A review of the use of geophysical archaeological prospection in Sweden

Abstract

While geophysical prospection for iron ores has a long history in Sweden the use of geophysical archaeological prospection has been limited compared to other countries. In this paper we discuss the likely reasons for this situation andpresent a brief historyofgeophysicalprospection andin particulargeophysicalarchaeologicalprospectionin Sweden.The first use of different prospection methods, such as metal detection, earth resistance, magnetic, ground-penetrating radar, seismic and electro-magnetic prospection in Swedish archaeology are presented. The archaeological Iron Age sites of UppÔkra and Birka have been subject to relatively intensive prospection activityand are therefore mentioned separately. An overview of the current situation of geophysical archaeological prospection and related issues isgiven, andpitfalls andpossibilitiesare discussed.The paper finisheswith an outlookon possible future developments.

Archaeological prospection of a specialized cooking‐pit site at Lunde in Vestfold, Norway

“…Perhaps due to their inconspicuous nature and relative abundance, however, the results from such surveys are only infrequently published outside the grey literature, and then often just in passing. Notable examples are the works of Smekalova, Voss, and Smekalov () and Bevan and Smekalova () for Denmark and Gabler et al () and Viberg, Trinks, and Lidén () for Sweden. For Norway, a more thorough study focussing on detectability issues within a research excavation context can be found in the work of Stamnes and Bauer (In press).…”

Geophysical Investigations on the Viking Period Platform Mound at Aska in Hagebyhöga Parish, Sweden

“…Geophysical methods were not used much in Swedish archaeology until the mid‐2000s (Viberg, ). Now, however, ground‐penetrating radar (GPR) has become increasingly popular.…”

“…During previous research investigations a spacing of 0.5 m or less was preferred (Neubauer et al, , p. 155; Leckebusch, , p. 216). When aiming for the detection of small archaeological features, such as postholes, this distance needs to be roughly as short as half the diameter of the expected feature in order to produce an interpretable picture of sufficient resolution (see discussion in Viberg et al, , p. 50; Viberg, , p. 69ff). In order to produce true three‐dimensional GPR results the distance between the transects must be even shorter (e.g.…”

Combined Geophysical Approach in a Complex Arctic Archaeological Environment: A Case Study from the LdFa‐1 Site, Southern Baffin Island, Nunavut

“…The wide use and success of geophysics in archaeology has been well documented in the literature (see Gaffney and Gater, ; Kvamme, ; Dalan, ; Johnson, ; Linford, ; Viberg et al ., ), yet its contributions to Arctic archaeological research remain limited to a few specific areas in North America (Eastaugh and Taylor, , ; Hodgetts et al ., ; Urban, ; Eastaugh et al ., ; Wolff and Urban, ), and the tundra mountains of Arctic Sweden (Viberg et al ., , ). This dearth of geophysical applications has been attributed to the small‐scale nature and commonly organic composition of hunter–gatherer remains in Canada and, specifically, in northern tundra regions where natural soil development processes are extremely slow and limited to a few centimetres thickness (Viberg et al ., ; Hodgetts et al ., ; Eastaugh et al ., ).…”