For magnetometry our collection strategy was to collect as dense a data set as possible with a technique that would introduce few errors.

       In our original research design, we called for 8 samples per meter at 1 meter traverses (8s/sqm) running zig~zag.  At the urgings of our professors we changed that strategy to 8 samples per meter at .5 meter traverses  (16s/sqm) running parallel.  What we found was a much better ‘view’ of our site. 

Data Collection: Magnetometry

To contact us:

Dr Linda Barrett (Geography) ~ barrett@uakron.edu

Dr Timothy Matney (CSAA) ~ matney@uakron.edu

Dr Lisa Park (Geology) ~ lepark@uakron.edu

 

Fluxgate Gradiometer FM36

The variances in the position of the gradiometer (change in rate of speed) along the lines across the transects is apparent in both grids as waves in the linear features, but the grid collected at the higher sample density was easier to fix.  Using this sample density the probable location of the material causing the anomaly is more precisely identified.   This advantage is only realized when the data collection speed and technique is more consistent.  The other more noticeable effect of this higher sample density is the presence of delineation between smaller anomalous readings, therefore detecting smaller ‘features’ whether they be cultural or geological.  Sample density does not affect the resolution of the data or the signal/noise ratio but a with a clearer picture one can more easily spot possible patterns.

Study Area, Hopewell?: | The Geology of the Site | The Archaeology We are Looking For | Data Collection: Magnetometry | Data Collection: Resistivity | Data Processing: Magnetometry | Data Processing:Resistivity | Data Collection: Soil Sampling | Conclusions and Recommendations | Archaeo-Geo Links