A Defense of Shovel-Test Sampling: A Reply to Shott
- 1 April 1989
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Antiquity
- Vol. 54 (2) , 413-416
- https://doi.org/10.2307/281716
Abstract
Shott raises pertinent issues on the limitations of shovel-test sampling. I agree that alternative methods with more efficient discovery rates should be developed and tested. I argue, however, that shovel testing is the most efficient discovery technique now available for detecting buried cultural remains on a regional scale. In survey contexts where the probability of buried remains is high, shovel testing should remain a primary option.Keywords
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and LightfootAmerican Antiquity, 1989
- Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing ProgramsAmerican Antiquity, 1986
- No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit SamplingAmerican Antiquity, 1986
- Discovering Sites UnseenPublished by Elsevier ,1984