Wetland Archaeology and Environments. Regional Issues, Global
Perspectives Edited By M. Lillie & S. Ellis
Oxbow Books, Oxford, 2006, 336pp, 127 b&w illus, 13
tabs, pb ISBN 1842171542 (£19.95)
Wetland Archaeology and Environments. Regional Issues, Global Perspectives
is a collection of 23 papers on wetlands from around the world, and based on a conference
under the same name in 2000. It includes a number of regional archaeologies of wetlands
from nearly every continent (including several from the UK, alongside contributions
from Russia, Sweden, Indonesia, Australia, north America and central Africa) alongside
a number of more general (eg, on wetland science by Mike Corfield) and methodological
papers (eg, on interpreting molluscan assemblages by Paul Davies, non-marine ostracods
by Huw Griffiths and diatoms by Jane Reed). In their introduction and reflection,
the editors present the case for the archaeological study of wetlands with, on the
one hand, the better-than-usual preservation encountered in these anoxic environments
and, on the other, the world-wide threat to many wetlands as their drainage and
exploitation continues apace. All papers in this volume, to varying degrees, present
examples of high quality preservation (eg, the Tumbeagh Bog Body by Nora Bermingham
and most papers incorporate palaeoecological data in their results), whilst four
papers consider aspects of the threats to wetlands (notably In-situ preservation
by Malcolm Lillie).
The most interesting paper, at least for archaeologists working in wetlands, is
Francis Pryor’s ‘Beware the Glutinous Ghetto’. In this short paper, Pryor effectively
argues against a Wetland Archaeology as a distinct (sub-) discipline in archaeology.
Somewhat surprisingly (and unfortunately), the editors do not comment on this evocative
challenge put to them by Pryor in either their introduction or reflection. However,
the arguments in this paper can not go unchallenged, so I’ll pick up the challenge
here.
Let me start by acknowledging full agreement with the key concept of Pryor’s argument,
that is that the isolated study of wetlands is an intellectually mistaken enterprise
as wetlands were never isolated from their surrounding landscape, and ‘people of
the wetlands’ would never recognise this label themselves. However, this is now
an argument increasingly accepted amongst archaeologists working in wetlands and
few if any research projects designed today would consider the isolated study of
wetlands a worthwhile pursuit. In the context of modern wetland research, Pryor’s
argument nevertheless appears as one of the baby-and-the-bathwater. The value of
wetland archaeology lies not in its isolated study, but in the additionality it
has to offer to ‘mainstream’ archaeology.
Initially (say 30 years ago), that additionality lay in the study of large tracts
of low-lying landscapes such as the Somerset Levels and the Fens of East Anglia
that were less well understood that their surrounding environments, a situation
exacerbated by the archaeological application of aerial photography, which did not
work well in areas with near-surface water tables. More recently, that additionality
lay with methodological advances. For example, the use of dendrochronology on wet-preserved
sites shows something of the annual dynamics of the prehistoric past which are impossible
to attain on a non-wetland site where, typically, radiocarbon dates determine the
nearest quarter century (about a whole generation) of a particular event that may
have lasted a day or week. Or, the full integration of archaeological with rich
palaeoenvironmental data remains the preserve of archaeologists working in wetlands,
but this no longer leads automatically to environmental deterministic explanations
of human activity, rather it forms part of the armoury of data that can be used
to understand the diverse relationships between people and their environments. And
in the near future, I foresee that this additionality will be more theoretical,
and may include new ways of conceptualising nature-society relations, including
the relational agency of the human and other-than-human, and suggesting ways in
which such agency can result in hybridity, and the co-constitution of places, and
the well-studied dynamic nature of wetlands can play a pioneering role here. These
arguments for the fully contextualised study of wetlands were the subject of a recent
book (Van de Noort & O’Sullivan 2006) which, perhaps unfortunately, was published
sometime between the original conference and the publication of Wetland Archaeology
and Environments.
Returning to Wetland Archaeology and Environments, the individual papers
in this collection are all very worthwhile and most present results from recent
research that deserves the broader audience sought by this book. Whether the sum
is greater than the parts is, however, debatable and this publication remains something
of an eclectic compilation of research in wet places around the world, without a
clear sense of why these were brought together in this particular book. As such,
it does little to argue against Francis Pryor’s appeal for the demise of Wetland
Archaeology.
Robert Van de Noort
University of Exeter
References
Van de Noort R. & O’Sullivan, A., 2006. Rethinking Wetland Archaeology.
London: Duckworth.
Review Submitted: June 2007
The views expressed in this review are not necessarily those
of the Society or the Reviews Editor.
|