Sixty-three trenches (individually 50m by 1.8m in size) representing a 2% sample of the area were excavated (Figs 2 and 3). They were located to test anomalies identified by the geophysical survey. Several trenches were positioned across or adjacent to the suggested route of the Roman road, to determine its presence/absence, precise route and condition. Other trenches have been located to test 'blank' areas on the geophysical survey. Trenching confirmed the presence of a former road, most likely Roman in date, crossing the Site from northeast to south-west. It was confirmed in Field 3 (Trenches 18 and 26), but was not located in Field 4; however, it is conceivable the feature may be present in this area. None of the trends and responses identified by geophysical survey, particularly in Fields 2 and 3, represented domestic occupation or evidence of former settlement, and the total absence of dateable Roman period material from the road, sub-surface features, or topsoil and subsoil suggest the route was not flanked by settlement in this area. A former boundary recorded by geophysical survey in Field 3 was confirmed to be a post-medieval feature, and a series of responses recorded in the vicinity of Trench 27 were confirmed as south-east to north-west ditches/gullies, although the features were not dated. All other trends and responses interpreted from the geophysical survey results were found to be nonarchaeological in origin and generally resulted from variation in the underlying natural deposits, principally associated with outcropping bedrock. Several field boundary ditches and a track were recorded in the trenches that did not correspond to anomalies recorded by geophysical survey, suggesting there is the potential for unknown features to be present on the Site. However, where present, these features were confirmed to be post-medieval in date.
Eddie Dougherty (2025) studied this question.