Archaeological Field Survey - Extensive Vs. Intensive Survey

Extensive Vs. Intensive Survey

One way to classify archaeological field surveys is to divide them into two types: intensive survey and extensive survey. The former is characterised by the complete or near-complete coverage of the survey area at a high-resolution, most often by having teams of survey archaeologists walk in a systematic way (e.g. in parallel transects) over parcels of the landscape in question, documenting archaeological data such as lithics, ceramics and/or building remains. However, variations in artifact visibility related to topography, vegetation, and soil character, not to mention the imperfect detection abilities of human observers, bring into question the very concept of complete coverage. The Extensive survey, on the other hand, is characterised by a low-resolution approach over targets within a study area (sometimes including hundreds of kmĀ²). Sometimes this involves a random sampling or some other kind of probability sample to gain a repsentative sample of the study area. Extensive surveys may be designed to target the identification of archaeological sites across a large area, whereas intensive surveys are designed to provide a more comprehensive picture of the location of sites and the nature of off-site data (e.g. field systems, isolated finds, etc.). Intensive survey is the more costly, timely, and ultimately informative of the two approaches, although extensive survey can provide important information about previously unknown areas.

Read more about this topic:  Archaeological Field Survey

Famous quotes containing the words extensive, intensive and/or survey:

    We have all heard of Young America. He is the most current youth of the age.
    Some think him conceited, and arrogant; but has he not reason to entertain a rather extensive opinion of himself? Is he not the inventor and owner of the present, and sole hope of the future?
    Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865)

    We have to transpose ourselves into this impressionability of mind, into this sensitivity to tears and spiritual repentance, into this susceptibility, before we can judge how colorful and intensive life was then.
    Johan Huizinga (1872–1945)

    By contrast with history, evolution is an unconscious process. Another, and perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that evolution is a natural process, history a human one.... Insofar as we treat man as a part of nature—for instance in a biological survey of evolution—we are precisely not treating him as a historical being. As a historically developing being, he is set over against nature, both as a knower and as a doer.
    Owen Barfield (b. 1898)