A Detailed geophysical investigation was conducted on Knossos territory of Crete Island. Main scope was the detection of underground archaeological settlements. Geophysical prospecting applied by an experienced geophysical team. According to area dimensions in relation to geological and structural conditions, the team designed specific geophysical techniques, by adopted non-catastrophic methods. Three different types of geophysical techniques performed gradually. Geophysical investigation consisted of the application of geoelectric mapping and geomagnetic prospecting. Electric mapping focusses on recording soil resistance distribution. Geomagnetic survey was performed by using two different types of magnetometers. Firstly, recorded distribution of geomagnetic intensity and secondly alteration of vertical gradient. Measured stations laid along the south-north axis with intervals equal to one meter. Both magnetometers were adjusted on a quiet magnetic station. Values were stored in files readable by geophysical interpretation software in XYZ format. Oasis Montaj was adopted for interpretation of measured physical properties distribution. Interpretation results were illustrated as color scale maps. Further processing applied on magnetic measurements. Results are confirmed by overlaying results from three different techniques. Geoelectric mapping contributed to detection of a few archaeological targets. Most of them were recorded by geomagnetic technique. Total intensity aimed to report the existence of magnetized bodies. Vertical gradient detected subsurface targets with clearly geometrical characteristics.

Geophysical Investigation, Geophysics, Soil Resistance, Geomagnetic Intensity, Proton Magnetometer, Vertical Gradient, Fluxgate Magnetometer

1. Alashloo SYM, Saad R, Nawawi MNM, et al. Using Integrated Geophysical Techniques to Prospect an Unexcavated Archaeological Site at Sungai Batu, Kedah, Malaysia. Journal of Applied Sciences. 2011; 11(19): 3389-3396. doi: 10.3923/jas.2011.3389.3396

2. Arciniega-Ceballos A, Hernandez-Quintero E, Cabral-Cano E, et al. Shallow geophysical survey at the archaeological site of San Miguel Tocuila, Basin of Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2009; 36(6): 1199-1205. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2009.01.025

3. Cardarelli E, Fischanger F, Piro S. Integrated geophysical survey to detect buried structures for archaeological prospecting. A case‐history at Sabine Necropolis (Rome, Italy). Near Surface Geophysics. 2007; 6(1): 15-20. doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2007027

4. Di Fiore B, Chianese D. Electric and magnetic tomographic approach for the geophysical investigation of an unexplored area in the archaeological site of Pompeii (Southern Italy). Journal of Archaeological Science. 2008; 35(1): 14-25. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2007.02.020

5. Křivánek R. Application of geophysical methods for monitoring of surface and subsurface changes of origin archaeological terrains &ndahs; case studies of sites in the Czech Republic. The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences. 2015; XL-5/W7: 257-262. doi: 10.5194/isprsarchives-xl-5-w7-257-2015

6. Křivánek R, Tirpák J. Geophysical Survey and Changes in the Use of the Cultural Landscape. Interdisciplinaria Archaeologica Natural Sciences in Archaeology. 2023; XIV(1): 9-29. doi: 10.24916/iansa.2023.1.1

7. Martorana R, Capizzi P, Pisciotta A, et al. An Overview of Geophysical Techniques and Their Potential Suitability for Archaeological Studies. Heritage. 2023; 6(3): 2886-2927. doi: 10.3390/heritage6030154

8. Mateiciucová I, Milo P, Tencer T, et al. Geophysical survey at archaeological sites in northeastern Syria. ArchéoSciences. 2009; 33 (suppl.): 111-113. doi: 10.4000/archeosciences.1385

9. Milo P, Vágner M, Tencer T, et al. Application of Geophysical Methods in Archaeological Survey of Early Medieval Fortifications. Remote Sensing. 2022; 14(10): 2471. doi: 10.3390/rs14102471

10. Note N, Saey T, Gheyle W, et al. Evaluation of fluxgate magnetometry and electromagnetic induction surveys for subsurface characterization of archaeological features in World War 1 battlefields. Geoarchaeology. 2018; 34(2): 136-148. doi: 10.1002/gea.21700

11. Vagnon F, Comina C, Canepa MC, et al. Experiences and preliminary results of geophysical methods on historical statues. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2023; 1124(1): 012132. doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/1124/1/012132

12. Heraklion Sheet. Geological Map of Greece. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, IGME; 1996.

13. Martha SO, Dörr W, Gerdes A, et al. The tectonometamorphic and magmatic evolution of the Uppermost Unit in central Crete (Melambes area): constraints on a Late Cretaceous magmatic arc in the Internal Hellenides (Greece). Gondwana Research. 2017; 48: 50-71. doi: 10.1016/j.gr.2017.04.004

14. Butler DK, Llopis JL, Briuer FL. Geophysical and Archaeological Investigations for Location of a Historic Cemetery, Fort Stewart, Georgia. Defense Technical Information Center; 1993. doi: 10.21236/ada267096

15. Papamarinopoulos P, Stefanopoulos P, Papaioannou M. Geopysical investigations in search of ancient Helike and the protection of the archaeological site versus the rapid building expansion. In: Proceedings of the international Symposium on Engineering Geology and the Environment Organized by the Greek National Group Of IAEG/Athens/Greece/23-27; June 1997.

16. Rizzo E, Dubbini R, Capozzoli L, et al. Preliminary geophysical investigation in the archaeological site of Bocca delle Menate (Comacchio, FE). Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2022; 2204(1): 012107. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2204/1/012107

17. Saleh S, Saleh A, El Emam AE, et al. Detection of Archaeological Ruins Using Integrated Geophysical Surveys at the Pyramid of Senusret II, Lahun, Fayoum, Egypt. Pure and Applied Geophysics. 2022; 179(5): 1981-1993. doi: 10.1007/s00024-022-03010-2

18. Savvaidis A, Tsokas G, Tsourlos P, et al. A geophysical survey in the archaeological site of Archontiko, Yannitsa. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece. 2001; 34(4): 1379. doi: 10.12681/bgsg.17231

19. Branko M, Jana H, Dimc F. Comparison of different geophysical techniques in relation to archaeological data for settlement reconstruction - the case study of Nauportus. Slovenia; 2007.

20. Ogden J, Keay S, Earl G, et al. Geophysical Prospection at Portus: An Evaluation of an Integrated Approach to the Interpretation of Subsurface Archaeological Features, Computer Applications to Archaeology. Physical Sciences; 2009.

21. Jirků J, Belov T, Bárta J, et al. Geophysically – archaeological survey at the Hradčany square in Prague. EGRSE – Exploration Geophysics, Remote Sensing and Environment. 2018; (XXV/2): 20-26. doi: 10.26345/egrse-020-18-203

22. Bianco C, De Giorgi L, Giannotta MT, et al. The Messapic Site of Muro Leccese: New Results from Integrated Geophysical and Archaeological Surveys. Remote Sensing. 2019; 11(12): 1478. doi: 10.3390/rs11121478

23. Eppelbaum Lev. System of Potential Geophysical Field Application in Archaeological Prospection. In: Switzerland AG, D’Amico S, Venuti V (editors). Handbook of Cultural Heritage Analysis. Springer Nature; 2022.

24. Lowe KM, Fogel AS, Sneddon A. Archaeological geophysical survey of a Prehistoric Bronze Age site in Cyprus (Alambra Mouttes)—applications and limitations. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences. 2017; 10(8): 1971-1989. doi: 10.1007/s12520-017-0508-3

25. Tonkov N. Complex magnetic and resistivity geophysical survey at the national archaeological reserve "Kabyle". Bulgarian Academy of Sciences; 2017

26. Abudeif AM, Abdel Aal GZ, Ramadan HS, et al. Geophysical Prospecting of the Coptic Monastery of Apa Moses Using GPR and Magnetic Techniques: A Case Study, Abydos, Sohag, Egypt. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14): 11119. doi: 10.3390/su151411119

27. Eppelbauir Lev V. Applicability of geophysical methods for localization of archaeological targets: An introduction. Geoinformatics. 2000; 11(1): 25-34. doi: 10.6010/geoinformatics1990.11.1_25

28. Grassi S, Morreale G, Lanteri R, et al. Integration of Geophysical Survey Data for the Identification of New Archaeological Remains in the Subsoil of the Akrai Greek Site (Sicily, Italy). Heritage. 2023; 6(2): 979-992. doi: 10.3390/heritage6020055

29. Bevan B. A Geophysical Survey at the West House, Richmond National Battlefield. Technical Report; 2002

30. Bevan B. Design of Geophysical Surveys. Technical Report; 2004.

31. Hannian S, Hijab B, Laftah A. Geophysical Investigation of Babylon archeological City, Iraq. Diyala Journal For Pure Science. 2021; 17(3): 1-24. doi: 10.24237/djps.17.03.533c

32. Olorunfemi MO, Ogunfolakan BA, Oni AG. Geophysical and Archaeological Survey in Igbo Oritaa (Iwo), Southwest Nigeria. African Archaeological Review. 2019; 36:535-552. doi: 10.1007/s10437-019-09357-7

33. Eppelbaum LV, Itkis SE, Khesin BE. Detailed magnetic survey unmasks prehistoric archaeological sites in israel. In: Proceedings of the 19th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems; April 2006.

34. Scheiblecker M, Mühl S, Faßbinder J. Geophysical survey of single phase archaeological sites: New Global Perspectives on Archaeological Prospection. ResearchGate; 2019.

35. Panos S. Contribution of geophysics in solution of archaeological and environmental problems [PhD thesis]. University of Patras, Greece; 2002.

36. Rizzo E, Dubbini R, Clementi J, et al. Geomagnetic and FDEM Methods in the Roman Archaeological Site of Bocca Delle Menate (Comacchio, Italy). Heritage. 2023; 6(2): 1698-1712. doi: 10.3390/heritage6020090

37. Bárta J, Belov T, Frolík J, et al. Applications of Geophysical Surveys for Archaeological Studies in Urban and Rural Areas in Czech Republic and Armenia. Geosciences. 2020; 10(9): 356. doi: 10.3390/geosciences10090356

38. Shi Z, Tian G, Hobbs RW, et al. Magnetic gradient and ground penetrating radar prospecting of buried earthen archaeological remains at the Qocho City site in Turpan, China. Near Surface Geophysics. 2015; 13(5): 477-485. doi: 10.3997/1873-0604.2015033

39. Augie AI, Salako KA, Rafiu AA, et al. Geophysical Magnetic Data Analyses of the Geological Structures with Mineralization Potentials Over the Southern Part of Kebbi, NW Nigeria. Mining Science. 2022; 29. doi: 10.37190/msc222911

40. Oasis Montaj. Mapping and processing system. Oasis Montaj; 2008.

41. Filzwieser R, Olesen LH, Neubauer W, et al. Large‐scale geophysical archaeological prospection pilot study at Viking Age and medieval sites in west Jutland, Denmark. Archaeological Prospection. 2017; 24(4): 373-393. doi: 10.1002/arp.1576

42. Papamarinopoulos StP, Papaioannou MG, Stefanopoulos P, et al. The Geophysical Discovery of a Second World War Battlefield in Central Crete During Construction Activities by a Building Company. Environmental & Engineering Geophysical Society; 1995.

43. Ahmed SB, El Qassas RAY, El Salam HFA. Mapping the possible buried archaeological targets using magnetic and ground penetrating radar data, Fayoum, Egypt. The Egyptian Journal of Remote Sensing and Space Science. 2020; 23(3): 321-332. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrs.2019.07.005

44. Lichtenberger A, Meyer C, Schreiber T, et al. Magnetic Prospection in the Eastern Lower City of Artashat-Artaxata in the Ararat Plain of Armenia. Electrum. 2022; 29: 109-125. doi: 10.4467/20800909el.22.008.15778

45. Fedi M, Florio G, Garofalo B, et al. Integrated geophysical survey to recognize ancient Picentias buried walls, in the Archaeological Park of Pontecagnano Faiano (Southern Italy). Annals of Geophysics. 2009; 51(5-6). doi: 10.4401/ag-3017