The site was located on an area of proposed development and was investigated as part of the planning process, under planning policy guidline 16. (1)

Investigations constituted the excavation of 14 trenches of 20 by 2m and 1 trench of 10m by 1m. Further test pits were dug into the base of these trenches to a depth of 2.5m in 11 cases. An archaeological assement of 6 engineers holes (dug to 4m) was also carried out.

In the 15 trenches aimed at establishing the extent of historic and late prehistoric (holocene) archaeology, no deposits, features or finds of archaeological significance were discovered. The absense of any historic archaeological evidence is explained by a map regression exercise which reveals that the site was parkland from the middle of the 18th century onwards.

The absence of prehistoric activity in the area remains unexplained as it is viewed as anomalous given the extent of archaeological material relating to the Mesolithic to Roman periods within the local area. The authors suggest unknown localised factors on this small site are a likely explanations.

The sampling strategy employed suggests 85% confidence that the absence of historic or later prehistoric archaeology is a genuine reflection of the site.

Test pitting has revealed that Pleistocene deposits, previously thought to terminate 300m north of this site have been recovered across the site. Sands and gravels overlay low energy clay and silt deposits which in turn, ovelay a lower layer of sands and gravels. These are equated with the wider pleistocene deposits of Dartford heath and the site of Wansunt Pit specifically. Within the low energy deposits a stable land surface is evident.

Three palaolithic flint objects were recovered from observations of the test pits. One pointed/ ovate handaxe lacking a twisted profile but with affinities to Wansunt Pit material was recovered from the palaeo-landsurface level in test pit 6.

Two flakes were also recovered (from test pits 7 amd 10), these are undiagnostic and unworked with edge damage produced by crushing.The flake from test pit 7 was recovered from the same layer as the handaxe.

The authors suggest that any further palaeolithic archaeology is likely to come from the central part of the suite, where the sandy gravel that overlays the palaeo-landsurface is thickest.

Confidence that the sample strategy has produced a result reflective of the archaeological record is considered low (25%) for the palaeolithic material.

The recognition of archaeological material deposited in a buried landsurface is considered to be of national significance.

<1> Archaeological Investigations Ltd, 2000, Bexley Hospital A Report on Archaeological Trial Excavations (Unpublished document). SKE16085.