Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T00:27:06.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Excavation Sample Size: A Cautionary Tale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis H. O'Neil
Dennis H. O'Neil*
Affiliation:
Archaeological Certification Program, Palomar College, San Marcos, CA 92069
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Frequently, only five percent or less of a midden site is excavated for environmental-analysis purposes before it is turned over to the bulldozers for destruction. Such exceptionally small sample sizes have become accepted in cultural-resource-management work as adequate for gaining a good understanding of the chronology and cultural activities at a site. This assumption was tested by the author with a 63 percent excavation sampling fraction from a southern California midden. The data indicate that a far-from-complete understanding of a site may result from small sampling fractions and that more carefully designed sampling strategies and statistical manipulation of the data may not overcome this problem.

Resumen

Resumen

Frecuentemente, sólo un cinco por ciento, o menos, de un basurero antiguo se excava con el propósito de analizar el medio ambiente antes de ser destruído por los caterpilars. Sin embargo, a pesar de que las muestras son tan excepcionalmente pequeñas, se han aceptado como cantidades adecuadas en el manejo de recursos culturales, para adquirir un buen conocimiento de la cronología y las actividades culturales de ese sitio. Esta suposición fue probada por el autor con un 63 por ciento de la fracción de muestra de excavación de un basurero del sur de California. Los datos indican que no se puede comprender completamente un sitio con tan pequeñas muestras y aunque piensen en ser més cuidadosos con las estrategias designadas de muestras y manipulen las estadísticas de los datos, no eliminarán este problema.

Information

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 58 , Issue 3 , July 1993, pp. 523 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1993

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

Bellhouse, D., and Findlayson, W. 1979 An Empirical Study of Probability Sampling Design. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 3: 105–123.Google Scholar
Harrison, W. M., and Harrison, E. S. 1966 An Archaeological Sequence for the Hunting People of Santa Barbara, California. U. C. L. A. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 8: 1–89. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T., Grayson, D. K., and Beck, C. 1983 Artifact Class Richness and Sample Size in Archaeological Surface Assemblages. In Lulu Linear Punctuated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, edited by Dunnell, R. D. and Grayson, D. K., pp. 55–73. Anthropological Papers No. 72. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
King, T. F. 1978 The Archaeological Survey: Methods and Uses. USDI Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1984 Measuring Archaeological Diversity by Comparison with Simulated Assemblages. American Antiquity 49: 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1988 The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach. American Antiquity 53: 686–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintigh, K. W. 1989 Sample Size, Significance, and Measures of Diversity. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, edited by Leonard, R. D. and Jones, G. T., pp. 25–36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google 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
McCartney, P. H., and Glass, M. F. 1990 Simulation Models and the Interpretation of Archaeological Diversity. American Antiquity 55: 521— 536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, W. A., Bruseth, J. E., and Huggins, R. J. 1991 Assessing Feature Function and Spatial Patterning of Artifacts with Geophysical Remote-Sensing Data. American Antiquity 56: 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moriarty, J. R. 1966 Culture Phase Divisions Suggested by Typological Change Coordinated with Stratigraphy Controlled Radiocarbon Dating at San Diego. Anthropological Journal of Canada 4: 20–30.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1981 Statistical Fact and Archaeological Faith. Journal of Field Archaeology 8: 151–165.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1983 Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schif Fer, 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
O' Neil, D. H. 1982 Archaeological Excavation ofW-1556, A Campbell Tradition and Late Prehistoric Hunting and Gathering Camp in San Marcos, California. Manuscript on file, South Coastal Information Center, California State Office of Historic Preservation, San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Redman, C. L. 1987 Surface Collection, Sampling, and Research Design: A Retrospective. American Antiquity 52: 249–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhode, D. 1988 Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and the Sample-Size Effect. American Antiquity 53: 708–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuldenrein, J. 1991 Coring and the Identity of Cultural-Resource Environments: A Comment on Stein. American Antiquity 56: 131–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1989 Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot. American Antiquity 54: 396–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, J. K. 1986 Coring Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51: 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1983 Mid-range Theory: Sample Size Effect. In The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter, by Thomas, D. H., pp. 425–433. Anthropological Papers Vol. 59, Pt. 2. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Warren, C. N. 1968 Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3): 1—14. University of New Mexico Press, Portales.Google Scholar