3/. The Survey Course - University College London

INSTITUTE OF ARCHAEOLOGY,
UCL
ARCL 2021: Archaeological Surveying
2012-13
Year 2/3 Option, 0.5 unit
Co-ordinator: Mark Roberts
mark.roberts@ucl.ac.uk
Rm: 307. 0207 679 7535
Teachers: Mark Roberts and Robert Kaleta

Contents
1/. Background 5
2/. The Survey Course (Specific) 14
3/. The Survey Course (General) 19
4/. Reading List and Bibliography 24
Appendix 1
Setting up the total station 27
Appendix 2
Historic Environment Record and scheduling description for the barrows and cross
dykes 29
Appendix 3
Students attending the surveying course 37
Appendix 4
Useful telephone numbers and contacts 37
Acknowledgements 37
2

List of figures
Cover Page. Contour map showing the South Downs escarpment and southern
Weald around Heyshott Down.
Fig. 1. Location of the barrows above the coombes of Gadd’s Bottom and Combe
Bottom at the western edge of the map. Blue square = 1km 2 . 5
Fig. 2. Map of the Heyshott and Graffham Down from 1840, showing the barrow
cemetery, cross dykes, and other barrows along the ridge. 6
Fig. 3a. Detail from the 1874 25inch sheet. 7
Fig. 3b. Detail from the 1897 25inch sheet. 7
Fig. 3c. Detail from the 1978 25inch sheet. 8
Fig. 4. Geological map, showing structural features, drainage and the location of
barrows on the downs and Folkestone Beds. 9
Fig. 5. Digital terrain model of the downland escarpment at Heyshott , looking ESE.
Fig. 6. Digital terrain model of the downland escarpment at Heyshott, looking WSW.
Fig. 7. Contour model of the Heyshott/Graffham area showing the site undergoing
investigation. 11
Fig. 8. Aerial photograph showing the site, the white track is the South Downs way.
Fig. 9. Devil’s Humps postmap SC2009, showing location of all recorded heights,
taken as spot heights and strings. 14
3
10
10
12

Fig. 10. LISCAD generated model of the Devil’s Humps SC2009. 15
Fig. 11. Google Earth image of the downland block between Sutton (left) and Bow
Hill (right). The southern edge of the Weald is visible in the foreground and the
Coastal Plain and English Channel in the background. 15
Fig. 12. DTM of Barrow C at the Devil’s Humps, Bow Hill, looking NW. 16
Fig. 13. Plane table drawing of Bowhill/British Camp. 17
Fig. 14. Digital terrain model of Goosehill Camp looking SW, showing the
relationship of the monument to the valley side relief. 18
Fig. 15. The Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Chichester District Council HER
recorded sites on the scarp edge at Heyshott Down. 36
Rear Cover. Students surveying at Boxgrove in 2010.
4

1/. Background
This year’s surveying course will take place on the Murray Downland Trust Nature
Reserve at Heyshott Down, West Sussex [NGR SU 9065 1651 (central)], in
November 2012. The site is situated to the north east of the West Dean Estate, on the
southern boundary of the Cowdray Estate and the northern boundary of the
Goodwood Estate. The course will involve surveying the topography of, and
monuments on, a c. 150 x 100m block of downland located along the northern ridge
of the South Downs escarpment, overlooking the Weald. At least nine Bronze Age
barrows and possibly two more are located in the survey area, which also contains
four cross ridge dykes, a further series of dykes is located 175m to the east of the
survey area (Figs. 1, 2). As well as the academic teaching aims of the course (see
below), the research aim is to provide an up to date topographic survey of the
monuments, subsidiary monuments, and their immediate landscape setting. The data
generated will be combined with that already compiled in the Historic Environment
Record (HER), and will form part of a complete, integrated, topographic and
monument survey of the downland block between the Rivers Arun and Lavant.
Fig. 1. Location of the barrows above the coombes of Gadd’s Bottom and Combe
Bottom at the western edge of the map. Blue square = 1km 2 .
5

Six barrows appear clearly on the earliest Ordnance Survey maps of the area, along
with the scarp perpendicular dykes, which are designated as “intrenchments”; also
visible are three further barrows on the ridge to the east. The scarp perpendicular cross
dykes are found at various locations along the escarpment ridge. Unlike at Bow Hill,
where a group of cross dykes partially encircles the summit of Bow Hill, and where it
is postulated that these bank and ditch constructions were constructed at key points
around the summit to complement and enhance the natural topography of the hill
(Tilley 2004); the purpose of these downland escarpment cross dykes remains
unknown.
Fig. 2. Map of the Heyshott and Graffham Down from 1840, showing the barrow
cemetery, cross dykes, and other barrows along the ridge.
The 1874 25inch map continues to show six barrows together with the cross dykes; by
1897 the number of recorded barrows has increased to nine and it remains this number
on the 1978 map. This sheet also shows the post-war spread of forestry up the scarp
and onto the ridge (Figs 3a-3c).
6

Fig. 3a. Detail from the 1874 25inch sheet.
Fig. 3b. Detail from the 1897 25inch sheet.
7

Fig. 3c. Detail from the 1978 25inch sheet.
The barrow cemetery and dykes on Heyshott Down are located within the Parish of
Heyshott, some 12km NNE of Chichester, the county town of West Sussex (Figs. 1,
4), and 20km north of the current coastline of the English Channel at Aldwick, west of
Bognor Regis.
The site is situated on the Seaford and Lewes Nodular Chalk Members (LNCM),
producing a thin Brown Rendzina soil (343i), which constitute part of the eroded
Cretaceous Chalk surface of the southern limb of the Weald-Artois Anticlinorum (Fig.
4). On this part of the downland block, known as the South Downs, the solid geology
comprises the Upper and Middle Chalk Formations of the Chalk Group that, with
minor structural exceptions, young and dip southwards towards the downland dip
slope (Aldiss 2002). In the scarp slope face below the LNCM, the basal member of
the Upper Chalk, the full range of the Middle and Lower Chalk can be seen in a
downward aging sequence. At the base of the scarp the older deposits of the Upper
Greensand Formation, Gault Formation and Lower Greensand Group exhibit a
parallel disposition to the scarp face (Fig. 4). Younger deposits overlying the Chalk
are the reworked Palaeogene cover known as “Clay-with-flints”; valley sediments
8

Fig. 4. Geological map, showing structural features, drainage and the location of
barrows on the downs and Folkestone Beds.
associated with the Lavant fluvial system and its feeders/tributaries; and mixed Head
deposits which are preserved in heads of some of the escarpment coombes, at the base
of the slope and out onto the Gault Fm.
The extant topography of the landscape around Heyshott, is largely the result of
subaerial weathering on the gently uplifting solid geology. Initial uplift and exposure
of the Chalk probably predated the major episodes of tectonism but it is the latter,
orogenetically driven, events that are associated with the formation of the major
anticlinal and synclinal structures of the region. Subsequent to these major tectonic
pulses, the anticlinorum was breached and the sub-Chalk Cretaceous geology of the
Weald exposed. During the Pleistocene Epoch, the final shaping of the downs took
place, with most landscape contouring occurring at the end of glacial periods when
snow and ice field melt carried vast amounts of material off the downs and over the
scarp and dip slopes (Figs. 5, 6). This process occurred as a result of blanket mass
movement deposition and also sediment discharge through valley systems, both
fluvial and dry (coombes).
9

Fig. 5. Digital terrain model of the downland escarpment at Heyshott , looking ESE.
Fig. 6. Digital terrain model of the downland escarpment at Heyshott, looking WSW.
10

The site is situated on the crest of the E-W orientated downland escarpment,
overlooking the Weald to the north and the downland block and coastal plain to the
south (Fig. 7). The barrows and associated cross dykes sit on the highest part of the
ridge in this area, at heights between 225 and 230m OD. The terrain to the north of
the site, the scarp face, falls away steeply into the Weald, to the south the fall is
gentler and represents the bedrock dip of the eroded southern margin of the relict
anticlinorum.
Fig. 7. Contour model of the Heyshott/Graffham area showing the site undergoing
investigation.
The northern scarp slope is characterised by spurs of Chalk irregularly separated by
steep sided coombes. The southern slope contains the heads of many of the long
coombes which feed into the upper section of the Lavant Valley (Figs. 4-7). Drainage
in the present day is largely by percolation through the Chalk but at times of heavy
11

precipitation the long dry valleys carry water southwards into the Lavant. The scarp
ridge represents the watershed in this area; drainage from here is to the north into the
catchment of the River Rother. Springs rise from the base of the Chalk, such as
Coster’s Brook at Cocking and those to the east around Sutton and West Burton, at
the eastern end of the Singleton Anticline (Fig. 4). Further springs emerge on the
Gault Formation and form the SE-NE trending shallow valleys that are cut into the
Folkestone and Sandgate Formations. The monuments are located on a ridge of high
ground: Heyshott Down, between Manor Farm Down to the west and Graffham Down
to the east. They sit in a slight col between two high points at 233m OD; the ground
immediately in the vicinity of the barrows rises from c. 225m at the westernmost
barrow to c. 230m OD at the easternmost. The ground the barrows occupy is the
highest section on the ridge between the Cocking Gap and the River Arun, the only
higher ground is the hill at Crown Tegleaze, set back from the ridge above
Upwaltham, which can be clearly seen in Figure 6.
Fig. 8. Aerial photograph showing the site, the white track is the South Downs way.
12

The known monuments to be surveyed on Heyshott Down have undergone
remarkably little formal investigation given their location and physical presence
(Appendix 2) (Curwen 1929; Grinsell 1934); yet they remain one of the most
impressive groups of monuments on the South Downs of Sussex. Accordingly, they
have been chosen to undergo modern topographic and geophysical survey as part of
the 2012 Institute of Archaeology Surveying Course. The nine barrows are a mix of
types including bowl barrows, a bell barrow, a very well preserved disc barrow and
various smaller barrows of indeterminate type, probably saucer barrows.
The overlap of barrow types and their west to east orientation along the ridge is a
combination more redolent of some of the larger Wessex barrow cemeteries
(Garwood 2003), such as the Net Down and Winterbourne Stoke barrow groups in
Wiltshire, (Green and Rollo-Smith 1984; Marsden 1999; Woodward 2000) and
Oakley Down in Dorset (Reed and White 1970); as is their spatial relationship with
the neighbouring cross dykes (Tilley 2010) (Fig. 2). Saucer barrows and disc barrows
are comparatively rare in this part of southern England, and are distinguished from the
more common bowl barrows by their morphology (Grinsell 1934, 1941). The
combined topographic and geophysical survey is designed to:-
Link the monuments into the topography of the downland escarpment.
Identify the precise number of barrows in the group.
Identify the size and types of barrows more accurately.
Elucidate the spatial and temporal relationships of the barrows to each other
and the cross dykes.
Resolve the basic construction methods of each barrow type.
Identify other features within and outside the main monument group.
Demonstrate the exact extent and form of the cross dykes.
The work on the Heyshott Down barrows will also contribute to the ongoing study of
the Early-Middle Bronze Age transition (Brück 2000; McInley 1997), where the
cultural confluence of Beaker and Wessex style barrow construction and burial
method has a vital role to play in interpreting this critical period in British prehistory.
The temporal relationship between the cross dykes and the barrows remains to be
13

elucidated but this section of the South Downs between the Cocking Gap and the
Arun Valley contains some of the best examples of scarp perpendicular monuments,
and subsequent further survey study will focus on this landscape.
2/. The Survey Course (Specific)
A major aim of the course is to produce an accurate digital map of the topography of,
and archaeological monuments on, the escarpment edge at Heyshott Down, similar to
that generated during the 2008, 2009, and 2011 survey courses and the 2009-12 field
courses (Figs. 9, 10).
Fig. 9. Devil’s Humps postmap SC2009, showing location of all recorded heights,
taken as spot heights and strings.
14

Fig. 10. LISCAD generated model of the Devil’s Humps SC2009.
At the beginning of the course, the site will be walked to establish the parameters and
features of the monument that will be surveyed. This exercise will be followed by an
attempt to locate any other features not on the monument map compiled by Chichester
District Council (Fig. 15, Appendix 2), and to link the monuments to the broader
topography (Fig. 11).
Fig. 11. Google Earth image of the downland block between Sutton (left) and Bow
Hill (right). The southern edge of the Weald is visible in the foreground and the
Coastal Plain and English Channel in the background.
15

Having established the features to be surveyed, a series of benchmarks will be set up
across the site. The source of the 2012 survey course benchmarks will be by GPS
(Global Positioning Satellites), which provide 3D co-ordinates; these comprise an
easting, northing and height above sea-level. The co-ordinates will be measured to a
set of permanent master bench marks set up on the first morning of the course; from
these benchmarks each group will transfer co-ordinates into temporary bench marks
(TBM) in their own survey area. Following this process, which will be taught as a
single group exercise, the group shall split into four separate teams, each of which
will survey a specific part of the area that includes some of the monuments outlined in
Appendix 2. The accumulated data will be ‘drawn-up’ during the late afternoon at
Goodwood or in the West Dean Scout Hut during periods of very inclement weather.
Each group will survey their features using a combination of spot heights and strings,
to produce a basic but complete coverage of their allotted features (Fig. 13). At the
end of the course the initial drawing will have been completed, and the data generated
to create the drawing will be utilised by other software packages such as SURFER to
create a rendered model that illustrates the monuments in their topographic context
(Figs 12-14).
Fig. 12. DTM of Barrow C at the Devil’s Humps, Bow Hill, looking NW.
16

In addition to the Total Station survey, the course will also consider other methods of
recording, such as those utilised by Dave McOmish at the Bow Hill ‘British Camp’,
including the use of the plane table and dumpy level (Fig. 13).
Fig. 13. Plane table drawing of Bowhill/British Camp.
In the field, students will also be asked to consider and evince the setting, chronology
and possible future excavation of the monuments and adjacent features, and ascertain
how the survey can be tailored and used to facilitate these objectives. Back at the
Institute, group tutorials will examine further manipulation of the survey data,
17

including image enhancement and draping the monuments on the downland
topography (Figs. 11, 12, 14).
Fig. 14 Digital terrain model of Goosehill Camp looking SW, showing the
relationship of the monument to the valley side relief. Colour scale in m OD.
18

3/. The Survey Course (General)
Aims of the course
The course seeks to provide students with an understanding of the principal surveying
techniques employed by field archaeologists and provide training in undertaking a
detailed survey of archaeological remains using a Total Station; together with writing-
up and interpreting the resultant survey in a broader archaeological context.
Objectives of the course
This course is designed to give students
1. An overview of the issues involved in archaeological surveying.
2. Practical understanding and experience in topographical surveying.
3. The opportunity to develop teamwork skills along with the ability to prioritise and
structure tasks within a set time period.
4. The ability to download data from the total stations and undertake preliminary
analysis.
5. The ability to undertake the production of maps and images of the topographic
survey.
6. Experience of combining other archaeological information with the survey to
produce a written report and discussion of the site.
7. The basic knowledge from which to critically assess the applicability of individual
methods to specific survey situations, and assess survey data presented by
others.
8. A sharpened awareness of the processes involved in presenting the results of an
archaeological survey, through the completion of a written report.
Course Information
This handbook contains the core information about the content and administration of
the course. Further information on coursework guidelines is available at
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook and should be
read prior to coming on the course and during the production of the course work.
Additional information regarding the area to be surveyed, surveying techniques and
instruments to be used will be provided during the course and via the reading list. If
19

students have queries about the objectives, structure, content, assessment or
organization of the course, they should consult the Course Teachers, one of whom is
the course co-ordinator.
Teaching Methods
The Course will be taught by Mark Roberts and Robert Kaleta.
The majority of the course will be taught during a five-day field course at Heyshott
Down, with the students staying in the racehorse stable complex at Goodwood. The
first day will be spent introducing the course, undertaking an initial review of the area
to be surveyed and discussing the equipment to be used. The majority of the
following four days will be spent in the field undertaking a detailed survey. The
students will be divided into small groups, each with its own total station. In the late
afternoons students will return to Goodwood to download that day’s survey data and
discuss the results. There will also be de-briefing meetings to distribute the raw data
and discuss the assessment exercise that will be undertaken in the weeks following the
course, back at the Institute of Archaeology. For general points of interest or enquiry
during the course, students should approach Mark Roberts who is the course co-
ordinator.
Teaching Schedule
Teaching will take place from 08.30 to 16.00 and 18.00 to 19.00 each day with short
breaks in the morning (10.30) and afternoon (14.30), in addition to a lunch break of
45 minutes (12.15-13.00). This timetable will require students to have prepared their
lunch and be ready to leave Goodwood at 08.00 each morning, in order to make best
use of the available day light: you will return to Goodwood around 16.40, when it gets
dark. The last part of the working day will be used to download the survey data and
discuss results.
Prerequisites
There is no formal requirement to take another course or courses before taking this
course, but it is assumed that most students will have taken part in the first-year field
archaeology course at West Dean and will thus already have had some introduction to
the survey area landscape and use of the total station.
20

Workload
The initial five-day field-course (c. 50 hours) is followed by four hours of class
discussion and computing practicals. You are expected to undertake more extensive
background reading, research and computing work to complete your assignment, and
you should allow around 90 hours for this.
Method of Assessment
This course is assessed by a single 4000 word illustrated report based on the survey
you undertook.
The report should be in three parts.
1. An introduction to the Heyshott Down survey area including discussion of any
other evidence for the prehistory and history of the area that may be relevant
to understanding the survey (e.g. previous research; maps; data from the
Historic Environment Record – (HER); Archaeology Data Service – (ADS);
English Heritage Pastscape etc.). (30%).
2. The main body of the report should consist of work pertaining to the survey
methods undertaken, which will include; description of the equipment used;
methodologies employed during the survey; the aims and objectives of the
survey; an assessment of the suitability of the methodology used; and technical
and practical difficulties potentially affecting the results of the survey. (40%).
3. The final part of the report concerns the processing of the master survey data
(which you will each be supplied with after the field course). This work will
involve the production of plans; a discussion of those plans based on your
observations during the survey course; integration of the plans and survey data
with other lines of evidence (e.g. the magnetometry survey) relevant to our
understanding of the monuments on the downland scarp slope, and the
environment within which they are located. You might also wish to briefly
discuss your recommendations for further research and by what methods
(30%).
21

The report should be fully illustrated with location maps and survey drawings
produced to publication standard, the usual use of references and a bibliography:-
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook/referencing
The size of each component of the report should reflect the marking weighting,
although some leeway is permissible.
Submission of the report
The deadline for submission has been set for 17.00 on Friday 18 th of January 2013.
Please see http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/students/handbook for
further details concerning the marking system, return of coursework etc.
Any questions then please come and see me in my office or e-mail me at
mark.roberts@ucl.ac.uk
Health and safety
Everyone attending the course must have filled in a health and safety/personal details
form before the start of the course. The Institute has a Health and Safety policy and
code of practice that provides guidance on field and laboratory and work etc. All
work undertaken in the Institute is governed by these guidelines and students have a
duty to be aware of them and to adhere to them at all times. This is particularly
important in the context of this practical field course. A copy of the completed risk
assessment for this course will be available for consultation both in the field and at the
Institute.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/common/fieldwork/safety
(Fieldwork section).
Please ensure that you are up to date with your tetanus injections.
a) You will need clothing to cope with all weathers but mainly the cold and wet.
A complete set of waterproofs and strong waterproof shoes or boots are
advisable. Staff shall refuse to allow inadequately equipped students to
participate in the course.
b) Make yourself aware of the location of the First Aid Kit (there is always one
kit in MBR’s vehicle). Any accident must be reported to the responsible
member of staff at once and an Accident Report Form completed following
22

any accident. If you become aware of a hazard, inform one of the course
teachers or another responsible member of staff immediately.
c) All tools and equipment must be used as instructed. When not in use they
should be stacked as instructed so as not to cause hazards.
d) Do not walk off on your own, please advise a member of staff if you need to
leave the survey area or the Goodwood accommodation.
e) In general follow the relevant sections of the Country Code:
Guard against all risks of fire.
Fasten all gates.
Keep to paths across farmland.
Avoid damaging fences, hedges and walls.
Leave no litter.
Safeguard water supplies.
Protect wildlife, wild plants and trees.
Go carefully on country roads.
Respect the life of the countryside.
f) Take particular care on country lanes. Keep to edge of the road facing
oncoming traffic. Carry a torch and wear bright clothing after dark and do not
walk alone after nightfall.
You are required to comply with all instructions contained in the UCL Fieldwork
Approved Code of Practice available from the fieldwork section at:-
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/administration/common/fieldwork
Food and Drink
Those staying at Goodwood will be provided with materials to make their own packed
lunch; breakfast and a hot evening meal will be provided each day (see preliminary
information sheet circulated by e-mail and on Moodle on 22/10/12). You should
make sure that you take an adequate supply of drinking water up to the site each day.
A flask for carrying hot drinks would also be beneficial. Please note that NO
ALCOHOL is allowed on site and none should be consumed off-site during working
hours. This is a health and safety regulation, and any infringement of this rule will
result in expulsion from the course. There will be opportunities for sociable drinking
in the evenings, please do this in moderation, return to Goodwood in good time and
23

take care not to disturb the residents or other students who may be resting. Please
note that the Goodwood stable block is a NON-SMOKING area. Anyone smoking
during the survey course should do so with consideration for others and make sure
there is no risk of fire.
4/. Reading List and Bibliography
Aldiss, D.T., 2002. Geology of the Chichester and Bognor District. Sheet description
of the British Geological Survey, 1:50,000 Sheet 317 and Sheet 332 (England and
Wales). Keyworth: British Geological Survey.
Allcroft, A.H., 1916. Some earthworks of West Sussex. Sussex Archaeological
Collections 58, 65-90.
Archaeology Data Service. 2012. Heyshott Barrrows [ADS] Import RCN -
NMR_NATINV-249410
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archsearch/browser.jsf
Bettess, F., 1998. Surveying for Archaeologists. Durham: University of Durham.
[ARCH AL 12 BET; TEACHING COLLN ARCH 2518]
Bowden M. (ed.), 1999. Unravelling the Landscape: an inquisitive approach to
Archaeology. Stroud: RCHME Tempus. [INST ARCH AH BOW]
Bowden, M., 2002. With alidade and tape: graphical and plane table survey of
archaeological earthworks. Swindon: English Heritage. (Free download from EH
website.
Brück, J., 2000. Settlement, landscape and social identity: the Early-Middle Bronze
Age transition in Wessex, Sussex and the Thames Valley. Oxford Journal of
Archaeology 19(3), 273-300.
24

Curwen, E.C., 1918. Covered Ways on the Sussex Downs. Sussex Archaeological
Collections 59, 35-75.
Curwen, E.C., 1929. Prehistoric Sussex. London: The Homeland Association Ltd.
Curwen, E.C., 1939. The Iron Age in Sussex. Sussex Archaeological Collections 80,
214-216.
Drewett, P.L., 2003. Field Archaeology: an introduction. London: UCL Press.
English Heritage. 2008. Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation.
Swindon: English Heritage.
English Heritage. 2012. Pastscape: Monument Number 249410.
http://www.pastscape.org.uk/hob.aspx?hob_id=249410
Franks, A., 1854. British barrows near Chichester. Sussex Archaeological Collections
7, 51-54.
Garwood, P., 2003. Round Barrows and Funerary Traditions in Late Neolithic
Bronze Age Sussex. In D. Rudling (ed.), The Archaeology of Sussex to AD 2000 )47-
68). King's Lynn: Heritage Marketing and Publication Ltd.
Ghilani, C. D. & Wolf, P. R., 2008. Elementary Surveying: An introduction to
Geomatics. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Green, C. and Rollo-Smith, S., 1984. The excavation of eighteen round barrows near
Shrewton, Wiltshire. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50, 255-318.
Grinsell, L.V., 1931. Sussex in the Bronze Age. Sussex Archaeological Collections
72, 30-68.
Grinsell, L.V., 1934. Sussex barrows. Sussex Archaeological Collections 75, 217-
275.
25

Grinsell, L.V., 1941. Sussex barrows: supplement no. II. Sussex Archaeological
Collections 82, 115-123.
Harcourt, L.V., 1847. Celtic Antiquities near Chichester. Sussex Archaeological
Collections 1, 149-155.
Harding, A.F., 2000. European Societies in the Bronze Age. Cambridge: CUP. [see
Chapter 3 Burial pp 73-123].
Howard, P., 2007. Archaeological Surveying and Mapping: recording and depicting
the landscape. London: Routledge.
McKinley, J., 1997. Bronze Age ‘barrows’ and funerary rites and rituals of
cremation. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 63, 129-45.
Marsden, B.M., 1999. Early Barrow Diggers. Stroud: Tempus.
Musson, R.C., 1954. An illustrated catalogue of Sussex Beaker and Bronze Age
Pottery. Sussex Archaeological Collections 92, 106-24.
Pasquinucci, M. and Trément, F. (eds), 2000. Non-Destructive Techniques Applied
to Landscape Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Peters, F., 2002. Bronze Age Barrows: factors influencing their survival and
destruction. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 18 (3), 255-264.
Reed, R. and White, D.A., 1970. The excavation of a bowl barrow at Oakley Down,
Dorset 1968. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society,
92, 154-167.
Roskams, S.P., 2001. Excavation. Cambridge: CUP.
26

Seager-Thomas, M., 2008. From potsherds to people: Sussex prehistoric pottery.
Sussex Archaeological Collections, 146, 19-52.
Smith, H., 1870. Note on Prehistoric burial in Sussex. Sussex Archaeological
Collections 22, 57-76.
Subramanian, R., 2007. Surveying and Levelling. Oxford: OUP.
Tilley, C., 2004. Round Barrows and Dykes as landscape Metaphors. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal. 14 (2), 185-203.
Tilley, C., 2010. Interpreting landscapes: geologies, topographies, identities.
Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press.
Uren, J. & Price, W. F., 2006. Surveying for Engineers. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Woodward, A., 2000. British Barrows: a matter of life and death. Stroud: Tempus.
Appendix 1 Setting up the Total Station
1. Place the tripod over the survey control point; try to get the centre of
the tripod top approximately over the centre of the survey control
point.
2. Set the tripod up so that it is roughly level; the height of the plate
should be as high as the shortest operator’s shoulder. This setting
enables everybody present to use the total station.
3. Place the total station on top of the tripod. Hold it very carefully and
try to keep two hands on the machine at all times. There is a screw
27

under the tribrach of the total station that attaches to the tripod. The
1200,800 and 700 series total stations have a laser plummet. Once the
machine is attached to the tripod turn the machine on. It should
default to a levelling and laser plummet screen (this action will depend
on internal settings). The laser plummet will appear as a red dot
beneath the total station. Carefully move the tripod until the laser
plummet is located over the control point. Turn the thumbscrews until
the plummet is central over the survey point/nail. Heel the tripod in so
that it is stable (it does not to be underground)
4. Centre the laser plummet again; turning the thumbscrews does this.
5. Now use the spirit level on the tribrach to level the tripod. Level the
tripod by adjusting the legs. The thumbscrews should be used for fine
adjustment only.
6. Once you have it level, the laser plummet will have moved away from
the survey point. Use the thumbscrews to re-centre the plummet. The
tripod will need levelling again (with the tripod legs) but should need
to make smaller adjustments.
7. Eventually you will have the tripod level with the plummet nearly
directly over the survey point. To make the final adjustment then
loosen the screw that holds the tribrach to the tripod. You should only
have to move the plate a small distance to centre the plummet. Re-
level with the thumbscrews (this action should only involve a small
adjustment).
8. Finally level the machine using the electronic level. This will appear as
a horizontal and vertical bar or as a pictorial representation of a bulls
eye spirit level (depending upon the machine used).
9. Exit out of the levelling screen.
28

10. The height of the total station must now be measured. The height
should be from the ground to a mark on the side of the total station
that corresponds to the centre of the telescope. Keep the tape measure
as straight as possible. The height should be recorded to the nearest
millimetre. Record the height in your notebook.
11. The total station is now ready to work. We shall learn how to use the
system programmes in the field.
Appendix 2. Scheduling description for SAMs 20032 – 31207: Round
barrows and cross dykes. (CD=Chichester District)
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1753
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref: 224a
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490583 NGRY: 116579
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow A was 21 paces in diameter and 6ft high, with a hollow centre {1}. In 1971
all except H were under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches.
Barrow A was 20m in diameter and 2m in height, with a central excavation crater {2}.
By 1975 the barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture {3}.
CD1753 is the westernmost barrow of an E-W linear cemetery of 10 round barrows
situated along a chalk ridge towards the N of the South Downs. These all survive as
earthworks and range in size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3-2.60m high. Seven
barrows have hollows and disturbances suggesting that they were once partially
excavated. CD1753, a bowl barrow, has a mound 19m in diameter and 2m high.
Surrounding the mound is a ditch which has become in-filled over time and is now
only visible as a slight depression to the SE but survives as a buried feature c. 3m
wide around the mound. Scheduling revised, Barrow 1 {4}.
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
29

Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1754
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref: 224b
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490613 NGRY: 116574
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow B was 38 paces in diameter and 7ft high, with a ditch {1}. In 1971 all except
H were under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow B was
27.5-29.0m in diameter, with a ditch 4m wide and up to 1m deep and had a large
central excavation crater {2}. By 1975 the barrows had been cleared of scrub and
were under rough pasture {3}. CD1754 forms part of a linear E-W cemetery of 10
round barrows situated along a chalk ridge towards the north of the South Downs.
The barrows all survive as earthworks and range in size from 11-34m in diameter and
0.3-2.6m high. Seven barrows show evidence of hollows and disturbances. CD1754,
a bowl barrow, is second from the west with a central mound 34m in diameter and
2.6m high. The mound is surrounded by a quarry ditch which has become partially
infilled over time but remains as an earthwork feature c.3m wide around the mound.
The barrow was known locally as 'Heyshott Barrow' and has a central hollow in the
mound which suggests that it was once partially excavated. Scheduling revised,
Barrow 2 {4}.
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
30

Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1755
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Bowl barrow Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref: 224c
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490637 NGRY: 116558
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow C was 12 paces in diameter and 1ft high, truncated {1}. In 1971 all except H
were under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow C was
11.5m in diameter and 0.6m in height, with a low, hummocky appearance {2}. By
1975 the barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture {3}.
CD1755, a bowl barrow, is one of an E-W linear cemetery of 10 round barrows
situated on a chalk ridge towards the north of the South Downs. The barrows all
survive as earthworks varying in size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3-2.6m high.
Seven barrows show evidence of hollows and disturbances. 1507, the third barrow
from west, is a much slighter earthwork than CD1754 to the west and has a central
mound 11.5m in diameter and 0.5m high. Surrounding the mound is a quarry ditch
which is no longer visible but survives as a buried feature c.3m wide. Scheduling
revised, Barrow 3 {4}. [NGR in Scheduling document is inaccurate - NGR for HER
record corrected 19.11.2010 based on 2007 APs IS-L]
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1756
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
31

Narrow Type: Bowl barrow Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Barrow cemetery Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref: 224d
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490644 NGRY: 116548
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow D was 10 paces in diameter and 1ft high {1}. In 1971 all except H were
under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow D was 8.5-6.5m
in diameter and 0.5m in height, with a low, hummocky appearance {2}. By 1975 the
barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture {3}. CD1756, a
bowl barrow, is one of a linear E-W cemetery of 10 round barrows situated along a
chalk ridge towards the N of the South Downs. The barrows all survive as earthworks
varying in size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3-2.6m in height. Seven barrows show
evidence of hollows and disturbances. CD1756 is the fourth barrow from the west
and has a mound 12m in diameter and 0.3m high, with a surrounding quarry ditch
which is no longer visible at ground level but survives as a buried feature c.3m wide.
Scheduling revised, Barrow 4 {4}. [NGR in Scheduling document is inaccurate -
NGR for HER record corrected 19.11.2010 based on 2007 APs IS-L]
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1757
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Bowl barrow Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Barrow cemetery Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref: 224e
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490654 NGRY: 116540
32

Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow E was 15 paces in diameter and 2ft high {1}. In 1971 all except H were under
rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow E was 15.5m in
diameter and 0.7m in height, with a large central excavation crater {2}. By 1975 the
barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture {3}. CD1757, a
bowl barrow, is one of a linear E-W cemetery of 10 round barrows situated along a
chalk ridge towards the N of the South Downs. The barrows all survive as earthworks
and range in size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3- 2.6m in height. Seven of the
barrows show evidence of hollows and disturbances. CD1757 is the fifth barrow from
W and has a mound 14.5m in diameter and 1.2m high. The surrounding quarry ditch
has become in-filled over time and is no longer visible at ground level but survives as
a buried feature c. 3m wide. Scheduling revised, Barrow 5 {4}. [NGR in Scheduling
document is inaccurate - NGR for HER record corrected 19.11.2010 based on 2007
APs IS-L]
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1758
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Bowl barrow Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Barrow cemetery Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref: 224f
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490667 NGRY: 116529
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow F was 14 paces in diameter and 5ft high, with a hollow centre. {1} In 1971 all
except H were under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow F
was 14.5m in diameter and 1.2m in height, with a large central excavation crater. {2}
By 1975 the barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture. {3}
CD1758, a bowl barrow, is one of a linear E-W cemetery of 10 round barrows situated
on a chalk ridge towards the N of the South Downs. The barrows all survive as
earthworks varying in size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3-2.6m in height. Seven of
33

the barrows show evidence of hollows and disturbances. CD1758 is the sixth barrow
from W and has a mound 13.5m in diameter and 1.3m high, with a surrounding ditch
which has become infilled over time and is no longer visible at ground level but
survives as a buried feature c.3m wide. Scheduling revised, Barrow 6. {4} [NGR in
Scheduling document is inaccurate - NGR for HER record corrected 19.11.2010 based
on 2007 APs IS-L].
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1759
Name: Bowl barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: BOWL BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Bowl barrow Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Barrow cemetery Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref:224g
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490689 NGRY: 116523
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow G was 12 paces in diameter and 3ft high, with a hollow centre. {1} In 1971 all
except H were under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow G
was 11.5m in diameter and 1m in height, with a small central excavation crater. {2}
By 1975 the barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture. {3}
CD1759, a bowl barrow, is one of a linear E-W cemetery of 10 round barrows situated
along a ridge towards the N of the South Downs. The barrows all survive as
earthworks varying in size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3-2.6m in height. Seven of
the barrows show evidence of hollows and disturbances. CD1759, the seventh barrow
from W, has a mound 11m in diameter and 1m high. The quarry ditch has become
infilled over time and is no longer visible at ground level but survives as a buried
feature c.3m wide. Between CD1759 and CD1760 to the E is a segment of cross dyke
(CD1764). Scheduling revised, Barrow 7. {4} [NGR in Scheduling document is
inaccurate - NGR for HER record corrected 19.11.2010 based on 2007 APs IS-L]
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
34

Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
DISTRICT HER NUMBER: CD1760
Name: Disc barrow - Heyshott Down
Monument Type: DISC BARROW Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Disc barrow Period To:
Monument Type: BARROW CEMETERY Period From: Bronze Age
Narrow Type: Barrow cemetery Period To:
Status: Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM) Grade/Ref: 20032 Prev
Grade/Ref:224h
Parish: Heyshott
Map Sheet: SU91NW NGRX: 490722 NGRY: 116500
Remarks: A group of nine bowl barrows on Heyshott Down was listed in 1934.
Barrow H was 17 paces in diameter and 1.5ft high. {1} In 1971 all except H were
under rough pasture and only B showed any trace of ditches. Barrow H was 16m in
diameter and 0.5m in height, with a large central excavation crater and badly
mutilated, with a hummocky appearance and overgrown with scrub. {2} By 1975 the
barrows had been cleared of scrub and were under rough pasture. Barrow H is
possibly a bank barrow comprising a circular bank. {3} CD1760, a disc barrow, is
one of a linear E-W cemetery of 10 round barrows situated along a chalk ridge
towards the N of the South Downs. The barrows all survive as earthworks and vary in
size from 11-34m in diameter and 0.3-2.6m high. Of the barrows seven show
evidence of hollows and disturbances. CD1760, the eighth barrow from W, comprises
a circular bank 15m in diameter and 2m wide which stands 0. 4m high, defining a flat
central area, or platform, without a central mound. Scheduling revised, Barrow 8. {4}
[NGR in Scheduling document is inaccurate - NGR for HER record corrected
19.11.2010 based on 2007 APs IS-L]
{1} Sussex Barrows
Date: 1934 Author: Grinsell, L.V.
Journal/Serial: Sussex Archaeological Collections Volume/part: 75
Specific Ref p.246
{2} SU91NW19 (OS Record card)
Date: 1971 Author: OS Field Investigator
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
35

{3} SU91NW19 (West Sussex SMR Record card)
Date: 1975 Author: Aldsworth, F.G.
Journal/Serial: Volume/part:
Specific Ref
{4} EH Revised Scheduling Document
Date: Author: English Heritage
Fig. 15. The Scheduled Ancient Monuments and Chichester District Council HER
recorded sites at the scarp edge on Heyshott Down.
36

Appendix 3 Students attending the surveying course
Group 1 Group 3
Brigid Geist Josh Matthews
Tom Lovett George Manaton
Will Waring Sally Morris
Group 2 Group 4
Ophelia Hirst Tristan French
Jordan Hassell Nikolay Kolev
Richard Taylor Alice Dowsett
Special Guest Charles Conway
Appendix 4 Useful telephone numbers and contacts
Mark Roberts Mobile. – 07803 500321
Robert Kaleta Mobile. – 07883 154514
Goodwood Education Office. – 01243 755157
Penny Morris: Stable dormitory. – 01243 755036 – 07713 502688
Mike Edwards: Murray Downland Trust. – 01730 810482 – 07747 696936
John Murray: Murray Downland Trust. – 01730 812325
Richard Marks: Manor Farm. –
Jaap Roell: Goodwood Estate Property Manager. – 07809 899596
St. Richard’s Hospital Chichester. – 01243 788122
Doctor: Lavant Surgery. – 01243 527624
Acknowledgements
The compilation of this handbook has been greatly facilitated by James Kenny at
Chichester District Council HER department; Richard Massey and David Baines of
English Heritage; Mark Taylor, County Archaeologist for West Sussex; and Charlotte
Frearson and Sandra Bond, at the Institute of Archaeology.
The following have all been instrumental in helping to set up the course: Simon Ward
of the Murray Downland Trust; Jaap Roell, Darren Norris, Sarah Stewart and Penny
Morris of the Goodwood Estate.
37