The desk-based research and archaeological assessment were undertaken in accordance with the relevant guidance and in line with the SWARCH HIA methodology1. The site was visited on the 22nd May 2025 by Dr. S. Walls. The location of the proposed development was inspected. The geophysical (gradiometer) survey follows the guidance that is outlined in: Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (English Heritage 2008); Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (CIfA 2014); and EAC Guidelines for the Use of Geophysics in Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider (Europae Archaeologiae Consilium/European Archaeological Council 2016). 'Archaeological geophysical survey uses non-intrusive and non-destructive techniques to determine the presence or absence of anomalies likely to be caused by archaeological features, structures or deposits, as far as reasonably possible, within a specified area or site on land, in the inter-tidal zone or underwater. Geophysical survey determines the presence of anomalies of archaeological potential through measurement of one or more physical properties of the subsurface.' (CIfA Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey 2014). The results of the geophysical (gradiometer) survey will, as far as is possible, inform on the presence or absence, the character, the extent, and, in some cases, the apparent relative phasing of buried archaeology to inform a strategy to mitigate any threat to the archaeological resource. The desk-based assessment indicates that there may be below-ground traces of the boundaries of Medieval strip fields but otherwise, the layout of the site and its surround appear to have remained constant since the mid-19th century. The walkover survey identified a natural spring line crossing the northern field with man made drainage but no other features or earthworks of an archaeological nature. Whilst it would appear that the archaeological potential of the site is low, it is recommended that a geophysical survey is carried out in order to better establish the presence of any archaeological features or deposits. The geophysical survey identified eight groups of anomalies that comprised c.39 distinct geophysical anomalies. This included: two probable drainage features (Group 1 and Group 2); one probable modern service (Group 5); one probable natural feature (hollow) (Group 6); one possible ditch and/or natural feature (Group 4); an area of possible agricultural activity and/or natural features (Group 3); an area of probable building material and/or debris (Group 7); and an area of possible ground disturbance (Group 8). The geophysical survey also identified evidence for metallic debris and modern ground disturbance. A number of possible ferrous anomalies were discernible within the survey data, though very few ferrous objects were apparent at surface level. The results of the geophysical survey suggest that the archaeological potential of the site is relatively low. Development of the site is likely to have a permanent and irreversible impact on any buried archaeological resource that is present on the site.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
A Nock
Department of Archaeology
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
A Nock (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69e3209340886becb653fad2 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1140728