surface. The second site was far more complex in size and variability. At this site Imai sought to map and delimit the remains of a small town buried under up tom of pumice deposits from an eruption in the sixth century AD. Most notable at this location was the determination of a large burial mound with a diameter of nearly m. Imai noticed a unique reflection profile from within the mound that
suggested an inner stone tomb, later confirmed through excavation. The third site was used by Imai to test the ability of GPR to differentiate between what he terms culture layers essentially noting the cultural continuity associated with differing stratigraphic layers (Imai, 1987). Imai noted that these layers were distinctive in detection up to nearly m below surface and that GPR was thus fit to adequately map the distribution of culturally significant stratigraphic layers in relation to each other. Imai’s fourth site showed the utilization of resistivity and GPR surveys to detect a stone-lined
waterway in a Nara-period town, which was mapped and confirmed through excavation.
Imai and others conducting early archaeological work using geophysical methods set the stage for further analyses and refinements of methods. This early paper on GPR prospecting in an archaeological context illustrates the utility and purpose of future research into this field of study.
Share with your friends: