@ARTICLE{10.21494/ISTE.OP.2017.0174, 

TITLE={Archaeological survey and sampling: a paradoxical divorce}, 
  
AUTHOR={François Djindjian, }, 
	
JOURNAL={Digital Archaeology}, 
	
VOLUME={1}, 

NUMBER={Issue 2}, 
	
YEAR={2017}, 

URL={http://openscience.fr/Archaeological-survey-and-sampling-a-paradoxical-divorce}, 
	
DOI={10.21494/ISTE.OP.2017.0174}, 
	
ISSN={2515-7574}, 
	
ABSTRACT={This article deals with the issue of sampling in archaeological survey, and particularly in preventive
archaeology. After recalling the origins of sampling in archaeology since the 1960s, and the work of French
archaeologists in this area in the 1970s, the method of prospecting used by INRAP, based on the survey by transects dug
by excavator, is studied and its effectiveness criticized. Improvements are given. Then, it is proposed to distinguish for
preventive archaeology between the archaeological prospecting on a large scale that occurs upstream with nondestructive
techniques, and prospecting for diagnosis that is performed generally after the land acquisition phase. It is
then shown that the two surveys are essential and complementary, the first allowing to enrich the application of the
second. A general methodology for specifying a prospecting plan is then set using the many techniques of surveys
available at best. Some of these techniques have recently experienced significant improvements in terms of reliability and
productivity which increase deeply the effectiveness of a prospecting plan. Finally, the political component of the current
method of the INRAP is mentioned, and it is proposed to separate the scientific treatment of the subject that concerns the
definition of the method from its social treatment that includes the business organization of its implementation in France.}}