The Thesis: No Guts, No Glory

"Landscape archaeology", "surface/siteless survey"--What does it all mean?? Why is it important and increasing in popularity? How do we interpret the data? Who cares about methodology?

My thesis, "Data Collection and Methodological Consistency in Intensive Survey", deals with many of these questions and the data collected via surface survey across the Eastern Corinthia between the years 1999 and 2001.

Systematic surface survey, also known as siteless survey, is defined by R. Michael Stewart in his textbook, Archaeology:Basic Field Methods, as: "an area that is repeatedly traversed by crew members spaced at regular intervals, noting the location of artifacts or making observations about other phenomena that might relate to archaeological deposits.... You're not just looking for artifacts but suggestive patterns or anomalies in topography, vegetation, and drainaget that might relate to past human activity." This is as opposed to "site survey" which targets specific archaeological locations and for the most part ignores everything else.

Recommended reading: Archaeological Survey E.B. Banning, 2004.

Sounds rather boring you say?

I guarantee it's addictive. If you have ever performed surface survey, you'll know what I'm talking about. First, your neck muscles begin to bulk up from consistently staring at the ground, then eyesight transforms into the superhuman, keenly detecting even the smallest of artifacts and ground cover anomalies. Soon, you'll find yourself analyzing fields you pass by during car rides while just another walk to the park or class becomes another survey adventure. I can be quoted as randomly shouting "Look at that field!! It's got 100% visibility!!!!!!", and wonder with amazement the possibilities of that field.

You become addicted to the euphoria of discovery; of seeing something no other contemporary has seen. You become addicted to the possibility, the unknown. You become addicted to the secret story the landscape holds.

But this leads me back to the questions I posed earlier: why is it important to the field of archaeology? What is the point of walking "systematically" for hours a day across fields counting, marking or "GPS-ing" artifacts? Isn't it just a big waste of time?

Surface survey is important and favorable and popular for several reasons:

1) Ethically speaking, it is sound. (Blog entry on ethics forthcoming). In most cases, there is no collection of cultural material or destruction of declared archaeological sites.

2) It's more efficient than digging. Generally speaking, we can learn much more by covering a lot of ground in a matter of weeks than by digging in one single place for several months.

3) It is permitted by foreign governments, as it is seen as less destructive. Often permits are for a very restricted amount of time. It is imperative to make the most of this time.

4) Provides good reconnaissance for little known/unknown archaeological sites, or "site discovery".

5) It forces archaeologists to look at what's happening with the land around them, for instance unusual erosional surfaces, plowed fields, exposed slopes.

To lecture for just a bit: (Anthro/ancient history majors pay attention!) a background in geology is quite handy. It has served me very well in the field, besides being the resident go-to rock interpreter, I have many basic skills such as working with Geographic Information Systems (GIS), making topographic maps, and the ability to recognize geologically produced material as opposed to those culturally crafted, not to mention the ability to understand rock and soil chemistry and occurrences.

The data collected with the Eastern Corinthia project was intensive and not mutually exclusive. Data was collected on the number of counted sherds, tiles, lithics, current landuse, vegetation cover, visibility and specific features, all within specific geomorphologic units. These units where split by geomorphologists who saw significant change in landscape. This could tell us, for example, if certain slopes or erosional surfaces yields a greater artifact recover rate. This interpretive process is still in progress to my knowledge.

The project that I have taken on is rather enormous. There are a total af 1672 units, 1336 of which were surveyed normally, ie. Not experimental or unsurveyable. During my time in the Corinthia, I re-examined over 200 of the units that were originally surveyed in 2000. The purpose was to see how the original survey data lined up with the fields of 2004, basically getting a feel for the fields and developing a sense of how to better develop the survey methodology by viewing the problems first hand. I also was curious to see if any signigicant changes in the fields occurred over this time--I was hoping to find great changes that would surely alter previously recorded densities. This, however, does not seem to be the case.

Though my task is difficult, I am learning a lot. For now though, I'll get back to work keeping the motto in mind: No Guts, No Glory.