GPR Data Interpretation Approaches in Archaeological Prospection
Source abstract
Abstract
This article focuses on the possible drawbacks and pitfalls in the GPR data interpretation process commonly followed by most GPR practitioners in archaeological prospection. Standard processing techniques aim to remove some noise, enhance reflections of the subsurface. Next, one has to calculate the instantaneous envelope and produce C-scans which are 2D amplitude maps showing high reflectivity surfaces. These amplitude maps are mainly used for data interpretation and provide a good insight into the subsurface but cannot fully describe it. The main limitations are discussed while studies aiming to overcome them are reviewed. These studies involve integrated interpretation approaches using both B-scans and C-scans, attribute analysis, fusion approaches, and recent attempts to automatically interpret C-scans using Deep Learning (DL) algorithms. To contribute to the automatic interpretation of GPR data using DL, an application of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) to classify GPR data is also presented and discussed.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Geophysical Methods and Applications · Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods · Image Processing and 3D Reconstruction
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Mineral Resources Engineering, Technical University of Crete, 73100 Chania, Greece
Laboratory of Geophysical Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeoenvironment, Institute for Mediterranean Studies—Foundation of Research and Technology Hellas, Ioannou Melissinou 130 & Nikiforou Foka, 74100 Rethymno, Greece
Digital Humanities GeoInformatics Lab., Archaeological Research Unit (ARU), Department of History and Archaeology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia 1678, Cyprus
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. Improving the interpretability of 3D GPR data using target–specific attributes: Application to tomb detection10.1016/j.jas.2009.09.049 ↗
2. Jol, H.M. (2009). Electromagnetic Principles of Ground Penetrating Radar. Ground Penetrating Radar Theory and Applications, Elsevier. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444533487000016.
3. Manataki, M., Sarris, A., Donati, J.C., Cuenca Garcia, C., and Kalayci, T. (2015). GPR: Theory and Practice in Archaeological Prospection. Best Practices of Geoinformatic Technologies for the Mapping of Archaeolandscapes, Archaeopress Archaeology.10.2307/jj.15136073.5 ↗
4. Goodman, D., and Piro, S. (2013). GPR Remote Sensing in Archaeology, Springer. Geotechnologies and the Environment.10.1007/978-3-642-31857-3 ↗
5. Nuzzo, L., Leucci, G., Negri, S., Carrozzo, M.T., and Quarta, T. (2002). Application of 3D visualization techniques in the analysis of GPR data for archaeology. Ann. Geophys., 45.
6. Analysis and interpretation of GPR datasets for integrated archaeological mapping10.3997/1873-0604.2015018 ↗
7. Ground-penetrating radar data analysis for more complete archaeological interpretations
8. 3D GPR survey for the archaeological characterization of the ancient Messapian necropolis in Lecce, South Italy
9. Problems and Solutions with GPR Data Interpretation: Depolarization and Data Continuity10.1002/arp.422 ↗
10. Conyers, L.B. (2016). Ground-Penetrating Radar Mapping Using Multiple Processing and Interpretation Methods. Remote Sens., 8.10.3390/rs8070562 ↗
11. Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) attribute analysis for archaeological prospection10.1016/j.jappgeo.2013.04.010 ↗
12. Application of 3D GPR attribute technology in archaeological investigations10.1007/s11770-012-0336-2 ↗
13. GPR imaging and characterization of ancient Roman ruins in the Aquileia Archaeological Park, NE Italy10.1016/j.measurement.2017.09.004 ↗
14. Improved high-resolution GPR imaging and characterization of prehistoric archaeological features by means of attribute analysis10.1016/j.jas.2014.11.033 ↗
15. Trinks, I., and Hinterleitner, A. (2020). Beyond Amplitudes: Multi-Trace Coherence Analysis for Ground-Penetrating Radar Data Imaging. Remote Sens., 12.10.3390/rs12101583 ↗
16. Use of instantaneous GPR attribute integration in prospecting for ancient roads at the Han Hangu Pass, Xin’an, China10.1080/2150704X.2018.1433342 ↗
17. Texture Attribute Analysis of GPR Data for Archaeological Prospection10.1007/s00024-016-1355-3 ↗
18. Recording and Reconstructing the Sacred Landscapes of Sicilian Naxos10.1515/opar-2019-0026 ↗
19. The potential of integrated GPR survey and aerial photographic analysis of historic urban areas: A case study and digital reconstruction of a Late Roman villa in Durrës (Albania)
20. Sarris, A., Manataki, M., Cuenca-Garcia, C., Donati, J.C., Kalayci, T., Papadopoulos, N., and Karapanagiotou, A.V. (2015, January 7–10). Revealing the urban features of the ancient greek city of Mantineia through the employment of ground penetrating radar. Proceedings of the 2015 8th International Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar (IWAGPR), Florence, Italy.10.1109/IWAGPR.2015.7292689 ↗
21. Puente, I., Solla, M., Lagüela, S., and Sanjurjo-Pinto, J. (2018). Reconstructing the Roman Site “Aquis Querquennis” (Bande, Spain) from GPR, T-LiDAR and IRT Data Fusion. Remote Sens., 10.10.3390/rs10030379 ↗
22. Sarris, A. Multi+ or Manifold Geophysical Prospection?. Archaeology in the Digital Era, Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Southampton, UK, 26–30 March 2012, Available online: https://www.ocs.soton.ac.uk/index.php/CAA/2012/paper/view/444.
23. How efficient is an integrative approach in archaeological geophysics? Comparative case studies from Neolithic settlements in Thessaly (Central Greece)10.3997/1873-0604.2015041 ↗
24. Kalayci, T., Simon, F.-X., and Sarris, A. (2017). A Manifold Approach for the Investigation of Early and Middle Neolithic Settlements in Thessaly, Greece. Geosciences, 7.10.3390/geosciences7030079 ↗
25. Integration of geophysical surveys, ground hyperspectral measurements, aerial and satellite imagery for archaeological prospection of prehistoric sites: The case study of Vésztő-Mágor Tell, Hungary10.1016/j.jas.2012.11.001 ↗
26. The role of integrated geophysical survey methods in the assessment of archaeological landscapes: The case of Portus10.1002/arp.358 ↗
27. Sarris, A., Kalayci, T., Moffat, I., and Manataki, M. (2018). An introduction to geophysical and geochemical methods in digital geoarchaeology. Digital Geoarchaeology, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-25316-9_14 ↗
28. Georadar in the Roman civil town Carnuntum, Austria: An approach for archaeological interpretation of GPR data10.1002/arp.183 ↗
29. Cothren, J., Goodmaster, C., Ernenwein, A.B.-E., Limp, A.V.-W.F., and Payne, A. (2008, January 2–6). Fusion of Three-Dimensional Data at Tiwanaku: An Approach to Spatial Data Integration. Proceedings of the 36th International Conference Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology (CAA), Budapest, Hungary.
30. Quantitative integration of geophysical methods for archaeological prospection10.1002/1099-0763(200012)7:4<203::AID-ARP133>3.0.CO;2-T ↗
31. Integrating multidimensional geophysical data10.1002/arp.268 ↗
32. Manataki, M., Kalayci, T., Papadopoulos, N., and Sarris, A. (2015, January 5–8). Data Integration in Archaeological Prospection—A Synthetic Approach. Proceedings of the 8th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society, Chania, Greece.10.3997/2214-4609.201414165 ↗
33. Fusion of geophysical images in the study of archaeological sites10.1002/arp.1766 ↗
34. An application of integration approaches for archaeo-geophysical data: Case study from Aizanoi10.1002/arp.1583 ↗
35. Agapiou, A., Lysandrou, V., Sarris, A., Papapdopoulos, N., and Hadjimitsis, D.G. (2017). Fusion of Satellite Multispectral Images Based on Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) Data for the Investigation of Buried Concealed Archaeological Remains. Geosciences, 7.10.3390/geosciences7020040 ↗
36. Agapiou, A., and Sarris, A. (2018). Beyond GIS Layering: Challenging the (Re)use and Fusion of Archaeological Prospection Data Based on Bayesian Neural Networks (BNN). Remote Sens., 10.10.3390/rs10111762 ↗
37. Adamopoulos, E., and Rinaudo, F. (2019, January 1–5). 3D Interpretation and fusion of multi-disciplinary data for heritage science: A review. Proceedings of the 27th CIPA International Symposium—Documenting the Past for a Better Future, Ávila, Spain.
38. Deep learning10.1038/nature14539 ↗
39. Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives10.1109/TPAMI.2013.50 ↗
40. Semi-automatic feature extraction from GPR data for archaeology10.3997/1873-0604.2007033 ↗
41. Deep learning based automated analysis of archaeo-geophysical images10.1002/arp.1763 ↗
42. A novel 3D GPR image arrangement for deep learning-based underground object classification10.1080/10298436.2019.1645846 ↗
43. Triplanar Imaging of 3-D GPR Data for Deep-Learning-Based Underground Object Detection. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs
44. Three-dimensional convolutional neural network–based underground object classification using three-dimensional ground penetrating radar data10.1177/1475921720902700 ↗
45. Detection and localization of rebar in concrete by deep learning using ground penetrating radar10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103279 ↗
46. Autonomous pavement distress detection using ground penetrating radar and region-based deep learning10.1016/j.measurement.2020.108077 ↗
47. Yang, S., Wang, Z., Wang, J., Cohn, A.G., Zhang, J., Jiang, P., Nie, L., and Sui, Q. (2020). Defect segmentation: Mapping tunnel lining internal defects with ground penetrating radar data using a convolutional neural network. Constr. Build. Mater., Available online: http://arxiv.org/abs/2003.13120.
48. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks
49. Ioffe, S., and Szegedy, C. (2015, January 7–9). Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning, Lille, France.
50. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting