Serious question, why does everyone treat fieldwalking like it's the only way to find sites?

I used to be obsessed with fieldwalking, spent every weekend for like 3 years walking plowed fields in central Ohio after rains. Found a few things, mostly broken pottery and a broken arrowhead. Then last spring I started doing systematic shovel testing near creek banks instead, just digging 50 cm holes on a grid. In two months I found a intact spear point and evidence of a hearth, way better results. Fieldwalking only catches stuff on the surface, but most artifacts are buried below plow depth. I get that it's faster and cheaper, but people act like it's the gold standard. Has anyone else had better luck with testing than surface collecting?

3 comments

3 Comments

avery_lopez21d ago

It really depends on the ground conditions, I've had way more luck with shovel testing in wooded areas where the surface is hidden. You're right that surface finds can be deceiving since they only show what erosion has brought up. Maybe more people should give testing a try before writing it off as too much work?

hollyc9221d ago

@avery_lopez sounds like you've been digging holes long enough to know the dirt.

margaret_williams54d ago

Absolutely! Shovel testing is the way to go if you actually want to find something worth keeping. I spent a whole afternoon once just walking fields picking up random arrowheads, came home with a pocket full of junk. Next weekend I tried a proper test pit in a wooded patch near a creek, pulled out three solid points and a scraper in about two hours. Surface hunting is basically just gambling on what the rain decided to show you, while a good test gives you the full picture underneath. People who complain about the work have clearly never felt that thump of a shovel hitting something good.