A Review of The Role of Magnetic Susceptibility in Archaeogeophysical Studies in The USA Recent Developments and Prospects

Archaeological Prospection
Archaeol. Prospect. 15, 131 (2008)

Published online 5 December 2007 in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/arp.323
A Review of the Role of Magnetic

Susceptibility in Archaeogeophysical
Studies in the USA:Recent
Developments and Prospects
RINITA A. DALAN*
Department of Anthropology and Earth Science, Minnesota State University Moorhead,
1104 7th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN 56563, USA
ABSTRACT
Magnetic susceptibilityisemergingin archaeogeophysicalprojectsinthe USA as a distinctive method

for survey that is now more frequently applied. Spurred in part by developments in instrumentation
and software, encouraged by a strong geoarchaeological focus, and influenced by the nature of the
North American archaeological record, the magnetic susceptibility method has arisen in a number
of areas of application.These include magnetic susceptibility studies within trenches and excavation
units, the use of down-hole sensors to investigate magnetic stratigraphy, visualization and interpretation of three-dimensional susceptibility data sets, the incorporation of magnetic susceptibility data
into pattern analyses ofthe spatialdistributionofarchaeologicalmaterials, and theintegration ofmagnetic susceptibility studies with magnetometer and other surface geophysical surveys and with soil
magnetic studies accomplished in the laboratory.The scale of application has ranged from microgeophysical surveys confined to single excavation units to investigations of broad archaeological landscapes; problem orientation has been equally diverse. Soil magnetic techniques are being tapped
to enhance understanding of the formation of sites, features and landscapes, and also postdepositional processes. Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Key words: magneticsusceptibility; archaeogeophysics; environmentalmagnetism; geoarchaeology; field applications
Introduction
Over the past decade, geophysical applications in
the USA have experienced a period of growth
and development. The unique character, perspectives and contributions of these archaeogeophysical investigations have been the subject of
several recent conference symposia and publications (e.g. Johnson, 2006).
* Correspondence to: R. A. Dalan, Department of Anthropology and Earth Science, Minnesota State University Moorhead, 1104 7th Avenue South, Moorhead, MN 56563, USA.
E-mail: dalanri@mnstate.edu
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
A recent trend within archeogeophysics in the

USA has been an increasing interest in magnetic
susceptibility studies. Activity has proceeded on
many fronts, including the development of
equipment and software, experimentation with
new applications, the integration of susceptibility
studies with other geophysical methods, and the
establishment of this method within our discourse on critical questions in archaeological
inquiry.
Given the recent surge of activity in magnetic
susceptibility studies, it is time to review these
developments. Contributions and new directions
over the past decade will be the focus, with an eye
Received 11 March 2007
Accepted 2 October 2007
R. A. Dalan
2
toward predicting future directions. This corresponds approximately to the time since Dalan
and Banerjee (1998) published their review of soil
magnetic studies in archaeology, and this article
serves in part as an update to that review. Dalan
and Banerjee (1998), however, focused on soil
magnetic measurements in the laboratory rather
than susceptibility studies in the field. Although
laboratory methods will be considered briefly,
the focus here is specifically on magnetic
susceptibility, with an emphasis on field applications as part of archaeogeophysical work. It is
these field applications that have seen the most
development over the past decade.
A decade ago, field surveys with magnetic
susceptibility were not considered on a par with
the four principal methods in USA archaeogeophysics resistivity, magnetics, electromagnetic
conductivity (EM) and ground-penetrating radar
(GPR). In part this was due to the infrequency of
use of magnetic susceptibility, which in turn was
primarily related to limitations in speed of
survey and depth of investigation. A lack of
development of the susceptibility method within
the broader geophysical community was another
contributing factor; these related studies offered
little that encouraged borrowing for archaeological research.
Susceptibility studies were not often applied
and, when they were, they were limited to relatively shallow depths: therefore, the advantages
that susceptibility studies offer archaeologists, in
terms of understanding soils and sediments
comprising the archaeological record, were not
completely realized. Investigation of susceptibility was predominantly an exercise in the
laboratory, rather than in the field, particularly if
the interest was in greater depths or in acquiring
more detail than possible with the limited range
of then-existing field instruments.
Certainly the collection of samples is an important component of any project. These samples can
be studied using various magnetic methods in
the laboratory in order to understand how
magnetic composition, concentration and grain
size influence susceptibility. The susceptibility of
these samples can be normalized by density and
one can look separately at the contribution of
inclusions to the susceptibility signal. Sample
collection and laboratory measurement solely for
the purpose of characterizing lateral or vertical

trends in susceptibility is a relatively inefficient
process, however, especially when compared
with the great advances made in data collection
for other types of geophysical surveys.
A deciding factor in the changing character of
susceptibility studies in the USA, and certainly
an influence on future growth of this method, has
been the development of instruments and software that allow efficient gathering, processing
and analysis of field data. As will be discussed
below, these include: down-hole susceptibility
sensors and hand-held sensors designed to be
utilized in excavations and on other exposed
surfaces; software developed for field data
collection; and software capable of processing
and visualizing three-dimensional data sets.
Although susceptibility is still a minor player
in archaeogeophysics in this country, these
developments have shown the importance of
this method for understanding questions relating
to the formation of the archaeological record and
post-formation processes.
This review considers advances in magnetic
susceptibility studies in archaeogeophysical
investigations within the USA. Although the
susceptibility method is used in many other parts
of the world, this review makes no attempt to
summarize those activities. The aim is to typify
susceptibility studies in this country, and to
characterize what practitioners are doing with
the types of features that they have encountered.
Additional parts of this review discuss instruments and techniques that are being used, the
types of questions that are being addressed, and
the potential of this method for archaeological
applications in the future.
Magnetic susceptibility
and its measurement
Induced magnetization is the magnetization of a
sample measured in the presence of an inducing
(magnetic) field, whereas remanent, or permanent,
magnetization is the magnetization of a sample
in the absence of an external magnetic field.
Magnetometer surveys are used to define
spatial variations or anomalies in the Earths
magnetic field resulting from localized changes

DOI: 10.1002/arp
Magnetic Susceptibility Studies in the USA

in magnetization. Magnetometer surveys make
no distinction between those changes due to
induced and those due to remanent magnetization; they only characterize their net effect in
altering the Earths magnetic field. In contrast,
magnetic susceptibility surveys provide an
opportunity to investigate just the induced
component. These surveys are useful for mapping spatial variations in magnetic susceptibility
and they also provide data that can be used to
understand anomalies that have been located
through a magnetometer survey. A susceptibility
survey has several advantages over a survey that
is done with a magnetometer: Susceptibility
anomalies are simpler, for they show a single
area of high readings over a magnetic feature; a
magnetometer will always find both high and
low readings over a magnetic feature. Although
the high readings of a magnetometer will usually
be offset from the magnetic object that causes
them, these high readings will be centred over the
feature when magnetic susceptibility measurements are made. Finally, if a feature has blurred
or diffuse boundaries, it can be difficult or
impossible to detect with a magnetometer, but
easy to detect with a susceptibility survey.
Magnetic susceptibility quantifies the induced
magnetization of a sample in a weak magnetic
field (i.e. 5100 mT) on the order of the Earths
magnetic field. Also called low field magnetic
susceptibility or volume susceptibility, this property
measures the degree to which a substance can
be magnetized; it is defined by the ratio of
the magnetization induced in a sample to the
magnetizing field. As this magnetizing field is
low, the method is essentially non-destructive,
and there is little or no change to the sample.
Magnetic susceptibility (k) is dimensionless in SI
units. Mass magnetic susceptibility (x), which is
equal to susceptibility normalized by the density
of the sample, is expressed in units of m3 kg1.
Magnetic enhancement refers to changes in the
magnetic mineralogy of the upper soil layers,
resulting in higher susceptibility values in the
surface horizons. Enhancement can occur as a
result of firing (which may have a natural or a
human origin) and as part of pedogenesis via
various organic and inorganic processes.
An increase in the amount of magnetic grains
will increase magnetic susceptibility. Magnetic
3
susceptibility, however, depends not only on the
concentration of magnetic grains but also on
magnetic composition (type of mineral) and
grain size. If one wants to draw conclusions
about the processes responsible for magnetic
enhancement in a given situation (and these
processes are environmentally sensitive), it is
critical that each of these parameters magnetic
concentration, composition and grain size be
understood. This may be accomplished through
magnetic analyses of the soil in the laboratory or
by other techniques. An understanding of the
magnetic mineralogy of soil layers allows soils
with varied histories to be distinguished and
provides information on the specific processes
that have been responsible for enhancement.
Studies of susceptibility that have been done
both in the field and in the laboratory will be
discussed in the next section, although the
primary focus will be on the former. It is through
detailed laboratory work, however, that opportunity for discriminating between anthropogenic
and natural causes for enhancement resides. The
reader is referred to Thompson and Oldfield
(1986) and Evans and Heller (2003) for detailed
considerations of the general subject of soil or
environmental magnetism and to Dalan and
Banerjee (1998) and Dalan (2006a) for a discussion of studies that have been applied to
archaeological research.
Frequently applied instruments used in field
studies of magnetic susceptibility in this country
include various small hand-held units, Geonics
EM instruments, and the Bartington Instruments
MS2 system of sensors. Many of these instruments have been in use for some time, although
several recently developed instruments have
improved capabilities for field investigations.
At least five small, portable, hand-held
susceptibility meters have been or are currently
in use. These include the JH-8, the SM30, the
PIMV-1 M, the KT-5 and the KT-9. These single
coil instruments have an effective penetration
depth ranging from less than 1 cm to at most
23 cm (Lecoanet et al., 1999). Prices range from
several hundred to several thousand dollars.
The JH-8 is an older analogue instrument that
was manufactured by Geoinstruments Ky in
Finland (changed to Fiskars Geoinstruments in
1988). This instrument has been largely replaced

DOI: 10.1002/arp
4
by digital models. The SM30 is made by ZH
Instruments in the Czech Republic (www.
zhinstruments.cz) and marketed through Heritage Geophysics (www.heritagegeophysics.com).
Sensitivity of the SM30 is high (1 107 SI); it
offers an RS-232 interface, and it allows internal
storage of 250 readings, although its three-button
control system makes its operation rather complex. The Exploranium KT-9 is a digital meter
with sensitivity of 1 105 SI that is marketed by
Terraplus (www.terraplus.ca). The KT-9 can be
operated in a pin or no-pin mode. The pin mode
allows a pin that protrudes from the centre of the
coil to be used to take a reading from a small
portion of the samples surface. A serial connection and software allows the KT-9 to be
controlled by a laptop computer. The Geofyzika
KT-5 Kappameter is an earlier version of this
instrument with an internal memory allowing
storage of 12 measurements. The least expensive
hand-held unit is the PIMV-1M made by Geologorazvedka, in St Petersburg, Russia. Sensitivity
is 1 105 SI and it can average as many as 99
readings.
The most commonly used Geonics EM instrument in magnetic susceptibility investigations is
the EM38. In-phase surveys with this instrument,
however, are not as frequent as quadrature phase
measurements that are used to map changes in
electrical conductivity. Unlike the small, handheld susceptibility sensors and the Bartington
suite of sensors, the EM38 is a slingram system
composed of separate transmitter and receiver
coils. Slingram instruments, operating in the
magnetic susceptibility in-phase mode, are less
influenced by soil conductivity and they provide
greater penetration depths than single coil
instruments (Benech and Marmet, 1999), however, they are considerably more expensive than
the single sensor systems described above. Depending on the system purchased (e.g. an EM38 or an
EM38B piggy-back model, which joins two
instruments together and allows for the simultaneous measurement of conductivity and
susceptibility), the cost may rise to over $15 000.
When operated in its in-phase mode, the EM38
effectively investigates the susceptibility of the
top 0.5 m of soil. Because the drift of the EM38 is
higher in the in-phase mode than in the
quadrature-phase mode, increased concern with
R. A. Dalan
drift correction must be part of a magnetic
susceptibility survey using this instrument.
Another complication with the EM38 is that
when operated in the normal, upright position
(magnetic dipoles vertical/horizontal coplanar
coils) the response of the instrument changes sign
with depth (Bevan and Dalan, 2003; McNeill and
Bosnar, 1999, as modified October 2007). A
positive response is observed from the top
0.5 m of the soil, with the maximum positive
response at approximately 20 cm. Below 0.6 m,
the response is weakly negative. Variation in the
polarity of response can cause uncertainty in the
interpretation of survey data.
As demonstrated by Bruce Bevan (Geosight) in
archaeological contexts (Bevan and Dalan, 2003),
the Geonics EM38 may be used for susceptibility
soundings for a rough estimate of shallow
magnetic stratigraphy (McNeill and Bosnar,
1999). A series of readings is made as the
EM38 is lowered from an elevation of about
2 m to the surface. Analysis involves comparing
the measured sounding to calculated soundings;
the magnetic stratigraphy that is assumed for the
calculation is changed until the calculations are
very similar to the measurements. Advantages of
this EM sounding technique are that it allows a
general estimation of magnetic stratigraphy
without excavation, data collection is easy and
quick, and it can be applied where soils and
sediments are hard or stony. Disadvantages
include the following: the depth of exploration
is shallow (approximately 0.5 m), only a maximum of about three layers may be distinguished,
and a technical analysis is required in order to
obtain actual depths and susceptibilities.
The Bartington Instruments MS2 system
includes the MS2 meter and suite of interchangeable susceptibility sensors (described below) that
allow measurement of various volumes and
configurations of samples, including whole cores
(www.bartington.com). The price of the Bartington system is between that of the small hand-held
sensors previously described and the Geonics
EM38 and thus still of relatively low cost (in
comparison with other commonly used archaeogeophysical instruments). The Bartington MS2
meter may be purchased for approximately $3500
and single sensors cost two to three thousand dollars
each. Connection through an RS232 interface to a

DOI: 10.1002/arp

laptop computer loaded with the Multisus 2
program (a free download from the Bartington
website) allows digital recording of data. The
Multisus 2 program works best for laboratory
studies. A prototype field version (Multisus
Fieldpro) has been developed for use with the
Bartington MS2 field sensors. This software, still
in its testing stage, aims to provide increased
flexibility in data collection as well as automated
documentation of field information and
sampling procedures.
Bartington sensors include the MS2B laboratory sensor that allows measurement of susceptibility and the frequency dependence of susceptibility (xfd, the percentage difference in susceptibility
measured at approximately 470 Hz and 4700 Hz;
this is used to investigate the contribution of
ultrafine magnetic grains). The MS2C series of
loop sensors (ranging from 36 to 162 mm in
diameter) can be used to obtain volume susceptibility measurements of various diameters of
whole cores. Surface scanning sensors such as the
MS2E with a 3.8 by 10.5 mm area of response may
be used for high resolution measurements of the
surfaces of split cores but these are not used
commonly in archaeogeophysical research in the
USA. Bartington Instruments has long marketed
two field coils, the MS2D and the MS2F, with
effective penetration depths of ca. 10 cm and 1 cm
respectively, which have been used in topsoil
surveys or on excavation walls or floors. A
newly developed sensor, the Bartington MS2K,
designed for use on moderately smooth surfaces,
has been more appropriate for use on exposed
sections. The response of the MS2K is to a
maximum depth of about 2.5 cm.
The recent development of the MS2H downhole sensor has provided an avenue for measuring magnetic susceptibility down a small
diameter (2225 mm) hole made with a handheld push-tube corer. Application of this technology involves only minimal disturbance of the
archaeological record and opens up possibilities
for down-hole surveys at locations where access
or cost prohibits the use of a large, motorpowered coring rig. With a measurement time of
approximately 1 s per data point, a 1 m length of
hole can be logged at 2 cm intervals in less than
1 min, providing an efficient and rapid means of
exploring the variation of susceptibility with
5
depth across archaeological terrains. At present,
the greatest obstacle to widespread use of this
instrument appears to reside in the difficulty in
certain environments (where the soil is hard, dry
or sandy, or contains gravel, stone or roots) of
making and keeping open a hole to an appropriate depth.
The sensing zone of the MS2H is isotropic with
a radius of approximately 1.5 cm. The minimum
distance below which neighbouring strata cannot
be discriminated is 1.2 cm. The MS2H thus
provides opportunity for resolving fine archaeological strata at depth. Lateral resolution is
minimal, however, and so multiple down-holes
must be completed to determine the sizes of
features and the slopes of interfaces. The scale
factor (accuracy) and standard deviation of
measurements (precision) are significantly
affected by changes in hole diameter. A scale
factor of 100% for a 22 mm hole diameter
decreases to approximately 70% for a 24 mm
hole diameter with a larger air gap and to nearly
58% for a 25.4 mm diameter hole (http://
www.bartington.com/ms2h.htm).
Options for magnetic susceptibility logs within
larger diameter cores do exist. For example, the
Geonics EM39S provides a dual coil option for
magnetic susceptibility logging down a 57.6 cm
borehole (McNeill et al., 1996). As vertical
resolution is decreased significantly (by a factor
of >10 in comparison with the MS2H) and as the
damage caused by these larger holes on the
archaeological record must be considered, these
instruments are not commonly utilized. ZH
Instruments, the producer of the SM-30 handheld unit, also makes a soil-profiling kappameter
called the SM400 (www.zhinstruments.cz). This
instrument allows depths up to 40 cm to be
investigated. The hole diameter is 3.6 cm and six
data points per millimetre are recorded. No
studies using this instrument are known on
archaeological sites in this country.
A single geophysical parameter is measured by
susceptibility instruments and this can prove an
advantage when identifying features. As the
susceptibility signal in soils is environmentally
sensitive, it can be tapped for information on the
whole suite of soil-forming factors. Full interpretation of the susceptibility signal, in terms of the
role of magnetic composition, grain size and

DOI: 10.1002/arp
6
concentration, is possible using well-developed
soil magnetic techniques.
Susceptibility surveys allow the definition of
features with diffuse or graded boundaries; a
high contrast and abrupt interface is not necessary. Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and magnetometry are distinctly less successful at this.
Susceptibility surveys are not significantly affected
by variations in the moisture content of the soil
and there are no diurnal changes in the readings.
Due to the small volumes measured by most
sensors, high spatial resolution is achievable. The
different instruments and sensors allow investigation of many different volumes as well as application in various contexts (e.g. surveys at the
surface or on exposed sections, cores or boreholes). Fine-interval measurements of susceptibility with depth are possible with down-hole
surveys, and electromagnetic (EM) soundings
provide opportunities for general estimations of
magnetic stratigraphy when down-hole surveys
are not an option. Measurement of susceptibility
is straightforward, with little opportunity for field
and operator error, and data processing is minimal. Cost is relatively low for most instruments.
On the negative side, the depth of exploration
afforded by the commonly used susceptibility
instruments is relatively shallow. High spatial
resolution can lead to granularity in the data
when the measurement interval is large. In cases
where small features are not of interest, a
low-resolution instrument such as the EM38
may be a better choice. In general, susceptibility
surveys are not as rapid as other geophysical
methods for large-area surveys. Down-hole
surveys will be difficult where the ground is
hard or stony. Thermal drift and noise from
nearby wires can prove problematic. With the
single coil instruments, rough ground or thick
vegetation can affect the accuracy of readings.
Developments and directions

The rise in magnetic susceptibility projects in
archaeogeophysical research within the USA and
the development of a distinctive range of
applications have resulted from a number of
factors. Recent developments in equipment and
software have played a role. The diverse
R. A. Dalan
perspectives of new users have also contributed.
An interest in confirmation and enhanced
interpretation of surface geophysical surveys,
in particular those with a magnetometer, has also
been a strong influence.
Susceptibility studies have also been influenced by the types of archaeological features that
are typically encountered. In the USA, earthen
features predominate in contrast to the strong
architectural record present in other regions of
the world. It is most certainly the difficulties
inherent in locating, mapping and interpreting
these often faint earthen remains that have
encouraged the application of susceptibility
studies to prehistoric earthen features lying
within the bounds of the USA.
Magnetic susceptibility studies of prehistoric
sites have also been encouraged by the strong
geoarchaeological tradition in North American
archaeology. Measurements of magnetic susceptibility provide a bridge between traditional
geoarchaeological techniques applied to cores
and profiles and increasingly common surface
geophysical surveys. To the geoarchaeologist,
magnetic susceptibility and other geophysical
parameters can be usefully integrated with the
physical and chemical properties of the soil to
understand soil formation, past environments
and the nature of human impact.
In the past decade, magnetic susceptibility
instruments, in particular the Geonics EM38 used
in the in-phase mode, have continued to be
utilized for lateral surface surveys in the manner
of other geophysical instruments. Such longstanding applications will not be discussed here.
The focus instead will be on detailing applications other than this traditional approach.
These new directions include the application of
magnetic susceptibility studies within trenches
and excavation units, the use of down-hole
sensors to investigate magnetic stratigraphy,
the interpretive potential of magnetic susceptibility studies in combination with magnetometer
surveys, the collection and presentation of
three-dimensional susceptibility volumes, and
the integration of magnetic susceptibility data
into traditional spatial analyses of the distribution of archaeological materials. Recent studies
and directions in soil magnetism will be considered briefly in order to illustrate the types of

DOI: 10.1002/arp

information on site and feature formation that
they are able to provide, although a detailed
discussion of the specific magnetic techniques
and procedures used by these studies is beyond
the purpose of this article. As mentioned
previously, the focus of this article remains on
developments in the field rather than in laboratory research.
Each area of application will be illustrated by
summaries of examples. These examples are not
comprehensive but they are indicative of the
types of magnetic susceptibility studies being
conducted in archaeogeophysical research in the
USA. This review does not consider magnetic
susceptibility studies applied for the purposes of
land use or climatic reconstructions, dating or
materials analysis. For details on techniques of
application and results, please consult the
references provided.
Magnetic susceptibility studies in excavations

In contrast to applications for which the goal is to
aid in the placement of excavations, archaeogeophysical surveys are now being used as part of
the excavation process on the walls and floors
of excavation units. Magnetic susceptibility is just
one of the geophysical methods being used at this
microscale. The resulting vertical and horizontal
geophysical maps of susceptibility provide
another layer of data that complements that
gained from traditional excavation and it allows
enhanced opportunities for interpretation. These
susceptibility surveys are being used to identify
and map features, to examine variation within
them, and to document changes in physical
properties that relate to formation or postformation processes. A few examples from the
Hopeton Earthworks are provided below.
Geophysics in excavations at the Hopeton

Earthworks, Ohio
A long-term study at the Hopeton Earthworks, a
Hopewell culture site in Ross County, Ohio, lead
by Mark Lynott of the Midwest Archeological
Center, National Park Service (http://www.cr.
nps.gov/mwac/hopeton/index.htm) is noteworthy
for integrating extensive surface geophysical
7
surveys, strategic testing, and geoarchaeological
and geophysical studies in excavations. The
Hopeton Earthworks, built between AD 150 and
250, were described in the mid-nineteenth
century as earthen ridges that outline a large
rectangle and attached circle, each enclosing
approximately 8 ha, as well as a number of
smaller earthworks. More than 150 years of
cultivation have lowered the earthen walls to the
point where they are barely visible. One focus of
this cooperative effort has been to understand the
chronology, structure and function of the preserved portions of the earthworks.
One of the smaller earthworks, a circle located
to the east of the large rectangle that is known as
the North Small Circle, was mapped during
historic times but is no longer visible. This feature
is evident in magnetic surveys that were done
with a Geometrics G858 caesium gradiometer
(Weymouth, 2003) as a relatively weak negative
magnetic anomaly, however, excavation of a
1 8 m test unit bisecting the northwestern
portion of this anomaly provided no indication
of the source of the anomaly. Susceptibility
studies on the walls of the excavated trench,
however, defined the boundaries of this feature
and provided data on susceptibility contrasts
between the feature and the surrounding soils
(Figure 1). Measurements were made with a
Bartington MS2 susceptibility meter and MS2K
sensor on the northeastern wall of the trench at
20-cm increments along lines that were at depths
of 10, 30 and 50 cm below the ground surface.
These readings defined a 3-m-long magnetic low
most clearly expressed along the deepest transect. The feature was invisible to excavators
because the fill used to construct the North Small
Circle has been extensively disturbed,. The
magnetic susceptibility sensors, however, provided an opportunity to resolve the footprint of
this earthwork where it had been excavated into
subsoils that are more strongly magnetic. A
magnetic profile measured on the face of the
excavation unit by Bruce Bevan (Geosight) using
a G858 caesium gradiometer did not detect this
feature; this failure was probably due to the fact
that the feature had rather diffuse edges and the
sensor was held so close to it.
Other applications have focused on a number
of machine-excavated trenches that bisect the

DOI: 10.1002/arp
R. A. Dalan
Figure 1. Magnetic gradiometer and magnetic susceptibility data in the area of the North Small Circle, Hopeton Earthworks.
(a) Magnetic shade map showing the negative magnetic gradiometer anomaly and location of the excavation trench. The sun is
358 above the horizon and 1228 counterclockwise from due east. Measured values range from 16.96 nT m1 (black) to
14.67 nT m1 (white) over the grid and from 4 to 4 nT m1 over the area of the anomaly where the trench was excavated.
(Courtesy of JohnWeymouth.) (b) Magnetic susceptibility values for three transects along the northeastern wall of the excavation
trench. Data have been smoothed using a three-point running average. A 3-m long magnetic low, centred between 220 cm and
540 cm, is evident along all lines although it is most clearly visible on the 50 cm profile.

DOI: 10.1002/arp

walls of the large rectangular and circular
earthworks. In addition to describing and
recording soils and features exposed on the
walls of these trenches, micromorphological
techniques and geophysical tests have been used
to enhance understanding of the methods and
materials of wall construction. The picture that
has emerged shows general similarities in
sequencing and soil selection along the length
of the enclosures.
Trench 3, which was 1.5 m wide by approximately 50 m long, cut through the western wall of
the large rectangular enclosure. Data from the
2002 field season illustrates these types of
susceptibility applications. Caesium gradiometer
maps of the site generally define the walls of the
rectangle by two parallel magnetic highs (with a
strength 510 nT m1) that extend along much of
its length (Weymouth, 2002; Lynott et al., 2005). In
the vicinity of Trench 3, the two parallel highs (to
the south) split into three magnetic highs (to the
north).
A 35-m span along the walls of Trench 3 was
surveyed using two different susceptibility
instruments. Figure 2a is a susceptibility contour
map produced with data collected by Bruce
Bevan using a Geonics EM38 on the south face of
the trench (Bevan, 2002). Magnetic dipoles were
vertical and a measurement interval of 10 cm was
used along lines of equal elevation that were also
spaced at 10 cm. Figure 2b was produced by the
author using a Bartington Instruments MS2
susceptibility meter and a MS2F field sensor on
the north face of the trench. A 20-cm measurement interval was used.
Comparing the two susceptibility surveys
conducted within Trench 3 indicates general
agreement although there are some differences.
Some of these are caused by differences in
instrumentation, measurement spacing and data
processing, whereas others appear to be related
to changes in the soils of the earthwork. For
example, three zones of increased magnetic
susceptibility are apparent in the MS2F map of
the north face, whereas only two zones of
magnetic soil are indicated on the Geonics
EM38 map of the south face. Thus, the western
magnetic zone appears to split into two discrete
areas on the north side of the trench. The central
portion or core of the enclosure wall, correspond-
9
ing to a slight topographic rise, is composed of
soils of relatively low susceptibility as is the
subsoil underneath the fill of the wall.
More illuminating than comparisons between
the two susceptibility surveys, however, have
been comparisons with profile drawings and soil
descriptions. Integrating these data sets has
shown exactly which soils have produced the
anomalies that were detected by the magnetic
gradiometer. For example, the western magnetic
zone on the north wall of Trench 3 is bifurcated
by a distinctive silt deposit characterized by a
relatively low magnetic susceptibility. In
addition, the susceptibility surveys provide
further information about the complex fills used
in constructing the earthworks at Hopeton and
also about the natural soils in the area. Changes
in geophysical properties can highlight features
that are sometimes not apparent on maps that
document variations in colour and texture (as
exemplified in the North Small Circle study
summarized above). Trends or patterns in
geophysical properties have also provided information on formation and post-formation processes, as will be discussed below. In addition to
susceptibility, other magnetic properties have
been measured within the excavations at Hopeton. Soil magnetic studies have explored the
magnetic mineralogy of soils from the site in
order to discover the source of the soil that was
used in wall construction and to shed light on the
manner and timing of construction and on
post-construction soil formation and disturbance.
Complementing other geophysical methods

In order to assess the utility of planned
magnetometer surveys, measurements commonly have been made of the magnetic enhancement of soils and the contrast in magnetic
susceptibility between archaeological features
and the surrounding soil. The focus in this
section, however, is on applications that are
becoming increasingly common, where the
purpose is not on planning those at-surface
geophysical surveys but on the interpretation of
the geophysical data that results. To improve the
interpretation of magnetometer and other
at-surface geophysical surveys, susceptibility

DOI: 10.1002/arp
Figure 2. Susceptibility surveys of Trench 3,Hopeton Earthworks. (a) Geonics EM38 surveyof the south face of Trench 3 with magnetic dipolesverticaland the barofthe instrumentextendedalongthe directionofthetrench.Measurementsweretakenat10-cmintervalsalonglinesofconstantelevationalso spacedat10 cm.The datahavebeensmoothed
byreplacingeach point withtheaveragereadingina 0.5 m square. (Data courtesyof B.Bevan.) (b) Susceptibilitymap ofthenorthface of Trench 3 gainedusinga Bartington Instruments MS2 susceptibility meter and a MSF field sensor.Measurements were recorded at 20-cm intervals along lines of constant elevation also spaced at 20-cm intervals.Calibration was accomplished through a comparison of field values recorded with the MS2F and laboratory values measured using the MS2B sensor. Magnetic soils are centred
approximately at 2845E, 2850E and 2857E.
10
R. A. Dalan

DOI: 10.1002/arp

data are gathered within excavations or through
down-hole studies. These types of applications
range from those with a purpose that is simply to
confirm the presence of an anomaly, to those
aimed at providing information on the lateral
and vertical extent of magnetic features and their
layering, and to those that collect information for
use in modelling studies. The susceptibility data
can be used to constrain parameters such as
depth, thickness, lateral extent and contrast when
constructing such models.
Magnetic detection at Pueblo Escondido,

New Mexico
In 2003, the University of Arkansas conducted a
multimethod geophysical survey over a
120 100 m region of Pueblo Escondido, an El
Paso Phase (AD 12001400) pithouse village in
New Mexico (Kvamme et al., 2006). Despite
weakly developed soils typical of the American
Southwest and consequent low levels of magnetic enhancement, excellent, if subtle, results
were obtained with magnetic gradiometry.
Numerous anomalies revealing significant cultural patterns were apparent in the data.
Figure 3a depicts a small portion of these results
under extreme contrast. A number of lineations
and rectangular structures represent the loci of
11
prehistoric pithouses. A probable hearth within a
pithouse is indicated by an arrow in this figure.
This project was followed by an archaeological
testing phase conducted by TRC Environmental
Corporations El Paso (Texas) office, in conjunction with the University of Arkansas, the goal of
which was to identify and confirm the sources
of the anomalies through excavation. A number
of geophysical anomalies, selected by random
sampling, were tested. In many cases, testing
produced ambiguous results and for this reason a
KT-9 Kappameter was used to measure susceptibility within as well as outside of targeted
features. The KT-9 supplied additional evidence
supporting the probable sources of magnetic
anomalies.
One of the chosen anomalies, classified as a
probable hearth, is the one indicated by the arrow
in Figure 3a. A 1 3 m trench over this anomaly
revealed a prepared clay floor within a pithouse
that contained a clay-lined basin 23 cm in
diameter and 10 cm deep at the exact locus of
the anomaly (Figure 3b). The TRC archaeologists
recognized this feature as a classic hearth even
though the features fill was largely devoid of
charcoal or ash. Three locations were evaluated
with the KT-9, one inside and two outside the
feature. Each location was measured twice and
averaged. Susceptibility values were more than
double within the feature, a circumstance
Figure 3. Magnetic gradiometer and susceptibility results at Pueblo Escondido. (a) Magnetic gradiometer results within one
20 20 m geophysical survey block shown at high contrast. Data were originally acquired at 0.5 0.25 m sampling; this figure
hasinterpolatedthedatato 0.25 0.25 m.Thelocationofahearthwithinapithouseanomalyisindicatedbythearrow. (b) Excavation
ofthe feature shownin (a).Letters A^C correspond tolocationswhere magnetic susceptibilitymeasurementswererecordedusing
a KT-9 Kappameter. Results for the two locations outside of the feature were 0.71 103 SI units (location A) and 0.76 103 SI
units (location B) with values more than doubling to1.70 103 SI units within the feature (location B). (Courtesy of K. Kvamme.)

DOI: 10.1002/arp
R. A. Dalan
12
consistent with firing, thus supporting its identification as a hearth that had been cleaned.
Down-hole studies at Double Ditch, North

Dakota
The Double Ditch State Historic Site is a late
fifteenth to eighteenth century earthlodge village
located in North Dakota. A four-year remote
sensing programme under the direction of Dr
Kenneth Kvamme (University of Arkansas) has
involved multiple-method surface geophysical
surveys, aerial methods and a robotic totalstation high resolution topographic survey
(Kvamme and Ahler, 2007). The remote sensing
programme revealed countless features including pits, hearths, midden deposits, trails, refilled
fortification ditches, bastions, houses and borrow
pits. Of the surface methods, the magnetic
gradiometer surveys were the most reliable
and productive. Many anomalies have been
confirmed through excavation. One such feature
is a subterranean food storage pit shown in
Figure 4.
In conjunction with archaeological excavations, down-hole susceptibility studies of this
storage pit were conducted using a prototype
Bartington Instruments MS2H sensor. These
investigations took place after the western half
of the pit had been excavated. Down-hole
measurements were taken both near the pit
centre at a location 20 cm to the east of the
excavation profile and also outside the pit at a
location 143 cm east of the excavation profile. The
results of these tests are presented in Figure 4.
Susceptibility values recorded within the fill of
the pit are much greater than those measured
outside and below the pit. Furthermore, the
correspondence of susceptibility with stratigraphical changes recorded within the pit during
excavation is excellent. Layers with abundant
artefacts, bone, charcoal and ash pockets correlate with the highest susceptibility values.
The down-hole susceptibility results not only
confirm an increase in susceptibility capable of
producing the magnetic gradiometer anomaly,
but they also indicate the potential of this tool for
mapping the boundaries of these storage pits and
for investigating and documenting layering
within such features. Furthermore, the suscepti-
Figure 4. Remote sensing ofa subterranean food storage pit at

the Double Ditch site.Excavation profile of the storage pit compared with down-hole susceptibility tests inside (1) and outside
of (2) the pit. Susceptibility was measured every 2 cm from
10 cm to 180 cm below the surface. Measured values obtained
with this prototype version of the MS2H may be multiplied by
1.4E-5 toapproximate SIvolumemagneticsusceptibility.Aclose
up ofthe magnetic gradiometrydatain plan andprofileisshown
above.Thissite provided an excellent environment for susceptibility studies due to the high contrast in observed susceptibilities. Background values outside of and below the pit
ranged from 40^60 1.4E-5 SI. Within the pit levels of over
300 1.4E-5 SI were measured. (Courtesy of K. Kvamme.)
bility measurements provide a quantitative

means of comparing fills within and across
features. Down-hole studies might thus be used
subsequent to a gradiometer survey to significantly reduce the need for more invasive and
more expensive archaeological excavations. The
down-hole sensor was also used at this site to
investigate a borrow pit, a mound and the
underlying palaeosols, as well as a house.
Modelling a prehistoric structure

at the Cahokia Site, Illinois
In conjunction with the 2003 National Park
Service (NPS) training course in remote sensing
at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site, a
number of tests were conducted with a prototype
of the Bartington MS2H down-hole probe. One of
these tests was accomplished in the Grand Plaza

DOI: 10.1002/arp

where a magnetic gradiometer survey by Berle
Clay (Cultural Resource Analysts) revealed a
rectangular magnetic feature tentatively interpreted as a Mississippian Period structure.
Down-hole magnetic susceptibility measurements done both inside and outside of this
anomaly confirmed the presence of a feature that
was distinctive from the surrounding soils. These
measurements provided data that were helpful
in assessing the depth, thickness, strength and
character of the feature, and were used in
modelling studies that further clarified this
potential structure (Figure 5).
Soils within the anomaly were more magnetic
than those outside the anomaly, especially from
32 to 82 cm below the surface. The volume
magnetic susceptibilities between these depths
were approximately double those outside the
anomaly. Unusual soil changes were observed
within the anomaly when coring the hole for
down-hole measurements, yet compression of
the gumbo clays made it difficult to accurately
pinpoint the depth at which soil changes
occurred and gradual boundaries were also
difficult to identify. Down-hole measurements
afforded a more precise means of determining
the depths of soil changes and quantifying the
amplitude of these changes.
The surface and down-hole geophysical data
were used by Bruce Bevan (Geosight) in modelling studies to see if further information could be
extracted from the data that could be useful for
evaluating the interpretation of this anomaly as a
Mississippian structure (Bevan, 2004). Taking
into consideration the results of both the surface
and down-hole geophysical surveys, an initial
model was created consisting of wedge-shaped
feature of magnetic soil, 3 4 m in size and
triangular in cross section with a susceptibility
contrast of 45 105 SI, using a depth to bottom
of 0.8 m and a thickness increasing from 0 to 0.5 m
toward the east. Comparing the resultant twodimensional model calculations to the magnetometer data (Figure 5c), Bevan found the initial
assumptions were good and that no changes to
the initial geometry were required. Increasing the
susceptibility contrast to 140 105 SI allowed
the best fit between the magnetometer measurements and the calculation. As the magnetic
susceptibility of the model was higher than the
13
difference in susceptibility suggested by the
down-hole studies, a significant contribution
from remanent magnetization was indicated.
Although a magnetic model with a triangular
cross section provides a good approximation of
this feature, an increase in susceptibility of the
layer to the east instead of an increase in the
thickness of the magnetic layer, a model more in
keeping with the geometry of a Mississippian
structure, would also provide a good match to
the data. Given the size and thickness of this
anomaly, a special purpose structure is indicated.
A localized peak in susceptibility documented
just above the structure floor may represent purposeful infilling with garbage after abandonment.
Down-hole studies for magnetic stratigraphy

Field investigations that focus on mapping
susceptibility with depth began to flourish with
the development of the Bartington MS2H sensor.
Documentation of vertical patterns in susceptibility has proved useful for a variety of purposes;
two such studies (at Double Ditch and Cahokia)
summarized in the previous section illustrate the
value of going beyond a single susceptibility
value measured from the surface. Broader
studies focused on magnetic stratigraphy are
still in their infancy; however, they offer much
promise for investigating natural and cultural
depositional environments and soil development. Examples of two such applications are
provided below. The first concerns the identification and mapping of buried palaeosols. The
second defines classes of down-hole susceptibility curves as a resource for use in mapping
subsurface features and cultural layers.
Mapping buried soils and cultural layers

within the Red River Valley
Down-hole susceptibility techniques can be particularly useful in alluvial settings where there is
significant potential for buried soils and sites.
Enhanced magnetic properties of developed soils
and areas of cultural occupation provide an
avenue for identifying buried soils and cultural
layers. Down-hole magnetic susceptibility instruments offer a relatively non-destructive, rapid

DOI: 10.1002/arp
Figure 5. Magneticmodellingofa potentialstructureat the Cahokia Site. (a) Magnetic gradiometer surveyofthe Grand Plazawith thelocationofthepotentialstructureindicated.
Cahokia grid coordinates are in metres south and west of the site datum. (b) Down-hole susceptibility tests within (S349 W83) and outside (S354.5 W80) of the magnetometer
anomaly.Readingsweretakenat 2-cmdepthincrements. (c) Acomparisonofmeasurementsfromthemagneticgradiometersurveytomodelcalculations.Thecalculatedgradient
fromawedge-shapedanomalyisplottedasthebrokenline; themeasurementsfromthegradiometersurvey from S351.24 to S349 areplottedasasolidline.Lowandhighreadings
nearW82 (high ca.82.5; low ca.W81) locate the magnetic feature.Undulationsnear W86 are caused bya pairofadditionalsmallfeatures and here the matchisnot asgood. (Magnetic map courtesy of Berle Clay; Magnetic Model courtesy of Bruce Bevan.)
14
R. A. Dalan

DOI: 10.1002/arp

and inexpensive method for finding and mapping these buried soils and layers (Dalan, 2006b).
As an example, the magnetic stratigraphy of
the Canning site, a Middle Archaic site located in
the floodplain of the Red River (Michlovic, 1986),
is compared with a soil profile produced during
previous test excavations (Figure 6). The soil
profile serves as an indicator of the general soil
horizons and depths to be expected in the two
down-hole susceptibility logs measured in
nearby tests. The Archaic component at the
Canning site is deeply buried beneath a shallow
Woodland Period component and two palaeosols. Increases in susceptibility correspond with,
and hence can be used to identify, the buried
Archaic layer as well as the two overlying
palaeosols. In addition, there is a relative shift
15
in magnitude of susceptibility between the
palaeosol associated with human occupation
(the Archaic layer) and the two overlying
palaeosols that do not have a cultural association.
Susceptibility values for the buried Archaic soil
are clearly elevated over the other buried soils in
the sequence. Susceptibilities of the buried
Archaic layer are enhanced up to four times
the base level, whereas peak values of the two
overlying non-cultural buried soils are enhanced
from 1.14 to 1.75 times the base level.
Down-hole susceptibility curve signatures at

Parchman Place, Mississippi
Ninety-nine down-hole magnetic susceptibility
tests were completed at Parchman Place, a
Figure 6. Soil profile and magnetic stratigraphy at the Canning Site. A surface soil and three underlying buried soils (2Ab and
2Bw, 3Ab and 3Bw, and 4Ab and 4Bw) have been documented at the site. Disturbed Woodland Period materials are scattered
throughout the surface horizon and a buried Archaic component has been documented within the deepest buried soil. Peaks in
magnetic susceptibility were observed for each of the buried soil horizons, with the buried Archaic layer clearly elevated over
the other buried soils.

DOI: 10.1002/arp
16
Mississippian period mound centre located in the
Yazoo basin of Mississippi, by Kelsey Lowe and
Aaron Fogel (then graduate students at the
University of Mississippi) over several field
seasons. The purpose of these tests was to
investigate anomalies identified through nearsurface geophysical surveys and to ascertain if
classes of down-hole susceptibility curves could
be defined that would correlate with cultural
stratigraphy.
The down-hole studies were conducted in
three different locations at Parchman: on top of
the largest mound at the site (Mound A); on a
lower platform of Mound A; and in a small swale
situated between the large mound (Mound A)
and a smaller mound (Mound B). Four classes of
down-hole susceptibility curves were defined;
these were based on form and magnitude (Fogel,
2005, p. 49) (Figure 7). A fifth class was created for
curves that did not match any of the four defined
patterns. The curves for only six cores were
found in this latter category. The descriptions of
the soil profiles were recorded during coring at
each location; the excavations and these profile
descriptions allowed the signatures of the
magnetic curves to be interpreted. Descriptions
of each of the classes follow.
Class 1 cores display only pedogenic enhancement in the upper layers of the profiles. The
magnitude of the susceptibility curve is greater
R. A. Dalan
near the surface and falls off with depth. No
additional peaks are apparent in this class and
peak enhancement is relatively weak. Thirtyseven of the ninety-nine cores fit into this class.
Class 2 cores show magnetic enhancement
near the surface similar to Class 1, but also exhibit
increased magnitudes lower in the profile. These
increased susceptibility values are not concentrated into definable peaks but distributed
throughout the profile. Thirteen out of the
ninety-nine cores fit into this class.
Class 3 cores show magnetic enhancement in
the upper layers of the core similar to the first two
classes but Class 3 cores differ in that they exhibit
a second very strong peak in susceptibility
further down the profile. Sixteen cores fit into
this class.
Class 4 is similar to Class 3 but just below the
high peak in susceptibility at depth, a third peak
in susceptibility quickly follows. It is this double
bump signature a strong peak in susceptibility
at depth underlain by an abrupt low and then a
second peak in susceptibility that characterizes
Class 4. Twenty-seven of the cores fit into this
class.
In Class 1, basket-loaded mound fill lies below
slightly enhanced surface soils. As they have
lower susceptibility, these layers often contain
very little cultural debris. The additional
enhancement at depth in Class 2 is a result of
Figure 7. Examples of down-hole susceptibility curves for Classes 1^4 defined at Parchman Place, Mississippi. (Courtesy of
Kelsey Lowe.)

DOI: 10.1002/arp

small (ca. 23 cm diameter) dispersed oxidized
daub fragments in the soil profile. Mound fill
containing dispersed daub is often found in cores
taken just outside house structures or in the
layers between multiple house structures. Class 3
cores display localized peaks in susceptibility
due to thicker concentrations of fired daub
resulting from fallen walls. Wall fall is a result
of burning after a house was abandoned at the
site. This class is generally located in or adjacent
to house structures. For Class 4, the first major
peak in the core profile is related to wall fall as in
Class 3 and correlates with a thick layer of daub,
ash and sometimes burned thatch just above the
structure floor. A relatively weak magnetic layer
representing the floor is just below this strong
magnetic layer. The floor is generally only a
couple of centimeters thick. Below the floor is a
subfloor layer, very dark in colour, which has a
greater magnitude of susceptibility than the floor.
Class 4 cores are thus found on the inside of a
structure.
Down-hole magnetic susceptibility tests have
tremendous potential for resolving complex
stratigraphic layering at sites such as Parchman
Place. Measurements are rapid and accomplished on undisturbed soils and sediments,
thus providing a quantitative signature with
better depth control to supplement soil profiles
recorded during core extraction. Creating a
classification of magnetic curves is a new
approach that can be used to define patterns in
cultural stratigraphy. This classificatory scheme
might be applied in future down-hole surveys to
interpret subsurface features and cultural layers,
mapping various types of mound fill, identifying
daub layers, and mapping burned structures.
This approach could thus provide an effective,
efficient and relatively non-destructive means of
exploring the composition of mounds, understanding the spatial distribution of structures,
and isolating burning events. Although the four
classes described here are site-specific, this
approach might even be extended to other
Mississippian sites with similar remains.
Susceptibility volumes
Larger and more complex three-dimensional
susceptibility data sets may be collected by two
17
different methods: through susceptibility maps
of each level as excavation progresses; or by
combining a grid of down-hole logs across an
archaeological landscape. These data volumes
provide enhanced opportunities for mapping
and understanding features, use areas, sites and
depositional environments. The increasing availability of software packages for processing and
visualizing three-dimensional volumes has
encouraged this type of susceptibility application. Many different scales of application and
techniques of data collection for these susceptibility volumes are currently being explored. Two
such studies are outlined below.
Imaging palaeolandscapes at the Dahnke Site,

North Dakota
The Dahnke site is a prehistoric multicomponent
site located at the confluence of the Red and
Sheyenne Rivers in North Dakota. Test excavations at the site have shown that occupation
was concentrated on the middle of three alluvial
terraces where at least two Woodland period
layers and possibly a deeper Archaic period
occupation were revealed (Thompson, 1990);
Plains Archaic dates from approximately 8000
to 2500 years BP and the Woodland period spans
the period from 2500 to 450 years BP. A grid of
down-hole tests was placed over a 40 by 50 m
area of the middle terrace in order to understand
spatial relationships between buried soils and
cultural deposits previously identified in widely
spaced test excavations. These holes were spaced
at 10-m intervals, and susceptibility was
measured at 2-cm vertical intervals to a maximum depth of 130 cm.
From previous susceptibility studies at the
Dahnke site and at other locations within the Red
River Valley (e.g. see Mapping buried soils and
cultural layers within the Red River Valley of the
North above), it had been shown that an increase
in susceptibility could be used to identify
palaeosols and, furthermore, that within a single
environment, the degree of magnetic enhancement could be used as a rough proxy for areas of
prehistoric cultural activities (Dalan, 2006b).
Therefore, the three-dimensional volume of
susceptibility measurements produced using
the down-hole grid, provided a means of

DOI: 10.1002/arp
18
R. A. Dalan
Figure 8. Three-dimensional susceptibility volume at the Dahnke site produced using GPR-Slice imaging software. Susceptibility
data from the 30 down-hole logs were averaged in the vertical direction using a weighted boxcar average and then spatially
smoothed using a 5 5 5 m cubic filter. Magnetic susceptibility (SI) ranges from 9.17E-5 SI (white) to 120E-5 SI (black). Darker
layers and regions correspond to buried soils and areas of cultural activity.The view is to the northwest. (Courtesy of Dean Goodman.)
exploring both landscape change and habitation

in this alluvial setting.
Data processing and presentation of this data
was accomplished using GPR-SLICE software
adapted for use with magnetic susceptibility data
(Dalan and Goodman, 2007). An image of
this data volume is shown in Figure 8. Using
an OpenGL module contained in GPR-SLICE, it
is possible to visualize the susceptibility volume
using real-time rotation and tilting along all three
axes as well as fly-throughs into the data. Other
capabilities in the software (not illustrated here
but shown in Dalan and Goodman, in press) such
as three-dimensional isosurface rendering can be
quite useful in visualizing the complex susceptibility structures that are underground. It is also
possible to divide the volume into any combination of slices in the X, Y or Z planes.
Animations of these images were used to
visualize the continuity and three-dimensional
shapes of susceptibility horizons that could not
be seen easily in simple static two-dimensional
anomaly images. Three-dimensional fence plots
were used to look at simultaneous vertical
sections. In combination, these imaging tech-
niques allowed buried palaeosols to be traced

across the site and susceptibility hot spots
resulting from areas of focused human activity to
be located, thus providing visualization of landscape change and use over time.
Imaging a Mississippian structure at

Parchman Place, Mississippi
The efficacy of down-hole magnetic susceptibility for mapping a Mississippian mound top
structure in three dimensions has been tested
recently by Fogel (2005). This research was
conducted on Structure 2 on the upper platform
of Mound A at the Mississippian site of Parchman Place. A suite of near-surface geophysical
instruments was utilized to map the platform. An
anomaly was chosen from information contained
in these data for further investigation with
down-hole magnetic susceptibility to produce a
three-dimensional view of the remains of the
structure.
A 2.5-cm push-tube corer was used to extract
cores across a 9 9 m square every 1 m in both
the X and Y directions. Eight of these 81 locations

DOI: 10.1002/arp
19
Figure 9. Magnetic susceptibility of the floor or Structure 2 overlain on a wireframe in Surfer 7. (Courtesy of Aaron Fogel.)
were not cored because they were far outside the

structure. Soil characteristics (including texture,
colour, noticeable changes in density and any
appearance of culturally modified elements such
as daub or artefacts) were recorded for each core.
A Bartington Instruments MS2 meter and prototype MS2H sensor were used to collect two
magnetic susceptibility profiles within each core
hole using a 2-cm measurement interval. These
measurements were recorded with a computer
running Bartington Instruments software Multisus 2. The two profiles were drift corrected,
calibrated, averaged and then topographically
corrected. The 73 individual profiles were
combined into a single text file for import to
Golden Softwares Surfer 7 and Voxler programs.
Figure 9, created directly from the susceptibility data, displays the magnetic susceptibility of
the floor of Structure 2 at Parchman. The floor of
the structure was determined by visually analysing the individual magnetic susceptibility profiles, noting the elevation and associated magnetic susceptibility values for the floor of the
structure (Fogel, 2005, p. 4452). The elevation
data were used to create a wireframe plot in
Surfer. Overlain on the wireframe is a contour
map of the magnetic susceptibility. The southern
portion of the structure has remained intact since
abandonment and has been mapped effectively
with the MS2H prototype. The northern portion

is not continuous in the image. During excavation this area was found to be disturbed and no
longer intact. The area of highest magnetic
susceptibility is a shallow basin in the southeastern quadrant of the structure. Figure 10
displays the high magnetic susceptibility of the
structures fired daub, floor and reduced subfloor
and depicts them as one anomaly in Voxler.
These two images provide information on the
lateral extent of the structure, its vertical extent,
and variation within the larger anomaly.
This example from Parchman demonstrates
the utility of down-hole magnetic susceptibility
and three-dimensional imaging for mapping a
buried structure in conditions that were not ideal
for ground-penetrating radar. This approach is
well-suited for supplemental investigation of
anomalies identified through an areal survey.
The resulting three-dimensional images enable a
more precise understanding of spatial attributes
of such anomalies, providing data useful for
positioning excavation units; the images can also
be a viable alternative to conventional excavation
in sensitive areas. For this research the surface
that was impacted on the mound was less than
0.04 m2 compared with approximately 25 m2 area
of the structure, thus providing a minimally
destructive means of investigation.

DOI: 10.1002/arp
20
R. A. Dalan
Figure 10. Voxler representation of high magnetic susceptibility values for Structure 2 at Parchman. (Courtesy of Aaron Fogel.)
Distribution studies
Another useful way to look at landscapes are
studies that layer traditional archaeological
distribution maps with geophysical data. The
geophysical data are plotted on topographic
maps together with surface artefact data (either
as individual proveniences or as density data)
and probe or excavation results in order to aid
interpretation of the structure of the site.
Although this more inclusive type of study is
not yet common, it holds much promise as an
avenue for integrating archaeological and
archaeogeophysical results and for tapping the
potential of susceptibility data for investigations
of site limits and activity areas. An example study
from Jarrod Burks (Ohio Valley Archaeological
Consultants), who has pioneered this type of
research, is provided below.
Mapping site structure at Browns Bottom

No. 1, Ross County, Ohio
The Browns Bottom No. 1 site is a Hopewell
domestic site located on a low terrace in the
Scioto River floodplain in southern Ohio
(Pacheco et al., 2005). Numerous radiocarbon
dates show that the site was occupied ca. AD 300.
The site consists of the remains of a large, square
structure (indicated by gravel-filled post holes)
with interior and exterior pit features and
thermal features (e.g. hearths). Many of the pit
features outside the house are earth ovens pits
used for cooking food in the ground using hot
rocks and a combustible fuel. Over 200 years of

agriculture have truncated features and
destroyed the floor of the structure. Nevertheless,
an approach combining traditional surface collections and test excavations with magnetic
gradiometer surveys and magnetic susceptibility
studies has revealed a surprising amount of
information about site structure.
As part of a pedestrian (field walking) survey
in the spring of 2005, surface artefacts were piece
plotted using a GPS system. Distribution maps
were produced revealing a small cluster of
fire-cracked rock, together with lithic debitage,
a few potsherds and a handful of diagnostic lithic
tools. A magnetic survey with a Geoscan
Research FM36 fluxgate gradiometer located
numerous possible features in the vicinity of
the at-surface artefact cluster. These magnetic
anomalies were systematically probed with an
Oakfield soil corer and at least 29 of the
anomalies were probable cultural features. Subsequent excavation of a selection of these anomalies
uncovered earth ovens, a human burial, nearly
empty pits of an uncertain function and other
kinds of thermal features within a large structure.
Additional magnetic gradiometer survey in 2006
located dozens more features and revealed that
the bulk of the earth ovens were located southwest of the structure. A variety of plots show the
distribution of different classes of artefacts,
geophysical, probe and excavation results, two
of which are presented in Figure 11. To the east of
the structure the surface cluster of fire-cracked
rock indicates the location of a probable refuse
dump.

DOI: 10.1002/arp
21
Figure 11. Greyscale image of mass specific magnetic susceptibility with an overlay of topography (10-cm contour interval).
(a) Feature locations. (b) Surface collected fire-cracked rock. (Courtesy of Jarrod Burks.)
A magnetic susceptibility study was added to

further explore site structure. The Oakfield soil
corer was used to collect soil samples (ca. 100 g
each) from the plough zone. Samples were
collected at 10 m intervals along transects spaced
20 m apart. These samples were taken to the
laboratory and a Bartington MS2 magnetic
susceptibility meter and MS2B sensor were used
to measure the mass specific susceptibility and
frequency dependence of susceptibility of each
sample (n 86). The results of this study, which
are also shown in Figure 11, indicate patterning
reflective of site activities. For example, the low
susceptibility readings around the structure
suggest that the area was kept clean of hearth
and oven related refuse, materials that might
typically have a higher magnetic susceptibility.
Southwest of the house, in the earth oven zone,
the susceptibility readings within the plough
zone are higher. This could be the result of
magnetic materials being ploughed out of
features, or, more likely, the enhanced susceptibilities are due to the prehistoric cleaning and
dismantling of the earth ovens and the dumping
of these materials nearby. The higher readings
around the three earth ovens southeast of the
house could be related to the ovens or they could
be associated with hearth-related debris dumped

in this area after being cleaned out of the hearths
and other thermal facilities inside the house. The
lower susceptibility readings along the east and
south edges of the survey area mark the location
of an old, partially infilled channel. This area was
largely avoided by the sites occupants.
Soil magnetic studies

In comparing magnetic susceptibility with other
geophysical methods, one of the great advantages of susceptibility is the support that is
provided by a well-developed suite of laboratory
methods. These soil magnetic techniques provide
an avenue for exploring magnetic properties of
soils, sediments and other archaeological
materials. They can be used to resolve the
susceptibility signal in terms of magnetic composition, concentration and grain size, which in
turn may aid in answering a host of cultural
questions. Soil magnetic techniques are highly
sensitive, rapid, economical and non-destructive
and they provide a data set that complements
other characterizations gained as part of geoarchaeological research.

DOI: 10.1002/arp
22
Soil magnetic studies, like the susceptibility
applications described above, have been used for
a variety of purposes in archaeogeophysical
research within the USA. They have been used
to determine the source of anomalies identified in
magnetic surveys. In cases where surface geophysical surveys have given poor results, soil
magnetic studies of collected samples have been
used in their stead. These studies have been
helpful where features have not been located
through surface geophysical surveys; for this
application, they can explain the processes
responsible and they can alert surface geophysical practitioners to these atypical situations.
Laboratory magnetic techniques, however, not
only allow confirmation of the source of an
anomaly, but they also can be used to investigate
the processes of anomaly formation and they
have even been used in the search for distinctive
signatures of anthropogenic soils. A few
examples are provided below, these range from
studies that simply add measurement of the
frequency dependence of susceptibility to investigate magnetic grain size to those that incorporate more complicated sequences of variabletemperature investigations. In these case studies,
the focus is on problem orientation and how the
addition of laboratory techniques can greatly
enhance the power of magnetic susceptibility
research. For details on specific techniques the
reader is referred to general texts on environmental magnetism, such as Thompson and
Oldfield (1986) and Evans and Heller (2003),
and to references provided for each case study
below.
Identifying stable surfaces within prehistoric

earthworks at the Hopeton site
One of the questions addressed at the Hopeton
Earthworks (see the above case study Geophysics in excavations at the Hopeton Earthworks,
Ohio) is whether earthen walls were built all at
once or whether there were significant interruptions or pauses in construction. The search for
evidence of weathering and soil formation has
involved soil description, micromorphology and
soil magnetic studies. An example from another
machine excavated trench at the site, Trench 8, is
provided in which frequency dependence of
R. A. Dalan
susceptibility (xfd) data were used to address this
question. Variation in susceptibility with frequency is due to a delay between the application
of the magnetic field and the magnetization of the
sample. Measurement of xfd is used to investigate
the contribution of ultrafine magnetic grains, as
these show the most pronounced frequency
dependence of susceptibility. An increase in
frequency dependence suggests an increase in
the percentage of these smaller magnetic grains.
As it is typically a very fine grained magnetite or
maghemite that is produced by pedogenic
enhancement, an increase in frequency dependence in conjunction with an increase in
susceptibility is potentially indicative of a
developed soil and in this case also of a lull in
the construction process.
Soil samples were collected from each of the
major soil units defined along the east wall of
Trench 8 by Rolfe Mandel (University of Kansas
and Kansas Geological Survey) and Mark Lynott
(National Park Service, Midwest Archeological
Center). Samples were also collected from subwall deposits (subsoils) exposed at the base of the
trench. Multiple samples from these units and the
subwall were taken at four locations that were
described and sampled by Rolfe Mandel.
Figure 12 presents xfd data for the samples
collected at each of these locations. Frequency
dependence of susceptibility ranges from
approximately 2 to 7%. In contrast to an increase
in mass susceptibility below the earthwork wall,
the frequency dependence of susceptibility
consistently decreases. Interestingly, however,
there is a peak in xfd at a depth of between 40 and
60 cm below datum on all four profiles and this
peak cuts across several different soil units. This
peak in frequency dependence is potentially
indicative of a period of soil development,
probably relating to a period of stability prior
to renewed erosion that was precipitated by
historic cultivation.
Site formation processes at the Pinon Canyon

Maneuver Site, Colorado
Another study that combined magnetic susceptibility and frequency dependence of susceptibility
investigations to identify periods of stability, but

DOI: 10.1002/arp
23
Figure 12. Vertical profiles of frequency dependence of susceptibility, measured on collected samples from four profiles within
Trench 8 at the Hopeton Earthworks.The peak in frequency dependence between 40 and 60 cm in each profile may correspond
to a period of soil development.
this time in an alluvial context, comes from work

by Steven De Vore of the National Park Service.
In the summer of 2001, archaeological investigations were conducted at the Barnes Site on the
US Armys Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in
southeastern Colorado (Ahler, 2002). The site
contained an extensive Late Prehistoric component and hints of a Palaeoindian Folsom component. The investigations at the site included
traditional archaeological testing, geoarchaeological trenching and prospection using geophysical techniques including magnetic susceptibility.
The magnetic susceptibility investigations concentrated on a backhoe trench (Trench 1A)
through the main part of the site (De Vore, 2002).
Soil samples were collected along a single
vertical line from the north wall of the trench in
5-cm increments. The magnetic susceptibility
readings extended to a depth of 1.745 m below
the surface. The soil samples were measured
using both low and high frequency settings with
a Bartington MS2 magnetic susceptibility meter
and MS2B dual frequency sensor. Mass magnetic
susceptibility and frequency dependence of
susceptibility are plotted in Figure 13. Increases
in magnetic susceptibility were observed at 0.45,
1.25 and 1.35 m below the surface (b.s.). The
stratigraphic profile along the northern trench
wall indicated a change from a thin bed of fine

sandy silt in Unit X (05 cm b.s.) to a clayey and
fine sandy silt in Unit V (545 cm b.s.), a silt in
Unit III (45125 cm b.s.) and a clayey silt in Unit 1
(125195 cm b.s.). The mass susceptibility
measurements along with the frequency dependency correlations at these three separate levels
suggest that a period of stability occurred at the
interfaces separating major overbank depositional episodes. When combined with stratigraphic profiles and artefact and geoarchaeological analyses, the magnetic susceptibility data
thus provided information useful for understanding the environmental history and siteformation processes operating at the site.
Lightning-induced magnetic anomalies

A magnetic gradiometer survey of 3900 m2 of the
30-30 Winchester site, a prehistoric site (AD
3001000) in northeastern Wyoming, by David
Maki (Archaeo-Physics, LLC) identified a number of anomalies that, when excavated as part of
mitigation activities, corresponded to cylindrical
pit hearths/ovens. An atypical magnetic anomaly
was also documented that was stronger, larger
and more complex than the hearth/oven

DOI: 10.1002/arp
R. A. Dalan
24
Figure 13. Low field mass susceptibility and frequency dependence of susceptibility for Trench 1A at the Barnes Site, Colorado
(Courtesy of Steven DeVore.)
anomalies (Figure 14). Excavation did not

indicate a source for this anomaly.
Lightning-induced remanent magnetization
(LIRM) was the suspected source of this
anomaly. Following criteria developed by Dunlop et al. (1984), Wasilewski and Kletetschka
(1999) and Verrier and Rochette (2002), soil
magnetic techniques were applied to evaluate
this hypothesis (Maki, 2005). These techniques
were applied to soils from the suspected LIRM
anomaly and from one of the hearth/oven
features, and to undisturbed soils outside of
these anomalies. Results confirmed that this
feature was an isothermal remament magnetization feature.
Intense bipolar magnetic anomalies detected
during archaeogeophysical surveys are commonly interpreted as being due to susceptibility
contrasts and intact thermoremanent magnetization resulting from burning associated either
with cultural activities or a natural event. This
study showed that an intense bipoloar anomaly

found at the 30-30 Winchester site was not caused
by either a susceptibility contrast or thermoremanent magnetization but by an isothermal
remanent magnetization associated with lighting
currents. On the basis of a review of magnetic
gradiometer survey data from a number of sites,
Jones and Maki (2005) concluded that lightninginduced magnetic anomalies can be common on
archaeological sites. The strength and geometry
of these anomalies can be used to identify
potential isothermal remanent magnetization
features that can then be positively identified
using environmental magnetic methods.
Hidden hearths
Mechanical stripping of the West Bluff Project
area in southern California following a magnetic
gradiometer survey revealed several undetected

DOI: 10.1002/arp
25
Figure 15. Magnetic susceptibility of sample A from the West

Bluff Project area,California, wasreduced tolessthantheinitial
level after17 h at 6508C. (Courtesy of D. Maki.)
accompanied this decrease in susceptibility,

suggesting that the process responsible is the
oxidation of primary magnetite to maghemite
followed by the inversion of maghemite to
haemetite.
Figure 14. A magnetic field gradient image showing a suspected LIRM anomaly and several archaeological hearth
anomalies at the 30-30 Winchester site in northeasternWyoming.Consolidated soil samples were collected for soilmagnetic
analyses from the hearth feature B6-F1 (dating to AD
600 50), the LIRM anomaly and natural undisturbed soil.
(Courtesy of D. Maki)
prehistoric hearths. Extensive bioturbation probably affected remanence, but would not explain
the absence of anomalies that were caused by
induced magnetization associated with these
features. Magnetic properties of soils from the
site were examined to understand how the
susceptibility of hearth soils might be reduced
below background susceptibility levels (Maki
et al., 2006). As soils from the excavated hearths
were not available for study, typical loamy sands
and sandy loams from elsewhere on the site as
well as soils from several other archaeological
sites were studied. Heating experiments using
these samples showed that in some cases
susceptibility may decrease as a result of
prolonged exposure to high temperature
(6508C) (e.g. Figure 15). An increase in coercivity
Magnetic mineral source and occupation

patterning
Magnetic gradiometer and electrical resistance
surveys were conducted over an eighteenth to
early twentieth century Scottish Highlander
settlement in North Carolina by ArchaeoPhysics, LLC (Maki, 2006). The geophysical
surveys were compromised by multiple sources
of modern disturbance, modern metal trash
associated with military training (the site is
located on the Fort Bragg military base), and
heavy forest and brush cover.
Immediately after the geophysical survey, the
site was shovel-tested on a 10-m grid. In
conjunction with each shovel test, a soil sample
from just beneath the humic zone to the bottom of
the A horizon was collected for use in soil
magnetic studies. Mass susceptibility (x), saturation isothermal remanent magnetization
(SIRM), anhysteretic remanent magnetization
(ARM) and the frequency dependence of
susceptibility (xfd) were measured on each of
the resulting 160 samples. Frequency dependence for each sample was calculated using an

DOI: 10.1002/arp
26
average of ten low-frequency readings and three
high-frequency readings.
Using simple addition, a linear combination of
the three magnetic mineral concentration parameters (x, SIRM and ARM) was created after
normalizing each of the parameters by their respective maximum values. This same procedure was
followed for the two grain-size-related parameters
(xfd, ARM/SIRM). A magnetic mineral concentration image and a magnetic grain-size image
were then created from each matrix (Figure 16).
Data were interpolated two times in each
direction, yielding a final numerical density of
one point every 2.5 m.
Both images show patterning that appears to
be related to the occupation of the site. There are
distinct differences between the images of grain
size and concentration. It is probable that diffe-
R. A. Dalan
rences between these two plots are related to the
source of the magnetic minerals. For example, it
is possible that the rectilinear patterning showing
a concentration of small magnetic grains in the
grain-size image results from a concentration of
magnetotactic bacteria perhaps related to agricultural land-use practices (i.e. an animal pen
with lots of manure or a garden regularly
fertilized with manure). An alternative explanation would be a controlled burning event
related to swidden agricultural practices (Jordan
and Kaups, 1989). Soil geochemical tests are
planned to determine which of these explanations is most likely. Although interpretation
remains speculative until the geochemical studies have been completed, these images do
suggest a number of interesting possibilities
regarding past land use, thus providing a
Figure 16. Magnitude of the linear combination of normalized concentration (x, SIRM and ARM) and grain size (xfd, ARM/SIRM)
parameters over an eighteenth century Scottish Highlander site, North Carolina. Data are interpolated from samples taken at
10-m intervals. Note the correspondence of areas of increased concentration and decreased grain size yet the different pattern
orientation within these areas. (Courtesy of D. Maki.)

DOI: 10.1002/arp

valuable supplement to surface geophysical
results.
A possible anthropogenic signature for

archaeological soils
The case study Mapping buried soils and
cultural layers within the Red River Valley of
the North, summarized above, focused on the
potential of down-hole susceptibility techniques
for identifying palaeosols and cultural deposits
within alluvial settings. These techniques have
been applied at several other sites within the Red
River Valley in addition to the work illustrated at
the Canning site. Intrasite comparisons of the
level of enhancement were useful for distinguishing palaeosols associated with human occupation (so called cultural palaeosols) from
palaeosols not associated with habitation (designated natural palaeosols). The more strongly
enhanced soils are cultural palaeosols. Intersite
comparisons, however, were problematic as
absolute levels of enhancement characteristic of
occupation deposits were not translatable from
site to site. Therefore, laboratory techniques of
soil magnetism were utilized to see if they might
reveal a distinctive signature for cultural palaeosols that would be more broadly applicable
(Dalan, 2006b). A suite of room-temperature
reconnaissance studies, hysteresis loops, and
low- and high-temperature investigations were
applied to investigate the magnetic materials
responsible for the susceptibility signal and to
search for distinctive properties characteristic of
human-occupied palaeosols.
Magnetic studies of soils collected from
various sites indicated a similar soil-forming
process in both the buried cultural and natural
soils that had resulted in an increase in
fine-grained magnetite or maghemite. The cultural soils, however, showed a distinctive
increase in not only superparamagnetic (SP)
grains but also a distinctive increase in grains at
and above the SD (single domain) grain-size
boundary that was not observed in the natural
soils. These remanence-carrying grains were
found to reside in the coarse fraction (>53 mm,
fine sand and larger) of the cultural soils. An
increase in the ratio of coarse fraction remanence
27
to whole soil remanence allowed cultural soils to
be distinguished from non-cultural soils; this is
illustrated with data from the Canning site
(Figure 17a).
Nodules of soil within the coarse fraction of
archaeological soils were visually and magnetically identified as the source of the distinctive
remanence signal (Figure 17b). These nodules of
soil appear to be composed of burnt clay and they
are ubiquitous in the archaeological soils studied
as part of this project. It is suspected that
domestic fires burning on a fine-grained substrate formed them, and, if this is the case, these
burnt clay nodules might have a broad distribution in archaeological contexts. With their
distinctive magnetic signature they would thus
provide widespread opportunity for identifying
archaeological sites and layers.
Prospects and conclusions

Brief summaries of a number of studies have
been used to illustrate areas of development in
the use of the magnetic susceptibility method in
archaeogeophysical research within the USA.
These developments have been made possible, in
part, by new instruments and software for data
collection, processing, and presentation; however, an increased interest in the method and the
creativity of a pool of new users must also be
credited. This interest has come from two
directions, both from archaeogeophysical practitioners and also from the geoarchaeological
community.
An increased focus on what is commonly
referred to as ground truthing has also contributed to a current interest in susceptibility
techniques. In such applications, susceptibility
studies have been used for the purpose of
confirming or providing increased confidence
in anomalies identified through magnetometer
and other surface geophysical surveys, as well as
to link these anomalies with archaeological
features. It is hoped that these studies will
blossom into something beyond just a confirmatory role and treat susceptibility as a complimentary data set that may provide information
beyond just feature identification. What is

DOI: 10.1002/arp
28
R. A. Dalan
Figure 17. Coarse fraction/whole soilmagnetic ratiosfrom Core C samples at the Canning siteandmagnetic nodules. (a) The noncultural soil sampled from 40 to 50 cm has a coarse fraction/whole soil SIRM ratio <1, as do underlying horizons represented by
the subsequent three samples.The cultural layer was identified in the 98^106 cm layer and it is clearly indicated by a SIRM ratio
ofover 3.5.The presence ofcharcoaland dark soilinthe129^132 cmlayer was also suggestive ofa culturalhorizon.Arelativelyhigh
SIRMratio (approximately 2) supportsthis, although the presence ofarchaeologicalmaterials at thislocationhasnot beenverified
by excavation. Alternatively, the elevated SIRMratio may be related to movement of culturalmaterialdown the soil column.Coarse
to whole xand ARMratiostrack relatively closely the SIRMratio. (b) Magnetic nodulesthat are the source for the enhanced coarse
fraction.
required is acknowledgment by archaeologists of

the legitimacy of measured variations in geophysical properties, even though these might not
be clearly associated with colour, textural, or
other characteristics used to define archaeological features. Observed patterns in geophysical
parameters, such as susceptibility, may provide
information that is completely different from
visual or other more traditionally recorded
aspects of the archaeological record, yet potentially just as valuable.
Susceptibility instruments are available for
investigating a range of volumes within varying
contexts of application. Granted, susceptibility
instruments do not provide the fastest lateral
surveys but they are, in general, relatively
inexpensive and a useful component of a
geophysical package. Capabilities for resolving
fine-scale changes in susceptibility with depth
provide opportunities that are not available with
any of the other surface geophysical methods.
One advantage of down-hole susceptibility
surveys is that they allow investigation not only
of abrupt changes in geophysical properties but

also of gradual changes, for example those
relating to soil development. Incipient progress
is being made in the use of multiple geophysical
sensors within these small diameter, relatively
non-destructive core holes and the integration of
down-hole data streams with soil physical and
chemical properties and with surface geophysical data.
Down-hole studies that examine the entire soil
column have precipitated a shift in how susceptibility studies are envisioned and applied. As the
susceptibility signal is influenced by soil development, it thus provides an avenue for investigating the effects of the various soil-forming
factors, including parent material, climate, topography or relief, living organisms and time.
Humans, of course, are one type of living
organism that affect the development of soils,
and so investigations of soil genesis through
magnetic methods may provide information on
human impacts and how site and features form
and change. Perhaps even characteristic mag-

DOI: 10.1002/arp

netic signatures can be identified that are shared
broadly among feature types, use areas, and even
archaeological sites and environments.
Susceptibility instruments such as the small
hand-held units and many of the Bartington
sensors investigate smaller volumes than those
measured using other geophysical instruments.
Depending on the spatial variability of soils and
sediments and the goals of a project, this higher
spatial resolution may be an advantage or
disadvantage. Often it is seen as a disadvantage
and methods that allow faster coverage of broad
areas are substituted. The ability to focus on these
relatively small volumes, however, should not be
dismissed. Furthermore, the susceptibility method
is often more comprehensible to the archaeologist
and geoarchaeologist because these are volumes
similar to those already being measured for other
physical and chemical properties. Susceptibility
data may thus be easily integrated with chemical
and physical properties documented as part of a
geoarchaeological study. Even though the
volumes measured are relatively small, the scale
of application may range from microgeophysical
studies in excavations to landscapes in size.
A crucial step in the advancement of any
method is, of course, its wide application. As has
been illustrated through a range of studies, there
has been considerable development in the
application of the magnetic susceptibility method
within the past decade of archaeogeophysical
research in the USA. Not only has there been a
marked increase in the number and variety of
field susceptibility studies, but it looks as though
field studies may encourage the expansion of soil
magnetic methods in archaeology as archaeologists endeavour to understand the nature and
origin of susceptibility contrasts.
In 1998, Dalan and Banerjee called for broader
use of laboratory magnetic techniques in order to
understand archaeological landscapes and cultural and natural factors of landscape change.
That article aimed to alert archaeologists to soil
magnetic techniques and their applicability to a
number of archaeological problems. In the USA,
this call has not yet been answered but it is hoped
that the development of field studies of susceptibility will lead to an increased emphasis on
magnetic research in the laboratory. As users aim
to understand the causes for patterns in their
29
magnetic susceptibility data, it is hoped they will
become conscious of the well-developed suite of
laboratory methods that exists and the promise
that these hold for archaeological inquiry.
Acknowledgements
Much of the credit for developments in USA
archaeogeophysics in general and the susceptibility method in particular is due the National
Park Service course on remote sensing for cultural resource managers and its organizers
Steven De Vore and Mark Lynott. Offered annually
since 1991, this course has explicitly and consistently recognized and encouraged magnetic
susceptibility research as a standard aspect of
instruction. Thanks are also extended to the
instructors of the course and to other colleagues
for their encouragement of susceptibility applications and for sharing the results of individual
studies to include in this manuscript. A broader
note of appreciation goes to colleagues for the
work they are doing to advance this method,
even though I was not able to include their
studies here. Finally, a special acknowledgement
is due Geoff Bartington and Bartington Instruments for their efforts in developing a down-hole
susceptibility instrument for archaeological
application.
At MSUM, thanks go to the many students
who have worked on susceptibility projects summarized in this article. In particular, I would like
to thank Amanda (McCracken) Butler for her
work on the North Small Circle at Hopeton
and Jennifer Bengston and Jessica Beard for their
research on magnetic nodules found in archaeological soils. Bruce Bevan of Geosight, who has
been my partner in crime in many attempts at
innovation concerning susceptibility applications, kindly supplied information on a number of small hand-held susceptibility units,
reviewed an early draft of this manuscript, pointing out in a most diplomatic fashion many errors
and omissions and supplying additional information, and provided a thorough editing of a
later draft for which I am most grateful. Thanks
are also due to two anonymous reviewers for
their comments and suggestions. Inspiration for
this article came from Larry Conyers and without
his encouragement this article would not have
been conceived or written. George Holley offered
helpful comments about organization and content and Liz Kalinowski provided editorial support. The authors case studies included in this
review were completed under grants from the
National Park Service, the National Center for
Preservation Technology and Training, and the

DOI: 10.1002/arp
30
National Science Foundation. The summaries of
these studies are solely the responsibility of the
author and they do not necessarily represent the
official positions or policies of these agencies.
References
Ahler SA (ed.). 2002. Fieldwork, Geology, and Early
Component Research during 20012002 at the Barnes
Site, 5LA9187, Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, Colorado. Fort Carson Cultural Resource Management
Series Contribution Number 11. PaleoCultural
Research Group: Flagstaff, AZ.
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: 3145.
Bevan B. 2002. Geophysical Tests in the Hopeton Excavations. Report submitted to the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service: Lincoln,
NE.
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.
Bevan B, Dalan R. 2003. Magnetic Susceptibility
Sounding. Geosight: Weems, VA.
Dalan R. 2006a. Magnetic susceptibility. In Remote
Sensing in Archaeology: an Explicitly North American Perspective, Johnson J (ed.). The University of
Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa; 161203.
Dalan R. 2006b. A geophysical approach to buried
site detection using down-hole susceptibility and
soil magnetic techniques. Archaeological Prospection 13: 182206.
Dalan R, Goodman D. 2007. Imaging buried landforms using down-hole susceptibility data and
three-dimensional ground-penetrating radar
visualization software. Archaeological Prospection
14: 273280.
Dalan R, Banerjee S. 1998. Solving archaeological
problems using techniques of soil magnetism.
Geoarchaeology 13: 336.
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 20012002 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;
129144.
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: 879886.
R. A. Dalan
Evans M, Heller F. 2003. Environmental Magnetism:
Principles and Applications of Environmagnetics.
Academic Press: New York.
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.
Johnson J (ed.). 2006. Remote Sensing in Archaeology:
an Explicitly North American Perspective. The University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa.
Jones G, Maki D. 2005. Lightning-induced magnetic
anomalies on archaeological sites. Archaeological
Prospection 12(3): 191197.
Jordan T, Kaups M. 1989. The American Backwoods
Frontier: an Ethic and Ecological Interpretation.
Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD.
Kvamme K, Ahler S. 2007. Integrated remote sensing and excavation at Double Ditch State Historic Site, North Dakota. American Antiquity 72(3):
539561.
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.
Lecoanet H, Le ve que F, Segura S. 1999. Magnetic
susceptibility in environmental applications:
Comparison of field probes. Physics of the Earth
and Planetary Interiors 115: 191204.
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.
Maki D. 2005. Lightning strikes and prehistoric
ovens: Determining the source of magnetic
anomalies using techniques of environmental
magnetism. Geoarchaeology 20(5): 449459.
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.
Maki D, Homburg J, Brosowske S. 2006. Thermally
activated mineralogical transformations in
archaeological hearths: inversion from maghemite gFe2O4 phase to haematite aFe2O4 form.
Implications and applications in archaeogeophysics. Archaeological Prospection 13(3):
207227.
McNeill J, Bosnar M. 1999. Application of Dipole
Dipole Electromagnetic Systems for Geological Depth
Sounding. Technical Note TN-31, Geonics Limited:
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. (http://www.geonics.
com/pdfs/technicalnotes/tn31.pdf, as modified
October 2007.)

DOI: 10.1002/arp

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):
7790.
Michlovic MG. 1986. The archaeology of the
Canning site. The Minnesota Archaeologist 45(1):
336.
Pacheco P, Burks J, Wymer D. 2005. Investigating
Ohio Hopewell settlement patterns in central
Ohio: A preliminary report of archaeology at
Browns Bottom #1 (33RO21). Web article: http://
www.ohioarchaeology.org/joomla/index.php?
optioncom_content&taskview&id103&
Itemid32
Thompson RG. (ed.) 1990. The Archaeology of the
Dahnke-Reinke Site (32CS29). Report submitted
to the State Historical Society of North Dakota:
Bismarck.
31
Thompson R, Oldfield F. 1986. Environmental Magnetism. Allen and Unwin: London.
Verrier V, Rochette P. 2002. Estimating peak currents at ground lightning impacts using remanent
magnetization. Geophysical Research Letters 29:
14-114-4.
Wasilewski P, Kletetschka G. 1999. Lodestone: natures only permanent magnet what it is and how
it gets charged. Geophysical Research Letters 26:
22752278.
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.
Weymouth J. 2003. Hopeton Geophysical Survey: The
2003 Season. Report submitted to the Midwest
Archeological Center, National Park Service: Lincoln, NE.

DOI: 10.1002/arp

A Review of The Role of Magnetic Susceptibility in Archaeogeophysical Studies in The USA Recent Developments and Prospects

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A Review of The Role of Magnetic Susceptibility in Archaeogeophysical Studies in The USA Recent Developments and Prospects

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Archaeological Prospection

Archaeol. Prospect. 15, 131 (2008)