Tag Archives: GPR

“The way I see it, if you want the rainbow, you gotta put up with the rain.”

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

As I start this entry of the blog, the rain is splashing against my windows as was predicted by the Met Office. Although we might question Dolly Parton’s grammar, the sentiment seems true enough.  Yesterday, however, was a superb day with all three techniques collecting data across the site.

After yesterday’s excellent results, the GPR crew had great expectations.  The only problem was a tree in the way under which the shepherdess had put hay when the grass in the field was dead from lack of rain.  Unfortunately, sheep mean sheep droppings (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1: Mike on sheep poo removal duty.

Figure 2: Check out those wheels!

Luckily for everyone concerned, I think the effort was worth it (see Figure 3)!

Figure 3: GPR time slices from Day 18.

I could misquote Dolly along the lines of putting-up with sheep poo if you want excellent GPR results but I might be pushing my luck…  The many buildings are quite obvious in this data set.

Figure 4 shows this grid in context of the other GPR grids in this area.

Figure 4: GPR results including the day 18 data (SW corner).

We have added a very large number of new buildings to the map of Verulamium.  As I was only just starting with GPR data when we started collecting it in 2015, the processing keeps changing a bit from block to block. One of my jobs is to start from scratch and reprocess the whole thing so that the maps are consistent.  Should keep me busy for a while.  Figure 5 is a crude mosaic of images just showing the entire area surveyed so far.

Figure 5: crude mosaic of GPR time slices at the end of the 2018 season.

This represents 19ha of GPR data collected at 0.5m transect intervals.  Just pushing the machine along the lines, not including getting to the block, setting-up, moving strings etc. is 380km.  It also means 380km of radargrams!  No wonder the data takes-up 33gb of my hard disk and consists of over 70,000 files.

The mag team completed nine 40x40m grid squares which is 1.44 hectares.  Excellent progress!

Figure 6: the mag team in the southern field.

Figure 7 shows the whole of the 2018 survey (along with a big chunk of Verulamium).

Figure 7: the mag survey after day 18.

Even though we have been using the machine for some years now, and it does have its frustrations, when all is going well we can really cover some ground.  The season was planned for 20 days: we lost 3 days to rain, and most of a day to testing the mag at the start.  Despite this, the team have managed to collect 17.7 hectares of mag data.  Without actually getting to the grids and back (which is quite a bit of walking in itself), the team have pushed the cart 88.5km over the past four weeks.

Figure 8 shows the southern area in more detail.

Figure 8: the southern area of mag data after day 18.

The blue arrows in Figure 8 indicate the lines of old field boundaries.  These can be seen on old maps such as the 1699 parish map.  The yellow arrows mark ferrous objects.  Some are very big, but there are a scatter of smaller ones too.  Last, but definitely not least, there are a few magnetic features which may be archaeological, such as pits.  I have picked a few out with red arrows.  Although they look small at this scale, they are probably 1m to 2m across, a quite respectable size for a pit.

Although large mainly  blank areas are disappointing to collect, they are important nonetheless. The immediate environs of Verulamium are extremely rich, archaeologically. The field lies:

  • 360m W of the busy area of buildings recorded by the GPR discussed above;
  • 600m NE of the major Iron Age settlement at Prae Wood;
  • 600m N of the fields at Windridge Farm where metal detecting rallies have taken place;
  • 500m NW of the major cemetery at King Harry Lane;
  • 1,100m SE of Gorhambury Roman villa;
  • 1,000m NE of the new villa found at Windridge Farm.

Also, the Fosse, which is preserved in the woodland along the NE edge of the field, is a really very impressive earthwork.   We just seem to have hit an empty bit of landscape between all these sites!

The res survey now covers some 6.58ha, that is about 263,200 earth resistance readings.  Not into the millions like the mag and GPR, but this is res after all!  Figure 9 shows the entire survey.

Figure 10: the entire Earth Resistance survey after day 18.

At this scale the roads show very nicely as do some of the more substantial buildings.  Figure 11 is the area surveyed in 2018.

Figure 11: Res survey after day 18.

Given that the fields were baked hard and the grass was dead at the start of the season, I am pleased we managed any Earth Resistance survey at all this season.  The team yesterday put-up with my geophysics OCD and completed right into the corner by the theatre. We then doubled-back and started filling-in between the top of the survey block and the drive.  We have picked-up some parts of buildings seen in grids to the south, but in general along the edge the deep colluvium, as shown by the sunken nature of the drive, is to some extent masking the archaeology.

Many thanks to everyone on the team who made the 2018 season such a success.  A especially big thanks to those who helped move the equipment about including Ellen, Mike, Jim and Ruth.

For those who haven’t been involved but would like to join future surveys, do get in touch.  We are a friendly group, and provide on-the-job training.

And finally… (as they used to say on the news)

 

Advertisements

The end is nigh?

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

In this case, two ends: we have just started the final week of the 2018 survey season and the mag team are within two partials of completing as much as we can of Mobbs Hole and moving into the field to the south.  First to the mag.

After the annoying plethora of frozen sensors, the mag team spent a good proportion of their day re-doing duff squares.  It was worth it, however, as today’s data looks fine (Figure 1).

Figure 1: the mag survey in Mobbs Hole at the end of Day 15.

Although we can be pleased with the area we have covered, surprisingly little apart from the Fosse itself and related features show.  We must keep in mind, as Isobel Thompson reminded me this morning, that “even such negative evidence is information”.  Negative information may be important, but at the end of a long day’s survey some tasty looking buildings would be nice.  Figure 2 shows one possibility, although we may be grasping at straws!

Figure 2: a possible building in Mobbs Hole?

The Earth Resistance survey takes fourth place in priority after surveying in pegs, mag and GPR.  Anne and I did, however, manage to extend the main block of res data by another three grids.  Figure 3 shows the results.

Figure 3: the Earth Resistance survey after day 15.

As you can see, we have picked-up some more of the building to the east, but also part of Street 25 running SW–NE.  There is quite a break in the line of the street which is curious.  Figure 4 shows the GPR data in this area.

Figure 4: the GPR data in the area of the res survey. The red box marks the outline of the 2018 survey after day 15.

It is useful to note that some parts of the buildings show more clearly in the res data, and some in the GPR thus making the extra effort of doing res as well worth while.  The GPR data also shows a break in the road.  Figure 5 shows the mag data.

Figure 5: the mag data. The red box shows the 2018 res survey area after day 15, and the blue line the course of the aqueduct.

Note how the buildings that show clearly in the res/GPR barely show in the mag data, but how the “burnt building” (assuming my interpretation is correct) only shows in the mag data.  Multiple techniques rule, OK?  I have roughly marked the line of the aqueduct in Figure 5.  Let’s now look at how that maps back onto the res data (Figure 6).

Figure 6: the Earth Resistance data with the line of the aqueduct indicated.

Not only does the aqueduct kink around the two buildings as we noted in an earlier post, but it goes through the break in the road.  I guess there could be a wooden bridge (which we would not detect) or maybe a culvert where the roof has collapsed or has been robbed. Fascinating stuff.

The GPR crew in their machine-like fashion completed yet another 80x40m block.  Figure 7 shows six time slices.

Figure 7: GPR survey, day 15, six time slices.

Most of the action, so to speak, is in the NE corner.  There is a particularly clear corner in the fourth time slice indicated with a red arrow (Figure 7, top-right slice).  This might be a surviving floor. There also appears to be a long linear negative feature, as shown in the fifth time slice by three red arrows.  Figures 8 and 9 show slices 4 and 5 in context with the day 14 data.

Figure 8: GPR data from days 14 and 15, slice 4.

Figure 9: GPR data from days 14 and 15, slice 5.

Three things caught my eye.  The squarish “floor” which crossed over the boundary between the two days data, the sub-circular white “blob” which also lies across the boundary, and the long linear low-reflection feature (shown in white) which runs diagonally SW–NE across the lower half. I traced the square and the blob and had a look at the mag data (Figure 10, click on it to see full-sized).

Figure 10: the mag data with the “square” and the “blob” outlined.

The white blob corresponds with a faint “blob” of higher readings in the mag data.  On its own, I would have been tempted to ignore this, but it does look like a feature about 6m across.  The square is harder to assess.  There are magnetic features parallel to it and close by.  We are probably looking at parts of a building.  I had a quick look at the radargrams and the square high-reflectance feature in the GPR data looks like a solid layer, probably a floor.  I also noticed the long linear ditch-like feature running across the mag data, so I traced that and went back to the GPR data (Figure 11).

Figure 11: GPR data with the linear feature seen in the mag data highlighted.

The linear feature in the mag data fits the linear feature in the GPR data perfectly.  Lovely result.

It was a busy day surveying today, and so I didn’t have time to goof off and take photos of people or the views.  Maybe tomorrow!

Thanks to everyone who helped today.

 

 

One hundred and fifty

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

We managed a full day today, and I’m just about keeping up! The mag team completed two grids yesterday, half of one in the aforementioned deluge. Today they completed 11 grids: three partials and eight complete ones. Way to go! Well done everyone. Figure 1 shows the survey so far.

Figure 1: the mag survey after day 9.

One really does wonder if that break in the mag data is an entrance.  It doesn’t seem like it on the ground.  I have downloaded the LiDAR data but haven’t had a chance to process it yet.

The GPR crew finished their 80x40m block, and then did some of the next “sawtooth” section, another 14m worth.  Figure 2 shows the time slices.

Figure 2: day 9, time slices 3 to 6.

Nothing jumps out at one, although there are some curious “light” lines in the fourth slice (top-right) which are parallel to the aqueduct.  Figure 3 shows that slice in context.

Figure 3: GPR survey after day 9, slice 4.

After all the rain I thought it would be worth trying the Earth Resistance survey (Fig. 4).  I spent the morning laying in grids for the mag, but managed some survey in the afternoon.

Figure 4: Earth Resistance survey in action.

Although the rain has softened the surface, it won’t have penetrated 50cm yet, and I was concerned that there would be no contrast at that depth.  I decided to survey a grid where we knew there was a building.  Fig. 5 shows the comparison between the GPR survey and the two squares of res I managed to complete (thanks Anne!).

Figure 5: Earth resistance survey compared to GPR results.

Given the drought, the results are pretty good.  It would be interesting to compare these to results from a normal English summer!

Tomorrow isn’t looking great.  We might get some work done in the morning.  Fingers crossed.

Many thanks to everyone who helped out today.  Especially big thanks to Mike, Ellen, Jim and Ruth who take on the responsibility of shipping the equipment back and forth.

By the way, this is the 150th blog post…

A light wind swept over the corn, and all nature laughed in the sunshine.

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

Not much sign of corn, but the wind was blowing over the parched grass.  It was a welcome relief to be working in cooler conditions, although the weather was still beautiful.

Figure 1: St Albans Abbey.

The mag team completed an excellent eight grids in Mobbs Hole (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: the mag survey after day 6.

As before I have overlain the survey on the 2006 imagery in Google Earth which shows the Fosse most clearly.  The hints of a line along the inner edge.  Maybe this is the remains of a palisade trench?  Disappointingly little otherwise.  One thing to note is that the “noise” from random ferrous trash is more prevalent to the south of the old fence line than to the north.  I wonder if the NW corner of this field was pasture previously?

The GPR crew completed their two grids.  Figure 3 shows some time slices.

Figure 3: Day 6 GPR results.

Not a great deal showing apart from in slice 4 (in the top-right corner of Figure 3) which clearly shows the aqueduct.  This is about as clear as I have ever seen it in GPR data.  Awkwardly, the direction of the transects is close to the direction of the aqueduct.  Figure 4 shows the slice in context with the others we have surveyed this year.

Figure 4: GPR day 6, slice 4.

The edges do not match because I keep playing with the settings in the software.  One day, I’ll slowly process the whole lot so that we get a nice final result.  One day (more like several months…).

Barney and Becca came and helped with the GPR in the morning.  After lunch, we blew the dust off our Bartington and did a couple of squares.  I rather liked this image of Barney.

Figure 5: Barney and a Bartington.

The survey moves on and we cover more ground.  Many thanks to everyone who comes and helps expand the area we have covered.  Luckily, most of the area you can see in the last inage has already been done!

Figure 6: Ellen and Mike operate the GPR.

 

Sawtooth Saturday and other tales

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

The lack of posts doesn’t mean we haven’t been out working…

Enough of that!  The lack of posts is simply that we had a friend staying and a BBQ and beer won over working on the blog.  Sorry…  Well, not very sorry.

The mag team have been working southwards across the “Fosse field”, the proper name for which is Mobbs Hole.  The area we have covered in around Verulamium is getting pretty large (Fig. 1)!

Figure 1: total area surveyed to date.

The survey has now started to clip the edge of the Fosse itself. In Figure 2 I have used the 2006 imagery in which one can see the Fosse clearly as a soil mark.

Figure 2: the mag data on the 2006 imagery in Google Earth.

Progress is excellent for four and a half days of survey.  Figure 3 shows the survey in more detail.

Figure 3: the mag data after day 5.

The edges of the Fosse can be seen in the mag data, mainly as a lighter line.  This is because the topsoil will be thinner over the lip of the ditch as soil has eroded down into the fill.  There is a line of large dark “blobs” along the lip of the Fosse.  Although these might be something interesting, I suspect they are tree-throws (i.e., the hole made by a tree being blown over).

The field system which shows in the upper half of the survey is interesting.  Jon Mein has kindly shown me the 1799 map of the parish and these boundaries do not match those mapped then.  There is a line of woodland following the line of the Fosse a little to the south of the area we have reached.  The track which runs along the northern edge of Mobbs Hole was a much more important road at that date.

Wheeler thought that the Fosse represented the “first Roman city” at Verulamium and cut several sections across it (Figures 4, 5 and 6).

Figure 4: Wheeler and Wheeler 1936, plate 109, detail showing the location of the sections excavated by the Wheelers.

Figure 5: Wheeler and Wheeler 1936, plate 18. Sections across the Fosse.

Figure 6: Wheeler and Wheeler 1936, plate 78. Sections across the Fosse.

We now know that the early Roman town was based down towards the forum where the Museum now is.  The Fosse, however, does appear from Wheeler’s finds to be first century.  But what was it for?  Hopefully, the geophysics within the line of the Fosse may give us a clue.

One aspect of the landscape I had not appreciated was that the dry valley which the aqueduct has to dog-leg across as shown in our survey (the V-shaped long linear feature within the town walls shown in Figure 2), becomes quite a major feature to the west of the walls.  The northern arm of the Fosse lies on the crest between the dry valley and the valley of the Ver, and then when it turns to form the southern arm it has to cross that valley.  Figures 7 and 8 compares the plate published by the Wheelers showing the view from the crest to a panorama I took the other day.  The hedge line shown in the Wheelers’ plate is no longer there.

Figure 7: view southward across the Fosse as published by the Wheelers in 1936.

Figure 8: Panorama of Mobbs Hole (click to see full sized).

Back inside the town walls the GPR crew completed an awkward couple of blocks on “sawtooth” Saturday and another 80 x 40m block on Sunday.  Figures 9 and 10 show some of the time slices.

Figure 9: the GPR from day 4.

Figure 10: GPR time slices from day 5.

On neither day do we have some of the beautifully clear buildings we have seen previously.  There does seem to be a small square structure showing on day 5: the NW edges showing in slice 8 (the sixth image in Figure 10) and the bottom edge in slice 10.  Figures 11 and 12 show slices 5 and 6 from days 2 to 5 in Google Earth.

Figure 11: GPR days 2 to 5, slice 5.

Figure 12: GPR days 2 to 5, slice 6.

Although we have not got lovely clear buildings, the “blobby” bits do have a generally SW — NE orientation which matches the town grid.  It is, however, very difficult to interpret.  Looking carefully, however, there is more than immediately catches the eye.  Lets look at the day 5 data more closely.

Figure 13: GPR day 5, slice 6.

It all seems rather dull.  Now plot that on top of the mag data.  Look at the point the red arrow is indicating in Figure 14.  Figure 15 just shows the mag data.

Figure 14: Day 5 GPR overlain on the mag data.

Figure 15: the mag data from the same area as Figure 14.

The feature which shows quite clearly in the mag data does show quite faintly in the GPR.  The moral: lovely clear buildings are wonderful, but sometimes there is more there than you think.

We have been enjoying our two days off, and will be back at it on Wednesday.  The forecast is for it to be a bit cooler.  Luckily, our guard dog has been keeping a close eye on the flags…

Figure 16: Guard Dog.

Many thanks to everyone involved.  The heat has made it quite hard work, but the survey looks ever more amazing with each new grid square!

 

Gorhambury, year 4 day 1

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

It really does not seem like the fourth year we have returned to Gorhambury, and the sixth year of the project, but it is true.  In our first year at Gorhambury we had GPR for the first time and mag, but the res would not work.  In the second season we had all three, although we had some problems with the res and dry weather.  Last year we had nothing for the mag to do, but the res was working well.  This year the drought has made doing res impossible.  Oh well, life would be boring if everything went to plan!

The mag survey is expanding into the field through which the Fosse runs.  Figure 1 shows the location of our first two grids.

Figure 1: the location of the first mag grids of 2018.

They are looking a bit lonely up in the that top corner, but it won’t take long for them to start fitting into the wider pattern.  Figure 2 shows the grids closer up!

Figure 2: day 1 mag results.

Nothing too stunning in our first two grid squares.  Quite a few bright black-and-white spots which are tractor bolts or horseshoes.  The eastern grid, however, does have two quite faint parallel lines which turn a right angle.  My first though was agricultural marks but they do not lie at angle which would make sense in comparison to the field boundaries.  It will be helpful to see the wider pattern when we have surveyed some more.

The big success with the mag is that it is fixed!  We took the morning to do a test grid square and process it to make sure that it all worked OK.  Many thanks to Pat for bringing the mag down from Tamworth and helping survey the test square.

At the end of last year we had an annoying two grid square gap in the side of the GPR survey.  We decided to fill this in first.  In Figure 3 I have outlined the block we surveyed today in red.

Figure 3: GPR grid location for day 1.

As GPR data is three-dimensional, getting the grids to match is quite a challenge.  At the moment, I have just been processing each block individually and crudely adding them together in Google Earth.  One day I’ll have to do it properly!

Figure 4 shows eight of the amplitude slices from today’s survey.

Figure 4: day 1 time slices.

The slice in the top-left corner shows the first hints of archaeology under the ploughsoil.  In the second slide walls and a road are starting to show quite clearly. Note how some of the building walls show more clearly at a deeper depth than the road, especially the small square one which is on its own.

In Figure 5 I have just taken one time slice, a5 (third one on the top row) and put it in context in Google Earth.

Figure 5: day 1 GPR results.

I have labelled some of the main features.  One pleasing thing is that the building on the eastern edge of the block we surveyed today matches perfectly with the block we surveyed last year.  Yay for differential GPS!  One interesting thing is that there seems to be a wall cutting across the line of the “1955 ditch”, the first century boundary of the city.  We do have structures built over the line of the ditch in the southern part of the town, and Frere thought the boundary went out of use in the early second century, around about AD 125.

Hopefully we will be able to greatly expand the mag survey tomorrow, and we are going to start filling in the GPR survey in the northern part of the theatre field.

Many thanks to everyone who turned out today in the hot weather.

Day 54

Anyone new to this blog or geophysics in archaeology is recommended to read the material on the “Geophysical survey in archaeology” page.

Yesterday was the last day of the 2017 season at Gorhambury. Apologies for the slight delay in posting… we went down the pub for supper!  We have completed 54 days of survey at Gorhambury over the three seasons.  As well as the 35.7ha of magnetometry we completed last season, we have now completed 14ha of GPR survey.  Just pushing the machine along the strings is about 280km.  We didn’t manage any usable Earth Resistance survey in 2015, but we have done quite a bit in 2016 and 2017.  Last year we had terrible problems with the very hard and dry soil.  As a result, many grid squares have been done twice.  We have, however, completed a 5.6ha survey at 0.5m intervals.  That is 224,000 resistance readings, or sticking the machine into the soil 112,000 times.  That doesn’t include three days with the beast which is a further 9,600 survey points resulting in 67,200 readings.  Here is the story in pictures.

Fig. 1: crude mosaic of GPR time slices showing the extent of the survey so far.

Fig. 2: the 2016 and 2017 Earth Resistance surveys at Gorhambury.

Figure 1 shows a (very crude) mosaic of time slices for Gorhambury just to show the entire extent of the survey.  There is going be a great deal of work reprocessing these to get the best out of them and to get the various blocks to match.  I also need a faster computer.  I tried out the kriging option last night and it took several hours to process the data, but the images were no doubt sharper.

Figure 2 shows the 2016 and 2017 Earth Resistance surveys.  At the moment the two seasons are just images put together in Google Earth.  I need to see if I can join the two into one big survey and get the edges to match properly.  I also need to see if I can get rid of the line caused by the deluge this season.

Firstly, let us look at the Earth Resistance survey results.  On the last day we redid four squares from last year, and then completed five awkward partials around the corner of the enclosure for the theatre.  Why did we redo those four?  Figure 3 shows last year’s survey with the block marked.  The hot dry conditions gave very noisy and unsatisfactory results.  I thought it was worth a morning’s effort to get those re-done.

Fig. 3: the 2016 resistance survey showing the duff grids.

Now the improved grids.  Note that the slight difference between the two surveys is due to minor differences in how I processed the data.  I will produce a more standardised plot.

Fig. 4: detail of the area surveyed at the end of the 2017 season.

Fig. 5: the Earth Resistance survey with the blocks from 2017 high-pass filtered.

There are some interesting things happening at the north-eastern corner of the plots, and into the area to the north we haven’t surveyed.  My guess is that the stratigraphy is probably deep and complex in this area.  Let us compare this area to the magnetic data (Fig. 6) and the GPR data (Fig. 7).

 

Fig 6: the magnetic survey with the area of the Earth Resistance survey from days 17 and 18 indicated by the cyan outline.

Fig. 7: the GPR survey with the 2017 Earth Resistance survey area indicated in red.

Fig. 8: the GPR survey with the res data overlain on it.

From all three data sets we can see that there is a lot going on in that bit of the field near the drive and the theatre, but it also appears there has been a good deal of robbing to add confusion to the picture.

How about the GPR team?  A month of nice weather with a bit of rain has made the grass green and lush.  Lovely for sheep, but a pain to push the GPR through.  They completed two 40x40m grids on a hot humid day, excellent progress in the conditions.

Firstly, here are a set of time slices (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9: GPR time slices from the area surveyed on Day 18.

The vast majority of the area surveyed appears to be empty.  There are hints of earlier agricultural practice but not much else apart from the top edge where part of a building can be seen.  This connects to the area surveyed earlier in the season.  I reprocessed the earlier version of that block today using kriging to give a sharper image.  Here are the slices together (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10: the GPR survey from day 18, along with a re-processed block from day 12.

We clearly have a nice L-shaped building.  I suspect this is Insula XXX, Building 4, Niblett and Thompson Monument No. 461 which is known from aerial photographs from 1976.  They only have part of the plan, however, and ours looks quite different (hence my doubts).  The mag data shown in Fig. 11 shows some slighter, more ephemeral buildings to the SW along the line of the SW-NE street 25 which can be seen very easily.

Fig. 11: the mag data in the area of the GPR survey.

The SSW–NNE running street 25 which runs along the NW side of the building we have been discussing, shows very clearly indeed but street 10, which is supposed to have run WNW–ESE just to the south of our new building and the “House on the Hill”, does not show at all in either the mag or the GPR data.  It was observed in excavations by Frere near the modern road, but not this far west.  In terms of the town plan, we seem to have two lines of buildings running SW-NE, one along Street 25, and another along street 23, but a large open area with nothing very much it in apart from a few quite large pits.  One can almost see some alignments in those pits.  Are we seeing backyard areas divided into blocks?

Although our season at Gorhambury has come to an end, we will be undertaking surveys elsewhere, and probably in Verulamium Park once more.  I started this posting with some numbers, so I thought I would end with some as well.  This is the 131st posting on the blog.  Those postings take-up 583mgb of our 3gb free allowance and include 693 images.  There have been 68 comments, but we have been protected from 9,402 pieces of spam!  The blog has been viewed 32,150 times by 11,016 separate visitors (in practice, this means that number of IP addresses).  Our best month was the first season at Gorhambury in 2015.  This August has been down on the previous two (2015: 1.8k, 2016: 1.7k and 2017: 1.4k) but the average number of visitors per day has gone-up over the year and we are likely to reach 9,000+ views by year’s end.

I would like to thank everyone who helped this season once more, both with pushing machines, moving strings, laying-tapes and moving equipment.  You are all stars in my eyes, and I think we have created a stunning survey.  We all got a bit tired towards the end, especially in the rather hot and humid conditions over the couple of days, including CAGGs loyal follower, Fergus (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12: Fergus sleeps off a busy day on site.

If anyone is interested in joining in with some of CAGG’s activities, drop us an email.  We are a friendly bunch, and on-the-job training is given.