Chapter 1

Introduction to EnvironmentalArchaeology

ELIZABETH J. REITZ, LEE A. NEWSOM, SYLVIA J. SCUDDER,AND C. MARGARET SCARRY

Environmental archaeology is an eclectic field directed toward understandingthe ecology of human communities (Albarella 2001; Bintliff et al. 1988; Branchet al. 2005; Butzer 1971, 1982:5; Dimbleby 1965, Evans 1978, 2003; Evans andO’Connor 2001; Luff and Rowley-Conwy 1994; O’Connor 1998; Shackley 1981;Wilkinson and Stevens 2003). Environmental researchers apply information andtechniques from the earth and biological sciences to study relationships amongpeoples and their environments using organic and inorganic evidence fromarchaeological sites. Environmental archaeology encompasses many interests,such as those subsumed by the terms paleoecology, paleoenvironment, paleo-economy, and paleogeography; in practice it often eludes such intellectualboundaries (see discussions in Albarella 2001). Cultural and non-cultural envi-ronments are dynamic factors in the formation of archaeological sites. Althoughmuch environmental research traces ecological relationships at a site or withina region, at its best environmental archaeology interprets human behavior setin an environmental framework that includes broad social, spatial, temporal,physical, and biotic parameters.

The study of organic and inorganic remains from archaeological sites has along history. In its early years, the field was a collection of biological, physical, andchemical techniques applied with little theoretical framework beyond, perhaps,environmental reconstruction or the evolution of domestic plants and animals.The earliest investigations generally produced lists of identifications with limited,

3

4 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

if any interpretations, and little reference to the processes of deposition, the frag-mentary nature of the archaeological record, recovery techniques, or methodolo-gies (Bryant 1989; Butzer 1982; Cowan and Watson 1992; Ford 1979; Luff andRowley-Conwy 1994; Miksicek 1987; Pearsall 2000:3–6; Smith 1976; Watson1997). It was not until recovery techniques were improved and evolutionary,ecological, and interdisciplinary frameworks adopted that environmental archae-ology became the holistic and diverse field that it is today. Most current practi-tioners endeavor to apply insights obtained from the environmental sciences toquestions concerning relationships among people, cultural systems, and ecosys-tems. In addition, they explore the biases of the archaeological record, evaluatethe methods used to obtain environmental data, and interpret the data themselves.

Environmental scientists, some of whom are neither archaeologists nor anthro-pologists, often conduct their research as members of multidisciplinary teams. Insuch settings, good research designs are fundamental to maximizing the potentialof environmental data. If environmental data are peripheral to the major researchquestions of a project, they are likely to appear in highly descriptive appendices.Such reports lack the linking structures needed for the insights produced by envi-ronmental archaeologists to be communicated to other members of the team andincorporated into the interpretive fabric. Only in the context of problem-orientedarchaeology in which concepts about ecological relationships are pertinent andarticulated with the overall research agenda is the potential of environmentalresearch realized. Such contributions are strengthened by evidence from multiplesources of data.

It is not the case, however, that environmental archaeologists are dependentupon questions generated by other members of a research team. Theoreticalperspectives rather than methodological concerns are present in much envi-ronmental research, albeit often as unstated assumptions. These perspectivesinclude, but are not limited to, the systemic relationships between peopleand the physical and biological world in which they live; human nutrition andhealth; the complex human behaviors associated with acquiring food andother resources; strategies for accommodating seasonal and spatial variabilityin resources, including settlement patterns, domestication, and exchangesystems; and the emergence of social complexity.

Concepts about human behavior and cultural systems are central to workencompassed under the broad umbrella of environmental archaeology. Implicitin most environmental research are assumptions about the relationship betweeninheritance and learning. To what extent do cultural systems reflect a geneticbasis and to what extent are they the product of learned behaviors? In whatways are the variables of time and space reflected in archaeological data? Howdo the structure and function of cultural systems relate to environmentalprocesses? Are there biological and physical constraints on cultural innovation?If so, how are these reflected in archaeological data? What are the relationshipsbetween natural systems and cultural ones? To what extent has human behav-ior been responsive to, or even caused by, environmental variables and to what

extent are people responsible for environmental changes? These are basic ques-tions that are as central to environmental archaeology as they are to any otherdiscipline.

Environmental archaeology is divided for convenience, if not in practice,into four subfields: the earth sciences, archaeobotany, zooarchaeology, andbioarchaeology. These are roughly defined by methods and data appropriateto one subfield or another. The field’s multi-disciplinary nature is reflected inthe backgrounds of environmental archaeologists, who may be zoologists, vet-erinarians, botanists, paleontologists, human biologists, agricultural scientists,chemists, geographers, geneticists, ecologists, anatomists, forest managers,geologists, and nutritionists, as well as anthropologists and archaeologists.

EARTH SCIENCES

Geological or earth sciences emphasize the non-cultural aspects of sites andtheir environments. These studies are variously referred to as archaeogeology,archaeometry, geoarchaeology, and archaeological geology (Brown 1997;French 2003; Garrison 2003; Gladfelter 1981; Herz and Garrison 1998;Holliday 1992; Taylor and Payen 1979; Waters 1992). The distribution ofmajor land masses, volcanic and earthquake zones, topography, and inorganicraw materials such as rocks and minerals; as well as chemical, physical, andstratigraphic properties of soils and sediments all influence human behavior.Study of these phenomena yields climatic, chronological, geological, andcultural information critical to reconstructing and understanding humanactivities.

Geomorphologists place sites within natural landscapes such as river val-leys, alluvial terraces, coastal plains, or mountain ranges and investigate struc-tural features that dictate surface geomorphology; effects of relief, slope, andhydrology; and the edaphic relationships of soils and vegetation. A settlement’slocation may suggest an arrangement of landscape elements which no longerexist. Combining modern regional geomorphology with paleoenvironmentalindicators and an understanding of the dynamics of landscape evolutionallows the geomorphologist to reconstruct those conditions which favored set-tlement in a specific area.

Sedimentologists examine the relationships among size class distributionsand physical conditions of so-called “clastic” particles from fine clay to graveland cobbles in loose sediments and soils as well as lithified forms. Grain-sizedistributions of sediments typically reflect the agent of deposition (wind,water, gravity) as well as the energy needed for transport. Particle size analy-ses can be used to identify processes such as erosion by wind or water, freeze-thawcycles, dust and ash falls, landslides, and floods. Stratigraphic relationshipsamong sediment types define sequences of depositional environments (e.g.,marine-nearshore-continental) which can be used to infer changes in sea

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 5

level, climate, river courses, and other events on a geologic time scale.Disruptions in natural processes of sediment transport and accumulationbrought about by human activities which alter local and regional landscapescan be identified by episodes of increased erosion or deposition. The correla-tion of sediment types and sequences with microfauna identified within thosesequences contributes additional data to interpretations of climate and envi-ronmental change (Scudder 2001, 2003).

Archaeopedologists characterize the chemical and physical attributes ofsoils from archaeological sites and compare these with local native soils notimpacted by human activity (Collins et al. 1995). Major elements such asphosphorus, calcium, and magnesium as well as trace minerals which accumu-late in anthropogenic (human-generated) soils are compared with residual lev-els of those same elements in native soils to evaluate the intensity and natureof human impact on the soil environment. Patterns of chemical element accu-mulation within the soil can aid in locating and interpreting the function ofintrasite features such as hearths, food preparation and storage areas, and buri-als. Altered physical characteristics such as changes in soil texture (ratio ofsand, silt, and clay), thickness or arrangement of horizons (layers), or micro-morphology, are used to examine the effects of human habitation on pedogen-esis, or soil formation.

Archaeometrists use techniques that measure physical and chemical prop-erties for site prospecting, chronometric (absolute) dating, physical and chem-ical artifact analysis, and sourcing raw materials and artifacts (Taylor andPayen 1979). Geophysical methods of remote sensing such as magnetometry,resistivity, and ground-penetrating radar are used to explore for sites and to“map” buried architectural features. Geochemical prospecting, such as soilphosphate testing, gives a three-dimensional map of subsurface element distri-bution. These methods, combined with chronometric dating techniques, suchas 14C, potassium-argon, or dendrochronology, help archaeologists decidewhether to excavate a site more extensively, where to locate excavation units,how to orient them, and to what depths to dig. Provenance of artifacts can beestimated from their chemical and physical properties and provides informa-tion about trade relationships and exchange routes as well as manufacturingprocesses.

Archaeometry also provides information about paleodiets and paleotemper-atures through stable isotopes (Herz 1990; Price 1989). Elements such as car-bon and nitrogen fractionate as they pass through the food chain. Hence it ispossible to relate carbon (13C/12C) or nitrogen (15N/14N) ratios in bone to diet.Ratios such as these are widely applied as researchers attempt to define, forexample, the relative proportions of plants and animals or of terrestrial andaquatic foods in diets. This research is enhanced by examining trace elementssuch as strontium, zinc, or copper. Oxygen (18O/16O) isotopes fractionate inresponse to temperature and offer information about paleotemperatures andseasonal patterns in resource use and residential choices.

6 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

ARCHAEOBOTANY

Archaeobotanists, or paleoethnobotanists, study carbonized, subfossil,waterlogged, or desiccated plant remains (Ford 1979; Fritz 1994; Pearsall2000; Piperno 2006; Watson 1997). The array of plant materials studied byarchaeobotanists includes mature seeds, pollen, and spores; whole organs suchas fruits, flowers, leaves, stems, and roots; the conductive and supportive tis-sue systems, such as wood, bark, and epidermis; isolated components of planttissues such as fibers, stomata, starch grains, and phytoliths; chemical com-pounds such as resins, tannins, lignin, lipids; and more. Archaeobotanists tendto specialize in particular classes of plant materials such as wood anatomy,seeds and/or other macroremains; pollen, starch, or phytolith remains (plantmicroremains); or cryptic data such as chemical residues.

Wood remains provide a variety of information. Growth-rings in wood areused to construct floating and long-term relative dating sequences (den-drochronology), to obtain climatic information (dendroclimatology), and toexamine forest structure as well as the impact of people on forests (dendroe-cology). Wood also provides details about uses of plants for as tools, baskets,building materials, ornaments, or fuels, as well as environmental information(Pearsall 2000; Smart and Hoffman 1988).

Seeds, fruits, roots, and other edible structures provide basic informationabout the plants people used for food and medicine. Besides providing evi-dence about what people ate, such macroremains often are used to investigatesubsistence strategies (e.g., foraging and/or farming); seasonality and schedul-ing decisions; domestication processes; social and ethnic variations in food-ways; and a host of other questions. Analyses of macroremains complementenvironmental information gleaned from microremains and wood. For exam-ple the types and quantities of “weed” seeds can yield clues to farming prac-tices or anthropogenic landscapes.

Palynologists study spores, isolated stomates, and the relative quantities ofcarbonized particulate matter as constituents of sediment cores, but they pri-marily work with fossil and subfossil pollen produced by seed-bearing plants.Deposits of wind-borne pollen provide regional profiles of vegetation, whichresearchers use to reconstruct floristic environments and track landscape evo-lution. Pollen distributed by animals, water, or self-pollinating plants providesinformation about rare plants, about environments closer to the site, about thesite itself, and about the use of wild and domesticated plants.

Phytoliths form in epidermal and other tissues of plants and provide infor-mation similar to that obtained from pollen. They may yield evidence forthatch, bedding, mats, and containers, and other plant materials that often donot survive in other forms. Phytoliths from peat and animal dung offer indi-rect evidence of husbandry techniques and/or the use of these materials as fueland fertilizer. Phytoliths on tool surfaces may indicate the function of suchobjects and signal the presence of economic plant taxa. Calcium oxalate

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 7

crystals and stone cells from tubers and fruits may document the use of plantswhich are otherwise elusive because they are often pulverized, boiled, oringested as whole, uncooked food. Starch grains analysis is particularly usefulin the identification of such remains (Loy 1994).

Cryptic data come from chemical residues or DNA analysis.Compositional analysis of residues on pottery and other artifacts offersinsights about plants (and animals) that were processed, consumed or usedas oils, medicines, or perfumes (Fankhauser 1994; Reber 2005). Isozyme(protein) and DNA analyses provide information about genetic relatedness.Such studies, for example, can compare the DNA of wild and domesticatedplant varieties to identify the origin and antiquity of particular domesticatedspecies (Decker-Walters et al. 1993; Matthews and Terauchi 1994; Renfrewand Boyle 2000; Zeder et al. 2006).

A few archaeobotanists specialize in the identification of organisms such asseaweeds, algae, and fungi (Evans 1978; Shackley 1981). Some of these organ-isms were consumed or used as medicines and others provide environmentalinformation or indirect evidence for the use of host organisms or the presenceof diseases with which they are commonly associated. Diatoms and othermicroscopic unicellular or colonial organisms, which live in freshwater andmarine habitats, are typical of specific depositional environments, providinginformation about sources of clays used in ceramics as well as aquatic and veg-etational histories. They may serve as sensitive microclimatic indicators. Fungiplay an important role in the relationship between people and their environ-ments sometimes as disease agents and sometimes as food or medicines. Fernsand mosses are additional sources of information.

ZOOARCHAEOLOGY

Zooarchaeologists, or archaeozoologists, study subfossil, and sometimes fossil,non-human animal remains from archaeological sites (Davis 1987; O’Connor2000; Reitz and Wing 2007). The most commonly studied tissues are non-human bones and teeth, mollusk shells, crustaceans, and echinoderms; buthair, insect exocarps, DNA, and other tissues are included in this discipline. Theidentity of the animals and parts of animals present in an assemblage, as well ascryptic data contained in these remains, provide information on paleoenviron-ments and relationships among people and animals. Zooarchaeological analysisoffers insights about faunal succession; husbandry and capture decisions relat-ed to the habits, habitats, seasonal characteristics, age, sex, and size of animalresources; as well as butchering, transportation, and redistribution decisions.Technologies used to capture, butcher, or tend animals; the relative frequencywith which species were used based on the number of individuals and/or theamount of meat animals contributed; and the health of animal species can beinferred from such data. The relationships may reflect faunal changes in a

8 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

region, including those bearing upon plant and animal domestication. Animalremains provide insights into local exchange systems and more extensive traderoutes. Mollusks, crustaceans, and sea urchins not only were important foodsin many places, but were often important trade items and status markers.

Several other groups of animals are important, but less frequently studied(Evans 1978; Shackley 1981). Insects such as beetles, flies, ants, wasps, spi-ders, and mites, tell us about climate, regional and local environment, andeconomies. Some insects, such as grasshoppers, termites, and locusts, wereused as food. Important evidence for the use of insects as food is found in pale-ofeces or coprolites. Ectoparasites and endoparasites provide informationabout sanitation; the level of infestation of plant, animal, and human popula-tions; and indicate habitats frequented by people, plants, and animals. Many ofthese parasites are associated with food species and provide indirect evidencethat these were used. Parasitic arthropods such as fleas, lice, and ticks provideinformation about health, sanitation, and environment. Foraminifera, smallsingle-celled Protozoa, are found in sediments of marine and freshwater originand are important climatic indicators.

BIOARCHAEOLOGY

In some research traditions, bioarchaeology is an umbrella term for the studyof plant, animal, and human remains (Albarella 2001; Wilkinson and Stevens2003:17). In this volume, bioarchaeology refers to study of the biologicalaspects of human behavior from the perspective of human osteology (Larsen1997). Bioarchaeology grows out of traditional anthropological interests inhuman skeletal remains from archaeological contexts. With increased aware-ness of relationships among health, morphology, and the environment, bioar-chaeology is critical to environmental archaeologists. Particularly importantare dietary reconstructions made via the analysis of stable isotopes and traceelements; assessments of health and well-being made via the study of patho-logical conditions such as growth arrest markers and infectious diseases; andbehavioral reconstructions made via the study of bone structure.

Human remains provide information about nutrition, diet, demography,paleopathology, and population movements (Armelagos 1994; Buikstra andMielke 1985; Cox and Mays 2000; Huss-Ashmore et al. 1982; Larsen 1997;Price 1989; Reed 2005). Analyses of tooth eruption and wear sequences; growthcurves of long bones; estimates of adult stature; sexual dimorphism; and bonechemistry; combined with evidence for porotic hyperostosis, osteoporosis,hypoplasias, traumas, and other pathological conditions provide invaluableinformation about growth, disease processes, nutrition, and environmentalrelationships. Activity levels are inferred from variations in skeletal joints,bone form, and bone function as these reflect responses of bone to mechanicalstresses. Although some pathologies, such as deficiency diseases (e.g., rickets),

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 9

have specific origins, most of the information available to human biologistsprovides general evidence of health and biobehavioral characteristics ofhuman/environmental relationships.

THEMES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY

The systemic relationship among people and their environments is studiedfrom many perspectives. For example, in some regions, the impact of food pro-duction strategies is very important; in other regions, the impact of climate oncultural fluorescence is a major issue. As diverse as the methods and questionsof environmental archaeology are, however, three research themes are commonto them: concern about site formation processes and methodological issues;geological and biological discoveries; and anthropological interpretations.

Site Formation Processes and Methodological Issues

By considering the depositional setting and the principal agents of deposition,environmental archaeologists distinguish between site formation processesthat are the products of peoples’ activities and those resulting from other forces(Lyman 1994; Weigelt 1989:62). Much environmental research focuses ontaphonomy and other site formation processes both as sources of bias and asinteresting research areas in their own right (Gifford 1981; Gordon andBuikstra 1981; Lyman 1994; Miksicek 1987). Ethnoarchaeology and otheractualistic studies are useful ways to explore how people and other agents cre-ate and alter the archaeological record.

Methodological concerns encompass recovery techniques, identificationprocedures, analytical measures, and the challenges these offer to environmen-tal and behavioral interpretations (Ford 1979; Grayson 1984; Hastorf andPopper 1988; Larsen 1997; Lyman 1994; Monks 1981; Pearsall 2000; Piperno2006). Data are substantially altered by procedural decisions, especially thoserelated to field work and quantification. Our ability to explore significant ques-tions is influenced by the confidence we have that the material was competent-ly recovered and accurately identified. Deceptively simple decisions made inthe field or laboratory impact subsequent interpretations.

Geological and Biological Discoveries

Geological and biological discoveries encompass phytogeographical and zoogeo-graphical distributions, morphological characteristics of organic and inorganicremains, population structures, paleoenvironmental conditions, and ecologicalrelationships of extant organisms for which archaeological materials providehistorical background. Many of these studies focus on regions rather than onspecific sites. Much of this research is concerned with paleoenvironmental

10 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

reconstruction, a rendering of the biological and physical surroundings, resourcebase, and climatic conditions that defined ecosystems in the past. Documentingsea level fluctuations, landscape evolution, and climate change are fundamentalto such reconstructions. Although many of these studies ignore humans, onemajor area of research focuses on the question of causality in human/environ-ment relationships. To what extent have people altered the landscape and towhat extent have people responded to natural environmental change? Whatwere the consequences for people of change, or stasis, in the environment?

Anthropological Interpretations

Broad-scale anthropological questions include an array of topics embeddinghuman institutions in their environments. Among other issues, environmentalarchaeologists interested in anthropological research study intra-site spatialorganization, local physiography and site placement, patterns of plant and ani-mal use, and human health. Non-food uses of organic and inorganic materialsinclude tools and craft production, housing and shelter, clothing, containers,toys, firewoods and fuels, ornaments, medicines, labor, pets, or social and reli-gious symbols.

Often anthropologically oriented research explores nutrition, diet, and sub-sistence strategies through combinations of ecological theory, environmentaldata, human biology, and anthropological concepts. Examining biologicalremains for evidence of subsistence strategies may require defining predator-prey relationships related to periodic schedules of resource use; niche width,optimal foraging behavior, site catchment areas, and settlement patterns; nutri-tional contribution and needs; taphonomy; activity areas within archaeologicalsites; collection and processing technologies; exchange, division of labor, andother aspects of economic systems; social stratification; political institutions;belief systems; human and non-human population levels; and other elementsof social organization. The topics subsumed under subsistence provide animportant window on such systems because acquisition of foods, medicines,and raw materials is fundamental to the survival of the community andimpinges upon many cultural institutions.

The importance of asking good questions is relevant to all environmentalstudies; however, the importance of applying appropriate recovery and labora-tory techniques, and being open to unexpected answers, is particularly clear insubsistence analysis. Environmental archaeologists often find that the organi-zation and timing of cultural innovations in subsistence strategies and theirconsequences are considerably different from perceptions held by scholarswho ignore environmental evidence. Many common models for culturalchange that are uninformed by environmental archaeology are contradicted byenvironmental evidence. For example, during most of the Holocene, peoplewere primarily gatherers, casual gardeners, fishers, trappers, and hunters. Inlarge part, anthropologists have presumed an association between residential

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 11

mobility, seasonal scarcity in resources, and low population sizes for these peo-ple. One of the most important contributions environmental archaeologistsmake to this debate is the compelling evidence that foragers made choicesamong the resources they used. Under no circumstances did they make use ofevery resource available to them. Nor is there a single, monolithic, mobile, for-aging strategy. In many areas, sedentism on the part of all or a portion of acommunity was possible without relying on domesticated plants. Yet manyarchaeologists continue to associate reliance on domesticated plants withsedentism, increased population size, monumental construction, ceramic tech-nology, and social complexity in spite of evidence that these traits are not nec-essarily linked. In terms of food selection, food preference, nutritional quality,residential patterns, diseases, and demography, neither foraging communitiesnor those that made use of domestic plants and animals fit into the concept ofevolutionary stages advancing toward more complex social relationships basedon a transition from mollusk use to hunting deer to plant cultivation. As oftenas not, the evidence of environmental archaeology suggests long periods ofsubsistence stability or trajectories at odds with simplistic linear models.

In addition to information about paleoenvironments, health, and subsistencestrategies, environmental data provide insights about political institutions, divi-sions of labor, ethnicity, social identity, and other elements of social organiza-tion. Anthropological questions include an array of topics connecting socialinstitutions to the environments in which they are found. Where people live;how they acquire their foods, medicines, and other raw materials; how, when,where, and by whom these resources are used; and which ailments afflict peo-ple are all reflected in environmental data. The uses of environmental resourcesare important ways to symbolize and affirm social categories and to enhancesocial and political stability. They are closely related to the structure and func-tion of a local community and the region within which the community lives.

In many respects the question of whether, and on what scale, ecological,taphonomic, methodological, geological, biological, or anthropological issuesshould be emphasized reflects the wide variety of exciting information avail-able from inorganic and organic materials recovered from archaeological con-texts. Environmental archaeologists address many inter-related issues drawingupon many different methodologies. Depending upon the specialists’ trainingand interests, the research objectives of the project, and the funding available,analyses may include studies of bone, seeds, enzymes, otoliths, pollen, wood,isotopes, feces, soil, phytoliths, egg shell, or DNA. Any one, or many, of thesemay be central to a study, occasionally examined, or ignored altogether.Successional changes of plants and animals in response to human predation,nutritional consequences of resource intensification, socioeconomic parametersinvolved in redistribution, or feasting are all topics studied by environmentalarchaeologists from a variety of perspectives.

Most environmental archaeologists do not consider taphonomy, methodol-ogy, biology, geology, or anthropology mutually exclusive domains. It is their

12 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

unique combination that makes the field interesting. Environmental archaeol-ogists are not strictly earth scientists, botanists, zoologists, or anthropologistsbut combine the earth and biological sciences with anthropology to study theinterrelationship of people with their environment: the dynamics of humanecology. The interchange among these disciplines is probably the most signifi-cant source of novelty for the field, which is strengthened and enlivened by thediverse interests of its practitioners.

ORGANIZATION OF THE VOLUME

Environmental archaeology is intrinsically interdisciplinary, a characteristicamply demonstrated by the case studies in this volume. Following three intro-ductory chapters, the studies are grouped into three topics: the physical environ-ment and environmental change, human ecology, and social and economicstrategies. Because each case study uses many lines of evidence, the sections arenot mutually exclusive. Each study focuses on an anthropological or environ-mental question with interpretations supported by multiple lines of evidencegenerated by diverse methods and disciplines. The results demonstrate thatresearch questions have an influence on the generation of new knowledge equalto or greater than that of new methods and techniques. None of the conclusionsin these case studies is final, because we continue to seek verification and ampli-fication of our results through further research. A comparison of the case stud-ies in this second edition with those by the same authors in the first editionamply demonstrates that the authors’ understanding of their materials changedas new data became available.

Deagan (Chapter 2) shows that environmental questions are as germaneto the recent past as to other time periods and cultural systems. Her reviewof “environmental historical archaeology” demonstrates the importance oftwo elements in environmental archaeology: interdisciplinary teamwork andasking good questions. Studies of social and market variables such as socialstratification and complexity, group affiliations, global markets, ethnicityand gender, acculturation, labor requirements, consumer patterns, colonial-ism, and urban land use typify environmental historical archaeology. Thedocumentary record strengthens and improves environmental research, butdoes not make it unnecessary. Many of the topics surveyed by Deagan are rel-evant to colonial expansion whenever and where ever it occurred. In manyrespects, the cultural responses to the colonial expansions of the last 500years are not so very different from ones that marked ethnic migrations,political expansions, urbanization, and similar phenomena throughouthuman history.

In Chapter 3, Fowler’s study of Timbisha Shoshone foragers reveals thatthey groomed and manipulated their environment to enhance the yield ofvalued resources. Her study is an example of the insights that ethnographic

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 13

studies offer archaeologists. It provides a useful caution against assumingthat environmental data from foraging populations represent a “natural,”unmodified landscape. It also suggests habits of resource management thatmight have led to domestication of plant resource where foraging and tend-ing plants are closely connected. This case study should be considered care-fully by conservation biologists who presume that people substantiallyimpacted the environment only after the industrial revolution.

Part II focuses on the physical environment and paleoenvironments. Therelationships among people and soils, local climatic and topographic condi-tions, resource distributions, and regional landscapes yield bioclimatological,geological, and cultural information critical to the study of human communi-ties. Paleoenvironmental and cultural indicators, combined with a knowledgeof landscape evolution, can be superimposed on modern regional geomorphol-ogy to reconstruct the conditions that favored settlement in a specific area.Because the choice of settlement location, foraging area, or economic pursuitsmay have been based on environmental factors that no longer exist, suchreconstructions are vital to understanding human ecology. Conversely, peopleinfluence soil formation processes, landscape evolution, and distribution ofnative vegetation. The premise that a relationship exists between the physicalenvironment and material culture is fundamental to all archaeological studies.In Chapter 4, Stein shows that postdepositional site formation processes mayalter deposits within a shell midden, producing stratigraphy that is unrelatedto material culture. Scudder’s study (Chapter 5) demonstrates that soil mor-phology as well as chemical and physical soil characteristics testify to the con-struction history of a sand burial mound.

The next three case studies in Part II examine complex relationships amongchanges in the landscape, resource use, residential patterns, and politicalalliances. These studies address the extent to which people altered the land-scape and the extent to which human behavior responded to environmentalchange or stasis. The study by Cooke, Jiménez, and Ranere (Chapter 6) showsthe importance of considering the archaeological, artistic, and documentaryrecord to obtain a more complete picture of paleoenvironments. Peacock andGerber (Chapter 7) evaluate an historical landscape using archaeological mol-lusks to query environmental factors underlying the initiation and spread offarming in the American Southeast. Andrus, Sandweiss, and Reitz (Chapter 8)draw upon evidence from many different sources to characterize ElNiño/Southern Oscillation and its relationship to the development of socialcomplexity in Peru. These three studies have serious implications for restora-tion ecology and conservation biology in so far as many ecologists presumeenvironmental conditions that prevailed over the last few centuries character-ize the entire Holocene.

The case studies in Part III explore human nutrition, health, mobility,sedentism, domestication, diet; and trade, encapsulated under the term humanecology. Environmental variables and cultural systems are closely related.

14 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

Implicitly or explicitly, the quality of that relationship is assessed in terms ofhuman health and nutrition. Human physical responses to the stresses of sur-vival are present in the form of disease, chronic wear, or acute injury; or asrobust health. Combined studies of bone morphology, parasites, bacteria,viruses, and stable isotopes provide the evidence for some of the physical chal-lenges and responses, contributing to bioarchaeological studies of humanhealth.

The first two case studies in Part III focus on non-linear relationshipsamong nutrition, activity levels, health, and settlement patterns. Larsen, Kelly,Ruff, Schoeninger, Hutchinson, and Hemphill (Chapter 9) demonstrate thathunter-gatherers were adequately nourished and not subject to overbearingamounts of work, although mobility had consequences. Sedentism has conse-quences too, one of which is increased exposure to certain types of parasiticinfections. Reinhard (Chapter 10) uses parasite ecology to identify humanbehaviors and environmental conditions that may promote or reduce disease.Both studies indicate that seasonal periodicity in resource acquisition, plantdomestication, and population size are not the only significant variables ineither mobility or sedentism.

The remaining studies in Part III explore subsistence strategies and resourceavailability. The decisions of each population impacted land-use patterns, res-idential decisions, diet, and demography. Seasonal availability of resources isone of the chief explanations for residential mobility, as is demonstrated bySobolik in Chapter 11 for a population in the northern Chihuahuan Desert.Russo and Quitmyer (Chapter 12) explore the origin of sedentism and socialcomplexity in the absence of a domestic food source on the southwest coast ofthe Gulf of Mexico. Evidence for very early coastal sedentism in Chapters 8and 12 demonstrate that sedentism by foragers in coastal locations was notunusual.

On the other hand, farming involved carefully scheduled activities and del-icate nutritional balances which might be met by residential mobility. Pearsalldemonstrates (Chapter 13) that plant domestication does not insulate humansocieties from environmental disasters such as volcanic eruptions. She arguesthat maintaining a broad subsistence base was highly adaptive in a setting sub-jected to catastrophic events. The more crops and other resources used, themore likely some would survive. Wagner (Chapter 14) shows that farmers maybe residentially mobile, at least in part, and that access to meat and food stor-age are important elements in such patterns. She contrasts responses to pre-dictable shortages with responses to unpredictable shortages, arguing that thelatter pressures lead to political and economic changes. Neusius (Chapter 15)argues that garden-hunting is used to overcome scheduling conflicts betweentending crops and capturing animals in temperate horticultural systems. Hard,Adams, Roney, Schmidt, and Fritz (Chapter 16) explore why farming wasadopted at all, since farming may require more work and result in a decline inhealth compared with most hunting and gathering strategies. They show that

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 15

highly variable combinations of population size, sedentism, and settlementpatterns are associated with plant cultivation. In combination, the case studiesin Part III demonstrate that models based on a simple switch from hunting togardening are incomplete.

The case studies in Part IV examine intra-community social relations,rural/urban relationships, and ethnic identity. These remind us of the impor-tance of long-term studies of environmental data recovered during extensivesite excavations and the importance of regional synthesis. Zeder and Arter(Chapter 17) explore foodways within a community to detect differentialaccess to resources and patterns of resource sharing among households. Theirstudy is possible because the site was almost completely excavated. Scott(Chapter 18) demonstrates that food remains provide evidence of socioeco-nomic position as well as the ethnic identity of a site’s occupants at FortMichilimackinac. In Chapter 19, Landon investigates urban meat distributionsystems by comparing seasonal slaughter patterns of domestic animals aturban and rural sites from the mid-17th century through the end of the 18thcentury. Scarry (Chapter 20) examines how native farmers raised and tendedindigenous crops and the implications of the inferred husbandry practices forthe subsequent adoption of maize. Wing (Chapter 21) concludes the case stud-ies by drawing upon evidence for animal domestication in the Caribbean tosuggest that the process of domestication was more complex than usuallydescribed and domestic animals were more widespread in the Americas thanpreviously thought. These studies remind us that plants and animals are morethan nutrition; they are among the most fundamental components of humanlife and form part of the ideological fabric that binds communities together.

CONCLUSION

The primary objectives of environmental archaeology should be interpreta-tions rather than identifications, measurements, and lists. At the same time,methodological concerns require a great deal of consideration and experimen-tation in themselves. Environmental archaeologists must balance the demandsof their procedures against the potential they have to contribute to our under-standing of the human/environmental relationship. The relationship betweenthat interaction and the conditions under which biological and geologicalmaterials are present at archaeological sites must be considered. Resource man-agers and conservation biologists who use environmental data should familiar-ize themselves with these biases and methodologies.

However, environmental archaeologists must not become so focused on therigors of their discipline that they neglect the broader implications of theirresearch. Balancing methodology and interpretation is difficult, but these casestudies show that achieving this goal is possible and worth the effort. It is notthe aim of these chapters to describe environmental materials or critique the

16 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

biases and methodologies of environmental archaeology. Ample literature isavailable for studies traditionally encompassed within environmental archae-ology and these are cited where appropriate. The purpose of these studies is toexplore larger anthropological issues, hoping to encourage students and col-leagues alike to look beyond the technical details of each specialty.

As the following studies illustrate, the importance of long-term teamresearch directed by good questions and communication networks cannot beover-emphasized. If these studies have no other unifying characteristic, it isthat they arose out of such research environments.

REFERENCES

Albarella, U. (ed.), 2001, Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose, Kluwer, Dordrecht,The Netherlands.

Armelagos, G. J., 1994, You Are What You Eat, in: Paleonutrition: The Diet and Health of PrehistoricAmericans (K. D. Sobolik, ed.), Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 22,Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Carbondale, pp. 235–244.

Bintliff, J. L., Davidson, D. A., and Grant, E. G. (eds.), 1988, Conceptual Issues in EnvironmentalArchaeology, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.

Branch, N., Canti, M., Clark, P., and Turney, C., 2005, Environmental Archaeology: Theoretical andPractical Approaches, Hodder Arnold, London.

Brown, A. G., 1997, Alluvial Geoarchaeology: Floodplain Archaeology and Environmental Change,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Bryant, V. M., Jr., 1989, Pollen: Nature’s Fingerprints of Plants, in: 1990 Yearbook of Science andthe Future, Encyclopedia Britannica, Chicago, Illinois, pp. 92–111.

Buikstra, J. E., and Mielke, J. H., 1985, Demography, Diet, and Health, in: The Analysis of PrehistoricDiets (R. L. Gilbert, Jr., and J. H. Mielke, eds.), Academic Press, Orlando, Florida, pp. 359–422.

Butzer, K. W., 1971, Environment and Archeology: An Ecological Approach to Prehistory, Aldine,Chicago, Illinois.

Butzer, K. W., 1982, Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual Approach,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.

Collins, M. E., Carter, B. J., Hart, J. T., and Foss, J. E. (eds.), 1995, Pedological Perspectives inArchaeological Research, Soil Science Society of America Special Publication 44, Madison,Wisconsin.

Cowan, C. W., and Watson, P. J., 1992, Introduction, in: The Origins of Agriculture: An InternationalPerspective (C. W. Cowan and P. J. Watson, eds.), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,DC, pp. 1–6.

Cox, M., and Mays, S. (eds.) 2000, Human Osteology in Archaeology and Forensic Science,Greenwich Medical Media, London.

Davis, S. J. M., 1987, The Archaeology of Animals, Yale University Press, New Haven.Decker-Walters, D. S., Walters, T. W., Cowan, C. W., and Smith, B. D., 1993, Isozymatic

Characterization of Wild Populations of Cucurbita pepo, Journal of Ethnobiology 13(1):55–72.Dimbleby, G. W., 1965, Environmental Studies and Archaeology, Bulletin of the Institute of

Archaeology 14:1–12, University of London, London.Evans, J. G., 1978, An Introduction to Environmental Archaeology, Cornell University Press, Ithaca,

New York.Evans, J. G., 2003, Environmental Archaeology and the Social Order, Routledge, London.Evans, J., and O’Connor, T., 2001, Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Methods, Sutton,

Stroud, England.

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 17

Fankhauser, B., 1994, Protein and Lipid Analysis of Food Residues, in: Tropical Archaeobotany:Applications and New Developments (J. G. Hather, ed.), Routledge, London, pp. 227–250.

Ford, R. I., 1979, Paleoethnobotany in American Archaeology, in: Advances in ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, Volume 2 (M. B. Schiffer, ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 285–336.

French, C., 2003, Geoarchaeology in Action: Studies in Soil Micromorphology and LandscapeEvolution, Routledge, London.

Fritz, G. J., 1994, The Value of Archaeological Plant Remains for Paleodietary Reconstruction, in:Paleonutrition: The Diet and Health of Prehistoric Americans (K. D. Sobolik, ed.), Center forArchaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 22, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,Carbondale, pp. 21–33.

Garrison, E. G., 2003, Techniques in Archaeological Geology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Gifford, D. P., 1981, Taphonomy and Paleoecology: A Critical Review of Archaeology’s Sister

Disciplines, in: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4 (M. B. Schiffer, ed.),Academic Press, New York, pp. 365–438.

Gladfelter, B. G., 1981, Developments and Directions in Geoarchaeology, in: Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4 (M. B. Schiffer, ed.), Academic Press, New York,pp. 344–364.

Grayson, D. K., 1984, Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas,Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.

Gordon, C. C., and Buikstra, J. E., 1981, Soil pH, Bone Preservation, and Sampling Bias atMortuary Sites, American Antiquity 46(3):566–571.

Hastorf, C. A., and Popper, V. S. (eds.), 1988, Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods andCultural Interpretations of Archaeological Remains, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,Illinois.

Herz, N., 1990, Stable Isotope Geochemistry Applied to Archaeology, in: Archaeological Geology ofNorth America (N. P. Lasca and J. Donahue, eds.), Geological Society of America, CentennialSpecial, Volume 4, Boulder, Colorado, pp. 585–595.

Herz, N., and Garrison, E. G., 1998, Geological Methods in Archaeology, Oxford University Press,Oxford, England.

Holliday, V. T. (ed.), 1992, Soils in Archaeology, Landscape Evolution and Human Occupation,Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.

Huss-Ashmore, R., Goodman, A. H., and Armelagos, G. J., 1982, Nutritional Inference fromPaleopathology, in: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 5 (M. B. Schiffer,ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 395–474.

Larsen, C. S., 1997, Bioarchaeology: Interpreting Behavior from the Human Skeleton, CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Loy, T. H., 1994, Methods in the Analysis of Starch Residues on Prehistoric Stone Tools, in:Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications and New Developments (J. G. Hather, ed.), Routledge,London, pp. 36–114.

Luff, R., and Rowley-Conwy, P. (eds.), 1994, Whither Environmental Archaeology? OxbowMonograph 38, Oxford, England.

Lyman, R. L., 1994, Vertebrate Taphonomy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Matthews, P., and Terauchi, R., 1994, The Genetics of Agriculture: DNA Variation in Taro and Yam,

in: Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications and New Developments (J. G. Hather, ed.), Routledge,London, pp. 251–262.

Miksicek, C. H., 1987, Formation Processes of the Archaeobotanical Record, in: Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory, Volume 10 (M. B. Schiffer, ed.), Academic Press, SanDiego, California, pp. 211–247.

Monks, G. G., 1981, Seasonality Studies, in: Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume4 (M. B. Schiffer, ed.), Academic Press, New York, pp. 177–240.

O’Connor, T., 1998, Environmental Archaeology: A Matter of Definition, EnvironmentalArchaeology 2:1–6.

O’Connor, T., 2000, The Archaeology of Animal Bones, Sutton, Stroud, England.

18 ELIZABETH J. REITZ ET AL.

Pearsall, D. M., 2000, Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures, 2nd ed., Academic Press, SanDiego, California.

Piperno, D. R., 2006, Phytoliths: A Comprehensive Guide for Archaeologists and Paleoecologists,Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.

Price, T. D. (ed.), 1989, The Chemistry of Prehistoric Human Bone, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England.

Reber, E., 2005, What Did They Eat? in: Annual Editions: Archaeology 04/05 (L. L. Hasten, ed.),McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, Dubuque, Iowa, pp. 132–133.

Reed, D. M. (ed.), 2005, Biomolecular Archaeology: Genetic Approaches to the Past, Center forArchaeological Investigations, Occasional Paper 32, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale,Carbondale.

Reitz, E. J., and Wing, E. S., 2007, Zooarchaeology, 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, England.

Renfrew, C., and Boyle, K. (eds.), 2000, Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population of PrehistoryEurope, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, England.

Scudder, S. J., 2001, Evidence of Sea Level Rise at the Early Ostionan Coralie Site (GT-3), c. AD700, Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos Islands, Journal of Archaeological Science 28:1221–1233.

Scudder, S. J., 2003, Sea Level Rise or Shallow-water Midden Deposition? Archaeopedology at theSeminole Rest Archaeological Site, Coastal East-Central Florida, Journal of ArchaeologicalScience 30:1551–1557.

Shackley, M., 1981, Environmental Archaeology, George Allen & Unwin, London, England.Smart, T. L., and Hoffman, E. S., 1988, Environmental Interpretations of Archaeological Charcoal,

in: Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretation of ArchaeologicalPlant Remains (C. A. Hastorf and V. S. Popper, eds.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago,Illinois, pp. 167–205.

Smith, B. D., 1976, “Twitching”: A Minor Ailment Affecting Human Paleoecological Research, in:Cultural Changes and Continuity (C. E. Cleland, ed.), Academic Press, New York,pp. 275–292.

Taylor, R. E., and Payen, L. A., 1979, The Role of Archaeometry in American Archaeology:Approaches to the Evaluation of the Antiquity of Homo sapiens in California, in: Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory, Volume 2 (M. B. Schiffer, ed.), Academic Press, New York,pp. 239–283.

Waters, M. R., 1992, Principles of Geoarchaeology: A North American Perspective, University ofArizona Press, Tucson.

Watson, P. J., 1997, The Shaping of Modern Paleoethnobotany, in: People, Plants, and Landscape:Studies in Paleoethnobotany (K. J. Gremillion, ed.), University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Weigelt, J., 1989, Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and Their Paleobiological Implications (J. Schaefer,trans.), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois.

Wilkinson, K., and Stevens, C., 2003, Environmental Archaeology: Approaches, Techniques, andApplications, Tempus, Stroud, England.

Zeder, M. A., Bradley, D. G., Emshwiller, E., and Smith, B. D. (eds.), 2006, DocumentingDomestication: New Genetics and Archaeological Paradigms, University of California Press,Berkeley, California.

ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 19