university alabama press remote sensing in archaeology an explicitly north american perspective mar 2006

Remote Sensing
in Archaeology

Remote Sensing
in Archaeology
An Explicitly North American Perspective
Edited by
Jay K. Johnson
The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa
Published for The Center for Archaeological Research at
the University of Mississippi,
the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center, and
NASA Earth Science Applications Directorate at the Stennis Space Center
Copyright © 2006
 e University of Alabama Press
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380
All rights reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America
∞
 e paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of
American National Standard for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984.
Typefaces: Garamond and Myriad
Designer: Kathy Cummins
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Remote sensing in archaeology : an explicitly North American perspective / edited by
Jay K. Johnson.
p. cm.
Based on presentations made at a workshop held in Biloxi, Miss., in 2002, preced-
ing the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference.

“Published for the Center for Archaeological Research at the Universtiy of Missis-
sippi, the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center, and NASA Earth Sciences
Application Directorate at the Stennis Space Center.”
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN-13: 978-0-8173-5343-8 (alk. paper)
ISBN-10: 0-8173-5343-7 (alk. paper)
1. Archaeology Remote sensing. 2. Archaeology North America Remote sensing.
3. Indians of North America Antiquities Remote sensing. 4. Excavations (Archaeol-
ogy) North America. 5. North America Antiquities Remote sensing. I. Johnson,
Jay K. II. University of Mississippi. Center for Archaeological Research.
CC76.4.R46 2006
930.1028 dc22
2005054863
For Anne

Contents
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xv
Acknowledgments xvii
1. Introduction 1
Jay K. Johnson
2.  e Current and Potential Role of Archaeogeophysics in
Cultural Resource Management in the United States 17
J. J. Lockhart and  omas J. Green
3. A Cost-Benefi t Analysis of Remote Sensing Application in
Cultural Resource Management Archaeology 33
Jay K. Johnson and Bryan S. Haley
4. Airborne Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis 47
Marco Giardino and Bryan S. Haley
5. Conductivity Survey: A Survival Manual 79

R. Berle Clay
6. Resistivity Survey 109
Lewis Somers
7. Ground-Penetrating Radar 131
Lawrence B. Conyers
8. Magnetic Susceptibility 161
Rinita A. Dalan
9. Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology 205
Kenneth L. Kvamme
10. Data Processing and Presentation 235
Kenneth L. Kvamme
11. Multiple Methods Surveys: Case Studies 251
Kenneth L. Kvamme, Jay K. Johnson, and Bryan S. Haley
12. Ground Truthing the Results of Geophysical Surveys 269
Michael L. Hargrave
13. A Comparative Guide to Applications 305
Jay K. Johnson
List of Contributors 321
CD Containing Color Figures inside back cover

Figures
2.1. GIS data layer and example database fi elds for archaeological sites
in Arkansas 20
2.2. GIS data layer and example database fi elds for archaeological projects
and surveys in Arkansas 21
2.3. Gradiometer data for a prehistoric feature 22
2.4. Gradiometer data for a nineteenth-century cemetery 23
2.5. Comparison highlighting the advantages of using multiple
technologies 24
2.6. Electrical resistance data and excavation on a prehistoric site in

eastern Arkansas 25
2.7. Gradiometer data and excavation on a prehistoric site in southwest
Arkansas 25
2.8. Geophysical signatures for an archaeological feature using multiple
technologies 26
2.9. Field methodology and results from a prehistoric site in northeast
Arkansas 27
2.10. Geophysical units of measure 28
2.11. Electrical resistance data and georeferenced 2-×-2-m grid for
a prehistoric site in Arkansas 29
2.12. Archaeogeophysical imagery from four technologies with
excavated features 30
3.1. Magnetic gradiometer survey of the village portion of the
Parchman Place site 36
3.2. Survey of buried prehistoric house remnants at Parchman Place
with electromagnetics, resistance, ground-penetrating radar, and
magnetic gradiometer 37
3.3. Ground truth excavation units superimposed on magnetic
gradiometer survey 38
3.4. Trenches superimposed on magnetic gradiometer survey showing
burned fl oor and charred beams 38
3.5. Surface artifact density plot of the Hollywood site 39
3.6. Magnetic gradiometer survey of the Hollywood site 40
3.7. Magnetic gradiometer survey of the village portion of the
Parchman Place site showing houses, pits, and high-density areas 41
4.1. Electromagnetic spectrum 49
4.2. Diurnal temperature variation of a hypothetical Mississippian house 54
4.3. A helium blimp in use as a low-cost, low-altitude remote
sensing platform 58
4.4. A powered parachute in use as a stable remote sensing platform 59

4.5. A black-and-white aerial photograph before and after subsetting
and contrast enhancing 62
x ~
4.6. A 1923 Calvin Brown sketch map of the Hollywood site 67
4.7. Soil Conservation Service photographs of the Hollywood site
from 1938, 1942, 1966, and 1992 68
4.8.  e near infrared band from the large-format color infrared
photography of the Hollywood site 69
4.9.  e near infrared band 6 of imagery obtained with the ATLAS
sensor, Hollywood site 69
4.10.  e thermal infrared band 10 of imagery obtained with the ATLAS
sensor, Hollywood site 70
4.11.  ermal infrared imagery produced by the Agema 570 camera
aboard a helium blimp, Hollywood site 71
5.1. A conductivity survey in progress with the EM38 conductivity meter 80
5.2. A 60-×-60-m view of a “classic” ditch and bank with the EM38 85
5.3. A 40-×-60-m view of an archaeological site showing plow scars 87
5.4. Earth conductivity data uncorrected for “digital lag” 91
5.5.  e conductivity data of Figure 5.4 corrected for digital lag 91
5.6. Conductivity data collected on zigzag traverses but uncorrected
for digital lag 92
5.7.  e same data as in Figure 5.6 with digital lag corrected by
processing in Geoplot 3.0 92
5.8. Magnetic susceptibility survey, Millstone Bluff , Illinois 94
5.9. A 20-×-20-m square centered over a country brick kiln showing
eff ects of walking pace on measurement of ppt with EM38 95
5.10. Conductivity data in contour map form 96
5.11.  e conductivity data of Figure 5.10 in gray-scale form 98
5.12. Gray-scale image of conductivity data produced in Geoplot 3.0 98
5.13. Gray-scale image of conductivity data produced in Surfer 8 98

5.14. Conductivity survey at the Hollywood site 103
5.15. Conductivity survey at the Carty site 104
5.16. Conductivity survey at the Hopeton Earthworks 105
5.17. Conductivity survey at the Hopeton Earthworks 105
6.1. A resistivity survey system consisting of a probe array, multiplexer,
resistivity meter, and data-processing and display unit 110
6.2. Vertical section through uniform soil showing current injection
electrode and voltage measuring electrode, with associated
current fl ow and electric fi eld 114
6.3. A multidepth survey probe confi guration showing current fl ow and
electric fi eld 114
6.4.  e fi eld confi guration for a typical resistivity survey 115
6.5. A wheeled square array survey system with automated data logging 116
6.6. Schematic representation of zero, low, and high signal-to-noise ratios
with probability distribution functions also shown 121
Figures
~ xi
6.7. Large-area resistivity survey at Army City 123
6.8. Army City, areas of high resistance emphasized 124
6.9. Army City, detail 125
6.10. Resistivity survey data from Yucca House 125
6.11. Resistivity survey and magnetic fi eld gradient survey at
Mission San Marcos 126
6.12. Resistivity survey of prehistoric coastal California house pits 127
6.13. Resistivity survey and magnetic fi eld gradient survey at a
Shields Complex site 128
7.1.  e Geophysical Survey Systems Subsurface Interface Radar (SIR)
system, Model 2000 133
7.2. A 400-MHz profi le across a pithouse fl oor; buried water pipes are
visible as refl ection hyperbolas 137

7.3. A 25-MHz antenna, capable of transmitting radar energy to
more than 20 m and of resolving only very large objects of many
meters in dimension 138
7.4. A 900-MHz antenna, which can transmit energy to about 1 m
at most but can resolve features to about 10 cm in diameter 139
7.5. A GPR survey of a ground surface that is not fl at, in which profi les
must be corrected for surface elevation changes in order to produce
a more accurate two-dimensional view of the subsurface 141
7.6. Example of an amplitude slice-map, showing changes in amplitude
in plan view, with each slice representing about 20 cm in the ground 142
7.7. Large trenches dug with backhoes to determine the presence or
absence of archaeological features 146
7.8. A 500-MHz profi le from the Valencia site in Tucson, Arizona,
showing refl ection data obscured by noise 147
7.9.  e profi le in Figure 7.8 processed to remove the interfering
frequencies, revealing a pithouse fl oor 147
7.10. Amplitude slice-maps produced from the data in Figure 7.9
showing the location of many pithouse fl oors and other
extramural features 148
7.11. Amplitude slice-maps from a pithouse site in Utah, revealing a
pithouse fl oor in a diff erent area of the grid than hypothesized from
the concentration of the artifacts 150
7.12. Refl ections from one 500-MHz profi le that crossed the pithouse
fl oor visible in the amplitude slice-maps in Figure 7.11 151
7.13. A 500-MHz refl ection profi le crossing a great kiva 152
7.14. Amplitude slice-maps of the great kiva at Bluff , Utah 152
7.15.  e convent courtyard at San Marcos Pueblo, New Mexico 153
7.16. GPR profi les of historic graves with intact or partially
collapsed caskets 154
Figures

xii ~
7.17. Amplitude slice-map refl ections in a pioneer cemetery in Utah
showing many distinct graves, whose locations are rarely coincident
with the locations of the extant headstones 155
7.18. A three-dimensional rendering of the highest amplitudes in the
same grid of data used to make the slices in Figure 7.6, imaging
rubble from a historic house 156
8.1. Magnetic enhancement of soils at the Cahokia Mounds site 163
8.2. Unit susceptibility profi le from a basal platform joining two mounds
at the Cahokia Mounds site 165
8.3. An EM38 in operation 168
8.4.  e Bartington MS2D sensor 168
8.5.  e prototype down-hole magnetic susceptibility logger in operation 169
8.6. Field evaluation of the Bartington MS2H 171
8.7. Depth response of the EM38 172
8.8. Profi le across the Grand Plaza at the Cahokia Mounds site showing
natural sediments and overlying cultural material, with data gained
from soil magnetic studies, soil chemical tests, and core descriptions 174
8.9. Magnetic susceptibility survey of a prehistoric structure in
southwest Arkansas 182
8.10. Down-hole magnetic susceptibility results at the Rustad site 184
8.11. Down-hole magnetic susceptibility studies at the Canning site 185
8.12. Base map showing the earthworks at Hopeton and the locations
of three trenches excavated in 2001 and 2002 186
8.13. Magnetic susceptibility contour map of the north face of Trench 3
at the Hopeton Earthworks 187
8.14. Magnetic susceptibility values along a single elevation line on
the north face of Trench 3 at the Hopeton Earthworks compared
with cesium gradiometer data collected at this location 188
8.15. Application of magnetic techniques to the identifi cation of areas

of stability, erosion, and sedimentation on a Mississippian period
platform mound 189
8.16. Mound erosion processes for platform and conical mounds 191
8.17. Topographic and soil magnetic data for Mound 36, Cahokia 192
8.18. Topographic and soil magnetic data for Mound 62, Cahokia 193
8.19. A plot of ARM/χ versus distance from Core A (mound summit),
Mound 36 194
8.20. Core locations and topographic profi le showing the asymmetrical
nature of Mound 56, Cahokia 195
8.21. A plot of ARM/χ versus distance from the crest of Mound 56
showing a bimodal version of the pattern observed for Mound 36 196
Figures
~ xiii
9.1. Principal magnetometers used in archaeology: Geometrics-856
proton precession magnetometer, Geometrics-858 cesium vapor
magnetometer, Geoscan Research FM36 fl uxgate gradiometer 213
9.2. Increasing detail and quality of anomaly defi nition as a result of
greater sample densities over a pair of burned houses at the
Menoken Village State Historic Site 215
9.3. Magnetometer anomalies created by intensive fi ring 216
9.4. Magnetometer anomalies created by fi red artifacts 217
9.5. Positive magnetometer anomalies caused by accumulations of topsoil
associated with constructed features 218
9.6. Negative magnetometer anomalies produced by the removal of
magnetically enriched topsoil 219
9.7. Signifi cant magnetometer anomalies introduced by imported stone 220
9.8. Strong magnetometer anomalies produced by iron and steel artifacts 221
9.9. A magnetic survey in the vicinity of granite boulders showing large-
magnitude dipolar anomalies stemming from remanent magnetism 225
9.10. Massive anomalies caused by large iron or steel bodies on a site 226

9.11. Dipolar anomalies representing steel-wire pin fl ags 227
9.12. Total loss of data in one segment of a survey as a result of keys
in the operator’s pocket 228
9.13. Dipolar anomalies found to be clusters of steel bottle caps and
beer cans 229
9.14.  e spatial organization of the Fort Clark Trading Post and its environs
at the Fort Clark State Historic Site as revealed by magnetometry 230
10.1. Magnetometry data from Primeau’s Trading Post at the Fort Clark State
Historic Site, North Dakota, showing eff ect of a de-spiking algorithm 237
10.2. Magnetometry data from an early Archaic occupation at the
Wallace Bottom site, Arkansas, showing use of Fourier methods
to remove plow marks 239
10.3. A complete magnetic processing sequence: raw data illustrating drift
and heading errors; data after “zeroing” the transects; data after application
of a “de-staggering” algorithm; data after removal of the gait defect through
Fourier methods; data after low pass fi ltering; data after interpolation 240
10.4. Grid imbalances in total fi eld data gathered by a proton precession
magnetometer at the Roman city of Empuriés 243
10.5. Magnetometry data from Double Ditch State Historic Site,
North Dakota, subjected to contrast manipulation 245
10.6. Typical modes of graphic display illustrated with magnetometry
data from the Great Bear effi gy at Effi gy Mounds National
Monument, Iowa 246
Figures
xiv ~
10.7. Magnetometry data from Huff Village State Historic Site,
North Dakota, with an interpreted map 248
11.1. Geophysical surveys at Whistling Elk village: resistivity, conductivity,
magnetic gradiometry 253
11.2. Geophysical mappings of circular earthlodge(s) at the Mandan/Arikara

village in the Fort Clark State Historic Site: resistivity, GPR time slice,
magnetic gradiometry 254
11.3.  e brick foundation of the Mount Comfort Church as revealed
by resistivity, GPR, and magnetic gradiometry 256
11.4. Multidimensional geophysics at Army City: resistivity, conductivity,
magnetic gradiometry, magnetic susceptibility, and GPR, and RGB
color composites of the data 258
11.5. Gradiometer image of the Hollywood Mounds site 260
11.6. Photographic imagery of the Hollywood Mounds site 261
11.7. Airborne digital imagery of the Hollywood Mounds 261
11.8. Magnetic gradient image of prehistoric house remains reclassifi ed
into three classes of data 262
11.9. Airborne imagery used in reclassifi cation 263
11.10. Original pixel classifi cation and discriminant function results 264
12.1. Results of electrical resistivity survey at the Crying Hawk site 283
12.2.  e Grossmann site: results of a magnetic fi eld gradient survey
and subsequent excavation 287
12.3. Results of mechanized stripping, resistance survey, and soil cores
at the Hoxie Farm site 290
12.4. Electrical resistance map of the Army City site, Fort Riley, Kansas 292
12.5. Panoramic photograph of Army City, ca. 1918 294
12.6. Trench excavated to ground truth a fortifi cation ditch at the
Double Ditch site 296
12.7. Magnetic map of Fort Clark Trading Post, North Dakota 297
12.8. Map showing magnetic foundation stones documented in a block of
contiguous test units at Fort Clark Trading Post 298
12.9. GPR map of Ellis Cemetery showing the location of gravestones 299
13.1. Magnetic gradient and magnetic susceptibility images of the
Walford site showing pit feature locations 307
13.2. A portion of the resistance imagery from the Presidio de Santa Rosa

showing the utility of a fi lter 309
13.3. Magnetic gradient image of the Confederate cemetery on campus
at the University of Mississippi 310
Figures
Tables
3.1. Test excavation simulation results 42
3.2. Cost simulation of traditional vs. remote sensing–based data recovery 43
4.1.  ermal inertia values for common materials 53
5.1. Resistivity and conductivity of diff erent soil types 83
5.2. Typical data set produced from data logger for processing 95
11.1. Standardized canonical discriminant function coeffi cients for
house location analysis 264
11.2. Classifi cation results for house location analysis 265
12.1. Usefulness of ground truthing techniques at the sites discussed
in this chapter 282

Acknowledgments
 is is my third edited volume. Each time I fi nish one, I vow not to do another.
And then the opportunity comes by and it’s too good to pass up. In this case, the qual-
ity of the contributions and the timeliness of the collection persuaded me. Also, the
prospect of working with such a distinguished and agreeable group of chapter authors
made the project attractive. I thank them all. I met most of the contributors to this
book when I attended my fi rst National Park Service workshop on remote sensing and
archaeology at Chillicothe, Ohio, in 2001.  ese annual events are sponsored by the
Midwest Archeological Center and organized by Steve De Vore. I thank the NPS and
Steve for the opportunity to learn so much in such a short period of time. Although
Berle Clay is a regular instructor at the NPS workshops, I have known him just about
as long as I have been working in the Southeast: a long time. However, he deserves spe-
cial mention in that he introduced me to the potential of geophysical remote sensing
when he showed up at the Hollywood site in 1997 with a conductivity meter. It was

an impressive demonstration; test pits in six of the eight possible structures revealed in
the resultant imagery came down on house fl oors. I also met Marco Giardino at the
Hollywood site and, as outlined in Chapter 1, he was a coconspirator in organizing the
regional workshop in Biloxi that led to this volume. Not only did he help organize it,
but he also provided NASA funding for both the workshop and the follow-up meet-
ing in New Orleans at which the contributors got together to work out the details
of the volume. Funding for the production of the volume as well as the workshop
was pro vided by the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center, a NASA-funded
initiative under the direction of Greg Easson at Ole Miss.  is volume is the seventh
time that I have worked with Kathy Cummins as copy editor and typesetter. As always,
it has been a pleasure. I literally could not have done it without her. Finally, I thank
Bryan Haley, my coauthor on two of the chapters in this volume, a “fi rst generation”
graduate of the remote sensing and archaeology focus of our graduate program, my
research associate, and the man who keeps it all working while I attend to administra-
tive and academic matters.

Remote Sensing
in Archaeology