Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Article contents

The creative use of bias in field survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Richard Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AA, England
Tess Durden
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AA, England
Nigel Spencer
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford, OX1 2PG, England

Extract

A modest experiment explores what is is seen and what is not seen in field survey, and what can be done about it.

Type
Notes
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Beckensall, S. 1991. Prehistoric rock motifs of Northumberland 1. Hexham: privately published.Google Scholar
Beckensall, S. 1992. Prehistoric rock motifs of Northumberland 2. Hexham: privately published.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1991. Rock art and the perception of landscape, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(1): 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R., Harding, J. Mathews, M. & Rippon, S. 1993a. A field method for analysing the distribution of rock art, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 129–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R., Harding, J. & Mathews, M. 1993b. The siting of prehistoric rock art in Falloway, south-west Scotland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C. 1972. Goatscrag: a Bronze Age rock shelter cemetery in north Northumberland, with notes on rock shelters and crag lines in the region, Archaeologia Aeliana 50: 1569.Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. 1983. Frogs around the pond: perspectives on current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean region, in Keller, D. & Rupp, D. (ed.), Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean area: 375416. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International Series 155.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C. 1991. Editorial, Antiquity 65: 439–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, D.V. 1978. Excavation and volunteers: a cautionary tale, World Archaeology 10: 6370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, D., Jones, R. & Renfrew, A.C. 1976. Environmental reconstruction and evaluation: a case study from Orkney, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (NS) 1: 346–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. & Malone, C. 1984. Intensive survey of prehistoric sites in the Stilo region, Calabria, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 121–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvamme, K & Jochim, M. 1989. The environmental basis of Mesolithic settlement, in Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 112. Edinburgh: John Donald.Google Scholar
O‘brien, M. & Lewarch, D. 1992. Regional analysis of the Zapotee empire, Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, World Archaeology 23(3): 264–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layton, R. 1991. Figure, motif and symbol in the hunter-gatherer art of Europe and Australia, in P., Bahn & Rosenfeld, A. (ed.), Rock art and prehistory: 2338. Oxford: Oxbow. Monograph 10.Google Scholar
Mcdonald, W.A. & Hope-Simpson, R. 1961. Prehistoric habitation in south-western Peloponnese, American Journal of Archaeology 65: 221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, S., Plog, F. & Wait, W. 1978. Decision making in modern surveys, Advances in archaeological method and theory 1: 383421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shennan, S. 1985. Experiments in the collection and analysis of archaeological survey data. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 31 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 21st January 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-76cb886bbf-r88h9 Total loading time: 0.485 Render date: 2021-01-21T16:10:06.331Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The creative use of bias in field survey
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

The creative use of bias in field survey
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

The creative use of bias in field survey
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *