ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17The Research Program ofHistorical EcologyWilliam Bal eeDepartment of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118;email: wbalee@tulane.eduAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006. 35:7598First published online as a Review inAdvance on April 26, 2006The Annual Review of Anthropology is onlineat anthro.annualreviews.orgThis articles doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123231Copyright c2006 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved0084-6570/06/1021-0075$20.00Key Wordshard-core postulates, landscape transformation, historicalcontingency, human-mediated disturbance, species diversity,biological invasionsAbstractHistorical ecology is a new interdisciplinary research program con-cerned with comprehending temporal and spatial dimensions in therelationships of human societies to local environments and the cu-mulativeglobal effectsof theserelationships. Historical ecologycontains core postulates that concern qualitative types of human-mediated disturbance of natural environments and the effect of theseon species diversity, among other parameters. A central term usedin historical ecology to situate human behavior and agency in theenvironment is the landscape, as derived from historical geography,instead of the ecosystem, which is from systems ecology. Historicalecology is similar to nonequilibrium dynamic theory, but differs inits postulate of human-mediated disturbance as a principle of land-scape transformation. Such disturbances counterintuitively may in-volve anthropogenic primary and secondary succession that resultin net increases of alpha and even beta diversity. Applied histori-cal ecology can supply the reference conditions of time depth andtraditional knowledge to restore past landscapes.75Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17INTRODUCTIONHistorical ecology is a research program con-cernedwiththeinteractions throughtimebetween societies and environments and theconsequences of theseinteractions for un-derstanding the formation of contempo-rary and past cultures and landscapes (Bal ee1998b; Bal ee & Erickson 2006a,b; Crumley1994, 1998, 2003; Redman1999; Sutton&Anderson 2004). A research program is a setofinterdependentpostulatesonwhichonlya portion of the scientic community agrees(Lakatos1980, Stengers2000[1993]). It isthereforeunlikea paradigm, whichintheKuhniansense of normal science assumesconicting models purporting to explain thatthesamephenomenacannotcoexist(Kuhn1970, Stengers 2000 [1993]). In anthropology,researchprograms includecultural ecologyand sociobiology; a generation ago, researchprograms in the social sciences would have in-cluded psychoanalysis and Marxism (Lakatos1999 [1973]). In ecology, systems theory andnonequilibrium dynamics constitute separateresearch programs (Zimmerer 2000).Research programs consist of three to vehard-corepostulates(Lakatos1999[1973]).Inhistorical ecology, thepostulatesarethefollowing: (a) Practically all environments onEarth have been affected by humans, includ-ing in a broad sense behavioral activities of thegenus Homo (Kidder & Bal ee 1998, Redman1999, Sauer 1956), althoughothers wouldlimitthewide-rangingeffectofhumansonthe environment to only the entire time dat-ing fromthe beginning of the Holocene,thatis,thetimecoincidingwiththebegin-nings of agriculture (Dickinson 2000); (b) hu-man nature is not programmed genetically orotherwisetolessenoraugment speciesdi-versityandotherenvironmentalparameters(Crumley2001, Hayashida2005); (c)itfol-lows that kinds of societies dened by vari-ous socioeconomic, political, and cultural cri-teria impact landscapes in dissimilar ways, assome landscapes are less disturbed (and richerin species) than others; and (d) human inter-actions with landscapes in a broad variety ofhistorical andecological contexts may be stud-ied as a total (integrative) phenomenon (Bal ee1998b, Egan&Howell 2001b, Rival 2006,Sutton & Anderson 2004).Historical ecologiststakealongviewofhistory and landscapes and thus tend to be atvariance with earlier established research pro-grams of environmental anthropology (Bal ee&Erickson2006b; Braudel 1980; Crumley1994, 1998, 2003; Kidder &Bal ee 1998;Russell 1997). Historical ecology exempliesrevisionismof earlier regnant concepts in cul-tural ecology, cultural evolutionism, culturalmaterialism, andecological systems theory(Dove 2001; cf. Headland1997, Rival 2006). Itis an interdisciplinary means of grappling withapplications from both the social sciences andlifesciences(Bal ee1998a,b; Crumley1994,1998, 2003), the most important of which forstrategic environmental concerns is restora-tionecology, asynonymofappliedhistori-cal ecology (Anderson 2001, Egan & Howell2001a,b, Higgs 2003).Historical ecology arose out of empiricalstudies that showed problems in the applica-tionofecological anthropologytocomplexsocieties. Peasantries and other complex soci-eties exhibiting different socioeconomic stratacould not be analyzed according to method-ologies developed in cultural ecology becausecultural ecology referred only to classless orsimple societies, wherein it was thought a lin-ear relationship existed between key featuresof indigenoustechnologyandtheenviron-mentontheonehandandlowpopulationsize and simple political organization of so-cietyontheother (Boglioli 2000, Cole&Wolf 1974). Such societies were not seen toexert so much a long-term effect on the lo-cal environment as to be adapted to its pu-tative constraints (Adams 1998; Bal ee 1989;Bal ee & Erickson 2006b; Cole & Wolf 1974;Stahl 1996; Wolf 1982, 1999). Systems the-ory in ecological anthropology was an attemptto bring more mathematical rigor to the sub-ject matter, especially by conceiving of humansocieties as populations having exchanges of76 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17energy with other animal and plant popula-tionsinecosystems(Rappaport2000). Sys-temstheoryinanthropology, asinecology,wasahistoricalandexcludedhumanagencyand intentionality inthe landscape (Dove2001, Wolf 1999; cf. Biersaack 1999).A SECOND WORLDIn historical ecology the landscape is a placeof interaction with a temporal dimension thatis as historical andcultural as it is evolu-tionaryperse, ifnotmoreso, uponwhichpasteventshavebeeninscribed, sometimessubtly, ontheland(Crumley2003, Ingold1993, Marquardt &Crumley1987, Neves&Petersen2006, Russell 1997). Historicalecologyregisterssimpleforagersandswid-den horticulturalists as agents of history man-ifesting cultural pasts that defy placement ina stage of political evolution (Cormier 2003,Crumley 2003, Politis 2001, Rival 2002, Rival2006, Zent &Zent 2004). Wolf (1982) showedthat cultural ecology lacked a unied theoryand could not rise above explanations of sin-gle cases because of its emphasis on humanadaptations to the environment, rather thandeeming society engaged with that environ-ment and acting, effectively, to change it overtime. Wolf (1999) argued that environmentalanthropology needed to abandon systems the-ory and become both political and historicalecology to assess changes in relations betweenhuman societies and their landscapes.Historical ecology has challenged the no-tion of pristine primitives (Wolf 1982) andvirgin rainforests (Bal ee 1989, Denevan 1992)through different but ultimately convergentstrands of interdisciplinarythinkinginan-thropology,geography,history,andecology(Hayashida 2005). The notion that landscapeshave history, and that natural things in givenenvironmentsarehistoriographicindicesofthose environments, has several precursors indiverseelds, especiallyinhistoryandge-ography. HistorianCronons (1983) classicstudyof theimpact of precolonial IndiansinNewEnglandinshapingthelandscapethought by the Puritans to be pristine was acareful empirical challenge to the concept ofpristine primitives harnessed to the restraintsof virginforests (Turner 2005). Theprin-cipal mechanismthat createdtheparklandlandscapesnotedbythePuritanswascon-trolled (or broadcast) re (Cronon 1983, Pyne1998).Indigenous societies molded not onlymosaic-like environments with patches rich inutilitarian natural resources, but also in somecases enhanced local (alpha) species diversity.Specically, controlled(broadcast) res arenow considered to have enhanced local land-scape heterogeneity as well as species diversity(especially of rare species), partly by prevent-ing fuel buildups and the ensuing possibility ofdestructive wildres in numerous indigenousareas of North America, South America, andAustralia(Anderson1999; Birdetal. 2005;Boyd1999a,b;Lunt&Spooner2005;Mis-try et al. 2005; Posey 1985; Pyne 1991, 1998;Robbins 1999; Storm 2002; Winthrop 2001;cf. Fosteretal. 2004). Thatrebyhumanagents in controlled cases amplies diversity,whereas wildres and combustion by fossil fu-els tend to have degrading effects, refers onebacktothenotionoflandscape, wherehu-mans and the environment meet in an analyticwhole, with a temporal dimension that denesthe relationship (Bal ee 1998a; Crumley 1994,2003; Ingold1993; Marquardt &Crumley1987; Pyne 1998).Thisnotionoflandscapeinitsmostre-cent versionoriginatesincultural andhis-torical geography (Denevan 2001, Doolittle2000, Katesetal. 1990, Olwig2003, Rival2006, Sutton&Anderson2004). Geogra-phers earlyderivedtheideaof aninsepa-rabilityof humansandtheenvironment inthe context of a landscape (Landschaft) partlyfromGermanlandscapegardeners andar-chitects of the nineteenth century (Crumley1994, Hall 2005, Wolschke-Bulmahn2004)and from schools of nineteenth-century land-scape painters in Europe, North America, andAustraliawhosoughttocapturetheirideasof wilderness andits embeddedhumanity,www.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 77Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17however savage, on canvas as well as in theWestern psyche (Hirsch & OHaulon 1995).The landscape in historical ecology is also in-uenced by the French Annales school of his-tory inconceivingof the paysage as undergoingseveral forms of temporal change, both short-andlong-term, as well as cyclical (Braudel1980, Crumley 1998).The thinking that humans are everywherehistorical agents (apart from their conscious-ness of being so) of change inthe land-scape, by renderingit historical either byagricultureorsomeotherrecognizablyhu-man interference, dates from classical antiq-uity (Glacken 1967, Hall 2005, Hughes 1975).Herodotus proposed that historical events un-foldinaphysical placeandthat thechar-acteristics of place, in turn, change throughtimei.e.,cultureandtheenvironmentareinasenseintertwinedandchangetogetherthroughtime(Pitzl 2004). Cicerowroteofhow through domestication, fertilization, andirrigation humans inuenced the creation of asecond world apart from the so-called naturalone (Glacken 1967, Hughes 1975, Wolschke-Bulmahn 2004), a concept echoed 1700 yearslater in the Enlightenment (Roger 1997).Ciceros secondworldwas abuilt envi-ronment. He might not have recognized sec-ond worlds in sub-Saharan Africa, Australia,lowland South America, and much of NorthAmerica, just as Renaissance and Enlighten-ment thinking did not, considering such re-gions to be wilderness (Rafes 2002, Roger1997). The second world, from a nineteenth-centuryEuropeanperspective, incorporatednatural and cultural things together, often ina garden-likesetting, as seenespeciallyinItalyandGermany(Hall 2005, Wolschke-Bulmahn 2004). The garden as a spatially de-ned landscape involving nature and cultureantedates European civilization, having beenborrowedbyHellenisticsocietyfromEastAsia (Glacken 1967).The garden is the underlying premise ofa landscape, for there humans habitually in-teract with other living forms, both in acyclical fashion, andinthelong-term(in-volving at least decades) and very long-term(involving centuries), a concept known aslongue dur ee (Braudel 1980). Historical ecol-ogists havediscernedgardens inthemidstof seeming wilderness in both the Neotrop-ics andPaleotropics andhave referredtothese as forest gardens, forest elds, trail gar-dens, war gardens, man-made tropical forests,cultural or anthropogenic forests, anddo-mesticated landscapes (Bal ee 1989; Clement1999a; Denevan 1992, 2001, 2006; Erickson2006; G omez-Pompa et al. 1987, 1990;Heckenberger et al. 2003; Janzen 1998; Posey1985; Posey &Bal ee 1989; Rival 2006). Thesearedistinguishedfromcultural landscapes,which are not so much disturbed by humansasindexical(byiconicbiotaandplacesdis-cernibletothenakedeye)oflocalsocietiesandtheirlong-termhistoryinsitu(Stofeet al. 2003). Historical ecologists also examineindexical functions of biota in specic land-scapes affected by human activity over time(Feely-Harnik2001, Verheyenet al. 2004,Walker 2000).There is a long-standing division amongEuropean geographers and foresters betweendomesticated (or culturalized) and naturallandscapes(Alexander&Butler2004). Theconcept of pristine forests is gradually beingreplacedwithamorehedgednotionofoldgrowth forest. The notion of old growth for-est in Europe as well as North America in-cludes forests that may have been disturbedby humans although not for long periods oftime, so-called rst nature (Rudel 2002). In-creasing evidence, however, suggests interme-diate disturbance may have lasting legacies, ofthe longue dur ee sort, in terms of redeningvegetationpatterns(Turner2005).Europesculturalizedlandscapesrunthegamutfromtreeless zones to mature forests similar to for-mer woodland, yet none is primary, althoughrelic species, such as lichens, bryophytes, andmycorrhizal fungi, aswell asafewancienttrees, maystill befound(Myers &Bazely2003). Historical geographer Sauer proposed78 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17that wherever humans had lived and im-pactedthe environment by domestication,landscapes withdeterminatehistories weretheresult (Olwig2003, Rival 2006, Sauer1956). Inmorerecent times, anumber ofscholars have argued that agricultural impactsdatingfromtheHolocenehaveessentiallytransformedtheworldsomuchthathardlyany part of it is pristine per se and that, in-deed, humans created the landscapes typicallyreferred to as examples of Holocene environ-ments (Denevan 1992, Dickinson 2000). Thenotion that certain species-rich forested land-scapes of Greater Amazonia, Middle America,andWest Africawerepristinewildernesseswas challenged by new data and interpreta-tions in the past two decades of the twentiethcenturyfromanthropologists, geographers,and biologists (Bal ee 1989; Bal ee &Campbell1990; Denevan 1992, 2001; Fairhead &Leach1996; G omez-Pompa &Kraus 1992; G omez-Pompa et al. 1987; Hayashida 2005; Leach &Fairhead2000; Posey1985; Posey&Bal ee1989; Rival 2006; Stahl 1996; cf. Parker 1992),who supplied evidence of human activity inthe origin of these landscapes.In historical ecology, the concept of land-scapetransformation, resultinginso-calledman-made forests (Campbell et al. 2006,G omez-Pompa et al. 1987, Wiseman 1978),was derived initially from evidence of agricul-ture and agroforestry; more recent work sug-gests foraging and trekking societies have alsoinuenced forest composition through activ-ities such as sowing propagules of trees thatattract honeybees without using re for for-est clearance (Zent & Zent 2004) and aban-doningcampyetleavingchangesinspeciescompositionthatinvolvethecoexistenceofcrops and noncrops (Politis 2001, Rival 2002,Rival 2006). The evidence of classless societiesas disturbance agents that modied and man-agedenvironments earlierregardedas sys-temic concatenations of interactive, primevalbiota and physical elements represents, in his-torical ecology, a divergence away from thecore postulates of cultural ecology as well asequilibrium theory.OTHER ECOLOGIES, OTHERHISTORIESThedistinctionbetweenhistorical ecologyandother ecological viewpoints anddisci-plines has to do with anthropocentrismin oneguise or another (Bal ee & Erickson 2006b).Historical ecology differs from cultural ecol-ogyprincipallyonthecriterionof humanagency, as well as adaptationtothe envi-ronment. Cultural ecology holds that theenvironment is not transformable. Rather,humans must adapt their cultures, technolo-gies, and populations to it. Typically culturalecologycannot explainhigher-order socialphenomenasuchascities, states, andtheirdependent hinterlands because the core pos-tulates are based on the environmentaldeterminismof societies withsimpletech-nologies (cf. Cole & Wolf 1974). Historicalmaterialismasaresearchprogram(Lakatos1999 [1973]) allows for human agency in ini-tial appropriations from and transformationsof nature (Wolf 1982) but does not conceiveof theenvironment, oncechangedbyhu-man hands, exerting a longer-term effect onsubsequent human cultures in the region ofthe changes (Bal ee 1998a,b). Historical ma-terialismlackedthelongue dur ee notionofthe Annales historical school, which would bedeveloped a century later (Crumley 1998).Historical ecology differs fromanthro-pological systems ecologyitself acritiqueof cultural ecologybymovingawayfroma concern with the functionalist adaptationsof humanbehaviortogivenenvironmentalconditions andsteadystates of theecosys-tem(Wolf 1999; cf. Biersaack 1999). Althoughhistorical ecology underscores the impor-tanceof timeandcontingencyinenviron-mental change (Botkin 1990, Scoones 1999,Zimmerer2000), asdoesthenewecology,it is not aformulatedrecordof geologicalchanges that took place in the absence of hu-mans, astudyof humanresponsetonatu-ral catastrophes (cf. Bilsky 1980), or merelyrecordedhistoryorprehistoryofanyenvi-ronment(s). It differs from the new ecology,www.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 79Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17moreover, whichisnot acceptedasatermfor a distinctive model in ecology (Zimmerer2000), by emphasizing ananthropocentrichistory. Historical ecology involves a tripar-tite array of conceptions of human time, bor-rowedfromtheAnnales, especiallythefol-lowing: (a) ev enement (event) as a short-term,episodic phenomenon; (b) conjoncture (cycle),involving repetitive statistical patterns over adecade, quarter-century, or half-century or so;and (c) longue dur ee, empirical patterns of his-tory and prehistory occurring over centuries(Braudel 1980, Crumley 2003).Historical ecology has been most of-ten conated with environmental history.Environmental history is a fairly well-established interdisciplinary subject (Beinart&McGregor 2003, Crosby2004, Hughes2001, Worster 1993), but it is not a perspec-tive that articulates hard-core postulates, suchas historical ecology does. In this sense, his-torical ecology is not a part of environmentalhistory nor is it parallel to it as a separate wayof thinking (cf. Moran 2000, Myllntaus 2001).Environmental history encompasses the fol-lowing: the comparative historyof humanactivityinwidelyseparatedbutstructurallysimilar environments having similar politico-economic and historical conditions seen as re-sulting in convergent behaviors, the history ofgreenmovementsandtherelationofthesetogovernment policy, thehistoryof envi-ronmental sciences and forestry, and the his-toriographyof environmental historywrit-ing(Beinart &Coates1995, Crosby2004,Hughes 2001, Worster 1994). Historical ecol-ogy of a landscape, such as the Llanos de Mo-jos of Bolivia or the Upper Xingu of Brazil(Erickson & Bal ee 2006, Heckenberger et al.2003, Mann 2002), would not be coterminouswith environmental history of the same be-cause historical ecology subscribes to a singletheory of history and offers a model of howandwhythelandscapeunderwenttransfor-mation, regardless of the unique chronologyof events.Historical ecology differs from landscapeecology(cf. Moran2000). Landscapeecol-ogy focuses on spatial heterogeneity reectedinclustersof ecosystemsand, withnotableexceptions (Hayashida2005, Turner2005),tendstoexclude, asaprinciple, intermedi-ate human disturbance of environments andtemporal changes in them as a qualitative fac-tor in landscape transformation (e.g., Forman& Godron 1986, Turner 2005; see critiquesby Crumley 1998, 2003; Denevan 2006). Theconcepts of design, ecology, and architectureof landscapes in the modern senses seem toenvisionre-educationof humanbeings sotheycanlivemoreharmoniouslywithself-contained natural systems and processes. Ba-sically landscape ecology does not involvehumans recapturing indigenous or localknowledge that could be of use to restorationecology (Gunn 1994), which, in at least oneof its crucial theoretical aspects, authenticity,is close to or the same as historical ecology(Anderson2001, Egan&Howell 2001a,b,Higgs 2003, Jones 2004).Historical ecology is sometimes comparedwith, orthought tobethesameas, polit-ical ecology(e.g., Wolf 1999). Manyhavedeemedthe termpolitical ecology a misnomerby statingthat it concerns only politics andnotecology (Vayda & Walters 1999) and that itdoesnt increase knowledge relevant to ecol-ogy and the life sciences (Scoones 1999). Insomeways political ecologyis moresimi-lar to environmental history with its empha-sisonthecritiqueofconservationistmove-ments(Dove2001). Political ecologydoes,however, comprise one feature relevant tohistorical ecology, towit: thepossibilityofunderstandingandapplyingthecritiqueofregnant folkmodelsof natureandtheen-vironmentforbuildingamoreenlightenedapproach to the reconstruction of past land-scapes. Political ecologycouldbe synony-mous with applied historical ecology, but theterm itself is perhaps still used too widely indisparatesensestorefertoasingleeldortheory.The anthropological ecology of prac-tice(inuencedbythesociologyof PierreBourdieu) instantiates the third hard-core80 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17postulateof historical ecologybystressingthe differential environmental results ob-tainedfromdisjunct economic andpoliti-cal histories in given regions (Nyerges 1997,Porro 2005). The proposal of an evenemen-tal (sic)oreventecology(Vayda&Walters1999) is bound to the particularistic lim-itations of case-by-case studies, similar tocultural ecology (Wolf 1982), and the omis-sionof humanagencyinlandscapeforma-tion; thereforeitdoesnotrepresentanewconcept. The notion of ev enement in the An-nales isbut theshort-termepisodicfeatureaffecting the formation of new landscapestheothers areconjonctures andlongue dur ee(Braudel 1980, Crumley 1998), concepts in-corporatedintothecorepostulates of his-torical ecology. These postulates are, more-over, at variance with equilibrium theory andsystems theoryessentially synonymsinecology.Historical ecologyis unlike, andfunda-mentally at odds with, ecological systems the-ory by a similar logicthe logic of the behav-iorofsentient, sapientbeingswithculturalcapacitiesnotjusttotransformspecies-richenvironments intobarrens of lowdiversityand landscape homogeneity, which clearly hu-mans can do and have done, but also in certaincases to heighten the species diversity of lo-cal environments through ongoing resource-management practices. Historical ecologyanswers the call for an anthropocentric as op-posedtoanecocentricor geocentricecol-ogy (Bal ee & Erickson 2006a,b, Erickson &Bal ee2006). Somethinkinginecologyin-terprets these practices as always destructive,but that view is derived from the misunder-standingofhumanagencyasaprincipleofsome disturbance of the environment, whichat agivenlevel of intensitymaybeessen-tial tosustainingdiversity itself, a ndingcomprehensible within a historical-ecologicalviewpoint, which has afnities, as such, withothermodelsincontemporaryecology, in-cluding nonequilibriumdynamics (Botkin1990, Huston 1994, Turner 2005, Zimmerer2000).HISTORICAL CONTINGENCYAND ECOLOGICALSUCCESSIONEnvironmentsecosystems in systemstheoryundergo histories of changes in theirfundamentalcharacteristicssimilartosuitesor guilds of species of plants andanimalsover time. Disturbance is the nomotheticorigin of change (called succession) in speciescomposition in a locale, and without it,ecosystemsdonotevolvetodisplayclimaxcommunities, dened as ecosystems in theirmost mature state, with the highest diversityof species. Equilibriumor systems theoryin ecology holds that climatically stable,large-area (such as continental) environmentssupport more readily climax communitiesthatconsistforthemostpartoforganismsthatareK-selected, thatis, organismswithlonglifespans, lownumbers of offspring,and slow growth rates. With regard to forestcommunities, these would be trees and otherstructural organisms (Huston 1994). Incontrast, small (suchasinsular) ecosystemsconsist for themost part of r-selectedor-ganisms, that is, plants with short life spans,highnumbersofoffspring, andfastgrowthrates. These ecosystems are more easilyinvaded by species from continents. Becauseislandsdevelopthroughgeneticdriftclinesand endemism(as withDarwins nches),they are also more prone to extinctions. Thetheory, called island biogeography theory(MacArthur&Wilson1967),proposesthatthe further an island is from a continent, thehigher its endemismand species diversityandthe higher the number of K-selectedorganisms. In contrast, the closer an island isto a continent, all else being equal, the lowerits diversity as a result of its susceptibility toinvasions of organisms fromthe mainlandthat replace local biota in the same or similarnichesandthereforecausetheirextirpationandpossibleextinction(i.e., anoutcomeofcompetitive exclusion). The theory is elegantas a qualitative model of the rise and fall ofspecies diversity on islands (i.e., ecosystems)www.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 81Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17buthasbeendeemedproblematicinquan-titativeprediction(Peters 1991, Walker &del Moral 2003) because it does not specify ahumanorotherhistorical parameterinthetransportofmanyinvasivespecies,someofwhich, as with the brown tree snake on Guam,havecascadingeffectsinnewenvironments(Fritts & Rodder 1998). The theory excludeshistory, and partly for that reason it has beenhard to replicate in the real world of islanddiversity and invasion biology (Huston 1994,Lomolino 2000, Simberloff 1997).Species invasionis one kind of disturbance.Disturbance traditionally, infact, canbe bioticor abiotic. It can also be cultural and histori-cal. When they are demonstrably natural andunrelated to global warming, to ill-conceivedlevee and dike construction, and to other sortsof human error, hurricanes and oods are abi-otic disturbance agents that can account forthe reductions of forests withmany K-selectedspeciesandtheneargrasslandandsavannaenvironments replete with r-selected species(Huston1994). Hurricanes andoods canalsocause terrestrial environments to become ma-rine ones, for example, by splitting islands intwo (Walker &del Moral 2003). Biotic factorsinclude not only invasive species and their ef-fects on local biodiversity (whether to lessenor replace it with new species), but also or-ganisms that demonstrably alter the landscapeinhabited by other life forms (Schmitz et al.1997, Simberloff 1997).Humans effect and are inuenced bychanges in the landscape. The ancient Greekdichotomy between physis (nature) and nomos(culture) (Glacken 1967, Hughes 2001) thatforeshadows the Cartesian dualismof thebody (material world) versus the mind (think-ing) is inapplicable in understanding ecolog-ical succession as modied or interfered withbyhumansasthedisturbanceagency. His-torical ecologydeals not withthe synthe-sis of humans and the environment, but fo-cuses on the result of their cyclical interaction(conjoncture).Historically the more centralized the po-litical regime (i.e., the more it is similar to astate), the greater the potential for the reduc-tion of species diversity. Advanced industrialtechnologies with fossil fuels have long beenknown to reduce the genetic diversity of cropplants (Kates et al. 1990). Ancient civilizationsusing intensive agriculture (with terracing, ir-rigation, and fertilizers) reduced the diversityof traditional cultivars in agricultural elds asaresult of taxationexigenciesonanarrowrange of foodstuffs (Zimmerer 1993). Inter-estingly, human depopulation, as occurred intheAmazon(andintheAmericasgenerallyand Australia) after contact as a result of theintroduction of new pathogens, can lower theagrodiversity of landraces in areas where localknowledge and behavior are key to the man-agementoftraditionalcrops,includingtreecrops (Clement 1999a,b). If genetic diversitybelow that of the species rank is consideredpart of a regions diversity, then gamma diver-sity has been diminished as a result of peo-ple being removed from the landscape. De-population and other consequences of contacthave led to the loss of agriculture and otherbasic technology altogether, even the disap-pearance of a societys cultural ability tomanu-facture re, a feature once thought a sociocul-tural universal (Bal ee 2000, Cormier 2003).With regard to advanced industrial agri-culture (Kates et al. 1990), fertilization alonetendstoreducebiodiversity(Huston1994)byincreasingthecompetitionfornutrientsamong species originally present on a plot. Itis a paradox of enrichment: Areas of high pri-mary productivity (rich in nutrients) are of-ten impoverished (but not always) in speciesdiversity(Huston1994).Despitehighrain-fall, largetractsoftropical rainforestshavebeen increasingly prone to wildres as a resultof deforestation and possibly global warmingartifacts of the twentieth century to date. Inthe future, the spread of GMOs and their po-tential foruncontrolledgeneowwithna-tivecrops(aresult inpart of efcient dis-persal mechanisms, such as anemochory) mayreduceagro-diversity(Altieri 2004, Burney1995/1996, Pilson & Prendeville 2004). Butthe humanimpact onthe environment is82 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17highly variable, and historical ecologists rec-ognizethateachlandscapeneedstobeun-derstood in terms of its specic cultural andhistorical inuences onsuccessionwithoutprejudice toward human nature.Ecologists recognizetwobasickinds ofsuccession: primaryandsecondary. Primarysuccession refers to the initial colonization ofa substrate that had no life on it before, such asthe succession of organisms on newly formedvolcanic atolls or emergent deltaic islands onthepoint bars of meanderingrivers. Onalonger timescale, the succession of organismsin areas of former glaciation is an example ofprimary succession, as is the replacement ofentire phyla by newones over millions of years(Huston1994). Secondary successionrefers tothe replacement of organisms by other typesof organisms (such as K-selected by r-selectedorganisms) on a substrate that has been dis-turbed, as is the case with well-drained for-est lands when subjected to hurricanes, torna-does, droughts, blowdowns (wind shear), and,as has been especially well studied in the trop-ics, humandisturbance by slash-and-burncul-tivation or some other form of extensive agri-culture. In all cases, both in systems theoryand cultural ecology, the idea is that follow-ing the disturbance, the succession of guildsoforganismsproceedsanew: Inthecaseoftropicalforests, forexample, thesuccessionproceedsfromdominancebyther-selectedspecies tothe climax, the dominance andhigh-est diversity of what are basically K-selectedcommunities. This is the climax community,an ecological systems concept dating fromtheearlytwentiethcentury(Huston1994). Al-though equilibrium theory has many defend-ers(Lomolino2000),anincreasingnumberof ecologists recognize disturbance not as analienagentof changeinanecosystem, butasabasicpartofthefunctionandmainte-nance of diversity (Botkin 1990, Huston 1994,Perry&Amaranthus 1997, Petraitis et al.1989, Smith&Wishnie2000). Thedistur-bance they prognosticate is not the removalof many species guilds (highly intense distur-bance), but an ongoing disturbance of a muchFigure 1Simplied model of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis. Taken fromMyers & Bazely 2003.smaller scale, called intermediate disturbance,suchas broadcast reandchancetreefallsin a forest without which local diversity (al-phadiversity) maynot befullyunderstood(Figure 1).Intermediate disturbance (through broad-cast burning, tree cultivation, settlement, andsoil enrichment) has beenseentoaccountfor forest islands in West Africa (Fairhead &Leach1996, Leach&Fairhead2000). Evi-dence from Sierra Leone indicates resourceexploitationandlandusehavevariedovertime, as have rangelanduses insouthernAfrica(Beinart &Coates 1995, Beinart &McGregor2003), withthepast useof forest sites forfortresses, the conversion of forests into char-coal for ironsmelting, andthe adoptionof newcash crops (such as peanuts); such permuta-tions of society explainforest compositionandecology today (Nyerges 1997, Scoones 1999;cf. Rudel 2002). Evidence from Namibia andAngola indicates that activities of historickingdoms of thelatenineteenthandearlytwentieth centuries expanded the frontier oforchards of fruit trees of palm, marula, bird-plum,g,andbaobabattheexpenseofsa-vanna (Kreike 2003). Historical variation inlandscape features is probably conditionedby changes in political complexity. Savannassometimes seem to result from human choice(Erickson 2006, Scoones 1999). Intermediatewww.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 83Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17disturbance throughcontrolled(broadcast)burning in African savannas, Brazilian cerra-dos, andtheBolivianLlanos deMojos ap-pears topromote the coexistence of treesandgrassesbyincreasinglandscapehetero-geneity(Erickson2006, Jeltschetal. 1998,Mistryetal. 2005). Landscapeheterogene-ityinducesedgeeffectsthatcanreducethediversity of species that require undisturbedforest for breeding, nesting, and reproduction(Renfrewetal. 2005), butsometimeshabi-tat fragmentation leads to net increases of di-versity (Fahrig 2003). Contrasting viewpointshold that tropical forest islands on landscapesdominated by savanna species are relics of thePleistoceneandhenceshouldbeprotectedfrom human disturbance, the assumed causeof savannization, yet mechanisms of anthro-pogenicsuccessionhavebeendemonstrablyassociated with local structural and species di-versity (Dove 2001, Fairhead & Leach 1996,Kreike 2003, Leach & Fairhead 2000).Intermediate disturbance on a human scaleinvolves thepartial replacement of speciesof anepisodic or cyclical nature onsmallplots of land, at times as small as treefall-sizedlightgapsandaslargeas20hectares(ha), as opposed to major perturbations suchas clear-cutting, deforestation, selective log-ging, ooding, and eutrophication. Interme-diatedisturbancewouldnotconnoteinten-sication, industrialization, or globalization,which can result in diminished species diver-sity per unit land area through overuse, fer-tilization, anderosion. Themeasurableef-fects of intermediatedisturbancemediatedby humans refer at least to one of the threetypes of species diversity recognized in ecol-ogy, alpha diversity. Alpha diversityis thenumber of species on a restricted locale withconstantenvironmentalparameters(suchasdrainage and soil type). Intermediate distur-bance mediated by humans might also be seenin beta diversity, which is diversity over an en-vironmentalgradientsuchasslopeorrain-fall involving the distance between adjoiningplotspreviouslysingledoutbyalphadiver-sity alone (Campbell et al. 2006, Erickson &Bal ee 2006, Huston 1994). The third type ofdiversity, gamma, is the diversity of an entireregion, such as the Amazon Basin. With re-gard to the Amazon Basin, because most ofthe species diversity predates the Pleistocene(Bush1994, Vieira et al. 2001), prehistoric andearly colonial societies probably had a negli-gible impact, except through the introductionof invasive species (biological invasions), thesespecies occurring in inverse proportionality topre-existing species diversity in the locales ofintroduction. Gamma diversity of Amazonialacks a single, simple explanation (Bush 1994);it requires a complex model, grounded in his-torical ecology, capable of accountingnot onlyfor physical and temporal factors of diverse di-mensions, but also for human-mediated onesimpacting landscapes over time. The conceptof ecological successionthe term originallyusedinsystemsandequilibriumtheoryisstill useful ina dynamic model of environmen-tal change entailing increases and decreases ofbiological diversity (Huston 1994), the prin-cipal focus of inquiry in ecology, but for dif-ferent reasons than in systems ecology. Eco-logical successioninhistorical ecologycanbecalledlandscapetransformation(anthro-pogenic succession), of whichthere are severaltypes.Direct human impacts can be qualitativelyassigned to a scale sensitive to time and place,indicative of least perturbation (e.g., by pre-historic foraging in the Arctic, the puna of theAndes, andthedesert of theGreat Basin),whereaminimal humansignatureremainsonthelandscapefromthat time, tomostperturbed (e.g., by advanced industrial agri-culture and globalization), where prehistoricsignatures are mostly erasedas a result of com-plete replacements of guilds of species and theland-useintensityinuencedbyworldwidedemand on agricultural labor and commodi-ties (Kates et al. 1990, Rudel 2002). The inten-sity of human impacts on landscapes may liein inverse proportionality to species diversitythereon(Burney 1995/1996), regardless of therules that govern access to common resourcesof the landscape (Alvard &Kuznar 2001, Holt84 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:172005, Smith & Wishnie 2000). The implicitcorollaryhypothesis is that wherehuman-mediated disturbance was of the least inten-sity, species diversity would have beenhighest.That viewpoint is a premise of wildernessareas. TheseareWesternanalogstosacredgroves (Russell 1997), and their implementa-tion over time has passively affected speciesdistributionandbehavioronthelandscape,forexample,byconvertinghuntedgametoprotectedwildlife(Beinart&Coates1995).Sacred groves have independent histories insub-Saharan Africa, East and South Asia,and Mesoamerica (Byers et al. 2001, G omez-Pompa et al. 1990, Russell 1997), and theirfunction is to protect biotic diversity. Withoutsacredgrovesandwildernessareas,human-mediateddisturbancesmaylessendiversity,especially if landscapes are not heterogeneousin situ (Turner 2005; cf. Renfrew et al. 2005).In other words, to maintain diversity, sacredgroves in diverse cultural contexts suggest afolk belief that human-mediated disturbanceought to be excluded therein. Human distur-bances of the environment, however, are ul-timately scalar and temporal (Allenby 2000,Bal ee 1998b, Crumley 2001, Erickson 2000,Hayashida2005, Peterson&Parker 1998,Sheuyange et al. 2005) and not in their genesissociobiological.Human-mediated disturbances of certaintropicalforestlandscapesinprehistorymayhave decreasedalpha diversity, or hadnomeasurable effect on it. Using the Shannon-Weaver index of biodiversity, Lentz et al.(2002)foundthatanthropogenicforestsre-sulting from ancient Maya agriculture in Be-lize did not result in an increase in biodiver-sity, although forest composition is essentiallyanthropogeniconthestudyplots (seealsoCampbell etal. 2006, G omez-Pompaetal.1987, Wiseman 1978). Conversely, Lentzet al. (2002) do not show a reduction in alphaor beta diversity as a result of human impactsbecause prehistoric baseline inventories of alltaxa are unavailable. Human-mediated distur-bance of lowland Mesoamerica over time ap-pearstohaveresultedinforestsdominatedbyafewspecies[intermsof theirrelativebiomass andother components (e.g., rela-tive density and frequency) of ecological im-portance]. These guilds of dominant speciesare referred to as oligarchies (Campbell et al.2006, Peters et al. 1989).Oligarchic forests (usually replete withfruittreesandothereconomicplants)con-trast withsacredgrovesorotherrelativelyundisturbed forests existing in areas used bytraditional societies totheextent that tra-ditional patterns of human-mediated distur-bance specically involving broadcast andswidden burning result in a mosaic of land-scapes. Recent work suggests such mosaicslandscape heterogeneitytend to increasenot only density of wildlife, but also beta di-versity of ora and fauna. Intermediate dis-turbancebytraditional societiesemployingbroadcast reinAustralia, Africa, andtheNeotropics has demonstrably resulted in in-creases of alpha diversity of vegetation (Birdet al. 2005, Lunt &Spooner2005, Mistryet al. 2005, Pyne 1998, Sheuyange et al. 2005).Inotherwords, intheseinstances, human-mediated intermediate disturbance and man-agement of tropical forest biotas may be es-sential totheexplanationof theirdiversityin situ. Homo sapiens in certain socioeconomiccontexts withhistoricallydeterminedland-use strategies may act as a keystone species inwhich the diversity of entire landscapes overtime is dependent (Bal ee & Erickson 2006b,Denevan 2001, Erickson &Bal ee 2006, Mann2002, Storm 2002).PRIMARY AND SECONDARYLANDSCAPETRANSFORMATION INAMAZONIAPrimary landscape transformationinthe Cen-tral andLower AmazonBasininvolvedmoundbuildingaswellaschangesinrivercoursesto effectuate the ease of transportation, withseeminglynegligible effects onspecies di-versity (Neves &Petersen 2006, Rafes2002). The effects, if any, on alpha and betawww.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 85Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17diversity are unknown from prehistoric ma-nipulationofsoilsanddrainageintheUp-per Xingu (Lower Amazon) by approximatelyAD 1000 (Heckenberger et al. 2003), as wellas in other areas of Amazon Dark Earth (an-thropogenic soils) (Erickson 2003). Increasesinalphadiversityoforaandfaunabyin-digenous resource management and use, how-ever, havebeenreportedinnumerous en-vironmentsintheNeotropics(Bal ee1993,Fedick 1995, Politis 2001, Posey 1985, Rival2002, Stahl 2000, Zent & Zent 2004). Land-scapes of the Kaapor, Guaj a, and Temb e Indi-ans of Pre-Amazonia (easternmost Amazonia,of approximately10,000km2) includehighforests (relativelyundisturbed) andoldfal-lowforests[ofintermediateindigenousdis-turbance, dating from 40 to 150 years ago (cf.Myers & Bazely 2003)]. Old fallow forests in-stantiate anthropogenic secondary succession.Forest inventories (completed using standardbiological inventory procedures as discussedin Campbell et al. 2006) of 4 ha of old fallowand 4 ha each of nearby high forest across Pre-Amazonia showed that (a) tree alpha diversitymeasures between fallow forest and high for-est were insignicantly different; (b) adjacentplots of high forest and fallow forest sharedonlyapproximatelyone-halfthenumberofsharedspecieswithininventoryplotsofei-ther type regardless of distance between thosemore similar plots in the same category; and(c) the effect is a net gain in both alpha andbeta diversity, the latter involving the gradi-ent of time (Huston 1994), the high forest be-ing older than the fallow forests (Bal ee 1993,Bal ee 1998b).Secondary forests are not necessarily moreimpoverished in diversity than primary forests(Schulzeetal. 2004). Evenifsoilsinmanysecondary forests are signicantly more fer-tilethanthoseofprimaryforests(Denevan2001, 2006; Erickson 2003; Erickson & Bal ee2006; Neves & Petersen 2006), the secondaryforest soils have not noticeably been reportedto suffer fromthe paradox of enrichment. Thehabitat of the Sirion o Indians of the BolivianAmazon encompasses a heterogeneous land-scape of well-drained forests on relic mounds,slightly inundated forests at the base of suchmounds (called pampa forest), and seasonallyinundated and poorly drained savannas, whichaccount for approximately two-thirds of thelandscape (Erickson 2003, 2006; Erickson &Bal ee 2006; Townsend 1996). Mound forestsare all anthropogenic and date from approx-imately 500 to 1000 years since the time oftheir construction and continuous habitation;pampaforestsarealsoanthropogenic, arti-facts of mound construction. Two 1-ha treeinventories, one of a mound forest 18 m inheight and the other of a nearby pampa for-est, showed (a) a similarity in the number ofspecies, with 55 on the mound forest and 53in the pampa forest; (b) a shared 24 speciesbetween the two forests (yielding a large per-centage compared with Pre-Amazonia); (c) atotal number of species in both forests of 84[(55 +53) (24) = 84]; (d) anda dominance ofoligarchies in both forest types (the 10 ecolog-ically most important species on the moundinventory constitute 65.4% of all importancevalues of all trees on the plot, and the top 10on the pampa inventory represent 70.9% ofall importance values of all trees on that plot).The oligarchies are, however, somewhat dif-ferent (with one species of palmhaving an im-portancevalueof46.21onthemoundand9.21 on the pampa and another palm specieshavinganimportancevalueof 41.2onthemoundand83.27onthepampa), whichisprobably a result of slope (Erickson & Bal ee2006). Savannas are the original, oldest land-scape, and these are maintained by periodicburning (Erickson 2006). Flooding occurs inthe savanna every year, and it alternates with amarked dry season. The total number of vas-cular plant species in the savanna is less than20 (Townsend 1996), with sedges and grassesby far most dominant.The primary landscape transformationthat accruedat the Ibibate MoundCom-plex(themoundandadjoiningpampafor-est) wouldbe, inecological terms, a pri-mary succession, althoughthat termmostcommonlyexcludesanthropogenesisof the86 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17landscape (e.g., Huston 1994). The transfor-mationinvolvedasweepingreplacementofsavannaspecies withood-intolerant trees,havinganalphadiversityof several ordersof magnitude higher than the savanna. Com-parable mounds, specically prehistoric shellmiddens (including gastropods and bivalves ofmany different species) in southwest FloridaandsoutheasternLouisiana, whichsupporthigher diversity than any nearby marshes re-gardless of salinity levels, represent human-mediated increases in alpha diversity (Kidder1998, Marquardt 1992). Therefore forestecology in these cases of primary successionwithout natural causes is actually an artifactof culture and society. Perhaps to representbetter and distinguish the impact of human-mediated disturbance of the environment,given that it is scalar and temporal (Peterson& Parker 1998, Sheuyange et al. 2005), oneshouldthereforerefertoprimaryandsec-ondarylandscapetransformationwhendis-cussing biotic and environmental change on ahumanscale of time. Inother words, alpha andbeta diversity are amenable to analysis in allthree modes of historical time (Braudel 1980)and are hence the denitive material of his-torical ecology.INVASIVE SPECIES ANDLANDSCAPE HISTORIESBiological invasions sometimes refer only toinvasivespeciesthat replaceother(usually)structurallysimilar species inthenewen-vironment, but the termhere refers bothto invasive species in the conventional senseand invasive diseases (Turner 2005), includ-ing bacterial, protozoan, viral, and prion in-fections, that take on epidemic characteristicsin regard to previously unexposed native oraand fauna, including humans (Table 1). Theintegrationof landscape ecology and epidemi-ology (Turner 2005) is analogous to the recog-nition in historical ecology that human activ-ity has been associated with a variety of newpathogens and their distribution and that hu-man societies political organization mirrorstheir susceptibility to epidemic disease, as wellas their potential to generate biological inva-sions in new environments (Newson 1998).Biological invasions that involve the trans-ferandspreadofinvasivespeciesfromonepointtoanotherhavebeentermedsucces-sion in action (Myers & Bazely 2003). Inva-sive species are introduced (exotic) species ofplants and animals that have become weedysupplanters of existing(native) ora andfauna.Denitions vary, but usually weedy organismsare considered out of place; they multiply andspread rapidly at the expense of other organ-isms(Crosby2004, Myers&Bazely2003).Only a minority of introduced species becameinvasive. Thesuccessofinvasivespecies, asweeds, depends on biotic and historical fac-tors, alone or in combination, specic in eachcase. The invasive species may have no nat-ural enemies in the place of introduction (aswith the Brazilian rubber trees in Malaysia), aview originally proposed by Darwin (Hierroet al. 2005), or they may ll an empty niche inthe place of introduction (Hierro et al. 2005).They may have higher numbers of duplicatechromosomes (suchas tetraploids), whichgivethemgreaterreproductivesuccess,asisthecase of all invasive grass species from EuropeinNorthAmerica(Myers&Bazely2003).Structurally, invasive species are likely to beruderal (Hierroet al. 2005, Huston1994)rather than treelike, but there are many ex-ceptions. They may exude secondary metabo-lites toxic to native biota but not to others intheir place of origin (Hierro et al. 2005). Inva-sive species may have coexisted with humanslonger than the affected (replaced) species intheplaceof their introductionandsubse-quent expansion (Burney 1995/1996, Hierroet al. 2005). Finally, propagules of many in-vasive species are located closer to shippinglanes in their points of origin and in their ini-tial places of dispersion (Hierro et al. 2005)and hence are easily transported often as bal-last (Burney 1995/1996, Crosby 2004, Russell1997). Biological invasionssincetheemer-genceof modernhumans usuallyhaveoc-curred with historical agency; these are calledwww.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 87Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Table1Somemodernhuman-mediatedinvasivespeciesanddiseasesTaxonCommonnameOriginNewenvironmentDateestablishedUse(ifany)Agavesp.CenturyplantMexico,SouthwestUnitedStatesSouthernAfricaTwentiethcenturyFencingAvianinuenzaBirduEastAsia?Earlytwenty-rstcentury(H5N1virustypeAinuenza)BoigairregularisBrowntreesnakeSouthPacicGuam19451950CasuarinaesquisetifoliaAustralianpineAustraliaSouthFloridaEarlytwentiethcenturyWindbreakScenicbywayCeratostomellaulmiiDutchelmdiseaseEuropeNorthernUnitedStatesLatenineteenthcenturyCryphonectriaparasiticaChestnutblightEuropeNortheasternUnitedStatesLatenineteenthcenturyMelaleucaquinquenerviaMelaleucaAustraliaSouthFlorida1906OrnamentalMyobacteriumbovisBovinetuberculosisNorthAmericaSouthernAfricaLatetwentiethcenturyMyocastorcoypusNutriaSouthAmericaLouisiana,Florida1941FurRattusrattusBlackratAsiaviaEuropeNorthAmericaSixteenthcenturySchinusterebinthifoliusBrazilianpepperSouthernBrazilSouthFloridaNineteenthcenturyOrnamentalUlexeuropeausGorseEuropeNewZealandNineteenthcenturySources:Beinart&Coates1995,Burney1995/1996,Caronetal.2003,Fritts&Rodder1998,Hierroetal.2005,Kidder1998,Myers&Bazely2003,Russell1997,Schmitzetal.1997,Simberloff1997,Simberloffetal.1997.88 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17human-mediated invasions (Myers & Bazely2003). [Note that not all of these bio-logical invasions have been human medi-ated: For example, because of their superiorswimmingabilities,hippopotami,elephants,and deer hopped fromone island to an-other across open seas during the Quaternary(Burney 1995/1996).] Regardless of the trans-port agent, biological invasions have been theprincipal proximate cause of extirpations andextinctions of native ora and fauna (Burney1995/1996, Myers &Bazely 2003, Pimm1991) whencomparedwithothers suchasoverexploitation(as withextinctions of theCarolina parakeet and the Giant Auk) and lo-cally cascading effects of the removal of singu-larly important species (keystone species) onwhich other species depend.Invasivespeciesareoftentransportedtonew destinations accidentally (Crosby 2004,Myers & Bazely 2003) as in ship bal-last (Crosby 2004, Myers &Bazely 2003,Pilson &Prendeville 2004, Russell 1997,Simberloff et al. 1997), the case, for ex-ample, with red tides (toxic dino-agellates)(Burney 1995/1996), a phenomenon that in-creased signicantly after approximately 1500(Crosby2004). Perhapsjustasoften, how-ever, invasivespecieshavebeenintroducedintentionally (before their invasive features inthe new environment were known) to fullldesired functions, including as ornamentals,windbreaks, scenicbyways, erosioncontrol,fencing, and livestock feed (Beinart & Coates1995, Myers & Bazely 2003, Simberloff et al.1997). Insomecases, thesespeciesarein-dicative of landscapes inhabited and modiedby human societies in ancient times, as withtheKentuckycoffeetree, Americanchest-nut, andbutternut, propagatedatlongdis-tances from their original distribution in pre-historic North America, and the walnut andsweet chestnut in the British Isles, taken therebytheRomansintherstmillenniumAD(Russell 1997).The restorationist (and conservationist)notion that native species in situ are su-periorandpreferabletointroducedspeciesis traceable to nineteenth-century Europeanthinking that conjoined culture and wild-nerness into a single landscape (Hall 2005),such as the German Naturgarten (Wolschke-Bulmahn 2004). Specically regarding diver-sity, goals of restoration ecology that includeeradication of exotic species can be traced toantiquity, with Platos doctrine on the desir-ability of high species diversitythe worldis the better, the more [living] things it con-tains (Glacken 1967)insofar as the richerthe species diversity, the greater the resilienceof the area to biological invasion (Pimm1991;cf. Simberloff 1997). Platofurther thought thestate of nature was only bountiful when ac-tively managed by humans (Hall 2005). Morerecent study of Mediterranean so-called ru-ined landscapes suggests many represent theanthropogenicexpansionof forests richinspecies diversity in the region, not the reverse(Grove & Rackham 2003).Biological invasions have caused re-ductions and extirpations of numerousspecies through mechanisms including directcompetitive exclusion (Burney 1995/1996,Simberloff et al. 1997). In the case of intro-duced pathogens, their success is only miti-gated by the extent to which a host popula-tion survives and can be a reservoir for futureendemic propagation(Newson1998). Thespecies barrier between humans and other an-imals is effectively broken down by diseasesthat are anthropozoonotic (the vector human,infecting other animals), such as tuberculosis,measles, and human herpes virus (Karesh &Cook 2005), and by habitat loss [an extremeexampleofhabitatfragmentation, whichina general sense does not always cause re-ductionsinspeciesdiversity(Fahrig2003)],accounting for changes in relations betweenpathogensandhosts, aswithchronicwast-ingdiseaseofmuledeer, white-taileddeer,andRockyMountainelk(Farnsworthetal.2005). Malaria seems to be both zoonotic (thevector an animal, infecting humans) and an-thropozoonoticintherelationshipbetweentheGuaj apeopleandtheirpetmonkeysinAmazonian Brazil. Specically, the reservoirwww.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 89Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17for malaria in this case seems to alternate be-tween humans and monkeys (Cormier 2005).Somepathogensdevelopedinlivestockdo-mesticates have jumped species barriers sev-eral times. Bovine tuberculosis (from domes-tic cattle) has infected wild bison in Canada,deerinMichigan, andCapebuffalo, lions,leopards, cheetahs, greater kudus, and chacmababoons in South Africa (Caron et al. 2003,Karesh&Cook2005). Avianinuenza (H5N1type A inuenza virus), which has potential tobecome pandemic, is notable for high mor-bidity as well as for having the potential formultiplevectors:wildbirds,housecats,bigcats, chickens, pigs, and humans, all of whichhave human-mediateddistributions andinter-actions (Normile 2005). Scrapie (a prion dis-ease) in sheep jumped the species barrier andbecame mad cow disease in cattle, a strain ofwhich appears to have crossed the species bar-riertohumansasvariantCreutzfeldt-Jakobdisease (Karesh & Cook 2005). Disease ecol-ogytotheextent thatit linkshumansandother biota, by affecting distributions on thelandscape of both, becomes more fully com-prehensible within the temporality of histori-cal ecology (Newson 1998, Turner 2005).The morphology and behavior of invasivebiota may be predictable (they may be weedy,opportunistic,andgeneticallyplasticwithacapacity to mutate rapidly and, in some cases,toinfectotherorganismsandjumpspeciesbarriers), but biological invasions do not nec-essarily all result in net reductions of alpha,beta, or even gamma diversity. Indeed, manyr-species invaded K-dominated environmentsbefore the advent of the Homo migrations outof Africa at the beginning of the Pleistocene,and initial modern humans did not have manyinvasive species other than head lice and a fewothers, none of which were domesticated, totransport withthem(Burney 1995/1996). Thequestion then is how long must a species existina givenenvironment tonolonger be consid-ered invasive? An arbitrary classication forinvasive plants is used in European forestry,wherebyarchaeotypesexistedontheconti-nent before1500andneophytes arethoseplants arriving after 1500; other species ori-gins are simplyunknown, andthe speciesare denoted as cryptogenic (Myers & Bazely2003). Some invasive species in fact functionas keystone species, and even their removalmaynot causeareturntotheuninvadedstate (Myers &Bazely 2003). This is arguablythe case with invasive species that have alteredthe fundamental structural characteristics oflandscapes, suchas melaleuca trees, whichform woodlands in Florida where previouslythere were none, hence altering the distribu-tion of numerous other species of ora andfauna (Schmitz et al. 1997, Simberloff 1997).DISCUSSION ANDCONCLUSIONSOn the basis of the notion that native speciesare more desirable than exotic ones, not onlyfor aesthetics but for reasons related to pro-tecting biotic diversity, efforts in restorationecology have tended to focus on the removaland eradication of invasive species. These ef-fortshavemetwithmixedresults. Restora-tion ecology (applied historical ecology) es-sentially requires the knowledge of referenceconditions of a past state of the landscape toat-tain authenticity (Egan &Howell 2001b, Hall2005, Hayashida 2005, Higgs 2003, Jones2004).Historical ecologycansupplytherefer-enceconditions neededfor authenticityoflandscape reconstruction(Egan&Howell2001a,b, Hayashida 2005, Higgs 2003). Thesourcesvaryandarederivedfromresearchinpaleoecology, ethnohistory, history, andarchaeology (Crumley 1994, 2003; Erickson2003; Hayashida2005; Heckenbergeretal.2003; Kidder 1998; Turner 2005); fromethnography and ethnobiology (Bal ee 1993,Posey 1985, Posey & Bal ee 1989, Rival 2002,Zent&Zent2004); frombiological inven-tory work (Campbell et al. 2006, Erickson &Bal ee 2006, Turner 2005); and from researchon symbols and language. Landscapes, as gar-dens, communicate meaning about their usersand owners in the Peruvian Andes (Finerman90 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17& Sackett 2003). Knowledge of archaic culti-gens is retainedinmemory andreectedinrit-ual in Borneo and elsewhere in Southeast Asia(Dove1999). Languagecatalogspaststatesoflandscapesbycurrenttopographicterms(Russell 1997); it also embodies past methodsof resource exploitation, such as agriculturein prehistoric equatorial Africa, reconstructedby historical-linguistic study of living Bantulanguages(Vansina1990). Languageretainsevidence of former economic valorization ofspecies and landscapes, as with the cacao ex-port cycle from the Amazon in the eighteenthcentury, reected in the indigenous borrow-ing of a nonnative termfor cacao even thoughthe tree is native (Bal ee 2003). Marking rever-sals for biota represent a chronology of land-scape transformation inscribed in vocabulary,suchasthechange,inmanyMesoamericanlanguages, in the name for sheep, introducedfrom Spain, to the original name for white-tailed deer, a native forest animal but increas-ingly rare as a result of the invasion of pasturefor sheep grazing, and vice versa (Witkowski& Brown 1983). Historical ecology is inter-disciplinary, and in one of its disciplines, an-thropology, it is clearly intersubdisciplinary.Applied historical ecology may become theholisticengagementofknowledgefromdi-verse disciplines for the benet of human so-cieties and selected biota and landscapes. It isderived from several elds with the objectiveofdeterminingreferenceconditionsofpastlandscapes with the highest degree of authen-ticityfortheperiodchosenforrestoration.The remaining problem, in terms of the ap-plications of historical ecology, concerns po-litical questions as to who will be privilegedin determining the desired time depth (Higgs2003, Jones 2004) and the associated state ofhistorical knowledge(Anderson2001, Hall2005) about the landscapes to be restored.ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFor helpful discussion and suggestion of references, I am indebted to David Campbell, ClarkL. Erickson, and Charbel Ni no El-Hani. For initial bibliographic assistance, I thank NathalieDajko. I gratefully acknowledge the library staff and Ecology Division of Florida Gulf CoastUniversity for making bibliographic resources available to me during the months when TulaneUniversity libraries were closed as a result of Hurricane Katrina.LITERATURE CITEDAdams WY. 1998. The Philosophical Roots of Anthropology. Stanford, CA: Center for the Studyof Language and InformationAlexander KNA, Butler JE. 2004. Is the US concept of old growth relevant to the culturallandscapes of Europe? A UK perspective. See Honnay et al. 2004, pp. 23346Allenby BR. 2000. The fallacy of green technology. Am. Behav. Sci. 44:21328Altieri MA. 2004. Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alter-natives. 2nd ed. Oakland, CA: Food First BooksAlvard MS, Kuznar L. 2001. Deferred harvests: the transition from hunting to animal hus-bandry. Am. Anthropol. 103:295311Anderson MK. 1999. The re, pruning, and coppice management of temperate ecosystems forbasketry material by California Indian tribes. Hum. Ecol. 27:79113Anderson MK. 2001. The contribution of ethnobiology to the reconstruction and restorationof historic ecosystems. See Egan & Howell 2001a, pp. 5572Bal ee W. 1989. The culture of Amazonian forests. See Posey & Bal ee 1989, pp. 121Bal ee W. 1993. Indigenous transformation of Amazonian forests: an example from Maranh ao,Brazil. Homme 33:23154www.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 91Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Bal ee W, ed. 1998a. Advances in Historical Ecology. New York: Columbia Univ. PressBal ee W. 1998b. Historical ecology: premises and postulates. See Bal ee 1998a, pp. 1329Bal ee W. 2000. Antiquity of traditional ethnobiological knowledge in Amazonia: the Tup-Guaran family and time. Ethnohistory 47:399422Bal ee W. 2003. Historical-ecological inuences on the word for cacao in Kaapor. Anthropol.Linguist. 45:25980Bal ee W, Campbell DG. 1990. Evidence for the successional status of liana forest (Xingu Riverbasin, Amazonian Brazil). Biotropica 22:3647Bal ee W, Erickson C, eds. 2006a. Time and Complexity in Historical Ecology: Studies in the Neotrop-ical Lowlands. New York: Columbia Univ. PressBal ee W, Erickson C. 2006b. Time, complexity, and historical ecology. See Bal ee & Erickson2006a, pp. 117Beinart W, Coates P. 1995. Environment and History: The Taming of Nature in the USA andSouthern Africa. London: RoutledgeBeinart W, McGregor J, eds. 2003. Social History and African Environments. Athens: Ohio Univ.PressBiersaack A. 1999. Introduction: from the new ecology to the new ecologies. Am. Anthropol.101:518Bilsky LJ, ed. 1980. Historical Ecology: Essays on Environment and Social Change. Port Washington,NY: Kennikat PressBird DW, Bird RB, Parker CH. 2005. Aboriginal burning regimes and hunting strategies inAustralias Western Desert. Hum. Ecol. 33:44364Boglioli MA. 2000. Civil conict and savage unity: cross-cultural assumptions in ecologicalanthropology. Anthropol. Work Rev. 21:1821Botkin D. 1990. Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. New York:Oxford Univ. PressBoyd R, ed. 1999a. Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacic Northwest. Corvallis: Or. State Univ.PressBoydR. 1999b. Ecological lessons fromNorthwest NativeAmericans. SeeBoyd1999a,pp. 29297Braudel F. 1980. On History. Transl. S Matthews. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressBurney DA. 1995/1996. Historical perspectives on human-assisted biological invasions. Evol.Anthropol. 4:21621Bush MB. 1994. Amazonian speciation: a necessarily complex model. J. Biogeogr. 21:517Byers BA, Cunliffe RN, Hudak AT. 2001. Linking the conservation of culture and nature: acase study of sacred forests in Zimbabwe. Hum. Ecol. 29:187218Campbell DG, Ford A, Lowell KS, Walker J, Lake JK, et al. 2006. The feral forests of theEastern Pet en. See Bal ee & Erickson 2006a, pp. 2155Caron PC, Caron A, DuToit JT. 2003. Ecological implications of bovine tuberculosis in Africanbuffalo herds. Ecol. Appl. 13:133845Clement CR. 1999a. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources. I. The relationbetween domestication and human population decline. Econ. Bot. 53:188202Clement CR. 1999b. 1492 and the loss of Amazonian crop genetic resources II. Crop biogeog-raphy at contact. Econ. Bot. 53:20316ColeJW, Wolf ER. 1974. The HiddenFrontier: EcologyandEthnicityinanAlpine Valley.New York: AcademicCormier LA. 2003. Kinship with Monkeys: The Guaj a Foragers of Eastern Amazonia. New York:Columbia Univ. Press92 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Cormier LA. 2005. Um aroma no ar: a ecologia hist orica das plantas anti-fantasma entre osGuaj a da Amaz onia. Mana 11:12954Cronon W. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of New England. NewYork: Hill & WangCrosby AW. 2004. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 9001900.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2nd ed.Crumley CL, ed. 1994. Historical Ecology: Cultural Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. SantaFe, NM: School of Am. Res. PressCrumley CL. 1998. Foreword. See Bal ee 1998a, pp. ixxivCrumley CL. 2001. Introduction. In New Directions in Anthropology and Environment, ed. CLCrumley, pp. viixi. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira PressCrumley CL. 2003. Historical ecology: integrated thinking at multiple temporal and spatial scales.Presented at World Syst. Hist. Glob. Environ. Change Conf., Lund University, Sweden.http://www.humecol.lu.selwoshglec/ (accessed on November 14, 2005)Denevan 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. NewYork: OxfordUniv. PressDenevanWM.2006.Pre-EuropeanforestcultivationinAmazonia.SeeBal ee&Erickson2006a, pp. 15363Dickinson WR. 2000. Changing times: the Holocene legacy. Environ. Hist. 5:483502Doolittle WF. 2000. Cultivated Landscapes of Native North America. Oxford: Oxford Univ. PressDove MR. 1999. The agronomy of memory and the memory of agronomy: ritual conservationof archaic cultigens in contemporary farming systems. In Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives, ed. V Nazarea, pp. 4570. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. PressDove MR. 2001. Interdisciplinary borrowing in environmental anthropology and the critiqueof modern science. In New Directions in Anthropology and Environment, ed. CL Crumley,pp. 90110. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira PressEgan D, Howell EA, eds. 2001a. The Historical Ecology Handbook: A Restorationists Guide toReference Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island PressEgan D, Howell EA. 2001b. Introduction. See Egan & Howell 2001a, pp. 123EricksonCL. 2000. Anarticial landscape-scalesheryintheBolivianAmazon. Nature408:19093Erickson CL. 2003. Historical ecology and future explorations. In Amazonian Dark Earths:Origin, Properties, Management, ed. J Lehmann, DC Kern, B Glaser, WI Woods, pp. 455500. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: KluwerEricksonCL. 2006. The domesticatedlandscapes of the BolivianAmazon. See Bal ee &Erickson2006a, pp. 23578Erickson CL, Bal ee W. 2006. The historical ecology of a complex landscape in Bolivia. SeeBal ee & Erickson 2006a, pp. 187233Fahrig L. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation in biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst.34:487515Fairhead J, Leach M. 1996. Misreading the African Landscape: Society and Ecology in a Forest-Savanna Mosaic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressFarnsworth ML, Wolfe LL, Hobbs NT, Burnham KP, Williams ES, et al. 2005. Human landuse inuences Chronic Wasting Disease in mule deer. Ecol. Appl. 5:11926Fedick SL. 1995. Indigenous agriculture in the Americas. J. Archaeol. Res. 3:257303Feely-Harnik G. 2001. Ravenala madagascariensis: the historical ecology of a agship speciesin Madagascar. Ethnohistory 48:3186www.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 93Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Finerman R, Sackett R. 2003. Using home gardens to decipher health and healing in the Andes.Med. Anthropol. Q. 17:45982Forman RTT, Godron M. 1986. Landscape Ecology. New York: Wiley & SonsFoster D, Motzkin G, OKeefe J, Boose E, Orwig D, et al. 2004. The environmental and humanhistory of New England. In Forests in Time: The Environmental Consequences of 1,000 Yearsof Change in New England, ed. D Foster, JD Aber, pp. 43100. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.PressFritts TH, Rodder GH. 1998. The role of introduced species in the degradation of islandecosystems: a case history of Guam. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35:14974Glacken CJ. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought fromAncient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century. Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. PressG omez-Pompa A, Kraus A. 1992. Taming the wilderness myth. Bioscience 42:27179G omez-Pompa A, Flores JS, Sosa V. 1987. The pet-kot: a man-made tropical forest of theMaya. Interciencia 12:1015G omez-Pompa A, Salvador Flores J, Alphat Fern andez M. 1990. The sacred cacao groves ofthe Maya. Lat. Am. Antiq. 1:24757Grove AT, Rackham O. 2003. The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History. NewHaven, CT: Yale Univ. PressGunn J. 1994. Introduction: a perspective from the humanities-science boundary. Hum. Ecol.22:122Hall M. 2005. Earth Repair: ATranslatlantic History of Environmental Restoration. Charlottesville:Univ. of Va. PressHayashida FM. 2005. Archaeology, ecological history, and conservation. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.34:4365Headland TN. 1997. Revisionism in ecological anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 38:60530Heckenberger MJ, Kuikuro A, Kuikuro UT, Russell JC, Schmidt M, et al. 2003. Amazonia1492: pristine forest or cultural parkland? Science 301:171014Hierro JL, Maron JL, Callaway R. 2005. A biogeographical approach to invasions: the impor-tance of studying exotics in the introduced and native range. J. Ecol. 93:515Higgs E. 2003. Nature by Design: People, Natural Process, and Ecological Restoration. Cambridge,MA: MIT PressHirsch E, OHaulon M, eds. 1995. The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space.Oxford: Clarendon PressHoltFL.2005.Thecatch-22ofconservation:indigenouspeoples,biologists,andculturalchange. Hum. Ecol. 33:199215Honnay O, Verheyen K, Bossuyt B, Hermy M, eds. 2004. Forest Biodiversity: Lessons fromHistoryfor Conservation. IUFRO Research Series, 10. Cambridge, MA: CABIHughes JD. 1975. Ecology in Ancient Civilizations. Albuquerque: Univ. N. Mex. PressHughes JD. 2001. An Environmental History of the World: Humankinds Changing Role in theCommunity of Life. London: RoutledgeHustonMA. 1994. Biological Diversity: The Coexistence of Species onChanging Landscapes.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressIngold T. 1993. The temporality of the landscape. World Archaeol. 25:15274Janzen D. 1998. Gardenication of wildland nature and the human footprint. Science 279:131213Jeltsch F, Milton SJ, Dean WRJ, van Rooyen N, Moloney KA. 1998. Modelling the impact ofsmall-scale heterogeneities on tree-grass coexistence in semiarid savannas. J. Ecol. 86:7809394 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Jones ME. 2004. Historical ecology for conservation managers. Conserv. Biol. 18:28182Karesh WB, Cook R. 2005. The human-animal link. Foreign Aff. 84:3850Kates RW, Turner BL II, Clark WC. 1990. The great transformation. In The Earth as Trans-formed by Human Action: Global and Regional Changes in the Biosphere Over the Past 300 Years,ed. BL Turner II, pp. 117. New York: Cambridge Univ. PressKidder TR. 1998. The rat that ate Louisiana: aspects of historical ecology in the MississippiRiver Delta. See Bal ee 1998a, pp. 14168Kidder TR, Bal ee W. 1998. Epilogue. See Bal ee 1998a, pp. 40510Kreike E. 2003. Hidden fruits: a social ecology of fruit trees in Namibia and Angola, 1880s1990s. See Beinart & McGregor 2003, pp. 2742Kuhn TS. 1970. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressLakatos I. 1980. The Methodology of Scientic Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers, Vol.1.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressLakatos I. 1999 (1973). The methodology of scientic research programmes. (Linacre lecture#8). In For and Against Method, ed. M Motterlini, pp. 96109. Chicago: Univ. ChicagoPressLeach M, Fairhead J. 2000. Challenging neo-Malthusian deforestation analyses in West Africasdynamic forest landscapes. Popul. Dev. Rev. 26:1743Lentz DL, Haddad L, Cherpelis S, Joo HJM, Potter M. 2002. Long-terminuences of AncientMaya agroforestry practices on tropical forest biodiversity in Northwestern Belize. InEthnobiology and Biocultural Diversity, ed. JR Stepp, FS Wyndham, RK Zarger, pp. 43141.Athens: Univ. Ga. PressLomolino MV. 2000. A call for a new paradigm of island biogeography. Global Ecol. Biogeogr.9:116Lunt ID, Spooner PG. 2005. Using historical ecology to understand patterns of biodiversityin fragmented agricultural landscapes. J. Biogeogr. 32:185973MacArthur RH, Wilson EO. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniv. PressMann C. 2002. 1491. Atlantic Monthly 289:4153MarquardtWH,ed.1992.CultureandEnvironmentintheDomainoftheCalusaInstituteofArchaeology and Paleoenvironmental Studies, Monograph 1. Gainesville: Univ. Fla.Marquardt WH, Crumley CL. 1987. Theoretical issues in the analysis of spatial patterning. InRegional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective, ed. CL Crumley, WHMarquardt, pp. 118. San Diego: AcademicMistryJ, Berardi A, AndradeV, Krah oT, Krah oP, LeonardosO. 2005. IndigenousremanagementinthecerradoofBrazil: thecaseoftheKrah oofTocantins. Hum. Ecol.33:36586Moran EF. 2000. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Boulder, CO:Westview Press. 2nd ed.Myers JH, Bazely D. 2003. Ecology and Control of Introduced Plants. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. PressMyllyntaus T. 2001. Environment in explaining history: restoring humans as part of nature. InEncountering the Past in Nature: Essays in Environmental History, pp. 14160. Athens: OhioUniv. Press. Rev. ed.Neves EG, Petersen JB. 2006. Political economy and pre-Columbian landscape transforma-tions in Central Amazonia. See Bal ee & Erickson 2006a, pp. 279309Newson LA. 1998. A historical-ecological perspective on epidemic disease. See Bal ee 1998a,pp. 4263www.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 95Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Normile D. 2005. Pandemic inuenza: global update. Science 309:37073Nyerges AE, ed. 1997. The Ecology of Practice: Studies in Food Crop Production in Sub-SaharanWest Africa. New York: Gordon & BreachOlwig K. 2003. Landscape: the Lowenthal legacy. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 93:87177Parker E. 1992. Forest islands and Kayap o resource management in Amazonia: a reappraisalof the ap et e. Am. Anthropol. 94:40628Perry DA, Amaranthus MP. 1997. Disturbance, recovery, and stability. In Creating a Forestforthe21stCentury: TheScienceofEcosystemManagement, ed. KAKohm, JFFranklin,pp. 3156. Washington, DC: Island PressPeters RH. 1991. A Critique for Ecology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. PressPeters CM, Balick MJ, Kahn F, Anderson A. 1989. Oligarchic forests of economic plants inAmazonia: utilization and conservation of an important tropical forest resource. Conserv.Biol. 3:34149Peterson DL, Parker VT. 1998. Dimensions of scale in ecology, resource management, andsociety. In Ecological Scale: Theory and Application, ed. DL Peterson, VT Parker, pp. 499522. New York: Columbia Univ. PressPetraitis PS, Latham RE, Niesenbaum RA. 1989. The maintenance of species diversity bydisturbance. Q. Rev. Biol. 64:393418PilsonD, PrendevilleHR. 2004. Ecological effectsoftransgeniccropsandtheescapeoftransgenes into wild populations. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 35:14974Pimm SL. 1991. The Balance of Nature? Ecological Issues in the Conservation of Species and Com-munities. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressPitzl GR. 2004. Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Westport, CT: GreenwoodPolitis G. 2001. Foragers of the Amazon: the last survivors or the rst to succeed? In Un-known Amazon: Culture in Nature in Ancient Brazil, ed. C McEwan, C Barreto, EG Neves,pp. 2649. London: British Museum PressPorroR. 2005. Palms, pastures, andswiddenelds: the groundedpolitical ecology ofagro-extractive/shifting cultivator peasants in Maranh ao, Brazil. Hum. Ecol. 33:1756Posey DA. 1985. Indigenous management of tropical forest ecosystems. Agroforestry Systems3:13958Posey DA, Bal ee W, eds. 1989. Resource Management in Amazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies.Advances in Economic Botany, Vol. 7. Bronx: New York Botanical GardenPyne SJ. 1991. Burning Bush: A Fire History of Australia. New York: Henry HoltPyne SJ. 1998. Forged in re: history, land, and anthropogenic re. See Bal ee 1998a, pp. 64103Rafes H. 2002. In Amazonia: A Natural History. Princeton NJ: Princeton Univ. PressRappaport RA. 2000. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. ProspectHeights, Ill: Waveland Press. 2nd ed.Redman CL. 1999. Human Impact on Ancient Environments. Tucson: Univ. Ariz. PressRenfrew RB, Ribic CA, Nack JL. 2005. Edge avoidance by nesting grassland birds: a futilestrategy in a fragmented landscape. Auk 122:61836Rival L. 2002. TrekkingThroughHistory: TheHuaorani of AmazonianEcuador. NewYork:Columbia Univ. PressRival L. 2006. Amazonian historical ecologies. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 12:S7994RobbinsWG. 1999. Landscapeandenvironment: ecological changeintheIntermontaneNorthwest. See Boyd 1999a, pp. 21937Roger J. 1997. Buffon. Trans. SL Bonnefoi. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. PressRudel TK. 2002. Paths of destruction and regeneration: globalization and forests in the tropics.Rural Sociol. 67:6223696 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Russell E. 1997. People and the Land Through Time: Linking Ecology and History. New Haven:Yale Univ. PressSauer CO. 1956. The agency of man on the Earth. In Mans Role in Changing the Face of theEarth, ed. WL Thomas Jr, CO Sauer, M. Bates, L Mumford, pp. 4969. Chicago: Univ.Chicago PressSchmitz DC, Simberloff D, Hofstetter RH, Haller W, Sutton D. 1997. The ecological impactof nonindigenous plants. See Simberloff et al. 1997, pp. 3961SchulzeCH, WaltertM, KesslerPJA, PitopangR, ShahabuddinVeddelerD, etal. 2004.Biodiversity indicator groups of tropical land-use systems: comparing plants, birds, andinsects. Ecol. Appl. 14:132133Scoones I. 1999. Newecology and the social sciences: what prospects for a fruitful engagement?Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 28:479507Sheuyange A, Oba G, Weladji RB. 2005. Effects of anthropogenic re history on savannavegetation in northeastern Namibia. J. Environ. Manag. 75:18998Simberloff D. 1997. The biology of invasions. See Simberloff et al. 1997, pp. 317Simberloff D, Schmitz DC, Brown TC, eds. 1997. Strangers in Paradise: Impact and Managementof Nonindigenous Species in Florida. Washington, DC: Island PressSmith EA, Wishnie M. 2000. Conservation and subsistence in small-scale societies. Annu. Rev.Anthropol. 29:493524Stahl PW. 1996. Holocenebiodiversity: anarchaeological perspectivefromtheAmericas.Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 25:10526Stahl PW. 2000. Archaeofaunal accumulation, fragmented forests, and anthropogenic land-scape mosaics in the tropical lowlands of prehispanic Ecuador. Latin Am. Antiq. 11:24157Stengers I. 2000 (1993). The Invention of Modern Science. Transl. DWSmith. Minneapolis: Univ.Minn. Press (From French)Stepp JR, Wyndham FS, Zarger RK, eds. 2002. Ethnobiology and Biocultural Diversity. Athens:Univ. Georgia PressStofe RW, Toupal R, Zede no N. 2003. Landscape, nature, and culture: a diachronic model ofhuman-nature adaptation. In Nature Across Cultures: Views of Nature and the Environmentin Non-Western Cultures, ed. H Selin, pp. 97114. Dordrecht: Kluwer AcademicStorm LE. 2002. Patterns and processes of indigenous burning: how to read landscape signa-tures of past human practices. See Stepp et al. 2002, pp. 496508Sutton MQ, Anderson EN. 2004. Introduction to Cultural Ecology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraPressTownsend W. 1996. Nyao It o: Caza y Pezca de los Sirion o. La Paz, Bolivia: Instituto de Ecologa,Universidad Mayor de San Andr esTurner MG. 2005. Landscape ecology: What is the state of the science? Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol.Syst. 36:31944Vansina J. 1990. Paths in the Rainforests: Toward a History of Political Tradition in Equatorial Africa.Madison: Univ. Wisc. PressVayda AP, Walters BB. 1999. Against political ecology. Hum. Ecol. 27:16779Verheyen K, Honnay O, Bossuyt B, Hermy M. 2004. What history can teach us about presentand future forest biodiversity. See Honnay et al. 2004, pp. 19Vieira ICG, Cardoso da Silva JM, Oren DC, DIncao MA, eds. 2001. Biological and CulturalDiversity of Amazonia. Bel em, Brazil: Museu Paraense Emlio GoeldiWalker KJ. 2000. Historical ecology of the southeastern longleaf and slash pine atwoods: aSouthwest Florida perspective. J. Ethnobiol. 20:26999Walker LR, del Moral R. 2003. Primary Succession and Ecosystem Rehabilitation. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge Univ Presswww.annualreviews.org Historical Ecology 97Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.ANRV287-AN35-05 ARI 11 October 2006 17:17Winthrop KR. 2001. Historical ecology: landscape of change in the Pacic Northwest. SeeCrumley 2001, pp. 20322Wiseman FJ. 1978. Agriculture and historical ecology of the Maya lowlands. In Pre-HispanicMaya Agriculture, ed. PD Harrison, BL Turner II, pp. 63115. Albuquerque: Univ. N.Mex. PressWitkowski SR, BrownCH. 1983. Marking-reversals andcultural importance. Language59:56982Wolf ER. 1982. Europe and the People Without History. Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. PressWolf ER. 1999. Cognizing cognized models. Am. Anthropol. 101:1922Wolschke-Bulmahn J. 2004. All of Germany a garden? Changing ideas of wilderness in Germangarden design and landscape architecture. In Nature in German History, ed. C Mauch,pp. 7492. New York: Berghahn BooksWorster D. 1993. The Wealth of Nature: Environmental History and the Ecological Imagination.New York: Oxford Univ. PressWorster D. 1994. Natures Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniv. Press. 2nd ed.Zent EL, Zent S. 2004. Amazonian Indians as ecological disturbance agents: the Hot of theSierra de Maigulaida Venezuelan Guayana. In Ethnobotany and Conservation of BioculturalDiversity, ed. L Maf, TJS Carlson, pp. 79111. Bronx: New York Botanical GardenZimmerer KS. 1993. Agricultural biodiversity and peasant rights to subsistence in the CentralAndes during Inca rule. J. Hist. Geogr. 19:1532Zimmerer KS. 2000. The reworking of conservation geographies: nonequilibrium landscapesand nature-society hybrids. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90:3566998 Bal eeAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.Contents ARI 13 August 2006 13:30Annual Review ofAnthropologyVolume 35, 2006ContentsPrefatory ChapterOn the Resilience of Anthropological ArchaeologyKent V. Flannery p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1ArchaeologyArchaeology of Overshoot and CollapseJoseph A. Tainter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 59Archaeology and Texts: Subservience or EnlightenmentJohn Moreland p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 135Alcohol: Anthropological/Archaeological PerspectivesMichael Dietler p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 229Early Mainland Southeast Asian Landscapes in the FirstMillennium a.d.Miriam T. Stark p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407The Maya CodicesGabrielle Vail p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 497Biological AnthropologyWhat Cultural Primatology Can Tell Anthropologists about theEvolution of CultureSusan E. Perry p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 171Diet in Early Homo: A Review of the Evidence and a New Model ofAdaptive VersatilityPeter S. Ungar, Frederick E. Grine, and Mark F. Teaford p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209Obesity in Biocultural PerspectiveStanley J. Ulijaszek and Hayley Lonk p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 337ixAnnu. Rev. Anthropol. 2006.35:75-98. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.orgby Universidade de Sao Paulo (USP) on 03/11/14. For personal use only.Contents ARI 13 August 2006 13:30Evolution of the Size and Functional Areas of the Human BrainP. Thomas Schoenemann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 379Linguistics and Communicative PracticesMayan Historical Linguistics and Epigraphy: A New SynthesisSren Wichmann p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 279Environmental DiscoursesPeter M uhlh ausler and Adrian Peace p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 457Old Wine, New Ethnographic LexicographyMichael Silverstein p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 481International Anthropology and Regional StudiesThe Ethnography of FinlandJukka Siikala p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p