The initial evaluation comprised 173 trial trenches which varied from 25-50 m in length and comprised a 4% sample of the area; a 1% contingency was also included. A number of trenches (63) were positioned to investigate geophysical anomalies interpreted as potential archaeological remains, with remaining trenches distributed evenly across the site to include blank areas. Due to the potential risk of delays to the construction programme and the reduced window for undertaking archaeological mitigation work revised methods were issued and implemented following consultation between the client and Archaeological Advisor at KCC, this included an increase in proposed contingency area to up to 10% (36,000 sqm). The revised strategy comprised: Iterative trial trenching: Where significant remains were revealed, trenches were extended and areas opened up to establish the full extent of any significant remains. Identify hot spots and reduce risk. The aim is to reduce risk and be better informed on hot spots and the areas with little significant archaeology. Two or three hot spots may be established, for example. Straight to archaeological SMS: SMS mitigation followed on directly from the evaluation, to investigate and record 'hot spots.' During the fieldwork 172 trenches (No 1-47 and 49-173) were excavated, these were followed by 36 (200-214 and 216-236) trenches and three SMS areas (total 1.15 ha) , investigated and recorded following the revised methodology. Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by WSP, on behalf of Kent County Council, to undertake an archaeological trial trench evaluation and contingency mitigation strip, map and sample of a parcel of land located on land adjacent to White Cliff Business Park, Dover, centred on NGR 631910 144190. The archaeological trial trench evaluation and strip, map and sample (SMS) excavation were undertaken in association with the proposed White Cliffs Inland Border Facility, near Dover in Kent. The proposed development comprises the construction of an inland processing facility and will comprise parking for heavy goods vehicles and associated facilities, landscaping, drainage/utilities and planting. The evaluation and SMS excavations were undertaken in support of a Special Development Order. The evaluation and SMS mitigation formed part of a staged approach in determining the archaeological potential of the site. Earlier non-intrusive works comprised a cultural heritage desk-based assessment as well as two geophysical surveys. The fieldwork comprised 208 archaeological trial trenches, and three strip, map and sample areas. The evaluation identified three broad areas of archaeological activity, located in the south-eastern corner, northern part and towards the western side and south-western corner of the site. Recorded features chiefly comprised ditches, pits, postholes, cultivation furrows and large pits/trenches related to 20th-century military activity. Natural features such as tree-throw holes, bioturbation related features, geological features and deposits of colluvium were also identified. Early activity was indicated by small quantities of worked flint; one is of probable Palaeolithic date, and microlith and a two other blades date to the Mesolithic period. The earliest feature was a Late Neolithic pit that produced an assemblage of pottery, worked flint and charred plant remains. A large ditch crossed four trenches in the northern part of the site and finds from one trench suggest a later Bronze Age date. A cluster of pits towards the south-western part of the site produced large amounts of burnt flint and later prehistoric pottery from one indicates this activity area may date to the late 2nd to mid-1st millennium BC. Broadly dated prehistoric pottery and worked flints were also found in topsoil, subsoil and colluvium and provide further evidence of a prehistoric presence in the landscape.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
J Powell
Rebecca Fitzpatrick
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Powell et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69d8970c6c1944d70ce084d8 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1140366