An Excellent Read - 1491

[pierre girard]

A very eye opening view of the Americas before Columbus. Shows Native American "bushcraft" in a whole new light.

For a review:

http://www.bootstrap-analysis.com/2005/12/book_review_149.html

 

[BOD]

Interesting. The pristine environment like the noble savage concept suggest a psychological need to find an Arcadia even if it is in a previous time. It also suggests a sense of guilt for the changes brought on by industrial societies

You can see the impact of pre-industrail and pre-colonial techonology quite easily in Borneo. I imagine it is similar to what the review refers to in Amazonian slash and burn cultivation.

Here the land has been burned for the planting of dry or hill rice. Only one crop is grown a year. After 15-20 years the long house must move again to another site as the land has been depleted.

It may look bad but the forest grows back quite quickly and , because only separated patches are affected, the total impact is much smaller than the logging that is being done by companies. The companies cynically blame the indigenous people for the haze and smoke caused by clearance.

This site is in pristine unlogged forest in the interior but the loggers are just a river away.

 

[pierre girard]

Interesting. The pristine environment like the noble savage concept suggest a psychological need to find an Arcadia even if it is in a previous time. It also suggests a sense of guilt for the changes brought on by industrial societies

You can see the impact of pre-industrail and pre-colonial techonology quite easily in Borneo. I imagine it is similar to what the review refers to in Amazonian slash and burn cultivation.

Here the land has been burned for the planting of dry or hill rice. Only one crop is grown a year. After 15-20 years the long house must move again to another site as the land has been depleted.

It may look bad but the forest grows back quite quickly and , because only separated patches are affected, the total impact is much smaller than the logging that is being done by companies. The companies cynically blame the indigenous people for the haze and smoke caused by clearance.

This site is in pristine unlogged forest in the interior but the loggers are just a river away.

[/IMG]

Well, you'd have to read the book (1491) to have it explained clearly, but my sense of what the author tried to say on the subject was: Slash and burn is a post colonial phenomena. The burning was pre colonial - the "slash," was not. Best I can paraphrase is something like, "Have you ever tried to chop down a small tree with a stone axe?" to say nothing of a forest giant.

I'm sure he said it better. Take a look at the book. Sure gave me some different points of view.

 

[BOD]

Ok. I've never really thought about the "slash" part. Will keep an eye out for it when I am next in a place with a decent bookshop

Thanks

 

[Tengu]

Can anyone find references for those tests which prove a stone axe is nearly equal to a metal one?

And you dont need to cut down a tree, you can just ringbark it as they did in neolithic times here.

 

[pierre girard]

Can anyone find references for those tests which prove a stone axe is nearly equal to a metal one?

And you dont need to cut down a tree, you can just ringbark it as they did in neolithic times here.

Ring barking can be done, but it precludes the speed of the current day "slash and burn," which is the point of the author's statement.

A stone knife can be sharp beyond belief. A stone axe, on the other hand, is a blunt sort of a thing - as a sharp edge - as is used in a stone knife - can not stand up to striking a tree.

A number of years ago, some friends and I tried chopping a tree with three different original stone axe heads (re-hafted, of course). Cutting down a tree, of any size, with one - is an exercise in futillity.

The point of the book, on this subject, is that Native Americans cared for their forests like a garden, tweaking and pruning, altering them over generations, rather than quickly revamping an entire eco system - at least that's what I got out of it. Read the book and see. I found the arguments persuasive.

PG

 

[bushwacker bob]

A stone axe, on the other hand, is a blunt sort of a thing - as a sharp edge - as is used in a stone knife - can not stand up to striking a tree.

A number of years ago, some friends and I tried chopping a tree with three different original stone axe heads (re-hafted, of course). Cutting down a tree, of any size, with one - is an exercise in futillity.

PG

I beg to differ! 'The experiment of stone axe v copper axe' was recently conducted by the BBC time team and the stone axe stood up very well and successfully felled a tree about 2' diameter with little more effort than the copper axe.It did need to be re-knapped to sharpen it afterwoods tho'.