1995-Albanese

1995 Rip Rapp Geological Archaeology Award

presented to JOHN P. ALBANESE

Citation by George C. Frison

Although most archaeological data are recovered from geologic deposits, view geologists have regarded these kinds of deposits worthy of serious study. In North America in particular, vulture-bearing deposits are relatively recent and contain little if anything of economic value. However, archaeologists are well aware that geologic processes have operated continually, and accurate evaluations of archaeological site formation processes and site integrity are necessary in order to formulate better interpretations of past human activities as they are revealed in the geologic record. Although Old World archaeologists are strongly oriented toward the earth sciences, New World archaeologists emerge from anthropology departments with strong ties to the social sciences. Consequently, the need for trained geologists is critical for archaeology but, unfortunately, most academic departments of anthropology are rarely able to retain a geoarchaeologist on their staff, and most geology departments express relatively little interest in the geologic aspects of archaeology.

The need for the trained geologist is especially true in Paleoindian sites where the evidence is often contained in deeply buried stream terraces and covered by alluvial, colluvial, eolian, aor other deposits. The archaeologist needs to know, for example, what landform was utilized for bison procurement in any given site in order to make a reliable estimate of the strategy utilized by the human predators involved. Trapping bison in an arroyo headcut requires a different strategy and manpower requirements than driving them into an artificial corral, although in both cases the only remaining evidence may be a badly decomposed bone bed.

Nearly three decades ago, Wyoming archaeologists in particular and Plains archaeologists in general were to receive badly needed help from an unexpected source. John Albanese came to study geology at the University of Wyoming after World War II and, after acquiring a master’s degree in geology, became a very successful petroleum geologist. However, along the way he developed also a growing interest in Wyoming archaeology, enough so that he became an active member of the Wyoming Archaeological Society. With an added impetus on Wyoming and Plains archaeology int he late 1960s, John Albanese began to contribute his geological expertise to the investigation of archaeological sites. Of particular significance - and an impressive demonstration of the value of geology to archaeology - was John’s help in determining that the 10,000 year-old Casper Bison kill, discovered in 1971, of over 100 extinct bison was accomplished by driving the animals into the trough of a parabolic sand dune that served as a natural trap. All but the trough of the parabolic sand dune had been removed by industrial activity, and the determination of the landform involved would most likely not have been resolved without John’s geologic expertise.

Although John was always ready and willing to interpret the geology in archaeological sites of all ages, his greatest interest has been directed toward Paleoindian sites. Following the Casper site was the discovery of two major Paleoindian sites in the Big Horn Basin, the Hanson Folsom site, and the Colby mammoth kill site in 1973. In addition, during the 1977 a reinvestigation began at the Homer site, also in the Big Horn Basin and the type site of the 9000-year-old Cody cultural complex, that had been excavated earlier by Princeton University and the Smithsonian Institution. John Albanese agreed to do the geology of both the Hanson and Colby sites and was able also to clarify, expand, and change outright many of the geological observations made during the 1950s at the Homer site by Glen Jepsen, a paleontologist from Princeton University. This was important to Paleoindian bison studies because Jepsen’s interpretations would have required a different procurement strategy than the one based on john Albanese’s reconstruction of paleolandforms at the time of the site occupation. Johns’ geological observations were published as book chapters in the final reports on the four Paleoindian sites mentioned above.

Another major geological work was done by John Albanese at the reinvestigation of the deeply stratified, multi component, Paleoindian Agate Basin site in eastern Wyoming during the 1970s. Site investigations had been initiated by the Smithsonian Institution in 1942 and continued in 1962, but no formal report had been made. The site formation processes in this case were extremely complex and needed to be clarified if meaningful site interpretations were to be realized. Once again, the results were published as a book chapter in 1982. John was retained to do the geology of the Mill Iron site in southeast Montana, a site that is manifestation of the Goshen cultural complex first recognized during 1966 at the stratified, multi component hell Gap Paleoindian site in southeast Wyoming. The geology of the Mill Iron site will appear as a book chapter in 1996.

John Albanese’s expertise in geoarchaeology was recognized by the Smithsonian Institution in the 1970s. He expanded that expertise to several states, including Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, and Texas, and to South and Middle America. John considered going back to finish his Ph.D. and seek and academic position, but his independent nature led him in a different direction. This is unfortunate in some ways; John is a natural born teacher, both perceptive and articulate, and would have performed well in the classroom to train students in geoarchaeology.

However, despite raised eyebrow and, in many cases, outright disbelief and consternation among many of his former colleague in the petroleum geology business, John chose to establish himself in a new and different career, as a full-time consulting geoarchaeologist. He has done very well in this venture and is sought out continually by the academic, contracting, and cultural resource management branches of archaeology. It is a sign of progress in the geology profession and the Geological Society of America that geoarchaeology is now recognized and accepted as a legitimate area of research. It is fitting and proper that John Albanese be presented the Rip Rapp Archaeological Geology Award. No on is more deserving through both his scholarly contributions and for major progress in bridging the gap between archaeology and geology during the past three decades.


Response by JOHN P. ALBANESE

I thank the Archaeological Geology Division of the GSA for choosing me as the recipient of the Rip Rapp Award for 1995. I feel honored and am sincerely grateful.

I entered the profession of archaeological geology in middle age, at a time when many people are beginning to think about retirement. This career change would be difficult, to say the least, if one did not have the support and encouragement of one’s spouse. My wife, Evelyn, has lent her support, worked as my field assistant for many years, and accompanied me on most of the major projects that I have worked on. Needless to say, we do get along; we have been married for 49 years. A second person I wish to acknowledge is George Frison, retired head of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Wyoming. It is through George’s direct support and encouragement that I entered the field of archaeological geology. I had developed an interest in archaeology as a hobby, and it was through this avocational interest that I became acquainted with George. He had been attempting to recruit someone from the Department of Geology at the University of Wyoming who would carry out the geological investigation at the Ruby Site, a late Archaei Besant bison kill located in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming. He had not been successful. At that time, 1968, I had nearly 20 years experience as a professional geologist, but is was all in the exploration segment of the oil and gas business. I think that out of desperation, or exasperation, or perhaps both, George asked me if I would carry out the geological investigation at the site. I did so, apparently with some success, as I later found myself working with George on other projects. I soon discovered that there was as much similarity between petroleum geology and archaeological geology as there is between Godzilla dn St. John the Baptist. However, things worked out, and due to George Frison’s recommendation, I later found myself working with another man who had a great influence on my professional career. This person is Dennis Stanford, head of the Department of Anthropology at the Smithsonian, I had to opportunity to work on old sites in Central and Souther America. For the whole time that I was carrying out these geoarchaeological projects, I was still working in the oil business. Three other men and I owned a small oil company engaged in formulating, leasing, and drilling oil and gas prospects, an endeavor that did result in the discovery of some oil dn gas fields. I was a partner in the firm until 1978, when we terminated the venture on a very amiable basis, and I became a full-time consulting geoarchaeologist, an endeavor that I have continued to the present.

My experience as a petroleum geologist has influenced how I view the field of geoarchaeology. Once great difference that I first noticed between the two specialties was the methods of testing hypotheses. In the oil business, after spending large amounts of time and money on a particular project, one tested the prospect by spending more money and drilling a well. At the time I was in the oil business, the success ration, within the United States, for drilling a wildcat well was 1 in 8. However, the rate of success in finding an economically viable oil field was only 1 in 40. Currently in domestic-oil-producing areas with high well densities and for which there are abundant subsurface geological data, the use of 3-D seismic, sophisticated and very expensive took, results in a wildcat success rate of approximately 50%. What the preceding says about the ability of geologists to predict, I leave to the audience to decided.

In 1968, the testing of archaeological geological hypotheses within the northwestern Plains area, by either core-hole drilling or back-hoe trenching, was nonexistent and essentially still if, for that matter. Fortunately, the situation is much better in the mid-continent portion of the United States where the core-hole rig is not an uncommon tool and the detailed geological examination of local drainage basins is not an uncommon endeavor. Here, geoarchaeologist have developed models, based on detailed surface and subsurface data, that concern the Holocene evolution of local and regional drainage basins. These efforts have been accompanied by the formulation of predictive models that concern the geographic distribution of buried archaeological sites.

I personally feel that the most important task facing the field of archaeological geology is the development of local and regional detailed databases that encompass all facets and types of information necessary to develop predictive models concerning site distribution, an effort similar to the aforementioned on currently taking place in the midcontinent. I might be accused of plagiarism in saying this, as it is similar to statements that have appeared frequently in the recent literature, but they are still worth repeating. I am acutely aware of the need for a regional synthesis, because of my work in the northwestern Plains where the effort to developing detailed syntheses has not yet be initiated. To my knowledge, an analysis of individual drainage basins, similar to that being made by current investigations in the midcontinent, does not exist int he states of Wyoming or Montana. Of course this type of detailed study should not be restricted to drainage basins alone, but should be applied to other large geological features such as eolian dune field. In southwestern Wyoming, an area of high archaeological site density, most of the sites are in sand dunes. If one is looking for an archaeological site, one heads for the sand dunes, a fact well known to amateur artifact collectors. Some geological work has been done on the major dune fields, but very little is known about the detailed Holocene history of small dune fields, where many of the sites are located.

There is another endeavor of geoarchaeologists that I consider nearly as important as that previously discussed, and that is the dissemination of the results of geoarchaeology investigations to the archaeological profession. I know some archaeologists who can barely spell the word geology, let alone know what new developments are occurring in the field of archaeological geology. Many archaeologists are unaware of the geologic factors that affect sire preservation or visibility. How many archaeologists are aware of the argument recently presented by Rolfe Mandel in "Geomorphic Controls of the Archaic Record int eh Central Plains of the United States," Geological Society of America Special Paper 291, published in 1995, in which he presented evidence that the paucity of record Archaic sites int he Central Plains, especially those dating rom about 8000 to 4000 B.P., is a result of geomorphic processes instead of prehistoric settlement patterns. I would urge more geoarchaeologists to spread the gospel and present papers at meeting in general as well as geoarchaeological sessions. The main thing that distinguishes the Archaeological Geology Division of the GSA from the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology Division is the word archaeological. Our main function is to facilitate the study of archaeology by pointing out the effect of natural processes upon the archaeological record and by distinguishing between effects resulting from the actions of man and the processes of nature.