Skeletons in section

[Navajo]

Thanks for the answers so far and perhaps in hindsight i should of included more detail. The site is scheduled and human remains have been found in the vicinity in the past and it was clearly stated in my WSI that any human remains in exposed in section would be left in-situ and fully excavated if the site goes to full excavation. When the remains were exposed, I halted work, called the Police and the Mninistry of Justice for a licence in case we need to remove the bones. As a result of this I had a meeting with the local county archaeologist, two people from EH and the Church archaeologist and all had different views hence the query.

[kevin wooldridge]

. As a result of this I had a meeting with the local county archaeologist, two people from EH and the Church archaeologist and all had different views hence the query.

I am gobsmacked by the last statement!! Since 2005 the CoE, English Heritage and ALGAO have all endorsed advice on what action to take regarding the discovery, excavation and treatment of himan remains. This is all contained in a free to download document http://www.helm.org.uk/upload/pdf/Guidan...1350200771.....

Section 5E deals specifically with remains left in the baulk. I am totally mystified as to why none of the so-called 'heritage professionals' you consullted were able to direct you to this document......seems they might not be up to their job. Still that's nothing new in UK archaeology is it?

[BAJR]

Section 5E deals specifically with remains left in the baulk. I am totally mystified as to why none of the so-called 'heritage professionals' you consullted were able to direct you to this document......seems they might not be up to their job. Still that's nothing new in UK archaeology is it?

Ouch.... harsh but quite fair!

[Digger]

I have always worked on the less disturbance the better. The EH guidelines are a bit lacking in clear examples and I have had interesting discussions with curators who have different interpretations of the wording . I have partially exposed burials in trenches-record what is exposed and, if threatened by pipe works for example, I lift the exposed bones and replace them against the trench wall so they remain in the place where the body was intured. In section, I would just record what is visible, if bits fall out I would place them close to where they originate from. There never seems to be a point in part lifting human remains (EH does allow for a small amount of bone to be removed for dating,DNA). Full excavation can open a can of worms (no pun intended) if more burials are overlying or cutting the remains.

[Steve H]

During an evaluation we always leave burrials in situ. Just expose enough to prove it is a burrial. Remember that an evaluation is not an excavation, its role is to evaluate the archaeological remains so that our friends at the council can decide on the next phase of archaeology, ie excavation and/or watching brief. Excavations and watching briefs we remove boidies or parts thereof.
There is a great temptation to treat evals as mini excavations, but on the whole they are only a way of evaluating the remains, like DBAs, geophys or field walking. Likewise the last thing you want in the resulting excavation are slots dug through structures, kilns, inhumations etc in the eval phase, that look terrible in the excav phase drawings and photos. Also the quality of archaeological surveying can be somewhat variable without good GPS and dedicated surveyors, so locating your trenches during the excavation phase can be problematical, especially if the two phases of work were done by different units, or even different POs in the same unit!

[Dinosaur]

If the bottom of your trial trench doesn't consist of clean natural you haven't evaluated the archaeology! - that'll be why we recently had to excavate 1.5m of stratified Roman settlement at vast public expense that 2 earlier evaluations by other units had apparently overlooked.....

[moreno]

Clean natural... Sort of an oxymoron

[Dinosaur]

Depends how far you 'test' it? Meant to say bottom of trench should be at least 0.5m into it (which was how much totally clean clay they'd spread over most of the site at Bewsey Old Hall in Warrington when they extended the moat in the 16th century - could explain why 2 years of digging produced so little medieval archaeology - oops! But at least we figured it out in the end and the post-med stuff was good and kept the MSC workforce busy anyway - anyone know if that site ever got published?) - don't use this approach if machine-digging or you'll have PP on your case

[moreno]

Over cutting is best! Besides, I always had a prob with the phrase 'redeposited' natural.

[Antipesto]

Depends how far you 'test' it? Meant to say bottom of trench should be at least 0.5m into it

So I should have dug half a meter into solid chalk that was only 0.2m below the grass in someones garden by hand??? yer 'avin a giraffe...