Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly.

A
Gravimetry Puzzle 1st Edition Edition
Roman Pašteka
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-the-bouguer-anomaly-a-gravimetry-pu
zzle-1st-edition-edition-roman-pasteka/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

The Personality Puzzle (Seventh Edition ) Seventh

Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-personality-puzzle-seventh-
edition-seventh-edition/

The PA Rotation Exam Review First Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-pa-rotation-exam-review-first-
edition/

Atlas: the Story of Pa Salt Lucinda Riley

https://ebookmass.com/product/atlas-the-story-of-pa-salt-lucinda-
riley/

Junior Puzzle Book Alligator Books

https://ebookmass.com/product/junior-puzzle-book-alligator-books/
Junior Puzzle Book Alligator Books

https://ebookmass.com/product/junior-puzzle-book-alligator-
books-2/

Satellite Gravimetry and the Solid Earth: Mathematical

Foundations Mehdi Eshagh

https://ebookmass.com/product/satellite-gravimetry-and-the-solid-
earth-mathematical-foundations-mehdi-eshagh/

The Oxford Handbook of Roman Philosophy 1st Edition

Myrto Garani

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-roman-
philosophy-1st-edition-myrto-garani/

Atlas: The Story of Pa Salt Lucinda Riley & Harry

Whittaker

https://ebookmass.com/product/atlas-the-story-of-pa-salt-lucinda-
riley-harry-whittaker/

Women and Society in the Roman World: A Sourcebook of

Inscriptions from the Roman West Emily A. Hemelrijk

https://ebookmass.com/product/women-and-society-in-the-roman-
world-a-sourcebook-of-inscriptions-from-the-roman-west-emily-a-
hemelrijk/
Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly
Understanding the Bouguer
Anomaly
A Gravimetry Puzzle

Roman Pašteka
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Ján Mikuška
G-trend, s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovak Republic

Bruno Meurers
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Elsevier
Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands
The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom
50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States
Copyright r 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek
permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements
with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency,
can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.
This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the
Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).
Notices
Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and
experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or
medical treatment may become necessary.
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in
evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein.
In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety
of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors,
assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products
liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products,
instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
ISBN: 978-0-12-812913-5

For Information on all Elsevier publications

visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice G. Janco

Acquisition Editor: Marisa LaFleur
Editorial Project Manager: Marisa LaFleur
Production Project Manager: Stalin Viswanathan
Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Miroslav Bielik
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Hans-Jürgen Götze
Christian Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany
Roland Karcol
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic; Slovak Academy
of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Martin Krajňák
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
David Kušnirák
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Ivan Marušiak
G-trend, s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Bruno Meurers
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Ján Mikuška
G-trend, s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Jaroslava Pánisová
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Juraj Papčo
Slovak University of Technology, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Roman Pašteka
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Viktória Szalaiová
Geocomplex, a.s., Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Wolfgang Szwillus
Christian Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany
x List of Contributors

Peter Vajda
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
Pavol Zahorec
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Banská Bystrica, Slovak Republic
CHAPTER
Introduction
1
Roman Pašteka1, Ján Mikuška2 and Bruno Meurers3
1
Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovak Republic 2G-trend, s.r.o., Bratislava, Slovak Republic
3
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

Measurement of gravity acceleration (together with estimation of the

gravitational constant) was among the first physical experiments, and
until today it retains high importance—in areas of theoretical physics
to physical geodesy and applied geophysics. As it is typical in most
physical experiments, the final result is dependent on two fundamental
aspects—on the measurement itself and the results after generally
accepted processing of the acquired experimental data. From the view-
point of applied geophysics (which we define as the study of the sub-
surface structure of the Earth using physical measurements), the
processing of gravity data plays a very important role. The reason for
that is that gravity acceleration values themselves are strongly depen-
dent on various nongeological phenomena (latitude, height, influence
of topography), which mask the manifestation of subsurface density
inhomogeneities in the measured gravity field. Therefore the main out-
put from gravity data processing, in our efforts to make the data
suitable for geophysical interpretation, is always a “gravity anomaly.”
“The gravity anomaly is defined as the difference between the observed
and the theoretical or predicted vertical acceleration of gravity” (Hinze
et al., 2013, p. 143). We find a very similar definition (even more con-
crete) in LaFehr and Nabighian (2012, p. 90): “A gravity anomaly is
defined as the difference between measured gravity and theoretical
gravity based on a defined earth model.” Through this process of elim-
ination of unwanted, nongeological, gravity effects we are able to
interpret anomalous gravity with the aim to recognize and describe the
geological sources of this field. At this point it is good to emphasize
that the removal of these unwanted nongeological effects is accom-
plished using a mathematical description of the synthetic gravity field
for the defined Earth model.

Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812913-5.00011-7

© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

Several different definitions exist for describing various gravity

anomalies. The most important are the so-called free-air and Bouguer
gravity anomalies. Free-air anomalies are, in general, not suitable for
geological interpretations, owing to their strong correlation with
topography. Several authors use the term Faye anomaly as a synonym
for free-air gravity anomaly (e.g., Pick et al., 1973; Telford et al.,
1990), while many others distinguish among these two kinds of anoma-
lies (for details, see Table 1.1). The Bouguer anomaly (BA) is a very
important tool for geological interpretation. It was named after Pierre
Bouguer (1698
1758), a well-known French astronomer, geodesist,
and physicist, who was one of the pioneers in gravimetry. This publica-
tion is focused on several selected topics from the area of BA
evaluation. A general definition of BA can be written in the form of a
simple equation (e.g., LaFehr, 1991):
BA 5 gobs
ðg0 1 gf 1 gB Þ
where g0 is the latitude-dependent theoretical value of gravity at the
vertical reference datum, gf is the elevation-dependent free-air term,
and gB is the elevation- and topography-dependent Bouguer term (later
in the book we will discuss more precise equations, see Chapter 2: The
Physical Meaning of Bouguer Anomalies—General Aspects Revisited
and Chapter 7: National Gravimetric Database of the Slovak
Republic). It is important to mention here that during the removal of
the g0 term, the effect of centrifugal acceleration (due to the rotation
of the Earth) is removed from the processed gravity acceleration value
and the final BA value is consequently understood as a component of
gravitational acceleration.
When discussing the various aspects of the BA evaluation in the
past, readers can come across numerous discrepancies in its definition
expressed either in textbooks or monographs (sometimes even includ-
ing modern texts), which have been published within the last 25 years.
In almost all contributions to this topic it is clearly stated that
measured gravity has to be processed in the way that unwanted non-
geological influences on gravity acceleration must be removed, but the
way it is done and mainly understood is, in general, not unified.
Discrepancies are mainly in the area of:

1. the understanding of the position of BA evaluation (the problem of

a possible relocation of processed gravity values to some different
reference height datum),
 Introduction 3

Table 1.1 Summary of Basic Terms and Aspects of Bouguer Anomaly Definition in
Various Textbooks and Monographs
References Used Terms Form of BA Title of BA Comments
in BA Evaluation
Evaluation

Nettleton Corrections Equation in a Bouguer (1) Bouguer gravity is the

(1940, pp. (but gravity symbolic form anomaly theoretical gravity (normal
16
22, is reduced) (equation in p. 133) field with following
51
62, corrections) and (2) terrain
133
134) effect term T is finally added
in BA evaluation
Grant and Corrections Do not give a final Bouguer (1) Bouguer gravity is the title
West (1965, (but gravity equation in a gravity or for the final anomalous field
pp. is reduced) symbolic form, only Bouguer and (2) authors mention “free-
235
243) partial steps are given gravity air anomaly” or “free-air
anomaly disturbance”
Torge (1989, Reductions Equation in a Bouguer Topographic reduction term
p. 100) symbolic form anomaly δgTop is subtracted from free-
(Eq. 4.36) ΔgB air anomalies
Telford et al. Corrections Equation in a Bouguer They explicitly define the
(1990, pp. (but gravity symbolic form anomaly gB Bouguer anomaly value for the
11
15) is reduced) (Eq. 2.28) station
Blakely Corrections Equation in a Bouguer Distinguishes between simple
(1996, pp. symbolic form anomaly and complete BA
136
150) (Eq. 7.17) ΔgSB and
ΔgcB
Jacoby and Reductions Equation in a Bouguer (1) Distinguish between free-
Smilde (authors symbolic form anomaly BA air and Faye anomaly
(2009, pp. avoid the (equations in p. 165) or δBA (2) distinguish between simple
151
166) term and complete BA
correction)
LaFehr and Corrections Equation in a Bouguer Distinguish between simple
Nabighian (but gravity symbolic form anomaly gb and complete BA
(2012, pp. is reduced) (equation in p. 91)
81
100)
Hinze et al. Corrections Equation in a Bouguer Distinguish between simple
(2013, pp. symbolic form anomaly and complete BA
122
155) (Eqs. 6.37 and 6.38) gSBA and
gCBA
Long and Corrections Equation in a Bouguer (1) Distinguish between simple
Kaufmann (but gravity symbolic form anomaly and complete BA
(2013, pp. is reduced) (Eq. 2.40) ΔgB (2) distinguish between
17
39) free-air and Faye anomaly
Fairhead Corrections Equation in a Bouguer Distinguishes between simple
(2016) symbolic form (in anomaly and complete BA
various
modifications)
(Chapter 2.1.3)
4 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

2. technical aspects (e.g., different height systems—use of ellipsoidal vs

orthometric heights) and selection of all evaluated corrections (e.g.,
atmospheric correction),
3. improper, or at least, inconsistent use of terminology and notation
in BA evaluation (corrections vs reductions, anomaly vs distur-
bance, mathematical expression of BA equation).

Thanks to important discussions among US experts in the begin-

ning of this millennium (Hinze et al., 2005; Li et al., 2006; Keller
et al., 2006; together with other important papers—e.g., LaFehr, 1991;
Chapin, 1996; Talwani, 1998; LaFehr, 1998; Li and Götze, 2001),
which have been connected with the setting of new BA calculation
standards in North America, many aspects have been made clearer
and defined in a more correct way—from the scope of applied geo-
physics. Textbooks and monographs, published during the last several
years (e.g., Jacoby and Smilde, 2009; LaFehr and Nabighian, 2012;
Hinze et al., 2013; Long and Kaufmann, 2013; Fairhead, 2016) were
written from these aspects in a much better way and BA evaluation is
defined correctly from the viewpoint of applied gravimetry. In Hinze
et al. (2013, pp. 145
151) readers can find several modifications of
BA evaluation for different acquisition situations (a good overview for
a planar approximation is also given in the NGA Report, 2008, p. 4).

One of the most important aspects of BA evaluation is the fact that

the goal of the applied processing steps (reductions/corrections) is not
to “reduce” measured gravity values (as explained in several older text-
books, e.g., Grant and West, 1965; Telford et al., 1990), but rather,
they are used during “tuning” or improvement of the theoretical
gravity field. The goal of this tuning is to obtain precise theoretical
values of gravity acceleration of a reference Earth model, which are
then removed from the measured (observed) values, producing an
anomaly field. In the classical work of Hayford and Bowie (1912) we
can find on pages 72 and 73 the following statement: “Usually correc-
tions are applied to the observed values of the intensity of gravity to
reduce them to sea level and to correct for the supposed influence of
topography. In this publication the corrections are applied to the theo-
retical value of the intensity of gravity at the sea level to obtain the
theoretical value at the station, a value which is directly comparable
with the observed value. This seems to the authors to be more logical
method and more conductive to clear thinking than the usual method.”
 Introduction 5

This concept was also very well understood by Nettleton (1940)—who

entitled the evaluated and subtracted theoretical fields as Bouguer grav-
ity and the final received anomalous field as Bouguer anomaly (see also
Table 1.1). Unfortunately, many authors later on have understood
these two quantities as synonyms. Fortunately, in the actual textbooks
mentioned about, this aspect is presented in the correct way from the
viewpoint of applied gravimetry.

The next most important aspect of BA evaluation is the fact that in

applied gravimetry we do not move or relocate the processed gravity
value to some reference datum (we can find this incorrect explanation
in several older textbooks and papers, e.g., Jung, 1961, pp. 82, 83;
Dobrin, 1976, p. 417), but, instead, the positions of the BA values
“reside” at the acquisition points. This is well explained in Jacoby and
Smilde (2009, p. 155): “Note that reductions do not physically move
the observations to another level
as incorrectly expressed frequently.
Reductions compare the observation with normal values by estimating
the latter at observation locations . . . Anomalies are determined at
the observation points, not at the reference level.” Another clear
statement to this point can be found in LaFehr and Nabighian (2012,
pp. 86, 87): “Let us be clear that by making this reduction, we are
not reducing the data to a datum, i.e., obtaining at a fictitious station
on the datum what we would have measured if we had been able to do
so.” Here it is important to mention the short note from Ervin (1977),
where he point to the absurdity of such kind of fictive relocation of
processed values. On the other hand, we can still find in actual geo-
physical monographs (e.g., Mallick et al., 2012), this typical old-
fashioned interpretation coming from physical geodesy (where experts
need to know the gravity acceleration at the geoid datum), but in the
majority of up-to-date geophysical textbooks this aspect is explained
correctly.

The terminology used in BA evaluation belongs also to the pro-

blems discussed, especially the meaning of the terms reduction and cor-
rection. These two terms express the same steps in the processing of
gravity data, but sometimes they can be understood in different ways.
For example, Nettleton (1940) used these terms as synonyms, while
some other authors write about reduction of gravity values—but the
partial steps are titled as corrections (for an overview, see Table 1.1,
second column). The majority of authors of this monograph chapters
6 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

prefer the use of the term correction, because the term reduction can
indicate the sense that something could be moved in the downward
direction (reduced), which could contribute to misunderstanding the
physical location of BA values (as discussed earlier). It would be very
helpful to have a unification of such important terms in gravimetry,
but also here the most important principle is to understand the real
content of the used terms.

The final comment to the terminology in this introduction is

focused on the problem of “anomaly” versus “disturbance.” In physi-
cal geodesy experts are distinguishing between these two terms—an
anomaly is a difference between quantities known at different points,
whereas a disturbance is valid for this kind of calculation at the same
point. So, from this viewpoint, BA, as we understand it in applied gra-
vimetry, should be called a “disturbance” (see more details in
Chapter 2: The Physical Meaning of Bouguer Anomalies—General
Aspects Revisited), when the vertical datum for the used heights is the
ellipsoid. But we agree (i.e., the majority of editors of this book) with
the statement by Hinze et al. (2005, p. J31) that “The geophysical com-
munity is largely unaware of the term disturbance as used by geode-
sists, which will add further confusion if the term is used.” So, we
suggest to continue using the term “anomaly” in the case of BA
definition.

The motivation for preparing this book was the excellent experience
which editors and authors of individual chapters have made during the
2-day workshop with the title “Bouguer anomaly - what kind of puzzle
it is?,” which was held in September 2014 in Bratislava. It was orga-
nized in the frame of a scientific project “Bouguer anomalies of new
generation and the gravimetrical model of Western Carpathians.” This
project was supported by the Slovak Research and Development
Agency and conducted by the Department of Applied Geophysics,
Comenius University in Bratislava, together with the Geophysical
Institute of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and the companies
G-trend s.r.o. and Geocomplex Inc. (more information about the proj-
ect outputs can be found in Chapter 7: National Gravimetric Database
of the Slovak Republic). The workshop was attended by several
well-known experts from the gravimetrical branch (in alphabetic
order: Benedek, J., Bielik, M., Braitenberg, C., Čunderlík, R.,
Dérerová, J., Ebbing, J., Gabriel, G., Hronček, S., Karcol, R., Li, X.,
 Introduction 7

Meurers, B., Mikuška, J., Mrlina, J., Pánisová, J., Papp, G., Pašteka,
R., Pohánka, V., Ruess, D., Scücs, E., Smilde, P., Szwillus, W.,
Švancara, J., Vajda, P., and Zahorec, P.). During the workshop we
had excellent, thorough discussions on the topic of BA evaluation pro-
blems. This workshop can be understood also as a “continuator” of
local gravimetrical conferences AGK (“Alpen-Gravimetrie-
Kolloqium”), which had been organized mostly by colleagues from
Austria, periodically from the mid-1980s until 2006, and have been
hosted by several central European institutions and universities. After
the end of the last mentioned Bratislava workshop in 2014, several pre-
senters carried out an intensive discussion regarding the possibility of
publishing several of the presented topics in the form of a widely acces-
sible publication. This book is the result of this discussion.
It is organized logically in eight chapters, including Introduction
and Conclusion, where the topics are ordered from aspects of BA defi-
nition, through history of BA evaluation, normal field (an alternative)
evaluation and calculating terrain corrections, finishing with an exam-
ple of the national gravity database organization and recalculation.

In the second chapter titled “The Physical Meaning of Bouguer

Anomalies—General Aspects Revisited” Bruno Meurers picks up the
approach of composing synthetically all gravitational effects contribut-
ing to the gravity observed at the Earth’s surface. This concept enables
us to precisely specify the physical meaning of Bouguer anomalies
obtained under certain assumptions (e.g., reference surface). The chap-
ter also tries to assess the errors, which inherently occur due to specific
assumptions made in calculating the BA in practice. This is focused on
the problem of the scalar representation, the geophysical indirect
effect, the truncation of the mass correction area, and the normal grav-
ity calculation in areas with negative ellipsoidal heights.

The third chapter titled “Some Remarks on the Early History of

the Bouguer Anomaly” from Mikuška et al. investigates in detail the
historical aspects of several important parts of the BA evaluation. For
instance, one can find that the term “Bouguer reduction” is most likely
accreditable to Helmert. This term was used in the context of the pop-
ular geodetic concept of reducing gravity from the Earth surface to sea
level, although Bouguer himself had never reduced gravity values or
pendulum lengths in such a manner. Authors confirm that the founda-
tions of the so-called “Bouguer anomaly” and the procedures applied
8 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

to the measured gravity, which are required by the gravity method of

applied geophysics, can be tracked back to originate from the famous
book of Pierre Bouguer published in 1749. Among others, various
authors call attention especially to one specific historical artefact,
namely the misunderstanding associated with the gravity data reduc-
tions to sea level in applied geophysics which, although geophysically
unacceptable, has withstood the ravages of time and can be found in
the literature even in the 21st century.
In the fourth chapter titled “Normal Earth Gravity Field Versus
Gravity Effect of Layered Ellipsoidal Model” Karcol et al. discuss the
question of whether the present-day normal gravity field calculation is
suitable from the aspect of applied gravimetry. Today the normal field
or theoretical gravity is on a regular basis strictly related to a model of
rotational biaxial ellipsoid with one important property—namely, the
constant potential on its surface. This condition, however, would
require a specific density distribution within the model. Treating the
Earth atmosphere and topography is another issue. These masses are
simply moved into the interior of such ellipsoid and “dissolved” there.
In short, this approach does not fit the geophysical reality very well.
Instead, in this chapter, the authors attempt to calculate the normal
field as the gravity effect of a layered rotational ellipsoid, namely the
gravitational effect of a suitable set of homeoid shells bounded by two
similar ellipsoids having a constant ratio of axes, plus the centrifugal
component. The authors believe that this approach will fit the structure
and density distribution within the Earth much better than existing
models. They analyze and present the primary differences between the
two approaches, and also discuss the relation of the normal field to the
free-air correction.
In the frame of the fifth chapter titled “Numerical Calculation of
Terrain Correction Within the Bouguer Anomaly Evaluation” Zahorec
et al. describe properties of numerical evaluation of the terrain correc-
tions by means of a recently developed code Toposk (developed in
order to recalculate the terrain corrections of the unified gravity data-
base of the Slovak Republic). The program is designed primarily for
calculating the gravitational effect of topographic masses. Terrain cor-
rections are then derived from these effects. Its application is not
restricted to the territory of Slovakia, but can be used worldwide.
It allows using interpolated heights for the calculation points in order
 Introduction 9

to reduce the errors resulting from the elevation model inaccuracy.

The choice of arbitrary subzone divisions, as well as multiple options
for coordinate systems, is allowed. By default the program uses the fol-
lowing zone divisions: inner zone T1 (to a distance of 250 m from the
calculation point), intermediate zone T2 (250
5240 m), and outer
zones T31 (5240
28,800 m) and T32 (28,800
166,730 m). The com-
puting algorithm was tested on several synthetic models, giving satis-
factory results when compared with analytically evaluated values.
In the sixth chapter titled “Efficient Mass Correction Using an
Adaptive Method” Szwillus and Götze focus their attention on an
effective way of numerical evaluation of topographic effects. These cal-
culations are always very time-consuming. To increase the computa-
tional efficiency, the authors present an adaptive approach that
enables users to perform large-scale or even globally complete correc-
tion. The central idea is to use only that part of the topography infor-
mation that is actually relevant for the gravitational effects. Numerical
analysis of the synthetic model shows that this adaptive approach is
expected to perform well as long as its parameters are chosen accord-
ing to the geostatistical properties of topography in the studied area.
Real-world tests of a high-resolution topography dataset from the
Himalayan Plateau demonstrate the reliability and efficiency of the
adaptive approach.

In the seventh chapter “National Gravimetric Database of the

Slovak Republic” Zahorec et al. present a case study of BA calculation
for a large database (from the entire country). The results of the
Slovak gravimetric database compilation, with actually more than
320,000 observation points, are presented (realized in the scope of the
mentioned project “Bouguer anomalies of new generation and the
gravimetrical model of Western Carpathians”). Gravity data were col-
lected for more than 50 years, which yields a very heterogeneous data-
set, with large variations in the station coverage and processing
methods. The regional gravimetric database (more than 212,000
points) was resumed in 2001. The compilation discussed herein (with
more than 107,000 detailed gravity measurements added to the original
database) was made during the period 2011
14. A rigorous quality
control process and complete recalculation of the Bouguer anomalies
is presented. The primary focus of this project was on a proper
recalculation of the terrain corrections. A new software solution for
10 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

reconstruction of the gravity acceleration values from the BA map

(program CBA2G_SK) was developed for geodetic applications.

All chapters of this book have been peer-reviewed by several inde-

pendent experts. Among them we would like to thank to following
external reviewers:

John Bain, Bain Geophysical Services, Houston, TX, United States,

Allen Cogbill, Geophysical Software, Inc., Los Alamos, NM,
United States,
Serguei Goussev, Exploration Consultant, Vancouver, BC, Canada,
Pavel Novák, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic,
Jan Mrlina, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic.

At the end of this introductory part, we would like to express our

hope that this book will positively contribute to the scientific develop-
ment in the area of BA evaluation, with the aim to improve further
geological interpretation of gravimetrical datasets. We would like to
express our grateful thanks to our colleagues, who helped us with the
organization of the mentioned workshop, mainly to Barbora
Šimonová, Martin Krajňák, and Marián Bošanský. We are also thank-
ful to the companies who have supported our efforts from a technical
point of view, mainly to Proxima R&D and G-trend s.r.o. Special
thanks go to John Bain for his support and many suggestions, which
have helped to improve the scientific content of the published material
in this book. Finally, we would like to thank the support from the
publishing house—especially to Marisa LaFleur, Hillary Carr, Stalin
Viswanathan, and Rakesh Venkatesan.

REFERENCES
Blakely, R.J., 1996. Potential Theory in Gravity and Magnetic Applications. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 441 p.
Chapin, D.A., 1996. The theory of the Bouguer gravity anomaly: a tutorial. Leading Edge 15 (5),
361
363.
Dobrin, M.B., 1976. Introduction to Geophysical Prospecting. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY,
630 p.
Ervin, C.P., 1977. Theory of the Bouguer anomaly. Short note. Geophysics 42, 1468.
Fairhead, J.D., 2016. Advances in Gravity and Magnetic Processing and Interpretation. EAGE
Publications bv, DB Houten, 352 p.
Grant, F.S., West, G.F., 1965. Interpretation Theory in Applied Geophysics. McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY, 584 p.
 Introduction 11

Hayford, J.F., Bowie, W., 1912. The Effect of Topography and Isostatic Compensation upon the
Intensity of Gravity. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Special Publication No. 10, 132 p.
Hinze, W.J., Aiken, C., Brozena, J., Coakley, B., Dater, D., Flanagan, G., et al., 2005. New stan-
dards for reducing gravity data: the North American gravity database. Geophysics 70, J25
J32.
Hinze, W.J., Von Frese, R.R.B., Saad, A.H., 2013. Gravity and Magnetic Exploration.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 512 p.
Jacoby, W., Smilde, P.L., 2009. Gravity Interpretation: Fundamentals and Application of
Gravity Inversion and Geological Interpretation. Springer, Berlin, 395 p.
Jung, K., 1961. Schwerkraftverfahren in der angewandten Geophysik. Geest&Portig K.-G348 p.
(in German).
Keller, G.R., Hildebrand, T.G., Hinze, W.J., Li X., Ravat, D., Webring M., 2006. The quest for
the perfect gravity anomaly: Part 2—Mass effects and anomaly inversion. SEG expanded
abstract, New Orleans, SEG Annual Meeting, pp. 864
868.
LaFehr, T.R., 1991. Standardization in gravity reduction. Geophysics 56, 1170
1178.
LaFehr, T.R., 1998. On Talwani’s “Errors in the total Bouguer reduction”. Geophysics 63,
1131
1136.
LaFehr, T.R., Nabighian, M.N., 2012. Fundamentals of Gravity Exploration. SEG, Tulsa, 218 p.
Li, X., Götze, H.-J., 2001. Ellipsoid, geoid, gravity, geodesy and geophysics. Geophysics 66,
1660
1668.
Li X., Hinze W.J., Ravat D., 2006. The quest for the perfect gravity anomaly: Part 1—New cal-
culation standards. SEG expanded abstract, New Orleans, SEG Annual Meeting, pp. 859
863.
Long, L.T., Kaufmann, R.D., 2013. Acquisition and Analysis of Terrestrial Gravity Data.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 171 p.
Mallick, K., Vashanti, A., Sharma, K.K., 2012. Bouguer Gravity Regional and Residual
Separation: Application to Geology and Environment. Springer, New York, NY, 288 p.
Nettleton, L.L., 1940. Geophysical Prospecting for Oil. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 444 p.
NGA Report, 2008. Gravity station data format and anomaly computations. National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, Internal Report (manuscript), 7 p.
Pick, M., Pícha, J., Vyskočil, V., 1973. Theory of the Earth’s Gravity Field. Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 538 p.
Talwani, M., 1998. Errors in the total Bouguer reduction. Geophysics 63, 1125
1130.
Telford, W.M., Geldart, L.P., Sheriff, R.E., 1990. Applied Geophysics. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 744 p.
Torge, W., 1989. Gravimetry. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 465 p.
CHAPTER 2
The Physical Meaning of Bouguer
Anomalies—General Aspects Revisited
Bruno Meurers
University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Interpreting the physical meaning of the Bouguer anomaly is an old
problem associated with various assumptions and simplifications made
for calculating the height and mass correction terms. It is also related
to the purpose the anomaly is used for in different disciplines. For
example, for solving the Stokes boundary value problem of physical
geodesy we need to know the gravity anomaly at the geoid. In geo-
physics the goal is finding the gravitational response of subsurface
masses on a given reference surface. Ideally, this should be a horizontal
plane or a sphere because such reference surfaces simplify processing
steps like field continuation or other field transformations applied in
the interpretation. But 50 years ago Naudy and Neumann (1965) or
Tsuboi (1965) emphasized that the Bouguer anomaly does not repre-
sent the gravity effect of anomalous density on a horizontal reference
level. Tsuboi (1965) distinguished between station Bouguer anomaly
and true Bouguer anomaly, clarifying that the Bouguer gravity is
always related to points at the irregular observation surface and not to
any other simple reference surface. Nevertheless, even in classical text-
books this fact is not emphasized accordingly (LaFehr, 1991). Another
issue in this discussion is the height system used for calculating the nor-
mal gravity at a gravity station. Several authors showed that ellipsoidal
heights rather than orthometric or normal heights should be used
in order to keep a clear concept (e.g., Vogel, 1982; Meurers, 1992).
A comprehensive presentation of all problems related to the normal
gravity correction has been given by Li and Götze (2001). Hackney
and Featherstone (2003) or Vajda et al. (2006) discussed this topic
from the perspective of physical geodesy in terms of gravity anomaly
and gravity disturbance in order to eliminate the misunderstanding
Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812913-5.00001-4
© 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
14 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

between geodesists and geophysicists. Regarding the mass corrections

we have to deal with basic assumptions or limitations with respect to
density, geometrical approximation of sources, and truncation effects.
Hinze et al. (2005) provided a proposal for standard processing of
gravity data taking the discussed aspects into account.
The basic assumptions and simplifications in the practical calcula-
tion of the Bouguer gravity are closely related to its error budget. The
geophysicist has to know these errors for interpreting the anomalies
correctly. Using a synthetic concept (e.g., Vogel, 1982) is an appropri-
ate approach to discuss the physical meaning of the Bouguer anomaly
and to assess the errors introduced.
Physical geodesy determines the geoid based on observations of
gravity g at the Earth surface. The geoid is closely related to the dis-
turbing potential T leading to the fundamental equation of physical
geodesy (Eq. 2.1). It describes the general boundary value problem
where Δg is the scalar representation of the gravity anomaly vector
Δg in a classical sense with γ denoting the normal gravity vector of
the reference ellipsoid:
TðP0 Þ 5 W ðP0 Þ 2 UðP0 Þ disturbing potential
Δg 5 gðP0 Þ 2 γðPE Þ gravity anomaly



@T 1 @γ
Δg 5 2 1 TðP0 Þ (2.1)
@n P0 γðPE Þ @nE PE

Eq. (2.1) results from linearization and combines the derivatives in

direction of the plumb lines of the respective gravity field. In geophys-
ics, we are looking for the geometry and the density contrast of anom-
alous subsurface sources with respect to a reference density model. The
definition of the Bouguer anomaly BA (Eq. 2.2b) implies using the
gravity disturbance vector δg (Eq. 2.2a):

δgðPÞ 5 gðPÞ 2 γðPÞ (2.2a)

ðP
BAðPÞ 5 gðPÞ 2 γðPE Þ 2 ΓðsÞUds 2 gM ðPÞ 5 δgðPÞ 2 gM ðPÞ (2.2b)
|ffl{zffl} PE
γ0

where gM is the gravitational attraction vector caused by all masses

above the reference surface including the atmosphere. That is the
 The Physical Meaning of Bouguer Anomalies—General Aspects Revisited 15

reason why some authors suggest calling it “topographically corrected

gravity disturbance” (e.g., Vajda et al., 2006). Γ denotes the gradient
tensor of normal gravity, and ds is an infinitesimally small line element
along the plumb line. PE is the intersection of the plumb line passing P
and the ellipsoid. γ(PE) 5 γ0 is the normal gravity on the reference
ellipsoid at PE. Neglecting the deviation of the plumb line from the
ellipsoidal normal simplifies Eq. (2.2b):
ð zðPÞ
γðzÞ
BAðPÞ 5 gðPÞ 2 γðPE Þ 2 dz 2 gM ðPÞ 5 δgðPÞ 2 gM ðPÞ (2.2c)
|ffl{zffl} 0 @z
γ0

where zðPÞ is the station elevation in the chosen height system and PE
is now the projection of P along the ellipsoid normal (Fig. 2.1). The
physical meaning of Eq. (2.2c) depends on the height system applied.

Composing the gravity g observed at point P on topography syn-

thetically, we have to consider g(P) as
ð z5N ð z5N1H ð z5N
γðzÞ γðzÞ gS ðzÞ
gðPÞ 5 γðPE Þ 1 dz 1 dz 1 gS ðPE Þ 1 dz
0 @z z5N @z 0 @z
ð z5N1H
gS ðzÞ
1 dz 1 gT ðPÞ 1 gG ðPÞ 1 gA ðPÞ
z5N @z
(2.3)

Figure 2.1 Definition of the Bouguer anomaly. Dashed lines show intersections with the equipotential surfaces of
the gravity potential W and the normal gravity potential U, respectively. Per definition, the gravity potential W0
on the geoid equals to the normal gravity potential U0 on the reference ellipsoid. P marks an observation point
at topography. Its projections onto the geoid and the reference ellipsoid are denoted by P0 and PE, respectively.
n and nE are unit vectors aligned to the surface normal of the corresponding equipotential surfaces. h and H
represent the ellipsoidal and orthometric height, respectively of P. N denotes the geoid undulation. The light-gray
shaded area S stands exemplarily for all density anomalies inside and outside the ellipsoid.
16 Understanding the Bouguer Anomaly

The total gravitational attraction vector gM is composed of gT ; gG ,

and gA denoting the contribution of different density domains indi-
cated by the subscripts T (mass between topography and geoid),
G (mass between geoid and reference ellipsoid), and A (atmosphere).
h describes the ellipsoidal height of P, H its orthometric height, and
N the geoid undulation. The latter can be replaced by the normal
height and the height anomaly if the normal height system is preferred.
gS represents the total gravitational attraction vector caused by all
anomalous density sources inside and outside the ellipsoid (exemplarily
shown by the light-gray area S in Fig. 2.1). In this context, anomalous
density means the difference between true density and the density dis-
tribution of the reference ellipsoid or the model used for mass correc-
tions. From theoretical point of view, we have to consider that the
reference ellipsoid does not tell anything about the internal density
structure because it is fully defined by only four Stokes’ constants.
However, Moritz (1990) has shown that structures like those of the
preliminary Earth model have a gravity distribution close to the nor-
mal gravity. This permits using the normal gravity as a reference.
Today there is no need to apply simplified formulae to calculate the
normal gravity at the observation site. Either closed formulae includ-
ing atmospheric correction should be used instead (e.g., Li and Götze,
2001) or second-order Taylor series representations as proposed by
Wenzel (1985).

The physical meaning of the Bouguer anomaly is directly visible

after inserting Eq. (2.3) into (2.2c), provided ellipsoidal heights are
used:
ðh
gS ðzÞ
BAðPÞ 5 gS ðPE Þ 1 dz 5 gS ðPÞ (2.4)
0 @z

Contrarily, if orthometric heights are used, we get:

ðN
gS ðzÞ
BAðPÞ 5 gS ðPÞ 1 dz 1 gG ðPÞ (2.5)
0 @z
which differs from Eq. (2.4) by the geophysical indirect effect (GIE;
Hackney and Featherstone, 2003). A similar equation holds true in
case of normal heights. Only the Bouguer anomaly evaluated in an
ellipsoidal height system is identical with the gravitational attraction
vector gS ðPÞ of unknown sources. Therefore the ellipsoidal height
system should be preferred.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Then Cogátkis began to cry; he wanted to go with his sisters. When
his mother gave each of the girls water for the road he screamed.

Yaulilik said to her daughters: “Your brother feels lonesome; let him
go with you.”

The elder sister said: “If the lolus seeds are not ripe, we shall come
home. He is little; he can’t travel fast.”

The younger sister was sorry for her brother, so she tied his hair in a
knot on the top of his head and told her mother to take him to Duilas
(Little Shasta). From Duilas, through the power of his hair, he could
see them when they were on the mountain.

The sisters started toward Mlaiksi, and Yaulilik took Cogátkis to

Duilas. Cogátkis could watch his sisters, and he could talk with his
mother, though the house was a long way off.

The sisters gathered seeds all day. When it was nearly dark, the
elder sister asked: “Shall we stay here to-night?” [33]

“We have only a few seeds,” said the younger sister. “We can stay all
night and fill our baskets in the morning.”

When Cogátkis saw them picking up wood, he went home. Early the
next morning he went again to Duilas. The girls were busy gathering
seeds, so Cogátkis called to his mother: “They are at work again!”

At midday the younger sister said: “I want water; where can we get
some?”

“I don’t know. There is no water near here.”

They were at the foot of Mlaiksi. The younger sister looked at the
mountain, and said: “High up there is a green place; maybe there is
water there. I will go and see.”

She climbed the mountain till she came to soft ground, then went
higher and came to a place where the ground was moist. She dug
down and found mud, but no water; she went higher, and this time,
when she came to moist earth and dug down, she found a little
water. She called her sister, and both drank of the water and then
filled their water baskets.

They gathered seeds a while. The younger sister kept going up the
mountain. The elder sister said: “Don’t go so high; you won’t find any
seeds up there. It is getting late. Let us go back to where we camped
last night.”

The younger sister heard a strange noise and wanted to find out
what made it. She thought: “I will go back now, but to-morrow I will
go to that green place that I can see way up there. Maybe I will find
out what that noise is.”

When they got to the foot of the mountain and began to pick up
wood Cogátkis went home, and said to his mother: “My sisters have
camped where they camped last night.”

That night the younger sister couldn’t sleep; she was thinking of the
strange noise she had heard: she felt drawn toward the sound. The
next morning they gathered seeds till their baskets were full, then the
younger sister said: “I want water. I am going to the place where we
got some yesterday.”

They left their baskets and climbed up to where they had dug the
hole; there was no water in it. They went higher, came to moist
ground, dug down and got a little water. The younger sister again
heard the strange sound. She went higher [34]and listened; then she
heard, far away, a weak voice saying: “Kĕlmas popanwe. Kĕlmas
popanwe!” (You are drinking nothing but tears. You are drinking
nothing but tears.)

The girl followed the sound, and saw a bright red hair on the ground.
When she picked it up she knew it was a hair from the head of the
man who had killed her and her sister. The place where she found
the hair was level and smooth, without a blade of grass or a weed on
it. In the middle of that space was a skeleton. All the bones were
dead but the eyes were living. It was Isis’ skeleton. Thousands of
deer had been there and danced around the man who had killed so
many of their people. With their hoofs they had stamped down the
grass and beaten the ground level.

When the elder sister saw the skeleton she was frightened and
wanted to run away, but the younger sister spread out her wolf skin
blanket and put the skeleton on it.

“What are you going to do with that?” asked her sister. “It smells
badly. It makes me sick.” She wanted to snatch the skeleton and
break it up.

“Go away!” said the younger girl. “I will bring this to life.” She
wrapped the bones up carefully and started down the mountain, her
sister following.

When they got to their camp the elder said: “Let me have those
bones; they are the bones of the man who killed us. I’ll pound them
up and burn them.”

The younger sister didn’t listen to what the elder said. She got deer
fat, rubbed the skeleton with it, and pushed some of the fat between
the teeth. She worked over the skeleton all night. In the morning
there was a little flesh on the bones; at midday the skeleton was a
man again.
The younger sister fed him, and the elder gathered seeds for him, for
she liked him now.

Cogátkis called to his mother: “I see two persons sitting in the shade
while my elder sister gathers seeds.” The next morning he called to
his mother: “The stranger is alone; both my sisters are gathering
seeds.”

Isis drank water, then lay down and slept. While he was sleeping
porcupines danced around him, and sang. The [35]sisters came at
midday, and when the porcupines saw them coming they ran away.

The next morning the younger sister said to Isis: “This is the last day
we can gather seeds near by. We must go farther up the mountain.”

When Isis was left alone, he fell asleep. The porcupines came and
danced around him and sang, and each one’s song was: “Who can
cut off my feet and hands and eat them?”

Isis woke up, struck the chief of the porcupines with his cane, killed
him, cut off his feet and hands, pulled the quills out of his back and
tied them up in ten bunches. He wanted to give the quills to his wives
and his mother-in-law. Isis was well now, and could hunt for deer.

Soon the elder sister had a child. Isis stayed in the camp till the child
was five days old; then he went out to hunt. He killed a deer, but he
let it stay where it fell, for it wasn’t right to bring it home or say
anything about it. The next day he killed two deer at a shot, left them
and went home.

When the first child was seven days old, the younger sister had a
little boy. When the last child was eight days old, Isis said to his
wives: “Your mother and brother are lonesome, we must go and see
them.”
The next day they started. The sisters complained of the weight of
the seeds, and Isis said: “I will make them light.” As soon as he said
that, their baskets were as light as feathers.

When Cogátkis saw his sisters and the stranger coming, he called to
his mother: “My sisters are coming, and there is a beautiful blue man
with them!”

Old Yaulilik spread out nice mats and her daughters’ bead dresses
and ornaments. When near the house, Isis stopped and the sisters
went on. Cogátkis ran to meet them; he was glad, but he was afraid
of Isis. The sisters said: “Go and lead your brother-in-law into the
house.”

When they were in the house, Cogátkis told Isis how deer ran
around him while he was out on the mountain watching his sisters.

Isis said: “I want to go and hunt for deer, but I haven’t arrows
enough.” [36]

“I will give you all the arrows you want,” said old Yaulilik, and she
gave him a quiverful that had been her husband’s. Isis killed two
deer.

“How can we carry them home?” asked Cogátkis.

Isis picked up the deer and put them in his belt. On the way home he
killed a third deer, and he put that in his belt also. When Cogátkis
told his younger sister how many deer Isis had killed, she said:
“Maybe he will go away. Maybe he doesn’t want to stay here.”

Isis pulled up six big trees, brought them to the house, and set them
up to dry meat on. The next morning he killed a deer and said to
Cogátkis: “Stay here and see that nobody steals the deer while I am
gone.” When he came back, he had ten deer in his belt. He put the
first deer with them and went home. Old Yaulilik cut up the meat and
hung it on the trees to dry, and Isis stretched the skins.

The next day when he was going home, with his belt full of deer, he
wanted water and went to Tsiwisa to get it. After he had drunk, he
remembered that the spring was near the place where Kumush had
made the tree, with the eagle’s nest on it, grow up to the sky. He
didn’t like the place, for it made him feel lonesome. That night he
said to the sisters: “I am going away. You have plenty of meat; you
can stay here with your mother and brother.”

The elder sister didn’t want to stay, and Isis said: “I am going a long
way. The children are heavy; you couldn’t carry them.”

“We can carry them easily,” said the elder sister. “I don’t want to stay
here.”

“Then you can go,” said Isis, for he wasn’t willing to show that he
wanted them to stay.

Her sister said: “He is going to a strange country; something may

happen to me. I don’t want to go.”

“You must go with us, so get ready,” said the elder sister.

The younger sister said to her mother: “I didn’t ask to go with them;
she makes me go.”

“You can stay with me,” said her mother. [37]

“No, maybe they will be gone a long time. I will go with them, and it
won’t be my fault if something happens.”

The three traveled one day, then camped at Blaiaga, the mountain
where Isis and Kumush had lived. Isis said to his wives: “The spring
here is bad. When you go for water you must take the children with
you.”

Each day for three days Isis killed deer. The fourth day, while he was
hunting, the younger sister put her child on her back and went for
wood. The elder sister wanted water and she ran to the spring to get
it. She forgot that Isis had told her not to leave her child alone. The
boy was beginning to walk. He tried to follow his mother, but he fell
and hit his head on a stone. He gave one loud scream and died. The
younger sister heard the scream and ran to the child. The mother
heard it, too, and came back quickly. Her sister said: “I told you we
had better stay with our mother; that we didn’t know this country. See
what trouble has come to us.” They set bushes on fire to let Isis
know what had happened.

The moment the child fell, Isis struck his foot against a stone and
stumbled. Right away he knew that something had happened to one
of his boys. When he saw the smoke, he left the deer he had killed
and went home.

When the younger sister told him that his child was dead, he said: “I
didn’t think that my wives would cause me greater grief than my
father did, but you have. I thought my children would live, that they
would go to the swimming places and talk to the earth and
mountains, that they would be wise and able to do things. If my first
child is dead, I don’t want to live in this world. Bring me the other
boy.”

When the younger wife brought her child, Isis took it in his arms, put
the top of its head to his mouth and drew a long breath. He took the
breath out of the child and it was dead. He put the second child by
the first, and said:
“These children are half mine, and half yours. The breath is mine,
the body is yours. I have taken the breath into myself. You can have
the bodies. This is the last time I will have a wife. If I live forever I
shall never have a woman again. This place where my children died
will be called [38]Yaulilikumwas. People who come in after times will
find you under the bushes. They will make sport of you and call you
Yaulilikumwas. You will die from the cold and snow which you
yourselves make. Your brother will run around the world and be
Kĕngkong’kongis (a medicine) and doctors will dream of him.”

Right away Isis’ wives and their mother turned to snowbirds and
Cogátkis became Kĕngkong’kongis. Sometimes ordinary people see
him in their dreams. Doctors always see him in the country where his
mother and sisters lived. Isis went north, went far away. [39]
[Contents]
 KUMUSH AND HIS DAUGHTER

CHARACTERS

Kumush The Creator, according to Indian myths

Skoks Spirit

Kumush (our Father) left Tula Lake and wandered over the earth. He
went to the edge of the world and was gone a great many years;
then he came back to Nihlaksi, where his sweat-house had been;
where Látkakáwas brought the disk; where the body of the beautiful
blue man was burned, and where Isis was saved.

Kumush brought his daughter with him from the edge of the world.
Where he got her, no one knows. When he came back, Isis and all
the people he had made were dead; he and his daughter were
alone. The first thing he did was to give the young girl ten dresses,
which he made by his word. The finest dress of all was the burial
dress; it was made of buckskin, and so covered with bright shells
that not a point of the buckskin could be seen.

The first of the ten dresses was for a young girl; the second was the
maturity dress, to be worn while dancing the maturity dance; the third
was the dress to be put on after coming from the sweat-house, the
day the maturity dance ended; the fourth was to be worn on the fifth
day after the dance; the fifth dress was the common, everyday
dress; the sixth was to wear when getting wood; the seventh when
digging roots; the eighth was to be used when on a journey; the ninth
was to wear at a ball game; the tenth was the burial dress.
When they came to Nihlaksi Kumush’s daughter was within a few
days of maturity. In the old time, when he was making rules for his
people, Kumush had said that at maturity a girl should dance five
days and five nights, and while she was [40]dancing an old woman, a
good singer, should sing for her. When the five days and nights were
over she should bathe in the sweat-house, and then carry wood for
five days. If the girl grew sleepy while she was dancing, stopped for
a moment, nodded and dreamed, or if she fell asleep while in the
sweat-house and dreamed of some one’s death, she would die
herself.

Kumush was the only one to help his daughter; he sang while she
danced. When the dance was over and the girl was in the sweat-
house, she fell asleep and dreamed of some one’s death. She came
out of the sweat-house with her face and hands and body painted
with wáginte. 1 As she stood by the fire to dry the paint, she said to
her father: “While I was in the sweat-house I fell asleep and I
dreamed that as soon as I came out some one would die.”

“That means your own death,” said Kumush. “You dreamed of

yourself.”

Kumush was frightened; he felt lonesome. When his daughter asked

for her burial dress he gave her the dress to be worn after coming
from the sweat-house, but she wouldn’t take it. Then he gave her the
dress to be worn five days later, and she refused it. One after
another he offered her eight dresses—he could not give her the one
she had worn when she was a little girl, for it was too small. He held
the tenth dress tight under his arm; he did not want to give it to her,
for as soon as she put it on the spirit would leave her body.

“Why don’t you give me my dress?” asked she. “You made it before
you made the other dresses, and told me what it was for; why don’t
you give it to me now? You made everything in the world as you
wanted it to be.”

He gave her the dress, but he clung to it and cried. When she began
to put it on he tried to pull it away. She said: “Father, you must not
cry. What has happened to me is your will; you made it to be this
way. My spirit will leave the body and go west.”

At last Kumush let go of the dress, though he knew her spirit would
depart as soon as she had it on. He was crying [41]as he said: “I will
go with you; I will leave my body here, and go.”

“No,” said the daughter, “my spirit will go west without touching the
ground as it goes. How could you go with me?”

“I know what to do,” said Kumush. “I know all things above, below,
and in the world of ghosts; whatever is, I know.”

She put on the dress, Kumush took her hand, and they started,
leaving their bodies behind. Kumush was not dead but his spirit left
the body.

As soon as the daughter died, she knew all about the spirit world.
When they started she said to her father: “Keep your eyes closed; if
you open them you will not be able to follow me, you will have to go
back and leave me alone.”

The road they were traveling led west to where the sun sets. Along
that road were three nice things to eat: goose eggs, wild cherries
and crawfish. If a spirit ate of the wild cherries it would be sent back
to this world, a spirit without a body, to wander about homeless,
eating wild cherries and other kinds of wild fruit. If it ate of the goose
eggs, it would wander around the world, digging goose eggs out of
the ground, like roots. It would have to carry the eggs in a basket
without a bottom, and would always be trying to mend the basket
with plaited grass. If it ate of the crawfish it would have to dig
crawfish in the same way.

A Skoks offered Kumush’s daughter these three harmful things, but

she did not look at them; she went straight on toward the west, very
fast.

After a time Kumush asked: “How far have we gone now?”

“We are almost there,” said the girl. “Far away I see beautiful roses.
Spirits that have been good in life take one of those roses with the
leaves, those that have been bad do not see the roses.”

Again Kumush asked: “How far are we now?”

“We are passing the place of roses.”

Kumush thought: “She should take one of those roses.”

The girl always knew her father’s thoughts. As soon as that thought
came into his mind, she put back her hand and, [42]without turning,
pulled a rose and two leaves. Kumush did not take one. He could not
even see them, for he was not dead.

After a time they came to a road so steep that they could slide down
it. At the beginning of the descent there was a willow rope. The girl
pulled the rope and that minute music and voices were heard.
Kumush and his daughter slipped down and came out on a beautiful
plain with high walls all around it. It was a great house, and the plain
was its floor. That house is the whole underground world, but only
spirits know the way to it.

Kumush’s daughter was greeted by spirits that were glad to see her,
but to Kumush they said “Sonk!” (raw, not ripe), and they felt sorry
for him that he was not dead.

Kumush and his daughter went around together, and Kumush asked:
“How far is it to any side?”

“It is very far, twice as far as I can see. There is one road down,—the
road we came,—and another up. No one can come in by the way
leading up, and no one can go up by the way leading down.”

The place was beautiful and full of spirits; there were so many that if
every star of the sky, and all the hairs on the head of every man and
all the hairs on all the animals were counted they would not equal in
number the spirits in that great house.

When Kumush and his daughter first got there they couldn’t see the
spirits though they could hear voices, but after sunset, when
darkness was in the world above, it was light in that house below.

“Keep your eyes closed,” said Kumush’s daughter. “If you open
them, you will have to leave me and go back.”

At sunset Kumush made himself small, smaller than any thing living
in the world. His daughter put him in a crack, high up in a corner of
the broad house, and made a mist before his eyes.

When it was dark, Wus-Kumush, the keeper of the house, said: “I

want a fire!” Right away a big, round, bright fire sprang up in the
center, and there was light everywhere in [43]the house. Then spirits
came from all sides, and there were so many that no one could have
counted them. They made a great circle around Kumush’s daughter,
who stood by the fire, and then they danced a dance not of this
world, and sang a song not of this world. Kumush watched them
from the corner of the house. They danced each night, for five
nights. All the spirits sang, but only those in the circle danced. As
daylight came they disappeared. They went away to their own
places, lay down and became dry, disjointed bones.

Wus-Kumush gave Kumush’s daughter goose eggs and crawfish.

She ate them and became bones. All newcomers became bones,
but those who had been tried for five years, and hadn’t eaten
anything the Skoks gave them, lived in shining settlements outside,
in circles around the big house. Kumush’s daughter became bones,
but her spirit went to her father in the corner.

On the sixth night she moved him to the eastern side of the house.
That night he grew tired of staying with the spirits; he wanted to
leave the underground world, but he wanted to take some of the
spirits with him to people the upper world. “Afterward,” said he, “I am
going to the place where the sun rises. I shall travel on the sun’s
road till I come to where he stops at midday. There I will build a
house.”

“Some of the spirits are angry with you,” said Wus-Kumush.

“Because you are not dead they want to kill you; you must be
careful.”

“They may try as hard as they like,” said Kumush; “they can’t kill me.
They haven’t the power. They are my children; they are all from me.
If they should kill me it would only be for a little while. I should come
to life again.”

The spirits, though they were bones then, heard this, and said: “We
will crush the old man’s heart out, with our elbows.”

Kumush left Wus-Kumush and went back to the eastern side of the
house. In his corner was a pile of bones. Every bone in the pile rose
up and tried to kill him, but they couldn’t hit him, for he dodged them.
Each day his daughter moved him, but the bones knew where he
was, because they could [44]see him. Every night the spirits in the
form of living people danced and sang; at daylight they lay down and
became disconnected bones.

“I am going away from this place,” said Kumush, “I am tired of being

here.” At daybreak he took his daughter’s bones, and went around
selecting bones according to their quality, thinking which would do
for one tribe and which for another. He filled a basket with them,
taking only shin-bones and wrist-bones. He put the basket on his
back and started to go up the eastern road, the road out. The path
was steep and slippery, and his load was heavy. He slipped and
stumbled but kept climbing. When he was half-way up, the bones
began to elbow him in the back and neck, struggling to kill him.
When near the top the strap slipped from his forehead and the
basket fell. The bones became spirits, and, whooping and shouting,
fell down into the big house and became bones again.

“I’ll not give up,” said Kumush; “I’ll try again.” He went back, filled the
basket with bones and started a second time. When he was half-way
up he said: “You’ll see that I will get to the upper world with you
bones!” That minute he slipped, his cane broke and he fell. Again the
bones became spirits and went whooping and shouting back to the
big house.

Kumush went down a second time, and filled the basket. He was
angry, and he chucked the bones in hard. “You want to stay here,”
said he, “but when you know my place up there, where the sun is,
you’ll want to stay there always and never come back to this place. I
feel lonesome when I see no people up there; that is why I want to
take you there. If I can’t get you up now, you will never come where I
am.”

When he put the basket on his back the third time, he had no cane,
so he thought: “I wish I had a good, strong cane.” Right away he had
it. Then he said: “I wish I could get up with this basketful of bones.”

When half-way up the bones again tried to kill him. He struggled and
tugged hard. At last he got near the edge of the slope, and with one
big lift he threw the basket up on to level ground. “Maklaksûm káko!”
(Indian bones) said he. [45]

He opened the basket and threw the bones in different directions. As

he threw them, he named the tribe and kind of Indians they would
be. When he named the Shastas he said: “You will be good fighters.”
To the Pitt River and the Warm Spring Indians he said: “You will be
brave warriors, too.” But to the Klamath Indians he said: “You will be
like women, easy to frighten.” The bones for the Modoc Indians he
threw last, and he said to them: “You will eat what I eat, you will keep
my place when I am gone, you will be bravest of all. Though you
may be few, even if many and many people come against you, you
will kill them.” And he said to each handful of bones as he threw it:
“You must find power to save yourselves, find men to go and ask the
mountains for help. Those who go to the mountains must ask to be
made wise, or brave, or a doctor. They must swim in the gauwams
and dream. When you are sure that a doctor has tried to kill some
one, or that he won’t put his medicine in the path of a spirit and turn
it back, you will kill him. If an innocent doctor is killed, you must kill
the man who killed him, or he must pay for the dead man.”

Then Kumush named the different kinds of food those people should
eat,—catfish, salmon, deer and rabbit. He named more than two
hundred different things, and as he named them they appeared in
the rivers and the forests and the flats. He thought, and they were
there. He said: “Women shall dig roots, get wood and water, and
cook. Men shall hunt and fish and fight. It shall be this way in later
times. This is all I will tell you.”
When he had finished everything Kumush took his daughter, and
went to the edge of the world, to the place where the sun rises. He
traveled on the sun’s road till he came to the middle of the sky; there
he stopped and built his house, and there he lives now. [46]

1 A red root. ↑
[Contents]
 WANAGA BECOMES WUS-KUMUSH

Two brothers, Kumush and Wanaga, lived east of Tula Lake.

Wanaga was uneasy; he didn’t want to be always with Kumush, so
one day he started off toward the northwest to hunt for woodchucks.
When he had killed five, he took out the intestines, cleaned them,
filled them with fat and cooked them in front of the fire. The bodies
he cooked on hot stones. He was eating the intestines when his
brother came up to the fire. Kumush’s face was wet, he had run so
fast.

Wanaga was mad, but he said: “Now you are here, come and eat
some of these intestines.”

Kumush didn’t want a part of the intestines; he wanted them all, and
wanted the woodchucks, too, so he asked: “Which way did you
come?”

Wanaga told him, but told him wrong.

Kumush said: “I saw a long track the way I came. I thought it was
yours.”

“Why don’t you eat?” asked Wanaga.

“I can’t, my heart beats so. I am scared; I feel as if some one were

near here, watching us. I will go down the hill and look around in the
bushes.”

Kumush went into thick bushes where Wanaga couldn’t see him; he
pulled every hair out of his head, eyebrows, eye-lashes, ears, beard,
armpits, pulled out every hair on his body, and said to them: “You