{\rtf1\ansi \deflang1033\deff0{\fonttbl
{\f0\fnil \fcharset0 \fprq2 Times New Roman;}}{\colortbl
\red0\green0\blue0;}
{\stylesheet{\fs20 \snext0 Normal;}
{\s1 \qj\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720  1AutoList1;}
{\s2 \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440  2AutoList1;}
{\s3 \qj\li-1440\sl0  3AutoList1;}
{\s4 \qj\li-1440\sl0  4AutoList1;}
{\s5 \qj\li-1440\sl0  5AutoList1;}
{\s6 \qj\li-1440\sl0  6AutoList1;}
{\s7 \qj\li-1440\sl0  7AutoList1;}
{\s8 \qj\li-1440\sl0  8AutoList1;}
{\s9 \qj\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720  1Paragraph;}
{\s10 \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440  2Paragraph;}
{\s11 \qj\li-1440\sl0  3Paragraph;}
{\s12 \qj\li-1440\sl0  4Paragraph;}
{\s13 \qj\li-1440\sl0  5Paragraph;}
{\s14 \qj\li-1440\sl0  6Paragraph;}
{\s15 \qj\li-1440\sl0  7Paragraph;}
{\s16 \qj\li-1440\sl0  8Paragraph;}
}\margl1440\margr1440\ftnbj\ftnrestart\aftnnar \sectd \sbknone\pgnx6120\pgny15120\endnhere 
{\*\pnseclvl1\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl2\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl3\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxta .}}
{\*\pnseclvl4\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcrm\pnstart1{\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl7\pndec\pnstart1{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl8\pnlcltr\pnstart1{\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1}

\pard \qc\sl0 
{\plain }{\plain \b }{\plain }{\plain \b\fs26 HISTORICAL ECOLOGY: INTEGRATING THE TWO CULTURES}{\plain \b \par
}\pard \qc\sl0 
{\plain \b presented in the symposium\par
}{\plain \b\i Intersections: Interdisciplinary Theory Joining History, Ecology, and the Social Sciences}{\plain \b \par
}{\plain \b American Society for Environmental History\par
}{\plain \b Durham, NC      March 2001\par
}{\plain \b \par
}{\plain \b Carole L. Crumley\par
}{\plain \b crumley@unc.edu\par
}{\plain \b Department of Anthropology\par
}{\plain \b University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill\par
}{\plain \b 27599-3115\par
}\pard \sl0 
{\plain \b \par
}{\pntext\pard 1.	ab}
\pard \s9\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720 {\*\pn \pnlvl1\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}

{\plain \b A Problem of Planetary Proportions\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \b \tab }{\plain We begin this new millennium with twin realizations of enormous implication: humans alter 
the environment and environmental change revises human activity.  Since the mid-20th century the 
evidence has grown that the planet is indeed warming: glaciers are in retreat, sea level is rising, the 
character and abundance of many species\'92 habitats have changed, and altered weather patterns are 
causing catastrophic natural disasters (fires, floods, hurricanes and the like) to increase in number and 
frequency.  We now perceive that humans can cause changes in what we heretofore termed our 
\'93natural\'94 world that have enormous economic, social, political, and health implications.  \par
}{\plain \tab Once opened, our eyes now also see that this complex human-environment dialectic is hardly 
new and that it is the scale of impact that has changed.  The relationship between our species and the 
Earth environment has lasted nearly three million years, during which time human physiological and 
cognitive development was shaped.  The dialectical relationship between powerful evolutionary forces 
and non-genetic behavioral adaptations writes the history of our species.  \par
}{\plain \tab Ten thousand years ago, humans had already set in motion continental-scale effects (the 
extinction of Pleistocene megafauna in North America, the alteration of vegetation in North America 
and Australia).  A few thousand years later, human settlement and land use had altered coastlines, soil 
productivity, and the courses of rivers on every inhabited continent.  By two thousand years ago, ice- 
and sea-cores, vegetation, and other proxy evidence document the effects of deforestation which, 
through agricultural and industrial activities, altered key components of the Earth\'92s atmosphere, 
affected sea level and global average temperatures, and changed climate at the continental scale.\par
}{\plain \tab Humans were, and are, a keystone species: human behavior affects the evolutionary success 
of species other than our own.  As we struggle with huge environmental problems largely of our own 
making, it has become fashionable to demonize the human role altogether.  Yet despite what would 
seem to be ample evidence to the contrary, human modifications to their surroundings are not always 
destructive.  Until the industrial revolution transformed resource use, geography, and demography 
(e.g., intensified urbanization), just the opposite was more common.  The majority of humans did not 
live in cities but in much smaller communities where extraction and consumption patterns were local 
and regional.  Based on lengthy and astute observation of the world around them (referred to as 
cultural knowledge), people can implement strategies and practices that maintain the productivity of 
the environment.  This not to say that non-industrial and non-urban peoples are by definition 
Ecologically Noble, but neither are we humans invariably }{\plain \i Homo devastans }{\plain (Balee 1998:16)}{\plain .  \par
}{\plain \tab Social scientists and humanists have documented many of these environmentally sound and 
organizationally sophisticated solutions to environmental challenges.  For example, a network of 
water temples--the pre-colonial means used in Bali to irrigate rice terraces--maintained community 
values as well as the landscape; researchers seeking  the \'93most efficient\'94 solution to water 
management there discovered that their computer model mirrored the traditional temple-based 
management practice (Lansing 1987, 1991).  In the Amazon basin, certain groups maintain the 
rainforest as if it were a garden: people encourage or discourage certain species, and employ the 
organic soils found at abandoned settlements (Graham 1998; Posey 1998).\par
}{\plain \tab In contrast, an exponential 20}{\plain \super th}{\plain  century acceleration in the rate of change attendant on the 
extraction of fossil fuels has resulted in profound economic, social, and political transformations 
(industrialization, urbanization, globalization).   Among the world\'92s peoples, the}{\plain  impact of urban, 
industrial societies on Earth\'92s resources continues at--even for the 20}{\plain \super th}{\plain  century\'96an unprecedented 
magnitude and speed and at every scale.  What has changed recently is the realization by watchful and 
apprehensive individuals and groups everywhere that the damage to our planet may already be 
irreversible.\par
}{\plain \tab How was the bright promise of a pragmatic bioscience at the dawn of the 20th century 
subverted into eugenics?  How did the rise of eugenics cause a critical collaborative link between 
geography and anthropology to break?  Why was the integrative study of Earth systems sacrificed 
for so long to a rivalry between atmospheric and marine sciences over funding? These are huge 
questions but they require answers; let us look at the broader social, political, and economic context.  
By the middle of the 20th century, a second costly and immensely destructive world war, fought in 
large part over profound ethical differences between the Axis and the Allies, had left most industrial 
nations in ruins.  At the global scale, cities were destroyed, people and landscapes were contaminated, 
and even the most rudimentary environmental management had been everywhere sacrificed to win 
the war. \par
}{\plain \tab In victory, the United States alone enjoyed an expansion of its industrial might and political 
hegemony.   With the aid of military technologies adapted to peacetime and Cold War uses and a GI 
Bill-educated workforce, the 1950s and early 1960s were a time of wide-eyed economic optimism 
and environmental slumber.  Only Rachel Carson, Robert Oppenheimer and a few others warned of 
serious anthropogenic threats to health and the environment posed by burgeoning chemical and fossil 
fuel industries and the unabated production of radioactive materials.  As Big Science gave way to  
budget cuts in the 1980s, the highly technical fields with economic applications (atmospheric and 
marine sciences, geosciences) competed against one another for government support.  Integrative 
projects and many field sciences (e.g., botany, zoology) were eclipsed. With the fall of the Berlin Wall 
in 1989, it could be seen that the impoverished Eastern Bloc countries\'92 extraction and manufacturing 
patterns (if not those of consumption) were worse than but remarkably similar to those in the West.  
Not only had 20th century degradation, some of it irreversible, reached the global scale, but 
integrative scholarship had been caught napping. \par
}{\plain \par
}{\pntext\pard 2.	ab}
\pard \s9\qj\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720 {\*\pn \pnlvl1\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}

{\plain \b Cross-Disciplinary Contributions to Planetary Ecology}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \tab When C. P. Snow first characterized the chasm between the sciences and the humanities as 
the \'93two cultures\'94(1959), there was little urgency to bridge that gap.  Now it is imperative that the 
human use of the earth be understood in an integrated fashion if we are to frame effective 
environmental policies for the future. It is fortunate that, despite obstacles, several 20th century 
disciplinary and cross-disciplinary intellectual traditions have contributed to our ability to link the past 
with the future and  the microscopic with the cosmic.  Herein I briefly review three which might 
leverage the next stage of integration: complex systems theory, multiscale ecology, and 
humanities/social science approaches.\par
}{\plain \b \tab Systems theory.}{\plain   Systems theory was a major influence on ecology from the outset}{\plain  and 
complex systems have been a focus of research since the 1930s (Bateson 1972; Ellen 1982)}{\plain .  T}{\plain he 
benefits of environmental systems thinking are considerable, but there have also been significant 
criticism.  Chief among several issues is the charge that systems thinking is inherently reductionist and 
leads to the study of simpler and simpler systems at more and more minute scales.  }{\plain Just the reverse 
is required if we are to study our planet, the most complex dissipative system known.  Another issue 
is the search by systems ecologists for \'93pristine\'94 ecosystems to study (that is, ones ostensibly 
\'93without human impact\'94) and the tendency to leave time out of their considerations of systemic 
function and structure. These criticisms have resulted in the search for a framework that draws on 
the strengths of systems theory but relates }{\plain myriad anthropogenic and exogenous factors modeled at 
every spatial scale from microscopic to global and at all temporal scales.\par
}{\plain \tab Since its founding in 1984, researchers at the Santa Fe Institute have concentrated on 
understanding complex systems in new ways, which includes re-thinking the relationship between 
mutation and natural selection in evolution and the importance of time.  They and investigators 
elsewhere have developed a new candidate idea: self-organization.  Briefly, they argue that the 
introduction of transmission errors through mutation and the operation of selection do not alone 
explain the complexity that may be seen in myriad living systems, from fireflies to fiddle players.  They 
assert that evolution forces us to see a universe in which randomness alone explains the infinitesimal 
chance that life could be created out of a chemical soup.\par
}{\plain \tab They argue that a second, more fundamental source of order exists, called self-organization.  
This means that there is a synergy that comes from communication, and that two (or more) 
communicating entities have different properties than each alone or their non-communicating kin.  
Groups of communicating organisms, if sufficiently diverse, can become self-sustaining, i.e., alive; 
this is termed }{\plain \ul autopoiesis}{\plain .  Thereby they may be transformed into a more complex system, the step-wise evolution of which is termed }{\plain \ul anagenesis}{\plain  (Jantsch 1982:345; Kauffman 1995:64).  Autopoiesis 
is also referred to as receiver-based communication, where all agents report to other agents what is 
happening to them (Kauffman 1995:267; Langton 1992).  The human body is an example of 
autopoiesis; the evolution of the human mind is an example of anagenesis (Mithen 1996).\par
}{\plain \tab The development of communication is important for both the emergence of cognition in 
human history and the coupling of humans within a social domain (Fleener and Pourdavood1997:10).  
Autopoiesis--the self-renewing, autonomous, reproductive aspect of self-organization\'96may be related 
to two levels of communication, language and social structure.  That relation persists in the form of 
social memory (McIntosh 2000), which is collectively stored and passed on from generation to 
generation (Crumley 2000; Gunn 1994).  This is, of course, an essential definition of culture and a 
valuable entry point for the social sciences. \par
}{\plain    \tab The governing assumption in self-organization research is holism, the idea that an organism 
is more than just the sum of its parts.  The self-organization researchers are critical of reductionist 
scientific endeavor, where the basic assumption has been that if the entity (living or not) can be 
broken down into its constituent parts, its behavior can be understood.  \par
}{\plain \tab The Santa Fe scholars and their colleagues do not advocate the abandonment of Darwinian 
evolution as a central paradigm, but rather the }{\plain \i addition}{\plain  of self-organization.  Together, they argue, 
selection and self-organization form the structure of the universe; neither alone suffices.  Together, 
Darwinian evolution and self-organization bring order from chaos: self-organization creates new 
forms and evolution judges their goodness of fit.  Each new stage of organization has the potential 
for further evolution (De Greene 1996:276), emphasizing the transformative nature of 
communication.}{\plain   This new systems thinking has opened an important door between the social and 
biophysical sciences, in that systems thinking has been revised to accommodate the collective 
knowledge based impacts (religion, politics, systems of formal knowledge such as science) of human 
cognition.  }{\plain }{\plain \b \par
}{\plain \b \tab Multiscale Ecology.}{\plain   First used by natural scientists in the late nineteenth century, the term 
ecology (from the Greek }{\plain \ul oikos}{\plain , dwelling) emphasizes the reciprocal relationships among living and 
nonliving elements of our world.  Growing in concert with systems theory, ecology had emerged as 
a discipline in its own right by the 1960s.  The generation that came of age at about the same time 
our species first set foot off-planet (1969) could hardly help but note the contrast between American 
postwar materialism and the growing human, economic, and environmental toll in Viet Nam.  They 
were the first eager students of the new academic discipline of ecology, which became for them a 
shorthand for the relation of our species to all facets of its }{\plain \ul oikos}{\plain . That first view of the blue planet 
and the compelling spirituality of the Gaia hypothesis embraced a definition of ecology---broadly 
integrative relationships among living organisms and the physical environment--- that includes all 
scales (local to global) of relations among living and nonliving elements, including humans.\par
}{\plain \tab The discipline of ecology has since bifurcated and its emphasis has undergone a scalar shift.  
Today microecology, with ties through cell and molecular biology and genomics to schools of 
medicine and public health, dominates the field; macroecology (e.g., wildlife ecology, landscape 
ecology, Earth systems ecology) trains fewer practitioners and garners fewer research dollars than 
its larger and better-connected twin.  Although Russian scientists pioneered the concept (refs), only 
recently has the West perceived the need for a global-scale ecology.  Broader scale ecologies (e.g., 
landscape ecology) are increasingly important, but lessons from the social sciences and humanities 
have been incorporated slowly therein.  For example many landscape ecologists conceive ecosystems 
as "natural" and human presence there as invariably  negative.  Even the scholarly presence of the 
research scientists themselves is to be avoided (e.g., Naveh and Lieberman 1990; Forman and Godron 
1986).  This attitude is slowly beginning to change, as journals such as }{\plain \i Landscape Ecology}{\plain , 
}{\plain \i Ecological Restoration}{\plain  and }{\plain \i Ecological Applications}{\plain  offer a forum for integrated approaches.\par
}{\plain \tab }{\plain \b Humanities/Social Science Collaborations:}{\plain  }{\plain \i Environmental history, human ecology, and 
historical geography}{\plain .  Environmental historians have made an earnest attempt to address the two 
cultures, and have enjoyed considerable popular success (e.g., Cronon 1983, 1995; Crosby 1986, 
1994; Worster 1977, 1993).  However, historians are often perceived as without appropriate 
credentials to comment on scientific subjects, and integrated research with natural scientists remains 
rare.  The reason may most clearly be seen in the mutual disdain in which scientific and humanistic 
methods are held.  Ingerson (1994) has found that historians consider scientists\'92 mostly quantitative 
methods mechanistic and their findings trivial; scientists consider historians' mostly qualitative 
approaches imprecise and their styles of argumentation histrionic. Thus, while historians rightly 
concentrate on both intended and unintended consequences of human action and offer powerful 
examples of the plastic role of history and culture, they usually have less command of the biophysical 
systems that further condition human activity.  It is also true that scientists remain largely naive about 
how their \'93natural\'94 systems are shaped by politics, belief and other aspects of society.\par
}{\plain \tab Although logically the social sciences should be able to arbitrate this sciences vs. humanities 
standoff, additional difficulties present themselves.  Economists were recruited early to help shape 
environmental policy, and went to work forging axioms; like those of microecology, however, rule-based microeconomic prescriptions are criticized as reductionist.  Furthermore, the grand economic 
theories that guided the triumph of capitalism now also appear much less certain; for example, 
attempts to calculate the price of intangibles (values, beliefs) has proven distasteful and empirically 
questionable to social scientists and humanists whose methods are not solely quantitative (Johnston 
2001; Tsing 2001).  \par
}{\plain \tab Among social scientists, geographers and anthropologists employ both qualitative (more 
humanistic) and quantitative (more scientific) methods, and generally appreciate both scientific and 
humanistic reasoning.  However, anthropology and geography enjoy neither the recognition and 
popular following of history, nor the seductive effects of economic dogma, dressed up in hard 
numbers, to the policy community.  \par
}{\plain \tab Like ecology, the discipline of geography split in two for economic reasons.  After World War 
II, those trained in new quantitative and cartographic approaches readily found jobs in a world tired 
of ideology but still enthusiastic about science.  Recently their numbers have again increased as 
remote sensing, GIS, and other computer-based applications continue to shoulder aside historical and 
cultural geography.  \par
}{\plain \tab In anthropology, the subdisciplines that routinely investigate the human-environment relation 
are human ecology (also termed cultural or social ecology), archaeology, and physical anthropology.  
Since the first decades of the century, when Boas defended the role of culture against the 
determinisms (social, racial, environmental), the anthropological subdisciplines most closely allied 
with the sciences have been marginalized within anthropology and stigmatized in some quarters 
because of their association with the sciences (Crumley n.d.).\par
}{\plain \tab Although the intellectual premise of both geography and anthropology should sustain a bridge 
between the two cultures, scarce resources and old animosities make geographers and anthropologists 
competitors more often than collaborators.  Despite their logical and pivotal position at the center 
of the human/environment relation, neither geography or anthropology, nor any other social science 
discipline, has offered a comprehensive, historically sentient scheme for understanding how humans 
relate to their immediate, regional, and planetary domicile: }{\plain \ul oikos}{\plain  in its most inclusive sense.\par
}{\plain \par
}{\pntext\pard 3.	ab}
\pard \s9\qj\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720 {\*\pn \pnlvl1\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}

{\plain \b Historical Ecology: a Contemporary Synthesis}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \tab  We cannot, however, conclude that collective effort is impossible.  Clearly, humans must 
respond }{\plain \i both}{\plain  to global changes that make local differences }{\plain \i and }{\plain to local practices that drive global 
change, employing every means at our disposal.  We must search for common ground, in relatively 
new terrain and on relatively neutral terms. The term }{\plain \i environment}{\plain  must encompass the built 
environment, the cultural landscape, and nature wild and tame.}{\plain  The definition of }{\plain \i ecology}{\plain  must include 
humans as a component of all ecosystems.  The term }{\plain \i history}{\plain  must include that of the earth system as 
well as that of our species. }{\plain \b \par
}{\plain \b }{\plain \tab Construction of an integrated framework has proven difficult.  One issue has been the scalar 
incompatibility of human activity with planetary-scale atmospheric phenomena.  Patterns of settlement 
and land use, emissions, and extractive procedures must be investigated at regional and local scales.  
On the other hand, collective response to global-scale changes (e.g., climate) must be verified at the 
macro scale through methods involving parallel change events in widely dispersed regions.  Growing 
scientific understanding of the interconnectivity of the atmosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and 
geosphere in the global system provides reasonable background cause-and-effect linkages and 
cyclicity, but wide-ranging social science theory and methods are needed to monitor and evaluate 
human activity at all temporal and spatial scales.  Without environmental and cultural information at 
local and regional scales, there exists no opportunity to test and refine global models; without 
planetary-scale confirmation of the long-term effects of human activity, arguments over values 
(embedded, among other things, in environmental policy) will continue without action.  Inaction is 
potentially lethal to our species.}{\plain \b \par
}{\plain \b \tab Historical ecology}{\plain  explores complex chains of mutual causation in human-environment 
relations, drawing on concepts from the biological and physical sciences and ecology, and from social 
sciences and humanities disciplines.  The practice of historical ecology draws a picture of human-environment relations in a particular place and over a specified period of time by integrating a broad 
spectrum of evidence from every discipline.  Focusing on the unique characteristics of place, historical 
ecologists identify: (1) extant environmental and cultural evidence for the region in question (baseline 
data); (2) the range of current practices likely to be impacted by environmental change (impacts); (3) 
traditional and innovative adaptive strategies, appropriate to the region, to the culture(s) affected, and 
to the nature and magnitude of the anticipated change (effective responses), and (4) the means by 
which such adaptations might be fostered (policy). \par
}{\plain \tab The term historical ecology\'96new to both ecology and history--was chosen in an effort to 
foster collaboration in two crucial social science disciplines (anthropology and geography) and among 
several hybrid fields (e.g., environmental history, environmental sociology, landscape ecology) that 
seek to mend the divide between the two cultures.  While environmental history has a distinguished 
and somewhat parallel development among historians, the more inclusive term historical ecology 
facilitates intra- and interdisciplinary collaboration in the study of changing human-environment 
relations.\par
}{\plain \tab Don S. Rice attributes first use of the term to the archaeological palynologist Edward S. 
Deevey, who directed the Historical Ecology Project at the University of Florida in the early 1970s.  
Although historian J. Donald Hughes uses the term environmental history in his own 1975 book}{\plain , he 
and anthropologists, a human ecologist, an economist, and other historians contributed to}{\plain \i  Historical 
Ecology: Essays on Environment and Social Change}{\plain , edited by fellow historian Lester J. Bilsky, in 
1981.  Anthropologist Alice Ingerson organized a session on historical ecology at the 1984 American 
Anthropological Association annual meeting.  She sought to address the chasm between cultural (e.g., 
nature as metaphor) and environmental (energy cycles) studies in anthropology, and to explore 
political economy and social history approaches.  \par
}{\plain \tab I first used the term as the title of a chapter in }{\plain \i Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes 
in Historical Perspective}{\plain , a 1987 book I edited with William H. Marquardt.  I subsequently edited 
a School of American Research volume entitled }{\plain \i Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and 
Changing Landscapes}{\plain  (1994) and have published several other articles.  Since 1998 William Balee 
and I have edited the }{\plain \i Historical Ecology Series}{\plain  for Columbia University Press (Balee 1998; McIntosh 
et al. 2000).  Dave Egan and Evelyn A. Howell have edited the brand new  }{\plain \i Historical Ecology 
Handbook: A Restorationist\'92s Guide to Reference Ecosystems}{\plain  (2001).  A recent search of websites 
employing the term found dozens of references representing a variety of projects in ecological history.  
Most--although not all--of these sites explicitly address the relation between the environment and 
human activity. \par
}{\plain \tab Current projects in historical ecology develop rules for treating diverse evidentiary categories 
(e.g., all lines of evidence must initially be treated as independent).  Multiple cause-and-effect 
relationships must also be presumed, that provide an important cross-check on physical environmental 
data and on instrumental records.  Other work relates the history of place and the politics of 
compliance and links scientific and  institutional goals with public awareness and participation.  The 
political and historical study of collaborative schemes for solving differences of opinion on 
environmental issues (matrix organization, collective bargaining, stakeholder participation, the 
European Union\'92s term }{\plain \i concertation}{\plain , meaning dialogue, cooperation) has underscored the formative 
and transformative aspects of environmental values and perceptions.  \par
}{\plain \tab The development of an interdisciplinary grammar and  the identification of shared concepts 
and understandings is also well along.  For example, the term }{\plain \i landscape }{\plain is a unit of analysis in several 
disciplines (geography, archaeology, ecology, geomorphology, architecture, art, regional planning).  
Broadly defined as the spatial manifestation of the relations between humans and their environment 
(Marquardt and Crumley 1987:1), landscapes offer several advantages. The study of changes in the 
temporal and spatial configurations of landscapes (a traditional pursuit of archaeology), in conjunction 
with work in cognition, offers practical means of integrating the natural and social sciences and the 
humanities.  Landscapes record both intentional and unintentional acts; in its study, }{\plain \i both }{\plain humans' role 
in the modification of the global ecosystem }{\plain \i and}{\plain  the importance of past events in shaping human 
choice and action can be assessed.  Since cultural understandings undergird decisions about which 
practices are maintained or modified and which ideas are given substance, landscapes retain the 
physical evidence of these understandings.  Such common terms, especially when their variant 
meanings stimulate discussion, help integrate diverse evidence.  \par
}{\plain \tab Perhaps the most important characteristic of historical ecology is that it celebrates }{\plain \i both}{\plain  the 
open-mindedness of scientific inquiry }{\plain \i and }{\plain the phenomenological intensity of human experience.  The 
historical ecology of any part of the world is always an unfinished manuscript, passed from hand to 
hand, critiqued, debated, amended, revised.  The approach fosters creative thinking about the 
mitigation of contemporary problems and encourages locally- and regionally-developed answers to 
global situations in which sensitive cultural issues play an important part.  It is, after all, through 
reflection upon intended and unintended change that all people are moved to action.  \par
}{\plain \tab Historical ecology offers an important opportunity for anthropologists, archaeologists, 
historians, and geographers to demonstrate the relevance of work in which they have been engaged 
for a century.  Such an interdisciplinary approach is traditional for archaeologists, who routinely 
consult science and humanities colleagues or have training themselves in these disciplines.  
Archaeology provides the temporal and spatial breadth required for long-term ecological analysis.\par
}{\plain \tab Environmental historians critically examine documents for evidence of human actions, 
relations, and attitudes.  Historical evidence about past ecosystems may be divided into written (e.g., 
diaries, government documents), oral (e.g., stories about storms or pest invasions), and visual (e.g., 
dated drawings of Alpine glaciers documenting advances and retreats).  Such information provides 
an important cross-check on scientific data, such as varves in lake sediments or air bubbles trapped 
in ice cores or instrumental records.\par
}{\plain \tab Based on observations and understandings, ethnographers study customs which guide 
adaptive strategies.  The memories and opinions living peoples have about their region are a rich and 
relatively untapped resource in contemporary environmental impact studies.  This information is 
transferred--whether in complex ritual behavior or in casual conversation--between and across 
generations; in addition to patterns of material relations with the environment, cognitive patterns are 
also transmitted. \par
}{\plain \tab These tactics for the study of human society are augmented by exciting research in every 
branch of environmental science.  From pollen analysis to fluvial geomorphology, from glaciology 
to atmospheric chemistry, proxy measures of planetary health enable us to establish baselines for 
change in the Earth system.  The International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, which began with 
a worldwide monitoring project (the 1958 International Geophysical Year), is now linked to other 
international scientific organizations, }{\plain  national research and data-gathering institutions (e.g., the U.S. 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), and scholarly societies (e.g., the American 
Geophysical Union).  Although it is still incomplete,}{\plain  our understanding of Earth history has been 
significantly advanced in the last quarter century.  The exciting new discipline of geomatics is a 
computer-based means of integrating spatial data including everything from ground penetrating radar 
and satellite imagery to antique maps and photographs.  Geomatics, especially geographic information 
systems (GIS), marks a quantum leap in our ability to manipulate and store time-sensitive spatial data.\par
}{\plain \tab In sum, a powerful array of conceptual and practical tools has been combined into a toolbox 
termed historical ecology, permitting the integrated investigation of ecosystemic change at global, 
regional, and local scales.  The brief few million year human time frame can be compared with the 
billions of years of Earth history; local and regional changes can be compared and contrasted with 
measures that reflect the state of the Earth system as a whole.  We have the means by which we can 
study ourselves as a conscious species in conjunction with the history of our planet.\par
}{\plain \par
}{\pntext\pard 4.	ab}
\pard \s9\qj\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720 {\*\pn \pnlvl1\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}

{\plain \b  Where is Historical Ecology Employed?}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \tab Archaeologists, who must always place human activity in its environmental context, have 
pioneered the integration of biophysical data with evidence of human activity.  Their theoretical and 
methodological insights may be traced in the history of 20th century archaeology; it is then not 
surprising that the earliest practitioners of  historical ecology were archaeologists.  What is new for 
archaeologists is the planetary scale of thinking about the human-environment interface (Tainter 
2000).\par
}{\plain \tab Restoration ecologists also must struggle with local and regional ecohistories and with the 
political, social, and economic implications of landscape restoration projects; it is then impossible for 
restoration ecologists to do their job without integrating biotic and social communities at multiple 
temporal and spatial scales.  What is new for restoration ecologists is the realization that the cultural 
component of landscapes is as important as the physical and biotic components for the success of 
their projects (Egan and Howell 2001).\par
}{\plain \tab The National Science Foundation\'92s Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) projects in 
ecosystem history are now twenty years old and number twenty-two sites.  The newest of these are 
two urban ecosystems, Central Arizona-Phoenix and Baltimore.  In them, NSF\'92s LTER project has 
stepped into the future, as now over half of the world\'92s population lives in cities and that percentage 
is expected to steadily increase.  It is imperative that we learn how cities can become part of the 
global system without permanent damage.  What is new for many LTER ecologists is accepting 
human activity as a part of \'91natural\'92 systems (http://www.lternet.edu/Newsletter/).\par
}{\plain \tab At the global level, international institutions (the International Geosphere-Biosphere Project 
(IGBP), the World Meteorological Organization, the United Nations\'92 }{\plain International Council of 
Scientific Unions (ICSU),  United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization 
(UNESCO), the Scientific Committee on the Protection of the Environment (SCOPE), and the 
International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) are searching for the means by which global-scale 
changes can be related to local- and regional-scale activity.  What is new for these organizations is 
the realization that both cultural and biophysical differences among regions preclude the success of 
top-down models of ecosystemic change (Oldfield 1993, 2000).\par
}{\plain \tab Finally, policy makers must address myriad issues (e.g., agricultural and industrial 
productivity, insurance, health) in which human and environmental conditions are inextricable.  Not 
only must they respond to emergencies but anticipate future crises.  The only laboratory we have is 
the past, and we must make the best of the analytic resources we have.  What is new for policy 
makers is the realization that both culture (there is no reform without compliance), and scale (there 
must be a framework to understand changes that occur well beyond their jurisdictions) count 
(Johnston 2001).\par
}{\plain \par
}{\pntext\pard 5.	ab}
\pard \s9\qj\fi-720\li720\sl0\tx720 {\*\pn \pnlvl1\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang{\pntxta .}}

{\plain \b A Research Design for the Planet}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \tab Our world is framed by earth and sky.  Thus geology (from plate tectonics to geomorphology)  
and astronomy (atmospheric sciences) are central to a comprehensive research design.  We continue 
to revise hypotheses about how the fundamental life-sustaining force of the sun affects our planet.  
The last decade has been given over to understanding water, the other mediating player in the Earth 
system.  The planet\'92s great oceans and fresh waters and their states (ice, water, vapor) and biotic 
resources in the water and on land are important registers of change.  This research has been well 
funded nationally and internationally for a half century and we are slowly increasing our 
understanding of these central elements and their relations. \par
}{\plain \tab I have outlined the need for an integrated approach to join the human sciences with research 
on Earth\'92s physical system, and of the urgency with which we must proceed.  It is critical that we 
settle on a flexible research design to address issues that will shape our human future.  We must 
construct a scheme--such as historical ecology, which is itself unfinished and incomplete--that can 
make use of appropriate information, whatever its form and from whatever discipline.  We must 
devise a method for settling disputes about environmental issues in the larger society; here, a 
promising \'93multiple stakeholder\'94 model has been used in Europe, the United States, and Canada 
(Poncelet 2001).  The stakeholder model assumes that while some conflict is due to misunderstanding 
and can be alleviated by moderated dialogue, other areas represent profoundly differing views of the 
world.  Nonetheless, participants can find areas of agreement which can be acted upon even when the 
rationales for action differ. \par
}{\plain \tab A final pair of issues that must be resolved are in the purview of the humanities.  On the first 
issue, there is help from the new complex systems thinking, from philosophy, and in the critique of 
modernism.  The arrow of causation in the evolution of all systems must be seen to be two way; that 
is, we are not inevitably on a rising stair of human accomplishment but can find ourselves in the blink 
of an eye in a condition much more dire and hopeless than any time in that part of human history red 
in tooth and claw.  The new systems thinking visualizes human evolution as a phase change, like ice 
to water, in the context of an immense system of myriad properties and relations.  As a species like 
any other, there is no guarantee of progress.  Our peculiarly Human dream of control of Nature must 
be abandoned.  We must learn, not attempt to teach.\par
}{\plain \tab A second, related issue returns us to the Two Cultures dilemma.  In the last few centuries we 
have described our world in mechanistic terms, denying spirituality as an essential characteristic of 
the human species.  We have allowed pragmatic arguments to triumph in almost every quarter, and 
to relegate emotions to a small, closely moderated compartment of our psyche.  Our human 
forebearers made no such foolish mistake: the sun, the heavens, the earth, the waters, and our fellow 
creatures were all sacred.  While they too made management mistakes, they never lost sight of the 
integrated nature of the Universe.  We must attempt to retrieve this lost insight.\par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}\pard \qc\sl0 
{\plain References Cited\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Balee, William \par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1998\tab Introduction.  }{\plain \ul Advances in Historical Ecology}{\plain , William Balee, editor, pp. 1-29.  }{\plain \i Series 
in Historical Ecology}{\plain , William Balee and Carole L. Crumley, eds.  New York: 
Columbia University Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Balee, William, ed.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1998\tab }{\plain \ul Advances in Historical Ecology}{\plain .  }{\plain \i Series in Historical Ecology}{\plain , William Balee and 
Carole L. Crumley, eds.  New York: Columbia University Press.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Bateson, Gregory\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1972\tab }{\plain \ul Steps Toward an Ecology of Mind}{\plain .  New York: Ballentine.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Bilsky, Lester J., ed.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1980\tab }{\plain \ul Historical Ecology: Essays on Environment and Social Change}{\plain .  Port Washington 
NY: Kennikat Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Cronon, William J. \par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1983\tab }{\plain \ul Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England}{\plain .  New 
York: Hill and Wang.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1995\tab }{\plain \ul Uncommon Ground: Toward Reinventing Nature}{\plain .  New York: Norton.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Crosby, Alfred W.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1986\tab }{\plain \ul Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900.}{\plain   Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1994\tab }{\plain \ul Germs, Seeds, and Animals: Studies in Ecological History}{\plain .  Armonk NY: Sharpe.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain }{\plain Crumley, Carole L.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2000\tab From Garden to Globe: Linking Time and Space with Meaning and Memory.  }{\plain \ul The 
Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action}{\plain . Roderick McIntosh, 
Joseph A. Tainter, and Susan Keech McIntosh, eds., pp. 193-208.}{\plain   }{\plain \i Series in 
Historical Ecology}{\plain , William H. Balee and Carole L. Crumley, eds.  New York: 
Columbia University Press.}{\plain }{\plain  }{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab n.d.\tab A History that Stalks the Present: Disciplinary Schismogenesis and the Spectre of 
Environmental Determinism.  Ms. on file.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Crumley, Carole L., ed.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1994\tab }{\plain \ul Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes}{\plain .  Albuquerque: 
School of American Research Press.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2001\tab }{\plain \ul New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections}{\plain .  Walnut Creek: 
Altamira Press.  \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain \par
}{\plain Crumley, Carole L. and William H. Marquardt, eds.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1987\tab }{\plain \ul Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective}{\plain .  San Diego: 
Academic Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain De Greene, Kenyon B.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1996\tab Field-Theoretic Framework for the Interpretation of the Evolution, Instability, 
Structural Change, and Management of Complex Systems.  L. Douglas Kiel and Euel 
Elliott, eds., }{\plain \ul Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications}{\plain .  
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Egan, Dave and Evelyn A. Howell, eds.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2001\tab }{\plain \ul The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationist\'92s Guide to Reference 
Ecosystems}{\plain .  Washington: Island Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Ellen, Roy\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1982\tab }{\plain \ul Environment, Subsistence, System: The Ecology of Small Scale Social Formations}{\plain .  
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Fleener, M. Jayne and Roland G. Pourdavood\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1997\tab Autopoesis and Change: Ontological Considerations and Implications of School 
Reform.  Ms.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Forman, Richart T. T. and Michel Godron\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1986\tab }{\plain \ul Landscape Ecology}{\plain .  New York: Wiley and Sons.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Goodwin, Brian\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1994\tab }{\plain \ul How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity}{\plain .  London: 
Weidenfeld & Nicholson.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Graham, Elizabeth\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1998\tab Metaphor and Metamorphism: Some Thoughts on Environmental Metahistory.  
}{\plain \ul Advances in Historical Ecology}{\plain , William Balee, ed., pp. 119-137.  }{\plain \i Historical Ecology 
Series}{\plain , William Balee and Carole L. Crumley, eds.  New York: Columbia University 
Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Gunn, Joel D.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1994\tab Global Climate and Regional Biocultural Diversity.  }{\plain \ul Historical Ecology: Cultural 
Knowledge and Changing Landscapes}{\plain , Carole L. Crumley, ed., pp. 67-97.  Santa Fe: 
School of American Research.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Ingerson, Alice E.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1994\tab Tracking and Testing the Nature/Culture Dichotomy in Practice.  }{\plain \ul Historical Ecology: 
Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes}{\plain , Carole L. Crumley, ed., pp. 43-66.  
Albuquerque: School of American Research Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Jantsch, Erich\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1982\tab From Self-Reference to Self-Transcendance: The Evolution of Self-Organization 
Dynamics.  William C. Schieve and Peter M. Allen, eds., }{\plain \ul Self-Organization and 
Dissipative Structures: Applications in the Physical and Social Sciences}{\plain .  Austin: 
University of Texas Press.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Johnston, Barbara Rose\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2001\tab Anthropology and Environmental Justice: Analysts, Advocates, Mediators, and 
Troublemakers.  }{\plain \ul New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections}{\plain ., 
Carole L. Crumley, ed., pp. 132-149.  Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.  \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Kauffman, Stuart A.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1993\tab }{\plain \ul The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution}{\plain .  New York: 
Oxford University Press.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1995\tab }{\plain \ul At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity}{\plain .  
New York: Oxford University Press.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Langton, C. G., ed.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1992\tab }{\plain \ul Artificial Life II: Proceedings of the Workshop on Artificial Life}{\plain .  Santa Fe, NM.  
Redwood City: Addison-Wesley.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Lansing, Stephen J. \par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1987\tab Balinese Water Temples and the Management of Irrigation.  }{\plain \ul American Anthropologist}{\plain  
89:326-341. \par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1991\tab }{\plain \ul Priests and Programmers: Technologies of Power in the Engineered Landscape of 
Bali}{\plain .  Princeton: Princeton University Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain McIntosh, Roderick, Joseph A. Tainter, and Susan Keech McIntosh, eds.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2000\tab }{\plain \ul The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action}{\plain .  }{\plain \i Series in Historical 
Ecology}{\plain , William H. Balee and Carole L. Crumley, eds.  New York: Columbia 
University Press.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Mithen, Steven\par
}\pard \qj\fi-720\li1440\sl0 
{\plain 1996\tab }{\plain \ul The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science}{\plain .  
London: Thames and Hudson.}{\plain \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Moran, Emilio F. (ed.)\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1990\tab }{\plain \ul The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept tp Practice}{\plain .  Ann Arbor: 
University of Michigan Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Naveh, Zev and Arthur S. Lieberman\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1990\tab }{\plain \ul Landscape Ecology: Theory and Application}{\plain .  Student ed.  New York: Springer-Verlag.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Oldfield, Frank\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1993\tab Forward to the Past: Changing Approaches to Quaternary Palaeoecology.  }{\plain \ul Climate 
Change and Human Impact on the Landscape}{\plain , F. M. Chambers, ed.  London: 
Chapman Hall.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab ????\tab Palaeoenvironmental Narrative and Scenario Science.  Encyclopaedia of Geography.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Poncelet, Eric C.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2001\tab The Discourse of Environmental Partnerships.    }{\plain \ul New Directions in Anthropology and 
Environment: Intersections}{\plain ., Carole L. Crumley, ed., pp. 273-291.  Walnut Creek: 
Altamira Press.  \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Posey, Darrell A.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1998\tab Diachronic Ecotones and Anthropogenic Landscapes in Amazonia: Contesting the 
Consciousness of Conservation.  }{\plain \ul Advances in Historical Ecology}{\plain , William Balee, ed., 
pp. 104-118.  }{\plain \i Historical Ecology Series}{\plain , William Balee and Carole L. Crumley, eds.  
New York: Columbia University Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Snow, C. P.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1959\tab }{\plain \ul The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution}{\plain .  New York: Cambridge University 
Press.\par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain \par
}{\plain Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 2001\tab Nature in the Making.  }{\plain \ul New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: 
Intersections}{\plain ., Carole L. Crumley, ed., pp. 3-23.  Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.  \par
}\pard \qj\sl0 
{\plain Worster, Donald \par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1977\tab }{\plain \ul Nature\'92s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas}{\plain .  New York: Cambridge University 
Press.\par
}\pard \qj\fi-1440\li1440\sl0\tx720\tx1440 
{\plain \tab 1993\tab }{\plain \ul The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological Imagination}{\plain .  New 
York: Oxford University Press.}}