Decided to try a new grid pattern at a dig site last summer

We were working a site in New Mexico and I convinced the crew to switch from the standard 2x2 meter squares to a 1x1 meter setup. It took twice as long to lay out, but we found a small, intact clay pot in a corner that the bigger squares would have missed. It made me think about how much we might have walked over in the past with our old methods. Anyone else had a simple change in their field method pay off like that?

3 comments

3 Comments

thompson.tyler2mo ago

Ever think a tighter grid is just busywork? I used to. We had a rule to only flag artifacts bigger than a dime to save time. Then on a super dry site, we started tagging every flake, even the tiny ones. Plotting them all showed a clear tool-making spot we would have totally missed. It was a pain but changed how I see survey detail.

rowanellis2mo ago

Oh man, that's so true. I had the exact same thought process, @thompson.tyler. We used to skip the little stuff to move faster, calling it efficiency. Then on one coastal survey, we mapped every single shell fragment, not just tools. The density map revealed a clear midden area that was totally scattered and invisible before. It felt tedious in the moment, but you're right, it completely shifts what you find. Now I always argue for the extra detail when we can.

young.emma27d ago

Three 10x10 test pits with heavy screening would have caught that same spot in half the time.