FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / Sensors (Basel) / Assessing the Influence of Buried Archaeology on Equine Loco...
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)2020; 20(10); doi: 10.3390/s20102938

Assessing the Influence of Buried Archaeology on Equine Locomotion Comparison with Ground Penetrating Radar Results.

Abstract: The aim of this trial project was to identify whether buried archaeological remains may have an influence on equine locomotion, through comparison with a non-invasive Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey. This study was conducted at the world-renowned Burghley Horse Trials site, near Stamford, City of Peterborough, U.K. that has a diverse range of heritage assets throughout the wider park land centred on the Grade 1 listed Elizabethan Burghley House. The initial aim of the research was to first use geophysical survey to identify and characterise archaeological remains, and then to determine a suitable location to conduct an equine locomotion study. This trial was conducted with five event type horses with their gaits recorded through the use of three axis, wireless, Inertial Measurement Units, and high speed video capture. It was hoped that this study might indicate an association between the presence of well preserved archaeological remains and changes in the gait of the horses, similar to those shown by studies of dressage horses over different riding surfaces. The results from the equine locomotion study did demonstrate a correlation between the presence of surviving archaeological remains and the alteration in the horses' gait and, although this is only a preliminary study, the results may well be of interest during the design and construction of equine event facilities. Geophysical survey could, for example, be considered during the design of new or alteration to existing equine courses to allow some mitigation in the location of the course with respect to any archaeological remains, or through the appropriate use of a protective artificial surface.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2020-05-22 PubMed ID: 32455930PubMed Central: PMC7287740DOI: 10.3390/s20102938Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

The research study seeks to understand whether buried archaeological remains have an impact on horse movement by comparing data from a Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) survey. Conducted at the Burghley Horse Trials site in U.K, the project compared equine locomotion on areas with and without archaeological remains and found a correlation.

Research Methodology

  • The researchers first used a geophysical survey to identify and characterise archaeological remains within the Burghley Horse Trials site. This non-invasive survey was conducted using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR).
  • Following this, they selected an appropriate location, based on the survey results, to carry out an equine locomotion study.
  • Five event type horses were selected for the trial. During testing, the gaits of these horses were recorded using three-axis, wireless Inertial Measurement Units, and high-speed video capture.

Expected Outcomes and Hypothesis

  • The study hypothesised that it might find a correlation between well-preserved archaeological remains and changes in the horses’ gait, similar to previous studies that showed gait differences in dressage horses over different riding surfaces.

Results of the Research

  • The results confirmed the hypothesis, showing a correlation between the presence of archaeological remains and changes in the horses’ gait. This change may suggest that the surface structure, affected by underlying artefacts, can impact horse movement.

Implications and Applications of the Study

  • Although preliminary, the findings may be of interest for the design and construction of equestrian facilities. If confirmed by further studies, the presence of archaeological remains could influence where courses are built or how they are modified.
  • A geophysical survey could be conducted during the design of new, or alterations to existing equine courses. This could help with appropriate site selection or inform the use of protective artificial surfaces for enhanced equine safety and performance.

Cite This Article

APA
Linford N, MacKechnie-Guire R, Cassar M. (2020). Assessing the Influence of Buried Archaeology on Equine Locomotion Comparison with Ground Penetrating Radar Results. Sensors (Basel), 20(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/s20102938

Publication

Sensors (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 1424-8220
NlmUniqueID: 101204366
Country: Switzerland
Language: English
Volume: 20
Issue: 10

Researcher Affiliations

Linford, Neil
  • Historic England, Portsmouth PO4 9LD, UK.
MacKechnie-Guire, Russell
  • Centaur Biomechanics, Moreton Morrell CV35 9BB, UK.
Cassar, May
  • Institute for Sustainable Heritage, Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Sustainable Resources, University College London, London WC1H 0NN, UK.

Grant Funding

  • Internal Grant May Cassar / Bartlett Innovation Fund, Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, University College London

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

This article includes 17 references
  1. Murray R, Walters J, Snart H, Dyson S, Parkin T. How do features of dressage arenas influence training surface properties which are potentially associated with lameness?. Vet. J. 2010;186:172–179.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2010.04.026pubmed: 20888276google scholar: lookup
  2. Murray R, Walters J, Snart H, Dyson S, Parkin T. Identification of risk factors for lameness in dressage horses. Vet. J. 2010;184:27–36.
    doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.020pubmed: 19369100google scholar: lookup
  3. Northrop AJ, Hobbs SJ, Holt D, Clayton-Smith E, Martin JH. Spatial Variation of the Physical and Biomechanical Properties Within an Equestrian Arena Surface. Procedia Eng. 2016;147:866–871.
    doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.288google scholar: lookup
  4. Hobbs SJ, Northrop AJ, Mahaffey C, Martin JH, Murray R, Roepstorff L, Peterson M. Equine Surfaces White Paper. Fédération Equestre Internationale; Lausanne, Switzerland: 2014.
  5. Willmott A, Dapena J. The planarity of the stickface motion in the field hockey hit. J. Sports Sci. 2012;30:369–377.
    doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.642807pubmed: 22221186google scholar: lookup
  6. Linford N, Linford P, Martin L, Payne A. Stepped-frequency GPR survey with a multi-element array antenna: Results from field application on archaeological sites. Arch. Prosp. 2010;17:187–198.
    doi: 10.1002/arp.382google scholar: lookup
  7. Trinks I, Hinterleitner A, Neubauer W, Nau E, Löcker K, Wallner M, Gabler M, Filzwieser R, Wilding J, Schiel H. Large-area high-resolution ground-penetrating radar measurements for archaeological prospection. Archaeol. Prospect. 2018;25:171–195.
    doi: 10.1002/arp.1599google scholar: lookup
  8. Eide E, Linford N, Persico R, Sala J. Advanced SFCW GPR systems. In: Persico R., Piro S., Linford N., editors. Innovation in Near-Surface Geophysics Instrumentation, Application, and Data Processing Methods. Elsevier; Amsterdam, The Netherlands: 2018. pp. 253–285.
  9. Sala J, Linford N. Processing stepped frequency continuous wave GPR systems to obtain maximum value from archaeological data sets. Near Surf. Geophys. 2012;10:3–10.
    doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2011046google scholar: lookup
  10. Orr SA. Remains of St Michael’s Priory, Burghley Park, Ground Penetrating Radar Report. School of Geography and the Environment, University of Oxford; Oxford, UK: 2017.
  11. Linford N. Burghley Park, St. Martin’s Without, City of Peterborough, Report on Geophysical Survey, April 2018. Historic England; Swindon, UK: 2018. (Historic England Research Reports Series).
  12. Barrey E, Landjerit B, Walter R. Shock and vibration during hoof impact on different surfaces. Equine Exerc. Physiol. 1191;3:97–106.
  13. Burn JF, Usmar SJ. Hoof landing velocity is related to track surface properties in trotting horses. Equine Comp. Exerc. Physiol. 2005;2:37–41.
  14. Chateau H, Deugueurce C, Jerbi H, Creview-Denoix N, Pourcelt P, Audigie F, Pasqui-Boutard V, Denoix JM. Normal three-dimensional behaviour of the metacarpophalangeal joint and the effect of uneven foot bearing. Equine Vet. J. Suppl. 2001;33:84–88.
    doi: 10.1111/j.2042-3306.2001.tb05366.xpubmed: 11721577google scholar: lookup
  15. Persico R. Introduction to Ground Penetrating Radar: Inverse Scattering and Data Processing. 1st ed. Wiley; Chichester, UK: 2014.
  16. Grandjean G, Durand H. Radar Unix: A complete package for GPR data processing. Comput. Geosci. 1999;25:141–149.
    doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(98)00113-7google scholar: lookup
  17. Daniels JD. Ground Penetrating Radar. 2nd ed. The Institution of Engineering and Technology; London, UK: 2007.

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,357 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.