See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312935019

Archaeological formation theory and

geoarchaeology: State-of-the-art in 2016

Article · March 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2017.01.004

CITATIONS READS

2 146

1 author:

Ruth Shahack-Gross
University of Haifa
83 PUBLICATIONS 2,341 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Negev Highlands Research Project View project

An Experimental, Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Study of Cooking Installations: Case

Studies from Iron Age Israel (PhD dissertation) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ruth Shahack-Gross on 24 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jas

Archaeological formation theory and geoarchaeology: State-of-the-art

in 2016
Ruth Shahack-Gross
Dept. of Maritime Civilizations, University of Haifa, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Since the influential work of Michael B. Schiffer on formation processes has been published in 1987,
Received 17 August 2016 much has advanced on the part of environmental formation processes also known as N-transforms. Most
Received in revised form new knowledge is the result of research conducted by geoarchaeologists. On the theoretical level, a huge
27 December 2016
leap forward was made with the realization that occupation deposits are artifacts of human activity. The
Accepted 8 January 2017
focus of formation theory thus shifted from the artifact to the deposit. Methodological innovations and a
geoarchaeological tool-kit, notably including the contextual technique of micromorphology, followed.
Empirical studies of archaeological occupation deposits contributed new spatial and stratigraphic
Keywords:
Site formation processes
knowledge and understanding. A holistic middle-range methodology termed geo-ethnoarchaeology was
Theory developed, whereby macroscopic and microscopic artifacts are studied together with their associated
Method sediments in ethnographic contexts, providing contextual (social) information about the relationship
Geoarchaeology between artifacts and the surrounding sediments as archaeological assemblages form. This method is
Research design especially powerful when sequentially dated abandoned settlements or features are studied to provide
Assemblage formation mechanistic understanding of assemblage and/or site formation through degradation. Because geo-
N-transforms ethnoarchaeology is based on general chemical, biological and physical laws, the resultant mechanistic
models are applicable globally, for any time period, culture, and environment. The new tools and
mechanistic understanding by which N-transforms are currently studied, provide means to more reliably
interpret the archaeological record, which is crucial for the credibility of archaeology. Therefore, when
studying archaeological assemblages one should utilize the tool-kit developed by geoarchaeologists to
first assess the states of preservation of the various material assemblages (macroscopic and microscopic),
as it should be borne in mind that assemblages identified to be well-preserved will produce the most
reliable archaeological interpretation. The theory and method of geoarchaeology have matured enough
to allow responsible archaeological research into the meaning of spatial and temporal (stratigraphic)
patterns at any given site.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Background: the early phase of research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

2. Disillusionment vis-a-vis the development of geoarchaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3. Geo-ethnoarchaeology and the production of general laws related to archaeological formation processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4. Geo-ethnoarchaeology in the 2000s and 2010s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5. Understanding N-transforms and its impact on archaeological interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6. Operative considerations and research design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
7. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

E-mail address: rgross@univ.haifa.ac.il.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2017.01.004
0305-4403/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43
1. Background: the early phase of research
Formation theory is one of the most important achievements in
modern archaeology, identifying mechanisms that allow archae-
ologists to better understand and interpret the archaeological re-
cord. This body of method and theory was conceived and promoted
by many, notably by M.B. Schiffer in his seminal book “Formation
Processes of the Archaeological Record” (Schiffer, 1987). In brief,
formation theory posits that the archaeological record, in most
cases, is not a mirror reflecting living societies but an assemblage of
materials that underwent various transformations during and after
human activities. Therefore, the processes responsible to the for-
mation of archaeological sites are divided into those related to
human activities, also known as cultural transformations or C-
transforms, and those related to natural/environmental processes,
also known as Non-cultural transformations or N-transforms
(Schiffer, 1987).
Schiffer’s (1987) book came after much deliberation among
archaeologists about the definition of archaeological contexts
(e.g., primary vs. secondary deposits), what does the archaeolog-
ical record represent (e.g., Binford, 1982; Flannery, 1976; Schiffer,
1972), and how should archaeological research be designed (e.g.,
Binford, 1964). This culminated in the 1970s and 80s. With an
interest in deciphering C-transforms, archaeologists rightly
turned to ethnoarchaeology, the best method that can serve as
means to observe the inter-relationship between people and their
material culture.1 Ethnoarchaeological studies exemplified the
role of human decision making, artifact use life, and discard pat-
terns, among other important parameters that are eloquently
summarized by David and Kramer (2001). Early research on N-
transforms focused mostly on vertebrate taphonomy (e.g., Brain,
1967; Lyman, 1994).
Research into site formation processes flourished in the 1980s
and 1990s. It focused on macroscopic items of material culture e
mainly bones, pottery and stone tools e and included ethno-
archaeolgical as well as experimental studies. Research exploring
microscopic artifacts and chemical signatures in artifacts and
ecofacts (e.g., stable isotope analyses) started budding; however,
most studies looking into the microscopic aspects of archaeolog-
ical materials were related to either reconstruction of climate and
diet, or artifact conservation, and less so on formation processes in
the larger sense. It is important to note that the studies during this
time period were incorporated within “middle range theory”;
discussions about how to turn static material culture remains,
with the aid of formation theory, into dynamic past human
societies. The focus was thus on C-transforms (Fig. 1, left-hand
side).
2. Disillusionment vis-a-vis the development of
geoarchaeology
As ethnoarchaeological research progressed in the 1990s, it
became apparent that human behavior is not governed by general
1
Actualistic (experimental) studies as well as historical and ethnographic ac-
counts are also means that allow production of inferences on the relationship be-
tween people and material culture, yet these are less straight-forward than
ethnoarchaeology. First, experimental studies mostly focus on replication thus even
when replication is successful it does not necessarily indicate that the experimental
replication reflects activities conducted in the past. Second, experimental studies
rarely consider time-depth e see more below under Section 3. Third, historic and
ethnographic accounts may describe relationships between people and material
culture, but as they did not stem from an archaeological problem in the first place,
most often the information found in them is insufficient for the desired depth of
archaeological interpretation.
37
rules and may produce variable patterns (artifact assemblages)
under seemingly similar social and cultural conditions. Incidentally
(or not) this disillusionment occurred at the time that post-
modernist approaches to archaeology became prominent. Com-
plexities on the part of C-transforms and their effect on the
archaeological record became apparent, as for example mainte-
nance activities in habitation sites and post-abandonment sec-
ondary activities were found to obscure primary depositional
patterns, forming what is known as palimpsests. These complex-
ities, entangled with post-modernist notions, led to disillusionment
in regard to formation theory. In 1998 M. Shott (1998:321) wrote
with disappointment on the status of formation theory on the verge
of the 21st century:
1) “… formation theory is viewed as the province of lithic or faunal
analysts and the study of forager societies”
2) There are “… daunting complexities of assemblage formation”
3) “Two factors may explain our collective indifference to forma-
tion theory. First is our legitimate interest in cultural e not
narrowly archaeological e understanding of the past. Assem-
blage formation theory seems an unpleasant distraction from
this concern”.
Shott (1998) basically noted that (a) formation theory in its form
during the 1990s is irrelevant for the study of complex, especially
urban, societies, and (b) that archaeologists purposefully ignore
formation theory because it may undermine interpretations they
would like to advocate. This methodological criticism should have
been taken seriously, yet, post-modernist approaches changed
much of the focus of archaeological research, and the dealing with
formation theory was almost abandoned. Formation theory was
then reduced into a methodological specialization.
Still in the 1980e90s though, quiet progress was made in
geoarchaeology, then a young sub-field of archaeology. Gaining
recognition in the 1960s (Rapp and Hill, 2006), geoarchaeologists
traditionally focused on soils and sediments within and outside
archaeological sites. The early geoarchaeological studies mostly
concentrated on the scale of the landscape, studying various open-
air geomorphological contexts including alluvial, slope and coastal
depositional environments (e.g., Rapp and Hill, 2006; Stein and
Farrand, 1985; Waters, 1992). Due to the nature of these geomor-
phological environments, most studied sites were rather ephem-
eral, often representing single-component prehistoric sites.
Geoarchaeology was taken, at the time, as means to understand
the interplay between deposition, erosion and post-depositional
disturbance such as bioturbation, all informing about the strati-
graphic integrity of whole or portions of sites, which by extrapo-
lation is related to site formation processes (Butzer, 1982; Schiffer,
1987). It therefore became apparent that the appropriate unit of
analysis of site formation processes should be the deposit, or the
sediments and soils that contain the archaeological artifact as-
semblages, rather than the artifacts themselves (Stein, 2001). This
conceptual change, though, focused primarily on natural deposits
(e.g., aeolian or alluvial sediments, and soils) containing artifacts,
utilizing techniques associated primarily with the soil sciences
such as particle size analysis, pH and nutrient determination
(Holliday, 2004).
In the 1970s and 1980s, in parallel to the developments sum-
marized above, a few geoarchaeologists started exploring sedi-
ments associated with long-term multiple-component sheltered
archaeological sites, mostly in prehistoric caves (e.g., Goldberg,
1980). It had quickly became apparent that soil science methods
may not be suitable to studying deposits in these sites because (a)
they were not strictly soils or natural sediments, and (b) these
sediments underwent severe chemical changes. Studying such
38 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43
sediments and processes required a different approach, to be
associated with sedimentary geology and geochemistry. Two new
techniques had been thus introduced in the 1980s for the study of
such sediments, and quietly started a small revolution which
culminated in the 2000s. Working in parallel at prehistoric cave
sites in the southern Levant, Paul Goldberg e using the technique
of micromorphology - and Steve Weiner e using the technique of
infrared spectroscopy, revealed much new information on the
nature of these cave deposits and on the post-depositional
chemical transforms they underwent (Goldberg and Macphail,
2006; Weiner, 2010). It has been found that these cave sedi-
ments were mostly composed of microscopic human activity re-
mains, primarily wood ash; And that chemical processes initiated
by the degradation of bat guano caused significant alterations to
the composition of the sediments, the artifacts within them, and
the volume of the sediments (Goldberg and Natan, 1975; Shahack-
Gross et al., 2004; Shahack-Gross, 2007; Weiner et al., 1993, 2002).
Overall, the sediments resulting from the accumulation of micro-
scopic human activity debris were termed “occupation deposits”
and the post-depositional chemical alteration “diagenesis”. This
'non-traditional' geoarchaeological research, as termed by
Goldberg and Macphail (2006), highlighted the fact that sediments
in archaeological sites are in themselves an artifact of human
activity.
A first attempt to put together the traditional and non-
traditional geoarchaeological approaches to the study of forma-
tion processes was published by Goldberg et al. (1993). It
emphasized, among other things, that sediments at archaeological
sites may be natural, cultural, or a mixture of both. These studies
also pointed out that post-depositional changes are not uniform
across entire sites. Still, as rightly noted by Schiffer, “ … no unified
science of material deterioration in systemic context has
emerged” (Schiffer, 1987: 143), until the 1990s (see below,
Section 3).
Overall, treating those sediments identified to result from human
occupation as artifacts was a major theoretical advancement which
led to the realization that to build models for interpretation of the past,
experimental as well as ethnoarchaeological studies with a focus on
sediments bearing microscopic occupation debris must be con-
ducted. Furthermore, this promoted a major methodological devel-
opment ethe budding of the field often termed geo-
ethnoarchaeology - with which the cultural and environmental
processes that affect the formation of occupation deposits in systemic
contexts can be studied in an integrated manner.
3. Geo-ethnoarchaeology and the production of general laws
related to archaeological formation processes
Geo-ethnoarchaeology is a method used by geoarchaeologists
to simultaneously study cultural and non-cultural formation pro-
cesses in ethnographic contexts, leading to model building on the
formation of occupation deposits (see review by Friesem, 2016).
The term geo-ethnoarchaeology was coined by Brochier et al.
(1992), who studied herding encampments in Sicily. They con-
ducted a pioneering ethnoarchaeological study in which livestock
dung (and its degradation products) was perceived as an anthro-
pogenic material. Because dung tends to decay with time, leaving
behind small amounts of inorganic microscopic materials and
chemical compounds as tracers/indicators, optical microscopy was
utilized for the identification of minerals associated with dung
deposits. Brochier et al. (1992) were able to clarify some of the
processes of degradation of dung deposits, to estimate where dung
may best be preserved, and to propose indicators for its identifi-
cation in archaeological sites.
The next geo-ethnoarchaeological study was undertaken by
Shahack-Gross et al. (2003), who studied dung deposits from
sequentially abandoned Massai settlements in southern Kenya.
The novelty in their study was the examination of dung deposits
along a taphonomic sequence: sampling enclosure sediments in
settlements that were abandoned at different years over a range
of ca. 40 years.2 This approach allowed tracking the degradation
processes that dung undergoes and at the same time identified
microscopic and chemical indicators that can be used to identify
dung deposits in fully degraded archaeological sites that have
been occupied by pastoralists. I refer to this research strategy as a
“taphonomic approach”. Another novelty in this study was the
use of four different geoarchaeological techniques by which dung
and its degradation products were characterized, serving as
multiple lines of geoarchaeological evidence (Shahack-Gross
et al., 2003, 2008). At about the same time, Macphail et al.
(2004) independently studied dung deposits in the United
Kingdom. Working in two different cultural contexts and
geographic (environmental) settings Shahack-Gross et al. (2003),
and Macphail et al. (2004) identified similar patterns in the for-
mation and degradation of livestock dung in enclosures. The
former, working in southern Kenya among the Maasai and the
latter, working in the UK in an experimental farm, independently
found similar attributes by which dung in enclosures can be
identified. These include an undulating micro-laminated struc-
ture visible in micromorphological thin sections, presence of
phosphate minerals that form in relation to the release of
phosphate-rich solutions in degrading organic dung, high con-
centrations of phytoliths from ingested fodder, and elevated
values of stable nitrogen isotopes relative to un-digested fodder.
Both were able to (a) formulate a mechanistic understanding of the
degradation of dung deposits, and (b) present a tool-kit with which
archaeologists can identify the inorganic and other durable remains
of degraded dung deposits. Because these observations were based
on general chemical, biological and physical laws, it is now
possible to identify degraded dung deposits in enclosures using
the criteria given by Shahack-Gross et al. (2003, 2008) and
Macphail et al. (2004) anywhere around the world, at any time
period, and at any socio-cultural context. Indeed, dung deposits
are regularly identified in archaeological sites using these criteria,
from Neolithic sites to sites from historical periods as well as pre-
modern settlements.3 Dung deposits, i.e. the remains of animal
keeping, have been identified in archaeological contexts in
various regions around the world using these same criteria; the
Near East (e.g., Matthews, 2010 and references therein), northern
Europe (e.g., Milek and Roberts, 2013), central Europe (Ismail-
Meyer et al., 2013), the Sahara (Di Lernia, 2001), and East Africa
(Shahack-Gross et al., 2008) in sheltered sites, open-air sites as
well as lake dwelling sites.
These important methodological observations highlight a very
important theoretical realization, that the study of post-depositional
processes (N-transforms) which by their nature are governed by bio-
logical, physical and chemical general laws, is in fact producing gen-
eral laws related to the formation of occupation deposits and
archaeological sites.
2
Five settlements have been samples: one active, one abandoned for 1e2 years,
one abandoned for ca. 20 years, one abandoned for ca. 30 years, and one abandoned
for ca. 40 years. This taphonomic approach allows studying natural degradation
processes within reasonable amounts of time, unlike long-term degradation pro-
jects such as the UK Earthworks projects designed for 128 years of research.
3
Geoarchaeologists studying geogenic deposits (soils and sediments) associated
with archaeological sites also highlight the importance of understanding the effect
of post-depositional processes (e.g., pedogenesis) on the integrity of artifact as-
semblages, dating of sites, and landscape evolution associated with archaeological
sites (e.g., Holliday, 2004; French, 2003).
 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43 39

Fig. 1. Schematic outline of the main developments in the study of site formation processes from the 1970s to the beginning of the 21st century. Note the focus on C-transforms in
the 1970s and 80s, while the focus on N-transforms developed vis-a-vis disillusionment about the utility of C-transforms to accurately represent human behavior. Geoarchaeology
and the study of N-transforms, coupled with C-transforms via geo-ethnoarchaeology, developed in the 1990s and produced mechanistic understanding of formation processes.

4. Geo-ethnoarchaeology in the 2000s and 2010s
The success of the first geo-ethnoarchaeological studies in
building general laws related to archaeological site formation led to
further research (Fig. 1, right-hand side). In the last two decades,
more geo-ethnoarchaeological studies have been published in
which both C- and N-transforms have been studied in tandem,
using a taphonomic approach. These studies shed new light on
important issues such as the preservation of combustion features in
open-air sites (Mallol et al., 2007), the formation of floor deposits
(Milek, 2012), and formation of fill deposits in sites constructed
from mud bricks (Friesem et al., 2014a).
Furthermore, certain geo-ethnoarchaeological studies utilized a
'post-mortem archaeology' approach which also sheds much light
on formation processes and provides mechanistic understanding of
site formation. Originally, post-mortem archaeology was conducted
on the macroscopic level. Gifford (1978) excavated bone assem-
blages in a modern buried site in northern Kenya, McIntosh (1977)
excavated a degrading mud brick house in western Africa, and
Gorecki (1985) excavated abandoned houses in Papua-New Guinea.
These studies produced invaluable insights on the rate of degra-
dation of organic material and potential of preservation of various
types of artifacts. Recently, Friesem et al. (2011, 2014b) conducted
small scale excavations in abandoned mud brick houses in Israel
and Greece, and integrated macroscopic observations with micro-
scopic and geochemical techniques. Their studies highlighted is-
sues related to formation of stratigraphic sequences at abandoned
sites, and spatial differences in the preservation potential of certain
artifacts (e.g., roof beams).
Certain geo-ethnoarchaeological studies did not apply a taph-
onomic approach, but used laboratory experiments to form ex-
pectations for post-depositional taphonomic alterations. Gur-Arieh
et al. (2014) demonstrated that microscopic remains in ash from
ethnographic contexts in Uzbekistan degrade in different rates,
resulting in distorted quantities and thus distorted ratios among
various microscopic remains found in archaeological ash. This same
trend was also shown by Portillo et al. (2016) in a study in Tunisia.
These two examples again demonstrate that N-transforms in
occupation deposits are governed by (biogeochemical) general laws
and can thus cross geographical, cultural and time borders. This
40 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43

realization may explain, for example, the presence of ash but
absence of dung spherulites in the study of Milek and Roberts
(2013), conducted in a rainier environment than that of the Medi-
terranean region, at a Viking Age site in Iceland.
The importance of understanding the taphonomic changes that
occur to assemblages of archaeologically-important artifacts is
nowadays highly appreciated by the geoarchaeological research
community. This is realized, for example, in the study of phytolith
assemblages, whereby Cabanes et al. (2011) provided not only
cautionary tales about differential dissolution of certain phytolith
types and expected interpretational biases, but also tools for
determining a-priori whether phytolith assemblages are well or
Europe, a recent collection of articles brings forward geo-
archaeological research conducted in various areas of the humid
tropics around the world (Morley and Goldberg, 2017). This
assortment showcases the applicability of the geoarchaeological
tool-kit of method and theory across many regions of the globe.
Moreover, it shows that the same basic mechanisms identified in
other parts of the globe are also at work in the tropics, while dif-
ferences are only of rates of erosion and chemical diagenesis or
pedogenesis, all being higher in the tropics. These studies too
address issues of preservation. The ability to identify whether or not
an assemblage of archaeological materials is well- or poorly- pre-
served has an immense impact on archaeological interpretation.

Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the formation processes building the archaeological record, from the systemic context in the past to the archaeological context in the present.
Note that ethnoarchaeology primarily studies C-transforms (accretion and discard processes) while geo-ethnoarchaeology deals simultaneously with C- and N-transforms as it also
addresses degradation processes. Overall, the aim of both approaches is to understand assemblage formation.

poorly preserved, and a mechanistic appreciation of the process of
phytolith partial dissolution (Cabanes and Shahack-Gross, 2015).
The importance of taphonomic changes is appreciated in many
other fields of archaeological research, exemplified by intensive
studies into differential preservation at the waterlogged site of Star
Carr in northwestern Europe that undergoes desiccation in the last
decades (e.g., Milner et al., 2011 on wood, bone and antler deteri-
oration; Albert et al., 2016 on pollen).
Overall, the current state of research into N-transforms in
occupation deposits and the artifact assemblages within them in-
cludes mechanistic understanding about the states of preservation
of various archaeological materials (e.g., bones, dung, ash, phyto-
liths, mud bricks) under certain physical, chemical and biological
conditions at the burial environment. While most studies cited here
thus far originate from the relatively arid Near East and temperate
5. Understanding N-transforms and its impact on
archaeological interpretation
Geo-ethnoarchaeological and other empirical studies of
archaeological occupation deposits, as well as geogenic soils and
sediments associated with archaeological sites, provided thus far
several key mechanisms that explain how post-depositional envi-
ronmental processes shape archaeological assemblages. These
processes often manifest in the state of preservation of archaeo-
logical materials. Poorly preserved assemblages suffer post-
depositional changes in quantities and relative frequencies of
items/types. For example, thin delicate phytoliths tend to dissolve
more rapidly than bulky thick phytoliths (Cabanes and Shahack-
Gross, 2015), and dung spherulites dissolve faster than wood ash
crystals (Gur-Arieh et al., 2014). Such partial dissolution results in
 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43 41

distorted original assemblages and their study will yield erroneous
results. The importance of state of preservation has long been
acknowledged by the stable isotope geochemistry community,
especially those working with bones and teeth as archives of
climate and diet. The importance of preservation is not yet fully
realized by many archaeologists, especially those working with
macroscopic remains. While macroscopic remains such as pottery
and stone tools are rather durable in most environments, the
preservation of bones is known to be related to the acidity of the
burial environment, a problem well acknowledged in northern
Europe. An example from southwestern Asia is the study of Stiner
et al. (1995) that show that the spatial distribution of bones in
the Mousterian layer at Hayonim Cave (Israel) did not reflect dif-
ferential use of space by humans, but post-depositional total
dissolution at a certain locality within the cave. Moreover, Weiner
Schiffer (1987:338) explicitly alluded to this important meth-
odological pre-requisite, i.e., archaeologists must study well-
preserved primary assemblages. However, at the time he wrote
his book there were few tools to ascertain primary deposition and
states of preservation. Thanks to traditional (soil-science based)
and non-traditional (micromorphology and biogeochemistry ori-
ented) geoarchaeology, these important methodological aspects in
archaeological research are now available. The only problem is that
their accessibility depends on expertise in geoarchaeology and
geoscience techniques. There are too few researchers with such
knowledge to be able to conduct the necessary work in excavations
throughout the world. The expertise pressure can be relieved with
intensive incorporation of geoarchaeology, with its two aspects,
into the academic archaeological curriculum.

Fig. 3. Schematic proposal for an essential research approach in archaeology going ‘backwards’ from the archaeological context to reliable inferences on the past systemic context.
Early during or after excavation, evaluation of states of preservation of archaeological remains should be studied, leading to an understanding of the depositional archaeological
context (aided by a variety of geoarchaeological methods). Once preservation and deposition are understood, it is possible to move on and study well-preserved primary as-
semblages and produce reliable archaeological interpretations.

et al. (1993, 2002) have shown that evidence for ash and hearths
also depends on post-depositional sediment acidity, and that the
spatial distribution of these important evidences for human use of
fire and human use of space may be distorted. It is our re-
sponsibility to identify such cases to be sure we produce reliable
interpretations of the human past. In other words, we must be able
to distinguish during excavation between areas of good and poor
preservation, and then select the well-preserved assemblages for
further analysis. It is realized, though, that such an undertaking is
not always possible in all excavations due to constraints of time,
funding and expertise availability.
6. Operative considerations and research design
Fig. 2 illustrates the current general understanding about for-
mation processes. C- and N-transforms operate at the systemic
context to create accretion of materials through artifact cycles as
defined by Schiffer (1987). The discarded, abandoned and/or
destroyed material assemblages undergo degradation processes
which result in archaeological assemblages within archaeological
deposits. Models about C-transforms have been produced using
ethnoarchaeology covering the processes from accretion through
abandonment, while geo-ethnoarchaeological models encompass
42 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43
both C- and N-transforms and cover the processes from accretion
through degradation. To provide reliable archaeological in-
terpretations we should therefore work 'backwards'.
Fig. 3 shows an idealized mode of operation from excavation to
interpretation. I argue that the study of the archaeological record in
a holistic manner, i.e., study of artifacts in their sedimentary
context, will provide information about the states of preservation of
material assemblages, i.e., understanding the degradation pro-
cesses that acted on the studied assemblages. With further geo-
archaeological research it is possible to understand the context,
whether primary or secondary and thus understand discard,
abandonment and destruction processes. In regards to the study of
N-transforms, these realizations are heavily based on geo- and
micro-archaeology (e.g., Goldberg and Macphail, 2006; Weiner,
2010). Once we can evaluate the integrity of the archaeological
assemblages and their contexts of formation, we can move to
explore C-transforms, i.e., study well-preserved primary assem-
blages and thus understand accretion processes, and then go to the
highest tier and produce an overall archaeological interpretation.
7. Conclusion
While C-transforms are important accretion processes in the
formation of archaeological sites, research has shown that they
cannot be translated into general laws. On the other hand, 'non-
traditional' geoarchaeological research into occupation deposits
and their associated microscopic assemblages have provided in the
last 20 years the following theoretical and methodological ad-
vancements: (a) occupation deposits are artifacts of human activ-
ities, (b) geo-ethnoarchaeology aided with a taphonomic approach
is the method most suitable to produce mechanistic understanding
on the formation of archaeological occupation deposits and the
variety of (often microscopic) materials found within them, (c)
empirical microarchaeological research provide practical tools with
which it is possible to evaluate formation processes and states of
preservation of materials at archaeological sites, and (d) archaeol-
ogists should strive to focus analyses on well-preserved assem-
blages to produce reliable interpretations of the past. With this
knowledge, and availability of research tools, it is nowadays
possible to assess the meaning of intra-site spatial and temporal
(stratigraphic) patterns at any given site.
Future research directions in site formation theory should take
two general pathways, one would be continued geo-
ethnoarchaeological research to further develop and refine mech-
anistic understandings of assemblage formation of various
archaeological materials. The other would be application of the
theoretical new understanding during excavations as outlined in
Figs. 2 and 3.
Acknowledgements
I am indebted to my mentors and colleagues that inspired and
supported me throughout the years: Steve Weiner, Fiona Marshall,
Takis Karkanas and Paul Goldberg. I would like to thank my former
students, David Friesem and Shira Gur-Arieh that chose to continue
the geo-ethnoarchaeological path and share with me the belief that
it is an important method that advances archaeological research. I
am grateful to T.R. Kidder for critically reading an earlier version of
this manuscript. His comments were extremely useful when I tried
to address the apparent dichotomy between the two approaches in
current geoarchaeology.
References
Albert, B., Innes, J., Blackford, J., Taylor, B., Conneller, C., Milner, N., 2016.
Degradation of the wetland sediment archive at Star Carr: an assessment of
current palynological preservation. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep. 6, 488e495.
Binford, L.R., 1964. A consideration of archaeological research design. Am. Antiquity.
29, 425e441.
Binford, L., 1982. In Pursuit of the Past. University of California Press, Berkeley and
Los Angeles.
Brain, C.K., 1967. Hottentot food remains and their bearing on the interpretation of
fossil bone assemblages. Sci. Pap. Namib Desert Res. Stn. 32, 1e12.
Brochier, J.E., Villa, P., Giacomara, M., 1992. Shepherds and sediments: geo-
ethnoarchaeology of pastoral sites. J. Anthr. Archaeol. 11, 47e102.
Butzer, K.W., 1982. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Cabanes, D., Weiner, S., Shahack-Gross, R., 2011. Stability of phytoliths in the
archaeological record: a dissolution study of modern and fossil phytoliths.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 2480e2490.
Cabanes, D., Shahack-Gross, R., 2015. Understanding fossil phytolith preservation:
the role of partial dissolution in paleoecology and archaeology. PLoS One 10 (5),
e0125532. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125532.
David, N., Kramer, C., 2001. Ethnoarchaeology in Action. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Di Lernia, S., 2001. Dismantling dung: delayed use of food resources among early
Holocene foragers of the Libyan Sahara. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 20, 408e441.
Flannery, K., 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, NewYork.
French, C.A.I., 2003. Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in Soil Micromorphology
and Landscape Evolution. Routledge, New York.
Friesem, D.E., 2016. Geo-ethnoarchaeology in action. J. Archaeol. Sci. 70, 145e157.
Friesem, D., Boaretto, E., Eliyahu-Behar, A., Shahack-Gross, R., 2011. Degradation of
mud brick houses in an arid environment: a geoarchaeological model.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 1135e1147.
Friesem, D.E., Karkanas, P., Tsartsidou, G., Shahack-Gross, R., 2014a. Sedimentary
processes involved in mud brick degradation in temperate environments: a
micromorphological approach in an ethnoarchaeological context in northern
Greece. J. Archaeol. Sci. 41, 556e567.
Friesem, D.E., Tsartsidou, G., Karkanas, P., Shahack-Gross, R., 2014b. Where are the
roofs? A geo-ethnoarchaeological study of mud structures and their collapse
processes, focusing on the identification of roofs. Archaeol. Anthropol. Sci. 6,
73e92.
Gifford, D.P., 1978. Ethnoarchaeological observations of natural processes affecting
cultural materials. In: Gould, R.A. (Ed.), Explanation in Ethnoarchaeology. Uni-
versity of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 77e101.
Goldberg, P., 1980. Micromorphology in archaeology and prehistory. Pale orient 6,
159e164.
Goldberg, P., Natan, Y., 1975. The phosphate mineralogy of et-Tabun cave, Mount
Carmel, Israel. Mineral. Mag. 40, 253e258.
Goldberg, P., Nash, D.T., Petraglia, M.D., 1993. Formation Processes in Archaeological
Context. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 17. Prehistory Press, Madison
Wisconsin.
Goldberg, P., Macphail, R.I., 2006. Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Black-
well, Oxford.
Gorecki, P., 1985. Ethnoarchaeology: the need for a post mortem enquiry. World
Archaeol. 17, 175e191.
Gur-Arieh, S., Shahack-Gross, R., Maeir, A.M., Lehmann, G., Hitchcock, L.A.,
Boaretto, E., 2014. The taphonomy and preservation of wood and dung ashes
found in archaeological cooking installations: case studies from bronze and iron
age Israel. J. Archaeol. Sci. 46, 50e67.
Holliday, V.T., 2004. Soils in Archaeological Research. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Ismail-Meyer, K., Rentzel, P., Wiemann, P., 2013. Neolithic lakeshore settlements in
Switzerland: new insights on site formation processes from micromorphology.
Geoarchaeology 28, 317e339.
Lyman, R.L., 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Macphail, R.I., Cruise, G.M., Allen, M.J., Linderholm, J., Reynolds, P., 2004. Archaeo-
logical soil and pollen analysis of experimental floor deposits; with special
reference to Butser Ancient Farm, Hampshire, UK. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 175e191.
Mallol, C., Marlowe, F.W., Wood, B.M., Porter, C.C., 2007. Earth, wind, and fire:
ethnoarchaeological signals of Hadza fires. J. Archaeol. Sci. 34, 2035e2052.
Matthews, W., 2010. Geoarchaeology and taphonomy of plant remains and micro-
archaeological residues in early urban environments in the Ancient Near East.
Quat. Intl. 214, 98e113.
McIntosh, R.J., 1977. Excavation of mud structures - experiment from West-Africa.
World Archaeol. 9, 185e199.
Milek, K.B., 2012. Floor formation processes and the interpretation of site activity
areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of turf buildings at Thvera , northeast Ice-
land. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 31, 119e137.
Milek, K.B., Roberts, H.M., 2013. Integrated geoarchaeological methods for the
determination of site activity areas: a study of a Viking age house in Reykjavik,
Iceland. J. Archaeol. Sci. 40, 1845e1865.
Morley, M.W., Goldberg, P., 2017. Geoarchaeological research in the humid tropics: a
global perspective. J. Arch. Sci. 77, 1e9.
Milner, N., Conneller, C., Elliott, B., Koon, H., Panter, I., Penkman, K., Taylor, B.,
Taylot, M., 2011. From riches to rags: organic deterioration at Star Carr.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 38, 2818e2832.
Portillo, M., Belarte, C.M., Ramon, J., Kallala, N., Sanmarti, J., Albert, R.M., 2016. An
ethnoarchaeological study of livestock dung fuels from cooking installations in
northern Tunisia. Quat. Intl. (in press).
 R. Shahack-Gross / Journal of Archaeological Science 79 (2017) 36e43
Rapp, G., Hill, C.L., 2006. Geoarchaeology: the Earth-science Approach to Archae-
ological Interpretation, second ed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Schiffer, M.B., 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of
New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Schiffer, M.B., 1972. Archaeological context and systemic context. Am. Antiquity. 37,
156e165.
Shahack-Gross, R., 2007. Approaches to understanding formation of archaeological
sites in Israel: materials and processes. Isr. J. Earth Sci. 56, 73e86.
Shahack-Gross, R., Marshall, F., Weiner, S., 2003. Geo-ethnoarchaeology of pastoral
sites: the identification of livestock enclosures in abandoned maasai settle-
ments. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30, 439e459.
Shahack-Gross, R., Berna, F., Karkanas, P., Weiner, S., 2004. Bat guano and preser-
vation of archaeological remains in cave sites. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31, 1259e1272.
Shahack-Gross, R., Simons, A., Ambrose, S.H., 2008. Identification of pastoral sites
using stable nitrogen and carbon isotopes from bulk sediment samples: a case
study in modern and archaeological pastoral settlements in Kenya. J. Archaeol.
Sci. 35, 983e990.
Shott, M.J., 1998. Status and role of formation theory in contemporary archaeo-
logical practice. J. Archaeol. Res. 6, 299e329.
View publication stats
43
Stein, J.K., 2001. A review of site formation processes and their relevance to geo-
archaeology. In: Goldberg, P., Holliday, V.T., Ferring, C.R. (Eds.), Earth Sciences
and Archaeology. Kluwer, New York, pp. 37e51.
Stein, J.K., Farrand, W.R., 1985. Archaeological Sediments in Context. Center for the
Study of Early Man, Orono.
Stiner, M.C., Kuhn, S.L., Weiner, S., Bar-Yosef, O., 1995. Differential burning, recrys-
tallization, and fragmentation of archaeological bone. J. Archaeol. Sci. 22,
223e237.
Waters, M.R., 1992. Principles of Geoarchaeology: a North American Perspective.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Weiner, S., 2010. Microarchaeology: beyond the Visible Archaeological Record.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Weiner, S., Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O., 1993. Bone preservation in Kebara Cave, Israel
using on-site fourier transform infrared spectrometry. J. Archaeol. Sci. 20,
613e627.
Weiner, S., Goldberg, P., Bar-Yosef, O., 2002. Three-dimensional distribution of
minerals in the sediments of Hayonim Cave, Israel: diagenetic processes and
archaeological implications. J. Archaeol. Sci. 29, 1289e1308.