1887
Volume 13 Number 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

An integrated approach to ground‐penetrating radar interpretation should include not only the standard amplitude slice maps and isosurface renderings but also an analysis of individual reflection traces and adjusted and processed reflection profiles. Only when all those basic datasets are interpreted can the plethora of reflection features at various depths and locations within a grid be understood, especially in complex geological and archaeological settings. Topographically adjusted profiles can provide important clues to changes in reflectivity along a transect, indicating why certain amplitude features are visible (or not) in slice maps. An integration of excavation and outcrop data with reflection profiles can often indicate what features are producing high‐amplitude reflections and which are yielding no reflection at all. Even individual reflection traces can be studied for polarity changes, which can help in identifying the types of buried materials that are producing reflections. All these datasets, some of which are often overlooked, must be integrated during interpretation, especially in complicated ground conditions.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015018
2015-01-01
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AnnanP.2009. Electromagnetic principles of ground penetrating radar. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications, (ed. H.M.Jol ), pp. 3–40. Elsevier, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. CassidyN.J.2009. Electrical and magnetic properties of rocks, soil and fluids. In: Ground Penetrating Radar: Theory and Applications, (ed. H.M.Jol ), pp. 41–72. Elsevier, New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. ConyersL.B.2011. Ground‐penetrating radar mapping of non‐reflective archaeological features. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, September 19–24, Izmir, Turkey (eds M.Drahor and M.Berge ), pp. 177–179. Archaeology and Art Publications, Istanbul, Turkey.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ConyersL.B.2012. Interpreting Ground‐penetrating Radar for Archaeology.Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ConyersL.B.2013. Ground‐penetrating Radar for Archaeology, 3rd edn. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Alta Mira Press, Latham, Maryland.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ConyersL.B. and LeckebuschJ.2010. Geophysical archaeology research agendas for the future: Some ground‐penetrating radar examples. Archaeological Prospection17, 117–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DamiataB.N., SternbergJ.M., BolenderD.J. and ZoëgaG.2013. Imaging skeletal remains with ground‐penetrating radar: comparative results over two graves from Viking Age and Medieval churchyards on the Stóra‐Seyla farm, northern Iceland. Journal of Archaeological Science40, 268–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DanielsJ.J., WielopolskiL., RadzeviciusS. and BooksharJ.2003. 3D GPR polarization analysis for imaging complex objects. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems Proceedings, pp. 585–597.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. LinfordN.2014. Rapid processing of GPR time slices for data visualisation during field acquisition. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (eds S.Lambot , A.Giannopoulos , L.Pajewski , F.André , E.Slob and C.Craeye ), pp. 731–735. Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Brussels, Belgium: Université Catholique de Louvain.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NovoA., GrasmueckM., ViggianoD.A. and LorenzoH.2008. 3D GPR in archaeology: what can be gained from dense data acquisition and processing? In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR 2008), Birmingham, pp. 16–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. SalaJ. and LinfordN.2012. Processing stepped frequency continuous wave GPR systems to obtain maximum value from archaeological data sets. Near Surface Geophysics10(1), 310.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. TrinksI., JohanssonB., GustafssonJ., MilssonJ., FriborgJ., GustafssonJ.N.et al.2010. Efficient, large‐scale archaeological prospection using a true three‐dimensional ground‐penetrating radar array system. Archaeological Prospection17, 175–186.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015018
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015018
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error