The effects of soil screening have seldom been explicitly addressed in field studies designed to evaluate different site survey strategies. On the Tombigbee National Forest, north-central Mississippi, several quarter-sections that had been surveyed without screening in the 1980s were resurveyed using screens. The survey method involved using a combination intuitive/systematic approach, where areas of high site potential that fell between standard testing intervals were investigated. Besides shovel testing and screening, visual survey was used whenever conditions allowed. Nearly four times as many sites were found as had been previously recorded. The use of screens not only aided in the locating of sites, but also provided for more accurate measurements of site sizes. Data amenable to fine-scale chronological and wide-scale settlement pattern analyses were retrieved from the survey. The method yielded promising results while allowing for a relatively rapid rate of survey.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AldenderferMark S. and Schieppat1Frank J.1984To Be or Not to Be: The Small-Scale Archaeological Survey and Archaeological Research. American Archaeology, 4: 1, pp. 49–53.
2.
AmmermanAlbert J.1981Surveys and Archaeological Research, Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, pp. 63–88.
3.
BlitzJohn H.1984aA Cultural Resources Survey in the Tombigbee National Forest, Mississippi, USDA Forest Service, National Forests is Mississippi, Jackson.
4.
BlitzJohn H.1984bField notes for random sample survey carried out on the Ackerman Unit of the Tombigbee National Forest, March and April, 1984, On file, Tombigbee Ranger District Office, Ackerman, Mississippi.
5.
DavisR. P. StephenJr. and Trawick WardH.1983Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Harris-Asheboro 230 kV Transmission Line, Chatham and Randolph Counties, A Case against Shovel Testing, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Research Laboratories of Anthropology.
6.
HayConran A.SnavelyAlan N.ScheitlinThomas E.ScheitlinThomas E.BollingerCatherine E., and MaherThomas D.1982Archaeological Predictive Models: A New Hanover County Test Case, North Carolina Archeological Council Publication Number 18.
7.
JenkinsNed J.1982Archaeology of the Gainesville Lake Area: Synthesis, The University of Alabama, Office of Archaeological Research, Report of Investigations23.
8.
KellerJohn E.1982Lithic Scatters and Longleaf Pine: Limited Activity Areas on Pyrogenic Environments, Southeastern Archaeology1:1, pp. 40–51.
9.
KerberJordan E.1993Conducting “Siteless Survey”: Results from Coastal New England, North American Archaeologist, 14: 1, pp. 25–42.
10.
KintighKeith W.1988The Effectiveness of Subsurface Testing: A Simulation Approach, American Antiquity, 53:4, pp. 686–707.
11.
KrakkerJ.ShottM., and WelchP.1983Design and Evaluation of Shovel-Test Sampling in Regional Archaeological Survey, Journal of Field Archaeology, 10, pp. 469–480.
12.
LightfootKent G.1986Regional Surveys in the Eastern United States: The Strengths and Weaknesses of Implementing Subsurface Testing Programs, American Antiquity, 51:3, pp. 484–504.
13.
LightfootKent G.1989A Defense of Shovel-Test Sampling: A Reply to Shott, American Antiquity, 54:2, pp. 413–416.
14.
LovisWilliam A.Jr.1976Quarter Sections and Forests: An Example of Probability Sampling in the Northeastern Woodlands, American Antiquity, 41:1, pp. 364–372.
15.
LynchB. Mark1980Site Artifact Density and the Effectiveness of Shovel Probes, Current Anthropology, 21:4, pp. 516–517.
16.
LynchB. Mark1981More on Shovel Probes, Current Anthropology, 22:4, p. 438.
17.
MarshallRichard A.1984Three Paleo-Indian Projectile Points from East Central Mississippi, Mississippi Archaeology, 19:1, pp. 60–72.
18.
MathisMark A.1979Statewide Archaeological Survey: Nature and Objectives, in North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties, ScheitlinT.MathisM. A.CrossJ. L.HargroveT. H.ClauserJ. W.Jr.SouthernM. T.HallD. A.PinkertonL. H.ReavisD. W., and BurkeT. D. (eds.), North Carolina Archeological Council Publication, 11, pp. 4–38.
19.
MathisMark A.ClauserJohn W.Jr., and SouthernMichael T.1979Ahoskie Bypass Survey Results and Recommendations, in North Carolina Statewide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties, ScheitlinT.MathisM. A.CrossJ. L.HargroveT. H.ClauserJ. W.Jr.SouthernM. T.HallD. A.PinkertonL. H.ReavisD. W., and BurkeT. D. (eds.), North Carolina Archeological Council Publication, 11, pp. 89–112.
20.
McManamonFrancis P.1984Discovering Sites Unseen, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 7, SchifferM. B. (ed.), pp. 223–292.
21.
McMullenJames W.1986Soil Survey of Choctaw County, Mississippi, USDA Soil Conservation Service.
22.
MellenFrederic Francis1939Winston County Mineral Resources, Mississippi State Geological Survey Bulletin38.
23.
MuellerJames W. (ed.) 1975Sampling in Archaeology, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
24.
NanceJack D. and BallBruce F.1986No Surprises? The Reliability and Validity of Test Pit Sampling, American Antiquity, 51:3, pp. 457–483.
25.
NanceJack D. and BallBruce F.1989A Shot in the Dark: Shott's Comments on Nance and Ball, American Antiquity, 54:2, pp. 405–412.
26.
NicholsonB. A.1983A Comparative Evaluation of Four Sampling Techniques and of the Reliability of Microdebitage as a Cultural Indicator in Regional Surveys, Plains Anthropologist, 28–101, Part 1, pp. 273–281.
27.
PaulsonOscar L.Jr.1974Geology, in Atlas of Mississippi, CrossR. D. and WalesR. W. (eds.), University Press of Mississippi, Jackson.
28.
PeacockEvan1992aA Cultural Resources Survey of Timber Stand 10, Compartment 75, Tombigbee National Forest, Ackerman Unit, Winston County, Mississippi, USDA Forest Service report on file, Tombigbee Ranger District, Ackerman, Mississippi.
29.
PeacockEvan1992bA Cultural Resources Survey of Timber Stands 17 and 19, Compartment 49, Tombigbee National Forest, Winston County, Mississippi, USDA Forest Service report on file, Tombigbee Ranger District, Ackerman, Mississippi.
30.
PeacockEvan1994aTwenty-Five Years of Cultural Resource Management on the National Forests of Mississippi, Mississippi Archaeology, 29:2, pp. 72–81.
31.
PeacockEvan1994bCultural Resource Inventory, Timber Thinning Areas, Fiscal Year 1994, Bayou Bodcau Reservoir, Bossier and Webster Parishes, Louisiana, report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg District, by Panamerican Consultants, Inc., Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
32.
PeacockEvan1995Shovel-Test Screening and Survey Methodology: A Field Study from the Tombigbee National Forest, North Mississippi, USDA Forest Service report on file, Tombigbee Ranger District, Ackerman, Mississippi.
33.
In Press Subaqueous Site Deflation beneath Choctaw Lake, Tombigbee National Forest, Choctaw County, Mississippi, Journal of Alabama Archaeology.
34.
PhelpsDawson A.1950The Robinson Road, Journal of Mississippi History, 3:3, pp. 155–226.
35.
PlogStephenPlogFred, and WaitWalter1978Decision Making in Modern Surveys, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 1, SchifferM. B. (ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 383–421.
36.
RaffertyJanet E.1979Cultural Resource Reconnaissance and Project-Oriented Survey, Noxubee National Wildlife Refuge, Mississippi, report submitted to the National Park Service, Interagency Archeological Services, Atlanta, by the Mississippi State University Department of Anthropology, Mississippi State.
37.
RaffertyJanet E.1994Gradual or Step-Wise Change: The Development of Sedentary Settlement Patterns in Northeast Mississippi, American Antiquity, 59:3, pp. 405–425.
38.
ReadDwight W.1975Regional Sampling, in Sampling in Archaeology, MuellerJ. W. (ed.), University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 45–60.
39.
ScheitlinThomas E.ClauserJohn W.Jr., and SouthernMichael T.1979U.S. 221 Survey Data Analysis, Results, and Recommendations, in North Carolina State Wide Archaeological Survey: An Introduction and Application to Three Highway Projects in Hertford, Wilkes, and Ashe Counties, ScheitlinT.MathisM. A.CrossL.HargroveT. H.ClauserJ. W.Jr.SouthernM. T.HallD. A.PinkertonL. H.ReavisD. W., and BurkeT. D. (eds.), North Carolina Archeological Council Publication, 11, pp. 207–218.
40.
SchifferMichael B.SullivanAlan P., and KlingerTimothy C.1978The Design of Archaeological Surveys, World Archaeology, 10:1, pp. 1–28.
41.
SchottMichael J.1985Shovel-Test Sampling as a Site Discovery Technique: A Case Study from Michigan, Journal of Field Archaeology, 12:4, pp. 457–468.
42.
SchottMichael J.1989Shovel-Test Sampling in Archaeological Survey: Comments on Nance and Ball, and Lightfoot, American Antiquity, 54:2, pp. 396–404.
43.
StoneGlenn Davis1981On Artifact Density and Shovel Probes, Current Anthropology, 22:2, pp. 182–183.
44.
WobstH. Martin1983We Can't See the Forest for the Trees: Sampling and the Shapes of Archaeological Distributions, in Archaeological Hammers and Theories, MooreJ. A. and KeeneA. S. (eds.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 37–85.
