Environmental Archaeology: The End of the Road?
Despite attempts made in the last 15 years to revitalise it in a new light, environmental archaeology no longer has a valid interpretative value and should be left confined to the history of research. In this commentary, I discuss some of the reasons why I regard the concept to be more confusing than helpful and compare it with the state of discussion in 2001, at the time of the publication of Environmental Archaeology: Meaning and Purpose.
KeywordsArchaeology Environment Nature Culture Society
I would like to thank Evangelia Pişkin for kindly asking me to write this short commentary and Simon Davis for feedback on an earlier version.
- Hodder, I. (2000). Theoretical archaeology. A reactionary view. In J. Thomas (Ed.), Interpretive archaeology: A reader (pp. 33–55). Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
- Luff, R., & Rowley-Conwy, P. (Eds.). (1994). Whither environmental archaeology? Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
- Thomas, K. (2001). Environmental archaeology is dead: Long live bioarchaeology, geoarchaeology and human palaeoecology. A comment on “environmental archaeology is not human palaeoecology”. In U. Albarella (Ed.), Environmental archaeology: Meaning and purpose (pp. 55–58). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar