Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-mwx4w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-24T04:19:30.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Shot in the Dark: Shott's Comments on Nance and Ball

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 VSA 1S6
Bruce F. Ball
Affiliation:
Archaeological Survey of Alberta, Alberta Culture and Multiculturalism, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2P8
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shott's comments on Nance and Ball's article on test-pit sampling are off the mark. His comments reveal that Shott has misread the authors, that he generally has misinterpreted their intent, that he does not understand their research design and therefore does not know how to apply their findings, that he overlooks or avoids numerous important points made by the authors, and that he has his own unique view of archaeological data and survey methods.

Type
Comments
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 1989 , pp. 405 - 412
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1989

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

Reference Cited

Alexander, D. A. 1983 The Limitations of Traditional Surveying Techniques in a Forested Environment. Journal of Field Archaeology 10 : 177–186.Google Scholar
Ball, B. F., and Bobrowsky, P. T. 1987 Cost Effective and Time Management Evaluation of Intensive Recovery Techniques. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11 : 75–97.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
Flannery, K. V. 1976 The Trouble with Regional Sampling. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Flannery, K. V., pp. 159-160. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Krakker, J. J., Shott, M. J., and Welch, P. D. 1983 Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 10 : 469–480.Google Scholar
McManamon, F. P. 1984 Discovering Sites Unseen. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 7, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 223-292. Academic Press, New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1979 Regional Subsampling and Statistical Inference in Forested Habitats. American Antiquity 44 : 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1980 Non-site Sampling in the Lower Cumberland River Valley, Kentucky. Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5 : 169–191.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D. 1981 Statistical Fact and Archaeological Faith : Two Models in Small Sites Sampling. Journal of Field Archaeology 8 : 151–165.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.Google Scholar
Nance, J. D., and Ball, B. F. 1986 No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling. American Antiquity 51 : 457–483.CrossRefGoogle 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
Shott, M. J. 1985 Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique : A Case Study from Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 12 : 458–469.Google Scholar
Shott, M. J. 1989 Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey : Comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot. American Antiquity 54 : 396-404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar