I apologize if I am offering information that has already been presented, but I do not recall any mention of Michael Heilen and Jeffrey Altschul's white paper on in-field artifact analysis in the discussion yet. It's a short paper but well worth the read in terms of this discussion, as they actually tested the accuracy of in-field analysis (and found serious issues with it). In fact, they found only the most recognizable of artifact types were correctly identified, and rare types were often missed (the ones that may be most important in interpreting a site).

Their paper approaches in-field analysis from the perspective of cost-cutting rather than addressing stakeholder concerns for repatriation, which is one that we are starting to see here in Ohio on some projects. I personally have serious reservations about the real-world implications of the practice, in terms of how it will affect the ability of reviewing agencies to assess the recommendations of CRM reports. We recently had a project where lab analysis revealed nearly half of a flake assemblage from a site were utilized, much higher than what could be determined in the field from brief visual analysis, for example. That type of information is vital to properly interpreting sites.

Heilen, Michael and Jeffrey H. Altschul
2013	The Accuracy and Adequacy of In-Field Artifact Analysis. Advances in Archaeological Practice 2:121-138. (Free download at http://saa.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/content/saa/aap/2013/00000001/00000002)




Andrew R. Sewell, MS, RPA
Principal Investigator
Website: http://www.hardlinesdesign.com
Check out our blog! http://www.hardlinesdesign.com/blog/
Follow me on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-sewell/12/b93/58b

 Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail