Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:53:13.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jack D. Nance  and
Bruce F. Ball
Jack D. Nance
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada, V5A 1S6
Bruce F. Ball
Affiliation:
Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2P8
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 457 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1986

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.)

References

References Cited

Alexander, D. 1983 The Limitations of Traditional Surveying Techniques in a Forested Environment. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 177–186.Google Scholar
Allen, M. J., and Yen, W. M. 1979 Introduction to Measurement Theory. Brooks-Cole, Monterrey, California.Google Scholar
Ammerman, A. 1981 Surveys and Archaeological Research. Annual Review of Anthropology 10: 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, B. F. 1980 Regional Sampling in a Forested Situation: Archaeology and the Northeast Coal Study. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Brooks, R. L. 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Carroll-Boone Counties Water Transmission Line, Arkansas. Ms. on File, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Brown, W. 1910 Some Experimental Results in the Correlation of Mental Abilities. British Journal of Psychology 3: 296–332.Google Scholar
Carmines, E., and Zeller, R. 1979 Reliability and Validity Assessment. Sage University Papers, 17, Beverly Hills.Google Scholar
Casjens, L., Roberts, M., Bawden, C., and Talmage, V. 1977 Field Methods in New England Cultural Resource Management. Paper presented at the Northeastern Anthropological Association Meeting, Providence.Google Scholar
Chapman, J. 1976 Early Archaic Site Location and Excavation in the Little Tennessee River Valley: Backhoes and Trowels. Southeastern Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 19: 80–90.Google Scholar
Chartkoff, J. 1978 Transect Interval Sampling in Forests. American Antiquity 43: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claasen, C, and Spears, C. 1975 An Assessment of Site Surveying, Shovel Testing, and Augering. In The Arkansas Eastman Archaeological Project, edited by Baker, C., pp. 123–127. Arkansas Archaelogical Survey, Research Report 6, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Cochran, W. G. 1963 Sampling Techniques. 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Collins, M. 1979 Excavations at Four Archaic Sites in the Lower Ohio Valley. Department of Anthropology, University of Kentucky, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 1, Lexington.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1970 Some Sampling and Reliability Problems in Archaeology. In Archeologie et Calculateurs: Problemes Semiologiques et Mathematiques, pp. 161–175. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
Cowgill, G. L. 1975 A Selection of Samplers. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by Mueller, J. W., pp. 258–274. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. G. H. 1972 Research Design Models. In Models in Archaeology, edited by Clarke, D. L., pp. 201–229. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Dibble, H. L., and Barnard, M. C. 1980 A Comparative Study of Basic Edge Angle Measurement Techniques. American Antiquity 45: 857–865.Google Scholar
Dincauze, D. F., Wobst, H. M., Hasenstab, R., and Lacy, D. 1981 Retrospective Assessment of Archaeological Survey Contracts in Massachusetts, 1970-1979. Report prepared for the Massachusetts Historical Commission, Boston.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R., and Dancey, W. 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 267–287. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Engelmam, L. 1981 PLR Stepwise Logistic Regression. In BMDP Statistical Software, pp. 330–344. University of California Press, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. 1959 Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Fish, P. R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43: 86–89.Google Scholar
Gatus, T. W. 1980 A Review and Comment on Surface and Subsurface Survey Methodologies Operationalized in Kentucky. Southeast Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22: 141–145.Google Scholar
Guilford, J. P., and Fruchter, B. 1973 Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. 5th ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Hole, B. 1980 Sampling in Archaeology: A Critique. Annual Review of Anthropology 9: 217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. H., and Ballenger, D. L. 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. Division of Advanced Studies and Research, Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Research Manuscript Series, No. 104, Columbia.Google Scholar
Jelks, E. 1975 The Use and Misuse of Random Sampling in Archaeology. Jett, Normal, Illinois.Google Scholar
Judge, W. J. 1981 Transect Sampling in Chaco Canyon— Evaluation of a Survey Technique. In Archaeological Surveys of Chaco Canyon, New Mexico, Publications in Archaeology, 18A, U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, pp. 107–137, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Kish, L. 1967 Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, D., and Kupper, L. 1978 Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods. Duxbury Press, North Scituate, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Klinger, T. (assembler) 1977 New Hope: An Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed Strip Mine Tract in the Gulf Coastal Plain of Southwest Arkansas. Ms. on file, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Krakker, J., Shott, M., and Welch, P. 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 469–480.Google Scholar
Lloyd, M. 1967 Mean Crowding. Journal of Animal Ecology 36: 1–30.Google Scholar
Lord, F. M., and Novick, M. R. 1968 Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Lovis, W. A. 1976 Quarter Sections and Forests: An Example of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41: 364–372.Google Scholar
Lynch, B. 1980 Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 21: 516–517.Google Scholar
Magnusson, D. M. 1967 Test Theory. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
McGuire, R. H., Whittaker, J., McGuire, M., and McSwain, R. 1982 A Consideration of Observational Error in Lithic Use Wear Analysis. Lithic Technology 11: 59–63.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. 1981b Probability Sampling and Archaeological Survey in the Northeast: An Estimation Approach. In Foundations of Northeast Archaeology, edited by Snow, D., pp. 195–277. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. 1982 Prehistoric Land Use on Outer Cape Cod. Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 1–20.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. 1984 Discovering Sites Unseen. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 223–292. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Morisita, M. 1959 Measuring the Dispersion of Individuals and Analysis of the Distributional Patterns. Memoirs of the Faculty of Science 2: 215–235. Kyushu University, Series E, Biology.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1979 Regional Subsampling and Statistical Inference in Forested Habitats. American Antiquity 44: 172–176.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1980a Lower Cumberland Archaeological Project 1978. Southeast Archaeological Conference, Bulletin 22: 123–135.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1980b Non-site Sampling in the Lower Cumberland River Valley, Kentucky. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 5: 169–191.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1981 Sampling Models in Archaeological Survey. Paper presented at the 10th Congress, International Union of Pre-and Protohistoric Sciences, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1983 Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 289–356. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1985 Reliability, Validity, and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology. Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
Nicholson, B. A. 1980 An Investigation of the Potential of Freshwater Mussels as Seasonal Indicators in Archaeological Sites. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Nicholson, B. A. 1983 A Comparative Evaluation of Four Sampling Techniques and of the Reliability of Microdebitage as a Cultural Indicator in Regional Survey. Plains Anthropologist 28: 273–281.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1969 An Introduction to Mathematical Ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
Pielou, E. C. 1975 Ecological Diversity. Wiley Interscience, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, F. 1981 Managing Archaeology: A Background Document for Cultural Resource Management on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Arizona. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southwest Region, Report No. 1, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Plog, F., Weide, M., and Stewart, M. 1977 Research Design in the SUNY-Binghamton Contract Program. In Conservation Archaeology: A Guide for Cultural Resource Management Studies, edited by Schiffer, M. B. and Gumerman, G. J., pp. 107–120. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, S. 1976 Relative Efficiencies of Sampling Techniques for Archaeological Surveys. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 136–158. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, S., Plog, F., and Wait, W. 1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 383–421. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Prager-Bergman, M. 1980 Muddles in the Puddles: Archaeological Survey in Virginia. Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.Google Scholar
Prentice, R. 1976 A Generalization of the Probit and Logit Models for Dose Response Curves. Biometrics 32: 761–768.Google Scholar
Raab, L. M. 1977 An Archaeological Survey of the Caddo Planning Unit, Ouchita National Forest, Arkansas. In Archaeology and National Forest Land Management Planning, pp. 22–34, Archaeology Report No. 6. U. S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Ray, R. H., Raab, L. M., and Cochran, R. J. Jr., 1976 An Archaeological Sample Survey of the Caddo Planning Unit, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. Ms. on file, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Fayetteville, Arkansas.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., and Wells, S. 1982 Archaeological Surveys: Past and Future. In Hohokam to Patayan: Prehistory of Southwestern Arizona, edited by McGuire, R. H. and Schiffer, M. B., pp. 345–383, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., Sullivan, A. P., and Klinger, T. C. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10: 1–28.Google Scholar
Schuessler, K. 1971 Analyzing Social Data: A Statistical Orientation. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. 1956 Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Spearman, C. 1910 Correlation Calculated from Faulty Data. British Journal of Psychology 3: 271–295.Google Scholar
Spurting, B. 1980 Site Discovery and Assessment Techniques for Mixed Cover Survey Regimes. Saskatchewan Archaeology 1: 25–56.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. 1971 Reliability. In Educational Measurement, edited by Thorndike, R., pp. 356–442, American Council on Education, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
Stone, G. 1981a The Interpretation of Negative Evidence in Archaeology. In Atlatl: Occasional Papers No. 2, edited by Staski, E. and Anderson, J., pp. 41–53, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Stone, G. 1981b On Artifact Density and Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 22: 182–183.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. 1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek Without a Site? In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by Mueller, J. W., pp. 61–81. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. n. d. Sampling Bias and Regional Settlement Systems: A Case Study From Southern New England. Ms. on file, Public Archaeology Laboratory, Brown University, Providence.Google Scholar
Williams, K. 1976 A Preliminary Assessment of Techniques Applied in the FAI-255 Survey. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. 1971 Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Wobst, H. M. 1983 We Can't See the Forest for the Trees: Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by Moore, J. A. and Keene, A. S., pp. 37–85. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar