GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT

Land east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex

August 2020

rpsgroup.com
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

Abstract
Magnitude Surveys was commissioned to assess the subsurface archaeological potential of a c.25ha
area of land to the east of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex. A fluxgate gradiometer survey was
successfully completed across the site and no anomalies suggestive of significant archaeological
activity were identified. Anomalies related to agricultural activity have been classified, with evidence
of widespread, multi-phase drainage and ploughing features across the survey area. Changes in
landscape are evident, as former mapping of the site identifies a ditched boundary, and ponds which
have since been infilled. Anomalies of undetermined origin have been interpreted in various locations
across the survey area, which likely correspond with modern day agricultural practices; however, an
archaeological origin cannot be ruled out.

2|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 2
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Quality Assurance ........................................................................................................................... 5
3. Objectives........................................................................................................................................ 6
4. Geographic Background .................................................................................................................. 6
5. Archaeological Background............................................................................................................. 7
6. Methodology................................................................................................................................... 7
Data Collection ........................................................................................................................ 7
Data Processing ....................................................................................................................... 8
Data Visualisation and Interpretation..................................................................................... 8
7. Results ............................................................................................................................................. 9
Qualification ............................................................................................................................ 9
Discussion................................................................................................................................ 9
Interpretation........................................................................................................................ 10
General Statements ...................................................................................................... 10
Magnetic Results - Specific Anomalies.......................................................................... 10
8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 12
9. Archiving ....................................................................................................................................... 13
10. Copyright ....................................................................................................................................... 13
11. References .................................................................................................................................... 13
12. Project Metadata .......................................................................................................................... 14
13. Document History ......................................................................................................................... 14

3|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Location 1:25,000 @ A4

Figure 2: Location of Survey Areas 1:4,000 @ A3

Figure 3: Magnetic Total Field (Lower Sensor) Overview 1:3,000 @ A3

Figure 4: Magnetic Gradient Overview 1:3,000 @ A3

Figure 5: Magnetic Interpretation Overview 1:3,000 @ A3

Figure 6: Magnetic Interpretation Over Combined Historic maps and Satellite 1:3,000 @ A3
Imagery Overview

Figure 7: Magnetic Total Field (Lower Sensor) North 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 8: Magnetic Gradient North 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 9: Magnetic Interpretation North 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 10: XY Trace Plot North 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 11: Magnetic Total Field (Lower Sensor) South 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 12: Magnetic Gradient South 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 13: Magnetic interpretation South 1:1,500 @ A3

Figure 14: XY Trace Plot South 1:1,500 @ A3

4|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

1. Introduction
Magnitude Surveys Ltd (MS) was commissioned by RPS Group on behalf of Bloor Homes to
undertake a geophysical survey on a c.25ha area of land to the east of Ashingdon Road,
Rochford, Essex (TQ 873 916).

The geophysical survey comprised of a quad-towed, cart-mounted GNSS-positioned fluxgate

gradiometer survey. Magnetic survey is the standard primary geophysical method for
archaeological applications in the UK for its ability to detect a range of different features. The
technique is particularly suited for detecting fired or magnetically enhanced features, such as
ditches, pits, kilns, sunken earth houses, and industrial activity (David et al., 2008).

The survey was conducted in line with the current best practice guidelines produced by Historic
England (David et al., 2008), the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists (CIfA, 2014) and the
European Archaeological Council (Schmidt et al., 2015).

It was conducted in line with a RAMS produced by MS (Magnitude Surveys, 2020).

The survey commenced on 10/08/2020 and took three days to complete.

2. Quality Assurance
Magnitude Surveys is a Registered Organisation of the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists
(CIfA), the chartered UK body for archaeologists, and a corporate member of ISAP (International
Society of Archaeological Prospection).

The directors of MS are involved in the cutting edge of research and the development of
guidance/policy. Specifically, Dr. Chrys Harris has a PhD in archaeological geophysics from the
University of Bradford, is a Member of CIfA and is the Vice-Chair of the International Society for
Archaeological Prospection (ISAP); Finnegan Pope-Carter has an MSc in archaeological
geophysics and is a Fellow of the London Geological Society, as well as a member of GeoSIG
(CIfA Geophysics Special Interest Group); Dr. Kayt Armstrong has a PhD in archaeological
geophysics from Bournemouth University, is a Member of CIfA, the Editor of ISAP News, and is
the UK Management Committee representative for the COST Action SAGA; Dr. Paul Johnson has
a PhD in archaeology from the University of Southampton, has been a member of the ISAP
Management Committee since 2015, and is currently the nominated representative for the EAA
Archaeological Prospection Community to the board of the European Archaeological
Association.

All MS managers have relevant degree qualifications to archaeology or geophysics. All MS field
and office staff have relevant archaeology or geophysics degrees and/or field experience.

Data collection was repeated over the same location to demonstrate the consistency and
reliability of the geophysical survey. Traverse 157 is a re-collection of the area covered by
Traverse 37. These are presented below:

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

5|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report
Traverse 37:

Traverse 157:

3. Objectives
The objective of the geophysical survey was to assess the subsurface archaeological potential
of the survey area.

4. Geographic Background
The survey area was located c.830m north from the centre of Rochford, Essex (Figure 1).
Gradiometer survey was undertaken across two arable fields. The survey area was bounded by
residential housing and Oxford Road to the north, arable fields to the east, residential housing
to the south, and residential housing and Ashingdon Road to the west (Figure 2).

Survey considerations:

Survey Ground Conditions Further Notes

Area
1 The survey area consisted of a The area was bound to the north, south and west
flat arable field, which had been by hedgerows. To the east the field continued
recently harvested. beyond the survey area. Modern plough lines
were visible, running northwest to southeast
across the field. A number of service covers
visible at the time of survey identify the location
of a service.
2 The survey area consisted of a The area was bound on all sides by hedgerows.
flat arable field, which had been Four services covers were visible within the
recently harvested. eastern edge of the area. An overhead powerline
cable was in the north-eastern corner of the
field, running southeast-northwest. Modern
plough lines were visible running east to west
across the field. A number of service covers
visible at the time of survey identify the location
of a service.

The underlying geology comprises clay, silt and sand of the London Clay Formation. Superficial
deposits consist of clay and silt river terrace deposits (British Geological Survey, 2020).

The soils consist of freely draining slightly acid loamy soils (Soilscapes, 2020).

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

6|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

5. Archaeological Background
The following is a summary of a DBA produced by CgMs Heritage (CgMs, 2019) and provided by
the client.

Within the survey area, several fragments of Roman pottery (MEX37135) were identified in the
east, along with (MEX1036173)

Prehistoric activity has been identified in the form of a Palaeolithic hand axe c.590m southeast
of the survey area, along with a large number of late Mesolithic flints (MEX10413), a Bronze
Age token, burial pit and artefact scatter (MEX1041317), identified during a previous excavation
c.290m north of the survey area. Further activity was identified in the form of a Neolithic pit
c.620m southwest of the survey area (MEX1042). A previous archaeological survey c.620m
southwest of the survey area identified multi-period remains (EEX56764) predominately from
the prehistoric period, including a late Bronze Age field system (MEX1042224).

Roman activity has been identified as an early Roman Sestertius recovered c.570m west of the
survey area (MEX37133). Previous excavations identified multi-period remains (EEX56562),
largely from the Roman period c.290m north of the survey area, including a rectilinear enclosure
system, cremation cemetery and refuse pits (MEX1041317), along with a trackway and spread
of pottery (MEX41217).

Saxon and Medieval activity has been identified in the wider environs in the form of a number
of Saxon burials c.890m to the southeast of the survey area (MEX43251). Rochford Medieval
core is located c.700m to the south of the survey area (MEX37648). Previous excavation
identified medieval remains c.620m southwest of the survey area (EEX56764), including a ditch,
a field system and a pit along with Medieval pottery (MEX1042224).

6. Methodology
Magnetometer surveys are generally the most cost effective and suitable geophysical technique
for the detection of archaeology in England. Therefore, a magnetometer survey should be the
preferred geophysical technique unless its use is precluded by any specific survey objectives or
the site environment. For this site, no factors precluded the recommendation of a standard
magnetometer survey. Geophysical survey therefore comprised the magnetic method as
described in the following section.

Data Collection
Geophysical prospection comprised the magnetic method as described in the following
table.

Table of survey strategies:

Method Instrument Traverse Interval Sample Interval

Bartington
200Hz reprojected
Magnetic Instruments Grad-13 Digital 1m
to 0.125m
Three-Axis Gradiometer

The magnetic data were collected using MS’ bespoke quad-towed cart system GNSS-
positioned system.

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

7|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report
6.2.3.1. MS’ cart system was comprised of Bartington Instruments Grad 13 Digital
Three-Axis Gradiometers. Positional referencing was through a multi-channel,
multi-constellation GNSS Smart Antenna RTK GPS outputting in NMEA mode to
ensure high positional accuracy of collected measurements. The RTK GPS is
accurate to 0.008m + 1ppm in the horizontal and 0.015m + 1ppm in the vertical.

6.2.3.2. Magnetic and GPS data were stored on an SD card within MS’ bespoke
datalogger. The datalogger was continuously synced, via an in-field Wi-Fi unit,
to servers within MS’ offices. This allowed for data collection, processing and
visualisation to be monitored in real-time as fieldwork was ongoing.

6.2.3.3. A navigation system was integrated with the RTK GPS, which was used to guide
the surveyor. Data were collected by traversing the survey area along the
longest possible lines, ensuring efficient collection and processing.

Data Processing
Magnetic data were processed in bespoke in-house software produced by MS.
Processing steps conform to Historic England’s standards for “raw or minimally
processed data” (see sect 4.2 in David et al., 2008: 11).

Sensor Calibration – The sensors were calibrated using a bespoke in-house algorithm,
which conforms to Olsen et al. (2003).

Zero Median Traverse – The median of each sensor traverse is calculated within a
specified range and subtracted from the collected data. This removes striping effects
caused by small variations in sensor electronics.

Projection to a Regular Grid – Data collected using RTK GPS positioning requires a
uniform grid projection to visualise data. Data are rotated to best fit an orthogonal grid
projection and are resampled onto the grid using an inverse distance-weighting
algorithm.

Interpolation to Square Pixels – Data are interpolated using a bicubic algorithm to

increase the pixel density between sensor traverses. This produces images with square
pixels for ease of visualisation.

Data Visualisation and Interpretation

This report presents the gradient of the sensors’ total field data as greyscale images, as
well as the total field data from the upper and/or lower sensors. The gradient of the
sensors minimises external interferences and reduces the blown-out responses from
ferrous and other high contrast material. However, the contrast of weak or ephemeral
anomalies can be reduced through the process of calculating the gradient.
Consequently, some features can be clearer in the respective gradient or total field
datasets. Multiple greyscale images of the gradient and total field at different plotting
ranges have been used for data interpretation. Greyscale images should be viewed
alongside the XY trace plot (Figures 8 and 11). XY trace plots visualise the magnitude
and form of the geophysical response, aiding in anomaly interpretation.

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

8|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report
Geophysical results have been interpreted using greyscale images and XY traces in a
layered environment, overlaid against open street maps, satellite imagery, historic
maps, LiDAR data, and soil and geology maps. Google Earth (2020) was consulted as
well, to compare the results with recent land usages.

Geodetic position of results - All vector and raster data have been projected into
OSGB36 (ESPG27700) and can be provided upon request in ESRI Shapefile (.SHP) and
Geotiff (.TIF) respectively. Figures are provided with raster and vector data projected
against OS Open Data.

7. Results
Qualification
Geophysical results are not a map of the ground and are instead a direct measurement
of subsurface properties. Detecting and mapping features requires that said features
have properties that can be measured by the chosen technique(s) and that these
properties have sufficient contrast with the background to be identifiable. The
interpretation of any identified anomalies is inherently subjective. While the scrutiny of
the results is undertaken by qualified, experienced individuals and rigorously checked
for quality and consistency, it is often not possible to classify all anomaly sources. Where
possible an anomaly source will be identified along with the certainty of the
interpretation. The only way to improve the interpretation of results is through a
process of comparing excavated results with the geophysical reports. MS actively seek
feedback on their reports as well as reports of further work in order to constantly
improve our knowledge and service.

Discussion
The geophysical results are presented in consideration with satellite imagery and
historic maps (Figure 5).

A fluxgate gradiometer survey has been successfully completed across the survey area,
highlighting a variable magnetic background. Variations corresponding with changes in
superficial and surface soil materials have produced more magnetically enhanced bands
of sediment (see section 4.3 & 4.4) distributed according to minor topographic
variations and potential seasonal flooding (prior to drainage installation). No anomalies
suggestive of significant archaeological activity have been identified; however, in the
case of a number of discrete undetermined anomalies within Area 1, an archaeological
origin should not be completely discounted (Figure 5).

Widespread agricultural activity is evidenced by an almost orthogonal pattern of

ploughing and drainage. Former field boundaries identified on tithe mapping may
suggest multiple phases of cultivation across the survey area, with changes in plough
orientation occurring with the removal or addition of land divisions. Although likely
relating to various eras of cultivation, the difference between agricultural trends and
drainage features is hard to establish as they may at one point have been one of the
same, with drainage ditches forming the boundary between fields and or changes in

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

9|Page
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report
crop. Variations in magnetic signal have helped interpret some drainage features and
may likely identify culverts and or French drains made of stone.

Tithe mapping also identifies former landscape features, which are no longer visible on
the surface. Two ponds identified from these mapping sources are understood to have
been infilled as they are no longer visible on the surface. Tithe mapping has been used
as a supplementary source of information, as although it highlights these features, their
precise location remains uncertain.

Various sources of modern interference have been identified, generally located along
or within close proximity to field edges, they relate to modern residential or service
related features. An alignment of service covers identified at the time of survey (See
section 4.2) are likely to correspond with the location of a service line. An approximate
course for this feature has been inferred, with a line of best fit through these metal
covers (Figure 5). Other disturbances appear from former pylon foundation pits and
fencing from residential property to the north, south, and west of the survey area.

Interpretation
General Statements
7.3.1.1. Geophysical anomalies will be discussed broadly as classification types across
the survey area. Only anomalies that are distinctive or unusual will be discussed
individually.

7.3.1.2. Ferrous (Spike) – Discrete ferrous-like, dipolar anomalies are likely to be the
result of isolated modern metallic debris on or near the ground surface.

7.3.1.3. Ferrous/Debris (Spread) – A ferrous/debris spread refers to a concentrated

deposition of discrete, dipolar ferrous anomalies and other highly magnetic
material.

7.3.1.4. Magnetic Disturbance – The strong anomalies produced by extant metallic

structures along the edges of the field have been classified as ‘Magnetic
Disturbance’. These magnetic ‘haloes’ will obscure the response of any weaker
underlying features, should they be present, often over a greater footprint than
the structure they are being caused by.

7.3.1.5. Undetermined – Anomalies are classified as Undetermined when the anomaly

origin is ambiguous through the geophysical results and there is no supporting
or correlative evidence to warrant a more certain classification. These
anomalies are likely to be the result of geological, pedological or agricultural
processes, although an archaeological origin cannot be entirely ruled out.
Undetermined anomalies are generally not ferrous in nature.

Magnetic Results - Specific Anomalies

7.3.2.1. Agricultural (Weak) – A discontinuous weakly enhanced linear anomaly,
corresponding closely with a field boundary visible on tithe mapping has been
identified [2a]. Oriented northwest – south east and generally north -south, the
slightly di-polar signature exhibited may identify a drainage component to this

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

10 | P a g e
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report
boundary feature, otherwise suggestive of a former ditched boundary. The
feature appears separated by an infilled pond [2b], recorded on the tithe map.
A similar, more-discrete infilled pond is noted in Area 1 adjacent to the eastern
boundary [1a]. Both pond features show a weakly enhanced magnetic
signature. This sort of enhancement with low contrast to the surrounding
magnetic background suggests the infill material is natural to its surroundings.

7.3.2.2. Agricultural Trend – Across the survey area three distinctive orientations of
agricultural trends can be seen (Figure 5). Across both Areas 1 and 2 weakly
enhanced linear trends consistent with cultivation visible on satellite mapping
(Figure 6) have been interpreted. Extending southwards from the northern
boundary of Area 1 several further closely-spaced agricultural trends have been
categorised. These do not follow the same orientation as more contemporary,
extant agricultural practices; however, their spacing and signature are similar,
and they align with former boundaries noted on tithe mapping, suggesting
presence of a historical agricultural regime.

7.3.2.3. Drainage Trend – Identified within Area 1 two drainage features [1b] identify a
negative magnetic enhancement. This sort of signal is typical of a stone lined or
French drain. The difference in width of the anomalies may indicate a distinction
between a major culvert or a tributary drain. Oriented diagonally through the
centre of Area 2, a large, positively enhanced linear feature corresponds with a
modern field drainage system [2c] (Figure 11). Differing from other anomalies
interpreted as drainage features across the survey area, this exhibits a greater
positive enhancement, suggestive of a more substantial drainage feature,
possibly constructed from fired materials such as ceramic pipe. The anomaly
appears to terminate at the northern boundary, with a ditch and the western
boundary with modern housing which may tie in to further residential servicing.
The southern terminus of this feature is obscured by magnetic disturbances,
likely emanating from residential property along this boundary.

7.3.2.4. Natural (Weak) – Several amorphous bands of positive, weakly enhanced

material are noted within Area 2 (Figure 5). Corresponding with drift geological
patterns, these bands highlight a transportation and subsequent deposition of
fine-grained material (See section 4.3 & 4.4), likely resulting from a flooding
event.

7.3.2.5. Undetermined (Weak) – A discrete, horse-shoe shaped anomaly [1c] identified

within Area 1 (Figure 8) has been classified as undetermined. This anomaly does
not identify with any of the nearby agricultural activity, either ploughing or
drainage related. The extent of the anomaly is too discrete for it to be
considered natural or drift related and such a geological feature would be
unlikely to form in such an environment. The anomaly may represent a
cultivation trend, from tractor movement which is not visible on satellite
mapping; however, an archaeological origin cannot be entirely ruled out.

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

11 | P a g e
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report
7.3.2.6. Service – Several discrete dipolar anomalies have been identified running
parallel to the eastern boundary of both Areas 1 and 2. Extant on site,
corresponding with service covers, it is inferred they correspond to a sub-
surface service line, relating to the residential properties to the north and south
of the survey area. The exact orientation and extent of the service is unknown;
however, a predicted line has been produced.

8. Conclusions
A fluxgate gradiometer survey has been successfully undertaken across the site, variations in
the near surface geology have produced broad bands of river terrace deposits, associated with
flooding which have aided with the interpretation of a range of discrete, ephemeral drainage
features. Tithe maps have helped with the interpretation of the survey area; however, the
location of anomalies corresponding with these maps is dubious.

The survey area reflects a predominantly agricultural setting, with variations in cultivation
orientation, layout and usage, over time. Historic mapping shows differences in field layout with
boundaries corresponding to similar mapped features.

Variations in drainage features throughout the survey area relate closely to changes in
landscape and agricultural practise. A former boundary identifies drainage characteristics which
may highlight a ditch line, whereas other more enhanced features associate closer with either
stone lined /French drains or clay fired drainage.

Discrete, undetermined anomalies within the survey area differentiate from the general
agricultural and geological landscape, sharing few similarities in signal strength, form or
location. It is possible; however, they represent some unmapped surface feature present at the
time of survey or even archaeological activity.

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

12 | P a g e
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

9. Archiving
MS maintains an in-house digital archive, which is based on Schmidt and Ernenwein (2013). This
stores the collected measurements, minimally processed data, georeferenced and un-
georeferenced images, XY traces and a copy of the final report.

MS contributes reports to the ADS Grey Literature Library upon permission from the client,
subject to the any dictated time embargoes.

10. Copyright
Copyright and the intellectual property pertaining to all reports, figures, and datasets
produced by Magnitude Services Ltd. is retained by MS. The client is given full licence to use
such material for their own purposes. Permission must be sought by any third party wishing to
use or reproduce any IP owned by MS.

11. References
British Geological Survey, 2020. Geology of Britain. [Rochford, Essex]
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html/]. [Accessed 13/08/2020].
Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, 2014. Standards and guidance for archaeological geophysical
survey. CIfA.
David, A., Linford, N., Linford, P. and Martin, L., 2008. Geophysical survey in archaeological field
evaluation: research and professional services guidelines (2nd edition). Historic England.
Google Earth, 2020. Google Earth Pro V 7.1.7.2606.

Magnitude Surveys, 2020. Risk Assessment and Method Statement for Geophysical Survey at
MSTQ733 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford NGR: TQ873916. Magnitude Surveys Ltd.

Olsen, N., Toffner-Clausen, L., Sabaka, T.J., Brauer, P., Merayo, J.M.G., Jorgensen, J.L., Leger, J.M.,
Nielsen, O.V., Primdahl, F., and Risbo, T., 2003. Calibration of the Orsted vector magnetometer. Earth
Planets Space 55: 11-18.

Schmidt, A. and Ernenwein, E., 2013. Guide to good practice: geophysical data in archaeology. 2nd
ed., Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Schmidt, A., Linford, P., Linford, N., David, A., Gaffney, C., Sarris, A. and Fassbinder, J., 2015. Guidelines
for the use of geophysics in archaeology: questions to ask and points to consider. EAC Guidelines 2.
European Archaeological Council: Belgium.

Soilscapes, 2020. [Rochford, Essex]. Cranfield University, National Soil Resources Institute
[http://landis.org.uk]. [Accessed 13/08/2020].
CgMs, 2019. Archaeological Desk-Based Assessment, Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford, Essex,
SS4 1TE. CgMs Ref: 25427/GSP/DH

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

13 | P a g e
 Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
MSTQ733- Geophysical Survey Report

12. Project Metadata

MS Job Code MSTQ733
Project Name Land East of Ashingdon Road, Rochford
Client RPS Group
Grid Reference TQ873916
Survey Techniques Magnetometry
Survey Size (ha) 25ha (Magnetometry)
Survey Dates 2020-08-10 to 2020-08-13
Project Lead Frederick Salmon BSc FGS ACIfA
Project Officer Frederick Salmon BSc FGS ACIfA
HER Event No N/A
OASIS No N/A
S42 Licence No N/A
Report Version Final

13. Document History

Version Comments Author Checked By Date
0.1 Initial draft for Project Lead AL, CN, AP FS 18 August
to Review 2020

0.2 Corrections for Director Sign FS PSJ 21 August

off 2020
Final Minor Corrections from the FS N/A 02
client September
2020

Magnitude Surveys Ltd

14 | P a g e
rpsgroup.com