Content uploaded by Ariane Burke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ariane Burke on Jul 23, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Julien Riel-Salvatore
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Julien Riel-Salvatore on Jul 22, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
PERSPECTIVE
Thearchaeologyofclimatechange:Thecasefor
cultural diversity
Ariane Burke
a,1
, Matthew C. Peros
b
, Colin D. Wren
c
, Francesco S. R. Pausata
d
, Julien Riel-Salvatore
a
,
Olivier Moine
e
, Anne de Vernal
d
, Masa Kageyama
f
, and Solène Boisard
a
Edited by Dolores R. Piperno, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, and approved June 15, 2021 (received for review May 18, 2021)
Anthropogenic climate change is currently driving environmental transformation on a scale and at a pace
that exceeds historical records. This represents an undeniably serious challenge to existing social, political,
and economic systems. Humans have successfully faced similar challenges in the past, however. The
archaeological record and Earth archives offer rare opportunities to observe the complex interaction
between environmental and human systems under different climate regimes and at different spatial and
temporal scales. The archaeology of climate change offers opportunities to identify the factors that
promoted human resilience in the past and apply the knowledge gained to the present, contributing a
much-needed, long-term perspective to climate research. One of the strengths of the archaeological
record is the cultural diversity it encompasses, which offers alternatives to the solutions proposed from
within the Western agro-industrial complex, which might not be viable cross-culturally. While contempo-
rary climate discourse focuses on the importance of biodiversity, we highlight the importance of cultural
diversity as a source of resilience.
archaeology
|
climate change
|
cultural diversity
|
resilience
|
climate science
Current efforts to curb global warming have been
largely ineffective and future climate scenarios predict
that global temperatures will rise from +2.6 to +4.8 °C
(and as much as +8 °C in the Arctic) by the end of the
century (Fig. 1) (1–3). The scope of the ecological
transformations that could occur beyond 2100 CE
under prevailing emission rates is truly alarming
(4). Planning a sustainable response to climate
change requires us to identify the critical climate
thresholds capable of disrupting social, economic, or
political systems and culturally appropriate strategies
for countering such disruptions. Natural climate ar-
chives (e.g., pollen data, sediment records, ice cores)
and the paleontological and archaeological records
offer unique opportunities for observing, measuring,
and understanding how humans have responded to a
wide range of climate events in the past, forming a
sound basis for predicting how climate change could
transform our lives in the future and offering a range of
possible solutions (e.g., ref. 5). The archaeological re-
cord is a valuable source of information that has been
largely overlooked in climate research until compara-
tively recently, however (6–12). As a result, the sensi-
tivity of human systems to the full range of conditions
predicted under different future climate scenarios
remains largely untested. We contend that a multi-
disciplinary science of the past—an “archaeology of
climate change”—provides a solid foundation for
assessing the implications of climate change across
cultures and helps design sustainable development
strategies.
Climate change and accelerated warming trigger a
complex series of biological feedbacks that pose
economic and social challenges for human popula-
tions. The dramatic transformation of landscapes is
already observable in some regions today and is likely
to accelerate in the near future. For example, in
subarctic regions, species turnover rates are predicted
to exceed 80% in protected areas by the end of the
century (13). These transformations will affect food
security and have far-reaching consequences for
the physical and psychological well-being of human
a
Universit ´e de Montr ´eal, Montreal, QC H3T 1J4, Canada;
b
Bishop’s University, Sherbrooke, QC J1M 1Z7, Canada;
c
University of Colorado, Colorado
Springs, CO 80918;
d
Universit ´edeQu´ebec à Montr ´eal, Montreal, QC H2L 2C4, Canada;
e
UMR 8591 CNRS Universit ´e Paris 1, Universit ´e Paris-Est
Cr ´eteil Val de Marne, 94010 Cr ´eteil, France; and
f
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement/Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, 91191
Gif-sur-Yvette, France
Author contributions: A.B. designed research; and A.B., M.C.P., C.D.W., F.S.R.P., J.R.-S., O.M., A.d.V., M.K., and S.B. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no competing interest.
This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.
This open access article is distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC BY).
1
To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: a.burke@umontreal.ca.
Published July 22, 2021.
PNAS 2021 Vol. 118 No. 30 e2108537118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118
|
1of10
PERSPECTIVE
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
populations in these regions (6). Contemporary indigenous com-
munities and small-scale subsistence farmers rely on their relations
to the land and access to its natural resources for their economic
and cultural reproduction. Despite their integration into capitalist
modes of production and the global economy, for example, for-
aging activities still play an important economic role for many
indigenous groups (e.g., ref. 14). Furthermore, beyond its eco-
nomic importance, the land represents a locus of cultural repro-
duction, underpinning indigenous knowledge and memory (15,
16). Climate change poses a fundamental threat to these groups,
as they themselves have eloquently pointed out (17).
For the most part, current public discourse about climate
warming revolves around Western, industrialized societies despite
the fact that nonindustrialized societies will likely bear the brunt of
climate change (18–20). Furthermore, while maintaining biodiver-
sity is one of the goals of climate change research, maintaining
cultural diversity does not occupy the same space in public dis-
course. However, the loss of contemporary cultural diversity could
represent an existential threat for our species. Human adaptations
are the result of the dynamic relationship between cultural and
biological systems. Natural selection operates on biological vari-
ation, but the archaeological record shows us that the long-term
survival of our species also hinges on our ability to find cultural
solutions to environmental challenges. Given the diversity of bi-
omes currently inhabited by humans and the likelihood that they
will respond differently to climate change, a range of cultural re-
sponses will be required. Cultural diversity, therefore, is the key to
long-term human resilience. It is worth reflecting on the future of
Western, industrialized economic/social systems and considering
the possibility that other forms of social and economic organiza-
tion may prove more resilient in the long run. Respecting, docu-
menting, and conserving cultural diversity, as well as biodiversity,
is therefore an essential step toward building up the resilience of
human systems. Because the archaeological record captures the
breadth of past human adaptations, the archaeology of climate
change is well situated to highlight alternative strategies that have
worked in the past and address the social and economic ramifica-
tions of global warming for a diverse global community.
Archaeology as an Interdisciplinary Science
An archaeology of climate change emerges seamlessly from the
long-standing collaboration between archaeology and the natural
sciences that has provided climatological, environmental, and
chronostratigraphic data critical for archaeological interpretations.
Since the 19th century, this information has been used to provide
a paleoenvironmental backdrop against which past human activ-
ities are studied. More recently, it, along with evolutionary theory
(specifically evolutionary ecology), has provided a rich, if often
implicit conceptual framework with which to study the dynamics of
past human–environment interactions.
Unfortunately, archaeology and evolutionary theory have been
somewhat uneasy bedfellows since the late 20th century, when
the postmodernist movement fostered archaeological “post-
processualism.”Postprocessualists specifically criticized archae-
ological research designed to explore human–environment in-
teractions for adopting a deterministic and reductive approach.
This research, they contended, assumes that external environ-
mental processes are the principal drivers of cultural transforma-
tion while failing to acknowledge the power of historical
contingency and denying human agency (21). Environmental ar-
chaeology, human evolutionary ecology, and paleoenvironmental
studies in general were accused of lacking an interpretive
framework capable of recognizing the importance of internal
cultural processes (22, 23). Environmental approaches were also
Fig. 1. (A) Time series of global annual change in mean surface temperature for the period from 2006 to 2100 (relative to 1986–2005) from
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) concentration-driven experiments for scenarios RCP2.6 (blue) and RCP8.5 (red).
Projections are shown for the multimodel mean (solid lines) and the 5–95% range across the distribution of individual models (shading). The
number of CMIP5 models used to calculate the multimodel mean is indicated. The mean and associated uncertainties averaged over the
2081–2100 period are given for all RCP scenarios as colored vertical bars on the right-hand side. (Band C) CMIP5 multimodel mean projections
for the 2081–2100 period under the RCP2.6 (B) and RCP8.5 (C) scenarios for change in annual mean surface temperature relative to 1986–2005.
Adapted with permission from IPCC, 2014: Topic 2—Future Climate Changes, Risk and Impacts, in ref. 1.
2of10
|
PNAS Burke et al.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118 The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
criticized for fostering a dualist approach whereby humans and
their environment are treated as separate entities, a fundamen-
tally Cartesian and Eurocentric perspective (24). As a result, while
it might be relatively uncontroversial to suggest that early hominin
adaptations were shaped by natural processes, the suggestion
that the more complex cultural adaptations that characterize
modern humans might be driven by environmental factors is far
from achieving universal acceptance today (25).
The postprocessual critique was a reaction to research that
inferred a causal relationship between global climate events
(increasingly well-documented by the late 20th century) and
contemporaneous shifts in the archaeological record without
exploring the underlying mechanisms or seeking alternative
explanations. The result of this critique, however, was the creation
of a rift within archaeology between practitioners of evolutionary
ecology and researchers experimenting with theories of agency,
phenomenology, and other postmodern approaches. This rift also
expressed itself in some quarters as the abandonment of broad
theoretical frameworks and a retreat from generalization (26). The
21st century has seen a resurgence of interest in human–environment
interactions and, with it, similar concerns about environmental
determinism (27).
Methodological advances, particularly in computational ecol-
ogy and archaeology, and better integration of ecological and
anthropological theory, have changed the situation considerably
since the 20th century, however. There are still disputes as to the
relative importance of the internal and external factors that col-
lectively drive cultural change, but as Arkush points out: “our
differences lie in the extent to which we stress contingency versus
process, and agency versus conditions, in the making of diverse
human histories”(ref. 28, p. 200). An increasing number of sci-
entists are striving to develop research frameworks that integrate
environmental and human systems (e.g., refs. 26 and 29–31). In
archaeology, integrative approaches to the study of human–
environment interactions are now widely adopted, as reflected in
the use of terms such as “niche construction,”“evo-devo,”
“biocultural,”“socio-natural,”“socioecological,”and “ecocul-
tural.”An emerging consensus among climate scientists also
recognizes that the internal dynamics of human systems should be
considered on an equal footing with the “external”natural pro-
cesses with which they interact (32, 33). Interactions between
human systems and the environment are seen as flowing in both
directions. The archaeology of climate change capitalizes on
these relatively recent developments in archaeology, in addition
to developments in climate modeling (see Climate Modeling and
Environmental Reconstruction), offering an integrative, multi-
disciplinary framework for identifying key aspects of climate
that affect human systems (and vice versa) at different
spatiotemporal scales.
Climate Modeling and Environmental Reconstruction
Over the past few decades, methodological and theoretical ad-
vances in climate research have enabled studies of past human–
environmental interactions that move beyond description and
correlation to help reveal the underlying mechanisms of change in
the archaeological record.
The rapid development of climate modeling since the mid-
20th century led to the increased availability of paleoclimate in-
formation. The mutual benefits to be gained from working to-
gether fostered new collaborations between paleoclimate
modelers, Earth scientists, and archaeologists and a revived in-
terest in human/environment interactions. The “Stage 3 project,”
for example, introduced climate modeling to a large and recep-
tive archaeological audience while investigating the link between
the pattern of human occupation in Europe during marine isotope
stage 3 (MIS 3) (∼25–59 ka) and environmental conditions (34).
The temporal and spatial scales of the simulated climate data
produced by general circulation models (GCMs) and the degree
of resolution that could be achieved were sometimes difficult to
reconcile with the archaeological data, however, especially since
archaeologists lack fine-grained chronological control over much
of the archaeological record.
Increased computing power, the development of more com-
plex climate models (coupling oceanic, atmospheric, and vege-
tation dynamics), and advances in computational archaeology
have greatly improved the situation. Advances in dating tech-
niques have increased chronological control of the archaeological
record (e.g., ref. 35). Archaeologists have adopted the use of
Geographic Information Systems and modeling tools, which are
used to model the dynamic mechanisms underpinning human/
environment interactions. Downscaling and regional modeling of
simulated climate conditions have increased our ability to model
human decision-making at fine spatial and temporal scales (e.g.,
daily foraging activities). Finally, climate researchers are increas-
ingly aware that tracking human responses to past climate change
using the paleoclimate and archaeological records is a means of
assessing future climate risks and formulating a sustainable re-
sponse (5, 8, 36–38).
Climate science has clearly had an impact on how research into
the past is conducted. Multidisciplinary, intersectorial research
teams are no longer exceptions and the many teams operating
today are mature working partnerships. The benefits of these
collaborations flow both ways. Climate modelers are interested in
collaborating with archaeologists and other natural scientists who,
in the course of their fieldwork, accumulate and date a wide range
of climate and environment proxies. The pollen and faunal re-
cords, for example, make it possible to test model outcomes and
adjust model design accordingly (39–42). This approach, exem-
plified by the Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Projects
(40), has yielded significant advances in the design of GCMs.
Archaeologists and Earth scientists also benefit from the avail-
ability of high-resolution paleoclimate data more suitable for ex-
amining human–environment interactions over time.
At the site level, the use of carbon and oxygen stable isotopes
from biogenic carbonates in sediment as well as the calibration of
paleoecological data (e.g., pollen, chironomids, dinocysts, dia-
toms, insects, and mollusks) (43–49) based on extensive, modern
training sets has permitted reliable quantitative reconstructions of
environmental variables (temperature, precipitation, sea ice ex-
tent, sea level position) thought to influence human behavior and
evolution through their impact on food resources, freshwater
availability, habitat suitability, and other parameters (50–52).
Moreover, an increased emphasis on detailed, high-resolution
sampling of paleoclimatic archives, such as lake sediment cores
and speleothems (where sufficient sedimentation or growth rate
allow), has fostered the development of records with high tem-
poral resolution. This has been driven, in part, by the develop-
ment of analytical techniques such as X-ray fluorescence core
scanning (53) and advances in the modeling of radiocarbon and
other chronological data (54), but also by research questions that
focus on understanding abrupt climate change, climate transi-
tions, and extreme events (e.g., droughts, floods) that occur over
subannual to centennial timescales and are more adequate to
assess short-term human responses to environmental change. At
Burke et al. PNAS
|
3of10
The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
coarser spatial scales, paleoecological (e.g., Neotoma, Acer) and
archaeological (e.g., Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Da-
tabase) databases (55–57), coupled with large-scale paleoclimatic
syntheses using high-quality, quantitative multiproxy datasets
have facilitated regional- to continental-scale studies (58) that
examine the role of climate and ecological change in driving
cultural and demographic shifts, and have helped characterize
climate variability, especially during the Late Glacial and Holo-
cene at the hemispheric to global scale.
Nevertheless, high-quality, high-resolution paleoclimate re-
cords that consistently span several tens to hundreds of thousands
of years are still relatively scarce. In addition, the spatial distri-
bution of available high-resolution paleoclimatic records leaves
many regions underrepresented, such as the Arctic and the tro-
pics (59, 60). For example, in Europe many records are available
for the Mediterranean domain (61), whereas the vast loess regions
of northern Europe remain underexploited (but see refs. 62–64).
As a consequence, data from single locations has often been used
to infer past climate changes not only on regional but also on
global spatial scales (65–72). Several major problems arise when
dealing with a limited number of patchy proxy records. For ex-
ample, the signal recorded by proxies may reflect local condi-
tions, rather than regional or global climate changes. In addition,
proxies often record seasonal changes in a given parameter, and a
shift in seasonality of the recorded climate variable may lead to a
flawed comparison between seasons. The development of new
proxy data records from different types of archives such as lake
sediments, speleothems, or loess, may require different ap-
proaches in paleoclimate reconstruction, including a wide range
of micropaleontological, geochemical, or isotopic techniques
(73). Multiproxy approaches are thus fundamental. While in-
creasingly powerful computers facilitate the treatment of huge,
multiproxy datasets, revisiting old datasets—sometimes the only
surviving records of past climate and environmental conditions
(74)—is also essential as data acquired decades ago often lack
temporal resolution and would benefit from updated calibration
of the proxies as well as finer isotopic and geochemical analyses
now enabled with new technologies.
Another challenge related to the integration of paleoclimatic
and archaeological datasets involves their spatial association. To
what extent are polar ice core records, for example, representa-
tive of climate changes that would be relevant for humans living at
low and mid-latitudes? Ice core records provide a detailed, long-
term frame of reference for past climate conditions: They record
surface air temperature at the top of the ice sheets as well as
descriptions of naturally globally averaged characteristics such as
greenhouse gas concentrations (e.g., ref. 75), and include indi-
cators such as deuterium excess, related to moisture source
conditions (e.g., ref. 76). However, they do not inform us about
local- to regional-scale climate parameters outside the ice sheets.
These are more readily documented by continental paleoenvir-
onmental records, such as pollen, speleothems, or lake records.
Archaeological sites also provide a record of regional and local
climate signals that are critical for bridging global-scale paleo-
climate data and archaeological datasets (e.g., refs. 11 and 77)
offering detailed insights into paleoclimate change at fine spatial
and temporal scales more suitable for investigating human
decision making, in addition to producing controls for climate
model outputs.
One of the main advantages of using proxy data associated
with archaeological remains is that it reduces or eliminates chro-
nological uncertainties between datasets. For example, pedo-
sedimentary and archaeological data from Tell Leilan, Syria,
allowed researchers to identify the so-called 4.2-ky event and
study its human impact (78). This work has since been used to
define the middle to late Holocene stratigraphic boundary (79).
The last decade has also seen considerable advances in the use of
oxygen isotope analyses from archaeological shell middens,
which provide data on climate variability at high temporal reso-
lution [e.g., sea surface temperature (SST) (80) and seasonality
(81)]. These studies are highly relevant for documenting past
environmental–human interactions because they specifically re-
cord environmental variables (e.g., SSTs, rainy season length) that
directly influence human subsistence, economy, and lifeways.
That being said, the spatial distribution of shell midden sites is
generally restricted to marine and lacustrine shorelines, and the
radiocarbon dating of shells is affected by reservoir effects,
meaning that these proxies provide only a “piece of the puzzle”in
the paleoclimatologist’s toolkit. In summary, paleoclimatic indi-
cators from ice cores, marine sediment cores, and lake sedi-
ments contribute to establishing an environmental context
critical for exploring questions pertaining to human evolution
and adaptation.
As we have seen above, climate models are useful tools for
understanding the mechanisms of past climate change. Paleo-
climate simulations provide insights into how external forcings
modify atmospheric and oceanic circulation, triggering past cli-
mate change. Moreover, climate models can fill the gap in pale-
oclimatic information between local and global scales, leading to
more continuous representation of paleoclimatological condi-
tions. Conversely, paleoclimate reconstructions offer the possi-
bility of testing the climate model outputs for a wide variety of
climate states. For example, an early to middle Holocene thermal
optimum in the Northern Hemisphere (10,000–5,000 y BP) is
documented in a variety of paleoclimate archives, showing a clear
summer temperature warm anomaly around 6,000 y BP (60, 82,
83). However, Holocene trends in surface air temperature and SST
reconstructed from proxies illustrate different regional patterns
with regard to the amplitude and timing of the optimum. The
North Atlantic and Norwegian Sea exhibit different patterns
depending on the proxy used: SST records based on alkenones
and diatoms generally show the existence of a warm early to mid-
Holocene optimum, while foraminifer- and radiolarian-based
temperature records show a cooling trend with warmer temper-
ature toward the late Holocene. Using a global climate model to
resolve the discordance between proxies and models (84) shows
that the seasonal summer warming of the sea surface was stronger
during the mid-Holocene, while the subsurface depths (<50 m)
experienced a cooling. The hydrographic setting, therefore, ex-
plains the apparent contradiction between the Holocene trends
exhibited by phytoplankton and zooplankton-based temperature
proxy records, and the modeling work cited above shows how a
climate model helps advance our understanding of the climatic
changes described by these records. Progress is still needed,
however, in order for us to understand decreasing trends in global
temperature over the Holocene. These cannot be represented by
climate models, a discrepancy Liu et al. (85) have called the
“Holocene conundrum.”At a regional scale, discrepancies
among proxies and between models and proxies may depend, as
shown in the example above, on the distinct climate-related signal
captured by each tracer as a function of the season or water
depth, which also has to be taken into account (e.g., ref. 86).
Furthermore, some climate reconstructions show regional differ-
ences that could be related to fine-scale features, such as ocean
4of10
|
PNAS Burke et al.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118 The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
current properties (e.g., refs. 87–89), which would require high
spatial resolution models in order to be adequately represented
(e.g., refs. 90 and 91).
Climate proxy records, most of which rely on biogenic pro-
ductivity driven by climate- and nonclimate-related parameters,
have their own limitations and uncertainties. The predictive ca-
pability of numerical models is constrained by the sensitivity of the
models to changes in forcings and boundary conditions, and to
their ability to represent climate changes at adequate spatial
scales, given the specificities of each climate record. Whereas
both proxies and models have their respective flaws, the con-
frontation of proxy data and model simulations contributes to
identifying critical components of the climate and environmental
system, improving both approaches. Paleoenvironmental data
and paleoclimate modeling are shown to be mutually beneficial,
and together they enable more accurate reconstructions of past
climate events at a wide range of spatial and temporal scales, and
a better understanding of these recorded climate changes.
In summary, as a multidisciplinary and intersectorial commu-
nity, climate scientists are now better equipped to explore the
complex interactions between climate systems and human sys-
tems at multiple scales. There is also a growing awareness within
funding agencies of the need to better fund research that crosses
traditional disciplinary boundaries. This facilitates the develop-
ment of an archaeology of climate change.
The Archaeology of Climate Change
The increasing availability of high-resolution climatological and
ecological reconstructions allows us to study the impact of past
climate change on a human scale, one that is relevant to ar-
chaeological data and enables the reconstruction of past adaptive
responses to specific types of environmental impact, including sea
level change, rapid cooling and warming, climatic instability, and
prolonged drought (Fig. 2). As Boivin and Crowther (92) have
documented, many past adaptations to environmental change
were highly successful and could be readapted to modern
contexts. A comparative, cross-cultural study of the human past
demonstrates that cultural diversity has been, and remains, a key
element of human resilience.
The archaeology of climate change arises from the history of
close collaborations between archaeologists, natural scientists,
and climatologists. It builds on prior efforts to document an ar-
chaeology of environmental change (e.g., ref. 93) and harnesses
21st-century increases in computing capacity and the widespread
adoption of machine-learning and modeling techniques. Com-
putational archaeology, the use of computer-based analytical
methods to study the archaeological record, is uniquely situated
to leverage these developments and forms an intrinsic part of
climate change research in archaeology. Early research on the
impact of climate change on human systems tended to adopt an
inductive approach, focusing on correlating changes in the ar-
chaeological record with climate events. Modeling approaches
are used both inductively and deductively. Models can be
designed to test hypotheses generated from anthropological or
evolutionary theory about the sensitivity of human systems to
environmental change across a range of temporal and spatial
scales. They can focus on the mechanisms underlying human–
environment interactions and explore their biological, social and
ecological ramifications [i.e., human niche construction (94)].
Complex systems approaches provide a framework for this type of
modeling, with established methods for exploring mechanistic
linkages across spatial and temporal scales, how human systems
react to environmental tipping points, and how patterns emerge
at the population level from the collective actions of individuals
(95). This includes methods for evaluating the adaptive capacity of
human systems, for example by simulating the effects of changing
decision rules about land use, reproduction, or mobility in re-
sponse to environmental change. Cross-cultural analysis of the
human past illustrates the diverse adaptive choices people have
made and computational modeling allows us to further experi-
ment with the impacts of those choices using specific high-
resolution environmental reconstructions.
CLIMATE PREDICTIONS
CLIMATE CHANGE PARAMETERS
Environmental context, biostragraphy
Chronologically controlled data
CLIMATE MODELLING
Global/Regional
PALAEOENVIRONMENTAL
RECONSTRUCTION
PROXIES
CONTEXT
NATURAL ARCHIVES
ARCHAEOLOGY OF CLIMATE
CHANGE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RECORD
RESILIENCE
Responses
Parameters
Fig. 2. A workflow for the archaeology of climate change.
Burke et al. PNAS
|
5of10
The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
By way of example, the Hominin Dispersals Research Group
conducts multidisciplinary research on the archaeology of climate
change within an integrative, collaborative research framework.
The group tests anthropologically driven research hypotheses
using the archaeological record, natural archives, and climate
models. Ethnographic information about the decision-making
processes used by contemporary foragers, for example, was
used to hypothesize that climate variability, which affects the
ability to predict the distribution of resources and thus the out-
come of foraging and mobility decisions, would have been a
significant element of ecological risk to which past foragers will
have been sensitive. High-resolution climate model outputs, de-
veloped for the project (96), were used to quantify climate vari-
ability on a subannual scale relevant for forager decision-making.
Climate proxies from archaeological sites were used to test the
downscaled climate model producing valuable information about
the relationship between biogenic isotope signatures and climate
(97). A suite of environmental variables, including climate vari-
ability, was then used to test the hypothesis using the archaeo-
logical record of Western Europe during the Last Glacial
Maximum. The results of this experiment show that seasonal
patterns of climate variability are key predictors of the spatial
behavior of past human foragers (98). The resulting model of
habitat suitability was then used to design an agent-based model
to test how habitat suitability structures patterns of human land
use, population structure, connectivity, and patterns of gene flow
(99) with implications for cultural reproduction that are still being
explored. The implications of the habitat suitability model for the
adoption of different human mobility strategies were then tested
using the archaeological record and lithic retouch frequencies in a
diachronic study (100). The results of this collaborative research
program demonstrate the value of a multidisciplinary approach
for each of the disciplines involved. Climate records and climate
proxies provide detailed, multiscalar information about a diversity
of environmental contexts and anthropologically driven research
questions result in new interpretations of the archaeological re-
cord while allowing broader hypotheses about the mechanisms
underpinning human–environment dynamics, e.g., the role of
stochasticity as a factor in human decision-making, to be tested.
Other sources of stochasticity linked to long-term patterns of
climate change have been identified by researchers working
within an archaeology of climate change framework. For example,
in a context of rapid sea level and ecological change during the
last deglaciation, archaeological settlement patterns show that
the ancestors of today’s Cree people had a clear preference for
topographically stable locations where the impact of landscape
transformations linked to climate change was lessened (101). Ex-
treme climate events, such as El Ni~
no events, represent another
potentially significant source of stochasticity; while their frequency
is difficult to predict, archaeological data have been used to date
and understand how farming systems in the Southern Hemisphere
adapted to them (102). The frequency and scale of past climate
events can now be modeled at very fine resolutions (91). The
impact of an event depends on the state of the system being af-
fected, however, which means that a cross-disciplinary approach
is required in order to predict the outcome (103).
The generalization that can be drawn from this research is that
human decision-making is shaped by a sensitivity to environ-
mental stochasticity, which is one of the mechanisms through
which climate change affects human populations. This general-
ization has potential applications for understanding the impact of
climate change in contemporary situations as it suggests that
stochasticity, e.g., the frequency of extreme climate events, may
present a bigger challenge than rising temperatures.
The use of archaeological models to predict the impact of
future climate change on contemporary societies is a relatively
new concept that bridges established theories in the social and
natural sciences and rests on recognition of the value of adopting
a long-range perspective in climate change research. To return to
our generalization with respect to stochasticity, in arctic regions
where the pattern of sea ice formation is unpredictable, topo-
graphic uncertainty limits the ability to plan safe transportation
and prevents people from following ancestral tracks across a
landscape transformed by climate change (104, 105). This, in turn,
affects both food security and the network of social interactions
and relations to land that rely on human mobility and form an
intrinsic part of Inuit culture. Understanding the role of topo-
graphic uncertainty in shaping human decisions could prove
useful in planning sustainable development in these regions,
helping to ensure the continued survival of local communities that
contribute to cultural diversity on a global scale.
Humans, as a species, are thought to be uniquely adapted to
dealing with climate variability (106, 107), but human groups differ
in their ability to capitalize on the opportunities offered by environ-
mental change and are not equally successful at adapting to change.
The archaeological record provides evidence of a diversity of strate-
gies adopted by different human groups in response to climate
change and, more to the point, documents their outcomes. A closer
look at the regional archaeological record of Southwest Asia, for ex-
ample, reveals that the transition to farming was not synchronous
across the region during the last Glacial/Interglacial cycle and dem-
onstrates that a single climate event can produce very different out-
comes as a result of social and geographic factors (108). In this case,
Roberts et al. show that periods of favorable climate led to economic
and cultural experimentation, which acted as an investment, making
the society more resilient against future periods of climatic downturn.
Resilience theory, which addresses the dynamics of change in
adaptive systems, has an important role to play in the archaeology
of climate change. The dynamic interaction of ecological processes
and historical contingency—including human action—results in irregular
cycles of stability, change, and eventually transformation (109–111).
The study of long-term adaptive cycles in the archaeological record
has proved a fruitful avenue of research, highlighting continuities,
tipping points, and loci of resilience in past socio-ecological systems,
from the Pleistocene to the historical past (112–114). This approach
is particularly useful for synthesizing archaeological data, contextu-
alizing past human decision-making,anduncoveringsystemicrela-
tionships between natural and cultural transformations (115, 116).
Because it documents complete cycles of change, instead of being
limited to the study of their historical endpoints, the archaeology of
climate change is uniquely positioned to contribute to resilience
theory (109). Ultimately, it therefore stands to make a substantial
contribution toward planning a sustainable response to global
warming (9, 36, 92, 117).
Natural archives provide a record of ecosystem structure prior
to large-scale anthropogenic modification, i.e., a “baseline”
against which the scale of human disturbance can be measured
(5). This, in turn, highlights the potential vulnerabilities and long-
term sustainability of past human adaptations. Evidence for past
anthropogenic disturbance in the Neotropics, for example, is best
understood by considering the ecosystems with which the ar-
chaeological data interact (118). Archaeological perspectives are
emerging as increasingly important in informing decision-making
in the context of maximizing food security for the world’s growing
6of10
|
PNAS Burke et al.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118 The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
population (119). The study of early farming communities offers
concrete examples of the contribution archaeology can make to
sustainability. Early farming communities provide models for
sustainable food production, land and water management under
a range of climate conditions that can be applied to contemporary
situations (120). On the other hand, the fates of early farming
communities, played out over the long term, also illustrate the fact
that “sustainability”is a historically contingent concept (120).
Archaeological models for the development of more sustainable,
locally scaled adaptations to ensure food security in the coming
decades include the readoption of multicropping agriculture
based on the “three sisters”(i.e., corn, squash, beans) in north-
eastern North America (121) and strategies for mitigating risk in
the event of potentially disruptive weather events such as El Ni~
no
(122). Archaeology’s contribution in this sense is twofold, in that it
documents both cultigens and the tools and techniques used to
cultivate and process them (123). Similar studies combining cli-
mate and human behavioral modeling with experimental farming
have been conducted in the American Southwest in collaboration
with Hopi maize farmers (124–126) and the long-term coevolu-
tionary relationship between Indigenous people and food webs in
Australia (127).
Thus, in addition to contributing to our understanding of sus-
tainability, the archaeology of climate change demonstrates the
role of cultural diversity as a source of human resilience. It also
contributes to the protection of biodiversity (92). The importance
of cultural diversity in the past also helps to highlight the role of
contemporary diversity. There is growing awareness of the im-
portance of indigenous knowledge for climate change adaptation
(128) and ecosystem-based adaptation and community-based
adaptation are increasingly seen as complementary approaches
(19). Indigenous groups have millennia of experience and an in-
timate knowledge of the land that is critical to planning and
enacting sustainable adaptation. Using traditional knowledge,
indigenous communities manage healthy, biodiverse ecosystems,
providing key services and increasing adaptive capacity (129–131).
Indigenous farmers, for example, play a critical role in the mainte-
nance of land races, which act as reservoirs of genetic diversity for
a variety of food crops (132). Several ancient crops have recently
been reintroduced into mainstream Western diets, contributing to
the diversity of crop types included in the food chain, which is one
way of ensuring the resilience of the global food supply under
changing climate conditions (133). In addition, there are impor-
tant ethical reasons for protecting cultural diversity that merit
serious consideration (134).
Conclusion
The archaeology of climate change is an integrated, multidisci-
plinary approach that incorporates resilience theory and operates
within an evolutionary ecological framework. It uses the archae-
ological record to model human–environment interactions during
past climate change events with the goal of identifying the social
and ecological “tipping points”that prompt the reorganization of
human systems and ecosystems at different scales and rates of
change. The archaeological record also allows us to measure the
relative success of past adaptative responses. Finally, it provides
narrative anchors in contemporary dialogues about climate
change that can be used to promote community-based adapta-
tion. The value of adopting a long-range perspective in climate
change research is absolutely essential given the scale of climate-
driven global environmental transformations that are likely to
occur beyond this century (4).
Much work remains to be done, climate variability is expressed
in different ways across the landscape, and other sources of sto-
chasticity, such as rates of community succession of both fauna
and flora, need to be investigated more fully. More locally ori-
ented research will be required to make climate research acces-
sible and foster community-based responses, including active
collaborations with stakeholders beyond academia (32). However,
the research described above demonstrates the promise and the
value of conducting an archaeology of climate change and the
benefits that accrue for the participating disciplines within their
own spheres of research. While it has always been notoriously
difficult to fund multidisciplinary research focused on the past, the
situation has been somewhat alleviated recently through the in-
troduction of new funding streams and growing support from
within climate research.
We have seen that cultural diversity, past and present, is a
valuable source of resilience and climate adaptation. The ar-
chaeology of climate change has an important role to play,
highlighting the importance of cultural diversity and encouraging
scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders to engage with the past
to help plan a sustainable future.
Data Availability. There are no data underlying this work.
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the contributions of the Hominin Dispersal Research Group,
which is funded by Fonds Qu ´eb ´ecois de Recherche sur la Soci´et ´e et la Culture
(2019-SE3-254686).
1Core Writing Team, Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, R. K. Pachauri, L. A. Meyer, Eds. (IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 2014).
2Environment and Climate Change Canada, Climate Data and Scenarios for Canada: Synthesis of Recent Observation and Modelling Results (Environment and
Climate Change Canada, Gatineau, QC, Canada, 2016).
3E. Wolff et al., The Royal Society Climate Updates: What Have We Learnt Since the IPCC 5th Assessment Report? (The Royal Society, 2017).
4C. Lyon et al., Climate change research and action must look beyond 2100. EarthArXiv [Preprint] (2021). https://www.doi.org/10.31223/X5QG7D (Accessed 1
July 2021).
5G. Hambrecht et al., Archaeological sites as distributed long-term observing networks of the past (DONOP). Quat. Int. 549, 218–226 (2020).
6J. D. Ford, N. Couture, T. Bell, D. G. Clark, Climate change and Canada’s north coast: Research trends, progress, and future directions. Environ. Rev. 26,82–92
(2018).
7A. M. Haywood et al., What can palaeoclimate modelling do for you? Earth Sys. Environ. 3,1–18 (2019).
8R. C. Jackson, A. J. Dugmore, F. Riede, Rediscovering lessons of adaptation from the past. Glob. Environ. Change 52,58–65 (2018).
9M. J. Hudson, M. Aoyama, K. C. Hoover, J. Uchiyama, Prospects and challenges for an archaeology of global climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim.
Change 3, 313–328 (2012).
10 S. T. Hussain, F. Riede, Paleoenvironmental humanities: Challenges and prospects of writing deep environmental histories. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change
11, e667 (2020).
Burke et al. PNAS
|
7of10
The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
11 D. H. Sandweiss, A. R. Kelley, Archaeological contributions to climate change research: The archaeological record as a paleoclimatic and paleoenvironmental
archive. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41, 371–391 (2012).
12 J. Cooper, M. Peros, The archaeology of climate change in the Caribbean. J. Archaeol. Sci. 37, 1226–1232 (2010).
13 D. Berteaux et al., Northern protected areas will become important refuges for biodiversity tracking suitable climates. Sci. Rep. 8, 4623 (2018).
14 H. Brody, Maps and Dreams (Pantheon, New York, 1981), pp. 297.
15 C. Aporta, “Markers in space and time: Reflections on the nature of place names as events in the Inuit approach to the territory”in Marking the Land: Hunter-
Gatherer Creation of Meaning within Their Surroundings, R. Whallon, W. A. Lovis, Eds. (Routledge, 2016), pp. 67–88.
16 M. Rockman, “Landscape learning in relation to evolutionary theory”in Macroevolution in Human Prehistory: Evolutionary Theory and Processual Archaeology,
A. Prentiss, I. Kuijt, J. C. Chatters, S. N. York, N. York, Eds. (Springer, New York, 2009), pp. 51–71.
17 Anonymous, Utqiagvik Declaration 2018 (Inuit Circumpolar Council, 2018).
18 D. Green, G. Raygorodetsky, Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate. Clim. Change 100, 239–242 (2010).
19 H. Reid, Ecosystem-and community-based adaptation: Learning from community-based natural resource management. Clim. Dev. 8,4–9 (2016).
20 H. Reid, S. Huq, “Community-based adaptation: A vital approach to the threat climate change poses to the poor”(International Institute for Environment and
Development Briefing Paper, IIED, London, 2007).
21 I. Hodder, “Theoretical archaeology: A reactionary view”in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder, Ed. (Cambri dge University Press, Cambridge, 1982),
pp. 1–16.
22 I. Hodder, “Agency and individuals in long-term processes”in Agency in Archaeology, M.-A. Dobres, J. Robb, Eds. (Routledge, 2000), pp. 21–33.
23 M. Shanks, C. Y. Tilley, Social Theory and Archaeology (Wiley, 1987).
24 T. Ingold, The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling & Skills (Routledge, London, 2000).
25 K. Kristiansen, Genes versus agents. A discussion of the widening theoretical gap in archaeology. Archaeol. Dialogues 11,77–99 (2004).
26 K. J. Gremillion, L. Barton, D. R. Piperno, Particularism and the retreat from theory in the archaeology of agricultural origins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111,
6171–6177 (2014).
27 G. Judkins, M. Smith, E. Keys, Determinism within human–environment research and the rediscovery of environmental causation. Geogr. J. 174,17–29 (2008).
28 E. Arkush, Explaining the past in 2010. Am. Anthropol. 113, 200–212 (2011).
29 A. Izdebski et al., Realising consilience: How better communication between archaeologists, historians and natural scientists can transform the study of past
climate change in the Mediterranean. Quat. Sci. Rev. 136,5–22 (2016).
30 D. Degroot et al., Towards a rigorous understanding of societal responses to climate change. Nature 591, 539–550 (2021).
31 T. C. Rick, D. H. Sandweiss, Archaeology, climate, and global change in the age of humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 8250–8253 (2020).
32 L. Dilling, M. C. Lemos, Creating usable science: Opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy.Glob.
Environ. Change 21, 680–689 (2011).
33 W. N. Adger et al., Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Change 93, 335–354 (2009).
34 T. H. van Andel, W. Davies, Eds., Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape of the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3
Project (McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research Monographs, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge, UK, 2003).
35 R. Jacobi, T. F. Higham, C. B. Ramsey, AMS radiocarbon dating of middle and upper palaeolithic bone in the Brit ish Isles: Improved reliability using ultrafiltration.
J. Quat. Sci.21, 557–573 (2006).
36 S. P. A. Desjardins, M. Friesen, P. D. Jordan, Looking back while moving forward: How past responses to climate change can inform future adaptation and
mitigation strategies in the Arctic. Quat. Int. 549, 239–248 (2020).
37 F. A. Hassan, “Human agency, climate change, and culture: An archaeological perspective”in Anthropology and Climate Change: From Encounters to Actions,
S. A. Crate, M. Nuttall, Eds. (Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA, 2009), pp. 39–69.
38 M. Rockman, C. Hritz, Expanding use of archaeology in climate change response by changing its social environment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117,
8295–8302 (2020).
39 S. P. Harrison et al., Evaluation of CMIP5 palaeo-simulations to improve climate projections. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 735 (2015).
40 M. Kageyama et al., The PMIP4 contribution to CMIP6—Part 1: Overview and over-arching analysis plan. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1033–1057 (2018).
41 A. Jost et al., High-resolution simulations of the last glacial maximum climate over Europe: A solution to discrepancies with continental palaeoclimatic
reconstructions? Clim. Dyn. 24, 577–590 (2005).
42 M. Kageyama et al., Last glacial maximum temperatures over the North Atlantic, Europe and western Siberia: A comparison between PMIP models, MARGO sea-
surface temperatures and pollen-based reconstructions. Quat. Sci. Rev. 25, 2082–2102 (2006).
43 L. Ampel et al., Modest summer temperature variability during DO cycles in Western Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 29, 1322–1327 (2010).
44 P. Ponel, Rissian, Eemian and Würmian Coleoptera assemblages from La Grande Pile (Vosges, France). Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 114,1–41
(1995).
45 O. Moine, D.-D. Rousseau, D. Jolly, M. Vianey-Liaud, Paleoclimatic reconstruction using mutual climatic range on terrestrial mollusks. Quat. Res. 57,162–172
(2002).
46 D.-D. Rousseau, Climatic transfer function from Quaternary molluscs in European loess deposits. Quat. Res. 36,195–209 (1991).
47 A. De Vernal, A. Rochon, Dinocysts as tracers of sea-surface conditions and sea-ice cover in polar and subpolar environments. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.
14, 012007 (2011).
48 M. Chevalier et al., Pollen-based climate reconstruction techniques for late Quaternary studies. Earth Sci. Rev. 210, 103384 (2020).
49 O. Heiri, S. J. Brooks, H. J. B. Birks, A. F. Lotter, A 274-lake calibration data-set and inference model for chironomid-based summer air temperature
reconstruction in Europe. Quat. Sci. Rev. 30,3445–3456 (2011).
50 C. Hatt ´e, J. Guiot, Palaeoprecipitation reconstruction by inverse modelling using the isotopic signal of loess organic matter: Application to the Nussloch loess
sequence (Rhine Valley, Germany). Clim. Dyn. 25, 315–327 (2005).
51 C. Prud’Homme et al., Palaeotemperature reconstruction during the last glacial from δ18O of earthworm calcite granules from Nussloch loess sequence,
Germany. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 442,13–20 (2016).
52 C. Prud’Homme et al., δ
13
C signal of earthworm calcite granules: A new proxy for palaeoprecipitation reconstructions during the last glacial in Western Europe.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 179, 158–166 (2018).
53 I. W. Croudace, R. G. Rothwell, Micro-XRF Studies of Sediment Cores: Applications of a Non-destructive Tool for the Environmental Sciences (Springer, 2015),
vol. 17.
54 C. Bronk Ramsey, Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51, 337–360 (2009).
55 J. W. Williams et al., The Neotoma Paleoecology Database, a multiproxy, international, community-curated data resource. Quat. Res. 89,156–177 (2018).
56 M. F. S ´anchez Go~
ni et al., The ACER pollen and charcoal database: A global resource to document vegetation and fire response to abrupt climate changes
during the last glacial period. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 679–695 (2017).
57 K. Gajewski et al., The Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database (CARD): Archaeological
14
C dates in North America and their paleoenvironmental
context. Radiocarbon 53, 371–394 (2011).
58 S. E. Munoz, K. Gajewski, M. C. Peros, Synchronous environmental and cultural change in the prehistory of the northeastern United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 107, 22008–22013 (2010).
59 M. Blaauw, J. A. Christen, M. A. Aquino-L ´opez, A review of statistics in palaeoenvironmental research. J. Agric. Biol. Environ. Stat. 25,17–31 (2020).
8of10
|
PNAS Burke et al.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118 The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
60 D. Kaufman et al., A global database of Holocene paleotemperature records. Sci. Data 7, 115 (2020).
61 A. Moreno et al., A compilation of Western European terrestrial records 60–8 ka BP: Towards an understanding of latitudinal climatic gradients. Quat. Sci. Rev.
106, 167–185 (2014).
62 O. Moine et al., The impact of last glacial climate variability in west-European loess revealed by radiocarbon dating of fossil earthworm granules. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6209–6214 (2017).
63 I. Obreht et al., Shift of large-scale atmospheric systems over Europe during late MIS 3 and implications for modern human dispersal. Sci. Rep. 7, 5848 (2017).
64 F. Lehmkuhl et al., Loess landscapes of Europe—mapping, geomorphology, and zonal differentiation. Earth Sci. Rev. 215, 103496 (2020).
65 A. C. Mix, E. Bard, R. Schneider, Environmental processes of the ice age: Land, oceans, glaciers (EPILOG). Quat. Sci. Rev. 20, 627–657 (2001).
66 I. K. Seierstad et al., Consistently dated records from the Greenland GRIP, GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores for the past 104 ka reveal regional millennial-scale δ
18
O
gradients with possible Heinrich event imprint. Quat. Sci. Rev. 106,29–46 (2014).
67 S. P. E. Blockley et al., Synchronisation of palaeoenvironmental records over the last 60,000 years, and an extended INTIMATE1 event stratigraphy to 48,000 b2k.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 36,2–10 (2012).
68 S. O. Rasmussen et al., A stratigraphic framework for abrupt climatic changes during the last glacial period based on three synchronized Greenland ice-core
records: Refining and extending the INTIMATE event stratigraphy. Quat. Sci. Rev. 106,14–28 (2014).
69 S. O. Rasmussen et al., Synchronization of the NGRIP, GRIP, and GISP2 ice cores across MIS 2 and palaeoclimatic implications. Quat. Sci. Rev. 27,18–28 (2008).
70 W. Dansgaard et al., Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr ice-core record. nature364, 218–220 (1993).
71 J. Jouzel, C. Lorius, S. Johnsen, P. Grootes, Climate instabilities: Greenland and Antarctic records. C. R. Acad. Sci. II 319,65–77 (1994).
72 N. Shackleton, Paleoclimate. Climate change across the hemispheres. Science 291,58–59 (2001).
73 M.-M. Ouellet-Bernier, A. de Vernal, “Proxy indicators of climate in the past”in Climate Changes in the Holocene: Impacts and Human Adaptation, E. Chiotis,
Ed. (CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2018), pp. 41–76.
74 F. St Amand et al., Leveraging legacy archaeological collections as proxies for climate and environmental research. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 8287–8294
(2020).
75 B. Bereiter et al., Revision of the EPICA Dome C CO
2
record from 800 to 600 kyr before present. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42,542–549 (2015).
76 S. Pfahl, H. Sodemann, What controls deuterium excess in global precipitation? Clim. Past 10, 771–781 (2014).
77 O. Moine et al., Intra-interstadial environmental changes in Last Glacial loess revealed by molluscan assemblages from the upper palaeolithic site of Amiens-
Renancourt 1 (Somme, France). J. Quat. Sci., 10.1002/jqs.3312 (2021).
78 H. Weiss et al., The genesis and collapse of third millennium north Mesopotamian civilization. Science 261,995–1004 (1993).
79 M. Walker et al., Formal ratification of the subdivision of the Holocene Series/Epoch (Quaternary System/Period): Two new global boundary stratotype sections
and points (GSSPs) and three new stages/subseries. Episodes 41, 213–223 (2018).
80 M. Carr ´eet al., Holocene history of ENSO variance and asymmetry in the eastern tropical Pacific. Science 345, 1045–1048 (2014).
81 M. C. Sanger, I. R. Quitmyer, C. E. Colaninno, N. Cannarozzi, D. L. Ruhl, Multiple-proxy seasonality indicators: An integrative approach to assess shell midden
formations from late archaic shell rings in the coastal southeast North America. J. Island Coast. Archaeol. 15, 333–363 (2020).
82 D. Kaufman et al., Holocene global mean surface temperature, a multi-method reconstruction approach. Sci. Data 7, 201 (2020).
83 S. A. Marcott, J. D. Shakun, P. U. Clark, A. C. Mix, A reconstruction of regional and global temperature for the past 11,300 years. Science339, 1198–1201 (2013).
84 C. Andersson, F. S. R. Pausata, E. Jansen, B. Risebrobakken, R. J. Telford, Holocene trends in the foraminifer record from the Norwegian Sea and the North
Atlantic Ocean. Clim. Past 6, 179–193 (2010).
85 Z. Liu et al., The Holocene temperature conundrum. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 111, E3501–E3505 (2014).
86 S. Bova, Y. Rosenthal, Z. Liu, S. P. Godad, M. Yan, Seasonal origin of the thermal maxima at the Holocene and the last interglacial. Nature 589, 548–553 (2021).
87 A. de Vernal, C. Hillaire-Marcel, Provincialism in trends and high frequency changes in the northwest North Atlantic during the Holocene. Global Planet. Change
54, 263–290 (2006).
88 G. Leduc, R. Schneider, J.-H. Kim, G. Lohmann, Holocene and Eemian sea surface temperature trends as revealed by alkenone and Mg/Ca paleothermometry.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 29, 989–1004 (2010).
89 A. de Vernal et al., Dinocyst-based reconstructions of sea ice cover concentration during the Holocene in the Arctic Ocean, the northern North Atlantic Ocean
and its adjacent seas. Quat. Sci. Rev. 79, 111–121 (2013).
90 A. Condron, P. Winsor, A subtropical fate awaited freshwater discharged from glacial Lake Agassiz. Geophys. Res. Lett. 38, L03705 (2011).
91 G. Lohmann, M. Butzin, N. Eissner, X. Shi, C. Stepanek, Abrupt climate and weather changes across time scales. Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatol. 35,
e2019PA003782 (2020).
92 N. Boivin, A. Crowther, Mobilizing the past to shape a better Anthropocene. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 5, 273–284 (2021).
93 C. T. Fisher, J. B. Hill, G. M. Feinman, The Archaeology of Environmental Change: Socionatural Legacies of Degradation and Resilience (University of Arizona
Press, 2009).
94 K. N. Laland, M. J. O’Brien, Niche construction theory and archaeology. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 17, 303–322 (2010).
95 C. M. Barton, Complexity, social complexity, and modeling. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 21, 306–324 (2014).
96 G. Latombe et al., Comparison of spatial downscaling methods of general circulation model results to study climate variability during the Last Glacial Maximum.
Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2563–2579 (2018).
97 C. L ´ecuyer, C. Hillaire-Marcel, A. Burke, M.-A. Julien, J.-F. H ´elie, Temperature and precipitation regime in LGM human refugia of southwestern Europe inferred
from δ
13
C and δ
18
O of large mammal remains. Quat. Sci. Rev. 255, 106796 (2021).
98 A. Burke et al., Risky business: The impact of climate and climate variability on human population dynamics in Western Europe during the Last Glacial Maximum.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 164, 217–229 (2017).
99 C. D. Wren, A. Burke, Habitat suitability and the genetic structure of human populations during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Western Europe. PLoS One
14, e0217996 (2019).
100 A. Burke, J. Riel-Salvatore, C. M. Barton, Human response to habitat suitability during the Last Glacial Maximum in Western Europe. J. Quat. Sci. 33,335–345
(2018).
101 C. D. Wren, A. Costopoulos, M. Hawley, Settlement choice under conditions of rapid shoreline displacement in Wemindji Cree Territory, subarctic Quebec.
Quat. Int. 549, 191–196 (2018).
102 D. H. Sandweiss et al., Archaeological climate proxies and the complexities of reconstructing Holocene El Ni~
no in coastal Peru. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117,
8271–8279 (2020).
103 M. Beniston et al., Future extreme events in European climate: An exploration of regiona l climate model projections. Clim. Change 10.1007/s10584-006-9226-z.
(2007).
104 G. J. Laidler, P. Elee, T. Ikummaq, E. Joamie, C. Aporta, “Mapping Inuit Sea ice knowledge, use, and change in Nunavut, Canada (Cape Dorset, Igloolik,
Pangnirtung)”in SIKU: Knowing Our Ice: Documenting Inuit Sea Ice Knowledge and Use, I. Krupnik, C. Aporta, S. Gearheard, G. J. Laidler, L. Kielsen Holm, Eds.
(Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010), pp. 45–80.
105 C. Aporta, The trail as home: Inuit and their pan-Arctic network of routes. Hum. Ecol. 37, 131–146 (2009).
106 R. Potts, Hominin evolution in settings of strong environmental variability. Quat. Sci. Rev. 73,1–13 (2013).
107 R. Potts, J. T. Faith, Alternating high and low climate variability: The context of natural selection and speciation in Plio-Pleistocene hominin evolution. J. Hum.
Evol. 87,5–20 (2015).
Burke et al. PNAS
|
9of10
The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
108 N. Roberts et al., Human responses and non-responses to climatic variations during the last Glacial-Interglacial transition in the eastern Mediterranean. Quat. Sci.
Rev. 184,47–67 (2018).
109 C. L. Redman, Resilience theory in archaeology. Am. Anthropol. 107,70–77 (2005).
110 L. H. Gunderson, “Resilience and adaptive cycles”in Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems, C. S. Holling, Ed. (Island Press,
2002), pp. 25–62.
111 C. L. Redman, A. P. Kinzig, Resilience of past landscapes, resilience theory, society, and the Longue Dur ´ee. Conserv. Ecol. 7, 14 (2003).
112 M. Bradtmöller, S. Grimm, J. Riel-Salvatore, Resilience theory in archaeological practice –An annotated review. Quat. Int. 446,3–16 (2017).
113 M. Solich, M. Bradtmöller, Socioeconomic complexity and the resilience of hunter-gatherer societies. Quat. Int. 446, 109–127 (2017).
114 P. Forlin, C. M. Gerrard, The archaeology of earthquakes: The application of adaptive cycles to seismically-affected communities in late medieval Europe. Quat.
Int. 446,95–108 (2017).
115 J. Freeman et al., The global ecology of human population density and interpreting changes in paleo-population density. J. Archaeol. Sci. 120, 105168 (2020).
116 C. M. Barton et al., Risk and resilience in the late glacial: A case study from the western Mediterranean. Quat. Sci. Rev. 184,68–84 (2018).
117 J. A. d’Alpoim Guedes, S. A. Crabtree, R. K. Bocinsky, T. A. Kohler, Twenty-first century approaches to ancient problems: Climate and society. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 113, 14483–14491 (2016).
118 D. R. Piperno, C. McMichael, M. B. Bush, Amazonia and the Anthropocene: What was the spatial extent and intensity of human landscape modification in the
Amazon Basin at the end of prehistory? Holocene 25, 1588–1597 (2015).
119 J. M. Marston, Archaeological approaches to agricultural economies. J. Archaeol. Res., 10.1007/s10814-020-09150-0 (2021).
120 C. Fisher, Archaeology for sustainable agriculture. J. Archaeol. Res. 28,393–441 (2020).
121 B. McKibben, S. D. S. B. McKibben, Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet (Vintage Books Canada, 2011).
122 A. Caramanica et al., El Ni~
no resilience farming on the north coast of Peru. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 24127–24137 (2020).
123 P. E. Minnis, New Lives for Ancient and Extinct Crops (University of Arizona Press, 2014).
124 R. K. Bocinsky, T. A. Kohler, A 2,000-year reconstruction of the rain-fed maize agricultural niche in the US Southwest. Nat. Commun. 5, 5618 (2014).
125 C. Strawhacker et al., A landscape perspective on climate-driven risks to food security: Exploring the relationship between climate and social transformation in
the preHispanic US Southwest. Am. Antiq. 85, 427–451 (2020).
126 P. Ermigiotti et al., The Pueblo Farming Project (Crow Canyon Archaeological Center, 2020).
127 S. A. Crabtree, D. W. Bird, R. B. Bird, Subsistence transitions and the simplification of ecological networks in the Western Desert of Australia. Hum. Ecol. 47,
165–177 (2019).
128 J. Petzold, N. Andrews, J. D. Ford, C. Hedemann, J. C. Postigo, Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: A global evidence map of academic
literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 113007 (2020).
129 H. Reid, J. Phillips, M. Heath, Natural Resilience: Healthy Ecosystems as Climate Shock Insurance (International Institute for Environment and Development,
London, 2009).
130 J. D. Ford et al., Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6, 349–353 (2016).
131 N. J. Reo et al., Invasive species, indigenous stewards, and vulnerability discourse. Am. Indian Q. 41,201–223 (2017).
132 A. C. Zeven, Landraces: A review of definitions and classifications. Euphytica 104, 127–139 (1998).
133 S. B. Brush, In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Sci. 35,346–354 (1995).
134 J. Shaw, Archaeology, climate change and environmental ethics: Diachronic perspectives on human:non-human:environment worldviews, activism and care.
World Archaeol. 48, 449–465 (2016).
10 of 10
|
PNAS Burke et al.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108537118 The archaeology of climate change: The case for cultural diversity
Downloaded at UNIV DE MONTREAL BIBLIOTHEQ on July 22, 2021
