SESS 4_17022011.pub Il Quaternario Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences 24, (Abstract AIQUA, Roma 02/2011), Congresso AIQUA Il Quaternario Italiano: conoscenze e prospettive Roma 24 e 25 febbraio 2011 GEOARCHAEOLOGIC METHODS APPLIED TO PREVENTIVE ARCHAEOLOGY. A NEW PERSPECTIVE FOR ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND QUATERNARY SCIENTISTS Mauro Cremaschi & Chiara Pizzi Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra “A. Desio”, Università degli Studi di Milano Corresponding author: M. Cremaschi ABSTRACT: Cremaschi M. & Pizzi C., Geoarchaelogic methods applied to Preventive Archaeology. A new perspective for archaeologists and Quaternary scientists.. (IT ISSN 0349-3356, 2011) The applications of Geoarchaeology in the frame of the Preventive Archaeology are discussed on the basis of the Public Contracts Code (Legislative Decree no. 163/2006) and of some case studies in different archaeological contexts. RIASSUNTO: Cremaschi M. & Pizzi C., Metodi geoarcheologici applicati all’Archeologia Preventiva. Una nuova prospet- tiva per archeologi e scienziati del Quaternario. (IT ISSN 0349-3356, 2011) Viene discusso il ruolo della Geoarcheologia nelle operazioni di Archeologia Preventiva sulla base del Codice dei Con- tratti Pubblici (D.Lgs. 163/2006, art. 95: Verifica Preventiva dell’Interesse Archeologico in sede di progetto preliminare) e mediante l’illustrazione di alcuni casi di studio da contesti archeologici diversi. Key words: Geoarchaeology, Preventive Archaeology, cultural heritage. Parole chiave: Geoarcheologia, Archeologia Preventiva, beni culturali. Within the upper geological layers of the continents is enclosed evidence of two million years of human activity, in the form of archaeological sites. These include a wide range of evidence, from the city of Pompeii, perfectly preserving structures and mate- rials connected to daily life, (thanks to the dramatic eruption of Vesuvius that buried it rapidly), to the bivouac of Palaeolithic hunters, testified to by a few scattered stone tools within a soil. But also buried soils with traces of wood clearance and ploughing, or tested flint nodules in a chert out- crop, and any other evidence recording the impact of human activity on the territory (Fig. 1), are to be considered archaeological sites. All together, these objects form an invaluable ar- chive to understand how humanity has developed over time, adapting the subsistence strategies to the changing environment. The archaeological sites are also an important part of the historical memory of nations, and are widely used in cultural activities and in educational performances; in this sense they constitute a significant opportunity for economic activities and a wealthy source of profit. Most of the developed countries have implemented protection policies of the archaeological heritage - and laws that support them - as its preservation often conflicts with the requirements of land man- agement (for building, motorway and railway con- struction, agriculture, etc.). Specific procedures are to be considered to mitigate the damage that could ensue from uncontrolled intervention (LIVERANI et al., 2000; ANAG et al., 2002; BERNABÒ BREA & VAL- LONI, 2009; INRAP, 2009). In Italy (MALNATI, 2005), these procedures have been recently elaborated in the Public Contracts Code (Legislative Decree no. 163/2006), which contains the rules on so-called Preventive Archae- ology (Article 95: Verification of Preventive Ar- chaeological interest in the preliminary draft). This includes a stage of preliminary documentation and subsequent test-operations. Availing themselves of working professionals, the leaders of the manage- ment projects estimate, already in the planning phase, the so-called "archaeological risk", enabling both contractors and the Archaeological Heritage Service (Soprintendenza per i Beni Archeologici) to assess the chance of discovering, in the working areas, archaeological evidence subject to protec- tion, and to evaluate the possibility of removing it, and the time and cost of removal (MALNATI, 2005). The law determines who is allowed to achieve these objectives: the Departments of Archaeology of the University and the professionals possessing specific qualifications in the field of Archaeology (PhD and/or post doc in Archaeology). No mention is made of geoarchaeologists (CREMASCHI, 2010), the archaeologists who have a study career in Ge- ology or Natural Sciences, although the law pro- vides for operations such as geomorphological mapping, core drilling, geophysical and "geochemical" survey, which definitely require spe- cific knowledge in earth sciences (CREMASCHI, 2000). Furthermore, geoarchaeologists in recent decades have found a place in many professional companies that deal with archaeological excava- tions, and often have duties and responsibilities of leadership. Geoarchaeology provides the main operational tools and methodology to optimize the scientific practice that regards Preventive Archaeology. To 180 - 182 181 Fig. 1, Buried soils, and associated archaeological sites, record the impact of human activity on the territory. The case of buried soils in the central Po Plain (Rubiera, RE). I suoli sepolti, e i siti archeologici ad essi associati, conservano evidenze dell’impatto umano sul territorio. È il caso, ad esempio, dei suoli sepolti nelle alluvioni della pianura padana centrale (Rubiera, RE). Fig. 2, Geoarchaeologists at work: coring the Bronze age site of Qatna in Central Syria (left) and performing a geo- physical survey (right) in the central Po Plain (Terramara S. Rosa, RE). Geoarcheologi al lavoro: perforazioni presso il sito archeologico dell’età del Bronzo di Qatna, nella Siria centrale (a sinistra) e durante una campagna di rilevazioni geofisiche (a destra) nella pianura Padana centrale (Terramare di S. Rosa, RE). Geoarchaelogic methods applied to Preventive Archaeology 182 Ms. received: Testo ricevuto il be perceived, understood and protected, archaeo- logical sites must be studied and surveyed through an earth-science approach as, at any scale, the material traces of human activities, once produced and abandoned by their authors, become a part of the Earth system (CREMASCHI, 2010); and thus, as any object on the surface of the planet, they are exposed to the processes of erosion, transport and weathering. Geomorphologic surveying, together with remote sensing, allows detection of geomorphologic proc- esses that have acted in the past (among them those induced by human activity; CREMASCHI, 2000). It permits us to reconstruct the archaeologi- cal landscape, distinguishing the suitability of the different landscape segments for conservation of the archaeological evidence. Coring, pedological and sedimentological analysis, and geophysical survey, are the most effective tools for operating at the margins and inside of the archaeological sites (Fig. 2), to estimate their extent, shape, consis- tency and degree of preservation, all without the need for extensive excavations (some cases of study are provided by surveys concerning arid zones, core drilling in urban areas, reconstruction using DTM and geophysical survey of terramare). Consequently, this increases the efficiency of Pre- ventive Archaeology operations, while optimizing the time employed and lowering the costs. There is now extensive agreement among Soprin- tendenze Archeologiche and many archaeologists involved in the archaeological heritage protection on the need to complete the existing law, giving the right Geoarchaeology and its operators their proper place. It is useful for the scientific commu- nity of Earth Sciences to take up this issue. For scientific reasons, but also because the Preventive Archaeology requiring geoarchaeological knowl- edge, constitutes a significant professional oppor- tunity for young graduates in the sciences. REFERENCES ANAG G., CREMASCHI M., DI LERNIA S. & LIVERANI M. (2002) - Environment, Archaeology, and Oil: the Mes- sak Settafet Rescue Operation (Libyan Sahara). Afri- can Archaeological Review, 19, 67-73. BERNABÒ BREA M. & VALLONI R. (2009) - Archeologia ad alta velocità. Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Firenze. CREMASCHI M. (2000) - Manuale di Geoarcheologia. La- terza, Bari. CREMASCHI M. (2010) - Geoarcheologia in Italia oggi – Che fare? Notiziario A.I.Ar., 16-17, 23-26. INRAP (2009) - Preventive Archaeology. http:// www.inrap.fr/preventive-Archaeology/Preventive- Archaeology/Definition/p-1385-lg1-Definition.htm. LIVERANI M., CREMASCHI M. & DI LERNIA S. (2000) - The “Archaeological Park” of the Tadrart Acacus and Mes- sak Settafet (south-western Fezzan, Libya). A prelimi- nary project. Sahara 12, 121-140. MALNATI L. (2005) - La verifica preventiva dell'interesse archeologico. Aedon, Rivista di Arte e Diritto on line, 3, 1-10 January 31, 2011 31 gennaio 2011 M. Cremaschi & C. Pizzi