Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-12T01:37:22.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GIS-Based Image Enhancement of Conductivity and Magnetic Susceptibility Data from Ureturituri Pa and Fort Resolution, New Zealand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thegn N. Ladefoged ,
Sheena M. McLachlan ,
Sarah C. L. Ross ,
Peter J. Sheppard  and
Douglas G. Sutton
Thegn N. Ladefoged
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Sheena M. McLachlan
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Sarah C. L. Ross
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Peter J. Sheppard
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Douglas G. Sutton
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two geographic information system (GIS) techniques for displaying, analyzing, and interpreting geophysical data were recently applied at two archaeological sites in northern New Zealand; a pre-European Maori pa (fortification), and a late nineteenth-century European fortification. A GIS was used to stretch and filter the conductivity data from the pa to accentuate subtle contrasts and clearly delineate boundaries between areas with contrasting conductivity readings. Magnetic susceptibility data and two different bands of conductivity data from the historic fort were used as input for a GIS-based unsupervised classification. The classification delineated five spatial entities, several of which corresponded to known archaeological features. The interpretability of the geophysical data in relation to conventional visual analysis of conductivity contour maps was enhanced through the use of the GIS procedures outlined.

Resumen

Resumen

Dos técnicas de sistema de información geográfica (GIS) para representor graficamente, analizar, e interpretar datos geofisicos fueron aplicadas recientemente a dos sitios arqueológicos en el norte de Nueva Zelandia; un pa (fortiflcación) Maori pre-europeo y una fortiflcación europea de final del siglo diez y nueve. GIS se utilizó para expandir y filtrar los datos de conductividad del pa con el propósito de acentuar los contrastes sutiles y delinear claramente los limites entre las áreas con lecturas de conductividad contrastantes. Los datos de susceptibilidad magnética y aquéllos de dos bandas distintas de conductividad del fuerte histórico fueron utilizados como base para una clasificación no supervisada basada en GIS. La clasificación delineó cinco entidades espaciales, algunas de las cuales corresponden a rasgos arqueológicos conocidos. El potencial interpretativo de los datos geofisicos en relación con análisis convencionales de mapas de contorno de conductividad fue mejorado a través del uso de estos procedimientos de GIS.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , July 1995 , pp. 471 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Allen, K., Green, S., Zubrow, E. (editors) 1990 Interpreting Space : GIS and Archaeology. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Allsop, J. M. 1991 Recent Applications of Geoprospection Techniques to Archaeology. In Archaeometry ‘90, edited by Pernicka, E. and Wagner, G. A., pp. 667–676. Birkhauser Verlag, Basel.Google Scholar
Ambrose, W. 1967 Kauri Point. Paper presented at the New Zealand Archaeological Association Conference, New Plymouth.Google Scholar
Aspinall, A. 1992 New Developments in Geophysical Prospection. In New Developments in Archaeological Science, Proceedings of the British Academy 77, edited by Pollard, A. M., pp. 233–244. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Bevan, B. W. 1983 Electromagnetics for Mapping Buried Earth Features. Journal of Field Archaeology 10(1) : 47–54.Google Scholar
Cheetham, P. N., Haigh, J. G. B., and Ipson, S. S. 1991 The Archaeological Perception of Geophysical Data. In Archaeological Sciences 1989 : Proceedings of a Conference on the Application of Scientific Techniques to Archaeology, edited by Budd, P., Chapman, B., Jackson, C., Janaway, R., and Ottaway, B.. Oxbow Monograph 9. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Clark, A. 1990 Seeing Beneath the Soil : Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. B. T. Batsford, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, J. M. 1987 The Prehistory of New Zealand. Longman Paul, Auckland.Google Scholar
Eastman, J. R. 1992 IDRISI User's Guide. Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Forte, M. 1993 Image Processing Applications in Archaeology : Classification Systems of Archaeological Sites in the Landscape. In Computing the Past : Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA92, edited by Andresen, J., Madsen, T, and Scollar, I., pp. 49–61. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Geonics 1992 Conductivity Meter EM38 and Polycorder 720 Manuals. Geonics Ltd.Google Scholar
Golson, J. 1961 Investigations at Kauri Point, Katikati, Western Bay of Plenty. New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 4 : 13–11.Google Scholar
Hasek, V, Petrova, H., and Segeth, K. 1993 Graphic Representation Methods in Archaeological Prospection in Czechoslovakia. In Computing the Past : Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA92, edited by Andresen, J., Madsen, T, and Scollar, I., pp. 63–66. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Jensen, J. R., Elijah, W R., Holmes, J. M., Michel, J. E., Savitsky, B., and Davis., B. A. Google Scholar
Hasek, V, Petrova, H., and Segeth, K. 1990 Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Mapping for Oil Spills Using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information System Technology. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 4 : 181–201.Google Scholar
Kvamme, K. L. 1989 Geographic Information Systems in Regional Archaeological Research and Data Management. In Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 139–204. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Laurini, R., and Thompson, D. 1992 Fundamentals of Spatial Information Systems, Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Lemmens, J. P. M. M, Stancic, Z., and Verwaal, R. G. 1993 Automated Archaeological Feature Extraction from Digital Aerial Photographs. In Computing the Past : Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA92, edited by Andresen, J., Madsen, T, and Scollar, I., pp. 45–51. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Leute, U. 1987 Archaeometry : An Introduction to Physical Methods in Archaeology and the History of Art. VCH, Weinheim, Germany.Google Scholar
Lillesand, T., and Kiefer, R. 1994 Remote Sensing and Image Interpretation. 3rd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York City.Google Scholar
Mason, D. C, Corr, D. G., Cross, A., Hogg, D. C., Lawrence, D. H., Petrou, M., and Tailor, A. M. 1988 The Use of Digital Map Data in the Segmentation and Classification of Remotely-sensed Images. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 2 : 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milligan, R., and Atkin, M. 1993 The Use of Ground-Probing Radar Within a Digital Environment on Archaeological Sites. In Computing the Past : Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, CAA92, edited by Andresen, J., Madsen, T, and Scollar, I., pp. 21–32. Aarhus University Press, Aarhus.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. 1995 The Russian Forts of Auckland. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland.Google Scholar
Scollar, I., Tabbagh, A., Hesse, A., and Herzog, I. Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. 1990 Archaeological Prospecting and Remote Sensing. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Showalter, P. S. 1993 A Thematic Mapper Analysis of the Prehistoric Hohokam Cabal System, Phoenix, Arizona. Journal of Field Archaeology 20 : 77–88.Google Scholar
Sutton, D. G. 1994 The Archaeology and Interpretation of Ureturituri Pa, Bay of Plenty : Report of the 1993 Archaeological Field School at Ureturituri Pa. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland.Google Scholar
Thomas, I. L., Benning, V. M., and Ching, N. P. 1987 Classification of Remotely Sensed Images. Adam Hilger, Bristol, England.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotter, C. M. 1991 Remotely-sensed Data as an Information Source for Geographical Information Systems in Natural Resource Management : A Review. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5 : 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weymouth, J. W. 1986 Geophysical Methods of Archaeological Site Surveying. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol, 9, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 311–395, Academic Press, New York City.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J. 1993 Pinpointing a Buried Fort on Point Resolution, Auckland. Archaeology in New Zealand 35(2) : 109–120.Google Scholar