Simple Samples Survey

[Seedy Girl]

Oops! In my haste I forgot to qualify the no! Primarily the books are not cheap, I didn't mean to imply that they weren't any good! That, and they tend to be either mega specialist or don't cover enough detail(it's a mahoosive subject area)

[kevin wooldridge]

I am finding this thread a little confusing in that it appears to confuse two subjects......Subject 1 is sampling strategy. On the basis that few sites ever excavate 100%, a sampling strategy decides the target and the percentage. This can equally apply to type and number of features dug, ceramic or metal finds, to 'environmental' materiale, to building material or even geological samples. Sampling in UK commercial archaeology can often actually be the selection of areas of excavation within a larger development area (surely the reason we do evaluation and DBA exercises) The subject is a whole science unto itself and is what I thought Ginger's survey was addressing. ....

However Subject 2 seems to suggest that folk consider 'sampling' per se, only to relate to 'environmental' stuff and the possibility that processing such samples might also deliver up other types of find as well.

If Ginger's attention is to design a methodology based on subject 1, he/she should at least be asking some questions as to the level of understanding of statistics and the justification that the sample represents/is proportionate to the totality being sampled. That's what sampling is after all.....Every report for a site that uses a sampling strategy should actually contain a section quantifying and qualifying the results on that basis (but not many do...). I would suggest (for Tool) that Shennan 'Quantifying Archaeology', or Brennan 'Statistics for Archaeologists' are good basic readers on this subject.....and my favourite, (although perhaps slightly more difficult) is Clive Orton's 'Sampling in Archaeology'....

I think subject 2 is maybe a discussion on the value of ecofact as opposed to artefact where site type, location and selection are obviously large factors. Not sure that mesh size or dating potential has much to do with either really....so that's probably a 3rd or 4th (and again probably discrete) subjects....Again (for Tool) I would suggest O'Connor and Evans 'Environmental Archaeology Principles and Methods' as an introduction to this subject....

[Tool]

Thanks for all that Seedy - I'll have a mooch around EH and whatever and see what makes sense. Although not today - a lazy day off in an attempt to get this knackered old body to recover! :0

So, looks like there's a little project there for you to write the definitive introduction to sampling for beginners like me. Because I'm sure you've got loads of spare time in that heated shed of yours... Thanks again! :face-approve:

[Tool]

Thanks Kevin, I'll have a look at your suggestions. Do these areas get covered in an arch degree?

Forgotten how much proper books cost! :0

[kevin wooldridge]

Thanks Kevin, I'll have a look at your suggestions. Do these areas get covered in an arch degree? Forgotten how much proper books cost! :0

Books are not so expensive if you have access to a good library and quite often archaeology companies may have a reference library of well thumbed reference books you can peruse. Ask your supervisor.....I am in train on a Archaeology and GIS Masters at present, so yes the books I mentioned are on my reading list...not so sure about whether undergraduate courses would cover so much detail....but I guess at least a passing reference to statistics and environmental archaeology at some point during 3 years would be expected.

The EH guidelines are very good by the way and a good intro into areas of more specialist interest (the guidelines contain an extensive bibliography of both book and journal references).

Slightly contradicting something written earlier, I think there is a point that the contribution of environmental archaeology to a project can be immense irrespective of whether the context is precisely dated....stratigraphic sequences, soil morphology sequences etc can exist, could represent a span of time of several millennia and can be reported independently without resort to precise context dating....

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/publi...gy-2nd.pdf

[Kel]

Do these areas get covered in an arch degree?

In my experience yes, but as an introduction and not in a professional level of detail. Depending on where you study, there will be opportunities for those who are particularly interested to get involved in environmental sampling/processing in more depth and in practice.

[Dinosaur]

My personal experience of large excavations, particularly urban ones, with detailed sampling strategies in place at the outset is that they invariably turn out to be b***ocks and get abandoned after the first week, around the same point that the realisation sinks in that the archaeology's nothing like what was expected. On rare occasions where I've been working for people who've gone the 'random' route [e.g. every third feature or the like] it's usually led to all the best stuff getting missed and all the pointless stuff like postholes (which on many sites massively outnumber potentially environmentally interesting features like cesspits, and hence get to be the main thing sampled) getting done.

There's got to be a really good reason to waste thousands of pounds doing analysis on undated deposits (particularly at the expense of dateable ones), and if there's macro enviro material in it, why isn't it being dated anyway? Drives me up the wall, all the pollen/macros reports that go into vast detail about the sequence when they haven't bothered pinning dates on it, or, even more annoyingly, only one. Things like the Elm Decline demonstrably happen at widely different times in different places, so I'm amazed people still get away with using stuff like that as their dating tool

[ginger]

Firstly, thank you all for your input, you are all helping me alot by raising these issues.

The subject which my research is focused is on the collection (volume) and initial processing (on site), which is suggested in the EH guidelines to be something which should be done on site, with the exception of samples collected by and for a specialist. (- seedygirl i think that means you)

My research question is actually based in the identification of qualitative and quantitative differences in what can determined to be viable archaeological material (Charcoal, Microfauna, Bone, Plant) and Non Viable archaeological material (geological mainly ie..quartz, pebbles). It is addressing the issue regarding volume of samples recovered, eg, if 30 Litre sample has a higher quantity or quality of what is described as viable material, than of that recovered from a 5 litre sample.

The samples where recovered using a systematic random sample approach, features where chosen systematically, and the actual sample was recovered by using random sampling, which shouldn't be confused with haphazard or grab samples, it is in fact a method based in fairly complex mathematical statistics, in this case the random samples where taken based on the statistical information gained by previous samples from the same site.

Unfortunately, i wasn't given permission to take standard samples or background samples from the area surrounding the site due to ground nesting birds, and the area being of special scientific interest (see EH Guidelines), and therefore my standards are the previous samples taken, using a systematic approach in the 3 previous years of excavation.

The questionnaire, was designed not only for experienced people, therefore the questions where somewhat broad, and unfortunately did cause confusion. However the stats are very interesting!

I hope that helps to see the angle im coming from for this work. Although the inclusion of a qualitative and quantitative section within the sample methodology is something i am going to work into the recommendations and hopeful into the final methodology that im producing, i also think adding in a section on the collection of standards (environmental standard samples taken from the area around the site to highlight any local abnormalities in elemental/chemical or micromorphological compositions) in to the methodology in an attempt to make the methods a little more scientifically based.

The methods put forward will be flexible enough to adjust per site, surely taking background samples for environmental and the use of sieves on site isn't going to brake the bank or take 3 weeks.

Other than that, all i can say is Thank you so much for your feedback!

I totally agree with kevin, Ortons book is brilliant, i would also suggest branch, canti, clack and turney "environmental archaeoogy: Theoretical and Practicle approaches, French, C "geoarchaeology in action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution", and the classic Limbrey "soil science and archaeology" As for if this is taught as part of a degree, from my experience you're probably better learning this alongside your studies!

I'll stop now that turned in to an essay

[Seedy Girl]

@ Kevin. I'm an environmental archaeologist so that's my baby, however that's not meant to dismiss the importance of other types such as brick etc. , or even what percentage of features have to be excavated. I also have hose books you mention but Tool a

[Dinosaur]

@Dino. You're supposed to be on holiday, it's like being back at work }

Am having a holiday from being on holiday Mon-Wed, so you can line up all your tricky questions about what I was doing while you were on hols :0