=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Integrated Geophysical Study of Archaeological Sites
in the Aquileia Area
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-806/paper4.pdf
|volume=Vol-806
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aquileia/FortePS11
}}
==Integrated Geophysical Study of Archaeological Sites
in the Aquileia Area==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-806/paper4.pdf
E-1
Integrated Geophysical Study of Archaeological Sites
in the Aquileia Area
Emanuele Forte1 , Michele Pipan1 , and Monica Sugan2
1
Department of Geosciences, University of Trieste, via Weiss, 1, 34128 Trieste, Italy,
pipan@units.it
WWW home page: http://www.geoscienze.units.it/
2
Istituto Nazionale di Oceanografia e Geofisica Sperimentale, Borgo Grotta Gigante, Trieste,
Italy
Abstract. Integrated remote sensing and geophysical methods can provide de-
tailed information about buried cultural heritage. We implemented an integrated
survey protocol (IREGA, Integrated REmote-sensing and Geophysical prospect-
ing for Archaeology) and tested the performance of the method in the area of
the ancient Roman town of Aquileia, NE Italy, to define and characterize micro-
areas of archaeological interest starting from macro-area observations. We used
electromagnetic (GPR; ground-penetrating radar), magnetic and remote sens-
ing (MIVIS; Multispectral Infrared and Visible Imaging Spectrometer) to im-
age and characterize buried targets of potential archaeological interest in the
depth range between 100 and 350 cm. We identified various geometrically co-
herent anomalies, possibly related to subsurface structures, through MIVIS data
processing and found them in good agreement with the elements reported in
the Aquileia archaeological map obtained from documentary evidence and ex-
cavations performed in the last century. Ultra High Resolution (UHR) Multi-
Fold (MF) Ground-penetrating Radar (GPR) and magnetic surveys confirmed the
MIVIS results and allowed imaging and mapping of buried structure related to
different Roman remains (SE sector of the Circus, harbor and residential build-
ings foundations, roads).
Keywords: Geophysics, Archaeology, Ground-penetrating Radar, Magnetome-
try, Remote Sensing
1 Introduction
The research of buried archaeological structures requires a detailed knowledge of the
shallow subsurface and a methodological approach designed to define areas of maxi-
mum interest where surface data collection and successive excavation should be planned.
The definition of macro-areas can take advantage of remotely-sensed data or Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) characterized by metric spatial horizontal resolution and milli-
metric spatial vertical resolution respectively (e.g. Barnes, 2003; Flower J.F.M., 2002),
while detailed studies require the use of Ultra-High-Resolution (UHR) non-invasive
geophysical methods to define the geometry and depth of the identified targets (e.g.
Pipan et al.,1999a; Lück et al., 2003). The Aquileia Archaeological Park (NE-Italy) is
E-2 E.Forte, M.Pipan, M.Sugan
an ideal site to test the integration of methods, due to the variety of targets and subsur-
face conditions and to the large amount of documentary evidences and archaeological
excavations, that can be used in the calibration of results.
Aquileia is a Roman archeological site covered by alluvial sediments and charac-
terized by a shallow water table (Arnaud-Fassetta et al.,2003). It was founded in the
second century B.C. and rapidly became one of the most important fluvial harbors of
the Roman Empire (Tavano, 1986). Since 1998 is in the UNESCO Register of World
Heritage.
During the last ten years, we have been collecting a large amount of UHR geophys-
ical datasets to identify archaeological structures buried in the area. Several studies (see
Del Ben et al., 1995; Finetti et al., 1995a/b; Forte et al., 2006; Pipan et al., 1996a/b/c/d,
1997a/b, 1999a/b/c/d, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007; Prizzon, 2003) give evidence of the
extension and characteristics of the buried cultural heritage and provide detailed infor-
mation about subsurface conditions, which complement the results of archaeological
excavations and the available documents. In this study, we focus on the integration of
advanced methods (MIVIS, multi-fold GPR, magnetic gradiometry, electrical resistiv-
ity tomography) to provide new information about the buried cultural heritage in the
Aquileia area, with specific reference to the areas of the Circus, the Forum, the river
harbor and the remains of a building in the outskirts of the imperial town (Fig.1).
AQUILEIA
Fig. 1. Location map of the archaeological sites surveyed in the Aquileia area [from the Technical
Regional Map (CTNR, 2003)].
Integrated Geophysical Study... E-3
2 Methods
The proposed methodological integration (IREGA) for the non-invasive study of ar-
chaeological sites is based on the analysis of the following data: MIVIS, magnetic and
GPR. At selected locations, Electrical Resistivity Tomography is also included, for an
integrated analysis of the electric properties of the buried materials. The MIVIS sys-
tem has 4 optical ports with 102 spectral bands - ranging from 0.431 to 12.7 µm and a
spatial resolution about 3.0 m/pixel with a fly height of 1500 meters above sea level.Its
effectiveness in archaeological prospecting depends on the characteristics of both the
landscape and the buried structures. In fact, archaeological buried objects can influ-
ence soil moisture and temperature, growth and health of the vegetation with anomalies
marked out by different brightness (related to reflectance and temperature pixel value)
and peculiar geometric shape.
0m 50m
0m
w1 w2
w3
TWT [ns]
h1
A 5.4m
MAGNETIC
Anomaly [nT]
10
d1
d2 0
w4
w5
-10
B
Fig. 2. Example of integrated geophysical surveys at site 6 (see Fig.1): A) GPR 200MHz stack
section with magnetic data superimposed (in yellow); B) interpreted magnetic map. w1, w2 and
w3: buried foundations remains; h1: contact between soil layers; dn : large dipolar magnetic
anomalies due to shallow metallic materials; w4, w5: anomalies related to archaeological targets.
E-4 E.Forte, M.Pipan, M.Sugan
DISTANCE [m]
0.0 14.0
0.0m
0.8m
DEPTH [m] 1.6m
2.4m
3.2m
wt
A B
Fig. 3. GPR survey at site 5 (see Fig.1; northern limit of the actual cemetery): A) example of
processed multi-fold 200MHz GPR profile; C) Excavation trench: yellow = road section revealed
by GPR data; azure = stone block at the margin of the road; wt = water table.
The magnetic method measures variations of the Earth’s magnetic field. It is an
effective technique in archaeological prospecting to detect variations of magnetic sus-
ceptibility due to the presence of buried objects. Single-sensor and multi-sensor gra-
diometer measurements can be performed to detect magnetic anomalies due to buried
archaeological remains (e.g., Becker and Fassbinder, 2001).
The term Ground-Penetrating Radar refers to a family of Ultra-Wide Band devices
that use electromagnetic (EM) waves in the frequency range between approximately 10
MHz and 6 GHz to image and characterize the subsurface (see Daniels, 2004). Varia-
tions in EM properties of the subsurface materials affect wave propagation: they may
produce diffraction, reflection and refraction phenomena and modify velocity and at-
tenuation of EM waves. Penetration of such waves into the subsurface is influenced by
frequency and by the electrical properties of the materials: in particular, it is reduced
by increments of frequency and conductivity with a non-linear relation (from approxi-
mately 1 m in wet clay up to tens and hundreds of meters in dry sand and ice). 200-500
MHz antennas normally provide a suitable trade-off between resolution and penetration
in the average soil conditions of archaeological sites in alluvial plains (e.g. Pipan et
al.,1999).
MIVIS digital images were provided by Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia. We show
here the results obtained from the analysis of thermal Infrared bands (93 to 102), whose
temperature pixel values in o C were calculated with linear interpolation between refer-
enced values of two black bodies. Ground pixel size corresponds to 3.0 meters.MIVIS
data processing encompassed radiometric correction by means of principal component
(PC) method, bad bands removal and geometric correction. Magnetic surveys were per-
formed with a cesium magnetic gradiometer (SMARTMAG model SM-4), with a sen-
sitivity of 0.01 nT and an operating range from 15000 to 100000 nT. Measurements
were performed with two sensor located at 30 and 130 cm above ground level on NS
Integrated Geophysical Study... E-5
A B
Scale [°C] Magnetic
anomaly [nT]
0 - 8.6
8.6 - 12.7
12.7 - 14.3
-
14.3 - 15.1
15.1- 15.9
15.9 - 16.8 25 m
16.8 - 17.4 100 m +
17.4 - 32.8
Fig. 4. Aquileia circus: comparison between (A) MIVIS digital image, band 98 (thermal infrared),
density slice visualization and (B) magnetic anomaly map obtained from Scintrex caesium mag-
netometer (2x10 cm in-line/cross-line spatial sampling).
oriented grids.. A low-pass filtering 3x3 matrix was applied to remove incoherent noise
and enhance magnetic anomalies.
Magnetic and GPR data were both acquired on grids with 2 cm - 25 cm inline -
crossline sampling interval. A MalåGeoscience GPR system equipped with 250 MHz
central-frequency antennas was used to acquire single- and multi-fold (average 1200%
fold) data. Minimum and maximum offset were set according to preliminary tests and
range between 40 and 240 cm. The basic GPR processing sequence included Wavelet
Transform based de-wow, background removal, amplitude analysis and corrections,
spectral analysis, time-varying band pass filter and predictive deconvolution with op-
erator length = 30 ns and prediction distance = 4 ns. The instantaneous attributes (am-
plitude, phase and frequency) of the radar trace were calculated by Wavelet Transform
techniques (Guangyou and Pipan, 2003), which proved less sensitive to noise and al-
lowed a detailed reconstruction of the archaeological features. Electrical Resistivity
Tomography (ERT) was performed at selected sites with a multi-electrode (16) sys-
tem, Wenner-Schlumberger array, maximum 48 m AB-offset. The data were inverted
by using the Loke algorithm (Loke and Barker, 1996).
E-6 E.Forte, M.Pipan, M.Sugan
3 Results
Examples of complementary (GPR and magnetic) and individual (GPR) results are
given in Figs.2,3,7. Figs.4,5,6 show the outcome of the integration of different tech-
niques: MIVIS, magnetic, GPR, ERT.
GPR and magnetic data frequently provide mutually consistent results, but in some
cases they give complementary information. Fig.2 shows a comparison between GPR
and magnetic data from site 6 (see Fig.1): the yellow line superimposed on GPR data in
Fig.2A is the variation of the magnetic field measured along the GPR profile. W1,2,3
are the locations of buried wall/foundation remains that can be interpreted on the GPR
data but do not show a clear signature on the magnetic record (W3). W4,5 in Fig.2B
are small variations (in the range of ±10nT from average magnetic field) that exhibit
geometric coherence and are actually related to buried brickwork.
At the N limit of the cemetery of Aquileia, a large 3-D multifold GPR dataset provides
a detailed subsurface reconstruction. Fig.3 shows an example of a highly elusive target,
namely an unpaved road close to the walls of the imperial town, imaged by GPR. In this
case, the contrast in petrophysical properties – porosity, fluid content – is given by the
different compaction of sediments of the road compared to the surrounding materials.
An example of integration of remote sensing (MIVIS) and geophysical (magnetic)
surveys is shown in Fig.4. Thermal infrared band 98 (Fig.4A: arrows and dotted line)
shows a clear anomaly characterized by homogeneous temperature values lower than
the surrounding ones. The anomaly shows a good correlation with the position of the
roman circus tentatively reported on the Aquileia archaeological map (inset between
Figs.4A and 4B). The filtered magnetic map (Fig.4B) shows an excellent correlation
with the position of the roman circus as reported on the archaeological map, and with
the thermal infrared data. Nonetheless, MIVIS and magnetic data do not convey in-
formation about the third dimension, i.e. the depth and vertical cross-sections of the
anomalies are unknown. Such information is given by the GPR record in Figs.5A,C.
Targets a, b, c in the B-scan (Fig.5A) can be interpreted as buried remains within, at
the edge and outside the roman circus, respectively. The agreement with the magnetic
data is apparent and further confirmed by the comparison between the GPR time-slice
(Fig.5C) and the magnetic map (Fig.5B).
In front of the excavated sector of the Roman Forum, a large unexplored field has
been used to test the integration of GPR and ERT (Fig.6). The GPR B-scan (Fig.6B)
and the ERT section (Fig.6C) are in good agreement and give evidence of a bulky sector
characterized by higher resistivity and low attenuation of the EM wave. Such charac-
teristics are consistent with materials normally found in buried walls/foundations. A
complete map of the surveyed area with the integrated interpretation of GPR and ERT
data is shown in Fig.6C. The interpreted subsurface targets exhibit orientation coinci-
dent with the exposed remains excavated in the nearby Forum area. The highest resolu-
tion attainable by non-invasive methods is illustrated by the multi-fold 3-D GPR results
shown in Fig.7. Slices of the processed data volume (Fig.7A) or of the attribute volumes
that can be calculated from the processed data (e.g. Fig.7B) give clear evidence of hor-
izontal and vertical distribution of the targets. The interpretation superimposed on the
GPR data (Fig.7C) and the final results, combined with the archaeological map of the
neighboring site (Fig.7D) illustrate the horizontal and vertical distribution of targets.
Integrated Geophysical Study... E-7
DISTANCE [m]
0 0.0 GPR Profile 4 47.0
20 b 0.8
c
Depth [m]
TWT [ns]
40 a 1.6
60 2.4
80 3.2
A
100 4.0
GPR
Amplitude
± 30000
± 15000
GPR Profile 4
0 25m
B
MAGNETIC
anomaly [nT]
47450
47430
47410
47390
47370
47350
47330
GPR Profile 4
47310
47290
25m
47270 C
47250
Fig. 5. The Aquileia circus, example of integrated GPR and magnetic data: A) GPR 200MHz
profile; B) magnetic map; C) GPR amplitude depth slice (1m below the topographic surface). a)
diffractions due to small objects within the circus; b) circus steps and border; c) small structure
outside from the circus. The azure dotted line shows the external limit of the circus.
4 Conclusions
The tests performed in the Aquileia area indicate that the integration of different geo-
physical methods and the combination with remote sensing data analysis allow detailed
and cost effective identification of targets of potential archaeological interest in large
areas. MIVIS data allow the identification of areas of potential archaeological interest
at macro-scale. Such information is obtained from the anomalies related to soil mois-
ture and temperature. Ultra-High Resolution magnetic gradiometry and multi-fold GPR,
with dense spatial sampling (i.e. average 5/25 cm in/cross-line respectively) are succes-
sively required to image and characterize targets before excavation. Areal geometry of
the buried structures can be obtained by an integration of MIVIS, magnetic and GPR.
Depth of the targets can only be obtained from GPR data, with accuracy depending on
E-8 E.Forte, M.Pipan, M.Sugan
N 80 a 150cm
150 a 250cm
>250cm
Variable depth
or superimposed
structures
Aquileia
Roman
forum
SURVEY
AREA
A
DISTANCE [m]
0.0 16.0
40cm
80cm
DEPTH [m]
120cm
a1 160cm
200cm
240cm
B 280cm
a1
DISTANCE [m]
0.0 16.0
150cm
DEPTH [m]
a1 GPR
and ERT
profiles
shown on
250cm B) and C)
D
ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY [Ohmxm]
C 0m 10m
Fig. 6. The Aquileia roman forum: example of integrated GPR and resistivity study: A) Location
map; B) GPR 200MHz multi-fold profile; C) Electrical resistivity: tomographic section (ERT); D)
Map of the interpreted targets. Target a1 is clearly identified on both the GPR and ERT sections
(see the text for details).
A B
Amplitude Coherence
1
1000
500 0.75
0 0.50
-500 0.25
-1000
0
GPR profiles
C Archaeological
Archaeological structures D
Excavations Time range 0-150cm
Time range 150-230cm
Time range 230-300cm
Time range 300-500cm
20 m
N
52.5 m
Fig. 7. The Aquileia river harbor: comparison between A) amplitude timeslice and B) coher-
ence attribute calculated for the same position; C) Final interpretation of the 3D data volume.
D) Comparison between geophysical results and map of archaeological remains from previous
archaeological excavations next to the geophysical survey area.
the depth of the target. In the present study, targets in the depth range between 80 and
250 cm were identified with absolute uncertainty ± 5 cm. Electrical resistivity tomog-
Integrated Geophysical Study... E-9
raphy can further help in the characterization of physical properties of the materials,
since higher resistivities are normally correlated with stone, brickwork and foundation
remains.
In this work, we studied four sites of potential interest. The largest structures re-
vealed by the geophysical survey are the buried remains of the Circus, which exhibit
a clear signature in all of the datasets (MIVIS, Magnetic, GPR; Figs. 4 and 5)). The
analysis of 3-D GPR datasets allows the identification of further targets, which are be-
low the resolution threshold of remote sensing methods. This is the case of the buried
foundations and remains of walls in the forum and harbor areas (Figs. 6 and 7). Buried
remains characterized by low contrast in physical properties (see e.g. the compact soil
corresponding to the road, Fig.3, are also revealed by 3-D multi-fold GPR due to the
high S/N ratio of the final images and the high sensitivity of the method to minor vari-
ations in water content. In some cases (e.g., site 6, Fig.2) magnetic and GPR data can
provide complementary information and help in the identification of highly elusive tar-
gets.
Future developments should benefit from the integration of the proposed methods
with high resolution topographic surveys of the areas of interest by means of airborne
laserscan.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the BAAAS Superintendency of
Friuli Venezia Giulia. They also thank Regione Friuli Venezia Giulia for permission of
using MIVIS data of Aquileia and dr. L.Bertacchi for the permission of reproducing
the archaeological map of Aquileia. The study was supported by the European contract
MICCS and the Italian Foreign Office contract NICCOS.
E-10 E.Forte, M.Pipan, M.Sugan
References
1. Arnaud-Fassetta G., Bandelli A., Bresson V., Carre M.B., Manzoni G., Marocco R., Maselli
Scotti F., Montenegro M.E., Morhange C., Pipan M., Prizzon A., Pugliese N., Sichè I., Zac-
caria C.: The site of Aquileia (North-eastern Italy): example of fluvial geoarchaeology applied
to paleohydrographical and paleohydrological reconstructions in a Mediterranean coastal plan
(preliminary results), Revue du Groupe Français de Géomorphologie (2003)
2. Barnes I.: Aerial Remote-Sensing Techniques used in the Management of Archaeological
Monuments on the British Army’s Salisbury Plan Training Area, Wiltshire, UK, Archaeolog-
ical Prospection 10: 8390 (2003)
3. Becker H., Fassbinder J.W.E.: Magnetic prospecting in archaeological sites, Monuments and
Sites VI, ed. ICOMOS, ISBN 3-87490-675-2 (2001)
4. CTNR: Regional technical numerical map, Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, element ’Aquileia’,
n. 109010, Aggiornamento generale (2003)
5. Daniels D.: Ground-penetrating radar. - 2nd ed., ed. IEE Radar, Sonar, Navigation and Avion-
ics series 15, ISBN 0 86341360 9 (2004)
6. Del Ben A., Finetti I. and Pipan M.: Multifold GPR exploration: a new highly resolutive
method to discover buried cultural heritages. Exemplifying results and perspectives; Proceed-
ings of the 1st International Congress on ”Science and Technology for the safeguard of Cul-
tural Heritage in the Mediterranean Basin”, 339-342 (1995)
7. Finetti I., Galuppo P., Geletti R. and Pipan M.: Multifold Advanced GPR Exploration Tech-
niques: A Case History from The Aquileia Archaeological Park; 57th EAGE Conference,
Extended Abstracts, paper C006 (1995a)
8. Finetti I., Pipan M. and Candotti G.: Multifold GPR investigation of the Aquileia archaeolog-
ical park; Proceedings EEGS, 316-319 (1995b)
9. Flower J.F.M.: Satellite Remote Sensing and Archaeology: a Comparative study of Satellite
Imagery of the Environs of Figsbury Ring, Wiltshire, Archaeological Prospection, 9, 55-69
(2002)
10. Forte E., Dal Moro G., Gabrielli P., Pipan M., Sugan M.: Tecniche GPR (Ground Pene-
trating Radar) a copertura multipla per le prospezioni archeologiche, XII Giornata di Studio
sull’Ingegneria delle microonde: Le microonde per la qualitá della vita, Rome (2006)
11. Guangyou F., Pipan M.: Synthetic and Field Examples of GPR profile improvement using
two Phase Detection Techniques, Geophysics 68: 2, 1-5 (2003)
12. Loke M.H., Barker R.D.: Rapid least-squares inversion of apparent resistivitypseudosections
using a quasi-Newton method, Geophysical Prospecting, 44, 131-152 (1996)
13. Lück E., Callmer J., Skånberg T.: The House of the Bailiff of Sövestad, Sweden - a Multi-
method Geophysical Case Study, Archaeological Prospection 10: 143151 (2003)
14. Pipan M., Finetti I. and Ferigo F.: Multi-fold GPR techniques with applications to High-
Resolution studies: two case histories. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering
Geophysics, 1, 1, 83-103 (1996a)
15. Pipan M., Finetti I., Del Ben A. and Ferigo F.: Recent advances in the multifold and 3D GPR
exploration of the Aquileia archaeological park (Italy); 58th EAGE Conference, Extended
Abstracts, paper M020 (1996b)
16. Pipan M., Finetti I., Ferigo F. and Carcione J.M.: Multifold GPR techniques for the explo-
ration of archaeological sites: SEG annual meeting, Extended abstracts, 794-796 (1996c)
17. Pipan M., Finetti I. and Ferigo F.: Analysis of the performance of multifold GPR in the UHR
investigation of shallow subsurface targets; Proceedings EEGS, 372-374 (1996d)
18. Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A.: 3-D Processing and interpretation of multi-fold
Ground Penetrating Radar data: a case history from an archaeological site, 1st International
Workshop Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic methods applied to cultural heritage, Os-
tuni, Italy (1997a)
Integrated Geophysical Study... E-11
19. Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A.: Indagini GPR 2-D e 3-D a copertura multipla
in siti archeologici,16th GNGTS Conference, Rome, Italy, (1997b)
20. Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A., Finetti I.: 2-D and 3-D processing and inter-
pretation of multi-fold Ground Penetrating Radar data: a case history from an archaeological
site, Journal of Applied Geophysics, ISSN: 0926-9851, Vol. 41 / 2-3, 271-292 (1999a)
21. Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A., Finetti I.: Integrated multi-fold GPR and mag-
netic gradiometry study of an archaeological site in Northern Italy, 61st EAGE Conference,
234-238 (1999b)
22. Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A., Finetti I.: Multi-fold GPR and magnetic gra-
diometry for the ultra high resolution (UHR) study archaeological sites, proceedings of 2nd
international congress on science and technology for the safeguard of cultural heritage in the
Mediterranean Basin, Paris (1999c)
23. Pipan M., Baradello L., Forte E., Prizzon A., Finetti I.: Analisi di velocitá ed attributi is-
tantanei su dati radar a copertura multipla, 18th GNGTS Conference, 178-179, Rome, Italy,
(1999d).
24. Pipan M., Forte E., Finetti I.: Integrated geophysical techniques for high resolution archaeo-
logical studies, Geophysical Research Abstract, vol.5, ISSN: 1029-7006, 13023 (2003)
25. Pipan M., Sugan M., Forte E., Dal Moro G., Gabrielli P., and Finetti I.: An integrated Remote-
Sensing and Geophysical system for archaeological prospecting (IREGA), 66th EAGE Con-
ference, Extended Abstracts (2004)
26. Pipan M., Forte E., Sugan M., Dal Moro G., Gabrielli P. and Finetti I.: Integrated geophysi-
cal methods for the high-resolution study and characterization of low-contrast archaeological
targets, Proc. 6th Int. Conf. on Archaeological Prospection, Rome, Italy, 91-94 (2005)
27. Pipan M. and Forte E.: Integrated geophysical techniques for the high-resolution study of
archaeological sites, Proc. VII Int. Conf. on Science, Art and Culture, Science for Cultural
Heritage, Veli Losinj, Croatia (2007)
28. Prizzon A., Forte E., Pipan M., I. R. Finetti: Indagini geofisiche integrate nell’area del porto
fluviale di Aquileia, Aquileia Nostra, anno LXXIV, 589-61(2003)
29. Tavano S.: Aquileia e Grado- storia, arte e cultura, Ed. LINT, Trieste (1986)