Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

On the Comparison Between Magnetic and Electromagnetic Prospection Methods for Magnetic Features Detection

Bibliographic Data

ID8354035
AuthorsAlain Tabbagh (0000-0001-7858-8359, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, corresponding author)
Year1984
Volume26
Issue2
Pages171-182
Publication date1984-08-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueArchaeometry (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0003-813X • E-ISSN: 1475-4754
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1475-4754.1984.tb00331.x
OpenAlexW2092390054
LanguageEN
Citations received10
References cited4

A comparison is made using a 3D model between the response of the magnetic prospection (M.) response and the electromagnetic (E.M.) prospection one for the same feature. From this comparison the investigation depth of both methods is discussed. Three other main points are then studied: the influence of the shape of the feature and of the primary field, the significance of the measurements and the influence of parasites. Contrary to some preceding studies, the conclusion points out that the E.M. method is very valuable and more interesting to develop than the M. method

Archaeology · Feature (linguistics) · Geography · Prospection · Geology · Geophysical and Geoelectrical Methods · Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Welding Techniques and Residual Stresses

  • Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying

    Open Access•John W Weymouth•Advances in Archaeological Method…•1986

  • Solving archaeological problems using techniques of soil magnetism

    Open Access•Rinita A Dalan, Subir K Banerjee•Geoarchaeology•1998

  • Evaluating the multiple coil configurations of the EM38DD and Dualem‐21S sensors to detect archaeological anomalies

    Open Access•David Simpson, Marc Van Meirvenne et al.•Archaeological Prospection•2009

  • Magnetic signal prospecting using multiparameter measurements

    Open Access•Marie Pétronille, Julien Thiesson et al.•Archaeological Prospection•2010

  • Comparing Apparent Magnetic Susceptibility Measurements of a Multi‐receiver EMI Sensor with Topsoil and Profile Magnetic Susceptibility Data over Weak Magnetic Anomalies

    Open Access•Philippe De Smedt, Timothy Saey et al.•Archaeological Prospection•2013

  • Geoarchaeological prospection of a medieval manor in the dutch polders using an electromagnetic induction sensor in combination with soil augerings

    Open Access•David Simpson, Alexander Lehouck et al.•Geoarchaeology•2008

  • Magnetometer prospecting in historical archaeology

    Stephen Silliman, Stephen H Silliman et al.•Historical Archaeology•2000

  • Integrated geophysical studies at ancient Itanos (Greece)

    Open Access•A Vafidis, Nikos Economou et al.•Journal of Archaeological Science•2005

  • A Comparison Between Magnetic and Electromagnetic Prospection of a Neolithic Ring Ditch in Bavaria

    Open Access•Alain Tabbagh, Gilles Bossuet et al.•Archaeometry•1988

  • What Is the Best Coil Orientation in the Slingram Electromagnetic Prospecting Method

    Open Access•Alain Tabbagh•Archaeometry•1986

  • Magnetic Susceptibility of the Soil and Its Significance in Soil Science – A Review

    Open Access•C E MULLINS•Journal of Soil Science•1977

  • Electromagnetic Prospecting on Archaeological Sites Using a Soil Conductivity Meter

    Open Access•M S Tite, Christopher Mullins•Archaeometry•1970

Citations per year0.25
Citation span1986 - 2013 (28)
Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae