Society for American Archaeology

The Size Effect: An Explanation of Variability in Surface Artifact Assemblage Content

Author(s): Charles M. Baker
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 43, No. 2, Contributions to Archaeological Method and
Theory (Apr., 1978), pp. 288-293
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279254 .
Accessed: 20/06/2014 18:30

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.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE SIZE EFFECT: AN EXPLANATION OF VARIABILITY
IN SURFACE ARTIFACT ASSEMBLAGE CONTENT

CHARLESM. BAKER

The reuse of certain categories of artifacts combined with natural site formation processes, such as sedimentation
and erosion, is suggested to result in the disproportionate occurrence of "large" artifacts on the surface of sites.
This phenomenon, known as the size effect, is investigated with artifact assemblage data from several stratified
Eastern North American sites.

THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD is a product of the operation of behavioral and natural en-
vironmental processes (Schiffer 1972). While human activity is the basic contributor of cultural items
to the archaeological record, noncultural site formation processes that operate during and subsequent
to material deposition also alter the arrangement and inventory of artifacts that are presently observ-
able at archaeological sites. A variety of site formation processes have been identified and defined
(e.g., Schiffer 1976). It is the purpose of this paper to examine further the plausible effects that the in-
teraction of certain cultural and natural site formation processes has upon the content of artifact
assemblages recovered from the surface of archaeological sites.
The identification of most archaeological sites is based upon the observation of artifacts on the sur-
face of the ground. In the absence of subsurface data recovery, these artifacts and their two-
dimensional arrangement form the primary data base for deriving inferences concerning previous site
occupations. An important initial consideration is whether the surface collection is "representative"
of the total inventory and subsurface distribution of site artifacts. At stratified sites with a long se-
quence of occupation, it is quite obvious that surface collections would not provide information bear-
ing on the total range of previous settlements. What may not be so obvious is that this problem per-
tains also to shallow sites with a simple depositional history.
Several archaeologists have studied the relationship between surface and subsurface artifact spatial
distributions and have suggested that there is often close correspondence between the two (Binford and
others 1970; Redman and Watson 1970). Other investigators have found somewhat less cor-
respondence and a variety of post-depositional processes of site alteration have been identified (Rick
1976; Roper 1976; Wood and Johnson n.d.). Nevertheless, it is perhaps generally true that ar-
chaeologists use surface artifact distributions as a basis for selecting excavation strategies and also for
defining activity loci within sites (e.g., Chomko 1974; Lavine-Lischka 1976).
There is yet another problem, however, with data from the surface of a site besides the spatial
distribution of materials. This problem relates to the content of a surface collection. There are two ma-
jor aspects of this problem. The first is whether there is an item-to-item correspondence between sur-
face and subsurface artifact inventories. That is, does a surface collection include all classes of ar-
tifacts that are represented in the site as a whole? The second aspect of the problem is whether there is
an identity in the relative frequencies of items in artifact classes that occur on and below the surface.
An archaeological site can be conceived as a three-dimensional solid. The top of the solid represents
the surface of the site. Whether an artifact protrudes through the surface and is observable is obvious-
ly related to the proximity of the item to the "top" of the site, but perhaps not so apparently related to
the size of the item. It was recently suggested that "if items of several kinds are distributed in a site, the
probability that any item will be visible on the surface is directly proportional to its gross size" (House
and Schiffer 1975:174).
This hypothesized size effect is illustrated with a simple site model in which artifacts of three sizes
are uniformly distributed (Fig. 1). By comparing the relative frequencies of artifact types that occur on
the site surface and in the site as a whole, clearcut differences were observed in accordance with the
predictions (House and Schiffer 1975:174). The proportionate occurrence of larger artifacts (Types 2
and 3) from the surface (26.7%oand 20.0%) is greater than the occurrence of these items within the en-
288

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Baker] THESIZEEFFECT 289

Surface _

Cultural *
*0
* 0* * * * M
Depositt
* * .* *

.? * . .?. . . * . . *

Subsoil

Type 1
* Type 2
* TType3
Fig. 1. Cross-section of a model site showing surface and subsurface distributions of three artifact types (after
House and Schiffer 1975:175).

tire site (24.6%oand 13.9%0).Smaller artifacts (Type 1) from the surface, on the other hand, are pro-
portionately fewer (53.3%o)compared to the proportion of smaller artifacts within the total cultural
deposit (61.5%). As House and Schiffer (1975:174) point out, the model site no doubt simplifies the
actual situation but it also makes the problem appear less severe than it really is because size variation
among real artifact classes is probably greater.
An initial test of the size effect hypothesis was performed on data collected from a site (3IN77)
located along the White River in the Ozark uplands of Arkansas (Baker and Schiffer 1975). The test
was accomplished by comparing the relative frequencies of two different size classes of artifacts ob-
tained from both surface collection and excavation units. The class of smaller artifacts consisted
primarily of chert flakes while the other class included modified cobbles whose smallest dimension was
greater than 8.0 cm. The results of the comparison were in keeping with the predictions of the
hypothesis. The percentage of the larger artifacts collected from the surface (18.5%) was greater than
the percentage collected from all recovery units (5.5%). Based upon these findings the size effect was
suggested to result from a combination of natural processes and cultural activities (Baker and Schiffer
1975:121). The following hypothetical account of site occupation and abandonment is provided as one
explanation of how the size effect and other processes may operate.
Consider a site that was occupied during the past where both "small" and "large" artifacts were
deposited on the surface. Following abandonment, uniform sedimentation over the site covered all but
the larger artifacts. Erosional processes also operated causing the large artifacts to be exposed more
readily because they were not covered to the same degree as the smaller items. After 200 years the site
was reoccupied. If the larger artifacts exposed on the surface could be utilized further, the later in-
habitants may have selected them for various activities. When the second group abandoned the site,
these large artifacts were again left behind. The processes of sedimentation and erosion continued to
operate until the site was subsequently reoccupied or discovered by an archaeologist.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
290 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 43, No. 2,1978

The implication of this portrayal of a site's sequential use and formation is that the size effect results
in a higher probability for the visibility of an item if it is large in size. While the probability of an ar-
tifact's visibility and its probability of reuse are not necessarily equivalent, at sites where repeated oc-
cupations do result in the continued recycling of large items, these artifacts may become concentrated
in the uppermost levels. In order to examine further the size effect hypothesis, additional data were ob-
tained from site reports that presented surface and subsurface frequencies for various artifact classes.
The Riverton site is located in the central Wabash Valley of southern Illinois (Winters 1969). The
stratigraphy at the site, consisting of five natural or cultural zones, indicated a sequence of occupa-
tions during the Archaic period. Excavations were conducted in arbitrary six-inch levels and frequency
distributions for artifacts per level are presented in tabular form. In this test case, knives, projectile
points, drills and microperforators constituted smaller artifacts while choppers, hammerstones and
manos were included in the larger artifact category. Those items that occurred either on the surface or
in level 1 of the site were included in the surface sample for the comparison to the total site artifact in-
ventory. These data are presented in Table 1. A comparison of the relative percentages of small and
large artifacts from both the surface and the entire site indicates differences that support the
hypothesis.
Table 1. Surface and total site artifact class counts and percentages from Riverton
(Winters 1969).

Artifact Class Surface + Level 1 Total Site

Knives 20 56
(Table 9, p. 33)
Projectile Points 81 172
(Table 14, p. 39)
Drills 3 11
(Table 27, p. 53)
Microperforators 2 14
(Table 28, p. 53)
Small Artifact Totals 106 (63%) 253 (73%)

Choppers 10 13
(p. 36)
Hammerstones 1 4
(p. 37)
Manos 17 28
(Table 36, p. 63)
Manos (Area X) 32 46
(p. 63)
Metates I 1
(p. 63)
Large Artifact Totals 61 (37%o) 92 (27%)
Overall Totals 167 345

Another well-known site from the Eastern United States is the Hardaway site, located in the Yadkin
River Valley of central North Carolina (Coe 1964). Based upon diagnostic artifact forms found in
relatively distinctive strata, a long sequence of site occupation was established. A comparison of
chipped stone and ground or pecked stone artifact class frequencies from the surface and the entire site
also yielded differences that supported the hypothesis. Coe's characterization of the occurrence of
large artifacts at Hardaway provides sufficient example:
Although hammerstones were common on the surface (536 specimens), they were disappointingly scarce in the ex-
cavated levels. Only thirty specimens ... were found .... A total of seventy-eight shallow mortars was found
on the surface, but not a single specimen in the excavations .... There were 172 examples of unfinished atlatl
weights and a total of sixty-five finished specimens found on the surface .... Only one atlatl specimen was
found in the excavated area [Coe 1964:79-80].

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Baker] THE SIZE EFFECT 291

In these test cases, the results of surface and subsurface artifact comparisons provided support for
the operation of the size effect. Additional tests are needed, however, for controlling modern distur-
bances, such as plowing, that might affect surface artifact assemblage content. An ideal test case
would be a stratified site whose below-surface natural or cultural strata had been excavated in ar-
bitrary levels. The major assumption here is that a distinctive natural stratum represents a prolonged
period of site occupation, perhaps including a series of occupation episodes. Since any site during its
formation has a number of surfaces, the comparison of different artifact class frequencies from the
upper and lower portions of a cultural level may indicate whether the size effect has operated.
The Eva site, located in western Tennessee along the Tennessee River, was chosen as an additional
test case (Lewis and Lewis 1961). Five natural strata were identified at the site and several of these were
excavated in arbitrary levels. Stratum II artifact occurrences were chosen for the actual test because
this level represented the "most intensive occupation of the site and contained the greatest number of
. . .artifacts" (Lewis and Lewis 1961:9). Also, Stratum I, which overlay this level, was as much as 2.5
feet thick, a factor that insured relatively intact Stratum II deposits.
Chipped stone and ground stone artifacts represented, respectively, the small and large artifact
categories. "Pounders" from the chipped stone assemblage of Stratum II were included in the large ar-
tifact class. The frequencies of artifacts per class that occurred in Stratum II are presented in Table 2.
A comparison of the percentages of each artifact class from the top level and the entire stratum yielded
results that conformed to the hypothesis. A comparison of artifact occurrences from the arbitrary
levels of Stratum IV also gave similar results. Stratum IV was separated from Stratum II by a "flood
deposit of sand and silt" (Lewis and Lewis 1961:9).

Table 2. Artifactclass countsand percentagesfrom the Eva site (Lewisand Lewis1961).

Artifact Top of StratumII EntireStratum

Chipped Stone
(Table 5, p. 26) 72 (77%) 200 (82%)
Ground Stone
(Table 11, p. 67) 21 (23%) 43 (18%)
Totals 93 243

Data from Koster, a stratified Archaic site in the Lower Illinois Valley (Houart 1971), were exam-
ined as a final test of the hypothesis. As of 1969, six cultural horizons had been identified based upon
test excavations conducted in arbitrary three-inch levels. Unfortunately, artifact class frequencies are
presented in the report by horizon rather than by excavated level (Houart 1971:16). This precludes a
precise test of the size effect although relative frequencies of artifact debris classes-provided in a bar
graph depicting the stratigraphic profile of Square 8 (Houart 1971:6)-do provide insight into the
problem.
By visually comparing the ratios of cobble fragments to chert artifacts recovered from Square 8, the
following results are seen. Cobble fragments, which are assumed to be larger artifacts, are over-
represented in the upper levels of Horizons I, II, and V. This also seems to be the case for Horizon VI,
although it is difficult to be certain. The Horizon III situation appears to conform loosely to the
predicted case while Horizon IV artifact class ratios clearly do not. In summary then, artifact oc-
currences in the buried occupation levels at the Koster site, in at least three reasonably definite cases,
suggest the past operation of the size effect.
The sites from which data were obtained for testing the size effect were selected because they occur
in a variety of topographic situations. The Riverton site today is a six-foot high knoll in the floodplain
of the Wabash River. In prehistoric times, "the site area would probably have been an island"
(Winters 1969:18). The Eva site is situated in the Tennessee River floodplain on a swell that represents
a natural levee along an abandoned river channel (Lewis and Lewis 1961:1). The Hardaway site "is
situated high above the Yadkin River on the top of a hill" (Coe 1964:56). The Koster site is located in a
small secondary valley on the east side of the Illinois River. "Because the site is located on a slope, it
has been subjected to sheetwash over a long period" (Houart 1971:3). It is likely that these sites were

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
292 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 43, No. 2,1978

all formed by similar natural processes, which differed in their degree of influence because of the sites'
locational variability. It might be expected then that the content of the surface collections from these
sites would reflect these different circumstances. However, data from all the sites tended to support the
size effect hypothesis. This would seem to suggest that the preponderance of large artifacts in the up-
per and surface portions of the sites resulted from their having been scavenged and reused.
Although this explanation is reasonable, at this time, due to the inability to control for the potential
operation of other factors, additional explanations must also be considered. It is conceivable, for ex-
ample, that large items were never deposited in the lower levels of the sites examined. This may be due
to activity variation during different occupational episodes, but it might also reflect changes in sub-
sistence strategies-that required different material elements-practiced by the various inhabitants. It
could also be true that large items were at one time deposited in the lower levels of the sites but were
removed and discarded elsewhere.
Many natural phenomena may have accelerated or inhibited the operation of the size effect. Such
things as the freezing and thawing of soils, rodent activity, and tree root disturbance are additional
variables that must be controlled in future examinations of this process. Wood and Johnson (n.d.), for
example, provide numerous illustrations of how artifacts are displaced from their original context,
both laterally and vertically, due to several kinds of pedoturbation.
Other aspects of the size effect also warrant further consideration. The first of these concerns an
item's portability. One plausible reason that large artifacts are left at a site during abandonment is
because they are relativey non-portable. This would certainly be true in the case of a metate, but even
items such as hammerstones or anvils might not be curated if transport distance were great or if the
items could easily be replaced at new locations. Another factor that may result in the occurrence of the
size effect is that smaller artifacts might tend to be trampled into the soil. Because of these and other
factors, the magnitude of the size effect might be considered a function of an increase in the size dif-
ferences between any two artifact classes. An initial examination of this hypothesis, using different
size classes of chert flakes as data, was inconclusive butdiddidsuggest
suggest this possibility (Baker and Schiffer
1975:121). The future study of frequency variation among different size classes of similar artifact
of frequency
categories would perhaps provide more elucidating evidence for the size effect.
The results of the present examination of the size effect hypothesis are tentative for another reason.
Simply, the sample fractions of the surface and subsurface collections from the chosen sites are
unknown. Nevertheless, these results of several tests on independent data sets do add support to the
suggestion that the size effect is an important process, or set of processes, which contributes to form-
ing the archaeological record.
The principal implication of the size effect is that surface artifact collections are not representative
of a site's total artifact inventory. This would certainly call into question the practice of designating
site functions solely using surface materials. Based upon the present findings, it appears reasonable to
suggest that estimates of subsurface site content-and ultimately, past activity-based on "smaller"
artifacts are less likely to be spurious than when large artifacts are primarily used. Clearly, however,
additional comparisons of surface and excavated artifact samples are needed to clarify the nature of
the interaction of natural and cultural processes of site formation. In order to insure the soundness of
inferences based only on surface collections, the consideration of the size effect and other phenomena
that may have altered the original archaeological context of artifacts is required.

Acknowledgments. I would like to extend thanks to Cheryl P. Claassen, Paul R. Fish, Michael B. Schiffer, and
Stanley South for their helpful suggestions and criticisms of an earlier draft of this paper. Also, the insights and
comments of several anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged.

Baker, Charles M. and Michael B. Schiffer

1975 Archeological evidence for the size effect. In Arkansas Eastman Archeological Project, by Charles M.
Baker. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research Report 6:117-22.
Binford, Lewis R., Sally R. Binford, Robert Whallon, and M. A. Hardin
1970 Archaeology at Hatchery West. Society for American Archaeology, Memoirs 24.
Chomko, Stephen A.
1974 A survey technique for delimiting activity areas within a site. The Missouri Archaeological Society,
Newsletter 278:1-5.

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Baker] THE SIZE EFFECT 293

Coe, Joffre L.
1964 The Formative cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. American Philosophical Society, Transactions 54,
Pt. 5.
Houart, Gail L.
1971 Koster: a stratified Archaic site in the Illinois Valley. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigations 22.
House, John H. and Michael B. Schiffer
1975 Significance of the archeological resources of the Cache River Basin. In The Cache River Archeological
Project, assembled by Michael B. Schiffer and John H. House. Arkansas Archeological Survey, Research
Series 8:163-86.
Lavine-Lischka, Leslie
1976 The use of lithic technology and the inference of cultural behavior patterns. Newsletter of Lithic
Technology 5:11-17.
Lewis, Thomas M. N. and Madeline Kneberg Lewis
1961 Eva: an Archaic site. The University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.
Redman, Charles L. and Patty Jo Watson
1970 Systematic, intensive surface collection. American Antiquity 35:279-91.
Rick, John W.
1976 Downslope movement and archaeological intrasite spatial analysis. American Antiquity 41:133-44.
Roper, Donna C.
1976 Lateral displacement of artifacts due to plowing. American Antiquity 41:372-75.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archaeological context and systemic context. American Antiquity 37:156-65.
1976 Behavioral archeology. Academic Press, New York.
Winters, Howard D.
1969 The Riverton Culture. Illinois State Museum, Reports of Investigations 13.
Wood, W. Raymond and Donald L. Johnson
n.d. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site formation. In Advances in archaeological method
and theory, Vol. 1, edited by Michael B. Schiffer. Academic Press, New York (in press, m.s. 1977).

This content downloaded from 193.104.110.144 on Fri, 20 Jun 2014 18:30:09 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions