Many studies were unclear and, even when used properly, the statistics often served to obscure the data rather than aid interpretation. Additionally, many archaeologists had very little statistical training and access to the complex quantitative literature became limited to those with a full grasp of the subject. Thus, communication between archaeologists suffered. In short, for exploratory work such as my own, quantitative spatial analyses are often not suitable. Many researchers have recently begun to appreciate the elegance and clarity of a visual qualitative method of spatial analysis.
Visual inspection has the advantage of being relatively quick and easy to operationize.
It is simple and clear, allowing all archaeologists to communicate about any patterning involved. The data can then be assessed as to whether more complex statistical methods would be useful. Unfortunately many archaeological sites do not exhibit discrete living floors and can only be examined for gross patterning. Thus, episodes of occupation have to be extrapolated from larger sedimentary strata. Significant amounts of bioturbation in Dust Cave could have obscured some evidence for living floors and perhaps even have displaced some artifacts.