Publishing Archaeology: How to give a bad... →
Michael Smith wrote an excellent blog entry on what makes for a bad conference talk. If you read the comments (and you should—they’re also excellent) there is some disagreement along the read/don’t read lines. I fall on the opposite side of the divide than Dr. Smith. I’ve seen bad papers using both methods, but think that having a written paper gives one something to fall...
Brain Stew: Minnesota CRM has its low points →
Time for the judicious application of technical base layers, wool, thinsulate, overalls (insulated or not), gore-tex, &c. Now is not the time to scrimp on the field gear budget. You might also want to consider getting some cold weather boots, especially if your warm weather boots have steel toes. Keep your handkerchief in the same pocket as one of your handwarmers. Your nose will thank...
ArchaeoBlog is pondering shovel probes →
Over at ArchaeoBlog, Dr. Cagle is about to (re?)visit the survey method debates. This should be required reading for any archaeologist who conducts survey, especially should that archaeologist also plan surveys. That said, the abstract to the 20-year old Lightfoot article summarizes the situation as it stands today. I hope that this changes in the near future, now that geophysical techniques are...