Geomagnetic Dating Methods in Archaeology

Wolfman, Daniel

doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-003107-8.50011-6

Cited by 20 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 184 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since it can be shown that, theoretically, accurate dating can be as precise as 2 5 years (Tarling, 1985:248; Wolfman, 1984:395 -396), the search for temporal differences is all the more tempting. Clearly, the practical limits on accurate dating will be different from the theoretical limits on precision (Tarling, 1985:285), but few attempts have been made as yet to describe these practical limits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary archaeomagnetic results and the accuracy of archaeomagnetic dates

Eighmy

Hathaway

1987

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When multiple archaeomagnetic samples are collected from the same site or component, it is tempting to look for evidence of temporal differences between the collected features. This paper addresses the issue of the practical limits to confidently identifying temporal differences based on archaeomagnetic sample information. Three controlled data sets suggest that when the specimen polar projections of the samples compared have substantially overlapping ranges and when sample mean projections are less than five degrees apart, statistical comparisons do not support conclusions about probable age differences. These results suggest that temporal differences less than 50 to 100 years (depending on the rate of directional change in the geomagnetic field) between features within a site or component will be difficult to confidently identify. Additional analysis leads to the hypothesis, however, that the averaged results from sets of archaeomagnetic samples might provide the basis for making fine scale temporal distinctions between sites or components from which multiple archaeomagnetic samples have been collected. INTRODUCTIONWhen several archaeomagnetic samples are collected from the same site or component, archaeologists are tempted to look for evidence of temporal differences among the collected features. Since it can be shown that, theoretically, accurate dating can be as precise as 2 5 years (Tarling, 1985:248; Wolfman, 1984:395 -396), the search for temporal differences is all the more tempting. Clearly, the practical limits on accurate dating will be different from the theoretical limits on precision (Tarling, 1985:285), but few attempts have been made as yet to describe these practical limits. Based on the limits to the precision with which archaeomagnetic secular variation curves can be derived and calibrated mathematically, Sternberg (1982: 105) feels that minimum date ranges will be 50 years in length. This paper focuses primarily on archaeomagnetic sample data, rather than theory, to see whether temporal differences less than 100 years can currently be expected.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contemporary archaeomagnetic results and the accuracy of archaeomagnetic dates

Eighmy

Hathaway

1987

Geoarchaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and 350 B.P.). The data set was Iceland (BRYNJOLFSSON, 1957), England (TARLING, 1989, France (THELLIER, 1981), Bulgaria (KOVACHEVA, 1980, 1992, personal communication 1992, Ukraina (ZAGNIY, 1981;KOVACHEVA, 1982), China (WEI et al, 1983), Japan (NAGATA et al, 1963;SASAJIMA and MAENAKA, 1966;KONO, 1969;HIROOKA, -1971;SAKAI and HIROOKA , 1986;OHNO, 1988;MAENAKA, 1990), Australia' (BARTON, 1983, Hawaii (HOLCOMB et al ., 1986), Southwest U.S.A. (DuBois 1989;STERNBERG, 1989) and Meso America (WOLFMAN, 1984;DuBoIs;. In all, 24 elements of the geomagnetic field (11 for inclination, 10 for declination and 3 for intensity) were prepared.…”

Section: Geomagnetic Secular Variation Curvementioning

confidence: 99%

Global Analysis of the Geomagnetic Field: Time Variation of the Dipole Moment and the Geomagnetic Pole in the Holocene

Ohno

Hamano

1993

J. geomagn. geoelec

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Global features of the geomagnetic field over the past 10,000 years were studied. Reliable data set of inclination and declination at twelve localities were prepared by combining paleomagnetic data with archaeomagnetic data. We estimated the time variation of the geomagnetic dipole moment by analyzing the virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) positions calculated from this data set.The geomagnetic poles were calculated for every 100-year interval by averaging the VGP. The distribution of the geomagnetic poles has an elliptic shape and westward movement was predominant throughout the interval. The obtained time sequence of the movement of the geomagnetic pole can be divided into three intervals: during the period between ca. 7000 and ca. 3700 B.P. (B.P.: before 1950 A.D.), the movement of the geomagnetic pole was inactive, and it was active before and after this period, fluctuating over 10 degrees.Continuous time variation of the dipole moment was inferred from the angular dispersion of the VGP, by investigating the relationship between the angular dispersion of the VGP and the dipole moment. The result suggests that the dipole moment had sharp peaks of high intensity around .8500 B.P., 4200 B.P. and 1200 B.P.

show abstract

“…''Archaeomagnetism'' is a non-prospecting method. Recent summaries of this specialty are available in Wolfman (1984) and Tarling et al (1986). ''Isotopic analysis'' is another nonprospecting method.…”

Section: Magnetic and Archaeomagnetism Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dating technologies are included along with prospection methods in the broader term ''archaeophysics''. A survey of the broader field of physics applied to archaeology is available in excellent summaries by Aitken (1974) and Wolfman (1984).…”

Section: Definition and Significancementioning

confidence: 99%

Archaeogeophysics–archaeological prospection – A mini review

Batayneh

2011

Journal of King Saud University - Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geophysical methods have been used with increasing frequency in archaeology since 1946; aerial photography has been used since 1919. The geophysical methods that are most commonly used at present are electrical resistivity, magnetic, and ground penetrating radar. Magnetometry, particularly when used in a gradient mode or with a continuously recording base station, is used at almost all sites where any geophysical methods are used.Electromagnetic soil-conductivity systems are also being increasingly used because of their very high rate of data acquisition. Less commonly used methods include self-potential, microgravity, radiometric, thermal infrared imagery, and sonic or seismic techniques. Recent developments in image processing and graphic representation have contributed substantially to the archaeologist's ability to do ''rescue archaeology'', that is, to carry out high-speed, non-destructive reconnaissance surveys for ancient human cultural evidence in advance of modern industrial development.

show abstract

Geomagnetic Dating Methods in Archaeology

Cited by 20 publications

References 184 publications

Contemporary archaeomagnetic results and the accuracy of archaeomagnetic dates

Contemporary archaeomagnetic results and the accuracy of archaeomagnetic dates

Global Analysis of the Geomagnetic Field: Time Variation of the Dipole Moment and the Geomagnetic Pole in the Holocene

Archaeogeophysics–archaeological prospection – A mini review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About