Next Article in Journal
Consistency Analysis of Remote Sensing Land Cover Products in the Tropical Rainforest Climate Region: A Case Study of Indonesia
Next Article in Special Issue
Employment, Utilization, and Development of Airborne Laser Scanning in Fenno-Scandinavian Archaeology—A Review
Previous Article in Journal
A Change-Driven Image Foveation Approach for Tracking Plant Phenology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Mapping the Historical Shipwreck Figaro in the High Arctic Using Underwater Sensor-Carrying Robots
Open AccessArticle

The Effectiveness of Large-Scale, High-Resolution Ground-Penetrating Radar Surveys and Trial Trenching for Archaeological Site Evaluations—A Comparative Study from Two Sites in Norway

1
Department of Digital Archaeology, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Storgata 2, 0105 Oslo, Norway
2
Department of Archaeology and Cultural History, The NTNU University Museum, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
3
Department of Archaeology, Museum of Cultural History, Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, Storgata 2, 0105 Oslo, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Remote Sens. 2020, 12(9), 1408; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12091408
Received: 2 April 2020 / Revised: 17 April 2020 / Accepted: 27 April 2020 / Published: 29 April 2020
The use of large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar surveys has increasingly become a part of Norwegian cultural heritage management as a complementary method to trial trenching surveys to detect and delineate archaeological sites. The aim of this article is to collect, interpret and compare large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey data with results from trial trenching and subsequent large-scale excavations, and to extract descriptive and spatial statistics on detection rates and precision for both evaluation methods. This, in turn, is used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of both conventional, intrusive methods and large-scale GPR surveys. Neither method proved to be flawless, and while the trial trenching had a better overall detection rate, organic and charcoal rich features were nearly just as easily detected by both methods. Similarly, the spatial representability was similar, even though the total detection rates were lower with the GPR. This can be used as an argument in advance of integrating full-coverage GPR results into a site evaluation scheme, preferably in combination with other methods. Overall, these analyses have highlighted drawbacks and possibilities in both methods that are important contributions in understanding how to use them and integrate them in future site evaluations. View Full-Text
Keywords: GPR; trial trenching; excavation; archaeology; spatial correlation; site evaluation strategies GPR; trial trenching; excavation; archaeology; spatial correlation; site evaluation strategies
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Gustavsen, L.; Stamnes, A.A.; Fretheim, S.E.; Gjerpe, L.E.; Nau, E. The Effectiveness of Large-Scale, High-Resolution Ground-Penetrating Radar Surveys and Trial Trenching for Archaeological Site Evaluations—A Comparative Study from Two Sites in Norway. Remote Sens. 2020, 12, 1408.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop