Geophysical Survey at Gonwin Farm, St Ives, Cornwall

The archaeological assessment follows the guidance outlined in: Conservation Principles: policies and guidance for the sustainable management of the historic environment (English Heritage 2008), The Setting of Heritage Assets (Historic England 2015), Seeing History in the View (English Heritage 2011), Managing Change in the Historic Environment: Setting (Historic Scotland 2010), and with reference to Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 3rd Edition (Landscape Institute 2013). The impact assessment also follows the guidance outlined in the Principles of Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in the UK produced by CIfA, IHBC and IEMA in July 2021. The geophysical (gradiometer) survey was undertaken in accordance with current best practice and CIfA guidance; and follows the guidance outlined in Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (English Heritage 2008b); Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (CIfA 2014b); EAC Guidelines for the use of geophysics in Archaeology: Questions to Ask and Points to Consider (Europae Archaeologiae Consilium/European Archaeological Council 2016). 'Archaeological geophysical survey uses non-intrusive and non-destructive techniques to determine the presence or absence of anomalies likely to be caused by archaeological features, structures or deposits, as far as reasonably possible, within a specified area or site on land, in the inter-tidal zone or underwater. Geophysical survey determines the presence of anomalies of archaeological potential through measurement of one or more physical properties of the subsurface.' (Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey 2014). The results of the survey will as far as possible inform on the presence or absence, character, extent and in some cases, apparent relative phasing of buried archaeology to inform a strategy to mitigate any threat to the archaeological resource. The geophysical survey identified 50 groups of anomalies comprising c.385 anomalies. These were a mix of linear ditch and/or bank features associated with phases of the existing and historic field-system, phases of possible prehistoric enclosure and settlement and modern service features. Possible pits and/or tree-throws, agricultural activity and anomalies associated with metallic debris and ground disturbance were also apparent. The results of the geophysical survey would suggest that the archaeological potential for the site is moderate to low: many of the identified features are likely to relate to historic phases of field-system, some dating to the 20th century, others pre-dating the mid-19th century and tentatively suggested as being medieval and post-medieval in date. Other features, however, may still pre-date these and may be prehistoric in origin, associated with areas of prehistoric settlement and funerary activity present in the immediately surrounding landscape. Any development of the site is likely to encounter and destroy the buried archaeological resource (should it be present), and further mitigation through, in the first instance, targeted evaluation trenching would validate and clarify the results of the geophysical survey.