Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:28:43.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michael J. Shott
Michael J. Shott*
Affiliation:
Program for Cultural Resource Assessment and Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shovel-test sampling is the most common site-discovery technique used in vegetated areas, but its effectiveness is questionable. Recent papers in American Antiquity by Nance and Ball and by Lightfoot discuss the technique at length. The papers are welcome additions to the literature, but both contain deficiences that require comment and clarification.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 396 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Reference Cited

Carmichael, D. L. 1977 Preliminary Archaeological Survey of Illinois Uplands and Some Behavioral Implications. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2 : 219–251.Google Scholar
Connolly, T. J., and Baxter, P. W. 1983 The Problem with Probability : Alternative Methods for Forest Survey. Tebiwa 20 : 22–34.Google Scholar
DeBloois, E., Green, D., and Wylie, H. 1975 A Test of the Impact of Pinyon-Juniper Chaining on Archaeological Sites. In The Pinyon-Juniper Ecosystem : A Symposium, pp. 153-161. Utah State University, Logan.Google Scholar
Ebert, J. I. 1986 Distributional Archaeology : Nonsite Discovery, Recording and Analytic Methods for Application to the Surface Archaeological Record. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Flannery, K. V. 1976 The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. G. 1978 Scarification and Cultural Resources : An Experiment to Evaluate Serotinous Lodgepole Pine Forest Regeneration Techniques. Plains Anthropologist 23 : 289-299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Interagency Resources Division 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation : Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Federal Register 48(190) : 44716–44739.Google Scholar
Gallagher, J. G. 1986 Guidelines for Historic and Archaeological Resource Management; Federal Agency Responsibilities under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal Register 51(46) : 8245–8255.Google Scholar
Ives, J. 1982 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Site Discovery Techniques in Boreal Forest Environments. In Directions in Archaeology : A Question of Goals, edited by Francis, P. and Poplin, E., pp. 95-114. University of Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
Keller, J. E. 1982 Lithic Scatters and Longleaf Pine : Limited Activity Areas in Pyrogenic Environments. Southeastern Archaeology 1 : 40–51.Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1988 The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing : A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 53 : 686–707.Google Scholar
Krakker, J. J., Shott, M. J., and Welch, P. D. 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10 : 469–480.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, K. G. 1986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States : The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 51 : 484–504.Google Scholar
Lovis, W. A. 1976 Quarter-Sections and Forests : An Example of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41 : 364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, M. 1980 Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 21 : 516–517.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. 1984 Discovering Sites Unseen. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 223-292. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1979 Regional Subsampling and Statistical Inference in Forested Habitats. American Antiquity 44 : 172–176.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1983 Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey : The Statistical Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 289-356. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D., and Ball, B. F. 1986 No surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity 51 : 457–483.Google Scholar
Nicholson, B. A. 1983 A Comparative Evaluation of Four Sampling Techniques and of the Reliability of Microdebitage as a Cultural Indicator in Regional Surveys. Plains Anthropologist 28 : 273–281.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1985 Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique : A Case Study from Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 12 : 458-469.Google Scholar
Stone, G. D. 1981 On Artifact Density and Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 22 : 182–183.Google Scholar
Thomas, P. 1986 Discerning Some Spatial Characteristics of Small, Short-Term, Single Occupation Sites : Implications for New England Archaeology. Man in the Northeast 31 : 99–121.Google Scholar
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Scope-of-Work : Intensive Archaeological Survey, Hampton Township, Bay County, Michigan. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit District.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L., Ebert, J., and Larralde, S. 1983 Distributional Archaeology : Survey, Mapping, and Analysis of Surface Archaeological Materials in the Green River Basin, Wyoming. Paper presented at the 1983 Plains Conference, Rapid City, South Dakota.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. M. 1983 We Can't See the Forest for the Trees : Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Moore, J. and Keene, A., pp. 32-80. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar