SURVEY_VISIT_NO,COMMENTS
5,"Despite encouraging values for topsoil MS, interference from ferrous objects associated with the modern farm has severely limited the success of the magnetometer survey. There is  a correlation between the cropmark evidence to the west of the site and the magnetic results, although the latter provide little additional information."
24,Report also contains the results of a Wenner resistivity survey carried out by the Institute of Archaeology.
29,This survey was a follow-up to previous resistivity traverses recorded by A. Challands for the Nene Valley Research Comittee.  Auger borings were also taken at 1m intervals in the central part of the traverse.
25,"See previous AMLab magnetometer survey carried out in 1979 - North Elmham, Norfolk . AML Report Series No. 2962. "
34,"In addition to the geophysical surveys, samples were taken for phosphate analysis, and  the distribution of burnt flint  was also plotted by weight. The details and results of these surveys are included in the report."
41,Long barrow (Kemp Howe) surveyed by magnetometry and resistivity. Nearby barrow by magnetometer only
43,This visit finished off the surveying of areas 4&5 begun in the previous month. See survey visit 42 for comments on results.
44,"Due to the lack of time, this area could only be scanned by magnetometer. "
42,"Areas 1, 2, and 3 were surveyed on this visit, with areas 4 & 5 being surveyed a month later (Survey visit 43).
 Magnetic response was poor despite cropmark and excavation evidence showing presence of archaeological remains. Possible reasons are
1. Use of Philpot DM02 and its lack of resolution.
2. Up to 2m thick coverage of soil in some places.
MS survey response seemed fairly random showing no overall trends. "
49,See previous AMLab resistivity survey (survey visit no. 37). 
50,Area was particularly damp.
52,"Although the survey successfully located and defined archaeological features, including those known through cropmarks, the extent of the coverage was limited by  a large gas main running through the centre of the site."
53,Site was covered with a fine loamy/clayey topsoil and was seasonally waterlogged at the time of the survey.
54,Two topsoil samples were taken for magnetic susceptibility measurement in the lab. These gave values of 57 and 42 x 10[-8] SI/kg
55,"Survey consisted of two areas A and B, the latter was a small area to the east of the main site containing no definable anomalies and was not included in the final report."
56,Follow up survey to survey visit no. 55.
57,"Previous  magnetometer survey by the Dept. of Archaeological Sciences,  University of Bradford in 1986. 
The site proved to be magnetically quiet with some features registering only in the sub-nT range."
58,Reported together with survey visit 59 which was surveyed at the same time.
59,Surveyed and reported along with survey visit no. 58.
61,Resistivity survey marred by instrument failure.
62,"This survey the site was conducted on two separate  occasions 18- 22/5/92 and 20-21/6/92. 
Soils at the site consisted mainly of Brown Earths of the Wick series."
63,"Much of the magnetometer coverage was affected by widespread interference from ferrous objects, pipes, and other recent activity. Thus over half the magnetometer survey has been excluded from the survey report.
The magnetic susceptibility results were also not included in the report."
68,See survey visit no. 67.
70,"In addition to the survey, soil samples were recovered from two augered anomalies. These were measured for low field magnetic susceptibility and frequency dependence of their susceptibility using a Bartington MS2 meter and dual frequency laboratory coil. The same samples were then heated to 650 degrees C and their MS remeasured to calculate the fractional conversion of the samples."
71,"Background resistance showed considerable variation between the northern and southern parts of the site, reflecting the difference in overlying drift geology."
73,Half the survey area was within an area of recently felled and cleared woodland and the magnetometer survey clearly displays the effects of three recent bonfires related to the clearance. Fortunately the disturbance was localised and does not unduly marr the response from the underlying archaeology.
77,"In addition to the geophysical surveys, subsurface soil samples were recovered by augering significant magnetic anomalies. These were measured in the laboratory for mineral magnetic properties: MS, Frequency Dependence, SIRM, and IRM/SIRM. Data presented in report.
The Magnetic Susceptibility survey appears to have been affected by both the change in land  cover from grass to arable, and a possible geological boundary beneath the survey area."
78,"All surveys were affected to some extent by modern land use.
 "
82,Previous surveys (magnetometer and resistivity) were carried out at the site in 1970 and 1972 as part of a research sponsored by the British Museum.
86,Survey area recently cleared of mature trees and scrub.
91,Additional magnetometer data collected by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford in 2 fields to the east of the scheduled area subsequently processed by AML who retain the archive (data collected using standard AML sampling intervals and Geoscan FM36 gradiometer).
93,"Results disappointing, and there was no geophysical evidence of archaeological activity. (Draft report, M.Cole, 7/1/93)

"
96,"Possible periglacial features located by magnetometer, also an arrangement of linear anomalies. (Letter from M. Cole & N. Linford to P.R. Walker, 25/9/92)"
98,"High resistance anomalies were clearly detected in allignment and are probably a response to the bank or ditch of the monument (Note from A.David, AMLab, 29/4/87)"
99,"Several 'ditch' type anomalies and areas of 'noise' were scattered over a long distance.(from letter to Humberside Archaeology Unit , D. Shiel, 1/3/88)"
101,"Resistivity survey results show possible archaeological structure, but very little response from magnetometer survey. Proposed developement would appear not to impinge on any geophysically defined archaeology. (Letter from D. Jordan to Cumbria County Council planning dept, 15/9/88)"
102,"Neither resistivity nor magnetometer showed any positive results. Possibly due to overburden of Alluvium, and limitations of the Philpot magnetometer."
103,"Magnetic background was quiet (+/- 2nT). Only one anomaly was found by scannning, and augering at that point produced fragments of natural iron-stone (Letter from D Shiel to Dr. Parker-Pearson, 14/5/87)"
104,"Intermittent traces of possible linear features were found in the Abbey Garden , but nowhere consistent enough for a fuller interpretation. Variations were more pronounced in the Dean's Yard but the effect was of amorphous masses amongst which discrete features are poorly defined. (Letter from A. David to Canon Harvey of Westminster Abbey, 24/11/87)."
105,"Equipment failure led to only three 30m squares showing sensible data. This was not enough to draw any conclusions.
9 auger samples were also taken from various positions within the survey area. Descriptions were noted and are deposited in the site file.."
107,"Cover was patchy due to a malfunction with the magnetometer. (letter from D. Jordan to D. Powlesland, 27/10/89)"
109,"No clear indication of any features from preliminary traverses, however the readings were exceptionally low due to the saturated nature of the ground (letter from A David to G Chitty, 8/1/88)."
110,"Enhanced plots of the data revealed complex details, mostly of linear resistivity anomalies, but also areas of general disturbance.  Much of the high resistance rectilinear alignments were thought to be from a former garden layout.  Recent features picked up by the survey included a  former rose garden, and a service trench (letter from A. David to Mrs Barnes, 18/6/90)."
111,"Results indicate that extensive building remains probably extend beyond the upstanding structures. However it was difficult to accurately define any archaeological remains, possibly due to the damp ground conditions ( Draft preliminary report by D. Jordan, AML1988)"
116,"Neither resistivity nor magnetometry produced satisfactory results. Main reasons lie in the difficulties in distinguishing subtle archaeological responses from the background of natural effects. Recent burning may also have affected the magnetic responses.( From a draft report by D. Jordan & A David, 17/8/88)"
119,"The ditches of the enclosure were clearly identified by the magnetometer survey. Clusters of anomalies to the south-east could be either archaeological or related to debris and modern activity connected with an adjacent disused airfield. (Letter from D Jordan to P Claris of the National Trust, 8/12/88 and letter from A David to A Fleming (IAM), 5/10/90)"
120,Weather diaboloical ! (Field Note). 
121,Magnetometer survey revealed little that was not already known about disposition of archaeological features.
124,"Despite considerable high resistance activity, there was little discernable artificial pattern. The high background resistance appears to be due to the sandy soil.
Magnetometer scan suggested that a full magnetometer survey would be unproductive.
(Letter from A.David to D Batchelor,CEU, dated 3/11/88)"
125,Several linear anomalies were recorded some of which tie up with the earlier survey and are related to anomalies which suggest a considerable complex of archaeological features.(Unfinished draft report by D. Jordan)
126,Magnetic anomalies mostly weak.
127,"Both magnetometer and resistivity surveys are consistent in showing  anomalies resulting from rubble, and modern features or detritus. Faint linear traces in the magnetometer survey may be of archaeological interest. (Letter from D. Jordan to North Devon District Council, 29/3/89) "
128,"Survey shows high resistance and disturbance near the chapel, and linear anomalies both high and low. (Letter from A.David to M. Larkin, Bowes Museum, 19/4/89)"
117,Enclosure ditches located by survey.
118,Approximately half of the enclosure surveyed.
130,Three enclosure ditches are clearly located. also some modern disturbance. 
134,"Survey has detected most of the features known from AP evidence, with some exceptions, and many others in addition (letter from A.Payne to A. Davison IAM, 9/1/90)."
136,Data processed by AMLab.
140,Speckled nature of plots due to small range of readings.  (see techniques entry)
142,Resistivity clearly indicated isolated peaks of high values  at intervals fully consistent with expected pattern of the avenue. Magnetometer survey revealed next to nothing. (Draft report by A.David)
138,"The most appropriate survey technique for locating former stone positions was resistivity, and this was used for most of the survey. Some unknown features were located, including field boundaries and a roadway.  However, over much of the area surveyed, there was little discernible activity above the limited range of the background. Faint anomalies suggesting  a possible timber circle in the NE quadrant prompted further detailed survey of that area.(Draft report by A. David)  "
139,"No relevant magnetic anomalies were found (David. A, 'Avebury Reconsidered' p.227)"
145,"Site lies in a depression in granite bedrock and some high resistance readings relate to shallow soil depths.  The most clearly defined magnetic and resistance anomalies occur in the same areas, where augering showed the bedrock to be up to 1.5 m deep.  (Preliminary report by D.Jordan, 6/6/89)"
146,"Modern rubble, ground disturbance, and metal debris were present. No coherent anomalies were found with either technique. (Preliminary report by D. Jordan 24/5/89)"
147,"Survey was curtailed due to the landowner not being informed of the survey. However the  results from area covered suggested that only large features would be (weakly) detectable. (Letter from A. David to F. Griffith of Devon County Council, 22/5/89)."
150,"Magnetic results somewhat disappointing. Widespread disturbance but little pattern apparent. Interference probably due to magnetism of local igneous/metamorphic stones. Some of the anomalies outside the fort could be archaeological. (Letter from A.David to D. Sherlock, IAM, 25/9/89)"
151,"Magnetic response weak across the site, however archaeological activity seems to be widespread."
152,"Infill of ditches with modern rubbish caused disturbance in both magnetometer and resistivity surveys. However the response from magnetic rubbish allowed some identification of the ditch which otherwise would have been scarely detectable from the background. (letter from A.Payne to A.Tindall of Cheshire C.C, 14/9/89)"
153,"Magnetometer survey succesful in defining general areas of archaeological interest, particularly rectilinear enclosures. Metallic pipe has obscured more subtle features. Survey appears to have covered the extent of the archaeology to the East and North ie.. those areas threatened. (letter from A.Payne to R. Daniels, Cleveland CAU, 5/3/90)"
155,"Magnetic response weak, and little magnetic contrast between expected features and surrounding subsoil. No correspondence between those few anomalies detected and the AP plots. (Letter from A.Payne to M.Watson of Shopshire C.C, 15/3/90)"
156,"No pattern of anomalous activity to suggest substantial remains. However a known cellar was detected. (Letter from A.David to Mr. Turner, 23/1/90)"
157,"Magnetometer scan detected no evidence of kilns in the immediatly threatened area, but a likely anomaly was discovered to the north along with surface scatter of pottery, and subsequently augered to reveal baked clay materials. (Letter from A. David to A.Fleming, IAM, 15/2/90)"
158,"Effectiveness of magnetometer survey was limited by unfavourable geological conditions, and enclosure ditches were only narrowly detected. Resistivity was more succesful in detecting archaeological features. (Preliminary report by A.Payne and D. Coombes, 1990)"
159,Good response to magnetometry showing several anomalies likely to be due to archaeology.
160,Few significant anomalies within the hillfort compared with previous survey at the eastern end.
161,Magnetometer survey effective in locating anomalies within the interior of the hillfort. 
162,"Site did not respond well to resistivity owing to sandy soil and peculiar topography. Nevertheless, some possible archaeological remains can be discerned. (Letter from P.Linford to Mr. Turnbull of Cumbria CC, 27/6/91)"
163,"Magnetometer survey clearly indicated intense archaeological activity. Resistivity confirmed presence of building foundations. (Letter from A.Payne to B. Whitwell, Humberside C.C, 5/10/89)"
169,"Magnetometer survey identified large number of archaeological features.( Draft prelim. report by D. Jordan & A.Payne ,6/5/90)"
175,"Magnetometer  survey succesful in detecting concentrations of magnetic disturbance, although not individual buildings. Regular grid system of probable ditches also detected. (Letter from A.Payne to F. McAvoy, CEU, 31/5/90)"
179,Samples measured by A. Bartlett and results are available as printed notes. 
180,"Magnetic anomalies agree well with pattern of cropmarks , and has revealed substantial additional details."
185,Neither resistivity nor magnetometry revealed any well defined features.
188,"Response to magnetometer survey good and shows  linear anomalies as well as weaker circular anomalies. The electromagnetic trials were disappointing, indicating trends only. (Letter from G.Fookes to P.Rose CAA, 13/12/91)"
189,Features clearly located by magnetometry.
190,Successful magnetometer survey defining the nature and arrangement of the site. (Letter from A.Payne to C.Poole of the Danebury Environs Project).
191,"Magnetometer survey has responded to the presence of buried features over substantial parts of the area. Although many of the anomalies are concentrated in one area this may not be a true reflection due to the masking effect of the underlying alluvium. (Letter from A.Payne to T. Malim, Cambs.C.C, 3/7/91)"
193," Magnetometer survey located several anomalies including modern irrigation pipes and farming patterns,but also several possible archaeological features. (Letter from G.Fookes to G. Burleigh, North Herts Museum Service, 21/6/91)"
195,"Only magnetometer survey carried out due to frozen ground conditions. Survey affected by proximity of modern fences, goalposts, benches, causing difficulty in joining grids together. No linear anomalies but numerous localised anomalies. (Letter from G. Fookes to M. Stevenson, North Herts. Museum Service, 16/12/91)"
196,"Resistivity survey showed strong correlation between data and parch mark evidence. Data ""noisy"" around edges. (Letter from M.Cole and N. Linford to M.Stevenson, 14/9/92)"
197,"Resistivity survey showed broard areas of anomalous activity, but there was no clear resolution the abbey ground plan. The EM survey also failed to resolve any features other than general areas of activity, but corraborated the resistivity results. (Letter from G. Fookes to P.Huggins, Waltham Abbey Historical Society, 16/1/92)"
198,"Resistivity results were ambiguous, probably due to a combination of factors, local changes in relief and soil hydrology, modern man-made intrusions, tree roots, and the masking effects of hill-wash. Although broard high resistance anomalies were detected,  no structural definition could be discerned. (Letter from A.Payne to P Claris, National Trust, 13/9/91)"
199,"Magnetometer survey located few significant anomalies the clearest being along the line of a former field boundary. However,  several ""iron spikes"" were detected in one of the fields surveyed. (Letter from N.Linford to F. Griffith, Devon C.C, 21/8/91)"
201,"Surface conditions and thick vegetation led to results of variable quality from both magnetometer and resistivity surveys. Apparent resistivity was high over the known Roman well and magnetometry confirmed the existence of ridge and furrow in part of the survey area. (Letter from G.Fookes to P. Smith, Centre for Oxfordshire Studies, 13/12/91) "
202,"Resistivity survey clearly shows  outlines of flanking ditches. (Letter from A.David to B.K. Davison, IAM, 13/2/92)"
203,"Magnetometer survey has located linear parallel anomalies which appear to be caused by successive land drain activity, these are strong enough to mask most other anomalies except a few less coherent, linear features. Magnetic susceptibility of topsoil showed significantly higher readings over part of the field. Resistivity shows no anomalies that could be attributed to anthropogenic activity. (Letter from G.Fookes to C.Richardson, Carlisle City Museum and Art Gallery, 16/12/91).
Subsequent excavation by C. Richardson showed that the the most promising linear feature revealed by the magnetometer survey was a natural feature. (Letter from C.Richardson, Tulie House Museum, Carlisle, to Dr. S. Needham, British Museum, 3/2/92)."
204,Ground frozen in parts.
208,"Magnetometer survey clearly located and improved the definition of all the features known from AP evidence and many more, including internal occupation features. (Letter from A.Payne to C. Poole, Danebury Trust, 7/5/92)"
209,Samples were taken on the baulk next to the excavation so that the results could be tied in to known archaeological features. 
212,"Neither magnetometry nor resistivity responded convincingly to the presence of the Neolithic enclosure ditches. Modern garden landuse, soil overburden, and terracing  may have contributed to the negative results. (Letter from A.Payne to R.Smith, TWA, 19/5/92) "
213,"Magnetometer data disturbed by modern interference from the area's use as a playing field, however some linear anomalies were detected. Soil samples taken from the site had high Magnetic susceptibility values. (Letter from N.Linford to L.Keen, Dorset  C.C Planning Dept., 29/4/92)  
"
215,"Magnetometer  survey indicates some anomalies typical of archaeology. (Letter from A.Payne to C. Halpin, HAT, 4/5/92)"
216,"Magnetometer survey shows substantial amorphous anomalies throughout the area sampled, which could be geological. Effects of modern bonfires in part of survey make it difficult to isolate archaeological anomalies. (Letter from A.Payne to C.Halpin, HAT, 4/5/92)"
218,"The resistivity and magnetometer surveys have located evidence of former cultivation, but no significant anomalies that would suggest a Fort or other occupation. However  a band of enhanced values was noted in the topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey. (Letter from N.Linford to Revd. L.E. Austin, 14/9/92)"
219,Magnetometer survey located a number of anomalies of potential archaeological significance. This is supported by enhanced magnetic susceptibility readings in the eastern part of the field. (Appendix to Central Archaeology Service Report)
226,"Resistivity survey has detected two types of anomalies, a complex of probably periglacial features which obscures any other anomalies where they appear, and a group of anomalies that are more likely to reflect archaeological features. (Letter from N.Linford to G. Chitty IAM, 23/9/92)"
227,"The area has since been excavated by Heritage Lincolnshire, and further samples taken from excavated features for magnetic susceptibility measurement."
229,Magnetometer survey clearly shows the circular ditches of the monument.
230,"Magnetometer survey results dominated by gas main nearby. However a series of linear anomalies may be archeological. (Letter from N.Linford to P.Rose, Cornwall A.U, 4/3/93)."
232,"Magnetometer survey revealed several enclosure/occupation type anomalies, confirming the suitability of this technique on Devonian Grampound Grit. (Letter from N.Linford to P.Rose, Cornwall A.U, 4/3/93)."
233,"Limited magnetometer survey was disturbed by prescence of modern metallic features. However the survey has detected linear anomalies and cultivation marks. (Letter from N.Linford to P.Rose, Cornwall A.U, 4/3/93)."
234,"Reported in Archaeometry 40,1 (1998). See bibliography."
235,"Enclosure clearly defined by the magnetometer survey, as well as possible internal occupation features.Topsoil magnetic susceptibility survey over the enclosure shows significant enhancement particularly in the south-east quadrant."
237,No anomalies of any likely archaeological significance were discovered by magnetometer survey. Magnetic susceptibility readings were generally low.
239,FMP trial trenching in progress over part of site during survey.
240,Magnetometer survey clearly defines the plan of early medieval building foundations cut into the limestone.
241,"Reported in Archaeometry 40,1 (1998). See bibliography."
243,Avenue ditches and a possible bronze age field boundary were detected by the magnetometer survey.
245,"Magnetometer survey indicated modern disturbance, with little archaeological detail. (Letter from A.David to B.K.Davison, 24/6/88)"
251,"Resistivity over the Villa area  only detected a zone of low resistance and no evidence of buried structures. However magnetometer survey to the west of the plantation revealed a number of possible features including a 5m wide linear anomaly. Some anomalies may be caused by extensive military activity in the area. (Letter from M.Cole to Dr. R. Entwhistle, University of Reading, 9/4/94)"
252,"Initial results showed a number of anomalies relating to either archaeology or the current sand path layout. (Letter from N.Linford to R.Poulton, Surry County Council.)"
81,Partly surveyed. See completion of survey - Survey Visit No.253.
349,"Results of the survey appear to reflect disturbance caused to the area from recent history. Examples located include a former ""excavation"", and backfilled swimming pool. Evidence for former walls and pathways is limited to ill defined high resistance anomalies. Gradient mapping over a limited area gave greater definition of features. (Letter Report 4/11/92, N.Linford)"
355,Survey located a large number of features related to the medieval village.
373,Auger samples collected for laboratory analysis.
2486,"The work demonstrated that the site responds well to resistance survey. Several high resistance anomalies were detected, some of which have been interpreted as probable wall foundations. However, it was noted that a larger area would need to be investigated to fully understand the archaeological significance of the results."
2487,"Although the survey has detected areas of anomalous readings, the results do not add any particular archaeological detail above that visible in the earthworks. No clear wall lines were detected in the data."
2488,"Clear high resistance readings were detected defining the apse at the eastern end of the church, and  a  well defined arc to the east of the church which could reflect a curving boundary. Other high resistance anomalies were detected both linear and large areas. Interpretation of these latter results remains tentative."
2516,"Surveyed by students from the University of Birmingham, and volunteers from Earthwatch."
2551,The results of this survey were not used in the final dissertation.
2649,Topographical survey conducted by Tom Cromwell of the CfA.
2692,See also survey visit no. 2459.
2365,"Caesium magnetometer located the Romano-Celtic temple, but not the great ditch."
1525,"See
 ""http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archaeometry/StantonDrew/"" 
for plots of the results."
1526,"See
 ""http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/archaeometry/StantonDrew/"" 
for plots of the results."
2410,Geology: Ackworth division sandstones of carboniferous upper coal measures. Overlying this is a variable depth of overburden which in the Inner Bailey is between 2m and 2.5m above the medieval ground surface.
2235,"Note: an earlier survey, and excavation, were carried out in 1994 under the auspices of the South Yorkshire archaeology service."
2416,approximately 0.5m of topsoil overlying Middle Coal Measure sandstones
2417,"Cropmarks, geophysical survey and trial trenching in the immediate area have identified enclosure and field ditches of probable late prehistoric/ Roman date."
2479,"Landscaped features detected, possibly in assocoiation with an 18th century hall."
2484,"Some coherent results were obtained and the data provide a hint of what may be surviving underneath. 
Linear high resistance anomalies and trends possibly indicate wall lines following a north-south or east-west alignment.
Suggestions of structural detail were detected on an alignment that appears to respect the postulated precinct wall. However, it is believed that a modern path and grave alignment may be responsible for the effect."
2485,"The results suggest that while foundations of the priory are clearly surviving below the gardens, Abbey Farmhouse appears to be situated in the middle of the monastic complex. However, the present structure appears to bear little relation to the ground plan of the earlier buildings."
1408,No conclusive evidence.
1453,The position of the main anomaly was consistent with the position of the Vallum located in previous excavations by Haverfield.
2037,Topsoil and alluvial cover removed before survey.
2171,"Geology at site: Landbeach, gleyic brown calcareous soils. Penarth Group sand and gravel drift."
2160,Sand and gravels.
2033,Brashy calcareous clayey soils overlying Jurassic limestone and clay.
2173,Also reported as GSB Prospection Report no. 99/41
2199,Earthwork and  bore-hole surveys were carried out as part of the same assesment.
2167,"Surveyed by students from the University of Birmingham, and volunteers from Earthwatch."
2274,Trial trenches evaluated by Surrey County Archaeological Unit.
1669,Succesfully detected streets and Forum.
2316,A contour survey was carried out at the same time.
734,See BUFAU web page: http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/projects/WH/Tours/geophysics.html
678,See BUFAU web page: http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/projects/WH/Tours/geophysics.html
946,See BUFAU web page: http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/projects/WH/Tours/geophysics.html
1059,See BUFAU web page: http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/projects/WH/Tours/geophysics.html
1551,See BUFAU web page: http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/projects/WH/Tours/crg.html
2361,"The magnetometer survey worked extremely well over the chalk bedrock and successfully located the extent of the henge ditch, as well as a ditch network just to the south. See web site: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knc93a.htm"
2362,Neither survey located a gap in the ditch. See web page: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knc93a.htm
1715,Western two thirds of the route damp heavy clay soils over Greensand clays (mainly pasture); eastern third upon the Chiltern chalk escarpment under a mixture of arable and pasture.
2002,An earthwork survey was carried out over the site as part of the same project.
660,Survey split into two periods  (5-7/2/96 and 4-6th/3/96) due to illness.
1608,"Excavation evidence suggests that, at some point, a considerable degree of foreign material has been introduced to level the ground at the site."
1880,Further investigation by trial trenching failed to locate evidence for a mineshaft in the surveyed area.
1881,Further investigation by trial trenching failed to locate evidence for a mineshaft in the surveyed area.
1944,"Geology:   Permian breccias, sandstones, & mudstones with local alluvial deposits; also Triassic mudstones to the east."
1943,"Geology:   Permian breccias, sandstones, & mudstones with local alluvial deposits;"
1942,"Geology:   Permian breccias, sandstones, & mudstones with local alluvial deposits;"
1941,"Geology:   Permian breccias, sandstones, & mudstones with local alluvial deposits;"
1940,"Geology:   Permian breccias, sandstones, & mudstones with local alluvial deposits;"
1493,Magnetometer survey revealed the presence of several possible iron working furnace or hearths.
1384,Geology: Devonian limestone
1208,Clay and brickearth.
1188,Preliminary resistivity survey by Trent and Peak Archaeological Trust.
1400,The survey revealed several anomalies and provided clear evidence for the Wall.
1401,"A broad high resistance anomaly was detected, possibly indicating the position of the Vallum."
1407,Resistivity survey identified the course of the Vallum.
1923,Survey suggested that the foundations of at least one external wall is reasonably intact.
484,"The survey detected the presence of a dense Roman occupation site, which on subsequent excavation  was shown to contain industrial features such as smelting furnaces and corn driers."
485,"No evidence for the defensive ditches were detected, or any other archaeologically significant features."
486,"No evidence was detected for the defensive ditches, however an isolated ditch was located at the east side of the site."
487,The survey detected the presence of Roman occupation features and ditches.
488,The survey clearly detected the main cropmark enclosure but not all the internal  enclosures. At least three internal ringditches were located and subsequent excavation showed these to be Iron Age roundhouses. 
1924,The survey revealed shallow silting in the ditches and considerable disturbance over the island.
1653,"Survey located anomalies which suggest that the enclosure was double-ditched. A length of ditch or possible series of pits were found in the south of the survey area, and archaeological anomalies were also detected in the centre of the area."
1654,"The gradiometer survey detected numerous pit-like responses. Several linear ditch type anomalies were recorded in Area C, most of which coincide with the existing earthworks. There was no evidence for the possible house platforms identified by RCHME survey."
1655,"The enclosure ditch was clearly located with an entranceway to the north, as well several internal pit anomalies. Four linear responses were interpreted as previous archaeological trenches."
1724,Pleistocene boulder clay & periglacial deposits over Gault basement
1411,Preliminary survey to Clark Laboratory Radar Survey. See Survey visit no. 1528.
1528,See also complimentary resistivity survey. SV no. 1411.
1743,Shales and sandstones of the Bude Formation
1833,Geology: 'Culm' Province sandstones and mudstones (Upper Carboniferous)
1834,Geology:    clay overlain by windblown sand.
1838,Geology:   coversands 'dune' on the edge of the floodplain on the east bank of the River Trent.
1839,Geology: marine silts
1840,Geology:   Culm deposits.  Alluvial floodplain of River Creedy
1257,"Surveyed by P. Howard, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham"
1258,"Surveyed by P. Howard, Department of Archaeology, University of Durham"
1902,Geology: Hythe Beds overlain by up to 2.4m of sandy clay Head dposit.
1904,Joint project with The Clark Laboratory - see SV 1905
1905,Joint project with the Bartlet-Clark Consultancy - see SV 1904
1906,Geology: Lower chalk with strip of Head Deposits.
1915,Survey conducted for The Clark Laboratory. See SV No. 1914
1916,Survey conducted for The Clark Laboratory. See SV No. 1914
1919,Geology: Cap of Grenoside sandstone.
1224,"The surveys were able to show that a circular feature in the centre of the Garden Court was a possible fountain base. Other features detected, included possible sheep pens, and the route of a trackway to the villa."
1255,An area of high resistance was located in the western part of the grid. This may be associated with a platform.
1254,A small area of high resistance and positive magnetometer readings was detected at the southern edge of the most westerly of the three samples areas surveyed.
1770,Geology: Triassic conglomerates.  Soils: sandy loams (Bromsgrove Series)
1771,Geology:  Pleistocene fluvial sands & gravels
1772,Geology:  Pleistocene fluvial sands & gravel
1773,Geology:   Plateau Gravels.  Soils of the Sonning 1 Association
1774,"Geology:variable depths of floodplain alluvium over sands & gravels, with underlying Triassic Mercia Mudstone clays, mudstones and sandstones"
1775,Geology: Middle Jurassic limestone brash & bedrock
1777,former saltmarshes
1780,"Geology: banded and mixed deposits of kaolinic clay, silty clay, lignite and sand of the Bovey Formation', in the area of  the  proposed river diversion, with 'mainly Blatchford sands of the Bovey Formation' underlying the proposed tipping area to the west."
1782,Geology:  Clay and some gravels above Chalk basement
1786,Mixed loamy & gravelly drift over chalk
1787,Carboniferous Coal Measures
1767,Probable terrace gravels and Keuper Marl
1791,Geology: River Trent floodplain and terrace contexts: alluvium over Triassic mudstones.
1792,"Geology: variable depths of floodplain alluvium over sands & gravels, with underlying Triassic Mercia Mudstone clays, mudstones and sandstones"
1793,Geology: a mixture of Oxford Clay and Plateau Gravel
1798,"Geology: Middle Jurassic limestone ridge, overlying ironstone of the Northampton Sands"
1799,Geology:  Middle Jurassic Lincolnshire Limestone above ironstone of the Northampton Sands
1749,Upper Fen silts of marine origin overlying Upper Fen peat
1741,"Superficial geology: deep sequence of pro-glacial water-laid sediments.  Wide range of
lithologies, including sandstones, quartzites, quartz and a number of volcanic rock types, all derived from higher land to the west."
1742,1st/2nd gravel terrace of the River Cam; underlying geology is chalk
1744,Gravels; some Oxford clay on northern boundary
1745,1st Terrace limestone river gravels.  Well drained calcareous & non calcareous fine loamy soils (Badsey Series 1)
1746,1st Terrace limestone river gravels.  Well drained calcareous & non calcareous fine loamy soils (Badsey Series 1).
1748,Terrace Gravels (Rainham Marshes)
1750,"Coal Measures, with exposed seams of both coal and clay; an outcrop of magnesium limestone was observed upon higher ground."
1756,"River terrace gravels and glacial sands & gravels overlying 'Crag', with chalky glacial tills outcropping close to the southern boundary of the survey area"
1757,"Floodplain alluvium over Permian breccias, sandstones & mudstones (New Red Sandstone)"
1760,"Predominantly Pleistocene sand and gravel, with an area of clay (Oxford Clay/derivatives) within the extreme northwestern angle, overlain by well drained loams."
1762,Alluvial deposits over river sands & gravels
1763,"Variable depths of floodplain alluvium over sands & gravels, with underlying Triassic Mercia Mudstone clays, mudstones and sandstones."
1764,"Pleistocene valley sands & gravels, over Liassic clays"
1768,"Geology:   predominantly limestone, with a local pocket of clay"
1769,Geology: 1st Terrace limestone river gravels.  Well drained calcareous & non calcareous fine loamy soils (Badsey Series 1)
1678,"Magnetometer survey produced a clear plan of the fort interior and defences as well as evidence for a vicus to the south, including a probable bath house."
518,The data from this survey has been processed by the AML and reported in an AML Report. The survey has located the two circular ditches and generally corroberates the results of a topographic survey also carried out by the surveyor. However the information detected is not enough to indicate the function of the monument.
510,Part of survey abandoned due to disruption from horses.
1352,Auger samples taken.
1689,Triassic mudstone(Keuper Marl) overlain by Pleistocene Head deposits.
1716,Greensand underlying heavy clays
1719,Former salt marshes over chalk basement
1727,Middle Devonian Limestone
1728,Pleistocene fluvial sands & gravels (1st Terrace of River Welland).  Sandy topsoil over thin & discontinuous stony clay or silt
1731,Older River Gravel (probably fossiliferous Balderton Sand & Gravel Formation) overlying Jurassic grey clays and mudstone (mostly Lower Lias clay)
1733,1st Terrace limestone river gravels.  Well drained calcareous & non calcareous fine loamy soils (Badsey Series 1)
1638,Underlying geology: Cretaceous Gault Clay.
1736,Lower Greensand/ Gault clay; Cambridgeshire Fens
1737,Permian breccia & conglomerate (New Red Sandstone).  Sandy brownearths (Crediton Series)
1738,Reclaimed salt marsh. 595770 211560 - 596180 211150
1739,"Pleistocene sands & gravels, and floodloams"
1887,Survey carried out as a joint project between the Bartlett-Clark Consultancy and Archaeological Investigations Ltd.
1564,The survey detected internal features including scattered circular huts and evidence for internal divisions and enclosures. Further survey in an extra-mural area to the south located large clusters of pits.
1565,"1st terrace of Blackwater, gravel, brickearth & alluvium."
1662,Well drained fine loams and silts over Palaeozoic slaty mudstone and siltstone.
1668,Geology: Ackworth division sandstones of carboniferous upper coal measures
1571,"Resistivity survey produced results that were difficult to interpret, and inconclusive. High resistance readings coincided with an increase in depth of sand."
1570,Resistivity survey succesfully identified an area of high resistance readings that is likely to be associated with the remnants of the milefortlet.
1573,"Resistivity survey successfully pinpointed the milefortlet, but the plan is confused by the presence of several internal ditches."
1572,"Resistivity survey produced a reasonably clear plan of the fortlet, including evidence for internal buildings and a possible track."
1577,"No indication of marginal pits or ditches, nor internal structures were recorded."
1672,"Resistivity survey located the foundations of the south and west walls of the 13th century chapel, areas of fallen masonry, and a possible cemetery area. A ditch was identified running the length of the south side of the artificial mound upon which the ruins stand, leading to speculation that the mound might be the remains of an earthen long barrow."
1674,Vallum not located
1675,High resistivity anomaly detected.
1676,"High resistivity anomaly detected, but not on the expected line of the wall."
1517,Only the strong ridge and furrow on this site  was detected in the geophysical survey. No evidence was found for buildings or other structural remains.
1518,"The survey detected a network of field drains, and a few anomalies that may represent pits or ditch segments."
1650,"This survey also reported by M. Branston 'A Geophysical Survey of an Archaeological Site: Icklingham, Suffolk' Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Liverpool"
1652,Topographic survey of the area carried out as part of the same project.
1554,No easily identifiable response was detected from magnetic scanning. Resistivity survey appears to have detected only changes in moisture content due to the sandy matrix of the subsoil.
1557,Revealed an elongated enclosure extending from the barrow's broader end.
1555,"Resistivity survey revealed internal evidence for possible cells, one horn of a probable forecourt and the possibility of lateral chambers. Trapezoidal enclosure formed by oval pits extended east from the forcourt area.
Mag. Susc. sampling from base of topsoil over the enclosure indicated burning around its perimeter."
1559,Resistivity and Magnetometer survey confirmed that the two existing mounds are composed of dense rubble with no visible internal features. No flanking ditches or pits were detected.
1561,Resistivity survey of the eroded mound revealed a trapezoidal area. An axial wall with transverse walls dividing the body of the barrow into cells was clearly defined.
1562,Resistivity pseudosections confirmed overall structure of the revetted mound.
1600,"Resistivity survey located the three streets known from crop-marks, possible roadside ditches, two buildings and the outline of the baths excavated by Atkinson in 1935."
1584,A series of high resistivity readings were detected at the site of the supposed bastion. Other occasional high readings have been attributed to 19th century features known to have existed at the site.
1646,Follow up to survey in October 97. See Survey Visit No. 1642.
122,See survey visit no. 121
1648,Previous geophysical survey at Elms Farm was carried out by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford in 1993.
1510,Existence of rectangular enclosure confirmed geophysically together with evidence for internal structures.
1511,"A ditch was located to the east of the A64, but not where postulated from aerial photographs. A ring ditch was dtected to the west of the A64."
1512,Geophysical survey has confirmed the existence of a rectangular shaped ditched enclosure in the field south of Tout Hill. Further ditches were detected south and north of this feature. Ridge and furrow cultivation can be seen in the results.
1513,Survey of this area has shown the existence of an important archaeological landscape comprising rectangular ditched enclosures and possible structural remains in stone.
1514,"This area was characterised by regular tile field drains and several minor ditches of possible archaeological interest,"
1515,"Field drains and ferrous contamination have obscured detail in parts of this study area. Two major linear ditches were detected, possibly representing old field boundaries."
1516,"A roadway, demolished in 1934, was mapped geophysically together with several ditches of possible archaeological interest."
1130,The survey located a strong right-angled ditch type feature bounding an area of lower readings in areas 3a.
1133,"Despite aerial photographs suggesting a field system to the east of the survey area, there was no geophysical evidence for such features in the survey"
214,"Reported in Archaeometry 40,1 (1998). See bibliography."
1234,"Joint investigation, RCHME and HCC"
1036,Previous survey by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford (95/84). See Survey Visit No. 1271
1158, A plot of this survey is included in a later report: Ref. PJC/3/2. See Survey Visit No. 1157
1604,"Apart from one boundary ditch, little of archaeological interest was found in this area."
1605,The areas showing the most archaeological potential were in the vicinity of Warleggan Church. In particular a complex pattern of ditches was revealed in Field B5 indicating intensive enclosures.
1606,"Three areas within this part of the corridor showed some archaeological potential:
1. Fields to the S and SE of Cardinham Castle.
2. Fields to the S of Long down.
3. The field between Margate Bridge and Kingswood at the western end of the area."
1607,"Features of possible archaeological interest were detected in Fields  D7 and D11, the curvilinear features in the latter possibly associated with mining in the area."
1631,No evidence found to support existing interpretation as a Neolithic long barrow. Suggestion that the earthwork may be an 18th century feature. (CBA Group 9: South Midlands archaeology newsletter 27/1997)
1632,A close spaced contour survey was conducted over the site as part of the same program as the geophysical survey.
1527,"Survey located at least five ring ditches, including one double ring ditch c.29m diameter. (See: Proc. Dorset Natural History and Archaeological  Society 117/1995 131-2) See also website: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knc94c.htm"
967,Gradiometer and resistivity survey was carried out here in 1995 by the same surveyor.
969,A gradiometer survey was carried out here in 1995 by the same surveyor.
979,The survey was able to relocate the position of the 'henge'.
1003,"Scanning with the magnetometer revealed no obviously significant anomalies of archaeological origin. Background magnetic response was extremely weak, and magnetic susceptibility readings from topsoil samples were extremely low. There was no magnetic response from a known barrow to the south of the forts."
1008,Completed as part of BSc dissertation.
1012,"This survey is complimented by the RCHME: Roall Manor Farm Project, a transaction of cropmarks visible on air photograph taken in July 1991."
1016," See survey visit ""1015"" for Area A"
1015,"See survey visit "" 1016"" for area B"
1025,No anomalies of archaeological significance were detected.
1039,"A programme of trial excavation was carried out at the site, during the summer of 1993  by T.Wilmott of the Central Archaeology Service."
924,See also Survey Visit No. 923
1095,Survey carried out over 12 separate visits as part of B Eng degree.
1104,Partial survey of the hillfort to complete earlier AML survey (SVs 159 and 160).
1102,Partial survey of the interior to complete earlier AML survey (SV 161)
1120, A number of magnetometer surveys have also been carried out at this site between 1993 and 1997 by Geophysical Surveys of Bradford.
1128,"Magnetic anomalies were detected near to the extant bank, however, the bank itself was not detected"
1129,A slightly curved linear negative anomaly was detected.
930,Site unresponsive to magnetometer survey. Resistivity survey detected probable structural remains.
934,Three auger borings were taken to check the validity of negative resistivity areas.
939,Resistivity survey abandoned due to dry conditions.
942,Data collected under the direction of Surrey Archaeological Society and processed by the AML geophysics section.
943,Data collected under the direction of Surrey Archaeological Society and processed by the AML geophysics section.
95,"Both recorded surveys picked up earlier excavation trenches, and the magnetometer survey has detected a lot of isolated  magnetic disturbances. However it was not possible to distinguish any archaeological features. Results from the magnetic susceptibility samples were equally inconclusive, the only two high readings corresponding with the positions of recent bonfires. (Letter to P. McCulloch of Winchester Museums Service from M. Cole. 4/8/92)"
944,AML directed survey using archaeological geophysics students from Surrey University.
945,AML directed survey using archaeological geophysics students from Surrey University.
511,"Small hawthorn trees were spread throughout most of the area, and
these impeded the progress of the
survey considerably. The strong
winds and rain experienced during
much of the survey, combined with the
exposed nature of the site also caused problems with keeping the magnetometers 'on track'."
256,Geophysical survey failed to reveal any features of likely archaeological origin.
956,Cold weather affected the working of the gradiometer during the early part of the survey.
971,"No evidence for kilns but significant anomalies may have been obscured by modern interference.
A further scan was due to take place at a craft workshop development nearby but the site contained too much rubbish for a magnetic survey to be worthwhile."
860,Resistivity survey appears to have detected a structure and a possible road. No features revealed by magnetic survey.
862,This survey was conducted by A.L. Pacitto and the data supplied to the AML for plotting.
265,Area is a landscaped park which has been subject to numerous changes since the 18th Century.
864,"Site marginally responsive to magnetometry. However, plotted survey  results were of minimal predictive value."
865,Sand and gravel extraction had taken place on the Common through the ages.
866,Survey results processed by AML.
879,Part of this survey was over a previously excavated site. Known ditches were relocated but pits were not.
871,Results plotted by the AML.
920,Survey undertaken as part of B.Eng project for Brighton Polytechnic.
918,"Owing to the extremely dry summer during which this survey was carried
 out, severe contact resistance problems were experienced. These problems
 led to both degraded results and a reduced area of coverage."
925,A resistance survey was carried out in the same areas by S. Dyer in 1990. (See Survey Visit No. 923)
926,Preliminary plots deposited with the AML as part of AML draft report.
848,"Four separate areas were surveyed by gradiometer, two outside the hillfort boundary. One of the areas within the hillfort had been surveyed by the AML previously (see SV. 253) and was resurveyed on this occasion at a greater resolution.
The areas outside the fort were over cropmarks: a curving feature to the immediate East of the defences, and a possible enclosure 30m to the West."
851,"The survey had mixed success. The resistivity survey traced wall footings quite clearly, although many of these are visible on the surface. Strong natural background variations in the subsoil inhibited the magnetometer survey, and no obvious artificial patterns were detected.
Nine boreholes were dug to a depth of 1-2m and profiles recorded. Magnetic susceptibility measurements on these samples were dominated by the above mentioned geological variations and phosphate analysis showed only slight traces with no significant variation."
802,"This survey was extended to cover an area later excavated as Site C.
The survey located the main areas of archaeological activity associated with the medieval settlement, and has provided evidence for their distribution and extent which relates well to the findings from the excavation and other fieldwork sources."
854,"Fewer significant anomalies were located in this area than in the previous survey, and most of those that were could be related to known topographical features."
809,"The data from this survey was also processed by the University of Staffordshire School of Computing as a series of ""time slice windows"" and is  presented in the index of the survey report."
778,"High resistance disturbance is clearly visible concentrating in the central part of the survey area slightly to the west of the Ordnance Survey location for the villa.  With the exception of a very slight east-west linearity detectable on the contour plot there is no clear evidence for a pattern or lay-out, and the disturbance peters out in all directions to merge with the 'quiet' background."
825,"The magnetometer results show some anomalies, which probably represent pits.  These become more diffuse, smaller in size and weaker in intensity towards the bank on the eastern side.  The results indicate the possible continuation of a known trackway."
828,"Magnetometer survey appeared to find only a broad geological feature, and was unable to identify any features of an archaeological nature."
830,Some weak archaeological anomalies detected.
833,"Magnetometer survey of two separate areas.  Strip one was subject to interference from surface iron, and very little archaeological activity could be identified.  Survey of strip two suggested the presence of two probable ditches."
839,"Parts of the hillfort had been quarried, particularly near to the edges of the survey. Those areas that were particularly affected were either not surveyed or surveyed incompletely."
843,An EM38 survey was performed over part of the same area by the AML (see visit no. 844).
844,Survey complements resistivity survey conducted by R.Walker (Survey Visit 843)
813,"Survey was carried out by the British Gas Corporation, but the results were sent to the Ancient Monuments Laboratory for processing."
801,"Survey identified few archaeological features clearly, apart from a round barrow and a ditch.  Much of the site may be blank, but there is a high level of background noise which makes interpretation difficult."
774,"Magnetometer results were negative.  Phosphate samples were taken in the hope that these might identify the limits of bone material spread in the topsoil.  However, the distribution of values was uninformative."
775,"The resistivity readings responded with some sensitivity to variations in surface profile and drainage, but failed to show any clearly defined localized variations that might suggest structural remains.  The site was magnetically unresponsive and subject to interference from modern iron.   One of the problems seems to be that prolonged flooding of the site has caused silting too deep for geophysical survey to penetrate.
The survey findings are quite consistent with the evidence from earlier fieldwork on which the scheduling was based, but offer little new information."
779,Magnetometer survey was not particularly informative as the general noise level was high.  Varying phosphate and susceptibility levels were identified which might relate to archaeological features.
741,"Because of constraints in time available caused by both the scheduling of the course itself and the mixed weather conditions experienced the survey was restricted to two areas, both currently grassed over."
743,Topographical survey included.
749,Topographical survey included.
755,"Survey was carried out by The Bourne Society, but processing of the results was
completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient
Monuments Laboratory."
760,"Survey was carried out by the Norfolk Archaeological Unit, but processing of the results was completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory."
761,"Survey was carried out by Buckinghamshire County Museum, but processing of the results was completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory."
762,"Survey was carried out by Dyfed Archaeological Trust, but processing of the results was completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory."
763,"Survey was carried out by the Central Excavation Unit (now Central Archaeology Service) of English Heritage, but processing of the results was completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory."
766,"Survey was carried out by the Nene Valley Research Committee, but processing of the results was completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory."
767,"Survey was carried out by the Northamptonshire Archaeology Unit, but processing of the results was completed by A D H Bartlett of the Ancient Monuments Laboratory."
807,"Survey was carried out by the Bedfordshire Field Archaeology Unit, but the results were sent to the Ancient Monuments Laboratory for processing."
624,"Demolished dovecote located along with a number of linear anomalies, tentatively interpreted as wall alignments."
625,No obvious features visable on preliminary printouts.
626,Survey area within coniferous forest.
627,"Foudations of bastion strongly magnetic. Resistivity survey located wall footings, more clearly at wider spacing. Dam not clear at either spacing."
632,Site surveyed abuts an earlier survey carried out by the Surveyor in Feb. 95..
634,"Survey area reduced where foliage too dense, and where spoil heaps and excavation trenches existed. Several excavations have been carried out at the site in the past."
630,"Magnetometry results were extremely good, clearly mapping buried wall footings as negative magnetic gradient features. See BUFAU web page: http://www.bufau.bham.ac.uk/newsite/projects/WH/Tours/geophysics.html"
638,"Initial magnetic scanning to locate the site proved negative, therefore swopped to resistivity, which proved more effective."
661,Resistivity survey also undertaken by Steve Dyer (0.5m x 1.0m) and MS field loop survey undertaken by Tony Clark.
664,Radar survey undertaken by John Trust of Allied Associates following request from EW Flaxman. Flaxman investigating pond barrows for evidence of shafts (cf. Surveys 645-646)
673,"Surveyed by Steve Burrow, Bournemouth University. See website: http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/pics_kn/knc95b.htm"
651,Inspection of the site suggests that this may not be a pond barrow.
650,"Outline of pond barrow ""bank"" clearly visible on ground."
642,The surveys took place over three small sites within a 1km stretch of the Sweet Track.
680,Area immediately west of the survey was excavated by MAP in 1995. The surveyed area was also fieldwalked.
681,"Site was partially excavated in 1958-9 by N.Thomas then assistant keeper of archaeology, Birmingham Museum and Art gallery. A report on the excavations is in preparation."
683,"Cropmark of main enclosure discovered by aerial photography in 1976. Magnetometer survey of interior by AML in 1991, followed by sample excavation."
685,Survey of two small areas to the north east of the Saxon Palace.
658,Survey of area to south west of The Manor.
687,"The site responded well to magnetic survey, and in some areas buried features have been shown to be dense and complex, where the superficial alluvial deposits allow them to be detectable."
692,"Area surveyed is public open space, and appears to have been devoid of major development for at least 200 years."
691,The survey followed the discovery of masonry foundations during archaeological investigation of the West Moat in June 1995 by Oxford Archaeological Unit.
738,"During the same period two traverses to the south of the village to cover known palaeochannels were surveyed by  students under Mr. T. Stokes of Trinity School, Trinity Lane, Northampton using a range of geophysical surveying equipment;
resistivity, proton magnetometer, gradiometry, seismic survey, conductivity, and VLF. Some of the results of these surveys are reproduced in the NAU report for Mallows Cotton."
694,A series of trial trenches had been excavated in the survey area in 1990 by the Cambridge Archaeology Unit.
674,Survey carried out under dryest conditions on record for 200 years.
699,GPR chosen as being well suited for this cluttered site and the depths of the deposits expected.
702,Geophysical survey as part of University research project into the interpretation of the Priddy Circles and other henge monuments
703,Data collection hindered due to numerous trees. Anomalies may also have been due to topographic effects and backfilled excavation trenches.
704,Geophysical survey as part of B.Sc Archaeological Science degree.
707,"Survey area mainly grassed parkland, but also contains a bowling green, graveyard and car park."
708,"Survey area substantially restricted by the presence of flower beds, trees, pathways etc."
716,Topographical survey also carried out by the surveyor at the same time.
717,Surveyed over three months due to cutting for silage.
720,A contour survey was carried out by WYAS at the same time as the gradiometer survey.
726,Survey part of student field project.
2662,See also visit no. 2755
2745,See also survey visit No. 2770.
2793,See also survey visit 2792.
2792,See also survey visit 2793.
2811,Repeat fluxgate coverage of part of an area previously surveyed with caesium total field sensors.
2855,GPR survey was undertaken by Dr Justin Dix the results of which are to be presented in a separate report.
2857,"No interpretation of geophysical survey included, just figures from the survey itself."
2866,It was not possible to compute the data from this survey at the time and so the area covered  was subsequently re-surveyed in 2003/4 the results of which can be found as survey visit no. 2841.
429,See also survey visit no. 2898.
2898,See also survey visit no. 429.
2919,See also Survey Visit No. 2920.
2920,See also Survey Visit No. 2919
2814,See also Visit No.: 2947
2947,See also Visit No.: 2814
3073,See also Survey Visit: 3072