Remote Sensing in Archaeology Remote Sensing in Archaeology An Explicitly North American Perspective Edited by Jay K Johnson The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa Published for The Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Mississippi, the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center, and NASA Earth Science Applications Directorate at the Stennis Space Center Copyright © 2006 The University of Alabama Press Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0380 All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America ∞ The paper on which this book is printed meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984 Typefaces: Garamond and Myriad Designer: Kathy Cummins Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Remote sensing in archaeology : an explicitly North American perspective / edited by Jay K Johnson p cm Based on presentations made at a workshop held in Biloxi, Miss., in 2002, preceding the annual meeting of the Southeastern Archaeological Conference “Published for the Center for Archaeological Research at the Universtiy of Mississippi, the University of Mississippi Geoinformatics Center, and NASA Earth Sciences Application Directorate at the Stennis Space Center.” Includes bibliographical references ISBN-13: 978-0-8173-5343-8 (alk paper) ISBN-10: 0-8173-5343-7 (alk paper) Archaeology Remote sensing Archaeology North America Remote sensing Indians of North America Antiquities Remote sensing Excavations (Archaeology) North America North America Antiquities Remote sensing I Johnson, Jay K II University of Mississippi Center for Archaeological Research CC76.4.R46 2006 930.1028 dc22 2005054863 For Anne Contents List of Figures List of Tables Acknowledgments Introduction Jay K Johnson The Current and Potential Role of Archaeogeophysics in Cultural Resource Management in the United States J J Lockhart and Thomas J Green A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Remote Sensing Application in Cultural Resource Management Archaeology Jay K Johnson and Bryan S Haley Airborne Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Marco Giardino and Bryan S Haley Conductivity Survey: A Survival Manual R Berle Clay Resistivity Survey Lewis Somers ix xv xvii 17 33 47 79 109 Ground-Penetrating Radar Lawrence B Conyers 131 Magnetic Susceptibility Rinita A Dalan 161 Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology Kenneth L Kvamme 205 10 Data Processing and Presentation Kenneth L Kvamme 235 11 Multiple Methods Surveys: Case Studies Kenneth L Kvamme, Jay K Johnson, and Bryan S Haley 251 12 Ground Truthing the Results of Geophysical Surveys Michael L Hargrave 269 13 A Comparative Guide to Applications Jay K Johnson 305 List of Contributors CD Containing Color Figures 321 inside back cover Figures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 GIS data layer and example database fields for archaeological sites in Arkansas GIS data layer and example database fields for archaeological projects and surveys in Arkansas Gradiometer data for a prehistoric feature Gradiometer data for a nineteenth-century cemetery Comparison highlighting the advantages of using multiple technologies Electrical resistance data and excavation on a prehistoric site in eastern Arkansas Gradiometer data and excavation on a prehistoric site in southwest Arkansas Geophysical signatures for an archaeological feature using multiple technologies Field methodology and results from a prehistoric site in northeast Arkansas Geophysical units of measure Electrical resistance data and georeferenced 2-×-2-m grid for a prehistoric site in Arkansas Archaeogeophysical imagery from four technologies with excavated features Magnetic gradiometer survey of the village portion of the Parchman Place site Survey of buried prehistoric house remnants at Parchman Place with electromagnetics, resistance, ground-penetrating radar, and magnetic gradiometer Ground truth excavation units superimposed on magnetic gradiometer survey Trenches superimposed on magnetic gradiometer survey showing burned floor and charred beams Surface artifact density plot of the Hollywood site Magnetic gradiometer survey of the Hollywood site Magnetic gradiometer survey of the village portion of the Parchman Place site showing houses, pits, and high-density areas Electromagnetic spectrum Diurnal temperature variation of a hypothetical Mississippian house A helium blimp in use as a low-cost, low-altitude remote sensing platform A powered parachute in use as a stable remote sensing platform A black-and-white aerial photograph before and after subsetting and contrast enhancing 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 26 27 28 29 30 36 37 38 38 39 40 41 49 54 58 59 62 308 ~ Jay K Johnson Hargrave (2003) developed to aid in geophysical survey design could be written However, it does not seem that we have reached that stage of maturity in our application of the techniques, particularly on prehistoric sites Site Setting Bedrock The depth of the bedrock will obviously impact the utility of remote sensing, but it affects most sensors in the same way However, when the bedrock is igneous and close to the surface, its magnetic signature will likely overwhelm those of cultural features and magnetometry will not be useful Similarly, glacial soils with igneous gravels will be too “noisy” for magnetic survey Soil Texture In general, fine-grained soils are better for resistivity, electromagnetic (EM) conductivity, and thermal infrared prospection This is the direct result of the ability of such soils to retain moisture since all of these techniques, thermal infrared in particular, depend primarily on the differential distribution of moisture On very dry sites, when the surface layer is too dry for the resistivity probes to make contact, it is sometimes still possible to use an EM conductivity meter because that instrument operates without the need to couple with the ground Of course, if the texture and moisture-retaining characteristics of the cultural feature are the same as those of the surrounding soil, it will not likely be detected using these instruments On the other hand, precisely because they not drain as well, fine-grained soils are less likely to show crop marks that sometime reveal the location of buried features that might be detected using aerial photography or air- and satellite-borne multispectral sensors Fine-grained soils are generally not appropriate for ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey because the signal cannot penetrate very far Likewise, saturated soils, particularly soils saturated with salt water, will attenuate the signal and yield poor GPR results If there is a good deal of natural variation in soil texture—a complex series of filled channels or gravel cross bedded with silt or erosional remnants and bedrock outcrops, for example—the variation in the background may mask the differences between the cultural features and the background, particularly if the instrument that is used is sensitive to some aspect of the natural variation at the site It is often possible to filter out the background noise, highlighting the cultural features For example, resistance data that we collected at the Presidio de Santa Rosa in the sand dunes near Pensacola, Florida, show differences in elevation very nicely because of differences in soil moisture Bryan Haley applied a high pass filter to enhance the edges of potential cultural features and a logarithmic compression to minimize broad trends in the data As a result, several linear features that may relate to the Spanish colonial occupation of the site were brought out (Figure 13.2) A Comparative Guide to Applications ~ 309 A Horizon Gaffney and Gater (2003:141) end their discussion of prehistoric case studies with the conclusion that “magnetometry is the preferred technique for identifying near surface cut, or negative, features that are commonly found on prehistoric sites.” In this they are referring to the fact that the natural processes of soil formation result in a higher magnetic susceptibility in the uppermost soil horizon When this is combined with the remanent magnetism created by several decades of campfires, the humus layer in a relatively undisturbed location shows a magnetic signature that is higher than that of the soils below it When a ditch is dug through this layer and refilled with a mixture of A and lower horizon soils, it will have a diluted magnetic response and show as a negative feature We have seen this effect on Figure 13.2 A portion of the resistance imagery from the Presinineteenth-century cemeter- dio de Santa Rosa showing the utility of a filter ies in northern Mississippi, where graves show up as oblong areas of low return in the gradiometer image (Figure 13.3) Therefore, on sites where the A horizon has not been eroded or plowed to oblivion, measurements of total field magnetism (gradiometer) or the magnetic susceptibility portion of the EM38 signal (EM measurements using the in-phase configuration) are likely to be informative This same feature, the magnetic enhancement of the A horizon in terms of susceptibility, has been used by Dalan (2001; Dalan and Banerjee 1998; Dalan and Bevan 2002) to effectively map buried land surfaces and, sometimes, mound construction stages 310 ~ Jay K Johnson Figure 13.3 Magnetic gradient image of the Confederate cemetery on campus at the University of Mississippi Ground Cover It is often said that the ideal setting for a geophysical survey would be a golf course or a park However, it would need to be a golf course without a sprinkler system and a park without picnic tables or light poles For gradiometer and EM surveys, metal artifacts that are not related to the cultural component being investigated can overwhelm the signals of interest For example, the gradiometer and conductivity results from a recent survey of Old Mobile were rendered ambivalent on a portion of the site that had been bush hogged before the metal pin flags had been pulled (Clay 2002) On this site, resistivity or GPR is more likely to produce useful results On the other hand, the scatter of metal debris is likely to allow a general definition of structure location and disposal patterns on historic sites Incidently, allow me to take this occasion to point out the havoc that metal pin flags bring about for geophysical survey As convenient as they are, if the site is likely to be explored using remote sensing techniques that are sensitive to metal, these flags should be scrupulously avoided So, if the metal debris and structures likely in public areas like parks pose difficulties, perhaps agricultural fields would be better locations in which to conduct geophysical surveys This is generally true, but surface conditions are always a consideration If the field has just been turned, instruments that require a consistent orientation (gradiometers) or a consistent distance from the surface (gradiometers and conductivity A Comparative Guide to Applications ~ 311 meters) are likely to show the plow scars because of regular deviation in the way this instrument is carried during the survey as a result of the rows and furrows Although regular noise such as this can be removed using filters, subtle cultural features might also be lost Of course, steep or rocky terrain will have a similar effect, slowing the survey or, in extreme cases, making it impossible It is likewise possible to work around trees and bushes but, at best, such obstacles will slow the progress of the work This is particularly true for resistivity surveys during which the cable to the remote probes will wrap around trees, making it necessary to backtrack often Because trees and bushes have a local effect on the distribution of ground water, they can also impact resistivity and conductivity measurements Dummy variables have to be inserted for locations where large trees or hedgerows make it impossible to take a reading, and this takes time Tree roots on the surface of the ground can make it difficult to keep the GPR antenna in contact with the surface and the signal will be lost Roots below the surface will create echoes in the GPR imagery that may mask the return from cultural features in those locations Ground cover is particularly critical when airborne and satellite sensors are used In our experiments with a blimp-mounted thermal infrared sensor (Haley et al 2002), for example, bare earth produced the best results If the features of interest are foundation trenches, ditches, or buried foundation stones that have a local effect on soil moisture, they might be expressed in differences in the way vegetation grows over the top of them Likewise, we are beginning to recover evidence that the local enhancement of the A horizon resulting from the organic debris associated with human occupation can be detected in terms of subtle differences in susceptibility readings This might also be detected in terms of crop vigor using airborne sensors However, an earlier attempt to just that proved to be unsuccessful (Johnson 1991) All of these differences are more likely to be detected if the site is covered in the same vegetation Otherwise, differences in the way the different plants appear in the sensor image are likely to be stronger than differences caused by buried cultural features Sometimes, however, differences in vegetation mark the location of local changes in soil characteristics that have resulted from human occupation, the shell mound–specific vegetation of the Louisiana marshes, for example, and such sites can be detected using airborne sensors (Giardino and Haley, this volume) Kinds of Targets Keeping in mind the general caveat that the feature must contrast with the soil matrix in order to be detectable, the nature of the cultural deposit that is anticipated at the site will dictate the class of instrument that is likely to be informative For this reason, the first choice on many prehistoric and historic sites in the South is often the gradiometer Because of a general lack of igneous rocks in much of the area, natural deposits are generally quiet in terms of disturbances in the magnetic field Therefore, burning, a regular event at human settlements, is likely to be detected This is particularly so when 312 ~ Jay K Johnson the burning involves materials that contain a fair amount of iron, as most clays, for example Floors, hearths, and the daub rubble from late prehistoric burned houses are a fine example of this phenomenon Brick foundations and brick burial crypts are likewise easy to find using a gradiometer Ferrous metals also affect the magnetic field and can be detected using a gradiometer This can sometimes be quite informative; for example, Kvamme (2003a, 2003b) was able to distinguish between contact period Plains pithouses that have a lot of iron debris and those that not, thereby being able to begin to ask questions about the relative interaction with the nearby trading post without having to excavate Of course, if you are looking for a large iron object, say the boiler from a steamboat, a magnetometer would be the instrument of choice Features that are marked by the relative absence or presence of humus deposits can also be detected using a gradiometer Pits or ditches filled with trash or topsoil can give a subtly higher reading using a magnetometer A grave shaft in which a relatively intact A horizon deposit is diluted by mixing with the subsoil from deeper in the pit can sometimes be detected as a magnetic low These same features can also be detected by measuring magnetic susceptibility Pits or ditches in which a contrasting fill retains soil moisture can be detected using a resistivity or conductivity meter Although the two instruments measure soil characteristics that are theoretically reciprocal, they it in very different ways, often producing images with subtle differences Moreover, on a site with a substantial amount of metal debris, soil moisture differences in the EM conductivity meter readings are likely to be hidden by the signals from the metal Resistivity readings are not affected by metal More than any other geophysical instrument, GPR relies entirely on the nature of the contrast between features and background The EM signal that is generated by the antenna is reflected by a change in the way in which the soil conducts that energy The strength of the return is determined by the magnitude of the change and the nature of the boundary It is easy to imagine the boundary between the top of a buried stone wall and the overlying soil creating a reflection It is somewhat counterintuitive to realize that the boundary between the bottom of the wall and the soil will also be reflected Any change in the speed at which the signal passes through the soil, so long as it is substantial and relatively abrupt, will create an echo Therefore, under ideal conditions it is sometimes possible to derive a three-dimensional image of a feature, top, bottom, and sides Historic sites with walls, floors, pipes, and other features often produce the kinds of abrupt boundaries that are easy to detect using GPR Prehistoric sites are more difficult Nevertheless, GPR imagery is often useful on prehistoric sites, particularly those with structural remains Overriding all considerations of contrast are the questions of size and depth Of course, if the features at a site are large and shallow, they will be easier to detect than otherwise Under normal conditions and using standard configurations, the effective depth for gradiometry, conductivity, and resistance readings is around 1–2 m Given the right soils, GPR can record features at a substantially greater depth However, for A Comparative Guide to Applications ~ 313 deeper searches, a lower frequency antenna must be used and there is a consequent increase in the lower limit of detectable feature size Depth can also be controlled with EM conductivity readings by using an instrument with greater coil separation Likewise, probe spacing controls the depth of reading for resistivity Multiple Instrument Applications As Hesse (1999) points out, the decision of which and how many instruments to use is a strategic one As indicated in the preceding discussion, sometimes you have no choice; because of the nature of the location and the kinds of archaeological remains that you anticipate, only one instrument will work This is generally not the case But given the limitations of time and money that characterize all archaeological fieldwork, particularly in a CRM environment, there is a trade-off between the number of instruments you use and the extent of the survey This is not an easy choice When doing geophysical survey as part of a data-recovery project on highway projects, we regularly ask permission to extend the survey on either side of the right-ofway This is because the recognition of patterns within the area to be excavated often depends on a broader view of the site Gaffney and Gater (2003:91–92) provide a dramatic example of this problem in which a “Roman road” became a portion of an abandoned soccer field when the survey was expanded Although we are unlikely to find either on North American sites, palisades, footpaths, large structures, and many other large linear features are much easier to recognize when seen in broad view It is often useful to include a portion of the area surrounding the site in the imagery in order to be able to detect the contrast between where the occupation is and where it is not So, covering a large area with one or two instruments can be a useful strategy On the other hand, the recognition of cultural features, particularly on Woodland and Archaic sites, often depends on examining the differences between the ways the features are recorded using multiple techniques And, of course, the multivariate techniques that are showing promise in the search for features on camp sites and small villages are based on the use of multiple instruments However, the application of multivariate analyses involves more time to produce results than is usually allocated in the field The ideal situation would be to cover all of the site with all of the instruments Few of us have the time and money to operate in the ideal world Therefore, a staged approach is useful An initial review of the site’s characteristics, primarily the anticipated soil and feature types, will suggest the instruments that are likely to produce results If you know enough about the site to be able to identify areas where features are likely to be found, trial applications should be run on those locations and the imagery evaluated in the field if possible If the results match the expectations, the survey can then be expanded to include as much of the site as the budget allows, concentrating, of course, on the instruments that produced the best test results If possible, the results from this broad-scale survey should be used to target areas of interest that can then be covered with other instruments or the same instrument using close-interval sampling 314 ~ Jay K Johnson Toward an Integrated Application Ultimately, remote sensing should play a role in all phases of CRM archaeology, from survey to evaluation to mitigation As the preceding chapters have demonstrated, remote sensing, particularly geophysical techniques, can contribute a great deal in terms of site assessment and excavation The question is, how much use is it in site discovery? Aerial photography and geophysical prospection are routinely used in public archaeology in Great Britain (Clark 1996; Gaffney and Gater 2003) However, as has already been pointed out, the archaeological record in that country is full of site types that respond particularly well to these techniques Many contain well-defined foundations, ditches, and roads that are revealed by obvious geometric patterns in the aerial photographs and geophysical images Brick and pottery kilns are regular features of many settlements and, along with associated metal debris, they create a signal strong enough so that highway rights-of-way can be walked using a gradiometer with the goal of identifying “noisy” areas for more intensive survey A similar use of the instrument in North America might help identify historic sites but would be more likely to pinpoint tractor parts and abandoned culverts It seems to me that there is likely to be a role for remote sensing in Phase I surveys in North America, but this will rely on airborne digital multispectral sensors and require a considerable refinement in our techniques My own efforts in this direction over the past 15 years provide a personal perspective on the difficulties and potential rewards The first application relied on Landsat TM imagery in an attempt to refine site discovery and settlement pattern analysis as part of a large Phase I survey in north Mississippi There were a number of difficulties to overcome, not the least of which was the mastery of what, by today’s standards, was difficult and cumbersome software The largest problem was image resolution Landsat TM images consisted of seven bands of data spread across the visible, near infrared, and thermal infrared spectrum All but the thermal band had a 30-m resolution Thermal infrared, because of its potential value in military applications, was degraded to a resolution of 80 m At the time, we wished for better thermal resolution but, as it turns out, 30-m pixels are just too large to allow the detection of site-specific signatures We were able to detect broad-scale environmental patterns that allowed the designation of high-probability areas (Johnson et al 1988) In particular, on bare earth agricultural fields in the stream bottoms, we were able to map the terraces on the basis of the distribution of fragipan soils, which had a distinct signature in the satellite imagery This designation was based on spectral characteristics, not spatial patterning, and was only possible when ground cover was absent These are two important points The next project involving remote sensing focused on protohistoric settlement in the Black Prairie of northeastern Mississippi (Johnson 1991) In order to overcome the problem of resolution, we switched to an airborne sensor TIMS (Thermal Infrared Multispectral Sensor), a 6-band sensor with emphasis on the thermal infrared spectrum, was used to fly two transects across the survey area Because the sensor is closer to the earth, A Comparative Guide to Applications ~ 315 images with much higher resolution were recorded; pixel size was m In contrast with the general pattern for most of the survey area covered in the previous project, protohistoric settlement in the Prairie is confined to the upland There were, therefore, large areas of pasture Sites that were located in the terrestrial survey that was part of the project could be used to search for spectral differences in the ground Two problems may have contributed to the failure of this experiment: the narrow range in the spectral coverage of the sensor and the relative variability in the ground cover Different grasses with different levels of maintenance made up the pasture sample in the study area Airborne remote sensing was a major component of our initial work at the Hollywood Mounds and represented our first attempt to apply remote sensing techniques on large Mississippian period sites in the Yazoo Basin of northeastern Mississippi The advantage this time was that the site is owned by the Mississippi Department of Archives and History and we could control the ground-cover conditions We chose bare earth and had the site thoroughly disced before it was surveyed using an ATLAS airborne sensor Resolution was 2.5 m across 14 bands, including visible, near infrared, mid-infrared, and thermal infrared bands In order to explore variation in the thermal bands, the site was surveyed at predawn, solar noon, and mid-afternoon Although, in retrospect (Haley 2002), there is patterning in the data that can be related to the buried prehistoric structures at the site, it is subtle and we were unable to detect it using unsupervised analytical techniques (Johnson et al 2000) Hollywood was the focus of another airborne sensor experiment in which we returned to an emphasis on thermal infrared This time, however, we had a number of additional advantages We owned the sensor, an Agema handheld broad-band thermal sensor, and we mounted it on a tethered blimp This arrangement allowed us to record images whenever we wanted; the only expenses were time, travel costs, and helium The other main advantage was that Berle Clay had already done EM conductivity and gradiometer surveys of most of the site His images did two things They convinced us that geophysical prospection was a direction that we wanted to take, and they pinpointed the buried structures, allowing us to test and confirm several in the field to the west and south of the big mound We were therefore able to image specific structures in the thermal infrared tests The features remained invisible for the first three sessions Then it rained and one class of structures, the buried house locations, became evident The second major structure class at Hollywood, the truncated mounds, have not yet been detected using the thermal sensor (Haley et al 2002) Two additional sensors were used to image Hollywood from the air, an ADAR multiband sensor and a sensor built and operated by Air-O-Space Once again, the resolution was sufficient, 0.7 m and 0.2 m, respectively In these two instances, the site was surveyed after it had grown up in grasses I didn’t have much hope for these experiments because of the variation in the kinds of grasses that volunteered at the site However, Bryan Haley took it on as a thesis topic and was able to detect the arches and ovals that mark the locations of the truncated mounds (Haley 2002) The identification, however, was primarily visual and often difficult 316 ~ Jay K Johnson Haley and I revisited the airborne imagery from Hollywood recently (Johnson and Haley 2004, summarized in Chapter 11 of this volume) The major goal was to derive a spectral signature for the two structure classes using multivariate statistics We were largely successful The implications for site discovery are encouraging As envisioned, the application would go something like this Geophysical survey would be conducted on known sites in the survey area in order to locate features of interest The survey area would then be surveyed using an airborne digital sensor with as many bands as possible The feature locations from the known sites would serve as training fields for the multivariate analysis of the airborne imagery The resultant spectral classes definitions would be reapplied to the sites in order to check the accuracy of the classification The classification could then be applied to other portions of the survey area that had similar ground cover In this way, high-probability areas could be designated If I have made this sound easy, that was not my intent I only mean to indicate that it is possible Incidently, a recent attempt to apply similar statistics to a large Bronze Age site in Turkey as part of a thesis project was not successful (Aydin 2004) There were, however, some limitations imposed by the nature of the imagery that was used The goal of this volume and this chapter is to provide information that will help CRM administrators make decisions about remote sensing applications Toward that end, I would like to conclude that the use of remote sensing in site discovery, whether it is airborne or geophysical, is still in the developmental stages There are, however, obvious implications for the future and we must continue to develop the techniques because the payoff will be substantial Geophysical applications in site evaluation and excavation, on the other hand, are not something we have to look forward to; they are established, proven, and available That is not to say that significant advances in these techniques are all in the past We will continue to see improvements in instrumentation, computation, and field techniques However, the area that holds the greatest potential for advancement in the geophysical exploration of cultural remains is multiple instrument integration Once again, in order to be able to apply these techniques to as broad a range of sites as possible, we will need to make the fundamental shift in perspective, from the identification of features based on spatial patterning to the identification of features based on spectral patterning This next step in the development of geophysical applications on archaeological sites will take more than sophisticated data-analysis techniques It will take the kind of staged iteration that is described by Mike Hargrave in Chapter 12, with the remote sensing results guiding the excavation results and the excavation results being used to refine the remote sensing The major contribution that CRM administrators can make to the future of remote sensing is to require this to take place Much of the remote sensing that is undertaken in a CRM context today is done as a subcontract After the images are delivered, the archaeologist who did the geophysical survey moves on to another project There must be feedback between the excavator and the remote sensing specialist The result will be a better understanding of the site as well as of the technology A Comparative Guide to Applications ~ 317 Regardless of how you assess the potential of remote sensing in terms of site discovery and of whether you feel that multivariate techniques will prove as useful as I think they will, in light of the images and discussions presented in the previous chapters of this book, it would be hard to deny the important contribution that remote sensing will make to the archaeology of the next decade Because the potential payoff in terms of site boundary definition, feature detection, site structure, research design, and, in particular, the bottom line is likely to be substantial, the same factors that have made geophysical survey an essential part of contract archaeology in Great Britain will ensure a similar role for it in North American CRM We are on the threshold of a new era in remote sensing applications in archaeology It will change the way we dig in a fundamental way References Cited Aydin, N 2004 Multi-Sensor Data Fusion Applications in Archaeology, Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi Clark, A J 1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, new ed B T Batsford, London Clay, R B 2002 Geophysical Survey of a Portion of Vieux Mobile, Alabama Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., Lexington, Kentucky Report prepared for Dr Gregory Waselkov, University of South Alabama, Contract Publication Series 01-198 Dalan, R A 2001 A Magnetic Susceptibility Logger for Archaeological Application Geoarchaeology 16:263–273 Dalan, R A., and S K Banerjee 1998 Solving Archaeological Problems Using Techniques of Soil Magnetism Geoarchaeology 13:3–36 Dalan, R A., and B Bevan 2002 Geophysical Indicators of Culturally Emplaced Soils and Sediments Geoarchaeology 17:779–810 David, A 1995 Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation Ancient Monuments Laboratory, English Heritage Society, London 318 ~ Jay K Johnson Gaffney, C., and J Gater 2003 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists Tempus, Gloucestershire, Great Britain Haley, B S 2002 Airborne Remote Sensing, Image Processing, and Multisensor Data Fusion at the Hollywood Site, a Large Late Mississippian Mound Center Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, Oxford Haley, B S., J K Johnson, and R Stallings 2002 The Utility of Low Cost Thermal Sensors in Archaeological Research Center for Archaeological Research, University of Mississippi, Oxford Report prepared for the Office of Naval Research, NASA grant NAG5-7671 Hesse, A 1999 Multi-Parametric Survey for Archaeology: How and Why, or How and Why Not? Journal of Applied Geophysics 41:157–168 Johnson, J K 1991 Settlement Patterns, GIS, Remote Sensing, and the Late Prehistory of the Black Prairie in East Central Mississippi In Applications of Space-Age Technology in Anthropology, edited by C A Behrens and T L Sever, pp 111–119 NASA, John C Stennis Space Center, Mississippi Johnson, J K., and B S Haley 2004 Multiple Sensor Applications in Archaeological Geophysics In Sensors, Systems, and Next-Generation Satellites VII, edited by R Meynart, S P Neeck, H Simoda, J B Lurie, and M L Aten, pp 688–697 Proceedings of SPIE, vol 5234 SPIE, Bellingham, Washington Johnson, J K., T L Sever, S L H Madry, and H T Hoff 1988 Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis in Large Scale Survey Design in North Mississippi Southeastern Archaeology 7:24–131 Johnson, J K., R Stallings, N Ross-Stallings, R B Clay, and V S Jones 2000 Remote Sensing and Ground Truth at the Hollywood Mounds Site in Tunica County, Mississippi Center for Archaeological Research, University of Mississippi, Oxford Submitted to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History A Comparative Guide to Applications ~ 319 Kintigh, K W 1988 The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach American Antiquity 53:686–707 Krakker, J J., M J Shott, and P D Welch 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey Journal of Field Archaeology 10:469–480 Kvamme, K L 2001 Current Practices in Archaeogeophysics: Magnetics, Resistivity, Conductivity, and Ground-Penetrating Radar In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, edited by P Goldberg, V Holliday, and R Ferring, pp 353–384 Kluwer/Plenum, New York 2003a Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology American Antiquity 68(3):435– 458 2003b Multidimensional Prospecting in North American Great Plains Village Sites Archaeological Prospection 10:131–142 Shott, M J 1985 Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique: A Case Study from Michigan Journal of Field Archaeology 12:458–469 1989 Shovel Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot American Antiquity 54:396–404 Somers, L E., and M L Hargrave 2003 Geophysical Surveys in Archaeology: Guidance for Surveyors and Sponsors Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Champaign, Illinois Contributors R Berle Clay is a Senior Project Archaeologist at Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., having served as State Archaeologist and Director of the Office of State Archaeology at the University of Kentucky from 1976 to 1997 He received his Ph.D in anthropology from Southern Illinois University Carbondale Research specialties include ceramic analysis, quantitative methods, and geophysical survey Lawrence B Conyers is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Denver who specializes in geological and geophysical archaeological methods He received his Ph.D from the University of Colorado at Boulder, where he made major advances in the use of ground-penetrating radar methods for the discovery and mapping of buried archaeological sites Rinita A Dalan is an Associate Professor of Anthropology and Earth Science at Minnesota State University Moorhead She received her Ph.D in ancient studies from the University of Minnesota Her research interests focus on the exploration of geophysical and soil magnetic methods as they apply to landscape research and studies of humanenvironment interactions Marco Giardino is a scientist in the Earth Science Applications Directorate, NASA, Stennis Space Center He has a Ph.D in anthropology from Tulane University Most of his fieldwork has taken place in the Southeast and his research interests include ground-penetrating radar, ceramic analysis, and digital airborne imagery applications Thomas J Green is the Director of the Arkansas Archeological Survey A unit of the University of Arkansas System, the Survey is a statewide research, public service, and educational institution with 10 research stations in Arkansas Green received a Bachelor’s degree in anthropology from the University of Southern California in 1968 and a Ph.D in anthropology from Indiana University in 1977 322 ~ Contributors Bryan S Haley received his Master’s in anthropology from the University of Mississippi and is a research associate there He is interested in Southeastern archaeology in general and remote sensing in particular Michael L Hargrave is a principal investigator at the Engineer Research and Development Center/Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, where he works extensively with remote sensing applications in archaeology He has a Ph.D in anthropology from Southern Illinois University Carbondale Jay K Johnson is a Professor of Anthropology and the Director of the Center for Archaeological Research at the University of Mississippi He received his Ph.D from Southern Illinois University Carbondale Research interests include remote sensing, GIS, lithic analysis, and ethnohistory Kenneth L Kvamme received his Ph.D in anthropology at the University of California at Santa Barbara He is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Arkansas and the Director of the Archeo-Imaging Lab Recent fieldwork has focused on the Middle Missouri River villagers of the Dakotas He has published extensively on GIS, remote sensing, geophysical prospecting, quantitative methods, human spatial behavior, and lithic technology J J Lockhart is Coordinator of the Computer Services Program for the Arkansas Archeological Survey He holds a Master’s in geography and is a Ph.D candidate in environmental dynamics at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville His research interests include integrated data management applications, geographic information systems, remote sensing, and cultural landscape analysis Lewis Somers is the owner of Geoscan Research (USA) and a joint owner of ArchaeoPhysics LLC A Ph.D in physics and a great deal of experience in the archaeology of two continents have contributed to his success in the development of software and hardware specifically tailored for archaeological applications ... paper) Archaeology Remote sensing Archaeology North America Remote sensing Indians of North America Antiquities Remote sensing Excavations (Archaeology) North America North America Antiquities Remote. . .Remote Sensing in Archaeology Remote Sensing in Archaeology An Explicitly North American Perspective Edited by Jay K Johnson The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa Published... Analysis of Remote Sensing Application in Cultural Resource Management Archaeology Jay K Johnson and Bryan S Haley Airborne Remote Sensing and Geospatial Analysis Marco Giardino and Bryan S Haley Conductivity