| Abstract: | Two variations of the integration of geology and archaeology have been proposed in the literature—archaeological geology and geoarchaeology. However, there is no agreement among practitioners as to the legitimacy of the distinctions that have been made. This disagreement suggests that the objectives and assumptions of this interdisciplinary field have not been adequately discussed among its practitioners. The published definitions of both of these subfields emphasize their geological and historical aspects rather than their anthropological and processual aspects. A comparison with zooarchaeology and paleoethnobotany suggests that the significance of geoarchaeology to anthropological archaeology has been slighted. This results from a failure to recognize the symbolic character of humans' interaction with their geologic environment. An attempt is made here to clarify the distinction between archaeological geology and geoarchaeology and to define objectives for the latter subfield that have anthropological significance. |
