Cookham, Kings Arms (rear)
Written Scheme of Investigation for
an Archaeological Evaluation
Whilst the landowners representative has expressed interest in the works being carried out, these proposals are subject to the landowners formal approval.
CONTENTS
Para
1 Location
2 Background to investigation
3 Introduction
4 Archaeological background
5 Consideration of Archaeological evidence
6 Aims of the evaluation
7 Techniques
8 Method
9 Recording
10 Contexts
11 Features & Finds
12 Plans
13 Photography
14 Finds
15 Conservation
16 Outreach
17 Evaluation Reports
18 Archives
19 General
20 Health & Safety
21 Copyright & Confidentiality
22 Standards & Procedures
23 Report & Archive
24 Bibliography & References
Fig. 1 Site Location (Google)
Fig. 2 Village master survey
Fig. 3 Photo of site
Fig. 4 Section from Paddock excavation & auger
Fig. 5 1947 flood map
Location of proposed investigation
The site is some 75m south of Cookham Village High Street centred at NG SU 89609:85259 [Fig. 1, Google] [Fig. 2, Drg. No. 906/2]. The site is at the rear of the Kings Arms car park and is an overgrown area of waste land some 12m by 11m gross but with hedges intruding, photo [Fig. 3]
Background to investigation
Very little is known about Cookham prior to the 12/13th century.
Events took place in and around the 9/10th century that largely created England as we know it today, with the Cookham area having a small but important part in this process. These events played no small part in the evolution of England as a sovereign state. As evidence of Cookham’s historic importance:
733 Aethelbald (Wessex) gave monastery at Cookham to the Archbishop of Canterbury
[Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford History of England].
740<756 Monastery of Cookham with 100 hides gifted to Canterbury
[N Brooks, Anglo-Saxon Myths State & Church, pg. 106]
757<796 Offa (Mercia) obtained by force Monastery at Cookham
[Haddam & Stubbs, Councils and Ecclesiastic Documents, Oxford 1871]
779 Cynewulf (Wessex) seizes Berkshire, including “wealthy monastery of Cookham” originally owned by Aethelbald (Mercia) but was forced to return it to Christ Church Canterbury.
[AP Smyth, King Alfred the Great, pg. 4]
[N Brooks, Anglo-Saxon Myths State & Church, pg. 113]
779 Offa (Mercia) captured Bensington and annexed Cookham from Cynewulf (Wessex)
[AS Chronicle] [Christ Church, S 1258, pg. 272]
[H Edward's, Charters of the Early West Saxon Kingdom, BAR British Series 198, 1988]
798 Synod of Clofesho archbishop Aelthelheard (Canterbury) agreed that Abbess Cynedrytha (probably Offa's widow) be given the monastery of Cookham and adjacent in exchange for 60 hides at Fleet, 30 at Tenham and 20 at source of the Cray (Kent)
[MSS, Canterbury, DC, Reg p, fos 27y-28 (s.xii)] [MSS BM Cotton, Claud, Dii fo. 29Ry (sxvi)]
[MSS, Lambeth Palace, 1212, pg. 312-13 (s.xiii)] [Christ Church, S1258, pg. 272]
825 Berkshire possibly formed when other provinces were surrendered to Wessex leaving Berkshire in Mercia
[Barbara Yorke, Leicester, 1995].
965 Land at Cookham mentioned in the will of ealdorman Aelfheah bequeathing his estate to King Edgar the Peaceful.
[pg 5 Darby Berkshire] [pg 125, Victoria History Counties Eng, Berks. Reprint Uni Lond 1972.]
[Bibl Chan. Proc, (Ser.2), bdle. 63, no 11.]
999 confirmation of will mentions meeting of King Ethelred’s council (Witan) in Cookham.
[Anglo Saxon Chronicle] [Historic towns in Berkshire, Grenville G Astill]
???? Possible Witanagemot (Witan) Ethelred II
[pg 125, Victoria History Counties Eng, Berks. Reprint Uni Lond 1972.]
[Bibl Chan. Proc, (Ser.2), bdle. 63, no 11.]
997 Ethelred in Cookham (Witan?)
1006 Ethelred in Cookham Witan?)
1042 King Edward the Confessor granted to his personal priest Reinbald the Church and all lands including the Church Fields at Cannon Court.
[pg 6 Darby Berkshire]
Whilst there seems little doubt that the Cookham area played a part in the evolving process during the 9/10th century, there is little direct documentary evidence and surprisingly, virtually no archaeological or physical evidence or structured research.
A report was produced in 1978 for Berkshire County Council by Grenville G Astill titled “Berkshire Archaeological Committee Publication number 2, Historic Towns in Berkshire: an archaeological appraisal (BACP2) [Berkshire CC Library, B94]
“In 1854 during the construction of the railway ....... 6 inhumations were found at Noah's Ark 1.5km west of Cookham (village). These were accompanied by iron weapons and shield bosses. At Cockmarsh a low lying area of common land in a loop of the Thames 2km north-west of Cookham (adjacent to the same railway) 4 barrows were excavated c.1888 (actually 1874), one of which contained a primary Saxon burial. On the basis of these finds, Darby 1909 thought that the Saxon settlement would be on the higher ground to the west of Cookham. This report of 1978 recommended an Archaeological Policy that stated that investigations should be carried out into: “The nature, location and extent of the Saxon settlement. The relationship between the Saxon settlement and the burg on Sashes Island. The character of the burg on Sashes Island. The date of the laying out of the medieval borough” [Astill, BACP2 pg. 25, para 3]
(sad to say neither past or present archaeological or administrative authority have done much to progress this policy decision of 1978.)
Despite the historic importance of Cookham our only knowledge of this important Saxon period, is mainly limited to a reference to a monastery and land transfers in the Anglo-Saxon (AS) Chronicle associated deeds and a document named the “Burghal Hidage” which is suggested as being an inventory of West Saxon defences, naming “Sceaftesege” as one, thought to be in Cookham.
Introduction
So as to comply with the professional requirements, the project will be carried out under the direction of Colin Berks MIFA MAAIS of Minas Tirith Ltd (Archaeological Survey) (MT,ArcServ) who will also carryout all survey, setting out, recording, drawings and reporting. All as required by Berkshire Archaeology standard brief. The work on site will mainly be done by volunteers from Marlow Archaeological Society the community and other Societies.
In order to meet standard archaeological best practice, the appointed MIFA will ensure appropriate level supervision to any trenched evaluation and recording. This document details how the MIFA will carry out the evaluation, to meet the standards set down by the IFA, MAP2 and the local standards required by Berkshire Archaeology. Any survey and recording by MT,ArcServ will also be to English Heritage guidelines as is this companies standard practice.
Archaeological Background
There are 3 previous investigations relevant to these proposals, the positions shown in red letters “A” “B” “C” on [Fig. 2, Drg. No 906/2]
Riverdene [Fig. 2, Ref. A]
OXFORD ARCHAEOLOGY, REPORT OF EXCAVATIONS AT RIVERDENE, COOKHAM (SU897856)
Conclusion. Though there are some finds of archaeological interest ...... the evidence rather suggests that it was marginal, though in proximity to, areas of occupation from the early Saxon, through to the 13th century and beyond.
A/12 was the only archaeological feature encountered and is most plausibly explained as a ditch or gully dug to drain the land to the south. There is at the present time no topographical suggestion that it is a natural stream channel, though the lowness of the natural gravel surface in this trench in relation to that in Trenches D and E (involving a drop of c. 0.7m) suggest that a that a small stream or inlet may have existed here and may have been deepened.
Although there is a certain amount of Saxon pottery from Trench A, its stratigraphic position above and mixed in with Medieval pottery, indicate that it must be residual. The circumstances of its deposition are slightly problematic. Its freshly broken, un-eroded character suggest that it was deposited as the land was infilled in the later Medieval period (after gully A/12 had gone out of use). It is less likely to have eroded naturally from an adjacent area. The infilling was probably a deliberate dumping of material along the Thames waterfront, rather than the natural silting of the river which would have resulted in a chronologically defined stratigraphy. In any case, the presence of Saxon pottery from both the early and later periods, indicate Saxon occupation in the near in the near vicinity, presumably further inland towards the south and/or the east where the modern bridge now stands.
[Oxford Archaeological Unit, Archaeological Assessment at Riverdene, A. Mudd I. Burrow, 21 August 1987]
Odney Club [Fig. 2, Ref. C]
FOUNDATIONS ARCHAEOLOGY Odney Club, Cookham, REPORT OF Evaluation 2006, NGR SU 8979:8539.
“An earlier phase of evaluation undertaken by Foundations Archaeology in May 2005. No archaeological finds or features were encountered during these works. ......... The study area lies within the historic core of Cookham, close to the Church of the Holy Trinity. Cookham was an important local centre in the late Saxon period, as a royal estate and the site of a Minster church. It had borough status by the 13th century but declined after the foundation of Maidenhead in the 1820's.”
[Foundations Archaeology 2005, report 462, 2.3<5]
“The six archaeological evaluation trenches were excavated onto clean natural sand. Intact buried subsoil's and topsoil's were present in several trenches, although in others it was clear that there had been earlier bulk removal of deposits during the 18th - 19th century and again during the 20th century. No archaeological finds or features were present in any of the trenches with the exception of the probable tree throw in trench 10, from which Medieval pottery was recovered. The stratigraphic sequence clearly demonstrated that the land had been made up across all of the areas sampled. ....... The single feature which produced Medieval pottery is located at the northernmost extent of the site and may be indicative of Medieval settlement along the road frontage”
[Foundations Archaeology 2005, report 462, 6.1 & 2]
Church Paddock [Fig. 2, Ref. B]
MARLOW ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, REPORT OF EVALUATION 2008 AND MINAS TIRITH LTD (ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY) SURVEY REPORT 2005.
SUMMARY Cookham Paddock is a multi-period site, which has seen human activity at least from the late Mesolithic era onwards. Resistivity, auguring and excavation by three trenches has shown despite development of the buildings around the paddock, it has suffered little disturbance of the contexts, other than biological and weather turbulence until the church refurbishment in 1860 when the building material from the Church, vicarage midden and the clearing of the cemetery to make room for new graves, left an interesting mixture of artefacts in the 002 levels of all three trenches.
PREHISTORIC During this era the creek identified by the geophysical survey was most likely used for hunting and knapping tools during the late Mesolithic, early Neolithic and Bronze Age periods as shown by the assemblage of cores, scrapers and flint débitage found within each trench. There was one sherd each of late prehistoric pottery in Trench 2 and 3.
IRON AGE < ROMANO BRITISH All the trenches contained sherds of sand tempered Late Iron Age pottery and Roman fine sandy wares with some sherds of 4th century Portchester ‘D’ ware from Surrey. The sherds were in poor condition and most often redeposited in medieval assemblages. The rubble structure in Trench 3 was constructed of closely packed chalk and flint building stone with broken Roman floor and roof tile of similar dimensions to the stone. There was clean mortar adhering to the flint and only a small amount of soil used for packing was noted. This surface was 3.2 m wide, 0.5 m deep at the crown tapering to the edges and had an evenly balanced camber with small flint pebbles laid over the rubble to give a smooth surface. This feature indicates reused Roman building material used to lay a rough narrow track or pathway, rather than forming a paved area, which would have been more level and stable. There was no evidence of ditches on either side of the ‘track’ feature, and considering it appeared to have been constructed by dumping as opposed to careful laying, such as would be expected of a road, this would indicate a temporary or minor track for local use, perhaps even just for the use of the church. The direction of the track lies parallel with the river and perhaps led to a crossing. Only Roman building materials were found in the track structure (Contexts 3004 and 3005). Context 3007 underlying the track showed no post-Roman artefacts, but contained struck flint (along with 3008) indicating residual finds. Prehistoric pottery sherds were found in the lowest silt stratum of Context 3008. The lower edges of the track were overlain by Contexts 3003 and 3006. Here, pottery of an early medieval date, 450 – 850 AD, was found.
EARLY MEDIEVAL Deposits within the trenches indicate bone waste associated with food preparation, which had accumulated by means of secondary deposition. This may have been domestic waste from the local Anglo-Saxon neighbourhood, which included pottery fragments dating to 450 – 850 AD.
LATE MEDIEVAL The Church is dated by its architecture to the early 12th century. It stands on the rise of the gravel terrace above the river.
There was a range of late Saxon and later pottery found which indicates that there was activity on the site from the 9th or 10th century onwards. Apart from the local sandy ware, there was pottery from St Neots, Oxford Newbury Stamford, Brill, Surrey, Ashampstead and ‘Tudor Green’ wares from the 9th to 15th century.
The bone spread and hammer stone, in Context 2/003 with an ox femur from the centre of the spread dated by C14 to 1249+ 39 yrs shows the wealth of meat and fowl available locally
POST MEDIEVAL Contexts 002 in all three trenches produced a variety of interesting artefacts including 95 fragments of human bone. It is recorded that the Church was refurbished in 1860. Knapped black, flint nodules of the type used to repair the Church tower, clinker and coal from the Church boiler or vicarage, nails and metal tools and fittings were also in these contexts. The pottery sherds varied from Rhineland stoneware, Staffordshire slipware of the 18th century, earthenwares and Surrey border wares dated from 1480 to the twentieth century.
[Marlow Archaeological Society, A Griffin, 2008]
In trench 2 was revealed a gravel bank corresponding to the indications of the edge of a channel on the geophysics and auger. This trench was at the maximum depth for safety, therefore auger bores were taken to the west in line with the centre axis of trench 2 and to a point in line with the central axis of trench 3. These auger bores allowed the stratigraphy of the trenches and in particular the top of gravel to be extended. See position marked “Bank” on [Fig. 5, Drg. No. 749/50
]Minas Tirith Ltd (Archaeological Survey, 2005]
Local information as reported some years ago in the press, claims that human remains were found when digging a pond in a rear garden on the south side of the High Street
Consideration of Archaeological Evidence
Evidence indicates that at some time Cookham Village was a relatively small island with evidence from elsewhere indicating that this was in an area of marsh but there is no dating evidence for this. Excavation reports at “A” and “B” show a bank possibly the edge of such an island with a suggestion based on the angle of the bank, that it was probably cleaned or improved at some time but again no datable evidence. It would appear from the reports at “A” “B” and “C” that the low lying areas adjacent to the island were filled and levelled on at least two occasions.
All reports reveal mixed fill containing material pre 12/13th century. This would seem to coincide with the known period for the rebuilding and expansion of the village. Below this mixed fill are the usual finds for this part of the Thames Valley from Neolithic to Iron Age but none in context. None of the reports in the immediate location report Iron Age although this is found in the surrounding areas. None of the reports mention Roman material in context that can be confidently dated to any particular layer although it is found in the mixed fill. It would seem that the three reports show further fill activity in the late 19th century.
The reports of “A” and “B” show a bank or edge of higher ground, whereas “C” seems to be in a fill area. Whilst by no means conclusive it is interesting to compare this with the 1947 flood map [Fig. 5]. It is know that certain works would have altered the situation, these are shown by black numbers in a white square, sites A B C are shown in red in a white square.
Fig 5 area 1. This is generally the area around School Lane, previously known as The Backs. This road is on a built up ground, possibly a causeway, there is no evidence for the date of this but it is assumed to be post 1200. If earlier it could have other significance but for our purpose we will assume post 1200.
Fig 5 areas 2 & 3. Records at the County Records Office show that these areas were raised as part of the construction of roads to the new bridge:
“The widening and straightening of the Road to Maidenhead, at the point of its termination in the Village of Cookham (a work of improvement now in progress) may be considered as mainly assisting in the design. This great addition to the public convenience will, when finished - being almost in a direct course with the contemplated approach to the bridge - afford an uninterrupted line of excellent Road from Maidenhead and abate the evil of the present narrow crooked Lane leading to and from the Ferry" .
[Cookham Bridge Co. Pamphlet, 3rd October 1837 in support of an application to Parliament]
A very rough interpretation of the above may produce indications that the higher ground pre say 12/13th century was relatively small, perhaps as shown green on Fig. 5. If in anyway right this is significant for archaeology as occupation could only have been on this area before say the 12/13th century.
Aims of the Evaluation
To establish the extent and nature of the pre 12/13th century occupation.
To establish the topographic relationship with the results of excavation at Riverdene, Odney Club and Paddock.
To determine the existence or absence of archaeological remains and should archaeological remains be present, to assess the general nature and significance.
To determine the extent, condition, state of preservation, nature, character, quality and date of any archaeological remains present.
To determine or confirm the approximate extent of any remains.
To determine the degree of complexity of the horizontal and or vertical stratigraphy present.
To assess the associations and implications of any remains encountered with reference to the historic landscape.
To determine the historic implication of the remains with reference to economy, status, utility and social activity.
To determine or confirm the likely range, quality and quantity of the artefact evidence present.
To determine the potential of the site to provide palaeo-environmental, geo-archaeological and or economic evidence and the forms in which such evidence may be present.
To make available the results of the investigation.
To help define any relevant research priorities if additional archaeological investigation proves necessary.
Techniques
It is proposed that the evaluation will be carried out by excavating a trench some 2m wide and as long as practical on a north south axis.
All excavation to be by hand due to the limitations of the site.
All excavation will be closely supervised by the appointed MIFA
Excavation will stop at the first archaeological deposit or natural, whichever is encountered first.
Spoil will be scanned for artefacts, which will be record as “bulk” and retained.
All features irrespective of age will be recorded in detail.
Environment, soil and where appropriate chemical samples will be taken for future analysis.
Method
A site survey as EH guidelines having an accuracy of +-10mm. This survey to be linked to MT/ArcServ exiting area survey datum so as to be able to accurately relate this evaluation to others.
The exposed deposits will be hand cleaned. Any archaeological features/deposits will be sufficiently sampled in order to date, characterise and assess them only. No further excavation will take place without prior agreement by the County Archaeological Officer.
All features and deposits will be issued with unique context numbers, and context recording will be in accordance with the established practice. Colour transparency and black-and-white negative photographs will be taken of all archaeological features.
If deposits of environmental significance/potential are uncovered they will be sampled in accordance with the project aims and English Heritage Guidelines Environmental Archaeology (2002). In particular, deposits of clearly waterlogged, organic or charcoal rich nature will be targeted, as well as a representative samples of fills of cut features and other deposits.
The stratigraphy of the trenches will be recorded even where no archaeological deposits are identified.
Supervision of the opening of trenches and general direction of excavation will be by Colin Berks MIFA MAAIS. With general management, logistics and volunteer workers supplied by MAS and the community.
Monitoring of the evaluation will be undertaken by Berkshire Archaeological Services.
At the natural or archaeological level the trenches will be swept by metal detector and indications of ferrous material marked with plastic pegs so at to alert the excavators but not excavated separately.
Spoil heaps will be monitored in order to recover artifacts to assist in the analysis of the spatial distribution of artifacts. Modern artifacts will be noted but not retained.
All investigation of archaeological levels and or features will be by hand, with cleaning, examination and recording both in plan and section.
Within significant archaeological levels a number of features required to meet the aims will be hand excavated. Pits and post holes will be subject to a 50% sample by volume. Linear features will be sectioned as appropriate. Features not suited to excavation within narrow trenches will not be sampled. No archaeological deposits will be entirely removed unless this is unavoidable. It is not necessarily the intention that all trial trenches will be fully excavated to natural stratigraphy, but the depth of archaeological deposits across the entire site will be assessed. The stratigraphy of all evaluation trenches will be recorded even where no archaeological deposits have been identified.
Any excavation, will be undertaken with a view to avoiding damage to any archaeological features or deposits which appear to be worthy of preservation in situ.
Different environmental sampling strategies may be employed according to established research targets and the perceived importance of the strata under investigation. Bulk samples of a standard 40 liters will normally be taken. Bulk samples will be taken from any waterlogged deposits present for macroscopic plant remains. Columns for pollen analysis will be taken if appropriate. Mollusc samples will be collected if present. Other bulk samples for small animal bones and other small artifacts may be taken from appropriate contexts.
Any finds of human remains will be left insitu, covered and protected and the coroner informed. If removal is essential it will only take place under appropriate Home Office license, section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 and local environmental health regulations, and if appropriate in compliance with the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981.
All finds of gold and silver will be removed to a safe place and reported to the local Coroner according to the procedures relating to Treasure Trove. Where removal can not be effected on the same working day as the discovery, suitable security measures will be taken to protect the finds from theft.
MAS welcomes monitoring visits by the local authorities' archaeological representatives. Timetables of the on-site work will be provided in order that visits can be made at appropriate times.
After recording, the trench bottom will be marked with colored tape, back filled with excavated material and the surface reinstated.
RECORDING
All finds and features irrespective of age will be accurately recorded in 3d in accordance with the appropriate English Heritage guidelines.
Trenches will be aligned parallel to the survey base lines. For manual recording a trench recording peg (TP1 etc.) will be inserted near the south west corner of each trench and another near the north east or north west corner, aligned to the survey base line to establish for each trench XX and YY recording lines.
The position of each trench peg will be recorded by GTS from survey position SPA thereby enabling the precise position of any find or feature to be converted to the site grid.
Levels for manual recording to be by dumpy using the level datum (00.00) (to be established)
Complex features will be recorded using a planning frame with the frame position recorded either from the trench peg or the main survey datum.
Any major features will be recorded by GTS from survey position SPA using SPB alignment and the level datum on the chapel step.
If an accurate OS level can be ascertained for the level datum, then all levels will be converted to OS.
Contexts
A block of numbers, in a continuous sequence will be allocated to each trench.
Written descriptions will be recorded on pro forma sheets comprising factual data and interpretative elements.
Features & Finds
All features will be recorded in 3d by GTS from the site master datum.
Finds and artifacts in the archaeological layers will be recorded in 3d from the trench datum. Finds and artifacts will be given a trench and find number and bagged separately except for significant grouped material which will be bagged and identified as a group. A running sequential finds record will be kept separately for each trench recording the find number, 3d position, context, material and preliminary identification of type.
Plans
These will normally drawn at 1:100. Detailed and site plans will be at an appropriate scale. Burials will be drawn at scale 1:10.
The site grid will be accurately tied into the National Grid and located on the 1:2500 or 1:1250 map of the area.
A register of plans will be kept.
Long sections of trenches showing layers will be drawn at 1:50. Sections of features or short lengths of trenches will be drawn at 1:20.
A register of sections will be kept.
Generally all sections will be tied in to Ordnance Datum with detail related to the site datum
Photography
A full colour (digital) photographic record, illustrating in both detail and general context the principal features and finds discovered will be maintained. The photographic record will also include working shots to illustrate more generally the nature of the archaeological work. Photographs will be recorded on Photographic Record Sheets.
FINDS
All identified finds and artifacts will be retained, although certain classes of building material or post medieval pottery may sometimes be discarded after recording if an appropriate sample is retained. However, no finds will be discarded without the prior approval of the nominated representative of the local authority and the receiving Museum.
The pottery and other relevant artifacts will be scanned to assess the date range of the assemblage.
All finds and samples will be treated in a proper manner and to standards agreed in advance with the approved recipient museum.
The level of artifact analysis will be sufficient to establish date ranges of archaeological deposits, a general assessment of the types of pottery and other artifacts to assist in characterizing the archaeology, and to establish the potential for all categories of artifacts should further archaeological work be necessary.
At the beginning of a project, the local relevant museum and the landowner will be contacted regarding the preparation and deposition of the archive and finds.
Environmental samples, if appropriate will be processed and scanned for potential date.
CONSERVATION
Any significant finds requiring specialist excavation will be left insitu to be excavated and conserved by the conservation specialist.
Specialist conservation and analysis services will be provided by Oxford Archaeology subject to funding.
OUTREACH
In general Outreach, public involvement and PR is at the discretion of the landowners.
The Parish Council, Community organization, MAS members, Local and regional Societies have been invited to visit and take part.
The final report will be available on the MT,ArcServ website, www.arcserv.org.
EVALUATION REPORTS
Style and format of the report will be determined by BA, but will include as a minimum the following:
A location plan of trenches and/or other fieldwork in relation to the proposed development.
Plans and sections of features located at an appropriate scale.
A section drawing showing depth of deposits including present ground level with Ordnance Datum, vertical and horizontal scale.
A summary statement of the results.
A table summarizing per trench the features, classes and numbers of artifacts contained within, spot dating of significant finds and an interpretation.
Separate specialist finds reports as appropriate.
A reconsideration of the methodology used.
An interpretation of the archaeological findings both within the site and within their wider landscape/townscape setting.
Copies of the report will be supplied to the Archaeological Officer monitoring the works. Copies of the report will also be supplied to the County Sites and Monuments Record on the understanding that it will become a public document after an appropriate period of time (normally six months).
If the evaluation works generate archaeological results of importance which merit wider publication, this will be done via appropriate publications.
ARCHIVES
The site archive, including finds and environmental material, will be ordered, cataloged, labeled and conserved and stored according to the UKIC Guidelines for the preparation of excavation archives for long-term storage.
The site archive will be prepared to at least the minimum acceptable standard defined in Management of Archaeological Projects 2, English Heritage 1991.
The site archive will be deposited with the relevant receiving Museum at the earliest opportunity unless further archaeological work on the site is expected within one year of completion of the archive. MAS will advise the landowner that any artifacts resulting from the project work should be given to the relevant Museum.
The archive will be in accordance with the guidelines published in “Guidelines for the preparation of Excavation Archives” for long-term storage (United Kingdom Institute for Conservation 1990) and “Standards in the Museum care of archaeological collections”.
GENERAL
The requirements of the objective will be met in full where reasonably practicable.
Any significant variations to the proposed methodology will be agreed with the local authority's archaeological representative in advance.
The scope of work detailed in the main part of the Written Scheme of Investigation is aimed at meeting the aims of the project in a cost effective manner. MAS attempts to foresee possible site specific problems and resource these. However there may be unusual circumstances which have not been included in the costing and program.
Unavoidable delays due to extreme bad weather, vandalism, etc.
Complex structures or objects, including those in waterlogged conditions, requiring specialist removal.
Extensions to specified trenches or feature sample sizes requested by the archaeological curator.
Trenches requiring shoring or stepping, ground contamination, unknown services, poor ground conditions requiring additional plant, specialist reinstatement of surfaces (i.e. tarmac, turf).
Delays caused by resource difficulties
HEALTH AND SAFETY and INSURANCE
All work will be carried out to the requirements of Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, The Management of Health and Safety Regulations 1992, the SCAUM (Standing Conference of Archaeological Unit Managers) H & S manual Health and Safety in Field Archaeology 1991.
MAS holds Public Liability Insurance, details will be supplied on request.
COPYRIGHT and CONFIDENTIALITY
MT,ArcServ and MAS will retain full copyright of any commissioned reports, or other project documents, under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 with all rights reserved.
STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
MAS shall conform to the standards of professional conduct outlined in the Institute of Field Archaeologists' Code of Conduct, the IFA Code of Approved Practice for the Regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology, the IFA Standards and Guidance for Field Evaluations.
Report and archive
A report of the findings will be produced as soon as practical after the completion of fieldwork. Copies will be sent to the County Archaeological Service and the Sites and Monuments Record Office.
The site archive will be created in accordance with the guidelines published in Guidelines for the preparation of Excavation Archives for long-term storage (UK Inst. for Conservation 1990) and standards in the Museum care of archaeological collections - see Appendix 8. The project archive will ultimately be deposited with the Berkshire County Museum Service, Reading.
It is noted that “Berkshire Archaeology supports the Online Access to Index of Archaeological Investigations project” with a requirement that “an online OASIS form is completed at http:ads.ahds.ac.uk/project/oasis/
Bibliography and References
English Heritage 2002 Guidelines Environmental Archaeology
Map2 Management of Archaeological Projects
IFA 1999 Standard and Guidance for archaeological field evaluations
MOLAS Archaeological Site Manual
OA 2000 Environmental Sampling Guidelines and Instruction Manual