Advertisement

Integrated Geophysical Techniques for Archaeological Remains: Real Cases and Full Scale Laboratory Example

  • E. Rizzo
  • L. Capozzoli
Chapter
Part of the Natural Science in Archaeology book series (ARCHAEOLOGY)

Abstract

The increasing interest in preserving of the archaeological sites requires the integration of a wide spectra of geophysical methodologies for field measurements. In fact, archaeological investigations need multidisciplinary studies to characterize the physical properties of near-surface. In this context, the integration of electromagnetic techniques seems to be one of the most suitable tools. The most suitable geophysical investigation techniques employed for archaeological purposes are the geomagnetic, GPR and resistivity/conductivity (DC and EM) methods. These techniques are not invasive and allow us to obtain high resolution images of subsurface, even if their use is dependent on site and resolution. In general, geomagnetic and EM methods are more adaptive for large survey, in order to obtain fast results with low resolution. On the contrary, GPR shows high resolution information, but for the heavy data process is adapt for small survey areas. The DC methods are not common then the previous ones, but their contribute is important above all in urban area. Anyway, the integration of different geophysical techniques is the best way for field measurements to identify the remains, because each geophysical technique has the ability to define a variation of the physical parameters (electrical conductivity, magnetic susceptibility, dielectric permittivity) which is able to highlight some pattern of the buried object. This kind of approach was applied in several archaeological site. Moreover, the geophysical contrast between archaeological features and surrounding soils sometimes are difficult to define due to problems of sensitivity and resolution related on the subsoil characteristics and limits of geophysical methods. The results obtained in real and laboratory study cases based on archaeogeophysical approach are here discussed.

References

  1. Bavusi M, Giocoli A, Rizzo E, Lapenna V (2009) Geophysical characterisation of Carlo’s V Castle (Crotone, Italy). J Appl Geophys 67(4):386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Capozzoli L, Caputi A, De Martino G, Giampaolo V, Luongo R, Perciante F, Rizzo E (2015) Electrical and electromagnetic techniques applied to an archaeological framework reconstructed in laboratory, Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar (IWAGPR), 2015 8th International Workshop on Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar, IEEE, 7–10 July 2015 FirenzeGoogle Scholar
  3. Chianese D, D’Emilio M, Di Salvia S, Lapenna V, Ragosta M, Rizzo E (2004) Magnetic mapping, ground penetrating radar surveys and magnetic susceptibility measurements for the study of the archaeological site of Serra di Vaglio (Southern Italy). J Archaeol Sci 31:633–643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chianese D, Lapenna V, Di Salvia S, Perrone A, Rizzo E (2010) Joint geophysical measurements to investigate the Rossano of Vaglio archaeological site (Basilicata Region, Southern Italy). J Archaeol Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.021
  5. Drahor MG, Berge MA, Öztürk C (2011) Integrated geophysical surveys for the subsurface mapping of buried structures under and surrounding of the Agios Voukolos Church in İzmir, Turkey. J Archaeol Sci 38:2231–2242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lasaponara R, Masini N, Rizzo E, Orefici G (2011) New discoveries in the Piramide Naranjada in Cahuachi (Peru) using satellite, Ground Probing Radar and magnetic investigations. J Archaeol Sci 38(9):2031–2039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Leucci G, Masini N, Rizzo E, Capozzoli L, De Martino G, De Giorgi L, Marzo C, Roubis D, Sogliani F (2015) Integrated archaeogeophysical approach for the study of a medieval monastic settlement in Basilicata. Open Archaeol 1(1):236–246.  https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2015-0014. ISSN (Online) 2300–6560. Nov 2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nieto X, Revil A, Morhange C, Vivar G, Rizzo E, Angelo X (2005) La fachada marittima de Ampurias: estudios geoficos Y datos arqueologicos. Empuries 54(2005):71–100Google Scholar
  9. Osella A, Martinelli P, Grunhut V, de la Vega M, Bonomo N, Weissel M (2015) Electrical imaging for localizing historical tunnels at an urban environment. J Geophys Eng 12(2015):674–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Papadopoulos N, Sarris A, Yi M-J, Kim J-H (2009) Urban archaeological investigations using surface 3D ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography methods. Explor Geophys 40:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Passaro S (2010) Marine electrical resistivity tomography for shipwreck detection in very shallow water: a case study from Agropoli (Salerno, Southern Italy). J Archaeol Sci 37(8):1989–1998.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2010.03.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Piro S (2009) Introduction to geophysics for archaeology. In: Campana, Piro (eds) Seeing the unseen. Geophysics and landscape archaeology. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, OxonGoogle Scholar
  13. Rizzo E, Chianese D, Lapenna V (2005) Integration of magnetometric, GPR and geoelectric measurements applied to the archaeological site of Viggiano (Southern Italy, Agri Valley-Basilicata). Near Surf Geophys 3:13–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rizzo E, Masini N, Lasaponara R, Orefici G (2010) ArchaeoGeophysical methods in the Templo del Escalonado (Cahuachi, Nasca, Perù). Near Surf Geophys 8(5. Oct 2010):433–439.  https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.2010030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rizzo E, Lasaponara R, Capozzoli L, De Martino G, Luongo R, Masini N, Leucci G, Persico R, De Siena A (2014) Non invasive techniques on the detection of buried archaeological structures at Timmari archaeological site (Matera, Italy). Geophys Res Abstracts 16. EGU General Assembly 2014Google Scholar
  16. Simyrdanis K, Papadopoulos N, Kim J-H, Tsourlos P, Moffat I (2015) Archaeological investigations in the shallow seawater environment with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surf Geophys 13:601–611Google Scholar
  17. Tosti F, Patriarca C, Slob E, Benedetto A, Lambot S (2013) Clay content evaluation in soils through GPR signal processing. J Appl Geophys 97(2013):69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CNR-IMAA, C.da s.LojaTitoItaly

Personalised recommendations