, an objective criterion of competence is theability of specialists to demonstrate that they have access toadequate laboratory facilities, including referencecollections where needed. The phrase recognisedspecialist is used below as a neutral, non-prescriptiveterm.

8.1 Specialists in archaeological science will be named inProject Designs and their competence to undertakeinvestigations must be demonstrated. It is reasonable toexpect a qualification, record of publication ortraining/mentoring by an experienced specialist.

8.2 There must be agreement in writing between thearchaeological contractor/consultant and specialists ontimetables and deadlines for all stages of work.

Geophysical prospection

8.3 The standards presented in Geophysical Survey inArchaeological Field Evaluations (David 1995) representbest practice.

8.4 Where a programme of geophysical survey is required,a recognised specialist in the techniques involved must beemployed.

15

`have you washed those pots yet?

8.5 For most substrates, magnetometer survey is often thepreferred technique in the first instance, using a fluxgategradiometer with digital data storage and transfer facility.

8.6 If other techniques are to be employed, the geophysicistmust provide a statement explaining the reasons for theiruse. The choice and deployment of techniques must beagreed with the LGAO in the light of this and after initialassessment of site conditions.

Scientific datingAs a guide to the potential usage of scientific dating, it hasalready been applied during evaluation in the East ofEngland in the following circumstances:

radiocarbon dating of wooden structures which werenot dated artefactually or stratigraphically

radiocarbon dating of organic sediment sequencesbelieved to be contemporary with adjacentarchaeological sites

OSL (Optically Stimulated Luminescence) dating ofcolluvial sediments overlying cut archaeologicalfeatures, undertaken to help define the appropriatedepth of machining during subsequent excavation.

8.7 During field evaluation, samples will be taken forscientific dating in defined and specific circumstances,subject to time constraints. This applies where dating byartefacts is insecure or absent and where dating isnecessary for development of the Project Design orSpecification for subsequent work.

8.8 Samples for dating must be submitted to the laboratorypromptly, following both evaluation and excavation. Prioragreement will be made with the laboratory on turn-aroundtime and report production, so as to ensure that results areavailable to aid development of specifications forsubsequent mitigation strategies, or for excavation reportproduction.

8.9 During excavation projects, samples must be collectedfor radiocarbon, dendrochronology, luminescence,archaeomagnetism (and/or other techniques asappropriate) following the outline strategy presented in theProject Design/Specification. A detailed and cost-effectivestrategy for scientific dating will be prepared inconsultation with appropriate specialists.

8.10 Sampling for dendrochronology must followprocedures presented in Dendrochonology: guidelines onproducing and interpreting dendrochronological dates(Hillam 1998).

Geoarchaeology

8.11 Procedures and techniques presented in Guidelinesfor carrying out Assessments in Geoarchaeology (Canti1996) should be followed.

8.12 Buried soils and sediment sequences must beinspected and recorded on site at both the evaluation andexcavation stage by a recognised geoarchaeologist. Fieldinspection can provide sufficient data for understandingsite formation processes, thereby avoiding the collectionand processing of redundant samples.

8.13 Samples for laboratory assessment and analysis willbe collected where appropriate, following discussion withthe LGAO.

8.14 Samples will be processed as deemed necessary bythe specialist, particularly where storage of unprocessedsamples is thought likely to result in deterioration.Appropriate assessment must be undertaken. Wherepreservation in situ is a viable option, consideration shouldbe given to the possible effects of compression on thephysical integrity of the site and to any hydrologicalimpacts of development.

8.15 During excavation, samples will be collected foranalysis of chemistry, magnetic susceptibility, particlesize, micromorphology and/or other techniques asappropriate, following the outline strategy presented in theProject Design/Specification, and in consultation with thegeoarchaeologist.

Botanical and faunal remains

8.16 During evaluation, deposits will be sampled forretrieval and assessment of the preservation conditions andpotential for analysis of biological remains. The samplingstrategy must include a reasoned justification for selectionof deposits for sampling, and will be developed incollaboration with a recognised bioarchaeologist.

8.17 Sampling methods for macrofossils (e.g. shells,seeds) and microfossils (e.g. pollen, foraminiferans) mustfollow the document Environmental Archaeology. A guideto the theory and practice of methods, from sampling andrecovery to post-excavation (English Heritage 2002).

8.18 Bulk samples and samples taken for coarse-meshsieving from dry deposits must be processed at the time ofthe fieldwork wherever possible, partly to permit variationof sampling strategies if necessary, but also becauseprocessing a backlog of samples at a later stage can causedelays. Sampling strategies for wooden structures mustfollow the methodologies presented in Brunning 1996.

16

bulk sieving

8.19 Biological samples from both evaluations andexcavations must be assessed by recognisedbioarchaeologists for evidence of site formation andtaphonomy. Processing of all soil samples collected forbiological assessment, or sub-samples of them, should becompleted, except where deposits prove to be undatable.The preservation, state, density and significance ofmaterial retrieved must be assessed. Special considerationshould be given to any evidence for recent changes inpreservation conditions that may have been caused byalterations in the site environment. Unprocessedsub-samples must be stored in conditions specified by theappropriate specialists. Animal bone assemblages, orsub-samples of them, must be assessed by a recognisedspecialist. Following assessment, appropriate samples ofbiological materials must be analysed.

Human remains

8.20 At the evaluation stage, lifting of human skeletalremains must be kept to the minimum that is compatiblewith an adequate evaluation.

8.21 At sites known in advance to be cemeteries, provisionmust be made for site inspection by a recognised specialist.

8.22 Excavators must be aware of, and comply with, therelevant legislation and any Home Office and localenvironmental health concerns. Further guidance isprovided in Church Archaeology: its care and management(Council for the Care of Churches 1999).

8.23 Assessment of human remains will be based partly onin situ observation, but where skeletal remains have beenlifted, a recognised specialist must undertake assessment.

8.24 During excavation, burials must be recorded in situand subsequently lifted, washed in water (without anyadditives), marked and packed to standards compatiblewith Excavation and post-excavation treatment ofcremated and inhumed human remains (McKinley andRoberts 1993). Site inspection by a recognised specialist isdesirable in the case of isolated non-complex burials, andnecessary for cemeteries.

8.25 Proposals for the final placing of human remainsfollowing study and analysis will be required in the ProjectDesign/Specification. Further guidance is provided inChurch Archaeology: its care and management (Councilfor the Care of Churches 1999).

Artefact conservation and investigative analysis

8.26 All finds visible or located by other means (such asmetal-detecting) during evaluation and excavation must becollected and processed, unless variations in this principleare agreed with the LGAO.

8.27 Provision must be made, where appropriate, for theregular transfer of finds from a site to the conservationlaboratory.

8.28 Finds must be appropriately packaged and storedunder optimum conditions, as detailed in First Aid forFinds (Watkinson and Neal 1998).

8.29 Assessment must include x-radiography of all metalobjects (after initial screening to exclude obviously recentdebris) except those of lead (cf 7.3 above). A rapid scan of

all excavated material must be undertaken by conservatorsand finds researchers in collaboration. Material consideredvulnerable will be selected for stabilisation after specialistrecording. Where intervention is necessary, considerationshould be given to possible investigative procedures (e.g.glass composition studies, residues in or on pottery,ceramic thin sections, and mineral-preserved organicmaterial).

8.30 Once assessed, all material must be packed and storedin optimum conditions, as described in First Aid for Finds(Watkinson and Neal 1998). Waterlogged organicmaterials must be dealt with following Guidelines for thecare of waterlogged archaeological leather (EnglishHeritage/Archaeological Leather Group 1995) andWaterlogged wood: guidelines on the recording, sampling,conservation and curation of structural wood (Brunning1996).

8.31 Investigative conservation will be undertaken onthose objects selected during the assessment phase, withthe aim of maximising information whilst minimisingintervention. Where necessary, active stabilisation/consolidation will be carried out, to ensure long-termsurvival of the material, but with due consideration topossible future investigations. Proposals for ultimatestorage must follow Guidelines for the Preparation ofExcavation Archives for Long-Term Storage (Walker1990).

Analysis of technological residues, ceramics, glass andstone

8.32 Where there is evidence for industrial activity,macroscopic technological residues (or a sample of them)must be collected by hand.

8.33 Where appropriate, separate samples (c. 0.2 litres)must be collected for micro-slags (hammer-scale andspherical droplets).

8.34 Reference should be made to Archaeometallurgy(English Heritage 2001)(cf English Heritage 1995) andHammerscale (Starley 1995).

8.35 Assessment of any technological residues will includex-radiography of a sample of industrial debris relating tometallurgy.

9. Reports

Every archaeological project will produce a report that issubmitted to the LGAO and made available through theSMR/HER. These are known as client reports or greyliterature and must contain the basic information detailedbelow. Some archaeological work will justify publicationand this should be in a format and at a level of detailcommensurate with the results.

This section largely refers to unpublished reports client reports and grey literature. For published reports,see 10 below.

9.1 Archaeological contractors will produce a report ofevery project undertaken for submission to the LGAO. Allreports must include the results of the background researchundertaken to place the evidence presented within its localand, where appropriate, its regional and/or national

17

context, by consulting relevant Sites and MonumentsRecord (or equivalent) data, documents, maps and aerialphotographs. All sources examined must be listed.

9.2 Reports will be rejected if it is demonstrated that theydo not provide sufficient information or if they have notbeen compiled in accordance with the relevant sections ofthe Brief or this document. The reasons for rejecting anyreport will be stated, and contractors will be expected torevise the report and to resubmit i