Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:50:58.520Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Placing Archaeology at the Center of Socio-Natural Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sander van der Leeuw  and
Charles L. Redman
Sander van der Leeuw
Affiliation:
Université de Paris 1 and Santa Fe Institute. Maison de l'Archéologie et de l'Ethnologie, 21, Allée de l'Université, 92023 Nanterre Cedex, France ([email protected])
Charles L. Redman
Affiliation:
Center for Environmental Studies, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 873211, Tempe, AZ 85287-3211 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changing patterns of university and government research and training in this country and abroad force us, as archaeologists, to regularly reevaluate our disciplinary methods and goals. In the absence of careful consideration of these issues, the relative prominence of archaeology may stagnate or even diminish. From our own experience directing large multidisciplinary research projects, we believe that one particularly productive avenue for future archaeological research will be as collaborators in seeking to better understand contemporary socioenvironmental problems. We argue that current environmental research based in life, earth, and social sciences pays inadequate attention to the long time span and slow-moving processes that often underlie environmental crises. Archaeologists, as purveyors of the past, are well equipped to bring this long-term perspective to bear on contemporary issues. Moreover, we are also trained to work in multiple scales of time and space as well as with scientists from various disciplines. The primary obstacles to achieving the type of transdisciplinary research recommended here emanate from distinct vocabulary, concepts, and practices of each disciplinary tradition. We believe that the time is right and our colleagues are willing to see an enhanced role for archaeologists in the study of contemporary environmental issues.

Résumé

Résumé

El cambio de los patrones en la investigación e instrucción universitaria y gubernamental en este país y fuera del mismo, nos obliga como arqueólogos a evaluar regularmente los métodos y objetivos de nuestra disciplina. La posición relativamente sobresaliente de la arqueología puede estancarse o incluso disminuir si no se tiene una consideración cuidadosa de estos temas. A partir de nuestra propia experiencia al dirigir proyectos grandes de investigación interdisciplinaria, creemos que un camino particularmente productivo para la investigación arqueológica futura es la de la colaboración entre disciplinas que busquen un mejor entendimiento de los problemas socio-ambientales contemporáneos. Argumentamos que la investigación actual del medioambiente por parte de las ciencias biológicas, las ciencias de la tierra, y las ciencias sociales presta una atención inadecuada a los intervalos de larga duración y a los procesos lentos que con frecuencia se encuentran detrás de las crisis medioambientales. Como proveedores del pasado, los arqueólogos estamos bien preparados para aplicar esta perspectiva de largo plazo a temas contemporáneos. Igualmente, también estamos entrenados para trabajar con escalas múltiples de tiempo y espacio, así como con científicos de otras disciplinas. Los principales obstáculos para alcanzar el tipo de investigación transdisciplinaria recomendada aquí emanan de las diferencias en el vocabulario, los conceptos, y las prácticas de cada tradición disciplinaria. Creemos que nuestros colegas están dispuestos a ver una mayor participación de arqueólogos en el estudio de los temas del medioambiente contemporáneo y que este es el momento para llevar a cabo estos estudios.

Type
Forum
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 67 , Issue 4 , October 2002 , pp. 597 - 605
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Alvard, M. S. 1998 Evolutionary Ecology and Resource Conservation. Evolutionary Anthropology 7:62-74 . 3.0.CO;2-I>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ARCHAEOMEDES 1998 Des Oppida aux Métropoles. Collection Villes. Anthropos, Paris.Google Scholar
Barker, J. P. 1996 Archaeological Contributions to Ecosystem Management. SAA Bulletin 14(2): 19-21.Google Scholar
Barker, G., and Gilbertson, D. (editors) 2000 Living on the Margins: The Archaeology of Drylands. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. A. 1972 Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Ballantine Books, New York.Google Scholar
Bertrand, G. 1991 Preface. In Pour une archéologie agraire, edited by Guilaine, J., pp. 1–4. Armand Colin, Paris.Google Scholar
Berkes, F, and Folke, C. (editors) 1998 Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. With the editorial assistance of Colding, J.. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
Braudel, F. 1979 La Méditerranée etle Monde Méditerranéen à l’ Époque de Philippe II. 4th ed. Armand Colin, Paris.Google Scholar
Butzer, K. W. 1982 Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual Approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, J. T. 1984 Long-Term Ecological Research. BioScience 34:363-367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Brock, W. A., and Hanson, P. C. 1999 Ecological and Social Dynamics in Simple Models of Ecosystem Management. Conservation Ecology 3(2):4. Electronic Document, http://139.142.203.66/pub/www/Journal/vol3/iss2/art4/index.html CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Anderies, J. M., and Abel, N. 2001 From Metaphor to Measurement: Resilience of What to What? Ecosystems 4:765-781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Church, T. 1997 Ecosystem Management and CRM: Do We Have a Role? SAA Bulletin 15(2):25-26.Google Scholar
Crumley, C. C. (editor) 1994 Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. School of American Research, Santa Fe, New Mexico.Google Scholar
Descola, P. 1996 Les Cosmologies des Indiens d’Amazonie. La Recherche 292:62-67.Google Scholar
Foley, R. A. 1987 Just Another Unique Species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Google Scholar
Grimm, N. B., Grove, J. M., Pickett, S. T. A., and Redman, C. L. 2000 Integrated Approaches to Long-Term Studies of Urban Ecological Systems. BioScience 70:571-584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunderson, L. H., and Holling, C. S. (editors) 2002 Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1985 Post-Processural Archaeology. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. pp. 8, edited by Schiffer, M. B., pp. 1-26. Academic Press, Orlando.Google Scholar
Hodder, I. 1986 Reading the Past. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Google Scholar
Holling, C. S. 1998 Two Cultures of Ecology. Conservation Ecology 2(2):4. Electronic Document, http://www.consecol.org/vol2/iss2/art4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A., and Varney, S. K. (editors) 1992 Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. Google Scholar
Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. (editors) 1996 Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.Google Scholar
Jonas, H. 1982 The Phenomenon of Life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kinzig, A. P., Antle, J., Ascher, W., Brock, W., Carpenter, S., Chapin, F. S. III, Costanza, R., Cottingham, K. L., Dove, M., Dowlatabadi, H., Elliot, E., Ewel, K., Fisher, A., Gober, P., Grimm, N., Groves, T., Hanna, S., Heal, G., Lee, K., Levin, S., Lubchenco, J., Ludwig, D., Martinez-Alier, J., Murdoch, W., Naylor, R., Norgaard, R., Oppenheimer, M., Pfaff, A., Pickett, S., Polasky, S., Pulliam, H. R., Redman, C., Rodriguez, J. P, Root, T., Schneider, S., Schuler, R., Scudder, T., Segersen, K., Shaw, M. R., Simpson, D., Small, A. A., Starrett, D. , Taylor, P., van der Leeuw, S., Wall, D. H., and Wilson, M. 2000 Nature and Society: An Imperative for Integrated Environmental Research. Electronic Document, http://lsweb.la.asu.edu/akinzig/report.htm.Google Scholar
Kottak, C. P. 1999 The New Ecological Anthropology. American Anthropologist 101:23-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krech, S. 1999 The Ecological Indian: Myth and History. W. W. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
Lipe, W., and Redman, C. 1996 Conference on “Renewing Our National Archaeological Program.” SAA Bulletin 14(4):14-17.Google Scholar
McIntosh, R., Tainter, J., and McIntosh, S. (editors) 2000 The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History and Human Action. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Michener, W. K., Baerwald, T. J., Firth, P., Palmer, M. A., Rosenberger, J. L., Sandlin, E. A., and Zimmerman, H. 2001 Defining and Unraveling Biocomplexity. BioScience 51:1018-1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, D. 1984 Modernism and Suburbia as Material Ideology. In Ideology, Power, and Prehistory, edited by Miller, D. and Tilley, C., pp. 37–49. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redman, C. L. 1999 Human Impacts on Ancient Environments. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Scoones, I. 1999 New Ecology and The Social Sciences: What Prospects for a Fruitful Engagement? Annual Review of Anthropology 28:479-507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selby, H. A., and Guindi, F. El 1976 Dialectics in Zapotec Thinking. In Meaning in Anthropology, edited by Bason, K. H. and Selby, H. A.. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
Raven, P. H. 1987a Archaeology, Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Raven, P. H. 1987b Social Theory and Archaeology. Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
Sisk, T.D., and Noon, B.R. 1995 Land Use History of North America—An Emerging Project of the National Biological Service. SAA Bulletin 13(3):21.Google Scholar
Snow, C. P. 1993 The Two Cultures. Cambridge University Press, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steward, J. H. 1955 Theory of Culture Change. University of Illinois Press, Urbana.Google Scholar
van der Leeuw, S. E. 1989 Risk, Perception, Innovation. In What's New? A Closer Look at the Processes of Innovation, edited by van der Leeuw, S. E. and Torrence, R., pp. 300-329. Unwin Hyman, London.Google Scholar
van der Leeuw, S. E. 1998 The ARCHAEOMEDES Project—Understanding the Natural and Anthropogenic Causes of Land Degradation and Desertification in the Mediterranean Basin. Office of Publications of the European Union, Luxemburg.Google Scholar
van der Leeuw, S. E. 2000 Land Degradation as a Socio-Natural Process. In The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action edited by McIntosh, R. J., Tainter, J. A., and McIntosh, S. K., pp. 357-383. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Vayda, A. P. (editor) 1969 Environment and Cultural Behavior: Ecological Studies in Cultural Anthropology. Published for American Museum of Natural History by Natural History Press, Garden City, New York.Google Scholar
Watson, R. A., and Watson, P. J. 1969 Man and Nature: An Anthropological Essay in Human Ecology. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York.Google Scholar
Wylie, A. 2000 Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the (Dis)Union of Science. American Antiquity 65:227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar