Geophysical identification of unmarked historic graves

Abstract

Down‐hole magnetic susceptibility techniques were explored as a means of improving near‐surface geophysical surveys in historic grave detection. These techniques were used to document distinctive magnetic characteristics of grave shafts at three historic cemeteries first surveyed using various near‐surface geophysical methods. Tests revealed a low magnetic susceptibility signature that soil magnetic studies indicated was largely related to differential soil compaction associated with the excavation and refilling of grave shafts. Most apparent at depths beyond those reached by soil penetrometers, this magnetic signature offers a way to assess anomalies identified by near‐surface techniques that potentially represent graves. At one cemetery, magnetic studies of the interments themselves suggested spatially patterned, magnetically enhanced zones that might also aid in burial identification in certain contexts. While down‐hole techniques will not be foolproof, they do provide another geophysical tool that can be used to improve grave detection. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Detection and characterisation of Black Death burials by multi-proxy geophysical methods

“…unmarked burials are many and have had varied success, for example, locating archaeological graves in Jordan (Frohlich and Lancaster, 1986) and Turkey (Arisoy et al, 2007), Kings' Mounds in Sweden (Persson and Olofsson, 2004), Icelandic Viking/Medieval graves (Damiata et al, 2013), North American Indian historic burial grounds (Bigman, 2012), th century cemeteries and graveyards in New Zealand (Nobes, 1999), the USA (Bevan, 1991;Ellwood et al, 1994;Doolittle & Bellantoni, 2010;Dalan et al, 2010;Honerkamp and Crook, 2012;Bigman, 2014), Australia (Buck, 2003), the UK (Hansen et al, 2014), to 19 th century Irish Famine victims (Ruffell et al, 2009) and 20 th century Svalbard Spanish Flu victims (Davis et al, 2000). The advantages of archaeological surveys are that there is usually little time constraint; however for forensic and time-limited geophysical surveys the need to rapidly characterise a site and identify potential burial position(s) is paramount (e.g.…”

Revisiting Alice Boer: Site formation processes and dating issues of a supposedly pre‐Clovis site in Southeastern Brazil

“…Note that the number of total pieces is an average for each level. The increase in‐phase in the values of MS and χ fd% indicates that the analyzed samples present a contribution of finer magnetic grains, meaning that the material is strongly related to the fired or anthropogenic soil at these depths (e.g., Dalan et al, 2010; Evans & Heller, 2003).…”

Delineating an Unmarked Graveyard by High-Resolution GPR and pXRF Prospection: The Medieval Church Site of Furulund in Norway

“…Due to its comparatively high spatial resolution and its capability to resolve smaller targets, whilst simultaneously providing depth information, GPR is generally considered the most suitable solution for mapping inhumation burials (Conyers 2006;Jones 2008;Moffat 2015). Alternative geophysical techniques such as magnetometer surveys (e.g., Linford 2004), and electromagnetic induction (e.g., Bigman 2012) have also seen some success, particularly when used in combination (Nobes 1999;Dalan, De Vore & Clay 2010;Bigman 2014). Geophysical techniques have only recently been employed as tools for locating and mapping funerary monuments in Norway.…”