The Atlantic Monthly | March 2002 | Source

Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was
vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an
altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say,
Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its
agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon
rain forest may be largely a human
artifact

by Charles C. Mann

The plane took off in weather that was surprisingly cool for
north-central Bolivia and flew east, toward the Brazilian border. In a few
minutes the roads and houses disappeared, and the only evidence of human
settlement was the cattle scattered over the savannah like jimmies on ice
cream. Then they, too, disappeared. By that time the archaeologists had
their cameras out and were clicking away in delight.

Below us was
the Beni, a Bolivian province about the size of Illinois and Indiana put
together, and nearly as flat. For almost half the year rain and snowmelt
from the mountains to the south and west cover the land with an irregular,
slowly moving skin of water that eventually ends up in the province's
northern rivers, which are sub-subtributaries of the Amazon. The rest of
the year the water dries up and the bright-green vastness turns into
something that resembles a desert. This peculiar, remote, watery plain was
what had drawn the researchers' attention, and not just because it was one
of the few places on earth inhabited by people who might never have seen
Westerners with cameras.

From
Atlantic Unbound:

Interviews:
"The Pristine Myth"
(March 7, 2002)
Charles C. Mann talks
about the thriving and sophisticated Indian landscape of the
pre-Columbus Americas

Clark Erickson and
William Balée, the archaeologists, sat up front. Erickson is based at the
University of Pennsylvania; he works in concert with a Bolivian
archaeologist, whose seat in the plane I usurped that day. Balée is at
Tulane University, in New Orleans. He is actually an anthropologist, but
as native peoples have vanished, the distinction between anthropologists
and archaeologists has blurred. The two men differ in build, temperament,
and scholarly proclivity, but they pressed their faces to the windows with
identical enthusiasm.

Dappled across the grasslands below was an
archipelago of forest islands, many of them startlingly round and hundreds
of acres across. Each island rose ten or thirty or sixty feet above the
floodplain, allowing trees to grow that would otherwise never survive the
water. The forests were linked by raised berms, as straight as a rifle
shot and up to three miles long. It is Erickson's belief that this entire
landscape—30,000 square miles of forest mounds surrounded by raised fields
and linked by causeways—was constructed by a complex, populous society
more than 2,000 years ago. Balée, newer to the Beni, leaned toward this
view but was not yet ready to commit himself.

Erickson and Balée
belong to a cohort of scholars that has radically challenged conventional
notions of what the Western Hemisphere was like before Columbus. When I
went to high school, in the 1970s, I was taught that Indians came to the
Americas across the Bering Strait about 12,000 years ago, that they lived
for the most part in small, isolated groups, and that they had so little
impact on their environment that even after millennia of habitation it
remained mostly wilderness. My son picked up the same ideas at his
schools. One way to summarize the views of people like Erickson and Balée
would be to say that in their opinion this picture of Indian life is wrong
in almost every aspect. Indians were here far longer than previously
thought, these researchers believe, and in much greater numbers. And they
were so successful at imposing their will on the landscape that in 1492
Columbus set foot in a hemisphere thoroughly dominated by
humankind.

Given the charged relations between white societies and
native peoples, inquiry into Indian culture and history is inevitably
contentious. But the recent scholarship is especially controversial. To
begin with, some researchers—many but not all from an older
generation—deride the new theories as fantasies arising from an almost
willful misinterpretation of data and a perverse kind of political
correctness. "I have seen no evidence that large numbers of people ever
lived in the Beni," says Betty J. Meggers, of the Smithsonian Institution.
"Claiming otherwise is just wishful thinking." Similar criticisms apply to
many of the new scholarly claims about Indians, according to Dean R. Snow,
an anthropologist at Pennsylvania State University. The problem is that
"you can make the meager evidence from the ethnohistorical record tell you
anything you want," he says. "It's really easy to kid yourself."

More important are the implications of the new theories for
today's ecological battles. Much of the environmental movement is
animated, consciously or not, by what William Denevan, a geographer at the
University of Wisconsin, calls, polemically, "the pristine myth"—the
belief that the Americas in 1491 were an almost unmarked, even Edenic
land, "untrammeled by man," in the words of the Wilderness Act of 1964, one of the nation's first and
most important environmental laws. As the University of Wisconsin
historian William Cronon has written, restoring this long-ago, putatively
natural state is, in the view of environmentalists, a task that society is
morally bound to undertake. Yet if the new view is correct and the work of
humankind was pervasive, where does that leave efforts to restore nature?

The Beni is a case in point. In addition to building up the Beni
mounds for houses and gardens, Erickson says, the Indians trapped fish in
the seasonally flooded grassland. Indeed, he says, they fashioned dense
zigzagging networks of earthen fish weirs between the causeways. To keep
the habitat clear of unwanted trees and undergrowth, they regularly set
huge areas on fire. Over the centuries the burning created an intricate
ecosystem of fire-adapted plant species dependent on native pyrophilia.
The current inhabitants of the Beni still burn, although now it is to
maintain the savannah for cattle. When we flew over the area, the dry
season had just begun, but mile-long lines of flame were already on the
march. In the charred areas behind the fires were the blackened spikes of
trees—many of them, one assumes, of the varieties that activists fight to
save in other parts of Amazonia.

After we landed, I asked Balée,
Should we let people keep burning the Beni? Or should we let the trees
invade and create a verdant tropical forest in the grasslands, even if one
had not existed here for millennia?

Balée laughed. "You're trying
to trap me, aren't you?" he said.

Like a Club Between the
Eyes

According to family lore, my great-grandmother's
great-grandmother's great-grandfather was the first white person hanged in
America. His name was John Billington. He came on the Mayflower,
which anchored off the coast of Massachusetts on November 9, 1620.
Billington was not a Puritan; within six months of arrival he also became
the first white person in America to be tried for complaining about the
police. "He is a knave," William Bradford, the colony's governor, wrote of
Billington, "and so will live and die." What one historian called
Billington's "troublesome career" ended in 1630, when he was hanged for
murder. My family has always said that he was framed—but we would
say that, wouldn't we?

A few years ago it occurred to me that
my ancestor and everyone else in the colony had voluntarily enlisted in a
venture that brought them to New England without food or shelter six weeks
before winter. Half the 102 people on the Mayflower made it through
to spring, which to me was amazing. How, I wondered, did they
survive?

In his history of Plymouth Colony, Bradford provided the
answer: by robbing Indian houses and graves. The Mayflower first
hove to at Cape Cod. An armed company staggered out. Eventually it found a
recently deserted Indian settlement. The newcomers—hungry, cold, sick—dug
up graves and ransacked houses, looking for underground stashes of corn.
"And sure it was God's good providence that we found this corn," Bradford
wrote, "for else we know not how we should have done." (He felt uneasy
about the thievery, though.) When the colonists came to Plymouth, a month
later, they set up shop in another deserted Indian village. All through
the coastal forest the Indians had "died on heapes, as they lay in their
houses," the English trader Thomas Morton noted. "And the bones and skulls
upon the severall places of their habitations made such a spectacle" that
to Morton the Massachusetts woods seemed to be "a new found Golgotha"—the
hill of executions in Roman Jerusalem.

To the Pilgrims'
astonishment, one of the corpses they exhumed on Cape Cod had blond hair.
A French ship had been wrecked there several years earlier. The Patuxet
Indians imprisoned a few survivors. One of them supposedly learned enough
of the local language to inform his captors that God would destroy them
for their misdeeds. The Patuxet scoffed at the threat. But the Europeans
carried a disease, and they bequeathed it to their jailers. The epidemic
(probably of viral hepatitis, according to a study by Arthur E. Spiess, an
archaeologist at the Maine Historic Preservation Commission, and Bruce D.
Spiess, the director of clinical research at the Medical College of
Virginia) took years to exhaust itself and may have killed 90 percent of
the people in coastal New England. It made a huge difference to American
history. "The good hand of God favored our beginnings," Bradford mused, by
"sweeping away great multitudes of the natives ... that he might make room
for us."

By the time my ancestor set sail on the Mayflower,
Europeans had been visiting New England for more than a hundred years.
English, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese mariners regularly plied
the coastline, trading what they could, occasionally kidnapping the
inhabitants for slaves. New England, the Europeans saw, was thickly
settled and well defended. In 1605 and 1606 Samuel de Champlain visited
Cape Cod, hoping to establish a French base. He abandoned the idea. Too
many people already lived there. A year later Sir Ferdinando
Gorges—British despite his name—tried to establish an English community in
southern Maine. It had more founders than Plymouth and seems to have been
better organized. Confronted by numerous well-armed local Indians, the
settlers abandoned the project within months. The Indians at Plymouth
would surely have been an equal obstacle to my ancestor and his ramshackle
expedition had disease not intervened.

Faced with such stories,
historians have long wondered how many people lived in the Americas at the
time of contact. "Debated since Columbus attempted a partial census on
Hispaniola in 1496," William Denevan has written, this "remains one of the
great inquiries of history." (In 1976 Denevan assembled and edited an
entire book on the subject, The Native Population of the Americas in 1492.) The
first scholarly estimate of the indigenous population was made in 1910 by
James Mooney, a distinguished ethnographer at the Smithsonian Institution.
Combing through old documents, he concluded that in 1491 North America had
1.15 million inhabitants. Mooney's glittering reputation ensured that most
subsequent researchers accepted his figure uncritically.

That
changed in 1966, when Henry F. Dobyns published "Estimating Aboriginal
American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques With a New Hemispheric
Estimate," in the journal Current Anthropology. Despite the
carefully neutral title, his argument was thunderous, its impact
long-lasting. In the view of James Wilson, the author of The Earth Shall Weep (1998), a history of
indigenous Americans, Dobyns's colleagues "are still struggling to get out
of the crater that paper left in anthropology." Not only anthropologists
were affected. Dobyns's estimate proved to be one of the opening rounds in
today's culture wars.

Dobyns began his exploration of pre-Columbian
Indian demography in the early 1950s, when he was a graduate student. At
the invitation of a friend, he spent a few months in northern Mexico,
which is full of Spanish-era missions. There he poked through the
crumbling leather-bound ledgers in which Jesuits recorded local births and
deaths. Right away he noticed how many more deaths there were. The
Spaniards arrived, and then Indians died—in huge numbers, at incredible
rates. It hit him, Dobyns told me recently, "like a club right between the
eyes."

It took Dobyns eleven years to obtain his Ph.D. Along the
way he joined a rural-development project in Peru, which until colonial
times was the seat of the Incan empire. Remembering what he had seen at
the northern fringe of the Spanish conquest, Dobyns decided to compare it
with figures for the south. He burrowed into the papers of the Lima
cathedral and read apologetic Spanish histories. The Indians in Peru,
Dobyns concluded, had faced plagues from the day the conquistadors showed
up—in fact, before then: smallpox arrived around 1525, seven years ahead
of the Spanish. Brought to Mexico apparently by a single sick Spaniard, it
swept south and eliminated more than half the population of the Incan
empire. Smallpox claimed the Incan dictator Huayna Capac and much of his
family, setting off a calamitous war of succession. So complete was the
chaos that Francisco Pizarro was able to seize an empire the size of Spain
and Italy combined with a force of 168 men.

Smallpox was only the
first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together
in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all
ravaged the remains of Incan culture. Dobyns was the first social
scientist to piece together this awful picture, and he naturally rushed
his findings into print. Hardly anyone paid attention. But Dobyns was
already working on a second, related question: If all those people died,
how many had been living there to begin with? Before Columbus, Dobyns
calculated, the Western Hemisphere held ninety to 112 million people.
Another way of saying this is that in 1491 more people lived in the
Americas than in Europe.

His argument was simple but horrific. It
is well known that Native Americans had no experience with many European
diseases and were therefore immunologically unprepared—"virgin soil," in
the metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that such
diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially visited by
Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who had never seen a white
person. The first whites to explore many parts of the Americas may
therefore have encountered places that were already depopulated. Indeed,
Dobyns argued, they must have done so.

Peru was one example, the
Pacific Northwest another. In 1792 the British navigator George Vancouver
led the first European expedition to survey Puget Sound. He found a vast
charnel house: human remains "promiscuously scattered about the beach, in
great numbers." Smallpox, Vancouver's crew discovered, had preceded them.
Its few survivors, second lieutenant Peter Puget noted, were "most
terribly pitted ... indeed many have lost their Eyes." In Pox Americana, (2001), Elizabeth Fenn, a historian
at George Washington University, contends that the disaster on the
northwest coast was but a small part of a continental pandemic that
erupted near Boston in 1774 and cut down Indians from Mexico to Alaska.

Because smallpox was not endemic in the Americas, colonials, too,
had not acquired any immunity. The virus, an equal-opportunity killer,
swept through the Continental Army and stopped the drive into Quebec. The
American Revolution would be lost, Washington and other rebel leaders
feared, if the contagion did to the colonists what it had done to the
Indians. "The small Pox! The small Pox!" John Adams wrote to his wife,
Abigail. "What shall We do with it?" In retrospect, Fenn says, "One of
George Washington's most brilliant moves was to inoculate the army against
smallpox during the Valley Forge winter of '78." Without inoculation
smallpox could easily have given the United States back to the
British.

So many epidemics occurred in the Americas, Dobyns argued,
that the old data used by Mooney and his successors represented population
nadirs. From the few cases in which before-and-after totals are known with
relative certainty, Dobyns estimated that in the first 130 years of
contact about 95 percent of the people in the Americas died—the worst
demographic calamity in recorded history.

Dobyns's ideas were
quickly attacked as politically motivated, a push from the hate-America
crowd to inflate the toll of imperialism. The attacks continue to this
day. "No question about it, some people want those higher numbers," says
Shepard Krech III, a Brown University anthropologist who is the author of
The Ecological Indian (1999). These people, he
says, were thrilled when Dobyns revisited the subject in a book, Their
Numbers Become Thinned (1983)—and revised his own estimates upward.
Perhaps Dobyns's most vehement critic is David Henige, a bibliographer of
Africana at the University of Wisconsin, whose Numbers From Nowhere (1998) is a landmark in the
literature of demographic fulmination. "Suspect in 1966, it is no less
suspect nowadays," Henige wrote of Dobyns's work. "If anything, it is
worse."

When Henige wrote Numbers From Nowhere, the fight
about pre-Columbian populations had already consumed forests' worth of
trees; his bibliography is ninety pages long. And the dispute shows no
sign of abating. More and more people have jumped in. This is partly
because the subject is inherently fascinating. But more likely the
increased interest in the debate is due to the growing realization of the
high political and ecological stakes.

Inventing by the Millions

In May 30, 1539, Hernando de Soto landed his private army near
Tampa Bay, in Florida. Soto, as he was called, was a novel figure: half
warrior, half venture capitalist. He had grown very rich very young by
becoming a market leader in the nascent trade for Indian slaves. The
profits had helped to fund Pizarro's seizure of the Incan empire, which
had made Soto wealthier still. Looking quite literally for new worlds to
conquer, he persuaded the Spanish Crown to let him loose in North America.
He spent one fortune to make another. He came to Florida with 200 horses,
600 soldiers, and 300 pigs.

From today's perspective, it is
difficult to imagine the ethical system that would justify Soto's actions.
For four years his force, looking for gold, wandered through what is now
Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,
Mississippi, Arkansas, and Texas, wrecking almost everything it touched.
The inhabitants often fought back vigorously, but they had never before
encountered an army with horses and guns. Soto died of fever with his
expedition in ruins; along the way his men had managed to rape, torture,
enslave, and kill countless Indians. But the worst thing the Spaniards
did, some researchers say, was entirely without malice—bring the
pigs.

According to Charles Hudson, an anthropologist at the
University of Georgia who spent fifteen years reconstructing the path of
the expedition, Soto crossed the Mississippi a few miles downstream from
the present site of Memphis. It was a nervous passage: the Spaniards were
watched by several thousand Indian warriors. Utterly without fear, Soto
brushed past the Indian force into what is now eastern Arkansas, through
thickly settled land—"very well peopled with large towns," one of his men
later recalled, "two or three of which were to be seen from one town."
Eventually the Spaniards approached a cluster of small cities, each
protected by earthen walls, sizeable moats, and deadeye archers. In his
usual fashion, Soto brazenly marched in, stole food, and marched out.

After Soto left, no Europeans visited this part of the Mississippi
Valley for more than a century. Early in 1682 whites appeared again, this
time Frenchmen in canoes. One of them was Réné-Robert Cavelier, Sieur de
la Salle. The French passed through the area where Soto had found cities
cheek by jowl. It was deserted—La Salle didn't see an Indian village for
200 miles. About fifty settlements existed in this strip of the
Mississippi when Soto showed up, according to Anne Ramenofsky, an
anthropologist at the University of New Mexico. By La Salle's time the
number had shrunk to perhaps ten, some probably inhabited by recent
immigrants. Soto "had a privileged glimpse" of an Indian world, Hudson
says. "The window opened and slammed shut. When the French came in and the
record opened up again, it was a transformed reality. A civilization
crumbled. The question is, how did this happen?"

The question is
even more complex than it may seem. Disaster of this magnitude suggests
epidemic disease. In the view of Ramenofsky and Patricia Galloway, an
anthropologist at the University of Texas, the source of the contagion was
very likely not Soto's army but its ambulatory meat locker: his 300 pigs.
Soto's force itself was too small to be an effective biological weapon.
Sicknesses like measles and smallpox would have burned through his 600
soldiers long before they reached the Mississippi. But the same would not
have held true for the pigs, which multiplied rapidly and were able to
transmit their diseases to wildlife in the surrounding forest. When human
beings and domesticated animals live close together, they trade microbes
with abandon. Over time mutation spawns new diseases: avian influenza
becomes human influenza, bovine rinderpest becomes measles. Unlike
Europeans, Indians did not live in close quarters with animals—they
domesticated only the dog, the llama, the alpaca, the guinea pig, and,
here and there, the turkey and the Muscovy duck. In some ways this is not
surprising: the New World had fewer animal candidates for taming than the
Old. Moreover, few Indians carry the gene that permits adults to digest
lactose, a form of sugar abundant in milk. Non-milk-drinkers, one
imagines, would be less likely to work at domesticating milk-giving
animals. But this is guesswork. The fact is that what scientists call
zoonotic disease was little known in the Americas. Swine alone can
disseminate anthrax, brucellosis, leptospirosis, taeniasis, trichinosis,
and tuberculosis. Pigs breed exuberantly and can transmit diseases to deer
and turkeys. Only a few of Soto's pigs would have had to wander off to
infect the forest.

Indeed, the calamity wrought by Soto apparently
extended across the whole Southeast. The Coosa city-states, in western
Georgia, and the Caddoan-speaking civilization, centered on the
Texas-Arkansas border, disintegrated soon after Soto appeared. The Caddo
had had a taste for monumental architecture: public plazas, ceremonial
platforms, mausoleums. After Soto's army left, notes Timothy K. Perttula,
an archaeological consultant in Austin, Texas, the Caddo stopped building
community centers and began digging community cemeteries. Between Soto's
and La Salle's visits, Perttula believes, the Caddoan population fell from
about 200,000 to about 8,500—a drop of nearly 96 percent. In the
eighteenth century the tally shrank further, to 1,400. An equivalent loss
today in the population of New York City would reduce it to 56,000—not
enough to fill Yankee Stadium. "That's one reason whites think of Indians
as nomadic hunters," says Russell Thornton, an anthropologist at the
University of California at Los Angeles. "Everything else—all the heavily
populated urbanized societies—was wiped out."

Could a few pigs
truly wreak this much destruction? Such apocalyptic scenarios invite
skepticism. As a rule, viruses, microbes, and parasites are rarely lethal
on so wide a scale—a pest that wipes out its host species does not have a
bright evolutionary future. In its worst outbreak, from 1347 to 1351, the
European Black Death claimed only a third of its victims. (The rest
survived, though they were often disfigured or crippled by its effects.)
The Indians in Soto's path, if Dobyns, Ramenofsky, and Perttula are
correct, endured losses that were incomprehensibly greater.

One
reason is that Indians were fresh territory for many plagues, not just
one. Smallpox, typhoid, bubonic plague, influenza, mumps, measles,
whooping cough—all rained down on the Americas in the century after
Columbus. (Cholera, malaria, and scarlet fever came later.) Having little
experience with epidemic diseases, Indians had no knowledge of how to
combat them. In contrast, Europeans were well versed in the brutal logic
of quarantine. They boarded up houses in which plague appeared and fled to
the countryside. In Indian New England, Neal Salisbury, a historian at
Smith College, wrote in Manitou and Providence (1982), family and friends
gathered with the shaman at the sufferer's bedside to wait out the
illness—a practice that "could only have served to spread the disease more
rapidly."

Indigenous biochemistry may also have played a role. The
immune system constantly scans the body for molecules that it can
recognize as foreign—molecules belonging to an invading virus, for
instance. No one's immune system can identify all foreign presences.
Roughly speaking, an individual's set of defensive tools is known as his
MHC type. Because many bacteria and viruses mutate easily, they usually
attack in the form of several slightly different strains. Pathogens win
when MHC types miss some of the strains and the immune system is not
stimulated to act. Most human groups contain many MHC types; a strain that
slips by one person's defenses will be nailed by the defenses of the next.
But, according to Francis L. Black, an epidemiologist at Yale University,
Indians are characterized by unusually homogenous MHC types. One out of
three South American Indians have similar MHC types; among Africans the
corresponding figure is one in 200. The cause is a matter for Darwinian
speculation, the effects less so.

In 1966 Dobyns's insistence on
the role of disease was a shock to his colleagues. Today the impact of
European pathogens on the New World is almost undisputed. Nonetheless, the
fight over Indian numbers continues with undiminished fervor. Estimates of
the population of North America in 1491 disagree by an order of
magnitude—from 18 million, Dobyns's revised figure, to 1.8 million,
calculated by Douglas H. Ubelaker, an anthropologist at the Smithsonian.
To some "high counters," as David Henige calls them, the low counters'
refusal to relinquish the vision of an empty continent is irrational or
worse. "Non-Indian 'experts' always want to minimize the size of
aboriginal populations," says Lenore Stiffarm, a Native American-education
specialist at the University of Saskatchewan. The smaller the numbers of
Indians, she believes, the easier it is to regard the continent as having
been up for grabs. "It's perfectly acceptable to move into unoccupied
land," Stiffarm says. "And land with only a few 'savages' is the next best
thing."

"Most of the arguments for the very large numbers have
been theoretical," Ubelaker says in defense of low counters. "When you try
to marry the theoretical arguments to the data that are available on
individual groups in different regions, it's hard to find support for
those numbers." Archaeologists, he says, keep searching for the
settlements in which those millions of people supposedly lived, with
little success. "As more and more excavation is done, one would expect to
see more evidence for dense populations than has thus far emerged." Dean
Snow, the Pennsylvania State anthropologist, examined Colonial-era Mohawk
Iroquois sites and found "no support for the notion that ubiquitous
pandemics swept the region." In his view, asserting that the continent was
filled with people who left no trace is like looking at an empty bank
account and claiming that it must once have held millions of dollars.

The low counters are also troubled by the Dobynsian procedure for
recovering original population numbers: applying an assumed death rate,
usually 95 percent, to the observed population nadir. Ubelaker believes
that the lowest point for Indians in North America was around 1900, when
their numbers fell to about half a million. Assuming a 95 percent death
rate, the pre-contact population would have been 10 million. Go up one
percent, to a 96 percent death rate, and the figure jumps to 12.5
million—arithmetically creating more than two million people from a tiny
increase in mortality rates. At 98 percent the number bounds to 25
million. Minute changes in baseline assumptions produce wildly different
results.

"It's an absolutely unanswerable question on which tens of
thousands of words have been spent to no purpose," Henige says. In 1976 he
sat in on a seminar by William Denevan, the Wisconsin geographer. An
"epiphanic moment" occurred when he read shortly afterward that scholars
had "uncovered" the existence of eight million people in Hispaniola.
Can you just invent millions of people? he wondered. "We can make
of the historical record that there was depopulation and movement of
people from internecine warfare and diseases," he says. "But as for how
much, who knows? When we start putting numbers to something like
that—applying large figures like ninety-five percent—we're saying things
we shouldn't say. The number implies a level of knowledge that's
impossible."

Nonetheless, one must try—or so Denevan believes. In
his estimation the high counters (though not the highest counters) seem to
be winning the argument, at least for now. No definitive data exist, he
says, but the majority of the extant evidentiary scraps support their
side. Even Henige is no low counter. When I asked him what he thought the
population of the Americas was before Columbus, he insisted that any
answer would be speculation and made me promise not to print what he was
going to say next. Then he named a figure that forty years ago would have
caused a commotion.

To Elizabeth Fenn, the smallpox historian, the
squabble over numbers obscures a central fact. Whether one million or 10
million or 100 million died, she believes, the pall of sorrow that
engulfed the hemisphere was immeasurable. Languages, prayers, hopes,
habits, and dreams—entire ways of life hissed away like steam. The Spanish
and the Portuguese lacked the germ theory of disease and could not explain
what was happening (let alone stop it). Nor can we explain it; the ruin
was too long ago and too all-encompassing. In the long run, Fenn says, the
consequential finding is not that many people died but that many people
once lived. The Americas were filled with a stunningly diverse assortment
of peoples who had knocked about the continents for millennia. "You have
to wonder," Fenn says. "What were all those people up to in all
that time?"

Buffalo Farm

In 1810 Henry Brackenridge
came to Cahokia, in what is now southwest Illinois, just across the
Mississippi from St. Louis. Born close to the frontier, Brackenridge was a
budding adventure writer; his Views of Louisiana, published three years later,
was a kind of nineteenth-century Into Thin Air, with terrific
adventure but without tragedy. Brackenridge had an eye for archaeology,
and he had heard that Cahokia was worth a visit. When he got there,
trudging along the desolate Cahokia River, he was "struck with a degree of
astonishment." Rising from the muddy bottomland was a "stupendous pile of
earth," vaster than the Great Pyramid at Giza. Around it were more than a
hundred smaller mounds, covering an area of five square miles. At the
time, the area was almost uninhabited. One can only imagine what passed
through Brackenridge's mind as he walked alone to the ruins of the biggest
Indian city north of the Rio Grande.

To Brackenridge, it seemed
clear that Cahokia and the many other ruins in the Midwest had been
constructed by Indians. It was not so clear to everyone else.
Nineteenth-century writers attributed them to, among others, the Vikings,
the Chinese, the "Hindoos," the ancient Greeks, the ancient Egyptians,
lost tribes of Israelites, and even straying bands of Welsh. (This last
claim was surprisingly widespread; when Lewis and Clark surveyed the
Missouri, Jefferson told them to keep an eye out for errant bands of
Welsh-speaking white Indians.) The historian George Bancroft, dean of his
profession, was a dissenter: the earthworks, he wrote in 1840, were purely
natural formations.

Bancroft changed his mind about Cahokia, but
not about Indians. To the end of his days he regarded them as "feeble
barbarians, destitute of commerce and of political connection." His
characterization lasted, largely unchanged, for more than a century.
Samuel Eliot Morison, the winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, closed his
monumental European Discovery of America (1974) with the
observation that Native Americans expected only "short and brutish lives,
void of hope for any future." As late as 1987 American History: A
Survey, a standard high school textbook by three well-known
historians, described the Americas before Columbus as "empty of mankind
and its works." The story of Europeans in the New World, the book
explained, "is the story of the creation of a civilization where none
existed."

Alfred Crosby, a historian at the University of Texas,
came to other conclusions. Crosby's The Columbian Exchange: Biological Consequences of
1492 caused almost as much of a stir when it was published, in
1972, as Henry Dobyns's calculation of Indian numbers six years earlier,
though in different circles. Crosby was a standard names-and-battles
historian who became frustrated by the random contingency of political
events. "Some trivial thing happens and you have this guy winning the
presidency instead of that guy," he says. He decided to go deeper. After
he finished his manuscript, it sat on his shelf—he couldn't find a
publisher willing to be associated with his new ideas. It took him three
years to persuade a small editorial house to put it out. The Columbian
Exchange has been in print ever since; a companion, Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe,
900-1900, appeared in 1986.

Human history, in Crosby's
interpretation, is marked by two world-altering centers of invention: the
Middle East and central Mexico, where Indian groups independently created
nearly all of the Neolithic innovations, writing included. The Neolithic
Revolution began in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago. In the next
few millennia humankind invented the wheel, the metal tool, and
agriculture. The Sumerians eventually put these inventions together, added
writing, and became the world's first civilization. Afterward Sumeria's
heirs in Europe and Asia frantically copied one another's happiest
discoveries; innovations ricocheted from one corner of Eurasia to another,
stimulating technological progress. Native Americans, who had crossed to
Alaska before Sumeria, missed out on the bounty. "They had to do
everything on their own," Crosby says. Remarkably, they succeeded.

When Columbus appeared in the Caribbean, the descendants of the
world's two Neolithic civilizations collided, with overwhelming
consequences for both. American Neolithic development occurred later than
that of the Middle East, possibly because the Indians needed more time to
build up the requisite population density. Without beasts of burden they
could not capitalize on the wheel (for individual workers on uneven
terrain skids are nearly as effective as carts for hauling), and they
never developed steel. But in agriculture they handily outstripped the
children of Sumeria. Every tomato in Italy, every potato in Ireland, and
every hot pepper in Thailand came from this hemisphere. Worldwide, more
than half the crops grown today were initially developed in the
Americas.

Maize, as corn is called in the rest of the world, was a
triumph with global implications. Indians developed an extraordinary
number of maize varieties for different growing conditions, which meant
that the crop could and did spread throughout the planet. Central and
Southern Europeans became particularly dependent on it; maize was the
staple of Serbia, Romania, and Moldavia by the nineteenth century. Indian
crops dramatically reduced hunger, Crosby says, which led to an Old World
population boom.

Along with peanuts and manioc, maize came to
Africa and transformed agriculture there, too. "The probability is that
the population of Africa was greatly increased because of maize and other
American Indian crops," Crosby says. "Those extra people helped make the
slave trade possible." Maize conquered Africa at the time when introduced
diseases were leveling Indian societies. The Spanish, the Portuguese, and
the British were alarmed by the death rate among Indians, because they
wanted to exploit them as workers. Faced with a labor shortage, the
Europeans turned their eyes to Africa. The continent's quarrelsome
societies helped slave traders to siphon off millions of people. The
maize-fed population boom, Crosby believes, let the awful trade continue
without pumping the well dry.

Back home in the Americas, Indian
agriculture long sustained some of the world's largest cities. The Aztec
capital of Tenochtitlán dazzled Hernán Cortés in 1519; it was
bigger than Paris, Europe's greatest metropolis. The Spaniards gawped like
hayseeds at the wide streets, ornately carved buildings, and markets
bright with goods from hundreds of miles away. They had never before seen
a city with botanical gardens, for the excellent reason that none existed
in Europe. The same novelty attended the force of a thousand men that kept
the crowded streets immaculate. (Streets that weren't ankle-deep in
sewage! The conquistadors had never heard of such a thing.) Central
America was not the only locus of prosperity. Thousands of miles north,
John Smith, of Pocahontas fame, visited Massachusetts in 1614, before it
was emptied by disease, and declared that the land was "so planted with
Gardens and Corne fields, and so well inhabited with a goodly, strong and
well proportioned people ... [that] I would rather live here than any
where."

Smith was promoting colonization, and so had reason to
exaggerate. But he also knew the hunger, sickness, and oppression of
European life. France—"by any standards a privileged country," according
to its great historian, Fernand Braudel—experienced seven nationwide
famines in the fifteenth century and thirteen in the sixteenth. Disease
was hunger's constant companion. During epidemics in London the dead were
heaped onto carts "like common dung" (the simile is Daniel Defoe's) and
trundled through the streets. The infant death rate in London orphanages,
according to one contemporary source, was 88 percent. Governments were
harsh, the rule of law arbitrary. The gibbets poking up in the background
of so many old paintings were, Braudel observed, "merely a realistic
detail."

The Earth Shall Weep, James Wilson's history of
Indian America, puts the comparison bluntly: "the western hemisphere was
larger, richer, and more populous than Europe." Much of it was freer, too.
Europeans, accustomed to the serfdom that thrived from Naples to the
Baltic Sea, were puzzled and alarmed by the democratic spirit and respect
for human rights in many Indian societies, especially those in North
America. In theory, the sachems of New England Indian groups were absolute
monarchs. In practice, the colonial leader Roger Williams wrote, "they
will not conclude of ought ... unto which the people are
averse."

Pre-1492 America wasn't a disease-free paradise, Dobyns
says, although in his "exuberance as a writer," he told me recently, he
once made that claim. Indians had ailments of their own, notably
parasites, tuberculosis, and anemia. The daily grind was wearing;
life-spans in America were only as long as or a little longer than those
in Europe, if the evidence of indigenous graveyards is to be believed. Nor
was it a political utopia—the Inca, for instance, invented refinements to
totalitarian rule that would have intrigued Stalin. Inveterate
practitioners of what the historian Francis Jennings described as "state
terrorism practiced horrifically on a huge scale," the Inca ruled so
cruelly that one can speculate that their surviving subjects might
actually have been better off under Spanish rule.

I asked seven
anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have
been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by
the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of
today—a fallacy disparaged as "presentism" by social scientists. But every
one chose to be an Indian. Some early colonists gave the same answer.
Horrifying the leaders of Jamestown and Plymouth, scores of English ran
off to live with the Indians. My ancestor shared their desire, which is
what led to the trumped-up murder charges against him—or that's what my
grandfather told me, anyway.

As for the Indians, evidence suggests
that they often viewed Europeans with disdain. The Hurons, a chagrined
missionary reported, thought the French possessed "little intelligence in
comparison to themselves." Europeans, Indians said, were physically weak,
sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly, and just plain dirty.
(Spaniards, who seldom if ever bathed, were amazed by the Aztec desire for
personal cleanliness.) A Jesuit reported that the "Savages" were disgusted
by handkerchiefs: "They say, we place what is unclean in a fine white
piece of linen, and put it away in our pockets as something very precious,
while they throw it upon the ground." The Micmac scoffed at the notion of
French superiority. If Christian civilization was so wonderful, why were
its inhabitants leaving?

Like people everywhere, Indians survived
by cleverly exploiting their environment. Europeans tended to manage land
by breaking it into fragments for farmers and herders. Indians often
worked on such a grand scale that the scope of their ambition can be hard
to grasp. They created small plots, as Europeans did (about 1.5 million
acres of terraces still exist in the Peruvian Andes), but they also
reshaped entire landscapes to suit their purposes. A principal tool was
fire, used to keep down underbrush and create the open, grassy conditions
favorable for game. Rather than domesticating animals for meat, Indians
retooled whole ecosystems to grow bumper crops of elk, deer, and bison.
The first white settlers in Ohio found forests as open as English
parks—they could drive carriages through the woods. Along the Hudson River
the annual fall burning lit up the banks for miles on end; so flashy was
the show that the Dutch in New Amsterdam boated upriver to goggle at the
blaze like children at fireworks. In North America, Indian torches had
their biggest impact on the Midwestern prairie, much or most of which was
created and maintained by fire. Millennia of exuberant burning shaped the
plains into vast buffalo farms. When Indian societies disintegrated,
forest invaded savannah in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and the
Texas Hill Country. Is it possible that the Indians changed the Americas
more than the invading Europeans did? "The answer is probably yes for most
regions for the next 250 years or so" after Columbus, William Denevan
wrote, "and for some regions right up to the present time."

When
scholars first began increasing their estimates of the ecological impact
of Indian civilization, they met with considerable resistance from
anthropologists and archaeologists. Over time the consensus in the human
sciences changed. Under Denevan's direction, Oxford University Press has
just issued the third volume of a huge catalogue of the "cultivated
landscapes" of the Americas. This sort of phrase still provokes vehement
objection—but the main dissenters are now ecologists and
environmentalists. The disagreement is encapsulated by Amazonia, which has
become the emblem of vanishing wilderness—an admonitory image of
untouched Nature. Yet recently a growing number of researchers have come
to believe that Indian societies had an enormous environmental impact on
the jungle. Indeed, some anthropologists have called the Amazon forest
itself a cultural artifact—that is, an artificial object.

Green
Prisons

Northern visitors' first reaction to the storied Amazon
rain forest is often disappointment. Ecotourist brochures evoke the
immensity of Amazonia but rarely dwell on its extreme flatness. In the
river's first 2,900 miles the vertical drop is only 500 feet. The river
oozes like a huge runnel of dirty metal through a landscape utterly devoid
of the romantic crags, arroyos, and heights that signify wildness and
natural spectacle to most North Americans. Even the animals are invisible,
although sometimes one can hear the bellow of monkey choruses. To the
untutored eye—mine, for instance—the forest seems to stretch out in a
monstrous green tangle as flat and incomprehensible as a printed circuit
board.

The area east of the lower-Amazon town of Santarém is an
exception. A series of sandstone ridges several hundred feet high reach
down from the north, halting almost at the water's edge. Their tops stand
drunkenly above the jungle like old tombstones. Many of the caves in the
buttes are splattered with ancient petroglyphs—renditions of hands, stars,
frogs, and human figures, all reminiscent of Miró, in overlapping red and
yellow and brown. In recent years one of these caves, La Caverna da Pedra
Pintada (Painted Rock Cave), has drawn attention in archaeological
circles.

Wide and shallow and well lit, Painted Rock Cave is less
thronged with bats than some of the other caves. The arched entrance is
twenty feet high and lined with rock paintings. Out front is a sunny
natural patio suitable for picnicking, edged by a few big rocks. People
lived in this cave more than 11,000 years ago. They had no agriculture
yet, and instead ate fish and fruit and built fires. During a recent visit
I ate a sandwich atop a particularly inviting rock and looked over the
forest below. The first Amazonians, I thought, must have done more or less
the same thing.

In college I took an introductory anthropology
class in which I read Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise
(1971), perhaps the most influential book ever written about the Amazon,
and one that deeply impressed me at the time. Written by Betty J. Meggers,
the Smithsonian archaeologist, Amazonia says that the apparent
lushness of the rain forest is a sham. The soils are poor and can't hold
nutrients—the jungle flora exists only because it snatches up everything
worthwhile before it leaches away in the rain. Agriculture, which depends
on extracting the wealth of the soil, therefore faces inherent ecological
limitations in the wet desert of Amazonia.

As a result, Meggers
argued, Indian villages were forced to remain small—any report of "more
than a few hundred" people in permanent settlements, she told me recently,
"makes my alarm bells go off." Bigger, more complex societies would
inevitably overtax the forest soils, laying waste to their own
foundations. Beginning in 1948 Meggers and her late husband, Clifford
Evans, excavated a chiefdom on Marajó, an island twice the size of New
Jersey that sits like a gigantic stopper in the mouth of the Amazon. The
Marajóara, they concluded, were failed offshoots of a sophisticated
culture in the Andes. Transplanted to the lush trap of the Amazon, the
culture choked and died.

Green activists saw the implication:
development in tropical forests destroys both the forests and their
developers. Meggers's account had enormous public impact—Amazonia
is one of the wellsprings of the campaign to save rain forests.

Then Anna C. Roosevelt, the curator of archaeology at
Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History, re-excavated Marajó.
Her complete report, Moundbuilders of the Amazon (1991), was like the
anti-matter version of Amazonia. Marajó, she argued, was "one of
the outstanding indigenous cultural achievements of the New World," a
powerhouse that lasted for more than a thousand years, had "possibly well
over 100,000" inhabitants, and covered thousands of square miles. Rather
than damaging the forest, Marajó's "earth construction" and "large, dense
populations" had improved it: the most luxuriant and diverse growth
was on the mounds formerly occupied by the Marajóara. "If you listened to
Meggers's theory, these places should have been ruined," Roosevelt
says.

Meggers scoffed at Roosevelt's "extravagant claims,"
"polemical tone," and "defamatory remarks." Roosevelt, Meggers argued, had
committed the beginner's error of mistaking a site that had been occupied
many times by small, unstable groups for a single, long-lasting society.
"[Archaeological remains] build up on areas of half a kilometer or so,"
she told me, "because [shifting Indian groups] don't land exactly on the
same spot. The decorated types of pottery don't change much over time, so
you can pick up a bunch of chips and say, 'Oh, look, it was all one big
site!' Unless you know what you're doing, of course." Centuries after the
conquistadors, "the myth of El Dorado is being revived by archaeologists,"
Meggers wrote last fall in the journal Latin American
Antiquity, referring to the persistent Spanish delusion that cities of
gold existed in the jungle.

The dispute grew bitter and personal;
inevitable in a contemporary academic context, it has featured
vituperative references to colonialism, elitism, and employment by the
CIA. Meanwhile, Roosevelt's team investigated Painted Rock Cave. On the
floor of the cave what looked to me like nothing in particular turned out
to be an ancient midden: a refuse heap. The archaeologists slowly scraped
away sediment, traveling backward in time with every inch. When the traces
of human occupation vanished, they kept digging. ("You always go a meter
past sterile," Roosevelt says.) A few inches below they struck the
charcoal-rich dirt that signifies human habitation—a culture, Roosevelt
said later, that wasn't supposed to be there.

For many millennia
the cave's inhabitants hunted and gathered for food. But by about 4,000
years ago they were growing crops—perhaps as many as 140 of them,
according to Charles R. Clement, an anthropological botanist at the
Brazilian National Institute for Amazonian Research. Unlike Europeans, who
planted mainly annual crops, the Indians, he says, centered their
agriculture on the Amazon's unbelievably diverse assortment of trees:
fruits, nuts, and palms. "It's tremendously difficult to clear fields with
stone tools," Clement says. "If you can plant trees, you get twenty years
of productivity out of your work instead of two or three."

Planting
their orchards, the first Amazonians transformed large swaths of the river
basin into something more pleasing to human beings. In a widely cited
article from 1989, William Balée, the Tulane anthropologist, cautiously
estimated that about 12 percent of the nonflooded Amazon forest was of
anthropogenic origin—directly or indirectly created by human beings. In
some circles this is now seen as a conservative position. "I basically
think it's all human-created," Clement told me in Brazil. He argues that
Indians changed the assortment and density of species throughout the
region. So does Clark Erickson, the University of Pennsylvania
archaeologist, who told me in Bolivia that the lowland tropical forests of
South America are among the finest works of art on the planet. "Some of my
colleagues would say that's pretty radical," he said, smiling
mischievously. According to Peter Stahl, an anthropologist at the State
University of New York at Binghamton, "lots" of botanists believe that
"what the eco-imagery would like to picture as a pristine, untouched
Urwelt [primeval world] in fact has been managed by people for millennia."
The phrase "built environment," Erickson says, "applies to most, if not
all, Neotropical landscapes."

"Landscape" in this case is meant
exactly—Amazonian Indians literally created the ground beneath their feet.
According to William I. Woods, a soil geographer at Southern Illinois
University, ecologists' claims about terrible Amazonian land were based on
very little data. In the late 1990s Woods and others began careful
measurements in the lower Amazon. They indeed found lots of inhospitable
terrain. But they also discovered swaths of terra preta—rich,
fertile "black earth" that anthropologists increasingly believe was
created by human beings.

Terra preta, Woods guesses, covers
at least 10 percent of Amazonia, an area the size of France. It has
amazing properties, he says. Tropical rain doesn't leach nutrients from
terra preta fields; instead the soil, so to speak, fights back. Not
far from Painted Rock Cave is a 300-acre area with a two-foot layer of
terra preta quarried by locals for potting soil. The bottom third
of the layer is never removed, workers there explain, because over time it
will re-create the original soil layer in its initial thickness. The
reason, scientists suspect, is that terra preta is generated by a
special suite of microorganisms that resists depletion. "Apparently,"
Woods and the Wisconsin geographer Joseph M. McCann argued in a
presentation last summer, "at some threshold level ... dark earth attains
the capacity to perpetuate—even regenerate itself—thus behaving
more like a living 'super'-organism than an inert material."

In as
yet unpublished research the archaeologists Eduardo Neves, of the
University of São Paulo; Michael Heckenberger, of the University of
Florida; and their colleagues examined terra preta in the upper
Xingu, a huge southern tributary of the Amazon. Not all Xingu cultures
left behind this living earth, they discovered. But the ones that did
generated it rapidly—suggesting to Woods that terra preta was
created deliberately. In a process reminiscent of dropping
microorganism-rich starter into plain dough to create sourdough bread,
Amazonian peoples, he believes, inoculated bad soil with a transforming
bacterial charge. Not every group of Indians there did this, but quite a
few did, and over an extended period of time.

When Woods told me
this, I was so amazed that I almost dropped the phone. I ceased to be
articulate for a moment and said things like "wow" and "gosh." Woods
chuckled at my reaction, probably because he understood what was passing
through my mind. Faced with an ecological problem, I was thinking, the
Indians fixed it. They were in the process of terraforming the
Amazon when Columbus showed up and ruined everything.

Scientists
should study the microorganisms in terra preta, Woods told me, to
find out how they work. If that could be learned, maybe some version of
Amazonian dark earth could be used to improve the vast expanses of bad
soil that cripple agriculture in Africa—a final gift from the people who
brought us tomatoes, corn, and the immense grasslands of the Great
Plains.

"Betty Meggers would just die if she heard me saying this,"
Woods told me. "Deep down her fear is that this data will be misused."
Indeed, Meggers's recent Latin American Antiquity article charged
that archaeologists who say the Amazon can support agriculture are
effectively telling "developers [that they] are entitled to operate
without restraint." Resuscitating the myth of El Dorado, in her view,
"makes us accomplices in the accelerating pace of environmental
degradation." Doubtless there is something to this—although, as some of
her critics responded in the same issue of the journal, it is difficult to
imagine greedy plutocrats "perusing the pages of Latin American
Antiquity before deciding to rev up the chain saws." But the new
picture doesn't automatically legitimize paving the forest. Instead it
suggests that for a long time big chunks of Amazonia were used
nondestructively by clever people who knew tricks we have yet to
learn.

I visited Painted Rock Cave during the river's annual flood,
when it wells up over its banks and creeps inland for miles. Farmers in
the floodplain build houses and barns on stilts and watch pink dolphins
sport from their doorsteps. Ecotourists take shortcuts by driving
motorboats through the drowned forest. Guys in dories chase after them,
trying to sell sacks of incredibly good fruit.

All of this is
described as "wilderness" in the tourist brochures. It's not, if
researchers like Roosevelt are correct. Indeed, they believe that fewer
people may be living there now than in 1491. Yet when my boat glided into
the trees, the forest shut out the sky like the closing of an umbrella.
Within a few hundred yards the human presence seemed to vanish. I felt
alone and small, but in a way that was curiously like feeling exalted. If
that place was not wilderness, how should I think of it? Since the fate of
the forest is in our hands, what should be our goal for its
future?

Novel Shores

Hernando de Soto's expedition
stomped through the Southeast for four years and apparently never saw
bison. More than a century later, when French explorers came down the
Mississippi, they saw "a solitude unrelieved by the faintest trace of
man," the nineteenth-century historian Francis Parkman wrote. Instead the
French encountered bison, "grazing in herds on the great prairies which
then bordered the river."

To Charles Kay, the reason for the
buffalo's sudden emergence is obvious. Kay is a wildlife ecologist in the
political-science department at Utah State University. In ecological
terms, he says, the Indians were the "keystone species" of American
ecosystems. A keystone species, according to the Harvard biologist Edward
O. Wilson, is a species "that affects the survival and abundance of many
other species." Keystone species have a disproportionate impact on their
ecosystems. Removing them, Wilson adds, "results in a relatively
significant shift in the composition of the [ecological]
community."

When disease swept Indians from the land, Kay says,
what happened was exactly that. The ecological ancien régime collapsed,
and strange new phenomena emerged. In a way this is unsurprising; for
better or worse, humankind is a keystone species everywhere. Among these
phenomena was a population explosion in the species that the Indians had
kept down by hunting. After disease killed off the Indians, Kay believes,
buffalo vastly extended their range. Their numbers more than sextupled.
The same occurred with elk and mule deer. "If the elk were here in great
numbers all this time, the archaeological sites should be chock-full of
elk bones," Kay says. "But the archaeologists will tell you the elk
weren't there." On the evidence of middens the number of elk jumped about
500 years ago.

Passenger pigeons may be another example. The
epitome of natural American abundance, they flew in such great masses that
the first colonists were stupefied by the sight. As a boy, the explorer
Henry Brackenridge saw flocks "ten miles in width, by one hundred and
twenty in length." For hours the birds darkened the sky from horizon to
horizon. According to Thomas Neumann, a consulting archaeologist in
Lilburn, Georgia, passenger pigeons "were incredibly dumb and always
roosted in vast hordes, so they were very easy to harvest." Because they
were readily caught and good to eat, Neumann says, archaeological digs
should find many pigeon bones in the pre-Columbian strata of Indian
middens. But they aren't there. The mobs of birds in the history books, he
says, were "outbreak populations—always a symptom of an extraordinarily
disrupted ecological system."

Throughout eastern North America the
open landscape seen by the first Europeans quickly filled in with forest.
According to William Cronon, of the University of Wisconsin, later
colonists began complaining about how hard it was to get around.
(Eventually, of course, they stripped New England almost bare of trees.)
When Europeans moved west, they were preceded by two waves: one of
disease, the other of ecological disturbance. The former crested with
fearsome rapidity; the latter sometimes took more than a century to quiet
down. Far from destroying pristine wilderness, European settlers bloodily
created it. By 1800 the hemisphere was chockablock with new
wilderness. If "forest primeval" means a woodland unsullied by the human
presence, William Denevan has written, there was much more of it in the
late eighteenth century than in the early sixteenth.

Cronon's Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists, and the Ecology of
New England (1983) belongs on the same shelf as works by Crosby
and Dobyns. But it was not until one of his articles was excerpted in
The New York Times in 1995 that people outside the social sciences
began to understand the implications of this view of Indian history.
Environmentalists and ecologists vigorously attacked the anti-wilderness
scenario, which they described as infected by postmodern philosophy. A
small academic brouhaha ensued, complete with hundreds of footnotes. It
precipitated Reinventing Nature? (1995), one of the few academic
critiques of postmodernist philosophy written largely by biologists. The Great New Wilderness Debate (1998), another
lengthy book on the subject, was edited by two philosophers who earnestly
identified themselves as "Euro-American men [whose] cultural legacy is
patriarchal Western civilization in its current postcolonial, globally
hegemonic form."

It is easy to tweak academics for opaque,
self-protective language like this. Nonetheless, their concerns were quite
justified. Crediting Indians with the role of keystone species has
implications for the way the current Euro-American members of that
keystone species manage the forests, watersheds, and endangered species of
America. Because a third of the United States is owned by the federal
government, the issue inevitably has political ramifications. In Amazonia,
fabled storehouse of biodiversity, the stakes are global.

Guided
by the pristine myth, mainstream environmentalists want to preserve as
much of the world's land as possible in a putatively intact state. But
"intact," if the new research is correct, means "run by human beings for
human purposes." Environmentalists dislike this, because it seems to mean
that anything goes. In a sense they are correct. Native Americans managed
the continent as they saw fit. Modern nations must do the same. If they
want to return as much of the landscape as possible to its 1491 state,
they will have to find it within themselves to create the world's largest
garden.

Copyright © 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights
reserved.
The Atlantic
Monthly; March 2002; 1491; Volume 289, No. 3; 41-53.

top

Home

Debate

Evolution

CogSci

Communication

Discourse

Culture

Bibliography

Maintained by Francis
F. Steen, Communication Studies, University of California Los
Angeles