1887
Volume 13 Number 6
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

Non‐destructive geophysical prospecting methods are increasingly used for the investigation of archaeological sites, where a detailed physical and geometrical reconstruction of structures is required prior to any excavation work. In 1996, at the Archaeological Test Site of the Sabine Necropolis at Research Area of National Research Council of Rome (Montelibretti, Italy), a small area had been selected to test the integration of magnetic, ground‐penetrating radar, and electrical resistivity tomography techniques.

The magnetic data were acquired as the vertical gradient of the total magnetic field and were inverted by minimizing an L‐2 norm. The ground‐penetrating radar data were acquired as single‐offset measurements on a regular grid and processed to obtain time slices of reflection amplitude. The electrical resistivity tomography data were acquired with dipole–dipole array along parallel profiles in both east–west and north–south directions.

In this work, we reprocessed the data collected in 1996 performing a three‐dimensional inversion of electrical resistivity tomography data using ground‐penetrating radar data and three‐dimensional inversion results of the magnetic data. We inverted electrical resistivity tomography data according to L2 and L1 norm minimization. Both the mean apparent resistivity and different resistivity distributions derived from processed ground‐penetrating radar and three‐dimensional inversion of the vertical gradient of the total magnetic field data were used as a starting model.

The results were then compared in the volume under the surveyed area: merits and shortcomings of the different techniques are pointed out and analyzed.

From the results of the different applied techniques, it comes that both electrical resistivity tomography and vertical gradient of the total magnetic field locate the searched tomb as a volume, whereas ground‐penetrating radar mainly identified the ceiling of the tomb. Vertical gradient of the total magnetic field data inversion obtained from minimization of the L2 norm properly locates both the chamber and the corridor but produces smeared overestimated volumes. Three‐dimensional inversions of electrical resistivity tomography data with information give an accurate picture of the chamber and delineates the corridor, even if the resistivity values are underestimated if compared with the expected resistivity of void. Results are compared with the archaeological findings as the area was unearthed and verified in 2001.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015046
2015-07-01
2020-06-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. BhattacharyyaB.K.1964. Magnetic anomalies due to prism‐shaped bodies with arbitrary magnetization.Geophysics29, 517–531.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BernabiniM., BrizzolariE. and PiroS.1988. Improvement of signal‐to‐noise ratio in resistivity profiles.Geophysical Prospecting36, 559–570.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BrizzolariE., ErmolliF., OrlandoL., PiroS. and VersinoL.1992. Integrated geophysical methods in archaeological surveys.Journal of Applied Geophysics29, 47–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BorsicA. and AdlerA.2012. A primal–dual interior‐point framework for using the L1 norm or the L2‐norm on the data and regularization terms of inverse problems.Inverse Problems28 (9), 095011.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BozzoE., LombardoS., MerlantiF. and PavanM.1994. Integrated geophysical investigations at an Etrurian Settlement in Northern Appennines (Italy).Archaeological Prospection1(1), 19–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. CamerlynckC., DabasM. and PanissodC.1994. Comparison between GPR and four electromagnetic methods for stone features characterization: an example.Archaeological Prospection1, 5–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. CammaranoF., MaurielloP. and PiroS.1997. High‐resolution geophysical prospecting with integrated methods. The Ancient Acropolis of Veio (Rome, Italy).Archaeological Prospection4, 157–164.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. CampanaS. and PiroS.2009. Seeing the Unseen. Geophysics and Landscape Archaeology, pp. 325–330. Taylor and Francis Group, London, ISBN 978‐0‐41544721‐8.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. CardarelliE., FischangerF. and PiroS.2008. Integrated geophysical survey to detect buried structures for archaeological prospecting. A case‐history at Sabine Necropolis (Rome, Italy).Near Surface Geophysics6(1), 15–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. CiminaleM., BeckerH. and GalloD.2007. Integrated technologies for archaeological investigations; the Celone Valley project.Archaeological Prospection14 (3), 167–181.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. DiamantiN.G., TsokasG.N., TsourlosP.I. and VafidisA.2005. Integrated Interpretation of geophysical data in the archaeological site of Europos (Northern Greece).Archaeological Prospection12(2), 79–91.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. EppelbaumL.V.2014. Geophysical observations at archaeological sites: estimating informational content.Archaeological Prospection21, 125–138.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. GaffneyC. and GaffneyV.2000. Non invasive investigations at Wroxeter at the end of Twentieth Century.Archaeological Prospection7(2), 65–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. GaffneyV., PattersonH., PiroS., GoodmanD. and NishimuraY.2004. Multimethodological approach to study and characterise Forum Novum (Vescovio, Central Italy).Archaeological Prospection11(4), 201–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. GodioA. and PiroS.2005. Integrated data processing for archaeological magnetic surveys.The Leading Edge24(11), 1138–1144.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KvammeK.L.2006. Integrating Multidimensional geophysical data.Archaeological Prospection13(1), 57–72.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MalagodiS., OrlandoL., PiroS. and RossoF.1996. Location of archaeological structures using GPR method: three‐dimensional data acquisition and radar signal processing.Archaeological Prospection3, 13–23.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. NeubauerW. and Eder‐HinterleitnerA.1997. Resistivity and magnetics of the Roman Town Carnuntum, Austria. An example of combined interpretation of prospection data.Archaeological Prospection4, 179–189.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. LiY. and OldenburgD.W.1996. 3‐D inversion of magnetic data. Geophysics61, 394–408.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PapadopoulosN.G., TsourlosP.I., TsokasG.N. and SarrisA.2007. Efficient ERT measuring and inversion strategies for 3D imaging of buried antiquities.Near Surface Geophysics5, 349–361.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. PiroS., CammaranoF. and MaurielloP.2000. Quantitative integration of geophysical methods for archaeological prospection. Archaeological Prospection7(4), 203–213.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. PiroS. and GabrielliR.2009. Multimethodological approach to investigate chamber tombs in the Sabine Necropolis at Colle del Forno (CNR, Rome, Italy).Archaeological Prospection16 (2), 111–124.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. PiroS., SambuelliL., GodioA. and TaorminaR.2007. Beyond image analysis in processing archaeomagnetic geophysical data: examples on chamber tombs with dromos.Near Surface Geophysics Journal5(6), 405–414.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. PiroS., SamirA. and VersinoL.1998. Position and spatial orientation of magnetic bodies from archaeological magnetic surveys.Annali di Geofisica41, 343–358.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. PiroS. and SantoroP.2001. Analisi del territorio di Colle del Forno (Montelibretti, Roma) e Scavo nella necropoli sabina arcaica. Orizzonti – Rassegna di Archeologia2, 197–212.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. PiroS., TsourlosP. and TsokasG.N.2001. Cavity detection employing advanced geophysical techniques: a case study.European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics6, 3–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. SambuelliL., SoccoL.V. and BrecciaroliL.1999. Acquisition and processing of electric, magnetic and GPR data on a Roman site – Victimulae, Salussola, Biella.Journal of Applied Geophysics41, 189–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. SambuelliL. and StrobbiaC.2002. The Buffon’s needle problem and the design of a geophysical survey.Geophysical Prospecting50, 403–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. TsokasG.N. and HamsenO.2000. On the use of complex attribute and the inferred source parameter estimates in the exploration of archaeological sites.Archaeological Prospection7(1), 17–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. TsokasG.N. and TsourlosP.1997. Transformation of the resistivity anomalies from archaeological sites by inversion filtering. Geophysics62(1), 36–43.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. TsourlosP.I. and TsokasG.N.2011. Non‐destructive electrical resistivity tomography survey at the South walls of the Acropolis of Athens.Archaeological Prospection18(3), 173–186.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. WalkerA.R.2000. Multiplexed resistivity survey at the Roman town of Wroxeter.Archaeological Prospection7, 119–132.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015046
Loading
/content/journals/10.3997/1873-0604.2015046
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