4.6 Review

The deep human prehistory of global tropical forests and its relevance for modern conservation

Journal

NATURE PLANTS
Volume 3, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2017.93

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon research and innovation programme [639828]
  2. APSARA National Authority
  3. Ministry of Culture and Fine Arts, Cambodia
  4. Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
  5. Department of Archaeology at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [639828] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Significant human impacts on tropical forests have been considered the preserve of recent societies, linked to large-scale deforestation, extensive and intensive agriculture, resource mining, livestock grazing and urban settlement. Cumulative archaeological evidence now demonstrates, however, that Homo sapiens has actively manipulated tropical forest ecologies for at least 45,000 years. It is clear that these millennia of impacts need to be taken into account when studying and conserving tropical forest ecosystems today. Nevertheless, archaeology has so far provided only limited practical insight into contemporary human-tropical forest interactions. Here, we review significant archaeological evidence for the impacts of past hunter-gatherers, agriculturalists and urban settlements on global tropical forests. We compare the challenges faced, as well as the solutions adopted, by these groups with those confronting present-day societies, which also rely on tropical forests for a variety of ecosystem services. We emphasize archaeology's importance not only in promoting natural and cultural heritage in tropical forests, but also in taking an active role to inform modern conservation and policy-making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available