4.5 Article

Parameters in the use of pXRF for archaeological site prospection: a case study at the Reaume Fort Site, Central Minnesota

期刊

JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SCIENCE
卷 40, 期 8, 页码 3193-3211

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2013.04.008

关键词

pXRF; Site prospection; Geochemistry; Sample preparation

资金

  1. University of Minnesota, College of Liberal Arts
  2. University of Minnesota, Office of the Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Programs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Field portable/hand-held x-ray fluorescence (pXRF) analyzers have been characterized as potentially useful for archaeological site prospection; but little has been published on the parameters of their use in this manner. The purpose of this study is to explore whether the variability of surface geochemistry as characterized with a pXRF analyzer corresponds with subsurface archaeological features at a site subsequently excavated, and what conditions influence the success of this endeavor, including feature depths, soil moisture, and sample processing. A 520 m(2) within-site area was systematically surveyed on a 2 m interval, within which several types of archaeological features were excavated (chimney bases, wall trenches, and a bonebed of faunal waste), taking readings in situ and collecting samples for ex situ testing (undried, dried but not powdered, and dried/powdered). The four different tests of each grid location, analyzed through univariate and multivariate tests, showed that the pXRF surface data does correspond with some types of subsurface features when those features are very shallow (within 5 cm of surface level) and are associated with clayey fills. Further, the data from the subsurface samples provides excellent distinction of feature fills from other sediments, regardless of sample preparation. In situ surface survey with pXRF analyzers may however be adequate for sites with a thorough baseline geochemical database. (c) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据