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.

Nice variety! Were the square ones dug in arbitrary levels? I was originally taught to dig square shovel tests in 10 cm levels, but ended up working for firms who either didn’t care or had research plans that specifically said round holes. Depending on the firm, the round holes were either broken down by natural strata or dug as a single unit.

jangojips:

How I used to dig a hole…square! ( Square with a rounded shovel to boot…Yeah, I know. Everyone thinks I am some sort of archaeological freak.)

How I dig a hole now…circle…

The CRM firm I dig with prefers I dig circle holes. *shrug*
A little difficult because I naturally dig squares.
In…