The Teaching of Environmental Archaeology in Higher Education in the U.K. - Working Papers of the Association for Environmental Archaeology No. 1

1.7 - Range and effectiveness of teaching methods

How each subject area was taught varied widely (Appendix B and Tables 13-15); nevertheless the perceived effectiveness of different teaching methods was fairly consistent (Table 12). 

Lectures remain the most common teaching method. While several respondents questioned their educational effectiveness, most felt that well-prepared lectures were a satisfactory method of imparting information. The contribution of lectures to Environmental Archaeology teaching tended to be greatest at the 1st year level, declining through the 2nd and subsequent year(s). Practicals and similar exercises followed the reverse pattern. This reflects the pattern of generalised and integrated teaching in 1st/2nd year and specialised and segregated courses in 2nd/3rd (and 4th) years, noted above. 

The use of 'roll-on roll-off' courses-those taught by several lecturers-were crticised by many contributors. Environmental Archae-ology lecturers are frequently 'rolled on' to give a few lectures in each course. This can be disastrous, particularly if the lecturer is from outside the department, because the lack of integration enhances the very impression that we wish to dispel. On the other hand ro-ro courses can be very successful but this requires (a) very careful planning in advance, and (b) that lecturers attend at least some other lectures in the course to heighten continuity and interlinking of topics. 

Tutorials and seminars were given a very mixed reception-comments suggested that in the right hands and with adequate preparation they could be an excellent educational medium, but that in most cases their application was barely satisfactory. Given the very time-consuming nature of these methods it was felt by many that 'educational time could be better spent elsewhere'. Attention was drawn to the need to prepare post-graduates adequately for their role as post-graduate tutors. 

In general students received practical training in relatively  limited areas of Environmental Archaeology - the areas varied considerably depending largely upon the availability of staff and/or teaching resources (see below, Section 1.8). While some departments claimed that every item on the list was covered by practical work, the majority recognised the limitations of resources and were well aware of the shortcomings of their practical teaching. At a minimum, nearly all departments were, however, able to offer at least some practical training in (i) vertebrate faunal analysis, (ii) plant macrofossil analysis and (iii) palynology. 

Practical teaching was highly valued by respondents; most, however, felt that practical research exercises were superior to practical set-piece exercises, since the former gave an opportunity to 'place environmental evidence in a real context' and reduced the tendency of Archaeology students to think in 'bolt-on' terms. Most pointed to a shortage of funding for demonstrators and to shortage of trained demonstrators as a severe limitation on the development of practical teaching. 

This enthusiasm for practical teaching translated into assessed practical work somewhat patchily (Table 13)-at least four departments (22%) recording no assessed practical work in Environmental Archaeology. In the others the contribution of practical work to the final assessment (a crude measure of its 'value') varied between 10 and 100%; exact proportions depending on the content of the course. Three clusters of marks were clear: 20-30%, 40-50% and 100% of the final assess-ment. The duration of these practical courses varied less radically, the average length of a practical module/unit being around 20 hours. Content was usually specific to one technique (e.g. vertebrate faunal analysis). 

Field-based training was possibly the single most highly valued method of teaching among teachers of Environmental Archaeology. It was held to provide 'an essential means of understanding the modern ecology and the dynamic processes which we strive to reconstruct from static remains'. 

From the responses received, the primary goal of most field-based training appeared to be to instill a first hand knowledge of particular techniques. Considerable emphasis was placed on the methods used to record, characterise and sample palaeoecological deposits in the field (archaeological sites, peat bogs, lake sediments, etc.). Many field-based courses appeared to consist solely of extended 'how to' sessions. A secondary goal present in some training programs was to introduce students to the material record of environmental history and to enable them to explore the way in which environmental history is constructed.

Again the emphasis was upon the hands-on investigation of sedimentary sequences in the field and the drawing of inferences as to the changing processes (and hence changing environments) which could have produced these deposits. 

In only a few cases was fieldwork explicitly used to explore theoretical issues relevant to Environmental Archaeology. For example, community ecology (including succession theory) was widely taught with a relatively high 'effort score' yet only in two cases were the theoretical discussions of the lecture theatre explored through fieldwork exercises. 

In short, the contribution of field-based training appears directed towards methodological ends and relatively little linkage from lecture theatre to real world environments takes place at present. 

The amount of time spent in fieldwork varied from a few days to a few weeks. Two approaches were apparent. A minority of departments ran short field courses, consisting largely of one-day field trips and long weekends (3 days) directed towards well- specified aims. These short courses included those where theoretical issues were explored through fieldwork and where less emphasis was placed upon learning the 'techniques'. 

The majority of departments, however conducted fieldwork teaching in parallel with excavation. This form of 'on the job' training tended to be of longer duration: figures of between 2 and 6 weeks per year were reported. The average was just over 3 weeks. The content of this form of training was highly variable and appeared to depend upon the type of excavation being carried out. Where respondents were able to identify the 'environmental' component of vacation fieldwork it formed between 10 and 50% (usually 20%) of the subject matter. 

This type of 'on the job' fieldwork training emphasised the acquisition of techniques or 'skills' over the understanding of theoretical issues. It was clear that some confusion seems to exist in differentiating between the research goals of the excavation and the educational goals of the fieldwork training. 

The contribution of field-based training to the final assessment of students mirrored closely the division between departments which ran structured courses and those which ran fieldwork projects. In the former case reports based on the results of fieldwork-often supplemented by additional laboratory practicals-were an integral part of the students final assessment. In the latter case almost no contribution to the final assessment was present. 

While the value of fieldwork was widely championed most contributors cited the problems of student numbers and resources as the main restriction on future field training but several noted the difficulty of taking students into the field for extended periods in an increasingly modular teaching system. In particular, clashes between parallel modules resulted in fieldwork being undertaken as 'an afternoon out' or within vacations with consequent impact on research time. In consequence of these limitations the total amount of fieldwork recorded was relatively small.

Table 15. Units of assessment given over to Environmental Archaeology in terms of core elements/option courses. N.B. Three departments reported 'NA as Environmental Archaeology is fully integrated'.

Student placements made the least contribution to teaching with only three institutions offering some form of placement either optional or compulsory. The Environmental Archaeology content was described as 'variable depending on where the placement is undertaken.' One department offered a full year placement, the others offering one term or equivalent. One department was actively considering setting up a one term optional placement scheme. The perceived value of placements varied considerably, one respondent noting that they were now 'expending considerable effort to weed out those locations which offered little training element'. 

Overall those teaching Environmental Archaeology felt 'that all (teaching methods) had their place' and that the subject matter should dictate the methods used, the only substantial educational dissatisfaction being felt with practical set-piece exercises.

1.8 - Supporting resources used in teaching Environmental Archaeology

We examined six types of educational resource used in the teaching of Environmental Archaeology: Course Handbooks, Photocopied Course Readers, Textbooks, Video, Computers and Laboratory equipment. 

About half of the thirty-one academic teaching staff who responded did not produce course handbooks (16 cases, or 51% of sample), the remainder were divided between those that produced basic lecture title plus reading lists (6, or 19%) and those that gave detailed lecture summaries and additional supporting information (9, or 29%). Many identified a need for some form of modular course materials-Open University course handbooks and the old Addison-Wesley modules in Anthropology were widely cited. At the same time they identified declining time as the reason for not producing them themselves! 

Photocopied 'course readers' of selected papers/chapters were very rare-26 staff (86% of sample) did not produce a course reader; most cited problems with copyright or that (if one paid the copyright fee) they were 'too time-consuming  to   produce  and  too  damn expensive.' Nevertheless, a few did produce such a reader (3, or 9.5%), while a similar number evaded the copyright issue by producing extensive single handouts (2, or 6.5%). The latter figure probably under-estimates the number of staff producing 'one-off copies' for student use, since many staff drew attention to declining library facilities. 

The question of poor library provision was also the reason cited for the likely adoption of a course 'set text.' While only one respondent acknowledged use of a set text, a fairly coherent body of literature was cited repeatedly suggesting that to some extent de facto set texts have already appeared; the most common citations (with the number of citations given in brackets) were: 
Bell, M. and Walker, M. J. (1992). Late Quaternary environments. (12) 

Davis, S. J. M. (1987). The archaeology of animals. (12) 

Evans, J. G. (1975). Introduction to environmental archaeology. (12) 

Renfrew, C. and Bahn. P. (1992). Archaeology-theory, method and practice. (10) 

Butzer, K. W. (1986). Archaeology as human ecology. (8) 

Jones, M. (1990). England before Domesday. (8) 

Roberts, N. (1990). The Holocene. (7) 

Evans, J. G. (1978). Environment of early man in the British Isles. (6) 

Jones, R. L. and Keen, D. H. (1992). Pleistocene environments in the British Isles. (5)

While these core texts were each cited more than five times, a total of 58 texts were cited suggesting that a wider range of materials is available than is apparent at first glance. Nevertheless, most respondents noted one or more gaps in the market for Environmental Archaeology texts and a particular plea was made for an introductory level non narrative-based text similar to the now out-of-print Introduction to environmental archaeology by Evans (1978). In addition to the generally felt need for 'a decent general  text  by someone who understands the subject' contributors repeatedly requested texts on: 
  Basics of research design and general methodology  (6 requests) 
Invertebrates/Insect Analysis  (3) 
Statistics (3) 
Archaeopalynology (2) 
Sampling and Field Recording (2) 
Soil Science (2) 
Economic Prehistory (2)

Relatively few respondents recorded the use of videos in their teaching, the majority using suitable BBC/C4 television programs, often as the stimulus for later discussion (8 cases). Only one reported the use of home-produced videos for teaching, although many thought that the exchange of video presentations between departments would be a valid means of increasing the range and depth of material offered to students. 

Computer packages featured strongly, over half the departments questioned using commercial off-the-shelf packages for data analysis and work room-based interpretive exercises using their own data sets. The opportunity to exchange such exercises was considered desirable provided commercial copyright considerations could be overcome. At least three departments are involved in the production of interactive multi-media tutorial packages which feature Environmental Archaeology. 

The use of other (generally laboratory) resources was highly variable-several respondents noted the use of reference collections and video microscopes and all repeated the need for basic laboratory provision as an essential pre-requisite for teaching Environmental Archaeology. 

In general, Environmental Archaeologists are fully aware of the need to embrace new teaching methods when faced with rising student numbers; however, the cost of developing specialist teaching materials was such that individual departments could ill afford to commit staff and resources to their development. 

We conclude that there is a shortage of good supporting materials for Environmental Archaeology teaching. The relative isolation of many Environmental Archaeology lecturers means that few have the time to devote to the production of course materials at more than the basic level.

Part Two: Discussion and recommendations

In Part One we outlined our understanding of the present position; in Part Two we make the following suggestions with regard to future directions in terms of (1) the role, core areas and themes of the subject, (2) teaching methods and (3) teaching resources. 

2.1 - The role, core areas and themes of the subject

Much ink has been expended upon the place and definition of Environmental Archaeology. The broad view of the majority of the working party was that Environmental Archaeology is a discipline which forms an integral part of the subject of Archaeology. 

We would suggest that the chief defining characteristic of Environmental Archaeology is its concern with the ecology of past human groups-that is to say the way in which those human groups related to the environment around them. This environment is defined as the sum of the physical, chemical and biological surroundings of that group and the interaction of the group with other members of its species. In that sense Environmental Archaeology is concerned with the community ecology of ecosystems in which the genus Homo and its immediate ancestors were active elements. The emphasis upon community ecology, and the niche of humans within that community, has the advantage of integrating plants and animals, thus getting away from particularism. It also allows the possibility of seeing the past community from the viewpoint of a different species. 

However the discipline is defined it is clear that there is an imbalance between the perception of Environmental Archaeology as an ecological discipline and the teaching of Environmental Archaeology as a collection of techniques. There is an urgent need to strengthen our ties to ecology and palaeo-ecology and to contribute (and be seen to the be contributing) to the discussion of wider issues, both in terms of archaeological problems and in terms of modern 'green' issues. 

We concluded that it would not be desirable (nor indeed possible) to formulate a detailed and prescriptive curriculum for Environmental Archaeology at this time for two reasons. First that the range of resources (in terms of staff, expertise, equipment, time and money) available to teachers is too variable, and second that uniformity of approach is not necessarily a desirable end in itself. Nevertheless we did recognize the necessity of drawing up a list of desirable educational themes which provide a starting point for further discussion and which may subsequently be of value in guiding negotiations with other archaeological bodies. To this end we would suggest that the teaching of Environmental Archaeology should ideally include: 

(a) An understanding of ecology and the ways in which modern environmental systems work. 

(b) An understanding of the processes by which evidence of the functioning of past ecosystems is translated into the palaeo-ecological record and the limitations this places upon our understanding of the past. 

(c) An understanding of the fundamental principles which underlie all methods of palaeoecological and palaeoenvironmental investigation based upon a broad understanding of a range of techniques and more detailed knowledge, preferably based on field, practical and laboratory experience of at least one field. 

(d) An appreciation of the relevance of, and scales at which, different methods may be used to reconstruct ancient ecosystems and economies. 

(e) An understanding of a range of major issues and controversies to which Environmental Archaeology has contributed-integrated into their archaeological context. 

(f) A broad understanding of the record of environmental change and how human economies and societies have responded, based upon an appreciation of the mechanisms of change introduced in (a).

2.2 - Teaching goals and methods

It is obvious that Environmental Archaeology is a complex field of study with many discrete branches and sub-disciplines and involving numerous interdisciplinary issues. Without a central unifying concept there is a danger that the field will further fragment into a number of divergent and non-communicative subspecies. 

It is the contention of the working party that the most reasonable approach to environmental complexity is through ecology and the organising concepts which it offers us. At the same time it is clear that the practice of Environmental Archaeology requires familiarity with the body of theory loosely termed 'archaeological'. In many respects we would suggest that our goal is to use Archaeology as a vehicle to explore ecological concepts as they pertain to past human societies. 

We would therefore suggest that many aspects of Environmental Archaeology are best taught in an integrated fashion-Environmental Archaeology lecturers should teach 'straight' courses with an admixture of Environmental Archaeology, while non-Environmental Archaeology lecturers should be cajoled/trained to bring elements of Environmental Archaeology into their core teaching. We should be careful to avoid giving the impression that some courses are specialist Environmental Archaeology while mainstream ones contain none at all. In other words, we must operate as a key integrative discipline within Archaeology-a school of 'Ecological Archaeologists'. 

Consequently it has been suggested that we should alter course names to reinforce this: drop 'environmental' and 'science' where possible-just teach the issues. While this may not be feasible given the internal university pressure on Archaeology to be seen to be a science, nonetheless a move toward thematically titled courses would be appropriate. 

The greater integration of Environmental Archaeology within thematic courses would also help to overcome the other imbalances identified in this survey-too great an emphasis on narrative and technique as opposed to process and mechanism. 

Nevertheless, we recognise that it is necessary to teach the techniques of Environmental Archaeology in a coherent fashion and here we have identified a need to defend and expand upon the provision of practical laboratory and field-based training. 

Practical teaching is fundamental to what is supposed to be a scientific pursuit. In consequence, we should pay more attention to the teaching methods adopted by other sciences, and in particular the ways in which key concepts are elucidated through experiment and 'constrained' or 'directed' research exercises. Here the position of many Archaeology Departments within the Faculty of Arts of their respective institutions is doubtless a constraining factor in the development of hands-on teaching-in particular the provision of adequate laboratory facilities and demonstrating staff. We must ensure that these practical needs are emphasised in discussion with other bodies. 

While this survey found a very great disparity in the duration and intensity of Environmental Archaeology fieldwork teaching there was a uniform agreement as to its value. Field survey and excavation is already recognised as an essential element in the training of archaeologists. Understanding modern environments and the processes which occur within them and how this contributes to our comprehension of the past should also form part of all archaeologists' training. 

Fieldwork should ideally involve forms of interactive group-based work. This should involve students in designing and undertaking experiments as well as data collection. The communication of the results is also important, with students being encouraged to summarise their work 'on the spot' for the benefit of other students and groups. 

In general it was felt that fieldwork must be a fully recognised part of a students training and should be integrated into the teaching program in such a way as to follow through concepts introduced in the lecture theatre. To that end it is important to differentiate between fieldwork as 'education' and fieldwork as 'work experience'. Both are important elements in giving the student a rounded view of their discipline but it is important that both the teaching staff and students are aware of the goals of a particular fieldwork project and where it fits into the overall curriculum. To be fully recognised it is essential that fieldwork make a significant contribution to the students' final assessment. 

To achieve these ends, Environmental Archaeologists should be encouraged to taking the initiative in planning excavation and field-survey projects to answer specific environmental/economic problems. Similarly we could plan more experimental Archaeology. 

Overall we would suggest that there are grounds for both optimism and pessimism: pessimism that the larger number of students may mean more badly integrated ro-ro courses, and less practical teaching and fewer field courses (pressures which we acknowledge are not unique to Environmental Archaeology); optimism that quite a number of Environmental Archaeology lecturers are now in post teaching Environmental Archaeology and non-Environmental Archaeology subjects within single honours courses. Modularisation was mentioned as possibly encouraging the compartmentalisation of teaching and thus further separating Environmental Archaeology; however, Bradford was singled out as a department that has overcome this problem by judiciously mixing topics within individual modules and avoiding technical module names.

2.3 - Development of teaching resources

While the comments above will doubtless be subject to extensive revision, it is clear that there are several practical issues which we can address immediately. Potentially these could make a valuable contribution to the teaching of Environmental Archaeology. We would suggest that: 

(1) The AEA appoints a member of the Managing Committee (or some nominated individual co-opted onto the Committee) as the AEA's 'Education Officer'. The role of the education officer would be (a) to coordinate contact with external bodies regarding education matters and (b) to act as a clearing house for educational materials. The latter task would include the development and commiss-ioning of new materials. Creation of an education officer post would be a clear signal to other bodies that the AEA is seriously concerned with the teaching of Environmental Archaeology in Higher Education. 

(2) The AEA should seek to set up a series of modular short-contribution type publications with a reputable publisher. These modest publications (maximum of ten double-column A4 pages, monochrome illustrations only) would address two disparate, but complementary, ends: first, providing short up-to-date summaries of particular methods; second providing up-to-date syntheses of particular issues (e.g. 'hunter-gatherers and fire ecology', 'the elm decline', etc.). The second group of papers to assume no more knowledge of techniques than can be gained from the techniques papers-this would provide the maximum flexibility in the use of this material within established courses (i.e. we would not be imposing a fixed curriculum upon those using these papers). 

Many of those responding to this survey indicated their willingness to contribute to the development of teaching material. As a first stage it would now be appropriate to draft outlines for the purpose and discuss the layout of these teaching papers and to bring those with similar interests into contact with one another. 

(3) The AEA should establish itself as a clearing-house for the exchange of teaching materials-there are three areas in which this could function: 

(a) Colour transparencies (slides)-copies of illustrative material from members' archives could be held by the coordinator and supplied for educational purposes at cost. 

(b) Video-Birmingham and Edinburgh are experimenting with the use of home-produced video to illustrate activities such as soil description, pollen coring, pollen preparation, plant macrofossil flotation, etc., which are difficult to demonstrate because of time and space and difficult to illustrate as slides because they are essentially active pursuits. They could also be used to illustrate archaeological sites and vegetation communities. 

At Edinburgh these videos are edited version of field tapes and have no fixed commentary-the video being shown to the group and the lecturer talks them through it-in this way the video is integrated into the lecture rather than being a possibly rather disjointed 'lecture with a television programme in the middle'. 

These 'moving slides' are relatively easy (and cheap) to produce. Exchange of such material would be an excellent way of disseminating lively information. Again the AEA could hold copies of tapes and supply further copies at cost. 

(c) Computer packages-a number of multi-media packages have been developed and are in the process of finding their way into our teaching. Several workers are using commercial computer packages (dBase, Paradox, Access, etc.) with their own datasets as a means of enabling students to explore and analyse information. While exchange of programmes would constitute copyright infringement and is not proposed, it may be possible to arrange for the exchange of formatted data sets either through the exchange of disks (with supporting written documentation) or through the World Wide Web/Internet systems. 

(4) That the AEA, through the TEAHE working party, compile a source-book of teaching materials for Environmental Archaeology. This source book would include addresses of suppliers of AV materials, reference material, laboratory equipment and so on, a considerable body of which is available but only in rather obscure locations.

Part Three: Conclusions

(1) It would be unwise at this stage to define a reductionist  core  curriculum  for  Environmental  Archaeology. In its place we have proposed a number of key themes which the teaching of Environmental Archaeology in Higher Education should ideally address. 

(2) In general Environmental Archaeology benefits from integration with other lines of evidence and vice versa and teaching of the concepts, processes and issues of Environmental Archaeology should be a priority over and above teaching of methods. Where techniques are taught, research-based practicals and fieldwork should form the core. 

(3) There is a clear need for the AEA to take a stronger interest in the teaching of Environmental Archaeology in Higher Education. We have indicated a number of ways in which this could be done; in particular we have put forward a practical programme to enhance the provision of educational materials.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all the contributors who took time to complete the questionnaire and/or attend the York discussion meeting. We would also like to thank the Environmental Archaeology Unit, York, and in particular Harry Kenward, for hosting the York meeting. It was a most informative and enjoyable day.

References

Council for British Archaeology Archaeological Science Committee (1994). Survey of Archaeological science training needs. York: Council for British Archaeology. 

Cramp, R. (ed.) (1987). Archaeology in British Universities. SCUPHA Submission to University Grants Committee, January 1987.

Appendix A

Definitions of Environmental Archaeology 

Reconstruction of ancient past environments using a variety of techniques; and its application to modern planning. 

The analysis and reconstruction of past environments through the study of biological, sedimentological and topographic sources of evidence, in association with archaeological remains. 

The archaeology of the environment-the historical ecology of the natural world, whether exploited or unexploited. 

The study of past environments, combining both archaeological techniques and those of soil science and biological sciences. 

Study of past environments, with particular emphasis on man's impact on the landscape. 

The study of the environment of ancient human communities or understanding about past human environments or the study of ancient man within his natural environment. 

The range of methods used to analyse ancient plant and animal remains or the study of soils and biological remains from archaeological sites. 

At the moment largely a service industry. the discipline seems to largely engaged with providing: (1) the environmental context to archaeological sites; (2) palaeoeconomic information for archaeological projects. 

A set of techniques used in archaeological science addressing the nature of past environments and in particular human behaviour in its environmental context. 

It should be: The assessment/investigation of the relationship between the human and non-human aspects of the environment through time. But often appears to be: the scientific examination and interpretation of organic material from archaeological contexts. 

The framework for studying selection pressure on hominid/human behaviour. 

The natural resources and managed resources at a climatic, regional, local and individual level through time. 
The study of past human activity, resources and living conditions in the context of climate, landscape and ecology. 

The study of how human groups survived in particular environments: the examination of why these survival methods changed through time. 

The study of past environments and ecology in relation to Homo sapiens. Human palaeoecology 

The study of man's relation and interaction with the environment during the Pleistocene and Holocene. 

The study of human interaction with the environment in the past through Archaeology and related disciplines, including man's use of, and effect on, his environment. 

Past human ecology: the study of the interaction of past human populations with those of other organisms and with the physical environment. 

Ecological study of the human past. 

Quaternary palaeoecology. 

As a bridge discipline. 

I don't see Environmental Archaeology as a discipline; I see it as an area of overlap between Archaeology, Biology and Geology.

Appendix B

The core areas and themes of Environmental Archaeology: the teaching methods used to introduce the theories and techniques of Environmental Archaeology at each level  

The complexity of responses to this question has here been simplified and rather than give misleading percentages for each theme, a crude measure of the total amount of effort expended on particular topics has been given by totaling the number of methods used to teach it: lectures = 1 'effort point', practicals = 1 'effort point', etc. If a subject area is being taught through lectures, practicals and field exercises then it is assumed to have a greater 'importance' in the eyes of the contributing department than something only taught in lectures. The data are summarised in Table 11 and given in full below. 

Note that not all contributors completed this table and the following dissenting comments are presented: 

Other comments, or 'Environmental Archaeology is not a list of techniques' 

'Since most (of the students) have an arts background...this course is essentially non-vocational and non-specialised. It is basically intended to introduce students to three aspects; 1. Palaeo-Human ecology/economy, although much of this is taught in the specific period courses. 2. Modern Ecology: ecosystems, communities, succession, eco-dynamics, and ways of looking at ecology that do not enumerate vast lists of plants and animals names (Miles Kington is on the booklist!). 3. Some techniques, especially emphasizing different scales of relevance.' 

'One of the main reasons I did not fill in this questionnaire is that the particular list of subjects under 13 seem to have no relevance to the way Environmental Archaeology should be taught. It is this sort of thing that gives the subject a bad name and which is gradually making Circaea so unpopular.' 

 'My own-admittedly narrow-view is that the ecology/economy of humans-i.e. their autecology-should be taught within the framework of period courses or as a specific course which states explicitly that it is about economic aspects. The human environment itself should be taught as viewed through modern ecology. Techniques through ecology and scale of relevance.' 

'This list rather begs the question of what is Environmental Archaeology. Many of these I would just consider as Archaeology rather than belonging to any sub-discipline.' 

'Environmental Archaeology is a fully integrated into our courses and it would be misleading to pick out particular elements in the way you suggest here, since they do not stand as separate elements of courses.' 

Appendix C

Scores for a crude measure of 'effort' expended in particular topics
within the teaching of Environmental Archaeology

Key:  L = lectures; F = fieldwork; P = set-piece practicals; S = seminars; 
E = experimental investigations/practicals; T = grand total number of citations ('effort points'). 

[ Fundamental Principles - Field and sampling techniques - Geoarchaeology - 
Bioarchaeology - Palaeopathology - Dating Techniques ]

Fundamental Principles