analysis of archaeological sampling methods using the complete
Post on 10-Dec-2016
225 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
Analysis of Archaeological Sampling Methods Using the Complete Surface Data from the Pirque Alto Site in Cochabamba, Bolivia Elizabeth Green Faculty Sponsor: Timothy McAndrews, Department of Sociology/Archaeology
ABSTRACT Sampling is an extremely important aspect of archaeological fieldwork, and it can significantly influence interpretation; therefore, the effects of these processes must be understood and controlled. Various experimental sampling methods are tested against the surface recovery data collected from the Pirque Alto site in Cochabamba, Bolivia. The project addresses the following questions: do results from the sampling methods reflect the total surface recovery; what method gives the most accurate results for this site and why; and at what percentage of quadrat (unit) samples taken per method do the results show validity. Finally, in what way are the methods biased and how can these biases be addressed? The project has yielded information about how various methods would or would not have affected the interpretation of the Pirque Alto site, and the results were then applied to a broader study and understanding of sampling methods.
INTRODUCTION
Sampling, a less visible but just as essential tool in archaeology as the trowel, has been used since the start of the discipline. “Archaeologists have always sampled… archaeologists have been choosing, among alternatives, where to look for archaeological sites, which sites to excavate, and where on selected sites to dig” (Hole 1980:217). However, despite the fact that archaeologists have always sampled, there seems to be a disproportionately small effort put forth to truly understand and test the methods so heavily relied upon. Sampling exists and is used for many reasons, including: financial, labor and time restraints and the logistical necessity of controlling the sheer volume of physical materials and non-physical data generated by the process of archaeology.
The processes of sampling have far-reaching consequences and influences. For instance, a sampling of units on the surface of a site can directly affect an archaeologist’s perception of the site (its function, chronology, scope, etc), as well as directly affecting the direction of the research questions posed in the future. It is important to know that these critical procedures and methodologies are the most conclusive possible so that their influence on the excavation and interpretation of sites is as constructive as possible. “Given that sampling is essential, we need to ensure that it is carried out in a way that enables us to make best use of the data that it provides” (Orton 2000:8).
Due to this, it is important that experiments with comparable results be conducted in order to gain a better understanding of the act of sampling and its effects. The purpose of this specific project is to do just that — to act as a testing mechanism for common sampling procedures. The data used in this endeavor comes from the work done at the site of Pirque Alto, located in the Department of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Details of this site will be discussed in the background section to follow; however, it is important to note that the work conducted at this site included a surface collection of ceramics and lithics of the entire site. Ceramics bigger than a nickel and all of those featuring paint were collected.
The collected ceramics data act as a control group in testing various sampling methods with the goal of answering the following questions:
1. Do results from the sampling methods equal or come close to the spatial (ex. identified ceramic clusters) and numeric results indicated from surface collection?
2. What method gives the most spatially and numerically accurate results for this site and why? 3. At what percentage of unit samples taken per method do the results show the greatest spatial and numerical
accuracy, (10%, 30%, or 50%)? 4. In what way are the methods of sampling biased, and how can these biases be addressed or corrected? The ultimate goal of this project is to determine the validity and precision of common archaeological sampling
methods and identify the most accurate methods. Because the data being used as the control group comes from a real site, looking at how the sampling methods would have affected its interpretation help to present the gravity of influence from sampling.
1
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
BACKGROUND The Site of Pirque Alto
During the 2005 field season, archaeological fieldwork was conducted by several students in the UW-L Archaeological Studies program under the supervision of Dr. Timothy McAndrews at Pirque Alto, in the Department of Cochabamba, Bolivia. One goal of this project was to investigate the influence of the Tiwanaku culture in the area through the cultural remains present at the site, such as ceramics, stone artifacts, and features. Tiwanaku was a powerful polity operating out of the southern part of the Lake Titicaca Basin that influenced a broad region throughout the central Andes from A.D. 500 to A.D. 1150 (Janusek 2004:xvii). Now viewed as “the first true state in the south-central Andes,” the Tiwanaku culture is typified by stratified societal levels, monumental architecture, and sophisticated material culture (Young-Sanchez 2004:17-18). Their material culture is unique, especially the ceramics which are “extremely distinctive and rather easy to recognize both in terms of slip and paint, and in diameter of base and rim,” which allows for easier identification (Burkholder 1997: 130). The nature of the spread of the Tiwanaku is a topic currently under fierce debate, and as such this site could help shed light on the presence of the Tiwanaku in the Cochabamba Valley area.
Through the surface collection of 406 5 x 5 meter units, a total of over 13,200 diagnostic ceramics (rims, bases, handles, painted pieces), and over 52,000 non-diagnostic (those pieces bigger than a nickel not belonging to the diagnostic category) were collected and subsequently analyzed. Early conclusions regarding this site indicated that it was a multi-component site occupied from the Formative Period though Inca times. This site is located on a bluff
(see Figure 1) overlooking the Rio Tapacari and exists in a natural travel corridor leading to the Altiplano and Titicaca Basin. Since this site, in terms of location and artifact assemblage, can offer important addition to the debate concerning Tiwanaku presence in the Cochabamba Valley, it serves as an excellent case of how sampling would and could affect site interpretation and how in turn that can affect the archaeology of an entire area (McAndrews 2006).
Figure 1. Site of Pirque Alto as viewed from opposite valley wall
History of Sampling
The history of sampling in archaeology is an interesting one, and the current debates within the subject showcase the breadth of thought concerning its importance and its influence, both on the process of archaeology and on archaeologists themselves. One of the few comprehensive histories of sampling in archaeology is contained in Sampling in Archaeology, by Clive Orton (2000). In this book, Orton discusses the changes in the actual sampling themes throughout time but also talks about the changes in archaeologists’ attitudes towards sampling.
At the turn of the twentieth century, there was more attention directed towards sampling; however, without the later developments that statistics would bring, “it would not be reasonable to expect more than an informal approach” (Orton 2000:112). Preliminary attempts at sampling were carried out in a rather intuitive way. For
2
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
instance, if there appeared to be a large amount of sherds, you took what you believed to be “representative.” It was not until the developments of the 1940s that sampling procedures became more concrete and statistically representative. The developments in statistical theory came about as a result of the need for quality control in response to industrial growth but eventually became incorporated into the sampling of shell middens. This helped to cut down on the tedium of going through mountains of low grade data. At first glance, the beginning of sampling in archaeology would seem to suggest a rather haphazard approach designed to make archaeological evaluation easier and less tedious.
It was during the 1950s and 1960s that more formal sampling methods, which Orton describes as “samples selected from well-defined populations according to rigorous statistical procedures,” became more commonplace (Orton 2000:1-2). Vescelius was the first to discuss the use of probabilistic sampling, and he directed his attention towards finding a way to estimate artifact proportions compared to all others within a site (Vescelius 1960:457-470). However, “no other single article has altered more radically the recent course of archaeology than Lewis Binford’s 1964 consideration of research design” (Hole 1980:218).
Lewis Binford contributed greatly to the field of archaeology, especially in relation to field methodology and research design, which included sampling. Although Binford’s regard to sampling was directed regionally rather than at a site level, he instituted tremendous changes in the way archaeology was carried out. Orton describes there being three major changes advocated by Binford: “the promotion of the region to the position of primary unit of archaeological research, the explicit design of archaeological research programs, and the explicit use of sampling theory as the way of linking the two” (Orton 2000:4).
Though Binford’s contributions to the field of archaeology cannot be underestimated, such an enforcement and indoctrination of sampling methods caused a severe backlash that emerged in the 1970s. Sampling appeared as an evil necessity that one would never escape and as a compromise with the constraints of real life. This feeling increased with the development of sieving methods at the feature level, which created even more data which required sampling from (Orton 2000:4). Part of this backlash was to criticize sampling itself rather than how it was being carried out, as though sampling was something impressed upon archaeology by fields that had nothing to do with archaeology.
Though the 1970s are characterized by a backlash against sampling, they were also a time of reflection on the progress of sampling due to the publication of the San Francisco Symposium (which was the first formal gathering to discuss sampling) and Kent Flannery’s Early Mesoamerican Village (Flannery 1970). James Mueller, one of the big names in sampling theory, describes this reactionary period as extremely varied. “The responses and reactions have been varied – categorical rejection, blind acceptance, and skeptical positivism,” the last which seems to dominate in the 1970s (Mueller 1975: xi).
This evaluation of the progress of sampling had the curious result of bringing viewpoints regarding it back full circle to a more intuitive process. “By the 1980s in the USA and the 1990s in the UK, sampling had become firmly entrenched in the methodology of the ‘contract’ wing of archaeology” and had become something almost instinctive among archaeologists (Orton 2000:6). Though sampling has again become something rather intrinsic to archaeology, “[it] is still on the agenda even if it is not discussed as openly or explicitly as it was, say, in the 1970s and 1980s” (Orton 2000: 207). Debates within Sampling
Due to the importance of sampling, there exists a great deal of controversy throughout the literature. The debates range from the general importance of sampling (Rootenberg 1964) to the proper methods while conducting sampling (Schiffer, Sullivan and Klinger 1978) to the correct math and proportions (Plog and Hegmon 1993, Nance 1981). According to Bonnie Laird Hole, “Despite the widespread availability of understandable presentations of the theory of sampling and the powerful potential of its appropriate application in archaeological research, its contributions to archaeological knowledge have been disappointing” (Hole 1980:217).
Articles run the gamut from math-entrenched to highly theoretical and behavioral. It is interesting to note that within most of the literature there exists a great deal of disagreement expressed through journal publications. At times some archaeologists would rather attack one another through publication than to correspond directly. Though opinions are varied, it is important to mind the theoretical milieu from which the disagreements arise.
A great debate going on in sampling right now is the degree to which post-depositional factors contribute to the bias of a sample. Many in the Processual archaeology group bypassed looking at this question by examining things which were the least affected. The Cultural History school of thought also tended to ignore the issue. (Orton 2000:43). This debate continues today, especially in regards to issues like the value of the number of identified specimens over the minimum number of individuals.
3
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
A debate more relevant to this project is the degree to which surface remains reflect the subsurface, and “is a key issue for the practice of archaeological survey, at both the regional and the site level. Opinions, both as expressed and as implicit as fieldwork practices, seem to vary widely” (Orton 2000:57). For the site of Pirque Alto, the clusters of certain identified phases are so distinct and identifiable that they are assumed to represent a reliable indication of the subsurface.
Obviously, these are hardly the only ongoing debates within sampling, and more research is being conducted in order to present specific debates concerning individual sampling methods; i.e. random vs. judgmental, etc. Some of these disagreements will be explored later in the paper as they relate to the results of the project. Descriptions of the Sampling Methods used in this Project
Below are basic descriptions of the types of sampling methods relied upon in this project. Information concerning the experimental procedures will be discussed in the methodology section of this paper. Lastly, more specific pros and cons for each method will be discussed in the results section as they correlate directly. Archaeological sampling methods can be roughly divided into two categories: probabilistic and non-probabilistic. Archaeology employs probabilistic sampling methods as an “attempt to improve the probability that generalizations from the sample will be correct” (Renfrew and Bahn 2000: 76). Charles Redman describes probabilistic sampling methods as “good for estimated total population values for common artifacts or features… probability sampling is poor for locating rare feature or artifacts, dealing with clustered distributions, or illuminating contiguous spatial patterns” (Redman 1987: 251). Non-probabilistic methods, described subsequently, are generally looked upon less favorably.
The most basic probabilistic sampling method is a simple random sample, in which numbers are assigned to the quadrats and those to be sampled are chosen through a random number chart till a predetermined number or percentage of units is sampled. “It implies that an equal probability of selection is assigned to each unit of the frame at the time of sample selection” (Binford 1964:141).
Systematic random sampling involves the sectioning out of a site grid into groups of a predetermined number of quadrats, and then randomly selecting quadrats within each section (Drennan 1996: 246). The general advantage of this method is that it ensures there will be broader coverage across the entire site; “Systematic sampling ensures an equal dispersion of sample units” (Binford 1964:153).
Next there is stratified random sampling, where the site is divided into its natural zones (or strata) and like before, random numbers are chosen. However, in this method the squares are proportional to the natural zones; 85% forest equals 85% of the samples are taken from that area (Renfrew 2000: 77).
Judgmental sampling, which is not representative of the whole, is a non-probabilistic form of sampling and is associated with similar methods including haphazard sampling, grab sampling, and purposive sampling. “Non-probabilistic sampling is regarded as intuitive, inductive, and unstated” (Hole 1980: 219). All of these terms represent a method referring to “explicit or implicit application of a variety of nonrandom selection criteria” (Drennan 1996:88). In judgmental sampling, samples are “selected by looking over the range of elements in a population and specifically deciding to include certain elements in the sample and exclude others” (Drennan 1996:88). Obviously, this method has a large degree of bias. It was important to include due to the current instinctive feeling of archaeological sampling. METHODOLOGY
The first step of this process was to become familiar with the literature concerning sampling. This was an important step because it helped to frame the concerns and debates within sampling and helped to provide a general understanding of the subject. Another familiarization step was to become comfortable with the computer programs necessary for this project, including Microsoft Access and Excel, and Surfer by Golden Software, a map generating program. After sufficient skills with these programs had been developed the sampling experiments could be carried out.
Sampling experiments were carried out at three percent intervals (10%, 30%, and 50%) with five trials each. Originally, these experiments were to be carried out for the total ceramics data and for the identified Tiwanaku phase ceramics. However, a different approach has been considered and decided on instead. Each of the trials will take into account the total ceramics data, yet the data will show the percent levels for three identified ceramic phases: Formative, Early Intermediate, and Tiwanaku. These percents will be compared to the total percents for each of the ceramic phases. For example, if a 10% random sample shows 13% of sherds belonging to the Tiwanaku phase ceramics, this will be compared to the percent of Tiwanaku phase ceramics for the entire site.
4
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
The sampling experiments focus on four types of sampling commonly relied upon by archaeologists: random sampling, systematic sampling, stratified sampling, and judgmental sampling. For the random sampling experiments, Microsoft Access was used to randomly sample units according to the percent level specified. For the systematic sample, the site is divided into as many 25 x 25 meter groups as possible. The units within these groups are then selected randomly according to percent. See Figure 2 for systematic group distributions.
For the stratified random sample, the site is broken up into three areas related to their relative elevation: highest part of the sites, middle and lowest. Grids are then selected randomly according to percent level. See Figure 3 for the stratified group distributions.
Since the judgmental sample is a non-probabilistic method, it was carried out differently than the previous methods. Three students in the Senior Thesis class (ARC 499) who did not attend the 2005 field school at Pirque Alto were given a site map with general information such as the physical layout of the site, areas of higher artifact concentration (like one would see on a pedestrian survey). They were then asked to indicate which areas based on the information they had been given would be their choice for sampling. Size of the sampled areas was equal to the
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
138 UnitsSection 3
179 UnitsSection 2
89 UnitsSection 1
Stratified Group Distributions
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
Figure 3. Stratified Group Distributions
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
1716
13
1210
9
765
321
Systematic Group Distri
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th 15
14
11
8
4
butions
0 10 20 m
Figure 2. Systematic Group Distributions
5
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
percent levels used for the other three sampling methods. For example, the first student was given enough units to equal a 10% sample of the site to lay out as they see fit; for the second student, 30% and so on. Though this method differs significantly and will not be able to be compared in exactly the same way, it is an important avenue to explore.
After the experiments were carried out, the information was plotted onto a site map using Surfer by Golden Software. This allows for a clear illustration of the differences between the sampling methods and their visual results. A series of descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were generated and will be used in comparison to the visual results. T-tests were also carried out to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the samples and the full dataset in terms of the relative proportions of different periods of ceramics. It was determined that there was not a statistically significant difference; meaning all samples may be considered numerically representative of the whole.
Armed with both the visual representations of the sampling experiments created using Surfer and the statistics generated from the samples, a comprehensive comparison of the methods will then occur. The relative success or failure of the various sampling methods will be viewed in regards to their implications for interpretations of the site and then applied on a larger scale to view the effect of sampling on the field of archaeology. RESULTS
In addition to the main goal of determining the validity and precision of common archaeological sampling methods, this thesis also sought to address four specific questions:
1. Do results from the sampling methods equal or come close to the spatial (ex. identified ceramic clusters) and numeric results indicated from surface collection?
2. What method gives the most spatially and numerically accurate results for this site and why? 3. At what percentage of unit samples taken per method do the results show the greatest spatial and numerical
accuracy, (10%, 30%, or 50%)? 4. In what way are the methods of sampling biased, and how can these biases be addressed or corrected? These questions will be addressed throughout this portion of the paper, which is itself broken up into three
different sections. In the first section, results in terms of the individual methods (random, systematic, etc) will be discussed. This will be followed by a section describing the results on each percent interval, including the spatial representations of each sample method and the statistics and ceramic phase percentages. This is done to illustrate the benefits and problems associated with each method and provide more detailed information at the sample size level. General comments about the various methods and their results will comprise the last section. On the following page, Figure 4 shows the overall distributions of all ceramics over the entire site for reference. Maps for the Formative, Early Intermediate, and Tiwanaku Ceramics can be found at the end of the document.
6
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
7
29
67 128159 98 23
54 40 109 59 128 66 118 39 15
207 153 72 96 208 39 95 73 85 5
148 127 80 181 183189145 35 113 26 14 6
88 53 129 65 243 197 145 162 194 348 317 71 101 90 119136 12 0 18
54 92 105135151168 87 180 82 0 162 190 267 216216159157 61 26 51 20
20 89 80 134122130 202 102 137 171 233 315 239 239101 47 89 139 70 69 47 83
26 31 53 44 74 38 82 137 58 127 37 21 16 11 97 342309179 119 100 51 53
23 0 25 57 44 94 44 67 11 49 139 118 106 67 36 272285244 172 106 117 61
30 30 12 54 83 110 18 173 145 324 155 94 87 224194162 80 150 59 75 66 180 75
21 53 92 121108339129 289 230 198 695 135 118 20 69 212177266184 81 48 340 284 0
67 19 74 101 78 161139 99 212 221 299 78 75 28 87 157239120181 125 0 263 185
55 33 123132179264164 141 197 333 283 145 41 69 48 109 59 156620 146 328 123 468
28 30 86 264277143148 135 145 143 8 95 44 212 97 59 87 43 235 219 555 400
14 32 125140203242165 95 45 64 145 189 200 259 178124 62 89 259 172 198
23 40 41 135140112128 112 65 161 150 148 122 134 113 68 109122199 296 323
27 20 114234116 74 112 241 200 236 117 0 42 90 204107 65 88 178 249
22 65 99 161 93 47 121 95 211 170 131 249 46 79 129150157255150 147
19 78 117147104185274 93 128 169 205 53 36 26 84 217 88 40 249
103 182 159102213261275 156 448 162 104 245 97 224 197267196133124
54 81 145132117109 75 139 155 117 104 51 163 230
64 35 136125 68 79 79 19 60 70 44 47
61 0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 53 53 to 93 93 to 135 135 to 196 196 to 695.1
Total Ceramics
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
Figure 4. Total ceramics distribution
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
Individual Sampling Method Results Random Sampling. Without a doubt, random sampling produced the most varied results, most notably within the spatial distributions. At odds with this is that the statistical and phase percentage results gave a representative sample. The circled areas on the maps indicate areas of high frequency identified ceramic phase clusters that would have been missed by the sample. For the 10% random sample (see Figure 5), the circled upper right-hand and lower section contain the two largest clusters of Tiwanaku ceramics on the site. As one of the goals of the Pirque Alto project was to gather information about the Tiwanaku influence at the site, missing these clusters would have drastically affected our understanding of the site.
The above map was generated from the 10% sample level, and it can be seen that is performs poorly in locating
the major clusters of identified ceramics. For this sample type, this trend continues through the 30% samples. Figure 6 shows that even at three times the previous sample size a large chunk of the site was not sampled.
68
190
189
89
162
90
90
146
23
170
136
245
211
67
169
012136
6
135
106
117 420
213
183
118
14
9539208
0284
202
162
339129
89
121
4944
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
0 to 42 42 to 95 95 to 146 146 to 190 190 to 339.1
2)Random Sample 10% (
Figure 5. Random Sample 10% (Trial 2)
8
60
555
90
148
309
216
120212
49
112128
118
259
109
65
5321
159
54
348
12
143
94
22
40
129
133
137
44
217
267
181
180
239
125
448
230
342
86
41
65
150
199
88
88 40
39 15
249 46 79
207
75
137
163104 51
31
161139
47
12953
128
101
3028
468
117
99
79
249
184
125
72
196
26
54
157
267
44
255
230
45
136
150
243
189
153
179
180
95165
19
23 0
112
145
23
198
118
47
141
109
82
216
161
245
172
140
102122
10592
23
116 74
323
59
100
135
620
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
0 to 51 51 to 101 101 to 139 139 to 199 199 to 620.1
Random Sample 30% (4)
Figure 6. Random Sample 30% (Trial 4)
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
9
For the random sample, the most reliable sample size level was 50%, (see Figure 7).
Table 1 shows the numeric results for all three maps shown above. Despite the large spatial differences between
all three intervals, the random samples produced the most reliable and representative numeric results compared to both the systematic and the stratified samples. However, when viewed in conjunction with their spatial distributions, random sampling comes up quite short. For a statistician random sampling would be the most ideal, but for the archaeologist who deals spatially and numerically, random sampling has little to offer. “In an archaeological context, simple random sampling will not work” (Rootenberg 1964:182).
Table 1. Random Sample Numeric Results
Systematic Random Sampling. The systematic random sampling method provided the most consistent results of all three probabilistic sampling methods spatially and numerically, and therefore it was difficult to choose certain trials. Of all the percent levels, 50% provides the most solid results, but logistically speaking a 30% sample is more attainable. However, even at the 10% level the systematic random sample still performs beautifully. At the beginning stage of an archaeological investigation, surface sampling is crucial to provide instruction as to which areas of the site may be significant. Due to this importance, systematic random sampling dominates its competitors as a way to provide archaeologists with a far-reaching distribution of samples, providing an overall better knowledge of the site. “This procedure has a number of advantages. Classes may be established with regard to different variables that one whish to control, which makes possible the reliable evaluation of variability in other phenomena with respect to the class-defined variables” (Binford 1964: 142).
At the 10% level, the phase percentage information is rather representative (see Figure 8). The 10% sample also provides a rather good physical distribution of units throughout the site (see map on following page with circled Tiwanaku ceramic clusters). Compared to the 10% random sample results, systematic random sampling provides a
Whole Site RS 10% (Trial 2) RS 30% (Trial 4) RS 50% (Trial 2) Number of Units Sampled 406 41 121 203 Mean ceramics per unit 128.81 119.22 138.66 126.98 Formative Phase % 4.46% 3.85% 5.26% 3.99% Early Intermediate Phase % 0.90% 0.94% 0.84% 0.96% Tiwanaku Phase % 18.99% 19.33% 18.47% 18.70% Diagnostic Ceramics % 25.24% 24.96% 25.30% 24.54% Non-Diagnostic Ceramics % 74.76% 75.04% 74.70% 75.46%
78
89
194
112128
197
197
150
128
296
324
81
26113
23 0
119
109
249
012136
128
127
137
80
83
230
317
180
156620
157
135
285
70
109
145
112
147150
958 44143
141
94
94
340
82
10912265
185
159
45
148
36
12
79249 46
140
74
178
102
44 47
97
150
75
20
20
203
200
44
189
65
88
236
148
202 83
102
43
137
179
80
109 123
134 315 239233
199
289
131
67 19
81
277
272
212
97
118
162
67
61 0
29
172
172
19
71
267
93
54
117
139
169185104 274
66
0125
54
155 18030
87
242
87
153
114
157
120
44
204
189
101
69
5326
11
0117 42
224
53205
161
48
3028
468
119
140
86
11778 36
299
59
249
125
082
121 95
84
239
49
92 105
165 95
163104 51
20
159
98
11
88
44
259
73
118
87
146
555
234
168
64
18
275 156
184
62
6
100
14
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
0 to 51 51 to 93 93 to 131 131 to 189 189 to 620.1
Random Sample 50% (2)
Figure 7. Random Sample 50% (Trial 2)
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
tremendously improved method. For the site of Pirque Alto, a 10% systematic sample returned results representative to the whole and would have been a useful method to employ.
The 30% systematic random sample does an excellent job of displaying representative numerical results and
gives excellent physical coverage. The circled areas on Figure 9 represent key Tiwanaku ceramic clusters.
At the 50% level, the systematic random sample provides extremely close numeric results for all five trials. When spatially represented, this sample gives a very clear picture of areas of ceramic occupation on the site. In Figure 10, the Tiwanaku clusters have been circled.
78 117
54
79
93
261 245
90
131
89
157 147
27 20
32
74
161
141
259
87
283
211
88
35
38
11
99
171
37127
159
70
119
168
197 145 194
40
96
106
118
20
340
196
6630
121
19
230
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
11 to 38 38 to 89 89 to 127 127 to 194 194 to 340.1
Systematic Random Sample 10% (1)
0 10 20 m
Figure 8. Systematic Random Sample 10% (Trial 1)
19
117
65
78 117
102
99
213
11715513975
162
19
211
261 104
150
97
204
129
26205 53
259
8759
178
219
88
172124
179
28 30
20
264
140
33 123
65
143 145
74
161
95165
148
145
28
118
145
200
299
69135
272
80
125
162
620156
266
11
129339
74
83 173 145
230
239
155
127 37 11
106
216
171
61 26
139
97
89
113 26
157
88 197
151
202
54 135
89
168
208 39
148 127
128
183
207
194
100
85 5
117
118
51
51
124
123
555
75
4088
323
18030
57
12
53
0
10174
61 0
47
23
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 to 54 54 to 99 99 to 140 140 to 183 183 to 620.1
Systematic Random Sample 30% (1)
0 10 20 m
Figure 9. Systematic Random Sample 30% (Trial 1)
10
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
11
Table 2 shows the nume
Tabl
ding identifiedlusters of ceramics, and systematic ra sampling was firmly in e middle. Visually, the st t at the 50% level,
e
ly l
SRS 50% (Trial 5)
ric results for all the systematic random trials shown above.
om were the leas reliable in terndom samples were the best overall, stratified random
ratified samples performed better than the random samples (excep
Whole Site SRS 10% rial 1) SRS 30% (Trial 1)
e 2. Systematic Random Sample Numeric Results
Stratified Random Sampling. If rand samples t spatially ms of fin cthwhere they are roughly equal), but significantly less well than the systematic samples. You can see that, like thrandom sample at 10%, the stratified random sample tends to miss key clusters or cover them only very slightly. It is not until the 30% and especially 50% stratified sample level does this tend to correct itself slightly. Despite a fairgood coverage, there are still clusters of sampled units. However, Figure 11 for the most part offers a good spatiadistribution.
(TNumber of Units Sampled 406 49 130 211 Mean ceramics per unit 128.81 119.92 128.56 124.25 Formative % 4.46% 4.61% 4.28% 3.96%Early Intermediate % 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.0% 2% 4% 76% Tiwanaku % 18.99% 19.84% 18.11% 19.00% Diagnostic Ceramics % 2 2 2 25.24% 5.85% 4.24% 4.67% Non-Diagnostic Ceramics % 7 7 7 74.76% 5.80% 5.76% 5.33%
14
64
103
19
54
23
55
22
20
40
81
33
30
54
182
20
65
123
114
92
86
31
92
145
99
30
125
101
264
105
121
140
25
53 44
203
78
277
134
93
213
242
264
129
74
261
83
44
47
79
110
65
168
38
128
130
148
164
112
94
275
75
79
139
19
156
112
135
44
289
67
212
155
230
65
45
173
102
61
117
145
161
221
145
70
82
143
169
0
137
117
8
148
131
49
162
299
205
695
324
44
0
78
189
95
135
53
47
148
194
139
155
233
0
44
75
21
118
97
80
42
36
315
90
69
153
230
181
26
259
267
87
239
16
71
69
48
84
72
204
59
97
109
124
189
96
267
36
87
208
272
239
145
109
162
177
59
122
157
133
89
35
88
120
43
255
156
80
39
150
136
124
139
61
620
249
179
98
66
181
178
12
147
249
70
219
119
146
73
118
172
0
328
100
323
14
0
106
6
340
47
18
66
263
123
284
83
185
53
0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 48 48 to 88 88 to 130 130 to 182 182 to 695.1
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
Grid
Mag
0 20 m
Systematic Random Sample 50% (5)
N
N
Figure 2. Systematic Random Sample 50% (Trial 5)
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
Figure 12 displays the visual distribution of the 30% sample level. The 30% sample level performed better in all trials than did the 10%.
At the 50% level, (see Figure 13) the stratified sample, much like the systematic and the random become somewhat the same. While the high percentage guarantees a broad ranging recovery, it also starts to become redundant.
159
54
132
92
1967
89
125
116 74
93
5321
11778
136
80
25
182
121
274185104
140
86
19
32
212
211
36
128
64
65
110
62
180
155
150
135
94
51104
285
44
130 102
38
131
53
289
148 43
93
18
137
212
10667
239
67
151
200
168
74
197
105
99
145
41
88
90
177
59 87
204
44
224
448
87
83
101
70
178
100
40
139
30
21891 149
9539170
102
23
287
87
37
69
140
219
148
90
160
140
32
126
99
441
102
96
191
194
0
558
143
104
26
19
100
159
81
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 54 54 to 91 91 to 125 125 to 170 170 to 558.1
Stratified Random Sample 30% (4)
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
Figure 12. Stratified Random Sample 30% (Trial 4)
55 33 123
101
112
20
102
92
20
112
178
134 113
64
58
122
46 79249
60
266
212
36
131
171
89
202
59
14
468
66
101
75
129
26
150
47
198
70
61
35
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
14 to 47 47 to 70 70 to 112 112 to 150 150 to 468.1
Stratified Random Sample 10% (5)
0 10 20 m
Figure 11. Stratified Random Sample 10% (Trial 5)
12
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
13
Table 3 displays the numeric results for all of the samples shown above.
Table 3. Stratified Random Sample Numeric Results
Whole Site Strat. 10% (Trial 5) Strat. 30% (Trial 4) Strat. 50% (Trail 5) Number of Units Sampled 406 41 122 203 Mean ceramics per unit 128.81 109.24 121.28 121.39 Formative Phase % 4.46% 6.30% 4.85% 5.18% Early Intermediate Phase % 0.90% 1.05% 0.95% 0.98% Tiwanaku Phase % 18.99% 18.15% 21.85% 22.82% Diagnostic Ceramics % 25.24% 26.35% 28.47% 29.91% Non-Diagnostic Ceramics % 74.76% 73.65% 85.00% 70.09% Judgmental Sampling. Numeric figures from all three judgmental samples (10, 30, and 50%) all provided representative results. (See table 4).
Table 4. Judgmental Sample Numeric Results
Whole Site Judgmental 10% Judgmental 30% Judgmental 50% Number of Units Sampled 406 41 122 203 Mean ceramics per unit 128.81 130.63 148.63 131.04 Formative Phase % 4.46% 4.66% 4.66% 4.94% Early Intermediate Phase % 0.90% 0.93% 0.93% 0.86% Tiwanaku Phase % 18.99% 19.02% 19.02% 18.89% Diagnostic Ceramics % 25.24% 25.54% 25.54% 25.59% Non-Diagnostic Ceramics % 74.76% 74.46% 74.46% 74.41%
The judgmental samples had extremely varied spatial results. At the 10% level, the student chose a systematic sample approach and managed to cover the site rather uniformly. (See Figure 14).
22
54
277
114
023
161
89
275
5321
67
19
74116
13975
234
14
143
74
179
28 30
26
182
125 79
20
92
136
125
65
32
92
109
31
40
30
68
121
132
20
145
121
135
110
221
118
80
448
36
162
122
155
122
130
37127
0 42117241
212
89
148
74
41
266
145
67
82
99
59
212 97
171
95165
101
28
104
36
87
170
236
60
180
7946249
106
11
109
18 94
289
137 233
131
21
67
169
0
4744
57
156
26
230
94
173 145
157
65
43
124
339129
44
161
259
283333
189
162
62
198
112
211
200
239
197
137
75
47
198
23
61106
162
249
59
72
26
147
100
84
12136 0
148
48
1539
88
51
145
150
53
89
153
157
51
184
145
159
83
267
71
267
129
207
98
180
35
244
468
255
328
97
47
117
96
179
128
309
59
172
348
69
119
29
67
197
0125
122109
162
66
109
178
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 47 47 to 89 89 to 129 129 to 180 180 to 468.1
Stratified Random Sample 50% (5)
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
Figure 13. Stratified Random Sample 50% (5)
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
9572
194
267180
4780 47
21
24423 67
194 1509483
266 0230
0
48 328
219143
189 6245242
29623
116
150255121 170
8826205
102
139
35
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 47 47 to 88 88 to 150 150 to 219 219 to 328.1
Judgmental Sample 10%
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
Figure 14. Judgmental Sample 10%
At the 30% level, the student chose a transect approach and cut the site into sections using three long corridors
of sampled units. This student arranged the transects to intersect high, middle and low artifact areas, as well as to cover the visible features. (See Figure 15).
61
At the 50% level, the student again took a systematic approach; however, she avoided a property divider lined
with cactus and thorny shrubbery. (See Figure 16).
128
59
208207
80 183
1890348
267 20162 159216190 216087 180 82
47130122 47
342309179 5174 38
2722852449444
194162 80 15083 110
212177266184339129
239120181161139
109 59 156620264 141164
87 23559 43143148 135 145
124 259624595165242 89
19912268112 10965128 112
107 1786542 88112 241 200
150255157150794695 211
40882172636 24912893
97 224 267196 124133448156
230155 163139
19 60 0 to 68
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 68 to 120 120 to 157 157 to 216
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
216 to 620.1
Judgmental Sample 30%
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
Figure 15. Judgmental Sample 30%
14
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
15
Visually, the 10% and 50% samples are quite similar. The 30% sample, featured in Figure 5 again with
Tiwanaku clusters circled, presents a completely new method of sampling — transecting. Judgmental sampling has an extremely useful function in archaeology as it allows the field to become more flexible. Depending on the results of a systematic sample for example, judgmental sampling allows the archaeologist to redirect the project and investigate potential areas otherwise excluded through sampling. Percent Interval
The most effective percent interval: 50% The most realistic percent interval: 30% Despite claims in the literature to the contrary, it is this author’s belief that a 10% sample with any method is
normally not conclusive or representative enough. What is being studied is comprised of many parts, some more measurable than others, and a 10% sample does not allow much leeway for the discovery of lesser reflected materials. However, should a 10% sample be the only available course of action, a systematic random sample should be the used, as at the 10% level its results were the most acceptable. General Comments
Unfortunately, due to the nature and scale of this project, the role statistics and statistical estimations play in conjunction with sampling was not able to be explored. If someone were to continue the work begun by this project, the next logical step would be to conduct various statistical calculations (such as Chi square testing) to fully determine the statistical extent of the sample procedures. CONCLUSIONS
At the start of this project, I found myself trying to straddle a line between the hardcore samplers with very complex math equations and those like Hole who saw sampling and statistics in archaeology as something that had focused too much energy on “probing the method instead of the ground” (Hole 1980: 219). After conducting my experiments and taking into account numeric and spatial representations and keeping in mind the various opinions within the literature, I still found myself straddling the line.
Through the process of conducting the experiments for this project and reading through the literature discussing the problems, concerns and benefits of sampling, it was possible to see how these factors played out within my experiments. At the end of this process, I had several more questions than answers and had grown immensely more cynical about math and sampling in regards to archaeology. I wrestled (on a much smaller scale) with all the issues mentioned in most of the journals and books I had read.
67 159 23
15665954 128
733972153207 96
189 61480148 183
53 71 101 9065 194197 162 317
26782 162105 2160151 168 87
20 83102 233137 7080 122
2182 342309179 119 5112753 44 5838
1069444 36 272285 611726757 24423 49
194162 150 7518 173 668330
0212 4820 69 177266 81 284
18515728 120181 263078
333264 141 59 156283 146 12341132
40021286 277 235143 5995 21914828 135
165242 172896217845 200 198140
134 323199148 1091501611281401354140 112
116 10727 117 24974 659042 8820 241 200
24947 15025515715079161 14799 121 211 170
19 205 40882178436 24993274185104147
97 224 197 196245 133104448275213159
230155 5113981
19 44706835
0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350
Judgmental Sample 50%
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
0 10 20 m
0 to 54 54 to 93 93 to 148 148 to 200 200 to 448.1
Figure 16. Judgmental Sample 50%
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
First, how does one go about choosing the appropriate sample size? “The optimum sample can be summarized as being small enough to yield statistically representative, significant, and accurate results at the minimum cost of labor” (Rootenberg 1964:186). For me, the choice was a relatively arbitrary one. I wanted to choose values that were both realistically applied archaeologically and that would give a varied enough result to draw conclusions about the various methods employed. However, when I examined the literature on determining appropriate sample size, there were many conflicting methods. Many were somewhat arbitrary, such as my own, i.e. believing or deciding that a 10% sample would be representative or a 20% sample, etc.
On the other end of the spectrum, I found some archaeologists recommended very complex mathematical or statistical equations in order to figure out the appropriate size. Looking at the math required, it seems likely that few archaeologists, without the help of a professional mathematician or statistician, will be able to do (and understand the implications of) the math required to determine sample size through these means. Approaching the topic as a realist, we need to work within our field to create methods that are logistically and practically applicable for the majority of individuals within our discipline.
The second issue I dealt with was if there is really any way to know that your sample is representative since archaeology deals with a seemingly indefinite population. Due to the nature of my thesis, I knew what my population was; I knew how many sherds total, I knew what phases, and I knew where. In the real world, no archaeologist has this advantage. The question that arose in my mind was this: is it worse to base your idea of what is representative on a complex mathematical equation, or draw upon similar archaeological sites combined with your knowledge of the area? Or is it better instead to use a combination, to rely upon your own judgment and knowledge of the area and then relate that to sampling and statistics as a way to aid you through the rest of the process, while still not being afraid to change your approach based on judgment?
The last of my four specific questions mentioned in the introduction dealt with the bias in sampling and if this was something able to be addressed or corrected. At the completion of this project, it occurred to me that the most damaging bias within sampling currently is the belief that with the right sampling method and the right sample size, a region or a site will be able to tell all. It is reflected in the literature that many put faith into these sampling methods that they no longer put into themselves. While Orton does allude to the field having returned to a more instinctive style of sampling, the effect that the explicit samplers has had on the field is irreversible (Orton 2000:6).
Is the way we conduct sampling intrinsically biased? To this I have to answer a resounding yes. Deciding the size of sample, the size of a unit, the boundaries of a site – all are typically made based upon the archaeologist’s judgment. Even if they are based with the most stringent of mathematics and statistics, you cannot simply cut and paste methods from one discipline into another. Statistics and sampling from any other field cannot be expected to operate in the same capacity within archaeology. “None of the sampling and estimation schemes currently in common use in archaeology take into account fully the spatial component in the data” (Hole 1980: 230). This is obviously something that needs to change. Bias is not necessarily a horrible thing, as long as we acknowledge it as a field, and adapt our methodology to take this into consideration.
For example, many site reports will simply state what percent sample was taken of the site, with very little regard to the process leading to that decision. If that discussion was included in the final site report, so that anyone who read it could understand why a 10%, or a 30% sample was chosen, or why a stratified approach was taken, then the harmful bias of sampling would be lessened. If you can legitimately explain your sampling strategy and how you came to that decision, the bias you have worked within becomes objective; consistency and specificity are crucial.
Based on the results of the sampling experiments conducted during this project and a careful review of the literature on the subject, the following conclusions have been reached: the most spatially and numerically representative sampling method is a systematic sample of at least 10% (though this author prefers a 30% sample). Numerically this method was not always as accurate as the random samples, however; it consistently at all percent levels provided a very even coverage of the site. As the results of surface recovery can be somewhat dubious (though it was decided at Pirque Alto the surface was a good indication of the subsurface) a systematic random sample approach on the subsurface would also prove extremely beneficial. At the beginning of an archaeological investigation, it would give you the best vantage point through which to view the site as a whole.
It is from this point that a judgmental sample is the next logical step. After the systematic random sample has provided wide-spread even coverage, the judgmental sample allows for the archaeologist to reevaluate the site, his or her research questions, and allows them the flexibility to decide where and how to proceed. This method should not be looked down upon or regarded as less effective or legitimate. The idea that all archaeology must be backed up by sophisticated mathematics and estimation statistics to be considered legitimate is rather insulting. “Without accurate assessment of the personal element, archaeology will be reduced to a set of mechanically applied approaches practiced by a series of competent but disinterested researchers, a grim prospect for the discipline” (Redman 1987: 262).
16
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
Sampling (and to some extent, statistics) within archaeology should be used as follows: 1. A method through which to locate archaeological sites on a regional scale. 2. A method through which to perform archaeology realistically, taking into account the current curation
crisis, as well as monetary, labor and time constraints 3. An aid in the analysis of collected data, not as a means to do far too much with way too little. “Given the
usual money and time restrictions, the minimum is far too often taken to be the maximum” (O’Neil 1993: 523).
4. A way to operate both spatially and numerically in a way to produce the most contextual results. Though it is displeasing to end this thesis in a contradictory fashion, I find that it is where my experimental
results and own personal conclusions lead. Sampling within archaeology is both at once a useful and dangerous tool. It allows us to work realistically within a world of constraints; however, it also has the propensity for great abuse. While my experiments concluded that a certain method of sampling at a certain percent was the most accurate and beneficial approach for the site of Pirque Alto, this does not mean that this is the approach that will work for every site; it would be naïve to think so.
Instead, the new direction of sampling in archaeology should be one of judgmental enforced flexibility. Sampling should continue to be relied upon, and the basic guidelines and the statistical analysis associated with it should be followed. However, it is extremely important that archaeologists expand on their methods, become far more specific about their decision making process, and not be afraid to rely on their own judgment. Archaeology is a complex, multifaceted field which requires more than an explicit methodology. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would first like to thank Drs. Tim McAndrews and Connie Arzigian for their guidance throughout this project. Without them I would not have had a clue where to begin or how to proceed. I would also like to thank Dr. Jim Theler for redirecting my thoughts and questions. Thanks to the other members of the 2005 Bolivia Field School for helping to collect the raw data. Thanks to the Undergraduate Research Committee for funding this project. I would like to thank my mother and father Denise and Al Green for listening to me describe this project and giving me their support even though they are interested not in the slightest. I would like to acknowledge my friends, in particular Beth Plunger, Chris Salinas and Beth Boe for keeping me company throughout this process and offering their advice over much needed drinks. Lastly, I’d like to thank Phil Lee for his amazing proof reading abilities. REFERENCES Binford, Lewis. 1964. A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design. American Antiquity 29:425-441. Burkholder, JoEllen. 1997. Tiwanaku and the Anatomy of Time: A New Ceramic Chronology From the Iwawi Site,
Department of La Paz, Bolivia. New York: Binghamton University. Drennan, Robert D. 1996. Statistics for Archaeologists: A Common Sense Approach. New York: Plenum Press. Flannery, Kent. 1970. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press. Hole, Bonnie Laird. 1980. Sampling in Archaeology: A Critique. Annual Review of Anthropology 9:217-234. Janusek, John Wayne. 2004. Identity and Power in the Ancient Andes: Tiwanaku Cities Through Time. New York:
Routledge. McAndrews, Timothy. 2006. Preliminary Results from the Multicomponent Site of Pirque Alto in Cochabamba,
Bolivia. Poster presented at the 71st annual meetings of the Society for American Archaeology in San Juan, Puerto Rico. Tim McAndrews, Claudia Rivera, Carla Jaimes.
Mueller, James. 1975. Sampling in Archaeology. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Nance, Jack. 1981. Statistical Fact and Archaeological Faith: Two Models in Small-Sites Sampling. Journal of Field
Archaeology 8:151-165. O’Neil, Dennis. 1993. Excavation Sample Size: A Cautionary Tale. American Antiquity 58:523-529. Orton, Clive. 2000. Sampling in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Plog, Steven and Michelle Hegmon. 1993. The Sample Size-Richness Relation: The Relevance of Research
Questions, Sampling Strategies, and Behavioral Variation. American Antiquity 58:489-496. Plog, Steven, Fred Plog, and Walter Wait. 1978. Decision Making in Modern Surveys. In Advances in Archeological
Method and Theory. Volume 1, edited by Michael Schiffer. pp. 383-421. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Redman, Charles. 1987. Surface Collection, Sampling and Research Design: A Retrospective. American Antiquity
52:249-265.
17
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
Renfrew, Colin, and Paul Bahn. 2000. Archaeology: Theories, Methods and Practice. Third ed. New York: Thames & Hudson.
Rootenberg, S. 1964. Archaeological Field Sampling. American Antiquity 30:181-188. Schiffer, Michael, Alan P. Sullivan, Timothy Klinger. 1978. The Design of Archaeological Surveys. World
Archaeology 10:1-28. Thompson, S.K. and G.A.F. Seber. 1996. Adaptive Sampling. (New York: John Wiley and Sons). Vescelius, G.S. 1960. Archaeological Sampling: A Problem of Statistical Inference. In Essays in the Science of
Culture: In Honor of Leslie White, edited by Gertrude E. Dole and Robert Carnerio. pp. 457-470. Crowell, New York.
Young – Sanchez, Maraget. 2004. Tiwanaku: Ancestors of the Inca. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
18
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
19
APPENDI
29
67 128 159 98 23
54 40 109 59 128 66 118 39 15
207153 72 96 208 39 95 73 85 5
148 127 80 181183189145 35 113 26 14 6
88 53 129 65 243 197 145 162 194348317 71 101 90 119 136 12 0 18
54 92 105 135 151 168 87 180 82 0 162190267216216159 157 61 26 51 20
20 89 80 134 122 130 202 102 137 171 233315239239101 47 89 139 70 69 47 83
26 31 53 44 74 38 82 137 58 127 37 21 16 11 97 342 309 179 119 100 51 53
23 0 25 57 44 94 44 67 11 49 139118106 67 36 272 285 244 172 106 117 61
30 30 12 54 83 110 18 173 145 324 155 94 87 224194162 80 150 59 75 66 180 75
21 53 92 121 108 339 129 289 230 198 695 135118 20 69 212177 266 184 81 48 340 284 0
67 19 74 101 78 161 139 99 212 221 299 78 75 28 87 157239 120 181 125 0 263 185
55 33 123 132 179 264 164 141 197 333 283 145 41 69 48 109 59 156 620 146 328 123 468
28 30 86 264 277 143 148 135 145 143 8 95 44 212 97 59 87 43 235 219 555 400
14 32 125 140 203 242 165 95 45 64 145 189200259178124 62 89 259 172 198
23 40 41 135 140 112 128 112 65 161 150 148122134113 68 109 122 199 296 323
27 20 114 234 116 74 112 241 200 236 117 0 42 90 204107 65 88 178 249
22 65 99 161 93 47 121 95 211 170 131 249 46 79 129150157 255 150 147
19 78 117 147 104 185 274 93 128 169 205 53 36 26 84 217 88 40 249
103 182 159 102 213 261 275 156 448 162 104 245 97 224197267196 133 124
54 81 145 132 117 109 75 139 155 117 104 51 163230
64 35 136 125 68 79 79 19 60 70 44 47
61 0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 53 53 to 93 93 to 135 135 to 196 196 to 695.1
Total Ceramics
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
Grid
Mag
0 20 m
N
N
Figure 17 Total Ceramics Distribution
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
20
0
0 16 3 3 2
2 2 10 6 18 14 16 2 0
11 1 6 10 27 0 0 7 9 0
15 17 8 10 4 6 26 5 9 0 1 2
2 4 23 8 17 11 7 6 9 20 13 3 23 12 30 15 0 0 3
5 6 0 8 7 10 2 14 3 0 6 11 12 13 26 23 17 5 7 1 1
0 2 1 3 7 1 7 9 2 5 11 13 0 10 6 2 2 8 5 7 4 11
1 3 2 1 6 2 5 6 2 11 0 1 0 1 6 92 23 19 12 6 2 5
2 0 4 1 2 5 3 2 1 3 3 4 3 3 3 46 20 26 29 12 4 6
1 5 1 1 1 5 2 4 0 12 6 2 7 2 12 12 7 17 3 4 2 16 2
1 0 5 4 9 7 0 4 4 4 7 0 4 2 1 13 14 35 12 4 1 9 5 0
2 1 6 1 1 3 0 2 3 8 1 6 0 2 2 3 6 7 9 1 0 4 2
3 0 0 5 4 10 0 5 15 5 0 2 1 2 0 4 2 1 0 6 4 12 31
0 0 1 1 5 1 4 3 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 14 37 62
0 1 1 3 7 2 2 0 5 8 3 4 7 8 3 5 5 5 18 9 59
0 1 1 0 11 3 3 0 1 4 3 5 4 1 0 5 6 0 4 15 31
1 1 1 4 5 0 4 3 2 3 3 0 0 2 5 1 0 1 1 8
4 6 5 5 5 3 3 0 2 7 1 1 0 0 2 3 4 3 6 4
3 1 0 3 3 0 0 4 7 6 9 0 2 2 3 3 1 0 5
8 6 3 3 5 3 6 0 10 3 3 4 4 10 6 7 4 2 4
4 4 1 11 9 4 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 4
2 2 7 5 2 4 1 1 2 5 4 0
2 0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 5 5 to 9 9 to 92.01
Formative Phase
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
Grid
Mag
0 20 m
N
N
Figure 18 Formative Phase Ceramic Distribution
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
21
0
0 0 0 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0
2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 2 2 5 2 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2
2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
0 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 0 1 1 0 1 4 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 1
0 0 0 1 0 8 3 3 5 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 2
1 1 2 0 5 4 1 0 4 1 0 3 1 6 2 1 0 0 4 0 2 2
0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 20 3 3
2 0 0 2 2 2 3 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 3 2 0 2 2 4 1
2 0 2 1 0 1 4 3 5 5 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 4 1
0 0 1 1 0 5 0 1 2 6 4 4 2 1 6 0 0 0 5 1
0 1 0 6 2 6 2 1 7 10 16 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3
1 0 4 2 1 0 3 3 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0
0 0 1 4 0 3 1 3 0 4 0 0 6 1
0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 20.01
Early Intermediate Phase
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
Grid
Mag
0 20 m
N
N
Figure 19 Early Intermediate Phase Ceramic Distribution
Green UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research X (2007)
22
5
7 9 19 10 2
22 12 6 7 22 17 21 2 1
65 42 34 12 10 0 0 12 12 2
42 22 29 64 60 21 21 7 20 6 1 1
8 2 9 11 43 24 65 62 33 104108 10 19 16 30 30 3 0 0
2 11 16 20 36 37 17 26 28 0 50 88 115 77 33 25 37 15 4 3 2
7 4 6 11 18 15 23 13 15 39 50 105 84 80 24 3 7 29 18 21 11 4
6 2 5 4 21 3 19 17 10 65 4 3 5 2 25 33 33 27 14 13 20 8
5 0 1 8 9 18 5 11 3 9 28 29 33 11 3 15 15 32 43 20 21 12
4 7 2 2 10 16 7 24 14 79 44 14 24 30 24 10 4 15 5 8 17 63 22
6 7 25 19 18 43 38 40 43 52 94 41 31 6 14 43 39 49 18 16 17 72 80 0
17 4 9 16 20 31 34 27 46 47 65 8 17 6 21 35 46 29 32 32 0 90 39
7 0 29 27 23 75 42 32 41 66 76 36 1 4 8 33 19 10 60 30 99 40 87
2 6 19 29 43 26 36 22 34 39 1 11 15 17 15 11 21 8 45 35 67 47
2 5 26 24 38 52 42 33 10 16 53 32 30 26 23 16 10 12 30 27 35
2 6 6 25 22 24 26 22 16 47 30 23 16 32 25 18 18 47 31 48 42
0 0 23 18 11 13 15 34 48 53 31 0 11 12 72 25 13 16 32 44
5 4 11 11 9 14 26 24 41 46 24 50 7 9 20 55 46 47 32 40
2 6 17 18 9 39 48 19 19 43 19 8 7 1 17 52 25 0 43
22 34 40 18 27 42 24 24 49 31 9 21 15 36 49 31 41 33 38
9 15 26 22 16 13 9 24 37 7 8 9 29 44
10 13 46 42 6 7 13 1 24 8 3 8
6 0
290 300 310 320 330 340 350 360 370 380 390 400 410
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310
320
330
340
350 0 to 7 7 to 15 15 to 24 24 to 39 39 to 115.1
Tiwanaku Phase
Grid East
Grid
Nor
th
Grid
Mag
0 20 m
N
N
Figure 20 Tiwanaku Phase Ceramic Distribution
top related