y-5

Archaeological ProspectionArchaeol. Prospect. 12, 177–189 (2005)Published online 20 May 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/arp.256

Complementary IntegratedGeophysicalInvestigationaroundAl-ZayyanTemple,KhargaOasis,Al-WadiAl-Jadeed(NewValley),Egypt

M.A. ATYA1,2,*, H. KAMEI1, A.M. ABBAS1,2, F. A. SHAABAN2,A.Gh.HASSANEEN2,M. A. ABDALLA2,M.N.SOLIMAN2,Y.MARUKAWA1,T. AKO1ANDY.KOBAYASHI3

1 Tokyo Institute ofTechnology, Japan2 NationalResearch Institute ofAstronomyandGeophysics, Egypt3 NaraUniversityof Education, Japan

ABSTRACT QasrAl-ZayyanorAl-ZayyantempleinAl-Khargaoasisisdocumentedasanodeinthe fortresschainthatwasbuiltby theRomanstosecureDarbAl-Arbain; theslaver’stradecaravanroutebetweenAsyuitandSudan.Thehistoricalandarchaeologicalbackgroundof the temple isveryscarce; it hasbeenas-cribed to Amenebis and was restored during the reign of Emperor Antoninus AD 138 161. In March2001, an integrated ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and magnetic survey to the west of the templeshowed thepossibilityofanexistingstructuralcomplexintersecting thepresent templeat about 45�.Itwasinterpretedasamultigatestructureoratombcomplex.InMarch2002, therelativetopographicele-vationsweremeasuredand the surfacearchaeological featuresweremarked onamap.Also a com-plementary integrated geophysical survey including electromagnetic, geomagnetic and GPR wasconductedalongnorthernandwesternextensionsof, andpartiallycovering, the formerlyprospectedstructure in the surveyof 2001. It was designed to verify the structure, to define its extent on both thenorthernandwesternsides, and todecideabout apossibleexcavation.

The results verified the formerly prospected structure of 2001; some of its particular featureshavebeendetected.Thestructure thereforehasbeenmappedover thesurveyedareaat thenorthernandwestern parts of the 2001structure and it might extendwider than the surveyedarea.The formerproposition of a multigate structure becomes stronger because of its general appearance, and theidea of a tomb complex still exists owing to the presence of some depressions thought to be graves.Copyright�2005 JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.

Keywords: geophysics; archaeology;ground-penetratingradar;magneticgradiometer;Al-Kharga;NewValley

Introduction

Recently, the Egyptian Government gave consid-erable consideration to promote new settlements

all over the country, in order to persuade peopleto migrate from the condensed Nile River belt tonon-urban areas. Al-Kharga oasis (Figure 1),along with other places, is at the top of thatreform programme, so that it would becomethe largest New Valley oasis, with modernizedcity houses and a virgin environment withalmost no contamination. It is also the nearest

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Received 15 October 2002Accepted 7 December 2004

* Correspondence to: M. A. Atya, National Research Instituteof Astronomy and Geophysics, 11722, Helwan, Cairo, Egypt.E-mail: [email protected]

western desert oasis to the Nile Valley stretchingfor 150 km along a north–south orientateddepression cut in the limestone plateau. It has aconcentration of artesian springs bringingwater from the huge Nubian reservoir thatextends over most of the Egyptian westerndesert to eastern Lybia and northern Chad andSudan.

The archaeological potential of the oasis consti-tutes one of the vital dimensions to attract bothtourist and habitants to the oasis. Al-kharga hasmany archaeological sites of special significance tothe history of Egypt (Caton-Thompson andGardner, 1932; Caton-Thompson, 1952; Redde,1999; Wuttmann et al., 2000), mostly based on afortresses chain that was built by the Romans toprotect the salver’s caravan route known as Darb

Al-Arbaien. Examples of these archaeological sitesare Ed Dier temple, Um El-Dabadib, Naduratemple, Al-Zayyan temple, Duch temple, Hebistemple and Baghawat necropolis.

Qasr Al-Zayyan or Al-Zayyan temple isregarded as a node of the fortresses chain aroundDarb Al-Arbaien. It follows the architecturalstyle of most of the other Roman fortresses. It isbuilt mostly of mud-bricks, especially the outerframe-wall and the remains of the water well,whereas the back wall and the main entrance arebuilt of stone with some inscriptions. The frontwall includes the main entrance through which acorridor leads to the holy of holiest. Not toomuch is known about the temple; even thatwhich is known is not accurate or definite.However, the record of the Supreme Counsel of

Figure1. Upper left is amap of Egypt showing Al-Kharga City, the right side is a tentative boundary of Al-Kharga Oasiswith thearchaeological sites including Al-Zayyan temple, and left lower is a southviewof Al-Zayyan temple.

178 M. A. Atya et al.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect. 12, 177–189 (2005)

Antiquities (formerly known as Egyptian Anti-quities Organization) ascribes the temple toAmenebis and it was restored during the reignof Emperor Antoninus (AD 138–161).

Summary of the 2001 surveyand results

In March 2001, an integrated geophysical survey(Figure 2) was carried out to the western side ofthe present temple (Kamei et al., 2002). It

included ground-penetrating radar (SIR 2000system from Geophysical Survey Systems Incor-poration (GSSI)) using 400MHz antennae, andmagnetic survey with the three-component flux-gate gradiometer TRM-70D (Tokin) and theFM36 (GeoScan). The survey had two aims: (i)to check the existence of significant archaeologi-cal foundations; and (ii) to find a possible rela-tionship between the present temple and the site,and to obtain more information about it.

Remains of a structural complex weredetected. The orientation of this structure wasvery surprising, because it does not follow that ofthe present Al-Zayyan temple as was expectedbut intersects it at about 45� (Figure 3). Twoexplanations were proposed as an identificationof the prospected structure; either a multigatestructure based on the two areas referred to thepaved area 1 and 2 or a tomb complex based onthe depression behind the paved area 2, which isthought to be a burial shaft.

Survey of 2002

Data acquisition and analysis

A field survey has been carried out to study twopoints; the first was to confirm the presence ofthe formerly prospected structure, and the sec-ond was to find its extent in the northern and

Figure 2. Location map for the area measured with thedifferent geophysical techniquesin 2001.

Figure 3. Interpretive structural complex based on the results of the surveyof 2001.

Geophysical Investigation around Al-Zayyan Temple 179


Figure 4. Map showing the topographic contourdistributionover the studyarea and the surfacearchaeological features.

Figure 5. (a) The area surveyed using the multifrequency electromagnetic GEM 300. (b) The GEM 300 survey and results.Thecontourmapisbasedonthe conductivityat a frequencyof13 kHz.It showstheorientationof thestructurecomplex, thedepressionand theproduct of previousexcavations.



western directions. The survey included the fol-lowing geophysical techniques:

(i) topographical measurements and siteinspection;

(ii) electromagnetic survey with a GEM 300from GSSI;

(iii) geomagnetic survey with a TRM-70D(Tokin);

(iv) GPR survey with a SIR 2000 from GSSI.

In the following, each survey is described indi-vidually and the results summarized, followedby a collective discussion with conclusion.

Topographical measurements and siteinspectionThe geophysical techniques used are shallowand the topographic elevation could be veryeffective in the data set, therefore it wasnecessary to map the relative topographic var-iations; the archaeological features were alsodefined and located on the map (Figure 4).Most of the accumulations on the site are theproduct of former excavations inside the tem-ple. Some visible features are also shown. Thismap was the base for the survey programme of2002.

Figure 5. Continued.



Electromagnetic survey with a GEM 300The multifrequency profiler GEM 300 from GSSIwas applied to an 80� 40m area including thesurvey of 2001 (Figure 5a). It is an active electro-magnetic sensor, and comprises a transmittercoil, receiver coil, bucking coil and the controlelectronics. The transmitter coil generates a vary-ing sinusoidal primary field, which induces theflow of a system of currents within the earthbelow. This induced current, in turn, generatesa secondary magnetic field that is measured by a

receiver coil. The magnitude of the primary fieldgenerated by the transmitter, as sensed by thereceiver, is very large compared with the magni-tude of the secondary field generated by theinduced current flow in the ground. The GEM300, therefore, utilizes a secondary receiver orbucking coil, which is wired in opposing polarityto the receiving coil, so that its induced voltagefrom the primary field in free space is equal tothat induced in the receiver coil. This effectivelycancels out the primary field generated by the

Figure 6. (a) The three-componentmagnetic gradiometer surveyedareaand the surveyingprocess. (b) Theresultsof the three-component magnetic gradiometer S^N,W^E and vertical components from top to bottom respectively.They show partially thestructure complex.



transmitter coil and thus, the sensor unit pro-duces a zero output in free space (GSSI, 1998).

Figure 5b represents the conductivity imagemeasured by the GEM 300 at 13 kHz. We cannottell too much from the image, but the depressionbehind the paved area 2 of 2001 (Figure 3) was

detected as a low-conductivity anomaly. Theground surface at this point is flat and thedepression does not show any surface indica-tions. Other low-conductivity anomalies arecaused by the accumulations of soil such as thewaste product of former excavations. It is also

Figure 6. Continued.



apparent that the contour lines distribute in aform orientated in the same direction as theprospected structure; inclined at about 45� tothe present temple. This is in turn means thatthe data are affected by the elements of thestructure.

Geomagnetic survey with a TRM-70DAn area of 100� 50m (Figure 6a) referenced tothe zero point of the site has been measured withthe three-component gradiometer TRM-70D.Three images were constructed representing thethree components (Figure 6b). Although the sig-nal is weak, each component shows featureswhen integrated with the structure, whichwhen prospected in 2001 could hardly be seen.

Ground-penetrating radar surveywith a SIR 2000An intensive GPR survey has been carried out(Figure 7); it was orientated based on twodesigns. The first was to prospect the northernand western extensions of the formerly pros-pected structural complex of 2001 (grids 1 to 4).The second phase was a repetition of a part

of the 2001 survey with a closer line sep-aration (1m distance, formerly 2m in 2001)and lower antenna frequency (200MHz, for-merly 400MHz in 2001) for greater depth pene-tration (grid 5). Generally, as shown in Figure 7,the surveyed area was divided into 40� 40mgrids. The lines were at 1m separation andscanned over 20 traces per metre in line and512 samples over 60 ns. Zigzag traverses wereused to shorten the time. The set-up used ingrids 1, 2, 3 and 4 was approximately the sameas that used in 2001 except the line separationwas 1m instead of 2m.

The product of the GPR survey was enormous,i.e. 410 profiles, each profile is of 40m, 800 scans,and 512 samples per scan. These profiles havebeen read and interpreted manually throughpicking out the features and placing them on alocation map. Additionally a series of time-slices,line intersections and three-dimensional viewswere constructed and analysed in terms ofarchaeological features.

Grid 5. It might be more convenient to discussgrid 5 separately as the other grids have been

Figure 7. Thearea studiedwith ground-penetrating radar; grid 5 is a repeat of the 2001survey.



carried out in the same way. Grid 5 has beenperformed with a particular objective using anantenna of central frequency of 200MHz. Itrepresents a part of the survey of 2001. Theobjectives behind the resurvey are:

(i) verifying the existence of the formerly pros-pected structure;

(ii) obtaining more penetration for more infor-mation about the structure identity;

(iii) comparing the resolution of both frequen-cies in capturing the structural details, forlater survey on this site.

Principally the formerly prospected structure in2001 (Figure 2), including clearer details aboutits contents, has been detected. Additionally, acomparative study of the signatures capturedby both frequencies over the archaeologicalobjects in the site showed that the image fromthe 200MHz antenna is clearer and relativelynoise free in the case of large objects. The use oflower frequency antenna (200MHz) did not,however, improve the depth penetration on thesite as was expected. Figure 8 shows a recordfrom the survey of 2001 using a 400MHzantenna over the paved area 2 (Figure 3) andthat of approximately the same line from thesurvey of 2002 using the 200MHz antenna as anexample.

To integrate the results of grid 5 with the othergrids, time slices have been constructed ondepths approximately similar to those from the400MHz and put together on one plan. This willbe described in the following section.

Discussion of GPR data

The following is a collective discussion of theentire measured area. The data sets measuredover grids 1, 2, 3 and 4 were all processed in asimilar way. The results have been visualized indifferent ways to capture the structure and itsdetails. Grid 3 is represented here as an exam-ple for processing and visualization. The mea-sured sections have been arranged in both Xand Y directions (Figure 9a), from which aseries of line-intersections crossing the pointsof interest (example Figure 9b) can be pro-duced. Also a sequence of time slices has beenconstructed and analysed (Figure 9c). Cubes

with different origin points have been built tovisualize the features in three dimensions (Fig-ure 9d).

Within this grid, an obvious object is apparent(Figure 10). We do not know what its identity isexactly, but we can say from its geometry that itis man-made. Many postulations are feasibleregarding the structure of this object.

Grid 5 has been processed to appear the sameas the other grids, and times slices have beenconstructed on time limits to fit with approxi-mate time limits for the time slices of the othergrids. Figure 11 shows collective time slices forthe survey of 2002.

An integrated interpretation sketch of the siteis drawn in Figure 12. The structure is consistentwith that formerly found in the survey of 2001.Generally, the form of the structure mightenforce the idea of multigate complex (proposedas a temple structure). At the same time the idea

Figure 8. A comparison between a sectionmeasuredwith the400MHz for 512 samples per 60 ns and 200MHz antenna for512 samples per120 ns. Although, the onewith the 200MHz isclear for large targets, the 400MHz antenna ismore conveni-ent for further surveyson this site.



Figure 9. Different data visualizationswith grid 3 given as an example: (a) is a profile sequence in both x and y directions; (b) issections in intersectionat points of interest; (c) time-slicesarrangedat 5,10,15, 20 and 25 ns; (d) shows cubesof data blocks.



of tomb structure still exists owing to the depres-sion behind the paved area 2 and the object ingrid 3. However, clear evidence is still requiredto establish the identity of the structure. Many ofthe Pharaoh complexes in Upper Egypt looksomewhat similar, and tomb structures alsolook relatively the same. The structure mayextend over an area greater than the limitsalready surveyed, and the outline wall of such

structures has not yet been detected within thesurveyed area.

Conclusion

A relatively clear image could be seen of theburied structure. The archaeological evidenceneeded to identify the structure complex and,

Figure10. The object in grid 3 hasageometry indicatinganarchaeologicalobject.



Figure11. Anexample of the time-slicesof the entire surveyof 2002, includinggrid 5.

Figure12. An integrated interpretation based on the surveysof 2001and 2002.The structure could bea temple.



of course, its infrastructure is missing. An exca-vation may unveil the evidence and providemore information about its chronology.

The 200MHz antenna did not show depthpenetration improvement, but it might be recom-mended for the large objects. The 400MHzdetects the same depth range and objects,although it includes more noise. For the furtherground penetrating radar surveys, however, the400MHz antenna is recommended for this site; itis smaller in size and effort and time saving. Amore detailed GPR survey (0.5m line separation)might enrich the data resolution. Designing thesurveys to be at right angles, as much as possible,to the structure complex might help to define thewidth and intersections of the internal objects ofthe structure.

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out in a cooperationframework between the Tokyo Institute ofTechnology (TIT), Japan and the NationalResearch Institute of Astronomy and Geophysics(NRIAG), Egypt. The Japanese Society of the

Promotion of Science (JSPS) together withTIT and NRIAG sponsored the fieldwork trips.The authors are deeply grateful to the EgyptianAntique Authority and the local inspectorate inAl-Kharga Oases for there cooperation.

References

Caton-Thompson G, Gardner EW. 1932. The pre-historic geography of Kharga Oasis. GeographicalJournal 80: 369–409.

Caton-Thompson G. 1952. Kharga Oasis in Prehis-tory. University of London: London.

GSSI. 1998 Manual of the Multifrequency Electromag-netic Profiler GEM-300; Operating System Version1.10, MN37-097A.

Kamei H, Atya M, et al. 2002. GPR and MagneticSurvey to the West of Al-Zayyan Temple, KhargaOases, Al-Wadi Al-Jadeed (New Valley), Egypt.Archaeological Prospection 9: 93–104.

Michel Redde. 1999. Site militaries romaines del’oasis de Kharga. Bulletin de l’Institut Fransaisd’Archeologie Orientale 99: 377–396.

Michel WUTTMANN, Theirry GONON, Chris-tophe THIERS 2000. The Qanats of ‘Ayn-Manawr(Kharga Oasis, Egypt). Journal of Achaemenidstudies and Researches, JASR 11, 2000 http://www.achemenet.com/pdf/jasr/jasr2000.1.pdf



y-5

Documents

multigate structure

prospected structure

desert oasis

nile valley stretchingfor

egyptian government

egyptian westerndesert

magnetic survey

geophysical survey