| Abstract: |
The following methodology was applied to the survey fieldwork: • Each erosion feature was followed down-slope, beginning in the East (for specifics, see below). • Following the erosion feature, the peat-mineral interface was inspected for any potential artefacts or ecofacts to be collected for later analysis. • Each sample found was recorded via ArcGIS Survey123 to retrieve a precise geolocation of the sample point, photographs of the location, a unique sample ID and a brief overview of each sample. • Where no samples were found, intermittent points (c. every 10 m) were collected as the survey was carried out to evidence the lack of finds and to ensure each area was sufficiently assessed. • For each area assessed one of the following three assessments was made: - No additional investigation required; - Some potential further investigation may be required; - Highly sensitive area, no restoration work to occur within the vicinity before additional investigation has taken place An archaeological survey of linear erosional features identified in the NPAONB peatlands survey for the Geltsdale Middle Top study area recorded 410 sample/intermittent points, of which 273 (66.6%) were identified as having no visible peat/mineral interface) PMI, with 137 (33.4%) identified as having a visible PMI where associated finds of artifacts might be expected. No features or finds of archaeological significance were observed within any of the sample areas, however; specifically, no remains of any kind indicative of prehistoric occupation or activity prior to the formation of the existing peat deposits. Based on these findings and taking note of the altitude range within which the survey took place, it is suggested that the Geltsdale study area is unlikely to have been occupied or exploited intensively by prehistoric groups for any significant length of time, being unsuitable for prolonged human occupation during prehistory and in later periods. The likelihood that any retrievable remains were deposited in prehistory during any brief hunting or foraging visits made to the area is reduced by a factor of the limited amount of person time spent there, while the chances of retrieving such data over the very great areas involved in the current survey are remote indeed. With respect to the current Geltsdale site, no features or finds were made during the survey which warrant recommendations for further analysis or conservation. Thus, it is not considered necessary, on the basis of the archaeological survey, to carry out any further recording or evaluation works prior to the implementation of the peatland restoration techniques as proposed by the NPAONB. With respect to the planned restoration works, although this moorland site seems likely to have been sparsely exploited through recorded history or prehistoric times, any archaeological features or finds appearing should be recorded and, if possible, retained by the groundworkers. To this end, consideration should be put to supplying the groundworks team with basic information on likely features and finds that may occur and should be retained. The absence of finds made during this investigation does not invalidate the value of carrying out future investigations of this kind, particularly at lower altitudes where the potential for human settlement and land-use is higher. Should any finds be made during similar future investigations, recommendations should be provided on the basis of the perceived significance of features or finds collected or likely to be impacted and, with regard to features such as occupation sites and flint scatters, the level of risk in terms of their likely disturbance and ease of avoidance. In order to evaluate the risk to archaeological remains associated with peatland restoration techniques, a scoring system should be invoked, leading to defined mitigation strategies. |
