232 JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

KEY WORDS / Disturbance / Amazonian Indians / Anthropogenic Habitats /

Eglle Lpez-Zent has a Masters degree in Biology and is at present preparing her Ph.D.disertation thesis at the University of Georgia on Rescuing a Rare Endared Body of Knowledge. A Field Study of Ethno-botany. Amazonas and Bolvar States, Venezuela. Address: Departamento de Antropologa, IVIC, Apartado 21827, Caracas1010-A, Venezuela. e-mail: ezent@uga.cc.uga.edu

A CREATIVE PERSPECTIVEOF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

BY NATIVE AMAZONIAN HUMAN POPULATIONS

EGLE LPEZ-ZENT

On the other hand, theless harmful or even creative impact ofhuman practices on the environment isless researched and reported. Partially asa result of the facts mentioned above, hu-man populations still maintaining a tra-ditional (i.e. low-technology) way of lifehave been considered to trigger ecologi-cal processes somehow non-detrimentalto the environment (Posey and Bale,1989; Gmez-Pompa, 1991; Jimnez-Osor-nio, and Gmez-Pompa, 1991; Altieri,1993). This paper explores a working hy-pothesis related to groups of humanpopulations acting as disturbance agentsin the Amazon. More than theoretical,this paper is descriptive and its datacome mostly from a review, though nonexhaustive of the human ecology litera-ture. The basic idea is to illustrate humanactivities as potentially dynamic and cen-tral in the maintenance of the Amazonianecosystem, including its richness andcomplexities. Underlying the argument ofthis paper is the attempt to contrast twoideological perspectives about human-na-ture interactions: the viewpoint supportedby the mainstream western belief that hu-mans form a system apart from nature,and the standpoint vindicated by moreecologically attuned theories which con-siders humans to be a part of nature andthus together comprising a rather dy-namic system. The first ideology, how-

n the last few decades,the harmful impacts ofpeople on the natural

environment have been reported and con-demned extensively (Prance, 1989;Whitmore and Sayer, 1992; Johns, 1992).Modern human activities are consideredparticularly dramatic in reducing the di-versity of life and destroying naturalhabitats, increasing erosion, deforestation,and desertification processes, degradingthe soils, limiting the supply of fresh wa-ter, and changing the global climate(Wilson, 1992, 1993; Peters and Lovejoy,1992). One of the causes of these degrad-ing environmental processes concens theneed to increase food production due tothe rapid growth of human population,which some authors believe has alreadyexceeded the carrying capacity of earth(Daily and Ehrlich, 1992). A less explicitcause has to do with a human-centeredeconomic and environmental ethic whichignores the value of services of natureand promotes both human abuse of theenvironment and unequal distribution ofresources (Lovejoy, 1989). A radical shiftin environmental ethics demands a newapproach to nature, rejecting the widelyaccepted anthropocentric paradigm andexhorts strongly to adopt an ecocentricperspective in which environment encom-passes humans and not the other wayaround (Jordan, 1995).

ever, has usually conceived of human be-havior toward nature as that of steward-ship; this anthropocentric view considersman as cardinal to maintain life. The sec-ond ideology, heralds a biocentric per-spective, in which humans are equal toother species except that their behavior isstill often perceived as damaging in gen-eral. The argument advanced here devel-ops an ecocentric perspective, but evenfurther, elaborating a holistic vision ofthe human-nature relationship as art (inits literal meaning from Latin ars, ability,expertise, skill), that is creative, trigger-ing ecological processes beyond those at-tempting to satisfy their needs. Environ-mental ethic issues are highly controver-sial, and I am cognizant that this argu-ment may sound somewhat polemical.

Theoretical Premises

There are at least threepremises that underlie this papers as-sumption of native human populations inAmazonia as creative disturbanceagents:

1. The concept of disturbance, as creativeevents, is a relatively new idea in eco-logical thinking (Sprugel, 1991). Themore recent connotation of disturbanceas the trigger of ecological pro-cesses enhancing and providing the

0378-1844/98/04/232-09 $ 3.00/0

soporteResaltado

soporteResaltado

soporteResaltado

soporteResaltado

soporteResaltado

soporteResaltado

soporteResaltado

233JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

media for different biotic structuresand composition of natural environ-ments invalidated previous assump-tions of disturbances as events thatimpeded or changed the natural regen-eration of ecological systems. Al-though high biotic diversity and spe-ciation in the tropics have not beenexplained successfully (Pianka, 1966),one appealing explanation perceivesthem as a function of complex bioticinteractions (competition, predation,etc.) interplaying with disturbanceevents (Waide and Lugo, 1992:176).Some traditional Amazonian humanactivities are considered here as distur-bance events interwoven with preda-tory and dispersive practices akin tothose of non-human species. If, as re-ported (Janzen and Vzquez-Yanes,1991:139), more than 75% of tropicalforest seeds are dispersed by animals,then human dispersive practices andknowledge of seed biology may alsobe relevant or partly responsible forforest composition. Also, extractiveand exploitative cultural behaviors(horticulture, hunting, fishing, gather-ing, etc.), entail potentially dynamicpatterns of input-output to the globalsystem.

2. Amazonian cultures constitute an inte-gral part of ecosystems, along withnon-human abiotic and biotic compo-nents. Therefore, cultures, biotic andabiotic elements are including and in-cluded within a set of hierarchicalecological systems from simpler tomore complex (Odum, 1993). Suchecosystems exhibit a dynamic non-equilibrium, and it is precisely thetension experienced by the ecosystembetween both states which allows forits continuity and prevalence (Meffeand Carroll, 1994). Heterogeneity anddiversity are other pervasive character-istics of Amazonian ecosystems, as isthe arbitrary nature of its boundaries.

3. Culture understood as a process, thatis, constantly being transformed is acentral analytical concept to under-stand human-environment interactionsin the Amazon (Zent, 1992; Bale,1989; Roosevelt, 1989). Peoples ca-pacity to create culture as an extraso-matic means of adaptation (Murphy,1970) differentiate them from non-cul-tural species. Culture is normative, ithas its own level of organizationalunity, it is learned, and it permeatesother behaviors through symbolic sys-tems. Culture reorders nature andnot simply just the other way around,that is, the interaction is bi-directional.

Although the modes ofintegration of the ecological system aredifferent than the modes of integration ofthe human social system (Murphy, 1970),their systemic separation is valid only asan artifact of analytical abstractions,whereas in terms of biophysical realityboth spheres constitute a whole unifiedsystem influencing and inducing changesat all levels (cf. Bennett, 1976). They aresystems however, with an essentially dif-ferent logic, without denying their inter-action and mutual dependence in a spa-tial-temporal continuum. Flows of infor-mation, energy and matter will turn outdifferent if humans are inside the(eco)system. Almost unique qualities ofthe human species, such as the capacityto manipulate and change the environ-ment, the complex cognitive and emo-tional content reflected in the categoriza-tion and organization of labor activity,and the assignment of symbolic meaningto sensate and non-sensate reality (Ellen,1979; Murphy, 1970) are central to un-derstanding many environments physiog-nomy. Equally important consideration inquestions of adjustments to and manage-ment of resources should also be givento intervillage, interethnic and kinship re-lations (Jackson, 1984; Arvelo and Biord,1994).

Amazonian Heterogeneity

The Amazonian portionof South America extends over 5,402,700km or about 30% of the subcontinent,comprising 3.6% of the earths surfacearea (Posey and Bale, 1989). The mostcommon environmental distinction madein Amazonia is that of varzea or flood-plains (covering approximately 2% of thesurface of the region), and terra firme oruplands (about the remaining 98%). Thisgeneral division limits the understandingof both cultural adaptation and evolutionin the region, because it implies certainhomogeneity of the ecological, economicand social behaviors of the native Ama-zonian human groups (Zent, 1992). Onthe contrary, Amazonia is a region essen-tially diverse both in terms of naturalecology and native human society(Moran, 1981).

Amazonian heteroge-neity, supported by researches in biology,ecology, agronomy and anthropologydocument great diversity in the climate,topography, hydrology, soils, flora, faunaand adaptive strategies of the native hu-man populations (Prance, 1978; Herreraet al., 1978; Gross et al., 1979; Schultes,1979; Jordan, 1982; Hames and Vickers,1983; Moran, 1991; Gentry, 1992). Therelationships between these variables are

complex and interwoven, creating a rangeof distinct environments with differentsets of constraints for bioforms, includinghuman population, use patterns, andsettlement forms. To test the degree towhich human activities have played a di-rect role in the actual creation of envi-ronmental heterogeneity is very difficultand remains a largely unproven hypoth-esis. Moreover, there is still limited dataand research on this topic. It is indisput-able, however, that human induced dis-turbances have had a significant impacton the present day tropical forest physi-ognomy (Schle, 1992).

The presence of humansin Amazonia extends at least 12,000years (Roosevelt, 1994). Therefore, hu-mans may be responsible more for eco-logical processes than evolutionary ones.Moreover, because climatic changes dur-ing the Pleistocene and Holocene causedfluctuations in tropical forest biogeogra-phy, most of the current patterns of forestdistribution and species composition areclosely related to the relatively short pe-riod of modern climate conditions (Gol-dammer, 1992). However, data about hu-man-induced fire events, as well as wide-spread deforestation activities during theHolocene, underline human responsabil-ity, and provide useful insight for under-standing contemporary biodiversity dy-namics (Stahl, 1996). In short, both natu-ral and anthropogenic disturbances areresponsible for the current configurationof the Amazon forest.

However, although hu-man-induced disturbance events and im-pact on the Amazonian ecosystems hasbeen considerable, in both temporal andspatial terms, they have been widely vari-able in type, intensity, periodicity, fre-quency, extent and duration. Therefore,historical or diachronic perspectives arevital in order to understand properly thedynamic processes of Amazonian culturesand their environmental impact.

Although few palyno-logical studies have been carried out inthe Amazon to describe accurately thegeological landscape, it is believed thattodays forest cover occupies a consider-ably larger area than during the last gla-ciation (Goldammer, 1992). Records ofpollen demonstrate that humans havebeen acting as disturbance agents intropical American forests for at least3,000 years (Flenley, 1992). Some areas,like the Southeastern Venezuelan forests,have been degrading toward savannassince at least 3500 years ago, partially asa result of human induced disturbancessuch as fires (Flster, 1992). In the SierraParima, at the southern extremity of theVenezuelan Amazon, regarded to be the

234 JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

Yanomami tribal homeland, we find an-other example of possibly man-made sa-vannas, apparently caused by many cen-turies of human induced disturbances(Huber and Steyermark, 1983; Smole,1980, 1989). These estimations are inagreement with theories stating that sincethe Lower Pleistocene anthropogenic fireregimens shaped the vegetation cover(Schle, 1992:45). It has also been hy-pothesized that due to overhunting andextinction of pre-Pleistocene paleo-en-demic megaherbivores human populationsfacilitated the regeneration process of for-est formations. The argument follows thatthose megahervibores (Megatherium,Eremotherium, etc.) were successful inturning the Amazonian forests intopatchwork through their predatory habits(Schle, 1992). The extermination ofmegafauna by humans triggered naturalsuccession processes at the end of thePleistocene. The tropical Amazonian for-est is thus, according to this hypothesis,of indirectly anthropogenic origin(Schle, 1992:64). Furthermore, the re-duction of herbivores methane produc-tion prevented a heating of the atmo-sphere through a build-up of CO2 re-leased by the dramatically increasingnumber of anthropogenic fires (Ibid).

Few historical recon-structions have been published about theenvironmental activities of Amazoniangroups before the arrival of the Europeancolonizers. The interpretations describedbelow come from a few archaeologicaland ethnohistorical investigations whichsuggest what could have happened in theAmazon before the European conquest.

Pre-Colonization ways of life

In 1976, W. Denevanestimated the precolumbian Amazonianpopulation at 5,100,000. In 1992, afternew studies by him and others, he re-vised slightly his estimates and calculatedthat about 5,664,000 people inhabited theGreater Amazon basin 500 years ago,ranging in densities from 1.4 to 13.0km. Three hundred years ago, however,native population was reduced by 90%.Today over 300 different ethnic groupspopulate this region, reaching an esti-mated total of about 750,000 (Denevan,1992a, 1992b; Hern, 1994; De Oliveira,1994; Roosevelt, 1994, 1989; OCEI,1993; Domnguez, 1989; Montero andCrespo, 1989; Chirif, 1989; Saul, 1989).Native use and management of naturalresources has undoubtedly undergonemany changes during the centuries of oc-cupation. Early subsistence strategies can-not necessarily reflect those of 500 yearsago or those of today. The observable

behaviors today cannot be extrapolatedfreely to reconstruct potential subsistencestrategies before the European conquest(Roosevelt, 1989:31).

The European coloniza-tion of the Americas had a huge impacton the native Amazonian human popula-tion. The changes suffered by nativepeoples were multiple, such as: demo-graphic (Denevan, 1992a), economic(Beckerman, 1985), political (Whitehead,1992), social (Murphy, 1960), religious(Butt Colson, 1985), and mythological(Hill, 1988) among others. The changesexperienced in the different areas were ofcourse dependent on the proximity andintensity of the contact. In this vein, thehuman landscape found by the Europeansconstituted a range of settlements fromdensely to sparsely populated, and exhib-ited high as well as low levels of socialcomplexity.

A large proportion ofthe aboriginal Amazon human populationwas concentrated in complex and largecommunities in the floodplain zones bor-dering the major rivers, especially theAmazon and Orinoco or in coastal areas(Roosevelt, 1989). Not surprisingly, then,the early focus of colonizing activity wasconcentrated there, where the nativepopulations suffered sharp and fastdepopulation and deculturation during thefirst centuries of the conquest. Some sub-sistence strategies before 500 years agowere apparently quite intensive and ex-tensive. Archaeological remains supportthe interpretation of a vast populationconcentrated in many large settlements ofthousands of people such as extensiveearthworks of monumental scale used forcultivation, water control, travel, defense,habitation and burial, and many underthe rule of a few chiefs (Roosevelt, 1989;Denevan, 1992b). Sedentary patterns ofsettlement emphasize a more intensiveuse of land and human impact on the en-vironment, along with complex networksof trade and interchange, potential socialstratification and differential access to re-sources.

Areas beyond the majorrivers, meanwhile, were less denselypopulated and were more isolated fromdirect contact with the European coloniz-ers. Nonetheless, they too experienced ef-fects of considerable magnitude. The areaindirectly affected by colonization hasbeen called the tribal zone by Fergusonand Whitehead (1992). These anthropolo-gists consider three basic factors that indifferent degrees transformed native pat-terns of life in the tribal zone: disease,ecological change (modification of theplant and animal environment), and tech-nological change. These are potential

environmental factors because they arepart of the broader context of a local cul-ture-environmental complex.

This differential environ-mental disturbance has prompted someauthors to state that contemporary com-position and structure of mature vegeta-tion is the legacy of past civilizations(Gmez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992, 1990).However, the magnitude of environmentalchange in this context was vast, heteroge-neous and diverse. Denevan (1992b) forexample, considers the 16th centuryAmazonian forest as largely anthropo-genic in form and composition, whilethe same landscape in the 18th century,after 90% of the native human populationhad been exterminated, was the productof natural processes of recovery and re-generation instead of pristine forests(Gmez-Pompa and Kaus, 1992). Eventoday it is estimated that 40% of the for-ests in tropical America are secondary, inpart as a result of human disturbance(Brown and Lugo, 1990) although it isdifficult to assess what proportion maybe caused by natural disturbances.However, it is significant that one of thehighest levels of floristic diversity andendemism has been found in the north-west South American forest (Gentry,1992). As with natural disturbances,those induced by humans suggest thatpristine environments may have neverexisted or are not exclusively good any-more. Gaps in the forest create habitatsfor many bioforms otherwise absent inthese ecosystems and therefore contributeto biodiversity richness. When these dis-turbances are cultural, the dynamic couldbe based on knowledge about the localecological processes. Patterns of vegeta-tion succession at different ages andstages seem to be more prevalent in thecurrent Amazonian landscape than real-ized before (Gmez-Pompa and Kaus,1992). Here the articulation of ecologicaland technological variables provides away to see the impact of a particularsocio-cultural phenomena that is currentthough a historical product.

An illustrative case ofthe last statement are the extensiveearthworks - mounds and raised fields -built in the Mojos region of Bolivia andthe Western Llanos of Venezuela (Dene-van, 1992b). The prehistoric modifica-tions of the topographic environmentprobably led to local modifications in thebiotic environment and affect present-daypeoples living in these areas. Thus, W.Bale (pers. comm.) has found that theSirion people, previously thought to beprimitive hunter-gatherers and incipientagriculturalists who lived in a state closewith primordial nature, are specifically

235JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

adapted to the forest covering thesemounds. Thus, they locate their settle-ments and gardens, in these areas andalso carry out foraging activities there.

Another example is theTerra preta do indio (Indian black earth),found in abundance in terra firme regionsof Central and Northern Brazil. Thesesoils are believed to be anthropogenic,not only rich in humic matter but also re-plete with pottery (thus clear evidence offormer human occupation). They havealso been associated with large andlongevous settlements (in comparisonwith contemporary terra firme settlementsof native ethnic groups), indicating apositive feedback between human occu-pation and use, and productivity or suit-ability for such occupation. These arewidely considered to be among the mostagriculturally productive soils in all ofthe South American tropical lowlands(Smith, 1980).

Post-Colonization ways of life

Contemporary Amazo-nian groups are considered to be theproduct of the enormous cataclysm thatthe colonization process triggered. Nativelevels of social and economic integrationduring pre-colonial times were essentiallydestroyed after colonization started. Aclear derivative consequence of the vastcultural disruption was a lower impact ofhumans on the natural environment, thusallowing the initiation of regenerationprocesses. A less explicit consequencewas the generation of new ethnicboundaries (Whitehead, 1994). But eventhough the new ethnic Amazonian land-scape of today is the product of radicaltransformations that native populationssuffered, these new cultural formationsinherited modes of relating and integrat-ing to their social and natural environ-ment (not just forests also savannas, andother ecosystems). That is, although thedynamics of natural and social milieusare different and it is often difficult totrace the ethnic continuity of manycontemporary Amazonian peoples, theynevertheless have maintained some de-gree of continuity in regards to cultural(environmental) and practical knowledge.

Today native humangroups live mostly in low density ofpopulations, independent and rather iso-lated from one another. They exhibitlittle or no social hierarchy and practicepatterns of subsistence based mainly onshifting cultivation, hunting and fishingof relatively low intensity. Demographicfactors have contributed greatly to theshift from the ways of life prior to colo-nization, but are not the only causes.

Ecological parametersthat are visible, even measurable, today,have been shown to be the product ofhistorical and prehistorical human activ-ity. Some illustrative examples of the fewreported in the literature are briefly sum-marized here.

1. Bale (1989), calculates thatapproximately 12% of Brazilian Ama-zonian forests are in fact anthropo-genic, the result of past human clear-ance, management and manipulation(see also Goldammer, 1992). Thesecultural forests are rich in foods andmaterials utilized by contemporaryAmazonian human populations andtherefore are attractive places for lo-cating settlements. Drawing evidencefrom botanical inventories, severalquantitative analyses and soil samples,he documents carefully the followingkinds of anthropogenic forests: palmforests (prevalent in Mauritia flexuosa,Astrocaryum vulgare, Elaeis oleifera,Orbignya phalerata, etc.) bamboo for-ests (characterized chiefly by Guaduaglomerata), Brazil nut forests (Ber-tholletia excelsa), forest islands of theCentral Brazilian Shield or apte, lowcaatinga, liana forests (includingprominent members of the Araceae,Bignoniaceae, Caesalpiniaceae, Dios-coreaceae, Fabacea, Mimosaceae andSapindaceae botanical families), bacuriforests (Platonia insignis), cacao for-ests (Theobroma cacao), and pequiforests (Caryocar villosum). Some ofthese are reliable phytoindicators ofhuman disturbance such as the peachpalm (Bactris gasipaes), the inajpalm (Maximiliana maripa), or babas(Orbignya phalerata), among others.Most of them have been found in as-sociation with archaeological remains.Maybe it is not speculative to statethat Amazonian human populationsare conscious of the phenology of theplants mentioned.

2. The Brazil nut forests (Bertholletiaexcelsa) of potential anthropogenicorigin have been further explored byChris Miller (1995 pers. comm.), ofthe Institute & Ecology at the Univer-sity of Georgia, and Scott Mori(1992). Brazil nut trees are found es-pecially in non-flooded forests in theGuianas, Colombia, Venezuela, Peru,Bolivia and Brazil (Mori, 1992). Thedensity values of Brazil nut trees varynotably. In Eastern Amazonian Brazil,Miller found from nine to 26 repro-ductive trees per hectare in 10 plots(1995 pers. comm.), while other den-sity values coming from Central Brazil

report one tree (over 10 cm dbh) in a100-ha plot (Mori, 1992). Miller cal-culates, however, that a normal den-sity value should be around three re-productive trees per hectare and theestimated age of the trees around 250-300 years old. Although Miller inten-tionally searched for seedlings of thisspecies, he found none. This added tohis preliminary conclusion that, al-though difficult to test, stands of Bra-zil nut trees in such an elevated fre-quency may be due to human inter-vention. Brazil nut trees like otheremergent trees such as Mahogany, aregap-dependent, meaning they needopen areas to germinate and grow suc-cessfully. Thus, Miller finds it reason-able to assume that humans probablydispersed seeds of Brazil nut afterclearing forest areas for cultivation.Furthermore, he reports to have foundBrazil nut trees associated with terrapreta and remains of pot sherds. Aswith the other forests reported byBale, Miller's account points towardstands of trees facilitated or con-sciously created by human activities.

3. The management of forest successionby the Kaapor, a small ethnic groupliving in the Brazilian Amazon, is an-other significant example. Bale andGly (1989) analyze the Ka'apor man-agement and use of primary and sec-ondary forests, understood as the ma-nipulation of species and vegetationalzones by which new vegetationalzones and ecotones emerge. Further-more, the Ka'apor manage particularpopulations of plants or animals basedon sound autoecological knowledge.To start with, they recognize at leastsix major vegetational zones, someminor vegetational zones and fourecotones, based on the criteria of age,degree of manipulation, indicator spe-cies and structure and by anthropo-genic contemporary and past activities.Each vegetational zone or ecotone ismanaged by the Ka'apor in terms ofactual cultivation, facilitation and pro-tection of vegetal and animal species.The Ka'apor forest management be-haviors are classified by the authors ascorresponding to a form of intermedi-ate disturbance (cf. Connell, 1978)and certainly contribute to the mainte-nance and dynamics of the local for-est.

4. The Kayap management strategiesand sound environmental knowledgehave been widely reported (Posey,1982, 1983, 1989, 1992; Andersonand Posey, 1989; Hecht and Posey,1989). They are believed to have mi-

236 JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

grated from a savanna habitat, and to-day inhabit a great variety of tropicalecosystems in an area of over2,000,000 ha. in Northern BrazilianAmazon (Posey, 1982).Kayap management strategies includeknowledge and use of: (1) abiotic fac-tors such as the climatic and annualseasonal conditions, soil types and soilformations which in many well docu-mented cases are the outcome of hu-man interventions (Hetch and Posey,1989); (2) biotic factors such as localfauna and flora (distribution, habitats,etiology, of trees, seeds biology, etc),associated vegetation types, the com-position and structure of natural forestformation which the Kayap replicatein their garden plots. Most important,the Kayap are aware of the ecologi-cal interplay and interrelations be-tween biotic and abiotic factors. Suchknowledge constitutes the sound sub-strate of their cultural environmentalmanagement strategies. Few examplesare illustrative here. Kayap plant dif-ferent associations of cultivars, distrib-uted in the plot in such a way as tomake the best use of soil nutrients.They are also sensitive to the naturalrecovery and regeneration of forests,meaning that they recognize that theinteraction of biotic and abiotic factorscontribute to shaping the forest's struc-ture and composition. As with otherAmazonian groups, the Kayap usesecondary forest formations as a sortof game preserve and as extractivesources of material and ideological re-sources. Furthermore, they controltheir use of fire recognizing its valueto restore nutrients and to create habi-tats for early colonizer species. Therichness of these forests are to a cer-tain extent dependent on the humandisturbances.In terms of this paper, the Kayap aremost notable for their dispersive prac-tices. Posey (1982) describes how theydistribute seeds, roots and seedlings inforest clearings located close tostreams. Plants such as wild manioc,wild varieties of yams, bush bean andwild varieties of kupa, constitute cul-tural vegetation formations that Poseycalled forest fields. Reportedly theKayap also take a crucial and dy-namic role in the formation of islandsof woody vegetation known as apet.The Kayap transfer litter, termitenests and ant nests in order to dis-perse some plants and facilitate suc-cession. While the nests serve as asubstrate of organic material, the ter-mites and ants compete among themand consequently do not attack newly

established plants (Anderson andPosey, 1989). Around 90 to 107(about 75%) of the plant species thatmake up the apet were found to beplanted or facilitated by humans asdisturbance agents. That is, they arenot domesticated but neither are theyconsidered to be wild since they havebeen systematically selected for desir-able traits and propagated in a varietyof habits (Posey, 1992:47). Added tothe semi-nomadic way of life of theKayap, their dispersive practicesmake them responsible for the physi-ognomy of vegetal and floristic com-position of portions of the tropicalforest. More important, these disper-sive patterns were or are potentiallywidespread throughout Amazonia(Posey, 1982).The Kayap have also shown a con-siderable knowledge and managementof insects and arthropoda. Theirknowledge of stingless bees (Meli-poninae) is reported by Camargo andPosey (1991). All bees (Tetragonaclavipes, T. dorsalis, Melipona semini-gra, etc.) occurring locally are namedand recognized by the Kayapo usingecological, ethological and morpho-logical characteristics. Kayap knowl-edge of stingless bees includes theirontogeny, division of labor, castes,odor trails, defense activity andswarming behavior. This knowledgehas enabled the Kayap to manage orsemi-domesticate the bees (for thepurpose of harvesting wax, resin, pol-len, larvae, pupae, and honey).

5. The contemporary Runa living in theEcuadorian Amazon provide a case ofsuccessional management of foreststructure and composition (Irvine,1989). Comparative studies betweenunmanaged and managed 5 year oldforest fallows showed that Runa man-agement increases the species diver-sity of trees greater than 10cm dbhin two categories, planted trees (8% to19%) and protected trees (6% to 16%)(Irvine 1989:234). Unmanaged fallowforest showed a canopy dominateduniformly by Cecropia, whereas man-aged fallow forest presented a morediverse canopy consisting of plantedtrees. Human disturbance activities de-creased the presence of Cecropia by20%, and the stem density of the fal-low forest was reduced, probably as aresult of weeding. The Runa facilitateand actively protect the succession ofuseful species which comprise around14% to 35% of the canopy species di-versity (domesticated, and semidomes-ticated). Irvine (1985) also found that

caviomorph populations (agoutis andpacas) are favored by Runa manage-ment of garden and fallow habitats.The presence of these rodents is di-rectly associated with the habitat man-aged by the Runa. Especially impor-tant is the Runa management of plantspecies such as Bactris gasipaes,Mauritia flexuosa, Astrocaryum muru-muru, Jessenia batatua, and others,which act as game attractants, foodand shelter for the animals. The Runacertainly show here their knowledgeof the phenology of the local biota.The ethical regulation of hunting pres-sure e.g. food taboos, although notreported for the Runas of manyAmazonian groups were possibly gen-erated as early as the Lower Pleis-tocene (Schle, 1992) and intendedto avoid overexploitation of game in apoor environment. These ecologicalhunting practices are, however, frag-ile and dynamic. They may change ifoverabundance of game occurs or dueto acculturation to western civilization.

6. The positive impact of swidden activ-ity on game animal populations iswell illustrated by the case of thePiaroa living in the Venezuelan Ama-zon. This idea, framed as the gardenhunting hypothesis (Linares, 1976)states that the plants found in matureor abandoned gardens attract animalspecies which human predators hunt(Zent, 1992, 1997). By making gapsin the forest, humans enhance floralhabitat diversity and create ecotonesfavorable as food-supply and shelterhabitats for some animals. The gar-den-forest mosaics attract game ani-mals that are more easily hunted inrelatively concentrated spaces. Moreinteresting, Zent argues that habitatsmodified by the Piaroa were intrinsi-cally richer in food resources for cer-tain game animals than primary foresthabitats. His argument is supported bythree main kinds of data collected totest the hypothesis: (1) random vegeta-tion surveys (90 m2) in garden (0-3years old), old garden (4-6 years, 7-12years), secondary forest (>12 yearsold), fluvial primary forest, andinterfluvial primary forest habitats; (2)interviews among the Piaroa about theplant foods of different game animalspecies; and (3) census of the botani-cal composition within the quadrats.In this way, areas disturbed by thePiaroa are shown to have the capac-ity to support higher densities of gameanimals. Some mammals eat gardencrops (peccaries, deer, paca, agouti,and rat) while others, especially the

237JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

frugivorous bird species of theCracidae (curasows and guans) andRamphastidae (toucans and aracaris)bird families, benefit considerablyfrom plants found in the old gardens(7-12 years old) and secondary foresthabitats, while small birds (such asoropendola) eat plants from the recentfallow habitat (4-6 years old) (Zent,1992, 1997). Furthermore, these ani-mals constitute more than half of thetotal animal weight harvested by thePiaroa in a year. This suggests thatthe Piaroa have enhanced their ownresource base by improving the re-source food base of the animals thatthey hunt (Zent, 1992).Faunal and floristic management ofsecondary forests by the Piaroa, aswell as other traditional Amazoniannative ethnic groups (see Posey, 1993for example), appear to have two ma-jor goals: to maximize the botanicaldiversity of useful plants and to attractgame (Zent, 1995). In this sense, man-made secondary forest figures to be acentral resource among foraging-de-pendent societies, providing resourcesfor subsistence and reducing humanabuse of other kinds of forests (pri-mary).

7. My ongoing research among the Hot,a native group occupying the rain for-ests of the circum Maigualida area ofSouthern Venezuela, also provides dif-ferent examples of the creative impactthat low technology forest peopleshave on the character and compositionof their habitat1. An illustrative ex-ample is their exploitation of peachpalm (Bactris gasipaes), which in-volves an interesting case of humanintroduction of a natural resource thatapparently is being maintained due toits special interaction with the localwild fauna of the region. According toSchultes (1994), the peach palm, isunknown in the wild but it iswidely cultivated throughout tropicalAmerica. However, the Hot, ob-served in the field harvesting that nu-tritious fruit, claimed that contempo-rary humans did not cultivate theplants that they have been harvesting,and there were only fuzzy recollec-tions about whether ancestors culti-vated this important food resource. In-stead, they claimed that agoutis(Dasyprocta leporina) are responsiblefor the abundant proliferation of thisspecies. Agoutis, according to the Hotnot only eat the fruit but they alsobury the seed in the ground, thus ineffect planting new individual trees.Another interesting and creative eco-

logical behavior observed among theHot, refers to the planting of certaincrop plants in natural tree fall clear-ings or gaps in the high forest occur-ring alongside of their tiny walkingtrails. These so called trail gardens(as designated in their own languagemana balo), similar to those foundamong the Kayap (see above), pro-vide these people with extra food sup-plies which can be used during theirfrequent trekking activities. Most ofthe cultivars planted (plantain, banana,papaya, sweet potato, and yam) arerelatively short lived plants which willnot be found naturally in those envi-ronments and which release nutrientsonce they die. There is also evidencethat the Hot are active gap creatorsbecause they are avid honey collectorsand one method for gaining access tohives found high up in tree trunks isto chop down the tree. The Hot pos-sess an elaborate knowledge at least20 kinds of bees, including their hab-its, habitats and behavior. One can ob-serve many felled trees during walksthrough the forest both near and farfrom their present communities, andindeed, the author observed honey be-ing eaten on a nearly daily basis dur-ing the dry season. One can supposethat the many gaps they create as aresult of their honey collecting activi-ties help to intensify the dynamics offorest patches throughout their areasof occupation (Zent and Lpez-Zent,1996-1997 field notes). In the vein ofthe ideology embracing human-natureinteractions, Hot perceptions are re-vealed as ecocentric. Thus, some Hotmentioned a tree as the allegedly ma-terial generator of all human beings2.Further inquiries and botanical collec-tions revealed that the unique motherplant of humans according to Hotbelief is a Tiliaceae, probably fromthe Apeiba genus. The Hot are notdistinct from other Amazonian nativesin this sense since it is not uncommonto find trees at the origin of life inAmazonian cosmogonies (cf. someorigin myths, Boglar, 1978 for thePiaroa; or Jimnez et al., 1994 for theYe'kuana).

Final Remarks

The awareness of distur-bance playing a central role in the struc-ture and function of tropical forest hasbeen crucial in the building of a newecological paradigm (Waide and Lugo,1992) based on the fundamental concep-tion that the forest constitutes dynamicrather than constant ecosystems. Native

Amazonian human populations have beenacting as small to medium scale distur-bance agents within the Amazonian land-scape, thus, making a significant contri-bution to the richness of the tropical for-est biota (Goldammer, 1992).

Indians sensitivity andknowledge of the services of nature haveallowed them to survive in the Amazonfor very long spans of time. Their envi-ronmental consciousness represents strate-gies of resource management, that do notnecessarily conform to the environmen-tal friendly tendency of recent westernstandards (Johnson, 1992; Gmez-Pompaand Kaus, 1992). Nonetheless, Amazo-nian Indians have proven to be compe-tent environmental managers and holdersof a comprehensive ecological knowl-edge, including the phenology and etiol-ogy of biotic species and their interac-tions. Such knowledge, enacted throughcertain behaviors, turns into positivefeedbacks in the ecosystems and generateimportant changes.

Many Native Amazonianhuman populations recognize the impor-tance of managing plants and animals forthe maintenance of their own complexecosystems. Some, such as the Kayapand the Runa, have shown empiricallythat they recognize the ecological compo-sition and functioning of their local eco-system. Indians acting culturally as dis-turbers, dispersers or predators, promotethe maintenance of the Amazonian forestthrough a selective set of subsistencestrategies which allow them to survive. Itis possible to implement strategies thatpromote sustainability of Amazonian eco-systems based on some of the autochtho-nous management practices describedabove.

Native Amazonians un-doubtedly can contribute to the buildingof a sound environmental ethic. Mostideologies among traditional Amazonianpeople an old ideology for them, yet anew one for us conceive of man-natureinteraction's such that Nature (i.e. naturalforces) has a much greater influence incontrolling and shaping the world order(along with humans) than is expressed inwestern ideologies. More pragmatically,Native Amazonian people have taught thewestern world practices for exploitingnatural resources which favor the envi-ronment in a sort of symbiotic or at leastcomensal way (besides the examplesabove see also Gmez-Pompa and Kaus1990). Human cultural diversity is tosome extent responsible for biodiversityrichness, as well as the heterogeneity offorest composition and structure. It hasbeen proved that a natural resource man-agement plan increases its potential suc-

238 JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

cess if the local people are actively in-volved from the beginning in its designand implementation.

In this vein of ideas, itis worth mentioning an interesting ex-ample, the Palcaz Project, which alongwith traditional management practicespioneered a strip-cut technique of forestin the Peruvian Amazon. The Project,initially funded by the U.S. Agency forInternational Development and supportedby the World Wild Fund for Nature, in-volves five native communities and 70individual Amuesha Indians cooperated inthe Ynesha Forestry Cooperative orCOFYAL. The main goals of the projectare to manage the communities' naturalforests for sustained yield of wild prod-ucts and protect the cultural integrity ofthe Amuesha people. Commercial stripcuts of sections of the forest (30-40 mwide) are practiced in cycles and se-quences to maximize the persistence ofmature or advanced regrowth of forestsbordering the strips. It may take 6-10years to complete one cycle of strip cutsand about 30-40 year rotation before har-vesting a given strip. The main ecologi-cal purpose of strip-cutting in these tropi-cal forests is to promote natural regenera-tion of native species. The wood har-vested is processed and marketed by theAmuesha, some high quality wood evenbeing imported to the US (to musical in-strument makers and artisans). After morethan a decade of implementation of theproject, inventories of natural regenera-tion indicate superb regeneration andgrowth of hundreds of tree species(Hartshorn, 1994; for more examples seePosey, 1992).

These integrativeapproaces to the management of tropicalforests have multiple implications for thesurvival of the Amazonian forests andpeoples, their rights and managementstrategies for the future. A sound ap-proach to environmental management willbenefit from the potential role of humansas allies of nature. A better comprehen-sion of nature's services associated withthe cultural induced disturbances couldimprove and inform strategies for themanagement of tropical forest ecosys-tems.

Furthermore, if environ-mental ethics and economics are to playa vital role in preserving biodiversity andfostering conservation worldwide, thosefundamental differences between wealthyand non-wealthy countries' economic sys-tems and conservation programs shouldbe highlighted. The wealthy countries'demand for extraction and exportation ofresources is an important factor that de-creases non-wealthy countries' biodiver-

sity. Empowering local, subsistence cul-tures certainly will contribute to themaintenance of tropical diversity(Oldfield and Alcorn, 1991).

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This paper has been im-proved and benefited considerably by thecomments and editorial help of StanfordZent. Three anonymous reviewers alsooffered useful comments. However, anymisconceptions, speculations or misinter-pretations are entirely my own responsi-bility.

NOTES

1 This research has consisted principally

of surveys on four 1 ha ethnobotanicalplots in different forests occupied bythe Hot. Individual interviews havebeen carried out among 125 Hotabout more than 2000 individual trees.The preliminary results of this workshow that, similar to other nativeAmazonian peoples (Prance et al.,1987; Bennett, 1992), the Hot makeextensive use of their surrounding for-ests.

2 Lpez-Zent and Zent 1996-1998 per-

sonal field notes and reconfirmed byRobert Storrie pers. comm. 1997.

REFERENCES

Altieri, M. (1993): Ethnoscience and biodiver-sity: Key elements in the design of sustain-able pest management systems for smallfarmers in developing countries. AgricultureEcosystems and Environment. 46 (1-4):257-272.

Anderson, A. and D. Posey. (1989): Manage-ment of a Tropical Shrub Savanna by theGorotire Kayap of Brazil. In D. Posey andW. Bale (eds). Resource Management inAmazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies.Advances in Economic Botany. Vol. 7.New York: New York Botanical Garden.pp. 159-173.

Arvelo-Jimnez, N. and H. Biord. (1994): TheImpact of Conquest on Contemporary In-digenous People of the Guiana Shield: TheSystem of Orinoco Regional Interdepen-dence. In A. Roosevelt (ed) Amazonian In-dians from Prehistory to the Present. Tuc-son and London: The University of ArizonaPress. pp. 55-78.

Bale, William. (1985): Ka'apor Ritual Hunting.Human Ecology. 13(4):485-510.

Bale, William (1989): The Culture of Amazo-nian Forests. In D.A. Posey and W. Bale(eds) Resource Management in Amazonia:Indigenous and Folk Strategies. Advancesin Economic Botany. Vol. 7. New York:New York Botanical Garden. pp. 1-21.

Beckerman, S. (1985): Swidden in Amazoniaand the Amazon Rim. In B.L. Turner II and

S.B. Brush (eds.) Comparative FarmingSystems. New York: The Guilford Press. pp.55-94.

Bennett, Bradley C. (1992): Plants and Peopleof the Amazonian Rainforests: The Role ofEthnobotany in sustainable development.Bioscience. 42: 599-607.

Bennett, John (1976): The Ecological Transi-tion: Cultural Anthropology and HumanAdaptation. New York:Pergamon Press Inc.

Boglar, L. (1978): Cuentos y Mitos de losPiaroa. Caracas: Instituto de Investigacio-nes Histricas. Universidad Catlica AndrsBello. 98 pp.

Butt Colson, A. J. (1985): Routes of knowledge:an aspect of regional integration in thecircum-Roraima area of the Guiana High-lands. Antropolgica.63-64:103-149.

Camargo, J. and D. Posey. (1991): Knowledgeof the Kayap on stingless social beesmeliponidae apidae hymenoptera additionalnotes. Boletim do Museu Paraense EmilioGoeldi. Serie Zoologia. 6 (1):17-42.

Chirif, A. (1989): Poblaciones Humanas yDesarrollo Amaznico: El Caso del Per. InL. Aragn and M. Imbiriba (eds.). Popula-es Humanas e Desenvolvimento Amazni-co. Organizao dos Estados Americanos.Universidade Federal do Par. Belm:Falangola Editora. pp. 267-311.

Connell, J.H. (1978): Diversity in Tropical RainForests and Coral Reefs. Science. 199(24):1302-1310.

Daily, G.C. and P.R. Ehrlich. (1992): Popula-tion Sustainability, and Earth's Carrying Ca-pacity. BioScience. 42(10):761-771.

Denevan, W. (1992a): The Aboriginal Popula-tion of Amazonia. In W. Denevan (ed.) TheNative Population of the Americas in 1492.Madison: The University of WisconsinPress. Second Edition. pp. 205-234.

Denevan, W. (1992b): The Pristine Myth: TheLandscape of the Americas in 1492. Annalsof the Association of American Geogra-phers. 82(3):369-385.

De Oliveira, A. (1994): The Evidence for theNature of the Process of IndigenousDeculturation and Destabilization in theBrazilian Amazon in the Last Three Hun-dred Years. In A. Roosevelt (ed) AmazonianIndians from Prehistory to the Present.Tucson and London: The University of Ari-zona Press. pp. 95-119.

Domnguez, C. (1989): Poblaciones Humanas yDesarrollo Amaznico en Colombia. In L.Aragn and M. Imbiriba (eds.). PopulaesHumanas e Desenvolvimento Amaznico.Organizao dos Estados Americanos. Uni-versidade Federal do Par. Belm:Falangola Editora. pp. 93-124.

Ellen, Roy. (1979): Environment, Subsistenceand System. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press. pp. 123-204.

Ferguson, R. B. and N. L. Whitehead (1992):The Violent Edge of Empire. In R.B.Ferguson and N.L. Whitehead (eds.) War in

239JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

the Tribal Zone. Expanding States and In-digenous Warfare. Santa Fe: School ofAmerican Research Press. pp. 1-30.

Flenley, J. (1992): Palynological Evidence Re-lating to Disturbance and Other EcologicalPhenomena of Rain Forest. In J. Goldam-mer (ed.) Tropical Forests in Transition.Switzerland: Birkhuser Verlag Basel. pp.17-24.

Flster, H. (1992): Holocene AutochthonousForest Degradation in Southeast Venezuela.In J. Goldammer (ed.) Tropical Forests inTransition. Switzerland: Birkhuser VerlagBasel. pp. 25-44.

Gentry, A. (1992): Tropical Forest Biodiversity,distributional patterns and their conserva-tional significance. Oikos. 63(1):19-28.

Goldammer, J. (1992): Tropical Forests in Tran-sition: Ecology of Natural and Anthropo-genic Disturbance Processes - An Introduc-tion. In J. Goldammer (ed.) Tropical For-ests in Transition. Switzerland: BirkhuserVerlag Basel. pp. 1-16.

Gmez-Pompa (1991): Learning from traditionalecological knowledge insights from Mayansilviculture. Gmez-Pompa, A., T. C.Whitmore and M. Hadley (eds.). Rain forestregeneration and management. Man and thebiosphere series, vol. 6. Paris: UNESCO.pp. 335-342

Gmez-Pompa, A. and A. Kaus (1990): Manejotradicional de Selvas Tropicales en Mexico.In A. Anderson Alternativas a la Defores-tacin. Quito y Belm, Para: Abya-Yala,Fundacin Natura, Museo Emilio Goeldi.pp. 79-96.

Gmez-Pompa, A. and A. Kaus (1992): Tamingthe Wilderness Myth: Environmental policyand education are currently based on West-ern beliefs about nature rather than on real-ity. BioScience. 42(4):271-279.

Gross, D. R.; G. Eiten; N. M. Flowers; F. M.Leoi; M. Lattman Ritter and D. W. Werner.(1979): Ecology and Acculturation AmongNative Peoples of Central Brazil. Science.206:1043-1050.

Hames, R. B. and W. T. Vickers (eds.) (1983):Adaptive Responses of Native Amazonians.New York: Academic Press.

Hartshorn, G. (1994): Sustainable Tropical For-est. In Meffe, G. and R. Carroll. (eds)(1994): Principles of Conservation Biology.Sunderland, Massachusetts: Sinauer Associ-ates, Inc. Pp. 494-500.

Herrera, R.; C. Jordan; H. Klinge and E.Medina (1978): Amazon Ecosystems: TheirStructure and Functioning with ParticularEmphasis on Nutrients. Interciencia. 3:223-231.

Hern, W.M. (1994): Health and Demography ofNative Amazonians. Historical Perspectiveand Current Status. In A. Roosevelt (ed)Amazonian Indians from Prehistory to thePresent. Tucson and London: The Univer-sity of Arizona Press. pp. 123-149.

Hill, J. D. (ed.) (1988): Rethinking history andmyth: indigenous South American perspec-

tives on the past. Urbana: University of Illi-nois Press.

Huber, O. and J. Steyermark. (1983): The Veg-etation of the Sierra Parima, Venezuela-Bra-zil: Some results of recent exploration.Brittonia.36(2):104-139.

Huston, M. (1979): A general hypothesis ofspecies diversity. The American Naturalist.113:81-101.

Irvine, D. (1987): Resource Management by theRuna Indians of the Ecuadorian Amazon .PhD Dissertation Stanford University, Cali-fornia, 306 pp.

Jackson, J. (1984): Vaups Marriage Practice. InK. Kensinger (de) Marriages practices inLowland South America. Urbana: Universityof Illinois Press. Pp. 156-179.

Janzen, D. and C. Vzquez Yanes. (1991): As-pects of Tropical seed ecology of relevanceto tropical forested wildlands. In A. Gmez-Pompa, A.; T. C. Whitmore and M. Hadleyet al. (eds.) Rain Forest Regeneration andManagement. Man and the biosphere series,vol. 6. Paris: Unesco. pp. 137-154.

Jimnez-Osornio and Gmez-Pompa (1991): Hu-man role in shaping of the flora in a wet-land community: the chinampa. Landscapeand Urban Planning. 20 (1-3):47-52.

Jimnez, S. and A. Perozo (eds) (1994): Es-perando a Kuyujani: Tierras, Leyes y Auto-demarcacin. Asociacin Otro Futuro -GAIA - IVIC. 96 pp.

Johns, A. (1992): Species conservation in man-aged tropical forest. In T. Whitmore and J.Sayer (eds) Tropical Deforestation and Spe-cies Extinction. New York: Chapman &Hall. Pp. 15-53.

Jordan, C. (1982): Amazon Rain Forest. Ameri-can Scientist. 70:394-401.

Jordan, C. (1995): Conservation. New York:John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Linares, O. (1976): Garden hunting in theAmerican Tropic. Human Ecology. 4(4):331-50.

Lovejoy, T. (1989): The Third World's environ-ment: a global dilemma. EPA Journal.15(4): 42.

Meffe, G. and R. Carroll (eds). (1994): Prin-ciples of Conservation Biology. Sunderland,Massachusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Montero Toral, H. and C.E. Crespo. (1989):Poblaciones Humanas y Desarrollo de laAmazona Ecuatoriana. In L. Aragn andM. Imbiriba (eds.). Populaes Humanas eDesenvolvimento Amaznico. Organizaodos Estados Americanos. Universidade Fed-eral do Par. Belm: Falangola Editora. pp.125-191.

Moran, E. (1981): Developing the Amazon.Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Moran, E. F. (1991): Human Adaptive Strate-gies in Amazonian Blackwater Ecosystems.American Anthropologist.93(2):361-82.

Murphy, R. F. (1960): Headhunters heritage:Social and economic change among theMundurucu Indians. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Murphy, R. (1970): Basin Ethnography andEcological Theory. In Languages and Cul-tures of Western North America. E. H.Sianson (ed). Pocatello, Idaho: The IdahoState University Press.pp. 152-171.

OCEI (1993): Censo Indgena de Venezuela.Caracas: Oficina Central de Estadstica eInformtica.

Odum, E. (1993): Ecology and our EndangeredLife-support Systems. Sunderland, Massa-chusetts: Sinauer Associates, Inc.

Oldfield, M. and J. Alcorn. (1991): BiodiversityCulture Conservation and Ecodevelopment.In M. Oldfield and J. Alcorn (eds.). Biodi-versity: culture, conservation, andecodevelopment. Westview Press, Inc.:Boulder, Colorado.

Peters, R. and T. Lovejoy (1992): Global warm-ing and biological diversity. New Haven:Yale University Press.

Pianka, E. (1966): Latitudinal gradients in spe-cies diversity: a review of concepts. Ameri-can Naturalist. 100:33-46.

Posey, D. (1982): The Keepers of the Forest.Garden. January/February. pp. 18-24.

Posey, D. (1983): Indigenous Ecological Knowl-edge and Development of the Amazon. InE.F. Moran (ed.) The Dilemma of Amazo-nian Development. Boulder: WestviewPress.

Posey, D. (1992): Traditional Knowledge, Con-servation, and The Rain Forest Harvest.In M. Plotkin and L. Famolare (eds). Sus-tainable Harvest and Marketing of RainForest Products. Conservation International.Washington D.C.: Island Press. pp. 46-50.

Posey, D. and W. Bale (eds). (1989): ResourceManagement in Amazonia: Indigenous andFolk Strategies. Advances in EconomicBotany. Vol. 7. New York: New York Bo-tanical Garden.

Prance, G. T. (1978): The Origin and Evolutionof the Amazon Flora. Interciencia. 3(4):200-05.

Prance, G.T, W. Bale, B.M. Boom and R.L.Carneiro. (1987): Quantitative Ethnobotanyand the Case for Conservation in Amazonia.Conservation Biology. 1(4):296-310.

Prance, G.T. (1989): Foreword. In Posey, D.and W. Bale (eds). (1989): Resource Man-agement in Amazonia: Indigenous and FolkStrategies. Advances in Economic Botany.Vol. 7. New York: New York BotanicalGarden. Pp. iv-v.

Roosevelt, A. C. (1980): Parmana: PrehistoricMaize and Manioc Subsistence Along theAmazon and Orinoco. New York: AcademicPress.

Roosevelt, A. C. (1989): Resource Management inAmazonia before the Conquest: Beyond Ethno-graphic Projection. In D.A. Posey and W.

240 JUL - AUG 1998, VOL. 23 N 4

Bale (eds.) Resource Management inAmazonia: Indigenous and Folk Strategies.Advances in Economic Botany. Vol. 7. NewYork: New York Botanical Garden. pp. 30-62.

Roosevelt, A. C. (1994): Amazonian Anthropol-ogy: Strategy for a New Synthesis. In A.Roosevelt (ed) Amazonian Indians from Pre-history to the Present. Tucson and London:The University of Arizona Press. pp. 1-29.

Saul, C. (1989): Population and Amazonian De-velopment: The Case of Guyana. In L.Aragn and M. Imbiriba (eds.). PopulaesHumanas e Desenvolvimento Amaznico.Organizao dos Estados Americanos.Universidade Federal do Par. Belm:Falangola Editora. pp. 193-265.

Schle, W. (1992): Vegetation, Megaherbivores,Man and Climate in the Quaternary and theGenesis of Closed Forests. In J. Goldammer(ed.) Tropical Forests in Transition. Switzer-land: Birkhuser Verlag Basel. pp. 45-76.

Schultes, R. E. (1979): The Amazonia as aSource of New Economic Plants. EconomicBotany. 33(3):259-66.

Schultes, R.E. (1994): The Importance of Ethno-botany in Environmental Conservation.American Journal of Economics and Sociol-ogy. 53(2): 202-206.

Smith, N. (1980): Anthrosols and human carryingcapacity in Amazonia. Annals of the Asso-ciation of American Geographers. 70:553-556.

Smole, W. (1980): Musa cultivation in pre-Columbian South America. In J. Parsons and

W. Davidson (eds.). Geoscience and Man.Historical Geography of Latin America.Lousiana State University School of Geo-science, Baton Rouge. vol. XXI. pp. 47-50.

Smole, W. (1989): Yanomama Horticulture in theParima Highlands of Venezuela and Brazil.In D.A. Posey and W. Bale (eds.) ResourceManagement in Amazonia: Indigenous andFolk Strategies. Advances in EconomicBotany. Vol. 7. New York: New York Bo-tanical Garden. pp. 115-128.

Sprugel, D. (1991): Disturbance, Equilibrium,and Environmental Variability: What isNatural Vegetation in a Changing Environ-ment? Biological Conservation. 58:1-18.

Stahl, Peter W. (1996): Holocene Biodiversity:An Archaeological Perspective from theAmericas. Annual Review of Anthropology.25:105-26.

Waide, R. and Lugo, A. (1992): A Research Per-spective on Disturbance and Recovery of aTropical Montane Forest. In J. Goldammer(ed.) Tropical Forests in Transition. Switzer-land: Birkhuser Verlag Basel. pp. 173-190.

Wilson, E. (1992): The Diversity of Life. Press ofHarvard University Press: Cambridge, Mas-sachusetts.

Wilson, E. (1993): Is humanity suicidal? Bio-systems. 31 (2-3):235-242.

Whitehead, N. L. (1992): Tribes Make States andStates Make Tribes: Warfare and the Cre-ation of Colonial Tribes and States in North-eastern South America. In R.B. Ferguson

and N.L. Whitehead (eds.) War in the TribalZone. Expanding States and IndigenousWarfare. Santa Fe: School of American Re-search Press. pp. 127-150.

Whitehead, N.L. (1994): The AncientAmerindian Politics of the Amazon, theOrinoco, and the Atlantic Coast: A Prelimi-nary analysis of their passage from antiquityto extinction. In A. Roosevelt (ed.) Amazo-nian Indians from Prehistory to the Present:Anthropological Perspectives. Tucson: TheUniversity of Arizona Press. pp. 33-53.

Whitmore, T. and J. Sayer (1992): Deforestationand species extinction in tropical moist for-est. In T. Whitmore and J. Sayer (eds)Tropical Deforestation and Species Extinc-tion. New York: Chapman and Hall. pp. 1-14.

Zent, Stanford. (1992): Historical and Ethno-graphic Ecology of the Upper Cuao Riverwo,~thi,~ha,~: Clues for an Interpretation ofNative Guianese Social Organization. PhDDissertation Columbia University, NewYork. xii + 478 pp.

Zent, Stanford. (1995): Clasificacin, Explotaciny Composicin de Bosques Secundarios enel Alto Ro Cuao. In H. Heinen, J. San Josand H. Caballero (eds). Hombre yNaturaleza en los Neotrpicos. ScientiaGuian. 5:79-113.

Zent, Stanford. (1997): Piaroa and the Cracidae:Game management under shifting cultiva-tion. In S. Strahl et al. The Cracidae: TheirBiology and Conservation Hong Kong:Hancock House Publishers Ltd. p. 177-194.