You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

New perspectives to save cultural heritage
Altan, M. Orhan

CIP A 2003 XIX th International Symposium, 30 September - 04 October, 2003, Antalya, Turkey
Figure 9. Quantitative interpretation of anomaly IV (area B)
3.3 3-D modelling of magnetic anomalies
The GSFC-1 (Geological Space Field Calculation) program
was developed for solving a direct 3-D gravity and magnetic
prospecting problem under complicated geological conditions
(Khesin et al., 1996; Eppelbaum, 2003). This program has been
designed for computing the field of Ag (Bouguer, free-air or
observed value anomalies), AZ, AX, AT, AT, as well as second
derivatives of the gravitational potential under conditions of
rugged relief and inclined magnetization. The geological space
can be approximated by (1) three-dimensional, (2) semi-infinite
bodies and (3) those infinite along the strike (closed, L.H. non-
closed, R.H. non-closed and open). Geological bodies are
approximated by horizontal polygonal prisms.
The basic algorithm realized in the GSFC program is the
solution of the direct 3-D problem of gravimetric and magnetic
prospecting for horizontal polygonal prism limited in the strike
direction. In the presented algorithm integration over a volume
is realized on the surface limiting the anomalous body.
Results of 3-D modelling of magnetic field produced by the
buried target at area B have shown in Figure 10.
As initial model for the computing, the data obtained at the
previous stage of quantitative interpretation (see Figure 6), were
utilized. Figure 10 illustrates that observed and computed
graphs gave an excellent agreement. Thus, good coinciding the
observed and computed graphs proves the reliability of
performed quantitative interpretation. Similar results were
obtained and for anomalies II - IV.
GSFC-1 program. Arrow indicates the direction of magnetic
Finally, Figure 11 shows an image of the examined area B at
Emmaus-Nicopolis showing the projection of the upper edge of
anomalous body to the earth’s surface. On the basis of
integrated analysis of geophysical and archaeological data we
may suggest that this anomaly (see Figure 9) may be produced
by some archaeological remain(s) containing in underground
4. Conclusions
We can conclude that four analyzed magnetic anomalies with a
high probability can correspond to buried archaeological
remains. Despite of the fact that the recognized anomalies at the
area A have more high intensity than the single anomaly at the
area B, we propose that the last anomaly may have more
important archaeological significance and it should be
excavated for the first time.
Preferably, three magnetic anomalies displayed at the area A,
must be examined also by conventional metal detector
The areas of geophysical examination must be extended to the
west where also archaeological remains may be found.
Dalan, R.A. and Banerjee, S.K., 1996. Soil magnetism, an
approach for examining archaeological landscapes. Geophysical
Research Letters, 23 (2), pp. 185-188.