Geological Methods for Archaeology

352 Pages·1997·26.04 MB·English

by  Norman Herz

GEOLOGICAL
METHODS FOR
ARCHAEOLOGY
This page intentionally left blank
GEOLOGICAL
METHODS FOR
ARCHAEOLOGY
Norman Herz
Ervan G. Garrison
New York Oxford • Oxford University Press 1998
Oxford University Press
Oxford New York
Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires
Calcutta Cape Town Dar Es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong
Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne
Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan
Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc.,
198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Herz, Norman, 1923-
Geological methods for archaeology / Norman Herz,
Ervan G. Garrison.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-19-509024-1
1. Archaeological geology. I. Garrison, Ervan G. II. Title.
CC77.5.H47 1997
930.1'028—dc20 96-25472
3 5 7 9 8 6 42
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Contents
Foreword vii
1 The Scope of Archaeological Geology 3
Part I The Archeological Site and Its Environment
2 Geomorphology in Archaeology 17
3 Sediments and Soils 37
Part II Dating Techniques
4 Chemical Methods 69
5 Radioactive Methods 85
6 Radiation-Damage, Cosmogenic, and Atom-Counting Methods 105
7 Other Chronological Methods 127
Part III Site Exploration
8 Archaeogeophysical Exploration 147
9 Soil Phosphate in Archaeological Surveys 181
vi CONTENTS
Part IV Artifact Analysis
10 Archaeological Materials: Rocks and Minerals 193
11 Instrumental Analytical Techniques 212
12 Metallic Minerals and Archaeological Geology 230
13 Ceramics 248
14 Applications of Stable Isotopes in Archaeological Geology 271
Notes 295
Index 327
Foreword
Many years ago at lunch with a group of distinguished classical archaeologists, an animated
discussion started on the value of different strategies in archaeology. A few in the group
strongly argued that the best approach to any archaeological problem was intuition, or as
some art historians expressed it, "a strong gut feeling." When the British archaeologist Colin
Renfrew and the geologist J. Springer Peacey suggested that scientific tests could be used
to tell the provenance of Greek Aegean marble,1 a dean of British archaeologists, Bernard
Ashmole pooh-poohed the entire effort. He stated in 1970 that "the chances of any scien-
tific method, present or future, being able to determine with certainty (his italics) the source
of any given specimen is nil. Meanwhile ... we shall have to rely on a method which is far
more than eighty years old, and one which was employed by sculptors, quarry-masters, and
marble-merchants for centuries before ... namely that of using the naked eye and common
sense."2
At that lunch, when several analytical tests were mentioned that could be carried out on
different kinds of artifacts to tell provenance as well as time of manufacture, one enraged
archaeologist let loose—"You scientist fellows are taking all the fun out of archaeology!"
Today, few archaeologists would argue against scientific methodologies to help solve
their problems. Still, there are voices raised now and again that the pendulum has swung
too far the other way and that too much science may not be a good idea. Spier, an art his-
torian, argues3 that "the proliferation of scientific tests has brought a vast number of analy-
ses of all types of materials—metals, terracotta, organic material, and so on—and the con-
clusions from these examinations can be highly significant. Many technical and scientific
studies, however, are not conclusive, especially in determining authenticity, and often ap-
pear to be invoked by archaeologists as a desperate appeal to the unattainable, 'objective',
result rather than as a proper study."
Static also comes from some scientists. A prestigious Penrose Conference of the Geo-
logical Society of America was held in 1982 on Archaeological Geology. The conference,
viii FOREWORD
the first on the subject, was convened by two geologists working in the Mediterranean on
problems of sourcing archaeological materials: Charles Vitaliano on tephra and Norman
Herz on marble.4 Because they were working with archaeologists trying to find solutions
for important archaeological problems, they considered themselves "archaeological geolo-
gists." Similarly, chemists working on geological problems call themselves "geochemists,"
physicists "geophysicists," and so on ad naus. However, one of the attendees complained,
admittedly good-naturedly, that neither organizer was a real "geoarchaeologist." We as-
sumed by that he meant someone cast strictly in the mold provided by Michael Waters's re-
cent book on geoarchaeology,5 that is, with interests only in geomorphology or sedimen-
tology.
The authors have blissfully ignored all debate concerning what is the correct level of sci-
ence to use in archaeology, or the question of what is archaeological geology, and have gone
ahead teaching a course since 1986 with the title "Archaeological Geology." We hope that
our students represent the wave of the future, for they are truly interested in scientific ap-
plications to archaeology. Students coming from anthropology and classical archaeology
and forced to pursue a B.A. track come into the course with great enthusiasm. To meet their
curriculum requirements, which are heavy in humanities courses, they are often deprived
of any kind of science. Sadly, these students seem to feel this lack greater than their home
department mentors. There is a great need to enlighten, to proselytize, and to make sure that
practicing archaeologists know that science, used properly, can be of great help and not a
hindrance in their research. Geologists must also accept the fact that their methods can help
solve many important archaeological problems, problems as interesting and as important as
any in their own "pure" geological fields. Our approach to the subject has been one of in-
clusion, agreeing with Brian Fagan that "geoarchaeology is a far wider enterprise than ge-
ology."6
We hope that this book then will show archaeologists the many ways that geological sci-
ences can help solve their problems. After all, much of archaeology is only the geology of
that small part of the earth's surface that has been occupied by humans. We also hope that
whatever snobbism has been associated by some geologists with the various definitions of
geoarchaeologist, archaeogeologist, and archaeometrist, all will accept the fact that any ap-
plications of geology to archaeology can be a useful enterprise.
GEOLOGICAL
METHODS FOR
ARCHAEOLOGY