| Abstract: |
The papers are presented in three separate sections, the first comprising four case studies, the second introducing four new techniques or novel aplications of established techniques, and the last including two papers arrising out of a discussion forum which was intended to `sell' geoprospection to mainstream archaeologists. Following a short overview, entitled `Beyond wall-following, introduction to parts 1 and 2' by Paul Spoerry (1--6), `Part I: geoprospection in the archaeological landscape' begins with a recent study of `Trace metal accumulations in soils on and around ancient settlements in Greece' by J L Bintliff, B Davies, C Gaffney, A Snodgrass & A Waters (9--24). Concentrations of certain metals were identified by atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) around sites known from artefact scatters and it is possible to determine site function or morphology in some cases. The extensive use of resistivity and magnetic susceptibility techniques to determine prehistoric land use on the Tofts Ness peninsula, Sanday, Orkney is described by S J Dockrill & J A Gater (25--31) in `Tofts Ness: exploration and interpretation in a prehistoric landscape'. In `Field magnetic susceptibility measurement for prospection and excavation', Adrian Challands (33--41) compares the potential of both magnetometry and magnetic susceptibility on two sites, one a Neolithic settlement at Barnhouse on Orkney, the other a barrow at Etton, Cambridgeshire. He also compares the results of magnetic susceptibility and phosphate analysis at the Orkney site. Mark G Macklin, David G Passmore, David C Cowley, Tony C Stevenson & Colm F O'Brien (43--58) consider `Geoarchaeological enhancement of river valley archaeology in north east England'. Preliminary results from studies of Holocene alluvial and colluvial sedimentary sequences in two areas, one near Callaly Moor, Northumberland and the other in the lower Tyne valley, are presented. Rick Walker (61--73) begins `Part II: new techniques and applications in geoprospection' with his paper `Phosphate survey: method and meaning'. It is suggested that phosphate anomalies at the surface reflect the presence of buried features containing organic matter despite superficial application of phosphates (eg fertiliser). Bayesian statistical techniques are applied to the results of phosphate analysis in an attempt to enhance the interpretation of these results by C E Buck, W G Cavanagh & C D Litton (75--87) in `Tools for the interpretation of soil phosphate data from archaeological surveys'. By exploring `Multielectrode resistivity tomography for imaging archaeology' Mark Noel (89--99) aims to develop a method for mapping changes in soil resistivity at different depths, thus adding a third dimension to conventional geophysical surveys. `Recent developments in thermal archaeological prospection', in which surface probing is used to measure ground temperature, are described as a cheaper alternative to aerial infra-red thermography by T J Bellerby, M Noel & K Brannigan (sic) (101--11). `Part III: the archaeologist and geoprospection' is opened with `The archaeologist and geoprospection: introduction' by Paul Spoerry (115--21). Jenny M Allsop (121--40) then describes a three-phased survey programme combining investigation of both archaeological sites and the general palaeolandscape in `The British Geological Survey: geoprospection techniques applied to the archaeological landscape'. Finally, in a paper not presented at the 1989 conference, Michael Aston (141--54) describes `The Shapwick Project, Somerset: a study in need of remote sensing' showing how geophysical survey will become increasingly important for projects of this type in the future. |
