Society for American Archaeology

Geoarchaeology: The Geomorphologist and Archaeology

Author(s): Bruce G. Gladfelter
Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 42, No. 4 (Oct., 1977), pp. 519-538
Published by: Society for American Archaeology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/278926 .
Accessed: 10/02/2011 11:00

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

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

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
 GEOARCHAEOLOGY:THE GEOMORPHOLOGIST
AND ARCHAEOLOGY

BRUCE G. GLADFELTER

The contributions of the earth sciences, particularly geomorphology and sedimentary petrography, to the
interpretation and environmental reconstruiction of archaeological contexts is called "geoarchaeology." The
physical context provides a palaeo-environimental legacy liable to patterning and interpretation just as artifacts
imply prehistoric cultural activity. Through field study and laboratory analyses, the geoarchaeologist elaborates
the micro-, meso-, and macro-environments of a site, and provides input for erecting prehistoric human activity
patterns in time and space. The categories of information that must be examined in the field, the range of
interpretive problems that confront the field worker, and the laboratory techniques which corroborate field
interpretations can be illuistrated by examining archaeology in an alluvial site. These considerations emphasize
the need to involve the geomorphologist in all aspects of the design and execution of an archaeological
excavation.

BEFORE AN ARCHAEOLOGISTcan unravel man's past a broad complex of man-land

relationships must be deciphered. As an element of this system, man may act or react to
environmentalchange stimulated by allogenic inputs, and it is importantto emphasizethat in the
prehistoric context human activity both affected and was influenced by "environment"-the
physical systems envelopingthe earth'slife-zone. The effective interpretationof the archaeological
record demands careful consideration of the natural context of excavated cultural materials.
Artifacts themselves communicate nothing about their users-they are only materialremainsof
behavioralpatternsin a past environmentalcontext from which behavioralpatternsthemselvesare
inferred. The archaeologistmust consider the biological communities and the severalgeospheres
that encompassthis evidence.
Traditionally, geographers have attempted to understand the behavior and combined
interactionsof the atmo-, bio-, hydro-, and litho-spheresthat compriseour physicalsurroundings.
At various times, man has been viewed as an instrument of the environment(environmental
determinism)or as the manipulatorof it (e.g., the EnvironmentalProtectionAgency) but in either
of these extreme views, the human element is a component of the environmentthat cannot be
isolated from it. For the archaeologist, prone to focus narrowly on human adaptations to
environment,evaluationof prehistoricbehaviormust also include reconstructionof the "physical"
surroundings,by implementingcontributionsfrom the earth sciences and other disciplines.Such
an approachto man's past that focuses upon the geomorphologicalcontext of artifactsis what is
meant by "geoarchaeology."This designationby itself impliesa need to integratedata from many,
often diverse, fields and to emphasize that both the "man" and the "land" elements as well as
their interrelationshipsare important for understandingprehistoricactivity and associations.The
"geo" component concentrates upon the landscape,defined in the broadest sense to include the
intricately related aspects of surface form and morphogeneticsystems. Geomorphologyis the
study of landforms-their description, origin. composition, development, and function. The
varying distributionsin time and space of surface processes account for the dynamic nature of
landformswith the result that the earth's surface can representa composite of past and ongoing
processes (a polygenetic form), or reflect a more simple equilibrium between contemporary
process and form. Evidence derives mostly from the sedimentologicalrecord (continental and
marine) since the erosional agents that continuously wear down uplifted sections of the
continental masses transportsediment into adjacentor more distant environmentswhere, in time,
they may experience additional change. The sedimentologicalcontext of archaeologicalmaterials,
therefore, providessignificantinformationabout the site's specific setting and the local habitat, as
well as the regional environment.Contemporaryprocesses and their spatial distributionprovide
analoguesfor understandingpast associations.
The following discussion is a survey of some of the contributions that can be made by
geomorphology to a reconstruction of prehistoric environmentswhile emphasizingthe kinds of
519
520 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

information the geomorphologist can contribute to archaeological interpretation. With these

points in mind, most references have been selected from interdisciplinary journals and from
publications with broad ranges of topics on Quaternary environments that should be of interest to
the archaeologist.
THE GEOMORPHOLOGICAL CONTEXT
Under optimal circumstances, ample evidence of temporal and spatial contexts may be
preserved with artifacts. Such evidence may legitimately be viewed as a legacy of environment
liable to interpretation by a trained individual in much the same way as the archaeologist
interprets an artifact assemblage. For the geomorphologist, the environmental context ranges from
site-specific location factors to broader, zonal implications so that the physical context may be
identified at several scales. For example, an occupation site along an ancient stream can be
evaluated with respect to (see Fig. 1): (a) the immediate geomorphic environment or depositional
micro-environment, such as an exposed gravel or sand bar, stream bank, levee or terrace, or
abandoned floodplain; (b) the surrounding landscape or meso-environmental setting, such as a
broad alluvial floodplain or a narrow valley; and (c) the regional morphogenetic environment at a
macro-scale. These several levels of data may or may not be in equilibrium with the modern
environment, depending in part on their age, and in part on the degree of environmental change
that has taken place in the interim to alter or erase the evidence.
At the most general level of interpretation the zonal or latitudinal concept becomes important,
specifically the global distribution of geomorphic responses as related to climatic variables (see
discussion of zonality in Butzer 1971:Chapter 4). The premises of climatic geomorphology and
morphogenetic regions have been vigorously debated (contrast, e.g., Stoddart 1969 and Tricart and
Cailleux 1972) but at the least it can be accepted that cause-effect linkages of some sort do exist
between a geomorphic process and surface form response, and that distributions of exogenetic
processes bear a relationship in kind and intensity to morphogenesis.
At the smallest scale, archaeological materials are contained in sedimentary matrices that, in
varying degree, include clastic and chemical properties derived from several geo-spheres. The
sediment and its morphostratigraphic context become the fundamental unit for dating and
interpretation of the contained archaeological material; they provide the evidence of past
environments that is liable to study and interpretation at several levels. Even surface sites, as
opposed to buried (i.e. sealed) and supposedly in situ, stratified sites, present a sedimentological
context although it may be difficult to demonstrate any direct relevance to the archaeology.
Butzer (1971 :Chapter 15) proposed six categories of archaeological sites (discounting a seventh
type, "surficial sites," which can be relegated to each of the other categories) classified in terms of
location in the landscape and the origin of the associated deposits. The scheme shown in Fig. 1
emphasizes the significance of the depositional context by showing that artifacts found in a
sediment with other palaeoenvironmental information ideally can be related to a specific
depositional environment (=site-specific location) in the local landscape (=habitat). Other
sedimentary data may hold relevance for regional (=zonal) environmental conditions.
The weathering conditions and transport media also are of interest because in both cases
environmental processes are implicated. In Table 1 geomorphic agents are related to the
fundamental units of surface form: interfluves, mid-slopes, and valley bottoms. Since, via
contemporary studies, the properties of sediments deposited by the several agents are at least
partly understood, the sediment offers an opportunity for palaeo-environmental reconstruction.
In particular instances the geomorphologic record may be incomplete. Morphogenetic
conditions may have been of insufficient effect or duration to be registered in the surviving record,
or geomorphological events of later periods may have partially or completely obliterated the
earlier record. Because of this, both the archaeologist and geomorphologist contend with problems
that are a function of time: the older the human activity or geomorphological event, the greater
the potential for disturbance or destruction, and the greater the likelihood that only part of the
evidence has survived. When dealing with more remote time periods, therefore, the
geomorphologist is less likely to be able to assess the conditions and age of the palaeolandscape
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 521

potentially
regiona (zonal),ons cal environment

Ce l tFossil pedogenesis i i

{ ~~~~~Fauna
Fig.1. Gomorholgica conext maeil riat ln
of Radiation f d ihpleenvironmenta
arhaoogetica
Artifacts/

archaeological
material. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~It

\ \ {~~~~~~4//"|vial
lowland)//

subseuent nterpetatins an infeenesabot humaneativiyetiso ncmo o eea

Fig. 1. Geomorphological context of archaeological material. Artifacts along with palaeoenvironmental

indicators occur within a sediment deposited in a site specific context with implications for local (habitat), and
potentially regional (zonal), reconstructions.

and the elements of morphogeneticchangethat have occurredsince the time in question, but there
are always data of some sort to justify study of the geomorphological context of the
archaeologicalmaterial.
THE FIELD EXPERIENCE
Certainly the most crucial aspect of geomorphological investigation is the fileld study of
archaeological contexts. Careful, critical observation and recording become the basis for all
subsequent reconstructions; the hypotheses erected and tested in the field directly affect all
subsequent interpretations and inferences about human activity. It is not uncommon for several
experts to examine the same section or stratum and formulate different conclusions about the
palaeo-depositional environment. This is not an indictment of individuals, but an indication of the
state of the art, lack of consensus emphasizes a need for the geo-archaeologist to play more than a
"consulting" role and to be involved in all stages of excavation planning and execution. The
522 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

Table. 1. Geomorphological Contexts of Archaeology.

Morphological Situation Depositional Principal Energy

(Habitat) Setting Environment

Aeolian sites Open air Wind (volcanics, loess, dunes)

Interfluve
_Cave sites Open air or protected Mass-wasting

Mid-slope Colluvial sites Open air or protected Mass-wasting; overland flow

Alluvial sites Channel, overbank, basin; Fluvial

deltaic; fan

Lacustrine sites Marginal lacustrine; insular Waves

Lowland
Littoral sites Foreshore, backshore, storm Waves, currents, wind
beach, lagoonal-tidal

(Aeolian as above)

maximum return is assuredonly if he is availableto interactwith the archaeologistas the evidence

is developedduringthe course of the entire excavation.
In the field, the geo-archaeologisthas responsibilitiesat the site and in its environs.In the first
case, he must properly read, record, and interpret the sedimentarycontext and sample deposits
with specific laboratory analyses in mind. Cooperation among the on-site specialists during
excavation is especially important in this regardbecause the archaeologistprefers to develop his
data and information by digging in horizontal plan (layers) while the geomorphologist is
accustomed to interpretingvertical sections. In addition, the formermay choose to systematically
excavate contiguous squares of the archaeologicalgrid while a geomorphologistmight propose a
nonsystematicgrid selection for samplingpurposesand sediment fabricmeasurements.In the end,
time and cost factors will undoubtedly dictate a proceduralcompromisethat will be optimal only
if mutualcooperationprevails.
Geomorphologicalinvestigationalso must look beyond the specific site setting and considerthe
local context. Study of the present regional process-formassociationsprovides models to which
the prehistoric record can be compared and environmental change assessed. Discovery of
additional local sites or exposures contributes further to reconstruction of past landscape
morphology and provides extraregional stratigraphic correlations which, if sufficiently
documented, contribute to zonal reconstructions.The collaboratinggeomorphologistmust be free
to operate at severalscales if he is to fully exploit availableinformation:some specific aspectsof
his trade are elaboratedin the following sections.
Site Studies
Sediment properties are acquired (1) from parent materials, (2) during transport, (3) as a
product of the depositionalmicro-environment,and (4) from in situ post depositionalalteration;
yet only some of these properties are directly relevant to the period of human activity. The
principalaim of the geomorphologistis to differentiatethese inputs so as to be able to recognize
sedimentological conditions broadly contemporaneouswith human activity, and to document
phases or cycles of morphogeneticchange that hold stratigraphicrelevance.Collective evaluation
of certain sedimentological properties observed during excavation forms the basis of an
interpretation.
Boundaries. If layers of sediment are recognizable,they must be separatedby boundariesof
vertical transitionthat have horizontaldistributionand configuration.Although developedfor soil
description, the nomenclaturegiven by the USDA 7th Soil Approximation(1960:249-58) used to
describe the sharpness and regularity of boundary definition for soil horizons can be readily
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 523

applied to sedimentary units. Four such categories of vertical distinctivenessand of horizontal

topographicrelief are defined.
Color. The color of a sediment is derived from the sediment source (primary)and/or through
post-depositional alteration (secondary). In the latter case, color shades are due to subaerial
weathering processes (biochemical alteration, humification, illuviation-eluviation, leaching,
accretion) or to groundwater phenomena (e.g. oxidation-reductionmottling) with or without
macro-environmentalimplications. The pattern of color differences in section, as compared to
structure and texture changes, provides clues as to the origin of the color change. Standardized
color notations are now made by comparing sediment samples in field moisture condition to
MunsellSoil color-chip cards that are organizedaccordingto hue (dominantspectralcolor), value
(relative color lightness),and chroma(purity or degreeof grayness)(MunsellColor Co., Baltimore,
Md. 21218).
Texture. The relativeproportionsof sand, silt, and clay in the finer than 2 mm fractionof a soil
or sediment define its texture. Preliminaryfield determinations,based on subjectiveassessment,
can be verifiedby laboratoryanalyses,and the texture termsused depend upon the grade-sizeclass
boundaries selected to define sediment texture. In the United States, the modified logarithmic
Wentworthclassificationand its phi-scale (0) logarithmictransformationis the generallyaccepted
grade scale (see Griffiths 1967:Chapter 5) whereas in Europe, a modified version of the
semi-logarithmicAtterberggradescale is the accepted standard.Overlappinggradesize intervalsare
evident if the two systems are compared, so that textural terminologymay differ (cf., Wentworth
and Atterberg fine sand: 0.125-0.250 mm vs 0.02-0.06 mm). Triangulartexture diagramsthat
register between 0 and 100% sand, silt, or clay along successive sides of a triangle are
conventionally used to define textural classes. However,such classes or their boundariesare not
identical among the severalschemesin use (cf., USDA 1960, and Link 1966) and it is necessaryto
cite the scheme adopted.
Since considerable weight is placed on textural properties of a sediment when interpreting
mode of transportation and deposition, laboratory procedures and size-gradeterminology are
critical considerations.
Clasts. Larger,detrital components of sediment (>2 mm) include granule,pebble, cobble, and
boulder size clasts. The size, shape, and arrangement(fabric) of pebble and largersizes (>4 mm)
determined in the field provide information on the depositional history of a sediment and
frequently permitdifferentiationof "natural"versus"cultural"artifacts.
(1) Size. Stones in a deposit may (1) form in situ by accretion (=concretions or nodules,
produced largely by chemical processes) or as weatheringresidualsof stone-lines(see Ruhe 1975),
(2) represent in situ, post-depositionalcomminution due to chemical decomposition or biologic
and physical disintegration,or (3) be the resultof primarydeposition by a transportagent. In the
last instance,clast size may be used to estimate formerconditions of transport.
For noncohesive bed load in channels with high width/depth ratios, a mean size of the largest
clasts can be related to the tractive force (stream energy) requiredto move the cobbles. Other
factors are involved(bed roughness,channel slope and width/depth ratio, and channelflow depth),
but Clague(1975) shows that peak discharge(Q) is equivalentto
1.56 D w
s5/6

so that given mean clast diameter(D), and channelwidth (w) and slope (s) (these propertiescan be
determined by sections and/or boreholes around a site), an estimate of palaeo-dischargecan be
made. This is not a universalequation, since the constant was derivedempiricallyfor a specific
situation (outwash channel), but the approach offers intriguing possibilities for estimating
Pleistocene river regimes (e.g. Illinois, Manzanares,Somme, Thames) as they relate to contained
artifactsand fauna, and to humanactivity.
(2) Shape. The shape of clasts can be estimated by subjectivecomparisonto sets of standards,
or be determined by actual measurementof a sample of pebbles. Visual comparisoncharts for
sphericity (Rittenhouse 1943) and roundness(Krumbein 1941; Powers 1953) have receivedwide
524 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

currency;the former is an estimate of the degreeof sphere-likenessof the clast circumferenceand

the latter is an assessment of the sharpness/angularityof corners and protuberances. Actual
measurementof largerclasts, say major axis >4 cm, can be performedwith simple do-it-yourself
devices to determine rounding indices. Calculations have been suggested by Wadell (1933),
Wentworth (1933), Cailleux (1947), Liittig (1956), and Dobkins and Folk (1970); Cailleux's
roundingindex is probably the most widely used. All indices requiremeasurementof some sort to
be made, i.e. major, minor, and transverseaxes and/or radiiof inscribedcircles conformingto arcs
of pebble roundness. Results of each procedure can be treated statistically for comparison of
samples. Shape measurements from petrographicthin sections require far more sophisticated
equipment.
The morphology of clasts can be used to infer the origin and/or mode of transportationof
stones. During aqueous transport, abrasion and corrosion progressivelyround a clast so that, in
contrast to alluvial pebbles, slope screes exhibit high angularity retained from mechanical
comminution of local bedrock and/or limited transport.In the study of cave sediments (Butzer
1973; Farrand 1975; Ford 1975; Shackley 1972), as well as in certain slope deposits discussed
below, angularitynormally is taken to mean cryogenic weatheringprocesses, but stone lithology
and propensityfor shatteringalso must be considered.
In fluvial deposits, gravelis relatively rounded in shape; in initial stages of transport,abrasion
over short distances is rapid, quickly establishingsubroundedmorphology(e.g. Krumbein 1941;
Kuenen 1956). But since several factors in addition to distance influence shape, e.g. bed load
calibre, lithology and naturalcleavageof the clast, streambed roughness,and dischargelevels (see
Sneed and Folk 1958), the interpretative value of gravel morphology lies primarily in
characterizingdifferentgravelpopulations.Frequently,variationsin gravelmorphologyare used to
differentiatesuites of terracefeaturesor to correlatediscontinuousgravelexposuresalong a stream
course. Such an approachmust be carefulto considergravelcontributionsfrom tributarychannels
that are presently active or may have been active in the prehistoriclandscape,bed load additions
contributed by drainagebasins of a different geologic province, the reexcavationof older gravels,
and channel segments that transverseand entrain load from variablegeologic strata (see Nossin
1959 for a good case study). Any of these conditions can introducegravelsto a riversystem and, if
not accounted for, result in erroneous correlations of depositional sequences or improper
palaeoenvironmentalinferencesbased on gravelmorphology.
Briefly summarizingthen, clast morphology is useful to: 1) assesstransportationconditions, 2)
differentiate alluvial and colluvial gravels, 3) distinguish discrete alluvial terrace units, and 4)
document nonprimarymorphologicalalteration.
(3) Arrangement.The arrangement,or fabricand imbrication,of clastic deposits can be used to
reconstruct direction of transport movement. Fabric analysis of tills, including the compass
orientation and geologic dip of pebbles or boulders, has been widely used (and misused) to
reconstruct directions of glacial advance.Although tills are not of direct archaeologicalinterest,
glacialstratigraphymay be of chronostratigraphic importance(e.g. see Gladfelter1975), requiring
f'ield documentation of fabric. Only subglacialtill (lodgment till, as opposed to ablation or flow
till) provides meaningful measurements(see Andrews 1971a, 1971b, Harris1969 for procedures
and discussions)and the takingof moderate-sizedsamplesat severallocations in an exposureis the
preferred approach (e.g. Rose 1974). Size and shape properties also may affect major axis
orientationof a pebble and this informationshould be collected.
Fabric measurementsof fluvial gravelsmay show orientation and dip tendenciesoffering good
approximationof mean palaeocurrentdirections (Johansson 1963, Rust 1972) where a sufficient
number of locations can be sampled. Gravelson channel bar surfacesare subjectto reorientation
by high dischargelevels so that careful measurementin vertical section may be preferredto plan
view (Rust 1975). Fluvial gravels, as well as beach shingle and tidal flat sediments, also develop
imbrication, i.e. the partial overlappingof clasts with an upstreamdip of the lee edge, which is
most apparentwhere gravelmorphologyis platey or flat (high width/thicknessratio) as opposed to
elliptical. Because of this tendency, properly sampled imbricationand plunge measurementsmay
show a strong relationshipto palaeocurrentdirection, at least in foreset gravel beds (Sengupta
1966).
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 525

In contexts other than tills or stream channels, gravel deposits can imply different
morphogenetic environments of prehistoric interest. Lag gravel deposits (=gibber gravel, desert
pavement), weathering rinds (=desert varnish), and polished or pitted stones (=ventifacts) form in
dry environments with high levels of aeolian activity. These include "periglacial" regions
(Washburn 1973) as well as low latitude deserts (Cooke and Warren 1973). Relict forms found in
different contemporary environments yield clues for morphogenetic reconstructions and field
archaeologists quickly learn that familiarity with the effects of wind abrasion is a necessary skill
for differentiating some artifacts from ventifacts in desert situations.
Individual stones in a sandy or silty matrix also deserve careful scrutiny to determine if
post-depositional disturbance has effected the observed distribution and attitude of the clasts.
Repeated freeze-thaw cycles in soil or sediment promote upfreezing or ejection of larger
inclusions within a matrix of smaller particles (Washburn 1973) and dip measures of clasts will
show a marked tendency toward verticality. At a specific excavation site, frost heave activity could
be a factor in disturbing archaeological material (Johnson and Hansen 1974), or frost features may
even be confused with cultural features (Williams 1973) and certainly in mid or high latitude sites
of the Pleistocene age this possibility must be carefully examined in the field. By documenting
various episodes of morphogenetic change at a site or within a limited region, local correlations or
stratigraphies may be erected on the basis of these cold-climate features (e.g. Gladfelter 1972).
Vertisol contexts with alternating swelling and contracting of soils rich in expandable clays may
also result in post-depositional disturbance of clastic material (Duffield 1970; Yaalon and Kalmar
1972).
Bedding. Deposition of sediments produces a stratification of beds (or strata, laminae, lenses,
wedges) that can characterize any mode of deposition: wind, water, mass wasting, ice, waves (see
Allen 1970). Stratification is a function of the energy of the depositional environment, and
wherever sections are recorded, bedding properties must be carefully noted. Examples of
stratification in two different environments are cited below.
(1) Alluvial Forms. In an energy system where water transports by traction, saltation and
suspension, bedding can be broadly characterized as a planar or a cross-stratified structure with
exogenetic origins, that is, as a feature established by "external" forces operating when the
sediment was deposited. Many stratification subtypes occur, and the nomenclature in the literature
can be inconsistent (see Potter and Pettijohn 1963:Chapter 4), but almost all types of
stratification can be classified within these two broad categories. Channel-bed forms are
constructed by cut and fill in noncohesive sediment, or by the downstream migration of trains of
bed forms (ripples and dunes). On the basis of flume experiments and field data, Simons,
Richardson and Nordin (1965) expressed a relationship between bed form and stream power
(=regime of flow) that takes into account the size of sediment particles. This scheme (Fig. 2) and
variations of it (Allen 1970:79) are useful for predicting palaeo-stream flow based upon the
stratification structure preserved in the sediment. Allen (1965) further established a sequence of
bed configurations tied to increasing tractive force or streampower as defined by the Froude
where v is velocity, g is the acceleration of gravity, d = depth of flow; F<l= tranquil flow, and
F>l = rapid flow regime. This relationship allows ancient river flow regimes to be reconstructed
on the basis of the stratification and bed form preserved in geological section.
However, certain limitations of such models must be recognized: (1) models using flume data
may be invalid for natural reconstructions since all streams variables are not able to interact freely
(see Simons et al. 1965:44f), (2) most flume data is generated using only a small size-grade range
which is a biased appraisal of "natural" load conditions, and aspects of sediment load are directly
related to channel morphology (see Schumm 1968), (3) empirical studies of hydrodynamic
conditions and forms are still limited in number, and (4) field interpretation of cross-bedding is
not always an easy task because (a) original form can be truncated by subsequent erosion and
deposition, and (b) ripple forms may vary across short horizontal distances as current velocities
and wave refraction occur on the stream bed. If feasible, it is best when in the field to excavate
trenches or sections at several compass directions and at more than one location in order to
document palaeocurrent direction.
526 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

Ripples | bed

E ~, ~ 0E|@
E
Ripples |X|l Weak bollI

_ ~~, ? dunes ~ .

______ ___ __________ ________STANDING WAE

I | |= t X
<Antidune

form (ri , Duness s pa

cem pol0

.2 ~~~Washed Cue
Variable out and
(U ~~~dunes ~ ol Chutepol

Chne-e fomCnnnoesvheietdeeounrsonet ayiterdpndn

Fig. 2. Bed forms and water surface, related to flow regimes in alluvial channels. The diagram shows that bed
form (ripples, dunes) stratification structures preserved in sedimentary sequences can be related to past
processes, in this case energy regime of channel flow.
Channel-bed forms in noncohesive sediment develop in response to many interdependent
variables: channel morphology (w,d,s, and roughness=resistanceto flow), load properties
(sediment size, shape, concentration,and density), water properties(viscosity, density, and depth),
and flow regime. The preserved record of ancient channel systems may include only channel
morphology and load factors, but where these can be determinedthey do allow estimatesof flow
regimes. The same conditions that affect sediment movement and sorting also pertain to faunal
and artifactualcontents (see Wolff 1975).
Endogenetic structures that form after sedimentation can warn of disturbed archaeological
material. Disturbed bedding has various forms (Potter and Pettijohn 1963:Chapter6), not all of
which are significantin Quaternarysediments: convoluted structures,faults, cracks,wedges, curls
and warping, burrows, tunnels, and canals. These may be caused by a variety of processeswith
environmental significance such as pressure deformation due to compaction, slumping,
dessication-dehydration,freeze-thaw cycles, permafrost, pedogenesis, or bioturbation activity.
Properrecognition and interpretationof such structuresmay well be invaluablefor environmental
reconstructions and for identification of activity-area patterning as deduced from artifact
distributions.
(2) Colluvial Forms. Certain slope processes produce stratified sediments that have been
confused with alluvial deposits. Many gravity-inducedmass wasting processes, as well as diffuse,
overlandflow, contribute to the downslopetransportof overburden(see Carsonand Kirkby 1972
for an up-to-date treatment), but not all result in a stratificationof deposits; those that do are
summarizedin Table 2. Colluvial flowage (i.e. mudflows, earthflows) are thought by some to
produce stratification,but this is yet to be adequately documented. From Table 2 it can be seen
that stratified screes: (1) form by in situ sorting or by sorting duringtransport,(2) can relate to
single or multiple phases of formation, (3) implicate a wide rangeof possible slope angles,(4) can
involve local or distant (aeolian) sources of material,(5) produce stratificationwith or without
interbedding of different texture greze litee vs eboulis ordonnes), while (6) various sorting
mechanisms (needle ice, differential frost heave, sheetwash) and transport agents (creep,
gelifluction, sheetwash) may be involved. The deposits summarizedin Table 2 reflect cold
("periglacial")environmentsbut not necessarilypermafrostconditions.
The field study of the sedimentological properties enumerated above constitutes the
fundamentaldocumentationfor an archaeologicalcontext; it must be approachedsystematically
and thoroughly by the geomorphologistif environmentalreconstructionsare to be attempted.
Such informationis site-specificin natureand needs to be integratedwithin the broaderhabitator
zonal geomorphologicalcontext, and to be relatedto stratigraphicsuccessions.
Gladfelterl GEOARCHAEOLOGY 527

Table 2. Stratified Slope Deposits.

Type Properties Origin References

Stratified scree Angular rock fragments with
silt or clay material;
stratification and fabric
parallel to slope; slopes
of 30-35?.
In situ congelifluction with Soons (1962)
water or needle ice sorting.
Requires steep slopes and
good drainage. Form in
single climatic episode.

Eboulis ordonn6s Interbedding of angular stones Ice shattering of rocks and Tricart (1970)
( Fr. stratified and fine material. Calibre gravity-glide over snow
screes) decreases downslope, thickness patches; snow melts and
tends to increase downslope. some slope wash of fines.
Slopes of 5-33? but no
limiting slope angle.

Grezes Lit6es Pebble-size rock chips and finer Frost wedging, snow melt Guillien (195 1);
interstitial material. Vege- sheetwash, rilling; creep; Dylik (1960);
tation-free slopes of solifluction*. Sorting Bout (1953);
7-450. by meltwater eluviation. Washburn (1973)

Stratified screes Bands of angular gravel with layers Shattering of local rock Harris (1975)
with loess of finer, silt material. Pebbles mixed with periods of
stratified parallel to slope loess influx. Many
with uphill imbrication. episodes.

*Gelifluction: solifluction with frozen ground (Washburn, 1973), is a preferred term.

Local GeomorphologicalStudies
With the possible exception of caves, alluvialsites in valley bottoms or terracesare the most
common context of archaeology. In order to appreciate the myriad variables that must be
evaluated before the geomorphologist can reconstruct the site-specific or local habitat and
establish stratigraphiccorrelations,briefly consider the natureof a fluvialsystem (basic references
for fluvialgeomorphologyare Leopold, Wolmanand Miller1964; Gregoryand Walling1973).
The propertiesof a streamat a giventime reflect an adjustmentor momentarybalanceof many
interacting variables (Fig. 3). The external factors independent of the stream that effect its
behaviorresponseare discharge,stream load, and base level; a change in any one of these inputs
will effect a changein one or more of the propertiesof streambehavior.The independentvariables
may respondto climaticchangeor to other, nonclimaticcauses.Fig. 3 shows that the propertiesof
a river channel at a particularpoint or along a stream segment in the drainagebasin reflect an
interdependency such that a change in any one of these must evoke a compensatingresponse
elsewhere(see Schumm 1972). Furthermore,as Quaternarymorphogeneticenvironmentschange,
fluvial geomorphic responses will be recorded, the characterof which can be a function of still
other considerationsas well: the location of the stream segment within its drainagebasin as this
will affect whetherchannelcut or fill will dominate(Leopold et al. 1966), climatogenicconditions
prevailingprior to a change in environment(Schumm 1965), and the time scale over which the
change occurs (Schumm and Lichty 1965). Consequently,in orderto reconstructthe site-specific
location and setting of prehistoric activity, or to correlate sites exposed in discontinuously
preservedterracesegments,numerousfactors must be examined.
Alluvial Site-specific Settings. Alluvial environments can be classified in terms of the
predominant mode of sediment accretion: lateral accretion deposits that result from channels
changingtheir location as they shift acrossnoncohesivebed materials,and verticalaccretionwhich
results when channels overflow (=overbank discharge) and inundate the adjacent lowlands
(=floodplain). These two categoriescan be subdividedinto site-specificdepositionalenvironments
(Fig. 4) with particular sedimentological properties (organic inclusions, particle size grade,
528 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

INDEPENDENT OF STREAM
VARIABLES BEHAVIOR

C Climatic p Ch s Non-climatic

l Discharge Base level Loa cafibXre I

~~~~~ +

+~~~

DEPENDENT
VARIABLESOF STREAM
BEHAVIOR

Fig. 3. Model of factors affecting stream behavior. Linkages show pathways of interaction; arrows indicate
variablesresponding to changes in energy and matter in direct (+) or inverse (-) ways. (Expanded from a model
proposed by Chorley 1967).

stratification, sedimentarystructures).A convenient summaryof these propertiesis providedby

Allen (1965). Integration of these data by the geomorphologist offers the potential for
reconstructionof the site-specificlocation of prehistorichumanactivity.
Alluvial Site Correlations. Simply defined, aluvial terrace deposits or related erosional
platforms are legacies of former levels of river activity. The very occurrence of such features
testifies to the dynamic character of a fluvial system, since a major change in river activity has
taken place to account for the occurrenceof the terrace(for a concise discussion,with references,
see Fairbridge 1968:1117-38). All aspects of river behavior and morphology can be influenced by
climatic (i.e. environmental)change (Fig. 3); or, to say it differently, a riversystem can adjustin
many ways to climate-relateddischargechangesor to eustatic base level change, thereby defying
correlationof terrace fragmentssimply on the basis of elevation/altimetricrelationships.In Fig. 5,
for example, it is shown that: (1) the actual numberof cut-fillhemicycles need not be represented
by morphologic features, (2) higher terraces within a suite are not necessarilyolder, (3) paired
terraces on opposite sides of a valley can derive from different cut-fill hemicycles, and (4)
formation of a terrace platform and the deposits forming it can be of different ages. The possible
variationsshown in Fig. 5 may also occur along the longitudinalprofile of a particularvalley.
It bears noting that the stream regimen responses idealized in Figs. 3 and 5 are tied to
environmentalcauses, whch may include man as an instrumentof change. There is presently a
considerableinterest and literature exploring the effect that historic human activity has had on
landscape change and altered river behavior (e.g. Butzer 1974; Crampton 1969; Mrowka 1974;
Vita-Finzi 1969). There is no a priori basis for excluding the same considerations from the
reconstructionsof prehistoricenvironments.
Correlationsoften are made by relatingdiscontinuousterrace features in which sites occur to
other terrace fragmentspreservedin valleys. If terraceunits or suites within a valley or drainage
basin can be dated, relativelyif not absolutely, the archaeologistis able to "date"his materialby
placing it within the morphostratigraphicsequence of the terracefeatures.Unfortunately,terrace
correlationsfor archaeologicalpurposestoo often are establishedby comparingfield situationsto
estabished models that have little bearingon the problem at hand or the areaunder study. Many
such models of morphogenetic change have gained wide recognition and currency: (1) the
Gladfelterl GEOARCHAEOLOGY 529

-Flood Basin . Channel

E Point bar Point bardePoirt deposi

0 Channel bar Channel bar depostl

[ 0 0miles 2: 4: 6 8 , l

Environment
Oritin Deposit reflected in typical
of deposition positiob- stratigraphical
O Channel floor Channel lag deposit Channel or substratum
- Point bar Point bar deposit
. Channel bar Channel bar deposit
Point bar swale or in deposits
abandonedbraided Swale-fill deposit
. Wit
stream
d channel
Levee Levee deposit Overbank or topstratum
co deposits
.- Crevasse-splay Crevasse-splay deposit
Floodbasin Floodbasin deposit

Within abandoned or
_decaying channel Channel-fill deposit Transitional deposit

Fig. 4. Types of sedimentary environments and deposits in a floodplain setting. Many

different site specifi-c environments may occur on a floodplain. Interpretation of the specific
sedimentary context of artifacts allows elaboration of settlement preferences and occupational
patterns. (Modified from Allen 1965).

applicationof the Penck-BrucknerAlpine terrace nomenclatureto geographicallydistant drainage

basins, (2) dating by "fitting" features into the Milankovitchradiation curve proposed for
Quaternary climatic events (e.g. Evans 1972), (3) terrace correlations based on altimetric
extrapolation along presumed palaeo-longitudinal profiles (e.g. Zeuner 1959), (4) a
count-from-the-topapproach that assignscut-fifl hemicycles to assumedeustatic controls after a
model proposed by Baulig(1935), and (5) the use of terminology with genetic meanings,such as
glacial"gravels"or "drift"for graveldeposits of yet to be demonstratedorigin.
530 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

Single cut - fill episode Twocut - fill cycles Multiplecycles

No morphologic
terraces

One terrace

Twoterraces

Fig. 5. Contrasting stratigraphic relationships of selected terrace morphologies. In the case of a single cut-fill
episode, multiple terrace units may be formed by channel lateral shift during downcutting. Note that the highest
terrace units of a sequence may not comprise sediment and artifact material of the same age. (After Leopold,
Wolman, and Miller 1964).

How, then, can correlationbe establishedfor archaeologicaldating?First, the geomorphologist

must build reliable local sequences within a drainagebasin context (e.g. Gladfelter 1971). The
drainage basin is a fundamental geomorphologicalunit of hydrodynamic and morphometric
subsystems in which responses to environmental change can be assessed (Chorley 1969). It
provides the most reliable framework for local correlations and ultimately, correlationswith
appropriatelyerected extraregionalstratigraphicsequences. Terracecorrelationswithin a drainage
basinshould be establishedby a composite evaluationof all availableevidence:
(1) Altimetry: based on absolute elevation consideringbench levels as well as thicknessesof
fill. Extrapolation over great distances, say greaterthan a kilometer, and in tectonically
unstableareascommonly is unreliable(Johnson 1944).
(2) Sedimentary petrography(e.g. Brunnacker1975): comparisonof clast morphology, in-
ternal stratigraphicsequences,texture, mineralogy,and markerhorizonssuch as paleosols.
(3) Sediment sources: internal comparison of sediments within a terrace suite identifying
"mother-daughter" relationships(Vita-Finzi 1971).
(4) Sediment contents (e.g. King and Oakley 1936); comparisonsof flora-fauna,archaeo-
logical and erratic contents when there is the potentiality that some of the contained
materialmay be derived.
(5) Morphology aspects: development of individual terrace fragments,extent of subaerial
modification, location within valley cross section and longitudinalprofile, comparability
of discontinuousterracefragmentswith respectto sedimentaryflow regimes.
(6) Post-alluviation modification: alteration of sediments by weathering, tectonics, mass-
wasting,presenceof internalstructuraldisturbances,burialof terracedeposits.
(7) Morphogenetic developments (e.g. Gladfelter 1975): documentation of geomorphic
change or morphogenetic cycles that post-date deposits or features of archaeological
interest.
(8) Soil types (e.g. Walkerand Hawkins1958): soil catenasof flights of terraces,to differenti-
ate ages by relativedegreeof soil development.
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 531

Extraregionalcorrelations must be based on events of sufficient duration and geographic

distribution, perhaps zonal, to have accounted for geomorphologicallegacies in the landscape.
Evidencefrom other disciplinesmay also provideinput, and such featuresor events include:
(1) Direct intra-basinlinkagesvia terraces,till sheets, morainesystems, erosionalsurfaces.
(2) Phasesof homeostasis,permittingsoil development.
(3) Majorperiodsof erosion with slope denudationor valley incision.
(4) Biostratigraphicsequences, where adequateassemblagesof mega-or micro-faunalmaterial
with markerspecies and distinctivepalynologyoccur.
(5) Absolute radiometricor palaeomagneticdata.
In sum, total participationby the geomorphologistin the excavation of an alluvial site can
potentially contribute data on the behavior of a stream with respect to past dischargeregimes,
channel morphology, and transportprocesses.If the seasonalbehaviorof a streamcan be assessed,
inferences can be drawn as to when occupation occurred or where activity was site-specifically
focused. This information should allow the archaeologist to entertain hypotheses about local
human activity patterns in time and space, as well as propose correlations between sites or
assemblages.
DATA DEVELOPED IN THE LABORATORY
Collection of sediment or soil samples in the field for subsequentlaboratorystudy must be
done with specific purposes and analytical techniques in mind; the former usuallywill determine
the latter. The purposes are to identify sedimentary processes, depositional environments,and
post-depositionalsediment alteration, and to establish correlationsbetween strata. In some cases
the archaeologistis also interested in differentiatinga "natural"sedimentarycontext from one
modified or determinedby humanactivity.
The various analyses focus upon description of the contents and composition of a sediment.
Descriptionserves only to elaborate field study notes; it does not by itself provide data liable to
direct environmentalinterpretation.This must be developed from evaluationof the contexts of
the sediment sample and the study of its composition, as directedto: (1) systematicexamination
for inclusions such as macroflora,microfauna,geologic features, (erratics,concretions, etc.) and
cultural debris;(2) granulometry,i.e. size, shape, and texture with their implicationsfor sediment
history; (3) thin section study of microfabrics and evidence of weathering or alteration; (4)
mineralogy, including analysis of heavy mineralassemblagesfor provenanceand clay mineralogy
for indications of weatheringalteration;and 5) chemical propertiesindicativeof weatheringand
soil moisture regimes,or soil developmentthat relatesto specific morphogeneticenvironments.In
archaeologicalsite reports, the type of sediment data most frequently included-and at the same
time least developed in terms of interpretivepotential-is the sedimentarypetrography,i.e. the
description of the physical characterof the sediment. The following section may illustratethe
contributionsthat can be made to archaeologicalreconstructionswhen sediment granulometryis
fully exploited, without commenting upon the significantinformation that can be obtained from
the study of the mineralogicaland chemicalpropertiesof a sediment.

TextureAnalysis
Texture (i.e. size-frequency distribution) of a sediment can be shown to be a response to
inherent propertiesof the sediment, to the transport-depositionalsystem, and to the energyof the
sedimentaryprocess. The exact cause-effect relationshipbetween size-frequencydistributionand
the physical process, first noted by Inman (1949), is still not adequately explained, but a
theoretical base for genetic links derives from the realization that both current velocity and
particle size assume log-normal transformationsthat represent a fair approximationof actual,
physical, hydrodynamicconditions (see discussionin Griffiths 1967:Chapter13). The assumption
of a log-normalgrain size distribution has been amply documented (Krumbein 1938) and the
moments of a sediment sample distributionhave been related to the differenttransportmodes of
bed rolling or sliding (traction), saltationand suspension(Folk and Ward1957; Moss 1962; Visher
532 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

1969). Physical sedimentation of particles is a function of many variables other than particle size
(shape, density, size proportions), but generally a sediment sample is assumed as representative of
a normal distribution that can be described statistically by percentiles or moments of the
size-frequency distribution, or graphically by histograms and curves (see Folk 1966, 1974).
Moment statistical summaries and histograms or cumulative curve distributions are the most
commonly used statements; interpretations suggested below for the four moments are
incompletely understood by sedimentologists.
Mean particle size. The average grade-size of a sediment sample may be related to the average
current velocity for silt or smaller size grades (via Stokes' Law), to an exponential function of
distance from sediment source due to abrasion comminution (Krumbein and Sloss 1963:105), or
to the overall energy environment (marine, littoral, fluvial, aeolian, etc.). Benson and Dalrymple
(1967) relate median particle size (up to 1 mm) to stream power stated in foot pounds per second
per square foot. Bimodality of size frequencies generally is tied to the mixing of sediment
populations from two different sources (see Kukal 1971:83). Nonempirical causal relationships
have not been developed that would allow definitive competency inferences based on mean
particle size.
Sorting. The standard deviation of size distribution is a measure of sorting, and many different
coefficients have been suggested (Griffiths 1967:106). The dispersion of grain size is a
consequence of fluctuating transport velocity and turbulence conditions within a fluid medium.
The best sorting is accomplished by the least competent transport agent, i.e. wind.
Skewness. The asymmetry of a grade-size distribution is tied to selective transport of sediment
(Krumbein and Pettijohn 1938) due either to the addition or winnowing of size grades at the
extremes of the distribution. Folk and Ward (1957) attributed non-normal skewness to mixing of
two log-normal sediment populations. The causal explanation for skewness is presumed to be due
to a fluctuation of transport energy above (positive) or below (negative) normal levels (Greenwood
1969), which seems to be supported by skewed distributions in the variable energy situations of
beaches (negative) and dune and river (positive) sands (Friedman 1961, 1967).
Kurtosis. The peakedness of a size distribution curve is a measure of the concentration of
particles near the center of the distribution, as compared to the extremes. It is suggested that
kurtosis may reflect the duration of normal energy levels (Sahu 1964). Folk and Ward (1957)
interpreted non-normal kurtosis, along with the non-normal skewness as noted above, as
characteristic of bimodal sediments.
Several techniques have been applied to size distribution data in order to discriminate specific
depositional environments; most involve the recognition of clusters of size distribution moments
for many samples from modern environments as plotted on bivariate diagrams (Mason and Folk
1958; Friedman 1961, 1967; Greenwood 1972). In general, this approach has been used to
differentiate contrasting depositional environments of sand (aeolian, fluvial, etc.) while other
diagrams, such as plots of the smallest particle size in the coarsest one percentile of size
distribution (C) as a function of median grain size (M), have been proposed to discriminate settings
or facies within a particular environment (Royse 1968). Multivariate factor analysis also has been
applied to particle size distributions to identify unknown environments (Visher 1965; Klovan
1966; see Solohub and Klovan 1970 for a comparative analysis of the several approaches).
Graphical summaries of particle size distributions include: the frequency histogram, the easiest
to construct; frequency curves derived from the histograms; cumulative size frequency curves,
which are the most widely used and from which percentile measures can be derived; and a few less
popular curves. For any procedure, the assumption that the sediment comprises a normal
distribution as measured by the four moments must be tested if environmental discrimination is
the aim. Selection of the manner of data presentation can bias or invalidate results just as sampling
of the original population or improper laboratory procedures may, so it is fundamental that the
geomorphologist and archaeologist be aware of these considerations. Griffiths (1967: Chapter 5)
provides an incisive discussion.
To date, interpretation of particle size distributions is mostly of a qualitative nature allowing
only differentiation of depositional environments; models for quantitative fluvial reconstructions
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 533

have yet to emerge (Jopling 1971). Perhaps it is more accurate to say that particle size distribution
reflects processes of transport and deposition, rather than environments and these may not be the
same for comparable distributions, so that the hypothesis that particle size distribution reflects a
sedimentary environment may not be consisteintly valid for all cases (Solohub and Klovan 1970).
For archaeological reconstructions, the soundest procedure is to compare site data with present,
local analogues to identify qualitatively the prehistoric site-specific setting.
An evaluation of particle size data for environmental interpretation must consider whether or
not the strata examined and sampled have undergone post-depositional disturbance that has
affected the physical properties of the sediment. This also may be a consideration when texture
properties are used for stratigraphic purposes, since comparison of disturbed units may produce
invalid correlations. The texture of a sediment can be altered by soil development and endogenetic
structures; the former results in a time progressive decrease of particle size and, varying with the
soil environment and water circulation regimes, the translocation of particles through the horizon
sequence. The field archaeologist must appreciate such limitations and recognize that sediment
samples cannot simply be collected and submitted for lab analysis as, for example, materials for
radiocarbon dating might be. In addition, post-depositional mixing of a sediment by cryoturbate
and biogenic activities or by human activity will alter sediment texture and probably lead to
erroneous inferences if not detected in the field. Clearly, samples from materials of these sorts
cannot be used to infer transport processes, but on the other hand, the non-normal size
distribution of sediments may implicate human activity as opposed to "natural" processes.
Lab Procedures. There are many guidelines for the laboratory treatment of sediment and soil
samples and in general a particular academic or commercial lab will modify procedures to suit
particular needs to appropriate time and cost constraints. This leads to a lack of standardization of
results that makes data comparison difficult; for this reason it is a good practice to include a
summary of lab procedures in site reports. Rigorous standards are particularly essential in
determinations of particle-size distribution since the results are easily biased by defective
equipment and improper or careless sample processing. The several methods and specific
procedures used in sedimentary petrography do not need to be covered here since the following
sources are generally available: Avery 1974, Black 1965, Butzer 1971, Carver 1971, Cornwall
1958, Griffiths 1967, Folk 1974, Krumbein and Pettijohn 1938, Shackley 1975, USDA 1972.
Some implications of the lab results outlined in the previous section may be pursued further in the
references cited; several papers given at a recent symposium on sediments in archaeology also
provide insights for interpretation (Davidson and Shackley 1975).

QuartzGrainMorphology
Quartz is the silicate rock mineral that is most resistant to weathering in nature and it therefore
is a common, if not predominant, constituent of sediment in the form of sand grains.
Geomorphologists for some time have studied quartz sand under magnification to discern shape,
surface finish, and surface relief characteristics that might be diagnostic of transport and
environmental history of the grain (Cailleux 1942). The literature recognizes categories of surface
finish (e.g. dull vs. polished) and surface relief (e.g. smooth, striated, faceted, etched, pitted) that
are presumed to indicate transport in dry (wind) or wet (aqueous) environments. The terminology
of this literature is inconsistent and there is enough evidence to indicate that quartz grain surface
finish and relief properties can result from chemical and from mechanical effects that may not be
peculiar to a specific environment (discussion and references in Butzer and Gladfelter 1968).
Furthermore, the very resistance of quartz should suggest that surface characteristics can be
polygenetic so that those properties determined by the optical microscope are best used for
comparative and/or qualitative purposes rather than as environmental parameters.
Use of the scanning electron microscope for quartz grain analysis, however, does offer potential
for interpretation of environmental history (Krinsley and Donahue 1968, Steiglitz 1969). At
magnifications of 1000 to 20,000 x, grain surface features such as conchoidal breakage patterns or
flat cleavage plates can be identified, and when the various aspects are interpreted together for
534 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

grains with known histories, recognizable associations with environmental implications emerge.
Krinsley and Doornkamp (1973) have recently produced an atlas of quartz sand grain surface
textures with many photographs that can be used for comparison purposes. Marine, fluviatile,
lacustrine, aeolian, and glacial environments are differentiated. This type of information provides
very useful corroboration for interpretations of transport and deposition as deduced from
particle-size distribution analysis and, where feasible, both techniques should be implemented for
archaeological reconstructions.

GEOMORPHOLOGY AND ARCHAEOLOGY

Reconstructions of past conditions and environmental change are founded primarily on
botanical, palaeontological, and geomorphological evidence whereby our conclusions are
formulated by analogy, by applying observations of present processes to past situations. In the
case of geomorphology, much additional observation and experimentation is needed to go beyond
the models of morphogenetic change that now exist. We need (1) additional studies of modern
processes; (2) qualitative and quantitative assessments of the nature and interaction of processes in
particular morphogenetic regions; (3) assessments of the impact of man as a component of the
historical environmental system in order to validate his role in prehistoric settings; and (4)
documentation for notions of rates of environmental change. Efforts are proceeding in each of
these areas but there are no definitive models and consequently, we must be cautious in our
conclusions regarding past man-land relationships. We must also recognize that most
reconstructions still are largely working hypotheses to be verified as evidence is accumulated.
Recognition of a geoarchaeological approach serves to emphasize the potential contributions of
geomorphology to archaeological problems; it should not further isolate or fragment the various
types of disciplinary evidence. Rather than focusing on problems that the geomorphologist might
answer, the archaeologist might profitably consider the questions the geomorphologist asks: What
were the conditions that allowed material to be buried rather than eroded? Why were particular
materials not moved while others were removed? Is there evidence of post-depositional change or
disturbance? When can it be assumed that a sedimentary setting provides a secure and reliable
context for interpreting the archaeology? Clearly, the approach must be cooperative with
collaboration at all levels of investigation-in the conception, execution, and interpretation of a
research program.

Acknowledgments. Services provided by the UICC Cartographic Laboratory are gratefully acknowledged.

Allen, J. R. L.
1965 A review of the origin and characteristics of recent alluvial sediments. Sedimentology 5:89-191.
1970 Physical processes of sedimentation: an introduction. George Allen and Unwin, London.
Andrews, J. T.
1971a Methods in the analysis of till fabrics. In Till: a symposium, edited by R. P. Goldthwait, pp. 321-27.
Ohio State University Press, Columbus.
1971b Techniques of till fabric analysis. British Geomorphological Research Group Technical Bulletin No.
6.
Avery, B. W.
1974 Soil survey laboratory methods. Soil survey technical monograph, No. 6. Soil survey of England and
Wales, Harpenden.
Baulig, H.
1935 The changing sea level. Institute of British Geographers Publication No.3
Benson, M. A., and T. Dalrymple
1967 General field and office procedures for indirect discharge measurements. United States Geological
Survey, Technical WaterResearch Investigation 3, Chapter Al.
Black, C. A. (Editor)
1965 Methods of soil analysis, Part I: physical and mineralogical properties including statistics of measure-
ment and handling. Part II: chemical and microbiological properties. American Society of Agronomy
Series, Monograph 9.
Bout, P.
1953 Etudes de geomorphologie dynamique en Islande. In Expeditions Polaires FranCaises, 3. Actualites
Scientifiques et Industielles 1 197 Hermann and Cie, Paris.
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 535

Brunnacker, K.
1975 The mid-Pleistocene of the Rhine basin. In After the australopithecines: stratigraphy, ecology and
culture change in the middle Pleistocene, edited by K. W. Butzer and G. L. Isaac, pp. 189-224. Mouton,
The Hague.
Butzer, K. W.
1971 En vironimentand archaeology. Aldine, Chicago.
1973 Geology of Nelson Bay Cave, Robberg, South Africa. South African Archaeological Bulletin
28:97-110.
1974 Accelerated soil erosion: a problem of man-made relationships. In Perspectives on environment, edited
by I. R. Manners and M. W. Mikesell, pp. 57-78. Association of American Geographers, Washington.
Butzer, K. W., and B. G. Gladfelter
1968 Quartz-grain micromorphology. In Desert and river in Nubia: geomorphology and prehistoric environ-
ment at Aswan reservoir, edited by K. W. Butzer and C. L. Hansen, pp. 473-81. University of Wisconsin
Press, Madison.
Cailleux, A.
1942 Les actions eolinnes periglaciaires en Europe. Menoir Societe Geologie France 46.
1947 Granulom6trie des formations a galets'. In La geologie terrains recent dans l'ouest de l'Europe, pp.
91-114. Rep. Extraordinaire Sessions Societe Belges Geologie.
Carson, M. A., and M. J. Kirkby
1972 Hillslope form and process. Cambridge University Press, London.
Carver, R. E. (Editor)
1971 Procedures in sedimentary petrology. Wiley, New York.
Chorley, R. J.
1967 Models in geomorphology. In Physica' and information models in geography, edited by R. J. Chorley
and P. Haggett, pp. 59-96. Methuen, Lcndon.
1969 The drainage basin as the fundamental geomorphic unit. In Water, earth and man, edited by R. J.
Chorley, pp. 77-99. Methuen, London.
Clague, J. J.
1975 Sedimentology and paleohydrology of late Wisconsinan outwash, Rocky Mountain trench, southeast
British Columbia. In Glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sedimentation, edited by A. V. Jopling and B. C.
McDonald, pp. 223-37. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 23.
Cooke, R. U., and A. Warren
1973 Geomorphology in deserts. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cornwall, I. W.
1958 Soils for the archaeologist. Phoenix, London.
Crampton, C. B.
1969 The chronology of certain terraced river deposits in the northeast Wales area. Zeitschrift fur geomor-
phologie 13:245-59.
Davidson, D. A., and M. L. Shackley (Editors)
1975 Geoarchaeology: earth science and the past. Duckworth, London.
Dobkins, J. E., Jr., and R. L. Folk
1970 Shape development on Tahiti-Nui. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 40:1167-203.
Duffield, L. F.
1970 Vertisols and their implications for archaeological research. American Anthropologist 72:1055-62.
Dylik, J.
1960 Rhythmically stratified slope waste deposits. Biuletyn Peryglacjalny 8:31-41.
Evans, P.
1972 Towards a Pleistocene time-scale. Part IL. In The Phanerozoic time-scale-a supplement. Geological
Society of London, Special Publication 5.
Fairbridge, R. W. (Editor)
1968 The encyclopedia of geomorphology. Reinhold, New York.
Farrand, W. R.
1975 Sediment analysis of a prehistoric rock shelter: the Abri Pataud. Quaternary Research 5:1-26.
Folk, R. L.
1966 A review of grain-size parameters. Sedimentology 6:73-93.
1974 Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill Publishing, Austin, Texas.
Folk, R. L., and W. C. Ward
1957 Brazos river bar: a study in the significance of grain-size parameters. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
27:3-26.
Ford, T. D.
1975 Sediments in caves. Transactions of the British Cave Research Association 2:41-5.
Friedman, G. M.
1961 Distinction between dune, beach., and river sands from their textural characteristics. Journal of Sedi-
mentary Petrology 31:514-29.
536 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 1977

1967 Dynamic processes and statistical parameters compared for size-frequency distributions of beach and
river sands. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 37:327-54.
Gladfelter, B. G.
1971 Meseta and campitia landforms in central Spain. Department of Geography Research Series 130.
University of Chicago, Chicago.
1972 Cold-climate features in the vicinity of Clacton-on-Sea, Essex (England). Quaternaria 16:121-35.
1975 Geomorphological meaning of a type locality: an example from the British Pleistocene. Proceedings of
the Association of A merican Geographers 7:76-80.
Greenwood, B.
1969 Sediment parameters and environment discrimination: an application of multivariate statistics. Cana-
dian Journal of Earth Sciences 6:1347-58.
1972 Modern analogies and the evaluation of a Pleistocene sedimentary sequence. Transactions of the
Institu te of British Geographers 56: 145 -69.
Gregory, K. J. and D. E. Walling
1973 Drainage basin form and process: a geomorphological approach. Arnold, London.
Griffiths, J. C.
1967 Scientific method in the analysis of sediments. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Guillien, Y.
1951 Les grezes litees de Chartentes. Revue Geographie Pyrenees Sud-Ouest 22:154-62.
Harris, S. A.
1969 The meaning of till fabrics. Canadian Geographer 13:317-37.
1975 Petrology and origin of stratified scree in New Zealand. Quaternary Research 5:199-214.
Inman, D. L.
1949 Sorting of sediment in light of fluvial mechanisms. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 19:51-70.
Johansson, C. E.
1963 Orientation of pebbles in running water: a laboratory study. Geografiska Annaler 45:85-112.
Johnson, D.
1944 Problems of terrace correlation. Bulletin of the Geological Society of America 55:793-818.
Johnson, D. L., and K. L. Hansen
1974 The effects of frost-heaving on objects in soils. Plains Anthropologist 19:81-98.
Jopling, A. V.
1971 Some techniques used in the hydraulic interpretation of fluvial and fluvio-glacial deposits. In Research
methods in geomorphology, edited by E. Yatsu, F. A. Dahms, A. Falconer, A. J. Ward, and J. S. Wolfe,
pp. 93-116. Science Research Association, Don Mills, Ontario.
King, W. B. R., and K. P. Oakley
1936 The Pleistocene succession in the lower part of the Thames valley. Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Society of London 2:52-76.
Klovan, J. E.
1966 The use of factor analysis in determining depositional environments from grain size distributions.
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 36:115-25.
Krinsley, D., and J. Donahue
1968 Environmental interpretation of sand grain surface textures by electron microscopy. Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America 79:74348.
Krinsley, D., and J. C. Doornkamp
1973 Atlas of quartz sand surface textures. Cambridge University Press, London.
Krumbein, W. C.
1938 Size frequency distributions and the normal phi curve. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 8:84-90.
1941 Measurement of the geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal
of Sedimen tary Petrology 11: 64-72.
Krumbein, W. C. and F. J. Pettijohn
1938 Manual of sedimentary petrography. Appleton-Century, New York.
Krumbein, W. C., and L. L. Sloss
1963 Stratigraphy and sedimentation. Freeman, San Francisco.
Kuenan, Ph. H.
1956 Experimental abrasion of pebbles: 2: rolling by current. Journal of Geology 64:336-68.
Kukal, Z.
1971 Geology of recent sediments. Academic Press, London.
Leopold, L. B., W. W. Emmett, and R. W. Myrick
1966 Channel and hillslope processes in a semi-arid area, New Mexico. s,United States Geological Survey,
Professional Paper, 352 G.
Leopold, L. B., M. G. Wolman, and J. P. Miller
1964 Fluvial processes in geomorphology. Freeman, San Francisco.
Link, A. G.
1966 Textural classification of sediments. Sedimentology 7:249-54.
Gladfelter] GEOARCHAEOLOGY 537

Luttig, G.
1956 Eine neue, einfache gerollmorphometrische methode. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart 7:13-20.
Mason, C. C., and R. L. Folk
1958 Differentiation of beach, dune and aeolian flat environments by size analysis. Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology 28:21 1-26.
Moss, A. J.
1962 The physical nature of common sandy and pebbly deposits. American Journal of Science 260:337-73.
Mrowka, J. P.
1974 Man's impact on stream regime and quality. In Perspectives on environment, edited by I. R. Manners
and M. W. Mikesell, pp. 79-104. Association of AnmericanGeographers, Washington.
Nossin, J. J.
1959 Geomorphological aspects of the Pisuerga drainage area in the Cantabrian mountains (Spain). Leidse
Geologische Mededelingen 24:283406.
Potter, P. E., and F. J. Pettijohn
1963 Paleocurrents and basin analysis. Academic Press, New York.
Powers, M. C.
1953 A new roundness scale for sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 23:117-19.
Rittenhouse, G.
1943 A visual method of estimating two-dimensional sphericity. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology 13:
79-8 1.
Rose, J.
1974 Small-scale spatial variability of some sedimentary properties of lodgement till and slump till.
Proceedings of the Geologist 's Association 85:239-58.
Royse, C. F.
1968 Recognition of fluvial environments by particle-size characteristics. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
38:1171-78.
Ruhe, R. V.
1975 Geomorphology. geomorphic processes and surficial geology. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Rust, B. R.
1972 Structure and process in a braided river. Sedimentology 18:221-45.
1975 Fabric and structure in glaciofluvial gravels. In Glaciofluvial and glaciolacustrine sedimentation, edited
by A. V. Jopling and B. C. McDonald, pp. 238-48. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists,
Special Publication 23, Tulsa.
Sahu, B. K.
1964 Depositional mechanisms from the size analysis of clastic sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
34:73-83.
Schumm, S. A.
1965 Quaternary Palaeohydrology. In The Quaternary of the United States, edited by H. E. Wright and D. G.
Frey, pp. 783-94. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
1968 River adjustment to altered hydrologic regimen-Murrumbidgee river and paleochannels, Australia.
UniitedStates Geological Survey, Professional Paper, 598.
1972 Fluvial paleochannels: In Recognition of ancient sedimentary environments, edited by J. K. Rigby and
W. K. Hamlin, pp. 98-107. Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 16,
Tulsa.
Schumm, S. A., and R. W. Lichty
1965 Time, space and causality in geomorphology. American Journal of Science 263:110-19.
Sengupta, S.
1966 Studies on orientation and imbrication of pebbles with respect to cross-stratification. Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology 36:362-69.
Shackley, M. L.
1972 The use of textural parameters in the analysis of cave sediments. Archaeometry 14: 133-45.
1975 Archaeological sediments. a survey of analytical methods. Halsted Press, New York.
Simons, D. B., E. V. Richardson, and C. F. Nordin
1965 Sedimentary structures generated by flow in alluvial channels. In Primary sedimentary structures and
their hydrodynamic interpretation, edited by G. V. Middleton, pp. 34-52. Society of Economic
Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 12, Tulsa.
Sneed, E. D., and R. L. Folk
1958 Pebbles in the lower Colorado River, Texas: a study in particle morphogenesis. Journal of Geology
66:114-50.
Solohub, J. T., and J. E. Klovan
1970 Evaluation of grain-size parameters in lacustrine environments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
40:81-101.
Soons, J. M.
1962 A survey of periglacial features in New Zealand. In Land and Livelihood, edited by M. McCaskill, pp.
74-84. New Zealand Geographical Society, Miscellaneous Series, No. 4. Caxton Press, Christchurch.
538 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 42, No. 4, 19771

Steiglitz, R. D.
1969 Surface textures of quartz and heavy mineral scanning electron microscopy. Bulletin of the Geological
Society of America 80:2091-94.
Stoddart, D. R.
1969 Climatic geomorphology: review and assessment. In Progress in Geography, edited by C. Board, R. J.
Chorley, P. Haggett, D. R. Stoddart, pp. 159-222. E. Arnold, London.
Tricart, J.
1970 Convergence de ph6nomenes entre l'action du gel et celle du sel. Acta Geographica Lodziensia 24:
425-36.
Tricart, J., and A. Cailleux
1972 Introduction to climatic geomorphology. Longman, London.
United States Department of Agriculture
1960 Soil classification: a comprehensive system (7th approximation). Soil Conservation Service,
Washington.
1972 Soil survey laboratory methods and procedures for collecting samples. Soil survey investigation report
2. Soil Conservation Service, Washington.
Visher, G. S.
1965 Fluvial processes as interpreted from ancient and recent fluvial deposits. In Primary sedimentary
structures and their hydrodynamic interpretation, edited by G. V. Middleton, pp. 116-32. Society of
Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, Special Publication 12, Tulsa.
1969 Grain size distribution and depositional processes. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, 39:1074-106.
Vita-Finzi, C.
1969 The mediterranean valleys: geological change in historical times. Cambridge University Press, London.
1971 Heredity and environment in clastic sediments: silt/clay depletion. Bulletin of the Geological Society
of America 82: 187-90.
Wadell, H. A.
1933 Sphericity and roundness of rock particles. Journal of Geology 41:310-31.
Walker, P. H., and C. A. Hawkins
1958 A study of river terraces and soil development on the Nepean River, N.S.W. Journal of the Royal
Society of New South Wales 91:67-94.
Washburn, A. L.
1973 Periglacial processes and environments. E. Arnold, London.
Wentworth, C. K.
1933 The shape of rock particles: a discussion. Journal of Geology 41:306-09.
Williams, R. B. G.
1973 Frost and the works of man. Antiquity 47:19-3 1.
Wolff, R. G.
1975 Sampling and sample size in ecological analyses of fossil mammals. Paleobiology 1:195-204.
Yaalon, D. H., and D. Kalmar
1972 Vertical movement in an undisturbed soil: continuous measurements of swelling and shrinkage with a
sensitive apparatus. Geoderma 8:237-40.
Zeuner, F. E.
1959 The Pleistocene period. Hutchinson, London.