>>1101581Amerindians had their agricultural epiphany about the time of the Sumerians. They altered the landscape of these continents a lot more than they are given credit for. In North America this was mostly accomplished by the use of fire. They regularly burned the landscape for a number of reasons, usually for their benefit, keeping trees in check in favor of perennials, grasses, berries, medicinal plants and so forth. In stead of advanced material technology, they learned how they could manipulate natural processes to their survival advantage. They weren't perfect, however. They over-hunted, drove species to extinction, had brutal wars with each other over resources, and so forth. Typical human behavior. A really good, although dry and scientific, book about their effect on the landscape, and why "wilderness" is not the "natural" state of affairs in the Americas, is this one:
> Kay's edition effectively debunks two myths. One is the myth of the American Wilderness. This involves a belief that nature is actively self healing, but most importantly, will return herself to a specific equilibrium; a static, synchronic model. A corollary to this belief is that somehow this natural model does not include human interaction.... The claim is that there is one morally superior state of nature that does not include us. Once it is achieved, nature rests.> The second myth is that of the indigenous people of America as passive members of their ecosystems. Several of the chapters in Kay's book argue that this is essentially a racist position. It continues the orientalist strategy of imperialist campaigns. The myth variously claims that the indigenous people were too few, too technologically limited, or too unaware to have any real impact on their ecologies....https://www.amazon.com/Wilderness-Political-Ecology-Charles-Kay/dp/0874807190 