This chapter provides an extensive overview of the use of geophysics in archaeological research a... more This chapter provides an extensive overview of the use of geophysics in archaeological research and cultural heritage management in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. It discusses the current status, role and acceptance of geophysical methods in each country, and outlines the state-of-the-art based on a synthesis of existing knowledge and experience. The authors consider the past, present and future of archaeo-geophysics in the individual regions, taking into
This project aims to study changes and breakpoints in utilising prehistoric
marine coastal enviro... more This project aims to study changes and breakpoints in utilising prehistoric marine coastal environments, identify possible causes for changes, and create an interpretive framework to identify potential human responses to changing environmental settings. This will be done by combining nonintrusive geophysical survey techniques, palaeoenvironmental studies, trial excavations and digital landscape modelling in an interpretive framework to study human resilience in a changing coastal landscape.
In 2015 and 2018, the county archaeologists in Trøndelag, in collaboration with Ørland Municipali... more In 2015 and 2018, the county archaeologists in Trøndelag, in collaboration with Ørland Municipality, initiated metal detecting rallies focusing on the manor gardens and the fields surrounding the main manor buildings down to the present-day shoreline towards the Trondheim Fjord. This resulted in the discovery of about 450 artefacts dating back to the older Iron Age until the early 18th century. About 80 were older than the late Middle Ages and involved iron brooches, a folded runic letter in lead, finger rings, a Viking-age key, a rod for a scale weight, lead weights and a weapon crest from the 15th-century archbishop Bolt and his family. All of these tell a varied and long tale of activity indicating possible trade, burials, settlements and more. However, it is hard to discern purely based on the artefacts what kind of activity the finds might represent. This is why this site is chosen as one of several case study areas for the research project “PastCoast”.
This paper does not aim to suggest a new chronology
of the rock art panels, but rather study the ... more This paper does not aim to suggest a new chronology of the rock art panels, but rather study the location of the panels in relation to the various landscape elements they coexist with. We will implement GIS models to increase our understanding of the rock art sites, in particular how the rock art sites relate to the cultural-historical context and the landscape. In this way, we are able to identify tendencies in the material and analyse the rock art in its cultural-historical context. We consider the important questions of what characterizes the rock art in Stjørdal in terms of types of motifs and their location, and how does this art work relate to the landscape?
In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing ... more In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing methods to explore archaeological sites in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden gathered together for the first time at the Workshop 'Sensing Archaeology in The North'. The goal was to exchange experiences, discuss challenges, and consider future directions for further developing these methods and strategies for their use in archaeology. After the event, this special journal issue was arranged to publish papers that are based on the workshop presentations, but also to incorporate work that is produced by other researchers in the field. This paper closes the special issue and further aims to provide current state-of-the-art for the methods represented by the workshop. Here, we introduce the aspects that inspired the organisation of the meeting, a summary of the 12 presentations and eight paper contributions, as well as a discussion about the main outcomes of the workshop roundtables, including the production of two searchable databases (online resources and equipment). We conclude with the position that the 'North', together with its unique cultural heritage and thriving research community, is at the forefront of good practice in the application and development of sensing methods in archaeological research and management. However, further method development is required, so we claim the support of funding bodies to back research efforts based on testing/experimental studies to: explore unknown survey environments and identify optimal survey conditions, as well as to monitor the preservation of archaeological remains, especially those that are at risk. It is demonstrated that remote sensing and geophysics not only have an important role in the safeguarding of archaeological sites from development and within prehistorical-historical research, but the methods can be especially useful in recording and monitoring the increased impact of climate change on sites in the North.
Hvert år leveres det inn tusenvis av detektorfunn til de arkeologiske museene i Norge. Bare til K... more Hvert år leveres det inn tusenvis av detektorfunn til de arkeologiske museene i Norge. Bare til Kulturhistorisk museum ble det i 2018 levert inn ca. 1630 funn, en tidobling siden 2008 (Axelsen in prep). Det store flertallet er funnet i pløyelaget i dyrket mark, men hvilke sammenhenger, om noen, har gjenstandene med eventuelle strukturer under pløyelaget? Svar på dette spørsmålet er sentralt for å utnytte gjenstandenes forskningspotensiale, og for å fatte velfunderte forvaltningsvedtak om etterundersøkelser og vern av lokaliteter med mange detektorfunn. For å få bedre kunnskap om pløyelagsfunnenes deponeringshistorie, og dermed styrke grunnlaget for å forvalte metallrike lokaliteter, besluttet Riksantikvaren i 2016 å benytte et funnrikt jorde på Storhov i Heradsbygd, Elverum kommune (Figur 1 og 2), som en ‘case study’ i et prøveprosjekt. Vi har vært involvert i dette prosjektet, og basert på våre resultater vil vi her diskutere hvordan gjenstandene fremkommet med metallsøker kan ha funnet veien til pløyelaget. Stammer de fra kulturlag, stolpehull, graver, depoter eller andre strukturer som er mer eller mindre pløyd i stykker, eller har de kommet ut på jordet på andre måter? Kan de for eksempel ha blitt mistet under arbeid på jordet eller kjørt ut med gjødsel? Etter korte sammendrag av detektorfunnene, så vel som resultatene fra de geofysiske og arkeologiske undersøkelsene, skal vi vurderer sammenhengen mellom geofysiske anomalier og påviste strukturer under pløyelaget. Til slutt tar vi opp prosjektets hovedspørsmål, den sannsynlige deponeringshistorien til pløyelagsfunnene på Storhov.
In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing ... more In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing methods to explore archaeological sites in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden gathered together for the first time at the Workshop 'Sensing Archaeology in The North'. The goal was to exchange experiences, discuss challenges, and consider future directions for further developing these methods and strategies for their use in archaeology. After the event, this special journal issue was arranged to publish papers that are based on the workshop presentations, but also to incorporate work that is produced by other researchers in the field. This paper closes the special issue and further aims to provide current state-of-the-art for the methods represented by the workshop. Here, we introduce the aspects that inspired the organisation of the meeting, a summary of the 12 presentations and eight paper contributions, as well as a discussion about the main outcomes of the workshop roundtables, including the production of two searchable databases (online resources and equipment). We conclude with the position that the 'North', together with its unique cultural heritage and thriving research community, is at the forefront of good practice in the application and development of sensing methods in archaeological research and management. However, further method development is required, so we claim the support of funding bodies to back research efforts based on testing/experimental studies to: explore unknown survey environments and identify optimal survey conditions, as well as to monitor the preservation of archaeological remains, especially those that are at risk. It is demonstrated that remote sensing and geophysics not only have an important role in the safeguarding of archaeological sites from development and within prehistorical-historical research, but the methods can be especially useful in recording and monitoring the increased impact of climate change on sites in the North.
The use of large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar surveys has increasingly become ... more The use of large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar surveys has increasingly become a part of Norwegian cultural heritage management as a complementary method to trial trenching surveys to detect and delineate archaeological sites. The aim of this article is to collect, interpret and compare large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey data with results from trial trenching and subsequent large-scale excavations, and to extract descriptive and spatial statistics on detection rates and precision for both evaluation methods. This, in turn, is used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of both conventional, intrusive methods and large-scale GPR surveys. Neither method proved to be flawless, and while the trial trenching had a better overall detection rate, organic and charcoal rich features were nearly just as easily detected by both methods. Similarly, the spatial representability was similar, even though the total detection rates were lower with the GPR. This can be used as an argument in advance of integrating full-coverage GPR results into a site evaluation scheme, preferably in combination with other methods. Overall, these analyses have highlighted drawbacks and possibilities in both methods that are important contributions in understanding how to use them and integrate them in future site evaluations.
Ingen vei utenom: Arkeologiske undersøkelser i forbindelse med etablering av ny rv. 3/25 i Løten og Elverum kommuner, Innlandet, 2020
geophysical survey was performed at Ånestad in
Hedmark using two different techniques: the measur... more geophysical survey was performed at Ånestad in Hedmark using two different techniques: the measurements of topsoil magnetic susceptibility and the use of gradiometers for detailed mapping of anomalies with a magnetic contrast. The purpose was to gain increased background knowledge in advance of planned archaeological excavations. A special focus was on mapping iron production sites and features related to these that had not been indicated by a prior test-trenching scheme. This article presents the results of these surveys and compares the geophysical data with the excavation results in order to critically evaluate the interpretations made in relation to the geophysical datasets. The article presents statistics derived from these comparisons and discusses the potential and limitations seen from a cultural heritage management perspective. About 65% of all archaeological features detected were prior to the excavation indeed interpreted as potential archaeology in the geophysical data, including 29 out of 31 excavated furnaces. The topsoil magnetic susceptibility revealed the areas influences by high-temperature metal crafts well and indicated areas of activity larger than the site limits set in advance of the excavations. The gradiometer- data showed that most shaft furnaces had a prominent geophysical signature. There was a range of detected anomalies, for which no recognizable source could be found during the archaeological investigations. Moreover, large rocks had comparable geophysical signatures to the iron furnaces but could be distinguished due to the larger size of the anomalies. The geophysical results would probably have had a larger impact on the project planning if they had been obtained prior to the test-trenching scheme, instead of after.
The Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters - Skrifter, 2019
The slag pit furnace of the Trøndelag tradition for iron production is a very specific cultural-h... more The slag pit furnace of the Trøndelag tradition for iron production is a very specific cultural-historical tradition in central Norway in the Early Iron Age, but few of these iron production sites have been excavated in their entirety and there is therefore a lack of information about their size, spatial layout and organisation in the landscape. The aim of this paper is therefore to investigate how magnetic geophysical methods can be used as a way of locating, delimiting and characterising activity zones and specific archaeological features associated with this tradition of iron production. The NTNU University Museum in Trondheim performed geophysical surveys of four different iron production sites, combining topsoil volume magnetic susceptibility measurements and detailed fluxgate gradiometer surveys. Analysing and comparing the survey results with sketches and topographic survey results, as well as comparable geophysical survey data from iron production sites elsewhere in Norway, made it possible to gain new and valuable cultural-historical and methodological knowledge. The topsoil volume susceptibility measurements revealed a strong contrast between the main production areas and the natural background measurement values, often in the range of 7–27 times the median background values. The absolute highest measured values were usually in the area closest to the furnaces, and within the slag mounds. Satellites of high readings could be interpreted as roasting sites for iron ore, and even areas with known building remains related to the iron production sites had readings stronger than the median. The fluxgate gradiometer data helped to characterise individual features further, with strong geophysical contrast between features within the iron production sites and the areas surrounding them. Also, by analysing their physical placement, geophysical characteristics such as contrast, magnetic remanence and size, it was possible to gain further insight into the spatial organisation by indicating the potential location of furnaces, the spread of slag and the handling of iron ore. The latter involved both where the roasted iron ore was stored and where it was roasted. The geophysical characteristics of the furnaces were less uniform than situations reported elsewhere in Norway, which can be explained by the reuse of furnaces and slag pits. The spread of highly remanent material in and around the furnaces and elsewhere within the limits of the iron production sites also created a disturbed magnetic picture rendering it difficult to provide an unambiguous archaeological interpretation of all the geophysical anomalies identified. In conclusion, these results showed that the geophysical methods applied made it possible to indicate the physical size, layout and internal spatial organisation of iron production sites of the Trøndelag slag pit furnace tradition.
På gården Rygg på Frosta kjenner man til en rekke kulturminner, hvorav et større gravfelt fra vik... more På gården Rygg på Frosta kjenner man til en rekke kulturminner, hvorav et større gravfelt fra vikingtid. Funn fra gravfeltet antyder at Rygg var en mektig gård i vikingtid. Men i den senere tiden er det påvist flere kulturminner som antagelig forteller en historie om makt og kontroll av ressurser mye lenger tilbake i tid.
Vol. 16 Annual Magazine concerned with publication of the result of archaeological excavations an... more Vol. 16 Annual Magazine concerned with publication of the result of archaeological excavations and researches in the Emirate of Sharjah Sharjah Archaeology Authority -Govt. of Sharjah
This chapter provides an extensive overview of the use of geophysics in archaeological research a... more This chapter provides an extensive overview of the use of geophysics in archaeological research and cultural heritage management in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland. It discusses the current status, role and acceptance of geophysical methods in each country, and outlines the state-of-the-art based on a synthesis of existing knowledge and experience. The authors consider the past, present and future of archaeo-geophysics in the individual regions, taking into
This project aims to study changes and breakpoints in utilising prehistoric
marine coastal enviro... more This project aims to study changes and breakpoints in utilising prehistoric marine coastal environments, identify possible causes for changes, and create an interpretive framework to identify potential human responses to changing environmental settings. This will be done by combining nonintrusive geophysical survey techniques, palaeoenvironmental studies, trial excavations and digital landscape modelling in an interpretive framework to study human resilience in a changing coastal landscape.
In 2015 and 2018, the county archaeologists in Trøndelag, in collaboration with Ørland Municipali... more In 2015 and 2018, the county archaeologists in Trøndelag, in collaboration with Ørland Municipality, initiated metal detecting rallies focusing on the manor gardens and the fields surrounding the main manor buildings down to the present-day shoreline towards the Trondheim Fjord. This resulted in the discovery of about 450 artefacts dating back to the older Iron Age until the early 18th century. About 80 were older than the late Middle Ages and involved iron brooches, a folded runic letter in lead, finger rings, a Viking-age key, a rod for a scale weight, lead weights and a weapon crest from the 15th-century archbishop Bolt and his family. All of these tell a varied and long tale of activity indicating possible trade, burials, settlements and more. However, it is hard to discern purely based on the artefacts what kind of activity the finds might represent. This is why this site is chosen as one of several case study areas for the research project “PastCoast”.
This paper does not aim to suggest a new chronology
of the rock art panels, but rather study the ... more This paper does not aim to suggest a new chronology of the rock art panels, but rather study the location of the panels in relation to the various landscape elements they coexist with. We will implement GIS models to increase our understanding of the rock art sites, in particular how the rock art sites relate to the cultural-historical context and the landscape. In this way, we are able to identify tendencies in the material and analyse the rock art in its cultural-historical context. We consider the important questions of what characterizes the rock art in Stjørdal in terms of types of motifs and their location, and how does this art work relate to the landscape?
In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing ... more In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing methods to explore archaeological sites in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden gathered together for the first time at the Workshop 'Sensing Archaeology in The North'. The goal was to exchange experiences, discuss challenges, and consider future directions for further developing these methods and strategies for their use in archaeology. After the event, this special journal issue was arranged to publish papers that are based on the workshop presentations, but also to incorporate work that is produced by other researchers in the field. This paper closes the special issue and further aims to provide current state-of-the-art for the methods represented by the workshop. Here, we introduce the aspects that inspired the organisation of the meeting, a summary of the 12 presentations and eight paper contributions, as well as a discussion about the main outcomes of the workshop roundtables, including the production of two searchable databases (online resources and equipment). We conclude with the position that the 'North', together with its unique cultural heritage and thriving research community, is at the forefront of good practice in the application and development of sensing methods in archaeological research and management. However, further method development is required, so we claim the support of funding bodies to back research efforts based on testing/experimental studies to: explore unknown survey environments and identify optimal survey conditions, as well as to monitor the preservation of archaeological remains, especially those that are at risk. It is demonstrated that remote sensing and geophysics not only have an important role in the safeguarding of archaeological sites from development and within prehistorical-historical research, but the methods can be especially useful in recording and monitoring the increased impact of climate change on sites in the North.
Hvert år leveres det inn tusenvis av detektorfunn til de arkeologiske museene i Norge. Bare til K... more Hvert år leveres det inn tusenvis av detektorfunn til de arkeologiske museene i Norge. Bare til Kulturhistorisk museum ble det i 2018 levert inn ca. 1630 funn, en tidobling siden 2008 (Axelsen in prep). Det store flertallet er funnet i pløyelaget i dyrket mark, men hvilke sammenhenger, om noen, har gjenstandene med eventuelle strukturer under pløyelaget? Svar på dette spørsmålet er sentralt for å utnytte gjenstandenes forskningspotensiale, og for å fatte velfunderte forvaltningsvedtak om etterundersøkelser og vern av lokaliteter med mange detektorfunn. For å få bedre kunnskap om pløyelagsfunnenes deponeringshistorie, og dermed styrke grunnlaget for å forvalte metallrike lokaliteter, besluttet Riksantikvaren i 2016 å benytte et funnrikt jorde på Storhov i Heradsbygd, Elverum kommune (Figur 1 og 2), som en ‘case study’ i et prøveprosjekt. Vi har vært involvert i dette prosjektet, og basert på våre resultater vil vi her diskutere hvordan gjenstandene fremkommet med metallsøker kan ha funnet veien til pløyelaget. Stammer de fra kulturlag, stolpehull, graver, depoter eller andre strukturer som er mer eller mindre pløyd i stykker, eller har de kommet ut på jordet på andre måter? Kan de for eksempel ha blitt mistet under arbeid på jordet eller kjørt ut med gjødsel? Etter korte sammendrag av detektorfunnene, så vel som resultatene fra de geofysiske og arkeologiske undersøkelsene, skal vi vurderer sammenhengen mellom geofysiske anomalier og påviste strukturer under pløyelaget. Til slutt tar vi opp prosjektets hovedspørsmål, den sannsynlige deponeringshistorien til pløyelagsfunnene på Storhov.
In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing ... more In August 2018, a group of experts working with terrestrial/marine geophysics and remote sensing methods to explore archaeological sites in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland and Sweden gathered together for the first time at the Workshop 'Sensing Archaeology in The North'. The goal was to exchange experiences, discuss challenges, and consider future directions for further developing these methods and strategies for their use in archaeology. After the event, this special journal issue was arranged to publish papers that are based on the workshop presentations, but also to incorporate work that is produced by other researchers in the field. This paper closes the special issue and further aims to provide current state-of-the-art for the methods represented by the workshop. Here, we introduce the aspects that inspired the organisation of the meeting, a summary of the 12 presentations and eight paper contributions, as well as a discussion about the main outcomes of the workshop roundtables, including the production of two searchable databases (online resources and equipment). We conclude with the position that the 'North', together with its unique cultural heritage and thriving research community, is at the forefront of good practice in the application and development of sensing methods in archaeological research and management. However, further method development is required, so we claim the support of funding bodies to back research efforts based on testing/experimental studies to: explore unknown survey environments and identify optimal survey conditions, as well as to monitor the preservation of archaeological remains, especially those that are at risk. It is demonstrated that remote sensing and geophysics not only have an important role in the safeguarding of archaeological sites from development and within prehistorical-historical research, but the methods can be especially useful in recording and monitoring the increased impact of climate change on sites in the North.
The use of large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar surveys has increasingly become ... more The use of large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar surveys has increasingly become a part of Norwegian cultural heritage management as a complementary method to trial trenching surveys to detect and delineate archaeological sites. The aim of this article is to collect, interpret and compare large-scale, high-resolution ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey data with results from trial trenching and subsequent large-scale excavations, and to extract descriptive and spatial statistics on detection rates and precision for both evaluation methods. This, in turn, is used to assess the advantages and disadvantages of both conventional, intrusive methods and large-scale GPR surveys. Neither method proved to be flawless, and while the trial trenching had a better overall detection rate, organic and charcoal rich features were nearly just as easily detected by both methods. Similarly, the spatial representability was similar, even though the total detection rates were lower with the GPR. This can be used as an argument in advance of integrating full-coverage GPR results into a site evaluation scheme, preferably in combination with other methods. Overall, these analyses have highlighted drawbacks and possibilities in both methods that are important contributions in understanding how to use them and integrate them in future site evaluations.
Ingen vei utenom: Arkeologiske undersøkelser i forbindelse med etablering av ny rv. 3/25 i Løten og Elverum kommuner, Innlandet, 2020
geophysical survey was performed at Ånestad in
Hedmark using two different techniques: the measur... more geophysical survey was performed at Ånestad in Hedmark using two different techniques: the measurements of topsoil magnetic susceptibility and the use of gradiometers for detailed mapping of anomalies with a magnetic contrast. The purpose was to gain increased background knowledge in advance of planned archaeological excavations. A special focus was on mapping iron production sites and features related to these that had not been indicated by a prior test-trenching scheme. This article presents the results of these surveys and compares the geophysical data with the excavation results in order to critically evaluate the interpretations made in relation to the geophysical datasets. The article presents statistics derived from these comparisons and discusses the potential and limitations seen from a cultural heritage management perspective. About 65% of all archaeological features detected were prior to the excavation indeed interpreted as potential archaeology in the geophysical data, including 29 out of 31 excavated furnaces. The topsoil magnetic susceptibility revealed the areas influences by high-temperature metal crafts well and indicated areas of activity larger than the site limits set in advance of the excavations. The gradiometer- data showed that most shaft furnaces had a prominent geophysical signature. There was a range of detected anomalies, for which no recognizable source could be found during the archaeological investigations. Moreover, large rocks had comparable geophysical signatures to the iron furnaces but could be distinguished due to the larger size of the anomalies. The geophysical results would probably have had a larger impact on the project planning if they had been obtained prior to the test-trenching scheme, instead of after.
The Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters - Skrifter, 2019
The slag pit furnace of the Trøndelag tradition for iron production is a very specific cultural-h... more The slag pit furnace of the Trøndelag tradition for iron production is a very specific cultural-historical tradition in central Norway in the Early Iron Age, but few of these iron production sites have been excavated in their entirety and there is therefore a lack of information about their size, spatial layout and organisation in the landscape. The aim of this paper is therefore to investigate how magnetic geophysical methods can be used as a way of locating, delimiting and characterising activity zones and specific archaeological features associated with this tradition of iron production. The NTNU University Museum in Trondheim performed geophysical surveys of four different iron production sites, combining topsoil volume magnetic susceptibility measurements and detailed fluxgate gradiometer surveys. Analysing and comparing the survey results with sketches and topographic survey results, as well as comparable geophysical survey data from iron production sites elsewhere in Norway, made it possible to gain new and valuable cultural-historical and methodological knowledge. The topsoil volume susceptibility measurements revealed a strong contrast between the main production areas and the natural background measurement values, often in the range of 7–27 times the median background values. The absolute highest measured values were usually in the area closest to the furnaces, and within the slag mounds. Satellites of high readings could be interpreted as roasting sites for iron ore, and even areas with known building remains related to the iron production sites had readings stronger than the median. The fluxgate gradiometer data helped to characterise individual features further, with strong geophysical contrast between features within the iron production sites and the areas surrounding them. Also, by analysing their physical placement, geophysical characteristics such as contrast, magnetic remanence and size, it was possible to gain further insight into the spatial organisation by indicating the potential location of furnaces, the spread of slag and the handling of iron ore. The latter involved both where the roasted iron ore was stored and where it was roasted. The geophysical characteristics of the furnaces were less uniform than situations reported elsewhere in Norway, which can be explained by the reuse of furnaces and slag pits. The spread of highly remanent material in and around the furnaces and elsewhere within the limits of the iron production sites also created a disturbed magnetic picture rendering it difficult to provide an unambiguous archaeological interpretation of all the geophysical anomalies identified. In conclusion, these results showed that the geophysical methods applied made it possible to indicate the physical size, layout and internal spatial organisation of iron production sites of the Trøndelag slag pit furnace tradition.
På gården Rygg på Frosta kjenner man til en rekke kulturminner, hvorav et større gravfelt fra vik... more På gården Rygg på Frosta kjenner man til en rekke kulturminner, hvorav et større gravfelt fra vikingtid. Funn fra gravfeltet antyder at Rygg var en mektig gård i vikingtid. Men i den senere tiden er det påvist flere kulturminner som antagelig forteller en historie om makt og kontroll av ressurser mye lenger tilbake i tid.
Vol. 16 Annual Magazine concerned with publication of the result of archaeological excavations an... more Vol. 16 Annual Magazine concerned with publication of the result of archaeological excavations and researches in the Emirate of Sharjah Sharjah Archaeology Authority -Govt. of Sharjah
In May of 2017, we realised geophysical prospections at the archaeological site of Mleiha, locate... more In May of 2017, we realised geophysical prospections at the archaeological site of Mleiha, located in the south of the Emirate of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates). The aim of the survey was to investigate an area of approximately 7 hectares in the direct vicinity of the excavated monumental tombs at the site of Mleiha F. Since GPR measurements already proved to be the most suitable method for the investigation of the multifaceted archaeological structures found in Mleiha, the high-resolution multi-antenna-array DXF1820 of 3d-radar was used in this survey. This GPR system allows the creation of data sets with a spatial resolution of 7.5 cm x 6 cm. Additionally, the utilised array, with 20 parallel antennas towed by car, safeguards a high efficiency of the survey and delivers high-detailed data over the entire range of penetration given that the antennas work in a stepped-frequency mode and use the whole spectrum between 50 and 3,000 MHz. Due to the specific soil conditions of the site, the penetration of the high-frequency electromagnetic waves in the soil was limited to approximately 120 cm. Despite this, the data revealed a great number of archaeological structures in the supposed necropolis area around the site of Mleiha F. Numerous cist graves and pit graves were identified. Furthermore, the data show large building complexes that are related to either funerary or settlement activities.
Research question: Can we find archaeological structures and observations related to the Thing-as... more Research question: Can we find archaeological structures and observations related to the Thing-assemblies at the Frosta-peninsula by geophysical methods, and how can these observations be used in a landscape analysis to understand how the Thing-representatives organized themselves in the landscape?
Presented at the Near Surface Geophysics Group (NSGG) Conference on archaeological prospection in... more Presented at the Near Surface Geophysics Group (NSGG) Conference on archaeological prospection in December 2010.
The site of Gustad, Ekne in Nord-Trøndelag County in Norway is a site with over 200 years of research history, with old antiquarian maps and written sources mentioning as many as 18 burial mounds or cairns and at least two houses and some finds dating to the 10th century being handed in to the regional archaeological museum in Trondheim. The site has never been targeted for an archaeological investigation, but was aerial photographed in 2007 to some extent confirming the information from the old maps. The summer of 2010 a multi method geophysical investigation was conducted as part of a research project, resulting in a MSc thesis at the University of Bradford, in collaboration with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim and Nord-Trøndelag County Council. 3d-radar has also been involved at a later stage. The usage of geophysical methods within Norwegian Cultural Heritage Management is a field that is still in its early stages, with no more than about 60 geophysical surveys being conducted the last 20 years. As approximately half of these are done within the last 5 years, an increased interest has been noticed. A lack of targeted research within the field of archaeological geophysics can still said to be noticeable. Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility measurements, Fluxgate Gradiometer, Earth Resistance and a Ground Penetrating Radar survey was conducted at Gustad. By comparing and analysing the results from the geophysical survey with the known archaeology, the applicability of each method was evaluated by investigating and discussing issues concerning the geophysical response of the known archaeology. The necessary resolution to delimit the site and identify its archaeological components was analysed, and a suggestion of optimal methods, resolution and sequence for investigating similar sites was made. This survey is considered an important addition to the current knowledge of archaeological geophysics in Norway, and can serve as a good reference for future work.
Poster presented at the 11th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, 15-18 Septem... more Poster presented at the 11th International Conference on Archaeological Prospection, 15-18 September 2015, Warsaw
How can topsoil magnetic susceptibility and fluxgate gradiometer surveys be used to locate, delimit and characterize iron production sites?
The accumulated temperature sum (ACT) is an important indicator for the potential of getting ripe... more The accumulated temperature sum (ACT) is an important indicator for the potential of getting ripe crops. By calculating the
ACT values at different locations, it is possible to geostatistically model and create maps in a GIS showing how varying temperature conditions
affect the arable areas. As we know that temperatures have varied over past centuries, such an approach makes it possible to model and
visualize the effect of temperature variations on past landscapes.
NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet Arkeologisk Rapport 2020:4, 2020
In November 2019 a large scale ground penetrating radar survey was conducted of an area of almost... more In November 2019 a large scale ground penetrating radar survey was conducted of an area of almost 10 hectares at Bodøsjøen, Bodø Municipality in Norway. The investigation was performed by researchers from the research group TEMAR – Terrestrial, Marine and Aerial Remote Sensing at the department of archaeology and cultural history, NTNU University Museum in Trondheim. The investigation was performed on behalf of Nordland county council for Bodø Municipality, in relation to work with a new municipal plan for the area. The aim of this investigation was to give additional knowledge of cultural heritage monuments in the area, and to give the municipality better background knowledge for further work and dissemination of the cultural heritage environment in Bodøsjøen. The area investigated is a well known iron age site, where historical aerial photos reveal the presence of several circular mounds and long mounds – some monumental. The size of these monuments, as well as the presence of both a medieval church and a farm mound, as well as more recent historical ownership of the farm, tells us that this has been a central and important farm in the region from at least the Viking age and onwards. A total of 96 700 m² was investigated with a 3d-radar Mark IV ground penetrating radar, and the dataset was processed and interpreted in the software Examiner 2.97 The total results of the analysis of this dataset is as follows: • Ring ditches from at least 8 iron age burial mounds, as well as 7 boat/house shaped long mounds. One of these is around what might be a central cairn. • At least 32 oval ditches spread over a larger part of the field. Most of these can be interpreted as ditches surrounding possible house foundations. Alternative interpretations are discussed in the report. • At least 1257 pits of varrying sizes, where 293 of these are consentrated in a relative small area the centre of the investigated area. • A larger dug feature interpreted as the possible remains of the first hospital in the county, which is known to be located within this field. Keywords: ground penetrating radar – burial mounds – house foundations – iron age – middle ages
In August 2018, NTNU University museum carried out a combined geophysics survey/metal detecting c... more In August 2018, NTNU University museum carried out a combined geophysics survey/metal detecting campaign at Løykja in Sunndal, Møre og Romsdal county. The metal detector campaign was a collaboration between the University museum and volunteering detectorists with large experience. The project was initiated with funds from the directorate for cultural heritage, socalled post 70 funds, and had several objectives:To delineate the site, locate and secure loose archaeological finds from the plough zone, and to identify the occurrence of archaeological dug features such as settlement traces, graves or similar and potentially indicate features for future identification. It was seen as beneficial if the survey results could provide more information on the preservation conditions and possible future threats to the site. A total of 24 600 m2 was covered by ground penetrating radar, 33 600 m2 by topsoil magnetic susceptibility measurements and 20 800 m2 by a systematic metal detecting survey. A total of 1154 pits, 8 graves and at least 2 prehistoric houses was visible in the ground penetrating radar data, and confirming the presence of a rare cooking pit site – also often interpreted as a prehistoric gathering site. The occurrence of graves and houses within close proximity is highly interesting. 14 archaeological objects, and a wide range of fragmented metal pieces were also found within the survey limits of the metal detecting survey. General conclusions are as follows: the site is under threat by current agricultural practices, the site is not entirely delineated, and there is potential for more archaeological finds are being moved up into the plough zone after each ploughing. The results of these geophysical surveys and the metal detecting scheme undertaken are a good starting point for further targeted investigations.
The NTNU University Museum and The Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) were... more The NTNU University Museum and The Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) were in 2017 awarded research- and development funds from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren) for a joint research project entitled “Delimiting archaeological sites in cultivated land”. The aim of the project was to investigate the applicability and precision of large-scale geophysical investigations and to compare these with the results from traditional archaeological test-trenching and soil-stripping excavations. Another aim was to investigate various ways in which such datasets could be used for delimiting sites, creating prognosis for finding additional archaeological features, and budgeting and planning of archaeological investigations, with reference to §9 in the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act. Two sites were investigated with geophysical methods; Øya in Melhus municipality and Dilling in Rygge Municipality. The results of these investigations were subjected to a quantitative comparison with the results from the test trenching previously performed by the respective county archaeologists, and the results of subsequent excavations undertaken by the regional archaeological museums. By comparing the results from the two methods of archaeological evaluation (test trenching and large-scale ground penetrating radar (GPR)-survey), we could get additional insight into the representability of these evaluation methods. The test-trenching performed at Øya had a detection rate of 29% of all features found at the subsequent excavation. When using GPR, 10 % of all excavated features were identified in the initial archaeological interpretation of the acquired data, while subsequent comparison of the GPR-data showed that 23% of all excavated features were, in fact, visible in the data. The detection rate at Dilling was 39% for the test trenching, while 6% of the excavated features were initially identified in the GPR data. The comparison of the excavated data and the GPR-data showed that 18% of the features were visible in the collected data. The detection rates of features such as cooking pits, pits, fire places, and ovens were generally comparable in both methods of evaluation, while there was a larger difference in relation to identifying postholes. Test trenching was generally more applicable for identifying postholes, most probably due to their physical size and the contrast of postholes in comparison with the technical limitations of GPR with respect to spatial resolution. The spatial correlation between the GPR data and the excavated features at Øya were (0.45 interpreted/0.85 visible), while the test-trenching had a low spatial correlation (0.15). At Dilling the spatial correlation between the excavation and the test trenching was higher (0.8), while the correlation for the GPR was slightly lower (0.65 interpreted/0.73 visible), but still comparable. This means that while you might not locate as high a percentage of the archaeological features, but the spatial representation of the sites are still comparable, if not better, based on the detectable features in the GPR-data on settlement sites of these types. There are different advantages and limitations to using each of these methods of evaluation. For instance, the visual and physical identification by test-trenching is an advantage, whereas the interpretation of GPR data requires another type of specialized skills. Testtrenching is a sampling strategy, whereas large-scale GPR surveys most often cover the entire area to be investigated and can offer additional information otherwise missed in-between the trenches. The project also showed that there is room for improvement in learning how to better identify the archaeological features in the GPR datasets. The project highlighted in a quantitative manner the applicability of the two methods. While GPR does find some archaeological feature types in a comparable rate to test-trenching, others are more easily missed. There is also a discrepancy between the number of features found when excavating the entire site and those indicated by the rate of features visible in the test trenches. The overall spatial pattern of anomalies identified by GPR represents the overall spread of archaeological features excavated well. It is therefore natural to ask if geophysical methods are “good enough” as a method of evaluation, cf. the Cultural Heritage Act §9, and if such results can be used in further planning and budgeting. We consider the use of geophysical methods as a supplement to other evaluation methods. We also consider geophysical methods as most applicable earlier in the stages of site evaluations. Overall, the results presented in this report are considered as important reference material for what to expect by the various archaeological evaluation methods, and an important contribution to how such data can be used in a sensible manner in planning and development-cases, with transferable knowledge to all stages of cultural heritage management in Norway and beyond.
Stamnes, Arne Anderson 2015. Geofysisk undersøkelse av Herlaugshaugen, Leka kommune. NTNU Vitensk... more Stamnes, Arne Anderson 2015. Geofysisk undersøkelse av Herlaugshaugen, Leka kommune. NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet arkeologisk rapport 2015:19. NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet, Trondheim, Norway.
Geophysical investigations of the Viking Age Burial Mound of Herlaugshaugen, Leka Kommune in North-Trøndelag County, Norway.
In June 2012 the NTNU University museum undertook a geophysical investigation of the Viking Age burial mound of Herlaugshaugen at the island of Leka, in North-Trøndelag County. By the means of a ground penetrating radar and earth resistivity imaging, the aim was to gain additional insight into the way the mound had been constructed, its preservation conditions, and try answer whether or not the geophysical methods could reveal a Viking ship or additional details on the presence of a burial chamber. 43 ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiles was collected, along with 22 electrical resistivity profiles, covering the main preserved parts of the mound. It was possible, through extensive data processing, to visualize the data from both geophysical methods in three dimensions. As a result, we could perform a cultural historical interpretation of the collected data. The geophysical data indicates that the mound was constructed in several phases, and that it was possible to assess the depth down to the former surface layers within the mound. An assessment of the materials of which the various layers was constructed of, was also possible – as the GPR reflection patterns and earth resistivity reflect the composition and layering of the materials within the mound. On the basis of this analysis, it would seem that the mound is constructed by layers of turf, clay or organic material compiled against a construction in the centre of the mound. It is difficult to be certain if this construction is the central cairn or not. No clear indications of a ship burial were detected, but this does not rule out the possibility that the mound has been a ship burial – which the historical and antiquarian sources suggest. A good impression of which parts are well preserved and not was gained through the analysis of topographical and geophysical data. Also, the effects of water intrusion, physical intrusion and other events was noticed.
Report concerning the status of known scheduled monuments in the municipality of Overhalla, in No... more Report concerning the status of known scheduled monuments in the municipality of Overhalla, in Nord-Trøndelag County. Written to the Nord-Trøndelag County Council on behalf of the County Archaeologist. Language: Norwegian
NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet arkeologisk rapport 2014-9, Sep 1, 2014
Sommeren 2014 ble det utført en geofysisk undersøkelse av Peter Egges Plass i Trondheim. Formålet... more Sommeren 2014 ble det utført en geofysisk undersøkelse av Peter Egges Plass i Trondheim. Formålet var å danne seg et godt bilde av forstyrrelser i undergrunnen i forbindelse med utarbeidelse av en reguleringsplan for området, da det var usikkert hvor mye av området som var påvirket av moderne infrastruktur, kjellerbygninger og annen aktivitet. Det var også et mål å påvise eventuelle graver, stratigrafiske forhold, samt utbredelsen til bevarte kulturlag. Undersøkelsen ble utført med georadar, samt målinger av den elektriske ledeevnen i undergrunnen.
Det lot seg gjøre å påvise en mengde med moderne infrastruktur ved ulike dybder, samt flere anomali som er tolket som kulturhistoriske. Disse kan være rester etter eldre husgrunner, lagskiller og konstruksjoner. De elektriske målingene gjorde det mulig å anslå omtrent dybden på det moderne dekket, mulig utstrekning av kulturlag, antyde formen og retningen på en mulig plattform eller terrassekant, samt vise flere soner som kan tolkes som forhistoriske konstruksjoner.
A fluxgate gradiometer and earth resistance survey was carried out at the Falstad Prison Camp com... more A fluxgate gradiometer and earth resistance survey was carried out at the Falstad Prison Camp complex in 2008 and 2009. This was followed up by a ground penetrating radar-survey in the autumn of 2011. The data showed that the area has been quite disturbed, and parts of the area have been landscaped. Some anomalies could be related to former buildings at the camp, and the georeferencing of historical maps makes it possible to stake out their position with high accuracy. The report was done as a part of the "Painful Heritage" project as a collaboration between the NTNU University Museum and the Falstad Centre.
PhD Dissertation
The main aim of this thesis was to examine the role, function, status and impac... more PhD Dissertation
The main aim of this thesis was to examine the role, function, status and impact geophysical methods have had on archaeological research and the cultural heritage management in Norway, and the identification and investigation of important methodical and empirical research areas for a more integrated use of geophysical methods for Norwegian archaeology in general. This was done by reviewing the way geophysical methods have been used on Norwegian archaeological sites. In addition, by examining and analysing statements from various documents, communications, guidelines, directives and initiatives by actors within archaeological research and cultural heritage management, it was possible to gain a deeper understanding on the acceptance geophysical methods have in Norway, what role, function and status the actors assign to geophysical methods, and how geophysical methods have influenced the archaeological practice. The theoretical framework of actornetwork theory was used as an analytics tool for this analysis. By identifying and performing methodical and empirical research using geophysical methods on archaeological sites, it was also possible to present, examine and analyse the cultural historical knowledge gained and how these results could influence or alter decision makers, decision-making processes, and practice within the cultural heritage management. The idea of geophysical surveys as something new in Norwegian archaeology is not correct, but there have been a significant increase the last decade. There is no correlation between the amount of archaeological registrations performed in each county and the amount of geophysical surveys conducted in these counties. Statistics also show that the geophysical surveys performed in relation to archaeological registrations is increasing, as well as surveys performed for management purposes in general. The typical role envisioned for geophysical methods are as non-destructive tools for cultural heritage management and in relation to planning permissions, and as a registration method. The main focus is different from the various institutions involved within archaeological registrations, cultural heritage management, and archaeological research. An increased focus on geophysical methods is observed in the various documents analysed, indicating increased awareness. Still, geophysical methods are not used on a regular basis and has not been accepted as a well known tool for registration purposes. For research applications and management concerns not initiated by a developer, the acceptance for including geophysical methods is higher. The empirical and methodical analysis show possibilities and limitations in using geophysical methods for both research and management purposes. This reveals both instances where the application of geophysical methods revealed important and interesting archaeological observations, but also highlights some of the pitfalls and limitations that one need to take into consideration when commissioning surveys. This relates especially to aspects involving geological conditions, modern influence, ground conditions and field methodical aspects such as resolution and choice of geophysical survey methods. While methodical choices can be tailored to the challenge at hand and increase the possibilities for positive identification of archaeology, it remains that some factors are out of the surveyors hands. The amount of geophysical contrasts of an archaeological feature will vary depending on size and type of the archaeological feature, deposition processes, climatic factors and modern disturbance. A professional judgement relating to what archaeological method that are to be used must take these factors into consideration when assessing the potential gain of suggesting the application of geophysical methods against costs, cultural historical value and other factors. While these uncertainties has to be acknowledged, there are positive benefits of viewing the application of geophysical, non-intrusive methods as part of a longer planning process, as any results revealed in early stages can influence decisions and decisionmaking processes in later stages. This could be a contribution that reduces bureaucracy, improves budget accuracy, targeted excavations, and an overall better management of the archaeological heritage. Knowledge dissemination, support for training and experience should be encouraged.
"There has been an increased interest in the application of geophysical prospection techniques as... more "There has been an increased interest in the application of geophysical prospection techniques as a non-intrusive method within Norwegian archaeology the last few years. While some projects aim towards demonstrating the usefulness of geophysical methods there is still felt that more research with clear methodological aims should be undertaken.
This dissertation aims to assess the applicability of topsoil Magnetic susceptibility, Fluxgate Gradiometers, Earth Resistance Meters and Ground Penetrating Radar have for locating Norwegian Iron Age Settlements and suggest a sequential prospection design for this type of sites. By gathering high resolution field data at a site of known archaeology, it was possible to analyse and extrapolate the data collected to evaluate the effect of decreasing resolution and the geophysical response of the archaeology present. Issues concerning choice of initial site evaluation technique, sequence of methods, resolution and the value and benefit of each set of field data on its own and in combination with each other, was addressed.
The analysis shows a clear benefit of a multi-method approach. The confidence level in the interpretations increases with the application of several methods and an increased resolution. The results of different methods complement each other. As their potential is associated with their geophysical response, a survey strategy involving several geophysical techniques was suggested for similar sites. Care must be taken to ensure an adequate confidence level by addressing issues of sequence, resolution and area coverage, as well as the potential benefits of each method for locating archaeological features often associated with Iron Age settlement sites.
Key Words: Survey Design, Iron Age, Norway, Multi Method, Settlements"
The 14 articles presented in this publication represent some of the latest and most relevant rese... more The 14 articles presented in this publication represent some of the latest and most relevant research on rural settlement and farming from the Late Neolithic through the Early Medieval Period in Norway. It deals with the impact of climate change, plague and the AD 536-7 volcanic event and some of the earliest farms north of the Arctic Circle. It provides new perspectives and archaeological evidence for the Viking age farm of Norway, differences in regional settlement structures of agrarian societies, the relation between houses and graves in the Iron Age, and varying food practices as indicators of societal change.
The publication is part of the Joint Research Program (Forskning i fellesskap) conducted by the University Museums of Norway and co-funded by The Research Council of Norway.
The Royal manor Avaldsnes in southwest Norway holds a rich history testified by 13th century saga... more The Royal manor Avaldsnes in southwest Norway holds a rich history testified by 13th century sagas and exceptional graves from the first millennium AD. In 2011–12 the settlement was excavated. In this first book from the project crucial results from an international team of 23 scholars are published. The chapters cover a wide array of topics ranging from building-remains and scientific analyses of finds to landownership and ritual manifestations. It is suggested that Avaldsnes was a prominent base for sea kings that operated along the West-Scandinavian coast in the first millennium AD. The martial competence developed through the centuries in the sea-king environment was the basis of the Vikings' military success in the 9th–10th centuries.
With the aid of some good colleagues, I have made an overview over all published articles utilizi... more With the aid of some good colleagues, I have made an overview over all published articles utilizing geophysical methods on Norwegian archaeological sites (reports not included). I know its not entirely up to date, and want to invite you all to comment if you know some articles that are not mentioned and should be included in this list. Thank you all in advance. All the best - Arne.
Hundorp is considered one of the most important Viking Age sites in inland Eastern Norway. Howeve... more Hundorp is considered one of the most important Viking Age sites in inland Eastern Norway. However, our knowledge of the site is blurred by a mix of fact, fiction, and folklore, and little is known regarding its development and role in the overall power dynamics of the time. In this article, we present a whole new body of antiquarian, geophysical, and archaeological proxies, including the latest pagan burial documented so far in the region, and discuss its relevance in the wider socio-political picture. We argue that its role as an assembly site might go back to the Roman Iron Age, and that monumental burials continued right up to Christianization in the early 11th century. As the site lacks rich finds assemblages, Hundorp contrasts other contemporary power centres, and may have held other functions that are best understood within a wider framework of trade and power relations in the Late Iron Age.
Uploads
marine coastal environments, identify possible causes for changes, and
create an interpretive framework to identify potential human responses
to changing environmental settings. This will be done by combining nonintrusive geophysical survey techniques, palaeoenvironmental studies, trial excavations and digital landscape modelling in an interpretive framework to study human resilience in a changing coastal landscape.
of the rock art panels, but rather study the location
of the panels in relation to the various landscape
elements they coexist with. We will implement GIS
models to increase our understanding of the rock art
sites, in particular how the rock art sites relate to the
cultural-historical context and the landscape. In this
way, we are able to identify tendencies in the material
and analyse the rock art in its cultural-historical
context. We consider the important questions of
what characterizes the rock art in Stjørdal in terms
of types of motifs and their location, and how does
this art work relate to the landscape?
For å få bedre kunnskap om pløyelagsfunnenes deponeringshistorie, og dermed styrke grunnlaget for å forvalte metallrike lokaliteter, besluttet Riksantikvaren i 2016 å benytte et funnrikt jorde på Storhov i Heradsbygd, Elverum kommune (Figur 1 og 2), som en ‘case study’ i et prøveprosjekt. Vi har vært involvert i dette prosjektet, og basert på våre resultater vil vi her diskutere hvordan gjenstandene fremkommet med metallsøker kan ha funnet veien til pløyelaget. Stammer de fra kulturlag, stolpehull, graver, depoter eller andre strukturer som er mer eller mindre pløyd i stykker, eller har de kommet ut på jordet på andre måter? Kan de for eksempel ha blitt mistet under arbeid på jordet eller kjørt ut med gjødsel?
Etter korte sammendrag av detektorfunnene, så vel som resultatene fra de geofysiske og arkeologiske undersøkelsene, skal vi vurderer sammenhengen mellom geofysiske anomalier og påviste strukturer under pløyelaget. Til slutt tar vi opp prosjektets hovedspørsmål, den sannsynlige deponeringshistorien til pløyelagsfunnene på Storhov.
Hedmark using two different techniques: the measurements
of topsoil magnetic susceptibility and the use
of gradiometers for detailed mapping of anomalies with
a magnetic contrast. The purpose was to gain increased
background knowledge in advance of planned archaeological
excavations. A special focus was on mapping
iron production sites and features related to these that
had not been indicated by a prior test-trenching scheme.
This article presents the results of these surveys and
compares the geophysical data with the excavation
results in order to critically evaluate the interpretations
made in relation to the geophysical datasets. The article
presents statistics derived from these comparisons and
discusses the potential and limitations seen from a
cultural heritage management perspective. About 65%
of all archaeological features detected were prior to the
excavation indeed interpreted as potential archaeology
in the geophysical data, including 29 out of 31 excavated
furnaces. The topsoil magnetic susceptibility revealed
the areas influences by high-temperature metal crafts
well and indicated areas of activity larger than the site
limits set in advance of the excavations. The gradiometer-
data showed that most shaft furnaces had a
prominent geophysical signature. There was a range of
detected anomalies, for which no recognizable source
could be found during the archaeological investigations.
Moreover, large rocks had comparable geophysical signatures
to the iron furnaces but could be distinguished
due to the larger size of the anomalies. The geophysical
results would probably have had a larger impact on the
project planning if they had been obtained prior to the
test-trenching scheme, instead of after.
and specific archaeological features associated with this tradition of iron production. The NTNU University Museum in Trondheim performed geophysical surveys of four different iron production sites, combining topsoil volume magnetic susceptibility measurements and detailed fluxgate gradiometer surveys. Analysing and comparing the survey results with sketches and topographic survey results, as well as comparable geophysical survey data from iron production sites elsewhere in Norway, made it possible to gain new and valuable cultural-historical and methodological knowledge. The topsoil volume susceptibility measurements revealed a strong contrast between
the main production areas and the natural background measurement values, often in the range of 7–27 times the median background values. The absolute highest measured values were usually in the area closest to the furnaces, and within the slag mounds. Satellites of high readings could be interpreted as roasting sites for iron ore, and even areas with known building remains related to the iron production sites had readings stronger than the median. The fluxgate gradiometer data helped to
characterise individual features further, with strong geophysical contrast between features within the iron production sites and the areas surrounding them. Also, by analysing their physical placement,
geophysical characteristics such as contrast, magnetic remanence and size, it was possible to gain further insight into the spatial organisation by indicating the potential location of furnaces, the spread of slag and the handling of iron ore. The latter involved both where the roasted iron ore was stored and where it was roasted. The geophysical characteristics of the furnaces were less uniform than situations reported elsewhere in Norway, which can be explained by the reuse of furnaces and slag pits. The spread of highly remanent material in and around the furnaces and elsewhere within the limits of the iron production sites also created a disturbed magnetic picture rendering it difficult to provide an unambiguous archaeological interpretation of all the geophysical anomalies identified. In conclusion, these results showed that the geophysical methods applied made it possible to indicate the physical size, layout and internal spatial organisation of iron production sites of the Trøndelag slag pit furnace tradition.
marine coastal environments, identify possible causes for changes, and
create an interpretive framework to identify potential human responses
to changing environmental settings. This will be done by combining nonintrusive geophysical survey techniques, palaeoenvironmental studies, trial excavations and digital landscape modelling in an interpretive framework to study human resilience in a changing coastal landscape.
of the rock art panels, but rather study the location
of the panels in relation to the various landscape
elements they coexist with. We will implement GIS
models to increase our understanding of the rock art
sites, in particular how the rock art sites relate to the
cultural-historical context and the landscape. In this
way, we are able to identify tendencies in the material
and analyse the rock art in its cultural-historical
context. We consider the important questions of
what characterizes the rock art in Stjørdal in terms
of types of motifs and their location, and how does
this art work relate to the landscape?
For å få bedre kunnskap om pløyelagsfunnenes deponeringshistorie, og dermed styrke grunnlaget for å forvalte metallrike lokaliteter, besluttet Riksantikvaren i 2016 å benytte et funnrikt jorde på Storhov i Heradsbygd, Elverum kommune (Figur 1 og 2), som en ‘case study’ i et prøveprosjekt. Vi har vært involvert i dette prosjektet, og basert på våre resultater vil vi her diskutere hvordan gjenstandene fremkommet med metallsøker kan ha funnet veien til pløyelaget. Stammer de fra kulturlag, stolpehull, graver, depoter eller andre strukturer som er mer eller mindre pløyd i stykker, eller har de kommet ut på jordet på andre måter? Kan de for eksempel ha blitt mistet under arbeid på jordet eller kjørt ut med gjødsel?
Etter korte sammendrag av detektorfunnene, så vel som resultatene fra de geofysiske og arkeologiske undersøkelsene, skal vi vurderer sammenhengen mellom geofysiske anomalier og påviste strukturer under pløyelaget. Til slutt tar vi opp prosjektets hovedspørsmål, den sannsynlige deponeringshistorien til pløyelagsfunnene på Storhov.
Hedmark using two different techniques: the measurements
of topsoil magnetic susceptibility and the use
of gradiometers for detailed mapping of anomalies with
a magnetic contrast. The purpose was to gain increased
background knowledge in advance of planned archaeological
excavations. A special focus was on mapping
iron production sites and features related to these that
had not been indicated by a prior test-trenching scheme.
This article presents the results of these surveys and
compares the geophysical data with the excavation
results in order to critically evaluate the interpretations
made in relation to the geophysical datasets. The article
presents statistics derived from these comparisons and
discusses the potential and limitations seen from a
cultural heritage management perspective. About 65%
of all archaeological features detected were prior to the
excavation indeed interpreted as potential archaeology
in the geophysical data, including 29 out of 31 excavated
furnaces. The topsoil magnetic susceptibility revealed
the areas influences by high-temperature metal crafts
well and indicated areas of activity larger than the site
limits set in advance of the excavations. The gradiometer-
data showed that most shaft furnaces had a
prominent geophysical signature. There was a range of
detected anomalies, for which no recognizable source
could be found during the archaeological investigations.
Moreover, large rocks had comparable geophysical signatures
to the iron furnaces but could be distinguished
due to the larger size of the anomalies. The geophysical
results would probably have had a larger impact on the
project planning if they had been obtained prior to the
test-trenching scheme, instead of after.
and specific archaeological features associated with this tradition of iron production. The NTNU University Museum in Trondheim performed geophysical surveys of four different iron production sites, combining topsoil volume magnetic susceptibility measurements and detailed fluxgate gradiometer surveys. Analysing and comparing the survey results with sketches and topographic survey results, as well as comparable geophysical survey data from iron production sites elsewhere in Norway, made it possible to gain new and valuable cultural-historical and methodological knowledge. The topsoil volume susceptibility measurements revealed a strong contrast between
the main production areas and the natural background measurement values, often in the range of 7–27 times the median background values. The absolute highest measured values were usually in the area closest to the furnaces, and within the slag mounds. Satellites of high readings could be interpreted as roasting sites for iron ore, and even areas with known building remains related to the iron production sites had readings stronger than the median. The fluxgate gradiometer data helped to
characterise individual features further, with strong geophysical contrast between features within the iron production sites and the areas surrounding them. Also, by analysing their physical placement,
geophysical characteristics such as contrast, magnetic remanence and size, it was possible to gain further insight into the spatial organisation by indicating the potential location of furnaces, the spread of slag and the handling of iron ore. The latter involved both where the roasted iron ore was stored and where it was roasted. The geophysical characteristics of the furnaces were less uniform than situations reported elsewhere in Norway, which can be explained by the reuse of furnaces and slag pits. The spread of highly remanent material in and around the furnaces and elsewhere within the limits of the iron production sites also created a disturbed magnetic picture rendering it difficult to provide an unambiguous archaeological interpretation of all the geophysical anomalies identified. In conclusion, these results showed that the geophysical methods applied made it possible to indicate the physical size, layout and internal spatial organisation of iron production sites of the Trøndelag slag pit furnace tradition.
south of the Emirate of Sharjah (United Arab Emirates). The aim of the survey was to investigate an area of
approximately 7 hectares in the direct vicinity of the excavated monumental tombs at the site of Mleiha F.
Since GPR measurements already proved to be the most suitable method for the investigation of the
multifaceted archaeological structures found in Mleiha, the high-resolution multi-antenna-array DXF1820 of
3d-radar was used in this survey. This GPR system allows the creation of data sets with a spatial resolution
of 7.5 cm x 6 cm. Additionally, the utilised array, with 20 parallel antennas towed by car, safeguards a high
efficiency of the survey and delivers high-detailed data over the entire range of penetration given that the
antennas work in a stepped-frequency mode and use the whole spectrum between 50 and 3,000 MHz. Due to
the specific soil conditions of the site, the penetration of the high-frequency electromagnetic waves in the
soil was limited to approximately 120 cm. Despite this, the data revealed a great number of archaeological
structures in the supposed necropolis area around the site of Mleiha F. Numerous cist graves and pit graves
were identified. Furthermore, the data show large building complexes that are related to either funerary or
settlement activities.
The site of Gustad, Ekne in Nord-Trøndelag County in Norway is a site with over 200 years of research history, with old antiquarian maps and written sources mentioning as many as 18 burial mounds or cairns and at least two houses and some finds dating to the 10th century being handed in to the regional archaeological museum in Trondheim. The site has never been targeted for an archaeological investigation, but was aerial photographed in 2007 to some extent confirming the information from the old maps.
The summer of 2010 a multi method geophysical investigation was conducted as part of a research project, resulting in a MSc thesis at the University of Bradford, in collaboration with the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) in Trondheim and Nord-Trøndelag County Council. 3d-radar has also been involved at a later stage. The usage of geophysical methods within Norwegian Cultural Heritage Management is a field that is still in its early stages, with no more than about 60 geophysical surveys being conducted the last 20 years. As approximately half of these are done within the last 5 years, an increased interest has been noticed. A lack of targeted research within the field of archaeological geophysics can still said to be noticeable.
Topsoil Magnetic Susceptibility measurements, Fluxgate Gradiometer, Earth Resistance and a Ground Penetrating Radar survey was conducted at Gustad. By comparing and analysing the results from the geophysical survey with the known archaeology, the applicability of each method was evaluated by investigating and discussing issues concerning the geophysical response of the known archaeology. The necessary resolution to delimit the site and identify its archaeological components was analysed, and a suggestion of optimal methods, resolution and sequence for investigating similar sites was made. This survey is considered an important addition to the current knowledge of archaeological geophysics in Norway, and can serve as a good reference for future work.
How can topsoil magnetic susceptibility and fluxgate gradiometer surveys be used to locate, delimit and characterize iron production sites?
ACT values at different locations, it is possible to geostatistically model and create maps in a GIS showing how varying temperature conditions
affect the arable areas. As we know that temperatures have varied over past centuries, such an approach makes it possible to model and
visualize the effect of temperature variations on past landscapes.
The area investigated is a well known iron age site, where historical aerial photos reveal the presence of several circular mounds and long mounds – some monumental. The size of these monuments, as well as the presence of both a medieval church and a farm mound, as well as more recent historical ownership of the farm, tells us that this has been a central and important farm in the region from at least the Viking age and onwards.
A total of 96 700 m² was investigated with a 3d-radar Mark IV ground penetrating radar, and the dataset was processed and interpreted in the software Examiner 2.97
The total results of the analysis of this dataset is as follows:
• Ring ditches from at least 8 iron age burial mounds, as well as 7 boat/house shaped long mounds. One of these is around what might be a central cairn.
• At least 32 oval ditches spread over a larger part of the field. Most of these can be interpreted as ditches surrounding possible house foundations. Alternative interpretations are discussed in the report.
• At least 1257 pits of varrying sizes, where 293 of these are consentrated in a relative small area the centre of the investigated area.
• A larger dug feature interpreted as the possible remains of the first hospital in the county, which is known to be located within this field.
Keywords: ground penetrating radar – burial mounds – house foundations – iron age – middle ages
plough zone, and to identify the occurrence of archaeological dug features such as settlement traces, graves or similar and potentially indicate features for future identification. It was seen as beneficial if the
survey results could provide more information on the preservation conditions and possible future threats to the site.
A total of 24 600 m2 was covered by ground penetrating radar, 33 600 m2 by topsoil magnetic susceptibility measurements and 20 800 m2 by a systematic metal detecting survey. A total of 1154 pits, 8 graves and at least 2 prehistoric houses was visible in the ground penetrating
radar data, and confirming the presence of a rare cooking pit site – also often interpreted as a prehistoric gathering site. The occurrence of graves and houses within close proximity is highly interesting. 14
archaeological objects, and a wide range of fragmented metal pieces were also found within the survey limits of the metal detecting survey.
General conclusions are as follows: the site is under threat by current agricultural practices, the site is not entirely delineated, and there is potential for more archaeological finds are being moved up into the
plough zone after each ploughing. The results of these geophysical surveys and the metal detecting scheme undertaken are a good starting point for further targeted investigations.
2017 awarded research- and development funds from the Directorate for Cultural Heritage (Riksantikvaren)
for a joint research project entitled “Delimiting archaeological sites in cultivated land”. The aim of the project
was to investigate the applicability and precision of large-scale geophysical investigations and to compare
these with the results from traditional archaeological test-trenching and soil-stripping excavations. Another
aim was to investigate various ways in which such datasets could be used for delimiting sites, creating
prognosis for finding additional archaeological features, and budgeting and planning of archaeological
investigations, with reference to §9 in the Norwegian Cultural Heritage Act. Two sites were investigated with
geophysical methods; Øya in Melhus municipality and Dilling in Rygge Municipality. The results of these
investigations were subjected to a quantitative comparison with the results from the test trenching previously
performed by the respective county archaeologists, and the results of subsequent excavations undertaken by
the regional archaeological museums. By comparing the results from the two methods of archaeological
evaluation (test trenching and large-scale ground penetrating radar (GPR)-survey), we could get additional
insight into the representability of these evaluation methods. The test-trenching performed at Øya had a
detection rate of 29% of all features found at the subsequent excavation. When using GPR, 10 % of all
excavated features were identified in the initial archaeological interpretation of the acquired data, while
subsequent comparison of the GPR-data showed that 23% of all excavated features were, in fact, visible in
the data. The detection rate at Dilling was 39% for the test trenching, while 6% of the excavated features were
initially identified in the GPR data. The comparison of the excavated data and the GPR-data showed that 18%
of the features were visible in the collected data. The detection rates of features such as cooking pits, pits,
fire places, and ovens were generally comparable in both methods of evaluation, while there was a larger
difference in relation to identifying postholes. Test trenching was generally more applicable for identifying
postholes, most probably due to their physical size and the contrast of postholes in comparison with the
technical limitations of GPR with respect to spatial resolution. The spatial correlation between the GPR data
and the excavated features at Øya were (0.45 interpreted/0.85 visible), while the test-trenching had a low
spatial correlation (0.15). At Dilling the spatial correlation between the excavation and the test trenching was
higher (0.8), while the correlation for the GPR was slightly lower (0.65 interpreted/0.73 visible), but still
comparable. This means that while you might not locate as high a percentage of the archaeological features,
but the spatial representation of the sites are still comparable, if not better, based on the detectable features
in the GPR-data on settlement sites of these types. There are different advantages and limitations to using
each of these methods of evaluation. For instance, the visual and physical identification by test-trenching is
an advantage, whereas the interpretation of GPR data requires another type of specialized skills. Testtrenching
is a sampling strategy, whereas large-scale GPR surveys most often cover the entire area to be
investigated and can offer additional information otherwise missed in-between the trenches. The project also
showed that there is room for improvement in learning how to better identify the archaeological features in
the GPR datasets. The project highlighted in a quantitative manner the applicability of the two methods. While
GPR does find some archaeological feature types in a comparable rate to test-trenching, others are more
easily missed. There is also a discrepancy between the number of features found when excavating the entire
site and those indicated by the rate of features visible in the test trenches. The overall spatial pattern of
anomalies identified by GPR represents the overall spread of archaeological features excavated well. It is
therefore natural to ask if geophysical methods are “good enough” as a method of evaluation, cf. the Cultural
Heritage Act §9, and if such results can be used in further planning and budgeting. We consider the use of
geophysical methods as a supplement to other evaluation methods. We also consider geophysical methods
as most applicable earlier in the stages of site evaluations. Overall, the results presented in this report are
considered as important reference material for what to expect by the various archaeological evaluation
methods, and an important contribution to how such data can be used in a sensible manner in planning and
development-cases, with transferable knowledge to all stages of cultural heritage management in Norway
and beyond.
Geophysical investigations of the Viking Age Burial Mound of Herlaugshaugen, Leka Kommune in North-Trøndelag County, Norway.
In June 2012 the NTNU University museum undertook a geophysical investigation of the Viking Age burial mound of Herlaugshaugen at the island of Leka, in North-Trøndelag County. By the means of a ground penetrating radar and earth resistivity imaging, the aim was to gain additional insight into the way the mound had been constructed, its preservation conditions, and try answer whether or not the geophysical methods could reveal a Viking ship or additional details on the presence of a burial chamber. 43 ground penetrating radar (GPR) profiles was collected, along with 22 electrical resistivity profiles, covering the main preserved parts of the mound. It was possible, through extensive data processing, to visualize the data from both geophysical methods in three dimensions. As a result, we could perform a cultural historical interpretation of the collected data. The geophysical data indicates that the mound was constructed in several phases, and that it was possible to assess the depth down to the former surface layers within the mound. An assessment of the materials of which the various layers was constructed of, was also possible – as the GPR reflection patterns and earth resistivity reflect the composition and layering of the materials within the mound. On the basis of this analysis, it would seem that the mound is constructed by layers of turf, clay or organic material compiled against a construction in the centre of the mound. It is difficult to be certain if this construction is the central cairn or not. No clear indications of a ship burial were detected, but this does not rule out the possibility that the mound has been a ship burial – which the historical and antiquarian sources suggest. A good impression of which parts are well preserved and not was gained through the analysis of topographical and geophysical data. Also, the effects of water intrusion, physical intrusion and other events was noticed.
Key words: Geophysical investigation, burial mound, Viking Age, Ground Penetrating Radar, Earth Resistivity Imaging, Herlaugshaugen
Det lot seg gjøre å påvise en mengde med moderne infrastruktur ved ulike dybder, samt flere anomali som er tolket som kulturhistoriske. Disse kan være rester etter eldre husgrunner, lagskiller og konstruksjoner. De elektriske målingene gjorde det mulig å anslå omtrent dybden på det moderne dekket, mulig utstrekning av kulturlag, antyde formen og retningen på en mulig plattform eller terrassekant, samt vise flere soner som kan tolkes som forhistoriske konstruksjoner.
The main aim of this thesis was to examine the role, function, status and impact geophysical methods
have had on archaeological research and the cultural heritage management in Norway, and the
identification and investigation of important methodical and empirical research areas for a more
integrated use of geophysical methods for Norwegian archaeology in general. This was done by
reviewing the way geophysical methods have been used on Norwegian archaeological sites. In
addition, by examining and analysing statements from various documents, communications,
guidelines, directives and initiatives by actors within archaeological research and cultural heritage
management, it was possible to gain a deeper understanding on the acceptance geophysical methods
have in Norway, what role, function and status the actors assign to geophysical methods, and how
geophysical methods have influenced the archaeological practice. The theoretical framework of actornetwork
theory was used as an analytics tool for this analysis. By identifying and performing
methodical and empirical research using geophysical methods on archaeological sites, it was also
possible to present, examine and analyse the cultural historical knowledge gained and how these
results could influence or alter decision makers, decision-making processes, and practice within the
cultural heritage management. The idea of geophysical surveys as something new in Norwegian
archaeology is not correct, but there have been a significant increase the last decade. There is no
correlation between the amount of archaeological registrations performed in each county and the
amount of geophysical surveys conducted in these counties. Statistics also show that the geophysical
surveys performed in relation to archaeological registrations is increasing, as well as surveys
performed for management purposes in general. The typical role envisioned for geophysical methods
are as non-destructive tools for cultural heritage management and in relation to planning permissions,
and as a registration method. The main focus is different from the various institutions involved within
archaeological registrations, cultural heritage management, and archaeological research. An increased
focus on geophysical methods is observed in the various documents analysed, indicating increased
awareness. Still, geophysical methods are not used on a regular basis and has not been accepted as a
well known tool for registration purposes. For research applications and management concerns not
initiated by a developer, the acceptance for including geophysical methods is higher. The empirical and
methodical analysis show possibilities and limitations in using geophysical methods for both research
and management purposes. This reveals both instances where the application of geophysical methods
revealed important and interesting archaeological observations, but also highlights some of the pitfalls
and limitations that one need to take into consideration when commissioning surveys. This relates
especially to aspects involving geological conditions, modern influence, ground conditions and field
methodical aspects such as resolution and choice of geophysical survey methods. While methodical
choices can be tailored to the challenge at hand and increase the possibilities for positive identification
of archaeology, it remains that some factors are out of the surveyors hands. The amount of geophysical
contrasts of an archaeological feature will vary depending on size and type of the archaeological
feature, deposition processes, climatic factors and modern disturbance. A professional judgement
relating to what archaeological method that are to be used must take these factors into consideration
when assessing the potential gain of suggesting the application of geophysical methods against costs,
cultural historical value and other factors. While these uncertainties has to be acknowledged, there
are positive benefits of viewing the application of geophysical, non-intrusive methods as part of a
longer planning process, as any results revealed in early stages can influence decisions and decisionmaking
processes in later stages. This could be a contribution that reduces bureaucracy, improves
budget accuracy, targeted excavations, and an overall better management of the archaeological
heritage. Knowledge dissemination, support for training and experience should be encouraged.
This dissertation aims to assess the applicability of topsoil Magnetic susceptibility, Fluxgate Gradiometers, Earth Resistance Meters and Ground Penetrating Radar have for locating Norwegian Iron Age Settlements and suggest a sequential prospection design for this type of sites. By gathering high resolution field data at a site of known archaeology, it was possible to analyse and extrapolate the data collected to evaluate the effect of decreasing resolution and the geophysical response of the archaeology present. Issues concerning choice of initial site evaluation technique, sequence of methods, resolution and the value and benefit of each set of field data on its own and in combination with each other, was addressed.
The analysis shows a clear benefit of a multi-method approach. The confidence level in the interpretations increases with the application of several methods and an increased resolution. The results of different methods complement each other. As their potential is associated with their geophysical response, a survey strategy involving several geophysical techniques was suggested for similar sites. Care must be taken to ensure an adequate confidence level by addressing issues of sequence, resolution and area coverage, as well as the potential benefits of each method for locating archaeological features often associated with Iron Age settlement sites.
Key Words: Survey Design, Iron Age, Norway, Multi Method, Settlements"
The publication is part of the Joint Research Program (Forskning i fellesskap) conducted by the University Museums of Norway and co-funded by The Research Council of Norway.