Archaeological Prospection Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) Published online 16 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.

com) DOI: 10.1002/arp.1416

The Use of Electromagnetic Induction in Locating Graves and Mapping Cemeteries: an Example from Native North America
DANIEL P. BIGMAN*
University Of Georgia, 250 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA

ABSTRACT

One of the most popular applications of geophysics to archaeological problems has been to locate unmarked graves and map cemeteries. Although electromagnetic (EM) induction was one of the early techniques used in such applications, alternative techniques such as ground-penetrating radar and resistivity have become more popular in recent years. Despite some of the methods drawbacks the EM method still presents numerous advantages such as speed in data collection and collection in a variety of survey environments and ground cover. A case study from Ocmulgee National Monument, USA is presented that identied numerous anomalies that may be interpreted as Native American burials. Small anomalies having low apparent conductivity were distributed near the Funeral Mound (Mound C); a known cemetery. The conductivity survey redened the spatial extent of the cemetery and increased our understanding of burial density. The data collected during the 2010 eld season will aid in conservation efforts and help the US National Park Service avoid these sensitive materials during future archaeological work and park management. Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key words: Electromagnetic induction; conductivity; NAGPRA; graves; Native American burials; historic preservation

Introduction
One of the most popular applications of geophysics to archaeological problems has been to locate unmarked graves and map cemeteries. Early mapping of historic cemeteries that used electromagnetic (EM) induction and ground penetrating radar (GPR; Bevan, 1991) paved the way for many future studies. Electromagnetic induction has fallen out of favour as archaeologists began to rely on alternative techniques to locate burials (i.e. Davenport, 2001). During the past two decades, electrical resistivity, magnetometry and GPR have become the essential tools for investigating and mapping both historic and pre-historic cemeteries (Nobes, 1999; Conyers, 2006; Jones, 2008; McKinnon, 2009). There has been a general absence of published case studies relying on EM induction in the past two decades. Here I review the fundamental principles of the EM induction method and briey explore its history, use, benets and drawbacks in archaeology. Second, I will present the methods and results of a conductivity survey
* Correspondence to: D. P. Bigman, University Of Georgia, 250 Baldwin Hall, Athens, GA 30602, USA. E-mail: Dpbigman@Uga.Edu

carried out in 2010 at the Ocmulgee Funeral Mound; a Native American cemetery located in Georgia, USA.

The electromagnetic induction method

Amperes and Faradays laws are the fundamental principles underlying the EM induction method. Amperes law states that when electrical current ows through a coil of wire it produces a magnetic eld that is perpendicular to the plane of the coil. Maxwell later expanded Amperes law to include time-varying EM elds. Faraday found out that the converse is also true. Faradays law states that when a conductive object is placed into a moving magnetic eld, a current will be induced in that conductive body (Daniels et al., 2008, pp. 109113). The EM induction method combines these principles to measure variation in apparent soil conductivity. Many soil conductivity meters consist of two coils: a transmitter and a receiver. An electrical current is applied to the transmitter coil, which in turn produces a primary magnetic eld perpendicular to the coil. This magnetic eld then induces an electrical current in the soil. This electrical current ows in a circular path and is typically referred
Received 11 August 2011 Accepted 2 December 2011

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

32 to as an eddy current. Eddy currents themselves produce a secondary magnetic eld that is perpendicular to the circumferential direction of the current (i.e. it approximates the behaviour of the transmitting coil). Finally, the secondary eld induces a current ow in the receiver coil located at the opposite end of the soil conductivity meter. It is the strength of the current ow in the receiver coil that is measured and recorded. A time-varying current is applied to the transmitter coil. The strength of the timevarying current ows in a cosine wave and has regular peaks and troughs. Receiver coil measurements based on the cosine wave are said to be in-phase. Delayed values measured by the receiver coil that follow in a sine wave (i.e. shifted 90 ) are said to be out-of-phase or phase shifted (Witten, 2006, pp. 166170). Factors inuencing conductivity measurements include the material properties, size, shape, orientation of a conductive object and porosity/compaction (Bevan, 1991, p. 1310; Witten, 2006, p. 157). In a survey designed to locate pre-Hispanic hearths, decayed wooden post holes, burials and pits, the phase shifted values are of most importance. Most geophysicists believe that the out-of-phase value is the closest approximation of apparent conductivity. Apparent conductivity can be dened as the electrical conductivity measured for a bulk volume of soil assuming the true electrical conductivity is heterogeneous (Allred et al., 2008, p. 383). The internal composition of any sample of earth should vary and the average conductance of this varied sample can be considered its apparent conductivity. Electromagnetic induction was introduced to archaeological contexts during the 1960s. Early eld work and controlled experiments focused on the detection of post holes (Tite, 1961; Colani, 1966; Colani and Aitken, 1966; Howell, 1966; Tite and Mullins, 1970). The benets of the method quickly became apparent. It drew a lot of attention early on because it eliminated the need for probe contact as opposed to electrical resistivity techniques (Bevan, 1983). This made data collection much more efcient and allowed research to be conducted in places that were inaccessible to resistivity meters. The same comparison can now be made with GPR, which requires excellent site conditions (Jones, 2008). Conductivity became a standard in locating large archaeological features such as the remains of wooden palisade walls (Dalan, 1989, 1991), large plazas (Holley et al., 1993), stone walls (Osella et al., 2005), stone house platforms (Sweely, 2005), drainage systems (Rogers et al., 2010), lled in ditches, palaeochannels and lake beds (Bevan, 1983; Hildebrand et al., 2007; Conyers et al., 2008), refuse pits (Bevan, 1983), stratigraphic levels (Dalan, 2006; Dalan and Goodman, 2007) and buried occupational layers (Dalan, 2006; Dalan and

D. P. Bigman Goodman, 2007). Advancements in data collection methods and instrumentation now allow mapping of entire sites or communities in relatively short periods of time (e.g. Kvamme and Ahler, 2007; Witten et al., 2000, 2003), and streamlined data processing software is letting more archaeologists exploit this geophysical technique (Auken et al., 2006). Low resolution and slow continuous sampling are the two most signicant drawbacks in conductivity mapping. Conductivity meters often collect data up to a rate of two readings per second (Clay, 2001, 2006). This rate is fast enough to distinguish variation between the soil matrix and large features such as earthworks or ditches if the surveyor is walking at a pace of 1 m s1, but it may not be a close enough interval to adequately map small features such as burials. This can be contrasted with uxgate gradiometers and caesium vapour magnetometers that can collect 10 readings per second, or GPRs that can accurately record traces every 5 cm with a survey wheel. I attempted to circumvent the resolution problem in the survey at Ocmulgees Funeral Mound cemetery by recording only a single frequency from a multifrequency induction instrument. Multifrequency instruments theoretically provide instant depth sounding by producing EM elds at both high and low frequencies. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths and prospect to a shallower depth. Lower frequencies have longer wavelengths and prospect deeper into the ground. There is some debate surrounding the theoretical basis of multifrequency instruments in performing depth sounding of apparent conductivity (for an excellent summary of the arguments see Auken et al., 2006), but the fact is that more frequencies force the instrument to record at slower paces. By reducing the number of recorded frequencies to one I was able to record eight readings per second. This also allowed greater exibility during post-acquisition processing. Data can still be plotted at a 0.5 m sampling interval, but an average of three to ve points can be taken to smooth the data or account for instrument instability. The other option is plotting the data at closer intervals while reducing the number of averaged data points, ultimately providing higher resolution.

Case study: Ocmulgee National Monument

Background
Ocmulgee is the fourth largest (70 ha) mound site in the eastern USA (Figure 1) and there is evidence of
Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Use of EM Induction to Locate Graves and Map Cemeteries

33

Figure 1. Aerial view of the Ocmulgee National Monument. This gure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp.

human occupation dating from the Paleo-Indian period (approximately 11 000 BC) to post-American Civil War. One of the more famous aspects of Ocmulgee is the Funeral Mound that sits at its southwest corner (Figure 2). Burials dating to two periods have been unearthed there: the Mississippian (AD 900 to AD 1100) and historic Creek (AD 1680 to AD 1720) occupations. The beginning of the Mississippian period in Native

American history marks a transition to intensied maize agriculture, higher population densities at the town and polity level, institutionalization of leadership roles, and the integration of multiple households, villages and towns into a single decision-making body. The Creek nation was formed during the historic period as a response to hostilities from European colonies and settlers. It has been stated in Creek oral tradition that Ocmulgee was the settlement place of their ancestors who migrated east and was the place of up to two creek settlements in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The Funeral Mound is a at-topped cylindrical structure with seven construction episodes. The highest density of burials at Ocmulgee was discovered in this structure and the area immediately surrounding it. The Ocmulgee National Monument Geophysical Survey Project undertook an EM conductivity survey near the Funeral Mound in 2010. More details about methods, larger research questions and additional results have been published elsewhere (Bigman, 2010, 2011).

Previous investigations at the Funeral Mound

Figure 2. Photograph of the Funeral Mound (looking north). This gure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp.

The earliest evidence of skeletal removal at the Funeral Mound was documented by C. C. Jones in 1873 (Jones, 1999) following the destruction of the northern third of
Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

34 the mound by a railroad cut. The observations made by Jones suggest that at least several skeletons were located just beyond the northern periphery of the Funeral Mound and that several skulls, dating to both the Mississippian (AD 900 to AD 1100) and Creek (AD 1680 to AD 1720) occupations, were placed within the northern limits of the mound. The mound began to erode and was subject to looting over the subsequent 60 years. Professional excavations began in the 1930s as part of the Civil Works Administration (CWA) and Works Progress Administration (WPA) initiatives carried out during the Great Depression as part of a program to put people back to work. These investigations focused on what remained of the mound and carried out limited testing in the village level surrounding the mound (Kelly, 1938; Fairbanks, 2003 [1956]). Ninety-four burials (114 individuals) were exhumed from the mound and its vicinity to the south, east and west (Powell, 1994, p. 116). Sixteen of these burials were located at the village level (Fairbanks, 2003 [1956], pp. 3435) all within approximately 2 m of the surface. No further eldwork was carried out in this area for over 50 years. The US National Park Service eventually shovel tested several areas around the Funeral Mound in response to compliance issues such as the re-chaining of a fence (Cornelison, 1992) and modications to a parking lot curb (Cornelison, 1993; Halchin, 2004). None of the recent work has identied any additional graves.

D. P. Bigman change markedly (Bevan, 1991, p. 1310). Mixing of topsoil with subsoil, differences in compaction and air cavities may also contribute to variation in apparent conductivity (Bevan, 1991, p. 1310). More recently, a forensic simulation was conducted on pig cadavers at several test sites in Great Britain using electrical resistivity (Juerges et al., 2010). They found that those pigs left exposed to the geochemical processes in the soil were less resistive (more conductive) than the surrounding soil whereas the pigs that were wrapped were more resistive (less conductive) than the surrounding soil. The limited exposure of the wrapped pigs to geochemical processes in the soil may limit decay and ultimately the effect of organic material on the soil. The pigs that were wrapped may approximate secondary burials such as many that were excavated at Ocmulgee. Secondary burials, which refer to a mortuary practice where bodies are initially buried elsewhere and then reburied after the esh has decayed, should be more resistive/less conductive. I expected Mississippian and historic Creek burials to yield low conductivity values (see Figure 3 for an enlarged plan view map of some anomalies suggested to be burials and Figure 4 for conductivity traces from each survey block). Soils within the park boundaries consist of 36 ft of red sandy soil overlying Georgia red clay (NPS, 1982, p. 14). Clay is generally a conductive material with minimal porosity and high water retention. Burials interred into this clay layer should have greater porosity. These pores are lled with air, a highly resistive material. Despite the impermeability of clay, the amount of rainfall in a given day should drain quickly through the excavated-out and redeposited soil of a pit or burial. Similar ndings were conrmed at Cahokia, a contemporary of Ocmulgee located in Illinois. Dalan (1989, 1991) investigated the palisade wall surrounding the main plaza at Cahokia. The post holes were interred into a wall trench, an excavated trench relled with the same soil. These

Geophysical expectations
In a survey conducted by Bevan (1991) at Kettering Shaker cemetery, two distinct anomalies were identied as possible graves. Both provided a lower apparent conductivity compared with the surrounding soil matrix. Bevan suggested that the most distinctive feature of a grave may be the disturbed soil in the lled excavation. Through the l2 m depth of a grave shaft, the soil may

Figure 3. Enlarged image of burial anomalies from survey block 2. This gure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Use of EM Induction to Locate Graves and Map Cemeteries

35

Data collection and processing

Two survey blocks were collected near the Funeral Mound in 2010 as part of a larger project to map Ocmulgee using non-invasive techniques. A compass and tapes was used to establish survey grids and a total station was used to spatially reference the blocks. The survey was carried out using a GEM-300 conductivity meter manufactured by GSSI, Inc. (coil spacing of 1.67 m) at a frequency of 12 150 Hz. Depth of investigation at this frequency is approximately 2 m (GSSI, Inc.). The in-phase, quadrature phase and apparent conductivity measurements were recorded. The apparent conductivity data mirrored the quadrature data suggesting that the in-phase had little impact on apparent conductivity readings. All data in this report are presented as apparent conductivity and are measured in mS m1. Data were collected in a snake line, where the surveyor traversed neighbouring transects in alternating directions. The instrument collected data readings continuously every 1/8 s and the surveyor attempted to walk at a constant pace of 1 m s1. The sampling interval ranged from between six and nine readings per metre and transects were spaced 1 m apart. The direction of burials and other archaeological features were not known prior to survey. Survey direction was chosen based on the landscape and ease of data collection. The conductivity meter was held at waist height and was oriented horizontal to the ground and perpendicular to the transect direction. Following Bevan (1998, p. 34) the directional alignment of the transmitter and receiver coils was not readjusted every alternating transect because changes in coil orientation should not affect conductivity readings. Constant readjustment may also unbalance the instrument over time (Clay, 2006). Data were downloaded to MagMap2000, which was used to orient transect lengths and position. Data were interpolated using the Kriging algorithm in Surfer 9.0 to smooth the data. All survey data were processed using ArcheoSurveyor 2.0 by D. W. Consulting. Processing procedures generally followed Gaffney and Gater (2003) and Kvamme (2006), where all data were ltered rst and enhanced second.

Figure 4. Conductivity data traces from survey block 1 and survey block 2 with interpretation of low conductivity burial anomalies.

trenches produced lower apparent conductivity readings, which Dalan (1989, 1991) suggests are the result of quick drainage and air lled pores. In addition to variation in soil compaction and porosity, the contents of prehistoric and historic graves at Ocmulgee consisted of generally non-conductive materials such as bone, ceramic vessels, caches of shell, caches of glass beads, large ground stone, and in rare cases preserved logs. Although individual bones may not be directly detectable (Bevan, 1991, p. 1310), their association with abundant grave goods may increase the contribution to lower apparent conductivity values. Shell is known to be highly resistive (Thompson et al., 2004), and in some cases thousands of shell beads were located in a single Ocmulgee burial. Eleven of the 94 burials were multiple burials (Powell, 1994, table11.1). The agglomeration of more bone should also be more resistive and make it easier for the soil conductivity meter to differentiate between burials and the surrounding soil matrix. The contribution of a burial and its associated contents to lower conductivity values may vary depending on depth. Burials just below the surface should have a greater contribution to lower values. Differential grave shaft ll is probably a more important factor, but the contents of a grave may have an inuence on burial detection.

Results and discussion

Both survey blocks contained randomly distributed anomalies of lower conductivity that are the size and shape of Native American burial units. Many of these anomalies are generally oriented in the same direction,
Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

36 which also may suggest that they are possible burials. However, the data range between the two blocks varied substantially. This is most likely due to the differences in condition when each was surveyed. Electromagnetic induction is an active geophysical technique and depends on soil conditions. Block 1 (8750 m; Figure 5) was surveyed in the summer when there was moisture in the soil. This may have created a greater contrast between the non-conductive materials that make up a burial and the surrounding matrix. Block 2 (3750 m; Figure 6) was surveyed in the winter. The conductivity meter still identied probable burials, but the contrast was not as dramatic because a resistive layer of frost (probably several centimetres thick) was present during the winter survey. This resistive layer may have made it more difcult to induce a current in the surrounding matrix and minimized the variation (See Figure 4 to compare the conductivity values from each block). Differences in seasonality may also have contributed to variation of the anomaly shape. Carrying out these two surveys at the same time would have been an ideal situation. Unfortunately, scheduling difculties made this impossible. In total, over 60 additional possible graves were identied in the conductivity data (Figure 7). The conductivity meter probably did not identify all of

D. P. Bigman the possible burials surrounding the Funeral Mound. Many of the excavated burials were single skulls or as in one case, only teeth. The conductivity meter is not sensitive enough to distinguish between these and the soil matrix. Alternatively, some of the burial anomalies may actually be pits absent of any burials. Several of these were recovered from the Funeral Mound and area surrounding it, but burials outweighed non-burial pits ten to one. There were many more examples of low conductive anomalies grouped together with anomalies of higher apparent conductivity that were not identied as possible burials in the interpretation (Figure 7). These clusters probably represent historic Creek structures or disturbance from the redeposition of soil and material during the construction of the railway. If they are the remains of Creek structures, then it is possible that some anomalies of lower conductivity in these clusters represent additional burials. These either could be associated Creek burials or Mississippian burials below the house oor. It is also possible that they represent disturbed baked clay oors, which would also produce agglomerations of high and low conductivity values. The EM conductivity survey mapped the Funeral Mound cemetery rapidly (Block 1 was collected in

Figure 5. Plan view map of block 1 conductivity data. This gure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Use of EM Induction to Locate Graves and Map Cemeteries

37

Figure 6. Plan view map of block 2 conductivity data. This gure is available in colour online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/arp.

just over 3 h and Block 2 was collected in 1.5 h after grid set-up) and the data suggest that the cemetery is denser and spatially larger than previously

believed. The cemetery appears to have extended to the north beyond the railroad cut and there is a fall off in the density of burial anomalies to the

Figure 7. Digitized map with transcribed interpretations of conductivity data from survey block 1 and survey block 2.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

38 southeast of block 1 and the north east of block 2. Although a few isolated anomalies of lower conductivity do appear out in these margins the survey seems to have located the general boundaries of the cemetery.

D. P. Bigman

Acknowledgements
I would like to rst express my gratitude to Lawrence Conyers. His effort as an editor vastly exceeds the requirements of such a position and the paper owes much to his dedication. Steve Kowalewskis and David Hallys comments on an earlier version of the paper were very useful, and critical discussions with Robert Hawman were irreplaceable. I would also like to extend my appreciation to the Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument, and the Muscogee Nation for their continued support. Equipment was provided for the project by the University of Georgias Laboratory of Archaeogeophysics and Archaeometry, and Laboratory of Archaeology. University of Georgia graduate students Yanxi Wang and Stephan Brennan helped collect data from block 2. Dong Dong Li and Ben Shirley helped collect data from block 1. Finally, Amy Hanenberg, designer at Stacy Garcia Inc., edited the nal versions of several gures.

Conclusion
Despite a preference for alternative methods for grave prospection, conductivity still provides several advantages. The most signicant drawback (speed of recording) was overcome by nding the most appropriate frequency in a multifrequency system and then mapping with that single frequency. The instrument collected eight readings per second which provided high resolution and post-processing exibility for weighted averaging or interpolation. This level of collection speed and data set resolution is similar to other methods such as magnetometry and the speed of collection exceeds that of GPR and typical resistivity equipment. The purpose of this paper is not to dissuade surveyors from using other instruments. It is to propose EM conductivity as an effective tool in the archaeologists toolkit for locating graves and mapping cemeteries. I do not believe that the success of the survey was dependent on using the GEM-300 specically. Any EM induction instrument capable of collecting data at a similar sampling speed should create a successful situation across similar contexts. Electromagnetic induction was an effective tool for locating and identifying pre-historic and historic Native American burials at Ocmulgee National Monument and the results have comparative value for similar contexts around the world. Over 60 possible burials were identied around the Funeral Mound. The limits of the Funeral Mound cemetery were discovered; it extends to the north of the mound and additional burials appear to the southeast. Burials present themselves in a very distinct manner with a regular signature of low apparent conductivity. While the issues surrounding the excavation of native burials are still sensitive, grave density and distribution remain important data sets for answering anthropological and archaeological questions. Conductivity has helped address some of these questions without disturbing the subsurface. The geophysical data combined with more traditional lines of archaeological evidence that has already been recovered can help the archaeologist manoeuvre through these shaky waters.

References
Allred BJ, Daniels JJ, Ehsani MR (editors). 2008. Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics. CRC Press: Boca Raton. Auken EL, Pellerin L, Christensen NB, Sorensen K. 2006. A survey of current trends in near-surface electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics 71(5): G249G260. Bevan BW. 1983. Electromagnetics for mapping buried earth features. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 4754. Bevan W. 1991. The search for graves. Geophysics 56(9): 13101319. Bevan W. 1998. Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical Exploration. Special Report 1. Midwest Archaeological Center: Lincoln, NE. Bigman DP. 2010. Electromagnetic Conductivity Survey at Ocmulgee National Monument (2010 Field Season), Bibb County, Georgia. Report submitted to the National Park Service, Tallahassee, Florida. Bigman DP. 2011. High-density electromagnetic induction survey: mapping the archaeological landscape at Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia. Proceedings from the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Environmental and Engineering Problems 24: 122130. Clay RB. 2001. Complementary geophysical survey techniques: why two ways are always better than one. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1): 3143. Clay RB. 2006. Conductivity survey: a survival manual. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, Johnson JK (ed.). University of Alabama: Tuscaloosa; pp. 79108. Colani C. 1966. A new type of locating device. I the instrument. Archaeometry 9: 38. Colani C, Aitken MJ. 1966. A new type of locating device. II eld trials. Archaeometry 9: 919. Conyers L. 2006. Ground-penetrating radar techniques to discover and map historic graves. Historical Archaeology 40(3): 6473. Conyers LB, Ernewein EG, Grealy M, Lowe KM. 2008. Electromagnetic conductivity mapping for site prediction

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp

Use of EM Induction to Locate Graves and Map Cemeteries

in meandering river oodplains. Archaeological Prospection 15: 8191. Cornelison J. 1992. Trip Report for the Archaeological Investigations at the Mound C Parking Lot at OCMU, 3/12/923/13/92. SEAC Accession Number 1002, OCMU Accession Number 147, Report on le, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service: Tallahassee, FL. Cornelison J. 1993. Final Trip Report on Archaeological Testing at Drakes Field, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia, July 27 to July 29, 1992. SEAC Accession Number 1044, OCMU Accession Number 148, Report on le, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service: Tallahassee, FL. Dalan RA. 1989. Electromagnetic reconnaissance of the central palisade at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Wisconsin Archaeologist 70: 309332. Dalan RA. 1991. Dening archaeological features with electromagnetic surveys at the Cahokia Mounds State Historic Site. Geophysics 56(8): 12801287. Dalan RA. 2006. A geophysical approach to buried site detection using down-hole susceptibility and soil magnetic techniques. Archaeological Prospection 13(3): 182206. Dalan RA, Goodman D. 2007. Imaging buried landforms using down-hole susceptibility data and three-dimensional GPR visualization software. Archaeolgical Prospection 14(4): 273280. Daniels JJ, Vendl M, Ehsani MR, Allred BJ. 2008. Electromagnetic induction methods. In Handbook of Agricultural Geophysics, Allred BJ, Daniels JJ, Ehsani MR (eds). CRC Press: Boca Raton; 109128. Davenport GC. 2001. Remote sensing applications in forensic investigations. Historical Archaeology 35(1): 87100. Fairbanks CH. 2003 [1956]. Archaeology of the Funeral Mound, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa. Gaffney C, Gater J. 2003. Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus: Stroud. Halchin JY. 2004. Trip Report on Archeological Monitoring of the Removal of the Funeral Mound Steps, Ocmulgee National Monument, Macon, Georgia, August 30August 3, 2004. SEAC Accession Number 1924, Report on le, Southeast Archaeological Center, National Park Service: Tallahassee, FL. Hildebrand JA, Wiggins SM, Driver JL, Waters MR. 2007. Rapid seismic reection imaging at the Clovis Period Gault Site in Central Texas. Archaeological Prospection 14: 245260. Holley GR, Dalan RA, Smith PA. 1993. Investigations in the Cahokia Site Grand Plaza. American Antiquity 58: 306319. Howell M. 1966. A soil conductivity meter. Archaeometry 9: 2023. Jones CC. 1999 [1873]. Antiquities of the Southern Indians, Particularly of the Georgia Tribes. University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa. Jones G. 2008. Geophysical mapping of historic cemeteries. Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology 3: 2538.

39
Juerges A, Pringle JK, Jervis JR, Masters P. 2010. Comparisons of magnetic and electrical resistivity surveys over simulated clandestine graves in contrasting burial environments. Near Surface Geophysics 8: 529539. Kelly AR. 1938. A Preliminary Report on Archaeological Explorations at Macon, Ga. Bulletin 119, Bureau of American Ethnology, Anthropological Papers, No. 1. Smithsonian Institute: Washington, DC. Kvamme KL. 2006. Data processing and presentation. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, Johnson JK (ed.). University of Alabama Press: Tuscaloosa. Kvamme KL, Ahler SA. 2007. Integrated remote sensing and excavation at the Double Ditch State Historic Site, North Dakota. American Antiquity 72: 539561. McKinnon DP. 2009. Exploring settlement patterning at a Premier Caddo Mound Site in the Red River Great Bend Region. Southeastern Archaeology 28: 248258. Nobes DC. 1999. Geophysical surveys of burial sites: a case study of the Oaro urupa. Geophysics 64(2): 357367. NPS. 1982. General Management Plan/Environmental Assessment, Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia. National Park Service, Ocmulgee National Monument: Macon, GA. Osella A, de la Vega M, Lascano E. 2005. 3D electrical imaging of an archaeological site using electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics 70(4): G101G107. Powell ML. 1994. Human skeletal remains from Ocmulgee National Monument. In Ocmulgee Archaeology 19361986, Hally DJ (ed.). University of Georgia Press: Athens; 116129. Rogers J, Dignam DJ, Lahti R, Webb W, Atkinson E, Hanson A. 2010. Where have all the Aboiteaux Gone? Mapping buried historic drainage systems in New Brunswick, Canada. Proceedings from the Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems 23: 971988. Sweely TL. 2005. Detecting invisible dwellings in the Maya area using electromagnetic induction: signicant ndings of a pilot study at Chau Hiix, Belize. Latin American Antiquity 16: 193208. Thompson VD, Reynolds M, Haley B, Jefferies R, Johnson JK, Humphries L. 2004. The Sapelo Island shell rings: shallow geophysics on a Georgia sea island. Southeastern Archaeology 23: 192201. Tite MS. 1961. Alternative instruments for magnetic surveying: comparative tests at the Iron Age hill-fort at Rainsborough. Archaeometry 4: 8590. Tite MS, Mullins C. 1970. Electromagnetic prospecting on archaeological sites using a soil conductivity meter. Archaeometry 12: 97104. Witten AJ. 2006. Handbook of Geophysics and Archaeology. Equinox Publishing Ltd: London. Witten AJ, Levy TE, Adams RM, Won IJ. 2000. Geophysical surveys in the Jebel Hamrat Fidan, Jordan. Geoarchaeology 15: 135150. Witten AJ, Calvert G, Witten B, Levy T. 2003. Magnetic and electromagnetic induction studies at archaeological sites in southwestern Jordan. Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics 8: 209215.

Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Archaeol. Prospect. 19, 3139 (2012) DOI: 10.1002/arp