**3. Results**

Aerial photo interpretation allowed us to preliminary define both anthropic and natural elements that probably delimited the settlement area of Fondo Paviani. Stratigraphic analysis of the archaeological section confirmed that the light and straight mark, visible from aerial photos in the N-E part of the settlement, correspond to the structure of an impressive artificial rampart. The dark areas E of the rampart correspond to the Menago valley wetlands (Figure 6).

**Figure 6.** (**a**) Reconstruction of the fortified Fondo Paviani settlements with probable recent Bronze Age hydrographic network identified from aerial photo-interpretation (orange line: stratigraphic section segmen<sup>t</sup> intercepting the perimeter structures (overlapping of DTM obtained from LIDAR with 1990 C.G.R aerial frame). (**b**) The segmen<sup>t</sup> of the stratigraphic section intercepting the perimeter structures.

Even the elevation model (DEM) obtained from LIDAR confirms the coherence of these data with the presence of both the rampart and the Menago valley depression. However, only the stratigraphic analysis of the archaeological section allowed us to fully understand the characteristics of the fortified system and its evolution during the centuries in the first phase, which started in the last decades of the 14th century BC [47], the settlement was not enclosed by a rampart, but probably only by a palisade and a small ditch (Figure 6b) [55]. The wide rampart was built between the 13th and the beginning of the 12th century BC [47]. The structure of this one consisted of a silt-sandy basal core and a top body of fine-textured sediments, built using an imposing internal wooden frame (Figure 6b) [55]. Thanks to the aerial photo interpretation, an alternating sequence of light and dark polylinear marks have been identified along the S–E and S–W sides of the settlement. The outline and shape of these

marks are compatible both with anthropic structures, such as ramparts and ditches, and with natural morphologies, such as alluvial ridges and channels. The absence of recent ground checks in these sectors of the settlement prevented from establishing the effective origin (natural or artificial) of these marks. However, the internal light marks, having dimensions comparable to the traces of the N–E rampart, can correspond to the remains of an artificial embankment. The N–W side of the settlement seems to be protected by the natural alluvial ridge embankment offered by the so-called Perteghelle palaeo-channel, visible in the aerial frames, and highlighted by the DTM extracted from LIDAR data.

The twisting linear mark, visible both by aerial photo interpretation and DTM analysis and that cross the settlement from North to South, can be interpreted as a palaeo-channel. Focused stratigraphic analysis has allowed to date this channel to Middle Ages.

The results of the ERT measurements are shown in the images in Figure 7.

**Figure 7.** ERT lines results normalized in the range 0–50 Ohm\*m with their field localization.

To allow smooth and fast comparison between the different tomographies, the resistivity range of the ERT sections, acquired in different seasons and years, was standardized between 0 and 50 Ohm\*m. The ERT sections in Figure 7 show the resistivity distribution in five areas along the perimeter of the Fondo Paviani settlement. The ERT results highlight the current state of the studied embanked system and its high heterogeneity, both lateral and in-depth, from area to area. L1 was collected corresponding to the position of the documented stratigraphic section. In Figure 8, the higher resistivity anomaly (red), localized in the NE part of the L1 section, identifies the preserved rampart. The L1 section was then used as a marker or term of comparison to evaluate, using other ERT sections, the degree of preservation of the boundary system in different areas. In general, ERT L1 (Figures 7 and 8) identifies a transition from more resistive to low resistive values moving from SW to NE in the last part of the section. In particular, a clear conductive deep incision is here registered in the NE part, below the identified high resistive anomaly corresponding to the preserved rampart. The ERT L2-3 section (Figure 7), also collected in the E sector, south of the L1 line and almost parallel to it, shows a low lateral variation of the resistivity compared to L1 with a shallow conductive part. The two other ERT sections L6 and L7 were acquired parallel to each other (Figure 7). These describe a general coherent system, with a more resistive area in the northern part, and the distribution of shallow conductive bodies in the southern part of the section.

**Figure 8.** Comparison between mirrored L1 ERT line and stratigraphic section with preserved rampart.

Finally, ERT section L4-5 (Figure 7), collected in the supposed western boundary of the settlement, describes a low lateral variation of the resistivity, similar to this registered in the section L2-3, except to an apparent resistive deep incision. No evidence about the presence of a preserved rampart are registered in all ERT lines from L2-3 to L6. The inversion of FDEM data made it possible to extract a depth map of the distribution of electrical conductivity 2 m below the surface in the area where the ERT L6 was acquired. Figure 9 shows the location of the investigated area with the FDEM method and the relative position of the ERT L6 line. The electrical conductivity data of the FDEM map was then converted into resistivity values to allow us a direct comparison with the ERT L6 line (Figure 9), using its real data range (0–100 Ohm\*m) to evaluate the degree of information of these two different methods and their consistency.

The resistivity pattern visible in the FDEM map obtained by the inversion of this dataset, highlights and confirms the presence of the palaeo-system visible from the satellite image (Figure 9a). The ERT L6 section, entirely consistent with the FDEM data, completes with more details the information provided by the EM method about lateral extension and total depth of these buried geomorphological palaeo-structures.

**Figure 9.** (**a**) Overlap of FDEM results with ERT L6 position in Google Earth image (2005); (**b**) ERT L6 and FDEM map (**c**) at −2 m a.s.l. (with default range of resistivity).
