This is an old post and is probably extremely cringe. Please understand that I have moved on from these ideas. Still, it may contain some nuggets that point to some continuity in my thinking over the years, which is why I decided to post it here.
Archaeology and the Anthropocene
I’ve been hearing bits and pieces about a concept called the anthropocene, a proposed geological epoch that marks the span in which humans have substantially impacted the environment. According to wikipedia the term was coined in the mid 1980s, but it seems to have caught on among geologists and climate scientists in light of all the evidence pointing towards human involvement in global warming and climate change. While we can definitely say that we live in the anthropocene today, the beginning point of this era is open-ended. There are those who believe that the anthropocene began during the mid 19th century with european industrialization, but other stances assert that the starting point should be pushed back 2000 years ago under the reasoning that some of the largest empires recognized by climate scientists sprang up around this time, or even 15,000 years ago when humans began to dabble with plant domestication and the construction of architecture. Arguments can be made to some degree for all of these propositions, but what I’m really peeved about is the fact that no archaeologists, anthropologists, historians or classicists are getting substantially involved.
Last week an article was published in the newly minted journal The Anthropocene Review titled The technofossil record of humans. Here’s the abstract:
As humans have colonised and modified the Earth’s surface, they have developed progressively more sophisticated tools and technologies. These underpin a new kind of stratigraphy, that we term technostratigraphy, marked by the geologically accelerated evolution and diversification of technofossils –– the preservable material remains of the technosphere (Haff 2014), driven by human purpose and transmitted cultural memory, and with the dynamics of an emergent system. The technosphere, present in some form for most of the Quaternary, shows several thresholds. Its expansion and transcontinental synchronisation in the mid 20th century has produced a global technostratigraphy that combines very high time-resolution, great geometrical complexity and wide (including transplanetary) extent. Technostratigraphy can help characterise the deposits of a potential Anthropocene Epoch and its emergence marks a step change in planetary mode.
To any archaeologists this may seem a bit bizarro. It seems like the authors are simply switching out terms for ones that fit a common theme. Here’s a breakdown:
Technofossil = Artefact
Technostratigraphy = Assemblage
Technosphere = Society
While I am not against the integration of archaeological perspectives within geologic- or atmospheric-based research, I am a bit amazed that the authors of this paper aren’t aware of much of the effort to investigate human-landscape interaction in the social sciences over the last few decades. I’m pretty sure the main participants in the anthropocene discussion are geologists, palaeontologists or climate scientists whose primary focus is the environment itself, but when discussing human processes that may have had a substantial impact don’t you think it would be wise to call upon the already-extensive base of knowledge devised by specialists devoted to this field of research?
But what about the lack of effort made by archaeologists? We complain about hyper-specialization, lack of public engagement and troubles on the job market, but here is a new field wanting to implement the ideas that we take for granted. Not only can we introduce a fresh perspective to this emerging field, but this kind of research is actually on people’s minds. News about climate change, including evidence for it in antiquity, is all over the place, reported by major outlets and smaller blogs alike. There may even be potential for archaeological research to be cited in parliamentary debates!
Essentially, what I’m saying is that there are reasons to involve archaeological research in discussions surrounding the anthropocene that would benefit all parties. Moreover, what’s stopping classicists or historians from getting involved as well? Why not try to establish ourselves more firmly in other fields of research that touches upon our own?