Detection Functions for Archaeological Survey

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.

[1]  David J. Williams,et al.  A Roman provincial capital and its hinterland: the survey of the territory of Tarragona, Spain, 1985-1990 , 1995 .

[2]  Michael B. Schiffer,et al.  The design of archaeological surveys , 1978 .

[3]  Michael J. Shott Reliability of Archaeological Records on Cultivated Surfaces: A Michigan Case Study , 1995 .

[4]  Eileen L. Camilli,et al.  The Character of Surface Archaeological Deposits and Its Influence on Survey Accuracy , 1992 .

[5]  Susan E. Alcock,et al.  Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World , 2004 .

[6]  A. M. Blackman,et al.  ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY , 2007 .

[7]  William C. Prentiss,et al.  The Reliability and Validity of a Lithic Debitage Typology: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation , 1998, American Antiquity.

[8]  Jack L. Davis,et al.  Landscape Archaeology as Long-Term History: Northern Keos in the Cycladic Islands , 1993 .

[9]  K. Hirth Problems in Data Recovery and Measurement in Settlement Archaeology , 1978 .

[10]  Jack D. Nance,et al.  No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling , 1986, American Antiquity.

[11]  B. O. Koopman Search and Screening: General Principles and Historical Applications , 1980 .

[12]  A. Ammerman,et al.  Replicated Collection of Site Surfaces , 1978, American Antiquity.

[13]  Albert J. Ammerman,et al.  Plow-Zone Experiments in Calabria, Italy , 1985 .

[14]  H. Forbes,et al.  A Rough and Rocky Place: The Landscape and Settlement History of the Methana Peninsula, Greece , 1998 .

[15]  P. Crown,et al.  Sensitivity, Precision, and Accuracy: Their Roles in Ceramic Compositional Data Bases , 1990, American Antiquity.

[16]  Fred T. Plog,et al.  Decision Making in Modern Surveys , 1978 .

[17]  Jack D. Nance,et al.  Regional Sampling in Archaeological Survey: The Statistical Perspective , 1983 .

[18]  Mark Gillings,et al.  Geographical Information Systems and Landscape Archaeology , 2000 .

[19]  A. Ammerman,et al.  Visibility and Site Recovery in the Cecina Valley Survey, Italy , 1996 .

[20]  Michael Given Mapping and manuring: can we compare sherd density figures? , 2004 .

[21]  Martin K. Oake,et al.  Experiments in the collection and analysis of archaeological survey data : the east Hampshire survey , 1985 .

[22]  J. Bintliff,et al.  The Hidden Landscape of Prehistoric Greece , 2000 .

[23]  Riccardo Francovich,et al.  Extracting Meaning from Ploughsoil Assemblages , 1999 .

[24]  L. Stone Theory of Optimal Search , 1975 .