On the Definition of Geoarchaeology

Elizabeth K. Leach Metropolitan State University, 700 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55106-5000'"

Two variations of the integration of geology and archaeology have been proposed in the literatUl'e-archaeological geology and geoarchaeology. However, there is no agreement among pmctilioners as to the legitimacy of t.he distinctions that have been made. This disagreement suggests thaI t.he objectives and assumptions of this interdisciplinary field have not been adequately discussed a mong its practitioners. The published defmition&of hoLh of thrse ;> ubfields emphasize their geological and historical aspects rather than their anthrupOlugH';tI ..!IIol 1"·,,,·,. .. ,· ,,,,1 "f;I,(lct ~. A comp(lrison with zooal'chaeology and paleoethnobotany suggests that the significall<.:e 01 g CO al'cl,,, .. ul;'6S l o nni h"" lIfl lnm 'ul archaeology has been slighted. This results from a fa ilure 10 recognize the symbolic character of humans' intel'action with their geologic environment. An attemp~ is made here to elm'ify the distindion between archaeological geology and geoarchaeology and to define objectives fOl' the latter subfield that have anthropological significance. 1 . 1882 John Wik'y & Sons. Inc.

INTRODUCTION Every science con~ists oi" twu intm'Lwilll;U component.s. The firsL of the e is a well-defined subject matter, consisting of a body of knowledge, the assumptiul1::, we make about it, and the questions we ask of it. Secondly, the science consists of a toolkit, a series of methods and techniques for investigating the subject matter. Therefore, when we speak of a science, archaeology for example, we may speak of it in terms of either or both of these aspects. Archaeolog'y may be seen as the study of the material remains of past cuI tures, or as the process of digging in the earth for those material remains and the methods of analyzing what is recovered. These two aspects cannot be independent of each other: The assumptions we make about a body of knowledge are influenced by the methods we have for investigating the subject, and the techniques we use depend, in part, on the questions we have about the subject. But it is often helpful to consider these two aspects separately, if not independently. It can be helpful to look at the definition of a field in terms of its methods and techniques in order to learn something about the assumptions we hold concerning its subject matter. Archaeologists work in a geologic medium. Their interests lie in a particular subset of the geologic realm-the surficial subset-directly affecting and af­ fected by human actions. The archaeologist's initial extraction of information

' Mailing address: 1749 Blair Ave., Sl. Paul, Minnesota 55104-1703.

Geoarchaeology: An International Journa l, Vol. 7, No.5, 405-417 (1992) '[) 1992 by ,John Wiley & Sons, Inc. eee 0883-6353i92/050405-13 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

from that medium is by geologic means, although the information itself may be nongeological. Therefore, in this restricted sense of the respective sciences, that is, in terms of its techniques, archaeology may be considered as a subset of geology. The archaeological subfield of geoarchaeology explicitly claims ties with both geology and archaeology, and claims itself to be the intermeshing of the two fields. An examination of definitions of this subfield, then, should permit an evaluation of assumptions held and should indicate the types of questions asked in research. Presumably, such an examination should demonstrate an integration of both geology and archaeology. Because American archaeology has immutable ties with anthropology, evidence of anthropological concerns should be present in the definition of geoarchaeology as well. This paper attempts such an examination of geoarchaeology's definitions by comparing published definitions with those of similar interdisciplinary sub­ fields within archaeology. The result is a modified definition of the subject matter of geoarchaeology that considers the symbolic character of culture, and a proposal of long-term goals toward which geoarchaeology should wDrk. CONTRASTS IN DEVELOPMENT AND DEFINITION Botany and zoology, in the form of palynology and Pleistocene paleontology, along with geology were associated with archaeology during its early develop­ ment. All of these sciences were important as stratigraphic sciences in estab­ lishing the concept of "deep time" (Gould, 1987), or the immensity of Earth history, and the antiquity of man (Daniel, 1981). The problem and the approach were fundamentally historical. However, botany and zoology did not remain confined to this stratigraphic relationship with archaeology to the degTee that geology did. Botany and zoology can easily be associated with a nonhistorical or processual approach to archaeological questions-the floral and faunal worlds are directly associated with economy, and their archaeological remains are evidence of the process of human choice. These two sciences developed early, in the last half of the nineteenth and first third of the twentieth century, as adjunct sciences to archaeology. Although they were rarely integrated with the archaeological reports, reports of faunal and floral remains often appeared as appendices. Ethnobotany developed early as a distinct ecological field examining the rela­ tionships between plants and cultures (Hargrave, 1938; Jones, 1941). Lat . during the 1960s, these distinct fields were instrumental, along with so-called spatial studies, in the development of processual archaeology (Binford, 1964: Coe and Flannery, 1964; Cleland, 1966; Clark, 1972; Flannery, 1968; Struever. 1968; Winters, 1969; Whallon, 1973, 1974). In this respect, paleoethnobotan.· and zooarchaeology may be considered to be more mature scientific subfields of archaeology than is geoarchaeology-they are concerned with and motivat d by two complementary approaches to archaeological problems. Again, the (. two approaches are the historical and the processual. Botanical and zoologi al

406 VOl. 7, NO.5 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY studies, for example, may examine the origins of agriculture in terms of its history in specific places or in terms of the general process of domestication. Zoo archaeology and paleoethnobotany further developed during the 1960s and 1970s along with the deductive revolution in archaeology while methods for defining, retrieving, and analyzing relevant data advanced. This advance­ ment in methods was in direct response to the deductive hypothesis testing being expounded by Binford (1962, 1968) among others, and the particular suite of hypotheses being tested: how humans adapted to their environment in support of and as a result of their social/cultural system. Binford has stated in a recent interview (Renfrew, 1987: 690) that the arguments in the literature of the 1940s and 1950s were over how to infer time from the archaeological record (also Binford, 1983: 95) and did not require a processual framework but rather a strictly stratigraphic framework. In the 1960s, the ecologically framed and economically oriented questions being asked were suited to the methods and assumptions of zooarchaeology and paleoethnobotany. The methods of geology that had figured so prominantly in earlier studies became subsidiary to these more anthropological questions. Stratigraphical geology, in the sense of studying the relations within and among strata, could have played a more vital role during this stage of archaeolo­ gy's development, particularly in dealing with questions of spatial relationships within sites (Whallon, 1973, 1974). Such a realization is only now becoming evident (Binford, 1981, 1982; Schiffer, 1972, 1976, 1983, 1987). However, even this relegates geology in archaeological research to the role of clarifying rela­ tionships among data which establish contemporaneity of activities. It is, there­ fore, strictly descriptive and of technical aspect (Gladfelter, 1981: 346). As such, geology in service to archaeology is not concerned with the relationships of data as social or cultural phenomena, or with establishing the behavioral significance of activities. It is not concerned with anthropological explanation. In fact, geology became associated with the conduct of archaeological field work and with the elucidation of field relations but not with tests of anthropological hypotheses (Watson et al., 1984: 46-47; Harris, 1979, 1989). This clarification of field relations is essential as a first step to meaningful explanation, but, unlike the development of zoology and botany, it does not provide the test of anthropological hypotheses. It only addresses the suitability of the data for testing the anthropological hypotheses. Geologic data of this sort can test hypotheses relevant to the archaeology of the problem in regard to site informa­ tion processes, for example, but not to the anthropology of the problem. At most, geology has been used to provide an environmental background to archae­ ological culture history or culture change (Gladfelter, 1981: 357). This type of environmental reconstruction is essentially an historical rather than a pro­ cessual endeavor. Because of the necessary association of geology and archaeology in terms of establishing temporal and cultural relationships, geology in the service of archaeology has always been associated with cultural historical studies (Leach,

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 407 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

1991). As a consequence, geoarchaeology has not explored the full anthropologi· cal potential of its contribution to archaeology. This stands in stark contrast to botany and zoology. Ethnobotany and paleoethnobotany have developed definitions directly related to their anthropological contributions (Jones 1941: Ford, 1979a, 1979b, 1981). They are the "study of the direct interrelationships between humans and plants" of living and prehistoric societies, respectively. There is in these fields, not only a consciousness of the effect of culture on plants (e.g., the domestication of plants) but of plants on culture (e.g., plant symbolism in culture) (Ford, 1981: 2179, 2180). The elucidation ofthese mutual adaptations is cited as the objective of the field (Ford, 1978b). Zooarchaeology, although not as explicit in the declaration of its anthropological definition, has similarly detailed both anthropological and zoological objectives (Hargrave, 1938; Grayson, 1979; Reitz, 1987: 38; Robison, 1987). The definitions of a melded discipline from geology and archaeo}ogy present a telling contrast to those cited above for zooarchaeology and paleoethnobotany. Writers have claimed that there are two separate blends of the fields: archaeo· logical geology and geoarchaeology. Archaeological geology has been defined a the nppli("lI t.ioll of ~C lllllgic",.J le~h lJ l llue~ to the ::;uluLwIl of dIscrete JJl'oblems that are archaeological in nature. It is essentially geology (Rapp and Gifford, 1982, 1985; Gifford and Rapp, 1985). Geoarchaeology, on the other hand, is archaeology done by geological methods, techniques, or concepts (Rapp and Gifford, 1982). Butzer (1985) states that: " . . . Geoarchaeology is the formula· tion and solution of archaeological problems using earth science methods. Geoarchaeology is or should be an integral part of the excavation process-in terms of stratigraphy, implementation, and on-site revision of strategies and tactics . .. " and the lab analytical phase should be integral to archaeology. The distinctions Butzer makes between archaeological geology and geoarchaeology are said to be "a matter of goals rather than techniques" (Butzer, 1982: 5). Holliday (1988) sees no distinction between the two subfields of archaeological geology and geoarchaeology such as they are defined by Butzer, and describes the combination as the integration of earth sciences and archaeology. He fur­ ther defines the integration as being oriented to the application of principles and techniques of the earth sciences to solution of archaeological problems. Gladfelter (1981: 344) also sees little distinction and defines geoarchaeology as the geoscience tradition in archaeology, dealing "with earth history within the time frame of human history." He further states that the field is an exploitation of earth sciences to understand the context from which artifacts are acquired. This idea of understanding the context of archaeological remains is further developed by Butzer (1978, 1982; also Schoenwetter, 1981) as "contextual ar­ chaeology," and geoarchaeology is considered by him to be a component ofthis essentially ecological study. Butzer's development of the concept of contextual archaeology is similar to what this paper attempts under the rubric of geoarchaeology. Both Butzer's and my approaches are attempts to integrate disparate bodies of data into a

408 VOL. 7, NO.5 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY coherent science addressing archaeological problems. The difference between the two approaches is that Butzer's notion of contextual archaeology is ecologi­ cal with the "explicit objective of historical interpretation" (1982: 11 ) and lacks an additional emphasis on the symbolic quality of human interaction with the environment. The definition developed below is also ecological, but adds this emphasis on the cultural and symbolic processes integral to human ecology. Instead of seeing humans exclusively as geomorphic agents (Butzer, 1982: 39), the definition presented here recognizes the geologic environment of human beings as being culturally defined. The cultural meanings assigned to the environment influence human behavior in that environment and, as a conse­ quence, the geologic record as we find it in archaeological deposits. The distinc­ tion Butzer makes between archaeological geology and geoarchaeology is a valid one, but it is included here as differences of approach within archaeologi­ cal geology. It is a distinction that characterizes approaches to the use of geology in the service of archaeology (Happ, 1975; Holliday, 1988). A different distinction between geoarchaeology and archaeological geology is presented below. The previously cited definitions are concerned with the methods and tech­ niques of the field rather than the subject matter or its goals. They are concerned with the practical rather than the intellectual goals of the field. As Farrand (personal communication, 1985) states, no matter what we are doing " ... we are all involved in the same endea vor . .. What we call ourselves may be a function of our educational background or a pragmatic consideration of the organization that is paying our salary." West (1982) claims that what all these people are discussing is simply archaeology: how it is and has always been done . The definitions do not deal with the meaning of geoarchaeology as a field of study or with its objectives. They describe various ways in which people with geological training at some level or another produce descriptive data on geologic processes that have had an impact on archaeological sites. None of them ap­ proach the problem of defining the purpose of producing such data, or how the data are to be interpreted in the context of an anthropologically based archaeology. The previous definitions do not make explicit the underlying assumptions of the field. The explication of assumptions is what will make geoarchaeology distinct from any other kind of archaeology. In the absence of such a philosophical framework, Farrand and West are correct: There is no distinction between archaeological geology and geoarchaeology, and these sub­ fields make useful contributions only to field archaeology, not anthropology, prehistory, or human ecology. Butzer (1982) presents the history of human ecological relations as defining the context and purpose for producing geoarchaeological data. Certainly this is a valid and important orientation for geoarchaeology and archaeological geology. It need not be the only one, however. Again, a comparison with zooar­ chaeology and paleoethnobotany should be helpful in developing a broader definition of the fields and their oQjectives.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 409 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

Hargrave (1938) and Grayson (1979) present lists of the types of studies that can be conducted with biological samples. These lists are the specific objectives of zooarchaeology and ethnobotany. The following is a generaliza tion of the two lists. The objectives include:

1. material cuI ture studies (how the biological remains were used as artifacts or in ceremonies; investigations of the remains as physical objects within the prehistoric societies); 2. studies of cultural attitudes (the symbolic status of the remains); 3. seasonality studies (the remains as cyclical time markers at a fine scale, and as indications of the processes that characterize the yearly cycles of society and economy); 4. subsistence studies (how the biological remains represent the cultural manipulation of foodstuffs [economy J, including scheduling, procurement and processing techniques and strategies, and redistribution); 5. environmental reconstruction (establishing past ecological conditions, productivity of the environment, determining temperature and climatic changes); 6. geographic distribution studies (biotope studies-tracing former ranges of species); 7. evolutionary studies of the life forms (paleontological and palynological studies).

All of these objectives can be summarized by paraphrasing Ford's (1979a, 1979b) description of the objectives of paleoethnobotany. That is, the fields attempt to elucidate the record of mutual adaptations between human and biological populations. The list presented here not only reflects objectives that are exclusively anthropological or exclusively biological, but objectives that are processual as well as historical. These objectives are fundamentally different from the "responsibilities" (Rapp, 1983) cited by Rapp and Gifford (1982), Kraft (1983) and Butzer (19821 for geoarchaeology/archaeological geology. They list:

1. location of sites; 2. design and execution of excavation; 3. establishing off-site stratigraphic controls; 4. explanation of the structure and stratigraphy of sites; 5. geochronology; 6. archeometry (provenance stud]es and petrographic analysis); 7. landscape reconstruction; 8. paleoclimatic studies; 9. remaining alert to new methods and techniques (act as an information source providing access to "outside" literature).

410 VOL. 7, NO.5 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

These duties, in themselves, deal primarily with data recovery and analysis and not with interpretation within the contexts of anthropology, prehistory, or human ecology. They do not include goals that are anthropological as well as predominantly geological. They do not represent human ecological as well as historical aspects of archaeological study. Beyond data recovery, they are dominated by historical concerns. I would argue that the above-stated duties are those of archaeological geology and not geoarchaeology. They are geologica ~ goals only. They represent geology performed in the service of archaeology (Rapp, 1975). This provides us with the basis for establishing a valuable distinction be­ tween archaeological geology and geoarchaeology. The former should involve the application of geological techniques to the location or generation, identifi­ cation, and description of archaeological data at various scales. The latter, geoarchaeology, should include the interpretation of those data within an ar­ chaeological framework, either prehistory, anthropology, or human ecology. Archaeological geology is then a subset of geoarchaeology but may also be a subset of Quaternary geology, sedimentology, or some other strictly geological science. When we do the work of the archaeological geologist and the geoar­ chaeologist, these two aspects of the combination of archaeology and geology are not necessarily distinct. When we evaluate the work we do, they must be. I offer the following definition of archaeological geology generated from the objectives listed above: Archaeological geology is the deSCI"iption of the geologi­ cal aspects of archaeological artifacts, sites (the context of artifacts), and set­ tings (the context of sites) in both a spatial and temporal framework. Interpreta­ tion of the geological aspects may be either geological or archaeological. To this point, this definition is equivalent to that offered by Butzer (1982 and other writings). Geoarchaeology, in contrast, should be defined by analogy with pa­ leoethnobotany and zooarchaeology. It is the study at all scales of the direct interrelationships between prehistoric humans and their landscape, where the landscape is defined as the patterned distribution of resources (geological, faunal, and floral) in a topographic context. This is similar to Butzer's definition of contextual archaeology (1982: 5-8, 11-13) with its emphasis on scale and patterning of resources. Again, the distinction is between Butzer's emphasis on history as the ultimate goal and my emphasis on process. An additional distinction in our respective definitions is the emphasis here on the inclusion of the symbolic character of human interaction with the environment. This is clearly an important aspect of human ecology. Butzer goes on (1982: 7-8) to set forth five themes or perspectives of contex­ tual archaeology. These are space, scale, complexity, interaction, and equilib­ rium state. I would say that these themes represent the underlying assumptions from the earth sciences that govern how problems are approached by a geoar­ chaeologist. Similar sets of themes or perspectives from anthropology also must govern the geoarchaeologists' approach to problems. Such anthropological themes have yet to be spelled out. Here, I want to present a set of objectives that derive from the definition presented above.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 411 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

The objecti ves of geoarchaeology incl ude those l.isted above for archaeological geology as well as studies of:

1. material culture (investigation of geologic remains as physical objects in prehistoric societies; how they were obtained and their functions); 2. cultural attitudes (the symbolic status of geologic remains [e.g., red ocher, rock types, or clay sources1 or landscape features); 3. subsistence studies (how geologic resources are culturally manipulated as foodstuffs le.g., the role of geophagy in human subsistence]; how the econ· omy affects and is affected by the geologic patterning of foodstuffs and the exploiters of those foodstuffs; this latter research involves, for example, the study of the relation between the cultural depletion or augmentation of soils, the consequent altering of plant communities, and changes in economy); 4. settlement studies (how the relationships between patterning in the land· scape and patterning in the distribution of settlements vary over time [this also relates to economy and removes the sites from the context of the featureless plain of Cristaller (1966) and Losch (l954)-it may involve, e.g., the location of settlements relative to particular soil types, resources, or landforms; it may also involve the cultural manipulation of topography. either consciously or unconsciously n.

To accomplish these objectives, study of the same factors and processes within extant cultures needs to be addressed. Much valuable information can be gleaned from previously published ethnographies, such as the Bureau of Ameri· can Ethnology studies of ethnogeography, and University of California Publica· tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology. These seem to concentrate on ethnic concepts of time and cardinal directions, however. More recent studies such as Munn's (1973) study of the iconography of Western Desert peoples in Australia, Brody's (1981) study of Athapaskan peoples, Ortiz's (1969) study of the Tewa, and Gill's (1987) study of the development of the Mother Earth image in Native American cultures are valuable additions to this directive. Although these latter references were not conducted as geoarchaeological studies, they, nonetheless, include much valuable information for the geoarchaeologist. Ideally, however, ethnographic work is needed, directed specifically to these purposes with archaeological application of the results in mind.

THE AIMS OF GEOARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH The definition of the field of geoarchaeology and the list of its objectiv presented above provide a foundation for designing geoarchaeological researth as an anthropological endeavor. They provide a framework and immediate goals for research. I have proposed that geoarchaeological research must ad· dress problems of both geological and archaeological significance. In addition,

412 VOL. 7, NO, 5 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

both historical and processual problems need to be incorporated into any re­ search design. Finally, the symbolic character of humans' actions ill their environment has to be integrated with geoarchaeological research. However, the paramount concern is problem definition, not only for particular projects, but for geoarchaeology in general. In order to integrate geology with an anthro­ pological archaeology, the research has to take into consideration methodologi­ cal differences between anthropology and geology. These methodological differ­ ences provide us with a suggestion of the long range goal of geoarchaeology. Prior to a statement of this long range goal, however, it is necessary to discuss these methodological differences. The range of temporal and spatial scales involved in both archaeological and geological research differs and each field has limitations with regard to application of these scales. For example, although archaeological deposits, as with other Quaternary geological deposits, exhibit a high degree of temporal resolution relative to other geological deposits (Watson and Wright, 1980), archaeological models from anthropology often require even greater resolution. The archaeological deposits may contain too much temporal detail for easy application of geological models, and too little for application of anthropological models. In other words, application of models in geology and archaeology have fundamentally different needs for temporal precision. The models, if used in tandem, have to be made compatible. The difference is best illustrated by understanding the geological distinction between "environmental summaries" and "facies models" (Selley, 1978; Walker, 1979; Reading, 1978). Although both may be considered models, the former is an idealization of a sedimentary system, a framework within which interpretations are made. The latter is an interpretive tool at a more basic level (Selley, 1978: 272-277). For example, the summary of a particular type of depositional environment, such as a meandering stream system or a tidal fiat, is a compilation of descriptive characteristics. The summary includes descriptions of the physical, chemical, and biological processes active in the environment (Selley, 1978: 1-38). The environmental summary presents a synchronous picture of geologic processes within a well-defined spatial frame­ work. The facies model is derived from the environmental summary just as the facies, a body of rock, is a product of the depositional environment. The facies model is produced by incorporating the concepts of cyclical and linear time (Gould, 1987) into the environmental summary. This is done by introducing recurring sedimentation and erosional processes, and sequential displacement of one subenvironment for another into an originally synchronic representa­ tion. The facies model that results presents observable lithic properties in characteristic sequences which allow the geologist to infer the environment responsible for a rock's formation. In other words, a series offacies models exist against which a geologist compares sequential properties observed in the field to assign a depositional interpretation. The facies model permits the geologist to infer a horizontal spatial distribution of processes from a vertical distribution

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 413 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY of lithic properties. The sequential character of time is implicit in the facies model, but there is no implication as to the duration of the sequence either in part or as a whole. Such implications are entirely outside the model. Most archaeological models are anthropological summaries of a synchronous type (e.g., Steward 1955; Winterhalder and Smith, 1981). Implicitly, the tempo­ ral resolution required for their application is the precision of contemporaneity implied in the summary. This is fundamentally different from that of a geologi­ cal facies model, which, as we have seen, is simply a statement of general sequences of time. To make these two types of models compatible requires a translation of the anthropological summaries into meaningful expressions of observable sequences without a strictly defined temporal element. There is no general agreement on the nature and sequence of the observable characteristics that may be found in archaeological deposits. These sequences will have to be specific to some degree for a given geographic area and will have to consider spatial variations within sites. Such considerations are analogous in some respects to variations, for example, in the Bouma sequence for distal and proximal facies of turbidites. Ethnoarchaeological studies, experimental archaeology, and studies of site formation processes are designed to develop a series of usable models roughly comparable to the facies model of geology. These subfields are concerned with the development of "middle-range theory" in archaeology (Schiffer, 1988; Raab and Goodyear, 1984). But the results of these studies rarely have been related to such anthropological summaries as those cited above. They operate at a lower level of inference (and a finer scale) than true facies models. The geoarchaeologist's role in the development of middle range theOTY is somewhat different than that of the ethnoarchaeologist, for example. This role encompasses the long range goal of geoarchaeology. Geoarchaeologists should be particularly concerned with the development of "facies models" for the interaction of human populations with the landscape. We need to develop both environmental summaries and facies models for settlements of various durations (Harris, 1979; Binford, 1980; Gifford and Behrensmeyer, 1977; Yel­ len, 1977), of different levels of social complexity, and of various economic orientations (Binford, 1980; Eidt and Woods, 1974). That is, we are in need of locational models that are socially as well as economically relevant and are placed in the context of the geological environment or the matrix of the site deposit. Developing these facies models will involve integration of models of geologic processes such as facies models of meandering or braided streams, infilling of pits or trenches, and erosion of slopes, with geographic and ecologic models such as central place models, models based on the rank-size rule, on feeding theory, on optimal foraging, and so on. The geoarchaeological facies models will also have to integrate ethnographic models of bands, tribes, and so on, of exchange models for goods, people, and information that account for variations in symbolic interactions with the environment. In creating such models, geoarchaeology has the potential for making a significant theoretical contribution to the development of archaeology.

414 VOL. 7, NO.5 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

Unlike archaeology, geology has a long tradition of an explicit methodology, but geoarchaeologists should provide more to archaeologists than an example of the way scientists work. The challenge to all geoarchaeoiogists is to view their field in innovati ve ways that not only integrate the observational methods of geology with archaeological aims, but incorporate the geological and cultural worlds. The geologic realm is more than a context within which human societies act and their remains are entombed. The geologic realm is more than a reposi­ tory of resources for human societies and the archaeologists who come to study those societies. The geologic realm is a source and a recipient of cultural meaning. Geoarchaeology, as it is defined here, will recognize these points and use this understanding to develop a series of integrative models that build on the strengths of both geology and anthropology.

I want to thank ,Jack Donahue for his editorial assistance. The substance of this paper is from my dissertation in Anthropology at the University of Micnigan. I appreciate the arguments presented by Karl Butzer and George Rapp in their reviews of an earlier form of this paper. Their criticisms greatly improved my own arguments and, for that, I thank them. I am sure that substantial disagreements still remain among our various positions, however. Discussions and arguments with Richard Ford, Mike ,J ackson, and Bill Farrand also helped me shape my thoughts. The second "a" in "archaeology" is used here only to comply with journal policy.

REFERENCES Binford. L.R. (1962). Archaeology as anthropology. American Antiquity 28, 217- 225. Binford, L.R. (1964). A consideration of archaeological research design. American Antiquity 29, 425-441 Binford, L.R. (1968l. Archaeological Perspectives. In S.R. Binford and L.R. Binford, Eds., New Perspectives in Archaeology, pp. 5-32. Chicago: Aldine. Binford, L.R. (1980l. Willow smoke and dogs' ta ils: hunter-gatherer settlement systems and archae- ological site format ion. American Antiquity 45, 4- 20. Binford, L.R. (1981). Bones: Ancient Men and Modem Myths. New York: Academic Press. Binford, L.R. (1982l. The archaeology of place. Journal of' Anthropological Archaeology 1, 5- 31. Binford, L.R. (1983). ln Pursuit orthe Past: Decoding the Archaeologica.l Record. New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Brody , H. (1981). Maps and Dreams. New York: Pantheon Books. Butzer, K.W. (1978). Toward an integrated, contextual approach in archaeology. Journal of' Archae­ ological Science 5, 191- 193. Butzer, K.W. (1982), Archaeolog), as Human Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butzer, K.W. (1985l. Response to presentation of the Archaeological Geology Division Award. Bulletin Geological Society of' America 97, 1397- 1398. Clark ,J.G.D. (1972l. Star Carr: a case study in bioarchaeology. Pamphlet; Addison-Wesley Module in Anthropology. Cleland, C.E. (1966). The prehistoric animal ecology and ethnozoology of the upper Great Lakes Region. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology Paper 29. Coe, M.D ., and Flannery, K. V. (1964). Microenvironments and meso american prehistory. Science 143,650-654. Cristaller, W. (1966). Central Places in Southern Germany. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice­ Hall. Daniel, G. (1981). A Short H istory of Archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 415 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

Eidt, R.C., and Woods, W.I. (19741. Abandoned Settlement Analysis: Theory and Practice. Milwau· kee: Field Test Associates. Flannery, K. V. (1968). Archaeological Systems Theory and Early Mesoamerica. In B.J. Megger5, Ed., Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas, pp. 67 -87. Washington, D.C.: Anthropologi · cal Society of WClshington. Ford, R.I. (1979a). Paleoethnobotany in American Archaeology. In M.B. Schiffer, Ed., Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, pp. 285-334. New York: Academic Press. Ford, R.I. (l979bl. Human Uses of Plants: Don't Walk on the Grass! Ethnobotany in middle America. In P.B. Kaufman and .J.D. LaCroix, Eds .. Plants, People, and Environment, pp. 281-288. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co. Ford, R.I. (1981). Ethnobotany in North America: An historical phytogeographic perspective. Canadian Jourl/al orBotany 59,2178-2188. Gifford, D.P., and Behrensmeyer, A.K. (19771. Observed depositional events at a modern human occupation site in Kenya. Quaternary R esearch 8, 245- 266. Gifford. J .A. and Rapp, G.R., Jr. (1985l. Introduction. In G. Rapp andJ. Gifford, Eds., Archaeolo/?,icai Geology, pp. 1- 23. New Haven: YaJe University Press. Gill, S.D. (19871. Mother Earth: An American Story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gladfelter, B.G. (19811. Developments and Directions in Geoarchaeology, In M.B. Schiffer, Ed ., Advances in Archaeological Method alld Theory, 4. pp. 343- 364. New York: Academic Press. Gould, S.,]. (19871. Time's Arrow- Time's Cycle: lVlyth and Metaphor in the Discovery ofGeologicai Time. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grayson, D.K. (1979). On the Quantification of Vertebrate Archeofaunas, In M.B. Schiffer, Ed .. Aduances in Archaeological/He/hod and Th"o,.y, 2, pp. 199- 237. New York: Academic Pres.,. Hargrave, L.L. (1938), A plea for more careful preservation orall biological materials from prehis· toric sites. Southwestern Lore 4(:3), 47- 5l. Harris, E.C. (19791. Principles a/Archaeological Stratigraphy. New York: Academic Press. Harris, E .C. (1989l. Principles ofArchaeological Stratigraphy, 2nd. ed. New York: Academic Press. Hassan, F.A. (19791. Geoarchaeology: the geologist and archaeology. American Antiquity 44, 267- 270. Holliday, V.T. (1988), Earth science and archaeology. Reviews in Anthrupology 16, 35-4:3. Jones, V.H. (194.11. The nature and status of ethnobotany. Chronica Botanica VI 10, 219-22l. Kraft,J.C. (1983). Presentation of Archaeological Geology Division award to G.R. Rapp,Jr. Bulletin Geological Society orAmerica 95, 991-992. Leach, EX. (1991). Geoarcheological Simulation of Westem Kentucky Middle and Late Archaic Settlement Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Losch, A. (1954). The Economics or Location. New Haven: Yale University Press. Munn, Nancy D. (1973). Walbiri Iconography: Graphic R epresentation and Cultural Symbolism in a Central Australian Society. Ithaca, New YOl'k: Cornell Univel'sity Press. Ortiz, A. (1969). Tewa World: Space, TimC' , Being and B ecom ing in a Pueblo Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Raab, L.M., and Goodyear, A.C. (19841. Middle-range theory in archaeology: a critical review of origins and applications. American Antiquity 49, 255- 268. Rapp, G.R., Jr. (1975). The archaeological field staff: The geologist. doumal of Field Archaeolo/?,y 2,229- 237. Rapp, G.R., Jr., and Gifford, J.A. (19821. Archaeological g·eology. American Scientist 70, 45-53. Rapp, G.R., Jr. (1983). Response to presentation of Archaeological Geology award of the Geological Society of America. Bulletin Geological Society orAmerica 95, 992-993. Rapp, G.R., Jr., and Gifford, J.A. (1985). Archaeological Geology. New Haven: Yale University Press. Reading, H.G. (19781. Sedimentary En[)ironments and Facies. New York: Elsevier. Reitz, E.J. (1987). Zooarchaeological Theory and Method, In A.E. Bogan and N.D. Robison, Eds., The Zooarchaeology ofEastern North America: History, Method and Theory, and Bibliography, pp. 27-65. Knoxville: Tennessee Anthropological Association.

416 VOL. 7, NO .5 DEFINITION OF GEOARCHAEOLOGY

1- Renfrew, C. (1987). An interview with Lewis Binford. Current Anthropolog)' 28,683-694. Robison, N.D. (1987). Zooarchaeology; Its History and Development, In A.E. Bogan and N.D. s, Robison, Eds. , Zooarchaeology of Eastern North Amerim: History, Method and Theory, and 1- Bibliography, pp. 1-26. Knoxville: Tennessee Anthropological Associatlon. chiffer, M.B. (1972). Archaeological context and systemic context.. Amerimn Antiquity 37, n 156-165. Schlffer, M.B. (1976). Behavioral Archaeology. New York: Academic Press. e Ichiffer , M.B. (1983), Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity 48, ,. 675- 706. Schiffer, M.B. (Ed). (1987). Formation Processes olthe Archaeological Record. Albuquerque: U ni ver­ sity of New Mexico Press. Schiller, M.B. (1988). The structure of archaeological theol·Y. American Antiquity 53, 461-485 Schoenwetter, J . (l9811. Prologue to a contextual archaeology. Journal o/'An:hoeological Science 8,367-379. Selley , R.C. (1978). Ancient Sedimentary Environments. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Steward, Julian H. (1955). Theory of Culture Change. Chicago: University of Illinois Press. Struever, S. (1968), Flotation techniques for the recovery of small-scale archaeolog'ical remains. American Antiquity 33, 353-362. Walker, KG. (1979). Fades Models. Geoscience Canada Reprint Series 1. Watson, P.J., LeBlanc, S.A., and Redman, C.L. (1984). Archaeological ExpLanation: The Scientific ,'\I/ethod in Archaeology. New York: Columbia University Pl·ess. Watson, R.A., and Wright, H.E., Jr. (1980), The end of the Pleistocene: a general critique of chronostratigraphic classification. Boreas 9, 153-16:3. West, F.H. (1982), Archaeological geology: Wave of the future or salute to the past? The Quarterly Review o/,Archaf'ology 3 (1), Whallon, R. (197:3). Spatial analysis of occupation floors 1: Application of dimensional analysis of variance. American Antiquity 38, 266-278. Whallon, R. (1974). Spatial analysis of occupation floors 2: Nearest. neighbor analysis. Americ.an Antiquity :39, 16- :34. Winterhalder, B. and Smith, E.A. (1981). Hunlf'r - Gathcr~r Foraging Strategies. Chicago: Univer­ oity of Chicago Press. Winters, H.D. (1969), The R ioerton Culture. Springfield: Illinois St.at.e Museum. Yellen, J .E. (1977). Archaeological Approaches to the PreSl!nt: Models for Recon8tructing the Pa~t. New York: Academic Press.

Received July 20, 1989 Accepted for publication April 10, 1.992

Editor's Note: The long time period between received and accepted dates was caused by delays in the editorial office rather than by the author. -,J.D.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY : AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 417