In the past two decades improvements in geophysical instrumentation, survey techniques, and computer methods for handling spatial data have yielded significant advances in the management, portrayal, and interpretation of subsurface data. Geophysical investigations on archaeological sites have long utilized multiple survey methods. The use of difference methods allows responses to a variety of physical properties and the possibility of confirmatory, complementary, or entirely new information from each device. Such datasets have conventionally been examined side-by-side allowing informative comparisons. With GIS and other computer methods data may now be co-registered and more fully integrated in composite graphics of multidimensional content. Several approaches to “data fusion” are investigated including mathematical-statistical techniques, GIS, and advanced computer graphics. High-resolution, large-area datasets from the historic commercial center of Army City (A.D. 1917–1921), in central Kansas, illustrate benefits of these approaches.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Avery, T.E., and Berlin G.L., 1992, Fundamentals of Remote Sensing and Airphoto Interpretation, 5th edition. Macmillan, New York.
Bevan, B.W., 1998, Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Midwest Archeological Center Special Report 1. U.S. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.
Brizzolari, E., Ermolli, F., Orlando, L., Piro, S., Versino, L., 1992, Integrated Geophysical Methods in Archaeological Surveys. Journal of Applied Geophysics 29:47–55.
Burrough, P.A., and McDonnell, R.A., 1998, Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Prsess, Oxford.
Buteux, S., Gaffney, V., White, R., and van Leusen, M., 2000, Wroxeter Hinterland Project and Geophysical Survey at Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7:69–80.
Clark, A., 2000, Seeing Beneath The Soil: Prospection Methods in Archaeology. Routledge, London.
Clay, R.B., 2001, Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are Always Better than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20:31–43.
Conyers, L.B., 2004, Ground-penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.
Dabas, M., Hesse, A., and Tabbagh, J., 2000, Experimental Resistivity Survey at Wroxeter Archaeological Site with a Fast and Light Recording Device. Archaeological Prospection 7:107–118.
David, A., 2001, Overview—the Role and Practice of Archaeological Prospection. In Handbook Of Archaeological Sciences, D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, pp. 521–527. John Wiley, New York.
Davis, J.C., 2002, Statistics and Data Analysis in Geology, 3rd edn. John Wiley, New York.
Gaffney, C., and Gater, J., 2003, Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus Publishing, Stroud, England.
Gaffney, C., Gater, J.A., Linford, P., Gaffney, V., and White, R., 2000, Large-Scale Systematic Fluxgate Gradiometry at The Roman City of Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7:81–99.
Hargrave, M.L., 2006, Ground Truthing the Results of Geophysical Surveys. In Geophysical and Airborne Remote Sensing Applications in Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Managers, edited by J. Johnson. In press, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.
Hargrave, M.L., Somers, L.E., Larson, T.K., Shields, R., and Dendy, J., 2002, The Role of Resistivity Survey in Historic Site Assessment and Management: An Example from Fort Riley, Kansas. Historical Archaeology 36: 89–110.
Hosmer, D.W., and Lemeshow, S., 2000, Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. John Wiley, New York.
Johnson, J.K., and Haley, B.S., 2004, Multiple Sensor Applications in Archaeological Geophysics. In Proceedings of SPIE Vol. 5234, Sensors, Systems and Next Generation Satellites VII, edited by R. Meynart, S.P. Neeck, H. Simoda, J.B. Lurie and M.L. Aten, pp. 688–697. SPIE, Bellingham, Washington.
Kvamme, K.L., 2001, Archaeological Prospection in Fortified Great Plains Villages: New Insights through Data Fusion, Visualization, and Testing. In Archaeological Prospection: 4th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, edited by P.M. Doneus, A. Eder-Hinterleitner, W. Neubauer, pp. 141–143. Austrian Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna.
Kvamme, K.L., 2003, Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68:435–457.
Kvamme, K.L., 2007, Remote Sensing: Archaeological Reasoning through Physical Principles and Pattern Recognition. In Archaeological Concepts for the Study of the Cultural Past, edited by A.P. Sullivan III. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, in press
Kvamme, K.L., Ernenwein, E., Hargraave, M., Sever, T., Harmon, D., and Limp, F. 2006, New Approaches to the Use and Integration of Multi-Sensor Remote Sensing for Historic Resources Identification and Evaluation, SERDP Project CS-1263. Final project report submitted to the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C.
Leckebusch, J., 2003, Ground-penetrating Radar: A Modern Three-dimensional Prospection Method. Archaeological Prospection 10: 213–240.
Neubauer, W., 2004, GIS in Archaeology—the Interface between Prospection and Excavation. Archaeological Prospection 11:159–166.
Neubauer, W., Eder-Hinterleitner, A., 1997, Resistivity and Magnetics of the Roman Town Carnuntum, Austria: An Example of Combined Interpretation of Prospection Data. Archaeological Prospection 4:179–189.
Neubauer, W., Eder-Hinterleitner, A., Seren, S., Melichar, P., 2002, Georadar in the Roman Civil Town Carnuntum, Austria: An Approach for Archaeological Interpretation of GPR Data. Archaeological Prospection 9:135–156.
Piro, S., Mauriello, P., and Cammarano, F., 2000, Quantitative Integration of Geophysical Methods for Archaeological Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 7:203–213.
Schmidt, A., 2001, Geophysical Data in Archaeology: A Guide to Good Practice. Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Schowengerdt, R.A., 1997, Remote Sensing: Models and Methods for Image Processing. Academic Press, San Diego.
Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., and Herzog, I., 1990, Archaeological Prospection and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Summers, G.D., Summers, M.E.F., Baturayoglu, N., Harmansah, Ö., and McIntosh, E., 1996, The Kerkenes Dag Survey: An Interim Report, Anatolian Studies 46:201–234.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., 1990, Applied Geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
van der Sande, C., de Jong, S.M., and de Roo, A.P.J., 2003, A Segmentation and Classification Approach to IKONOS-2 Imagery for Land Cover Mapping to Assist Flood Risk and Flood Damage Assessment. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 4:217–229.
van Leusen, M., 2001, Archaeological Data Integration. Handbook of Archaeological Sciences, D.R. Brothwell and A.M. Pollard, pp. 575–583. John Wiley, New York.
Weymouth, J.W., 1986, Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 9, M.B. Schiffer, pp. 311–395. Academic Press, New York.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2006 Springer
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kvamme, K.L. (2006). Integrating Multiple Geophysical Datasets. In: Wiseman, J., El-Baz, F. (eds) Remote Sensing in Archaeology. Interdisciplinary Contributions To Archaeology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-44455-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-44455-6_14
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-0-387-44453-6
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-44455-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)