A review of the role of magnetic susceptibility in archaeogeophysical studies in the USA: Recent developments and prospects

Archaeological Prospection

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-31

  Dalan, Rinita A ^a  

^a MINNESOTA STATE UNIVERSITY MOORHEAD   (United States)

Author keywords

Archaeogeophysics; Environmental magnetism; Field applications; Geoarchaeology; Magnetic susceptibility

Indexed keywords

EID: 41149093467     PISSN: 10752196     EISSN: 10990763     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/arp.323     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Ahler SA (ed.). 2002. Fieldwork, Geology, and Early Component Research during 2001-2002 at the Barnes Site, 5LA9187, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado. Fort Carson Cultural Resource Management Series Contribution Number 11. PaleoCultural Research Group: Flagstaff, AZ.
2. Benech C, Marmet E. 1999. Optimum depth of investigation and conductivity response rejection of the different electromagnetic devices measuring apparent magnetic susceptibility. Archaeological Prospection 6: 31-45.
3. Bevan B. 2002. Geophysical Tests in the Hopeton Excavations. Report submitted to the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service: Lincoln, NE.
4. Bevan B. 2004. An Evaluation of Magnetic Data from the Grand Plaza at Cahokia. Report prepared for R. Dalan and B. Clay, Geosight: Weems, VA.
5. Bevan B, Dalan R. 2003. Magnetic Susceptibility Sounding. Geosight: Weems, VA.
6. Dalan R. 2006a. Magnetic susceptibility. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: an Explicitly North American Perspective, Johnson J (ed.). The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa; 161-203.
7. Dalan R. 2006b. A geophysical approach to buried site detection using down-hole susceptibility and soil magnetic techniques. Archaeological Prospection 13: 182-206.
8. Dalan R, Goodman D. 2007. Imaging buried landforms using down-hole susceptibility data and three-dimensional ground-penetrating radar visualization software. Archaeological Prospection 14: 273-280.
9. Dalan R, Banerjee S. 1998. Solving archaeological problems using techniques of soil magnetism. Geoarchaeology 13: 3-36.
10. De Vore S. 2002. Magnetic susceptibility investigations at the Barnes Folsom Site (5LA9187), Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Las Animas County Colorado. In Fieldwork, Geology, and Early Component Research during 2001-2002 at the Barnes Site, 5LA9187, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado, Ahler A (ed.). Fort Carson Cultural Resource Management Series Contribution Number 11. PaleoCultural Research Group: Flagstaff, AZ; 129-144.
11. Dunlop D, Schutt L, Hale C. 1984. Paleomagnetism of Archean rocks from northwestern Ontario: III. Rock magnetism of the Shelley Lake granite, Quetico Subprovince. Canadian Journal of Earth Science 21: 879-886.
12. Evans M, Heller F. 2003. Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of Environmagnetics. Academic Press: New York.
13. Fogel A. 2005. Investigating a Mississippian mound top structure utilizing archaeogeophysics and archaeology: a three-dimensional application of down-hole susceptibility technology. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS.
14. Johnson J (ed.). 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology: an Explicitly North American Perspective. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.
15. Jones G, Maki D. 2005. Lightning-induced magnetic anomalies on archaeological sites. Archaeological Prospection 12(3): 191-197.
16. Jordan T, Kaups M. 1989. The American Backwoods Frontier: an Ethic and Ecological Interpretation. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
17. Kvamme K, Ahler S. 2007. Integrated remote sensing and excavation at Double Ditch State Historic Site, North Dakota. American Antiquity 72(3): 539-561.
18. Kvamme K, Ernenwein E, Hargrave M, Sever T, Harmon D, Limp W. 2006. New Approaches to the Use and Integration of Multi-sensor Remote Sensing for Historic Resources. Report submitted to the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program, US Department of Defense: Washington, DC.
19. Lecoanet H, Léêque F, Segura S. 1999. Magnetic susceptibility in environmental applications: Comparison of field probes. Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors 115: 191-204.
20. Lynott M, Weymouth J, Mandel R, Dalan R, Bevan B. 2005. Ohio Hopewell earthen wall construction: a view from the Hopeton Earthworks. Paper presented at the 70th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Salt Lake City, Utah.
21. Maki D. 2005. Lightning strikes and prehistoric ovens: Determining the source of magnetic anomalies using techniques of environmental magnetism. Geoarchaeology 20(5): 449-459.
22. Maki D. 2006. A Geophysical Investigation of Three Historic Archaeological Sites Located on Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Archaeo-Physics Report of Investigations No. 105: Minneapolis, MN.
23. 4 form. Implications and applications in archaeogeophysics. Archaeological Prospection 13(3): 207-227.
24. McNeill J, Bosnar M. 1999. Application of 'Dipole-Dipole' Electromagnetic Systems for Geological Depth Sounding. Technical Note TN-31, Geonics Limited: Mississaug,a Ontario, Canada. (http://www.geonics.com/pdfs/technicalnotes/tn31.pdf, as modified October 2007.)
25. McNeill J, Hunter J, Bosnar M. 1996. Application of a bore-hole induction magnetic susceptibility logger to shallow lithological mapping. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 0(2): 77-90.
26. Michlovic MG. 1986. The archaeology of the Canning site. The Minnesota Archaeologist 45(1): 3-36.
27. Pacheco P, Burks J, Wymer D. 2005. Investigating Ohio Hopewell settlement patterns in central Ohio: A preliminary report of archaeology at Brown's Bottom #1 (33RO21). Web article: http://www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=32
28. Thompson RG. (ed.) 1990. The Archaeology of the Dahnke-Reinke Site (32CS29). Report submitted to the State Historical Society of North Dakota: Bismarck.
29. Thompson R, Oldfield F. 1986. Environmental Magnetism. Allen and Unwin: London.
30. Verrier V, Rochette P. 2002. Estimating peak currents at ground lightning impacts using remanent magnetization. Geophysical Research Letters 29: 14-1-14-4.
31. Wasilewski P, Kletetschka G. 1999. Lodestone: nature's only permanent magnet - what it is and how it gets charged. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 2275-2278.
32. Weymouth JW. 2002. Geophysical Investigations at the Hopeton Earthwork, Ross County, Ohio: The 2002 Season. Report submitted to the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service: Lincoln, NE.
33. Weymouth J. 2003. Hopeton Geophysical Survey: The 2003 Season. Report submitted to the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service: Lincoln, NE.