Comparison between electromagnetic induction and fluxgate gradiometer measurements on the buried remains of a 17th century castle

Journal of Applied Geophysics

Volumn 68, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 294-300

  Simpson, David ^a   Lehouck, Alexander ^a   Verdonck, Lieven ^a   Vermeersch, Hans ^a   Van Meirvenne, Marc ^a   Bourgeois, Jean ^a   Thoen, Erik ^a   Docter, Roald ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Archaeological prospection; Coil orientation; Electrical conductivity; Electromagnetic induction; In phase response; Magnetic susceptibility

Indexed keywords

APPARENT ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITIES; ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROSPECTION; ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES; COIL ORIENTATION; ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION SENSORS; FLUXGATE; GRADIOMETER; HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS; IN-PHASE RESPONSE; LATERAL VARIATIONS; MAGNETIC ANOMALIES; MEASUREMENT RESOLUTIONS; RESPONSE PATTERNS; SPATIAL SENSITIVITIES; VERTICAL MAGNETIC FIELDS;

BRICK; BRICKMAKING; DAMPING; EDDY CURRENTS; ELECTRIC CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTROMAGNETIC INDUCTION; ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE; INDUCTANCE MEASUREMENT; MAGNETIC FIELDS; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY;

MAGNETIC MATERIALS;

ARCHAEOLOGY; BURIED STRUCTURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DETECTION METHOD; ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY; ELECTROMAGNETIC SURVEY; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAGNETIC SUSCEPTIBILITY; REMANENT MAGNETIZATION; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSOR; SEVENTEENTH CENTURY;

EID: 67349248906     PISSN: 09269851     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jappgeo.2009.03.006     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bevan B.W. The magnetic anomaly of a brick foundation. Archaeological Prospection 1 (1994) 93-104
2. Benech C., Tabbagh A., and Desvignes G. Joint inversion of EM and magnetic data for near-surface feature studies. Geophysics 67 (2002) 1729-1739
3. Cockx L., Van Meirvenne M., and De Vos B. Using the EM38DD soil sensor to delineate clay lenses in a sandy forest soil. Soil Science Society of America Journal 71 (2007) 1314-1322
4. Desvignes G., and Tabbagh A. Simultaneous interpretation of magnetic and electromagnetic prospecting for characterization of magnetic features. Archaeological Prospection 2 (1995) 129-139
5. English Heritage. Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation (1995), English Heritage, UK
6. Fröhlich B., Gugler A.I.M., and Gex P. Electromagnetic survey of a Celtic tumulus. Journal of Applied Geophysics 35 (1996) 15-25
7. Gaffney C., and Gater J. Revealing the Buried Past-Geophysics for Archaeologists (2003), Tempus, Stroud
8. Geonics Limited. Application of "dipole-dipole"electromagnetic systems for geological depth sounding. Geonics Ltd Technical Note TN-31, Ontario (Canada) (1998)
9. Goovaerts P. Geostatistics for Natural Resources Evaluation (1997), Oxford University Press, Oxford
10. Jordanova N., Petrovsky E., Kovacheva M., and Jordanova D. Factors determining magnetic enhancement of burnt clay from archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 28 (2001) 1137-1148
11. Keller G.V., and Frischknecht F.C. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting (1966), Pergamon Press, New York
12. de eeuw. Belgisch Centrum voor Landelijke Geschiedenis 122 (2002) Gent
13. Lehouck, A., Simpson, D., Vermeersch, H., Van Meirvenne, M. 2007. Geoarcheologisch onderzoek naar (post)middeleeuwse nederzettingstructuren in de ruilverkaveling Sint-Rijkers. Locatie Vinkem: Kasteel 'de Moucheron'. UGent Archeologisch Rapporten 7, Gent.
14. Linford N.T. Geophysical survey at Boden Vean, Cornwall, including an assessment of the microgravity technique for the location of suspected archaeological void features. Archaeometry 40 (1998) 187-216
15. McNeill J.D. Electromagnetic terrain conductivity measurement at low induction numbers. Geonics Ltd Technical Note TN-6, Ontario (Canada) (1980)
16. Maillol J.M., Ciobotaru D.L., and Moravetz I. Electrical and magnetic response of archaeological features at the early Neolithic site of Movila lui Deciov, Western Romania. Archaeological Prospection 11 (2004) 213-226
17. Persson K., and Olofsson B. Inside a mound: applied geophysics in archaeological prospecting at the Kings' Mounds, Gamla Uppsala, Sweden. Journal of Archaeological Science 31 (2004) 551-562
18. Simpson D., Lehouck A., Van Meirvenne M., Bourgeois J., Thoen E., and Vervloet J. Geoarchaeological prospection of a medieval manor in the Dutch Polders using an electromagnetic induction sensor in combination with soil augerings. Geoarchaeology 23 (2008) 1-14
19. Tabbagh A. On the comparison between magnetic and electromagnetic prospection methods for magnetic feature detection. Archaeometry 20 (1984) 171-182
20. Tabbagh A. What is the best coil orientation in the slingram electromagnetic prospecting method?. Archaeometry 28 (1986) 185-196
21. Tabbagh A. Electromagnetic prospecting. In: Scollar I., Tabbagh A., Hesse A., and Herzog I. (Eds). Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing (1990), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 520-590
22. Tassis G.A., Hansen R.O., Tsokas G.N., Papazachos C.B., and Tsourlos P.I. Two-dimensional inverse filtering for the rectification of the magnetic gradiometry signal. Near Surface Geophysics 6 (2008) 113-122
23. T'Jonck G., and Moormann F.R. Verklarende tekst bij het kaartblad Veurne 50E. Bodemkaart van België, IWONL, Gent (Belgium) (1962)