Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Archaeological evaluation does not reveal significant features in an area of archaeological significance.
Archaeological Evaluation: The excavation of a single trench measuring 25m x 1.8m, plus a 5% contingency to clarify significant features that extend beyond the trench edge (Fig. 4) Monitoring and Recording: The removal of footings/hard standings were to be archaeologically monitored further to the demolition of the existing buildings. However, there were no footings and the hardstanding, which was minimal, had been removed prior to KDK's first site visit. A second site visit was therefore made to record an area of ground reduction within the footprint of the new building. Despite the location of the site being within an Area of Archaeological Significance, the archaeological investigations at Land at Little Farm did not encounter any archaeological finds, features or deposits within either of the single trial trench or the ground reduction area, which were both excavated to the natural geology. The stratigraphy comprised topsoil overlying the natural. This demonstrates that this area had been extensively truncated, most likely during the construction and associated landscaping of the now-demolished buildings. Consequently, it has not been possible to further any of the stated research aims for this investigation.
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: