Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T04:08:46.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Detection Functions for Archaeological Survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

E. B. Banning ,
A. L. Hawkins  and
S. T. Stewart
E. B. Banning
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3 (ted.banning@utoronto.ca)
A. L. Hawkins
Affiliation:
Anthropology Unit, Laurentian University, 935 Ramsey Lake Rd., Sudbury, Ontario, Canada P3E 2C6 (ahawkins@laurentian.ca)
S. T. Stewart
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3 (salstew@sympatico.ca)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of several experiments to investigate how the detection functions of surveyors vary for different artifact types on surfaces with differing visibility when visual surface inspection (“fieldwalking”) is the survey method. As prospecting theory predicts, successful detection declines exponentially with distance away from transects and detection as a function of search time displays diminishing returns. However, these functions vary by visibility, artifact type, and other factors. The incidence of false targets–incorrect identifications of artifacts–has somewhat more impact at greater range but has little or no relationship with search time. Our results provide a rationale for selection of transect intervals and distribution of survey effort, and also facilitate evaluation of survey results, allowing more realistic estimates of how much a survey missed.

Résumé

Résumé

Este articulo describe los resultados obtenidos a través de varios experimentos destinados a investigar cómo la deteccidn de distintos tipos de material arqueológico es afectada por la visibilidad del terreno durante prospecciones superficiales. Tal como predice la teoría, la correcta detección de material disminuye de forma exponencial cuanto mayor es la distancia de los transectos y la relación entre la detección y el tiempo de búsqueda no es linear. Sin embargo, estos resultados son alterados por la visibilidad, el tipo de material, y otros factores. La incidencia de falsos objetivos–artefactos identificados erróneamente–es mayor con distancia pew apenas se ve afectada por el tiempo de búsqueda o rastreo. Los resultados sugieren ciertas estrategias para elegir la óptima distancia que separa los transectos, la organización del esfuerzo a la hora de prospectar y proporciona estimaciones más realistas sobre la eficacia de las prospecciones superficiales.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 4 , October 2006 , pp. 723 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2006

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, Albert J. 1985 Plow-Zone Experiments in Calabria, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 12:33–40.Google Scholar
Ammerman, Albert J., and Feldman, Marcus W. 1978 Replicated Collection of Site Surfaces. American Antiquity 43:734–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banning, Edward B. 1985 Pastoral and Agricultural Land Use in Wadi Ziqlab, Jordan. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Banning, Edward B. 2002 Archaeological Survey. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bintliff, John, Howard, Phil, and Snodgrass, Anthony 1999 The Hidden Landscape of Prehistoric Greece. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 12:139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Ronald L., Canouts, Veletta, Crown, Patricia L., and de Atley, Suzanne P. 1990 Sensitivity, Precision, and Accuracy: Their Roles in Ceramic Compositional Data Bases. American Antiquity 55:537–546.Google Scholar
Carreté, Josep-Maria, Keay, Simon, and Millett, Martin 1995 A Roman Provincial Capital and its Hinterland: The Survey of the Territory of Tarragona, Spain, 1985–1990. JRS Supplementary Series 15. Journal of Roman Archaeology, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Cherry, John F., Davis, Jack L., and Mantzourani, Eleni 1991 Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands. Monumenta Archaeologica 16. Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ebert, James I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Gaffney, Vincent L., Bintliff, John, and Slapsak, Bozidar 1991 Site Formation Processes and the Hvar Survey Project, Yugoslavia. In Interpreting Artefact Scatters: Contributions to Ploughzone Archaeology, edited by A. John Schofield, pp. 59–77. Oxbow Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Given, Michael 2004 Mapping and Manuring: Can We Compare Sherd Density Figures? In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry, pp. 13–21. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Hirth, Kenneth G. 1978 Problems in Data Recovery and Measurement in Settlement Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:125–131.Google Scholar
Koopman, Bernard O. 1980 Search and Screening: General Principles with Historical Applications. Pergamum Press, New York.Google Scholar
Lock, Gary, Bell, Tylor, and Lloyd, John 1999 Towards a Methodology for Modeling Surface Survey Data: The Sangro Valley Project. In Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology, edited by Mark Gillings, David Mattingly, and Jan van Dalen, pp. 55–63. Oxbow, Oxford.Google Scholar
Mee, Christopher, and Forbes, Hamish 1997 A Rough and Rocky Place. The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece: Results of the Methana Survey Project. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool.Google Scholar
Nance, Jack D. 1983 Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:289–356.Google Scholar
Nance, Jack D., and Ball, Bruce E 1986 No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity 51:457–483.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen, Plog, Fred, and Wait, Walter 1978 Decision-making in Modem Surveys. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:384–421.Google Scholar
Prentiss, William C. 1998 The Reliability and Validity of a Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 63:635–650.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B., Sullivan, Alan P., and Klinger, Timothy C. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10:1–28.Google Scholar
Schon, Robert 2000 On a Site and Out of Sight: Where Have Our Data Gone? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13:107–111.Google Scholar
Schon, Robert 2002 Seeding the Landscape: Experimental Contributions to Regional Survey Methodology. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Bryn Mawr College.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen J. 1985 Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: The East Hampshire Survey. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J. 1995 Reliability of Archaeological Records on Cultivated Surfaces: A Michigan Case Study. Journal of Field Archaeology 22:475–490.Google Scholar
Shott, Michael J., Tiffany, Joseph A., Doershuk, John F., and Titcomb, Jason 2002 The Reliability of Surface Assemblages: Recent Results from the Gillett Grove Site, Clay County, Iowa. Plains Anthropologist 47:165–182.Google Scholar
Singer, D. A., and Drew, L. J. 1976 Area of Influence of an Exploratory Hole. Economic Geology 71(3):642–647.Google Scholar
Stone, Lawrence D. 1975 Theory of Optimal Search. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Terrenato, Nicola 2000 The Visibility of Sites and the Interpretation of Field Survey Results: Towards an Analysis of Incomplete Distributions. In Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages, edited by Riccardo Francovich, Helen Patterson, and Graeme Barker, pp. 60–71. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Terrenato, Nicola, and Ammerman, Albert J. 1996 Visibility and Site Recovery in the Cecina Valley Survey, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:91–109.Google Scholar
Thompson, Stephen 2004 Side-by-Side and Back-to-Front: Exploring Intra-Regional Latitudinal and Longitudinal Comparability in Survey Data. Three Case Studies from Metaponto, Southern Italy. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry, pp. 65–85. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, LuAnn, and Camilli, Eileen L. 1992 The Character of Surface Archaeological Deposits and its Influence on Survey Accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:169–188.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, LuAnn, and Ebert, James I. 1986 Accuracy in Archaeological Surface Survey in the Seedskadee Project Area, Southwestern Wyoming. In The Seedskadee Project: Remote Sensing in Non-Site Archaeology, edited by Dwight L. Drager and Arthur K. Ireland, pp. 211–226. Southwest Region, National Park Service, Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Upper Colorado Region, Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah.Google Scholar