In this paper we present the so-called standardized pricking probe surveying technique and demonstrate its usefulness in an archaeological study. The buried target is a Paleochristian sepulchral chapel, which had already been excavated 82 years ago, then re-buried and forgotten.
By applying this technique, it was possible to locate the buried remnants of the chapel in a large field, in spite of the dense undergrowth, where classical geophysical methods could have hardly been applied. When the area was mopped-up, a detailed and systematic pricking probe surveying was carried out. The pricking-probe results have been compared to geoelectric, magnetic and georadar mapping results. The standardized pricking probe images, at least in this field experiment, proved to be competitive to the geophysical maps.
The optimum pricking probe parameters such as horizontal interval, pricking depth, observable quantity and the way of presentation were optimized through field experiments. For a detailed investigation a rectangular grid with an interval of 50 cm (i.e. a grid interval, corresponding to the wall thickness) is recommended, while for reconnaissance measurements a two times larger horizontal interval (1 m in this case) proved to be sufficient. In this case study the optimum pricking depth was 20–30 cm; in general it depends on the burial depth of the investigated object. For the presentation of the results a suitable running average of a two-valued observable quantity is defined.
The merits of the standardized pricking probe technique are as follows: its field procedure and data processing are simple, it is cheap and relatively quick; it does not need any electronic instrument, therefore there are no investment costs and there is no risk of technical failures; the technique can be applied even among the most unfavourable field conditions like e.g. bad weather, extreme topography, dense undergrowth, etc.; At the same time, the standardized pricking probe method should be applied only in areas, where the possible damaging of the buried structures is excluded.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Hungarian Research Fund (K049604 and 61013), Bolyai Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Sándor Szalai). Field assistance: András Koppán, Attila Novák, Krisztina Rokob, János Túri, Árpád Kis, Mihály Varga; also Gábor Gombás and Kitti Szokoli (students of University of West-Hungary). Georadar data processing was made by Boriszláv Neducza (ELGI); geoelectric data processing was made by Attila Novák. Local technical support was provided by Péter Vincze, Károly Kollár and János Csicsmann. Comments by Antal Ádám, Gábor Újvári and the Reviewers were very helpful.
Atya MA, Khachay OA, Soliman MM, Khachay OY, Khalil AB, Mahmoud G, Shaaban FF, Hemali IA (2010) CSEM imaging of the near surface dynamics and its impact for foundation stability at quarter 27, 15th of May city, Helwan, Egypt. Earth Sci Res J 14(1):76–87Google Scholar
Bonomo N, Cedrina L, Osella A, Ratto N (2009) GPR prospecting in a prehispanic village, NW Argentina. J Appl Geophys 67:80–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capizzi P, Cosentino PL, Fiandaca G, Martorana R, Messina P, Vassallo S (2007) Geophysical investigations of the Himera archeological site, northern Sicily. Near Surf Geophys 5:417–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardarelli E, Fischanger F, Piro S (2008) Integrated geophysical survey to detect buried structures for archeological prospecting. A case history at Sabine Necropolis (Rome, Italy). Near Surf Geophys 6:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Fiore B, Mauriello P, Monna D, Patella D (2002) Examples of application of tensorial resistivity tomography to arcitectonic and archeological targets. Ann Geophys 45:417–429Google Scholar
Drahor MG, Göktürkler G, Berge MA, Kurtulmus TÖ, Tuna N (2007) 3D resistivity imaging from an archeological site in South-Western Anatolia, Turkey: a case study. Near Surf Geophys 5:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerevich L (ed) (1979) Archaeological topography of Hungary 5. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest. (in Hungarian)Google Scholar
Neubauer W, Eder-Hinterleitner A (1997) Resistivity and magnetics of the Roman town Carnuntum, Austria: an example of combined interpretation of prospection data. Archaeol Prospect 4:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulos NG, Tsourlos P, Tsokas GN, Sarris A (2006) Two-dimensional and three-dimensional resistivity imaging in archeological site investigation. Archaeol Prospect 13:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piro S, Sambuelli L, Godio A, Taormina R (2007) Beyond image analysis in processing archeomagnetic geophysical data: case studies of chamber tombs with dromos. Near Surf Geophys 5:405–416Google Scholar
Szalai S, Lemperger I, Pattantyús ÁM, Szarka L (2009) Pricking probe as a complementary technique in archeological prospecting, Proceedings of Near-Surface Conference 2009, A03, DublinGoogle Scholar
Varga M, Novák A, Szarka L (2008) Application of tensorial electrical resistivity mapping to archaeological prospection. Near Surf Geophys 6:39–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar