Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T03:29:22.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Accuracy and Adequacy of In-Field Artifact Analysis

An Experimental Test at Two Archaeological Sites in the Western United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Michael Heilen  and
Jeffrey H. Altschul
Michael Heilen
Affiliation:
Statistical Research, Inc., Haymarket, Virginia 20169 (mheilen@sricrm.com)
Jeffrey H. Altschul
Affiliation:
Statistical Research, Inc., and SRI Foundation, Tucson, Arizona 85712 (jhaltschul@sricrm.com)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archaeologists have traditionally collected artifacts during survey in order to analyze them in a laboratory setting and curate the artifacts and associated documentation for future analysis, interpretation, and preservation. In recent decades, however, there has been a trend in the western United States to avoid collection during survey and to relegate most artifact analysis to the field, typically conducted by field crew. Despite heavy reliance on in-field analysis to characterize sites during survey, very little is known about how accurate and adequate in-field analysis is for site interpretation and management. This article presents the findings of a pilot experiment that tested in-field analysis and digital photograph analysis at two sites in the western United States using multiple quantitative measures and qualitative assessments. The results of the analysis show that in-field analysis has a strong potential to yield inaccurate and highly variable results that can lead to the misidentification and misinterpretation of important site components. We recommend that sample collections be made during survey, where possible, and properly curated. For projects in which in-field analysis is used, we recommend that in-field analysis be tested using similar methods to determine whether it can meet an acceptable standard.

Tradicionalmente, los arqueólogos recolectaron artefactos durante las investigaciones de campo con el fin de analizarlos en el laboratorio, resguardándolos junto con la documentación asociada a ellos para su posterior análisis, interpretación, y conservación. En las últimas décadas, sin embargo, ha existido una tendencia en el oeste de los Estados Unidos de prescindir de la recolección de artefactos durante las investigaciones de campo, dejando en manos del equipo de investigación de campo la tarea del análisis de los artefactos al ser estos localizados. A pesar de la fuerte dependencia del análisis de campo para determinar sitios durante las prospecciones, muy poco se conoce sobre la precisión de este tipo de análisis para la identificación de sitios arqueológicos, su interpretación y manejo. Este artículo presenta los resultados de un experimento piloto que puso a prueba el análisis de campo y análisis de fotografía digital en dos sitios localizados en el oeste de Estados Unidos, utilizando múltiples medidas cuantitativas y evaluaciones cualitativas. Los resultados de la experiencia piloto muestran que el análisis sobre el terreno es propenso a producir resultados muy variados e imprecisos que pueden conducir a una identificación errónea e interpretación equivocada de los componentes importantes de un sitio arqueológico. Nuestra recomendación es que se realicen recolecciones de muestras durante el reconocimiento, siempre que sea posible, y que estas sean debidamente procesadas. Para los proyectos en los que se utilice el análisis en el campo, se recomienda que este análisis sobre el terreno sea comprobado utilizando métodos similares para determinar si cumplen con un estándar aceptable de precisión.

Type
Research Article
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , November 2013 , pp. 121 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2013

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

References Cited

Adams, Jenny L. 2002 Ground Stone Analysis: A Technological Approach. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Adams, William Y., and Adams, Ernest W. 1991 Archaeological Typology and Practical Reality: A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Altschul, Jeffrey H. 1986 Statistical Evaluation of the Collection Procedure. In The Valencia Site Testing Project: Mapping, Intensive Surface Collecting, and Limited Trenching of a Hohokam Ballcourt Village in the Southern Tucson Basin, by Elson, Mark D. and Doelle, William H., pp. 25–30. Technical Report No. 86–6. Institute for American Research, Tucson.Google Scholar
Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 2007 SHPO Guidance on Surface Artifact Collection during Survey/ Identification Phase. SHPO Guidance Point No. 7, June 25,2007. Electronic document, http://azstateparks.com/shpo/downloads/SHPO_7_Artifact_Col.pdf, accessed October 7, 2013.Google Scholar
Arizona State Museum 2009 Procedures Manual for Arizona Antiquities Act Permits, Records Management/Repository Requirements, and Archaeological Records Access. Electronic resource, http://www.statemuseum.arizona.edu/crservices/forms.shtml, accessed August 6, 2013.Google Scholar
Ascher, Robert 1968 Time's Arrow and the Archaeology of a Contemporary Community. In Settlement Archaeology, edited by Chang, K. C., pp. 43–52. National Press, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Bawaya, Michael 2007 Curation in Crisis. Science 317:1025–1026.Google Scholar
Beck, Charlotte, and Jones, George T. 1989 Bias and Archaeological Classification. American Antiquity 54:244–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Charlotte, and Jones, George T. 1994 On-Site Artifact Analysis as an Alternative to Collection. American Antiquity 59:304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckes, Michael R., Dibble, David S., and Freeman, Martha Doty (editors) 1977 The Cultural Resource Base. In A Cultural Resource Inventory and Assessment of McGregor Guided Missile Range, Otero County, New Mexico, Vol. 1. Research Report No. 65. Texas Archeological Survey, University of Texas, Austin.Google Scholar
Beers, Yardley 1957 Introduction to the Theory of Error. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Boyd, C. Clifford Jr. 1987 Interobserver Error in the Analysis of Nominal Attribute States: A Case Study. Tennessee Anthropologist 12(1):88–95.Google Scholar
Brennan, Paul, and Silman, Alan 1992 Statistical Methods for Assessing Observer Variability in Clinical Measures. BMJ 304:1491–1494.Google Scholar
Briuer, Frederick L., and Mathers, Clay 1997 Trends and Patterns in Cultural Resource Significance: An Historical Perspective and Annotated Bibliography. Technical Report EL-97-5. United States Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, Illinois.Google Scholar
Carlin, J. 1993 Repeatability and Method Comparison: Introduction to Reliability and Agreement. Clinical Epidemiology and Bio-Statistics Unit, Royal Children's Hospital Research Foundation and the Melbourne University Department of Paediatrics, Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
Carmichael, David 1986 Archaeological Survey in the Southern Tularosa Basin of New Mexico. Publications in Anthropology 10. El Paso Centennial Museum, University of Texas, El Paso.Google Scholar
Caro, T. M., Roper, R., Young, M., and Dank, G. R. 1979 Inter-Observer Reliability. Behaviour 69:303–315.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob 1960 A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement 220:37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Patricia 2004 The Soldier Creek Survey: A Cultural Resources Survey on the East Range, Fort Huachuca Military Reservation, Cochise County, Arizona. Technical Report No. 2003-04. Desert Archaeology, Tucson.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. G. H. 1972 Research Design Models. In Models in Archaeology, edited by Clark, David L., pp. 201–229. Methuen, London, England.Google Scholar
Dibble, Harold L., and Bernard, Mary C. 1980 A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle Measurement Techniques. American Antiquity 45:857–865.Google Scholar
Eckert, Suzanne L. 1995 The Process of Aggregation in the Post-Chacoan Era: A Case Study from the Lower Zuni Region. Unpublished Masters’ thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. 1948 Note on the “Correction for Continuity” in Testing the Significance of the Difference between Correlated Proportions. Psychometrika 13:185–187.Google Scholar
Fish, Paul R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43:86–89.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J. L. 1981 Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Bliss, Fort 2012 Processing and Curation of Collections: Requirements for Submission of Archaeological Collections to the Fort Bliss Curatorial Facility. Updated January 23, 2012. U.S. Army, Fort Bliss Directorate of Environment, Conservation Division, Fort Bliss, Texas.Google Scholar
Friedman, Gerald M. 1958 Determination of Sieve-Size Distribution from the Thin Section Data for Sedimentary Petrological Studies. Journal of Geology 66:394–416.Google Scholar
Gavan, James A. 1950 The Consistency of Anthropometric Measurements. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 8:417–426.Google Scholar
Gnaden, Denis, and Holdaway, Simon 2000 Understanding Observer Variation when Recording Stone Artifacts. American Antiquity 65:739–747.Google Scholar
Griset, Suzanne, and Kodack, Marc 1999 Guidelines for the Field Collections of Archaeological Materials and Standard Operating Procedures for Curating Department of Defense Archaeological Collections. Legacy Project No. 98-1714. Mandatory Center of Expertise of the Curation and Management of Archaeological Collections, United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Haas, M. 1991 Statistical Methodology for Reliability Studies. Journal of Manipulative Therapeutics 14:119–132.Google Scholar
Hanselka, J. Kevin, Vierra, Bradley J., and Schmidt, Kari M. (editors) 2010 Results of an 11,514-Acre Cultural Resource Survey on Northern McGregor Range, Fort Bliss Military Reservation, Otero County, New Mexico. Technical Report 09-47. Statistical Research, El Paso. Historic and Natural Resources Report No. 08-26. Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, Conservation Branch, United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas.Google Scholar
Hardesty, Donald L., and Little, Barbara J. 2000 Assessing Site Significance: A Guide for Archaeologists and Historians. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California Google Scholar
Heckman, Robert A., Montgomery, Barbara K., and Whittlesey, Stephanie M. 2000 Prehistoric Painted Pottery of Southeastern Arizona. Technical Series 77. Statistical Research, Tucson.Google Scholar
Heilen, Michael P. 2013 An Experimental Test of the Accuracy and Adequacy of In-field Artifact Analysis. Legacy Resource Management Program Project No. 11-157. Technical Report 12-90. Statistical Research, Tucson, Arizona.Google Scholar
Heilen, Michael, Nagle, Christopher L., and Altschul, Jeffrey H. 2008 An Assessment of Archaeological Data Quality: A Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Legacy Resource Management Program Project “To Develop Analytical Tools for Characterizing, Visualizing, and Evaluating Archaeological Data Quality Systematically for Communities of Practice within the Department of Defense.” Technical Report 08-65. Statistical Research, Tucson.Google Scholar
Ira Michael, Heyman 1997 Smithsonian Perspectives: Using and Taking Care of 140 Million Items. Electronic document, http://siarchives.si.edu/collections/siris_sic_3669, accessed March 5, 2013.Google Scholar
Jamison, Paul L., and Stephen L., Zegura 1974 A Univariate and Multivariate Examination of Measurement Error in Anthropometry. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 40:197–203.Google Scholar
Kintigh, Keith 1981 An Outline for a Chronology of Zuni Ruins, Revisited: Sixty-five Years of Repeated Analysis and Collection. In The Research Potential of Anthropological Museum Collections, edited by Cantwell, Anne-Marie, Griffin, James B., and Rothschild, Nan A., pp. 467–487. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 376, New York Academy of Sciences, New York.Google Scholar
Kintigh, Keith W., Howell, Todd L., and Duff, Andrew 1996 Post-Chacoan Social Integration at the Hinkson Site, New Mexico. Kiva 61: 257–274.Google Scholar
Lehmer, Donald J. 1948 The Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. Social Science Bulletin No. 17. University of Arizona Bulletin Vol. 19, No. 2. University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. Lee, and VanPool, Todd L. 2009 Metric Data in Archaeology: A Study of Intra-Analyst and Inter-Analyst Variation. American Antiquity 74:485–504.Google Scholar
Lyons, Patrick D., Charles Adams, E., Altschul, Jeffrey H., Michael Barton, C., and Roll, Chris M. 2006 The Archaeological Curation Crisis in Arizona: Analysis and Possible Solutions. A Report Prepared by the Governor's Archaeology Advisory Commission Curation Subcommittee. Electronic document, http://azstateparks.com/committees/downloads/GAAC_Curation_Crisis_Full. pdf, accessed March 5, 2013.Google Scholar
McNemar, Quinn 1947 Note on the Sampling Error of the Difference between Correlated Proportions or Percentages. Psychometrika 12: 153–157.Google Scholar
Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J., O’Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 11, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 97–209. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Millon, René 1973 The Teotihuacan Map. Part One: Text. University of Texas Press, Austin.Google Scholar
Millon, René, and Altschul, Jeffrey H. 2012 The Making of the Map: The Origin and Lessons of the Teotihuacan Mapping Project. Manuscript on file, Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson.Google Scholar
Mizutani, Shinjiro 1963 A Theoretical and Experimental Consideration on the Accuracy of Sieving Analysis. Journal of Earth Sciences 11:1–27.Google Scholar
Nepstad-Thornberry, Tina, Nepstad-Thornberry, Curtis, Stoltz, Melissa, de Dufour, Karyn, and Wilshusen, Richard 2002 Addressing the Curation Crisis in Colorado: An Assessment for the Executive Committee of the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists. University of Colorado Museum, Boulder. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/documents/research/collections_management/NepstedthornberryAddressingtheCurationCrisisinColorado.pdf, accessed March 5, 2013.Google Scholar
Neuman, J., Chardine, J. W., and Porter, J. M. 1999 Approaches to Testing Inter-Observer Reliability of Field-Collected Behavioral Data. Waterbirds: The International Journal of Waterbird Biology 22:348–357.Google Scholar
Sagebiel, Kerry L., Jenks, Kelly L., Majewski, Teresita, and Jelinek, Lauren E. 2007 Archaeological Collections Management Procedures: Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program. Technical Report 07-41. Draft. Statistical Research, Tucson. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Los Angeles, and the United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1996 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Sebastian, Lynne 2009 Deciding What Matters: Archaeology, Eligibility, and Significance. In Archaeological and Cultural Resource Management: Visions for the Future, edited by Sebastian, Lynne and Lipe, William D., pp. 91–114. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Shoukri, Mohamed M. 2010 Measures of Interobserver Agreement and Reliability. 2nd ed. Biostatistics Series. Chapman & Hall/CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Google Scholar
Sim, Julius, and Wright, Chris C. 2005 The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirements. Physical Therapy 85:257–268.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology (SAA) Advisory Committee on Curation 2003 The Archaeological Curation Crisis: An Integrated Action Plan for the SAA and Its Partners. Electronic document, http://www.sha.org/documents/research/collections_management/SAA2003TheArchaeologicalCurationCrisis.pdf, accessed March 5, 2013.Google Scholar
Sullivan, Lynne P. 1992 Managing Archaeological Resources from the Museum Perspective. Technical Brief No. 13. Archaeological Assistance Division, U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Surovell, T. A., Finely, J., Smith, G. M., Brantingham, P. J., and Kelly, R. L. 2009 Correcting Temporal Frequency Distributions for Taphonomic Bias. Journal of Archaeological Science 36:1715–1724.Google Scholar
Swarthout, Jeanne K., and Dulaney, Alan 1982 A Description of Ceramic Collections from the Railroad and Transmission Line Corridors. Research Paper 26. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Trimble, Michael K., and Meyers, Thomas B. 1991 Saving the Past from the Future: Archaeological Curation in the St. Louis District. United States Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis District, St. Louis. Electronic document, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA323819, accessed March 5, 2013. United States Army (Army)Google Scholar
Trimble, Michael K., and Meyers, Thomas B. 2007 Environmental Quality: Environmental Protection and Enhancement. Army Regulation 200–1. Department of the Army Headquarters, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Vanderpot, Rein 1994 A 6,800-Acre Intensive Survey of Proposed FTX and Other Training Areas on Fort Huachuca, Arizona. Technical Report 93-20. Statistical Research, Tucson.Google Scholar
Vierra, Bradley J., and Ward, Christine G. 2012 Mitigation of Three Archaeological Sites along and near El Paso Draw in the New IBCT Training Area, East McGregor Range, Fort Bliss Military Reservation, Otero County, New Mexico. Technical Report 12-56. Statistical Research, El Paso. Historic and Natural Resources Report No. 11-14. Directorate of Public Works, Environmental Division, Conservation Branch, United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center, Fort Bliss, Texas.Google Scholar
Whalen, Michael E. 1978 Settlement Patterns of the Western Hueco Bolson. Publications in Anthropology No. 6. El Paso Centennial Museum, University of Texas at El Paso.Google Scholar
Whittaker, John C., Caulkins, Douglas, and Kamp, Kathryn A. 1998 Evaluating Consistency in Typology and Classification. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 5(2):129–164.Google Scholar