During the evaluation 19 trenches were excavated rather than the 18 specified in the WSI as an additional trench (Trench 19) was excavated between Trenches 4 and 5 to explore the extents of possible archaeological remains found within Trench 5. During the excavation the agreed trench was stripped of overburden, and it was observed that no archaeological features extended out with the agreed area. The base of the area stripped amounted to 244m2 with the sides battered at a 45� angle to the current ground surface.Topsoil and any modern overburden were removed by a 360o tracked mechanical excavator equipped with a 1.8m wide smooth-bladed ditching bucket. All groundbreaking work was carried out under constant archaeological supervision. Any further excavation required to fulfil the objectives of the evaluation was carried out by hand. All excavation and on-site recording were carried out according to standard CFA procedures, principally by drawing, by photography and by completing standard CFA record forms. The stratification of all excavated areas was recorded whether significant archaeological deposits were identified or not. Trench positions were surveyed using industry standard electronic surveying equipment and all trenches were backfilled on completion of recording. The evaluation revealed a small number of anthropogenic features cut in the natural undisturbed subsoil. Apart from field drains those features comprised: " A pit in Trench 4 was modern as it was cut through made ground. " Linear features found in six trenches (Trenches 3 .5, 6, 11, 13 and 19) were considered to be relict field boundaries. " A pit in Trench 5 of unknown date and function. SATT/4308/1 9 CFA " Deposit (512/1902) was a deposit containing charcoal and possibly heat affected angular stones. This was apparently associated with other deposits possibly filling a former palaeochannel. No finds were found in any of the features excavated. During the excavation a burnt mound was identified overlying a palaeochannel, which had been cut by a later ditch. The burnt mound identified on this site is consistent with the form of burnt mounds as described elsewhere in Scotland (ScARF 2012). The classic crescent shape, often described as kidney-shaped, is the most common form of burnt mounds. Also, the majority of burnt mounds are found to be smaller than 20m3, with this feature being c.8m3. These smaller mounds are suggestive of phases of short lived activity rather than continued usage over a period of time (Anthony 2003).
Shelley et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: