Archaeological Prospection

Archaeol. Prospect. 17, 125–127 (2010)

Published online 11 May 2010 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/arp.380

Book Review

ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION geophysical analysis, Carver was evidently smitten

by the potential of non-invasive techniques.
Martin Carver, Routledge, 2009. No. of pages: 480. The book Archaeological Investigation is an excellent
Price: £26.99 (paperback). ISBN: 978-0415489195 introduction to the process of discovery. The text is
well written and the persuasive dogma that lies within
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF BRITAIN: AN indicates that there is an ebb and flow to the way in
INTRODUCTION FROM EARLIEST TIMES which we undertake field work and approach
TO THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY interpretation; in short there is no singular toolbox
(practical or theoretical) and that we should consider
John Hunter and Ian Ralston (eds). Routledge, 2009. appropriateness as a measure of success. The book is
No. of pages: 480. Price: £24.99 (paperback). ISBN: divided into four parts: principles, in the field, writing
978-0-415-47717-8 up and design. For those who are new to the subject
or require a refresher on ’why’ and ’how’ then I can
Two new books have arrived from the publisher Rou- recommend Carver’s discussion on the approach to
tledge. On face value they perhaps offer little to those fieldwork, while his considerable knowledge and
specializing in prospecting. However, together they experience results in an admirable discussion in part
form a snapshot of archaeology as it is practised, four. Anyone who feels apprehensive at the prospect
particularly in Britain, and an illustration of the frame- of writing up a project will be comforted by Carver’s
work within which many of us work. enthusiasm for ’writing up’, which he states is the most
The author of the first book, Martin Carver, is a well exciting and creative part of field archaeology.
known and respected communicator of archaeological It should be admitted that this book is not about
material with a wealth of field experience. Perhaps less geophysics or remote sensing. The ’investigation’ in
well known is the important role he played during the the title is broader than the working environment of
1980s in the understanding of geophysical data. many readers of this journal and encompasses the flow
During the early part of that decade he won an open of ideas and data from project inception to publication.
design competition to investigate at Sutton Hoo, a Wrapped around the process is the ethical or social
major Anglo-Saxon site situated in Suffolk, UK. context within which we work. More than that, Carver
Whereas the other bids were linked to large-scale articulates the belief that we are ethically constrained
open excavation, Carver suggested a more thoughtful by a social contract, but one that is cognizant of, and
approach involving a carefully constructed pro- steeped in, the tradition of commercial style work. As a
gramme of works that would allow evaluation both result Carver’s ’evaluative’ approach reflects some
of and by geophysical techniques, and that infor- aspects of the practice of geophysical work, but it is not
mation would inform the larger project design. a mirror image. The framework within which archae-
This project provided a focal point for the nascent ologists work must stem from a consensus worked out
application of (ground-penetrating radar) GPR and a in advance, but much of the process is unrepeatable.
welcome appraisal for other more common techniques Although the book is well illustrated by many
available then. Although history will tell us that the different type, period and geographical examples, the
work at Sutton Hoo will be remembered for the ’sand prospecting element is heavily influenced by results
bodies’ found during the excavation rather than from Sutton Hoo. On first glance this is problematic as

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

126 Book Review

the site is a Royal burial ground on sandy soil and the conundrum; why should this important application
author states that the greatest challenge for geophysics area receive such a small recognition? There are plenty
is to find and map human burials. I would agree that of recent articles that would illustrate this technical
finding burials is a problem and that in a sandy strength, but part of the problem may lie with the
environment this may be even more of a challenge, but projection of what we do beyond our subdiscipline. It
applications are driven by many factors rather then is possible that the lack of synthesis in relevant outlets
research and conservation. This predominant interest means that potentially new application areas are
of the author probably explains why there is a great unrecognized. Indeed, even a concept as simple as
number of examples for the location of human remains what now constitutes a geophysical survey may be
using ’phosphate’ rather than geophysical data. difficult for the occasional user to define, as the
Chapter 5 deals with ’Site Survey’ and it is here the boundaries have moved over the years. From my
techniques that we commonly use are to be found. perspective I see a vibrant, radical and innovative
There is a page of photographs showing instruments in research area, where in part this change is both
use; they, both instruments and surveyors(!), are of technological and resource driven. Perhaps what
considerable historic interest. However, the photo- Carver’s book reflects is lack of expectation for our
graphs do not tell us much about prospecting as it is results beyond the immediate value of a survey.
now practised. The images of data that are reproduced Therefore, concepts relating to the archaeological
are at an insufficient scale to work out the detail, and interpretation of geophysical data are not widely
the book as a whole has too many small illustrations. discussed. Whereas it may be clear to our community
Although I think that some of the explanations of the that non-invasive data can answer problems that
techniques are overly general and some statements excavation would take many more years to achieve,
incorrect, there is considerable merit in this chapter. I especially in the landscape arena, it is also true that
like the way that geophysical techniques are spatial or social analysis of sites can be achieved using
embedded in the discussion of all the techniques for these data. Papers by Benech (2007) and Lindsay et al.
site survey. The illustration of what was found by (2010) amply illustrate this type of analysis.
which technique at Sutton Hoo is a clear reminder that The second book is very different in style and
one technique rarely solves an archaeological problem. content. Hunter and Ralston have updated their edited
It is to Carver’s credit that time and again he reinforces book on the archaeology of Britain, and they should be
the variability of response throughout the text. There is congratulated on providing a real ‘step-change’ in this
considerable art in the application of our science and second edition. The archaeology of this area is
newcomers into archaeology need to appreciate this. I recounted in 19 chapters all neatly condensed into
suggest that anyone who is overzealous in supporting succinct articles brimming with facts, figures and
the uncritical use of geophysical data should be shown ideas. If you require an academic study of archaeology
Figure 1.6, which is a table captioned ’What happens to in Britain, period by period, then this would be an
history: the decay and dispersal of human settlement’: excellent start.
frankly it is astonishing that we ever interpret anything In a geographical area where in the past two decades
of archaeological value from geophysical data. That there have been literally thousands of geophysical
may be one of the reasons why the author preaches surveys, one would expect this volume to reflect the
pilot tests using many techniques, and that view is impact of that work. There are seven references to
echoed frequently in the pages of this journal. geophysical survey. There are an equal number of
There is an interesting chapter on ’Space’ and the references relating to metal detectors, whereas aerial
analysis of the varying scales that we work at. Carver photography has a few more. To be fair this is not a
breaks the analysis into three, excavation, site survey book about method and some of the individual authors
and landscape, and suggests that the differences are do draw out some notable application areas. For
marginal at the boundaries. That is undoubtedly true example surveys of Roman forts and their immediate
and it follows that some may be disappointed that hinterland are singled out, as is the landscape-oriented
geophysical data are not integrated into the section on work in the Vale of Pickering. The former is an
landscape. To my mind the boundaries in the book are application area where summaries exist in the
too rigidly adhered to. Although I can understand this literature, whereas the latter is an example of an
from a pedagogic perspective, the routine collection emerging application. I think that this tells us quite a
and analysis of hundreds of hectares of magnetometry lot about how archaeologists use our data. The often
data deserves discussion and it is evident that cannot unfocused delivery of the numerous grey literature
be at the site-survey level. This is something of a reports relating to geophysical work is unlikely to

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 17, 125–127 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/arp
Book Review 127

make a significant impact on those who synthesize syntheses that encourages wider uptake; archaeolo-
period-based archaeological material. Archaeologists, gists must believe that geophysical data have not just
however, do value new technology that creates potential but also answers. Until that point it is always
significant data in specialist themed areas such as likely that text books that support our work will step
landscape analysis. back from suggesting greater use of non-invasive data
In conclusion I was left wandering why these for analytical purposes.
authors did not use geophysical evidence as frequently
as they might? Possibly this reflects the lack of suitable Chris Gaffney
summary material. It is our challenge to ensure that AGES, University of Bradford
we produce compelling analysis and write suitable Email address: [email protected]

References
Lindsay I, Smith AT, Badalyan R. 2010. Magnetic survey
Benech C. 2007. New approach to the study of city in the investigation of sociopolitical change at a Late
planning and domestic dwellings in the ancient Near Bronze age fortress settlement in northwestern Arme-
East. Archaeological Prospection 14: 87–103. nia. Archaeological Prospection 17: 15–27.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 17, 125–127 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/arp