A Brief Historiography of Environmental History

As with all histories, particularly new areas of investigation, the inception of environmental history can be considered in differing perspectives. Some contend that initially it was a tool used for heightening public consciousness to the environmental problems that scientists had identified. One can take the position of Chris Lewis that it began in the laboratories of the biological and ecological sciences in the middle of this century as the scientists began to become aware of ecological ramifications provoked by the technological and scientific applications they developed. Or the similar stance of Martin Melosi that environmental history began with the environmental movement of the 1960s. K. E. Bailes believes, slightly differently, that environmental history came out of history and environmental studies and began as a separate concentration in 1969. The prime example of this conjuncture of science, writing and nascent environmentalism, and one which still reverberates in the memory of your author, is Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.(1)

On the other hand there is the stance of those like William Palmer who assert that there is a longer and larger chronicle of writing environmental history . He connects the works of Braudel, Bodin, Montesquieu and even Machiavelli as foundations of environmental history; contending that the concentration is not new and asserting that their writings have relevance as bases of environmental history paradigms and thought. Palmer uses Machiavelli's elucidation of the change in the conception of time from sacred, universal and unchanging to measurable and linear as one instance of the type of documentation that supports his proposition. Braudel's longue durée and focus on climate serves as another example of this position. Palmer goes on to cite More's Utopia, Bacon's New Atlantis, Goodman's work contending that the Earth's decay is a sign of the Second Coming and the "Diggers'" Winstanley's view of Earth as treasure store for man. He uses all of these to show that environmental history has a long history of its own.(2) Similarly, Donald Hughes considers environmental history as beginning with myths and flowing down the historical stream to the present.(3)

However, although origins may have interest, in this case the significance lies in the recognition of the importance of the precedents of integrating the human and natural processes and circumstances. So no matter to which genesis you subscribe, the task now shifts to determining the focus, methods and the development of theories postulated to undergird that recognition and promote the ability to render useful information and guidance from the knowledge of the past as manifested through environmental history.

Before continuing with an investigation of methodology, foci and theories, a side trip to explore one or two of the plethora of definitions advanced for environmental history is in order to provide a foundation on which those items might stand. Not surprisingly, many practitioners have advanced their own definition for this concentration. Worster defines environmental history as the ways people organize into patterns of power, production and ideology in the presence of nature.(4) Steven Dovers' definition states that it is the "study and description of previous states of the biophysical environment and the history of human impacts and relationship with the non-human landscape and provides explanation of their nature and evolving states and envisions the future."(5) Cronon, on the other hand, has no succinct definition to share with us. He believes that definition is predicated on the audience and is too relativistic to delimit.(6) Perhaps Cronon's is the best due to its flexibility, but as creatures who dislike the nebulous quality of relativistic answers let me proffer the study of the multiplex interaction, interdependence and mutual influence of physical and biological forms across time and space with the intent to garner and disseminate an understanding of the processes, progression and possible repercussions involved as a reasonable working definition.

Lewis takes exception to the notion of relativism and Cronon's idea that any environmental history is 'just a story'. He believes that positive history exists and has advanced the quality of life. Lewis calls for activist environmental history to build on the bio-histories, referred to above, used by scientists to bring environmental problems to the fore. The previous paradigm of scientific history in support of technology and development is, he contends, over and now science is rearranging its attitude. This new era calls for environmental historians to engage with scientists to develop a new paradigm for the future. He touts this new environmental history as being critical to the understanding of current problems by using the past as prologue and reshaping stories about the past to give new choices for the future.(7) In general, John Opie, founding editor of the "Environmental History Newsletter" in 1974,(8) agrees.

However, Opie cautions that we must beware of overzealous advocacy, for this can be a double-edged sword, necessary, but, since our knowledge is always somewhat circumscribed and our prescience patently flawed, dangerous. As Jennifer Price notes, Simon Schama's main critique of environmental historians is that they are too oriented to advocacy. Cronon also believes that we must guard against the pressures which attempt to tailor our results or contort them to fit a preconceived agenda. His point is that we are historians not seers.(9)

In concert with Lewis, Opie also advocates that environmental history combine a general historical competency with a working understanding of scientific ecology. Further, he holds that people must be seen as independent actors, but that they influence and are influenced by environmental history. He also maintains that environmental history should start from humanities then work in hard science, all the while taking into account the environment and the culture the environment supports.(10)

Opie's stand echoes Braudel's attitude of the significant impact of environment on human affairs. However, Palmer asserts that the position of some of the earlier precursors of environmental history, such as Braudel and Bodin, take the environment's effects in a much too deterministic tone. He is more comfortable with the non-deterministic attitude displayed in such works as Thomas More's Utopia and Bacon's New Atlantis, which allow for humans to exercise choice in their interrelationship with nature. Although, once again a caveat must be voiced that these works can be seen as reflecting the discredited perspective of human control over nature.(11)

These are areas of agreement among environmental historians in their process of fabricating a framework for the study of environmental history. Many constituent components for this structure have been promulgated. For example, Dovers offers five principles of environmental history. First, we must describe the landscape within which the study is being conducted. Then, the complexity of the environment requires explanation. Third, the underlying methodological impurity, that is, the multi-discipline and multi-foci nature of the investigation receives consideration. Subsequently, discussion of the context takes place . And, finally, the relevance of the study and causal responsibility can be assigned. Worster advances a slightly different framework which, according to Dovers, has three points. Initially, you must develop an understanding of nature. Next, you must consider the interactions of the socio-economic realm with the environment. Lastly, integration of societal values, laws and myths that shape those interactions takes place. Organization may also be framed as a series of questions asked, as Carolyn Merchant suggests with the following sequence. She starts by asking what concepts describe the world. She continues by investigating the process by which changes in this description occur. The culmination of her process is then to question how a society knows the natural world.(12) Cronon also delineates a framework. He leads with the understanding that all history is set in a natural context. Continuing, he explains we can expect only flux; the chimerical nature of stasis or stability only deludes us into assuming balance over time and thus we must incorporate change into our deliberations. Moreover, our culture pervades our knowledge, leaving us with an unfocused and uncertain perception of nature. Therefore, we can only know history as a parable, a subjective story. This precludes prophesy, as it is not based on certainties or objectivity. Due to the tentative nature of the historical information we unearth we are able only to present broad guidelines not prescriptive solutions. For even though we cannot predict, nature demands action. But, we can only take action with care, since nature responds, through chaos, with consequences that are orders of magnitude larger than our input.(13)

While these principles certainly have merit, and there are more from which to choose, a key to all investigation of environmental history is the integration of natural and historical processes and the attempt to interpret and evaluate them in the light of current knowledge and circumstances, which areas are all too relativistic and societally, culturally and chronologically confined and defined. Therefore, although these blueprints are useful as guides and have many cogent points, they need to take the further step to the evaluation of findings for application. Cronon contends that most environmental historians use environmental history to promote environmentally conscious solutions for today’s problems.(14) This is not advocacy, but an evaluative effort which recognizes the prevailing value system and promotes the utility and relevance of environmental history and is to be encouraged.

As is apparent the structures for the study of environmental history are inclusive. Indeed this inclusive nature is an hallmark of the field. Not only does it integrate the natural and human worlds, but also a variety of disciplines, both in the realms of science and the humanities, tending toward natural history with some cross-over, but it also harmonizes many of the sub-disciplines of history.

Integration of cultural and social history is apparent in various works. Particularly, Ann Taylor's parallels between environmental and social history in which she calls environmental history an umbrella that incorporates the place of specific human societies within particular but changing ecosystems, varying cultural notions about man's relation to nature and environmental policy and politics. She sees the difference between social historians and environmental historians as, respectively, that between splitters and lumpers. She contends that there is much shared ground between the concentrations; such as their preoccupation with the common and inconspicuous, the incorporation of new sources and the social or environmental historians' political engagement with its undercurrent of sympathy for the powerless and exploited. Moreover, both seek to ascertain fundamental structures and this investigation results in the increase of sources for all historical inquiry. Further, she argues there is moral and political relevance in both social and environmental history. She also discerns the integration of these two subcategories of history in other work, particularly certain pieces by Worster and H. H. Rothman. Her belief is that environmental crisis and social inequalities are interrelated and that the two areas of study both have stakes in these arenas in the description of the circumstances and remediation of problems.(15)

Others are recognizing the field as one in which there are interconnections with their specialties. Elizabeth D. Gray's Green Paradise Lost,(16) which David Seamon says postulates environmental degradation as a fault of the male dominated culture, combines feminist and environmental history.(17) Martin Melosi says environmental history started in late 1960s with the rise of the environmental movement and changed through the years, so that works now include eco-feminism, urban, public health and industrial history. He proposes to include a racial history connection citing the policy of dumping toxins in economically (read racially defined) depressed areas, both domestic and international. This practice initially aroused an environmental movement generally called NIMBY (not in my backyard), but has heightened awareness and created an 'eco-populism', NIABY (not in anybody's backyard) and an environmental justice movement which developed in 1970s and 1980s America. Thus, he finds this a worthy integration of spheres.(18) Another expression of this inclusiveness is Arthur McEvoy's term "holocoenotic" which denotes the interdependent parts of a coherent indivisible whole and applies to the interrelationship of nature and humankind.(19)

Nor is this connectedness restricted to the relation between humans and nature. There has also developed a link in the public mind between technology and the environment. These two have a dialectic relationship, where effects from one play off after-effects in the other. This association is an important one in environmental history as it plainly exhibits the interdependency of the Earth's systems and yet the interconnection is complex in the extreme, thus requiring intensive investigation. Moreover, this link has implication for the application of environmental history to advocacy (as cautioned against earlier) and has engendered a more activist attitude by environmental historians, whether it is warranted or not.(20) This technological/nature dialectic has its roots in scientific knowledge. Bird contends that scientific knowledge is socially constructed and a representation of Nature. Therefore, Heisenberg's principle of uncertainty is applicable. So, it is practically impossible to know the effects of this relationship since our involvement acts on the association adding further complications to an already multiplex situation. It can be thought of as adding postmodern societal negotiations to environmental history.(21)

Thus, we pass from interconnections and integration into the theoretical constructs of environmental history. Worster tells us that theory is the organization of knowledge systematically with methodology laid out and differentiated from others. From this organization models are set up. Elizabeth Bird analyzes scientific theory and finds that it should not apply to environmental history because of the inherent biases of any theory that lay in its socio-cognitive context.(22) Merchant agrees and points out that theories are indeed relative to the culture and society from which they spring.(23) Weiskel, according to Worster, does not feel the same and uses scientific paradigms to analyze colonialism believing that the cross-disciplinary gulf is rather less than Merchant and Bird contend. And, to completely revamp the theoretical framework, McEvoy holds that law and Western assumptions need modification in order to accurately account for the permutations which have arisen.(24)

As we see, one can approach the theoretical from a variety of directions. Barbara Leibhardt, for example, posits that humans share two-way relationships with a natural environment that changes over time. Since this is the case, environmental history methodology can be controversial because it needs to integrate two separate disciplines from two separate areas; human and natural history. These two disciplines each has its own methods and theories and they must be reconciled in some manner.

To do so she reviews the attitudes of some environmental historians to ascertain common threads. She notes that Opie includes an element of advocacy but regrets the centrifugal force of environmental history which tends to move historians into constricted areas and divorce them from the larger focus of the concentration. Richard White cautions the historian to guard against determinism and polemics on environmental degradation. He feels the problem is to demonstrate causal connections between humans' actions and the state of an environment at a point in time, but he understands that causes can defy definition or identification. He does consider the processes of change and holds that some sort of determination is important because conclusions bear upon policy making. So, he does believe identifying complexities helps and he advances the theories of associated processes to assist in discerning parallels and reaching reasonable determinations. Arthur McEvoy believes, contrarily, that cause and effect are unattached to logical analysis which deals in universals, so, the system which is both universal and particular is formed around ecology, economy and the cognitive, where all three are interdependent and interrelative. That is, place and time translate theory into a particular manifestation which is apprehended, acted upon and reacts. McEvoy does not address finding specific cause or causal relationship, but only supplies structure for investigation. These attitudes led Leibhardt to propose a continuum of theory in identification of human/environmental interaction, which she illustrates by citing the work of a number of authors to exemplify each step in ascending complexity.(25)

First, she looks at Walter P. Webb's Great Plains(26) which postulates that the Plains affected the technology of any given culture (Indian, Spanish and American). Her critique of this theory is that it is static with no feedback loop on the environment or subsequently from humans. In other words, it is a start.

Next she takes Alfred Crosby's Ecological Imperialism(27) which submits that biological and ecological processes are central and paramount, and technology, capital and Judeo-Christian world view and values secondary. Leibhardt's problem with this is that it reeks of bio-determinism.

Cronon now comes under scrutiny with his Changes in the Land(28) which relates biological, ecological and economic factors. An important economic aspect of this work is the differences in the valuation of the land by Autochthonous Americans and Europeans. Here she feels the complexity is finally reaching a requisite level with the feedback loop of human-environment-human-environment and the interaction of multiple differing societies.

A further step in intricacy is reached with Richard Franke and Barbara Chasin's Seeds of Famine.(29) This is an economic view of two societies and their interaction and effects on environment. It shows ecological and economic process relations over time and on an interrelated basis. A difficulty arises for Leibhardt because the study does not address social perceptions although it does look at some internal social intercourse.

As a further step along in intricacy, John Perkins' Insects, Experts and the Insecticide Crisis(30) presents the ecological, economic and scientific (cognitive) as interrelated and dynamic. It shows how scientists react to a new scientific paradigm and the consequent biological and scientific interactions. It also examines societal interactions, people's preconceptions and governmental roles in the situation.

The next stage in complexity is McEvoy's The Fisherman's Problem(31) which adds law and politics as factors in addition to the previous elements. And as layers are added the description becomes more 'dense' which assists in the ability to assimilate the overall idea being conveyed.

At the apex of complexity, according to Leibhardt, is Carolyn Merchant's "The Theoretical Structure of Ecological Revolutions."(32) This essay incorporates ecological, economic, cognitive and reproductive constituents in its mix. Merchant asserts that reproduction and economy are in tension and that this tension is a significant determinant in environmental history. She also probes the cognitive processes in group and individual perceptions and actions.

Leibhardt concludes that, as Geertz said about ethnography, progress in environmental history is "intrinsically incomplete" since there is no possibility of acquiring a complete set of evidence, but that significant advances are being made.(33) The essence of Leibhardt's theory is that as complexity and density increase environmental history approaches its unattainable goal more closely and that is all the better.

We can, of course, subscribe to Leibhardt's theory or consider Worster's attitude. He maintains all ideas are grounded in their own historical context, a concept known as historicism. In addition, the historians themselves contribute to the confusion, either knowingly or not, and have own interests and agenda to promote. Moreover, change is constant, and while it maybe imperceptible and unanticipated (and invoke the law of unintended consequences on a continuing basis), acceptance of the world as it is without value judgment cannot be accomplished, thus thorough knowledge of either the environment or society is impossible. His conclusion is that nature is founded on interdependency and all of the constant changes in civilizations are just changes in interdependency patterns. Within history there are those that show patterns of success and if we can successfully identify these we can use them to assist us. Of course, these patterns do not come without price, they are a package complete with strictures and freedoms, and modification only increases the likelihood of differentiation. Finally, they are not absolute. Variations cannot help but happen and cognizance of variation must be taken.(34)

Although we find that a lot of work has been done, as Colin Duncan points out there is still no consensus on meaning. We can set up the environment as a non-person and that allows us to reduce it to an object model, but it is a subject. It does act, or perhaps react. Nature as an historical actor is not passive, it is a changing structure of representations of reality. Thus we are unable to determine which attitudes toward nature are sound.(35) Therefore, our deliberations must be, as Leibhardt states, complex and dense. The inclusive nature of environmental history must be maintained. We need to establish and encourage cross-disciplinary fertilization. And environmental history needs to integrate into the mainstream of history as combining urban, economic, environmental, social and regional history. This was a commendation which White gave to Cronon's Nature's Metropolis and one which needs to come from outside of the small community of environmental historians.(36) This was a step in the right direction, nevertheless. The structure of environmental history changes, as everything changes, but it has a built in flexibility which comes of its inclusive nature and this should enable it to prosper in the future. The call for interpretations of history which account for the interaction of humans and the environment gives every indication of growth, mainly to provide assistance in the ever shrinking world of today by adding insight into the conditions within which we live. The recognition that this will happen impels us to determine the shape of that discipline now. But we need to understand from whence this branch of study has come and how it got to where it is today.

If, in order to better understand environmental history, we wish to follow the historiography of environmental history chronologically we can begin with the ancients and their physical descriptions within their histories (e.g., Caesar's Gallic Commentaries). We then proceed to the Renaissance works in which climate played such a large part (e.g., Machiavelli). Thence we move to the era of man's supposed imposition of control over nature (e.g., Bacon and the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolutions of Europe). After that we arrive at the seminal work of Fernand Braudel which gave rise to the Annales school incorporating the longue durée. Next we see the rise of bio-historical authors (e.g., Carl Ort Sauer, Clarence Glacken and Rachel Carson) about the middle of the twentieth century and finally the development of the sub-discipline within history. From that point the concentration strives for legitimacy within the discipline of history. Its practitioners begin publishing overtly environmental histories and John Opie founds the "Environmental History Newsletter" in 1974. The Environmental Review (ER) begins publishing as a scholarly journal in 1976,(37) changes its name to the Environmental History Review (EHR) in the mid-Eighties and, finally, combines with Forest and Conservation History in 1996 to become Environmental History. At present the field is something of a strange bird. It is victim to what Donald Worster calls the tunnel vision and nationalism of historians. Due to its inherent comprehensive nature it does not fall within the neatly delineated areas of time and space which define historians' realms. He opines that historians are conservative and resistant to change in the profession, but he feels that they should be open to new perspectives and the cross-disciplinary, -national and -temporal nature of environmental history. Moreover, he contends that the quality of the literature in the field also argues for its acceptance.(38)

The field's definitive writings start with Clarence Glacken (Traces on the Rhodian Shore)(39), and proceed to the works of Alfred Crosby ((40)(The Columbian Exchange)(40), William McNeill (Plagues and Peoples)(41) and William Cronon (Changes in the Land)(42) in the seventies. It has since blossomed in the Eighties and Nineties with the addition of scholars such as Donald Worster (The Ends of the Earth)(43), Richard White, Carolyn Merchant, Clive Ponting, Richard Grove, Donald Hughes, Arthur McEvoy, H. H. Rothman, et alia. To assist in the dissemination of the knowledge acquired in these highly productive first years a special issue of EHR containing course syllabi for the integration of environmental history into education was produced.(44)

The discipline has moved from the position of an unaccepted offshoot of history into the mainstream of historical research and knowledge. In doing so, as shown previously, its practitioners have highlighted examples of previous historical writings which exhibited an environmental history perspective, although not necessarily in a purposeful manner. This would fulfill Gottschalk's definition of the compensatory stage of a new specialization.(45) Examples of this can be seen in the work of Palmer, Melosi and Lewis and their union of the works of Machiavelli, Bodin, Braudel, More, and Carson with the principles of environmental history.(46)

The applicability of these principles and the relevance of environmental history was made plain through the work of authors prior to the genesis of the sub-category and by its initial practitioners by relating the additional insight that could be garnered from previous history by the use of those principles. Therefore, they have fulfilled the second or contributory stage of Gottschalk's schema.(47) An example of this would be the new outlook on disease, disease vectors and effects provided by McNeill in his Plagues and Peoples.(48)

Further, almost immediately upon the inception of the discipline, the historians involved incorporated pieces of the past which had previously been discounted and which were subsequently shown to have relevance and importance to the study of history, and to the society in general; thus rewriting the historical record and satisfying the requirements of Gottschalk's third category, revision of the existing record.(49) The exemplar of this is Crosby's Ecological Imperialism which gives a completely new perspective on the world-wide effect of the expansion of the Europeans.(50)

In addition, through the development of its theories, framework, paradigms, history and principles it is obvious that the understanding of the foundations of environmental history spring from the consciousness of the current era. Therefore, significant effort has been and is being expended to comprehend how the application of these newly derived principles and viewpoints affect our grasp of history. Moreover, in interconnecting with the other areas of history, such as social and feminist, all of the categories gain depth and subtlety. The work of Ann Taylor expressing the mutual relatedness of social and environmental history is a good model for this.(51) And that completes the requirements for Gottschalk's fourth stage of social construction.(52)

Thus, as shown, we are met with the conundrum of a concentration which meets all the criteria for a mature segment of the discipline of history, but also has the attributes of a young specialization; including, minimal recognition within the discipline, evolving paradigms, expanding areas of competency and continuing integration of old and new material. Is this great or what?

Endnotes

(2)Palmer, William G. "Environment in Utopia: History, Climate and Time in Renaissance Environmental Thought." Environmental Review 8.2 (Summer 1984): 162-178.

(3)Hughes, J. Donald. "Ecology and Development as Narrative Themes in World History." Environmental History Review 19.1 (Spring 1995): 1-16.

(4)Worster, Donald. "Introduction to Theories of Environmental History Special Issue." Environmental Review 11.4 (Winter 1987): 251.

(5)Dovers, Steven. "Sustainability and 'Pragmatic' Environmental History." Environmental History Review 18.3 (Fall 1994): 21-36.

(6)Cronon, William. "The Uses of Environmental History." Environmental History Review. 17.3 (Fall 1993): 1-22.

(7)Lewis, Chris H. "Telling Stories about the Future of Environmental History and Apocalyptic Science." Environmental History Review. 17.3 (Fall 1993): 43-60.

(8)Bailes, K. E. "Introduction." Environmental Review 7.1 (Spring 1983): 3-6.

(9)Cronon, William. "The Uses of Environmental History." Environmental History Review. 17.3 (Fall 1993): 1-22.
Opie, John, "Environmental History: Pitfalls and Opportunities." Environmental Review 7.1 (Spring 1983): 8-16.
Price, Jennifer. Rev. of Landscape and Memory, by Simon Schama. Environmental History. 1.4 (Oct. 1996): 77-78.

(10)Opie, John, "Environmental History: Pitfalls and Opportunities." Environmental Review 7.1 (Spring 1983): 8-16.

(11)Palmer, William G. "Environment in Utopia: History, Climate and Time in Renaissance Environmental Thought." Environmental Review 8.2 (Summer 1984): 162-178.

(12)Dovers, Steven. "Sustainability and 'Pragmatic' Environmental History." Environmental History Review 18.3 (Fall 1994): 21-36.
Merchant, Carolyn. "The Theoretical Structure of Ecological Revolutions." Environmental Review 11.4 (Winter 1987): 255-271.

(13)Cronon, William. "The Uses of Environmental History." Environmental History Review. 17.3 (Fall 1993): 1-22.

(14)Ibid.

(15)Taylor, Ann. "Unnatural Inequalities: Social and Environmental History." Environmental History. 1.4 (Oct. 1996): 6-19.

(16)Gray, Elizabeth D. Green Paradise Lost. Wellesley, MA: Roundtable Press, 1987.

(17)Seamon, David. Rev. of Green Paradise Lost, by E. D. Gray. Environmental Review 8.3 (Fall 1984): 299.

(18)Melosi, Martin V. "Equity, Eco-Racism and Environmental History." Environmental History Review 19.3 (Fall 1995): 1-16.

(19)Taylor, Ann. "Unnatural Inequalities: Social and Environmental History." Environmental History. 1.4 (Oct. 1996): 6-19.

(20)"Introduction to Special Technology and Environment Issue." Environmental History Review 18.1 (Spring 1994): 3-6.

(21)Bird, Elizabeth. "The Social Construction of Nature." Environmental Review 11.4 (Winter 1987): 255-264.

(22)Ibid.

(23)Merchant, Carolyn. "The Theoretical Structure of Ecological Revolutions." Environmental Review 11.4 (Winter 1987): 255-271.

(24)Worster, Donald. "Introduction to Theories of Environmental History Special Issue." Environmental Review 11.4 (Winter 1987): 251.

(25)Leibhardt, Barbara. "Interpretation and Causal Analysis: Theories in Environmental History." Environmental Review 12.1 (Spring 1988): 23-36.

(26)Webb, Walter P. Great Plains. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1931.

(27)Crosby, Alfred. Ecological Imperialism. NY: CUP, 1986.

(28)Cronon, William. Changes in the Land. NY: Hill & Wang, 1983.

(29)Franke, Richard and Chasin, Barbara. Seeds of Famine. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1980.

(30)Perkins, John. Insects, Experts and the Insecticide Crisis. NY: Plenum Press, 1982.

(31)McEvoy, Arthur F. The Fisherman's Problem: Ecology and Law in the California Fisheries, 1850-1980. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

(32)Merchant, Carolyn. "The Theoretical Structure of Ecological Revolutions." Environmental Review 11.4 (Winter 1987): 255-271.

(33)Leibhardt, Barbara. "Interpretation and Causal Analysis: Theories in Environmental History." Environmental Review 12.1 (Spring 1988): 23-36.

(34)Worster, Donald. "Nature and the Disorder of History." Environmental History Review 18.2 (Summer 1994): 1-16.

(35)Duncan, Colin. "On Identifying a Sound Environmental Ethic in History: Prolegomena to any Future Environmental History." Environmental History Review. 15.2 (Summer 1991): 5-30.
Worster, Donald. "Nature and the Disorder of History." Environmental History Review 18.2 (Summer 1994): 1-16.

(36)White, Richard. Rev. of Nature's Metropolis, by William Cronon. Environmental History Review. 16.2 (Summer 1992): 85-91.

(37)Bailes, K. E. "Introduction." Environmental Review 7.1 (Spring 1983): 3-6.

(38)Worster, Donald. "World without Borders: The Internationalization of Environmental History." Environmental Review 6.2 (Fall 1982): 8-16.

(39)Glacken, Clarence. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Berkeley: U of Ca. Press, 1962.

(40)Crosby, Alfred. The Columbian Exchange. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1972.

(41)McNeill, William. Plagues and Peoples. NY: Doubleday, 1976.

(42)Cronon, William. Changes in the Land. NY: Hill & Wang, 1983.

(43)Worster, Donald, ed. The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History. NY: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

(44)Environmental Review 8.4 (Winter 1984). Special Issue: Syllabi for Environmental History.

(45)Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History: A Primer in Historical Method. NY: Alfred Knopf, 1951.

(46)Lewis, Chris H. "Telling Stories about the Future of Environmental History and Apocalyptic Science." Environmental History Review. 17.3 (Fall 1993): 43-60.
Melosi, Martin V. "Equity, Eco-Racism and Environmental History." Environmental History Review 19.3 (Fall 1995): 1-16.
Palmer, William G. "Environment in Utopia: History, Climate and Time in Renaissance Environmental Thought." Environmental Review 8.2 (Summer 1984): 162-178.

(47)Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History: A Primer in Historical Method. NY: Alfred Knopf, 1951.

(48)McNeill, William. Plagues and Peoples. NY: Doubleday, 1976.

(49)Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History: A Primer in Historical Method. NY: Alfred Knopf, 1951.

(50)Crosby, Alfred. Ecological Imperialism. NY: CUP:, 1986.

(51)Taylor, Ann. "Unnatural Inequalities: Social and Environmental History." Environmental History. 1.4 (Oct. 1996): 6-19.

(52)Gottschalk, Louis. Understanding History: A Primer in Historical Method. NY: Alfred Knopf, 1951.