By

Steven L. De Vore

Archeological Report 10

National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Midwest Archeological Center 

Lincoln, Nebraska

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES WITHIN 

THE KNIFE RIVER INDIAN VILLAGES NATIONAL HISTORIC 

SITE, MERCER COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA 

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

WITHIN THE KNIFE RIVER INDIAN VILLAGES 

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, MERCER COUNTY, NORTH 

DAKOTA 

By

Steven L. De Vore

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

MIDWEST ARCHEOLOGICAL CENTER

ARCHEOLOGICAL REPORT NO. 10

United States Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Lincoln, Nebraska

2015
This report has been reviewed against the criteria contained in 43CFR Part 7, Subpart 

A, Section 7.18 (a) (1) and, upon recommendation of the Midwest Regional Office

and the Midwest Archeological Center, has been classified as

Available

Making the report available meets the criteria of 43CFR Part 7, Subpart A, Section 7.18 

(a) (1).
i

ABSTRACT

The National Park Service’s Midwest Archeological Center staff and instructors 

and participants of the 2010 NPS archeological prospection workshop, along with 

students from the University of North Dakota’s 2010 fieldschool conducted geophysical 

investigations at three sites within Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site 

in Mercer County, North Dakota. The geophysical investigations were conducted 

between May 10 and May 29, 2010. The investigations at the Elbee site, 32ME408, and 

Site 32ME2377 were requested by the KNRI superintendent as part of the compliance 

activities related to the erosion of the Knife River bank in the vicinity of the two sites. The 

geophysical investigations at the Taylor Bluff site, 32ME366, were conducted as part of 

the field exercises associated with the twentieth annual NPS archeological prospection 

workshop. The geophysical survey at the Elbee site included a resistance survey with a 

resistance meter and twin-probe array, a limited magnetic survey with a dual fluxgate 

gradiometer, and the re-analysis of the 2002 and 2006 magnetic data from the site. The 

geophysical survey at Site 32ME2377 included a resistance survey with a resistance 

meter and twin probe array and a magnetic survey with a single fluxgate gradiometer. 

Primary data collected at the Taylor Bluff site during the workshop included a groundpenetrating radar survey with a 400 mHz antenna and a magnetic survey with a dual 

fluxgate gradiometer. The geophysical surveys were conducted in order to identify 

buried archeological remains in the vicinity of the Knife River bank at the Elbee site and 

Site 32ME2377. The survey results provide a baseline of archeological geophysical data 

for a data recovery project by the University of North Dakota’s archeological fieldschool. 

The survey data from Sites 32ME366, 32ME407, and 32ME2377 provide subsurface 

information for future park planning activities. The geophysical data also provide 

information on the potential damage to the archeological resources from the continued 

erosion of the Knife River bank. The geophysical surveys identified numerous buried 

archeological remains associated with the prehistoric human occupation of the Elbee 

site, the historic Native American occupation of the Taylor Bluff site, and more recent 

historic farming and modern NPS activities at all three sites. The combined total area 

investigated by the geophysical survey in the three KNRI geophysical project areas was 

17,086 m2 or 4.22 acres. The Elbee site and the Taylor Bluff site were recommended as 

eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places while Site 32ME2377 was 

recommended as not eligible. 
ii

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 
iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was completed with support and assistance from the Knife River 

Indian Villages National Historic Site (KNRI) staff. Sincere appreciation is extended to 

former KNRI Superintendent Brian McCutchen, KNRI Resource Manager Maureen 

McGee-Bellineer, and the park’s facility manager Chuck Folk who participated in the 

planning and implementation of the geophysical survey. I would also thank Ramon Jasso 

for mowing the tall grass at the Elbe site and at the Taylor Bluff site. All of the KNRI 

park staff went out of their way to make the MWAC crew feel welcome and provided 

assistance in getting the work done efficiently, safely, and as comfortably as possible 

during the archeological investigations. I would also like to thank Dr. Dennis Toom 

and his 2010 University of North Dakota archeological fieldschool students for their 

assistance during the geophysical survey of the Elbee site. I am sincerely grateful to the 

instructors and participants of the 2010 NPS archeological prospection workshop for all 

of their enthusiasm during the field exercises at the Taylor Bluff site.

At the Midwest Archeological Center, I would like to thank Dr. Mark Lynott 

(MWAC Manager) and Jeffery J. Richner (MWAC Park Archeology Program Manager), 

now both re tired, for their direction, leadership, and support during the project. I 

would also like to thank Jay Sturdevant, MWAC archeologist, for his additional insights 

concerning the park, its archeological resources, the effects of the flooding to the 

Elbee site, and the selection of the Taylor Bluff site for the archeological prospection 

workshop. I also appreciate the geophysical survey efforts of the MWAC field crew: 

Albert M. LeBeau III and Dustin Gonzales. I am also grateful for the support provided 

by Administrative Officer Jill Lewis, and the rest of the MWAC staff for all of their 

help without which this project would not have been completed as smoothly or 

efficiently as it was. Christina Swenson, Darin Schlake, Bryttie Duren, and Bailey 

Koziol provided logistical, computer, transportation, and personnel support during 

the project while Alan Weber and Jeff Larson provided editing and report preparation 

in the publishing of this document. I am sincerely grateful for their review comments 

of the draft manuscript.
iv

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract........................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................iii

Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

Environmental Setting......................................................................................................3

Cultural Resource Investigations.......................................................................................7

Elbee Site, 32ME408................................................................................................7

Site 32ME2377 .......................................................................................................10

Taylor Bluff Site, 32ME366 ......................................................................................10

2010 Geophysical Investigations .....................................................................................15

Geophysical Grid Layout..........................................................................................15

Geophysical Prospection Techniques........................................................................17

Magnetic Survey .............................................................................................18

Resistance Survey ............................................................................................21

Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey....................................................................23

Geophysical Data Processing ...................................................................................24

Processing Single Fluxgate Gradiometer Magnetic Data...................................25

Processing Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer Data.....................................................26

Processing Resistance Data..............................................................................26

Processing Ground-Penetrating Radar Data .....................................................27

Geophysical Data Interpretations.............................................................................28

Interpreting the Magnetic Data .......................................................................29

Interpreting the Resistance Data......................................................................31

Interpreting the Ground-Penetrating Radar Data .............................................32
vi

Combined Geophysical Data Set Interpretations..............................................32

Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................33

References Cited.............................................................................................................35

Tables .............................................................................................................................47

Figures............................................................................................................................67
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Global positioning system post processed and corrected

 grid coordinates for the KNRI geophysical project areas. ........................................47

Table 2. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the 

single fluxgate gradiometer surveys...........................................................................58

Table 3. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the 

dual fluxgate gradiometer surveys. ............................................................................60

Table 4. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the 

resistance survey used in the grid input template.....................................................63

Table 5. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the 

ground penetrating radar survey................................................................................65

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the geophysical project areas at

Knife River Indian Villages...........................................................................................67

Figure 2. Location of the geophysical project area at

 the Taylor Bluff site.....................................................................................................68

Figure 3. Location of the geophysical project area at

 the Elbee site...............................................................................................................69

Figure 4. Location of the geophysical project area at

 Site 32ME2377.............................................................................................................70

Figure 5. General view of the Elbee site from the south end 

of the 2010 geophysical project area..........................................................................71

Figure 6. General view of Site 32ME2377 from the northeast

 corner of the 2010 geophysical project area.............................................................71

Figure 7. General view of the Taylor Bluff site from the 

southeast corner of the 2010 geophysical project area.............................................72

Figure 8. Using the surveying compass to set out the geophysical 

grid at the Taylor Bluff site. ........................................................................................72

Figure 9. Laying out the geophysical survey ropes on the Site

32ME2377 geophysical project area. ..........................................................................73
viii

Figure 10. Sketch map of the Elbee site geophysical project area...........................74

Figure 11. Sketch map of the Site 32ME2377 geophysical project 

area. ..............................................................................................................................75

Figure 12. Sketch map of the Taylor Bluff geophysical project 

area. ..............................................................................................................................75

Figure 13. Mapping the grid corner stakes with the GPS 

unit at the Elbee site geophysical project area..........................................................76

Figure 14. UTM grid of the geophysical project areas at Knife 

River Indian Villages National Historic Site. ...............................................................77

Figure 15. Participants practicing with the single fluxgate 

gradiometer at the Taylor Bluff site. ..........................................................................78

Figure 16. Conducting the magnetic survey with the dual 

fluxgate gradiometer at the Elbee site.......................................................................78

Figure 17. Conducting the resistance survey with the resistance 

meter and twin-probe array at Site 32ME2377..........................................................79

Figure 18. Conducting the ground penetrating radar survey 

with a GPR cart and 400 mHz antenna at the Taylor Bluff site.................................79

Figure 19. Image and contour plots of the single fluxgate 

gradiometer magnetic data. .......................................................................................80

Figure 20. Image and contour plots of the single fluxgate 

gradiometer magnetic.................................................................................................81

Figure 21. Image and contour plots of the dual fluxgate 

gradiometer magnetic.................................................................................................82

Figure 22. Image and contour plots of the dual fluxgate 

gradiometer..................................................................................................................83

Figure 23. Image and contour plots of the resistance data from 

the Elbee site geophysical project area. .....................................................................84

Figure 24. Image and contour plots of the resistance data from the 

Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area. ...................................................................85

Figure 25. Time-slice data from the GPR survey of the Taylor Bluff 

site geophysical project area.......................................................................................86
ix

Figure 26. Image and contour plot of the ground penetrating 

radar time slice 3 (8-13 ns). .........................................................................................87

Figure 27. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the 

2002/2006 single fluxgate gradiometer survey. .........................................................88

Figure 28. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the dual 

fluxgate gradiometer survey at Elbee site..................................................................89

Figure 29. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the single fluxgate 

gradiometer survey at Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area. .............................90

Figure 30. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the dual 

fluxgate gradiometer survey at the Taylor Bluff........................................................91

Figure 31. Interpretation of the resistance data from the 

Elbee site geophysical project area.............................................................................92

Figure 32. Interpretation of the resistance data from the 

Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area. ...................................................................93

Figure 33. Interpretation of the ground-penetrating 

radar time-slice 3 data from the Taylor Bluff. ............................................................94

Figure 34. Combined magnetic and resistance anomalies 

from the Elbee site geophysical project area. ...........................................................95

Figure 35. Combined magnetic and resistance anomalies 

from the Site 32ME2377. ............................................................................................96

Figure 36. Combined magnetic and ground-penetrating 

radar anomalies from the Taylor Bluff site. ...............................................................97
x
1

INTRODUCTION

The geophysical surveys of the Elbee site, 32ME408, and Site 32ME2377, along the 

right bank of the Knife River within the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic 

Site (KNRI) in Mercer County, North Dakota (Figure 1), were conducted as part of an 

archeological investigation of the erosional effects of high water levels in the Knife River 

on the two sites by the National Park Service’s (NPS) Midwest Archeological Center 

(MWAC) field crew in 2010 (De Vore 2010). The geophysical investigations were part of 

archeological data recovery within the two sites immediately adjacent to the river bank 

that sustained significant damage during the 2009 Spring ice flows and high water levels 

(Sturdevant 2009). The geophysical investigations at the Taylor Bluff site, 32ME366, 

on the left bank of the Knife River (Figure 1) were conducted as part of the NPS 2010 

archeological prospection workshop (De Vore 2010).

The Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site was established on 

October 26, 1974, by an Act of Congress and signed into law by President Gerald R. 

Ford (Public Law 93-486). The national historic site was established to preserve the 

archeological and historic value of the four major village sites (Big Hidatsa, Lower 

Hidatsa, Sakakawea, and Buchfink), to interpret the lifestyle of the Northern Plains 

indigenous villagers, and to conduct research related to the Northern Plains village 

tribes (Godfrey 2009:1; NPS 2008:11-14). By the end of 1978, the federal government 

managed to acquire approximately 1, 250 ac along the Knife River for the park through 

purchases, donations, or scenic easements (Godfrey 2009:112). Additional acquisitions 

of land, including the Kreiger Parcel in the early 1990s (Public Law 101-430), brought the 

total acreage of the park to 1,758 ac. 

The geophysical investigations were conducted from May 10 to May 29, 2010, at 

the Elbee site, Site 32ME2377, and the Taylor Bluff site at the Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site. The geophysical investigations at the Taylor Bluff site (Figure 2) 

were conducted as part of the NPS 2010 archeological prospection workshop while the 

investigations at the Elbee site (Figure 3) and Site 32ME2377 (Figure 4) were conducted 

as part of the archeological data recovery project with the University of North Dakota 

(UND) under the direction of Dennis Toom. The geophysical survey at the Elbee site 

consisted of a resistance survey with a resistance meter and twin-probe array and 

a limited magnetic survey with a dual fluxgate gradiometer. Previous geophysical 

investigations at the Elbee site consisted of magnetic surveys with single fluxgate 

gradiometers in 2002 and 2006 by Midwest Archeological Center archeologists and 

KNRI staff (De Vore 2008; Volf 2005). The geophysical investigations at Site 32ME2377 

included a magnetic survey with a single fluxgate gradiometer and a resistance survey 

with a resistance meter and twin-probe array. Initially, Site 32ME2377 was identified as 

the Karishta site (32ME466) during the field investigations but subsequent re-evaluation 

of the site location indicated that the geophysical investigations were carried out to the 

east of the Karishta site on a different landform at the park. Therefore, Site 32ME2377 

was recorded as a separate site during the project. The geophysical investigations at the 

Taylor Bluff site were part of the archeological prospection workshop during the week 

of May 24-28, 2010. The investigations included a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) 

survey of the project area with a GPR cart and 400 mHz antenna and a magnetic survey 
2

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

with a dual fluxgate gradiometer. Other geophysical survey instruments demonstrated 

during the workshop field exercises included a fluxgate gradiometer cart system, a single 

fluxgate gradiometer, a ground-penetrating radar system with a 500 mHz antenna, 

a ground-conductivity meter, a magnetic susceptibility field coil, and a magnetic 

susceptibility down-hole probe system. These techniques offered inexpensive, rapid, 

and relatively non-destructive and non-invasive methods of identifying and detecting 

buried archeological resources and site patterns, and also provided a means for sampling 

relatively large areas in an efficient manner (Roosevelt 2007:444-445; and Von Der 

Osten-Woldenburg 2005:621-626). The geophysical investigations were conducted in 

order to identify buried archeological remains in the vicinity of the bank erosion along 

the Knife River at the Elbee site and Site 32ME2377, as well as within the archeological 

prospection workshop project area at the Taylor Bluff site. This would provide a baseline 

of archeological geophysical data for the park’s future planning activities and to provide 

information on the potential damage to the archeological resources at the Taylor Bluff 

site from historic farming and more recent park activities.
3

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The present KNRI geophysical project areas are located in the glaciated Missouri 

Plateau section of the Great Plains Province of the Interior Plains (Fenneman 1931:72-79; 

Hunt 1967:220-226). The project areas are also located within the Rolling Soft Shale Plain 

of the Northern Great Plains Spring Wheat Land Resource Region (USDA 2006:145-146). 

The moderately dissected, rolling plain consists of glaciated old plateaus, with some 

local badlands, buttes, hills, and occasional isolated mountains. Bedrock in the vicinity 

of KNRI includes the Paleocene age Sentinel Butte and Bullion Creek formations of 

“poorly lithified sand, silt, silty clay, and clay with shale and lignite” (Lovick and Ahler 

1982:38) covered with Quaternary glacial, eolian, and alluvial deposits. The Elbee site 

is located on the mid-Holocene age “A” terrace above the right bank of the Knife River 

with small portions in the southwest corner of the site located on the Pleistocene Hensler 

and Stanton terraces (Lovick and Ahler 1982:39-42; NPS 1986:49; Reiten 1983:9-13). The 

terrace deposits are layers of silty sand grading upwards to clayey silt and capped by 

wind blown silt. For additional information on the environmental setting, the reader is 

referred to Lovick and Ahler (1982:34-47) and Toom et al. (2004:1.1-1.7). 

Soils within the Rolling Soft Shale Plain are dominated by mollisols and entisols 

(Foth and Schafer 1980:116-125; USDA 2006:146). The soils are more or less freely 

drained with ustic soil moisture and frigid soil temperature regimes. Parent materials 

in Mercer County have several different origins including glacial till and other glacial 

materials, weathered material from water sorted till, wind- or water-deposited sandy 

and loamy materials, alluvium, residual bedrock, and porcelanite (Wilhelm 1978:107). 

The soils formed under mid and short prairie grass vegetation. Depth to bedrock ranges 

from shallow to very deep. All three project areas lay within the Havrelon-Lohler soil 

association of “level, deep, well-drained and moderately well-drained soils formed in 

material weathered from alluvium” (Wilhelm 1978:10). The soils within the Elbee site 

geophysical project area include the Straw loam (91B) located on three to six percent 

slopes, the Straw silty clay loam (7), and the Dimmick silty loam (5) on the Holocene 

“A”, “B1”, and “B2” terraces (Lovick and Ahler 1982:39-42; Wilhelm 1978:13-14,59-

60,87-88,101). The Straw loam soil in the project area consists of a deep, well-drained, 

and gently sloping to undulating soil located on the low terrace on the right side of the 

Knife River (Wilhelm 1978:59,101). Formed in material weathered from loamy alluvium, 

the soil has a moderate permeability, medium surface runoff, moderate shrink-swell 

potential, moderate frost action, and a high available water capacity (Wilhelm 1978:59). 

The soil pH ranges from neutral to moderately alkaline (Wilhelm 1978:101). The soilmapping unit composes the majority of the Elbee site project area. The Straw silty clay 

loam soil in the project area consists of a deep, well drained, and level soil located on the 

low terrace on the right side of the Knife River, which is occasionally flooded for brief 

periods (Wilhelm 1978:14,101). Formed in material weathered from loamy alluvium, the 

soil has a moderate permeability, slow surface runoff, moderate shrink-swell potential, 

moderate frost action, and a high available water capacity (Wilhelm 1978:14). The soil 

pH ranges from neutral to moderately alkaline (Wilhelm 1978:101). The Dimmick silty 

clay soil in the project area consists of a deep, very poorly drained, and level soil located 

in an old oxbow of the Knife River (Wilhelm 1978:13-14,87-88). Formed in material 

weathered from clayey sediments, the soil has a very slow permeability, shallow depth 

to the water table, high shrink-swell potential, moderate frost action, and a moderate 
4

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

to high available water capacity (Wilhelm 1978:14). The soil pH ranges from neutral to 

mildly alkaline (Wilhelm 1978:88). The soil within the boundary of the Site 32ME2377 

geophysical project area consists of the Havrelon silty clay loam (14) on the Holocene 

“B2” terrace (Lovick and Ahler 1982:39-42; Wilhelm 1978:17-18,91). The Havrelon silty 

clay loam soil in the Site 32ME2377 project area consists of a deep, well drained, and level 

soil located on the bottom land on the right side of the Knife River (Wilhelm 1978:17-

18,91). Formed from loamy alluvium, the soil has a moderate permeability, moderate 

surface runoff, low to moderate shrink-swell potential, moderate frost action, and a 

moderate available water capacity (Wilhelm 1978:18). The soil pH ranges from mildly to 

moderately alkaline (Wilhelm 1978:91). The soil-mapping unit comprises the entire area 

of the Site 32ME2377 project area. The soil within the boundary of the Taylor Bluff site 

geophysical project area consists of the Magnus silty clay loam (104) on the Holocene 

“A” terrace (Lovick and Ahler 1982:39-42; Wilhelm 1978:67,94). The Magnus silty clay 

loam soil in the Taylor Bluff project area consists of a deep, well-drained, and level 

soil located on the low terrace on the left side of the Knife River (Wilhelm 1978:67,94). 

Formed in materials weathered from clay alluvium, the soil has a slow to moderately 

slow permeability, slow surface runoff, high shrink-swell potential, moderate frost 

action, and a high available water capacity (Wilhelm 1978:67). The soil pH ranges from 

neutral to moderately alkaline (Wilhelm 1978:94). The soil mapping unit comprises the 

entire area of the Taylor Bluff project area. The soils provide adequate suitability for the 

geophysical survey techniques, although the ground-penetrating radar survey may be 

hampered by the high clay content. 

The project areas also lie within the Saskatchewan biotic province (Dice 1943:24-

26). The semiarid mixed grass plains are dominated by a mixture of short and mid-height 

grasses, including western wheatgrass, needle-and-thread grass, green needlegrass, 

and blue grama (Brown 1985:45-53; Jones and Cushman 2004:35-40; NPS 1986:49-52; 

Shelford 1963:334; USDA 2006:146). Little bluestem, prairie sandreed, and side oats 

grama occur on shallow soils in the region. Other prairie vegetation throughout the 

region includes prairie rose, leadplant, and western snowberry. Green ash, chokecherry, 

and buffaloberry may be found along draws and narrow valleys. Strips of deciduous 

trees are most commonly found along larger stream channels (Brown 1985:48-49,53; 

Dice 1943:25; NPS 1986:49-52; Shelford 1963:309-313). 

In the region, bison, wapiti, and pronghorn antelope roamed the open plains 

until the mid to late 1800s (Brown 1985:49-51; Jones and Cushman 2004:42-50; Shelford 

1963:335). During the prehistoric and historic periods, white-tailed deer were present 

in the timbered areas along streams and slopes. Wolves were also important predators 

until exterminated from the region in the late 1800s. Jackrabbits continue to be found 

throughout the region along with coyotes, prairie dogs, black-footed ferrets, badgers, 

mink, bobcats, and foxes (USDA 2006:146). Numerous other mammals and rodents 

also inhabit the region (Brown 1985:52; Jones and Cushman 2004:42-50; NPS 1986: 

49-52; Shelford 1963:334-336). Numerous species of birds inhabit the grasslands, the 

shrublands, and wooded areas of the region (Brown 1985:53; Jones and Cushman 

2004:50-58; Shelford 1963:336). Gray partridge, sharp-tailed grouse, and prairie chicken 

represented some of the regional game birds, as well as migratory waterfowl, in both 

prehistoric and historic times. Numerous grassland and forest species of songbirds are 

present. Reptiles include several species of lizards, turtles, and snakes (Brown 1985:53; 
5

Jones and Cushman 2004:58-63; Shelford 1963:336). Amphibians are found in the 

prairies, forests, and wetlands (Brown 1985:53; Jones and Cushman 2004:58-63; Shelford 

1963:336). Fish, including rainbow trout, walleye, smallmouth bass, bluegill, yellow 

perch, and northern pike, and fresh water mussels are found in the streams throughout 

the region (Jones and Cushman 2004:58-63; NPS 1986:49-52; USDA 2006:146). Insects 

and other invertebrates abound throughout the region with grasshoppers being one 

of the most abundant insect groups (Brown 1985:53; Jones and Cushman 2004:64-66; 

Shelford 1963:336-339). 

The region has a semiarid continental climate characterized by large daily 

and annual variations in temperature (Hunt 1967:226-227; NPS 1986:53-54; Wilhelm 

1978:1-2,124-125). The project area lies within the transition zone between the middlelatitude dry climatic zone (Trewartha and Horn 1980:360-364) and the cool-summer 

subtype of the temperate continental climatic zone (Trewartha and Horn 1980:302-311). 

Winters are very cold and the summers are hot. The annual average temperature ranges 

between 3° and 8° C (USDA 2006:146). Annual January temperatures average -13.3° C 

(Bavendick 1941:1046; Wilhelm 1978:124). The lowest recorded winter temperature is 

–46° C (Bavendick 1941:1046). Annual July temperatures average 20.2° C (Bavendick 

1941:1046). The highest recorded summer temperature is 42.2° C (Bavendick 1941:1046; 

Wilhelm 1978:124). Annual precipitation averages between 35.5 to 45.5 cm (Bavendick 

1941:1046; USDA 2006:146; Wilhelm 1978:124) with the majority falling from April 

through September. The average seasonal snowfall is 68.58 cm per year (Wilhelm 

1978:124). The growing season averages 109 days with killing frosts occurring as late as 

May 28th in the spring and as early as September 14th in the fall (Bavendick 1941:1046; 

Wilhelm 1978:125). Hail may occur with summer thunderstorms. Blizzards are common 

during the winter. Recent droughts have tended to be severe (Bavendick 1941:1054). The 

sun shines approximately 74% of the time in the summer and 53% of the time in the 

winter (Bavendick 1941:1054; Wilhelm 1978:2). The prevailing winds are from the westnorthwest with more southerly winds occurring in the summer (Bavendick 1941:1054; 

Wilhelm 1978:2). The annual relative humidity averages 68 percent. These resources 

provide the basis of the aboriginal subsistence of prehistoric times and the historic and 

modern Euroamerican farming economy. 
6
7

CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS

In 1974, the United States Congress authorized the establishment of the Knife 

River Indian Villages National Historic Site to commemorate the cultural history and 

lifeways of the Mandan and Hidatsa Indians and to preserve the archeological resources 

associated with the two native Northern Plains tribes. Since 1976, the National Park 

Service has conducted an extensive archeological and ethnohistorical research program 

to document the archeological and historical resources within the park. A four-volume 

summary of the program provides significant information on the archeological research 

program’s objectives, research methods, cultural history and ethnohistory of the 

region, analysis of the material culture, and interpretive results (Thiessen 1993). The 

regional prehistory and history is divided into five major cultural periods: Paleo-Indian 

(10,000-6000 B.C.), Archaic (6000 B.C. to A.D. 1), Woodland (A.D. 1 to A.D. 1000), Plains 

Village (A.D. 1000-1861), and Euroamerican (A.D. 1861-present). Additional information 

on the cultural history of the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site and 

surrounding region, including the synopsis of archeological investigations in KNRI and 

the vicinity prior to 1974, may be found in park documents and archeological reports 

(Ahler 1978a:1-31; Godfrey 2009; Lehmer 1971:49-179; Lovick and Ahler 1982:47-84; NPS 

1983:I/11-I/36, 1999:1/18-21,2/1-5; SHSND 1990:3.1-3.42, 5.1-5.51; Willey 1966; Zedeño et 

al. 2006:23-42).

Elbee Site, 32ME408

The Elbee site (32ME408) was identified and recorded by a UND archeological 

crew in the Spring of 1978 (Ahler 1978b:14-16) during the investigations of a potential 

access road route and staging area for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers riverbank 

stabilization project at the Sakakawea Village site (32ME11). The site was located within 

the boundary of the William Russell farm complex in Tract 01-112 (Taylor 1978). At the 

time of the 1978 UND archeological investigations, the southern portion of the site 

contained the farmhouse, garage, chicken coop, grain storage bin, and livestock barn. 

The house was located on the side slope of the Pleistocene terrace on the southwest 

side of the site. The buildings and structures were demolished and the materials were 

removed. The basement of the house was filled and contoured to the surrounding 

landscape. The site consisted of a preceramic campsite overlain by two or more Plains 

Village occupations. The historic/modern Russell farmstead covers the entire site.

Lovick and Ahler (1982:236-237) described the Elbee site as follows:

 The Elbee site is a complex, multicomponent site located on the northernmost 

extremity of the A terrace surface in the southern part of the KNRI. The site boundary 

is defined by the edge of the A terrace on the east and north and by the gravel road 

on the west; the boundary is ill-defined and arbitrary to the south. The site area 

as defined is about 3.1 hectares (7.75 acres). The site was defined and surveyed by 

conventional reconnaissance techniques. At the time of the survey the site surface 

was covered with dense grass and weedy plants, and visibility was limited to a few 

trails and some eroded areas on the terrace margin. The entire site surface appears 

to have been cultivated.
8

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

 The most recent component at the site is attributed to the William Russel 

[sic] farm complex, several buildings of which stood on the southern part of the site 

and farther to the southwest. The southern part of the site is heavily littered with 

farmyard debris and recent historic artifacts within and immediately beneath the 

sod cover.

 Several Plains Village period components exist at the site, as exposed and 

defined in salvage excavations conducted in 1978 in the path of a haul road to be 

constructed across the site ... The plowzone contains a very dispersed scatter of 

Knife River ware ceramics and Euro-American trade materials such as beads and 

metal items which indicate use of the site in the historic period by peoples who were 

probably interacting with the villagers at nearby Sakakawea Village. A few trade 

artifacts were also noted on the surface at various places beyond the excavations. 

This component has been classified as a debris scatter belonging to the general Plains 

Village tradition.

 The plowzone also contains the remnants of another, more prominent 

village period component assigned to the scattered village complex. Excavations 

revealed truncated storage pits, the remains of a circular house below the plowzone, 

and associated thin-walled, tool-decorated ceramics, all of which are part of the 

scattered village complex. These remains have been dated in the 15th and 17th 

century A.D... The 1938 aerial photographs of the area show several anomalies 

which could be additional circular houses at the site. One test unit at the site yielded 

yet another, earlier village age component in a buried humic horizon below the 

plowzone and about 30 cm below the present surface. The artifact content from this 

component is very meager, but it appears to represent a yet earlier scattered village 

complex component.

 The earliest component at the site was detected as a concentration of 

patinated KRF flaking debris and fire-cracked rock eroding from a localized area 

on the eastern edge of the A terrace. Excavation there yielded an intact aceramic 

component in a paleosol buried ca. 1 meter below the level of the A terrace surface. A 

C-14 date of 2974 ± 66 radiocarbon years B.P. on non-cultural charcoal is the nearby 

Elbee bluff cutbank at a depth of 2.6 m below the surface provides a maximum age 

for this component of at the site.

As indicated in the previous discussion of the site, a pedestrian reconnaissance of 

the project area revealed an artifact scatter across the mid-Holocene “A”, “B1”, and “B2” 

terraces. Shovel tests along the potential route of the access road on the terrace indicated 

the presence of buried archeological materials. A radiocarbon date of 440 ± 40 BP places 

the Elbee site in the Extended Coalescent variant of the Plains Village Tradition (Ahler 

et al. 2007:86). Additional archeological investigations were conducted in the summer 

of 1978, including a magnetic survey of a 3,600 m2 block (Weymouth 1986a:18-28) 

encompassing both the proposed route of the service road and a major portion of the 

proposed construction staging area and subsequent excavations. The magnetic survey 

indicated the presence of numerous magnetic anomalies including a broad irregularly 

shaped series of anomalies of geologic origin and numerous small magnetic anomalies 

of varying amplitudes, which were caused by the presence of historic ferrous objects 
9

associated with the William Russell farm complex (Ahler 1978b:15; Lovick and Ahler 

1984:236-237; Taylor 1978:KNRI-1548; Weymouth 1986a:18-28). There was, however, 

no correlation between the magnetic anomalies and the excavated archeological 

features, which consisted of cache pits, a circular row of post molds identified as a 

house structure, a hearth, an artifact concentration, and a pit (Ahler 1978b:15-16, 

Volf 2002:1-2; Weymouth 1986a:18-28). Weymouth (1986a:18-28) concluded that the 

discrepancy may have resulted from the large sensor-to-source distance used in the 

magnetic survey and the apparent non-magnetic contrast between the features and 

the surrounding soil matrix. Although the magnetic survey at the Elbee site did not 

provide additional insight into the buried archeological resources at the site, the use 

of magnetic survey techniques at other sites at KNRI, including the three major village 

sites of Lower Hidatsa (32ME10), Sakakawea (32ME11), and Big Hidatsa (32ME12) 

provided significant information on site structure and feature patterning (Weymouth 

and Nickel 1977; Weymouth 1979a, 1979b, 1986b:352-355, 1988). The 1978 archeological 

investigations were compiled in an edited volume by Stanley Ahler (1984) describing 

the site setting, the fieldwork, excavated features, and site chronology along with the 

analytical procedures and the analysis of the ceramics, stone tools, chipped stone 

debitage, faunal remains, and other artifacts.

In 2002, the Midwest Archeological Center staff conducted geophysical 

investigations at the Elbee site as part of a project to assess the impact of erosion along the 

vertical cutbank along the Knife River to the archeological record in the northern part 

of the Elbee site (Volf 2002:1). Twenty-five complete and two partial 20-m-by-20-m grid 

units were surveyed using a fluxgate gradiometer. Sixteen of the 27 grid units were also 

systematically swept with a metal detector in order to identify and remove the modern 

farm-related debris from the survey area. Three magnetic anomalies were identified for 

archeological excavations due to impending danger for bank erosion along the Knife 

River in the northern part of the geophysical project area (Volf 2002). Other identified 

magnetic anomalies were located in the southern part of the geophysical project area 

where the potential for active erosion was minimal.

Using the University of North Dakota’s Archeological Field School participants, 

the Anthropology Research staff at UND conducted evaluative archeological 

excavations at the Elbee site in 2003 (Toom et al. 2004). Four small excavation blocks 

(i.e., 2-m-by-2-m units) were excavated during the field season. Three of the blocks were 

placed over the three magnetic anomalies identified as being potentially threatened by 

the continued erosion of the Knife River bank (Toom et al. 2004:3.1). The fourth block 

was placed near the cut bank at the far northern end of the site. The ground-truthing of 

the magnetic anomalies revealed two large undercut pits indicated by Anomaly A and 

Anomaly E in XU 1 and XU 2, respectively. Anomaly I, located in XU 3, was identified 

as an oval shaped hearth (Toom et al. 2004:3.1-3.18). A linear magnetic anomaly noted in 

the magnetic survey data may represent the Big Hidatsa to Sakakawea trail (Toom et al. 

2004:6.3). The authors concluded the report by indicating the combination of magnetic 

survey work and ground-truthing excavations were so effective in the northern part of 

the site that they should be extended to the southern portion of the site.
10

In 2006, the Midwest Archeological Center staff conducted additional 

geophysical investigations at the Elbee site as part of a multiple-phased archeological 

project to assess the impact of erosion along the vertical cutbank along the Knife River 

to the archeological record in the northern part of the Elbee site (De Vore 2008:24). The 

geophysical survey techniques used during the investigations of the southern portion of 

the Elbee site included a magnetic survey and a test of the potential of ground-penetrating 

radar (GPR) techniques at the site (De Vore 2008). The magnetic survey was conducted 

with a fluxgate gradiometer. The ground-penetrating radar survey was conducted with 

a GPR cart system with a 400 mHz antenna. Twenty-nine complete 20-m-by-20-m and 

six partial 20-m-by-20-m grid units were established on the southern portion of the 

site. The magnetic data from the entire project area and the ground-penetrating radar 

profile data from grid unit 23 from the southern portion of the site provided information 

of the physical properties of the subsurface materials. Several magnetic and groundpenetrating radar anomalies were identified. There are several high magnetic dipoles 

as well as a number of weak magnetic dipoles. The strong magnetic dipoles represent 

large concentrations of magnetic iron, probably of recent or modern agricultural origin. 

Weak magnetic dipole and monopole anomalies may be associated with the prehistoric/

early historic occupation at the site. The GPR data also provided useful information 

concerning the buried archeological resources at the site.

Site 32ME2377

Initially, the 2010 archeological investigations at Site 32ME2377 were originally 

thought to be located at the Karishta site, 32ME466. The Karishta site was identified 

during the 1976-1980 archeological reconnaissance survey of KNRI (Lovick and Ahler 

1982:246). It was identified as a small lithic scatter found on both sides of a small erosional 

drainage cut into the “B1” terrace on the right side of the Knife River immediately north 

of the Elbee site. After completion of the geophysical investigations within the project 

area and consultation with the UND archeological staff, the project area was identified 

as a separate site. Documentation for Site 32ME2377 was completed for the new site in 

2011 by MWAC archeologists. The site lies on the “B2” terrace on the right side of Knife 

River to the northeast of the Elbee site and east of the Karishta site.

Taylor Bluff Site, 32ME366

The Taylor Bluff site (32ME366) was first identified as a fortified village site with a 

low, elongated U-shaped mound enclosure on the left bank of the Knife River by the Orin 

G. Libby and A. B. Stout archeological mapping expedition in 1909 (Trimble 1988:20-

23; Wood 1986:52-53). Although the site had been cultivated, the expedition members 

noted earthlodge rings or depressions within the enclosure. In 1978, Jon Reiten noted 

the exposure of cultural materials on the cut bank along the Knife River in the vicinity 

of the Byron Grannis farm during his geological fieldwork at the park and named the 

site the Taylor Bluff site for KNRI archeologist John Taylor (Reiten 1983:59-65,100-102). 

The site was formally documented as Site 32ME366 during the 1976-1980 archeological 

pedestrian reconnaissance survey at KNRI by the University of North Dakota (Lovick 

and Ahler 1982:232-234). The site was located within the boundary of the Byron Grannis 

farm. The site extended beneath the county road to the cut bank of the Knife River, 

approximately 5.6 km above the confluence of the Knife River with the Missouri River. 
11

At the time of the 1978 UND archeological investigations, the low mound enclosure was 

identified as a fortification ditch that extended from the river bank into the front yard 

of the Grannis farmstead, which then served as the KNRI headquarters, about midway 

between the house and the county road. 

Lovick and Ahler (1982:232-234) described the Taylor Bluff site as follows:

 ...an off-village activity area and a preceramic debris scatter site adjacent to and 

southwest of Big Hidatsa Village on the A and B1 terrace surfaces on the north side 

of the Knife River. The total site area is ca. 4.0 hectares (10 acres). There are three 

well-defined components at the site.

The main component consists of the remains of a semicircular fortification ditch on 

the A terrace and possibly related archeological materials in the adjacent, lower B1 

terrace surface. The fortification ditch was mapped by the Libby-Stout expedition 

in 1909 which documented a D-shaped enclosure opening on the Knife River and 

measuring about 460 ft by 500 ft in size. Several lodge depressions were noted in 

cultivated and uncultivated portions of the interior. Today, ca. 60% of the enclosed 

area has been eroded away by the Knife River and much of the remainder has been 

heavily modified by cultivation and successive gravel road construction across the 

site. At least two trash filled storage pits are currently eroding from the cutbank, 

and the organic-rich deposits in the pits indicate a late post-contact village period 

age. The site continues to erode into the Knife River. The remnant of the fortification 

ditch now lies in the front yard of the KNRI headquarters and beneath the road and 

driveway at the Byron Grannis farm house.

The fortified part of the late village component at the site lies on the A terrace surface. 

Immediately to the southeast off the terrace scarp and on the B1 terrace (flood plain) 

lies the second major area of the late village component, a broad area of fairly dense 

subsurface artifact content discovered in the auger survey in this area...The auger 

samples are dominated by the presence of animal bone... with few other artifact 

classed encountered. This part of the site may have been used by the occupants of the 

fortified zone to the northwest, by the Big Hidatsa Villagers, or by both groups.

A second major component at Taylor Bluff consists of a fairly dense scatter of bone 

debris and charcoal in a paleosol exposed in the A terrace at the Knife River cutbank 

at a depth of ca. 1.8 m below surface. Charcoal from this stratum has been dated 

at 3431 ± 74 radiocarbon years B. P. (SMU-710). No diagnostic artifacts have been 

recovered from this zone. John Taylor conducted a small mitigation excavation 

near the KNRI headquarters in 1978 in an area of well-pump construction, and 

discovered a single patinated KRF core and a bone fragment in an apparent cultural 

horizon ca. 70-92 cm below surface. It is not known if this horizon relates to the 

cultural stratum exposed in the A terrace cutbank.
12

A third component at the site consists of the former Byron Grannis residence and 

garage (the former Grannis school house) which still stand on the site surface and 

which today form the components of the KNRI headquarters complex.

In sum, the Taylor Bluff site contains a very interesting and potentially informative 

archeological record of considerable significance to the interpretation of the 

KNRI. The late fortified village complex there is important to understanding the 

activities and history of the nearby Big Hidatsa Village. It may represent a refuge 

area established by a remnant of the one of the other Mandan or Hidatsa villages 

after their destruction by the Sioux in 1834 or by small-pox in 1837. If so, this site 

would provide a scientifically interesting capsule of data linkable to a single village 

subgroup and a very short period of occupation (1834-1845). All of the significant 

resources in the Taylor Bluff site continue to be threatened by future disturbance 

related to cutbank erosion along the Knife River, modification of the existing road 

which is now dangerously close to the Knife River cutbank, and by construction and 

development at the KNRI headquarters located on this site.

In 1981, the Rocky Mountain Regional Office (RMRO) began planning activities 

for the construction of a new well and water system at the KNRI headquarters complex 

(Ahler et al. 1983:1-2). The well location was selected near the southwestern corner of 

the headquarters building. In order to mitigate the adverse effects of the undertaking, 

a data recovery project was developed for the compliance activities under the auspices 

of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NPS 2006). Fieldwork 

was conducted by University of North Dakota archeologists in June of 1982 (Ahler et 

al. 1983). Additional NPS construction projects, including the construction of a coal 

chute on the west side of the headquarters building and the park sign construction in the 

front yard of the headquarters complex and within the site boundary, were added to the 

UND field investigations during the following summer months. Five test units totaling 

ca. 8.4 m2 were excavated at the Taylor Bluff site. Stratified cultural components were 

identified in all five units. Identified cultural components included materials from the 

historic period, the Knife River phase, the prehistoric Plains Village period (possibly 

belonging to the Scattered Village complex), and a pre-village or preceramic period 

(Ahler et al. 1983:3,76-80).

During the fall of 1983, UND archeologists and archeological technicians 

conducted archeological investigations at the Taylor Bluff site prior to the construction 

of a stabilization structure along the left bank of the Knife River (Ahler 1988; Toom 

and Ahler 1984). Active erosion along the cutbank portion of the site was destroying a 

major portion of the site, as well as threatening the county road. The construction of 

the stabilization structure would destroy the remaining remnant of the site between 

the Knife River and the county road. The excavations were conducted to mitigate the 

adverse effect of the undertaking on the site. During the course of the archeological 

investigations, eight test units were excavated along the cutbank, as well as exposed 

features along the cutbank above the Knife River. The earliest recognized cultural 

component identified during the excavations was a preceramic period horizon dated 

to 3430 ± 70 radiocarbon years B.P. (Ahler 1988:301) at a depth of 1.8 to 2.0 m below 

surface. The second cultural component was part of the prehistoric Plains Village 

period between A.D. 1300 and 1600 (Ahler 1988:301-302). The third cultural component 
13

was tentatively identified as part of the early postcontact period and the Willows phase 

dating to A.D. 1600-1700 (Ahler 1988:302). The major cultural component identified 

during the excavations was the assigned to the late postcontact period after A.D. 1780 

(Ahler 1988:302-305).
14
15

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

The three geophysical project areas are located in the central and northern parts 

of Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site in Mercer County, North Dakota 

(De Vore 2010). The Elbee site lies on both sides of a park access road to the Knife River 

and the Sakakawea site parking lot (Figure 5). The site extends approximately 400 m 

along the terrace on the right bank of the Knife River and is approximately 120 m across 

from the river bank to the park boundary fence along County Road 37 at its widest point 

at the south end. The site contains domestic grasses with a few cottonwood trees near 

the Sakakawea site parking lot and fishing access to the Knife River.

The 2010 geophysical investigations at the Elbee site extended from the farmstead 

at the south end of the site to the north end of the site at the bend in the Knife River. A 

resistance survey with the twin-probe array was conducted across the project area. A 

limited dual fluxgate gradiometer survey was also conducted at the north end of the site 

during the 2010 investigations. Site 32ME2377 lies on the low terrace above the Knife 

River to the northeast of the Elbee site (Figure 6). The site measures approximately 40 

m by 25 m along the right bank of the Knife River between the lower flood plain to the 

east and the higher Holocene “A” terrace to the west of the site. The vegetation on the 

site consists of mixed grasses and trees. A two-track fire access road runs along the 

north side of the site providing access from the locked entrance gate north of the site. 

A magnetic survey with the single fluxgate gradiometer and a resistance survey with 

the resistance meter and twin-probe array were conducted at the geophysical project 

area within the site. The Taylor Bluff site lies on the terrace above the left bank of the 

Knife River (Figure 7). It extends from the river bank across the county road into the 

maintenance facility yard (the old KNRI headquarters and Grannis farmstead). The 

site measures approximately 160 m by 190 m. The geophysical project area is located 

along the north side of the park boundary fence north of the gravel county road and 

on the west side of the park access road to the maintenance facility. The yard is 

covered with domestic grasses, the occasional cottonwood tree, and a few chokeberry 

bushes. A portion of the village fortification ditch is still visible in the yard south of the 

maintenance office building (former Grannis farmhouse). A magnetic survey with a dual 

fluxgate gradiometer and a ground-penetrating radar survey with a 400 mHz antenna 

were conducted across the geophysical project area during the 2010 archeological 

prospection workshop.

 Geophysical Grid Layout

The three geophysical grids for the three sites and associated geophysical project 

areas were established with an Ushikata S-25 TRACON surveying compass (Ushikata 

2005) and a 100-meter tape measure (Figure 8). Wooden hub stakes for the grid unit 

corners were placed at 20-m intervals across the geophysical grids. 

The geophysical grid at the Elbee site was established by Volf during his 2002 

magnetic survey of the northern portion of the site (Volf 2002). The 2002 site datum was 

relocated in the southwest corner of the 2002 project area at N500/E500 and used for the 

2006 (De Vore 2008) and the 2010 resistance and gradiometer surveys of the site (De Vore 
16

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

2010). The geophysical grid was oriented 7° 45’ west of magnetic north. The surveying 

compass was used to sight in the two perpendicular baselines and grid corners. Several 

of the original 2002 wooden stakes, which had been placed at 20-m intervals, were intact 

and used during the 2010 geophysical survey. The broken stakes were replaced with new 

wooden hub stakes. The north-south baseline paralleled the boundary fence line and 

measured 300 m along the boundary fence while the east-west baseline measured 60 m 

across the south end of the project area. Twenty-seven complete 20-m–by-20-m and six 

partial 20-m–by-20-m grid units were established within the geophysical project area a 

total project area of 12,286 m2 or 3.04 ac. 

The initial mapping station at Site 32ME2377 was placed at the southwest corner 

of the geophysical project area approximately 5 m north and 5 m east of the gulley 

along the southwest side of the site (De Vore 2010). The geophysical grid was oriented 

on magnetic north. The surveying compass was used to sight in the two perpendicular 

baselines and grid corners. Wooden hub stakes were placed at the 20-m grid corners. The 

north-south baseline measured 40 m in length while the east-west baseline measured 

20 m in length. Two complete 20-m–by-20-m grid units were established within the 

geophysical project area for a total project area of 800 m2 or 0.2 ac. 

The initial mapping station at the Taylor Bluff site was placed 2 m north of the 

park boundary fence and 2 m west of the gravel entrance road to the maintenance 

facility (De Vore 2010). The geophysical grid was oriented 31 degrees east of magnetic 

north. The surveying compass was used to sight in the two perpendicular base lines and 

grid corners. Wooden hub stakes were placed at the 20-m grid corners. The north-south 

baseline measured 40 m in length while the east-west baseline measured 100 m in length. 

Ten complete 20-m–by-20-m grid units were established within the geophysical project 

area for a total project area of 4,000 m2 or 0.99 ac. 

 Twenty-meter survey ropes were placed along the north and south ends of the 

grid units connecting the grid unit corners at the Elbee site and at Site 32ME2377. These 

ropes formed the boundaries of each grid unit during the data collection phase of the 

survey in the two geophysical project areas (Figure 9). Additional ropes were placed at 

2-m intervals across the grid units in a north-south orientation at the Elbee site for the 

resistance and magnetic surveys and at 1-m intervals across the grid units in a northsouth orientation at Site 32ME2377 for the magnetic and resistance surveys (Figure 9). 

The guide ropes at the Taylor Bluff site were placed at the east and west ends of the 

grid units with the traverse ropes placed at 2-m intervals in the east-west directions 

for the magnetic survey. The guide ropes were placed at the east and west ends of the 

geophysical project area for the ground-penetrating radar survey at the Taylor Bluff site 

and traffic cones were used to mark the route of each profile line. The survey ropes 

were marked with different color tape at half-meter and meter increments, which was 

designed to help guide the survey effort. Once the geophysical survey of each grid 

unit was completed, the survey ropes were flipped to the next adjacent grid unit. As 

the survey activities progressed across the geophysical project area, a sketch map was 

completed identifying both cultural and natural surface features in the three project 

areas (Figures 10 through 12). The geophysical data were acquired across the grid units 

beginning in the lower left hand corner of each grid unit facing the direction of travel 

for the first traverse line (Geoscan Research 1987:43-54,2003:5/2-5/11) except for the 
17

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

ground-penetrating radar survey at the Taylor Bluff, which began in the lower right 

hand corner of the geophysical grid. 

The geophysical survey grid corner stakes within the KNRI geophysical project 

areas were mapped with a Trimble GeoXH global positioning system (GPS) handheld 

receiver (Figure 13) and external antenna (Trimble 2007a) along with surface features 

including access roads, fence lines, and bench marks. The GPS readings at stationary 

points (i.e., grid unit corners and individual surface features) were collected with 30 

readings from five or more satellites while line segment data were collected at one second 

intervals along the path of the line. The field GPS data were collected in the universal 

transverse mercator (UTM) projection for the Zone 14 North coordinates of the North 

American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) horizontal datum. The data were transferred to a 

laptop computer via the Trimble TerraSync software (Trimble 2007b,2007c). The data 

was then differentially corrected using the Trimble Pathfinder Office software (Trimble 

2007d) using the continuously operating reference station (CORS Bismarck ND) site 

located 74 km away at Bismarck, North Dakota (Table 1). Seven files were processed 

with 7,197 (100%) of 7,197 selected positions code corrected by post-processing. Seven 

thousand one hundred ninety-seven (100%) of 7,197 selected positions were carrier 

corrected by post-processing with 124 (1.7%) of the code positions chosen over carrier 

since they were higher quality. The estimated range for the 7,197 corrected positions 

yielded 39.8% within an accuracy range of 0-15 cm, 30.2% within an accuracy range 

of 15-30 cm, 20.9% within an accuracy range of 30-50 cm, 8.5% within an accuracy 

range of 0.5-1.0 m, 0.6% within an accuracy range of 1.0-2.0 m, 0% within an accuracy 

range of 2.0-5.0 m, and 0% at an accuracy range greater than 5.0 m. The high dilution 

of precision (DOP) values resulted from a variety of sources including multi-pathing 

of the satellite signal through the overhead tree canopy, poor satellite geometry, and 

insufficient number of satellites present during the collection phase. After the raw 

survey data in the standard storage format (SSF) was post processed, the corrected data 

were exported as Excel data files and imported into Surfer 9 (Golden Software 2009) for 

final display (Figure 14). 

Geophysical Prospection Techniques

Geophysical prospection techniques available for archeological investigations 

consist of a number of techniques that record the various physical properties of earth, 

typically in the upper couple of meters; however, deeper prospection can be utilized 

if necessary. Geophysical techniques are divided between passive techniques and 

active techniques. Passive techniques are primarily ones that measure inherently or 

naturally occurring local or planetary fields created by earth-related processes under 

study (Heimmer and DeVore 1995:7,2000:55; Kvamme 2001:356,2005:424). The primary 

passive method utilized in archeology is magnetic surveying. Other passive methods 

with limited archeological applications include self-potential methods, gravity survey 

techniques, and differential thermal analysis. Active techniques transmit an electrical, 

electromagnetic, or acoustic signal into the ground (Heimmer and DeVore 1995:9, 

2000:58-59; Kvamme 2001:355-356). The interaction of these signals and buried materials 

produces altered return signals that are measured by the appropriate geophysical 

instruments. Changes in the transmitted signal of amplitude, frequency, wavelength, 
18

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

and time delay properties may be observable. Active methods applicable to archeological 

investigations include electrical resistance/resistivity, electromagnetic conductivity 

(including ground conductivity and metal detectors), magnetic susceptibility, and 

ground-penetrating radar. Acoustic active techniques, including seismic, sonar, and 

acoustic sounding, have very limited or specific archeological applications. Additional 

information on the basic geophysical techniques used during the present survey may 

be found in publications by Arnold Aspinall, Chris Gaffney, and Armin Schmidt (2008), 

Bruce Bevan (1991, 1998), Anthony Clark (2000), Lawrence B. Conyers (2004), Lawrence 

B. Conyers and Dean Goodman (1997), Andrew David (1995, 2001), Andrew David, Neil 

Linford, and Paul Linford (2008), Chris Gaffney and John Gater (2003), Chris Gaffney, 

John Gater, and Sue Ovenden (1991, 2002), Don H. Heimmer and Steven L. De Vore 

(1995, 2000), Kenneth Kvamme (2001, 2003, 2005), I. Scollar, A. Tabbagh, A. Hesse, and I. 

Herzog (1990), and John Weymouth (1986b).

Magnetic Survey

A magnetic survey is a passive geophysical survey (see Aspinall et al. 2008; Bevan 

1991, 1998:29-43; Breiner 1973; 1992:313-381; Burger 1992:389-452; Clark 2000:92-98, 

174-175; Davenport 2001:50-71; David 1995:17-20; David et al. 2008:20-24; Dobrin and 

Savit 1988:633-749; Gaffney and Gater 2003:36-42, 61-72; Gaffney et al. 1991:6, 2002:7-9; 

Hanson et al. 2005:151-175; Heimmer and DeVore 1995:13, 2000:55-56; Kvamme 2001:357-

358, 2003:441, 2005:434-436, 2006a:205-233, 2006b:235-250; Lowrie 1997:229-306; 

Milsom 2003:51-70; Mussett and Khan 2000:139-180; Nishimura 2001:546-547; Oswin 

2009:43-54, 126-135; Robinson and Çoruh 1988:333-444; Scollar et al. 1990:375-519; 

Telford et al. 1990:62-135; Weymouth 1986b:343; and Witten 2006:73-116 for more details 

on magnetic surveying). A single fluxgate gradiometer was used at Site 32ME2377, while 

a dual fluxgate gradiometer system was used at the Taylor Bluff site and at the Elbee site. 

A magnetic survey is a passive geophysical prospection technique used to 

measure the earth’s total magnetic field at a point location. Its application to archeology 

results from the local effects of magnetic materials on the earth’s magnetic field. These 

anomalous conditions result from magnetic materials and minerals buried in the soil 

matrix. Iron artifacts have very strong effects on the local earth’s magnetic field. Other 

cultural features that affect the local earth’s magnetic field include fire hearths and soil 

disturbances (e.g., pits, mounds, wells, pithouses, and dugouts), as well as geological 

strata. Magnetic field strength is measured in nanoteslas (nT; Sheriff 1973:148). In North 

America, the earth’s magnetic field strength ranges from 40,000 to 60,000 nT with an 

inclination of approximately 60° to 70° (Milsom 2003:43; Weymouth 1986b:341). The 

project area has a magnetic field strength of approximately 58,800 nT (Peddie 1992; 

Sharma 1997:72-73) with an inclination of approximately 73° 54’ (Peddie and Zunde 

1988; Sharma 1997:72-73). Magnetic anomalies of archeological interest are often in the 

±5 nT range, especially on prehistoric sites. Target depth in magnetic surveys depends 

on the magnetic susceptibility of the soil and the buried features and objects. For most 

archeological surveys, target depth is generally confined to the upper 1-2 m below the 

ground surface with 3 m representing the maximum limit (Clark 2000:78-80; Kvamme 

2001:358). Magnetic surveying applications to archeological investigations have included 

the detection of architectural features, soil disturbances, and magnetic objects/artifacts 
19

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

(Bevan 1991; Clark 2000;92-98; Gaffney et al. 1991:6; Heimmer and DeVore 1995,2000; 

Weymouth 1986b:343). 

Two modes of operation for magnetic surveys exist: the total field survey and 

the gradient survey. The instrument used to measure the magnetic field strength is the 

magnetometer (Bevan 1998:20). The total field survey uses a single magnetic sensor. 

Three different types of magnetic sensors have been used in the magnetometer: 1) 

proton-free precession sensors, 2) alkali vapor (cesium or rubidium) sensors, and 3) 

fluxgate sensors (for a detailed description of the types of magnetometers constructed 

from these sensors see Clark 2000:66-71; Milsom 2003:45-47; Scollar et al. 1990:450-469; 

Weymouth 1986b:343-344). 

The total field magnetometer is designed to measure the absolute intensity 

of the local magnetic field. This type of magnetometer utilizes a single sensor. Due to 

diurnal variation of the earth’s magnetic field, the data collected with a single-sensor 

magnetometer must be corrected to reflect these diurnal changes. One method is 

to return to a known point and take a reading that can be used to correct the diurnal 

variation. A second method is to use two magnetometers with one operated at a 

fixed base station collecting the diurnal variation in the magnetic field. The second 

magnetometer is used to collect the field data in the area of archeological interest. 

Common magnetometers of this types used in archaeological investigations include the 

proton-precession magnetometer, the Overhauser effect magnetometer (a variation of 

the proton-precession magnetometer), and the cesium magnetometer. 

The magnetic gradient survey is conducted with a gradiometer or a magnetometer 

with two magnetic sensors at a fixed vertical distance apart. The instrument measures 

the magnetic field at two separate heights. The top sensor reading is subtracted from the 

bottom sensor reading. The resulting difference is recorded. This provides the vertical 

gradient or change in the magnetic field. Diurnal variations are automatically canceled. 

This setup also minimizes long-range trends. The gradiometer provides greater feature 

resolution and potentially provides better classification of the magnetic anomalies. Two 

commonly used gradiometers in archeological investigations are the cesium gradiometer 

and the fluxgate gradiometer. They are capable of yielding 5 to 10 measurements per 

second at a resolution of 0.1 nT (Kvamme 2001:358). Cesium gradiometers record the 

absolute total field values like the single-sensor total-field magnetometers. It also 

records the gradient change between the bottom and top sensors. The fluxgate sensors 

are highly directional, measuring only the component of the field parallel to the sensor’s 

axis (Clark 2000:69). They also require calibration (Milsom 2003:46-47). Both cesium 

and fluxgate gradiometers are capable of high-density sampling over substantial areas at 

a relatively rapid rate of acquisition (Clark 2000:69-71; Milsom 2003:46-47).

The single fluxgate gradiometer, the Geoscan Research FM256 fluxgate 

gradiometer (Figure 15), is a vector magnetometer, which measures the strength of the 

magnetic field in a particular direction (Geoscan Research 2006). The FM256 fluxgate 

gradiometer is an upgraded FM36 fluxgate gradiometer (Geoscan Research 1987) with 

increased memory capacity and greater download speed. The sensors of the fluxgate 

gradiometer must be accurately balanced and aligned along the direction of the field 

component to be measured. A reference point was selected at the Site 32ME2377 
20

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

geophysical project area for balancing and aligning the gradiometers and for zeroing the 

conductivity meter. The gradiometer was balanced and the sensors aligned on magnetic 

north. Grid point N20/E0 was selected for balancing the gradiometer at Site 32ME2377. 

The two magnetic sensors in the single fluxgate gradiometer are spaced 0.5 m apart. 

The instrument is carried so the two sensors are vertical to one another with the 

bottom sensor approximately 30 cm above the ground. Each sensor reads the magnetic 

field strength at its height above the ground. The gradient or change of the magnetic 

field strength between the two sensors is recorded in the instrument’s memory. This 

gradient is not in absolute field values but rather voltage changes, which are calibrated 

in terms of the magnetic field. The fluxgate gradiometer provides a continuous record 

of the magnetic field strength. The original magnetic surveys at the Elbee site used the 

Geoscan Research FM-36 fluxgate gradiometer (De Vore 2008; Geoscan Research 1987; 

Volf 2002).

The magnetic survey for the single fluxgate gradiometer was designed to collect 

8 samples per meter along 0.5-m traverses or 16 data values per square meter at the Site 

32ME2377 geophysical project area (Table 2). The data were collected in a zigzag fashion 

with the surveyor alternating the direction of travel along each traverse across the grid. 

The magnetic surveys at the Elbee site in 2002 and 2006 (Table 2) used the same sampling 

strategy (De Vore 2008; Volf 2002). Sixty-four hundred data values were collected for 

each complete 20-m-by-20-m grid unit surveyed during the project. The magnetic data 

were recorded in the memory of the gradiometer and downloaded to a field laptop 

computer at the completion of the survey each day and at the end of the survey in each 

geophysical project area. The magnetic data from the single fluxgate gradiometer were 

imported into Geoscan Research’s GEOPLOT software (Geoscan Research 2005) for 

processing. Both shade-relief and trace-line plots were generated in the field before the 

instrument’s memory was cleared. 

The dual fluxgate gradiometer system, the Bartington Grad 601-2 single axis 

magnetic gradiometer (Figure 16), is a vector magnetometer, which measures the 

strength of the magnetic field in a particular direction (Bartington Instruments 2007). 

The dual fluxgate gradiometer sensor configuration of the instrument uses two fluxgate 

gradiometer sensor tubes separated by a distance of1 m. The dual gradiometer records 

two lines of data during each traverse reducing the distance walked and the survey time 

by half compared to the time and distance covered with a single gradiometer system. 

The sensors must be accurately balanced and aligned along the direction of the field 

component to be measured. The reference point for balancing and aligning the dual 

gradiometer at the Elbee site is located at N760/E30 and at the Taylor Bluff site is located 

at 20 m east of the east side of the geophysical project area. The instrument is aligned 

on magnetic north. The fluxgate gradiometer sensor tubes in the dual gradiometer are 

spaced 1 m apart with the two tubes also spaced at 1 m apart. The instrument is carried 

so the two sensors in each tube are vertical to one another with the bottom sensors 

approximately 30 cm above the ground. Each sensor reads the magnetic field strength 

at its height above the ground. The gradient or change of the magnetic field strength 

between the two vertical sensors is recorded in the instrument’s memory for both sensor 

tubes. These gradients are not in absolute field values but rather voltage changes, which 

are calibrated in terms of the magnetic field strength. The dual fluxgate gradiometer also 
21

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

provides a continuous record of the magnetic field strength across each line for each 

traverse across the grid unit. 

The magnetic survey for the dual fluxgate gradiometer was designed to collect 

eight samples per meter along 1.0-m traverses or eight data values per square meter 

at the Elbee site geophysical project area (Table 3) and eight samples or 16 data values 

per square meter along 0.5-m traverses at the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area 

(Table 3). The data were collected in a zigzag fashion with the surveyor alternating the 

direction of travel along each traverse across the grid. Thirty-two hundred data values 

were collected for each complete 20-m-by-20-m grid unit surveyed at the Elbee site and a 

total of 6,400 data values for each complete grid unit at the Taylor Bluff site. The magnetic 

data were recorded in the memory of the dual fluxgate gradiometer and downloaded to 

a field laptop computer when the instrument’s memory became full, at the end of the 

day, and at the completion of the survey at the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area; 

and at the end of the magnetic survey of the selected grid units at the Elbee site. The 

magnetic data from the dual fluxgate gradiometer were downloaded into the Bartington 

GRAD 601 software (Bartington Instruments 2007). The data were then imported into 

ARCHAEOSURVEYOR for processing (DW Consulting 2010). Shade-relief and traceline plots were generated in the field before the instrument’s memory cleared. 

Resistance Survey

The resistance survey is an active geophysical technique, which injects a current 

into the ground (see Bevan 1991,1998:7-18; Burger 1992:241-318; Carr 1982; Clark 

2000:27-63, 171-174; Davenport 2001:29-30; David 1995:27-28; David et al. 2008:24-

28; Dobrin and Savit 1988:750-773; Gaffney and Gater 2003:26-36, 56-61; Gaffney et 

al. 1991:2; 2002:7; Hallof 1992:39-176; Heimmer and DeVore 1995:29-35, 2000:59-60; 

Kvamme 2001:358-362, 2003:441-442, 2005:434-436; Lowrie 1997:206-219; Milsom 

2003:83-116; Mussett and Khan 2000:181-201; Nishimura 2001:544-546; Oswin 2009: 

32-43, 118-126; Robinson and Çoruh 1988:445-478; Scollar et al. 1990:307-374; Sharma 

1997:207-264; Somers 2006:109-129; Telford et al. 1990:522-577; Van Nostrand and Cook 

1966; Weymouth 1986b:318-341; Witten 2006:299-317; and Zonge et al. 2005:265-300 

for more details on resistivity surveys). The voltage is measured and by Ohm’s Law, one 

may compute the resistance at any given point (R=V/I where R is resistance, V is voltage, 

and I is current). Due to the problem of contact resistance between two electrodes in 

the ground, a typical resistance survey makes use of four electrodes or probes. The 

current passes through two electrodes and the voltage is measured between the other 

two probes. The configuration of the electrodes also varies (see Milsom 2003:99 and 

Weymouth 1986b:324 for common configurations). 

Resistance or resistivity changes result from electrical properties of the soil 

matrix. Changes are caused by materials buried in the soil, differences in soil formation 

processes, or disturbances from natural or cultural modifications to the soil. In 

archeology, the instrument is used to identify areas of compaction and excavation, as 

well as buried objects such as brick or stone foundations. It has the potential to identify 

cultural features that are affected by the water saturation in the soil, which is directly 

related to soil porosity, permeability, and chemical nature of entrapped moisture (Clark 

2000; Heimmer and De Vore 1995:30). Its application to archeology results from the 
22

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

ability of the instrument to detect lateral changes on a rapid data acquisition, highresolution basis, where observable contrasts exist. Lateral changes in anthropogenic 

features result from compaction, structural material changes, buried objects, excavation, 

habitation sites, and other features affecting water saturation (Heimmer and De Vore 

1995:37). The resistivity survey may sometimes detect the disturbed soil matrix within 

the grave shaft. 

The Geoscan Research RM15-D resistance meter uses the PA20 multiple-probe 

array (Geoscan Research 2007). Arranged as a twin-probe array, a current and voltage 

probes are located on a mobile frame, which is moved around the site (Figure 17). Two 

additional probes are located away from the survey area, which also consists of a current 

probe and voltage probe. The mobile probes are set 0.5 m apart on the multiprobe 

array frame. The remote probes are set a distance 30 times the mobile probe separation 

at the Elbee site and Site 32ME2377 from the nearest point on the grid units or 15 m 

for the 0.5-m mobile probe separation. The remote probes are moved after reaching 

the maximum length of the electrical cable. The ohm value on the resistance meter is 

recalibrated with each move to retain consistency of the resistance readings across the 

grid units. Calibration involves taking a reading before moving the remote probes and 

then re-establishing the same ohm value by moving the remote probes closer together 

or farther apart until the same value is reached. The probes on the frame are located at 

a fixed distance apart. A general rule of thumb for the depth investigation of resistance 

survey is that the depth is equal to the distance of probe separation. This value is not a 

unique number but an average for the volume of soil 0.5 m depth and a surface diameter 

of 0.5 m under the center point of the instrument frame. The probes are connected to the 

resistance meter, which is also on the frame. Different lengths of the removable probe 

array beams may be added to the frame to expand the separation distance of the probes; 

however, this requires the resurvey of the grid for each change in the probe separation 

distance. The addition of a multiplexer unit allows for the collection of multiple parallel 

probe measurements or multiple depth measurements. The measurement is taken when 

the mobile probes make contact with the ground and completes the electrical circuit. 

The resulting resistance value is the average of 16 readings. The average value is stored in 

the resistance meter’s memory until downloaded to a field laptop computer. 

The resistance survey was designed to collect two samples per meter along 1.0-m 

traverses or two data values per square meter at the Elbee site (Table 4) and two samples 

per meter along 0.5-m traverses at Site 32ME2377 (Table 4). The data were collected in a 

zigzag fashion with the surveyor maintaining the alternating the direction of travel for 

each traverse across the grid. Sixteen hundred data values were collected for a complete 

20-m-by-20-m grid unit at Site 32ME2377, and 800 data values were collected for each 

completer grid unit at the Elbee site. The resistance data were recorded in the memory 

of the resistance meter and downloaded to a laptop computer at the completion of each 

day’s survey effort or at the end of the survey. The resistance data were imported into 

GEOPLOT software (Geoscan Research 2005) for processing. Both shade-relief and 

trace-line plots were generated before the instrument’s memory was cleared. 
23

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey

The ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey is an active geophysical technique 

that uses pulses of radar energy (i.e., short electromagnetic waves) that are transmitted 

into the ground through the surface-transmitting antenna (see Annan 2005:357-

438; Bevan 1991, 1998:43-57; Clark 2000:118-120, 183-186; Conyers 2004, 2006:131-

159,2007:329-344; Conyers and Goodman 1997; Davenport 2001:89-103; David 1995:23-

27; Gaffney and Gater 2003:47-51, 74-76; Gaffney et al. 1991:5-6, 2002:9-10; Goodman et 

al. 2007:375-394; Heimmer and DeVore 1995:42-47, 2000:63-64; Kvamme 2001:363-365, 

2003:442-443, 2005:436-438; Lowrie 1997:221-222; Milson 2003:167-178; Mussett and 

Khan 2000:227-231; Nishimura 2001:547-551; Scollar et al. 1990:575-584; Weymouth 

1986b:370-383; and Witten 2006:214-258 for more details on GPR surveys). This radar 

wave is reflected off buried objects, features, or interfaces between soil layers. These 

reflections result from contrasts in electrical and magnetic properties of the buried 

materials or reflectors. The contrasts are a function of the dielectric constant of the 

materials (Sheriff 1973:51). The depth of the object or soil interface is estimated by 

the time it takes the radar energy to travel from the transmitting antenna and for its 

reflected wave to return to the receiving antenna. The depth of penetration of the wave 

is determined by the frequency of the radar wave. The lower the frequency, the deeper 

the radar energy can penetrate the subsurface; however, the resulting resolution, or the 

ability to distinguish objects, features, and soil changes, decreases. These low-frequency 

antennas generate long wavelength radar energy that can penetrate several tens of 

meters under certain conditions, but can only resolve larger targets or reflectors. The 

higher the radar wave frequency, the higher the resulting resolution but the penetration 

depth decreases. High-frequency antennas generate much shorter wavelength energy, 

which may only penetrate a meter into the ground. The generated reflections from these 

high-frequency antennas are capable of resolving objects or features with maximum 

dimensions of a few centimeters. A resulting tradeoff exists between subsurface 

resolution and depth penetration: the deeper the penetration then the resulting 

resolution is less, or the higher the resolution then the resulting depth penetration is 

much shallower.

As the radar antenna system (transmitting and receiving antennas) is moved along 

the survey line, a large number of subsurface reflections are collected along the line. The 

various subsurface materials affect the velocity of the radar waves as they travel through 

the ground (Conyers and Goodman 1997:31-40). The rate at which these waves move 

through the ground is affected by the changes in the physical and chemical properties 

of the buried materials through which they travel. The greater the contrast in electrical 

and magnetic properties between two materials at the interface results in a stronger 

reflected signal. As each radar pulse travels through the ground, changes in material 

composition or water saturation, the velocity of the pulse changes, and a portion of the 

energy is reflected back to the surface where it is detected by the receiving antenna and 

recorded by ground-penetrating radar unit. The remaining energy continues to pass into 

the subsurface materials where it can be reflected by deeper reflectors until the energy 

finally dissipates with depth. The radar system measures the time it takes the radar pulse 

to travel to a buried reflector and return to the unit. If the velocity of the pulse is known, 

then the distance to the reflector or the depth of the reflector beneath the surface can be 

estimated (Conyers and Lucius 1996).
24

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

The success of the survey is dependent on soil and sediment mineralogy, clay 

content, ground moisture, depth of the archeological resource, and surface topography 

and vegetation. The ground-penetrating radar signal can be lost or attenuated (i.e., 

quickly dissipated) in soils that have high moisture content, high electrical conductivity, 

highly magnetic materials, or high clay content. Dry soils and sediments, especially 

those with low clay content, represent the best conditions for energy propagation. A 

ground-penetrating radar survey, with its capability for estimating the depth and shape 

of buried objects, may be an extremely valuable tool in the search for grave shafts and 

trenches. At times, radar cannot profile deep enough or the strata may be so complex as 

to render the trenches, graves, and other types of excavations indistinguishable from the 

surrounding soil profile. 

The TerraSIRch SIR System-3000 survey cart system (GSSI 2003) operated an 

antenna at a nominal frequency of 400 megahertz (mHz). The antenna was mounted in 

a cart that recorded the location of the radar unit along the grid line (Figure 18). The 

GPR profiles were collected along 0.5 m traverses beginning in the southwest corner of 

the grid unit with the initial profile collected from west to east (Table 5). The data were 

collected in a zigzag or bidirectional fashion with the surveyor alternating the direction 

of travel for each traverse across the grid. An 80 nanosecond time window was open 

for data collection. Five hundred twelve samples were collected for each scan, and 50 

scans were collected per meter. One hundred ten radar profiles were collected across the 

northern half of the Taylor Bluff geophysical project area for a linear distance of 8,040 

m. Ground penetrating radar surveys generally represent a trade-off between depth of 

detection and detail. Lower-frequency antennas permit detection of features at greater 

depths but they cannot resolve objects or strata that are as small as those detectable by 

higher-frequency antennas. Actual maximum depth of detection also depends upon the 

electrical properties of the soil. If one has an open excavation, one can place a steel rod in 

the excavation wall at a known depth and use the observed radar reflection to calibrate 

the radar charts. When it is not possible to place a target at a known depth, one can use 

values from comparable soils. Reasonable estimates of the velocity of the radar signal 

in the site’s soil can be achieved by this method (Conyers and Lucius 1996). Using one 

of the hyperbolas on a radargram profile from the geophysical project area (Goodman 

2005:76), the velocity was calculated to be approximately 7.3 cm per nanosecond (ns). 

For a time slice between 5 and 15 ns with the center at 10 ns (two-way travel time), the 

approximate depth to the center of the GPR slice would be 36.5 cm. With a time window 

of 80 nanoseconds, the GPR profile extended to a depth of 2.82 meters. A value of 17.1 

was calculated for the dielectric constant. The GPR data were recorded on a 512 mb 

compact flash card and transferred to a field laptop computer at the end of the survey. 

Geophysical Data Processing

Processing of geophysical data requires care and understanding of the various 

strategies and alternatives (Kvamme 2001:365; Music 1995; Neubauer et al. 1996). . 

Roger Walker and Lewis Somers (Geoscan Research 2004,2005) provide strategies, 

alternatives, and case studies on the use of several processing routines commonly used 

to process magnetic, resistance, and conductivity data in the GEOPLOT software. David 

et al. (2008:42-45) presents a basic description of steps involved in the processing of 
25

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

magnetic, resistance, and ground penetrating radar data. Kenneth Kvamme (2001:365) 

also provides a series of common steps used in computer processing of geophysical data:

Concatenation of the data from individual survey grids into a single composite 

matrix;

Clipping and despiking of extreme values (that may result, for example, from 

introduced pieces of iron in magnetic data);

Edge matching of data values in adjacent grids through balancing of brightness 

and contrast (i.e., means and standard deviations);

Filtering to emphasize high-frequency changes and smooth statistical noise in 

the data;

Contrast enhancement through saturation of high and low values or histogram 

modification; and

Interpolation to improve image continuity and interpretation.

It is also important to understand the reasons for data processing and display 

(David et al. 2008:45-49; Gaffney et al. 1991:11). They enhance the analyst’s ability to 

interpret the relatively huge data sets collected during the geophysical survey. The 

type of display can help the geophysical investigator present his interpretation of the 

data to the archeologist who will ultimately use the information to plan excavations or 

determine the archeological significance of the site from the geophysical data. 

Processing Single Fluxgate Gradiometer Magnetic Data

Upon completion of the magnetic survey with the single fluxgate gradiometer 

system, the data were processed in GEOPLOT (Table 2). The grid data file was 

transformed into a composite file (Geoscan Research 2005:3/15-3/20) and a zero mean 

traverse was applied to remove any traverse discontinuities that may have occurred from 

operator handling or heading errors (Geoscan Research 2004:6/107-6/115). A threshold 

between -5 and 5 was applied to the data in order to aid in the correct preservation of 

extended high-magnitude magnetic responses from ferrous materials. It also preserves 

linear features oriented in the traverse direction. The magnetic data from the 2002 and 

2006 magnetic surveys at the Elbee site geophysical project area, after the application 

of the zero mean traverse operation, ranged from -204.8 nT to 193.0 nT with a mean 

of 0.01 nT and a standard deviation of 3.687 nT. The magnetic data from the magnetic 

survey at the Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area, after the application of the zero 

mean traverse operation, ranged from -40.2 nT to 128.1 nT with a mean of 0.05 nT and a 

standard deviation of 2.756 nT. Upon completion of the zero mean traverse function, the 

data were interpolated by expanding the number of data points in the traverse direction 

and by reducing the number of data points in the sampling direction to provide a 

smoother appearance in the data set and to enhance the operation of the low-pass filter 

(Geoscan Research 2004:6/53-6/56). This changed the original 8-x-2 data point matrix 
26

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

into a 4-x-4 data point matrix. The low-pass filter was then applied over the entire data 

set to remove any high frequency, small scale spatial detail. This transformation results 

in the improved visibility of larger, weak archeological features (Geoscan Research 

2004:6/57-6/60). The data were then exported as an ASCII dat file and placed in the 

SURFER 9 mapping program (Golden Software 2009; Oswin 2009:86-95). Image and 

contour maps of the single fluxgate gradiometer data were generated for the 2002/2006 

magnetic within the present Elbee site survey area (Figure 19) and the Site 32ME2377 

survey area (Figure 20). 

Processing Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer Data

Upon completion of the magnetic surveys at the Elbee and the Taylor Bluff 

sites, the data were processed in ArchaeoSurveyor (Table 3). The grid data files were 

assembled into a composite file (DW Consulting 2010:32-33). The destripe processing 

routine was applied to remove any traverse discontinuities or striping effects that may 

have occurred from operator handling, heading errors, instrument setup, or instrument 

drift during the survey, as well as to equalize differences between grids (DW Consulting 

2010:68-69). The magnetic data from the magnetic survey at the Elbee site geophysical 

project area, after the application of the destriping operation, ranged from -15.0 nT to 

22.7 nT with a mean of -0.01 nT and a standard deviation of 1.069 nT. The magnetic 

data from the magnetic survey at the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area, after 

the application of the destriping operation, ranged from -100.0 nT to 99.6 nT with a 

mean of -0.27 nT and a standard deviation of 6.654 nT. Upon completion of the destripe 

function, the data were interpolated by expanding the number of data points in the 

traverse direction and by reducing the number of data points in the sampling direction 

to provide a smoother appearance in the data set and to enhance the operation of the 

low-pass filter (DW Consulting 2010:70). This changed the original 8-x-1 data matrix at 

the Elbee site and the original 8-x-2 data point matrix at the Taylor Bluff Site into 4-x-4 

data point matrices for the two geophysical project areas. The low-pass filter was then 

applied over the entire data set to remove any high-frequency, small-scale spatial detail 

(DW Consulting 2010:80). This transformation resulted in the improved visibility of 

larger, weak archeological features. The data were then exported as an ASCII dat file 

and placed in the SURFER 9 contouring and 3d surface mapping program (Golden 

Software 2009) for final the display (Oswin 2009:86-95). Image and contour plots of the 

magnetic data were also generated the project areas at the Elbee site (Figure 21) and the 

Taylor Bluff site (Figure 22). 

Processing Resistance Data

Upon completion of the resistance survey, the data were processed in GEOPLOT. 

The grid files were combined to form a composite file and further processed in 

GEOPLOT (Table 4). Erroneous data resulting in the faulty insertion of the value 204.7 

as the dummy value were removed with the search and replace routine, which looks 

for a specified number or range of values and replaces them with a different specified 

value (Geoscan Research 2004:6/85-6/85). Due to numerous contrast discontinuities 

between the grid units, the add function was applied to several data blocks to correct 

the discontinuities by adding a constant value to the data in the inclusive data 

blocks (Geoscan Research 2004:6/11-6/13) for the Elbee resistance data. The edge-
27

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

matching routine was then applied to the Elbee resistance data to further remove 

edge discontinuities between the grids (Geoscan Research 2004:6/45-6/47). Grid edge 

discontinuities in twin-probe resistance surveys have resulted from improper placement 

of the remote electrodes during a station move when one has reached the length limit of 

the remote electric cable. It may also be caused by changing environmental conditions 

during the resistance survey. The resistance data composite files from the Elbee site and 

Site 32ME2377 geophysical project areas were then despiked to remove any erroneous 

measurements (Geoscan Research 2004:6/35-6/39). Despiking may be accomplished 

with the processing routine in GEOPLOT or manually by editing each individual grid 

file. The resistance data from the resistance survey at the Elbee site survey area after the 

application of the add, edge-matching, and despiking routines ranged from 83.7 ohms 

to 158.1 ohms with a mean of 91.32 ohms and a standard deviation of 3.199 ohms. The 

resistance data from the resistance survey at the Site 32ME2377 survey area, after the 

application of the despiking routine, ranged from 6.2 ohms to 9.3 ohms with a mean of 

7.24 ohms and a standard deviation of 0.528 ohms. The interpolation routine was applied 

to the data set to arrange the data in an equally spaced 4-x-4 square matrix from the 

original 2-x-1 matrix at the Elbee site and the 2-x-2 matrix at Site 32ME2377 (Geoscan 

Research 2004:6/53-6/56). A high-pass filter was then applied over the composite data 

set. The high-pass filter was used to remove low-frequency, large-scale spatial detail 

such as a slowing changing geological ‘background’ trend (Geoscan Research 2004:6/49-

6/52). The data were then exported as an ASCII dat file and placed in the SURFER 9 

mapping program (Golden Software 2009; Oswin 2009:86-95). Image and contour maps 

of the resistance data were generated for the Elbee Site survey grid area (Figure 23) and 

the survey grid area at Site 32ME2377 (Figure 24). 

Processing Ground-Penetrating Radar Data

The GPR radargram profile line data are imported into GPR-SLICE (Goodman 

2005) for processing. The first step in GPR-SLICE is to create a new survey project under 

the file menu. This step identifies the file name and folder locations. The next step is 

to transfer the GPR profile data to the project folder, then create the information file. 

The file contains the basic information on profile names and data format, the number 

of profiles, lengths of the profiles with the starting and ending locations along the x 

and y axes along with the number of samples per scan, scans per marker, markers per 

unit of measurement, the data format size, and the extent of the open time window in 

nanoseconds (ns). The information file can be edited if necessary to correct profile 

lengths. The 16-bit GSSI radargrams are imported into the GPR-SLICE project folder 

for further processing. The 16-bit data are then converted to remove extraneous 

header information and to regain the data. During the conversion process, the signal is 

enhanced by applying gain to the radargrams. Once the conversion process is completed, 

the next step is to reverse the profile data. Since the radargrams were collected in the 

zigzag mode, every even line needs to be reversed. The next step is to insert navigation 

markers into the resample radargrams, which are based on the total number of scans 

in the radargram. The next step is to create the time slices of the profile data (Conyers 

and Goodman 1997; Goodman et al. 1995). The program resamples the radargrams to a 

constant number of scans between the markers and collects the time slice information 

from the individual radargrams. The number of slices is identified along with the slice 

thickness, which allows for adequate overlap between the slices. The offset value on the 
28

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

radargram where the first ground reflection occurs is identified and is used to identify 

the first radargram sample at the ground surface. The cut parameter is set to resample 

the GPR data. The final step in the slice menu is to create the XYZ data files for each 

slice. The slices are gridded using the Kriging algorithm to estimate the interpolated 

data. A low-pass filter is then applied to the dataset to smooth noisy data in the time 

slices. At this point, one may view the time-sliced radar data in the pixel map menu for 

the GPR survey at the Taylor Bluff site (Figure 25). In addition, the original processed 

grid slices and the low-pass filtered grid slices can be exported in the Surfer grid format. 

The surfer grid file is transformed into an image plot in Surfer 9. Generally, one or more 

time slices are selected for further display and analysis for each GPR project area. Time 

slice 3 from 8 to 13 ns has been selected as the representative sample slice from the Taylor 

Bluff site geophysical project area (Figure 26). The ground-penetrating radar data from 

time slice 3 before the low-pass filter was applied to the data ranged from 4,828,128 SI 

units of amplitude strength to 115,610,453 SI units of amplitude strength with a mean of 

32,026,414 SI units of amplitude strength, and a standard deviation of 12,252,297 SI units 

of amplitude strength. The slice data from the project area are interpolated to create the 

3D dataset in the grid menu. The number of grids is now equal to 96 (((20-1)*5)+1). The 

3D data may be displayed as a series of z slices in the creation of a 3D cube with a jpeg 

output for animating the 3D cube. 

Geophysical Data Interpretations

Andrew David (1995:30) defines interpretation as a “holistic process and its 

outcome should represent the combined influence of several factors, being arrived at 

through consultation with others where necessary.” Interpretation may be divided 

into two different types consisting of the geophysical interpretation of the data and the 

archaeological interpretation of the data. At a simplistic level, geophysical interpretation 

involves the identification of the factors causing changes in the geophysical data. 

Archeological interpretation takes the geophysical results and tries to apply cultural 

attributes or causes. In both cases, interpretation requires both experience with the 

operation of geophysical equipment, data processing, and archeological methods; 

and knowledge of the geophysical techniques and properties, as well as known and 

expected archeology. Although there is variation between sites, several factors should 

be considered in the interpretation of the geophysical data. These may be divided 

between natural factors, such as geology, soil type, geomorphology, climate, surface 

conditions, topography, soil magnetic susceptibility, seasonality, and cultural factors, 

including known and inferred archeology, landscape history, survey methodology, data 

treatment, modern interference, etc. (David 1995:30; David et al. 2008:49). The grouping 

of anomalies or pattern recognition is also an important aspect of interpretation. It 

should also be pointed out that refinements in the geophysical interpretations are 

dependent on the feedback from subsequent archeological investigations. The use of 

multiple instrument surveys provides the archeologist with very different sources of 

data that may provide complementary information for comparison of the nature and 

cause (i.e., natural or cultural) of a geophysical anomaly (Clay 2001). Each instrument 

responds primarily to a single physical property: magnetometry to soil magnetism, 

electromagnetic induction to soil conductivity, resistivity to soil resistance, and groundpenetrating radar to dielectric properties of the soil (Weymouth 1986b:371).
29

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

Interpreting the Magnetic Data

Interpretation of the magnetic data (Bevan 1998:24) from the project requires 

a description of the buried archeological feature or object (e.g., its material, shape, 

depth, size, and orientation). The magnetic anomaly represents a local disturbance in 

the earth’s magnetic field caused by a local change in the magnetic contract between 

buried archeological features, objects, and the surrounding soil matrix. Local increases 

or decreases over a very broad uniform magnetic surface would exhibit locally positive 

or negative anomalies (Breiner 1973:17). Magnetic anomalies tend to be highly variable 

in shape and amplitude. They are generally asymmetrical in nature due to the combined 

effects from several sources. To complicate matters further, a given anomaly may be 

produced from an infinite number of possible sources. Depth between the magnetometer 

and the magnetic source material also affect the shape of the apparent anomaly (Breiner 

1973:18). As the distance between the magnetic sensor on the magnetometer and the 

source material increases, the expression of the anomaly becomes broader. Anomaly 

shape and amplitude are also affected by the relative amounts of permanent and 

induced magnetization, the direction of the magnetic field, and the amount of magnetic 

minerals (e.g., magnetite) present in the source compared to the adjacent soil matrix. 

The shape (e.g., narrow or broad) and orientation of the source material also affects the 

anomaly signature. Anomalies are often identified in terms of various arrays of dipoles 

or monopoles (Breiner 1973:18-19). A magnetic object is made of magnetic poles (North 

or positive and South or negative). A simple dipole anomaly contains the pair of opposite 

poles that relatively close together. A monopole anomaly is simply one end of a dipole 

anomaly and may be either positive or negative depending on the orientation of the 

object. The other end is too far away to have an effect on the magnetic field. 

Magnetic anomalies of archeological objects tend to be approximately circular in 

contour outline. The circular contours are caused by small size of the objects. The shape 

of the object is seldom revealed in the contoured data. The depth of the archaeological 

object can be estimated by the half-width rule procedure (Bevan 1998:23-24; Breiner 

1973:31; Milsom 2003:67-70). The approximations are based on a model of a steel sphere 

with a mass of 1 kg buried at a depth of 1.0 m below the surface with the magnetic 

measurements made at an elevation of 0.3 m above the ground. The depth of a magnetic 

object is determined by the location of the contour value at half the distance between 

the peak positive value of the anomaly and the background value. With the fluxgate 

gradiometer, the contour value is half the peak value since the background value is 

approximately zero. The diameter of this contour (Bevan 1998:Fig. B26) is measured 

and used in the depth formula where depth = diameter – 0.3 m (Note: The constant 

of 0.3 m is the height of the bottom fluxgate sensor above the ground in the Geoscan 

Research FM36 where I carry the instrument during data acquisition. This value needs 

to be adjusted for each individual that carries the instrument.). The mass in kilograms of 

the object (Bevan 1998:24, Fig. B26) is estimated by the following formula: mass = (peak 

value - background value) * (diameter)3/60. It is likely that the depth and mass estimates 

are too large rather than too small, since they are based on a compact spherical object 

made of iron. Archeological features are seldom compact but spread out in a line or 

lens. Both mass and depth estimates will be too large. The archaeological material may 

be composed of something other than iron such as fired earth or volcanic rock. Such 

materials are not usually distinguishable from the magnetic data collected during the 
30

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

survey (Bevan 1998:24). The depth and mass of features composed of fired earth, like 

that found in kilns, fireplaces, or furnaces could be off by 100 times the mass of iron. 

If the archeological feature were composed of bricks (e.g., brick wall, foundation, or 

chimney), estimates could be off by more than a 1,000 times that of iron. The location 

of the center of the object can also be determined by drawing a line connecting the peak 

positive and peak negative values. The rule of thumb is that the center of the object is 

located approximately one-third to one-half of the way along the line from the peak 

positive value for the anomaly. One should also be cautious of geophysical anomalies 

that extend in the direction of the traverses since these may represent operator-induced 

errors. The magnetic gradient anomalies may be classified as three different types: 

linear, dipole, and monopole.

Analysis of the magnetic data while in the field indicated the presence of 

numerous magnetic anomalies within the three geophysical project areas. These 

anomalies appear to be associated with metal artifacts and buried archeological features, 

as well as modern intrusions. 

The magnetic surveys at the Elbee site were conducted in 2002 (Volf 2002) and 

2006 (De Vore 2008) with a single fluxgate gradiometer (Figure 27). The 2010 magnetic 

survey was limited to the northern portion of the site (an 80-m-by-40-m block) and used 

a dual fluxgate gradiometer (Figure 28). Numerous dipole and monopole anomalies 

are present across the site with increasing concentrations of anomalies in the southern 

portion of the site in the vicinity of the Russell farm building complex. Rectangular 

clusters of magnetic anomalies appear to represent the locations of former farm 

buildings. Farm-related lanes and two-track roads, as well as the park access road, 

are identified as linear magnetic anomalies. A segment of a possible trail between the 

Sakakawea site and the Big Hidatsa site is present in the southern part of the 2010 

geophysical project area. Several concentrations or clusters of magnetic anomalies 

containing monopole and dipole anomalies occur across the site. The clusters appear to 

represent possible prehistoric house floors and associated pit features. A large natural 

depression at the northern end of the site is also evident in the magnetic data. The guide 

wires and associated anchors to a power pole near N565/E500 are represented as large 

magnetic dipoles. A Department of the Interior/National Park Service marker is also 

indicated near N635/E530. Three clusters of magnetic anomalies are identified in the 

dual fluxgate gradiometer data from 2010. Two of these locations coincide with clusters 

of magnetic anomalies from the 2002 magnetic survey. Magnetic anomalies present in 

the 2010 magnetic data are also noted in the 2002 magnetic data.

Analysis of the magnetic data from Site 32ME2377 indicates the possible 

presence of a historic or recent structure in the southern part of the project area (Figure 

29). Several dipole anomalies provide a rough rectangular pattern. Other single dipole 

anomalies occur within the geophysical project area at the site. The magnetic anomalies 

consist of simple and complex dipoles with relatively strong magnetic strengths 

associated with the high and low values of the dipoles. Their orientations and shapes 

also suggest that the dipoles are associated with metal objects.

The magnetic data from the geophysical project area at the Taylor Bluff site 

consists of numerous positive monopole anomalies, simple and complex dipole 
31

2010 GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS

anomalies, as well as clusters of monopole and dipole magnetic anomalies and linear 

groupings of magnetic anomalies (Figure 30). In the west side of the geophysical project 

area, a series of four linear anomalies represent modern NPS leach field lines. A buried 

utility line is also present in the southwestern part of the project area and is identified by 

a series of alternating negative and positive anomalies resembling a string of alternating 

black and white beads. A gravel access lane from the farm period runs through the 

middle of the project area and is approximately 12 m wide. A large magnetic anomaly at 

the northeast corner of the project area may represent a buried utility vault of reinforced 

concrete. The linear magnetic anomaly with a relatively low positive contrast suggests 

the location of the site’s fortification ditch. Other positive monopole anomalies appear 

to represent village pit features which range from 2 to 10 nT in strength. Stronger 

monopole anomalies, as well as simple dipole and complex dipole anomalies may 

represent fire-related features and metal objects associated with the village site, as well 

as more recent metal artifacts from the farm period and modern NPS activities. Small 

clusters of magnetic anomalies suggest location of buried archeological features while 

larger clusters suggest the locations of the village lodge floors. 

Interpreting the Resistance Data

Interpretation of the resistivity data results in the identification of lateral changes 

in the soil. Since the array parameters are kept constant throughout the survey, the 

resulting resistance values vary with changes in the subsurface sediments/soil matrix 

and buried archeological resources. For each probe separation, the depth penetration 

is approximately the same as the distance between the current and potential probe on 

the mobile array frame, which was 0.5 m. The resistance measurement for each point 

represents the average value for the hemispheric volume of soil with the same radius. 

If the soil below the survey area were uniform, the resistivity would be constant 

throughout the area. Changes in soil characteristics (e.g., texture, structure, moisture, 

compactness, etc.) and the composition of archeological features result in differences 

in the resistances across the surveyed grid. Large general trends reflect changes in the 

site’s geology whereas small changes may reflect archeological features. An advantage 

to the resistance survey and its interpretation is its usefulness in areas that have high 

concentrations of metal objects such as the Elbee site (De Vore 2008; Volf 2002).

The resistance survey of the Elbee site covered approximately two-thirds of the 

combined 2002 and 2006 magnetic project area (Figure 31). Seven circular resistance 

anomalies may represent possible lodge floors. These anomalies consist of the lowresistance halo surrounding a higher resistive core. The linear anomaly identified as a 

possible trail connecting the two major village sites is also indicated by a weak linear 

resistive anomaly. Historic two-tracks, farm building foundations, UND excavation 

units, and the modern NPS gravel service road are also indicated in the resistance 

data. The resistance data from Site 32ME2377 is more difficult to interpret due to the 

relatively narrow range of resistance values (Figure 32). A weak linear anomaly appears 

to represent a two-track lane to a possible square or rectangular building location. The 

park’s recent fire lane is also identified by a linear low-value anomaly near the northeast 

corner of the geophysical project area.
32

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Interpreting the Ground-Penetrating Radar Data

Analysis and interpretation of the GPR data may be conducted in several different 

ways. The individual radargrams for each profile line may be analyzed for hyperbolic 

reflections. The radargrams may be combined and processed to provide planar time 

slices of the data. The time slices may also be combined to form 3D cubes of the GPR data. 

The majority of the GPR radargrams show numerous small reflections along any given 

profile. Most of the analysis of the GPR data is done with the 3D display while moving 

through the numerous time slices, but in order to provide a graphic representation of the 

anomalous areas an individual time slice was selected.

A ground-penetrating radar survey was conducted at the Taylor Bluff site as 

part of the 2010 NPS archeological prospection workshop (De Vore comp. 2010). Time 

slice 3 from 8 to 13 nanoseconds was selected for further interpretation (Figure 33). The 

gravel road bed, leach field line, and the buried utility line locations are suggested by 

low-amplitude strength GPR linear anomalies. The fortification ditch is also indicated 

by a low-amplitude GPR reflection. The lodge floors and at least one cluster of potential 

pit features appear as circular moderately high amplitude reflections. However, the most 

noticeable linear GPR anomalies across the project area represent windrowed grass 

from the mowing of the project area immediately prior to the GPR survey. During the 

week of the workshop, GPR data collected in some of the grid units suggested that the 

curing of the grass over the week prior to the workshop resulted in less effect on the 

resulting profile data than immediately after mowing the project area.

Combined Geophysical Data Set Interpretations

A different way of looking at the geophysical data collected during the 

investigations of the three geophysical project areas at KNRI is to combine the 

complementary data sets into one display. Several of the different geophysical 

anomalies overlap suggesting a strong correlation between the geophysical data and 

the buried archeological features (Ambrose 2005; Kvamme 2007:345-374; Kvamme 

et al. 2006). These areas of overlap would be considered areas of high probability for 

ground-truthing and the investigations of buried archeological resources. While 

these correlations are important, individual isolated occurrences also need groundtruthing in order to determine their unique nature as well. Complementary data (Clay 

2001) from the geophysical survey efforts at the Elbee site geophysical project area 

indicate the locations of potential lodge floors and the trail between villages, as well 

as locations of farm building foundations, two-track roads, archeological excavation 

units, NPS markers and other modern National Park Service modifications to the site 

and landscape (Figure 34). Complementary data (Clay 2001) from the geophysical survey 

efforts at the Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area indicate the locations of farmrelated ferrous objects, a two-track road, and a possible building foundation, as well 

as modern National Park Service modifications to the site and landscape (Figure 35). 

Complementary data (Clay 2001) from the geophysical survey efforts at the Taylor Bluff 

site geophysical project area indicate the locations of possible lodge floors, storage pits, 

hearths, and fortification ditch, as well as a farm-related access road and ferrous objects, 

and modern National Park Service modifications to the site and landscape, including 

leach field lines, buried utility lines, and a buried re-enforced concrete vault (Figure 36). 
33

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The geophysical investigations were conducted from May 10 to May 29, 2010, 

at three sites in Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site in Mercer County, 

North Dakota. The geophysical survey included magnetic surveys with the single 

fluxgate gradiometer at Site 32ME2377 and with the dual fluxgate gradiometer at the 

Elbee site and the Taylor Bluff site; a resistance survey with a resistance meter and twinprobe array at the Elbee site and Site 32ME2377; and a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) 

survey with a GPR cart system and 400 mHz antenna at the Taylor Bluff site. The single 

fluxgate gradiometer data from the 2002 and 2006 magnetic surveys at the Elbee site 

were also incorporated into the 2010 findings. The geophysical survey was conducted in 

order to identify buried archeological remains in the vicinity of the bank erosion along 

the Knife River at the Elbee site and Site 32ME2377, as well as within the archeological 

prospection workshop project area at the Taylor Bluff site in order to provide a 

baseline of archeological geophysical data for the park’s future planning activities. 

The geophysical surveys at the Elbee site and Site 32ME2377 provided information 

of the erosional damage to the sites from flooding of the Knife River and to provide 

information on the potential damage to the archeological resources at the Taylor Bluff 

site from historic farming and more recent park activities. A total area of 17,086 m2 or 

4.22 ac was investigated during the geophysical survey of the three geophysical project 

areas during 2010. 

The surveys resulted in the identification of numerous subsurface anomalies. 

The magnetic and resistance data collected at the Elbee site and Site 32ME2377 provided 

information of the physical properties (magnetic and soil resistance properties) of the 

subsurface materials. Standard methods for conducting geophysical investigations 

were used with standard 20-m–by-20-m grid sizes where feasible. The results of the 

geophysical survey provided data on the location of potential lodge floors, fortification 

ditches, hearths and other fire-related features, storage pits, connecting village trails, 

and historic agricultural and modern National Park Service modifications to the 

landscape at the three geophysical project areas at Knife River Indian Villages National 

Historic Site in Mercer County, North Dakota. 

Finally, refinement of the geophysical interpretation of the survey data is 

dependent on the feedback of the archeological investigations following geophysical 

survey (David 1995:30). Should additional archeological investigations occur at the 

two geophysical project areas investigated during this project, the project archeologist 

is encouraged to share additional survey and excavation data with the geophysical 

investigator for incorporation into the investigator’s accumulated experiences 

with archeological problems. Throughout the entire geophysical and archeological 

investigations, communication between the geophysicist and the archeologist is essential 

for successful completion of the archeological investigations. It is also important for 

the investigators to disseminate the results of the geophysical survey and archeological 

investigations to the general public. It is through their support in funds and labor that 

we continue to make contributions to the application of geophysical techniques to the 

field of archeology. 
34

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

The Taylor Bluff site and the Elbee site are included in the Knife River Villages 

National Historic Site Archeological District, which was listed in 1974 on the National 

Register of Historic Places that was established by the National Historic Preservation 

Act of 1966 (NPS 1993:7-9). The National Register of Historic Places documents the 

importance of buildings, structures, archeological sites, districts, and objects that are 

important to our national, regional, and local prehistory and history (Andrus 1990:i). 

Generally archeological sites are evaluated for their potential to yield information to our 

understanding of human history and prehistory under Criterion D (Andrus 1990:21-24). 

The Elbee site has a high degree of subsurface integrity with several subsurface features 

identified in the geophysical data from the site. Based on the geophysical investigations 

and past archeological investigations (Ahler 1984; Toom et al. 2004), the site has the 

potential to answer research questions concerning site chronology, regional settlement 

patterns, and Native American subsistence patterns. A similar statement can be made 

for the Taylor Bluff site, although the site has been more affected by erosion and road 

construction activities than the Elbee site (Ahler 1988; Ahler (ed.) 1988; Ahler et al. 

1983; Toom and Ahler 1984). The archeo-geophysical data suggests that there is a high 

degree of site integrity remaining on the north side of the county road in the yard to 

the side of the maintenance facility even though several impacts from farming and 

modern NPS activities have reduced the site integrity. The potential storage features, 

lodge floors, and fortification ditch can provide significant information on historic 

Native Americans related to chronology, subsistence, settlement patterns, and effects 

of European diseases on the Native American villagers along the upper Missouri River. 

Although Site 32ME2377 retains a high degree of subsurface integrity, the mid-20thcentury site contains little scientific information that would aid in our understanding of 

the mid-20th-century farming activities; therefore, Site 32ME2377 is recommended as 

not eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

This report has provided a review and analysis of the geophysical data collected 

during the geophysical investigations at three sites within Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site. The geophysical techniques applied to the investigations at 

KNRI have proven successful in the identification of buried archeological resources 

in the present geophysical project areas. This information will be used by the Midwest 

Archeological Center and the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site staffs 

to guide further archeological inquiry into the nature of the archeological resources of 

the Native American villages and help direct future National Park Service geophysical 

surveys and archeological excavations at other locations within the boundary of Knife 

River Indian Villages National Historic Site. 
35

REFERENCES CITED

Ahler, Stanley A.

1978a A Research Plan for Investigation of the Archeological Resources of the Knife 

River Indian Villages National Historic Site. Ms. on file, Midwest Archeological 

Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1978b Archeological Field Research in the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic 

Site Summer 1978. Prepared by the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks. 

Submitted to the National Park Service, Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, 

Nebraska. Change Order No. 2 of Contract No. CX-6000-6-A061.

1988 Summary and Conclusions. In Archeological Mitigation at Taylor Bluff Village 

(32ME366), Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, edited by Stanley A. 

Ahler, pp. 300-314. Department of Anthropology and Archeology Contribution 

No. 240. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Ahler, Stanley A. (editor)

1984 Archeological Investigations at the Elbee Site, 32ME408, Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site. Department of Anthropology and Archeology 

Contribution No. 209. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

1988 Archeological Mitigation at Taylor Bluff Village (32ME366), Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site. Department of Anthropology and Archeology 

Contribution No. 240. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Ahler, Stanley A., Carl R. Falk, Paul R. Picha, Jon Reiten, and Emery L. Mehrer

1983 Archaeological Mitigation for Small-scale Construction Projects at the 

Taylor Bluff Site (32ME366), Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. 

Department of Anthropology and Archeology Contribution No. 179. University of 

North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Ahler, Stanley A, Craig M. Johnson, Herbert Haas, and Georges Bonani

2007 In A Chronology of Middle Missouri Plains Village Sites, edited by Craig M. 

Johnson, pp. 53-89. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology Number 47. 

Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, Washington, D.C.

Ambrose, Heather M.

2005 Quantitative Integration and Three-dimensional Visualization of Multiarchaeological geophysics Survey. ProQuest Information and Learning Company, 

Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Andrus, Patrick W.

1990 How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Park Service, 

Washington, D.C.

Annan, A. P.

2005 Ground-Penetrating Radar. In Near-Surface Geophysics, edited by Dwain K. 

Butler, pp. 357-438. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
36

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Aspinall, Arnold, Chris Gaffney, and Armin Schmidt

2008 Magnetometry for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Bartington Instruments

2007 Operation Manual for Grad 601 Single Axis Magnetic Gradiometer. OM1800. 

Bartington Instruments, Oxford, England.

Bavendick, Frank J.

1941 Climate of North Dakota. In Climate and Man: 1941Yearbook of Agriculture, 

edited by Grove Hambridge, pp. 1045-1054. House Document No. 27, 77th 

Congress, 1st Session. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Bevan, Bruce W.

1991 The Search for Graves. Geophysics 56(9):1310-1319.

1998 Geophysical Exploration for Archaeology: An Introduction to Geophysical 

Exploration. Special Report No. 1. Midwest Archeological Center, Lincoln, 

Nebraska.

Breiner, Sheldon

1973 Applications Manual for Portable Magnetometers. GeoMetrics, Sunnyvale, 

California.

1992 Magnetics: Applications for Portable Magnetometers. In Practical Geophysics 

II for the Exploration Geologist, compiled by Richard Van Blaricom, pp. 313-381, 

Northwest Mining Association, Spokane, Washington.

Brown, Lauren

1985 The Audubon Society Nature Guides: Grasslands. Alfred A. Knopf, New York 

Burger, H. Robert

1992 Exploration Geophysics of the Shallow Subsurface. Prentice Hall PTR, 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Carr, Christopher

1982 Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying: Interpretation of Data from Earthen 

Archeological Sites. Research Series, Volume 2. Center for American Archeology 

Press, Evanston, Illinois.

Clark, Anthony

2000 Seeing Beneath the Soil: Prospecting Methods in Archaeology. Reprint. Routledge, 

London. Originally published in 1990 by B. T. Batsford, Ltd., London.

Clay, R. Berle 

2001 Complementary Geophysical Survey Techniques: Why Two Ways are always 

Better than One. Southeastern Archaeology 20(1):31-43.
37

REFERENCES CITED

Conyers, Lawrence B. 

2004 Ground-Penetrating Radar for Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, 

California.

2006 Ground-Penetrating Radar. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly 

North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 131-159. University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2007 Ground-penetrating Radar for Archaeological Mapping. In Remote Sensing in 

Archaeology, edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz, pp. 329-344. Springer, 

New York.

Conyers, Lawrence B., and Dean Goodman

1997 Ground-Penetrating Radar: An Introduction for Archaeologists. AltaMira Press, 

Walnut Creek, California.

Conyers, Lawrence B., and Jeffrey E. Lucius

1996 Velocity Analysis in Archaeological Ground-penetrating Radar Studies. 

Archaeological Prospection 3(1):25-38.

Davenport, G. Clark

2001 Where is it? Searching for Buried Bodies & Hidden Evidence. SportWork, Church 

Hill, Maryland.

David, Andrew

1995 Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. Research & Professional 

Services Guidelines No. 1. Ancient Monuments Laboratory, English Heritage, 

London.

2001 Overview—The Role and Practice of Archaeological Prospection. In Handbook 

of Archaeological Sciences, edited by D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard, pp. 521-

527. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England.

David, Andrew, Neil Linford, and Paul Linford

2008 Geophysical Survey in Archaeological Field Evaluation. Second Edition. 

Research & Professional Services Guidelines No. 1. Ancient Monuments 

Laboratory, English Heritage, London.

De Vore, Steven L.

2008 Magnetic Survey of the Southern Portion of the Elbee Site (32ME408), Mercer 

County, North Dakota. Midwest Archeological Center Technical Report No. 110. 

Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

2010 Geophysical Survey of the Elbee Site (32ME408), the Karishta Site (32ME466), 

and the Taylor Bluff Site (32ME366) at Knife River Indian Villages National 

Historic Site, Mercer County, North Dakota; and the NPS 2010 Archeological 

Prospection Workshop (May 10-29, 2010). Trip report on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

De Vore, Steven L. (compiler)

2010 Current Archeological Prospection Advances for Non-destructive Investigations in 

the 21st Century. Workbook on file, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska. 
38

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Dice, Lee R.

1943 The Biotic Provinces of North America. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Dobrin, Milton B., and Carl H. Savit

1988 Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill Book 

Company, New York.

DW Consulting

2010 ArchaeoSurveyor User Manual. Program Version 2.5.0X, Issue 5. DW 

Consulting, Barneveld, The Netherlands.

Fenneman, Nevin M.

1931 Physiography of Western United States. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New 

York.

Foth, Henry D., and John W. Schafer

1980 Soil Geography and Land Use. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Gaffney, Chris, and John Gater

2003 Revealing the Buried Past: Geophysics for Archaeologists. Tempus Publishing, 

Stroud, Great Britain.

Gaffney, Chris, John Gater, and Sue Ovenden

1991 The Use of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeological Evaluations. Technical 

Paper Number 9. Institute of Field Archaeologists, University of Birmingham, 

Birmingham, England.

2002 The Use of Geophysical Techniques in Archaeological Evaluations. Paper No. 6. 

Institute of Field Archaeologists, University of Reading, Reading, England.

Geoscan Research

1987 Fluxgate Gradiometer FM9 FM18 FM36 Instruction Manual, Version 1.0.

Geoscan Research, Bradford, England.

2004 Geoplot Version 3.00 for Windows Instruction Manual, Processing Chapter. 

Geoscan Research, Bradford, England.

2005 Geoplot Version 3.00 for Windows Instruction Manual, Main Section, Version

1.97. Geoscan Research, Bradford, England.

2007 Resistance Meter RM15-D Instruction Manual, Version 2.95. Geoscan Research, 

Bradford, England.

2006 Fluxgate Gradiometer FM256 Instruction Manual, Version 1.7. Geoscan 

Research, Bradford, England.

Godfrey, Anthony

2009 Contact with Northern Plains Indians Villages and Communities: An 

Administrative History of Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, North 

Dakota. Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service, Omaha, Nebraska.

Golden Software

2009 Surfer 9 User’s Guide: Contouring and 3D Surface Mapping for Scientists and 

Engineers. Golden Software, Golden, Colorado.
39

REFERENCES CITED

Goodman, Dean

2005 GPR-SLICE v 5.0 Ground Penetrating Radar Imaging Software Quickstart 

Introduction. Geophysical Archaeometry Laboratory, Woodland Hills, California.

Goodman, D., Y. Nishimura, and J. D. Rogers

1995 GPR Time Slices in Archaeological Prospection. Archaeological Prospection 

2(2):85-89.

Goodman, Dean, Kent Schneider, Salvatore Piro, Yasushi Nishimura, and Agamennon G. 

Pantel

2007 Ground Penetrating Radar Advances in Subsurface Imaging for Archaeology. In 

Remote Sensing in Archaeology, edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz, pp. 

375-394. Springer, New York.

GSSI

2003 TerraSIRch SIR System-3000 User’s Manual. Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc., 

North Salem, New Hampshire.

Hallof, Philip G.

1992 Electrical: IP and Resistivity: Grounded Electrical Methods in Geophysical 

Exploration. In Practical Geophysics II for the Exploration Geologist, compiled by 

Richard Van Blaricom, pp. 313-381, Northwest Mining Association, Spokane, 

Washington.

Hansen, R. O., Louis Racic, and V. J. S. Grauch

2005 Magnetic Methods in Near-Surface Geophysics. In Near-Surface Geophysics, 

edited by Dwain K. Butler, pp. 151-175. Society of Exploration Geophysicists, 

Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Heimmer, Don H. and Steven L. De Vore

1995 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource 

Management and Archeological Investigations. Revised edition. National Park 

Service, Denver, Colorado.

2000 Near-Surface, High Resolution Geophysical Methods for Cultural Resource 

Management and Archaeological Investigations. In Science and Technology in 

Historic Preservation, edited by Ray A. Williamson and Paul R. Nickens, pp. 53-73. 

Advances in Archaeological and Museum Science, Volume 4. Kluwer Academic/

Plenum Publishers, New York.

Hunt, Charles B.

1967 Physiography of the United States. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco.

Jones, Stephen R., and Ruth Carol Cushman

2004 A Field Guide to the North American Prairie. Houghton Mifflin Company, New 

York.
40

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Kvamme, Kenneth L.

2001 Current Practices in Archaeogeophysics: Magnetics, Resistivity, Conductivity, 

and Ground-Penetrating Radar. In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, edited by Paul 

Goldberg, Vance T. Holliday, and C. Reid Ferring, pp. 353-384. Kluwer Academic/

Plenum Publishers, New York.

2003 Geophysical Surveys as Landscape Archaeology. American Antiquity 68(3):435-

457.

2005 Terrestrial Remote Sensing in Archaeology. In Handbook of Archaeological 

Methods, edited by Herbert D. G. Maschner and Christopher Chippindale, pp. 

423-477. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

2006a Magnetometry: Nature’s Gift to Archaeology. In Remote Sensing in 

Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, 

pp. 205-233. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2006bData Processing and Presentation. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An 

Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 235-250. 

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

2007 Integrating Multiple Geophysical Datasets. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology, 

edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz, pp. 345-374. Springer, New York.

Kvamme, Kenneth L., Jay K. Johnson, and Bryan S. Haley

2006 Multiple Methods Surveys: Case Studies. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: 

An Explicitly North American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 251-267. 

University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Lehmer, Donald J. 

1971 Introduction to Middle Missouri Archeology. Anthropological Papers 1. National 

Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Lovick, Steven K., and Stanley A. Ahler

1982 Cultural Resource Reconnaissance in the Knife River Indian Villages National 

Historic Site. Department of Anthropology and Archeology Contribution No. 159. 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Lowrie, William

1997 Fundamentals of Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United 

Kingdom.

Milsom, John

2003 Field Geophysics. Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, United 

Kingdom.

Music, B.

1995 On-Site Prospection in Slovenia: The Case of Rodik. Archaeological Computing 

Newsletter 43:6-15.

Mussett, Alan E., and M. Aftab Khan

2000 Looking into the Earth: An Introduction to Geological Geophysics. Cambridge 

University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
41

REFERENCES CITED

Neubauer, W., P. Melichar, and A. Eder-Hinterleitner

1996 Collection, Visualization, and Simulation of Magnetic Prospection Data. 

In Interfacing the Past: Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in 

Archaeology, CAA95, Volume 1, edited by H. Kamermans and K. Fennema, pp. 

121-129. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia No. 28. University of Leiden, Leiden, 

The Netherlands.

Nishimura, Y.

2001 Geophysical Prospection in Archaeology. In Handbook of Archaeological 

Sciences, edited by D. R. Brothwell and A. M. Pollard, pp. 543-553. John Wiley & 

Sons, Ltd., Chichester, England.

NPS

1983 Cultural Resources Management Plan: Knife River Indian Villages National 

Historic Site North Dakota. National Park Service, Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site, Stanton, North Dakota.

1986 Environmental Assessment Revised General Management Plan: Knife River 

Indian Villages National Historic Site. National Park Service, Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site, Stanton, North Dakota.

1993 Federal Historic Preservation Laws. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1999 National Park Service Cultural Landscapes Inventory 1999: Knife River Indian 

Villages, Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. National Park Service, 

Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, Stanton, North Dakota.

2006 Federal Historic Preservation Laws: The Official Compilation of U.S. Cultural 

Heritage Statues. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

2008 Knife River Indian Villages NHS Fire Management Plan 2008. Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site, National Park Service, Stanton, North Dakota.

Oswin, John 

2009 A Field Guide to Geophysics in Archaeology. Springer-Praxis Books, Chichester, 

United Kingdom. 

Peddie, Norman W.

1992 The Magnetic Field in the United States, 1990, Total Intensity Chart. U.S. 

Geological Survey Geophysical Investigations Map GP-1002-F. U.S. Geological 

Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Peddie, Norman W., and Audronis K. Zundie

1988 The Magnetic Field in the United States, 1985, Inclination Chart. U.S. Geological 

Survey Geophysical Investigations Map GP-986-I. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia

Reiten, Jon

1983 Quaternary Geology of the Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site. 

Prepared by the Department of Anthropology and Archeology, University of 

North Dakota, Grand Forks. Submitted to the Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska. Change Order No. 10 of Contract No. 

CX-6000-6-A061.
42

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Robinson, Edwin S., and Cahit Çoruh

1988 Basic Exploration Geophysics. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Roosevelt, A. C.

2007 Geophysical Archaeology in the Lower Amazon: A Research Strategy. In 

Remote Sensing in Archaeology, edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El-Baz, pp. 

443-4475. Springer, New York.

Scollar, I., A. Tabbagh, A. Hesse, and I Herzog

1990 Archaeological Prospection and Remote Sensing. Topics In Remote Sensing 2. 

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Sharma, Prem V.

1997 Environmental and Engineering Geophysics. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Shelford, Victor E.

1963 The Ecology of North America. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.

Sheriff, Robert E.

1973 Encyclopedic Dictionary of Exploration Geophysics. Society of Exploration 

Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

SHSND

1990 Archeological Component of the North Dakota Comprehensive Plan for Historic 

Preservation. State Historical Society of North Dakota, Bismarck.

Somers, Lewis

2006 Resistivity Survey. In Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North 

American Perspective, edited by Jay K. Johnson, pp. 109-129. University of 

Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Sturdevant, Jay T.

2009 Research Design for Data Recovery Following Spring 2009 Flood Damage at 

the Elbee (32ME408) and Karishta (32ME466) Sites, Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site, Mercer County, North Dakota. Ms. on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Taylor, John F.

1978 Knife River Indian Villages NHS: KNRI-1548 Historic Structures Data Sheet. In 

Structures Survey: Knife River Indian Villages NHS, National Park Service, Stanton, 

North Dakota, edited by Michael Holm, section KNRI-1548. Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site, Stanton, North Dakota.

Telford, W. M., L. P. Geldart, and R. E. Sheriff

1990 Applied Geophysics. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom.
43

REFERENCES CITED

Thiessen, Thomas D. (editor)

1993 The Phase I Archeological Research Program for the Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site. Four Volumes. Midwest Archeological Center Occasional 

Studies in Anthropology No. 27. National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska. 

Toom, Dennis L., and Stanley A. Ahler

1984 Interim Report on Archeological Mitigation Activities at the Taylor Bluff Site 

(32ME366), Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site: September 1983 –

March 1984. Department of Anthropology and Archeology Contribution No. 204. 

University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Toom, Dennis L., Michael A. Jackson, Carrie F. Jackson, Zachary W. Wilson, and Robert 

K. Nickel

2004 Elbee Village Site (32ME408): 2003 Archeological Test Excavations, Knife River 

Indian Villages National Historic Site, Mercer County, North Dakota. Department 

of Anthropology Contribution No. 389. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

Trewartha, Glenn T., and Lyle H. Horn

1980 An Introduction to Climate. Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New 

York.

Trimble

2007a Getting Started Guide GeoExplorer 2005 Series, Version 1.10. Trimble 

Navigation Limited, Westminster, Colorado. 

2007b Getting Started Guide TerraSync Software, Version 3.00. Trimble Navigation 

Limited, Westminster, Colorado. 

2007c Reference Manual TerraSync Software, Version 3.00. Trimble Navigation 

Limited, Westminster, Colorado. 

2007d Getting Started Guide GPS Pathfinder Office Software, Version 4.00. Trimble 

Navigation Limited, Westminster, Colorado. 

Trimble, Michael K.

1988 Review of the Historical Data. In Archeological Mitigation at Taylor Bluff Village 

(32ME366), Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, edited by Stanley A. 

Ahler, pp. 14-28. Department of Anthropology and Archeology Contribution No. 

240. University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.

USDA

2006 Land Resource Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States, 

the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. United States Department of Agriculture 

Handbook 296. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Ushikata 

2005 Tracon & Surveying Compasses. Ushikata Manufacturing Company, Tokyo.

Van Nostrand, Robert G. and Kenneth L. Cook

1966 Interpretation of Resistivity Data. Geological Survey Professional Paper 499. 

United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
44

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Volf, William J.

2002 Magnetic Gradient Geophysical Survey of the Northern Portion of the 

Elbee Site (32ME408), Mercer County, North Dakota. Ms. on file, Midwest 

Archeological Center, National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

Von Der Osten-Woldenburg, Harald

2005 Applications of Ground-Penetrating Radar, Magnetic and Electrical Mapping, 

and Electromagnetic Induction Methods in Archaeological Investigations. In 

Near-Surface Geophysics, edited by Dwain K. Butler, pp. 621-626. Society of 

Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Weymouth, John W.

1979a A Magnetic Survey of the Big Hidatsa Site (32ME12), Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site. Ms. on file, Midwest Archeological Center, 

National Park Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1979bA Magnetic Survey of Sakakawea Village (32ME11), Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site. Ms. on file, Midwest Archeological Center, National Park 

Service, Lincoln, Nebraska.

1986a Magnetic Surveys of Archaeological Sites in the Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site: Small and Non-Village Sites. Prepared by the Department 

of Physics and Astronomy and the Department of Anthropology, University of 

Nebraska, Lincoln. Prepared for the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park 

Service, Lincoln, Nebraska. Purchase Orders PX 6115-8-0219 and PX 6115-9-

061C.

1986b Geophysical Methods for Archaeological Site Surveying. In Advances in 

Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 9, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 

311-395. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

1988 Magnetic Surveys of Archaeological Sites in the Knife River Indian Villages 

National Historic Site: Major Village Sites. Prepared by the Department of Physics 

and Astronomy and the Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska, 

Lincoln. Prepared for the Midwest Archeological Center, National Park Service, 

Lincoln, Nebraska. Purchase Orders PX-6115-0-117A and PX-6115-0-117B and 

Contract CX-6000-3-056.

Weymouth, John W., and Robert K. Nickel

1977 A Magnetometer Survey of the Knife Indian Villages. Plains Anthropologist 

Memoir 13:104-118.

Wilhelm, Francis J.

1978 Soil Survey of Mercer County, North Dakota. U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Washington, D.C.

Willey, Gordon R.

1966 An Introduction to American Archaeology: Volume One, North and Middle 

America. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Witten, Alan J.

2006 Handbook of Geophysics and Archaeology. Equinox Publishing Ltd., London.
45

REFERENCES CITED

Wood, W. Raymond

1986 Notes on the Historical Cartography of the Upper Knife-Heart Region. In 

Papers in Northern Plains Prehistory and Ethnology: Ice Glider 32OL110, edited 

by W. Raymond Wood, pp. 25-58. Special Publication of the South Dakota 

Archaeological Society Number 10. South Dakota Archaeological Society, Sioux 

Falls.

Zedeño, Maria N., Kacy Hollenback, Christopher Basaldú, Vania Flecher, and Samrat 

Miller

2006 Cultural Affiliation Statement and Ethnographic Resource Assessment Study for 

Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site, Fort Union Trading Post National 

Historic Site, and Theodore Roosevelt National Park, North Dakota. Prepared by 

the Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. 

Prepared for the National Park Service, Midwest Regional Office, Omaha, 

Nebraska. DSCESU Cooperative Agreement CA-1248-00-002, Task Agreement 

No. J606804112.

Zonge, Ken, Jeff Wynn, and Scott Urquhart

2005 Resistivity, Induced Polarization, and Complex Resistivity. In Near-Surface 

Geophysics, edited by Dwain K. Butler, pp. 265-300. Society of Exploration 

Geophysicists, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
46

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 
47

Item No.

Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT 

TYPE

Description Site No.S

1 -101.386406 47.3440763 494.19 319744.32 5246162.725 514.069 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32ME408

2 -101.38667 47.3440747 494.61 319724.371 5246163.162 514.492 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

3 -101.3869352 47.344073 494.63 319704.337 5246163.584 514.513 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

4 -101.3872 47.3440752 494.59 319684.344 5246164.44 514.467 Site Datum 2002 datum 32me4085 -101.3872012 47.3442511 493.8 319684.853 5246183.986 513.676 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

6 -101.3869367 47.3442509 494.49 319704.831 5246183.351 514.366 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

7 -101.3866712 47.344256 494.91 319724.9 5246183.312 514.791 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

8 -101.3864058 47.3442443 494.25 319744.902 5246181.397 514.131 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

9 -101.3864063 47.3444136 494.12 319745.443 5246200.211 513.999 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

10 -101.3866702 47.3444241 494.69 319725.549 5246201.989 514.567 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

11 -101.3869358 47.3444352 494.52 319705.523 5246203.836 514.397 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

12 -101.3872011 47.3444334 493.38 319685.478 5246204.246 513.263 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

13 -101.3872023 47.3446131 493.22 319686.005 5246224.223 513.098 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

Table 1. Global positioning system post processed and corrected grid coordinates for the KNRI geophysical project areas.

TABLES
48

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES Item No. Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT TYPE Description Site No.S 14 -101.3869378 47.3446126 494.6 319705.98 5246223.553 514.483 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 15 -101.3866725 47.3446154 494.88 319726.027 5246223.255 514.761 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 16 -101.3864076 47.3446194 494.12 319746.045 5246223.083 514.004 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 17 -101.386409 47.3447959 494.7 319746.541 5246242.7 514.576 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 18 -101.3866728 47.3447945 494.8 319726.616 5246243.158 514.675 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 19 -101.386937 47.3447942 494.18 319706.659 5246243.732 514.056 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 20 -101.3872037 47.3447925 493.03 319686.506 5246244.16 512.906 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408

21 -101.3872045 47.3449732 493.01 319687.064 5246264.238 512.887 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

22 -101.3869393 47.3449754 493.92 319707.102 5246263.875 513.795 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

23 -101.386674 47.3449773 494.77 319727.147 5246263.468 514.653 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

24 -101.386942 47.3451534 493.73 319707.5 5246283.658 513.605 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

25 -101.3872059 47.3451529 492.9 319687.567 5246284.218 512.781 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

26 -101.3872072 47.3453328 492.66 319688.08 5246304.206 512.542 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

27 -101.3869425 47.3453332 493.46 319708.078 5246303.636 513.339 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

Table 1. Continued.
49

TABLES

Item No.

Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT 

TYPE

Description Site No.S

28 -101.3867957 47.3452769 494.43 319718.97 5246297.044 514.312 Geophys 

Feature Pt

doi bench 32me408

29 -101.3869439 47.3455134 493.6 319708.582 5246323.666 513.48 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

30 -101.3872079 47.3455129 492.85 319688.644 5246324.221 512.726 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

31 -101.3872103 47.345693 492.56 319689.076 5246344.243 512.439 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

32 -101.3872111 47.3458719 492.46 319689.629 5246364.129 512.341 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

33 -101.3869462 47.345873 493.08 319709.636 5246363.635 512.955 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

34 -101.3869533 47.3458455 492.98 319709.005 5246360.593 512.86 Geophys 

Feature Pt

bank m stake 32me408

35 -101.3869533 47.3458176 493.24 319708.912 5246357.493 513.122 Geophys 

Feature Pt

bank m stake 32me408

36 -101.38695 47.3456133 493.92 319708.467 5246334.788 513.799 Geophys 

Feature Pt

bank m stake 32me408

37 -101.3869469 47.34605 492.52 319710.19 5246383.311 512.393 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

38 -101.3872109 47.3460508 492.36 319690.254 5246384.011 512.237 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

39 -101.3872127 47.3462309 492.41 319690.725 5246404.025 512.291 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

40 -101.3869489 47.3462332 492.99 319710.662 5246403.663 512.867 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

41 -101.3868806 47.3462333 493.13 319715.821 5246403.52 513.011 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

Table 1. Continued.
50

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES Item No. Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT TYPE Description Site No.S 42 -101.3868158 47.3464145 492.99 319721.327 5246423.511 512.869 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 43 -101.3869499 47.3464139 492.33 319711.203 5246423.749 512.208 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 44 -101.3872139 47.3464122 492.6 319691.257 5246424.177 512.478 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 45 -101.3872678 47.3464611 493.22 319687.354 5246429.734 513.094 Other Point boundary fence 32me408 46 -101.3872685 47.3458886 492.75 319685.347 5246366.11 512.629 Other Point 2nd power pole 32me408 47 -101.3869918 47.3457223 492.79 319705.68 5246346.999 512.667 Excavation Unit geophysical 32me408 48 -101.386991 47.3457428 492.88 319705.807 5246349.272 512.761 Excavation Unit geophysical 32me408 49 -101.386675 47.3450813 494.48 319727.426 5246275.028 514.354 Excavation Unit geophysical 32me408

50 -101.3866507 47.3450801 494.7 319729.255 5246274.837 514.581 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

51 -101.3866777 47.3450648 494.71 319727.164 5246273.203 514.586 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

52 -101.386649 47.3450675 494.73 319729.338 5246273.433 514.613 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

53 -101.3864772 47.3447219 494.55 319741.141 5246234.629 514.431 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

54 -101.3864525 47.3447235 494.53 319743.009 5246234.753 514.408 Excavation 

Unit

geophsical 32me408

55 -101.3864508 47.3447072 494.43 319743.079 5246232.934 514.31 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

56 -101.386475 47.3447076 494.56 319741.26 5246233.042 514.441 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

Table 1. Continued.
51

TABLES

Item No.

Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT 

TYPE

Description Site No.S

57 -101.3864864 47.3444255 494.13 319739.434 5246201.714 514.007 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

58 -101.3864869 47.3444106 494.28 319739.342 5246200.064 514.161 Excavation 

Unit

geophsical 32me408

59 -101.3865093 47.3444083 494.46 319737.647 5246199.857 514.343 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

60 -101.3865102 47.3444249 494.38 319737.635 5246201.709 514.258 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

61 -101.3863554 47.343982 493.93 319747.817 5246152.132 513.811 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

62 -101.3863237 47.3439839 493.92 319750.219 5246152.268 513.799 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

63 -101.3863216 47.3439698 493.89 319750.33 5246150.697 513.767 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

64 -101.3863527 47.3439665 494.12 319747.97 5246150.4 514 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

65 -101.3872514 47.3439465 494.79 319680.023 5246150.254 514.667 Other Point boundary 

fence/gate

32me408

66 -101.387195 47.3437134 494.42 319683.489 5246124.23 514.304 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

67 -101.3869292 47.343717 493.53 319703.579 5246124.005 513.413 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

68 -101.3866639 47.3437139 492.25 319723.607 5246123.05 512.132 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

69 -101.3864033 47.3437119 494.01 319743.277 5246122.223 513.896 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

70 -101.3861323 47.3437225 493.55 319763.784 5246122.771 513.43 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

Table 1. Continued.
52

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES Item No. Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT TYPE Description Site No.S 71 -101.3861261 47.3435438 493.83 319763.642 5246102.9 513.713 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 72 -101.3863912 47.3435421 494.67 319743.619 5246103.327 514.548 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 73 -101.3866587 47.34354 494.59 319723.404 5246103.713 514.467 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 74 -101.3869222 47.3435392 494.42 319703.498 5246104.232 514.299 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 75 -101.3871837 47.3435391 494.32 319683.746 5246104.828 514.201 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 76 -101.3871869 47.3433528 493.47 319682.869 5246084.139 513.35 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 77 -101.3869243 47.3433571 494.17 319702.719 5246084.005 514.05 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408

78 -101.3866634 47.3433566 494.14 319722.421 5246083.35 514.026 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

79 -101.3863956 47.343356 494.04 319742.65 5246082.658 513.92 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

80 -101.3861331 47.3433561 494.31 319762.476 5246082.058 514.195 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

81 -101.3858696 47.34336 494.26 319782.393 5246081.88 514.142 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

82 -101.3858539 47.3431869 494.03 319782.99 5246062.614 513.912 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

83 -101.3861295 47.3431805 494.3 319762.153 5246062.543 514.187 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

84 -101.3863969 47.3431769 494.72 319741.943 5246062.762 514.6 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

Table 1. Continued.
53

TABLES

Item No.

Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT 

TYPE

Description Site No.S

85 -101.3866584 47.3431774 495.04 319722.192 5246063.418 514.92 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

86 -101.3869259 47.3431762 494.74 319701.982 5246063.902 514.616 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

87 -101.3871849 47.343177 494.37 319682.42 5246064.589 514.251 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

88 -101.3869191 47.3429981 494.04 319701.889 5246044.093 513.921 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

89 -101.3866614 47.3429956 495.69 319721.348 5246043.228 515.567 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

90 -101.386388 47.3430028 493.23 319742.025 5246043.396 513.113 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

91 -101.3861218 47.3430029 493.63 319762.126 5246042.788 513.508 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

92 -101.3858656 47.342998 493.1 319781.461 5246041.648 512.981 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

93 -101.3855972 47.3430036 494.04 319801.757 5246041.647 513.92 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

94 -101.3855978 47.3428209 494.67 319801.087 5246021.343 514.551 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

95 -101.3858628 47.3428195 494.32 319781.066 5246021.804 514.203 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

96 -101.3861283 47.3428183 494.41 319761.012 5246022.29 514.296 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

97 -101.3863916 47.3428203 494.43 319741.131 5246023.122 514.315 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

98 -101.3869222 47.3428169 495.37 319701.038 5246023.965 515.248 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me408

 Table 1. Continued.
54

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES Item No. Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT TYPE Description Site No.S 99 -101.3872425 47.3427479 499.44 319676.61 5246017.045 519.321 Other Point boundary fence post 32me408 100 -101.3872434 47.3432979 493.86 319678.413 5246078.162 513.743 Other Point boundary fence post 32me408 101 -101.3872432 47.3439089 493.26 319680.513 5246146.065 513.136 Other Point boundary fence/gate 32me408 102 -101.3871842 47.343902 492.67 319684.945 5246145.154 512.545 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 103 -101.3869378 47.3438914 495.25 319703.524 5246143.409 515.13 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 104 -101.386659 47.3438925 493.23 319724.584 5246142.892 513.107 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me408 105 -101.3872622 47.3456092 493.1 319684.871 5246335.057 512.981 Photograph Location stake 32me408

106 -101.3872627 47.3457186 493.12 319685.21 5246347.213 512.992 Photograph 

Location

stake 32me408

107 -101.3872632 47.3458149 493.25 319685.496 5246357.91 513.124 Photograph 

Location

stake 32me408

108 -101.3872519 47.3423766 503.45 319674.633 5245975.801 523.334 Other Point wood post 32me408109 -101.3865345 47.3441012 495.12 319734.698 5246165.787 515.005 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

110 -101.3865337 47.3440818 495.27 319734.69 5246163.628 515.146 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

111 -101.3865107 47.3440839 495.1 319736.436 5246163.818 514.979 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

112 -101.386512 47.3441007 495.09 319736.395 5246165.68 514.971 Excavation 

Unit

geophysical 32me408

113 -101.3906424 47.3596135 496.23 319477.357 5247899.122 516.086 Geophys 

Feature Pt

ne ctr 32me366

Table 1. Continued.
55

TABLES

Item No.

Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT 

TYPE

Description Site No.S

114 -101.3908082 47.359473 496.48 319464.363 5247883.893 516.338 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

115 -101.3909734 47.3593329 496.41 319451.407 5247868.705 516.263 Geophys 

Feature Pt

se ctr 32me366

116 -101.3909671 47.3593104 495.63 319451.809 5247866.186 515.481 Other Point maintenance 

gate

32me366

117 -101.3909876 47.3593194 495.79 319450.29 5247867.233 515.643 Other Point boundary fence 32me366118 -101.3911798 47.3594469 495.4 319436.213 5247881.847 515.257 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

119 -101.3913866 47.3595592 495.22 319420.978 5247894.815 515.076 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

120 -101.3915935 47.3596716 495.02 319405.741 5247907.784 514.875 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

121 -101.3918009 47.3597834 495.16 319390.458 5247920.688 515.018 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

122 -101.3918647 47.3597848 494.88 319385.649 5247920.991 514.737 Other Point boundary fence 32me366123 -101.3920077 47.3598954 495.36 319375.228 5247933.612 515.217 Geophys 

Feature Pt

sw ctr 32me366

124 -101.3921692 47.3599446 495.32 319363.202 5247939.452 515.176 Other Point boundary 

fence-wood post

32me366

125 -101.3918417 47.3600354 495.41 319388.238 5247948.784 515.264 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

126 -101.3917247 47.3601331 495.32 319397.409 5247959.371 515.176 Geophys 

Feature Pt

nw ctr 32me366

127 -101.3915083 47.3600301 495.31 319413.398 5247947.418 515.164 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

128 -101.3916314 47.3599262 495.38 319403.747 5247936.161 515.234 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

Table 1. Continued.
56

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES Item No. Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT TYPE Description Site No.S 129 -101.3914251 47.3598138 495.1 319418.944 5247923.198 514.958 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me366 130 -101.3912912 47.3599264 495.11 319429.437 5247935.392 514.967 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me366 131 -101.3910718 47.3598255 494.26 319445.661 5247923.671 514.112 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me366 132 -101.3911879 47.3597097 495.48 319436.498 5247911.069 515.335 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me366 133 -101.3910138 47.3595872 495.6 319449.223 5247897.054 515.457 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me366 134 -101.39086 47.3597183 495.51 319461.284 5247911.267 515.37 Geophys Feature Pt stake 32me366 135 -101.3908354 47.3595214 495.89 319462.474 5247889.334 515.744 Site Feature Point palisade 32me366

136 -101.3909897 47.3596222 495.84 319451.16 5247900.886 515.7 Site Feature 

Point

palisade 32me366

137 -101.3911923 47.359706 495.49 319436.148 5247910.672 515.35 Site Feature 

Point

palisade 32me366

138 -101.3916395 47.3597072 495.2 319402.388 5247911.839 515.054 Site Feature 

Point

palisade 32me366

139 -101.3914273 47.359747 495.2 319418.547 5247915.78 515.052 Site Feature 

Point

palisade 32me366

140 -101.3908899 47.3592654 495.66 319457.48 5247861.005 515.513 Other Point maintenance 

gate

32me366

141 -101.3906558 47.3591338 493.98 319474.708 5247845.839 513.837 Other Point boundary fence 32me366142 -101.3904038 47.3589958 493.43 319493.27 5247829.918 513.287 Other Point boundary fence 32me366143 -101.3864256 47.3472142 492.27 319753.522 5246511.47 512.149 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me2377

Table 1. Continued.
57

TABLES

Item No.

Longitude Latitude elevation Easting Northing elevation GPS POINT 

TYPE

Description Site No.S

144 -101.3864572 47.3470398 492.31 319750.541 5246492.168 512.191 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me2377

145 -101.3864852 47.3468618 492.24 319747.822 5246472.448 512.117 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me2377

146 -101.3862247 47.3468399 491.6 319767.422 5246469.41 511.476 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me2377

147 -101.3861987 47.3470165 491.98 319769.987 5246488.976 511.857 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me2377

148 -101.3861675 47.3471983 492.02 319772.965 5246509.111 511.894 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me2377

149 -101.3908445 47.359728 496.17 319462.488 5247912.313 516.025 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

150 -101.3910595 47.359834 495.64 319446.619 5247924.589 515.495 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

151 -101.3912602 47.3599541 495.31 319431.87 5247938.406 515.17 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

152 -101.3914705 47.3600633 495.46 319416.368 5247951.027 515.316 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

153 -101.3916777 47.3601748 495.04 319401.099 5247963.893 514.896 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

154 -101.3918473 47.3600318 495.01 319387.809 5247948.397 514.86 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

155 -101.3916362 47.359923 495.66 319403.372 5247935.812 515.518 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

156 -101.3914331 47.3598077 495.1 319418.319 5247922.528 514.958 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

157 -101.3912191 47.3596992 495.84 319434.101 5247909.976 515.7 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

158 -101.3910115 47.3595878 495.77 319449.403 5247897.121 515.622 Geophys 

Feature Pt

stake 32me366

Table 1. Completed.
58

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES GENERAL Acquisition Value Instrumentation Value Sitename 32ME2377 (originally 32me466) Survey Type Single Single Fluxgate Gradiometer Map Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle Instrument Geoscan Research FM-256 Dir. 1st Traverse Magnetic North Units nT Grid Length (x) 20 m Range AUTO Sample Interval (x) 0.125 m Log Zero Drift Off Grid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 19200 Traverse Interval (y) 0.5 m Number of Sensors (tubes) 1 Traverse Mode Zigzag Download Software Geoscan Research GEOPLOT FILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected Data Processing Software GEOPLOT Grid 1G-2G 

Mesh GMComposite GC GCZ, GCZI, GCZIL, GCZILR

Table 2. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the single fluxgate gradiometer surveys used in the grid input template at the KNRI geophysical project areas.
59

TABLES

GENERALAcquisition Value Instrumentation ValueSitename knrimag (2002 and 2006 magnetic 

surveys)

Survey Type Single Fluxgate Gradiometer

Map Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) 

Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle

Instrument Geoscan Research FM-36

Dir. 1st Traverse Grid N Units nTGrid Length (x) 20 m Range AUTOSample Interval (x) 0.125 m Log Zero Drift OffGrid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 2400Traverse Interval (y) 0.5 m Number of Sensors (tubes) 1Traverse Mode Zigzag Download Software Geoscan Research GEOPLOTFILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected DataProcessing Software GEOPLOTGrid lbg1-lbg4, lbg29,lbg31,500n500e to 740n520eMesh magComposite mag, magz, magzi, magzil, magzilr

Table 2. Completed.
60

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES GENERAL Acquisition Value Instrumentation Value Sitename 32me408 Survey Type Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer Map Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle Instrument Bartington Grad601-2 Dir. 1st Traverse Grid N Units nT Grid Length (x) 20 m Range AUTO Sample Interval (x) 0.125 m Log Zero Drift Off Grid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 19200 Traverse Interval (y) 1.0 m Number of Sensors (tubes) 2 Traverse Mode ZigZag Download Software Grad601 FILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected Data Processing Software ArcheoSurveyor 2

Grid dga01-dga04MeshComposite dgac dgacz, dgaci, dgacil

Table 3. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the dual fluxgate gradiometer surveys used in the grid input template at the KNRI geophysical project areas.
61

TABLES

GENERALAcquisition Value Instrumentation ValueSitename KNRI2010 (32me366) Survey Type Dual Fluxgate GradiometerMap Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) 

Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle

Instrument Bartington Grad601-2

Dir. 1st Traverse Grid N Units nTGrid Length (x) 20 m Range AUTOSample Interval (x) 0.125 m Log Zero Drift OffGrid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 19200/2400Traverse Interval (y) 0.5 m Number of Sensors (tubes) 1Traverse Mode Zigzag Download Software Grad601FILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected DataProcessing Software GEOPLOTGrid m01-m05, w01-w06MeshComposite m-tue, m-wed, m-total m-tue2, m-tue2, m-wed 

2, m-wed3, m-total270, m-totalz, m-totalzi, m-totalzil, m-totalr

Table 3. Continued.
62

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES GENERAL Acquisition Value Instrumentation Value Sitename KNRI2010 (32me366) Survey Type Dual Fluxgate Gradiometer Map Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle Instrument Bartington Grad601-2 Dir. 1st Traverse Grid N Units nT Grid Length (x) 20 m Range AUTO Sample Interval (x) 0.125 m Log Zero Drift Off Grid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 19200/2400 Traverse Interval (y) 0.5 m Number of Sensors (tubes) 1 Traverse Mode Zigzag Download Software Grad601 FILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected Data Processing Software GEOPLOT Grid m01-m05, w01-w06

MeshComposite m-tue, m-wed, m-total m-tue2, m-tue2, m-wed 

2, m-wed3, m-total270, m-totalz, m-totalzi, m-totalzil, m-totalr

Table 3. Completed.
63

TABLES

Table 4. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the resistance survey used in the grid input template at the KNRI geophysical project areas.

GENERALAcquisition Value Instrumentation ValueSitename 32me408 Survey Type ResistanceMap Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) 

Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle

Instrument RM15-D

Dir. 1st Traverse Grid N Units OhmGrid Length (x) 20 m Current Range AUTOSample Interval (x) 0.5 m Gain Range AUTOGrid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 9600Traverse Interval (y) 1.0 m Frequency 137 HzTraverse Mode Zigzag High Pass Filter 13 HzACCESSORIES

Accessories ValueArray Hardware PA5Interface AD1Log Mode SingleConfiguration TwinProbe Spacing 0.5

FILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected DataProcessing Software GEOPLOTGrid 1R-33R 9RA, 10RA, 11RW, 12RA, 13RW15RW, 16RA, 17RW-18RW, 19RA20RA, 21RT-22RT, 21RW-33RW,Mesh 10R8R, 10R8RM, RM, RMWComposite RC, RCA, RCW RCD, RCDE, RCDEI, RCDEIH, 

RCDEIHR, RCDER

RCAD, RCWAE, RCWAED, RCWAEDI, RCWAEDIH, RCWD, RCWPR
64

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES GENERAL Acquisition Value Instrumentation Value Sitename 32me2377 (originally 32me466) Survey Type Resistance Map Reference 1968 (photo revised 1981) Stanton, North Dakota 7.5 minute quadrangle Instrument RM15-D Dir. 1st Traverse Grid N Units Ohm Grid Length (x) 20 m Current Range AUTO Sample Interval (x) 0.5 m Gain Range AUTO Grid Width (y) 20 m Baud Rate 9600 Traverse Interval (y) 0.5 m Frequency 137 Hz Traverse Mode Zigzag High Pass Filter 13 Hz ACCESSORIES Accessories Value Array Hardware PA5

Interface AD1Log Mode SingleConfiguration TwinProbe Spacing 0.5

FILE NOMENCLATURE Raw Data Processed Data Corrected DataProcessing Software GEOPLOTGrid 1R-2RMesh RMComposite RC RCD, RCDI, RCDIH, RCDHIR

Table 4. Completed.
65

TABLES

GENERALAcquisition Value Instrumentation ValueFile Nam TAYLORA, Survey Type GPRNumber of Profile Lines 41 in TAYLORA, 69 in TAYLORB, 

110 total profile lines

Instrument GSSI TerraSIRch SIR 3000

Dir. 1st Traverse Grid E Samples/scan 512Grid Length (x) 100 m Bits/sample 16Scans/meter 50 Scans/second 50Grid Width (y) 40 m Meters/mark 1Traverse Interval (y) 0.5 m Diel Constant 8Traverse Mode Zigzag Antenna 400 mHzACCESSORIES

Channel(s) 1Range Gain (dB) -20.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 45.0Position Correction 0 nsVertical IIR LP N = 1F 800 mHzVertical IIR HP N = 1F 100 mHzPosition (ns) 0Range (ns) 80

Table 5. Acquisition and instrumentation information for the ground penetrating radar survey at the Taylor Bluff Site at KNRI.
66

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 
67

FIGURES

Figure 1. Location of the geophysical project areas at Knife River Indian Villages National Historic 

Site, Mercer County, North Dakota.
68

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 2. Location of the geophysical project area at the Taylor Bluff site.
69

FIGURES

Figure 3. Location of the geophysical project area at the Elbee site.
70

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 4. Location of the geophysical project area at Site 32ME2377.
71

FIGURES

Figure 5. General view of the Elbee site from the south end of the 2010 geophysical project 

area (view to the north).

Figure 6. General view of Site 32ME2377 from the northeast corner of the 2010 

geophysical project area (view to the southwest).
72

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 7. General view of the Taylor Bluff site from the southeast corner of the 2010 

geophysical project area (view to the northwest).

Figure 8. Using the surveying compass to set out the geophysical grid at the Taylor Bluff 

site (view to the northeast). 
73

FIGURES

Figure 9. Laying out the geophysical survey ropes on the Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area 

(view to the west).
74

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 10. Sketch map of the Elbee site 

geophysical project area.
75

FIGURES

Figure 11. Sketch map of the Site 32ME2377 geophysical 

project area.

Figure 12. Sketch map of the Taylor Bluff geophysical project area.
76

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 13. Mapping the grid corner stakes with the GPS unit at the Elbee site geophysical project 

area (view to the northwest).
77

FIGURES

Figure 14. UTM grid of the geophysical project areas at Knife River Indian 

Villages National Historic Site.
78

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 15. Participants practicing with the single fluxgate gradiometer at the Taylor 

Bluff site during the archeological prospection workshop (view to the east).

Figure 16. Conducting the magnetic survey with the dual fluxgate gradiometer at 

the Elbee site (view to the north).
79

FIGURES

Figure 17. Conducting the resistance survey with the resistance meter and twin-probe 

array at Site 32ME2377 (view to the south).

Figure 18. Conducting the ground penetrating radar survey with a GPR cart and 400 

mHz antenna at the Taylor Bluff site (view to the northeast).
80

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 19. Image and contour plots of the single fluxgate gradiometer magnetic data from 

the 2002/2006 geophysical investigations of the Elbee site within the 2010 geophysical 

project area.
81

FIGURES

Figure 20. Image and contour plots of the single fluxgate gradiometer magnetic data from the Site 

32ME2377 geophysical project area.
82

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 21. Image and contour plots of the dual fluxgate gradiometer magnetic data from the 

northern portion of the Elbee site geophysical project area.
83

FIGURES

Figure 22. Image and contour plots of the dual fluxgate gradiometer magnetic data from the Taylor 

Bluff geophysical project area.
84

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 23. Image and contour plots of the resistance data from the Elbee site geophysical 

project area.
85

FIGURES

Figure 24. Image and contour plots of the resistance data from the Site 32ME2377 geophysical 

project area.
86

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 25. Time-slice data from the GPR survey of the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area.
87

FIGURES

Figure 26. Image and contour plot of the ground penetrating radar time slice 3 (8-13 ns) data from 

the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area. 
88

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 27. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the 2002/2006 single fluxgate 

gradiometer survey for the 2010 Elbee site geophysical project area.
89

FIGURES

Figure 28. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the dual fluxgate gradiometer survey at the 

northern end of the Elbee site geophysical project area.
90

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 29. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the single fluxgate gradiometer survey at Site 

32ME2377 geophysical project area.
91

FIGURES Figure 30. Interpretation of the magnetic data from the dual fluxgate gradiometer survey at the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area.
92

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 31. Interpretation of the resistance data from the Elbee site geophysical project area.
93

FIGURES

Figure 32. Interpretation of the resistance data from the Site 32ME2377 geophysical project area.
94

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 33. Interpretation of the ground-penetrating radar time-slice 3 data from the Taylor Bluff geophysical project area.
95

FIGURES

Figure 34. Combined magnetic and resistance anomalies from the Elbee site 

geophysical project area. 
96

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES 

Figure 35. Combined magnetic and resistance anomalies from the Site 32ME2377 geophysical project 

area. 
97

FIGURES Figure 36. Combined magnetic and ground-penetrating radar anomalies from the Taylor Bluff site geophysical project area. 
98

GEOPHYSICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF THREE SITES