Maney Publishing

Artifact Size and Plowzone Processes

Author(s): Robert C. Dunnell and Jan F. Simek
Source: Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 305-319
Published by: Maney Publishing
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/530178
Accessed: 19-06-2015 20:51 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Maney Publishing is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Field Archaeology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

305

Size andPlowzoneProcesses
Artifact
RobertC. Dunnell
of Washington
University
Seattle,Washington

JanF. Simek
of Tennessee
University
Knoxville,Tennessee

consideration
archaeological
deposits
implicates
oftheformationofplowzone
Theoretical
under-used
sourceofinformation.
size
Modality
artifact as an importantand heretofore
in sizedistributions
and bone,indicates
suchas low-fired
pottery
ofdegradableartifacts,
theadditionofstratigraphically
deepermaterialstoa plowzoneassemblage.
Thismeans
are
mixed
in
thatdifferent
contexts
With
suchassemblages.
agesand/ordepositional
and
well-controlled
the
location
and
characterization
samples,
ofsublarge
sufficiently
plowzonedeposits
maybepossible
fromtheanalysisofsizedistributions
ofsurfacematerials alone.Applicationtoa "worstcase"surfaceassemblage
fromSEMissouridemonstratesthegeneralfeasibility
oftheapproach.

Introduction
A largefractionof the totalarchaeologicalrecordis, or
has been,subjectedto some formofagricultural
manipulation.From the beginning,archaeologistshave recognized
tillage as a mixed blessing.On the one hand, it brings
buried and obscured materialto notice; on the other,it
of the record by alteringartifact
impairsinterpretation
and
location.
So long as archaeologists
did not
form,size,
seek representative
of
the
samples
archaeologicalrecord,
the tilled portion could be ignored in favorof better
preservedlocalities.With few exceptions(e.g., Hayden
1965; Phillips,Ford, and Griffin1951; Ruppe 1966;
Wauchope1966), thesurfacerecordwas employedonlyas
an indicatorof wheresubsurfacedepositsworthyof investigationmightbe found. The mechanicaldamage from
tillagewas obvious; it was assumedthat horizontaldisplacementduringtillage destroyedany archaeologicallyrelevant locational information(Dunnell and Dancey
1983). Consequently,nearlyall surfacecollections,especiallythose fromplowed fields,were consideredpreliminaryor exploratory.
Theyweremade in haphazardfashion
and usuallywithoutproveniencecontrolbelow thelevelof
"site." Lack of spatialcontrolreinforcedthe notion that
plowed surfacesdid not yieldusefulmaterialsforserious
analysis.It also effectively
preventedanyseriouschallenge
to thatprejudice(Dunnell and Dancey 1983: 270). As a
consequence, surfacecollection and the use of plowed
materialshave only become importantcomponentsof

archaeologicalfieldresearchin the lastdecade or so (Ammerman1981; Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Lewarchand

O'Brien 1981a; Redman1987).
Changes in archaeologyas a whole were necessaryto
alterthese attitudesand allow routineintegrationof the
tilled recordin archaeologicalresearch.Most important
werethe shiftto a regionalfocus(e.g., Binford1964) and
recognitionthatfieldresearchhad to be treatedas a formal
samplingproblem(Binford1964; Vescellius1960). Tilled
areas are not randomlydistributedacross environments.
Certainsoilsand geomorphicfeatures
areavoidedbymodernfarmers
whileothersmaybe exploitedin theirentirety.
some settingshave receivedlittleor no sedimenSimilarly,
tation duringthe Holocene, leavingvirtuallythe entire
archaeologicalrecordwithinthe reach of tillage implements;othershave receivedmuch sediment,buryingthe
record.If a representative
situsample of environmental
ationsis a requisiteforgood research,thenwe mustmake
use of plowed material.The same considerations
made it
clear thatthe kindsof archaeologicaldepositsfavoredby
archaeologistsin thepastwere oftenunusualsedimentary
ones, and therefore
unrepresentative
(e.g., deep, stratified
sites
open
implyingoccupationduringactivedeposition,
or cave and rockshelterdeposits).Such depositsmayhave
adequatelyservedtraditionalchronologicalinterests,but
alone theycannot addressthe broaderdata requirements
of contemporary
archaeology.
studies
Furthermore,
archaeologicalformation-process

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Simek
306 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

(Schiffer1972, 1987) exploded some of the convenient

myths,such as the in situ notion, that served to help
rationalizethe omission of plowed materials(i.e., they
were "disturbed")fromseriousresearchprograms.Most
of the archaeologicalrecordwas originallydepositedon
the surfaceand subjectedto a varietyof naturaland cultural processes that moved objects both verticallyand
horizontally(e.g., Cahen and Moyersons1977). Despite
such small-scalemovement,the bulkof mostassemblages
stayat or nearthesurface(Dunnell and Dancey 1983). In
have been an importantagent
fact,tillagemayfrequently
of burial(e.g., wherelittleor no Holocene depositionhas
defensibleto disoccurred).It is no longerintellectually
miss "disturbed"depositsand plowed materialsas insignificanteither in resource managementor in research
contexts(e.g., Bobrowsky1982).
As importantas theseintellectualchangesare, the real
impetusto routineuse of plowed materialsand of surface
materialsin the United States generally--camefrom a
different
quarter,culturalresourcemanagement(CRM).
In the CRM context,externalconstraints,
especiallyExto tryto idenecutiveOrder 11593, forcedarchaeologists
tifyand evaluate"all" archaeologicalresourcesin a given
area; even if archaeologistsdismissedresourcesbecause
theyhad been "plow disturbed,"theynonethelesswere
compelled to considerthem. Even more important,the
arealscope of manyCRM investigations
precludedtheuse
of traditionaltechniquessimplybecause theywere too
costlyand/orslow to be appliedto whole regions.
Once archaeologistsacceptedthe idea thatplowed materialsmightbe usefullystudied,theybegan to investigate
thespecialpropertiesof theplowzone.Since themechanilittleworkwas done
cal effectswere "obvious," relatively
withsize and formof artifacts
(e.g., Baker 1978; Turner
1986). Most new researchfocusedon the supposed "latoftillageand determining
eraldisplacement"characteristic
itsmagnitude(e.g., Ammerman1981, 1985; Ammerman
and Feldman 1978; Dunnell 1990; Frink1984; O'Brien
and Lewarch 1981; Odell and Cowen 1987; Reynolds
1982; Roper 1976; Trubowitz1978). Thereis, of course,
no doubt that tillage does destroysome archaeological
in plowed fields
and thatspatialdistributions
information
are to some extenta functionof tillage.The thrustof
recentresearchhas been that these traditionalconcerns
are,however,muchoverblown(e.g., Lewarchand O'Brien
1981b; Odell and Cowen 1987; Roper 1976).
studiesof lateraldisplacementhave followed
Generally,
one of two lines of argument.One has been the direct
movementthroughrefitting
(e.g., Roper
studyof artifact
1976), repeatedcollectionand/or recording(e.g., Ammermanand Feldman 1978; Dunnell 1988; Frink1984;

(Ammerman1985;
Reynolds1982), or experimentation
Lewarch and O'Brien 1981b; Odell and Cowan 1987;
Roirdan1982; Trubowitz1978). These empiricalstudies
are displaced,the
establishedthatwhileartifacts
certainly
amountof displacementis not great.Further,theoretical
also suggeststhatspatialdispersionthrough
consideration
tillagequicklyapproachesan equilibriumpoint at which
further
ofan objectbeingtransported
theprobability
away
fromits initiallocation approachesthe likelihoodof it
being moved nearerthe initiallocation.This should have
are not
been anticipatedfromthesimplefactthatartifacts
of
within
the
bounds
distributed
or
uniformly randomly
plots afterhundreds,and in the Old World,
agricultural
even thousands(e.g., Bonney1977: 41; Miles 1977: 78)
of yearsof tillage.Were thisnot generallytrue,"surface
indications"could neverhave led archaeologiststo discover buriedsitesin plowed terrain.That these obvious
of the
to thestrength
indicatorswereignoredis testimony
Cowan
traditionalprejudiceagainstplowed deposits(cf.
and Odell 1990).
and forthatreasonprobablythe
A more conservative,
most influential,
approachhas been empiricalstudydeto
demonstrate
spatial correspondencebetween
signed
of artifactsand subsurfacefeatures
surfacedistributions
and/or artifactdistributions
(e.g., Binfordet al. 1970;
Hoffman1982; Lennox 1986; Redmanand Watson1970;
thecloserthe agreeTolstoyand Fish 1975). Presumably,
mentbetweenthetwo,thelesslateralmovementtherehas
been due to tillage.This argumentis, however,specious
(Dunnell and Dancey 1983: 269-270). Tillage moves
sedimentaryparticles.Consequently,the plowzone is a
depositionalunit,one in whichdepositionand redeposition, albeit over shortdistances,take place more or less
and givetheplowzoneas a unita contempocontinuously
age. Because the plowzone is a stratirarystratigraphic
graphicunitin the ordinarygeologicalsenseof the term,
thereis no reason, a priorior otherwise,for any correin a plowof artifacts
spondencebetweenthe distribution
units.Only under
zone and in other,lower stratigraphic
(i.e., wherean archaeologicalstrucspecialcircumstances
bisected
has
been
ture
horizontallyby a plowzone that
lacksotherwisecomplicating
materials)can one expectthe
of a plowzone to correartifactcontentand distribution
oftherecordin
spond to thecompositionand distribution
alone
unit. Thus, spatialsimilarity
a deeper stratigraphic
of sub-plowzonedistribudoes not warrantinterpretation
tionsbased on plowzonestructure.
Certain aspects of plowed materialsdo have limited
on thecontentand strucpotentialto provideinformation
immediate
ture of the
sub-plowzone,however.In this
paper we explorethe generalpotentialof plowzone data

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22, 1995 307

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.

forrevealingsub-plowzoneconditions,not primarily
as a
means of prospection(though the potentialis clear), but
so thatplowed-surface
assemblagecompositionand distriA simplemodel of
bution can be accuratelyinterpreted.
the plowzone is constructedwhichconsidersthe effectof
size. Certain,moreor less fragile,classes
tillageon artifact
of materialsare susceptibleto measurablesize reduction
(considered a major liabilityof surfacematerialsin the
traditionalview) throughthe effectsof tillageuntilthey
reacha stablesize. (See Lymanand O'Brien [1987] fora
discussionof thereductionofunburnedbone in theplowzone context.) Consequently,departuresfromthis exmustreflect
recentadditionsto the
pectedsize distribution
plowzone population,eitherfromabove or below. Such
additionscan be detectedby simplestatistical
analysisand
theiroriginsresolvedby spatial analysisin combination
withstandardarchaeologicalanalyses.
This general model, based on the geometryof the
plowzone and the physicalpropertiesof the materials
involved,has numerousimplicationsforusing plowzone
data. The mostobviousimplicationforprospectionis that
it would be possible,at least under some conditions,to
detectthepresenceof "undisturbed"depositsimmediately
beneaththe plowzone withoutrecourseto expensive,deand largelyhit-or-miss
structive,
"testing."Ifsurfaceinformationis acquiredsystematically
and the numberof artiis
facts sufficiently
large,it mayevenbe possibleto map the
location of such deposits from plowzone data alone.
Where excavationis warranted,decisionscould be made
on an informedbasis that would limit archaeologistinflicteddamage to the deposit.More importantly,
howthe
model
a
limitation
on
the
ever,
suggests significant
and
of
use
data:
the
of
sizes
analysis
plowzone
larger
artifact
classes,such as potteryand bone, may
degradable
have stratigraphically
different
originsthanotherkindsof
artifactsor different
size classes of the same materials.
Withoutanalysisof artifactsize distributions,
interpretation of assemblagesis misleadingand may mix or otherwiseconflatematerialsof different
ages and contexts.
The Model
The Plowzone
In the traditionalview,wheretillageis seen solelyas a
destructive
and disturbing
mechanism(e.g., Ford,Rolingson, and Medford 1972; Hinchliffeand Schadla-Hall
1977), theplowzone is conceivedas a unitary,
homogeneous, and maximalunit. Guided by this view,the usual
intentof fieldworkis to locate the lower boundaryof
agriculturaldisturbanceso that subsequent excavation
units are not contaminatedby disturbedmaterials.The

withthemaximumextentof
plowzoneis thuscoterminous
effects
at
plowing
any givenlocation and is usually,and
quite reasonablygiven traditionalobjectives,treatedas a
singlehomogeneousunit.
When the plowzone is viewedas an independentstratithis model is
graphic unit and source of information,
and
The
which
to
an area is
inadequate
misleading.
depth
affectedvarieswith each pass of the tillageequipment.
Some variability
arisesfromdifferences
in machinery(e.g.,
chiselplows, moldboardplows, horse-drawnversustractor-drawnequipment,discs, etc. [Lewarch and O'Brien
1981b; Nicholson 1977]). Even if equipmentwere held
would still arise because depth of
constant,differences
is
not
well
controlledmechanicallyand bepenetration
cause of changes in the physicalnature of the surface
throughagentssuch as erosion betweentillageepisodes.
The familiararchaeologicalphenomenonof "plow scars"
recordsthe uneven contact between the plowzone and
immediatesub-plowzonestratigraphic
units.
These observationsled to a searchforverticaldistinctionswithinthe plowzone thatwe characterizeas a maximum, minimum,and minimaxplowzone (FIG. i). The
maximumplowzonecorrespondsto thetraditional
zone of
"disturbance"and includestheverticalsectionof all sedimentthathas everbeen moved by tillage.The minimum
plowzoneis the verticalsectionof sedimentthatis moved
every time the sedimentis tilled under a given tillage
regime(e.g., discingand moldboardplowing).Because all
of it is movedwitheach pass of the tillingimplement,
it is
The
volume
between
the
verticallyhomogeneous.
lying
lowerboundariesof thetwo,the minimaxplowzone,is the
verticalsectionofsedimentthatis movedonlyoccasionally.
The actual frequencyof movementin this zone is, in
general,an inversefunctionof depthfromthe surface.In
contrastto the minimumplowzone, the minimaxis not
verticallyhomogeneous. Differenttillage regimesobviminimumand maximumplowously produce different
zones as do variablesoil types,slopes,and thelike.The key
point,however,is thatall plowzones comprisetwo parts,
one thatis moved each timeit is cultivatedand another
thatis disturbedless frequently.
Becausethemaximumplowzoneis a maximalconstruct,
it can changeonlybyincreasingin depth.Change is most
rapidearlyin a givenregime(combinationsoftractionand
tillageequipment,schedules,and soils).Anychangein the
tillageregimeand/or physicalconditions(e.g., erosion)
willhave an effect,
butdeepeningof theplowzoneis to be
expectedunder all but specialconditions.The minimum
plowzone,also a maximalconcept(the lowerboundaryis
the maximumdepthto whichtillageis effective
on every
pass), likewisewill generallyget deeperover time.Depth

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

308 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

and Simek

Tillage Frequency
0

100

MinimumPlowzone.....

12: ?

Plowzone
Minimax

~-..

Maximum
Po on

Plowzone

Figure 1. Verticalstructureof plowzones.

willincreasemostrapidlyat firstand forthe same reasons

thatwere cited forthe maximumplowzone. The base of
the minimumplowzone is determinedbythe depthof the
tillageimplementused at a particulartime, not by the
physicalsize ofthetool as is themaximumplowzone;thus,
theminimumplowzonewillgenerally
deepenmorerapidly
thanthemaximumplowzone. In turn,theminimaxplowzone will decreasein volumeover time.In a verymature
tillageregime,the minimalplowzone should nearlycoincide withthemaximalplowzone.
imLong-termchangesin tillageregimes,particularly
in
traction
have
resulted
provements
equipment,
generally
in historicalincreasesin the depth of tillage.Thus the
modernmaximalplowzone has usuallyerasedolderplowzone structures.On shortercycles,however,as for the
cultivationof a particularcrop,a minimum,minimax,and
maximumplowzone may be "perched"withinan older,
deeperplowzone (e.g., whena discharrowis used in a field
that is periodicallychisel-plowed).While superimposed
plowzone structureswould certainlyhave a quantitative
impacton plowzone assemblages,theydo not affectthe
basicrelationsof interesthere.Such "perched"plowzones
move more to
may become the rule as Americanfarmers
"no-till"or "low-till"practices.

ArtifactSize
Most would concede thattillageof all kindsis responsible for much of the mechanicaldamage observed on
certainclassesof plowzone artifacts(e.g., bones, ceramics). This occursthroughphysicalcontactwiththe tillage
equipmentor throughsoil pressuresbuiltup in frontof
theimplementas it movesthroughthesediment.For most
thegeometryof
combinationsof equipmentand materials,
thesituationdictatesthatdamagethroughphysicalcontact
will be a comparatively
rare eventin relationto damage
fromsoil pressures.
Althoughwe lack empiricalstudies,observationof terminal plowzone assemblages(i.e., those that have been
subjected to tillage for long periods of time) strongly
size reductionproceedsratherrapidly
suggeststhatartifact

beginningwiththe firstplowing.Breakagebecomes less

and less pronouncedwith subsequenttillageso that any
givenclass of degradablematerialreachesa more or less
stablesize thatchangesonlyslightly
withadditionaltillage
episodes.A numberofobservationssuggestthatthisis the
case. First,it is exceedingly
difficult
to imaginehow spatial
distributional
equilibriaas noted byLewarchand O'Brien
(1981 b) could occurifthenumberof objectswas subject
to continuousincreasethroughbreakage.Unlessthenumberof "new" objectscreatedbybreakagewereaccidentally
balanced by object losses, distributional
equilibriacould
not occur.The timeand conditionsrequiredto establisha
spatialequilibriumas suggestedby Lewarchand O'Brien
(1981b; cf.Odell and Cowan 1987) would seem to place
an upperlimiton thetimerequiredfortypicalassemblages
to be reduced to stable sizes. Second, as the size of an
object is reduced, the probabilityof its encounteringa
tillageimplementis accordinglyreduced.Thus breakage
fromphysicalcontactshould declinemarkedlyover time
(FIG. 2). Whethera givenobject will actuallybreakwhen
struckor willfracture
fromdifferential
soil pressuresbuilt

of degradableobjectsunderuniFigure2. Size reductiontrajectories

formconditionsof tillage.

Object Size

Material

Material

imeUnder illa-ge
S

Time

Under

Tillage

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

- -

22, 1995 309

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.

up in tillage is a functionof many variables,including

material,shape, internalstructure,orientationin relation
to the directionof the motion/shearplane, and environmental conditions,to name but the most obvious. In
general,those objects that do degrade under tillagewill
tend to approach sphericalshapes; their diameteris a
functionof the initialsize (thicknessofplate-likeobjects),
material,and internalstructure.Clearlythisis an area in
need of empiricalresearch;however,the significant
observationis thata breakageeventreducesthe probability
of a
for
of
the
subsequentbreakage
any
daughterpieces. Fiin
and
some
the
most
conclusive
nally,
observation,is
ways
the simplefactthatsherds,bones,and shells(amongother
materials),persist in fields plowed for centuries;this
stronglysuggeststhat thereis no simple linearrelation
betweensize and lengthof timeundercultivation.

Interactionof ObjectSize and Plowzone

Characteristics
This is an admittedlysimplifiedaccount of plowzone
theactualcondidynamics,butwe believeit approximates
tionsof theplowzone and objectsin it. If so, thenthesize
of artifactsthat undergo attritionin the plowzone as a
consequenceof tillagereflects
1) thehistoryofagricultural
disturbanceand 2) the sourcesof the materialsthatcome
to make up surfaceassemblagesin plowed fields.Artifact
breakage,normallyviewedas information
loss, becomesa
new sourceof information
criticalto the interpretation
of
surfacematerialscollected fromfieldscurrently
or once
tilled.
Let us assume that the sizes of artifactsas originally
depositedare heterogeneousand that theirmean size is
largerthantheirstablesize will be undertillage.As tilling
advances,the minimumplowzone will containan assemblage of degradableobjects whose sizes will be normally
distributedaround the stable equilibriumvalues of the
particularmaterials(e.g., potteryof variouspaste types,
bone, burned bone, etc.) under the particulartillageregime. Any degradableobjects in the minimaxplowzone
and in theimmediateunderlying
stratumwillhave a mean
size greaterthanthatoftheminimumplowzone (byvirtue
ofhavingbeen tilledless); theywillalso havea less-regular
size distribution
more akinto the heterogeneoussize distributionof the originalpopulation.The differencebetweenthe mean sizes of a particularmaterialin minimum
and minimaxplowzones will, of course, vary with the
of the tillageregime.The longertillagehas gone
maturity
the
closer
the two means will be. Only when the
on,
stratum
lacksartifacts
can the means actusub-plowzone
ally become identical.Thus when a new tillageepisode
takesplace, the appearanceof artifacts
fromthe minimax

plowzoneon the surfacecan be detectedby the size

distributions
of degradableartifact
classes.Departures
fromtheexpected
size
distribution
willreflect
equilibrium
recentadditionsto the minimum
plowzoneassemblage
(i.e., too littletimehas elapsedfortillageto reducethe
aresufficiently
objectsto equilibrium
size).Iftheadditions
numerous
andoriginate
inparent
populations
significantly
different
in sizethantheminimum
plowzoneequilibrium
intothedistribusize,theywillintroduce
multimodality
tionofartifact
sizeinthesurface
assemblage.
To assesswhether
additions
arebeingmadeto a surface
thatindicatesub-plowzone
thefirst
assemblage
deposits,
taskis to determine
thedistribution
ofdegradable
object
sizesbymaterial
class.Thispresumes
systematic,
rigorous
data generation
protocolsand executionto insurethat
size
is
not
function
a
ofcollection
object
technique.
Many,
ifnotmost,extant
surface
collections
areunsuitable.
In the
caseofceramics,
a commondegradable
artifact
class,there
oftenis strongcollection
biastowardlargersizesbecause
sherdstendto
largersherdscan be "typed"whilesmaller
be erodedandcarry
inforless,particularly
chronological,
mation.Evenifunintentional,
a strong
sizebiaswilloften
existsimply
becausesmaller,
moreroundedfragments
are
moredifficult
to detectunlessefforts
aremadetocounteract theirlack of obtrusiveness.
If distributions
do not
fromtheexpectations
of equilibrium,
departsignificantly
then one can conclude,withinthe limitsimposedby
additionsare currently
samplesize, thatno significant
There
beingmadeto theminimum
plowzonepopulation.
areno activesub-plowzone
sourcesforpotsherds,
andthe
minimax
plowzonehas beenin placelongenoughforits
artifacts
to approximate
theequilibrium
size oftheminimumplowzone.In short,thenear-surface
archaeological
recordhasbeenthoroughly
mixed,andthesampleobtainablefromthesurface
isfully
ofthenear-surrepresentative
facerecord.
of sizeson the
If,on theotherhand,thedistribution
surfacedepartsfromthe expectedequilibrium
value
toward
the
sizes
through
skewing
larger
(againassuming
thattherigorofcollection
hasprecluded
a bias
technique
of similardirection),
thenone can concludethatnew
material
is stillentering
the minimum
plowzone.Apart

fromthe introductionof new objects fromoccupations

post-datingthe initiationof tillage (i.e., historicalartifacts),there are two sources for such additions:1) the
minimaxplowzone wherethe historyof tillage(time and
to reducesherdsto the
equipment)has not been sufficient
equilibriumvalue; and 2) undisturbedmaterialin the
immediatesub-plowzonestratumthat is undergoingincorporationinto the minimaxplowzone. In eithercase,
excavationwould yieldan assemblageoflargersherdsthan

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Simek
310 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

differsfromthe minimumplowzone only in tillingfrethat found on the surface;however,it is importantto

ascertainwhich circumstanceled to the distributional quency,then the largersherdswill representa random
of the equilibrium-size
sample of the spatialdistribution
anomaly.
If an immatureminimaxplowzone is the source,skew- population. More simplyput, the occurrenceof large
of the
ing towardslargersizes should be gradual,withoutany sherdscan be predictedas a functionof the density
if
the
presenceof
population.Conversely,
equilibrium-size
pronouncedmodality.This is to be expectedbecause the
minimaxplowzone exhibitsa clinalchangein object size
largesherdscannotbe explainedas a sampleoftheequilibriumsherdpopulation,then localized sub-plowzonedefromtop to bottom(see FIG.i). Eveniftheanomalycan be
to theage of theminimaxplowzone,thespatial posits are probablyan importantongoing source of the
attributed
surfaceassemblage. Again, if the number of items is
of largersherdsstillmightbe patternedbedistribution
of
the
in
the
thickness
of
differences
cause
sufficient,
mapping the largestsherdswould locate the
and/or depth
of
such
object-size source(s) sub-plowzonedeposits.
originalarchaeologicaldeposit. Indeed,
It is importantto knowthetillagehistoryof thefield(s)
variationmightbe the only remainingevidenceof such
differencesin deposit thickness.This type of anomaly being examinedifthereis anymarkedtendencyto multiwould also be easilyconfusedwithcollectionbias.
modalityexhibitedby any of the degradables.We have
in
is indicativeof differences
that multimodality
shown
exhibit
The anomalousdistribution
pronounced
might
but
such
artifact
sizes.
artifact
at
more
modes
or
one
reservoirs,
multimodality
degradable
larger
modality,i.e.,
to identifythe source. Changes in
This is indicativeof a sub-plowzonereservoirof degrad- alone is insufficient
ofmaterialmightconsistof
able materials.Such a reservoir
tillageregimecan produce a similareffect(Lewarch and
O'Brien 1981b), at least fora time,as new equilibriumdiscrete"point"
1) localized spatialpatchesrepresenting
or 2) broader size distributionsare superimposed on (and maybe
sourcesforthelargematerialsuchas features
or similar blended with) older ones. Since the time required for
surfaces
of
of
indicative
living
fragments
patches
the
equilibriato becomeestablishedis not
archaeological deposits. Alternatively, large sherds lateral-displacement
and
O'Brien 1981b; Odell and Cowan
clear
and
be
more
distributed,
(Lewarch
repregenerally uniformly
might
is
at
there
that
than
earlier
an
1987),
presentno meansto predicthow much
senting occupation stratigraphically
must
time
to
The
of
sherds.
mode
elapse betweena change in tillageregimeand
ability
bythemainsize
represented
of new size equilibria.
establishment
the
is highlydedistinguishpatchyand generaldistributions
These argumentshave two kindsof implications.First,
pendent on sample size, with largernumbersobviously
collectionsof plowedfieldsmix,or can mix,matesurface
finer
distinctions
possible.
making
rialsthatmayhave been depositedby different
can be
The analysisof some multimodaldistributions
agentsat
refinedonce the modes have been identified.A simple differenttimes; this depends on the relation between
and depth of the maximumplowis a comparisonof the ages of themodes using pretillagestratigraphy
refinement
of degradbut
zone.
dethe
were
standardculture-historical
When,
onlywhen,size distributions
types(if sherds
surface
the
that
assume
can
one
are
able artifacts normal1
gradableobjects),treatingthe modes as iftheyweresepathe
of
existbetweenmodes,it
rateassemblages.If no differences
plowzone.
assemblage,as a whole,is representative
is safe to assume that a singleoccupationor component Size biasesin surfacecollectionwillnot have affectedthe
in termsof the parameters
(sensu Rouse 1955; Willeyand Phillips 1958) is repre- sample's representativeness
is not met, however,
If
this
condition
here.
considered
of living
sented by sub-plowzonefeaturesor fragments
classes
size
different
then
occupamayrepresentdifferent
surfaces.If numbers permit,individualspatial patches
Uncircumstances.
different
at
least
or
tions
depositional
examinedand pointsourcesof different
mightbe similarly
sherds
to
limited
collection
a
such
der
circumstances,
large
in age indicatedby
ages mapped. If thereis a difference
immediate
the
to
related
more
be
sub-plowoccuclosely
then
may
modes
the
more)
(or
separately,
analyzing
two
collections
of
old
use
The
the
to
than
zone
plowzone.
With
stratum.
in
a
indicated
are
sub-plowzone
pations
of complexcombina- needs to be pursuedwithappropriatecaution;new colleclargeenough samples,identification
tionsneed to be madewithsufficient
rigorand consistency
tionsof bothkindsof distributions
mightbe possible.For
such
for
markers
intrinsic
that
lack
material
of
classes
age,
of surfaceassemblageswill tend to
1. Actually,the size distribution
as bone, shell, and burned clay,this kind of additional
and higher
of the differential
sizes
because
to
skewed
be
visibility
larger
analysisis not possible.
thesurface(Baker 1978; Turner1986). This
of intersecting
probabilities
A more detailedanalysisof the spatialrelationbetween skewingis not, however,deleteriousto the model developed here bethat
If the
fromthe tendencyto multimodality
cause it is readilydistinguished
modes is anotherpotentialsource of information.
large sherdsoriginatein the minimaxplowzone, which lies at the heartof thismodel.

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22, 1995 311

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.

so thatmeaningfulsize distributions
can be generatedfor
Size
distributions
containcrucialinfordegradableobjects.
mationabout the structureof plowed depositseven ifno
are detected.
age or occupationaldifferences
Second, given large samples and systematicand caresurfacecollections,it shouldoftenbe posfully-controlled
sible to ascertainthe likelihoodof intactsub-plowzone
of surface
depositssolelyfromthe size and distribution
ceramicsor other degradableartifactclasses.With large
kinds
samples,it should even be possibleto map different
of reservoirs,
be theyof different
age or different
depositionaloriginor both, and to providemuch of the spatial
and organizationalinformation
thatis now obtainedonly
such maps provideinthroughexcavation.Alternatively,
formation
on thepotentiallocationof featuresand deeper
archaeologicaldeposits to guide subsequent excavation
withoutblind,unnecessarily
destructive,
testing.

Operationalization
of degradable
We have shownthatthe size distribution
can
much
information
on the
potentiallyprovide
objects
sourcesof thematerialsthatoccuron thesurfacesof tilled
fields,but thisis onlythe firststep.As alreadynoted,the
utilityof sherdsize in thisrole is verymuchpredicatedon

samplesize. The exactsamplesizes requiredare unknown

because many of the key parametersin the model are
themselvesunknownfor want of empiricalresearchon
and populations.The particular
plowzonestructure
partof
theminimaxplowzone thatis movedin anygiventillingis,
in part,a probablisticfunctionthatinteractswithsample
size. Further,importantvariablesmayhave been omitted
fromthe model or any of its components.Finally,the
model may be correctand completebut stillfailto be of
use, because it requiresmeasurement
precisionimpossible
undernormalfieldconditions.It is therefore
importantto
examinethe key parametersof the model in a "typical"
archaeologicalsetting.

The VarneyRiver Project

The VarneyRiver Project carriedout by the senior
authorin DunklinCounty,Missouri(Dunnell 1982, 1983,
1984, 1985, 1986), presentsan ideal testcase. The Varney
RiverProjectarea is locatedon theMalden Plain,a distinct
physiographicprovincewithinthe alluvialvalleyof the
MississippiRiver(FIG.3). The Malden Plainis composedof
Ohio Riverbraidedstreamdepositslinkedto deglaciation,
and dating to the end of the Pleistocene (Fisk 1944;
Saucier 1974). Because these depositspostdatethe main

Figure3. Location of projectarea.

VarneyRiverProjectArea

MISSOURI

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Simek
312 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

phase of loess depositionin the centralMississippiValley

and because theyare elevatedabove those of the modern
Mississippi,theyhave receivedalmost no sedimentation
and Cumoverthepast 12,000 years(Guccione,Lafferty,
entire
the
archaeologicalrecord,save
mings1988). Nearly
is
onlysubsurfaceconstructions, thusincorporatedin the
modernplowzone.Becausetheterrainis flat,nearly90% of
theentireMalden Plainis undercultivation
today,mostof
the remaining10% being roads, drainage ditches,and
(Garrett1978).
towns/residences
The VarneyRiverProject involvedthe collectionand
in a 27 ha tractborderingone of the
mappingof artifacts
relicbraidedchannelssubsequentlyoccupied by a slough,
called the VarneyRiver.The collectionprotocolemploys
4 m x 4 m gridunitsand all observedmaterialslargerthan
2 mm, save crop residues,are collected.As the natural
sedimentsonly range up into the middle of the sand
all 2 mm and
particlesize fraction(0.06-2 mm), virtually
variable
artifacts
are
fraction,usually
(a
largerparticles
small, is pedogenic concretions).The use of this field
for
protocolmade itpossibleto constructsize distributions
less
the collectionwith some confidence.(The fraction
than 2 mm in size was assessed fromsedimentsamples
[Vance 1989] but is not relevanthere.)
For thepurposesof thispaper,the 1979 and 1980 data
sets,whichare contiguousand constitutethe mostwesterly collection area called the Robards tract,are ideal.
While the precisedate thistractwas firstclearedforagricultureis unknown,it almostcertainlytook place in the
late 1840s (Smith-Davis1896: 38-43). The area encompassingthe Robardstractis shownas a singleclearedfield
on the Frisselmap (Van Frank1894), so it has certainly
and treatedas a unitfor
been undercontinuouscultivation
at leasta centuryand probablya centuryand a half.
Artifactdensities,with the exceptionof Euroamerican
materialsin the Nw cornerof the tract,are low, rather
clearlystructuredas a seriesof discreteclusters,and of
relativelyuncomplicatedculturehistory.In addition to
numbersof Late
historicalmaterials,thereare significant
Archaicbifaces(ca. 5000-2000 B.P.)scatteredthroughout
thetract.The bulkofthematerial,however,is Late Woodland and/or earliest ("Emergent") Mississippian.(See
Dunnell and Feathers1991 forthe detailsof thisperiod
relevantto it on the Malden Plain.)
and the terminology
ceramicpastes,a sand-temTwo chronologically-sensitive
treatedas Woodlandand a shellperedpaste traditionally
allow
treatedas Mississippian,
temperedone traditionally
as well as spa
thismaterialto be sortedchronologically
classesof
tially.The two paste typesalso providedifferent
abundantdegradablematerialsso the potential
relatively
matecontrastive
forcomparingthe behaviorof physically

:9

0; ....."
. . o:]o
..::::..

i!!i~i i

.ii!....
~~........................
.......~
i :!!!i~
iii!iii~
i!!i~i!!i!i .......i~

. .. . . .
............0..

........

ne

o ,. .

....: : :: : : : : : :: : : : : : :: : : : : :
.:: .::: :::::.
::::::::::::.:::::
:::::::::::::

~~~ ~~

4+

??r

4iL
4

::: ::::: :::::

r
, ....

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

71

''
. .

i' ::
: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::::::::
:: .........

""'

::::::::::::::::::::::::::"?
?' ":r '? 9I?"
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. . . . . . . . . .
................

........

IT

?'*

:::: :::

.........::::.............................

...,.,. . ..............:
. . .

.. ............................

........

o ......

1
::: :::: ::: :: :: :: ::: :: :: :: ::: :: : ..:.......
... . . . ..........
...... .. .. .. ...

"''"

'''

. .. . . . .. . . . .
*
+. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .

. * **

17

. ..

.
~ ~.!!!i!!}!ii~ii~~i
~~r........ ......

~ ~

i~

'

""
:

::J

::::::::::::" *P:::::::::::

""!r'il"""'.:::::::::::r:r:::::::::
...............0
?

..':::::::::::::::
?.......
:: "l2
:!
1:::.
.'"
""
CD
CD
ul "'""
.]??????~~
-o
.::...... ... .
:::::
:::::: :::::: :::::: ::::::
:
*:*:.............
::
: :::
T4::: : r:. -:
E
...
.....
.:::
,
.. .... .....::::::::I""?
........
T

1
T,

o....:

....

....

...

S.................

......................... .. . . . . .
.......
...............

...

.. ...

.. ...

,..........

::::::::::::::::::::::

T
..

...

..

I
17

::::::
r

::::::T :: :: :: :: ::I:
....::::.. :: :..........:::

.......

??,,.? ????

'....::::.::::....
.
::.
:.:

. ..
::::::: . . ... :::.
:

:: .:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
.................................

7i

'.~~~.................
....

ceramicsin the Robardstract.

Figure4. Densityof sand-tempered

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22, 1995 313

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.

9
?---?----?--

? T--?---?--(~-----?
'- L
000*00--

p*p

*0
so

0.0

..

.....

....

[8...

..00*~~u~3~
8:

S07***** ..*
~08..0.00
.......

08

.::.::.

:::*:**::*::...... .

**0
.3.3.'0

:.
:::::::..........00.. ::-:1...
.....
.#..
F8I98*+C00..::::
.......... 0*........:::::::::::::::...
*:*****4*

.......
..I"

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ll:::::::::::::::::::
.

0.

C.0

........*.....'.....0llllllO..'

"O00..-

......
?? !
........
..???
9#"r
???...
88*..
?????
dr?
?????...
~nllli;~
0~?????

..... 0.0

0... ..
"iiiiiii
iiii;!;iiii!!i?iiiliniiiiiiiiiOi
i
...iiiOin
~~

8..............0:......
.
..................
: ::oo : .o:::
::::::::: :: ......
o.o..o..........oo

.
o

*c

*
.....

* n

....

008#*****~
~~~cc

:0

:::::::.......
:::::::::::::::::::
......
r
::: #*::::::.##
v:*:: **:::::::::::::::
:::::::
* ... ....
......
#::::
:::::::::::::::
PIN:::
*::::::::::::
::::::
..190 *:......i
.... ..........
I .....o
........................*0r
8.
.....
o...
...............
.....
.::::"#..............
::::::::::::::::::::::
f::::: ::::: :::::::
: ::::::::
............... . .... : :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
... ...... .............
...
.....
:887788%.....
? ?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
i I :?~~00 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.##.
NEI00
. . . . . .. . . 1sF:OF:: v::::::
0I::::s**0*:
..:.::
: :::: .:. II
IIII..
:.
: :
Q.

***
0 ??
8~GQ~~~~**~~~~nnn~no
-,**#****000080**#~
OPI?III~~IIO~'? !

..

':::::::::::::::::::::::::::
..........

: ...........~

I [?*~~? ......

<

...

...

I~??~~*
. ....o.o....

::::::::::::::::::::::::::
e,'n
'o, ...

-..............

::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...
Tooooo~,,

~ ~~~C~~
8:~::!iiiiii?,ii???
i??????ii???
OL~''?
~ '"- ??

......::
:::::::::::::::::

...........

.... ....o ..... :#:,,,::##

........
,**,
::::::::::::::::::::::::::?r????~
.
.?'?~~O
...........,,,,,
,
...........

,o??o

T.

i=

I ............

.. .....:.:...:... :::::::
:: ::::
..................::.........::##":::::::T,

i
? i ............................????

?????
~ ??: ::::iii???????????iiiii?~~??,,??--??
i
t~
:?
i???~~~~;;?????
~
I ?I~
~~
....????????????~?~~~??
::: *
""::::::::
.~?????????????i??
?
,onnnoor
i
...I
........
::+*
0

4*0000*#

******0

we we

???[

......

........

!~????????,????????~~~0???

if)

.....****************

******nob**...

. . . . o, ,

CD !
o .....
o C.D.

.. ....

.,..

:::::::::::::::::::....... . . .
....................

o====
(300
...:-.......

::

t~~~~~~C. ::.. ~
Sn

....*

..................:

iEiii~i~i

,............................

ceramicsin the Robardstract.

Figure 5. Densityof shell-tempered

rialscan also be examined.Both paste typesdisplayfrequent largesherds,suggestingmultimodality,

thoughthis
is not pronounced.
The sand-tempered
assemblagecomprises500 measurable sherdsdistributed
acrossat leastsix spatialconcentrations (some of whichare also shell-tempered
clusters)as
well as thinlyovermuchof the tract(FIG.4). There are no
morethan10 sherdsin anygivengridunit.The shell-tempered assemblage,mostlyred-slipped,is roughlyfour
timeslarger,comprising1960 measurablesherds.Like the
sherds,theseoccurbothas scatteredsherds
sand-tempered
and as sherdclusters(FIG. 5). The maximumnumberof
shell-temperedsherds in a single collectionunit is 61.
These two pastesand theirphysicalpropertieshave been
studiedextensively
(Dunnell and Feathers1991; Feathers
Feathers
and Scott 1989). Althoughthese
1989, 1990;
numbersmake the collectionssound large,the Robards
tract presentsa mature plowzone assemblage. Only a
handfulof sherdsof eitherkindis largerthan 2 cm on a
in the 5-10
side; thevastbulkof thesherdsare fragments
mm range.Untilrecently,
almostno archaeologicalnotice
would have been givento such a deposit.As the ownerof
partof the tractphrasedit, "This ain't no site;an Indian
carryinga red pot trippedand fell,that's all." Thus, if
in sherd-sizedistributions
differences
can be
significant
detected in this tract,then our approach should yield
usefulresultsover a wide range of archaeologicalsituations.

SherdSize
Measuringnearly2500 sherdswitha pairof calipersin
threeor moredimensionsmultipletimeswould have been
a monumentaltask. However, sherd weight,properly
qualified,is a suitablesurrogateforsize withinpastetypes.
Since comparisonsbetweenpastesare not essentialto this
in specificgravitiesof the two
application,the difference
materialswerenot calculatedand no corrections
made.
A moreseriousconcernis thatweightobviouslyreflects
in sherdthicknessas well as in sherdplan size.
differences
A partialcorrelationbetweenthicknessand weightis predictedby the model developedearlier.The thicknessof a
sherd,beingthelargestdiameterfora sphericalformmade
fromthe sherd,is obviouslyrelatedto thestablediameter.
Thus whenthickness(the exteriorto interiordimensionof
a sherd)becomesthemaximumdimensionof the sherd,a
correlationbetweenweightand thickness
develops.On the
other hand, the largestsherds,those which are recent
introductions
accordingto our model,shouldnot display
a strongcorrelationwiththickness.If theydid, we could
suppose thattheyare largerbecause theyare thicker(i.e.,
stronger)ratherthan not yet reduced to a stable size.

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and Simek
314 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

Sand Temper

N=500
Y=6.77
S=1.42

4.0

6.0

8.0

12.0

10.0

14.0

Shell Temper
N=1960
Y=5.66
S=1.29

2.5

3.5

4.5

5.5

6.5mm

7.5

8.5

9.5

10.5

11.5

12.5

of sand- and shell-tempered

ceramicsfromthe Robardstract.
Figure6. Thicknessdistributions

and sand-tempered
Althoughtheshell-tempered
pastesare
associated with differentvessel formsto some degree
vesselsarethinnerwalledand moreglobu(shell-tempered
lar whilesand-tempered
vesselshave more oblate profiles
oftenwith conical bases [Feathers1990]), they display
quite similarthicknesspropertiesin some respects(FIG. 6).
The mean thicknessof the two groups(6.77 mmforsand
as would be expected
and 5.66 mmforshell)is contrastive
on technicalgrounds,and the sand-tempered
sherdthickness distribution
is somewhatmore dispersedbecause of
the greaterstructuralvariationentailed in the conical
forms.Just as predicted,however,both the sand and
correshell-tempered
groupsshowedweak but significant
lationsbetweenweightand thickness(TABLE1). An r value
of .4640 was obtainedforthe sand-tempered
group,significantat thep < .00001 leveland accountingfora little
less than 22% of the variation.The r value forthe shellidentical:.4635, p < .00001.
temperedgroupwas virtually
Similarstrongrelationsbetweenthicknessand weightin
two physically
dissimilarsherdgroupsis strongevidence
that the relationis controlledby a single process: the
breakage of sherdsunder tillage reaches a stable point
determinedin largemeasureby the thicknessof the sherd
regardlessofpaste.
A correlationbetweenweightand thicknessdoes not
mean thatweightis not a good surrogateforsize. It only

reflectsthe factthatforthe vast bulk of the sherds,the

thicknessdimensionis equal to or approachesthe maximum dimensionof the sherd.What is criticalis thatthis
relation should disappearratherquicklyas the smaller
sherdsare removedfromthe comparison.If thereis no
substantialrelationbetweenthicknessand weightamong
the largestsherds,those lyingmore than two standard
deviationsbeyondthe mean, thenweightis an adequate
surrogateforsize, and weightreflectsthe lengthof time
the sherdshave been in the plowzone.As Table 1 shows,
both groups show a decrease in correlationbetween
weightand thicknessin largersherds.The change in the
sand-temperedgroup is slight,however,while thereis a
dramaticdecrease in correlationfor the shell-tempered
group.We are leftwiththe conclusionthatweightis not a
good surrogateforsize in the sand-tempered
group,and
thata significant
fractionof the largesherdsare largefor
structural
reasonsratherthanlengthof timein the plowzone. Alternatively,
giventhe smallnumberof sand-tempered sherdsgreaterthan two standarddeviationslarger
than the mean, stochasticeffectsmay play a significant
role. In eithercase, based on our modelwe would expect
thespatialdistribution
oftheselargesherdsto be relatedto
thatofthesmallsherdsbecausetheyare,in effect,
a biased
of
that
The
sherds,on
sample
group.
largeshell-tempered
the other hand, meet our expectationsfor object size

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22, 1995 315

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.

correlations.r is Pearson'scorrelationcoefficient;
Table 1. Thickness-weight
s is standarddeviationof sherdweightby class; n is numberof sherdsin
sample.
All sherds

Sand
Shell

2s sherds

0.4640
0.4635

500
1960

0.4140
0.2161

26
155

Temperclass

controlledbytimeofresidencein theplowzone.Therefore
a meaningful,possiblycontrastivedistributionmightbe
sherds
expected between the stable-size,shell-tempered
and thelargershell-tempered
sherds.

SpatialDistributions

shell-tempered
pottery,theredo appear to be sub-plowzone reservoirsof sherds,reservoirsthat appear to be
either"rings"of point sourcessuch as pits or a band of
midden. Much largernumbersof sherds
deeper/thicker
would be required to differentiate
potentialsources in
detail.
greater
More directevidenceon thecontrastive
sourcesof large
and
large shell-temperedsherds comes
sand-tempered
fromdirectsub-plowzoneexploration.No systematic
efforthas been made to "test"all thelargesherdconcentrations;however,a limitednumberof 2 m x 2 m testunits
have been dug and do bearon theissue.In each case,only
theplowzonewas removed.The base oftheplowzonewas
inspectedfortruncatedfeatures,naturalstains,and artiwere
facts.Consistentwiththe geologicalhistory,
artifacts
discoveredbeneath the plowzone only in burrows,tree
roots,and aboriginalsubsurfacefeatures.
In 1980, a singletestunitwas excavatedon the edge of
a large clusterof both shell and sand-temperedpottery
called Cluster5D. The locationwas chosenon thebasisof
the shell-tempered
sherdsize. The testunit encountered
an aboriginalpit thatcontainedabundantshell-tempered
sherds.In 1986, an additionaltestpitwas excavatedin the
westernclustercharacterizedby sand-temperedpottery
and shown as a locus of large,sand-temperedsherdsin
Figure7. This unitproducedquantitiesof sand-tempered
or other
pottery,but no subsurfaceaboriginalstructures
of
sources
sherds
were
discovered.
sub-plowzone
large
Four additionalunitswereexcavatedin the northernpart
ofthetractin 1988, none ofwhichcorrespondedwithany
locus of largesherdsand none of whichencounteredany
subsurfacedepositscontainingeithersand- or shell-tempered pottery.Thus the limitedexcavationevidence is
completelyconsistentwith the sub-plowzone structure
deduced fromthesize of sherdsalone. The excavationsdo
suggestthattheperipheralpointsourcesare probablypits
ratherthanring-like
middenaccumulations.

We employedthe averageweightof thesand-and shelltemperedsherdsper collectionunitto examinethe spatial

distribution
of sherdsizes. This allowsthespatialdistributionsto be treatedas densitiesand minimizestheimpactof
a singlelargesherd(exceptwhenit is theonlysherdin the
collectionunit),therebyreducingtheoverall"noise" level
of themaps.
of mean sand-tempered
Figure7 showsthe distribution
sherd weight per unit with the darkestsymbolsrepresentingthe areas with mean weightslyingbeyond the
second standarddeviation.WhencomparedwithFigure4,
of sand-tempered
the distribution
potteryby counts,it is
apparentthatwith the single exceptionof a large sherd
outlierin the extremesw partof the tract,the largesherd
of sherds.
locationslie withinthe densestconcentrations
This is the resultanticipatedifthe largesherdsare simply
outliersof the minimalplowzone population.Initialsherd
not timein residencein theplowzone,seemsto
thickness,
determinesize in the case of the sand-tempered
pottery.
This is the same conclusion reached in the analysisof
thicknessand weight.Thus it appearsthatthereare,within
reservoirs
thelimitsimposedbysamplesize, no substantial
of sub-plowzonesand-tempered
pottery.
Figure 8 shows the distributionof mean weight of
shell-tempered
potteryper unit.Whilea comparisonwith
5
distribution
of shell-tempered
Figure (the
potteryby
count) shows the two to be related,it is clear that the
densityof shell-tempered
potteryis not a good spatial
predictorof largesherds.In general,thelargestshell-temof the shell-tempered sherdsare foundon the periphery
clusters.
There
are
occasional
pered
single large sherds
to
the
anomalous
of the sand-temfeature
comparable
Conclusions
circumstances
that
ariseby chance
pered map,
necessarily
alone, but the contrastivecharacterof Figures8 and 7 is
Tillage certainlybreaksarchaeologicalmaterials,but in
the importantfeaturewe would emphasize.In the case of
spite of this,tilledarchaeologicaldepositsconstitutethe

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

316 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

and Simek

r----~---L---~---Y---------------i+
+
+
i+
*:::

:::::::::
::: ::: :::::::::

.
E++

++i
:::::

:::::

.. . . .
.
...............
........ ...................
I
.. . . . . . .
,.. . . ..............
+ .,... ...+
...+.......+*. .. . ..........
.4.....
. . . * ...**........
..
.
.,
++0,

I II**......

======+====++
+ ===...
+++
+ +===.+.
+:::::::::::::::::::::::+:++:::::+:+++4.....++++...........
++++.===.+++
+ ++
===++++====.++
+?++
. . . .
.. . . .

....................

4........,

..

. . ....... . .. . .... . ..~

............
+++++.!::::~~~~~????
+(~~~~?~~~~~~???
..+''???
........
..............
???~~~~??
??~?~~~~~~~(~??
?
~
04.~~?~~?
......
......
+
......
?4
'?~~~~~~~~(?~~~~~~~~??
?~~
.............~~~~~~~~~~??~~~~~~???
.
,
. . . . . , . ,. . . . . . .
4.. . . . . . ... .. .
+.+. +. +

???
~ ??ii;!i!(?;!ii~iiiii~i??
~
+?~*:;;?~~~~~?~?
????;i;i???
+++???
++..- +.* *...........****4++++++:.+:.,:::~~~~?~~~~~~?
........................
.??~(??~?~??~?~?+
......++
..... ***
.......:.:.:.4:.?~?~?~~
.
.?~?
4
: :+: .: +:::: +:4~~~~~~~~???????
+:
.+.:+:
:
++0+... .+:::::::
++-+
++.+
+
+++.+~?~??~?
~ ~~
!+++
0-.+++++++++++++4+:
++
++4++
-.+
4
i~~~~~~~~~~
+~'~'~~
?~d~?~~
...................................
+...+.+
4
1++
I++
14
+
++
.. .
+.?~~~'
.. .
..r''+
I++
I, ++
+++~~~~
+.........**
~(~~*(~~~~~~~~+
.,.,*...
.........4.........,
.,., +
44+
+++
???
????
::.??.?
????~~?
?~~~'??
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
'??
?4??
4?
+++4?'?
++.
""? '
?????~~~~~~"~"?~~~~?
+
4
4
+4
4
+4????
?~~~~????
??++~(~
??4
??
:
4-+
4
+
-+4.???
*4?????
+
+
+++
4+
4. 4+
. . . ..4..........
. .4
-*
+4
? +
~.~?
r??~~~~?~?~~??
'~?' 4 ~ ?+.............
.+~~~~~~~~~??~'~
..+..+44
.4........,
.."...,,o
. ?'
?~~~????~~~?~???+
4....+ .??
+ 4
+
+
.4..
....
-.++0+++
4
+
+
+
+
+
+
4
.;4
?~?~(~?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.+~~'
.
+?~?~
. .+4.
. .......................
..
........
.?. ~ I *..... .....**.....
. I+:::::
.+
.
I
++
+
~
~((~~~~?(
I
I
I
+
+
::+
..+~~~?
.....+++++4??
++
++
1' "?4
(~?~~((
?~~~~?
??????
~~((~~~??
~~
????
~~?~~???
?
??~?~~??I
~~?
?((?~*?.
4??
1"
""'
"""
"
.
'
e~?~~~~~~??~*~?
.
.
....
+
+??
..
.+4
.
.
4....
.....:
+4 4
++4
............
:+!4
+:+ 4+4
+:+ +:4 :: ...

***'++
* **4 *

. ..
.*..+*.

..............:::+ :1;:::::::
............................?++

.....

I -44

...............

.o

+++.......

.......

..

... ...

..

-,,I.. :.I:::I++:::++I::-+
,

:::-I+

1
I

-: :++44+'
. - 1 44$+:I .....
.....1 ++++4

.++
I

~((~?..............
~
E

* *
*
I.* 1* *41~1~1
1
?
++++4
+
.:' + ":::::::::::::::::tttttt
'"''"
':::... + :::::::::
*

I
+I
................$+

* * * * * *

. ........
: :: 4++:::::

+++++*+*++4+
++++4+++4
+:::++4+++++
1+
A"--E
1
4
1
11~~~~~~~~
I
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
???~(~((I

I*"l~'l:

++4
...."
.I~.I. ???
I
I +
Ll) I+I+.~~~~(~
+.4
..........:
......

:::tl"*'t:"'t"::.
I... .~
?(~~~~~~~~(?
~ .1"I~~~*
.~
..

Lin
,,,,,.
:::::::1
11,,.,,,,,,,,,,.
?(~~~????(~~~(
~~ '~.....-~,,~,
~...................
..
.............?~
I??I
. . . . ,,,~,
'
1''''"
~ ~,,~,
,,
,
......:~
U)
LO r14
E U)
'""""""""''6'
r,4::t

.... ....

*. .

.I.I 14411111111111
411*II141111
11
... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~~~~~?
....... ......:::::::::::::::.
:
_-4
I 14

4.,.,.....+4

..::::: ::
114
41
I4-4
?????I
~+#
~~
+4~?(~
+.?~~~?~?:
0
.........~
4+++:4444
+
????~~~~~~~+
????????
?????
+?~
'~~?
??
.. ..4 ?~~?
..~...+~~
.~~~~~~?
.....~
.
...

*.
+

:::t~~:::::::::t::::::::::::::::::::::::::

. . . . . . . . :.:.:.:.

..
.
. ::. : +++

**I*

*
.. . .**
+*
**. ..+4
** .***.*
,.,4
+44... . . ..........
+++.................
44 ....1,+,+
+.
.+.+ ...
I . ..+ I ...........:::
I.. ... ..I I ..... +.+4
1 ::::
:::
1 1 ++ I 14+:::::::
:
::
. . 1. 4.. . . . . .I. . *,'+
++I I . .I.I
I I I +I ' + '
' ** *
1111
.......
*****o**************(~0
I **I
4
...1 1.. .....***
**I*
***111**
**

: :

~ ~ +~ +~ ??
Ln???
???~~~~~~~~~~(
r14
~~ ?(??~~
? ??????~~~~~~1~~~?~??
+?
~~(~~~((
~~~~~~~'~~
==man
+1~~~~(~
?+ +??
??U)~
????????~~?
.. . .. . . .....

.......
.....
I::
I: +++:1:+++4
+
+++++. '++++:::
. . ::'. .
I +++
... .

++4. .
++ +++
++4
. .I
1+.
+44.44+44+4444+'+++'++""
((I +
~(~~~
~~~~~~
~~~~
11((~ III~i~:::4+
14

.........??
??????~~~?
???~?~?
?????????????
..
??
??.
????????????????
~~ ?????~4
+...+
.o
0..+~~?~~
:.+.+4
+4..
I+
~?.??~.??~?
?????????????~~?~?
.~
.
.
.
..
+
I~~~~~
'????????????~~~~????????
4+
+
+
.
.
.
.
.
.
?~~??
?~??
?
+~?~~~
?
??????
??
?
??
v
..ii
..+.i+'~?~?~
.+
++ii4
??
???
??????
.. .~ ... 4+4++++4+4+++++++++4++++++~???
++
??
??
????~?(
???.+~~~(~~~~~
??????????????????
?
~ .+++4
~+.+.+++..+++.+~?
~.+4+..--++~+~++.~??
???
????
?????
+++++~(~?
++..'~~
??(.
+
?+
.. ??
.+
??
???
????
????
????
.. . ... .

.........**
*.........
*.*.*.*.

I . . . :444
1***.... ..*

...

.60 ..........

++4 44 . . 4+4++
, ,+ .. ..44

...............~itiiiiiiii"
+
'~~4+
~~::: :::?~'~~?~
??'?"??
??~????'????
'?':::::::::
.4?'?
????''?"????
+.....
++++4+++?~"
?'
????~~?
?'
????" "?' ~ ~ +"+4
... ???
????
~~~~~?
?? ....... .++4~
???
??????
?????
????
???
?????
????
????
~~~?
??
i?
?????
????
? ??~:f:
~~~0.00+0+.
????
+++++ 4 ....
......
. . . . . .. . 0?
.+??????
. .+
+. +...4
.. ..
????
????
???~?+
???41
?? . .

.. .. ..

;!i
.ii;i~
. .**.....
..........
**
**

...

........ ..
.. *.*...

,,4,....,1+ ...... ( 4 1+4+4+ *+'+++++

*+++++4+-+++++ *4++4....
44, +4'4++4...44. +++444
1... 4...
...4......
..,, .,4*1,,,1,4,,,,4
. ,. ..
. . . ...**
., . .. .........
..
+. , 1,. ,+. . . .
, . . . ++.. ++4
.
+,+.,
.
.
1 ..
. ...
*... ....
.*4*
..***** ...*4*.............*$+.+*+*4*+*+
4
. .
+44 . . . . 4 . . . . I
*.. . . . ...., 4,, ,. . . . . . . . . .. . . ++++0
,.., .. ,..
++*444-4
... $+++I
14::+.........0 .......
4++44':::
: :
I
.
+..
..... * ** *
*.. .
*, .
....
..4.1.4 44+++. ,,
*+4****
*...*

+
???~?~~~?~~?::::::::::::::::::::::::::??
4++'+++
++++++

4 4+

....

++:....:4:......:....::::................
.
++-+
..
.... ............
.........
*
+** * ** ** * *****
. .
.........**
* ** **
***** ***...
............... .
...........:::: ::::...
........ ........... 4.......:::::::::
...
****** **** ****** **
.,:***
**
** .....
***
......****
1+
::1::+++::::'
::::::::::::::::::
:::::+++::
+$$4+4$$++++
+4..................
I....... 4+4+4++4++
+::::
:::::::::::::::::::::... 4......... 4+4++++++4++4++++++++

+4
+++
;!i! ?! I I ",IIII+++
o

. ...........

.. ...
:: . 4:: .4.
:
:4

4...4...4...........

_..
.
.

Figure7. Distributionof averagesherdweightforsand-tempered

sherdsin the Robardstract.

..

...

Figure8. Distributionof averagesherdweightforshell-tempered

sherdsin the Robardstract.

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
22, 1995 317

biggest and most significant

part of the archaeological
recordin much of the world. Our traditionalpreoccupation with"goodies" (aesthetically
pleasingor chronologicallyimportantartifacts)has led to such depositsbeing
ignoredor treatedonlyby themostcursorysortof analysis. Here we have triedto show thatartifact
breakage,the
of
carries
archetypical
liability tillage,
importantinformation about theformation
of theplowzone assemblageand
eveninformation
about thepresence,character,
and distributionof sub-plowzonedeposits.It is critically
important
to recognizethatconsciousor unconsciouscollectingdecisionsbased on size mayintroducemajor biasesinto the
assemblageproducedbyplowzonecollections.The potential value of plowzone assemblagesis largelyunexplored.
surfacecollection(surfacecollectionswithhoriSystematic
zontal control) is becoming more routine,and this is
a stepin therightdirection.But surfacecollection
certainly
mustbe treatedwiththe same rigorand care as is excavation, or the potentialof surfaceassemblagesfromtilled
fieldswillgo largelyunrealized.
We hope to have demonstrated
thatone of theparametersthatmust be controlledexplicitlyin any protocol is
object size. Size variationin tillage-degradedmaterials,
even though a consequence of modern processes,is a
on depositstrucmajorsourceof unexploitedinformation
ture. In the Robards tractexample, it was possible to
demonstratethattwo ceramictempergroups differedin
termsof sub-plowzonesourcesand further
thattherewere
for
the
sources
point
shell-tempered
potterythatare arto
the
main
surface
accumulationsof
rangedperipherally
that pottery.Importantly,
the information
was obtained
without the cost or damage of excavation.Additional
surfacecollectionsto increasethe samplesize would have
permittedmoredetailedinterpretations.
Well-designedempiricalstudiesof plowzone processes
are badlyneeded. Studiessuchas thisand Turner's(1986)
considerationof artifactdiscoveryand collection just
scratchthe surface.Plowingwas initiallyviewed as a destructiveagent to be avoided in researchifat all possible.
As our knowledgehas grown,tillagehas come to play a
the
role, albeitstillsmall,as a techniqueforinvestigating
record.Once the effectof tillageon populationsof artifactsis thoroughly
understood,tillagemaycome to playa
majorrole in theconservationof exposeddepositssubject
to selectivepredationfromcollectors.We hope to have
advancedthisprocess.
Acknowledgments
The 1979 investigations
at the Robards tractwere undertakenwithsupportto the seniorauthorfromthe Universityof WashingtonGraduate School ResearchFund.

Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Davidson not onlyprovidedaccessto

the Robardstractin 1979 and 1980, but also assistedthe
in manyotherways.Figures7 and 8 areadapted
fieldwork
frommaps originallypreparedby MargaretTrachteas a
research assistanton the Varney River Project. JeanPhilippeRigaudand MargaretShottreadan earlierversion
of thispaper,and Mary D. Dunnell made manyhelpful
editorialchanges.Donna Pattonand CherylHarristyped
manuscripts,and Greg Horak helped with figures.
offered
CreightonGabel and severalanonymousreviewers
helpfulcomments.To thesepeople, and to any inadvertentlyomitted,we are grateful.
RobertC. Dunnell is Professor
at the
ofAnthropology
He
teaches
and
writesextenUniversity
of Washington.
and Southeastsivelyon archaeologicalmethodand theory
He receivedhisPh.D. fromYale Uniern U.S. prehistory.
in 1967. Mailing address:Departmentof
versity
DH-05 University
Seattle,
Anthropology,
of Washington,
98195.
Washington
and Head ofAnthroJan F. Simekis AssociateProfessor
He teachesand
pologyat the University
of Tennessee.
writeson spatial analysisin archaeology
and European
He receivedhisPh.D. fromSUNYPaleolithicprehistory.
Binghamtonin 1984. Mailing address:Departmentof
Knoxville,TN
Anthropology,
University
of Tennessee,
37996.

Ammerman,Albert J.
1981
"Surveys and Archaeological Research," Annual Review
10: 63-88.
ofAnthropology
1985

"Plow-zone Experimentsin Calabria, Italy," Journal of

Field Archaeology12: 33-40.

Ammerman,Albert J., and Mark W. Feldman

1978 "Replicated Collection of Site Surfaces," American Antiquity43: 734-740.
Baker, Charles
1978 "The Size Effect:An Explanation of Variabilityin Surface
ArtifactsAssemblage Content," American Antiquity43:
288-293.
Binford,Lewis R.
1964 "A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design,"
American Antiquity29: 425-411.
Binford,Lewis R., Sally R. Binford,Robert Whallon, and Margaret A. Hardin
1970 Archaeologyat Hatchery West.Societyfor American ArchaeologyMemoirNo. 24. Washington,D.C.: Society for
AmericanArchaeology.
Bobrowsky,Peter T.
1982 "Aggregation vs. Reductionism in Cultural Resource
Evaluation:Argumentsin Favor of Site Integrity,"
in P. D.
Francisand E. C. Poplin, eds., Directionin Archaeology,
a

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

318 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell

and Simek

QuestionofGoals. Calgary: CalgaryAnthropologicalAssociation,227-284.

Bonney, D. J.
1977 "Damage by Medieval and Later Cultivationin Wessex,"
in J. Hinchliffeand R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds., The Past
Under thePlough.DirectorateofAncientMonumentsand
HistoricBuildings,Occasional PapersNo. 3. London: Departmentof the Environment,38-40.
Cahen, Daniel, and Jan Moyersons
1977
"Surface Movements of Stone Artifactsand Their Implications forthe Prehistoryof CentralAfrica,"Nature 226:
812-816.
Cowan, Frank, and George H. Odell
1990
"More on EstimatingTillage Effectson ArtifactDistributions: Reply to Dunnell and Yorston," American Antiquity55: 598-605.
Dunnell, Robert C.
1982
"Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity47:
225-226.
1983

"Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity48:

842.

1984

"Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity49:

857.

1985

"Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity 50:

901.

1986

"Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity 51:

858.

1988

"Low DensityArchaeological Records fromPlowed Surfaces: Some PreliminaryConsiderations," American Archaeology7: 29-38.

1990

"ArtifactSize and Lateral Displacement under Tillage:

Comments on the Odell and Cowen Experiment,"
American Antiquity55: 592-594.

Dunnell, Robert C., and William S. Dancey

1983 "The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection
ed., Advancesin ArchaeStrategy,"in Michael B. Schiffer,
ologicalMethodand Theory6: 267-287.
Dunnell, Robert C., and JamesK. Feathers
1991
"Late Woodland Manifestationson the Malden Plain," in
M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, eds., Late Woodland
Stability,Transformation,and Variation in the Greater
SoutheasternUnited States.New York: Plenum Press.
Feathers,James K.
1989 "Effectsof Temper on Strengthof Ceramics: Response to
Bronitskyand Hamer," American Antiquity 54: 579588.
1990

Explaining the Evolution of Ceramics in SoutheastMissouri.Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Washington,Seattle. Ann Arbor: UniversityMicrofilms.

Feathers,JamesK., and William D. Scott

"PrehistoricCeramic Composite fromthe MississippiVal1989
ley,"American Ceramic SocietyBulletin68: 554-557.
Fisk, Harold N.
1944
GeologicalInvestigationoftheAlluvial ValleyoftheLower
MississippiRiver MississippiRiver CommissionPublication
52. Vicksburg,MS: MississippiRiverCommission.

Ford, JanetL., Martha A. Rolingson, and Larry D. Medford

1972 Site DestructionDue to Agricultural Practices.Arkansas
ArcheologicalSurvey,ResearchSeriesNo. 3. Fayetteville:
ArkansasArcheologicalSurvey.
Frink,Douglas S.
1984 "ArtifactBehavior in the Plow Zone," Journal of Field
Archaeology11: 357-363.
Garrett,J. D., F. P. Allgood, B. L. Brown, R. B. Grossman, and
C. L. Scrivner
1978 Soils of SoutheastMissouri.Columbia: Universityof Missouri, Extension Division.
Guccione, M. J., R. H. LaffertyIII, and L. S. Cummings
1988 "EnvironmentalConstraintsof Human Settlementin an
Evolving Holocene AlluvialSystem,the Lower Mississippi
3: 65-84.
Valley,"Geoarchaeology
Hayden, JulianD.
1965
"Fragile Pattern Areas," American Antiquity31: 272276.
Hinchliffe,J., and R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds.
1977
The Past Under thePlough.DirectorateofAncient Monumentsand Historic Buildings, Occasional Papers No. 3.
London: Departmentof the Environment.
Hoffman, Curtis
1982
"Plow Zones and Predictability:Sesequinary Context in
New England PrehistoricSites," NorthAmericanArchaeologist3: 287-309.
Lennox, Paul A.
"The Innes Site: A Plow-DisturbedArchaic Component,
1986
Brant County, Ontario," MidcontinentalJournal of Archaeology11: 221-268.
Lewarch, Dennis E., and Michael J. O'Brien
1981a "The Expanding Role of SurfaceAssemblagesin Archaeological Research," in Michael B. Schiffer,ed., Advances
in ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory4: 297-342.
1981b

"Effectof Short Term Tillage on AggregateProvenience

Surface Pattern," in Michael J. O'Brien and Dennis E.
Lewarch, eds., Plowzone Archaeology:Contributionsto
Publications
Theoryand Technique.VanderbiltUniversity
in Anthropology
No. 27. Nashville:VanderbiltUniversity
Press,7-49.

Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O'Brien

1987 "Plow-zone Zooarchaeology: Fragmentationand IdenJournalofField Archaeology14: 493-498.
tifiability,"
Miles, D.
1977
"Some Comments on the Effect of Agriculturein the
Upper Thames Valley,"in J.Hinchliffeand R. T. SchadlaHall, eds., The Past Under thePlough.DirectorateofAncientMonumentsand HistoricBuilding,Occasional Papers
No. 3. London: Departmentof the Environment,78-81.
Nicholson, R. J.
1977 "Modern Ploughing Techniques," in J. Hinchliffeand
R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds., ThePast UnderthePlough.DirectorateofAncient Monumentsand HistoricBuildings,Occasional PapersNo. 3. London: Department of the Environment,22-25.
O'Brien, Michael J., and Dennis E. Lewarch, eds.
1981
PlowzoneArchaeology:Contributionsto Theoryand Tech-

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

22, 1995 319

Journal ofField Archaeology/Vol.

Publications
in Anthropology Turner,William B.
University
nique.Vanderbilt

No. 27. Nashville:VanderbiltUniversityPress.

1986

Odell, George H., and Frank Cowan

1987 "Estimating Tillage Effects on ArtifactDistributions,"

AmericanAntiquity
52: 456-484.

Phillips,Philip, JamesA. Ford, and JamesB. Griffin

1951

AlluvialValin theLowerMississippi
Survey
Archaeological
MuseumofArchaeolley,1940-1947.PapersofthePeabody
No. 25. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Uniogyand Ethnology
versityPress.

Redman, Charles L.
1987 "Surface Collection, Sampling, and Research Design: A
Retrospective,"American Antiquity52: 249-265.
Redman, Charles L., and PattyJo Watson
1970 "SystematicIntensiveSurfaceCollection," American Antiquity35: 279-291.
Reynolds, P. J.
zum 100 JahriganBeste1982 "The Ploughzone," in Festchrift

NaturhishenderAbeilungfur
Nuremburg:
Vorgeschichte.

Vance, Elizabeth D.

1989

Midcontinental
7: 45-59.
JournalofArchaeology

Ph.D. disin SpatialAnalysis.

TheRoleofMicroartifacts

sertation,Universityof Washington,Seattle. Ann Arbor:

UniversityMicrofilms.

Van Frank, J. R.

1894

Survey
oftheSwampLandsin SouthMap ofTopographical

east Missouri.Jefferson
City: State of Missouri.

Vescelius, G. S.
1960 "Archaeological Sampling:A Problem of StatisticalInterference,"in Gertrude E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro,

eds., Essaysin theScienceof Culture.New York:T. Y.

Crowell, 457-470.

Wauchope, Robert

1966

Georgiawitha Testof
Archaeological
SurveyofNorthern
SomeCulturalHypotheses.
forAmericanArchaeolSociety

ogyMemoirNo. 21. Salt Lake City: Society forAmerican

Archaeology.

torischeGeshellschaft,315-340.

Roirdan, Robert V.
1982 "The Controlled SurfaceCollection of a Multicomponent
Site in SouthwesternOhio: A Replication Experiment,"

"SurfaceArtifactAssemblage Variability:A Consideration

of the Natural Factors InfluencingArtifactRecovery,"
unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.

Willey,Gordon R., and Philip Phillips

1958

Methodand Theoryin AmericanArchaeology.

Chicago:

Universityof Chicago Press.

Roper, Donna C.
1976 "Lateral Displacement of ArtifactsDue to Plowing,"

41: 372-374.
AmericanAntiquity

Rouse, Irving B.
1955 "On the Correlation of Phases of Culture," American
57: 713-722.
Anthropologist
Rupp6, Reynold J.
1966 "The Archaeological Survey:A Defense," American Antiquity31: 313-333.
Saucier, Roger T.

1974

ArkanQuaternary
Geology
oftheLowerMississippi
Valley.
sas Archeological
Survey,ResearchSeriesNo. 6. Fayetteville:ArkansasArcheologicalSurvey.

Schiffer,Michael B.
1972
"Archaeological Context and SystemicContext," American Antiquity37: 156-165.

1987

FormationProcesses
Record.Albuof theArchaeological

querque: Universityof New Mexico Press.

Smith-Davis,Mary F.

1896

HistoryofDunklinCounty,Mo., 1845-1895.St. Louis:

Nixon-Jones.

Tolstoy,Paul, and Suzanne K. Fish

1975
"Surface and SubsurfaceEvidence forCommunitySize at
Coapexco, Mexico," Journal ofField Archaeology2: 97104.
Trubowitz, Neal L.
1978 "The Persistenceof SettlementPatternsin a Cultivated
Field," in William Englebrecht and Donald K. Grayson,

in Memoryof
eds., Essaysin Northeastern
Archaeology
Marian E. White.OccasionalPublications
in Northeastern

Archaeology.Rindge, NH: FranklinPierce College, 4166.

This content downloaded from 190.98.232.126 on Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:51:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions