In April and May 2014 the first fieldwork element of Toton Unearthed was completed as staff from Trent & Peak Archaeology and a team of 15 project volunteers undertook an integrated field survey across a 5ha area of Toton Manor Farm Recreation Ground.
The techniques included Lidar survey, geophysical (geomagnetic) survey and topographic survey (which combined laser scanning, hand survey and walkover survey). The results were integrated in GIS (Geographic Information Systems) software and overlaid with historic maps in order to compare different sources and methods.
A previous geophysical survey was conducted on the sites in 2013. These results provides vital input into the approach taken when excavating the Toton watermill site in August 2014.
The main research objectives of the survey can be summarised as follows:
For the Lidar survey, a digital terrain model was produced using topographic data acquired from the Environment Agency. Several earthworks could be identified, namely:
The geophysical survey was undertaken by walking traverses of 0.5m spacing within 30m x 30m grids with a gradiometer, which took electromagnetic readings at 0.25m intervals. The results demonstrated the presence of potential buried archaeological features, even underneath the heavily landscaped cricket pitch. These comprised:
The topographic survey combined laser scanning, walkover and hand offset survey. For the laser scan, a pointcloud was produced from 22 intervisible survey stations, from which a 3D digital model was created. The walkover and hand survey aimed to identify and interpret earthworks, particularly in areas of dense vegetation, and, where possible, photograph and draw them by hand. A number of earthworks were identified, namely:
When the results from all of these techniques were integrated into a GIS and overlaid with Ordnance Survey maps and historic maps from 1847, 1835 and 1789, several conclusions could be drawn. These can be summarised as follows:
Mills are shown on the 1847 and 1835 maps, and although there were some inaccuracies demonstrated when the earlier maps were georeferenced, the locations broadly correspond to the proposed location of the mill identified by an earlier geophysical survey (Johnson 2013). This is supported by three east-