Table of Contents

Exploring the real Nature of environmental archaeology. An introduction.- Meaning and Purpose.- Economic prehistory or environmental archaeology? On gaining a sense of identity.- Re-inventing environmental archaeology. A comment on “Economic prehistory or environmental archaeology? On gaining a sense of identity”.- Whose dichotomy is it anyway? A reply to Hamilakis.- Environmental archaeology is not human palaeoecology.- Environmental archaeology is dead: long live bioarchaeology, geoarchaeology and human palaeoecology. A comment on “Environmental archaeology is not human palaeoecology”.- A reply to Thomas.- The poverty of empiricism and the tyranny of theory.- Commercialising the palaeoenvironment. Developer funding and environmental archaeology.- The responsibilities of archaeologists to nature conservation.- Sustainability and the rate of change. A comment on “The responsibilities of archaeologists to nature conservation”.- A reply to Graves-Brown.- What is geoarchaeology? Re-examining the relationship between archaeology and earth sciences.- Is human osteoarchaeology environmental archaeology?.- Case Studies.- The rhetoric of people and grains.- A match made in heaven or a marriage of convenience? The problems and rewards of integrating palaeoecological and archaeological data.- Historical archaeology and new directions in environmental archaeology. Examples from Neolithic Scandinavia and Venezuela (400–1400 AD).- Can’t see the wood for the trees. Interpreting woodland fire history from microscopic charcoal.- The potential for using religious belief to derive environmental information on past societies, with a case study on the environment of Attica.- Reconstructing house activity areas.- Environmental archaeology and the interpretation of socialspace. A comment on “Reconstructing house activity areas”.- When method meets theory. The use and misuse of cereal producer/consumer models in archaeobotany.- Producers and consumers in archaeobotany. A comment on “When method meets theory: the use and misuse of cereal producer/consumer models in archaeobotany”.- Conclusions.- Agendas for environmental archaeology.