Previous articleNext article No AccessDiscussion and CriticismOn Artifact Density and Shovel ProbesGlenn Davis StoneGlenn Davis Stone Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Current Anthropology Volume 22, Number 2Apr., 1981 Sponsored by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/202644 Views: 5Total views on this site Citations: 15Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1981 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/10.1177/0197693120980982Denis V. Sharapov Recent methodological approaches to regional settlement pattern survey in the Eurasian steppes, Archaeological Research in Asia 21 (Mar 2020): 100173.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2019.100173Philip Verhagen Site Discovery and Evaluation Through Minimal Interventions: Core Sampling, Test Pits and Trial Trenches, (Nov 2013): 209–225.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01784-6_12Philip Verhagen, Eelco Rensink, Machteld Bats, Philippe Crombé Establishing discovery probabilities of lithic artefacts in Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites with core sampling, Journal of Archaeological Science 40, no.11 (Jan 2013): 240–247.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2012.05.041Philip Verhagen, Arno Borsboom The design of effective and efficient trial trenching strategies for discovering archaeological sites, Journal of Archaeological Science 36, no.88 (Aug 2009): 1807–1815.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.04.010Evan 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/10.2307/281748FRANCIS 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