ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 1
Geofizz: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Course
Syllabus
Instructor Information
Name:
Office:
Email:
Meg Watters
Joukowsky Institute Rm 208
Course Information
Course Number:
Meeting Time:
Meeting Location:
Course email list:
Course Website:
ARCH1880
Tuesday 4:00-6:40, Lab time (2 hrs) T.B.D.
Course Description
Geophysical surveys are key components for mapping the archaeological landscape. Not only
do they contribute a new broad-scale perspective to settlement context, geophysical survey data
act as primary information for landscape reconstruction, site location, and feature identification.
In this class we will develop a conceptual understanding of the basic geophysical processes
behind these techniques. This will be applied during the hands-on field based data acquisition
with ground penetrating radar, magnetometry, and resistance survey techniques at a designated
archaeological site.
We will also investigate the role, or ‘place’, of geophysics in archaeological investigations today
through the examination government agencies such as the NPS and State Historic Preservation
Offices in the United States, English Heritage in the UK, and the integration of geophysical
surveys in archaeological investigations around the world. Geophysical data capture
technologies are rapidly advancing. We will study these developments, current issues with data
management, handling, and visualization and what the future may hold for archaeological
geophysics.
The course will conclude with students conducting a comprehensive multi-technique field survey
of a single archaeological site. Not only will the students have an opportunity to do independent
geophysical surveys, they will work as a team to integrate data into a final GIS project and
report for presentation to the Joukowsky Institute.
Course Design
The course is divided into three modules where each module focuses on specific materials and
tasks.
Module 1: Geophysical Survey and Mapping Principles
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 2
The first module uses class room study and hands-on training with different geophysical survey
methods to provide a basic introduction to the technicalities of geophysical surveys.
 basic geophysical principles and survey strategies
 application of these principles to hands-on data collection and processing
 integration of different data types into a project GIS
Module 2: Applications of Geophysical Surveys in Archaeology
The basic principles of geophysical survey methods covered in the first module will provide a
foundation for the study of:
 the history and development of geophysical surveying in archaeology
 specific applications at different archaeological sites
 the official ‘place’ of geophysical surveys in archaeology, looking at government agencies
and archaeological practice around the world
Module 3: Archaeological site survey
In the final module, students will work on a project implementing the theory, practice, and
application histories that they have learned in the first two modules. This will be executed as a
comprehensive geophysical survey project at a local archaeological site and will include:
 development of survey strategies
 implementation of geophysical surveys and data collection
 data processing and interpretation
 data integration in a GIS project and final interpretations
 presentation and reporting of the survey project results to the Joukowsky Institute and
archaeological site personnel.
Course Labs
A weekly lab exercise will be assigned focused mainly on hands-on work with data collection,
processing and interpretation. The lab meeting time(s) will be determined in class based on
student schedules.
Prerequisites
There are no prerequisites for this course. A basic knowledge of site survey and GIS would be
useful, but not required.
Learning Objectives
The main objective of this course is that students will be learn the principles, practical skills and
experience that will enable them to either conduct independent geophysical surveys or
knowledgably employ geophysical survey work on archaeological projects. It will provide them
with transferrable skills for academic research, Cultural Resource Management or any other
related field, such as forensics, that may employ these survey methods.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 3
Grading
Your grade will be based on the following breakdown.
Task
Class participation
Lab Completion
Field Notebook
Class Presentation
Mid-Term Paper
Final Report & Presentation
Percentage
15
10
10
10
20
35
Class Participation: is required. Principles and equipment operation instructions covered in
class are directly applicable to successful completion of weekly lab assignments. Only excused
absences will be accepted (with class reading and content completed). Class absence will be
directly reflected in final grading.
Because most of the work that we will be doing has an intensive hands-on component, a
discussion forum will be set up on our course wiki. This is to be used as a question and answer
board as well as for discussion about the readings and field methods you will be developing.
Students are responsible for checking this board regularly and contributing to discussion
throughout the semester. Students are encouraged to post their own thoughts as well as
respond to my questions and prompts. Participation in the wiki discussion forum will be part of
your class participation grade.
Lab Completion: Labs are designed for class participants to work together with hands-on
exercises using different geophysical survey instruments and data processing / visualization
software.
Mid-Term Paper: A mid-term paper on a geophysical survey method of your choice is required.
The paper will cover the method principles, history of use in archaeology, survey methods, and
showcase representative examples of your geophysical survey method conducted on two
different types of archaeological sites. The paper should be a minimum of 8 pages and should
not exceed 10 pages. Proper notation of references is required.
Class Presentation: Each student will be required to present the content of their Mid-Term
papers.
Final Report and Presentation: The final project of this class will be a comprehensive
geophysical survey of a local archaeological site. Class participants will work as a team in
preparing a final report on the geophysical surveys they conducted. The results of this project
will be presented at the Joukowsky Institute.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 4
Required Texts
Several of the texts for this course are available for purchase through the Amazon.com if you
choose. All readings will be made available either through regular reserve or through the OCRA
e-reserve system. There may however be a few exceptions and these will either be given as
handouts or posted as PDFs on the course wiki. Reading lists are located at the end of the
syllabus.
CLARK, A. 1996. Seeing Beneath the Soil, Revised Edition. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.
CONYERS, L. & D. GOODMAN. 1997. Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists.
Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
GAFFNEY, C. & J. GATER. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past, Geophysics for Archaeologists. Stroud:
Tempus Publishing Ltd.
GAFFNEY, C. 2009. Magnetometry for Archaeologists (Geophysical Methods for Archaeology).
AltaMira Press.
JOHNSON, J. (ed.) 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.
University of Alabama Press.
SCHMIDT, A. 2002. Geophysical Data in Archaeology: A Guide to Good Practice, 2nd ed. (Arts and
Humanities Data Service Guides to Good Practice), Oxbow Books, Ltd.
Additional Materials:
Each student will be responsible for keeping their own field notebook. A “Rite in the Rain” field
notebook is recommended for use, however, other, scientific lab notebooks will be accepted
upon approval from instructor.
Internet Resources:
The North American Database for Archaeological Geophysics http://www.cast.uark.edu/nadag/
IBM Visual and Spatial Technology Centre, University of Birmingham, UK
http://www.vista.bham.ac.uk/VISTA_index.htm
The English Heritage Geophysical survey Database http://sdb2.eng-h.gov.uk/
GPR-Survey web site; Forum http://www.gpr-survey.com/
Time Team America http://www.pbs.org/opb/timeteam/
GSB Prospection http://www.gsbprospection.com/
ArchaeoPhysics http://www.archaeophysics.com/
Archaeogeophysics.org http://www.archaeogeophysics.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 5
Week 1
September 7
Course
Schedule
Module 1: Geophysical Survey & Mapping Principles
Course Overview and Introduction to
Archaeological Geophysics
Introduction to the class syllabus, projects
and course content.
Week 2
September 14
Introduction to Archaeological Geophysics
The history of geophysical applications and
its development in archaeology will be
presented. Different examples will be
highlighted and the current role, or ‘place’
of geophysical surveys in archaeology will
be discussed.
Reading Assignment
Gater and Gaffney – Chapter 1
Clark – Chapter 1
Johnson 2006 – Chapter 1
Heron and Gaffney, 1987
Week 3
September 21
Lab 1: Survey equipment and meter ropes.
Resistance Survey Principles
Reading Assignment
The following will be introduced:
 Survey principles
 Equipment
 Data collection methods
 Data processing, interpretation &
visualization
Resistance Survey Reading List
Lab 2: Resistance data collection
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Week 4
September 28
Magnetometry Survey Principles
The following will be introduced:
 Survey principles
 Equipment
 Data collection methods
 Data processing, interpretation &
visualization
Page 6
Reading Assignment
Magnetometry Survey Reading List
Aspinall, A., C. Gaffney, & A. Schmidt.
Magnetometry for Archaeologists
Week 5
October 5
Lab 3: Magnetometry data collection
Ground Penetrating Radar Survey
Principles
The following will be introduced:
 Survey principles
 Equipment
 Data collection methods
 Data processing, interpretation &
visualization
Reading Assignment
GPR Survey Reading List
Conyers, L. & D. Goodman. Ground
Penetrating Radar for Archaeology.
Week 6
October12
Lab 4: GPR data collection
Module 2: Comprehensive Archaeological Site Geophysical Survey
Reading Assignment
Site Recce
The class will visit the archaeological site
David 1995
where we will be doing its surveys. We will
Gaffney et. al. 1991
discuss the archaeology and how best to
Gaffney & Gater 1993
approach non-invasive mapping.
Watters 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009
Prio et. al. 2000
Lab 5: Resistance, Magnetometry, and GPR data collection, processing finish up from practice grid
Week 7
October 19
Geophysical Survey Logistics & Site Setup
The practical field side of geophysical
surveys will be discussed. Identification of
which methods to use, data sampling rates,
and survey grid placement are discussed in
context to the final ‘deliverables’ desired
from survey client.
Reading Assignment
Bain et. al. 2004
David 1995
Gaffney et. al. 1991
Gaffney and Gater 1993
Kvamme 2003a
Schmidt 2002 & 2003
Site survey proposals due.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 7
Lab 6: Oct 23-24 data collection (Saturday and Sunday)
Week 8
October 26
Site survey and data review
Data download, review, processing
Fieldwork assessment and modification
Reading Assignment
Schmidt 2002
Mid-term papers are due & will be
presented.
Lab 7: Data collection and processing during week – possibly October 30 and 31 if needed in the field.
Week 9
November 2
Site survey and data review
A review of the geophysical survey methods
and data will be conducted. This will be a
working class with discussion on how the
readings relate to the field work and how to
best approach data processing and trouble
shooting.
Reading Assignment
Geophysical Applications Reading List
Week 10
November 9
Lab 8: Final data collection (if needed) and processing
GIS data integration and reporting
A review of the geophysical survey methods
and data will be conducted. Discussion of
GIS and data integration will be part of this
working class. Discussion and resolution of
any remaining data issues will conclude the
field work part of this class.
Reading Assignment
Watters & Wilkes 2008.
Watters 2005.
Walker et. al. 2005.
The North American Database for
Archaeological Geophysics
http://www.cast.uark.edu/nadag/
The English Heritage Geophysical survey
Database http://sdb2.eng-h.gov.uk/
Lab 9: GIS data integration
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
Week 11
November16
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 8
Module 3: Geophysical Surveys and Data Visualization
Reading Assignment
Geophysical surveys in archaeological
research
We will learn about the practical application
Site Examples / Multi-Method
of geophysical surveys and how this has
Applications Reading List
developed over the past three decades.
Specific site examples will include the
Catholme Ceremonial Complex, UK and
Fort James in SD, US.
Lab 10: Data interpretation
Week 12
November 23
Geophysical surveys and their ‘place’
in global archaeology
Geophysical surveys are employed through
various research institutes, government
agencies, and independent contractors. We
will discuss today’s utilization of
geophysical surveys around the world.
Reading Assignment
Visualization Reading List
Kvamme 2001
Johnson 2006, Chapter 2 & 3
The English Heritage Geophysical survey
Database http://sdb2.eng-h.gov.uk/
Presentation and discussion of interpreted
archaeological features from geophysical
surveys.
A draft of the final geophysical survey site
report is due.
Field notebooks due for review.
Week 13
November 30
Lab 11:
Current and Future Developments in
Archaeological Geophysics
Geophysical survey, data processing, and
visualization tools are constantly evolving.
We will look at the current state of survey
kit and explore potential future
developments
Reading Assignment
Kvamme 2006
Powesland 2007
Buteaux et. al. 2000
Cardarelli et. al. 2002
Watters 2007
Tour and presentation of the Computing
Graphics Group and SHAPE Lab
(tentative).
Lab 12: Final preparation of materials for presentation and public outreach.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
Week 14
December7
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 9
Presentation of final project to Joukowsky
Institute faculty and students
The conclusions of the class geophysical
surveys, processing methods, and
interpretations will be presented to the
Joukowsky Institute.
Field notebooks are due.
Final geophysical survey site report due.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 10
Course
Reading List
Introduction to Archaeological Geophysics Reading List:
ATKINSON, R. 1952. Méthodes eléctriques de prospection en archéologie, in A. Laming (ed.). La
Découverte du Passé, Picard, Paris.
BEVAN, B., & J. KENYON. 1975. Ground probing radar for historical archaeology. MASCA Newsletter
11:2-7.
DABAS, M., A. HESSE & TABBAGH, J. 2000. Experimental resistivity survey at
Wroxeter archaeological site with a fast and light recording device. Archaeological Prospection 7:107118.
DABAS, M. 2006. Theory and practice of the new fast electrical imaging system ARP©, presented at the
XV International Summer School in Archaeology, Geophysics for Landscape Archaeology, Grosseto, 1018 July.
DAVID, A. & A. PAYNE. 1997. Geophysical Surveys within the Stonehenge Landscape: A Review of Past
Endeavour and Future Potential. Proceedings of the British Academy 92:73-111.
DE TERRA, H., J. ROMERO & T. STEWART. 1949. The Tepexpan Man. Viking Fund Publications in
Archaeology 11. New York: Werner-Grenn Foundation.
GAFFNEY, C. & J. GATER. 1993. Development of Remote Sensing. Part 2. Practice and method in the
application of geophysical techniques in archaeology, in J. Hunter & I. Ralston (eds.). Archaeological
Resource Management the UK. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd.
GOODMAN, D. & Y. NISHIMURA. 1993. A ground-radar view of Japanese burial mounds. Antiquity
67:349-354.
GRIFFITHS, D. & R. BARKER. 1994. Electrical Imaging in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Science 21:153-158.
HERON, C. & C. GAFFNEY. 1987. Archaeogeophysics and the site: ohm sweet ohm?, in C. Gaffney & V.
Gaffney (eds.) Pragmatic Archaeology: Theory in crisis? Oxford: British Archaeological Report, British
Series 167:71-81.
KENYON, J. 1977. Ground-Penetrating Radar and Its Application to a Historical Archaeological Site.
Historical Archaeology 11:48-55.
KVAMME, K. 2003a. Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68 (3):435457.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 11
LECKEBUSCH, J. & R. PEIKERT. 2001. Investigating the True Resolution and Three-dimensional
Capabilities of Ground-penetrating Radar Data in Archaeological Surveys: Measurements in a Sand Box.
Archaeological Prospection 8:29–40.
LECKEBUSCH, J. 2003. Ground Penetrating Radar: A Modern Three-dimensional Prospection Method.
Archaeological Prospection 10:213-240.
LYALL, J. & D. POWLESLAND. 1996. The application of high resolution fluxgate gradiometery as an aid
to excavation planning and strategy formulation. Internet Archaeology 1.
(http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/lyall/himag.html)
NEUBAUER, W., A. EDER-HINTERLEITNER, S. SEREN & P. MELICHAR. 2002. Georadar in the Roman Civil
Town Carnuntum, Austria: An Approach for Archaeological Interpretation of GPR Data. Archaeological
Prospection 9:135–156.
OLHOEFT, G. 2000. Maximizing the information return from ground penetrating radar. Journal of
Applied Geophysics 43:175-187.
PANISSOD, C., M. DABAS, N. FLORSCH, A. HESSE, A. JOLIVET, A. TABBAGH & J. TABBAGH. 1998.
Archaeological Prospecting using Electric and Electrostatic Mobile Arrays. Archaeological Prospection
5:239-251.
SCOLLAR I., A. TABBAGH, A. HESSE & I. HERZOG. 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote
Sensing: Topics in Remote Sensing, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
VICKERS, R. & L. DOLPHIN. 1975. A Communication on an Archaeological Radar Experiment at Chaco
Canyon, New Mexico. MASCA Newsletter 11(1):6-8.
VICKERS, R., L. DOLPHIN, & D. JOHNSON. 1976. Archaeological Investigations at Chaco Canyon Using a
Subsurface Radar, in T. Lyons (ed.). Remote Sensing Experiments in Cultural Resource Studies at Chaco
Canyon. Albuquerque, New Mexico: USDI-NPS and the University of New Mexico: 81-101.
WALKER, R. & P. LINFORD. 2006. Resistance and Magnetic surveying with the MSP40 Mobile Sensor
Platform at Kelmarsh Hall. ISAP News 9:3-5.
GPR Reading List:
BEVAN, B., & J. KENYON. 1975. Ground probing radar for historical archaeology. MASCA Newsletter
11:2-7.
BRADLEY, J & M. FLETCHER. 1996. Extraction and Visualization of Information for Ground Penetrating
Radar Surveys, in. H. Kamerman & K. Fennema, (eds.). Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology – Interfacing the Past, Volume 1:103-110. University of Leiden, Holland.
CAMPBELL, K. & A. ORANGE. 1974. A continuous profile of sea ice and freshwater ice thickness by
impulse radar. Polar Record 17(106): 31-41.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 12
CONYERS, L. 1995. The Use of Ground-Penetrating Radar to Map the Buried Structures and
Landscape of the Ceren Site, El Salvador. Geoarchaeology, 10(4):275-299.
CONYERS, L. & D. GOODMAN. 1997. Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists.
Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.
FISHER, S., R. STEWART & H. JOL. 1994. Processing Ground Penetrating Radar Data, in Proceedings of
the Fifth International conference on Ground Penetrating Radar. Waterloo Centre for Groundwater
Research, Waterloo, Canada: 661-675.
GOODMAN, D. 1994. Ground-penetrating radar simulation in engineering and archaeology. Geophysics
59(2):224-232.
GOODMAN, D. 1996. Comparison of GPR Time Slices and Archaeological Excavations, in Proceedings
of the Sixth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar. Department of Geoscience and
Technology, Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan: 77-82.
GOODMAN, D. & Y. NISHIMURA. 1992a. 2-D synthetic radargrams for use in archaeological investigation
in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Ground Penetration Radar, Rovaneimi: Finland
Geological Survey. Special Paper 16: 339-43.
GOODMAN, D. & Y. NISHIMURA. 1992b. Radar archaeometry and the use of synthetic radargrams to
investigate burial grounds in Japan in Proceedings of the 28th International Symposium on Archaeometry,
Los Angeles: 167.
GOODMAN, D. & Y. NISHIMURA. 1993. A ground-radar view of Japanese burial mounds. Antiquity
67:349-354.
GOODMAN, D., Y. NISHIMURA, H. HONGO & M. OKITA. 1997. 3-D GPR Amplitude Rendering of the
Saitobaru Burial Mound #13, in M. Cucarzi and P. Conti (eds.). Filtering, Optimisation and Modelling of
Geophysical Data in Archaeological Prospecting. Fondazione Carlo Maurilio Lerici, Politecnico di
Milano, 50th Anniversary Issue: 93-101.
GOODMAN D., Y. NISHIMURA, H. HONGO & M. OKITA. 1998. GPR amplitude rendering in archaeology, in
Proceedings of the GPR’98 Seventh International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar. Lawrence,
Kansas: 91–92.
GOODMAN, D., Y. NISHIMURA, H. HONGO, N. HIGASHI & H. INAOKA. 2005. Introduction to GPR Statictilt Corrections for Archaeology, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on Archaeological
Prospection 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings Extended
Abstract, Rome: 133-137.
GOODMAN, D., Y. NISHIMURA, H. HONGO & N. HIGASHI. 2006. Correcting for Topography and the Tilt
of Ground-penetrating Radar Antennae. Archaeological Prospection 13:157-161.
GOODMAN, D. Y. NISHIMURA & J. ROGERS. 1995. GPR Time-slices in Archaeological Prospection.
Archaeological Prospection 2:85-89.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 13
GOODMAN, D., Y. NISHIMURA, T. UNO & T. YAMAMOTO. 1994. A ground radar survey of medieval kiln
sites in Suzu City, western Japan. Archaeometry 36(2): 317-326.
GRASMUECK, M. 1996. 3-D Ground Penetrating Radar Applied to Fracture imaging in Gneiss.
Geophysics 61(4): 1050-1064.
GRASMUECK, M. 1994. Applications of Seismic Processing Techniques to Discontinuity Mapping with
Ground-Penetrating Radar in Crystalline Rock of the Gotthard Massif, Switzerland, in Proceeding of the
fifth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar. Waterloo Centre for Groundwater
Research, Waterloo, Canada: 1135-1139.
GRASMUECK, M., R. WEGER & H. HORSTMEYER. 2004. Three-dimensional ground-penetrating radar
imaging of sedimentary structures, fractures, and archaeological features at submeter resolution. Geology
32(11): 933-936.
GRASMUECK, M., R. WEGER & H. HORSTMEYER. 2005. Full-resolution 3D GPR imaging. Geophysics 70
(1):K12-K19.
GRASMUECK, M. & D. VIGGIANO. 2006. 3D/4D GPR Toolbox and Data Acquisition Strategy for HighResolution Imaging of Field Sites, presented at the 11th International Conference on Ground Penetrating
Radar, June 19-22.
GSSI. 2003a. RADAN for Windows Version 5.0 User's Manual. New Hampshire: Geophysical Survey
Systems, Inc.
GSSI. 2003b. 3DQuickdraw User's Manual. New Hampshire: Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc.
HYUNDOK, O., S. JOHGWOO, D. GOODMAN & Y. NISHIMURA. 2005. Archaeological interpretation of GPR
data applied to Wolseong fortress in Gyeongju, Korea, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on
Archaeological Prospection6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings
Extended Abstract, Rome: 129-132.
JOHNSON, J. (ed.) 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.
University of Alabama Press. – Chapter 7
KENYON, J. 1977. Ground-Penetrating Radar and Its Application to a Historical Archaeological Site.
Historical Archaeology 11:48-55.
KOPPENJAN, S., M. STREETON, H. LEE, M. LEE & S. ONO. 2004. Advanced Signal Analysis for Forensic
Applications of Ground Penetrating Radar, in E. Slob, A. Yarovoy & J. Rhenbergen (eds.) Proceedings of
the Tenth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft 2:443-446.
LECKEBUSCH, J. 2000. Two- and three-dimensional ground-penetrating radar surveys across a medieval
choir: a case study in archaeology. Archaeological Prospection 7:189-200.
LECKEBUSCH, J. 2003. Ground Penetrating Radar: A Modern Three-dimensional Prospection Method.
Archaeological Prospection 10:213-240.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 14
LECKEBUSCH, J. & R. PEIKERT. 2001. Investigating the True Resolution and Three-dimensional
Capabilities of Ground-penetrating Radar Data in Archaeological Surveys: Measurements in a Sand Box.
Archaeological Prospection 8:29–40.
LECKEBUSCH, J., R. PEIKERT & M. HAUSER. 2001. Advances in 3D visualization of georadar data, in
Proceedings for the 4th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Vienna: 143-144.
LECKEBUSCH, J. & J. RYCHENER. 2005. Three-dimensional Comparison Between GPR and Excavation
Results, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection 6th International
Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings Extended Abstract, Rome: 223-226.
LEHMANN, F. & A. GREEN. 2000. Topographic migration of georadar data: implications for acquisition
and processing. Geophysics 65(3):836–848.
MALAGODI, S., L. ORLANDO, S. PIRO & F. ROSSO. 1996. Location of Archaeological Structures Using
GPR Method: Three-Dimensional Data Acquisition and Radar Signal Processing. Archaeological
Prospection 3:13-23.
MILLIGAN, R. & M. ATKIN. 1993. The use of Ground-Probing Radar within a digital environment on
archaeological sites, in J., Andresen, T. Madsen, and I. Scollar (eds.). Computer Applications and
Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Aarhus University Press: 21-32.
NEUBAUER, W., A. EDER-HINTERLEITNER, S. SEREN & P. MELICHAR. 2002. Georadar in the Roman Civil
Town Carnuntum, Austria: An Approach for Archaeological Interpretation of GPR Data. Archaeological
Prospection 9:135–156.
NISHIMURA, Y. 2002. A Trial GPR Survey For Detecting Posthole Buildings - Target Identification in
Low Contrasted Soil Structures, in Recent Work in Archaeological Geophysics Conference. London:
Geological Society.
NISHIMURA, Y. 2006. Comparative Geophysical Survey Results in Japan, presented at the XV
International Summer School in Archaeology, Geophysics for Landscape Archaeology, Grosseto, 10-18
July.
OLHOEFT, G. 1981, Electrical properties of rocks, in Y. Touloukian, W. Judd, & R. Roy (eds.). Physical
Properties of Rocks and Minerals. New York: McGraw-Hill: 257-330.
SELLEMAN, P., S. ARCONE & A. DELANEY. 1983. Radar Profiling of Buried Reflectors and the Ground
Water Table. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Report 83-11:1-10
VAUGHAN, C. 1986. Ground-penetrating radar surveys used in archaeological investigations. Geophysics
51(3):595-604.
VICKERS, R., L. DOLPHIN & D. JOHNSON. 1976. Archaeological Investigations at Chaco Canyon Using a
Subsurface Radar, in Remote Sensing Experiments in Cultural Resource Studies: Non-Destructive
Methods of Archaeological Exploration, Survey, and Analysis. Reports of the Chaco Center. National
Park Service and University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 1:81-101.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 15
VICKERS, R. & L. DOLPHIN. 1975. A Communication on an Archaeological Radar Experiment at Chaco
Canyon, New Mexico. MASCA Newsletter 11(1):6-8.
VICKERS, R., L. DOLPHIN, & D. JOHNSON. 1976. Archaeological Investigations at Chaco Canyon Using a
Subsurface Radar, in T. Lyons (ed.). Remote Sensing Experiments in Cultural Resource Studies at Chaco
Canyon. Albuquerque, New Mexico: USDI-NPS and the University of New Mexico: 81-101.
WATTERS, M. 2004b. GPR: A tool for archaeological management, in Proceedings of the 10th
International GPR Conference 2004. Delft, Netherlands: 811-815.
YELF, R. 2004. Where is true time zero?, in E. Slob, A. Yarovoy & J. Rhenbergen (eds.). Proceedings of
the Tenth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft 1:279-282.
YOUN, H. & C. CHEN. 2004a. Landmine Classification Based on High-Resolution Temporal-Spatial GPR
Template, in E. Slob, A. Yarovoy & J. Rhenbergen (eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth International
Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar, Delft 2:681-684.
YOUN, H. & C. CHEN. 2004b. Autonomous UXO Classification using fully Polarimetric GPR Data, in E.
Slob, A. Yarovoy & J. Rhenbergen (eds.). Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Ground
Penetrating Radar, Delft 2:701-703.
YOUNG, R. & S. JINGSHENG. 1994. Recognition and removal of Subsurface Scattering in GPR Data, in
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Ground Penetrating Radar. Waterloo Centre for
Groundwater Research, Waterloo, Canada: 735-746.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 16
Magnetometry Reading List:
BREINER, S. 1973. Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Sunnyvale: Geometrics.
GAFFNEY, C., J. GATER, P. LINFORD, V. GAFFNEY & R. WHITE. 2000. Large-scale Systematic Fluxgate
Gradiometry at the Roman City of Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7:81-99.
HERBICH, T. & C. PEETERS. 2006. Results of the Magnetic Survey at Deiral-Barsha, Egypt.
Archaeological Prospection 13:11-24.
HOUNDSLOW, M. & V. KARLOUKOVSKI. 2005. Where Rivers Meet: Landscape, Ritual and Settlement
and the Archaeology of River Gravels, Report for Magnetic Properties, Aggregates Levy Sustainability
Fund (ALSF) Where Rivers Meet Phase II Report 4. London: English Heritage.
JOHNSON, J. (ed.) 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.
University of Alabama Press. Chapter 8 & 9.
Linford, N., P. Linford, L. Martin & A. Payne. 2005. Recent results from the English Heritage Caesium
Magnetometer System, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection 6th
International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings Extended Abstract, Rome: 172175.
LYALL, J. & D. POWLESLAND. 1996. The application of high resolution fluxgate gradiometery as an aid
to excavation planning and strategy formulation. Internet Archaeology 1.
(http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue1/lyall/himag.html)
NEUBAUER, W., & A. EDER-HINTERLEITNER. 1997b. 3D-interpretation of postprocessed archaeological
magnetic prospection data. Archaeological Prospection 4(4): 191-205.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 17
Resistance Survey Reading List:
APPARAO, A., A. ROY & K. MALLIK. 1969. Resistivity model experiments. Geoexploration 7:45-54.
APPARAO, A. & A. ROY. 1971. Resistivity model experiments. Geoexploration 9:195-205.
ARAI, H., M. HONDA, H. KAMEI & T. SEKIGUCHI. 2005. Three dimensional resistivity survey system
using surface potential, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection6th
International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings Extended Abstract, Rome: 191194.
ASPINALL, A. & J. CRUMMETT. 1997. The Electrical Pseudo-section. Archaeological Prospection 4:3747.
ASTIN, T., H. ECKARDT & S. HAY. 2007. Resistivity Imaging Survey of the Roman Barrow at Bartlow,
Cambridgeshire, UK. Archaeological Prospection 14:24-37.
ATKINSON, R. 1952. Méthodes eléctriques de prospection en archéologie, in A. Laming (ed.). La
Découverte du Passé, Picard, Paris.
BARKER, R. 1979. Signal contribution sections and their use in resistivity studies. Geophysical Journal
of the Royal Astronomical Society 59:123-129.
BARKER, R. 1981. The offset system of electrical resistivity sounding and its use with a multicore cable.
Geophysical Prospecting 29:128-143.
BARKER, R. 1989. Depth of investigation of a generalized collinear 4-electrode array. Geophysics
54:1031-1037.
BARKER, R. 1990. Investigation of groundwater salinity by geophysical methods, in M. Nabighian (ed.),
Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics Vol II:201-221, Tulsa, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.
BARKER, R. 1993. A simple algorithm for electrical imaging of the subsurface. First Break 10(2):53-62.
DABAS, M., A. HESSE & TABBAGH, J. 2000. Experimental resistivity survey at
Wroxeter archaeological site with a fast and light recording device. Archaeological Prospection 7:107118.
DABAS, M. 2006. Theory and practice of the new fast electrical imaging system ARP©, presented at the
XV International Summer School in Archaeology, Geophysics for Landscape Archaeology, Grosseto, 1018 July.
DRAHOR, M., G. GÖKTÜRKLER, M. BERGE & Ö. KURTULMUS. 2005a. Resistivity inversion methods in
Archaeological prospection and its importance, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on
Archaeological Prospection 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings
Extended Abstract, Rome: 112-115.
EVJEN, H. 1938. Depth factor and resolving power of electrical measurements. Geophysics 3:78-95.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 18
GAFFNEY, C. & J. GATER. 26-36. Revealing the Buried Past. pp. 26-36.
GRIFFITHS, D. & R. BARKER. 1994. Electrical Imaging in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological
Science 21:153-158.
GRIFFITHS, D. & J. TURNBULL. 1985. A multi-electrode array for resistivity surveying. First Break 7:1620.
GRIFFITHS, D., J. TURNBULL & A. OLAYINKA. 1990. Two-dimensional resistivity mapping with a
computer-controlled array. First Break 8:121-129.
HERON, C. & C. GAFFNEY. 1987. Archaeogeophysics and the site: ohm sweet ohm?, in C. Gaffney & V.
Gaffney (eds.) Pragmatic Archaeology: Theory in crisis? Oxford: British Archaeological Report, British
Series 167:71-81.
JOHNSON, J. (ed.) 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.
University of Alabama Press. Chapter 6
LOKE, M. & R. BARKER. 1995a. Least-squares deconvolution of apparent resistivity pseudosections.
Geophysics 60:1682-1690.
LOKE, M. & R. BARKER. 1995b. Improvements to the Zohdy method for the inversion of resistivity
sounding and pseudosection data. Computers & Geosciences 21(2):321-332.
LOKE, M. & R. BARKER. 1996a. Rapid least squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a
quasi-Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting 48:181-152.
LOKE, M. & R. BARKER. 1996b. Practical techniques for 3D resistivity surveys and data inversion.
Geophysical Prospecting 44:499-523.
LOKE, M. & T. DAHLIN. 2002. A comparison of the Gauss-Newton and quasi-Newton methods in
resistivity imaging inversion. Journal of Applied Geophysics 49(3):149-162.
LOKE, M., I. ACWORTH & T. DAHLIN. 2003. A comparison of smooth and blocky inversion methods in
2D electrical imaging surveys. Exploration Geophysics 34:182-187.
NOEL, M. 1992. Multielectrode Resistivity Tomography for Imaging Archaeology, in P. Spoerry (ed.)
Geoprospection in the Archaeological Landscape. Oxbow Monograph 18, Oxford: Oxbow Books: 89-99.
NOEL, M. & B. XU. 1991. Archaeological investigation by electrical resistivity tomography: a
preliminary study. Geophysics Journal International 107:95-102.
NOEL, M & A. WALKER. 1990. Development of an electrical resistivity tomography system for imaging
archaeological structures. Archaeometry '90 32:767-776.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 19
PANISSOD, C., M. LAJARTHE & A. TABBAGH. 1997. Potential focusing: a new multi-electrode array
concept, simulation study, and field tests in archaeological prospecting. Journal of Applied Geophysics
38:1-23.
PANISSOD, C., M. DABAS, N. FLORSCH, A. HESSE, A. JOLIVET, A. TABBAGH & J. TABBAGH. 1998.
Archaeological Prospecting using Electric and Electrostatic Mobile Arrays. Archaeological Prospection
5:239-251.
PAPADOPOULOS, N., P. TSOURLOS, G. TSOKAS & A. SARRIS. 2005. 2D and 3D inversion of electrical
resistivity tomography data collected from archaeological sites, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International
Conference on Archaeological Prospection 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection,
Proceedings Extended Abstract, Rome: 116-120.
PAPADOPOULOS, N., P. TSOURLOS, G. TSOKAS & A. SARRIS. 2006. Two-dimensional and Threedimensional Resistivity Imaging in Archaeological Site Investigation. Archaeological Prospection
13:163-181.
RITZ, M., H. ROBAIN, E. PERVAGO, Y. ALBOUY, C. CAMERLYNCK, M. DESCLOITRES & A. MARIKO. 1999.
Improvement to resistivity pseudosection modelling by removal or near-surface inhomogeneity effects:
application to a soil system in south Cameroon. Geophysical Prospecting 47:85- 101.
ROY, A. 1972. Depth of investigation in Wenner, three-electrode and dipole-dipole DC resistivity
methods. Geophysical Prospection 20:329-340.
ROY, A. & A. APPARO. 1971. Depth of investigation in direct current methods. Geophysics 36:943-959.
SASAKI, Y. 1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical
Prospecting 40:453-464.
SOMERS, L., & R. WALKER. 1993. Multiple separation twin array surveys and pseudosections. Geoscan
Research, Technical Report. Bradford.
TONKOV, N. & M. LOKE. 2006. A Resistivity Survey of a Burial Mound in the 'Valley of the Thracian
Kings'. Archaeological Prospection 13:129-136.
TRIPP, A., G. HOHMANN & C. SWIFT. 1984. Two-dimensional resistivity inversion. Geophysics 49:17081717.
TSOURLOS, P. 1995. "Modelling interpretation and inversion of multi-electrode resistivity survey data."
Ph.D. Thesis. University of York.
TSOURLOS, P. & R. OGILVY. 1999. An algorithm for the 3-D Inversion of Tomographic Resistivity and
Induced Polarization data: Preliminary Results. Journal of the Balkan Geophysical Society 2(2):30-45.
WALKER, R. 2000. Multiplexed Resistivity Survey at the Roman Town of Wroxeter. Archaeological
Prospection 7:119-132.
WALKER, R. 2002. MPX15 Multiplexer Instruction manual. Bradford: Geoscan Research.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 20
ZHURBIN, I. & D. MALYUGIN. 1998. On the Method of Visualization of Electrometric Data.
Archaeological Prospection 5:73-79.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 21
Geophysical Applications Reading List:
Catholme:
BAIN, K., E. HANCOX & M. HEWSON. 2004. Catholme Landscape Ground Truthing Project 2004: PostExcavation Assessment. Birmingham Archaeology Report 1356.
BARTLETT, A. 1995. Whitemoor Haye, Alrewas, Staffordshire. Report on Archaegeophysical Survey
1995. Bartlett-Clark Consultancy, for Tempus Reparatum Archaeological and Historical Associates, Ltd.
BARTLETT, A. 1998. Whitemoor Haye, Alrewas, Staffordshire. Report on Archaeogeophysical Survey
1998. Bartlett-Clark Consultancy, for Phoenix Consulting Archaeology, Ltd.
BARTLETT, A. 1999. Catholme Farm, Staffordshire, Report on Archaeogeophysical Survey. BartlettClark Consultancy.
BARTLETT, A. 2001. Barton Business Park Staffordshire. Report on Archaeogeophysical Survey 2001.
Bartlett-Clark Consultancy, for Phoenix Consulting Archaeology, Ltd.
BUTEUX, S. 2002. Where Rivers Meet: Landscape, Ritual, Settlement and the Archaeology of River
Gravels Project design. London: English Heritage.
BUTEUX, S. 2004. Archaeological Synthesis. Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) Where Rivers
Meet Phase I Report 4. London: English Heritage.
BUTEAUX, S., H. CHAPMAN & M. HEWSON. Forthcoming. Where Rivers Meet. The Catholme ceremonial
complex and the archaeology of the Trent-Tame confluence, Staffordshire.
COX, C. 1999. Land at Catholme, Staffordshire: Aerial Photographic Assessment, Archaeology. Air
Photo Services Report No. 9900/01.
EVANS, T. 2006. "Ritual Monuments and Natural places: An Assessment of the Early Neolithic and
Early Bronze Age landscape architecture at the confluence of the Rivers Trent, Tame and Mease,
Staffordshire." Unpublished MA Dissertation. University of Birmingham, UK.
JORDAN, D. 2005. Where Rivers Meet: Landscape, Ritual and Settlement and the Archaeology of River
Gravels. The Geoarchaeology of Deposits at Catholme. Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF)
Where Rivers Meet Phase II Report 3. London: English Heritage.
Wroxeter
BUTEUX S., V. GAFFNEY, R. WHITE & M. VAN LEUSEN. 2000. Wroxeter Hinterland Project and
geophysical survey at Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7:69–80.
St. John’s Baptistery, Florence
CARDARELLI, E., A. GODIO, G. MORELLI, L, SAMBUELLI, G. SANTARATO & L. SOCCO. 2002. Integrated
geophysical surveys to investigate the Scarsella vault of St. John’s Baptistery Florence. The Leading
Edge, May 2002: 467-470.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 22
Guidelines
DAVID, A. 1995. Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation, Research and Professional
Services Guideline No. 1. London: English Heritage.
GAFFNEY, C., J. GATER & S. OVENDEN. 1991. The use of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeological
Evaluations. IFA Technical Paper No. 9.
GAFFNEY, C. & J. GATER. 1993. Development of Remote Sensing. Part 2. Practice and method in the
application of geophysical techniques in archaeology, in J. Hunter & I. Ralston (eds.). Archaeological
Resource Management the UK. Stroud: Sutton Publishing Ltd.
Stonehenge:
DAVID, A. & A. PAYNE. 1997. Geophysical Surveys within the Stonehenge Landscape: A Review of Past
Endeavour and Future Potential. Proceedings of the British Academy 92:73-111.
DAVID, A., M. COLE, T. HORSLEY, N. LINFORD, P. LINFORD & L. MARTIN. 2004. A hidden Stonehenge:
geophysical survey at Stanton Drew, England. Antiquity 78(300):153-169.
Avkat
Dienst, K. 2008. Project goes high-tech to unearth ancient history. Princeton University podcast Web
Stories. http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S21/01/92M09/index.xml?section=international
Watters, M. & S. Wilkes. 2008. Avkat Archaeological Project Geophysical Survey 2007. Unpublished
site report, Medieval Logistics Project, Princeton University and University of Birmingham, UK.
Site Examples / Multi-Method Applications:
DRAHOR, M., G. GÖKTÜRKLER, M. BERGE & Ö. KURTULMUS. 2005. Large-scale geophysical studies at
some Roman legionary military sites in Turkey, in S. Piro (ed.). 6th International Conference on
Archaeological Prospection 6th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, Proceedings
Extended Abstract, Rome: 341-345.
IMAI, T., T. SAKAYAMA & T. KANEMORI. 1987. Use of Ground-Probing Radar and Resistivity Surveys
for Archaeological Investigations. Geophysics 52:137-150.
JOHNSON, J. (ed.) 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective.
University of Alabama Press. Chapter 11, 12 (ground truthing), & 13
KVAMME, K. 2001. Archaeological prospection in fortified Great Plains villages: new insights through
data fusion, visualization, and testing, in M. Doneus, A. Eder-Hinterleitner and W. Neubauer (eds.).
Archaeological Prospection: 4th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection. Austrian
Academy of Sciences Press, Vienna: 141–143.
KVAMME, K. 2003a. Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68 (3):435457.
KVAMME, K. 2003b. Multidimensional Prospecting in North American Great Plains Village Sites.
Archaeological Prospection 10:131-142.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 23
KVAMME, K. 2006. Integrating Multidimensional Geophysical Data. Archaeological Prospection
13:57-72.
NEUBAUER, W. & A. EDER-HINTERLEITNER. 1997a. Resistivity and magnetics of the Roman town
Carnuntum, Austria: an example of combined interpretation of prospection data. Archaeological
Prospection 4:179–189.
PAPADOPOULOS, N., A. SARRIS, E. KOKKINOU, B. WELLS, A. PENTTINEN, E. SAVINI, G. TSOKAS & P.
TSOURLOS. 2006. Contribution of Multiplexed Electrical Resistance and Magnetic Techniques to the
Archaeological Investigations at Poros, Greece. Archaeological Prospection 13:75-90.
POWLESLAND, D. 2006. Why Bother? Large scale geophysics in Landscape Archaeology: A case study
from Heslerton, the Vale of Pickering, Yorkshire UK, presented at the XV International Summer School
in Archaeology, Geophysics for Landscape Archaeology, Grosseto, 10-18 July.
POWLESLAND, D. 2007. Archaeological prospection at West Heslerton. Visualization and Remote
Sensing Access Grid Lecture, University of Birmingham, UK.
SCHMIDT, A. 2003. Remote Sensing and Geophysical Prospection. Internet Archaeology, 15.
(http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue15/schmidt_index.html).
SCOLLAR I., A. TABBAGH, A. HESSE & I. HERZOG. 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote
Sensing: Topics in Remote Sensing, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WALKER, R. & P. LINFORD. 2006. Resistance and Magnetic surveying with the MSP40 Mobile Sensor
Platform at Kelmarsh Hall. ISAP News 9:3-5.
WALKER, R., C. GAFFNEY, J. GATER & E. WOOD. 2005. Short Report: Fluxgate Gradiometry and Square
Array Resistance Survey at Drumlanrig, Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland. Archaeological Prospection
12:131-136.
WATTERS M. 2004. Where Rivers Meet: Geophysical Survey At Catholme. Aggregates Levy
Sustainability Fund (ALSF) Where Rivers Meet Phase I Report 5. London: English Heritage.
WATTERS, M. 2005. ALSF: Where Rivers Meet Geophysical Survey at Catholme Phase II Investigations.
Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund (ALSF) Where Rivers Meet Phase II Report, London: English
Heritage.
WATTERS, M. 2008. The Complementary Nature of Geophysical Survey Methods. Campana, S. and S.
Piro (eds.) Geophysics for Landscape Archaeology.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 24
Visualization Reading List:
AREF, H., R. CHARLES & T. ELVINS. 1994. Scientific Visualization of Fluid Flow, in P. Clifford & K.
Tewksbury (eds.). Frontiers of Scientific Visualization. Wiley Interscience.
BRADLEY, J & M. FLETCHER. 1996. Extraction and Visualization of Information for Ground Penetrating
Radar Surveys, in. H. Kamerman & K. Fennema, (eds.). Computer Applications and Quantitative
Methods in Archaeology – Interfacing the Past, Volume 1:103-110. University of Leiden, Holland.
CLIFFORD, P. & K. TEWKSBURY (eds.). 1987. Frontiers of Scientific Visualization. Wiley Interscience.
DEFANTI, T. & M. BROWN. 1994. Foreword, in L. Rosenblum, R. Earnshaw, J. Encarnacao, H. Hagen,
A. Kaufman, S. Klimenko, G. Nielson, F. Post & D. Thalmann (eds.). Scientific Visualization: advances
and challenges. Academic Press.
DYKES, J., A. MACEACHREN & M. KRAAK (EDS.) 2005. Exploring Geovisualization. Elsevier Ltd. Oxford.
KAUFMAN, A., R. YAGEL & D. COHEN. 1990. Intermixing surface and volume rendering, in K. Hoene, H.
Fuchs and S. Pizer (eds.). 3D Imaging in Medicine: Algorithms, Systems, Applications. Berlin SpringerVerlag: 217-227.
KAUFMAN, A. 1994. Trends in volume visualization and volume graphics, in L. Rosenblum, R.
Earnshaw, J. Encarnação, H. Hagen, A. Kaufman, S. Klimenko, G. Nielson, F. Post, and D. Thalmann
(eds.). Scientific Visualization Advances and Challenges: 3-19. London: Academic Press.
KRAAK, M. & A. KOUSOULAKOU. 2004. Geovisualization, the space-time-cube, and archaeology, in
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Cultural Convergence and Digital Technology.
Foundation of the Hellenic World, Athens, November: 18-21.
KVAMME, K. 2006. Integrating Multidimensional Geophysical Data. Archaeological Prospection
13:57-72.
MCCORMICK, B., T. DEFANTI & M. BROWN (eds.). 1987. Visualization in Scientific Computing.
Computer Graphics 21: 6.
PICKOVER, C. 1994. Introduction, in P. Clifford & K. Tewksbury (eds.). Frontiers of Scientific
Visualization. Wiley Interscience.
PIRO S., P. MAURIELLO & F. CAMMARANO. 2000. Quantitative integration of geophysical methods for
archaeological prospection. Archaeological Prospection 7:203–213.
ROSENBLUM, L., R. EARNSHAW, J. ENCARNACAO, H. HAGEN, A. KAUFMAN, S. KILMENKO, G. NIELSON, F.
POST & D. THALMANN (eds.). 1994. Scientific Visualization: Advances and Challenges. Academic
Press.
TGS. 2003. amira 3.1 User's Guide and Reference Manual including amiraDev and amira VR. TGS,
Mercury Computing Systems, Inc.
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010
ARCH 1880: Archaeo-Geophysical Survey and Visualization
Page 25
WATTERS, M. 2006. Geovisualization: an Example from the Catholme Ceremonial Complex.
Archaeological Prospection 13:282-290.
WATTERS, M. 2007. New Methods for Archaeo-Geophysical Data Visualization. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesis. Institute of Archaeology and Antiquity, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham,
UK.
WATTERS, M. 2009. 3D Data Visualization: Landscape Reconstruction and Archaeological Site
Modelling. Avizo customer spotlight. http://www.vsg3d.com/solutions/customer_spotlights.asp
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World
M.S. Watters
Autumn 2010