A Defense of Shovel-Test Sampling: A Reply to Shott

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Shott raises pertinent issues on the limitations of shovel-test sampling. I agree that alternative methods with more efficient discovery rates should be developed and tested. I argue, however, that shovel testing is the most efficient discovery technique now available for detecting buried cultural remains on a regional scale. In survey contexts where the probability of buried remains is high, shovel testing should remain a primary option.

Related collections

Most cited references 4

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling

Bruce F. Ball, Jack Nance (1986)

In attempts to implement probabilistic survey designs in areas of reduced surface visibility, archaeologists have turned to shovel testing or Test Pit Sampling (TPS). Characteristically TPS involves excavation of small, systematically spaced test pits within larger survey units as a method of searching for archaeological materials that would otherwise go undiscovered. While TPS has been the subject of considerable study most studies have been theoretical in nature. As a result, while the characteristics of TPS are understood generally, it is not known how well the method functions in known archaeological contexts. This article describes the results of research directed at estimating the reliability and validity of the test pit method when carried out on known archaeological sites under varying conditions of artifact density and spatial clustering. Split-half correlations and logistic regressions show that TPS is reliable in the sense that it produces replicable results, but is biased against discovery of small, low-density sites, especially when these sites exhibit high degrees of spatial clustering of artifacts. A model relating TPS to regional survey in general is presented and a means of estimating potential biases of the method is illustrated.

0 comments Cited 14 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Book Chapter: not found

Discovering Sites Unseen

FRANCIS P. MCMANAMON (1984)

0 comments Cited 14 times – based on 0 reviews

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs

Kent G. Lightfoot (1986)

The probability of detecting sites using subsurface testing programs is a serious concern for archaeologists working in the eastern United States. Some have suggested that current test-probe programs provide a poor method for estimating the frequency and distribution of sites. In this article I examine the usefulness of subsurface testing programs by comparing the results of an Eastern subsurface survey with a pedestrian surface survey conducted in the Southwest. The subsurface survey at Shelter Island, New York, was designed so that probability limits could be calculated for detecting sites of varying sizes. These probabilities were then employed to estimate the number and kinds of sites contained in sample units. When these results were compared with those from a pedestrian surface survey in northeastern Arizona, the results suggested that carefully designed subsurface surveys, although extremely labor-intensive, can provide settlement-pattern information as detailed as that collected in surface surveys.

0 comments Cited 7 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Title: American Antiquity

Abbreviated Title: Am. antiq.

Publisher: JSTOR

ISSN (Print): 0002-7316

ISSN (Electronic): 2325-5064

Publication date Created: April 1989

Publication date (Electronic): January 20 2017

Publication date (Print): April 1989

Volume: 54

Issue: 2

Pages: 413-416

Article

DOI: 10.2307/281716

SO-VID: bd784a54-d8b5-47f7-b92c-ff772274ac6c

License:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

History

Data availability:

Comments

Comment on this article

Cited by 3

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 15

See all reference authors