MR 18115-NSG15 October_6.pdf

© 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers 477

Near Surface Geophysics, 2015, 13, 477-484 doi:10.3997/1873-0604.2015033

* [email protected]

Magnetic gradient and ground penetrating radar prospecting of buried earthen archaeological remains at the Qocho City site in Turpan, China

Zhanjie Shi1,3, Gang Tian2, Richard W. Hobbs3, Haowei Wo1*, Jinxin Lin1,

Leyuan Wu2 and Haiyan Liu2

1 Institute of Culture and Heritage, Zhejiang University, Yuhangtang Road 866, Hangzhou 310058, China2 Department of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Zheda Road 38, Hangzhou 310027, China3 Department of Earth Sciences, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK

Received May 2014, revision accepted June 2015

ABSTRACTIn order to test the ability of geophysical technologies to detect buried structures made of mud brick and rammed earth, a geophysical survey was acquired at Qocho City site of China in 2012 using magnetic gradient and ground penetrating radar (GPR). Magnetic anomalies were interpreted as the response of house wall foundations, pits, and a temple base by reference to archaeological results from a neighbouring excavation area. The magnetic data were complemented by 2D ground pene-trating radar profiles, which provided additional information on the depth of these causative struc-tures. An archaeological survey dated 1913 reported the layout of three houses that have since been largely razed to the ground in the study area. Our geophysical survey confirmed the locations of two houses. This study shows that magnetic and ground penetrating radar methods are valuable tools to detect buried earthen archaeological remains in a dry environment.

surface expression of these structures can be easily destroyed after abandonment.

Magnetic gradient and ground penetrating radar (GPR) are the two widely used geophysical technologies for detecting sub-surface archaeological structures. Magnetic gradient prospecting provides horizontal position and shape information of buried structures in the form of the plan image. GPR 2D or 3D surveys provide depth information of the archaeological remains. Many successful application cases of both technologies are reported in the detection of stone structures, wooden structures, ditches, and so on (for example, Bonomo, Osella, and Ratto (2013); Capizzi et al. (2007); Conyers (2011); Gaffney et al. (2012); Kadioglu (2010); Di Mauro et al. (2011); Scardozzi, Giese, and Hübner (2013); Thompson and Pluckhahn (2012)). For the detection of earthen remains, there are only a limited number of papers from a ceremonial site of Cahuachi in Peru, which lies in the desert environment (Masini et al. 2008; Lasaponara et al. 2011).

This study presents the first geophysical detection results of buried earthen archaeological remains at Qocho City site in Turpan District, China. The goal of the survey was to test the ability of geophysical technologies used to detect buried earthen structures and to investigate the city layout in the study area. The buildings of Qocho City site were constructed mainly using earthen materials such as rammed soil and mudbrick.

INTRODUCTIONThe use of geophysical methods to detect buried ruins in the archaeological investigation has been widely reported. Geophysical technologies are applied for guiding excavation (Capizzi et al. 2007; Forte and Pipan 2008; Porsani, Jangelme, and Kipnis 2010; Sarris et al. 2013; Zananiri, Hademenos, and Piteros 2010) and for analysing larger layout of a site by extending the mapping of ruins that have already been excavated (Bossuet et al. 2012; Gaffney et al. 2000; Seren et al. 2004; Utsi 2010; Verdonck et al. 2012) and capturing the integrity degree of standing monuments (Masini, Persico, and Rizzo 2010; Nuzzo and Quarta 2012; Papadopoulos et al. 2012). Compared with traditional excavation, which would be time consuming and would possibly cause damage to the exist-ing topography and ruins within the study area, geophysical tech-nologies provide an efficient and non-destructive tool.

However, detecting buried earthen structures using geophysi-cal technologies is challenging due to the complication caused by subtle physical contrast between buried archaeological remains and the surrounding subsoil (Lasaponara et al. 2011). However, it is important to test geophysical means to detect bur-ied earthen materials as they are widely used in construction by several civilizations mainly in arid and semi-arid lands. Further

Z. Shi et al.478

© 2015 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers, Near Surface Geophysics, 2015, 13, 477-484

The important position and historic value of the Qocho City site are of major interest to archaeologists. Over the past century, archaeological scholars (Lecoq 1913; Stein 1928; Yan 1962; Liu 1995; Meng 2000) have investigated the city layout. Their work was mainly based on the ruins that were then to be seen above the ground. However, over the years, much of the site has been destroyed by human activities, such as war and agricultural culti-vation, and natural factors, such as wind erosion; thus, the larger layout of the city can only be appreciated by the investigation of the sub-surface. Since 2006, five archaeological excavations with a total area of about 3,000 m2 have been finished (Wu et al. 2012). Though important findings have been recorded through excava-tion, we still know very little about the larger layout of the city through these small-scale archaeological excavations.

In 2011, the latest archaeological excavation in the southeast area of the site shown in Fig. 1 unveiled a dwelling ruin. Where remains are found above the ground, they are usually constructed from a mixture of rammed soil and adobe brick, whereas the foundations below ground were constructed mainly using adobe brick (Fig. 2a and 2b). The surrounding material of archaeologi-cal structures is compacted soil, which has a subtle physical difference with the remains. Our survey focuses on the area near this dwelling ruin.

DATA ACQUISITION AND RAW DATA ANALYSISMagnetic gradientThe areas surveyed by the magnetic gradient method are shown in Fig. 1. Area-I is 75 m long in north–south direction and 35 m

The mudbricks, made from clay, were sun-dried, which enhances their magnetic properties caused by the presence of iron oxides (Herbich, Hedstrom, and Davis 2007); hence it was thought likely that they might be detected using magnetic methods. We used a G858 handheld vertical gradient magnetometer with dual cesium sensors to acquire a vertical magnetic gradient survey of two areas of 2625 m2 and 3000 m2 near an excavation area (Fig. 1). After processing of the gradient data, the plan of the possible buried earthen structures was inferred by reference to archaeological results of the neighbouring excavation area. As Turpan has a dry environment, we chose GPR technology and acquired a number of GPR profiles using pulseEKKO PRO GPR system to test the viability of this method and to ascertain the depth of the structures mapped by magnetic anomalies (Fig. 1).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE CONTEXTQocho City site lies in the Turpan Basin about 30 km southeast of Turpan City in Xinjiang Province and was the largest capital city with an area of 1,980,000 m2 in the Chinese western region on the ‘Silk Road’ (Fig. 1). Besides being an important junction between China, central Asia, west Asia, and Europe, Qocho City was the capital city of Qocho Kingdom (A.D. 442–A.D. 640) and Qocho Uyghur Kingdom (A.D. 794–A.D. 1383). It was also the seat of local authority during Han-Jin Dynasty (B.C. 38–A.D. 327), North-South Dynasty (A.D. 327–A.D. 442), and Tang Dynasty (A.D. 640–A.D. 794) of China. In 1383, Qocho Uyghur Kingdom was defeated by Chagatai Khanate and Qocho City began to fall into disuse.

FIGURE 1

Location and aerial view of

Qocho City site, location of study

area. (a) Location of Qocho City

site situated about 30 km south-

east of Turpan City, Xinjiang

Province, China. (b) Aerial view

of Qocho City site. (c) Location

of the geophysical survey near an

excavation area in the southeast

of Qocho City site. Magnetic gra-

dient survey areas in grey and

GPR survey lines in black are

shown (satellite image from

Google EarthTM).

GPR prospecting of remains at Qocho City 479


points of survey area using total station and measured the coor-dinates of these points using GPS. We plotted the magnetic gra-dient map through interpolating these coordinates.

Figure 3 is the image of magnetic gradient raw data in Area-I (Fig. 3a) and in Area-II (Fig. 3b). At the top of Area-I, we observe three rectangular magnetic anomalies probably caused by subsurface archaeological remains. We observe some linear magnetic anomalies accompanying with zigzag noises caused by the opposite direction of the adjacent survey lines in Area-I and Area-II. Also, there are some spike random noises in the image of both areas. We can see a ‘band shaped’ magnetic anomaly caused by the red brick paved for the travel road near the left boundary of Area-I.

Ground penetrating radarIn Area-I and Area-II, a 2D GPR survey was carried out at six locations to determine the depth of the structures inferred from magnetic gradient data (Figs 1 and 8). A pulseEKKO PRO GPR system equipped with 250-MHz central-frequency antennas was used to acquire common offset data. A constant distance interval between adjacent measuring samples of the profiles was set to 0.1 m to ensure sufficient resolution.

The six profiles of GPR raw data are shown in Fig. 4. We observe some electromagnetic anomalies probably caused by buried structures in the six profiles, for example, the anomalies at the depth of about 1.5 m with the horizontal distance between 5 m and 10 m in profile 1; the electromagnetic anomalies at the depth between 1 m and 2 m with the distances from 15 m to 20 m in profile 3; some refractions at the depth of about 1.4 m with a distance of about 24 m in profile 4 and at the depth of about 0.3 m with the distances of about 26 m and 37 m in profile 5. We see the strong background noises caused by a direct wave between two unshielded GPR antennas in each profile.

wide in west–east direction, and Area-II is 100 m long in north–south direction and 30 m wide in west–east direction. The inten-tion of Area-I is to test if the geophysical data can detect struc-tures that are similar with those found in the neighbouring excavation area. In Area-II, Stein had identified three house ruins in 1913 (Fig. 8); however, since then, the ruins have been almost completely erased. The intention is to uncover the preservation status on the wall foundations of the three houses and potentially find other buried ruins by geophysical technologies.

A handheld G858 cesium magnetometer with dual sensors of distance interval of 1 m was used to measure the vertical mag-netic gradient of the Earth’s total magnetic field (Fig. 2c). The orientation of the two magnetic sensors was set up with a tilt angle of 0° using the method described by Rizzo et al. (2010). The bottom sensor was positioned vertically over each point with an estimated height above the ground surface of about 0.3 m. The measurements were collected through successive zigzag trav-erses. The traverse interval was set at 0.5 m, and the sample interval was set at 10 Hz. For the gradiometric measurements, in order to have a good correlation between the positions of the magnetic anomaly and the buried remains, the measurements on each line were done walking along a line with a mark of 20 m. Moreover, before collecting geophysical data, we set the corner

FIGURE 2

Photos of excavation area and magnetic field work (camera locations are

shown in Fig. 1). (a) Residual house wall in the northwest corner of

excavation area. (b) House wall foundations and a pit located in the

excavation area. (c) Magnetic gradient field work in Area-I. In Area-II,

similar barren feature remains above ground.

FIGURE 3

Image of magnetic gradient raw data in Area-I and Area-II in Qocho City

site. (a) Magnetic map of raw data in Area-I, neighbouring the excavation

area. (b) Magnetic map of raw data in Area-II.

Z. Shi et al.480


DATA PROCESSINGMagnetic gradientFigure 5a shows the processing flow of magnetic gradient data. Geoplot 3 software (Geoscan Research 2012) was used to pro-cess the data. We first used destagger function to adjust the adjacent survey lines to remove the zigzag noise and recover the accurate position of the survey lines. Secondly, clip function was used to reduce a few extreme values probably caused by small iron objects on the surface. Then despike function was used to suppress the random spike noise further. Next, interpolation function was used to create a smoother appearance to the data. Finally, high-frequency noise was suppressed and further data smoothing was finished by applying the Gaussian low-pass filter with a radius of 2 m.

FIGURE 4

GPR profiles of GPR raw data

from GPR1 to GPR6. The posi-

tion of each GPR survey line is

shown in Figs 1 and 8.

FIGURE 5

Data processing flow of magnetic gradient data (a) and GPR data (b).



FIGURE 6

Magnetic gradient map of processed data in Area-I and Area-II in Qocho

City site. (a) Magnetic map of Area-I, neighbouring the excavation area.

(b) Magnetic map of Area-II.

FIGURE 7

GPR profiles after background

direct wave noise reduction using

median filtering from GPR1 to

GPR6.

Z. Shi et al.482


Magnetic gradientThe results and interpretation of magnetic gradient in Area-I and Area-II are shown in Fig. 8, together with the archaeological results of the neighbouring excavation area from Wu et al. in 2011 and investigation from Stein in 1913 (Wu et al. 2012; Stein 1928). The structure layout of archaeological excavation area and Stein’s archaeological record are indicated using thin grey lines and bold grey lines, respectively, in Fig. 8.

By comparing the shape and size of magnetic anomalies with archaeological results of the neighbouring excavation area, the likely cause of the magnetic anomalies was inferred as a temple base labeled with ‘T’, house wall foundations labeled with ‘W1–W7’ and pits labeled with ‘P1–P10’. The interpretation results are indicated by the solid thick brick red lines in Fig. 8. In Area-II, in 1913, from the ruins above the ground, Stein identified three houses whose locations are indicated using ‘H1–H3’ in Fig. 8. However, now the houses’ remains above the ground have been destroyed and cannot be seen. In the positions of ‘H1’ and ‘H2’, the shape and size of magnetic anomalies are nearly con-sistent with those of the houses found by Stein. However, for house ‘H3’, the expected shape of the house cannot be identified from the magnetic anomaly though the possible house founda-tion ‘F’ can be inferred. We therefore conclude that ‘H3’ house wall foundations have mostly been destroyed or over-printed by later movement of earth. Strong, caused by soil ridges, nearly linear magnetic anomalies in Area-I and irregular-shaped mag-netic anomalies in Area-II are indicated by dashed thick blue lines in Fig. 8.

From the interpretation results of magnetic gradient data, we see that there are the temple, houses, and pits in Area-I that are the similar archaeological remains with those in neighbouring excavation area. However, in Area-II, there are only some hous-es. So they may belong to a different function area. For example, Area-I is probably a religious ruin, whereas Area-II is possibly only a dwelling ruin for ancient people.

Ground penetrating radarThe six processed GPR profiles in Area-I and Area-II are shown in Fig. 9 where the main radar anomalies are indicated by white rectangles. Combining Fig. 9 with Fig. 8, it is found that GPR anomalies are at locations along the profile that correspond to where the profile crosses magnetic anomalies. The anomaly of GPR profile 1 indicates the depth of the possible temple base ‘T’, and the anomalies of GPR profiles 2 and 4 provide the depth information of possible pits ‘P5’ and ‘P4’, respectively. The depth of possible foundations of house wall ‘W1’, ‘W2’, ‘W3’, ‘W4’, and ‘W5’ can be discerned from GPR anomalies in profiles 3, 5, and 6. At the locations along GPR profile 6 where the profile crosses ‘House H2’ and ‘House H3’, the valid radar anomaly cannot be found. This further supports the inference, from the fact that related magnetic anomalies are absent at the same locations, that the wall foundations are seriously dam-aged.

The processed magnetic gradient data are shown in Fig. 6. We observe that the signal noise ratio is increased after processing. The magnetic anomalies are easier to discern, and the anomaly shape is clearly shown.

Ground penetrating radarFigure 5b is the processing flow of GPR data. The GPR data were processed using EKKO_View Deluxe software. Firstly, the raw data were preprocessed by data editing. Then using DC removal function, we remove DC drift noise caused by shifting of the entire pulse from the 0 line. Thirdly, we used median filter-ing to remove background direct wave noise. Next, the electro-magnetic wave velocity of 0.12 m/ns was determined based on fitting diffraction hyperbola observed on GPR profiles 2, 4, 5, and 6 (Fig. 7). Using the velocity of 0.12 m/ns, we finished the migration processing and depth conversion of the GPR data.

Figure 7 shows the results of processed GPR data after median filtering. We see that the background direct wave noises have been mostly reduced. The migration results are shown in Fig. 9. We observe, after migration processing, that the diffraction waves are corrected and the reflection waves become clearer.

INTERPRETATION OF PROCESSED RESULTS

FIGURE 8

Results and interpretation of magnetic gradient. Left: magnetic gradient

results in Area-I and Area-II. Right: archaeological results of excavation

area from Wu et al. in 2011 (thin grey lines) and investigation results

from Stein in 1913 (bold grey lines) and interpretation of main magnetic

anomalies in Area-I and Area-II (possible buried archaeological remains:

thick solid brick red lines; soil ridges: thick dashed blue lines); also

showing the location of GPR profiles 1–6. The projections are UTM with

the grids in meters.



and interpretation strategies used in the experiment can be used for a larger detection in Qocho City site because of the same archaeological context. Further, for archaeologists, the experi-ment results provide a significant help in planning excavation work.

We conclude that magnetic gradient and GPR technologies offer a useful and non-destructive means to survey other areas of the Qocho City site to discover other buried earthen ruins because of the magnetic mineral content of the building materi-als used in the city’s construction and the dry environment. The urgent need for such surveys is evidenced by the appearance of many buried remains in previous excavation work at Qocho City site. Moreover, the application results of magnetic gradient and

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONMagnetic gradient and GPR methods have been successfully used in detection of earthen remains in Qocho City site in China. Magnetic gradient provides the horizontal layout information of the earthen remains with high efficiency. Compared with mag-netic gradient method, GPR has higher resolution for details of the structures and provides depth information of the earthen structures. The validity of magnetic gradient and GPR methods has been verified by comparison between partial results of both methods and a historical archaeological document from Stein.

The experiment provides application scheme for magnetic gradient and GPR in detecting earthen structures for further investigation in Qocho City site. Data acquisition, processing,

FIGURE 9

GPR profiles after migration pro-

cessing and interpretation results

from GPR1 to GPR6. Electro-

magnetic wave velocity of

0.12 m/ns is determined by curve

fitting diffraction hyperbola

marked on GPR profiles 2, 4, 5,

and 6 (Fig. 7). The white rectan-

gles indicate the main radar

anomalies. The expected loca-

tions for the GPR anomalies

based on the magnetic survey and

archaeological document are

marked above each profile.

Anomaly in profile 1 is interpret-

ed as a temple base. Anomalies in

profiles 2 and 4 are interpreted as

pits. Anomalies in profiles 3, 5,

and 6 are interpreted as house

wall foundations.

Z. Shi et al.484


Lecoq A. 1913. Chotscho. Tafel: Berlin.Liu J.G. 1995. Remote sensor investigation in Qocho city site and

Beiting site in Xinjiang Province, China. Chinese Journal of Archaeology 36(8), 747–753.

Masini N., Persico R. and Rizzo R. 2010. Some examples of GPR pros-pecting for monitoring of the monumental heritage. Journal of Geophysical Engineering 7, 190–199.

Masini N., Rizzo E., Lasaponara R. and Orefici G. 2008. Integrated remote sensing techniques for the detection of buried archaeological adobe structures: preliminary results in Cahuachi (Peru). Advances in Geosciences 19, 75–82.

Meng F.R. 2000. Preliminary study on shape and structure of Qocho City. Chinese Journal of Central Asia 18(5), 35–63.

Nuzzo L. and Quarta T. 2012. GPR prospecting of cylindrical structures in cultural heritage applications: a review of geometric issues. Near Surface Geophysics 10, 17–34.

Papadopoulos N.G., Sarris A., Maria C., Dederix S., Soupios P. and Dikmen U. 2012. Rediscovering the small theatre and amphitheatre of ancient Ierapytna (SE Crete) by integrated geophysical methods. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 1960–1973.

Porsani J., Jangelme G.M. and Kipnis R. 2010. GPR survey at Lapa do Santo archaeological site, Lagoa Santa Karstic region, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 1141–1148.

Rizzo E., Masini N., Lasaponara R. and Orefici G. 2010. Archaeo-geophysical methods in the Templo del Escalonado (Cahuachi, Nasca, Perù). Near Surface Geophysics 8(5), 433–439.

Sarris A., Papadopoulos N., Agapiou A., Salvi M.C., Hadjimitsis D.G., Parkinson W.A. et al. 2013. Integration of geophysical surveys, ground hyperspectral measurements, aerial and satellite imagery for archaeological prospection of prehistoric sites: the case study of Vészto-Mágor Tell, Hungary. Journal of Archaeological Science 40, 1454–1470.

Scardozzi G., Giese S. and Hübner C. 2013. Integrated geophysical investigations in Hierapolis of Phrygia (Turkey). Near Surface Geophysics 11, 101–113.

Seren S., Eder-Hinterleitner A., Neubauer W. and Groh S. 2004. Combined high-resolution magnetics and GPR surveys of the Roman town of Flavia Solva. Near Surface Geophysics 2(2), 63–68.

Stein A. 1928. Innermost Asia: Detailed Report of Explorations in Central Asia, Kan-su and Eastern Iran. Clarendon Press: Oxford.

Thompson V.D. and Pluckhahn T.J. 2012. Monumentalization and ritual landscapes at Fort center in the Lake Okeechobee basin of south Florida. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 31, 49–65.

Utsi E. 2010. The use of ground-penetrating radar to extend the results of archaeological excavation. Near Surface Geophysics 8, 415–422.

Verdonck L., Vermeulen F., Corsi C. and Docter R. 2012. Ground-penetrating radar survey at the Roman town of Mariana (Corsica), complemented with fluxgate gradiometer data and old and recent excavation results. Near Surface Geophysics 10, 35–45.

Wu Y., Tian X.H., Wang Y.Q. and Tong W.K. 2012. Report on the excava-tions on the site of the Qocho city near Turpan, China. Chinese Journal of Xinjiang Province Cultural Relics 17(5), 4–40.

Yan W.R. 1962. Qocho city site in Turpan. Chinese Journal of Cultural Relics 12(7), 28–33.

Zananiri I., Hademenos V. and Piteros C. 2010. Geophysical investiga-tions near the ancient Agora at the city of Argos, Greece. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 7, 174–182.

GPR methods also show that they are effective tools for the detection of earthen remains in a dry environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThis geophysical survey was funded by Xinjiang Province Cultural Relics Bureau of China (Grant 12-581250-003), ,National Social Science Fund Project (Grant 13&ZD192), National Natural Science Fund Project (Grant 41104072) and Culture Relics Preservation Technology Project of Zhejiang Province (Grant 2011008). The authors would like to thank Archaeology and Culture Relics Institute of Xinjiang Province for providing archaeological excavation results. They would also like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their comments that contributed to the improvement of the manuscript.

REFERENCESBonomo N., Osella A. and Ratto N. 2013. GPR investigations at an Inca-

Spanish site in Argentina. Near Surface Geophysics 11, 449–456.Bossuet G., Thivet M., Trillaud S., Marmet E., Laplaige C., Dabas M. et

al. 2012. City map of ancient Epomanduodurum (Mandeure-Mathay, Franche-Comté, Eastern France): contribution of geophysical pros-pecting techniques. Archaeological Prospection 19(3), 261–280.

Capizzi P., Cosentino P.L., Fiandaca G., Martorana R., Messina P. and Vassallo S. 2007. Geophysical investigations at the Himera archaeo-logical site northern Sicily. Near Surface Geophysics 5, 417–426.

Conyers L.B. 2011. Discovery, mapping and interpretation of buried cultural resources non-invasively with ground-penetrating radar. Journal of Geophysics and Engineering 8, S13–S22.

Di Mauro D., Alfonsi L., Sapia V., Nigro L. and Marchetti M. 2011. First field magnetometer investigation at the Phoenician Island of Mozia (Trapani), northwestern Sicily: preliminary results. Archaeological Prospection 18, 215–222.

Forte E. and Pipan M. 2008. Integrated seismic tomography and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) for the high-resolution study of burial mounds (tumuli). Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2614–2623.

Gaffney C.F., Gaffney V., Neubauer W., Baldwin E., Chapman H., Garwood P. et al. 2012. The Stonehenge hidden landscapes project. Archaeological Prospection 19, 147–155.

Gaffney C.F., Gater J.A., Linford P., Gaffney V.L. and White R. 2000. Large-scale systematic fluxgate gradiometry at the Roman city of Wroxeter. Archaeological Prospection 7(2), 81–99.

Geoscan Research. 2012. Instruction Manual 3 (Geoplot 3.0). Geoscan Research: Bradford.

Herbich T., Hedstrom D.B. and Davis S.J. 2007. A geophysical survey of ancient Pherme: magnetic prospection at an early Christian monastic site in the Egyptian Delta. Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 44, 129–138.

Kadioglu S. 2010. Definition of buried archaeological remains with a new 3D visualization technique of a ground-penetrating radar data set in Temple Augustus in Ankara, Turkey. Near Surface Geophysics 8, 397–406.

Lasaponara R., Masini N., Rizzo E. and Orefici G. 2011. New discover-ies in the Piramide Naranjada in Cahuachi (Peru) using satellite, ground probing radar and magnetic investigations. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 2031–2039.

Multiply your data!

www.geomatrix.co.uk

INTRODUCING:

• Triview, revolutionary triple frequency GPR system from Utsi Electronics

• Combines 250, 500 MHz and 1 GHz antennas in one module

• Wireless communication to Laptop or tablet for data control and logging.

• Simultaneous acquisition of 3 frequencies increases your interpretation capabilities and reduces your survey time

• GPS integration

T: +44 (0)1525 383438 E: [email protected]

20 Eden Way, Pages Industrial Park, Leighton Buzzard, Beds LU7 4TZ. UK.

Multiply Multiply Multiply

Available through Geomatrix Earth Science

WSA1000303 Geomatrix-cmyk-280x210.indd 1 07/07/2015 13:34CC02532-MA005 WSA.indd 1 07/07/15 17:27

MR 18115-NSG15 October_6.pdf

Documents

Transcript of MR 18115-NSG15 October_6.pdf