In this thesis I conducted ground penetrating radar (GPR) and ground conductivity meter (GCM) surveys to detect the presence of simulated clandestine burials at the Amsterdam Research Initiative for Subsurface Taphonomy and Anthropology (ARISTA) test facility, and determine their characteristic response in this environment; providing valuable insights and recommendations for forensic investigations. I performed four days of GPR and GCM surveys over three simulated clandestine burials at ARISTA. I collected common-offset GPR data to investigate changes to burial detectability due to different central antenna frequencies (250 MHz and 500 MHz), different GPR instruments (NOGGIN or pulseEKKO), changes to survey grid orientation relative to burials, and increased soil moisture content in the survey area. Additionally, I acquired common-source GPR data to examine the efficacy of electromagnetic interferometry (EI) and adaptive subtraction (AS) methods in improving burial detectability. I conducted GCM surveys with two coil configurations, (horizontal co-planar (HCP) and vertical co-planar (VCP)), three intercoil spacings (0.32 m, 0.71 m, 1.18 m), two different line spacings (0.5 m, 0.25 m) and in the presence of variable soil moisture content. I also performed low induction number (LIN) correction and elevation correction procedures on GCM data to determine the extent to which these influence the detectability of clandestine burials in this environment.
In common-offset radargrams characteristic burial anomalies take on many forms, appearing as disruptions to existing features (direct-wave arrivals and soil horizons) and as isolated reflection events (hyperbolic events and burial length horizontal anomalies). In timeslices, burials are characterized by high or low amplitude rectangular anomalies. When used in conjunction, radargrams and timeslices produced characteristic responses regardless of survey grid orientation, consistent with the locations of the burials. Increased soil moisture at the site improved the detectability of burials and the 250 MHz antenna was found to be superior to the 500 MHz antenna in obtaining a characteristic burial response, though both were successful to a large extent. EI and AS processing techniques were successful in removing direct-wave contributions in radargrams, though detectability was not significantly improved when compared to raw data. Overall, the three burials were detected using GPR to various extents, and in future work thorough historical data in addition to zero-measurements should be obtained for all burials in order to investigate the source of these differences. GCM surveys conducted in this work were largely unsuccessful in detecting simulated clandestine burials due to significant conductive noise sources (metal fence, sensors, etc.) and the limited conductivity contrast in the soil. Low conductivity zones were detected over some burials using HCP at an intercoil spacing of 1.18 m, however, confidence in the validity of these responses is low due to the dominating noise sources.