All groundworks that had the potential to impact upon archaeological deposits were undertaken whilst under the direction of an archaeologist. Machine excavation was undertaken down to the underlying natural limestone, or the top of archaeological remains, whichever was encountered first. Plant comprised a tracked 360� excavator, which was equipped with a toothless grading bucket. In agreement with the archaeological representative of Gloucestershire Archaeology Service, the west part of the pond excavation, nearest to ring ditch HER 4597, was subject to archaeological monitoring and recording. Due to a lack of significant archaeological remains within the monitored area, the eastern part of the pond excavation was not subject to archaeological monitoring. Three drains present within the monitored excavation area were subject to reduced/basic investigation and recording, in order to establish their location and general character. The groundwork excavations revealed part of a network of stone culvert drains. Although poorly dated, it is most likely that they represented Post-medieval agricultural features, which were related to the nearby farm. The archaeological monitoring did not identify any features that could be related to a probable funerary ring ditch (HER 4597), the eastern edge of which was located approximately 7.5m to the west of the excavated pond. No significant archaeological features or finds were present within the monitored area.
Andrew Hood (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: