Archaeological Prospection

Archaeol. Prospect. 6, 85105 (1999)

The Determination of the Depth of

Magnetic Anomaly Sources
GUY DESVIGNES1*, ALAIN TABBAGH2 AND CHRISTOPHE BENECH1
1
UMR 7619 Sisyphe, Universite Paris 6CNRS, case 105, 4 place Jussieu,
75252 Paris cedex 05, France
2UMR 7619 Sisyphe, Universite Paris 6CNRS, Centre de Recherches

Geophysiques, Garchy 58150, France

ABSTRACT Magnetic prospecting is used mainly for horizontal mapping, whereas the determination of the
depth of features receives only limited attention. The inverse problem has an infinity of solutions
and it is not possible to define precisely either the exact shape or the exact depth of a given
feature. On the one hand, the depth of the source of an anomaly is limited and minimal
information about contrast, horizontal location and depth of the centre can be extracted from the
data. On the other hand, comparison between results obtained from different methods or by the
simultaneous interpretation of their results necessitates in the first place an evaluation of the
correspondence between the depth of the sources indicated by the different methods.
Details of a series of four techniques that deliver information about the depth or the range of
depths of magnetic anomaly sources are presented here. The search for the equivalent dipole
(i.e. a spherical body) is of very limited interest owing to the difference that exists between the
actual archaeological features and a sphere. In contrast, Euler deconvolution provides interesting
results when using a structural index approaching 2. The depth of the centre of magnetization
and the total magnetic moment also can be determined. The latter allows an estimation of
the product of the volume and the susceptibility contrast (the possible presence of non-induced
magnetizations being considered). The downward continuation of the equivalent stratum
susceptibility needs more empirical tests to define divergence criteria, but it delivers another
estimation of the susceptibility changes and information about its depth variation. Copyright
*c 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: magnetic prospecting; depth determination; Euler deconvolution; equivalent

stratum.

Introduction advantageous, however, to be able to obtain

The determination of the depth of features that
are the origin of magnetic anomalies constitutes a
difficult problem; it has theoretically an infinite
number of solutions and, in archaeological
prospecting, it has received limited attention
because the efforts of interpreters mostly tend
towards the restitution of the horizontal shape of
the features, which often allows their ident-
ification and sometimes their dating. It can be
*Correspondence to: Dr G. Desvignes, UMR 7619 `Sisyphe',
Universite Paris 6, CNRS, Case 105, 4 place Jussieu, 75252
Paris cedex 05, France.
more information about the depth, or the range
of depths, of a given feature: it helps to evaluate
its limit in depth and thus the potential difficulty
(and cost) of a scheduled excavation, and to
establish if the observed magnetic contrast exists
inside or beneath the superficial cultivated layer.
Beside these usual concerns, the new prospects
that appear in the comparison of the different
methods available and in the simultaneous
interpretation of different types of measurements,
make it necessary to take into account the differ-
ences that exist between the depths indicated
by the various methods of investigation. As
magnetic properties' contrasts can be studied by

CCC 10752196/99/02008521$17.50 Received 28 July 1998

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 22 February 1999
86
both magnetic and electromagnetic methods (Tite
and Mullins, 1969; Tabbagh, 1974; Desvignes
and Tabbagh, 1995) it is important to be able to
separate in the results of the two methods the
differences originating in the depth of investiga-
tion from those originating in the presence of
viscous or thermoremanent magnetizations. In
other words, as the depth of investigation of the
magnetic method is higher than that of electro-
magnetic methods, one must know, before imple-
menting a simultaneous interpretation, if the
magnetic anomaly under consideration may or
may not originate at a depth out of range of the
electromagnetic apparatus used.
Since the first use of magnetic prospecting ( for
investigation of structures other than those associ-
ated with magnetic ore, magnetic prospecting
began in 1915 when Adolf Schmidt constructed
his precision vertical-field balance), numerous
techniques or `rules of thumb' have been devel-
oped for approximating the depth to sources from
a measure of the observed anomalies; the major
principle is that there is no lower limit. The most
well-known method is the half-width, which
evaluates the source centre depth (Telford et al.,
1976). Smith (1959) derived techniques for maxi-
mum depth estimates to the top of the source
determination, based on horizontal derivatives of
magnetic anomalies. Spectral investigations also
can be used, where the mean depth is derived
(Bhattacharyya, 1978). A maximum depth would
correspond either to a small body exhibiting a
high and unlikely contrast or to a spherical body.
All these methods are potentially erroneous
depending upon the degree to which the simplify-
ing assumptions they use concerning the shape of
the sources are met by the geological or archaeo-
logical features. Thus it would be better for a good
depth determination to avoid such simplifying
assumptions about the geometry of the sources.
In the present paper we will consider four
methods:
(i) determination of the equivalent dipole;
(ii) Euler deconvolution;
(iii) location of the centre of magnetization and
determination of the total magnetic moment
of a feature;
(iv) downward continuation of the equivalent
stratum magnetization.
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
We first present these methods, apply them to a
synthetic example and then consider their appli-
cation on actual data corresponding to total field
measurements.
Determination of the characteristics
of the equivalent dipole
Principle
Magnetic anomalies observed in archaeological
prospecting may be classified roughly in two
categories: the ones that correspond to elongate
features (ditches for example), and those that
have limited lateral extension in both directions.
For the first category, a line of dipoles must be
used rather than one dipole alone, which is
convenient for the second category. As in both
cases the process that must be followed to fit the
theoretical anomaly to the experimental data is
the same, we shall limit our discussion to the
single dipole case. As a survey normally shows a
series of elementary anomalies, each must be
considered separately; a moving window is thus
displaced over the area surveyed, the size of this
window needs to be sufficiently wide to cover a
significant part of the anomaly (7 or 8 m).
Four parameters are sought using the least-
square method: the magnetic moment, M, and
the three coordinates, x0 , y0 , and z0 , of the dipole.
The expression of the anomaly at any measured
point (x, y), DT(x, y), is linear in M but not linear
in x0 , y0 and z0 , thus it has to be linearized using
the Taylor series expansion:
DTx; y DTx; yjx ;y ;z
a a a
@DT @DT @DT 1
dx0 dy0 dz0
@x0 @y0 @z0
An iterative scheme is then applied: (i) a set of a
priori estimated coordinate values, xa , ya and za is
first chosen; (ii) the moment M is determined; (iii)
the three increments dx0 , dy0 , dz0 are calculated
and added to the a priori values; and the entire
cycle is reiterated until a convergence parameter,
dx20 dy20 dz20
x20 y20 z20
reaches a given threshold.
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources 87

Figure 1. Total field anomaly of a prismatic magnetic feature (2  2  0.5 m3) having its top at 0.3 m depth. The
susceptibility contrast is 1  10 3 S.I. and the sensor height 0.3 m.

Application to a synthetic case
This process is applied to a simple synthetic case
previously presented (Desvignes and Tabbagh,
1995), in which a magnetic prismatic feature of
2  2  0.5 m3 size has a susceptibility contrast of
1  10 3 S.I. with its surroundings. Its top is
located at 0.3 m depth and the measurements
achieved using a total field magnetometer with the
sensor at 0.3 m above ground (z 0 being the
ground surface, the height of the measurement is
z 0.3 m). The magnetic inclination is 648 and
the declination 08. The anomaly is presented
in Figure 1. The calculated equivalent dipole
has a location of x0 5 m, y0 0.15 m and
z0 0.69 m and a magnetic moment of
0.091 A m2, where the centre of the square feature
is at x0 5 m, y0 0 m, z0 0.55 m and the
product of its volume by its magnetic
susceptibility contrast and by the Earth's mag-
netic field (37.5 A m 1) is 0.075 A m2. The differ-
ence in the strength of the moment is slightly

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
88
greater than that in the depth: if we adopt the
same susceptibility contrast, the equivalent sphere
would have a 0.83 m radius, and if we adopt
the same volume of the sphere as that of the true
body, the susceptibility contrast would reach
1.21  10 3 S.I. Thus obtaining exact results from
this method seems limited to a very narrow range
of shapes of the body source.
Euler deconvolution
Principle
Euler deconvolution was introduced quite
recently (Thompson, 1982; Reid et al., 1990) in
order to identify quickly the location of elemen-
tary sources that may correspond to the actual
data. It is based on the fact that the magnetic
anomaly DT(x, y) verifies the Euler homogeneity
equation:
@DT @DT @DT
x x0 y y0 z0 h
@x @y @z
NDTx; y 2
where x0 , y0 and z0 are the coordinates of the
source, h the height of the measurement and N is
the `structural index' that governs the decrease of
the field with the distance from the source. For a
dipole (a sphere), N 3, the anomaly of which
is proportional to 1/r3; N 2 for a circular
section cylinder, the anomaly of which is
proportional to 1/r2; and N 1 for a sheet-like
body, the anomaly of which is proportional to
1/r.
The values of the gradients of DT can be
determined by linear filtering (Gun, 1975;
Tabbagh et al., 1997) over the surveyed area.
After having chosen N, the three coordinates
values can be deduced directly from equation (2)
using the values of the anomaly and of its
gradients at three different points. In practice, it
is better to consider more than three points and to
apply the least-squares method to determine the
three coordinates. This deconvolution is purely
geometrical and does not deliver the magnitude
of the source, which will be determined by
another method (see below). The main difficulty
encountered in its use is the choice of N. Features
sought in archaeological prospecting, differ
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
geometrically from those considered in mining,
oil or structural prospecting and the experience
acquired in these domains is unfortunately of
limited interest, because two-dimensional fea-
tures are most often considered (Thurston and
Smith, 1997). Despite the fact that most archae-
ological features are of small lateral extent, they
cannot be described as dipoles (spheres) because
they are usually of limited thickness and are
larger at their top than at their bottom. In the
preceding section, for a feature with a width that
is four times its thickness and which has vertical
limits, the difference between the true depth and
the depth of the equivalent dipole is noticeable.
Thus, in further calculations we shall have to test
for the best value of the structural index that can
be considered for any type of archaeological
feature. It is also possible to consider N as a
fourth unknown and to determine it together
with the coordinates.
Application to a synthetic case
If we consider the same synthetic case, i.e. the
response of the prismatic 2  2  0.5 m3 feature,
we first apply the algorithm where four unknowns
are determined. For several sizes of the window
ranging from 8  8 m2 to 3  3 m2, we obtain
very stable results: x0 5.0 m, y0 0.01 m,
z0 1.51 m and N 3.68. The values of the
two first coordinates are very close to the true
ones, 5.0 and 0 m, whereas z0 is far from it (0.55 m)
and N surpasses 3, which is physically unaccep-
table.
When we apply the algorithm where N has a
fixed value, we observe that x0 and y0 are again
correctly determined and that z0 only changes
with N. Figure 2 presents the values of z0
obtained for different values of N ranging from
1.2 to 3.7: the curve increases quite linearly. The
correct value of z0 corresponds to N 2.0. This
value is not physically surprising; it results from
the fact that the width of the feature is four times
greater than its thickness. Other synthetic data
presented in previous papers (Desvignes and
Tabbagh, 1995; Tabbagh et al., 1997) give similar
values and, even for complex features, the values
of N corresponding to the correct z0 value stay in
the interval 1.85 to 2.2. We can thus consider that
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources
Figure 2. Variation of the depth of the centre of the square
magnetic feature calculated by Euler deconvolution, versus
the structural index value N.
the range of N is around these values for archaeo-
logical features (see also the field data below).
Location of the centre of
magnetization and of the total
magnetic moment
Principle
The determination of the three coordinates of the
centre of magnetization x0 , y0 and z0 , and of the
total magnetic moment, M, is possible whatever
the exact shape of the feature. They can be
deduced from complex integrals of the variations
of the three components of the magnetic anomaly
(Andersen and Pedersen, 1979). This method was
adapted recently for the determination of z0 and
M, when using only the total field anomaly (see
Appendix 1).
Application to a synthetic case
By again considering the anomaly generated by
the simple prismatic feature we obtained with
this method z0 0.545 m and M 0.0751 A m2.
These determinations are very good (51%)
and much better than those obtained by the
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
89
equivalent dipole method. It must be noted,
however, that:
(i) the exact values of (x0 , y0) and the exact
value of the orientation of the Earth's mag-
netic field were introduced;
(ii) the sampling interval is small (0.5 m).
If these conditions are not fulfilled, the theory
and numerical tests show that the correct value of
M is still obtained and its estimation is robust,
but that the value of z0 is sensitive to these
parameters.
Downward continuation of the
equivalent stratum magnetization
Principle
For potential field methods, downward continua-
tion constitutes a well-known solution for enhan-
cing the location of the sources. This approach,
however, requires several assumptions, the main
ones being that there are no sources between the
measurement level and the continuation depth,
and that it is possible to define criteria for the
divergence of the transformed data indicating
that the level of the sources is reached. Down-
ward continuation can be applied to any com-
ponent of the field or its derivatives, or to the
potential using the same continuation function.
In magnetic prospecting, the continuation of
the potential would be preferred to that of any
field component, because it corresponds in
magnetism to the equivalent stratum magnetiza-
tion (see Appendix 2), which can be transformed
easily into susceptibility values of the equivalent
stratum.
If one considers an anomaly DT(x, y) obtained
at z 0 m for a given inclination I, the effect of I
must be first corrected by a reduction to the pole
that gives DTv(x, y). It has been established (see
Appendix 2) that this anomaly can be generated
by a horizontally varying vertical magnetization
sv(x, y) at z 0 m, the magnitude of which is
deduced from the potential U(x, y), defined by
DTv x; y @U
@z . Therefore, sv(x, y) 2U(x, y).
This equivalent stratum constitutes one possible
solution of the inverse problem. By downward
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
90
continuation of the potential, an infinite series of
other solutions can be proposed, but as the depth
increases the maximum of sv increases and the
lateral variations of the magnetization change. A
maximum acceptable value of the depth could be
defined according to two criteria: (i) by fixing a
maximum acceptable value for sv and/or (ii) by
checking the lateral changes of sv , for instance
when negative peaks appear in alternation with a
series of high positive peaks.
The calculation is achieved in the spectral
domain, where u and v are the spatial frequencies
corresponding to x and y directions respectively.
With F(u, v) being the Fourier transform of
DT(x, y), the calculation of the potential and its
downward continuation over a vertical distance h
are achieved simultaneously using (Tabbagh et al.,
1997):
p p
1 u2 v2 2ph u2 v2
Fu; v p e
2p iu cos I u2 v2 sin I2
3 one corresponds to a pottery workshop, which
when the declination is null. The magnetization
is thus obtained after an inverse Fourier trans-
form. By dividing it by the amplitude of the
Earth's magnetic field, an equivalent stratum
susceptibility can be restored.
Application to a synthetic case
If we apply the process to the synthetic case
( prismatic 2  2  0.5 m3 feature, where the
measurement step is 0.5 m) we observe first
(Figure 3a) that the susceptibility of the equival-
ent stratum has smooth lateral variations at the
measurement level (z 0.3 m). It is symmetric
and its amplitude reaches 0.55  10 3 S.I. A
downward continuation increases the amplitude
and improves the correspondence between the
true square shape of the body and the lateral
changes of the susceptibility (Figure 3b and c). At
0.3 m below ground surface, a depth which
corresponds to the level of the top of the feature,
we obtain a clear square of 1  10 3 S.I. ampli-
tude. At lower levels (Figure 3d), inside the body,
the susceptibility image exhibits different poles
(each being inside the prism but corresponding to
a corner); such an aspect can be interpreted as a
divergence effect. At 0.3 m depth, the suscepti-
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
bility value is comparable with the true volu-
metric susceptibility contrast; it is difficult to
suggest a physical explanation for the value of
this, but it has to be noted for further comparison
with experimental data.
From this first example we conclude that the
separation of the sources into a group of point-
like maxima can be considered as a criterion
indicating that the top of the feature is reached,
whereas the regularity of the amplitude increase
makes it difficult to define a threshold.
It must be noticed that these synthetic data are
noise free; in case of considerable measurement
errors the downward continuation may be
unstable and the interpretation difficult.
Application to field data
Two different examples are considered for testing
the preceding processes on field data. The first
produced amphorae from the Hellenistic period
on the Datca peninsula (Resadiye, Turkey)
(Empereur et al., in press): it presents both kilns
and waste heaps; the magnetic contrast can be
high and the depth of the features may exceed
1 m. The second is a Merovingian cemetery,
where burials correspond to pits filled with
topsoil. It is located at Garchy just beside the
`Centre de Recherches Geophysiques'. Here, the
size of the features and the magnetic contrast is
more limited, the bottom of the features never
exceeding 1 m.
Two different parcels of land at the first site are
considered: they were surveyed in 1991 and 1992
with a Geometrics 816 proton magnetometer
with 1 nT sensitivity. The sensor was held 0.7 m
above ground surface and the measurement
mesh was 2  2 m2. The first selected zone,
zone I, shows (Figure 4) a burnt brick feature
( partly explored by excavation but most probably
a kiln) in the eastern part and a group of features
(kiln or waste heaps) in the western part. The
second zone, zone Q, shows (Figure 5) a group of
five isolated positive anomalies, the northern-
most of which was recognized as a kiln, and two
other features, an elongated one crossing the
entire map and a concentrated one just at its
northernmost limit.
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources
Figure 3. (a) Equivalent stratum susceptibility at measurement level (0.3 m above the ground surface) for the prismatic
magnetic feature.
The Merovingian cemetery has been studied
over a long time (Hesse, 1966), as its location
facilitates the testing of new prospecting methods
or new instruments. The data considered
(Figure 6) were recorded in 1979 (Banteaux et al.,
1979) using two synchronized Geometrics 816
proton magnetometers (at 1 nT sensitivity) in
differential mode. The mobile sensor was held at
0.3 m height above ground and the measurement
mesh was 1  1 m2. On this site the superficial
cultivated layer is thin (0.2 m) but of significant
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
91
magnetic susceptibility (more than 0.7  10 3
S.I.), the burial pits dug in the Oxfordian lime-
stone exhibit an equivalent or slightly greater
susceptibility.
Amphorae workshop at Resadiye (Turkey)
Zone I
In this zone the search for the equivalent dipole
parameters results in x0 9.51 m, y0 8.74 m,
z0 4.3 m and M 93 A m 2 for the eastern
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
92
Figure 3. (b) Downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility at 0.1 m below the ground surface.
kiln, using a 16  16 m2 window. The depth of
the dipole was clearly too deep, excavations
having shown that the top of the burnt clay was
at 0.8 m depth. In the western part similar results
were obtained, x0 12.7 m, y0 45 m and
z0 9.3 m with a very high moment of
866 A m2; this huge value is the consequence of
the very high z0 value. Such incorrect deter-
mination drastically limits the interest in the
equivalent dipole determination: whereas x0 and
y0 are easily estimated by simply looking at the
map, the results obtained for the two unknowns,
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
z0 and M, are definitely overestimated. Thus this
process has no further purpose in the present
case.
In contrast, Euler deconvolution showed very
coherent and interesting results. For the eastern
kiln we obtained for an 8  8 m2 window,
x0 11 m, y0 7.6 m, z0 1.73 m and a struc-
tural index N 2.15 (medians of 11 independent
determinations); for a 12  12 m2 window, we had
x0 12 m, y0 8.7 m, z0 1.2 m and N 1.90.
Both these determinations are in agreement with
the location of the top of the first layer of burnt
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources
Figure 3. (c) Downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility at 0.3 m (the top of the feature) below the
ground surface.
clay at 0.8 m and of the burnt bricks of the kiln at
1.60 m. The structural index values confirm those
obtained with synthetic data. For the western
group of features the automatic determination of
N leads to very low structural indices: the median
value is N 0.56, this corresponds to z0 0.1 m,
which would imply the presence of a magnetic
medium just below the ground surface, which is
not in accordance with the subsurface suscepti-
bility map obtained form electromagnetic
measurements (EM15). If we fix N 2, z0 remains
around 1.3 m.
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
93
For the eastern kiln the determination of the
depth of the centre of magnetization using
x0 8 m, y0 12 m and a 16  16 m2 window
is z0 2.15 m; the total magnetic moment equals
108 A m2. By considering three types of magne-
tization, thermoremanent, viscous and induced,
and by estimating the volume to 20 m3, we obtain
a susceptibility contrast between 144  10 3 S.I.
(if the magnetization is an induced one only) and
48  10 3 S.I. (if the thermoremanent and the
viscous magnetizations are equivalent to the
induced one). For the anomaly at the centre of
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
94
Figure 3. (d) Downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility at 0.55 m (the centre of the feature) below the
ground surface.
the western group, starting with x0 13 m,
y0 43 m we obtain for a 10  10 m2 window:
z0 1.15 m and M 30 A m 2, in good agree-
ment with the Euler deconvolution results. Using
a 10 m3 volume we obtain a susceptibility con-
trast between 80 and 27  10 3 S.I. depending on
the nature of the magnetization.
The downward continuation of the equivalent
stratum at 0.2 m below ground level (Figure 7a)
gives higher values of the susceptibility for the
western group of features than for the eastern
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
kiln. It must be noticed also that the lateral
variation of susceptibility clearly differs from the
total field anomaly map (Figure 4). At 0.8 m
below ground level (Figure 7b) this anomaly is
dissociated into a group of point maxima. The
increase of the susceptibility value between 0.2
and 0.8 m depth is more marked for the eastern
kiln, from 70 to 100  10 3 S.I., than for the
western group, from 100 to 130  10 3 S.I. This
can be an indication for a difference in the depth
of the magnetic anomaly sources. The magnitude
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources 95

Figure 4. Total field magnetic anomaly map on the pottery workshop of Resadiye (Turkey), zone I (measurements by A.
Hesse). The isolated anomaly at the southeastern corner probably corresponds to a kiln, the top of which is at 0.8 m depth
below the ground surface.

of the susceptibility (which in this calculation x0 7.5 m, y0 7 m, z0 1.5 m and N 2.96; it

includes all types of magnetization) is consistent
with the strength of the total magnetic moment.
Zone Q
If we consider directly the Euler deconvolution,
the kiln among the five features that outcrops
just below the top soil (0.25 m) exhibits a
high structural index and too great a depth:
differs from the four other features, which give z0
greater than 1.3 m and N 2.15. The elongated
feature and the concentrated one correspond to
low structural indices if N is determined auto-
matically: they give, respectively, z0 0.4 m and
N 1 and z0 1.2 m and N 1.13. These
values would correspond to superficial features.
If we fix N 2, z0 becomes greater than 1.3 m

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
96
Figure 5. Total field anomaly map on the pottery workshop of Resadiye (Turkey), zone Q (measurement by A. Hesse).
for all. It has to be noted that although the
automatic determination of N takes into account
all the information, fixing the value of N
may advantage the lower part of the magnetic
body; in other words the choice of N may act as a
filter.
The determination of the depth of the centre
of magnetization and of the total magnetic
moment produces the following results: for the
body centred at x0 27 m and y0 29 m,
z0 0.85 m and M 10 A m2, for the body
centred at x0 7 m and y0 7 m, z0 0.75 m
and M 9.7 A m2. Both depth results are lower
than 1.3 m, which suggests that the structural
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
index to be considered in the Euler deconvolution
would have to be between 1 and 2 rather than 2.
The downward continuation at 0.2 m below
the ground surface (Figure 8a) clearly shows the
difference between the kiln and the four other
features in the western corner of the survey. At
0.8 m (Figure 8b) the anomaly of the kiln stays
coherent, in agreement with the fact that the
depth of its centre is below 0.8 m. The magnitude
of the equivalent stratum susceptibility of the
elongated and concentrated waste heaps
increases slightly from 0.2 m to 0.8 m continua-
tion depths ( from 40 to 60  10 3 S.I.). This
suggests that it would be interesting to consider
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources
Figure 6. Total field anomaly map on the Merovingian cemetery at Garchy (France) (measurement by A. Hesse).
the rate of increase with continuation depth as a
possible criterion for source location. Again these
susceptibility values are in agreement with the
total moment strength and a likely volume.
Merovingian cemetery at Garchy (France)
A group of a dozen burial pits can be observed on
the total field anomaly map (Figure 6). If we apply
Euler deconvolution, the automatic determination
of N results in very low values, between 0.3 and
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
97
0.6, to which correspond small values of z0 , from 0
to 0.3 m. This suggests that part of the magnetic
contrast originates in the topsoil layer (this corres-
ponds to the observation), owing to the fact that
the magnetic material is partly scattered in this
layer by agricultural work and erosion processes.
By fixing the structural index at N 2, the depth
of the magnetic sources is increased to an average
value of 0.55 m in agreement with the observa-
tions realized during excavations (Hesse, 1966).
The calculation of z0 and M was performed for
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
98
Figure 7. Resadiye, zone I, downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility: (a) at 0.2 m below the ground
surface.
three anomalies centred at (x 40 m, y 67 m),
(x 34 m, y 68 m) and (x 20 m, y 78 m)
respectively. For each we obtained z0 0.75 m;
this value is larger than that obtained from Euler
deconvolution, thus the features are more com-
pact than expected. The total magnetic moments
are, respectively, 2.1 A m2, 0.98 A m2 and 0.49 A
m2. For a volume of several cubic metres they
correspond to several 10 3 S.I. susceptibility
values.
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
Downward continuation of the equivalent
stratum susceptibility suggests for a 0.2 m con-
tinuation depth below the ground surface
(Figure 9a), that the pits are surrounded by a
zone of greater susceptibility, which was not
evident on the total field anomaly map. For
greater continuation depths, 0.8 m in Figure 9b,
the maximum susceptibility value reaches twice
the known susceptibility contrast and a lot of
peaks appear in the anomalies: this suggests that
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources
Figure 7. Resadiye, zone I, downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility: (b) at 0.8 m below the ground
surface.
the level of the sources is overstepped. In that
case, however, it is difficult to define either by the
magnitude of the susceptibility or by its spatial
variation a precise depth for the magnetic
anomaly sources. Nevertheless it will be interest-
ing to compare, in magnitude and in lateral
changes, the susceptibility variations obtained
for small continuation depths, here 0.2 m, to a
susceptibility map supplied by an electro-
magnetic apparatus; in order to provide evidence
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
99
for a possible viscous magnetization, and thus to
establish that the archaeological features have (or
have not) been disturbed by agricultural work.
Conclusion
Four techniques were considered here for the
determination of the depth of magnetic anomaly
sources. The first one, the determination of the
depth of the equivalent dipole is definitely of no
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
100
Figure 8. Resadiye, zone Q, downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility: (a) at 0.2 m below the ground
surface.
interest; as the actual lateral variations of the
contrast do not correspond to this model, the
depth is largely overestimated and the corre-
sponding moment value totally unlikely. In
contrast, Euler deconvolution is a light and
efficient process, it will be easily implemented
for in-field processing and will allow deter-
mination of an approximated depth. By fixing
the structural index it is possible to reduce (or to
increase) the influence of the superficial part of
the magnetic sources. We have established by
both the synthetic model and actual case studies
that N 2 is a fair estimation of this index for
most archaeological features. The determination
of the depth of the centre of magnetization can
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech
provide a control on the Euler deconvolution
results and thus can be used to define N. The
strength of the total moment provides a value for
the magnetic susceptibility contrast when the
total volume of a feature can be estimated. The
strength of the total moment also may indicate
the presence of different types of magnetization.
In addition to information about the depth of
the sources of anomalies, calculation of the
susceptibility of the equivalent stratum and its
downward continuation can provide an order of
magnitude estimation of the susceptibility values
and reveal its lateral variations. For both objec-
tives it needs more studies on real cases in order
to define its full abilities. Moreover, as it looks to
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources 101

Figure 8. Resadiye, zone Q, downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility: (b) at 0.8 m below the ground
surface.

be a very interesting tool for the comparison to some integrals of the anomalies (Helbig,
between magnetic and electromagnetic measure- 1963)
ments, such studies will be performed soon. Z Z
2 1 1
Mx xDZx; y dx dy
m0 1 1
Appendix 1 Z 1 Z 1
2
My yDZx; y dx dy
Some parameters of the disturbing magnetic m0 1 1
body can be calculated from measured magnetic Z 1 Z 1
anomalies, without any assumption about its 2
Mz xDXx; y dx dy
shape. m0 1 1
Z 1 Z 1
(i) The three components of the total magnetic 2
yDYx; y dx dy
moment of the disturbing body are related m0 1 1

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
102 G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech

Figure 9. Merovingian cemetery of Garchy, downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility: (a) at 0.2 m
below the ground surface.

Here the International System of units (S.I.) is and Pedersen (1979) for the two-dimensional
used; m0 4p  10 7 is the vacuum permeability case to three dimensions. We obtain:
and DX, DY, DZ are the three components of the Z 1  Z 1 
disturbing magnetic induction. 2
x DXx; y dy 2Mx dx
1 1
(ii) The three components of the centre of m0 x0 Mz z0 M x
the magnetization also can be determined Z 1  Z 1 
2
uniquely from measurements, using higher x DZx; y dy 2Mz dx
1 1
integrals of anomalies. It is quite easy to
generalize the results obtained by Andersen m0 x0 Mx z0 Mz

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources 103

Figure 9. Merovingian cemetery of Garchy, downward continuation of the equivalent stratum susceptibility (b) at 0.8 m
below the ground surface.

Z 1  Z 1 
2 outside of this square is not negligible; it can
y DYx; y dx 2My dy
1 1
m0 x0 Mz z0 My
In the practical case data exist only within a
limited area, although all the preceding
integrals are to be carried over the entire
horizontal plane. Suppose, for simplicity,
that this area is a square with sides 2a. For all
these integrals the part corresponding to the
be approached analytically by assuming that
the lateral variations of the anomaly corre-
spond to those of a single dipole with a
magnetic moment (Mx , My , Mz) at the centre
(x0 , y0 , z0) (Grant and West, 1965).
Moreover, rather than the three components
DX, DY, DZ the measurements generally are
limited to the total disturbing magnetic induction
DT, that is the component in the direction of the

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
104 G. Desvignes, A. Tabbagh and C. Benech

main terrestrial magnetic field (with inclination I and

and declination D).
4a2 z0 a2 2a Ra
C3 2
8 artg log
DT cos D cos IDX sin D cos IDY sin IDZ a2 z0 R z 0 R z0 Ra

Thus only the component M of the total magnetic So z0 can be determined from the variations of DT
moment in the same direction can be determined and the preceding knowledge of M. Again the two
uniquely from these measurements. We obtain: correction terms C2 and C3 involve z0 ; but in this
Z a Z a case z0 needs to be known with good precision.
4p Therefore, a somewhat complex, but stable,
M xDTx; y dx dy
m0 C1 cos D sin 2I a a iterative process has to be carried out. Also note
that these formulae assume that the coordinates x0
or and y0 are zero; thus the centre of each anomaly
Z Z must be determined carefully using reduction to
a a
4p the pole or Euler deconvolution.
M yDTx; y dx dy
m0 C1 sin D sin 2I a a
1
Appendix 2
with
The equivalent stratum was first used in mag-
a2 4a2 z0 netic prospecting interpretation by Peters (1949)
C1 4 artg 2
z0 R a z20 R in order to restore the depth of a basement, i.e.
the boundary between low susceptibility sedi-
and mentary rocks and the more magnetic basement
q rocks. It can be defined by following the same
R 2a2 z20 process as in gravimetry (Grant and West, 1965).
If we consider on the horizontal plane at z 0
These two formulae enable the evaluation of M a distribution of vertical magnetization sv(x, y), it
from numerical integration of the variations of generates, at a point located above the z 0
DT; indeed the correction term C1 involves z0 ; but plane (z is positive downward), a potential
this value need not be determined with great Z Z
1 1 1 @
accuracy here (one can use the half-width of the Ux; y; z sv x0 ; y0
4p 1 1 @z
anomaly)
1 0 0
 q dx dy
4p
z0 x x0 2 y y0 2 z2
m0Mcos2 I cos2 DC2 sin2 IC3
Z a Z a By locating the origin at the point (x, y) and
2
 x DTx; y dx dy adopting polar coordinates, r and y, we have:
a a
Z
1 1 sv r
or Ux; y; z z r dr
2 0 r2 z2 3=2
4p
z0 The integration domain can be divided in two
m0 Mcos2 I sin2 DC2 sin2 IC3 parts, [0, a] and [a, 1 ]. For a given value of a the
Z a Z a 2
2 integration over the second part vanishes when z
 y DTx; y dx dy tends towards 0, while the integration over the
a a
first part equals
with  
z
1 p
4a4 a2 4a Ra a2 z2
C2 2
8 artg log
2
z0 a z0 R z0 R z0 Ra and tends towards 1.

Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)
Depth Determination of Magnetic Anomaly Sources
Then we have:
sv x; y
Ux; y : Helbig, K. (1963). Some integrals of magnetic
2
Any distribution of the potential can be con-
sidered, at the measurement altitude z, as the
effect of the corresponding vertical magnetiza-
tion distribution at the same level.
References
Andersen, F. H. and Pedersen, L. B. (1979). Some
relations between potential fields and the strength
and center of their sources. Geophysical Prospecting
27(4): 761774.
Banteaux, L., Hesse, A. and Jolivet, A. (1979).
A new apparatus of differential recording of the
magnetic field for archaeological prospecting. Nine-
teenth International Symposium on Archaeometry and
Archaeological Prospection, London, 2831 March
1979, Abstracts.
Bhattacharyya, B. K. (1978). Computer modeling in
gravity and magnetic interpretation. Geophysics 43:
912929.
Desvignes, G. and Tabbagh, A. (1995). Simultaneous
interpretation of magnetic and electromagnetic pro-
specting for characterisation of magnetic features.
Archaeological Prospection 2: 129139.
Empereur, J. Y., Hesse, A. and Tuna, N. (in press). Les
ateliers d'amphores de Datca, peninsule de Cnide.
Actes du colloque `Production et commerce des amphores
anciennes en mer noire', Institut Francais d'Etudes
Anatoliennes, Istanbul, 2528 May 1994.
Grant, F. S. and West, G. F. (1965). Interpretation Theory
in Applied Geophysics. New York: MacGraw Hill,
214216.
Copyright # 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
105
Gun, P. J. (1975). Linear transformations of gravity
and magnetic fields. Geophysical Prospecting 23:
300312.
anomalies and their relation to the parameters of
the disturbing body. Zeitschrift fur Geophysik 29:
8396.
Hesse, A. (1966). Prospections geophysiques a faible
profondeur Applications a l'archeologie. Paris:
Dunod.
Peters, L. J. (1949). The direct approach to magnetic
interpretation and its practical application. Geo-
physics 14(3): 290320.
Reid, A. B., Allsop, J. M., Granser, H., Millett, A. J. and
Somerton, I. W. (1990). Magnetic interpretation
in three dimensions using Euler deconvolution.
Geophysics 55(1): 8091.
Smith, R. A. (1959). Some depth formulae for local
magnetic and gravity anomalies. Geophysical
Prospecting 7: 5563.
Tabbagh, A. (1974). Methodes electromagnetiques
de prospection applicables aux problemes archeo-
logiques. Archaeo-physika 5: 349437.
Tabbagh, A., Desvignes, G. and Dabas, M. (1997).
Processing of Z gradiometer magnetic data using
linear transforms and analytic signal. Archaeological
Prospection 4: 113.
Telford, W. M., Geldart, L. P., Sheriff, R. E. and Keys,
D. A. (1976). Applied Geophysics. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Thompson, D. T. (1982). EULDPH: a new technique for
making computer assisted estimates from magnetic
data. Geophysics 41(1): 131137.
Thurston, J. B. and Smith, R. S. (1997). Automatic
conversion of magnetic data to depth, dip, and
susceptibility contrast using the SPI2 method.
Geophysics 62: 807813.
Tite, M. S. and Mullins, C. E. (1969). Electromagnetic
prospecting: a preliminary investigation. Prospezione
archeologiche 4: 95102.
Archaeol. Prospect., Vol. 6, 85105 (1999)