Abstract

Geophysical exploration of archaeological sites has been a successful tool becoming more and more popular in the last decades. Many archaeological features can be detected with magnetic gradiometry (MGR), such as fire places, burned loam, metal artifacts, or other remnants, which produce a remanent magnetic signal detectable on the surface. However, as magnetic minerals are also present in natural settings, e.g. sedimentary and magmatic rocks and sediments derived from these host rocks, the MGR signal from archaeological artifacts is often embedded in a broader geomorphological signal, which makes separation of the different sources difficult. We provide geophysical data from two complex archaeological sites in northern Germany, which have been obtained with different methods, e.g. magnetic gradiometry (MGR), electrical resistivity tomography (ERT), electro-magnetic mapping (EM), and ground-penetrating radar (GPR). The combination of geophysical methods maps different material properties of both the geomorphological and the archaeological sources. We then use the three-dimensional modeling tool PREDICTOR to analyze the sources for the geophysical signals, e.g. the dominant signal in Leimbach, resulting from infill of palaeo-channels in the settlement area, and fire places as well as shafts in the hill fort of Lossow. The model prediction enables us to quantify the structures in the sub-surface and therefore helps to unravel complex situations often present in archaeological excavations.

Highlights

  • Geophysical prospection has improved the search for archaeological structures significantly over the last decades

  • We apply our numerical model PREDICTOR to the magnetic gradiometry (MGR) data from the two sites Leimbach and Lossow, as both sites are characterized by a complicated MGR signal, with contributions from different sources

  • We have investigated two archaeological sites in Northern Germany with geophysical methods and direct observations

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Geophysical prospection has improved the search for archaeological structures significantly over the last decades. The reason for the success of geophysical surveys is the difference in material properties between the archaeological target and the surrounding material. Loam contains iron oxides such as magnetite (Fe3O4), hematite (α-Fe2O3) and goethite (αFe3+O(OH)) as well as carbonates such as siderite (Fe[CO3]). The magnetite is a strong ferri-magnetic material, which originates either from oxidation of iron (Fe2+) (Oldfield, 1992) or from magnetotactic bacteria (Fassbinder et al, 1990; Fassbinder, 2007), and can be detected with MGR surveys. The iron oxides and carbonates, when heated, can chemically react to form maghemite (γ-Fe2O3), e.g. from oxidation of magnetite, from heating of siderite, or from heating in the presence of organic material from goethite. The use of a location as fire site can cause the alteration to maghemite

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call