Quantcast
Environmental News for a Healthier Planet and Life

Study: Native Americans Barely Impacted Landscape for 14,000 Years. Europeans Came and Changed Everything

Science
A new study shows the impact Native Americans had on landscapes was "small" compared to what followed by Europeans. The findings provide important takeaway for conservation in New England today, seen above in a view of areas surrounding Rangeley Lakes in Maine. Cappi Thompson / Moment / Getty Images

There's a theory going around that Native Americans actively managed the land the lived on, using controlled burns to clear forests. It turns out that theory is wrong. New research shows that Native Americans barely altered the landscape at all. It was the Europeans who did that, as ZME Science reported.


The new research, published in the journal Nature Sustainability, has found that for 14,000 years Native Americans were not making major changes to their natural landscape.

Wyatt Oswald, from Emerson College, Boston, and lead author on the paper explained the genesis of the misconception to Newsweek.

"The ecological impact of Native Americans before European arrival has been debated for decades," he told Newsweek. "The generally accepted view, which became established in the 1980s with the publication of the book Changes in the Land, is that Native Americans cleared forests and used fire to open the landscape for agriculture and improve habitat for the plants and animals they relied upon.

"This understanding of the past has provided the rationale for using prescribed fire to manage open habitats on many conservation lands across southern New England."

However, this rationale is based on misinformation and a false assumption.

"The paleo-climate, paleo-ecology and archaeological records suggest that native peoples were not modifying their immediate environments to a great degree," Elizabeth Chilton, one of the authors of the study from Binghamton University, said in a university press release. "And they certainly were not doing so with large-scale fire or clear-cutting of trees. The widespread and intensive deforestation and agriculture brought by Europeans in the 17th century was in clear contrast to what had come before. Previous conservation practices had been based on a presumption that Native Americans manipulated their environments using fire, and this research does not support that interpretation."

To address whether humans were altering their environment or responding to changes, researchers created a rigorous methodology that analyzed data from multiple sources, including pollen records and archaeology to fire history gathered from charcoal in lake cores. The researchers pored over the data over the past 14,000 years, mapping everything together and performing an analysis that dated back nearly as far as the last ice age, as ZME Science reported.

"We collected sediment cores from the bottoms of 23 lakes across southern New England, then analyzed pollen grains, charcoal fragments, and other features preserved in the mud to reconstruct past vegetation, fire, and climate," Oswald said to Newsweek. "We then compared the ecological and environmental history with data from 1,800 archaeological sites from the coastal region from Long Island to Cape Cod, including the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard."

The researchers say that the data shows that the pre-colonial populations were not changing the landscape. Instead, they were reacting to changes.

The researchers concluded that Native Americans hunted and fished with frequency, but did not implement widespread use of fires to clear the land for agricultural purposes. The Europeans who came later cut down swaths of forest for farming and to produce charcoal, which was used for iron smelting, said Bryan Shuman, a professor in University of Wyoming's Department of Geology and Geophysics and a contributing author, in a university statement.

"When they (Europeans) cleared the land, it opened it up for farming. It probably had a large impact on animals on the landscape," Shuman said in a university statement. "This isn't to say that Indians were living in pristine nature. But their impacts with fire and land improvements were small. They weren't farmers. They were hunters and gatherers."

The researchers said their findings have an important takeaway for conservation in New England today.

"These findings counter the prevailing theory that ancient humans had major ecological impacts on the landscapes in which they lived," Oswald said to Newsweek. "Our work should cause some New England conservationists to reconsider both their rationale and tools for land management."

He added that "if the goal is to emulate pre-European conditions, land managers should allow forests to mature with minimal human disturbance. If the goal is to maintain open habitats within the largely forested landscape, managers should apply the colonial-era agricultural approach that created them. That would include mowing, grazing, and cutting woody vegetation, rather than burning."

EcoWatch Daily Newsletter

Moroccan patients who recovered from the novel coronavirus disease celebrate with medical staff as they leave the hospital in Sale, Morocco, on April 3, 2020. AFP / Getty Images

By Tom Duszynski

The coronavirus is certainly scary, but despite the constant reporting on total cases and a climbing death toll, the reality is that the vast majority of people who come down with COVID-19 survive it. Just as the number of cases grows, so does another number: those who have recovered.

In mid-March, the number of patients in the U.S. who had officially recovered from the virus was close to zero. That number is now in the tens of thousands and is climbing every day. But recovering from COVID-19 is more complicated than simply feeling better. Recovery involves biology, epidemiology and a little bit of bureaucracy too.

Read More Show Less
Reef scene with crinoid and fish in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Reinhard Dirscherl / ullstein bild / Getty Images

By Elizabeth Claire Alberts

The future for the world's oceans often looks grim. Fisheries are set to collapse by 2048, according to one study, and 8 million tons of plastic pollute the ocean every year, causing considerable damage to delicate marine ecosystems. Yet a new study in Nature offers an alternative, and more optimistic view on the ocean's future: it asserts that the entire marine environment could be substantially rebuilt by 2050, if humanity is able to step up to the challenge.

Read More Show Less
Sponsored
A daughter touches her father's head while saying goodbye as medics prepare to transport him to Stamford Hospital on April 02, 2020 in Stamford, Connecticut. He had multiple COVID-19 symptoms. John Moore / Getty Images

Across the country, the novel coronavirus is severely affecting black people at much higher rates than whites, according to data released by several states, as The New York Times reported.

Read More Show Less
Four rolls of sourdough bread are arranged on a surface. Photo by Laura Chase de Formigny and food styling by Lisa Cherkasky for The Washington Post / Getty Images

By Zulfikar Abbany

Bread has been a source of basic nutrition for centuries, the holy trinity being wheat, maize and rice. It has also been the reason for a lot of innovation in science and technology, from millstones to microbiological investigations into a family of single-cell fungi called Saccharomyces.

Read More Show Less

Trending

A coral reef in Egypt's Red Sea. Tropical ocean ecosystems could see sudden biodiversity losses this decade if emissions are not reduced. Georgette Douwma / Stone / Getty Images

The biodiversity loss caused by the climate crisis will be sudden and swift, and could begin before 2030.

Read More Show Less