Seeing the Unseen. Geophysics and Landscape Archaeology 2008
DOI: 10.1201/9780203889558.pt2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Electrical and magnetic methods in archaeological prospection

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0
1

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
22
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The geophysical surveys began with soil electrical resistivity [56,58,59] testing in the central area of the site, where the presence of a metallic radio antenna and large metallic objects (hooks anchoring the antenna, and a topographic benchmark) ruled out the rest of the non-invasive methods. The survey was carried out using a Geoscan RM15 resistance meter system, one of the most used in such undertakings, deployed in a twin-probe array.…”
Section: Earth Resistance Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The geophysical surveys began with soil electrical resistivity [56,58,59] testing in the central area of the site, where the presence of a metallic radio antenna and large metallic objects (hooks anchoring the antenna, and a topographic benchmark) ruled out the rest of the non-invasive methods. The survey was carried out using a Geoscan RM15 resistance meter system, one of the most used in such undertakings, deployed in a twin-probe array.…”
Section: Earth Resistance Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The equipment used was a Grad601 fluxgate gradiometer from Bartington (Bartington and Chapman 2004;H immler et al 2008 ;Schmidt 2008 ). M ost of the time it w as used in grid mode, adapting the grid to the variable dimensions of the land plots.…”
Section: Geomagnetic Surveymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the first tests confirmed what had already been experienced in similar contexts where magnetometer surveys in particular have proven successful in detecting structural remains composed of material of sedimentary origin (Benech, 2007;Strutt, 2007). Since the soil matrix is derived from magnetically enhanced archaeological deposits and colluvia, good results are possible (Schmidt, 2009;Strutt, 2009, 7). In addition, earlier excavation work had shown that the burial depth of many archaeological remains starts at a depth of about −25 cm and that the remains of walls were especially well preserved at Ammaia.…”
Section: Geophysical Prospectionmentioning
confidence: 99%