Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:58:33.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On-Site Artifact Analysis as an Alternative to Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Charlotte Beck  and
George T. Jones
Charlotte Beck
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323
George T. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY 13323
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Artifact collection has become increasingly expensive, especially with respect to curation costs. Consequently, many government agencies as well as researchers have turned to an alternative, “on-site” analysis approach in which many analytical procedures usually reserved for the laboratory are conducted in the field. Using data gathered at an andesite quarry in eastern Nevada, we evaluate such an approach in terms of feasibility, reliability of results, and cost, as well as its impact on the surface archaeological record. Although we still believe that artifact collection is central to archaeological research, we argue that in circumstances where collection is not possible, a well-designed and systematically implemented on-site approach can yield reliable results, although not without some visible impact on the surface archaeological record.

Resumen

Resumen

La recolección de artefactos se ha vuelto cada vez más costosa, especialmente con respecto a los costos de curación. Consecuentemente, algunas agendas gubernamentales así como investigadores han elegido como alternativa el análisis “en el sitio,” en el cual muchos de los procedimientos usualmente reservados para el laboratorio se conducen en el campo. Utilizando los datos obtenidos en una mina de andesita en el este de Nevada, nosotros evaluamos esta alternativa en términos de factibilidad, veracidad de los resultados y costos, así como su impacto en el registro arqueológico de superficie. Aunque aún creemos que la recolección de artefactos es central en la investigación arqueológico, arguimos que en circunstancias donde la recolección no es posible, un análisis “en el sitio” bien diseñado e implementado sistemáticamente puede dar buenos resultados, pero no sin un impacto visible en el registro arqueológico de superficie.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 59 , Issue 2 , April 1994 , pp. 304 - 315
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1994

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

References Cited

Beck, C. 1984 Steens Mountain Surface Archaeology : The Sites. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Beck, C, and Jones, G. T. 1990 The Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Archaeology of Butte Valley, Nevada : Three Season's Work. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12 : 231–261.Google Scholar
Bureau of Land Management 1985 Cultural Resources Survey : General Guidelines. 3rd ed. Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
Butler, W. P. 1979 The No-Collection Strategy in Archaeology. American Antiquity 44 : 795–799.Google Scholar
Johnson, J. K. 1981 Lithic Procurement and Utilization Trajectories : Analysis, Yellow Creek Nuclear Power Plant Site, Tishomingo County, Mississippi, vol. II. Archaeological Papers of the Center for Archaeological Research No. 21. University of Mississippi, University.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T. 1984 Prehistoric Land Use in the Steens Mountain Area, Southeastern Oregon. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Washington. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Jones, G. T., and Beck, C. 1990 Biface Reduction and Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Assemblages from Eastern Nevada. Paper presented at the 22nd Biennial Great Basin Anthropological Conference, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
Muto, G. R. 1971 A Stage Analysis of the Manufacture of Stone Tools. In Great Basin Anthropological Conference 1970, edited by Aikens, C. M., pp. 109–118. Selected Papers, University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 1. Eugene.Google Scholar
Price, B. A. 1989 Archaeological Survey of Seismic Test Lines in Chevron Exploration and Production Services’ Pancake Prospect, White Pine, Eureka, and Nye Counties, Nevada. Bureau of Land Management Cultural Resources Report 6-956. Copies available from Bureau of Land Management, Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B. 1975 Archeological Research and Contract Archeology. In The Cache River Archeological Project : An Experiment in Contract Archaeology, assembled by Schiffer, M. B. and House, J. H., pp. 1–7. Research Series No. 8. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Fayetteville.Google Scholar
Sharer, R. J., and Ashmore, W. 1987 Archaeology : Discovering our Past. Mayfield, Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. P. III, and Rozen, K. C. 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50 : 755–779.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L. 1989 Long-Term Land Use, Formation Processes, and the Structure of the Archaeological Landscape : A Case Study from Southwestern Wyoming. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque.Google Scholar