All work was undertaken in accordance with the relevant standards. The watching brief was conducted by appropriately qualified and experienced archaeologists who were present during all ground works. Excavations were opened and the topsoil and recent overburden removed down to the first significant archaeological horizon in successive level spits of a maximum 0.2m thickness, by the use of an appropriate machine using a toothless bucket. Under no circumstances was the machine used to cut arbitrary trenches down to natural deposits. All machine work was carried out under direct archaeological supervision and the machine halted if significant archaeological deposits were encountered. Occasionally the top of the first significant archaeological horizon was exposed by the machine but then cleaned by hand and inspected for features. All excavations and deposits encountered were accurately located on a site plan and recorded by photographs, scale drawings and written descriptions sufficient to permit the preparation of a report. Section drawings (at a minimum scale of 1:20) included heights and O.D. Plans (at a minimum scale of 1:50) included O.D. spot heights for all principal strata and any features. The areas of ground disturbance were recorded on a development plan and the stratigraphic sequence and the depth of the excavations was recorded. If archaeological remains were identified, their location was accurately tied into the National Grid and located on an up-to-date 1:1250 O.S. map base. Plans produced by the architect for the current works were used as a basis for any observations relative to the watching brief record. Spoil heaps were scanned for both ferrous and non-ferrous metal artefacts using a Minelab X-Terra 705 metal detector fitted with a 9inch 7.5kHz coil, capable of discriminating between ferrous and non-ferrous material and was operated by an experienced metal detector user. Modern artefacts were noted but not retained. All excavated archaeological contexts were fully recorded by written records, giving details of location, composition, shape, dimensions, relationships, finds, samples, and cross-references to other elements of the record and other relevant contexts, in accordance with best practice. All contexts, and any small finds and samples from them were given unique numbers. Bulk finds were collected by context. All artefacts were removed from the site for assessment and analysis, and where it was appropriate, their find spots were recorded three dimensionally. The watching brief was successful in meeting its aims and objectives stated above. No problems were found in clearly identifying stratigraphic units in the site. No significant archaeological features were recorded during the groundworks and no finds were recovered. Natural deposits were only exposed in a small area within the site and it is possible that archaeological deposits may exist within the site that were not impacted by the groundworks. Any such deposits will be preserved in-situ within the site. The only feature recorded in the site was the remains of a drystone wall which appears to represent an extension southwards of an extant boundary wall to the north of the site. Historic mapping suggests this boundary was established in the late 19th or early 20th century.
Matt Wells (Wed,) studied this question.