Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T13:41:20.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Kent G. Lightfoot
Kent G. Lightfoot*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The probability of detecting sites using subsurface testing programs is a serious concern for archaeologists working in the eastern United States. Some have suggested that current test-probe programs provide a poor method for estimating the frequency and distribution of sites. In this article I examine the usefulness of subsurface testing programs by comparing the results of an Eastern subsurface survey with a pedestrian surface survey conducted in the Southwest. The subsurface survey at Shelter Island, New York, was designed so that probability limits could be calculated for detecting sites of varying sizes. These probabilities were then employed to estimate the number and kinds of sites contained in sample units. When these results were compared with those from a pedestrian surface survey in northeastern Arizona, the results suggested that carefully designed subsurface surveys, although extremely labor-intensive, can provide settlement-pattern information as detailed as that collected in surface surveys.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , July 1986 , pp. 484 - 504
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

Aitken, M. J. 1974 Physics and Archaeology. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Alexander, Diana 1983 The Limitations of Traditional Surveying Techniques in a Forested Environment. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 177–186.Google Scholar
Baker, Charles 1975 Arkansas Eastman Archaeological Project. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Report No. 6. Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Birk, Douglas A., and George, Douglas C. 1976 A Woodland Survey Strategy and Its Application in the Salvage of a Late Archaic Locus of the Smith Mounds Site, (21-KC-3) Koochiching County, Minnesota. Minnesota Archaeologist 35: 1–30.Google Scholar
Cable, John, Michie, James L., and Perlman, Stephen M. 1977 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Gaffney By-Pass, Cherokee County, South Carolina. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series No. 121. University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Carr, Christopher 1977 A New Role and Analytical Design for the Use of Resistivity Surveying in Archaeology. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 2: 161–193.Google Scholar
Casjens, Laurel, Bawden, Garth, Roberts, Michael, and Talmage, Valerie 1978 Field Methods in New England Cultural Resource Management. In Conservation Archaeology in the Northeast: Toward a Research Orientation, edited by Spiess, Arthur, pp. 87–94. Peabody Museum Bulletin 3, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Ceci, Lynn 1982 Method and Theory in Coastal New York Archaeology: Paradigms of Settlement Pattern. North American Archaeologist 3: 5–36.Google Scholar
Chartkoff, John 1978 Transect Interval Sampling in Forests. American Antiquity 43: 46–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Cheryl, and Spears, Carol S. 1975 An Assessment of Ambulatory Site Surveying, Shovel Testing and Augering. In Arkansas Eastman Archaeological Project, edited by Baker, Charles, pp. 123–127. Arkansas Archaeological Survey, Research Report No. 6. Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Dincauze, D. F., Wobst, 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, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Eidt, R. 1973 A Rapid Chemical Field Test for Archaeological Surveying. American Antiquity 39: 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feder, Kenneth L. 1981 The Farmington River Archaeological Project: Focus on a Small River Valley. Man in the Northeast 22: 131–146.Google Scholar
Hantman, Jeffrey L., and Neitzel, Jill E. 1984 Demographic Reconstruction in the Northern Southwest. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.Google Scholar
House, John H., and Ballenger, David L. 1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Interstate 77 Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology, Research Manuscript Series No. 104, University of South Carolina, Columbia.Google Scholar
Judge, W. James, I. Ebert, James, and K. Hitchcock, Robert 1975 Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by W. Mueller, James, pp. 82–123. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Krakker, James, Shott, Michael J., and Welch, Paul 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 469–480.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Kent G. 1984a Prehistoric Political Dynamics: A Case Example from the American Southwest. Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Kent G. 1984b The Duncan Project: A Study of the Occupation Duration and Settlement Pattern of an Early Mogollon Pithouse Village. Anthropological Field Studies No. 6. Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, Kent, Kalin, Robert, Lindauer, Owen, and Wicks, Linda 1985 Coastal New York Settlement Patterns: A Perspective from Shelter Island. Man in the Northeast 30: 59–82.Google Scholar
Lovis, William Jr., 1976 Quarter Sections and Forests: An Example of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41: 364–372.Google Scholar
Lynch, Mark 1980 Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 21: 516–517.Google Scholar
McBride, Kevin A., and Dewar, Robert 1981 Prehistoric Settlement in the Lower Connecticut River Valley. Man in the Northeast 22: 37–66.Google Scholar
McManamon, Francis Patrick 1978 Site Identification in the Northeast. In Conservation Archaeology in the Northeast: Toward a Research Orientation, edited by E. Spiess, Arthur, pp. 78–86. Peabody Museum Bulletin 3. Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
McManamon, Francis Patrick 1981 Probability Sampling and Archaeological Survey in the Northeast: An Estimation Approach. In Foundations of Northeast Archaeology, edited by Snow, Dean, pp. 195–227. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
McManamon, Francis Patrick 1984a Discovering Sites Unseen, la Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory , vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, Michael, pp. 223–292. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
McManamon, Francis Patrick 1984b Method and Techniques for Survey and Site Examination. In Chapters in the Archaeology of Cape Cod, I, vol. 1, edited by McManamon, Francis, pp. 25–44. U. S. Department of the Interior, Boston.Google Scholar
Mueller, James W. 1974 The Use of Sampling in Archaeological Survey. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 28. Google Scholar
Mueller, James W. 1975 Archaeological Research as Cluster Sampling. In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by Mueller, J., pp. 33–41. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Nance, Jack D. 1979 Regional Subsampling and Statistical Inference in Forested Habitats. American Antiquity 44: 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, Jack D. 1980 Non-site Sampling in the Lower Cumberland River Valley, Kentucky. Mid-Continental Journal of America 5: 169–191.Google Scholar
Nance, Jack D. 1983 Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6, edited by Schiffer, Michael, pp. 289–356. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Nance, Jack D., and Ball, Bruce F. 1986 No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity 51: 457–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, Fred 1974 The Study of Prehistoric Change. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, Fred 1981 Cultural Resources Overview: Little Colorado Area, Arizona. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Plog, Fred, Effland, Richard W., and Green, Dee 1978 Inferences Using the SARG Data Bank. In Investigations of the Southwestern Anthropological Research Group: The Proceedings of the 1976 Conference, edited by Euler, R. C. and Gumerman, G. J., pp. 139–148. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen 1976 Relative Efficiencies of Sampling Techniques for Archaeological Surveys. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, Kent, pp. 136–158. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen, Plog, Fred, and Wait, Walter 1978 Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1, edited by B. Schiffer, Michael, pp. 383–421. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Powell, Shirley 1980 Material Culture and Behavior: A Prehistoric Example for the American Southwest. Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Raab, L. Mark 1977 An Archaeological Sample Survey of the Caddo Planning Unit, Ouachita National Forest, Arkansas. In Archaeology and National Forest Land Management Planning, pp. 23–34. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Archaeological Report 16. Google Scholar
Reid, J. Jefferson 1982 Cholla Project Archaeology, vol. 1, Introduction and Special Studies. Arizona State Museum, Cultural Resource Management Division Archaeological Series No. 161. Tucson.Google Scholar
Salwen, Bert 1970 Cultural Inferences from Faunal Remains: Examples from Three Northeast Coastal Sites. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 40: 1–8.Google Scholar
Saxon, Walter 1975 Archaeological Surveying and Testing in Connetquot River State Park. Ms. on file, Nassau County Museum, Long Island, New York.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael, Sullivan, Alan P., and Klinger, Timothy C. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10: 1–28.Google Scholar
Stone, Glen Davis 1981 On Artifact Density and Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 22: 182–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 1975 Nonsite Sampling in Archaeology: Up the Creek Without a Site? In Sampling in Archaeology, edited by W. Mueller, James, pp. 61–81. The University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
Tite, M. S. 1972 Methods of Physical Examination in Archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
Upham, Steadman 1984 Adaptive Diversity and Southwestern Abandonment. Journal of Anthropological Research 40: 235–256.Google Scholar
Warner, Frederic W. 1978 Relative Effectiveness of Sampling Strategies at a Connecticut Site. In Conservation Archaeology in the Northeast: Toward a Research Orientation, edited by Spiess, Arthur, pp. 67–78. Peabody Museum Bulletin 3, Harvard University, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wobst, Martin 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, James and Keene, Arthur, pp. 37–85. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Wyatt, Ronald J. 1977 The Archaic on Long Island, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 400–410.Google Scholar