Difference between revisions of "Category:Geophysics"

Geophysics in NZ Archaeology

Introduction

Remote sensing techniques derived from geophysics have a venerable history in archaeological practice internationally and although they have been used intermittently in New Zealand, improvements in technology and the growth of consulting archaeology have meant such studies are increasingly frequent. Commercial geophysicists specialising mainly in engineering applications are now relatively common throughout the country but the number of practitioners working on archaeological situations remains limited. The geophysicists, either from academic institutions or consultancies, have been hired on an ad-hoc basis to deal with specific situations, often in the search for burials (e.g., Bateman 2003, Nobes 1999, Geometria 2002, Sheppard 2003). Archaeologists themselves in New Zealand have dabbled with remote sensing techniques for some years to both prehistoric and historic sites with varying degrees of success. These studies have derived for the most part from academic research objectives but increasingly there has been a desire to use geophysical techniques in heritage management. In this paper, we explore some of the issues that have arisen from using these techniques as heritage management tools. Archaeo-geophysical prospection utilises passive (e.g. magnetic) or active techniques (e.g. resistivity, conductivity, ground penetrating radar, and seismic reflection) to measure variation in the physical properties of subsurface soils (Scollar 1990 and Weymouth 1986). It is the recorded variation or contrast in these properties that alert the archaeologist to the potential that anomalies may be anthropogenic in origin.

Projects that have used Geophysics in New Zealand

Miners Bay, Kawau Island, Auckland Sheppard, P. 2003. Report On Geophysical Survey On Boyd’s Hill, Kawau Island. Unpublished report for Department of Conservation, Auckland. Held on file HHA-02-02-02-05.

Albert Barracks, Auckland Geometria Ltd. 2004. Princes Street Merchant Houses – Geophysical Investigation. Prepared for City Design.

Long Bay, Auckland Phillips, C. and H. Bader. 2007. Archaeological Assessment of Long Bay Structure Plan Area at Te Oneroa O Kahu (Long Bay). Report prepared for Landco Okura Ltd.

Other

• Geometria. 2001. Wastewater Separation Contract: MD 101-64 Princes Street Bowen Avenue Bowen Lane Auckland Archaeological Assessment. Unpublished report prepared for City Design Ltd Auckland.
• Geometria. 2004. Archaeological Geophysical Survey, Tuihana Residential Development, Papamoa. Unpublished report prepared for Waimea Consultancy Ltd. Held at New Zealand Historic Places Trust Library.
• Geometria. 2004b. Wastewater Separation Bowen Lane Archaeological Monitoring. Unpublished report prepared for Metro Water.

• Bassett, K.N., H. W. Gordon, D.C.Nobes, and C. Jacomb. 2004. Gardening at the Edge: Documenting the Limits of Tropical Polynesian Kumara Horticulture in Southern New Zealand. Geoarchaeology, Vol. 19(3) 185–218.
• Irwin, G.J., Ladefoged, T.N., Wallace, R.T., Jones, M.D., Ross, S.C., and S.D. Clout. 1997. Experimental geophysical survey on Motutapu Island 1994.96. Archaeology in New Zealand 40:266.277.
• Ladefoged, T.N., S.M. McLachlan, S.C.L. Ross, P.J. Sheppard and D.G. Sutton. 1995. GIS-Based Image Enhancement of Conductivity and Magnetic Susceptibility Data From Ureturituri Pa and Fort Resolution, New Zealand. American Antiquity 60(3)471-481.

Burial Sites

• Bateman, L., 2003. Applications of near-surface geophysics in the search for graves in Maori urupa. B.Sc. (Honours) project in Engineering Geology, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Canterbury.
• Geometria. 2002. Geophysical Survey Investigation Te Maketu Cemetery Pratt’s Road Ramarama. Unpublished report prepared for Auckland Regional Council.
• Nobes, David C., 1999. Geophysical surveys of burial sites: a case study of the Oaro urupa, Geophysics, 64(2): 357-367.
• Sheppard, P., 2003. Report on Geophysical Survey on Boyd's Hill, Kawau Island. Unpublished report for the Department of Conservation, Auckland.
• Watson, M., 2007. Report CB277, Pokeno Cemetery. Unpublished report prepared for Pokeno Landowner Consortium. Scantec Ltd.

References

• Clark, A.J. 2000. Seeing Beneath the Soil: prospecting methods in archaeology. London. Routledge.
• Clay, R. B. 2006. Conductivity Survey: A Survival Manual. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp79-108. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Conyers, L.B. 2006. Ground-Penetrating Radar. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp131-169. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Dalan, R. A. 2006. Magnetic Susceptibility. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp161-204. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Gaffney, C.F., and J. Gater. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: geophysics for archaeologists. Stroud. Tempus.
• Hargrave, M.L. 2006. Ground Truthing the Results of Geophysical Surveys. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp269-304. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Johnson, J.K. and B.S. Haley. 2006. A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Remote Sensing Application in Cultural Resource Management Archaeology. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp33-46. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Kvamme, K.L. 2006. Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp205-234. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Kvamme, K.L. 2006a. Data Processing and Presentation. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp235-250. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Kvamme, K.L., J.K. Johnson and B.S. Haley. 2006. Multiple Methods Surveys: Case Studies. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp251-268. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Linford, N. 2006. The application of geophysical methods to archaeological prospection. Reports on Progress in Physics 69:2205-2257.
• Lockhart, J.J. and T.J. Green. 2006. The Current and Potential Role of Archaeogeophysics in Cultural Resource Management in the United States. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp17-32. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Scollar, I. 1990. Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge. University of Cambridge Press. pp 422-516.
• Shennan, I. 1988. "The application of remote sensing to wetland archaeology." International Journal of Geoarchaeology 3: 275-285.
• Somers, L. 2006. Resistivity Survey. In J. K. Johnson (ed) Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. pp109-130. Tuscaloosa. The University of Alabama Press.
• Weymouth, J.W. 1986. Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. In M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory Vol 9. New York. Academic Press. Pp 311-395.

External Links

English Heritage (1995). Geophysical survey in archaeological field evaluation. Research and Professional Services Guideline No 1.