Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-02T21:29:28.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The creative use of bias in field survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Richard Bradley ,
Tess Durden  and
Nigel Spencer
Richard Bradley
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AA, England
Tess Durden
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of Reading, Whiteknights, Reading, RG6 2AA, England
Nigel Spencer
Affiliation:
Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford, OX1 2PG, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A modest experiment explores what is is seen and what is not seen in field survey, and what can be done about it.

Type
Notes
Information
Antiquity , Volume 68 , Issue 259 , June 1994 , pp. 343 - 346
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 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

Beckensall, S. 1991. Prehistoric rock motifs of Northumberland 1. Hexham: privately published.Google Scholar
Beckensall, S. 1992. Prehistoric rock motifs of Northumberland 2. Hexham: privately published.Google Scholar
Bradley, R. 1991. Rock art and the perception of landscape, Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(1): 77–101.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., Harding, J. Mathews, M. & Rippon, S. 1993a. A field method for analysing the distribution of rock art, Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(2): 129–43.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., Harding, J. & Mathews, M. 1993b. The siting of prehistoric rock art in Falloway, south-west Scotland, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 59: 269–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, C. 1972. Goatscrag: a Bronze Age rock shelter cemetery in north Northumberland, with notes on rock shelters and crag lines in the region, Archaeologia Aeliana 50: 15–69.Google Scholar
Cherry, J.F. 1983. Frogs around the pond: perspectives on current archaeological survey projects in the Mediterranean region, in Keller, D. & Rupp, D. (ed.), Archaeological survey in the Mediterranean area: 375–416. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International Series 155.Google Scholar
Chippindale, C. 1991. Editorial, Antiquity 65: 439–46.Google Scholar
Clarke, D.V. 1978. Excavation and volunteers: a cautionary tale, World Archaeology 10: 63–70.Google Scholar
Davidson, D., Jones, R. & Renfrew, A.C. 1976. Environmental reconstruction and evaluation: a case study from Orkney, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers (NS) 1: 346–61.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. & Malone, C. 1984. Intensive survey of prehistoric sites in the Stilo region, Calabria, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 50: 121–50.Google Scholar
Kvamme, K & Jochim, M. 1989. The environmental basis of Mesolithic settlement, in Bonsall, C. (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe: 1–12. Edinburgh: John Donald.Google Scholar
O‘brien, M. & Lewarch, D. 1992. Regional analysis of the Zapotee empire, Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, World Archaeology 23(3): 264–82.Google Scholar
Layton, R. 1991. Figure, motif and symbol in the hunter-gatherer art of Europe and Australia, in P., Bahn & Rosenfeld, A. (ed.), Rock art and prehistory: 23–38. Oxford: Oxbow. Monograph 10.Google Scholar
Mcdonald, W.A. & Hope-Simpson, R. 1961. Prehistoric habitation in south-western Peloponnese, American Journal of Archaeology 65: 221–60.Google Scholar
Plog, S., Plog, F. & Wait, W. 1978. Decision making in modern surveys, Advances in archaeological method and theory 1: 383–421.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. 1985. Experiments in the collection and analysis of archaeological survey data. Sheffield: Sheffield University Department of Archaeology and Prehistory.Google Scholar