Mynydd Llangynidr, Brecknockshire - Royal Commission on the ...

<strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong> Upland Survey
UIP081 Report Version: Final
Produced for RCAHMW
2.25 Find spot locations were checked for possible further remains although the precision of
these meant that any further finds were likely to be accidental. No further finds were found at any
of the given locations.
Archive considerations
2.26 The result of the field campaign is a set of waterproof notebooks. These are the original
records, each record in which carries a unique ‘EN’ number.
2.27 These records contain occasional sketches of sites, and therefore include more information
in some cases than can be conveyed in the written record. However, they also represent the
original primary record whereas the digital record contains corrected, augmented and updated
data and therefore has precedence.
2.28 In addition, there is a photographic archive in digital form and the NMR-compatible flat
database required by the RCAHMW specification. Additional photographs showing general
landscape views are contained in our archive.
Data collation & analysis
2.29 The basic digital record was built in stages as the survey proceeded, permitting errors and
queries to be caught in good time and reviews or repeat visits made where required.
2.30 In each batch of data entry all records were given a unique ‘EN’ number as a temporary
analogy to the NPRN to enable auditing. Each record was checked for omissions and obvious
errors before being passed for initial data entry into the database.
GIS formation
2.31 To aid fieldwork planning and logistics in detail the database content was available as a live
layer in the project GIS throughout survey. All monuments already recorded within the NMR, the
local HER, the AP mapping and those available from the desktop study were also available as GIS
layers and the whole superimposed upon topographic mapping (OS Landline) and an elevation
model (OS Landform Profile). To this was added access information, e.g., CRoW access/nonaccess
land, negotiated access and other restrictions.
2.32 In addition, a full virtual landscape was formed by draping detailed colour aerial
photography onto the digital topographic model and overlaying this with streams, monument
locations etc. The GIS then permitted ‘fly-throughs’ to be performed with considerable logistical
and practical benefit.
2.33 The area covered was recorded each day within another layer. With this it was possible to
correlate the rate of coverage with the density of monuments and the type of terrain and hence
predict fairly accurately how much ground could be surveyed from one day to the next. It also
allowed for the planning of escape routes and identification of hazardous areas during the
allocation of survey blocks.
2.34 For all records altitude data was transferred automatically into the record from a surface
generated from OS Landform Profile data.
2.35 Where NMR or HER sites were records of multiple related monuments, the relevant parts of
the information were combined with individual site records. The NMR record was often used as
the “parent” record for a complex, with “child” records being formed from information from field
survey and the other sources.
Limiting factors
2.36 The visibility of low-lying monuments in peat country is severely limited by the presence of
the peat itself and by the dense heather growth topping it in most places. The slopes of the
survey area suffered thick heather growth. An additional complication with this survey was several
falls of snow during the fieldwork.
Page 5
\\Harappa\projects\UIP081 <strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong>\Reporting\Draft Final\AP UIP081 <strong>Mynydd</strong> <strong>Llangynidr</strong> report
(Draft Final).doc
Copyright ArchaeoPhysica Ltd. 10/02/2009