INCIPIT-CSIC Monte Gaias s/n, Edificio Fontán, bloque 4, 15707, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain leticia.tobalina-pulido@incipit.csic.es A thorough recording and collection of archaeological finds allows the detection of errors in the field and later on. FROM FIELD TO GIS Intensive archaeological pedestrian survey in the characterisation of Roman rural settlements BIBLIOGRAFÍA Leticia TOBALINA-PULIDO (Institute of Heritage Sciences, CSIC) The use of archaeological survey for the characterisation of Roman sites and their surroundings is not a new topic. We present here the theoretical proposal that we have carried out in recent months, emphasising an exhaustive record that allows us to assess the quality of the archaeological survey. SURVEY APPROACH It is also significant that some imported materials were found, such as a fragment of an amphora made of paste from the Lower Guadalquivir. It is curious that neither Terra Sigillata nor other fine pottery is recorded. Many loom weights were recovered too. Only common pottery and dolia were recorded. The concentration of material, moreover, shows the three concentration patches, possibly corresponding to those indicated in the literature as three archaeological sites. The distribution of archaeological material extends over almost 2ha, making it a settlement of significant size. Considering the classification of L.G. Pérez-Aguilar (2018) for the southwest of Spain, we can consider that we are dealing with a large farm-type site. Perhaps, in the event that future interventions extend the area of distribution of materials, we may be looking at a small settlement. There is very limited datable artefacts, although a fragment of a highly eroded amphora dates to the 1st century AD. The use of intensive archaeological prospection with the systematic collection of archaeological material has allowed us to characterise archaeological sites from the Roman period of lesser importance and with a complicated materiality (a lot of constructive material and little datable material). PERSPECTIVES CONTACT @dynatinc @dynatinc Firstly, we opted for an intensive archaeological survey with a spacing between surveyors of 5 metres. The intensity changes depending on the terrain. In our case, the two types of land we prospect are pasture and vineyard. In cases of poor visibility in dehesa, we choose to reduce the intensity to 3 metres. Secondly, all archaeological finds are geo-referenced in the field. In addition, all non-constructive archaeological material is collected (also from other chronologies), with the aim of being able to detect identification errors in the field due to poor visibility, for example. In the case of doubts or significant constructive material, it is also collected. Thridly, for each surveyed plot, each prospector has to fill in a sheet indicating issues such as GPS used, visibility, GPS error or field experience. Each of these factors must be indicated on the sheet with a number according to the criteria specified in the sheet's instructions. This allows for a better homogenisation of the data afterwards. APPLICATION EXAMPLE The sheet allows us to know which areas each prospector has surveyed, the previous experience he/she has in the field and the characteristics of the area he/she surveyed. A case study of an application in the municipality of Fronteira, Portugal, is presented here. It is an area previously extensively surveyed and recorded on the archaeological chart as 3 settlements. In addition, one of the problems archaeologists encountered when prospecting it was the difficulty of characterising it. The aim was to characterise the area and determine whether there are three areas of the same site or three separate sites and to characterise it LOCATION OF THE SURVEYED AREA SURVEYED AREA DISPERSION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS During the survey we located a large amount of laterite building material. There was also a significant concentration of scoria and dolia. The collecti