Nature, Identity, and Disaster: Prehistoric Lake Dwelling in Central Europe

Abstract

Exploring human–environment relations has been an area of great interest to archaeologists, especially for the purpose of reconstructing past environments and investigating methods of human adaptation in the face of changing climates. However, despite the great fruitfulness of such research, particularly in raising awareness of the diversity of human practices, archaeologists often do not account for the influence that preconceived notions of human– environment relationships have in such reconstructions. In fact, archaeology can play a part in constructing or reinforcing Western perceptions of the environment, and as such, sometimes tell us more about our own associations with the natural world rather than informing us about those in the past (see Stump, Chapter 10 and Armstrong Oma, Chapter 11 this volume for similar statements). Using the example of the prehistoric Swiss lake dwellings, this chapter argues that preconceived notions of human–environment relations affect how we interpret and present the archaeological record and past communities. As a consequence, these presentist preconceptions can influence interpretations of the past, creating research trajectories that are monopolized by influential historic debates and obscure the potential subtleties to human interactions with the natural world. This chapter maintains that the environment often shapes cultural and community identities, both now and in the past, with implications for how such communities deal with environmental change or disaster. In fact, environmental change and risk can itself become inscribed into the cultural identities of the communities that inhabit such landscapes (see Fiore et al., Chapter 4 and Chevalier, Chapter 5 this volume for further discussion of environment and identity). Archaeologists must therefore approach the question of past human–environment relations by considering the place of the environment in the construction of community identities through the daily process of ‘living with nature’. Cogent arguments have been made for the inextricable relationship between culture and the environment and particularly for the way in which the environment is perceived through the process of ‘dwelling’ within it (Ingold 2000). Such work has opened up new avenues of investigation particularly in relation to the mutually constituting association between an environment and its inhabitants.