megadread wrote:
It's all well and good getting a geofizz survey done but it's the interpretation of the data that's the real problem.
I'm no expert, far from it, my only experience of geofizz is what i've witnessed on the telly, so not much, but, the interpretation seems to be a mine field to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
How many times have you seen a large "interesting" anomaly turn out to be little or nothing when actually investigated.
I'm guessing they're not cheap to do, either. Apart from the machinery and computers the man-hours must be pretty high (even if archaeologists aren't paid well!). I'm no expert, far from it, my only experience of geofizz is what i've witnessed on the telly, so not much, but, the interpretation seems to be a mine field to be taken with a large pinch of salt.
How many times have you seen a large "interesting" anomaly turn out to be little or nothing when actually investigated.
Still, it does highlight how much stuff out there has never been examined recently (if ever). Take the LiDAR survey results from the Cotwolds for example. Hundreds of potential new sites revealed...