5 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. If an archaeological perspective is key to conservation efforts, it also challenges elements of their foundation. If change is the only constant in human–ecology relationships, it remains unclear what “natural” targets ecological restoration should aim for (139). The wholesale appropriation of land and resources for environmental ends—“green grabbing”—at the expense of the needs and livelihoods of local and indigenous groups (often seen as destructive of pristine ecologies) is also further problematized (146). Appreciation of historical data shifts conservation ecology away from concern with a return to original ecological conditions, suggesting the need for pragmatic solutions that acknowledge the integral role humans have long played in shaping natural systems (36, 139). The impact of human agency on ecosystems is neither completely avoidable nor entirely undesirable. People have inhabited a growing range of environments at ever increasing densities only through the continual anthropogenic transformation of ecosystems. Rather than an impossible return to pristine conditions, what is needed is the historically informed management of emerging novel ecosystems to ensure the maintenance of ecological goods and services (139). Such efforts need to account for the needs of all stakeholders and balance local livelihoods against first world agendas.

      Further thought: One aspect of the reading that caught my attention is the authors’ statement regarding how “pristine” ecosystems never really existed due to the fact that human interference within ecosystems dates back several thousand years. The question I had from this is how archaeologists and conservationists will be able to establish what a “natural” ecosystem would be supposed to look like when humans have already interfered with the system for thousands of years.

    2. Third, there is widespread evidence for increasing rates of human-mediated species translocation, extinction, and ecosystem and biodiversity reshaping through time. This acceleration is not constant but is characterized by pulses and pauses that reflect cultural, ecological, and climatic transformations at local, regional, and global scales. These changes have increasingly concentrated biomass into particular sets of human-favored plants and animals (134).

      Question set 3 - #3 It seems there is a pattern of growing human impact over time, although not a totally steady process. According to the reading, the first human impacts started during the Late Pleistocene period and intensified when agriculture emerged and spread in the Holocene epoch. The impacts intensified further when islands were colonized, when urbanization occurred, and when trade routes extended, moving species around. The point made by the authors is that all these developments have proceeded in “pulses and pauses,” which means that the acceleration of human-induced impacts did not occur evenly across all regions. It is quite fascinating that this process depended on many cultural and environmental factors.

    3. One of the major outcomes of the Neolithic was the inexorable spread of agriculture from ∼14–20 centers of early domestication (56) to encompass large swaths of the Old and New Worlds. This expansion had unprecedented and enduring impacts on species distributions. Key among these transformations was the promotion and expansion of a range of human-favored taxa, including newly created species (and subspecies) of domesticated crops and animals. Cumulative archaeological data show that crops and animals saw significant prehistoric and historic range expansion (Fig. 3). The scale of agriculture and land use in some regions was significant; for example, expansion of land area used for livestock and rice (Oryza sativa) paddy agriculture was sufficient to increase atmospheric methane emissions between 4,000 and 1,000 y B.P. (57) whereas deforestation and tillage are suggested to have contributed to increasing CO2 over the past 8,000 y (58).

      Question set 3 - #1 The first important pattern is that plants and animals did not stay confined to their places of domestication, but they expanded into new geographical regions as people moved around. As stated in the reading, for example, sheep, goats, and cattle were domesticated in the Near East and in just a few thousands of years, they became widespread in Europe, Africa, and South Asia. Not only crops but weeds and other organisms were transported by people at the same time; thus, people transported entire ecosystems, not just specific domesticated organisms. It means that we have to view domestication as an expansion process and human-environment interaction process.

    4. Species translocations to islands were so common in the past that archaeologists often speak of “transported landscapes” (84). These new landscapes included a broad range of domesticated animals, commensals, crops, weeds, microbes, and other species carried by humans. For example, Neolithic colonizers who arrived on Cyprus brought domestic cereals, pulses, sheep, goat, cattle, pigs, domestic dogs, and cats (Felis catus), as well as mainland game animals such as fallow deer (Dama dama), fox (Vulpes vulpes), and wild boar beginning 10.6 ka (64, 85). Polynesian people, expanding across the Pacific after ∼3,500 y B.P. (84), introduced a broad range of domesticated species, including the crops taro (Colocasia esculenta), yam (Dioscorea spp.), and banana (Musa spp.), and such animals as the domestic pig, chicken, dog, and Pacific rat (Rattus exulans). In the Caribbean, Archaic and Ceramic period peoples introduced a variety of species, including wild avocado (Persea americana), manioc/cassava (Manihot esculenta), maize (Zea mays), tobacco (Nicotiana rustica), and various trees, as well as dogs, opossums (Didelphis sp.), guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus), and shrews (Nesophontes edithae) (86).

      Question set 2 - #2 A particularly fascinating case is that of Polynesians settling the Pacific. As people spread through the Pacific Islands around 3,500 years ago, they actively introduced crops like taro, yams, bananas, pigs, chickens, and dogs, as well as Pacific rats that may have been introduced unintentionally. These species allowed the formation of more habitable islands as many of the islands had very few sources of edible plants and animals. Therefore, colonization of the islands differs from migration to a region that was already fertile before people arrived there. People carried fragments of their old ecosystems with them to create new anthropogenic ecosystems.

    5. The human-mediated translocation of species now dates back to the Late Pleistocene. For example, the northern common cuscus (Phalanger orientalis), endemic to New Guinea, was transported to eastern Indonesia, the Solomon Islands, and the Bismarck Archipelago beginning ∼20–23 ka, becoming a key subsistence species (26, 27). Other taxa were also moved; together with a species of bandicoot (Echymipera kalubu) and the Admiralty cuscus (Spilocuscus kraemeri), the Canarium indicum tree was introduced to Manus by ∼13 ka, followed a few millennia later by the rat Rattus praetor (26). Translocation patterns mirror patterns of maritime obsidian exchange in Melanesia in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (26).

      Question set 2 - #1 Species movements were made possible by the human migration into new environments as well as their purposeful or accidental movement of organisms as they traveled. This is demonstrated by the example provided in the reading where it states that the Northern Common Cuscus was moved from New Guinea to eastern Indonesia, the Solomon Islands, and the Bismarck Archipelago as early as 20,000-23,000 years ago. Mankind was not only migrating to new territories but also relocating plant and animal life which were beneficial to their survival. Advances in transportation and human mobility made this practice possible. I believe that human migration and other species migration were directly related due to the fact that human migrants were affecting the ecosystems they inhabited.