Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5f95dd588d-t6lwk Total loading time: 0.496 Render date: 2021-10-28T22:15:13.299Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

John M. Steinberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles CA 90095, USA
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Are sites in lowland Europe destroyed when they are ploughed many times? In north Denmark, many Neolithic and Early Bronze Age sites are now reduced to just lithic scatters, but distinctive ‘site signatures’ persist. A lithic economic prehistory from the ploughsoil is possible and instructive.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1996

References

Abbott, D. 1985. Unbiased estimates of feature frequencies with computer simulation, American Archaeology 5: 411.Google Scholar
Ahler, S. 1986. The Knife River Flint Quarries: excavations at site 32DU508. Bismarck (ND): State Historical Society of North Dakota.Google Scholar
Ahler, S. 1989. Mass analysis of flaking debris: studying the forest rather than the tree, in Henry, D. & Odell, G. (ed.), Alternative approaches to lithic analysis: 85118. Washington (DC): American Anthropological Association. Google Scholar
Allen, M. J. 1991. Analysing the landscape: a geographical approach to archaeological problems, in Schofield (ed.): 3957.Google Scholar
Ammerman, A. J. 1981. Surveys and archaeological research, Annual Review of Anthropology 10: 6388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammerman, A. J. 1985. Plow-zone experiments in Calabria, Italy, Journal of Field Archaeology 12: 3340.Google Scholar
Aperlo, P. 1994. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Asch, D. 1975. On sample size problems and the uses of nonprobabilistic sampling, in Mueller (ed.): 170–91.Google Scholar
Bagge Johansen, M. 1987. Brcichiopodsfrom the Maastrichtian-Danian boundary sequence at Nye Klov, Jylland, Denmark. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Baker, C. 1978. The size effect: an explanation of variability in surface artifact assemblage content, American Antiquity 43: 734–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. & Schiffer, M.. 1975. Archaeological evidence for the size effect, in Baker, C. (ed.), Arkansas Eastman Archaeological Project: 117–22. Fayetteville (AS): Arkansas Archaeological Survey.Google Scholar
Bamforth, D. 1986. Technological efficiency and tool curation, American Antiquity 51: 3850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, G. 1975. To sieve or not to sieve, Antiquity 49: 61–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bech, J. H. et al. In press. The Thy Archaeological Project: preliminary report, Journal of Danish Archaeology 12.Google Scholar
Binford, L. 1982. The archaeology of place, Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1: 531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowers, P., Bonnichsen, R. & Hoch, D.. 1983. Flake dispersal experiments: noncultural transformations to the archaeological record, American Antiquity 48: 553–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. 1987. A field method for investigating the spatial structure of lithic scatters, in Brown & Edmonds (ed.): 3947.Google Scholar
Brown, A. G. & Edmonds, M. R. (ed.). 1987. Lithic analysis and later British prehistory: some problems and approaches. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 162.Google Scholar
Carr, C. 1982. Handbook on soil resistivity surveying: interpretation of data from earthen archaeological sites. Evanston (IL): Center for American Archaeology.Google Scholar
Cherry, J. 1984. Common sense in Mediterranean survey, Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 117–20.Google Scholar
Christenson, A. L. 1982. Maximizing clarity in economic terminology, American Antiquity 47: 419–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. H. & Schofield, A. J.. 1991. By experiment and calibration: an integrated approach to archaeology of the ploughsoil, in Schofield (ed.): 93105.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. L. 1977. Spatial archaeology. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, D. V. 1979. Excavation and volunteers: a cautionary tale, World Archaeology 77: 172–6.Google Scholar
Cotterell, B. & Kamminga, J.. 1979. The mechanics of flaking, in Hayden, B. (ed.), Lithic use-wear analysis: 97112. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cotterell, B. & Kamminga, J.. 1987. The formation of flakes, American Antiquity 52: 675708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, D. 1983. Old land surfaces and modern ploughsoil: implications of recent work at Maxey, Scottish Archaeological Review 2: 3144.Google Scholar
Crowther, D., French, C. & Pryor, F.. 1985. Approaching the Fens the flexible way, in Haselgrove et al. (ed.): 5976.Google Scholar
Dancey, W. S. 1981. Archaeological field methods: an introduction. Minneapolis (MN): Burgess.Google Scholar
Driskell, B. 1986. The chipped stone tool production/use cycle. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series 305.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1990. Artefact size and lateral displacement under tillage — comments on the Odell and Cowan experiment, American Antiquity 55: 292–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. 1992. The notion site, in Rossignol & Wandsnider (ed.): 2141.Google Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. & Dancey, W. S.. 1983. The siteless survey: a regional scale data collection strategy, Advances in archaeological method and theory 6: 267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunnell, R. C. & Simek, J. F.. 1995. Artifact size and plowzone processes, Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 305–19.Google Scholar
Earle, T. K. 1994. Studying prehistoric architecture in Danish prehistory. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Anthropological Association, Atlanta (GA).Google Scholar
Ebert, J. I. 1992. Distributional archaeology. Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
Heritage, English. 1995. Planning for the past 1. London: English Heritage.Google Scholar
Ensor, H. B. & Roemer, E.. 1989. Comments on Sullivan and Rozen's debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation, American Antiquity 54: 175–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethelberg, P. 1986. Early Bronze Age house at Hajgârd, southern Jutland, Journal of Danish Archaeology 5: 152–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ethelberg, P. 1991. Two more house groups with three-aisled long-houses from the Early Bronze Age at Hojgârd, south Jutland, Journal of Danish Archaeology 10: 136–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fischer, A., Gronnow, B., Jonsson, J. H., Nielsen, F. O. & Peteren, C.. 1979. Stenalder-eksperimenter in Lijere. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.Google Scholar
Fish, P. 1979. The interpretive potential of Mousterian debitage. Tempe (AZ): Arizona State University.Google Scholar
Fish, P. 1981. Beyond tools: Middle Paleolithic debitage analysis and cultural inference, Journal of Anthropological Research 37: 374–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flenniken, J. J. & Haggerty, J.. 1979. Trampling as an agency in the formation of edge damage: a experiment in lithic technology, Northwest Anthropological Research Notes 13: 208–14.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1981a. Off-site archaeology and human adaptation in eastern Africa. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S97.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1981b. Off-site archaeology: an alternative approach for the short-sited, in Hodder, I., Isaac, G. & Hammond, N. (ed.), Pattern of the past: 157–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 1981c. A model of regional archaeological structures, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 47: 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, S. 1987. Flint scatters and prehistoric settlement patterns in south Oxfordshire and east Berkshire, in Brown & Edmonds (ed.): 101–35.Google Scholar
Frink, D. S. 1984. Artifact behavior within the plowzone, Journal of Field Archaeology 11: 356–63.Google Scholar
Gaffney, C. Gaffney, V. & Tingle, M.. 1985. Settlement, economy of behaviour? Micro-regional land use models and the interpretation of surface artefact patterns, in Haselgrove et al. (ed.): 95107. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Gallant, T. W. 1986. ‘Background noise’ and site definition: a contribution to survey methodology, Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 403–18.Google Scholar
Gardiner, J. 1987. Rocks and risk, in Brown & Edmonds (od.): 7589.Google Scholar
Gingell, C. & Schadla-Hall., R. T. 1980. Excavations at Bishops Cannings Down, 1976, in Hinchliffe & Schadla-Hall (ed.): 109–13.Google Scholar
Haggett, P. 1965. Locational analysis in human geography. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hansen, P. V. & Madsen, B.. 1983. Flint axe manufacture in the Neolithic: experiments with grinding and polishing of thin-butted flint axes, Journal of Danish Archaeology 2: 4357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haselgrove, C. 1985. Inference from ploughsoil artefact samples, in Haselgrove et al. (ed.): 730.Google Scholar
Haselgrove, C. Millett, M. & Smith, I. (ed.). 1985a. Archaeology from the ploughsoil: studies in the collection and interpretation of field survey data. Sheffield: University of Sheffield.Google Scholar
Haselgrove, C. Millett, M. & Smith, I.. 1985b. Introduction, in Haselgrove et al. (ed.): 16.Google Scholar
Hinchliffe, J. & Schadla-Hall, R. T. (ed.). 1980. The past under the plough. London: Department of the Environment.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C. 1982. Plow zones and predictability: sesquinary context in New England prehistoric sites, North American Archaeologist 3: 287309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, J. 1991. Settlements of the Hamburgian and Federmesser cultures at Slotseng, south Jutland, Journal of Danish Archaeology 10: 719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J. & Schiffer, M.. 1975. The Cache River Archaeological Project: an experiment in contract archaeology, Arkansas Archaeological Survey, research series 8: 3753.Google Scholar
Hughes, P. J. & Lampert, R. J.. 1979. Occupational disturbance and types of archeological deposit, Journal of Archaeological Science 4: 135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintich, K. W. 1988. The effectiveness of subsurface testing: a simulation approach, American Antiquity 53: 687707.Google Scholar
Kish, L. 1967. Survey sampling. New York (NY): John Wiley.Google Scholar
Knoerl, J. J. 1976. Methodological approaches to site examination at Loder cornfield, in Weide, M. (ed.), 1–88 archeological project: 1975 summer season. Manuscript on file in the Public Arclraeology Facility at SUNY-Binghamton (NY). Google Scholar
Knoerl, J. & Versaggi, N.. 1984. Plow zone sites: research strategies and management policy, American Archaeology 4: 7680.Google Scholar
Kouwenhoven, J. & Terpstra, R.. 1979. Sorting action of tines and tine-like tools in the field, Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 24: 95113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krakker, J., Shott, M. & Welch, P.. 1983. Design and evaluation of shovel-test sampling in regional archaeological survey, Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 469–80.Google Scholar
Kristensen, I. K. 1989. Storgàrd IV, Journal of Danish Archaeology 8: 7287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristiansen, K. (ed.). 1985. Archaeological formation processes: the representativity of archaeological remains from Danish prehistory. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.Google Scholar
Lambrick, G. 1977. Archaeology and agriculture: a survey of modern cultivation methods and the problems of assessing plough damage to archaeological sites. London: Council for British Archaeology and Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit. Survey 4.Google Scholar
Lawson, A. J. 1980. Ploughing on archaeological sites in Norfolk: some observations, in Hinchliffe & Schadla-Hall (ed.): 74–7.Google Scholar
Lewarch, D. E. & O'Brien., M. J. 1981a. The expanding role of surface assemblages in archaeological research, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory A: 297–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewarch, D. E. & O'Brien., M. J. 1981b. Effects of short term tillage on aggregate provenience surface pattern, in O'Brien & Lewarch (ed.): 749.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, K. 1986. Regional surveys in the Eastern United States: the strengths and weaknesses of implementing subsurface programs, American Antiquity 51: 484504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, K. 1989. A defense of shovel-test sampling: a reply to Shott, American Antiquity 54: 413–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovis, W. 1976. Quarter sections and forests: an example of probability sampling in the northeastern woodlands, American Antiquity 41: 364–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mallouf, R. J. 1982. An analysis of plow-damaged chert artifacts: the Broken Creek cache (41HI86), Journal of Field Archaeology 9: 7998.Google Scholar
Mcmanamon, F. 1984. Discovering sites unseen. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 223–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, N. 1985. Sample bias, regional analysis and field walking in British archaeology, in Haselgrove et al. (ed.): 3947.Google Scholar
Mueller, J. (ed.). 1975. Samplingin archaeology. Tucson (AZ): University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Murray, P. 1980. Discard location: the ethnographic data, American Antiquity 45: 490502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. 1983. Regional sampling in archaeological survey: the statistical perspective, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6: 289356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, J. 1988. Reliability, validity and quantitative methods in archaeology, in Aldenderfer, M. (ed.), Quantitative research in archaeology: 244–93. Beverly Hills (CA): Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Nance, J. & Ball, B.. 1981. The influences of sampling unit size on statistical estimates in archaeological site sampling, in O'Brien & Lewarch (ed.): 5170.Google Scholar
Nartov, P. S. 1984. Movement of soil masses by the working of surfaces of spherical disks. New Delhi: Amerind Publishing.Google Scholar
Nielsen, L. E. 1993. Proveniensundersagelser af flint i Europeeisk archeologi: metoder og Muligheder-og Muligheder i Danmark. MA thesis, institut for Forhistorisk Arkœologi, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
O'Brien, M. & Lewarch, D. (ed.). 1981. Plowzone archaeology: contributions to theory and technique. Nashville (TN): Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
Odell, G. H. & Cowan, F.. 1987. Estimating tillage effects on artifact distributions, American Antiquity 52: 456–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, S. 1972. Partial recovery and sample bias: the results of some sieving experiments, in Higgs, E. (ed.), Papers in economic prehistory: 4964. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, P. V. 1993. Flint: fra Danmarks oldtid. Copenhagen: HøSt & Søn.Google Scholar
Plog, S. & Hegmon, M.. 1993. The sample size-richness relation: the relevance of research questions, sampling strategies and behavioral variation, American Antiquity 58: 489–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plog, S., Plog, F. & Wait, K.. 1978. Decision making in modern surveys, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 415–17. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Prentiss, W. & Romanski, E.. 1989. Experimental evaluation of Sullivan & Rozen's debitage typology, in Amick, D. & Mauldin, R. (ed.), Experiments in lithic technology: 8999. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series S328.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1985. Pattern recognition as a paradigm for data analysis, American Archaeology 5: 41–7.Google Scholar
Read, D. 1989. Statistical methods and reasoning in archaeological Research: a review of paraxis and promise, journal of Quantitative Anthropology 1: 578.Google Scholar
Redman, C. & Watson, P. J.. 1970. Systematic intensive surface collection, American Antiquity 35: 279–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, P. J. 1982. The ploughzone, in Festschrift zum 100 jährigen Bestehen der Abteilung für Vorgeschichte: 315-40. Nürnberg: Naturhistorische Gesellschaft.Google Scholar
Reynolds, P. J. & Schadla-Hall, R. T.. 1980. Measurement of plough damage and the effects of ploughing on archaeological material, in Hinchliffe & Schadla-Hall (ed.): 114-22.Google Scholar
Richards, J. 1985. Scouring the surface: approaches to the ploughzone in the Stonehenge environs. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 4: 2742.Google Scholar
Rick, J. W. 1976. Downslope movement and archaeological intrasite spatial analysis, American Antiquity 41:133-44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riordan, R. 1982. The controlled surface collection of a multicomponent site in Southwestern Ohio: a replication experiment, Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 7: 4559.Google Scholar
Roper, D. 1976. Lateral displacement of artifacts due to plowing, American Antiquity 41:372–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossignol, J. & Wandsnider, L. (ed.). 1992. Space, time and archaeological landscapes. New York (NY): Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., Sullivan, A. P. & Klinger, T. C.. 1978. The design of archaeological surveys, World Archaeology 10: 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schofield, A. J. (ed.). 1991a. Interpreting artefact scatters: contributions to ploughzone archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Schofield, A. J. 1991b. Interpreting artefact scatters: an introduction, in Schofield (ed.): 38.Google Scholar
Shennan, S. J. 1985. Experiments in the collection and analysis of archaeological survey data: the East Hampshire Survey. Sheffield: Sheffield University Press.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 1989. Shovel-test sampling in archaeological survey: comments on Nance SE Ball, and Lightfoot, American Antiquity 54: 369404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. 1992. Commerce or service: models of practice in archaeology, in Wandsnider, L. (ed.), Quandaries and quests: visions of archaeology's future: 924. Carbondale (IL): Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Shott, M. 1994. Size and form in the analysis of flake debris: review and recent approaches, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory I: 69110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shott, M. 1995. Reliability of archaeological records on cultivated surfaces: a Michigan case study, Journal of Field Archaeology 22: 475–90.Google Scholar
Stahle, D. & Dunn, J.. 1982. An analysis and application of the size distribution of waste flakes from the manufacture of bifacial stone tools, World Archaeology 14: 8497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockton, E. D. 1973. Shaw's Creek Shelter: human displacement of artifacts and its significance, Mankind 9:112-17.Google Scholar
Sullivan, A. & Rozen, K.. 1985. Debitage analysis and archaeological interpretation, American Antiquity 50: 755–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sydoriak, K. 1985. Pattern recognition at the intra-site level using trend surface analysis, American Archaeology 5: 5963.Google Scholar
Talmage, V. & Chester, O.. 1977. The importance of small surface, and disturbed sites as a sources of significant archaeological data. Washington (DC): Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, National Park Service.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H. 1975. Nonsite sampling in archaeology: up a creek without a site?, in Mueller (ed.): 62–3.Google Scholar
Tringham, R., Cooper, G., Odell, G., Voytek, B. & Whitman, A.. 1974. Experimentation in the formation of edge damage: a new approach to lithic analysis, Journal of Field Archaeology 1: 171–96.Google Scholar
Trubowitz, N. 1978. The persistence of settlement pattern in a cultivated field, in Engelbrecht, W. & Grayson, D. (ed.), Essays in Northeastern anthropology in memory of Marian E. White: 4166. Rhindge (NH): Department of Anthropology, Franklin Pierce College. Occasional publications in Northeastern Anthropology 5.Google Scholar
Wandsnider, L. & Camilli, E.. 1992. The character of surface archaeological deposits and its influence on survey accuracy. Journal of Field Archaeology 19: 169–88.Google Scholar
Warren, R. E. 1982. Prehistoric settlement patterns, in O'Brien, M. & Lewarch, D. (ed.), The Cannon River Human Ecology Project: an archaeological study of cultural adaptations in the Southern Prairie Peninsula: 337–68. New York (NY): Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, M. 1983. We can't see the forest for the trees: sampling and the shapes of archaeological distributions, in Moore, J. & Keene, A. (ed.), Archaeological hammers and theories: 3785. New York (NY): Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, R. & Johnson, D.. 1978. A survey of disturbance processes in archaeological site formation, Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 1: 315–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodward, P. J. 1978. A problem oriented approach to the recovery of knapped flint debris: a fieldwalking strategy for answering questions posed by site distributions and excavation, in Cherry, J., Gamble, C. & Shennan, S. (ed.), Sampling in contemporary British archaeology: 121–7. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. British series 50.Google Scholar
Yellen, J. E. 1977. Archaeological approaches to the present: models for reconstructing the past. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Yourston, R. M. 1990. Comment on estimating tillage effects on artifact distributions, American Antiquity 55:549-98.Google Scholar
Zvelebil, M., Green, S. & Macklin, M.. 1992. Archaeological landscapes, lithic scatters and human behavior, in Rossignol & Wandsnider (ed.): 193226.Google Scholar
You have Access
19
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Ploughzone sampling in Denmark: isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *