Social:Environmental impacts of prehistoric cultures

From HandWiki
Short description: none

Template:Underconstruction

Prehistoric cultures significantly transformed their environments by deforestation, fire, construction of structures and irrigation systems, and hunting practices. These behaviors were common in many habitats where humans lived, and culminated in the start of the Anthropocene era – the geological epoch defined by major human impacts to the Earth. As used here, the term "prehistoric cultures" represents all aboriginal, ancestral, or Indigenous[lower-alpha 1] cultures that were the original inhabitants of a region prior to the local adoption of a writing system; and also includes Pre-Columbian cultures in the Americas, regardless of writing system usage.

Prehistoric hunter-gatherers used fire to clear dense vegetation, improve mobility, and facilitate hunting.[lower-alpha 2] The development of agriculture accelerated the impact of humans on the surrounding landscapes. Farming often required clearing cropland, preparing soils, diverting or controlling water, and cultivating particular plant species. Forests and grasslands were converted into fields and pastures, while domesticated animals altered grazing patterns. Irrigation systems changed rivers, wetlands, and soil chemistry.

Prehistoric and Indigenous cultures were responsible for contributing to the extinction of scores of animal species during the Late Quaternary extinction events. In that time, the majority of the world’s megafauna – large animals – went extinct. Humans caused some of those extinctions by a combination of over-hunting and destruction of the animal's natural habitat. The extinctions occurred on all continents (except Antarctica) as humans moved into new regions. Because large animals typically had long gestation periods and low reproductive rates, even small hunting pressures could lead to a population collapse. Evidence for humans as a cause of some of the extinctions includes a strong temporal correlation between the arrival of humans and the subsequent rapid disappearance of megafauna, coupled with the lack of evidence of sudden climate changes at the same time.[lower-alpha 3] The elimination of megafauna and the modification of landscapes had cascading effects on prehistoric ecosystems. Large herbivores maintained the environment by grazing, browsing, and trampling open spaces.

By 12,000 years ago, more than 90% of Earth's tropical forests and 95% of its temperate forests were inhabited and shaped by Indigenous peoples. In the modern era, alterations to the ecosystem have increased significantly, particularly after the start of the Industrial Age. Damage to the environment by modern humans – particularly by descendants of Western colonists – is more rapid and intensive than the damage caused by prehistoric and Indigenous peoples. The perception of prehistoric and Indigenous cultures in the Western imagination is sometimes influenced by myths such as the "pristine myth" – the illusion that lands inhabited by prehistoric peoples were a pristine wilderness, essentially unaffected by human impact. Another myth is the "ecological noble savage" – the belief that prehistoric and Indigenous peoples were role models of conservation and never damaged their ecosystems.

Impacts to habitat

Further information: Habitat fragmentation, Deforestation, and Slash-and-burn agriculture

Human-caused impacts to the global environment have increased significantly since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s, but humans have impacted their surroundings since long before that.[1] According to the archaeologist Patrick Kirch:[2]

Homo sapiens has been an environment transforming species virtually since we gained control over fire and launched our relentless trajectory of technological development, deep in the Pleistocene and early in our own biological history.

The impacts of prehistoric peoples during the Holocene were felt everywehere on Earth except Antarctica.[2] The impacts were driven by the emergence of complex societies, and the pastoral and agricultural industries that were required to support them.[2]

Major impacts from humans began with the agricultural cultures in the early Holocene. Many of the impacts have resulted in irreversible changes to natural landscapes around the world.[1] Impacts from prehistoric cultures include landscape erosion, conversion of habitat to cropland, animal extinctions, deforestation, and resource depletion.[1]

Over the past 10,000 years, humans have altered the Earth's environtment, biodiversity, landscapes, and climate.[3] These transformations began many thousands of years in the past by traditional, Indigenous, and prehistoric cultures.[4] These impacts began before the advent of agriculture, and the effects vary widely across regions.[4]

Some traditional land use practices produced cascading environmental consequences, sometimes leading to extinctions animal species.[5] Historical land use practices have both improved and degraded the environment: sometimes damaging soil, other times enriching it; sometimes destroying habitat, other time creating new habitats; sometimes causing animal extinctions, other times propagating domesticated species.[3]

12,000 years ago, more than 90% of Earth's tropical forests and 95% of its temperate forests were inhabited and shaped by indigenous peoples.[6] Scholars have measured the impacts of humans and found (as of 2021) that between 75% and 95% of the world's ice-free land has been transformed by people.[7][lower-alpha 4] Humans alter the land by polluting, emitting greenhouse gases, fragmenting, altering or destroying habitats, and introducing invasive species.[7]

Biodiversity losses occurring in the early 21st century are primarily caused by appropriation or intensified use of lands that were already inhabited, rather than by occupation or degradation of uninhabited environments.[6]

Impacts to animals

Further information: Extinction

Over the past 129,000 years[lower-alpha 5] many megafauna species around the world became extinct. Although extinctions are common in the geological record going back many millions of years, the speed and magnitude of the extinctions since 129,000 BP is unusual.[9] The majority of large land animal species living in the world 100,000 years ago have become extinct since then.[10] Among these extinctions are over 350 mammal species, which reduced the global count of mammal species (of all sizes) to approximately 5,700 in 2020.[11] In the Americas, over 66 genera (over two thirds) of large[lower-alpha 6] mammals became extinct.[12] In North America alone, about 38 genera of large animals became extinct, including 19 genera of mammals.[13]

The extinctions – though occurring in a brief time span when considered geologically – occurred at different times around the globe.[10] These extinctions happened during the latter part of the Quaternary geological period – extending from about 129,000 years ago to the present. The extinctions are sometimes divided into two groups: extictions during the Late Pleistocene (between 129,000 and 11,700 years ago), and extinctions during in the Holocene (from 11,700 years ago to the present).[14]

Causes of extinctions

Further information: Late Pleistocene extinctions, Holocene extinction, and Timeline of extinctions in the Holocene

Academics have explored the causes of the late Quaternary extinctions since the early 19th century.[15] In the 21st century, the debate over the cause of the extinctions was vigorous, and often focused on the extent to which humans were responsible for the extinctions.[16] Causes proposed for the extinctions may be grouped as:[17]

  • Human causes – Over-hunting;[lower-alpha 7] second-order predation (over-hunting an herbivore species upon which the extinct species fed); habitat alterations or reductions; introduction of invasive species; fires set by humans (deliberately or accidentally) resulting in loss of habitat or lack of forage; pollution
  • Climatic causes – Including gradual climate changes, as well as rapid changes such as Younger Dryas or Clovis age drought
  • Other causes – Infectious disease; natural extinction of herbivores leading to extinction of carnivores
  • Synergistic combination of multiple causes – For example, human activities (fire, hunting, agriculture, deforestation) contributing to climate change[18]

The two primary causes are climate change and human activity.[lower-alpha 8] Most of the recent megafauna extinctions occurred after the arrival of humans, but proving cause-and-effect is difficult due to the fact the events happened long in the past. The nature of the extinctions varied between species and locations.[19]

Extinctions caused by human activity

A large number of Late Quaternary megafauna extinctions were a result of human activity, including hunting and habitat destruction.[20] Evidence for humans being the primary driver include the timing of extinctions following human arrival, the lack of climate change at the time of extinctions, archaeological evidence of hunting and habitat destruction, geographic correlation of human presence and extinction events, and analysis of large fauna that did not go extinct.[citation needed]

Humans were not responsible for all megafauna extinctions. A 2021 study of extinctions on islands found that while extinctions during the Holocene were often caused by humans, earlier Pleistocene extinctions often were not.[21] Some scholars, as of 2020, argue that the extinctions in North American were primarily caused by climate changes.[22]

Human arrival dates

Further information: Early human migrations
Successive dispersals of
     Homo erectus greatest extent (yellow),
     Homo neanderthalensis greatest extent (ochre)
     Homo sapiens (red), with the numbers of years since they are first recorded before present.

One of the difficulties in determining causes of extinctions is ascertaining when humans arrived in specific locations on Earth. One technique to estimate arrival time is to measure proxy data which is correlated with human arrival. Proxy data includes pollen counts, traces of small invertebrates (such as rats), increase in charcoal particles, and a decrease in dung-fungus spores.[23] A 2005 study estimated human arrival dates in several locations and identified a common pattern of faunal collapse after human arrival.[24]

A 2016 study showed that the primary driver of the extinctions was the arrival of humans, but climate change also played a role.[25] The impact on species of climate change was not rapid: the changes could take several thousand years to affect the species.[26] The study used a model that performed well (corresponded with known data based on archaeological records) in most of the world, including North and South America, Europe, Australia, Japan, Madagascar , Tasmania, and New Zealand.[27] The model's predictions did not perform well in Africa and Asia.[28]

An argument against climate change as a cause is the fact that extinctions around the world happened at various times, whereas a global climate change would tend to produce extinctions at roughly the same time.[29]

Geographic distribution

A 2014 study that concentrated on the geographic distribution of extinction events concluded that the extinctions were closely correlated with the geographical locations of human expansion, and weakly correlated with the severity of climate changes. The implication of human causation was especially strong in locations where Homo sapiens were the first hominin to arrive.[30] The study found significant discrepancies between the locations of climate changes and the locations of extinctions.[30][lower-alpha 9]

Extinction rates

Computer models were used in 2020 to analyze how extinction rates evolved since the Late Pleistocene.[11] The models were used to analyze which factors contributed to the extinctions.[11] The models showed that climate change was not a likely factor, because random changes to model conditions produced similar results as conditions that varied climate data.[11] Conversely, the model showed that human impacts were strongly correlated with the extinctions.[11]

The scientists that ran the models concluded that humans caused many extinctions that followed after human arrival on new landmasses.[32] The models also predict that continuing human development in the 21st century will cause a new wave of mammal extinctions to begin around 2100 CE in all regions of the world.[33]

Analysis of surviving megafauna

To answer the question of whether the megafauna extinctions were caused by human activities or climate change, one approach used by scientists in a 2023 study was to analyze the megafauna species that did not go extinct.[34] The surviving species faced two possible futures after the extinctions: their populations could grow due to the elimination of competitors for food and habitat; or their populations could shrink due to same reason (whatever it was) that caused the extinctions.[34]

To determine which of those two explanations was more likely, a 2023 study examined the history of 139 species that survived the extinctions. The study found that 91% of the species suffered a decline in population, with larger-sized species experiencing larger declines.[35] The population declines were found in all landmasses on Earth, which is consistent with a cause related to human activities (rather than climate change).[34] Another factor indicating that the declines were caused by humans is that the megafauna abundance and biomass turnover around the world decreased by 92 to 95%.[34] Human-related causes of the population declines were also implicated by the fact that the declines were most pronounced in particular temporal periods when the presence of humans were expanding into new regions (which would be unlikely if the cause was climate change).[36]

In the 21st century, megafauna populations have decreased to new lows, and many remaining species are threatened with extinction. Further extinctions would have negative impacts on the ecosystems within which these remaining megafauna species live.[37]

Impacts by region

Eurasia

The Woolly rhinoceros became extinct around 9,800 BP. A 2024 study of the causes of the extinction concluded that a synergistic combination of climate change (leading to fragmentation and reduction of habitat) and human hunting (low-level, but sustained) caused the extinction, with climate change as the dominant cause.[38]

Southern Levant

A 2022 study focusing on the Southern Levant examined whether megafauna extinctions were due to climate changes or human hunting.[39] The size and mass of hunted animals was studied across a time span ranging from 1.5 MYA to 10,500 years ago: during that time span, the mean body mass declined by a factor of about 60 times.[39] The changes in hunted animal body size over that time declined at a linear rate, and was not correlated with climate changes.[39] The researchers concluded that humans hunted megafauna until they were extirpated, then shifted to the next-larges prey, and repeated that cycle.[39] Humans were required to develop new technologies to successfully hunt smaller prey.[39] The scientists concluded that the extinction of animals in the Southern Levant was due to human hunting, rather than climate change.[40]

Africa

Around 2 million years ago, hominids in Africa evolved into the carnivore ecological niche.[41] Since that time, the ecological diversity of other carnivores in Africa has significantly diminished, leading some scientists to speculate that hominids were partially responsible for the loss in diversity.[42]

The late Quaternary extinctions were not as acute in Africa as in other continents, possibly because of the very lengthy and gradual co-evolution of large fauna and hominids.[43] Still, 24 African large mammals species became extinct.[42] Humans were the most likely driver in these extinctions, based on the timing of the extinctions in relation to climate changes and human behavioral changes.[42]

Starting in the mid-Holocene, African peoples use of pastoralism (domestic livestock) and agricultural expanded throughout the continent.[44]

Between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago, large parts of the rainforest in Central Africa became deforested and abruptly changed to savanna.[45] These changes took place in the modern nations Gabon, Cameroon. Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Republic of the Congo.[46] Hypotheses to explain this transition include climate change and human activity.[47] Prior to 2012, the scientific consensus was that regional climate oscillations were responsible for the changes to the landscape.[48]

The deforestation coincided with the large-scale movement of Bantu-speaking farmers from their original homelands in modern Nigeria and Cameroon, moving south and east through much of Central Africa.[47] It is difficult to determine if the migration of the Bantu followed opportunistically into areas deforested by climate change, or if the Bantu actively cleared the forests.[45]

Evidence for human activity causing the deforestation includes the fact that the deforestation happened contemporaneously with the migration of Bantu-speaking people, who required land for crops.[49] Additionally, the speed of transition from rainforest to savanna was much faster than other climate-based fluctuations during the Holocene, suggesting that climate change alone may not have been responsible, leading some scientists to conclude that human activity was a significant factor in the deforestation.[49]

Madagascar

Further information: Deforestation in Madagascar

Central America

The Maya civilization flourished in Central America from about 2000 BCE to 1000 CE.[50] The Maya altered their environment with waterworks (dams, reservoirs, and canals), urban infrastructure (temples, buildings, and roads), slash-and-burn fires to clear forest, and establishing terraces, fields, and orchards for agriculture.[51][lower-alpha 10] The impacts on the environment affected the Maya negatively in some ways, including soil erosion, sedimentation in bodies of water, and mercury pollution, but these impacts enabled growth and improvements to the Maya civilization, such as roads, gardens, cities, and reservoirs.[53][lower-alpha 11]

North America

After the arrival of humans in North America in the late Pleistocene, more than half of the large mammal species became extinct.[55] The scientist Paul Schultz Martin proposed in the 1970s that many of the extinctions were due to human hunting.[56] Whether the extinctions were due to human hunting or other factors (such as climate change) continued to be subject of scientific debate in the early 21st century.[57] The term "overkill" is used by scientists to represent the hypothesis that a prey species became extinct primarily due to human hunting activities.[57]

Computer simulations have been performed to assess the overkill hypothesis: whether human hunting, alone, could account for the North American mammal extinctions.[55] A simulation was executed in 2001 which assumed random hunting and slow human population increase.[58] The simulation showed that the most important factor influencing the extinction outcomes was the hunting skill of humans. Factors that were not important included competition for food between prey species, and geographic dispersal of prey.[59] The simulation suggested that extinctions would occur in three waves: first, within 1,000 yeas of human arrival; second, during the next few hundred years; and third, a few remaining species.[60]

The simulation showed that human hunting alone could readily cause the extinction of many large mammal species.[58] In fact, the simulation indicated that extinctions were unavoidable.[61] The decline of prey populations may have been so rapid, that the human hunters did not recognize the ecological consequences while they were happening.[61]

The Clovis culture were peoples living in North America around 12,800 years Before Present (BP). Scientists have theorized that the Clovis hunted megafauna.[62] A 2024 study analyzed the only known Clovis skeletal remains, and compared it to megafauna data. The analysis showed that that mammoth was the largest contributor to Clovis diet, supplemented with bison and elk.[62] The diet was comparable to the diet of now-extinct saber-toothed cats [62]

Indigenous peoples living in the boreal forests of North America used controlled fires to manage their habitat.[63] The purposes of the fires included controlling undergrowth vegetation, improving hunting success, and clearing campsites.[63] Practices varied between regions.[63] In the 21st century, forestry services are working with Indigenous peoples to incorporate traditional knowledge into forest management practices.[64][lower-alpha 12]

A search for archaeological evidence of humans hunting Pleistocene mammals found evidence for 5 of 37 genera, leading researchers to conclude that human hunting may not be the cause of Pleistocene extinctions of mammals in North America.[66] The same researchers questioned the use of computer models to analyze the causes of extinctions.[67] In opposition, proponents of the "overkill" hunting hypothesis have argued that concrete archaeological evidence is not required to demonstrate that hunting was the cause.[68] Megafauna extinctions in Southern California were partially caused by human activity (fires and hunting),[lower-alpha 13] but those actions were exacerbated by an increasingly arid, dry climate.[70]

South America

Further information: Environmental history of Latin America and Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest

Although Amazonia is sometimes viewed in the popular imagination as an untouched wilderness, many parts were heavily impacted by pre-Columbian human settlement.[71] Pre-Columbian cultures in Amazonia were not conservationists, and they sometimes eliminated forests to make room for villages and crops.[72] They did not have iron tools, and used fire to make clearings for structures and agriculture, the remains of which is often visible in the modern era as Amazonian dark earth or terra preta.[73] They also may have contributed to the extinction of some South American megafauna.[73] They introduced crops brought from Mesoamerica, and abandoned fields turned into secondary forests that were different from the original forests.[73]

As late as 2010, some scientists continued to be surprised to find evidence of significant human impacts in certain remote parts of the Amazon basin.[73] In 2008, some biodiversity scientists studying the Caxiuana National Forest were surprised to discover extensive evidence of environmental alterations caused by ancient human cultures.[73]

After the arrival of Europeans in Amazonia, the population of Indigenous peoples there diminished, and during the 18th century, many regions were abandoned and agricultural areas were reclaimed by new sorts of biodiversity.[74] In the early 19th century, European scientists – such as Henry Walter Bates and Alfred Russel Wallace – visited Amazonia and erroneously concluded that the secondary forests were in their original, pre-human condition.[75]

Some scholars contend that the impacts of early human inhabitants of Amazonia were sustainable, and even benefited the environment by increasing biodiversity.[76] The magnitude and extent of the prehistoric impacts is uncertain, and Jos Barlow contends that many parts of Amazonia, particularly those far from navigable rivers, were not impacted.[76]

Although pre-Columbian humans made extensive alterations to the environment, the magnitude was generally far less than late 20th century large-scale agricultural practices.[73] The agricultural traditions of the prehistoric peoples may offer examples of less-intensive practices that can be used in the modern era to minimize damage to the Amazonian environment.[77]

In the cloud forests of Ecuador, before the arrival of Europeans, prehistoric cultures deforested large amounts of their environment for their own uses.[78] The intensive management and cultivation of the cleared landscapes continued until arrival of the Europeans caused the Indigenous population to dramatically decrease, leading to a cessation of deforestation around 1588 CE.[78][lower-alpha 14] During the next 130 years, a secondary forest grew in the formerly cultivated areas, creating a dense forest that Europeans incorrectly assumed was a pristine wilderness.[78] The deforestation performed by the Indigenous peoples was more extensive than the post-1950 deforestation performed by descendents of European colonizers.[79]

Oceania

Australia

Further information: Australian megafauna

Humans colonized Australia between 55,000 and 45,000 years ago.[80] Most of Australia's largest mammals became extinct 50,000 to 45,000 years ago, shortly after the arrival of humans.[80] At least 60 species became extinct, including all large browsers.[80]

A 2005 study of emu eggshells, ranging back 140,000 years, analyzed isotope contained in the eggshells, which provided a history of the diet of the emus.[81] The isotope history showed that a permanent reduction in the variety of food sources available to the emus happened, beginning at about the time that humans arrived.[81]

Researchers considered various potential causes for the change in vegetation, and discarded climate change because known, large climate changes (at other times) did not produce a comparable isotope change; and because there were no major climate changes between 40 and 60 KYA.[82]

The researchers also considered human-related causes, such as hunting, human-introduced diseases, and fires.[81] Hunting and disease were discarded as possibilities because they would not produce such dramatic vegetation changes.[82] The remaining cause, fires set by humans, was consistent with the isotope record, because the record indicated that, soon after human arrival, the available vegetation mixture changed from one adapted to drought to a mixture adapted to fire.[82] The researchers concluded that fires set by humans was the most plausible cause of the extinctions.[81] The animals that could adapt to the vegetation change survived; and those that could not became extinct.[80]

Data from the island of Tasmania is consistent with a chronology where the extinctions followed soon after the arrival of humans.[83] The arrival of humans on Tasmania occurred between 43 and 40 KYA, [83] Analysis of fossils shows that some Tasmanian megafauna survived until 41 KYA, and so there was overlap between the presence of humans and megafauna on Tasmania.[83] In addition, the historical vegetation data of Tasmania does not show any significant climate changes between 43 and 37 KYA, indicating that humans are a plausible cause of the extinctions.[83]

New Zealand

Further information: Maori and conservation, Biodiversity of New Zealand, and Deforestation in New Zealand

New Zealand was home to several species of moa (Dinornithiformes) – large, flightless birds. All moa species became extinct following the arrival of Polynesians in the islands during the 13th century. The Polynesians caused the extinction through hunting and habitat destruction.[84][lower-alpha 15] The extirpation was one of the final megafauna extinctions of the Late Quaternary extinctions.[19]

At the time the Polynesians extirpated the moa on the South Island, the total human population of New Zealand was less than 2,000.[84] The extinction was completed within 150 years of the arrival of the Polynesians.[84] The population density at the time of the extinction wasa very sparse: at most 0.01 humans per kmTemplate:Super.[84] Evidence of moa butchery is found in over 100 sites on New Zealand's South Island. Evidence is rarer on the North Island, perhaps because the higher density of Polynesians in tne north cause the extinction to proceed rapidly, thus leaving few traces.[86]

Climate change was eliminated as a possible cause of the extinctions based on scientific analysis of moa fossils and habitats indicate that their populations were stable and large prior to the arrival of humans. There is no evidence of a gradual decline in population, as might be caused by climate change.[87][lower-alpha 16] When Polynesians arrived, the moa population of New Zealand was estimated to be about 9,200 individuals.[88] Archaeological evidence shows that humans hunted the moa.[88] The moa were extirpated within 100 to 200 years after humans arrived.[88] The extinction of the moa was the most rapid recorded (as of 2014) human-facilitated megafauna extinction.[19] For these reasons, human hunting is most likely the only cause of the moa's extinction.[88]

Polynesian islands

Most islands in the Pacific were settled in the late Holocene, and the arrival of humans caused rapid and significant ecological changes.[89] In the eastern Polynesian islands particularly, human activity resulted in extensive deforestation and animal extinctions due to hunting, anthropogenic fire, and the introduction of rats.[89][90] In the eastern Polynesian islands, over 1,000 species of birds became extinct, particularly flightless birds vulnerable to introduced predators and larger birds favored by hunters.[89]

Tonga

Humans settled in Tonga about 3000 years ago, and soon thereafter the giant iguana and scrubfowl became extinct.[91] The extinctions were so rapid, the time interval between the arrival of humans and the extinctions was less than the margin of error of the radiocarbon dating used to perform the dating.[91]

The myths of the pristine wilderness and the noble savage

Further information: Noble savage

A discussion of the impacts on the environment by prehistoric or Indigenous cultures is often found as part of a broader discourse that encompasses topics such as the myth of "pristine wilderness", the definitions of "wilderness" and "nature", and the myth of the "ecological noble savage".[92]

The concept of pristine wilderness – meaning a landscape unchanged by any human activity – is primarily a Western notion, commonly used in that sense in the Scandinavia, USA, and Australia.[93] In many parts of the world, prehistoric cultures did not (at the time of arrival by Westerners) place value (or, in some cases, even have a word for) the idea of wilderness or "nature untouched by humans".[94]

The phrase pristine myth was coined in a 1992 article by the geographer William Denevan.[95] The term refers to the illusion that lands inhabited by prehistoric peoples were a pristine wilderness, essentially unaffected by human impact when colonizers or Western peoples first arrived.[96] Belief in the pristine myth was widespread in the 19th and 20th centuries, and continued into the early 21st century.[97][lower-alpha 17]

In the 1990s, Denevan and several other academics published research that established that the vast majority of lands inhabited by prehistoric cultures were significantly modified by those peoples in virtually all locations on Earth, although the nature and degree of the impact varied widely from location to location.[99] The consensus of scholars is that there was virtually no pristine wilderness in any of the lands encountered by colonizers or Western peoples, and thus the pristine myth is false.[100]

Related to the pristine myth is the myth of the ecological noble savage.[101][lower-alpha 18] The myth of the ecological noble savage is recent variant of the noble savage cultural stereotype, which originated several hundred years ago in the Western imagination.[102]. During the environmental movement of the 1970s, Indigenous peoples were imagined to be environmental role models: living in perfect harmony with nature, never changing or harming the ecosystem.[103]

Historian Shepard Krech, in his work The Ecological Indian, analyzed the Indigenous peoples of North America, and examined extinctions, the Hohokam culture, fires, and hunting (deer, beaver, and bison). His conclusion was that Native Americans (prior to the 20th century) were ecologists because they were deeply aware of the interrelatioships between humans, animals, and nature; but they were not not conservationists because they did not avoid waste and did not perserve resources for future availability.[104]

Globally, academics generally concluded that the concept of the ecological noble savage was essentially false, and that the prehistoric peoples significantly impacted their habitat in virtually all places they inhabited, resulting in significant, permanent changes to the ecosystem, including – in some cases – extinction of species and deforestation.[105]

Applicability of modern conservation ideals to prehistoric and Indigenous peoples

Further information: Ecological anthropology and Ethnoecology

Researchers generally agree that archaeological evidence demonstrates that prehistoric and Indigenous peoples did not practice conservation in the modern sense of maintaining nature in its original state.[106] In fact, the practices of some Indigenous cultures led to large-scale damage to the environment.[107] This research generated new discussions about whether modern values of conservation and sustainability are applicable to prehistoric or Indigenous cultures.[108] Some scholars contend that it is inappropriate to apply Western concepts of ecology or conservation to Indigenous peoples.[109][citation needed]

The myth of the noble savage has been applied to political ends in two ways: Indigenous peoples have used the myth to support their arguments for equality and self determination. And conservation organizations have used the myth to generate support for their causes.[110] The anthropologist Mac Chapin criticized several major conservation organizations in 2004, claiming their drives to preserve wilderness in an untouched state was harmful to Indigenous communities that lived in or near those preserves.[111]

The suggestion that a pristine wilderness, untouched by humans, is an ideal or desirable condition has been criticized as a racist or ethnocentric social construct.[112] The philosopher J. Baird Callicott wrote that the idea of wilderness is "alleged [by various authors] to be ethnocentric, androcentric, phallogocentric, unscientific, unphilosophic, impolitic, outmoded, even genocidal".[113]

An alternative to the notion of pristine wilderness is a "humanized landscape" or "humanized nature", defined as habitat that has been modified by humans to suit their needs and enable them to survive.[114] To some prehistoric cultures, the normal, natural state of a landscape incorporates those modifications by humans required for their society to grow and thrive.[citation needed] Many people in the Chinese culture believe that humanized nature is more beautiful than pristine wilderness.[115]

Relevance in the modern era

Studying the human-caused prehistoric impacts to the environment may provide insights that can be used to inform future environmental practices and policies.[116]

One reason scientists analyze historical human-caused impacts to the environment is to provide insight that may provide guidance into modern environmental challenges.[117] The manner and speed in which past environmental impacts occurred around the world when humans first migrated into landmasses may yield insights that can mitigate damage to the environment in the future.[118][citation needed] The geographer Tim Beach wrote:

Both scientists and the broader public are aware that humans are having profound effects on Earth, but to quantify the scale and rate at which human impacts are altering the planet, we must know about background conditions and the chronology of change. One aspect of the Anthropocene discussion has been its timing, i.e. when did the period of large-scale human impact begin?[119]

An additional reason why scientists feel compelled to determine if humans caused the extinctions is to inform society's future behavior regarding conservation. If human hunting and habitat alterations caused the ancient extinctions, it may provide motivation to prevent future extinctions, and it may also provide incentive to revive extinct species or to introduce surrogates – such as restoring elephants, cheetahs, or camels to North America.[120]

A 2022 report on conservation strategies for primates found that the geographic ranges of 71% of primate species are partially within lands occupied by Indigenous cultures, who tend to employ less intensive hunting and land use practices than non-Indigenous communities.[lower-alpha 19] The study concluded that efforts to conserve primate species in the future should include plans to support Indigenous communities in places where primates live.[122]

Historical examples of environmental damage by prehistoric or Indigenous peoples can also be used in improper ways, for example to demonize modern Indigenous peoples, to justify intensive development of a region because it was already impacted, or to justify new, intensive damage to the environment because prehistoric or Indigenous peoples engaged in similar practices.[123]

Indigenous peoples and stewardship of the environment

In the past, some traditional land use practices produced cascading environmental consequences, sometimes leading to extinctions.[5] But in the modern era, some of the most biodiverse regions in the world are those managed by Indigenous peoples.[5] Lands that apply traditional low-intensity agricultural practices tend to be more biodiverse than lands that use high-intensity methods.[5] Land use practices in the modern era can be shaped in a way that enhances the fertility of soil, enhances biodiversity, and improves hunting sustainability.[5]

In the modern era, Indigenous cultures often play an important role in environmental conservation, providing stewardship of habitats, plants, and animals.[124] Indigenous communities offer unique values, insights, and practices that can help the broader society address-environmental issues.[125] Indigenous peoples positively engage with the environment in various ways, including:[125]

  1. Undertaking territorial management practices and customary governance
  2. Participating in environmental conservation efforts
  3. Sharing environmental knowledge
  4. Opposing unsustainable and unjust use of resources
  5. Collaborating in governmental processes related to the environment
  6. Providing alternative approaches for people to relate to the environment

An analysis of Indigenous cultures in South America in the 21st century found that the cultural diversity they provided correlated strongly with biodiversity in the surrounding environment, suggesting that the existence of culturally unique Indigenous communities contribute to conservation efforts.[126]

Impacts to the environment by Indigenous peoples in the modern era

History of research

Anthropologists, geographers and scholars from other scientific disciplines have studied the impacts of prehistoric humans on the environment. An early work that inquired into the impacts of prehistoric cultures on the environment was the 1867 book Man and Nature: or, Physical Geography as modified by human action by the philologist George Perkins Marsh. Early 20th century works on the subject were two by the geographer Carl O. Sauer: his 1925 monograph The Morphology of Landscape and his 1952 book Agricultural Origins and Dispersals. Academic research into the topic of impacts from prehistoric peoples took a major leap forward in 1955, in a symposium titled Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth funded by the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.[2][lower-alpha 20] One of the earliest works to explicitly claim that human hunting caused many of the Late Quaternary extinctions was the 1966 article "Africa and Pleistocene Overkill" by the geoscientist Paul Schultz Martin. As late as 1966, some researchers were doubting the possibility that humans caused some of the Late Quaternary extinctions.[127] The first major article to debunk the Western myth of the pristine wilderness was the 1992 article "The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492" by the geographer William Denevan. An early work to discuss the Western concept of the "ecological noble savage" was the 1999 book The Ecological Indian: Myth and History by the anthropologist Shepard Krech.

References

Notes

  1. ↑ In this article, the terms "Indigenous peoples" and "Indigenous cultures" are used in a broad sense to refer to the original inhabitants of a region, regardless of subsequent colonization by Europeans or other Westerners.
  2. ↑ Not all fires were initiated by humans: wildfires, sometimes started by lightning, were common.
  3. ↑ Some megafauna extinctions were not caused by humans; and other extinctions were caused by a synergistic combinations of humans and climate changes.
  4. ↑ One study found that, as of 2021, only about 17% of Earth's land was without evidence of human use or habitation.[8]
  5. ↑ Academics use various starting dates for the extinction events: 132,000 years ago,[9] 129, 000 years ago,[citation needed] or 100,000 years ago.[10]
  6. ↑ The definition of "large" animals and "megafauna" varies among authorities, but 44 kg is a common weight limit.
  7. ↑ In the context of studying extinctions, the term "overkill" is often used to denote over-hunting to the point of severe decline or extinction.
  8. ↑ Either together or in combination.
  9. ↑ An exception was Eurasia, where there was a potential correlation between extinction and climate change.[31]
  10. ↑ Although the Maya civilization declined after about 1000 CD, and many forests regrew, impacts of the Mayan culture remain in the early 21st century.[52]
  11. ↑ The extent of impacts introduced by the Maya civilization may have exceeded that of the changes in Amazonia, due to the higher density of sites in Maya territory.[54]
  12. ↑ Regarding the scope of the Christianson 2022 paper, the authors state: "... we intentionally did not review pub- lications that hypothesize Indigenous fire use practices based on archeological, dendrochronology, or other methods of assessing fire history that do not engage with Indigenous peoples directly. In terms of limitations, our review does not delve into the impact of fire on wildlife populations...".[65]
  13. ↑ The 2023 study reporting this did not determine with certainty the cause of the fires, but states that the intense human activity occurring simultaneously with the increase in fires suggests humans may be at least partially at fault.[69]
  14. ↑ The population decrease was due to disease, uprisings, and brutal treatment by the Europeans.[79]
  15. ↑ In the mid-20th century, climate change was considered to be a plausbiel explanation of the New Zealand extinctions, but that view was discarded in the latter part of the 20th century.[85]
  16. ↑ The population of the moa increased during the Holocene.[88]
  17. ↑ Early supporters of the pristine myth in the US included Henry David Thoreau and James Fenimore Cooper.[98]
  18. ↑ The term "ecological Indian" is also used, in a North American context, for the notion of ecological noble savage.[101]
  19. ↑ The traditional cultures of Madagascar were considered to be non-Indigenous in the study, because those peoples did not self-identify as Indigenous, which is an required element of the definition of Indigenous in the Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989.[121]
  20. ↑ According to archaeologist Patrick Vinton Kirch, the 1955 symposium "is rightly regarded as a classic in human ecology and environmental history. Although the historians, anthropologists, geographers, and natural scientists who participated in this monumental synthesis greatly assisted in breaking down the myth of natural man, there was notably little contribution from archaeology, which at that time was only just beginning to broaden its research horizons...."[2]

Citations

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Kirch 2005, p. 409.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Kirch 2005, p. 433.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Ellis 2021a, p. 1.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Ellis 2021a, p. 24.
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Ellis 2021a, p. 21.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Ellis 2021b, p. 1.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Ellis 2021a, p. 2.
  8. ↑ Ellis 2021b, p. 7.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Sandom 2014, Secs. "Abstract", "Introduction".
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Bartlett 2016, p. 152.
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Andermann 2020, p. 1.
  12. ↑ Harkin & Lewis 2007, p. 99.
  13. ↑ Meltzer 2020, pp. 28555–28556.
  14. ↑
  15. ↑ Harkin & Lewis 2007, p. 96.
  16. ↑
  17. ↑
  18. ↑ Doughty 2013, pp. 504–505, 519–520.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 Allentoft 2014, p. 4922.
  20. ↑
  21. ↑ Louys 2021, pp. 1–7.
  22. ↑ Meltzer 2020, pp. 28555–28556, 28559–28560.
  23. ↑ Burney 2005, pp. 398–399.
  24. ↑ Burney 2005, p. 395.
  25. ↑ Bartlett 2016, pp. 152, 159.
  26. ↑ Bartlett 2016, p. 158.
  27. ↑ Bartlett 2016, pp. 158–159.
  28. ↑ Bartlett 2016, p. 159.
  29. ↑ Burney 2005, p. 396.
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Sandom 2014, Secs. "Abstract", "Discussion".
  31. ↑ Sandom 2014, Sec. "Discussion".
  32. ↑ Andermann 2020, p. 9.
  33. ↑ Andermann 2020, p. 1,9.
  34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 34.2 34.3 Bergman 2023, p. 1.
  35. ↑ Bergman 2023, p. 1, 7.
  36. ↑ Bergman 2023, p. 7.
  37. ↑ Bergman 2023, p. 8.
  38. ↑ Fordham 2024, pp. 1, 7.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 Dembitzer 2022, pp. 1, 8.
  40. ↑ Dembitzer 2022, pp. 8.
  41. ↑ Hoag 2017, pp. 29, 41.
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Hoag 2017, p. 41.
  43. ↑
  44. ↑ Hoag 2017, p. 38.
  45. ↑ 45.0 45.1 Bayon 2012, pp. 1219, 1221.
  46. ↑ Bayon 2012, p. 1220.
  47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Bayon 2012, p. 1221.
  48. ↑ Bayon 2012, p. 1219.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Bayon 2012, pp. 1219–1220.
  50. ↑ Beach 2015, p. 8.
  51. ↑ Beach 2015, pp. 1, 3, 7–8, 10, 17.
  52. ↑ Beach 2015, p. 1.
  53. ↑ Beach 2015, p. 24.
  54. ↑ Beach 2015, p. 9.
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 Alroy 2001, p. 1893.
  56. ↑ Prates 2021, Sec. "Abstract".
  57. ↑ 57.0 57.1 Meltzer 2015, p. 33.
  58. ↑ 58.0 58.1 Alroy 2001, pp. 1893, 1896.
  59. ↑ Alroy 2001, p. 1895.
  60. ↑ Alroy 2001, pp. 1895–1896.
  61. ↑ 61.0 61.1 Alroy 2001, p. 1896.
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 Chatters 2024, p. 1.
  63. ↑ 63.0 63.1 63.2 Christianson 2022, p. 257.
  64. ↑ Christianson 2022, p. 257, 271.
  65. ↑ Christianson 2022, p. 260.
  66. ↑ Grayson 2015, p. 177.
  67. ↑ Grayson 2015, p. 190.
  68. ↑ Grayson 2015, pp. 188–189.
  69. ↑ O'Keefe 2023, pp. 5–7.
  70. ↑ O'Keefe 2023, pp. 1, 5–7.
  71. ↑
  72. ↑
  73. ↑ 73.0 73.1 73.2 73.3 73.4 73.5 Clement 2010.
  74. ↑
  75. ↑
  76. ↑ 76.0 76.1 Barlow 2012.
  77. ↑ Heckenberger 2007, p. 10.
  78. ↑ 78.0 78.1 78.2 Loughlin 2018, pp. 1233–1235.
  79. ↑ 79.0 79.1 Loughlin 2018, p. 1233.
  80. ↑ 80.0 80.1 80.2 80.3 Miller 2005, p. 287.
  81. ↑ 81.0 81.1 81.2 81.3 Miller 2005, pp. 287, 290.
  82. ↑ 82.0 82.1 82.2 Miller 2005, p. 290.
  83. ↑ 83.0 83.1 83.2 83.3 Turney 2008, pp. 12150, 12153.
  84. ↑ 84.0 84.1 84.2 84.3 Holdaway 2014, pp. 1–2, 6–7.
  85. ↑ McGlone 1989, p. 126.
  86. ↑ Burney 2005, p. 398.
  87. ↑ Allentoft 2014, pp. 4922, 4926.
  88. ↑ 88.0 88.1 88.2 88.3 88.4 Allentoft 2014, p. 4926.
  89. ↑ 89.0 89.1 89.2 Perry 2014, p. 126.
  90. ↑ Steadman 1995, pp. 1123–1124, 1128–1130.
  91. ↑ 91.0 91.1 Perry 2014, p. 134.
  92. ↑ Denevan 2011, pp. 576–578.
  93. ↑
  94. ↑ Callicott 2008, pp. 356–357.
  95. ↑ Denevan 2011, p. 577.
  96. ↑ Denevan 1992, pp. 369–370, 379–380.
  97. ↑ Denevan 2011, pp. 579–580.
  98. ↑ Denevan 2011, p. 579.
  99. ↑
  100. ↑
  101. ↑ 101.0 101.1
  102. ↑ Krech 1999, pp. 16–18.
  103. ↑
  104. ↑
  105. ↑
  106. ↑ Hames 2007, p. 178.
  107. ↑ Hames 2007, pp. 183–184.
  108. ↑ Hames 2007, p. 177.
  109. ↑ Nadasdy 2005.
  110. ↑ Hames 2007, p. 185.
  111. ↑ Hames 2007, p. 186.
  112. ↑
    • Callicott 2008, pp. 302, 335, 356, 358, 362, 364, 370, 426–427, 446, 450. Needs chapter author.
  113. ↑ Callicott 2008, pp. 356.
  114. ↑
  115. ↑ Callicott 2008, p. 257.
  116. ↑
  117. ↑ Harkin & Lewis 2007, pp. 96, 114–116.
  118. ↑
  119. ↑ Beach 2015, p. 2.
  120. ↑ Burney 2005, p. 400.
  121. ↑ Estrada 2022, p. 3.
  122. ↑ Estrada 2022, p. 13.
  123. ↑ Hayashida 2005, p. 57.
  124. ↑ Brondízio 2021, p. 488.
  125. ↑ 125.0 125.1 Brondízio 2021, p. 482.
  126. ↑ Levis 2024, pp. 866, 874.
  127. ↑

Sources

Books

Journals, newspapers, websites

  • Brondízio, Eduardo S. (2021). "Locally Based, Regionally Manifested, And Globally Relevant: Indigenous and Local Knowledge, Values, And Practices for Nature". Annual Review of Environment and Resources 46: 481–509. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-012127. 
  • Christianson, Amy C (2022). "Centering Indigenous Voices: The Role of Fire in the Boreal Forest of North America". Current Forestry Reports 8 (3): 257–276. doi:10.1007/s40725-022-00168-9. ProQuest 3322424522. PMID 36217365. PMC 9537118. Bibcode: 2022CForR...8..257C. https://www.proquest.com/docview/3322424522. Retrieved 23 September 2026. 



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Environmental_impacts_of_prehistoric_cultures&oldid=4659355"