Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T01:35:45.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bewitched by Mechanical Site-Testing Devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

George H. Odell
George H. Odell*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK 74104
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Archaeological site testing has traditionally been accomplished through manual techniques such as test pitting and coring, or with large-scale mechanical devices such as a back hoe. An intermediate strategy, one involving a pipe-trenching device known as a Ditch Witch, is introduced here. For situations in which the site has already been discovered and its extent is generally known, small-scale mechanical trenching can provide useful information on site type and structure in a fairly brief amount of time. It deserves to be seriously considered as an evaluative strategy, particularly for large sites with internal structure that exist within the top 70 cm of deposit.

Resumen

Resumen

Tradicionalmente, el sondeo de sitios arqueológicos es llevado a cabo mediante técnicas manuales, tales como la excavación de pozos de sondeo y la perforación, o grandes máquinas, tales como palas mecánicas. En el presente artículo se presenta una estrategia intermedia que hace uso de un dispositivo de caños para el cavado de trincheras conocido como "Ditch Witch." En situaciones en las que el sitio ya ha sido descubierto y su extensión es en general conocida, el cavado mecánico de trincheras en pequeña escala puede proporcionar información útil sobre la estructura del sitio en un período relativamente breve. Esta técnica merece ser tenida en cuenta como estrategia de evaluación, particularmente para grandes sitios con estructura interna que existen en los 70 cm superiores de sedimento.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 57 , Issue 4 , October 1992 , pp. 692 - 703
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1992

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

Carr, C. 1982 Handbook on Soil Resistivity Surveying: Interpretation of Data from Earthen Archeological Sites. Center for American Archeology Press, Evanston, Ilinois.Google Scholar
Casjens, L., Barber, R., Bawden, G., Roberts, M., and Turchon, F. 1980 Approaches to Site Discovery in New England Forests. In Discovering and Examining Archeological Sites: Strategies for Areas with Dense Ground Cover, assembled by McManamon, F. P. and Ives, D. J., pp. 105–124. American Archaeology Reports No. 14. American Archaeology Division, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
Condon, K. W., and Egan, K. C. 1984 The Use of Power Equipment on Moderately Wooded Sites. Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eidt, R. C. 1973 A Rapid Chemical Field Test for Archaeological Site Surveying. American Antiquity 38: 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eidt, R. C. 1977 Detection and Examination of Anthrosols by Phosphate Analysis. Science 197: 1327–1333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Lightfoot, K. G. 1986 Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs. American Antiquity 51: 484–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovis, W. A. 1976 Quarter Sections and Forests: An Example of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands. American Antiquity 41: 364–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, B. M. 1980 Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes. Current Anthropology 21: 516–517.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
McManamon, F. P., and Ives, D. J. (assemblers) 1980 Discovering and Examining Archaeological Sites: Strategies for Areas with Dense Ground Cover. American Archaeology Reports No. 14. American Archaeology Division, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google 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., and Ball, B. F. 1981 The Influence of Sampling Unit Size on Statistical Estimates in Archeological Site Sampling. In Plowzone Archeology, edited by Brien, M. O. and Lewarch, D., pp. 51–70. Vanderbilt Publications in Anthropology No. 27. Nashville.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
Odell, G. H. 1989 Final Report on Archaeological Excavations Conducted between May and July, 1988, at the Lasley Vore Site (34Tu-65), Jenks, Oklahoma. Submitted to Office of Oklahoma State Archaeologist and Kimberly-Clark Corporation through Sirrine Environmental Consultants, Greenville, N. C. Copies available from Oklahoma State Archaeologist, Norman.Google Scholar
Price, J. C, Hunter, R., and McMichael, E. 1964 Core Drilling in an Archaeological Site. American Antiquity 30: 219–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, D. W. 1986 Sampling Procedures for Regional Survey: A Problem of Representativeness and Effectiveness. Journal of Field Archaeology 13-477–491.Google Scholar
Reed, N. A., Bennett, J. W., and Porter, J. W. 1968 Solid Core Drilling of Monks Mound: Technique and Findings. American Antiquity 33: 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberson, P. A. 1981 The Need for Comparability in Discovering and Examining Prehistoric Sites in Contract Archeology: An Example from Rhode Island. Contract Abstracts and CRM Archeology 1: 48–50.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., Sullivan, A. P., and Klinger, T. C. 1978 The Design of Archaeological Survey. World Archaeology 10: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scollar, I. 1969 Some Techniques for the Evaluation of Archaeological Magnetometer Surveys. World Archaeology 1: 77–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. 1985 Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique: A Case Study from Michigan. Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 457–68.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 1987 Feature Discovery and the Sampling Requirements of Archaeological Evaluations. Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 359–371.Google Scholar
Stein, J. 1978 Augering Archaeological Sites. Southeastern Archaeological Conference Newsletter 20: 11–18.Google Scholar
Stein, J. 1986 Coring Archaeological Sites. American Antiquity 51: 505–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steponaitis, V. P., and Brain, J. P. 1976 A Portable Differential Proton Magnetometer. Journal of Field Archaeology 3: 455–463.Google Scholar
Van Horn, D. M. 1988 Mechanized Archaeology. Wormwood Press, Calabasas, California.Google Scholar
Van Horn, D. M., Murray, J. R., and White, R. S. 1986 Some Techniques for Mechanical Excavation in Salvage Archaeology. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 239–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, M. E. 1985 A Rapid Technique for Three-Dimensional Site Mapping. North American Archaeologist 6: 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whalen, M. E. 1990 Defining Features Before Excavation: A Case from the American Southwest. Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 323–331.Google Scholar