Understanding Northeastern Plains Village sites through archaeological geophysics

Abstract

The archaeologically defined Northeastern PlainsVillage Complex (NEPV), centered in the American Great Plains has been a problem forarchaeologists because of an inability to recognize buried cultural features, particularly those relating to house structures. Elsewhere in the Great Plains magnetics and earth resistance had been shown effective methods, which was applied at two NEPV sites in North Dakota. Those geophysical methods were combined with down-hole magnetic susceptibility as a way to identify and interpret multiple fortified ditches, circular house structures and a possible bastion at two prehistoric villages dating from AD 1400 to1500.This information shows that these people occupied these sites seasonally, but were still threatened enough to construct defensive structures during a period of conflict in the area. The geophysical surveys highlight the advantages of combining these techniques in NEPV site discovery and evaluation.

Geophysical investigations of the Mound City Borrow Pits, Ross County, Ohio

“…I also identified the geophysical methods that were most effective. occupation (Lowe and Fogel, 2010). This finding contradicted the notion that square houses existed in the area, which usually implies more permanent occupation.…”

Cutbank Geophysics: A New Method for Expanding Magnetic Investigations to the Subsurface Using Magnetic Susceptibility Testing at an Awatixa Hidatsa Village, North Dakota

“…Lodge floors showed an increase in χ fd , which was not apparent at the Sakakawea site. Peaks in susceptibility have also been associated with potential basin-shaped structures and living floors at other Late Prehistoric fortified settlement in the Sheyenne River Valley [49].…”

“…Although no previous subsurface susceptibility studies had been conducted within the KNRI, down-hole and in-excavation susceptibility results from other sites in the Northern Plains had demonstrated the potential of subsurface measurements for detailing earthlodges and other typical features (e.g., [3,43,48,49]). At the Double Ditch site in North Dakota ( [43,48], also summarized in [2]), a prototype Bartington Instruments MS2H down-hole sensor was tested on a subterranean food storage pit, house basin, borrow pit, mound, and paleosol.…”

Anthropological research framing for archaeological geophysics: Material signatures of past human behaviour. By Jason RandallThompson, Lexington books, Lanham, MD, 2015, $75.00 (£49.95), ISBN 978–0–7391‐7758‐7 (hardback), $74.99 (£49.95), ISBN 978–0–7391‐7759‐4 (eBook)

“…I also struggled with this statement because it glosses over the range of different types and sizes of sites archaeological geophysicists are surveying across the world (e.g. in this journal alone, Crew, ; Dalan et al, ; Landry, Ferguson, Milne, & Park, ; Lowe & Fogel, ; Kulessa, Chiarulli, & Haney, ; Marshall, ). His statement also neglects the fact that even the large‐scale surveys at well‐known sites also focus on individual features within the greater landscape (e.g.…”

“…I also struggled with this statement because it glosses over the range of different types and sizes of sites archaeological geophysicists are surveying across the world (e.g. in this journal alone, Crew, 2002;Dalan et al, 2011;Landry, Ferguson, Milne, & Park, 2015;Lowe & Fogel, 2010;Kulessa, Chiarulli, & Haney, 2004;Marshall, 1999). His statement also neglects the fact that even the large-scale surveys at well-known sites also focus on may be a radical idea for the 'traditional' practitioners and that the editors of Archaeological Prospection 'might balk at publishing much of it, since it wouldn't have the advantage of portraying graphic images of actual archaeological materials,' but I find this doubtful considering that such experimental work has already been published (e.g.…”