Book and cover designChristineKlein,Bremen www.christineklein.nl
Photos
MansSchepers,RenéCappersandIngerWoltingeProduction RoelfBarkhuis www.barkhuis.nl
Financial support StichtingNederlandsMuseumvoor AnthropologieenPraehistorie
© 2014 Mans SchepersAllrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproducedortransmittedinanyform or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any informationstorageorretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwrittenformfromtheauthor. PEOPLE AND VEGETATION Reconstructing vegetation is far from a walk in the park - yet it is a prerequisite for a fuller understanding of past human behaviour in all its aspects. The exploitation of the landscape is not restricted to the direct use of plants. It is the grass we will not let grow under our feet, the forest we cannot see for the trees, and the nettle we are willing to grasp. To reduce vegetation to the berries we chew, the meadows we graze our livestock on, and the oaks we fell to support our roofs is an anthropocentric simplification of the complicated interaction between humans and their environment. This relationship is relevant to, and has been studied from, a variety of perspectives, both historical and contemporary (Sukopp 1969).
ISBN (dissertation edition)Traditionally, archaeological studies (and archaeologists) have split into two camps. On the one hand, there are the so-called 'specialist studies', such as ceramic analysis, lithic analysis, and zooarchaeological analysis. On the other hand,
General introduction 0010there are the more general studies, in which various aspects of one period are brought together. In this tradition, the study of past vegetation would be regarded as a specialist palaeobotanical (also known as archaeobotanical) study. However, the relevance of the natural environment for understanding human behaviour has long been acknowledged by more generalist archaeologists, in some cases as a result of the archaeologist's background in biology or physical geography (two Dutch examples are Louwe Kooijmans [1974, 1985] and Waterbolk [1954]).Two main research questions underlie this study, of which the first governs the second: Is it possible to improve upon the reconstruction of past vegetation at the most detailed level? To answer this first research question, several approaches are adopted. First, the potential of applying both recent and long-established methodology and data from present-day vegetation ecology to archaeobotanical data is explored. Modern ecological field studies are an essential element for the interpretation of the archaeobotanical record (Butzer 1982, 171-172). Second, the relationship between some frequently studied types of archaeological contexts and their botanical composition (as opposed to standing vegetation) is studied in detail. It is alleged that it is possible to successfully address past vegetation composition by seeking novelty in the analysis, rather than by seeking new proxies (stage 5 rather than 4 in Fig. 1.5). In this study, the emphasis lies on the...