Advanced search
1 file | 1.17 MB Add to list

Evaluation of fluxgate magnetometry and electromagnetic induction surveys for subsurface characterization of archaeological features in World War 1 battlefields

Nicolas Note (UGent) , Timothy Saey (UGent) , Wouter Gheyle (UGent) , Birger Stichelbaut (UGent) , Hanne Van den Berghe (UGent) , Jean Bourgeois (UGent) , Veerle Van Eetvelde (UGent) and Marc Van Meirvenne (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Geophysical prospection as a noninvasive archaeological survey technique has become a widely applied discipline that is currently finding its way into the former World War 1 (WW1) battlefields. Because of the imminent danger of unexploded ordnances, noninvasiveness is the key to exploring the subsurface containing our buried heritage. Fluxgate magnetometry (FGM), a frequently applied prospection technique in archaeology and unexploded ordnance detection, is not always satisfactory in this area. This is due to the high density of ferrous objects masking the underlying features of interest. Frequency domain electromagnetic induction (EMI) has proved to be less sensitive to metal objects, thereby revealing more WW1 traces. Another advantage of EMI is that soil disturbances related to shelling and metal objects can be classified with higher precision by combining magnetic and electrical conductivity data layers. After evaluating both prospecting techniques on maximum feature coverage, feature type identification, metal object filtering, and localization, EMI was shown to be the most successful. Although FGM is not inferior (providing high survey speed and density with multisensor arrays and reliability in pinpointing features, etc.) overall, EMI is the preferred option on sites with heavily disturbed soil. In this paper, these findings will be demonstrated with survey examples, case studies, and numerical analyses from the WWI battlefields of Flanders.
Keywords
archaeological prospection, electromagnetic induction, magnetometry, soil characterization, World War 1, AERIAL-PHOTOGRAPHY, MULTIPLE SIGNALS, WORLD-WAR, EMI, SENSOR, MAP

Downloads

  • (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 1.17 MB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Note, Nicolas et al. “Evaluation of Fluxgate Magnetometry and Electromagnetic Induction Surveys for Subsurface Characterization of Archaeological Features in World War 1 Battlefields.” GEOARCHAEOLOGY-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 34.2 (2019): 136–148. Print.
APA
Note, N., Saey, T., Gheyle, W., Stichelbaut, B., Van den Berghe, H., Bourgeois, J., Van Eetvelde, V., et al. (2019). Evaluation of fluxgate magnetometry and electromagnetic induction surveys for subsurface characterization of archaeological features in World War 1 battlefields. GEOARCHAEOLOGY-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, 34(2), 136–148.
Chicago author-date
Note, Nicolas, Timothy Saey, Wouter Gheyle, Birger Stichelbaut, Hanne Van den Berghe, Jean Bourgeois, Veerle Van Eetvelde, and Marc Van Meirvenne. 2019. “Evaluation of Fluxgate Magnetometry and Electromagnetic Induction Surveys for Subsurface Characterization of Archaeological Features in World War 1 Battlefields.” Geoarchaeology-an International Journal 34 (2): 136–148.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Note, Nicolas, Timothy Saey, Wouter Gheyle, Birger Stichelbaut, Hanne Van den Berghe, Jean Bourgeois, Veerle Van Eetvelde, and Marc Van Meirvenne. 2019. “Evaluation of Fluxgate Magnetometry and Electromagnetic Induction Surveys for Subsurface Characterization of Archaeological Features in World War 1 Battlefields.” Geoarchaeology-an International Journal 34 (2): 136–148.
Vancouver
1.
Note N, Saey T, Gheyle W, Stichelbaut B, Van den Berghe H, Bourgeois J, et al. Evaluation of fluxgate magnetometry and electromagnetic induction surveys for subsurface characterization of archaeological features in World War 1 battlefields. GEOARCHAEOLOGY-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL. 2019;34(2):136–48.
IEEE
[1]
N. Note et al., “Evaluation of fluxgate magnetometry and electromagnetic induction surveys for subsurface characterization of archaeological features in World War 1 battlefields,” GEOARCHAEOLOGY-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 136–148, 2019.
@article{8590993,
  abstract     = {Geophysical prospection as a noninvasive archaeological survey technique has become a widely applied discipline that is currently finding its way into the former World War 1 (WW1) battlefields. Because of the imminent danger of unexploded ordnances, noninvasiveness is the key to exploring the subsurface containing our buried heritage. Fluxgate magnetometry (FGM), a frequently applied prospection technique in archaeology and unexploded ordnance detection, is not always satisfactory in this area. This is due to the high density of ferrous objects masking the underlying features of interest. Frequency domain electromagnetic induction (EMI) has proved to be less sensitive to metal objects, thereby revealing more WW1 traces. Another advantage of EMI is that soil disturbances related to shelling and metal objects can be classified with higher precision by combining magnetic and electrical conductivity data layers. After evaluating both prospecting techniques on maximum feature coverage, feature type identification, metal object filtering, and localization, EMI was shown to be the most successful. Although FGM is not inferior (providing high survey speed and density with multisensor arrays and reliability in pinpointing features, etc.) overall, EMI is the preferred option on sites with heavily disturbed soil. In this paper, these findings will be demonstrated with survey examples, case studies, and numerical analyses from the WWI battlefields of Flanders.},
  author       = {Note, Nicolas and Saey, Timothy and Gheyle, Wouter and Stichelbaut, Birger and Van den Berghe, Hanne and Bourgeois, Jean and Van Eetvelde, Veerle and Van Meirvenne, Marc},
  issn         = {0883-6353},
  journal      = {GEOARCHAEOLOGY-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL},
  keywords     = {archaeological prospection,electromagnetic induction,magnetometry,soil characterization,World War 1,AERIAL-PHOTOGRAPHY,MULTIPLE SIGNALS,WORLD-WAR,EMI,SENSOR,MAP},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {2},
  pages        = {136--148},
  title        = {Evaluation of fluxgate magnetometry and electromagnetic induction surveys for subsurface characterization of archaeological features in World War 1 battlefields},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gea.21700},
  volume       = {34},
  year         = {2019},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: