ABSTRACT
Firstly, it is necessary to stress the very clear difference in the map between the amorphous concentrations provided by the fi eld-walking surface-collection data and the integrated results of the remote sensing techniques (Plate 30 and Fig. 1). The integration of the various techniques enriches the resulting information both quantitavely and qualitatively. Plate 30 clearly shows how the comparison between the various methods makes it possible in some cases to distinguish the same features while at the same time to recognize elements that are not necessarily revealed by the other survey techniques. In these cases the inherently different characteristics of the various techniques produce a quantitative enrichment in the representation of the buried evidence as seen in the composite map (Plate 30). It is important to appreciate that where the anomalies seem to match one another the ‘redundancy’ between the different sources of information is more apparent than real. The integration of the magnetic, ERT and GPR methods makes it possible to acquire information on the geometrical pattern, depth and even some of the chemical or physical properties of the buried features, though no single technique reveals all of these characteristics.
