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 becoming more common. I doubt that they’ll ever replace shovel testing as the survey method of choice, at least not in the near future. The types of data identified by shovel tests are different than those generally found through geophysical survey. I suspect that at some point in the near future, it might be unthinkable to use only one type of survey when conducting large-scale survey. Instead, by using the two types, the different types of data would complement each other to provide more accurate identification of sites and site boundaries.

It’s autumn, which is my favorite season. It’s a time of reflection. We look at how we’ve been doing this year and how it compares against previous years. Part of that is to predict how quickly we can complete the remaining projects. We’re in the race against winter and it offers its own challenges to archaeologists.

The days are now getting short enough that we have to start adapting our work schedule to maximize the daylight. Soon, the opportunities to have a 10-hour day will disappear, as sunrise happens later and later. This isn’t all bad, however. A later start time can mean more sleep at night.

The students have all returned to classes, leaving us with a smaller field crew. 

The weather is cooler and generally less predictable. Will we see a lot of rain? Will we have an early snow? When will the ground freeze? When will the leaves fall, obscuring the ground surface and preventing any meaningful surface survey? To put it simply, will conditions let us get our projects done in time?

Usually, the variables work out in our favor (thanks in part to some conservative planning), and as a result, autumn holds that refreshing feeling of wrapping up the field season. 

jangojips has been posting up a storm of quality lately (seriously, set your Tumblrs to “follow”), and this one stirred up a little debate.

You can get away with a lot when it comes to wearing clothing out in the field, but I think that I have to side with Colleen on this. When I was a field tech, I tended to focus on the “cheap” strategy of dressing. I figured that my clothes would be unusable as anything other than field clothes after a project, so why bother spending money on them? Better, I reasoned, to stock up on more from the local used clothing store when they were destroyed.

Then, I ended up working on an Army installation for a couple of months. On that crew were people who had formerly served in the forces. They turned me on to the joys of functional clothing. Fieldwork was a lot more enjoyable (say… even doable) when I wore pants that would quickly dry after walking through a wetland and had pockets that could hold a field notebook.

So functional is the ultimate key to field clothes, but functional can take many forms. Everybody on the crew has their own field uniform and they’re all more or less functional. I’ve found they can be loosely divided into three groups: adventurer, farmer/construction, and second-hand college student. All three have a range of looking nice to looking beat up, but generally those that fall within the last group look a little rougher.

For someone on the field crew, appearance doesn’t matter as much as if you were in a meeting with a client. The demands of the job see to that. You’ll be sweaty, muddy, stink, and probably have a poison ivy rash someplace. Everyone understands this and any dress/cleanliness standards are much relaxed. There still are standards that will hopefully never be totally abandoned, but some things are given a bye.

People react well to others who present themselves well. If you watch the crew, if you really pay attention, you’ll see that this is true within the crew itself.

middlesavagery:

jangojips:

My favorite thing about doing CRM field archaeology is that, essentially, appearances don’t matter. There are rules, of course. We have to wear appropriate clothing for our work, and we have to follow guidelines and codes about what is adequate and what is not. What I mean when I say appearances…

Oh, but clothing does matter. As archaeologists and experts in the field of material culture, we should be aware of the co-constructed nature of clothing and self-expression. More so, as a site photographer and supervisor I much prefer people to appear at least mildly capable of grooming themselves in the photographs that we take to present our work professionally. I think you’ll find as you get more experience that it actually is not that hard to appear in pretty good repair, even wearing a pair of pants that have been sewn together more times than you can count. Of course, I always admired one of the girls I worked with that could keep her manicure nice even while working harder than everyone. That’s skill.

The linked article provides interesting perspective and is well worth the read.

However, I can’t help but think that there must be options to help ease the cost. Perhaps some sort of programmatic agreement involving a predictive model would be appropriate. Are they tracking surveys in such a way so as to prevent redundant work (I would assume so, but hey you never know)?

Oddly enough, though, it’s usually the agency that drives these sort of agreements, not the SHPO/THPO. Can they legally drive the development of an agreement with an agency? I wouldn’t see why not, but don’t actually know.

Also, where is the BIA in all of this? You’d think that an agency with a single regional archaeologist would be pursuing options to keep at least their own costs down.

(via @girlarchaeo on twitter)