Twelve dead farmers walk into a room
Postdoctoral researchers Anna Woodhead and Michael Stratigos take us through a thought experiment using archeological data to explore changing ecosystem services through time.
This thought experiment presents interpretation of archeological and documentary evidence applied to a hypothetical participatory workshop for ecosystem services around Loch Leven, Scotland (which has been the target for freshwater ecosystem services research for some time now). We have tried where possible to base interpretation and the dialogue of our fictional farmers on local data and primary sources, but much evidence has been gleaned from elsewhere around Britain and Europe and applied to this context. The below should be considered an example of what archeological data could tell us about ecosystem services and not as empirical findings from primary research.
Twelve people have gathered together in a room. They’ve been asked to a workshop by a couple of academics who want to know why this part of Scotland is important to them -- what ecosystem services are derived from Loch Leven, Kinross-shire in Scotland?
This is a fairly standard set-up for a participatory workshop. You bring people into a room, stimulate some discussion and we (the researchers) hang around with bits of paper, pens, whiteboards and dictaphones to capture what is said. All 12 people in this room produce food for themselves, their family and often the wider community from the area around Loch Leven, and beyond. In this case, we wanted to know what types of food these people get from the landscape, how they get it and what’s important about this food and the Loch. So far, so normal. The difference with this workshop is that most of these people are dead, and have been for a long time -- from a few decades to more than 10 millennia.
We join the group during the first coffee break[1]. The room is loud as many of the participants discuss what they heard from the others during the workshop.
Irin[2], a female Palaeolithic elder, turns to Ludan, a monk who lived on St Serf’s Island in the Medieval period and exclaims: “You mean there are no more waterfowl on the island, that is our favourite place to hunt them?”
Ludan: “That is right -- we do not allow them to disturb us”
Irin: “Wait, you shoo them on!? But they’re very delicious”
Ludan: “They are bothersome for our holy contemplation, destroy our garden and eat the fish from our pond. Although we do still eat waterfowl when brought to us from elsewhere, but in moderation of course.”
Irin: “But how do you know when to move to the coast if the waterfowl don’t lead the way?”
At the coffee table, Mary is listening to Nitas, a farmer from the Bronze Age.
Nitas: “We had similar bad summer weather which decimated our harvests and left the low ground wet and unusable over a number of years. When that happened we would increase the size of our sheep flocks and graze them in the hills during summer to provide meat and milk. It was also a good idea to redouble our deposition of tools and weapons into the wet places too.”
Mary: “I, and nobody like me, get to make such decisions. We have to do our best with our small part of the ferm toun".
Mary had earlier described to the group in the session how she was forced to poach geese and eat bulrushes to provide for her family at the worst moments during the Ill Years Famine in the 1690s. That series of failed harvests especially between 1695 and 1699 had made food very hard to come by, from the loch or from anywhere.
Next to the table with the maps of the Loch on, James, an 18th century landowner is discussing drainage with Robert[3], who owns the same land today and is a direct descendant of James. Both men are nearly apoplectic.
James: “...but to re-flood the Loch and Moss[4] -- it’s madness and blasphemous! I will not stand for it. It brings me great joy to know the drainage was enacted in 1828. We have a duty to bring order to this land. To create beauty and food from a place that would otherwise starve us. Besides, do you want the ague[5] back?”
Robert [interrupting]: “...and it’s exactly that attitude that got us into this mess! Your idea of beauty destroyed this place...”
James [also interrupting]: “Destroyed!? Nature was made useful -- as God intended.”
Robert: “There you go again! Do you have any idea how many species we have lost in the last 50 years? My duty, as a guardian of this land, is to get this place back to Nature. Re-flooding is just one part of it. The crops have gone, we’re implementing mob grazing and planting trees and removing non-native species. It’s my responsibility to leave this place better than I found it.”
James: “That’s exactly what I did!”
Aerial view of Loch Leven with the proposed former extent of the loch and bog/fen environments before drainage in the 18th and 19th centuries. The ‘New Cut’ which lowered the loch by over 1 metre and dug in 1828-1830 is clearly visible in the bottom right of the map. Archaeological sites mentioned in this blog post are labelled. Credit: Map produced by Michael Stratigos with data from Historic Environment Scotland via canmore.org. Aerial images © GetMapping plc 2021, downloaded via Edina DigiMap.
You get the gist of it. Apart from the obvious - that talking to people from the past would be incredible - why have we convened this workshop?
Simply put, our understanding of the benefits that people get from the environment - often known as ecosystem services - is frequently based on snapshots of modern communities. Archaeology, on the other hand, is a discipline based on understanding change through time, with particular insight on changes in human/environment relationships across wide time scales. The imagined views and details of our workshop participants captured in the dialogue are informed by archaeological and documentary research and data summarised in the table below. While such evidence can be highly fragmentary and interpretations can differ, the thought experiment highlights the importance of building greater time-depth to ecosystem services research, something archaeology, along with history and palaeoecology can bring.
One of those key lessons is that services change through time, both in how they are co-produced between people and the landscape (e.g. food stuffs connected to waterfowl and hunting become crops and agriculture) and in the types of values connected to them - thinking of Irin and Ludan and their different social structures and cultural associations connected to waterfowl. Doubtless there were also seasonal shifts in how services are used and changes in ecosystem service bundles. The point is that ecosystem services are one of many human-environment interactions that change through time, and no one point in time is the ‘correct’ one, even the present. Understanding these past changes can provide a more holistic understanding of what makes ecosystem services possible and may help predict where services will become important again. There is increasing interest, for example, in how nature might help humans adapt to the effects of climate change.
Our workshop also showed that people have been modifying their environments for a long time. This isn’t news for Archeology but one of the key critiques towards ecosystem services is that they can be mis-represented as ‘free gifts’ from nature. In fact, the ecological structures and processes that underpin ecosystem services have been shaped through human activities for many thousands of years. As shown in James and Robert’s heated row, past and present involvement with the landscape is based on what people need and value at the time. Managing ecosystems for services currently desired is important, but this exchange between an Improvement period landowner/farmer and a modern one highlights a need for greater acknowledgement that contemporary ecosystem services will change in the future, probably in unexpected and difficult-to-predict ways.
Ecosystem service researchers are already seeing the benefits of bringing historical data to ecosystem service assessments, but in writing this we wondered what a deeper level of interdisciplinary working could look like? Could this more integrated view of people as part of nature over long time periods challenge assumptions made about future ecosystem services? Ecosystem services can also bring to Archaeology a different framing connecting ecosystems to human wellbeing (however that is defined at the time) and in connecting with policy makers. The specifics of any of the interpretations presented as dialogue or in the table are very open to debate and further research. But as a thought experiment, we hope this has shown what this kind of interdisciplinary research could be able to offer, and if nothing else, it’s been quite fun!
Table 1: A summary of participants’ responses to our questions on what food they eat, how they get it and why it is important to them
|
Historical period (date range) |
What food do you get from the Loch Leven area?a |
How do you get the food? |
Why is it important? |
|
Palaeolithic (pre-11,000 BC) |
Fish. Bulrushes. Waterfowl. Red deer. |
Hunting/Gathering/Fishing is probably the day-to-day of every individual in the community. Being in the right place at the right time as the community moves through the landscape, probably on annual or inter-annual routes. Hunting with wood and stone tools. Fishing possibly with traps, but also line/hook or nets. |
As a food source, the loch provides habitat for the species used in food provision. Cultural. The loch and its species give signals regarding their transient lifestyle, the loch being an important geographic feature to orientate and structure seasonal movement around the region. Food provision had a strong seasonal element, with seasonally resident fish and wildfowl populations. Any wetland plant foods also seasonally ripe like bulrushes |
|
Mesolithic (11,000 -4000 BC) |
Fish. Bulrushes. Waterfowl. Red deer. |
Hunting/Gathering/Fishing is probably the day-to-day of every individual in the community. Being in the right place at the right time as the community moves through the landscape, probably on annual or inter-annual routes. Hunting with wood and stone tools. Fishing possibly with traps, but also line and hook or nets. |
As a food source, the loch provides habitat for the species used in food provision. Cultural signals regarding their transient lifestyle, the loch being an important geographic feature to orientate and structure seasonal movement around the region. Food provision had a strong seasonal element, with seasonally resident fish and wildfowl populations. Any wetland plant foods are also seasonally ripe. Some archaeological evidence that marine fish become more important in the Mesolithic, this trend possibly could be transposed to freshwater resources as well in this inland context. |
|
Neolithic (4000 -2500 BC) |
Waterfowl. Red deer. Cattle/sheep |
The loch is an ideal habitat for waterfowl (both resident and seasonal populations) and red deer which were hunted. Summer grazing and water source for domestic animals, may also be used as physical barrier to manage animals movement. |
The loch is likely to continue to be a significant food resource from fish and waterfowl. Archaeological evidence for either is scant, and may indicate Neolithic preference away from fish specifically. Connections between the loch and the wider landscape are increasingly monumentalised through construction of the Burleigh Cursus and possibly other monuments. Surplus food production is essential to this community and the loch's role in providing that is perhaps part of the monumental landscape being developed. With communities now more permanently settled around the loch, the full seasonal range of resources are potentially exploited. |
|
Bronze Age (2500 -800 BC) |
Waterfowl. Red deer. Cattle/sheep |
The loch is an ideal habitat for waterfowl (both resident and seasonal populations) and red deer which are hunted. Summer grazing and water source for domestic animals, may also be used as physical barrier to manage animals movement. |
The loch probably sees continued exploitation of seasonally resident and breeding waterfowl as well as red deer. Cattle and sheep grazing wetland meadow around the loch is a rich resource. The loch has continued significance in a monumental landscape. The loch frames and mediates movement which influences position of important monument locations (e.g. Kilmagadwood Cemetery). The loch is a ritually charged area for deposition of metalwork, possibly carried out to ensure food production? |
|
Iron Age (800 BC -AD 400) |
Fish. Waterfowl. Red deer. Cattle/sheep |
The loch is an ideal habitat for waterfowl (both resident and seasonal populations) and red deer which are hunted. Fishing with lines, nets or traps. Grazing animals in the wetland fringes at appropriate times of the year. |
Food source. Red deer continue to be an important wild food resource. Increased importance on cattle and pastoral economy generally, increasing the value of the wetland fringes of the loch and outlet meadow. Cultural significance as an area of death/renewal or portal to a different world? The loch is now inhabited permanently with construction of a crannog, perhaps signifying the domestication of socially/culturally charged elements of the landscape. |
|
early medieval (AD 400- 1000) |
Fish. Waterfowl. Red deer. Cattle/sheep |
The loch is an ideal habitat for waterfowl (both resident and seasonal populations) and red deer which are hunted. Fishing with lines, nets or traps. Grazing animals in the wetland fringes at appropriate times of the year. |
Fish as a food source perhaps sees increased significance as Christianity is introduced in the later half of this period. Probably continued hunting of red deer, although maybe becoming a socially stratified game and waterfowl -- all three groups of wild species find cultural expression in Pictish symbol stones which could be linked to identity. Grazing of wet meadow at the loch fringes and outflow probably continues to be of high importance -- bulls/steers are also frequently found on symbol stones including one at East Lomond (10 km east of the loch). The loch itself becomes a key node in settlement with the possible establishment of a Christian community on St Serf's Island -- a forerunner to the Augustinian priory established in the 12th century AD. |
|
medieval (AD 1000- 1400) |
Fish. Waterfowl. Cereal. Cattle/sheep |
Fish caught by line or net. Waterfowl hunted. Grinding grain using River Leven (Loch Leven regulates flow to downstream mills). Grazing animals in the wetland fringes of the loch at appropriate times of year. |
Increased significance and role of fish and fishing as Christianity is now fully established. Decline of red deer hunting as this is restricted to elite individuals. Hunting wildfowl probably continues more widely in society, but may similarly become restricted to elite society as well as less necessary as domestic duck and geese are more widespread from this period. Grazing of wet meadow at the loch fringes and outflow probably continues to be of high importance. This is likely the earliest period in which the outflowing river would have been used to drive grain mills. The loch itself continues as settlement focus with establishment of St Serf's priory (which had its own fish pond, a loch on an island in a loch on an island...), as well as the earliest castle on Castle Island. |
|
late medieval (AD 1400- 1600) |
Fish. Waterfowl. Cereal. Cattle/sheep |
Grinding grain using River Leven (Loch Leven regulates flow to downstream mills). Fish caught by line or net. Waterfowl hunted. Grazing animals in the wetland fringes of the loch at appropriate times of year. |
Fish continues to be an important food resource from the loch, although its prominence may have declined post-Reformation. Hunting red deer and wildfowl becomes entirely the preserve of elite society. Grazing animals in wetland fringes continues its importance, although sheep perhaps become a greater focus as the weaving industry becomes established in Kinross and surrounding area. Flow regulation to downstream mills increases in importance. |
|
early modern (AD 1600- 1750) |
Fish. Waterfowl. Cereal. Cattle/sheep |
Grinding grain using River Leven (Loch Leven regulates flow to downstream mills). Fish caught by line or net. Waterfowl hunted |
Fish continues to be an important food resource from the loch, although its prominence may have declined post-Reformation. Hunting red deer and wildfowl becomes entirely the preserve of elite society. Grazing animals in wetland fringes continues its importance, although sheep perhaps become a greater focus as the weaving industry becomes established in Kinross and surrounding area. Flow regulation to downstream mills increases in importance. Early formalisation of a strong negative view of wetlands, although the loch in this period seems already to have been renowned for its biodiversity and is used as part of the picturesque scenery of Kinross House built around AD 1690. |
|
Improvement period (AD 1750- 1899) |
Fish. Waterfowl. Cereal. Cattle/sheep |
Drainage increases arable land at margins of loch, culminating in the major lowering of the loch via the 'New Cut' in 1828-32 that also includes reclamation of the Portmoak Moss. Loch still regulates flow of the River to power grain mills (although increasingly through this period, the mills are for linen and paper). Fish (especially eels) are still caught by nets, ample to supply local and regional demand. Some debate between mill operators downstream on the major reclamation drainage scheme, but ultimately went ahead formally with an Act of Parliament in 1827. |
Wetlands (especially those at the outflow of the loch) are negatively valued aspects of the landscape. They are negative elements of the landscape, are unsightly and hark to the bad times (e.g. Ill Years Famine) before rational Improvement of agriculture took place. Through drainage and enclosure they can be brought under the God-given correct order of human control and put to use producing food through providing rich arable land. This major drainage scheme was orchestrated by the local landowners, led by the owner of Kinross House as a way to increase holdings (food for profit!). The beautiful aspects of the loch are still retained after drainage, fish can still be caught and the pleasant setting of Kinross House and Loch Leven Castle remain. |
|
20th century (AD 1900- 1999) |
Fish transitioning to non-essential hobbyist fish only. Arable agriculture. |
Continued maintenance of the 'New Cut' and general field drainage especially in reclaimed areas makes sure that waterlogging does not present an issue to the rich arable agriculture undertaken there. The loch provides a sink for excess nitrogen applied in this period, first as traditional liming and manuring and laterly with Haber-Bosch process nitrogen fertilisers -- a service recognised only latterly in this period. Fishing remains an important food provision through the early part of the period, but increasingly as a hobby as the commercial eel fishery declined towards the end of the previous period. |
The loch loses its significant role in hunting and fishing (although maintains fishing as a hobby as a key economic activity on/around the loch). However, its role in arable agriculture increases. The land reclaimed around the fringe of the loch is prized agricultural land. The loch is also a useful sink for fertiliser and other pollution from the expanding town of Kinross. Downstream the River Leven continues to power mills until the post-war period, although by the end none are for grain. Towards the end of this period, there is increasing recognition in the value of wetland biodiversity in food provision. |
|
21st century (AD 2000- present) |
Hobbyist fishing. Arable agriculture. |
Continued maintenance of the 'New Cut' and general field drainage especially in reclaimed areas makes sure that waterlogging does not present an issue to the rich arable agriculture undertaken there. The loch provides a sink for excess nitrogen applied through nitrogen fertilisers -- although diffuse agricultural pollution is increasingly being prevented at its source. Fishing is now solely a hobbyist sport and does not provide a substantial food resource. |
Increased recognition that the loch has a wide range of ecosystem services, but with respect to food provision, this is probably less directly related to the loch itself. The reclaimed land around the Loch continues to be areas of high agricultural value for cereal. |
aOrdered from most dependent to least on the loch and surrounding wetland itself
Footnotes
[1] Among many other liberties, we assume that all the individuals are able to converse between themselves and with us, and that they require caffeine to get through a workshop.
[2] Participants are given false names to maintain anonymity
[3]James and Robert have oversight on the importance and use of the land, though we acknowledge there will be differences in their views and those of their tenant farmers. Incidentally, Robert is the only other living person here but seems to be taking it pretty well.
[4] The Moss is an area of boggy outflow on Loch Leven that was drained in the 18th Century.
[5] The ague is a general term for a fever, but had a strong association with diseases in wet landscapes. It is thought that references to ague were in many or most cases likely to have been malaria (even in Scotland!)
Related links
Find out more about Anna Woodhead's and Michael Stratigos' research.
Related links
Find out more about Anna Woodhead's and Michael Stratigos' research.