19.01.2015 Views

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION - Mike Griffiths and Associates

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION - Mike Griffiths and Associates

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION - Mike Griffiths and Associates

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

FAS_lbf01.wpd 74<br />

also evident.<br />

F2 was defined approximately 13.0m to the north of F1, <strong>and</strong> shared several characteristics. F2 had poorly<br />

defined edges but was visible as a sub-circular feature measuring 0.20m in diameter (see Figure 38). Upon<br />

excavation, this feature was found to contain a single backfill deposit (C1112) which consisted of a dark<br />

yellowish-brown fine clayey-silt with frequent flecks of charcoal <strong>and</strong> moderate inclusions of gravel <strong>and</strong> pebbles.<br />

A single fire-cracked pebble <strong>and</strong> a flint flake with edge use were recovered from C1112. F2 proved to be no<br />

more than 0.05m deep, with gently sloping sides <strong>and</strong> concave base, <strong>and</strong> was interpreted as a small heavily<br />

truncated pit.<br />

A large irregular feature was identified at the northern end of Intervention 7 (F3). This feature continued<br />

beyond both the eastern <strong>and</strong> western edges of excavation <strong>and</strong> where visible varied in width between 1.40m <strong>and</strong><br />

5.35m. A 1.0m sample of F3 was excavated at its widest point against the eastern edge of excavation. F3 was<br />

found to contain a yellowish-brown silt with frequent gravel inclusions which became gradually darker with a<br />

greater clay component at depth (C1113). C1113 shared a fairly clear interface with the surrounding gravel<br />

subsoil, but was very sterile containing only mixed gravel inclusions. The sample excavation of F3 revealed<br />

a shallow ‘v’-shaped profile with a maximum depth of c.0.70m (Figure 39). F3 was interpreted as a geological<br />

anomaly, possibly a sink hole.<br />

8.2.2 Intervention 8<br />

Intervention 8 was located next to the northern edge of Zone D<br />

in the southeastern part of the site <strong>and</strong> was positioned in order<br />

to contact an anomaly identified during the soil resistance area<br />

survey (Intervention 5, F45) (see Figure 36). This machine<br />

excavated trench measured 50m x 4m <strong>and</strong> was orientated northsouth<br />

(Plate 7). The ground surface within the area of the<br />

trench was fairly level at c.41.10m AOD. The dark yellowishbrown<br />

gravel <strong>and</strong> clayey silt ploughsoil (C1123) was found to<br />

be c.0.35m deep overlying an orangish-brown gravel <strong>and</strong> silt<br />

natural subsoil. The subsoil contained b<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> areas of clean<br />

grey mixed gravel.<br />

Plate 7 Intervention 8 looking south (scale<br />

2m)<br />

A single feature was defined at the northern end of the trench (F4) (Figure 40). This feature was initially<br />

defined as an amorphous deposit of brown silt which continued beneath the western edge of the intervention.<br />

Upon excavation, F4 was found to be possibly sub-oval, containing a sterile deposit of light grey clayey silt with<br />

lenses of oxidised silt immediately under the ploughsoil interface, <strong>and</strong> moderate inclusions of gravel <strong>and</strong> pebbles<br />

throughout the deposit. F4 was approximately 0.35m deep with gently sloping sides <strong>and</strong> a fairly flat base<br />

(Figures 41 <strong>and</strong> 42). F4 was interpreted as a possible sink hole <strong>and</strong> corresponds with the geophysical anomaly<br />

F45. Areas of subsoil variation in the base of the trench also coincided with those suggested by the soil<br />

resistance survey (including Intervention 5, F46).<br />

FIELD ARCHAEOLOGY SPECIALISTS

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!