The survey was undertaken using four Bartington Grad601 sensors mounted at 1m intervals (1m traverse interval) onto a rigid frame. The system was programmed to take readings at a frequency of 10Hz (allowing for a 10-15cm sample interval) on roaming traverses (swaths) 4m apart. These readings were stored on an external weatherproof laptop and later downloaded for processing and interpretation. The system was linked to a Leica GS18T Real Time Kinetic (RTK) differential Global Positioning System (dGPS) outputting in NMEA mode to ensure a high positional accuracy for each data point. MLGrad601 and MultiGrad601 (Geomar Software Inc.) software was used to collect and export the data. Anomaly GeoSurvey v1.12.5 software was used to process and present the data. Although no anomalies of definite archaeological potential have been identified by the survey, two small areas of possible archaeological activity have been recorded by the survey. Both clusters of anomalies comprise small apparently isolated enclosures. Neither feature was previously known. Additionally, a number of anomalies have been recorded that could not be interpreted with any degree of confidence and have therefore been categorised as of uncertain origin. Whilst an archaeological origin for each cannot be discounted non-archaeological causes are considered most likely. Other anomalies are interpreted variously as of geological and modern (agricultural) origin, with the exception of those caused by ferrous/magnetic disturbance. On this basis, the overall archaeological potential of the site is assessed as low, except in and around the two areas of possible archaeological activity. In these areas the archaeological potential is assessed as moderate.
Richard McGregor Edwards (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: