A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 2 – Appendix K.3 Kent Archaeological Investigation February 2019 Status: A1 APPROVED - PUBLISHED Document Ref: HE543917-ATK-EHR-RP-LH-000009 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 2 – Appendix K.3 Kent Archaeological Investigation Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Highways England’s information and use in relation to A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements. Atkins Limited assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. Document history Job number: HE543917 Document ref: HE543917-ATK-EHR-RP-LH-000009 Purpose Revision Status Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date description C01 A1 Final for Publication ADF JC CH CH 08/01/19 Revision C01 Page 2 of 8 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 2 – Appendix K.3 Kent Archaeological Investigation Table of contents Chapter Pages Annex 1 (Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment) 6 Revision C01 Page 3 of 8 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 2 – Appendix K.3 Kent Archaeological Investigation K.1 Introduction K.1.1.1 An archaeological evaluation with geoarchaeological test-pitting was undertaken between the 12th and 15th November 2018 on land to the north of the A2260 Junction with the A2 at Bean. K.1.1.2 The evaluation and test pitting was undertaken following the methodology outlined in a Written Scheme of Investigation approved by Kent County Council’s Archaeological Advisor. K.1.1.3 The evaluation and test-pitting was monitored by Atkins and Kent County Council’s Archaeological Advisor. K.1.2 Objectives K.1.2.1 The objective of the evaluation and test-pitting was to identify if any archaeological features or horizons were present within the area evaluated and if present to quantify, qualify, date and characterise any such remains. K.1.2.2 The geoarchaeological test-pitting was required to assess the local potential for there being significant Pleistocene environmental evidence and possibly archaeology present. K.1.3 Methodology K.1.3.1 Five trenches were planned to be excavated, each with a deeper test pit located within them to assess the local Pleistocene potential. K.1.3.2 The trenches were to be excavated by a machine fitted with a ditching blade under constant archaeological supervision and any archaeology identified then sampled and recorded. K.1.3.3 The geoarchaeological test pits within each trench were undertaken in the presence of a specialist in Pleistocene geoarchaeology and the stratification recorded. K.1.4 Constraints K.1.4.1 Two trenches could not be excavated due to the presence of woodland and a high water table resulting in local water-logging. Two other trenches had to be moved from their planned locations due to obstructions. K.1.4.2 The abandonment and movement of trenches was agreed as being appropriate with Kent County Council’s Archaeologist during the monitoring visit. Revision C01 Page 4 of 8 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 2 – Appendix K.3 Kent Archaeological Investigation K.1.5 Results K.1.5.1 The evaluation identified that there was significant (c. 3m) made ground all across the evaluated area resulting either from 1990s road construction or as infill to a historic quarry. K.1.5.2 No archaeological features or artefacts were recovered from any of the trenches. K.1.5.3 Undated, but likely Holocene or later Pleistocene dry valley (colluvial) infill deposits were identified below 3m overlying in one area lag gravels of periglacial origin lying over the local chalk. In all areas it was evident that the upper part of the stratigraphic units had ben truncated by quarrying or road construction. K.1.6 Discussion K.1.6.1 The evaluation showed that any archaeology that may have been present within the area evaluated has already been removed by quarrying or 1990s road construction and that the local sequence of dry valley infill has also been truncated to c. 3m depth. K.1.6.2 The area has no archaeological potential and can now be characterised as also having a low to very low potential for significant Pleistocene deposits being present. K.1.7 Summary K.1.7.1 The evaluation showed that any archaeology that may have been present within the area evaluated has already been removed by quarrying or 1990s road construction and that the local sequence of dry valley infill has also been truncated to c. 3m depth. K.1.7.2 The area has no archaeological potential and can now be characterised as also having a low to very low potential for significant Pleistocene deposits being present. Revision C01 Page 5 of 8 Annex 1 (Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment) A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements, Kent Archaeological Evaluation Ref: 201490.03 December 2018 wessexarchaeology © Wessex Archaeology Ltd 2018, all rights reserved. 69 College Road, Maidstone, Kent ME15 6SX www.wessexarch.co.uk Wessex Archaeology Ltd is a Registered Charity no. 287786 (England & Wales) and SC042630 (Scotland) Disclaimer The material contained in this report was designed as an integral part of a report to an individual client and was prepared solely for the benefit of that client. The material contained in this report does not necessarily stand on its own and is not intended to nor should it be relied upon by any third party. To the fullest extent permitted by law Wessex Archaeology will not be liable by reason of breach of contract negligence or otherwise for any loss or damage (whether direct indirect or consequential) occasioned to any person acting or omitting to act or refraining from acting in reliance upon the material contained in this report arising from or connected with any error or omission in the material contained in the report. Loss or damage as referred to above shall be deemed to include, but is not limited to, any loss of profits or anticipated profits damage to reputation or goodwill loss of business or anticipated business damages costs expenses incurred or payable to any third party (in all cases whether direct indirect or consequential) or any other direct indirect or consequential loss or damage. Document Information Document title A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Dartford, Kent Document subtitle Archaeological Evaluation and Geoarchaeological Test Pitting Evaluation Document reference 201490.03 Client name Atkins Address The Hub 500 Park Avenue Almondsbury Bristol BS32 4RZ On behalf of Highways England Site location A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet Junction County Kent National grid reference (NGR) 561394, 172893 (TQ 61394 72893) Planning authority Dartford Borough Council Museum name Dartford Museum WA project code 201490 Date(s) of fieldwork 12th – 15th Novemeber 2018 Fieldwork directed by Lisa McCaig Project management by Sarah Barrowman Document compiled by Lisa McCaig / Andrew Shaw Contributions from Sam Rogerson and Inés López-Dóriga. Graphics by Andrew Souter Quality Assurance Issue number & date Status Author Approved by 1 Dec 2018 Draft submitted to client LM/AS SJB 2 Dec 2018 Revised after client comment LM/AS SJB A2 Bean & Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Archaeological Evaluation Contents Summary ........................................................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... iii 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Project and planning background .................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of the report ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Location, topography and geology ................................................................................ 1 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Archaeological Background .......................................................................................... 3 3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES ...................................................................................................... 6 3.1 General aims ................................................................................................................ 6 3.2 General objectives ........................................................................................................ 6 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Fieldwork methods ........................................................................................................ 7 4.3 Monitoring ..................................................................................................................... 9 5 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESULTS ........................................................................................... 9 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................