Integrated geophysical survey to recognize ancient Picentia’s buried walls, in the Archaeological Park of Pontecagnano – Faiano (Southern Italy)

Abstract

Research aimsThere is no information on previous geophysical prospections carried out in the Archaeological Park of Pontecagnano-Faiano, in order to reconstruct the ancient settlement of Picentia, an Etrusco-Campanian and Roman settlement near Salerno (Southern Italy). Therefore, an integrated geophysical survey based on magnetic, geoelectric and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) prospections was executed in the Park. The methods provided a basic map of buried ancient structures at depth from 0.1-0.2 to about 1.5 meters. Magnetic data were processed analyzing the analytical signal of the vertical derivative of the measured gradient and this substantially reduced a strong fence effect. The results of the geophysical prospections showed archaeological structures located close to those discovered in the excavated areas. The shape of the anomalies are usually elongated with well-defined geometrical characteristics. Many anomalies are arranged along orthogonal directions and they are very coherent with the excavated structures, namely the quarters structures of the ancient Picentia.

Magnetic and GPR Data Modelling via Multiscale Methods in San Pietro in Crapolla Abbey, Massa Lubrense (Naples)

“…Among the different geophysical methods, the magnetic method is one of the most used in archaeology due to the effective presence of susceptibility contrasts between surrounding soils and buried remains (Fedi et al. 2008). Significant anomalies are produced by different kinds of common archaeological targets, such as ditches, storage pits, foundations and walls.…”

“…Applied geophysics plays a key role in the noninvasive characterization of archaeological sites and for the assessment of targets during excavation campaigns (Fedi et al 2008(Fedi et al , 2017. Among the different geophysical methods, the magnetic method is one of the most used in archaeology due to the effective presence of susceptibility contrasts between surrounding soils and buried remains (Fedi et al 2008). Significant anomalies are produced by different kinds of common archaeological targets, such as ditches, storage pits, foundations and walls.…”