I deliberately avoided scholarly investigation of prior opinions to more accurately represent current thought. My contacts were split equally between bona fide archaeologists and geologists, but fewer than 10 to 15 percent would admit to such a hybrid label when I pressed the issue. Having nearly failed to synthesize anything, I finally borrowed an organizing principle from literary criticism, the archetype. Thus, I present to you four types of geoarchaeologists out there, each representing a rather consistent set of values and views, and each occupying prominent positions in North American universities and government agencies. I give you now the idealist, the cynic, the realist, and the negotiator.
Idealists view the fusion between geology and archaeology as an enduring marriage.
Archaeological training is required only to search for the right geological sites, and to properly speculate on the fossil content. The idealist justifies this view because the site's physical stratigraphy provides the context, and so the fundamental framework for all other ancillary investigations, including the distribution of cultural material. Idealists visualize that no site should be excavated without an on-site geologist in charge, and that funding, supervision, and excavation decisions must be made as part of the marriage contract. They visualize geoarchaeology as a logical taxonomic unit within American science, and thus is deserving of formal academic arrangements whereby degrees are granted in geoarchaeology, and where research and teaching positions are labeled accordingly for the endless supply of future geoarchaeologists. In such a world, traditional geology departments acknowledge formally the equal relevance of plate tectonics, experimental seismology, and geoarchaeology, and archaeology departments will hire geologists as department chairpersons.