English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Surface artefact collection and geophysical surveys are among the most intensively used non-destructive methods of archaeological survey in the Czech Republic. Only in a few cases, however, it has been possible to compare in detail the results of both methods, particularly in light of the small areal extents of current archaeogeophysical measurements. New possibilities for application of geophysical methods (particularly the magnetometric method) in full-scale archaeological sites now make it possible to compare these data with other large-scale realised non-destructive methods (aerial surveys or surface artefact collections). The enclosed contribution with examples from the Vraný micro-region attempt to compare the results of a systematically realised analytical surface artefact collection with new magnetometric survey results in the region. The examples should document how these two methods provide various qualitative and quantitative results and how they can complement the archaeological interpretation of the surveyed sites. IANSA 2012 ● III/1 ● 155–161 Roman Křivánek: A Comparison of a Surface Artefact Collection and Geophysical Prospection Information – Examples from the Vraný Micro-region, Distr. Kladno 156 detailed surveys). This area was surveyed by 5 members of a working team (20 m intervals of the artefact collectors) in a N-S or S-N orientation of surveyed lines. Approx. 50% of each chosen polygon (field) has been surveyed by this system of collection (changes of 100 m surveyed and non-surveyed field strips – traverses). A chronological and functional classification of the finds for each reference unit (sector/ stint) was then carried out. In the case of the transect in NW Bohemia this classification was performed by archaeologists from the region (Beneš, Meduna, Smrž). 3.2 Geophysical survey The results of the previous surface artefact collection during the ALRNB project and the new aerial surveys in the region of NW Bohemia initiated several geophysical measurements. There was the possibility to use additional experience with archaeogeophysical surveys of enclosed or fortified settlements in Bohemia for the survey (see for example Křivánek, Kuna 1993; Křivánek 1999; 2000; 2002; 2003; 2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2006; Křivánek, Mařík 2009). In the case of the Vraný micro-region, magnetometric methods have been primarily conducted since 2007 (Křivánek 2008; 2010). Five different archaeological sites were surveyed in the vicinity of the Vranský potok stream east of Vraný. For magnetometric surveys of arable fields, 2 different types of magnetometers were used: a gradient variant of the caesium vapour magnetometer Smartmag SM-4g (Scintrex) and later also a 5-channel magnetometer system Magneto-arch with fluxgate gradiometers FMG-650B (Sensys). In the case of the presented two examples, the density of the measured magnetometric data was 0.5×0.2 m.