Archaeological ProspectionArchaeol. Prospect. 12, 203–204 (2005)

BookReview

GROUND PENETRATING RADARIN SEDIMENTS

C. S. Bristow and H. M. Jol (eds). Special Pub-lication 211, Geological Society PublishingHouse, Bath, 2003. £80.00. 330pp. ISBN 1-862-39131-9

Over the past decade ground-penetrating radar (GPR)has become an important geophysical tool in near-surface investigations by engineers, geologists, geo-morphologists and archaeologists. The technique hasbeen applied in archaeology for the investigation ofburied structures but less frequently to the descriptionof palaeoenvironmental settings. As a non-destructivetechnique it is ideally placed for the investigation ofboth modern and ancient sediments, especially whereground-truth information is readily available fromboreholes and test pits. Based on the rapid growth inthe field of GPR, a conference was organized by TheGeological Society of London and the University Col-lege of London in August 2001 in order to bringtogether GPR practitioners to share experience acrossthe varied disciplines in which it is used. The outcomeof the highly successful meeting is Special Publication211, Ground Penetrating Radar in Sediments, of theGeological Society of London. In addition to bringingtogether scientist from a wide spectrum the conferenceorganizers aimed to stimulate an exchange of ideasbetween users, to promote collaboration and to extendbest practice in GPR surveying. The book follows thestandard Special Publications format of the GeologicalSociety for conference proceeding, with an introduc-tion by the conveners followed by a number of paperspresented on a range of topics.

The volume is well presented, with, for the mostpart, high quality in both the written content and theillustrations. There is a fair degree of continuity to thepapers and this is strengthened by the thoughtfulrequest of the editors (Bristow and Jol) for authors touse a standard set of terminology when describingGPR profiles and reflections. The resulting descrip-tions generally accompany clear illustrations, with

GPR profiles or images for many of the papers beinggiven as un-interpreted and interpreted figures so thatthe reader can easily identify the features that theauthors wish to illustrate.

The publication begins with Bristow and Jol givingan informative background to the subject. This isfollowed by a very welcome presentation on practicalguidelines for data collection and interpretation. Thefollowing case histories are divided into sections onsedimentary environments, including: aeolian andcoastal, fluvial and alluvial fan, glacial and lakes;ancient sediments as reservoir analogues; tectonics;and engineering and environmental applications.Although no section has been dedicated to the use ofGPR for archaeological purposes, many of the paperswill have direct relevance to palaeolandscape recon-struction in both onshore and nearshore situations.This is particularly the case in the first set of casehistories. A number of these investigate sediment withhigh electrical resistivity, such as sand or gravel com-plexes, where GPR has proved successful in previousinvestigations. These papers, for example, those ondune complexes in South Africa (Botha et al.), the USAand Denmark (Moller and Antony), clearly demon-strate the use of GPR for mapping sedimentarysequences, especially where ground-truth data fromboreholes and test pits are available. The possibilitiesfor similar investigations in unravelling transgressivesequences that have buried successive archaeologicalmaterials should be of interest to a general archaeolo-gical audience working in coastal situations. A numberof block diagrams are given to illustrate the inter-preted depositional environments. Although thesehave been constructed with the sedimentologist inmind they will provide great insight to the archaeol-ogist in palaeoenvironmental reconstructions.

Of further use to more general Quaternarysequences are papers by Havholm et al. and O’Nealand Dunn. In the former, an investigation of Holoceneaeolian dunes, fluvial and lacustrine deposits inCanada shows what is possible with reasonable pene-tration depths for GPR in mixed lithologies. The GPRsections are here not overinterpreted, a tendency that

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

is not uniformly followed with all the papers. Thepresentation by O’Neal and Dunn will have resonancefor investigators of Quaternary deposits in deeplyburied sequences, for example in the southeast ofEngland, where the identification of highstands iscritical in understanding the palaeolandscapes. Thestratigraphical complexity that is often depicted inGPR records is shown in a number of the papers,with only the occasional image inclined to overinter-pretation. In unravelling more complex sequencesJeinz and Aigner demonstrate an emerging use ofthree-dimensional data acquisition and analysis forimaging sediment geometry and architecture.Although this type of GPR use may be available toonly a few surveys it does demonstrate that such usesare not confined solely to object detection or theimaging of man-made structures. Although the follow-ing section on glacial and periglacial examples mayhave less direct application to mainstream archaeol-ogy, the papers do provide examples of GPR recordsin finer grained material and some notable sectionsthrough peat bogs from Germany (Leopold andVolkel). A paper by Reiss et al. on fault mappingmay not seem of particular relevance to archaeologicalinvestigations, however, it does provide some insightfor buried object detection where near-vertical struc-

tures are present. In a similar manner, the papers byHendrickx et al. on buried mines and Van Dam et al. onreflection signatures from an artificial test site providefurther examples of the potential of GPR as a techni-que. The final papers on GPR use with differentantenna arrays, downhole GPR and amplituderesponses will appeal to those who wish to delvefurther into the technological research areas of thesubject.

Although the book may not have universal appeal itdoes provide a very useful starting point for those whohave to this point only had a passing interest in GPR,to those who have been curious and to those who areseasoned practitioners. Unfortunately, as with all con-ference proceedings, all that is lacking are good exam-ples of bad data or data that could be easilymisinterpreted to help guide the uninitiated.

Richard BatesUniversity of St Andrews

Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/arp.267

204 Book Review

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 12, 203–204 (2005)