Geophysical data integration in archaeological research is an emerging topic. As researchers increasingly have better access to multiple geophysical sensors it is now possible to use numerous techniques in order to explore different physical characteristics of buried phenomena. In return, a feature which is “invisible” to one sensor might be detected with another sensor so that a complete inventory of buried features might be achieved. Current research, however, usually investigates results of prospection in isolation and follows a simplistic comparative approach. In fact, “true” data integration in archaeological prospection may offer more information than sensors can individually provide (i.e. 1+1=3).

Variations in spatial layouts and physical characteristics of material culture, post-depositional processes, and complexity of natural background, all add significant task for the interpretation of archaeological prospection results. Therefore, evaluating the success of data integration remains as further challenge. In order to overcome this difficulty we can create a controlled environment with the help of geophysical model simulations. Artificially induced noise levels over simulation data may mimic complex natural environments and a measure of success may be calculated with the help of an original image.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Brizzolari, E., ErmolliF., OrlandoL., PiroS., and Versino, L.
    [1992] Integrated Geophysical Methods in Archaeological Surveys. Journal of Applied Geophysics, 29 (1), 47–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cammarano, F., MaurielloP., PatellaD., PiroS., RossoF., and Versino, L.
    [1998] Integration of High Resolution Geophysical Methods. Detection of Shallow Depth Bodies of Archaeological Interest. Annali de Geofisica, 41(3), 359–68.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Ernenwein, E.G.
    [2009] “Integration of Multidimensional Archaeogeophysical Data Using Supervised and Unsupervised Classification.” Near Surface Geophysics, 7(3), 147–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Hall, D.L. and Llinas, J.
    [1997] An Introduction to Multisensor Data Fusion. Proceedings of the IEEE, 85(1), 6–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kvamme, K.L.
    [2006] Integrating Multidimensional Geophysical Data. Archaeological Prospection, 13(1), 57–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Luo, R.C., YihC-C., and Su, K.L.
    [2002] Multisensor Fusion and Integration: Approaches, Applications, and Future Research Directions. Sensors Journal, IEEE, 2(2), 107–19.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Neubauer, W. and Eder-Hinterleitner, A.
    [1997] Resistivity and Magnetics of the Roman Town Carnuntum, Austria: An Example of Combined Interpretation of Prospection Data. Archaeological Prospection, 4, 179–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Piro, S., GoodmanD., and Nishimura, Y.
    [2003] The Study and Characterization of Emperor Traiano’s Villa (altopiani Di Arcinazzo, Roma) Using High-Resolution Integrated Geophysical Surveys. Archaeological Prospection, 10(1), 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Plouff, D.
    [1976] Gravity and Magnetic Fields of Polygonal Prisms and Application to Magnetic Terrain Corrections. Geophysics, 41, 727–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Scardozzi, G.
    [2010] Integrated Geophysical Methods for the Knowledge of the Urban Layout of Hierapolis in Phrygia (Turkey). 13th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), 1–6. IEEE.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Tsourlos, P., and Ogilvy, R.
    [1999] An Algorithm for the 3-D Inversion of Tomographic Resistivity and Induced Polarization Data: Preliminary Results. Journal of the Balkan Geophysical Society, 2(2), 30–45.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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