Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-bzm8f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T09:28:22.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Keith W. Kintigh
Keith W. Kintigh*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article briefly reviews methodological issues relevant to subsurface testing and advances a general method for objectively assessing the reliability of an archaeological survey program based on subsurface survey methods such as the excavation of shovel tests or the use of auger holes. The proposed technique employs simulation to model subsurface testing strategies using simple principles of probability and assumptions that are explicit and realistic. An arbitrary layout of test units can be evaluated to yield an estimate of the proportions of sites of different sizes and artifact densities that will be found (or missed) by the testing program.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , October 1988 , pp. 686 - 707
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1988

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

References cited

Ammerman, A. J., and Feldman, M. W. 1978 Replicated Collection of Site Artifacts. American Antiquity 43 : 734–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drew, L. 1979 Pattern Drilling Exploration : Optimum Pattern Types and Hole Spacings when Searching for Elliptical Shaped Targets. Mathematical Geology 11(2) : 223-254.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, B. M. 1980 Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Test Probes. Current Anthropology 21 : 516–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McManamon, F. P. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1983 Regional Sampling and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. D., and Ball, B. F. 1986 No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity 51 : 457–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1977 Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 1985 Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique : A Case Study from Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 12 : 457–468.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981 Biometry : The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Stone, G. D. 1981 On Artifact Density and Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 22 : 182–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, H. M. 1983 We Can't See the Forests for the Trees : Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Moore, J. A. and Keene, A. S., pp. 37-85. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar