12th October 2014, 11:32 AM
Don't ... bite ....!
If a site is going to be topsoil stripped and the client is happy to wait until then before getting a cost for recording any archaeology present then that is obviously the best way to do it. But if you need an indication in advance of likely amount of archaeology, for better assessing costs or just for information pre-determination, then evaluation is required, of which geophysics should usually play a key part.
'Bad' geophysics results can be due to soil conditions but they can also be due to poor survey practice and interpretation. If you want the best, most reliable results use a specialist and not just someone who can walk up and down fields.
In terms of features such as graves and other isolated features, high resolution surveys with multi-sensor systems can help improve identification of those. Not guaranteed but definitely provide an increased chance of identifying discrete features. We do 0.5 m by 0.15 m as standard when we use ours and there is no associated increase in cost. Equipment has moved on and the industry needs to be aware of that and not be too stuck in the past based on results from 15, 10, 5 or even 2 years ago.
(did I bite?!)
If a site is going to be topsoil stripped and the client is happy to wait until then before getting a cost for recording any archaeology present then that is obviously the best way to do it. But if you need an indication in advance of likely amount of archaeology, for better assessing costs or just for information pre-determination, then evaluation is required, of which geophysics should usually play a key part.
'Bad' geophysics results can be due to soil conditions but they can also be due to poor survey practice and interpretation. If you want the best, most reliable results use a specialist and not just someone who can walk up and down fields.
In terms of features such as graves and other isolated features, high resolution surveys with multi-sensor systems can help improve identification of those. Not guaranteed but definitely provide an increased chance of identifying discrete features. We do 0.5 m by 0.15 m as standard when we use ours and there is no associated increase in cost. Equipment has moved on and the industry needs to be aware of that and not be too stuck in the past based on results from 15, 10, 5 or even 2 years ago.
(did I bite?!)