Detection of resistive features using towed slingram electromagnetic induction instruments

Archaeological Prospection

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 103-109

  Thiesson, Julien ^a   Dabas, Michel ^b   Flageul, Sébastien ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ PIERRE ET MARIE CURIE   (France)

^b Geocarta   (France)

Author keywords

Resistivity mapping; Slingram electromagnetic instrument; Susceptibility mapping; Wall detection

Indexed keywords

EID: 67651087266     PISSN: 10752196     EISSN: 10990763     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/arp.350     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Aubry L. 2003. Acquisition traitement et restitution des données d'une reconnaissance archéologique: la ville gallo-romaine du Viel-Evreux. Thèse Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, 259 pp. [in French]
2. Dabas M, Tabbagh A. 2003. A comparison of EMI and DC methods used in soil mapping theoretical considerations for precision agriculture. In Precision Agriculture, Stafford J, Werner A (eds). Academic Publisher: Wageningen; 12-129.
3. Dabas M, Guyart L, Lepert T. 2005. Gisacum revisité. Dossiersarchéologieet sciences des origines. 308: 52-61. [in French]
4. Frischknecht FC, Labson VF, Spies BR, Anderson WL. 1991. Profiling methods using small sources. In Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics, Vol. 2, Nabighiam MN (ed.). Society of Exploration Geophysicists: Tulsa, OK; 15-270.
5. Geonics Limited. 1996. Application of 'Dipole-Dipole' Electromagnetic Systems for Geological Depth Sounding. Technical Note TN-31 (http://www.geonics.com/html/technicalnotes.html).
6. Job JO, Tabbagh A, Hachicha M. 1995. Détermílectromagnétique de la concentration en sel d'un sol irrigué. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 75: 463-469. [in French]
7. Musson CR. 1968. A geophysical survey at South Cadbury Castle, Somerset, using the soil conductivity anomaly detector. Prospezioni Archeologiche 3: 101-104.
8. Panissod C, Dabas M, Jolivet A, Tabbagh A. 1997. A novel mobile multipole system (MUCEP) for shallow (0-3m) geoelectrical investigation: the 'vol de canards' array. Geophysical Prospecting 45: 983-1002.
9. Tabbagh A. 1974. Définition des caractéristiques d'un appareil électromagnétique classique adapté à la prospection archéologique. Prospezioni Archeologiche 9: 21-33. [in French]
10. Tabbagh A. 1986a. Applications and advantages of the Slingram electromagnetic method for archaeological prospecting. Geophysics 51: 576-584.
11. Tabbagh A. 1986b. What is the best coil orientation in the Slingram electromagnetic prospecting method? Archaeometry 28: 185-196.
12. Tabbagh A, Verron G. 1983. Etude par Prospectiońpô&/checkentity&ts de l'Age du Bronze. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique de France 80: 375-389. [in French]
13. Tite MS, Mullins CE. 1969. Electromagnetic prospecting, a preliminary investigation. Prospezioni Archeologiche 4: 95-102.
14. Tite MS, Mullins CE. 1970. Electromagnetic prospecting on archaeological sites using a soil conductivity meter. Archaeometry 12: 97-104.