Is There a Place for the Proton Magnetometer in Australian Field Archaeology?

Connah, Graham; Emmerson, Penelope; Stanley, John M.

doi:10.1111/j.1835-9310.1976.tb01145.x

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, there are very little studies documented on the magnetic susceptibility of shell mound deposits (see Connah et al, 1976) and a reason for this may be due to their complex stratigraphy (Stein et al, 2003). While magnetic susceptibility studies on other types of open sites are common (see Connah et al, 1976 and references within), the lack of magnetic susceptibility studies on shell mounds is worth noting, especially because of the potential of this technique to provide information on depositional events.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Integrating geoarchaeology and magnetic susceptibility at three shell mounds: a pilot study from Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia

Rosendahl

Lowe

Wallis

et al. 2014

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tIn coastal areas of the globe, open shell matrix sites are commonly used to establish regional chronologies of human occupation and identify patterns of cultural change, particularly for the Holocene, postsea-level stabilisation period. Despite this, many basic sedimentary analyses that are routinely applied to rockshelter deposits (e.g. geophysical characterisation, particle size etc) are rarely applied to these sites. Magnetic susceptibility, occasionally used in rockshelters, has never been used to investigate shell matrix sites in Australia, despite several international studies identifying its efficacy for other types of open sites. This paper reports a pilot project applying a range of conventional sedimentary and archaeological analyses, as well as magnetic susceptibility at three anthropogenic shell mounds on Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Results are compared to, firstly, assess site integrity and, secondly, to ascertain whether magnetic signatures are related to cultural or natural site formation processes. The results establish that the mounds were repeatedly visited, despite the archaeological evidence, including radiocarbon ages, suggesting effectively 'instantaneous' deposition. This has important implications for studies of other shell mounds where the limitations of radiocarbon dating precision may also mask multiple deposition events.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Integrating geoarchaeology and magnetic susceptibility at three shell mounds: a pilot study from Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia

Rosendahl

Lowe

Wallis

et al. 2014

Journal of Archaeological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The antenna and the settings employed were chosen based on knowledge of the survey site gained through prior excavation. 2000x Connah et al (1976) x x Dalan et al (1992) x x x (Seismic Refraction) Dougherty and Dickson 2012x Larsen et al 2017x (TLS) Lowe 2010x Moffat et al (2008) x Three geophysical transects were established using a Real Time Kinematic (RTK) surveying system ( Figure 1). Two adjacent transects (Transect A and B) were laid out along the ridgeline for 120m while Transect C crossed Transects A and B at right-angles, running inland for 160m.…”

Section: Geophysical Surveymentioning

confidence: 99%

Determining the boundaries, structure and volume of buried shell matrix deposits using ground-penetrating radar: A case study from northern Australia

Kenady¹,

Lowe²,

Ulm³

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) is used in this study to delineate the extent and internal structure of a large late Holocene buried shell matrix site at Thundiy, Bentinck Island, northern Australia. Shell matrix sites comprise a key component of the coastal archaeological record. The extensive nature of many shell matrix sites presents challenges for archaeological sampling regimes. While large-scale excavation is undesirable and impractical, limited test pits often represent only a tiny fraction of large shell deposits and are rarely considered representative. This study transforms GPR data into three-dimensional models which form the basis of deposit volume estimates. Volume estimates are evaluated against excavation data to test their accuracy. Results demonstrate that this novel methodology can generate accurate three-dimensional representations of buried shell matrices and highly accurate volume estimations with error margins of 3.5% ± 7%. It is recommended, though, that more inclusive error margins of 19.5% ± 17% are used to account for potential error, especially where results cannot be verified. This greater understanding of the extent and structural variability of deposits can be utilised to create robust sampling strategies for excavation. The methodology could also be further employed to enhance comparative regional studies and to add to conservation and management practices of buried shell matrix sites. If applied more widely this methodology will not only benefit our understanding of shell matrix deposits but also the wider archaeological record of coastal regions worldwide.

show abstract

“…To date, there are very few studies documented on the magnetic susceptibility of shell mound deposits (see Connah et al 1976) and a reason for this may be due to their complex stratigraphy (Stein et al 2003). While magnetic susceptibility studies on other types of open sites are common (see Connah et al 1976 and references within), the lack of magnetic susceptibility studies on shell mounds is worth noting, especially because of the potential of this technique to provide information on depositional events.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the 1970s, prices to purchase a magnetometer ranged from $1,600 to $7,000 (Connah et al 1976) -today they range from $10,000 to $50,000, cost ranges comparable for most geophysical equipment. At this time, when cultural heritage legislation and standard practices were only just being developed and implemented (Pearson and Sullivan 1999), the funding available for archaeological research, let alone geophysical studies, was minimal and people were still concerned with establishing such basic information as when Australia was first colonised by people (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Working with archaeological colleagues, Stanley conducted several tests to determine whether a magnetometer could identify hearths and shell middens in the landscape and if it could be used in burial detection (Connah et al 1976;Stanley 1983;Stanley and Connah 1977;Stanley and Green 1976). This early research focused primarily on whether or not geophysical methods would be applicable in the Australian context, because here most archaeological sites and features were not thought to be substantial enough to cause detectable physical and chemical differences in the landscape (Tite 1972b:43).…”

Section: The History Of Archaeological Geophysics In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding Australia’s cultural history through archaeological geophysics

Lowe¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this thesis is to develop and apply geophysical methods for Australian archaeology. The methods focus on magnetic susceptibility and ground-penetrating radar (GPR). The techniques are contextualised through application to the following four key archaeological questions: 1) Can magnetic susceptibility assist in resolving questions surrounding the potential downward movement of stone artefacts in rockshelter deposits? 2) Is human occupation persistent through the changing climatic regime associated with the last glacial maximum (LGM) at a Pleistocene-aged rockshelter in interior Australia? 3) How might we identify burials in a geologically complex rockshelter deposit? 4) How might magnetic susceptibility contribute to knowledge about the formation of 'archaeologically instantaneous' shell matrix sites?In exploring these questions, research was conducted at two rockshelters in northern Australia and on three shell mounds in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. Magnetic susceptibility studies were undertaken at Gledswood Shelter 1 (GS1), a rockshelter occupied at ca 38,000 BP, to understand its history and formation processes. An experimental burning program using off-site samples was conducted to confirm that magnetically enhanced sediments in the cultural deposits were the direct result of anthropogenic burning rather than natural fires, pedogenesis or weathering. This change coincides with the level at which stone artefacts appear in the sedimentary sequence, indicating that they are in situ and have not moved down from higher layers above. Demonstrating that an increase in magnetic susceptibility is associated with human occupation is a crucial development in Australian archaeology. This will provide an opportunity to link sediments and artefacts-and this is critical to comprehending the timing of initial occupation of the continent.Magnetic susceptibility data combined with micromorphology and geoarchaeological data also revealed that occupation was continuous through the LGM at GS1, without any abandonment of the site. GS1 is situated in a region that has been characterised as a potential corridor for early colonists moving into the arid interior. The appearance of stone artefacts in the deposits corresponding with an increase in magnetic susceptibility as well as clay and charcoal coatings on quartz grains in the Pleistocene units in thin section, indicate that the site was occupied through this period, thereby implying that water was at least locally available.Despite the absence of any obvious permanent water sources, water availability at the site is ii reliant on summer rainfall. This suggests that the monsoons driven by the Coral Sea off the northeast Australian coastline may have been active during this time. This has important implications for understanding climatic conditions during that period, and allows one to infer that water must have been available regionally for people to have maintained their use of the site.GPR carried out in advance of archaeological excavations at Madjedbe...

show abstract

Is There a Place for the Proton Magnetometer in Australian Field Archaeology?

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Integrating geoarchaeology and magnetic susceptibility at three shell mounds: a pilot study from Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia

Integrating geoarchaeology and magnetic susceptibility at three shell mounds: a pilot study from Mornington Island, Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia

Determining the boundaries, structure and volume of buried shell matrix deposits using ground-penetrating radar: A case study from northern Australia

Understanding Australia’s cultural history through archaeological geophysics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About