Journal of Archaeological Science (2001) 28, 365375

doi:10.1006/jasc.2000.0581, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

High-Resolution Wetland Prospection, using GPS and GIS:

Landscape Studies at Sutton Common (South Yorkshire), and
Meare Village East (Somerset)
Henry P. Chapman
Wetland Archaeology and Environments Research Centre, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, U.K.

Robert Van de Noort

Department of Archaeology, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QE, U.K.

(Received 9 August 1999, revised manuscript accepted 31 March 2000)

This paper describes a new archaeological prospection technique for wetlands. High-resolution micro-topographical
data generated in GPS surveys were processed to form continuous topographic digital surfaces. Through the
generalization and exaggeration of these surfaces within ESRI ARC/INFO GIS software, buried archaeological
features in wetland landscapes were identified. A subsequent programme of ground truthing has demonstrated that
patterns of dierential desiccation of wetland sediments have resulted in micro-topographical variation, reflecting
archaeological features. The study was undertaken on two Iron Age sites: Sutton Common in the Humber wetlands and
Meare Village East in the Somerset Levels.  2001 Academic Press

Keywords: GIS, GPS, WETLANDS, IRON AGE, SUTTON COMMON, MEARE VILLAGE EAST.

Introduction present information about the location and nature of

buried archaeological deposits in wetland landscapes.

T
he importance of the archaeology of wetlands
has been widely recognized (e.g. Coles & Coles,
1996; Bernick, 1998). This recognition is princi-
pally for the extraordinary preservation of archaeo-
logical remains, which results from the anoxic
conditions within such landscapes. The preserved re-
mains range from bog bodies to trackways and settle-
ments, and include the presence of a soil matrix that
contains ample source material for palaeoenvironmen-
tal reconstruction and dating of the archaeological
context (e.g. Coles, 1995).
In the last three decades in England, large-scale
wetland surveys have been undertaken in the Somerset
Levels, the Fenlands of East Anglia, the mires of
northwest England, the lowlands in the Humber basin
and elsewhere (e.g. Coles & Coles, 1986; Hall & Coles,
1994; Van de Noort & Ellis, 1997). However, the
techniques of archaeological prospection of wetlands
have evolved little over this periodfield walking and
the inspection of cut peat and ditches remain the main
techniques employed today. The development of alter-
native techniques and methods of the archaeological
prospection of wetlands has been identified as an
important aspect for future consideration (English
Heritage, 1998). In this paper we describe a method of
data collection and processing that has been shown to
365
03054403/01/040365+11 $35.00/0
The identification of these features is due to the desic-
cation and shrinkage of biogenic deposits relative to
minerogenic sediments that alter the surface micro-
topography. High-accuracy, high-resolution survey
techniques and modelling of the data can emphasize
these minor surface alterations, which remain invisible
on the ground.
Background
Before the commencement of large-scale drainage
in the late- and post-medieval period (Cook &
Williamson, 1999), as much as 20 to 25% of the land
mass of England is estimated to have been lowland
wetland, including a variety of landscapes such as
raised mires, river flood plains, lakes and estuaries
(Brown & Bradley, 1995). These wetlands are charac-
terized to a greater or lesser extent by biogenic (i.e.
peat or detritus) and minerogenic (i.e. sand, silt and
clay) sediments accumulated during the Holocene. The
archaeological wetland resource may be wholly or
partially overlain by deep Holocene sediments, with a
groundwater table at or near the surface, which im-
pedes the use of established geophysical survey
methods (David, 1995).
 2001 Academic Press
366 H. P. Chapman and R. Van de Noort

Table 1. The eect of drainage on saturated soils on the shrinkage of sediments. The shrinkage factor is calculated
as volume of saturated soils/volume of drained soils

Volume of water Volume of water for soils Shrinkage

in saturated soils (%) drained for agricultural landuse (%) factor

Peat 95 30 2.86
Clay 55 30 1.33
Silt 50 30 1.25
Sand 40 30 1.11

The moisture contents of undrained wetland organic

sediments, such as peat, can be up to 95% by volume,
while mineral sediments within an alluvial context have
moisture content normally ranging from 40% for sands
to 55% for clay (Ward & Robinson, 1990). Drainage
removes excess soil water, resulting in a reduction of
the moisture content to c. 30% of the volume of both
biogenic and minerogenic sediments, resulting in sedi-
ment shrinkage (Lillie, 1997). This is further aug-
mented by a range of processes that are associated with
the drainage itself or the subsequent introduction of
agricultural activity, and include hysteresis, oxidation
processes, erosion, greater evapo-transpiration and soil
ripening (Dent, 1999). The totality of these processes is
here referred to as desiccation.
Where wetlands comprise both biogenic and minero-
genic sediments, the resulting eect of drainage and
agricultural activities is dierential desiccation,
whereby biogenic sediments shrink to a greater degree
than minerogenic sediments (see Table 1). This can
result in clearly identifiable landscape features, such as Sutton Common
peat-filled palaeochannels that appear as depressions
or as inverted features such as the roddons in the
Fenlands, being the coarser mineral alluvial sediments
deposited on former stream banks (Godwin, 1978; cf.
Hall & Coles, 1994). Where human activity in the past
has resulted in major landscape alterations, including
Meare Village
the construction of banks, ditches and house- East
platforms, the eect of this dierential desiccation can
be noted in the relief. The discovery of Glastonbury
lake village by Arthur Bulleid in 1892, for example, 0 100 km
was made possible by the phenomenon of dierential
desiccation (Coles & Minnitt, 1996). However, where
the dierential desiccation eects only the micro-relief, Figure 1. Location of the sites.
archaeological features are rarely detected during
fieldwork or aerial survey. described below. By selecting examples from two dif-
The present study was designed to test the capability ferent wetland regions, the study also aims to show the
of dierential GPS for archaeological wetland prospec- wide-ranging application potential of the method.
tion, by identifying archaeological features that were
present in the micro-relief as a consequence of dier-
ential desiccation, but that could not be observed Methods
during field survey or aerial reconnaissance work. Two
English Iron Age sites were selected for the Survey methods
studySutton Common (South Yorkshire) in the The surveys of the two sites were undertaken using a
Humber wetlands, and Meare Village East (Somerset) Spectra Precision Geotracer System 2000 L1-RTK
in the Somerset Levels (Figure 1). The sites were dierential Global Positioning System (GPS) (Fig-
selected to represent dierent site types and land-use, ure 1). The advantage of this technique over optical

Figure 2. The GPS in action.
methods in relation to the two scenarios was one of
eciency without any significant reduction in accuracy
(cf. van Leusen, 1999)in excess of 1000 points may
be surveyed in a single day by a single surveyor.
The GPS equipment receives radio signals transmit-
ted from a constellation of 24 satellites controlled by
the U.S. Air Force at Colorado. These signals provide
data relating to time, taken from the atomic clocks
aboard the satellites, and velocity. Each satellite can
be tracked over time and so its orbit sphere can be
calculated from predictions of its position within a
given epoch, and this can be used to calibrate the
receivers clock to that of the satellite. When data are
collected from several satellites at the same time, the
intersections of the orbit spheres can be calculated to
provide a position on the Earths surface.
Inaccuracies within the system stem from a number
of sources including multi-path and selective avail-
ability, the latter added by the USAF to provide
security but more recently removed. An allowance can
be made for these by combining two receivers that
record data from the same group of satellites at the
same time, known as dierential GPS. By keeping a
base station stationary throughout the survey, data
from the roving receiver can be calibrated to provide
centimetre accuracy relative to it. Absolute coordinates
(relative to National Grid) can be obtained through a
transformation of the GPS grid (which is recorded
High-Resolution Wetland Prospection 367
in the spherical WGS-84 coordinate system) and by
locating points on the ground of known position such
as benchmarks.
The accuracy of the GPS was investigated in relation
to two pegs, point A and point B, which were both
surveyed during five separate surveys and corrected to
a known point (Table 2). The readings for point B
show a maximum range of 0054 m for the
x-coordinate, 0056 m for the y-coordinate and
0029 m for the z-coordinate. The dierences in stan-
dard deviation between these points do not hold equal
accuracy weightingcalculating a mean of these values
is therefore not appropriate to check the overall stan-
dard deviation of the equipment in practice. Rather,
the most accurate values are likely to be those with the
lowest standard deviation recorded in the original
point calculation. However, because of the landscape
scale of the surveys an overall potential error range
of between 0029 m and 0056 m was considered
acceptable.
Both archaeological sites included in the study were
surveyed in paced transects sighted using ranging-rods
(Figure 2). The distances between survey points were
paced and ranged from 80 m for background areas, to
less than 10 m in areas with higher archaeological
potential. It has been demonstrated previously that
such an approach using a variable survey resolution
determined by the presence or absence of visible
368 H. P. Chapman and R. Van de Noort
archaeological features is the most ecient method of
obtaining data that may be modelled into an accurate
representation of the surface (Fletcher & Spicer,
1988).
Data-processing methods
The GPS survey data were recorded in a coded format
that was corrected to National Grid values and con-
verted to a CSV (comma separated value) file, consist-
ing of x-, y- and z-coordinates, using software
developed by Richard Middleton (University of Hull).
These data were processed to generate a digital eleva-
tion model (DEM) within ARC/INFO version 7.2.1
Geographical Information System (GIS) software run
through a UNIX platform.
The generation of a DEM is possible through a
number of dierent interpolation algorithms that cre-
ate a continuous surface from a variety of data sources
including variably spaced points. Digital surfaces may
be stored in one of two main formats: as vectors or as
cell-based raster models. The latter data structure
divides the surface into regular square blocks of a given
size, each with an attribute relating to its height. An
advantage with this type of DEM is that it can be
compared with other surfaces directly and mathemati-
cally. While it is possible to convert point data into a
raster surface directly, it was found that a more
aesthetically realistic surface was formed by using an
indirect approach involving an intermediary stage. The
irregularity of the raw data density meant that direct
conversions produced variable results. Interpolated
surfaces at higher resolutions produced high numbers
of interpolation artefacts, whereas lower resolution
surfaces resulted in an under-interpolation of the
higher density raw data whereby a cell may represent
several survey points of varying height. These problems
were reduced by a two-stage process.
The variably-spaced point data were converted to
form a triangulated irregular surface (TIN) using the
CREATETIN command. The accuracy of surfaces
interpolated as a TIN model is dependent upon the
function of the triangulation process. ARC/INFO em-
ploys a process known as Delaunay Triangulation,
which dictates the size and shape of the triangles
formed in the generalized surface (Goucher, 1997). The
criterion of this process is that a circle drawn through
the vertexes of each triangle will contain no other
coordinate points. There are three advantages of this
system. Firstly, the triangles remain more equiangular,
which provides better geometry than triangles with
acute angles and therefore generates more accurate
surfaces. Secondly, it reduces the distances from every
interpolated point to a known point, or triangle vertex.
Thirdly, each survey point is given equal priority in
the generation of the surface. This means that the
generation of the surface is an objective and repeat-
able process and, ultimately, this makes the surface
potentially more accurate.
A cell-based surface was created from the TIN using
the TINLATTICE command. This process has been
used elsewhere in the generation of DEMs representing
archaeological landscapes (e.g. Goucher, 1997). Once
the TIN has been created using the CREATETIN
function, it is converted to a cell-based surface, or
lattice, by using the TINLATTICE function. This is a
vector/raster conversion that interpolates a continuous
grid using the TIN as a reference. The function places
a grid of cells at a predetermined density across the
area covered by the TIN that are referenced in terms of
x- and y-coordinates. A height attribute for each cell is
then interpolated from the TIN. ARC/INFO allows for
a number of dierent ways to convert a TIN to a lattice
using this function. Linear interpolation treats the
TINs arcs between nodes as straight lines that are
reflected directly in the heights of the cells across it.
The areas enclosed by the TINs triangles are then
treated as flat plates. Surfaces constructed using linear
interpolation often look faceted and unnatural, though
the potential for interpolation inaccuracies is reduced.
Quintic interpolation applies smoothing to the areas
inside of the TIN triangles. This method appreciates
that the surface being represented is without the harsh
breaks in slope represented through linear interpola-
tion. Instead a continuous surface is created that runs
through the nodes and forms a smooth interpolation
through the areas between. The resulting surface is not
only more realistic and aesthetically pleasing, but is
potentially also more accurate. The present study used
the latter process.
Surface representation
Two methods were employed with regards to the
representation of the surfaces and greater detail is
provided on how these were applied to each of the
landscapes within the appropriate sections below.
The first method involved the basic representation of
the surface as contour bands. Experiments were con-
ducted for each of the sites applying dierent colour
shading to dierent height ranges across the site in
order to highlight archaeological features. Dierent
resolution contour generation and an investigation of
surface statistics produced likely ranges for subtleties
to be enhanced.
The second method of representing the surface was
to apply a virtual light source to emphasize areas of
greater relief. Essentially this technique emphasizes
features and slopes, rather than height. A low-
positioned light source can highlight the more subtle
features. This method can also produce a more
realistic-looking surface for comparison with other
data sources such as aerial photography.
Ground-truthing methods
Results from the processing of the data required check-
ing on the ground so that the anomalies recorded could

be verified. A limited assessment excavation was being
conducted at Sutton Common and the DEM from this
area was used to position trenches across the necessary
archaeological features to be investigated. This pro-
vided a unique opportunity to check the results from
the GIS modelling on the ground.
At Meare the results from the survey were investi-
gated through a programme of transect coring follow-
ing an initial investigation by Exeter University
(Aalbersberg, 1998). This was conducted using a
70-mm bore Eijkelkamp bucket hand auger and
a 30 mm1 m Eijkelkamp open-length-gouge hand
auger. Sediments were recorded in the field on pro
forma in terms of grain size and consistency, organic
content, plant macro remains, colour and boundary
characteristics.
Results and Interpretation
Site 1: Sutton Common, South Yorkshire (SE563122)
Background. The name Sutton Common is used by the
Ordnance Survey for three fields adjacent to the A19,
to the south of Askern town. This area is dissected by
the palaeochannel of the Hampole Beck, which is now
completely drained. Until its enclosure in c. 1890, the
area was wet and peat formed the soil on the common.
Two enclosures of prehistoric date (South Yorkshire
SAM 291) face one another on opposite sides of the
palaeochannel, and each occupies an island of sand
and clay derived from the 25-foot drift or Lake
Humber clays (Lillie, 1997). Enclosure A is situated on
the east side of the Hampole Beck palaeochannel and
enclosure B is on the west side.
Despite its scheduling in 1937, the prehistoric enclo-
sures were partly destroyed in 1980 Enclosure A
was completely bulldozed and limited damage was
done to enclosure B. Since 1980 enclosure A and the
palaeochannel have been under arable cultivation, and
further damage has occurred following the construc-
tion of an artificial underground drainage system. In
1997, with the funding support of English Heritage
and the Heritage Lottery Fund, ownership of Sutton
Common was transferred to the Carstairs Countryside
Trust (CCT) who now manage the site for the benefit
of the archaeological and palaeoenvironmental
resource.
The prehistoric enclosures on Sutton Common have
received considerable attention from archaeologists. In
the 1860s the site was mapped by Scott Surtees (1868)
and was later mentioned by Allcroft (1908). Charles
Whiting undertook the excavation of a number of
trenches across both enclosures during the 1930s
(Whiting, 1936). Whitings conclusions remained
largely unchallenged until 1987 when the South
Yorkshire Archaeology Unit, with support from
English Heritage, undertook the assessment of the
waterlogged deposits of enclosure B, followed by simi-
lar work in 1988, 1992 and 1993, the latter by the
High-Resolution Wetland Prospection 369
University of Sheeld, funded by English Heritage
(Sydes & Symonds, 1987; Adams, Merrony & Sydes,
1988; Sydes, 1992; Parker Pearson & Merrony, 1993;
Parker Pearson & Sydes, 1996, 1997). In 1995 the
larger environmental and landscape setting was as-
sessed by the Humber Wetlands Survey (Lillie, 1997;
Head et al., 1997).
Evidence from this past research has shown that the
sites date broadly to the Iron Age and consist of two
main phases (though more detailed phasing can be
found in Parker Pearson & Sydes, 1997; Van de Noort
& Chapman, 1999). The first consisted of a timber
palisade that appears to have surrounded enclosure A,
the second consisted of the construction of banks and
ditches around both enclosures.
Survey strategy. All three fields of Sutton Common
were surveyed in the autumn of 1997 (Van de Noort &
Chapman, 1997). The field conditions were predomi-
nantly stubble with grass at the eastern end running up
to the edge of Shirley Wood. A total of 5290 points
were surveyed covering an area of approximately
286,754 m2 providing a mean density of 002 points per
m2 (184 points per hectare). Points were recorded at
between 3 and 8 m intervals along transects. On areas
of high topographic variation, such as across the
earthworks on enclosure B, the survey resolution was
increased to provide greater detail.
Data processing. The point data from the survey of
Sutton Common were processed using the method
outlined above. Due to the variable resolution of the
point data, which included very high resolution over
enclosure B, a high-resolution grid was required to
avoid quantizing errors (i.e. errors due to under-
interpolation where the interpolated surface is coarser
than the input data). The surface resolution of the
lattice cells was therefore set to 11 m. The surface
was then represented in the ways described above.
Results from DEM. The resulting DEM of the site
revealed a number of modern and also archaeological
features despite the intensive agricultural regime of the
previous 17 years. Recent features identified from the
survey include the position of the track and drains and,
surprisingly, the position of one of the removed drains
that was visible on earlier aerial photography of the
site. These features were traceable on both models, but
were more visible with the application of an assumed
light source. However, the hill-shaded model revealed
striping, reflecting the direction of ploughing.
Natural features identified were visible on both
models, but the basis contour-banded DEM showed
them more clearly (Figure 3). The most obvious feature
was the relict Hampole Beck (A), which was visible in
between the enclosures. Towards the northwestern part
of the surveyed area, the braiding channel was visible
as identified through previous lithostratigraphical
work (Lillie, 1997). The two islands occupied by the
370 H. P. Chapman and R. Van de Noort

Figure 3. Contour band DEM of Sutton Common with features mentioned in the text.
Figure 5. Contour band DEM of Meare Village East, showing the positions of past investigations.

Iron Age enclosures were highlighted (B and C), as
were three smaller islands to the north (D, E and F);
the westernmost of these (D and E) had produced
evidence of Mesolithic and Neolithic activity (Head
et al., 1997; Parker Pearson & Sydes, 1997). Similarly,
in the area to the east the sharp shelving of land
towards Shirley Wood was visible (G), which marks
one of the faults around the Askern that include
aquifers (Buckland, 1987). Other areas of lowland were
also visible, such as to the southeast of enclosure B (H).
Finally, the suggestion that a relatively dry access may
have persisted from the west to enclosure B (Lillie,
1997) was shown topographically on a landscape scale
(I). This again reinforces Parker Pearsons suggestion
that enclosure B may have acted as an annex to
enclosure A (Parker Pearson & Sydes, 1997).
The application of a light source from dierent
positions highlighted a number of buried archaeologi-
cal features that could not be seen on the ground
(Figure 4). Firstly, and most obviously, the positions of
the undamaged earthworks of enclosure B were clearly
visible. A comparison between these and the detailed
plan by Bennett & Hill (Whiting, 1936) demonstrates
slight details that were supposedly missed from their
 High-Resolution Wetland Prospection 371

0 100 m

0 100 m

Figure 4. Hill-shaded model of Sutton Common with features mentioned in the text.
Figure 6. Hill-shaded model of Meare Village East with features mentioned in the text.

survey, perhaps due to vegetation cover. Of these
details the most striking is that its northwestern side
was more developed, continuous and cohesive than the
early plans suggested (J). Without excavation it is not
possible to know whether there has been any recon-
struction of these earthworks, but there is no record of
any and, furthermore, no reason to assume that there
has been. Similarly, the break in the eastern side of
enclosure B was not as distinctive as the plans had
suggested, but rather it had a gradual shape to it (K).
Secondly, the outline of enclosure A was visible on
the models. When compared with the natural topogra-
phy of the area it was notable that its western edge fell
away sharply over the Hampole Beck palaeochannel,
but that the width of the enclosure was less than the
sandy island, which dropped away gradually to the east
up to the shelf near Shirley Wood. The positions of
other low, wet areas around enclosure As perimeter
suggest that it cut o the end of a tongue of relatively
dry land from the east. This may help to explain the
increased earthwork rampart defences on this side of
the enclosure since the extension of the dryer land to
the east appears to join with a linear ridge aligned
northwestsoutheast.
372 H. P. Chapman and R. Van de Noort
Thirdly, the hill-shaded model identified greater de-
tail of the outline of enclosure A including the position
of what appeared to be a ditch on its western side (L).
This feature was particularly interesting since a ditch
on this side had not been identified during previous
investigations.
Finally, a tongue of land was noticed extending
eastwards from the eastern break in the earthworks of
the smaller enclosure (M). A possible causeway had
been postulated in the past but solid evidence of such a
structure had never been found, although parts of a
timber alignment had been seen previously (Whiting,
1936). The position of this spread, extending from a
possible entrance to enclosure B, indicated the exist-
ence of such a structure.
Results from ground testing. Excavation trenches were
positioned using the GPS following the coordinates
obtained from the GIS model. Thus, the first corre-
lation with the results was that the positions of
trenches that were mostly planned to cross the pos-
itions of the previous earthworks in the areas of
possible entrances (with one crossing the extension
of the possible causeway) all crossed those areas in the
correct places.
Upon excavation a number of correlations were
discovered between the DEM surface and the buried
archaeological layers. Several trenches were excavated:
trench 1 across the eastern break in the bank of
enclosure B; trench 2 across the proposed extension of
the causeway across the Hampole Beck; and trench 3
across the southern side of the western entrance to
enclosure A.
Trench 1 provided an explanation of why the DEM
had shown the break in the eastern bank to be less
distinctive than it appeared from the previous surveys.
Trench 1 showed evidence of slumping over the upper
fills of the inner ditch and indicated that there had been
much reworking of the earthworks that had been
reflected by the DEM. Trench 2 confirmed that the
extension of a tongue of land extending from the break
in the eastern bank of enclosure A was probably part
of the sandy causeway that was identified aligned
between this and the western entrance to enclosure A.
Trench 3 revealed evidence of an organic filled linear
depression that appears to have been reflected by the
DEM as a linear ditch. The organic remains within this
feature were very shallow and desiccated, although
they did reveal flint debris.
Site 2: Meare Village East, Somerset (ST446421)
Background. The Meare villages (East and West) are
located directly to the north of Meare, Somerset, on
the south bank of the River Brue (Bulleid & St George
Gray, 1948). This lowland between the Polden Hills to
the southwest and the Mendip Hills to the northeast
was investigated intensively by the Somerset Levels
Project (Coles & Coles, 1986). The present village of
Meare occupies one of a line of more solid outcrops of
lias limestone in the Brue valley. The area of the site
lies within the southern half of Meare Pool, a supposed
raised mire (Godwin, 1941).
The area of the Meare villages is now under grass,
with silage production dominant. Although the land
has never been ploughed, the groundwater table in
May 1999 was found to be at c. 160 m below the
surface, resulting in desiccation of subsurface peat.
Furthermore, the application of nitrogen to the crop
has resulted in further oxidation of organic matter
(CH2O).
The archaeological significance of the site was no-
ticed in 1895 when a local farmer discovered a number
of artefacts when digging post holes, which were simi-
lar to items found during the earlier excavations at
Glastonbury Lake Village. Further investigation of the
site formed the conclusion that they were from a lake
dwelling, which consisted of two villages that were
positioned on raised mounds within Meare Pool
(Coles, 1987). More recent work has shown that these
raised areas were on a Sphagnum-Calluna peat bog
overlying Phragmites peat with alder and willow
(Godwin, 1941; Caseldine, 1986). It seems that the
settlements were constructed over small bog humps
that were no longer active, but that had dried su-
ciently to crack and harden (Coles, 1987, p. 235).
These deposits, and the archaeological sites, were later
overlain by a sealing layer of flooding clays.
Both of the village mounds have received a large
amount of archaeological attention (Figure 5). The
earliest work at Meare Village East began in 1932 by
Arthur Bulleid and Harold St George Gray. Their
work was completed in 1956 by Gray. This was fol-
lowed by later investigations by Michael Avery in 1966
(Avery, 1968) and later by the Somerset Levels Project
in 1982 and 1984 (Orme, Coles & Silvester, 1983).
More recently a number of areas of the site have
received geophysical investigation that revealed the
positions of probable clay mounds within an unexca-
vated part of Meare Village East (GSB, 1996).
Examination of Meare Village East showed that
activity on the raised area was characterized by clay
spreads. Occupation appears to have begun on the
surface of the dried peat with structures including
tents, windbreaks and animal folds. Occupation debris
on the site produced a horizon of black earth contain-
ing cultural debris. At this time a number of clay
spreads were deposited onto the site, presumably from
the island to the south (now occupied by the modern
village) where the weathered surface of the Lias lime-
stone erodes to form a soft clay-like material (Coles,
1987). Coles also argues that these spreads were prob-
ably deposited to provide raised, dryer stands for
occupation, industry and movement. Some areas were
given thicker spreads of clay to accommodate hearths
built of clay or stone, which would have had the added
advantage of preventing the ignition of the peat. The
clay spreads across the site are very dierent in nature,

ranging from thin, path-like spreads to the thicker
spreads occupied by structures or hearths. Some even
had stone edging or paving.
During the period of settlement, the clay spreads
were maintained through the deposition of additional
spreads of clay. The result is that mounds developed,
which when viewed in section, display an intercalated
stratigraphy of clay spreads and occupation layers.
Investigations at the Meare villages has produced a
number of enigmas, not least of which relate to settle-
ment. Despite the huge volume of material that has
been recovered from the site, no evidence of permanent
settlement has been found.
Survey strategy. The site was surveyed in transects, as
before, using ranging-rods to sight lines. The resolution
of this survey varied across the surface to react to the
nature of the archaeology. The area of Meare Village
East (and the eastern edge of Meare Village West) was
covered at a high resolution (<5 m intervals but often
much less) because of the desire to locate rises that
were shown to be approximately 5 m or more in
diameter (Coles, 1987). This resolution was kept for
the surrounding areas of the villages so that only the
periphery was surveyed at lower resolution. Here a
surface resolution for the survey was about 7 m.
Results from DEM. The DEM resulting from the
survey was processed at 1 m resolution, again to avoid
quantizing errors. Because parts of the survey had a
density approaching this, it was not considered that
this was over-interpolation from the data.
The results from the DEM (Figure 5) showed the
rises occupied by Meare Village East (A) and the edge
of Meare Village West (B). A third rise was shown to
the south of Meare Village East showing a tongue of
land extending towards it (C). To the north of Meare
Village East a number of rises representing post-
medieval banks were shown on the DEM (D), rising
towards the River Brue embankments. A linear depres-
sion was also shown running parallel to the river (E),
forming a sharp scarp up to a ridge that only falls away
slightly onto the area occupied by the village mounds.
The whole area was marked with the remains of
pastoral surface drains (e.g. F).
More strikingly, the remains of higher resolution
archaeology were shown on the plot. Within the perim-
eter of the scheduled monument of Meare Village East,
the majority of previously recorded clay spreads and
mounds were echoed by the DEM (marked by circles
on the modelFigure 6). Furthermore, a number of
features resembling mounds were noted on the DEM,
but which had not been recognized as mounds in
previous archaeological excavations (cf. Coles, 1987).
Four of these were located in an area towards the
western end of the site, which had been the subject of
recent geophysical investigation (cf. GSB, 1996solid
circles on model). The close correlation between the
results from both sets of data suggests that subsurface
High-Resolution Wetland Prospection 373
features identified in the geophysical survey were also
identifiable as micro-topographical features.
Outside the scheduled area a number of additional
similar mound-like features were visible on the DEM.
To the north, at least one mound was seen adjacent to
the position of the removed drain (G). To the north-
east, an undulating topography similarly implied the
positions of a number of mound-like features (H). This
suggested that the perimeter of Meare Village East was
perhaps larger than had previously been considered.
Results from ground testing. To test the results from the
micro-topographical survey, a coring programme in-
cluded the setting of 26 boreholes from various loca-
tions across the site outside the scheduled area. These
were aimed at locations where mound-like features had
been located from the DEM. Three transects investi-
gated the areas to the north, east and northeast of
Meare Village East.
The transect to the north (1) of the scheduled area
revealed light-brown compact alluvial clays overlying a
detrital mud or gyttja above peat. This detrital mud
included burnt material, bone and flint, reflecting an-
thropogenic activity that has been associated with Iron
Age activity (Aalbersberg, 1998). The easternmost
borehole in this transect identified cultural debris in-
cluding chert and burnt clay fragments, and distinct
layers of clays, which may represent an additional clay
spread. However, its stratigraphic position, above the
light-brown compact alluvial clay and its proximity to
a now filled-in drain, may reflect the redeposition of
material from the Iron Age settlement at some later
date. This feature was not identified as a possible
mound on the DEM.
The second transect (2), to the east of the village
mound, revealed a complex stratigraphy through one
mound deposit, identified by Coles (1987). The litho-
stratigraphic evidence correlated closely with the
DEM. The edge of a second mound was also identified
as a similar detrital deposit, though much shallower.
The third transect (3), to the northeast of the settle-
ment, revealed flood plain clays of varying depths.
Within the alluvial clays, basal units contained bone
and other debris. Beneath the clay, a thin layer of
detrital mud containing occupation debris was found
overlying the peat. The peat layer overlay blue-grey
estuarine clays, with the surface dropping away to-
wards the River Brue. Interestingly, the light-brown
compact alluvial clay was found to be thinner towards
the River Brue, suggesting that the intercalated peat
was thicker towards the river at the time of clastic
alluvial sedimentation. Subsequent desiccation in-
verted the landscape relief.
A number of conclusions can be drawn from the
ground testing. First, the DEM appeared to have
identified correctly clay spreads within the known
extent of the village, and a positive correlation was
confirmed through coring the known mound outside
the scheduled area, and with the results from the
374 H. P. Chapman and R. Van de Noort
Table 2. Readings to point B from repeated surveys and standard deviations keeping point A as constant (m)
x y
1 456,519813
2 456,51983
3 456,519842
4 456,519791
5 456,519789
geophysical survey. Second, the DEM identified a
number of mound-resembling features that were un-
connected with the lake settlement. Rather, they ap-
pear to reflect activity such as quarrying of the clay,
post-dating the Iron Age occupation of Meare Village
East.
Discussion
In the two studies outlined in this paper, anthropogenic
alterations in wetland landscapes were found to have
altered the natural deposition sequence of biogenic and
minerogenic sediments. In the case of Sutton Common,
the construction of multivallet earthworks was fol-
lowed by biogenic sedimentation of ditch fills. In the
case of Meare Village East, minerogenic sediments
were placed over a peat surface to provide dry areas.
At Sutton Common, dierential desiccation resulted in
significant peat shrinkage over a c. 18-month period
since the site had been ploughed, and limited shrinkage
of mineral soils, resulting from the identification, in the
micro-topographical survey of peat-filled ditches that
had been destroyed two decades earlier. At Meare,
dierential desiccation has led to higher positions for
the clay spreads relative to the exposed peat surface.
Here, the rate of desiccation appears to be slower than
at Sutton Common, but the absence of ploughing
activity, which levels the site at regular intervals,
resulted nevertheless in significant micro-topographical
information.
While both sites revealed evidence of archaeological
features that were confirmed by excavation or coring,
the archaeological features from Sutton Common were
more easily identifiable. It appears that the identifica-
tion of features that are linear in plan is easier with the
methods outlined in this paper. This could be a matter
of perceptionthe eye naturally searches for patterns
such as lines. The applicability of the technique would
appear therefore to be more appropriate to sites whose
features are likely to be linear such as ditches, dikes,
field systems and roads.
The results from the two sites have also demon-
strated that later activity at sites can influence the
results of surface activity. At Sutton Common, post-
Iron Age activity of significant scale has not been
recorded. However, the bulldozing and ploughing of
much of the site created a smoothed landscape
wherein the micro-topographical eects of a short
z

412,215452 4815 0010
412,21547 4798 0007
412,215472 4804 0014
412,215416 4786 0008
412,215468 4759 0007
period of dierential desiccation could be identified. At
Meare, where post-Iron Age activities included the
construction and filling-in of ditches and possibly the
quarrying of the light-brown compact alluvial clays,
the undulated landscape was not smoothed by
ploughing and it was not always possible to distinguish
between features associated with the Iron Age village
and other features.
Conclusion
High-resolution, high-accuracy GPS survey, coupled
with GIS surface interpolation and modelling, has been
proven as a new technique to identify archaeological
features within wetland landscapes. The identification
of micro-topographical features is related to the dier-
ential desiccation of biogenic and minerogenic sedi-
ments after drainage was introduced to the wetlands.
Linear archaeological features, such as ditches, were
found to be more easily identifiable with this technique
than amorphous or roughly circular features, such as
mounds and clay spreads. Activity post-dating the
prehistoric occupation was found to have aected the
readings in diverse ways. Landscape activities, such as
ploughing, may enhance the readings because of the
smoothing of the surface; while localized activities,
such as clay extraction, can be indistinguishable from
archaeological features.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Carstairs Countryside Trust
(CCT) and Mr Baker of Manor Farm for providing
access to Sutton Common and Meare Village East,
respectively. The survey of Sutton Common was com-
missioned by CCT, and the excavations here were
commissioned by English Heritage. We would like
to acknowledge the support of Jon Ette of English
Heritage and the trustees of CCT for assistance and
advice at Sutton Common, and to John Coles, Richard
Brunning (Somerset County Council) and Stephen
Minnitt (Somerset County Museum, Taunton) for
their assistance and advice at Meare.
References
Aalbersberg, G. (1998). A Survey of Potential Mounds Near Meare
Village (Somerset Levels). Exeter: School of Geography and
Archaeology, Exeter University internal report.

Adams, M., Merrony, C. & Sydes, R. E. (1988). Excavations at
Sutton Common, South Yorkshire 1988. Sheeld: South Yorkshire
Archaeology Unit.
Allcroft, A. H. (1908). Earthworks of England. London: Macmillan.
Avery, M. (1968). Excavations at Meare Village East 1966. An
interim report and discussion. Proceedings of the Somerset
Archaeological and Natural History Society 112, pp. 2139.
Bernick, K. (1998). Hidden Dimensions. The Cultural Significance of
Wetland Archaeology. Vancouver: University of British Columbia
University Press.
Brown, A. G. & Bradley, C. (1995). Past and present alluvial
wetlands and the eco-archaeological resource: implications from
research in East Midlands valleys, UK. In (M. Cox, V. Straker &
D. Taylor, Eds) Wetlands. Archaeology and Nature Conservation.
London: HMSO, pp. 189203.
Buckland, P. (1987). Sutton Common: the geological framework. In
(R. Sydes & J. Symonds, Eds) Sutton Common 1987 Excavation
reportInvestigations of a Northern Wetland Site. Sheeld: South
Yorkshire Archaeology Unit, pp. 4751.
Bulleid, A. & St George Gray, H. (1948). The Meare Lake village,
Vol 1. Taulton: privately published.
Caseldine, A. E. (1986). The environmental context of the Meare
Lake villages. Somerset Levels Papers 12, 7396.
Coles, B. (1995). Wetland Management: a Survey for English
Heritage. Exeter: Wetland Archaeology Research Project.
Coles, B. & Coles, J. M. (1986). Sweet Track to Glastonbury: the
Prehistory of the Somerset Levels. London: Thames and Hudson.
Coles, J. M. (1987). Meare Village East. The Excavations of A.
Bulleid and H. St. George Gray. (Somerset Levels Papers 13).
Hertford: Somerset Levels Project.
Coles, J. M. & Coles, B. (1996). Enlarging the Past. The Contribution
of Wetland Archaeology. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of
Scotland and Exeter, Wetland Archaeology Research Project.
Coles, J. M. & Minnitt, S. (1996). Industrious and Fairly Civilized.
The Glastonbury Lake Village. Taunton: Somerset Levels Project
and Somerset County Council Museum Service.
Cook, H. & Williamson, T. (Eds) (1999). Water Management in the
English Landscape. Edinburgh: University Press.
David, A. (1995). Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evalu-
ation. London: English Heritage (Research and Professional ser-
vices Guidelines 1).
Dent, D. (1999). Wetland soils. In (H. Cook & T. Williamson, Eds)
Water Management in the English Landscape. Edinburgh: Univer-
sity Press, pp. 7383.
English Heritage (1998). Exploring Our Past 98. London: English
Heritage.
Fletcher, M. & Spicer, D. (1988). Clonehenge: an experiment with
gridded and non-gridded survey data. In (S. P. Q. Rahtz, Ed.)
Computer and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology 1988. Oxford:
BAR International Series 446 (ii), pp. 309324.
Godwin, H. (1941). Studies of the post-glacial history of British
vegetation. VI. Correlations in the Somerset Levels. New Phy-
tologist 40, 108132.
Godwin, H. (1978). Fenlands: its Ancient Past and Uncertain Future.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
High-Resolution Wetland Prospection 375
Goucher, K. (1997). Hill of Tara topographical survey and mapping.
In (C. Newman, Ed.) Tara: an Archaeological Survey. Dublin:
Discovery Programme Monograph 2, pp. 245252.
GSB (1996). Meare Villages: Geophysical Survey. Bradford: Geo-
physical Surveys of Bradford, unpublished report.
Hall, D. & Coles, J. M. (1994). Fenland Survey: an Essay in
Landscape and Persistence. London: English Heritage.
Head, R., Chapman, H., Fenwick, H., Van de Noort, R. & Lillie, M.
(1997). The archaeological survey of the Rivers Aire, Went, former
Turnbridge Dike (Don north branch), and the Hampole Beck. In
(R. Van de Noort & S. Ellis, Eds) Wetland Heritage of the
Humberhead Levels, an Archaeological Survey. Hull: Humber
Wetlands Project, University of Hull, pp. 229264.
Lillie, M. (1997). The palaeoenvironmental survey of the Rivers Aire,
Went, former Turnbridge Dike (Don north branch), and the
Hampole Beck. In (R. Van de Noort & S. Ellis, Eds) Wetland
Heritage of the Humberhead Levels, an Archaeological Survey.
Hull: Humber Wetlands Project, University of Hull, pp. 4780.
Orme, B. J., Coles, J. M. & Silvester, R. J. (1983). Meare Village East
1982. Somerset Levels Papers 9, 4974.
Parker Pearson, M. & Merrony, C. (1993). Sutton Common Desic-
cation Assessment 1993: Interim Report. Sheeld: Department
of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheeld, South
Yorkshire Archaeological Services and Doncaster Museum.
Parker Pearson, M. & Sydes, R. E. (1996). Sutton Common: a South
Yorkshire wetland. In (M. Cox, V. Straker & D. Taylor, Eds)
Wetlands: Nature Conservation and Archaeology. London: HMSO,
pp. 8696.
Parker Pearson, M. & Sydes, R. E. (1997). The Iron Age enclosures
and prehistoric landscape at Sutton Common, South Yorkshire.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 221259.
Surtees, S. F. (1868). Footprints of Roman Occupation in the Southern
Parts of North Humber Land. Leeds: Baines.
Sydes, R. E. (1992). Report on the Re-excavation of Trench A/C,
Sutton Common, South Yorkshire. Unpublished report, Depart-
ment of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheeld.
Sydes, R. E. & Symonds, J. (1987). Sutton Common 1987 Excavation
ReportInvestigations of a Northern Wetland Site. Sheeld:
South Yorkshire Archaeology Unit.
Van de Noort, R. & Chapman, H. (1999). An Archaeological
Assessment in Preparation of a Management Plan at Sutton Com-
mon, South Yorkshire. Hull: Centre for Wetland Archaeology
research report CWA/RES/EH-Sutton/99-1.
Van de Noort, R. & Ellis, S. (Eds) (1997). Wetland Heritage of the
Humberhead Levels, an Archaeological Survey. Hull: Humber
Wetlands Project, University of Hull.
van Leusen, M. (1999). The Viroconium Cornoviorum atlas: high
resolution, high precision non-invasive mapping of a Roman
civitas capital in Britain. European Journal of Archaeology 2,
393405.
Ward, R. C. & Robinson, M. (1990). Principles of Hydrology (3rd
edn). London: McGraw-Hill.
Whiting, C. E. (1936). Excavations at Sutton Common 1933, 1934
and 1935. Yorkshire Archaeological Journal 33, 5780.