All survey work was completed to appropriate standards, as outlined by existing guidance (CIfA 2020a; 2020b, 2022; Schmidt et al. 2015). The gradiometer survey was completed using Sensys FMG650/3 dual magnetic gradiometer systems with a data logger. Readings were recorded at a resolution of 0.01 nT and data collected with a traverse interval of 1m and a sample interval of 0.20 - 0.25 m. Data was collected by traversing the survey area in 5m (Sensys FMG650/3) increments employing a cart system to achieve the best possible results. Real Time Kinematic (RTK) differential GPS equipment was used to accurately determine the position of the survey equipment and monitor data. The processing was undertaken using TerraSurveyor64 software and consisted of standard processing procedures. Illustrations were created using QGIS software. Interpretation of identified anomalies was achieved through analysis of anomaly patterning and increases in magnetic response and was aided by examining the available supporting information. The interpretations follow Ecus colour coding and categorisations of anomalies and attempt, where possible, to suggest the nature of buried features. The geophysical survey highlighted several anomalies (1-9) that have been interpreted as being archaeological in origin. These features are particularly prominent in Field 6, where multiple interconnecting rectilinear anomalies represent the remains of a sizeable historic field system, of unknown but likely medieval or post-medieval date. A number of other linear features located within the same field, as well as Fields 1 and 9, have been interpreted as trackways, boundaries and enclosures associated with the same historic farming landscape. Feature 2, located in Field 3, has additionally been interpreted as an isolated historic boundary. A number of other anomalies interpreted as being of potential archaeological origin were located across the site. In Fields 1 and 6 the majority of these features have been interpreted as potential further historic agricultural features, namely due to their association with likely archaeological features and known former field boundaries. Other linear anomalies located in Fields 2, 3, 5 and 8 have additionally been marked out as being of similar provenance. Two circular anomalies located in the west of Field 6, may represent small ring gully features indicative of the presence of prehistoric or Romano-British roundhouses, but equally may represent further, later agricultural features. Numerous small, positive circular anomalies located throughout Field 6 have been highlighted as potential pits. Numerous anomalies corresponding to the location of former field boundaries visible on historic Ordnance Survey mapping of the Site have been highlighted. The majority of these boundaries were removed during the latter 20th century. A number of anomalies labelled as uncertain trends were located in Fields 3, 6, and 9. These anomalies may represent archaeology; however their weak and diffuse nature precludes any positive identification and they may alternatively represent natural features. Evidence of ridge and furrow cultivation is present in Fields 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 and largely adheres to the historic pattern of land use. The remaining anomalies are believed to be geological, agricultural or modern in origin. Geological disturbance of unknown provenance is present in Fields 5, 6 and 9. Modern agricultural influence in the form of agricultural trends and field drains are present throughout the Site. Modern services traverse Fields 1, 6, 8 and 9, while the presence of further modern ferrous material is visible in the form of ferrous spikes and ferrous disturbance, the former associated with smaller ferrous objects and the latter with larger metal objects such as fencing, which has affected the northwestern edge of Field 1, but not enough to compromise the results of the survey.
Yates et al. (Mon,) studied this question.