1887
Volume 9 Number 5
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

At the archaeological site of Bertseko, Lavrion, Greece, the entrance of an ancient tunnel was found during archaeological excavations. Approximately 15 m from the entrance the tunnel remains inaccessible – blocked with filled material. The main aim of the geophysical survey was to verify if the tunnel is unblocked after that point and to delineate its direction. Another objective was to understand the purpose of its construction. As a first detection approach, eight 2D resistivity profiles were carried out with a pole‐pole array in a non rectangular grid, in order to image a wider area, a greater depth and to avoid several surface obstacles. Then the most promising area was outlined and selected for analysis with 3D resistivity tomography using parallel survey lines with a pole‐dipole array. Moreover, the microgravity method was used, for better resolution and verification of resistivity results. This study has shown that the influence of 3D effects in resistivity arrays, the choice of the 3D or 2D (pseudo‐3D) inversion approach, the position and the direction of the target in respect to the 2D profiles or 3D survey grid, are crucial factors that significantly affect the accuracy of the resistivity method in tunnel detection. Moreover, the design of the microgravity measurements, based on results of other geophysical methods, permits a flexible survey with a moderate acquisition time. If the geological environment is not complex, inversion of microgravity data is feasible and can be very useful, as it offers depth information about the target and can be directly comparative with resistivity models. The reconnaissance 2D resistivity survey was an important step for the optimized application of 3D resistivity and microgravity methods. The integrated results provided answers to archaeologist’s questions, delineating the direction of the tunnel with minimum ambiguity and showing that the ancient tunnel was not constructed to connect the two ancient tanks but is part of an ancient underground mine.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2011024
2018-12-18
2019-12-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. ApostolopoulosG., OrfanosC., AmolochitisG., LeontarakisK. and StamatakiS.2005. Resistivity arrays in the detection of buried bodies.4th Congress of the Balkan Geophysical Society, Bucharest, Romania, Expanded Abstracts, O10‐05.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BensonR., KaufmannR., YuhrL. and HopkinsR.2003. Locating and characterizing abandoned mines using microgravity.Geophysical Technologies For Detecting Underground Coal Mine Voids Forum, 28–30 July, Lexington, Kentucky, USA, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BranstonM.W. and StylesP.2006. Site characterization and assessment using the microgravity technique: A case history. Near Surface Geophysics4, 377–385.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. ButlerD.K.1980. Microgravimetric techniques for geotechnical applications. Miscellaneous Paper GL‐80‐13.US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. ButlerD.K.1984. Microgravimetric and gravity gradient techniques for detection of subsurface cavities. Geophysics49, 1084–1096.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. ChambersJ., OgilvyR., KurasO., CrippsJ. and MeldrumP.2002. 3D electrical imaging of known targets at a controlled environmental test site. Environmental Geology41, 690–704.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DahlinT. and BernstoneC.1997. A roll‐along technique for 3D resistivity data acquisition with multi‐electrode arrays.Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP ’97), Reno, Nevada, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 927–935.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DahlinT., BernstoneC. and LokeM.H.2002. A 3‐D resistivity investigation of a contaminated site at Lerbacken, Sweden. Geophysics67, 1692–1700.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. DahlinT., WisénR. and ZhangD.2007. 3D effects on 2D resistivity imaging – Modelling and field surveying results.13th Near Surface meeting, Istanbul, Turkey, Expanded Abstracts, A15.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. DahlinT. and ZhouB.2004. A numerical comparison of 2D resistivity imaging with 10 electrodes arrays. Geophysical Prospecting52, 379–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. DebegliaN., BitriA. and ThierryP.2006. Karst investigations using microgravity and MASW application to Orléans, France. Near Surface Geophysics4, 215–225.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DobrinM. and SavitC.1988. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting,4th edn. McGraw‐Hill.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. EloS.2006. Progress and problems in near surface gravity.12th Near Surface meeting, Helsinki, Finland, Expanded Abstracts, P014.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. EzerskyM., BrunerI., KeydarS., TrachtmanP. and RybakovM.2006. Integrated study of the sinkhole development site on the Western shores of the Dead Sea using geophysical methods. Near Surface Geophysics4, 335–343.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HinzeW.J.1990. The role of gravity and magnetic methods in engineering and environmental studies. In: Geotechnical and Environmental Geophysics: Investigations in Geophysics, No. 5, Vol. 1 (ed. S.H.Ward ), pp. 75–126. SEG.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. JohanssonB., Jones.S., DahlinT. and FlyhammarP.2007. Comparisons of 2D‐ and 3D‐ inverted resistivity data as well as of resistivity‐ and IP‐surveys on a landfill.13th Near Surface meeting, Istanbul, Turkey, Expanded Abstracts, P42.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. JohnsonW.J.2003. Case histories of DC resistivity measurements to map shallow coal mine workings. The Leading Edge22, 571–573.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. KaufmannR.D. and DeHanR.S.2007. Microgravity mapping of karst conduits within the Woodville Karst Plain of North Florida.Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP ’07), Denver, Colorado, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 1517–1526.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. KimJ., SongY., SeolS. and KimK.2007. Application of geophysical methods to the safety analysis of an Earth dam. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics12, 221–235.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. KisL. and SzaboZ.2005. Microgravimetric investigations for shallow depth cavity detection.11th Near Surface meeting, Palermo, Italy, Expanded Abstracts, P025.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. KonofagosK.1980. The Ancient Lavrio and the Technique of the Silver Production. Publishing of Greece S.A. (in Greek).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1998. 3‐D inversion of gravity data. Geophysics63, 109–119.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. LokeM.H.1999. Electrical imaging surveys for environmental and engineering studies: A practical guide to 2‐D and 3‐D surveys. Report GeoTomo LLC, Penang, Malaysia.
  24. LokeM.H.2003. Tutorial: 2‐D and 3‐D electrical imaging surveys. (www.geoelectrical.com).
  25. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. McDonaldR. and DaviesR.2003. Integrated geophysical surveys applied to karstic studies. First Break21, 32–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. McDowellP.W.2002. Geophysics in Engineering Investigations.Geological Society Publishing House.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. NabighianM., AnderM., GrauchV., HansenR., LaFehrR., Li1Y., PearsonW., PeirceW., PhillipsJ. and RuderM.2005. Historical development of the gravity method in exploration. Geophysics70, 63–89.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. OrfanosC., ApostolopoulosG., AmolochitisG. and LeontarakisK.2008. Integrated geophysical approach for the detection of underground voids in a construction site.70th EAGE meeting, Rome, Italy, Expanded Abstracts, P097.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. PirttijärviM.2009. GRABLOX2 : Gravity interpretation and modeling software based on 3‐D block models. User’s guide to version 2.0. Department of Physics, University of Oulu.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. PirttijärviM. and EloS.2006. Constrained inversion of gravity data. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Finland1, 124.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. SeigelH.O.1995. High Precision Gravity Survey Guide.Scintrex Ltd.
  33. SheetsR.1997. Use of electrical resistivity to detect underground mine voids in Ohio.US Geological Survey Water‐Resources Investigations Report 02–4041.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. StylesP., ToonS., ThomasE. and SkittrallM.2006. Microgravity as a tool for the detection, characterization and prediction of geohazards posed by abandoned mining cavities. First Break24, 51–60.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. TelfordW.M., GeldartL.P., SheriffR.E. and KeysD.A.1976. Applied Geophysics.Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. TorreseP., RainoneM. and SignaniniP.2008. Integrated approach using body waves, surface waves and gravimetric prospections for solving an urban geology problem: The Abbadia San Salvatore Case (Siena, Italy).Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP ’08), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 973–987.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. TsaimouG.C.2003. A first evaluation of the excavation of ancient washeries at Bertseko Laureotica.4th Symposium on Archaeometry, Athens, Greece, Expanded Abstracts.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. TsourlosP.2004. Inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data deriving from 3D structures. Bulletin of Geological Survey of Greece. Proceedings of the 10th International Congress, Thessaloniki, Greece, Expanded Abstracts, 1289–1297.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. YangX. and LagmansonM.2006. Comparison of 2D and 3D electrical resistivity imaging methods. Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems (SAGEEP ’06), Seattle, Washington, USA, Expanded Abstracts, 585–594.
  40. YuleD.E., SharpM.K. and ButlerD.K.1997. Microgravity investigations of foundation conditions. Geophysics63, 95–103.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2011024
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2011024
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
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