Premium
GPR investigation in different archaeological sites in Tuscany (Italy). Analysis and comparison of the obtained results
Author(s) -
Piro S.,
Campana S.
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
near surface geophysics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.639
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1873-0604
pISSN - 1569-4445
DOI - 10.3997/1873-0604.2011047
Subject(s) - ground penetrating radar , prospection , excavation , geology , archaeology , geophysical survey , electrical resistivity tomography , remote sensing , geoarchaeology , site analysis , regional geology , radar , hydrogeology , geography , geophysics , geotechnical engineering , telecommunications , engineering , metamorphic petrology , computer science , electrical engineering , electrical resistivity and conductivity
A Ground‐penetrating Radar (GPR) survey can enhance the quantity and quality of information when applied to archaeological prospection. The potential of the GPR method lies both in its relevance to a wide range of site conditions and the complementary nature of the data in comparison with other geophysical methods. The areas described in this paper were ‘detected’ by the Laboratory for Landscape Archaeology and Remote Sensing of University of Siena, during aerial prospection between 2001–2005. Analysis of the aerial photographs allowed interpretation of the Aiali, Castellina and Pava sites, province of Grosseto and Siena (Tuscany, Central Italy). These sites are related to quite a limited chronological range between late Roman and the early mediaeval period. All sites were studied through a multimethodological project based on the integration of field‐walking and digital global position system (DGPS) surveys combined with different geophysical investigations such as: differential magnetics, ground penetrating radar (GPR) and automatic resistivity profiler (ARP). This paper demonstrates the effectiveness of GPR over the indicated sites characterized by differences in the soil condition and hypothesized archaeological features. With this method a high‐resolution data acquisition was adopted with the aim of reconstructing the location, depth and shape of the archaeological structures in the selected areas. Signal processing and the time‐slice representation technique were used for the analysis of the collected data. Archaeological excavations and interpretations were then conducted systematically after completing the geophysical surveys (from 2006–2009), which confirmed the location and shape of most of the individualized structures. The obtained results demonstrate the accuracy with which GPR data can be matched to excavation data and the improvement in target definition.