Soil erosion poses a considerable threat to ecosystem services around the world. Among these, it is extremely problematic for archaeological sites, particularly in arable landscapes where accelerated soil degradation has been widely observed. Conversely, some archaeological deposits may obtain a certain level of protection when they are covered by eroded material, thereby lessening the impacts of phenomena such as plow damage or bioturbation. As a result, detailed knowledge of the extent of colluvial deposition is of great value to site management and the development of appropriate methodological strategies. This is particularly true of battlefield sites, where the integrity of artifacts in the topsoil is of great importance and conventional metal detection (with its shallow depth of exploration) is relied upon as the primary method of investigation. Using the Napoleonic battlefield of Waterloo in Belgium as a case study, this paper explores how different noninvasive datasets can be combined with ancillary data and a limited sampling scheme to map colluvial deposits in high resolution and at a large scale. Combining remote sensing, geophysical, and invasive sampling datasets that target related phenomena across spatial scales allows for overcoming some of their respective limitations and derives a better understanding of the extent of colluvial deposition.

The PUMA beamline, created for the heritage community and accessible by all fields of science, welcomed its first users in 2019. Its optical layout uses a horizontal focusing mirror to prefocus the light emitted from the wiggler source for the experimental endstation. It provides a 5 mu m x 7 mu m microbeam for XRF, XAS, XRD and XEOL analysis or a wide 20 x 5 mm full field when the beam is defocused, and the KB mirrors are retracted. An extremely stable fixed-exit Si(111) monochromator is used to select the wavelength. Many experiments have been performed at PUMA, particularly in archaeology, paleontology, conservation, art history and in identifying safer conditions of irradiation for precious heritage samples. XRF analysis has been used, for example, to show the effects of the interaction of Palaeolithic ivory with soil; to identify the elemental composition of mineralized textiles and to reveal hidden morphologies of fossils.

Characterizing permafrost is crucial for understanding the fate of arctic and subarctic archaeological archives under climate change. The loss of bio-physical integrity of archaeological sites in northern regions is still poorly documented, even though discontinuous permafrost is particularly vulnerable to global warming. In this study, we documented the spatial distribution of the permafrost-supported Inuit archaeological site Oakes Bay 1 on Dog Island (Labrador, Canada) while employing a novel approach in northern geoarchaeology based on non-invasive geophysical methods. ERT and GPR were successfully used to estimate active layer thickness and image permafrost spatial variability and characteristics. The results made it possible to reconstruct a conceptual model of the current geocryological context of the subsurface in relation to the site topography, hydrology, and geomorphology. The peripherical walls of Inuit semi-subterranean sod houses were found to contain ice-rich permafrost, whereas their central depressions were identified as sources of vertical permafrost degradation. The geophysical investigations were used to classify the permafrost at Oakes Bay 1 as climate-driven, ecosystem-protected permafrost that cannot regenerate under current climate conditions. This work highlights how the permafrost at Oakes Bay 1 is currently affected by multi-point thermal degradation by both conduction and advection, which makes it highly sensitive to climate warming.

While in recent times a considerable amount of research has addressed World War I's impact on France's archaeological heritage, the effects of the battles waged on French soil during World War II have garnered only limited attention, and the few studies that exist have essentially dealt with the damage done in urban contexts. These observations prompt several questions. How did the destruction of archaeological heritage wrought by the war occur, and where did it occur? What kinds of archaeological sites were affected? Did the destruction have an impact on post-war archaeological research? This essay attempts to offer a global assessment and focuses on both Allied bombings and the construction of the French (Maginot Line) and German (Atlantic Wall) defensive positions.