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 2008); Standard and Guidance for Archaeological Geophysical Survey (2020); 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 2020). 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 better understand the heritage assets on the site within their immediate context and potentially inform a strategy to mitigate any threat to the archaeological resource. The geophysical survey identified fifteen groups of anomalies comprising of c.103 anomalies. These are indicative of: earlier and relict aspects of the extant probable Medieval and later field system; a handful of ditches associated with a possible earlier field system; and a number of possible discrete anomalies and a small number of tentative curvi- and recti-linear anomalies that could be associated with prehistoric activity. This could be a continuation of prehistoric activity identified to the south-east of the site and includes a possible enclosure and possible pit in the south-east field of the site that were identified in a previous geophysical survey in 2009. Areas of ploughing, including possible ridge and furrow and lines associated with possible orchards are also evident in the geophysical survey dataset. Given the presence of prehistoric features identified during earlier fieldwork to the south-east of the site, the location itself, and the results of this geophysical survey, the south-east (field A1) of the site must be considered to have a moderate to high archaeological potential; while the rest of the site has a moderate to low archaeological potential.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
J Bampton
N Boyd
Department of Archaeology
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Bampton et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69e31f7340886becb653ec0e — DOI: https://doi.org/10.5284/1140726