Quantitative data are presented on the use of trees in terra firme dense forest by four indigenous Amazonian groups: the Ka'apor and Tembe, both Tupi‐Guarani‐speaking groups of Brazil; the Panare, a Cariban‐speaking group of Venezuela; and the Chácobo, a Panoan‐speaking group of Bolivia. In each case, an ethnoecological forest inventory was conducted of a 1‐hectare parcel of forest. All trees at least 10 centimeters diameter at breast height (DBH) were marked, and botanical specimens were collected Specimens were presented to indigenous informants to gather data on use. Based on these interviews and the identifcation of specimens collected, it was possible to calculate the percentage of tree species on each hectare that was useful to each group: Ka'apor, 768 percent; Tembe 61.3 percent; Panare, 48.6 percent; Chacobo, 78.7 percent. Furthermore, by dividing the trees into various use categories (food construction, technology, remedy, commerce, and other), and designating the cultural importance of each species as “major” or “minor,” it was possible to devise a “use value” for each species, and by summation, for each plant family. Based on these calculations, it was determined that the Palmae was the most useful family for all four indigenous groups. Our data support the assertion that the terra firme rainforests of Amazonia contain an exceptionally large number of useful species and that certain plant families (e.g. Palmae) deserve special consideration in terms of conservation. The fact that each indigenous group has different suites of most useful species is, in fact, more a reflection of plant endemism within Amazonia than intercultural differences per se. High indigenous plant use combined with high endemism has important implications for conservation policy: many reserves are needed throughout Amazonia

In summary, then, the circumscription theory in its elaborated form goes far toward accounting for the origin of the state. It explains why states arose where they did, and why they failed to arise elsewhere. It shows the state to be a predictable response to certain specific cultural, demographic, and ecological conditions. Thus, it helps to elucidate what was undoubtedly the most important single step ever taken in the political evolution of mankind.

No abstract

No abstract

Students of social evolution are concerned not only with the general course it has followed, but also with the mechanisms that have brought it about. One such mechanism comes into play when the quantitative increase in some entity, usually population, reaching a certain threshold, gives rise to a qualitative change in the structure of a society. This mechanism, first recognized by Hegel, was seized on by Marx and Engels. However, neither they nor their current followers among anthropologists have made much use of it in attempting to explain social evolution. But as this paper attempts to show, in those few instances when the mechanism has been invoked, it has heightened our understanding of the process of social evolution. And, it is argued, if the mechanism were more widely applied, further understanding of the course of evolution could be expected to result.