A metal-detector survey was undertaken by CFA over the total site area (8000m2). A series of 30m by 30m grids were established over the area and detecting took place on a grid by grid basis. Each grid was detected in parallel transects 5m apart. No discrimination was set on the equipment. All finds apart from obvious modern rubbish, such as tin cans etc were retained. Any significant finds were to be given a unique find number and their location plotted by DGPS although none were recovered. The area available for evaluation was 8000m2 with the archaeological trial trenching evaluation covering 5% (400m2). A total of 9 trenches were excavated across the site covering 496.8m2 (slightly over 5%). A trench plan was created and approved before the metal detecting survey and trial trenching evaluation took place. This included a 'no dig' 7m buffer zone along the BT Openreach overhead cable crossing through the southeast corner of the site. Topsoil was removed by a 360� tracked mechanical excavator equipped with a 1.8m wide smooth-bladed ditching bucket. All ground-breaking 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 was 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. No significant objects were recovered, and no areas of activity or potential archaeological features were identified in the metal detecting survey and the archaeological trial trenching. Based on the results of the metal detecting survey CFA recommend no further work in relation to the results of the metal detector survey of the site; however, it is recognised that the final decision lies with the Stirling Council as advised by Murray Cook.
Sang Tran (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: