Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
Contents
Contents..............................................................................................................................................................1 List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................2 1 Non Technical Summary ............................................................................................................................3 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................3 2.1 Location and scope of work ..............................................................................................................3 2.2 Geology and topography ...................................................................................................................4 Historical and archaeological background ........................................................................................4 2.3 3 Aims and Objectives ..................................................................................................................................5 3.1 Resistivity Survey .............................................................................................................................5 3.2 Resistivity Methodology ...................................................................................................................5 3.3 Soils and ground conditions ..............................................................................................................6 4 Results ........................................................................................................................................................6 Composite, black and white shade plot.............................................................................................6 4.1 4.1.i Low resistance features: ...............................................................................................................6 4.1.ii High resistance features: ...............................................................................................................8 4.2 Colour processed shade plots ............................................................................................................8 4.2 i. Red-white-blue shade plot ............................................................................................................9 4.2 ii. Red-green shade plot ..................................................................................................................11 4.2 iii. Graduated enhancements........................................................................................................12 Interpretation and Discussion ...................................................................................................................12 5 5.1 Reliability of field investigation .....................................................................................................12 Overall Interpretation ......................................................................................................................13 5.2 5.3 Feature Interpretation ......................................................................................................................13 Discussion .......................................................................................................................................15 5.4 6 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................15 7 Bibliography and references .....................................................................................................................16
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
List of Figures
Figure 01 Figure 02 Figure 03 Figure 04 Figure 05 Figure 06 Figure 07 Figure 08 Figure 09 Figure 10 Figure 11 Figure 12
Location Map Area proposal Geology Contour map Grid sequence Plot overlay 1884 Ordnance Survey Map 1938 Ordnance Survey Map Insets A3 Red-white-blue plot A3 Red-green plot A3 Graduated plot
Copyright Notice: A.P.A.C. Ltd. retains copyright of this report under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988. The Ordnance Survey has granted A.P.A.C. Ltd a Copyright Licence (No. 100046577) to reproduce map information; Copyright remains otherwise with the Ordnance Survey.
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
2 2.1
Introduction
Location and scope of work
The site for the geophysical survey is located in the field known as Cae Hir; south of the B4254 and adjacent and east of Llancaiach Fawr Nelson, Treharris, Merthyr Tydfil C46 6ER, Ordnance Survey Grid REF: ST 113 967, fig 01. The scope of the work was to conduct a geophysical survey of an area of the field, Cae Hir, using resistivity techniques to identify any anomalies that would be present had the ground had been disturbed by human activities in the past. The extent of the survey was outlined in proposal G1/LCF/09, fig 02 which shows the layout of 84, 20m x 20m grids. In all, the survey was conducted over 3.48 ha of a possible 4.87 ha. The overall extent of the work is limited by budget, to a number of manageable phases. The present area covered by this report was chosen with an eye to efficient management of resources whilst maximising the potential for positive results. The topography of the land itself suggests the potential for buried ground works, whilst a number of finds have been recovered from field, by controlled metal detecting although it is suspected that less controlled means have yielded other finds in the past.
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
2.2
The site is located on glacial sand and gravel drift deposits although an outcrop of sandstone from the Upper Pennant Series can be found to the south of Llancaiach, (BGS 1997) fig 03. This outcrop is identifiable as the change in contour at the south of the field which encloses a spot height of 166m, fig 04. The field runs north/south, occupying a gentle south slope of Gelligaer common, at a height above sea level between 150 and 170 meters. The east of the field is bounded by a stream and in general, the ground slopes towards it. The north eastern extent of the field is badly drained and is quite wet although, no surface water was present. The entire northern edge of the field is very compact as it is used to hold the sheep feeders. The rest of the field is under short grass; being used for sheep grazing. Due to the close cropping, it is possible to identify vegetation changes which accentuate some earthwork features. In addition, it is noticeable that various patches of the field seem to suffer from fairly intensive mole activity, whilst others are left free. 2.3 Historical and archaeological background
The site of Llancaiach Fawr is well documented as a mostly early 16th century house with 17th century alterations and adaptations (RCAHMW Coflein. NPRN: 19150). This Tudor Period, semi fortified mansion, is a major visitor attraction and living History venue for South Wales, http://www.caerphilly.gov.uk/llancaiachfawr/llan_english/home.html Unfortunately, this is not true for the site prior to the 16th century when documentation appears to be extremely limited and at best speculative an example being: Gwaethvoed married Morfydd, one of the daughters and co-heirs of Ivor, king or lord of Gwent, by whom he was father of Cedrych, who is stated to have married Nest, daughter of Tangno ap Cadvael, lord of Ardudwy, in North Wales. Cedivor, son of Cedrych, was lord of Llancayach, in Morgauwg (Glamorganshire), and married Myfanwy, daughter of Gwrgant, lord of Glamorgan. His son Meurig ap Cedivor, married Gwladys, daughter of Arthen, king or lord of Gwent, by whom he was father of Ivor ap Meurig, known in Welsh history as Ivor bach (that is Ivor Petit or Little Ivor), who, though a man of low stature, was' of high mind and courage: lie married Nest, daughter of Madoc ap Cradoc, with whom he obtained the lordship of Sainghenydd (St. Kenyth's), in Glamorganshire, ami in the time of Henry II. Burke, J. 1836. 387. Accepting the date of 1157 (Jones. 1952. 60) for Ifor ap Meurig being recorded as active; then it is conceivable that two generations of antecedents, places could place Cedivor ap Cedrych as lord of Llancayach early in the 12th century, possibly late 11th. Of course, this would mean accepting Llancayach as Llancaiach and even then, it only mentions a lordship entitlement and not a specific site or structure. More objective evidence of archaeological resources are however, well evidenced in the close vicinity. A simple search on the CARN database (Core archaeological record index) reveals over a hundred listings 4
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
within a 2km distance of the site. These range from prehistoric with a chambered tomb 00655m and cup marked stone GM176 at Maen Cattwg, 1.6km north east, right through to many post med listings such as industrial colliery 80490, 0.1km. The Bronze age is represented with a Cist 00654 at 0.3km and multiple finds 22.149/1 0.6km whilst the Iron Age provides 2 objects 02.135 at some 1.7km distance. There is also a notable Roman presence the closest being an enclosure 00961 at less than 0.2km from the site. Finally, the medieval period is listed at just over the kilometre mark; 02678m, pool 1.2km, 02674m, inhumation 1.4km, 02673m Monastery 1.4km etc. http://carn.rcahmw.org.uk/index.php/search_results
3 3.1
The aims of survey will be to: Inform the owners of the field of the presence of any potential archaeological resources so that they may be better preserved. Identify areas for future excavation in order to increase an understanding of the site.
The objectives of survey will be to: Conduct a systematic subsurface survey of the site within the guidelines suggested by the IFA: (field evaluation 2008). To provide a report of the findings, this will include both raw data and an interpretative study. To produce an archive of the work containing raw data and processing details so to enable future study and reinterpretation. The archive will be retained by A.P.A.C. Ltd with a copy to Llancaiach Fawr. Resistivity Methodology
3.2
The resistivity survey was carried out using a TR Systems TRCIA 1.31 Resistance meter fitted with 0.5m array. A 1m pitch was used allowing 400 readings per 20m square. The selected range was 2000 ohms. The data from the fieldwork was collected over a period of two weeks, February/March 2009, and transferred from the on board data logger to a laptop containing TRSystems Ltd, Resistivity software V1.32. Initial processing of data to compile a composite plot and to remove field error was undertaken in this native format before being transferred to Archaeosurveyor 1.3.2.8 and Adobe Photoshop CS for further interpretative processing. Further processing was undertaken in Surfer 8 on four areas that required differing enhancement, to understand their data. Final graphics for this report were produced in Adobe Illustrator CS to allow for better presentation.
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
The survey itself was undertaken over 87, 20m x 20m grid squares; arranged across the field in such a way as to offset from the expected archaeology whilst maximising the efficiency and coverage of the available area. The grid arrangement was first plotted on a field boundary survey; undertaken as part of A.P.A.C. Ltds, test survey, August 2008. This plot work was undertaken in AutoCad 2007, the results from which were exported to CivilCad 6.4 and uploaded into a Topcon GPT 3007 Total Station. Stakeout of the entire grid at 20m intervals was undertaken with the Total Station; the grids being marked with low wooden pegs rather than possibly toxic survey paint, as the field contains grazing sheep. The field work was then undertaken using a set of tapes which were moved in a rolling process. The survey pattern followed a parallel format and the sequence used can be seen in fig 05. . 3.3 Soils and ground conditions
The Resistivity survey field work for the survey commenced on the 24th of February and continued through to the 28th. Further work began on the 2nd of March and finished on the 6th, missing the Wednesday 4th due to torrential rain which fell all day on the 3rd. At the outset of the survey, the weather had been dry but cold for over a week but the site had lain under snow for two weeks prior to that. There was a slight difference in ground resistance over the weekend between 28th and 2nd and this was adjusted on site. The torrential rain of the 3rd and standing water on the 4th however, caused more of a problem requiring adjustment on the 5th beyond the capabilities of the field apparatus. Further software adjustments had to be prepared for work on the final day; due to the differential ground drying.
4 4.1
The data was collected as 87 separate 20m x 20m grid surveys, some of which were partial grids due to obstructions in the field. Using the software provided, the 87 grids were integrated into one overall plot, with noticeable variance due to weather or fieldwork error. The composite plot was then processed to correct for variance and the composite shade plot produced which is presented in fig 06. Apart from grid to grid adjustment for fieldwork error, no processing enhancements have been undertaken of this plot. The plot has been overlaid on an aerial view of the site and it is possible to introduce some of the major findings using fig 06. As an aid to discussion, some non intrusive annotation has been added. Low resistance features are denoted with yellow letters A-A, B-B etc being linear features. Single letters with arrows denote an area and direction. High resistance features are shown in red. 4.1.i A-A Linear feature A-A runs from the present access gate of the field to the reception building; towards the B4254 where there is no visible breach in the present boundary hedge. No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and Low resistance features:
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
08. AA records at an average width of 2m for a length of 150m. Its path is slightly curved and it does not follow a contour suitable for drainage. B-B Linear feature B-B runs WSW/ENE across the top of the field and has no visible start or finish point. No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. B-B records at an average width of 2m for a length of 85m. Its path is slightly curved and it does not follow a contour suitable for drainage. B-B1 Linear feature B-B1 runs ESE from the around the centre of the northern part of the field towards a bend in the stream No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. B-B1 records at an average width of 2m for a length of 75m. Its path is straight and does follow a contour possibly suitable for drainage Its line terminates close to an outfall in the stream fig 09. C-C Linear feature C-C runs more southerly than B-B1 with an origin to the east along the B4254. Its direction is again the stream but slightly south of B1. C-C crosses B-B1 and passes through the low resistance spread to terminate closer to the outfall mentioned above, fig 09. No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. C-C records at an average width of 2m for a length of 68m. Its path is straight and again follows a contour possibly suitable for drainage. D Curvilinear feature D presents as a boundary of low resistance along the east side of the field where it abuts the stream. On the overlaid aerial view it can be seen that the extreme bottom left of the shade plot showing low resistance aligns perfectly with a light change in vegetation. There is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. E Feature E occupies the south west corner of the shade plot extending over an area of some 0.24ha. Its most noticeable shape is that of an elongated, reversed c pointing ENE/WNW. The straight edges east and west measure c. 40 m and 30m respectively. They run parallel to each other and are joined by an arc to the south with a diameter of c. 20m. No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. It should be noted that a sluice pond is recorded on the 1884 map, in close proximity. F Curvilinear feature F runs east west for a distance of some 30m and has a width of c. 10m. The feature is noticeably well defined along its northern circumference but less distinct towards the south. No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08.
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
4.1.ii High resistance features: G Linear feature G can be clearly seen as a double row of dark parallel lines running a few degrees off east/west, across the site, from the west edge of the field. The width of the lines varies from 2m to 3m and the distance between the lines is on average about 10m. The lines run for just over 80m before ending abruptly or turning south. It is possible that the lines return to the south around H where similar lines can be seen. No clear surface evidence for the feature was identified during the survey and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. However; a linear depression running in the general direction of feature H was noted and surveyed with the Total Station. The depression leads to a concrete drain opening at the stream and is believed to run from Llancaiach Fawr house. This drainage feature has been plotted in fig 09 and can be seen to have no connection to feature G. Fig 09 also shows the inset of the test survey which was undertaken in the drier conditions of July 2008. The four grid squares correspond with those of 3, 4, 19 & 20; the difference in resistance being more marked and providing a clearer plot. However, the features are the same. Two of the test pits excavated in 2008 are shown and these apparently revealed rubble spreads. H H has already been mentioned as possibly a return of G. If this is the case, then H and G enclose an area of c. 1.8ha measuring 80m x 140m. Also leading from H is another feature that runs south east and cuts E. No evidence of the feature is present on the surface and there is no reference to such a feature on the available Ordnance survey maps figs 07 and 08. I This large feature is less easy to define being a fairly large spread of resistance through which other lower resistance lines and areas pass. Topographically it can be recognised as a raised spur of ground; a clue to its nature can be found by referring again to figs 03 & 04.The outcrop of sandstone would appear to be in the same area denoted by I.
4.2
Colour processing of a black and white shade plot is useful as a means of enhancing different bands of resistance in order to accentuate features. Processing for this purpose was undertaken by exporting the composite black and white shade plot into Archaeosurveyor and adjusting of the overall filter levels of the composite. Two new composites were produced with resistance calibrations changed from black and white to red and blue fig 10 and the second red and green fig 11. These filtered images were exported into Photoshop and enhanced to differing settings to identify features. Two images of each enhanced plot were exported to Adobe Illustrator CS and features marked for interpretation. Both fig 10 and 11 are A3 formats allowing the images to be viewed together. Both figs contain the original black and white plot, a grid sequence to enable description, and pairs of identical filtered images; one above the other, with interpretive drawings annotated to the bottom image. All images carry the resistance gradient and associated values.
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
In both figs 10 and 11, the interpretative annotation is: 4.2 i. yellow = low resistance, orange = mid point brown = high.
Images A and A1 show the resistance plot with red being high resistance and low resistance as blue. A mid point of white has been added to differentiate this very complex plot. No filter has been added to the plot at this stage. In general, it can be seen in image A that the northwest corner of the survey shows very low resistance, (blue), which is not really a surprise as the area is very wet and badly drained. Moreover, the low resistance continues along the east edge of the plot, obviously a consequence of its proximity to the stream. The rest of the plot is shown as mid to high resistance, (white-red), and is associated with higher ground than that of the blue areas. Care must be taken in interpreting these high resistance areas as they will naturally be better drained and therefore produce higher resistance. In addition; the geological map, fig 03 identifies this area of high resistance as an outcrop of sandstone which suggests that archaeological features would be more apparent as low resistance intrusions into a high resistance background. With these caveats in mind, it is noticeable that the north edge of the high resistance area is very straight and its north eastern edge forms almost a right angle before continuing south. Furthermore, the entire surface of the high resistance area; with the exception of the southern end, is criss-crossed with rectangular blocks of high resistance which are all aligned to the north and east edges. The southern edge of the high resistance area is more densely intact and juts further to the east but unfortunately it southern extent was outside of this survey brief. On image A1 areas of low resistance anomalies have been added in yellow and their following discussion can be plotted using the sequence grid included on the right of the sheet. Starting at the top, grids 17, 30 and 43 show very low resistance close to the road A*. The ground itself is very compact here as this is where the circular sheep feeders are kept and so it is subject to a heavy and continuous sheep presence. Grids 17, 30, 43, 56, 73, 77 and 80 show a very faint linear feature of low resistance which is paralleled by another similar feature in 18, 31, 44, 56, 74, 78 and 81, B*. These features may be one in the same and it should be noted that they align to the present field gate to the northwest. The series of linear features that cross the above lines have already been discussed above: A-A, B-B, B-B1, C-C, in relation to the black and white shade plot. The present colour plot does however identify a further line C-C* between B-B1 and C-C at 56, 57, 58 & 76 which terminates at a large low resistance area abutting the stream. A-A can also be seen to cut through high resistance G where a large rectangular area of low resistance D*; grid 19, can be seen aligned between Gs two parallel, high resistance features. A new linear feature E*, running c. 180m from grid 55, north to 47 has been added as have the three rectangular areas of low resistance F*, G* and H* in grids: 24, 38 39, and 52.
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
Areas E & F are also still very visible but E can now be seen to be cut by two parallel linear features of low resistance, I* and J* through grid 14, 12 and 29 and grids 28 and 42. A very faint area of low resistance, K*, forming an irregular oval feature can be seen in the north east of the plot. The feature covers 74, 75, 78, 79 and 81 being c. 20m x 30m. The anomaly is very feint due to water logging of the ground. To the east of the oval feature; grid 81, is a rectangular area of slightly higher resistance, L*. The last anomaly to be presented on this plot is a curvilinear feature of higher resistance along the bank of the stream. This feature, M*, was identified as the remains of a collapsed wall or stream bank and was intermittently visible along the edge of the stream. Images B and B1 have been adjusted in Adobe Photoshop to increase the band width of the middle resistance readings in order to narrow the band of higher resistance. This serves to identify features at high and low extremes more easily by burning out the intervening information. B1 will be used to introduce the high resistance findings. Before introducing more high resistance findings, it is worth mentioning feature G which can be clearly seen to be cut by A-A. It may also be useful to note that the entire area of high resistance would appear to be cut with irregularly spaced lines of low resistance and that these faint lines are all aligned with features G and H. This scoring of the high resistance area could be the results of ploughing although the effect is unlikely from shallow ploughing. If the linear features were indeed caused by ploughing, there is a possibility that their direction may have been dictated by the presence of surviving earthwork obstacles, see features O*, P*, Q* R* and S* below. On a negative note however, if the features are a result of ploughing then the underlying archaeology may have been considerably disturbed. The first high resistance feature to be discussed is that of N*, grid 34, a linear feature of high resistance or a high resistance outcrop cut on both sides by low resistance features. Next is feature O* grid 28, an additional curvilinear line which appears in this plot to be an extension of the southern line of feature H. P* grids 28 & 41 appears as a right angled linear feature, aligned with a section of O*. It is some 20m long with a 5m right angle corner forming an L shape. Q* is a shorter linear feature, also in grid 41 and possibly associated. R* a curvilinear spread of high resistance over grid squares 41, 54 & 55. S* a small high resistance area in grid square 42 again aligned with P*. T*, grid square 68, can be identified visually as part of a collapsed wall along the stream. U*, grid square 14, a rectangular area of high resistance, on the field boundary and probably associated with building debris and storage spill. V* a rectangular area of high resistance exhibiting angular edges and associated with low resistance features G* & H*, (see AI above). W* is a large spread, c. 20m of high resistance over grids 7, 8, and 9. This feature again has angular edges and abuts F* an angular feature of low resistance.
10
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
4.2 ii.
The red-green shade plot, fig 11, removes the mid point calibration of fig 10 to produce a different set of imaging results which; using Adobe Photoshop CS, has been balance adjusted in D and E to enhance features against their background. C is a non enhanced version whereas D targets the very poorly defined low resistance area, north east of the field and E enhances the main high resistance area. Red-green shade plot C1 shows a good separation of the main high low resistance areas with much of the intervening noise reduced. Most of the features already discussed above can be still be seen but to add them would to the plot would be labouring the point and confusing to the image. What has been added are some new features and some alterations to those already features already discussed such as: high resistance features G can now be seen to be associated with large angular features A# and B# grid squares 3, 4 and 32, 33, 45 & 46. B# appears to form a rounded corner for the entire high resistance area but does appear to be too well defined to be natural. C#, grid 59, hasnt been noted before with any certainty but in this plot, it does take on a more solid form and possibly continues into grid 60. D# is also a new feature, suggesting a very angular area some 25m by 10m cantered on grid 36. E#, 7, 8, 9, 24 & 25 has a more definite shape and larger area than was recorded earlier as W*. It now clearly encloses the low resistance areas of F* & G* The plot shown in D1 has been enhanced to bring out the very faint resistance changes recorded in the north east of the field. Most of the plot has been sacrificed in order to access these lower readings. As was mentioned above, the area is very badly drained and had suffered from torrential rain and some surface water two days before being surveyed. For any features to show at all in these conditions must be indicative of their nature. Feature F# is an angular area with a small leg giving it a block L shape. It is situated in grid 56 and measures some c. 10m x 10m. Feature G#, grid square 77, takes on an almost ? shape measuring c. 6m x 6m. H# is a linear spread c. 20m in length located in grid squares 57 & 74. I# is a large rectangular spread along the side of the stream, grids 75 & 79 and may be associated with drainage, fig 09. The most interesting results in this area seem to be a complex of angular blocks and linear features across grid squares 80 & 81. The final shade plot E1 was included to address some of the sequencing of the features. The plot has been enhanced to remove most of the lower resistance separation and condense the mid point readings. With the exception of some of the possible plough marks ___ and a more schematic interpretation of O*, P*, Q* and R*, nothing new has been added to this plot. In the northern half of the plot, feature A-A can be seen to cut through feature G thereby establishing that AA is later than G. Further down the western side, the low resistance feature F can be seen to have been cut by the linear orange lines, assumed to be plough marks.
11
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
The sequencing at the bottom left of the field would appear to be: E the U shaped low resistance feature underlies D*, the higher resistance linear feature, which itself is cut by bands of possible ploughing.
4.2 iii.
Graduated enhancements
The graduated enhancement plot, fig 12 concentrates on small areas of the survey; in order to best interpret their data. The process involves sectioning part of the original shade plot and reducing that information to a dat report, before exporting into Surfer 8. In Surfer 8, the information is converted into a graduated 3D contour plot from which it is possible to interrogate the outputs as topographic maps with different light and angle positions to emphasise reliefs. Images F, G, H and I are such graduated plots, viewed in plan with various lighting positions. Each plot is accompanied by identical image on which features have been marked and annotated. Each plot is also supported by its black and white, shade original, the main black and white original and the grid sequence map. Image F shows an enhancement of the 0.4 ha, low resistance area to the north of the site. The plot is mostly in blue and white, with no low resistance showing because the data has been adjusted to fit the range available within the constraints of this section only. It was noted earlier that as this section is poorly drained, any information relating to variance in electrical soil resistance was hard to record What has emerged is confirmation of features G#, H#, I# & J# noted earlier in fig 11, D1. However, these features can now be seen to be part of a larger rectangular area. Image F looks at another 0.4ha of ground; this time to the west of the site. Again there is confirmation of the features discussed earlier A-A, C-C, G, A# and B# and these are available over two images where the lighting has been adjusted from east to northeast to cast differing relief and shadow. Two new features are observable; A^, a circular area only visible on the NE version and B^ a rectangular, mid resistance area, north east of B#. Image G examines 0.36ha of plot toward the west edge of the site. Again, the presence of already identified features; F, F* G* and W*, are confirmed. However, the image also tends to show that these features are probably different aspects of one integral feature; a feature, which exhibits evidence of low areas of resistance enclosed by angular, high resistance boundaries. In the case of F and W* the boundary is exceedingly abrupt. Image H, another 0.36ha area lies to the south west of the site and highlights the enigmatic curvilinear shape E. I8 and J8 are also present as linear features of low resistance that cut E. Most noticeable however, is the regular east/west lines that cut across all. The lines present as high/low, parallel ridges and troughs with a spacing of 5m.
5 5.1
Weather and ground conditions introduced a variance into the findings that had to be adjusted in both field work and processing. That said, recording procedures employed, meant that the variance could be countered accurately. The resultant reliability of the findings are therefore good although, overall improvement in this instance may have benefited from dryer conditions.
12
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
It should be remembered that Geophysics is an interpretive process based on variable results. It is not an exact science and should not be taken as such. Geophysics is best suited for preliminary work from which informed judgments can be made for future research.
5.2
Overall Interpretation
The overall interpretation of the findings would suggest that the majority of the area is a natural sandstone plateau. This plateau has been utilised for its position of high, dryer ground as an area for a large amount of activity. It would seem that the north east corner has been artificially enhanced possibly by a revetted ditch or ditch and wall. The east side continues, possibly to a parallel, return of the wall/ditch to the south. The east edge of this feature is not so well defined but this may be a result of erosion of some sort. Enclosed within the surrounding feature are angular areas of high resistance defined by cuts of low resistance. It is probable that any intrusive investigation of this area would reveal a rich archaeological resource dependent on foundations rather than standing remains. The south east section of the present survey would again suggest usage of a sandstone outcrop but in this instance there would seem to be considerable excavation into the bedrock. The area also shows signs of more modern land modification, probably ploughing, possibly ridge and furrow. The northern section of the site has been very difficult process due to the almost blank response caused by poor drainage and recent rain. One feature does however stand out and could prove to be very interesting.
Feature Interpretation
Linear features A-A and B-B can be seen in the various plots to cut through areas of high resistance and can therefore be assumed to be paths or services. Evidence would suggest that they are not paths as they are neither recorded on the early maps, nor is there any evidence on the ground; unusual as they have been cut into various high resistance features. Topographically they are unlikely to be drainage which leaves the possibility that they may be unrecorded service trenches. As regards B-B1, C-C, and C-C1; the topography and their terminal ends at the stream, would suggest that their purpose is drainage, see figs 10 A1 & 12 F1. Low resistance area D is a natural band of silting relating to the stream. E is a very unusual feature being a large U shaped cut. It appears to be the oldest feature in the vicinity and its purpose is unknown. F again is an unusual feature of low resistance that defies interpretation. There is also a possibility that it forms the northern end of E.. G has been mentioned above as one of the most overt features that show on all the plots. It may be an enclosure ditch, possibly Roman or Medieval but there again it may be earlier or later. The only thing of any certainty is that it is there and that it is not natural. H as has already been discussed could be the southern edge of a ditched enclosure of which G is the northern edge. I, is possibly part of the natural outcrop of sandstone, shown in fig 03 & 04.
13
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
Generally fig 10. A* is a set of circular patches of low resistance circumstantially associated with the position of sheep feeders. B*, is a very faint linear suggestion; possibly an extension of the current entrance used by the farm vehicle whilst feeding the sheep. C*, a roughly rectangular area of lower resistance suspiciously close to the outlet on the stream and connected to possible drains B-B1, C-C and C-C1. D* a low resistance area between the parallel lines of G and associated with the cut of A-A. Interpretation unknown. E* is the line of a visible sheep path. F*, G* and H* are angular areas of low resistance forming stark contrast to surrounding angular extents of W*. The angular nature of these areas, their alignment and the proximity of W* suggests that these features could be internal elements of a surrounding structure W*. I* & J* are two parallel linear features that cut E. Nature unknown. K* is an oval feature of low resistance; nature unknown. L* is a rectangle of slightly higher resistance than it surroundings, nature unknown until viewed in figs 11 and 12 where it consolidates into a complex of rectangular structures G# & J#. M* marks the remains of an old field wall associated with the stream which it follows. N* is a high resistance linear feature of unknown nature. O*, P*, Q*, R* and S* are angular areas of low resistance within feature I which is thought to be a natural outcrop. The intensity of the readings makes the features difficult to interpret, plus the underlying features may have been considerably disturbed by ploughing. That said, the results suggest that the disturbance is not natural although the cause may be anything from quarrying to structures or foundations. T* is an exposed area of stone tumble associated with field wall M* U* is a very high resistance area which also rises towards the fence. On the other side of the fence is a storage area and dump which may explain the high resistance readings. V* see F*, G*, H* and W* above. Generally fig 11. A# is a well defined rectangular area which abuts G, There is a possibility that it is a structural platform better viewed in fig 12 F. B# is a better defined view of G at the north east corner; again better viewed in fig 12 G. C# is a new addition to the data forming a linear feature to the east of the plateau. This may well be part of an enclosure boundary associated with G and H as discussed above.
14
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
D# is a rectangular area of high resistance within the potentially enclosed area, see above. It is similar to A# and noticeably on the same alignment. E# is a better defined view of W* which has been described early as a possible structure with lower internal voids. F# H# and I# may be related to earlier features B-B1, C-C, C-C1 and as such are due to processing results. G# and J# however emphasise that there is defiantly more to L8 than was first assumed. The angular nature of the features may be suggestive of a low standing structure. Generally fig 12. Features G#, H#, I# & J# are probably one associated rectangular feature with internal separations. A^, is probably just a processing anomaly as it does not show up on any other plots. B^ , is probably due to the same cause. The features; F, F* G,*, W* and E#, are more than likely surviving walls and internal rooms of a building. Feature E is still no closer to definition, although the proximity and alignment of the road and the shape of possible foundation trenches, may suggested a possible gate-house drum tower.
5.4
Discussion
The results of this project have revealed that the beneath the surface, the field of Cae Hir, Llancaiach Fawr is a vast amount of archaeological resources waiting to be discovered. Resources, which may well lead to a clearer understanding of how the area was used prior to the erection of the Tudor building. Although more geophysics needs to be done to complete the study of the field, geophysics can only go so far towards providing answers. Research should be directed towards excavation so that these important results can be verified objectively.
Acknowledgements
Thanks D. A. Walker of Llancaiach Fawr and Mr Anthony for their help and interest and also the canteen staff at Llancaiach Fawr for their warming refreshments. Thanks to my non complaining field staff: Mr A. O. Phillips, Mr K. M Phillips. MS J. A. Farley and Mr G. Jenkins for her help during the work. Thanks also to A4A research and development for their assistance with research.
15
A.P.A.C. Ltd
G1/LCF/09
British Geological Survey of Great Britain. Solid and Drift. Newport 249. 1: 50 000. 1997 reprint. Standard and Guidance for Field Evaluation. October 2008 . By-Laws Code of Conduct revised October 2008. Code of Approved Practice for the regulation of Contractual Arrangements in Field Archaeology. revised October 2008. Draft Standard and Guidance for the creation, compilation, transfer and deposition of archaeological archives. October 2008.
Brut Y Tywysogyon or The Chronicle of the Princes. Peniarth MS 20. Cardiff: University of Wales press.
RCAHMW CARN
http://carn.rcahmw.org.uk/index.php/search_results
A.P.A.C. Ltd, Registered Address: 36 Hatherleigh Rd, Abergavenny, Monmouthshire. NP7 7RG . 07734962919. Email: apac.philips@btinernet.com. Company Registration No 5041541. VAT Reg No 826 3628 19. www.apac.ltd.uk Director: Dr N. Phillips. D.Phil. BA (Hons). Cert Ed/FE. AIFA. AAI&S
16
280 m
60 m
280 m
60 m
Original
A1
B G
A*
A BC B* D* C* C L*
B1
1
17
30
43
18
19
31
32
44
45
56
57
73
74
77
78
80
81
82
83
G B1 280 m M* N*
4
5
6
20
21
22
33
34
35
46
47
48
58
59
60
75
76
84
79
F*
23
24
36
49
61
62
85
86
G* H* E* H U*
W* V* T*
14
37
38
39
50
51
52
9
10
25
26
63
64
87
68
J* D
O*
P*
Q* M* R* S* I
11
12
27
28
40
41 42
53
54
65
66
69
70 71
72
15
16
13
29
55
67
60 m
Grid sequence
280 m
280 m
280 m
60 m
60 m
280 m
60 m
Non enhanced
Original
C1 A# G
D1 F# B# C# H# I# G# J#
E1 B B G A
1
17
30
43
2
3
18
19
31
32
44
45
56
57
73
74
77
78
80
81
82
83
20
21
22
33
34
35
46
47
48
58
59
60
75
76
84
79
280 m
280 m
280 m
280 m
low
5
6
E# W#
D#
A W* F P*
7
8
23
24
36
49
61
62
85
86
37
38
39
50
51
52
9
10
25
26
63
64
87
68
11
12
27
28
40
41 42
53
54
65
66
69
70 71
72
E
60 m 60 m 60 m
16
13
29
55
67
Original
A
Lighting NE Horizontal 136 Vertical 44
B
G# H# I# J#
Grids: 73,74,75,77,78,79,80,81,82,83.
F1
A G A# B# C C
Grids: 3,4,19,20,32,33,45,46,57,58.
G A# A^
Lighting NE Horizontal 139 Vertical 60
A B#
G1
W* F*
Grids: 7,8,9,23,24,25,36,37,38.
A1
B1
17
30
43
G* F
2
3
18
19
31
32
44
45
56
57
73
74
77
78
80
81
82
83
20
21
22
33
34
35
46
47
48
58
59
60
75
76
84
79
H1
Grids: 14,15,16,11,12,13,27,28,29.
5
6
7
8
23
24
36
49
61
62
85
86
37
38
39
50
51
52
I* J*
9
10
25
26
63
64
87
68
14
15
11
12
27
28
40
41 42
53
54
65
66
69
70 71
72
16
13
29
55
67
Original
Gate
House
Grid ref:
E 311400 N 196400
Proposal Plan
Resistivity Survey G1/LCF/09
Feb 2009 Llancaiach Fawr
Survey: Processing:
A.P.A.C. Ltd
1
2
17
18
30
31
43
44
45
46
47
56
73
74
77
80 81
82
83
3
4
5
19 20
21
32
33
57
78
79
58
59
75
76
34
6
7
22
23
24
35
36
48
49
50
60
61
84
85
8
9
37
62
86
25
38
39
51
52
63
64
87
68
69
70
10
26
27
28
14
15
11
12
13
40
41
42
53
54
65
66
67
16
29
55
71
72
Location:
Plan
Resistivity Survey
Feb/March 2009 Llancaiach Fawr
Stage:
Period:
Reception Field Boundary Proposed area Grids to be done Grids completed 50m approximate scale
Survey: Processing:
A.P.A.C. Ltd
A B C
B1 C
I E
Width 260 Height 200 Readings 33335 Maximum 987.171 Minimum 64.884 Mean 567.559 Std.Dev 86.905
Location:
Shade plot
A.P.A.C. Ltd
1
2
17
18
30
31
43
44
45
46
47
56
73
74
77
80 81
82
83
3
4
5
19 20
21
32
33
57
78
79
58
59
75
76
34
6
7
22
23
24
35
36
48
49
50
60
61
84
85
8
9
37
62
86
25
38
39
51
52
63
64
87
68
69
70
10
26
27
28
14
15
11
12
13
40
41
42
53
54
65
66
67
16
29
55
71
72
Location: Notes: Inset of July test survey 2008 & plan of works, pre: carpark. The inset shade plot = grid squares 3, 4, 19 & 20. The varance between the two shade plots is due to seasonal ground conditions
Plan + Inset
Interpretation comparisson
Feb/March 2009 Llancaiach Fawr
Period:
A.P.A.C. Ltd