Nature and Environment

 Nature and Environment

This article approaches the communication space and social construct of Europe from the perspective of environmental history and traces the commonalities and differences in the interaction between humans and the environment. It is also a call for an interdisciplinary and an international environmental history. The diversity of nature and the environment in Europe is examined in various fields. With its discussion of spaces, climate and resources, the first section deals with natural environments, before anthropogenic environments are added to the discussion in the second section, and then the connections between the fundamental categories of nature / environment, rule, economy and culture are outlined in the third section. The final section presents general environmental historical periodizations in relation to European history.

There has been intensive historiographical research on nature and the environment in Europe for many years. It is no longer possible to keep abreast of the new publications, and many subfields have opened up in this field of research. However, this does not necessarily mean that a European environmental history exists. Such a history is at best beginning to emerge, and is restricted to individual European regions – such as northern Europe or the Mediterranean region. Research is almost exclusively conducted on the national and regional context, in spite of cross-border organizational and institutional efforts, such as the European Society for Environmental History.1 Some thematic and regional subdisciplines of historical studies appear only to have begun to engage with the topic of environmental history in a systematic way in the very recent past. To the extent that cross-border studies on individual periods exist, they tend to be global rather than European in scope, not least because many of the current environmental problems are global in nature.2 Nevertheless, a debate has recently begun about the questions and topics of a European environmental history, which looks for commonalities beyond the social construct of Europe, for example about the "natural environments" of the continent.3▲1

In this debate, "nature" and "environment" are not used in a consistent way. These terms are generally anything but unambiguous. "Nature", as the older of the two, has a conceptual history that stretches back to classical antiquity and that is very contradictory and confused, not just at first sight.4 In its original meaning (natura in Latin, physis in Greek), it was connected with growth and fertility. Crucially, in the context of the topic of this article, humans as organisms are part of nature and are existentially dependent on it, they can only live with and in nature. To emphasize this fundamental ecological fact is not to lose sight of the varied and changing ideas and constructions of nature that come into being in the minds of people. Rather both belong indivisibly together.▲2

The situation is not much different with the considerably newer concept of "environment". Jakob Johann von Uexküll (1864–1944) , the biologist and zoologist, is considered one of the originators of the modern scientific concept of environment. According to him, all living beings have their own environments, which are based on their respective subjective activities and perceptions . Environment is a relational concept to the extent that it refers directly to the natural, but also the social space surrounding the living being and forms a unified whole with the latter – specific instances of which can be investigated.5 It is not just historians who frequently use nature and the environment synonymously. Reference is often made to the "natural environment" of humans, to distinguish it from their social and cultural surroundings. There is no prospect – not even a remote one – of a clear and fixed differentiation between the two concepts. Thus it is often not explicitly stated whether environment refers to nature as a whole, human surroundings or a specific ecological system; but this can hardly be a surprise given the participation of so many disciplines – of the natural sciences as well as the humanities – in the object of research. There is a largely tacit consensus that the term environmental history should be used when referring to historical research on the interrelationship between humans and the nature that surrounds them. This appears to have established itself as the definition of environmental history. We must differentiate between this more recent environmental history and a more longstanding preoccupation with the history of nature. The latter rose to prominence as a scientific discipline in the 18th century under the title of natural history. Drawing on classical antecedents, particularly Pliny the Elder's (23–79)  Historia Naturalis, its representatives primarily investigated geography, ornithology and mineralogy.6 This Enlightenment natural history was able to build on the early modern thirst for discovery, particularly in the areas of zoology and botany. By the early 18th century, about 10,000 plant species had already been identified. Among the prominent representatives of this natural history were the Swedish naturalist Carl von Linné (1707–1778) , whose Systema Naturae was first published in 1735, and his French colleague Georges-Louis Leclerc de Buffon (1707–1788) , who began publication of his multi-volume Histoire naturelle générale et particulière  in 1749. The latter work received great attention among the expanding Enlightenment bourgeois public and was translated into many European languages. Natural history was in this case conceived of largely without development. Nature was simply described and classified. The discipline was distinguished by a supposed fidelity to nature. By contrast, the role of humans in this natural history was depicted as dynamic and positive. Their stepping out of nature became a metaphor for progress and early-bourgeois emancipation.▲3

This survey article will not recapitulate or elaborate on details of the basic elements linked to it. To the extent that the state of research permits, it will instead attempt to repeatedly test whether nature and the environment have contributed to the emergence of the communication space that is Europe, whether and where – from an environmental historical perspective – commonalities and also distinguishing features can be identified. In this, historical human-nature relationships are understood as being as diverse as the European continent and its history. Nature and the environment are thus more suitable as objects for the observation of this European diversity than almost any other topic field. This is done in four sections. First, with the spaces, climate and resources, the natural foundations of Europe are examined. In the second section, this is then related more closely to humans, with the focus being placed in particular on cultural landscapes, animals and natural disasters. The relationship between nature and the environment and the three fundamental historiographical categories of rule, economy and culture are outlined in the third section, before the final section introduces some general attempts at environmental historical periodizations taking account of European history.▲4

Natural Environments: Spaces, Climate and Resources

The emergence of environmental history was accompanied by a controversy about its orientation and its centre. What should be the focus of its interest? Humans or nature? Should environmental history be written biocentrically or anthropocentrically? Is it in fact possible for it to adopt the perspective of an earthworm, a wolf or an oak? Does this not raise a host of insurmountable methodological difficulties and problems regarding sources? Many historians view this controversy as having been decided. They evaluate it as part of the adolescent search for identity of a young subdiscipline that has since been overcome. It is argued that it was the consciousness of methods if anything, that had made this controversy acute; our questions are "unavoidably anthropocentric", it is argued.7 These arguments acquire their meaning from the perspective of historical studies and of those who wish to move environmental history to the centre of this discipline; humans are naturally at the centre, even where supposedly human-free structural history predominates. However, if one takes into account those who participate in the interdisciplinary endeavour of environmental history, which includes natural sciences disciplines such as palaeobotany and archaeobotany, historical geography and climatology and many others, then the answer has to be different, more nuanced. One challenge lies, for example, in the reconstruction of natural states and largescale landscape changes that were not, or were only slightly influenced by humans, such as changes in river courses. Generally, this places very long and diverse geological and biological time periods on the research agenda. Scientifically proving and exposing in a nuanced way the pre-existing dynamic inherent in nature is among the most prominent achievements of such broad environmental historical approaches. An environmental history that is exclusively anthropocentric in approach and that draws solely on the archives of society cannot do this on its own. Biological and geological data from the archives of nature are as indispensable for our knowledge of such processes as are natural sciences approaches: thermometry, pluviometry (udometry), dendrochronology, fossil pollen grains, data gathering from (glacial) ice cores, radiocarbon methods, and the identification of glacial deposits and sizes are just some of these.▲5

Even though research practice often does not reflect this, it has been an argumentative tool of environmental history from the start that ecological processes in no way stop at national borders. As we approach our own present time, this certainly applies to the European continent also. Borders that are too rigid and that are at best political borders are in any case a hindrance for the analysis of the interrelationships between humans and nature. Environmental history cannot and must not therefore be limited to the political space. At the same time, space is an environmental historical research category par excellence: woodlands , fields, soils , rivers, seas and their coasts are just some examples. They are all mutable, self-dynamic natural foundations and points of departure, which influence and change humans and vice versa. Even though very different landscapes can emerge in the minds of humans and be virtually superimposed on the geographically tangible and measurable space, environmental history like most other subdisciplines invariably needs concrete spaces for investigation, if it is to remain demonstrative and if it is to avoid arguing exclusively in terms of the history of ideas. However, past natural spaces must be approached with methodological caution. They are often difficult to read. For example, due to the distinct language and symbols used in them, cartographic representations are not self-explanatory. Neither should they be confused with the real thing, not only because they are snapshots that are overtaken by natural change even at the moment they are produced and they are intended to reduce complexity, but also because they often contain mistakes or are guided by specific interests.8▲6

Just looking at the map of Europe dispels any doubt. It is not possible to identify clear and unchanging topographical, geographical or geological borders. There is no European environment. Instead, we encounter many environments, which are generally not coterminous with national borders. Not even the perspective from the outside creates the impression of uniformity. The natural spaces could hardly be more diverse. Coastal and high-level mountainous regions are as much a part of the continent as lowlands and mid-level mountainous regions, for example the Polish marshlands and the French Massif Central. If one does not count the northern Caucasus  as belonging to Europe, then the altitude alone spans a range of about five kilometres, from the highest point of the Alps  (Mont Blanc, 4810 metres) to the northern coast of the Caspian Sea, which is 28 metres below sea level. All of this is also subject to change over the very "long duration". The way in which geological activity has shaped this European space and constantly changes it is the object of investigation of the various environmental historical disciplines referred to above. It is they who have provided explanations for the location of the Alps, the repeated glacial climatic changes, the continuous change in European flora and fauna, and they help to elucidate the small scale of European landscapes, and the diversity of habitats.9▲7

While most of the continent lies in the temperate latitudes, the climate could scarcely be more varied from north to south and from west to east: the arctic climate in the north; the Mediterranean, at times subtropical conditions in the south, with hot dry summers and mild, wet winters. While large parts of western Europe mainly have mild winters and cooler summers, the continental climate predominates in the east, with cold winters and hot summers. Climate, as a statistically recordable and measurable dimension, is also bound to space and time, for example, to early modern southern Europe or modern central Europe. The basic climatic conditions described above are, of course, not immovable constants. Even before historical climatology, we knew that the climate is subject to natural deviations not caused by humans, which in turn influence humans and their actions. In his ground-breaking three-volume work La Méditerranée et le Monde Méditerranéen à l'époque de Philippe II first published in 1949, the French historian and leading member of the Annales School Fernand Braudel (1902–1985)  had already treated the climate as part of the geographical environment (he referred to this as "milieu"), in which he placed the trends and structures and the history of events. He combined the milieu with the concept of the longue durée, the long duration, a field that tends to be more defined by stasis than by change. It was not till the second edition published in 1966 that Braudel ascribed considerably more significance to climate changes. However, no role was yet attributed to humans as actors in this change. In more recent times, humans have left their imprint on the climate, which is why for the last approximately 150 years it must be dealt with in the section on anthropogenic environments. The heated debate about whether the modern interglacial has anthropogenic causes and is being amplified by humans is part of this context. Emphasizing natural spatial and climatic differences on the European level does not mean that it is impossible to investigate commonalities. Thus, similar ecotypes can be identified in small-scale European comparisons. Mirco-climatically comparable cultural landscapes and shared histories of (over) utilization beyond political-state allegiances can be investigated: for example, wine-growing regions, types of woodland management, national parks, national conservation areas and mining regions.▲8

Natural resources are also part of the natural environment of humans. Discussions of these resources usually focus on the consumption of non-renewables or resources that regenerate over very long time periods, such as coal and oil, as well as the (unintended) consequences of their use. Concerns about the availability of energy resources have thus served from the start as an important impetus in environmental historical research, in the questions it pursues, in its theses and also in its periodizations. However, this is not a history that only began with industrial modernity, and not just from a European perspective. It goes back much further, when one considers for example the universally-used resources of water and timber. Humans use water to drink, to irrigate, to generate energy and as a means of transportation. But it also poses a threat, and not just in coastal regions  and along rivers . Securing a reliable and safe supply of water was for a long time the primary resource problem, particularly in the urban centres, where an artificial network of streams and canals often had to be constructed to provide water, for waste disposal and for fire defences. Whether for heating, cooking or building, whether for tools, barrels or ploughs, wood was also an essential resource. It accompanied humans through their lives literally from the cradle to the grave. It is no coincidence that the concept of sustainability emerged in the context of woodland management as early as the beginning of the 18th century. This is also why the economist and sociologist Werner Sombart (1863–1941)  described the preindustrial era as having "ein ausgesprochen hölzernes Gepräge" (a decidedly wooden character), and many contemporaries referred to timber as a "Lebensmittel" (staple).10 The transportation of resources over longer distances is not exclusive even to the modern era, as ancient Egyptian expeditions to the fabled Land of Punt to import gold, ivory, salt and many other goods indicates.▲9

Of course, one cannot but acknowledge that resource issues and resource usage have taken on new dimensions over the past two centuries and again since the 1950s. Since 1950, humans have used more gold, iron ore, copper and tin than in the entirety of human history before that. All resource usage has an inherent, hidden environmental problem. Resources are extracted, (chemically) processed, transported, (incompletely) consumed, leave remainders in the form of refuse and exhaust fumes and are reused – the treatment of natural resources goes through many stages, and it is not only the recycling of resources that has yet to be adequately investigated. And while industrialization , which is based on non-renewable resources, began in European regions, it is not possible to identify a distinctively European characteristic in the treatment of resources. The problems of today are either global in nature or they only become clearer when one looks back in the regional context, which is also dominated by a diversity that is not always free of contradictions.▲10

Anthropogenic Environments

Distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic environments is an archetypal differentiation, in order to highlight spheres of influence of humans. These spheres of influence have grown over the course of history to the extent that it is now almost impossible to identify a natural environment under water, on land, in the atmosphere or in space directly around the earth that is not influenced by humans. Particularly in southern and central Europe, it is likely that already by the late-medieval period there were few natural landscapes that remained untouched by humans. Even in those places where nature lovers of the 19th and early-20th centuries believed they had discovered wilderness and primitive nature, we see diverse cultural landscapes. In central Europe, these include heath regions  as well as orchard meadows and pastoral forests, which only retain their typical form through continued use. The human footprint has fundamentally shaped European landscapes and not only since industrialization. Even as the Roman senator and historian Tacitus (ca. 58–ca. 120)  described Germania in the first century as densely forested, marshy and backward, non-Roman central Europe had been a settled, cultivated and managed landscape for a considerable time. Logging near settlements, slash-and-burn deforestation, arable farming and hunting – without wishing to create the impression of decline and overuse – these influences on the immediate surroundings were manifold already in antiquity and the Middles Ages and transformed the landscape. With population growt h the encroachment spread. The emergence of urban centres, road networks and trade connections accompanied and accelerated this process, which affected flora as well as fauna.▲11

That the history of animals  belongs to that of the human species and vice versa is demonstrated not only by hunting. Animals are increasingly perceived as historical actors, as subjects, and no longer exclusively as a static background and as objects. For a long time this was not commonly understood, at least not in European historiography. While social history had already investigated the beginnings of animal protection, research on human-animal interconnections has only gained momentum in recent years. New perspectives have come primarily from the English-speaking world, where interdisciplinary human-animal studies has been a topic of environmental history for some time.11 Also in human-animal studies, the urgent question of the methodological approach arises in discussions about the attributing of agency. Where are the boundaries between humans and animals? How much animal is (still) in a human? Can personality and intentionality be ascribed to animals as an object of investigation? It is no coincidence that these questions remind one of the controversy about biocentric versus anthropocentric environmental history. They cannot be decided by historical studies alone, which concentrates on the social roles and cultural functions of human-animal relationships, to the extent that these can be determined from the archives of society. However, in order to get as close as possible to the biological creature, for example to be able to judge the natural behaviour of an early modern wolf, bear, beaver or otter that is being pursued, we are again dependent on natural sciences disciplines such as behavioural biology.▲12

In the cities in particular, animals were integral to the human environment, not just as beasts of burden and livestock, but also as synanthropes and pets. Whether livestock, particularly horses , underwent a direct loss of significance in the course of the fundamental processes of industrialization and urbanization remains to be determined. There are some indications that this was not the case, but research in this area is in its early stages. We have more information about the countless exotic animals that populated the European urban centres and courts – dead or alive, in naturalist museums as well as in the menageries of rulers and zoological gardens. Supposed liminal cases between the species are particularly informative as regards the relationship between humans and animals of the respective period. The so-called Hottentot Venus Sarah Baartmann (ca. 1789–1815), and the supposed elephant man Joseph Merrick (1862–1890)  became famous and were brought around the large European cities as attractions, freaks and not least also as "missing links" between humans and animals. The animal welfare perspective of the 19th and 20th centuries, which was rooted in the European Enlightenment, opens up a European angle. Associations for the protection of animals began to emerge in the first half of the 19th century, mostly at the local level. In many respects, Great Britain led the way in this regard. In 1824, a group led by the Anglican clergyman Arthur Broome (1779–1837) founded the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. By the second half of the 19th century, national associations had formed in many other countries, and connections began to form between these associations throughout Europe through international animal protection congresses.▲13

The above should not be understood as a plea for a Eurocentric view of animal-human relationships. In this context also, the perspective must extend beyond Europe if we are to discover common European aspects. The shared colonial past of the European rulers and states presents one such transnational opening of perspective. In many cases, a history of exploitation emerges here. The turbulent history of the central African state of Congo is a particularly horrific example of this.12 Whether flora or fauna, sheep and cows in Australia, Mexico and North America and also pathogens, countless instances demonstrate the often dramatic ecological consequences of the history of European expansion – in the colonies and also in Europe. The American environmental historian Alfred Crosby (born 1931)  has done important work researching the transfer of infectious diseases in the luggage of the conquerors and colonist (such as mumps, typhoid and malaria) and the epidemics they caused, which cost the lives of more than 90% of the indigenous population of North America. He described this aptly with the phrase "ecological imperialism".13 However, European expansion also had effects on Europe itself. For example, in the 16th century the Spanish conquistadors brought back the potato from the highlands of the Andes, which in the subsequent centuries became a staple  in the European diet. This was to have catastrophic consequences from 1845 onward as the great European famine and the waves of European migration  from the mid-19th century can only be understood in the context of the preceding spread of the potato . Ireland and Belgium were particularly badly affected, as at its worst the potato harvest fell by almost 90 percent in these countries. While other factors were also at play, in Ireland alone around one million people died as a result . A fungus which grows on the tubers, stalks and leaves caused the potatoes to rot and the years around 1845 provided ideal conditions for its spread. Like the potato itself, the fungus very probably originated in South America – as DNA analyses strongly suggest.14