After a site survey, I believe we overrate physical excavation

Many dig teams think you must be on location to understand a site fully. I disagree because tech lets us see things we might miss. Our crew did 3D scans of a burial ground and spotted faint carvings. When our boss was out, we shared data online and fixed mistakes quickly. Some fear remote review hurts group vibe, but it included more experts. I know people who grew their careers by learning these new tools. We should not cling to old ways when better options exist.

3 comments

3 Comments

nelson.gavin9d ago

Heard about ground-penetrating radar being used on some dig sites... is that the kind of tech you mean? A buddy in construction showed me a report from something like that, and it mapped out stuff you'd never see just by looking at the dirt. It makes a lot of sense that you'd catch more with a scan before you even break ground. Seems like holding onto the old "must be there in person" idea just slows things down now. Your example with the carvings proves the point... better tools just give you better eyes.

the_hugo9d agoMost Upvoted

Tell me about it... I once spent a whole week mapping a trench by hand that a scanner could have done in an hour. My notes looked like a toddler's drawing compared to the laser data. So yeah, better tools keep you from missing the big picture, or even the small carvings.

samf957d ago

I used to be a total hands-on purist too (seriously, I thought dirt under the nails was a requirement). Reading @the_hugo's story about that hand-drawn map really hits home now. Getting over that bias lets you see the actual site, not just what you expect to be there.