11. Oct 26: From natural to cultural landscapes

The archaeological methodologies explained in the conference gives me more scientific elements to comprehend the importance of the excavations of land, picking up fossils, analysis of charcoal and polen, and about the designs of diagrams which help to represent in long term dure, issues such as the crops. Its relationship with nomadic and sedentary practices have been underlined in many environmental histories but without the specific detail of the methodologies drawn today by Valentina Caracuta.

Another one interest point touched in the discussion was about the interdisciplinarity of the archaeological scientific practice, in his partner relation with the social sciences, for example. The mention about the written documents which could be base of explication for certain events partially understood by the natural sciences and his technologies of investigation, was a kind of inspiration for carrying on my thesis work. It because telling social stories could be a lamp for answering questions about the human motivations in the impact of his environment.

About the domestication of crops in the long term duree and the spread of anatomical modern humans out of Africa, it is wonderfull know that the nathufian known about the value of crops in the process of human surviving. As we experimented in the debate, the archeological efforts to give data which sustains theories about the processes of development of the homo sapiens have his scopes and limits. There the social sciences research contributes by telling the social dynamics between human groups.

Questions such as Why in the past the human impact on his environment by burning and cleareance lands had importance?, is one that only can be answered by telling social stories. Then there, the natural sciences came to sustain those social theories. I think that it point of convergence between sciences shows a future for the humanities, perhaps in the recovering of those ancient ideas which understand the science as a universe able to give enough explainations to all the questions.

Reply to the Valenta Caracuta’s lecture : From natural to cultural landscapes: agriculture, co-evolution and change perspectives from the middle-east

Although I was not able to attend the lecture, I took a great interest in reading the text about archaeological findings in the Northern Israel region.
Since I have been a student in environmental history, many people have asked me about archaeological methods of investigating landscapes and understanding domestication and cultivation. Although I am a student of environmental history, I have no knowledge nor expertise in methods such as pollen analyses or carbon dating using charred seeds or charcoal.
I would like to know more about those methods but I realise that nowadays, one cannot be an expert in everything and therefore must choose a field of expertise.
I agree with Miguel and Josefin who emphasise the interdisciplinary aspect of our field.
The archaeological methods provide us with information much needed if we want to conduct social studies. Indeed, the studies carried out in the Middle-East can help us understand better agriculture, nutrition and health, but also peoples’ relationship to the environment on a more social and spiritual dimension.
In my thesis work I have been carrying out discourse analysis, relating to the ecological noble savage myth. Obviously, we need scientific data about indigenous peoples’ relationship to their environment if we are to contest the ecological noble savage myth on a more philosophical or anthropological level.
Here, the complementarity of hard sciences and social sciences is glaring.
Finally I would like to react on Ghide’s comment about landscapes being the results of culture or vice-versa. Finding out whether landscapes shaped humans or humans shaped landscapes is a most fundamental question in environmental history.
I found that reading Jared Diamond’s best-sellers ‘Collapse’ and ‘Guns, germs and steel’ have been very informative for me. Diamond repeatedly and astutely demonstrates that humans and landscapes simultaneously shape each other. Indeed, stating that humans are a product of their environments of origin would be pure environmental determinism while stating that landscapes are a mere product of human activity would be overly anthropocentric. In environmental history, things are far from simple, and many factors interact to influence each other. There is no simple answer to this question!