Madeline Boyer
25 October 2009
ANTH 600
Topic 6: Nature and Culture
Ashmore 2004, Bender 1979, Hastorf and Johannessen 1991, Holly 2002,
Preucel and Hodder 1996
Archaeologies of Landscape: Power and Experience
Archaeologists have long debated the relationship between the
environment (nature) and past peoples when analyzing sites. It often
comes down to whether or not humans are “a part of” nature. It is quite
obvious that like all other animals, humans are susceptible to the effects
of their environment, and that selection is a real process. However, I
think it is important to also acknowledge the power that culture has in
how humans relate to their environment. Cultural as well as natural
selection are constantly acting upon human behavior.
Preucel and Hodder (1996) break down the different positions on
the question: most generally ecosystems theory and evolutionary ecology.
Both examine a relationship between humans and their environment.
Ecosystems theory asserts “that cultural variability and change are
evidence for the different ways in which humans adapt to their
environment.” (Preucel, pg 23) On the other hand, evolutionary ecology
stresses the role of natural selection in cultural practices. These theories,
while initiated in the social sciences, have found their way into
archaeological thinking. It is often the case that ecological theory is used
in studying hunter-gatherer societies, possibly because of the huge
dependence on adaptation for survival. Conversely in more complex
societies, economic theory may be used because social systems here are a
safety net that can be held together through economic activity.
Archaeologists such as Ashmore (2004), Bender (1979), and Holly
argue for a more social archaeology of landscape.Like Bender, I agree that
too much of an emphasis on agricultural origins are placed onto
technology and demography. It is to abandon anthropology’s holistic
methodologies to downplay the role of social practices and structures.
Her first point is that food production is about techniques while
“agriculture is a question of commitment. (pg 204) From this formulation
she argues that you cannot use the same lines of though to discuss the
two. From here Bender (1979) uses both ethnographic as well as
prehistoric data in order to formulate her argument: social systems do, in
fact, have the ability to affect production so much so that under particular
conditions, the remedy is to commit to agriculture.
In studying the subarctic, archaeologists have largely portrayed it as
“ahistorical, acultural and devoid of social actors,” because of its harsh
environment and geographic isolation. It is valid to acknowledge the
demanding environment’s effect on a population, but the analysis cannot
stop there. By analyzing not only archaeological, but ethnographic data,
Holly counters these views revealing how “subarctic peoples…carve[d]
their own socially and historically relevant adaptations out of the boreal
forest.” Holly furthermore challenges archaeologists to further “t ease” out
the social histories from an archaeological record that is difficult to
access.
Another example of using cultural data to enrich the analysis of
landscape interaction is found in Hastorf and Johannessen’s (1991)
treatment of pre-hispanic Andean populations. The authors set out to
describe the use of wood as fuel throughout different periods in the
highland people of Peru. In such a fuel-scarce environment, one would
expect a higher incidence of low quality fuel as the population grew. On
the contrary, by researching cultural texts as well as excavated wood
samples, the pair was able to identify how the value and importance
placed on fuel in the culture lead to increased wood and planting
management. A purely economic inquiry would not have yielded such a
rich depiction of past conditions.
Preucel and Hodder describe four different approaches to how
landscape can be interpreted: as environment, as system, as power and as
experience. I believe that it is necessary to view ecological relations from
all of these different lenses. Discrete observations can come from this
type of approach. The study of ecological relations cannot deny the
importance of the landscape to a population, but neither can it ignore the
values and notions imbued on the environment by a culture. The authors
present these approaches as “a gradation of views,” one that moves from
interpreting the landscape as a natural aspect of human life to
interpreting it as cultural. Based on the questions being asked,
archaeologists need to employ the point of view of one or the other. The
“landscape as ___” formula can therefore act as a sort of unifying theory
that escapes some of the pitfalls of other approaches.
In conclusion, culture is seen as what sets humans apart from the
rest of the animal kingdom, whereas nature is what connects us. It is
unproductive to try to decide whether we are completely connected or
unconnected from nature. By analyzing in what ways humans are shaped
by their landscape as well as how landscapes are shaped by humans, I feel
that archaeologists can reconstruct a more complete picture of ecological
relations in the past.