Prehistoric Native Americans and Ecological Change - Canadian ...

310 • Fritzduring the series of catastrophic 500-yearfloods that occurred from 650 to 400 BP.Thus climatic, geologic, ecological, andanthropogenic interactions were all factorsthat forced the abandonment ofCahokia” (pp. 128–129). Although theDelcourts present a reasonable pictureof social complexity and demography,the degree to which they stress environmentaldamage seems extreme, sincemost archaeologists look to a combinationof social and ecological causes.Milner (2004: 167–168), for example,invokes “enfeebled leadership,” statingthat: “Even in the best of circumstances,chiefs inevitably experienced reversals ofone kind or another that they were powerlessto stop. Their positions were surelytested during times of repeated shortages,especially if coupled with losses atthe hands of their enemies.” A demographicvacuum persisted across theAmerican Bottom long after Cahokia’spopulation had declined, allowing timefor trees to grow back and soil fertilityto be replenished. Geographic shifts ofchiefdoms in eastern North Americaclearly had both social and environmentalexplanations.Chapter 8 moves out in scale toregional-level interactions but back intime to the late Pleistocene, taking onthe controversial issue of megafaunalextinctions. The authors implicatehumans, not as participants in a blitzkriegon unwary megafauna, but ashunters who displaced former keystonepredators at a time of severe stress due torapidly changing climate and vegetation.An unexpected twist is the Delcourts’positive view of the proposal by DennisStanford and Bruce Bradley that theroots of Clovis technology came acrossthe North Atlantic with descendants ofSolutreans. I am concerned that nonarchaeologistswho read this book willbe unaware of the skepticism with whichthis scenario is viewed in the professionalliterature. Nevertheless, it is noteworthythat scientists of the Delcourts’ calibreseem to favour European ancestryfor early occupants of eastern NorthAmerica.The final chapter, “The ecologicallegacy of prehistoric Native Americans,”discusses the strengths and limitations oftraditional ecological knowledge and theimplications that paleoecological studieshave for current forest managementpolicy. It ends with five conclusions:1. That humans “have been part of theNorth American ecological setting”since their arrival;2. That human ecosystems are panarchicaland adaptive, with limits to sustainableresource use;3. That Native North Americans madeenvironmental impacts that hadconsequences throughout late Pleistoceneand Holocene times;4. That there is “no such thing as aHolocene, ‘presettlement,’ naturalenvironment untouched by humanhands in North America;” and5. That in addition to historical documentsand traditional knowledge,integrated paleoecological andarchaeological data “make it possibleto reconstruct the direct influences ofprehistoric humans on their ecologicalsetting.”A wealth of information is packedinto this small book, and it should beessential reading even for scholarsskeptical of the panarchical perspective,those who may think the impactof early and mid-Holocene burningis overlooked, or those who believethe Delcourts exaggerate the negativeeffects of late pre-Columbian agriculturalsocieties. The writing is clear andengaging, and the figures summarizeCanadian Journal of Archaeology 30 (2006)