n.a., (1972). Field survey in British archaeology. York: Council for British Archaeology.

Title
Title
The title of the publication or report
Title:
Field survey in British archaeology
Pages
Pages
The number of pages in the publication or report
Number of Pages:
76
Downloads
Downloads
Any files associated with the publication or report that can be downloaded from the ADS
Downloads:
DOI
DOI
The DOI (digital object identifier) for the publication or report.
DOI
Publication Type
Publication Type
The type of publication - report, monograph, journal article or chapter from a book
Publication Type:
Monograph
Abstract
Abstract
The abstract describing the content of the publication or report
Abstract:
Charles Thomas's introduction (6-9) defines field survey as "the publishable outcome of systematic fieldwork" and the only way to cut national losses of archaeological sites. Five papers deal with organisation and methods: L V Grinsell (10-13) on the task of the individual fieldworker, P Sheppard on county checklists (13-16), Don Benson on survey and record by a museum-based group (16-21), and Barry Cunliffe (22-3) and George Jobey (23-5) respectively on fieldwork by a university department of archaeology and a university department of adult education. In the second section, Analysis and Interpretation, J J Wymer discusses flint collection from Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites (26-8); Peter Fowler (28-38) discusses M5-motorway archaeology, and expresses the hope that all future motorways will take archaeology into account at the planning stage; H C Bowen (38-49) picks out some striking results from air photography, including some misleading effects, and stresses that large-scale land organisation is often detectable in early landscapes. C C Taylor (50-59) points to the interrelation of maps and documents with fieldwork, with particular reference to medieval Cambridgeshire. R J C Atkinson (60-66), on demographic implications, illustrates that the relation between population density and cultural change is non-linear, whether examined spatially, temporally, or in terms of amount of knowledge recovered. The concept of population potential may be worth exploring in relation to theoretical territories. P J Fowler sums up (66-8), stressing the recent changes in methods, purpose and nature of field archaeology. A H A Hogg (68-71) appends a note on government organisation of field archaeology in Britain.
Issue Editor
Issue Editor
The editor of the volume or issue
Issue Editor:
Elizabeth Fowler
Publisher
Publisher
The publisher of the publication or report
Publisher:
Council for British Archaeology
Year of Publication
Year of Publication
The year the book, article or report was published
Year of Publication:
1972
Locations
Locations
Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published.
Locations:
Location - Auto Detected: Cambridgeshire
Location - Auto Detected: Britain
Locations
Locations
Any locations covered by the publication or report. This is not the place the book or report was published.
Subjects / Periods:
Palaeolithic
Medieval
Mesolithic
Figure/Plate/Table/Ref
Figure/Plate/Table/Ref
What type of illustrations and extra information is available in the publication or report.
Figure/Plate/Table/Ref:
Figure:    Plate:    Table:    Ref:
Note
Note
Extra information on the publication or report.
Note:
Date Of Issue From: 1972
Source
Source
Where the record has come from or which dataset it was orginally included in.
Source:
British Archaeological Abstracts (BAA)
Related resources
Related resources
Other resources which are relevant to this publication or report
Relations:
URL: http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/cba_op/op3.cfm
Created Date
Created Date
The date the record of the pubication was first entered
Created Date:
05 Dec 2008