Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
-
Upload
daniel-shoup -
Category
Documents
-
view
223 -
download
1
Transcript of Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
1/28
Archaeology, EcologicalHistory, and Conservation
Frances M. Hayashida
Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,Pennsylvania 16802; email: [email protected]
Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 34:4365
First published online as aReview in Advance on
June 14, 2005
The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org
doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120515
Copyright c 2005 by
Annual Reviews. All rightsreserved
0084-6570/05/1021-0043$20.00
Key Words
applied archaeology, anthropogenic landscapes, vegetation history,
human impacts, land-use legacies
Abstract
Ecologists have increasingly turned to history, including human his-
tory, to explain and manage modern ecosystems and landscapes. The
imprint of past land use can persist even in seemingly pristine areas.
Archaeology provides a long-term perspective on human actions and
their 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 are
valued habitats. Finally, as archaeologists become more involved in
research directed at contemporary environmental issues, they need
to consider the potential uses and abuses of their findings in man-
agement and policy debates.
43
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
2/28
Contents
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . 46
HUMAN IMPACTS ON
VEGETATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Overexploitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Alternatives to Overexploitation. . . 48CASE STUDIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Anthropogenic Landscapes:
Southern Sweden. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Anthropogenic Landscapes:
Tropical Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION . . . 56
INTRODUCTION
Ecologists and conservation biologists have
discovered the deep human past, long the
province of archaeologists. Browse through
their recent books and journals and you will
find a growing number of studies that con-
sider archaeological evidence to explain and
manage current environments. This trend
can be tied to (a) an increasing interest in
how historical processes shape modern land-
scapes, (b) the recognition that humans are
part of landscape history even in areas longthought of as pristine, and (c) the emergence
of restoration ecology with its goal of aiding
the recovery of degraded ecosystems using
historical reference conditions. At the same
time, archaeologists have begun to realize the
potential 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 Kooijmans
1995, Lyman 1996, Macinnes & Wickham-Jones 1992, Peacock & Shauwecker 2003,
Redman 1999, Spriggs2001, van der Leeuw &
Redman 2002). The development of histori-
cal ecology, whichexamines the relationships
of humans and the biosphere in specific tem-
poral, regional, cultural, and biotic contexts
(Balee 1998b; see also Crumley 1994) has also
triggered a rethinking of the long-term dy-
namics of nature and culture and their study
through the archaeological and paleoenviron-
mental records.
The explicit incorporation of archaeol-
ogy into studies of current ecosystems, or
into conservation or restoration planning, is
still incipient. A number of recent essays andstudies have demonstrated the relevance of
zooarchaeology to wildlife management (Kay
& Simmons 2002, Lauwerier & Plug 2004,
Lyman 1996, Lyman & Cannon 2004). Here,
I join the discussion with a review of archaeol-
ogys 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 this
work for ecology and conservation. Such a
review is particularly timely as debates heatup over the disposition and management of
landscapes and resources in the United States
and abroad (e.g., the resilience of forests to
exploitation, the extent to which human ac-
tions aidor mimic natural processes, therights
of indigenous groups to continued occupa-
tion or use of protected areas). These debates
are fundamentally political and ethical in na-
ture, but they are informed by the findings of
researchers. Clearly, oversimplified assump-
tions about anthropogenic impacts and hu-man nature based on an incomplete or skewed
understanding of the past can only lead to
misguided practices and policies.Archaeology
can inform these debates by providing infor-
mation on human actions and their environ-
mental consequences over very long periods
of time, a fact appreciated by ecologists who
look to the archaeological record. The time
has come for archaeologists to take a more
active role in designing and participating in
research that addresses contemporary envi-ronmental concerns and contributes to public
policy.
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 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
3/28
Aber 2004, Foster et al. 2003). The histori-
cal record provides a window on long-term
processes (e.g., succession, soil formation, re-
sponses to climate change), increases the sam-
ple size of observations [such as responses to
natural and anthropogenic disturbances (fire,
hurricanes, floods, clearing, farming)], and
documents 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 response
to disturbance and environmental change,
current ecosystem structure, function, and
composition cannot be fully understood or
explained without a historical perspective.
The lasting effects of past human actions
(termed land-use legacies) include changes
in species composition, successional dynam-
ics, soils, water, topography, and nutrient cy-cling. Many seemingly natural areas have a
cultural past that is part of their ecologi-
cal history; their conservation today requires
knowledge of that past and assessment of the
value of continuing or replicating past cultural
practices.
The human imprint on seemingly natural
areas was convincingly argued by Denevan
(1992) in his critique of the pristine myth
of the pre-Columbian Americas. Additional
work by geographers, archaeologists, histo-rians, and others continues to illustrate the
ways that indigenous people of the Amer-
icas and elsewhere shaped the landscapes
they inhabited (Balee 1998a; Denevan 2001;
Doolittle 2000; Gomez-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 dramatic
population decline and severe social disrup-tion. European colonial accounts have other
potential problems, including misunderstand-
ing or falsely representing indigenous prac-
tices. Thus these sources imperfectly or
incompletely portray the pre-European real-
ity and should be complemented with other
historical evidence from archaeology, paleoe-
cology, and indigenous histories. Compari-
son of complementary lines of evidence can
also identify landscapes that were not signifi-
cantly transformed in the past [i.e., areas that
were unoccupied or had a light human imprint
(Lepofsky et al. 2003a)].
History is also essential to ecological
restoration, an intentional activity that ini-tiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosys-
tem with respect to its health, integrity and
sustainability (Soc. Ecol. Restor. Sci. Pol-
icy Work. Group 2002) by returning it to its
historical trajectory based on reference con-
ditions inferred from the historical, ethno-
graphic, paleoecological, and archaeological
record (Egan & Howell 2001). Restored
ecosystems are not static, nor does restoration
necessarily aim to recover a pristine (prehu-
man) environment (Winterhalder et al. 2004).Traditional cultural practices that reinforce
ecosystem 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 restoration
ecology by providingmaterial evidence of past
environments and of how they were shaped by
human actions, including but not limited to
evidence on species ranges, extinctions, intro-
ductions, and the cultural practices that wereused to manage local resources (Alcoze 2003,
Alcoze & Hurteau 2001, Louwe Kooijmans
1995, OBrien 2001).
This review is divided into four parts. It
opens by introducing the kinds of evidence
used to infer vegetation histories and human
impacts. Second, I describe how archaeolo-
gists have documented different kinds of hu-
man impacts on vegetation, such as overex-
ploitation and deforestation, but also consider
management practices such as the renewableharvest of woody resources and the plant-
ing and tending of wild species, all of which
have played a role in forming modern land-
scapes. Third, I present case studies of the
complex interactions of people, plants, and
landscapes through time and their long-term
effects, focusing on tropical forests. In this and
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 45
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
4/28
preceding sections, the emphasis is on recent
literature because of spacelimitations. Finally,
the review would be incomplete without at
least a brief treatment of the political issues
surrounding 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 the
dramatic degradation of ecosystems and the
continuing threats to biological diversity. For
some, human exclusion and the maintenance
of or return to wilderness is seen as the best
strategy. But many areas of concern for pro-
tection and restoration are home not only to
endangered plants and wildlife, but also to
people, including indigenous groups, whose
practices over the generations may have con-
tributed to creating valued natural habi-tats, or recent colonists hoping to make a
living. If these areas are rich in resources (tim-
ber, mines, agricultural land), industries, large
landowners, and politicians also stake their
claims. Archaeologists may join the debate as
consultants or advocates, or they may adopt
a neutral stance; in any case, their work may
be seized upon or reinterpreted in ways they
never expected.
CLASSES OF EVIDENCE
Evidence of past human impacts and of
their long-term effects comes from a wide
range of sources, including environmental ar-
chaeology, paleoecology, history, geography,
geology, and cultural anthropology. Cate-
gories of data include botanical, faunal, and
geological observations from archaeological
sites and natural or off-site contexts (e.g., wet-
land cores, packrat middens); the distribution
of sites and landscape features (roads, paths,fields) that provide information on popula-
tion distribution, densities, and land use; cur-
rent vegetation patterning; experiments that
replicate natural and cultural processes and
their effects; and written and oral historical
references to past environments and land-use
practices.
For example, paleobotanical records from
site and off-site areas are used to reconstruct
the removal or burning of vegetation, the
introduction and spread of new species, the
cultivation or encouragement of wild and do-
mesticated plants, and the harvesting of wood
and other forest products for fuel, timber,
food, and medicine. These practices and theirlong-term effects are inferred from changes
in the types and frequencies of species rep-
resented (e.g., shade-tolerant versus light-
demanding, mesic versus xeric, fire-sensitive
versus fire-tolerant), changes in particle char-
coal accumulations at off-site areas (reflecting
possible changes in burning regimes), and evi-
dence for harvest strategies (e.g., collection of
dead wood or pruning that conserve woody
resources versus cutting down trees, shifts
through time to lower quality fuel types).Although the great majority of vegetation
histories are still derived from pollen, there
has been an increase in studies relying on
other microfossils, such as starch and phy-
toliths, as well as macrofossil wood and char-
coal from archaeological sites (Hather 1994,
Newsom 1993, Thiebault 2002). Geoarchae-
ological studies reveal the extent and timing
of erosion events that may be linked to de-
forestation or intensified agriculture, whereas
soil analyses are used to reconstruct the en-richment or depletion of soils through human
actions and their long-term effects (Adderley
et al. 2000, Beach et al. 2003, Glaser &
Woods 2004, Kristiansen 2001, Lehmann
et al. 2003b, Lopinot & Woods 1993, Sandor
1995, Simpson 1997, van Andel et al. 1990,
Woods 2004).
Faunal remains may also reflect environ-
mental or land-use changes. For example, the
kinds 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 & Kirch
1997, Peacock & Melsheimer 2003, Stahl
2000). Human impacts on fauna (e.g., intro-
duction of seed predators, extinction of seed
dispersers, declining human predation with
46 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
5/28
depopulation) 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 remote
sensing, which provide information on the
changes in land-use practices, human set-
tlements, and population dynamics through
time.
The combination of different lines of evi-
dence leads to more robust interpretations of
landscape histories, although there are rela-
tively few areas for which all potential sources
of information have been examined. Com-munication among researchers collecting dif-
ferent types of informationecologists and
archaeologists for exampleis often limited
because of traditional disciplinary boundaries
in universities, funding sources, and academic
literatures. Additionally, interdisciplinary re-
search at the landscape scale is costly. Poten-
tial sources of funding include new programs
on humans and the environment (e.g., the
Human and Social Dynamics area of the U.S.
National Science Foundation).
HUMAN IMPACTS ONVEGETATION
The section below introduces different kinds
of human impacts on vegetation. It begins
with the familiar examples of overexploitation
that resulted in deforestation, extinctions, and
degradation. I also include practices aimed
at increasing the abundance or reliability of
wild resources that had the effect of moresustainable exploitation, increased diversity,
soil improvement, or the creation of anthro-
pogenic environments that are valued habitats
today. Case studies follow with illustrations of
the complex interactions over time between
people and plants in a long acknowledged
cultural landscape (southern Sweden) and
in environments long perceived as pristine
(tropical forests).
Overexploitation
There are numerous studies of prehistoric
clearing and the overexploitation of plants
that resulted in lasting changes in soils, vege-tation, and wildlife, including the extirpation
or extinction of species as habitats were al-
tered or eliminated. A well-known example,
based primarily on pollen evidence, is the loss
of 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 created
canopy openings within the forest and along
forest 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 resulting
in 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) suggest
local deforestation and increased soil erosion
coincide with the rise in reliance on cultivated
species during the Middle Woodland occupa-
tion (100 b.c. to a.d. 400) of the Fort Ancient
site in southern Ohio. At Cahokia, a majorMississippian center ( a.d. 1050 to a.d. 1350),
residents deforested the area around them as
they opened fields and collected wood for fuel
and buildings, including the construction of
a 3 km wooden palisade using about 15,000
trees. The resultant erosion and increased
runoff triggered flooding that is linked to the
decline 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 nearby
seed sources for recolonization. Additional
problems (possible in any newly colonized
area, island, or continent) are the intro-
duction by humans of seed predators (do-
mesticated animals, rodents), or the loss of
seed dispersers due to hunting, predation by
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 47
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
6/28
introduced animals, introduced disease, or
habitat fragmentation and loss. The best
known case is Easter Island, where overex-
ploitation led to environmental degradation
and demographic and societal collapse (Flen-
ley & Bahn 2003, Kirch 1997). When visited
by European explorers in the early eighteenth
century, the island was described as covered ingrasslands and virtually treeless. Pollen and
sediment studies from wetland cores as well
as the analysis of charcoal from archaeological
sites reveal that the island was forested when
Polynesian colonists first arrived in the late
seventh century (the earliest reliable radiocar-
bon date). Trees were cleared for agriculture,
burned for fuel, and used to make objects such
as the large canoes necessary for open ocean
transportation and fishing. Deforestation and
erosion began around a.d. 800 and proceededslowlybutsurely; by themid-seventeenthcen-
tury, the forests were nearly depleted and had
been replaced by grasses and weeds. Forest
loss may have caused intermittent streams to
run dry, further changing theisland landscape.
The local extinction of 14 plant species was
detected in the charcoal record. One of the
lost trees was a species of palm; nuts recov-
ered from the archaeological record all show
evidence of rodent gnawing, and it is likely
that these seeds were consumed by the Poly-nesian rat (Rattus exulans) that arrived with the
islands colonists. The Polynesian rat is also
implicated in the dramatic decline of the low-
land forests of the Hawaiian Islands (Athens
et al. 2002).
Alternatives to Overexploitation
The preceding examples of overexploitation
are well known, and many others could be
given (Amorosi et al. 1997, Kohler 1992,Kohler-Rollefson & Rollefson 1990, Lageras
& Bartholin 2003, McGovern 1994, Miller
1990). For conservation purposes, they illus-
trate a lost past that may inform restoration
efforts and also serve as essential cautionary
tales on the environmental and human costs
of 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 that
maintained diversity or that resulted in the
creation of landscapes that are now valued
habitats. These examples have received less
attention, 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 harder
to study; it is perhaps easier to infer deple-
tion than conservation from the archaeologi-
cal record. Assumptions about human nature
or the nature of indigenous people (as in-
nately wasteful or destructive) also play a role
as Fairhead & Leach (1995) demonstrated in
their work in the Kissigoudou prefecture of
Guinea. Here, patches of forestsurrounded by
savannah had been characterized as the rem-nants of a vast forest that had been devastated
by local inhabitants. A close study of the his-
torical record and ethnographic observations
clearly demonstrated that the supposed for-
est remnants were in fact forest islands that
local 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 archaeological
records and help to balance our perceptions of
human impacts.
Maintaining woody resources. Human
needs for wood were not always met by cut-
ting down trees. Archaeobotanical studies of
charcoal can identify cases where dead wood,
recognizable through the growth of fungus or
the presence of insect holes, was collected for
fuel. Recent examples are described from the
coast of southeastern Brazil during the late
Holocene (Scheel-Ybert 2001) and from the
Neolithic site of C atalhoyuk East in Anato-lia (Asouti & Hather 2001). Driftwood was
used 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 southeastAlaska, occupied from a.d.
160 to 1420. Its importance as a fuel and raw
48 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
7/28
material is amply described in historical ac-
counts (Lepofsky et al. 2003b).
In other cases, branches rather than whole
trees were harvested and used for fuel and
fodder. Small branches were burned at the
Neolithic-Chalcolithic Pnarbas campsite in
Anatolia, and Asouti (2003) notes that for
these taxa (Pistacia, Amygdalus) pruning wouldhave stimulated flowering and seed produc-
tion, potentially increasing their local abun-
dance. Terral (2000) also infers from the
Bronze Age charcoal record from sites on
the Mediterranean coast of France and Spain
pruning was used to manage olive trees.
Some trees sprout vigorously from the
stump (called coppicing) or roots (suckering)
when cut down. If a high stump is left (to
keep the tender sprouts out of the reach of
grazing animals), the practice is termed pol-larding(Rackham 1998a). Coppicing and pol-
larding stimulate growth and extend the life
of trees (up to 1000 years for species stud-
ied in Europe), ensuring a rapidly renewable
and potentially sustainable supply of wood for
fuel, poles for construction, and branches for
fodder. Using written sources and fieldwork
on old coppiced trees, Rackham has painstak-
ingly documented the history of these prac-
tices and their ecology in Britain and the
Mediterranean (Rackham 1996, 1998a,b).Archaeological evidence for coppicing in
England extends back to the Neolithic [circa
(ca.) 5000 before present (b.p.)], when poles
were used to construct tracks for crossing the
wetlands at the Somerset Levels site (Coles
& Coles 1986). In pre-Columbian sites in
Florida and the Caribbean, the reliance on
mangrove for fuel over many generations
by growing populations without depletion is
also likely due to its prolific coppice growth
(Newsom 1993, Newsom & Wing 2004,Scarry & Newsom 1992). In some heavily
modified landscapes, the persistence of forest
patches into modern times may be due to cop-
picing management practices. This is clearly
the case in the highly managed coppice wood-
lands of Britain and the Mediterranean, where
ancient coppice stools (the stumps) are still
B.P.: before present
evident, but may also be true for other areas,
where coppicing has not persisted in recent
times or left such obvious evidence.
The renewable harvest of wood or bark is
also recorded in the Pacific Northwest and
northern Scandinavia, where the cambium
layer of certain conifers was consumed. It was
often removed in strips, which did not killthe tree but left a characteristic scar. Similarly,
Native Americans of the Great Basin removed
long, narrow pieces of wood to manufacture
bow staves from live junipers without killing
the tree. Examples of these culturally modi-
fiedtrees record past harvesting practicesand
are 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 species
were also transplanted, cultivated, tended
or encouraged, resulting in their potentially
sustainable use. For example, in the late
pre-Hispanic Andes, the Inka planted Bud-
dleia and possibly other trees for harvest
as fuelwood (Chepstow-Lusty & Winfield
2000, Hastorf & Johannessen 1996). There
are also many examples, both past and
present 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 certain
species, or increase their abundance, in areas
of human activity.
Both historical and archaeological evi-
dence point to the management of nut trees
by Native Americans in the eastern United
States (Scarry 2003). Two recent studiesprovide evidence for this practice by com-
paring the distribution of Native American
settlements and witness trees, interval
markers noted on the maps and notes of early
U.S. government surveyors. In southeastern
Pennsylvania, Black & Abrams (2001) com-
pared the spatial distribution of witness
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 49
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
8/28
trees recorded in the eighteenth century and
Susquehannock villages occupied in the late
sixteenth 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-
plained by topographic or edaphic differences.
This suggests their purposeful encourage-ment or cultivation, a practice recorded in
historical accounts. Similar observations were
made by Foster et al. (2004) in an analysis of
witness trees around historic Creek Indian vil-
lages in Alabama. Because witness tree records
are often used in the United States to establish
the natural baseline in long-term ecological
studies and for the purposes of restoration,
these examples highlight the importance of
understanding the many ways that landscapes
were shaped by indigenous inhabitants.Human manipulation of vegetation to in-
crease the production or reliability of wild
plant foods has a very deep history. Evidence
from throughout north temperate Europe, in-
dicates that late Mesolithic hunter gatherers
burned forests to create or maintain clearings
to attract game and to encourage grasses and
other open habitat species (such as hazel, val-
ued for its nuts) (Mason 2000, Mithen et al.
2001, Zvelebil 1995). It is also likely that they
cultivated or transplanted wild plants beyondtheir natural ranges. Archaeologists are in-
creasingly paying attention to the ways that
hunter-gatherers manipulate plant resources
to increase their abundance or reliability, what
Smith (2001) refers to as low level food pro-
duction. These activities suggest that the
presumed natural (prefarming) pollen base-
line used in vegetation history studies may in
fact reflect a landscape that had already been
significantly altered by people.
Other archaeological and paleoecologicalexamples of the tending or cultivation of
wild and semidomesticated trees are reported
for the Pacific Islands (Latinis 2000), Japan
(Kitagawa et al. 2004), the Caribbean
(Newsom & Pearsall 2003, Newsom & Wing
2004), the Maya region (discussed below), and
Spain and Portugal (Harrison 1996).
Burning. The use of prescribed burning is a
muchdebatedissueinecologyandforestman-
agement, particularly in areas prone to major
wildfires that threaten people, property, and
forests. In the United States, the likelihood
of catastrophic fires increased with the prac-
tice of fire suppression that interrupted the
natural and cultural fire regimes of the pastand resulted in large fuel accumulations. Fire
history and the presence or absence of anthro-
pogenic burning in the past informs decisions
about forest and grassland management to-
day as well as decisions concerning how or
whether prescribed burning should be carried
out.
Fire histories are generally based on the
analysis of off-site evidence, such as charcoal
and pollen from wetland cores, or fire scar
sequences from trees, together with histori-cal evidence on fire frequency, lightning fre-
quency, and human burning practices. This
information is compared against climatic re-
constructions to identify periods of drying
that mayhave increased the probability of nat-
ural (lightning) ignitions.Evidence for human
versus natural ignition is inferred, for exam-
ple, by an increase in charcoal accumulations
accompanied by the presence of pollen from
cultigens, suggesting burning to clear and pre-
pare land for crops. The use of archaeologi-cal evidence to reconstruct fire histories has
been largely indirect, such as the coincidence
in timing for an increase in fire frequency
with human colonization or the expansion of
agricultural settlements. On-site archaeologi-
cal evidence alone may not be sufficient to re-
construct burning history, but it contributes
to the interpretation of off-site evidence.
In Southern Appalachia, archaeological
and paleoecological evidence has been
combined to argue for the effects of hu-man actions, including burning, on forest
composition in the Late Archaic and Early
Woodland periods beginning 3000 b.p.
(Delcourt & Delcourt 1997, 1998a,b;
Delcourt et al. 1998). On the basis of off-site
pollen and charcoal records, the location
of settlements, and the reconstruction of
50 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
9/28
farming and hunting practices from archae-
ological remains, researchers inferred that
fire was used to clear small garden plots
and to create open grassy areas to attract
game on upper slopes and ridgetops. This
action encouraged the growth of fire tolerant
oaks, chestnut, and pine. Mixed mesophytic
forest persisted on the lower slopes and inravines, resulting in a diverse vegetation
mosaic. Recently, fire-adapted species have
been declining owing to the low incidence
of lightning along with fire suppression in
the twentieth century. The persistence of
valuable fire-adapted species as major forest
components and the preservation of the
landscape mosaic may therefore depend on
prescribed burning.
CASE STUDIES
The complex role of people in landscape his-
tory is perhaps best illustrated through more
extended presentation of case studies. I begin
with an area where the human role in shap-
ing the landscape has long been recognized
southern Swedenand discuss how a histor-
ical perspective has been used to address cur-
rent conservationconcerns. I then discuss how
archaeology informs our understanding and
perceptions of tropical forests, where the hu-man role in shaping landscapes over time is
still debated and closely linked to alarm over
the rapid rate of modern deforestation and re-
sultant conflicts over how forests should be
managed and protected.
Anthropogenic Landscapes:Southern Sweden
A key conservation concern in southern
Sweden has been the decline of rich decidu-ous forests and their replacement by species
poor forests dominated by spruce (Picea)
or beech (Fagus). Although partly explained
by natural causes (climate-driven continen-
tal scale migrations) and recent forestry prac-
tices, this transformation has also been linked
to past land uses, including grazing, burning,
and clearance for agriculture (Bjorkman &
Bradshaw 1996; Bjorse & Bradshaw 1998;
Lageras 1996; Lindbladh & Bradshaw 1995,
1998; Lindbladh et al. 2000; Mikusinski et al.
2003). The remaining patches of mixed de-
ciduous forest can also be partly attributed to
cultural causes.
In a remote sensing study, Mikunsinskiet al. (2003) noted that today stands of de-
ciduous forest, often with old trees, are con-
centrated around villages where trees would
have been retained for practical, aesthetic,
and cultural reasons. This distribution is also
explained by the differential management of
lands dating back to the Medieval period, if
not earlier, when infields included intensively
farmed cereal fields and hay meadows for win-
ter fodder production, and outfields were used
for forest grazing and slash and burn agricul-ture. Historical sources suggest that conifers
that sprouted in infields were weeded out be-
cause of the high acid and low nutrient con-
tent of their litter, reducing their spread into
maintained deciduous patches.
Lindbladh & Bradshaw (1995, 1998) com-
pared pollen evidence from one infield and
two outfield areas at neighboring estates in
Smaland. They found that prior to a.d. 1100
all areas were covered by mixed deciduous
forests. After that date the pollen evidencefrom the infield suggests the creation and pro-
longed (800 years) management of a mosaic
of meadows, fields, pastures, and pollarded
trees that supporteda high diversityof 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 of
the meadow system) declined with the spread
of the black death. In contrast to the infields,
the outfields maintained continuous forestcover, and there was no evidence for intensive
grazingashasbeenobservedintheoutfieldsof
other regions. Conifers first gained a foothold
in these forests around a.d. 1400. Slash and
burn agriculture was practiced in outfields
during the eighteenth and nineteenth cen-
tury, and once outfields were abandoned,
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 51
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
10/28
conifers spread and dominated regenerating
forests.
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 seminatural
grasslands. Eriksson et al. (2002) observe that
natural grasslands predate human occupa-tion of southern Scandinavia, but they argue
that grassland habitats and connectivity in-
creased with human management (mowing
and grazing) datingas farback 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 (Eriksson
et al. 2002). The high diversity found in these
areas is now sharply declining; in Sweden,
the loss of seminatural grasslands over the
past 80 years is estimated at approximately90% (Eriksson et al. 2002), owing to forest
encroachment once grazing or other main-
tenance ceases and to direct conversion to
agricultural fields or plantations. This decline
in grassland habitats and connectivity has re-
sulted in an increase in local extinction rates
and a decrease in species richness. Historical
studies, including archaeology and paleoecol-
ogy, reveal how these landscapes evolved and
how they might be preserved.
Anthropogenic Landscapes:Tropical Forests
Tropical forests today are valued for the
abundance, uniqueness, or diversity of the
plant and animal life they support and
for their large-scale effects on atmospheric
processes and conditions. As such, they
have 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 that
were subjected to European colonial expan-
sion that resulted in (a) the abandonment of
land (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 indigenous
inhabitants.
Efforts to emphasize the natural charac-
ter of tropical forests are also spurred by the
real threats posed by logging, urbanization,intensive agriculture, and the conversion of
forest to pasturelands. Many fear that ac-
knowledging the human past of wild areas will
be used to justify their intensive use today.
These fears are valid because arguments of
this 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 discussion
in Fritz 2000)]. But the response should be
more research, not less, on historical humanimpacts (which in some areas may in fact be
minimal) to understand current landscapes
and to identify alternatives to destructive
contemporary land-use practices. Increas-
ingly, conservationists are realizing that strict
preservation (whether desirable or not) is not
feasible for most of the worlds tropical forest
areas.
Toward these ends, there has been a
growth in research by both natural and so-
cial scientists on forest history and the role ofdisturbances both natural and cultural, such as
fire, hurricanes, logging, clearing for agricul-
ture and grazing, and their interactions. How
do 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 areex-
amples of both degradation and enhancement
in the past, and how might this knowledge
inform contemporary land use (e.g., by illus-
trating possible lower impact alternatives todeforestation)?
Disturbance. Whitmore & Burslem (1998)
reviewed evidence on the significance of
large-scale disturbances on the structure and
composition of tropical rainforests. Distur-
bances are events that create gaps in the
52 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
11/28
forest canopy; an example of a small-scale nat-
ural disturbance would be an individual tree
fall. Small-scale disturbances occur with high
frequency 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 activities
such as clearing plots for agriculture and log-ging. These rarer disturbances, with return
intervals of decades or centuries, appear to
be important components of forest history
in most if not all tropical areas. Clearings
or gaps in the canopy encourage the estab-
lishment of more light-demanding trees and
understory species or recruitment of estab-
lished seedlings and saplings of shade toler-
ant species. Small gaps tend to favor shade-
tolerant species, whereas larger disturbances
that destroy understory vegetation result inthe establishment and numerical dominance
of light-demanding trees. If these trees are al-
lowed to grow (e.g., in a swidden system with
a long fallow period or under natural distur-
bance regimes), the result is a mosaic of forest
patches in different stages of succession. Simi-
lar disturbance dynamics have been examined
for other kinds of forests.
Solomon Islands. These ideas are explored
in the Marovo Lagoon region of the SolomonIslands by Bayliss-Smith et al. (2003). The
study 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 World
Heritage Area. Historical sources suggest that
in ca. 1800, before intensive European con-
tact, local inland residents relied on irrigated
pondfields (taro), mixed bush fallow swidden
farming (mainly dryland taro and yams), and
the 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 eventual
abandonment of the inland area by the late
nineteenth century, and the remaining popu-
lation moved toward the coast. Cleared areas
of the forest regenerated, resulting in the ap-
parent wilderness seen today. Archaeological
surveyconfirms theinland presence of numer-
ous settlements, forts, ceremonial grounds,
taro terraces, and nut groves. The locations
of settlements correlate with patches of forest
dominated by Campnosperma brevipetoliata, a
light-demanding species that recruits well inareas of large-scale disturbance. In this case,
the forest gaps colonized by Campnosperma
were probably abandoned swidden fields. The
authors argue that the anthropogenic distur-
bance history of these forests indicates greater
resilience than is commonly acknowledged
and they suggest that some relatively light
forest disturbance activities, such as reduced-
impact logging, may be viable and sustainable
land-use options today.
In the Solomon Islands, populationdeclineand reforestation occurred within the past 200
years. The Maya forest and the wealth of ar-
chaeological, paleocological, and ecological
studies that have been conducted present the
opportunity to explore an example of long-
term forest history and the dynamics of peo-
ple, plants, landscape, and climate (Gomez-
Pompa et al. 2003, Turner et al. 2004)
Maya: deforestation and recovery. In theMaya Lowlands, where a series of lake core
studies (primarily from the Peten) com-
plements decades of archaeological survey
and excavations, four general periods in the
Holocene history of the forests can be dis-
cerned (Brenner et al. 1990, Curtis et al. 1998,
Dunning et al. 1998,Islebe et al. 1996, Leyden
1987):
1. A prehuman landscape, when the
pollen of mature forest species is most
prevalent;
2. A prolonged episode of clearing seen
as a decrease in the abundance of high
forest species and as an increase in dis-
turbance taxa (grasses, weeds) and in
secondary forest taxa, attributable to
human entry in the region, aswell as the
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 53
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
12/28
establishment and spread of agriculture
near settlements;
3. A period of increased deforestation de-
tected as a dramatic drop in tree pollen
abundance (both mature and secondary
forest taxa), a rise in grass, weeds, and
maize pollen, as well as widespread soil
erosion, seen as a thick layer of Mayaclay in many of the lake cores; and fi-
nally
4. Reforestation, when both high and sec-
ondary forest taxa rebounded. Maize
pollen persisted.
Reforestation has been dated to either the
period following the Classic Maya collapse of
ca. a.d. 8001000, or much later, on the heels
of the Spanish invasion in the seventeenth
century. This discrepancy can be attributed tothe lack of absolute dates for the early cores
together with the fact that some areas con-
tinued to be occupied and farmed through-
out the Postclassic (i.e., recovery took place at
different rates in different places). A recent,
well-dated core from the large Lake Peten Itza
indicates that reforestation of at least some ar-
eas began ca. 1100 to 1000 b.p., following the
Classic Maya collapse (Curtis et al. 1998).
Forest recovery is typically attributed to
the decrease in population following the col-lapse, but changes in forest composition also
suggest a possible alteration of farming prac-
tices, which were based primarily on swidden
in the upland areas and supplemented by wet-
land agriculture in the low-lying, seasonally
flooded bajos, terracing of upland slopes, and
agroforesty (in swidden fields and house gar-
dens) (Whitmore & Turner 2001). The very
low abundance of both mature and secondary
tree taxa during the period of maximum dis-
turbance suggests both increased clearing anda shortening of fallow periods. The recovery
of both mature and secondary forest taxa dur-
ing the last phase together with the continued
presence of maize suggest (a) that less total
area was cultivated with more areas convert-
ing to mature forest and (b) a return to longer
periods of fallow, enabled by population de-
clines but perhaps also reflecting a cultural re-
sponse to the crisis of soil and forest loss.
Ecologistshave pondered the reforestation
of the Maya region. How did it take place?
One possibility is that the uplands were recol-
onized by trees from the less heavily farmed
bajos, as suggested by Perez-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 argues
for an upland seed source during postcollapse
reforestation. Other possible seed sources
were managed plots dominated by economic
species, such as house gardens, tended groves,
and forest gardens resulting from selec-
tive cutting and planting of trees in swidden
fields (Gomez-Pompa et al. 1990, Lentz et al.
2000, McKillop 1994, Peters 2000, Turner &Misicek 1984). Also important were the
forested, unoccupied areas between compet-
ing polities that served as both buffer zones
and battlegrounds (Taube 2003). Forests were
conceptualized by the ancient Maya as sinister
places, 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 of
forests were preserved out of respect for and
fear of wild and human threats. Finally its im-portant to note that the collapse was not a sin-
gle, brief event. Instead, the abandonment of
major centers and shifts in population took
place 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 helped
to preserve biodiversity.
Other land-use legacies that potentially af-
fected the recovery of the Maya forest andits current structure and composition were
changes in soils and topography from upland
erosion and aggradation in lakes and bajos
(Beach 1998, Beach et al. 2003, Dunning &
Beach 2000), the construction in some areas
of soil conservation features (terraces, check
dams) that captured eroded sediments (Beach
54 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
13/28
et 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 of
microenvironments on the ruins themselves.
Certain tree species (notably ramon or Brosi-
mum alicastrum) prefer the edaphic conditions
of the high limestone structures (Lambert &Arnason 1982, Schulze & Whitacre 1999),
and their seeds are dispersed by bats, who feed
on the fruit and reside in the ruins (Peters
2000).
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 has
lasting effects, (b) a recovered forest may be
different from the forest prior to intensive use
(evenwith significant populationdecline),and
(c) the conservation and recovery of biodiver-sity maybe dependenton thepurposeful culti-
vation and tending of plants, changes in land-
use practices, reduced or shifting populations
over long periods of time to allow for local
and regional recovery, and the preservation of
uninhabited areas (the buffer zones).
Amazonia: anthropogenic forests and
soils. Perhaps the one area where the pristine
character of the forest has been most heatedly
debated 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 severely
limiting conditions for foraging and farm-
ing. Yet ethnographic and archaeological re-
search has repeatedly demonstrated how peo-
ple transformed or enhanced the Amazonian
landscape, both creating and managing re-
sources (Balee 1993, Denevan 2001, Erickson
2000, 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 intentional
human actions have resulted in composition-
ally distinct patches or stands of plants. These
anthropogenicforestsmaycover12%ormore
ADE: Amazoniandark earth
of the Amazon forest (Balee 1989). Some
species, including the babacu palm (Orbignya
phalerata), readily colonize burned clearings
such as fallows, and populations may expand
in 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. Game
animals are also attracted to the high abun-
dance of fruits at these sites, and some disperse
seeds in the immediate area, further enriching
the stand. Old habitation sites (whether tem-
porary or permanent) and fallows thus form
resource-rich patches, which may be revisited
or reoccupied over generations.
Clearly, not all patches of useful species
have 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 soil
of ridgetops, whereas moriche palm (Mauri-
tia flexuosa) is abundant in poorly drained
areas. Animals create aggregations by de-
positing the seeds of palms and other trees
in the areas of consumption [e.g., agoutis
(Silvius & Fragoso 2003)] or at distant la-
trine sites [e.g., tapirs (Fragoso et al. 2003)].Babacu readily sprouts in fallows, but it does
not 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 activity
or when quantifying areas of anthropogenic
forest, just as studies of natural aggrega-
tions and diversity need to consider possible
cultural origins.
The antiquity of management practices
is inferred from (a) the presence in archae-ological sites of the remains of plants that
are managed today (Morcote-Rios & Bernal
2001, Oliver 2001, Politis 2001, Scheel-Ybert
2001) and (b) the association of stands of use-
ful plants with archaeological sites, particu-
larly with Amazonian dark earth (ADE) de-
posits (Balee 1989, Clement et al. 2003), most
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 55
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
14/28
of which are between 500 and 2500 years old
(Neves et al. 2003).
ADEs are fertile anthrosols capable of
much higher production than the natural up-
land (terra firme) soils. They are character-
ized by a high charcoal content and other
organic 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 and
the organic trash (bone, shell and plant re-
mains, nightsoil, ashes, construction material)
typically generated at settlements (Erickson
2003). The lighter, more extensive, and ar-
tifact free terra mulata was probably formed
through agricultural practices (and enabled
short cropping/short fallow) with the additionof charred plant remains, ash, compost, and
mulch (Denevan 2004). Both types of ADEs
were likely farmed in the past, and remark-
ably, they continue to maintain their fertility
into the present (Glaser et al. 2003). The pro-
ductive potential of ADE has been linked to
the development of complex societies in the
ancient 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 the
promise of slowing the rate of deforestation
by providing an alternative to more exten-
sive, unsustainable land-use practices (Madari
et al. 2004, Soembroek et al. 2003, Steiner
et al. 2004). Uncertainty remains about the
processes by which ADE is formed, as well
as the time required for transformation of
weathered, nutrient-poor Amazonian soils to
nutrient-rich, stable ADEs, doubts that could
in part be resolved through continued exami-nation of the archaeological evidence.
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION
In the preceding sections, I presented ex-
amples of the ways that archaeology can
contribute to understanding the long-term
dynamics of people, plants, and landscapes.
It is a source of information on land-use
practices (burning, grazing, cultivation) that
shifted vegetation composition and succes-
sion and that sometimes resulted in overex-
ploitation, degradation, and extinctions. Ar-
chaeology also shows us how people in the
past maintained, increased, or protected plantresources resulting in long-term, sustainable
harvest and the creation of patches of cer-
tain species, fire-adapted forests, or grasslands
and other open habitats. In some cases, the
anthropogenic origins of seemingly natural
landscapes are only now being recognized and
investigated. 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 grasslands
of southern Scandinavia provide one such ex-ample, as do the fire-adapted forests of South-
ern Appalachia. The managed woodlands of
Europe also suffer from neglect, partly inten-
tional and derived from a desire to return
these woods to nature, resulting in the loss of
species (Rackham 1998a).
In considering anthropogenic landscapes,
it is important to emphasize that not all hu-
man disturbance is the same, and different
practices can have very different effects. For
example, the discovery of artifacts or ancientsettlements deep in a forest by itself tells us
nothing about the extent and kinds of human
impacts nor about forest resilience and recov-
ery. Thus for archaeology and other historical
disciplines to inform modern decision mak-
ing, we need to be as specific and accurate as
possible about the events and processes of the
past and their environmental, ecosystemic,
and cultural contexts. Some restorations
may not be feasible at present because cli-
mates have changed. Current proposed eco-nomic uses (e.g., logging) may have radically
different effects than uses (e.g., farming) in
the past. Species reintroductions may fail be-
cause key components of past ecosystems are
missing or cannot be replicated. It may be dif-
ficult to revive past cultural practices, even if
they are seen as desirable from a conservation
56 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
15/28
point of view, because of radical differences
in human values, social organization, and new
economic and political realities.
We also need to understand how the past
informs contemporary decision making be-
cause of the different spins put on the dis-
covery that a landscape is not pristine or that
people manipulated nature. It can be used inseveral ways:
To depict indigenous people as de-
spoilers of the land, influencing public
opinion and creating possible grounds
for denying land or resource use
rights (see examples in Head 1989,
Head 1990, Spriggs 2001). Head (1990)
notes that this same logic is not used
to question the rights of European
colonizers.
To excuse modern destructive land-use practices or episodes of pollution
on the principle that the land was al-
ready spoiled (Wooley 2002). A variant
argues that intensive logging is justi-
fied because forests have recovered in
the past (without regard for the con-
ditions or extent of past deforestation
or the conditions and time needed for
recovery).
As justification for modern develop-
ment (logging, mining) on the grounds
that these practices mimic natural pro-
cesses and indigenous practices [e.g.,
the equation of clear cutting with
natural and anthropogenic burning
(Bonnicksen 1994)]. A variant argues
that modern genetic modification ofcrops mimics ancient practices (early
domestication) and is therefore time
tested and safe (Fedoroff 2003).
History matters in understanding ecosys-
tems, in formulating management plans and
policy, in shaping public opinion, in reinforc-
ing or negating indigenous rights, and in ne-
glecting certain landscapes because they are
not natural enough or in degrading others be-
cause they are not pristine. As archaeologists
take a larger role in research relevant to cur-rent environmental and land-use issues, the
intersection 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 deliberately
misusing them. Only by takingactiveroles can
we shape how our research results are inter-
preted in public discourse and applied to pol-
icy outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Anne Buchanan, Clark Erickson, Lee Newsom, David Webster, and especially
Mark 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 compile
and organize the references.
LITERATURE CITED
Adderley 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. 28:41531
Alcoze T. 2003. First Peoples in the pines: historical ecology of humans and ponderosas. In
Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests, ed. P Friederici, pp. 4857.
Washington DC: Island Press
Alcoze T, Hurteau M. 2001. Implementing the archaeo-environmental reconstruction tech-
nique: rediscovering the historic ground layer of three plant communities in the Greater
Grand Canyon region. See Egan & Howell 2001, pp. 41324
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 57
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
16/28
Allen MF, Gomez-Pompa A, Fedick SL, Jimenez-Osornio JJ. 2003. The Maya Lowlands: a
case study for the future? Conclusions. See Gomez-Pompa et al. 2003, pp. 62334
Amorosi T, Buckland P, Dugmore AJ, Ingimundarson JH, McGovern TH. 1997. Raiding the
landscape: human impact in the Scandinavian North Atlantic. Hum. Ecol. 25:491518
Anderson MK, Barbour M. 2003. Simulated indigenous management: a new model for eco-
logical restoration in national parks. Ecol. Restor. 21:26977
Asouti E. 2003. Woodland vegetation and fuel exploitation at the prehistoric campsite of
Pnarbas, south-central Anatolia, Turkey: the evidence from the wood charcoal macro-remains. J. Archaeol. Sci. 30:1185201
Asouti 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 site
of C atalhoyuk East. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 10:2332
Athens JS, Tuggle HD, Ward JV, Welch DJ. 2002. Avifaunal extinctions, vegetation change,
and Polynesian impacts in prehistoric Hawaii. Archaeol. Ocean. 37:5778
Balee W. 1989. The culture of Amazonian forests. In Resource Management in Amazonia: In-
digenous and Folk Strategies, ed. DA Posey, W Balee, pp. 121. New York: NY Bot. Garden
Balee W. 1993. Indigenous transformations of Amazonian forests: an example from Maranhao,
Brazil. LHomme 33:23154
Balee W, ed. 1998a. Advances in Historical Ecology. New York: Columbia Univ. PressBalee W, ed. 1998b. Introduction. See Balee 1998a, pp. 110
Barnosky AD, Koch PL, Feranec RS, Wing SL, Shabel AB. 2004. Assessing the causes of
Pleistocence extinctions on continents. Science 306:6875
Bayliss-Smith T, Hviding E, Whitmore T. 2003. Rainforest composition and histories of
human disturbance in Solomon Islands. Ambio 32:34652
Beach T. 1998. Soil catenas, tropical deforestation, and ancient and contemporary soil erosion
in the Peten, Guatemala. Phys. Geogr. 19:378405
Beach T, Dunning N, Luzzadder-Beach S, Scarborough V. 2003. Depression soils of the
lowland tropics of northwestern Belize: anthropogenic and natural origins. See G omez-
Pompa et al. 2003, pp. 13974
Beach 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.
92:37297
Bjorkman L, Bradshaw R. 1996. The immigration ofFagus sylvatica L. andPicea abies(L.) Karst.
into a natural forest stand in southern Sweden during the last 2000 years. J. Biogeogr.
23:23544
Bjorse G, Bradshaw R. 1998. 2000 years of forest dynamics in southern Sweden: suggestions
for forest management. For. Ecol. Manag. 104:1526
Black B, Abrams MD. 2001. Influences of Native Americans and surveyor biases on metes and
bounds witness-tree distribution. Ecology 82:257486
Bonnicksen TM. 1994. Natures clearcuts: lessons from the past. In Closer Look: An On-the-
Ground Investigation of the Sierra Clubs Book, Clearcut, ed. American Forest and PaperAssociation, pp. 2228. Washington, DC: Am. For. Pap. Assoc.
Brenner M, Leyden B, Binford MW. 1990. Recent sedimentary histories of shallow lakes in
the Guatemalan savannas. J. Paleolimnol. 4:23952
Brown T. 1997. Clearances and clearings: deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain. Oxford
J. Archaeol. 16:13346
Chepstow-Lusty A, Winfield M. 2000. Inca agroforestry: lessons from the past. Ambio 29:322
28
58 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
17/28
Clement C, McCann JM, Smith NJH. 2003. Agrobiodiversity in Amazonia and its relationship
with dark earths. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 15978Coles B. 1988. Fossil insect assemblages from the Somerset Levels: the work of Maureen
Girling. Exploitation of Woodlands. Symp. Assoc. Environ. Archaeol. 7, ed. P Murphy, C
French, pp. 517. Oxford: BARColes B, Coles J. 1986. Sweet Track to Glastonbury. London: Thames & HudsonCousins SAO, Eriksson A, Franzen D. 2002. Reconstructing past land use and vegetation
patterns using palaeogeographical and archaeological data: a focus on grasslands in Nynasby the Baltic Sea in south-eastern Sweden. Landsc. Urban Plan. 61:118Cox 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. A
multi-proxy study of Holocene environmental change in the Maya Lowlands of Peten,
Guatemala. J. Paleolimnol. 19:13959Delcourt HR, Delcourt PA. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American use of fire on southern
Appalachian landscapes. Conserv. Biol. 11:101014Delcourt PA, Delcourt HR. 1998a. The influence of prehistoric human-set fires on oak-
chestnut forests in the southern Appalachians. Castanea 63:33745Delcourt PA, Delcourt HR. 1998b. Paleoecological insights on conservation of biodiversity: a
focus on species, ecosystems, and landscapes. Ecol. Appl. 8:92134Delcourt PA, Delcourt HR, Ison CR, Sharp WE, Gremillion KJ. 1998. Prehistoric human use
of fire, the eastern agricultural complex, and Appalachian oak-chestnut forests: paleoecol-
ogy of Cliff Palace Pond, Kentucky. Am. Antiq. 63:26378Denevan WM. 1992. The pristine myth: the landscape of the Americas in 1492. Ann. Assoc.
Am. Geogr. 82:36985Denevan WM. 2001. Cultivated landscapes of native Amazonia and the Andes. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. PressDenevan WM. 2004. Semi-intensive pre-European cultivation and the origins of anthro-
pogenic dark earths in Amazonia. See Glaser & Woods 2004, pp. 13543Desender K, Ervynck A, Tack G. 1999. Beetle diversity and historical ecology of woodlands in
Flanders. Belg. J. Zool. 129:13956Dickson C. 2000. The decline of woodland in Orkney: early Neolithic to late Iron Age. In
People as an Agent of Environmental Change, ed. RA Nicholson, TP OConnor, pp. 3744.
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 Maya
Lowlands. Lat. Am. Antiq. 5:5169
Dunning N, Beach T. 2000. Stability and instability in prehispanic Maya landscapes. See Lentz2000, pp. 179202
Dunning N, Rue DJ, Beach T, Covich A, Traverse A. 1998. Human-environment interactions
in a tropical watershed: the paleoecology of Laguna Tamarindito, El Peten, Guatemala.
J. Field Archaeol. 25:13951Egan D. 2003. Defining cultural and ethnographic landscapes. Ecol. Restor. 21:25860Egan D, Howell EA, eds. 2001. The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationists Guide to Ref-
erence Ecosystems. Washington DC: Island Press
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 59
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
18/28
Erickson C. 2000. An artificial landscape-scale fishery in the Bolivian Amazon.Nature 408:190
93
Erickson C. 2003. Historical ecology and future explorations. See Lehmann et al. 2003b,
pp. 455500
Eriksson O, Cousins SAO, Bruun HH. 2002. Land-use history and fragmentation of tradition-
ally managed grasslands in Scandinavia. J. Veg. Sci. 13:74348
Erlandson, JM. 2005. History matters: connecting the past, present, and future.Anthropol. News
Jan.:56Fairhead J, Leach M. 1995. Reading forest history backwards: the interaction of policy and
local land use in Guineas forest-savanna mosaic, 18931993. Environ. Hist. 1:5591
Fedoroff NV. 2003. Prehistoric GM corn. Science 302:115859
Fiedel S, Haynes G. 2004. A premature burial: comments on Grayson and Meltzers Requiem
for overkill. J. Archaeol. Sci. 31:12131
Fisher CT, Feinman GM. 2005. Introduction to Landscapes over Time. Am. Anthropol.
107:6269
Flenley J, Bahn P. 2003. The Enigmas of Easter Island. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Foster DR.2000a. Conservationlessons and challenges from ecological history.For. Hist. Today.
Fall:211
Foster DR. 2000b. From bobolinks to bears: interjecting geographical history into ecologicalstudies, environmental interpretation, and conservation planning. J. Biogeogr. 27:2730
Foster DR, Aber JD. 2004. Forests in Time. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Foster DR, Swanson F, Aber J, Burke I, Brokaw N, et al. 2003. The importance of land-use
legacies to ecology and conservation. BioScience 53:7788
Foster HT II, Black B, Abrams MD. 2004. A witness tree analysis of the effects of Native
American Indians on the pre-European settlement forests in east-central Alabama. Hum.
Ecol. 32:2747
Fragoso JMV, Silvius KM, Correa JA. 2003. Long-distance seed dispersal by tapirs increases
seed survival and aggregates tropical trees. Ecology 84:19982006
Fritz, GJ. 2000. Levels of native biodiversity in Eastern North America. See Minnis and Elisens
2000, pp. 223247Glaser B, Guggenberger G, Zech W, Ruivo ML. 2003. Soil organic matter stability in Ama-
zonian dark earths. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 14158
Glaser B, Woods WI. 2004. Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in Space and Time. Berlin:
Springer
Gomez-Pompa A, Allen MF, Fedick SL, Jimenez-Osornio JJ, eds. 2003. The Lowland Maya
Area: Three Millennia at the Human-Wildland Interface. New York: Haworth
Gomez-Pompa A, Salvador Flores J, Aliphat Fernandez M. 1990. The sacred cacao groves of
the Maya. Lat. Am. Antiq. 1:24757
Grayson DK, Meltzer DJ. 2003. A requiem for North American overkill. J. Archaeol. Sci.
30:58593
Grayson DK, Meltzer DJ. 2004. North American overkill continued? J. Archaeol. Sci. 31:13336
Harrison RJ. 1996. Arboriculture in Southwest Europe: dehesasas managed woodlands. In The
Origins and Spread of Agriculture and Pastoralism in Eurasia, ed. DR Harris. London: UCL
Press
Hastorf CA, Johannessen S. 1996. Understanding changing people/plant relationships in the
prehispanic Andes. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: A Reader, ed. RW Preucel, I
Hodder, pp. 6178. Oxford: Blackwell
60 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
19/28
Hather JG, ed. 1994. Tropical Archaeobotany: Applications and New Developments. London: Rout-
ledgeHead L. 1989. Prehistoric aboriginal impacts on Australian vegetation: an assessment of the
evidence. Aust. Geogr. 20:3746Head L. 1990. Conservation and aboriginal land rights: when green is not black. Aust. Nat.
Hist. 23:44854Head 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. 4863Hunt TL, Kirch PV. 1997. The historical ecology of Ofu Island, American Samoa, 3000 B.P.
to the present. See Kirch & Hunt 1997, pp. 10523Islebe GA, Hooghiemstra H, Brenner M, Curtis JH, Hodell DA. 1996. A Holocene vegetation
history from lowland Guatemala. Holocene 63:20023Kay 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.
99:3042Kirch PV, Hunt TL. 1997. Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and
Landscape 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 forest
dynamics and the cultivation of Japanese horse chestnut (Aesculus turbinata). Veg. Hist.
Archaeobot. 13:10514Kohler TA. 1992. Prehistoric human impacton the environment in the upland North American
Southwest. Popul. Environ. 13:25568Kohler-Rollefson I, Rollefson GO. 1990. The impact of Neolithic subsistence strategies on
the environment: the case of Ain Ghazal, Jordan. In Mans Role in the Shaping of the
Eastern 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 103:27389Lageras P. 1996. Farming and forest dynamics in southern Sweden since 5000 BC. Holocene
6:30114Lageras P, Bartholin T. 2003. Fire and stone clearance in Iron Age agriculture: new insights
inferred from theanalysis of terrestrial macroscopic charcoal in clearancecairns in Haneda,
southern Sweden. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 12:8392Lambert JDH, Arnason JT. 1982. Ramon and Maya ruins: an ecological, not an economic
relation. Science 216:29899Latinis DK. 2000. The development of subsistence system models for Island Southeast Asia
and Near Oceania: the nature and role of arboriculture and arboreal-based economies.
World Archaeol. 32:4167
Lauwerier RCGM, Plug I. 2004. The Future from the Past: Archaeozoology in Wildlife Conservationand Heritage Management. Oxford: Oxbow Books
Lehmann J, Kern DC, German L, McCann J, Coimbra Martins G, Moreira A. 2003a. Soil
fertility and production potential. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 10524Lehmann 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. New
York: Columbia Univ. Press
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 61
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
20/28
Lentz DL, Haddad L, Cherpelis S, Joo HJM, Potter M. 2000. Long-term influences of ancient
Maya 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. 43141. Athens, GA: Int. Soc. Ethnobiol.Lepofsky D, Heyerdahl EK, Lertzman K, Schaepe D, Mierendorf B. 2003a. Historical meadow
dynamics in southwest British Columbia: a multidisciplinary analysis. Conserv. Ecol. 7(5):
http://www.consecol.org/vol7/iss3/art5
Lepofsky D, Lyons N, Moss ML. 2003b. The use of driftwood on the North Pacific Coast: anexample from Southeast Alaska. J. Ethnobiol. 23:12541Leyden BW. 1987. Man and climate in the Maya Lowlands. Quat. Res. 28:40714Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R. 1995. The development and demise of a medieval forest-meadow
system. Veg. Hist. Archaeobot. 4:15360Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R. 1998. The origin of present forest composition and pattern in
southern Sweden. J. Biogeogr. 25:46377Lindbladh M, Bradshaw R, Holmqvist BH. 2000. Pattern and process in south Swedish forests
during the last 3000 years, sensed at stand and regional scales. J. Ecol. 88:11328Lopinot NH, Woods WI. 1993. Wood overexploitation and the collapse of Cahokia. See CM
Scarry 1993, pp. 206231Louwe Kooijmans LP. 1995. Prehistory or paradise? Prehistory as a reference for modern
nature development, the Dutch case. Meded. Rijks Geol. Dienst52:41524Lyman RL. 1996. Applied zooarchaeology: the relevance of faunal analysis to wildlife manage-
ment. World Archaeol. 28:11025Lyman 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 Green
Debate. 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. 16981Martin PS, Steadman DW. 1999. Prehistoric extinctions on islands and continents. In Extinc-
tions in Near Time, ed. RDE MacPhee, pp. 1755. New York: KluwerMason SLR. 2000. Fire and Mesolithic subsistencemanaging oaks for acorns in northwest
Europe? Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 164:13950McEwan 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. 12754McKillop H. 1994. Ancient Maya tree cropping. Anc. Mesoam. 5:12940McLauchlan K. 2003. Plant cultivation and forest clearance by prehistoric North Americans:
pollen evidence from Fort Ancient, Ohio, USA. Holocene 13:55766Mikusinski G, Angelstam P, Sporrong U. 2003. Distribution of deciduous stands in villages
located in coniferous forest landscapes in Sweden. Ambio 32:52026
Miller NF. 1990. Clearing land for farmland and fuel: archaeobotanical studies of the ancientNear East. InEconomy and Settlement in the Near East: Analyses of Ancient Sites and Materials,
ed. NF Miller, pp. 718. 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. 28:22334
62 Hayashida
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
21/28
Mobley CM, Eldridge M. 1992. Culturally modified trees in the Pacific Northwest. Arct.
Archaeol. 29:91110Morcote-Rios G, Bernal R. 2001. Remains of palms (Palmae) at archaeological sites in the New
World: A review. Bot. Rev. 67:30950Neves E, Petersen JB, Bartone RN, da Silva CA. 2003. Historical and sociocultural origins of
Amazonian dark earths. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 2950Newsom L. 1993. Plants and people: cultural, biological, and ecological responses to wood
exploitation. See CM Scarry 1993, pp. 115137Newsom LA, Pearsall DM. 2003. Trends in Carribbean island archaeobotany. See Minnis
2003, pp. 347412Newsom LA, Wing ES. 2004. On Land and Sea: Native American Uses of Biological Resources in
the West Indies. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. Ala. PressOBrien MJ. 2001. Archaeology, paleoecosystems, and ecological restoration. See Egan &
Howell 2001, pp. 2954Oliver JR. 2001. The archaeology of forest foraging and agricultural production in Amazonia.
See McEwan, et al. 2001, pp. 5085Ostlund L, Bergman A, Zackrisson O. 2004. Trees for fooda 3000 year record of subarctic
plant use. Antiquity 78:27886Peacock E. 1998. Historical and applied perspectives on prehistoric land use in eastern North
America. Environ. Hist. 4:129Peacock E, Melsheimer R. 2003. Terrestrial gastropods from archaeological contexts in the
Black Belt Province of Mississippi. See Peacock & Shauwecker 2003, pp. 2747Peacock E, Shauwecker T. 2003. Blackland Prairies of the Gulf Coastal Plain: Nature, Culture,
and Sustainability. Tuscaloosa, AL: Univ. Ala. PressPerez-Salicrup D. 2004. Forest types and their implications. See Turner II, et al. 2004,
pp. 6380PetersCM. 2000. Precolumbian silviculture and indigenousmanagementof neotropical forests.
See Lentz 2000, pp. 20324Petersen JB, Neves E, Heckenberger MJ. 2001. Gift from the past: terra preta and prehistoric
Amerindian occupation in Amazonia. See McEwan, et al. 2001, pp. 86105Politis G. 2001. Foragers of the Amazon: the last survivors or the first to succeed. See McEwan,
et al. 2001, pp. 2649Posey DA. 2002. Kayapo Ethnoecology and Culture. London: RoutledgeRackham O. 1996. Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape: The Complete History of Britains
Trees, Woods and Hedgerows. London: PhoenixRackham O. 1998a. Implications of historical ecology for conservation. In Conservation Science
and Action, ed. WJ Sutherland, pp. 15275. Oxford: Blackwell Sci.Rackham O. 1998b. Savanna in Europe. In The Ecological History of European Forests, ed. KJ
Kirkby, C Watkins, pp. 114. 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. 11937. Albuquerque: New Mexico Archaeol. Counc.Scarry CM. 1993. Foraging and Farming in the Eastern Woodlands. Gainesville, FL: Univ. Press
Fla.Scarry CM. 2003. Patterns of wild plant utilization in the prehistoric eastern woodlands. See
Minnis 2003, pp. 50104
www.annualreviews.org Archaeology and Conservation 63
-
8/2/2019 Hayashida-Archaeology Ecological HIstory
22/28
Scarry CM, Newsom LA. 1992. Archaeobotanical research in the Calusa heartland. In Culture
and Environment in the Domain of the Calusa, ed. WH Marquardt, pp. 375401. Gainesville:
Inst. Archaeol. Paleoenviron. Stud., Univ. Fla.
Scheel-Ybert R. 2001. Man and vegetation in southeastern Brazil during the late Holocene.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 28:47180
Schulze MD, Whitacre DF. 1999. A classification and ordination of the tree community of
Tikal National Park, Peten, Guatemala. Bull. Fla. Mus. Nat. Hist. 41:169297
Silvius KM, Fragoso JMV. 2003. Red-rumped agouti (Dasyprocta leporina) home range use inan Amazonian forest: implications for the aggregated distribution of forest trees. Biotropica
35:7483
Simmons IG. 2001. An Environmental History of Great Britain from 10,000 Years Ago to the
Present. Edinburgh: Edinb. Univ. Press
Simpson IA. 1997. Relict properties of anthropogenic deep top soils as indicators of infield
management in Marwick, West Mainland, Orkney. J. Archaeol. Sci. 24:36580
Smith BD. 2001. Low-level food production. J. Archaeol. Res. 9:143
Soc. Ecol. Restor. (SER) Sci. Policy Work. Group. 2002. The SER Primer on Ecological Restora-
tion. http://www.eri.nau.edu/education/files/serprimer.pdf
Soembroek W, Ruivo ML, Fearnside PM, Glaser B, Lehmann J. 2003. Amazonian dark earths
as carbon stores and sinks. See Lehmann et al. 2003b, pp. 12539Spriggs M. 2001. Future eaters in Australia, future eaters in the Pacific? Early human environ-
mental impacts. Aust. Archaeol. 52:5359
Stahl P. 1996. Holocene biodiversity: an archaeological perspective from the Americas. Annu.
Rev. Anthropol. 25:10526
Stahl P. 2000. Archaeofaunal accumulation, fragmented forests, and anthropogenic landscape
mosaics in the tropical lowlands of prehispanic Ecuador. Lat. Am. Antiq. 11:24157
Steiner C, Teixera WG, Zech W. 2004. Slash and char: an alternative to slash and burn practiced
in