• Lawrence B. ConyersEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)


Artifacts, architecture and other remains of human use and adaptations to environmentally-defined landscapes are generally termed cultural landscapes. These are often buried and difficult to find and study, especially over broad areas. Geophysical tools, when accompanied by and correlated to information obtained from excavations is one way to expand knowledge of human activities over these large areas. Ground-penetrating radar can produce images in two and three-dimensions that define geological and anthropogenic units and features if those materials in the ground generate radar reflections from layer surfaces. The composition and extent of those materials is often discernable using magnetometer analysis, as that method produces images and discrete measurements of differences in the magnetic properties of some of the units that reflect radar energy. If the two methods are merged and evaluated in small areas first, where much can be determined about units and features of interest, this information can be projected over a wide area in order to understand broad natural landscapes and human activities in the past that occurred on and within them.


  1. Becker H (2015) Duo-and quadro-sensor configuration for high speed/high resolution magnetic prospecting with caesium magnetometer. Monum Sites 6:20–25Google Scholar
  2. Bruno D, Julian T (2008) Landscape archaeology: introduction. In: Bruno D, Thomas J (eds) Handbook of landscape archaeology. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, California, pp 27–43Google Scholar
  3. Burks J, Cook RA (2011) Beyond Squier and Davis: rediscovering Ohio’s earthworks using geophysical remote sensing. Am Antiq 76:667–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Butzer KW (1971) Environment and Archeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory. Aldine Publications Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Campana S, Piro S (2008) Seeing the unseen. Geophysics and landscape archaeology. Taylor and Francis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Campana S, Dabas M, Marasco L, Piro S, Samuner D (2009) Integration of remote sensing, geophysical surveys and archaeological excavation for the study of a medieval mound (Tuscany, Italy). Archaeol Prospect 16:167–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conyers LB (1995) The use of ground-penetrating radar to map the buried structures and landscape of the Ceren Site, El Salvador. Geoarchaeology 10:275–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conyers LB (2006) Ground-penetrating Radar. In: Johnson JK (eds) Remote sensing in archaeology: a north american perspective. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, pp 131–160Google Scholar
  9. Conyers LB (2011) Discovery, mapping and interpretation of buried cultural resources non-invasively with ground-penetrating radar. J Geophys Eng 8:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Conyers LB (2012) Interpreting ground-penetrating radar for archaeology. Taylor and Francis Group, New York, RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Conyers LB (2013) Ground-penetrating radar for archaeology, 3rd edn. Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Alta Mira Press, Latham, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  12. Conyers LB (2015) Analysis and interpretation of GPR datasets for integrated archaeological mapping: multiple GPR datasets for integrated archaeological mapping. J Near-Surface Geophys 31:2241–2262Google Scholar
  13. Creekmore A (2010) The structure of upper Mesopotamian cities: insight from fluxgate gradiometer survey at Kazane Höyük, southeastern Turkey. Archaeol Prospect 17:73–88Google Scholar
  14. Gaffney C, Gater J (2003) Revealing the buried past: geophysics for archaeologists. Tempus Publishing, Stroud, U.KGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaffney C, Gaffney V, Neubauer W, Baldwin E, Chapman H, Garwood P, Moulden H, Sparrow T, Bates R, Löcker K, Hinterleitner A (2012) The Stonehenge hidden landscapes project. Archaeol Prospect 147–155Google Scholar
  16. Gallo D, Ciminale M, Becker HB, Masini N (2009) Remote sensing techniques for reconstructing a vast Neolithic settlement in Southern Italy. J Archaeol Sci 36:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson JK, Haley BS (2004) Multiple sensor applications in archaeological geophysics. In: Meynart R, Neeck SP, Simoda H, Lurie JB, Aten ML (eds) Proceedings of SPIE, sensors, systems and next generation satellites VII, vol 5234. SPIE, Bellingham, Washington, pp 688–697Google Scholar
  18. Keay SJ, Parcak SH, Strutt KD (2014) High resolution space and ground-based remote sensing and implications for landscape archaeology: the case from Portus, Italy. J Archaeol Sci 52:277–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kvamme KL (2001) Current practices in archaeogeophyics. In: Earth sciences and archaeology. Springer, US, New York, pp 353–384Google Scholar
  20. Kvamme KL (2003) Geophysical surveys as landscape archaeology. Am Antiq 68:435–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kvamme KL (2006) Integrating multidimensional geophysical data. Archaeol Prospect 13:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kvamme KL, Ernenwein EG, Hargrave ML, Sever T, Harmon D, Limp F, Howell B, Koons M, Tullis J (2006) New approaches to the use and integration of multi-sensor remote sensing for historic resource identification and evaluation. Report of SERDP Project, SI-1263, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  23. Lockyear K, Shlasko E (2016) Under the park. recent geophysical surveys at Verulamium St Albans, Hertfordshire, UK. Archaeol Prospect 24:17–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Piro S, Paolo M, Cammarano F (2000) Quantitative integration of geophysical methods for archaeological prospection. Archaeol Prospect 7:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarris A, Papadopoulos N, Agapiou A, Salvi MC, Hadjimitsis DG, Parkinson WA, Yerkes RW, Gyucha A, Duffy PR (2013) Integration of geophysical surveys, ground hyperspectral measurements, aerial and satellite imagery for archaeological prospection of prehistoric sites: the case study of Vésztő-Mágor Tell, Hungary. J Archaeol Sci 40:1454–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stone JR, Schafer JP, Lond EH, DiGiacomo-Cohen ML, Lewis RS, Thompson WB (2005) Quaternary geologic map of Connecticut and long island sound basin. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Geological and Natural History Survey, Washington D.CGoogle Scholar
  27. Trinks I, Johansson B, Gustafsson J, Emilsson J, Friborg J, Gustafsson C, Nissen J, Hinterleitner A (2010) Efficient, large-scale archaeological prospection using a true three-dimensional ground-penetrating radar array system. Archaeol Prospect 17:175–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verdonck L, Simpson D, Cornelis WM, Plyson A, Bourgeois J, Doctor R, van Meirvenne M (2009) Ground‐penetrating radar survey over bronze age circular monuments on a sandy soil, complemented with electromagnetic induction and fluxgate gradiometer data. Archaeol Prospect 16:193–202Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations