Smouha District, Alexandria, Egypt: Report on geophysical survey, November 2004

Sally-Ann Ashton, 2007. https://doi.org/10.5284/1000020. How to cite using this DOI

Digital Object Identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are persistent identifiers which can be used to consistently and accurately reference digital objects and/or content. The DOIs provide a way for the ADS resources to be cited in a similar fashion to traditional scholarly materials. More information on DOIs at the ADS can be found on our help page.

Citing this DOI

The updated Crossref DOI Display guidelines recommend that DOIs should be displayed in the following format:

https://doi.org/10.5284/1000020
Sample Citation for this DOI

Sally-Ann Ashton (2007) Smouha District, Alexandria, Egypt: Report on geophysical survey, November 2004 [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1000020

Data copyright © Dr Sally-Ann Ashton unless otherwise stated

This work is licensed under the ADS Terms of Use and Access.
Creative Commons License


British Academy BA logo
Fitzwilliam Museum logo

Primary contact

Dr Sally-Ann Ashton
Fitzwilliam Museum
Trumpington Street
Cambridge
CB2 1RB
Tel: 01223 332905

Send e-mail enquiry

Resource identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers

Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) are persistent identifiers which can be used to consistently and accurately reference digital objects and/or content. The DOIs provide a way for the ADS resources to be cited in a similar fashion to traditional scholarly materials. More information on DOIs at the ADS can be found on our help page.

Citing this DOI

The updated Crossref DOI Display guidelines recommend that DOIs should be displayed in the following format:

https://doi.org/10.5284/1000020
Sample Citation for this DOI

Sally-Ann Ashton (2007) Smouha District, Alexandria, Egypt: Report on geophysical survey, November 2004 [data-set]. York: Archaeology Data Service [distributor] https://doi.org/10.5284/1000020

Overview

Geophysical survey within an urban context is often compromised by the unavailability of suitable open areas and the presence of extant structures. The response to significant archaeological remains is often quite subtle and may be entirely obscured by the physical contrasts exhibited by more recent, overlying deposits. In the present case the most practical geophysical technique to apply was Ground Penetrating Radar using a relatively low centre frequency antenna to overcome the attenuating effect of the high conductivity sediments that developed within an area of former salt marsh. A complementary electromagnetic survey was also conducted to record the variation of magnetic and soil conductivity properties over the site with the aim of eliminating responses due to modern services.

Unfortunately, access was only possible to three properties in the vicinity of the suspected temple and whilst a number of geophysical anomalies were identified none of these are fully described due to the key-hole nature of the survey, thus limiting the confidence that may be placed on their interpretation. Perhaps the most significant anomalies are found in the play ground of the Ashraf el Khagha primary school in an area that seems to have escaped more recent intervention. These anomalies together with the concentration of (recti)linear responses found in the Port Authority Bus depot provide the most likely candidates for further investigation. However, some attempt to establish the precise course of modern services from existing buildings and any former structures on both sites would be prudent prior to any invasive excavation.

Whilst other areas of the site are potentially available for geophysical survey, ground conditions observed during the current field work indicated mainly metalled or tiled surfaces with the exception of a gravel and sand compound adjoining the Ashraf el Khagha primary school to the south. Such surfaces do not necessarily preclude the application of further geophysical survey but they will complicate the interpretation of results and any identification of archaeological targets is likely to entail a degree of uncertainty. Hence, some limited invasive investigation is recommended first to establish the origin of the anomalies reported here and the nature of any associated archaeological remains. This would allow the geophysical methodology to be refined, for example by deploying a lower centre frequency antenna if evidence for substantial wall footings were suspected below the depth of signal attenuation revealed by the current survey.

One aim of the survey was to test the applicability of geophysical techniques appropriate for the detection of smaller scale archaeological features that might be expected at this site. This is of course impossible to fully assess without testing the identified anomalies against excavation but it is encouraging that both the EM and GPR techniques could be deployed under the difficult circumstances posed at this site. In particular, the very limited time window allowed for access to avoid disruption to lessons at the two school sites required instrumentation optimised for rapid data acquisition. The cart mounted integral Noggin GPR proved highly capable in this respect and was also a practical system for transport to the site via air freight from the UK. Unfortunately, in this instance the Noggin Plus system was compromised by the failure of two DVL data logging units and the inability to operate the instrument directly from software via a laptop PC.




ADS logo
Data Org logo
University of York logo