Geophysical investigation of antique iron furnaces: insights from modelling magnetic and VLF data

References

1. AgarwalB.N.P. and ShawR.K.1996. Comment on ‘An analytic signal approach to the interpretation of total magnetic anomalies’ by Shuang Qin. Geophysical Prospecting44, 911–914.
   [Google Scholar]
2. BlakelyR.J.1996. Potential Theory in Gravity & Magnetic Applications.Cambridge University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. CarcioneJ.M.1996. Ground radar simulation for archaeological applications. Geophysical Prospecting44, 871–888.
   [Google Scholar]
4. DurrheimR.J. and CooperG.R.J.1998. EULDEP: A program for the Euler deconvolution of magnetic and gravity data. Computer & Geosciences24, 545–550.
   [Google Scholar]
5. HesseA., BossuetG. and ChoquierA.1986. Reconnaissance électrique et électromagnétique de sites et de structures de métallurgie ancienne. Prospezioni Archeologiche10,71–77.
   [Google Scholar]
6. LeypoldD.1996. La métallurgie du fer dans le massif vosgien, la vallée de la Bruche de l’Antiquité au XIX° siècle. Société Savante d’Alsace, Strasbourg.
   [Google Scholar]
7. Mahé‐Le CarlierC.1997. Caractérisation pétrographique et chimique d’analogues de déchets vitrifiés actuels : les scories de la métallurgie ancienne. Etude de l’altération naturelle et expérimentale. Partie I : Pétrographie et archéométrie. Thesis, Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine, Nancy.
   [Google Scholar]
8. MarsonI. and KlingeleE.E.1993. Advantages of using the vertical gradient of gravity for 3‐D interpretation. Geophysics58, 1588–1595.
   [Google Scholar]
9. MaurielloP., MonnaD. and PatellaD.1998. 3D geoelectric tomography and archaeological applications. Geophysical Prospecting46, 543–570.
   [Google Scholar]
10. MikhailovV., GaldeanoA., DiamentM., GvishianiA., AgoyanS., BogoutinovS., GraevaE. and SailhacP.2003. Application of artificial intelligence for Euler solutions clustering. Geophysics68, 168–180.
    [Google Scholar]
11. NabighianM.N.1974. Additional comments on the analytic signal of two‐dimensional magnetic bodies with polygonal cross‐section. Geophysics39, 85–92.
    [Google Scholar]
12. RoestW.R., VerhoefJ. and PilkingtonM.1992. Magnetic interpretation using the 3‐D analytic signal. Geophysics57, 116–125.
    [Google Scholar]
13. SailhacP., GaldeanoA., GibertD., MoreauF. and DelorC.2000. Identification of sources of potential fields with the continuous wavelet transform: Complex wavelets and application to aero‐magnetic profiles in French Guiana. Journal of Geophysical Research105, 19 455–19 476.
    [Google Scholar]
14. SailhacP. and GibertD.2003. Identification of sources of potential fields with the continuous wavelet transform: Two‐dimensional wavelets and multipolar approximations. Journal of Geophysical Research108, 2262, doi:10.1029/2002JB002021.
    [Google Scholar]
15. SilvaJ.B.C., BarbosaV.C.F. and MedeirosW.E.2001. Scattering, symmetry, and bias analysis of source‐position estimates in Euler deconvolution and its practical implications. Geophysics66, 1149–1156.
    [Google Scholar]
16. ThompsonD.T.1982. EULDPH: A new technique for making computer‐assisted depth estimates from magnetic data. Geophysics47, 31–37.
    [Google Scholar]
17. M.N.Nabighian
    WardS.H. and HohmannG.W.1987. Electromagnetic theory for geophysical applications. In: Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 1 (ed. M.N.Nabighian ), pp. Society of Exploration Geophysicists.
    [Google Scholar]