• Save
Indigenous transformation of amazonian forests an example from maranhão, brazil
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Indigenous transformation of amazonian forests an example from maranhão, brazil

  • 236 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
236
On Slideshare
236
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. EHESSIndigenous Transformation of Amazonian Forests: An Example from Maranhão, BrazilAuthor(s): William BaléeSource: LHomme, 33e Année, No. 126/128, La remontée de lAmazone (AVRIL-DÉCEMBRE1993), pp. 231-254Published by: EHESSStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40589895 .Accessed: 25/04/2011 23:03Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTORs Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ehess. .Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.EHESS is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to LHomme.http://www.jstor.org
  • 2. Histoire,histoiresWilliam BaléeIndigenousTransformationof AmazonianForestsAn ExamplefromMaranhão,BrazilWilliamBalée, IndigenousTransformationofAmazonianForests:An ExamplefromMaranhão,Brazil- This articleseeksto clarifypast relationshipsbetweencertainindigenoussocietiesand regionalbiodiversityinAmazonia. It presentsnewevidencethatindigenouspeoplespossessingan agroforestrycomplexmayhaveenhancedratherthandiminishedregionalbiodiversity,at leastinthedomainofplants. The analysisrestsona comparisonofthesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenanthropogenicforestsandundisturbedforestsinthephytogeographicregionknownas *Tre-Amazonia". Theauthordiscussesthepossibleextenttowhichindigenousplanningandecologicalknow-ledgewasinvolvedintheformationofsuchforestsandintheincreasedplantdiversityin theregion.IntroductionschemethatpigeonholesAmazonianforestsas beingsomehowpristine- the*wilderness"oras selvas- hasdominatedtheWesternscientificas wellas popularimaginationsinceat leastthe19thcentury. Mosttheoriesinculturalecologytendtoevadewhetherindigenoussocietiesandtech-nologies,infact,mighthavetransformedtheAmazonianwildernesspermanent-ly. Thisevasionmaybe comprehendeduponconsideringthatdemonstrationof suchtransformationwouldunderminea keyprincipleof culturalecology,namely,environmentaldeterminism(ofteneuphemisticallycalledenvironmentalconditioning","possibilism",and "limitingfactors")withrespectto state-lesssocieties(cf.Moran1990a:9-10).J Rather,thesesamestatelesssocieties,withregardtoAmazonia,appeartohavetransformeda "richrealmofnature"(apologiestoDavidSweet)intoanevenmoreanalyticallyandempiricallycomplexbioculturaldomainthanhadeverbeenconceivedinthe19thcenturynaturalisticmentalitythat,to a certainextent,stillprevailsin ecology. At least12% oftheterrafirmeforestsofBrazilianAmazoniaappearstobe anthropogenic(Balée1989a)- i.e., ofa bioculturaloriginthatwouldnothaveexistedwithoutpasthumaninterference.In addition,at least24 perennialcropplants,includingLHomme126-128,aw.-dec.1993,XXXIII (2-4),pp. 231-254.
  • 3. 232 WILLIAM BALÉEtrees,weredomesticatedinAmazoniaalone(Smithetal. 1991:8; also Clement1989). ManagementofdomesticatedplantsisprobablymorethanfivethousandyearsoldinAmazonia(e.g.Bushetal. 1989;Plucknett1976). Theseandrelatedfindings(variousarticlesin Denevan& Padoch 1988;Posey& Balée 1989),howeverrecent,havealreadyledtospeculationconcerningpossibleeffectssuchpastinterventionbyindigenouspeoplesmayhavehadon regionalbiodiversity{qua existingnumbersof plantand animalspecies).BiologistKentRedford(1991),forexample,has arguedthatevidenceforenvironmentalinterventionby pastAmazoniansocietiessuggestsdeleteriouseffectson "virgin"forestsandplantandanimalspeciestherein:These peoplebehavedas humansdo now:theydidwhatevertheyhadto to feedthemselvesandtheirfamilies"(p. 46); as formodernindigenouspeoples,hewrote,"Theyhavethesamecapacities,desires,and,perhaps,needstooverexploittheirenviron-mentas didourEuropeanancestors"(p. 47) [seeinsightfulcritiquebySponsel1992]. Thisspeculationharborsan implicittheoryofhumannature(onenotconfinedto Redford- see, for example,Johnson1989 and Rambo 1985),specifically,thatit has been encodedto reducebiologicaland ecologicaldiversity.It is ultimatelybased, howeverimplicitly,on thedoctrineof thepsychicunityof humankind. In principle,human beings,regardlessofdisplayinga diversityofsociopoliticaltypes(suchas foragingbands,horticulturalvillages,agriculturalchiefdoms,and highcivilizationsdependenton intensiveand/ormechanizedagriculture),as is transparentin theethnographicknow-ledgeof theworld,are seenas a speciesto be responsiblefortheextinctionspasmof our times(e.g., Myers1988,NSB 1989; see discussionin Balee1992b). Suchpessimism,wereone to adopta sociobiologicalpointofview,isperhapsjustifiedfromtheabysmalenvironmentalrecordofbiologicallymo-dern,upperPleistocenehunters(e.g.,Martin1984). Inotherwords,ifhuman-ityin a stateofnature(i.e., notenvironedbydomesticates)was anathematonatureseconomy,subsequentgenerationsthatenjoyedthefruitsof variousNeolithicrevolutionscould nothave beenanymoreconservationist.Even if one grudginglyadmits,as did Redford(1991: 47), thatsomeindigenousAmazoniansocietiesofthepastmayhavemanagedtheirheritageofnaturalresources,theirmoderndescendants,inthisview,areinevitablytobe drawnintothevortexofexpandingWesternsociety,andtoa certaindegreevoluntarily(also seeRibeiro1970). Thisbespeaksa notso hiddenmetaphysicin an emergingdialoguebetweenanthropologistsand biologists. In fact,itrepresentsa late20thcenturyversionof unilinearprogress,perhapstheonlysignificantdifferencebetweenL. H. Morgansand thelatter-dayaccultura-tionistsschemesbeingthemechanismsofsuchprogress. ForMorgan,theseweretools;forthelatter-dayacculturationists,itis thesupposedlyundeniableand self-evidentallureofthematerialabundanceto be appropriatedinWest-ernsocietyitself(theseeminglynaturalexpansionof Westernsocietyontoindigenouslandsis thusexplainednot as Conquest,but as seduction,withorganizedcrimeconvenientlyputona backburner). In anycase,boththeses,
  • 4. Transformationof AmazonianForests 233howeverempiricaltheirpredictions,relyultimatelyona metaphysicalproposition,i.e.,inrelationtothediversityoftheirnatural,infrahumanenvironments,peoplemustbeeverywherethesame. Theissuetobeevaluatediswhethera compara-tiveviewofhumanhistory,withspecialregardtoAmazonia,genuinelysupportssucha conclusion.Avoidingpredictions,thisarticleseekstoclarifypastrelationshipsbetweencertainindigenoussocietiesand regionalbiodiversityin Amazonia. On theone hand,the findingspresentedheredo not conflateindigenousresourcemanagement(whichneednot be consciousand deliberate,and whichmostcertainlyhas existedin Amazoniaeversincetheappearanceof domesticatedplants)withdefilementof thenaturalenvironment;sucha conflationwouldbe a mistakethat,I believe,could have furtherdisastrousimplicationsforremainingindigenoussocietiesinAmazonia. Ontheotherhand,thesefindingsshouldbe relevantto anthropologistsandbiologistsnowundertakingresearchinthegrowingandextremelyimportantfieldofrestorationecologyinAmazonia.Inparticular,I suggestthatindigenouspeoplesdisplayinganagroforestrycomplexmayhaveenhanced,ratherthandiminishedregionalbiodiversity,at leastcon-cerningthedomainof plants.My specificaimsare fourfold:1) to demonstratetheexistenceof anthro-pogenicforestsinthephytogeographicregionknownas pre-Amazonia;2) tocomparethesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheseforestsandundisturbedforestsofthesameregion;3) toproposethattheseanthropogenicforests,pro-ducedbyindigenousagroforestrypracticesofthepast,representnetincreasesinplantbiodiversity;and4) to discussthepossibleextentto whichindigenousdeliberationandecologicalknowledgewereinvolvedintheformationofsuchforestsand possiblyincreasedplantdiversityin theregion.Forests of pre-AmazoniaThe regionin Maranhãostate,Brazil,thatis inhabitedby theKaapor,Guaja,Tembé,andGuajajaraIndians,allofwhompertaintotheTupi-Guaranilanguagefamily,has been calledthepre-Amazonianforest(SUDAM 1976,Daly & Prance1989:421) or AmazonianMaranhão(Fróis 1953). Its limitsare roughlyunderstoodto be the Rio Gurupion thewest,AtlanticOceanto thenorth,uppercoursesof theRios Grajaú, Pindaréand Gurupion thesouth,and the leftbank of the Rio Mearimon the east (Fróis 1953: 99,map). Theregionappearstorepresentan easterlyextensionoforpenetrationby thehighforestsdrainedby theAmazon Riverto thewest(Fróis 1953;Ducke & Black 1953).Dependingon thesource,pre-Amazoniais furtherdividedintoareas ofsavanna,palm groves(especiallynearlypure standsof the babaçu palm-OrbignyaphalerataMart.),and "highforest"(calledhiléiaorflorestadensa)[Ducke& Blake1953;ProjetoRADAM 1973:iv/7;Fróis1953;Rizzini1963],
  • 5. 234 WILLIAM BALÉEunderstood,in context,to be pristine. Accordingto one source,thehighforestliesbetweenlatitudes3°18 S and 6°21 S and longitudes44°35/E and48°20/W (SUDAM 1976),itssouthernand eastermostlimitsbeingtheupperRio Gurupiand theleftbankof theRio Mearim. Ducke and Black (1953:6-7) weremoreconservative,indicatingthatthetruehighforest(hiléia)ofMaranhãoliesbetweentheRio Gurupiand theRio Turiaçuand upperRioPindaré. Accordingto Rizzini,whowasinagreementwithDuckeand Black(1953),thisregionis partof thephytogeographicprovincecalled Amazonforest". It lieswithinthesoutheasternsectorofthesub-provinceTertiaryPlain", whichrunseastfromthefootoftheAndes. Thissoutheasternsectorincludesthe basinsof the lowerTocantins,the area aroundBelém,lowerXingu,Gurupi,andupperPindaréandTuriaçuRivers(Rizzini1963:51,mapp. 45). The partofthissectorlyingin MaranhãocorrespondswellwiththepresenthabitatoftheKaapor,Guajá, andTembé,andis essentiallydefinitiveof the phytogeographiclimitsof the regionunderstudy.At leasttwo kindsof terrafirmeforestoccurin theregion:old fallow(orsimplyfallow)andhighforest. Fallowrefersto sitesthatwereusedlongago foragriculturebutwhichare now forested. The age of disturbanceisbetween40 andmorethan100years. Highforestis notnecessarily*higher"(in termsof heightof thecanopy)thanfallow;it is, rather,a forestof theterrafirmewhichdisplaysa primarycharacter. It seemsnotto have beendisturbedfor agriculture(and by implication,fairlylarge scale firesasdistinguishedfromincidentallightningstrikes)withinthelast200or300years,ifever. Regardlessofthedistinctionsbetweentheseforesttypes,interpretationsof radarand satelliteimageryto date,as reflectedin mapping,portraybothas beinghighforest(florestadensa) [e.g., ProjetoRadam 1973]. In part,thismayreflecta problemin termsof scale (see Moran 1990b),butit alsopointsto serious,perhapsepistemological,problemsin theinterpretationofwhatispristineandwhatisnot. Evenifscaleweretobe considerablyreducedfromtheusual 1:250,000(Moran 1990b),forexample,theaerialsignaturesof thedifferentforesttypesremainto be clarified. The groundtruth,aspresentedhere,suppliesthebasis fora muchmorerefinedinterpretationofthe forestsof pre-AmazonianMaranhão,whichmay somedaybe readablefromand falsifiableby remote-sensing(if the forestsdo not disappearfirst). Thisinterpretationadmitsofsubstantialheterogeneitybetweenstandsof remainingforest,dependingon whetherthesewereoncetheobjectof anindigenousagroforestrycomplexor not.Between1985and 1990,I carriedoutinventoriesofeightseparatehectaresof forestin thehabitatsof the Kaapor, Guajá and Tembé Indians. Themethodsusedarecomparableforeachoftheeighthectares:1) alltreesgreaterthanor equal to 10cm in diameterat breastheight(dbh) [usinga standardof 1.7m] on each plot weremeasured,tagged,collected(exceptin a fewisolatedinstances),andidentified;2) all plotsweresub-dividedinto40 samplingunits(or subplots)of 10mx25 m, in orderto samplerelativediversity(see
  • 6. Transformationof AmazonianForests 235below); 3) all plots are narrowlyrectangularin dimension,being either10mx 1,000mor20 mx 500m;4) allplotsaresituatednearindigenousvillages,butnoneweretheobjects,atthetimeofstudy,ofagriculturalactivity. TheseinventorymethodsareidenticaltothoseofmanyotherrecentphytosociologicalstudiesinAmazonia(e.g., Campbelletal. 1986;Boom 1986;Salomão 1988;Gentry1988)sotheresultsofthisstudyarecomparablewiththoseotherstudies.The eighthectaresspan a lineardistanceof about 150km,fromtheleftbankoftheRio Pindaréto theleftbank(and Pará side)oftheRio Gurupi,whichisoftenconsideredtobepartofthepre-Amazonianforest(e.g.,ProjetoGurupi 1975). Analysisof thesehectarespermitsone to calculateseveralimportantaspectsofthepre-Amazonianforest,suchas floristiccomposition,speciesrichness,andphysiognomy.Foralleighthectares,andanycombinationsthereof,onecancalculatetotalbasalarea(thatis,thenumberofsquaremetersatbreastheight[1.7m]occupiedbyindividualsgreaterthanorequalto 10cmdbh),basal area ofindividualspecies,relativefrequency(thenumberofindi-vidualsof a species/allindividualsof theplot x 100),relativediversity(thenumberofsamplingunitsinwhicha speciesoccurs/alloccurrencesofallspeciesx 100),and relativedominance(thebasal area of a species/totalbasal areaof theplot). In addition,on thebasis of thesemeasures,one can calculatetheecologicalimportancevalueforeach species. The ecologicalimportancevalueofa speciesisa derivedmeasureinvolvingthesumofrelativefrequency,relativedensity,andrelativedominance(seeGreig-Smith1983:151;Campbellet al. 1986;Salomão 1988).Theseinventorieswerecarriedoutexclusivelyinindigenousareas,nearcurrentoccupationsitesofa traditionalforagingpeopleoftheregion(theGuajá), andthreesocietiesthathavealwaysdisplayedan agroforestrycomplex(theKaapor,Tembé,andGuajajara). A synopticdescriptionofeachoftheeighthectaresfollows(also seeTable 1; relateddata appearin Balée 1992b;morecompletephytosociologicaldata on all siteswillappearin Balée, in press).Hectare1. Location:nearP.I. (PostoIndígena)Awá,occupiedby52GuajáIndians,withinReservaIndígenaCam, leftbankofRio Pindaréapp. 46°2/W,3°48/S. Forest type: Fallow. The dimensions of this site were500mx20 m. The sitehad 506individuals,157speciesin 38 families,anda totalbasal area of 22.1 m2. The ecologicallymostimportantspecieswasthebabaçupalm(Orbignyaphalerata). The Guajá ofthesitedescribeditaskaa-ate(highforest),butitis clearthatthesiteis a fallow,basedon speciesdistributions,muchsurfacepottery,and charcoal. This fallowwouldhaveresultedfromagriculturalactivitiesofGuajajara Indians,probablymorethan100yearsago. These activitiesalteredwhatwas highforeston thesite;apreliminaryarchaeologicalsurvey(theshoveltest)of theplotyieldeda largecharcoalsample(in additionto manypotsherds)fromthewood of Diniziaexcelsa,an enormousmimosaceoustreetypicallyassociatedwithhighforest(Kipnis1990).
  • 7. 236 WILLIAM BALÉEHectare2. Location:nearP.L Guaja,regionoccupiedby36Guaja Indians,rightbankofupperRio Turiaçu,withinReservaIndígenaAltoTuriaçu,app.45°58/W, 3°6 S. ForestType:Fallow. Thissitewas500mx20 m. Ithad563individuals,125species in 41 families,and a total basal area of21.1m2. Theecologicallymostimportantspecieswasalsobabaçupalm. Thissitehadbeena Kaapor villageinthe1940s,accordingto oraltestimonyfromtheKaapor Indiansof thevillageof Urutawi(whichis 19kmto theeast)as wellas froma non-Indianvisitor,Major, a long timeemployeeof theSPI and laterFUNAI. Potsherdsand remainsof Kaapor ceramicmaniocgriddlesare foundhere. Thiswas nearthesitewheretheGuajá werefirstpeacably (and officially)contactedby the federal governmentduring1973-1975. Guaja informantsdescribethisforestas wai-i-tu(babaçugrove);nearbyKaapor informantscall it eitheryetahu-4-t4(babaçu grove)or taper(fallow).Hectare3. Location:about1.5kmsoutheastofHectare 2. ForestType:HighForest. Thissitemeasured10mx 1,000m. Thesitehad521individuals,145speciesin45 families,anda basal areaof27.2 m2. Theecologicallymostimportantspecieswasmatamata(Eschweileracoriacea). Therewasno evidencefordisturbanceon thissiteand it was classifiedas highforest(kaa-te) byKaapor informantsas well as by Guaja informants.Hectare4. Location:NearvillageofUrutawi,regioninhabitedbyabout80 Kaapor Indians,withinReservaIndígenaAltoTuriaçu,on minortributaryof rightbank of Rio Turiaçu,19kmdue east of P.I. Guaja. Foresttype:High forest. This site measured500mx 20 m. It had 519individuals,126speciesin41 families,anda basal areaof25.3 m2. Theecologicallymostimportantspecieswasmatamata(E. coriacea). Thesitewasclassifiedas kaa-te(highforest)byKaaporinformantsandtherewasno evidencefordisturbance.Hectare5. Location:about2 kmeastof Hectare4, regioninhabitedbyKaaporIndians. ForestType:Fallow. Thissitemeasured500mx20 m. Ithad 451individuals,95 speciesin 36 families,and a total basal area of30.3 m2. Theecologicallymostimportantspecieswaswildpapaya(Jacaratiaspinosa). This sitewas a Kaapor swiddenin thelate 1940sto early1950s,accordingto oral testimony.Of thefourfallows,it is themostrecent. Itis classified,nevertheless,as taper(fallow),nottaperer(old swiddenoryoungsecondaryforest)by theKaapor. The basal area of 30.3 m2is artificiallyhighbecauseofa largenumberofcaespitoseindividuals,especiallythearmedpalmtucumã(Astrocaryumvulgäre),whichalone occupieda basal area of5.9 m2,orabout20% ofthetotalbasal area. As thisfallowages,itis likelythatcaespitosepalmsandmulti-stemmedyoungtrees(suchas Gustaviaaugusta)willbecomelessdominantand thebasal area willactuallydiminish. Of alleighthectares,at 95 speciesthiswas leastdiverse- itsspecies/areacurve(notshown),unlikethoseof all others,is alreadybecomingasymptoticaftersub-plot(samplingunit)20. Thisconfirmsthewidelyheldassumptionthattheyoungera fallow(or secondaryforest),the lowerits diversity.
  • 8. Transformationof AmazonianForests 237Hectare6. Location:nearvillageofGurupiuna,regionoccupiedbyabout120Kaapor Indians,drainedby tributaryof theIgarapéGurupiunawhichemptiesintorightbankof Rio Gurupi,app. 46°20/W, 2°40 S. It is about60 kmnorthofP.I. Guajá andexactly280kmsouth-southwestofBelém(basedon measuredair distance). ForestType: highforest. This sitemeasured10mx 1,000m. Ithad467individuals,123speciesin43 families,anda basalarea of 30.3 m2. The ecologicallymostimportantspecieswas breumanga(Tetragastrisaltissima). The sitewasclassifiedas kaa-te(highforest)bytheKaaporofGurupiunaandnoevidenceforhumandisturbancewasencountered.Hectare7. Location:about 2.5 kmWNW of Hectare6. ForestType:Fallow. Thesitemeasures10mx 1,000m. Ithad497individuals,141speciesin43 families,and a basal areaof23.3 m2. The ecologicallymostimportantspecieswas bacuri(Platoniainsignis). The sitewas classifiedalternatelyastaper(basedon age ofdisturbance)and pakuri-t-i(bacurigrove)[basedon therelativeabundanceofthebacuritree]. The sitewas disturbedmostlikelyinthe1870s,whichwaswhentheancestralKaaporexpelledAfro-Brazilianrefugeeslavesfromhere(Balée 1988a). Considerablequantitiesof potsherdsandcharcoalarefoundonthissite. TheoldestKaaporofthevillageofGurupiunarememberthesitefromtheirchildhood(ca. 1920s)as havingbeena bacurigrove. Inotherwords,thisfallowhasnotbeensignificantlydisturbed(certainlynotbyfire)probablysincetheKaapor arrivedintheregioninthe1870s. Theimportanceofthesiteto theKaapor todayliesinitssourceofhighlyprizedbacurifruits.Hectare8. Location:about5 kmW ofP.I. Canindé,regioninhabitedbyabout150TembéIndians,leftbankofRioGurupi(stateofPará),26 kmWNWof hectare7,254kmESE of Belém(based on measuredair distance). Thedimensionsofthissitewere10mx 1,000m. Foresttype:highforest. Thesitehad 475individuals,144speciesin 41 families,and a basal area of 34.5 m2.The ecologicallymostimportantspecieswas matamata(E. coriacea). TheTembéclassifiedthesiteas kaa-ete(highforest)as did Kaapor informantswho accompaniedme to the site(kaa-te). No evidenceforpriorhumandisturbancewas encountered.Thehighforesthectaresamples(3,4, 6, and8) comparefavorablyinspeciesdiversityto othereasternAmazonianprimaryforests. It is clear,moreover,thatanyonehectareisinsufficientforsamplingdiversityofterrafirmeforests,sincethespecies-areacurvesforallhectaresexceptone(5) arestillsteeplyrisingafteronehectare(notshown). Fortenterrafirmeforestonehectaresamples,usingidenticalmethodstothoseusedhere,fromBreves(MarajóIsland),Belém,middleXingubasin,and Serrados Karajás, theaveragenumberof speciesperhectareis 126 (Campbellet al. 1986; Salomão et al. 1988). The threehectaresofhighforestI sampledinMaranhão(3, 4 and 6- excluding8) havean averageof 131speciesperhectare. Addinghectare8, fromtheleftbankof the Rio Gurupiin Pará state,this averageclimbsto 135speciesperhectare. Thetotalaverageforalleighthectares,includingfallow,is 132species
  • 9. 238 WILLIAM BALÉEperhectare(Table1). Itmaybeconcludedthatalthoughpre-AmazonianforestsarelessspeciesrichthanupperAmazonianhighforestsingeneral(seeGentry1988), theseforestsare among the richestin speciesdiversityof easternAmazonia.Fallow vs. highforestAlthoughcurrentinterpretationsof radarand satelliteimagery(becauseofscaleand/orsignatureproblems)do notyetdistinguishbetweenfallowandhighforestinpre-Amazonia,certaingroundtruthcriteriaexistformaintaininga distinctionbetweenthetwo. On thesurface,thesegroundtruthcriteriaincludebasal area, floristiccomposition,and speciesrichness.Animportantphysiognomicdifferenceconcernsbasalarea. Thedatafromthefallowforests,whichtheexceptionofhectare5 (whichis abnormallyhighinbasal areabecauseofveryhighfrequencyandabundanceoflargebutnon-woodycaespitosespecies- see above), showa consistentlylowerbasal areathanthe highforests. The fallows,includinghectare5, average24.2 m2;excludinghectare5,thisaverageis22.1m2. Thehighforestplots,incontrast,average29.3m2. (Thesedifferencesarenotsignificantstatistically,buta largersamplesizemightshowsignificance.)Itseemsthatfallowsaretypicallywithina rangeof about 18-24m2,whereashighforestsrangefrom25-40m2(Pires& Prance1985;Balée& Campbell1990;Boom 1986;Saldarriaga& West1986:364). Thesedifferencesinbasal areabetweenhighforestsand fallowappearto be at leastpartlydiagnostic.In identifyinga plotofforestas fallow,froma strictlybotanicalpointofview,a greatdealalsotypicallyhingesonthepresenceof"disturbanceindicator"species. Itwouldbeinaccuratetoconsiderdisturbanceindicatorsas synonym-ouswith"pioneer"species(c/.Brown& Lugo1990),sincemanypioneerspeciesareshort-lived.Disturbanceindicators,incontrast,mayalsobelong-lived,aswiththebabaçupalmandBrazilnuttree(seeBalée1989a). Manyfallowspeciesarelightdemanding,yetincomparisonto somepioneerspecies(e.g., Trema),theyarerelativelyshadetolerant(i.e., prosperinsmalllightgaps)[seeDenslow1987:441-442]. As forthehectaresinthissample,and forreasonspossiblyrelatedtohumandisturbance,typicallightgapgeneraofthehighforest,whilealsopresentinfallow,tendtobe representedbydifferentspeciesinthefallow.Forexample,onlyone(Cecropiasciadophylla)offivespeciesofCecropiacollectedinfallowhectareinventoriesisalsorepresentedamongthefourspeciesofCecropiacollectedinhighforesthectares;infact,ofa totalof54individualCecropiatreesoccurringon all eighthectares,merelythreepertainto thecommonspeciesCecropiasciadophylla. For Van Steenis(1958),disturbanceindicatorswerebiologicalnomads. Theyoccurredas isolatedor evenrareindividualsin aprimaryforestuntila disturbance,suchas fireintheserviceofagriculture,openedspaceforthem. Van Steenisproposedno quantitativemeasureto determine
  • 10. TransformationofAmazonianForests 239whena biologicalnomadbecomesan indicatorof humanactivity- i.e., howdiverse,frequent,abundantand/orecologicallyimportantmusta nomadplantspeciesbecometoqualifyas anindicatorofagriculturalperturbationona givenplotofforest? In fact,to date,no solidmeasuresfordisturbanceindicatorshavebeenproposed(see Brown& Lugo 1990).Therearegoodphytosociologicalreasonsfortheseparationofhighforesthectaresfromthefallowhectaresand forconsideringtheseto representtwodifferentcompositeforesttypesinpre-Amazonia.Theeighthectaresoffallowand highforestin thissampleyield28 pairsof hectares(see Table 1). Thesimilarityof thesepairscan be systematicallycomparedusingthe Jaccardcoefficient,whichis simplythenumberof species/totalnumberof speciesinthesample(i.e, thesumof thetotalnumberof speciesof each plotminusthesharedspecies)expressedas a percentage(Greig-Smith1983: 151). Onaverage,thecoefficientofsimilarityforpairsofhectaresofhighforest/fallowis only10.9%. In contrast,theaveragecoefficientof similarityforpairsofhectaresof high forest/highforestis 22.8%, whichis verysignificantlyhigher. Also, theaveragecoefficientof similarityforpairsof hectaresoffallow/fallowis 17.2%whichisalsoverysignificantlyhigherthanthefallow/highforestaveragebutnotsignificantlylowerthanthehighforest/highforestaverage.In addition,no tendencyexistsfornearbyplotsof highforestand fallowto be moresimilarthanmoredistantlyseparatedhectaresof thesametype(i.e., fallow/fallow,highforest/highforest). For example,ifone comparesthe highforesthectarenear Gurupiuna(6) to the fallowhectare(7) nearGurupiuna(thetwoareseparatedbyabout2.5 km),thecoefficientofsimilarityisonly10.5%. Likewise,comparingthehighforesthectare(3) withthefallowhectare(2) nearP.I. Guajá intheTuriaçubasin(thetwoareseparatedbyonlyabout 1.5 km),thecoefficientof similarityis only11.6%. The Gurupiunasiteson one handand theP.I. Guajá siteson theotherare separatedbyanaerialdistanceof about 60 km. It is interesting,therefore,thatthefallowhectaresoftheP.I. Guajá andGurupiuna(2 and7,respectively)havea similaritycoefficientof 19.3%,whichisverysignificantlyhigherthanthoseoftwopairsofnearbyhectares. ThehighforesthectareofGurupiunaandtheP.I. Guajá(6 and 3, respectively),witha similaritycoefficientof 25.1%, are also muchmoresimilartoeachotherthaneitheristoitsnearbyfallowforest. As wouldbe expected,thepairingsGurupiunahighforest/P.I. Guajá fallow(6 and 2)and P.I. Guajá highforest/Gurupiunafallow(3 and 7) have low similaritycoefficients,respectively,of 11.2% and8.7%. In otherwords,itis clearthattheoverridingfactorthataccountsfordivergencein floristiccompositionbe-tweenforeststandsinthiseighthectaresampleofpre-Amazoniaisnotdistancebetweenstands,butratherpast perturbationby an agroforestrycomplex.Whenplottedon a species-areacurve(best-fitcurve),as separateforestparcels,thefallowforestand thehighforestaccumulatediversityat similarrates(Fig. 1). Theseplotsareorganizedalonga continuum;thefallowcurverepresentsincreasingdiversityfromhectares1, 2, 5, and 7 inthatorder(i.e.,
  • 11. 240 WILLIAM BALÉEFig. 1. Species/AreaCurvesforfallowandhighforest*.fromthefallowplotoftheP.I. Awá,throughtheTuriaçufallows,tothebasinof theGurupi). The forty10mx 25 m samplingunitsof each hectareare,morever,seenas a continuumfrom0 to 159,as withthehighforestplots. Thehighforestplotsare representedin thisorder:hectares4, 3, 6, 8 (i.e., fromtheTuriaçuto theGurupi). Incidentally,in mysurveyof theforestsofthePindaré,noevidencesuggeststhatanyplotofterrafirmewashighforest. Thisis not altogethersurprising,consideringa probablymuchhigherdensityofGuajajarasettlementsinthePindaréthanthereeverwasforKaaporsettlementsin theTuriaçu- thisdoes notimplynecessarilya regionalextinctionof highforestspecies,sincethesestilloccurto north,despitedisturbances.Thesecurves(fig.1)andfloristiccompositiondatasupportthefamiliarnotionthatforsecondaryforests,"withina spanof80yrorless,thenumberofspeciesapproachesthatofmatureforests"(Brown& Lugo 1990:6). The datafromthe pre-Amazonianforests,however,also show thatnot onlydoes fallow"approach"highforestinspeciesdiversity,theplantdiversitybetweenthetwoforesttypesis statisticallyinsignificant.Thisis conceptuallyverysignificantproofthatthesefallowforestsrepresenta kindofindigenousreforestation,insofaras speciesrichnessof highforestsis beingreplacedby an equivalentlyrichsecondaryforestthroughculturalmediation,althoughthemostimportantspecies,indeed,aredifferentbetweenthetwoforesttypes(seebelow). WhilenoevidencehasbeenyetpresentedforHolocene(i.e.,duringandaftertheriseofindigenousagroforestrycomplexes)extinctionsof faunaand florainAmazonia,one can
  • 12. TransformationofAmazonianForests 241Ha Location Type Individuals Families Species Basal Area(m2)1 P.I. Fallow 506 38 157 22.1Awá/R.Pindaré2 P.I. Fallow 563 41 125 21.1Guajá/R.Turiaçu3 « High Forest 521 45 145 27.24 Urutawi/R. High Forest 519 41 126 25.3Turiaçu5 « Fallow 451 36 95 30.36 Gurupiuna High Forest 467 43 123 30.3(Gurupibasin)7 « Fallow 497 43 141 23.38 P.I. High Forest 475 41 144 34.5Canindé/R.GurupiAverages 496 43 135 29.3forHighForestAverages 504 40 130 24.2forFallowAverages 500 41 132 26.8forall PlotsTable 1. Summaryof Eight Hectaresof TerraFirmeForestin pre-Amazonia.
  • 13. 242 WILLIAM BALÉEHigh ForestPairs Species in Common Total Species Coefficientof Similarity3.6 49 219 22.4%3,4 53 218 24.33,8 48 241 19.96.4 50 199 25.16,8 50 217 23,04,8 49 221 22,2Fallow Pairs1.2 44 238 18.51.5 35 217 16.11.7 40 258 15.52.5 37 183 20.22,7 43 223 19.35.7 28 208 13.5Fallow/HighForestPairs1.3 30 272 11.01.6 25 255 9.81.4 27 256 10.51.8 24 277 8.72.3 28 242 11.62,6 25 223 11.22.4 28 223 12.62,8 29 240 12.15.3 29 211 13.75,6 25 193 135.4 21 200 10.55,8 23 216 10.67.3 23 263 8.77,6 25 239 10.57.4 28 239 11.77,8 23 262 8.8Table. 2. JaccardCoefficientsof Similarityforall 28 Pairs of Hectares.
  • 14. TransformationofAmazonianForests 243High ForestSpecies I.V.* Fallow Species I.V.*Eschweileracoriacea 37.83 Jacaratiaspinosa 11.4Lecythisidatimon 14.53 Gustaviaaugusta 10.41Sagotia racemosa 12.67 Orbignyaphalerata 9.37Tetragastrisaltissima 11.6 Astrocaryumvulgäre 7.76Protiumtrifoliolatum 7.76 Spondias mombin 6.53Protiumdecandrum 7.07 Neea sp. 1 6.26Protiumpallidum 6.78 Pisonia sp. 2 6.25Carapa guianensis 5.69 Pouteria macrophylla 5.71Couepia guianensis 5.07 Maximilianamaripa 5.40Pourouma minor 4.54 Platypodiumelegans 5.02Taralea oppositifolia 4.51 Platonia insignis 4.32Mabea caudata 4.06 Simaba cedrón 4.26Pourouma guianensis 3.28 Hymenaeaparvi/olia 4.17Dodecastigmaintegrifolium 3.10 Trichiliaquadrijuga 4.06Couratariguianensis 2.77 Lecythispisonis 3.56Oenocarpusdistichus 2.72 Dialium guianense 3.32Sterculiapruriens 2.65 Astrocaryummunbaca 3.31Bagassa guianensis 2.65 Eschweileracoriacea 3.19Cecropia obtusa 2.60 Theobromaspeciosum 3.11Newtoniapsilostachya 2.47 Lindackerialatifolia 3.05Chimarrhisturbinata 2.40 Tabebuia impetiginosa 2.85Simarubaamara 2.39 Myrciariaobscura 2.75Euterpeolerácea 2.37 Neea sp. 2 2.64Lecythischartacea 2.25 Hymenaea courbaril 2.61Parkia péndula 2.23 Protiumheptaphyllum 2.59Protiumpolybotryum 2.22 Tetragastrispanamensis 2.56Apeiba echinata 2.19 Apuleia leiocarpa 2.53Fusaea longifolia 2.18 Mouririguianensis 2.49Protiumgiganteum 2.12 Cupania scrobiculata 2.40Tachigalimyrmecophila 2.11 Pouteria bilocularis 2.34Total I.V. Values: 166.81 136.22*I.V. = RelativeImportanceValue (sumofrelativedensity,relativefrequency,andrelativedominance).Table 3. Comparisonof the ThirtyEcologicallyMost ImportantSpeciesfromHigh Forest(4 ha) and Fallow (4 ha).
  • 15. 244 WILLIAM BALÉEarguethat,on theotherhand,an indigenousagroforestrycomplex,suchasthatdisplayedby the Kaapor, Tembé,and Guajajara, may have actuallyincreasedtheabundanceof certaindesirableplantspecies.Themostastoundingdifference,intermsof species,concernsecologicallyimportantspecies. In comparingthe30 ecologicallymostimportantspeciesbetweenthefourfallowson one handand thoseofthefourhighforestplotsontheother,thetwoforesttypessharebuta singlespecies,Eschweileracoriacea[matamata](seeTable 3). Thisyieldsa coefficientofsimilarityofonly1.7%forthe30 mostimportantspecies(numberofsharedspecies[l]/totalnumberofspecieson thetwoplots[(30+ 30)- 1]x 100). Thisdifferenceis extremelysignificant.The averagecoefficientof similarityforthe30 mostimportantspeciesof pairsof highforestis 16.4%; theaverageindexof similarityforthe30 mostimportantspeciesofpairsoffallowis 11%; theaverageindexofsimilarityforthe30 mostimportantspeciesofpairsofhighforest/fallow,how-ever,is consistentlyless than2%. This permitsone to concludethattheimportantspeciesbetweenfallowand highforestare verysignificantlyandconsistentlydifferent.Inthisquantitativesense,the30 mostimportantspeciesoffallow(minusE. coriacea)maybeconsideredtobeindicatorsofdisturbance;similarly,the30 mostimportantspeciesofhighforest(minusE. coriacea)maybe consideredtobeindicatorsofnon-disturbance.Althoughfromthisvantagepoint,E. coriaceaisa facultativespecies,inthreeofthefourhighforesthectares(3,4, and8) itistheecologicallymostimportantspecies,whereasinanyfallowforesthectareit does not attaina rankhigherthan 14thecologicallymostimportantspecies. In fallowforeststhebabaçu palm (Orbignyaphalerata)istheecologicallymostimportantspeciesontwohectares(1 and2), yetitdoesnotapproachtheextremelyhighvaluethatE. coriaceadoesonhighforestplots.For reasonsthatremainunclear,and whichdo notaccordwithreceivedwisdom,thefallowforestare actuallyless dominatedby a fewspeciesthanarethehigh,presumablyprimaryforests. For example,theaveragetotalofthetwoecologicallymostimportantspecies(witha totalpossiblevalueof300)of thefourfallowsis only40.3, whereasthecomparablefigureforthefourhighforesthectaresis 60.3, whichis significantlyhigher. The data herepresentedofferbutpartialsupporttothestatement"A largenumberofspeciesinmatureforestsisduetothepresenceofrarespecies. Incontrast,secondaryforestsareusuallycomposedofcommonspecies"(Brown& Lugo1990:7). Foranalyticalpurposes,one mayconsidera speciesto be rareif it occursonlyonce,regardlessof whetheron fallowor highforest. Bythiscriterion,thehighforesthas 199species(or 59% of thetotal)thatare rare;fallowforesthas 139species(or39% ofthetotal)thatarerare. Bothforesttypes,inotherwords,harborsignificantquantitiesof rarespecies.Asidefromdifferencesinage,basalarea,overallfloristiccomposition,andecologicallyimportantspeciesbetweenfallowandhighforest,anotherdifferenceto which I have alluded, being strictlyrelatedto utilitarianconcerns,
  • 16. TransformationofAmazonianForests 245deservesmention. Fallowsareindigenousorchards(e.g.,Denevanetal 1984),whetherconsciouslyplantedor not. Of the30 ecologicallymostimportantspeciesof fallow,14 are significantfood species,eitherforone or moreoftheindigenouspeoplesof theregion,whereasforthe 30 ecologicallymostimportantspeciesofhighforest,thereareonly6 importantfoodspecies. Somesignificantfoodspeciesofthefallowincludebabaçupalm(Orbignyaphalerata),hogplum(Spondiasmombin),tucumãpalm(Astrocaryumvulgäre),inajápalm(Maximilianamaripa),bacuri(Platoniainsignis),andcopaltrees{Hymenaeasp.).Theseorchardsexistbecauseofthepastpresenceofan indigenousagroforestrycomplex,yettheextentto whichtheyare cognizedresultsof thiscomplexisdoubtful.What do theyknow and when did theyknow it?ThemodernKaapor are,minushistoricalborrowingsfromothersocieties,heirstotheagroforestrycomplexoftheirproto-Tupi-Guaranispeakingforebearswho,if onlyon thebasis of linguisticevidence,livedin societiesthatwerecertainlyassociatedwithdomesticatedplants(Balée & Moore 1991; Lemle1971). Yet the extentto whichthisancient,sociallytransmittedexpertiseis cognizedby Kaapor adultstodayremainsquestionable(e.g., see Parker1992 withrespectto the Kayapó).Rindos (1984: 99) pointedout that early agriculturalhuman beingsmay have been aware, in a retrospectivesense,thattheirdependenceonplantmanagementrepresenteda differentlifestylefromother,stillforagingsocieties. This is certainlyapplicableto themodernKaapor, who readilydistinguishtheneighboring,foragingGuaja Indiansas a peoplewho do not"swidden"(kupisarnoii4 m). Kaapor informantsindicatethattheGuajaare purara ("poor") because they depend mainlyon babaçu nuts andothernon-domesticates,insteadof on the domesticatedtubers,rhizomes,corms,and fruitsfound,forexample,in Kaapor swiddens(see Balée 1988b,1991afordiscussionof Guajá ethnobotany).The Guaja themselvesreadilyadmit"we do notplant" (na turnawa). To paraphraseRindos(1984: 99),theKaapor and theGuaja knowwho theyare, as distinguishedfromeachother,at leaston thebasis of theirradicallydifferentmeansof associatingwithplants.It seemsunlikely,however,thattheyknowexactlywhotheywere. Guajainformants,forexample,showno historicalmemoryof everhavingplantedswiddenfields,yetlinguisticand otherevidencesuggestthattheirancestorslostcontrolofan agroforestrycomplexduringa processofregressioninducedbydisease,depopulation,and colonial/indigenouswarfare(Balee 1992a). InthesamewaythatKaaporinformantscannotoften"remember"grandparentsnames(as withmanyotherAmazoniansocieties- see Murphy1979),do notconceptuallydistinguishmorethana fewof themanyinternallypoisonous
  • 17. 246 WILLIAM BALÉEprinciplesin theirhabitat,avoid consumingsome fruitsthatare otherwiseedible,and believethatstoneaxeheadsin theirforestsare *thunder-seeds"(tupa-rai)thatwereneverused forfellingtrees(Balee 1988a),it cannotbesaid thattheyintendtheeffectsof theirenvironmentalinterventionsto besomehowbeneficialto more distant,ensuinggenerationsof theirownkind. Theydo not themselves,moreover,make such claims.AlthoughKaapor informantscalledall fallowforestsinthissampletaperand all highforestskaa-te,theydo notencodea successionbetweenfallowand highforest(Balée & Gély1989). The Arawetéand Asurini,moreover,calledold fallowforestsof theirregion,respectively,bythetermskaa-heteandkaa-te,whichmeanhighforest(Balée& Campbell1990). AndtheGuajaoftheP.I. Awá on theRio Pindarédescribedthefallowhectare(1) thatwasinventoriedas kaa-ate(highforest). The implicationis thatifa siteis leftfallowlong enough,manypeoples will considerit to be highforest,notrecognizingthatitwasonceoccupiedbypeoplebearingan agroforestrycomplex(insteadof, forexample,by divinities). In otherwords,the successionalprocessesresponsiblefortheformationoffallowsdo notappeartobe cognizedin manyindigenouscultures.In contrast,a veryinfluentialcase has been made for incorporatingindigenousknowledgeintorationaldevelopmentschemesforAmazonia(Posey1983,1984;Poseyet al 1984). Thisis partlybased on thetransparentfactthatAmazonianIndians,unlikemanystatesocieties,havenot,byand large,convertedtheirforests,pollutedtheirstreams,and otherwisedefilednaturalecosystems{cf.Redford1991),yettheystillexploitedthe floraand faunaand survivedintheseforthousandsofyears. It is also basedon thenotionthatthiscustodialcareof natureis deliberate,conscious,and easilyelicitedinspeech. Specifically,inthecaseoftheKayapó,AndersonandPosey(1985)andPosey(1983,1984)havearguedthatthe"forestislands"(apêtê)offruittreesandotherutilitarian,non-domesticatedplantswereactuallyplantedpartlywith the intentionof benefitingfutureKayapó generations(c/.Parker1992). Yet the principallong-termbeneficiariesof forestmanagementbytheKaapor Indians,on theotherhand,havebeentheirtraditionalenemies,the foragingGuaja, who relyheavilyon the palms and otherdisturbanceindicatorplantsfoundin Kaapor (and Guajajara/Tembé)fallows,not theKaapor of today(Balee 1988b, 1992a).In spiteof a universaland immediatesensethattheypossessan agro-forestrycomplex,whichaffectsthedistributionsofseveralhundredplantspecies,includingbothdomesticatesand semi-domesticates,the Kaapor exhibitnorationalisticknowledgeconcerningtheremoteacquisitionand/ordomesticationofNeotropicalcropsfoundintheirswiddenstoday. IftheancestralKaapor(and earlierTupi-Guaraniforebears)had transmittedan entirelyrationalisticknowledgeof Amazonianplantsto theirdescendants,one wouldexpectthisto be reflectedinmodernKaapor speechandbehavior,especiallyconcerningtheoriginsofplantsthatto continuesurvivingand reproducingmustremain
  • 18. Transformationof AmazonianForests 247underrelativelyconstanthumansupervisionandinterference.Yeteventhemostsignificanttraditionaldomesticatesarenotperceivedas havingbeenderivedfromanyrelatedplant,eventhoughcloselyrelatedundomesticatedcongenericsofthesedomesticatesaretobefoundthroughouttheKaaporhabitatandoneneednotemploya microscopeto notesalient,overallresemblancesbetweenthem(seeGrenand1980:43forsimilardatawithregardtotheTupi-GuaranispeakingWayapi).Forexample,althoughatleasttwospeciesofthegenusAnacardium[cashew]{A. giganteumand A. parvifolium)occurin matureforestsof theKaaporhabitat,bothofwhicharecloselyrelatedtotheirdomesticatedcongener,cashew(Anacardiumoccidentale)[seeMitchell& Mori1987],Kaapor informantssaydomesticatedcashewtreescameintobeingwhentheculturehero,Mair,plantedbranchesofyasi-amir(Lecythisidatimon),a profoundlyunrelatedtreeintheBrazilnutfamilyand denizenof thehighforest. Sweetpotatoes(Ipomoeabatatas)aresaidto havefirstsproutedand bloomedwhenMair plantediw4-pua ("roundsoil",a clayeyloam),yetatleastfourspeciesofnon-domesticatedmorningglories(Ipomoea),closelyrelatedto sweetpotatoes,areto be foundin theKaapor habitat,usuallyon theedgesof swiddens. Finally,itis saidthatmanioc(Manihotesculenta)originatedwhenMairplantedthe(unspecified)branchesofhighforesttrees,yetthreecloselyrelatednon-domesticatedspeciesofManihotarecommoninKaaporswiddens(seebelow). Infact,thesespecies,as withallotherknownwildmaniocspecies,canbeintercrossedwithM. esculenta(Jennings1976:81, Rogers& Appan 1973).Theseexplanationsfortheoriginsoftraditionaldomesticatesareprobablyassociatedwithan unconsciouslexical and cognitivedichotomybetweentraditionaldomesticatesand non-domesticatesinKaapor ethnobotany(Balée1989b). Inanycase,theyevincea lackoflexicallyencodedknowledgeregardinghybridizationinplants. Theyalsoindicatelackofanexplicitconceptof"semi-domestication",whichis also notencodedlinguisticallyinKaapor, yetmanynon-domesticatedspeciesofKaapor swiddensandfallowsoccurnowhereelseandareperhapsbestunderstoodas beingsemi-domesticated;namesforsemi-domesticates,moreover,appearto be retainedat a verysignificantlyhigherratethannamesforplantsofthehighforest(Balee& Moore 1991). In otherwords,althoughoverthecenturiestheKaapor havebeencertainlybreedersof plants(testimonyto thisis to be seenin numerouslandracesof certaindomesticatesand semi-domesticatesinKaapor swiddensand fallowsthatarenotto be foundelsewhere),thiswas notby consciousdesign.MostKaapor adults,to be sure,exhibita sophisticatedknowledgeofthebodyparts,lifeprocesses,andtechniquesformanipulatingandharvestingmanyindividualplants;theplantlexicon,moreover,containsmorethanfourhundredgenericnamesforlocal plants(Balee 1989b). Yet manyofthesedisplaylifespansforshorterthanthatofan averagehumanbeing. A knowledgeoftheseplants,theirhabits,and requirementsdoes notperforceimplya rationalistic(i.e.,empiricallyfalsifiable)knowledgeoflongtermecologicalandsuccessional
  • 19. 248 WILLIAM BALÉEprocesses,involvingseveralhumangenerations.Althoughonecanliveto seethat,as theelders(tamüi)say,redbrocketdeereat wildmaniocleaves,noone liveslongenoughto observea youngswiddengrowintoan old fallow,i.e., upwardsof 100yearssinceinitialclearingand burning. Likewise,else-wherein Amazonia,no one liveslong enoughto see yellowclay becometransformedintotypicallydeep(greaterthan70 cm)horizonsofanthropogenicblackearth,which,if Smith(1980) is correct,accumulatesat a rateof only1 cmpertenyears. To expectsuchknowledgewouldbetantamounttoignoringsignificantlimitationson theoral transmissionof informationaboutevents,people,andplaces(Goody1977). ThisdoesnotdenytotheKaapor,however,a materialrolein themanagementof theirhabitatformorethan100years(the firstKaapor to occupythe habitatarrivedin the mid-1870s- Balée1988a). Rather,the Kaapor agroforestrycomplex,as well as thatof theGuajajara and Tembé,appearsto be incidentalto developmentalprocessesassociatedwithsemi-sedentary,egalitarianAmazoniansocieties- itis,simply,nota productof longtermdesign,indigenousor otherwise.AlthoughsomeKaapor do plantconsciouslyonoccasionnon-domesticatedtreespecies,suchas ingá,wildcacao, jutaipororoca(Dialiumguianense),andwildsoursop{Annonasp.) [Balée& Gély1989]intheirdooryardgardens,mostoftheecologicallyimportanttreespeciesofthefallowarenotpresentbecausetheywereplanted. Whenqueriedaboutfallowformation,informantsstronglytendto agreethatmanyofthesespecieswereintroducedand/ordispersedbygameanimalsattractedto humansettlements.Forexample,agoutisdispersebabaçupalm,inajá palm,andcopaltrees;deerdispersebacuriand hogplum;and Cebusmonkeysdispersewildcacao and ingá,accordingto informants-suchknowledgeisreadilyconfirmed,moreover,inthebiologicalliterature.Witha fewindividualsofcertainspecies,somehumanplantingwas involved(wildcacao, ingá,hogplum). Informantsclaim,nevertheless,thatgrovesofthesespecieswerenotentirelyplanted,butratherdispersedfromanoriginallyplantedtree. Manypalms,suchas bacaba (Oenocarpusdistichus)andinajá,aresaidto be presentbecausehumansfirstscattered(omor)theseeds(whilethrowingthemaway on the edge of the dooryardgardenor village),but animalssubsequentlydispersedthem. As forbabaçu,oneofthemostimportantfallowspecies,I havefoundno evidencefordeliberatehumaninterventioninitslifeprocessesand distribution- theKaapor eat thisonlyas snackfood,do notreturnto thevillagewithit,and do notplantit. Rather,itspresencenearlongabandonedhumansettlementsisprobablyduetospreadbyagoutisoriginallyattractedto thesettlementsbecauseof certainplantspeciescommonto oldand newswiddens(a similarargumenthas beenproposedfortheassociationof Brazilnutgrovesand prehistoricsitesin lowerAmazonia- Balée 1989).In otherwords,humaninvolvementinfallowsdominatedbybabaçupalmsmost likelytook place indirectly.This kind of fallow managementisfundamentallyunlikethatdescribedfortheGorotireKayapóbyPosey(1983,1984)and Andersonand Posey (1985, 1989),whichhas beenmostrecently
  • 20. TransformationofAmazonianForests 249questionedbyParker(1992). In fact,manyofthespeciesplantedon "forestislands"bytheKayapóandwhicharealsopresentinKaapor fallowsareneverplanted(althoughsome maybe protected)by the Kaapor. These includeTapiriraguianensis,Himatanthussucuuba,Schefflera,Tabebuiaserratifolia,Tetragastrisaltissima,Maytenus,Casearia,Sacoglottis,Mascagnia,Cecropiapalmata,Neea spp.,Coccolobapaniculata,Simarubaamara,and Vitexflavens(cf.Anderson& Posey 1989: 162-168,Table 1). The Kayapó forestisland(apêtê)doesmanifestspeciesthatintheKaapor habitatwouldindicatefallow(taper);itexhibits75% "plantable" speciesaccordingto Kayapóinformantsinterviewedby Andersonand Posey (1989: 169; cf Anderson& Posey1985). Yet in Kaapor fallows,the percentageof tree and vine speciesoccasionallyplantedbytheKaapor is onlyabout 1% (or 4 dividedby 360[thetotalnumberoftreeandvinesspeciescollectedinfallowinventories]times100- the fourspeciesare Dialium guianense,Rollinia exsucca,hog plum[Spondiasmombinj,and wildcacao [Theobromaspeciosum]. WhereastheKayapó maybe consciouslyplantingand propagatingnon-domesticatedtreespecies,a pointquestionedby Parker(1992),Kaapor fallowsrepresentoneoftheunintended(yetexpected)resultsof human/animalinteractions(Balée& Gély1989). Manyoftheplantspeciesthereinarepresent,inotherwords,becauseofanimalsattractedtothedeliberatelyandintensivelymanageddomainofdooryardgardensandproducingswiddens,notbecauseofhavingbeenplantedbyhumanbeings. Oneneednotplantwhatwillbepredictably"planted"andinsufficientquantitybyinfra-humananimalsorwhichwillgerminateandgrowuponsacrificationbyswiddenburning(as maybe thecase withcopal trees-Balee& Gély1989). ThevastmajorityofthetimetheKaaporspendgardeningis not directedto plantingnon-domesticatedtrees,moreover,but to themanipulationofdomesticatedstarchytuberplantsandotherdomesticatedherbs,vines,and shrubs,themanagementof whichis partlydeterminedbynormalsocial life.ConclusionDespite the relativenon-deliberationinvolvedin managementof non-domesticatedtreespecies,itis stilllogicaltoconcludethatfallowsarehuman,specificallystatelesshuman,creations. Regardlessofa relativelackofhumanattemptsto transformactivelythecompositionof old swiddensand therebydirectlycontributeto thedevelopmentof forestfallow,thesefallowswouldnotbepresentwereitnotfortheKaapormanagementofotherplants(especiallydomesticates)and concomitantriseof diverseanthropogeniczones,includingold and newvillagesas wellas old and newswiddensand dooryardgardens,whichbythemselvesattractmanyoftheprincipaldispersalagentsofimportantfallowtreespecies. Fallowsareindigenousorchards,buttoa largeextenttheyrepresentunintendedartifactsofthemanipulationofherbaceousdomesticates,
  • 21. 250 WILLIAM BALÉEi.e., non-treevegetation. At the same time,theyrepresenta measurableindigenouscontributionto regionalbiodiversity.As such,past and presentindigenousagroforestrycomplexesof pre-Amazonia,and probablymanyofthoseelsewhereinAmazonia,do nota priorimeritthechargeofbeingdegrading,butrathershouldbeperceivedintermsoftheirenhancingeffectsontheenviron-ment,regardlessoftheactorsrelativelackofdeliberationand foreknowledgeof such.Tulane University,New Orleans,Louisiana, USAAcknowledgementsThe researchon whichthispaperis basedwas generouslysupportedoverthe yearsby the Edward JohnNoble Foundation,the JessieSmithNoyesFoundation,theFordFoundation,andtheCNPq (BrazilianCouncilofScientificand TechnologicalDevelopment). Specialthanksare due to EugeneParkerforlettingme see a preprintof his articleon Kayapó forestislands. I amgratefultoTheodoreGragsonand LeslieSponselforveryinsightful,detailed,and helpfulcommentson an earlierversion. I am aloneresponsibleforanyremainingerrors.NOTE1. Perhapsthe seminalstatementforthispointof view in anthropologyis "Ecology involvesoneunalterablefactor,the naturalenvironment"(Steward 1938: 261).BIBLIOGRAPHYAnderson, A. B. & D. A. Posey1985 Manejo de cerradopelosIndiosKayapó",Boletimdo MuseuParaenseEmílioGoeldi,Botanica2: 77-98.1989 "Managementof a TropicalScrubSavanna bytheGorotireKayapó of Brazil", in D. Posey& W. Balée, eds., 1989: 159-173.Balée, W.1988a "The Kaapor Indian Wars of Lower Amazonia, ca. 1825-1928", in R. R. Randolph,D. M. Schneider & M. N. Diaz, eds, Dialecticsand Gender:AnthropologicalApproaches.Boulder,CO. WestviewPress: 155-169.1988b "Indigenous Adaptationto Amazonian Palm Forests", Principes32 (2): 47-54.1989a "The Cultureof Amazonian Forests", in D. Posey & W. Balee, eds., 1989: 1-21.1989b "NomenclaturalPatternsin Kaapor Ethnobotany",Journalof Ethnobiology9 (1): 1-24.1992a "People of theFallow: An HistoricalEcology of Foragingin Lowland SouthAmerica", inK. H. Redford & C. Padoch, eds., Conservationof Neotropical Forests: Building onTraditionalResource Use. New York, Columbia UniversityPress: 35-37.
  • 22. TransformationofAmazonianForests 2511992b "IndigenousHistoryand Amazonian Biodiversity",in H. K. Steen & R. P. Tucker, eds.,ChangingTropicalForests. Durham, NorthCarolina, ForestHistorySociety: 185-197.[inpress]Footprintsof theForest:Kaapor Ethnobotany. New York, Columbia UniversityPress.Balée, W. & D. G. Campbell1990 "EvidencefortheSuccessionalStatusofLiana Forest(XinguRiverbasin,AmazonianBrazil)",Biotropica22 (1): 36-47.Balée, W. & A. Gely1989 "Managed ForestSuccessionin Amazonia: The Kaapor Case", in D. Posey & W. Balée,eds., 1989: 129-158.Balée, W. & D. Moore1991 Similarityand VariationinPlantNames inFive Tupi-GuaraniLanguages(EasternAmazonia),Bulletinof theFlorida Museum of Natural History(Biological Sciences) 35 (4): 209-262.Boom, B. M.1986 "A ForestInventoryin Amazonian Bolivia", Biotropica 18 (4): 287-294.Brown, S. & A. E. Lugo1990 "Tropical SecondaryForests", Journalof TropicalEcology 6: 1-32.Bush, M. B., R. P. Dolores & P. A. Colinvaux1989 "A 6,000Year Historyof Amazonian Maize Cultivation",Nature 340: 303-305.Campbell, D. G. et al1986 "QuantitativeEcological Inventoryof Terra Firmeand Várzea Tropical Foreston the RioXingu, BrazilianAmazon", Brittonia38 (4): 369-393.Clement, C. R.1989 "A Centerof Crop GeneticDiversityin WesternAmazonia", Bioscience39 (2): 624-631.Daly, D. C. & G. T. Prance1989 "Brazilian Amazon", in D. G. Campbell & H. D. Hammond,eds, FloristicInventoryofTropical Countries: The Status of Plant Systematics,Collections, and VegetationplusRecommendationsfor theFuture. Bronx,NY, New York Botanical Garden: 401-425.Denevan, W. M. & C. Padoch, eds.1988 Swidden-FallowAgroforestryinthePeruvianAmazon,Bronx,NY, NewYork,BotanicalGarden("Advances in Economic Botany" 5).Denevan, W. M., J. M. Treacy, J. B. Alcorn et al.1984 "Indigenous Agroforestryin the PeruvianAmazon: Bora Indian Managementof SwiddenFallows", Interciencia9 (6): 346-357.Denslow, J. S.1987 "Tropical RainforestGaps and Tree Species Diversity",Annual Review of Ecology andSystematics18: 431-451.Ducke, A. & G. A. Black1953 "PhytogeographicalNoteson theBrazilianAmazon", Anaisda AcademiaBrasileirade Ciencias25 (1): 1-46.Froís, R. L.1953 "Estudosobrea Amazoniamaranhensee seuslimitesflorísticos",RevistaBrasileirade Geografìa15 (1): 96-100.Gentry, A. H.1988 Tree SpeciesRichnessofUpperAmazonianForests, Proceedingsof theNationalAcademyof Sciences(Ecology) 85: 156-159.UOODY, J.1977 The Domesticationof theSavage Mind. New York, CambridgeUniversityPress.Greig-Smith,P.1983 QuantitativePlant Ecology. Berkeley& Los Angeles,Universityof CaliforniaPress.
  • 23. 252 WILLIAM BALÉEGrenand,P.1980 Introductionà létude de luniversWayapl. Paris, SELAF.Jennings,D. L.1976 "Cassava", in N. W. Simmonds,ed., Evolutionof CropPlants. London, Longman:81-84.Johnson,A.1989 "How theMachiguenguaManage Resources:Conservationor Exploitationof Nature?", inD. Posey & W. Balée, eds., 1989: 213-222.Kipnis, R.1990 ComparativeEthnoecologyinEasternAmazonia. UnpublishedSupplementaryReportto theJessieSmithNoyesFoundation,W. Balée P.I. On file,Comparativeethnoecologyproject,Museu Goeldi, Belém.Lemle, M.1971 "Internalclassificationof the Tupi-Guaranilinguisticfamily",in D. BendorSamuel, ed.,Tupi Studies I. Norman, Oklahoma ("Summer Instituteof LinguisticsPublications inLinguisticsand Related Fields" 29): 197-229.Martin, P. S.1984 "PrehistoricOverkill:The Global Model", in P. S. Martin & R. G. Klein, eds., QuaternaryExtinctions:A PrehistoricRevolution. Tucson, Universityof Arizona Press: 354-403.Mitchell, J. D. & S. A. Mori1987 The Cashew and itsRelatives(Anacardium:Anacardiaceae). Bronx,NY ("Memoirs of theNew York Botanical Garden").Moran, E. F.1990a "EcosystemEcologyin Biologyand Anthropology:A CriticalAssessment",in E. F. Moran,ed., The EcosystemApproachinAnthropology:FromConceptto Practice. AnnArbor,MI,The Universityof MichiganPress: 3-40.1990b "Levels of Analysisand AnalyticalLevel Shifting:Examples fromAmazonian EcosystemResearch",in E. F. Moran, ed., The EcosystemApproachin Anthropology:FromConceptto Practice. Ann Arbor,MI, The Universityof MichiganPress: 279-308.Murphy, R.1979 "Lineage and Linealityin Lowland South America", in M. Margolis & W. Carter, eds.,Brazil: AnthropologicalPerspectives. Essays in Honor of Charles Wagley. New York,Columbia UniversityPress: 217-224.Myers, N.1988 "ThreatenedBiotas: Hot Spots in TropicalForests", TheEnvironmentalist8 (3): 187-208.NSB (National Science Board)1989 Loss ofBiologicalDiversity:A Global CrisisRequiringInternationalSolutions. Washington,DC, National Science Foundation.Parker, E.1992 "ForestIslandsandKayapó ResourceManagementinAmazonia:A ReappraisaloftheApêtê",AmericanAnthropologist94 (2): 406-428.Pires, J. N. & G. T. Prance1985 "The VegetationTypesof theBrazilianAmazon", in G. T. Prance & T. Lovejoy, eds., KeyEnvironments:Amazonia. Elmsford,NY, PergamonPress.FLUCKNETT, V. L.1976 "Edible Aroids", in N. W. Simmonds,ed., Evolutionof Crop Plants. London, Longman:10-12.1983 "Indigenous Ecological Knowledgeand Developmentof the Amazon", in E. Moran, ed.,The Dilemma of Amazonian Development. Boulder,WestviewPress: 135-144.1984 "Keepers of the campo", Garden 8 (6): 8-12, 32.
  • 24. Transformationof AmazonianForests 253Posey, D. A. et al.1984 "Ethnoecologyas AppliedAnthropologyinAmazonianDevelopment",Human Organization43 (2): 95-105.Posey, D. A. & W. Balée, eds.1989 ResourceManagementinAmazonia: IndigenousandFolk Strategies. Bronx,NY, NewYorkBotanical Garden CAdvances in Economic Botanv" 7).Projeto RADAM1973 Levantamentode recursosnaturais,3. Rio de Janeiro,Ministériodas Minas e EnergiaDepartamentoNacional de Produção Mineral.Projeto GuRUPi1975 Relatório Final de Etapa, 1. Belém, Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais,SuperintendênciaRegionalde Belém.Rambo, A. T.1985 PrimitivePolluters:SemangImpacton theMalaysian TropicalRain ForestEcosystem. AnnArbor,Universityof Michigan(Museumof Anthropology. "AnthropologicalPapers" 76).Redford, K. H.1991 "The EcologicallyNoble Savage", CulturalSurvivalQuarterly15 (1): 46-48.KIBEIRO, U.1970 Os índios e a civilização. Rio de Janeiro,Editora Civilização Brasileira.RlNDOS, D.1984 The Originsof Agriculture:An EvolutionaryPerspective. New York, Academic Press.Rizzini, C. T.1963 "Nota prévia sobre a divisão fitogeográficado Brasil", Revista Brasileira de Geografia25 (1): 3-64.Rogers, D. J. & S. G. Appan1993 Manihot, Manihotoides (Euphorbiaceae). New York, Hafner Press ("Flora NeotropicaMonograph" 13).Saldarriaga, J. G. & D. C. West1986 "Holocene Fires in the NorthernAmazon Basin", QuaternaryResearch26: 358-366.Salomão, R. P., M. F. F. Silva & N. A. Rosa1988 "Inventárioecológicoemflorestapluvialtropicalde terrafirme,SerraNorte,Carajás, Pará",Boletimdo Museu Paraense EmttioGoeldi, ser. Bot., 4 (1): 1-46.Smith,N. J. H.1980 "Anthrosolsand Human CarryingCapacity in Amazonia", Annals of theAssociation ofAmericanGeographers70 (4): 553-566.Smith,N. J. H., J. T. William & D. L. Plucknett1991 "Conservingthe Tropical Cornucopia", Environment33 (6): 7-9, 30-32.5PONSEL, L. tL.1992 "The EnvironmentalHistoryofAmazonia:NaturalandHumanDisturbances,andtheEcologicalTransition",inH. K. Steen & R. P. Tucker, eds., ChangingTropicalForests.Durham,NorthCarolina, ForestHistorySociety:233-251.Steward, J. H.1938 Basin-PlateauAboriginalSociopoliticalGroups. Washington,D.C. Smithsonian Institution("Bureau of AmericanEthnology",Bulletin120).SUDAM(Superintendênciado Desenvolvimentoda Amazonia)1976 Polamazônia(Programade Pólos Agropecuariose Agromineraisda Amazonia): Pré-AmazoniaMaranhense. Belém, sudam.Van Steenis, C. G. G. J.1958 "Rejuvenationas a FactorforJudgingtheStatusofVegetationTypes:The BiologicalNomadTheory",in Proceedingsof a Symposiumon Humid TropicsVegetation. Paris, UNESCO:212-215.
  • 25. 254 WILLIAM BALÉERÉSUMÉWilliamBalée, Transformationsindigènesde la forêtamazonienne.Un exempleduMaranhão,Brésil.- Cetarticlea pourobjetde clarifierla naturedesrapportsentrecer-tainessociétésindigènesdupasséetlabiodiversitérégionaleenAmazonie.Desdonnéesrécentesmontrenteneffetquelecomplexeagroforestierdecertainesculturesa contribuéà renforcercettediversité,au moinsdansledomainevégétal.La démonstrationreposesurunecompa-raisonentredesforêts« anthropogéniques» etdesforêts« primaires» dela régionphyto-géographiquedite« pré-Amazonie». Ellesoulèvedeuxproblèmescruciaux: celuidelanatureetde lextensiondu savoirécologiqueliéauxpratiquesagroforestièresindigènes,etceluidu degréde volontéconscienteimpliquéedansYaccroissementde la diversitévégétaleetla formationde ces forêtsculturellementfaçonnées.RESUMENWilliamBalée, Transformacionesindígenasde la selva amazónica.Un ejemplodelMarañon,Brasil.- Esteartículotienecomoobjetivoclarificarlanaturalezadelasrelacionesentreciertassociedadesindígenasdelpasadoyla biodiversidadregionalenla Amazonia.Datosrecientesmuestrancomoelcomplejoagroforestaldealgunasculturashacontribuidoefectivamentea reforzarestadiversidad,al menosenel dominiovegetal.La demostraciónestabasadaen unacomparaciónentrebosques« antropogénicos» y « primarios» de laregiónfitogeográficallamadapre-Amazonia.Ella planteados problemascruciales: el delanaturalezaydela extensióndelsaberecológicorelacionadoconlasprácticasagroforestalesindígenas,yel delgradodevoluntadconscienteimplicadaenel aumentode la diversidadvegetaly la formaciónde estosbosquestalladosculturalmente.