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

Abstract

Searching for and mapping the physical extent of unmarked graves using geophysical techniques has proven difficult in many cases. The success of individual geophysical techniques for detecting graves depends on a site‐by‐site basis. Significantly, detection of graves often results from measured contrasts that are linked to the background soils rather than the type of archaeological feature associated with the grave. It is evident that investigation of buried remains should be considered within a 3D space as the variation in burial environment can be extremely varied through the grave. Within this paper, we demonstrate the need for a multi‐method survey strategy to investigate unmarked graves, as applied at a “planned” but unmarked pauper’s cemetery. The outcome from this case study provides new insights into the strategy that is required at such sites. Perhaps the most significant conclusion is that unmarked graves are best understood in terms of characterization rather than identification. In this paper, we argue for a methodological approach that, while following the current trends to use multiple techniques, is fundamentally dependent on a structured approach to the analysis of the data. The ramifications of this case study illustrate the necessity of an integrated strategy to provide a more holistic understanding of unmarked graves that may help aid in management of these unseen but important aspects of our heritage. It is concluded that the search for graves is still a current debate and one that will be solved by methodological rather than technique‐based arguments.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015029
2015-03-01
2020-04-02
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AspinallA., GaffneyC. and SchmidtA.2008. Magnetometry for Archaeologists.AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AspinallA. and SaundersM.K.2005. Experiments with the square array. Archaeological Prospection12(2), 115–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BevanB.W.1991. The search for graves. Geophysics56, 1310–1319.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BigmanD.P.2012. The use of electromagnetic induction in locating graves and mapping cemeteries: an example from Native North America. Archaeological Prospection19, 31–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BonsallJ., FryR., GaffneyC., ArmitI., BeckA. and GaffneyV.2013. Assessment of the CMD Mini‐Explorer, a new low‐frequency multi‐coil electromagnetic device, for archaeological investigations. Archaeological Prospection20(3), 219–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BrayE.1996. The use of geophysics for the detection of clandestine burials: some research and experimentation. MSc thesis. Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CheethamP.2005. Forensic geophysical survey. In: Forensic Archaeology: Advances in Theory and Practice (eds J.Hunter and M.Cox ), pp. 62–95. Routledge: Abingdon, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. ClayR.B.2006. Conductivity survey: a survival guide. In: Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective (ed J.K.Johnson ), pp. 79–108. University of Alabama Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. ColaniC.1966. A new type of locating device. I ‐ The instrument. Archaeometry9, 3–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ConyersL.B.2006. Ground‐penetrating radar techniques to discover and map historic graves. Historical Archaeology40, 64–73.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. ConyersL.B.2012. Interpreting Ground‐Penetrating Radar.Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DabasM.2009. Theory and practice of the new fast electrical imaging system ARP©. In: Seeing the Unseen: Geophysics and Landscape Archaeology (eds S.Campana and S.Piro ), pp. 83–128. Taylor & Francis Group: London.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. DavidA., LinfordN., LinfordP., MartinL. and PayneA.2008. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation.English Heritage: Swindon.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. DavisM.2013. West Riding Pauper Lunatic Asylum Through Time.Amberley: Stroud.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. De SmedtP., Van MeirvenneM., HerremansD., De ReuJ., SaeyT., MeerschmanE.et al.2013. The 3‐D reconstruction of Medieval wetland reclamation through electromagnetic induction survey. Scientific Reports3, 1517–1522.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. De SmedtP., Van MeirvenneM. and SimpsonD.2011. Multi‐signal EMI and geoarchaeology – Evaluating integrated magnetic susceptibility measurements for archaeological prospection. In: 9th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection (eds M.G.Drahor and M.A.Berge ), pp. 54–57. Izmir, Turkey.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. DoolittleJ.A. and BellantoniN.F.2010. The search for graves with GPR in Connecticut. Journal of Archaeological Science37, 941–949.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HabberjamG.M.1972. The effects of anisotropy on square array resistivity measurements. Geophysical Prospecting20, 249–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HabberjamG.M.1975. Apparent resistivity, anisotropy and strike measurements. Geophysical Prospecting23, 249–266.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HabberjamG.M.1979. Apparent resistivity observations and the use of square array techniques. In: Geoexploration Monographs (eds S.Saxov and H.Flathe ), pp. 1–9. Gerbrüder Borntraeger: Berlin.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. HabberjamG.M. and WatkinsG.E.1967. The use of square configuration in resistivity prospecting. Geophysical Prospecting15, 445–467.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. HansenJ.D., PringleJ.K. and GoodwinJ.2014. GPR and bulk ground resistivity surveys in graveyards: locating unmarked burials in contrasting soil types. Forensic Science International237, 14–29.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. HarrisJ.C.2011. Evaluating the trapezoidal array’s effectiveness for archaeological prospection. MSc dissertation. Division of Archaeological, Geographical and Environmental Sciences, University of Bradford, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. JervisJ.R. and PringleJ.K.2014. A study of the effect of seasonal climatic factors on the electrical resistivity response of three experimental graves. Journal of Applied Geophysics108, 53–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LericiC.M.1959. Periscope on the Etruscan Past. National Geographic Magazine, 336–350.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LinfordN.T.1998. Geophysical survey at Boden Vean, Cornwall, including an assessment of the microgravity technique for the location of suspected archaeological void features. Archaeometry40(1), 187–216.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LinfordN.T.2004. Magnetic ghosts: mineral magnetic measurements on Roman and Anglo‐Saxon graves. Archaeological Prospection11, 167–180.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LynamJ.1970. Techniques of geophysical prospection as applied to near surface structure determination. PhD thesis. Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, UK.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. MatiasM.J.S. and HabberjamG.M.1986. The effect of structure and anisotropy on resistivity measurements. Geophysics51(4), 964–971.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. MatiasM.J.S.2002. Square array anisotropy measurements and resistivity sounding interpretation. Journal of Applied Geophysics49(3), 185–194.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. McCarthyR., CloughS., BoyleA. and NortonA.2012. The Baptist Chapel burial ground, Littlemore, Oxford. Post‐Medieval Archaeology46(2), 281–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. PringleJ.K., JervisJ.R., HansenJ.D., JonesG.M., CassidyN.J. and CassellaJ.P.2012a. Geophysical monitoring of simulated Clandestine graves using electrical and ground penetrating radar methods: 0‐3 years after burial. Journal of Forensic Sciences57(6), 1467–1486.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. PringleJ.K., RuffellA., JervisJ.R., DonnellyL., McKinleyJ., HansenJ.et al.2012b. The use of geoscience methods for terrestrial forensic searches. Earth‐Science Reviews114, 108–123.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. RoyA. and ApparaoA.1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics36(5), 943–959.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. RuffellA. and McAllisterS.2015. A RAG system for the management forensic and archaeological searches of burial grounds. International Journal of Archaeology. Special Issue: Archaeological Sciences3(1–1), 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. RuffellA., McCabeA., DonnellyC. and SloanB.2009. Location and assessment of an historic (150‐160 Years Old) mass grave using geographic and ground penetrating radar investigation, NW Ireland. Journal of Forensic Sciences54(10), 382–394.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. SaeyT., De SmedtP., MeerschmanE., Monirul IslamM., MeeuwsF., Van De VijverE.et al.2012. Electrical conductivity depth modelling with a multireceiver EMI sensor for prospecting archaeological features. Archaeological Prospection19, 21–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. SchmidtA.2013. Earth Resistance for Archaeologists.AltaMira Press: Lanham, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. SchultzJ.J. and MartinM.M.2012. Monitoring controlled graves representing common burial scenarios with ground penetrating radar. Journal of Applied Geophysics83, 74–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SimpsonD., Van MeirvenneM., LückE., BourgeoisJ. and RühlmannJ.2010. Prospection of two circular Bronze Age ditches with multi‐receiver electrical conductivity sensors (North Belgium). Journal of Archaeological Science37, 2198–2306.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. SimpsonD., Van MeirvenneM., SaeyT., VermeerschH., BourgeoisJ., LehouckA.et al.2009. Evaluating the multiple coil configurations of the EM38DD and DUALEM‐21S sensors to detect archaeological anomalies. Archaeological Prospection16, 91–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. TabbaghA.1984. On the comparison between magnetic and electromagnetic prospection methods for magnetic featuring detection. Archaeometry26, 171–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. TabbaghA.1986. What is the best coil orientation in the slingram electromagnetic prospecting method?Archaeometry28, 185–196.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. TsokasG.N., TsourlosP.I. and SzymanskiJ.E.1997. Square array resistivity anomalies and inhomogeneity ratio calculated by the finite element method. Geophysics62(2), 426–435.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. UiedaL., Oliveira JrV.C. and BarbosaV.C.F.2013. Modeling the Earth with Fatiando a Terra. Proceedings of the 12th Python in Science Conference.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. WittenA.J., LevyT.E., AdamsR.B. and WonI.J.2000. Geophysical surveys in the Jebel Hamrat Fidan, Jordan. Geoarchaeology15(2), 135–150.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015029
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015029
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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