Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:32:52 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
<p06240805c8b6a4247ff9@[128.174.43.51]> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Ben,
Our basic field methodology is to divide historic sites into 10 x 10
m grid units and then conduct metal detector surveys of each unit.
And we do each unit twice, typically, in north-south and east-west
directions.
Small "hits" for objects like nails are simply quantified in the
field using raw counts per survey units. Actual object recoveries
are pin flagged ... I see no reason to use plastic vs. metal pin
flags ... Your metal detector shouldn't know the difference if its a
least a few feet away ...
We would use a total station to map in the pin flags, but given 10 x
10 m collection units, you should be able to guesstimate your pin
flag locations within those units to a reasonably accurate degree.
Certainly easier than kite photography, and probably more accurate.
Mark
--
Mark C. Branstner, RPA
Historic Archaeologist
Illinois State Archaeological Survey
Institute of Natural Resource Sustainability
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
209 Nuclear Physics Lab, MC-571
23 East Stadium Drive
Champaign, IL 61820
Phone: 217.244.0892
Fax: 217.244.7458
Cell: 517.927.4556
[log in to unmask]
When you think of that perfect retort five minutes after the
conversation is over - that's when you're:
"... bursting with the belated eloquence of the inarticulate ..."
Edith Wharton in the "The Age of Innocence"
|
|
|