2015
DOI: 10.3997/1873-0604.2015033
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Magnetic gradient and ground penetrating radar prospecting of buried earthen archaeological remains at the Qocho City site in Turpan, China

Abstract: In order to test the ability of geophysical technologies to detect buried structures made of mud brick and rammed earth, a geophysical survey was acquired at Qocho City site of China in 2012 using magnetic gradient and ground penetrating radar (GPR). Magnetic anomalies were interpreted as the response of house wall foundations, pits, and a temple base by reference to archaeological results from a neighbouring excavation area. The magnetic data were complemented by 2D ground penetrating radar profiles, which pr… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
(26 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Several methods have been systematically described in the literature that provide useful results to map the subsurface archaeological features in a non-invasive way, through the use of electromagnetic methods [26,27], magnetometry [28][29][30], electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) [31][32][33][34], ground penetrating radar (GPR) [35][36][37][38][39] or a combination of these methods [40][41][42][43]. In the contexts studied, ERT and GPR were preferred over other methods.…”
Section: Geophysical Prospectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several methods have been systematically described in the literature that provide useful results to map the subsurface archaeological features in a non-invasive way, through the use of electromagnetic methods [26,27], magnetometry [28][29][30], electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) [31][32][33][34], ground penetrating radar (GPR) [35][36][37][38][39] or a combination of these methods [40][41][42][43]. In the contexts studied, ERT and GPR were preferred over other methods.…”
Section: Geophysical Prospectionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…2). In our experiment, the goal is to image the archaeological remains buried in near surface layers, such as the ancient wall and paleo-channel which are common in archaeological prospection (Shi et al, 2015). The model consists of 20 × 20 × 10 cubic cells with the same edge length of 1 m. Two rectangular anomalies spaced 2 m apart are generated and have the same length of 10 m, width of 2 m, thickness of 2 m and burial depth of 2 m (Fig.…”
Section: Synthetic Examplementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geophysical techniques are widely used to investigate the subsoil for the detection of features of archaeological interest (Deiana, Leucci, & Martorana, 2018; Gaffney, 2008; Liu, Shi, Wang, & Yu, 2018; Shi et al, 2015; Shi, Hobbs, Max, Tian, & Jiang, 2017). Tombs are common archaeological detection objects and geophysical methods are usually used to investigate their location (Atya et al, 2005; Oh, Abdallatif, & Suh, 2008; Piscitelli et al, 2007; Rabbel et al, 2015) and to detect their internal structure (Booth, Szpakowska, Pischikova, & Griffin, 2015; Kamei, Marukawa, Kudo, Nishimura, & Nakai, 2000; Nuzzo, Leucci, & Negri, 2009; Pipan, Baradello, Forte, & Finetti, 2001; Rodrigues, Porsani, Santos, DeBlasis, & Giannini, 2009; Sarris et al, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%