Tag Archives: Ground Penetrating Radar

Hogshaw Redux

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

Archaeologists often have skeletons in their cupboards. Sometimes they are real skeletons. Sometimes, as here, they are unfinished jobs that they haven’t quite got around to completing.  There are a few surveys we have undertaken that never quite got finished, and for which there are no blog posts (shock! horror!). Way back when we got together with the Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society’s Active Archaeology Group and CVAHS to undertake some surveys at Hogshaw in Buckinghamshire.  The AAG had undertaken an interesting research project on this site including topographic survey.  We managed some mag (even though the mag was down to three probes) and some Earth Resistance survey (using our old system).  The results were posted at the time.

The following year, in 2016, we returned and expanded the mag survey and undertook some Ground Penetrating Radar survey.  We had only just started using GPR and I was still learning how to process the data.  The following year, Mike and I returned with the GPR to survey another two areas.  Due to problems with that data (we were distracted by lunch), that I couldn’t solve at the time, the results were put on the back burner.  Fast forward two years and I am now a little more confident and have a better handle on the software.  Having finished processing the awkward survey at Bovenay, I thought I would have a go at re-processing the Hogshaw data.  As you might guess from the fact you are reading this post, I had some luck and so, two years late, here are the results! (See the older post for the previous results and the background to the site.)

The magnetometry survey was mainly aimed at finishing the awkward bits around the edges, and an area to the south where the landowner kindly took down his fence so we could survey across it.  The results are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: the magnetometry data after the 2016 survey.

At first sight the magnetic survey is rather busy and hard to interpret.  This is not unusual in historic period sites where iron artefacts and fired bricks are relatively common.  I have labelled the plot with some basic interpretative points (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: magnetic data interpretation.

The fence line is where the farmer kindly removed the fence so we could survey.  It is fascinating to see that even when the fence has gone, we still detect the line of it.  Iron rust etc. washes down and permeates the soil, I guess.  The platform is a large flat area in the NW corner of the site.  We do not know what it is for, and the mag does not help a great deal (neither did the Earth Resistance last time).

Perhaps the most interesting feature that we detected last time is the four squares inside a square.  This was quite a surprise.  It looks very much like a formal garden.  If it is a garden, there appears to be a line heading out westwards to an area of magnetic noise.  I rather ignored that last time, but now I wonder if that is where the remains of the manor house were?  It was abandoned in the 18th century.

There are two lines of very noisy magnetic readings, one along the current road and one along the northern edge.  I’d like to see how these relate to the topographic features.  I think they line-up with the banks, and could be lines of brick rubble.  Unfortunately, the LiDAR data for this area does not cover the site, ending just under half a mile to the north (Fig. 3).  Typical!

Figure 3: the LiDAR data overlain on a Google Earth satellite image.

Three blocks of radar data were collected.  We used SEAHA’s Mala GPR, and we thank them for the loan.  The location of the three blocks are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Location of GPR blocks.

The southern block was surveyed in 2016 because an excavation had found a couple of stone walls in this area, and it was suggested this might be the location of the lost chapel. Figure 5 shows the top nine time slices (note that north is downwards in these images).

Figure 5: time slices from the southern block.

The first time slice shows the road nicely.  Also helps build confidence when the method detects the absolutely obvious! By about the fourth slice (second row, leftmost image) the road is largely gone but there are two parallel lines running north south.  Could these be our missing walls?  Perhaps, but I suspect they are compacted earth either side of the fence which the farmer took down for us.  The area of high amplitude reflections in the bottom-right corner (north-west) is the area of wet mud around the various temporary structures that were moved.  All in all, a rather disappointing result.

The platform block was an attempt to see if we could work out the function of the platform in the NW corner of the site.  Figure 6 shows nine time slices.

Figure 6: time slices from the platform block.

Again, note north!  There is a vague hint of something in slice 7 (third row, first image) that might be rectangular, but it is quite low down in the sequence, and a bit amorphous.  Looking at the radargrams (the original vertical slices), I cannot see anything particularly wall-like.  I suspect that what little radar energy has been reflected has been greatly emphasised in these plots creating the illusion of something.  Figure 7 shows slice 7 in context.

Figure 7: platform block, slice 7, in context.

Last, but not least, is the “garden” block (Fig. 8).

Figure 8: six GPR time slices over the “garden” block.

In slice 1 (top left), the results just reflect the uneven surface. In slice 2 we can start to see something, but it is in slices 3 and 4 that we can see the “garden” feature quite clearly.  The whole feature is about 36m across with the internal square about 12m by 12m.  To the south there appears another strong linear reflection.  Maybe a road to the house?

Figure 9 shows slice 3 in context.  I’m glad to say that the mag and GPR data match very closely.  The edging around the features must be something both magnetic and that reflects radar data.  Brick is one possibility, and some form of igneous rock is another.

Figure 9: the “garden” block, slice 6 in context.

One might ask why I am so keen on it being a garden feature.  Looking at another much grander garden, we can see many similar features (Fig. 10).  The part I have outlined in red is approximately the same size as ours.  The inner squares of that garden at Hatfield are 11m across, the enclosing hedge 28m by 42m, the outer edges 37m by 57m.  As always, the only real way to tell is to dig a hole…

Figure 10: the gardens at Hatfield House.

Many thanks to everyone who helped on the four days of survey, especially to the very helpful landowner.  Also many thanks to Anne Rowe for commenting on the “garden” feature and sending me some very useful information. Hogshaw still has some secrets to give up!

Advertisements

St Mary Magdelene, Bovenay

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

The small chapel of St Mary Magdalene lies in the south of Buckinghamshire, not far from Windsor and Eton.  Now only used for occasional services, it is looked after by the Friends of Friendless Churches.  It is a lovely little chapel, and well worth a visit (Fig. 1).

Figure 1: the chapel of St Mary Magdelene.

We were contacted via the Buckinghamshire Archaeological Society’s Active Archaeology Group to see if we would undertake a geophysical survey around the chapel.  The question was deceptively simple: are there graves around the church?  The reason for the question is partly because, usually, ‘chapels of ease’ were not used for burial, and partly because the nearness of the water table makes digging deep holes problematic.  Although the site is a long way out of our usual area, we agreed to try and see what we could find.

Three things make the job difficult:

  1. burials are notoriously  difficult to detect at the best of times.  They aren’t very big, and usually the same soil that came out of the hole goes back in again pretty quickly.  There is, therefore, relatively little contrast between the grave fill and the surrounding soil.
  2. Small areas are difficult to interpret. The whole churchyard is only 0.07ha (less than two 20x20m grid squares), and you have to subtract the footprint of the church itself and the path.
  3. GPR surveys near standing buildings suffer from airwaves.  Although the antennae are shielded, some of the radar signal will ‘leak’ and will bounce off nearby buildings etc.  Airwaves can be seen in the data as having hyperbolas with a much flatter profile than the usual point sources in the ground such as rocks or walls.

Given the very small size of the area, and the surrounding metal fence, magnetometry survey was going to be pointless.  Often, the best method for finding graves is GPR, and so that was our primary method (Fig. 2).  Due to the building, and the odd shape of the church yard, we had to do the survey in six small blocks at 25cm intervals.  Although it would have been easier to do the survey east-west, if we are trying to find graves working north-south would be more effective allowing the transects to cut across the grave rather than along it.  Lastly, we decided to try the multi-depth Earth Resistance survey, aka ‘the beast‘ (Fig. 3).

Figure 2: the GPR in action at Bovenay. Photo: © Mike Smith.

Figure 3: the ‘beast’ in action at Bovenay.

We all headed off to Bucks on a cold and slightly damp Sunday at the end of January (yes, I know this posting is late!) and we were assisted by members of the Bucks ASAAG.  Both GPR and resistance surveys were awkward due to the small space we had available.  The site is also very busy with walkers, cyclists and people enjoying their Sunday.

The idea of “the beast” is that the depth to which an Earth Resistance survey will measure is proportional to the distance between the mobile probes on the frame.  The two remote probes have to be at least 45m away!  Each time the machine is moved, it takes seven readings: one between two probes 25cm apart, one at 50cm, 75cm, 100cm, 125cm and 150cm.  Yes, that makes six.  Just for comparison, the seventh measurement is taken using a “Wenner array”.  This simply means that instead of using the two remote probes at the end of the cable, it uses the two outer probes on the frame to pass the current, and the two inner probes to take the reading.  This is an older method for laying out probes that has generally been abandoned in archaeology, although it can be useful in circumstances when having remote probes at the end of the long cable is impossible.  The results for all seven readings are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4: results from the multi-depth Earth Resistance survey. (Click for larger image.)

Figure 4 looks a little odd because the satellite that took that image was clearly passing overhead a little to the south-east.  It is, however, the best one available on Google Earth Pro.  Comparing the various surveys at different depths, there is very little difference between them.  Unsurprisingly, near the walls are areas of high resistance, possibly due to the foundations.  The path was a pain.  One problem was a number of ‘spikes’ in the data.  These were probably caused by the rabbit holes: a hole with air is going to be high resistance (in fact the current passes through the soil around the hole).  I worry slightly that processing those out may also have processed out the graves, but somehow I doubt it.  It doesn’t look like we detected any graves with this method.

The GPR survey was processed using the package GPR Slice.  Figure 5 shows all the slices from the survey.  These were processed using 2.92ns slices with a slight over-lap between them.

Figure 5: the time slices from Bovenay.

The bright red line in the first slice is the path to the north entrance of the chapel. If you look at the image on Google Earth, one can see the south entrance too as a lighter blue line (Fig. 6).  Not an Earth-shattering observation, but it is always encouraging when one can see the obvious!

Figure 6: GPR time slice 1.

What seems interesting, at first, at the strong reflections (shown in red) in the lower slices.  They are at a slight angle to the hole in the survey where the church is.  Looking at slice 11 in more detail (Fig. 7) we can see they are parallel to the wall… it is my grid that is at a slight angle. (The grid was set-up along the southern fence line.)

Figure 7: GPR time slice 11.

If we look at the radar data in 3D, we can see these strong reflections low down curving-up towards the edge of the survey (Figure 8). You can see those strong reflections intersecting with the red line in the time slice (labelled ‘air waves’).

Figure 8: 3D image of the radar data.

To understand what is happening, we need to go back to GPR basics.  What is happening when we do a survey?

  1. The transmitting antenna sends out a radar pulse.  Due to the shielding, most of this goes down into the ground, but some will leak out and bounce around like echos.
  2. The receiving antenna measures the returning radar waves.  It records two things: the strength of the signal (amplitude) and the time since the pulse was transmitted.
  3. The software plots the strength of the return signal in shades of grey.  Strong returns are plotted in black and white, and weaker returns in mid-greys. These are plotted as a single vertical band below the centre point of the antenna. The radargram one looks at on the screen are all these vertical bands added together to give the overall image.
  4. Because the longer the time between the pulse and the return, the weaker the signal will be, we apply a ‘gain curve’ to the data.  This is just a multiplication factor so that the deep returns are visible compared to the shallow ones.
  5. As we push the GPR towards a wall, some of the signal will bounce off that wall.  At first, the distance between us and the wall is relatively large, so the reflection will be plotted by the software low down the profile.  As we get closer, the time taken for the signal to bounce off the wall gets less, and so the reflection is plotted higher up the profile.  As a result, the signals bouncing off the wall will show as a gently rising curve.
  6. Radar waves travelling through the air travel at the speed of light.  Radar travelling through the soil is much slower.  As a result, curves in our data which are quite steep are the result of a reflection from something in the soil.  Very gentle curves are “air waves” and are the result of the radar bouncing off buildings, or even the underside of tree canopies.

To cut a long story short, the strong, deep reflections are airwaves caused by the radar bouncing off the walls of the chapel.  Figure 9 shows the southern radargram from Figure 8 with some of the relevant reflections indicated.

Figure 9: Radargram 7028 at 12m east with some reflections marked (see text).

In Figure 9 the airwave has been marked in red.  See how it is a gentle curve across the radargram.  A more normal hyperbola from a point source is indicated in purple.  The green line near the surface represents the compacted soil outside the south door.  Notice how there are bands of strong reflections below it.  These are like echos.  There is another, deeper, surface marked in yellow.  I’m not sure what this it, perhaps an earlier entrance path?  If we look at time slice 5, we can see this area of high reflections outside the south entrance to the chapel (Fig. 10).

Figure 10: GPR time slice 5.

Archaeologists, (me included!), dislike looking at radargrams as they find them confusing (they are).  Often one will see reports with only the time slices presented.  One thing I have learnt from Larry Conyers, however, is that it is vital to look at both the time slices and the radargrams if one wants to understand in detail what is happening.  Although in general I am not a fan of pseudo-3D representations of things (don’t get me started on the invention of the Devil, the 3D pie-chart!), the 3D plots in GPR Slice do help work out what is going on.

So the million dollar question is: have we found any graves?  The short answer is: none that I can see.  The long answer is, sadly, that that does not mean there are no graves.  Geophysics does not detect everything, as much as we would like it to.  Also, I need to spend some more time going through the radargrams and trying to see if there are graves which show in the vertical radargrams but do not show in the horizontal time slices.  Later this year I plan to spend some time with a friend in the US who does this sort of thing all the time, having a look at the data from this site and a couple of others in the hopes I have missed something vital. Watch this space!

“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)

 

A busy day

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

We had a large team today and as a result we managed ten mag grids, two and a bit GPR grids and seven earth resistance grids. Good job everybody!

First to the mag.  The team extended their survey in the field to the south of Mobbs Hole.  Figure 1 shows the overall survey and Figure 2 zooms in on this field.

Figure 1: the 2018 magnetometry survey.

Figure 2: the survey in the field to the south after day 2.

I have annotated Figure 2.  The red arrows indicate the line of the ditch of the Fosse.  It is salutary to note that a feature as big as the Fosse barely shows in the mag data.  Clearly the upper fills of the ditch are largely the same soil as the surrounding topsoil.  We can normally see pits and ditches on archaeological sites because they are filled with more organic, and thus more magnetic, soils, the result of nearby human occupation.  The green arrow shows a “blob” of higher magnetic readings. The rather diffuse edges to this feature make me suspicious that this might be a “tree throw”, i.e., where a tree has blown down.  The yellow arrow marks two strongly magnetic parallel lines.  At first I thought these might be something metallic but checking their actual values shows they vary from -10 to +29 nT.  Certainly strong, but unlikely to be metal.  The blue indicates something which is definitely metal; it has values of -1543 to +680nT!  The dark pink arrows indicate a faint line, possibly an old fence line.

The res team consisting of Deborah, Tim, Julia and Anne completed seven squares.  Figure 3 shows the whole survey from 2016–2018.

Figure 3: the earth resistance survey 2016–2018.

We have now covered 6.3ha.  For a resistance survey at 0.5m spacing between readings, that is pretty impressive.  Res has always been a poor third to mag and GPR in this survey.  We didn’t get started until a year after the other techniques when UCL purchased a new RM85, and we have had problems with weather.  Hopefully we can fill in the top corner on Saturday.

Figure 4 shows a detail of the area completed this year.

Figure 4: the northern area completed so far this season.

The street shows very clearly in Figure 4 running SW-NE, and slightly more faintly we can see the buildings either side. One problem to tackle in processing data is that very high areas, like the road, can make the more subtle stuff harder to see.  If we “clip” the image to bring-up the details of the buildings, the road area becomes one big black blob!  One way to get around this is to use a high-pass filter.  Figure 5 shows the same area with the high-pass filter applied.

Figure 5: the 2018 survey area after the application of a high-pass filter.

As you can see, the buildings show much more clearly but the road much less so.  Especially with resistance data, it is worth looking at several versions of the data processing to get the most detail from the survey.

The GPR crew finished off the grid from yesterday and did another 40x80m block.  Figures 6 and 7 are the time slices from the two days.

Figure 6: time slices from day 16 of the GPR survey.

Figure 7: time slices from day 17 of the GPR survey.

As you can easy see, we have some sweet buildings showing.  Figure 8 is a rough composite of the sites in this area.

Figure 8: composite of slices in the area of the day 16 and 17 survey blocks.

I need to do some cleaning-up of the various blocks as they were processed at different times and with different software packages, but in general you can see the mass of buildings crowding along this section of road.  Very nice!

Signing off now so we can go and start day 18.  This may be our last day as the weather forecast for Sunday is dire…

 

Seven red kites, two fire engines and a microlight

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

It was an eventful day. At lunch seven red kites descended on some tasty tit-bit not far from where we were sitting, and in the afternoon two fire engines drove up the drive and we were “buzzed” by someone in a microlight. None of this has anything to do with the geophysics, however!

The mag team completed the last two grids in Mobbs Hole (for now), and have started on the field to the south.  The first six grids were all wheel-spinning partials too.  They have, however, only one partial left and then there are eleven whole grids laid-out and waiting.  Partials are not the Foerster’s strong point.  The lack of an “end line” function means hours are wasted spinning the wheel to fool the odometer into thinking we have completed the line.  Open fields, however, are its strength and the team will be glad to be out in the wilds again.  Figures 1 and 2 show the results from Mobbs Hole.

Figure 1: the Mobbs Hole survey in its entirety.

Figure 2: the southern area completed today and the start of the next field.

The GPR team had a partial around the water trough this afternoon and so they didn’t quite complete their usual 80x40m block (I knew I should have kept quiet yesterday).  The next two figures are nine time slices of the western and eastern halves of the block.

Figure 3: time slices from the day 16 GPR data, western block.

Figure 4: Day 16 GPR data, eastern block.

The western block seems to be yet-more blobby stuff, although with some very strong reflections.  The western block, however, has some clearly recognisable Roman-style corridor houses.  Yay! Finally some buildings we can recognise!

The last two images show slice 6 in context, firstly on the mag data, and then the mag data with an outline of the location of the GPR blocks.

Figure 5: GPR data from day 16, slice 6.

Figure 6: mag data with the location of the Day 16 GPR data indicated by the red box.

The huge black and white feature in the middle of the mag plot (Figure 6) is the water trough. As you can see, some of the walls of the buildings show in the mag data, but are much clearer in the GPR data.  Some only show in the GPR.  I know I am beginning to sound like a stuck record, but that is the strength of multi-method survey.

Tomorrow is our antepenultimate day (I had to get that in once again), so fingers crossed for dry weather.

Many thanks to the whole team for their wonderful effort and commitment.

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.

 

 

Is that a magnetometer on the horizon?

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

Figure 1: Ruth and the magnetometer on the horizon.

The mag team were in wheel spinning mode today. In other words, it was partial madness.  For logistical reasons I don’t have the mag this evening to download the data, so it’ll be a magfest on Sunday.

The GPR team completed its usual 80 x 40m block today, although the steep slope made it harder work than usual.  Figure 2 shows the time slices.

Figure 2: GPR time slices from day 12.

Although we don’t have any clear exciting buildings we have picked-up the line of two roads running at right angles.  We’ll get the junction tomorrow.  the NW–SE road shows best in slice 6 (Figure 2, second row, first slice), and the SW–NE road in slices 4 and 5.   Figures 3 and 4 show these two slices in context.

Figure 3: GPR time slice 4 with the line of Street 26 (as numbered by Niblett and Thompson) indicated.

Figure 4: GPR time slice 6 with the line of Street 11 (as numbered by Niblett and Thompson) indicated.

The 1955 ditch also seems to show in some slices, e.g., in Figure 3.  The western end of the aqueduct as seen in Wednesday’s slice clearly has a complicated relationship with the 1955 ditch.  At some point I need to look at the radargrams too.

Tomorrow’s block across the road junction will be interesting to see.  Junctions are usually prime locations for structures, but there is nothing much showing in the mag data.  Fingers crossed!

The next update will be on Sunday as Ellen and I will be at a family wedding tomorrow.

Figure 5: One of these things is not like the others.