VEXRAD • Archaeology & Cultural Heritage
Investigate more. Disturb less.
Non-invasive subsurface intelligence for archaeological and heritage questions — using ADR Virtual Boreholes as a complementary layer alongside desk studies, established archaeological geophysics and targeted excavation.
The investigation problem
What lies beneath — without excavating everywhere?
Where is the feature?
Use existing archaeological evidence to focus investigation on locations where a subsurface question matters.
How deep is it?
Investigate depth-referenced changes and anomalous intervals rather than relying only on a plan-view anomaly.
What surrounds it?
Explore stratigraphic context, boundaries and nearby subsurface changes that may help frame the archaeological interpretation.
Where ADR may contribute
A complementary tool for targeted archaeological questions.
Buried structures
Investigate subsurface boundaries and anomalous intervals potentially associated with foundations, walls or other buried construction.
Voids & cavities
Investigate locations where independent evidence suggests a buried void, chamber, tunnel or cavity may be present.
Stratigraphic change
Use depth-referenced profiles to investigate changes between subsurface materials and geological or anthropogenic layers.
Deep targets
Assess archaeological or heritage questions that may sit beyond the practical depth range of very shallow sensing approaches.
Difficult-access sites
Assess whether targeted surface acquisition could add evidence where extensive intrusive investigation is undesirable or constrained.
Excavation targeting
Help rank locations for test pits, trenches, boreholes or other independent investigation rather than excavating indiscriminately.
A heritage of subsurface archaeology
From urban rescue archaeology to marine heritage.
VEXRAD’s archaeological proposition sits within a longer history of subsurface remote sensing led by ADR inventor Dr G. Colin Stove. These projects also illustrate an important principle: measurement, interpretation and archaeological proof are not the same thing.
York — Urban Archaeology
Dr G. Colin Stove & P. V. Addyman
At the Queen’s Hotel development site in York, subsurface radar was investigated as a way to help answer a practical rescue-archaeology question: where should limited excavation be focused to learn the most, quickly?
The work was published in Antiquity, Volume 63, Issue 239, June 1989, pp. 337–342.
Burntisland — The Blessing
Marine archaeology • Firth of Forth
During the long-running search for King Charles I’s baggage ferry, lost off Burntisland in 1633, Burntisland Heritage Trust and Adrok carried out a GPS-controlled ADR seabed survey in 2013.
The Trust reports consistent scan-line responses interpreted as a buried structure beneath the seabed, including a west-to-east interpreted length of 16.89 m. Identification of the remains is still unresolved, so VEXRAD treats this as candidate archaeological evidence rather than a confirmed wreck identification.
HMS Beagle — Paglesham, Essex
Darwin’s famous survey vessel • historic mud berth
Remote-sensing investigations formed part of the long search for evidence associated with HMS Beagle at Paglesham. The nationally protected site is now recognised as the buried remains of the 19th-century mud berth or dock built to accommodate the vessel during its Coastguard service.
Later historical research published in 2025 indicates that the ship itself was sold, towed to East Greenwich and broken up in 1870. VEXRAD therefore presents Paglesham as a useful example of why a geophysical interpretation must remain open to later archaeological and documentary evidence.
The workflow
Start with the archaeological question — not the instrument.
Stronger together
ADR should complement archaeological geophysics.
Different methods respond to different physical properties. The strongest survey design combines methods around the archaeological question, site conditions, target size and expected depth.
Established surface methods
Magnetometry, electrical resistance/resistivity and GPR can be highly effective for appropriate shallow archaeological targets and site conditions.
ADR Virtual Boreholes
Add a depth-referenced electromagnetic-derived interpretation at selected locations to investigate material changes, boundaries and anomalous intervals.
Ground truth
Excavation, coring, inspection and archaeological context determine what an anomaly actually represents.
Evidence standard
An anomaly is not an artefact.
ADR can help investigate
- Depth-referenced material changes
- Subsurface boundaries
- Structures and anomalous intervals
- Potential void/cavity responses
- Locations deserving further investigation
- Relationships between selected surface locations
ADR does not by itself prove
- The age of a feature
- Its archaeological significance
- The identity of an artefact
- Exact construction history
- That every anomaly is anthropogenic
- A replacement for archaeological interpretation or excavation
A sensible first engagement
Bring us one defined archaeological question.
The best pilot is not “scan the whole site and tell us what’s there.”
Instead, define a feature, depth range, area and decision. Provide the desk study and existing geophysical or archaeological information. VEXRAD can then assess whether ADR has a realistic role and design a focused test with clear validation criteria.
Useful information to provide
- Site plan and coordinates
- Target feature or archaeological question
- Expected depth and approximate scale
- Previous excavation or borehole information
- Magnetometry, GPR, resistivity or other survey data
- Access and heritage constraints
- What would count as a successful test
Frequently asked questions
Archaeological investigation FAQs
Can ADR replace GPR in archaeology?
No. GPR is an established and valuable archaeological geophysical method. ADR should be assessed as a complementary tool where its depth-referenced measurements may add useful evidence to a defined subsurface question.
Can ADR identify an archaeological artefact from the surface?
VEXRAD does not claim that an ADR anomaly by itself identifies or dates an artefact. Archaeological significance requires contextual interpretation and independent validation.
Can Virtual Boreholes be used at heritage sites?
Potentially, where surface access, site conditions, target geometry and the archaeological question are suitable. A Project Fit Check should assess these factors before a survey is proposed.
How should an archaeology pilot be validated?
Define the target and success criteria first, generate and lock the interpretation, then compare it with excavation, coring, inspection or another appropriate independent reference.
Investigate more. Disturb less.
Bring us one archaeological target.
One defined feature. One depth range. One decision. Let VEXRAD assess whether ADR could add useful evidence before intrusive investigation.