MD Survey Report 18 The Adam Park Project Metal Detector Survey Report No.18 10 Adam Park 9th-13th September 2013 1 MD Survey Report 18 Index Index .......................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 The Survey Criteria and Area of Interest ................................................................... 4 The Location of Transects ......................................................................................... 7 Summary of Artefact Catalogue .............................................................................. 10 The Cartridges and Full Rounds .......................................................................... 10 The Typology of Cartridges ................................................................................. 11 Bullets .................................................................................................................. 19 Distribution of Ordnance ..................................................................................... 22 Shell Fragments ................................................................................................... 23 Webbing Buckles ................................................................................................. 23 Other Related Artifacts ............................................................................................ 25 The ‘Pip’ .............................................................................................................. 25 The Syringe .......................................................................................................... 26 The Silver South African Shilling........................................................................ 27 The Gun Oil Brass Container Lid ........................................................................ 28 The Sports Day Medal ......................................................................................... 29 Aerial Photography .............................................................................................. 30 Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 32 Appendix 1 - TAPP - Finds Log – 10 Adam Park ................................................... 33 Appendix 2 – Sketch Map Area 1 ............................................................................ 42 Appendix – Sketch Map Area 2 .............................................................................. 43 2 MD Survey Report 18 Introduction The Adam Park Project (TAPP) officially finished in February 2012 with an exhibition of artefacts entitled ‘Four Days in February’ staged at the National Library, Singapore. The display introduced the Singaporean public to the wartime heritage of the estate and in particular its defence in 1942 by the 1st Battalion, Cambridgeshire Regiment. However there were a number of important areas of the estate’s wartime story still to be investigated and presented. This ongoing work has been collectively packaged under the colloquial title ‘TAPP 2’. In January 2013 the ‘Big Dig 2’ was carried out on site which included excavations, aerial surveys and metal detecting. A series of further metal detecting surveys continue to take place across the estate. Previous surveys at the adjacent properties of No.9 and No.11 Adam Park and an earlier small scale survey carried out at the northern end of the No.10 back in November 2009 suggested that the areas immediately in front of these houses did not come under direct attack, were apparently subjected to shelling and appeared to be areas where equipment was abandoned after the fighting. It was assumed that a similar picture would immerge from the front garden of No.10. The role of the house in the period the estate was used as a POW camp is yet to be determined. It is a possible candidate for the location of the prison chapel and canteen or perhaps the officer’s mess. It was hoped that some archaeological evidence would be unearthed that would indicate the role the house played as part of the prison camp. Fig 1 – No 10 Adam is a Class 1 House built amidst extensive gardens on the ridge of the hill. It was most likely used as a second line of defence during the fighting in February 1942. Its role during the time of the prison camp has not been determined as yet. 3 MD Survey Report 18 The Survey Criteria and Area of Interest Initially a prospecting survey was carried out across the front garden of the property. No particular concentration was found but there appeared to be an even scatter of interesting hits’ across the site. It was decided to put 8 transects each 2m wide of lengths between were set out in Area 1 of the southern part of the front garden. A second area was laid out at the northern end of the garden with the aim of surveying as much of the remaining area as possible before the final day. This eventually consisted of another 20 transects each or approximately 18.5m long It was noted that a lot of ground lay outwith the wire that enclosed the front garden between the platform and the road. This was surveyed as Area 3 and a number of very important items were recovered on the banking adjacent to the drainage ditch that ran alongside the road. It was noted that this area was opposite No. 17 Adam Park that was used as the Regimental Aid Post during the fighting. Fig 3 – The Google Earth image of the site showing the location of the three areas covered in this survey. It was noted that a lot of ground lay outwith the wire that enclosed the front garden. This was surveyed as Area 3 seen in red on the image. 4 MD Survey Report 18 Fig 4 – Area 3 was located along the bank adjacent to the main road and outwith the garden fence. A number of notable finds were unearthed along this banking. Typically for such an urban environment an initial metal detector sweep of the transects was carried out using the ‘all ferrous’ setting on the metal detector and a multitude of returns were registered. A full survey of all ferrous returns was deemed to be inappropriate given the time constraints and available manpower. It was assumed that the artefacts indicating the POW occupation and combat would primarily be made of non-ferrous metals. A prospecting survey was carried out across the front garden before the areas were agreed. Prospecting Surveys entailed field walking the site with the metal detector excavating only clear and notable hits. This allowed the team to get a feel for the typology of finds around the rest of the site and to sample them. It was hoped that this would reveal any overlooked concentrations of finds as discovered in earlier surveys at No.17 and 8 Adam Park. The drawback of this methodology is that the location of the artefacts recovered is not accurately recorded and only the approximate coordinates are taken. However the discovery of a scattering of viable ‘hits’ across the garden led to the conclusion that the whole area would have to be detected. The initial survey of Area 1 proved to be discouraging. The area was cross-crossed with utility and electrical cabling between garden lighting. The subterranean utility pipes left a significant magnetic signal on the surface which masked readings up to 50cms either side. These pipelines and cables were marked with yellow flags and 5 MD Survey Report 18 avoided. However between the cables was a significant number of pertinent ‘hits’1 which were duly excavated. Area 2 was found to be in a similar state. Two White’s Prizm Mk 6T metal detectors were used as the preferred machines. Both machines were set to maximum sensitivity but the discrimination function was set to exclude ferrous materials (the first two settings muted). The operators had difficulty discerning between non-ferrous and ferrous hits in close proximity as the artefacts were often masked by the presence of larger ferrous material. Tonal ID was not used as the constant pitch changes across a small area confused and annoyed the operators. Depth indicator was checked against the first isolated finds but as most artefacts were found in the unstable topsoil and interference by abundant ferrous material meant that the depth readings became inaccurate. Large ferrous items lying deeper in the earth tended to return a cluster of ‘non ferrous’ readings or masked the returns from smaller non ferrous material on the surface. This meant that a number of sweeps of the areas were undertaken, initially along the transect, in both directions and then across the transects to ensure as many of the relevant artefacts as possible were recovered. A further sweep was carried out after the item had been removed to check for other material masked by the first. Good use was made of two hand held Garrett Pro-pointer pinpointers. As many of the artefacts were found to be on or very near the surface excavators found it easier to follow the signals given on the hand held pinpointer rather than using the larger and bulkier Prizm 6T. This however did mean that a number of ferrous items were recovered as the pinpointer does not discern between metals. Having two pinpointers drastically speeded up the recovery of items. However having two detectors was somewhat limited by having only one skilled operator. Fig 5 – An aerial view looking south at Area 1. The Area was bordered on the north side by the bank that fell away from