A Comparison of the Landscape Stewardship
Practices Employed by Native Californians in the
United States and the Ancient Jomon People in Japan
Kent G. LIGHTFOOT1
ABSTRACT

Recent research in California and Japan documents how Indigenous people employed various
landscape stewardship practices to enhance the abundance and availability of local plants used as
foods, condiments, medicines, craft materials, and building products. This work supports the ideathat California Indians and ancient Jomon people can be characterized as nurturing land managers
who actively modiﬁed and constructed anthropogenic landscapes to augment resource productivity
in local environs. The purpose of this paper is to synthesize available information to describe theirstewardship practices and to compare their similarities and diﬀerences. While many commonalities
exist between California and Japan, some major diﬀerences were discovered in citations concerning
the use of cultural burning, the spatial organization of cultivation practices, and the management of
non-plant resources.
KEYWORDS: Jomon archaeology, Native California archaeology, Indigenous landscape,stewardship practices, plant cultivation, cultural burning, Indigenous seascape stewardship practices

1.

Introduction

Much can be learned about the long-term development of maritime Paciﬁc hunter-gatherer
societies through detailed comparative studies of the archaeology of California and Japan.
This point was made in the seminal volume edited by Koyama and Thomas (1981) thatoutlined some of the broad similarities between Native Californian and Jomon societies. In
this and subsequent works, archaeologists have noted that California and Japan supported
people defined as “affluent” or “complex hunter-gatherers” characterized by relatively
high population densities, village communities, food storage, sophisticated collectorbased economies, and elaborate sociopolitical and ritual systems (Habu et al. 2003;
Kitagawa & Yasuda 2004; Matsui & Kanehara 2006; Okada 2003; Sasaki 1981). They also
recognized that comparisons between California and Japan oﬀer a remarkable opportunity
for examining human interactions with many analogous resources from the Eastern and
1 Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, 232 Anthropology and Art Practice

Building, Berkeley CA 94720–3710 USA(klightfoot@berkeley.edu)
Category: Original Article Received: 6 December 2020; Accepted: 7 March 2021
JAPANESE JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGY 8 (2021): 227–245

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

Western Paciﬁc that included a diverse range of seeds, nuts, roots, shellﬁsh, maritime andfreshwater ﬁshes, terrestrial game, and marine mammals (Habu 2004; Kitagawa & Yasuda
2004; Koyama 1981; Lightfoot & Parrish 2009; Matsui & Kanehara 2006; Sasaki &Noshiro 2018).
California and Japan provide exceptionally rich archaeological records that are ideallysuited for examining how people incorporated these diverse resources into their lives
for more than 10 000 years. The archaeology of Native California extends back at least
13 000 BP and there is an extensive record of human-environmental interactions overmany centuries that continues to the present as California Indians still care for and harvest
native plants and animals in their territories (Anderson 2005; Lightfoot & Parrish 2009).
The chronology of Jomon hunter-gatherer people spans from about 16 000 to 2500 cal. BP
when wet-paddy rice agriculture gained acceptance in the Yayoi Period (Habu 2014a, pp.
730–736; Kotani 1981, pp. 202–203).
The purpose of this paper is to build upon this foundational work to examine Indigenous
stewardship practices among California Indian and Jomon societies. I begin by noting thatarchaeologists have only recently recognized the existence of hunter-gatherer stewardshipin both California and Japan where Indigenous communities implemented cultural practices
designed to enhance the quantity, diversity, and sustainability of selected resources. I thensynthesize current interpretations about Indigenous stewardship practices in California
and Japan. My discussion of the former is based largely on recent ﬁndings from an ongoing eco-archaeological study in Central California, while the synthesis of Jomon cultural
practices is drawn from across Japan. In the final section of the paper, I compare thesimilarities and diﬀerences in how California Indians and Jomon people may have tended
resources in local environs. While many commonalities existed in how they constructed
productive anthropogenic environments, some signiﬁcant divergences occurred in current
interpretations about how ﬁre was used for stewardship purposes, the spatial organizationof cultivation practices, and the management of non-plant resources.

2.

Indigenous Landscape Stewardship Practices

The idea that so-called hunter-gatherer people actively manipulated the environment andcreated anthropogenic landscapes many centuries ago in California and Japan is a relatively
recent perspective. Interpretations of California Indians and their interactions with local
environments have changed markedly in recent years. The early anthropological literature
depicted Indigenous populations as passive foragers who practiced a modiﬁed seasonalround in a bountiful natural world, searching the countryside for available wild foods while
minimally impacting local places (Barrett 1952; Kroeber 1925). Similarly, as Crawford(2011, p.S336) emphasizes, the orthodox view of Jomon societies is that they passively© Japanese Archaeological Association

228

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPAN

foraged for resources in a naturally rich environment without making much of an impact tolocal ecosystems (see also Habu 2004, p. 63).
There is now a growing recognition in both Japan and California that Indigenous people
were active agents in stewarding or tending selected resources in their local environs.
New insights about Native Californian and Jomon people are being fostered by ecoarchaeological research that considers human and environmental relationships in space andtime. These studies, in combination with relevant ethnographic/historical observations andIndigenous scholars’ research, suggest they were nurturing land managers who actively
modiﬁed and constructed anthropogenic landscapes. Some scholars have even described
them as sophisticated ecosystem engineers who employed a diverse range of well-honed
methods to enhance the abundance, diversity, and sustainability of key economic resourcesin their territories (Crawford 2011; Anderson 2005; Lightfoot & Parrish 2009). While
there is considerable debate in both California and Japan about whether these practices
constituted a form of proto-agriculture or Indigenous agriculture (largely based on how one
deﬁnes agriculture), there is little question that people were involved in the cultivation andintimate care of wild crops (Anderson 2005, pp. 252–254; Crawford 2008, 2011; Lightfoot& Parrish 2009, pp. 124–125; Sasaki 1981).
The study of Indigenous landscape stewardship practices in both California and Japan
is greatly informed by contemporary and historic observations. Since California Indians
have continued to maintain a close relationship with the plants and animals in their tribal
territories that extends back many centuries, Indigenous elders and tribal oral traditions
provide excellent sources about how they tended their lands (Anderson 2005). In addition,
there is a wealth of information recorded in historic ethnographic studies and early
ethnohistoric accounts written by Spanish, Mexican, Russian, and America explorers andsettlers about how different tribes harvested, processed, stored, cooked, and consumed
native foods, as well as how they employed speciﬁc plants as medicines, crafting materials,
building materials, etc. (Kroeber 1925; Lightfoot & Parrish 2009). California archaeologists
have made good use of this literature in generating their subsistence and settlement models
and interpretations.
Japanese archaeologists have also made excellent use of historical sources andethnographic observations about the gathering and processing of wild foods. Koyama (1981)
describes how a diverse range of wild resources were still being harvested in mid-19th
Century Japan, including various nuts (buckeye, chestnut, acorns, walnut, hazelnut), root
crops, game, and ﬁsh. Matsuyama (1981, pp. 117–123) documents how nuts accounted
for 20% of staple foodstuﬀs at end of 19th century in the Hida area. He presents a detailed
account of how acorns and buckeyes were gathered and processed in the mountainous
regions of central Japan for making cakes and gruel through the 1960s (Matsuyama 1981,
pp. 131–138).
© Japanese Archaeological Association229

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

Nishida (1983) provides an insightful discussion about how the people of one of thesevillages (Mukasa Village) practiced paddy agriculture but still tended and harvested wild
resources. His clinal spatial model demarks a series of concentric circles radiating out
from the village center. The farthest circle contains the remnants of the primary evergreen
broadleaf forest (protected as a shrine forest) where people gathered acorns (Castanopsis
cuspidata) and water chestnuts (Trapa natans) for consumption and for sale. The next
concentric circle contains secondary forests consisting of sun-loving plants that cover thehills around the village. Here are found chestnuts and wild yams (Dioscorea spp.) that arecomponents of an anthropogenic environment created by the removal of other trees andshrubs for ﬁrewood and charcoal production. Within the village proper are found various
domesticates and wild plants [prickly ash (Zanthoxylum piperitum), honewort (Cryptotaenia
canadensis japonica), and lagwort (Petasites japonicus)] that grow in disturbed spaces
between the houses and gardens. These useful plants are allowed to grow on the disturbed
soils that are enriched with organic refuse. Nishida (1983, pp. 306–311) presents a neatspatial model for how people might invest more effort in tending and cultivating wild
resources close to major villages—particularly sun-loving plants that thrive in disturbed
and artiﬁcially enriched soils that have been cleared of primary forest vegetation.

3.

Native Californian Stewardship Practices

California Indians employ various methods to enhance the availability and productivityof wild plants and animals in their territories that they depend on for foods, medicines,
and raw materials (Anderson 2005; Blackburn & Anderson 1993; Lake et al. 2018). Thesemethods include weeding, tillage, pruning, coppicing, and even irrigation of wild plants insome places. A signiﬁcant management tool discussed in the literature is prescribed burningor what Indigenous scholars refer to as cultural burning (Anderson 2006; Goode 2015; Lakeet al. 2017; Lewis 1973; Lightfoot & Parrish 2009; Stewart 2002). Cultural burning was
widely used across Native California before it was outlawed by colonial and later American
ﬁre prohibition policies. There were many reasons why local Native communities ignitedcultural burns in their territories: to clear undergrowth; to control insect infestations; tofacilitate game hunting; to encourage plants to produce young, straight stems for cordage,
nets and baskets; and, most importantly, to augment the diversity and quantity of economic
plants and animals in tribal territories.
The specific characteristics of these anthropogenic fire regimes varied greatly across
California given the local ecology, the kinds of plants and animals that were being treated,
and the frequency and timing of lightning strikes that also contributed to local ﬁre patterns.
Yet most Indigenous communities appear to have instituted ﬁre regimes characterized byfrequent, small, low-severity surface burns (Anderson 2006; Lewis 1973). Fire masters© Japanese Archaeological Association

230

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPAN

would ignite small patches of land in a rotational pattern across their territories dependingon the kinds of resources being tended and the appropriate ﬁre interval for facilitating theirproductivity (Lightfoot & Parrish 2009, pp. 97–112). They used local landscape features,such as streams, ridges, rock outcrops and past ﬁre patterns, to constrain these light burns.
The outcome of this rotational burning pattern on a local landscape was the creation of apatchy mosaic of vegetation stands. The strategic use of “light burning” greatly increased
local biodiversity by burning patches over multiple year cycles to create diverse stagesof vegetation succession of grasslands, tubers, berries, nuts, and other resources across acommunity’s territory (Lightfoot & Parrish 2009, pp. 94–122). Recent ﬁres also produced
excellent forage in successive years that attracted and supported a greater quantity of deer,
antelope, tule elk, rabbits, and other favored game. Thus, the consequences of employing
the strategic use of cultural burning were twofold: it not only increased the productivity andsustainability of key economic resources, but it also diversiﬁed the availability of various
resources across tribal lands. This latter outcome was crucial as some resources, such as
acorns, varied greatly in their productivity from one year to the next, so that having backup foods in years of low productivity proved to be highly beneﬁcial.
The findings from our recent eco-archaeological research in Central California
exemplify many of these observations. I have been privileged to work with a collaborative
team of scholars from the Amah Mutsun Tribal Band, California State Parks, and the
University of California campuses at Berkeley and Santa Cruz who are implementing aninter-disciplinary study of indigenous stewardship practices using multiple data sets drawn
from tribal histories, ethnohistorical sources, and eco-archaeological research (Lightfoot &Lopez 2013). The speciﬁc goals of this work are threefold: 1) What is the earliest physicalevidence for sustained cultural burning along the Central California Coast and how didthese practices inﬂuence local biological communities? 2) Is there evidence for signiﬁcantchanges in Indigenous stewardship practices over time? and 3) At what scale was cultural
burning implemented along the Central California Coast? These goals are being addressed
through an eco-archaeological investigation of sites in several study areas along the Central
California coast that date to Middle Holocene (7000–3000 BP), Late Holocene (3000–500BP), and Historical times (500–200 BP). The ﬁndings of this ongoing work are summarized
below.

3a. When did people ﬁrst initiate sustained anthropogenic burning in Central
California and did these practices inﬂuence local biological communities?
The results of our study indicate that Indigenous communities initiated cultural or
anthropogenic burning at least 1200–1300 years ago that continued for many centuries as
observed by Spanish explorers in the late 1700s (Cuthrell 2013b; Lightfoot et al. 2013).
It appears that a major outcome of cultural burning was the creation and maintenance© Japanese Archaeological Association

231

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

of productive coastal prairies along with other vegetation patches. Fine-grained analysis
of flotation samples directed by Cuthrell (2013a, 2019) revealed evidence of grasses(Poaceae), tarweeds (Madia spp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), panicled bulrush (Scirpus
microcarpus), composites, such as sunﬂowers (Asteraceae), and other forbs that comprised
the overwhelming majority of the ethnobotanical assemblage. High densities of California
hazelnut (Corylus cornuta ssp. Californica) were also recovered, raising the possibility
that people may have developed hazel management practices in Late Holocene times.
Furthermore, it appears local communities were harvesting resources from patchy mosaicsof biotic communities consisting of grassland, shrubland, woodland and riparian resources.
Corroborating evidence for the existence of nearby coastal prairies and frequent cultural
burning is based on grass phytolith ﬁndings and wood charcoal analysis that show highfrequencies of Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), California lilac (Ceanothus spp.)
and other fire-adapted plants that would have comprised a substantial proportion ofvegetative cover in a regularly burned environment (Cuthrell 2013a, 2019). Frequent ﬁres
or other kinds of landscape disturbances (e.g., grazing) on a sub-decadal scale are necessary
for the long-term maintenance of coastal grasslands—otherwise the open prairies convert
relatively quickly to coastal scrublands and eventually conifer woodlands. Since lightning
strikes along the Central California coast are relatively rare, the expected natural ﬁre returninterval is estimated to be 50–100 years or longer. Thus, natural ignitions of ﬁres alone
would have been incapable of sustaining coastal grasslands over multiple centuries (Cuthrell
2013a, pp. 266–269). We argue that this is strong evidence that Indigenous communities
supplemented occasional lightning strikes by igniting cultural burns every one to ﬁve years
to maintain patches of coastal grasslands that provided them with important food stuﬀs,
medicines, and raw materials, as well as attracting their preferred game that grazed on the
fresh verdant growth (Lightfoot et al. 2013, pp. 379–388).

3b. Is there evidence for significant changes in Indigenous stewardshippractices over time?

Our results suggest that while anthropogenic burning took place during the Medieval
Climatic Anomaly (ca. 1050–650 BP) when temperatures and drought conditions may
have increased, people were also maintaining coastal prairies before and after this periodof climatic warming. We found that coastal prairies were maintained along the Santa Cruz
coast during the early years of the Little Ice Age (ca. 600–100 BP), when cooler conditions
supposedly prevailed (Lightfoot et al. 2019). Thus, our study suggests that people initiatedregular burning practices under diverse climatic conditions and/or that climate change wasmore moderate than argued elsewhere in western North America.
Our ﬁndings suggest that in Late Holocene times when Native people were investing
more time and eﬀort in undertaking Indigenous landscape stewardship activities, they were
© Japanese Archaeological Association

232

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPANalso instigating shoreline practices that may have involved the management of shellﬁsh
populations and ﬁsheries. Much research has now been undertaken along the American
Northwest Coast on how local Indigenous communities enhanced intertidal and wetland
resources through a variety of tending and harvesting methods (see Grier 2014; Lepofsky &Caldwell 2013; Lepofsky et al. 2015). Some of these enhancement strategies involved theconstruction of engineered coastal landscapes, including the creation of clam beds, stream
scraping, holding ponds, ﬁsh weirs, and the use of shell middens as construction materials.
Our eco-archaeological investigations along the Central California coast indicates similarkinds of practices were taking place.
The on-going investigation of the invertebrate assemblages from the Central California
coast by Grone (2020) is providing information on resource harvesting, invertebratedemographics, and potential evidence of shoreline management practices through time.
Ethnographic observations document the creation of clam beds that provided fertile
habitats for Pacific Littleneck clams (Leukoma staminea) and other mollusks along
the sandy shoreline of Tomales Bay (Baker 1992). The combination of ethnographic
observations and eco-archaeological research suggest that Indigenous clammers employed
selective methods for harvesting Paciﬁc Littleneck clams that sustained this invertebrate
population as a viable resource for more than 1300 years (Apodaca 2018; Grone 2020,
pp. 49–68). The morphometric analysis and stable isotope geochemistry of mussel umbos
from archaeological sites along the open coast suggest that California mussels (Mytilus
californianus) from rocky intertidal habitats may have been harvested in resource patches
at two-to-three-year intervals as part of a long-term shoreline management practice (Grone
2020, pp. 25–48). The study of small, non-dietary species from midden deposits is also
providing information for the harvesting of intertidal plants that typically do not preservein archaeological deposits. For example, the fine-grained analysis of flotation samples
containing seaweed limpet (Lottia insessa) that lives exclusively on feather boa kelp
(Egregia menziesii) is providing a proxy measure for kelp harvesting practices throughtime (Grone 2020, pp. 14–24).
Zooarchaeological research undertaken by Sanchez (2018, 2019) is also providing
new insights on the stewardship of ﬁsheries along the Central California coast. At about
the same time that we see evidence for cultural burning and the regular use of grassland
resources, we also see evidence for the mass harvesting of net-based resources, primarily
forage ﬁsh such as Paciﬁc herring (Clupea pallasii), Paciﬁc sardines (Sardinops sagax),
and Northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax) (Sanchez et al. 2018; Sanchez 2019). The
association between the mass harvesting of small schooling ﬁsh and anthropologic burning
continues through the Late Holocene. In reconstructing the size of ancient Paciﬁc herringfrom archaeological contexts at several coastal sites in Central California, Sanchez (2020)shows that medium-sized ﬁsh were captured probably using gill nets with standardized© Japanese Archaeological Association

233

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

mesh sizes. By eliminating the harvesting of the youngest and oldest members of
the herring population, this fishing practice allowed the Indigenous fishery to remainsustainable over many centuries.

3c. Is there evidence that people initiated anthropogenic burning at aregional scale on the Central California coast?

The results of our eco-archaeological investigation from several study areas provide
evidence for an extensive spatial pattern of Late Holocene coastal grasslands and cultural
burning along the Central California coast extending from the Santa Cruz Coast to northof San Francisco Bay (Cuthrell 2019; Lightfoot et al. 2019). Thus, our current ﬁndings
suggest that cultural burning was part of a broader phenomenon that transcended thespeciﬁc cultural histories and languages of local tribes. Our ﬁndings are thus far consistent
with the hypothesis proposed by Weiser and Lepofsky (2009) that anthropogenic coastal
prairies extended from southern British Columbia through Washington, Oregon, and into
northern California in Late Holocene times.

4.

Jomon Stewardship Practices

A suite of excellent eco-archaeological studies makes a strong case for the closeinteractions that Jomon people forged with ecosystems near their settlements. This
research suggests that some Jomon communities intentionally modiﬁed local habitats tofacilitate the growth and prosperity of speciﬁc resources used as foods, condiments, rawmaterials, and fuels. The idea that Jomon people worked intimately with speciﬁc plants is
supported by changes over time in the frequency of these resources in the palynologicaland archaeological record, the increasing size of seeds and nuts, and DNA analysis(Crawford 2011, 2008; Habu 2004, 2014b, p. 514; Kitagawa & Yasuda 2004; Kotani
1981; Matsui & Kanehara 2006, p. 267; Nishida 1983; Noshiro & Sasaki 2014; Sasaki &Noshiro 2018). This literature suggests that various plants were selected for and managed
by Jomon people, including barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli)/barnyard millet(Echinochloa esculenta), shiso or egoma (Perilla frutescens), burdock (Arctium lappa),
bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), beans (Vigna spp.), goosefoot (Chenopodium spp.),
rice (Oryza sativa), hemp (Canabis sativa), mountain yam (Dioscorea japonica), barley(Hordeum vulgare), paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera), foxtail millet (Setaria
italica), common millet (Panicum miliaceum), soybean (Glycine max/G. soja) and possibly
buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum).
There is also eco-archaeological evidence for Jomon people managing tree crops
for food, fuels, and building and crafting materials. Chestnuts (Castanea crenata) arerecognized as an exceptional resource since individual trees can produce many highly© Japanese Archaeological Association

234

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPANnutritious nuts requiring minimal processing, as well as providing sources of firewood
and building supplies (Matsui & Kanehara 200, p. 268). As a sun-loving tree, it is argued
that people facilitated the production of chestnut trees near settlements by keeping theenvironment open through the removal of competing plants (Kitagawa & Yasuda 2004,
p. 90). For example, Matsui & Kanehara (2006, pp. 266–269) describe how people
signiﬁcantly altered the environment near Sanai-Maruyama and other sites that involved
the expansion of the chestnut forests at the expense of other tree and shrub species thatwere presumably pruned or cut down. The hansaibai or tending of chestnuts is supportedby 1) pollen analysis that indicates chestnut forests expanded in areas near settlements,
2) an increase in the size and uniformity of the nuts over time, and 3) the recovery of
considerable quantities of charred chestnut wood used as fuel and construction materials
at some sites (Kitagawa & Yasuda 2004, p. 90; Matsui & Kanehara 2006, p. 268; Sasaki &Noshiro 2018, p. 381).
Other trees that were probably tended by Jomon people near their settlements included
walnuts (Juglans mandshurica) that exhibited an increase in the size of the nuts by Late
Jomon times compared to modern wild varieties (Sasaki & Noshiro 2018, p. 381). The
pollen and charred wood of lacquer trees (Toxicodendron verniciﬂuum) have been identiﬁed
at sites from at least Early Jomon times. There is good evidence that Jomon people
harvested the sap from these trees to produce lacquer, as well as wood for construction
material. While direct evidence for arboreal management is ambiguous as the sap can be
harvested from both tended and untended trees, there is little question that the growth ofthese valued plants would have been encouraged near settlements (Crawford 2011, pp.
S334–S335; Sasaki & Noshiro 2018. pp. 370, 381).
Horse chestnuts (Aesculus turbinate) are another nut crop that may have been managed,
but the stands were probably established naturally (Sasaki & Noshiro 2018, pp. 381–383).
Unlike chestnuts, the fruit from horse chestnuts require extensive processing to remove
tannic acids before they are edible. They were probably not utilized extensively until
Middle to Late Jomon times when innovative methods for tannin removal were developed
and widely employed (Matsui & Kanehara 2006, p. 266). Archaeological investigations
have unearthed the remnants of wooden frames associated with horse chestnut middens
near streams where the fruits appear to have been mass processed via water leeching (Sasaki& Noshiro 2018, pp. 376–377). Alternatively, Hosoya (2011) suggests that the diverse
methods employed by Jomon people to process nuts, such as horse chestnuts, may haveless to do with the tannic acid in the nuts themselves and more to do with the intended ﬁnal
cooking method. Thus, the wooden frames associated with horse chestnuts may certainly
have facilitated the mass processing of the nuts, but these features may also be evidence of
cultural diversity in how diﬀerent Jomon people ﬁxed their nuts for culinary purposes.
In summarizing the pertinent literature, three observations can be made about Jomon© Japanese Archaeological Association

235

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

stewardship practices. First, a diverse range of herbaceous plants and trees appear to havebeen managed by Jomon communities– not only as palatable and nutritious food sources,
but also as medicines, spices, fuels, crafting materials, and building products. While a few
of the plant species may have initially derived from outside of the Japanese archipelago(e.g., see discussion of lacquer trees in Crawford 2011, p.S334), the majority appear tohave been “wild plants” endemic to Japan for millennia before human nurturing. Second,people creatively interacted with these plants over many thousands of years. These intimate
relationships involved the selection of plants over time with larger seeds and fruits thatwere gathered, tended, and possibly planted, as well as innovative ways of harvesting,processing, and storing them (Crawford 2008, 2011; Habu 2004, pp. 64–67; Sasaki &Noshiro 2018, p. 383).
Third, there is a strong spatial dimension to Jomon stewardship practices that involved
the cultivation of plants near major settlements. Anthropogenic environments with nutrientrich soils were probably created near settlements that facilitated the propagation andproduction of “sun-loving” herbaceous and arboreal plants (such as chestnut, walnut, andlacquer trees) that thrived in open areas (Crawford 2011; Kitagawa & Yasuda 2004, pp.
89–90; Matsui & Kanehara 2006, pp. 269–271; Nishida 1983; Sasaki & Noshiro 2018,
p. 383). Similar to traditional villages in historic times, there was a marked clinal spatial
pattern in the use of resources in Jomon communities with those that were regularly tended
located in and around major settlements, while the outlying hinterland continued to be used
for hunting, gathering, and ﬁshing for other “wild” plants and animals. Habu (2004, p. 72)
suggests that many of the tended crops near Jomon settlements may have served primarily
as dietary supplements for meals and/or as prestige foods for feasts, ceremonies, and otherspecial gatherings.

5.

Discussion

How do current interpretations about Indigenous stewardship practices in California andJapan compare to each other? My examination suggests that there are many commonalities
in the stewardship practices implemented by California Indian and Jomon communities.
First, most of the plant resources they tended were “wild” resources endemic to either
California or Japan. This finding suggests that the cultivation process was largely an
independent grassroots development that involved people working intimately with nativeplants in local environs over many centuries. Second, it appears Native Californian andJomon people selected for special attention a diverse range of analogous herbaceous
plants and nut-bearing trees that populated Eastern and Western Pacific environments.
They implemented cultivation practices that served to not only enhance seed and nut crops
as foods that could be mass harvested, but also to embellish plants used for medicines,© Japanese Archaeological Association

236

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPANfuels, crafting materials, and building products. For example, one of the most intensively
cultivated plants in Native California was tobacco (Nicotiana spp.) that was used in various
ceremonies and recreational activities (Lightfoot & Parrish 2009, pp. 126–128). The sap
from lacquer trees was used to make lacquerware and other crafts (wooden bracelets,
combs) in Jomon times (Habu 2004, p. 215), while California Indians harvested the stems
from a variety of stewarded plants, including bear grass (Xerophyllum tenax), deergrass(Muhlenbergia rigens), sedges (Carex spp.), California hazelnut (Corylus cornuta ssp.
Californica), and various species of willows (Salix spp.) for making baskets, cordage, nets,
etc. (Anderson 2005, pp. 187–208; Biddy 2013; Blackburn & Anderson 1993).
Third, similar kinds of cultivation practices appear to have been employed by Native
Californian and Jomon people, such as pruning, coppicing, weeding, removal of detritus,
and vegetation thinning for “sun-loving” plants. Fourth, in some cases the stewardshippractices involved the selection over time of plants with larger sized seeds and fruits. Ecoarchaeological research in Japan has demonstrated this temporal trend for several plants,
including barnyard grass, chestnuts, and walnuts (Crawford 2008: 448; Matsui & Kanehara
2006, p. 268; Sasaki & Noshiro 2018, p. 381). While not as well documented in the
California literature, there is evidence for Little Barley (Hordeum pusillum) and Maygrass/
Canary (Phalaris sp.) seeds to have increased in size over time, presumably throughtheir selection and cultivation (Reddy 2009; 2016, pp. 237–239; Wohlgemuth 2004, pp.
125–133).
The comparison of Indigenous stewardship practices also highlights three majordiﬀerences in how they were implemented in California and Japan that revolve around theuse of ﬁre, the spatial organization of cultivation practices, and the stewardship of nonplant resources.
The use of ﬁre. While cultural burning played a primary role in the cultivation methods
employed by California Indians, there is little mention of its use in the Jomon literature.
This is an intriguing diﬀerence given the long tradition of highly sophisticated forms ofswidden agriculture (yakihata) that were practiced in temperate Japan, particularly inmountainous terrains (Yokoyama et al. 2014). While some Japanese archaeologists argued
several decades ago that swidden agriculture may have been employed by Jomon people(Kotani 1981, p. 204; Sasaki 1981, p. 15), more recent studies tend to downplay Jomon use
of ﬁre for plant cultivation. Kotani (1981, pp. 205–206) suggests that ﬁre may have been
employed to open-up areas that encouraged plant growth, but not the “continuous practiceof slash-and-burn agriculture based on a fallow system.” Kitagawa & Yasuda (2004, p. 90)
note that accidental ﬁres could have opened-up areas where the sun-loving chestnuts would
have thrived as they are relatively ﬁre-tolerant. Yet their analysis of chestnut pollen andcharcoal from the Sannai-Maruyama and Kamegaoke sites suggests the relationship of ﬁre(based on charcoal frequency) and chestnut productivity (based on pollen) is ambiguous© Japanese Archaeological Association

237

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT(Kitagawa & Yasuda 2004, pp. 98–101). Thus, there is little support at this time, at leastin the English-language literature, for the intentional use of ﬁre as a major component ofJomon stewardship practices (see Nishida 1983, p. 319).
The spatial organization of cultivation practices. Another signiﬁcant diﬀerence between
California Indian and Jomon stewardship practices is the spatial organization of cultivation
activities. The clinal spatial model proposed for the Jomon suggests that most of the energy
invested in plant cultivation took place near major settlements and adjacent environs, whileplants in the more distant hinterlands received far less attention and treatment. The primaryactivities that took place in the outlying hinterland were harvesting practices involving
traditional hunting, gathering, and ﬁshing activities. In contrast, the spatial organizationof stewardship practices in California is argued to be at the scale of the landscape. That
is, California Indians employed a rotational system of cultural burning to ignite ﬁres in asuite of diﬀerent resource patches both near and far from their settlements. This does notmean that some of the most intensive activities did not take place near major settlements
where people might prune, weed, and clear debris from nearby patches. Yet people also
used ﬁre at the landscape scale to manage more distant patches containing productive oak
woodlands, grasslands, ﬁelds of tubers, etc. Travel to these more distant patches would befacilitated by logistical movements of task groups and even occasional residential moves(Lightfoot & Parrish 2009, pp. 20–22).
Stewardship of non-plant resources. A third major diﬀerence between the discussionof Native Californian and Jomon stewardship practices concerns citations in the literaturereferencing the management of non-plant resources. The Jomon literature focuses primarily
on plant cultivation and management with the possibility that some other faunal resources,
such as wild boar or pig (Sus scrofa), may have been tended as well (Crawford 2011,
p.S336). As discussed above for the Northwest Coast and California, there is growing
evidence that both landscape and seascape resources were managed, including shellﬁsh
populations and ﬁsheries. It is not clear from my comparative study if similar processes ofseascape stewardship might have taken place during Jomon times in Japan.

6.

Conclusion

The comparison of California Indian and Jomon stewardship practices provides many
insights about how Indigenous people worked closely with a diverse range of analogous
resources that populated the Eastern and Western Paciﬁc. Information derived from recent
eco-archaeological research, ethnographic/historical observations, and Indigenous scholar’sstudies strongly support the idea that Indigenous people in both California and Japan
can be characterized as nurturing land managers who actively modiﬁed and constructed
anthropogenic landscapes to enhance the abundance, diversity, and sustainability of various© Japanese Archaeological Association

238

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPAN

resources in their territories.
My comparative study suggests that there are many commonalities in the kinds ofpractices employed by Native Californian and Jomon people in stewarding their lands.
These include the tending of mostly wild resources in local environs that spanned overmany generations; the selection of a diverse range of analogous herbaceous plants and nutbearing trees for stewarding that were used for foods, medicines, fuels, crafting materials,
and building products; a similar suite of cultivation practices that probably included
pruning, coppicing, weeding, removal of detritus, and vegetation thinning for “sun-loving”
plants; and in some cases cultivation practices that involved the selection over time forplants with larger sized seeds and fruits.
My comparative study also revealed some major differences in how archaeologists
interpret the cultivation processes employed in California and Japan. The most signiﬁcantdifference is the widespread support for cultural burning in the literature on Native
Californian societies and its less frequent reference in Jomon archaeology. I suspect that
this may change in the future. Interpretations concerning Indigenous burning practices in
California have been greatly facilitated by ethnohistoric and ethnographic observations
and a strong legacy among contemporary tribes about the importance of this landscapestewardship practice. However, the study of cultural burning in archaeological contexts isstill relatively new in California. As new methods are developed and applied in Japan for
examining cultural burning in ancient contexts, I suspect that more evidence for cultural
burning will emerge—but time will tell. The common use of ﬁre in California also points
to a second difference—the use of cultural burning on a landscape scale by California
Indians in contrast to the clinal spatial organization of cultivated resources near Jomon
settlements. Another major diﬀerence concerns the stewardship of non-plant resources in
Native California, particularly shellﬁsh populations and ﬁsheries in seascape environments
in contrast to the almost exclusive focus of Jomon people on plant cultivation. Again,archaeological interpretations for Indigenous seascape management along the Paciﬁc Coastof North America have been greatly facilitated by working with contemporary tribes. I
believe that as new methods for studying Indigenous management of coastal resources
are developed and applied in Japan, then more evidence for these practices will probably
emerge.
Yet there were probably some fundamental difference in the stewardship practices
employed by Jomon and Native Californian societies. These diﬀerences may be importantin understanding why Japanese societies initiated the adoption of wet-paddy rice and millet
agriculture during and after the Yayoi Period, while California Indians continued to steward
and tend native plants and animals that endures to this day. Why Japanese people inpost-Jomon times chose to adopt exotic domesticated crops that were dependent on humans
for their reproduction, while Native Californians continued their stewardship practices© Japanese Archaeological Association

239

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

that enhanced the availability and productivity of wild plants that could survive without
human intervention is obviously a complex issue (see Lightfoot & Parrish 2009, pp.
124–140). It is likely that plant stewardship practices initiated in Jomon times, particularly
in western Japan, may have facilitated the adoption of more intensive agrarian economies
in post-Jomon times (Kotani 1981, p. 204; Sasaki 1981, p. 15). But given the overallsimilarities between Jomon and Native Californian stewardship practices, and the decisionof the latter not to follow this historical trajectory, I suspect there is more to the story. Hereis where future comparative studies of the Jomon people and California Indians focusing
on this issue will be most illuminating.

Acknowledgements
I appreciate greatly the kind invitation to attend the 2019 Annual Meeting of the JapaneseArchaeological Association where an early version of this paper was presented. The ecoarchaeological work along the Central Coast of California has been generously fundedby the National Science Foundation (BCS-0912162; BCS-1523648) and served as a casestudy for Junko Habu’s study of Small-Scale Economies on the North Paciﬁc Rim fundedby the Japanese Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (Project No. 14200084). My
sincere thanks to Junko Habu, Gary Crawford, and Simon Kaner for their very constructive
comments concerning this paper.

References
Anderson, M.K. 2005. Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the managementof California’s natural resources. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Anderson, M.K. 2006. The use of ﬁre by Native Americans in California, in N.G. Sugihara,
J.W. van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaﬀer, J. Fites-Kaufman & A.E. Thode (eds.), Fires in
California’s Ecosystems: 417–430. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Apodaca, A.J. 2018. Exploring clam bed tending at CA-MRN-202: selective harvesting ofPaciﬁc Gaper clam (Tresus nuttallii) from the Toms Point Trading Post, in Tomales
Bay, California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 32: 305–318.
Baker, R. 1992. The clam “gardens” of Tomales Bay. News from Native California 6(2):28–29.
Barrett, S.A. 1952. Material aspects of Pomo Culture, part one and two. Bulletin of the
Public Museum of the City of Milwaukee. Milwaukee: Public Museum of the City of
Milwaukee.
Biddy, B. 2013. The ﬁne arts of California Indian baskets. Berkeley: Heyday.
Blackburn, T.C. & K. Anderson (eds.) 1993. Before the wilderness: environmental
management by Native Californians. Menlo Park: Ballena Press.
© Japanese Archaeological Association

240

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPANCrawford, G.W. 2008. The Jomon in early agriculture discourse: issues arising from
Matsui, Kanehara, and Pearson. World Archaeology 40: 445–465.
Crawford, G.W. 2011. Advances in understanding early agriculture in Japan. Current
Anthropology 52(S4): S331–S345.
Cuthrell, R.Q. 2013a. Archaeobotanical evidence for Indigenous burning practices andfoodways at CA-SMA-113. California Archaeology 5(2): 265–290.
Cuthrell, R.Q. 2013b. An eco-archaeological study of late Holocene Indigenous foodways
and landscape management practices at Quiroste Valley Cultural Preserve, San MateoCounty, California. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.
Cuthrell, R.Q. 2019. Archaeobotanical data from middle to late Holocene sites on theCentral California Coast: implications for resource use and prescribed burning. Annual
Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Goode, R.W. 2015. Tribal-traditional ecological knowledge. News from Native California,
Spring 2015: 23–28.
Grier, C. 2014. Landscape construction, ownership and social change in the Southern Gulf
Islands of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 38: 211–249.
Grone, M.A. 2020. Of molluscs and middens: historical ecology of Indigenous shoreline
stewardship along the Central Coast of California. PhD Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Habu, J. 2004. Ancient Jomon of Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habu, J, J.M. Savelle, S. Koyama & H. Hongo. 2003. Introduction: complex huntergatherer studies in Japan and the North Pacific Rim, in J. Habu, J.M. Savelle, S.
Koyama & H. Hongo (eds.) Hunter-Gatherers of the North Paciﬁc Rim: 1–9. Senri
Ethnological Studies No. 63. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of Ethnology.
Habu, J. 2014a. Early sedentism in East Asia: from Late Palaeolithic to early agriculturalsocieties in insular East Asia, in C. Renfrew & P. Bahn (eds.) Cambridge worldprehistory: 724–741. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habu, J. 2014b. Post-Pleistocene transformations of hunter-gatherers in East Asia, in V.
Cummings, P. Jordan & M. Zvelebil (eds.) Oxford handbook of the Archaeology andAnthropology of Hunter-Gatherers: 507–520. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hosoya, L.A. 2011. Staple or famine food? Ethnographic and archaeological approaches tonut processing in East Asian prehistory. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences
3: 7–17.
Kitagawa, J. & Y. Yasuda. 2004. The inﬂuence of climate change on chestnut and horsechestnut preservation around Jomon sites in northeastern Japan with special reference
to the Sannai-Maruyama and Kamegaoka sites. Quaternary International 123–125:
89–103.
Kotani, Y. 1981. Evidence of plant cultivation in Jomon Japan: some implications, in
S. Koyama & D.H. Thomas (eds.) Affluent foragers, Pacific Coast east and west:
201–212. Osaka, Japan: Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9, National Museum of© Japanese Archaeological Association

241

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

Ethnology.
Koyama, S. 1981. A Quantitative Study of Wild Food Resources: An Example from
Hida, in S. Koyama & D.H. Thomas (eds.) Aﬄuent foragers: Paciﬁc Coast east andwest: 91–115. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of
Ethnology.
Koyama, S. & D.H. Thomas (eds.) 1981. Aﬄuent foragers, Paciﬁc Coast east and west.
Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of Ethnology.
Kroeber, A.L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Oﬃce.
Lake, F.K., J.A. Parrotta, C.P. Giardian, I. Davidson-Hunt & Y. Uprety. 2018. Integration of
traditional and Western knowledge in forest landscape restoration, in S. Mansourian& J. Parrotta (eds.) Forest landscape restoration: integrated approaches to support
eﬀective implementation: 198–226. New York: Routledge.
Lake, F.K., V. Wright, P. Morgan, M. McFadzen, D. McWethy, & C. Stevens-Rumann.
2017. Returning ﬁre to the land: celebrating traditional knowledge and ﬁre. Journal ofForestry 115(5): 343–353.
Lepofsky, D. & M.E. Caldwell. 2013. Indigenous marine resource management on the
Northwest Coast of North America. Ecological Processes 2(12): 1–12.
Lepofsky, D., N.F. Smith, N. Cardinal, J. Harper, M. Morris, Gitla (Elloy White), R.
Bouchard, D.I.D. Kennedy, A.K. Salomon, M. Puckett, & K. Rowell. 2015. Ancient
shellﬁsh mariculture on the Northwest Coast of North America. American Antiquity
80(2): 236–259.
Lewis, H.T. 1973. Patterns of Indian burning in California: ecology and ethnohistory.
Ramona, New Mexico: Ballena Press.
Lightfoot, K.G., & O. Parrish. 2009. California Indians and their environment: an
introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lightfoot, K.G., R.Q. Cuthrell, C.M. Boone, R. Byrne, A.B. Chavez, L. Collins, A.
Cowart, R.R. Evett, F.V.A. Paul, D. Giﬀord-Gonzalez, M.G. Hylkema, V. Lopez, T.M.
Misiewicz, & R.E.B. Reid. 2013. Anthropogenic burning on the Central California
Coast in late Holocene and early historical times: ﬁndings, implications, and future
directions. California Archaeology 5(2): 371–390.
Lightfoot, K.G. & V. Lopez. 2013. The study of Indigenous management practices in
California: an introduction. California Archaeology 5(2): 209–219.
Lightfoot, K.G., V. Lopez, M.G. Hylkema, R.A. Jewett & P.A. Nelson. 2019. The studyof Indigenous landscape and seascape management practices in Central California: asynthesis of recent ﬁndings. Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Matsui, A. & M. Kanehara. 2006. The question of prehistoric plant husbandry during the
Jomon Period in Japan. World Archaeology 18(2): 259–273.
Matsuyama, T. 1981. Nut gathering and processing methods in traditional Japanesevillages, in S. Koyama & D.H. Thomas (eds.) Aﬄuent foragers, Paciﬁc Coast east
© Japanese Archaeological Association

242

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPANand west: 117–139. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9. Osaka, Japan: National Museumof Ethnology.
Nishida, M. 1983. The emergence of food production in Neolithic Japan. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 2: 305–322.
Noshiro, S. & Y. Sasaki. 2014. Pre-agricultural management of plant resources during the
Jomon period in Japan–a sophisticated subsistence system on plant resources. Journalof Archaeological Science 42: 93–106.
Okada, Y. 2003. Jomon Culture of northeastern Japan and the Sannai Maruyama site, in J.
Habu, J.M. Savelle, S. Koyama & H. Hongo Hunter-gatherers of the North Paciﬁc
Rim: 173–186. Senri Ethnological Studies No. 63. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of
Ethnology.
Reddy, S.N. 2009. Havesting the landscape: deﬁning protohistoric plant exploitation incoastal southern California. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 22: 1–10.
Reddy, S.N. 2016. Changing palates and resources: regional and diachronic trends in plantuse in prehistoric California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology
36(2): 227–244.
Sanchez, G.M. 2019. The historical ecology and ancient ﬁsheries of the central California
Coast: insights from Point Reyes National Seashore and the Santa Cruz Coast. PhD
Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley
Sanchez, G.M. 2020. Indigenous stewardship of marine and estuarine ﬁsheries? Reconstructing
the ancient size of Pacific herring through linear regression models. Journal ofArchaeological Science Reports 29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.102061
Sanchez, G.M., K. Gobalet, R.A. Jewett, R.Q. Cuthrell, M. Grone, P. Engel, & K.G.
Lightfoot. 2018. The historical ecology of central California Coast fishing:
perspectives from Point Reyes National Seashore. Journal of Archaeological Science
100: 1–15.
Sasaki, K. 1981. Keynote address: from affluent foragers to agriculture in Japan, in S.
Koyama & D.H. Thomas (eds.) Aﬄuent foragers, Paciﬁc Coast east and west: 13–15.
Senri Ethnological Studies No. 9. Osaka, Japan: National Museum of Ethnology.
Sasaki, Y. & S. Noshiro. 2018. Did a cooling event in the Middle Jomon Periods inducedchange in the use of plant resources in Japan? Quaternary International 471: 369–384.
Stewart, O.C. 2002. Forgotten ﬁres: Native Americans and the transient wilderness (editedby H.T. Lewis & M.K. Anderson). Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Weiser, A. & D. Lepofsky. 2009. Ancient land use and management of Ebey’s Prairie,
Whidbey Island, Washington. Journal of Ethnobiology 29(2): 184–212.
Wohlgemuth, E. 2004. The course of plant food intensiﬁcation in Native Central California.
PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California at Davis.
Yokoyama, S. I. Hirota, S. Tanaka, Y. Ochiai, E. Newata, & Y. Kono. 2014. A review ofstudies on swidden agriculture in Japan: cropping system and disappearing process.
Tropics 22(4): 131–155.

© Japanese Archaeological Association

243

Kent G. LIGHTFOOT

米国カリフォルニア先住民と日本の縄文時代人による景観の維持管理を比較する
ケント・G・ライトフット
和文要旨

本稿では、カリフォルニア先住民（Native Californians）が領域内の資源生産性を増やすために用いた、景観の維持管理の実践（stewardship practices）について、現時点で知られている情報にもとづ
いて総合的に考察する。そして、これらの研究結果を、日本の縄文時代人が用いたと考えられる景観の維持管理と比較する。
カリフォルニア先住民は、除草、耕作、樹木の枝刈り（pruning）と刈込み（coppicing）、さらに野
生植物の灌漑など、さまざまな方法を用いて人為的な景観を形成してきた。一般に、そのもっとも重要な方法は、火を用いた環境管理と言われている。先住民が計画的な野焼き（prescribed burning;
文化としての野焼き cultural burning とも呼ばれる）を始めた理由としては、下草除去、虫害管理、狩猟の効率化、縄や籠を作るための植物性原材料の確保、食料や薬として利用する動植物資源の生産性向上、などが考えられる。この地域の人々は、野焼きの頻度、時期、場所を決めることによって、生物多様性と資源の持続可能性を高め、動植物生息環境の構造を変化させた。結果として、カリフォルニア先住民は、異なる遷移段階のスタンド木立の植生によって特徴づけられる生物群集のモザイク状景観を作り上げた。
筆者は、アマ・ムツン部族バンド（Amah Mutsun Tribal Band）、カリフォルニア州立公園、カリフォルニア大学バークレー校およびサンタクルーズ校を中心とする共同研究チームを結成し、部族の歴史と民族史資料、生態考古学的な研究から得られた複数の証拠を用いて、景観の維持管理に関する学際的な研究を進める機会に恵まれた。このプロジェクトでは、カリフォルニア中部海岸部において作り上げられた人為的な景観について、下記の 3 つの研究課題を設定し、研究を進めた。
1）持続的・人為的な野焼き（sustained anthropogenic burning）はいつごろ始まり、それは地域の生物群集にどのような影響を与えたのか？ 分析の結果、野焼きの起源は、少なくとも 1200 〜
1300 年前までさかのぼることが明らかになった。17 世紀後半に、スペイン人の探検家たちが野焼きを目撃していたことを考え合わせるならば、野焼きは、何世紀にもわたって継続していたと推測される。このような計画的な野焼きの結果、資源が豊富な海岸草原地帯が形成・維持された。植物
遺存体をはじめとする遺跡出土資料の分析結果から、この遺跡に住んでいた人々の食生活は、草原、灌木地帯、森林、水辺環境を含むモザイク状の景観から得られた多様な資源に支えられていたことが明らかになった。
2）野焼きの開始後、先住民による景観維持管理の実践に関して、大きな変化は認められるか？
野焼きの証拠は温暖化と乾燥化を特徴とする中世気候変動期（1050 〜 650BP）に認められると同時に、人々は温暖化以前とそれ以降にも海岸草原地帯を維持していたことがわかった。たとえば、サンタクルーズ海岸では、寒冷期である小氷河期（600 〜 100BP）の初期に海岸草原地帯が維持されていた。これらの結果から考えるならば、気候条件に関わらず定期的な野焼きが行われていた可能性が高い。また、分析の結果、後期完新世には、貝の養殖を含む水産資源の管理とその集約的利用© Japanese Archaeological Association

244

INDIGENOUS STEWARDSHIP PRACTICES IN CALIFORNIA AND JAPANが積極的に行われていたことも明らかになった。
3）カリフォルニア中部海岸部における野焼きの地域的広がりは、どの程度であったか？ 生態考
古学的研究の結果、後期完新世には、調査地域における海岸地帯の草地と野焼きの痕跡は、南はサンタクルーズ海岸から北はポイント・レイズ国立海浜公園まで、幅広い地域に分布していることが分かった。この結果から、カリフォルニア中部海岸部における野焼きは、特定の文化や言語集団に限定されるものではなく、文化的境界を超えた広域的な現象であったことがわかる。
このようなカリフォルニアの研究成果を縄文時代の景観維持管理に関する研究成果と比較した場
合、数多くの共通点が認められる。ただし、縄文時代の資源利用に関してこれまで発表された英語の論考から見る限りでは、1）野焼き、2）植生の管理・栽培を行う場所の選択とその広さ、3）植物以外の資源管理、の 3 点について、カリフォルニアの研究成果とは相違が認められる。
キーワード：縄文時代の考古学、カリフォルニア先住民の考古学、先住民による陸上景観の維持管理の実践、植物栽培、文化としての野焼き、先住民による海浜景観の維持管理の実践© Japanese Archaeological Association

245