Integrated Geophysical Investigations in Archaeological Sites: Case Studies from Turkey

  • Mahmut Göktuğ DrahorEmail author
Part of the Natural Science in Archaeology book series (ARCHAEOLOGY)


With the increased demand to facilitate the archaeological work either in well-known archaeological sites or the crude sites, geophysical methods plays an important role. The Geophysical methods have been used since 1946 with increasing frequency for archaeological investigations and currently the branch of archaeogeophysics is widely applied. The wide varieties of geophysical methods applied in archaeological work relies principally upon existing reasonable contrast in physical properties between the buried archaeological feature and the surrounding subsoil. Understanding the archaeological properties of the physical contrasts, in terms of density, thermal conductivity, electrical resistance, magnetic or dielectric properties, remains fundamental issues of choosing and applying the discipline geophysical techniques. In this regard, we tried to introduce a brief outline for the common and applicable techniques in archaeological investigations. The physical principles and field instrumentation involved for the acquisition of data with each method are considered, as well as some common results from the worldwide case studies. Generally, the archeogeophysical survey results can be used to guide excavation and to give archaeologists insight into the patterning of non-excavated parts of the site as well as it is often used where preservation of the sensitive sites is the aim rather than excavation.


Archaeogeophysics Non-invasive techniques Physical contrast Excavation Archaeological remains 



The author acknowledges the GEOIM LTD Company for supporting of some data and results. Also I am grateful to Atilla Ongar, who is a research assistant in Dokuz Eylül University in Department of Geophysics, assisted during preparing of overall figures.


  1. Arato A, Piro S, Sambuelli L (2015) 3D inversion of ERT data on an archaeological site using GPR reflection and 3D inverted magnetic data as a priori information. Near Surf Geophys 13:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baranwal VC, Franke A, Börner RU, Spitzer K (2011) Unstructured grid based 2-D inversion of VLF data for models including topography. J Appl Geophys 75:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardarelli E, Di Filippo G (2004) Integrated geophysical surveys on waste dumps: evaluation of physical parameters to characterize an urban waste dump (four case studies in Italy). Waste Manag Res 22:390–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardarelli E, Di Filippo G (2009) Integrated geophysical methods for the characterisation of an archaeological site (Massenzio Basilica–Roman forum, Rome, Italy). J Appl Geophys 68:508–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Claerbout JF, Muir F (1973) Robust modeling with erratic data. Geophysics 38:826–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dabas M, Hesse A, Tabbagh J (2000) Experimental resistivity survey at Wroxeter archaeological site with a fast and light recording device. Archaeol Prospect 7:107–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Domenico D, Giannino F, Leucci G, Bottari C (2006) Integrated geophysical surveys at the archaeological site of Tindari (Sicily, Italy). J Archaeol Sci 33:961–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diamanti N, Tsokas G, Tsourlos P, Vafidis A (2005) Integrated interpretation of geophysical data in the archaeological site of Europos (northern Greece). Archaeol Prospect 12:79–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drahor MG (2004) Application of the self-potential method to archaeological prospection: some case studies. Archaeol Prospect 11:77–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drahor MG (2006) Integrated geophysical studies in the upper part of Sardis archaeological site, Turkey. J Appl Geophys 59:205–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Drahor MG (2011) A review of integrated geophysical investigations from archaeological and cultural sites under encroaching urbanisation in Izmir, Turkey. Phys Chem Earth 36:1294–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Drahor MG, Akyol AL, Dilaver N (1996) An application of the self-potential (SP) method in archaeogeophysical prospection. Archaeol Prospect 3:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drahor MG, Göktürkler G, Berge MA, Kurtulmuş TÖ, Tuna N (2007) 3D resistivity imaging from an archaeological site in south-western Anatolia, Turkey: a case study. Near Surf Geophys 5:195–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drahor MG, Berge MA, Kurtulmuş TÖ, Hartmann M, Speidel MA (2008a) Magnetic and electrical resistivity tomography investigations in a Roman Legionary camp site (Legio IV Scythica) in Zeugma, southeastern Anatolia, Turkey. Archaeol Prospect 15:159–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Drahor MG, Kurtulmuş TO, Berge MA, Hartmann M, Speidel MA (2008b) Magnetic imaging and electrical resistivity tomography studies in a Roman Military installation found in Satala archaeological site from northeastern of Anatolia, Turkey. J Archaeol Sci 35:259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drahor MG, Berge MA, Öztürk C, Alpaslan N, Ergene G (2009) Integrated usage of geophysical prospection techniques in Höyük (tepe, tell)-type archaeological settlements. ArcheoSciences, revue d’archéométrie 33(suppl):291–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Drahor MG, Berge MA, Öztürk C (2011) Integrated geophysical surveys in the Agios Voukolos church, Izmir, Turkey. J Archaeol Sci 38:2231–2242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drahor MG, Berge MA, Öztürk C, Ortan B (2015a) Integrated geophysical investigations at a sacred Hittite Area in Central Anatolia, Turkey. Near Surf Geophys 13:523–543Google Scholar
  19. Drahor MG, Öztürk C, Ortan B, Berge MA, Ongar A (2015b) A report on integrated geophysical investigation in the Šapinuva archaeological site in Central Anatolia of Turkey. Geoim LTD. 2015ARKEO1-05, 90 p (in Turkish)Google Scholar
  20. Emre Ö, Duman TY, Özalp S, Elmacı H, Olgun Ş (2011) 1/250,000 Scale active fault map series of Turkey, Çorum (NK 36-16) quadrangle. General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration, Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  21. Gaffney CF, Gater JA, Linford P, Gaffney VL, White R (2000) Large-scale systematic fluxgate gradiometry at the Roman city of Wroxeter. Archaeol Prospect 7:81–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gaffney V, Patterson H, Piro S, Goodman D, Nishimura Y (2004) Multimethodological approach to study and characterize Forum Novum (Vescovio, Central Italy). Archaeol Prospect 11:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gaffney C, Harris C, Pope-Carter F, Bonsall J, Fry R, Parkyn A (2015) Still searching for graves: an analytical strategy for interpreting geophysical data used in the search for “unmarked” graves. Near Surf Geophys 13:557–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenewalt CH (2003) Archaeological exploration of Sardis, 2002 field season. Report to the General Directorate of Monuments and Museums, Ministry of Culture, Republic of TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartmann M, Speidel MA (2003) The Roman army at Zeugma: recent research results. In: R. Early et al., Zeugma: Interim Reports. J Roman Archaeol 51(suppl):101–126Google Scholar
  26. Kvamme KL (2006) Integrating multidimensional archaeological data. Archaeol Prospect 13:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Leucci G, Negri S (2006) Use of ground penetrating radar to map subsurface archaeological features in an urban area. J Archaeol Sci 33:502–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Leucci G, Greco F, De Giorgi L, Mauceri R (2007) Three-dimensional image of seismic refraction tomography and electrical resistivity tomography survey in the castle of Occhiolà (Sicily, Italy). J Archaeol Sci 34:233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lightfoot CS (1991) Archaeological surveys at Satala in 1989. In: The proceeding of VIIIth meeting of research results of symposium of excavation, survey and archaeometry, Ankara, Turkey, May 28 and June 1, 1990, pp 299–309 (In Turkish)Google Scholar
  30. Lightfoot CS (1997) Excavations at Amorium in 1996. Bull Br Byzantine Stud 23:39–49Google Scholar
  31. Lightfoot CS, Arbel Y (2003) Amorium excavation 2001. In: XXIVth symposium on excavation results proceedings, pp 521–532 (In Turkish)Google Scholar
  32. Linford N, Linford P, Payne A (2015) Chasing aeroplanes: developing a vehicle-towed caesium magnetometer array to complement aerial photography over three recently surveyed sites in the UK. Near Surf Geophys 13:623–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matera L, Noviello M, Ciminale M, Persico R (2015) Integration of multisensor data: an experiment in the archaeological park of Egnazia (Apulia, Southern Italy). Near Surf Geophys 13:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Monteiro Santos FA, Mateus A, Figueiras J, Gonçalves MA (2006) Mapping groundwater contamination around a landfill facility using the VLF-EM method—a case study. J Appl Geophys 60:115–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MTA (2002) 1/500.000 Scale Geological Maps of Turkey, 7, General Directorate of Mineral Research and Exploration (MTA), Ankara, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  36. Neubauer W, Eder-Hinterleitner A (1997) Resistivity and magnetic of the Roman town Carnuntum, Austria: an example of combined interpretation of prospection data. Archaeol Prospect 4:179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Papadopoulos N, Sarris A, Yil MJ, Kim JH (2009) Urban archaeological investigations using surface 3D ground penetrating radar and electrical resistivity tomography methods. Explor Geophys 40:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papadopoulos NG, Sarris A, Salvi MC, Dederix S, Soupios P, Dikmen U (2012) Rediscovering the small theatre and amphitheatre of ancient Ierapytna (SE Crete) by integrated geophysical methods. J Archaeol Sci 39:1960–1973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piro S, Mauriello P, Cammarano F (2000) Quantitative integration of geophysical methods for archaeological prospection. Archaeol Prospect 7:203–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pullammanappallil SK, Louie JN (1994) A generalized simulated annealing optimization for inversion of first arrival times. Bull Seismol Soc Am 84(5):1397–1409Google Scholar
  41. Sarris A, Papadopoulos NG, Agapiou A, Salvi MC, Hadjimitsis DG, Parkinson WA et al (2013) Integration of geophysical surveys, ground hyperspectral measurements, aerial and satellite imagery for archaeological prospection of prehistoric sites: the case study of Vésztő-Mágor Tell, Hungary. J Archaeol Sci 40:1454–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Seren S, Eder-Hinterleitner A, Neubauer W, Groh S (2004) Combined high resolution magnetics and GPR surveys of the roman town of Flavia Solva. Near Surf Geophys 2:63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sharma SP, Kaikkonen P (1998) Two-dimensional non-linear inversion of VLF-R data using simulated annealing. Geophys J Int 133:649–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simon F-X, Kalayci T, Donati JC, Cuenca Garcia C, Manataki M, Sarris A (2015) How efficient is an integrative approach in archaeological geophysics? Comparative case studies from Neolithic settlements in Thessaly (Central Greece). Near Surf Geophys 13:601–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Simyrdanis K, Papadopoulos N, Kim JH, Tsourlos PI, Moffat I (2015) Archaeological investigations in the shallow seawater environment with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surf Geophys 13:601–611Google Scholar
  46. Speidel MA (1998) Legio IV Scythica: its movements and men. In The Twin Towns of Zeugma on the Euphrates. Rescue work and historical studies, Kennedy D (ed.). J Roman Archaeol 27(suppl):163–204Google Scholar
  47. Tsokas GN, Giannopoulos A, Tsourlos P, Vargemezis G, Tealby JM, Sarris A, Papazachos CB, Savopoulou T (1994) A large scale geophysical survey in the archaeological site of Europos (N. Greece). J Appl Geophys 32:85–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsokas GN, Tsourlos PI, Vargemezis G, Novack M (2008) Non-destructive electrical resistivity tomography for indoor investigation: the case of Kapnikarea church in Athens. Archaeol Prospect 15:47–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsokas GN, Kim JH, Tsourlos PI, Angistalis G, Vargemezis G, Stampolidis A, Diamanti N (2015) Investigating behind the lining of the Tunnel of Eupalinus in Samos (Greece) using ERT and GPR. Near Surf Geophys 13:571–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vafidis A, Economou N, Ganiatsos Y, Manakou M, Poulioudis G, Sourlas G et al (2005) Integrated geophysical studies at ancient Itanos (Greece). J Archaeol Sci 32:1023–1036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wagner J (1976) Seleukeia am Euphrat/Zeugma. Karte IIGoogle Scholar
  52. Wessel P, Smith WHF (1995) New version of the generic mapping tools released. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 76:329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wilken D, Wunderlich T, Stümpel H, Rabbel W, Pašteka R, Erkul E, Papčo J, Putiška R, Krajňák M, Kušnirák D (2015) Case history: integrated geophysical survey at Katarínka Monastery (Slovakia). Near Surf Geophys 13:585–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geophysical Engineering, Engineering FacultyDokuz Eylül UniversityBuca-İzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations