The ecosystem services framework in archaeology (and vice versa)

Abstract

Economics, ecology and archaeology study various aspects of resource utilisation and mobilisation, differing in the studied systems, objects and currencies. However, the three disciplines have developed mostly independently, resulting in limited dialogue among them. Emergent fields such as ecological economics and environmental archaeology are now linking the three disciplines and promoting dialogue among them, but a theoretical framework that links all three disciplines at once is missing.
I propose that ecosystem services (ES) can serve as such a theoretical framework. Moreover, after an ES‐centred framework establishes, it will be capable of further evolving – independently of ES—into a unified superdiscipline, relieving boundaries among disciplines.
To demonstrate this potential, I present some examples of archaeology‐ES linkages, relating to the past, present and future. I show, in general, how archaeology studies past ES and informs us on current ES, as well as how ES benefit archaeological practice. Thus, I demonstrate the strong interface between archaeology and ES, and how it can promote the dialogue among the three disciplines, provide them with new practical tools, and resolve theoretical issues as the sustainability of ancient societies and anthropocentricity and monetisation of ES.

Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Full text

1450
|
People and Nature. 2022;4:1450–1460.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3
1 | ECOLOGY, ECONOMY AND
ARCHAEOLOGY
Both economics and ecology take their names from the Greek word
oikos (οἶκος ), which translates as a household (Naveh, 2000; Schwarz
& Jax, 2011) consisting of a physical residence, it s inhabitants and
their propert y. Ernst Haeckel, who in 1866 coined the term ecology,
described it as the study of ‘the household of nature’ or ‘economy
of organisms’ (Schwarz & Jax, 2011). Appropriately, both disciplines
study comparable aspects of resource management within ‘house-
holds’ and share interest in costs and benefits associated with man-
aging resources, and hence in trade- offs and strategies and their
effects on resource flows and system structure. Whereas econom-
ics studies humans and firms operating in markets using money as
Received: 4 Januar y 2022
|
Accepted: 18 July 2022
DOI: 10.1002/pa n3.10395
PERSPECTIVE
The ecosystem services framework in archaeology
(and vice versa)
Ofir Katz1,2
This is an op en acces s article unde r the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provide d the original wor k is prope rly cite d.
© 2022 The Author. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on beh alf of British Ecolo gical Societ y.
1Dead Sea and Arava Science Center,
Tamar Regional Council, Tamar, Israel
2Eilat Ca mpus, Ben- Gurion Unive rsity of
the Negev, Eilat, Isr ael
Correspondence
Ofir Katz
Email: katz.phyt@gmail.com
Funding information
Israel M inistry of Science and Techn ology
Handling Editor: Shonil A Bhagwat
Abstract
1. Economics, ecology and archaeology study various aspects of resource utilisa-
tion and mobilisation, differing in the studied systems, objects and currencies.
However, the three disciplines have developed mostly independently, resulting
in limited dialogue among them. Emergent fields such as ecological economics
and environmental archaeology are now linking the three disciplines and pro-
moting dialogue among them, but a theoretical framework that links all three
disciplines at once is missing.
2. I propose that ecosystem services (ES) can ser ve as such a theoretical frame-
work. Moreover, after an ES- centred framework establishes, it will be capable of
further evolving – independently of ES— into a unified superdiscipline, relieving
boundaries among disciplines.
3. To demonstrate this potential, I present some examples of archaeology- ES link-
ages, relating to the past, present and future. I show, in general, how archaeol-
ogy studies past ES and informs us on current ES, as well as how ES benefit
archaeological practice. Thus, I demonstrate the strong interface between ar-
chaeology and ES, and how it can promote the dialogue among the three disci-
plines, provide them with new practical tools, and resolve theoretical issues as
the sustainability of ancient societies and anthropocentricity and monetisation
of ES.
KEYWORDS
archaeology, ecology, economics, ecosystem services, heritage landscapes

|
1451
People and Nature
KATZ
currenc y, ecology studies organisms and populations operating in
ecosystems using energy or carbon as currency. Thus, in the sim-
plest terms, ecology is economy of nature (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2008;
Kormondy, 1978; Naveh, 2000; Schwarz & Jax, 2011; Worster, 1994)
whereas economy is anthropic ecology.
Despite these innate commonalities, the two disciplines inter-
face mostly in the field of ecological economics, which studies the
ecological ramifications of human economy, nature as a resource,
and sustainable management of natural resources (Barrett &
Farin a, 2000; Costanza et al., 1997; Daly, 2005; Naveh, 2000). A
concept that is becoming increasingly central in this field in recent
years is ecosystem services (ES) (Ehrlich & Ehrlich, 2008; Ehrlich
& Mooney, 1983; Lamarque et al., 2011; Seppelt et al., 2 011;
Viher vaara et al., 2010). This concept is used for describing and ana-
lysing the benefits that humans derive from ecosystems' component
species, structure and functioning (Lamarque et al., 2011; Seppelt
et al., 2011; The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), and thus
serves as a node linking ecology and economics (Figure 1) (Haines-
Young & Potschin, 2010; La Notte et al., 2017; Lamarque et al., 2011;
Potschin & Haines- Young, 2016; Spangenberg et al., 2014; cf.
Boerema et al., 2017).
By evaluating alternatives and analysing conservation-
development trade- offs, ES offers quantitative tools for decision
making, primarily through a prism of nature's value for human-
kind. The anthropocentric view and resultant tendency to mon-
etise nature have attracted large opposition (Gómez- Baggethun
& Ruiz- Pérez, 2011; e.g., this recent debate: Schröter & van
Oudenhoven, 2016; Silver town, 2015, 2016; Wilson & Law, 2016).
However, many defend the ES approach by stating that monetisa-
tion is merely a final step that is used for decision- making and is not
an imposed end- goal and thus avoidable. Thus, monetisation does
not and should not dismiss the idea of nature's intrinsic value; nor
does it imply that nature's services to humankind surpass it s intrinsic
value, or that nature should be viewed through an anthropocentric
prism (Schröter & van Oudenhoven, 2016). I suggest that this debate
can be further resolved by positing ES as more than a node tying
together ecology and economics (or, more profoundly, tying nature
with utility and monetar y value), and that incorporating archaeol-
ogy into ES and ES into archaeology offers an opportunity for both
disciplines to interact more strongly. This in turn will provide them
with new practic al tools, and resolve some seminal theoretical issues
(e.g., the question of sustainability of past societies, and of anthro-
pocentricity and monetisation of ES).
In this manuscript, I narrow the term archaeolog y to the study
of past human societies and the remains they leave behind, whereas
studies of the surrounding environments (including changes of these
environments) as palaeoecology. Environmental archaeology is an
emerging subfield that studies the interactions between the two,
usually through the study of biological remains in archaeological
sites and of the impacts of human activities on the environment.
Archaeologists frequently study past societies' utilisation of raw
materials such as rocks, plants and animals, or societies' ef fect s on
the abiotic and biotic landscape. Thus, archaeology studies past
human economies and ecologies and their interac tions. This idea has
been explicitly manifested in Eric Higgs's (1975) Palaeoeconomy— a
‘fully integrated study of social, demographic, ecological, techno-
logical and economic aspects of human communities’ (Outram &
Bogaard, 2019)— and in Karl Butzer's (1982) Archaeology as Human
Ecology, as well as in the emerging field of historical ecology, which
studies past ecosystems by employing archaeological tools and
knowledge (Braje et al., 2017; Hayashida, 2005). Such ideas lead to
the development of two new fields, environmental archaeology and
economic archaeology (Outram & Bogaard, 2019), which put for-
ward and demonstrate the role of archaeology as a study of past
human economies and ecologies.
As a discipline that studies past human economies and ecolo-
gies, archaeolog y is innately a discipline studying past ES. In fact, ar-
chaeologists have been studying ES and applying some of the ideas
underlying the ES approach before the ES approach was formalised
(as I shall demonstrate below). Nevertheless, although archaeol-
ogy should be integral to ES, this is far from being the case (Gearey
et al., 2014). At the same time, archaeologists also study how past
human ac tivities have impa cted the environm ent, sometime s causing
severe dam ages to ecosystems a nd hence to the ES th ese ecosystem s
FIGURE 1 A schematic representation (adapted from Haines-
Young & Potschin, 2010; La Notte et al., 2017; Lamarque
et al., 2011; Potschin & Haines- Young, 2016) of the ecosystem
services cascade (black arrows), the human impact cascade (grey
arrows) and the knowledge flows between archaeology and both
cascades (white arrows; examples are discussed in the text).
Intersections of all three disciplines are shown in grey background.
An interdisciplinary thinking focuses on these intersection, whereas
superdisciplinary thinking emphasises the whole (Katz, 2018;
Krishnan, 2009).

1452
|
People and Nature
KATZ
can provide (Blondel, 2006; Braje et al., 2 017; Hayashida, 2005;
Henderson et al., 2007; Jalut et al., 2009; Scharf, 2014; Zimmermann
et al., 2009). Thus, archaeology encompasses all nodes of the cou-
pled ES and human impact cascades (Figure 1), as well as touching
into issues such as resilience and sustainability (Briggs et al., 2006;
Gosling & Williams, 2013; Guttmann- Bond, 2010; Hayashida, 2005;
Minnis, 1999; Scharf, 2014). However, focused on the past, archae-
ology can rarely rely on concrete data, such as prices, demands, or
plant community composition, since market or vegetation surveys
of the past are nearly impossible to make (at least for vegetation
surveys, palaeoecological methods have gone a long way towards
being able to provide strong data; nonetheless, reaching the desired
optimal degree of accuracy and confidence remains hindered by cur-
rent statistical and laboratory methods, let alone issues of preser-
vation and whether the fossil record is representative of the past).
Therefore, the study of ES in archaeology is untied to monetisation
or most other types of valuation.
Although ES serves as an intersection (interdiscipline) of eco-
nomics, ecology and archaeology, the dialogue among the three
disciplines should not develop bounded to ES as an interdiscipline
(Katz, 2018; Klein, 2010; Krishnan, 2009). Not only limiting the dia-
logue's scope, such practice might ‘destine’ a monetisation of nature.
Avoiding this obstacle requires advancement to a higher level of
disciplinary thinking, superdisciplinarity, which relaxes boundaries
among disciplines and does not depend on intersecting theoretical
frameworks (Katz, 2018; Klein, 2010 ; Krishnan, 2009). This type of
thinking will reinforce and advance the ties among disciplines inde-
pendently of any single interdiscipline (e.g., ES), while not eliminat-
ing interdisciplines but absorbing them into the superdiscipline. The
emerging merged Earth- life superdiscipline— which owes its own
evolution to earlier interdisciplinary frameworks such as ecosystem
ecology, Earth systems science and plant functional diversity— is an
example for such an evolution (Katz, 2018). Tying archaeology and
ES, and hence archaeology with economics and ecolog y, will assist in
achieving this higher- level thinking and dialogue.
In the following sections, I demonstrate how linking archaeology
and ES can benefit our understanding of the past, understanding
of the present and benefit future prac tice. Many of these examples
correspond, respectively, to the three main ES categories (La Notte
et al., 20 17; The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005): provi-
sioning services (directly provided physical goods), cultural services
(non- material benefits), and regulating services (benefits from me-
diation or moderation of natural phenomena or conditions). Table 1
provides a summary of these benefits according to these categories.
2 | BENEFITS FOR STUDYING THE PAST
Analysing archaeological assemblages of any kind of biological re-
mains— be it pollen, seeds, phytoliths, woody tissues, insects, bones,
etc.— first requires being able to identify these remains and classify
them above some degree of confidence. This requires extant refer-
ences for the biological remains, or at least for those that are likely
to have existed locally or regionally in the past (e.g. Roper, 1979).
Moreover, since some biological remains can vary in number, shape
or structure due to variations in environmental conditions, which
can affect classification and interpretation (for examples from
seeds, see Heiss et al., 2011; Motuzaite- Matuzeviciute et al., 2012;
from phytoliths, see Mithen et al., 2008; Rosen & Weiner, 1994;
Tsartsidou et al., 20 07; from tree charcaoal, see Bodin et al., 2020;
TABLE 1 Summary of ES contributions to archaeology and of archaeology to ES, according to the common three ES categories
(supporting ES are included within regulating ES)
Contribution type Contribution Provisioning ES Regulating ES
Cultural
ES
Archaeology to ES Long- term ES demand/supply and
sustainability
a b b
Identifying unknown ES suppliers a b
Identifying unknown ES types b c
Modifications of landscape by archaeological
sites
a a a
Adding values to landscapes b a
Long- term ecosystem evolution a a a
ES to archaeology Biological references from extant ecosystems a c
Catchment analysis and pas t societ y
subsistence
a
Preservation and conservation of
archaeological artefacts
a
Putting archaeological artefacts into context a
aConfirmed contribution (strong evidence or case studies exist in the literature).
bLikely contribution (probable, but with no strong evidence).
cPutative contribution (little theoretical basis).

|
1453
People and Nature
KATZ
Ramos et al., 2021; Langgut & Garfinkel, 2022), it is advised to use
references from natural ecosystems in settings that are compa-
rable to the studied site or region. Hence, using local or regional
reference collections is a common practice in environmental ar-
chaeology (for examples from seeds, see Martinetto et al., 2014;
Nesbitt et al., 2003; Rivera Núñez et al., 2007; from phytoliths, see
Albert, 2002; Bozarth, 1987; Das et al., 2013; Delhon et al., 2008,
2009; Fernández Honaine et al., 2006; Tsartsidou et al., 2007, 2008,
2009; Weisskopf et al., 2014) and palaeoecology (for examples
from phytoliths, see Das et al., 2013; Delhon et al., 2003; Gallego
& Distel, 20 04; Mercader et al., 2010 ; Strömberg, 2004). Obviously,
compiling such reference collections depends on the relevant spe-
cies and ecosystems existing in the region, to supply this service.
Comparable to how palaeoecology has been suggested to be
capable of providing knowledge about past long- term dynam-
ics in ES supply and its response to change (Braje et al., 2017;
Briggs et al., 2006; Gosling & Williams, 2013; Jeffers et al., 2015),
Archaeology as palaeoeconomy (Higgs, 1975 ) can provide com-
parable knowledge for ES demand/utilisation (Braje et al., 2017;
Briggs et al., 2006; Gosling & Williams, 2013). Archaeolog y has
already proven its ability to date first/early utilisation of vari-
ous resources. Chemical residues on vessels provide evidence
for cacao beverages in early Preclassic (2nd millennium BCE)
Mesoamerica (Henderson et al., 2007) and for tobacco smoking in
north- western North Americ a (Tushingham et al., 2013). Biological
remains in open plots near archaeological sites provide evidence
for field preparation and fertilisation near an early (3nd millen-
nium BCE) urban site in the Levant (Paz et al., 2017). Burnt de-
posits provide evidence for the use of animal dung as fuel in the
Neolithic (10th to early 6th millennia BCE) and Chalcolithic (6th to
4th millennia BCE) Levant (Katz et al., 20 07; Portillo et al., 2 014 ,
2020). Water- well installations provide evidence for wood archi-
tecture involving intricate carpentry in early Neolithic (5th to 4th
millennia BCE) central Europe (Tegel et al., 2012). These reflect
food and psychoactive substances, biofuel and timber provision-
ing ES, respectively.
Since most resources and raw materials utilised by any site's past
inhabit ants were acquir ed from its surro undings, archae ologists have
devised methods of estimating the potential food resources within
reach from a site (site catchment; Hunt, 1992; Marín Arroyo, 2009;
Rope r, 1979; Tiffany & Abbott, 1982; Volkmann, 2018), and con-
sequently the maximum human population that a site or area can
sustainably support (carrying capacity; Dewar, 1984; Glassow, 1978;
Hassan, 1978 , 1979). These practices were popularised during the
1970s, but their implementation was hindered by difficulties of an-
alysing these often- complex catchments using the data processing
tools available at the time (Dewar, 198 4; Hunt, 199 2; Roper, 1979;
Volkmann, 2018). Another hurdle was that the conversion of re-
sources into benefit to humans (most commonly, plant biomass to
energy supply) tended to be oversimplified, ignoring— for example—
feeding selectivity, food web structure, efficiency of converting
net primary production (NPP) into animal biomass, and nutrient
limitations (Dewar, 1984; Roper, 1979). Thus, site catchment and
(especially) carrying capacity remained more theoretical concepts
than rigorous tools (Dewar, 1984).
Nevertheless, the essence of site catchment analysis as a prac-
tice of identifying and quantifying food resources and valuating
them as calories, is comparable to analysing food provisioning ES.
Relative carrying capacity, defined as the ratio of food production
(or NPP) to consumption by human population (Hassan, 1978 , 1979;
Dewa r, 1984), is nothing more than the ratio of the said ES's supply
to its demand. Hence, one strength of the ES approach lies in it pro-
viding archaeologists a more ecologically- and economically- explicit
tool for analysing the resources that past human societies acquired
from their environments, as well as their quantities, benefits and
potentially values (the latter are more likely to be expressed as calo-
ries than money). Moreover, archaeology can extend site catchment
analysis to include ES other than food provisioning. In turn, archaeol-
ogy provides information about past demand and utilisation of such
resources. Thus, provided that information is suf ficiently continu-
ous, long- term trends and dynamics of (provisioning) ES supply and
demand/utilisation can be identified and analysed.
Combining the aforementioned capabilities of palaeoecology
and archaeology can offer tools to quantify carrying capacity in
archaeological- anthropological terms as the ratio of multiple ES
supply to demand/utilisation, replacing the previous narrower food-
centred definition of carrying capacity (Dewar, 1984; Hassan, 1978,
1979; c f. Jeffers et al., 2015). This advancement will enable us to
better understand the long- term interplay between ES supply
and demand/utilisation, as well as its associated demographic,
economic- societal- technological and environmental changes (Briggs
et al., 2006; Dewar, 1984; Glassow, 1978; Gosling & Williams, 2013;
Hassan, 1978, 1979; Hayashida, 2005; Schar f, 2014). Doing so will
indeed bring economics, ecology and archaeology together.
3 | BENEFITS FOR UNDERSTANDING THE
PRESENT
A long- term perspective of ES supply and demand/utilisation can
benefit not only our understanding of the past, but also of the pre-
sent. Archaeological finds can assist in recognising ES suppliers that
may have so far been negle cted, forgotten or unknown. For example,
a species that nowadays is not known to be used as food can be rec-
ognised as such, if its remains are found in appropriate archaeologi-
cal contex ts, for example, near or within food preparation facilities
(e.g., grinding stones and cooking installations) or with clear process-
ing (e.g., cutting) marks. Likewise, archaeology and archaeoethno-
botany can identif y medicinal plants that were used in the past, but
the knowledge of whom has since been lost (Kvavadze et al., 2013).
Hence, with the gradual loss of t raditional knowledge, archaeolog y is
likely to play an increasing role in pointing us to unknown utilitarian
species. Even more, albeit considerably less likely, archaeolog y may
reveal yet- unknown ES types, i.e., benefit s of some ecosystem com-
ponents and functions that were known to human societies in the
past, but not nowadays. Possibly, the best example to date— albeit

1454
|
People and Nature
KATZ
unrelated to archaeology— is observations on bacteria used for algo-
rithm optimisation (Passino, 2002), hence pointing at a possible ES
type of ‘inspiration for software development’ or a behavioural par-
allel to genetic resources ES. The large dwellings made of mammoth
bones and tusks from Upper Palaeolithic/Late Pleistocene (50th
to 12th millennia BCE) Europe (Iakovleva, 2015; Pr yor et al., 2020)
demonstrate the use of large animal bones for construction in the
past. Other than the use of whalebones for construction in the
Arctic until pre- modern times (Patton & Savelle, 2008; Savelle &
McCartney, 2002), there are very few recent/Holocene analogues
for this ES, which has nearly become lost in time.
A second domain in which archaeology meets ES is cultural heri-
tage landscapes, which the World Heritage Centre (2005) describes
as illustrating the evolution of human society under the influence
of the natural environment. Cultural heritage landscapes include
element s from both archaeology and nature that have impor tant
cultural and spiritual values, i.e., cultural ES suppliers. Cultural ES
have been underrepresented in several ES assessments, to a large
degree because unlike other ES they are not inherently associated
with natural sciences, are non- quantitative and hence are dif ficult
to evaluate (Hølleland et al., 2017; Schaich et al., 2010; Tengberg
et al., 2012). Archaeology, being more tangible, quantitative and
oriented towards ever yday life than many other disciplines within
the humanities, can help bridge this gap— philosophically and meth-
odologically, as well as by providing physical evidence— and allevi-
ate the intangibilit y challenge associated with cultural ES. A fur ther
advantage of archaeological and heritage sites is that they inher-
ently put archaeological finds (and the heritage they encompass)
within the physical environment— or at least so they should— and
so enhance the provisioning and value of cultural ES and vice versa
(Hølleland et al., 2017).
For example, the Judeo- Christian shepherd motif (e.g., Moses,
David and Jesus; Anthonioz, 2020; Kloppenborg, 2010) has deep
theological meanings that spur religious feelings and inspire.
Levantine rangeland ecosystems are integral to the personal ex-
perience of this motif in religious teaching, pilgrimage and tourism,
and hence integral to the cultural heritage landscapes of the Levant
(Figure 2). An archaeological or heritage site that is associated with
this motif will not have the same cultural or spiritual ef fect if it is
detached from the rangeland context, whereas the rangeland is far
more than being merely where livestock acquire food. One such ex-
ample is the Good Shepherd Church in New Zealand, designed so
that its pastoral surroundings are ‘brought in’ as part of its epon-
ymous shepherd theme (Addison, 2021). On the same note, a
hunter- gatherer site is better appreciated if it is situated within the
landscape where hunting and gathering took place, and the land-
scape is better appreciated with its hunting- gathering heritage.
Some ecosystem types provide good examples for intimate re-
lationships between people and nature. The Dehesa/Montado veg-
etation formation in the Iberian Peninsula, characterised by large
rangelands and croplands developed under oak canopies, is a rem-
nant of old agro- silvo- pastoral landscape management systems
(Capelo et al., 2012). This vegetation formation and the ecosystem
it creates should be valued also for the human heritage they en-
compass (Blondel, 2006; Capelo et al., 2012). The Dehesa/Montado
further serves as a reference ecosystem for inferring archaeological
FIGURE 2 Countryside near Bethlehem, where David herded his father's flock, and where the good shepherd symbol emerged. For these
reasons, this rangeland encompasses greater cultural ecosystem services than a conventional rangeland. Image by hoyasmeg, in Openverse
(CC BY 2.0 licence)

|
1455
People and Nature
KATZ
findings (Delhon et al., 2009) and for sustainable landscape manage-
ment (Blondel, 2006).
More generally, Mediterranean landscapes have been intensely
shaped by disturba nces, including hu man- made ones (B londel, 2006;
Bottema et al., 199 0; Carmel & Naveh, 200 4; Naveh, 1982). Some
major differences between Israel's and California's Mediterranean
landscapes are best explained by differences in human- made distur-
bances during the past millennia, namely intense agro- pastoral life-
style in Israel compared to hunting- gathering in California (Carmel
& Naveh, 2004; Naveh, 198 2). Evidence for the antiquit y of these
intense human activities and their ef fect s on the landscape come
mainly from archaeology (e.g., Katz et al., 20 07; Paz et al., 2017 ).
Studies from other parts of the world, including in South America
(Loughlin et al., 2018; McMichael, 2020) and the Pacific (Gosling
et al., 2021), have also revealed previously- unknown human im-
pacts on the landscape, resulting in long- term legacies embedded
in landscape structure, that persist to these days. Providing better
information on human activities' temporal and spatial dynamics in
these regions (and others) will allow us to differentiate the impac ts
of human- made from non- human- made perturbations on ecosystem
and landscape evolution. This knowledge, in turn, will increase our
understanding of how humanity shaped these ecosystems and land-
scapes, how it continues to shape them, and how they may respond
to future human- made and nonhuman- made perturbations.
4 | BENEFITS FOR FUTURE PRACTICE
Archaeology's tangibility— linking place- based objec ts to past human
activity and to their surrounding environment— can be used to em-
power heritage and cultural ES and to make them more accessible
and understandable to decision makers (Tengberg et al., 2012),
hence influencing and securing the future of natural landscapes,
cultural heritage landscapes and archaeological sites. For a start,
some areas, landscapes or ecosystems may be ecologically under-
appreciated simply because the knowledge of ES they can supply
is lacking, a gap that archaeology may close. Likewise, archaeologi-
cal finds and sites themselves can augment the benefits or values
of landscapes, ecosystems or their component s. Going back to the
Levantine rangelands as a case study, their value may be greater
near archaeological sites associated with the Judeo- Christian shep-
herd motif (e.g., Addison, 2021) than near archaeological sites that
relate— for example— to the stone age. Further examples include a
recent discovery of a possible early centre of agriculture in South
America (Lombardo et al., 2020) that can enhance tourism in this
remote location, or the global interest in Rapa Nui (Easter Island) fol-
lowing its cultural collapse that is sometimes attributed to ecocide
(Mieth & Bork, 2010; Rainbird, 2002).
The potential for archaeological- ES linkages to contribute to
future landscape management and planning is also great. The in-
creasing interest in socio- ecological systems (Partelow, 2018) and
the sustainability of human societies, which can often be trans-
lated to ES supply and demand/utilisation and/or to balancing the
coupled ES and human impact cascades (Figure 1), can provide new
models for sustainable resource management that had been persist-
ing for millennia (Crumley, 2021). It is becoming increasingly clear
that ancient societies and their natural resource utilisation systems
may have been more sustainable and resilient to external (e.g., cli-
matic) per turbations than modern societies are, and we have much
to learn from them (Guttmann- Bond, 2010; Minnis, 1999; Turner
et al., 2020). A recent model describing how traditional societies in
Hawai'i divided space among themselves so that each one had ac-
cess to essential natural resources (Winter et al., 2020) provides one
example for such knowledge and the potential encompassed within
it. However, other archaeological studies, such as in Rapa Nui, sug-
gest that ancient human societies may not have always been sus-
tainable and that the same may apply to all traditional Pacific Island
societies (Mieth & Bork, 2010; Rainbird, 2002).
The potential of ES in affecting the future of archaeological prac-
tice and conservation are of no lesser importance. Archaeological
sites contain many types of remains and ar tefacts, such as metal
object s, textiles, murals, and biological remains. All these are ex-
posed to a variety of physical and chemical destructive processes
that reduce their chances of preservation over time (Cabanes &
Shahack- Gross, 2015; Kendall et al., 2018; McAdams et al., 2021;
Shahack- Gross et al., 2004) and pose challenges to archaeological
conser vation effort s (Luo et al., 2015). These processes are drive n by
physical and chemical properties of local rock, soil, sediment, water
and air. Organisms can promote or inhibit these processes through
various regulating ES (if their effec t is positive) or ecosystem dis-
services (if their effec t is negative), such as the secretion of acids,
salts or other reactive chemicals, or through modifying soil/ sediment
structure (McAdams et al., 2021; Shahack- Gross et al., 200 4).
Wall, cave and rock art provide a nice example for this issue.
From the simplistic ar t of Palaeolithic dwellings to elaborate mod-
ern murals, wall, cave and rock paintings are a highly valued her-
itage. The preser vation of this art form is threatened by water
seeping through rocks and walls, by microorganisms living on sur-
faces (Bastian et al., 2010; Saiz- Jimenez, 2013), and by bat and avian
guano (Singh & Gupta, 2020). In contrast, other organisms can as-
sist in conserving wall, cave and rock ar t. The damage caused to
cave art by microbiota (Bastian et al., 2010; Saiz- Jimenez, 2013)
can probably be controlled, at least in part, by other microbiota
(Bastian et al., 2010; Rinaldi, 2006), and the same follows for stone
walls (Wieler et al., 2019). Plants growing above caves ameliorate
destructive processes and aid conservation of cave ar t, for example
by reducing water seepage onto cave walls and balancing microcli-
mate within caves (Caneva et al., 2021). Thus, organisms and the en-
vironment that supports them provide valuable regulating ES that
support cultural heritage.
There is also a possibility of using ecosystem components, po-
tentially identified through ES assessments, to identify archaeolog-
ical sites and features. Differential vegetation growth, due to (for
example) nutrient- rich middens and water accumulation behind
stone structures, is a well- known marker of archaeological sites.
While this practice has probably been in use since the earlier days of

1456
|
People and Nature
KATZ
archaeological surveying, modern remote sensing methods now en-
able surveying considerably larger areas and more reliably than ever
before (A gapiou et al., 2013; Kirk et al., 2016). Moreover, recent stud-
ies suggest that plant communities in locations that were set tled in the
past may be different from plant communities in otherwise similar set-
tings, providing another useful tool that can be used at smaller spatial
scales (Sapir et al., 2019). Similarly, human modifications to the land-
scape can leave long- term marks on the vegetation, for example, siege
trenches and berms that change soil- rock relationships and hence local
water regime and vegetation (Ackermann, 2007), or the effects of tree
removal by fire (Gosling et al., 2021) and of animal (herbivore) removal
(Burney et al., 2003). Burrowing animals such as moles can translo-
cate small buried ar tefacts up to the surface, so artefact abundance in
molehills is greater inside or in close proximity to archaeological sites
(Sapir & Faust, 2016). Thus, plants and animals in natural ecosystems
can provide a useful service to archaeological practice.
Given the ample knowledge that archaeology can provide us
about past ES and sustainability, and the role it plays in increasing
landscape value and informing decision making on conservation
priorities— as discussed throughout this manuscript— it is clear that
using ES to improve archaeological prac tice will benefit nature con-
servation and management in the long run. In a sense, this possibility
manifests the coupling of ES and human impact cascades (Figure 1):
archaeology can benefit from ES framing and give back by yielding
knowledge that will assist in maintaining ES.
5 | CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE
PROSPECTS
The incorporation of ES thinking in archaeology and of archaeologi-
cal knowledge in ES studies of fers new opportunities for economics,
ecology and archaeology. It will increase the capacities of all three
disciplines, providing archaeology with better understanding of the
environmental settings and subsistence of past human societies,
and providing economics and ecology with a long- term perspective
on human- environment interactions. Doing so will set bet ter theo-
retical and knowledge- based frameworks for understanding human
resource management and utilisation, human impact on the envi-
ronment and sustainable natural resource management (Figure 1).
Offering new perspectives to ES will assist in reducing tensions and
resolving theoretical issues as the sustainability of ancient societies
and anthropocentricity and monetisation of ES. Within the context
of long- term socio- ecological dynamics, an archaeology- ES nexus
can offer decision makers not only supply- and- demand or benefit-
value insights (Daily et al., 2009; Guerr y et al., 2009) but also les-
sons from the past and broader perspective of sustainability. It also
offers an alternative to the perception of ES as a prac tice of meas-
uring and monetising potential services and benefits humanit y can
retrieve from ecosystems, replacing it with a more balanced view of
humans within nature and of the perils of resource overexploitation.
Archaeology will benefit from new sets of theories and models for
analysing human- environment interactions, as well as from better
incorporation of ES that can assist archaeological research and con-
servation. Both human societies in the past and archaeological sites
in the present are par t of nature, affec ting and being affected by
it, as the heritage landscape concept nicely recites. Thus, archaeo-
logical practices, interpretations and preservation rely— to varying
degrees and various manners— on ES.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Ofir Kat z is responsible for the conception, writing and revising of
this manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing this manuscript was facilitated by the Israel Ministry of
Science and Technology support of the Dead Sea and Arava Science
Center. Constructive comment s by the reviewers and editor have
helped in improving the manuscript.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
DATA AVAIL ABI LIT Y STAT EME NT
This manuscript does not include any data.
ORCID
Ofir Katz https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0533-2835
REFERENCES
Ackermann, O. (2007). Reading the field: Geoarchaeological codes in
the Israeli landscape. Israel Journal of Earth Sciences, 56, 87– 106.
https://doi.org/10.1560/IJES.56.2- 4.87
Addison, P. A. (2021). St James and the good shepherd: Windows on the
landscape. Architectural History Aotearoa, 18, 35– 42. h t t ps : //d o i .
org/10.26686/ aha.v18i.7366
Agapiou, A., Hadjimitsis, D. G ., & Alexakis, D. D. (2013). Development of
an image- based method for the detection of archaeologic al buried
relics using multi- temporal satellite imagery. International Journal
of Remote Sensing, 34, 5979– 5996. ht tps://doi.o rg/10.108 0/01431
161.2013.803630
Alber t, R. (2002). Phytolit h and spherulites study of herbivores dung
from the African Savannah as a tool for palaeocological reconstruc-
tion. Pyrenae: Revista de Prehistòria i Antiguitat de La Mediterrània
Occidental, 33, 11– 24 .
Anthonioz, S. (2020). The lion, the shepherd, and the master of ani-
mals: Metaphorical interactions in governance representations
in Mesopotamian and Levantine sources. In M. Pallavidini & L.
Portuese (Eds.), Researching metaphor in the ancient near east (pp.
15– 27). Harrassowit z.
Barret t, G. W., & Farina, A. (200 0). Integrating ecology and economics.
Bioscience, 50, 311– 312.
Bastian, F., Jurado, V., Nováková, A., Alabouvette, C., & Saiz- Jimenez, C.
(2010). The microbiology of Lascaux c ave. Microbiology, 156, 6 44–
652. https://doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.03616 0- 0
Blondel, J. (2006). The ‘design’ of Mediterranean landscapes: A millen-
nial stor y of humans and ecological systems during the historic pe-
riod. Human Ecology, 34, 713– 729. ht tps://doi.org/10.1007/s1074
5- 006- 9030- 4
Bodin, S . C., Molino, J., Odonne, G ., & Bremond, L. (2020). Unraveling
pre- Columbian occupation patterns in the tropic al fores ts of

|
1457
People and Nature
KATZ
French Guiana using an anthracological approach. Vegetation
History and Archaeobotany, 29, 567– 580. ht tps://doi.org /10.1007/
s0033 4- 019- 00767 - w
Boerema, A., Rebelo, A . J., Bodi, M. B., E sler, K. J., & Meire, P. (2017).
Are ecosystem services adequately quantified? Journal of Applied
Ecology, 54, 358– 370. https ://doi.or g/10 .1111/1365- 2664.12696
Bottema, S., Entjes- Nieborg, G., & Van Zeist, W. (Eds.). (1990). Man's role
in the shaping of the eastern Mediterranean landscape. A.A.Balkema.
Bozarth, S. R. (1987). Diagnostic opal phytoliths from rinds of selected
Cucurbita species. American Antiquity, 52, 6 07– 61 5 .
Braje, T. J., Leppard, T. P., Fitzpatrick, S. M., & Erlandson, J. M. (2017).
Archaeology, historical ecology and anthropogenic Island ecosys-
tems. Environmental Conservation, 44, 286– 297. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0376 8 9291 700 0261
Briggs, J. M., Spielmann, K. A ., Schaafsma, H., Kintigh, K. W., Kr use, M.,
Morehouse, K., & Schollmeyer, K. (20 06). Why ecology needs ar-
chaeologists and archaeology needs ecologists. Frontiers in Ecology
and the Environment, 2(4), 18 0– 188.
Burney, D. A., Robinson, G. S., & Burney, L. P. (2003). Sporormiella and
the late Holocene extinc tions in Madagascar. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100,
10800– 10805. htt ps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.153 47 00100
Butzer, K. W. (1982). Archaeology a s human ecology : Method and theor y for
a contextual approach. Cambridge Universit y Press.
Cabanes, D., & Shahack- Gross, R. (2015). Unders tanding fossil phytolith
preservation: The role of partial dissolution in paleoecology and ar-
chaeology. PLoS ONE, 10, e0125532. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ
al.pone.0125532
Caneva , G., Langone, S., Bartoli, F., Cecchini, A., & Meneghini, C. (2021).
Vegetation cover and tumuli's shape as affecting factors of micro-
climate and biodeterioration risk for the conservation of Etruscan
tombs (Tarquinia, Italy). Sustainability, 13, 3393. h t t p s :// do i .
org/10.3390/SU130 63393
Capelo, S., Bar ata, F., & de Mascarenhas, J. (2012). W hy are cultural land-
scapes of various values? Thinking about heritage landscape eval-
uation and monitoring tools. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 4, 5– 17.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v1028 5- 012- 0030- 3
Carmel, Y., & Naveh, Z. (2004). T he evolution of the cultural
Mediterranean landsc ape in Israel as af fected by fire, grazing, and
human ac tivities. In S. P. Wasser (Ed.), Evolutionary theory and pro-
cesses: Modern horizons (pp. 337– 409). Springer.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon,
B., Limburg, K., Naeem , S., O'Neill, R . V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R. G.,
Sutton, P., & van denBelt, M. (1997). The value of the world's eco-
system services and natural capital. Nature, 387, 2 53– 260 .
Crumley, C. L. (2021). Historic al ecology: A robust bridge between
archaeology and ecology. Sustainability, 13, 8210. ht t p s : //d oi .
org /10.3 390/su131 58210
Daily, G. C., Polask y, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Mooney, H.
A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T. H., Salzman, J., & Shallenberger, R.
(2009). Ecosystem services in decision making: Time to deliver.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 21– 28. h t t p s: //d o i .
org/10.1890/080025
Daly, H. E. (20 05). Economics in a full world. Scientific American, 293,
100– 107.
Das, S., Ghosh, R ., & Bera, S. (2013). Application of non- grass phy toliths
in reconstructing deltaic environments: A study from the Indian
Sunderbans. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology,
376, 48– 65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.02.017
Delhon, C., Alexandre, A., Berger, J. F., Thiébault, S., Brochier, J. L.,
& Meunier, J. D. (2003). Phy tolith assemblages as a promising
tool for reconstructing Mediterranean Holocene vegetation.
Quaternary Research, 59, 48– 60. ht tps://doi.org/10 .1016/S0033
- 5894(02)00013 - 3
Delhon, C., Martin, L ., Argant, J., & T hiébault, S. (2008). Shepherds
and plants in the Alps: Multi- proxy archaeobotanical analysis of
neolithic dung from ‘La Grande Rivoire’ (Isère, France). Journal of
Archaeological Science, 35, 2937– 2952. https://doi.org /10.1016/ j.
jas.2008.06.007
Delhon, C., Thiébault , S., & Berger, J. F. (2009). Environment and land-
scape management during the middle Neolithic in southern
France: Evidence for agro- s ylvo- pastoral systems in the middle
Rhone Valley. Quaternary International, 200, 50– 65. h t t p s: // do i .
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.05.0 08
Dewar, R. E. (1984). Environmental productivity, population regulation,
and carrying capacity. American Anthropologist, 86, 6 0 1– 6 14 .
Ehrlich, P. R., & Ehrlich, A. H. (2008). Nature's economy and the human
economy. Enrionmental Resource Economy, 39, 9– 16 .
Ehrlich, P. R., & Mooney, H. A. (1983). Extinction, substitution, and
ecosystem services. Bioscience, 33, 248– 254. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1309037
Fernández Honaine, M., Zucol, A. F., & Osterrieth, M. L. (2006). Phytolith
assemblages and systematic associations in grassland species of
the south- eastern Pampean Plains, Argentina. Annals of Botany, 98,
1155– 1165. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcl207
Gallego, L ., & Distel, R. A . (2004). Phy tolith assemblages in grasses na-
tive to Central Argentina. Annals of Botany, 94, 865– 874. h t t ps : //
doi.org/10.1093/aob/mch214
Gearey, B. R ., Fletcher, W., & Fyfe, R. (2014). Managing , valuing, and
protecting heritage resources in the twenty- first century: Peatland
archaeology, the ecosystem services framework, and the Kyoto
protocol. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, 16,
236– 244. https://doi.org/10.1179/13505 03315Z.00000 000084
Glassow, M. A. (1978). The concept of carr ying c apacity in the s tudy of
culture process. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 1,
31– 4 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978- 0- 12- 00310 1- 6.50008 - 1
Gómez- Baggethun, E., & Ruiz- Pérez, M. (2011). Economic valuation and
the commodific ation of ecosystem services. Progress in Physical
Geography: Earth and Environment, 35, 613– 628. h t t p s :// do i .
org /10.117 7/030 91 33311 421708
Gosling , W. D., Maezumi, S. Y., Heijink , B. M., Nasciemnto, M. N., Raczka,
M. F., van der Sande, M. T., Bush, M. B., & McMichael, C. N. H.
(2021). Scarce fire ec tivit y in nor th and north- western Amazonian
forests during the last 10,00 0 years. Plant Ecology & Diversity, 14,
14 3 – 1 5 6 . https://doi.org/10.1080/17550 874.2021.2008040
Gosling , W. D., & Williams, J. J. (2013). Ecos ystem service provision
sets the pace for pre- Hispanic societ al development in t he Central
Andes. Holocene, 23, 1619– 1624. https ://doi.org /10.1177/09596
83613 496296
Guerr y, A. D., Polasky, S., Lubchenco, J., & Vira, B. (2009). Natural cap-
ital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise
to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 112, 7348– 7355. https://doi. org /10.1073/
pna s.15037 51112
Guttmann- Bond, E. (2010). Sustainability out of the past: How archaeol-
ogy can save the planet. World Archaeology, 42, 355– 366. h t t p s: //
doi.org /10.10 80/0 0438 243. 2010 .497377
Haines- Young, R., & Potschin, M. (2010). The links between biodiversity,
ecosystem ser vices and human well- being. In D. G. Raf faelli & C.
L. J. Frid (Eds.), Ecosystem ecology: A new synthesis (pp. 110– 139).
Cambridge University Press.
Hassan , F. A. (1978). Demographi c archaeolo gy. Advances in Archaeological
Method and Theory, 1, 4 9– 1 0 3 .
Hassan, F. A. (1979). Demography and archaeology. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 8, 1 37– 16 0.
Hayashida, F. M. (2005). A rchaeology, ecological histor y, and conser-
vation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 34, 43– 65. h t t p s :// d oi .
org/10.1146/annur ev.anthro.34.081804.120515
Heiss, A . G., Kropf, M., Sontag, S., & Weber, A. (2011). Seed morpholog y
of nigella s.l. (Ranunculaceae): Identification, diagnostic traits, and
their potential phylogenetic relevance. International Journal of Plant
Sciences, 172, 267– 284. ht t ps://doi .or g/10 .10 86/65 7676

1458
|
People and Nature
KATZ
Hender son, J. S., Joyce, R. A., Hall, G. R ., Hurst, W. J., & McGovern, P.
E. (2007 ). Chemical and archaeological evidence for the earliest
cacao beverages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
of the United States of America, 104, 18937– 18940. h t t p s :// do i .
org /10.1073/PNAS.07088 15104
Higgs, E. S. (1975). Palaeoeconomy. Cambridge University Press.
Hølleland, H., Skrede, J., & Holmgaard, S. B. (2017). Cultural heritage
and ecosystem services: A literature review. Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites, 19, 210– 237. ht t p s :// d oi .
org/10.1080/13505 033.2017.1342069
Hunt, E. D. (1992). Upgrading site- catchment analyses with the use of
GIS: Investigating the settlement patterns of horticulturalists.
World Archaeology, 24, 28 3– 309. ht tps://doi.org/10 .1080/00 43 8
243.1992.9980208
Iakovleva, L. (2015). The architecture of mammoth bone circular dwell-
ings of the upper Palaeolithic set tlements in central and E astern
Europe and their socio- symbolic meanings. Quternary International,
259, 324– 334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.050
Jalut, G ., Dedoubat, J. J., Fontugne, M., & Ot to, T. (2009). Holocene
circum- Mediterranean vegetation changes: Climate forcing and
human impact. Quaternary International, 200, 4– 18. h t t ps : //d o i .
org/10.1016/j.quaint.2008.03.012
Jeffers, E. S., Nogué, S ., & Willis, K. J. (2015). The role of palaeoeco-
logical records in assessing ecosystem services. Quaternary
Science Reviews, 112, 17– 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quasc irev.
2014.12.018
Katz, O. (2018). Plant silicon and phytolit h research and the earth- life
superdiscipline. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 1281. ht t p s: // do i .
org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01281
Katz, O. , Gilead, I., B ar (Kutiel), P., & Shahack- Gross, R. (20 07). Chalcoli thic
agricultural life at Grar, Noerthern Negev, Israel: Dr y farmed cere-
als and dung- f ueled heatrhs. Paléorient, 33(2 ) , 1 0 1– 116 .
Kendall, C., Erik sen, A . M. H., Kontopoulos, I., Collins, M . J., & Turner-
Walker, G. (2018). Diagenesis of archaeological bone and tooth.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 491, 21– 37.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.PALAEO.2017.11.041
Kirk, S. D., Thompson, A . E., & Lippitt, C. D. (2016). Predictive model-
ing for site detection using remotely sensed phenological dat a.
Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4, 87– 101. https://doi.org/10.
7183/2326- 3768.4.1.87
Klein, J. T. (2010). A taoxonomy of interdis ciplinarity. In R . Frodema n, J. T.
Klein, & C . Mitcham (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity
(pp. 15– 30). Oxford University Press.
Kloppenborg, J. S. (2010). Pastoralism, papyri and the parable of the
phepherd. In P. Arzt- G rabner & C. M. Kreinecker (Eds.), Light from
the east. Papyrologische Kommentare Zum Neuen testament (pp. 47–
69). Harrassowitz.
Kormondy, E. J. (1978). Ecology/economy of nature— Synonyms? Ecology,
59, 1292– 1294.
Krishnan, A. (2009). Five strategies for practising interdisciplinarity. ESRC
National Centre for Research Methods, NCRM Working Paper
Series, 02/09.
Kvavadze, E., Martkoplishvili, I., Chichinadze, M., Rukhadze, L., Kakhiani,
K., Jalabadze, M., & Koridze, I . (2013). Palynological and palaeob o-
tanical data about bronze age medicinal plants from archaeologi-
cal sites in Georgia. Proceedings of the Georgian National Nuseum,
Natural History and Prehistory Section, 5, 36 – 49.
La Notte, A., D'Amato, D., Mäkinen, H., Paracchini, M. L., Liquete, C.,
Egoh, B., Geneletti, D., &Crossman, N. D. (2017). Ecosystem ser-
vices classification: A systems ecology perspective of the cas-
cade framework. Ecological Indicators, 74, 392– 402. h t t p s: // do i .
org /10.1016/ j.e coli nd.2016.11. 030
Lamarque, P., Quetrier, F., & Lavorel, S. (2011). The diversity of the eco-
system services concept and its implications for their assessment
and management. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 334, 441– 449.
Langgut, D., & Garfinkel, Y. (2022). 7000- year- old evidence of fruit tree
cultivation in the Jordan Valley, Israel. Scientific Reports, 12, 7463.
htt ps://doi.org/10.10 38/s4159 8- 022- 10743 - 6
Lombardo, U., Iriarte, J., Hilbert, L., Ruiz- Perez, J., Capriles, J. M., & Veit,
H. (2020). Early Holocene crop cultivation and landscape modifica-
tion in Amazonia. Nature, 581, 190– 193. ht tp s://doi.org /10.103 8/
s4158 6- 020- 2162- 7
Loughlin, N. J. D., Gosling, W. D., Mothes, P., & Montoya, E. (2018).
Ecological consequences of post- Columbian indigenous depopula-
tion in the Andean- Amazonian corridor. Nature Ecology & Evolution,
2, 1233– 1236. ht tps://doi.o rg/10.103 8/s4155 9- 018- 06 02- 7
Luo, X., Gu, Z., Li, T., Meng, X., Ma, T., & Yu, C. (2015). Environmental
control strategies for the in situ preservation of unearthed relics
in archaeology museums. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 16, 790– 797.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CULHER.2015.03.013
Marín Arroyo, A. B . (2009). The use of optimal foraging theory to esti-
mate late glacial site catchment areas from a central place: The case
of eastern Cantabria, Spain. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology,
28, 27– 36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2008.11.001
Martinetto, E ., Bouvet, D., Vassio, E ., Magni, P., & Jiménez- Mejías, P.
(2014). A new protocol for the collection and cataloguing of refer-
ence material for the study of fossil Cyperaceae fruits: The modern
carpological collection. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology, 201,
56 – 7 4 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpa lbo.2013.11.003
McAdams, C., Morley, M. W., & Roberts, R. G. (2021). The acid test: An
experimental microarchaeological study of guano- driven diagenesis
in tropical cave sediments. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports,
37, 102947. http s://doi.org /10.1016/J. JAS REP.2021.102947
McMichael, C. N. H. (2020). Ecologic al legacies of past human ac tivities
in Amazonian forests. New Phytologist, 229, 2492– 2496. h t tp s : //d o i .
org /10.1111/np h.16 88 8
Mercader, J., Astudillo, F., Bark worth, M., Bennett, T. J., Esselmont, C .,
Kinyanjui, R., G rossman, D. L., Simpson, S., & Walde, D. (2010).
Poaceae phytoliths from the Niassa rift, Mozambique. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 37, 1953– 1967. ht tps ://doi.org/10 .1016/j.
jas.2010.03.001
Mieth, A ., & Bork, H. R. (2010). Humans, climate or introduced rats—
Which is to blame for the woodland destruction on prehistoric
Rapa Nui (Easter Island)? Journal of Archaeological Science, 37, 416–
42 7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.10.006
Minnis, P. E. (1999). Sustainability: The long view from archaeolog y. New
Mexico Journal of Science, 39, 23– 44.
Mithen, S., Jenkins, E., Jamjoum, K., Nuimat, S., Nortcliff, S., & Finlayson,
B. (200 8). Experimental crop growing in Jordan to develop met h-
odolog y for the identification of ancient crop irrigation. World
Archaeology, 40, 7– 25. ht tps ://doi.org/10 .108 0/00 43 8 24070
1843561
Motuzai te- Matuzeviciute , G., Hun t, H. V., & Jone s, M. K. ( 2012). Exp erime ntal
approaches to underst anding variation in grain size in Panicum mili-
aceum (broomcorn millet) and its relevance for interpreting archae-
obotanical assemblages. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany, 21,
69 – 7 7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0033 4- 011- 0322- 2
Naveh, Z. (1982). Mediterranean landscape evolution and degr adation
as multivaraite bifurcations: Theoretical and practical implications.
Landscape Planning, 9, 125– 146.
Naveh, Z. (2000). The total human ecosystem: Integrating ecology and
economics. Bioscience, 50, 3 57.
Nesbit t, M., Colledge, S., & Murray, M. A. (20 03). Organisation and man-
agement of seed reference collections. Environmental Archaeology,
8, 77– 84. https://doi.org/10.1179/env.2003.8.1.77
Outram, A. K ., & Bogaard, A. (2019). Subsisten ce and Society in Prehistory:
New directions in economic archaeology. Cambridge Uni versity Press.
Partelow, S. (2018). A review of the social- ecologic al systems frame-
work. Ecology and Society, 23, 36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
10594 - 23 04 36

|
1459
People and Nature
KATZ
Passino, K. M. (20 02). Biomimicr y of bacterial for aging for distributed
optimization and control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 22, 52– 67.
htt ps://doi.org/10.1109/MCS .2002.1004 010
Patton, A. K., & Savelle, J. M. (2008). The s ymbolic dimensions of whale
bone use in Thule winter dwellings. Études/Inuit/Studies, 30, 137–
161. https://doi.org /10.7202/0175 69AR
Paz, Y., Ackermann, O., Avni, Y., Ben- Hur, M., Birkenfeld, M., Langgut,
D., Mizrahi, A.-S., Weiss, E., & Porat, N. (2017). An early bronze age
fertilized agricultural plot discovered near Tel Yarmouth, R amat bet
Shemesh, Israel. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 15, 226–
234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.08.001
Portillo, M., García- Suárez, A ., & Mat thews, W. (2020). Livestock faecal
indicators for animal management, penning, foddering and dung
use in early agricultural built environments in the Konya plain,
Central Anatolia. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 12, 1–
15. https://doi.org/10.1007/S1252 0- 019- 00988 - 0
Portillo, M., Kadowaki, S., Nishiaki, Y., & Albert, R . M. (2014). Early
Neolithic household behavior at tell Seker al- Aheimar (upper
Khabur, Syria): A comparison to ethnoarchaeological study of phy-
toliths and dung spherulites. Journal of Archaeological Science, 42,
107– 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.10.038
Potschin, M. B., & Haines- Young, R. H. (2016). Defining and measuring
ecosystem ser vices. In M. B. Potschin, R . H. Haines- Young, R . Fish,
& R. K. Turenr (Eds.), Routledge handbook of ecosystem services (pp.
25– 44). Routledge.
Pryor, A. J. E., Bere sford- Jones, D. G., Dudin, A. E., Ikonnikova, E. M.,
Hoffecker, J. F., & Gamble, C. (2020). The chronology and func-
tion of a new circular mammoth- bone structure at Kostenki 11.
Antiquity, 94, 323– 341. https://doi.org/10.15184/ AQY.2020.7
Rainbird, P. (2002). A message for our future? The Rapa Nui (Easter
Island) ecodisaster and Pacific Island environments. World
Archaeology, 33, 436– 451. ht tps://doi.org/10.108 0/00438 24012
010746 8
Ramos, R . S., Franco, M. J., B rea, M., Bonom o, M., & Politis, G. (2021). The
use of wood during prehisapnic times in the upper Parana Delta
revealed through analysis of nacient charcoal. Vegetation History
and Archaeobotany, 30, 193– 212. https://doi.org /10.10 07/s0033
4- 020- 00777 - z
Rinaldi, A. (20 06). Saving a fragile legacy. EMBO Reports, 7, 1075– 1079.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400844
Rivera Núñez, D., Miralles, B., Obón, C., Carreño, E., & Palazón, J. A .
(2007). Multivariate analysis of Vitis subgenus Vitis seed mor phol-
og y. Vitis— Journal of Grapevine Research, 46, 158– 167.
Roper, D. C. (1979). The method and theory of site catchment analysis: A
revi ew. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 119– 1 4 0 .
Rosen, A . M., & Weiner, S. (1994). Identifying ancient irrigation: A new
method using opaline phytoliths from emmer wheat. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 21, 125– 132. https://doi.org /10.10 06/
jasc .1994.1013
Saiz- Jimenez, C. (2013). C ave conservation: A microbiologist's perspec-
tive. In N. Cheeptham (Ed.), Cave Microbiomies: A novel resource for
drug discovery (pp. 69– 84). Springer.
Sapir, Y., & Faust, A . (2016). Utilizing mole- rat activity for archaeologi-
cal sur vey: A case study and a proposal. Advances in Archaeological
Practice, 4, 55– 70. https://doi.org/10.7183/2326- 3768.4.1.55
Sapir, Y., Sapir, Y., & Faust, A . (2019). Using fl oristic chara cteristics of c on-
temporary vegetation for identifying archaeological sites: Tel ‘Eton
archaeological site as a tes t case. Israel Journal of Plant Sciences, 66,
60– 68. https://doi.org/10.1163/22238 980- 00001029
Savelle, J. M., & McCartney, A. P. (2002). The application of bowhead
whale bone architectural indice s to prehistoric whale bone dwell-
ing sites in A laska and the Canadian Arctic . Bulletin of the National
Museum of Ethnology, 27, 3 6 1– 3 8 7.
Schaich , H., Bieling, C., & Plieninger, T. (2010). Linking ecosystem ser-
vices with cultural landscape research. Gaia, 19, 269– 277. h t t p s ://
doi.org/10.14512 / gaia .19.4.9
Scharf, E. A. (2014). Deep time: T he emerging role of archaeology in
landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology, 29, 563– 569. h t t p s: //d o i .
org /10.1007/s1098 0- 014- 9997- y
Schröter, M., & van Oudenhoven, A . P. E. (2016). Ecosystem services
go beyond money and markets: Reply to Silvertown. Trends in
Ecology & Evolution, 31, 333– 334. ht tps ://doi.org/10 .1016/j .
tree.2016.03.001
Schwarz, A., & Jax, K. (2011). Etymology and original sources of the term
‘ecology ’. In A. Schwarz & K. Jax (Eds.), Ecology revisited (pp. 145–
147). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 90- 481- 9744- 6 _9
Seppe lt, R ., D orma nn, C . F., Eppink , F. V., Lautenba ch, S ., & Sch midt , S. (2 011).
A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: Approaches,
shortcomings and the road ahead. Journal of Applied Ecology, 48,
630– 636. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365- 2664.2010.01952.x
Shahack- Gross, R., Berna, F., Karkanas, P., & Weiner, S. (2004). Bat guano
and preservation of archaeological remains in cave sites. Journal of
Archaeological Science, 31, 1259– 1272. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JAS.2004.02.004
Silvertown, J. (2015). Have ecosystem services been oversold? Trends
in Ecology & Evolution, 30, 641– 648. htt ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2015.08.007
Silvertown, J. (2016). Ecologist s need to be cautious about economic
metaphors: A reply. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 336 . h t tp s : //
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.03.007
Singh, M. R., & Gupta, D. A . (2020). Removal of bats' excreta from water-
soluble wall paintings using temporary hydrophobic coating. Journal
of the American Institute for Conservation, 60, 269– 280. ht t p s : //d o i.
org/10.1080/01971 360.2020.1734749
Spangenberg, J. H., von Haaren, C., & Settele, J. (2014). The ecosystem
service cascade: Further developing the metaphor. Integrating soci-
etal processes to accommodate social processes and planning, and
the case of bioenergy. Ecological Economics, 104, 22– 32. h t t p s :// do i .
org/10.1016/j.ecole con.2014.04.025
Strömberg, C. A. E. (20 04). Using phytolith assemblages to reconstruc t
the origin and spread of grass- dominated habitat s in the great
plains of North America during the late Eocene to early Miocene.
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 207, 239– 275.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2003.09.028
Tegel, W., Elburg, R ., Hakelberg, D., Stäuble, H., & Büntgen, U. (2012).
Early Neolithic water wells reveal the world's oldest wood ar-
chitecture. PLoS ONE, 7, e51374. https://doi.org/10.1371/journ
al.pone.0051374
Tengberg, A ., Fredholm, S., Eliasson, I., Kne z, I., Saltzman, K., &
Wetterberg, O. (2012). Cultural ecosystem ser vices provided by
landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosystem
Services, 2, 14– 26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.006
The Millennium Assessment. (20 05). Ecosystems and human well- being:
Synthesis. Island Press.
Tiff any, J. A., & Abbott , L. R. (1982). Site- catchment a nalysis: Appl ications
to Iowa archaeolog y. Journal of Field Archaeology, 9, 313– 322.
https://doi.org/10.1179/00934 69827 91504634
Tsartsidou, G., Lev- Yadun, S., Albert , R. M., Miller- Rosen, A ., Efstratiou,
N., & Weiner, S. (20 07). The phytolith archaeological record:
Strengths and weaknesses evaluated based on a quantitative m od-
ern reference collection from Gre ece. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 34, 1262– 1275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2006.10.017
Tsartsidou, G., Lev- Yadun, S ., Efstratiou, N., & Weiner, S. (20 08).
Ethnoarchaeological study of phytolith assemblages from an agro-
pastoral village in northern Greece (Sarakini): Development and
application of a phy tolith difference index. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 35, 600– 613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2007.05.008
Tsartsidou, G., Lev- Yadun, S., Efstratiou, N., & Weiner, S. (2009). Use of
space in a Neolithic village in G reece (Makri): Phytolith analysis and
comparison of phytolith assemblages from an ethnographic setting
in the same area. Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, 2342– 2352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2009.06.017

1460
|
People and Nature
KATZ
Turner, S., Kinnaird, T., Koparal, E., Lekakis, S., & Sevara, C. (2020).
Landscape archaeology, sustainability and the necessity of change.
World Archaeology, 52, 589– 606. https://doi.org /10.1080/0 04 38
243.2021.1932565
Tushingham, S., Ardura, D., Eerkens, J. W., Palazoglu, M., Shahbaz, S., &
Fiehn, O. (2013). Hunter- gatherer tobacco smoking: E arliest evi-
dence from the Pacific northwest coast of North America. Journal
of Archaeological Science, 40, 1397– 1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JAS.2012 .09.019
Viher vaara, P., Rönkä, M., & Walls, M. (2010). Trends in ecosystem ser-
vice research: Early steps and current drivers. Ambio, 39, 314– 324.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1328 0- 010- 0048- x
Volkmann, A. (2018). Methods and perspectives of geoarchaelogical site
catchment analysis: Identification of palaeoclimate indicators in the
Oder region from the iron to middle ages. In C. Siart, M. Forbriger,
& O. Bubenzer (Eds.), Digital geoarchaeology: New techniques for in-
terdisciplinary human- environmental research (pp. 27– 44). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.10 07/978- 3- 319- 25316 - 9_3
Weisskopf, A., Harvey, E., Kingwell- Banham, E., Kajale, M., Mohant y, R.,
& Fuller, D. Q. (2014). Archaeobotanical implications of phy tolith
assemblages from cultivated rice systems, wild rice stands and
macro- regional patterns. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51 , 43–
53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.04.026
Wieler, N., Ginat, H., Gillor, O., & Angel, R. (2019). The origin and role of
biological rock crusts in rocky desert weathering. Biogeosciences,
16, 1133– 1145. ht tps : //d oi. o r g /10.5194/ BG- 16 - 11 3 3- 201 9
Wilson, K. A., & Law, E. A . (2016). How to avoid underselling biodiver-
sity wit h ecosys tem ser vices: A response to Silver town. Tr ends
in Ecology & Evolution, 31, 332– 333. ht tps://doi.org/10 .1016/j.
tree.2016.03.002
Winter, K. B., Lincoln, N. K., Berkes, F., Alegado, R . A., Kurashima, N.,
Frank, K . L., Pascua, P., Rii, Y., Reppun, F., Knapp, I., Mcclatchey, W.,
Ticktin, T., Smith, C., Franklin, E., Oleson, K., Price, M. R ., McManus,
M., Donahue, M., Rodgers, K., … Toonen, R. J. (2020). Ecomimicry
in indigenous resource management: Optimizing ecosystem ser-
vices to achieve resource abundance, with examples from Hawaiʻi.
Ecology and Society, 25, 1– 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 11539
- 2502 26
World Heritage Centre. (2005). Operational guidelines for the implementa-
tion of the world heritage convention. Report WHC 05/2.
Worster, D. (1994). Nature's economy: A history of ecological ideas (2nd
ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Zimmermann, A ., Wendt, K. P., Frank, T., & Hilpert, J. (2009). L andsc ape
archaeology in Centra l Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society,
75, 1– 53. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079 497X0 0000281
How to cite this article: Katz, O. (2022). The ecosystem
services framework in archaeology (and vice versa). People and
Nature, 4, 1450–1460. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10395