Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:20:40.857Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing Feature Function and Spatial Patterning of Artifacts with Geophysical Remote-Sensing Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

William A. Martin ,
James E. Bruseth  and
Robert J. Huggins
William A. Martin
Affiliation:
Texas Historical Commission, P.O. Box 12276, Austin, TX 78711
James E. Bruseth
Affiliation:
Texas Historical Commission, P.O. Box 12276, Austin, TX 78711
Robert J. Huggins
Affiliation:
Geometries, Inc., 395 Java, Sunnyvale, CA 94089
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Magnetic surveys and electromagnetic conductivity surveys were conducted at several sites during the course of field work at the Richland/Chambers Reservoir in north-central Texas between 1982 and 1985. Much of this work was conducted at the Bird Point Island site (41FT201), which was used as a proving ground to test the effectiveness of various remote-sensing techniques. Two devices, a Geometrics proton precession magnetometer and a Geonics Limited EM-38 electromagnetic conductivity sensor were tested. The data produced by the EM-38, although initially successful for locating large archaeological features, were less useful for site interpretation than those yielded by the magnetometer.

Replicative experiments were conducted to test hypotheses related to feature function and to identify the sources of magnetism present in features. After an experimental hearth and a pit were created on an off-site area, a magnetic survey was conducted and the results were compared with the magnetic responses obtained from archaeological features. Remarkably similar magnetic responses were observed between the experimental features and certain classes of prehistoric archaeological features. Five-cracked rock, consisting of small fragments of iron-enriched sandstone and ironstone, was identified as the primary source of magnetism.

In addition to identifying locations of features, the magnetic data also provided information regarding whether or not features had been subjected to multiple episodes of disturbance and reuse. Episodes of recurrent use were indicated by irregular symmetry and unusual magnetic polarity. Several large pit features, which archaeological evidence indicated had been reused, exhibited anomalies with multiple peaks of strong magnetic highs surrounded in several directions by peaks of weak to moderate magnetic lows. In contrast, hearths and pits lacking archaeological evidence of major disturbance or reuse were associated with anomalies that exhibited the normal dipolar signature associated with cultural features—a strong magnetic high with a strong magnetic low immediately to the north. The results of this study demonstrate that the magnetometer has a great potential for aiding in the interpretation of archaeological features in addition to its traditional use as a tool for identifying feature locations.

Résumé

Résumé

Durante trabajos de campo realizados en el Richland/Chambers Reservoir en el norte-centro de Texas entre 1982 y 1985 se efectuaron prospecciones magnéticas y de conductividad electromagnética en varios sitios arqueológicos. La mayor parte de este trabajo fue realizado en el sitio Bird Point Island (41FT201), que fue utilizado como prueba de la eficiencia de diversas técnicas de prospección. Se pusieron a prueba dos dispositivos, un magnetómetro de precesión de protones Geometries y un sensor de conductividad electromagnética Geonics Limited EM-38. Los datos producidos por el EM-38 fueron inicialmente capaces de localizar grandes estructuras arqueológicas pero tuvieron menos utilidad para la interpretación que los proporcionados por el magnetómetro.

Se condujeron experimentos replicativos para poner a prueba hipótesis relativas a la función de las estructuras y para identificar las fuentes del magnetismo presente en las mismas. Luego de crear un fogón y un pozo experimentales fuera del area del sitio, se efectuó una prospección magnética y los resultados fueron comparados con respuestas magnéticas notablemente semejantes entre las estructuras experimentales y ciertas closes de estructuras arqueológicas prehistóricas. Rocas fragmentadas al fuego, incluyendo pequeños fragmentos de arenisca y hierro, fueron identificadas como la principal fuente del magnetismo.

Además de localizar estructuras, los datos magnéticos proporcionaron información sobre múltiples episodios de perturbación y reuso de las mismas. Episodios de uso recurrente fueron señalados por la simetría irregular y polaridad magnética inusual. Varios pozos de considerable tamaño, que habían sido reutilizados de acuerdo a la evidencia arqueológica, exhibieron anomalías con múltiples picos de alto magnetismo rodeados en varias direcciones por picos de magnetismo moderadamente bajo. Por el contrario, fogones y pozos carentes de evidencias arqueológicas de perturbación o reuso estuvieron asociados con anomalías que exhibían la señal dipolar normal característica de estructuras culturales—un fuerte pico de magnetismo elevado con unfuerte pico de magnetismo bajo inmediatamente hacia el norte. Los resultados del presente estudio demuestran que el magnetómetro posee un gran potencial para auxiliar la interpretación de estructuras arqueológicas además de su uso tradicional en la localización de estructuras.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , October 1991 , pp. 701 - 720
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Aitken, M. J. 1958 Magnetic Prospecting : I. Archaeometry 1 : 24–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aitken, M. J. 1974 Physics and Archaeology. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, London.Google Scholar
Belshe, J. C. 1957 Recent Magnetic Investigations at Cambridge University. Advances in Physics 6 : 192–193.Google Scholar
Beven, B. 1983 Electromagnetics for Mapping Buried Features. Journal of Field Archaeology 10 : 47–54.Google Scholar
Black, G. A., and Johnston, R. B. 1962 A Test of Magnetometry as an Aid to Archaeology. American Antiquity 28 : 199–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breiner, S. 1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. EG&G Geometries, Inc. Sunnyvale, California.Google Scholar
Bruseth, J. E., and Martin, W. A. (editors) 1987 The Bird Point Island and Adams Ranch Sites : Methodological and Theoretical Contributions to North Central Texas Archaeology. Richland Creek Technical Series, vol. II. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Bruseth, J. E., and Moir, R. W. (editors) 1987 Introduction to the Richland Creek Archaeological Project : Environmental and Cultural Setting. Richland Creek Technical Series, vol. I. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1977 A New Role and Analytical Design for the Use of Resistivity Surveying in Archaeology. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2 : 161–193.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1982 Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying : Interpretation of Data from Earthen Archeological Sites. Center for American Archaeology Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. J. 1982 Analysis of Carbonized Plant Remains from the Richland/Chambers Project. In Season One (1982) Mitigation of Prehistoric Archaeology in the Richland/Chambers Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties Texas : Interim Report, edited by Raab, L. M., pp. 399–414. Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Fritz, G. J. 1983 Analysis of Flotation Data : Archaeobotanical Remains. In Season Two (1983) Mitigation of Prehistoric Archaeology in the Richland/Chambers Reservoir, Navarro and Freestone Counties Texas : Interim Report, edited by Bruseth, J. E., pp. 188–199. Archaeology Research Program, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Gibson, T. H. 1986 Magnetic Prospection on Prehistoric Sites in Western Canada. Geophysics 51 : 553–560.Google Scholar
Godfrey, C, McKea, G. S., and Oakes, H. 1973 General Soil Map of Texas. Texas A&M University in cooperation with the Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Graham, I. D. G., and Scollar, I. 1976 Limitations on Magnetic Prospecting in Archaeology Imposed by Soil Properties: Archeo-Physika 6 : 1–125.Google Scholar
Jermann, J. V., and Dunnell, R. C. 1976 Computer Aided Mapping in Archaeology : The Case for SYMAP. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society of American Archaeology, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Jurney, D. H., and Moir, R. W. (editors) 1987 Historic Buildings, Material Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin : Architecture, Artifacts, and Synthesis of Historic Archaeology. Richland Creek Technical Series, vol. IV. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
LeBorgne, E. 1955 Susceptibilite magnetique anormale du sol superficiel. Annals de Geophysique 11 : 399–419.Google Scholar
Linington, R. E. 1964 The Use of Simplified Anomalies in Magnetic Surveying. Archeometry 7 : 3–13.Google Scholar
McGregor, D. E., and Bruseth, J. E. (editors) 1987 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations Along the Prairie Margin : Site Excavations and Synthesis of Prehistoric Archaeology. Richland Creek Technical Series, vol. III. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
McNeill, J. D. 1980 Survey Interpretation Techniques for the EM38. Technical Note TN-9. Geonics Limited, Mississauga, Ontario.Google Scholar
Moir, R. W., and Jurney, D. H. (editors) 1987 Pioneer Settlers, Tenant Farmers, and Communities : Objectives, Historical Background, and Excavations. Richland Creek Technical Series, vol. IV. Archaeology Research Program, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.Google Scholar
Ralph, E. K. 1965 Comparison of a Proton and Rubidium Magnetometer for Archaeological Prospecting. Archeometry 7 : 20–27.Google Scholar
Reid, K. R. 1977 Psoralea esculenta as a Prairie Resource : An Ethnographic Appraisal. Plains Anthropologist 78 : 321–327.Google Scholar
Sellards, E. H., Adkins, W. S., and Plumner, F. B. 1954 Stratigraphy. The Geology of Texas, vol. I. Bulletin No. 3232. University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Swanton, J. R. 1946 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Bulletin No. 137. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Tite, M. 1972 Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York Google Scholar
von Frese, R. R. B. 1984 Archaeomagnetic Anomalies of Midcontinental North American Archaeological Sites. Historical Archaeology 18 : 4–19.Google Scholar
von Frese, R. R. B., and Noble, V. E. 1984 Magnetometry for Archaeological Exploration of Historical Sites. Historical Archaeology 18 : 38–53.Google Scholar
Weymouth, J. W. 1976 A Magnetic Survey of the Walth Bay Site. Occasional Studies in Anthropology No. 3. Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Weymouth, R. J., and Huggins, R. 1985 Geophysical Surveying of Archaeological Sites. In Archaeological Geology, edited by Rapp, G. and Gilford, J., pp. 191–235. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Weymouth, R. J., and Nickel, R. 1977 A Magnetometer Survey of the Knife River Indian Village. Plains Anthropologist 22 : 104–118. Lincoln. Google Scholar