d> Below is a cache of http://www.archaeophysics.com/whitepapers/Site_management.pdf. It's a snapshot of the page taken as our search engine crawled the Web.
The web site itself may have changed. You can check the current page or check for previous versions at the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
Whitepaper Archaeological Site Management Whitepaper
Archaeological Site
Management

As geophysical survey becomes increasingly common in archaeology, its
future use should be considered even if they are not within the scope of
current research. Site conditions have considerable impact on geophysical
results, and maintaining favorable conditions can have a very real effect on
archaeological preservation. Because geophysical survey can provide data
that may not be recoverable by other means, creating adverse conditions can
directly result in a loss of unique data. Because geophysical mapping can
reduce the need for exploratory excavation, maintaining favorable conditions
can indirectly minimize future impacts to the archaeological record.

Archaeological research can adversely effect the geophysical survey
environment in several ways:


Deposition of metal debris (e.g., nails, pinflags) and the emplacement
of metal fences, grid stakes, etc. Ferrous metal is particularly
problematic because of its effect on magnetic surveys, but any metal
can impact electromagnetic methods such as conductivity and GPR.

Deposition of excavation spoil on unexcavated portions of the site. The
management of excavation spoil is a perennial problem in archaeology,
as it frequently becomes an obstacle both to excavation and
geophysical survey.

Deposition of excavated materials of igneous rock, brick, or metal on
unexcavated portions of the site. This is a source of obscuring clutter
in magnetic surveys (similar to ferrous metal) as well a physical
obstacle to survey.

Soil disturbance and compaction, even if it superficial and does not
impact archaeological deposits, can adversely affect survey results.

Fences, equipment, shelters, and other emplacements may be physical
obstacles to survey.

These adverse effects may result from accepted archaeological practices, but
it is hoped that practices will evolve as emerging technologies are
considered. Suggestions for reducing the negative effects to the site are
offered below. These recommendations are general in nature, and site-
specific research and logistical issues must be considered in their application.

Although excavated rock and backdirt present different problems for
geophysical methods, they may be considered together under the topic of
spoil management. Assessment of the impact of excavation spoil should
consider geophysical methods as well as excavation and other more
traditional methods. Besides the strategic placement of spoil piles,
minimizing their horizontal extent reduces their negative impact. Negative
effects may be reduced by prior geophysical survey. Geophysical survey may
actually be a valuable tool for managing spoil; geophysical imaging can help
S H A L L O W
S U B S U R F A C E
G E O P H Y S I C A L
S U R V E Y identify locations for spoil piles with low archaeological potential, and provide
data for those locations that may become invaluable after they are made
inaccessible.

Steel pinflag stakes, nails, datums, and other items that are deliberately or
accidentally left on sites during archaeological researchers can have a very
detrimental effect on magnetic data. Plastic, wood, or aluminum substitutes
may often be found for these items. Instructing workers not to discard metal
items such as wire scraps or bottle caps, and providing trash receptacles may
help minimize the amount of metal debris on the site.

Potential impact on geophysical methods should also be considered in the
use of vehicles and equipment on site. Even light passenger vehicles can
cause compaction and disturbance that can affect geophysical results,
sometimes for many years. In some cases, long lasting wheel tracks form a
detectable part of the archaeological record (example: Army City). Of course,
the effect of transient traffic on hard surfaces is minimal, and on cultivated
land most effects will be temporary. Minimizing the amount and the areal
extent of traffic may reduce negative impacts.

Geophysical survey logistics should be considered in the placement of fences,
structures, and other installations that may be obstacles or sources of signal
clutter. Negative effects may be reduced by surveying prior to placement,
or by avoiding areas of high priority or potential.

Ultimately, the problems of site management are in finding appropriate
compromises between conflicting demands of preservation, research goals,
time, funding, logistics, and other factors. Although it must be balanced
against other considerations, the geophysical environment should be
considered, both for present research and for long-term preservation of the
archaeological record. Many of the recommendations above can be
implemented at very small expense or inconvenience. Damage to the
geophysical survey environment is often effectively permanent. Where it can
be mitigated, the cost in terms of time and money is usually much greater
than that of prevention.


A r c h a e o- Physics, LLC - Shallo w Subsurface Geophysical Survey
4150 Dight Avenue #110, Minneapolis, MN 55406 (612) 379-0094 info@archaeophysics.com