2016
DOI: 10.1080/01461109.2016.1209344
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Returning to the Kamp Mound Group (11C12): Results from Geomagnetic Survey and High-Density Topographic Mapping in Calhoun County, Illinois

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…On small burial mounds and in their surrounding magnetic surveys proved to be successful in uncovering near‐surface anthropogenic structures (e.g. Parzinger, Gass, & Fassbinder, ; McKinnon, King, Buikstra, Thornton, & Herrmann, ). Also, GPR reflection surveys can uncover the location of burials in small tumuli (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On small burial mounds and in their surrounding magnetic surveys proved to be successful in uncovering near‐surface anthropogenic structures (e.g. Parzinger, Gass, & Fassbinder, ; McKinnon, King, Buikstra, Thornton, & Herrmann, ). Also, GPR reflection surveys can uncover the location of burials in small tumuli (e.g.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mound 2 contains the clearest evidence of a central burial chamber, indicated by a positive anomaly nearly 3 m in length and about 1.5 m wide. Mound 3 differs in form and may represent an elongated or biconical mound structure as at the Kamp Mound Group (11C12) in Illinois (McKinnon et al 2016). Kamp Mound 7 may consist of either two sequentially constructed tomb complexes that were capped simultaneously or a primary tomb complex with an intrusive tomb and extended ramp that were later capped.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several assumptions underlie the method we use to estimate mound height and volume: (1) the maximum diameter of each mound's magnetic signature approximates the mound's actual diameter, (2) the original form of each mound approximated a spherical cap (i.e., a dome), and (3) height-diameter relationships of nearby mounds can be used to estimate those relationships for the Gast Farm mounds. Assumption 1 is based on the observation that geophysical surveys of extant mounds show concordance between observed and magnetically surveyed mound edges (e.g., McKinnon et al 2016), although we may underestimate mound diameters because final capping episodes probably extended mound boundaries beyond the edges of detectable sub–plow zone magnetic signatures. Assumption 2 recognizes that although many mounds have tapered rather than dome-like profiles, tapering is slight on minimally disturbed mounds (e.g., Charles et al 1988; Herold 1971; Walker 1952).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Magnetic survey is often used to investigate ironware, oven sites, roads, ditches and pits, buried pathways, buried stone foundations and ancient tombs, etc. (Eppelbaum et al, 2010;Herrmann & Hammer, 2019;McKinnon et al, 2016;Vella et al, 2018). In particular, the magnetic method is most effective for detecting the features associated with fire, such as firebricks, kilns, pottery, hearths and campfire sites (Batayneh, 2011;Taha et al, 2011;Tema & Ferrara, 2019;Trinks & Larssons, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%