The site is part of the new Archaeological Park at Gosbecks where earlier resistivity surveys have covered the Romano-Celtic site, the boundary walls and the Roman road to the site from Colchester, two miles to the south. The chosen site was to the east of the temple entrance. The purpose of the survey was to determine the position of a feature which shows on aerial survey photographs as a dark rectangular mass, and is thought to be a possible Roman bath complex. The survey was carried out using the resistivity method, which is more suited to the detection of building foundations than magnetometry. The plotted data results show a large number of positive and negative anomalies. One such anomaly represents a wide ditch running approximately north-south with a double bend at the northern end. This probably on the same alignment as the Temple itself. Another, similar narrower ditch or trench was detected, running northeast-southwest which appears to enter a large area of negative resistance at its western end. A narrow ditch or trench running northwest-southeast was also found, which coincides with the known Roman drain or water pipe which cuts across the Gosbecks site to the northwest. Another anomaly is one of the many positive features on the plot and may represent possible building foundations or heavy rubble scatter from robbing operations. These appears to run on lines approximately east-west. In the summer of 1995, the Colchester Archaeological Trust opened a trench on an east-west alignment just to the south of this area (EVT????), although it is thought that this trench will not have reached the area of the most negative readings, except possibly at the west end. The survey at its eastern extremity did not go as far as to cover the boundary wall of the complex, which has been shown to exist close to Oliver’s Lane. In conclusion, the survey objective was achieved in that it confirmed the presence of an area of negative resistance, together with the other features mentioned, although the interpretation of the outline of the features is more problematical. <1>