Is preservation in situ an unacceptable option for development control? Can monitoring prove the continued preservation of waterlogged deposits?

Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites

Volumn 14, Issue 1-4, 2012, Pages 429-441

  Malim, Tim ^a   Panter, Ian ^b  

^a 202 Submarine School   (United Kingdom)

^b YORK ARCHAEOLOGICAL TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Archaeological site monitoring; UK; UK planning legislation; Waterlogged sites

Indexed keywords

EID: 84873894775     PISSN: 13505033     EISSN: 17535522     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1179/1350503312Z.00000000037     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. Boreham, S. 2007. Stratigraphy, Physical and Chemical Analyses from Bronze Age sediments at Must Farm, Whittlesey, Peterborough. Unpublished assessment report for Cambridge Archaeological Unit and Hanson Building Products.
2. British Standards Institute, 1990. BS1377. Methods of Test for Soils for Engineering Purposes. Part 3. Chemical and Electro-Chemical Tests. BSI London.
3. British Standards Institute, 1999. BS5930. The Code of Practice for Site Investigations. Annex F. BSI. London.
4. Cheetham, J. 2007. An Assessment of the Potential for In-Situ Preservation of buried Organic Archaeological Remains at Sutton Common, South Yorkshire: PhD thesis, University of Hull. (2004) [online] [accessed 3 February 2012]. Available at: .
5. Department for Communities and Local Government, 2010. Planning Policy Statement 5 Planning and the Historic Environment [accessed 3 February 2012]. Available at: .
6. Department of the Environment, 1990. Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning [accessed 3 February 2012]. Available at: .
7. Hogan, D. V. 1998. Environmental Investigations at Shinewater Park, East Sussex. Wetland Ecosystem Research Group Report No. 22.
8. Hogan, D. V. 2001 Environmental Investigations at Shinewater Park, East Sussex 1999-2000. Wetland Ecosystem Research Group Report.
9. Holden, J., Howard, A. J., West, L. J., Maxfield, E., Panter, I., and Oxley, J. 2009. A Critical Review of Hydrological Data Collection Schemes for Assessing Preservation Risk for Urban Waterlogged Archaeology: A Case Study from the City of York, UK. Journal of Environmental Management.
10. Matthiesen, H., Gregory, D., Jensen, P., and Sorensen, B. 2004. Environmental Monitoring at Nydam, a Waterlogged Site with Weapon Sacrifi ces from the Danish Iron Age. A Comparison of Methods Used and Results from Undisturbed Deposits. Journal of Wetland Archaeology, 4: 55-74.
11. Matthiesen, H. 2008. Detailed Chemical Analyses of Groundwater as a Tool for Monitoring Urban Archaeological Deposits: Results from Bryggen in Bergen. Journal of Archaeological Science, 35: 1378-88.
12. SLR, 2007. Must Farm Timber Platform Baseline Testing and Monitoring Regime Method Statement. Unpublished report for Hanson Heidleberg Cement.
13. Smit, A., van Heeringen, R. M., and Theunissen, E. M. 2006. Archaeological Monitoring Standard. Guidelines for the Non-Destructive Recording and Monitoring of the Physical Quality of Archaeological Sites and Monuments. Nederlandse Archaeologische Rapporten 33.
14. Riksantikvaren and NIKU, n.d. The Monitoring Manual. Procedures & Guidelines for the Monitoring, Recording and Preservation/Management of Urban Archaeological Deposit [online] [accessed 3 February 2012]. Available at: .
15. Malim, T., Panter, I., and Carrott, J. 2009. Nantwich Waterlogged Deposits. Report No. 2. The Character and Extent of Archaeological Preservation. Unpublished report for Cheshire County Council and English Heritage (Project Number 3839 MAIN).
16. SLR, 2010. Nantwich Waterlogged Deposits. Report No. 3. Management Strategy: Supplementary Planning Documents for the Historic Environment and Archaeological Deposits. Unpublished report for Cheshire County Council and English Heritage.
17. Williams, J., Fell, V., Graham, K., Simpson, P., Collins, M., Koon, H., and Griffen, R. 2008a. Re-watering of the Iron Age Causeway at Fiskerton, England. In: H. Kars and R. M. van Heeringen, eds. Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference 7-9 December 2006, Amsterdam. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaological Studies 10 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
18. Williams, J., Martin-Bacon, H., Onions, B., Barrett, D., Richmond, A., and Page, M. 2008b. The Second Shardlow Boat - Economic Drivers or Heritage Policy? In: H. Kars and R. M. van Heeringen, eds. Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ. Proceedings of the 3rd Conference 7-9 December 2006, Amsterdam. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaological Studies 10 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.