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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Known as screening in the USA.
- 2.
Known as shovel testing in the USA.
- 3.
Known as backhoe trenching in the USA.
References
Banning EB (2002) Archaeological survey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York
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
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
Borsboom A, Verhagen P (2009) KNA Leidraad Inventariserend Veldonderzoek. Deel: Proefsleuvenonderzoek (IVO-P). SIKB, Gouda
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
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
Conyers LB, Leckebusch J (2010) Geophysical archaeology research agendas for the future: some ground-penetrating radar examples. Archaeol Prospect 17:117–123
Davis JC (1986) Data analysis in geology, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York
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
Drew LJ (1979) Pattern drilling exploration: optimum pattern types and hole spacings when searching for elliptical shaped targets. Math Geol 11:223–254
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
Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York
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
Hey G, Lacey M (2001) Evaluation of archaeological decision-making processes and sampling strategies. Kent County Council/Oxford Archaeological Unit, Oxford
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
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
Kattenberg AE (2008) The application of magnetic methods for Dutch Archaeological Resource Management. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
Kintigh KW (1988) The effectiveness of subsurface testing: a simulation approach. Am Antiquity 53:686–707
Krakker JJ, Shott MJ, Welch PD (1983) Design and evaluation of shovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey. J Field Archaeol 10:469–480
Kvamme KL (2003) Geophysical surveys as landscape archaeology. Am Antiquity 68:435–457
Lightfoot KG (1986) Regional surveys in the Eastern United States: the strengths and weaknesses of implementing subsurface testing programs. Am Antiquity 51:484–504
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
Mueller JW (ed) (1975) Sampling in archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson
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
Nance JD, Ball BF (1986) No surprises? The reliability and validity of test pit sampling. Am Antiquity 51:457–483
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
Orton C (2000) Sampling in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
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
Rutar G, Črešnar 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
Stone GD (1981) On artifact densities and shovel probes. Curr Anthropol 22:182–183
Sundstrom L (1993) A simple mathematical procedure for estimating the adequacy of site survey strategies. J Field Archaeol 20:91–96
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
Tol A, Verhagen P, Verbruggen M (2006) Leidraad inventariserend veldonderzoek; Deel: karterend booronderzoek. SIKB, Gouda
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
Verhagen P, Borsboom A (2009) The design of effective and efficient trial trenching strategies for discovering archaeological sites. J Archaeol Sci 36:1807–1816
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
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
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
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01784-6_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01783-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01784-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)