Substrata unpublished report series

Client Poltimore Community and Landscape Project, Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter. Poltimore House is a Tudor House of the sixteenth century with many later additions and al-terations. It has had several uses, including a school, nursing home and hospital (HER 10156). The grounds in which the survey took place included a deer park mentioned in the sixteenth century and still extant in AD 1822 (HER 19787), an eighteenth century former lodge to the north-east of the house (rebuilt as Threepenny Lodge on the original foundations after a fire) (HER 29721), a mid nineteenth century stable block (HER 49339), elements of formal gardens attached to the house and the ponds and weirs of a former Chinese garden (HER 49340). Results summary A total of 141 magnetic anomaly groups were identified as representing possible archaeological deposits and features. A number of these anomaly groups enhanced and extended the evidence for changes to the landscape of Poltimore House provided by the Margary map of 1809, Ordnance Survey 1:2500 series maps from 1889 to 1905 and the Ordnance Survey 1:10000 series map from 1980. Evidence is presented in this report for magnetic anomaly groups pertaining to tracks, roads, enclosures, buildings, garden landscapes and a number of other potential archaeological features and deposits.

Magnetic anomalies that may represent three, and perhaps four areas of possible industrial or craft production were identified in the southern-most field of the survey area. There is a possibility that they represent saltworks. A further area of possible archaeological structures was identified in the northern-most field. A number of anomaly groups are thought to indicate palaeochannel straightening and related past drainage management. The remaining anomaly groups are mainly linear; some represent previously mapped field boundaries and tracks while others may represent fragments of ditches or other boundaries. One anomaly group representing a palaeochannel that may be a former course of the River Banwell marks a distinct change in sediment deposition which may have archaeological implications

This survey was part of a programme of archaeological investigations at Countisbury Castle commissioned as part of the Unlocking Our Costal Heritage project. Countisbury Castle is an Iron Age promontory fort lies on a west-facing spur between the high sea cliff to the north and the steep sided East Lyn Valley to the south. Fifty-three magnetic anomaly groups and fourteen resistance anomaly groups were identified as representing possible archaeological deposits or features. Of these anomaly groups, the majority are thought to relate to former cultivation with field boundaries, strip lynchets and remnant ploughing patterns being provisionally identified. Resistance anomaly groups may represent a north-south trending archaeological feature at the western end of the promontory fort. Gradiometer anomaly groups seem to represent a sub-circular feature that is visible on Google Earth images. An archaeological origin is possible for such an anomaly group although a former quarry or natural feature cannot be ruled out. Magnetic anomaly groups and resistance anomaly hint at possible archaeological deposits or structures adjacent to the extant earthworks at the eastern end of the promontory fort.

This report was completed at the request of Revival Planning Consultancy on behalf of Fuse Architecture as part of an assessment of the archaeological potential of land at Palm Cross Green, Modbury, Devon. This work was part of an assessment exercise in advance of potential development. It is intended that the report will be submitted within a suite of supporting documents as part of a forthcoming planning application. Guidance on the content of the report was provided by Graham Tait of the Devon County Council Historic Environment Service. The magnetic contrast across the survey areas was sufficient to be able to differentiate between anomalies representing possible archaeological features and background magnetic responses. Twenty-one anomaly groups representing potential archaeological features or deposits were recorded (figure 1) and include anomalies representing possible industrial or craft deposits, various possible linear and curvilinear field boundaries or enclosures predating the current field patterns and two tenuous subcircular structures.

This report was commissioned by AC Archaeology Ltd on behalf of clients and was produced by Substrata in preparation for submission of a forthcoming planning application. No magnetic anomalies relating to possible archaeological deposits or features were identified in the data set. The magnetic contrast across the survey area was sufficient, under normal conditions, to distinguish between anomalies representing potential archaeology and natural deposits. In this case, data collected at the northern boundary of the survey area was compromised by interference caused by highly magnetic material in the boundary itself. Data from the southern edge of the site was compromised by high levels of magnetic interference from an underground cable or ferrous pipe (figures 2 and 3). Relatively recent ground disturbance was detectable across the rest of the site implying that, had they been present, any large archaeological deposits such as ditches and walls would have been detected away from the northern and southern boundaries.

This report was commissioned by Capture Energy Limited on behalf of a client and was produced by Substrata in preparation for submission of a forthcoming planning application for a single wind turbine. The magnetic contrast across the survey area was relatively low but was sufficient to distinguish between anomalies representing potential archaeology and natural deposits. Five magnetic anomaly groups were identified as signifying potential archaeological deposits. Two groups represent areas of relatively high magnetic contrast. One of these may denote a well defined deposit of possibly burnt material that could be of archaeological significance (group 1, figure 1). The other is less defined and will relate to either a scatter of archaeological deposits or natural variations in the local geology. One linear group may represent an archaeological deposit or a recent service trench. The remaining two groups are traces of relatively recent ploughing or similar cultivation activities.

The magnetic contrast across the survey area was sufficient to be able to differentiate between anomalies representing possible archaeological features and background magnetic responses. A total of 53 magnetic anomaly groups were identified as pertaining to potential archaeology. Numerous pits or similar deposits were recorded within the APD, much more so than is usually found in such a relatively small area and this may be significant given the proximity of two possible Romano-British burials adjacent to the survey area. These anomalies will be the result of either archaeological or natural processes and the nature of these deposits can only be assessed by further archaeological evaluation. Of the anomaly groups within the APD, two may indicate the presence of a ditched track or routeway which may coincide to similar anomalies recorded outside the APD. Eleven groups are linear and curvilinear anomalies that typically pertain to archaeological deposits such as enclosures and/or field boundaries. In this case, their number and proximity suggest a relatively complex set of deposits perhaps indicating more than one phase of archaeological activity. Outwith the APD, three anomaly groups coincide with low earthworks observed by the survey team. They appear to form three sides of a possible rectilinear enclosure or similar archaeological feature. In the southern-most part of the survey area, an area of enhanced magnetic responses was recorded which may indicate an area of archaeological activity or an area subjected to a different cultivation regime.

The magnetic contrast across the survey areas was sufficient to be able to differentiate between anomalies representing possible archaeological features and background magnetic responses. A total of 10 magnetic anomaly groups were identified as pertaining to potential archaeology and one of these denotes a former field boundary mapped in 1883 but not later. One anomaly group is associated with extant earthworks, appears to be respected by a former mapped field boundary, is on the same orientation as former earthworks mapped in 1883. One sub-circular structure and one possible pit were identified in the data set. Four possible former field boundaries, enclosures or similar archaeological features were identified, one of which may be a double ditch. Further points are made in section 3.3 Conclusions.

This report was commissioned by AC Archaeology Ltd on behalf of clients and was produced by Substrata in preparation for submission of a forthcoming planning application. The magnetic contrast across the survey areas was sufficient to be able to differentiate between anomalies representing possible archaeological features and background magnetic responses. A total of 19 magnetic anomaly groups were identified as pertaining to potential archaeology. Two of the anomaly groups are likely to represent former Devon banks mapped as field boundaries on the 1889 Ordnance Survey 1st edition map of the area and subsequently removed. Two anomaly groups coincide with the location of a small sub-rectangular enclosure recorded in the Devon County Council Historical Environment Record (entry MDV28880). A further group may represent a sub-circular archaeological structure such as a ring ditch or round house although the data is disrupted by buried ferrous material and so this interpretation is open to question. The remaining anomaly groups may relate to archaeological linear features, such as field boundaries or other enclosures, from more than one phase of past land management.

This report was commissioned by AC Archaeology Ltd on behalf of clients. The location of the site is shown in Figure 7. The survey area was situated within six fields, Fields 1 to 4, 6 and 7 as shown in Figure 1. Field 5 was excluded as it was the subject of an earlier geophysical survey undertaken as a component of a wider-scale assessment for the Land Southwest of Exeter Development Masterplan Area (Hughes and Valentin, 2010). The magnetic contrast across the survey area was sufficient to be able to differentiate between anomalies representing possible archaeological features and background magnetic responses. Forty-seven magnetic anomaly groups pertaining to potential archaeology were recorded across the six fields making up the survey area. None of the anomaly groups recorded related to features mapped by the Ordnance Survey on historical or modern maps. Two of the groups are likely to represent ring ditches or large round-houses. One group comprises a faint and disrupted set of anomalies that may indicate a single enclosure. Four of the groups may relate to two former ditched roads, tracks or field-lanes. Two groups are likely to reflect recent rubble deposits. The remaining magnetic anomaly groups recorded during the survey are most likely to relate to various phases of former fields and other enclosures not recorded on historical Ordnance Survey maps. These modern fields have been created out of probable medieval enclosures. The sinuous medieval boundaries survive in places