Andrew Martindale, William T. D. Wadsworth, Eric Simons, Brian Whiting, Colin Grier
{"title":"探地雷达对墓葬信号解读的挑战","authors":"Andrew Martindale, William T. D. Wadsworth, Eric Simons, Brian Whiting, Colin Grier","doi":"10.1002/arp.1920","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The identification of unmarked graves and burials is one of most common applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) in archaeology. Despite a high frequency of use and a long history of experimentation, there appears to be considerable variability on what indicates a burial in GPR data—likely a consequence of heterogeneity in geological contexts, age and in burial practices. Although general statements about uncertainty in GPR interpretation may be acceptable in archaeological applications, the interpretative process becomes more complicated when GPR is used to locate unmarked graves in culturally, politically and legally contested locations such as at former Indian Residential Schools (IRSs) in Canada. In this paper, we review international applications of the technique and identify trends and traits between the authors' use of GPR to identify burials. By categorizing the studies based on the GPR reflection signatures identified, our review demonstrates that there is modest consensus across the 77 documents reviewed for what represents a burial. Interrogating these findings, we identify a range of potential contributors to signal heterogeneity and outline potential steps forward to a higher confidence or more statistically robust identification of unmarked graves using GPR.","PeriodicalId":55490,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological Prospection","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The challenges of signal interpretation of burials in ground-penetrating radar\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Martindale, William T. D. Wadsworth, Eric Simons, Brian Whiting, Colin Grier\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/arp.1920\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The identification of unmarked graves and burials is one of most common applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) in archaeology. Despite a high frequency of use and a long history of experimentation, there appears to be considerable variability on what indicates a burial in GPR data—likely a consequence of heterogeneity in geological contexts, age and in burial practices. Although general statements about uncertainty in GPR interpretation may be acceptable in archaeological applications, the interpretative process becomes more complicated when GPR is used to locate unmarked graves in culturally, politically and legally contested locations such as at former Indian Residential Schools (IRSs) in Canada. In this paper, we review international applications of the technique and identify trends and traits between the authors' use of GPR to identify burials. By categorizing the studies based on the GPR reflection signatures identified, our review demonstrates that there is modest consensus across the 77 documents reviewed for what represents a burial. Interrogating these findings, we identify a range of potential contributors to signal heterogeneity and outline potential steps forward to a higher confidence or more statistically robust identification of unmarked graves using GPR.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55490,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological Prospection\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological Prospection\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1920\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"ARCHAEOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological Prospection","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/arp.1920","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"ARCHAEOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
The challenges of signal interpretation of burials in ground-penetrating radar
The identification of unmarked graves and burials is one of most common applications of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) in archaeology. Despite a high frequency of use and a long history of experimentation, there appears to be considerable variability on what indicates a burial in GPR data—likely a consequence of heterogeneity in geological contexts, age and in burial practices. Although general statements about uncertainty in GPR interpretation may be acceptable in archaeological applications, the interpretative process becomes more complicated when GPR is used to locate unmarked graves in culturally, politically and legally contested locations such as at former Indian Residential Schools (IRSs) in Canada. In this paper, we review international applications of the technique and identify trends and traits between the authors' use of GPR to identify burials. By categorizing the studies based on the GPR reflection signatures identified, our review demonstrates that there is modest consensus across the 77 documents reviewed for what represents a burial. Interrogating these findings, we identify a range of potential contributors to signal heterogeneity and outline potential steps forward to a higher confidence or more statistically robust identification of unmarked graves using GPR.
期刊介绍:
The scope of the Journal will be international, covering urban, rural and marine environments and the full range of underlying geology.
The Journal will contain articles relating to the use of a wide range of propecting techniques, including remote sensing (airborne and satellite), geophysical (e.g. resistivity, magnetometry) and geochemical (e.g. organic markers, soil phosphate). Reports and field evaluations of new techniques will be welcomed.
Contributions will be encouraged on the application of relevant software, including G.I.S. analysis, to the data derived from prospection techniques and cartographic analysis of early maps.
Reports on integrated site evaluations and follow-up site investigations will be particularly encouraged.
The Journal will welcome contributions, in the form of short (field) reports, on the application of prospection techniques in support of comprehensive land-use studies.
The Journal will, as appropriate, contain book reviews, conference and meeting reviews, and software evaluation.
All papers will be subjected to peer review.