Archaeology, ecological history, and conservation


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Archaeology, ecological history, and conservation

  1. 1. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Archaeology, EcologicalHistory, and ConservationFrances M. HayashidaDepartment of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,Pennsylvania 16802; email: fmh5@psu.eduAnnu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 34:43–65First published online as aReview in Advance onJune 14, 2005The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.orgdoi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120515Copyright c 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved0084-6570/05/1021-0043$20.00Key Wordsapplied archaeology, anthropogenic landscapes, vegetation history,human impacts, land-use legaciesAbstractEcologists have increasingly turned to history, including human his-tory, to explain and manage modern ecosystems and landscapes. Theimprint of past land use can persist even in seemingly pristine areas.Archaeology provides a long-term perspective on human actions andtheir environmental consequences that can contribute to conserva-tion and restoration efforts. Case studies illustrate examples of thehuman history of seemingly pristine landscapes, forest loss and re-covery, and the creation or maintenance of places that today arevalued habitats. Finally, as archaeologists become more involved inresearch directed at contemporary environmental issues, they needto consider the potential uses and abuses of their findings in man-agement and policy debates.43Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  2. 2. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41ContentsINTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44CLASSES OF EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . 46HUMAN IMPACTS ONVEGETATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Overexploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Alternatives to Overexploitation. . . 48CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Anthropogenic Landscapes:Southern Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Anthropogenic Landscapes:Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . 56INTRODUCTIONEcologists and conservation biologists havediscovered the deep human past, long theprovince of archaeologists. Browse throughtheir recent books and journals and you willfind a growing number of studies that con-sider archaeological evidence to explain andmanage current environments. This trendcan be tied to (a) an increasing interest inhow historical processes shape modern land-scapes, (b) the recognition that humans arepart of landscape history even in areas longthought of as pristine, and (c) the emergenceof restoration ecology with its goal of aidingthe recovery of degraded ecosystems usinghistorical reference conditions. At the sametime, archaeologists have begun to realize thepotential application of their work to cur-rent environmental research, management,and policy (Cox et al. 1995, Erickson 2003,Erlandson 2005, Fisher & Feinman 2005,Lauwerier & Plug 2004, Louwe Kooijmans1995, Lyman 1996, Macinnes & Wickham-Jones 1992, Peacock & Shauwecker 2003,Redman 1999, Spriggs 2001, van der Leeuw &Redman 2002). The development of histori-cal ecology, which examines “the relationshipsof humans and the biosphere in specific tem-poral, regional, cultural, and biotic contexts”(Bal´ee 1998b; see also Crumley 1994) has alsotriggered a rethinking of the long-term dy-namics of nature and culture and their studythrough the archaeological and paleoenviron-mental records.The explicit incorporation of archaeol-ogy into studies of current ecosystems, orinto conservation or restoration planning, isstill incipient. A number of recent essays andstudies have demonstrated the relevance ofzooarchaeology to wildlife management (Kay& Simmons 2002, Lauwerier & Plug 2004,Lyman 1996, Lyman & Cannon 2004). Here,I join the discussion with a review of archaeol-ogy’s actual and potential contribution to un-derstanding the history, long-term dynamics,and lasting effects of human impacts on vege-tation and consider the implications of thiswork for ecology and conservation. Such areview is particularly timely as debates heatup over the disposition and management oflandscapes and resources in the United Statesand abroad (e.g., the resilience of forests toexploitation, the extent to which human ac-tions aid or mimic natural processes, the rightsof indigenous groups to continued occupa-tion or use of protected areas). These debatesare fundamentally political and ethical in na-ture, but they are informed by the findings ofresearchers. Clearly, oversimplified assump-tions about anthropogenic impacts and hu-man nature based on an incomplete or skewedunderstanding of the past can only lead tomisguided practices and policies. Archaeologycan inform these debates by providing infor-mation on human actions and their environ-mental consequences over very long periodsof time, a fact appreciated by ecologists wholook to the archaeological record. The timehas come for archaeologists to take a moreactive role in designing and participating inresearch that addresses contemporary envi-ronmental concerns and contributes to publicpolicy.Forest ecologist David Foster and col-leagues have written extensively on the im-portance of history, including human history,to understand current ecosystems and land-scapes (Foster 2000a, Foster 2000b, Foster &44 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  3. 3. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Aber 2004, Foster et al. 2003). The histori-cal record provides a window on long-termprocesses (e.g., succession, soil formation, re-sponses to climate change), increases the sam-ple size of observations [such as responses tonatural and anthropogenic disturbances (fire,hurricanes, floods, clearing, farming)], anddocuments ecosystem responses to rare events(e.g., continental scale migrations, glacial cy-cles, major extinction episodes). Also, be-cause of the time lag in ecosystem responseto disturbance and environmental change,current ecosystem structure, function, andcomposition cannot be fully understood orexplained without a historical perspective.The lasting effects of past human actions(termed “land-use legacies”) include changesin species composition, successional dynam-ics, soils, water, topography, and nutrient cy-cling. Many seemingly natural areas have acultural past that is part of their ecologi-cal history; their conservation today requiresknowledge of that past and assessment of thevalue of continuing or replicating past culturalpractices.The human imprint on seemingly naturalareas was convincingly argued by Denevan(1992) in his critique of the “pristine myth”of the pre-Columbian Americas. Additionalwork by geographers, archaeologists, histo-rians, and others continues to illustrate theways that indigenous people of the Amer-icas and elsewhere shaped the landscapesthey inhabited (Bal´ee 1998a; Denevan 2001;Doolittle 2000; G´omez-Pompa et al. 2003;Head 1989, 2000; Kay & Simmons 2002;Kirch & Hunt 1997; Lentz 2000; Minnis& Elisens 2000; Peacock 1998; Willis et al.2004), a fact often missed by colonial ob-servers who wrote at a time of dramaticpopulation decline and severe social disrup-tion. European colonial accounts have otherpotential problems, including misunderstand-ing or falsely representing indigenous prac-tices. Thus these sources imperfectly orincompletely portray the pre-European real-ity and should be complemented with otherhistorical evidence from archaeology, paleoe-cology, and indigenous histories. Compari-son of complementary lines of evidence canalso identify landscapes that were not signifi-cantly transformed in the past [i.e., areas thatwere unoccupied or had a light human imprint(Lepofsky et al. 2003a)].History is also essential to ecologicalrestoration, “an intentional activity that ini-tiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosys-tem with respect to its health, integrity andsustainability” (Soc. Ecol. Restor. Sci. Pol-icy Work. Group 2002) by returning it to itshistorical trajectory based on reference con-ditions inferred from the historical, ethno-graphic, paleoecological, and archaeologicalrecord (Egan & Howell 2001). Restoredecosystems are not static, nor does restorationnecessarily aim to recover a pristine (prehu-man) environment (Winterhalder et al. 2004).Traditional cultural practices that reinforceecosystem health and sustainability are incor-porated into restoration projects and plans(Anderson & Barbour 2003, Egan 2003, Soc.Ecol. Restor. Sci. Policy Work. Group 2002).Archaeology can contribute to restorationecology by providing material evidence of pastenvironments and of how they were shaped byhuman actions, including but not limited toevidence on species ranges, extinctions, intro-ductions, and the cultural practices that wereused to manage local resources (Alcoze 2003,Alcoze & Hurteau 2001, Louwe Kooijmans1995, O’Brien 2001).This review is divided into four parts. Itopens by introducing the kinds of evidenceused to infer vegetation histories and humanimpacts. Second, I describe how archaeolo-gists have documented different kinds of hu-man impacts on vegetation, such as overex-ploitation and deforestation, but also considermanagement practices such as the renewableharvest of woody resources and the plant-ing and tending of wild species, all of whichhave played a role in forming modern land-scapes. Third, I present case studies of thecomplex interactions of people, plants, andlandscapes through time and their long-termeffects, focusing on tropical forests. In this • Archaeology and Conservation 45Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  4. 4. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41preceding sections, the emphasis is on recentliterature because of space limitations. Finally,the review would be incomplete without atleast a brief treatment of the political issuessurrounding studies of culture, nature, his-tory, and conservation and how historical (in-cluding archaeological) studies might be ap-plied or abused. Conservation biology andrestoration ecology developed because of thedramatic degradation of ecosystems and thecontinuing threats to biological diversity. Forsome, human exclusion and the maintenanceof or return to wilderness is seen as the beststrategy. But many areas of concern for pro-tection and restoration are home not only toendangered plants and wildlife, but also topeople, including indigenous groups, whosepractices over the generations may have con-tributed to creating valued “natural” habi-tats, or recent colonists hoping to make aliving. If these areas are rich in resources (tim-ber, mines, agricultural land), industries, largelandowners, and politicians also stake theirclaims. Archaeologists may join the debate asconsultants or advocates, or they may adopta neutral stance; in any case, their work maybe seized upon or reinterpreted in ways theynever expected.CLASSES OF EVIDENCEEvidence of past human impacts and oftheir long-term effects comes from a widerange of sources, including environmental ar-chaeology, paleoecology, history, geography,geology, and cultural anthropology. Cate-gories of data include botanical, faunal, andgeological observations from archaeologicalsites and natural or off-site contexts (e.g., wet-land cores, packrat middens); the distributionof sites and landscape features (roads, paths,fields) that provide information on popula-tion distribution, densities, and land use; cur-rent vegetation patterning; experiments thatreplicate natural and cultural processes andtheir effects; and written and oral historicalreferences to past environments and land-usepractices.For example, paleobotanical records fromsite and off-site areas are used to reconstructthe removal or burning of vegetation, theintroduction and spread of new species, thecultivation or encouragement of wild and do-mesticated plants, and the harvesting of woodand other forest products for fuel, timber,food, and medicine. These practices and theirlong-term effects are inferred from changesin the types and frequencies of species rep-resented (e.g., shade-tolerant versus light-demanding, mesic versus xeric, fire-sensitiveversus fire-tolerant), changes in particle char-coal accumulations at off-site areas (reflectingpossible changes in burning regimes), and evi-dence for harvest strategies (e.g., collection ofdead wood or pruning that conserve woodyresources versus cutting down trees, shiftsthrough time to lower quality fuel types).Although the great majority of vegetationhistories are still derived from pollen, therehas been an increase in studies relying onother microfossils, such as starch and phy-toliths, as well as macrofossil wood and char-coal from archaeological sites (Hather 1994,Newsom 1993, Thi´ebault 2002). Geoarchae-ological studies reveal the extent and timingof erosion events that may be linked to de-forestation or intensified agriculture, whereassoil analyses are used to reconstruct the en-richment or depletion of soils through humanactions and their long-term effects (Adderleyet al. 2000, Beach et al. 2003, Glaser &Woods 2004, Kristiansen 2001, Lehmannet al. 2003b, Lopinot & Woods 1993, Sandor1995, Simpson 1997, van Andel et al. 1990,Woods 2004).Faunal remains may also reflect environ-mental or land-use changes. For example, thekinds and diversity of animals such as bee-tles, land snails, and small mammals can beused as indicators of forest integrity or dis-turbance (Coles 1988, Desender et al. 1999,Dincauze 2000, Hogue 2003, Hunt & Kirch1997, Peacock & Melsheimer 2003, Stahl2000). Human impacts on fauna (e.g., intro-duction of seed predators, extinction of seeddispersers, declining human predation with46 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  5. 5. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41depopulation) will also have significant, long-term effects on vegetation. Note, however,that in some cases the human role is still heav-ily debated, e.g., for Pleistocene megafau-nal extinctions (Barnosky et al. 2004, Fiedel& Haynes 2004, Grayson & Meltzer 2003,Grayson & Meltzer 2004, Martin & Stead-man 1999). Another critical source of infor-mation on human impacts are regional stud-ies based on systematic survey and remotesensing, which provide information on thechanges in land-use practices, human set-tlements, and population dynamics throughtime.The combination of different lines of evi-dence leads to more robust interpretations oflandscape histories, although there are rela-tively few areas for which all potential sourcesof information have been examined. Com-munication among researchers collecting dif-ferent types of information—ecologists andarchaeologists for example—is often limitedbecause of traditional disciplinary boundariesin universities, funding sources, and academicliteratures. Additionally, interdisciplinary re-search at the landscape scale is costly. Poten-tial sources of funding include new programson humans and the environment (e.g., theHuman and Social Dynamics area of the U.S.National Science Foundation).HUMAN IMPACTS ONVEGETATIONThe section below introduces different kindsof human impacts on vegetation. It beginswith the familiar examples of overexploitationthat resulted in deforestation, extinctions, anddegradation. I also include practices aimedat increasing the abundance or reliability ofwild resources that had the effect of moresustainable exploitation, increased diversity,soil improvement, or the creation of anthro-pogenic environments that are valued habitatstoday. Case studies follow with illustrations ofthe complex interactions over time betweenpeople and plants in a long acknowledgedcultural landscape (southern Sweden) andin environments long perceived as pristine(tropical forests).OverexploitationThere are numerous studies of prehistoricclearing and the overexploitation of plantsthat resulted in lasting changes in soils, vege-tation, and wildlife, including the extirpationor extinction of species as habitats were al-tered or eliminated. A well-known example,based primarily on pollen evidence, is the lossof areas of upland forests in the British Isles(Brown 1997, Dickson 2000, Simmons 2001).The process began in the later Mesolithic,as hunter gatherers maintained and createdcanopy openings within the forest and alongforest edges to encourage the growth of fa-vored species and to attract game. Increasingareas were cleared in later periods for farming,grazing, timber, and fuel, ultimately resultingin the creation of moors and heathlands char-acterized by poor soils and low biodiversity.Within the United States, pollen and sed-iment studies by McLauchlan (2003) suggestlocal deforestation and increased soil erosioncoincide with the rise in reliance on cultivatedspecies during the Middle Woodland occupa-tion (100 b.c. to a.d. 400) of the Fort Ancientsite in southern Ohio. At Cahokia, a majorMississippian center ( a.d. 1050 to a.d. 1350),residents deforested the area around them asthey opened fields and collected wood for fueland buildings, including the construction ofa 3 km wooden palisade using about 15,000trees. The resultant erosion and increasedrunoff triggered flooding that is linked to thedecline and eventual abandonment of the site(Lopinot & Woods 1993; Woods 2003, 2004).On islands, vegetation loss due to overex-ploitation and clearing can be exacerbated bygeographic isolation and the lack of nearbyseed sources for recolonization. Additionalproblems (possible in any newly colonizedarea, island, or continent) are the intro-duction by humans of seed predators (do-mesticated animals, rodents), or the loss ofseed dispersers due to hunting, predation • Archaeology and Conservation 47Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  6. 6. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41introduced animals, introduced disease, orhabitat fragmentation and loss. The bestknown case is Easter Island, where overex-ploitation led to environmental degradationand demographic and societal collapse (Flen-ley & Bahn 2003, Kirch 1997). When visitedby European explorers in the early eighteenthcentury, the island was described as covered ingrasslands and virtually treeless. Pollen andsediment studies from wetland cores as wellas the analysis of charcoal from archaeologicalsites reveal that the island was forested whenPolynesian colonists first arrived in the lateseventh century (the earliest reliable radiocar-bon date). Trees were cleared for agriculture,burned for fuel, and used to make objects suchas the large canoes necessary for open oceantransportation and fishing. Deforestation anderosion began around a.d. 800 and proceededslowlybutsurely;bythemid-seventeenthcen-tury, the forests were nearly depleted and hadbeen replaced by grasses and weeds. Forestloss may have caused intermittent streams torun dry, further changing the island landscape.The local extinction of 14 plant species wasdetected in the charcoal record. One of thelost trees was a species of palm; nuts recov-ered from the archaeological record all showevidence of rodent gnawing, and it is likelythat these seeds were consumed by the Poly-nesian rat (Rattus exulans) that arrived with theisland’s colonists. The Polynesian rat is alsoimplicated in the dramatic decline of the low-land forests of the Hawaiian Islands (Athenset al. 2002).Alternatives to OverexploitationThe preceding examples of overexploitationare well known, and many others could begiven (Amorosi et al. 1997, Kohler 1992,K¨ohler-Rollefson & Rollefson 1990, Lager˚as& Bartholin 2003, McGovern 1994, Miller1990). For conservation purposes, they illus-trate a “lost past” that may inform restorationefforts and also serve as essential cautionarytales on the environmental and human costsof overconsumption. But the history of hu-man land use is not an inevitable story of de-pletion and degradation. There are also ex-amples of sustainable use and practices thatmaintained diversity or that resulted in thecreation of landscapes that are now valuedhabitats. These examples have received lessattention, perhaps because they are less com-mon or less dramatic (and thus perceived asless interesting or less relevant to current con-servation concerns). They may also be harderto study; it is perhaps easier to infer deple-tion than conservation from the archaeologi-cal record. Assumptions about human natureor the nature of indigenous people (as in-nately wasteful or destructive) also play a roleas Fairhead & Leach (1995) demonstrated intheir work in the Kissigoudou prefecture ofGuinea. Here, patches of forest surrounded bysavannah had been characterized as the rem-nants of a vast forest that had been devastatedby local inhabitants. A close study of the his-torical record and ethnographic observationsclearly demonstrated that the supposed for-est remnants were in fact forest islands thatlocal residents had planted and tended in ex-isting savannah. Similar examples of the man-agement of wild plants can be found through-out the modern, historical, and archaeologicalrecords and help to balance our perceptions ofhuman impacts.Maintaining woody resources. Humanneeds for wood were not always met by cut-ting down trees. Archaeobotanical studies ofcharcoal can identify cases where dead wood,recognizable through the growth of fungus orthe presence of insect holes, was collected forfuel. Recent examples are described from thecoast of southeastern Brazil during the lateHolocene (Scheel-Ybert 2001) and from theNeolithic site of C¸ atalh¨oy¨uk East in Anato-lia (Asouti & Hather 2001). Driftwood wasused for fuel and the manufacture of objects,even in heavily forested coastal areas. Drift-wood accounted for at least 18% of the char-coal assemblage of the Cape Addington Rock-shelter in southeast Alaska, occupied from a.d.160 to 1420. Its importance as a fuel and raw48 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  7. 7. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41material is amply described in historical ac-counts (Lepofsky et al. 2003b).In other cases, branches rather than wholetrees were harvested and used for fuel andfodder. Small branches were burned at theNeolithic-Chalcolithic Pınarbas¸ı campsite inAnatolia, and Asouti (2003) notes that forthese taxa (Pistacia, Amygdalus) pruning wouldhave stimulated flowering and seed produc-tion, potentially increasing their local abun-dance. Terral (2000) also infers from theBronze Age charcoal record from sites onthe Mediterranean coast of France and Spainpruning was used to manage olive trees.Some trees sprout vigorously from thestump (called coppicing) or roots (suckering)when cut down. If a high stump is left (tokeep the tender sprouts out of the reach ofgrazing animals), the practice is termed pol-larding (Rackham 1998a). Coppicing and pol-larding stimulate growth and extend the lifeof trees (up to 1000 years for species stud-ied in Europe), ensuring a rapidly renewableand potentially sustainable supply of wood forfuel, poles for construction, and branches forfodder. Using written sources and fieldworkon old coppiced trees, Rackham has painstak-ingly documented the history of these prac-tices and their ecology in Britain and theMediterranean (Rackham 1996, 1998a,b).Archaeological evidence for coppicing inEngland extends back to the Neolithic [circa(ca.) 5000 before present (b.p.)], when poleswere used to construct tracks for crossing thewetlands at the Somerset Levels site (Coles& Coles 1986). In pre-Columbian sites inFlorida and the Caribbean, the reliance onmangrove for fuel over many generationsby growing populations without depletion isalso likely due to its prolific coppice growth(Newsom 1993, Newsom & Wing 2004,Scarry & Newsom 1992). In some heavilymodified landscapes, the persistence of forestpatches into modern times may be due to cop-picing management practices. This is clearlythe case in the highly managed coppice wood-lands of Britain and the Mediterranean, whereancient coppice stools (the stumps) are stillB.P.: before presentevident, but may also be true for other areas,where coppicing has not persisted in recenttimes or left such obvious evidence.The renewable harvest of wood or bark isalso recorded in the Pacific Northwest andnorthern Scandinavia, where the cambiumlayer of certain conifers was consumed. It wasoften removed in strips, which did not killthe tree but left a characteristic scar. Similarly,Native Americans of the Great Basin removedlong, narrow pieces of wood to manufacturebow staves from live junipers without killingthe tree. Examples of these “culturally modi-fied trees” record past harvesting practices andare also evidence of a historical human pres-ence in areas where other kinds of archaeolog-ical remains may be sparse or difficult to de-tect (Mobley & Eldridge 1992, ¨Ostlund et al.2004).Planting and tending. Wild plant specieswere also transplanted, cultivated, tendedor encouraged, resulting in their potentiallysustainable use. For example, in the latepre-Hispanic Andes, the Inka planted Bud-dleia and possibly other trees for harvestas fuelwood (Chepstow-Lusty & Winfield2000, Hastorf & Johannessen 1996). Thereare also many examples, both past andpresent from throughout the world, of use-ful species planted in settlements, gardens,and fields or spared during clearing (e.g.,the ethnographically observed “managed suc-cession” of trees in fallows). These prac-tices could extend the range of certainspecies, or increase their abundance, in areasof human activity.Both historical and archaeological evi-dence point to the management of nut treesby Native Americans in the eastern UnitedStates (Scarry 2003). Two recent studiesprovide evidence for this practice by com-paring the distribution of Native Americansettlements and “witness trees,” intervalmarkers noted on the maps and notes of earlyU.S. government surveyors. In southeasternPennsylvania, Black & Abrams (2001) com-pared the spatial distribution of • Archaeology and Conservation 49Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  8. 8. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41trees recorded in the eighteenth century andSusquehannock villages occupied in the latesixteenth through mid-seventeenth centuries.The higher than expected occurrence of hick-ory (Carya) and, to a lesser degree, walnut( Juglans) in village catchments is not ex-plainedbytopographicoredaphicdifferences.This suggests their purposeful encourage-ment or cultivation, a practice recorded inhistorical accounts. Similar observations weremade by Foster et al. (2004) in an analysis ofwitness trees around historic Creek Indian vil-lages in Alabama. Because witness tree recordsare often used in the United States to establishthe “natural” baseline in long-term ecologicalstudies and for the purposes of restoration,these examples highlight the importance ofunderstanding the many ways that landscapeswere shaped by indigenous inhabitants.Human manipulation of vegetation to in-crease the production or reliability of wildplant foods has a very deep history. Evidencefrom throughout north temperate Europe, in-dicates that late Mesolithic hunter gatherersburned forests to create or maintain clearingsto attract game and to encourage grasses andother open habitat species (such as hazel, val-ued for its nuts) (Mason 2000, Mithen et al.2001, Zvelebil 1995). It is also likely that theycultivated or transplanted wild plants beyondtheir natural ranges. Archaeologists are in-creasingly paying attention to the ways thathunter-gatherers manipulate plant resourcesto increase their abundance or reliability, whatSmith (2001) refers to as “low level food pro-duction.” These activities suggest that thepresumed natural (prefarming) pollen base-line used in vegetation history studies may infact reflect a landscape that had already beensignificantly altered by people.Other archaeological and paleoecologicalexamples of the tending or cultivation ofwild and semidomesticated trees are reportedfor the Pacific Islands (Latinis 2000), Japan(Kitagawa et al. 2004), the Caribbean(Newsom & Pearsall 2003, Newsom & Wing2004), the Maya region (discussed below), andSpain and Portugal (Harrison 1996).Burning. The use of prescribed burning is amuchdebatedissueinecologyandforestman-agement, particularly in areas prone to majorwildfires that threaten people, property, andforests. In the United States, the likelihoodof catastrophic fires increased with the prac-tice of fire suppression that interrupted thenatural and cultural fire regimes of the pastand resulted in large fuel accumulations. Firehistory and the presence or absence of anthro-pogenic burning in the past informs decisionsabout forest and grassland management to-day as well as decisions concerning how orwhether prescribed burning should be carriedout.Fire histories are generally based on theanalysis of off-site evidence, such as charcoaland pollen from wetland cores, or fire scarsequences from trees, together with histori-cal evidence on fire frequency, lightning fre-quency, and human burning practices. Thisinformation is compared against climatic re-constructions to identify periods of dryingthat may have increased the probability of nat-ural (lightning) ignitions. Evidence for humanversus natural ignition is inferred, for exam-ple, by an increase in charcoal accumulationsaccompanied by the presence of pollen fromcultigens, suggesting burning to clear and pre-pare land for crops. The use of archaeologi-cal evidence to reconstruct fire histories hasbeen largely indirect, such as the coincidencein timing for an increase in fire frequencywith human colonization or the expansion ofagricultural settlements. On-site archaeologi-cal evidence alone may not be sufficient to re-construct burning history, but it contributesto the interpretation of off-site evidence.In Southern Appalachia, archaeologicaland paleoecological evidence has beencombined to argue for the effects of hu-man actions, including burning, on forestcomposition in the Late Archaic and EarlyWoodland periods beginning 3000 b.p.(Delcourt & Delcourt 1997, 1998a,b;Delcourt et al. 1998). On the basis of off-sitepollen and charcoal records, the locationof settlements, and the reconstruction of50 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  9. 9. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41farming and hunting practices from archae-ological remains, researchers inferred thatfire was used to clear small garden plotsand to create open grassy areas to attractgame on upper slopes and ridgetops. Thisaction encouraged the growth of fire tolerantoaks, chestnut, and pine. Mixed mesophyticforest persisted on the lower slopes and inravines, resulting in a diverse vegetationmosaic. Recently, fire-adapted species havebeen declining owing to the low incidenceof lightning along with fire suppression inthe twentieth century. The persistence ofvaluable fire-adapted species as major forestcomponents and the preservation of thelandscape mosaic may therefore depend onprescribed burning.CASE STUDIESThe complex role of people in landscape his-tory is perhaps best illustrated through moreextended presentation of case studies. I beginwith an area where the human role in shap-ing the landscape has long been recognized—southern Sweden—and discuss how a histor-ical perspective has been used to address cur-rentconservationconcerns.Ithendiscusshowarchaeology informs our understanding andperceptions of tropical forests, where the hu-man role in shaping landscapes over time isstill debated and closely linked to alarm overthe rapid rate of modern deforestation and re-sultant conflicts over how forests should bemanaged and protected.Anthropogenic Landscapes:Southern SwedenA key conservation concern in southernSweden has been the decline of rich decidu-ous forests and their replacement by speciespoor forests dominated by spruce (Picea)or beech (Fagus). Although partly explainedby natural causes (climate-driven continen-tal scale migrations) and recent forestry prac-tices, this transformation has also been linkedto past land uses, including grazing, burning,and clearance for agriculture (Bj¨orkman &Bradshaw 1996; Bj¨orse & Bradshaw 1998;Lager˚as 1996; Lindbladh & Bradshaw 1995,1998; Lindbladh et al. 2000; Mikusi´nski et al.2003). The remaining patches of mixed de-ciduous forest can also be partly attributed tocultural causes.In a remote sensing study, Mikunsi´nskiet al. (2003) noted that today stands of de-ciduous forest, often with old trees, are con-centrated around villages where trees wouldhave been retained for “practical, aesthetic,and cultural reasons.” This distribution is alsoexplained by the differential management oflands dating back to the Medieval period, ifnot earlier, when infields included intensivelyfarmed cereal fields and hay meadows for win-ter fodder production, and outfields were usedfor forest grazing and slash and burn agricul-ture. Historical sources suggest that conifersthat sprouted in infields were weeded out be-cause of the high acid and low nutrient con-tent of their litter, reducing their spread intomaintained deciduous patches.Lindbladh & Bradshaw (1995, 1998) com-pared pollen evidence from one infield andtwo outfield areas at neighboring estates inSm˚aland. They found that prior to a.d. 1100all areas were covered by mixed deciduousforests. After that date the pollen evidencefrom the infield suggests the creation and pro-longed (800 years) management of a mosaicof meadows, fields, pastures, and pollardedtrees that supported a high diversity of species.With abandonment 100 years ago, floristic di-versity declined. A previous decrease in diver-sity began at ca. a.d. 1400 when the popu-lation of local residents (and maintenance ofthe meadow system) declined with the spreadof the black death. In contrast to the infields,the outfields maintained continuous forestcover, and there was no evidence for intensivegrazing as has been observed in the outfields ofother regions. Conifers first gained a footholdin these forests around a.d. 1400. Slash andburn agriculture was practiced in outfieldsduring the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-tury, and once outfields were abandoned, • Archaeology and Conservation 51Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  10. 10. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41conifers spread and dominated regeneratingforests.Although deciduous forests and the threat-ened species they support have a high con-servation value, there is also a need to pro-tect and restore species in rich seminaturalgrasslands. Eriksson et al. (2002) observe thatnatural grasslands predate human occupa-tion of southern Scandinavia, but they arguethat grassland habitats and connectivity in-creased with human management (mowingand grazing) dating as far back as the Neolithic(Cousins et al. 2002). In this way, human activ-ities may have increased local plant species di-versity over time in these grasslands (Erikssonet al. 2002). The high diversity found in theseareas is now sharply declining; in Sweden,the loss of seminatural grasslands over thepast 80 years is estimated at approximately90% (Eriksson et al. 2002), owing to forestencroachment once grazing or other main-tenance ceases and to direct conversion toagricultural fields or plantations. This declinein grassland habitats and connectivity has re-sulted in an increase in local extinction ratesand a decrease in species richness. Historicalstudies, including archaeology and paleoecol-ogy, reveal how these landscapes evolved andhow they might be preserved.Anthropogenic Landscapes:Tropical ForestsTropical forests today are valued for theabundance, uniqueness, or diversity of theplant and animal life they support andfor their large-scale effects on atmosphericprocesses and conditions. As such, theyhave often been defined as pristine, natu-ral, or wild, and the effects of human im-pacts have often been overlooked or mis-construed. Many are located in areas thatwere subjected to European colonial expan-sion that resulted in (a) the abandonment ofland (and its subsequent “return to nature”)because of forced resettlement, migration,and depopulation caused by introduced dis-eases, warfare, and genocide and (b) the char-acterization of indigenous land-use practices(such as swidden farming and hunting) as in-herently wasteful and destructive, further jus-tifying the control or exclusion of indigenousinhabitants.Efforts to emphasize the natural charac-ter of tropical forests are also spurred by thereal threats posed by logging, urbanization,intensive agriculture, and the conversion offorest to pasturelands. Many fear that ac-knowledging the human past of wild areas willbe used to justify their intensive use today.These fears are valid because arguments ofthis type have been made in other contexts[e.g., the equation of anthropogenic and natu-ral burning with clear cutting in North Amer-ican forests (Bonnicksen 1994; see discussionin Fritz 2000)]. But the response should bemore research, not less, on historical humanimpacts (which in some areas may in fact beminimal) to understand current landscapesand to identify alternatives to destructivecontemporary land-use practices. Increas-ingly, conservationists are realizing that strictpreservation (whether desirable or not) is notfeasible for most of the world’s tropical forestareas.Toward these ends, there has been agrowth in research by both natural and so-cial scientists on forest history and the role ofdisturbances both natural and cultural, such asfire, hurricanes, logging, clearing for agricul-ture and grazing, and their interactions. Howdo forests respond to disturbances of differ-ent kinds, scales, intensities, and durations?How does past land use affect modern struc-ture, composition, and function? What are ex-amples of both degradation and enhancementin the past, and how might this knowledgeinform contemporary land use (e.g., by illus-trating possible lower impact alternatives todeforestation)?Disturbance. Whitmore & Burslem (1998)reviewed evidence on the significance oflarge-scale disturbances on the structure andcomposition of tropical rainforests. Distur-bances are events that create gaps in the52 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  11. 11. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41forest canopy; an example of a small-scale nat-ural disturbance would be an individual treefall. Small-scale disturbances occur with highfrequency and are easily observed and stud-ied. Larger scale disturbances include natu-ral events such as landslides, wind storms,floods, and fire, as well as human activitiessuch as clearing plots for agriculture and log-ging. These rarer disturbances, with returnintervals of decades or centuries, appear tobe important components of forest historyin most if not all tropical areas. Clearingsor gaps in the canopy encourage the estab-lishment of more light-demanding trees andunderstory species or recruitment of estab-lished seedlings and saplings of shade toler-ant species. Small gaps tend to favor shade-tolerant species, whereas larger disturbancesthat destroy understory vegetation result inthe establishment and numerical dominanceof light-demanding trees. If these trees are al-lowed to grow (e.g., in a swidden system witha long fallow period or under natural distur-bance regimes), the result is a mosaic of forestpatches in different stages of succession. Simi-lar disturbance dynamics have been examinedfor other kinds of forests.Solomon Islands. These ideas are exploredin the Marovo Lagoon region of the SolomonIslands by Bayliss-Smith et al. (2003). Thestudy area is a large tract of unbroken for-est often depicted as pristine and under con-sideration as a United Nations Educational,Scientific, and Cultural Organization WorldHeritage Area. Historical sources suggest thatin ca. 1800, before intensive European con-tact, local inland residents relied on irrigatedpondfields (taro), mixed bush fallow swiddenfarming (mainly dryland taro and yams), andthe products from secondary forests of fal-lowed fields (Canarium nut trees, leafy greens,ferns, wild yams, and medicinal plants). De-population and social disruption caused by in-creased European contact led to the eventualabandonment of the inland area by the latenineteenth century, and the remaining popu-lation moved toward the coast. Cleared areasof the forest regenerated, resulting in the ap-parent wilderness seen today. Archaeologicalsurvey confirms the inland presence of numer-ous settlements, forts, ceremonial grounds,taro terraces, and nut groves. The locationsof settlements correlate with patches of forestdominated by Campnosperma brevipetoliata, alight-demanding species that recruits well inareas of large-scale disturbance. In this case,the forest gaps colonized by Campnospermawere probably abandoned swidden fields. Theauthors argue that the anthropogenic distur-bance history of these forests indicates greaterresilience than is commonly acknowledgedand they suggest that some relatively lightforest disturbance activities, such as reduced-impact logging, may be viable and sustainableland-use options today.In the Solomon Islands, population declineand reforestation occurred within the past 200years. The Maya forest and the wealth of ar-chaeological, paleocological, and ecologicalstudies that have been conducted present theopportunity to explore an example of long-term forest history and the dynamics of peo-ple, plants, landscape, and climate (G´omez-Pompa et al. 2003, Turner et al. 2004)Maya: deforestation and recovery. In theMaya Lowlands, where a series of lake corestudies (primarily from the Pet´en) com-plements decades of archaeological surveyand excavations, four general periods in theHolocene history of the forests can be dis-cerned (Brenner et al. 1990, Curtis et al. 1998,Dunning et al. 1998, Islebe et al. 1996, Leyden1987):1. A prehuman landscape, when thepollen of mature forest species is mostprevalent;2. A prolonged episode of clearing seenas a decrease in the abundance of highforest species and as an increase in dis-turbance taxa (grasses, weeds) and insecondary forest taxa, attributable tohuman entry in the region, as well as • Archaeology and Conservation 53Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  12. 12. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41establishment and spread of agriculturenear settlements;3. A period of increased deforestation de-tected as a dramatic drop in tree pollenabundance (both mature and secondaryforest taxa), a rise in grass, weeds, andmaize pollen, as well as widespread soilerosion, seen as a thick layer of “Mayaclay” in many of the lake cores; and fi-nally4. Reforestation, when both high and sec-ondary forest taxa rebounded. Maizepollen persisted.Reforestation has been dated to either theperiod following the Classic Maya collapse ofca. a.d. 800–1000, or much later, on the heelsof the Spanish invasion in the seventeenthcentury. This discrepancy can be attributed tothe lack of absolute dates for the early corestogether with the fact that some areas con-tinued to be occupied and farmed through-out the Postclassic (i.e., recovery took place atdifferent rates in different places). A recent,well-dated core from the large Lake Pet´en Itzaindicates that reforestation of at least some ar-eas began ca. 1100 to 1000 b.p., following theClassic Maya collapse (Curtis et al. 1998).Forest recovery is typically attributed tothe decrease in population following the col-lapse, but changes in forest composition alsosuggest a possible alteration of farming prac-tices, which were based primarily on swiddenin the upland areas and supplemented by wet-land agriculture in the low-lying, seasonallyflooded bajos, terracing of upland slopes, andagroforesty (in swidden fields and house gar-dens) (Whitmore & Turner 2001). The verylow abundance of both mature and secondarytree taxa during the period of maximum dis-turbance suggests both increased clearing anda shortening of fallow periods. The recoveryof both mature and secondary forest taxa dur-ing the last phase together with the continuedpresence of maize suggest (a) that less totalarea was cultivated with more areas convert-ing to mature forest and (b) a return to longerperiods of fallow, enabled by population de-clines but perhaps also reflecting a cultural re-sponse to the crisis of soil and forest loss.Ecologists have pondered the reforestationof the Maya region. How did it take place?One possibility is that the uplands were recol-onized by trees from the less heavily farmedbajos, as suggested by P´erez-Salicrup (2004)for the southern Yucatan. However, many up-land forest species are absent from or ex-tremely rare in bajos in the Maya region to-day (Schulze & Whitacre 1999), which arguesfor an upland seed source during postcollapsereforestation. Other possible seed sourceswere managed plots dominated by economicspecies, such as house gardens, tended groves,and “forest gardens” resulting from selec-tive cutting and planting of trees in swiddenfields (G´omez-Pompa et al. 1990, Lentz et al.2000, McKillop 1994, Peters 2000, Turner &Misicek 1984). Also important were theforested, unoccupied areas between compet-ing polities that served as both buffer zonesand battle grounds (Taube 2003). Forests wereconceptualized by the ancient Maya as sinisterplaces, associated with darkness, evil, wild an-imals, and disorder, as opposed to the well de-lineated, socially constructed spaces of fields,houses, and settlements. Thus expanses offorests were preserved out of respect for andfear of wild and human threats. Finally it’s im-portant to note that the collapse was not a sin-gle, brief event. Instead, the abandonment ofmajor centers and shifts in population tookplace at different times and at different rates(Webster 2002). Thus Allen et al. (2003) ob-serve that forest resources may have been de-pleted in some areas while recovering in oth-ers, resulting in a shifting mosaic that helpedto preserve biodiversity.Other land-use legacies that potentially af-fected the recovery of the Maya forest andits current structure and composition werechanges in soils and topography from uplanderosion and aggradation in lakes and bajos(Beach 1998, Beach et al. 2003, Dunning &Beach 2000), the construction in some areasof soil conservation features (terraces, checkdams) that captured eroded sediments (Beach54 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  13. 13. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41et al. 2002, Dunning & Beach 1994), the ad-dition of soil amendments both intentional(fertilizers on fields) and unintentional (hu-man waste at settlements), and the creation ofmicroenvironments on the ruins themselves.Certain tree species (notably ram´on or Brosi-mum alicastrum) prefer the edaphic conditionsof the high limestone structures (Lambert &Arnason 1982, Schulze & Whitacre 1999),and their seeds are dispersed by bats, who feedon the fruit and reside in the ruins (Peters2000).In summary, the lesson of the Maya for-est is not simply that “tropical forests are re-silient” but rather that (a) human land use haslasting effects, (b) a recovered forest may bedifferent from the forest prior to intensive use(even with significant population decline), and(c) the conservation and recovery of biodiver-sity may be dependent on the purposeful culti-vation and tending of plants, changes in land-use practices, reduced or shifting populationsover long periods of time to allow for localand regional recovery, and the preservation ofuninhabited areas (the buffer zones).Amazonia: anthropogenic forests andsoils. Perhaps the one area where the pristinecharacter of the forest has been most heatedlydebated is Amazonia. The debate is closelytied to the long held idea that rainforests,with their impoverished soils and concentra-tion of energy in the canopy, create severelylimiting conditions for foraging and farm-ing. Yet ethnographic and archaeological re-search has repeatedly demonstrated how peo-ple transformed or enhanced the Amazonianlandscape, both creating and managing re-sources (Bal´ee 1993, Denevan 2001, Erickson2000, Erickson 2003, Glaser & Woods 2004,Lehmann et al. 2003b, Oliver 2001, Petersenet al. 2001, Politis 2001, Posey 2002, Roo-sevelt 2000, Stahl 1996, Zent & Zent 2004).Of particular interest for ecology and conser-vation is how unintentional and intentionalhuman actions have resulted in composition-ally distinct patches or stands of plants. Theseanthropogenicforestsmaycover12%ormoreADE: Amazoniandark earthof the Amazon forest (Bal´ee 1989). Somespecies, including the babac¸u palm (Orbignyaphalerata), readily colonize burned clearingssuch as fallows, and populations may expandin response to anthropogenic disturbance. Fa-vored tree species may be spared during clear-ing or planted in fields, clearings along trails,and house gardens. The discarded seeds ofcollected fruit sprout and thrive in the en-riched soils of camps and settlements. Gameanimals are also attracted to the high abun-dance of fruits at these sites, and some disperseseeds in the immediate area, further enrichingthe stand. Old habitation sites (whether tem-porary or permanent) and fallows thus formresource-rich patches, which may be revisitedor reoccupied over generations.Clearly, not all patches of useful specieshave a human origin and edaphic conditions,the habits of animal dispersers, and natu-ral disturbances must be taken into account.In the Columbian Amazon, Politis (2001)noted that plantain favors the unstable soilof ridgetops, whereas moriche palm (Mauri-tia flexuosa) is abundant in poorly drainedareas. Animals create aggregations by de-positing the seeds of palms and other treesin the areas of consumption [e.g., agoutis(Silvius & Fragoso 2003)] or at distant la-trine sites [e.g., tapirs (Fragoso et al. 2003)].Babac¸u readily sprouts in fallows, but it doesnot require human forest disturbance for re-generation. These observations are impor-tant to keep in mind when using vegeta-tion to identify areas of past human activityor when quantifying areas of anthropogenicforest, just as studies of “natural” aggrega-tions and diversity need to consider possiblecultural origins.The antiquity of management practicesis inferred from (a) the presence in archae-ological sites of the remains of plants thatare managed today (Morcote-Rios & Bernal2001, Oliver 2001, Politis 2001, Scheel-Ybert2001) and (b) the association of stands of use-ful plants with archaeological sites, particu-larly with Amazonian dark earth (ADE) de-posits (Bal´ee 1989, Clement et al. 2003), • Archaeology and Conservation 55Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  14. 14. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41of which are between 500 and 2500 years old(Neves et al. 2003).ADEs are fertile anthrosols capable ofmuch higher production than the natural up-land (terra firme) soils. They are character-ized by a high charcoal content and otherorganic inputs. The charcoal addition stim-ulates the development of beneficial microor-ganisms, improves nutrient uptake, and re-duces nutrient loss from leaching (Glaser et al.2003, Lehmann et al. 2003a). The darker(terra preta) ADE is laden with artifacts andthe organic trash (bone, shell and plant re-mains, nightsoil, ashes, construction material)typically generated at settlements (Erickson2003). The lighter, more extensive, and ar-tifact free terra mulata was probably formedthrough agricultural practices (and enabledshort cropping/short fallow) with the additionof charred plant remains, ash, compost, andmulch (Denevan 2004). Both types of ADEswere likely farmed in the past, and remark-ably, they continue to maintain their fertilityinto the present (Glaser et al. 2003). The pro-ductive potential of ADE has been linked tothe development of complex societies in theancient Amazon (Neves et al. 2003).Today, ADE is of conservation interest be-cause of the high diversity of plants it supports(Clement et al. 2003). Also, efforts to revivethis indigenous technology today hold thepromise of slowing the rate of deforestationby providing an alternative to more exten-sive, unsustainable land-use practices (Madariet al. 2004, Soembroek et al. 2003, Steineret al. 2004). Uncertainty remains about theprocesses by which ADE is formed, as wellas the time required for transformation ofweathered, nutrient-poor Amazonian soils tonutrient-rich, stable ADEs, doubts that couldin part be resolved through continued exami-nation of the archaeological evidence.SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONIn the preceding sections, I presented ex-amples of the ways that archaeology cancontribute to understanding the long-termdynamics of people, plants, and landscapes.It is a source of information on land-usepractices (burning, grazing, cultivation) thatshifted vegetation composition and succes-sion and that sometimes resulted in overex-ploitation, degradation, and extinctions. Ar-chaeology also shows us how people in thepast maintained, increased, or protected plantresources resulting in long-term, sustainableharvest and the creation of patches of cer-tain species, fire-adapted forests, or grasslandsand other open habitats. In some cases, theanthropogenic origins of seemingly naturallandscapes are only now being recognized andinvestigated. We are beginning to see how hu-man maintenance over generations has cre-ated ecosystems that will disappear or deteri-orate without continued care. The grasslandsof southern Scandinavia provide one such ex-ample, as do the fire-adapted forests of South-ern Appalachia. The managed woodlands ofEurope also suffer from neglect, partly inten-tional and derived from a desire to “return”these woods to nature, resulting in the loss ofspecies (Rackham 1998a).In considering anthropogenic landscapes,it is important to emphasize that not all hu-man disturbance is the same, and differentpractices can have very different effects. Forexample, the discovery of artifacts or ancientsettlements deep in a forest by itself tells usnothing about the extent and kinds of humanimpacts nor about forest resilience and recov-ery. Thus for archaeology and other historicaldisciplines to inform modern decision mak-ing, we need to be as specific and accurate aspossible about the events and processes of thepast and their environmental, ecosystemic,and cultural contexts. Some restorationsmay not be feasible at present because cli-mates have changed. Current proposed eco-nomic uses (e.g., logging) may have radicallydifferent effects than uses (e.g., farming) inthe past. Species reintroductions may fail be-cause key components of past ecosystems aremissing or cannot be replicated. It may be dif-ficult to revive past cultural practices, even ifthey are seen as desirable from a conservation56 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  15. 15. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41point of view, because of radical differencesin human values, social organization, and neweconomic and political realities.We also need to understand how the pastinforms contemporary decision making be-cause of the different spins put on the dis-covery that a landscape is not pristine or thatpeople manipulated nature. It can be used inseveral ways:To depict indigenous people as de-spoilers of the land, influencing publicopinion and creating possible groundsfor denying land or resource userights (see examples in Head 1989,Head 1990, Spriggs 2001). Head (1990)notes that this same logic is not usedto question the rights of Europeancolonizers.To excuse modern destructive land-use practices or episodes of pollutionon the principle that the land was al-ready spoiled (Wooley 2002). A variantargues that intensive logging is justi-fied because forests have recovered inthe past (without regard for the con-ditions or extent of past deforestationor the conditions and time needed forrecovery).As justification for modern develop-ment (logging, mining) on the groundsthat these practices mimic natural pro-cesses and indigenous practices [e.g.,the equation of clear cutting withnatural and anthropogenic burning(Bonnicksen 1994)]. A variant arguesthat modern genetic modification ofcrops mimics ancient practices (earlydomestication) and is therefore timetested and safe (Fedoroff 2003).History matters in understanding ecosys-tems, in formulating management plans andpolicy, in shaping public opinion, in reinforc-ing or negating indigenous rights, and in ne-glecting certain landscapes because they arenot natural enough or in degrading others be-cause they are not pristine. As archaeologiststake a larger role in research relevant to cur-rent environmental and land-use issues, theintersection of research and public policy de-bate is inevitable. Others will use archaeolog-ical findings in ways we had not anticipated,in many cases misinterpreting or deliberatelymisusing them. Only by taking active roles canwe shape how our research results are inter-preted in public discourse and applied to pol-icy outcomes.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSI am grateful to Anne Buchanan, Clark Erickson, Lee Newsom, David Webster, and especiallyMark Schulze who contributed to this review through discussion, debate, suggestions for refer-ences, or comments on earlier drafts. I also thank Colleen Strawhacker, who helped to compileand organize the references.LITERATURE CITEDAdderley PW, Simpson IA, Lockheart MJ, Evershed RP, Davidson DA. 2000. Modeling tra-ditional manuring practice: soil organic matter sustainability of an early Shetland com-munity? Hum. Ecol. 28:415–31Alcoze T. 2003. First Peoples in the pines: historical ecology of humans and ponderosas. InEcological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests, ed. P Friederici, pp. 48–57.Washington DC: Island PressAlcoze T, Hurteau M. 2001. Implementing the archaeo-environmental reconstruction tech-nique: rediscovering the historic ground layer of three plant communities in the GreaterGrand Canyon region. See Egan & Howell 2001, pp. 413– • Archaeology and Conservation 57Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  16. 16. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Allen MF, G´omez-Pompa A, Fedick SL, Jim´enez-Osornio JJ. 2003. The Maya Lowlands: acase study for the future? Conclusions. See G´omez-Pompa et al. 2003, pp. 623–34Amorosi T, Buckland P, Dugmore AJ, Ingimundarson JH, McGovern TH. 1997. Raiding thelandscape: human impact in the Scandinavian North Atlantic. Hum. Ecol. 25:491–518Anderson MK, Barbour M. 2003. Simulated indigenous management: a new model for eco-logical restoration in national parks. Ecol. Restor. 21:269–77Asouti E. 2003. Woodland vegetation and fuel exploitation at the prehistoric campsite ofPınarbas¸ı, south-central Anatolia, Turkey: the evidence from the wood charcoal macro-remains. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30:1185–201Asouti E, Hather J. 2001. Charcoal analysis and the reconstruction of ancient woodland vege-tation in the Konya Basin, south-central Anatolia, Turkey: results from the Neolithic siteof C¸ atalh¨oy¨uk East. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 10:23–32Athens JS, Tuggle HD, Ward JV, Welch DJ. 2002. Avifaunal extinctions, vegetation change,and Polynesian impacts in prehistoric Hawai’i. Archaeol. Ocean. 37:57–78Bal´ee W. 1989. The culture of Amazonian forests. In Resource Management in Amazonia: In-digenous and Folk Strategies, ed. DA Posey, W Bal´ee, pp. 1–21. New York: NY Bot. GardenBal´ee W. 1993. Indigenous transformations of Amazonian forests: an example from Maranh˜ao,Brazil. L’Homme 33:231–54Bal´ee W, ed. 1998a. Advances in Historical Ecology. New York: Columbia Univ. PressBal´ee W, ed. 1998b. Introduction. See Bal´ee 1998a, pp. 1–10Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB. 2004. Assessing the causes ofPleistocence extinctions on continents. Science 306:68–75Bayliss-Smith T, Hviding E, Whitmore T. 2003. Rainforest composition and histories ofhuman disturbance in Solomon Islands. Ambio 32:346–52Beach T. 1998. Soil catenas, tropical deforestation, and ancient and contemporary soil erosionin the Pet´en, Guatemala. Phys. Geogr. 19:378–405Beach T, Dunning N, Luzzadder-Beach S, Scarborough V. 2003. Depression soils of thelowland tropics of northwestern Belize: anthropogenic and natural origins. See G´omez-Pompa et al. 2003, pp. 139–74Beach T, Luzzadder-Beach S, Dunning N, Hageman J, Lohse J. 2002. Upland agriculture inthe Maya Lowlands: ancient Maya soil conservation in northwestern Belize. Geogr. Rev.92:372–97Bj¨orkman L, Bradshaw R. 1996. The immigration of Fagus sylvatica L. and Picea abies (L.) Karst.into a natural forest stand in southern Sweden during the last 2000 years. J. Biogeogr.23:235–44Bj¨orse G, Bradshaw R. 1998. 2000 years of forest dynamics in southern Sweden: suggestionsfor forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 104:15–26Black B, Abrams MD. 2001. Influences of Native Americans and surveyor biases on metes andbounds witness-tree distribution. Ecology 82:2574–86Bonnicksen TM. 1994. Nature’s clearcuts: lessons from the past. In Closer Look: An On-the-Ground Investigation of the Sierra Club’s Book, Clearcut, ed. American Forest and PaperAssociation, pp. 22–28. Washington, DC: Am. For. Pap. Assoc.Brenner M, Leyden B, Binford MW. 1990. Recent sedimentary histories of shallow lakes inthe Guatemalan savannas. J. Paleolimnol. 4:239–52Brown T. 1997. Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain. OxfordJ. Archaeol. 16:133–46Chepstow-Lusty A, Winfield M. 2000. Inca agroforestry: lessons from the past. Ambio 29:322–2858 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  17. 17. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Clement C, McCann JM, Smith NJH. 2003. Agrobiodiversity in Amazˆonia and its relationshipwith dark earths. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 159–78Coles B. 1988. Fossil insect assemblages from the Somerset Levels: the work of MaureenGirling. Exploitation of Woodlands. Symp. Assoc. Environ. Archaeol. 7, ed. P Murphy, CFrench, pp. 5–17. Oxford: BARColes B, Coles J. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury. London: Thames & HudsonCousins SAO, Eriksson ˚A, Franz´en D. 2002. Reconstructing past land use and vegetationpatterns using palaeogeographical and archaeological data: a focus on grasslands in Nyn¨asby the Baltic Sea in south-eastern Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan. 61:1–18Cox M, Straker V, Taylor D, eds. 1995. Wetlands Archaeology and Nature Conservation. London:HMSOCrumley C, ed. 1994. Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. Santa Fe:School Am. Res. PressCurtis JH, Brenner M, Hodell DA, Balser RA, Islebe GA, Hooghiemstra H. 1998. Amulti-proxy study of Holocene environmental change in the Maya Lowlands of Peten,Guatemala. J. Paleolimnol. 19:139–59Delcourt HR, Delcourt PA. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American use of fire on southernAppalachian landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 11:1010–14Delcourt PA, Delcourt HR. 1998a. The influence of prehistoric human-set fires on oak-chestnut forests in the southern Appalachians. Castanea 63:337–45Delcourt PA, Delcourt HR. 1998b. Paleoecological insights on conservation of biodiversity: afocus on species, ecosystems, and landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 8:921–34Delcourt PA, Delcourt HR, Ison CR, Sharp WE, Gremillion KJ. 1998. Prehistoric human useof fire, the eastern agricultural complex, and Appalachian oak-chestnut forests: paleoecol-ogy of Cliff Palace Pond, Kentucky. Am. Antiq. 63:263–78Denevan WM. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Ann. Assoc.Am. Geogr. 82:369–85Denevan WM. 2001. Cultivated landscapes of native Amazonia and the Andes. Oxford: OxfordUniv. PressDenevan WM. 2004. Semi-intensive pre-European cultivation and the origins of anthro-pogenic dark earths in Amazonia. See Glaser & Woods 2004, pp. 135–43Desender K, Ervynck A, Tack G. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands inFlanders. Belg. J. Zool. 129:139–56Dickson C. 2000. The decline of woodland in Orkney: early Neolithic to late Iron Age. InPeople as an Agent of Environmental Change, ed. RA Nicholson, TP O’Connor, pp. 37–44.Oxford: Oxbow BooksDincauze DF. 2000. Environmental Archaeology: Principles and Practice. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge Univ. PressDoolittle WE. 2000. Cultivated Landscapes of Native North America. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressDunning N, Beach T. 1994. Soil erosion, slope management, and ancient terracing in the MayaLowlands. Lat. Am. Antiq. 5:51–69Dunning N, Beach T. 2000. Stability and instability in prehispanic Maya landscapes. See Lentz2000, pp. 179–202Dunning N, Rue DJ, Beach T, Covich A, Traverse A. 1998. Human-environment interactionsin a tropical watershed: the paleoecology of Laguna Tamarindito, El Pet´en, Guatemala.J. Field Archaeol. 25:139–51Egan D. 2003. Defining cultural and ethnographic landscapes. Ecol. Restor. 21:258–60Egan D, Howell EA, eds. 2001. The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationists Guide to Ref-erence Ecosystems. Washington DC: Island • Archaeology and Conservation 59Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  18. 18. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Erickson C. 2000. An artificial landscape-scale fishery in the Bolivian Amazon. Nature 408:190–93Erickson C. 2003. Historical ecology and future explorations. See Lehmann et al. 2003b,pp. 455–500Eriksson O, Cousins SAO, Bruun HH. 2002. Land-use history and fragmentation of tradition-ally managed grasslands in Scandinavia. J. Veg. Sci. 13:743–48Erlandson, JM. 2005. History matters: connecting the past, present, and future. Anthropol. NewsJan.:5–6Fairhead J, Leach M. 1995. Reading forest history backwards: the interaction of policy andlocal land use in Guinea’s forest-savanna mosaic, 1893–1993. Environ. Hist. 1:55–91Fedoroff NV. 2003. Prehistoric GM corn. Science 302:1158–59Fiedel S, Haynes G. 2004. A premature burial: comments on Grayson and Meltzer’s “Requiemfor overkill.” J. Archaeol. Sci. 31:121–31Fisher CT, Feinman GM. 2005. Introduction to “Landscapes over Time”. Am. Anthropol.107:62–69Flenley J, Bahn P. 2003. The Enigmas of Easter Island. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressFoster DR. 2000a. Conservation lessons and challenges from ecological history. For. Hist. Today.Fall:2–11Foster DR. 2000b. From bobolinks to bears: interjecting geographical history into ecologicalstudies, environmental interpretation, and conservation planning. J. Biogeogr. 27:27–30Foster DR, Aber JD. 2004. Forests in Time. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. PressFoster DR, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, et al. 2003. The importance of land-uselegacies to ecology and conservation. BioScience 53:77–88Foster HT II, Black B, Abrams MD. 2004. A witness tree analysis of the effects of NativeAmerican Indians on the pre-European settlement forests in east-central Alabama. Hum.Ecol. 32:27–47Fragoso JMV, Silvius KM, Correa JA. 2003. Long-distance seed dispersal by tapirs increasesseed survival and aggregates tropical trees. Ecology 84:1998–2006Fritz, GJ. 2000. Levels of native biodiversity in Eastern North America. See Minnis and Elisens2000, pp. 223–247Glaser B, Guggenberger G, Zech W, Ruivo ML. 2003. Soil organic matter stability in Ama-zonian dark earths. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 141–58Glaser B, Woods WI. 2004. Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in Space and Time. Berlin:SpringerG´omez-Pompa A, Allen MF, Fedick SL, Jim´enez-Osornio JJ, eds. 2003. The Lowland MayaArea: Three Millennia at the Human-Wildland Interface. New York: HaworthG´omez-Pompa A, Salvador Flores J, Aliphat Fern´andez M. 1990. The sacred cacao groves ofthe Maya. Lat. Am. Antiq. 1:247–57Grayson DK, Meltzer DJ. 2003. A requiem for North American overkill. J. Archaeol. Sci.30:585–93Grayson DK, Meltzer DJ. 2004. North American overkill continued? J. Archaeol. Sci. 31:133–36Harrison RJ. 1996. Arboriculture in Southwest Europe: dehesas as managed woodlands. In TheOrigins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, ed. DR Harris. London: UCLPressHastorf CA, Johannessen S. 1996. Understanding changing people/plant relationships in theprehispanic Andes. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, ed. RW Preucel, IHodder, pp. 61–78. Oxford: Blackwell60 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  19. 19. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Hather JG, ed. 1994. Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications and New Developments. London: Rout-ledgeHead L. 1989. Prehistoric aboriginal impacts on Australian vegetation: an assessment of theevidence. Aust. Geogr. 20:37–46Head L. 1990. Conservation and aboriginal land rights: when green is not black. Aust. Nat.Hist. 23:448–54Head L. 2000. Cultural Landscapes and Environmental Change. London: ArnoldHogue SH. 2003. The application of a small-mammal model in paleoenvironmental analysis.See Peacock & Shauwecker 2003, pp. 48–63Hunt TL, Kirch PV. 1997. The historical ecology of Ofu Island, American Samoa, 3000 the present. See Kirch & Hunt 1997, pp. 105–23Islebe GA, Hooghiemstra H, Brenner M, Curtis JH, Hodell DA. 1996. A Holocene vegetationhistory from lowland Guatemala. Holocene 63:200–23Kay CE, Simmons RT, eds. 2002. Wilderness and Political Ecology. Salt Lake City, UT: Univ.Utah PressKirch PV. 1997. Microcosmic histories: island perspectives on “global” change. Am. Anthropol.99:30–42Kirch PV, Hunt TL. 1997. Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental andLandscape Change. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. PressKitagawa J, Nakagawa T, Fujiki T, Yamaguchi K, Yasuda Y. 2004. Human activity and cli-mate change during the historical period in central upland Japan with reference to forestdynamics and the cultivation of Japanese horse chestnut (Aesculus turbinata). Veg. Hist.Archaeobot. 13:105–14Kohler TA. 1992. Prehistoric human impact on the environment in the upland North AmericanSouthwest. Popul. Environ. 13:255–68K¨ohler-Rollefson I, Rollefson GO. 1990. The impact of Neolithic subsistence strategies onthe environment: the case of ’Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In Man’s Role in the Shaping of theEastern Mediterranean Landscape, ed. S Bottema, G Entjes-Nieborg, W van Zeist, pp. 3–14. Rotterdam, Neth.: BalkemaKristiansen SM. 2001. Present-day soil distribution explained by prehistoric land-use: Podzol-Arenosol variation in an ancient woodland in Denmark. Geoderma 103:273–89Lager˚as P. 1996. Farming and forest dynamics in southern Sweden since 5000 BC. Holocene6:301–14Lager˚as P, Bartholin T. 2003. Fire and stone clearance in Iron Age agriculture: new insightsinferred from the analysis of terrestrial macroscopic charcoal in clearance cairns in Haneda,southern Sweden. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 12:83–92Lambert JDH, Arnason JT. 1982. Ram´on and Maya ruins: an ecological, not an economicrelation. Science 216:298–99Latinis DK. 2000. The development of subsistence system models for Island Southeast Asiaand Near Oceania: the nature and role of arboriculture and arboreal-based economies.World Archaeol. 32:41–67Lauwerier RCGM, Plug I. 2004. The Future from the Past: Archaeozoology in Wildlife Conservationand Heritage Management. Oxford: Oxbow BooksLehmann J, Kern DC, German L, McCann J, Coimbra Martins G, Moreira A. 2003a. Soilfertility and production potential. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 105–24Lehmann J, Kern DC, Glaser B, Woods WI. 2003b. Amazonian Dark Earths: Origins, Properties,Management. Dordrecht, Neth.: KluwerLentz DL. 2000. Imperfect Balance: Landscape Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas. NewYork: Columbia Univ. • Archaeology and Conservation 61Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  20. 20. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Lentz DL, Haddad L, Cherpelis S, Joo HJM, Potter M. 2000. Long-term influences of ancientMaya agroforestry practices on tropical biodiversity in Northwestern Belize. In Ethnobi-ology and Biocultural Diversity. Proc. 7th Int. Congr. Ethnobiol., ed. JR Stepp, FS Wyndham,RK Zarger, pp. 431–41. Athens, GA: Int. Soc. Ethnobiol.Lepofsky D, Heyerdahl EK, Lertzman K, Schaepe D, Mierendorf B. 2003a. Historical meadowdynamics in southwest British Columbia: a multidisciplinary analysis. Conserv. Ecol. 7(5): D, Lyons N, Moss ML. 2003b. The use of driftwood on the North Pacific Coast: anexample from Southeast Alaska. J. Ethnobiol. 23:125–41Leyden BW. 1987. Man and climate in the Maya Lowlands. Quat. Res. 28:407–14Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R. 1995. The development and demise of a medieval forest-meadowsystem. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 4:153–60Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R. 1998. The origin of present forest composition and pattern insouthern Sweden. J. Biogeogr. 25:463–77Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R, Holmqvist BH. 2000. Pattern and process in south Swedish forestsduring the last 3000 years, sensed at stand and regional scales. J. Ecol. 88:113–28Lopinot NH, Woods WI. 1993. Wood overexploitation and the collapse of Cahokia. See CMScarry 1993, pp. 206–231Louwe Kooijmans LP. 1995. Prehistory or paradise? Prehistory as a reference for modernnature development, the Dutch case. Meded. Rijks Geol. Dienst 52:415–24Lyman RL. 1996. Applied zooarchaeology: the relevance of faunal analysis to wildlife manage-ment. World Archaeol. 28:110–25Lyman RL, Cannon KP. 2004. Zooarchaeology and Conservation Biology. Salt Lake City, UT:Univ. Utah PressMacinnes L, Wickham-Jones CR, eds. 1992. All Natural Things: Archaeology and the GreenDebate. Oxford: Oxbow BooksMadari BE, Soembroek WG, Woods WI. 2004. Research on anthropogenic dark earth soils.Could it be a solution for sustainable agricultural development in the Amazon? See Glaser& Woods 2004, pp. 169–81Martin PS, Steadman DW. 1999. Prehistoric extinctions on islands and continents. In Extinc-tions in Near Time, ed. RDE MacPhee, pp. 17–55. New York: KluwerMason SLR. 2000. Fire and Mesolithic subsistence—managing oaks for acorns in northwestEurope? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 164:139–50McEwan C, Barreto C, Neves E, eds. 2001. Unknown Amazon. London: British Mus.McGovern TH. 1994. Management for extinction in Norse Greenland. In Historical Ecology:Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. See Crumley 1994, pp. 127–54McKillop H. 1994. Ancient Maya tree cropping. Anc. Mesoam. 5:129–40McLauchlan K. 2003. Plant cultivation and forest clearance by prehistoric North Americans:pollen evidence from Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA. Holocene 13:557–66Mikusi´nski G, Angelstam P, Sporrong U. 2003. Distribution of deciduous stands in villageslocated in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. Ambio 32:520–26Miller NF. 1990. Clearing land for farmland and fuel: archaeobotanical studies of the ancientNear East. In Economy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites and Materials,ed. NF Miller, pp. 71–8. Philadelphia: MASCA, Univ. Pa. Mus. Archaeol. Anthropol.Minnis PE, ed. 2003. People and Plants in Ancient Eastern North America. Washington, DC:Smithson. Inst.Minnis PE, Elisens WJ. 2000. Biodiversity and Native America. Norman, OK: Univ. Okla. PressMithen S, Finlay N, Carruthers W, Carter S, Ashmore P. 2001. Plant use in the Mesolithic:evidence from Staosnaig, Isle of Colonsay, Scotland. J. Archaeol. Sci. 28:223–3462 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  21. 21. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Mobley CM, Eldridge M. 1992. Culturally modified trees in the Pacific Northwest. Arct.Archaeol. 29:91–110Morcote-Rios G, Bernal R. 2001. Remains of palms (Palmae) at archaeological sites in the NewWorld: A review. Bot. Rev. 67:309–50Neves E, Petersen JB, Bartone RN, da Silva CA. 2003. Historical and sociocultural origins ofAmazonian dark earths. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 29–50Newsom L. 1993. Plants and people: cultural, biological, and ecological responses to woodexploitation. See CM Scarry 1993, pp. 115–137Newsom LA, Pearsall DM. 2003. Trends in Carribbean island archaeobotany. See Minnis2003, pp. 347–412Newsom LA, Wing ES. 2004. On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources inthe West Indies. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. Ala. PressO’Brien MJ. 2001. Archaeology, paleoecosystems, and ecological restoration. See Egan &Howell 2001, pp. 29–54Oliver JR. 2001. The archaeology of forest foraging and agricultural production in Amazonia.See McEwan, et al. 2001, pp. 50–85¨Ostlund L, Bergman A, Zackrisson O. 2004. Trees for food—a 3000 year record of subarcticplant use. Antiquity 78:278–86Peacock E. 1998. Historical and applied perspectives on prehistoric land use in eastern NorthAmerica. Environ. Hist. 4:1–29Peacock E, Melsheimer R. 2003. Terrestrial gastropods from archaeological contexts in theBlack Belt Province of Mississippi. See Peacock & Shauwecker 2003, pp. 27–47Peacock E, Shauwecker T. 2003. Blackland Prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Nature, Culture,and Sustainability. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. Ala. PressP´erez-Salicrup D. 2004. Forest types and their implications. See Turner II, et al. 2004,pp. 63–80PetersCM.2000.Precolumbiansilvicultureandindigenousmanagementofneotropicalforests.See Lentz 2000, pp. 203–24Petersen JB, Neves E, Heckenberger MJ. 2001. Gift from the past: terra preta and prehistoricAmerindian occupation in Amazonia. See McEwan, et al. 2001, pp. 86–105Politis G. 2001. Foragers of the Amazon: the last survivors or the first to succeed. See McEwan,et al. 2001, pp. 26–49Posey DA. 2002. Kayap´o Ethnoecology and Culture. London: RoutledgeRackham O. 1996. Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape: The Complete History of Britain’sTrees, Woods and Hedgerows. London: PhoenixRackham O. 1998a. Implications of historical ecology for conservation. In Conservation Scienceand Action, ed. WJ Sutherland, pp. 152–75. Oxford: Blackwell Sci.Rackham O. 1998b. Savanna in Europe. In The Ecological History of European Forests, ed. KJKirkby, C Watkins, pp. 1–14. New York: CAB Int.Redman C. 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson, AZ: Univ. Ariz. PressRoosevelt AC. 2000. The lower Amazon: a dynamic human habitat. See Lentz 2000, pp. 455–92Sandor JA. 1995. Searching soil for clues about southwest prehistoric agriculture. In Soil,Water, Biology, and Belief in Prehistoric and Traditional Southwestern Agriculture, ed. HW Toll,pp. 119–37. Albuquerque: New Mexico Archaeol. Counc.Scarry CM. 1993. Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. Gainesville, FL: Univ. PressFla.Scarry CM. 2003. Patterns of wild plant utilization in the prehistoric eastern woodlands. SeeMinnis 2003, pp. 50– • Archaeology and Conservation 63Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  22. 22. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Scarry CM, Newsom LA. 1992. Archaeobotanical research in the Calusa heartland. In Cultureand Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, ed. WH Marquardt, pp. 375–401. Gainesville:Inst. Archaeol. Paleoenviron. Stud., Univ. Fla.Scheel-Ybert R. 2001. Man and vegetation in southeastern Brazil during the late Holocene.J. Archaeol. Sci. 28:471–80Schulze MD, Whitacre DF. 1999. A classification and ordination of the tree community ofTikal National Park, Pet´en, Guatemala. Bull. Fla. Mus. Nat. Hist. 41:169–297Silvius KM, Fragoso JMV. 2003. Red-rumped agouti (Dasyprocta leporina) home range use inan Amazonian forest: implications for the aggregated distribution of forest trees. Biotropica35:74–83Simmons IG. 2001. An Environmental History of Great Britain from 10,000 Years Ago to thePresent. Edinburgh: Edinb. Univ. PressSimpson IA. 1997. Relict properties of anthropogenic deep top soils as indicators of infieldmanagement in Marwick, West Mainland, Orkney. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24:365–80Smith BD. 2001. Low-level food production. J. Archaeol. Res. 9:1–43Soc. Ecol. Restor. (SER) Sci. Policy Work. Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Restora-tion.˙primer.pdfSoembroek W, Ruivo ML, Fearnside PM, Glaser B, Lehmann J. 2003. Amazonian dark earthsas carbon stores and sinks. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 125–39Spriggs M. 2001. Future eaters in Australia, future eaters in the Pacific? Early human environ-mental impacts. Aust. Archaeol. 52:53–59Stahl P. 1996. Holocene biodiversity: an archaeological perspective from the Americas. Annu.Rev. Anthropol. 25:105–26Stahl P. 2000. Archaeofaunal accumulation, fragmented forests, and anthropogenic landscapemosaics in the tropical lowlands of prehispanic Ecuador. Lat. Am. Antiq. 11:241–57Steiner C, Teixera WG, Zech W. 2004. Slash and char: an alternative to slash and burn practicedin the Amazon Basin. See Glaser & Woods 2004, pp. 183–93Taube K. 2003. Ancient and contemporary Maya conceptions about field and forest. SeeG´omez-Pompa et al. 2003, pp. 461–94Terral J-F. 2000. Exploitation and management of the olive tree during prehistoric times inMediterranean France and Spain. J. Archaeol. Sci. 27:127–33Thi´ebault S, ed. 2002. Charcoal analysis: methodological approaches, palaeoecological results and wooduses. Proc. 2nd Int. Meet. Anthracology, Paris, Sept. 2000. Oxford: ArchaeopressTurner BL II, Geoghegan J, Foster DR, eds. 2004. Integrated Land-Change Science and TropicalDeforestation in the Southern Yucat´an: Final Frontiers. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressTurner BL II, Misicek CH. 1984. Economic plant species associated with prehistoric agriculturein the Maya Lowlands. Econ. Bot. 38:179–93van Andel TH, Zangger E, Demitrack A. 1990. Land use and soil erosion in prehistoric andhistorical Greece. J. Field Archaeol. 17:379–96van der Leeuw S, Redman C. 2002. Placing archaeology at the center of socio-natural studies.Am. Antiq. 67:597–605Webster D. 2002. The Fall of the Ancient Maya: Solving the Mystery of the Maya Collapse. London:Thames & HudsonWhitmore TC, Burslem DFRP. 1998. Major disturbances in the tropical rainforest. In Dy-namics of Tropical Communities. 37th Symp. Br. Ecol. Soc., Cambridge Univ. 1996, ed. DMNewberry, pp. 549–565. Oxford: Blackwell Sci.Whitmore TM, Turner BL II. 2001. Cultivated Landscapes of Middle America on the Eve ofConquest. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press64 HayashidaAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  23. 23. AR254-AN34-04 ARI 25 August 2005 14:41Winterhalder K, Clewell AF, Aronson J. 2004. Values and science in ecological restoration: aresponse to Davis and Slobodkin. Restor. Ecol. 12:4–7Willis KJ, Gillson L, Brncic TM. 2004. How “virgin” is virgin rainforest? Science 304:402–403Woods WI. 2003. Soils and sustainability in the prehistoric New World. In Exploitation andOverexploitation in Societies Past and Present, ed. B Benzing, B Herrmann, pp. 143–57. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction/Rutgers Univ.Woods WI. 2004. Population nucleation, intensive agriculture, and environmental degrada-tion: the Cahokia example. Agric. Hum. Values 21:255–61Wooley C. 2002. The myth of the “pristine environment”: past human impacts in PrinceWilliam Sound and the northern Gulf of Alaska. Spill Sci. Technol. Bull. 7:89–104Zent EL, Zent S. 2004. Amazonian Indians as ecological disturbance agents: the Hot¨ı of theSierra de Maigualida Venezuelan Guayana. In Ethnobotany and Conservation of BioculturalDiversity, ed. L Maffi, TJS Carlson, pp. 79–111. New York: NY Bot. Gard.Zvelebil M. 1995. Hunting, gathering, or husbandry? Management of food resources by thelate Mesolithic communities of temperate Europe. In Before Farming: Hunter-GathererSociety and Subsistence, ed. D Campana, pp. 79–104. Philadelphia: MASCA, Univ. Pa. Mus.Archaeol. • Archaeology and Conservation 65Annu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  24. 24. Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29Annual Review ofAnthropologyVolume 34, 2005ContentsFrontispieceSally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p xviPrefatory ChapterComparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1ArchaeologyArchaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p43Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 343Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575Biological AnthropologyEarly Modern HumansErik Trinkaus p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 207Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495viiAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  25. 25. Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29Linguistics and Communicative PracticesNew Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 599International Anthropology and Regional StudiesCaste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 409Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 549Sociocultural AnthropologyThe Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p13Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p85Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 105The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garc´ıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,and Vincent Vadez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121viii ContentsAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  26. 26. Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 159Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 409The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 523Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 619Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 639Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 667Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 695Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pe˜na p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 717Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 741Contents ixAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.
  27. 27. Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29Theme 1: Race and RacismRace and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 269Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 363The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 575Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 667Theme 2: Indigenous PeoplesThe Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garc´ıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,and Vincent Vadez p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 121Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 385Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 429Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 451Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 473Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 549x ContentsAnnu.Rev.Anthropol.2005.34:43-65.Downloadedfromwww.annualreviews.orgbyUniversityofKansason06/16/11.Forpersonaluseonly.