Magnetometry Survey The survey produced good results throughout, and confirmed the presence of one anomaly that have been interpreted as being archaeological in origin, and several others that have been interpreted as being possibly archaeological in origin. A positive, circular anomaly has been noted in the southwest corner of the site, which has been interpreted as a probable ring-ditch feature. This type of feature is typically Iron-Age in origin. A further semi-circular trend has been noted along the eastern boundary. However, while it is possible this represents a second ring-ditch feature, it is a much weaker response and could equally be the result of recent agricultural activity. Along the southern boundary of the site, a sub-rectilinear anomaly has been interpreted as part of a possible enclosure of possible archaeological provenance. Due to its weaker magnetic response, however, it is also possible it arises from an agricultural activity. Two, perpendicular anomalies have been identified as possible former unmapped field boundaries, in the southeastern portion of the Site, which likely indicates previous of periods of land division within the Site. A former, unrecorded boundary is also noted in the northwestern portion of the Site and is likely a continuation of boundaries still presents along the northern extent. Several discrete anomalies are noted to the east of the Site which may indicate two different pit alignments. However, it also plausible they represent postholes, though a date of origin cannot be determined. A large area of sinuous, amorphous responses corresponds to superficial glaciofluvial geological deposits mapped as part of the British Geological Survey. Further sporadic variation in the geological deposits is also noted across the survey areas
Dylan Dormer-Johnson (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: