Archaeological Geology
1992 has been an active year with advances on many fronts. Some of the ongoing research includes university-and government-sponsored efforts. As is usually true, the efforts primarily centered on paleoenvironmental, sedimentological, geomorphological, and geochronological projects.
Sedimentological and geomorphological research occurs throughout the world. Reid Ferring (North Texas State University), Tony Marks (Southern Methodist University, Dallas), Joao Zilhao (University of Lisbon, Portugal) are investigating soils, geomorphology, and sedimentology associated with in situ Mousterian and Upper Paleolithic sites int he Estremadura, Portugal. In Texas, Ferring is examining alluvial and eolian deposits to reconstruct the paleoenvironments at the George King Paleoindian site. John Gifford (University of Miami) is excavating the Paleoindian/Archaic site, Little Salt Springs, Fla. Vance Holliday (University of Wisconsin) is completing a study of the dry valleys that house many archaeological sites in the Southern High Plains, Texas, including the Clovis, Lubbock Lake, and Midland sites. Holliday also is excavating the Miami, Lipscomb and Elida Paleoindian sites. David May (University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls) is investigating the alluvial stratigraphy in central Nebraska and the loess stratigraphy in southwestern Nebraska. Art Bettis (Iowa Geological Survey, Iowa City) and Ed Hajic (consultant, Jackson, Wyo.) Are studying the Late Quaternary alluvial stratigraphy and chronology in the Upper Mississippi Valley. Bettis also is investigating the Palwoindian cultural horizons in alluvial fans in central and southern Iowa. Among other sites, Bill Farrand (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) continues to study Yarimburgax. Vance Haynes (University of Arizona, Tucson) continues to research the Yonger Dryas alluvial record, the Pleistocene-Holocene transition in North America, and the Sahara, Haynes is examining battlefield geoarchaeology in light of European contact. In tropical and subtropical regions, Don Johnson (University of Illinois) is expanding his research into the development of artifact-rich stone zones. Whitney Autin (Louisiana Geological Survey, Baton Rouge) correlates old-river terraces with archaeological occupations.
At the Geological Survey of America annual meeting, J.C. Kraft and others reported on environmental reconstructions for the Temple of Diana, Ephesus, Turkey, Sheena Beaverson (University of Minnesota, Duluth) reconstructed paleoenvironments for Archaic sites on Saginaw Bay, Lake Michigan, Rolfe Mandel (University of Nebraska, Omaha) reported on a late Pleistocene site in Cypress associated with pygmy hippopotamus. Donald Schwert (North Dakota State University, Fargo) demonstrated that European settlement in Iowa radically altered the beetle fauna.
In collaboration with many archaeologists and Quaternarists, Ron Dorn (Arizona State University, Tempe) continues to develop rock-varnish dating for archaeological sites by attempting to date several sites, including those in the western Black Hills, the Bighorn Basin, and the Petrified Forest. Henry Schwarcz, along with Jack Rink (McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario) and colleagues, continues to develop, test, and apply electron spin resonance (ESR) dating to archaeological sites throughout the world. Tim Dalbey (Southern Methodist University) continues to improve his relative-dating technique based on hornfels patination. David Elmore (PRIME Laboratory, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind.) Has been seeking archaeological colleague with whom to develop several AMS-based dating methods. Bill Johnson (University of Kansas, Lawrence) created national headlines when his uranium/thorium date for teeth and bones from the midland woman confirmed the earlier carbon-14 dates as the earliest dated North American.
Interestingly, some researchers are using the archaeological record to provide a finer scale of information than can be obtained from geological investigations. In the Khabur River, Syria, Robert Brakenridge (NASA, Washington) is examining paleoflood hydrology based on tell data. Brakenridge, J. Petersen (University of Maine, Farmington), and P. Thomas (University of Vermont, Burlington) are investigating flood-plain sedimentation and buried archaeological sites in New England. Jay Noller and William Lettis (both at Lettis & Associates, California) are examining precontact sites in the San Andreas fault system to develop new predictive techniques for large quakes. Cherly Ann Munson (Indiana University) and colleagues reported on a new methods to measure the frequency of major quakes near the New Madrid fault zone using paleoliquefaction structures dated by archaeological artifacts. Douglas Kellogg (University of Delaware) uses archaeological data to reconstruct coastal-erosion rates along the Maine coast. For the Nile Delta, Egypt, Daniel Stanley and Andrew Warne (both at Smithsonian Institute) use distinctive pot sherds found in cores to establish subsidence rates. Floyd McCoy (University of Hawaii, Kaneohe) and colleagues are using ground-penetrating radar to examine tephra and related volcanic hazards in Late Bronze Age sites.
The GSA symposium illustrated how much archaeological geology has contributed to other aspects of geology over the years. Similarly, efforts to reconstruct paleodiets with stable isotopes have significantly increased our understanding of isotopic geochemistry, particularly environmental factors. Now, archaeological data is playing a key role in estimating subsidence, coastal-erosion rates, and earthquake and flood frequencies.
Meanwhile, demand in the public sector continues to be high for contract archaeological geology associated with conservation or reclamation. Consequently, many government organizations and private industry seek better ways to anticipate site locations. For example, Erich Junger (U.S. Navy) uses polarized light microscopy to identify microscopic artifact debris to locate potential sites.
The need to hire contract archaeologists and geoarchaeologists has caused the industry to question that current regulations do not constrain practitioners to having any recognized archaeological or geological qualifications in most states or provinces, and that no accepted norm exists for what constitutes an archaeological or geoarchaeological report. Some of this debate is fueled by the increasing number of states and provinces that have recently imitated professional registration for geologists. Although this action may isolate some, I suspect that the debate that this issue crates as legislation is considered will eventually strengthen archaeological geology, if only because debate educates the public about the profession. Whether a real need exists to legislate this field must be explored by both archaeologists and geologists, and more importantly, by academics, government, and the public jointly.
Another policy issue that has been in the news has involved repatriation of artifacts. Although this issue does not affect archaeological geologists as often as it does archaeologists, problems arising from this new policy can add extra difficulties if one is researching geochronology, paleodietary, or paleoenvironmental reconstruction. Consequently, archaeological geologists continue to pay close attention to this controversy.