Assesses archaeological findings in Milton Common, suggesting limited potential for discovery.
In line with the requirements of the brief (OCAS 2025), the methods used were as follows: As originally proposed, the methodology was an initial geophysical survey followed by an archaeological field evaluation of the site comprising three trial trenches measuring 20m x Archaeological Evaluation: Brimpton Grange Access to Hotel from A40, Milton Common, Oxfordshire 6 1.8m, equivalent to a minimum of 108m2 (Figs. 4 & 5). However, as detailed in section 4, the size and position of two of the evaluation trenches had to be changed due the presence of a public footpath (Trench 2) and some remnant modern footings (Trench 3). The archaeological investigation did not find any archaeological objects, features, or deposits within any of the three trial trenches, all of which were excavated to the natural geology. The stratigraphy observed in each trial trench consisted of an undisturbed soil profile of topsoil and subsoil overlying the natural geology. This aligns with the results of the initial geophysical survey of the development area, which did not identify any anomalies with an obvious archaeological origin (Parker 2025). Despite the archaeological potential of the wider region, with sites and finds dating from prehistory, the development site was likely situated outside any core settlement area, or it lies between widely dispersed features. Consequently, it has not been possible to achieve any of the research aims of this investigation on this occasion.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Derek Watson (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: