Earth is currently entering the Anthropocene: a human-driven geological epoch that signals the end of the Holocene, the roughly 12,000 year period in which humanity transitioned gradually from the...Show moreEarth is currently entering the Anthropocene: a human-driven geological epoch that signals the end of the Holocene, the roughly 12,000 year period in which humanity transitioned gradually from the subsistence practices of hunter-gatherers to the “conventional” agricultural methods of the twenty- first century. Today, debates surrounding agriculture and food system reform lie at the heart of a worldwide “Decade of Action” on climate change (2020-2030), with approaches based on “sustainable intensification” characterizing the dominant paradigm supported by large-scale agriculture and world governance. In order to provide macrohistorical, “deep-time” perspectives on the suitability of “sustainable intensification” as a food-production strategy for the Anthropocene, this paper juxtaposes the present climate and food crisis with the subsistence transitions that occurred during the last climate epoch shift (Pleistocene-Holocene). As the only other climatic “game-changer” experienced by human societies, this period presents an opportunity to highlight through analogical analysis otherwise non-observable commonalities between how we and our distant ancestors have adapted our subsistence practices to massive climatic shift. On this basis, I argue that many of the recent “revolutionary” advances in agricultural methodology and technology that underpin confidence in sustainable intensification’s success in coming decades and centuries are little more than continuations of strategies developed by Early Holocene cultivators, upon which we have remained reliant. Moreover, because these strategies were developed under and for a specific set of climate conditions which are coming to an end, I question the continued success of these strategies under an Anthropocene climate regime. This leaves us in dire need of novel approaches to food-production. This paper also examines why modern societies are prone to such oversights and offers suggestions for how they can be overcome by incorporating historical macroperspectives into near-term climate decision-making. Finally, I make recommendations for an approach to cultivation based around the concept of syntropy that breaks with the past and offers tangible steps for immediate climate adaptation without the massive costs traditionally associated with de-intensification.Show less
Research on human bone artifacts has been rarely conducted exclusively. Indeed, researchers have limited their interests to intentional modifications of human bones in the frame of ritual contexts....Show moreResearch on human bone artifacts has been rarely conducted exclusively. Indeed, researchers have limited their interests to intentional modifications of human bones in the frame of ritual contexts. Thus, interpretations of the human bone’s use as raw material mainly concern its implementation in mortuary practices, side-lining the manufacture of tools and ornaments. Notwithstanding, the recent discovery of two human bones originated in the submerged Doggerland enriches the Mesolithic archaeological record, together with raising new questions concerning the human bone’s use during this period. This research aims to investigate the uses of human bone during the Mesolithic in Europe. Particularly, it attempts to unravel how frequent was the use of human bone, for which artifact categories it was used, and the body parts that were selected. Another interest concerns whether the use of human bones as a raw material was intentional or accidental. Consequently, the contextual analysis of the sites yielding human bone artifacts will offer a broader framework to approach such issues. Furthermore, considering that Mesolithic mortuary practices were related to the transformation, destruction, and manipulation of the human bone, I link these practices to the manufacture of human bone artifacts. Beyond these preoccupations, this study aims to interpret the potential differences and similarities concerning the use of human bone as a raw material during the Mesolithic. That is why it proposes a comparison of human bone’s use between the Mesolithic and the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic. Relevant here are questions related to the differences of human bone artifacts between these periods, and if there are similarities indicating a continuation of existing practices across time. The comparison reveals that during the Late Upper Palaeolithic, in specific regions human bone artifacts seems to bear special importance linked to ritual practices. However, during the Mesolithic, such findings do not seem to bear the same value, as often they have been found mixed with animal bone artifacts. Based on this observation, I rely on ethnographic studies to explore the potential presence of animistic practices in the Mesolithic. The conceptualization of the relationship between animal and humans and their respective artifacts reveals that human bone artifacts were perceived in equivalent ways with the animal ones.Show less
