Is it an Arched trench or a very smelly wet church. Blame the Aussies

[Marc Berger]

https://library.thehumanjourney.net/87/1/KIRTMV08.pdf

yes folks this is a watching brief in a church yard. At what point would you have said that the watching brief was over and that you did not have resources or contingency to excavate the site fully and so make the cheap trench arch option more like the end of the Church of England's pension fund?

Some quiz questions on Oxfords report:

Question 1: Figure 4: Sections 1 and 2, where is figure 1 in the plans?

Question 2: Figure 4: Sections 1 and 2 how deep were the sections?

Question 3: After you pour raw human sewage into the trench what immediate effect will there be on the archaeology?

Question 4: In table 1 does "Completeness" and "Condition" relate to the whole skeleton?

Question 5: What are charnel deposits?

Question 6: How many Skeletons were encountered in this watching brief?

Question 7: Would a unit that considers the excavation of any skeleton in a watching brief adequate by breaking the bones off at the baulk when financially employed by an organisation that has control over its own planning permissions and that is flogging "trench Arch" as the cheapest option, to be an unbiased unit to produce this report?:

https://historicengland.org.uk/images-bo...urchyards/