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 derives from personal experiences, and all arguments are based on personal views. I tried to present them in a scholarly manner, though sometimes the personal element is strong enough to hide the truth beneath a pile of sarcastic jargon. The paper occasionally targets my colleagues in environmental archaeology, who will probably feel that some of the views discussed are not only sarcastic but also insulting. I would like to apologise in advance, as my aim is not to insult their work but to raise a problem that is likely to affect the broader discipline in the near future.
To understand the problem, it is necessary to begin with definitions useful to non-experts, continue the discussion for experts, and remember what archaeology is. In this article, I argue that archaeology is rapidly becoming a science of only one interest. Due to funding conditions, the scientific preferences of our times, and the constant shifts in scholarly interests in academia, archaeology is soon to no longer be a discipline 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 an ‘environmental-only archaeology’, which may struggle to convince the public of its usefulness and is likely to die out when public funding dries up.
The definitions of archaeology and environmental science
Defining archaeology is not as straightforward as it seems, largely because of the different approaches used in Europe and 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 drew on antiquarian interests and established a cause and methodology for 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 oriented toward the recovery of information derived from the material remains of the past; therefore, it 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, and even social and environmental sciences. Despite this broad collaboration, in European academia, archaeology remains an independent science and is viewed as a discipline in its own right.
In North America, the understanding of archaeology differs slightly. It is not the aim of this paper to discuss the impact of post-processualism on 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 largely due to North Americans. In North America, there are two types of ‘archaeologies’, and both are dependent fields of other disciplines. What is understood as ‘traditional archaeology’ in Europe (and Greece in particular) is part of what is broadly described as Classics in North America. Classics is not a discipline but a field of the humanities that primarily focuses on various aspects of 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 subfield 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 me, defining environmental science clearly is hard, 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 emphasise the human relationship with the environment and its social and political dimensions. 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 its own sake. Environmental science is not about 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 way of life. Instead, the environment’s counter-impact on humans can be the focus of environmental studies, which may not be quantified and therefore cannot be part of environmental science.
Archaeology and anthropology, on the other hand, are disciplines that focus on human activity 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 that also falls under the discipline of archaeology. It is defined as a science that reconstructs the relationships between past societies and the environments in which they lived. It is further divided into 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 in their own right; they encompass archaeological science, including environmental archaeology. The field of environmental archaeology is closest to environmental science, though this is done indirectly through 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 rephrase 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 were 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 a 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 Find Groups in the UK (3), it was always apparent that there is a lack of specialists in inorganic artefacts out in the market. Last time I spoke in one of these meetings, I insisted that the problem lies 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 earning their MA degrees, most doctoral candidates and postdoctoral fellows conduct research on organic environmental remains, thereby creating a new legacy for future generations of archaeologists at these 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 delivered by ‘old-school’ lecturers, most of whom have a background in classical archaeology. Once they retire, they are most likely to be replaced by environmental remediation specialists, until knowledge of inorganic materials is completely lost or migrates to foreign institutions.
From a personal point of view, after completing my PhD in 2016, I applied for several academic positions that required specialisation in ‘archaeological materials’. Most of these interviews were conducted by panels of professors and researchers specialising in zooarchaeology, osteoarchaeology (forensic sciences), archaeobotany and geoarchaeology. In one of the interviews that I was shortlisted for in 2019, the head of the department, who was specialised in glass, boldly explained to me that my research interests in 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, for which 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 some 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 resources 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 once felt by past humans, such as frost, cold, tides, floods, heat, rain, and snowfall, which might be oddly classified 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 remains specialists is not only present in British academia but also in British commercial archaeology. My experience in the industry was relatively short, but it 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 dating contexts, thereby undermining 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 remains and environmental specialists can easily grasp 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, how they sustained themselves, or, in the most interesting cases, how they were deprived of their biological existence; 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 of my colleagues are likely to argue that the transformation of modern archaeology into an environmentally based discipline is not actually taking place. It is, in fact, true that not all academic institutions follow this pattern, while many universities offer 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 are only a few scholars who maintain such research interests, mostly outside the UK, and once they retire, their work will not be carried on for long. Furthermore, many archaeologists will agree with me that the number of postdoctoral fellows hired by UK universities to study animal bones and seeds is disproportionate 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 differing opinions on the subject, I insist that modern archaeology is producing more environmental studies than ever and is gradually becoming 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 in previous decades, ceramicists monopolised 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 has 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 on inorganic remains and replace it with research on bones and seeds. Environmental archaeology has definitely been neglected, but this should not be viewed as ‘payback time’. Archaeological science must not be defined exclusively as zooarchaeology and archaeobotany. 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 from past human activities. In a strict sense, such material remains are, in most cases, inorganic. They bear signs of conscious collection, 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 humans.
Here, I am not suggesting that the only actual archaeological finds are inorganic ones, or perhaps those from organic ones that 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 of ancient landscapes and climate could shed light on aspects of past human activities, such as diet and migration; however, they are unlikely to yield insights into 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 in interest is occurring in modern archaeology. The ‘payback’ theory is unlikely to explain the rise in academic interest in environmental archaeology and the recent increase in doctoral and postdoctoral 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 around the world have acknowledged the problem and decided to address it. Even governments that believe climate change is based on light-minded conspiracy theories have little evidence to support their objections. The fact remains that the planet is 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 into environmental sciences, particularly in fields that study temperature fluctuations, global warming, environmental pollution, increased radiation, species extinction, the movement of oceanic currents, tectonic plates, and seismic activity. Such studies focus on collecting, analysing and interpreting quantified data to help governments decide 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 make predictions about 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 role of archaeology in the modern world is a subject for debate. To put it simply, at its best, archaeology satisfies people's curiosity about their past; at its worst, it is used to foster notions of national identity and national superiority, which often have destructive and lethal consequences. 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 tourist 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 sufficient to attract funding for the production of ‘environmental’ work with certain archaeological significance. Unlike environmental science, which is here to quantify data and resolve pressing issues regarding the survival of the human species in troubled times, environmental archaeology is here to bull-shit its way to some extra funding. 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 their hopes in environmental archaeology, hoping it might introduce the entire discipline to the geeky world of hard data science. This way, we believe that archaeology will have a role in modern environmental problems and will be recognised as a ‘proper’ science that not only explores issues of past societies. Unfortunately, environmental archaeology is (by definition) not even close to environmental science. By cultivating such hopes solely to generate cash, environmental archaeology is depleting resources from other archaeological fields, which are already modest enough to maintain 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 a 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 expect 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 the 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” rather than “past human experiences”; this is due to my broader disappointment with certain archaeological studies in Britain, which allow the 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 the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists, which is a UK archaeological body. The C.I.f.A operates as an umbrella ‘institution’ and facilitates 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 more than they can deliver. 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.