Comparison between GPR and four electromagnetic methods for stone features characterization: an example.

1. Verfasser: Camerlynck, Christian
Weitere Verfasser: Panissod, Cedric
Dabas, Michel.
Ort/Verlag/Jahr: University of Bradford, Dept. of Archaeological Sciences, 1994.
Umfang/Format: 5-17 : Abb.
Schlagworte:
Enthalten in: Archaeological Prospection, 1,1 (1994)
LEADER 01028aas a2200289 u 4500
001 001246592
005 20220713114021.0
008 120411s1994 ||||||||| |00||0|||||u
003 DE-2553
035 |a 453243 
091 |a rgkcov2011 
100 1 |a Camerlynck, Christian 
245 1 0 |a Comparison between GPR and four electromagnetic methods for stone features characterization: an example. 
260 |b University of Bradford, Dept. of Archaeological Sciences,  |c 1994. 
300 |a 5-17 :  |b Abb. 
590 |a argk 
700 1 |a Panissod, Cedric 
700 1 |a Dabas, Michel.  |9 3186 
773 0 |w 001162323  |t Archaeological Prospection, 1,1 (1994) 
942 |c AN 
650 |a Geoelektrik  |2 yRGKMethAusgrProspGeophGeoel  |9 269057 
650 |a Georadar  |2 yRGKMethAusgrProspGeophGeora  |9 268992 
650 |a Geomagnetik  |2 yRGKMethAusgrProspGeophGeoma  |9 268990 
040 |a DE-2553  |c DE-2553 
999 |c 975891  |d 975891 
953 |b DAIO  |z Automatically added holding branch key. 
953 |b DAIF  |z Automatically added holding branch key.