I'm going to read now selections from the book. This is from the section in the first chapter, subtitled,
THE HUMAN IMPACT, p. 12
“As the forest changed, so humans colonized the newly vegetated land with remarkable rapidity, doing all those things that humans do: foraging, firing, hunting, selecting species and rejecting others, turning the soil, fertilizing it, trampling it, and mixing it. In the course of this manipulation of the biota some tree taxa moved, flourished, or were eliminated, just as surely as if they had been affected by changing climate. So, even as the forests were changing in the climatic see-saw of the millennia of the early Holocene era — slowly assuming their modern, historical distribution and form — the people who witnessed and survived that Ice Age were in the active process of changing their composition and density. From the boreal forests of the cold north of Canada and Siberia, to the hot, humid rain and monsoon forests and savannas of the tropics, via the intermediate mixed deciduous, pine, and mediterranean forests and prairie, steppe, and pampas of the temperate middle belt, hunters and foragers were changing the distribution, density, and composition of biomes just as surely as was the climate. It was a coevolution.
“Thus, during the last 6,000 years, if not longer, many of the changes in vegetation reflect adjustments to human disturbances, brought about by the increasing density and spread of population, the use of fire, technological advances, the cultivation of exotic plant species, and the introduction of grazing animals. In Europe, forest clearing, cultivation, the cutting of tree sprouts and limbs for fodder, and the localization and intensification of grazing all had their effects on opening up the forest canopy and thus creating opportunities for invasion by early succession forest taxa, such as fir, birch, spruce, and particularly the mediterranean pine. The deliberate clearing of the forest accompanied by cultivation of cereals by Neolithic and post-Neolithic peoples led to forest fragmentation, the introduction and inadvertent spread of disturbed-ground weeds and ruderals, like plantain. Some trees such as the walnut, the olive, and the pistachio became naturalized well beyond their native ranges as cultivation and grazing eliminated native plant competitors, and they were even deliberately spread and planted for their food value…
“Similarly, in North America humans played an important part in shaping the vegetational development, quite contrary to some ecological accounts that see change as a purely post-Columbian event. Bottomland forests in the central Mississippi, lower Illinois, and Tennessee river valleys were cleared extensively as cultivation expanded along floodplains and lower terraces. The cultivation of squash began as early as 7000 BP, to be followed by other exotics such as the sunflower and bottle gourd , and later still by exotic cultigens such as maize and beans , and useful fruit- and nut-bearing trees were protected and hence propagated. The story of weeds and ruderal invasions paralleled that of Europe. Other changes, far greater than are generally acknowledged, occurred in the forests at the oak—savanna transition, the forest generally being eliminated by fire to be replaced by more valuable grasses.
“Less is known about the tropical world, but all the indications are that the impact was no less. The changes affected the forest in all continents, and are explored in greater detail in the following two chapters.
“In sum, then, in addition to the natural, climatically induced changes, the human impact was early, widespread, and significant, and the forests of the world changed accordingly. Across the globe the first halting steps toward deforestation were under way. In the space of 10,000 years (a mere 500 generations) humans were going to have an effect on global vegetation only slightly less dramatic and widespread than that of the Ice Age in the 100,000 years before.
Chapter 2
Fire and Foragers [begins with three quotes]
Wherever primitive man has had the opportunity to turn fire loose on a land, he seems to have done so, from time immemorial; it is only civilized societies that have undertaken to stop fires.
—CARL SAUER, “The Agency of Man on Earth” (1956)
By the time of European arrival, North America was a manipulated continent. Indians had long since altered the landscape by burning or clearing woodland for farming and fuel. Despite European images of an untouched Eden, this nature was cultural not virgin, anthropogenic not primeval.
—SHEPARD KRECH, “The Ecological Indian: Myth and History” (1999)
There are no virgin forests today, nor were there in 1492.
—WILLIAM M. DENEVAN, “The Pristine Myth: The Landscape of the Americas in 1492” (1992)
“EVEN BEFORE the climate, vegetation, and landscape had achieved their modern character, humans were at odds with nature, changing it, manipulating it, and attempting to tame it. Vast areas of forest and grassland were burned, vegetation was altered irretrievably, soils were changed, and fauna were eliminated. Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to think that any forests, from the tundra margins to the tropics, were ever pristine and untouched; all were being changed in form and composition.
“However, the long-held view has been that prehistoric peoples were a nonfactor in environmental change and degradation. Their numbers and densities were too low to bring about significant change; their technology was insufficient to cause alteration; and their livelihood (particularly that of non-Western “primitive” peoples) was in perfect harmony with nature: “we must understand, in their minds, all aspects of life are harmonized into a whole,” Janaki Ammal asserted of early India. Not all agreed: Carl Sauer was more realistic, and had no doubt that widespread fire was endemic and integral to early human life, and that with domestication “the natural land became deformed, as to biota, surface, and soil, into unstable cultural landscapes.”
“Whatever the true character of the natural mechanisms of succession, climax, and vegetational change, the role of humans in bringing about change in the “deep” past should not be in doubt. Each shift in the complexity and sophistication of technique and culture merely made the human impact more certain and more pronounced. And even the mildest and slowest change could be cumulative, leading to dramatic long-term effects. At the very simplest level, hunter-foragers manipulated vegetation by fire in order to round up and slaughter game, causing irreversible change to forest extent and composition. The hunter-foragers gave way to agricultural and/or complex irrigation societies that deliberately manipulated the soil and water supply, thereby radically altering and replacing one vegetation cover by another. In turn these gave way to urban /industrial societies that sent out shock waves of innovation, modernization, and change into their surrounding hinterlands in the form of fuel demands, crop productivity, and land use change.
“In many ways the distinction used in this and the next chapter between foraging and farming as a means of altering the forest is a difficult one to sustain. In many societies there was, and is, a seamless continuity between the two, with the validity of the distinction decreasing the nearer it comes to the present. In reality, both used fire, the foragers, almost certainly more than the farmers. Nevertheless, it is a convenient distinction which underlines a particular emphasis in the subsequent account.
FIRE: “THE FIRST GREAT FORCE”
[I love this section, because it expounds on one of my pet convictions, that learning to use the elemental force of fire is the major accomplishment that set humans outside of nature, which I wrote about in I Blame Prometheus]
“Fire was, in the words of Omer Stewart, “the first great force employed by man,” and it was crucial in the story of deforestation. Along with stone tools and language, fire was the first nonhuman force incorporated into human society, and one of the key features that distinguished humankind from the rest of the primates as they evolved from the beginning of the Pleistocene. With fire humans accomplished the first great ecological transformation of the earth, to be followed much later by two others of the same order of magnitude: the development of agriculture and animal husbandry 10,000 years ago, and the rise of large-scale industrial production a little less than 200 years ago. Humans assimilated fire into their biological heritage, thereby gaining access to the world's biota, and the biota, in turn, acquired a new regimen of fire transformed by human society. Fire, suggests Stephen Pyne, was the first of “humanity's Faustian bargains.”...
“To the early hominids, fire was complex, subtle, and dynamic; it was also destructive, irreversible, purposeless, and self-generating. But they also were to learn that the many negative qualities of this destructive force could be turned to positive and productive uses.
“First and foremost, if humans could mimic nature's own fire drives caused by wind-storm and lightning, the world was made more habitable and usable. Land was cleared and plant and animal resources were increased. Even the most primitive of aboriginal peoples seemed to grasp intuitively the idea that deliberate burning improved vegetation by promoting and maintaining the growth of favored plants such as grasses, forbs, tubers, wild fruits, wild rice, hazelnuts, sunflowers, cama, bracken, cassava, and blueberries. The yields of all these plants increased, which encouraged greater numbers and densities of animals. Burning also helped to control the distribution of animals, making hunting more predictable and thus more efficient because less time and energy were expended on stalking individual animals into areas of dense forest. From a wide variety of evidence Paul Mellars suggests that controlled burning could not only alter species variety, but increase the yields of browse and herbaceous forage in deciduous forests by between 300 and 700 percent, with a corresponding increase of animal populations of up to 400 percent. Additionally, fire opened up the tangle of woodland and jungle by removing the dense understory of brush and small trees, so that visibility was improved, travel facilitated, and surprise attack from animals and other humans minimized. Simply put, widely spaced trees and clear meadows offered greater mobility, and more productive and safer hunting.
“The reduction of vegetational cover for rousing and driving game is one of the most frequently cited reasons for deliberate burning throughout the historical aboriginal world, and it seems reasonable to suppose that the further back one extends into the past, the more frequently it would have been used. Anything to facilitate the hunt was desirable. Early hominids had only sharpened and fire-hardened wooden spears for hunting; not until later, when the more versatile and long-range bow and arrow were perfected, could the task have become more efficient and safer.
“Not only were large mammals “flushed out” by fire, so too were nutritious insects, lizards, and rodents from trunks, holes, caves, and burrows, and even honey could be safely collected from combs. Night fishing by torch was very productive. The opposite was also true of fire: it had a purgative effect, ridding the ground of poisonous snakes, scorpions, and spiders and a host of ticks and bugs, while many peoples in the Americas learned to live in perpetual smoke to ward off flies and mosquitos.
“One also can speculate as to whether more accessible herds allowed a selective culling of animals, which might ultimately have affected the age, sex, and species components of herds. Such deliberate manipulation might have been the first step in the herding- husbanding-domestication of animal populations and would have contributed to the emergence of concepts of ownership and territoriality.
“Further, there are few foods that do not benefit from the application of heat. Therefore, the second great benefit of fire was in cooking and boiling, which leached out toxins, softened tough fibers, and reduced bacteria and fungi, extending the range of foods available and leading, presumably, to better health. In addition, it does not take too much imagination to realize that cooking became the model for ceramics and metallurgy.
“Finally, fire became embedded in human cognition and sociocultural behavior. It is, says Pyne, “a maddening amalgam of human and ecological history.” Fire could be used for protection as well as aggression; it accompanied ceremonies and entered belief systems as a purifier and atoner through sacrifice and ordeal; it has entered into concepts of creation and damnation in many religions. Certainly it made life more comfortable and sociable, and contributed to civilization. Fire was a source of heat and light, giving protection against cold and darkness and warning off predators, thus facilitating territorial expansion and population increase. Because of the comfort and security it offered it became a focus for group and community life, and enhanced communication and solidarity. Fire may have encouraged such practices as meat eating, food sharing, the division of labor, and new forms of sexual behavior, thereby helping to weld early groups into coherent units. It is most likely responsible for the formation of the characteristics of the family unit in society, the hearth being a potent image of (and in) family life and sedentariness, and the focal point for gathering, discussion, and dissemination of group wisdom.
“Johann Goudsblom suggests that learning to control and domesticate fire inevitably involved foresight, cooperation, the renunciation of "primary impulses," and the exercise of discipline in the tasks of gathering fuel, keeping it dry, and feeding the fire with it. Thus, he goes so far as to suggest that the care of fire was a cultural mutation that required a civilizing process. Moreover, the taming of the wild force of fire must be the first example of the tending, guarding, and exploitation of a natural force. Once fire was incorporated into human life, it was a natural progression to think of extending care and control over other nonhuman resources by selecting plants and animals, and guarding and protecting them against competing species and parasites. If that is so, then the use and control of fire may have initiated the second great ecological transformation of the earth —plant and animal domestication — giving it a significance way beyond the mere burning of vegetation for hunting. It was an integral part of civilizing and civilization.
“Be that as it may, all the practical benefits enumerated led to repeated and regular use of fire in most societies in the world, creating high concentrations of plants and animals that could provide humans with useful products, primarily food. The human monopoly of fire separated homo sapiens from all other beings, and made them the dominant species on the earth and its ecological manipulators. The implications for deforestation were enormous...
[The book offers a number of examples of the dramatic change wrought by prehistoric hunter-gatherers, who availed themselves of nature's bounty with impunity - they are presented from around the world, including North and South America, and Europe, here is but one:]
“The Polynesians reached Madagascar between about AD 100 and 500, Easter Island about AD 400, Hawaii about AD 800, and New Zealand between AD 900 and 950. In the 117 km2 of Easter Island, clearing for agriculture, firewood, and large timbers for moving the moai, or massive stone face statues, together with frequent fire, resulted in “[a] deforestation which must surely be one of the most extreme examples of its kind anywhere in the world,” leaving scarcely a single tree. Dramatic as it was, however, this deforestation came nowhere near the destruction by fire “of almost half of the forest" in New Zealand by the Maoris. The Maoris brought no plants with them and came as hunter-gatherers. The moa, a large, ostrichlike, flightless bird standing up to 16 ft high, was their principal source of protein, without equal in any of the Pacific Islands. Moas also provided material for clothing and for most implements, so much so that they were known as kuranui, “the great treasure” or “primary source.” In the absence of any large predators moas were present in vast numbers, tending to congregate on the forest edges and clearings. The Maori soon learned the value of fire in pushing back the forest edge and in driving the moas to places where they could be slaughtered more easily.
“Once started, the fires were fanned by the desiccating nor'westers that then, as now, sweep from the mountain across the foothills and the rain-shadow plains on the eastern side of the South Island during the hot, dry summers. The mixed broadleaf-conifer forests were completely destroyed. It could not withstand fire, did not regenerate, and was replaced by bracken, fern, tussock, and scrub. The denudation initiated the first great cycle of humanly induced soil erosion that buried old forests near present-day Christchurch under 12 ft of detritus. About a hundred years later the interior beech forests went the same way. By 1250 there were barely any moa left to hunt, and by the time of European colonization they were extinct. Thus, by the mid-thirteenth century a mere 8,000—12,000 people in South Island had destroyed "not less than 8 million acres of ... forest," and driven the moa to the verge of extinction. By the time of the fairly precise European vegetation surveys of circa 1800, the forest, particularly in the North Island, had been reduced even further; subsequent clearing for extensive agriculture and sheep grazing completed the task of denudation begun 1,500 years earlier by the Maoris.
“With such evidence, one can well believe Captain James Cook's comment during the 1770s that throughout his voyages between the Pacific Islands “we saw either smoke by day and fires by night, in all parts of it.” However, because of the prevailing myth of the harmony of preindustrial peoples with nature there has been a “marked reluctance to accept” what he saw and its consequences.
...
AFTER THE ICE: EUROPE
“The deliberate burning and elimination of the forest was not the only manipulation of the resource. Wood was the most valuable and versatile raw material available in the past. Not only did it furnish shelter and heat, but also the material for a vast range of tools and weapons necessary for survival. Given its importance, it is ironic that wood has played little part in the traditional, outmoded, but convenient Three Ages system of European prehistory—Stone, Bronze, and Iron. There is barely a tool or weapon that did not have a wooden part, and the latter two ages would not have existed without the wood for smelting ore. The organic nature and perishability of wood, contrasted to the permanence of stone, metal, and pottery, have led to its neglect.
“Yet Mesolithic societies had acquired considerable knowledge and appreciation of the qualities of different timbers and their suitability for different functions—the elm and yew for bow staves, pine for arrow shafts, hazel for spear shafts, and tough root wood for ax hafts. Bark quality was also understood: the resistance of birch bark to water and its usefulness for hut floor insulation and net-float construction; the use of its pitch for caulking artifacts and preparing leather; and the use of willow bark to provide the thread for making the nets. Even tree fungus (Fomes fometarius) was stripped of its outer skin and used for tinder...
“This catalogue excludes the palisades and structures in forts, and the worked rods, brushwood hurdles, pegs, and planks that went to make up the prehistoric trackways and platforms that straddled the low-lying wetlands in the Somerset Levels and the Fens— literally millions of pieces. Perhaps even more impressive than the intricacy and magnitude of these trackways is the evidence of the conscious management of the surrounding woodlands by coppicing to stimulate the growth of long, straight poles from the trees' stools.
“All the evidence of clearing and wood use points to the fact that a greater continuity of technology occurred between the Mesolithic and Neolithic than is often supposed. The later Mesolithics were not, as Gordon Childe thought, the primitive fag end of the hunting and gathering Paleolithic age who became absorbed by the superior new Neolithic agriculturalists; rather, they were the sophisticated and innovative precursors who not only heralded the Neolithic agricultural age but hastened its establishment. Indeed, Mesolithic and Neolithic are "definitional nightmares" that are more likely to obscure than to clarify. As far as the clearing of the forest is concerned, these “ages” mask a continuity of ceaseless change and modification that began over 6,000 years ago.
Another exposition of the profound way humans altered the environment is found in a short article called The Trees that Miss the Mammoths, which explains how the prehistoric hunting of megafauna to extinction drove trees that relied on them for seed dispersal to the edge, and sometimes over, the cliff of extinction.
