Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes

Abstract

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch ConclusionsSite Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel ProbesB. Mark LynchB. Mark Lynch Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 21, Number 4Aug., 1980 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/202507 Views: 5Total views on this site Citations: 14Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1980 The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological ResearchPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:C. Adam Berrey, Scott D. Palumbo Survey, Shovel Probes, and Population Estimates: Studying Regional Demography in the Intermediate Area Using Subsurface Sherd Deposits, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 29, no.11 (Mar 2021): 83–137.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-021-09509-7Jeffrey S Alvey The problem of undersampling for models of archaeological occupations derived from shovel testing and its consequences for significance determinations, North American Archaeologist 42, no.22 (Dec 2020): 205–234.https://doi.org/10.1177/0197693120980982E.B. Banning, Alicia L. Hawkins, S.T. Stewart Sweep widths and the detection of artifacts in archaeological survey, Journal of Archaeological Science 38, no.1212 (Dec 2011): 3447–3458.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.007Charles Perreault The Impact of Site Sample Size on the Reconstruction of Culture Histories, American Antiquity 76, no.33 (Jan 2017): 547–572.https://doi.org/10.7183/0002-7316.76.3.547Evan Peacock Archaeological Site Survey in Wooded Environments: A Field Study from the Tombigbee National Forest, North-Central Mississippi, North American Archaeologist 17, no.11 (Nov 2016): 61–79.https://doi.org/10.2190/VV53-MQ8P-2PWC-NF3RBert J. Groenewoudt, Matthijs van Nie Assessing the Scale and Organisation of Germanic Iron Production in Heeten, the Netherlands, Journal of European Archaeology 3, no.22 (Jul 2013): 187–215.https://doi.org/10.1179/096576695800703748Linea Sundstrom A Simple Mathematical Procedure for Estimating the Adequacy of Site Survey Strategies, Journal of Field Archaeology 20, no.11 (Jul 2013): 91–96.https://doi.org/10.1179/009346993791974316Michael J. Shott Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot, American Antiquity 54, no.22 (Jan 2017): 396–404.https://doi.org/10.2307/281714Keith W. Kintigh The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach, American Antiquity 53, no.44 (Jan 2017): 686–707.https://doi.org/10.2307/281113Jack D. Nance, Bruce F. Ball No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling, American Antiquity 51, no.33 (Jan 2017): 457–483.https://doi.org/10.2307/281747Kent G. Lightfoot Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs, American Antiquity 51, no.33 (Jan 2017): 484–504.https://doi.org/10.2307/281748Wojciech Brzeziński, Marek Dulinicz, Zbigniew Kobyliński, Bogdan Lichy, Andrzej Moszczyński Multistage strategy for sampling settlement sites: an example from Poland., Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50 (May 2014): 377–382.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00007593FRANCIS P. MCMANAMON Discovering Sites Unseen, (Jan 1984): 223–292.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-003107-8.50009-8JACK D. NANCE Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective, (Jan 1983): 289–356.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-003106-1.50013-4