Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T09:02:40.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fieldworker Experience and Single-Episode Screening as Sources of Data Recovery Bias in Archaeology: A Case Study from the Central Pacific Northwest Coast

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Anthony P. Graesch
Anthony P. Graesch*
Affiliation:
Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, and Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (anthony.p.graesch@ucla.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite increasing concern with the effects of archaeological data recovery methods on the types and quantity of objects extracted from the material record, archaeologists rarely discuss recovery biases attributable to the most basic excavation procedures. In this study I examine how several factors, including variable artifact identification skills, can affect artifact recovery rates in the field. Data from household-level investigations at the Stó:lō (Coast Salish) village of Welqámex (DiRi 15) are presented to show how interobserver variation can compromise interpretations of past behavior when opportunities for artifact recovery are limited to observations at the excavation unit and single-episode (field-only) sieving. Laboratory sorting of screen residue retained in 3.2-mm (one-eighth-inch) mesh sieves is shown to account for the recovery of as much as 87.5 percent of lithic artifacts and nearly 90 percent of archaeofaunal remains. Rates of artifact recovery in the field are highly variable among excavation crews working at Welqámex, and I argue that the application of correction factors is inappropriate unless the magnitude of recovery bias can be measured for specific excavation teams and particular depositional contexts. The results of this study further highlight the importance of documenting and mitigating the unintended effects of methodological decisions on archaeological assemblages.

Résumé

Résumé

A despecho del aumento en la preocupación con los efectos de la recuperación de datos con métodos arqueológicos en los tipos y cantidad de objetos extractados de la anotación material, arqueólogos rara vez discuten los sesgos en recuperación atribuidos a los procedimientos más básicos de excavación. En éste estudio examino cómo varios factores, incluyendo variación en las habilidades para identificar artefactos, pueden afectar la razón de artefactos recuperados en el campo. Datos de investigaciones al raso doméstico en la aldea Stó:lō (Coast Salish) de Welqámex (DiRi 15) son destacados para mostrar cómo variación en habilidad puede comprometer interpretaciones de un comportamiento pasado cuando la oportunidad para recuperar artefactos es limitada a observaciones en la unidad de excavación y un solo (campo únicamente) acontecimiento de harnero. En el laboratorio, separación de residuo retenido en cedazos de 3.2-mm (un octavo de pulgada) cuenta por la recuperación de hasta 87.5 por ciento de artefactos líticos y casi el 90 por ciento de restos de fauna arqueológicas. La razón de artefactos recuperados en el campo se ha presentado altamente variable entre equipos excavadores, y así arguyo que la aplicación de factores rectificadores es inadecuada menos que el impacto del sesgo en recuperación sea específicamente medida para equipos excavadores y los contextos particulares que producen depósitos. Los resultados de este estudio marcan adicionalmente la importancia de documentar y aminorar los efectos inadvertidamente causadas por las decisiones metodológicas en colecciones arqueológicas.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 74 , Issue 4 , October 2009 , pp. 759 - 779
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2009

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

Arnold, Jeanne E. 1994 Studies in Prehistoric Sociopolitical Complexity in the Northern Channel Islands and Preliminary Findings from Prisoners Harbor. In The Fourth California Islands Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources, edited by W. L. Halvorson and G. J. Maender, pp. 193–200. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California.Google Scholar
Arnold, Jeanne E. 2001 The Channel Islands Project: History, Objectives, and Methods. In The Origins of a Pacific Coast Chiefdom: The Chumash of the Channel Islands, edited by J. E. Arnold, pp. 21–52. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Banning, E. B., Hawkins, A. L., and Stewart, S. T. 2006 Detection Functions for Archaeological Survey. American Antiquity 71:723–742.Google Scholar
Cannon, Michael D. 1999 A Mathematical Model of the Effects of Screen Size on Zooarchaeological Relative Abundance Measures. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:205–214.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. Douglas, Green, Paul E., and Schaffer, Catherine M. 1986 Interpoint Distance Comparisons in Correspondence Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research 23:271–280.Google Scholar
Cherry, John F. 1975 Efficient Soil Searching: Some Comments. Antiquity 49:217–219.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. V. 1978 Excavation andVolunteers: A Cautionary Tale. World Archaeology 10:63–70.Google Scholar
Cook, Sherburne F., and Heizer, Robert F. 1951 The Physical Analysis of Nine Indian Mounds of the Lower Sacramento Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnography 40:281–312.Google Scholar
Daniels, S. G. H. 1972 Research Design Models. In Models in Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 201–229. Methuen, London.Google Scholar
Davis, Jack L. 2004 Are the Landscapes of Greek Prehistory Hidden? A Comparative Approach. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry, pp. 22–35. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Ebert, James I. 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Fish, Paul R. 1978 Consistency in Archaeological Measurement and Classification: A Pilot Study. American Antiquity 43:86–89.Google Scholar
Given, Michael 2004 Mapping and Manuring: Can We Compare Sherd Density Figures? In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry, pp. 13–21. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Given, Michael, and Bernard Knapp, A. 2003 The Sydney Cyprus Survey Project: Social Approaches to Regional Archaeological Survey (Monumenta Archaeologica 21). Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Glassow, Michael A. 1993 Introduction: A Progress Report on Northern Channel Islands Archaeological Research. In Archaeology on the Northern Channel Islands of California: Studies of Subsistence, Economics, and Social Organization, edited by Michael A. Glassow, pp. 1–17. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.Google Scholar
Gordon, Elizabeth A. 1993 Screen Size and Differential Faunal Recovery: A Hawaiian Example. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:453–460.Google Scholar
Graesch, Anthony P. 2006 Archaeological and Ethnoarchaeological Investigations of Households and Perspectives on a Coast Salish Historic Village in British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Graesch, Anthony P. 2007 Modeling Ground Slate Knife Production and Implications for the Study of Household Labor Contributions to Salmon Fishing on the Pacific Northwest Coast. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:576–606.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael J. 1984 Theory and Application of Correspondence Analysis. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Roberta S. 1961 Quantitative Analysis of Shells from a Site in Goleta, California. American Antiquity 26:416–420.Google Scholar
Hawkins, A. L., Stewart, S. T., and Banning, E. B. 2003 Interobserver Bias in Enumerated Data from Archaeological Survey. Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1503–1512.Google Scholar
Hester, Thomas R., and Shafer, Harry J. 1992 Lithic Workshops Revisited: Comments on Moholy-Nagy. Latin American Antiquity 3:243–248.Google Scholar
James, Steven R. 1997 Methodological Issues Concerning Screen Size Recovery Rates and their Effects on Archaeofaunal Interpretations. Journal of Archaeological Science 24:385–397.Google Scholar
Kidder, Tristram R. 1997 Sugar Reflotation: An Alternative Method for Sorting Flotation-Derived Heavy Fraction Samples. Journal of Field Archaeology 24:39–45.Google Scholar
Lenert, Michael P. 2007 Coast Salish Household and Community Organization at Sxwóxwimelh: An Ancient Stó:1ō Village in the Upper Fraser Valley, British Columbia. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lepofsky, Dana, Schaepe, David M., Arnold, Jeanne E., and Blake, Michael 2003 The Fraser Valley Archaeology Project 2002: Pilot Investigations at DgRl 17, DgRm 1, DhRk 2, DhRk 6, DiRi 1, DiRj 30. Report submitted to Stó:1ō Nation and Archaeology Registration Services, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Mason, Roger D., Peterson, Mark L., and Tiffany, Joseph A. 1998 Weighing vs. Counting: Measurement Reliability and the California School of Midden Analysis. American Antiquity 63:303–324.Google Scholar
Matson, R. G., and Coupland, Gary 1995 Prehistory of the Northwest Coast. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Nagaoka, Lisa 2005 Differential Recovery of Pacific Island Fish Remains. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:941–955.Google Scholar
Payne, Sebastian 1972 Partial Recovery and Sampling Bias: The Results of Some Sieving Experiments. In Papers in Economic Prehistory: Studies by Members and Associates of the British Academy Major Research Project in the Early History of Agriculture, edited by Eric S. Higgs, pp. 49–64. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Pendleton, Michael W. 1983 A Comment Concerning “Testing Flotation Recovery Rates” American Antiquity 48:615–616.Google Scholar
Plog, Stephen, Plog, Fred, and Wait, Walter 1978 Decision-Making in Modern Surveys. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 383–421. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Schaepe, David M., Blake, Michael, Formosa, Sue, and Lepofsky, Dana 2006 Mapping and Testing Precontact Stó:lō Settlements in the Fraser Canyon and Fraser Valley (2004–2005): Xelhálh (DjRi 14), Eyxel (DiRi 48), Shxw’ow’hamel (DjRi 30), Qithyil Island (DhRl 15), Sqwa:la (DgRl 6), Th’ewa:li (DgRl 17), Sxwóxwimelh South (DiRj 1), and ‘John Mack’ Slough (DhRl Tl). Manuscript on file at Stó:lō Tribal Council/ Stó:lō Nation, Chilliwack, British Columbia.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B., Sullivan, Alan P., and Klinger, Timothy C. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World Archaeology 10:1–28.Google Scholar
Schon, Robert 2000 On a Site and Out of Sight: Where Have Our Data Gone? Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 13:107–111.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Brian S. 1992 Quarter-Inch Screening: Understanding Biases in Recovery of Vertebrate Faunal Remains. American Antiquity 57:129–136.Google Scholar
Shaffer, Brian S., and Sanchez, Julia L. J. 1994 Comparison of 1/8”-and 1/4”-Mesh Recovery of Controlled samples of Small-To-Medium-Sized Mammals. American Antiquity 59:525–530.Google Scholar
Shennan, Stephen 1985 Experiments in the Collection and Analysis of Archaeological Survey Data: The East Hampshire Survey. Department of Archaeology and Prehistory, University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Sherwood, Sarah C. 2001 Microartifacts. In Earth Sciences and Archaeology, edited by P. Goldberg, V. T. Holliday, and C. R. Ferring, pp. 327–351. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
Stein, Julie K., Kornbacher, Kimberly D., and Tyler, Jason L. 1992 British Camp Shell Midden Stratigraphy. In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Julie K. Stein, pp. 95–134. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
Struever, Stuart 1968 Flotation Techniques for the Recovery of Small-Scale Archaeological Remains. American Antiquity 33:353–362.Google Scholar
Terrenato, Nicola, and Ammerman, Albert J. 1996 Visibility and Site Recovery in the Cecina Valley Survey, Italy. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:91–109.Google Scholar
Thomspon, Stephen 2004 Side-by-Side and Back-to-Front: Exploring Intra-Regional Latitudinal and Longitudinal Comparability in Survey Data. Three Case Studies from Metaponto, Southern Italy. In Side-by-Side Survey: Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World, edited by Susan E. Alcock and John F. Cherry, pp. 65–85. Oxbow Books, Oxford.Google Scholar
Wagner, Gail E. 1982 Testing Flotation Recovery Rates. American Antiquity 47:127–132.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, LuAnn, and Camilli, Eileen L. 1992 The Character of Surface Archaeological Deposits and Its Influence on Survey Accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology 19:169–188.Google Scholar
Wilcoxon, Larry R. 1993 Subsistence and Site Structure: An Approach for Deriving Cultural Information from Coastal Shell Middens. In Archaeology on the Northern Channel Islands of California: Studies of Subsistence, Economics, and Social Organization, edited by Michael A. Glassow, pp. 137–151. Coyote Press, Salinas, California.Google Scholar
Wright, Patti J. 2005 Flotation Samples and Some Paleoethnobotanical Implications. Journal of Archaeological Science 32:19–26.Google Scholar