This work was undertaken in accordance with a WSI (Boyd 2020) drawn up in consultation with DCHET and follows current best practice, CIfA guidance (2014). Any desk-based assessment aspect of this report follows the guidance as outlined in: Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Desk- Based Assessment (CIfA 2014a) and Understanding Place: historic area assessments in a planning and development context (English Heritage 2012). The geophysical (gradiometer) survey follows the general guidance as outlined in: EAC Guidelines for the use of geophysics in Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider (Europae Archaeologiae Consilium/European Archaeological Council 2016) and Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (CIfA 2014b). The archaeological evaluation and area excavation were conducted in accordance with a WSI (Boyd 2020) drawn up in consultation with the DCHET and in line with CIfA guidelines and best practice. The WSI was subsequently revised to include mitigation for a service easement, which ran through agricultural land to the north-west of the Site (Walls 2022). The initial evaluation comprised the excavation of a total of six trenches, each 1.90m wide and totalling c.200m in length, laid out using a Leica GPS and opened by tracked mechanical excavator to the depth of archaeological deposits or in situ weathered natural under archaeological supervision using a toothless grading bucket. The area excavation comprised the excavation of two sub-rectangular areas covering c.0.375ha, both of which had been stripped to the depth of in situ weathered natural prior to arrival on site and were subsequently re-stripped under archaeological supervision. Exposed archaeological deposits were excavated by hand and in accordance with the WSI, Devon County Council Specifications and CIfA guidelines. The evaluation was designed to establish the presence or absence, extent, depth, character and date of any in situ archaeological deposits; the trenches being located to target anomalies identified by the geophysical survey; and to inform any further planning decisions. The area excavation was designed to further elucidate the results of the evaluation with particular reference to Trench 09 which had confirmed the presence of an enclosure of Romano-British date. The evaluation took place in February 2022, the area excavation continuing directly on between March and April 2022. Geophysical Survey 2020 - Whilst all of the features identified by the geophysical survey are inherently undated, some can be related to existing or historic boundaries depicted on mid-19th century and later mapping and can therefore be presumed to have been in use from this time; though their origins may be much earlier. Other possible boundary features pre-date the 19th century and reflect previous phases of field-system and are likely to date to the medieval and post-medieval periods, their alignments largely matching those of the existing field-system. Earlier, possible prehistoric or Romano-British origins, however, cannot be ruled-out for some features, particularly those on different alignments and the 'enclosure' in the north-western corner of field F2. The results of the geophysical survey would suggest that the archaeological potential for the site is moderate. Any development of the site is likely to encounter and destroy the buried archaeological resource, and given the potential suggested by the surrounding prehistoric and medieval landscape, and limited archaeological interventions in the area, it is suggested that further archaeological mitigation in the form of targeted evaluation trenching be carried out to validate and clarify the results of the geophysical survey.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
P Webb
Sean Wallis
Department of Archaeology
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Webb et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6992b3939b75e639e9b085c2 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1139441
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: