Stafford 1995

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. ~ No.1, 1995 Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes and Regional Subsurface Archaeology C. Russell Stafford 1 This paper explores geoarchaeological approaches to regional-scale research in dynamic landscapes. Landscape element, a spatial concept from landscape ecology, and the archaeological notion of place are integrated with geomorphological models of landscape evolution. A distributional or non-site approach to the subsurface archaeological record is argued to be most consist with a dynamic view of landscapes. Regional geomorphological studies are shown to be crucial, given the volume of sediment that needs to be searched, in developing efficient subsurface sampling strategies. Various subsurface recovery techniques are reviewed, including the potential use of microartifacts to increase the effectiveness of small bulk samples in sampling the buried archaeological record. KEY WORDS: geoarchaeology; landscape ecology; paleolandscapes; microartifacts. INTRODUCTION Geoarchaeology, by employing earth science techniques and methods, has commonly focused on site-specific studies of depositional context and formation processes. Investigations have often been expanded to include the reconstruction of a site's local or regional geoenvironmental context (e.g., Butzer, 1977). Studies of archaeological settlement systems that have centered on a landscape approach (Rossignol and Wandsnider, 1992) or ones that encompass the regional archaeological record (Dunnell and Dancey, 1983; Ebert, 1992), rather than just individual sites, require a regional geoarchaeological viewpoint from the beginning. 1Department of Geography, Geology, and Anthropology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, Indiana 47809. 69 1072-5369/95/0300-0069507.50/0© 1995 Plenum PublishingCorporation 70 Stafford Many, if not most, regions have been geomorphically dynamic during the Quaternary with only some fraction of past landform surfaces coincident with the modern surface (e.g., Bettis, 1992; Stafford and Hajic, 1992). While archaeological remains occur at the surface, a significant portion of the record may be buried, a factor not fully incorporated into most landscape-oriented studies. The view taken here and by others (DunneU, 1992; Schiffer, 1987; Stafford and Hajic, 1992; Stein, 1987) is that once discarded, artifacts become a part of the sedimentary record of a region. To determine the structure and context of that regional record, it is necessary to understand the landscape evolution of a region and the positional status of artifacts in the sedimentary matrix. Therefore, a regionwide study of the archaeological record in a changing landscape requires both regional-scale geoarchaeological investigations and subsurface recovery strategies. In this paper I address two general issues that arise in the implementation of a regional approach in a dynamic landscape. The first issue, which stems from Butzer's (1980) contextual approach, concerns developing theoretical linkages between geomorphological analysis of landscapes and models that examine relationships between prehistoric settlement strategies and landscape structure and change. Landscape ecology, which focuses on spatiotemporal environmental heterogeneity of landscapes at various scales, provides several of these links. A better understanding of the regional spatial structure of the archaeological record is possible using some of the conceptual tools of landscape ecology that consider landscape structure. The second issue, which is a logical development from the first, centers on collecting a regional record of landscape use. Though the potential for bias in regional settlement patterns owing to differential burial and preservation has been long recognized (e.g., Butzer, 1960; Dekker and de Weerd, 1973), only recently has it become common to develop three-dimensional geomorphic maps of buried site potential (e.g., Bettis, 1992; Hajic, 1987; Johnson and Logan, 1990). Once this information is available, archaeologists are still faced with the difficult task, given the volume of sediment that may need to be searched in many regions, of selecting appropriate sampling strategies and recovery techniques suitable for investigating the deeply buried archaeological record. In this regard, issues addressed here include the utility of the site concept in the context of buried land surfaces, a geomorphic approach to regional stratification for sampiing, choices among subsurface recovery techniques, and accessing the potential of microartifacts in sampling buried contexts. Though most case examples pertain to alluvial settings in the eastern United States, the discussions have wider applicability. Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 71 LANDSCAPES Numerous studies by archaeologists and other anthropologists (e.g., Binford, 1980, Bettinger, 1991; Winterhalder and Smith, 1981) since Steward's (1938) seminal work a half century ago leave little doubt that human foraging and settlement strategies are a partial function of the ecological structure of a landscape as reflected in the distribution of energy and nutrients in time and space (Winterhalder, 1980). Butzer (1982; also Hassan, 1985) has explicitly shown how geoarchaeology can provide the environmental context necssary to understand human decision-making in particular ecosystems. More mobile populations like hunter gatherers or pastoralists may be affected to a greater extent than horticulturists or agriculturalists by short-term fluctuations; but even sedentary groups must cope with heterogeneous landscapes. Landscapes are multidimensional phenomena defined by the research problems posed; there is no one landscape. As with other generic terms, definitions of landscape are many, ranging from the artist's view of scenery to cultural landscapes in human geography (Schreiber, 1990; Naveh and Lieberman, 1990). Some are useful scientific concepts, others are not. Different approaches to landscapes are evident in archaeology as well. For instance, compare the ecologically oriented studies in Rossignol and Wandsnider (1992) with the meaning of landscape of Crumley and Marquardt (1990) or Green (1990). Winterhalder (1980, p. 53) provides the following ecologically based definition: Environmental qualities which define patchiness for terrestrial organisms can be termed landscape...and include landform (geomorphology, and geological parent materials), soils, vegetation and vegetation physiognomy, and micro- or local climate...Features of landscape combine with animal distributions to give a locality a particular adaptive quality related to both the resources and hazards found there and to the impediments that landscape structure places between the organism, its resources, and its predators and conspecifics. This is essentially the view taken by landscape ecologists who focus on landscape heterogeneity (Risser et al., 1984; Urban et at, 1987). Whereas traditional ecology (including ecological anthropology; see Winterhalder, 1980) has centered on vertical relationships (i.e., homogeneous ecosystems), landscape ecology deals explicitly with horizontal ecosystem patterns and process at different scales. Landscape Ecology An emerging discipline, landscape ecology first developed in central and eastern Europe (Schreiber, 1990), where the term was coined by Troll (1950), the German biogeographer. Early on he recognized the potential 1992). Stafford (1994) examines the relationship between landscape structure and Archaic hunter-gatherer settlement strategies in southwestern Indiana by analyzing the association between hafted biface location and proximity to streams of different order within. 68). p. In either case biotic and abiotic processes. Drainage patterns represent relatively stable aspects of the landscape in comparison to say vegetation and serve as relative in- . 1992. p. 1990). Landscape ecology has proved useful in modeling environmental heterogeneity. Large herbivores interact with forage resources at different temporal and spatial scales (Senft et aL. 1984.72 Stafford of aerial photography in landscape interpretations (Naveh and Lieberman. involving biological and geological sciences as well as other disciplines such as geography (Schreiber... Senft et al. 8. specifically material cycles and energy flow between ecosystems making up a landscape. as opposed to typical predator-prey relationships in optimal foraging theory where environmental constraints are simplified (Stephens and Krebs. and species relative to the sizes. landscape ecology is concerned with the structure.. which may result in an oversimplification of the landscape that human foragers face. Structure refers to the spatial distribution of energy. kinds. landscape ecology is expressly interdisciplinary. 1987. Stafford and Hajic. have been of interest. numbers. 4). shapes.g. 1990. p. p. where the foraging behavior of animals like large herbivores had been problematical in conventional foraging theory (Senft et al. For instance. p. 1990. Landscape ecology provides conceptual tools that at least better describe landscape structure that may be important in understanding prehistoric foraging strategies and decision making (e.. Forman. Function is the interaction between these minimal spatial components and change refers to alterations of their structure and function through time. 1992. 1991). while in the United States there has been a decidedly bioecological orientation (Naveh and Lieberman. Development in Europe has been closely tied to landscape planning and architecture. and presence or absence of corridors not typically a part of patch-based models (Johnson et al. As Turner (1989. has also led to enhancements to patchbased models in foraging theory that had previously considered only simple internally homogeneous systems (Risser et al. traditionally ignored by the biological sciences. 173) suggests. 789). and change in spatial clusters of ecosystems. and configurations of ecosystems. 1990. As a result. Landscape ecology's focus on heterogeneous environments. In this study. materials. Johnson et al. 23). Archaeological models of hunter-gatherers have often been derived from classical optimal-foraging theory (see Bettinger. Landscape ecology deals with patch size. 1986). drainage networks.. shape. 1987). juxtaposition. p. 1987). function.. streams were viewed as corridors that provide access to resource patches and differential stream orders were argued to be proxies for resource patch structure. 1990. Schreiber. Binford.g. p. soil. though pragmatically they represent a tract of land where at least one land attribute (e. Marked shifts in the location of hafted bifaces within drainage basins were found to have taken place between the early and middle Holocene. 139. for example. mobility. p. Landscape Elements Landscape ecology provides an explicit means of analyzing the structure of landscapes.. 1992) is a systemic concept. 14). They are similar to the minimal spatial units used in GIS analyses [e. which are distributed at various scales. Landscape elements may be definable as resource patches on the basis of specific food or other resources they contain or by topographic characteristics that affect drainage or exposure and. Landscape elements are defined in relation to an organism's size. landscape elements are discrete ecosystems.g. Schlanger. 1986. animals. pp. Stafford and Hajic. they form the basis by which landscape structure can be defined. The frequency and spatial arrangement of landscape elements with high probabilities of serving as stopping points will in part determine .Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 73 dicators of habitat or patch differences within basins. Warren (1990. 204) uses cells 25 m on a side as a basic observational unit. It is vertically defined by land attributes (rock. p. defined here as a subset of landscape elements with appropriate size and land attributes to serve as stopping points on the landscape. for instance).) (Zonneveld. In terms of prehistoric hunter-gatherer settlement strategies. 1990. 14). 1980. 1982. vegetation. which represent minimal homogeneous parcels of land (Forman and Godron. 1990. or vegetation) is homogeneous (Zonneveld. among other terms) are a fundamental unit of analysis. pp. 1992. climate. their potential uses for particular tasks. In theory. 1990. landscape elements can be defined on the basis of land attributes likely to affect (positively and negatively) mobility strategies or positioning tactics in a given environment (which would be at least partially different from horticulturalists. landform. p. and habits (Stafford and Hajic. 13). soil. p. 1992. Place (cf. also Kvamme (1989. 151-153)]. 1992. 152). also Winterhalder. landform. 1112. reflecting their proximity to landscape elements containing targeted resources. p. therefore. Zonneveld. allowing the examination of land use at a geographic scale consistent with the mobility strategies of Archaic hunter-gatherers. Chang. The survey sampled an entire physiographic province (Wabash Lowland). etc. As an analytical unit. Landscape elements (also called ecotopes or cells.. They are characterized primarily by their smallscale attributes associated with landforms and medium-scale attributes. Landscape element structure is a planar arrangement in the uplands verses a linear one along the edges of terraces and on natural levees.. long-term processes are likely to generate the dominant patterns in a cumulative regional record. 8000-5000 BP).74 Stafford the pattern of landscape use and reuse. Stafford and Hajic (1992) found that in the uplands artifact densities were on average low. This is essentially an extension of the approach advocated by Dunnell and Dancey (1983. and waterfowl). with substantial and consistent spatial correlations.. The likelihood of landscape element use is indicated by shading. Place use is determined empirically. This is the underlying factor that generates variance in what Dewar and McBride (1992. The uplands contained resource patches distinctive from those in the river valley (nuts and deer vs fish. Wiant et al. 1992.g. Linearly arranged elements on natural levees and the edge of terraces are in proximity and parallel the distribution of aquatic resource patches. The character and spatial distribution of landscape elements result in different patterns of reuse over time. many high probability elements or places may be contiguously distributed in linear patterns (e. Though other factors like the construction of facilities affect reuse of a specific place in the short term (Dewar and McBride. 1992). by sampling the distribution of artifacts across a defined landscape.. Figure 1 depicts the hypothetical distribution of probabilities based on an estimate of the distribution and relative density of Middle Archaic remains generated over a 4000-year period. The paleolandscape reconstruction by Styles (1985) and Hajic (1987) represents the early to middle Holocene (ca. whereas on the edges of terraces and natural levees artifact densities were higher. In both cases. Intensity of use is reflected in the type of aquatic patch (river channel vs stagnate marsh or backwater).g. hence the spatial distribution of artifacts differs among landforms. The objective is not to identify individual places (or sites). it is the spatial structure of landscape elements that produce the spatial structure of the archaeological record in the long term. 234) call spatial congruence of a sequence of occupations in the long term. recovered in sample locations (Stafford and Hajic. shellfish. but to determine how artifact spatial structure at a landscape scale is correlated (or not) with types of landscape elements. isolated points (e. or at the other extreme. pp. natural levee). with a generally low but variable spatial association between tools (primarily halted bifaces) and debitage concentrations. p. landscape elements with similar landform attributes are ubiquitous but the spatial arrangement is dissimilar. 1983) in a reach of the lower Illinois River. . but deals with artifacts and landscape spatial structure at a smaller scale. For instance. The observed variance in the density of artifacts indicates in which landscape elements cultural deposition took place. In fact. 273-274). rockshelter) on the landscape. plate 3). floodbasin and paleochannels have an associated low probability. Map of geomorphic surfaces and relative probabilities of landscape elements serving as stopping points (places) in a portion of the lower 'Jlinois River valley. • HIGH N i 1 = KM B VERYLow ~ig. though valley side slopes can have a high potential to contain ~uried archaeological deposits (see Stafford and Hajic. uplands IUP) (based on Hajic. also. Keach School Terrace (KST). . tributary valley (TR). natural levee (NL).NL \ KsT KST ~ PALEOCHANNELS ~ o gl" hi / -1 • VERY HIGH N. 1992). Tributary probabilities are not mapped. 1. Bath Terrace (BT). 1987. Key: Alluvial fans (AF). and large-scale variations in paleolandscapes.76 Stafford As the landscape changed by the late Holocene. in contrast. on the character of the landscape. 1983. In general. landforms exert a strong influence. A Geomorphic Landscape Ecosystems that made up landscapes used by prehistoric groups are not necessarily preserved in the modern landscape. Schumm et al. 1989. CoUuvial fans. Schumm. 1985.. Given this. Colluvial fan surfaces that date to the middle Holocene are currently buried more than a meter below the modern surface. They are also located in a strategic location for huntergatherers at the interface of floodplain and upland environments. Woodland period). on the other hand. and (3) decomposition of organic debris and soil horizon formation in turn influence nutrient transfer and germination of plants. 1990. resulting in differential distributions of younger artifacts (e. 1973. 1990a).. Understanding the change in spatial structure of landscape elements and their change through time is a key to understanding the regional distribution of artifacts. geomorphology contributes the most direct evidence of small. Specific controlling factors associated with landforms are as follows (Rohdenburg. Because of these factors.. places on colluvial fans were frequently reused. 1987). organic and inorganic particulate matter) across a landscape (Risser. Landforms and geologic processes are significant agents in regulating ecosystem structure and function by controlling the flow of materials and energy (water. Early to middle Holocene deposition o n fans tended to result in stratified archaeological deposits. we can expect that a geomorphic analysis can provide data on landscape structure that is directly relevant to past landscape elements. probabilities associated with landscape elements also shifted. (2) the land surface is the principal exchange surface within the water balance system influencing the ratio of runoff to infiltration and. soil erosion and nutrient loss. represent point locations on the landscape that occur at significantly lower frequencies.g. While palynology and dendroclimatology may provide reconstructions of large-scale climatic variability. hence. Swanson et al. its focus is on earth surface processes and more precisely the evolution of landforms through process-response models (Davidson. Hajic. pp. dissolved material. both directly and indirectly. Successive occupations-in upland or foodplain locations. producing complex stratigraphic records of successive occupations through the early and middle Holocene (Wiant et al. result in conflated or palimpsest assemblages. 1990).. . 1-2): (1) Slope angle and aspect influence the radiation balance. spanning the period 2800 to 1800 BP. Within this context. Although rates of deposition on alluvial fans in the Midwest have been linked to Holocene climate change associated with the Hypsithermal. 1965. Geomorphic processes led to dramatic changes in local ecosystems in distal fan locations. geomorphological analysis centers on landscape evolution (Waters. . 302-307). 119). 1992). which involves the sudden abandonment of part or a whole meander belt for a new lower base level (Allen.. 1973). pp. p. 1992. however. the character or attributes of associated landscape elements also change. The probabilities that a landscape element will serve as a stopping point on the landscape (a place) may shift dramatically through time as the surrounding landscape changes. with (4) channel avulsion occurring as the gradient between the distal fan lobe and the floodbasin increased and permanent crevasse channels formed. Vegetation succession also accompanied these geomorphic changes with a shift from a Fraxinus-dominated association to a mesophytic forest and. resulting in crevasse splays near the channel. are typically dynamic and. ranging from very large to very small features. Four phases of landform development. p. This sudden repositioning of the tributary stream resulted in changing landforms and vegetation succession that produced concomitant change in the probabilities of cultural deposition associated with landscape elements on the fan lobe. p. As landforms are changed by land-surface processes.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 77 As defined by Ruhe (1969. Quaternary landscapes. landscape elements are minimal spatial units with homogeneous geomorphic and topographic characteristics (Stafford and Hajic. Any one landform may contain many landscape elements of the same or different types. 5). 1992. and (3) development of crevasse channels across splay/levee deposits. 293): (1) establishment of a new channel resulting in overbank sheet floods and levee construction. therefore. and channel backfilling. 1992). Both landforms and landscapes can be viewed at various scales. These changes may be climatically induced or be a function of geomorphic dynamics associated with internal thresholds (Schumm. 1992. fans als0 exhibit an internal dynamic characterized by fanhead trenching. were identified (Stafford et aL. In this case a new distal fan lobe progrades a Mississippi river floodbasin. lateral channel migration. finally. a geomorphic landscape is the sum of various kinds of landforms. p. Geoarchaeological studies in the northern Sny Bottom of the Mississippi River valley found that channel avulsion. was common on distal portions of large low gradient fans produced by abrupt changes in gradient as tributary streams enter the valley trench. An example of such changes is seen on distal alluvial fans in the upper Mississippi River valley (Stafford et al. to prairie after channel avulsion (Stafford et aL. (2) local breaching of the natural levee. 140). 1981. Reconstructing the structure of paleolandscapes based on minimal homogeneous spatial units. see also Dunnell. The use of a place is a function not only of the land attributes of elements. and data recovery is oriented toward sampling variation in artifact density and function (Dunnell. Figure 2 illustrates estimated probabilities of cultural deposition based on densities of remains recovered and reconstructions of geomorphic surfaces (Stafford. and crevasse channels were established. therefore. but of their relationship to surrounding landscape elements containing specific resource patches that enhance or reduce the probability of place use. Widely scattered Early Woodland artifacts and features indicate sporadic use of places along the active channel and near crevasse channels over a 700-year period. 1983. 1983. Foley. 1992). Artifacts are assumed to be more or less continuously distributed over the landscape (Dunnell and Dancey. Such approaches have focused on regional patterns of landscape use (Dunnell and Dancey. 1992b). sites). if any. 1992.78 Stafford These small-scale landscape changes affected the probability of landscape element use. change the density of cultural remains through time. . Little. leads to a consideration of the entire landscape.e. THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD AND BURIED LANDSCAPE SURFACES The prior discussion strongly points to a distributional or nonsite approach to the archeological record. 272. 1992). p. Cultural deposition nearly ceased once the channel avulsed and the fan lobe was abandoned around 1800 BP. this location began to serve as a stopping point for short-term Early Woodland residential camps.. Knowledge of the distribution of elements among landforms that have the potential to serve as places provides a better understanding of the processes that generated the spatial patterning of cultural remains across landscapes. like landscape elements. 1975). Once a relatively well drained surface on the levee had emerged. Ebert. rather than simply those locations where place use is evident (i. 1992. cultural deposition takes place when a floodbasin and initial splay and proto-levee deposits were laid down by the new channel. discussion has centered primarily on its inappropriateness in surface contexts. Thomas. The previous example shows how small-scale landscape changes can affect place use and. Though the site concept is viewed as flawed in this approach. Landscape elements with similar attributes are distributed linearly along the distal fan lobe. Ebert. where artifacts rather than sites are viewed as the fundamental unit of observation. 1983. . 2.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 79 2700BP m l-m w . . . however. Further. 1992. p. Wood and Johnson.1 g ii1 0 E a. .. 35). Estimated probability of landscape element use during stages of landform development on a distal alluvial fan in the upper Mississippi River valley. 1984.g.i LU m Q. buried archaeological remains reflect sealed contexts and therefore surmount these shortcomings. 1992). artifacts in buried paleosols can and usually do reflect long-termaccumulations [several hundred to thousands of years (Birkeland. p.. Thorough treatment of its status and alternatives can be found elsewhere (e.. . . CHANNEL AVULSION Fig. Because of the rather long depositional hiatus or at least slow rates of alluviation necessary for soils to develop on land surfaces. Some may argue. 34)]. p..g. Dunnell. < 0 a Z z 1500BP 1. . Yet the buried archaeological record is generally subject to many of the same processes that affect the modem surface record (Durmell and Dancey. 1993. 1978) can easily result in local reworking of archaeological de- . 203. ..0 o._ 5 u. 0 . 0._ FLOODBASIN I NEWCHANNEL & LEVEE DEVELOPMENT L _t CREVASSE CHANNELS& UPPERLEVEE FORMATION . . . .. . among other ontological and epistemological problems. that although the surface archeological record may be accretional.0 l. Holiday et al. . bioturbation or other disturbance processes associated with soil development or general land surface processes (e. Dunnell. also Ferring. but they are not physically detectable by geological means. or investigations have taken place on old landscapes where there is thought to be little or no chance that buried remains exist (Teltser. Further. 1986. one is typically faced with forming analytical units that are composed of artifacts that span a significant interval. Many surfaces of varying duration or stability may be represented as a landform aggrades. Buried landscape surfaces on which artifacts of varying density may occur are not necessarily identifiable through physical characteristics of the geomorphic record.80 Stafford posits. greater numbers of artifacts will likely accumulate there. It is not surprising. Ultimately there are many more ephemeral surfaces within aggrading landforms that may have been suitable for human habitation. Ebert. depending on changing depositional rates (Ferring. it is critical to estimate landform depositional rates. therefore. 1992). Therefore. Occurrence of artifacts on the same geomorphic surface does not ensure close temporal association [though analysis may be able to ascertain depositional contemporaneity (see DunneU. then. 35)]. Ferring and Peter (1987. Despite higher artifact densities in a Late Archaic-Woodland stratum. the greater the probability that a location on that surface will repeatedly serve as a place. The more stable a surface. other discontinuities represented by lithological breaks may also reflect more temporary surfaces. 1992. 1986) show that controlling depositional rates can dramatically affect estimates of occupational intensity. 1992. depending on the timing of natural and cultural depositional events. Buried soils clearly represent formally stable surfaces. pp. Such disturbances cannot be ruled out even with more ephemeral surfaces where active sediment deposition is taking place. Ferring and Peter. Such . 1993). 166-170). 1987. To determine relative artifact densities associated with buried segments of a landscape. however. to find that high artifact densities are associated with buried soils. 1992. even the buried archaeological record. with some exceptions. Although archaeologists undertaking distributional studies have acknowledged the dynamic nature of landscapes (Camilli and Ebert. the nearly 10 times greater net sediment depositional rate in a later stratigraphic unit indicated that the rate of artifact deposition was in fact higher in the later prehistoric stratum. Density is dependent on depositional rates and preservation. p. Holliday. A goal of a subsurface-distributional approach should be to track artifact density and compositional differences across surfaces of different age on or in landforms. 358-359. is effectively an accretional record or palimpsest of repeated place use over time. pp. 1992. Artifacts occurring on different surfaces may actually be closer in time than those on the same surface. sampling of the subsurface record has not been incorporated. Essentially the arguments used to justify a distributional approach in the context of the modern surface record also apply to the subsurface. which are distinct from strata above or below.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 81 surfaces may be indirectly reflected in concentrations of cultural debris that can be traced laterally and conform generally to the known paleotopography of a landform. -:~- ~ .~ ' ~ " " ~ .. _ ~ . .. 514-515) has designated as the minimal subdivision of a lithostratigraphic unit in accordance with the standards of NACOSN (1983)] of artifacts that may vary in thickness or vertical discreetness (Ferring. . : .. these VE=6X EARLYWOODLAND . 3.. .. A slight depression in the artifact-generated surface reflects a filled-in channel. Figure 3 is a block diagram of this surface based on the midelevations of 10 cm levels that contained the highest debris density per unit volume (Stafford.. In one sense..~ I " r [ I I / CHANNEL Fig....__ " .. 91). owing to cultural deposition. . They exhibit physical characteristics.. . 1992a). : . .~ > .../ "_ SURFACE .~ ' . 1992). Paleotopographic surface of an Early Woodland occupation estimated from midelerations of levels with the highest debris density (SURFER). surfaces as much as zones or layers [which Stein (1990. At the Ambrose Flick site in the Upper Mississippi River Valley (Stafford. These are not... .. ~. Physical geomorphic evidence of this surface was only sporadically evident in the field. The artifact surface conforms to the expected paleotopographic surface associated with crevasse channels identified through geomorphological analysis in this portion of the study area.. ~. it was possible to reconstruct the paleotopography of an Early Woodland surface based on the vertical density of artifacts. p. strictly speaking. pp.. ~ . / /7-/ .. 1992b.~ . while a second open crevasse channel is marked by a sharp dip in the artifact surface... .. backhoe trenching) that might be used in subsurface investigations.g. the stage was set for regionally oriented geoarchaeological studies that could be used to sample systematically the subsurface archaeological record. Hassan. 1980.. SUBSURFACE ARCHAEOLOGY In the southeastern United States. as there is potentially a very . (3) lack of experience with or the cost of various techniques (e.82 Stafford artifact-bearing strata are distinguished by a mixture of clasts derived from different depositional agents (natural and cultural) (see Stein. 1978. 1979. most having been destroyed by fiver erosion. demonstrating the potential widespread occurrence of buried sites (Butzer. 19-24). most likely owing to the lack of correspondence between the scale of geological and that of archaeological studies (Linse.g. 1980. The advent of regional geomorphological studies of landscape evolution over the past decade has made efficient sampling of such buried artifact layers possible. 1985).g. and (4) the apparent assumption that there is a link between the presence of surface sites and the potential presence of subsurface remains. Until recently. depositional environments and age) in which to search. 1977... Styles. Anderson and Semken.. 1981a. Regional Geomorphological Studies Obtaining an understanding of a region's landscape history is a crucial first step in any discovery or sampling process. Collins. 1973. Butzer. As geomorphologists became more interested in Holocene-age deposits. Gladfelter. 1992). a better understanding of depositional environments was gained as geoarchaeology became integrated into subsurface investigations to a greater extent. pp. 1979. Struever and Holton. the early studies by Coe (1964) and Broyles (1966) demonstrated that extensive Archaic period occupations were buried in alluvial settings. Needham and Macklin. Yet another decade elapsed before Chapman's (1976) systematic subsurface investigations with a backhoe in the Little Tennessee River in eastern Tennessee. 1987). Stein. discovery of buried occupations has remained largely fortuitous (e. 1993) and (2) the widespread belief that buried occupations were rare. Chapman.g. 1977. 1993. In addition. There are several reasons for the lack of systematic investigations in alluvial valleys: (1) the existence of few regional geomorphological studies that identified appropriate contexts (e. Assumptions about buried site potential began to change as greater numbers of deeply buried and stratified sites were investigated in alluvial and coUuvial settings (e. the more finely divided a region (based on geomorphic criteria). 1992). Bettis and Hoyer. Their potential to contain buried remains can be assessed by determining the (1) age. 4) and others working in the Midwest United States have noted. 5-6). Because of the difficulty in detecting artifact-bearing zones and the large volume of sediment. Based on a three-dimensional reconstruction of depositional environments and landforms and a large suite of radiocarbon ages. p. defined as landforms and their underlying sedimentary sequences that have predictable age relationships (Bettis. 129). 1990). late. These units appear to have a widespread distribution in the Midwest (Bettis. mapping of surficial deposits is usually insufficient to provide an understanding of a region's geomorphology.. Specific LSA can be targeted as containing surfaces of specific age. 1981b. 1993). In the Central De Moines valley. Bettis (1992. 1990b) geomorphological investigations in the lower Illinois River valley resulted in stack-unit maps that portray archaeological site potential in the upper 10 m of valley fill. 1992). (2) thickness. and (3) depositional environments represented in LSA. 1992. In Iowa. 132-133. 1992. Stafford and Hajic. it is necessary to have three-dimensional reconstructions of valley structure based on subsurface data. Leigh. stratification of a region based on geomorphic criteria becomes essential. Benn et aL. To assess the potential for buried archaeological deposits.000. 1988. dissected uplands of west-central Illinois (VanNest. the Kansas River basin in the central Great Plains (Johnson and Logan. the Southern Plains (Ferring. the greater likelihood that these microstrata can be systematically searched (see Schiller et al. Bettis (1993) points out that elimination of channel and historic age deposits reduces the volume that needs to be searched by 68%. usually obtained from widespread coring. Hajic's (1987. 1992). Given this formidable volume. A trailer-mounted Giddings hydraulic soil probe has been widely used in the eastern United States to collect such geomorphological data. p. the Little Platte River in Missouri (Gardner and Donahue. 1990).Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 83 large volume of sediment that may require sampling (Bettis. Gladfelter. Bettis (1993) estimates that in the central Des Moines River valley in Iowa some 384. Landform-sediment assemblages (LSA). 1993. the Duck River in Tennessee . p. using a similar approach. the Upper Mississippi River (Hajic. and historic age Holocene lithostratigraphic units (members of the DeForest formation) that can guide sampling within drainages.000 m 3 of Holocene valley fill exists that would potentially require sampling. 140). form the matrix in which artifacts occur within a region (LSA may conform to other more formal geologic units like lithostratigraphic units). pp. Other similar regional geomorphological studies in the eastern United States include southwestern Kansas (Mandel. 1985). 1992. 1978. 1985. 1986) has identified early/middle. p. As Hajic (Hajic and Leigh. 1983. Lighffoot. 254. 330). Krakker et al. Regional Subsurface Sampling Designs Discussions of regional subsurface sampling strategies are limited almost exclusively to the discovery of sites at or near the modern land surface (McManamon. The first parameter is affected by both the sampling interval and pattern and the size and shape of sites. Nance and Ball.e. 1986. (1978) and Nance (1983).. in the context of general sampiing issues. then to be discovered sites must be first intersected. while estimation involves determining within certain probability limits parameters of the regional archaeological record. p. 459) demonstrate. recovery method. (1978) identify two additional factors that affect the discovery of archaeological materials--obtrusiveness and visibility. 1986. make the similar distinction between effective discovery and regionall parameter estimation. 1983. p. 459). Nance. Lightfoot. 1989. 1983).. 1990). Although mention of more deeply buried cultural deposits is limited (e. Nance and Ball. and the Haw River in North Carolina (Larsen and Schuldenrein. subsurface remains are generally unobtrusive given the recovery techniques at our disposal and the volume of sediment that may need to be searched. 1989. This set of conditions has led to generally pessimistic or at least contentious views on the use of shovel testing and related techniques in forested regions (cf. 1986). artifact density. Shott. p. the Savannah River in South Carolina (Brooks et al..84 Stafford (Brakenridge. 1986. 1984. . and spatial clustering (Krakker et al. Although obtrusiveness (the probability that remains can be detected with a specific technique) varies based on the activities carded out and the length of cultural deposition. p. McManamon.. 1989. p. the statistical likelihood of site discovery is based on the product of these two independent probabilities. 1984. Nance and Ball. These studies exemplify the approach necessary to design a regional subsurface sampling strategy. issues addressed in shovel testing in forested regions are relevant to this discussion. These studies have usually centered on regions with poor surface visibility where it is necessary to employ shovel tests or other similar techniques. Schiller et al. Detection (i. 1986). 458. recovery of artifacts) is a function of sample volume. and then detected. Wobst. Discovery probability entails the likelihood of encountering archaeological remains. 1983. Nance and Ball. If one takes a site-oriented approach.g. 1984). The buried archaeological record obviously has zero visibility in the context of conventional surface survey techniques. Schiffer et al.. As Nance and Ball (1986. 5-6) suggest that microstratification is crucial when archaeological remains are very clustered or rare: "That is. Chapman. and safety. Since buried remains are unobtrusive (and in that sense "rare").. 1986). 1976. the sampling of LSA. 1976. pp. The goal is to obtain a reliable statistical estimation of artifact densities at a regional scale (see Nance. Nance and Ball. Chapman.. Stein. and solid core probes have all been widely used to discover and investigate buried archaeological deposits (e. type of data yielded. Perhaps most importantly backhoe trenches can provide continuous exposures of and detailed relationships between geo- . Once a region has been geomorphicaUy stratified. If these microstrata are searched systematically. buried archaeological remains must still be detected within LSA.g. 1975.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 85 The landscape perspective taken here focuses on the artifact rather than the site as the fundamental unit of observation. rather than the question of site intersection and its attendant problems. the greater the likelihood that reliable statistical estimates will be forthcoming. 1989).g. 1985... test pits. Goodyear and Colquhoun. the study area is divided up." I argue that estimation should be linked to a geomorphic model of regional landscape evolution and. Each has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost. Gardner and Donahue. LSA or differential depositional environments within LSA (sub-LSA) are spatiotemporal geomorphic units which provide microstrata that can be systematically searched. on the basis of various criteria.credible parameter estimates may be possible. remains will be more difficult to detect. depth to which it is effective. 1987. single-stage sampling to obtain probabilistic parameter estimates are not likely to be effective. 1986. augering. Schiffer et al. therefore. These factors are mitigated only to the extent that sample volume is increased or the smallest artifact size recovered is decreased (cf. Kintigh. 1979. It is clear from discussions of site detection that as artifact density declines or artifact spatial clustering increases. The more sophisticated this stratification is. Brown. 1983). No one technique is equally suited for all situations. with some combination of approaches likely to produce the most useful results. 1988)--both of which depend on the specific techniques of artifact recovery. Trenching with a tractor-mounted backhoe (3-ft+ bucket) has been extensively adopted as a cost-efficient and preferred technique to investigate archaeological deposits within 2-3 m of the surface (e. into small units of space (microstrata) which have a high probability of containing certain site and artefact types. (1978. Subsurface Recovery Techniques Backhoe trenching. Turner and Klippel. especially in sandy or water saturated deposits. It is a technique with drawbacks. Although small diameter (ca. 1993). Goodyear and Colquhoun (1987) used photographs of trench walls as their basic method of documentation rather than entering trenches. In addition. wide or stepped trenches per OSHA standards) to reduced the chance of trench collapse. they did not provide an accurate stratigraphic record of the cultural debris present in silt-dominated late Holocene alluvium in the Ohio River floodplain. whereas LSA many extend to depths of 10 m or more (though track mounted hoes can reach to greater depths. 1989. 1991).86 Stafford logical units and cultural debris and features over large areas. Investigations in the Ohio River valley (Stafford and Cantin..g. backhoe trenching is less effective at tracking low-density archaeological deposits. The small fraction of the archaeological deposit destroyed by trenching is outweighed by the amount of information generated.. 1989). Furthermore. 1993. for example. Though many studies have successfully detected and traced high-density strata (e. Chapman. 1986. Artifacts were observed in both a buried A horizon and the underlying B horizon. 1976. Artifact strata can be effectively traced within LSA by troweling trench wails and marking cultural debris (see Turner et al. even when steps are taken (shoring. 1986). historic alluvium thickness may be 1-2 m or more on landforms proximate to the modern channel. however. they are not particu- . Combined with shallow water tables. Two cultural strata were consistently traced through extensive trenching and flagging of all artifacts observed in trench walls (Stafford and Cantin.6 ern) Oakfield probes can produce informative data on archaeological deposits (Stein. 1989). 1. Schuldenrein. 1982). inspection of trench walls for artifacts or other debris tends to be biased toward large items. Solid or augered cores have also been commonly used to investigate subsurface deposits (Hoffman. In the Ohio River valley. 1993) found that although backhoe trenches discovered buried remains. safety remains a concern). The actual sample of deposit observed in trench walls is a small fraction of its total volume. Of equal importance. cultural debris observed in trench walls may not provide an accurate record of the cultural stratification of a deposit. Stein. the thickness of the historic alluvium severely limits the ability of backhoe trenches to sample underlying LSA. Typically backhoeing is restricted to the upper 2-3 m of a deposit. thick units of historic alluvium (deposited in the last 100 years or so) and water table depths in alluvial valleys may restrict access to buried artifact strata. Anslinger. Subsequent hand excavation and screening of deposits revealed a far more complex archaeological record of stratified low-density occupations ranging in age from Late Archaic through Fort Ancient (Anslinger. Trenches can be notoriously unsafe. 1991. Turner and Klippel. given the small volume of sediment recovered by this technique. gives such hydraulic probes a distinct advantage over other subsurface techniques given the potential thickness of some LSA. Hand angering is. Increasingly magnetometer. Artz and Bettis (1993) were able to trace multiple artifact strata in a Midwest alluvial fan to depths of over 3 m using a 25-cm-diameter auger and screening sediments through 0. Howell (1993). wooded) which might not be accessible for trenching with backhoes. Augers or solid cores are less invasive than backhoe trenches.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 87 larly useful in tracing artifact-bearing strata (if the stratum can be distinguished only by its artifact content).. however. mesh screen at 10 cm intervals.to 8. let alone a region. Though of somewhat less value in evaluating some sediment and soil characteristics because they extract disturbed samples.. although anecdotal accounts of the discovery of subsurface remains exist (e. it is limited if macroartifacts are the focus. 1985). hand-operated augers of various types are capable of obtaining larger volumes of sediment to a considerable depth (3+ m) with extension bars..25-in. Clark (1992) directly addresses the use of geophysical prospecting in alluvium for features associated with bur- . 1991). Hydraulically driven truck or trailer mounted probes (e. and ground penetrating radar techniques have successfully detected features and concentrations of fired remains (e.g.g.g.g.9-cm) solid cores to substantial depths (15 + m) in largely silt-dominated sediments (e.g. Hajic. Styles. 1991. thus it may be feasible to investigate parcels on private land that might not otherwise be accessible. however. Again. The depth from which samples can be extracted. Bucket augers are perhaps more useful than screw or dutch-type augers in that they can extract a discrete sample' in small (10-cm) measurable intervals. Since bucket diameters range up to 25 cm (10-cm or 4-in buckets are probably most prevalent). Giddings) can extract larger-diameter (6.. but they allow access to areas (e. found a poor fit between sherd frequencies in samples from a 10 cm auger (sediment was not screened which may explain the discrepancy) compared to densities derived from lxl-m test pits.4. the likelihood that macroartifacts will be recovered is higher. Goodyear and Colquhoun (1987) were limited in the areal extent of their backhoe testing survey because of this factor. Stein. Stafford. 1987. since substantial numbers of the small-diameter cores are required to detect and trace artifact strata in any one landform. Geophysical techniques may be useful in some specific types of deep subsurface discovery. readily available (Schuldenrein. They are also safer and can easily extract samples from a greater depth than typical tractormounted backhoes. a labor-intensive endeavor. sherds with a magnetometer) associated with the modern surface (Wynn.. 1986. 1990). resistivity. or 10 cm). 1985). Not only are hand-operated augers (typically 4 in. because of their relative simplicity. Stein. however. 1993. Hajic. . 1975) deposits have produced only marginally acceptable samples of the deepest archaeological strata.) should be. Mechanized drill rigs may provide the only practical means of sampling deposits over 3-4 m in depth. Brown. 1993).).25 in.. depending on the local field conditions. size of the area to be investigated.1992. 43). 1989. such approaches cannot be used at this point to detect or trace artifact strata and. 1987. and (3) the size of the smallest artifact fraction recovered. In general. Giddings hydraulic probe. Dalan. Holocene LSA thickness in excess of 10 m is not unusual. however. Regardless. In regions like the lower Illinois River and the Ohio River valleys. and other techniques (Oak:field probes. (2) the volume of sediment searched. the focus has been on recovery of macroartifacts (>2 mm and. to name just two.g. thickness of deposits. Collins. the detection limits of minor features are within 1 m of the surface. 1979) or coUuvial (e. therefore.88 Stafford ied surfaces within landforms. much of the deeply buried archaeological record remains under sampled. therefore. and has proven. because of the restricted exposure at the base of the excavation block. Though various studies have used microartifacts to investigate site formation processes (Hull. A combination of approaches including backhoe trenching. p. 1992. and land use. 1993. regardless of the technique used to investigate subsurface archeological deposits beyond site-specific studies. Rosen. the likelihood that an artifact stratum will be detected varies with (1) the density and clustering of cultural remains. Effective Density and Microartifacts Typically. 1992. etc. Even large block excavations in alluvial (e. among other factors. p. In some cases geophysical techniques may also be useful in tracing buried geomorphic surfaces that may have been occupied (Brooks et al. useful. Backhoe trenching and shallow augering have usually not penetrated to the base of these deposits. Stein and Teltser. Madsen. 1989). >0.g. Given the large volume of sediment that potentially requires sampling in a region.. are useful in only special cases. Sampling of deeply buried deposits by whatever technique is problematical. bulk sampling of some type is crucial for reliably estimating artifact densities whatever the specific field technique used to retrieve or expose subsurface deposits. With a fluxgate gradiometer. As indicated above. little has been done [the exception is Nicholson's (1983) study in a surface survey context] to detect artifact strata in the subsurface since Fladmark's (1982. most often. recovery of macroartifacts (usually . though stronger features such as kilns can be detected to a depth of almost 3 m (Clark. 216) initial suggestion. bucket augering. Clark. 25-in. the effective density of remains is markedly increased.25 in. oxidized sediment. Rosen. bone. 1994.7%) of these debris categories is represented in the smaller two fractions (2-4 and 1-2 mm).and microartifacts from approximately 2-liter samples from two cores recovered from late Hoiocene alluvium in the Ohio River floodplain in southeastern Indiana. wood. 101-102) that allows a number of issues to be addressed: (1) quantitative measurement of the archaeological stratification in LSA. By using a collection technique that recovers microartifacts. Stein and Teltser.8% for nutshell (it should be noted that in debris categories like wood charcoal the abundant smaller fractions may result in part from splintering of larger pieces during processing). making it feasible to examine smaller volumes of sediment (Dunnell and Stein. when processed for microartifacts. provide a high-quality quantitative data set (Dunnell and Stein. The vast majority (97. screen. but to examine differences in the composition of these deposits. Screening of auger samples through 0. pp.25-in. is dependent on the smallest size fraction recovered. 1989. Stein and Teltser (1989)]. Figure 4 illustrates the frequency of macro. Stafford. The microartifact fraction contains a low of 55. 1993) appears sufficient to make reconstruction of the archaeological stratigraphy feasible with small volume samples. (2) tracking of artifact density within soil/stratigraphic units and between archaeological strata. 1989). cf. Much of what is even in the 4 mm fraction would not be recovered in 0. This bulk sampling method also recovers fragile remains and a wide range of debris categories. 1982. 1989. The density of artifacts in a volume of sediment. If these samples are any indication. . hardware cloth. Results suggest that a high quality data set is yielded when a complete range of artifact fractions or grain sizes are recovered using a bulk sampling technique [see also Fladmark (1982). Small-volume bucket auger samples (or bulk samples obtained by other means). 1993. Fladmark. and (4) assessment of the depositional context of artifacts and the integrity of artifact strata.0%) in the smallest sand-size fraction (1-2 mm). the quantities of remains recovered are adequate not only for the detection of buried archaeological deposits. with most (85. 37. (3) detection of compositional differences across strata. and nutshell are represented in the graph. It is readily apparent from studies conducted to date that the density of microartifacts can be very high compared to macroartifacts in small bulk samples (see Fladmark. including nutshell and wood charcoal. however. would not recover sufficient materials to document the archaeological deposits observed in these smaller fractions. p.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 89 >0.) is likely to require that a very large volume of sediment be processed. Debitage.1% for ceramics to a high of 94. though involving less labor and cost. The density of remains from these ephemeral occupations (Anslinger. ceramics. 1989. Shott. 1982). diameter) from a buried soil developed in late Holocene Ohio River alluvium. The volume of sediment screened in these units is approximately 200 times the volume of the auger samples. An upper 0. Bar graph of percentages of debris types in sample fractions combined from two cores. mm Fig. In all probability it is dependent on the geomorphic processes operating in a particular case.25 in.90 Stafford Ohio River Cores 1 & 2 Debris types by size fraction 100% . given that geomorphic processes may differentially affect microartifact and macroartifacts as a function of their sizes. Fladmark (1982) found a poor fit between micro. Stafford (1993) found a close correlation between macroand microartifact distributions (Figs. For example. there is some question whether microartifacts can reliably be used to trace the archaeological stratigraphy of LSA without an adequate sample of macroartifacts. However.and macroflake stratification in a sand-dominated aeolian depositional context. 4. In silt-dominated alluvial contexts. 5 and 6). Comparisons were made between macroartifacts (>0.0-m-thick unit (SUI) of historic alluvium is underlain by .25.) recovered in 2 x 2 m units at 10-cm intervals with 2-1iter samples collected by bucket auger (4-in. 80% -t60% 440% 4- Ceramic Bone Nutshell [] >4mm [ ] 2-4rnm[ ] 1-. This is not unexpected given the vertical displacement noted in similar deposits through refitting studies (Villa.to 1. Two soil/geomorphic units are represented on the floodplain ridge. 1982). 5. Includes late Hoiocene Stratigraphic Unit II sampies only. debris from 2x2-m Unit H. . Plots comparing stratigraphy of > 1-mm debris from bucket auger Core i and >0.Core 1 50 Ab Bw i 40 30 o o o Z 20 10 Depth (m) • Other Debris • Wood Unit H 600 Ab Bw 500 400 Z 300 200 100 0 Depth (m) • Ceramics & Lithics • / ~ 1 Debris Fig.25-in. . debris Fig. debris from 2x2-m Unit C. Plots comparing stratigraphy of > l-ram debris from bucket auger Core 2 and >0.s only. Includes late Holocene StratigraphJc Unit II sample.25-in. 6.Core 2 35 30 25 c~ 2O o o o z~5 10 Depth (cm) • Other Debris • Wood Unit C 600 500 400 z 300 200 100 D e p ~ (cm) • Ceramics & Lithics • ~. less sand and more clay nearer the surface) typical of overbank deposits. Low rates of deposition appear to have continued as soil development began. they may represent such readings.26 cm/year for the lower 3. 1993). Relatively high rates of deposition in SU II. e. The alluvial ridge is subparallel to the present river channel and was formed by down-valley progradation and overbank deposition from lateral channel migration. resulting in a cumlic A horizon.14 cm/year for the upper 0. the peak identified as f in Core 2 is not readily apparent in Unit C.25-in. Do the core-debris peaks not seen in the units represent "false readings" (as might be produced by background accumulations of wood charcoal as observed in overlying historic age alluvium)? This issue may be addressed by examining the differential composition of samples. Core 1 also shows more complex stratification than that represented by the macroartifacts in Unit H (Fig.. buried quickly by overbank deposition. There are several possible explanations for the more complex core stratigraphy. and other debris categories are present in the latter core (Cores 1 and 2 are 60 m apart). 6). Since peak f in Core 2 and peak d in Core 1 are composed chiefly of wood charcoal.. Clearly. These data suggest that archaeological remains were deposited on temporary geomorphic surfaces and.e. that peaks f in Cores 1 and 2 occur at approximately the same depth. the presence or absence of particular debris types and/or fraction sizes. subsequently. rather than exhibit a more complex stratigraphic record. They reflect (1) cultural deposition (and activities) not represented in the >0. The best stratigraphic fit is between Core 2 and excavation unit C as depicted in Fig. Peaks b and d are not present in the unit stratigraphy. fraction. Further. (2) small-scale lateral spatial variation in the deposit associated with either primary or secondary refuse disposal. and a scatter of fire-cracked rock was encountered in Unit H at this elevation. Radiocarbon ages obtained from prehistoric charcoal at various elevations in the lower unit allowed the calculation of sedimentation rates. I would have expected. and b and c are not distinguishable in the core samples (a possible result of pedoturbation in the A horizon). multiple cores distributed across a .g.75 m were estimated (Anslinger.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 93 a very thick silt loam unit of late Holocene Ohio River alluvium (SUII). that the core samples would be more likely to fail to detect artifact strata observed in the excavation units. given their small volume. 0. The upper 2 m of SU II from which the auger samples were obtained exhibits a fining upward sequence (seen in both the sand and the clay fractions-i. however. Some debris peaks are slightly offset. 5 (letters on the graphs identify corresponding peaks of debris).44 m and 0. or (3) the possibility that here the auger may have penetrated a pit feature that extends below an occupation surface. Weakly developed soils are present at the top of each unit. It is worth noting. microartifacts do not appear to have been differentially affected by geomorphic processes (e. and 1-2-mm fractions recovered from Cores 1 and 2.94 Stafford landform are required accurately to identify and trace buried artifact surfaces and fully address these questions (see Durmell and Stein.. Although the >4-ram grain size is rare. there is a good overall correlation among the three fractions by depth. . there is reason to believe that recovery of microartifacts in bulk samples can be used suecessfuUy to construct the archaeological stratigraphy contained within LSA (especially given the limitations of only inspecting backhoe trench walls as discussed before). systematically entrained during overbank events and removed from the archaeological deposit)..g. determining the age of artifact strata defined primarily by microartifact distributions may be accomplished by estimating the age of the geomorphic unit and/or soil in which the artifacts are contained (e. 7. In this low-energy depositional environment. In principle. 2-4. Figure 7 shows the three fractions from Cores 1 and 2. Although the circumstances will differ depending on the context of remains. Plot comparing stratigraphy of fractions >4.g. Another concern might be a lack of correspondence in the various fractious owing to vertical displacement through turbation of the smaller microfraction (1-2 ram). 1989). 120 100 80 Z 6o 40 20 0 Level • ~4mm 1 24 ~m • 1-2 mm Fig. in actual practice this may be a difficult task given that earth scientists many times rely on artifact content to date a unit or soil. extended counting radiocarbon assay or the accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) technique can be used routinely to obtain age estimates. is critical in making these arguments. including the charcoal fraction of the sample. Although diagnostic macroartifacts are unlikely to be recovered from small bulk samples. likely limit its general use as a means of determining the age of artifact strata. where specific botanical signatures for Archaic and Woodland age occupations have been shown to exist in the lower Illinois River valley. albeit in small quantities. An alternative wet-sieving procedure.2-mm mesh bags. Identification of the charcoal and restricting dating to specific types like nutshell (a relatively common constituent of botanical samples in the eastern United States) will. has been used effectively to process several hundred samples. Sampling regional distributions of buried remains will produce very large numbers of samples. Since bulk sampling for microartifacts can result in the systematic recovery of charcoal. As Butler and Stein (1988) and Dunnell. p. understanding the depositional context of the microartifacts. 1989). artifacts from the surface may provide bracketing dates or age limits for soil/geomorphic units expressed at the surface. however. for example. This is a time-consuming approach that is not likely to be feasible with large sample numbers (they processed only six in their study). weighed to the nearest gram. Another issue centers on efficiently processing small bulk samples for microartifacts. obtaining radiocarbon dates from fluvial deposits can be problematical. early Holocene). though less precise at this time than radiocarbon dating.g. suggested by Stafford (1993).. however. For the most part microartifacts are too small to be temporally diagnostic (Dunnell and Stein. provide an age coterminous with the depositional event. as demonstrated by Asch and Sidell (1988) with archeobotanical remains. and Readhead (1988) indicate. Age estimates may also encompass excessively long intervals (e. 1992). Certainly. Stein and Teltser (1989) use a procedure that follows conventional grain-size analysis. Bridging arguments are needed to link the sample and target events. The composition of bulk samples might be used in some circumstances. limit problems associated with dating old wood. Briefly. Dunnell and Readhead (1988.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 95 Bettis. Determining the relation between the sample event or event dated and the target event or the deposition of microartifacts is crucial (Dunnell and Readhead. p. 1988. with fine sediments subsequently removed by forced water. Functional determinants of sample composition. samples are transferred to nylon 0. 232). However. . 233) suggest that techniques like thermoluminescence dating of the sediments themselves. soaked in dispersant (sodium hexametaphosphate) for 4 hr. g. bucket auger. column samples from trench walls or from solid cores) is crucial for adequate sampling of subsurface deposits. microartifact recovery appears to be a way of increasing the density of remains. Its feasibility on a regional scale remains to be tested. 1993).g. Beyond providing an effective means of evaluating the context of buried deposits..g.. Stein and Teltser. then sieved through graduated geological screens. 32) and time consuming in the latter sediment-type samples. CONCLUSIONS Taking a landscape approach in a geomorphically dynamic region requires that the buried archaeological record be systematically evaluated. Also. 1989). and extent of LSA or more formal stratigraphic units provides the basis for stratifying the region to maximize the likelihood of effectively sampling the subsurface. Extraction of microartifacts enhances the likelihood that adequate numbers of remains will be recovered to document the archaeological stratification of a deposit.. Stafford et al. regardless of the technique used. p. thus allowing potentially smaller . Collection of bulk samples by whatever means (e. 1986. while loam to sandy loam samples may require subsampling of smaller fractions (see Fladmark. depending on the setting of a project. however. surface and buried archaeological deposits are more similar than one might assume. Those archaeological remains buried more than 3 to 4 m below the surface are the most difficult to sample. The distributional approach advocated here focuses on obtaining estimates of artifact density within an LSA of appropriate age. Reservations about the concept of site pertain to the subsurface as well as artifacts that are found in modern surface contexts. This approach has been suecessfully used in CRM projects where as many as several hundred samples were collected (e. Knowing the age. sand-sized coal inclusions can make nutshell and wood charcoal identification more time consuming (Stafford. Regional geomorphological studies are the required first step in designing an effective recovery strategy. Schick. 1993). Debris categories are counted with the aid of a hand lens or stereomicroscope. Distinguishing natural grains from lithic artifacts may also be difficult (e. A variety of subsurface recovery techniques is likely to be appropriate. The time required to scan and quantify a sample fraction is dependent on the frequency of large-size natural clasts in the sediment.96 Stafford Samples are dried. 1982. Density values are obtained by calculating the concentration of debris per 1000 g of sediment in the original sample. thickness.. that bulk sampling is an essential part of a subsurface recovery strategy. It seems clear. Silt loam samples are quickly analyzed because of the lack of very coarse sand-sized particles. C. the approaches used in landscape ecology. J.). A. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of colleagues kindly provided papers and manuscripts. and Basil Gomez for their comments on an early version. In Hastoff. A. Michael Shott. Springfield. D.. Southwest Missouri State University. which emphasize environmental heterogeneity. Patrice Teltser. E. A review of the origin and characteristics of recent alluvial sediments. and an anonymous reviewer greatly improved the finished product. (eds. Art Bettis. AI Goodyear. since landscape structure and change are fundamental determinants of land use. Technical Report 15. A. (ed. The complexity of the regional archaeological record may be better understood as such measures. In HoUiday. Archaeology and Geomorphology in Pools 17-18. including Mark Brooks. H. E. D. Anderson. R. W.. D.Geoarchaeoiogical Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 97 volume samples to be collected. Numerous discussions over the years with Ed Hajic have helped fashion the views presented in this paper.)..) (1980). (1965). Michael Schiller.. (1992). offer some useful applications in a holistic analysis of paleolandscapes. T. Plenum Press. R. New York. Dearborn County. J. (eds. Artz. Anslinger. Holocene geology as an aid in archaeological survey: An example from the Upper Mississippi Valley. Finally. This approach explicitly links geomorphological studies of landscape evolution with past ecosystem structure that may have affected prehistoric land use. Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains. and Patrice Teltser. Soil morphologic properties and weathering zone characteristics as age indicators in Holocene alluvium in the Upper Midwest. Archaeological plant remains: applications to stratigraphic analysis.. Bettinger. are incorporated into landscape analysis. Upper Mississippi River. Anthropology Laboratory. (1988)... III. Comments and revisions suggested by Bruce Gladfelter. Asch. like landscape elements. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. however. St. E. and Semken. R. 86-96. and Vogel. The Cherokee Excavations: Holocene Ecology and Human Adaptations in Northwestern Iowa. N. and Popper. A. Sedimentology 5:89-191. Academic Press. Indiana State University. Hunter-Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. Benn. Indiana. (1988). M. Efficient means of analysis need to be explored further. William Dancey. Bettis. V. Chicago. I would like to thank Barbara Stafford. and Asch Sidell. (1991). C. C. V. New York. University of Chicago Press. Bettis. III (1993). L. Soils in . Archaeological Investigations at BraOgsh: A Prehistoric Site in the Ohio River Valley.. L. Joe Artz. pp. Center for Archaeological Research Report No. Louis. LuAnn Wandsnider. 714. and Bettis. (1993). REFERENCES CITED Allen. Clark A. Early archaic site location and excavation in the Little Tennessee River Valley: Backhoe and trowels. (1977). Oxford. Brooks. pp. University of Tennessee. J. Monograph 27. Binford.). E. M. V. A. Quaternary Research 29:186-187. Plenum Press. Reports on Investigations 34. Butler. Ulinois State Museum. Camilli.. Brown. American Antiquity 45:4-20. 65-89. (1988). Brooks. D. L. Brown. Artifact reuse and recycling in continuous surface distributions and implications for interpreting land use patterns. Butzer. Collins. G. Department of Anthropology.. pp. Grant.) (1979). West Virgina. (1975). Journal of Field Archaeology 7:417-422. J. Binford. and Stein. Science 132:1617-24. Archeology and geology in ancient Egypt. (eds. In Rossignol. 43--49. E. and Gaiser.. J. (1986)... Stone. Tucson. A. IC W. Iowa Geological Survey. (1984). P. University of Kentucky. J. M. Tennessee: Implications regarding flood-plain origin. New York. Chatters and Karin Hoover. Geomorphology of the Lower Illinois Valley as a Spatial-Temporal Context for the Koster Archaic site. Lexington. Geoarchaeology 1:293-307. (1976). Southeastern Archaeological Conference. A. Space. and suggestions for sampiing l0 g m3. Cambridge University Press. Coe. o (1992). evaluation. Deep-site excavation strategy as a sampling problem. E. Bettis. J. K. L. K. South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology.. (1984). Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. J. B. Department of Anthropology. Comment on "Changing Late Holocene Flooding Frequencies on the Columbia River. W. pp.. A. Jefferson County. New York. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Time. Colquhoun. (1982). and Wandsnider. Buried site potential: Determination. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 54 (5). R. Kanawha County. Archaeogeophysical prospecting on alluvium. (eds. Iowa. The archaeology of place. Smithsonian Institution Press. pp. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 1:5-31. Birkeland. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Geoarchaeological research in the coastal plain portion of the Savannah river valley. J. The West l/'wginia Archaeologist 19:1--43. An update. Willow smoke and dogs' tails: hunter gatherer settlement systems and archaeological site formation. Sampling in Archaeology. L. (1982). Space. (1992). Plenum Press. Context in archaeology: An alternative perspective..). I. (1973). M. J. L.. A. E. G. 113-136. The formative culture of the Carolina piedmont. St. Alluvial Archaeology in Britain. Time. (1993). Chapman. Chang. J. (ed. K. In MueUer. J. (1960). The Icehouse Bottom Site 40MR23. and Ebert. (ed. M. 27--44. In Rossignol. (1993). Soils and Geomorphology. E.. and Macklin. IC B. Washington" by James C. 119-144. Butzer. Annual Review of Cultural Resource Investigations by the Savannah River Archaeological Research Program. and Archaeological Landscapes. Bulletin 19:80--90. University of Arizona Press. Late Wisconsinan and Holocene Landscape Evolution and Alluvial Stratigraphy in the Saylorville Lake Area. Bettis. Taylor. and Wandsnider.. S. Archaeological landscapes: the ethnoarchaeology of pastoral land use in the Grevena Province of Greece. . (1964). Chapman. and Hoyer. W. G. Brakenridge. Geological Society of America Bulletin 95:9-25. Upland wetlands investigations of Pleistocene-Holocene environmental changes on the SRS: 1993. L. IC W. Albans site (46KA27).98 Stafford Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation. J. (1980). (1966). B. Broyles. Oxford University Press. B. (1992). R. J. pp. pp. L. P. 155-169. L. University of South Carolina. J. Oxbow Books. (eds. Cambridge. R. Washington DC.. Report of Investigations No. and Archaeological Landscapes. r. Central Des Moines River Valley. In Needham.). Butzer. Preliminary report: The St. Butzer. C. Excavations at four archaic sites in the lower Ohio Valley. B. 1. and Steels. (1980). W. Alluvial stratigraphy and radiocarbon dating along the Duck River. E. (1986). Louis.). Open File Report 86-1. 13. New York.. Fiscal Year 1993. Kentucky. . (1986). Forman. The beginnings of landscape ecology in America. R. Albuquerque. Archaeological Geology of North America. Dunnell R. B. A. C. Center for the Study of Early Man.. R. Gladfelter. R. W. and Readhead.. C.. Smithsonian Institution Press. R. G.. (1985). Forman. and Gifford. South Carolina. Lime. Special Paper 283. In Rapp. R. (1987). (1992). M. pp. (I981a). Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives. (1983). In Rossignol. and Dancey W. Ferring. In Lasca. B. C. In Stein. L. Archaeological Geology. (eds. The relation of dating and chronology: Comments on Chatters and Hoover (1986) and Butler and Stein (1988). A~ (eds. R. South . T. pp. and Wandsnider. D. Ebert. Gardner. (1990). W.. 35-41. 73-79. New York. T. Jr. The notion site. In Rossignol. R. R. R. (eds. and Godron. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47:1-I8. In Zonneveld. J. and McBride. I. (1977). G. (1986). L. Space. 27-55. (1992). J. Rate of fluvial sedimentation: implications for archaeological variability. (1981). New York. (1981b). J.. Archaeological Sediments in Context. K. J.).). J. Geoarchaeology: The geomorphologist and archaeology. W. J. Plains Anthropologist 32:351-366. and Archaeological Landscapes. pp. 69-89. 227-255. and Peter. M. Dunnell. (1988). The value of soil survey for archaeology. Time. Microdebitage analysis-initial considerations.).). and de Weerd. M. J.. Dekker. 1:259-274. pp.. Dalan. (eds. 1. Oklahoma. I. (eds. D. Geological Society of America. M. R. L. (eds. A model of regional archaeological structure. C. DurmeU. E. Department of Geography. Plenum Press. Geoarchaeology 4:31-41. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. New York. Washington DC. K. pp.). New Haven. Vol. A. Space. Time. Journal of Archaeological Science 9:205-220. J. and Donahue. and Colquhoun.. Dunnell.. 253-266. (1973). Plenum Press. A. University of Illinois. 67-78.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 99 Crumley. R. E. (1992). (1985). University of New Mexico Press. In Stein. and Wandsnider. Theoretical issues in the interpretation of microartifacts. Chicago. and. and Donahue. R. (eds. John Wiley. New York. (ed. Geoderma 10:169-178.). C. Quaternary Research 30:232-233. G. Green. T. K. W. K. Geoarchaeology of the Dyer Site: A prehistoric occupation in the western Ouachitas. P. Alluvial pedology and geoarchaeological research. R. An Archaeological Backhoe Testing Survey of Selected Localities on the Broad River Floodplain Richland County. S. (1990). and Marquardt. The Little Platte Drainage. Ferring. (1992). 1-39. Developments and directions in geoarchaeology... H. T. D. Orono. Investigations at the Labras Lake site. pp. (1983). J. Geoarchaeology. N.). L. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:267-287. Springer-Verlag. London. and Stein. (1990). Talyor and Francis. C. DistributionalArchaeology. Goodyear. B. Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation.. Landscape: A unifying concept in regional analysis. (1982). V. Archaeological geology of the southern plains. B. A. G. pp. and Farrand. C. Ferring. pp. Geomorphology and Archaeology. Gladfelter. S. Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. R. Landscape Ecology. Remnant settlement patterns. C. W. and Zubrow. G.. The siteless survey: a regional scale data collection strategy. R. Dewar. Issues of scale in archaeogeophysieal research. and Forman. Missouri" A model for locating temporal surfaces in a fluvial environment. Yale University Press. Geological Society of America. pp. C. K. (1989). D. E. and Archaeological Landscapes. Centennial Special Volume 4. (eds. Peopling of the Americas. D. A. T. Institute for Quaternary Studies. In Holliclay. Volume III: Geomorphological observations in the vicinity of the site. C. American Antiquity 42:519-538.). L. University of Maine. Gladfelter. T. S. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4:343-364. Davidson. 21-41.. Foley. In Allen. K. J. Fladmark. (1987).). Ferring. Wiens. R. and Crist. (1990). 2938. M. St. New Haven. Hajic. Archaeological Method and Theory 1:139-203. Louis District. Archaeological Geology. E. F. A. Scott. and archaeology. Historic Properties Management Report 34. (1985). time. F. Special Paper 283. In Rapp. E. Illinois.). pp. Journal of Field Archaeology 5:197-213.. University of Illinois. J. W. E. Holliday. Geoarchaeology of the Kansas River Basin. Kvamme. Washington DC. L. (1992). Hoffman. Late Pleistocene and Holocene landscape evolution.. Geomorphie and stratigraphie investigations at Campbell Hollow. P. Close-interval core sampling: Tests of a method for predicting internal site structure. N. W. R. Ann Arbor. C. (1978). T. The Campbell Hollow Archaic Occupations: A Study of lntrasite Spatial Structure in the Lower lllinois Valley.. 4. W. R.. A. Centennial Special Volume 4. (1987). 101-117. Kampsville Archeological Center. J.). Landscape Ecology 7:63-75. D. J.. Kampsville Archaeological Center. R.. R. J. Morgan. Green. Hull. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:461--473.). (1990a). pp. Kintigh. Geoenvironmental Context for Archeological Sites in the Lower Illinois River Valley.). pp. B. R (eds. A. American Antiquity 52:772-783. Hassan. (eds. pp. Hajic. Shott. (1990). Howell. Center for American Archeology. Hajic.100 Stafford Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology. Koster Site Archeology I: Stratigraphy and Landscape Evolution. (1985). T. (1993). . and Cass Counties. In Stein. B. V. Geomorphology. C. E. and stratigraphy in the lower Illinois River Valley and adjacent central Mississippi River Valley. Journal of Field Archaeology 20:475--484. Ferring. Johnson. K. K. The scale of soil investigations in archaeology. Archaeological Geology of North America. and Leigh. Milne. American Antiquity 53:686-707. Evaluating the utility of auger testing as a predictor of subsurface artifact density. (1989). Hajic. Soil formation. Research Series No. Hassan. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Animal movements and population dynamics in heterogeneous landscapes. S. and Limited Cultural Resource Investigations of the Meredosia ~llage and Meredosia Lake Levee and Drainage Dist~cts.. J. Ph. Holliday. (ed. Talyor and Francis. P. 85-102. K. W. A. 356--363. K. C. Paleoenvironments and Contemporary archaeology: A geoarchaeological approach. S. (1990b). pp. D.. University of South Carolina. 53-81. and Logan. Illinois Archaeology 5:54--65. A. C. Central Great Plains. A. (1993). and Linse. V. Smithsonian Institution Press. R. In Lasca. Sorting out settlement in southeastern Ireland: Landscape archaeology and geographic information systems. L. Krakker. J. Hajic. V. O.. B. In Stafford. and Zubrow. Kampsville. Identification of cultural site formation processes through microdebitage analysis. M. Geological Society of America. Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives. Sediments in archaeology: Methods and implications for paleoenvironmental and cultural analysis. (1992). University Microfilms. Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. (eds. T. (eds. United States Army Corps of Engineers. depositional subsystems. G. St. Center for American Archaeology. R. Geomorphology of the northern American bottom as context for archaeology. Design and evaluation of shovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey. Shallow Subsurface Geology.D. Hajie.). Illinois. Jr. (eds. London. P. Geographic information systems in regional archaeological research and data management. (1988). Geological Society of America. pp.. V. Johnson. T. (1983). (1987). 267-299.. R. (1985). Journal of Field Archaeology 10:469-480. S. W. 17. In Allen. E. Kampsville. J. and Gifford. K.).. and Goldberg.. T. Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation. Louis District Cultural Resource Management Report No. S. In Holliday. and Waleh. (1993). (1993). and Donahue. Columbia. E. T. Illinois. dissertation. Research Series 8. E. The effectiveness of subsurface testing: A simulation approach. Yale University Press. R.. Green. Deciphering a Shell Midden. Soils and Holocene landscape evolution in central and southwestern Kansas: Implications for Archaeological research. (1992). S. Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application (Student Edition). T. R. (1989). G. A. Rossignol. American Antiquity 51:484-504. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7:223-292. Oxford. T. (1986). (1989). West Germany. A. pp. Regional surveys in the eastern United States: The strengths and weaknesses of implementing subsurface testing programs. Geomorphology. New York. Geological Society of America. . D.). A. In Holliday. A shot in the dark: Shott's comments on Nance and Ball. Lithic manufacturing at British camp: Evidence from size distributions and microartifaets. Early Woodland Occupations at the Ambrose Flick Site in the Sny Bottom of West-Central Illinois. American Antiquity 54:413-416. L. NACOSN (North American Commission on Stratigraphic Nomenclature) (1983). P. P. Landscape pattern and its effects on energy and nutrient distribution.. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:289-256. A comparative evaluation of four sampling techniques and of the reliability of microdebitage as a cultural indicator in regional surveys.). Geological Society of America. Academic Press. V. Needham. D. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. and Donahue. E. (1969). J. E. 2. R. Nicholson. American Antiquity 54:564--578. J. T. Ames. Madsen. Monograph 27. and Macklin. L. Lightfoot. and Forman. Mandel. F. Landscape Ecology. 41-100. (1992). No surprises: The reliability and validity of test pit sampiing. Karr. R. J. D. C. Landscape Ecology: Geomorphology.. Archaeological Geology of North America. M/dcontinental Journal of Archaeology 5:169-191. pp. l. Rohdenburg.) (1992). H. J. Risser. Soils in Archaeology: Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation. 21-57. S. J. In Stafford. Discovering sites unseen. Plains Anthropologist 28:273-282. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. American Antiquity 51:457-483 Nance. I. R. B. and Wandsnider. and Archaeological Landscapes." Directions and App. J. In Lasca. S. and Schuldenrein. K. Illinois. Naveh. (1979). In Stein. 161-181. Nance. roaches. Special Paper 283. (eds. Ruhe. (1983).Geoarchaeoiogical Perspectives on Paleolandscapes I01 Larsen. K. Catena Verlag. and Linse. Alluvial Archaeology in Britain. J. (1992).. G.. Oxbow Books. (eds. (eds. Nance. V. (ed. Non-site sampling in the lower Cumberland River valley.. (ed. (1990). B. 193-210. 43-56. Champaign. D. R. B. Smithsonian Institution Press. (1984). McManamon. N. Time. F. Z. M. New York. Cremlingen-Destedt. F. (1989). (1984). and Lieberman. Nance. Regional sampling in archaeological survey: The statistical perspective. Linse. 11-28. R. Iowa. T. P. A. T. (1993). Kentucky. QuaternaryLandscapes in Iowa. Space.. Springer-Verlag. A. Geoarchaeological scale and archaeological interpretation: Examples from the Central Jornada MogoUon. R. Risser. M. Centennial Special Volume 4. New York. Centerfor American Archeology. K. Kampsville Archeological Center. M. Springer-Verlag. North American stratigraphic code. Haw River. G. G. New York. J. D. and Ball. Iowa State University Press. J. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 67:841-875. In Stein. (1989). In Zonneveld.).). and Ball.. (1986). (eds. Leigh. Research Series 10. Ancient town and city sites: a view from the microscope. Rosen.). (1990).. Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives. pp. pp. and Forman. (1992). (1983). Washington DC. Depositional history of an archaeologically dated flood plain. (1990). A defense of shovel-test sampling: A reply to shott. Lightfoot. D. North Carolina.). C. pp. Plenum Press. pp. P. R. American Antiquity 54:405-412. (ed. J. (1994). New York. J. 299310. (ed. M. University of New Mexico Press. J. C. C. Geological Society of America. and Weaver. and Cantin. and Klinger. (1992). Sullivan. (1993). Bioscience 37:789-799. R. A. Stafford. D. H. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Archaeological Geology of North America. (1991). (1994). Stafford. and Wandsnider. R. Space.. P. Technical Report 17. New York. E. R. Schreiber.. R. 58-94. In M. (1978). B. Albuquerque. (1973). J. E. (eds. Morisawa (ed. The design of archaeological surveys. W. A. (1990). Stein. Stafford. (eds. Stafford.. (1992). In Rossignol. American Antiquity 56:131-137.). American Antiquity 59:219-237. In Rossignol. C. K. R. T. C. Schlanger. M. American Antiquity 51:505-527. New York. Louis. Plenum Press. Bailey. E. Stein.102 Stafford Schick. Deep Site Testing at the Proposed Brattish Marina.. and Cantin. Oxford. C. S. IC (1986).) (1992a). Center for American Archeology. (1992). Geomorphic thresholds and complex response of drainage systems. 513-523. A. Springer-Verlag.. L. Centennial Special Volume 4. R. Kampsville. Research Series 10. Illinois.). and Forman. Rittenhouse. Large herbivore foraging and ecological hierarchies. J. pp. M. Stafford. Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: Review and recent approaches.. L. In Stafford. West-CentralIndiana. I. S.). D. D. IC (1987). O. D. Plenum Press. Fluvial Geomorphology. S.. (1989). C. St. 91-112. pp. Early Woodland Occupations at the Ambrose Flick Site in the Sny Bottom of the Mississippi River Valley. J. New York.). J. and Donahue. Archeological stratigraphy and paleotopography. Archaeological stratigraphy. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. pp. M. The history of landscape ecology in Europe.. and Unwin.. and Wandsnider. T. D. Indiana State University. In Zonneveld. Shott. Schumm. Schuldenrein. (1987). (eds. R. John Wiley & Sons. Applying distributional archaeology to the subsurface: Some initial observations. C... Technical Report 7. Sala. Prehistoric settlement and landscape change on alluvial fans in the upper Mississippi River Valley. Research Series 10. T. In Lasca. C. Deposits for archaeologists. London. Indiana. Shovel-test sampling in archaeological survey: Comments on Nance and Ball. Space. S. R. C. (1989).). Allen. 137-161. Kampsville Archeological Center. C. Schumm.. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1:69-110. (1990). Landscape scale: Geoenvironmental approaches to prehistoric settlement strategies. (eds. Stafford. M. World Archaeology 10:1-28. J.. 21-33. R. M.. (1987). K. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:337-395. George. Time... P. Anthropology Laboratory. Time. . Geoarchaeology 7:287-314. Coring archaeological sites. Stafford. M. R.. (1992b). L. Early Woodland Occupations at the Ambrose Flick Site in the Shy Bottom of the Mississippi River Valley. Coring and the identity of cultural-resource environments: A comment on Stein. R. Stein. Dearborn County. and Lightfoot. M. B. Stafford. K. Geoarchaeological Investigations at Vermillion County Bridge 81. Schiller. L. Anslinger. American Antiquity 54:396--404. Coushenour. S.. L. (1993). N. pp. Kampsville Archeological Center. and Hajic. Senft. Center for American Archeology. and Swift. Indiana State University. Leigh. (1986). and Asch. (ed. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. M. C. (1987). pp.). British Archaeological Reports International Series 319. Kampsville. R. Recognizing persistent places in anasazi settlement systems. pp. Shott. Mosley. J. W. and Archaeological Landscapes. Illinois. Anthropology Laboratory. Experimental Fluvial Geomorphology. P. R. Stone Age Sites in the Making: Experiments in the Formation and Transformation of Archaeological Occurrences. and Archaeological Landscapes. Schiffer. Structural changes in archaic landscape use in the dissected uplands of Southwestern Indiana. B. M. Green. Geoarchaeology 4:43-6Z Urban. IC (1993). Foraging Theory. American Antiquity 56:138142. (ed. Turner. and Smith. geosciences. Stein. S. T. (1983). W. P. W. E. W. Landscape patterns. Hunter-gatherers in the Nashville basin: Archaeological and geological evidence for variability in prehistoric land use.. (eds. Napoleon Hollow and Koster Site stratigraphy: Implications for Holocene landscape evolution and studies of archaic period settlement patterns in the lower Illinois River Valley. (1975). R. G. S.. American Antiquity 47:276-290. and Styles. B.. Holocene and Late Pleistocene Geology of the Napoleon Hollow Site in the Lower lllinois Valley. Tucson. R. 1-10. W. 147-164. H. University of Arizona Press. Bulletin 120. and Brakenridge. Special Paper 283. I. St. (eds. P. Koster: Americans in search of their prehistoric past. Stein. W. Studium Genera&3:163181. Wiant. (1993). Warren. Journal of Field Archaeology 9:133-136. Principals of Geoarchaeology:A North American Perspective. (1989). pp... R. Effects of Scale on Archaeological and Geoscientific Perspectives. Really? Landscape Ecology 7:149-150. and SedeU. A. D. Winterhalder. (1989). J. J. and Holton. Wiens. IC M. Van Nest. L. 191-216.) (1981). M. Kampsville. (eds. J. 61-81. Smithsonian Institution.. Teltser. Stephens. (1980). (1982). C. Illinois. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. (1982).. disturbance. pp. T. Troll. J. and Linse. Environmental analysis in human evolution and adaptation research. Academic Press. Paper presented at the 58th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. V. R. . R. Franklin. D. Geological Society of America. Louis. D. Styles. Talyor and Francis. and Teltser. London. (1992). J. J. W. H. (1990). A. E. A. Die geographische Landschaft und ihre Erforschung. (1993). O'Neill.. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 20:171-197. T. Turner.. University of Arizona Press. Archaic Hunters and Gatherers in the American Midwest. and Klipple. Geoarchaeology 8:281-31!. Hajic. Kampsville Archeological Center. R. Technique to aid in recording and field interpretation of stratigraphic sections in archaeological deposits. What is landscape ecology. A. L... and Krebs. R. Tucson. B. (1991). Non-site Survey in the Cairo Lowland of Southeast Missouri. pp. pp.. Bioscience 37:119-127. G. Bureau of American Ethnology. J. D. (1938). In Stein. M.. Princeton University Press. M. Basin-plateau aboriginal sociopolitical groups. K. (1979). Landscape ecology. Winterhalder. and Brown. Thomas. Struever. J. E. (eds. Springer-Verlag. 201-215. Swanson. Nonsite sampling in archaeology: Up the creek without a site? In Mueller. Turner. A.. USA. New York. R. J. Scale in archaeology. Princeton. P.. Sampling in Archaeology. (1990). J. S. H. E. H. (eds. R. J. F.. In Phillips. J. L. S. Research Series 5. Human Ecology 8:135-155. Landscape ecology: The effect of pattern on process. pp.Geoarchaeological Perspectives on Paleolandscapes 103 Stein. and geoarchaeology. J. E.). and management in the Pacific Northwest. (1950). Size distributions of artifact classes: Combining macroand micro-fractions. and Forman. Jr... B.). K. Conjoinable pieces and site formation processes. Interpreting Space: GIS and Archaeology. Geoarchaeology of dissected loess uplands in western Illinois. J. R. Center for American Archeology. B. New Jersey. Geoarchaeology 4:1-30. University of Chicago Press. K. Villa.. Predictive modelling of archaeological site location: a case study in the Midwest.). (1989). New York. In Allen.. New York. T. (1986). Hunter-GathererForaging Strategies: Ethnographic and ArchaeologicalAnalyses. and Shugart.).). B. (1992). Waters. Hofman. In Zonneveld. F. (1987). Steward. (1985). Coring in CRM and archaeology: A reminder. Doubleday. J. Chicago. and Zubrow. F. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1:315-381. and Johnson. (eds. (1990).). (1990). L. Changing Landscapes: An Ecological Perspective. (1983). A. New York. Applications of high-resolution geophysical methods to archaeology. H.).. and Forman. pp. A. I. New York. and Keene. In Moore. M. Academic Press. Geological Society of America. R. Scope and concepts of landscape ecology as an emerging science. Centennial Special Volume 4. R. (1978).. D.104 Stafford Wobst. 603-617. . Archaeological Hammers and Theories. Archaeological Geology of North America. Zonneveld. (eds. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site formation. S. and Donahue.. S. In Zonneveld. C. pp. T. P. pp. We can't see the forest for the trees: Sampling and the shapes of archaeological distributions. Springer-Verlag. I. (eds. T. N. In Lasca. S. J. Wynn J. 3-19. J. W. Wood. 37-85.)..