Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:23:16.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ground-penetrating radar for anthropological research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Lawrence B. Conyers
Lawrence B. Conyers*
Affiliation:
*Department of Anthropology, University of Denver, 2000 E. Asbury St., Denver, CO 80208, USA (Email: [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

During its development years, geophysical survey has served field archaeology by defining possible sites underground, prior to excavation or preservation. Now we can see the art taking off as a research method in its own right. After summarising some recent research applications of magnetic mapping, the author gives us three case studies from USA and Jordan, where ground-penetrating radar (GPR) has produced new interpretations of prehistory and history. Since GPR can map in horizontal slices without damage, it opens up important heritage preservation options. In one case, excavation was discouraged on ethical grounds, in another it was inhibited by the presence of later monuments and in a third, an early agricultural site, the GPR actually saw more than the excavators. This presages a research tool of particular power.

Keywords

Chaco CanyonLas CapasPetrageophysical surveymagnetometryradarGPRproject designevaluationkivas
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 84 , Issue 323 , March 2010 , pp. 175 - 184
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd 2010

References

Aspinall, A., Gaffney, C. & Schmidt, A.. 2008. Magnetrometry for archaeologists. Walnut Creek (CA): Alta Mira.Google Scholar
Bedal, L.-A. 2003. The Petra Pool-Complex: a Hellenistic paradeisos in the Nabataean capital (results from the Petra ‘lower market’ survey and excavation, 1998) (Gorgias Dissertations 5; Near Eastern Studies 5). Piscataway (NJ): Gorgias.Google Scholar
Benech, C. 2007. New approach to the study of city planning and domestic dwellings in the ancient Near East. Archaeological Prospection 14: 87–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, B.W. 1983. Electromagnetics for mapping earth features. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 47–54.Google Scholar
Campana, S. & Piro, S.. 2009. Seeing the unseen: geophysics and landscape archaeology. Leiden: CRE Press/Balkema.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1990. Seeing beneath the soil: prospection methods in archaeology. London: B.T. Batsford Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conyers, L.B. 2004. Ground-penetrating radar for archaeology. Walnut Creek (CA): Alta Mira.Google Scholar
Conyers, L.B. & Osburn, T.. 2006. GPR mapping to test anthropological hypotheses: a study from Comb Wash, Utah, American Southwest, in Daniels, J.J. & Chen, C.-C. (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, June 19-22: 200–205. Columbus (OH): Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Conyers, L.B., Ernenwein, E.G. & Bedal, L.-A.. 2002. Ground-penetrating radar discovery at Petra, Jordan. Antiquity 76: 339–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cordell, L. 1997. Archaeology of the Southwest. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Diehl, M.W. 2005. Subsistence and resource use strategies in early agricultural communities in southern Arizona (Anthropological Papers 34). Tucson (AZ): Center for Desert Archaeology.Google Scholar
Gaffney, C. & Gater, J. 2003. Revealing the buried past: geophysics for archaeologists. Stroud: Tempus.Google Scholar
Gaffney, C.F., Gater, J.A., Linford, P., Gaffney, V.L. & White, R.. 2000. Large-scale systematic fluxgate gradiometry at the Roman City of Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7: 81–99.3.3.CO;2-Y>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grealy, M. 2006. Resolution of ground-penetrating radar reflections at differing frequencies. Archaeological Prospection 13: 141–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, P. 1991. Nabataean settlement patterns inside Petra. Ancient History Bulletin 2: 36–46.Google Scholar
Hurst, W.B. 2000. Chaco outlier or backwoods pretender? A provincial great house at Edge of Cedars Ruin, Utah, in Kantner, J. & Mahoney, N.M. (ed.) Great house communities across the Chacoan landscape (Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 64): 63–78. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Kvamme, K.L. 2003. Geophysical surveys as landscape archaeology. American Antiquity 68: 435–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lekson, S.H. 2006. The archaeology of Chaco Canyon: an eleventh century Pueblo regional center. Santa Fe (NM): School of Advanced Research Center.Google Scholar
Neubauer, W., Eden-Hinterleitner, A., Seren, S. & Melichar, P.. 2002. Georadar in the Roman civil town Carnutum, Austria: an approach for archaeological interpretation of GPR data. Archaeological Prospection 9: 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, P.J. 1970. A sequence of pottery from Petra, in Sanders, James A. (ed.) Near Eastern archaeology in the twentieth century: essays in honor of Nelson Glueck: 348–381. Garden City (NJ): Doubleday.Google Scholar
Roth, B.J. & Freeman, A. 2008. The Middle Archaic Period and the transition to agriculture in the Sonoran Desert of southern Arizona. Kiva 73: 321–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, S.G. 2001. The Nabataeans: travelers between lifestyles, in Macdonald, B., Adams, R. & Bienkowski, P. (ed.) The archaeology of Jordan (Levantine Archaeology 1): 367–426. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
Scollar, I., Tabbaugh, A., Hesse, A. & Herzon, I.. 1990. Archaeological prospecting and remote sensing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weymouth, J. 1986. Geophysical methods of site surveying, in Schiffer, M.B. (ed). Advances in archaeological method and theory: 311–395. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar