Skip to main content

Site Discovery and Evaluation Through Minimal Interventions: Core Sampling, Test Pits and Trial Trenches

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics

Part of the book series: Natural Science in Archaeology ((ARCHAEOLOGY))

Abstract

Non-invasive techniques for mapping archaeological remains and related characteristics of the soil are becoming cheaper, easier to apply and generally more successful. But these techniques still have a major drawback: they do not provide direct information about what is in the ground. What does a geophysical anomaly tell us about soil conditions at a certain depth? How should we interpret the features recognized on an aerial photograph, a satellite image or a LiDAR-based elevation model? At some point we need ancillary data to support the interpretations made on the basis of non-invasive survey data. In practice, the majority of archaeological surveys nowadays are still done using techniques that rely on direct observation of the soil and the archaeological remains found in it. This is either in the form of a field survey, which does not enter the soil, or in the form of ‘minimal interventions’: invasive techniques like core sampling, test pitting and trial trenching that allow us to observe a limited portion of the subsoil. This chapter gives an introduction to the existing invasive minimal intervention techniques, together with a description of their potential and limitations, and discusses best practices for using them in conjunction with non-invasive techniques.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Known as screening in the USA.

  2. 2.

    Known as shovel testing in the USA.

  3. 3.

    Known as backhoe trenching in the USA.

References

  • Banning EB (2002) Archaeological survey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beck A (2011) Archaeological applications of multi/hyper-spectral data – challenges and potential. In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 87–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Böfinger J, Hesse R (2011) As far as the laser can reach … Laminar analysis of LiDAR detected structures as a powerful instrument for archaeological heritage management in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 161–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom A, Verhagen P (2009) KNA Leidraad Inventariserend Veldonderzoek. Deel: Proefsleuvenonderzoek (IVO-P). SIKB, Gouda

    Google Scholar 

  • Campana S (2011) ‘Total archaeology’ to reduce the need for rescue archaeology: The BREBEMI Project (Italy). In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 33–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Champion T, Shennan SJ, Cuming P (1995) Planning for the past, vol 3, Decision-making and field methods in archaeological evaluations. University of Southampton/English Heritage, Southampton

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers LB, Leckebusch J (2010) Geophysical archaeology research agendas for the future: some ground-penetrating radar examples. Archaeol Prospect 17:117–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis JC (1986) Data analysis in geology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Demoule J-P (2004) De l’archéologie de sauvetage à l’archéologie préventive. Aménager le territoire, préserver notre histoire. In: Demoule J-P (ed) La France archéologique. Vingt ans d’aménagements et de découvertes. Éditions Hazan, Paris, pp 7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Drew LJ (1979) Pattern drilling exploration: optimum pattern types and hole spacings when searching for elliptical shaped targets. Math Geol 11:223–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georges-Leroy M (2011) Airborne laser scanning for the management of archaeological sites in Lorraine (France). In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 229–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey G (2006) Scale and archaeological evaluations: what are we looking for? In: Lock G, Molyneaux BL (eds) Confronting scale in archaeology. Issues of theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 113–127

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hey G, Lacey M (2001) Evaluation of archaeological decision-making processes and sampling strategies. Kent County Council/Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne P (2011) The English Heritage National Mapping Programme. In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Isarin R, Verhagen P, Goudswaard B (2009) Archaeology as a risk in spatial planning: manoeuvring between objectivity and subjectivity. In: Kamermans H, van Leusen M, Verhagen P (eds) Archaeological prediction and risk management. Alternatives to current practice. Leiden University Press, Leiden, pp 41–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Kattenberg AE (2008) The application of magnetic methods for Dutch Archaeological Resource Management. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Kintigh KW (1988) The effectiveness of subsurface testing: a simulation approach. Am Antiquity 53:686–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krakker JJ, Shott MJ, Welch PD (1983) Design and evaluation of shovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey. J Field Archaeol 10:469–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvamme KL (2003) Geophysical surveys as landscape archaeology. Am Antiquity 68:435–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot KG (1986) Regional surveys in the Eastern United States: the strengths and weaknesses of implementing subsurface testing programs. Am Antiquity 51:484–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McManamon FP (1984) Discovering sites unseen. In: Schiffer MB (ed) Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol 7. Academic Press, New York, pp 223–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller JW (ed) (1975) Sampling in archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance JD (1983) Regional sampling in archaeological survey: the statistical perspective. In: Schiffer MB (ed) Advances in archaeological method and theory, vol 6. Academic Press, New York, pp 289–356

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance JD, Ball BF (1986) No surprises? The reliability and validity of test pit sampling. Am Antiquity 51:457–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson M, Barry J, Orton C (2000) Did the burglar steal my car keys? Controlling the risk of remains being missed in archaeological surveys. University College London, London. http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/archive/00002738/01/2738.pdf

  • Opitz R, Nuninger L, Fruchart C (2012) Thinking topographically about the landscape around Besançon (Doubs, France). In: Kluiving S, Guttmann-Bond E (eds) Landscape archaeology between art and science. From a multi- to an interdisciplinary approach. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, pp 395–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Orton C (2000) Sampling in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Powlesland D (2011) Identifying the unimaginable – managing the unmanageable. In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 17–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutar G, ÄŒreÅ¡nar M (2011) Reserved optimism: preventive archaeology and management of cultural heritage in Slovenia. In: Cowley DC (ed) Remote sensing for archaeological heritage management. Europae Archaeologia Consilium, Brussels, pp 259–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone GD (1981) On artifact densities and shovel probes. Curr Anthropol 22:182–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sundstrom L (1993) A simple mathematical procedure for estimating the adequacy of site survey strategies. J Field Archaeol 20:91–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Tol A, Verhagen P, Borsboom A, Verbruggen M (2004) Prospectief boren. Een studie naar de betrouwbaarheid en toepasbaarheid van booronderzoek in de prospectiearcheologie. RAAP Archeologisch Adviesbureau, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Tol A, Verhagen P, Verbruggen M (2006) Leidraad inventariserend veldonderzoek; Deel: karterend booronderzoek. SIKB, Gouda

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen P (2005) Prospection strategies and archaeological predictive modelling. In: van Leusen M, Kamermans H (eds) Predictive modelling for archaeological heritage management: a research agenda. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort, pp 109–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen P, Borsboom A (2009) The design of effective and efficient trial trenching strategies for discovering archaeological sites. J Archaeol Sci 36:1807–1816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen P, Tol A (2004) Establishing optimal core sampling strategies: theory, simulation and practical implications. In: Fischer-Ausserer K, Börner W, Goriany M, Karlhuber-Vöckl L (eds) [Enter the past]: the E-way into the four dimensions of cultural heritage: computer applications and quantitative methods in archaeology. Proceedings of the 31st conference, CAA 2003, Vienna, Austria, April 2003. Archaeopress, Oxford, pp 416–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen P, Rensink E, Bats M, Crombé P (2012) Establishing discovery probabilities of lithic artefacts in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites with core sampling. J Archaeol Sci, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.041

  • Wilcox B (2012) Archaeological predictive modelling used for cultural heritage management. In: Zhou M, Romanowska I, Wu Z, Xu P, Verhagen P (eds) Revive the past. Proceedings of the XXXIX conference on Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, Beijing, 12–16 Apr 2011. Pallas Publications, Amsterdam, pp 353–358

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeidler JA (1995) Archaeological inventory survey standards and cost-estimation guidelines for the Department of Defense. Champaign (IL): USACERL. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA311181

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip Verhagen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Verhagen, P. (2013). Site Discovery and Evaluation Through Minimal Interventions: Core Sampling, Test Pits and Trial Trenches. In: Corsi, C., Slapšak, B., Vermeulen, F. (eds) Good Practice in Archaeological Diagnostics. Natural Science in Archaeology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01784-6_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics