Landscape Ecology vol. 7 no. 2 pp 121-135 (1992)
SPB Academic Publishing bv, The Hague
The shapes of adaptation: Historical ecology of anthropogenic landscapes
in the Southeastern United States
Julia E. Hammett
Research Laboratories of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Keywords: historical ecology, Native North Americans, anthropogenic landscapes, corridors, patches
Native inhabitants of the Southeastern United States traditionally practiced land management strategies, including burning and clearing, that created ‘anthropogeniclandscapes’. From the viewpoint of landscape ecology, analysis of historic documents including drawings and deerskin maps from the sixteenth, seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries depicted the Native Southeastern landscape as a series of circularpatches surrounded
by buffer areas. This character contrasted sharply with early European coastal settlements which were more
typically rectangular in shape. Differences between Native American and European land use patterns and
implied perceptions of the landscape reflect distinct differences in their respective cultural models and intentionality.
1. Introduction
2. A description of the documents
Ecologists have noted the importance of historic
environmental events in terms of their effects on
subsequent disturbance regimes (e.g. White 1979;
Romme 1982; Pickett and White 1985). Historical
ecology has a long tradition in Europe (c.f. Bloch
1953; Harris 1961; Roberts 1987) and this field of
study has been explored to a lesser extent in the New
World as well (i.e. Sauer 1927; Burcham 1957;
Lewis 1973, 1977; Lewis and Ferguson 1988). In
this paper, historical documents are used to study
spatial aspects of regional vegetation dynamics in
the Southeastern United States during the early
period of European contact. Various recent theoretical constructs related to landscape structure and
function, and disturbance and patch dynamics, are
utilized to shed new light on these historical data.
The primary data sources for this work are maps,
drawings and historical accounts dating from 1540
to the 1770s, which pertain to the region surrounding the early European colonies in the Carolinas
and Virginia. The most common forms of documentation that have survived from those years are
the journals and reports written by early explorers
and settlers. Within this large volume of written
documents, one can occasionally find the descriptions of the expert observer or naturalist, although
such useful material is relatively rare. By the 1700s
when surveyors were commissioned to explore interior areas of the Carolinas, they were instructed
merely to report anything found that was new, novel or unlike what had already been seen in other localities (Hulton 1984). Where relevant, quotations
from these early writers are drawn into the discussion to lend support and clarification to the reconstruction of landscape and land use that is being
presented here.
128
pean model, which involved an initial survey of a
tract of land, marking its limits, and then developing in terms of these boundaries. We know little of
the Indian policy in this region regarding these
seemingly unclaimed lands, except that parties of
Coastal and Piedmont Indians were known to have
travelled west toward the mountains in the fall to
hunt deer.
The use of ‘hunting buffer areas’ has been
recorded for the Southern Great Lakes region,
where Hickerson (1965) has argued that politically
acknowledged buffer areas served to reduce friction
between groups and lessen the intensity of exploitation of the deer populations. Access to these areas
was controlled by specific groups or families. This
form of conservation contributed to the maintenance of the deer population, as well as the
humans.
Buffer zones are better known ecologically in
Amazonia (i.e. Ross 1980; DeBoer 1981; Posey
1988) where there is still much debate about their
primary function (Vickers 1983; Stocks 1983). The
evidence, taken in its entirety, appears to indicate
that buffer areas have the direct effect of insulating
various patch types including settlements, fishing
and hunting grounds, and gardens, and have several indirect effects related to resource management,
conservation and military defense.
These structural and functional terms, corridors,
patches, and buffer zones can now allow us to interpret visual representations found in the historic
documents in terms the dynamics of anthropogenic
disturbance regimes.
4. Fire Ecology, disturbance, and anthropogenic
landscapes
In March of 1524, Giovanni da Verrazano (Winship 1905: 18) observed ‘a multitude of fires’ along
the Carolina coastline, indicating to him that the
‘inhabitants were numerous.’ Almost half a
millenium later, researchers are only now beginning
to understand what those fires represented. Apparently one of the most common management tools
utilized by nonindustrialized societies has been
burning (i.e. Stewart 1956; Jones 1969; Lewis
1977). Recent recognition of the natural role of disturbances such as fire to rejuvenate and, in some
cases, to increase productivity of secondary successional levels (Pickett and White 1985; Forman and
Godron 1986) has led to increased study of patch
dynamics. The human ability to modify their environment and maintain artificial plant and animal
associations, or anthropogenic communities (Tansley 1935; Bye 1981; Ford 1983) has continued to be
an important research theme in ecological anthropology. The term ‘anthropogenic landscapes’ is
used here to characterize entire landscapes affected
by human intervention.
4. I . Fire hunting
One common technique for deer hunting parties
recorded historically in the study region was the use
of fire ring drives in which game were surrounded
by fire and driven toward the middle (Waselkov
1978). Characteristically these fires were made in
the form of a ring around an area so that the deer
would be driven to the center. Another hunting
technique involved driving the deer, often with fire,
onto narrow points of land and/or into water, thus
using natural barriers t o enclose the game
(Waselkov 1978). Fires used to drive game were low
brush fires which were probably carefully controlled to enable the hunters to contain the game so
that they could be killed but presumably would not
burn or damage their coveted skins. Some burning
of the outer fur might have been harmless to the
skin below. Nevertheless control over the fire
would have been critical for capturing the game
while at the same time not losing the fire. Numerous
such low brush fires, if controlled, were unlikely to
spread out of control, up into the trees and would
have contributed to the park-like landscape
described by early writers.
Waselkov’s research suggests that fire drives
were more commonly used by smaller Piedmont
groups in Virginia and North Carolina only after
contact with Europeans when the deerskin trade became important. Prior to then, communal drives
would have been used primarily for annual or special occasion feasts held by high chiefs of larger
129
groups such as Powhatan’s Confederation along
the Chesapeake. Based on a model of faunal assemblage age distributions he hypothesizes that beginning in the Middle Mississippian Period (ca. A.D.
1200 to 1400) the larger chieftainships of the Midwest also may have used communal drives
(Waselkov 1978: 23). Waselkov (1978: 24-25)
postulates that the distribution and frequency of
such drives would have been much lower in aboriginal times for the Carolina and Virginia Piedmont
area, although he notes dissention in the literature
regarding this point of view.
Waselkov’s model regarding prehistoric strategies is still hypothetical due to the nature of his evidence. Our best early documentation with descriptive details of Indian practices comes from the
Jamestown settlement near the mouth of the
Chesapeake Bay. The first known accounts of
management and hunting techniques employed in
the interior Piedmont area of Virginia and North
Carolina were recorded a hundred years later. We
have no direct evidence of the presence or absence
of fire drives earlier in the Piedmont. Where there
are good descriptions along the coast, there are
usually good accounts of individual stalking
methods, as well. Also, Waselkov (1978: 23) mentions that deer of the eastern woodlands tend to
‘yard, or congregate in very restricted locales in the
north, but not in the south,’ thus indicating that
ethology and non-anthropogenic landscape features may also factor into hunting and managing
strategies. These observations do not discount
Waselkov’s hypothesis, but it remains to be substantiated by significantly reliable ethnohistorical
or archaeological data. Waselkov’s provocative
model, nevertheless, illuminates the difficulties inherent in reconstructing prehistoric landscape patterns. In general, more reliable and detailed characterizations of native landscapes are imbedded in
historical descriptions rather than archaeological
data.
4.2. Prescribed burning
Prescribed burning is a technique for clearing areas
and enhancing certain resources. This type of prac-
tice has been associated with the ‘park-like’ setting
described by so many early European explorers
(Day 1953; Guffey 1977). Guffey has suggested that
the ‘deserts’ referred to by Bartram (1958) and
John Smith (Arber 1910) on the coastal plain may
have been maintained by burning, however, this remains to be demonstrated. It is also possible that
these areas were subject to occasional natural wildfires, which could have had far reaching effects if
left unchecked during a dry season. Even today
with large scale fire control programs, thousands of
acres are burned periodically despite human attempts at intervention.
Prescribed burning apparently often occurred in
conjunction with communal hunts when large
groups gathered. At this time the participants
benefitted from greater numbers of people for both
hunting and clearing activities. The specific landscape effect from burning is dependent upon a series of factors related to frequency, periodicity, and
scale of burning, available fuel load, and weather
conditions (Pyne 1984). In general, however, over
the period of years that a given group might hunt
in one general area, the consequence of small to
moderate sized fire ring drives and other prescribed
burning techniques would be a reduction in the
chance of a catastrophic fire and an increase in
landscape heterogeneity, through the tessellation of
the surrounding matrix. The resulting patchwork
would be a heterogeneous mosaic of small patches
or associations at various successional levels.
Resource managers now realize that this mosaic of
patches of varying ages provides several additional
advantages to many game animals that prefer to inhabit edge areas between varying types of patches
(i.e. Ribinski 1968; Taber and Murphy 1971; Mellars 1976). Here can be found a marked increase in
the diversity and quality of available resources.
The use of fire for wildlife management by Native Americans has been documented in many parts
of North America (Le. Lewis 1973, 1977; Russell
1983; Lewis and Ferguson 1988). We can safely assume that Native Americans who lived in the
Southeast were aware that the indirect effect of
their burning was to increase productivity of the
land in terms of many plant crops and forage for
game. This is based not only on observations made
by plant and animal ecologists regarding numerous
short term responses of these organisms to fire
(Mellars 1975; H a m m e t t 1986) but also interviews
with native i n f o r m a n t s w h o practice or remember
practicing similar techniques in the Subarctic
(Lewis 1977; Lewis and Ferguson 1988) and Australia (Jones 1969).
In New England, there are g o o d early descriptions from early Euroamerican settlers for the use
o f fire t o stimulate vegetation. In about 1655, Adriaen Van der Donck of New Netherlands wrote that:
The Indians have a yearly custom of burning the
woods, plains and meadows in the fall of the year,
when the leaves have fallen, and when the grass and
vegetable substances are dry . . . Those places which
are then passed over are fired in the spring in April.
This is done . . . to render hunting easier (for stalking),
to thin out woods of all dead substances and grass,
which grow better in ensuing spring . . . to circumscribe and enclose game . . . and because game is more
easily tracked over burned parts of the woods (Van der
Donck 1846: 20-21).
In Massachusetts, Thomas M o r t o n (1632) f o u n d
t h a t ‘The Salvages . . . burne it (the woods) twize a
yeare, viz: at the Spring and t h e fall o f t h e Leafe.’
It appears that the practice of prescribed burning
extended to the study area as well. In 1709 Lawson
noted for Carolinas that:
When these Savages go a hunting, they commonly go
out in great Numbers, and oftentimes a great many
Days Journey from home, beginning at the coming in
of the Winter, that is when the Leaves are fallen from
the Trees, and are become Any. ’Tis then they burn the
Woods, by setting Fire to the Leaves, and Wither’d
Bent and Cross, which they do with a Match made of
the black Moss that hangs on the Trees in Carolina,
and is sometimes above six Foot Long. In Places,
where this Moss is not found, (as towards the Mountains) they make Lintels of the Bark of Cypress beatn,
which serves as well (Lefler 1967: 215).
William Byrd described the same practice in early
November of 1728 in t h e area o f northern N o r t h
Carolina and southern Virginia (Wright 1966).
4.3. A gricu ltural clearing
On April 28, 1607, George Percy, one of t h e Jamestown settlers, entered these notes in his log:
We marched to those smoakes and found that the
Savages had beene there burning downe grasse, as we
thought either to make their plantation there, or else to
give signes to bring their forces together, and so to give
us battell (Percy 1907: 10-11; Arber 1910: lxii-lxiii).
O t h e r early coastal Virginia settlers described this
m e t h o d of clearing trees:
The greatest labour they take, is in planting their corn,
for the country naturally is overgrowne with wood. To
prepare the ground they bruise the bark of the trees
neare the roote, then do they scortch the roots with fire
that grow no more . . . The next yeare with a crooked
peece of wood, they beat up the woodes by the rootes,
and in that moulds they plant their corne (Stratchey
1849: 116; Arber 1910: 61).
William Byrd’s Natural History of Virginia, first
published in 1737, provides a description of how
‘one m a y clean and clear the land (of coastal Virginia) very easily and conveniently’ b y the technique used b y the Indians:
when the trees are full of sap, and skin about three or
four feet of bark from the trunks, which causes them
to dry up, so the foliage falls down. This no sooner
happens than they begin at once to work the soil and
to sow it with grain, or whatever they wish, which soon
spring forth and produces manifold fruit. When the
afrementioned trees have become quite withered by the
removal of the bark, they then go and cut a broad strip
from the nearest green trees, which are standing there,
[to a point] as far as they wish to clear, in order to prevent the whole forest from burning. They then set fire
to the dry trees, which burn immediately. Thus in a
short time a very large section of land can be cleared
and made neatly available for planting, [a practice]
which saves the planters very much trouble and expense . . . (Byrd 1940: 92-93).
In this coastal area, burning was t h e most impor-
131
tant tool used to initiate and maintain an anthropogenic landscape. In 1608, Captain John Smith implied that those areas not along trails or in cleared
(anthropogenic) areas were lesser known by coastal
Virginia Indians. When he asked an informant
‘what was beyond the mountaines, he answered the
sunne but of any thing els he knew nothing; because
the woods were not burnt’ (Arber 1910: 427).
4.4. Transplanting
There is some evidence for the planting and transplanting of one holly evergreen shrub known by the
Indian name of yaupon (Ilex vomitoria). A sacred
beverage known as the ‘black drink’ was made
from the leaves of this shrub. Yaupon is more suited to maritime and coastal plain environments,
although it has been documented as far into the interior as Oklahoma, Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky (Merrill 1979). There is, however, some evidence that it was transplanted to settlements in the
Piedmont and the Appalachian highlands that were
out of its normal range (Merrill 1979; Fairbanks
1979).
According to James Adair, yaupon grew along
the seacoast of the two Carolinas, Georgia and
Florida: ‘The Indians transplant, and are extremely
fond of it . . . ’ (Adair 1775: 128). In the vale of the
Cherokee town of Jore, naturalist William Bartram
saw ‘a little grove’ of yaupon, which was the only
place in the Cherokee country that he had seen it
grow. According to him, ‘the Indians call it the beloved tree, and are very careful to keep it pruned
and cultivated’ (Bartram 1973: 357).
The transplanting of yaupon is the only well
documented example of Native Southeasterners
utilizing this technique to modify the character of
their landscape. It is probable that transplanting
was more widespread than the evidence has indicated, due to the minimal amount of time necessary to
transplant shrubs and the unlikelihood that early
European explorers would have witnessed these
events. Nevertheless, compared to burning and
clearing strategies described above, the impact of
transplanting was extremely limited and localized.
Given that such a variety of factors contribute to
the resultant landscape, it is rather problematic to
characterize specific landscapes in great detail, unless where and when exceptional records allow.
Fortunately it is possible to derive a basic landscape
depiction at the regional spatial scale for the time of
European invasion into the Southeast. Given that
the combination of structural and processual ingredients highlighted above contribute to and constrain elements and features of the landscape, both
locally and regionally, a modest but accurate landscape model for the Native Southeast is feasible.
5. The native landscape of the southeastern
woodlands
With the visual and textual information presented
it now is possible to generate a dynamic portrait of
the Native Southeastern landscape. Returning to
the primary residences of these coastal Indian
groups (Fig. 4), we can detect a similar exploitation
pattern based on a wide breadth of available
resources. The coast provided the added resources
of the sea to all their terrestrial resources. Most
major inland residences were also located near running water, and archaeological evidence indicates
that this had been the pattern of occupation in the
Southeast for at least the last 5000 years (Smith
1987).
The general features of the habitation sites (Fig.
4) were wooden structures, various activity areas
and small gardens plots. The latter quite likely
served a function similar to ‘door-yard’ gardens or
‘home gardens’ found today throughout much of
Latin America (Le. Kimber 1973; Chavero y Roces
1988), in Oceania (Barrau 1954), and Southeast
Asia (Anderson 1979), and ‘kitchen gardens’ found
in the Caribbean (Brierly 1976). Adjacent to the
residence areas were fields, sometimes spreading
away from the central area, like spokes in a wheel.
Other areas were left open, and we have reasonably
good evidence that these are old fields laying fallow. In these open areas perennial crops such as
berries, fruit and nut trees, and several economically valuable ‘weeds’ typically thrived (Bartram
1973).
Back from the central village or town site and ac-
132
companying fields and gardens, was typically a
wooded area. This open area, often described as a
parkland, was an extremely valuable combination
orchard/hunting park/wood lot, supplying the local inhabitants with much of their basic needs. To
obtain a better picture of these parklands, a few
quotes from early explorers are useful.
In the year 1540, De Soto’s men explored La
Florida (the Southeastern U.S.) in search of gold,
silver and whatever other ‘riches’ this newly discovered land might afford. In the province of
Cofitachequi, probably near present day Camden,
South Carolina (Hudson et al. 1985: 724), De Soto’s men:
journeyed a full league in garden-like lands where there
were many trees, both those which bore fruit and
others; and among these trees one could travel on
horseback without any difficulty for they were so far
apart that they appeared to have been planted by hand.
During the whole . . . league (they) spread out gathering the fruit and noting the fertility of the soil. In this
way they came to Talomeco, a town of five hundred
houses situated on an eminence overlooking a gorge of
the river (Vega 1951: 314).
Fifty years later, in southern coastal Virginia near
Jamestown, an area which had a relatively dense Indian population, early English found ‘by chance’
upon walking into the woods:
a pathway like an Irish Pace: We traced along some
foure miles, all the way as wee went, having the
pleasantest Suckels, the ground all flowing over with
faire flowers of sundry coloured and kinds, as though
it had been in any Garden or orchard in England.
There be many strawberries, and other fruits
unknowne. Wee saw the woods full of Cedar and
Cypresse trees, with other trees, which issued out sweet
Gummes like to Balsam. We kept on our Way in this
paradise. At length, wee came to a Sauage Towne
(Arber 1910: lxviii).
Comparisons are made in the latter quote to ‘an Irish pace,’ and ‘any Garden or orchard in England.’
It may be productive to examine what these images
would have meant to a person back in England
reading this account. Favretti (1974) has characterized two basic English garden styles of this period,
the formal English Manor garden and the more informal cottage garden. The latter had:
a central path of grass or gravel with irregular beds on
either side. The plants within these beds were well cultivated and the beds maintained neatly, but no order of
plant material prevailed. Vegetables, useful flowering
plants, and herbs grew side by side without regard to
kinds, height or balance. The main characteristics of
these gardens were informality and neatness, with little
actual design (Favretti 1974: 5).
Apparently Native Americans had independently
developed a model of informal landscaping which
they had taken a step further in their management
practices. They initiated and maintained parklands
extending perhaps several miles beyond the obvious
limits of their towns.
We can visualize that the native landscape consisted of staple crop fields in sight of the houses,
surrounded by some cleared and some wooded
areas. In areas with few physiographic limits, open
villages and garden clearings themselves would
have appeared generally circular in shape. Later expansion would have left rings of lesser intensity and
lesser control as one moved farther from the center.
Thus, land holdings would have been better
represented by circles than squares.
In comparison, the English imposed onto the
colonies, a prexisting landscape design modelled after an enclosure principle being implemented at that
time in rural parts of England, rather than a design
modelled after their new Native American neighbors’ settlements. Introducing this landscape design proved a serious pitfall as they tried to adjust
to a new environment. The decision to lay out their
first settlements in gridded squares reflects their
goals, aspirations and dependency on Europeans
and European models of private ownership. One
possible result of this European enclosure design in
the New World may have been that early English
coastal colonies remained relatively homogeneous
urban areas. They produced little food and few
resources, which perpetuated these settlers’ predisposition towards a dependency upon the trading
133
paths (corridors) that connected their settlements to
a resource base abroad, to supply all their basic
needs. Generally when shipments were overdue, the
early colonists starved (Arber 1910).
Over the next several decades, hundreds of thousands of skins and furs and countless tons of European goods were carried along trading paths (corridors), as these ports continued as a basic link between settlers and survival (Wolf 1982). This set the
stage for the future, with many major American
cites remaining dependent upon trade rather than
resources produced locally. This fact is driven
home today in North Carolina, where we buy lettuce and other produce shipped from California,
whom we supply with textiles, tobacco products
and furniture.
Perhaps the most basic lesson to be drawn from
this historic study of land use and landscape is the
value of a ‘functional landscape,’ a landscape that
meets the needs of the local inhabitants. The appropriateness or ‘fit’ of the overall structure or design of a landscape is part of a regions’ ecological
history. As such it can affect subsequent relationships. In this study we have seen how a reconstruction of the setting can provide insights into the subsequent adaptations or maladaptations, self sufficiency or dependency.
6. Historical ecology in the Carolinas at contact
Using a historic ecological approach, the adaptive
advantages of Native Southeastern management
and land use strategies were examined in terms of
our current understanding of anthropogenic landscapes, disturbance and patch dynamics. Historic
documents depicted the Native Southeastern landscape as having been made up of various types of
resource patches concentrated in concentric rings
with areas of lesser exploitation spreading away
from occupation centers. Habitation and resource
patches were connected by a series of corridors;
trails, paths and waterways throughout the region
were maintained and subjected to social controls.
Buffer areas are evident in the documents, indicating the maintenance of areas of surrounding
matrix, that were apparently left outside the direct
control of recognized groups and leaders.
The rings or circle shapes of Native Southeastern
settlements contrasted with rectangular coastal
areas claimed by early European settlers. The more
heterogeneous Native Southeastern landscapes
were more productive sources of food than the early Euroamerican settlements, which took inspiration from the European enclosure movement.
A landscape tessellation, that is to say a manmade mosaic, is part and parcel of any functional
human scene. Through the selection of useful species and maintenance of a variety of resource areas,
such ‘edible parklands’ were great assets to North
America’s original inhabitants.
Acknowledgments
The original copies of the deerskin maps are housed
at the British Public Recorders Office. Photographic duplicates of the deerskin map copies were
provided by the South Carolina State Library in
Columbia and by the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill. The University of North Carolina
Press granted permission to reproduce the engravings of John White’s drawings. Photographs
of the maps and engravings used in this article were
made by Jerry Cotten, photographic archivist of
Wilson Library, UNC-Chapel Hill.
The author would like to thank Bruce Winterhalder, Richard Yarnell, Robert Peet, Carole
Crumley, Molly Anderson, Joseph Winter, Joel
Gunn, James Hevia and an anonymous reviewer
for their comments. Earlier versions of this paper
were presented at the Ethnobiology Conference in
1987 and the Landscape Ecology Conference in
1988, which were both held in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
References
Adair, J. 1775. The History of the American Indians. No imprint, London.
Anderson, J . 1979. Traditional Homegardens in Southeast Asia.
Fifth International Symposium of Tropical Ecology.
Malaysia.
Arber, E. 1910. Travels and Works of Captain John Smith. (2
134
Vols.) John Grant, Edinburgh.
Barrau, J. 1954. Traditional Economy and Agricultural
Progress in Melanesia. SPC Quarterly Bulletin, Noumea.
Bartlett, H.H. 1961. Fire in Relation to Primitive Agriculture
and Grazing in the Tropics: An Annotated Bibliography. (2
Vols.) Dept. of Botany, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Bartram, W. 1973. Travel Through North and South Carolina,
Georgia, and East and West Florida. The Bee Hive Press,
Savannah, Georgia.
Bland, E. 1651. The Discovery of New Brittaine. Thomas Harper, London. Reprinted by Readex Microprint Corporation
(1966).
Bloch, M. 1953. The Historian’s Craft. Vintage Books, N.Y.
Brierly, J. 1976. Kitchen Gardens in the West Indies with Contemporary Study from Grenada. Journal of Tropical Geography 43: 30-40.
Burcham, L.T. 1957. California Rangeland: An HistoricoEcological Study of the Range Resources of California. State
of California Department of Natural Resources, Div. of
Forestry, Sacramento.
Bye, R.A. 1981. Quelite-Ethnoecology of Edible Greens - Past,
Present and Future. Journal of Ethnobiology l(1): 109-123.
Byrd, W. 1940. Natural History of Virginia. The Dietz Press,
Richmond, Virginia.
Chavero, E.L. and Alverez-Buylla Roces, M.E. 1988. Ethnobotany in a Tropical-Human Region: The Home Gardens
of Balzapote, Veracruz, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology
8(1): 45-79.
Cummings, W.P. 1962 (2nd Edition). The Southeast in Early
Maps. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Dahlman, C.J. 1980. The Open Field System and Beyond. Cambridge University Press, London.
DeBoer, W. 1981. Buffer Zones in the Cultural Ecology of
Aboriginal Amazonia: An Ethnohistorical Approach. American Antiquity 48: 364-377.
Fairbanks, C.H. 1979. The Function of Black Drink Among the
Creeks. In Black Drink: A Native American Tea. pp.
120-149. Edited byC.M. Hudson. Univ. of Georgia, Athens.
Favretti, R.J. 1974 (3rd Edition). Early New England Gardens
1620-1840. Meridian Gavure Company, Connecticut.
Ford, R.I. 1981. Gardening and Farming Before A.D. 1000:
Patterns of Prehistoric Cultivation North of Mexico. Journal
of Ethnobiology l(1): 6-27.
Forman, R.T.T. and Godron, M. 1986. Landscape Ecology.
John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Geertz, C. 1963. Two Types of Ecosystems. In Agricultural lnvolution. pp. 12-37. University of California Press,
Berkeley.
Hammett, J.E. 1986. Ethnohistory of Aboriginal Landscapes
and Land Use in the Southeastern United States. Unpublished
M.A. Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Harris, A. 1961. The Rural Landscape of the East Riding of
Yorkshire 1700- 1850. University of Hull Publisher, Oxford
University Press, London.
Hickerson, H. 1965. The Virginia Deer and Inter-tribal Buffer
Zones in the Upper Mississippi Valley. In Man, Culture and
Animals: The Role of Animals in Human Ecological Adjust-
ments. pp. 43-65. Edited by A. Leeds and A.P. Vayda.
American Association for the Advancement of Sciences Publication No. 78, Washington, D.C.
Hudson, C., Smith, M., Hally, D., Polhemus, R. and DePratter, C. 1985. Coosa: A Chiefdom in the Sixteenth-Century
Southeastern United States. American Antiquity 50(4):
123-737.
Hnlton, P . 1984. America 1585: The Complete Drawings of
John White. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.
Johnson, F. 1972. Individuality and Experimentation in Traditional Agriculture. Ecology 1: 149-159.
Jones, R. 1969. Fire Stick Farming. Australian Natural History
16: 224-228.
Kimber, C. 1973. Spatial Patterning in the Dooryard Garden in
Puerto Rico. Geographical Review 63: 6-26.
Lefler, H.T. 1967. A New Voyage to Carolina, by John Lawson.
(Reprint of 1709 Edition). University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
Lewis, H.T. 1973. Patterns of Indian Burning in California:
Ecology and Ethnohistory. Anthropological Papers No. 1.
Ballena Press, Ramona, California.
Lewis, H.T. 1977. Maskuta: The Ecology of Indian Fires in
Northern Alberta. The Western Canadian Journal of Anthropology 70(1): 15-52.
Lewis, H.T. and Ferguson, T.A. 1988. Yards, Corridors and
Mosaics: How to Burn a Boreal Forest. Human Ecology
16(1): 57-77.
Meggers, B.J. 1971. Amazonia: Man and Culture in a Counterfeit Paradise. Aldine Atherton Inc. Chicago.
Mellars, P . 1977. Fire Ecology, Animal Populations and Man:
A Study of Some Ecological Relationships in Prehistory.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 42: 15-45.
Merrill, W. 1979. The Beloved Tree: Ilex vomitoria Among the
Indians of the Southeast and Adjacent Regions. In Black
Drink: A Native American Tea. pp. 40-82. Edited by C.M.
Hudson. University of Georgia, Athens.
Mingay, G.E. 1968. Enclosure and the Small Farmer in the Age
of the Industrial Revolution. Macmillan, London.
Morton, T. 1632. New English Canaan: or New Canaan. Peter
Force.
Percy, G. 1907. Observations Gathered Out of a Discourse on
the Plantation of the Southerne Colonie in Virginia by the English, 1606. In Narratives of Early Virginia 1606-1625. Edited by L. Gardiner. Barnes and Noble Inc., New York.
Pickett, S.T.A. and White, P.S. 1985. The Ecology of Natural
Disturbance and Patch Dynamics. Academic Press, New
York.
Posey, D. 1982. Keepers of the Forest. Garden 6(1): 18-24.
Pyne, S.J. 1984. Introduction to Wildland Fire: Fire Management in the United States. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Rappaport, R.A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors. Yale University
Press, New Haven.
Ribinski, R.F. 1968. Effects of Forest Fires on Quantity and
Quality of Deer Browse Production in Mixed Oak Forests of
Central Pennsylvania. Quarterly Report of the Pennsylvania
Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit 30(5): 13- 15.
Ross, J.B. 1980. Ecology and the Problem of Tribe: A Critique
135
of the Hobbesian Model of Preindustrial Warfare. In Beyond
the Myths of Culture: Essays in Cultural Materialism.
pp.33-60. Edited by E. Ross. Academic Press, New York.
Romme, W.H. 1982. Fire and Landscape Diversity in Subalpine
Forests of Yellowstone National Park. Ecological Monographs 52: 199-221.
Russell, E. 1983. Indian-Set Fires in the Forests of the Northeastern United States. Ecology 64(1): 78-88.
Sauer, C. 1926. Geography of the Pennyroyal. The Kentucky
Geological Survey Series VI(27).
Slater, G. 1907. The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of
Common Fields. Archibald Constable and Company,
London.
Smith, B. 1987. The Independent Domestication of Indigenous
Seed-Bearing Plants in Eastern North America. In Emergent
Horticultural Economies of the Eastern Woodlands. pp.
3-47. Edited by W.F. Keegan. Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations Occasional Paper No. 7.
Stewart, O.T. 1956. Fire as the First Great Force Employed by
Man. In Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth. pp.
115-33. Edited by W.L. Thomas Jr. Univ. of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Stocks, A. 1983. Cocamilla Fishing: Patch Modification and
Environmental Buffering in the Amazon Varzea. In Adaptive
Responses of Native Amazonians. pp. 239-268. Edited by
R.B. Hames and W.T. Vickers. Academic Press, New York.
Stratchey, William 1849. The Historie of Travaile into Virginia
Britannia. The Hakluyt Society, London.
Taber, R.D. and Murphy, J.L. 1971. Controlled Fire in the
Management of North American Deer. In The Scientific
Management of Animals and Plant Communities for Conservation. pp. 425-435. Edited by E. Duffey and A.S. Watts.
1 Ith Symposium of the British Ecological Society. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford.
Tansley, A.G. 1935. The Use and Abuse of Vegetational Concepts and Terms. Ecology 16(3): 284-307.
Van der Donck, Adriaen 1846 (Reprinted in 1968). A Description of the New Netherlands. New York Historical Society
Coll. Ser. 2, Vol 1. pp. 125-242. Syracuse Univ. Press,
Syracuse.
Vega, Garcilaso de la, 1951. The Florida of the Inca. Translated
by J.B. and J . J . Varner. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Vickers, William T. 1983. The Territorial Dimensions of SionaSecoya and Encabellado Adaptation. In Adaptive Responses
of Native Amazonians. pp. 451-478. Edited by R.B. Hames
and W.T. Vickers. Academic Press, New York.
Viro, P. 1974. Effects of Forest Fire on Soil. In Fire and
Ecosystems. pp. 7-46. Edited by T.T. Kozlowski and C.E.
Algren. Academic Press, New York.
Waselkov, G.A. 1978. Evolution of Deer Hunting in the Eastern
Woodlands. Mid-Continental Journal of Archaeology 3( I):
15-34.
Waselkov, G.A. 1988. Lamhatty’s Map. Southern Exposure
16(2): 23-29.
Wiens, J.A. 1976. Population Responses to Patchy Environments. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 7: 81 - 120.
Winship, G.P. 1905. Sailors Narratives of Voyages Along the
New England Coast 1524-1624. Houghton, Mifflin and
Company, Boston.
Winterhalder, B.W. 1980. Environmental Analysis in Human
Evolution and Adaptation Research. Human Ecology 8(2):
135- 170.
White, P.S. 1979. Pattern, Process and Natural Disturbance in
Vegetation. Botanical Review 45: 229-299.
Wolf, E.R. 1982. Europe and the People Without History.
University of California Press, Berkeley Press.
Wright, L.B. 1966. The Prose Works of William Byrd of
Westover. Belknap Press, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.