new light on old sites

Leave a comment

Geophysical Survey Results

Data from the geophysical survey was downloaded onto a computer during our lunch break and at the end of the day. This allowed us to begin to ‘see’ the site as it unfolded very quickly, as well as allowing us to identify any problems with our survey technique, and in the case of any technical difficulties would could limit the amount of data loss. I for one, couldn’t wait to download the data! This blog post will briefly describe the process we undertook after the data was downloaded.

Raw Data


Field B showing grid (raw data)

Survey data downloaded from the magnetometers is considered ‘raw’. The data for each grid is stored separately and has to be compiled using software. Computer programmes do not know how to put each grid together, so you have to keep accurate notes when surveying!

We used GEOPLOT 3.0 to work with our data. Because we ended up grid-ing out each of the fields separately, we created compiled images for each individual field. That way, we could take the fences into account.

Data Processing

Once the grids for each field were compiled, we then had to ‘process’ the data. Processing corrects for the slight (but unavoidable) inaccuracies caused by the field slope, different gaits from different surveyors, and even very slight inaccuracies in the grid layout. It also helps to smooth out some of the data. Then the files are exported from GEOPLOT 3.0 and imported into GIS software (I used QGIS for this project). You can see a comparison of the raw data and the processed data below.

SWALL14 raw data

2014 Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire Geophysical Survey (Raw Data)


SWALL14 processed data

2014 Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire Geophysical Survey (Processed Data)


Based on the fully processed data and our understanding of the site from visits and the 1920s excavation report, we then began to interpret the survey.

Field A

2014 Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire Geophysical Survey (Field Names)

2014 Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire Geophysical Survey (Field Names)

Despite the visible earthwork in Field A, which is only faintly visible in the geophysical survey results (marked in blue), no other features of archaeological interest were visible. Dr Clay described this ring earthwork as an amphitheatre or ‘circus’ and considered it to be part of the settlement enclosure visible in Field B. It is unfortunate that the road that separates the two sites cuts through anything that may have indicated the relationship between the two features. However, given the other known dated evidence for both prehistoric and historic features in the immediate vicinity, there is no reason for this earthwork to be directly related to the Iron Age activity.

Field B, C, Ca

The linear features forming the ditch enclosure (marked in green) is particularly strong to the west (were it is visible on the surface), but also on the eastern side. The eastern portion of the ditch visible in field Ca may continue into the south-eastern corner of field C. It is possible that originally both ditches were connected along the southern side, but the road later cut through the site. Another, disconnected, linear feature far to the west of the enclosure ditch is also faintly visible on the survey results.

A number of roughly circular negative features (marked in red) are visible in the area that appears to be the inside of the enclosure. Many of these are likely to be the pits that Clay previously excavated, but it is not possible to exactly identify each pit.

There also seem to be several possible curvilinear features that may indicate round-structures (marked in purple). Clay was unaware that Iron Age people lived in roundhouses at the time of his excavations and instead believed that they lived in pits, so he didn’t know to look for evidence of roundhouses.

2014 Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire Geophysical Survey (Interpretation)

2014 Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire Geophysical Survey (Interpretation: Green=Visible Ditches, Blue=Visible Banks, Red=Negative Features, Purple=Ring?)

A full report with technical details about the survey is available here. 

Leave a comment

Geophysics Methodology 101 – Part Two

Geophysics Methodology 101 – Part Two    

Welcome back! Part One of this section discussed how we picked the areas to survey. The following sections discuss how you actually do geophysics fieldwork. It will be divided into the following primers:

  1. Drawing squares and making grids
  2. What’s that doohickey? Or, getting acquainted with your gradiometer
  3. Walk, walk, fieldwork baby
  4. Murphy’s Law

Ready? Let’s go!

Drawing squares and making grids

Remember this photograph?


In geophysics, you want your data to be recorded within very specific areas. In our case, it was 30 by 30 meter grid squares. Ideally, you want your grids to be ready before you go out in the field, with all of the grid points input in your GPS unit. Theoretically, the crewmember with the GPS unit will turn it on and the machine will tell them exactly where the points are. The crewmember can then put down bamboo canes to mark the points of the grids. The rest of the team can then begin surveying almost immediately.

You can create these maps in software like ArcGIS (Geographic Information System). Essentially, you take a map of the area you want to survey and make sure that it is properly georeferenced – meaning, that it contains information relating to longitude and latitude. This is important because you want your data to line up properly with your maps when you’re analyzing it later. Creating grids is easy: all you need to do is draw the appropriate grids over the georeferenced map and by appropriate I mean lining portions of the grid along something straight like a fence line, field boundary, or road. Once that’s finished, the data can be stored in your GPS unit and you’re ready to go!

Of course, maps and GPS units can be tricky – just ask anyone with a SatNav! We went out into the field and found that even though I programmed the points into the GPS unit, the map I’d used for georeferencing used the British National Grid, but the GPS unit itself used Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) points. Oops.

Don’t panic! Not all is lost! This is where our good old friend Pythagoras comes in handy. Do you need to lay out 30 by 30 meter squares out by hand? Use A2 + B2 = C2 , three crewmembers, three very long tape measures, and lots of bamboo canes. Once you get the hang of it, you can lay out grid squares very quickly, and your friend with the GPS can come back along and record those new grid points to export back into ArcGIS with your data for later georeferencing and analysis.


The takeaway message here is to be aware of your georeferencing systems. The other is to brush up on the Pythagorean theorem because even if your GPS is working perfectly, you’re probably going to end up laying out a few grid squares by hand anyway, because fields are never perfectly square and you’re going to survey sections that are irregularly shaped.

What’s that doohickey? Or, getting acquainted with your gradiometer

Congratulations, you’re ready to do geophysical survey! The only question is, what is geophysical survey? To put it simply: a non-destructive way of looking at what’s below the ground surface. There are many different tools that you can use to get these kind of results, and you’ve probably even heard of some of them: resistivity meters and magnetometers. There are different types of instruments within both of these categories, and each of them has a specialized function. For example, some are better at detecting solid stone structures while others are better at looking at shallow pits and ditches. On our project, we used a Bartington fluxgate gradiometer, which depends on magnetometry. Magnetometers, as the name suggests, measure differences in the natural magnetic field of a particular area. They measure variations caused by human activity, such as the digging of ditches.


Here is a Bartington fluxgate gradiometer. These machines are ideal for geophysical survey because they do not need to probe the ground and take continuous readings (note that the machine is strapped to the surveyor). The long poles on either end are the sensors, and are programmed to take readings at certain intervals. The gradiometer takes those readings, puts them together, and voila! Raw data for later processing and perusal.

In the above photo, I’m doing something called balancing. Remember how I said that magnetometers record the differences in an area’s natural magnetic field? Well, the first thing you need to do once you’re out in the field is find out the baseline magnetic field for that particular area. Once that’s calibrated, all of the readings the machine takes will be measured against that baseline. And remember how we have three field, Fields A, B, and C? Each field has a different baseline, so the machine has to be balanced each time it’s used in a different field, as well as when you switch surveyors. This is because each person is a different: they’ll carry the machine differently, walk differently, and may have an entirely different magnetic signature than the previous person.

Essentially, these machines are delicate (and expensive) creatures and must be treated like the divas they are. Change fields? Balance the machine. Change surveyors? Balance the machine. Take a tea break? Balance the machine. Go and upload your data? Balance the machine. Do the macarena? Balance the machine.

Now, because magnetometers measure magnetic fields, that means surveyors and their teams must not have any magnetic metals on them while surveying, or it will screw with the data. That’s why geophysical surveyors are usually found in trackie bottoms with elastic waists, plain shirts, cheap trainers or wellies, etc. You’d be amazed how many clothing items have metal in them.

Now you know what your machine does. You’ve put on the appropriate clothing, and you’ve balanced your machine. Time to survey!

Walk, walk fieldwork baby

Remember those 30 by 30 meter grids you put in your GPS, and then laid out by hand? It’s time to start walking them.


Within each 30 by 30 meter grid square, the surveyor has to start in one corner and walk up and down evenly spaced lines until they reach the other end of the grid. By the time they’ve reached the end of the grid, they’ve walked up and down thirty times, walking roughly 900 meters! Geophysical survey is very good exercise, no? And while they’re walking, the machine is taking constant readings. Most Bartingtons can store data for up to 12 grid squares before they need to be uploaded.

Surveying isn’t just a matter of walking. Surveyors have to walk at a constant pace, ensuring that the machine is taking the right readings at the appropriate intervals. Intervals and other considerations vary from machine to machine and crew to crew, but we programmed our Bartingtons to take multiple reading per meter, at two-meter intervals, in order to create a very detailed picture.


Walking properly takes practice. The surveyor can set his or her pace in the Bartington, which will beep at a constant rate, just like a metronome. Some people like a faster pace, some like a slower pace. While the surveyor is walking, the other two members of the team are responsible for switching out the lines the surveyor is following, moving them down the grid every two meters. This is so that all the surveyor needs to worry about is walking up and down, up and down, up and down. The other members should also be wearing as little metal on them as possible – if they are, they need to take a few steps away from the surveyor as they approach.

Murphy’s Law

Sometimes, things go wrong. Georeference systems don’t match up, fieldwork is delayed because teams have to lay out grids, and Mother Nature decides to dump a thunderstorm on your head. We faced major delays our first day out in the field because of the mix-up with the coordinate systems. While half the team went out to manually lay out grids, the rest of us tried to figure out what was wrong with the GPS and the points (we didn’t find out about the British National Grid/UTM problem until later). At that moment, an enormous storm rolled in and the entire crew ran for the van. Swallowcliffe Down in on top of a high chalk ridge with little tree cover. The GPS unit sits atop a long iron pole, which would like carrying around a giant lightning rod.

Rain can cause major delays in in geophysical survey. Bartington machines are not waterproof, though they can survive in light rain when the main body of the machine is covered with plastic sandwich bags, and the sensors are covered with bin liners. Luckily, after the one thunderstorm, the weather cleared and even became unseasonably hot and sunny.


Oh hey there random helicopter, flying low over Field B and scaring the bejeezus out of us. Other memorable distractions included hill-walkers, marathon runners (several of whom correctly identified our fieldwork as geophysics – thank you, Time Team), and the deposition of several very large stacks of hay right in the middle of Field C. Despite a few hiccups, we managed to get there in the end!

Leave a comment

Geophysics Methodology 101 – Part One

There were two major questions we needed to consider when it came to tackling geophysics for Swallowcliffe:

  1. How do you pick a place to do geophysics?
  2. How do you actually do geophysics?

We’ll walk through each of these questions and really break them down.

Question #1 – How do you pick a place to do geophysics?

As you can see from our previous post on the site’s location, the area we’re looking at is pretty large. English Heritage scheduled an area covering three separate fields:

Swallowcliffe_Down_1945_Field names

Dr. Clay’s 1920s excavation of Swallowcliffe Down took place in an area that overlaps Fields B and C, and parts of Field A were also mapped and possibly explored (the original excavation can be quite unclear sometimes!). When Elizabeth and I made our initial site visit in Spring 2014, we found visual evidence of the site in the lower right-hand corner of Field B:


It’s difficult to see, but there’s a slight, semi-circular ridge a few meters beyond the fenceline. English Heritage also recorded a series of undated dyke systems at the opposite end of Field B. We also found a raised earthwork in the upper right-hand corner of Field A:


For these reasons, we decided to prioritize the lower right-hand corner of Field B, all of Field C, and as much of Field A as possible (focusing on the upper right-hand corner). We wanted to survey the dyke systems on the left-hand side of Field B as well, but there were several issues with that:


We’ll come back to this grid in Question #2, but for now, I would like to point out that each yellow square in the photo above corresponds to a 30 by 30 meter grid square. Therefore, Field B covers an area of about 93,600 square meters. Our team would only consist of six members working two machines in teams of three, and we would only have a week to complete the geophysical survey.

This is why we had to prioritize the specific areas that were mapped in Dr. Clay’s original report (the areas marked in red). We promised ourselves we would survey as much of the center and left side of Field B as possible, depending on how quickly we would get through the area of the site itself and how the data looked. While it would be great to find new things outside the site, we wanted to find the things Dr. Clay missed within the site – specifically, Iron Age roundhouses and four-post structures.

So, now you know how we picked the site. Coming up next: how to do geophysics!

Leave a comment

Meet the Team!

As our fieldwork draws closer, we thought you might like to meet our team:


Dr Elizabeth Foulds

photoHi, I’m Elizabeth. After completing undergraduate degrees from Portland State University in History and Anthropology, I completed an MA and PhD  in Archaeology at Durham University. I wrote my thesis on Iron Age glass beads from Britain and I’m planning to continue to research the significance of glass in Iron Age Europe. My research interests include the history of archaeology and Iron Age studies, dress and bodily adornment, social practice, and experimental archaeology. I’m also interested in how re-evaluating sites can alter our perceptions of the past!



Jo Zalea Matias

Matias_Jozalea1Hello, my name is Jo! I received a BA in Anthropology with a minor in French at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, an MA in Archaeology at Durham University specializing in the Iron Age and Roman periods, and am currently completing my PhD at Durham University. My research interests include gender and feminist archaeology, social identities in Iron Age Britain and France, and the reception/dissemination of archaeological research to the general public through all media, especially social media. I’m always open for a chat, so drop me a line at



Dr Ophelie Lebrasseur

lebrasseurHi, I’m Ophélie and I’m the zooarchaeological consultant of the project.

I graduated from Durham University with a BSc in Archaeology where I investigated faunal remains of the French Medieval site of Harfleur. I then pursued my interest in past human-animal relationships through the means of genetics as part of my MSc and later PhD. Although my main research investigates dog and chicken domestication and past dispersals, I have had the opportunity to work on a variety of other animals including goats, pigs, cattle, Java deer and ghost ants. Other research interests include the portrayal of archaeological information to members of the public, ancient technical theatre and phylogenetic analysis of culture.

I currently work as an archaeogeneticist in the Durham Evolution and Ancient DNA (DEAD) lab at Durham. I am delighted to be part of this project and I cannot wait to see where it takes us.


Jennifer Peacock

peacockI undertook my BA and MA at Durham University (2006-2010), specialising in Iron Age Britain, before moving to the University of Worcester (2011) to start my doctoral research. My PhD, titled ‘Beyond native and invader: a re-evaluation of the Romano-British period in North West England’, is primarily concerned with clarifying the mechanics of interaction between Iron Age and Roman populations in the region. I have worked on the Durham University research project ‘Understanding the birth of a capital: Bagendon ‘oppidum’ and the Late Iron Age-Roman transition’ since 2009 and, since 2013, have occupied a supervisory role in its programme of geophysical survey.


Jo Shoebridge

Hello!  I’m vJo Shoebridgeery excited to be working on the Swallowcliffe Down Project, and look forward to seeing what we can discover (or rediscover?) about the area.  As an archaeologist I’ve worked in a variety of sites including Roman sites in England, Bronze Age sites in Slovakia and Thailand and Early Historic sites in Sri Lanka.  I was attracted to this project by the thought of  windswept hills and the email from Elizabeth mentioning that the cow pats ‘may’ be removed, but more seriously I’m interested in what we may learn by the re-evaluation of previous archaeological investigation of the site and look forward to being able to share this information in the not so distant future.  When I’m not digging I can often be found working at the UNESCO world Heritage site in Durham in a variety of roles or working on my PhD at Durham University which involves the analysis of ceramics and Indian Ocean trade.


Dr Frederick Foulds

freddieI am an early career researcher with Durham University and have been part of several excavation and survey projects looking at a variety of archaeological periods, ranging from the Bronze Age through to the Medieval. However, my specialism is in lithic analysis, with a focus on the Palaeolithic and I am currently a postdoctoral research assistant with the AHRC funded “Songs of the Caves” project. I don’t really know why I’ve been brought in to look at an Iron Age site (must be my good looks and charm!), but I will be able to bring my knowledge of Stone Age Wiltshire to help provide some context to human use of the area around Swallowcliffe in the past.


Leave a comment

Swallowcliffe Down Project

Hello, and welcome to the ‘New light on old sites’ blog where we will chronicle our fieldwork adventures. The name of our project reflects our interest in re-evaluating sites that were excavated/explored early in the history of archaeology that became intrinsic for defining the Iron Age period in Britain (c. 800 BC – AD 43). We are currently looking at Swallowcliffe Down in Wiltshire where many Early Iron Age period artefacts were recovered. The following is an excerpt from our project proposal:

The Early Iron Age settlement at Swallowcliffe Down, Wiltshire, was excavated in the 1920s by Dr RCC Clay1,2. He uncovered a rich assemblage of artefacts including pottery, glass beads, and an assortment of other domestic material. Clay’s technique for finding archaeological features relied on striking the ground and listening for changes in the vibrations, which located a total of 93 pits. Today, we would recognise the pits as only one type of feature that is often present at settlements and we would interpret the finds within them as acts of structured deposition3. However, as the study of the British Iron Age was still in its infancy, Clay recognised that only some of the pits were used for storage, while he interpreted most of them erroneously as Iron Age domestic structures. As a consequence of the ambiguity of the deposits, the material found was considered to be solely the result of domestic life. Due to his excavation methodology and the state of knowledge at the time of these excavations, other, smaller features, such as post-holes for roundhouses or 4-post structures, may well be present on the site, but remain unidentified.

The lack of structural evidence at this site renders discussions of settlement impossible; as a consequence the artefactual evidence has been the focus of subsequent study. This has led to some interesting results. Amongst the material found in pits was evidence for iron smelting, bronze working, and pottery manufacture. Interestingly, the artefactual evidence suggests that there was an exceptional level of continental connectivity. For example, although much of the pottery falls within the Early Iron Age types (i.e. bucket with slightly everted rims) that bear similarity to the All Cannings Cross type, two unusual forms have been suggested to be local copies of continental La Tène types4. In addition, the five glass beads have continental parallels. As settlements within Wiltshire have traditionally been seen within the Wessex hillfort-dominated approach, the range of artefacts and the continental affiliations found at Swallowcliffe Down (a non-hillfort site) suggests that the situation is much more complex, which has wider implications for our understanding of social organisation during this period5.


More about our project in the next blog post!



1. R. C. C. Clay, An Inhabited Site of La Tene I date, on Swallowcliffe Down. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society 43, 59 (1925).

2. R. C. C. Clay, Supplementary Report on the Early Iron Age Village on Swallowcliffe Down. Wiltshire Archaeology and Natural History Society 43, 540 (1927).

3. J. D. Hill, Ritual and rubbish in the Iron Age of Wessex: a study of the formation of a specific archaeological record.  (BAR British Series no. 242, Oxford, 1995).

4. B. Cunliffe, Iron Age Communities in Britain: An Account of England, Scotland and Wales from the Seventh Century BC until the Roman Conquest, Fourth Edition.  (Routledge, London, 2005).

5. J. D. Hill, in The Iron Age in Britain and Ireland: Recent Trends, T. C. Champion, J. R. Collis, Eds. (J.R. Collis Publications, Sheffield, 1996),  pp. 95-116.