Why ecology needs archaeologists and archaeology needs ecologists

Abstract

Over the past five decades, ecologists and archaeologists have dismantled two longstanding theoretical constructs. Ecologists have rejected the “balance of nature” concept and archaeologists have dispelled the myth that indigenous people were “in harmony with nature”. Rejection of these concepts poses critical challenges to both fields as current disciplinary approaches are inadequate to grapple effectively with real‐world complexities of socioecological systems. In this review, we focus on the relationship between human action and ecosystem change by examining some of the long‐term impacts of prehistoric agriculture. Using an interdisciplinary approach, we present results from two studies that suggest that even relatively non‐intensive and short‐term agriculture can transform ecological systems for a very long time. It is therefore imperative that ecologists and archaeologists work more closely together, creating a truly cross‐disciplinary alliance that will help to advance the fields of archaeology and ecology.

Ecology in an anthropogenic biosphere

“…As a result, even though most field research is conducted in sites situated in and transformed by sustained direct interactions with human societies, this is rarely considered or reported (Martin et al 2012). Given that most of the terrestrial biosphere has likely been transformed by primary and even secondary anthroecological succession, it is likely that the ecological patterns and processes recognized as natural at these sites are in fact substantially altered by sociocultural niche construction (Rackham 1980, Cronon 1983, Redman 1999, Grayson 2001, Briggs et al 2006, Sih et al 2011, Cuddington 2012, Higgs et al 2014. While this bias might seem a minor issue, it has already been shown to influence scientific understanding of paleoclimate and long-term changes in community structure in response to anthropogenic fire regimes and other forms of early land use (Grayson 2001, Briggs et al 2006, Jackson and Hobbs 2009, Archibald et al 2012, Li et al 2014.…”

“…Given that most of the terrestrial biosphere has likely been transformed by primary and even secondary anthroecological succession, it is likely that the ecological patterns and processes recognized as natural at these sites are in fact substantially altered by sociocultural niche construction (Rackham 1980, Cronon 1983, Redman 1999, Grayson 2001, Briggs et al 2006, Sih et al 2011, Cuddington 2012, Higgs et al 2014. While this bias might seem a minor issue, it has already been shown to influence scientific understanding of paleoclimate and long-term changes in community structure in response to anthropogenic fire regimes and other forms of early land use (Grayson 2001, Briggs et al 2006, Jackson and Hobbs 2009, Archibald et al 2012, Li et al 2014. Similarly, the tendency of ecologists to seek out the most isolated parts of landscapes to conduct their research, such as the siting of most permanent forest field plots in forest interiors, biases results against understanding anthroecological pattern and process in the small patches of trees and other fragmented habitats that now likely represent the majority of woodlands globally (Ellis 2011).…”

“…Human alteration of ecology tends to be depicted as a recent crisis brought on by modern industrial societies and their rapid population growth, disturbing fragile natural ecosystems, and threatening both humanity and nonhuman nature, with such framing usually accompanied by a call to return to or maintain some prior balance of nature (Rockstrom et al 2009, Simberloff 2014. As with the seemingly perpetual need for ecology to reject the balance of nature concept, these romantic notions should have no place in ecological science (Cronon 1983, Briggs et al 2006, Pickett 2013.…”

Anthropogenic transformation of the terrestrial biosphere

“…As evolution and other ecological processes now occur primarily within human systems, biology and ecology must incorporate human systems into their mainstream research and educational paradigms. The experience of archaeologists and global change scientists will be useful in this effort, as natural scientists already comfortable with an anthropocentric view [78,118,133,134].…”

People and pines 1555–1910: integrating ecology, history and archaeology to assess long-term resource use in northern Fennoscandia

“…Areas previously considered as 'natural' landscapes and completely devoid of human impacts have, in fact, shown clear traces of human activities, with prolonged ecosystem effects (Cronon 1983;Krech 1999;Foster et al 2003;Josefsson 2009;Freschet et al 2014). To increase our understanding of human-environment interactions, especially over the long term, the integration of ecology, history and archaeology has been identified as a way forward (Briggs et al 2006;Bürgi et al 2013;Goldewijk and Verburg 2013;Scharf 2014). Practical approaches on how to combine data from these diverse disciplines have not been covered in the literature to any great extent, and reconstruction methods based on multiple perspectives are still only in an exploratory stage (Gimmi and Bugmann 2013;Yang et al 2014).…”