Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Site Interiography and Geophysical Scanning: Interpreting the Texture and Form of Archaeological Deposits with Ground-Penetrating Radar

  • Published:
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The remarkable potential of geophysical scanning—to assess the internal variability of sites in new ways, to highlight important phenomena in the field, to exercise co-creation of interpretation and commitment to minimal destruction of community partners’ resources, and to aid in the practice of due diligence in avoiding desecration of the sacred—continues to be underutilized in archaeology. While archaeological artifacts, features, and strata remain primary foci of archaeological geophysics, these phenomena are perceived quite differently in scans than in visual or tactile exposures. In turn, new registers of site exploration afforded by geophysical prospection may be constrained by the language of site excavation and visual observation, requiring adjustments in the ways of thinking about and describing what the instruments are measuring. The texture and form of site deposits as rendered in ground-penetrating radar scans can be examined in detail prior to making interpretations of cultural features or stratigraphy. Far more than simple “anomalies” demanding our attention for excavation, patterns in geophysical data can be the focus of extensive archaeological analysis prior to, in conjunction with, or independent from excavation.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Possibly rocks, roots, or krotovina

  2. For example, slab, tile floor or a pavement

  3. Possible pit features

References

  • Arnold, J. E., Ambos, E. L., & Larson, D. O. (1997). Geophysical surveys of stratigraphically complex island California sites: new implications for household archaeology. Antiquity, 71(271), 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bocek, B. (1986). Rodent ecology and burrowing behaviour: predicted effects on archaeological site formation. American Antiquity, 51(3), 589–603.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnenstiehl, D. W. R., Howell, J. K., White, S. M., & Hey, R. N. (2012). Modified basal outlining algorithm for identifying topographic highs from gridded elevation data, part 1: motivation and methods. Computers and Geosciences, 49(4), 308–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byram, S. (2014). Ground penetrating radar at the Henderson ranch site, Coos Bay. Southern Oregon University Laboratory of Anthrolopology, Oregon.

  • Byram, S. (2015). Appendix: ground penetrating radar. In A. DeGeorgey (Ed.), Investigations of the Stege Mound (CA-CC-297), a late period shell mound located on the San Francisco Bayshore. Santa Rosa, CA: Alta Archaeological Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byram, S., & Gill, T. (2016). Ground-penetrating radar at the Pa Site, Pahelua Region, Oahu. Archaeological Research Facility: Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byram, S., Lightfoot, K., Cuthrell, R., Nelson, P., Sunseri, J., Jewett, R.A., Parkman, B., & Tripcevich, N. (2017) Geophysical investigation of mission San Francisco Solano, Sonoma, California. Historical Archaeology.

  • Clinger, C. (2013). Speleological interiority–the mindfulness ofa spelunking anatomist. In R. Haekel & S. Blackmore (Eds.), Discovering the human: life science and the arts in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (pp. 85–104). Goettingen: V&R Unipress.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B. (2006). Ground penetrating radar. In J. K. Johnson (Ed.), Remote sensing in archaeology: an explicitly north American perspective (pp. 131–160). Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B. (2012). Interpreting ground-penetrating radar for archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B. (2013). Ground-penetrating radar for archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B. (2015). Analysis and interpretation of GPR datasets for integrated archaeological mapping. Near Surface Geophysics, 13(1), 645–651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B. (2016). Ground-penetrating radar for Geoarchaeology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B., & Cameron, C. M. (1998). Ground-penetrating radar techniques and three-dimensional computer mapping in the American southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology, 25(4), 417–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B., & Goodman, D. (1997). Ground-penetrating radar: AltaMira press an introduction for archaeologist. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conyers, L. B., & Lucius, J. E. (1996). Velocity analysis in archaeological ground-penetrating radar studies. Archaeological Prospection, 3(1), 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGeorgey, A. (2015) Investigations of the Stege Mound (CA-CC)-297), a late period shell mound located on the San Francisco Bayshore. Alta Archaeological Consulting, Santa Rosa, CA.

  • Deleuze, G. (1995). (1968) Difference and repetition. Revised edition. Translated by P. Patton. European perspectives: a series in social thought and cultural criticism. Columbia University Press, New York.

  • Farris, G. J. (2015). Taix lot Indian family housing site. California State Parks, San Juan Buatista, CA: Mission San Juan Bautista.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney, C. F., & Gater, J. (2006). Revealing the buried past: geophysics for archaeologists. Stroud, UK: Tempus Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heidegger, M. (1977). (1954) The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays (pp. 287–317) (trans: Lovitt, W.). Harper and Row, New York.

  • Johnson, M. H. (2006). On the nature of theoretical archaeology and archaeological theory. Archaeological Dialogues, 13(02), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kernaghan, B. (2009). Interiography: ruminations on the scope of the discipline. Interventions/Adaptive Reuse: Int/AR, 1(1), 98–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killick, D., & Goldberg, P. (2009). A quiet crisis in American archaeology. The SAA Archaeological Record, 9(1), 6–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linington, R. E. (1963). The application of geophysics to archaeology. American Scientist, 51(1), 48–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedimovic, M. R., Bohnenstiehl, D. W. R., Carbotte, S. M., Pablo Canales, J., & Dziak, R. P. (2009). Faulting and hydration of the Juan de Fuca plate system. Earth and Planetary Science, 284(1), 94–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orton, C., Tyers, P., & Vince, A. (1993). Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswin, J. (2009). A field guide to geophysics in archaeology. Chichester, UK: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A., & Guzik, K. (2008). The mangle in practice: science, society, and becoming. Science and cultural theory. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

  • Rice, P. M. (1987). Pottery analysis: a sourcebook. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackley, M. S. (2010). Is there reliability and validity in portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (PXRF). The SAA Archaeological Record, 10(5), 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherwood, B. C. (1921). The art director is accredited: the vision that makes ‘Dream Street’ come true. Arts and Decoration, 15(1), 36–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sturm, J. O., & Crown, P. L. (2015). Micro-scale mapping using ground-penetrating radar an example from room 28, Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 3(2), 124–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunseri, C. K. (2015). Food politics of alliance in a California frontier Chinatown. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(2), 416–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunseri, J., & Delage, C. (2016). The color of transformation: investigations into heat treatment of Natufian artifacts from Hayonim Terrace. Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, 16(3), 51–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weymouth, J. W. (1986). Geophysical methods of archaeological site surveying. In M. B. Schiffer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory (pp. 311–395). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Witten, A. J. (2006). Handbook of geophysics and archaeology, equinox handbooks in anthropological archaeology. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, A. (2002). Thinking from things: essays in the philosophy of archaeology. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to thank the Mono Lake Kutzadika’a Paiute, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, and our colleagues at the Archaeological Research Facility at UC Berkeley who invited us to much of this shared research. We are particularly indebted to those families for whom we can never repay fully for their mentorship, physical and spiritual protection, and care in the field. Previous drafts of this article were transformed by the tremendous and generous efforts by our anonymous reviewers, though all errors and omissions are our own. Last but certainly not least, much gratitude to those engaged students and colleagues who inspired us through their scholarship as well as the generous and patient editorial team at JAMT. The Braun Endowment of the Archaeological Research Facility, UC Berkeley supported the purchase of one of the GSSI Inc. instruments used in some of the experiments described in this work. We are deeply indebted to Dr. Lawrence Conyers, who gave generously of his time, software resources, and mentorship.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 232 Kroeber Hall, MC3710, Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

    Jun U. Sunseri

  2. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley, 2251 College Ave., Berkeley, CA, 94720, USA

    Scott Byram

Authors
  1. Jun U. Sunseri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott Byram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jun U. Sunseri.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sunseri, J.U., Byram, S. Site Interiography and Geophysical Scanning: Interpreting the Texture and Form of Archaeological Deposits with Ground-Penetrating Radar. J Archaeol Method Theory 24, 1400–1424 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9324-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-017-9324-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation