Archaeology

Author(s): Colin Renfrew

Source: The Geographical Journal, Vol. 149, No. 3 (Nov., 1983), pp. 316-323
Published by: geographicalj
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/634005
Accessed: 19-05-2016 22:11 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/634005?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley, The Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Geographical Journal

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Geographical Journal, Vol. 149, No. 3, November 1983. pp. 316-333

GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

I. ARCHAEOLOGY

COLIN RENFREW

GEOGRAPHY itAND
Increasingly, archaeology
would have
seem, there are much in common
overlapping at the
interests present
in their time.
subject
matter: who, for instance, could claim that a close concern with the origins of
agriculture is not a proper issue for either discipline? Increasingly, too, there are
convergences in the approaches and methodologies which the two professions employ,
and in the philosophical issues which divide the practitioners of each. It would seem
natural, then, that archaeologists and geographers should get together to discuss these
common matters, as indeed they were doing at the meeting which gave rise to the
present paper. It is, perhaps, surprising then that the extent to which they have done so,
at any rate until the later 1970s, has been so limited.
The prime concern of geography is with man in space, that of archaeology with man
through time. The rapprochement over the past decade may be seen as the result of a
widening of horizons on each side. The archaeologist is increasingly concerned with
spatial aspects, both with the locational-analytical concerns ofthe human and political
geographer, and with the more physical aspects of landscape archaeology. The
geographer, perhaps, is increasingly concerned with time depth, with the longer-term
trajectory of the system which often only archaeology can give.
The methodological similarities spring, I think, from the fringe?or should I say
bridge?position which each discipline has, in relation to the major fields of human
knowledge as they have conventionally been defined. The viewpoint must inevitably
range from one where humans are simply one other element in a broad landscape, and
can be examined and studied by the methods of the sciences alongside the other
components of that landscape, to a very different outlook. That alternative position
sees the human actors as unique repositories of consciousness and intentionality,
governed by complex social interactions, where the role of the individual and of
individual motivation can never be overlooked. Geography, indeed, is perhaps unique
amongst all scholarly disciplines in focusing at one end of the spectrum on activities in
which humans sometimes play no part (for to an outsider it is sometimes difficult to
distinguish between geomorphology and Quaternary geology), and, at the other, on
concerns such as the perception of place, where the unique individual so far fills the
field of inquiry that the study becomes hard to distinguish from aesthetics or the
psychology of choice.
In this paper I should like to indicate some of the areas where collaboration between
the geographer and the archaeologist have already been fruitful, and where they could
become very much more so in the future. In a number of ways the methods of the
geographer both at the hard (i.e. physical) and softer (i.e. social or political) ends have
already proved of great value to the archaeologist. In particular the positivist/realist
approach of the 1960s and 1970s led to developments in geography, such as the
refinement of locational analysis and the definition of a more rigorously ecological
view, which have worked to the advantage of archaeology. But when the geographer
seeks to look more closely at the role of human action in the past, he or she must often
set that action in a context that is more than simply spatial. Here some of that
methodology is needed which the archaeologist is now developing for the study of early
social organization and indeed for early cognitive structures. As I have tried to express
in a recent paper (Renfrew, 1981), I believe that there is a way of approaching these
questions which is an alternative to the predominantly idealist position now adopted by

?* Dr Colin Renfrew is Disney Professor of Archaeology in the University of Cambridge,

Downing St, Cambridge CB2 3DZ. Three papers were delivered at the Technical Meeting held on
1 November 1982 at the Society's House, with Professor D.R. Harris in the Chair.
0016-7398/83/0003-0316/S00.20/0 ? 1983. The Royal Geographical Society

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT 317

several geographers (and archaeologists). For it is not necessary to take up a purely

relativist position and abandon oneself to pure subjectivity in order to deal with the
social activities and the concepts formulated by humankind.

The site as locus of activity

For the archaeologist, one of the fundamental units for research has always been the
'site', the counterpart, to some extent, of the 'settlement' or the 'node' of the
geographer. The site need not of course be residential: it may as well be a quarry or a
working area as a settlement.
The very notion of the site has, however, become less obvious in archaeology with
the development of intensive field survey methods. Intensive field survey in
archaeology entails the coverage on foot, by a team of people working at a specified
interval of the order of a few metres, of whole areas of the landscape. It carries with it
the assumption that human activity in the past can be established by the recognition of
definable features on the surface of the terrain. This is evidently so when there are
visible remains of standing structures. More often the significant evidence comes in the
form of artefacts?mainly pieces of pottery and of chipped stone?which are found on
the surface. They may get there through erosion, or by the effects of ploughing.
Obviously if there has been deposition and aggradation since the time of settlement
these artefacts may not be found, and geomorphological factors are crucially relevant.
But the main point is that the site is no longer necessarily a conspicuous feature with
structural remains and numerous artefacts: it may be merely a sparse flint scatter.
Operationally an arbitrary decision may have to be made as to how many artefacts (or
what artefact density) is sufficient to define a site.
This point highlights the question on which archaeologists and geographers or
geomorphologists have been converging in recent years. How did this place (site) with
its indications of human activity, form? The study of formation processes in relation to
landscape features is, of course, a basic concern of the geomorphologist, but only rarely
in the past has he or she turned in a concerted way to archaeological sites, and
considered them from the same perspective. The archaeologist has recently come to
study more closely the way in which human cultural materials are deposited, but rarely
integrates these products of human behaviour in any effective way with the relevant
geomorphological processes. Such an integration would be a satisfactory outcome, a
part of what some years ago I suggested we might call 'Geoarchaeology' (Renfrew,
1976).
In 1976, Michael B. Schiffer published an influential book, Behavioral Archaeology,
in which, following earlier work by himself and William Rathje, two aspects of site
formation processes were identified. These were C-transforms which governed
deposition through cultural formation processes, and N-transforms, governing
accumuiation through non-cultural formation processes. This idea is simple, and one
which is clear enough as a first approximation. It separates the human activities from
others, and perhaps imagines an episode of human occupation, in which various
artefacts and other rubbish are lost or discarded by the human inhabitants. Clearly the
extent to which such debris gives an adequately patterned interpretive picture, allowing
through inference the reconstruction of the activities in question and the society within
which they took place, is a matter of great interest to the archaeologist. One of the main
thrusts of contemporary work is ethnoarchaeology, where observers in the field
examine the role which material culture plays in living societies and the extent to which
material objects adequately reflect various aspects of those societies. Discard
behaviour is one aspect upon which archaeologists focus since that is one of the crucial
determinants of what actually finds its way into the archaeological record. Studies of
rubbish disposal in contemporary urban societies (Rathje, 1974) often have much the
same purpose.
But it has not been sufficiently emphasized that this separation into C- and
N-transforms effects a temporal separation which is far from realistic. There may of
course be some sites where the occupation is brief, and then ceases: the caravan moves
on. Then the N-transforms can begin their slow work, so that some artefacts are
perhaps buried, others rot away or are carried off by scavengers. But rarely in practice

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
318 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

is there such a high degree of separation. On any site used over a continuous period, the
processes of human discard occur together with, or in alternation to, the 'natural'
formation processes affected by wind and weather etc. When humans build their
houses, that is a C-transform, but when they knock them down, incidentally burying
artefacts in the debris, is that an N-transform? The question has no meaning because
these human activities are part and parcel ofthe processes taking place at that particular
locus: they are the product of human and 'natural' forces working in conjunction.
What is needed now is a much more coherent programme of work to investigate the
working together of the various processes which result in the formation of the
archaeological record, without the unnatural and artificial distinctions drawn between
those different processes. As a first example, the work of Davidson (1973; 1976) at the
tell mound of Sitagroi in East Macedonia, offers a welcome ease of an archaeological
site, less than 7000 years old, subjected to the full range of analytical techniques which
the geomorphologist might more usually apply to some purely natural formations.
Tell formation is a process of great interest to the Near Eastern archaeologist as well
as to the Aegean one, since the majority of sites so far excavated in Mesopotamia, for
instance, are of this kind. Yet Davidson's work was the first to examine the structure of
a tell from a geomorphological point of view and to consider it without overwhelmingly
archaeological preoccupations. It could be argued, despite this pioneering work, that
he was in reality considering what Schiffer would term the N-transforms at the site, and
there is no doubt in my mind that more work is needed to study in detail how the specific
human activities of different kinds of discard go to make up what ultimately becomes
the 'site'. There is a need for a closer understanding of the consequences of different
kinds of building construction and destruction for site formation. This is where
experimental archaeology can play a role (Coles, 1973), and in just a few cases, such as
the Overton Down experimental earthwork (Jewell, 1963), controlled experiments
have been undertaken to monitor the results of erosion. This is one useful approach,
but the longterm processes involved cannot adequately be simulated within the human
life span.
The alternative is to develop a much more detailed approach to such questions,
where the archaeologist and the geomorphologist, working together, jointly consider
the development of the archaeological site, a cubic centimetre at a time, and try to
reach together a clearer understanding of its formation.
A second example of pioneering work in this field is offered by the Kirkbys'
examination in Oaxaca of the production of surface scatters of artefacts (Kirkby and
Kirkby, 1976). Here they were indeed addressing themselves, in part, to the problem
mentioned at the beginning of this section: the interpretation of surface scatters of
archaeological material. But here again it could be argued that they were restricting
themselves to N-transforms, in the sense that their notional archaeological sites were
idealized and non-differentiated entities which were conceived as ready-formed and
abandoned, when the processes which they themselves were studying were deemed to
have begun. Although their approach is entirely valid as a first approximation, it would
be useful to consider the dynamic interaction of the human and 'natural' formation
processes over the period of initial site formation (during human habitation). It would
be helpful, too, to consider different kinds of human activity during site formation, and
the consequences of different kinds of rubbish disposal.
A third approach, and one of a rather different kind, is that undertaken by Torrence
(1982) and by Shelford (1982) into the obsidian quarrying and working areas on the
island of Melos. Shelford's primary interest was in the much earlier initial geological
formation of the area, in which the obsidian was produced, while Torrence's was in the
chipping floors observed, and their interpretation in terms of the possible craft
specialization involved in their working. To have considered in detail the processes of
erosion and surface movement which were in part responsible for the present state of
the 'site' would have been a difficult geomorphological undertaking. Yet this would
have been a useful addition to their own pioneering work, and would have brought
about a more fruitful union of their two specialisms, perhaps overcoming that recurring
gap between the C- and N-transforms.
The role of soil science in 'site' archaeology , and in the production of archaeological

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT 319

loci which go beyond the traditional concept of the site, is one which has yet to be fully
developed.

The two landscapes

The site of the archaeologist and the settlement or node of the geographer certainly
offer one convenient scale of investigation. But there is of course a much broader field
which is ultimately just as important, namely the site within its broader environment.
Indeed even this expression places too much emphasis upon the site, relegating the
'environment' to the background. It is for this reason that the concept of 'landscape
archaeology' has recently begun to replace or supplement that of 'environmental
archaeology'.
There are, of course, two landscapes. In the first place there is the landscape in the
physical sense, including all the things which might be considered significant by any
group exploiting it. This is the landscape of the modern scientific observer. And then
there is the landscape as it is seen by a group of people who live within it and exploit it:
the perceived landscape. This is now a familiar distinction to both geographers and
archaeologists, corresponding broadly to the 'operational' and the 'cognized' of the
anthropologist. It is not necessary here to assert the 'objectivity' of the 'physical'
landscape as reconstructed today: this is not the place to enter a debate about positivist
assumptions. It is quite sufficient to see it as the landscape perceived by the modern
field geographer, or more exactly by those of the modern community of geographers
who share a common outlook. I shall argue below that there is at least one further
landscape beyond these two, the social landscape, where the important relationships in
space are social ones, with other people. But for the moment we are thinking in
environmental terms.
The reconstruction of the landscape as it was is evidently a task for the
geomorphologist. But when our concern is with relatively recent times it is a task in
which the archaeologist must collaborate. The need here is largely a chronological one.
If it is intended to study landscape formation processes operating over the relatively
short time span of just a few thousand years, it will be necessary to have a chronological
scale capable of discriminating in centuries. Geophysical dating methods are rarely
capable of this precision, and dendrochronology is not often available. It is necessary
then to use a variable which operates on a faster scale: human artefact production. The
traditional archaeological chronology (depending on typological variability), calibrated
where appropriate by geophysical methods such as radiocarbon, offers the only
satisfactory approach. Not only is this capable of fine chronological distinctions, but the
indicators are satisfyingly abundant. The most frequent of these is the potsherd, and
ceramic chronology (suitably underpinned by a radiocarbon framework) is in most
areas the most convenient for geomorphological purposes, when we are dealing with
changes over the last few thousand years.
A clear example of this is offered by the Mediterranean where, thanks to the work of
Vita-Finzi (1969), we now know that there were significant changes in the surface
configuration in many areas in very recent times, over the past two or three thousand
years, resulting in the formation of what he terms the 'Younger Fill'. Although this is an
instance which is specific to the Mediterranean coastlands, it may be taken as a clear
case of the relationship between archaeology and geomorphology in reconstructing
recent landscape history. It is all the more telling in that the consequences of these
changes for human settlement were clearly very great (Bintliff, 1977). Any
interpretation of early landscapes in the area, based on modern site survey data, is
likely to be seriously at fault if it does not take adequate account of these changes. The
same cautionary remark should probably be addressed to any archaeological attempt at
the reconstruction of early settlement patterns: there are indeed areas where
geomorphological activity has been very slight, but this can never be assumed without
proper investigation.
The case of the 'Younger Fill' is informative also because there are good reasons for
thinking that Vita-Finzi's pioneering recognition of the phenomenon was not matched
by his explanation, which in some respects now looks over-simplified. In particular the
chronology of the episodes of erosion and deposition needs to be fixed for each area in

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
320 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

turn: in at least one ease (Davidson and Tasker, 1981) it does not conform with the
outline initially proposed. Here only detailed field studies in a number of localities can
resolve the problem. Each of these will perforce be conducted by geomorphologists and
archaeologists working together. It is particularly fortunate that early Greece, like
many circum-Mediterranean lands, can boast a ceramic chronology of considerable
precision, often allowing a date to be assigned to within 50 or 100 years. Only in this way
can one hope to reconstruct the physical landscape of the time.
To reconstruct the perceived landscape it is, of course, necessary to have further
recourse to the archaeology. For while the archaeologist may not be able to judge with
accuracy precisely what was perceived at any given time, he is certainly able to say what
was used. Good excavation, with the aid of suitable environmental expertise, can offer
a comprehensive range of the artefacts which were employed, and of their raw
materials: it is not a very difficult matter to reconstruct the use ofthe mineral elements
of the environment. The exploitation of the fauna is now routinely evaluated on the
basis of the animal, fish and bird bones, the molluscs, the eggshells and other faunal
remains. And the exploitation of the flora can be documented not only by the
examination of the carbonized seeds and wood samples recovered, but in favourable
cases by very localized pollen analysis, which can indicate which pollen-bearing plants
were growing within the settlement or were brought into it. Indeed, so convenient a
unit of analysis is the well-dated context on the archaeological site that it is increasingly
used for the reconstruction of the physical environment itself, and not merely of its
exploitation by the inhabitants. I have in mind here the use of pollen samples taken at
archaeological sites, for instance on the original ground surface buried below
prehistoric burial mounds (where elsewhere that original ground surface has been
completely lost through erosion or ploughing). Land molluscs can give information in
the same way about more general features of the landscape as well as about localized
aspects due specifically to human activity.
In general, it is fair to say that it is easier to say which components of the physical
landscape were perceived as important (on the basis of the use made of them) than it is
to reconstruct the precise configuration of that physical landscape in space. What has
been eroded away cannot easily be put back, even in a simulation exercise. And an even
greater problem is presented by the deposition of material on valley bottoms, where it
masks the original ground surface and prevents the identification of archaeological sites
or any other form of surface survey. Once again, these are tasks which can only be
attempted by the archaeologist and the geographer working together.

The human environment

Experience shows again and again that the locations of the loci of human activity are
not determined solely by the spatial distribution of resources (which is often what the
term 'perceived landscape' is referring to) but also by the distribution of other such loci.
The concern is, therefore, with social space, or rather with a number of different ways in
which human beings conceive and act upon social relations within a spatial context. If
this perspective is accepted, the geographer concerned with spatial configurations of
earlier times is greatly dependent upon the archaeologist for the insights the latter can
give about other aspects of life and society of the period. At the same time, the
archaeologist is personally very much reliant upon a spatial approach as an important
avenue of research towards those very social inferences. One reason for this is that
spatial data, whatever their limitations, are in some respects very easy to manipulate.
Tuan (1971:191) speaking from an idealist standpoint, grudgingly conceded as much in
remarking: 'Geographers have latched onto a good thing in "space" for it is strictly
measurable'. That is precisely why the social archaeologist quite often needs to use the
techniques of the locational analyst.
Some years ago there was a tendency for the archaeologist to take some precepts
from human geography, generally from the field of Central Place Theory, and apply
them rather mechanistically and indeed uncritically to a specific archaeological data set
(Clarke 1968: 508; Hodder and Hassall, 1971; Johnson, 1972). Despite its limitations
this approach was instructive in posing the question as to how far such regularities
would be found to operate in early times. But it carried with it all the limitations and

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT 321

assumptions inherent within Christaller's own work, which can now be seen as one
pioneering but highly specific instance of the exploration of the spatial implications of
an organizational system. Other alternative ideas?such as that of the primate
city?have likewise proved fruitful. But we have, I believe, now approached the
position where the archaeologist can proceed to examine the problems inherent in the
data from early times, while selecting in a more discriminating way from amongst the
techniques of spatial analysis available.
One of the most satisfactory examples, because it is based on careful site survey
carried out over several seasons, with full use of aerial photography, is that of Robert
Adams (1981) in the central Euphrates floodplain of Iraq. One of the great merits of the
approach is that is is diachronic, and indeed some of the most interesting patterns
obtained arise from contrast between successive time periods. A whole series of
ambitious surveys has been carried out in Mesoamerica (Sabloff, 1981), and there is no
clearer instance at the present time of the fruitful application of a broadly spatial
approach, where the social inferences are in large measure based upon the results of
systematic and intensive survey (cf. Michels, 1979).
A very different instance is offered by the interpretation of the spatial distribution of
the early temples of Malta (Trump, 1981) or of the chambered tombs of Orkney
(Renfrew, 1979). Here the social space has become ritual space or funerary space, and
ideological questions are as prominent as ecological ones.
In a number of these instances, geomorphologists have collaborated in the collection
as assessment of the spatial data. Historical geographers are increasingly becoming
concerned also with diachronic interpretation of data which are predominantly
archaeological in origin (e.g. Wagstaff and Cherry, 1982). What is to be hoped is that
this level of cooperation in the collection and interpretation of field data will be
matched at the theoretical level. For the generalizing aspirations of the more
positivist/realist human geographers are certainly reflected by their counterparts in
archaeology. Field survey has recently become as significant a source as excavation for
data informative about early social organization: it offers rich scope for fruitful
collaboration.

Conclusions
The foregoing discussion makes clear that it is possible to define a number of
objectives where the interests and skills of the geographer and of the archaeologist must
now be combined if we are to make progress in understanding the relationship between
the landscape and the human population in early times. Amongst the practical
objectives are:
1. To use the chronological control often available to the archaeologist in a more
systematic way, in order to establish an effective local time-scale for the
geomorphological study of site and landscape formation processes, within the
Holocene, and sometimes earlier, over considerable time depth.
2. To develop the human micro-geomorphology of activity loci (sites), regarding
human activity as a formation agency in much the same way as any other natural
process. This will entail an effort to transcend the now-traditional separation between
'cultural' and 'natural' processes (C- and N-transforms), and to look in a detailed way at
the structural variation within sites as the product of different activities and processes.
3. To define more clearly the factors which determine or constrain the human
exploitation of an environment. Simply to talk of the 'perceived environment' is not
enough: some consideration of the whole human culture system is necessary to give one
some insight as to why different aspects of the environment are perceived or not.
4. To join together effectively in understanding why changes occurred in landscape
and environment: changes which were partly but not entirely anthropogenic. This will
again require some bridge between the two now-usual polar viewpoints, where one
group assigns the causes of change to 'natural' factors (e.g. Vita-Finzi's view of the
'Younger Fill'), while the opposite view is likewise argued that processes of human
exploitation (e.g. overgrazing) are responsible.
5. To use the cross-cultural perspectives of the positivist/realist geographer and
archaeologist to assist in the cross-cultural study of human societies, notably in their

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
322 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT

spatial aspects. The realization that such a positivist approach may not be effective for
all purposes should not diminish the force of its application for those where it is
relevant. One such field is political geography. In fact it seems that geographers have
been slow to use analytical methods here, and current archaeological work may be able
to throw some light on general trends in the spatial operation of power and dominance
(see 6).
6. To extend the consideration of the activity of humans in space beyond the
now-familiar ecological framework to one where the social and political aspects are
given as much weight, and loom as large in the perceived environment as the physical
landscape.
7. To develop a methodology which will allow us to investigate cognitive aspects of
the society in question. Archaeological data are certainly available for this purpose.
Indeed it is evident that monumental structures, such as tombs, have an ideational
significance as much as a social one, and that both are as relevant as subsistence
constraints in explaining their distribution.
All these objectives now seem feasible, and indeed none is entirely novel. What is
perhaps new is the realization that the distinctions between geography and archaeology
are becoming blurred. It is no longer clear whether a student should be working in a
department of geography or of archaeology, and indeed many change over in the
course of their work. Each discipline, no doubt, has a number of special skills which are
less developed in the other. I suggest that each side would benefit by recognizing the
closeness of the relationships, and by seeking ways to dissolve formal distinctions.

References
Bintliff J. L. 1977 Natural Environment and Human Settlement in Prehistoric Greece (British
Archaeological Reports, Supplementary Series 28). Oxford: BAR.
Clarke D. L. 1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen.
Coles J. 1973 Archaeology by Experiment. London: Hutchinson.
Davidson D. A. 1973 Tarticle size and phosphate analysis: evidence for the evolution of a tell.'
Archaeometry 15: 143-52.
Davidson D. A. 1976 'Processes of tell formation and erosion', in Davidson D. A. and Shackley
M. L. (eds.), Geoarchaeology, London: Duckworth: 255-66.
Davidson D. A., and Tasker C. 1981 'Geomorphological evolution during the late Holocene', in
Renfrew C. and Wagstaff M. (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: University Press: 82-94.
Hodder I., and Hassall M, 1971 The non-random spacing of Romano-British walled towns. Man 6:
391-407.
Jewell, P. A. 1960 The Experimental Earthwork at Overton Down, Wiltshire, 1960. London:
British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Johnson, G. A. 1972 'A test of the utility of Central Place Theory in archaeology', in Ucko P. J.,
Tringham R. and Dimbleby G. (eds.), Man, Settlement and Urbanism. London: Duckworth:
769-85.
Kirkby, A., and Kirkby, M. J. 1976 Geomorphic processes and the surface survey of
archaeological sites in semi-arid areas', in Davidson D. A. and Shackley M. L. (eds.),
Geoarchaeology. London: Duckworth: 229-54.
Michels, J. W. 1979 The Kaminaljuyu Chiefdom. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Rathje, W. L. 1974 The garbage project: a new way of looking at the problems of archaeology.
Archaeology 27: 236-41.
Renfrew, C. 1976 'Archaeology and the earth sciences', in Davidson D. A. and Shackley, M. L.
(eds.), Geoarchaeology: London: Duckworth: 1-5.
Renfrew, C. 1979 Investigations in Orkney. London: Society of Antiquaries.
Renfrew, C. 1981 Space, time and man. Trans. Inst. Brit. Geog. N. S. 6: 257-78.
Sabloff, J. A. (ed.), 1981 Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, I.
Archaeology. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Schiffer, M. B. 1976 Behavioral archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Shelford, P. 1981 The sources and characterisation of Melian obsidian', in Renfrew, C, and
Wagstaff, M. (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: University Press: 182-92.
Torrence, R. 1981 'The obsidian quarries and their use', in Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff, M. (eds.),
An Island Polity. Cambridge: University Press: 193-221.
Trump, D. 1981 'Megalithic architecture in Malta', in Evans, J. D., Cuniliffe, B., and Renfrew, C.
(eds.), Antiquity and Man, Essays in Honour ofGlyn Daniel. London: Thames and Hudson:
128-40.

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 GEOGRAPHY, ARCHAEOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT 323

Tuan, Y.-F. 1971 'Geography, phenomenology and the study of human nature'. Canadian
Geographer 15: 181-92.
Vita-Finzi, C. 1969 The Mediterranean Valleys: Geological Changes in Historical Times.
Cambridge: University Press.
Wagstaff, M. and Cherry, J. F. 1982 'Settlement and resources', in Renfrew, C. and Wagstaff,
J. M. (eds.), An Island Polity. Cambridge: University Press: 246-63.

II. A HUMAN GEOGRAPHER'S VIEW

J. M. WAGSTAFF

THE RELATIONSHIPS
the past. One hundredof archaeology
and fifty yearsand
ago,geography were particularly
classical archaeologist close in
and geographer
were virtually synonymous, as at least one of the founding fathers of the Royal
Geographical Society, Colonel Leake, exemplifies (Leake 1821, 1839, 1857). In more
recent times, scholars such as Crawford, Fleure and, more recently still, Estyn
Evans?to name but a few eminent British examples?made significant contributions
to both fields. At the time, in the early twentieth century, archaeology and geography
shared some aspects of methodology. Both plotted data on maps and compared
distributions in a visual, largely non-statistical fashion (Goudie, 1976). A shared
interest in man-land relationships led archaeologists and geographers into
environmentalism, seeking explanation for human patterns in physical conditions.
Subsequently, the notion of the ecosystem became fashionable (Eyre and Jones, 1966;
Flemming, 1968; Odum, 1971; Stoddart, 1965).
Around the time that ecological ideas were being advanced, geography and
especially human geography was well advanced along the road of methodological
revolution. Amongst its characteristics was an emphasis on rigorous analysis,
hypothesis testing and, above ali, the use of statistical methods (Gregory, 1976).
Archaeology experienced something similar, but with a time-lag. It borrowed heavily at
first from human geography; indeed, Locational Analysis in Human Geography
(Haggett, 1965) and Models in Geography (Chorley and Haggett, 1967) were seminal
works in both disciplines (Green and Haselgrove, 1978). The methodological traffic,
though, was largely one way. Main-stream human geographers borrowed little, if
anything at ali, from archaeology. They had shifted their interests to what we might
simplify as man-man relationships. In the process, they had moved to a closer interest
in pressing contemporary problems, often associated with qualitative differences in
society and frequently orientated towards planning. Meanwhile, explanations east in
terms of genetic or historical sequences ceased to be acceptable. In addition, human
geographers had run into the apparent impasse of being unable to relate social process
to spatial form or, perhaps more precisely, to deduce process from form. The search for
a way forward brought an exploration of behaviourism, then structuralism and
historical materialism, and finally even concern with the basis of knowledge itself
(Johnston, 1979).
If these developments in human geography have been paralleled in the 'new
archaeology', as I believe to be the case, it is because the two disciplines share a
fundamental problem. It is that they have both preferred to start from human artefacts.
In the case of the archaeologist, these are the surviving fragments?often the debris?of
a completed record which can never be wholly recovered. Use of the most ingenious
techniques and the emergence of the most sophisticated insights cannot remove the
basic fact that the preserved record is the only source of information available. Hence,
of course, the importance attached to recovery technique and what might be called the
theory of decay and preservation. The human geographer, working on the present or

?? Dr J. M. Wagstaff is a senior lecturer in the Department of Geography, University of

Southampton, Southampton S09 5NH.

This content downloaded from 130.113.111.210 on Thu, 19 May 2016 22:11:04 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms