Archaeological evaluation identifies Neolithic artefacts and features in a proposed development area.
Archaeological evaluation comprising 19no. 50m x 1.8m trial trenches located within footprint of proposed development. Trenches were machine excavated under archaeological supervision followed by hand cleaning, sample excavation and recording in accordance with an approved written scheme of investigation. Underlying geology comprised Clay with Flint at a depth of between 0.2m and 0.3m below the present ground surface across the site. A northwest to southeast aligned geological hollow was identified that contained at least two fill events. The earliest fill contained occasional small, rounded sarsen stone and had an uneven surface possibly due to later erosion. Lying on this surface were two large sarsen stones, the largest measured 1.8m by 0.95m and 0.25m wide with flat sides and a concave face. The stones were overlain by a colluvial deposit that contained small, rounded sarsen stone and several worked flint artefacts of provisional Neolithic date. Archaeological features were rare across the proposed development area comprising at least nine irregular, small and shallow probable tree throws. A single worked flint comprising a blade fragment of provisional Neolithic date, was recovered from one feature. A large quarry pit was identified at the northeastern corner of the proposed development area that contained a fragment of ceramic peg tile (provisional post-medieval date). Spreads of burnt soil with charcoal and burnt clay inclusions were identified in the north-west corner of the proposed development area that likely derived from post-medieval forestry works. Two features that contained fragments of iron nails and an early twentieth century bullet casing were located within the geological hollow and may represent attempts to clear large stones that may have impeded agricultural activity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ross Lane (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: