Understand Magnetic Maps

1 May 2006

Magnetic maps contain valuable information that is unknown unless one has some
understanding of the fundamental processes that create the patterns in those maps. This
report is intended to aid that understanding.
A casual and uninformed look at magnetic maps will indeed tell much about the shape
and location of buried features. However, an informed study of a map can provide additional
details about the depth, quantity, and identity of the magnetic materials that are underground.
Basic knowledge of magnetic maps may also prevent foolish interpretations and wasteful
excavations.
The ideas in this report fall between those of a magnetic survey and its analysis; these
bordering topics receive some discussion here, but that part of the report is not very
thorough. Some considerations for the processing and interpretation of magnetic data are
included; also, some of the ideas here may help with decisions about field work. This report
is primarily for individuals who do magnetic surveys for archaeological applications; however,
some of the topics may aid others who have different goals.
There are only a few illustrations of magnetic measurements in this report (most
illustrations have been calculated); this is because calculated maps isolate the important
factors with greater clarity. An excellent compilation of magnetic maps of archaeological
features has recently been published by Tatyana Smekalova (Smekalova, Voss, and
Smekalov 2005); that publication also includes an archaeological analysis of those magnetic
maps, a topic that is lacking in my report. The best overall introduction to magnetic surveys
and their understanding remains the publication by Sheldon Breiner (Breiner 1973); my report
is designed to supplement some parts of Breiner's publication.
The appearance of magnetic maps changes with location on the Earth; latitude has the
greatest effect. The maps that illustrate this report are typical of ones that can be measured
in most of the USA, northern Europe, Australia, and South Africa; for most of the calculated
maps here, the angle of inclination of the magnetic field is assumed to be 70°. In other parts
of the world, there can be significant differences in the appearance of magnetic maps. These
differences are mentioned here, but Breiner (1973) has a more complete description of these
latitude effects. While this report mentions gradiometers, most of the illustrations and
discussions are for total field magnetic surveys.
Topics generally get more detailed later in the report, and also later within each
section. When one paragraph has more details than usual, the word "(technical)" is put at the
start of the paragraph.
The electronic version of this report has hyperlinks, primarily to figures; these are
indicated with blue text. The captions for the figures are detailed, and the most important
information is with those figures (which are at the end of the report). If the report is read by
looking at the figures, the initial blue text (Figure ##) in a caption has a link back to the
primary discussion in the body of the report. Additional information about the figures is
included in an appendix. Where a full page of figures has four panels, an individual panel

Page 1
 Preliminaries

may be enlarged by clicking on it.

The main sections of this report are as follows:
Preliminaries
Different Styles of Magnetic Maps
General Effects in Magnetic Maps
The Magnetic Lows
Induced and Remanent Magnetization
Data Processing
Analysis of Magnetic Maps
The Components of the Magnetic Field
Conclusion

Preliminaries
A magnetic map illustrates changes in the magnetic field in an area. Objects that are
underground can warp the simple patterns of the Earth's magnetic field into complex shapes.
A study of these shapes on a magnetic map can reveal much information about the features
that are underground. This information can include the location, size and shape, volume or
mass, and depth of the features; in some cases, the age of a feature and its material (stone,
soil, metal) may be estimated. Magnetic maps are created from numbers, often measured at
a uniform interval in an area. Figure 1 shows a map that has a group of numbers in their
correct spatial locations. Magnetic measurements are made with a magnetometer. There
are many different types of magnetometers, and they are often given a prefix that describes a
fundamental physical aspect of their operation: Overhauser, cesium, fluxgate, proton. All of
these types of magnetometers are excellent for archaeological surveys.
Each of these magnetometers measures the amplitude (also called the magnitude) of
the Earth's magnetic field; this is complementary to a magnetic compass, which measures
direction, but not amplitude. The technical name for this amplitude is flux density; in physics
and engineering books, this name is designated with the letter B. The typical unit for this
quantity is the nanotesla. The "nano" means billionth (US), while "tesla" honors an engineer
with that name; note that the letter T is not capitalized when the unit name is spelled.
A study of Figure 1 shows that there is a group of high numbers near the middle, and
that the numbers are negative toward the upper right; however, it is difficult to see the pattern
of the numbers. This pattern is clarified with the contour maps in Figure 2; each of these
maps provides a different way of revealing the numbers in Figure 1.
In the upper left corner of Figure 2 (panel A), lines are drawn much like those on a
typical topographic map. In panel B, high, average, and negative readings are plotted as
shades of white, gray, and black. The wire frame map (panel D) is excellent for seeing the
peak in the numbers. The shaded relief map (panel C) is similar to this wire frame map if this
bump was viewed from overhead, and it was illuminated from the upper left (northwest) side
of the map.

Page 2
 Different styles of magnetic maps

Different Styles of Magnetic Maps

Each of the displays in Figure 2 has benefits and limitations. The line contour and
gray scale displays are most commonly applied to magnetic maps.
Line contour maps have two major advantages. The first advantage is that they allow
a wide range of readings to be plotted. However, note that where the contour lines are very
close together, they merge into a black area with little additional information, except that the
readings are extreme. The second advantage of these contour maps is that they readily
show areas where the magnetic field changes rapidly with location. This information is
valuable for pairing magnetic highs with lows, and this is a fundamental part of understanding
magnetic maps. The area between a paired magnetic high and low has a high lateral
gradient; this is revealed by the close spacing of the contour lines. A magnetic low will
usually be associated with the high toward which it has the greatest lateral gradient.
If one has a printed copy of a line contour map, it may be possible to recreate the
digital values that compose the map; this is seldom possible with the other styles of magnetic
maps in Figure 2. Therefore, a line contour map has a greater archival value. It is generally
not necessary to label contour lines with the values of the anomaly or field. This is because
the actual values of the magnetic field are not too important; it is changes in the field that are
important.
Line contour maps can also be saved as graphics files that have a high resolution;
they can be vector files, rather than raster files. The line contour maps in this report are all
vector files; this allows them to be enlarged on a computer's monitor without losing resolution
and the sharpness of the contour lines. If magnetic maps are not very complex, vector files
can be smaller than bitmap files; on complex maps however, bitmap files will be smaller.
The major disadvantage of a line contour map is the fact that it is difficult to compare
readings across a wide area on a map. That is, it may be difficult to see patterns that are
formed by similar readings across the width of a map; this is particularly true for large or
complex magnetic maps.
Gray scale maps eliminate this problem, and that is their greatest advantage. If one
part of a map has a particular gray tone, then another part of the map with that same gray is
caused by similar or identical magnetic readings. This continuity can be a great aid for
clarifying the shapes of complex features that may be revealed in a magnetic map.
The big limitation of gray scale maps is the small range of readings that can be
displayed. More correctly, small amplitude anomalies cannot be displayed in those parts of
the map where the surrounding values are high and also where they are low. If color can be
added to a map, then a much wider range of magnetic values can be plotted faithfully.
A shaded relief map, like that in panel C of Figure 2, has the advantage of familiarity,
at least for someone who has seen vertical aerial photographs. These maps are called
shaded, but they actually have no shadows; this is a benefit, for shadows could obscure
important patterns in the maps. Dark tones in a shaded relief map mean that the surface in
that area is pointed away from the direction of illumination. Shaded relief maps can
accentuate linear features if the illumination is set to the correct angle; they can also

Page 3
 Different styles of magnetic maps

attenuate these features if the illumination is in a perpendicular direction. Shaded relief maps
have the disadvantage that they can increase the complexity of the patterns. This is because
a single high (mound) is now shown as a combination of dark and light; with a gray scale
map, the high would have a single tone.
The one outstanding benefit of a wire frame map is the fact that the amplitudes of
readings are apparent, even to an inexpert viewer. The major disadvantage of this type of
map is that peaks in the map can hide smaller anomalies that are behind them; in panel D of
Figure 2, the low area behind the peak is invisible. These maps also do not locate the
anomalies very clearly; peaks are shifted proportionally to their amplitudes. Wire frame maps
are also called mesh or fishnet maps.
Several of the different types of maps in Figure 2 may be combined to illustrate
anomalies more completely or more clearly. It is even possible to combine or overlay a
magnetic map with the map of another type of survey (such as a resistivity survey), by
plotting them with two of the different styles in Figure 2.
There are several different ways of selecting the interval between the contours in a line
contour map; Figure 3 illustrates these. If a single interval is applied, it may not be possible
to show both high amplitude and low amplitude anomalies clearly. In panel A, the contours at
a high value merge to form a solid black area. If these high values are not very important,
one may simply omit the contour lines for the largest anomalies; Figure 14 illustrates this. As
a second possibility, the map may be drawn with two or more intervals between the contour
lines, as in panel B. The abrupt change in the spacing between the contour lines locates
where this switch has been made. A logarithmic interval between contour lines can also
allow both high amplitude and low amplitude anomalies to be displayed; panel C shows an
example. The contour interval for this map is approximately logarithmic, with lines at anomaly
levels of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50 and so forth; there is also a line at the zero level, and the same
sequence continues for negative anomalies. If fewer contour lines are wished, the levels can
be at 1, 3, 10, 30, 100, 300 and so on. In panels A - C of Figure 3, the contour line for 0 is
drawn thicker than normal; this distinction can aid the understanding of a magnetic map.
(technical) The zero level contour is the background field that has been determined
for the area; this is the regional value of the Earth's magnetic field. Along this contour line,
the magnetic field from the feature is perpendicular to the field from the Earth, at least if the
feature is not too magnetic.
Panel D of Figure 3 is an equal area contour map. One advantage of this type of map
is that a good representation can be made of any data with an automatic procedure that does
not require that a person study the readings in order to select the levels. One simply decides
how many contour lines to draw in the map; for this example, contour lines are to be drawn at
nine levels. Next, the gridded values of the map are sorted with a fast computer program.
The first contour level is determined by simply counting 10 per cent of the way through the
sorted list, and selecting the value at that point for a contour line. Then the count continues
to 20 per cent for the next level, and so on to 90 per cent for the final contour level. While
this procedure will guarantee a rather good map that reveals the data, it will be difficult to

Page 4
 General effects in magnetic maps

estimate the amplitudes of the anomalies from the map.

Color can aid the visibility of a wide range of anomalies in a magnetic map; if several
different colors are included, the amplitude range that can be revealed in the map is
increased. Four different ways of employing color are illustrated in Figure 4.

General Effects in Magnetic Maps

The magnetic maps in Figures 1 - 4 show the same pattern: At the center, high values
are found in a rather circular area, and there is an arc-shaped region of low values on one
side of those highs. This pattern is common in most magnetic maps; it is caused by an object
that is rather small for its distance (depth underground). The object could be a brick, a
magnetic stone, a refilled hole, or a metal can. The pattern is called an anomaly, which just
means that it is different from the surrounding parts of the map. More specifically, this pattern
can be called a dipolar anomaly (not a dipole anomaly); it is called dipolar because there are
two small, adjacent areas, one with positive readings and the other with negative readings.
Deeper objects cause broader magnetic anomalies; this effect is illustrated in Figure 5.
The heading above each panel lists the peak magnetic anomaly; note that these peak values
drop even faster than the anomalies broaden. While a magnetic survey can detect objects at
any depth, they must be quite massive in order to be detected if they are deep underground.
It is definitely true that all magnetic maps accentuate shallow features. It is also true that
almost the entire reading of a magnetic survey is caused by an object that is thousands of
kilometers distant: The core of the Earth.
A later section of this report will discuss how depth may be estimated from a magnetic
map. It is important to estimate depth, for older features may be deeper underground.
There are several different types of magnetometers, and these may be distinguished
in two different ways. One distinction is between instruments that measure the total magnetic
field (examples: Overhauser and cesium) from those that measure the magnitude of the field
in only one direction (example: fluxgate). The second distinction is whether the instrument is
being operated as a gradiometer or as a simple magnetometer. With a gradiometer, there
are a pair of moving magnetic sensors; these are almost always placed on a vertical line, and
usually spaced by 0.5 or 1.0 m.
The phrase “total field magnetometer” is sometimes applied specifically to an
instrument that is not a gradiometer. However, the word magnetometer by itself means any
type of instrument that measures magnetic quantities; a gradiometer is one type of
magnetometer. Magnetic susceptibility meters are not usually called magnetometers,
although the plotted measurements of these instruments may be called magnetic maps.
These types of maps are not described here; a description of magnetic susceptibility and its
value for archaeology has been given by Dalan and Banerjee (1998) and by Evans and Heller
(2003).
Figure 6 shows that the magnetic anomalies from three different types of magnetic
instruments are similar, although not identical. If a magnetic map does not indicate which
type of measurement was made, it will probably be difficult to determine this from the patterns

Page 5
 General effects in magnetic maps

on the map itself.

There are special considerations for understanding maps of magnetic gradient. It is
conventional for the gradient to be calculated from the difference of the reading at the lower
sensor minus the reading at the upper sensor. This allows a gradient map to show the same
polarity for its anomalies as those in a map of the total field. Note that this convention is the
opposite of other gradients in physics; it is otherwise customary to define gradients as
positive if the reading increases with height. A gradient should always use the units of nT/m,
and never nT/ft, even if the spacing between the magnetic sensors was in feet. With some
instruments, only the difference in the field between the two sensors of a gradiometer will be
measured and mapped; this difference will not be divided by the spacing between the
sensors. Finally, none of these "gradiometer" measurements are true gradients; the sensors
are too far apart to measure the true gradient of the magnetic field.
What are the relative advantages of a survey that is done with or without a
gradiometer? A gradiometer allows greater spatial resolution of buried features and it
accentuates nearby or shallow features. If a single moving sensor is used rather than a
gradiometer, the instrument will be lighter in weight and it will be easier to operate in brushy
areas; while this instrument will detect features that are deeper, the correction of temporal
changes in the magnetic field will be more difficult. A magnetometer with a single sensor can
be operated in brush by holding it on a horizontal staff that can be pushed into foliage; this is
difficult with any vertical gradiometer. While the measurement spacing with a gradiometer
must be smaller than that with a magnetometer, that is not a fair comparison because of the
greater spatial resolution that is possible with a gradiometer.
Magnetometers can also be categorized by the physical principle of their operation
(Dobrin and Savit 1988 p. 660 - 669; Robinson and Coruh 1988 p. 342 - 357). The main
operational distinctions between these types may be summarized as follows: Proton
magnetometers can be simple to operate, but they are very slow in making measurements.
Overhauser magnetometers are much faster, and they require less electrical power for their
operation. Cesium magnetometers can make measurements where the gradient of the
magnetic field is fairly high; however, they require more power than other instruments and
they are rather sensitive to the orientation of the sensors. Fluxgate magnetometers are even
more sensitive to orientation; however, these instruments can make measurements even if
magnetic gradients are extremely high. Fluxgate instruments can be noisier than other
magnetometers, but they can also measure the magnetic field in one direction. More detailed
comparisons between magnetometers have been given by Bartington and Chapman (2004)
and by Hrvoic and others (2003).
For archaeological surveys at historical sites, it can be valuable to have an instrument
that has a high tolerance for magnetic gradients. This is because artifacts of iron and steel
can be very magnetic, and anomalies may not be fully-mapped unless the instrument can still
make good readings even with the high gradients that may be found near these metallic
artifacts. When fluxgate sensors are operated as gradiometers, it is not practical to change
the spacing between sensors; however, the other instruments allow this change. While the

Page 6
 General effects in magnetic maps

differences above can be very important for some specific applications, all of these different
types of magnetometers can be suitable for archaeological surveys.
The spatial resolution of a magnetic survey is reduced as features are deeper
underground. Figure 7 illustrates this with a feature that has the shape of an E. Notice how
quickly the shape becomes rounded; these illustrations show the truth of the statement that a
magnetic map is a blurred image of buried features. The amplitudes of the anomalies
decreases so much with increasing height that it is necessary then to decrease the interval
between contour lines. Height or depth in this report means the distance between the
magnetic sensor and the feature; this distance is the sum of two lengths: The height of the
sensor above the ground, and the depth of the feature below the surface.
The calculated maps in Figure 7 are for a total field magnetometer; Figure 8 shows
how the resolution of a survey can be increased with a gradiometer. With a total field
magnetometer, the amplitude of the anomaly from a small feature decreases with the cube of
the distance to the feature. With a gradiometer, this decrease can approach the fourth power
of distance. While it can be valuable to minimize the effect of nearby buildings on a magnetic
survey (by using a gradiometer), it can also be valuable to detect deeper features (with a
magnetometer, rather than a gradiometer). Figure 9 illustrates how a gradiometer attenuates
deeper features.
(technical) As the sensor spacing of a gradiometer approaches zero, the amplitudes
of the anomalies caused by small features drop with the fourth power of distance; as the
spacing gets very large, the exponent approaches three.
Figure 10 shows some effects in magnetic maps that are important to remember. In
the northern hemisphere, most magnetic anomalies will have a rather weak low to the north
of a magnetic high; in the southern hemisphere, the pattern will be the same, but the low will
be to the south. This is the same pattern that will be mapped if a magnetic object is overhead
in the northern hemisphere (see panel B). Overhead objects that may be detected by a
magnetic survey include metal roofs, water tanks, and electrical power transformers on poles.
The features that are detected by a magnetometer are usually more magnetic than the
surrounding soil; however, features that are less magnetic can also be detected, and the
difference of their maps is important. Panel D in Figure 10 shows that these features will be
detected primarily as magnetic lows. The detection of such a magnetic low requires that the
soil itself be rather magnetic; magnetic soil is particularly likely near slow rivers and in areas
with limestone bedrock. The limestone itself (along with sandstone) is essentially
non-magnetic, and so buildings or rubble composed of sedimentary stone can be detected by
their magnetic lows. Air cavities in magnetic soil and tunnels in magnetic rock, such as lava
(Barba and others 1990), can also be detected as lows.
While Figure 10 shows the mirroring of anomalies between the northern and southern
hemispheres, Figure 11 shows how the patterns change in either hemisphere. Magnetic
maps are simplest at the far north, for small features there cause high anomalies that are
circular and centered on the buried features. At lower latitudes, the shapes of the anomalies
from even simple features are more complex; both a high and a low are caused by a single

Page 7
 General effects in magnetic maps

object, and neither pattern may be centered over the feature. While this complicates
magnetic maps, once the principle is understood, it causes no problems for understanding
the patterns.
(technical) At non-polar latitudes, it is possible to convert the measurements on a map
so that high values are centered above each feature; this process is called a reduction to the
pole (Blakely 1995 p. 330); it is generally not worth the effort. Since there will often be many
different angles of magnetic remanence at archaeological sites, it is not practical to change
all magnetic anomalies to their shape at the north pole in a single map.
Two numbers are listed at the top of each panel in Figure 11. The Ie number shows
the inclination or dip angle of the Earth's magnetic field. This angle increases with increasing
latitude, although faster than the angle of latitude. The north magnetic pole is located where
this angle is 90° at the Earth's surface; in the northern hemisphere, this point is currently west
of Axel Heiberg Island in northern Canada. At an elevation of a few hundred kilometers
above the Earth's surface, the inclination angle is 90° in northwestern Greenland; this is the
northern geomagnetic pole, and aurora are centered on this point; note that this is called the
geomagnetic pole, not the magnetic pole.
Near the equator, the Earth's field is almost horizontal, and magnetic objects are
revealed with magnetic lows. At non-equatorial locations, when magnetic surveys are done
on vertical surfaces, lows can also be centered at magnetic objects. The reason is the same
in both cases, and this explanation will be given later in this report; however, the general
result can be summarized this way: Magnetic readings are high along and near a line that
goes through a magnetic object in the direction of the Earth's field; magnetic readings are low
in all other locations.
There are other important effects of latitude. Figure 12 shows how a building
foundation might be revealed by a magnetic survey in much of the world. As surveys are
done closer to the equator, the anomalies from north-south walls can decrease until they
become invisible; see Figure 13 (Radhakrishna Murthy 1998 p. 235).
Elongated objects can cause unusual patterns in magnetic maps; Figure 14 shows
examples; since the magnitude of the anomalies is not important, their highs have not been
fully-contoured. The most common elongated feature that is found by magnetic surveys is a
pipe. It appears that pipes that have been formed from sheet steel that has been rolled into a
cylinder can cause the pattern shown in panel A; there may be little effect from remanent
magnetization and the pipe has a linear low on the north side of the linear high. Smaller
pipes may have been created by extruding or casting molten metal; these pipes appear to
have a strong remanent magnetization along their length. As panel B illustrates, there can be
a strong low at one end of the pipe and a high at the other end.
Magnetic features that are long and vertical may be grounding rods, wells, or perhaps
privies filled with metal. The lower two panels in Figure 14 reveal patterns from long, vertical
objects. These are similar to the anomalies caused by compact objects, with one major
difference: The lows that are associated with these elongated objects are much fainter than
normal. The relative amplitudes of the magnetic high and low of an anomaly can be

Page 8
 General effects in magnetic maps

summarized by the ratio of the absolute values of these values. A compact magnetic object,
such as the one in the calculated map of Figure 3, has a ratio of 10.5 (if the inclination of the
Earth's field is 70°). The magnetic object that is 8 m long in panel C of Figure 14 has this
ratio increased to 24. If the object has effectively an infinite length, it is equivalent to a
magnetic monopole, which can be considered to be one end of a long bar magnet; the ratio
of the amplitudes of the high to the low for a monopole is 157 (again assuming Ie = 70°). The
anomalies at the ends of the horizontal pipe in panel B of Figure 14 are both monopolar; the
associated highs and lows to the north of the main anomalies are too faint to appear in the
contours of that map (the high/low ratio is 143).
The large-area magnetic anomaly shown in Figure 15 has a ratio of its high to its low
of 92. These magnetic measurements can be approximated by the magnetic map of a
monopole (Figure 16). This suggests that there is a well near the peak of the magnetic
anomaly. An excavation at this location was made by David Orr (National Park Service) and
the top of an iron-filled and brick-lined dug well was uncovered there. The calculated map of
Figure 16 clarifies other characteristics of a monopole and therefore a well: The low does not
encircle the magnetic high; instead, the low readings are on one side of a straight line, and
the high values are on the other side. This straight line goes in a magnetic east-west
direction.
The amplitude of a magnetic anomaly changes not only with distance to an object
(Figure 5), but also with the distribution of the magnetic material. If a given quantity of
magnetic material is located in a compact volume, the anomaly will be higher than if the
material is spread out. This effect is revealed in Figure 17; it means that the quantity of
material that is underground cannot be estimated from the amplitude of the anomaly alone,
even if the depth is known.
How closely spaced should magnetic readings be made? A survey is more
economical if readings can be widely spaced, and a waste of time if they are unnecessarily
close together. The first factor to consider is the height that has been selected for the
magnetic sensor; this height has probably been chosen on the basis of convenience, and
perhaps by knowing what spatial resolution is needed. If shallow features must be detected,
the measurement spacing can be as small as about half the sensor height without making
excessive and unneeded readings.
The effects of changes in measurement spacing are revealed in Figures 18 - 20. For
these surveys, the sensor height was about 0.8 m. The map made with a measurement
spacing of 0.3 m (Figure 20) appears to define each anomaly very well. However, the map
with a measurement spacing of 1.5 m (Figure 18) detects many important anomalies and also
defines the brick wall quite well. The map in Figure 20 has 25 times the number of
measurements as the map in Figure 18, and it required about ten times longer to do the
survey. However, the map in Figure 20 is not ten times better than the map in Figure 18.
This shows that the choice of measurement spacing is not an easy or a theoretical decision.
One procedure that may minimize wasted time is to start a survey with a coarse spacing
between readings, and then resurvey small areas that have revealed important anomalies

Page 9
 General effects in magnetic maps

with a finer spacing.

If one was to look only at the magnetic map of Figure 18, made with a measurement
spacing of 1.5 m, and not know the additional details that could be detected in Figure 20 (with
a spacing of 0.3 m), one may never realize what remains invisible in the lower resolution map
of Figure 18. That is, it may be difficult to tell by looking at a magnetic map that the
measurement spacing may have been too broad.
Fortunately or not, many other faults can be apparent in the measurements of a map,
and Figure 21 shows some types of errors. A repetitive pattern, like that in panel A, must be
due to the operator of the survey, and not to a failing of the equipment. A magnetic object is
alternately near and far from the magnetic sensor; perhaps this is metal in a shoe, or it could
be iron in the display console. The pattern can be prevented by eliminating every bit of iron
that is possible, and staying as distant from the sensor as possible; these patterns are
sufficiently irregular that it is very difficult to remove them once they have appeared in a
magnetic map.
Moving cars, trucks, and trains are always a problem for magnetic surveys; they are so
massive that they are detected at a large distance, even with a gradiometer. With a total field
sensor, the noise caused by moving vehicles is almost always a magnetic low; the anomaly
with a gradiometer may be different. Why a low? This will be explained in more detail
shortly, but it is due to the fact that the Earth's field is concentrated in the very magnetic
vehicle, so the field must be reduced in areas more distant from the vehicle. Since the car
may be nearby for several measurements, its passage will be revealed by a linear low along
a line of traverse. A fairly good correction for the errors due to a passing vehicle is possible:
Replace each bad reading with the average of the readings on adjacent and unaffected
columns.
Since lightning is a large electrical current, it creates a large magnetic field; this
lightning noise is readily detected by magnetic surveys for a distance of 10 km or so. Each
lightning strike will probably affect only one magnetic measurement; the polarity of the noise
may be either positive or negative. These one-point errors, like those in panel C of Figure 21,
can be removed from a magnetic map by replacing each faulty value with the average of the
four adjacent good measurements. Median filtering can automatically remove isolated errors
like these: Each measurement is replaced by the median of the values that are found in a
small rectangular window around each point. Note that this process will change values even
where that is not needed.
The irregularities shown in panel D of Figure 21 are seen in many maps, particularly
where the amplitudes of the anomalies are small. The complexity of the contour lines is
caused by fundamental limitations and the noisiness of the electrical circuitry of the
magnetometer; gradiometers, having two sensors, can increase this noise. This noisiness
increases with the speed at which the magnetic measurements are made. At some sites,
iron debris in the soil, or pockets of soil with differing magnetic properties, can contribute to a
general noisiness like that seen in panel D. If a survey is done in a city with several
electrified busses or trains that are 1 km or so distant, the magnetic field from the changing

Page 10
 The magnetic lows

electrical currents may also cause a random noise. While this type of noise can be masked
by applying a window averaging to the measurements, this smoothing should not be done if
the data are to be analyzed. Only the unaltered readings should be analyzed.

The Magnetic Lows

The areas of low readings that are found in magnetic maps contain almost as much
information as the high readings. The mixture of highs and lows in a magnetic map has
some similarity to a weather map that shows contours of air pressure. Both types of maps
have about the same number of highs and lows; however, these highs and lows are paired
more closely in a magnetic map than in a weather map.
The magnetic maps that have illustrated this report typically show low readings that
are immediately adjacent to highs. These may be called dipolar (or perhaps bipolar) pairs of
anomalies. The high readings and the associated and adjacent low readings are caused by a
single object in the soil, not by two objects. While it is reasonable that a single magnetic
object should cause high readings, the origin of the auxiliary low is explained in Figure 22.
This figure shows how magnetic objects may shift and concentrate the natural
magnetic flux from the Earth. In Figure 22, these flux lines are plotted as they dip down to
the right. If there was no magnetic object in the middle of the area, the number of flux lines
would remain the same, and all of the lines would be parallel. The magnetic object simply
attracts nearby lines of flux into the object itself. That is, the flux lines are not created or
destroyed by the magnetic object, they are just moved. Since the magnetic anomaly is
proportional to the density of these flux lines, it can also be said that wherever there is a
magnetic high, a low must be nearby.
(technical) It might seem reasonable that one could construct a magnetic feature that
causes no magnetic low. Why not put a smaller amount of magnetic material where that low
would be measured; could the magnetic high from that new material then cancel out the low?
It does not; it just shifts the low to the side. Notice in Figure 17 that even the triangular object
has a magnetic low at the tapered end of the feature. If the inclination of the field is 90°,
there is still a low that surrounds the circular high (panel A of Figure 11).
Since the idea of the magnetic low is so important, it will be explained a second way.
Rather than a big magnetic object, consider a small object, like that in the middle of the green
circle in Figure 23; this may be a grain of magnetite (lodestone), or it could be a cannonball.
This object is called a magnetic dipole; for this name, the object must be either small or at
least compact (somewhat spherical, but even a cube is rather compact). The object does not
actually have to be small, for the entire Earth is a good magnetic dipole.
The lines of magnetic flux around the object are drawn in Figure 23 as rather oval
shapes. These lines of flux are just the pattern that you will see if you set a permanent
magnet on a table and you sprinkle iron particles around it; the iron will form chains along the
direction of the flux lines. If this object is magnetized by the Earth's magnetic field, the
primary field within the object will be in the direction of that field. However, in large areas
outside the object, the direction of the field from the object will be opposite to the Earth's field.

Page 11
 The magnetic lows

If a magnetic measurement is made at a location where this opposition is found, the resultant
magnetic field will be lower than the Earth's field; this is a magnetic low.
A magnetic survey that was done on the Moon would find highs without lows; see
panel D of Figure 40. There are no lows because there is no surrounding field to oppose.
The magnetic high that is nearly on top of a magnetic object has a small area; the
magnetic low is infinitely large, for it extends over all space outside the small high. It is this
wide-area low that causes passing cars to create lows in magnetic maps. Even though lows
are generally much weaker than highs, the magnetic high from a car is so huge that its
associated low can still be strong at a distance of 30 m or more.
There is an interesting fact that can be important for the study of a magnetic map: The
average of all of the readings of magnetic field in a map is a good approximation of the
magnitude of the Earth's magnetic field. Stated another way, if the numbers for a magnetic
map are anomalies (differences from the Earth's field), the sum of all of the readings on this
map should be about zero. This seems impossible, since a magnetic object causes such
high readings near it. While the magnetic lows are much weaker than the highs, these lows
are found in such a large area that their entire effect is the same as a small area of strong
highs.
(technical) A description of this averaging to zero has been given by Blakely (1995 p.
68) for the vertical component of the magnetic field. This zero value (or background field) is
important to know for the detailed study of a magnetic map; if an incorrect value is selected,
then the estimate of the direction of inclination of the magnetic field in an object will be in
error. Note that if the measurements of a magnetic map are spaced too widely, the magnetic
highs might not be adequately sampled by the measurements, and the average of the
anomalous measurements may be less than zero.
The magnetic cross-section in Figure 23 plots the lines of magnetic flux from the small
object; the flux lines from the Earth's field are monotonous and straight and not plotted there.
When these flux lines from the Earth are added to those from the small object, the resultant is
mapped in Figure 24; the general pattern is similar to that in Figure 22. The flux lines are
warped near the object, and their density again indicates the magnitude of the magnetic field.
Along the dashed line just above the object in Figure 24, these lines are seen to converge in
one area and diverge in another, forming the magnetic high and low that are so familiar.
Near a very magnetic object, the field that it creates may be much stronger than the
field of the Earth. In that area, the sum of the fields remains almost the same as that caused
by the object itself, and the pattern is still like that in Figure 23. Therefore, one might
consider that a magnetic field has been created there. This central pattern is the field that is
found around all strong permanent magnets.
During a magnetic survey in the northern hemisphere, the dashed line in Figure 24
marks the path of magnetic measurements that could be made over a buried object; these
readings reveal the magnetic high that is typically found above an object. If the flux lines in
Figure 24 are rotated by about 90°, this would approximate conditions near the equator,
where the Earth's field is almost horizontal. Then, measurements that were made over the

Page 12
 The magnetic lows

top of the magnetic object would find low readings, just like the low values that are plotted in
panel D of Figure 11. In the northern hemisphere, if one makes magnetic measurements on
a vertical surface, magnetic lows are also found next to magnetic objects. This condition can
be created in Figure 24 by rotating the dashed line by 90° about the middle of the square so
that the line is vertical.
Figure 23 and Figure 24 illustrate two different ways of thinking about magnetic
objects; both ways give an equivalent result and both ways of reasoning are correct. In
Figure 23, one thinks of the object as creating a magnetic field; in Figure 24, one thinks of the
object as warping the Earth's field. If an object is magnetized by the Earth (induced
magnetization), then either approach works fine. However, if an object has remanent
magnetization, then it is better to consider it as creating a magnetic field, as in Figure 23.
This is because the magnetic field from that permanent or remanent magnetization is
probably not in the direction of the Earth's field. Induced and remanent magnetization will be
discussed in the next section of this report.
Remanent magnetization can be revealed in a magnetic map and its direction can be
estimated. This direction might indicate if an object has been burned or fired where it rests in
the soil, or if it was fired or formed somewhere else and later moved to the location where it is
found.
The direction of remanent magnetization is the same as the direction that is
determined from an archaeomagnetic sample that has been taken from an excavation. Like
that archaeomagnetic sample, a magnetic map has the potential for revealing the age that a
feature was created.
This direction of remanent magnetization is suggested by the direction from a
magnetic high to a low, and also by the ratio of the amplitudes of the anomaly high to the
associated low. However, one must be careful, for this direction may be altered in a
magnetic map. Figure 25 shows two sources of this change: The slope of the ground
surface, and the warping of an anomaly by other anomalies that are nearby.
It is not uncommon for a high in a magnetic map to have no low nearby that is clearly
associated with the high. Figure 39 is a map where highs predominate. However, there is
always a low associated with every high; this low may simply be invisible in a map.
There are two general causes for the apparent lack of lows: A nearby high may have
obscured a low; variability and noisiness in the measurements may also distort a low and
make it unrecognizable. In Figure 39, the closely spaced objects cause highs that overlap
(that is, objects are unresolved); many lows are squeezed out by these highs. Even where
the north sides of objects are clear of other anomalies, these lows are indistinct. This is
caused by the noisiness of the measurements; the noise may be due to the magnetometer's
electronics, to the survey procedures, and to natural variability of the soil. In panel D of
Figure 21, the high is clear, while the low is so distorted that it is almost invisible. In rare
cases, a low that is associated with a high may be distant, as in the pipe example in panel B
of Figure 14.
The low spatial resolution of the map in Figure 39 is caused by the large height of the

Page 13
 Induced and remanent magnetization

magnetic sensor (0.95 m). When magnetic maps were measured with the magnetic sensor
on the surface of the soil, the resolution was excellent. The amplitudes of the lows were
much larger, and they were clarified into simple arc-shapes, such as that seen in Figure 3.

Induced and Remanent Magnetization

Two types of magnetism create the anomalies in magnetic maps. Induced magnetism
might be called the effect of a good magnetic "conductor"; Figure 22 is a typical illustration of
this effect. Remanent magnetism is the effect of a permanent magnet.
It is valuable to distinguish these two types of magnetism. It appears that steel usually
has a high remanent magnetization, while iron may have a high induced magnetization. This
difference may therefore allow the age of artifacts to be estimated.
Figure 26 illustrates one way of thinking about the difference between induced and
remanent magnetization; in fact, this figure summarizes a simple procedure that allows
quantitative measurements of the two types of magnetization. When rotating the object, it is
important that it be along a line that goes through the magnetic sensor and is in the direction
of the Earth's field, in both its inclination and declination.
The magnetic maps in Figure 27 and Figure 28 show how the anomalies change when
an object with just induced or just remanent magnetization is rotated to different angles. One
can see how these effects can create both the oscillating pattern (remanence) and the shift or
offset (due to induced magnetization) in Figure 26.
The amount of induced or remanent magnetization in an object is called its magnetic
moment. This property can be quantified with the unit ampere-meter-squared, Am2. For
objects that are weakly magnetic, a unit that is 1000 times smaller may be applied; this is
called the milliampere-meter-squared, mAm2. These units quantify the total amount of
magnetic material in an object. The same unit is applied to induced and remanent
magnetization; the sum of these two quantities is called total magnetization. A car may have
a magnetic moment of 500 Am2, while the magnetic moment of a brick may be 10 mAm2.
In order to compare these quantities from one material to the next, one can divide
each magnetic moment by the mass or the volume of that object; these values might be
called relative magnetic moments. However, when the magnetic moment of an object is
divided by its volume, the result is called the intensity of magnetization of the object; this has
the unit of Amperes per meter, A/m.
When the remanent magnetization of an object is divided by its induced magnetization,
the result is called the Q ratio (sometimes referred to as the Koenigsberger ratio). In Figure
29, an object is assumed to have induced magnetization (Mi) and / or remanent
magnetization (Mr). While the directions of these magnetizations remain the same for each
map, the Q ratio changes. If the magnetization is only induced, the direction from the
magnetic high toward the low is that of the Earth's magnetic field; if an object has been
recently fired and magnetized in place, then its remanent magnetization would also point
toward magnetic north.
For the illustrations in Figure 29, remanent and induced magnetization point in two

Page 14
 Data processing

different directions; this figure shows how the angle from the magnetic high toward the low
rotates from magnetic north toward the direction of remanence as the Q ratio increases. As
many as four arrows in each panel indicate important magnetic directions. Note that the
direction from the magnetic high to the low is never the direction of remanent magnetization,
although it gets very close to that direction for a high Q ratio (Schnetzler and Taylor 1984).
Also note that the direction of total magnetization and the direction of the high-low angle are
not the same, although they are close together.
The Q ratio affects the magnetic maps of clusters of objects. At archaeological sites,
these clusters are found as lenses of discarded debris; brick walls are simply clusters of
bricks that have differing directions of magnetization. Figure 30 illustrates how magnetic
maps change with the Q ratio of randomly magnetic objects. The calculations for the figure
were made over a layer of 121 dipoles, marked with X's in the figure. The random directions
of remanent magnetization can create very complex magnetic maps, without any trace of a
simple low to the north of the cluster.
The individual anomalies that are apparent in the magnetic map of Figure 30 occur
where the magnetizations of a group of nearby dipoles are accidentally oriented in about in
the same direction. There are only about a dozen highs and lows in panels C and D of Figure
30; this is because of the low spatial resolution of the maps. Had the calculations been made
closer to the layer of dipoles, there would have been 121 highs and 121 lows in each map.
Brick walls are typically detected with maps that are similar to panel C in Figure 30;
this is because the Q ratio for brick is often around 5 - 10. Walls constructed of magnetic
stone show the same pattern (Barba and others 1996). The brick wall in Figure 20 is
revealed with a simple and linear pattern; this is only because this wall was thoroughly heated
and remagnetized in a fire that destroyed the building. The heat was sufficient to realign the
remanent magnetization of the brick.
The random directions of remanent magnetization of brick not only complicate a
magnetic map, they also reduce the amplitude of the anomalies. A single brick may cause a
larger anomaly than a small cluster of bricks; this is because the large remanent
magnetization of one brick may be partly canceled out by an opposite direction of
magnetization of an adjacent brick. If there is a large and compact mass of fired objects,
such as pot sherds, the remanent magnetization may have essentially disappeared, leaving
only induced magnetization.

Data Processing
This is the step that falls between making the magnetic measurements and plotting a
map of the findings. This step is discussed because it may affect the appearance of a map
and one's understanding of it.
Magnetic measurements are affected by temporal changes in the Earth's magnetic
field. A gradiometer automatically provides a good correction. If a gradiometer is not used, a
second and stationary magnetometer (called a base station) may make readings in
synchronization with those of the moving magnetometer; if so, the pairs of readings may

Page 15
 Data processing

simply be subtracted. If the readings of this base station are not synchronized with those of
the moving magnetometer, good corrections for temporal changes are still possible if the
times of all the readings are recorded: One just estimates the base station reading at each
time that a mapping measurement is made. That base station value is subtracted from the
mapping measurement; a linear interpolation can be made between the base station
readings.
If a base station fails, and no temporal correction of the magnetic measurements is
made, magnetic maps may be affected as shown in the top panels of Figure 31; these
calculated maps assume that traverses were along north-south lines. Weymouth and
Lessard (1986) give examples of maps with uncorrected temporal change.
Even without a base station, temporal effects in a magnetic map may be estimated by
seeing how the readings change with time in areas of the map where magnetic anomalies are
weak. The lower panels in Figure 31 illustrate that a moderately good correction may be
possible. A more detailed discussion of the correction of temporal change has been given by
Tabbagh (2003).
Modern magnetometers make their measurements very quickly, and this allows one to
explore large areas with a good spatial resolution. The close spacing of the measurements
accentuates faults that were found with earlier and slower magnetometers, but which may not
have been visible in their lower resolution maps. These faults are shown in Figure 32; similar
faults are also apparent in parts of Figure 15.
The errors are apparent as undulations on the contour lines. While these faults may
not have a serious effect on the interpretation of a magnetic map, they definitely make the
map look inferior. Figures 33 - 39 describe the correction of the faults in the original readings
of Figure 32.
The magnetic map of Figure 32 reveals about two dozen magnetic anomalies that are
caused by circular blocks of glassy slag, a remanent of the iron industry of Denmark in about
the year 1000 . The slag blocks were formed in pits below furnaces; the blocks contain some
iron that is readily detected by a magnetic survey. The blocks are typically about 0.25 m thick
and have a diameter of about 0.75 m; their upper surfaces may be about 0.3 m underground
(Voss 1995).
The magnetic measurements that create Figure 32 were surveyed along lines that
went alternately to the north and south; the lines were spaced by 0.25 m. The undulations on
the contour lines would be much less if the line spacing was 0.5 m, rather than 0.25 m; the
small spacing between the lines of traverse accentuates changes in the direction of the
contour lines. If the line spacing had been 1 m, it is unlikely that any undulations would be
visible in the resulting map. It is the close spacing between the lines that accentuates the
faults, but this narrow spacing is needed in order to have a high spatial resolution.
It is easy to remove the undulations that are unwanted in Figure 32; see Figure 33.
Since the data processing for this figure has altered the amplitudes and widths of the
anomalies, an interpretation of this smoothed map would lead to errors in estimates of the
depth and quantity of magnetic materials that are underground. It may be important to try to

Page 16
 Data processing

determine if the measurements of a published magnetic map have been smoothed; if the
contour lines are seen to be too smooth for the stated measurement interval, then it is likely
that the map has been altered for the worse, even though it may look prettier.
The faults that are in the magnetic map of Figure 32 would have been greatly
diminished or invisible if the survey was done with measurement traverses going in only one
direction; Figure 34 shows the great improvement that is possible. However, this is not an
efficient use of field time, and faults remain invisible in the map.
The two faults that are discussed here are called heading error and locational error. It
is possible to separate these faults with a study of the contours on a magnetic map; see
Figure 35. However, it is easier to find these faults with a little arithmetic. First, check for
heading error by calculating the averages of the readings along lines of traverse. Figure 36
shows the result for this example, and Figure 37 shows the improvement that a correction
provides.
The undulations that remain in Figure 37 are primarily caused by locational errors in
the readings. The vertical columns of numbers in the map are incorrectly located; they have
a shift that alternates between the north and the south direction. This shift can be quantified
as shown in Figure 38. This fault may then be undone by correcting the coordinates of the
readings, and the result in Figure 39 has a great improvement over the original map of Figure
32. This shifting of the measurements along lines of traverse is easiest to do if the distance
is a multiple of the measurement or gridding interval; otherwise, interpolation between the
readings (gridding) is required to determine the new values.
The effects of bidirectional traverses may also be determined by measuring a single
line in both directions. If this test is done exactly the same as the survey of a large area, it
can furnish the information that is needed to correct both heading and locational error in the
large-area survey.
While both heading and locational error will be found in almost all original magnetic
measurements, both effects may not be apparent or cause difficulty in specific maps and
locations. The effects of heading errors are most apparent where the lateral gradient of the
measurements is low. The effects of locational errors are most apparent where
along-traverse gradients are high.
One step in data processing is a reformatting of the readings. The original
measurements will typically be stored in a computer file with a temporal or serial order; each
line of data from the magnetometer will have two numbers for the coordinate of the location of
the reading; that same line will also include the magnetic reading, and perhaps the time of
measurement. These original measurements will then be converted into a matrix of numbers,
without individual coordinates or times; this matrix will look much like the group of numbers in
Figure 1. This conversion or reformatting is done with the process called gridding, and it is a
part of most computerized mapping programs. The default settings of the program that does
this gridding are almost never suitable for magnetic maps. This default setting will likely
make a magnetic map that looks good, but the readings will probably have been altered so
much that the magnetic anomalies have been modified and therefore it may not be possible

Page 17
 Data processing

to interpret the map correctly.

If magnetic measurements are made at uniform intervals along lines, the gridding
operation should exactly retain each original value; no values should be added or subtracted.
Some magnetic surveys will have the readings at a slightly irregular spacing along lines of
traverse; this is done because it is easier than to make them at a fixed and constant spacing.
In this case, the gridding will change essentially all of the original readings to new values. It
is important that the gridding be done so that each new value depends only on up to two or
three original readings that are nearest each grid point along a line of traverse; this new value
should not be affected by any of the readings on adjacent lines of traverse. If this procedure
is not followed, then the magnetic measurements have been smoothed, and again an
interpretation can give incorrect values for the depth and quantity of magnetic material.
It is always best that data processing be the minimal amount that allows an adequate
map. The failings of each possible process that might be applied to the data must be
understood. Some of these failings are most apparent at locations on a magnetic map where
there are abrupt or one-point changes in the magnetic field. The upper panels of Figure 40
show how two common faults may be recognized in a magnetic map.
While magnetometers can make their measurements very quickly, the operators of the
equipment cannot walk very fast. For this reason, the readings are often very closely-spaced
along lines whose spacing is much greater. It is better if the two spacings are the same;
magnetic maps are clearer and more certain if the spacing between measurement along
traverses is the same as the spacing between lines of traverse. This is often not practical,
and panel C of Figure 40 shows the distorted patterns that may appear on a magnetic map.
The visual appearance of these distortions may be reduced by interpolating additional
columns of values between the lines of measurement. These interpolated values are usually
quite different from the measurements that would have been made at those missing
locations; this means that an interpretation of the resulting map will lead to errors.
A magnetic map, by itself, has little value; it is important that additional information be
included with the text for each map. The most important item is what type of magnetic
measurements are in the map (total field, vertical component, gradiometer). The height of
the magnetic sensor, and the spacing between the sensors of a gradiometer should also be
listed. The contour interval should be stated; alternatively, a gray or color scale is needed, or
the amplitudes of some anomalies may be noted. The size of the area should be indicated
with a scale on the map, and the direction of magnetic north should be marked. The interval
between measurements along lines can be noted; this may be both in time and distance.
The spacing between lines should be listed, and the traversing directions also. The
information with a map can mention what material is at the surface and the topographic relief
in the area. The equipment manufacturer and the model of the instrument can be noted. The
date of survey and also the time could be important for a check on noise interference and
perhaps temporal changes. Any data processing that was applied should be stated and
described sufficiently so that an independent reader will know what has been done.

Page 18
 Analysis of magnetic maps

Analysis of Magnetic Maps

Several different types of analysis may be applied to magnetic maps. These types
might be called Anomaly description, Archaeological identification, and Analytical
interpretation; any one of these analyses might be called a geophysical interpretation.
An anomaly description might result in something like "An L-shaped pattern is located
at ..." or "Of 83 identified anomalies, 28 per cent had amplitudes greater than 5 nT". This
type of analysis summarizes and counts anomalies, and possibly does some categorization
of them by their shape or amplitude. Perhaps a map is included that has a simplification of
the anomalous patterns into straight or curved lines. No technical knowledge of geophysics
is required for this type of analysis.
An archaeological identification might result in a statement such as "This anomaly may
be caused by a Bronze-age burial tomb", or "These lines mark the walls of ancient garden
terraces". This type of analysis requires archaeological knowledge, and it can be the most
valuable analysis of all. This analysis is based on knowledge of the archaeological features
that are expected at the site where the survey was done; the interpreter probably has
experience with excavations that have been done after geophysical surveys at similar sites.
An analytical interpretation may also be called a technical, a quantitative, or a
parametric analysis. This might result in statements such as "A mass of iron that could be as
large as 4 kg could be as deep as 1.3 m at this point" or "A volume of soil with a susceptibility
of 0.02 has the cross-section shown in the figure". This type of analysis requires a
moderately good knowledge of geophysics.
All of these types of analysis are valuable. They may also be combined. An
archaeological identification along with an analytical interpretation can be particularly rich in
information for the archaeologist.
Little assistance is needed for an analysis that is an anomaly description. I do not
know enough about archaeological identification to be of much help to you. However, an
introduction to some of the ideas of analytical interpretation is included here.
Figure 41 is a graph that shows a line of data that crosses over a compact magnetic
object, marked with a green circle at the bottom. This graph illustrates an excellent way of
estimating the depth of an object: It is simply equal to the width of the anomaly at half of its
peak amplitude. This "depth" is the sum of the actual depth of the object underground plus
the height of the magnetic sensor above the surface. This approximation is accurate for
compact objects; if an object is spread out into a lens, this procedure would give an estimate
of depth that is greater than the actual depth; it is not always possible to determine from a
magnetic map if an object is spread out and not compact.
The width is best measured along a line that goes through the peak of the anomaly
and has a direction toward the associated magnetic low; this may be along a magnetic
north-south line. However, the width of the anomaly caused by a compact feature is about
the same along an east-west line. If an anomaly high is not very circular, this may mean that
the object is not compact; however, an average of the diameters of that anomaly can still
provide a valuable estimate of maximum depth. This procedure is correct for a total field

Page 19
 Analysis of magnetic maps

magnetometer; if a magnetic map from a gradiometer is being studied, the depths with this
procedure will likely be a bit too shallow. The procedure can be applied to surveys that have
been done at a wide range in the inclination of the Earth's magnetic field (Radhakrishna
Murthy 1998 p. 242). If the anomaly is predominantly a magnetic low, this procedure can be
applied to that low.
The half width rule can also help with the analysis of linear magnetic anomalies
caused by long features; this assumes that the features have a compact cross-section. In
Figure 17, the calculated anomaly of the square prism has a half width of 1.5 m; this is also
the distance between the calculation surface and the middle of the prism.
While features must be compact for this simple analysis, they do not have to be small.
If a feature is compact or rather spherical, then the depth estimate is to its middle, no matter
how large it is. In fact, it is not possible to say much about the size of a feature from the
shape of its magnetic anomaly; however, the peak amplitude of the anomaly might provide
information about the volume or mass of the feature. The equation in the upper right corner
of Figure 41 shows the method. Since the analysis indicates that the magnetic moment of
the object is about 1 Am2 (which was the assumption for the calculation), the anomaly could
be caused by iron having a mass of 30 kg. While there are many possible errors in this type
of estimate, it is valuable to be able to distinguish the anomaly of a nail from a cannonball;
without this analysis, that distinction could not be made just by looking at the magnetic map.
The green symbols on the calculated magnetic maps in this report locate the magnetic
sources; these are not at the peaks of the magnetic anomalies. These calculated maps allow
one to estimate the offset between this peak anomaly and the center of the magnetic feature.
This offset is typically a short distance from the magnetic high toward the magnetic low. If
this offset is not considered, a small test excavation that is placed at the peak of a magnetic
anomaly may fail to locate a small feature. If a feature is larger, such as one of the squares
in Figure 10, the anomaly may be significantly offset from the feature; an excavation on the
edge of the anomaly may fail to detect the edge of the feature. By failing to detect that edge,
the feature may not be identified as anything unusual.
Analytical interpretations often require elaborate mathematics or specialized computer
programs. These procedures are valuable, but they can hide fundamental and simple ideas
about magnetics. Fortunately, it is possible to approximate the anomaly of one type of
feature using simple geometry; Figure 42 shows the method, which is described in detail by
Nettleton (1942). At a time when it was not practical to use computers for analysis, this
procedure was applied by Elizabeth Ralph (University of Pennsylvania Museum) for the
analysis of a buried wall in southern Italy (Rainey and Lerici 1967 p. 60).
Some general principles of magnetics can aid the interpretation of magnetic maps.
The anomalies of features remain the same if the distance to the features divided by the size
of the features remains constant; this assumes that the magnetic moment of the features
increases with their size, or that their susceptibility remains constant. A spherical magnetic
shell causes the same anomaly as a solid sphere, except perhaps for amplitude. An infinitely
broad and flat magnetic stratum is completely invisible to a magnetic survey (Blakely 1995 p.

Page 20
 The components of the magnetic field

285). This means that one may add or subtract any infinite strata without altering an
analysis. It is easiest to study a hole in a magnetic solid by assuming that the hole has a
negative value for its magnetic moment, while the value for the surrounding is zero.
Many geophysical books give good introductions to the procedures for the technical
analysis of magnetic maps. For a full understanding of quantitative interpretation, there is no
publication that is better than the book by Blakely (1995).
Some of the clearest descriptions of magnetic principles have been given by early
authors (Heiland 1940; Haanel 1904). Perhaps many of the writers of current books once
read those authors and found the topics so clear that they thought it was not necessary to
repeat the discussions in their books. Since the units for magnetic quantities are different in
these early books, that can make them more difficult to read.

The Components of the Magnetic Field

The magnetic field is a vectorial quantity; it has both a magnitude and a direction.
Three numbers describe the magnetic field at any point, but usually only one of these
numbers is measured or mapped. The upper two panels in Figure 43 shows maps of the
different patterns that are measured with two types of magnetometers; fluxgate
magnetometers often measure just the vertical component of the magnetic field. Both maps
are similar, and both are valuable for magnetic exploration.
The total field map in panel A of Figure 43 can be calculated from the maps of three
perpendicular components of the magnetic field, shown in panels B - D. This must not be a
simple addition of the readings from each map (that is called a scalar addition); instead, it
must be a vectorial addition, which is the square root of the sums of the squares of the
magnetic fields in the three maps.
While the magnetic field can be described by three measurements that have been
made in perpendicular directions, it can also be described by a magnitude (panel A of Figure
43) along with two angles. These angles are the inclination (vertical angle) and declination
(horizontal angle) of the magnetic field. Calculations of these directions are plotted at the top
of Figure 44 for the same object that is mapped in Figure 43. Note that changes in the angle
of the field are very small. The declination angle can be measured with a typical magnetic
compass; indeed, a simple compass can be suitable for detecting very massive iron objects.
The inclination angle can be measured with what is called a dip meter; this is just a magnetic
compass whose needle swings in a vertical direction. A dip meter can be made moderately
sensitive to magnetic features by counterbalancing the tendency of the needle to point in the
direction of inclination of the Earth's field.
The gradient of the magnetic field that is measured most commonly is the vertical
gradient (Figure 6). However, it can also be valuable to measure horizontal gradients; the
lower two panels in Figure 43 show the maps of these gradients for a single dipolar object.
Since these maps show three associated anomalies from a single object, these anomalies
are more complex than those from other magnetic measurements; this same complexity is
apparent in the shaded relief map in Figure 2. In spite of their complexity, these horizontal

Page 21
 Conclusion

gradients aid some types of magnetic surveys. A survey with sensors to the left and right of
the line of traverse can double the rate at which an area is explored for rare features. With
airborne surveys, it is difficult to mount sensors along a vertical line, for this increases wind
resistance; horizontal sensors are easily positioned inside an aircraft, for example at the tips
of the wings.
If a magnetic map is measured with adequate resolution, then the different maps in
Figures 43 and 44 may generally be converted from one to the other by applying
mathematical procedures. These ideas have been summarized by Gunn (1975). This leads
to the important result that a magnetic map that has been measured with one component
cannot be said to be superior to another map that has a different component.

Conclusion
Magnetic maps contain much more information than just the shape and pattern of the
high readings. Why waste this information?

You are welcome to copy this report and give it to anyone else. Should you distribute any
part of the report widely, such as on the internet, please tell me.

Bruce W. Bevan
Geosight
356 Waddy Drive
Weems, Virginia 22576
USA

Details About the Figures

Figure 1: The values of the anomaly have been calculated; they assume a magnetic
dipole at a depth of 1 m below the calculation surface; this dipole has a magnetic moment of
1 Am2 and it is located at the middle of the plot. The Earth's field was assumed to have the
parameters: Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70°; De = 30° (grid angle); the dipole is magnetized in the
direction of the Earth's field. The numbers are centered on the calculation points.
Figure 2: Each of these maps has the same data, and it is described in the note for
Figure 1. For these maps, the calculations were made at intervals of 0.1 m; the range of the
anomaly values is -17.3 nT to 181.2 nT.
Figure 3: Again, the data are the same as that in Figure 2. With the multiple interval
plot, contours are drawn with a spacing of 2 nT between -20 and +20 nT; this spacing is 20
nT for contour lines having values greater than 20 nT. In the map with a logarithmic interval,
contours are at levels of -10, -5, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, and 100. In the equal area plot,
the contours are at levels of -7.9, -4.9, -3.5, -2.6, -1.8, -1.0, 0.1, 1.7, and 13.6. It appears that
an equal area plot is used by the Geometrics program called MagMap2000.
Figure 4: The same data is plotted here as that in Figure 2.
Figure 5: This is the same dipole that has been applied to prior examples. As before,

Page 22
 Details about the figures

the direction of magnetization of the dipole continues to be that of the Earth's field.
Figure 6: The dipole source for the calculations is the same as that in Figure 1; for the
gradient maps, the lower sensor was assumed to be 1 m above the dipole. The sensor
separation for the gradiometer measurements was assumed to be 1 m for the total field, and
0.5 m or the vertical component. The contour interval is either 5 nT or 5 nT/m. Additional
types of total field magnetometers include potassium, rubidium, and helium instruments. The
anomaly range in the three panels is: A = -17.3 to 181.2 nT; B = -20.2 to 158.8 nT/m; C =
-23.3 to 268.8 nT/m.
Figure 7: Pottery kilns may have this shape (Smekalova, Myts, and Melnikov 1995); in
order to have the highest spatial resolution of these kilns, the authors made their
measurements with the magnetic sensor directly on the surface of the soil. Each arm of the
E-shaped feature has a square cross-section with sides that are 0.5 m wide. The height of
the sensor is determined from the upper surface of this feature, which has a magnetic
susceptibility of 0.01. The Earth's field has parameters: Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70°; De = 45°.
The anomaly range in the four panels is: A = -21.4 to 85.2 nT; B = -9.1 to 41.7 nT; C = -4.9
to 27.4 nT; D = -3.0 to 19.9 nT.
Figure 8: The magnetic model is identical to that in Figure 7. The calculations were
made of the total field, and the vertical spacing between the sensors was assumed to be 0.5
m. The anomaly range in the four panels is: A = -58.9 to 113.0 nT/m; B = -14.8 to 44.6
nT/m; C = -7.0 to 22.9 nT/m; D = -3.8 to 14.8 nT/m.
Figure 9: These calculations are for magnetic dipoles. The Earth's field was assumed
to be: Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70°.
Figure 10: The square feature (green outline) has a thickness of 0.5 m, and the
calculations were made at a height of 1.5 m above the top of its surface. The magnetic
susceptibility of the feature is +/-0.1, and the (total field) contour interval is 20 nT. The
Earth's field was assumed to have the parameters: Be = 57,000 nT, Ie = +/-70°, De = 0. The
anomaly range in the four panels is: A, B, and C = -42.5 to 263.4 nT; D = -263.4 to 42.6 nT.
Figure 11: The parameters of the square feature are the same as those in Figure 10,
and the sensor height is also 1.5 m. For these total field maps, the contour interval is 10 nT.
The anomaly range in the four panels is: A = -11.0 to 281.8 nT; B = -55.9 to 220.5 nT; C =
-89.9 to 101.5 nT; D = -84.1 to 26.6 nT.
Figure 12: The cross-section of the modeled foundation is a square with sides that are
0.5 m long. The total field calculations were made at a height of 0.5 m above the top of this
feature, and the contour interval is 5 nT. The feature has a susceptibility of 0.01. The
parameters of the Earth's field were assumed to be: Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70°; De = 0.
Figure 13: The parameters are exactly the same as for Figure 12 with the exception
that Ie = 0. If the north-south walls are not perfectly regular, then segments of those walls will
be detected on a magnetic survey.
Figure 14: For each of these calculations, the Earth's field was assumed to have the
parameters: Be = 57,000; Ie = 70°; De = 30°; the calculations were made at a height of 0.5 m
above the top of the features. In panels A - C, the magnetic moment of the 8-m long bar was

Page 23
 Details about the figures

set at 10 Am2; in panel D, the strength of the monopole was -10 Am. The anomaly range and
contour interval in the four panels is: A = -246.2 to 790.5 nT, contours at 25 nT; B = -384.6 to
379.3, contours at 25 nT; C = -17.0 to 406.7, contours at 1 nT; D = -24.2 to 3774.2, contours
at 2 nT interval.
Figure 15: This survey was done in June, 1992, with an Overhauser magnetometer
(model GSM-19FG, manufactured by Gem Systems) at the US Civil War battlefield at
Petersburg, Virginia. The height of the total field sensor was 0.8 m, and a base station
magnetometer allowed the correction of temporal changes. Bidirectional traverses were
made in an east-west direction and the measurement spacing and line spacing were both 2.5
ft. Magnetic north was about 7° west of grid north during this survey. This survey is
described in an earlier publication (Bevan 1996).
Figure 16: The magnetic parameters of the calculation were those from the site: Be =
53,200 nT; Ie = 66°; De = -7°. The monopole was located at E526.1 S144.8 at a depth
underground of 6.2 ft (1.9 m); its strength was -193.4 Am.
Figure 17: The cross-sectional areas (A) of the square, rectangular, and triangular
prisms are: 1 m2, 8 m2, and 4 m2. The magnetic susceptibilities are listed as k values in the
figure. The flux density of the Earth's magnetic field (Be) was assumed to be 57,000 nT. The
magnetic moment per unit of length for each prism is then A * k * Be / (400 * pi) = 0.91 Am.
The calculations were made with aid of the algorithm of Won and Bevis (1987).
Figure 18: This cellar locates the Taylor House on the battlefield of the US Civil War at
Petersburg, Virginia. The survey was done on 13 August 1991, and it is described in an
earlier report (Bevan 1996). The instrument was a Gem Systems model GSM-19FG
Overhauser magnetometer, which measures the total magnetic field of the Earth; temporal
corrections were made with a base station magnetometer. The sensor height was 0.85 m
and unidirectional traverses were made going toward the east; the line and measurement
spacings were both 5 ft. The change in the spacing of the contour lines shows where the
interval switches between 5 and 25 nT.
Figure 19: The same area was explored for this map as in Figure 18. This survey was
done on 27 January 1992, and the sensor height was 0.8 m. For this map, lines of
measurement traverse went alternately to the east and west. Except for this, the equipment
and procedures were the same as those for Figure 18.
Figure 20: This survey was done during the period of 25 - 27 June 1992; the
procedures and sensor height were the same as those for the map of Figure 18, although
traverses were made to the west only. For these surveys, the magnetic sensor was carried
on the end of a horizontal bar. Figures 18 and 19 could have been derived from the
measurements of this survey (by simply decimating the data), but separate surveys were
done for each map; this resulted in an interesting finding about seasonal changes in the
magnetic anomaly of the brick foundation.
Figure 21: The dipole source at the middle of each map is the one in Figure 1. In
panel A, every other point is up to 5 nT too high then up to -5 nT too low. For panel B, five
readings along north-south lines were altered at two locations into triangular lows that

Page 24
 Details about the figures

extended to a depth of -5 nT. In panel C, the spikes had either polarity. Rather than a
median filter, it may be better to calculate the laplacian at each point (this is the difference
between the value there and the average of the four adjacent values); if this laplacian
exceeds a threshold, the original reading can be replaced by the average of the four adjacent
readings. A pseudorandom number generator furnished the continuous noise pattern in
panel D.
Figure 22: Each flux line was traced with short line segments. The direction of flux
lines distant from the magnetic feature was set at the value for the Earth's field (70°). After
one short segment was drawn, the direction for the next segment was determined by the ratio
of the calculated magnetic field in the horizontal and vertical directions. At the boundary of
the magnetic feature, the direction changes abruptly: The ratio of the tangent of the angle of
the flux to the magnetic permeability is the same on both sides of boundaries (Lorrain and
Corson 1970 p. 402; Grant and West 1965 p. 317). As this figure shows, the angle of a flux
line is farthest from the normal to a magnetic boundary in the more magnetic material. In
order to show the divergence and convergence of the flux lines, the magnetic susceptibility of
the feature was assumed to have a very high value; however, no correction was made for
demagnetization.
Figure 23: These flux lines were plotted just as those in Figure 22, except that there
are no boundaries to cross for this example. This object has been assumed to be a magnetic
dipole. While the flux lines look rather oval, they are not actually elliptical and they delineate
a more complex curve. Unlike Figures 22 and 24, the spatial density of flux lines in this figure
is not proportional to the field.
Figure 24: The dense flux lines near the object have not been drawn.
Figure 25: The central dipole in each map is the standard dipole of Figure 2. For
panel D, a second dipole with a moment of 20 Am2 has been added at a depth of 6 m below
the sensor surface; the direction of magnetization of this dipole is the same as the Earth's
field.
Figure 26: For an accurate test, The object should remain at a constant distance from
the magnetic sensor as it is rotated.
Figure 27: The rectangular box has a thickness of 2 m and a magnetic moment of 1
2
Am ; the calculations of the total field were made at a height of 1 m above the top of the box.
The parameters of the Earth's field were assumed to be: Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70°; De = 0.
The amplitude of the magnetic high changes only within the range of 8.0 to 8.2 nT for these
four calculated maps; the anomaly is highest when the length of the box is oriented
north-south. These illustrations show why it is important to have a compact sample when its
magnetic properties are measured with the procedure in Figure 26.
Figure 28: Except for the change from induced to remanent magnetization (in a
horizontal direction) the parameters of the calculations are the same as for Figure 27. In
panel D, note in particular that the anomalies have been shifted to the south. As with the
illustration in Figure 27, the amplitudes of the magnetic highs and lows change very little with
rotation; the magnitude of these anomalies ranges between 4.2 and 4.4 nT.

Page 25
 Details about the figures

Figure 29: The induced magnetization has a direction I = 70°, D = 30°; the remanent
magnetization has a direction I = 30°, D = -45°. The vectorial sum of the two magnetizations
remains 1 Am2 for the calculations of each panel. Only the horizontal angles of the directions
are plotted in the figure. The Earth's field has the assumed magnitude of 57,000 nT. In panel
D, the angle from the magnetic high to the low is 1.9° east from the direction of remanent
magnetization.
Figure 30: The Earth's field was assumed to be: Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70°; De = 0. A
total of 121 dipoles have been placed in a regular matrix on a single level, which is 0.5 m
below the calculations; the algebraic sum of the magnetic moments for each dipole is 0.01
Am2. The directions of remanence are randomly chosen over a sphere; these directions
remain the same in panels B - D. If n is the number of dipoles (each with the same magnetic
moment, composed of both induced and a significantly larger remanent component), then the
anomaly will be change as follows with n:
n * induced + (square root of n) * remanent.
Therefore, if n is small, the anomaly may be mostly from remanence, and if n is large, it may
be mostly from induction. The anomaly range in the four panels is: A = -43.9 to 115.9 nT; B
= -23.9 to 69.7 nT; C = -19.2 to 45.2 nT; D = -58.1 to 46.6 nT.
Figure 31: The basic magnetic map in Figure 2 has been altered by adding a
magnetic field to the calculated values; this addition increases in a linear fashion from the left
to right throughout the grid to a maximum of 20 nT. The partial corrections were done by
subtracting the reading at the north end of each column from every reading on that column.
As alternatives, one could also subtract the median or mode value of each column from that
column, or similarly subtract the average reading of each column after the readings farthest
from the average have been removed.
Figure 32: This survey was done on 6 September 1995 using an Overhauser
magnetometer (a model GSM-19GW, manufactured by Gem Systems). It was operated in its
difference mode, and was connected to a second stationary sensor for temporal correction.
One operator carried the sensor, while a second operator (at a distance of about 2 m) carried
the readout console. The measurement interval along lines was 0.5 s and about 0.1 m; the
line spacing was 0.25 m and traverses went alternatively to the north and south. The 14,954
measurements in this gridded map were made in a span of three hours. Each north-south
column of readings (with a slightly irregular measurement spacing) was converted to a
uniform interval of 0.25 m by a quadratic interpolation between the measurements. Note that
the contour lines on the north sides of anomalies show lesser undulations than on the south
side; this is because the two errors partially cancel each other on the north side, while the
errors are magnified on the south side. This project was described in a 192-page report that
was prepared for Olfert Voss (this and the following seven figures were taken from that
report). A summary of the report was published by Bevan and Smekalova (2001); however,
the original report has many more details about this survey and its analysis. The striations on
the contour lines in Figure 15 have the same origin as those in this figure.
Figure 33: The smoothing was done with a weighted average. The weighting of the

Page 26
 Details about the figures

three readings on the central north-south column was two, while the weighting of the six
readings on the adjacent columns was one; the sum was divided by 12.
Figure 34: For this survey, the measurement spacing was closer than it needed to be
for the sensor height that was chosen; this close spacing was selected for this test in order to
ensure the best possible data for this magnetic map, and to be certain that all of the features
that might possibly be detected at this sensor height would be revealed.
Figure 35: The simplified contour line at the top encloses higher readings within the
oval. The polarity of the line shifts that are found on other contour maps may be the opposite
of what is shown here. The polarity of the heading error is dependent on the location and Q
ratio of the iron that causes the fault. The polarity of the locational error may change with the
operator, and how the sensor is carried. The amplitude of the locational error will probably
increase with traverse speed.
Figure 36: For some data, it can be important to eliminate the readings that were
made near strong anomalies before calculating these line averages; that care was not
needed for this map. The heading error was found to be very consistent during this survey.
This consistency is not always found, particularly when there is a change in equipment
operators, or the survey takes more than a day.
Figure 37: The correction works best where there is a low lateral gradient in the
magnetic map. The addition was made to only half of the data, rather than adding and
subtracting a smaller amount from all of the data; this is because the analysis of a magnetic
map is essentially unchanged if any small constant is added to all values.
Figure 38: For the cross-correlation, one of each pair of lines being examined was
shifted in increments of 0.01 m while interpolating the values at the coordinates of the
adjacent line; the distance for the greatest correlation is plotted in this figure.
Figure 39: It is likely that most of the faults that remain in this magnetic map are errors
in location. These faults appear to be primarily caused by an imperfect registration between
the fiducial markers that were put in the data when crossing 1-m intervals along traverses
and the magnetic field readings; this is because the time delay between a fiducial marker and
the following reading had no effect on the coordinate given that following reading.
Figure 40: The basic magnetic source of Figure 2 is centered in each of these maps.
In panel A, the averaging window was 3x3 measurements or 0.3 m square; this averaging
had little effect on the central anomaly. In panel B, the calculations were made at intervals of
0.5 m, and then interpolated to a spacing of 0.1 m; that is, four columns and rows were
inserted for every original. In panel C, calculations were made at intervals of 0.1 m along
north-south lines that were spaced by 1 m; while all of the calculations are correct, the
interpolation of the contours distorts the anomaly. In panel D, the direction of the remanent
magnetization was its usual value (Ir = 70°; Dr = 30°); the background field was set to zero.
The rather circular contour lines shift as the Ir-Dr angle changes. If Ir = 90°, then the
contours would be centered in the map.
Figure 41: The magnetic moments are reasonable values for the different materials,
and are based on my measurements of many samples. The magnetic moment listed for a

Page 27
 References

brick wall should also be suitable for a cluster of potsherds; this value is lower than that for
fired earth because of the random directions of remanent magnetization in the brick wall. The
half width rule has been described by Breiner (1957 p. 31) and by Telford, Geldart, and
Sheriff (1990 p. 87). Other depth rules have been discussed by Mares (1984 p. 134),
Radhakrishna Murthy (1998 p. 246), and Blakely (1995 p. 238).
Figure 42: The units of the vertical axis are in nT if the Earth's field is vertical with a
magnitude of 57,000 nT and the susceptibility of the prism is 0.01. The basic idea of this
procedure can be extended to the calculation of the magnetic anomalies of polyhedra with the
aid of the solid angles of their facets (Singh and Guptasarma 2001; Furness 1994).
Figure 43: The standard dipole of Figure 2 is used here again. The Earth's field has
the values: Be = 57,000; Ie = 70°; De = 30°. The dipole is located at the middle of each map
and at a depth of 1 m below the calculation surface; the magnetic moment is 1 Am2. The
contour interval is 5 nT. The negative of the vertical component is displayed so that the
polarity will be the same as that in panel A. The anomaly range in the four panels is: A =
-17.3 to 181.2 nT; B = -9.3 to 191.1 nT; C = -91.7 to 74.6 nT; D = -86.5 to 77.2 nT.
Figure 44: The standard dipole of Figure 2 and 43 is applied here. The anomaly
range in the four panels is: A = 69.58 to 70.13°; B = 29.76 to 30.24°; C = -229.4 to 194.5 nT;
D = -248.1 to 186.7 nT.

References
Barba, Luis, Karl Link, Agustin Ortiz, and Albert Hesse, 1996. Magnetic study of
archaeological stone foundations at Loma Alta, Michoacan, Mexico. Page 786 - 788 in
Expanded Abstracts of the 66th SEG Annual Meeting, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists (Tulsa, Oklahoma).
Barba P., L. A., Linda Manzanilla, R Chavez, Luis Flores, and A. J. Arzate, 1990. Caves and
tunnels at Teotihuacan, Mexico; a geological phenomenon of archaeological interest.
Chapter 24 (p. 431 - 438) in: Archaeological Geology of North America, edited by
Norman P. Lasca and Jack Donahue. Geological Society of America (Boulder,
Colorado).
Bartington, G., and C. E. Chapman, 2004. A high-stability fluxgate magnetic gradiometer for
shallow geophysical survey applications. Archaeological Prospection 11:19 - 34.
Bevan, B. W., and T. N. Smekalova, 2001. Magnetization directions of iron slag in Denmark.
Page 7 - 25 in: Filtering, Optimisation and Modelling of Geophysical Data in
Archaeological Prospecting, edited by Mauro Cucarzi and Paola Conti. Fondazione
ing. Carlo Maurilio Lerici (Rome).
Bevan, Bruce W., 1996. Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology. Geosight Technical
Report Number 4. Geosight (Weems, Virginia).
Blakely, Richard J., 1995. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge
University Press (Cambridge).
Breiner, S., 1973. Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. Geometrics (San Jose,
California). Available in PDF form on the web at: www.geometrics.com

Page 28
 References

Dalan, Rinita A., and Subir K. Banerjee, 1998. Solving archaeological problems using
techniques of soil magnetism. Geoarchaeology 13(1):3 - 36.
Dobrin, Milton B., and Carl H. Savit, 1988. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting, fourth
edition. McGraw-Hill (New York).
Evans, Michael E., and Friedrich Heller, 2003. Environmental Magnetism. Academic Press
(Amsterdam).
Furness, Peter, 1994. A physical approach to computing magnetic fields. Geophysical
Prospecting 42(5):405 - 416.
Grant, F. S., and G. F. Grant, 1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics.
McGraw-Hill (New York).
Gunn, P. J., 1975. Linear transformations of gravity and magnetic fields. Geophysical
Prospecting 23(2):300 - 312.
Haanel, Eugene, 1904. On the Location and Examination of Magnetic Ore Deposits by
Magnetometric Measurements. Department of the Interior (Ottawa).
Heiland, C. A., 1940. Geophysical Exploration (1968 reprint). Hafner Publishing (New York).
Hrvoic, Ivan, Greg M. Hollyer, Mike Wilson, and Anthony Szeto, 2003. Development of a
high sensitivity potassium magnetometer for near surface geophysical mapping. First
Break 21(May):81 - 87.
Lorrain, Paul, and Dale Corson, 1970. Electromagnetic Fields and Waves, second edition.
W. H. Freeman (San Francisco).
Mares, Stanislav, 1984. Introduction to Applied Geophysics. D. Reidel (Dordrecht).
Nettleton, L. L., 1942. Gravity and magnetic calculations. Geophysics 8:293 - 310.
Radhakrishna Murthy, I. V., 1998. Gravity and Magnetic Interpretation in Exploration
Geophysics. Memoir 40 of the Geological Society of India (Bangalore).
Rainey, Froelich G., and Carlo M. Lerici, 1967. The Search for Sybaris, 1960 - 1965. Lerici
Editori (Rome).
Robinson, Edwin S., and Cahit Coruh, 1988. Basic Exploration Geophysics. John Wiley
(New York).
Schnetzler, C. C., and P. T. Taylor, 1984. Evaluation of an observational method for
estimation of remanent magnetization. Geophysics 49(3):282 - 290.
Singh, Bijendra, and D. Guptasarma, 2001. New method for fast computation of gravity and
magnetic anomalies from arbitrary polyhedra. Geophysics 66(2):521 - 526.
Smekalova, Tatyana N., Olfert Voss, Sergey L. Smekalov, 2005. Magnetic Survey for
Archaeology. Publishing House of Polytechnic University (St. Petersburg).
Smekalova, T. N., V. L. Myts, and A. V. Melnikov, 1995. Magnetometric investigation of
Medieval pottery centers in mountainous Crimea. Pages 441 - 448 in: Archaeometry
in South-Eastern Europe (PACT 45), edited by I. Liritzis and G. Tsokas. PACT
Belgium (Rixensart).
Tabbagh, Jeanne, 2003. Total field magnetic prospection: Are vertical gradiometer
measurements preferable to single sensor survey? Archaeological Prospection.
10:75 - 81.

Page 29
 References

Telford, W. M., L. P. Geldart, and R. E. Sheriff, 1990. Applied Geophysics, second edition.
Cambridge University Press (Cambridge).
Voss, O., 1995. "Snorup - an iron producing settlement in West Jutland, 1st - 7th century
AD". Proceedings of the Conference: The Importance of Ironmaking. May 8 - 13,
Stockholm University (Norberg, Sweden).
Weymouth, J. W., and Y. A. Lessard, 1986. Simulation studies of diurnal corrections for
magnetic prospection. Prospezioni Archeologiche 10:37 - 47.
Won, I. J., and Michael Bevis, 1987. Computing the gravitational and magnetic anomalies
due to a polygon: Algorithms and Fortran subroutines. Geophysics 52(2):232 - 238.

Publication history:
22 May 2006, corrected typographical errors.
1 May 2006, original report.

Page 30
 North coordinate, m

-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3

-0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

-3
.2 .2 .2 .3 .5 .8 .2 .5 .7 .8 .6 .4 .1

-0 -0 0. 0. 0. -0 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1
.1 .0 1 1 0 .4 .2 .0 .5 .5 .2 .8 .5

0. 0. 0. 1. 1. 1. -0 -2 -3 -3 -3 -2 -1

-2
0 2 6 2 7 4 .1 .2 .5 .6 .1 .4 .8

0. 0. 1. 3. 6. 8. 5. -0 -4 -5 -4 -3 -2
1 6 7 6 5 4 5 .9 .9 .4 .3 .2 .3

0. 1. 3. 8. 18 33 30 7. -6 -7 -5 -4 -2

-1
2 0 1 1 .9 .0 .1 0 .5 .8 .9 .0 .7

map, like those in the following figures.

0. 1. 4. 13 39 95 10 29 -8 -1 -7 -4 -3
2 2 1 .0 .4 .5 9 .4 .6 0. .4 .7 .0
.0 9
13 45 13 16 36 -1 -1 -8 -5 -3

0
0. 0. 3. 1 5
0 9 7 .1 .7 .7 .0 .2 3.
4
3.
2 .3 .0 .2

-0 0. 1. 6. 22 55 53 -0 -1 -1 -8 -4 -3
.3 1 6 8 .7 .0 .8 .1 7. 3. .0 .8 .0
Numerical values

3 1

East coordinate, m
-0 -0 -0 -4 -1 -1 -1 -6 -4 -2

1
0. 2. 3.
.7 .7 .5 4 6 6 .0 4.
4
4.
9
0.
6 .7 .2 .7

-0 -1 -1 -2 -3 -6 -9 -1 -1 -7 -5 -3 -2
.9 .2 .7 .4 .7 .2 .7 1.
5
0.
2 .5 .1 .4 .3

-1 -1 -2 -2 -4 -5 -7 -7 -6 -5 -3 -2 -1

2
.0 .4 .0 .8 .1 .7 .0 .4 .5 .1 .7 .6 .9

-1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -4 -4 -4 -4 -3 -2 -2 -1
.0 .3 .8 .4 .2 .0 .6 .6 .1 .4 .6 .0 .5

depending on if the reading was greater or less than the value of the Earth's field. The
as they may be measured with a magnetic survey. The values are positive or negative
-0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2 -3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1
3
.9 .1 .5 .9 .4 .8 .0 .0 .7 .3 .9 .5 .2

see the pattern of these numbers, so this matrix is almost always converted into a contour
number 165 means than the total field at that point was actually 57,165 nT. It is difficult to
Earth's magnetic field was assumed to be 57,000 nanotesla (abbreviated nT). Therefore, the
Figure 1: The numbers of a magnetic map. This matrix shows readings at intervals of 0.5 m,
 Line contour Gray scale
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Shaded relief
3
C Wire frame
2 D
North coordinate, m

-1

-2

-3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m

Figure 2: Four different types of maps. Each has important advantages. A line contour map
is excellent for showing high lateral gradients in the measurements by the close spacing of
the lines; tick marks along the contours of this map reveal magnetic lows. A gray scale map
indicates the pattern of readings that are similar, even if the areas are distant from each other
on a map. A shaded relief map has the familiar appearance of an aerial photograph. A wire
frame map clarifies the amplitudes of the readings.
 Constant interval Mulltiple interval
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Logarithmic interval Equal area

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 3: Four different types of line contour maps. These differ in the spacing or interval
between contour lines. A constant interval map readily shows the amplitudes of anomalies.
If multiple intervals are used, high and low amplitudes may be displayed more completely.
With a logarithmic interval, extremely wide ranges of readings can be seen. An equal area
map leaves no large blank areas; for this type of map, the area enclosed between each
adjacent pair of contour levels is the same.
 Colored line Stepped spectrum
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Continuous colors Stepped colors

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 4: Four different applications of color. It is conventional that high values be plotted as
red, orange, or yellow, while low values are plotted as green or blue. If the map has colored
lines, it is possible to make a good print of it with black ink. A stepped spectrum map allows
the display of a wide range of readings. The map with continuous colors allows one to easily
distinguish areas with high and low readings. A compromise between these maps can be
made with the version showing stepped colors.
 Depth 0.5 m, 25 nT contours, peak 1419 nT Depth 1 m, 5 nT contours, peak 181 nT
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Depth 2 m, 1 nT contours, peak 23 nT Depth 4 m, 0.2 nT contours, peak 2.8 nT

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 5: The effect of depth. If an object is deeper underground, its anomaly is broader,
and its amplitude is lower. The peak of the anomaly also moves away from the middle of the
object, marked with an X here. For small or compact objects, if distance is doubled, then the
peak amplitude of the anomaly drops by a factor of about eight. Compare the peaks at a
depth of 0.5 m and 1 m; their ratio is 7.8, which is close to the value 8.
 Total field Vertical gradient of total field
3 3
A B
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Vertical gradient of vertical component

3
C
2
North coordinate, m

-1

-2

-3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m

Figure 6: The three most common types of magnetic measurements. Total field readings are
made with a single magnetic sensor; this will likely be part of a cesium, Overhauser, or a
proton magnetometer. If two of these sensors are aligned one above the other, then the
magnetic gradient is measured (panel B). A slightly different magnetic gradient is measured
with a fluxgate magnetometer (panel C). For this instrument, only that part of the magnetic
field in the vertical direction is measured. With a gradiometer, the difference in the readings
between sensors at two heights is determined; this difference is divided by the spacing
between the sensors to give a magnetic value in nT/m.
 Height: 0.3 m; contours: 10 nT Height: 0.6 m; contours: 5 nT
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Height: 0.9 m; contours: 3 nT Height: 1.2 m; contours: 2 nT

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 7: The blurring of shapes with increasing height (or depth). The E-shape of this
feature becomes more rounded at a greater distance. This is a failing that magnetic surveys
share with all other types of geophysical exploration. The resolution of buried features can be
improved by using a gradiometer (see Figure 8) or by reducing the height of the magnetic
sensor.
 Height: 0.3 m; contours: 10 nT/m Height: 0.6 m; contours: 5 nT/m
3 3
A B
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Height: 0.9 m; contours: 3 nT/m Height: 1.2 m; contours: 2 nT/m

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 8: The increased resolution of a gradiometer. These maps can be compared to

Figure 7. The gradiometer map at a height of 0.9 m (panel C) shows about the same
resolution as a total field map at a height of 0.6 m (panel B in Figure 7). The price for having
a greater resolution with a gradiometer must be paid by making measurements at a closer
spacing.
 300 300
Compare total field and gradient

Total field magnetometer

Gradient, 0.5 m spacing
Gradient, 1.0 m spacing

Magnetic gradient, nT/m

200 200
Magnetic anomaly, nT

100 100

Magnetic gradient, nT/m

surface
0 0

M = 1 Am2
depth = 1 m M = 27 Am2
depth = 3 m
-100 -100
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
North coordinate, m

Figure 9: The decreased sensitivity of a gradiometer for deep objects. Two objects (green
circles) are at different depths, and the deeper one is more magnetic. With these
parameters, the total field magnetometer detects both objects with about the same peak
anomaly. With the gradiometer, the deeper object has a weaker anomaly. This attenuation
of deeper objects increases as the spacing between the gradiometer's sensors is smaller.
 Northern hemisphere Overhead feature
6 6
A B
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
3 3

0 0

-3 -3

A C
-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Southern hemisphere Less magnetic feature

6 6
C D
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

B D
-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 10: Important effects in magnetic maps. Panel A shows the typical map of a buried
feature; the magnetic low is toward the north. If this feature was overhead (panel B), or the
survey was done in the southern hemisphere (panel C), the magnetic high would be toward
the north. If the feature was less magnetic than the surrounding soil, then the principle
magnetic anomaly would be a low (panel D).
 Ie = 90; Be = 57,000 nT Ie = 60; Be = 52,000 nT
6 6
A B
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Ie = 30; Be = 41,000 nT Ie = 0; Be = 34,000 nT

6 6
C D
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 11: The effect of latitude in magnetic maps. Near the north pole (panel A), the
magnetic field is strong, and highs are centered on magnetic features. Near the equator
(panel D), the Earth's field (Be) is weaker, and lows are centered on magnetic features.
Magnetic anomalies are fainter and more complex at the equator than at the pole. At
intermediate latitudes, a magnetic low is found north of the magnetic high.
 Square feature
6

North coordinate, m 3

-3

-6
-6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m
40
NS line
30

20
EW line

10

-10

-20
-6 -3 0 3 6
Line coordinate, m

Figure 12: The magnetic anomaly of a square feature with a square hole. This map
therefore approximates the anomaly of the foundation of a square building. Magnetic lows
are found on the north sides of both east-west walls. Profiles along north-south and
east-west lines are plotted below. The amplitudes of the anomalies are slightly lower along
the east-west profile. This effect increases at lower latitudes; see Figure 13.
 Square feature at equator
6

North coordinate, m 3

-3

-6
-6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m
20

10

0
EW line
-10

NS line
-20

-30

-40
-6 -3 0 3 6
Line coordinate, m

Figure 13: Invisible walls at the equator. This feature is the same as that in Figure 12.
When magnetic maps are measured near the equator, features that extend in a north-south
direction may not be detected. Magnetic anomalies are created where the Earth's field
crosses the boundary between materials that differ in their magnetism. Since the Earth's field
is horizontal here, no magnetic boundaries are crossed along the north-south walls until the
east-west walls are encountered.
 Magnetized in Earth's direction Magnetized along length
6 6
A B

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Vertical, magnetized in Earth's direction Monopole

6 6
C D
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 14: Anomalies of long, thin objects. These objects are typically pipes or shafts; they
may be gun barrels or wells. A corrugated iron pipe may be detected as in panel A, although
a cast iron pipe may cause the very different anomaly in panel B. If this iron pipe is vertical in
the earth, then the anomaly can be like that in Panel C. Wells may be revealed on magnetic
maps similar to the patterns shown in panels C or D; if the iron extends to a great depth, then
panel D illustrates the anomaly.
 Magnetic anomaly of a well near Fort Morton
-50

-100
North coordinate, ft

-150

-200

-250
450 500 550 600
East coordinate, ft

Figure 15: The magnetic map of a well. The anomaly extends over a wide area; the
north-south span of the map is 200 ft (61 m). The map is drawn with three contour intervals;
changes in line spacing reveal these breaks. The highest anomalies have a contour interval
of 100 nT; intermediate contours are at 20 nT intervals; the remaining weaker anomalies are
plotted with a contour interval of 5 nT. The highest anomaly, at E527.5 S145, has an
amplitude of 2763 nT; the anomaly low to the north has a value of -30 nT.
 Calculated field of the monopole model of a well near Fort Morton
-50

-100
North coordinate, ft

-150

-200

-250
450 500 550 600
East coordinate, ft

Figure 16: An approximation of the magnetic map of the well. This calculation shows the
same general pattern as the measurements in Figure 15. The magnetic map of a well may
be very similar to the map of a magnetic monopole, which is a mathematical approximation of
the end of a very long magnetic object. The green X in the figure locates this monopole,
which is only 1.4 ft (0.4 m) distant from the magnetic high that it causes.
 Calculated anomalies of 2-D prisms
80
Be = 57,000 nT; Ie = 70o; De = 0
Calculations 1 m above tops of prisms

60
Magnetic anomaly, nT

40

20

-20

-40
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
North coordinate, m

Three prisms: Square, k = 0.02

Rectangular, k = 0.0025

Triangular, k = 0.005

Figure 17: The effect of the concentration or dispersal of magnetic materials. As materials
are spread out, their anomaly decreases. These calculations were made for three features
that extend for a long distance perpendicular to the page. The amount of magnetic material
per unit length is the same for each of the three features. The feature with a square
cross-section gives the strongest anomaly, while the feature with a rectangular cross-section
has the weakest anomaly.
 Measurement spacing = 5 ft (1.5 m), contours at 5 and 25 nT interval
120

100
North coordinate, ft

80

60

40

20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
East coordinate, ft

Figure 18: The magnetic map of the buried brick wall of a cellar. The green rectangle
locates this cellar. Only part of the wall was detected, for the brick had been removed from
the northern wall. Although this survey was done with a large spacing between the
measurements (5 ft = 1.5 m), the part of the cellar wall that remains was delineated. The two
following maps show how resolution improved with a closer spacing between the readings.
 Measurement spacing = 2.5 ft (0.8 m), contours at 5 and 25 nT interval
120

100
North coordinate, ft

80

60

40

20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
East coordinate, ft

Figure 19: A higher resolution magnetic map of the area shown in Figure 18. For this
survey, the spacing between the readings was 2.5 ft (0.8 m) in both the north-south and
east-west directions. More anomalies are now apparent in this map, and the areas of the
anomalies are smaller. Four times as many measurements were made for this map as for
the map in Figure 18.
 Measurement spacing = 1 ft (0.3 m), contours at 5 and 25 nT interval
120

100
North coordinate, ft

80

60

40

20
-120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40
East coordinate, ft

Figure 20: A very high resolution magnetic map. The measurement spacing was only 1 ft
(0.3 m) for this survey. It is likely that the resolution of a magnetic map of this area would not
be improved if the measurement spacing was reduced below 1 ft. The anomalies on this
map are small and detailed. However, the magnetic anomaly of the brick foundation is hardly
more distinct here than in was in the map with a measurement spacing of 5 ft (Figure 18).
 Noise: Approximate a magnetic pace Noise: Approximate 2 passing cars
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Noise: +/-10 nT spikes for 2 percent of data Noise: Uniform random for all data to +/-5 nT
3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 21: Errors in magnetic maps. These faults may be found in both total field and
gradient maps. Panel A shows the pattern that may be caused by a magnetic object that is
repeatedly close to the magnetic sensor; shoes can cause this pattern. Passing vehicles
usually cause the magnetic readings to drop; panel C shows a pair of linear lows (at W1 and
E1), aligned with the north-south direction of traverse. Lightning can cause a few one-point
errors, like those in panel C. The most common type of noise is that in panel D;
imperfections in magnetometers are the typical cause of this type of error.
Figure 22: Warping of flux lines in a magnetic object. This shows the cross-section of a long
object. The paths of the lines of magnetic flux from the Earth are plotted. Since the feature
within the green square is more magnetic than the surrounding, flux lines are concentrated in
that feature. The magnetic anomaly that is measured is proportional to the spatial density of
these flux lines. Just above the feature, along the dashed line, these flux lines are closer
together, causing a magnetic high. To the north of the feature, the lines are spaced more
widely, yielding a magnetic low.
Figure 23: The magnetic field of a small object. This object is located at the green circle. It
is magnetized by the Earth's field, and the rather oval lines show the paths of magnetic flux
from the object; these lines are too dense to draw in small sectors above and below the
object. The flux lines are drawn as red where they will add to the Earth's magnetic field,
causing high readings. The lines are blue where they will subtract from the Earth's field, and
where a magnetic low will be found. Magnetic measurements along the dashed line will yield
the typical dipolar magnetic anomaly that is plotted at the top.
Figure 24: A summation of the Earth's magnetic field with that from a small object. This is
simply a redrawing of Figure 23, after the Earth's field has been added to the field from the
small object. As with Figure 22, a magnetometer will read higher values where the lines of
magnetic flux are closer together (directly over the object) and lower values where the lines
are farther apart (on the north side of the object). The curve above is a plot of this change
along the dashed line that goes through the flux map.
 Slope down to west Flat surface
3 3
A B
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Slope down to south Lateral interference

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 25: Magnetic lows that are rotated due to topography. If a magnetic map is measured
on a flat surface, the low readings can be toward magnetic north, as in panel B. If the ground
surface slopes down by 20° toward the west, this low is rotated to the west; see panel A. A
similar slope to the south can also cause a rotation of the anomaly, and panel C shows also
that the anomaly peak has moved to the south of the source (the green X). A magnetic low
can be shifted by the anomaly of a nearby object; panel D illustrates this effect.
Figure 26: Distinguishing remanent from induced magnetization. Check the reading at a
magnetometer when the test object is distant. Then, bring the object close to the magnetic
sensor and rotate it a few times. The readings will oscillate about an average value. The
difference between that average and the field with no object nearby is proportional to the
induced magnetization. The amplitude of the oscillations is proportional to the remanent
magnetization of the object. This curve is a plot of how a sequence of readings can allow
these two magnetic sources or effects to be distinguished.
 Rotation = 0 Rotation = 30 degrees
6 6
A B

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Rotation = 60 degrees Rotation = 90 degrees

6 6
C D
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 27: Changes in the magnetic map of a rotating object. This box-like object (green
rectangle) is magnetized by induction; that is, it has induced magnetization. As the object is
rotated, the magnetic low remains on the north side of the object, although the shape of the
anomaly otherwise changes.
 Rotation = 0 Rotation = 30 degrees
6 6
A B

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Rotation = 60 degrees Rotation = 90 degrees

6 6
C D
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

3 3

0 0

-3 -3

-6 -6
-6 -3 0 3 6 -6 -3 0 3 6
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 28: Rotating an object that has remanent magnetization. In this case, the magnetic
low rotates with the object. For these calculations, the remanent magnetization is directed
along the length of the box, which is otherwise the same as that in Figure 27. Note that there
are small changes in the anomalies with rotation. These differences are caused by the fact
that the direction of the Earth's field remains the same, while the direction of the field from the
box changes; the summation of the two fields therefore changes as the box rotates.
 Q = 0 (only Mi) Q = 0.5 (Mr = 0.5 * Mi)
3 3
Earth's
A field B
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Q = 1 (Mr = Mi) Q = infinity (only Mr)

M
3 L E
3
R
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 29: Rotation of a magnetic low due to the contribution of remanent magnetization.
With induced magnetization alone (panel A), the low is toward magnetic north. With
remanent magnetization alone (panel D), the low is close to the direction of the remanence.
Panels B and C show how the low rotates as the remanence increases, while induction
decreases. Arrows in each panel indicate as many as four directions: green E = Earth's
field; red R = remanent magnetization; black M = total magnetization; blue L = angle from
high to low. The direction from the high to the low is not the same as the direction of total
magnetization.
 Induced alone Remanent = induced
2 2
A B
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Remanent = 3 * induced Remanent alone

2 2
C D
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2
-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 30: Magnetic maps of a cluster of objects. If each object is magnetized by induction,
the magnetic pattern is the common and simple one shown in panel A. If each object has
only remanent magnetization, and the direction is different for each object, then the map is
quite complex, as seen in panel D. If there is a "mixture" of remanent and induced
magnetization, then the magnetic map can be moderately complex but still show a magnetic
low to the north.
 Temporal change: Unidirectional traverse Temporal change: Bi-directional traverse
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Partial correction of above Partial correction of above

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 31: The effect of uncorrected temporal change in the Earth's magnetic field. If a
magnetic survey is done without a base station or gradiometer, magnetic anomalies can be
distorted. The maps in the upper two panels should look like the map in Figure 2. The two
lower panels show how partial corrections may be made by estimating the temporal change
and subtracting it. In practice, the correction is more difficult than these illustrations suggest,
for magnetic maps and temporal changes are generally more complex.
Figure 32: A striated magnetic map. Most magnetic maps will have the two faults that cause
these striations (which are undulations or waves on the contours). The following figures
illustrate the correction of these faults. This magnetic map illustrates the detection of buried
blocks of iron-containing slag near the town of Snorup in Denmark. The survey was done for
Olfert Voss (Nationalmuseet) by Tatyana Smekalova (St.-Petersburg State University) and
myself. The contour interval is 2 nT, and the sensor height was 95 cm.
Figure 33: A simple but unsuitable elimination of the striations. Each reading has been
replaced by the average of that reading and the eight adjacent readings in a square window
that is 0.5 m wide. While this window averaging creates very smooth contour lines, the
amplitudes of the anomalies are reduced, and their widths are increased. This, plus the
lower spatial resolution of this map, makes it unsuitable for a geophysical interpretation.
Figure 34: Another simple but unsuitable correction. The faults in the magnetic map of
Figure 32 are apparent only because of the bi-directional traverses that were made. If
unidirectional traverses are used, the faults are still in the map, but they cannot be seen. The
measurement traverses for Figure 32 alternated between north-going and south-going, and
these lines were spaced by 0.25 m. This figure shows only the readings from the north-going
traverses, now with a line spacing of 0.5 m. The patterns in this map have an error of
location that is about 0.1 m; also, since it is inefficient to make unidirectional traverses, or to
throw away measurements, this is not a good correction.
Figure 35: The two errors in the magnetic map. This sketch shows how contour lines are
affected by two faults. One fault is called heading error. This is caused by magnetic material
moving with the magnetometer; on north-going lines of traverse the readings may all be
increased slightly, and they may all be decreased on south-going lines. This error slightly
broadens the anomaly highs on north-going traverses. The second fault is called a
coordinate shift or a locational error. This fault does not change the values of the readings;
instead, the locations of the readings are recorded with a systematic error. This fault may be
caused by a lag in the display of the magnetometer, by averaging within the instrument, or by
a parallax error created by the operator's estimate of the location of the sensor. Locational
error is apparent on contour maps by an apparent shearing of the lines. While close study of
the contour lines on a magnetic map will reveal the two errors that are indicated above,
mathematical methods are better for distinguishing the two faults.
Figure 36: A verification of the heading error. On north-going traverses, the average reading
along each column was always higher than the average found on south-going traverses.
While the difference is small, it was large enough to have a significant effect on the magnetic
map. The moving iron that causes this heading error may have been in the clothing of either
operator of the equipment; iron within the circuitry of the display console, or on the sensor
cables or connectors, could also contribute; finally, a small amount of magnetic dust on the
sensor could cause some of this heading error.
Figure 37: After the correction for heading error. The striations in the magnetic map are
reduced, although not eliminated. The improvement (compared to the original in Figure 32) is
most apparent in the areas with faint anomalies. This correction was done by adding about
0.7 nT to all of the readings along south-going lines of traverse; this 0.7 nT is just the
difference between the two curves in Figure 36.
Figure 38: A verification of the locational error. These curves show that the north
coordinates of all of the readings were shifted by about 0.08 m forward along the direction of
traverse. This analysis was done with a cross-correlation between adjacent lines of traverse.
While this allows for the best and most precise correction, one can also just estimate the
average spatial amplitude of the undulations on the contour lines.
Figure 39: After the correction for locational error. The regular undulations in the contour
lines of the original map (Figure 32) have now been eliminated, although random undulations
remain. This map has lost none of the information of the original readings, but is now much
easier to view. The locational error was corrected by shifting the coordinates of the readings;
the north-going traverses were shifted to the north by about 0.08 m, and the south-going
traverses were shifted to the south, also by about 0.08 m.
 Data spike: Artifact from window averaging Data spike: Artifact from spline interpolation
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Measurement column spacing = 1 m Magnetic anomaly on the moon

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 40: Errors that may be created by data processing. A large-amplitude anomaly may
be detected with a single reading; this may be caused by a small and shallow object. If
window averaging is applied to the measurements in order to smooth them, the one-point
anomaly may be converted to a square or rectangle of the size of the averaging window; see
panel A. In panel B, the grid of readings that were made at a broad interval has been
interpolated to a fine interval with spline interpolation; this creates a "diffraction pattern" at
each small-area anomaly. Panel C shows how a simple anomaly may be warped if
widely-spaced lines of traverse are made. A magnetic survey on the moon would find no
magnetic low; see panel D.
 200
Ba(peak) = 200 * M / d3
Anomaly peak = Ba(peak)
where M = magnetic moment, Am2
For an object with a mass of 1 kg:
160 M (steel) = 0.3 Am2
M (iron) = 0.03 Am2
M (fired earth) = 0.003 Am2
M (brick wall) = 0.0003 Am2

120
Magnetic anomaly, nT

Half of peak Width, w = 1 m

80

40

Zero level
0
Be = 57,000 nT Dipole source
Ie = 70o Depth, d = 1 m
M = 1 Am2
-40
-4 -2 0 2 4
North coordinate, m

Figure 41: The analysis of a magnetic anomaly. This analysis may be applied to many
anomalies, but particularly to those that are caused by objects whose diameter is less than
their distance. The depth from the magnetic sensor to the middle of a compact feature is
about equal to the width of the anomaly that it causes at half its peak amplitude. This is
called the "half width rule", which is an abbreviation for "full width half amplitude", and which
can be further summarized as d = w. Once this depth has been approximated, the mass of
the object can be estimated from the anomaly peak with the aid of the equation in the figure;
for this estimate, it is necessary to assume what type of material is underground.
 100 A geometric calculation of the magnetic anomaly
of a long feature with a rectangular cross-section

80
Anomaly from
upper surface

60

Resultant
Magnetic anomaly, no units

total anomaly =
40 upper - lower

Anomaly from
20 lower surface

line of measurement
0

-20

Cross-section of Angular size of

rectangular feature lower surface
-40

-60
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
North coordinate, m

Figure 42: The geometric calculation of an anomaly. This simple approximation can aid
one's thinking about the anomalies from elongated objects. The magnetic anomaly that is
caused by the upper surface of the rectangular prism is proportional to the angular size of
that surface as it changes along the line of measurement; the same process applies to the
anomaly from the lower surface. The difference of the two anomalies gives the resultant
anomaly of the whole prism. If the magnetic field is vertical, there is no contribution to the
anomaly from the sides of the prism.
 Total field - Vertical component
3 3
A B
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m
1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

North component East component

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 43: Three perpendicular components of a magnetic anomaly. Some magnetometers

(such as cesium and proton) measure the total field of the Earth; these instruments find
anomalies like that in panel A. Fluxgate magnetometers measure one component of the total
field; three perpendicular components are plotted in panels B - D. The vectorial sum of these
three components is the total field, in panel A.
 Inclination angle, 0.01 degrees declination angle, 0.02 degrees
3 3
A B
2 2

North coordinate, m
North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Northerly gradient, 5 nT/m Easterly gradient, 5 nT/m

3 3
C D
2 2
North coordinate, m

North coordinate, m

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2

-3 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
East coordinate, m East coordinate, m

Figure 44: Four more variations on a magnetic map. For the same dipolar anomaly that is
mapped in Figure 43, different aspects of the magnetic field may be plotted. The direction of
the magnetic field is mapped in the upper two panels; inclination angle is the dip angle below
horizontal, and the declination angle is the angle east of grid north. While gradiometers
typically have their two sensors along a vertical line, these sensors may also be placed along
a horizontal line; the magnetic maps that could then be measured over compact objects are
plotted in panels C and D.