Preprocess Annotations

Report Title

A428 Caxton to Hardwick Improvements: Non-Intrusive Stages of Archaeological Field Evaluation

Publisher and Publication Year

Albion Archaeology - 2004

Semantic Annotations Views

Select a view of Semantic Annotations.
The Abstract View (default) displays abstractly the semantic annotations the of document.
The In Context View displays the semantic annotations in the document context

Summary

7.1 Appendix 1 ­ Fieldwalking Summary Table ...................................................................22 Table 1 Summary of the artefact assemblages identified during fieldwalking..................................22Non-Technical Summary In September and October 2004 Albion Archaeology undertook a non-intrusive archaeological field evaluation (fieldwalking and geophysical survey) on land within the footprint of the A428 Caxton to Hardwick Improvement Scheme in Cambridgeshire. The work represents the completion of the non-intrusive evaluation of the scheme. It has, in turn, allowed the design of a trial trenching strategy for the intrusive evaluation, which w be implemented at the beginning of 2005. The scheme lies within a landscape rich in archaeological remains. Extensive previous research into its archaeological and historical background had been undertaken (Oxford Archaeology 2002). The results of previous fieldwork, including open area excavation (Wessex Archaeology 2002, 2003) and a watching brief (Kenney 2000) were also taken into account in this study of the scheme's archaeological potential. Through a consideration of all sources of evidence, it has been possible to define six areas of archaeological significance (AAS). These include prehistoric enclosures, a putative Bronze Age round barrow, a Romano-British enclosure and a medieval / post-medieval moated site. The AAS w be targeted during the forthcoming intrusive evaluation. A trial trenching strategy has been agreed between CgMs Consulting and Albion Archaeology. From field to field the trial trenching sample w vary from c.3% to 5%. Trench locations have been determined in one of two ways: · Targeted trenches, specifically located to test and further characterise the AAS. · Arrayed trenches, aligned at right angles to one another, to test areas which (on current evidence) appear to be devoid of archaeological remains. Albion Archaeology A428 Caxton to Hardwick Improvement Scheme, Cambridgeshire Non-Intrusive Archaeological Field Evaluation 7 1. INTRODUCTIONSummary A geophysical evaluation comprising magnetic scanning followed by selected detailed survey was undertaken at locations along the route of the proposed upgrade of the A428 between Caxton and Hardwick in Cambridgeshire. Approximately 40 hectares was scanned with the subsequent detailed survey covering 6 hectares in nine separate blocks. Discrete anomalies and areas of magnetic enhancement as well as linear anomalies were identified during the scanning and the benefits of such a programme have again been demonstrated by the location of two, previously unknown, enclosures during the subsequent detailed survey. Most of the remaining anomalies were interpreted as having an agricultural origin being caused by ploughing, field drains or recently removed field boundaries. An archaeological origin for some of the discrete areas of enhancement, particularly adjacent to the existing road, cannot be ruled out. Authorised for distribution by: .................................................................................................... © WYAS 2004 Archaeological Services WYAS PO Box 30, Nepshaw Lane South, Morley, Leeds LS27 0UG A428 Caxton to Hardwick Improvements, Cambridgeshire Archaeological Services WYAS Geophysical Survey

Table of Contents

List of Figures.....................................................................................................................................3 Preface.................................................................................................................................................4 Structure of this Report.....................................................................................................................4 Key Terms...........................................................................................................................................5 Non-Technical Summary...................................................................................................................6 1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................... 7 1.1 Project Background.............................................................................................................7 1.2 Site Location and Description.............................................................................................7 1.3 Archaeological Background................................................................................................8 1.4 Methodologies.....................................................................................................................10 1.5 Professional standards.......................................................................................................10 2. FIELDWALKING.................................................................................... 11 2.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................11 2.2 Method statement...............................................................................................................11 2.3 Results.................................................................................................................................12 3. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY...................................................................... 14 3.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................14 3.2 Method statement...............................................................................................................14 3.3 Results.................................................................................................................................15 4. LIMITATIONS OF NON-INTRUSIVE EVALUATION ............................. 17 4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................17 4.2 Fieldwalking .......................................................................................................................17 4.3 Geophysical survey ............................................................................................................17 5. SYNTHESIS........................................................................................... 19 5.1 Confidence Rating for the Current Study........................................................................20 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.................................................................................... 21
24 Flake 2400 1 3 Pottery 12 Roman: Greyware 1200 2 26 14 Roman: Micaceous ware 1402 1 2 16 Roman: Greyware 1600 1 9 19 Roman: Greyware 1911 1 7
2 Modern brick 202 1 55 24 Modern brick 2402 1 28 Glass 12 Post-medieval vessel glass 1201 1 36 19 Modern bottle glass 1905 1 13
12 Ferrous slag 1202 1 19 14 Ferrous slag 1404 1 4 15 Ferrous slag 1500 1 3 19 Ferrous slag 1901 1 28 19 Ferrous slag 1906 1 9
Geophysical Survey Contents 1. Introduction and Archaeological Background 2. Methodology and Presentation 3. Results 4. Discussion and Conclusions

Headings

Edmund Nuttall Capita - Symonds
7. APPENDICES ........................................................................................ 22
7.1 Appendix 1 ­ Fieldwalking Summary Table ...................................................................22
Table 1 Summary of the artefact assemblages identified during fieldwalking..................................22
7.3 Appendix 3 ­ Full Geophysical Survey Report................................................................24
Preface
Key Terms
Non-Technical Summary
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Background
1.2 Site Location and Description
1.3 Archaeological Background
1.3.1 Bronze Age barrow, Field 16 (Figure 9)
1.3.3 Romano-British remains, Field 12 (Figure 8)
1.4 Methodologies
1.5 Professional standards
2. FIELDWALKING
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Method statement
2.3 Results
2.3.1 Field 2 (Figure 6)
2.3.2 Field 12 (Figure 8)
2.3.3 Field 14 (Figure 9)
2.3.4 Field 15 (Figure 9)
2.3.5 Field 16 (Figure 9)
2.3.6 Field 17 (Figure 9)
2.3.7 Field 19 (Figure 10)
2.3.8 Field 24 (Figure 7)
3. GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Method statement
3.2.1 Stage 1
3.2.2 Stage 2
3.3 Results
3.3.1 Field 1 (Figure 6)
3.3.2 Field 12 (Figure 8)
3.3.3 Field 14 (Figure 9)
3.3.4 Field 16 (Figure 9)
3.3.5 Field 18 (Figure 10)
3.3.6 Field 19 (Figure 10)
4. LIMITATIONS OF NON-INTRUSIVE EVALUATION
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Fieldwalking
4.3 Geophysical survey
5. SYNTHESIS
5.1 Confidence Rating for the Current Study
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
7. APPENDICES
7.1 Appendix 1 ­ Fieldwalking Summary Table
Number
14 Flake 1400 1 18
19 Flake 1907 1 8
19 Flake 1912 1 5
2 Modern: Teapot lid 200 1 11
14 Modern: Flower pot 1403 1 2
15 Modern: Black basalt 1501 1 13
19 Modern: Earthenware 1909 1 4
7.2.1 Introduction
7.2.2 Results
7.3 Appendix 3 ­ Full Geophysical Survey Report
Summary
Geophysical Survey
1. Introduction and Archaeological Background
2. Methodology and Presentation
2.1 The general objectives of the geophysical evaluation were:
Geophysical Survey
Geophysical Survey
3. Results
3.1 Magnetometer Scanning
3.2 Detailed Magnetometer Survey
Geophysical Survey
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Geophysical Survey
Magnetic Susceptibility and Soil Magnetism
Types of Magnetic Anomaly
Geophysical Survey
Methodology: Magnetic Susceptibility Survey
Geophysical Survey
Methodology: Gradiometer Survey
Data Processing and Presentation
Survey Location Information
Geophysical Archive
Field
22 Field 23