Society for American Archaeology

Trampling the Archaeological Record: An Experimental Study

Author(s): Axel E. Nielsen
Reviewed work(s):
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 56, No. 3 (Jul., 1991), pp. 483-503
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/280897 .
Accessed: 23/10/2012 00:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.
http://www.jstor.org
TRAMPLING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD:
AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY
Axel E. Nielsen
This paper reports on several experiments carried out to explore the transformations of
the
archaeological
record
affected by trampling. These transformations include changes
in
artifact
distributions and
formal
alterations that
should be taken into account when carrying out studies
of activity areas. The experiments
were made on
dry,
hard-packed surfaces and in the same sediments
after
a rain. The materials used were bones, obsidian flakes,
sherds, and
fragments of
brick and wood. The
analysis focuses
on vertical displacement, horizontal displacement,
and damage (breakage, microflaking, and
abrasion), paying special attention to the response of
the trodden
substrate and its implications
for
the whole process. The interaction
of trampling
with other
formation processes
(e.g., maintenance)
also is considered. The main patterns observed in the trampled materials are vertical and
horizontal size sorting, and characteristic size distributions in sherds. These empirical generalizations
are then
integrated in a model that can help to identify trampled contexts and assess their
potentialfor
behavioral inference.
El presente art?culo describe varios experimentos realizados con el prop6sito de explorar las
transformaciones
producidas por pisoteo en el registro arqueologico. Tales transformaciones incluyen
cambios en la distribucion de
artefactos y alteraciones formales que deben tenerse en cuenta al realizar estudios de areas de actividad. Los
experimentos fueron efectuados
sobre
superficies muy compactas, secas y luego
de una lluvia. Se utilizaron huesos,
lascas de obsidiana, tiestos
y fragmentos
de ladrillo
y
madera. Los aspectos que
se analizan son desplazamiento
vertical, desplazamiento horizontal y danio
(fractura,
microlascado y abrasion), prestando especial atencion a la
respuesta del substrato pisoteado y sus implicancias para el proceso en su conjunto. Tambien se considera la
interaccion delpisoteo con otros procesos deformacion (p.e., mantenimiento). Los principales patrones observados
en los materialespisoteados incluyen ordenamiento
verticaly horizontalpor tamanio y distribuciones caracteristicas
en la dimensi6n de los tiestos. Estas generalizaciones empiricas son luego integradas en un modelo
que puede
contribuir a identificar contextos pisoteados, asi como a evaluar su potencial para establecer
inferencias
de cardcter
conductual.
Since Stockton's (1973) pioneering study, trampling by humans and animals has been recognized
as a major process by which archaeological materials and deposits are transformed in their formal
and spatial attributes (e.g., Schiffer 1983, 1987). Understanding the potential effects of this process
is a prerequisite for many behavioral inferences in situations where treadage is likely to have taken
place.
During the last two decades, for instance, many studies have attempted fine-grained reconstruc-
tions of the spatial organization of
living floors. Typically these
analyses identify discrete areas
devoted to limited
groups of activities like food processing and consumption, storage, trash disposal,
tool manufacture and maintenance, resting, etc. In order to make these kinds of inferences it is
necessary to know minimally: (a) the activities in which the artifacts were used; (b) the circumstances
that led to artifact deposition (whether they constitute primary, secondary, or de facto refuse); and
(c)
if there have been
changes
in their formal and spatial attributes after deposition. It is in the
context of this last problem that
trampling, along with other processes of disturbance have to be
taken into account. Intensive
trampling modifies the horizontal distribution of artifacts, it obscures
patterns existing
in their
original deposition, and
eventually introduces new trends in their spatial
arrangement. By producing vertical migration of materials it also can move artifacts across strati-
graphic units, and mix in the same deposits items
originating
in different occupations. When trodden,
artifacts
undergo several types of
damage, like
breakage, microchipping and abrasion. The resulting
traces sometimes mimic the
damage produced by use or
by other postdepositional processes, and
Axel E. Nielsen, Laboratory of Traditional Technology, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ 85721, and Cdtedra de Prehistoria y Arqueologia, Escuela de Historia, Universidad Nacional de
Cordoba, Argentina
American Antiquity, 56(3), 1991, pp. 483-503.
Copyright
? 1991 by the Society for American
Archaeology
483
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
therefore can
unwittingly
lead to erroneous functional interpretations. Since
trampling is a ubiq-
uitous process
on
occupation surfaces, its effects cannot be overlooked when
assessing
the
suitability
of
particular deposits
for
carrying
out spatial studies at the microscale (Clarke 1977).
Trampling
also can be considered a broad
category
of human activity
in itself, or a common
element of various activities. Some models
concerning the differential use of space can be charac-
terized in terms of
sharp
differences in the amount of human traffic. By inferring
the presence and
relative intensity
of
trampling
in different spatial units rough functional distinctions can be made
(e.g., storage
rooms vs. habitation
rooms; areas of domestic or restricted circulation vs. areas open
to
public
traffic [cf. Whittlesey
et al.
1982]).
A number of authors have taken into account possible alterations of deposits resulting
from
trampling
based on "reasonable
assumptions" of what its effects are likely to be
(e.g., Bradley and
Fulford 1980; Hughes and Lampert 1977; Rosen 1986, 1989).
In
addition, there have been several
attempts
to
explore trampling ethnoarchaeologically (De
Boer and Lathrap 1979; Gifford 1978;
Gifford and
Behrensmeyer 1977;
Wilk and Schiffer
1979)
and
experimentally
under different degrees
of control
(Behrensmeyer
et al. 1986; Courtin and Villa 1982; Flenniken and
Haggerty 1979; Gifford-
Gonzalez et al. 1985; Lindauer and Kisselburg 1981;Muckle 1985; Olsen and Kisselburg 19n and
Shipman 1988; Pintar
1987; Pryor 1988; Stockton 1973; Tringham et al. 1974; Villa and Courtin 1983). These studies
have focused primarily
on two issues: (1)
how human
trampling disturbs stratigraphic sequences
by producing
vertical
migration
of items, and
(2)
how
treadage generates patterns of damage (mainly
in lithics and
bone)
in order to differentiate them from
damage produced by use or
butchering
activities.
Although
several
generalizations
have
begun
to
emerge
as a result of this work, it is
surprising
that the results of different studies
vary widely
and are even
contradictory
in
many respects (compare,
for
example, Tringham
et al.
[1974]
and Flenniken and
Haggarty [1979] on
edge damage,
or Gifford-
Gonzalez et al.
[1985]
and Pintar
[1987]
on the relation between
size/weight
of artifacts and vertical
displacement). This situation indicates that these kinds of
experiments
will have to be repeated
many times for reliable generalizations to be drawn, and that considerable work is still needed
before we are able to
apply them to
archaeological inference.
The
present paper reports on six experiments designed
to examine some of the contradictory
results achieved by previous studies and to explore aspects of
trampling processes that have received
little attention in the literature. These include: (a) patterns of ceramic
breakage, (b) the influence of
the different
density
of various materials on displacement, and
(c)
the interaction between
trampling
and other formation processes.
MATERIALS AND PROCEDURES
The six
experiments
are labeled TR-I
through
TR-VI and were carried out in
backyards
and in
a
park
in the
city
of Tucson. A
summary description
of them is
presented
in Table 1. The next
three sections offer details about the
trampled substrate, the materials used, and the
design followed
in each case.
The Substrate
Except
for
TR-III, all
experiments
were
performed on dry, highly
consolidated surfaces with no
vegetation cover. TR-III was carried out on the same sediments but five hours after a heavy
rain
in order to assess the effects of trampling on a wet, softer substrate.
Two attributes of the substrate are considered to have the most influence on the way trampling
impacts the
archaeological record: texture and penetrability. A
grain-size analysis of the sediments
in the
trampled areas showed that according to their texture they could be classified as "muddy
gravels" (Folk 1980): 79 percent gravel, mostly
in the granule fraction; 10 percent sand; 11
percent
mud.
A
pocket penetrometer (Bradford 1986)
was used to measure the penetrability
of the substrate,
with limited success. This is a hand-operated, calibrated-spring tester that measures penetrability
in
kilograms per square centimeter necessary to stick its tip into the ground. This is the only technique
484
[Vol. 56, No.
3, 1991]
Table 1. Summary of Features of Each Experiment.
TR-I TR-II TR-III TR-IV TR-V TR-VI
Number of items 318 173 78 88 58 72
Materials used bones, lithics, sherds bones, lithics, sherds bones, lithics, sherds sherds sherds wood, brick,
sherds
Size of original
1 x 1 m 1 x I m 1 x 1 m .5
x .5 m .5 x .5 m 200 m of
path
concentration
Wet/dry dry dry
wet dry dry dry
Soil penetrabilitya 2.49 >4.5 1.63 >4.5 >4.5 >4.5
Number of cross- 1,500 800 800 100, 200, 300, 50, 100, 400 ?
ings 400, 800
Variables consid- vertical-movement, vertical and horizon- vertical and horizon- fracture fracture horizontal move-
ered damage
tal movement tal movement ment
a
Soil penetrability measured in kg/cm2.
;s m
m
0
-I
CD
n
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Table 2. Size Distribution of Pieces Used in
TR-I, TR-II,
and
TR-III.
Size Categorya
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total
TR-I
Bones 11 25 23 19 6 1 15 100
Sherds 25 30 26 19 6 1 0 107
Lithics 28 41 27 7 5 2 1 111
Total 64 96 76 45 17 4 16 318
TR-II
Bones 4 5 9 3 7 2 4 34
Sherds 2 12 1 3 11 14 9 12 73
Lithics 17 20 15 10 2 1 1 66
Total 23 37 37 24 23 12 17 173
TR-III
Bones 1 5 10 6 3 0 5 30
Sherds 0 7 7 1 3 2 2 22
Lithics 7 8 5 3 1 2 0 26
Total 8 20 22 10 7 4 7 78
a
C,7,t = l_, lr-
"
mm i - = '11 Am m = m. 4 = 4 l_
50 mm; 5 = 51-60 mm;
6
=
61-70
mm;
7 =
>70 mm.
for
measuring
the resistance to penetration of a surface, since others, like bulk density (Black 1965:
381), measure the compaction of the top layer as a whole. Its results, however, are not precise
enough to be taken as an absolute measure of penetrability but rather as a relative estimation for
broad comparisons. Each
locality
was tested over an area of 5 m2 (10 points per m2) immediately
before and after the experiments
in order to assess variations in
penetrability.
The means of these
measurements for each case are displayed
in Table 1 and discussed in detail below.
Materials
The materials used were obsidian flakes, coyote and sheep bones weathered 2-3 months (fragments
of mandible, diaphysis
and articular parts of
long bones, and vertebrae), fragments
of oak wood
and brick, and sherds from the
following
five
types
of
pottery: (a) High-tempered
slabs made of
commercial
clay (Westwood EM-207)
fired at 700?C for 30 minutes (thickness
7
mm); (b)
small
Mexican low-fired globular
vessel (12 cm
high,
wall thickness 4.3-5.6
mm); (c) large
Mexican low-
fired
globular
vessel (40 cm high,
wall thickness 4.8-7.4 mm); (d) biglobular (gourd-shaped)
Mexican
vessel (wall thickness 4.5-7.0 mm); (e) Italian high-fired flower pot (wall thickness 3.9-4.8 mm with
an increase to 6.2 mm in a 30-mm band
along
the
rim).
These
types
are presented
in order of
increasing hardness, determined mainly by
differences in
firing temperature, and therefore the
grades
A
through
E can be considered a
rough
ordinal measure
of the
strength
of the paste.
The Experiments
During
the experiments attention was paid
to three different aspects
of
trampling.
TR-I
through
TR-III focused on horizontal and vertical movement and
general damage
in artifacts. TR-IV and
TR-V were
designed
to examine patterns
of ceramic breakage,
and TR-VI focused on the influence
of material
density
and
object
"bulk"' on horizontal
migration. Accordingly,
three basic
designs
were followed.
TR-I, TR-II and TR-III. Before each experiment
all items were numbered and weighed,
and
their maximum
length
was recorded (Table 2). The flakes were
spray painted
to facilitate the
486
[Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
I- 31L C fLL,rt lll i. tal C I
I1-1-Ullllll,.L
- j
I-+killllll,-t
-
-t I
-
REPORTS
identification of damage.
All pieces were then
placed
in a 1 -x- 1 -m
square, mapped,
and
exposed
to
different amounts of trampling.
The areas were then excavated with
paint brushes, recording
the
location of every object
and noting the existence of abrasion, microflaking, or breakage.
To facilitate
the mapping process
in TR-II, instead of triangulating each item (as
in TR-I and TR-III), provenience
was recorded by 20-x-20-cm grid units.
The amount of trampling
was measured in terms of the number of crossings over the square
where the artifacts were placed. Each crossing represents two steps per square meter. Attention was
paid to enter the area evenly from all possible directions. All tramplers weighed
62-75
kg
and wore
tennis shoes. The number of crossings
was 1,500 for TR-I and 800 each for TR-II and TR-III.
TR-IVand TR-V. In the first case, a gourd-shaped pot (type D) was dropped from 1.5 m on a
cement floor. The resulting fragments
were measured (maximum length, width, curvature, and
weight), and classified in 1 -cm size categories by maximum length. Pieces smaller than 1 cm were
not considered, and those bigger
than 71 mm were lumped in
category "7." Sherds included in each
size category were spray painted with different colors. The assemblage was then laid out
randomly
in a 50-x-50-cm area, trampled 100 times (each crossing one step on the material), collected, and
measured again. The size distributions for
fragments belonging to each original
size category (iden-
tified by a distinct color) were recorded separately. The same procedure was repeated four times
(100, 200, 300, 400 crossings) and again after 400 crossings, for a total of 800
crossings.
TR-V followed the same general design using a flower pot (type E) and a very low-fired Mexican
vessel (type B). The size distributions of sherds were recorded after the initial fracture, and after
50, 100, and 400 crossings.
TR- VI.
Fragments of oak wood and ceramic brick of three different sizes (73.4 cm3, 17.6 cm3,
and 6.3 cm3) and 20 sherds were laid on a frequently used dirt path in a park in Tucson.
Objects
were scattered along the line of most intensive traffic and mapped. Changes in their horizontal
distribution were recorded after three and six
days.
RESULTS
In the following sections the results of the experiments are described and discussed
considering
separately four kinds of transformations that trampling can produce in the archaeological record:
changes
in the trampled substrate, in the vertical position of items, in their horizontal
distribution,
and various classes of damage.
Trampling/Substrate
Interaction
The measurements taken before the first experiment showed that soil penetrability is
extremely
variable, even within small areas (TR-I before: mean
=
2.49
kg/cm2, s.d.
=
.99, range
=
.75-4.5).
It was expected that trampling would increase the compaction of the soil, reducing its
penetrability.
However, the measurements taken after treadage demonstrated that the area was 14 percent more
penetrable (mean
=
2.14 kg/cm2) and 17 percent more homogeneous (s.d.
=
.83). The erosion
produced by the feet, enhanced by the presence of the artifacts as abrasive media, resulted in the
formation of a loose, more penetrable top layer. The excavation revealed that this top layer was 1-
2 cm thick and rested on an extremely compact and almost impenetrable level. All artifacts that
migrated downward were included in the loose layer; none of them penetrated the second one. The
same phenomenon was observed in the other experiments performed on dry soils, though it could
not be quantified because the surfaces initially
were so hard that they exceeded the range of the
penetrometer scale (maximum 4.5
kg/cm2).
To corroborate this point, observations were made on segments of
intensively used paths on
different
types of sediments (including dirt sidewalks and gardens
with
high humus content) on the
campus of the University of Arizona and across the city of Tucson. In all cases, a loose cover 4-
15 mm thick overlaid an extremely compact layer. In three cases the loose material was brushed
away
over 1 -x- 1 -m areas, exposing the hard surface. After one week of
treadage the loose cover had
begun
to develop again. Later, a heavy
rain compacted this material, but the same process of
loosening was again observed after three or four days.
487
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Table 3. Number of Items of Each Kind of Material Buried and
on the Surface in TR-I and TR-II.
Surface Subsurface Totala
TR-I
Bones 48 (51.6%) 45 (48.4%) 93
Sherds 75 (40.8%) 109 (59.2%) 184
Lithics 27 (21.9%) 96 (78%) 123
150 (37.5%) 250 (62.5%) 400
TR-II
Bones 22 (66.7%) 11
(33.3%)
33
Sherds 179 (83.6%) 35 (16.4%) 214
Lithics 36 (51.4%) 34 (48.6%) 70
237 (74.8%) 80 (25.2%) 317
a
The differences between the numbers of items recovered and those in the
original assemblages as described in Table 2 are due to the combined effects
of loss and
breakage.
The same phenomenon was recorded by Gifford-Gonzalez et al. (1985:808)
in their experiment
on loamy soil, and is familiar to ecologists (e.g., Liddle 1975; Weaver and Dale 1978) who conceive
trampling both as an erosive process that increases the depth of the paths and as a compacting
process that increases the bulk density of the soil near the surface. For a given trampling agent
there
exists a maximum stable compaction
value that is a function of the microstructure of the soil. The
loose cover is a more dynamic element that is likely to vary
in thickness depending
not only on the
soil, but also on the intensity of treadage, slope, and patterns of rainfall.
Trampling after rain (TR-III) had different effects. The muddy surface was initially very penetrable
(mean
=
1.63 kg/cm2; s.d.
=
.55), but doubled its compaction after treadage (mean
=
3.25 kg/cm2;
s.d.
=
.58). No loose layer developed, and very few artifacts were buried completely.
Most of them
were stuck in the soft substrate during the first few crossings, and remained in the same position
throughout
the experiment. At the end they
still were visible from the surface.
These various responses of the substrate are important for understanding many effects of
trampling.
They
will be referred to while discussing particular aspects in the following sections.
Vertical Displacement
This dimension of trampling processes has received the most attention because it has implications
for the interpretation of stratigraphic sequences and chronology.
Most of the studies have been
carried out on loose sandy soils, where artifacts from the same
original assemblage
have been
recovered in levels separated up to 16 cm (Stockton 1973).
In a more compact soil (loam) Gifford-
Gonzalez et al. (1985) recorded 3 cm as the maximum downward movement,
with 94
percent
of
the items found within the first centimeter.
Existing studies are contradictory regarding the presence of a correlation between the size, weight,
or
density of the artifacts and their vertical migration.
Villa and Courtin (1983:277)
worked with
different kinds of material and found no correlation between this variable and vertical
migration.
They only generalize that pieces lighter than 50 g may move, while heavier ones will tend to remain
near the level where they were placed. Gifford-Gonzalez et al. (1985:811) report that "none of the
attributes
indexing size or volume yielded a significant
correlation with depth below surface."
On the other hand, Pintar (1987) obtained a significant correlation value
(Spearman's
rank coef-
ficient
=
-.8) for size/vertical displacement, suggesting that smaller items tend to be more displaced
downward. A similar correlation is apparent
in Muckle's (1985:Table 16) trampling experiments
with shell on a loam substrate. In an ethnoarchaeological context, Gifford (1978:82) previously had
observed a tendency of smaller objects to be trapped in loose sand surfaces.
488 [Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
REPORTS
Table 4. TR-II: T Tests for
Length/Weight
and Vertical
Migration.
Surface Subsurface
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. t value p
All items
Length
34.6 13.5 23.5 9.4 3.99 .000
Weight
4.9 4.6 1.9 2.5 7.48 .000
Bones
Length
54.7 21.5 26.3 9.6 5.24 .000
Weight
3.9 3.6 .7 .5 4.02 .001
Sherds
Length
30.9 12.3 23.5 9.2 4.09 .000
Weight
5.2 4.4 3.0 3.2 3.50 .001
Lithics
Length
34.6 13.5 23.5 9.4 3.99 .000
Weight
4.3 6.1 1.1 1.3 3.05 .004
Note: All
lengths
are in millimeters and all
weights
are in
grams.
The maximum vertical
migration recorded
during the experiments here reported was 1.5 cm.I
Under
dry conditions, this
corresponds to the thickness of the loose top layer discussed in the
previous section. No artifact penetrated into the hard-packed bottom one. It follows from this that
(1) the proportion of buried items will
covary with the thickness of the loose top layer, and (2) size
sorting
will
occur, since only objects no thicker than the thickness of the top stratum can be buried.
In TR-I, which was carried out on a more permeable substrate (2.49 kg/cm2) and trampled 1,500
times, the top level averaged 1.5 cm and contained 62.5 percent of the artifacts. In TR-II
(>4.5
kg/cm2, 800
crossings), the loose layer did not exceed 1 cm and included only 25.2 percent of the
recovered
assemblage (Table 3).
Size
sorting is apparent when the proportions of buried and unburied pieces of each kind of
material are considered. Lithics, which included smaller (Table 2) and flatter items than sherds and
bones, were
consistently buried in
higher proportions. T tests
comparing two indicators of size-
length and
weight-for surface and subsurface sets from TR-II show that these differences are very
significant (Table 4).
No such
sorting occurred after
treadage on wet
ground. The proportions of surface/subsurface
artifacts seem to
vary randomly across material type (Table 5). Moreover, neither length nor weight
render
statistically significant differences between objects recovered in various levels (Table 6). No
loose cover is developed in this situation. The materials, rather, are pushed down by the feet and
stuck in the permeable substrate. If the surface is penetrable enough (ca.
2
kg/cm2 or less), no sorting
occurs.
Trampling under these conditions will tend to fix in their initial horizontal location
objects
of all sizes
except the
very large ones.
Eventually, once the soil dries and hardens, erosion will
develop the loose top layer releasing some of the artifacts, and
sorting
will start again.
These
contrasting observations call attention to the different mechanisms of vertical displacement
of artifacts
trampled on wet and
dry substrates. Under dry conditions the artifacts tend to act as
passive elements
(Pryor 1988) that are covered by the loose dirt scuffed onto them by treadage.
Since this loose top layer is
very thin, size becomes a critical factor for the materials to be covered.
Since in
hard-packed surfaces vertical displacement does not exceed 1.5-2 cm, no serious strati-
graphic disturbance or
archaeologically recognizable sorting by size will occur. These patterns of
vertical
migration, however, limit the impact of other forms of disturbance on parts of the assem-
blage, since burial will
drastically reduce the horizontal movement of the small items and will protect
them from
being removed
during maintenance.
489
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Table 5. Number of Items of Each Kind of Material Buried and
on the Surface in TR-III.
Surface Semiburied3 Subsurface Total
Bones 7
(25%)
13 (46%) 8
(29%)
28
Sherds 4
(17%)
17
(74%)
2 (8%) 23
Lithics 8
(31%)
16
(61%)
2
(8%)
26
Total 19
(25%)
46
(60%)
12 (15%) 77
a
Items that penetrated completely into the substrate but still were partially
visible from the surface.
From an
archaeological point of view two situations can be expected when dealing
with hard-
packed sediments as those analyzed
in the present study:
1. If the surface was buried after a period of dry trampling (as can be assumed, for instance, in
the case of roofed areas), the less-disturbed evidence will be found in a thin (20 mm at most), loose
level
overlaying a
hard, compact, and probably sterile one (unless previous occupations exist in the
site). Holding constant other factors, the artifacts recovered in that upper layer should be very small
and could be considered primary refuse.
2. If the last trampling period took place under wet
conditions,
items of all sizes will be found
embedded in a relatively hard layer.
The previous discussion also illustrates the complexity of the formation of "living floors." The
widely shared notion that intensively occupied surfaces are hard and highly compacted needs to be
treated with caution. For instance, if a period of "dry trampling" preceded the burial of the
surface,
once the excavation reaches the hard "occupation floor," quite probably the most relevant behavioral
evidence in the form of small remains and microartifacts already has been retrieved. Special tech-
niques,
like
microarchaeological analysis (Hassan 1978; Rosen 1986; Stein and Teltser 1989), should
be
employed to recover this information.
Horizontal Displacement
Only
two experimental studies have searched for patterns
in the horizontal
displacement
of
trampled artifacts. Villa and Courtin (1983:277) observed that "the most displaced pieces
are light
while the heavy pieces moved little" but "there is no obvious linear correlation between horizontal
displacement and
weight.
. .thus
weight
is not a
good predictor
of
displacement."
Pintar
(1987:16-
18) arrived at a similar conclusion, obtaining
an inverse but nonsignificant
correlation between
length and horizontal migration
of flakes.
Table 6. TR-IIl: T Tests for Length/Weight and Vertical
Migration.
Surface Subsurface
Mean s.d. Mean s.d. t value
p
Bones
Length
37.4 8.8 35.9 19.0 .21 .84
Weight
2.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 .98 .34
Sherds
Length
54.7 29.1 26.0 7.1 1.87 .14
Weight
21.6 21.7 1.2 1.2 .51 .15
Lithics
Length
29.( 14.9 27.5 16.3 .12 .92
Weight
4.8 11.2 1.5 1.9 .78 .46
490
[Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
REPORTS
Table 7. Mean Horizontal Migration of Materials in TR-II and
TR-III.
TR-II TR-III
Bone 78.1 cm (range 0-314) 52.7 cm (range 0-228)
Ceramics 41.0 cm (range 0-336) 11.9 cm (range 0-83)
Lithics 23.9 cm (range 0-126)
19.2 cm (range 0-122)
The results of TR-II and TR-III concur in
general
terms with those of Villa and Courtin and
Pintar. Although the correlations length/horizontal
movement and weight/horizontal
movement
are positive in all the cases, they are not at all significant (range
of r values
=
.0884-.5545).
TR-III
produced similar results. The only observed difference is that materials moved less than in the
experiments performed on dry surfaces because they were "trapped"
in the substrate from the
beginning of the process.
However, when the different materials are compared
in terms of their mean horizontal migration
some trends arise (Table 7). Bones moved more than lithics, whereas, at least in the
dry-trampling
case, ceramics had an intermediate response. Three factors could account for these results: density,
size, and shape.
Denser materials-like lithics-may have moved less because, holding
size constant, they weigh
more. It also could be argued
that although length
is not a predictor of horizontal
migration,
there
is still a weak positive correlation between both variables. Since bone assemblages
included more
large pieces than lithic and ceramic ones, differences in size still could be responsible
for the
differences in mean displacement.
Shape is a third variable that may be reflected in these
figures.
Three of the more
displaced
bones
were vertebrae which, by their very shape, are more likely to be kicked away
than flat elements like
sherds or flakes. In
fact, size and shape are better conceived as a single attribute, that can be referred
to as "bulk," which determines the probability of an
object being
kicked or scuffed by
human traffic.
TR-VI was designed to examine the relative influence of these variables on horizontal migration.
An
assemblage with equal numbers of prismatic fragments of oak wood (.59 g/cm3) and brick (1.84
g/cm3) distributed in three size categories
was used. The sizes were
"large" (.57
x .46 x .29 cm
=
73.4
cm3), "medium" (.45
x .28 x .14 cm
=
17.6 cm3), and "small" (.30
x .19 x .11 cm
=
6.3 cm3).
Each one included eight pieces of each material. Materials and sizes were chosen to maximize
contrasts in
density and bulk. Sixteen small sherds (2.6-4.6 cm3, maximum length
=
32 mm) were
included to facilitate comparisons with the assemblages used in previous cases. All
pieces were
scattered
along
a heavily used dirt path
in a
park
in Tucson. The mean displacement recorded after
three days is shown in Table 8.
As noticed
previously,
denser materials tend to move less when size and shape are held constant.
A t test run between wood and brick fragments
of all sizes indicates that the differences in horizontal
movement between both materials are significant (t
=
1.90; df
=
32; one-tail p
<
.05).
Table 8. TR-VI: Mean Horizontal Displacement of Items after
Three Days of Trampling.
Wood Brick
Large (N
=
8) 259 69
Medium (N
=
16) 129 47
Small (N= 16) 111 69
All sizes 158 59
s.d. 192 101
Note: All measurements in cm.
491
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
12
1 6
days
10- D 3
days
E
8-
Q)
0
6
E
:3
2
4.6 cm3 or less 6.3 cm3 17.6 cm3 73.4 cm3
Size
Figure 1. TR-VI: Number of pieces of various sizes cleaned up after three and six days.
Size, on the other hand, shows no statistically significant correlation with the amount of displace-
ment, whether wood and brick are considered together or separately. Sherds were not included in
the calculations because their mean movement was only
7 cm and therefore, they
would have skewed
the results.
There is another
way,
however, of
approaching
the relation between bulk and horizontal migration.
Wilk and Schiffer (1979:533), for instance, based on vacant-lot data, have observed that
"[l]arge
objects (ca. 50 cm3) do not stay for
long
on paths. They
are kicked or moved aside."
The results of TR-VI support this statement. After three days only one
large
piece
was found in
the path, whereas nine medium and 11 small ones were still in the line of most-intense traffic. It
follows that the relation between size and displacement
is better represented by
a model consisting
of a series of size thresholds that determine qualitative changes
in the response
of
objects,
rather
than
by
a linear model.
In other words, when trampled on unpenetrable surfaces (>2 kg/m2), objects
follow at least three
different patterns
of horizontal
migration according
to their size.
Very
small items
(<2 cm) are
trodden readily into the loose sediments that cover hard-packed substrates when
they
are exposed
to
trampling
erosion. As a result, they drastically
reduce their horizontal movement. Therefore,
if
other factors are held constant, very small items will be found close to their
original place
of
deposition.
Small and medium size objects (up to approximately 50 cm3) remain on the surface where
treadage
displaces them at random. Bigger and less dense items (e.g., bones) move
more,
but no sorting along
this variables is likely to arise. Any spatial pattern existing at the moment of their deposition will
be obscured
rapidly. Eventually, their random movement will place these objects outside the zone
of most intense traffic, where they will remain stationary if they are not transported by other processes.
If
trampling continues long enough these items will accumulate in these marginal zones that can be
sides of paths, corners, and sectors along
the walls in enclosed spaces, or around large objects
or
features like
storage vessels, benches, looms, etc. (a phenomenon that has been called "fringe effect"
[Wilk and Schiffer 1979:533]).
Large, bulky objects (>50 cm3) are kicked and scuffed rather than trodden and therefore will
move faster and more systematically to stable positions in the "marginal zone." Less dense elements
will tend to move farther, but again, a horizontal sorting by density is not
likely to occur.
TR-VI also serves to illustrate how maintenance, by acting selectively upon size, can modify
492
[Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
REPORTS
Table 9.
Breakage
Index
(bx)
for Nine Ceramic
Assemblages
After Different Amounts of
Trampling.
Number of Crossings
Cumulative
50 100 200 300 400 800 1,500 Index
Type
A TR-I 1.84 1.84
Type
A TR-II 3.46 3.46
Type
B TR-V 4.00 1.22 1.23 6.00
Type C TR-I 1.36 1.36
Type C TR-II 2.05 2.05
Type
D TR-II 2.89 2.89
Type D TR-III 1.45 1.45
Type D TR-IV 2.01 1.17 1.08 1.24 1.11 3.18
Type
E TR-V 1.71 1.10 1.34 2.53
trampling patterns. After three days, seven of the large pieces (both wood and brick)
had been
removed. Thremoved. Three days later fragments of all sizes had been cleaned up, but still the larger ones were
the most affected. On the other hand, none of the sherds (all of them smaller than 4.6 cm3)
were
missing (Figure 1).
In accordance with the McKellar Principle (Schiffer 1987:62), these observations
show that smaller items are left behind in
regularly maintained areas. From the point of view of
spatial analysis, they imply that maintenance eliminates part of the "noise" that trampling introduces
in depositional patterns, since bigger, probably more displaced objects, are more likely to be removed.
Damage
Different sorts of damage affect each material according to its physical properties. The present
section focuses on ceramics and lithics. Bones were only abraded and will not be considered here.
For a discussion of trampling marks on bone see Behrensmeyer et al. (1986) and Olsen and Shipman
(1988).
Ceramics. Sherds showed various abrasion traces (Schiffer and Skibo 1989), such as a slight
rounding of edges, and in few cases
microchipping and delamination, especially along the edges of
polished surfaces. But breakage is certainly the most obvious kind of damage.
To facilitate comparisons among assemblages, a breakage index (bx
=
number of fragments after
selected trampling episode divided by number of sherds before that episode) was calculated for each
type of
pottery
in each experiment. The results are displayed in Table 9.
The differences in
fragmentation for the same type
in different experiments indicates the critical
role of surface hardness in the process of fracture. The three assemblages trampled on relatively
penetrable soils (A and C TR-I, D TR-III) had a
breakage index lower than two, even though the
sherds of TR-I were
trampled twice as much; the rest of the
assemblages (that were trodden on
surfaces harder than 4.5 kg/cm2) exceeded this value.
Another trend reflected in these figures is the decreased fracture rate after the first few crossings,
showing
how the reduction in size increases the strength of the sherds (cf. Kirkby and Kirkby 1976:
237).2 Eventually a stable size where no further
breakage occurs would be reached. This value would
be a function of the microstructure of the paste, sherd thickness and curvature, and the nature
(weight and contact surface) of the
trampling agent.
It follows that after a few
crossings sherd size should be unimodal, distributed around a value
that, when
reached, would effect a significant increase in
breakage resistance. Untrampled assem-
blages,
on the other hand, would present a random distribution of sizes produced by the original
fracture of the vessels. Further trampling would result in a slow reduction of the modal value and
an
increasing positive skewness of the whole distribution. When the modal value reaches the smallest
size
category, the whole curve would approximate a Poisson distribution. If this proposition is
correct, it could be a useful device for recognizing archaeologically trampled assemblages and perhaps
even for
determining the relative amount of treadage that occurred.
493
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
50
*
TYPE C TR-I
N=28
40
-
TYPE A TR-I
N=80
30-
//
- - -,
\
TYPE TR-ii
.... / ....... \N=
..?'
"
"*<
- - - -
A-Y^ /v^^^<
...**** TYPE A TR-i
20-
//
/
/
^
^\
\
/ *%..:.===..= N=35
TYPE D TR-11
I0
|L-.---......X-.-..-
'
X
|
N=22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
,,~ , '
"
,. /-
..... - - --
size categories
Figure 2. Size distribution of six ceramic assemblages before trampling. Size categories are: 1
=
11-20 mm;
2 = 21-30 mm; 3 = 31-40 mm; 4 =
41-50 mm; 5 = 51-60 mm; 6 = 61-70 mm; 7 = 71 mm or more.
In order to test this hypothesis, the size frequency distributions for six ceramic assemblages before
and after trampling were calculated and put in graphic form. Figure 2 shows the random distribution
of size expected for untrampled assemblages, with frequent bimodality and large sherds consistently
represented in most cases. It should be noted that none of these curves reflects the distribution of
a "naturally broken" pot, the sherds of these six assemblages were chosen arbitrarily.
60 TYPE C TR-I
N=38
50 -
TYPE
A TR-1
10
^ \N=41
Zo
/t~~~~~~/
/ "
~\ \~
~TYPE
D TR-II
1 - ..\ ............ 2... 12
< \ = L < .
a,^--.^
l ^*-sr: TYPE D TR-lii
0 '
i l \i
"^***^^.f--7?'"r> \^ ^^-
N=33
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
size
categories size
caotegories
Figure
3. Size distribution of six ceramic assemblages after trampling. Size categories are: 1
=
11-20 mm;
2
=
21-30 mm; 3
=
31-40 mm;
4
=
41-50 mm; 5
=
51-60 mm;
6
=
61-70
mm;
7
=
71 mm or more.
494
[Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
REPORTS
50
0 cross
1 00 cross
40
---_-
.......
-,
*, ;;
. 200 cross
3..0
"- '"
^"\
300 cross
400 cross
20- -
800 cross
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
size
categories
Figure 4. TR-IV: Progressive reduction in size of one ceramic assemblage (type D) as a result of
trampling.
Size categories are: 1
=
11-20 mm;
2
=
21-30 mm; 3
=
31-40 mm;
4
=
41-50 mm; 5
=
51-60
mm;
6
=
61-70
mm; 7
=
71 mm or more.
After trampling (Figure 3) the least fractured
assemblages (Type
C TR-II bx
=
2.050; Type
D
TR-II bx
=
2.889; Type
D TR-III bx
=
1.454) show an unimodal curve with the mode in
category
3, while the most reduced ones approximate a Poisson distribution. The
"abnormally
skewed"
curves of types
A TR-I and C TR-I, considering
their
relatively
small
breakage
index (1.837
and
1.357), are explained readily by their
originally
skewed distribution which,
if
types B,
E
(TR-V)
and
D
(TR-IV) are assumed to be representative cases, are
very unlikely
to occur in
"naturally"
broken
pots. Furthermore, if the areas under
analyss
contain
secondary refuse, their
original
size distribution
will tend to be skewed negatively, provided that smaller objects are more
likely
to escape maintenance
activities and be left behind in
original activity
areas. This would provide
an even
stronger
contrast
between trampled and untrampled assemblages
in
secondary
refuse.
To determine how much
trampling
is
necessary
for the size distribution to
adopt
each
shape,
Figures
4-6 wre constructed. In these cases, the curves drawn as solid lines do reflect the size of
sherds produced by
the initial
breakage
of whole
pots.
In
TR-IV,
after
just
100
crossings only
one
sherd
larger
than 71 mm is left
(which
remains unbroken
throughout
the
process),
and the
general
curve
already
shows the characteristic
configuration. Changes
after this first
stage
are much more
gradual.
This
process
is even clearer for
type
B TR-V
(Figure 5)
in which no sherd exceeds 45 mm
in
length after 50
crossings.
As noted
previously, type
E was a
high-fired flower pot that had the hardest
paste among
the
vessels used.
Consequently, it experienced the slowest size reduction (Figure 6). Several fragments
corresponding
to the reinforced rim of the vessel remained relatively large.
Unlike
type B, which
was exposed to the same trampling conditions, the mode of the distribution for type
E did not reach
category
1
by
the end of the process.
The
response of this type suggests that particularly strong wares-beyond the range considered
in this
study-probably
will depart from the trends described thus far. Fragments of storage vessels
with
extremely thick walls or ceramics fired at exceptionally high temperatures can be so
strong
that the stress of human
trampling may not be enough to effect a significant amount of fracture.
The
preceding
observations can be summarized as follows:
1.
Holding constant other factors, it can be inferred that a sherd sample has been
trampled
if its
size distribution is found to be unimodal, with the mode lower than 30
mm, and with no
fragments
495
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 56, No. 3, 1991]
0 cross
50 cross
100 cross
400 cross
- - - -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
size
categories
Figure 5. TR-V:
Progressive reduction in size of one ceramic assemblage (type B) as a result of trampling.
Size categories are: 1
=
11-20 mm;
2
=
21-30 mm; 3
=
31-40 mm;
4
=
41-50 mm; 5
=
51-60 mm; 6
=
61-70
mm; 7
=
71 mm or more.
larger than 50 mm in
length or just very few
corresponding
to
especially strong parts of the vessels
(like the articulation of the body and the base).
2. If the
penetrability of the soil, the nature of the trampling agents, and the strength of the ceramic
material can be assumed
approximately constant across samples (i.e., they show a similar range of
internal variability), and no other cultural formation processes are acting upon this dimension of
0 cross
50 cross
100 cross
400 cross
- - - -
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
size
categories
Figure 6. TR-V: Progressive
reduction in size of one ceramic
assemblage (type E) as a result of
trampling.
Size
categories are: 1
=
11-20 mm;
2
=
21-30
mm;
3
=
31-40
mm;
4
=
41-50 mm;
5
=
51-60
mm;
6
=
61-70
mm; 7
=
71 mm or more.
496
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
40
30
20
10
REPORTS
40
0+100 cr.
-
k
0+300 cr.
~
/'
*\ -
0+800 cr.
10
-
0 'I
I I
I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
size
categories
Figure 7. Size distribution of three hypothetical assemblages combining trampled and untrampled sherds.
Size categories are: 1
=
11-20 mm; 2
=
21-30 mm; 3
=
31-40 mm; 4
=
41-50 mm; 5
=
51-60 mm; 6
=
61-70
mm; 7
=
71 mm or more.
the material, then the degree
of positive skewness of the distribution is a relative indicator of the
amount of
trampling undergone by
different assemblages.
Two objections could be raised against these generalizations. First, if
"freshly broken" assemblages
are mixed with
previously trampled ones, as may happen,
for instance, if a path crosses a
secondary
refuse area, would the patterns described above still be recognizable? Would it be possible to detect
the presence of both kinds of artifacts in the mixed
assemblage?
To answer these questions, the figures for some trampled and untrampled sets chosen at random
were combined in three ways (type
D TR-IV 0+100 crossings; type
A TR-II 0 +
type
D TR-IV 300
crossings;
and
type
D TR-II 0+type
D TR-IV 800 crossings) and the distributions represented
in
graphic form for the resulting "mixed assemblages" (Figure 7). As can be seen, the "trampling
patterns" still are perfectly visible. The
slightly "high" proportion of large pieces shown in the curve
as a solid line could serve as an indicator of the presence of the untrampled set, if these sherds do
not have special attributes that would give them higher breakage resistance.
Another process that could produce a similarly skewed size distribution in the assemblages is
maintenance (Schiffer 1987:64), since the biggest artifacts would be retrieved and discarded in
secondary
refuse areas. Two alternatives exist to distinguish both processes. First, after trampling,
a few
large fragments corresponding
to
stronger parts of the vessels that should not be present in
rdual primary refusesidual primarprobably will remain. Second, in trampled assemblages not subjected to
maintenance, one should find a consistent proportion of big pieces of other kinds of materials more
resistant to fracture (e.g., bone, lithics). It should be recalled, however, that these large items may
have migrated to the margins of the areas of most intense traffic (see section on horizontal displace-
ment
above).
A second possible objection stems from the fact that, if the size distribution for untrampled sherds
is random, it is possible-though improbable-that such distributions fall within the specifications
for
trampled material.
Type
C
(TR-I), represented by the solid line in
Figure 2, would be a case in
point. Although
it does not represent any "natural breakage,"
if such a distribution was found it
would be interpreted erroneously as a trampled assemblage.
To provide an additional control, it was postulated that there should be a correlation between
the mean size of the sherds and their size variability (as measured by the standard deviation of the
497
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
30
before
trampling
25-
A
A
25
A after
0
- trampling
._
20-
>
- 4 q)
10-
5-
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mean Size
(maximum length)
Figure 8. Size and size variability for eight ceramic assemblages before and after different amounts of
trampling.
Before
trampling,
r2
=
.2438;
after
trampling,
r2
=
.8576;
a
=
-3.2830;
and b
=
.4686.
set) through successive stages of reduction. Figure 8 displays a scatter plot for these two variables
in all the assemblages before (nine samples) and after different amounts of treadage (16 samples).
As predicted, the points representing the sets before reduction are dispersed through the diagram
(Pearson's
r
=
.4938), while those corresponding to trampled assemblages are aligned
in a regular
pattern (r
=
.9271) indicated by the regression line in the graph. The trajectory of individual
assemblages through increasing treadage show even higher correlations (r
=
.99 for types
D TR-IV
and B
TR-V). Certainly, the general validity of this pattern should be tested and, eventually,
readjusted using a larger sample. However, considering that the materials used were extremely
heterogenous, it is likely that the pattern will hold in any archaeological situation regardless
of the
internal variability of the ceramic material.
Therefore, a second procedure for differentiating trampled and untrampled samples can be pro-
visionally postulated. If a given
ceramic assemblage has been trampled, the mathematical expression
of the regression shown in
Figure 8
(y
=
bx +
a)
should predict its standard deviation from its
mean size. In other words, the expression S
=
.4686 X
-
3.283, where 5S
=
standard deviation of
length,
and X
=
mean length, should hold with a margin
of error of ? 1.19 (measurements
taken
in
mm), corresponding to the standard error of the regression line. The range of values predicted
Table 10. Predicted and Actual Standard Deviations of Length
for Nine Ceramic Assemblages Before Trampling.
Assemblage Mean (mm) Predicted S Actual S
A TR-I 29.59 9.39-11.77 12.28
A TR-II 41.63 15.03-17.41 18.79
B TR-V 42.29 15.34-17.72 25.60
C TR-I 33.86 11.39-13.77 9.08
C TR-II 54.00 20.83-23.21 13.76
D TR-II 59.33 23.33-25.71 23.85
D TR-III 41.36 14.91-17.29 18.58
D TR-IV 40.86 14.67-17.05 21.16
E TR-V 45.73 16.96-19.34 24.09
498
[Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
REPORTS
25 3 ass.
trampled
20 -
1 ass. trmp.
? + 1
untrmp.
C -
A
'>
A
o *....- . 3 ass.
qa
15
-
C) o ,,-- untrampled
^
-U
*e ---'""
o
-~0
5-^
-6^
0 0
0
i
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Mean Size
(maximum length)
Figure 9. Size and size variability for three hypothetical ceramic assemblages combining trampled and
untrampled sherds. The line represents the pattern obtained from the eight assemblages with various amounts
of trampling (small circles) (see Figure 8).
by this procedure and the actual ones for the standard deviation of the nine
assemblages
used in
this
study before trampling are displayed
in Table 10. Most values of S fall, as expected, out of the
predicted range for trampled assemblages, including C TR-I that could have been mistaken as
trampled following the size-distribution procedure. The only exception is D TR-II, that, in
any
event, can never be mistaken as trodden if its size distribution-35 percent of the sherds larger than
71 mm-is considered (Figure 2, long dashed line).
Finally, Figure 9 shows the ability of the size-variability procedure for detecting assemblages
containing various types of untrampled material and for classifying correctly other hypothetical
"mixed" samples. The line represents the pattern obtained on the basis of all trampled sets (small
circles). As expected, the solid circle (three trampled sets added) falls close to the line, within the
range of variability predicted for trodden materials. The combination of one trampled and one
untrampled assemblages (solid triangle) is situated out of this range, and three untrampled sets
together
fall even farther away from the line.
Consequently,
it is
suggested
that the application of both procedures, size distribution and size
variability, by using two different dimensions of the data, can discriminate with a high degree of
confidence between trampled and untrampled sherd samples, and even establish relative amounts
of
treadage (or activity) on the material if certain conditions are met.
Lithics. The three kinds of damage considered here (breakage, microflaking, and abrasion) were
observed on lithics. Table 11 shows the number of pieces representing the first two alterations in
Table 11. Number of Flakes Showing Breakage and
Microflaking.
TR-I TR-II TR-III
Broken 29 (24.8%) 17 (19.8%) 5 (19.0%)
Microflaked 31 (26.5%) 32 (37.2%) 6 (23.0%)
Broken and microflaked 11 (9.4%) 25 (29.7%) 2 (8.0%)
Undamaged 46 (39.3%) 12 (13.9%) 13 (50.0%)
Total 117 86 26
499
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
TR-I, TR-II,
and TR-III. As noted by Gifford-Gonzalez et al. (1985:813), breakage is more frequent
on harder surfaces (TR-II).
Artifacts in TR-II were more damaged
even though artifacts in TR-I
were trampled twice as much. Lithics trampled on a wet substrate (the most permeable) were the
least damaged. Abrasion was especially
severe on prominent parts of the flakes, such as percussion
bulbs and dorsal ridges.
There are considerable differences in the literature concerning the type of edge damage produced
by trampling. Working
with obsidian flakes, Tringham
et al. (1974:113),
who
performed
the first
experiment on this subject, established three criteria for differentiating trampling
from use
damage.
The scars are randomly distributed around the perimeter of the flakes; they
occur
only
on the surface
opposite to the trampler; and they lack fixed orientation or size, but are characterized
by
marked
elongation.
A later
experiment
carried out by Flenniken and
Haggerty (1979)
contradicts these criteria.
They
found that out of 157 flakes (37 percent)
that underwent
edge
modification
during treadage,
56
(13
percent) could be classified as "tools," and their
edges
were
remarkably
similar to used ones.
They
pointed to the absence of polish
as the
only
definitive indicator of trampling damage
as
opposed
to
use.
On the other hand,
Gifford-Gonzalez et al.'s
(1985)
and
Pryor's (1988)
studies
agree
with
Tringham
et al. concerning
the
sparseness
of the scars
along
the
edges,
but these scars were not
elongated
and
originated
on both surfaces of the artifacts.
The results of the experiments reported
here are in
general agreement with the conclusions of the
latter authors. Most pieces
show one to three isolated scars
randomly
distributed
along
the
edges,
regardless
of their
angle. They originate
on either surface and no distinctive shape
or size could be
identified, except
for a trend of
larger
scars to occur on
steeper edges. However,
six or seven
pieces
from the
dry-trampled assemblages depart
from this
general
trend.
They
show rows of continuous
parallel scars along one or more
edges
that could be mistaken
easily
for intentional retouch.
CONCLUSIONS
Several transformations that occur in
spatial
and formal attributes of materials
exposed
to tram-
pling
have been discussed separately
in
previous
sections. These observations are now
integrated
to outline sets of traces in the
archaeological
record that can
help
to
identify trampled
contexts. Of
course, the
applicability
of these
generalizations
is restricted to situations where the relevant con-
ditions are
comparable
to those considered in the
present study. Minimally,
these conditions are:
similar materials in terms of
size, density,
and fracture
properties,
and
trampling by
humans on
hard-packed
substrates (ca.
2
kg/m2 penetrability
or more when
dry).
A small amount of
trampling
will cause the
migration
of
bulky
items to the
margins
of the
trampled
area where
they
will
stay stationary
unless affected
by
other factors. Small and medium
size
objects
will move
randomly
within the traffic
zone, blurring previous patterns
in their horizontal
arrangement
that
might
have existed within the trampled area.
Only very
small items will remain
in their original
location by being "absorbed" in the
original
substrate. In other
words,
even
moderately
trampled
areas will be composed
of a
"marginal
zone" characterized
by
a
high proportion
of
bulky
artifacts,
and a "traffic zone" with small- and medium-size items
randomly
scattered and
very
small
ones buried close to their
original spot
of
deposition.
In this initial
stage
the sherds
already
will exhibit the
typical
relation between mean and standard
deviation of size and will
adopt
a size
frequency
distribution that resembles a
bell-shaped
curve or
a Poisson distribution, depending
on the
strength
of the
paste,
the thickness of the
sherds,
and their
curvature. Few lithics will break and
present
isolated and
randomly
distributed flake scars
along
their
edges.
A few
damaged edges may
mimic
retouching.
If
trampling
continues and the area is not
cleaned,
the
original pattern, preserved by
the small
pieces initially trapped
in the substrate,
will be obscured
increasingly by
the
"absorption"
of new
small pieces produced by
the fracture of objects after
having
been
displaced horizontally.
On the
other hand,
medium-size items that are
unlikely
to be
trapped
in the substrate will reach
gradually
stable positions
in the
"marginal
zone."
500 [Vol. 56, No. 3, 1991]
REPORTS
Thus, while
original "fine-grained"
horizontal
configurations
within the traffic zone will be no
longer recognizable,
the contrast between traffic and
marginal
zones will be
stronger.
The former
will be characterized by
a
high frequency of small artifacts and microartifacts randomly scattered,
low
proportion of medium-size items, and virtually
no
bulky
ones
(cf.
O'Connell
1987:95).
The
latter will have high frequencies
of artifacts in
large size categories
and
very
few in the small ones.
All of them will be displaced far from their
original
locations.
The substrate of the traffic zone will consist of a
top
loose
layer (5-20
mm
thick) containing many
small artifacts and microartifacts and an
extremely compacted,
sterile bottom
layer.
The latter
usually is identified during
excavation and can orient the application
of
microarchaeological tech-
niques to recover the former. Differences in
penetrability between traffic and marginal
zones also
can be
recognized
in the archaeological record (see Koike 1987).
In
addition, the whole assemblage should show severe damage--randomly scarred edges
and
abraded
ridges
in most flakes, and rounded, microchipped, and delaminated edges
in sherds. The
size
frequency distribution of sherds should be extremely skewed as well.
When
applying these generalizations to archaeological cases it should be kept in mind that every
deposit
is the result of multiple formation processes, including human activities and the action of
environmental factors. Sometimes the material effects of these processes overlap, this is, different
processes can produce similar traces. For instance, ethnoarchaeological
studies have demonstrated
that horizontal size
sorting
also can result from the
spatial organization
of activities themselves and
corresponding disposal
modes
(Binford 1978; O'Connell 1987), or
cleaning (DeBoer
and Lathrap
1979; Simms 1988). When
inferring trampling
in
archaeological cases, therefore, one should consider
as
many traces as
possible, as well as relevant independent data, in order to differentiate it from
other
processes that
may have acted upon the materials and generated similar patterns.
On the other
hand,
the interaction with other formation processes can modify the effects of
trampling
itself. For
example, as has
repeatedly been demonstrated, maintenance operates selectively
on
larger
items. If an
intensively trampled area is
frequently cleaned, clear depositional patterns are
likely
to be
preserved
in the distribution of small artifacts in the traffic zone. Bigger objects, therefore
more displaced,
will be cleaned up systematically and will not remain long enough to be randomly
displaced
and fractured in different
locations, contributing additional small artifacts that would
obscure
existing patterns reflected in this size fraction. On the other hand,
in
rarely maintained
areas the contrast between
marginal
and traffic zones will be
stronger, and damage
will be more
severe because artifacts will be
exposed longer
to
treadage.
Differences in environmental conditions, or in
exposure to such conditions, can effect variations
in these patterns as well.
Rain,
for instance, generates a muddy and very penetrable surface that
will
"trap" all artifacts regardless of their size. This will prevent the
objects from
moving horizontally
and will reduce
damage. However, once the surface dries and
treadage
erosion
generates the loose
cover
again, larger
items will be
released, start moving horizontally,
and be exposed to retrieval
during cleaning activities, while smaller ones will remain embedded in the top layer. If rains are
very frequent and
evenly distributed throughout the year, very little horizontal movement (and
postdepositional patterning)
will take
place
in unroofed
trampled areas. Even in
spaces regularly
cleaned, compact occupation floors will be found with artifacts of various sizes embedded and
damage
will be less severe. On the other
hand,
if the amount of rainfall is small and unevenly
distributed
during
the
year (as is often the case in semiarid environments), trampling patterns will
be much
clearer, more so if the surfaces were buried or abandoned after a long period of
"dry
treadage."
Future studies can define variations in the patterns discussed above when treadage occurs under
different conditions. This "basic"
understanding gained through experimentation, together with
relevant
ethnoarchaeological observations, can provide criteria applicable to the archaeological
identification of
trampling, and hence contribute to assess the potential of particular contexts for
various kinds of behavioral inference.
Acknowledgments.
The research
reported
on here has been
supported by
the
Laboratory
of Traditional
Technology, Department
of
Anthropology, University
of
Arizona,
Tucson. I want to express my gratitude to
501
AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
several persons that help me during the work. Michael Schiffer gave me access to the lab and made insightful
comments on drafts of the paper. William Walker, James Spicer, and Nieves Zedeniio lent their feet and shared
generously their time and ideas. James Skibo, Chuck Bollong, William Walker, and the editorial staff ofAmerican
Antiquity helped to make several points clearer in the text. I also benefited from the comments of Steven Simms,
Duncan Metcalfe, Harold Hietala, and an anonymous reviewer. Finally, I am indebted to the Fulbright Com-
mission for their support.
REFERENCES CITED
Behrensmeyer, A., K. Gordon, and G. Yanagi
1986 Trampling as a Cause of Bone Surface Damage and Pseudo-cutmarks. Nature 319:768-771.
Binford, L. R.
1978 Dimensional Analysis of Behavior and Site Structure: Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. Amer-
ican Antiquity 43:330-361.
Black, C. A. (editor)
1965 Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1:. Physical and Mineralogical Properties, Including Statistics of Mea-
surement and Sampling. American Society of Agronomy, Madison.
Bradford, J.
1986 Penetrability. In Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1.: Physical and Mineralogical Methods. 2nd ed., edited
by A. Klute, pp. 463-477. American Society of Agronomy,
Madison.
Bradley, R., and M. Fulford
1980 Sherd Size in the Analysis of Occupation Debris. Institute of Archaeology, University of London, Bulletin
17:85-94.
Clarke, D.
1977 Spatial Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Courtin, J., and P. Villa
1982 Une experience de pietinement. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 79:117-123.
De Boer, W., and D. Lathrap
1979 The Making and Breaking of Shipibo-Conibo Ceramics. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnog-
raphyfor Archaeology, edited by C. Kramer, pp. 103-138. Columbia University Press, New York.
Flenniken, J., and J. Haggerty
1979 Trampling as an Agency
in the Formation of Edge Damage: An Experiment in Lithic Technology.
Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13:208-214.
Folk, R.
1980 Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill, Austin.
Gifford, D.
1978 Ethnoarchaeological Observations of Natural Processes Affecting Cultural Materials. In Explorations
in Ethnoarchaeology,
edited by
R. Gould, pp.
77-101.
University
of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Gifford, D., and A. Behrensmeyer
1977 Observed Formation and Burial of a Recent Human Occupation
Site in
Kenya. Quaternary
Research
8:245-266.
Gifford-Gonzalez, D., D. Damrosch, J. Pryor,
and R. Thunen
1985 The Third Dimension in Site Structure: An
Experiment
in
Trampling
and Vertical Dispersal.
American
Antiquity 50:803-818.
Hassan, F.
1978 Sediments in Archaeology: Methods and Implications for Paleoenvironmental and Cultural Analysis.
Journal of
Field Archaeology
5:197-213.
Hughes, P., and R. Lampert
1977 Occupational
Disturbance and Types
of Archaeological Deposits.
Journal
of Archaeological
Science 4:
135-140.
Kirkby, A., and M. Kirkby
1976 Geomorphic Processes and the Surface Survey
of Archaeological
Sites in Semi-arid Areas. In-
Geoarchaeology,
edited by
D. Davison and M. Shackley, pp.
229-253. Duckworth,
London.
Koike, H.
1987 Measurement of Soil Hardness of Floor Surface for a Reconstruction of
Activity
Patterns in a Prehis-
toric Dwelling.
Asian Perspectives
XXVII:5-13.
Liddle, M.
1975 A Selective Review of the Ecological
Effects of Human Trampling
on Natural
Ecosystems. Biological
Conservation 7:17-36.
Lindauer, O., and J. Kisselburg
1981 Primary
and Secondary Breakage. Paper presented
at the 46th Annual
Meeting
of the
Society
for
American Archaeology,
San Diego.
502
[Vol. 56,
No.
3, 1991]
REPORTS
Muckle, R.
1985
Archaeological
Considerations of
Bivalve Shell
Taphonomy. Unpublished
Master's
thesis, Department
of Anthropology,
Simon Fraser
University,
Vancouver.
O'Connell, J. F.
1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its
Archaeological Implications.
American
Antiquity 52:74-108.
Olsen, S., and P. Shipman
1988 Surface Modification on Bone: Trampling Versus Butchery.
Journal
of Archaeological
Science 15:535-
553.
Pintar, E.
1987 Controles experimentales de desplazamientos y alteraciones de artefactos liticos en sedimentos arenosos:
Aplicaciones arqueol6gicas. Unpublished Tesis de Licenciatura, Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad
Nacional de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires.
Pryor, J.
1988 The Effects of Human Trample [sic]. Damage
on Lithics: A Consideration of Crucial Variables. Lithic
Technology
17:45-50.
Rosen, A.
1986 Cities
of Clay.
The
Geoarchaeology of Tells. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1989 Ancient Towns and City Sites: A View from the Microscope. American Antiquity 54:564-578.
Schiffer, M.
1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American
Antiquity 48:675-706.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Schiffer, M., and J. Skibo
1989 A Provisional Theory of Ceramic Abrasion. American Anthropologist 91:101-115.
Simms, S. R.
1988 The
Archaeological Structure of a Bedouin Camp. Journal of Archaeological Science 15:197-211.
Stein, J., and P. Teltser
1989 Size Distributions of Artifact Classes:
Combining Macro- and Micro-Fractions.
Geoarchaeology:
An
International Journal 4:1-39.
Stockton, E.
1973 Shaw's Creek Shelter: Human Displacement of Artifacts and Its Significance. Mankind 9:112-117.
Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman
1974
Experimentation
in the Formation of Edge Damage:
A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of
Field
Archaeology 1:171-196.
Villa, P., and J. Courtin
1983 The Interpretation of Stratified Sites: A View From Underground. Journal of Archaeological Science
10:267-281.
Weaver, T., and D. Dale
1978
Trampling Effects of Hikers, Motorcycles and Horses in Meadows and Forests. Journal of Applied
Ecology 15:451-457.
Whittlesey, S. M., E. J. Arnould, and W. E. Reynolds
1982
Archaeological Sediments: Discourse, Experiment, and Application. In Multidisciplinary Research at
Grasshopper Pueblo, Arizona, edited by W. A.
Longacre,
S. J. Holbrook, and M. W. Graves, pp. 28-35.
Anthropological Papers No. 40. University of Arizona, Tucson.
Wilk, R., and M. Schiffer
1979 The
Archaeology of Vacant Lots in Tucson, Arizona. American Antiquity 44:530-536.
NOTES
1
It was not considered
appropriate
to assess relative amounts of vertical displacement within such a small
range.
As a
consequence,
when
analyzing
its relation with artifact attributes in the
following discussion, vertical
displacement
is treated as a
categorical
variable
(surface, semiburied, subsurface).
2
The evolution of
type
D in TR-IV illustrates the influence of the development of the loose top layer previously
described on
fragmentation
rates. From the second round
on,
the
breakage
index declines
regularly throughout
the
process except
in the third round
(200-300 crossings)
when the value falls below the trend (bx
=
1.082,
as
compared
to 1.175 in the second round and 1.124 in the
fourth). During
this
experiment
each
trampling
round
was carried out on a different spot to eliminate variations in
breakage resulting from alterations in the penetrability
of the soil. The
only exception
was the third
round,
in which the artifacts were placed on the same spot as in
the second one. The more penetrable character of the
previously disturbed surface clearly was reflected in the
drop
of the
breakage
index.
Received
July 17, 1990; accepted March 5,
1991
503