Peer Reviewed Articles that I am proud of and think have some merit today
2022: Ground-penetrating Radar. In Allan S. Gilbert. Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology: Springer Reference Series, Heidelberg, New York, London. A basic “where we are today” article on GPR that can look at geological complexity
2020: Karst features interpretation using ground-penetrating radar: A case study from the Sierra de Atapuerca, Spain: Authors in order: Lucía Bermejo, Ana Isabel Ortega, Josep M. Parés, Isidoro Campaña, José María Bermúdez de Castro, Eudald Carbonell,Geomorphology 367 (2020) This is a fun analysis of using GPR for mapping void spaces in Neanderthal caves in Spain. We use this dataset in the Workshop to study voids with GPR and map volumes of voids and also correct for velocity “pull-ups”.
2019: Creating and renewing identity and value through the use of non-invasive archaeological methods: Mapoon unmarked graves, potential burial mounds and cemeteries project, western Cape York peninsula, Queensland with Mary-Jean Sutton, Simon Pearce, Emma St. Pierre and Diane Nicholls Pitt. Archaeology in Oceania, Vol. 00 (2019): 1–11. DOI: 10.1002/arco.5205 Here we put together all the work we did in northern Australia with ancient and modern graves. The integration of GPR and magnetics is given more time in one of the other articles by Emma and me
2019: with Mary-Jean Sutton and Emma St Pierre, E. Dissecting and Interpreting a Three-Dimensional Ground-Penetrating Radar Dataset: An Example from Northern Australia. Sensors, 19(5), pp. 12-39. doi.org/10.3390 I have tried to show how detailed profile analysis can be used to interpret complex geological and archaeological problems
2018: with Emma St. Pierre, Mary-Jean Sutton and Chester Walker. Integration of GPR and magnetics to study the interior features and history of earth mounds, Mapoon, Queensland, Australia. Archaeological Prospection, v. 1, pp. 1-10. DOI 10.1002/arp. more on the GPR and magnetic integration in Australia to study the burial mounds. I tried to show my Australian friends that these techniques can move the study of these unusual mounds quickly and non-destructively to some understanding of their age and human behavior. It is unclear 5 years later if I made an impression on my “Down Under” friends. I did more than publish these articles that few people read, but also gave many public talks and presentations at the AAA national conference in Dec. 2019 on these results. No one has invited me back, but Covid got in the way, as with much in our lives from 2019-23.
2013: (with J. Michael Daniels, Jonathan A. Haws and Michael M. Benedetti): An Upper Palaeolithic Landscape Analysis of Coastal Portugal Using Ground-penetrating Radar. Archaeological Prospection, v. 20, pp. 45-51. This was a project that we came up with after sitting in a cafe at the beach, after many beers and a fish lunch. As with so much of science, the results were much more exciting than expected. I use this dataset in the Workshop to show what can be done with 2-D profiles to produce 3-D images of the buried paleo-topography.
2012: Advances in ground-penetrating radar exploration in southern Arizona. Journal of Arizona Archaeology, Vol. 22, pp. 80-91. This was my attempt to show archaeologists in the Southwest USA that GPR had great utility. I am not sure I succeeded at this, as the CRM people continue to excavate sites with bulldozer, as this is still the preferred method. Perhaps over time more GPR work can be done here. I know of friends and colleagues who have made progress in this area of the world, and I wish them the best. I presented these and other results at a State-wide conference in 2013 and the only comment I got from anyone was “very entertaining”. Has our world really gone toward entertainment in place of real science these days?
2010: Geophysical archaeology research agendas for the future: Some ground-penetrating radar examples. (with Juerg Leckebusch) Archaeological Prospection, V. 17, pp. 117-123 There was a time that I thought I could convince people to use geophysics for something other than just “finding things”. This was an attempt to do that, and I have continued to make the case whenever I can. It has mostly been a losing battle, especially in Europe, where geophysics is done by geophysics professionals, and getting to think about anthropology, history or human culture is like pulling teeth. I think I made some temporary enemies when I was editor of AP by demanding that authors try to conclude something interesting with their results. This was mostly a failure.
2010: Ground-penetrating radar for anthropological research. Antiquity, v. 84, n. 323, pp 175-184. As part of this same Quoxitic quest to show that interesting things can be concluded with GPR other than finding things, I published this in one of the premier international archaeology journals. I have often cited it, but not sure if anyone else has. I was also up for promotion to Full Professor in an Anthropology and needed to make a case that all my work with GPR was doing something anthropological. That apperently worked with my colleagues in Denver.
Here is a huge data-dump of everything else I have written (at least that I can find) since 1995. I know that no one will look at all these book chapters, articles in the popular press and book reviews and such, but perhaps this can be a historical record of GPR and other writings?