Visning av On the definition and practice of Geoarchaeology

(1)

t i d e r

r e d i ttfirkssdit ksigoloekra2102|gnagrå .41

Primitive

evit imi rP

2012

arkeologisk 14

PRIMITIVE-TIDER.COM

(2)

ISSN 1501-0430 Postadresse:

Primitive tider

Postboks 7009, St. Olavs plass 0130 Oslo

E-post: [email protected] / [email protected] Internett: www.primitive-tider.com

Grafisk utforming: Magne Samdal

Trykk: Reprosentralen ved Universitetet i Oslo

©Primitive tider. Ettertrykk for mangfoldiggjøring kun etter avtale med redaksjonen.

Forsideillustrasjon: Nummedal i felt på Frei, Kristiansund. Foto: NTNU. Editert: Magne Samdal

Skrive for Primitive tider?

Primitive tider oppfordrer spesielt uetablerte forfattere til å skrive. Vi er interessert i artikler, kommentarer til tidligere artikler og anmeldelser av faglitteratur. Kanskje blir din artikkel neste nummers debattema! Send inn ditt manuskript og la det få en faglig og seriøs vurdering av redaksjonen. Husk at hele prosessen kan være tidkrevende, så planegg å være ute i god tid.

Innleveringsfrister finner du på våre nettsider. Det er likevel ingen grunn til å vente til siste øyeblikk, send gjerne inn før fristen!

For å lette arbeidet for deg og for oss, er det helt nødvendig at du setter deg godt inn i forfatterveiledningen og følger den. Forfatterveiledningen finner du på våre nettsider:

www.primitive-tider.com

Artikkelutkastet bør lengdemessig omtrent tilsvare den ferdige artikkelen. Det må med andre ord være noe mer enn en skisse/ løse ideer, men også vesentlig kortere enn en avhandling.

Vi ser fram til å høre fra deg! Kontakt oss enten pr. mail: [email protected] eller send utkastet til postadressen over.

(3)

INNHOLD

Släktskap och neolitiska kulturer 1

Per Persson

Nye åkre og gamle funn. Metodiske betraktninger om undersøkelser av

sørøstnorske steinalderboplasser i dyrket mark 15

Axel Mjærum

On the definition and practice of Geoarchaeology 31 Rebecca J.S. Cannell

Anders Nummedal: fra ”quasi-lærd” til steinaldernerd 47 Ellen Grav Ellingsen og Heidi Mjelva Breivik

En time forut for sin tid. Om kroppen, arkeologien og Anders Nummedal 59 Håkon Glørstad

Arkeologisk geofysikk i Norge – En historisk oversikt og statusevaluering 77 Lars Gustavsen og Arne Anderson Stamnes

Vin og ekstase i svart og rødt. Attiske vaser med Dionysos og menader i norske

antikksamlinger (580–430 f.Kr.) 95

Kristian Reinfjord

Älgens roll i ett neolitiskt tänkande. Om fångstgropar, skärvstensvallar och

hällbilder i mellersta Norrland 107

Ylva Sjöstrand

Arkeologi mellom oppdagelse og glemsel. Forståelse av et funn i en

sprekk i virkeligheten 121

Ragnar Vennatrø

DEBATT: Midlertidige ansettelser i arkeologifaget

Midlertidige ansettelser i arkeologifaget 135 Thorgeir Hole

Midlertidige ansettelser i arkeologien – sett fra kulturhistorisk museum 143 Lars Groseth og Karl Kallhovd

Midlertidige ansettelser i arkeologien 147

Geir Sørum og Sigrid Mannsåker Gundersen

(4)

Et liv på knærne – om midlertidige tilsettinger i norsk arkeologi 153 Mari Arentz Østmo

Åpen debatt om midlertidig ansettelser i norsk arkeologi 161 BOKANMELDING

Mark P. Leone:

Critical historical archaeology 169

Bo Jensen

(5)

On the definition and practice of Geoarchaeology

Rebecca J.S. Cannell

... geo-archaeology is first and foremost a conceptual approach (Butzer 1982:36).

Introduction

The popularity and range of geoarchaeology has expanded exponentially, from its origins with those who first coined the terms geoarchaeology and archaeological geology in the U.S.A., to its current widespread study (see Butzer 1982; Rapp and Gifford 1985). It can now be considered common practice within larger commercial archaeological units and research excavations, and is offered as a masters course in universities throughout the New and Old Worlds (Goldberg and Macphail 2006; Benedetti et al. 2011). There can be no doubt as to its pertinence to current demands in the field, nor its increasing use, but that does not automatically mean that its potentials are always reached, or indeed that it is fully understood.

The purpose of this article is not to compose a finite definition of geoarchaeology, in general or within the Norwegian context, but rather to add to and encourage debate on how geoarchaeology has been and ought to be understood. It intends to present a brief history of the field, a discussion of the definition and case studies demonstrating the benefits the application of geoarchaeology can have in relation to excavation and research. This will demonstrate that many techniques within the definition of geoarchaeology are already applied to excavations. However, as I will discuss in

more detail, there are many areas where I believe a more concise and structured approach from the evaluation stage and beyond would greatly improve the archaeological interpretations of the continual interaction between human occupation, landscape and the environment.

On the origins

Geoarchaeology is not a new field, although the term is decidedly younger than the idea and application. One can argue that the origins date back to when the ideas of geology and stratigraphy were applied to archaeological contexts in the 1800s (Rapp and Gifford 1985; French 2003).

Then, in the nineteenth century, the collaboration of early archaeology and geology was a natural step in the common goal of documenting the antiquity of man and Earth, thus proving the doctrines of creationism were flawed (Huckle-(Huckle- berry 2000). Typifying this, Charles Lyell published Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (Lyell 1863) which, although limited by his rather reluctant acceptance of natural selection over creationism, applies geological and environmental approaches to understanding the human past (French 2003).

In the U.S.A, work on the antiquity of the first settlers in the Americas, and the quest to prove the existence of ‘Glacial Age Man’ developed over the nineteenth century with many protracted debates, often due to the difficulties in dating artefacts and contexts (see Abbott (1893:5-9) or

(6)

32

Wright (1893:9-13) as an example, or Holmes (1893)). As exemplified in his 1893 article, W.H.

Holmes and many others were using both archaeological and geological evidences to accept or refute, depending on their standpoint, the antiquity of human occupation in the Americas (Holmes 1893). Holmes had much in common with his respected contemporary’s in the U.S.A.

as he was in fact a geologist and artist with an interest in cultural history (Hough 1933). This multi-disciplinary attitude was not unusual in anthropology and archaeology in the U.S.A prior to the First World War. Before the radiocarbon dating revolution and the greater understanding of lithic assemblages, quaternary geology was often the only source of dating archaeological sites, by using relative sedimentary sequences to establish age, although not always without controversy. Indeed, this controversy did not settle down until the type sites of Clovis and Folsom were published in the 1935, drawing on both archaeological and geological evidence to establish the antiquity of the assemblage (Rapp and Gifford 1985). The relationship between earth science and archaeology was perhaps temporarily weakened after the First World War, by the increasing fractionation of the sciences with the growth and independence of disciplines in research and academia. Particularly in the U.S.A, archaeology became more focussed upon the humanities, whilst ‘reductionism’ in knowledge discouraged cross-discipline collaboration (Huckleberry 2000; Benedetti et al. 2011).

This is not to say interdisciplinary co-operation ceased; larger scale projects, especially regarding the earlier periods of human history and migration, continued to work together in seeking alternative expertise to explore the history of humans and society within the landscape. After World War II, the North American perspective again tended toward broad landscape analysis, using geomorphology to map and predict early human occupation and as mentioned above, vitally help date sites, an early example being the High Plains Paleoecological Program, directed by F. Wendorf in the late 1950s and early 1960s (Huckleberry 2000; Butzer 2008). This approach

was established, and later typified by the interdisciplinary works of many such as Haynes (Vance Haynes 1995), Waters (Waters 2000), Holliday (Holliday 2000) and Hill (Hill 2007).

In the late 1950s and onwards, the European development of geoarchaeology as a specialism focussed upon soil and sedimentary analysis on archaeological sites, through the influential works by, amongst others, Ian Cornwall and Susan Limbrey (Cornwall 1958; Limbrey 1975). From these texts it is very clear that the intervening years between their publications have seen an expansion in archaeological understanding of soils and geomorphology.

The Mediterranean Valleys by Vita-Finzi, for example, used techniques from physical geography to answer archaeological and geological questions (Vita-Finzi 1969). This text came early in the application of modern earth science approaches to archaeology, and was written before the word geoarchaeology was in print anywhere (Benedetti et al. 2011). Using alluvial depositional and erosional sequences in valley fills, Vita-Finzi assessed the interplay between human impact and environmental change in the Holocene, particularly focussing on the past 2000 years (see figure 1). Sequences were established using 14C dating and archaeological materials and structures, which were also related to archaeology and historical sources.

Whilst the conclusions, or more precisely the dating and interpretations of the study, have been debated in light of more recent evidence, the methods typify the aims and approach of geoarchaeology that would be refined during the 1970s and 1980s (Schuldenrein 2007).

Furthermore, in the early 1970s, European archaeology was beginning to centre upon rescue archaeology. Many excavations were in urban contexts with limited excavation areas, where on-site soil formation and interpretation had a wider relevance and application than direction American geoarchaeology had developed. In more recent times, this continental distinction is no longer applicable. However, the calls of Cornwall (1958) and Limbrey (1975) for greater routine application of soil science to archaeo-

(7)

On the definition and practice of Geoarchaeology Cannell

logical excavation are still found in more recent publications (e.g. Waters 1992).

On the theoretical side, many of the current sub-disciplines in archaeology identified

themselves during the theoretical debate between the ‘old’ and the ‘new’; the processual versus the post-processualism camps in the 1960s and beyond (Hodder 1999). Prior to this debate,

Figure 1. An example of an early geoarchaeological study, showing the focus upon geomorphology in relation to archaeology. From Vita-Finzi (1969). The Mediterranean Valleys: Geological changes in historical times. Fig 18, p 36.

(8)

34

the emergence of rescue archaeology, and the subsequent expansion of cultural heritage management in the 1970s, those who composed the small population of full-time professional archaeologists were predominantly academics using voluntaries or students to complete field work. The discipline was not extensive enough to house specialist sub-disciplines on any signif- icant scale, let alone teach specialist courses for each branch of archaeology. Expertise on subjects related to, but not directly taught as archaeology or anthropology, was not automatically included within projects. Rescue archaeology was a response to the post-war acceleration in the expansion of infrastructure, urbanisation and agricultural mechanisation threatening archaeological sites, and to begin with was poorly supported and managed. This expansion in archaeological fieldwork prompted rapid developments in techniques and recording, such as the Harris matrix, and a greater understanding of the need to not only retrieve the structures and artefacts, but to record the site as a whole, soil and all (Harris 1989). By the late 1970s, interdis-(Harris 1989). By the late 1970s, interdis-. By the late 1970s, interdisciplinary work was expanding rapidly, inferring specialism was becoming necessary and the academic accommodation was being created (Woodward and Huckleberry 2010). Through technological innovation and the greater body of information available, a wider base was needed to deal with the questions and information gathered from the increasing number of excavations. The subsequent greater understanding of the human past and the nature of archaeology itself, saw the foundations of the branches of archaeology founded earlier in the twentieth century expand.

The term geoarchaeology emerged and evolved in the 1970s and 1980s, and in similarity to the refinement of any sub-discipline, was not without debate as to the name and its application (Goldberg and Macphail 2006; Woodward and Huckleberry 2010). One of the first to use the term was Butzer in 1973, (Butzer 1973; Butzer 1974) who used it repeatedly in his many publications during the 1970s, before publishing Archaeology as Human Ecology in 1982, which contained his own definition of the term in no

uncertain terms (Butzer 1982). Whilst the first use of term is not vital, the attempts to define and forward the application and acceptance of the sub-discipline are poignant here. This discussion centred on the options ‘geoarchaeology’ and the alternative of ‘archaeological geology’.

According to Rapp and Gifford (1985), archaeo- logical geology is geology with archaeological interests, which conforms to Butzer’s definition of the same term. The debate over which term is more correct, geoarchaeology or archaeological geology, embodied theory and approach, as the terms carried their own principled weight. This debate has continued, as there is a fundamental difference between them, according to the most vocal advocates of each term. Therefore, although a cursory glance through recent publications confirms that geoarchaeology is now the most commonly used term and therefore the focus here, the choice is not free of issue.

For more on the debate, the reader is referred to Butzer (1982), Rapp and Gifford (1985) and the more recent review papers in the bibliography.

On the definition of geoarchaeology

Reading the introductions of the most widely read geoarchaeology texts (e.g. Waters 1992;

Rapp and Hill 1998; French 2003; Goldberg and Macphail 2006), it is immediately apparent that what is included within the definition is broad ranging. To look further, to texts that name geoarchaeological assessment in relation to field work or research, the definition becomes ever wider. So what is geoarchaeology?

An often repeated definition is “archaeological research using the methods and concepts of the earth sciences” (Butzer 1982:35). This is also quoted in Waters (1992), English Heritage (2007), and SASSA (2011). As this is instructive yet broad, it is not surprising that this definition is accepted by many. However, alone it does not define the term more that can be deduced from the words archaeology and geology/geography/

geomorphology being pasted together. The term was further defined by Butzer (Butzer 1982), which has since been strongly supported by

(9)

Waters (Waters 1992, 1999). In Archaeology as Human Ecology, Butzer considered the primary focus of geoarchaeological study was to:

• reconstruct the landscape context of a site

• establishing the stratigraphic context of a site

• understand site formation

• understand site modification

• understand human modification of the landscape

Continuing from this, Butzer defined the core techniques and approaches of geoarchaeology, detailing how, from an earth science perspective, the geoarchaeologist achieved these five aims.

These, shown in table I, include micro to macro scale site and landscape analysis, desk based assessments and laboratory work, where the Basic analytical procedures in geoarchaeology

In the field On site ^• Record vertical profiles to clarify the site sediment sequence.

• Sampling representative archaeological and natural deposits.

• Relate the site to the landscape by geomorphic/ topographic survey/transects.

In the landscape ^• Map terrain. Utilise sources such as aerial photographs, geological/topographic maps, satellite images, geophysical survey.

• Relate this to other archaeological sites using geomorphic inference.

• Examine available natural exposures for sedimentary/soil sequences and properties to reconstruct past landscape and the human impact upon it.

In the laboratory ^• Locate samples within topographic data

• Sediment analysis for particle size/composition to identify geomorphic processes over time and space. Establish micro-stratigraphy with micromorphology, mineral analysis etc as needed.

• Sediment analysis for geochemical/

biochemcial properties, e.g. pH, calcium carbonate content, organic matter, phosphate etc to assess cultural inputs.

• Provisional sequencing of site formation, use, abandonment, post-depositional change, and temporal and spatial variability.

Revision strategies ^• Feedback results from laboratory and field analysis into the project strategy (if possible/applicable).

Multi-disciplinary data integration ^• Identification of the micro-, meso- and macro-environment of the site in relation to survey and excavation results.

• Identification of the human versus natural changes in the archaeo-sedimentary system, including primary and secondary inputs.

Table I. Some of the basic analytical procedures identified by Butzer in 1982. Some advances have occurred, and therefore this should not be taken as exhaustive, nor are all procedures applicable to all sites. Adapted from Butzer (1982:41), table 3-2.

(10)

36

results would feed back into the research agenda of the project to improve results whenever possible (Butzer 1982).

It has to be recalled that Butzer is a geographer and an ecologist, although a great many of his academic publications relate to archaeology. His is also only but one definition, and as his 1982 text is 30 years old, the more recent applications of the subject must be considered. Butzer’s definition has not been without its critiques. For example Leach (1992) heavily criticised these aims for having no anthropological or culture-historical interpretations or perspective, therefore they were not geoarchaeology, but archaeological geology.

It is true that these five points, and those in table I, can be seen as geomorphology on an archaeological site. Butzer’s ‘directions’ can be fairly seen as exclusive, and indeed processual, this is perhaps a reflection of his background and the time of its composition. Butzer’s own reasoning for his definition was the need for a theoretical and conceptual framework to fully document and understand archaeological context, and from this to analyse the complexities and human- environmental interaction (Butzer 1982:5). In essence, to give application and interpretation a foundation.

Leach’s insistence that geoarchaeology should have equal weight in perspective from anthropology is missing the point, and in fact hinting at another debate on definition that has a long history in the U.S.A. that of the distinction between anthropology and archaeology. Leach (1992) proposed alternative goals for the geoarchaeologist, including:

• Material Culture- the functions of natural objects in prehistoric societies

• Cultural Attitudes- the symbolic associa- tions of geological materials

• Subsistence Studies- the cultural manipu- lation of geological resources

• Settlement Studies- the settlement pattern in the landscape over time.

The crucial problem with this list is that it whilst it outlines many of the potentials of geoarcha-

eology, it fails to embrace all of them, and by doing this, prioritises symbolism over physical evidence and interaction. In my opinion, this is not the role of the geoarchaeologist, but the cultural archaeologist or anthropologist, ideally working with a geoarchaeologist. The priorities on this list also, in many respects, are dependent on the completion of studies from Butzer’s perspective being compiled first, and therefore what she is in fact pointing to is the need for better integration of perspectives and results.

The traditional application of uniformitarian principles is fundamental to earth sciences, including geomorphology and physical geography. This relationship cannot be said for archaeology. Environmental archaeology, here broadly defined as the study of human interaction with the environment from an ecological perspective (Nicholson and O’Connor 2000), and geoarchaeology rely themselves on the principle that the present is the key to the past, as present physical and environmental processes are the means of interpretation (O’Connor 1998).

The lack of application of modern archaeological theory in geoarchaeology has as, noted above, been criticised, as the goal remains to understand human activity within the wider context, therefore the deterministic approach is essentially naive.

The accusation is that it is too ‘processual’ in its approach, and not being ‘sensitive’ to the issues relevant to post-processual archaeology (Jusseret 2010). The accusation is also perhaps relating to techniques and means of assessment, and gives no regard for the fact that interpretation from an archaeological perspective allows the application of any theory that happens to be the flavour of the day, even if the initial basis includes uniformitarianism. To return to Butzer again, Archaeology as Human Ecology was designed to advocate his contextual and cognitive approach within archaeology, by using environmental and geoarchaeological approaches, arguably founding the definition of geoarchaeology with a clear regard for archaeological theory.

To broaden the debate, aspects of geoarchaeology listed in general texts and articles as geoarchaeology need to be considered. These

(11)

include: pedology, sediment analysis, geomorphology, geochemistry, micromorphology, palynology, zooarchaeology, archaeometry, provenance studies and artefact analysis, paleodiet and isotopic studies, and geophysics, not to forget the close association with environmental archaeology methods such as palynology (Butzer 1982; Waters 1992; Rapp and Hill 1998;

Waters 1999; French 2003; Benedetti et al.

2011). Can one branch of archaeology include so much? If it can, the result would be the majority of archaeologists becoming geoarchaeologists overnight, and I suspect many would protest.

Clearly, there is a need for a more precise use of the term.

Many methods are referred to in texts as geoarchaeology, and whilst it is natural for the discipline to expand with the repertoire of techniques available, this does not preclude the need for sub-disciplines to have delineations if the sub-disciplines existence is to have any relevance. If it can be taught, sold as a specialism, studied in academia and practised, it requires some boundaries for identification.

In a recent edition of Catena (Benedetti et al. 2011) focussing on geoarchaeology, the editorial formulated its own definition of geoarchaeology. It is clearly honed to the papers presented in the issue, and in this light, proposed three areas of geoarchaeology. Firstly, the widely accepted approach of paleosurface analysis, utilising pedology, sedimentology and geomorphology for landscape and site formation processes. Secondly, the geochemical aspect, which includes geophysics, and thirdly the ecology approach using cultural, biological, and ecological methods (Benedetti et al. 2011:84).

However, without the first, paleosurface, it can be argued that it is simply chemical or geophysical prospection, or environmental archaeology and therefore not within the notion of geoarchaeology as a scientific approach using earth science methods.

Following this, the debate would also need to consider the definition of other sub-disciplines, most pertinently perhaps environmental archaeology, or broader still, landscape archaeology.

A further consideration is the inclusion of geophysics within the definition of geoarchaeology, which is seen repeatedly (e.g. Pedersen 2004:89, Benedetti et al. 2011). Many geophysi-. Many geophysi- cists would not hesitate to refute this, as a widely accepted definition of archaeological geophysics is: “The examination of the Earth’s physical properties using non-invasive ground survey techniques to reveal buried archaeological features, sites and landscapes” (Gaffney and Gater 2003:12). Here the issue of a broad definition, i.e. the earth science approach, is at odds with the stricter definition of the interpretation of landscape evolution and archaeological context through the application of geomorphological, pedological and sedimentological approaches, without the dependence on non-invasive survey instrumentation. In the broadest sense, archaeological geophysics can be seen as geoarchaeology, however in the stricter definition, whilst there is common ground, they are two separate sub-disciplines. Geophysics is prospection via instrumentation, not contextual analysis.

However, it is naturally beyond the scope of this paper to propose thorough definitions for every

‘labelled’ sub-discipline in archaeology.

One assumption that is crucial to the debate is that the methods used by a geoarchaeologist are all geoarchaeology, when in fact they draw from a wide range of techniques and resources, such as pollen analysis and micromorphology, which are not necessarily ‘geoarchaeological’.

An archaeologist uses many resources and techniques, for example statistical analysis to clarify results from environmental sampling, but as a result they do not become a statistician. A geoarchaeologist may use geophysical data to better define the geology (Viberg et al. 2011), however that does not mean that geophysical prospection is geoarchaeology. Geoarchaeology is an approach, not a tool, method or technique.

The ‘core’ of the approach is to relate the human past to landscapes and human behaviour on every scale using earth science methods. These include sedimentology, geomorphology, and pedological methods as a vital, but not only, component of the approach. Therefore geoarchaeology can

(12)

38

incorporate any technique, as long the aim is to forward the understanding of the human past within the landscape context (Huckleberry 2000).

The label of ‘approach’ is essentially echoing the North American attitude of the 1970s and beyond (O’Connor 1998), and times have changed as new ideas have progressed. This does not, however, mean the idea of an ‘approach’

or Butzer’s definition has been ousted by the new, or that they are no longer relevant. In many respects, the definition has become more appropriate as the sub-discipline has grown alongside many other sub-disciplines.

The definition in practice

The use of the term ‘geoarchaeology’ is not always applied with due consideration to the meaning this bears. Is this a desire to use labels that are popular, or caused by the differences in the meaning of the term? Many terms and sub-disciplines in archaeology are poorly defined, and the applications of terms that do not adhere to published definitions can also be the result of disagreement with current definition.

The experiences and background of the author has without doubt a substantial effect on what they include. Definitions are not encased in stone, as perspectives and classifications can alter through application and debate. This said, lack of consideration for definitions rather than genuine disagreement and debate simply contri- butes to unproductive ambiguity.

Debates are often best illustrated by example.

The following few examples of geoarchaeology in practice have been selected support the debate here, however they are not chosen to illustrate what geoarchaeology should be, but what is published with the label attached. As noted above, a review of use of the label in archaeology produces results that are not within the strict or indeed broad definition of geoarchaeology.

Provenance studies, as geochemistry from a geological perspective, can indeed be geoarchaeology, however only if the approach is related to the context of the landscape. In this example,

it relates to the sourcing of raw materials used in querns and whetstones, employing thin sectioning to assess sample composition, which are then compared to reference samples (Elfwendahl and Kresten 1993). The work is not entirely dissimilar to recently published work on the Stonehenge monument (Bevins et al. 2011), however, in my opinion, this study is at no point related to geoarchaeology.

Geochemistry is well established in geology for prospection, provenance purposes and past environmental reconstruction (Retallack 2001), as is geochemical prospection in geoarchaeology (e.g. Entwistle et al. 2007, Wilson et al. 2009).

This exemplifies the use of the methods defining the term. Taking artefacts alone does not equate to the geoarchaeological approach.

Despite the growth of geoarchaeology in connection with the expansion of cultural heritage management and rescue archaeology, it

Figure 2. The starting point for many geoarchaeological studies; geology and geomorphology. From Passmore et al. 2002, figure 2, page 74. The study area is outlined with a single black line.

(13)

is infrequently utilised for evaluation purposes.

On the Milfield plain, an area of the UK rich in sites from the Neolithic onwards and renowned as the location of the Anglian Hall building at Yeavering, a geoarchaeological study was conducted (see figure 2). Using a geomorphological approach, the sediments in the alluvial basin were identified by age and material to assess which areas were vulnerable to erosion and destruction through modern activities.

Archaeological sites were related to the sedimentary and environmental sequence, which was used to pinpoint areas where archaeological sites may still lay unrecorded (Passmore et al.

2002). The study highlighted the potential for evaluation, conservation and management using geo-scientific techniques in archaeology on a landscape scale.

A multi-proxy study of the Trent Valley in the UK focussed on the potential of the geoarchaeological approach using airborne LiDAR (light detection and ranging) and geophysics, some of the results are shown in figures 3 and 4 (Carey et al. 2006, Challis et al. 2011a; Challis et al.

2011b). This again highlights the benefit of the geoarchaeological approach to evaluation prior to excavation or conservation planning.

Also, the point of approach versus technique is clearly defined. The use the LiDAR and ground penetrating radar (GPR) alone are closer to archaeological remote sensing and geophysics respectively. However, the purpose of using these techniques is to map, evaluate and understand the alluvial and geomorphic deposits of the area in relation to archaeological preservation and potential. Therefore the focus and approach is also geoarchaeological.

Figure 3. Schematic cross-section illustrating the terrace sequence and archaeological potential of a study area.

From Carey et al. 2006, figure 8, page 248.

Figure 4. LiDAR DTM (Digital Terrain Model) with the HER (Historical Environment Record) plotted by archaeological period. The square box on the figure illustrates the position of the enclosure not listed in the HER database.

From Carey et al. 2006, figure 7, page 247.

(14)

40

This study uses relatively expensive techniques, commonly not available to smaller excavations or the commercial arena. Regardless of the expense and required expertise, it illustrates that geoarchaeology has a relevance to the earliest stages of archaeological practice and management, to better target future work, refine sampling strategies and budgets to better meet challenges once excavation becomes necessary (Ward et al. 2009). Whilst airborne LiDAR surveys may be beyond the means of many projects, coring/borehole and surface assessments for preservation or environmental reconstruction, for example, are less of a strain on budget and can give valuable information prior to the creation of an excavation and sampling design.

The wide landscape has dominated the focus here, which is not to give the impression geoarchaeology is limited to the largest of landscape scales. The interpretation of on-site stratigraphy and sampling methods can, with the right level of integration between the specialist and archaeologist, profit from geoarchaeological assessment. This was clearly demonstrated in the approach taken by Heimdahl et al. (2005), which incorporated these directly into the excavation and recording procedures on the urban site of Nörrkoping, Sweden, by way of a continuing dialogue with the on-site geologist (Heimdahl et al. 2005). This proved highly successful in concentrating the excavation and sampling on contexts that were most valuable, therefore using the limited resources most effectively.

The two-way relationship was also stressed (see figure 5), in that the recording from both the archaeological and geological perspective had to be adapted and improved for mutual benefit.

The study of the Glesborg site on the Djursland peninsula, Denmark, was conducted in relation to gravel extraction. Previously exposed sections were analysed from a geomorphic/

pedological perspective, and simple field based and laboratory based techniques applied. These included pedological assessment, organic content, pH, phosphate analysis and cation exchange capacity (Mikkelsen et al. 2007).

These methods can be applied prior to or during archaeological excavation, and in this case, provided a detailed sequence of previous land use and environmental change from the visible geomorphic and pedological record.

These examples were chosen to demonstrate that the application is varied, but no attempt has been made here to include every possible aspect of geoarchaeology. To demonstrate this point, none include the advances in geochemical prospection discussed in recent publications (Wilson et al. 2008), nor indeed the more widely utilised micromorphology analysis (Macphail et al. 2007). Those presented here were chosen to demonstrate integration of the geoarchaeological approach on a variety if scales, from the limited but integrated sampling at Glesborg to the broad landscape study on the Milfield Plain and Trent

Figure 5. The system developed on the Nörrkoping excavation for the adaption and improvement of sampling and recording with the on site presence of a geologist. From Heimdahl et al. 2005.

(15)

Valley. In combination with specific research questions the result is a greater depth of interpretation in archaeological research and excavation.

Geoarchaeogy and the Norwegian context To consider the Norwegian context, few papers detailing Norwegian archaeology have been published in peer reviewed journals that are directly relevant to geoarchaeology. This does not of course imply that no archaeology in Norway can be considered geoarchaeology.

A recent article by Sageidet (2009) in Catena, for example, highlights the results that can be achieved using geoarchaeological techniques within archaeology in Norway. It also exemplifies the argument above, that geoarchaeology is an approach with many techniques in its ‘core’, however benefits from using ‘tools’

from related sub-disciplines in archaeology. In this example, pollen analysis is used alongside micromorphology and a detailed physical and chemical soil analysis to document evidence of previous land use, in an area of Norway where an unusual concentration of archaeological sites are threatened by modern activities (Sageidet 2009). Commercial projects such as the recent E6 project, in Østfold, Norway (Bårdseth 2007;

Bårdseth and Sandvik 2010), successfully incorporated landscape analysis, paleoecology and micromorphology into excavation and interpretations. Whilst this example is not, in essence, geoarchaeology by the definition discussed here, it does indicate the application of established geoarchaeological techniques are already proving relevant and successful.

The recent inclination in Norwegian archaeology is toward the interdisciplinary approach, with the increasing consideration of the wider landscape beyond the labels previous humans have attached to it (Sageidet 2009). An early example is the documentation of Hardangervidda in the 1970s (Øvstedal 1974), and more recently the successful multidisciplinary approach by the E18 project in Vestfold, Norway, where the excavation strategy from the outset included specialist expertise (Gjerpe 2011). This multidis-

ciplinary approach, however, remains the domain of research and larger commercial projects. I argue that a greater routine consideration of geoarchaeology within the planning, evaluation and excavation of archaeological projects would provide a greater contextual understanding to the results, and improve the use of environmental and archaeometric sampling. Documenting the landscape evolution and on-site soil formation processes in relation to anthropogenic activity allows samples to be taken where most relevant and most representative, rather than routinely taken without contextual interrogation. The crucial distinction between geoarchaeology and an archaeologist routinely taking samples for specialist assessment is contextual interrogation from an earth science perspective. Without contextual assessment in-situ, a sample is simply earth in a bag sent away for someone to count the content of interest.

Stratigraphical divisions on sites are made by the archaeologist, using experience and observation, and is this related to identified archaeological features. Cut or upstanding features are not the only form of archaeological evidence. The archive should be seen to include every aspect of the archaeological landscape, including the soil and the geomorphology (Linderholm and Engelmark 2010). Many geoarchaeological methods gather more than is visible within the site, such as measuring the chemistry and structure, and quantifying these through analysis. Taking samples in hindsight and sending them to be analysed can give that information, but it very rarely leads to a reinter- pretation of the stratigraphic sequence of a site, no matter how great the discrepancy between the results and the original archaeological assessment. Hence, although it provides greater interpretation and insight, it does not feed back into the contextual information (Hodder 1999).

This is often due to the geoarchaeologist, or other specialists for that matter, not visiting the site, or in the difficulties in remote communication between people not being explicit regarding expectations and interpretations (Holliday 2004).

(16)

42

Conclusion

At issue are the goals, rather than the techniques (Butzer 1982:5).

As Renfrew most quotably wrote, “every archaeological problem starts as a problem in geoarchaeology” (Renfrew 1976:2). An interpre- (Renfrew 1976:2). An interpre- An interpretation of this is that almost every type of analysis and investigation on an archaeological site benefits from the grounding and context detail geoarchaeology provides.

The field has evolved, but arguably should not be considered any different from the initial descriptions within Butzer’s 1982 work. New technology and techniques have opened the way for more rapid and more precise analysis. This is theoretically irrelevant if geoarchaeology is an approach, and not a technique. Geoarchaeology is, however, a hands-on profession (Holliday 2004). An archaeologist collecting samples and sending them to a specialist does not equate to geoarchaeology, but to the use of the same methods with the context removed.

Soil description and classification on-site is from the perspective of archaeology, and rarely scrutinised from a pedological perspective (Sageidet 2009). A classified soil type means more than the colour and boundaries; it has chronological, stratigraphical, geomorphological and environmental implications (Holliday 2004). Many archaeologists have an excellent understanding of soils and soil formation, and therefore are perfectly adept at soil and sediment interpretation beyond its stratigraphic boundaries; however the recording of details beyond a coarse estimate of grain size is far from routine practice.

Archaeology has a long history of borrowing from disciplines, these have become accepted within mainstream archaeology and new definitions have been created. Archaeologists are talented in seeing beyond the general remits of the subject, but frequently pioneer a new application of a technique they do not fully understand. The same can be said of the associated terminology.

The tightening of a definition is a natural process when a method becomes more commonly applied and ‘home grown’ expertise (i.e. from within archaeology), as called for by Butzer (1982), begins to surface. The misuse of any label is in fact a part of the development of the techniques within archaeology, as opposed to borrowed from without.

As noted by Jack Donahue, the founding editor of Geoarchaeology, the 1970s and early 1980s produced an exhaustive debate over the definition and labelling of geoarchaeology (Donahue 1986). His suggestion was to leave it to the reader, as the journal had no intention of being the sole means of definition. This is perhaps the editor’s role and privilege, however in the field, in teaching, and in application, a base is needed for work to stand upon.

Geoarchaeology can include limitless techniques that achieve the goal, which is a geomorphic and pedological assessment of the contexts and landscapes of archaeological sites and settings, from the micro to landscape scale. Over time, new approaches will become common-place within archaeology, and I am confident similar debates will ensue as regard to the use of labels and terminology relating to them. Although one can question the necessity of a strict definition, as there is no right and wrong as long as the justification and explanation is explicit and logical, I argue that definition is needed, as the connotations that terms carry can lead to misunderstandings. Labelling by term implies everything within the definition has been or can be met, and if it has not, then the label use is misplaced.

Oppsummering

Tanker omkring definisjon og praktisering av geoarkeologi Utviklingen av geoarkeologi som en arkeologisk disiplin har en lang historie og kan sies å begynne med bruken av geologiske tilnærminger til arkeologiske problemstillinger på 1800-tallet. Selve begrepet geoarkeologi dukket for første gang opp på 1980-tallet, og faget har i dag vokst til en slik grad at det undervises ved mange universiteter som en spesialisert underdisiplin. Til tross for dette er begrepet ofte anvendt uten hensyn til definisjonen, og ofte bare med fokus på metodene. Geoarkeologi omhandler geomorfologiske og

(17)

pedologiske vurderinger av sammenhenger og landskap ved arkeologiske lokaliteter, fra et mikronivå til et landskapsnivå, for på denne måten å få en økt forståelse for menneskelige og miljømessige aspekter av fortiden. Når en geoarkeologisk tilnærming anvendes fra evalueringsfasen av et arkeologisk prosjekt, kan man oppnå langt mer enn resultatet av en enkelt analyse, ved å gi et landskap kontekst og historie som basis for kulturelle tolkninger.

Bibliography

Abbot Dr. C.C. 1893 Palaeolithic Man in North America.

The Archaeologist: An Illustrated Monthly Magazine, Devoted To Archaeology, Ethnology, History, etc. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, Colombus, Ohio.

Bårdseth, G. A. 2007 E6-prosjektet Østfold, Band 2, Hus, gard og graver langs E6 i Sarpsborg kommune.

Fornminneseksjonen, Kulturhistorisk museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.

Bårdseth, G. A. and P. U. Sandvik 2010 An interdisciplinary approach to the understanding of past settlement and farming: two cases from SE Norway. Journal of Archaeological Science 37(12):3281-3293.

Benedetti, M. M., C. E. Cordova and T. Beach 2011 Soils, sediments, and geoarchaeology: Introduction. Catena 85(2):83-86.

Bevins, R. E., N. J. G. Pearce and R. A. Ixer 2011 Stonehenge rhyolitic bluestone sources and the application of zircon chemistry as a new tool for provenancing rhyolitic lithics. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(3):605-622.

Butzer, K. 1973 Spring sediments from the Acheulian site of Amanzi (Uitenhage district, South Africa). Quaternaria 17:229-319.

–1974. Geo-archeological interpretation of Acheulian calc- pan sites at Doornlaagte and Rooidam (Kimberley, South Africa). Journal of Archaeological Science 1(1):1-25.

–1982 Archaeology as human ecology: method and theory for a contextual approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

–2008 Challenges for a cross-disciplinary geoarchaeology:

the intersection between environmental history and geomorphology. Geomorphology 101(1-2):402-411.

Cornwall, I. W. 1958 Soils for the Archaeologist. Phoenix House, London.

Carey, C. J., T. G. Brown, K. C. Challis, A. J. Howard and L. Cooper 2006 Predictive modelling of multiperiod geoarchaeological resources at a river confluence: a

case study from the Trent–Soar, UK. Archaeological Prospection 13(4):241-250.

Challis, K., C. Carey, M. Kincey and A. J. Howard 2011a Airborne lidar intensity and geoarchaeological prospection in river valley floors. Archaeological Prospection 18(1):1-13.

–2011b Assessing the preservation potential of temperate, lowland alluvial sediments using airborne lidar intensity.

Journal of Archaeological Science 38(2):301-311.

Donahue, J. 1986 Editorial. Geoarchaeology 1(1):1-10.

Elfwendahl, M. and P. Kresten 1993 Geoarkeologi inom kvarteret Bryggaren: arkeologiska artefakter av sten från det medeltida Uppsala. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm.

English Heritage 2007 Geoarchaeology: Using earth sciences to understand the archaeological record.

English Heritage Publications, London.

Entwistle, J. A., K. J. W. McCaffrey and R. A. Dodgshon 2007 Geostatistical and multi-elemental analysis of soils to interpret land-use history in the Hebrides, Scotland.

Geoarchaeology 22(4):391-415.

French, C. 2003 Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in soil micromorphology and landscape evolution. Routledge Ltd, Oxon.

Gaffney, C. F. and J. Gater 2003 Revealing the buried past:

geophysics for archaeologists. Tempus, Stroud.

Gjerpe, L. (ed.) 2011 Årsrapport 2010. E18-prosjektet, Arkeologiske undersøkelser I forbindelse med ny motorvei Gulli-Langåker gjennom Tønsberg, Stokke og Sandefjord kommune, Vestfold. Archive report, Kulturhistorisk Museum, Universitetet i Oslo, Oslo.

Goldberg, P. and R. Macphail 2006 Practical and

Theoretical Archaeology, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford.

Harris, E. 1989 The principles of archaeological stratigraphy. Academic Press Ltd, London.

Heimdahl, J., H. Menander and P. Karlsson 2005. A New Method for Urban Geoarchaeological Excavation.

Example from Nörrkoping, Sweden. Norwegian Archaeological Review 38(2):102-112.

Hill, C. L. 2007 Geoarchaeology and late glacial landscapes in the western lake superior region, Central North America. Geoarchaeology 22(1):15-47.

Hodder, I. 1999 The Archaeological Process: An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford.

(18)

44

Holmes, W. H. 1893 Are There Traces of Glacial Man in the Trenton Gravels? The Journal of Geology, 1(1): 15-37.

Holliday, V. T. 2000 The evolution of Paleoindian geochronology and typology on the Great Plains.

–2004 Soils in archaeological research, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hough, W. 1933 William Henry Holmes. American Anthropologist New Series (Arlington, Va: American Anthropological Association And Affiliated Societies) 35(4):752-764.

Huckleberry, G. 2000 Interdisciplinary and specialized geoarchaeology: A post–Cold War perspective.

Jusseret, S. 2010 Socializing geoarchaeology: Insights from Bourdieu’s theory of practice applied to Neolithic and Bronze Age Crete. Geoarchaeology 25(6): 675-708.

Leach, E. K. 1992 On the definition of Geoarchaeology.

Geoarchaeology. 7(5) 405-417.

Limbrey, S. 1975 Soil science and archaeology. Academic Press inc. Ltd, London.

Linderholm, J. and R. Engelmark 2010 The soil as a source material in archaeology: Theoretical considerations and pragmatic applications. Archaeology and Environment Series, 25:1b. Umea Universitet, Sweden.

Lyell, S. C. 1863 The Geological Evidences for the Antiquity of Man. John Murray, London.

Macphail, R., J. Crowther and G. Cruise, G. 2007 Micromorphology and Post-Roman Town Research: The Examples of London and Magdeburg. In Post-Roman Towns, Trade and Settlement in Europe and Byzantium, J. Henning (ed.), pages 303-319. Walter De Gruyter, Berlin.

Mikkelsen, J. H., R. Langohr and R. I. Macphail 2007 Soilscape and land-use evolution related to drift sand movements since the bronze age in Eastern Jutland, Denmark. Geoarchaeology 22(2):155-179.

Nicholson, R. A. and T. O’Connor (eds.) 2000 People as an Agent of Environmental Change. An Introduction.

Oxbow Books, Oxford.

O’Connor, T. 1998 Environmental Archaeology: a Matter of Definition. Environmental Archaeology 2(1):1-6.

Passmore, D. G., C. Waddington and S. J. Houghton 2002 Geoarchaeology of the Milfield Basin, northern England;

towards an integrated archaeological prospection, research and management framework. Archaeological Prospection 9(2):71-91.

Pedersen, O. C. 2004 Georadarundersøkelsene av Halvdanshaugen. In Halvdanshaugen- Arkeologi, Historie og Naturvitenskap, Larsen, J. H. and Rolfsen, P. (eds.), pages 87-95. Skrifter nr. 3 Universitet i Oslo, Oslo.

Rapp, G., Jr and J. A. Gifford 1985 Archaeoloical Geology.

Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecicut.

Rapp, G. Jr. and C. Hill 1998 Geoarchaeology: The Earth Science Approach to Archaeological Interpretation. Yale University Press, London.

Renfrew, C. 1976 Archaeology and the Earth Sciences. In Geoarchaeology: Earth Science and the Past, Davidson, D. A. and M.L Shackley (eds.), pages 1-5. Duckworth, London.

Retallack, G. J. 2001 Soils of the past: an introduction to paleopedology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Sageidet, B. M. 2009 Late Holocene land use at Orstad, Jæren, southwestern Norway, evidence from pollen analysis and soil micromorphology. Catena 78(3):198- 217.

SASSA 2011 Soil Analysis Support System for Archaeology, Online. Available from: http://www.sassa.org.uk/index.

php/Main_Page [Accessed 17.04.2011].

Schuldenrein, J. 2007 A Reassessment of the holocene stratigraphy of the Wadi Hasa Terrace and Hasa formation, Jordan. Geoarchaeology 22(6):559-588.

Vance Haynes, C. 1995 Geochronology of

paleoenvironmental change, clovis type site, Blackwater draw, New Mexico. Geoarchaeology 10(5): 317-388.

Viberg, A., I. Trinks and K. Liden 2011 A review of the use of geophysical archaeological prospection in Sweden.

Archaeological Prospection 18(1):43-56.

Vita-Finzi, C. 1969 The Mediterranean valleys: geological changes in historical times. Cambridge University Press, London.

Ward, I., B. Smith and R. Lawley 2009 Mapping the archaeological soil archive of sand and gravel mineral reserves in Britain. Geoarchaeology 24(1):1-21.

Waters, M. R. 1992 Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon.

(19)

–1999 Geoarchaeology: The earth-science approach to archaeological interpretation; Geological methods for archaeology. Geoarchaeology 14(4):365-369.

–2000 Alluvial stratigraphy and geoarchaeology in the American Southwest. Geoarchaeology 15(6):537-557.

Wilson, C., D. Davidson and M. Cresser 2008 Multi- Element Soil Analysis: An Assessment of its Potential as an Aid to Archaeological Interpretation. Journal Of Archaeological Science 35(2):412-424.

Wilson, C. A., D. A. Davidson and M. S. Cresser 2009 An evaluation of the site specificity of soil elemental signatures for identifying and interpreting former functional areas. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(10):2327-2334.

Woodward, J. and G. Huckleberry 2010 Editorial introduction: 25 years of Geoarchaeology.

Wright, F. 1893 Man and the Glacial Period. The Archaeologist: An Illustrated Monthly Magazine, Devoted To Archaeology, Ethnology, History, etc. Ohio Archaeological and Historical Society, Colombus, Ohio.

Øvstedal, S. 1974 Hardangervidda: natur, kulturhistorie, samfunnsliv: fra et utvalg ved kongelig resolusjon 20. august 1971, utredningen avgitt 21. juni 1974.

Departementenes servicesenter, Informasjonsforvaltning, Oslo.