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
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
A largefractionof the totalarchaeologicalrecordis, or
has been,subjectedto some formofagricultural manipula-
tion.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
impairsinterpretation of the record by alteringartifact
form,size, and location.So long as archaeologists
did not
seek representative samples of the 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 inves-
tigationmightbe found. The mechanicaldamage from
tillagewas obvious; it was assumedthat horizontaldis-
placementduringtillage destroyedany archaeologically-
relevant locational information(Dunnell and Dancey
1983). Consequently,nearlyall surfacecollections,espe-
ciallythose fromplowed fields,were consideredprelimi-
naryor 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 (Am-
merman1981; 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 areavoidedbymod-
ernfarmers whileothersmaybe exploitedin theirentirety.
Similarly,some settingshave receivedlittleor no sedimen-
tation duringthe Holocene, leavingvirtuallythe entire
archaeologicalrecordwithinthe reach of tillage imple-
ments;othershave receivedmuch sediment,buryingthe
record.If a representativesample of environmental situ-
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
open sites implyingoccupationduringactivedeposition,
or cave and rockshelterdeposits).Such depositsmayhave
adequatelyservedtraditionalchronologicalinterests,but
alone theycannot addressthe broaderdata requirements
of contemporary archaeology.
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

(Schiffer1972, 1987) exploded some of the convenient Reynolds1982), or experimentation (Ammerman1985;

myths,such as the in situ notion, that served to help Lewarch and O'Brien 1981b; Odell and Cowan 1987;
rationalizethe omission of plowed materials(i.e., they Roirdan1982; Trubowitz1978). These empiricalstudies
were "disturbed")fromseriousresearchprograms.Most establishedthatwhileartifacts certainly are displaced,the
of the archaeologicalrecordwas originallydepositedon amountof displacementis not great.Further,theoretical
the surfaceand subjectedto a varietyof naturaland cul- consideration also suggeststhatspatialdispersionthrough
tural processes that moved objects both verticallyand tillagequicklyapproachesan equilibriumpoint at which
horizontally(e.g., Cahen and Moyersons1977). Despite theprobability ofan objectbeingtransported further away
such small-scalemovement,the bulkof mostassemblages fromits initiallocation approachesthe likelihoodof it
stayat or nearthesurface(Dunnell and Dancey 1983). In being moved nearerthe initiallocation.This should have
fact,tillagemayfrequently have been an importantagent been anticipatedfromthesimplefactthatartifacts are not
of burial(e.g., wherelittleor no Holocene depositionhas or
uniformly randomly distributed within the bounds of
occurred).It is no longerintellectually defensibleto dis- agricultural plots afterhundreds,and in the Old World,
miss "disturbed"depositsand plowed materialsas insig- even thousands(e.g., Bonney1977: 41; Miles 1977: 78)
nificanteither in resource managementor in research of yearsof tillage.Were thisnot generallytrue,"surface
contexts(e.g., Bobrowsky1982). indications"could neverhave led archaeologiststo dis-
As importantas theseintellectualchangesare, the real cover buriedsitesin plowed terrain.That these obvious
impetusto routineuse of plowed materialsand of surface indicatorswereignoredis testimony to thestrength of the
materialsin the United States generally--camefrom a traditionalprejudiceagainstplowed deposits(cf. Cowan
different quarter,culturalresourcemanagement(CRM). and Odell 1990).
In the CRM context,externalconstraints, especiallyEx- A more conservative, and forthatreasonprobablythe
ecutiveOrder 11593, forcedarchaeologists to tryto iden- most influential, approachhas been empiricalstudyde-
tifyand evaluate"all" archaeologicalresourcesin a given signed to demonstrate spatial correspondencebetween
area; even if archaeologistsdismissedresourcesbecause surfacedistributions of artifactsand subsurfacefeatures
theyhad been "plow disturbed,"theynonethelesswere and/or artifactdistributions (e.g., Binfordet al. 1970;
compelled to considerthem. Even more important,the Hoffman1982; Lennox 1986; Redmanand Watson1970;
arealscope of manyCRM investigations precludedtheuse Tolstoyand Fish 1975). Presumably, thecloserthe agree-
of traditionaltechniquessimplybecause theywere too mentbetweenthetwo,thelesslateralmovementtherehas
costlyand/orslow to be appliedto whole regions. been due to tillage.This argumentis, however,specious
Once archaeologistsacceptedthe idea thatplowed ma- (Dunnell and Dancey 1983: 269-270). Tillage moves
terialsmightbe usefullystudied,theybegan to investigate sedimentaryparticles.Consequently,the plowzone is a
thespecialpropertiesof theplowzone.Since themechani- depositionalunit,one in whichdepositionand redeposi-
cal effectswere "obvious," relatively littleworkwas done tion, albeit over shortdistances,take place more or less
withsize and formof artifacts (e.g., Baker 1978; Turner continuously and givetheplowzoneas a unita contempo-
1986). Most new researchfocusedon the supposed "lat- rarystratigraphic age. Because the plowzone is a strati-
eraldisplacement"characteristic oftillageand determining graphicunitin the ordinarygeologicalsenseof the term,
itsmagnitude(e.g., Ammerman1981, 1985; Ammerman thereis no reason, a priorior otherwise,for any corre-
and Feldman 1978; Dunnell 1990; Frink1984; O'Brien spondencebetweenthe distribution of artifactsin a plow-
and Lewarch 1981; Odell and Cowen 1987; Reynolds zone and in other,lower stratigraphic units.Only under
1982; Roper 1976; Trubowitz1978). Thereis, of course, specialcircumstances (i.e., wherean archaeologicalstruc-
no doubt that tillage does destroysome archaeological ture has been bisected horizontallyby a plowzone that
information and thatspatialdistributions in plowed fields lacksotherwisecomplicating materials)can one expectthe
are to some extenta functionof tillage.The thrustof artifactcontentand distribution of a plowzone to corre-
recentresearchhas been that these traditionalconcerns spond to thecompositionand distribution oftherecordin
are,however,muchoverblown(e.g., Lewarchand O'Brien a deeper stratigraphic unit. Thus, spatialsimilarity alone
1981b; Odell and Cowen 1987; Roper 1976). does not warrantinterpretation of sub-plowzonedistribu-
Generally, studiesof lateraldisplacementhave followed tionsbased on plowzonestructure.
one of two lines of argument.One has been the direct Certain aspects of plowed materialsdo have limited
studyof artifactmovementthroughrefitting (e.g., Roper potentialto provideinformation on thecontentand struc-
1976), repeatedcollectionand/or recording(e.g., Am- ture of the immediate sub-plowzone,however.In this
mermanand Feldman 1978; Dunnell 1988; Frink1984; 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

forrevealingsub-plowzoneconditions,not primarily as a
means of prospection(though the potentialis clear), but
so thatplowed-surface assemblagecompositionand distri-
bution can be accuratelyinterpreted. A simplemodel of
the plowzone is constructedwhichconsidersthe effectof
tillageon artifactsize. Certain,moreor less fragile,classes
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 theplow-
zone context.) Consequently,departuresfromthis ex-
pectedsize distribution mustreflect recentadditionsto the
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,de-
structive,and largelyhit-or-miss "testing."Ifsurfaceinfor-
mationis acquiredsystematically and the numberof arti-
is
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 archaeologist-
inflicteddamage to the deposit.More importantly, how-
ever, the model a
suggests significant limitation on the
analysis and use of plowzone data: the larger sizes of
degradable artifactclasses,such as potteryand bone, may
have stratigraphicallydifferent originsthanotherkindsof
artifactsor different size classes of the same materials.
Withoutanalysisof artifactsize distributions, interpreta-
tion of assemblagesis misleadingand may mix or other-
wiseconflatematerialsof different ages and contexts.
The Model
The Plowzone
In the traditionalview,wheretillageis seen solelyas a
destructiveand disturbingmechanism(e.g., Ford,Roling-
son, and Medford 1972; Hinchliffeand Schadla-Hall
1977), theplowzone is conceivedas a unitary,
homogene-
ous, 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
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
plowzoneis thuscoterminous withthemaximumextentof
plowing effectsat any givenlocation and is usually,and
quite reasonablygiven traditionalobjectives,treatedas a
singlehomogeneousunit.
When the plowzone is viewedas an independentstrati-
graphic unit and source of information, this model is
inadequate and misleading. The depth to which an area is
affectedvarieswith each pass of the tillageequipment.
Some variability arisesfromdifferences in machinery(e.g.,
chiselplows, moldboardplows, horse-drawnversustrac-
tor-drawnequipment,discs, etc. [Lewarch and O'Brien
1981b; Nicholson 1977]). Even if equipmentwere held
constant,differences would still arise because depth of
penetration is not well controlledmechanicallyand be-
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 searchforverticaldistinc-
tionswithinthe plowzone thatwe characterizeas a maxi-
mum, minimum,and minimaxplowzone (FIG. i). The
maximumplowzonecorrespondsto thetraditional zone of
"disturbance"and includestheverticalsectionof all sedi-
mentthathas 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
verticallyhomogeneous. The volume lying between the
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 regimesobvi-
ously produce different minimumand maximumplow-
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
308 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell
and Simek

Tillage Frequency

T
0 100

MinimumPlowzone.....

~-.. ~ Maximum
12: ? Plowzone
Minimax
Plowzone
Po on

Figure 1. Verticalstructureof plowzones.

willincreasemostrapidlyat firstand forthe same reasons beginningwiththe firstplowing.Breakagebecomes less

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,theminimaxplow-
zone will decreasein volumeover time.In a verymature
tillageregime,the minimalplowzone should nearlycoin-
cide withthemaximalplowzone.
Long-termchangesin tillageregimes,particularly im-
provements in tractionequipment, have resulted
generally
in historicalincreasesin the depth of tillage.Thus the
modernmaximalplowzone has usuallyerasedolderplow-
zone 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
may become the rule as Americanfarmers move more to
"no-till"or "low-till"practices.
and less pronouncedwith subsequenttillageso that any
givenclass of degradablematerialreachesa more or less
stablesize thatchangesonlyslightly withadditionaltillage
episodes.A numberofobservationssuggestthatthisis the
case. First,it is exceedinglydifficult
to imaginehow spatial
distributional equilibriaas noted byLewarchand O'Brien
(1981 b) could occurifthenumberof objectswas subject
to continuousincreasethroughbreakage.Unlessthenum-
berof "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
Figure2. Size reductiontrajectories
of degradableobjectsunderuni-
formconditionsof tillage.

ArtifactSize Object Size

Most would concede thattillageof all kindsis responsi-
ble for much of the mechanicaldamage observed on
certainclassesof plowzone artifacts(e.g., bones, ceram- Material A

ics). This occursthroughphysicalcontactwiththe tillage Material B

equipmentor throughsoil pressuresbuiltup in frontof
theimplementas it movesthroughthesediment.For most
combinationsof equipmentand materials, thegeometryof
thesituationdictatesthatdamagethroughphysicalcontact N
will be a comparatively rare eventin relationto damage
fromsoil pressures.
Althoughwe lack empiricalstudies,observationof ter-
minal plowzone assemblages(i.e., those that have been imeUnder illa-ge - -

subjected to tillage for long periods of time) strongly

suggeststhatartifactsize reductionproceedsratherrapidly 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
 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

that found on the surface;however,it is importantto differsfromthe minimumplowzone only in tillingfre-

ascertainwhich circumstanceled to the distributional quency,then the largersherdswill representa random
anomaly. sample of the spatialdistribution of the equilibrium-size
If an immatureminimaxplowzone is the source,skew- population. More simplyput, the occurrenceof large
ing towardslargersizes should be gradual,withoutany sherdscan be predictedas a functionof the density of the
pronouncedmodality.This is to be expectedbecause the equilibrium-size population.Conversely, ifthe presenceof
minimaxplowzone exhibitsa clinalchangein object size largesherdscannotbe explainedas a sampleoftheequilib-
fromtop to bottom(see FIG.i). Eveniftheanomalycan be riumsherdpopulation,then localized sub-plowzonede-
attributed to theage of theminimaxplowzone,thespatial posits are probablyan importantongoing source of the
distribution of largersherdsstillmightbe patternedbe- surfaceassemblage. Again, if the number of items is
cause of differences in the thickness and/or depth of the sufficient, mapping the largestsherdswould locate the
originalarchaeologicaldeposit. Indeed, such of
object-size source(s) sub-plowzonedeposits.
variationmightbe the only remainingevidenceof such It is importantto knowthetillagehistoryof thefield(s)
differencesin deposit thickness.This type of anomaly being examinedifthereis anymarkedtendencyto multi-
would also be easilyconfusedwithcollectionbias. modalityexhibitedby any of the degradables.We have
The anomalousdistribution might exhibit pronounced shown that multimodality is indicativeof differences in
modality,i.e., one or more modes at larger artifact sizes. degradable artifact reservoirs, but such multimodality
This is indicativeof a sub-plowzonereservoirof degrad- alone is insufficient to identifythe source. Changes in
able materials.Such a reservoir ofmaterialmightconsistof tillageregimecan produce a similareffect(Lewarch and
1) localized spatialpatchesrepresenting discrete"point" O'Brien 1981b), at least fora time,as new equilibrium-
sourcesforthelargematerialsuchas features or 2) broader size distributionsare superimposed on (and maybe
patches indicative of fragments of living surfaces or similar blended with) older ones. Since the time required for
archaeological deposits. Alternatively, large sherds lateral-displacement
the equilibriato becomeestablishedis not
might be more and
generally uniformly distributed, repre- clear (Lewarch and O'Brien 1981b; Odell and Cowan
an
senting occupation stratigraphically earlier than that 1987), there is at presentno meansto predicthow much
represented bythemainsize mode of sherds. The ability to time must elapse betweena change in tillageregimeand
distinguishpatchyand generaldistributions is highlyde- the establishment of new size equilibria.
pendent on sample size, with largernumbersobviously These argumentshave two kindsof implications.First,
making finer distinctions possible. surface collectionsof plowedfieldsmix,or can mix,mate-
The analysisof some multimodaldistributions can be rialsthatmayhave been depositedby different agentsat
refinedonce the modes have been identified.A simple differenttimes; this depends on the relation between
refinement is a comparisonof the ages of themodes using pretillagestratigraphy and depth of the maximumplow-
standardculture-historical types(if sherds were the de- zone. When, but onlywhen,size distributions of degrad-
gradableobjects),treatingthe modes as iftheyweresepa- are
able artifacts normal1 can one assume that the surface
rateassemblages.If no differences existbetweenmodes,it assemblage,as a whole,is representative of the plowzone.
is safe to assume that a singleoccupationor component Size biasesin surfacecollectionwillnot have affectedthe
(sensu Rouse 1955; Willeyand Phillips 1958) is repre- sample's representativeness in termsof the parameters
sented by sub-plowzonefeaturesor fragments of living considered here. If this condition is not met, however,
surfaces.If numbers permit,individualspatial patches then different size classes mayrepresentdifferent occupa-
examinedand pointsourcesof different tions or at least different depositional circumstances. Un-
mightbe similarly
ages mapped. If thereis a difference in age indicatedby der such circumstances, a collection limited to large sherds
analyzing the modes separately,then two (or more) occu- may be more closely related to the immediate sub-plow-
pations are indicated in a sub-plowzone stratum. With zone than to the plowzone. The use of old collections
largeenough samples,identification of complexcombina- needs to be pursuedwithappropriatecaution;new collec-
tionsof bothkindsof distributions mightbe possible.For tionsneed to be madewithsufficient rigorand consistency
classes of material that lack intrinsicmarkers for age, such
as bone, shell, and burned clay,this kind of additional 1. Actually,the size distribution of surfaceassemblageswill tend to
be skewed to sizes because of the differential and higher
visibility
analysisis not possible. larger
thesurface(Baker 1978; Turner1986). This
probabilities of intersecting
A more detailedanalysisof the spatialrelationbetween skewingis not, however,deleteriousto the model developed here be-
modes is anotherpotentialsource of information. If the cause it is readilydistinguished fromthe tendencyto multimodality that
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

so thatmeaningfulsize distributions can be generatedfor
degradableobjects. Size distributionscontaincrucialinfor-
mationabout the structureof plowed depositseven ifno
age or occupationaldifferences are detected.
Second, given large samples and systematicand care-
fully-controlledsurfacecollections,it shouldoftenbe pos-
sible to ascertainthe likelihoodof intactsub-plowzone
depositssolelyfromthe size and distribution of surface
ceramicsor other degradableartifactclasses.With large
samples,it should even be possibleto map different kinds
of reservoirs,be theyof different age or differentdeposi-
tionaloriginor both, and to providemuch of the spatial
and organizationalinformation thatis now obtainedonly
throughexcavation.Alternatively, such maps providein-
formation on thepotentiallocationof featuresand deeper
archaeologicaldeposits to guide subsequent excavation
withoutblind,unnecessarily destructive, testing.
Operationalization
We have shownthatthe size distribution of degradable
objects can potentiallyprovide much informationon the
sourcesof thematerialsthatoccuron thesurfacesof tilled
fields,but thisis onlythe firststep.As alreadynoted,the
utilityof sherdsize in thisrole is verymuchpredicatedon
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
JournalofFieldArchaeology/Vol.
22, 1995 311
samplesize. The exactsamplesizes requiredare unknown
because many of the key parametersin the model are
themselvesunknownfor want of empiricalresearchon
plowzonestructure and populations.The particular
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
 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 0 T
overthepast 12,000 years(Guccione,Lafferty, and Cum-
0; ....."
. . o:]o ..::::.. I
mings1988). Nearly the entirearchaeologicalrecord,save :9
onlysubsurfaceconstructions, thusincorporatedin the
is ! ~
.ii!....
~~........................ i!!i~i i
modernplowzone.Becausetheterrainis flat,nearly90% of .......~
i :!!!i~iii!iii~
i!!i~i!!i!i .......i~ I
i ::::::T :: :: :: :: ::I:
theentireMalden Plainis undercultivation today,mostof ....::::.. :: :..........:::

the remaining10% being roads, drainage ditches,and . .. . . .

............0.. .
........ ne ~ o ,. . .
.......
....: : :: : : : : : :: : : : : : :: : : : : :
towns/residences (Garrett1978). ~~~ ~~
::::::::::::: ::::::::::::.::::: .:: .::: :::::.
The VarneyRiverProject involvedthe collectionand r
.
4+ ?'* IT
in a 27 ha tractborderingone of the ??r
mappingof artifacts .........::::............................. :::: :::

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 ...... .

small, is pedogenic concretions).The use of this field

protocolmade itpossibleto constructsize distributions for I
::: :::: ::: :: :: :: ::: :: :: :: ::: :: : ..:.......
1

the collectionwith some confidence.(The fraction less ... . . . ..........

...... .. .. .. ...
.
. * ** . ..
. .. . . . .. . . . .
*
+. . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .
17

than 2 mm in size was assessed fromsedimentsamples

~ ~ ~~r........ ......
~ ~.!!!i!!}!ii~ii~~i.
[Vance 1989] but is not relevanthere.) "''"
i~ ''' ' ""
For thepurposesof thispaper,the 1979 and 1980 data :
::J
::::::::::::" *P:::::::::::

sets,whichare contiguousand constitutethe mostwest- ? ...............0

""!r'il"""'.:::::::::::r:r:::::::::
?.......
..'::::::::::::::: 1
erly collection area called the Robards tract,are ideal. T CD
ul "'"" CD.'"
:: "l2
-o 1:::.
""
:! o....:
.::...... ... .
.]??????~~ T,
While the precisedate thistractwas firstclearedforagri- : ::::: :::::: :::::: :::::: ::::::
*:*:.............
cultureis unknown,it almostcertainlytook place in the T4::: : r:. -:
E
::
: :::
.. .... .....::::::::I""? ........
.....
... T

late 1840s (Smith-Davis1896: 38-43). The area encom-

T
, .:::
... ..
.... .... ... ......................... .. . . . . . ....... ... .. ... .. ... ..
...............

passingthe Robardstractis shownas a singleclearedfield

,..........
S................. :::::::::::::::::::::: I
on the Frisselmap (Van Frank1894), so it has certainly T
17

been undercontinuouscultivation and treatedas a unitfor

at leasta centuryand probablya centuryand a half.
:::::: . ..
Artifactdensities,with the exceptionof Euroamerican '....::::.::::.... ::::::: . . ... :::.
. 1
materialsin the Nw cornerof the tract,are low, rather r ??,,.? ???? ::. :.: :

clearlystructuredas a seriesof discreteclusters,and of

T
:: .:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:
.................................
7i
relativelyuncomplicatedculturehistory.In addition to
historicalmaterials,thereare significant numbersof Late i '.~~~.................
....
Archaicbifaces(ca. 5000-2000 B.P.)scatteredthroughout
thetract.The bulkofthematerial,however,is Late Wood-
land and/or earliest ("Emergent") Mississippian.(See
Dunnell and Feathers1991 forthe detailsof thisperiod
and the terminology relevantto it on the Malden Plain.)
Two chronologically-sensitive ceramicpastes,a sand-tem-
peredpaste traditionally treatedas Woodlandand a shell-
temperedone traditionally treatedas Mississippian, allow
thismaterialto be sortedchronologically as well as spa
tially.The two paste typesalso providedifferent classesof
relatively abundantdegradablematerialsso the potential ceramicsin the Robardstract.
Figure4. Densityof sand-tempered
forcomparingthe behaviorof physically contrastive mate-

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

pered assemblage,mostlyred-slipped,is roughlyfour

~08..0.00
08 ....... 8:
:::::::..........00.. ::-:1...
.....
*:*****4*
F8I98*+C00..::::
:.
.#..
.......... 0*........:::::::::::::::...
:
.
timeslarger,comprising1960 measurablesherds.Like the
..I"
.......
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ll:::::::::::::::::::

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

detected in this tract,then our approach should yield

< i=
I ............ .. .....:.:...:... ::::::: :: ::::
I ..................::.........::##":::::::T,
usefulresultsover a wide range of archaeologicalsitu-
ations.
? i ............................????
i SherdSize
~ ??: ::::iii???????????iiiii?~~??,,??--??
0 4*0000*# ????? i
******0

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

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
ceramicsin the Robardstract.
Figure 5. Densityof shell-tempered 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
314 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell
and Simek

Sand Temper

N=500
Y=6.77
S=1.42

4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 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

Figure6. Thicknessdistributions ceramicsfromthe Robardstract.

Althoughtheshell-tempered and sand-tempered pastesare
associated with differentvessel formsto some degree
(shell-tempered vesselsarethinnerwalledand moreglobu-
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
and 5.66 mmforshell)is contrastive as would be expected
on technicalgrounds,and the sand-tempered sherdthick-
ness distributionis somewhatmore dispersedbecause of
the greaterstructuralvariationentailed in the conical
forms.Just as predicted,however,both the sand and
shell-tempered groupsshowedweak but significant corre-
lationsbetweenweightand thickness(TABLE1). An r value
of .4640 was obtainedforthe sand-tempered group,sig-
nificantat thep < .00001 leveland accountingfora little
less than 22% of the variation.The r value forthe shell-
temperedgroupwas virtually identical:.4635, p < .00001.
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 maxi-
mum 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 plow-
zone. Alternatively, giventhe smallnumberof sand-tem-
pered 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
sample of thatgroup. The largeshell-temperedsherds,on
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

Table 1. Thickness-weight correlations.r is Pearson'scorrelationcoefficient;

s is standarddeviationof sherdweightby class; n is numberof sherdsin
sample.
All sherds 2s sherds
Temperclass r n r n
Sand 0.4640 500 0.4140 26
Shell 0.4635 1960 0.2161 155

controlledbytimeofresidencein theplowzone.Therefore shell-tempered pottery,theredo appear to be sub-plow-

a meaningful,possiblycontrastivedistributionmightbe
expected between the stable-size,shell-tempered
sherds
and thelargershell-temperedsherds.
SpatialDistributions
We employedthe averageweightof thesand-and shell-
temperedsherdsper collectionunitto examinethe spatial
distribution of sherdsizes. This allowsthespatialdistribu-
tionsto be treatedas densitiesand minimizestheimpactof
a singlelargesherd(exceptwhenit is theonlysherdin the
collectionunit),therebyreducingtheoverall"noise" level
of themaps.
Figure7 showsthe distribution of mean sand-tempered
sherd weight per unit with the darkestsymbolsrepre-
sentingthe areas with mean weightslyingbeyond the
second standarddeviation.WhencomparedwithFigure4,
the distribution of sand-tempered potteryby counts,it is
apparentthatwith the single exceptionof a large sherd
outlierin the extremesw partof the tract,the largesherd
locationslie withinthe densestconcentrations of sherds.
This is the resultanticipatedifthe largesherdsare simply
outliersof the minimalplowzone population.Initialsherd
thickness,not timein residencein theplowzone,seemsto
determinesize in the case of the sand-tempered pottery.
This is the same conclusion reached in the analysisof
thicknessand weight.Thus it appearsthatthereare,within
thelimitsimposedbysamplesize, no substantial reservoirs
of sub-plowzonesand-tempered pottery.
Figure 8 shows the distributionof mean weight of
shell-tempered potteryper unit.Whilea comparisonwith
5
Figure (the distribution of shell-tempered 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-tem-
pered sherdsare foundon the periphery of the shell-tem-
pered clusters. There are occasional single large sherds
comparable to the anomalous feature of the sand-tem-
circumstances that ariseby chance
pered map, necessarily
alone, but the contrastivecharacterof Figures8 and 7 is
the importantfeaturewe would emphasize.In the case of
zone reservoirsof sherds,reservoirsthat appear to be
either"rings"of point sourcessuch as pits or a band of
deeper/thicker midden. Much largernumbersof sherds
would be required to differentiate potentialsources in
greater detail.
More directevidenceon thecontrastive sourcesof large
sand-tempered and large shell-temperedsherds comes
fromdirectsub-plowzoneexploration.No systematic ef-
forthas been made to "test"all thelargesherdconcentra-
tions;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 arti-
facts.Consistentwiththe geologicalhistory, were
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
pottery,but no subsurfaceaboriginalstructures or other
sub-plowzone sources of large sherds were discovered.
Four additionalunitswereexcavatedin the northernpart
ofthetractin 1988, none ofwhichcorrespondedwithany
locus of largesherdsand none of whichencounteredany
subsurfacedepositscontainingeithersand- or shell-tem-
pered pottery.Thus the limitedexcavationevidence is
completelyconsistentwith the sub-plowzone structure
deduced fromthesize of sherdsalone. The excavationsdo
suggestthattheperipheralpointsourcesare probablypits
ratherthanring-like middenaccumulations.
Conclusions
Tillage certainlybreaksarchaeologicalmaterials,but in
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+ +
+
*:::

++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
?? . . .. ..

??????~~~? ???~?~? .........??

?????????????
????. ~~ ?????~4
~?.??~.??~?
???????????????? :.+.+4 +...+
I++4..
.. ~ .1"I~~~*
:::tl"*'t:"'t"::.
?(~~~~~~~~(? .~
I... .~
..
++4
...."
.I~.I. ???
Lin
0..+~~?~~
:::::::1
11,,.,,,,,,,,,,. ,,,,,.
?????????????~~?~?
.. . . .~ .o I~~~~~
4+
+ ..
'????????????~~~~????????
?~~?? ..
?~??. . +~?~~~
+ . - - + I I +
???.+~~~(~~~~~
? v
??????
??? ?? ?
.............?~
Ll) I+I+.~~~~(~ +.4
..........:
.. .~ ... 4+4++++4+4+++++++++4++++++~???
I??I
'
..ii..+.i+'~?~?~
++ii4 ......
1''''"
~~ '~.....--
??? ??
?????? .+
~.+4+..--++~+~++.~??
~+.+.+++..+++.+~? ?(~~~????(~~~( ~...................
++
. . . . ,,,~,
????~?(
,,
??
??
Ln??? ~ ~ +~ +~ ??
~ .+++4
......:~ ,
~ ~,,~,
??????????????????
~,,~,
r14 ??U)~
???
????
???
????????~~?
4 4+
?????
????
???~~~~~~~~~~(
~~(~~~((
?+
~~~~~~~'~~
??(.
~~ ?(??~~
????
????
? ??????~~~~~~1~~~?~??
==man
+1~~~~(~ ?+ +?? +?
+++++~(~?
.. .. ..
.+ .. . ... .
.o
++..'~~
+
*
.. ???
??
o . U) ..
LO r14
E U)
. .. . . . . . . . . :.:.:.:.
. ::. : +++
;!i! ?! I I ",IIII+++ +4
+++
.. . .. . . .....

~~
?????I ~+#
I4-4114 +.?~~~?~?:
41 ..::::: :: '""""""""''6'
r,4::t o
.........~
:: . 4:: .4. . ...........
4+++:4444+4~?(~ .. ...
????~~~~~~~+ 0 :

.....~
..~...+~~
????????
????? '~~? + :4 4...4...4...........
+?~
.~~~~~~? .. ..4 ?~~?...
??
.
+ . .... ....
............... +++....... ....... .. ... ... .. _..
.
. ..
... . . . . . .

Figure7. Distributionof averagesherdweightforsand-tempered Figure8. Distributionof averagesherdweightforshell-tempered

sherdsin the Robardstract. 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

biggest and most significant part of the archaeological
recordin much of the world. Our traditionalpreoccupa-
tion with"goodies" (aesthetically pleasingor chronologi-
callyimportantartifacts)has led to such depositsbeing
ignoredor treatedonlyby themostcursorysortof analy-
sis. Here we have triedto show thatartifact breakage,the
archetypical of
liability tillage,carriesimportantinforma-
tion about theformation of theplowzone assemblageand
eveninformation about thepresence,character,and distri-
butionof sub-plowzonedeposits.It is critically important
to recognizethatconsciousor unconsciouscollectingde-
cisionsbased on size mayintroducemajor biasesinto the
assemblageproducedbyplowzonecollections.The poten-
tial value of plowzone assemblagesis largelyunexplored.
surfacecollection(surfacecollectionswithhori-
Systematic
zontal control) is becoming more routine,and this is
certainly a stepin therightdirection.But surfacecollection
mustbe treatedwiththe same rigorand care as is excava-
tion, or the potentialof surfaceassemblagesfromtilled
fieldswillgo largelyunrealized.
We hope to have demonstrated thatone of theparame-
tersthatmust be controlledexplicitlyin any protocol is
object size. Size variationin tillage-degradedmaterials,
even though a consequence of modern processes,is a
majorsourceof unexploitedinformation on depositstruc-
ture. In the Robards tractexample, it was possible to
demonstratethattwo ceramictempergroups differedin
termsof sub-plowzonesourcesand further thattherewere
point sources for the shell-tempered potterythatare ar-
rangedperipherally to the main surfaceaccumulationsof
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 de-
structiveagent to be avoided in researchifat all possible.
As our knowledgehas grown,tillagehas come to play a
role, albeitstillsmall,as a techniqueforinvestigating the
record.Once the effectof tillageon populationsof arti-
factsis thoroughly understood,tillagemaycome to playa
majorrole in theconservationof exposeddepositssubject
to selectivepredationfromcollectors.We hope to have
advancedthisprocess.
Acknowledgments
The 1979 investigations
at the Robards tractwere un-
dertakenwithsupportto the seniorauthorfromthe Uni-
versityof WashingtonGraduate School ResearchFund.
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
Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Davidson not onlyprovidedaccessto
the Robardstractin 1979 and 1980, but also assistedthe
fieldwork in manyotherways.Figures7 and 8 areadapted
frommaps originallypreparedby MargaretTrachteas a
research assistanton the Varney River Project. Jean-
PhilippeRigaudand MargaretShottreadan earlierversion
of thispaper,and Mary D. Dunnell made manyhelpful
editorialchanges.Donna Pattonand CherylHarristyped
manuscripts,and Greg Horak helped with figures.
CreightonGabel and severalanonymousreviewers offered
helpfulcomments.To thesepeople, and to any inadver-
tentlyomitted,we are grateful.
RobertC. Dunnell is Professor ofAnthropology at the
University of Washington. He teachesand writesexten-
sivelyon archaeologicalmethodand theory and Southeast-
ern U.S. prehistory.
He receivedhisPh.D. fromYale Uni-
versityin 1967. Mailing address:Departmentof
Anthropology, DH-05 University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington 98195.
Jan F. Simekis AssociateProfessor and Head ofAnthro-
pologyat the Universityof Tennessee. He teachesand
writeson spatial analysisin archaeologyand European
He receivedhisPh.D. fromSUNY-
Paleolithicprehistory.
Binghamtonin 1984. Mailing address:Departmentof
Anthropology, University of Tennessee,Knoxville,TN
37996.
Ammerman,Albert J.
1981 "Surveys and Archaeological Research," Annual Review
ofAnthropology10: 63-88.
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 An-
tiquity43: 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 Mar-
garet A. Hardin
1970 Archaeologyat Hatchery West.Societyfor American Ar-
chaeologyMemoirNo. 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
318 ArtifactSize and PlowzoneProcesses/Dunnell
and Simek
QuestionofGoals. Calgary: CalgaryAnthropologicalAsso-
ciation,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: De-
partmentof the Environment,38-40.
Cahen, Daniel, and Jan Moyersons
1977 "Surface Movements of Stone Artifactsand Their Impli-
cations forthe Prehistoryof CentralAfrica,"Nature 226:
812-816.
Cowan, Frank, and George H. Odell
1990 "More on EstimatingTillage Effectson ArtifactDistribu-
tions: Reply to Dunnell and Yorston," American Antiq-
uity55: 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 Sur-
faces: Some PreliminaryConsiderations," American Ar-
chaeology7: 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
Strategy,"in Michael B. Schiffer,
ed., Advancesin Archae-
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: 579-
588.
1990 Explaining the Evolution of Ceramics in SoutheastMis-
souri.Ph.D. dissertation,Universityof Washington,Seat-
tle. Ann Arbor: UniversityMicrofilms.
Feathers,JamesK., and William D. Scott
1989 "PrehistoricCeramic Composite fromthe MississippiVal-
ley,"American Ceramic SocietyBulletin68: 554-557.
Fisk, Harold N.
1944 GeologicalInvestigationoftheAlluvial ValleyoftheLower
MississippiRiver MississippiRiver CommissionPublication
52. Vicksburg,MS: MississippiRiverCommission.
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
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 Mis-
souri, Extension Division.
Guccione, M. J., R. H. LaffertyIII, and L. S. Cummings
1988 "EnvironmentalConstraintsof Human Settlementin an
Evolving Holocene AlluvialSystem,the Lower Mississippi
Valley,"Geoarchaeology3: 65-84.
Hayden, JulianD.
1965 "Fragile Pattern Areas," American Antiquity31: 272-
276.
Hinchliffe,J., and R. T. Schadla-Hall, eds.
1977 The Past Under thePlough.DirectorateofAncient Monu-
mentsand Historic Buildings, Occasional Papers No. 3.
London: Departmentof the Environment.
Hoffman, Curtis
1982 "Plow Zones and Predictability:Sesequinary Context in
New England PrehistoricSites," NorthAmericanArchae-
ologist3: 287-309.
Lennox, Paul A.
1986 "The Innes Site: A Plow-DisturbedArchaic Component,
Brant County, Ontario," MidcontinentalJournal of Ar-
chaeology11: 221-268.
Lewarch, Dennis E., and Michael J. O'Brien
1981a "The Expanding Role of SurfaceAssemblagesin Archae-
ological 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
Theoryand Technique.VanderbiltUniversity Publications
in AnthropologyNo. 27. Nashville:VanderbiltUniversity
Press,7-49.
Lyman, R. Lee, and Michael J. O'Brien
1987 "Plow-zone Zooarchaeology: Fragmentationand Iden-
JournalofField Archaeology14: 493-498.
tifiability,"
Miles, D.
1977 "Some Comments on the Effect of Agriculturein the
Upper Thames Valley,"in J.Hinchliffeand R. T. Schadla-
Hall, eds., The Past Under thePlough.DirectorateofAn-
cientMonumentsand 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.Direc-
torateofAncient Monumentsand HistoricBuildings,Oc-
casional PapersNo. 3. London: Department of the Envi-
ronment,22-25.
O'Brien, Michael J., and Dennis E. Lewarch, eds.
1981 PlowzoneArchaeology:Contributionsto Theoryand Tech-
 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.

Reynolds, P. J. Wauchope, Robert

1982 "The Ploughzone," in Festchrift
zum 100 JahriganBeste- 1966 SurveyofNorthern
Archaeological Georgiawitha Testof
henderAbeilungfur Naturhis-
Nuremburg:
Vorgeschichte. SomeCulturalHypotheses. forAmericanArchaeol-
Society
torischeGeshellschaft,315-340. ogyMemoirNo. 21. Salt Lake City: Society forAmerican
Archaeology.
Roirdan, Robert V.
1982 "The Controlled SurfaceCollection of a Multicomponent Willey,Gordon R., and Philip Phillips
Site in SouthwesternOhio: A Replication Experiment," 1958 Methodand Theoryin AmericanArchaeology.
Chicago:
Midcontinental 7: 45-59.
JournalofArchaeology 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 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.

Tolstoy,Paul, and Suzanne K. Fish

1975 "Surface and SubsurfaceEvidence forCommunitySize at
Coapexco, Mexico," Journal ofField Archaeology2: 97-
104.

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