Society for American Archaeology

Geoarchaeology: The Geologist and Archaeology

Author(s): Fekri A. Hassan
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Apr., 1979), pp. 267-270
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279076 .
Accessed: 10/02/2011 10:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

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
 GEOARCHAEOLOGY:THE GEOLOGISTAND ARCHAEOLOGY

Fekri A. Hassan

Geoarchaeology is the contribution from earth sciences to the resolution of geology-related problems in ar-
chaeology. Its scope is wide, encompassing (1) locating archaeological sites, (2) evaluating the geomorphic land-
scape for site catchment activities and site location, (3) studying regional stratigraphic and microstratigraphic
materials for relative dating and recognition of lateral and vertical distribution of activity areas, (4) analyzing
sediments for the elucidation of site-forming processes and quantification of microarchaeological (sub-
macroscopic) remains, (5) analyzing paleoenvironments, (6) studying artifacts to determine manufacturing
practices, procurement range, trade, and exchange networks, (7) modeling cultural/environmental interac-
tions, (8) conserving archaeological resources, and (9) geochronology.
THE RECENT PAPER BY GLADFELTER ON GEOARCHAEOLOGY (1977) is an excellent exam-
ple of the recent advances in the application of geology to archaeological problems. It presents
the kinds of sophisticated analyses and new concepts that ought to be considered by archae-
ologists and geologists who deal with reconstructing past human environments.
Geoarchaeology is defined by Gladfelter as the "contribution of earth sciences, particularly
geomorphology and sedimentary petrography, to the interpretation of archaeological contexts"
(1977:519). However, the scope of geoarchaeology or, as some call it, archaeological geology is in
practice broader than what may be construed from Gladfelter's definition. I should like in this
note to draw the attention of archaeologists and geologists who may not be familiar with the geo-
archaeological literature to the diverse methods and approaches of this exciting field.
Archaeology, especially prehistoric archaeology, has always had strong ties with geology. The
formulation of the concepts of uniformitarianism and stratigraphy in geology in the eighteenth
and nineteenth centuries paved the way for the acceptance of the idea of human antiquity and
provided the basis for interpreting the evolution of humanity and its cultures (Daniel 1962). Ar-
chaeologists viewed geology as a source of information on stratigraphy, reconstruction of paleo-
environments, and geochronology. Recently, as a result of a shift in the theoretical orientation
within archaeology from an emphasis on historical reconstruction to a genuine concern for the
anthropological dimensions of the human past, the scope of geological applications in archaeology
has expanded to deal with new questions. These concern the relationship between the geological
setting of a region and settlement location, the nature of site-forming processes, the recognition of
activity areas in archaeological sites, the role played by geological processes in distorting or
preserving the archaeological record, and the dynamic relationship between man and the earth.
Thus geoarchaeology today deals with the integration of earth sciences and the human past.
Butzer's Environment and Archaeology (1971) is an excellent example of the broad scope of geoar-
chaeology in contemporary research. Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past, edited by
Davidson and Shackley (1976), presents many of the new applications of sediment analysis to ar-
chaeology.
Recent geoarchaeological research is also well represented by the papers delivered in a
number of symposia held at the meetings of the Geological Society of America. Papers in these
symposia ranged from geophysical exploration and geomorphology through sedimentology to
trace element geochemistry and radiocarbon dating (Rapp et al. 1974). It should be mentioned
here that a symposium on "archaeological geology" was held at the GSA Seattle meeting in 1977,
that another was held at the 1978 meeting in Toronto, and, more important, that a division of ar-
chaeological geology has now been established within the Geological Society of America. This last
is a major event in that it provides a formal recognition of the mutual contributions of geologists
and archaeologists to an understanding of the geological problems of the archaeological past.

Fekri A. Hassan, Department of Anthropology, Washington State Univerity, Pullman, WA 99164

267
268 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 44, No. 2,1979

A survey of the geoarchaeological literature is not the subject of this note, however. Rather I
wish to bring to the attention of archaeologists the various areas in which geoarchaeological
research has been done, hoping that they will realize the great significance of this research for
contemporary archaeological investigation. I have listed below nine geoarchaeological topics
with selected references, which the reader may wish to consult for further details.
1. Location of archaeological sites by geophysical and geochemical methods, such as phosphate
analysis and pH measurements (Linington 1963; Gumerman and Lyons 1971; Weide 1966; Eidt
1973, 1977; Provan 1971).
2. Geomorphological analysis of archaeological site areas (Van Zuidam 1975). This is of great
importance for site catchment analysis (Vita-Finzi and Higgs 1970) and for the evaluation of an-
cient landscape in terms of settlement location, i.e., geoekistics (Hassan 1977). It is also useful in
evaluating the effect of geological processes on the density and distribution of artifacts in a site
(Kirkby and Kirkby 1976).
3. Regional stratigraphic studies of site areas and microstratigraphic studies of archaeological
sites (Haynes 1968; Hay 1976; Kraft et al. 1975; Hassan 1975). These are important not only for in-
terpreting the relative dating of cultural layers but also, in conjunction with sedimentological
analysis, for contributing to an understanding of site-forming processes and the positioning of ac-
tivity areas.
4. Sedimentological analysis of archaeological deposits and associated sediments (Hassan
1978). In addition to the importance of this method in paleoenvironmental reconstruction (Butzer
1975; Farrand 1973), it is of great significance in reconstructing the developmental history of a
site, i.e., rate of deposition and pattern of accumulation or removal of archaeological deposits
(Davidson 1973; Lubell et al. 1976). It is also of great value, when modified to include a study of
submacroscopic, microarchaeological remains, in the identification of in-site distribution of
human activities and in the analysis of the subsistence base (Cook and Treganza 1950; Hassan
and Lubell 1975). These sources of information are crucial for interpreting the interaction be-
tween people and the landscape.
5. Paleoenvironmental analysis. This sis based on geomorphological, stratigraphic, and sedimen-
tological studies in conjunction with the study of soils, fauna, macrobotanical remains, and pollen.
The first task is to reconstruct the sedimentary en nt (e.g., fluvial, aeolian, and lake en-
vironments) by means of facies models (Selley 1976). The second task is to reconstruct the
climatic-morphogenic environments (e.g., periglacial, tropical, and desert environments) (Butzer
1971) and the prehistoric paleogeography (Kraft et al. 1975).
6. Technical analysis of artifacts to elucidate the manufacturing techniques (e.g., petrographic
studies of ceramics and metal artifacts), source areas of archaeological raw materials (e.g.,
petrography and trace element analysis of flint and obsidian artifacts and ores, which may shed
light on trade and exchange networks), and the spatial range of site catchment areas (Sieveking et
al. 1972; Brill and Shields 1972; Peacock 1970; Renfrew at al. 1968; Hays and Hassan 1974; Pires-
Ferreira 1976).
7. Modeling of the dynamic relationship between human activities and the landscape. This is a
research problem that is of fundamental importance in dealing with the articulation of past
cultural systems with their environments, a focus of a great deal of contemporary archaeological
investigation. It is a research problem that draws upon the results of the foci of geoarchaeological
analysis discussed above (Larsen 1975: Fairservis 1967; Lubell et al. 1976; Butzer 1976; Folk
1975; Hack 1942; Hay 1976).
8. Conservation and preservation of archaeological resources endangered by frequent flooding,
salinization, and groundwater movements (Unesco 1968, 1972).
9. Dating (Michels 1973; Michael and Ralph 1971).
Gladfelter presents a strong case for the applications of geomorphological analysis and
sedimentology in archaeological research. The greatest impact of his article lies in emphasizing
the role of paleoenvironmental analysis for interpreting "man-land relationships." This means, as
Gladfelter has suggested, that both the archaeologist and the geologist must work together not just
to resolve methodological conflicts but to define the problems to which the geologist will devote
Hassan] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 269

his effort. Geological investigations should be integrated with archaeological work to be truly
geoarchaeological. The ultimate aim of paleoenvironmental analysis is not to supply the ar-
chaeologist with a general description of the paleogeographicsetting of the site or paleoclimatic
conditions but to provide an understandingof those key paleoenvironmentalvariables that were
or could have been influential in the operationof the cultural system. For example, in early farm-
ing communitiesthese variables may consist of the pattern of flooding,rate of siltation, saliniza-
tion, drainage problems, extent of arable area, and frequency of droughts(Butzer 1976).
The specific geoarchaeological questions should rise from a consideration of geological
variables in man-earth interactive systems. As Butzer has pointed out (1975), the geologist should
be well acquainted with the goals and aims of anthropological archaeology, and the archaeologist
should be fully aware of the potentials of geological investigations. Gladfelter's paper surely
brings the potential contributions of geomorphological analysis to archaeology into focus. This
comment,I hope, provides a broader view of the potential contributionsfromthe earth sciences in
general to contemporary archaeology. It is indeed fortunate that so many geologists today have
dedicated themselves to archaeological problems.Their efforts far exceed the minimalcontribu-
tions to stratigraphy and dating
thatin were for a long time synonymous with geology in the minds of
archaeologists.

REFERENCES
CITED
Brill, Robert
H, H., and William R. Shields
1972 Lead isotopes in ancient coins. In Methods of chemical and metallurgical investigation of ancient
coinage, edited by E. T. Hall and D. M. Metcalf. Royal Numismatic Society Special Publication No. 8.
Butzer, Karl W.
1971 Environment and archeology, an ecological approach to prehistory (2nd ed.). Aldine,Chicago.
1975 The ecological approach to archaeology: are we really trying? American Antiquity 40:106-111.
1976 Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt: a study in cultural ecology. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Cook, S. F., and A. E. Treganza
1950 The quantitative investigations of Indian mounds. University of California Publications, American
Archaeology and Ethnology 40:223-261.
Daniel, Glyn
1962 The idea of prehistory. Penguin Books, Baltimore.
Davidson, D. A.
1973 Particle size and and
phosphate analysis-evidence for the evolution of a tell. Archaeometry 15(1):143-
152.
Davidson, D. A., and M. L. Shackley (editors)
1976 Geoarchaeology: earth science and the past. Duckworth, London.
Eidt, R. C.
1973 A rapid chemical test for archaeological site surveying. American Antiquity 38:206-210.
1977 Detection and examination of anthrosols by phosphate analysis. Science 197:1327-1333.
Fairservis, Walter A., Jr.
1967 The origin, character, and decline of an early civilization. American Museum Novitates 2302:1-48.
Farrand, W. R.
1973 New excavations at the Tabun Cave, Mount Carmel, Israel, 1967-1972: a preliminary report. Pale-
orient 1:151-183.
Folk, Robert L.
1975 Geological urban hindplanning: an example from a Hellenistic-Byzantine city, Stobi, Yugoslavian
Macedonia. Environmental Geology 1:5-22.
Gladfelter, B. G.
1977 Geoarchaeology: the geomorphologist and archaeology. American Antiquity 42:519-538.
Gumerman, George J., and Thomas R. Lyons
1971 Archaeological methodology and remote sensing. Science 172:126-132.
Hack, John T.
1942 The changing physical environment of the Hopi Indians of Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum
of American Archaeology and Ethnology 35(1).
Hassan, F. A.
1975 Geology and geomorphology of the Ain Mistehiya locality. In The prehistoric cultural ecology of Cap-
sian escargotieres, edited by D. Lubell et al. Libyca 23:60-70.
1977 Field manual to geoarchaeology, ms.
270 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 44, No. 2, 1979]

1978 Sediments in archaeology: methods and implications for palaeoenvironmental and cultural analysis.
Journal of Field Archaeology 5(2):197-213.
Hassan, F. A., and D. Lubell
1975 Prehistoric cultural ecology. In The prehistoric cultural ecology of Capsian escargotieres, edited by
D. Lubell et al. Libyca 23:92-98.
Hay, R. L.
1976 Geology of Olduvai Gorge: a study of sedimentation in a semi-arid basin. University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Haynes, C. V.
1968 Preliminary report on the late Quaternary geology of the San Pedro Valley, Arizona. Southern Ari-
zona Guidebook III, pp. 79-96. Arizona Geological Society, Tucson, Arizona.
Hays, T. R., and F. A. Hassan
1974 Mineralogical analysis of Sudanese Neolithic ceramics. Archaeometry 16:71-79.
Kirkby, A., and M. J. Kirkby
1976 Geomorphic processes and the surface survey of archaeological sites in semi-arid areas. In Geo-
archaeology: earth science and the past, edited by D. A. Davidson and M. L. Shackley, pp. 229-253.
Duckworth, London.
Kraft, J. C., G. Rapp, Jr. and S. F. Aschenbrenner
1975 Late Holocene palaeogeography of the coastal plain of the Gulf of Messinia, Greece, and its rela-
tionship to archaeological settings and coastal change. Geological Society of America Bulletin
86:1191-1208.
Larsen, Curtis E.
1975 The Mesopotamian delta region: a reconsideration of Lees and Falcon. Journal of the American
Oriental Society 95(1):43-57.
Linington, Richard E.
1963 The application of geophysics to archaeology. American Scientist 51(1):48-70.
Lubell, D., F. A. Hassan, A. Gautier, and J. L. Ballais
1976 The Capsian escargotieres: an interdisciplinary study elucidates Holocene ecology and subsistence
in North Africa. Science 191:910-920.
Michael, H. N., and E. K. Ralph
1971 Dating techniques for the archaeologist. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.
Michels, J. W.
1973 Dating methods in archaeology. Seminar Press, New York.
Peacock, D. P. S.
1970 The scientific analysis of ancient ceramics: a review. World Archaeology (1(3):375-389.
Pires-Ferreira, J. W.
1976 Shell and iron ore mirror exchange in Formative Mesoamerica, with comments on other com-
modities. In The early Mesoamerican village, edited by Kent V. Flannery, pp. 311-328. Academic Press,
New York.
Provan, D. M. J.
1971 Soil phosphate analysis as a tool in archaeology. Norwegian Archaeological Review 4:37-50.
Rapp, E., Jr., R. Bullard, and C. Albritton
1974 Geoarchaeology? The Geologist, the Newsletter of the Geological Society of America 9(1):1.
Renfrew, C. A., J. E. Dixon, and J. R. Cann
1968 Further analysis of Near Eastern obsidians. In Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 34:319-331.
Selley, R. C.
1976 An introduction to sedimentology. Academic Press, New York.
Sieveking, G. De G., P. Bush, J. Ferguson, P. T. Craddock, M. J. Hughes, and M. R. Cowell
1972 Prehistoric flint mines and their identification as sources of raw material. Archaeometry 14(2):
151-176.
UNESCO
1968 The conservation of cultural property with special reference to tropical conditions. UNESCO Mu-
seums and Monument Series, # 11.
1972 Preserving and restoring monuments and historic buildings. UNESCO Museums and Monument
Series, # 14.
Van Zuidam, R. A.
1975 Geomorphology and archaeology, evidences of interrelation at historical sites in the Zaragoza
region, Spain. Z. Geomorphology N.F. 19:319-328.
Vita-Finzi, Caludio, and E. S. Higgs
1970 Prehistoric economy in the Mount Carmel area of Palestine-site catchment analysis. Proceedings of
the Prehistoric Society 36:1-37.
Weide, David L.
1966 Soil pH as a guide to archaeological investigation. Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1966.
Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles.