Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Magnetometer prospecting in historical archaeology: Evaluating survey options at a 19th-century rancho site in California

  • Article
  • Published:
Historical Archaeology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To complement the growing literature on magnetic prospection in historical archaeology, the practical aspects of magnetometer selection and survey design need to be explored. Based on a test case from the Petaluma Adobe State Historic Park in northern California, two readily-available magnetometers are compared with respect to instrument type (alkali-vapor versus proton precession), sensor configuration and number (total field versus vertical gradient), sensor height, intensity of data collection, and basestation correction procedures. These variables are then considered in light of survey speed, labor input, and monetary cost. Results indicate that the alkali-vapor gradiometer is better suited for historical archaeological research based on survey speed and efficiency, volume of data collected, temporal and spatial intensity of station readings, and sensor sensitivity. In addition, the data reconfirm the importance of sensor height, gradiometer configuration, and basestation correction in obtaining high-quality magnetic data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbott, James T., and Charles D. Frederick 1990 Proton Magnetometer Investigations of Burned Rock Middens in West-Central Texas: Clues to Formation Processes. Journal of Archaeological Science 17(5):535–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, Martin J. 1958 Magnetic Prospecting. Archaeometry 1:24–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1959a Magnetic Prospecting: II. Archaeometry 2:32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1959b Magnetic Prospection—An Interim Assessment. Antiquity 33(131):205–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1974 Physics and Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, Martin J., and Michael S. Tite 1962 Proton Magnetometer Surveying on Some British Hill-Forts. Archaeometry 5:126–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aitken, Martin J, Graham Webster, and A. Rees 1958 Magnetic Prospecting. Antiquity 32(128):270–271.

  • Alldred, John C. 1964 A Fluxgate Gradiometer for Archaeological Surveying. Archaeometry 7:14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, Jeanne E., Elizabeth L. Ambos, and Daniel O. Larson 1997 Geophysical Surveys of Stratigraphically Complex Island California Sites: New Implications for Household Archaeology. Antiquity 71(271): 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, Helmut 1983 Magnetometer Survey [Rural Economy in the Early Iron Age]. Bulletin of the American School of Prehistoric Research 36:79–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, Bruce 1991 Technical Report: “Selecting a Magnetometer.” Society for Archaeological Sciences Bulletin 14(4):2–5.

  • Black, G. A., and R. B. Johnston 1962 A Test of Magnetometry as an Aid to Archaeology. American Antiquity 28(2): 199–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blundell, D. J., A. W. Garside, and T. J. Wilton 1974 Geophysical Surveys Across the Centre of the Roman Fort at Watercrook, Kendal. Prospezioni Archeologiche 9:35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiner, Sheldon 1965 The Rubidium Magnetometer in Archaeological Exploration. Science 150:185–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Geometrics, Sunnyvale, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breiner, Sheldon, and Michael D. Coe 1972 Magnetic Exploration of the Olmec Civilization. American Scientist 60(5):566–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, James, and Steven J. Schwartz 1991 A Little Slice of Heaven: Investigations at Rincon Cemetery, Prado Basin, California. Historical Archaeology 25(3):78–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, Anthony 1975 Archaeological Prospecting: A Progress Report. Journal of Archaeological Science 2(4):297–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1996 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology, 2nd edition. B. T. Batsford, London, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemmer, John S. 1961 The Corrals at Vallejo’s Petaluma Adobe State Historical Monument. Report, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

  • Crawford, Karen L., and Daniel O. Larson 1998 From Navan Fort to Monticello: New Applications of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeology. Poster presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle, WA.

  • Davis, William Heath 1929 Seventy-Five Years in California 1831–1906. John Howell, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth, Paul 1980 Geophysical Surveys at Charity Beck, Ellerton: An Example of Geophysics in Archaeology. B.Sc. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Leeds University, Leeds, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1982 Geophysical Surveys at Drax Hall, Jamaica. MA. thesis, Archaeology Program, University of California, Los Angeles.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farnsworth, Paul, and Gregory E. Mueller 1992a Magnetometer Surveys at Locality A of the Port Hudson Civil War Battlefield. In 1991 Archaeological Investigations at the Port Hudson State Commemorative Area (16EF7) Steadman House and Burial Area 2, Mary Manhein and Ann M. Whitmer, editors, pp. 67–95. Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

  • 1992b Magnetometer Surveys at Oakley Plantation. In National Register Testing at Oakley Plantation (16WF34), West Feliciana Parish, Louisiana, 1991, Laurie Wilkie and Paul Farnsworth, editors, pp. 66–95. Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.

  • Frederick, Charles D., and James T. Abbott 1992 Magnetic Prospection of Prehistoric Sites in an Alluvial Environment: Examples from NW and West-Central Texas. Journal of Field Archaeology 19(2):139–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, Ervan G., James G. Baker, and David Hurst Thomas 1985 Magnetic Prospection and the Discovery of Mission Santa Catalina de Guale. Journal of Field Archaeology 12(3):299–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt, Charles L. 1962 Historic Archaeology at Vallejo’s Petaluma Adobe State Historical Monument. Report, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, Terrance H. 1986 Magnetic Prospection on Prehistoric Sites in Western Canada. Geophysics 51(3):553–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, Roberta S. 1989 The California Ranchero: Fact and Fancy. In Columbian Consequences, Volume 1, David Hurst Thomas, editor, pp. 451–280. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, Edward T. 1962 Some Notes on the Design and Manufacture of Detector Heads for Proton Magnetometers. Archaeometry 5:139–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herwanger, JÖrg 1996 Acquisition, Processing and Inversion of Magnetic Data in Archaeological Prospection. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut für Geophysick, Technische Universität Clausthal.

  • Hoopes, Chad L. 1965 The Petaluma Adobe. Manuscript, Resource Preservation and Interpretation Division Library, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson, Daniel O., and Elizabeth L. Ambos 1997 New Developments in Geophysical Prospecting and Archaeological Research: An Example from the Navan Complex, County Armagh, Northern Ireland. Bulletin of the Society for American Archaeology 15(1):10–14,30,39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerici, Carlo M. 1961 Archaeological Surveys with the Proton Magnetometer in Italy. Archaeometry 4:76–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linington, Richard E. 1963 The Application of Geophysics to Archaeology. American Scientist 51(1):48–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, William A., James E. Bruseth, and Robert J. Huggins 1991 Assessing Feature Function and Spatial Patterning of Artifacts with Geophysical Remote-Sensing Data. American Antiquity 56(4):701–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKittrick, Myrtle M. 1944 Vallejo: Son of California. Binfords & Mort, Portland, OR.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Farrell, Jaspar 1848 Map of the Land of Petaluma, Confirmed 1871. Petaluma Historical Society Museum, Petaluma, CA.

  • Parrington, Michael 1979 Geophysical and Aerial Prospecting Techniques at Valley Forge National Historic Park, Pennsylvania. Journal of Field Archaeology 6(2): 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ralph, Elizabeth K. 1964 Comparison of a Proton and a Rubidium Magnetometer for Archaeological Prospecting. Archaeometry 7:20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenus, Alan 1995 General M. G. Vallejo and the Advent of the Americans: A Biography. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scollar, Irwin 1961 Magnetic Prospecting in the Rhineland. Archaeometry 4:74–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1969 Some Techniques for the Evaluation of Archaeological Magnetometer Surveys. World Archaeology l(l):77–89.

  • Scollar, Irwin, Alain Tabbagh, Albert Hesse, AND Irmela Herzog 1990 Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. University Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scollar, Irwin, Bernd Weidner, and Karel Segeth 1986 Display of Archaeological Magnetic Data. Geophysics 51(3):623–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silliman, Stephen W. 1997 Lost Laborers and Unremarked Ranches: The Archaeology of Indigenous Responses to Mexican Colonization. Paper presented at 62nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Nashville, TN.

  • 1998 An Investigation of Native California Indian Labor at the Mexican Rancho. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 11:37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • 1999 A Plurality of People, A Plurality of Data: Investigating the 19th Century Mexican-Californian Rancho. Paper presented at The Society for Historical Archaeology Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Salt Lake City, UT.

  • Smekalova, Tatyana N., and Bruce Bevan 1994 A Comparison of Magnetic Gradiometers. Prepared for Steven L. De Vore, Division of Partnerships and Outreach National Park Service, Denver, CO.

  • Sternberg, Robert S. 1987 Archaeomagnetism and Magnetic Anomalies in the American Southwest. Geophysics 52(2):368–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabbagh, Alain 1984 On the Comparison Between Magnetic and Electromagnetic Prospection Methods for Magnetic Features Detection. Archaeometry 26(2): 171–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabbagh, Alain, Gilles Bossuet, and Helmut Becker 1988 A Comparison Between Magnetic and Electromagnetic Prospection of a Neolithic Ring Ditch in Bavaria. Archaeometry 30(1): 132–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tite, Michael S. 1961 Alternative Instruments for Magnetic Surveying: Comparative Tests at the Iron Age Hill Fort at Rainsborough. Archaeometry 4:85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 1966 Magnetic Prospecting Near the Geomagnetic Equator. Archaeometry 9:24–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tite, Michael S., and Christopher Mullins 1971 Enhancement of the Magnetic Susceptibility of Soils on Archaeological Sites. Archaeometry 13(2):209–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treganza, Adan E. 1958 Archaeological Investigation of the Vallejo Adobe, Petaluma Adobe State Park Historical Monument. Report, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

  • Vallejo, Mariano Guadalupe 1941 The Old Adobe: A Letter from General M. G. Vallejo. Duncan H. Olmsted, San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Frese, Ralph R. B. 1984 Archaeomagnetic Anomalies at Midcontinental North American Archaeological Sites. Historical Archaeology 18(2):4–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Frese, Ralph R. B., and Vergil E. Noble 1984 Magnetometry for Archaeological Exploration of Historical Sites. Historical Archaeology 18(2):38–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Weymouth, John W. 1986 Geophysical Methods of Archeological Site Surveying. In Advances in Archeological Method and Theory, Volume 9, Michael Schiffer, editor, pp. 311–395. Academic Press, New York, NY.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weymouth, John W., and William I. Woods 1984 Combined Magnetic and Chemical Surveys of Forts Kaskaskia and de Chartres I, Illinois. Historical Archaeology 18(2):20–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, Berkeley, CA, USA, 94720-3710

    Stephen H. Silliman

  2. Department of Geography and Anthropology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA, 70803-4105

    Paul Farnsworth

  3. Archaeological Research Facility, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, Berkeley, CA, USA, 94720-3710

    Kent G. Lightfoot

Authors
  1. Stephen H. Silliman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul Farnsworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kent G. Lightfoot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Silliman, S.H., Farnsworth, P. & Lightfoot, K.G. Magnetometer prospecting in historical archaeology: Evaluating survey options at a 19th-century rancho site in California. Hist Arch 34, 89–109 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374315

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03374315

Search

Navigation