How effective is geophysical survey? A regional review
How effective is geophysical survey? A regional review
复制标题
地球物理勘探的效果如何？
DOI：
10.1002/arp.348
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
D. Jordan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Jordan
地球物理学是英国考古学中一个被广泛接受的部分，它的有效性似乎是显而易见的。然而，如果没有理由怀疑考古物理学的好处，为什么一些有经验的考古学家很少使用它，为什么它在一些国家很少使用，在其他方面，有高度发达的专业考古服务？通常有更便宜的考古调查替代品。然而，由于不同的调查方法的性能很少被系统地研究，因此没有客观的基础来测试哪些选择最能满足考古学家的需求。此外，考古学家希望展示成功的而不是不成功的调查，并希望用地球物理学而不是考古学的术语来讨论结果，这是可以理解的，这使得这种评估更加困难。因此，尽管地球物理测量师有充分的理由声称他们的工作对考古学有益，但那些支付测量费用的人可以合理地要求澄清这些好处，尽可能量化这些好处，并与航空摄影或表面文物测量等替代方案进行比较，以便他们能够对其使用做出最佳选择。
Geophysics is such an accepted part of British archaeology that its effectiveness seems obvious. Yet if there is no reason to doubt the benefits of geophysics why do some experienced archaeologists use it so rarely and why is it little used in some countries which, in other ways, have highly developed professional archaeology services? There are, often cheaper, alternatives for archaeological survey. Yet since the performance of different survey methods has rarely been studied systematically there is no objective basis on which to test which choices best meet archaeologists' needs. Moreover the geophysicists' understandable desire to present successful rather than unsuccessful surveys, and to discuss results in geophysical rather than archaeological terms, makes such assessment more difficult. Thus although geophysical surveyors have strong grounds to claim that their work benefits archaeology, those who pay for survey can reasonably ask that these benefits be clarified, quantified where possible, and compared with alternatives, such as aerial photography or surface artefact survey, so that they can make the best choices about its use.