The Geoarchaeology of Place: The Effect of Geological Processes on the Preservation and Interpretation of the Archaeological Record

Abstract

Because the landscape on which prehistoric people lived was dynamic and continually changed, the record of prehistoric activities across the landscape has been differentially preserved and destroyed. Insightful reconstructions of human organizational (settlement) systems from the archaeological record require a full understanding of the geological forces and history that have shaped that record. The landscape histories of the North Dakota Badlands and the stream systems of southern Arizona illustrate these points and the importance of geoarchaeological investigations to properly interpret the archaeological record.

Buried artifacts in stable upland sites and the role of bioturbation: A review

“…We implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, reason that if erosion or deposition is negligible, then the surface is stable, and so is the soil. And, if the soil is stable, then any artifact dropped onto the surface will remain at the surface so long as deposition of new sediment does not bury it (e.g., Waters, 1992;Waters and Kuehn, 1996). However, a stable geomorphic surface does not mean that the soil is stable or static (Atkinson, 1957).…”

Biomantle formation and artifact translocation in upland sandy soils: An example from the Holly Springs National Forest, north‐central Mississippi, U.S.A.

“…In recent years, biases introduced by geomorphic processes into archaeological survey results have been increasingly recognized (e.g., Mandel, 1995;Stafford, 1995;Tankersly et al, 1996;Waters and Kuehn, 1996;Wilkinson, 2000;Bettis and Mandel, 2002;Stafford and Creasman, 2002). Upland landforms in the Southeast and elsewhere are often considered to be geomorphologically "stable" except for Historicperiod erosion.…”

Weaving the Common Threads of Simulation and Formation studies in Archaeology

“…These two properties, preservation and visibility, are in large part controlled by the sedimentary history of the deposit, as the local rate of sedimentation determines whether a deposit is buried or exposed, and whether it is subject to surface geomorphic processes or not (Waters and Kuehn, 1996;Ward and Larcombe, 2003). Differences in the relative frequencies of erosion and deposition of sediment over time and space are likely to produce different patterning within the chronological distribution of discoverable features in surface deposits (to say nothing of subsurface features).…”