Randomized trial evaluates archaeological potential of development site, indicating no historical remains found.
The original scope of the evaluation involved the excavation of two trial trenches; each located to target the footprints of a proposed ramp and the single storey extension. The trench located over the footprint of the ramp were to measure 2m x 1.5m (Trench 1) and the trench located over the footprint of the extension measured 3m x 2m (Trench 2). Only trench 2 was completed, as following the breaking out of the surface at Trench 1, deep modern concrete foundations were identified that made any further excavation unnecessary. The concrete slabs capping the excavation area were removed by the client prior to the fieldwork commencing. The trench was excavated with a 1 tonne 360� excavator fitted with a toothless bucket under the direct supervision of an archaeologist. Spoil was stored adjacent to, but at a safe distance from the trench edges. Machining continued in even spits down to the top of the undisturbed natural geology. Once natural deposits had been exposed, further excavation proceeded by hand. The exposed surface was sufficiently cleaned to establish the presence/absence of archaeological remains. Recording procedures were as outlined within the WSI (OA 2022). In March 2023 Oxford Archaeology were commissioned by Stepnell on behalf of Eton College, Windsor, to undertake an archaeological evaluation as part of the refurbishment of Baldwin's Bec boarding house. Two trenches were required to investigate the archaeological potential of a proposed new single-story extension and an access ramp. Following the discovery of modern concrete foundations within trench 1, only trench 2 was excavated down to the base of undisturbed ground. The evaluation was able to confirm that no archaeological remains or burials were present within the area of the proposed new extension. A buried soil was found to be sealed underneath nearly 1m of modern made-ground deposits within Trench 2. The evaluation was able to demonstrate that the proposed development areas have no further archaeological potential.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Daniel Pond (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: