Strategies for

Paleoenvironmental
Reconstruction inArchaeology
DENA F. DINCAUZE
Department of Anthropology
University ofMassachusetts
Amherst,Massachusetts 01003

What is both theoreticallysterileand misleading is to see man-environmentcorrelationsas

legitimateends in themselves
and to reduce investigationand analysis to themechanical attain
ment of thisend.
Ellen 1982:5

INTRODUCTION
Paleoenvironmentalreconstructionin archaeology is thedescriptionof
change in the physical and biological contexts of human existence. It is an
aspect of, and an essential precursor to, paleoecology, the study of en
vironmentalrelationshipsin thepast. It isnot equivalent to,but is equally
an aspect of, environmental or contextual archaeology (Butzer 1982), two
widely inclusivetermsthatincorporatepaleoenvironmentalreconstruction,
the techniques by which it is undertaken, and the paleoecology that in
tegrates and gives meaning to the results.
Within the fieldof environmentalarchaeology a distinctionmust be
made between studying the ecology of archaeological sites and studying the
ecology of the human occupants of a site. The kind of paleoenvironmental
reconstruction that will be discussed below is a means to the latter end
specificallyand will typicallyinvolvespaces largerthan sites.The studyof

255
ADVANCES INARCHAEOLOGICAL Copyright ? 1987 byAcademic Press, Inc.
METHOD AND THEORY, VOL. 11 All rightsof reproduction inany formreserved.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
256 DENA F. DINCAUZE

site ecology, by which Imean the effort to understand the depositional and
transformational processes thathave formeda site,isconceptually,but not
oftenoperationally,distinctfromthepaleoenvironmental reconstructionI
will discuss.For recentreviewsof theformer,seeSchiffer(1983, 1987), and
fora discussionof both togetherseeButzer (1982).
The enterpriseof describingvanishedenvironments inorderto assess their
effectsupon human livesand culturesof thepast requiresthatarchaeologists
borrowtechniquesand sometimesdata from manynaturalsciences,especial
ly thehistoricalwings of biology (paleobotanyand paleozoology), geology,
ecology, oceanography,climatology,and pedology (soil science) (see the
useful handbooks by Lowe and Walker 1984 and Berglund 1986). The
derivativenatureof theundertaking, and thesuperhuman demands thatfully
informedapplication of so many disciplineswould impose upon ar
made theeffortperilousand often less thansuc
chaeologists,has necessarily
cessful.Techniques are borrowedwithouttheconceptsthatjustifytheiruses
and, as thegap betweenmethod andmethodology widens, thearchaeological
resultsare leftunsupported,sometimesevenunsupportable. What isneeded
is an approach to thepracticeof paleoenvironmental reconstruction in ar
chaeologythatrationalizesand integrates thesubject.
Knowledge of past environments, and of theearth's interconnected en
vironmentalsystems,has expanded impressively. It isno longerpossible for
an archaeologist to read a few data reports and apply the results to a
reconstructionof environmental conditionsor statesat a siteor ina region.
Matters are truly
much too complicated,knowledgeisboth too refinedand
too incomplete,theoryis too strongand yet too experimental,to permit
such cavalier borrowing as has been characteristic of the near past. The time
has come when archaeologistsmust, as we have long been told, know
enough to be able to ask productivequestions of the appropriate in
Working in isolation is courtinggraveerror.
vestigators.
However, we cannot abdicate thework to specialistsfromother fields.
The reconstruction of paleoenvironmentsinarchaeologicalcontextsposes
particularproblemsbecause of thepervasiveculturaland behavioraleffects
of human lifestyles on aspectsof theirenvironment. These extraneousef
fectsvastly complicate theuse of analogical arguments(cf. Schoenwetter
198lb). In archaeologicalcontexts,it isespeciallychallengingtodistinguish
thenaturalenvironmental conditionsthatmighthaveproduced a givendata
configurationfromtheculturallyinducedconditionsthatcontributedto or
evendefined it. Independentand dependentvariablesare complexlylinked
intointerdependence, yetour researchgoals requirethattheybe analytically
untangled.Put anotherway, it isespeciallydifficulttodistinguishcause and
effectin the relationsbetweenhumanbehaviorand environment whenever
humans are involvedat all. This is thestrength of the systemsapproach;
linearcause and effectrelationshipsare eschewed.
Archaeologistsmust deal explicitly with problemsentailedby thecom

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STRATEGIES FOR PALEOENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION INARCHAEOLOGY 257

plexityof interdependent variables and the special human factors by

building checks into theirresearchdesigns.Complementarityinmethods
and data sets, involvingdiverseresearchdomains in theinvestigation of en
vironmentalconditions,can serveas a formof scientificcontrol.For exam
ple,when informationissoughtabout past temperatures, data can be found
in chemicalanalyses, in insectand molluscan faunas, in treerings(widths,
densities, stable carbon isotopes), in other botanical remains, in general
models of atmospheric circulation, and in calculations of orbital
parameters.Each domain yieldsdata on slightly differentaspectsand scales
of temperature,so thatredundancyisonlyapparent.What isproduced isa
powerful set of mutually checkable data. When informationfromone
research domain supports that from another, both interpretations are
strengthened. When informationfromtwoor more domains is contradic
tory, more detail, as well as considerationofmechanismsand processes, is
required to reconcilethe resultsor to identifytheerror.By exploitingthe
complementaritiesintelligently, archaeologistscan proceed towardcontrol
lingsome of theprobabilitiesinherentin theireclecticdata sets.They can
also approach thegoal of scientificreplicationof results.
A productivearchaeologicalapproach to the reconstruction of paleoen
vironmentsrequires fundamentallyan understandingthatenvironmental
determinismisneitherthe inspirationnor thegoal. Once past thatbarrier,
thereneed be no apology forundertakingenvironmentalstudieswithin a
framework of ecological theory."Ecological hypothesesare not intrinsical
lybetterthanotherhypotheses,but theycertainlyare extraordinarily useful
inprovidingunderstandingof thepast" (Watson et al. 1984:114). It is the
scientificproductivity of theecological perspectiveon human lives thathas
fascinatedarchaeologistsand thatshould continue to challengethemto ex
plore thepast with imaginationtemperedwith rigorand impartiality. The
goal is knowledgeof fullyhuman responsesto environmentalstressorsand
opportunities,which cannot be achieved unless those are understood in
theirdiversity.
Archaeologists need to avoid, along with temptationsto deterministic
fallacies,diversionby technologicalfascination.There are so many tech
niques thatyielddata and stimulateinterpretations thatarchaeologistshave
employed them(the literature bears thisout) for theirown sakes,without
any preconceivedarchaeologicalpurpose. The studyof human ecology in
the past relies upon the unique characteristicsand limitationsof ar
chaeological remains, and must be realized as more than a special case of
natural science investigations.Because environmentaleffectson human
communititesaremediated throughtechnologyand cognition,specifically
human means of adaptation, not all of the available natural science tech
niques are appropriate to thescales of archaeological data and problems.
must be exercisedto avoidmisapplicationof borrowed
Informedselectivity
techniquesand approaches.

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
258 DENA F. DINCAUZE

Modes of Reasoning
A major difficulty in any study of environment is that situations in
nature are more complex than the human reasoning that can be applied to
them. There are so many variables, both dependent and independent, and
the relationships among them are so ramified, that the structure and
systemics of the situation must be abstracted and simplified even at the level
of description.The contraintsupon descriptionnecessarily inhibitany
subsequentanalysis. These realitiesbringproblemsof sampling,and of
epistemology,to the fore.
The recentliteratureinmany of thesubdisciplinesof paleoenvironmental
studieshas shown a concernwith samplingproblems,mainly represent
ativeness,and such considerationsare now beginningseriouslyto temper
the optimism thatwas characteristicof the literaturein the 1970s. Ex
emplarydiscussionsof samplingconstraintsupon resultsmay be found in
articlesby Klein (1980) and by Parker and Toots (1980) (faunal studies),
and inarticlesby JacobsonandBradshaw (1981) (palynology),andMagariz
and Kaufman (1983) (pedology). Climatologistsaddress the represent
ativenessproblem by subdividingtheirstudydomains into sets rankedac
cording to the frequenciesand intensities
of processesaffectingthem(e.g.,
sets affected mainly by orbital parameters at large time scales versus those
influenced
mainly by short-term
phenomena).By thismeans theyare able
to evaluate the appropriateness of particular data to a problem perceived at
specifiedfrequenciesand intensities(Bradley1985:6-14; Kutzbach 1976;
Mitchell 1976).

Reasoning fromAnalogies
The importanceof theuniformitarian assumptioninany studyof condi
tionsno longerdirectlyobservablecannotbe overlooked.The premise that
"the present is thekey to thepast" is essentialto historicalsciences.The
uniformitarian assumption is not equivalent to a claim that the past was like
thepresent.Rather, itsapplicationprovidesone of thebest hopes fordefin
ingwhat thedifferences may be. Even thoughtheassumptionmay occa
sionallybe invalid, it remainstheepistemologicalbasis forall comparative
analysisand argumentby analogy (see especiallythediscussionsbyGould
andWatson 1982; and Rymer 1978).
The pervasivenessof analogical argumentsinhistoricalscienceshas been
exploredbyWylie (1985) andwill be acceptedhereas given.Analogies con
stituteimportant methodological tools in both archaeology and paleoen
vironmentalstudies; in a sense, theyare corollariesof theuniformitarian
assumption.They sharewith it,of course, thespecial jeopardyof excep
tionsthatare disguisedby themethod itself,and theyresultat best inprob
abilisticstatements(Dunnell 1982; Schoenwetter1981a). It is here thatthe

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STRATEGIES FOR PALEOENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION INARCHAEOLOGY 259

problem of equifinalityintrudes.Different sets of antecedentconditions

may produce similar results; discrete historiesmay be obscured by
similaritiesin the finalstateof theprocesses.The bestway to control for
equifinalityis to have a detailed understandingof the rangeof processes
thatmighthave been involvedina givenresult.Few historicalscienceshave
achieved that levelof control.

Reasoning fromProxies
In paleoenvironmentalstudies,much reliance is necessarilyplaced on
what climatologistscall "proxy" data: data thatcan informabout antece
dent conditionsnot directlyaccessible forobservation(e.g., theuse of wine
harvest records to gather informationabout theweather of postmedieval
growingseasons).Other disciplinesthanpaleoclimatologyuse proxydata,
and proxieswill loom large in thesepages. Gifford's statement(1981:383)
that "Paleoecology's basic task is definingwhat kinds of biological rela
tionshipsmay actually be accessible to study in the fossilrecord,and by
what means theycan be studied" is sayingthatpaleobiologistsare seeking
proxydata on relationships, which can rarelybe directlyobserved in any
fossilrecord.The use of observeddata to inferunobservableconditionsand
relationshipsrequiresspecial controlson both thedata set selectedand on
the logical processesof inference.An understandingof mechanisms that
link theobservationsto the targetphenomena is essential.
When the goal of an investigationis, for example, reconstruction of
vegetation for its own sake, the use of proxy data is fullyacceptable.
However,when thegoal is thereconstruction of entirepaleoenvironments, in
whichvegetationismerelyone aspect,each component must be reconstructed
usingdata independent of thoseemployedforother components,to avoid
circularityin logic.Only interpretations
independently derivedfromeach of
thecomponentsytemscan be used to testtheaccuracyof other interpreta
tionsby examiningthe degree of consistencyand congruenceamong the
severalinterpretations. Ifproxydata are integralto a reconstructionof past
vegetativestates,thosereconstructions cannotbe used to testinterpretations
of thedomains from which theproxydatawereborrowed.To avoid circulari
ty,the interpretation usingproxiesmust be considereddependent.

Reasoning fromCorrelations
When two kinds of phenomena are observed to covary in time or space,
the question logically arises as to whether they are interdependent or caus
ally linked.Paleoenvironmentalinvestigators have been known to confuse
coincidencewith correlationand to jump to false conclusionsabout rela
tionshipson thatbasis. There isalso theever-presenttemptationto confuse

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
260 DENA F. DINCAUZE

with cause and therebytoconfoundor to inventcausal relation

correlation
shipswithout examining theprocessesandmechanisms thatactually link
the phenomena. Here, as with analogy, the reasoning can be placed on a
securefootingby seekingto know themechanismsthat linkphenomena in
timeor space (Wylie 1985:96, 101). In historicalstudies,additi6nally,one
must be awareof thedifficulty
of establishingeithercontemporaneity or the
sequence Felationshipsessential to cause-effect demonstrations between
two or more phenomena, when one has for the purpose only such approx
imate and relative measures of time as are available in stratigraphy or
physicaland chemical clocks.
"[T]he hazards of crossing disciplinary boundaries on search and seizure
missions" (Hardesty1980:161) can be minimizedwhen archaeologistsare
informedabout theconceptual foundationsof themethods and data they
borrow. Such knowledgewill aid the selectionof methods and data ap
propriatetoarchaeologicalphenomena.Awarenessofwhat isand isnot ap
propriateto particulararchaeologicalsituationsis a crucial elementof suc
cessfulresearchstrategies.Throughoutthisdiscussion,conceptsof scale are
emphasized to demonstratetheircentralityin theselectionand application
of paleoenvironmental methods and data to archaeologicalproblems.

Descriptive and Analytical Concepts

Humans perceiveenvironmental changemainlyas changes in thestateor

conditionof thebiosphere (thezone of livingthingsnear thesurfaceof the
earth)or theatmosphere,or both.Changes of state in thebiosphere involve
such phenomena as increases or decreases in the kinds of plants and animals
livingin an area,while changesof conditionmay be observed inchanges in
the number of living things. On the basis of our perceptions, it has been
traditionalto seek thecauses of environmental
changealso in thebiosphere
or atmosphere.The fullerknowledgeof relationshipsand mechanisms
recentlyachieved inmany of theenvironmental scienceshas shown thatthis
approach to understandingis oversimplified and potentiallymisleading.
Climatology isclearlyemergingas theintegrating science inenvironmen
talstudies.Not onlyare climatologistsbeginningtounderstandthephysical
world in termsof basic mechanisms,but theirfindingsare increasingly
recognizedas havingprimarysignificancein thebiological sciencesas well
(Lewin 1984, 1985). Climatologists see the state and condition of the
climaticsystemas beingaffectedby factorsboth"internal" and "external"
to it (Mitchell 1976). The external (deterministic)factors include such
phenomenaas solar energy,volcanism,and theorbitaland axial parameters
(theMilankovitch factors)thatdeterminetheearth'sdistance fromand tilt
toward the sun. Internal (stochastic)factorsare summarized in the five

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 STRATEGIES FOR PALEOENVIRONMENTAL RECONSTRUCTION INARCHAEOLOGY 261

spheresof the internalclimate system:theatmosphere(gasesand aerosols);

the lithosphere (rocks and sediments); the hydrosphere (water); the
cryosphere(ice); and thebiosphere (all livingthings).Changes in any of
thesefactors'
may initiateresponses in any of theothers.The externalfac
torsappear to change statespontaneouslyand therefore to act independent
lyof the internalfactors;additional informationmay change some of that
concept.The internalfactors,on theotherhand, are so interconnectedin
responsivenessthat the "causes" of observed change in any one of them
cannot now be fullyspecified.Environmentalchange can be triggered by
eventsor cyclesatmany scales,with systemicadjustmentsfollowingin all
ormany systems,at differentrates.This stateof affairs,of course,has im
plications fortheuse of proxydata sets. It cannotusuallybe specifiedhow
directare thechainsof causation that link theunobservablewith thedata
sets accessible to us and thus,how well a givenproxy representsa target
phenomenon; thatmust be carefullyinvestigatedforeach case.
Concepts of scale and rate appear in all the paleoenvironmental
literaturestoday (cf.Bradley 1985; Butzer 1982;Delcourt, Delcourt, and
Webb 1983; Chorley et al. 1984; and papers in Behrensmeyerand Hill
1980). The classic archaeological "dimensions" of time and space
(Spaulding 1960)may be blended when wave metaphors are invoked in
discussionsof largecyclical factors(Kutzbach 1976;Mitchell 1976). In the
presentcontext,timeand space will usually be distinguished.Concepts of
throughout.These
rate and, especially, scale will be used integratively
guidingconceptsservewell, in fact,toorganize researchgoals and tomatch
goals with the techniques and data sets that are most appropriate to them.

Scales
Table 1 setsout,with perhaps excessiveconcreteness,thetermsthatwill
organize discussions to follow. The megascales, in both timeand space,
have little to do with archaeology, but everything to do with the earth as a
planet.Basic functionsof climate,and the lifethathas evolvedunder it,are
consideredat thisscale. The macroscales relateto biological evolutionand
to thedevelopmentsin thelithospherethatdefinetheshape and reliefof the
land, the extentof the oceans, themajor lifezones. The mesoscales are
thosemost relevantto culturalevolution; it isat thesescales thatthedetails
generalitiescome intotheir
of past livesmerge intoprocess, and interpretive
own. The microscale iswhere traditionalarchaeologybegins,at thesiteand
itsimmediatelocale. Site-scaleare highlyparticularistic;theirstrengthis in
theirspecificity.
Theirweakness lies in the largevarietyofmechanisms by
which thedata came tobe deposited ina place (equifinality).With theaddi
tionof human agency to the limitednumberof naturalmechanisms, inter
pretiveproblems are vastly compounded. Questions of representativeness

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
262 DENA F. DINCAUZE

TABLE I
Nested Scales InSpace and Tlmea

Spatial scales Area (kin2) Archaeological units

Mega- global: 5.1 x 10'

Macro- continental: <10'
structural province: < 106 area
Meso- regional: 10-104 region;site catchment
locale; city
Micro- local: < 1 site; house; activityarea

Temporal scales Duration or frequency (yr) Chronometric resolution

Mega- > 106 K-Ar

Macro- 104-106 140;TL; K-Ar; fission tracks;magnetic
reversals
Meso- 102-104 40;TL; U series; obsidian hydration;.
arciaeomagnetism
Micro- <102 radiocarbon indeterminacy;
dendrochronology; calendars

"Each higher unit incorporates and generalizes all those below. Note that chro
nometricmethods ranked according to resolution are given at the finest scale appli
cable; they are useful at larger scales as well. Scales in the two dimensions are not
closely linked.

of data are minimized, however,when thedata need not be generalized

beyond theirspecific locale. To thisextent,the detail recovered in ar
chaeological excavationscan be reliedupon tobe relevantto conditionsat
theparticular timeand place. The meaning of those conditions and the
mechanisms that led to theirestablishmentare quite othermatters.This is
why studiesof formationprocessesare fundamentally important(Schiffer
1987).Most of theproblemswith archaeologicalstudiesof paleoenviron
ment arise in thepassage fromdescriptionto interpretation.

A Note on Organization
Strategies for paleoenvironmentalreconstruction are organized below
according to aspects of environmentsratherthandifferentkinds of data:
analyticalgoals ratherthandata sources.Thus, thereconstruction
of faunal
communitiesisdiscussed in termsof both thedirectand proxydata setsthat
provide insightinto the statesand conditionsof past faunas,not in terms
derived fromfaunal analysis alone. Faunal data and faunal analyses, in
turn,contributeeitherdirector proxyevidenceforall nonfaunalaspectsof
environment. Any redundancyresultingfromthisarrangementemphasizes
and clarifies the interdependenciesof data frommany differentresearch

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.22 on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 17:29:45 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions