Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (2)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = Messapian walls

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
10 pages, 4617 KiB  
Article
Geophysical Surveys to Highlight Buried Ancient Walls of Ugento (Lecce, Italy)
by Dora Francesca Barbolla, Ilaria Miccoli, Immacolata Ditaranto, Giuseppe Scardozzi, Francesco Giuri, Ivan Ferrari and Giovanni Leucci
NDT 2024, 2(3), 204-213; https://doi.org/10.3390/ndt2030012 - 22 Jun 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1335
Abstract
Geophysics is a fundamental tool to detect buried structures of archaeological interest through non-destructive techniques. The Messapian city walls in Ugento (Puglia, southern Italy) are of great archaeological importance, and some sections are still visible. In order to locate a stretch of the [...] Read more.
Geophysics is a fundamental tool to detect buried structures of archaeological interest through non-destructive techniques. The Messapian city walls in Ugento (Puglia, southern Italy) are of great archaeological importance, and some sections are still visible. In order to locate a stretch of the city walls, geophysical prospections were performed using the low-frequency electromagnetic method and ground-penetrating radar. The surveys were carried out in a peripheral area of Ugento, near a visible section of the city walls. The analysis and interpretation of the measured data revealed clear anomalies that could be ascribed to the city walls that aligned with an adjacent section of the visible walls. Archaeological excavation campaigns found a part of the walls and some important elements, as identified by the geophysical data interpretation. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

26 pages, 20724 KiB  
Article
The Messapic Site of Muro Leccese: New Results from Integrated Geophysical and Archaeological Surveys
by Catia Bianco, Lara De Giorgi, Maria T. Giannotta, Giovanni Leucci, Francesco Meo and Raffaele Persico
Remote Sens. 2019, 11(12), 1478; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11121478 - 21 Jun 2019
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 4800
Abstract
The regular application of geophysical survey techniques to evaluate archaeological sites is well established as a method for locating, defining, and mapping buried archaeological materials. However, it is not always feasible to apply a range of different methods over a particular site or [...] Read more.
The regular application of geophysical survey techniques to evaluate archaeological sites is well established as a method for locating, defining, and mapping buried archaeological materials. However, it is not always feasible to apply a range of different methods over a particular site or landscape due to constraints in time or funding. This paper addresses the integrated application of three geophysical survey methods over an important archaeological site located in south Italy. In particular, it is focused on the results achieved from a past geophysical survey and the ongoing excavations performed by archaeologists in the site of Muro Leccese. Muro Leccese (Lecce) is one of the most important Messapian archaeological sites in southern Italy. The archaeological interest of the site was generated since the discovery of the remains of Messapian walls (late 4th–3rd centuries BC). With the aim of widening the archaeological knowledge of the Messapian settlement, several integrated methods, including magnetometry, ground-penetrating radar, and electrical resistivity tomography were used on site to fulfill a number of different research objectives. Since the most important targets were expected to be located at shallow soil depth, a three-dimensional (3D) ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey was carried out in two zones, which were labeled respectively as zone 1 and zone 2, and were both quite close to the archaeological excavations. The GPR investigations were integrated with a 3D electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) survey in zone 1 and with a magnetometric, in gradiometry configuration survey in zone 2. The integration of several techniques allowed mapping the structural remains of this area and leading the excavation project. The geophysical results show a good correspondence with the archaeological features that were found after the excavation. Current work on the geophysical survey data using different codes for the processing of the data and merging different datasets using a Geographic Information System allowed achieving a user-friendly visualization that was presented to the archaeologists. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Progress in Ground Penetrating Radar Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop