GPR and Integrating Geophysical Methods at Portus

Presented by: J. OgdenPhoto: Hembo Pagi

The Imperial Port of Rome

Motivations & Constraints

Photos: Hembo Pagi

Motivations & Constraints

• Scale

• Extreme Topography

• Voids & Collapse

Photo: Martin Millet

May 2008

Ground-Penetrating Radar

Ground-Penetrating Radar0-22cm 38-59cm 50-72cm 63-84cm

75-97cm 88-110cm 101-122cm 113-135cm

GPR: Within the Excavation

September 2008

Ground-Penetrating Radar

September 2009

September 2009

Ground-Penetrating Radar

Photos: Hembo Pagi & Martin Millet

September 2009

Ground-Penetrating Radar

Geophysical Data Integration

• Kvamme, K. L. 2006. ‘Integrating Multidimensional Geophysical Data.’ Archaeological Prospection, Vol.13 pp. 57-72

• Piro S., Mauriello, P., and Cammarano F. 2000. ‘Quantitative integration of geophysical methods for archaeological prospection.’ Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 7 pp. 203-213

• Neubauer, W. and Eder-Hinterleitner A. 1997. ‘Resistivity and magnetics of the Roman town Carnuntum, Austria: and example of combined interpretation of prospection data.’ Archaeological Prospection, Vol. 4 pp. 179-189

Geophysical Data Integration

‘AND’

Geophysical Data Integration

‘OR’

2D Graphical IntegrationRed = MagnetometryGreen = ResistivityBlue = GPR

Graphical Integration

Geophysical Data Integration

Photo: Martin Millet MIN functionCluster

Analysis

Questions

Issues of:

• Scale & Resolution

• Topographic and Tilt Correction

• Accessibility Photo: Hembo Pagi

How do we apply data fusion techniques to the 3rd dimension?

How do we come to terms with GPR on complex sites?