Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
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
Universityof Washington
Seattle,Washington
JanF. Simek
Universityof Tennessee
Knoxville,Tennessee
Theoretical consideration
oftheformationofplowzone archaeologicaldeposits
implicates
artifact as an importantand heretofore
size under-used sourceofinformation. Modality
in sizedistributions suchas low-fired
ofdegradableartifacts, potteryand bone,indicates
theadditionofstratigraphicallydeepermaterialstoa plowzoneassemblage. Thismeans
thatdifferent agesand/ordepositionalcontextsare mixed in With
suchassemblages.
large
sufficiently and well-controlled
samples,thelocationand characterization
ofsub-
plowzonedeposits maybepossiblefromtheanalysisofsizedistributions ofsurfacemateri-
als alone.Applicationtoa "worstcase"surfaceassemblage fromSEMissouridemon-
oftheapproach.
stratesthegeneralfeasibility
Introduction
archaeologicalfieldresearchin the lastdecade or so (Am-
A largefractionof the totalarchaeologicalrecordis, or merman1981; Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Lewarchand
has been,subjectedto some formofagricultural manipula- O'Brien 1981a; Redman1987).
tion.From the beginning,archaeologistshave recognized Changes in archaeologyas a whole were necessaryto
tillage as a mixed blessing.On the one hand, it brings alterthese attitudesand allow routineintegrationof the
buried and obscured materialto notice; on the other,it tilled recordin archaeologicalresearch.Most important
impairsinterpretation of the record by alteringartifact werethe shiftto a regionalfocus(e.g., Binford1964) and
form,size, and location.So long as archaeologists
did not recognitionthatfieldresearchhad to be treatedas a formal
seek representative samples of the archaeologicalrecord, samplingproblem(Binford1964; Vescellius1960). Tilled
the tilled portion could be ignored in favorof better areas are not randomlydistributedacross environments.
preservedlocalities.With few exceptions(e.g., Hayden Certainsoilsand geomorphicfeatures areavoidedbymod-
1965; Phillips,Ford, and Griffin1951; Ruppe 1966; ernfarmers whileothersmaybe exploitedin theirentirety.
Wauchope1966), thesurfacerecordwas employedonlyas Similarly,some settingshave receivedlittleor no sedimen-
an indicatorof wheresubsurfacedepositsworthyof inves- tation duringthe Holocene, leavingvirtuallythe entire
tigationmightbe found. The mechanicaldamage from archaeologicalrecordwithinthe reach of tillage imple-
tillagewas obvious; it was assumedthat horizontaldis- ments;othershave receivedmuch sediment,buryingthe
placementduringtillage destroyedany archaeologically- record.If a representativesample of environmental situ-
relevant locational information(Dunnell and Dancey ationsis a requisiteforgood research,thenwe mustmake
1983). Consequently,nearlyall surfacecollections,espe- use of plowed material.The same considerations made it
ciallythose fromplowed fields,were consideredprelimi- clear thatthe kindsof archaeologicaldepositsfavoredby
naryor exploratory. Theyweremade in haphazardfashion archaeologistsin thepastwere oftenunusualsedimentary
and usuallywithoutproveniencecontrolbelow thelevelof ones, and therefore unrepresentative(e.g., deep, stratified
"site." Lack of spatialcontrolreinforcedthe notion that open sites implyingoccupationduringactivedeposition,
plowed surfacesdid not yieldusefulmaterialsforserious or cave and rockshelterdeposits).Such depositsmayhave
analysis.It also effectively
preventedanyseriouschallenge adequatelyservedtraditionalchronologicalinterests,but
to thatprejudice(Dunnell and Dancey 1983: 270). As a alone theycannot addressthe broaderdata requirements
consequence, surfacecollection and the use of plowed of contemporary archaeology.
materialshave only become importantcomponentsof Furthermore, archaeologicalformation-process studies
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
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 307
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
T
0 100
MinimumPlowzone.....
~-.. ~ Maximum
12: ? Plowzone
Minimax
Plowzone
Po on
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 309
up in tillage is a functionof many variables,including plowzoneon the surfacecan be detectedby the size
material,shape, internalstructure,orientationin relation distributions of degradableartifact classes.Departures
to the directionof the motion/shearplane, and environ- fromtheexpected equilibrium size distribution willreflect
mental conditions,to name but the most obvious. In recentadditionsto the minimum plowzoneassemblage
general,those objects that do degrade under tillagewill (i.e., too littletimehas elapsedfortillageto reducethe
tend to approach sphericalshapes; their diameteris a objectsto equilibrium size).Iftheadditions aresufficiently
functionof the initialsize (thicknessofplate-likeobjects), numerous andoriginate inparent populations significantly
material,and internalstructure.Clearlythisis an area in different in sizethantheminimum plowzoneequilibrium
need of empiricalresearch;however,the significant obser- size,theywillintroduce multimodality intothedistribu-
vationis thata breakageeventreducesthe probability of a tionofartifact sizeinthesurface assemblage.
subsequentbreakage for any of the daughterpieces. Fi- To assesswhether additions arebeingmadeto a surface
nally,and in some ways the most conclusiveobservation,is assemblage thatindicatesub-plowzone deposits, thefirst
the simplefactthatsherds,bones,and shells(amongother taskis to determine thedistribution ofdegradable object
materials),persist in fields plowed for centuries;this sizesbymaterial class.Thispresumes systematic, rigorous
stronglysuggeststhat thereis no simple linearrelation data generation protocolsand executionto insurethat
betweensize and lengthof timeundercultivation. object sizeis not a function ofcollection technique. Many,
ifnotmost,extant surface collectionsareunsuitable. In the
Interactionof ObjectSize and Plowzone
caseofceramics, a commondegradable artifactclass,there
Characteristics oftenis strongcollection biastowardlargersizesbecause
This is an admittedlysimplifiedaccount of plowzone largersherdscan be "typed"whilesmaller sherdstendto
dynamics,butwe believeit approximates theactualcondi- be erodedandcarry less,particularlychronological, infor-
tionsof theplowzone and objectsin it. If so, thenthesize mation.Evenifunintentional, a strong sizebiaswilloften
of artifactsthat undergo attritionin the plowzone as a existsimply becausesmaller, moreroundedfragments are
consequenceof tillagereflects 1) thehistoryofagricultural moredifficult to detectunlessefforts aremadetocounter-
disturbanceand 2) the sourcesof the materialsthatcome act theirlack of obtrusiveness. If distributions do not
to make up surfaceassemblagesin plowed fields.Artifact departsignificantly fromtheexpectations of equilibrium,
breakage,normallyviewedas information loss, becomesa then one can conclude,withinthe limitsimposedby
new sourceof information criticalto the interpretationof samplesize, thatno significant additionsare currently
surfacematerialscollected fromfieldscurrently or once beingmadeto theminimum plowzonepopulation. There
tilled. areno activesub-plowzone sourcesforpotsherds, andthe
Let us assume that the sizes of artifactsas originally minimax plowzonehas beenin placelongenoughforits
depositedare heterogeneousand that theirmean size is artifacts to approximate theequilibrium size ofthemini-
largerthantheirstablesize will be undertillage.As tilling mumplowzone.In short,thenear-surface archaeological
advances,the minimumplowzone will containan assem- recordhasbeenthoroughly mixed,andthesampleobtain-
blage of degradableobjects whose sizes will be normally ablefromthesurface isfully representative ofthenear-sur-
distributedaround the stable equilibriumvalues of the facerecord.
particularmaterials(e.g., potteryof variouspaste types, If,on theotherhand,thedistribution of sizeson the
bone, burned bone, etc.) under the particulartillagere- surfacedepartsfromthe expectedequilibrium value
gime. Any degradableobjects in the minimaxplowzone through skewing toward the larger sizes (againassuming
and in theimmediateunderlying stratumwillhave a mean thattherigorofcollection technique hasprecluded a bias
size greaterthanthatoftheminimumplowzone (byvirtue of similardirection), thenone can concludethatnew
ofhavingbeen tilledless); theywillalso havea less-regular material is stillentering the minimum plowzone.Apart
size distributionmore akinto the heterogeneoussize dis- fromthe introductionof new objects fromoccupations
tributionof the originalpopulation.The differencebe- post-datingthe initiationof tillage (i.e., historicalarti-
tweenthe mean sizes of a particularmaterialin minimum facts),there are two sources for such additions:1) the
and minimaxplowzones will, of course, vary with the minimaxplowzone wherethe historyof tillage(time and
maturity of the tillageregime.The longertillagehas gone equipment)has not been sufficientto reducesherdsto the
on, the closer the two means will be. Only when the equilibriumvalue; and 2) undisturbedmaterialin the
sub-plowzone stratum lacksartifactscan the means actu- immediatesub-plowzonestratumthat is undergoingin-
ally become identical.Thus when a new tillageepisode corporationinto the minimaxplowzone. In eithercase,
takesplace, the appearanceof artifacts fromthe minimax 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
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 311
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
relicbraidedchannelssubsequentlyoccupied by a slough, z
r
4iL
called the VarneyRiver.The collectionprotocolemploys 4 ""'
r
4 m x 4 m gridunitsand all observedmaterialslargerthan ]
r
::: ::::: ::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: 71
?' ":r '? 9I?"
::::::::::::::::::::::::::"? ''
2 mm, save crop residues,are collected.As the natural , .... ........ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
................ . . . . . . . . . . . .
?
sedimentsonly range up into the middle of the sand
particlesize fraction(0.06-2 mm), virtually all 2 mm and i' ::
i : :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::::::::
:: .........
largerparticles are artifacts(a variable fraction,usually z ...,.,. . ..............:
.. ............................ . . .
........
o ...... .
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 313
9
?---?-
----?-- ? T--?----
?--(~-----?
'- L rialscan also be examined.Both paste typesdisplayfre-
000*00--
f
quent largesherds,suggestingmultimodality, thoughthis
t is not pronounced.
The sand-tempered assemblagecomprises500 measur-
0.0
*0
so ..
p*p 0
.....
able sherdsdistributedacrossat leastsix spatialconcentra-
tions (some of whichare also shell-tempered clusters)as
.
[8... ....
well as thinlyovermuchof the tract(FIG.4). There are no
.::.::. .
:::*:**::*::...... .
morethan10 sherdsin anygivengridunit.The shell-tem-
..00*~~u~3~
S07***** ..* **0
.3.3.'0
.
..... 0.0
0. C.0
sand-tempered sherds,theseoccurbothas scatteredsherds
and as sherdclusters(FIG. 5). The maximumnumberof
"O00..- ........*.....'.....0llllllO..'
shell-temperedsherds in a single collectionunit is 61.
i "iiiiiii
...iiiOin
0... ..
......
........
..???
9#"r
?????...
8..............0:......
.
..................
~~ ?? !
~nllli;~
iiii;!;iiii!!i?iiiliniiiiiiiiiOi
???...
88*..
dr? ?????
0~?????
i .
o . . *c * n
....
* These two pastesand theirphysicalpropertieshave been
008#*****~
.....
: ::oo : .o:::
::::::::: :: ...... :0
studiedextensively (Dunnell and Feathers1991; Feathers
~~~cc
o.o..o..........oo
...... :::::::.......
:::::::::::::::::::
::: #*::::::.## r
Feathers and Scott 1989). Althoughthese
***
0 ?? 1989, 1990;
v:*:: **::::::::::::::: :::::::
......
.... ..........
#::::
I .....o ::::::::::::::: 8~GQ~~~~**~~~~nnn~no
........................*0r
8.
.....
...............
* ... ....
PIN::: ..190 *:......i
*::::::::::::
o...
:::::: numbersmake the collectionssound large,the Robards
.::::"#.............. .....
I :::::::::::::::::::::: f::::: ::::: ::::::: : :::::::: tract presentsa mature plowzone assemblage. Only a
............... . .... : :
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
... ...... .............
~ -,**#****000080**#~
OPI?III~~IIO~'? !
:887788%..... .....
... handfulof sherdsof eitherkindis largerthan 2 cm on a
i I :?~~00 ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
? ?
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
. . . . . .. . . 1sF:OF:: v::::::
.##. side; thevastbulkof thesherdsare fragments in the 5-10
NEI00
: :::: .:. II
0I::::s**0*:
..:.:: IIII.. :. .. : :
Q. mm range.Untilrecently, almostno archaeologicalnotice
':::::::::::::::::::::::::::
.......... ......::
::::::::::::::::: i
........... ... would have been givento such a deposit.As the ownerof
I I~??~~*
: ...........~ . . ....o.o.... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
e,'n 'o, ...
partof the tractphrasedit, "This ain't no site;an Indian
I [?*~~? ...... ... -.............. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...
Tooooo~,, carryinga red pot trippedand fell,that's all." Thus, if
?
~ ~~~C~~
,o??o ........ ,**,
::::::::::::::::::::::::::?r????~
.... ....o ..... :#:,,,::## i
significantdifferencesin sherd-sizedistributions can be
8:~::!iiiiii?,ii???
T.
~ '"- ??
OL~''? i??????ii???
. .?'?~~O
...........,,,,, , ...........
t~
I ?I~
:?
~~ ???[
~ i???~~~~;;?????
....????????????~?~~~??we we
::: *
"":::::::: .
...... ........ Measuringnearly2500 sherdswitha pairof calipersin
.~?????????????i?? ?
P i ........ ::+* ,onnnoor
!~????????,????????~~~0??? ...I
threeor moredimensionsmultipletimeswould have been
a monumentaltask. However, sherd weight,properly
*
if) ******nob**...
.....****************
T . . . . o, , ....* .,..
qualified,is a suitablesurrogateforsize withinpastetypes.
Since comparisonsbetweenpastesare not essentialto this
application,the difference in specificgravitiesof the two
materialswerenot calculatedand no corrections made.
CD ! A moreseriousconcernis thatweightobviouslyreflects
f
:::::::::::::::::::....... . . .
o C.D.
o ..... .................... differences in sherdthicknessas well as in sherdplan size.
o
o====
...:-.......
(300
:: ..................:
A partialcorrelationbetweenthicknessand weightis pre-
dictedby the model developedearlier.The thicknessof a
sherd,beingthelargestdiameterfora sphericalformmade
t~~~~~~C. ::.. ~ iEiii~i~i
fromthe sherd,is obviouslyrelatedto thestablediameter.
Sn .. ....
Thus whenthickness(the exteriorto interiordimensionof
,............................
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
314 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell
and Simek
Sand Temper
N=500
Y=6.77
S=1.42
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
Althoughtheshell-tempered and sand-tempered pastesare reflectsthe factthatforthe vast bulk of the sherds,the
associated with differentvessel formsto some degree thicknessdimensionis equal to or approachesthe maxi-
(shell-tempered vesselsarethinnerwalledand moreglobu- mum dimensionof the sherd.What is criticalis thatthis
lar whilesand-tempered vesselshave more oblate profiles relation should disappearratherquicklyas the smaller
oftenwith conical bases [Feathers1990]), they display sherdsare removedfromthe comparison.If thereis no
quite similarthicknesspropertiesin some respects(FIG. 6). substantialrelationbetweenthicknessand weightamong
The mean thicknessof the two groups(6.77 mmforsand the largestsherds,those lyingmore than two standard
and 5.66 mmforshell)is contrastive as would be expected deviationsbeyondthe mean, thenweightis an adequate
on technicalgrounds,and the sand-tempered sherdthick- surrogateforsize, and weightreflectsthe lengthof time
ness distributionis somewhatmore dispersedbecause of the sherdshave been in the plowzone.As Table 1 shows,
the greaterstructuralvariationentailed in the conical both groups show a decrease in correlationbetween
forms.Just as predicted,however,both the sand and weightand thicknessin largersherds.The change in the
shell-tempered groupsshowedweak but significant corre- sand-temperedgroup is slight,however,while thereis a
lationsbetweenweightand thickness(TABLE1). An r value dramaticdecrease in correlationfor the shell-tempered
of .4640 was obtainedforthe sand-tempered group,sig- group.We are leftwiththe conclusionthatweightis not a
nificantat thep < .00001 leveland accountingfora little good surrogateforsize in the sand-tempered group,and
less than 22% of the variation.The r value forthe shell- thata significant fractionof the largesherdsare largefor
temperedgroupwas virtually identical:.4635, p < .00001. structural reasonsratherthanlengthof timein the plow-
Similarstrongrelationsbetweenthicknessand weightin zone. Alternatively, giventhe smallnumberof sand-tem-
two physically dissimilarsherdgroupsis strongevidence pered sherdsgreaterthan two standarddeviationslarger
that the relationis controlledby a single process: the than the mean, stochasticeffectsmay play a significant
breakage of sherdsunder tillage reaches a stable point role. In eithercase, based on our modelwe would expect
determinedin largemeasureby the thicknessof the sherd thespatialdistribution oftheselargesherdsto be relatedto
regardlessofpaste. thatofthesmallsherdsbecausetheyare,in effect, a biased
A correlationbetweenweightand thicknessdoes not sample of thatgroup. The largeshell-temperedsherds,on
mean thatweightis not a good surrogateforsize. It only 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
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
22, 1995 315
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+ +
+
*:::
++i
:::::::::
::: ::: ::::::::: ::::: :::::
...
........ .. .ii;i~
.......... ;!i
. .**.....
**
**
I II**...... .... .. *.*... .........**
*......... *.*.*.*.
++:....:4:......:....::::................ .
.... ............
++-+ +** * ** ** * ***** .........
* ..
............... .
.........**
* ** ** . .
***** ***...
...........:::: ::::...
........ ........... 4.......:::::::::
...
.,:***** .....
** *** ****** **** ****** **
+$$4+4$$++++ 1+ ......****
::::::::::::::::::
:::::+++::
+4.................. I....... 4+4+4++4++ ::1::+++::::'
+::::
:::::::::::::::::::::... 4......... 4+4++++++4++4++++++++
........ ...................
............... . .. . . . :
.
E++ + .,... ...+ ,.. . . ..............I .. . . . . . .
...+.......+*. .. . .......... .4.....
. . . * ...**........
. .. ++0,.,
. . . .
+ ++ + +===.+. +++ + ===...
....................
+:::::::::::::::::::::::+:++:::::+:+++4.....++++...........
++++.===.+++
4........, ~ .. . .
+ .60 .......... ... I . . . :444
1***.... ..*
+====.++
.. . . .
+?++ ======+====++
.....
===+++-
..............:::+ :1;:::::::
............................?++ ,,4,....,1+ ...... ( 4 1+4+4+ *+'+++++
44, +4'4++4...44. +++444 1... 4...
*+++++4+-+++++ *4++4....
..,, .,4*1,,,1,4,,,,4
...4......
, . . . ++.. ++4
. ,. .. . . . . ...**., . .. .........
.. +. , 1,. ,+. . . .
+,+.,
. . ....... . .. . .... . ..~ 1 .. . .
.*4* *... ....
..***** ...*4*.............*$+.+*+*4*+*+ . ...
+(~~~~?~~~~~~???
+++++.!::::~~~~~????
........ ............
..+''???
4 . .
*.. . . . ...., 4,, ,. . . . . . . . . .. . . ++++0
++*444-4 ... $+++I 14::+.........0 .......
+44 . . . . 4 . . . . I
,.., .. ,..
??~?~~~~~~~(~??
???~~~~??
~ .............. +- I .. . 4++44'::: : :
04.~~?~~?
...... ......+
'?~~~~~~~~(?~~~~~~~~??
?~~ . , ......
?4
?
. . . . . , . ,. . . . . . .
4.. . . . . . ... .. .
..4.1.4 44+++. ,, *, .
.......
..... * ** *
....
*+4****
*...*
*.. .
:
.....
I::
~ ??ii;!i!(?;!ii~iiiii~i??
.............~~~~~~~~~~??~~~~~~??? ~ I: +++:1:+++4
+++++. '++++::: . . ::'. .
+.+. +. +
+++???
++4 44 . . 4+4++ + I +++
+?~*:;;?~~~~~?~? ????;i;i??? ??? , ,+ .. ..44 ... .
**I* *. *. .
.......:.:.:.4:.?~?~?~~
.??~(??~?~??~?~?+
......++ :.+:.,:::~~~~?~~~~~~?
........................
.?~?
++..- +.* *...........****4++++++-
..... ***
I -44
. .I
++4 ++4. .
+
((I +
: :+: .: +:::: +:4~~~~~~~~???????
4
1+. ++ +++
-,,I.. :.I:::I++:::++I::-+ :
~ ~~
, :::-I+
+44.44+44+4444+'+++'++""
.
+++.+~?~??~? ~~~~~~
~~~~ 11((~ III~i~:::4+
++-+ ++.+ !+++ + ++0+... .+::::::: ~(~~~
-.+
0-.+++++++++++++4+:
+: .+.:+: :
++
++4++
?~d~?~~
..r''+ +~'~'~~
1++ I+++.?~~~'
14 +...+.+ ++ I, ++
+ 4 +++~~~~
4 i~~~~~~~~~~ 14
~(~~*(~~~~~~~~+
...................................
.. .
????~~?
?~~~'??
::.??.? .........4........., ???? 44+ .,., +
+++
. . . .
I+++.........**
.,.,*...
. . . .. . . ???
.. .
:::t~~:::::::::t::::::::::::::::::::::::::
+ + + + ++
?????~~~~~~"~"?~~~~? ""? ' 4 4?
++. +++4?'?+
'?? + ?4??
+ .I.I 14411111111111
411*II141111
.. . .**
+*
11** .***.*
**. ..+4
,.,4
*
?~~~~????
??4
?? ??++~(~ 4 +4
-+4.??? 4 44
+4????
+++4-+ : ... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::~~~~~~?
'~?' 4 ~ ?+............. ? +
*4?????
+ 4+ + -* + ....... ......:::::::::::::::.
+44... . . .......... +++.................
~.~?r??~~~~?~?~~??
: :
_-4 +. :
I.. ... ..I I ..... +.+4
I . ..+ I ...........::: .+.+ ...
44 ....1,+,+ 1
. .4
?~~~????~~~?~???+
4. 4+ . . . ..4..........
+ 4
+4
4....+ .?? + ..+..+44
.+~~~~~~~~~??~'~
...,,o .4........,
.."-. ?' ::
1 :::: 1 1 ++ I 14+::::::: ::: : I
+ .4.. ....
.;4 ?~?~(~? 4 + + - 4 - + - +- + - .+~~'
+ -.++0+++ I 14
. . 1. 4.. . . . . .I. . *,'+++I I . .I.I I I I +I ' + '
+?~?~
' ** *
. . . .. . . .......
~ .?. ~ I *..... .....**.....
1111
~((~~~~?( . I+::::: I . .+ *****o**************(~0
..+~~~? I I I ++
+ ++ ++
::+
. .+4.. ....................... .. ........ 4 ...1 1.. .....*** I **I
**I*
***111****
?~~~~?
(~?~~((
++4
~~?
+4 4
.....:
~~
??????
?((?~*?.
..
????
e~?~~~~~~??~*~?
""'
....
~~((~~~??
~~?~~???
""" 4....
1' "?4 ? "
..
.....+++++4??
??~?~~??I
. . '
............
* **4 *
***'++ + +??
.
++
4??.+4
1" .++
I -: :++44+' . - 1 44$+:I .....
.....1 ++++4
+:+ +:4 :: ...
+:+ 4+4 . ..
.*..+*.
~
:+!4 E
I.* 1* *41~1~1
4.,.,.....+4 * * * * * * *
4++'+++ +
++++++
???~?~~~?~~?::::::::::::::::::::::::::?? ~((~?.............. * * *
1 ?
...............~itiiiiiiii" .:' + ":::::::::::::::::tttttt
++++4 '"''"':::... + :::::::::
+
c ??'?"??
??~????'????
.4?'? ????''?"????~~::: :::?~'~~?~ '~~4+
+ +I I . ........
????" "?' ~ ~ +"+4
'?':::::::::
+..... ................$+ : :: 4++:::::
????~~?
?' ++++4+++?~" ?' I*"l~'l: +++++*+*++4+
++++4+++4
+:::++4+++++
1+
???
???????????
?????
????
???
????~~~~~?
????
????~~~? ?? ....... .++4~ ... ??? A"--E
i?
?????
????
? ??~:f:
+++++ 4 .... ......
~~~0.00+0+.
. . . . . .. . 0?
???? ??
+. +...4
. .+
.+?????? ???~(~((I ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
I14
111~~~~~~~~
???? ???~?+
???? ???41
?? . . .. ..
~~
?????I ~+#
I4-4114 +.?~~~?~?:
41 ..::::: :: '""""""""''6'
r,4::t o
.........~
:: . 4:: .4. . ...........
4+++:4444+4~?(~ .. ...
????~~~~~~~+ 0 :
.....~
..~...+~~
????????
????? '~~? + :4 4...4...4...........
+?~
.~~~~~~? .. ..4 ?~~?...
??
.
+ . .... ....
............... +++....... ....... .. ... ... .. _..
.
. ..
... . . . . . .
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 Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Davidson not onlyprovidedaccessto
recordin much of the world. Our traditionalpreoccupa- the Robardstractin 1979 and 1980, but also assistedthe
tion with"goodies" (aesthetically pleasingor chronologi- fieldwork in manyotherways.Figures7 and 8 areadapted
callyimportantartifacts)has led to such depositsbeing frommaps originallypreparedby MargaretTrachteas a
ignoredor treatedonlyby themostcursorysortof analy- research assistanton the Varney River Project. Jean-
sis. Here we have triedto show thatartifact breakage,the PhilippeRigaudand MargaretShottreadan earlierversion
archetypical of
liability tillage,carriesimportantinforma- of thispaper,and Mary D. Dunnell made manyhelpful
tion about theformation of theplowzone assemblageand editorialchanges.Donna Pattonand CherylHarristyped
eveninformation about thepresence,character,and distri- manuscripts,and Greg Horak helped with figures.
butionof sub-plowzonedeposits.It is critically important CreightonGabel and severalanonymousreviewers offered
to recognizethatconsciousor unconsciouscollectingde- helpfulcomments.To thesepeople, and to any inadver-
cisionsbased on size mayintroducemajor biasesinto the tentlyomitted,we are grateful.
assemblageproducedbyplowzonecollections.The poten-
tial value of plowzone assemblagesis largelyunexplored.
surfacecollection(surfacecollectionswithhori- RobertC. Dunnell is Professor ofAnthropology at the
Systematic
zontal control) is becoming more routine,and this is University of Washington. He teachesand writesexten-
certainly a stepin therightdirection.But surfacecollection sivelyon archaeologicalmethodand theory and Southeast-
mustbe treatedwiththe same rigorand care as is excava- ern U.S. prehistory.
He receivedhisPh.D. fromYale Uni-
versityin 1967. Mailing address:Departmentof
tion, or the potentialof surfaceassemblagesfromtilled
Anthropology, DH-05 University of Washington, Seattle,
fieldswillgo largelyunrealized.
Washington 98195.
We hope to have demonstrated thatone of theparame-
tersthatmust be controlledexplicitlyin any protocol is Jan F. Simekis AssociateProfessor and Head ofAnthro-
pologyat the Universityof Tennessee. He teachesand
object size. Size variationin tillage-degradedmaterials, writeson spatial analysisin archaeologyand European
even though a consequence of modern processes,is a He receivedhisPh.D. fromSUNY-
Paleolithicprehistory.
majorsourceof unexploitedinformation on depositstruc-
Binghamtonin 1984. Mailing address:Departmentof
ture. In the Robards tractexample, it was possible to
Anthropology, University of Tennessee,Knoxville,TN
demonstratethattwo ceramictempergroups differedin 37996.
termsof sub-plowzonesourcesand further thattherewere
point sources for the shell-tempered potterythatare ar-
rangedperipherally to the main surfaceaccumulationsof Ammerman,Albert J.
that pottery.Importantly, the information was obtained 1981 "Surveys and Archaeological Research," Annual Review
without the cost or damage of excavation.Additional ofAnthropology10: 63-88.
surfacecollectionsto increasethe samplesize would have 1985 "Plow-zone Experimentsin Calabria, Italy," Journal of
Field Archaeology12: 33-40.
permittedmoredetailedinterpretations.
Well-designedempiricalstudiesof plowzone processes Ammerman,Albert J., and Mark W. Feldman
are badlyneeded. Studiessuchas thisand Turner's(1986) 1978 "Replicated Collection of Site Surfaces," American An-
considerationof artifactdiscoveryand collection just tiquity43: 734-740.
scratchthe surface.Plowingwas initiallyviewed as a de- Baker, Charles
1978 "The Size Effect:An Explanation of Variabilityin Surface
structiveagent to be avoided in researchifat all possible.
ArtifactsAssemblage Content," American Antiquity43:
As our knowledgehas grown,tillagehas come to play a 288-293.
role, albeitstillsmall,as a techniqueforinvestigating the
Binford,Lewis R.
record.Once the effectof tillageon populationsof arti- 1964 "A Consideration of Archaeological Research Design,"
factsis thoroughly understood,tillagemaycome to playa American Antiquity29: 425-411.
majorrole in theconservationof exposeddepositssubject Binford,Lewis R., Sally R. Binford,Robert Whallon, and Mar-
to selectivepredationfromcollectors.We hope to have garet A. Hardin
advancedthisprocess. 1970 Archaeologyat Hatchery West.Societyfor American Ar-
chaeologyMemoirNo. 24. Washington,D.C.: Society for
AmericanArchaeology.
Acknowledgments
The 1979 investigations
at the Robards tractwere un- Bobrowsky,Peter T.
1982 "Aggregation vs. Reductionism in Cultural Resource
dertakenwithsupportto the seniorauthorfromthe Uni- Evaluation:Argumentsin Favor of Site Integrity,"in P. D.
versityof WashingtonGraduate School ResearchFund. 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: CalgaryAnthropologicalAsso- Ford, JanetL., Martha A. Rolingson, and Larry D. Medford
ciation,227-284. 1972 Site DestructionDue to Agricultural Practices.Arkansas
ArcheologicalSurvey,ResearchSeriesNo. 3. Fayetteville:
Bonney, D. J. ArkansasArcheologicalSurvey.
1977 "Damage by Medieval and Later Cultivationin Wessex,"
in J. Hinchliffeand R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds., The Past Frink,Douglas S.
Under thePlough.DirectorateofAncientMonumentsand 1984 "ArtifactBehavior in the Plow Zone," Journal of Field
HistoricBuildings,Occasional PapersNo. 3. London: De- Archaeology11: 357-363.
partmentof the Environment,38-40.
Garrett,J. D., F. P. Allgood, B. L. Brown, R. B. Grossman, and
Cahen, Daniel, and Jan Moyersons C. L. Scrivner
1977 "Surface Movements of Stone Artifactsand Their Impli- 1978 Soils of SoutheastMissouri.Columbia: Universityof Mis-
cations forthe Prehistoryof CentralAfrica,"Nature 226: souri, Extension Division.
812-816.
Guccione, M. J., R. H. LaffertyIII, and L. S. Cummings
Cowan, Frank, and George H. Odell 1988 "EnvironmentalConstraintsof Human Settlementin an
1990 "More on EstimatingTillage Effectson ArtifactDistribu- Evolving Holocene AlluvialSystem,the Lower Mississippi
tions: Reply to Dunnell and Yorston," American Antiq- Valley,"Geoarchaeology3: 65-84.
uity55: 598-605.
Hayden, JulianD.
Dunnell, Robert C. 1965 "Fragile Pattern Areas," American Antiquity31: 272-
1982 "Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity47: 276.
225-226.
Hinchliffe,J., and R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds.
1983 "Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity48: 1977 The Past Under thePlough.DirectorateofAncient Monu-
842. mentsand Historic Buildings, Occasional Papers No. 3.
1984 "Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity49: London: Departmentof the Environment.
857.
Hoffman, Curtis
1985 "Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity 50: 1982 "Plow Zones and Predictability:Sesequinary Context in
901. New England PrehistoricSites," NorthAmericanArchae-
ologist3: 287-309.
1986 "Current Research, Missouri," American Antiquity 51:
858. Lennox, Paul A.
1986 "The Innes Site: A Plow-DisturbedArchaic Component,
1988 "Low DensityArchaeological Records fromPlowed Sur-
Brant County, Ontario," MidcontinentalJournal of Ar-
faces: Some PreliminaryConsiderations," American Ar-
chaeology11: 221-268.
chaeology7: 29-38.
1990 "ArtifactSize and Lateral Displacement under Tillage: Lewarch, Dennis E., and Michael J. O'Brien
Comments on the Odell and Cowen Experiment," 1981a "The Expanding Role of SurfaceAssemblagesin Archae-
American Antiquity55: 592-594. ological Research," in Michael B. Schiffer,ed., Advances
in ArchaeologicalMethodand Theory4: 297-342.
Dunnell, Robert C., and William S. Dancey 1981b "Effectof Short Term Tillage on AggregateProvenience
1983 "The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection
Surface Pattern," in Michael J. O'Brien and Dennis E.
Strategy,"in Michael B. Schiffer,
ed., Advancesin Archae-
Lewarch, eds., Plowzone Archaeology:Contributionsto
ologicalMethodand Theory6: 267-287.
Theoryand Technique.VanderbiltUniversity Publications
Dunnell, Robert C., and JamesK. Feathers in AnthropologyNo. 27. Nashville:VanderbiltUniversity
1991 "Late Woodland Manifestationson the Malden Plain," in Press,7-49.
M. S. Nassaney and C. R. Cobb, eds., Late Woodland
Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O'Brien
Stability,Transformation,and Variation in the Greater 1987 "Plow-zone Zooarchaeology: Fragmentationand Iden-
SoutheasternUnited States.New York: Plenum Press.
JournalofField Archaeology14: 493-498.
tifiability,"
Feathers,James K.
Miles, D.
1989 "Effectsof Temper on Strengthof Ceramics: Response to
1977 "Some Comments on the Effect of Agriculturein the
Bronitskyand Hamer," American Antiquity 54: 579-
588. Upper Thames Valley,"in J.Hinchliffeand R. T. Schadla-
Hall, eds., The Past Under thePlough.DirectorateofAn-
1990 Explaining the Evolution of Ceramics in SoutheastMis- cientMonumentsand HistoricBuilding,Occasional Papers
souri.Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Washington,Seat- No. 3. London: Departmentof the Environment,78-81.
tle. Ann Arbor: UniversityMicrofilms.
Nicholson, R. J.
Feathers,JamesK., and William D. Scott 1977 "Modern Ploughing Techniques," in J. Hinchliffeand
1989 "PrehistoricCeramic Composite fromthe MississippiVal- R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds., ThePast UnderthePlough.Direc-
ley,"American Ceramic SocietyBulletin68: 554-557. torateofAncient Monumentsand HistoricBuildings,Oc-
casional PapersNo. 3. London: Department of the Envi-
Fisk, Harold N. ronment,22-25.
1944 GeologicalInvestigationoftheAlluvial ValleyoftheLower
MississippiRiver MississippiRiver CommissionPublication O'Brien, Michael J., and Dennis E. Lewarch, eds.
52. Vicksburg,MS: MississippiRiverCommission. 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.
nique.Vanderbilt Publications
University in Anthropology Turner,William B.
No. 27. Nashville:VanderbiltUniversityPress. 1986 "SurfaceArtifactAssemblage Variability:A Consideration
of the Natural Factors InfluencingArtifactRecovery,"
Odell, George H., and Frank Cowan unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Tennessee,
1987 "Estimating Tillage Effects on ArtifactDistributions," Knoxville.
AmericanAntiquity
52: 456-484.
Vance, Elizabeth D.
Phillips,Philip, JamesA. Ford, and JamesB. Griffin 1989 Ph.D. dis-
in SpatialAnalysis.
TheRoleofMicroartifacts
1951 Survey
Archaeological AlluvialVal-
in theLowerMississippi sertation,Universityof Washington,Seattle. Ann Arbor:
MuseumofArchaeol-
ley,1940-1947.PapersofthePeabody UniversityMicrofilms.
No. 25. Cambridge,MA: Harvard Uni-
ogyand Ethnology
Van Frank, J. R.
versityPress.
1894 oftheSwampLandsin South-
Survey
Map ofTopographical
Redman, Charles L. City: State of Missouri.
east Missouri.Jefferson
1987 "Surface Collection, Sampling, and Research Design: A
Vescelius, G. S.
Retrospective,"American Antiquity52: 249-265.
1960 "Archaeological Sampling:A Problem of StatisticalInter-
Redman, Charles L., and PattyJo Watson ference,"in Gertrude E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro,
1970 "SystematicIntensiveSurfaceCollection," American An- eds., Essaysin theScienceof Culture.New York:T. Y.
tiquity35: 279-291. Crowell, 457-470.
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 An-
tiquity31: 313-333.
Saucier, Roger T.
1974 QuaternaryGeology oftheLowerMississippi Arkan-
Valley.
sas Archeological
Survey,ResearchSeriesNo. 6. Fayet-
teville:ArkansasArcheologicalSurvey.
Schiffer,Michael B.
1972 "Archaeological Context and SystemicContext," Ameri-
can Antiquity37: 156-165.
1987 FormationProcesses
of theArchaeological
Record.Albu-
querque: Universityof New Mexico Press.
Smith-Davis,Mary F.
1896 HistoryofDunklinCounty,Mo., 1845-1895.St. Louis:
Nixon-Jones.
Trubowitz, Neal L.
1978 "The Persistenceof SettlementPatternsin a Cultivated
Field," in William Englebrecht and Donald K. Grayson,
eds., Essaysin NortheasternArchaeologyin Memoryof
Marian E. White.OccasionalPublications
in Northeastern
Archaeology.Rindge, NH: FranklinPierce College, 41-
66.
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