1887
Volume 6 Number 1
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In the last few years, the location and characterization of buried historical objects is a task that generally lends itself to geophysics, thanks to the improvement of automatically measuring geophysical systems and the development of specific software for inversion problems. Furthermore, the integration of different methods permits an interpretation in which potential misunderstandings and the uncertainty of results can be reduced. The aim of the present work was to detect buried structures in an unexplored area of a Sabine Necropolis (700‐300 B.C.) located in the area of the National Research Council (at Montelibretti, Rome). During the survey, three different geophysical techniques have been employed; fluxgate gradiometry, Electrical Resistivity Tomography and Ground‐Penetrating Radar. The results are compared, integrated and interpreted indicating location of unknown buried tombs.

An additional objective of this study consisted of testing new finite element modelling routines that have been integrated into the inversion algorithm developed by the authors in the past years, and, to compare the 2D inversion results with the ones achieved with the 3D Finite element inversion software ERTLab.

Finally, the interpreted geophysical results have been verified through archaeological direct excavation in 2005, which have confirmed the location, dimensions and shape of the buried structure (tomb).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2007027
2007-08-01
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BeckerH.1995. From nanotesla to picotesla. A new window for magnetic prospecting in archaeology. Archaeological Prospection2, 217–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BrizzolariE., CardarelliE., FerociM., PiroS. and VersinoL.1992. Magnetic survey in the Selinunte Archaeological Park. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica ed Applicata34, 157–168.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. CammaranoF., MaurielloP., PatellaD., PiroS., RossoF. And VersinoL.1998. Integration of high resolution geophysical methods. Detection of shallow depth bodies of archaeological interest. Annali di Geofisica41, 359–368.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. CardarelliE. and FischangerF.2006. 2D data modelling by electrical resistivity tomography for complex sub‐surface geology. Geophysical Prospecting54, 121–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. CardarelliE., Di FilippoG. and TuccinardiE.2006. Electrical resistivity tomography to detect buried cavities in Rome: a case study. Near Surface Geophysics4, 387–392.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CardarelliE.2002. Geoelectric survey by ERT to investigate marble ruins at the roman forum, Rome, Italy. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics7, 219–228.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. ConyersL.B. and GoodmanD.1997. Ground‐Penetrating Radar: An introduction for Archaeologists. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek, CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. GoodmanD., NishimuraY. and RogersJ.D.1995. GPR time slices in archaeological prospection. Archaeological Prospection2, 85–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. MalagodiS., OrlandoL., PiroS. and RossoF.1996. Location of archaeological structures using GPR method. 3D data acquisition and radar signal processing. Archaeological Prospection3, 13–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. NeubauerW.2004. GIS in Archaeology. The interface between Prospection and Excavation. Archaeological Prospection11, 159–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. PiroS., SamirA. and VersinoL.1998. Position and spatial orientation of magnetic bodies from archaeological magnetic surveys. Annali di Geofisica41, 343–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. PiroS., TsourlosP. and TsokasG.N.2001a. Cavity detection employing advanced geophysical techniques: a case study. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics6, 3–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. PiroS. and SantoroP.2001b. Analisi del territorio di Colle del Forno (Montelibretti, Roma) e scavo nella necropoli sabina arcaica. Orizzonti – Rassegna di Archeologia2, 197–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. PiroS., GoodmanD. and NishimuraY.2003. The study and characterisation of Emperor Traiano’s Villa (Altopiani di Arcinazzo – Roma) using high‐resolution integrated geophysical surveys. Archaeological Prospection10, 1–25.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. PolymenakosL., PapamarinopoulosS., LiossisA. and Koukouli‐ChryssanthakiCh.2004. Investigation of a monumental Macedonia Tumulus by three‐dimensional seismic tomography. Archaeological Prospection11, 145–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. SasakiY.1992. Resolution of resistivity tomography inferred from numerical simulation. Geophysical Prospecting40, 453–463.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. TsourlosP.I., SzymanskizJ.E. and TsokasG.N.1999. The effect of terrain topography on commonly used resistivity arrays. Geophysics64, 1357–1363.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. TsokasG.N., PapazachosC.B., VafidisA., LoukoyiannakisM.Z., VargemezisG. and TzimeasK.1995. The detection of monumental tombs buried in tumuli by seismic refraction. Geophysics60, 1735–1742.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. WynnJ.C. (1986). Archaeological prospection: An introduction to the special issue. Geophysics51, 533–537.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2007027
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2007027
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error