Douglas D. Anderson
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Douglas D. Anderson has a total of 7 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Andrew H. Tremayne
U.S. National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Anchorage, AK 99501, USA
1 shared publication- Christopher B. Wolff
Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, Albany, NY 12222, USA
1 shared publication Claire Alix
Histoire de l'Art et Archéologie, Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne University, Paris 75005, France
1 shared publication- Jeffrey T. Rasic
US National Park Service, Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, Fairbanks, USA
1 shared publication - Owen K. Mason
Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado
1 shared publication - Sturt W. Manning
Department of Classics, Cornell Institute of Archaeology and Material Studies, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 9 December 2016
- Published by MDPI AG in Remote Sensing
- Vol. 8 (12) , 1007
Frozen: The Potential and Pitfalls of Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology in the Alaskan Arctic
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) offers many advantages for assessing archaeological potential in frozen and partially frozen contexts in high latitude and alpine regions. These settings pose several challenges for GPR, including extreme velocity changes at the interface of frozen and active layers, cryogenic patterns resulting in anomalies that can easily be mistaken for cultural features, and the difficulty in accessing sites and deploying equipment in remote settings. In this study we discuss some of these challenges while highlighting the potential for this method by describing recent successful investigations with GPR in the region. We draw on cases from Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Kobuk Valley National Park, and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. The sites required small aircraft accessibility with light equipment loads and minimal personnel. The substrates we investigate include coastal saturated active layer over permafrost, interior well-drained active layer over permafrost, a frozen thermo-karst lake, and an alpine ice patch. These examples demonstrate that GPR is effective at mapping semi-subterranean house remains in several contexts, including houses with no surface manifestation. GPR is also shown to be effective at mapping anomalies from the skeletal remains of a late Pleistocene mammoth frozen in ice. The potential for using GPR in ice and snow patch archaeology, an area of increasing interest with global environmental change exposing new material each year, is also demonstrated.
- 9 December 2016
- Published by MDPI AG in Remote Sensing
- Vol. 8 (12) , 1007
Open AccessFrozen: The Potential and Pitfalls of Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology in the Alaskan Arctic
Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) offers many advantages for assessing archaeological potential in frozen and partially frozen contexts in high latitude and alpine regions. These settings pose several challenges for GPR, including extreme velocity changes at the interface of frozen and active layers, cryogenic patterns resulting in anomalies that can easily be mistaken for cultural features, and the difficulty in accessing sites and deploying equipment in remote settings. In this study we discuss some of these challenges while highlighting the potential for this method by describing recent successful investigations with GPR in the region. We draw on cases from Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, Kobuk Valley National Park, and Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. The sites required small aircraft accessibility with light equipment loads and minimal personnel. The substrates we investigate include coastal saturated active layer over permafrost, interior well-drained active layer over permafrost, a frozen thermo-karst lake, and an alpine ice patch. These examples demonstrate that GPR is effective at mapping semi-subterranean house remains in several contexts, including houses with no surface manifestation. GPR is also shown to be effective at mapping anomalies from the skeletal remains of a late Pleistocene mammoth frozen in ice. The potential for using GPR in ice and snow patch archaeology, an area of increasing interest with global environmental change exposing new material each year, is also demonstrated.