Article
Article name	Magnetometric Methods in Archaeology (on the Example of Excavations in Uruk, Iraq): Systematic Literature Review
Authors	Saffah Alhusseini Ameer Hameed .. Postgraduate Student, safah436@gmail.com
Bibliographic description	Saffah Alhusseini Ameer Hameed. Magnetometric Methods in Archaeology (on the Example of Excavations in Uruk, Iraq): Systematic Literature Review // Humanitarian Vector. 2021. Vol. 16, No. 6. PP. 49–61. DOI: 10.21209/1996-7853-2021-16-6-49-61.
Section	Archeology: the origins of culture
UDK	902.2:550.838
DOI	10.21209/1996-7853-2021-16-6-49-61
Article type
Annotation	The article examines various theoretical points of view and concepts that exist in the modern literature on the problem of conceptualization of magnetometry in the aspect of archaeological research. The aim of the article is to characterize magnetometric methods by studying the literature which describes the convergence of magnetometry and archaeological excavation issues, as well as to identify areas for future research developments. In conducting this study, such general scientific methods as a systematic approach, analysis, synthesis, and generalization were used. 72 scientific articles obtained from the results of a bibliographic search in the Scopus and RSCI databases were analyzed. A systematic review of the available scientific literature revealed a limited but rapidly growing coverage of this phenomenon by scientific research, which mainly focused on several aspects: characteristics of magnetometric methods, potential and problems of their use in archaeology; archaeological exploration-magnetic susceptibility studies, magnetometric studies; archaeomagnetic dating. Magnetometric methods are widely used in archaeological research of the city of Uruk and its surroundings. An analysis of the literature has provided insight into the important contribution of the information stored in the magnetic record to the modern archaeology of Uruk. The magnetometer study will continue and provide a comprehensive picture of the Uruk structure over time. Further research efforts to expand the scope of research on the possibilities of using magnetometry in archaeology can be aimed at overcoming a number of problems. The prospects for expanding the use of magnetometry in archaeology are associated with overcoming a number of methodological and technological limitations. Combining the magnetometry data and the results of statistical studies, such as Bayesian statistics, reduces the number of errors of each method and leads to an increase in the accuracy of the results.
Key words	geophysical research, magnetometric measurement research, archaeological excavations, planning of ancient cities, Uruk
Article information
References	1. Pozdnyakova, O. A. Assessment of the prospects for the application of magnetic survey for the study of archaeological monuments. Bulletin of Novosibirsk State University, no. 5, pp. 44–57, 2020. (In Rus.) 2. Fassbinder, J. W. E. Magnetometry in Archeology ‒ from theory to practice. Russian Archeology, no. 3, pp. 75–91, 2019. (In Rus.) 3. Muravyov, L. A., Noskevich, V. V., Fedorova, N. V. Results of magnetometric studies of archaeological sites of the Bronze Age in the Southern Urals, no. 1, pp. 44–49, 2009. (In Rus.) 4. Noskevich, V. V., Fedorova, N. V., Muravyov, L. A. Mapping of archaeological sites using magnetometry, no. 2, pp. 47–52, 2010. (In Rus.) 5. Bondar, K. M., Daragan, M. M., Prilukov, V., Polin S. V., Tsyupa, I. V., Didenko, S. V. Magnetometry of the Scythian burial mound Ekaterinovka in the Lower Dnieper region. Geophysics journal. no. 3, pp. 134–152, 2019. (In Rus.) 6. Edemsky, D. E., Popov, A. V., Prokopovich, I. V., Sadykov, T. R., Blokhin, E. K., Kaspari, D. Application of geophysical methods in the survey of the periphery of the Tunnug-1 mound. International Journal of Applied and Fundamental Research, no. 11, pp. 40–48, 2019. (In Rus.) 7. Asăndulesei, А. Geophysical prospecting techniques used in archaeology. Magnetometry. Studia antique et archaeologica, no. 1, pp. 5–17, 2011. (In Engl.) 8. Clark, A. J., Tarling, D. H., Noel, М. Developments in archaeomagnetic dating in Britain. Journal of Archaeological Science, no. 15, pp. 645–667, 1988. (In Engl.) 9. Fassbinder, J. W. E., Becker, H., von Ess, M. Prospections magnétiques à Uruk (Warka). La cité‚ du roi Gilgamesh (Irak). Dossiers Archéologie, vol. 308, pp. 20–25, 2005. (In French) 10. Linford, N. T. Magnetic Ghosts: Mineral Magnetic Measurements on Roman and Anglo-Saxon Graves. Archaeological Prospection, vol. 11, pp. 167–180, 2004. (In Engl.) 11. Crowther, J., Barker, P. Magnetic susceptibility: distinguishing anthropogenic effects from the natural. Archaeological Prospection, vol. 2, pp. 207–216, 1995. (In Engl.) 12. Becker, H., von Ess, M., Fassbinder, J. W. E. Uruk: Urbane Strukturen im Magnet- und Satellitenbild, in Uruk: 5000 Jahre Megacity. Petersberg: Imhof Verlag, 2013: 355–361. (In German) 13. Krivánek, R. Different Use of Magnetometric Field Methods in Czech Archaeology, Proceedings of the 39th International Symposium for Archaeometry. Leuven. 2012: 302–305. (In Engl.) 14. Fassbinder, J. W. E., Hahn, S., Scheiblecker, M., von Ess, М. Uruk (Iraq) Magnetometry in the first Megacity of Mesopotamia. In Fassbinder J. W. E et al. editors 2018 NSGG Archaeological Geophysics Uruk. Recent Work in Archaeological Geophysics. 2018. Web. 20. 05. 2021. https://lmu-munich.academia.edu/ Departments/Near_Eastern_Archaeology/Documents?page=2. (In Engl.) 15. Hodgetts, L., Dawson, P., Eastaugh, E. Archaeological magnetometry in an Arctic setting: a case study from Maguse Lake, Nunavut. Journal of Archaeological Science, pp. 1754–1762, 2011. (In Engl.) 16. Fassbinder, J. W. E., Gorka, T. H. Beneath the desert soil ‒ archaeological prospecting with a caesium magnetometer. In M. Reindel, G. A. Wagner, (eds) New technologies for archaeology. Multidisciplinary investigations in Palpa and Nasca, Peru. Berlin: Springer, 2009: 49–69. (In Engl.) 17. Neubauer, W., Eder-Hinterleitner, A. 3D-Interpretation of Postprocessed Archaeological Magnetic Prospection Data. Archaeological Prospection, no. 4, pp. 191–205, 1997. (In Engl.) 18. Kattenberg, A. E., Aalbersberg, G. Archaeological prospection of the Dutch perimarine landscape by means of magnetic methods. Archaeological Prospection, no. 11, pp. 227–235, 2004. (In Engl.) 19. Kvamme, K. L. Magnetometry: Nature’s gift to archaeology. In J. K. Johnson, editor Remote Sensing in Archaeology: An Explicitly North American Perspective. 2006: 321–332. (In Engl.) 20. Bezdudny, V. G. Magnetometric studies on the Khumarinsky settlement. Results of interdisciplinary research. Moscow, 2020: 90–111. (In Rus.) 21. Abed, A. N. A. “The expansion of Uruk” and the impact of new excavations on the assessment of the early urbanization of Mesopotamia. Klio, no. 4, pp. 146–148, 2015. (In Engl.) 22. Finkbeiner, U. Uruk. Kampagne 35–37, 1982–1984. Die archäologische Ober- flächenuntersuchung (Survey), Ausgra- bungen in Uruk-Warka. Endberichte. Mainz, 1991:333. (In German) 23. Boehmer, R. M. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-WarkaUruk. Kampagne 38, 1985. Endberichte. 1987. Butterlin Р. Architecture et société au Proche-Orient Ancien. Les bâtisseurs de mémoire en Mésopotamie. Paris, 2018: 242. (In French) 24. Van Ess, M., Fassbinder, J. W. E. Magnetic prospection of Uruk (Warka) Iraq. La Prospection Géophysique. Dossiers Archeologie, vol. 308, pp. 20–25, 2005. (In French)
Full article	Magnetometric Methods in Archaeology (on the Example of Excavations in Uruk, Iraq): Systematic Literature Review
	0
	22