GeoLog
Avatar

Guest

This guest post was contributed by a scientist, student or a professional in the Earth, planetary or space sciences. The EGU blogs welcome guest contributions, so if you've got a great idea for a post or fancy trying your hand at science communication, please contact the blog editor or the EGU Communications Officer to pitch your idea.

Imaggeo on Mondays: Using geophysical techniques to unlock the secrets of the past

Imaggeo on Mondays: Using geophysical techniques to unlock the secrets of the past

Unravelling the secrets of past civilisations is tricky at the best of times. More so if many of the records which hold clues about how communities lived, built their homes and temples, as well as how they fed themselves, were destroyed by subsequent invaders. In these instances, as Felix Rodriguez Cardozo explains in today’s post, geophysical techniques (such as Lidar, which very recently hit the headlines for contributing to discover new Cambodian temples close to Angkor Wat) can be a great asset to traditional archaeological methods.

The Yucatan Peninsula, in the southeast of Mexico, is a gorgeous place not only because of  the natural landscape but  also due to the  marvellous structures built by indigenous cultures prior to the European colonization process during the 17th Century. While it is widely known that there are several and complex indigenous structures built by different cultures along Mexico, the Yucatan’s structures blend in perfectly with the jungle, complementing rather than contrasting with the natural landscape.

Although Mexico is a country surrounded by a vast amount of natural hazards (eg. earthquakes, volcanism, hurricanes, etc.) many of the ancient structures have shown an extraordinary skill for resisting all of them. Unfortunately, during the colonization period much of the information related to the ancient cultures of México (and America in general) disappeared, including the information on the building techniques used employed to erect these incredible structures.

All was not lost!  Thanks to the archaeology and more recently, other disciplines like geophysics, we can now figure out with certain confidence the technology and building methods used  by our american ancestors.

I took this photo while conducting a geoelectric and geomagnetic survey to try and discover the foundations of the Kukulklán pyramid and learn more about its internal structure. While the photo does not show any device used during the survey, it does portray perfectly the harmony between the indigenous building and the surrounding nature, something uncommon in modern society. ,

By Félix Rodríguez Cardozo

Imaggeo is the EGU’s online open access geosciences image repository. All geoscientists (and others) can submit their photographs and videos to this repository and, since it is open access, these images can be used for free by scientists for their presentations or publications, by educators and the general public, and some images can even be used freely for commercial purposes. Photographers also retain full rights of use, as Imaggeo images are licensed and distributed by the EGU under a Creative Commons licence. Submit your photos at http://imaggeo.egu.eu/upload/.

 

 

 

Testing triggers of catastrophic climate change

Tipping points that could trigger catastrophic climate change via Wikimedia Commons.

Tipping points that could trigger catastrophic climate change via Wikimedia Commons.


The research presented during the EGU’s 2016 General Assembly have wide-reaching implications for how we understand planet Earth. In today’s post, Sara Mynott, an EGU press assistant during the conference, writes about findings presented at the meeting which highlight the importance of the biosphere when it comes to understanding the threat posed to our planet by environmental challenges.

With the climate changing, land use shifting and continued environmental pollution, something’s got to give. And if it does, it may well trigger catastrophic change. With so many threats to our planet’s integrity, making decisions about what environmental challenges we should tackle first is a challenge. This is why the Stockholm Resilience Centre created the planetary boundaries framework. The framework identifies key tipping points that could cause catastrophic climate change. Recent updates to the framework have identified biosphere integrity and climate change as two of the core planetary boundaries that, if crossed, could endanger human prosperity.

A lot of research has been done into the tipping points that could trigger catastrophic climate change, from large scale methane release to irreversible ice sheet melt, but one area remains profoundly overlooked. The biosphere.

“It’s very well known that the climate affects the biosphere and the biosphere affects the climate, but there’s still a large amount of uncertainty about how those two are going to interact and play out,” explains Steven Lade, a modeller at the Stockholm Resilience Centre.

Climate talks tend to focus around cutting CO2, but there is three times as much carbon stored in soils and vegetation than there is in the atmosphere, making the biosphere a major reservoir. By modelling interactions between the climate and the biosphere, Lade aims to find out whether biosphere degradation could trigger catastrophic climate change.

“There’s definitely enough carbon in the biosphere to cause catastrophic climate change. There’s no question about that. The question is how accessible it is, how rapidly it will be pumped out, how rapidly other feedbacks in the climate system might counteract that. The quantity is enough, but the speed and the feedbacks may help counteract that. This is why we’re trying to do a dynamical model.”

Just one small part of the biosphere. Credit: Paul via Wikimedia Commons.

Just one small part of the biosphere. Credit: Paul
via Wikimedia Commons.

Rather than predicting where these boundaries lie, Lade is looking for things that could cause catastrophic feedbacks. This means his models are relatively simple – a way of finding out what happens when you push life to its limits.  

“The point is to incorporate different assumptions about what people know, for example, about how the climate and biosphere interact and look at the consequences of those assumptions. To show, for example, whether the biosphere might be strong enough…if you stopped emitting more carbon, but degrade the biosphere heavily – could the resulting carbon emissions trigger catastrophic climate change?”

He aims to see whether those outcomes are plausible or not. It’s an interesting approach, one that will help shape decisions about we can prevent catastrophic change and let policy be put into practice.

By Sara Mynott

Sara is a science writer and marine science PhD candidate from the University of Exeter. She’s investigating the impact of climate change on predator-prey relationships in the ocean, and was one of our Press Assistants this year’s General Assembly.

 

Great walls of fire – Vitrification and thermal engineering in the British Iron Age

It’s long been recognised the peoples of European prehistory occasionally, and quite deliberately, melted the rocks from which their hilltop enclosures were made. But why did they do it? In today’s blog post Fabian Wadsworth and Rebecca Hearne explore this question.

Burning questions

Throughout the European Bronze and Iron Ages (spanning 2600 years from 3200 BC to 600 BC), people constructed stone-built, hilltop enclosures. In some cases, these stone walls were burned at high temperatures sufficient to partially melt them. These once-molten forts are called vitrified forts because today they preserve large amounts of glassy rock. First described in full in 1777, the origins and functions of these enigmatic features have been the subjects of centuries of debate.

Today, researchers generally agree that the glassy wall rocks are the result of in situ exposure to high temperatures in prehistory, similar in magnitude to those temperatures found in volcanoes on Earth. This was sufficient to partially or wholly melt the stonework, and the resulting melts are preserved as glass upon cooling.

There are still many outstanding questions concerning vitrified enclosures and forts, but the most immediate and arresting are: how and why were they burned?

Vitrified fort walls are mostly found in Scotland and are built from a diverse range of rock types

Vitrified enclosures occur throughout Europe but the best known examples are found in Scotland. Using the compilation created by Sanderson and co-workers (link provided below) we can map the distribution of forts, categorized by the rock-type from which they were built, and compare this with a simplified geological map of Scotland (from the British Geological Survey; Image 1). This shows that the building stone used in fort walls is not always the same and was more likely to be found locally.

Map of Scotland with simplified basement geology and cover-sediments marked. Vitrified fort positions are numbered such that 1- Finavon, 2- Craig Marloch Wood, 3- Tap O’North, 4- Dun Deardail, 5- Dunagoil, 6- Craig Phaidrig, 7- Laws of Monifieth, 8- Knockfarrell, 9- Dunskeig, 10-Dumbarton Rock, 11- Carradale, 12-Dun MacUisnichan, 13- Art Dun, 14- Mullach, 15- Trudernish Point, 16-Cumbrae, 17- Dun Lagaidh, 18- Sheep Hill, 19-Urquhart Castle, 20- Eilan-nan-Gobhar, 21- Eilan nan Ghoil, 22- Duntroon, 23- Torr Duin, 24- Trusty’s Hill, 25- Doon of May, 26- Castle Finlay, 27- Mote of Mark. (From the British Geological Survey).

Map of Scotland with simplified basement geology and cover-sediments marked. Vitrified fort positions are numbered such that 1- Finavon, 2- Craig Marloch Wood, 3- Tap O’North, 4- Dun Deardail, 5- Dunagoil, 6- Craig Phaidrig, 7- Laws of Monifieth, 8- Knockfarrell, 9- Dunskeig, 10-Dumbarton Rock, 11- Carradale, 12-Dun MacUisnichan, 13- Art Dun, 14- Mullach, 15- Trudernish Point, 16-Cumbrae, 17- Dun Lagaidh, 18- Sheep Hill, 19-Urquhart Castle, 20- Eilan-nan-Gobhar, 21- Eilan nan Ghoil, 22- Duntroon, 23- Torr Duin, 24- Trusty’s Hill, 25- Doon of May, 26- Castle Finlay, 27- Mote of Mark. (From the British Geological Survey).

How hot? How long?

A key question surrounding the melting and glass-formation processes that occur to form vitrified fort walls is what temperature was required and how long must the fires have burned? As we know, the required minimum temperature for melting rocks is the solidus, which varies by hundreds of degrees from rock-type to rock-type. Above the solidus, the partial melt fraction will increase until the material liquidus, above which all components of the rock are molten. In mineralogically diverse rocks, the partial melt fraction between the solidus and liquidus not only increases, but changes composition. Pioneering investigations of vitrified fort wall materials (for example, by Youngblood and co-workers) and others have explored this by looking at the composition of the glass that is formed when the partially molten fort walls are cooled. The composition of these materials and an understanding of the thermodynamics of the melting process yields temperatures of the prehistoric fires in question. Youngblood and colleagues found that temperatures were likely to be, on average, 900-1150 ºC.

In a recently published study, we used a different technique in an attempt to answer the same question. Samples of fort walls from Wincobank vitrified hillfort, Sheffield, UK, were used in high-temperature tests to measure the melting process in situ. We measured the amount of each mineral phase as it decreased above the solidus. This technique allowed us to extract additional information that previous investigators have not been able to probe. As well as suggesting a temperature window within which melting occurs, we were able to find the timescale of burning required to achieve the degrees of partial melting seen within Wincobank’s vitrified enclosure wall. Wincobank was constructed from a local sandstone; we found that the quartz in this sandstone was steadily removed upon experimental heating, matching the final quartz content of the enclosure wall rocks at a temperature window of 1050-1250 ºC for burning events of more than 10 hours.

When taken together, such investigations of the conditions required to form glass in prehistoric enclosure walls can more reliably inform the debate about why the fires were set in the first place. If glass is consistently found around a fort’s circumference (as is often the case, particularly in Scotland), and its particular building stone type dictates a heating event requiring a duration of 10 hours or more at peak temperature, it seems unlikely to us that such walls were burned accidentally or during periods of conflict or events of warfare (see below). In that case, if the enclosure walls were burned deliberately by the occupants, the outstanding question remains: why?

Why set fire to a stone wall?

In any archaeological investigation, a key goal is to attempt to explore and extrapolate the beliefs, motives, and desires of people in antiquity from their material culture. For practitioners of any discipline this is no easy task, with subjective interpretation of evidence and difference of opinion often resulting in vibrant discussion!

Consequently, numerous possible prehistoric motives for burning a fort wall to the point of melting have been posited. First is the possibility that the fires were lit during enemy attack or some other act of violence (mentioned above). Second, there’s the possibility that the fires were a product of deconstruction of the fort walls at the end of occupancy. Third, the conflagration was part of a ritual or display of prestige. Finally, there is the possibility that the fires were set with the intention of strengthening the stonework during construction. Each of these explanations has received attention; however, the last option had, until recently, been dismissed by previous researchers as largely unlikely, once it was recognised that heating rocks in general weakens them by the proliferation of microcracks from thermal stresses.

We revisited the idea that fort walls could have been burned during the construction in order to strengthen them. In our latest work we explored this in a simple way by showing that while the blocks in a fort wall will get weaker during high temperature burning, the more fine-grained rubble interstitial to these blocks will get much stronger. This strengthening occurs simply because the fine grained materials between larger blocks can fuse together by sintering when they are partially molten. And indeed, it is so often reported that large blocks are surrounded by a glassy mass that is fused to them (we show this in Image 2 from Wincobank fort, Sheffield, U.K.). We pointed out that this is contrary to the conventional view that fort walls must be weakened by the fires.

A block from the Wincobank enclosure wall in Sheffield, UK. This piece shows the typical feature where fine grained glassy material is welded to the larger, less altered blocks. In detail, this demonstrates that thermal gradients resulting from heating blocks of different sizes play an important role in determining which blocks melt and weld, and which blocks do not. (Credit: Fabian Wadsworth)

A block from the Wincobank enclosure wall in Sheffield, UK. This piece shows the typical feature where fine grained glassy material is welded to the larger, less altered blocks. In detail, this demonstrates that thermal gradients resulting from heating blocks of different sizes play an important role in determining which blocks melt and weld, and which blocks do not. (Credit: Fabian Wadsworth)

The debate rages on

We acknowledge that the strengthening effect does not rule out other motives. Indeed, the strengthening may be incidental to the true motive for the wall burning. It is also important to take into account the fact that, in many of the known examples of vitrified enclosures, where dated, the burning event takes place, in some cases, many hundreds of years after the fort’s initial construction.

A little-discussed possibility which is gaining momentum is that some of these forts may not have been forts at all. The very term “fort” is loaded and implies inherent military purpose, which remains a hypothesis with little solid evidence to its claim. Rather, they may have been monuments that were built and burned as displays of power and prestige or in some ritual event. In periods of our history where only the stones upon which we can base our suppositions remain, it is difficult to differentiate between these possibilities.

These acknowledgements highlight not only that there are outstanding questions requiring future investigation, but that each fort is different and there need not be a common explanation for them all.

The debate continues and, although the evidence sheds new light on the possible truths, we still do not know why Iron Age peoples throughout Europe set fire to stone enclosures and stoked those fires to volcanic temperatures. Rocks melt and crystallize and re-melt in volcanoes frequently and as a matter of natural process. To combine our understanding of these rock-forming materials and Earth processes as they are melted in anthropogenic conflagrations is essential to understand these curiosities of our Iron Age.

By Fabian Wadsworth, PhD student Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and Rebecca Hearne, Department of Archaeology, University of Sheffield

The Wincobank hillfort is in Sheffield in South Yorkshire, U.K. If the stone walls of its  enclosure were deliberately burned   this feature potentially extends Sheffield’s heritage of high temperature expertise – exemplified by the once-prolific steel works of the city – much farther into the region’s past than hitherto imagined.

Further reading

Geo Talk: One of the youngest EGU 2016 General Assembly delegates sends sensor to space

Geo Talk: One of the youngest EGU 2016 General Assembly delegates sends sensor to space

Presenting at an international conference is daunting, even for the most seasoned of scientists; not so for Thomas Maier (a second year university student) who took his research (co-authored by  Lukas Kamm, a high-school student) to the EGU 2016 General Assembly! Not only was their work on developing a moisture sensor impressive, so was Thomas’ enthusiasm and confidence when presenting his research. Hazel Gibson and Kai Boggild, EGU Press Assistants at the conference, caught up with the budding researcher to learn more about the pair’s work. Scroll down to the end of this post for a full video interview with Thomas. 

Thomas Maier might seem like your average bright and enthusiastic EGU delegate, but together with his co-author Lukas Kamm, he has invented a water sensor that very well might help change the way astronauts live in space. Not only is their invention helping to revolutionise aerospace, but they are also the youngest delegates at the conference, Thomas is a second year university student at Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg and Lukas is attending high school at Werner-von-Siemens Gymnasium. We caught up with Thomas to speak with him about his invention.

Could you explain to us what led you to develop this water sensor?

We started this project four years ago for a contest called Jugend Forscht, a German youth sciences competition in Germany and the project we came up with was about giving plants demand driven watering. After we built our first sensor, we continued our work until it was possible to send the sensor into space, for a project called EU:CROPIS.

Can you tell us how your sensor works?

The sensor is based on a capacitive measuring method. So, you have two electrodes close to each other, which have an electrical capacitance (or ability to store an electrical charge) between them. The change in water content close to the electrodes changes the capacity of the sensor. Then we measure the capacity of the electrodes by measuring the time constant of the capacitor over time.

The greenhouse which forms part of the EU:CROPIS project. The greenhouse is home to Thomas and Lukas' water sensor. (Credit: Kai Boggild/EGU)

The greenhouse which forms part of the EU:CROPIS project. The greenhouse is home to Thomas and Lukas’ water sensor. (Credit: Kai Boggild/EGU)

Can you tell us more about the EU:CROPIS project?

The EU:CROPIS is mainly about this here [indicates greenhouse model], and this is a greenhouse which will go into space, July next year. The greenhouse will rotate and will generate different gravitational forces that may impact the amount of water available to plants which will be grown in here. And now, after a lot of work, our sensor will be placed on the very right [hand side] of the greenhouse and will measure the soil moisture for the plants.

What are you plans for this project into the future?

Our plans for the future are in taking part in the EDEN-ISS project, this is a project on the International Space Station, that is looking into planting 20 square meters of plants in the ISS and our sensor would be used too. So that is the next aim of this project.

Thanks Thomas for showing us your invention, and good luck to Lukas, who couldn’t attend the conference this year as he is busy with his high-school exams!

Interview by Hazel Gibson, video interview by Kai Boggild, EGU Press Assistants