But in this case its more about geologists not respecting archaeology as a science than anything else. Archaeologists in Sweden do use geology (palynology, geophysic surveys, GIS and different methods of dating) all the time. But geologists doesnt seem to eager to do the same.

That said I must point out that archaeologists in most other respects are very narrow minded when it comes to use knowledge from other fields. In Sweden archaeology is a social science or rather a humanistic science. The border between that and the natural science of geology is unfortunally very strictly guarded on both sides.

An old friend of mine, JODavis, who was trained in both geology and archaeology, and who was in on starting the sub-field of archaeological geology or geo-archaeology, once said, “Archaeology is Geology or it is Nothing.” Of course, he was referring to the then appalling practise of many American archaeologists who, doing digs into different layers and stratigraphy, used absolutely no geological knowledge (at the time) to figure out the dates of the various layers. Fortunately, that is where the sub-field of geo-archaeology and archeo-geology came in, to help with age dating via methods that include use of volcanic ashes. It then became fairly standard practice, at least among many archaeologists working in the Great Basin of Nevada, to have a Quaternary geologist as part of the project.

This probably doesn’t relate much to the particular problem you are talking about - the Neolithic process in Europe - but maybe the archeos and geos could work together! (A novel idea!) Being a hard rock geologist myself, I hope these comments aren’t out of line!