GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

Interdisciplinary and Specialized

Geoarchaeology: A Post– Cold War
Perspective
Gary Huckleberry
Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington 99164-4910

Geoarchaeology is both an interdisciplinary and specialized science. This dichotomy does not
weaken the discipline, although it does lead to debates over its boundaries and definitions.
Despite diverse theoretical and methodological orientations influenced largely by academic
training, geoarchaeologists should recognize the value of their specialized and interdiscipli-
nary heritage and use geoarchaeology to help blend the sciences and humanities. Such an
application of geoarchaeology will play a large role in the success of the discipline in the 21st
century as economic competition drives science funding, applied research increasingly over-
shadows basic research, and the public increases its demand for greater relevance of science
to their everyday lives. By emphasizing the value of both interdisciplinary and specialized
approaches, geoarchaeology will continue to grow and mature as a discipline. 䉷 2000 John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION
From time to time, it is worthwhile to consider the origin, status, and future of
one’s profession. At the close of the century and millenium, there has been consid-
erable reflection on a number of social institutions, including that of science. In
this article, I consider the nature of geoarchaeology as both an interdisciplinary
and specialized science from the perspective of a North American academic whose
training occurred near, during, and after the end of the Cold War. This event in
itself is seemingly unrelated to geoarchaeological method and theory, but it is rel-
evant in regards to the scientific enterprise with which geoarchaeology belongs. I
will assess the status of geoarchaeology as a scientific discipline and provide sug-
gestions for ensuring its vitality in a future where science will increasingly be
viewed as a capitalistic venture and measured in terms of its immediate benefit to
society. However, as in any endeavor, before one can make educated inferences
regarding the future, it is instructive to consider the past.

INTERDISCIPLINARY BEGINNINGS
During the Renaissance, it was feasible to be trained in all of the natural sciences
and humanities. However, as our knowledge base increased, science divided into
specialized disciplines, a process philosophers of science call “reductionism.” This short
trend was compatible with and enhanced by a belief, originating with Descartes, standard

Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, Vol. 15, No. 6, 523– 536 (2000)

䉷 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

that phenomena and processes are best understood by breaking them down into
their simplest parts (Frodeman, 1995). As scientists focused their efforts on small
components of large complex systems, specialized disciplines became further di-
vided into specialized subdisciplines. The result was an explosion of knowledge
regarding the intricacies of the natural world from planetary to microscopic scales.
In this way, reductionism of science proved fruitful and later manifested itself in a
variety of technologies of benefit to society.
Despite advances made through specialized science, the consequences of sci-
entific reductionism were not all positive. Another result of this increasing spe-
cialization was a growing divide between the different fields of science. During the
19th century, the variety of topics one studied became reduced in number. There
just was not enough time to fully and equally study physics, chemistry, and biology,
let alone other nascent fields of study such as geology, archaeology, geography,
and anthropology. That is not to say that all of the disciplines were isolated entities
with no interdisciplinary overlap. Indeed, geology and later geography and anthro-
pology became recognized as discrete sciences but with components derived from
physics, chemistry, and biology (Schumm, 1991). Although it was common during
this time for the geoscientist and archaeologist to be the same person, the sciences
became largely autonomous, each with its own language, method, theory, and even-
tually a suite of specialized subdisciplines including geoarchaeology. Scientists re-
ceived less and less training outside their discipline of choice resulting in profes-
sional atomization and a fragmentation of knowledge (Wilson, 1998).
Eventually it was realized that this reductionism in science was in many instances
counterproductive, and that we were not seeing the forest for the trees. However,
specialization and the division of labor was necessary to deal with the ever growing
body of knowledge. This situation is particularly true today: Scientists receive spe-
cialized training through specific academic departments at research universities
and search for a niche in some well-defined field of inquiry. To keep abreast of
theoretical and methodological advances within the discipline, (s)he must become
an avid reader of the pertinent scientific literature. With over 10,000 scientific jour-
nals published in the world, few can rise to the challenge of being a polymath
reminiscent of the Renaissance period. At best we subscribe to Science or Nature
or generalized science magazines and attempt to keep abreast of the biggest de-
velopments outside our disciplines. In the Information Age, the best we can hope
for is expertise in a couple of related disciplines. To do more, we risk becoming
dilettantes: jack of all trades, master of none.
The growing recognition of the problems inherent in increasing scientific spe-
cialization eventually led to a push for interdisciplinary study. Geoarchaeology —
one of the many specialized, subdisciplines of science — owes much to this in-
creased need for collaboration between different specialists. Indeed, geoarchaeol-
ogy arose in part to answer the plea for more interdisciplinary approaches to un-
derstanding human prehistory (Fryxell, 1977). Most geoarchaeologists are aware
that geoscience and archaeology are sister disciplines with a common lineage in short
the family of historical sciences. Both disciplines use common modes of inductive standard

524 VOL 15, NO. 6

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SPECIALIZED GEOARCHAEOLOGY

and deductive logic. Both use the same stratigraphic principles and methods of
relative and numerical dating. In the 19th century, geoscientist and archaeologist
worked side by side investigating the premier research question of that time: de-
termining the antiquity of humans (Meltzer, 1983; Gifford and Rapp, 1985). Near
the turn of the century, geoarchaeology was performed as part of large interdisci-
plinary investigations such as Schliemann’s excavations at Troy and Pumpelly and
Schmidt’s excavations and surveys of northern Turkestan. In the American South-
west, Frank Hamilton Cushing conducted in 1887 – 1888 what was arguably the first
interdisciplinary archaeological investigation in North America (Gumerman, 1991).
His excavations at the Hohokam ruins of Los Muertos in what is today metropolitan
Phoenix included the skills of a geologist for working out the intricacies of house
floor and canal stratigraphy. However, after World War I, there was a reduced
influence of geoscience in archaeology, especially in the United States, due to a
rise in the humanistic approach to archaeology, the de-emphasis of the role of
environment in human behavior, and the crystallization of archaeology, anthropol-
ogy, and geoscience as discrete academic departments (Daniel 1981; Gifford and
Rapp, 1985; Willey and Sabloff, 1993). In this sense, geoarchaeology was slowed by
scientific reductionism.
Despite this alignment of archaeology with the social sciences, geoarchaeologi-
cal research continued in the United States during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s with
people like Kirk Bryan, Ernst Antevs, and E. H. Sellards (see Butzer, 1971; Meltzer,
1983; Haynes, 1990; Rapp and Hill, 1998 for reviews). In the 1930s and 1940s, the
cultural and chronological relationships between Clovis and Folsom were being
deciphered by geologists, ecologists, and archaeologists at Blackwater Draw Lo-
cality 1 and other Paleoindian sites on the Southern High Plains (Holliday, 1997).
This work, and subsequent research directed by Fred Wendorf under the auspices
of the High Plains Paleoecological Program, reflected a growing shift in the theo-
retical orientation of archaeologists who began to focus more on environmental
context and settlement patterns, the latter of which required consideration of land-
scapes rather than just sites and artifacts (Willey and Sabloff, 1993). Attempts at
reconstructing environments and diet required the services of physical and natural
scientists, and, as a result, there was increasing collaborative, interdisciplinary
study of human prehistory. This period marks the rise of environmental archaeol-
ogy in North America, and was a catalyst for the development of geoarchaeology
as a widely accepted field of inquiry.
Later, interest by archaeologists in geoarchaeology increased during the proces-
sual revolution of the 1960s and its continued emphasis on the environment and
more holistic, scientific approaches to human prehistory. During this period, Karl
Butzer (1971) played an important role in advocating the application of geoscien-
tific perspectives in the study of human prehistory, a field that he defined at the
time as prehistoric geography. In his view, humans could be best understood with
respect to their ecology, and geoarchaeology could play an important role in defin-
ing the environmental context of past societies. He also alluded to the significance short
of such research to modern environmental issues (Butzer, 1971:12). Geoarchaeol- standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 525

GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

ogy was further fomented by studies in site formation processes (Schiffer, 1983).
In this view the archaeological record is a complex system, affected by a variety
of physical processes that have to be defined before behavioral patterns are deci-
phered through processes of induction. All of these theoretical orientations, and a
growing recognition of the value of interdisciplinary study, allowed geoarchaeology
to become a requisite component to large archaeological projects, including large
multiyear studies of the early Neolithic in southwest Asia and Mesoamerica (see
Gifford and Rapp, 1985).
After the High Plains Paleoecology Project, the largest interdisciplinary archae-
ological study to have been completed in the United States was the Tule Springs
Expedition in Nevada (Wormington and Ellis, 1967). Much like the 19th century
collaboration between geologists and archaeologists in defining the antiquity of
humans, the catalyst for this work was an earlier investigation that suggested the
Las Vegas Valley contained 28,000-year-old archaeology (Harrington and Simpson,
1961). This hypothesis required rigorous testing, but the geological, paleontological,
and archaeological situation was complex. As a result, a large collaborative sci-
entific team was assembled including geoarchaeologist Vance Haynes. The inter-
disciplinary approach, aided with over 2 km of bulldozer trenches and 80 14C dates,
proved essential not only in refuting the hypothesis of a 28,000-year-old human
presence, but also in gaining insight to Quaternary landscape evolution and paleo-
environmental change in the southern Great Basin.
Around the same time as the Tule Springs investigation, the value of interdisci-
plinary approaches to the study of human prehistory was reinforced with the cre-
ation of the Quaternary Studies Program in the Department of Anthropology at
Washington State University (Davis, 1999:732). This was one of the first Quaternary
research programs in the country and unusual in that it was affiliated with an
anthropology department rather than earth or biological science departments. Ar-
chaeologist Richard Daugherty recognized the need for multiple perspectives and
approaches in the study of archaeological sites associated with dam construction
in the Columbia River Basin. Funded by the National Science Foundation, the Qua-
ternary Studies Program included a geologist, vertebrate paleontologist, and paly-
nologist, all with doctoral degrees outside the social sciences, who became per-
manent faculty within the Anthropology Department. The work at Marmes
Rockshelter (Fryxell et al., 1968) became another benchmark of interdisciplinary
geoarchaeological science in North America.

NORTH AMERICAN GEOARCHAEOLOGY TODAY

Today North American geoarchaeology is recognized as a discrete discipline with
its own professional organizations (e.g., the Archaeological Geology Division of the
Geological Society of America and the Geoarchaeology Interest Group of the So-
ciety of American Archaeology) and peer-reviewed journal (Geoarchaeology: An
International Journal). A geoarchaeologist is likely to receive his or her formal short
training from one of three academic departments: Geography, Geology, and An- standard

526 VOL 15, NO. 6

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SPECIALIZED GEOARCHAEOLOGY

thropology, or possibly an interdisciplinary graduate program. Although not ex-

haustive, a recent listing of geoarchaeology programs in U.S. and Canada (Table I)
includes 27 different universities, with most geoarchaeology programs linked to
more than one department. Of the 27 programs, 18 are coordinated through An-
thropology (or Archaeology) departments, 15 in Geology (Geoscience) depart-
ments, eight in Geography departments, and six are part of interdisciplinary pro-
grams under the rubric of Quaternary or Archaeological Studies. Other departments
linked to geoarchaeology programs include Materials Science and Engineering (Ar-
chaeometry), Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, and Atmospheric
Sciences. In 1998 Hamilton College (New York) developed the first undergraduate
program in geoarchaeology in the United States (George T. Jones, personal com-
munication, 1999). Although the most common department listed as part of these
geoarchaeology programs is anthropology, only four are based solely in anthro-
pology departments.

Table I. Academic departments in North America with geoarchaeology programs (Source:

具http://www.geog.ukans.edu/gsa/gsa grad.htm典, accessed February 7, 1999).
Interdisciplinary
University Anthropology Geology/Geosciences Geography Studies
Arizona * *
Northern Arizona *
Arkansas * * *
Baylor *
Boston *
Cornell * *
Delaware *
Georgia *
Illinois * * *
Iowa * *
Kentucky * *
Maine-Orono *
Massachusetts- * *
Amherst
McMaster * * *
Michigan *
Minnesota-Duluth * *
Minnesota * *
City of New York * *
North Texas *
Pittsburgh * *
Rutgers *
Texas A&M * *
Texas *
Vanderbilt * *
Washington *
Washington State * short
Wisconsin * * *
standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 527

GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

A good indication of the health of a profession is how well its members are
represented in the work force. Formal training in geoarchaeology at the university
level is increasingly augmented by subsequent employment. Today, a growing num-
ber of geoarchaeologists is employed in the private sector working with environ-
mental scientists and archaeologists. Much of this is related to the increasing role
of Cultural Resource Management (CRM) in North American archaeology following
landmark U.S. legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966
and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act in 1979. Requests for proposals
by government agencies solicited to archaeological firms increasingly request geo-
scientific expertise in archaeological testing and data recovery, and an increasing
number of CRM companies employ a full-time geoarchaeologist.
Despite this growing presence of geoarchaeology in the academic and CRM
realms, there is a considerable amount of debate over what constitutes geoar-
chaeology. This likely is a product of geoarchaeologal training in a variety of dif-
ferent academic and professional settings. Depending on the academic program,
one might specialize in pedology, geomorphology, sedimentology, stratigraphy,
GIS, geophysical prospection, or materials analysis, and still consider him or herself
a geoarchaeologist if this knowledge is applied towards archaeology. In this sense,
geoarchaeology can be quite specialized with a varied arsenal of investigative tech-
niques. This, however, has created some problems. In addition to common mis-
understandings between geoarchaeologists who may work at different spatial and
temporal scales of analysis due to different academic backgrounds (Stein, 1993),
the multiple backgrounds of geoarchaeologists have created different perceptions
over what defines geoarchaeology (see Gladfelter 1981; Butzer 1982; Leach 1992;
Waters, 1999) and what it takes to be a true geoarchaeologist. Some research
deemed “geoarchaeology” by one party might be classified as something different,
for example, “archaeological geology” or “archaeometry,” by another.
Whereas it is important for a discipline to have defining paradigms and charac-
teristics to distinguish it from other disciplines, we may be a bit too preoccupied
with defining criteria. As scientists we have a penchant for specialized terminology
and labeling including that for different types of research; it comes part and parcel
with the increasing specialization and reductionism of science. However, we can
spend so much energy trying to delimit the methodological and theoretical bound-
aries of geoarchaeology that we ignore its value as both a specialized and interdis-
ciplinary science practiced by people with different scientific backgrounds. Be-
cause geoarchaeology is both specialized and interdisciplinary, it should have a
broad, inclusive and generalized definition. In my opinion, a slight modification of
that offered by Gifford and Rapp (1985:19) works well: “the application of earth
science method and theory to the understanding the human past.” This definition
is broad enough to include individuals from a variety of scientific backgrounds,
each of which can contribute to our understanding of human prehistory. Within
those different backgrounds are subdisciplines (e.g., materials analysis, pedology,
sedimentology, remote sensing), thus making geoarchaeology quite specialized. If short
the goal of geoarchaeology is to enhance our understanding of human prehistory, standard

528 VOL 15, NO. 6

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SPECIALIZED GEOARCHAEOLOGY

then anyone who utilizes different analytical techniques to synthesize earth science
and archaeology in a way that is historical, processual, or even postprocessual, is
making a contribution worthy of consideration as geoarchaeology.

GEOARCHAEOLOGY TOMORROW
So where does geoarchaeology stand at the beginning of the new millennium? Is
there interest and financial resources to support its practice and growth as a legit-
imate scientific endeavor?
Overall, the discipline looks healthy, due in large part to the growing attractive-
ness of interdisciplinary science, as well as its alliance with archaeology and the
CRM industry. Long realized as beneficial, interdisciplinary science is now consid-
ered essential in dealing with complex, multivariate, nonlinear phenomena (Sigma
Xi, 1987). Whereas one cannot master all of the natural and/or social sciences, one
can collaborate with professionals from other disciplines or focus on the union
between different branches of science. This has resulted in the recent develop-
ments of hybridized fields such as planetary science, microbiology, bioengineering,
behavioral ecology, and cognitive science, and an increasing number of interdis-
ciplinary curricula in universities at the undergraduate and graduate levels, at least
within some academic programs. Geoarchaeology fits into this niche of interdis-
ciplinary study in that it combines aspects of the physical and social sciences. It
has a tradition of study that includes both humans and the environment (Butzer,
1982), and the nature of human-environmental relationships is an issue clearly of
relevance to modern society.
In addition to its interdisciplinary nature, the future of geoarchaeology is helped
by its relationship with the CRM industry. Several hundreds of millions of dollars
are spent on CRM in the United States annually, and a portion of that goes toward
geoarchaeological study. The general public has a deep interest in prehistory, and
archaeology is a type of research that even some of the most ardent, antitax fiscal
conservatives can support. An excellent example is the great interest displayed by
the public and congressional representatives from Washington State regarding the
Kennewick Man skeleton discovery (Chatters, 1997). Although pubic interest in
this case is in part enhanced by the politics and conflicts associated with the case
(Swedlund and Anderson, 1999), the public has voiced a sincere interest to know
who Kennewick Man was. People want to understand who the first Americans
were, how they lived, and who their descendants are. The recent Clovis and Beyond
Conference, an international gathering to discuss issues relating to the peopling of
the Americas, had over 1400 attendees, many from outside the archaeological pro-
fession (Hall, 2000). Archaeology generates that kind of public interest and support
because people are interested in people in all places and times, an interest seldom
generated by mere rock and soil. But if rock and soil can tell us something about
people, or in this case, Kennewick Man’s history where sediments were used to
help define the skeleton’s spatial and temporal context, they want to hear it. Be- short
cause of Kennewick Man, there have been lead articles on geoarchaeology found standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 529

GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

in regional news articles (e.g., Tri-City Herald, December 16, 1997; Seattle Times,
December 8, 1998).
Although public support for archaeology has been formally demonstrated with
the passing of the Federal Antiquities Act, the National Historic Preservation Act,
and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, geoarchaeology should not sim-
ply rely on CRM for its funding. I believe that the discipline needs to extend beyond,
compliance-driven research issues and apply itself to broader topics of value to
society. For the discipline to grow in reputation and number of participants, it
should try to demonstrate an additional, more practical value to society as a sci-
ence, particularly in reference to human adaptation and ecological sustainability.
It should demonstrate aspects of both basic and applied research, and be able to
compete with other sciences for funding outside of CRM.
For much of the present century, society has recognized the public benefit gen-
erated by science (and engineering) research. But the relationship between science
and society is changing. Since 1945, science policy was guided by Vannevar Bush’s
study, Science: The Endless Frontier, that stated three priorities for guiding sci-
entific research in the United States: national defense, public health, and economic
strength (Sigma Xi, 1987). In the late 1970s, as real wages declined for many Amer-
icans, the economic aspects of scientific research began to receive greater scrutiny,
and with the end of the Cold War, there became less of a clear connection between
science and a justification for its support (Brown, 1998). This, and the growing
push for the devolution of the federal government, has changed how science is
funded in this country. In 1960, about 65% of all research and development funds
in the United States were provided by the federal government, and only 33% by
industry (Moore, 1998). By 1995, the tables had turned: The federal government
provided about 36% and industry 59%.
In step with the reduced influence of the federal government in scientific re-
search is a growing disconnect between the scientific community and the public
at large. Many people are not educated as to what science is and what science does,
and the benefits it generates for society. Although most people are supportive of
science education, they are less supportive of funding the scientific enterprise. We
as scientists are to blame for part of this disconnect, because we have generated
a reputation of ivory tower elitists. To change this, we have to play a greater role
in sharing our work with the public, and we should try to relate our work to the
values and goals of society when possible.
In the post-Cold War era, the focus is on more immediate returns on the invest-
ment of science. Specifically, what will be the contribution of science towards
public health and economic strength? The National Science Foundations’ National
Science Board’s Task Force on the Environment (1999) states that public funding
of science will be driven by the need to improve the quality of life, and that “quality
of life will depend in large measure on the generation of new wealth, on safeguard-
ing the health of our planet, and on opportunities for enlightenment and individual
development.” To paraphrase a U.S. Congressman, “if your research doesn’t protect short
the environment or generate jobs, forget about federal support.” Given these state- standard

530 VOL 15, NO. 6

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SPECIALIZED GEOARCHAEOLOGY

ments, it is possible that just understanding more about the human past will not
be enough to sustain public funding of geoarchaeology, especially if the economy
declines. This is also perhaps why so little pure geoarchaeology research is funded
by institutions like NSF. Instead, paleoenvironmental or archaeological research is
funded, and that research may or may not have a geoarchaeological component.
In order to strengthen the discipline in the 21st century, geoarchaeology should try
to compete for funding as a science of value to modern society beyond mere sat-
isfaction of historical curiosity.
The key to geoarchaeology’s growth in the future will be its interdisciplinary and
specialized nature that is relevant for addressing some of today’s social and envi-
ronmental problems. Scientists recognize that environmental systems have com-
plex interacting physical and social dimensions that operate over multiple spatio-
temporal scales. One approach to better understanding current environmental
dynamics is to reconstruct their behavior over long time scales. Hence, consider-
able funding has been funneled into Quaternary research under the rubric of the
Global Change Initiative at the National Science Foundation (NSF). But there is
also an increasing realization that we need to look at the human dimensions of
adaptation in a changing environment over long time scales. To help guide future
NSF research on the environment, the National Science Board’s (NSB) Task Force
on the Environment (1999) made recommendations for improving the quality and
relevance of environmental research. The Task Force stated that one of the goals
of the NSF is:
Discovery across the fields of science and engineering to elucidate the processes
and interactions among the atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere,
lithosphere, and socio-economic systems, thereby providing an integrated un-
derstanding of the natural status and dynamics of, and the anthropogenic influ-
ences on, the Earth’s environmental envelope [italics added].
In order to achieve that goal, the NSB recognizes the need for expertise from
multiple disciplines — including physical, biological, and social sciences and engi-
neering. One of the areas recognized by the NSB that needed enhancement was
the study of historical socio-ecology, that is, “tracing human-environment relations
by integrating evidence from physical, biological, social science and the humanities
over space and time.”
Other scientific organizations have also recognized the need to incorporate the
social sciences into the study of the environment. The Geological Society of Amer-
ica has developed a strategic plan to help guide its organization into the 21st cen-
tury. Their strategic plan is structured around a series of goals, and Goal #2 is:
To catalyze cooperative interactions among earth, life, planetary, and social
scientists who investigate natural systems over varying scales of time and space.
[GSA Today, 9(1), 9 (1999)]
This is where geoarchaeology can be an important player. Geoarchaeologists have short
a history of working at the interface of the social and physical sciences. Working standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 531

GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

alongside archaeologists, geoarchaeologists are interested in reconstructing human

behavior and all of the ecological variables (both social and natural) involved in
that behavior (Butzer, 1982). We have long been interested in the long-term human
impacts on the landscape (e.g., Jacobson and Adams, 1958; van Andel et al., 1990;
Redman, 1999) and how human populations respond to environmental change (e.g.,
Bryan, 1941; Antevs, 1948; Fagan, 1999). Geoarchaeology directly or indirectly can
shed light on topics such as past population dynamics, environment, resource use,
systems of social inequality, and warfare. Such studies provide a deep time per-
spective to modern problems.
As an example of geoarchaeology with modern relevance, the world experienced
one of the strongest El Niño events of the century in 1997 – 1998 with billions of
dollars of losses due to floods, droughts, and disrupted agricultural and fish indus-
tries. Some have argued that the frequency and magnitude of El Niño events could
increase in the future as a result of global warming, or that the El Niño event of
1997 – 1998 is a good analog for a future greenhouse world (Trenberth and Hoar,
1997). It is quite relevant to modern societies to learn how past societies responded
to changes in the frequency and magnitude of El Niño events. Hence, geoarchaeol-
ogists have worked with archaeologists trying to reconstruct the history of El Niño
in coastal Peru using landforms, soils, sediments, and shell middens (e.g., Nials et
al., 1979; Wells, 1990; Sandweiss et al., 1996; Keefer et al., 1998; Fontugne et al.,
1999; Wells and Noller, 1999). Although some may view this as simple paleoenvi-
ronmental reconstruction, we are interested in more than just the climatic picture
presented by this research. We want to know if the perturbations caused by El
Niño were sufficient to catalyze cultural changes in complex societies (e.g., Bill-
man, 1996; Fagan, 1999; Sandweiss et al., 1999), such as the expansion of intensive
agriculture, increases in inter-regional trade, warfare, and the rise and fall of re-
gional polities. There is growing evidence that the frequency and magnitude of El
Niño has indeed changed in the past (Eltahir and Guiling, 1999; Rodbell et al., 1999).
How did different politically complex societies respond to this type of climate
change? Which groups were successful in adapting to this environmental change
and which groups failed? These questions we can only address when our geos-
cientific research is integrated with that of the archaeologists in a truly interdisci-
plinary fashion, melding the natural and social sciences.
Geoarchaeologists are specialized enough to have the expertise to analyze and
interpret different aspects of the natural and cultural record, and yet interdiscipli-
nary enough to address complex environmental problems of interest to world gov-
ernments and the general public. Herein lies our strength, and the means for our
discipline to grow.

CONCLUSIONS
Science has undergone important transformations since the Renaissance, one of
the more noteworthy changes being reductionism and the associated proliferation short
standard

532 VOL 15, NO. 6

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SPECIALIZED GEOARCHAEOLOGY

of disciplines, subdisciplines, and narrow specialties. Now there is a push for the
integration of the different sciences and, in particular, increasing interaction be-
tween the sciences and humanities. Harvard biologist Edward O. Wilson (1998)
argues for a “consilience” between these separate intellectual realms because many
of our greatest problems facing modern society can only be solved by integrating
the two. Recent developments in science, including the Human Genome Project
and mitochondrial DNA studies, are providing greater insight into human prehistory
and modern behavior and suggest that perhaps the sciences and humanities can
be combined in answering questions of mutual interest (Owens and King, 1999).
If a reconciliation between the humanities and sciences is possible, then a proper
thrust of geoarchaeology might be to play a role towards meeting that goal. Geoar-
chaeology has its origin and developing paradigm in the union between the physical
and social sciences. Its arsenal of method and theory is grounded in the physical
sciences, but its ultimate goal is the understanding human-environmental relation-
ships in all times and places. It is both an interdisciplinary and specialized science,
with a flexible research domain well suited for addressing complex issues that
transcend the humanities and sciences. However, most academic geoarchaeolo-
gists in North America reside in earth science departments and programs at re-
search universities (geography, geology, Quaternary studies). This may limit the
blending between the physical and social sciences within geoarchaeology. Possible
solutions include the hiring of more geoarchaeologists in anthropology depart-
ments and increasing flexibility in curricula such that students are encouraged to
take classes outside their major department. Also important are funding mecha-
nisms that advocate interdisciplinary research. The CRM profession should con-
tinue to seek interdisciplinary approaches in research, and federal granting agen-
cies should promote cross-disciplinary programs, for example, the Earth System
History Program at NSF.
Although the health of the discipline is currently good, geoarchaeologists should
strive to increase its visibility in addressing modern research concerns. Pleas for
making archaeology and geoscience more relevant to modern society have been
made before, particularly in the 1960s, but today the funding environment for sci-
ence today is fundamentally different, and we can expect this difference to con-
tinue. With the end of the Cold War and the growing movement to downsize gov-
ernment, scientists cannot assume the public will support their research because
of the knowledge it generates even if that knowledge eventually manifests itself as
technology beneficial to society. For better or worse, science will increasingly be-
come market-driven. The market is driven by people, and people deal in short time
scales. Government and private-sector science will increasingly have to demon-
strate an applicability to more immediate societal concerns. One of these concerns
is environmental change and how it will impact human quality of life. Geoarchaeol-
ogists are well equipped to address this issue in the sense that the past is a key to
the future. This is not the first time that human societies have experienced anthro-
pogenic environmental degradation or natural climatic variability. Geoarchaeolo- short
standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 533

GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

gists working with other physical and social scientists have the potential to make
a significant contribution to understanding how societies respond to environmental
change and how we might prepare for such changes in the future.
As scientists, we are driven by the thrill of discovery, but we cannot lose sight
of the relevance of our work. In my view, the future of geoarchaeology looks bright
due to the natural curiosity of people and their support for studies that deal with
human history. Even though geoarchaeology is relevant to important modern en-
vironmental concerns, practioners should strive to demonstrate its worth. Given
our dual qualities of specialized and interdisciplinary science, we are in a good
position to do so. With origins in both the natural and social sciences, and with a
history of reputable research, geoarchaeology is well poised for growth and mat-
uration in the 21st century.

I thank Vance Holliday, Andrea Freeman, and Donald Johnson who provided helpful criticisms and
comments to an earlier version of this article. This article is dedicated to my former advisor, C. Vance
Haynes, Jr., whose eclectic research interests and rigorous scientific approaches to understanding hu-
man prehistory were and are a source of amazement and inspiration for me.

REFERENCES
Antevs, E. (1948). Climatic changes and pre-white man. In The Great Basin with emphasis on glacial
and postglacial time (pp. 168– 191), Bulletin of the University of Utah, Vol. 38. Salt Lake City: Uni-
versity of Utah Press.
Billman, B.R. (1996). The evolution of prehistoric political organizations in the Moche Valley, Peru,
unpublished doctoral dissertation. Santa Barbara: University of California.
Brown, G., Jr. (1998). Defining the values for research and technology. Chronicle of Higher Education,
44, July 10, B4– B5.
Bryan, K. (1941). Pre-Columbian agriculture in the Southwest, as conditioned by periods of alluviation.
Association of American Geographers Annals, 31, 219– 242.
Butzer, K.W. (1971). Environment and archaeology: An ecological approach to prehistory (2nd ed.). New
York: Aldine-Atherton.
Butzer, K.W. (1982). Archaeology as human ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chatters, J. (1997). Encounter with an ancestor. Anthropology Newsletter, 38(1), 9– 10.
Daniel, G. (1981). A short history of archaeology. London: Thames and Hudson.
Davis, E.M. (1999). Jonathan Davis spoke two languages. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 14,
729– 733.
Eltahir, E.A.B., & Guiling, W. (1999). Nilometers, El Niño, and climate variability. Geophysical Research
Letters, 26, 489– 492.
Fagan, B. (1999). Floods, famines, and emporers: El Niño and the fate of civilizations. New York: Basic
Books.
Fontugne, M., Usselmann, P., Lavallee, D., Julien, M., & Hatte, C. (1999). El Niño variability in the coastal
desert of southern Peru during the mid-Holocene. Quaternary Research, 52, 171– 179.
Frodeman, R. (1995). Geological reasoning: Geology as an interpretive and historical science. Geological
Society of America Bulletin, 107, 960– 968.
Fryxell, R. (1977). The interdisciplinary dilemma: A case for flexibility in academic thought. Augustana
College Library Occasional Article No. 13 (pp. 7– 16). Rock Island, Illinois: Augustana College Library.
Fryxell, R., Bielicki, T., Daugherty, R.D., Gustafson, C.E., Irwin, H.T., Keel, B.C., & Krantz, G.S. (1968).
Human skeletal material and artifacts from sediments of Pinedale (Wisconsin) glacial age in south-
eastern Washington, United States. In Proceedings VIIIth International Congress of Anthropological short
and Ethnological Sciences. Volume 3: Ethnology and archaeology (pp. 176– 181). standard

534 VOL 15, NO. 6

GEA(Wiley) RIGHT INTERACTIVE

INTERDISCIPLINARY AND SPECIALIZED GEOARCHAEOLOGY

Gifford, J.A., & Rapp, G., Jr. (1985). History, philosophy, and perspectives. In G.J. Rapp & J.A. Gifford,
(Eds.), Archaeological geology (pp. 1– 23). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Gladfelter, B.G. (1981). Developments and directions in geoarchaeology. In M.B. Schiffer (Ed.), Ad-
vances in archaeological method and theory (pp. 343– 364). New York: Academic Press.
Gumerman, G.J. (1991). Understanding the Hohokam. In G.J. Gummerman (Ed.), Exploring the Hoho-
kam: Prehistoric desert peoples of the American Southwest (pp. 1– 27). Albuquerque: Amerind Foun-
dation.
Hall, D.A. (2000). Charting a new era. Mammoth Trumpet, 15, 1– 7.
Harrington, M.R., & Simpson, R.D. (1961). Tule Springs, Nevada with other evidences of Pleistocene
man in North America, Southwest Museum Articles No. 18. San Bernardino, California: Southwest
Museum.
Haynes, C.V., Jr. (1990). The Antevs– Bryan years and the legacy for Paleoindian geochronology. In L.F.
Laporte (Ed.), Establishment of a geologic framework for paleoanthropology, (pp. 55– 68). Boulder,
Colorado: Geological Society of America.
Holliday, V. (1997). Paleoindian geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Jacobson, T., & Adams, R.M. (1958). Salt and silt in ancient Mesopotamian agriculture. Science, 128,
1251– 1258.
Keefer, D.K., deFrance, S.D., Moseley, M.E., Richardson, J.B., III, Satterlee, D.R., & Day-Lewis, A. (1998).
Early maritime economy and El Niño events at Quebrada Tacahuay, Peru. Science, 281, 1833– 1835.
Leach, E. (1992). On the definition of geoarchaeology. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 7, 405–
417.
Meltzer, D.J. (1983). The antiquity of man and the development of American archaeology. In M.B. Schif-
fer (Ed.), Advances in archaeological method and theory (pp. 1– 51). New York: Academic Press.
Moore, J.H. (1998). The health of the enterprise. American Scientist, 87, 98.
National Science Board’s Task Force on the Environment (1999). NSF Report NSB 99-133
(http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/tfe/nsb99133/start.htm). Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
Nials, F.L., Deeds, E.E., Moseley, M.E., Pozorski, S.G., Pozorski, T.G., & Feldman, R. (1979). El Niño:
The catastrophic flooding of coastal Peru. Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, 50, 4– 10,
4– 14.
Owens, K., & King, M. (1999). Genomic views of human history. Science 286, 451– 453.
Rapp, G., Jr., & Hill, C.L. (1998). Geoarchaeology: The earth-science approach to archaeological inter-
pretation. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Redman, C. (1999). Human impact on ancient environments. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Rodbell, D.T., Seltzer, G.O., Anderson, D.M., Abbott, M.B., Enfield, D.B., & Newman, J.H. (1999). An
⬃15,000-year record of El Nino-driven alluviation in southwestern Ecuador. Science, 283, 516– 520.
Sandweiss, D.H., Richardson, J.B., III, Reitz, E.J., Rollins, H.B., & Maasch, K.A. (1996). Determining the
early history of El Niño. Science, 273, 1531.
Sandweiss, D.H., Maasch, K.A., & Anderson, D.G. (1999). Transitions in the mid-Holocene. Science, 283,
499– 500.
Schiffer, M.B. (1983). Toward the identification of formation processes. American Antiquity, 48, 675–
706.
Schumm, S.A. (1991). To interpret the earth: Ten ways to be wrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Sigma Xi (1987). A new agenda for science. New Haven: Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.
Stein, J. (1993). Scale in archaeology, geosciences, and geoarchaeology. In J.K. Stein & A.R. Linse (Eds.),
Effects of scale on archaeological and geoscientific perspectives (pp. 1– 10). Boulder, Colorado:
Geological Society of America.
Swedlund, A., & Anderson, D. (1999). Gordon Creek Woman meets Kennewick Man: New interpretations
and protocols regarding the peopling of the Americas. American Antiquity, 64, 569– 576.
Trenberth, K.E., & Hoar, T.J. (1997). El Niño and climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 24, short
3057– 3060. standard

GEOARCHAEOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 535

GEA(Wiley) LEFT INTERACTIVE

HUCKLEBERRY

van Andel, T. H., Zangger, E., & Demitrack, A. (1990). Land use and soil erosion in prehistoric and
historical Greece. Journal of Field Archaeology, 17, 379– 396.
Waters, M.R. (1999). Book Reviews. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 14, 365– 369.
Wells, L.E. (1990). Holocene history of the El Niño phenomenon as recorded in flood sediments of
northern coastal Peru. Geology, 18, 1134– 1137.
Wells, L.E., & Noller, J.S. (1999) Holocene coevolution of the physical landscape and human settlement
in northern coastal Peru. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal, 14, 755– 789.
Willey, G.R., & Sabloff, J.A. (1993). A history of American archaeology (3rd ed.). New York: W.H. Free-
man.
Wilson, E.O. (1998). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf Publishing.
Wormington, H. M., & Ellis, D. (Eds.) (1967). Pleistocene studies in southern Nevada, Nevada State
Museum Anthropological Articles No. 13. Carson City: Nevada State Museum.

Received January 10, 2000

Accepted for publication February 25, 2000

short
standard

536 VOL 15, NO. 6