This image of the human impact on the environment is confirmed by studies that present tropical rainforests as the product of human activity – that is to say, as the consequence of silviculture. Charles Peters, overcoming the limitations that our way of viewing that ecological niche entails, found evidence of human activity and manipulation of the land that took the shape of home gardens and managed forests (Peters 2000, 205–214). Another difficulty for present-day observers at the time of detecting signs of human activity in rainforests is that we are used to seeing how little impact contemporary Indigenous peoples have on it (Peters 2000, 214). Studies like these offer a picture of the relationship between Amerindians and nature that departs from the traditional one, for they appear as less passive (Raffles and Winkler Prins 2003, 166, 168), but the difficulty in recognizing the human labor involved in the construction of certain landscapes persists, for it is a consequence of our ideological bias: for Western subjects, Indigenous peoples are not capable of producing significant modifications in the land (Verdesio 2001, 348).
Another study of the domestication of the land by Indigenous peoples in pre-Columbian times was conducted by Erickson, in the first half of the 1990s, on raised fields (both in the Lake Titicaca basin and in the Llanos de Moxos, in the Beni department) found in Bolivia. This is a type of agriculture that was practiced between 500 and 1,000 years before the emergence of the great States of the region (Erickson 1993, 411). It consisted in the construction of cultivable platforms, elevated through the accumulation of soil taken from adjacent canals in order to allow, in floodable zones, the water flow through the canals without flooding the cultivable parcel (Erickson 2006, 251). They also had the function of securing the irrigation of that cultivable parcel during the dry season, thus creating an ecosystem that is three times richer than the prairie’s (Erickson 1992).
However, in spite of its advantages, the system was abandoned before the arrival of the Spaniards to those lands. Inspired by the principles of experimental archaeology, a group of archaeologists, together with a number of locals, put into practice that type of agriculture, to see what results could be obtained. The productivity rates were excellent even for capitalist standards (Erickson 1992, 291, 2006, 253), which contradicts the general public’s belief that traditional forms of agriculture are not as productive as modern ones. The reason behind that widespread belief lies in the tradition that associates intensive agriculture with state organized labor; supposedly, densely populated societies require a highly organized system of land exploitation. In this way, Erickson’s work allows us to view Indigenous cultures previous to the great Andean states in a different light. It reminds us that Indigenous peoples from the past were in possession of knowledges and technologies that allowed them not only to subsist but also to prosper. This he does through the reconstruction of the uses of space, which help him to recover what he calls “the memory of landscape” (Erickson 1993, 381).
This kind of research has been criticized by conservationists and activists who defend the rights of Indigenous peoples, for a couple of reasons. First, it departs from the image of a pristine nature, clearly distinguishable from human creations – from what the general public understands as culture. The dichotomy of nature/culture is thus called into question by a nature that is not different from the cultural landscape created by human beings; in other words, by the following realization: what we understand as nature is, in reality, the result of the work of humans.21 This realization will help us, according to Erickson, elucidate the origin of the relationship between humans and the environment (Erickson 2006, 262). Second, because these investigations present an image of natives as not so ecological agents; that is to say, as subjects who exert a pressure on the environment that changes it dramatically. This kind of portrayal of Indigenous actions can be used to justify the predatory operations by capitalist actors (Erickson 2006, 264). Erickson, for his part, defends this corpus of research by arguing that, in his opinion, it is even worse to deny Indigenous peoples any agency in their dealings with the environment, for they are “responsible for what we now call nature in the Neotropics” (Erickson 2006, 264). At this point, it is not clear what image of the relationship between Indigenous peoples and the environment is the most beneficial (or detrimental) for them: the passive actor who is not capable of making a great impact on the land, or the active one, whose agency is such that their manipulations of the land cause dramatic changes in it. Maybe scholars should ask present-day natives what they think about the conclusions reached by the research done on their pasts.
Although there is, as we have seen, a growing number of research projects that try to avoid the traps of ethnocentrism and cultural bias, it will take the work of generations of scholars and educators to create the ground from where a more respectful image of the diversity and cultural wealth of Indigenous peoples of the Americas could emerge. But most of all, it will take a change of attitude vis-à-vis Indigenous subjects, their traditions, and their knowledge; scholars should be more receptive to, and respectful of, Indigenous peoples’ versions of their own societies’ pasts. Better yet, Western scholars should consider the possibility of incorporating Indigenous peoples into their investigations. This is by no means a novelty, especially in the fields of archaeology and anthropology, but it is still very far from being a widespread or hegemonic practice.22 Moreover, it is necessary that, at some point, as the Latin American Subaltern Studies Group suggested many years ago, scholars build a new kind of relationship with those who, until recently, were considered an object of study (1994, 10). What I am trying to say is that it is about time indigeneity and things Indigenous are defined not only by Western specialists but also by Indigenous peoples themselves.
Notes
1 1 Said inertia is blatantly patent in another die-hard myth from the times of “discovery” and “conquest,” to judge from a recent study conducted at the Institute for Social Research at University of Michigan. In it, experts state that 85% of Americans describe Columbus in a positive light and claim that he “discovered” America. Only 2% of the individuals surveyed said that Columbus could not have discovered a land that was already inhabited and, therefore, already discovered. Only 4% of those surveyed present Columbus as the man who brought diseases, death, and a grim future to Indigenous peoples.
2 2 Mann (2005, 4). A couple of words about 1491, Mann’s book, and the first version of this chapter. His book, that addresses concerns that are similar to this chapter’s, and that even discusses some of the cases presented here (for example, Clovis and Cahokia), was published when this chapter was in print – hence the lack of references to 1491 in its first version.For a similar question about the educational system in Uruguay, see Verdesio (2001).
3 3 One of the most influential Native American intellectuals who opposed this narrative vehemently was Vine Deloria, Jr, who even made fun of it by titling the fourth chapter of his book Red Earth, White Lies (1997): “Low Bridge-Everybody Cross.” In the aforementioned book by Mann (2005), he tells the author: “There’s this perfect moment when the ice-free corridor magically appears just before the land bridge is covered by water … And the paleo-Indians, who are doing fine in Siberia, suddenly decide to sprint over to Alaska … And these are the same people who say traditional origin tales are improbable!” (2005, 163–164).
4 4 For a detailed discussion of these issues see the book by Dillehay (2000, XIII, passim). See also the earliest text that documents evidence about the coexistence of humans and species of the megafauna of the Pleistocene (a silex dart next to the remains of a Panochtus), by Florentino Ameghino 1918 [1880] vol. 2, 291).
5 5 BP means “before the present.” It is a way of measuring time without having to resort to Western religious markers such as the birth of Jesus Christ.
6 6 For a comprehensive discussion of the radiocarbon dates and the Clovis theory in general see the first chapter of Dillehay (2000).
7 7 Interestingly, one of the most vocal supporters of Clovis first, Tim Flannery, lives outside the US. However, he includes himself in the “Monte Verde skeptics” camp: “Although lacking a convincing explanation for the site, I am one of the Monte Verde (and thus pre-Clovis) skeptics, and from here on will write as if reports of a pre-Clovis occupation of the Americas result from dating or other