Is archaeology becoming an environmental science?
Introduction
This short article discusses the possibility that archaeology is gradually becoming an environmental science, moving away from its initial goals. The evidence presented in this paper derive from personal experiences and all arguments are based on personal views. I tried to present them in a scholarly manner, although sometimes, the personal element is strong enough to hide the truth under a pile of sarcastic jargon. The paper occasionally targets my colleagues in environmental archaeology, who will probably feel that some of the views discussed in this paper are not only sarcastic, but also insulting. I would like to apologise in advance for this, as my aim is not to insult their work, but to bring up a problem that is likely to affect the broader discipline quite soon.
To understand the problem, it is necessary to begin with some definitions, which will be useful to the non-experts in order to follow the discussion, and also to the experts, in order to remember what archaeology stands for. In this article, I argue that archaeology is rapidly changing to a science of one-and-only interest. Due to the funding conditions, the scientific preferences of our times, and the constant shift of scholarly interests in academia, archaeology is soon not to consist of a disciple of its own. It is gradually becoming a collection of environmental studies, which discuss scientific leftovers of questionable utility. The new age of archaeology is pointing towards to an ‘environmental-only archaeology’, which might be unable to convince the public of its usefulness and is likely to die when public funding dries out.
The definitions of archaeology and environmental science
Defining archaeology is not as straight forward as it seems, probably due of the different approaches followed in Europe and in North America. The archaeological discipline was first conceived in Europe after an era of antiquarianism. Antiquarians were solely interested in plain archaeological objects, which they treated as commodities to be exhibited in the personal collections of the European elites. Archaeology grasped on the interests of antiquarianism and managed to enforce a cause and a methodology to the unsystematic treasure-hunting of old objects. Ever since, the definition of archaeology is the systematic study of human activities through the recovery and analysis of past material remains (1). In this sense, traditional European archaeology is meant to be oriented in the recovery of information, which derives from the material remains of the past; therefore, archaeology is closer to what one might describe as ‘material’ science. Still, the central focus of archaeology is the human being and its activities, behaviour, thoughts, relationships, evolution and interaction with the surrounding environment. Modern archaeology is not about the artefacts, but about the people who produced and used them; therefore, it collaborates closely with other scientific disciplines, such as biology, geology, psychology, cultural anthropology, even social and environmental sciences. Despite this broad collaboration, in European academia archaeology is still an independent science and it is viewed as a discipline of its own.
In North America, the understanding of archaeology is slightly different. It is not the aim of this paper to discuss the impact of post-processualism in North American archaeological thought during the late 20th century; however, one must bear in mind that the modern understanding of archaeology as a field that combines the humanities with social and environmental sciences, is practically due to the North Americans. In North America there are two types of ‘archaeologies’ and both are depended fields of other disciplines. What is understood as ‘traditional archaeology’ in Europe (and Greece in particular), in North America it is part of what is broadly described as Classics. Classics is not a discipline but a field of the humanities, which primarily focuses on various aspects of the Greco-Roman civilisation, studied by archaeologists, historians, linguists, conservators and other related scholars. Archaeology, on the other hand, at least as we understand it in Europe, is a sub-field of anthropology, the main focus of which is human behaviour and human societies, whether these are past or present. In that sense, modern archaeology and anthropology in North America are technically the same because of their common focus on human activities and the reasons behind them. The field of behavioural archaeology is probably the one that bridges the North American notion of archaeology/anthropology with the traditional European archaeology.
To a classical archaeologist like myself, it is hard to present a clear definition of environmental science, as I was never part of it. The definition given by Britannica (2011) is: “Environmental science: interdisciplinary academic field that draws on ecology, geology, meteorology, biology, chemistry, engineering, and physics to study environmental problems and human impacts on the environment. Environmental science is a quantitative discipline with both applied and theoretical aspects and has been influential in informing the policies of governments around the world. Environmental science is considered separate from environmental studies, which emphasises the human relationship with the environment and the social and political dimensions thereof. For example, whereas a researcher in environmental studies might focus on the economic and political dimensions of international climate-change protocols, an environmental scientist would seek to understand climate change by quantifying its effects with models and evaluating means of mitigation” (2).
Based on the above definition, environmental science is a quantitative discipline that studies the environment for the sake of itself. Environmental science is not about the humans; it can measure the impact of human activities on the environment, but it has no interest in the counter-impact of the environment on humans and their ways of life. Instead, the environment’s counter-impact on humans can be the focus of environmental studies, which may not necessarily be quantified, and therefore, they cannot be part of environmental science.
Archaeology and anthropology, on the other hand, are disciplines that focus on human activity, which is in constant interaction with the natural environment; therefore, the specialised field of environmental archaeology could be part of what is defined as environmental studies, though not necessarily part of the environmental science discipline. Environmental archaeology is a field of archaeological science, which also belongs to the archaeology discipline. It is defined as a science that reconstructs the relationship between past societies and the environments they lived in. It is further divided in three subfields: zooarchaeology, which studies faunal remains; archaeobotany, which studies plant remains; and finally, geoarchaeology, which studies landscapes. In short, archaeology (in Europe) and anthropology (in North America) are scientific disciplines of their own; they include archaeological science, part of which is environmental archaeology. The field of environmental archaeology is the closest to interact with environmental science, although this is done indirectly via the production of environmental studies; as explained above, such studies are not treated as part of environmental science.
At this stage, if we were to answer the question put in the title of this paper, the answer would have been categorically no: archaeology and anthropology have a totally different focus compared to environmental science, and therefore, the former cannot be, or even become, part of the latter. This conclusion is premature and based solely on the definitions provided above. To understand the nature of the problem, one needs to reconsider the question and re-phrase it as follows: If environmental archaeology is becoming the only active field of archaeological research, overpowering other areas of archaeological study, would that mean that archaeology is evolving to something different and perhaps less archaeological? And would one describe this monolithic ‘discipline’ as a proper academic discipline in the future?
The nature of the problem in archaeology
If I was to introduce the problem as simply as possible, I would quote the words of an old lecturer of mine, whom I wish to protect in anonymity: “I’m afraid that nowadays archaeology is all about bones”! This man, who once taught me material science and the analysis of inorganic archaeological artefacts, believed that applying for doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships in the archaeology departments of British universities with such scientific background, is an absolute waste of time. Another anonymous friend of mine, who now teaches conservation and has great international experience with inorganic remains, once admitted that archaeologists need to gather around as they did back in the 80s, and sign a petition stating that “archaeological science is NOT just about bones”.
In various meetings that I attended with the C.I.f.A and other Finds Groups in the UK (3), it was always apparent that there is a lack of specialists on inorganic artefacts out in the market. Last time I spoke in one of these meetings, I insisted that the problem stands with the universities, which do not provide specialised courses on all archaeological materials. Instead, most of the MA courses in British universities are about bones and seeds. This almost exclusive specialisation of MA courses in the UK extends even further. After their MA degrees, most doctoral candidates and post-doctoral fellows carry out research on organic environmental remains, and therefore, they produce a new legacy for the future generations of archaeologists in such institutions. The understanding of archaeological science that the new students are likely to get, is probably going to be ‘environmental-remains-only’. The taught courses on inorganic artefacts are in most cases limited and they are delivered by ‘old-school’ lecturers, most of which have a background in classical archaeology. Once they are retired, they are most likely going to be replaced by environmental remain specialists, until the knowledge of inorganic materials is completely lost, or until in migrates to foreign institutions.
From a personal point of view, after the end of my PhD in 2016, I applied for several academic positions that requested specialisation in ‘archaeological materials’. Most of these interviews were held by panels of professors and researchers specialised in zooarchaeology, osteorachaeology (forensics), archaeobotany and geoarchaeology. In one of the interviews that I was shortlisted in 2019, the head of the department, who was specialised in glass, boldly explained me that my research interests on pottery and worked stone did not match the department's teaching agenda, which was mostly on animal bones; therefore, they got someone with such skills. Interestingly, the advertised role never stated anything about bones; it was the interview panel that translated ‘archaeological materials’ as ‘animal bones’, obviously because this is the general norm across UK institutions. The only interview I attended, that I was close to getting the job, was in the geology department of another British university, but again, it was made clear from the beginning that they would have preferred someone with a first degree in geology.
Throughout my applications in academia over the last three years, there was a case in Germany that was peculiarly funny. The focus of the position was ‘trans-materiality’, a word that receives various meanings and translates differently according to the imagination of the person defining what material is and what is not. The job description was promising as it allowed a certain level of speculation. The transmission of ideas and natural resources for the production of material culture was an acceptable research interest for the essential candidate. The job description made clear that ‘materiality’ related to the production of a certain material culture by human hand, which is technically what artefacts really are; therefore, ‘materiality’ was not supposed to be about quantified environmental resource that were once consumed by humans, such as barley seeds, wheat seeds, pulses, pigs, goats, cows, fish, oysters and birds. Furthermore, this type of ‘materiality’ was not supposed to be an aspect that was once felt by past humans, such as frost, cold, tides, floods, heat, rain and snowfall, which might oddly classify as ‘material science’ in the UK. When the position was finally filled two years after the application process had begun, it became apparent that ‘materiality’ in German academia is equally full of imagination, as it is in British academia. The person who got the job was a philologist, specialised in texts.
The dominion of environmental archaeologists and organic remain specialists is not only present in British academia, but also in British commercial archaeology. My experience in the industry was relatively short but made me think of a valid point. Although most of the finds officers and finds managers I met were specialised in inorganic artefacts, the majority of post-excavation managers I met, were environmental archaeologists and organic remain specialists.
One must bear in mind that in commercial archaeology, inorganic artefacts are used almost exclusively for the dating of contexts, which undermines their importance in other areas of study. Even such dating can be impossible if the excavation has only produced crumbs of pottery and heavily corroded iron nails. Furthermore, the study of archaeological artefacts takes place towards the end of such commercial projects, when budgets are almost depleted. Time is scarcely allocated to specialists and little can be said about inorganic finds beyond dating. By contrast, organic remain and environmental specialists can easily grasp on standard-volume soil samples; they can tackle their reports and divert the discussion away from certain aspects of human activity, towards other aspects of broader environmental interest. Organic remains usually state the obvious about what people once ate, or how they sustained themselves, or for the most interesting cases, how people were deprived of their biological existences; therefore, it is cheaper, less time consuming and more page-productive to focus on such evidence.
Is environmental archaeology the black sheep of archaeology?
Several colleagues of mine are likely to argue that the transformation of modern archaeology to an environmental-based archaeology is not actually taking place. It is in fact true that not all academic institutions are following this pattern, while there are quite a few universities offering a broad range of studies on non-environmental inorganic materials. Still, most of the finds specialists, conservators, archaeometrists and inorganic-remain scientists would agree with me that the era of ceramic petrography and mass spectroscopy is long gone. There is only few scholars that maintain such research interests, mostly outside the UK, and once they are retired, their work will not carry on for long. Furthermore, many Doctors in Archaeology will agree with me that the number of post-doctoral fellows hired by UK universities to study animal bones and seeds is disproportional compared to those focusing on inorganic remains. To put it bluntly, if during the previous three decades “archaeology was all about pottery”, after 2010 - if not earlier, “archaeology is all about bones and seeds”. Despite different opinions on the subject, I insist that modern archaeology is producing more environmental studies than ever, and is gradually converting itself to a stepbrother of environmental science.
Some archaeologists do not necessarily think this is a bad idea, and I totally understand their point. I can feel their frustration, as during previous decades, ceramicists were monopolising the interests of archaeological research. This is particularly true for classical archaeology, where the study of environmental remains is still heavily neglected. The lack of funding and scholarly interest in environmental archaeology have definitely biased our discipline towards the study of inorganic remains for a long time. Still, the solution for the 21st century is not to stop research projects on inorganic remains and replace them with projects on bones and seeds. Environmental archaeology has definitely been neglected, but this should not be viewed as 'payback time'. Archaeological science must not explicitly and exclusively mean zoorchaeology and achaeobotany. It is an umbrella-science, which includes a variety of useful fields of archaeological research.
Furthermore, if we equate archaeological science with the study of faunal, plant and other organic remains, there is a danger of sidetracking from the actual definition and the essence of archaeology. As explained earlier, the definition of archaeology includes the systematic collection and analysis of material remains attributed to the human activities of the past. In a strict sense, such material remains are in most cases inorganic. They bear signs of conscious collection or extraction, production, modification or manufacture by human hand. Although environmental remains can be the products of conscious domestication, selection, cultivation and consumption by humans, they are not products of human ingenuity. Their association with past human activities depends on a range of external parameters, such as species biology, genetics and climate, which are not controlled by the humans.
Here, I am not suggesting that the only actual archaeological finds are the inorganic ones, or perhaps those from the organic ones, which carry at least some signs of human modification. What I am trying to say is that certain aspects of human behaviour, such as creativity, ingenuity, imagination and intellect are highly unlikely to be examined through quantified analyses of barley seeds and sheep bones. Other environmental analyses on ancient landscapes and climate could shed light upon aspects of past human activities such as diet and migration; however, they are again unlikely to say something useful when it comes to the evolution of human creativity, ingenuity, imagination and intellect. Harsh as it may sound, if the focus of archaeology is the study of ancient humans, then this can primarily be achieved through the study of inorganic archaeological artefacts. Unfortunately, the analysis of environmental evidence is secondary to this cause, whether we like it or not.
The source of evil
At this point, it is time to discuss why this shift of interest is taking place in modern archaeology. The ‘payback’ theory is unlikely to explain the rise of academic interest in environmental archaeology and the recent increase of doctoral and post-doctoral fellowships, especially in the UK. Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that all of a sudden, seeds, bones and landscapes have become more important to the archaeologists than the creations of ancient human hands. I personally think that the source of all evil is money.
The 21st century has been an era of uncontrolled environmental pollution and rapid climatic change. Governments all over the world have acknowledged the problem and have decided to do something about it. Even governments that believe climatic change is based on light-minded conspiracy theories, have little evidence to support their objections. The fact remains that the planet in changing and humans are caught in the middle of a situation that they might not be able to prevent. This terrorising thought poured a lot of funding in environmental sciences, particularly in fields that study temperature fluctuation, global warming, environmental pollution, radiation increase, extinction of species, movement of oceanic currents, tectonic plates and seismic activities. Such studies focus on collecting, analysing and interpreting quantified data, which will help the governments decide on the planet’s future, which also happens to be the future of our species.
Archaeology and the humanities in general, are under the impression that they have something to say about the future of mankind, based on the probability that history will repeat itself. Some schools of archaeological thought do not rest on understanding what happened in the past, which we do not actually know; they also like to take a step forward and express their predictions for the future. Since environmental science is actually doing this, I have a feeling that archaeology is getting jealous and trying to do the same, following a methodology that is only similar to theirs by name.
The functionality of archaeology in the modern world is a subject to be debated for ever. To put this as simply as possible, at its best, archaeology satisfies the curiosity of people regarding their past; at its worst, it is used to produce notions of national identity and national superiority, which normally have a destructive and lethal outcome. Somewhere between its best and worst behaviour, archaeology pretends to act as any other commercial science in this world: it exploits its scientific methodologies to generate cash. Such revenue derives from the commercial exploitation of land, from the promotion of archaeological sites as touristic attractions, and finally, from funding unnecessary archaeological research, which is camouflaged on the outside as highly important. The last function of archaeology is inseparable from the notion of academic bull-shitting, which basically runs the whole establishment (4).
Environmental archaeology is the only field of archaeological science that is likely to be confused with environmental science. Their common link is the word environment. This confusion appears to be handy enough to attract funding for the production of ‘environmental’ work that has certain archaeological significance. Unlike environmental science, which is here to quantify data and resolve pressing issue regarding the survival of the human species in troubled times, environmental archaeology is here to bull-shit its way to some extra founding. So far, environmental archaeology has successfully demonstrated that its studies can fill in some gaps in understanding ancient environmental change. Furthermore, the conclusions can be used to understand modern environmental change as part of a repeated sequence. It is frustrating that all other fields of archaeological research have placed hope on environmental archaeology, that it might be able to introduce the entire discipline to the geeky world of hard-data science. This way, we believe that archaeology will have a say in modern environmental problems and will appear as ‘proper’ science that does not only explore issues of past societies. Unfortunately, environmental archaeology is (by definition) not even close to environmental science. By cultivating such hopes to the archaeology community just because it generates cash, environmental archaeology is depleting resources from other archaeological fields, which are modest enough to follow the primordial focus of our science: the systematic study of human activities through the recovery and analysis of past material remains.
What shall we do?
This question will have to remain unanswered simply because people like me and those reading my website are not in position to influence the system and convince academic institutions to share archaeological funding in a fairer and more practical way. The departments of archaeology, on the other hand, need to bear in mind that if archaeology becomes a monolithic discipline, they will not be able to attract as many students as they feel they might in the future. By contrast, environmental sciences will. Hard data sciences do not view their work as a historical cycle of heyday and decay. They view their disciplines as immortal, obviously because they do not need to bull-shit their way to the top of Mount Olympus. In archaeology, where most of our graduates are either unemployed or working in retail, there are few who think they are special enough to occupy the throne of Zeus at top of the mountain. When funding runs dry, they will probably discover another mythological reality, that of Sisyphus.
If future archaeology is meant to be solely environmental, then the archaeologists who study other aspects of human activity have no reason to exist. This exclusive shift of archaeological interest towards environmental aspects of past human experience is seriously undermining the original essence of archaeology. As this is happening, I have no reason to define myself as an archaeological scientist on inorganic material remains. It might be a good idea to withdraw from this new ‘environmental-only-archaeology’ and accept the North American reality, where my area of study is Classics. The other option is to become a real-estate agent.
Notes
- This is a personal definition, though not far from the general idea. Coucouzeli (2003, 84) defines archaeology as “the systematic study of the material remains of the most distant or most recent human past through the application of theory and method”. In their introductory note, Renfrew and Bahn (2001, 18) clarify that archaeology “focuses on the general total of the human experience of the past”, which is broader and more accurate compared to my own “past human activities”. I personally prefer to say that archaeology focuses on “past human activities” instead of “past human experiences”; this is due to my broader disappointment from certain archaeological studies in Britain, which allow archaeological imagination to flourish beyond hypothetical grounds. Such disappointment makes me think that the British Stone Age needs to be redefined as the Age of Bollocks.
For the sake of academic integrity:
Coucouzeli, A., 2003, ‘The reality: what is archaeology?’, in Papagiannopoulou, A (ed.) Archaeology in Greece, Volume 1, The Historical evolution of Archaeology, Definition, Subject, Basic Principles, Fields of Study and Problems, Patra: Greek Open University, 83-4.
Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P., 2001, Archaeology: Theory, Methods and Practice, translated by I. Karali-Giannakopoulou, Athens: Kardamitsas. - This definition can be found at: https://www.britannica.com/science/environmental-science, accessed on 22/8/2020.
- The initials stand for Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, which is a UK archaeological body. The C.I.f.A operates as an umbrella ‘institution’ and facilitates the communication among various archaeologists. For finds specialists in particular, together with the C.I.f.A, there are interest-specific Finds Groups, all of which focus on inorganic artefacts, such as pottery and metal objects.
- To return to my earlier point, it is not the British Mesolithic and Neolithic that comprise the Age of Bollocks; it is some academic studies from these periods that promise to prove more than they actually can. Such studies produce irrational, confusing, unrealistic and highly imaginative speculations, which are then repeated in archaeological bibliography, until they become standing facts. The sole purpose of such studies is academic reputation.