10th September 2013, 09:36 AM
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Geofizz is probably the one area of archaeology that has the fewest cross-overs with other disciplines....there aint much else you can do with the equipment other than archaeology and using it to keep doors open.....
Just came across the end of this thread and was compelled to join in! I'm assuming that either people aren't too up to date with geophysics or else have used some very mediocre contractors ...
Regarding Kevin's comment above. Archaeological geophysics is just one of many applications of near-surface geophysics and is not even the biggest. I can't think of any other archaeology related discipline that has as many non-archaeology applications. Dino lists a few and rightly points out that looking for buried services is one of the main applications (with GPR being standard in this) and is in fact a much bigger sector that archaeological geophysics. Other applications include looking for underground storage tanks, buried foundations, old basements, mineshafts, mine adits and deeper workings, solution features, mapping near-surface geology and bedrock profiling, unexploded bomb or ordnance detection, assessing the condition of roads, soil mapping, locating rebars, bridge inspections, mapping rail ballast variations to name just fourteen or so (I’m not including oil, gas or mineral exploration here ...). There's probably a few more listed on our website.
However, Dino's comment of '...but I agree, geofizz can't characterise the archaeology of a site, however good it is, merely provides some hints'. I'd say that in many (but not all) cases ii should provide more than a few hints. I.e. this site contains multi-phase Romano British features but to get specific dating and confirm the relationship between features you need to excavate here and here. A bit more than a 'hint' surely. Geophysics can be an evaluation tool in its own right but is obviously best used to target trenching. But for an evaluation (presumably trenching?) to be able to undercut any mag survey and provide as much information across the entire site
(couldn't find a 'falling off chair' laughing emoticon).Unitof1. Would you price up an excavation on a mag survey? In some circumstances yes. To cost for trial trenching then yes. For open area excavations -yes if the geophysics has been followed up by targeted trenching (although I guess this may depend on who devised the trenching strategy). In all cases, assuming a DBA had been done. To cost for excavation without using / considering geophysics smacks of amateurism, bad practice and a predisposition to not want to find archaeology and / or waste your clients money.
Dino - it's usually c**p at finding stuff like hundreds of bodies or Neolithic pits for a start'. Has been used very successfully to find the former (though is very site dependent) and with higher resolution surveys now commercially viable (0.5 m spacings with readings taken at 10 cm to 20 cm intervals) then discrete features are now more likely to be detected.
PS. I wouldn't be characterising prehistoric landscapes with archaeology but I would be giving some pretty big 'hints'.