Quality Assurance in Archaeological Survey

Abstract

To have confidence in the results of an archaeological survey, whether for heritage management or research objectives, we must have some assurance that the survey was carried out to a reasonably high standard. This paper discusses the use of Quality Assurance (QA) approaches and empirical methods for estimating surveys’ effectiveness at discovering archaeological artifacts as a means for ensuring quality standards. We illustrate with the example of two surveys in Cyprus and Jordan in which resurvey, measurement of surveyor “sweep widths,” and realistic estimates of survey coverage allow us to evaluate explicitly the probability that the survey missed pottery or lithics, as well as to decide when survey has been thorough enough to warrant moving to another survey unit.

Inference from absence: the case of archaeology

“…Here, however, the probability of detection is usually lower. If we assume α = 0.2 (the lower value mentioned by Banning et al (2017) for a transect of ±2 m), 21 we get (with q, as before, 0.1) R − ≈ 1.25.…”

Identifying the Brazil nut effect in archaeological site formation processes

“…(Stoner et al 1980;Nocita et al 2015;). Thus, despite it being a very complex matrix (Holliday 2004;Grotzinger and Jordan 2010), the soil's spectral characteristics can simplify its complexity and indicate its characteristics (Ben-Dor et al 2007, 2017Viscarra Rossel and Bouma 2016). The samples were measured using Tel Aviv University's protocol (Ben-Dor et al 2008, concentrating on three parameters: sand (particle size 2.0-0.05 mm), silt (particle size 0.05-0.002 mm) and clay contents (particle size less than 0.002 mm) that appear to be essential to the lifting and sinking speeds of artifacts (Rosato et al 2002).…”

“…One of the major pillars of archaeological investigation is the field survey: searching for sites and collecting information about the location, distribution and organization of past human cultures across a large area (e.g., Schiffer et al 1978;Bintliff and Snodgrass 1988;Banning 2002;Tartaron 2003;Bintliff 2014;Banning et al 2017). Surface surveys are often complementary to excavations, with the advantage of being less expensive and minimally disruptive (Faust and Katz.…”

Novel survey methods shed light on prehistoric exploration in Cyprus

“…We are thus able to conduct survey as efficiently as possible. Additionally, rather than make the unrealistic assumption that any amount of search in an area is sufficient to locate its archaeological remains, we use the concept of 'sweep widths', as estimated by calibrating the survey team's effectiveness at discovering artefacts in fields with different kinds of ground cover, to track our coverage of polygons (Banning et al 2011(Banning et al , 2016.…”