Siteless Survey and Intensive Data Collection in an Artifact-rich Environment

Abstract

Archaeological survey in the eastern Mediterranean has become increasingly intensive over the last 20 years, producing greater and more diverse data for smaller units of space. While complex, siteless data sets have allowed more sophisticated reconstructions of natural and cultural regional histories, the employment of more intensive methods has refocused the scope of Mediterranean surveys from region to 'micro-region'. Such increasingly myopic approaches have been criticized for their failure to address research questions framed by a large-scale, regional perspective and the analytical categories of 'settlement' and 'site'. This paper uses results from a survey in southern Greece to show how artifact-based approaches make valuable contributions to 'big-picture' historical and archaeological issues in a Mediterranean context.

Characterizing the rural landscape during the Iron Age and Roman period (ca. 1200b.c.–a.d.400): An intensive survey of Wadi al-Feidh, southern Jordan

“…Extremely high-intensity surveys, such as siteless surveys employed in parts of the northern Mediterranean (Bevan and Conolly 2002;Bintliff et al 2002;Caraher et al 2006), place surveyors at 5-10 m intervals.…”

“…Alcock 2011) have not included terrain as severe as the work reported here. While our survey would not be considered a ''siteless'' survey, that is, a methodological focus on the continuous distribution of surface artifacts (Alcock and Cherry 2004;Caraher et al 2006;Dunnell and Dancey 1983), our methodology was certainly influenced by the work of these intensive survey projects. In addition, the full-coverage methodologies developed in the New World (Fish and Kowalewski 2009;Kowalewski 2008;Sanders et al 1979;Willey 1953) informed a great deal of our survey planning.…”

The Makrakomi Archaeological Landscapes Project. A preliminary report on investigations carried out in 2010–2012

“…60 The second phase survey, involving re-survey of high density areas, will instead 59 The correlation between off-site and on-site densities of archaeological surface material is a central focus of most modern survey projects. Through this approach sites are often identified in relation to the surrounding scatter of surface material at lower volumes but of similar date (see for example Bintliff & Snodgrass 1988;Wright et al 1990, 604-608;Bintliff et al 2002;Bintliff, Snodgrass & Howard 2007, 15-37;Tartaron et al 2006, 458;Caraher et al 2006). The main cause of such off-site densities has been the subject of some debate (Bintliff & Snodgrass 1988;Alcock, Cherry & Davis 1994;Pettegrew 2001;Osborne 2001;Foxhall 2001;Bintliff et al 2002 ).…”

“…In the case of MALP we agree that manuring and more intense rubbish discard at the edges of settlements form the most likely explanation of the Classical and Hellenistic off-site material. 60 Such an approach has been adopted for other survey project in Greece, both in the past and more recently, such as the Zakynthos Archaeology Project (see for example van Wijngaarden et al 2007;2008;2010), the Eastern Korinthia Archaeological Survey (Tartaron et al 2006;Caraher et al 2006), as well as the urban survey of the Vassiliko Plateau/Ancient Sikyon (but where regular gridding was used within the topographically determined tracts, see Lolos Gourley & Stewart 2007, 275-277). be carried out according to a regular grid laid out within the different fields and previously established first phase tracts. 61 A fieldwalking team usually composed of four or five walkers and a team leader covered approximately 48 hectares in 2011 and 2012 (Figs.…”

Regional Survey and the Boom-and-bust Countryside: Re-reading the Archaeological Evidence for Episodic Abandonment in the Late Roman Corinthia

“…2 Presence/absence of Early Roman (shaded) and Late Roman material (dots) in area between Kromna and Perdikaria amount of Early Roman pottery (n=329) is one-fifth the amount of Late Roman pottery (n=1,707) and appears in significantly fewer units (193 units) than Late Roman (573 units) pottery. While this pattern would seem to suggest an abandoned (busting) landscape followed by a well-settled (booming) landscape, recent analyses of the data have shown that the material difference between the periods is almost entirely caused by less visible and less diagnostic Early Roman pottery relative to much more visible and recognizable Late Roman wares (for the full presentation of the argument, see Caraher et al 2006;Pettegrew 2007;Tartaron et al 2006).…”