Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Pond Restoration in the Abbey Grounds, May 2004 report: There were two phases of work. The first consisted of the removal of the old play ground equipment in the park and the general clearance of the site prior to the main ground works. As this lay within the Scheduled Area, this work was carried out under archaeological supervision (Fig. 3). The second and main restoration task consisted of the removal of overgrown trees and shrubs from around the pond edges and the two islands, and the dredging of the pond to a depth of 1.3 m. The dredging was carried out as follows. Sheet piling was laid across the two inlets to the pond from the abbey mill stream and the water was pumped out. The build up of silt and debris was then removed, using two 360� mechanical excavators, and was stored on site in three pens to dry out. The pond islands were landscaped down to the pond base at approximate depth 1.3m. The east and west sides of the pond were not cleared back to their edges, but were battered to an even slope before a new revetment was inserted. The original stone wall along the north side of the pond was retained and the two inlets were cleaned up. All archaeological features were cleaned by hand, planned at a scale of 1:250 and excavated. All excavated deposits and features were photographed using colour slide and black and white print film. A general photographic record of the work was made. Recording followed procedures detailed in the OAU Fieldwork Manual (ed D Wilkinson, 1992). Abbey Grounds Restoration, Abbey Close Car Park, June 2004 report: The modern car park surface (Fig. 3) was stripped by a 360� machine with a 1.8 m ditching bucket. The trenches for the new drainage were then excavated with a 0.6 m wide toothed bucket to a maximum depth of 2 m. In addition trenches were excavated for new lighting, and the interceptor tank outflow into the Abbe}' Mill stream. After the new car park was installed, excavations took place for two foundation pads for the new footbridge oyer the Abbey Mill stream. All archaeological features were planned at a scale of 1:100 and where excavated their sections drawn at scales of 1:20. All excavated features were photographed using colour slide and black and white print film. A general photographic record of the work was made. Recording followed procedures detailed in the OAU Fieldwork Manual (ed D Wilkinson, 1992). Archaeological Monitoring of Works with the Abbey Grounds, 2006 report: The excavation work that was carried out by the landscape contractor in the areas specified above (Fig. 3) was monitored archaeologically, spoil examined for artefacts, and provision made for the archaeological excavation and recording of any deposits of archaeological significance that might be revealed. Access was granted to record the sides and base of all holes that were excavated. The location of the holes for the concrete bases of benches in the formal garden was compared both with the results of the 1922 trench plans and the geophysical magnetometer survey carried out in 1998 to establish whether walls were likely to be encountered. The excavation was monitored archaeologically, spoil examined for finds, and where deposits of archaeological significance were encountered, these were cleaned, planned and recorded archaeologically (Fig. 6; Plates 1 and 2). The cleaning and removal of the surface of the Italian Walk was carried out by a small mechanical excavator under the supervision of the contractor, but was closely monitored archaeologically, and deposits revealed below the gravel surface were planned and recorded archaeologically (Fig. 7). The landscaping required the removal of much vegetation from the area of the Rockery, and limited soil removal to stabilise the slope adjacent to the Italian Walk. This operation was monitored archaeologically in case either in situ remains or redeposited architectural fragments were uncovered.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
James Mumford (Thu,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ff351d674f7c03778bd49 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1142224
James Mumford
Oxford Archaeology
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...