Theoretical and Socioecological Consequences of Fire Foodways

Abstract

Archaeological investigations of the effects of anthropogenic fire on the subsistence economies of small-scale societies, particularly those of the prehispanic northern American Southwest, are embryonic in scope and disciplinary impact. When burning has been mentioned in such studies it typically has been with reference to its alleged effectiveness in clearing land or deforesting areas for maize agriculture. In this article, in contrast, we present the results of our initial efforts to estimate the yield and socioecological consequences of cultivating a common fire-responsive ruderal—amaranth—whose growth is enabled by anthropogenic burning of understory vegetation in the Southwest's pinyon-juniper ecosystems. With data from the Upper Basin (northern Arizona), we show that, in an area that is not environmentally conducive to maize production, populations could be supported with systematic, low-intensity anthropogenic fires that promoted the growth of amaranth and other ruderals, such as chenopodium, which consistently dominate archaeobotanical and pollen assemblages recovered from a variety of archaeological and sedimentary contexts in the region. Based on this evidence, as well as modern fire ecological data, we propose that fire-reliant ruderal agriculture, in contrast to maize agriculture, was a widespread, sustainable, and ecologically sound practice that enhanced food supply security independently of variation in soil fertility and precipitation.

Is Anthropogenic Pyrodiversity Invisible in Paleofire Records?

“…By shaping fire patterns, more than total area burned or fire rotation, human activities can dampen [12,15] or amplify [14,16] the effects of climate on fire regimes. Patch burning can be done explicitly to benefit game species, as some hunter-gatherers do [14,17], to reduce fire risk [18] or enhance horticultural productivity [19,20] as some farmers do, or to manipulate grazing patterns of livestock as some pastoralists and ranchers do [21][22][23]. Although the purposes, economies, and cultures vary, many uses of fire across the globe involve frequent burning of relatively small patches that generates landscape heterogeneity [11,24,25].…”

Stratigraphic evidence for culturally variable Indigenous fire regimes in ponderosa pine forests of the Mogollon Rim area, east-central Arizona

“…One of these (the Bailey Ruin) was located in the Day Wash area above the Mogollon Rim (Mills et al, 1999b), and another (Tundastusa) in the Forestdale Valley below it (Haury, 1985b;Riggs, 2010). Ethnographically and archaeologically, we know that Pueblo people used fire for myriad purposes, including burning to establish and clean agricultural fields and irrigation ditches; to promote wild plant resources for food, medicine, and craft materials; in game drives, to promote habitat for preferred game animals; and in religious pilgrimages and practices (Gifford, 1940;White, 1943;Bohrer, 1983;Sullivan and Mink, 2018;Roos et al, 2021). Although populations moved their perennial homes away from the area by AD 1400, Pueblo people have continued to maintain relationships with the Mogollon Rim region (Ferguson and Hart, 1985).…”

Native American fire management at an ancient wildland–urban interface in the Southwest United States

“…In the forest and woodland landscape beyond (or between) agricultural areas, fire took on more varied roles. In these settings, fire may have been used to improve the productivity of wild plant harvesting areas ( 64 ), to process wild resources ( 65 ), to prepare trees for architectural use, perhaps to aid hunting ( 66 ), as well as for purposes associated with pilgrimage and ritual practices ( 67 – 69 ). Because these uses are located further from the archaeological record of occupation and intensive use, and potentially more diffuse in their distribution, these fire practices are more difficult to distinguish from natural fires, although this makes them no less ecologically significant ( 70 , 71 ).…”