1. Introduction
The physical environment has always played a determinant role throughout human evolution. Ancient hominins adapted to Plio-Pleistocene fluctuating ecosystems, exhibiting, for example, complex patterns of tool-using and carnivorous behaviour [
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10]. Nevertheless, as suggested by O’Brien et al. [
11], it was early
Homo who showed a more generalist and ecologically flexible pattern of behaviour compared with other sympatric hominins, e.g.,
Paranthropus boisei, who was an ecological specialist. The behavioural flexibility of early
Homo to effectively adapt to a broader range of biomes and paleoenvironmental and paleoclimatic variabilities [
12] likely prompted the subsequent amplification of cognitive traits (hence allowing the occupation of higher trophic levels via innovative meat-eating strategies) [
13]. However, Raia et al. [
14] have noted that, unlike other
Homo species whose extinction may have been primarily driven by climate change,
H. sapiens widened its climatic niche. Under this scenario, the recent findings concerning our earliest dispersal into Eurasia ⁓70–200 ka [
15,
16,
17,
18,
19] and the interbreeding with other hominins such as
H. neanderthalensis and Denisovans [
20,
21] further strengthen the view that the plasticity of the human socio-cognitive niche [
22] has proven effective in penetrating Earth’s ecosystems. On this basis, it is evident that this ecological flexibility has enabled our species to adapt and specialise in a wide variety of Late Pleistocene environments [
23]. Humans occupying rainforests from Sri Lanka [
24,
25,
26] to the Amazon [
27,
28,
29] exemplify the complex patterns of human-environmental interactions exhibited during this period.Unarguably, from the Late Pleistocene of global human expansion to early urbanised societies and commercial networks, human niche construction has become the primary driver of ecosystem alterations, causing substantial rates of species extinctions and extirpations [
30].
The Holocene thus marked the dawn of new socio-structural and ecological patterns whereby anthropogenic activities created the necessary conditions for agriculture, animal husbandry, the spread of zoonoses, and socio-economic inequalities [
31]. It is worth remarking that before the domestication of cattle (
Bos spp.) or swine (
Sus scrofa) throughout the Pliocene/Pleistocene, early
Homo began to enter the carnivore guild (primarily exhibiting scavenging patterns), which thus provided the opportunity for taeniid tapeworms circulating among carnivores (e.g., hyaenids and felids) and bovids to contaminate hominins [
32]. Notwithstanding these parasitic infections, and although the ancestors of the modern pathogens were likely present among the earliest hominins, it is unlikely that the transmission of the so-called crowd diseases (e.g., measles, influenza, and smallpox) could have occurred given the small number of individuals within their social groups [
33]. It was not until the shift from foraging to farming ⁓12 ka [
31] that anthropogenic modifications of the environment opened the window for novel human-animal interactions and the spread of zoonotic diseases; domesticated animals thus acted as conduits for human infection by wildlife pathogens [
34].
Overall, due to the novel Holocene sedentary lifestyles, the rise in human population sizes and densities coupled with the intensification of plant and animal domesticates has inevitably triggered the loss of dietary breadth and the transmissibility of zoonotic pathogens [
31,
33,
35]. This is not surprising, as the shifting of subsistence patterns from hunting and gathering to farming significantly impacted the well-being of human societies at that time. Chronologically speaking, for instance, intestinal parasites (human whipworm,
Trichuris trichiura) have been found in a Late Mesolithic burial in Motala, Sweden, probably reflecting patterns of sedentism, crowding, and poor sanitation among the population of hunter-gatherers [
36]. All these factors epitomised by the intensification of agriculture were thus significant drivers for the further transmissibility of bacterial pathogens such as
Salmonella enterica,
Yersinia enterocolitica, and
Yersinia pestis among the Neolithic Scandinavian populations [
37]. Since the Neolithic, the bacterium
Yersinia pestis has spread across Eurasia, facilitated by the intensification of animal husbandry and human mobility [
38]. In the Upper Mun River valley, northeast Thailand, King et al. [
39] also reported that during the Iron Age, changes to social structure and anthropogenic disturbances of tropical forest ecosystems (from the creation of rice paddies and moat systems to the corralling of domestic animals to population growth and social inequality) were critical factors for pathogenic infections (primarily due to the close contact with stagnant water and faecal matter) and health disparities. Remarkably,
Y. pestis, the etiological agent of The Black Death (1347–1352 CE), which spread across Eurasia and North Africa and killed half of the population of those regions, is likely to have been caused by a combination of climatic, ecological, social and economic factors such as human-rodent-flea interactions, intensive agriculture, cereal trade and military campaigns [
40,
41].
Therefore, the Holocene appears to have been one of the most dynamic periods of human adaptation and evolution [
31]. It brought the acceleration of human dominion over nature, ranging from the European colonisation of the Americas to the nuclear explosions of the second half of the twentieth century. From these events, the Anthropocene has gained paramount importance [
42] as a successive geological epoch and starting point of increasing anthropogenic alterations of Earth’s sediment layers [
43,
44]. Consistent with this statement and in connection with the past socio-ecological processes that influenced host-pathogen dynamics, current zoonotic and vector-borne diseases are likely to be caused by human-induced alterations of ecosystems and climate change [
45,
46]. The new SARS-CoV-2 [
47] thus reminds us that cross-species transmission depends significantly on the different modalities of human existence; our presence in the material world is, properly speaking, inextricably intertwined with other entities and hence, chaotic outcomes are highly contingent upon the quality of the human-environment interface. Zoonoses, in essence, are the by-product of the entangled and intricate relationships among humans, different animal taxa, and their econiches [
48,
49,
50,
51,
52,
53].
No wonder, then, the predicament of our human condition involves a wide array of socio-ecological, political, and economic factors affecting a globalised world and its endangered life forms. How could anthropological thinking help us unravel and tackle these issues? Here, we argue that anthropology’s holistic nature provides an in-depth perspective fundamental to drawing inferences about human nature in connection with evolutionary history and contemporary life. Given our current global situation fraught with wars, pandemics, environmental degradation, and socio-economic inequalities, the practice of anthropological inquiry has an advantageous position in grasping conspicuous empirical realities. In short, the question of what it is to be human in connection with other existents is increasingly crucial as life complexifies due to the acceleration of neoliberalism and technoscientific innovations.
2. Anthropological Thinking and the Immersion in Life’s Complexity
As we navigate across anthropological reflections about our biological and socio-ecological conditions, living amid future uncertainties strengthens the will for a better understanding of human nature. Socio-cultural anthropology, in particular, enables us to observe holistically the interconnectedness between individuals and their socio-material realities.Our discipline’s uniqueness has been demonstrated through long-term ethnographic immersion since its inception. Those theoretical and methodological contributions emphasise that the complex behavioural patterns exhibited by the Trobrianders [
54,
55], the Nuer [
56], the Tsembaga [
57] and the Hadza [
58] are the fabric of social relations with more-than-human others. As Evans-Pritchard [
56] reported, “The Nuer do not live in an iron age or even in a stone age, but in an age in which plants and beasts furnish technological necessities.” It comes as no surprise that the physical environment shapes the different modalities of humans’ subsistence strategies. In Melanesia, the Trobrianders and Tsembaga focus mainly on horticulture. Meanwhile, in East Africa, the Nuer prioritize pastoralism with some horticulture, while the Hadza predominantly rely on hunting and gathering. There is, however, a point of convergence between the different modes of socio-ecological relations exhibited by these peoples. Specifically, how the Trobrianders, the Tsembaga, the Nuer, and the Hadza interact with their local ecologies reveals adaptive behaviours whose socio-material and superstructural mechanisms range from meat-eating strategies to kula transactions to marriage rules to ritual cycles to garden magic. It became clear, then, that these societies have adjusted successfully to a wide array of biomes (i.e., lowland rainforest, montane rainforest, and savannah), showing particular ways of relating with the highly localised flora and fauna. Paradoxically, even in the Global North, the capitalist mode of production has revealed the intricate interweaving of multispecies assemblages (e.g., the relations between humans, matsutake mushrooms,
Tricholoma matsutake, and other non-human organisms) and their embedding in wider planetary ecologies [
59]. It is hardly surprising that, as far as social anthropology is concerned, the tools of natural sciences acted as referential templates to inform how individual organisms’ social relations (primarily human social relationships) needed to be analysed empirically [
60]. Of course, those were principally human institutions’ structural and functional properties. These societal systems are, however, enmeshments of sympatric species from diverse organismic kingdoms, as in the case of totemism. These phenomena are illuminating, given the latest anthropological and philosophical interests in multispecies entanglements [
53,
61,
62,
63,
64,
65,
66,
67]. The analysis of ethnographic data further underpins the complexity of these human-environment interactions, reporting indigenous metaphysical principles that regard the material world as a set of relationalities [
68,
69,
70,
71,
72,
73,
74].
Thus, one might speculate that foragers and horticulturalists worldwide ground their ontological and epistemological schemes through mindful negotiations and relations with ecological niches.So, why do these kinds of relationships matter significantly in anthropological thinking?
It is thus palpable that, as anthropologists, we follow the “eternal pursuit of complexities” in that sociality transcends the anthropocentric order of things [
75]. This move towards holistic thinking has profound implications regarding the construction of anthropological knowledge, especially in concert with other scientific disciplines. Thus, the studies of animal culture and cognition [
76,
77,
78] and plant intelligence [
79,
80,
81] may very well align with the basic principles of indigenous ontologies and ecological knowledge.
For instance, hunter-gatherers and horticulturalists have reported high levels of empirical knowledge regarding the behavior and cognition of animals and plants. Among these societies, therefore, the attribution of agentive qualities to animal and plant kingdoms depends considerably on profound biosocial interactions ranging from Circumpolar peoples’ meat-eating strategies to Amazonian conceptualisations of the chemosensory properties of plants [
71,
82,
83]. These highly social and embodied activities are likely based on coevolutionary interactions, providing these societies with an empirical platform to develop complex modes of relations with the natural world.
The ethnographic examples discussed in this section have shown how modern indigenous peoples exhibit subsistence adaptations that evolved within a wide range of ecosystems. Zeller et al. [
12] argue that early
Homo adapted to different biomes utilising different types of resources, hence showing a resilient and successful strategy over hundreds of millennia. From this evolutionary perspective, contemporary hunters, gatherers, horticulturalists, and even pastoralists exhibit patterns of behaviour partially in accord with the resilience and adaptability of our ancestors. However, as the Anthropocene supersedes the Holocene, the anthropogenic changes to ecosystems (e.g., the shift from integrated agricultural practices to monocultures) have taken modern humans away from the ancient resilience pathways [
12]. As such, contrary to natives’ relational ecologies, the so-called modernity tries to crush any remnant of resilience and adaptiveness through harmful and invasive cultural practices eradicating species dependent on narrow niches [
84] or triggering trophic cascades [
85] that drastically disrupt ecosystem structure. Following this line of reasoning, it becomes evident that although humans represent a prominent destructive force of Earth’s systems, this does not follow a progressive evolutionary line.
3. Resilience in the Anthropocene
As stated earlier, the practice of anthropology involves holistic thinking that bridges the gap between biological and social domains.We cannot aim to understand our current climate crises, the emergence of zoonotic diseases, mass extinction, or rising socio-economic inequality without paying close attention to our evolutionary history’s ecological and socio-cultural determinants. The Holocene might be viewed as a good starting point for appreciating the different behavioural pathways undertaken by humans.
For example, during this geological epoch, there was a significant shift in human subsistence patterns. This change triggered a series of unpredictable harmful effects that have influenced our biosocial condition [
31,
35]. This relationship with the environment has shaped current patterns of sedentism, population growth, host-pathogen dynamics, and socio-economic and health disparities. On the other, evidence suggests that, throughout the Holocene climate change events, some small-scale societies coped and thrived primarily due to their adaptive and flexible political and socio-eco-cosmological systems [
86].
If social-cultural anthropology aims to clarify the current Anthropocene epoch, it must integrate these biosocial facts of human evolution. We can thus shed light on the variations of behavioural patterns and coevolutionary spatio-temporal dynamics of the human-environment interface. Considering these evolutionary trajectories, we can also better appreciate the mechanisms behind modern Indigenous peoples to cope with the detrimental environmental impacts of modernity. Recent archaeological evidence from the Amazon rainforest suggests, for instance, that complex settlements existed before the European invasion [
87]. Levis et al. [
88] have also reported structured patterns of plant domestication by Amazonian peoples. However, according to Fausto and Neves [
89], domestication is likely to be a foreign concept among Amazonians precisely because human-plant interactions are essentially characterised by “familiarisation”, as exemplified by the complex ecological, biosocial and ontological relations that women establish with tubers (e.g., manioc,
Manihot esculenta Crantz) [
90,
91,
92,
93]. For example, the Shuar women of the Ecuadorian Amazon consider cultigens (primarily
Manihot esculenta Crantz) as their children and thus show special devotion during planting, tending, and harvesting them. The ecological and biosocial relations that women establish with tubers (from the unique care of the gardens to trophic exchanges to consanguineal relations) are hence well-embedded in a mytho-cosmological and ritual structure that enable the ontological associations between biological kingdoms and immaterial beings [
93]. Remarkably, Mayshar et al. [
94] reported that the cultivation of appropriable cereal grains, rather than perishable food sources like tubers, was likely the primary factor for the emergence of complex hierarchies during the Neolithic Revolution. This is illuminating considering the archaeological and ethnographic evidence that posits food storage (e.g., cereal grains and acorns) as a trigger of socio-economic and political inequalities [
95] that likely led to the further emergence of religious specialists [
96]. One might say that, besides patterns of shifting cultivation and the biological properties of tubers, Amazonian horticulture is a holistic subsistence strategy that entails different levels of interconnected relational processes (hence highlighting the socio-ecological and metaphysical qualities of entities involved in gardening activities) and thus is thoroughly at odds with notions of complex hierarchy through appropriation. From this, we can infer that the choice between intensive agriculture and traditional foraging/horticulture, and whether societies adopt or reject these strategies, significantly impacts the current state of ecosystems and people’s well-being.Traditional subsistence strategies illustrate how societies have retained, adopted, or revived more adaptive and resilient paths to address the environmental and socio-economic impacts of the Holocene-Anthropocene transition.
One of the most pivotal topics of anthropology is the attentiveness to the biosocial dimensions of life entrenched within local and global networks. That is, anthropological thinking gives us the essential means to grasp the micro-macro contemporary societal issues. The COVID-19 pandemic may, therefore, be a clear consequence of harmful behaviors that have consistently affected Earth’s ecosystems.Similar to bacterial diseases that had significant impacts on Neolithic and medieval populations—like salmonellosis and the devastating Black Death—SARS-CoV-2 has shown us how zoonotic diseases swiftly spread across geographic boundaries, highlighting our biological vulnerabilities. After all, our increasingly unsustainable relationship with the natural world will likely pave the way for future pathogenic infections [
97,
98], posing a significant risk for humanity. Notably, in the face of these health issues coupled with the unrestrainable effects of neocolonialism and global capitalism, traditional ecological knowledge may be a valuable empirical toolkit of resilience.
In the Andes, for instance, Gallegos-Riofrío et al. [
99] have reported that a heterarchical organization and local cosmovision provide the rural communities with the means for developing sustainable and resilient agri-food systems. Likewise, among the Amazonian Shuar, traditional horticultural and foraging practices have allowed these people to obtain essential carbohydrate-rich foods such as tubers and medicinal plants to deal with the detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [
100]. Concerning the use of medicinal plants to combat the pandemic, for instance, similar practices have been documented among other Indigenous and traditional peoples of Amazonia [
101,
102], Sub-Saharan Africa [
103] and the Indian Himalayan Region [
104]. If for the Shuar, plant life still plays a crucial role in shaping their way of being, ranging from metaphysics to aesthetics to well-being [
105,
106], then the transmission of ecological knowledge must be flexible enough to withstand external pressures. Shuar ethnopharmacology, therefore, reveals patterns of behaviour also exhibited by ancient hominins [
107] and extant great apes (e.g., Sumatran orangutans,
Pongo abelii: [
108] and chimpanzees,
Pan troglodytes: [
109]) in that complex associations with plant materials provide health benefits amid specific biological circumstances.
Interestingly, recent research suggests that most indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants is linguistically unique and appears strongly associated with threatened languages; consequently, language loss would inevitably drive the extinction of medicinal knowledge [
110]. It is thus essential that the transmission of language and local medicinal knowledge be preserved (see, e.g., [
111,
112] for ethnobotanical surveys conducted among Amazonian peoples), viz., maintaining the continuity of social learning of specific behaviours relating to medicinal plants and their linguistic nuances. These adaptive behaviours, which likely have deep roots in our evolutionary history, may operate as powerful barriers against potential pathogenic diseases and precarious health facilities.
4. Conclusions
It has been argued in this paper that complex patterns of interactions with the physical environment have permeated our entire evolutionary history. Importantly, the Pleistocene-Holocene transition prompted a radical shift in subsistence strategies, driving our species to modify Earth’s ecosystems drastically. The switch from hunting and gathering to intensive farming was thus the key factor in shaping our current biosocial condition, fraught with environmental degradation, pathogenic diseases, and structural inequalities. However, despite the Anthropocene intensifying the issues mentioned earlier, there are still examples of resilience and adaptive behavior among indigenous peoples.Traditional ecological knowledge can be viewed as an empirical platform in which ancestral behavioural patterns provide the paths for mindful human-environment interactions. Specifically, indigenous foraging and horticultural practices are increasingly important, mainly because these are necessary to acquire food and medicinal plants to cope with current environmental and socio-economic precarities.
These lines of evidence must thus persuade anthropology to embrace a biosocial perspective concerning our primordial origins on Earth and the variations of our evolutionary paths within different econiches. This is a challenging commitment for socio-cultural anthropologists who primarily look at human cultural diversity, paying little attention to ecological and biological determinants. If we aim to move beyond human categories of perception [
113], a compenetration of diverse scientific pursuits might elucidate how life forms relate and coevolve, forming complex multispecies assemblages. Indeed, the future of our discipline’s advancements depends on a solid interdisciplinary collaboration to tackle those complicated issues in the face of biocultural destruction. In sum, our relationships with microbes and a globalised planet indicate that we are part of a chain in which microecologies and planetary ones intersect.
Ethics Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author declares that he has no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
1.
Heinzelin JD, Clark JD, White T, Hart W, Renne P, WoldeGabriel G, et al. Environment and behavior of 2.5-million-year-old Bouri hominids.
Science 1999,
284, 625–629. doi:10.1126/science.284.5414.625.
[Google Scholar]
2.
Plummer, T. Flaked stones and old bones: Biological and cultural evolution at the dawn of technology.
Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 2004,
125 (S39), 118–164. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20157.
[Google Scholar]
3.
McPherron SP, Alemseged Z, Marean CW, Wynn JG, Reed D, Geraads D, et al. Evidence for stone-tool-assisted consumption of animal tissues before 3.39 million years ago at Dikika, Ethiopia.
Nature 2010,
466, 857–860. doi:10.1038/nature09248.
[Google Scholar]
4.
Harmand S, Lewis JE, Feibel CS, Lepre CJ, Prat S, Lenoble A, et al. 3.3-million-year-old stone tools from Lomekwi 3, West Turkana, Kenya.
Nature 2015,
521, 310–315. doi:10.1038/nature14464.
[Google Scholar]
5.
Domínguez-Rodrigo M, Baquedano E, Organista E, Cobo-Sánchez L, Mabulla A, Maskara V, et al. Early Pleistocene faunivorous hominins were not kleptoparasitic, and this impacted the evolution of human anatomy and socio-ecology.
Sci. Rep. 2021,
11, 16135. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-94783-4.
[Google Scholar]
6.
Mercader J, Akuku P, Boivin N, Bugumba R, Bushozi P, Camacho A, et al. Earliest Olduvai hominins exploited unstable environments~ 2 million years ago.
Nat. Commun. 2021,
12, 3. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20176-2.
[Google Scholar]
7.
Cobo-Sánchez L, Pizarro-Monzo M, Cifuentes-Alcobendas G, Jiménez García B, Abellán Beltrán N, Courtenay LA, et al. Computer vision supports primary access to meat by early Homo 1.84 million years ago.
PeerJ 2022,
10, e14148. doi:10.7717/peerj.14148.
[Google Scholar]
8.
Mussi M, Mendez-Quintas E, Barboni D, Bocherens H, Bonnefille R, Briatico G, et al. A surge in obsidian exploitation more than 1.2 million years ago at Simbiro III (Melka Kunture, Upper Awash, Ethiopia).
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2023,
7, 337–346. doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01970-1.
[Google Scholar]
9.
Plummer TW, Oliver JS, Finestone EM, Ditchfield PW, Bishop LC, Blumenthal SA, et al. Expanded geographic distribution and dietary strategies of the earliest Oldowan hominins and Paranthropus.
Science 2023,
379, 561–566. doi:10.1126/science.abo7452.
[Google Scholar]
10.
Rodríguez J, Hölzchen E, Caso-Alonso AI, Berndt JO, Hertler C, Timm IJ, et al. Computer simulation of scavenging by hominins and giant hyenas in the late Early Pleistocene.
Sci. Rep. 2023,
13, 14283. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-39776-1.
[Google Scholar]
11.
O’Brien K, Hebdon N, Faith JT. Paleoecological evidence for environmental specialization in Paranthropus boisei compared to early Homo.
J. Hum. Evol. 2023,
177, 103325. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2023.103325.
[Google Scholar]
12.
Zeller E, Timmermann A, Yun KS, Raia P, Stein K, Ruan J. Human adaptation to diverse biomes over the past 3 million years.
Science 2023,
380, 604–608. doi:10.1126/science.abq1288.
[Google Scholar]
13.
Potts, R. Environmental and behavioral evidence pertaining to the evolution of early Homo.
Curr. Anthropol. 2012,
53, S299–S317. doi:10.1086/667704.
[Google Scholar]
14.
Raia P, Mondanaro A, Melchionna M, Di Febbraro M, Diniz-Filho JA, Rangel TF, et al. Past extinctions of Homo species coincided with increased vulnerability to climatic change.
One Earth 2020,
3, 480–490. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2020.09.007.
[Google Scholar]
15.
Petraglia MD, Haslam M, Fuller DQ, Boivin N, Clarkson C. Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim.
Ann. Hum. Biol. 2010,
37, 288–311. doi:10.3109/03014461003639249.
[Google Scholar]
16.
Groucutt HS, Petraglia MD, Bailey G, Scerri EM, Parton A, Clark‐Balzan L, et al. Rethinking the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa.
Evol. Anthropol. 2015,
24, 149–164. doi:10.1002/evan.21455.
[Google Scholar]
17.
Rabett RJ. The success of failed Homo sapiens dispersals out of Africa and into Asia.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2018,
2, 212–219. doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0436-8.
[Google Scholar]
18.
Harvati K, Röding C, Bosman AM, Karakostis FA, Grün R, Stringer C, et al. Apidima Cave fossils provide earliest evidence of Homo sapiens in Eurasia.
Nature 2019,
571, 500–504. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1376-z.
[Google Scholar]
19.
Vallini L, Zampieri C, Shoaee MJ, Bortolini E, Marciani G, Aneli S, et al. The Persian plateau served as hub for Homo sapiens after the main out of Africa dispersal.
Nat. Commun. 2024,
15, 1882. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46161-7.
[Google Scholar]
20.
Sankararaman S, Mallick S, Patterson N, Reich D. The combined landscape of Denisovan and Neanderthal ancestry in present-day humans.
Curr. Biol. 2016,
26, 1241–1247. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.03.037.
[Google Scholar]
21.
Stringer C, Crété L. Mapping Interactions of H. neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens from the Fossil and Genetic Records.
PaleoAnthropology 2022,
2, 371–381. doi:10.48738/2022.iss2.130.
[Google Scholar]
22.
Whiten A, Erdal D. The human socio-cognitive niche and its evolutionary origins.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012,
367, 2119–2129. doi:10.1098/rstb.2012.0114.
[Google Scholar]
23.
Roberts P, Stewart BA. Defining the ‘generalist specialist’niche for Pleistocene Homo sapiens.
Nat. Hum. Behav. 2018,
2, 542–550. doi:10.1038/s41562-018-0394-4.
[Google Scholar]
24.
Roberts P, Perera N, Wedage O, Deraniyagala S, Perera J, Eregama S, et al. Direct evidence for human reliance on rainforest resources in late Pleistocene Sri Lanka.
Science 2015,
347, 1246–1249. doi:10.1126/science.aaa1230.
[Google Scholar]
25.
Roberts P, Perera N, Wedage O, Deraniyagala S, Perera J, Eregama S, et al. Fruits of the forest: human stable isotope ecology and rainforest adaptations in Late Pleistocene and Holocene (∼36 to 3 ka) Sri Lanka.
J. Hum. Evol. 2017,
106, 102–118. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.01.015.
[Google Scholar]
26.
Wedage O, Amano N, Langley MC, Douka K, Blinkhorn J, Crowther A, et al. Specialized rainforest hunting by Homo sapiens~ 45,000 years ago.
Nat. Commun. 2019,
10, 739. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08623-1.
[Google Scholar]
27.
Morcote-Ríos G, Aceituno FJ, Iriarte J, Robinson M, Chaparro-Cárdenas JL. Colonisation and early peopling of the Colombian Amazon during the Late Pleistocene and the Early Holocene: new evidence from La Serranía La Lindosa.
Quat. Int. 2021,
578, 5–19. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2020.04.026.
[Google Scholar]
28.
Iriarte J, Ziegler MJ, Outram AK, Robinson M, Roberts P, Aceituno FJ, et al. Ice Age megafauna rock art in the Colombian Amazon?
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2022,
377, 20200496. doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0496.
[Google Scholar]
29.
Aceituno FJ, Robinson M, Morcote-Ríos G, Aguirre AM, Osborn J, Iriarte, J. The peopling of Amazonia: Chrono-stratigraphic evidence from Serranía La Lindosa, Colombian Amazon.
Quat. Sci. Rev. 2024,
327, 108522. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2024.108522.
[Google Scholar]
30.
Boivin NL, Zeder MA, Fuller DQ, Crowther A, Larson G, Erlandson JM, et al. Ecological consequences of human niche construction: Examining long-term anthropogenic shaping of global species distributions.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016,
113, 6388–6396. doi:10.1073/pnas.1525200113.
[Google Scholar]
31.
Larsen CS. The past 12,000 years of behavior, adaptation, population, and evolution shaped who we are today.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023,
120, e2209613120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2209613120.
[Google Scholar]
32.
Hoberg EP, Alkire NL, Queiroz AD, Jones A. Out of Africa: origins of the Taenia tapeworms in humans.
Proc. R. Soc. London. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2001,
268, 781–787. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1579.
[Google Scholar]
33.
Larsen CS. The bioarchaeology of health crisis: Infectious disease in the past.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2018,
47, 295–313. doi:10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041441.
[Google Scholar]
34.
Pearce-Duvet JM. The origin of human pathogens: evaluating the role of agriculture and domestic animals in the evolution of human disease.
Biol. Rev. 2006,
81, 369–382. doi:10.1017/S1464793106007020.
[Google Scholar]
35.
Lewis CM, Jr., Akinyi MY, DeWitte SN, Stone AC. Ancient pathogens provide a window into health and well-being.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023,
120, e2209476119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2209476119.
[Google Scholar]
36.
Bergman, J. Stone age disease in the north–human intestinal parasites from a Mesolithic burial in Motala, Sweden.
J. Archaeol. Sci. 2018,
96, 26–32. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2018.05.008.
[Google Scholar]
37.
Bergfeldt N, Kırdök E, Oskolkov N, Mirabello C, Unneberg P, Malmström H, et al. Identification of microbial pathogens in Neolithic Scandinavian humans.
Sci. Rep. 2024,
14, 5630. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-56096-0.
[Google Scholar]
38.
Andrades Valtueña A, Neumann GU, Spyrou MA, Musralina L, Aron F, Beisenov A, et al. Stone Age Yersinia pestis genomes shed light on the early evolution, diversity, and ecology of plague.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2022,
119, e2116722119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2116722119.
[Google Scholar]
39.
King CL, Halcrow SE, Tayles N, Shkrum, S. Considering the palaeoepidemiological implications of socio-economic and environmental change in Southeast Asia.
Archaeol. Res. Asia 2017,
11, 27–37. doi:10.1016/j.ara.2017.05.003.
[Google Scholar]
40.
Green MH. The four black deaths.
Am. Hist. Rev. 2020,
125, 1601–1631. doi:10.1093/ahr/rhaa511.
[Google Scholar]
41.
Izdebski A, Guzowski P, Poniat R, Masci L, Palli J, Vignola C, et al. Palaeoecological data indicates land-use changes across Europe linked to spatial heterogeneity in mortality during the Black Death pandemic.
Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2022,
6, 297–306. doi:10.1038/s41559-021-01652-4.
[Google Scholar]
42.
Lewis SL, Maslin MA. Defining the anthropocene.
Nature 2015,
519, 171–180. doi:10.1038/nature14258.
[Google Scholar]
43.
Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Fortey R, Smith A, Barry TL, Coe AL, et al. Stratigraphy of the Anthropocene.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 2011,
369, 1036–1055. doi:10.1098/rsta.2010.0315.
[Google Scholar]
44.
Waters CN, Simon DT. Defining the onset of the Anthropocene.
Science 2022,
378, 706–708. doi:10.1126/science.ade2310.
[Google Scholar]
45.
Páez DJ, Restif O, Eby P, Plowright RK. Optimal foraging in seasonal environments: implications for residency of Australian flying foxes in food-subsidized urban landscapes.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2018,
373, 20170097. doi:10.1098/rstb.2017.0097.
[Google Scholar]
46.
Del Lesto I, De Liberato C, Casini R, Magliano A, Ermenegildi A, Romiti F. Is Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) going to become homodynamic in Southern Europe in the next decades due to climate change?
R. Soc. Open Sci. 2022,
9, 220967. doi:10.1098/rsos.220967.
[Google Scholar]
47.
Rajendran M, Babbitt GA. Persistent cross-species SARS-CoV-2 variant infectivity predicted via comparative molecular dynamics simulation.
R. Soc. Open Sci. 2022,
9, 220600. doi:10.1098/rsos.220600.
[Google Scholar]
48.
MacGregor H, Waldman L. Views from many worlds: Unsettling categories in interdisciplinary research on endemic zoonotic diseases.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 2017,
372, 20160170. doi:10.1098/rstb.2016.0170.
[Google Scholar]
49.
Doron, A. Stench and sensibilities: On living with waste, animals and microbes in India.
Aust. J. Anthropol. 2021,
32, 23–41. doi:10.1111/taja.12380.
[Google Scholar]
50.
Milstein MS, Shaffer CA, Suse P, Marawanaru A, Heinrich DA, Larsen PA, et al. A mixed-methods approach to understanding domestic dog health and disease transmission risk in an indigenous reserve in Guyana, South America.
PLoS Neglected Trop. Dis. 2022,
16, e0010469. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0010469.
[Google Scholar]
51.
Shaffer CA, Milstein MS, Lindsey LL, Wolf TM, Suse P, Marawanaru E, et al. “Spider Monkey Cotton”: Bridging Waiwai and Scientific Ontologies to Characterize Spider Monkey (Ateles paniscus) Filariasis in the Konashen Community Owned Conservation Area, Guyana.
Int. J. Primatol. 2022,
43, 253–272. doi:10.1007/s10764-021-00272-w.
[Google Scholar]
52.
van Vliet N, Muhindo J, Nyumu J, Enns C, Massé F, Bersaglio B, et al. Understanding Factors that Shape Exposure to Zoonotic and Food-Borne Diseases Across Wild Meat Trade Chains.
Hum. Ecol. 2022,
50, 983–995. doi:10.1007/s10745-022-00361-1.
[Google Scholar]
53.
Arregui AG. Reversible pigs: An infraspecies ethnography of wild boars in Barcelona.
Am. Ethnol. 2023,
50, 115–128. doi:10.1111/amet.13114.
[Google Scholar]
54.
Malinowski B. Argonauts of the Western Pacific; Routledge & Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1922.
55.
Malinowski B. Coral Gardens and Their Magic; American Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1935.
56.
Evans-Pritchard EE. The Nuer; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1940.
57.
Rappaport RA. Pig for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People, 2nd ed.; Waveland Press, Inc.: Long Grove, IL, USA, 2000.
58.
O’Connell JF, Hawkes K, Jones NB. Hadza scavenging: implications for Plio/Pleistocene hominid subsistence.
Curr. Anthropol. 1988,
29, 356–363. doi:10.1086/203648.
[Google Scholar]
59.
Tsing AL. The Mushroom at the End of the World : On the Possibility of Life in Capitalist Ruins; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2015.
60.
Radcliffe-Brown AR. Structure and Function in Primitive Society; Routledge and Kegan Paul: London, UK, 1952.
61.
Kohn E. How Dogs Dream: Amazonian Natures and the Politics of Trans-species Engagement.
Am. Ethnol. 2007,
34, 3–24. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.3.
[Google Scholar]
62.
Candea M. I Fell in Love with Carlos the Meerkat’: Engagement and Detachment in Human-Animal Relations.
Am. Ethnol. 2020,
37, 241–258. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1425.2010.01253.x.
[Google Scholar]
63.
Kirksey E, Helmreich S. The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography.
Cult. Anthropol. 2010,
25, 545–576. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x.
[Google Scholar]
64.
Van Dooren T. The Wake of Crows: Living and Dying in Shared Worlds; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
65.
Kirksey, E. Chemosociality in multispecies worlds: Endangered frogs and toxic possibilities in Sydney.
Environ. Humanit. 2020,
12, 23–50. doi:10.1215/22011919-8142198.
[Google Scholar]
66.
Daly L. Cassava spirit and the seed of history: on garden cosmology in Northern Amazonia.
Anthropol. Forum 2021,
31, 377–395. doi:10.1080/00664677.2021.1994918.
[Google Scholar]
67.
Hartigan J, Jr. Knowing Animals: Multispecies Ethnography and the Scope of Anthropology.
Am. Anthropol. 2021,
123, 846–860. doi:10.1111/aman.13631.
[Google Scholar]
68.
Viveiros de Castro E. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism.
J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 1998,
4, 469–488. doi:10.2307/3034157.
[Google Scholar]
69.
Bird-David, N. ‘Animism’ Revisited: Personhood, Environment, and Relational Epistemology.
Curr. Anthropol. 1999,
40, 67–91. doi:10.1086/200061.
[Google Scholar]
70.
Ingold T. Rethinking the Animate, Re-Animating Thought.
Ethnos 2006,
71, 9–20. doi:10.1080/00141840600603111.
[Google Scholar]
71.
Nadasdy, P. The gift in the animal: The ontology of hunting and human–animal sociality.
Am. Ethnol. 2007,
34, 25–43. doi:10.1525/ae.2007.34.1.25.
[Google Scholar]
72.
Descola, P. Beyond Nature and Culture; University of Chicago Press: London UK, 2013.
73.
Rose DB. Val Plumwood’s philosophical animism: Attentive interactions in the sentient world.
Environ. Humanit. 2013,
3, 93–109. doi:10.1215/22011919-3611248.
[Google Scholar]
74.
Panoff, F. Maenge Gardens; (F. Barbira-Freedman, éd.; 1--); Pacific-Credo Publications: Marseille,France 2018, doi:10.4000/books.pacific.690.
75.
Abad Espinoza, LG. Transcending Human Sociality: Eco-Cosmological Relationships between Entities in the Ecosphere. Disparidades.
Rev. De Antropol. ÍA 2022,
77, e005. doi:10.3989/dra.2022.005.
[Google Scholar]
76.
Griffin DR. From cognition to consciousness.
Anim. Cogn. 1998,
1, 3–16. doi:10.1007/s100710050002.
[Google Scholar]
77.
Allen JA. Community through Culture: From Insects to Whales.
BioEssays 2019,
41, 1900060. doi:10.1002/bies.201900060.
[Google Scholar]
78.
Schuppli C, Van Schaik CP. Animal cultures: how we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg.
Evol. Hum. Sci. 2019,
1, E2. doi:10.1017/ehs.2019.1.
[Google Scholar]
79.
Marder, M. Plant intelligence and attention.
Plant Signal. Behav. 2013,
8, e23902. doi:10.4161/psb.23902.
[Google Scholar]
80.
Mancuso S, Viola A. Brilliant Green: The Surprising History and Science of Plant Intelligence; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2015.
81.
Calvo P, Gagliano M, Souza GM, Trewavas A. Plants are intelligent, here’s how.
Ann. Bot. 2020,
125, 11–28. doi:10.1093/aob/mcz155.
[Google Scholar]
82.
Willerslev R. Soul Hunters: Hunting, Animism, and Personhood among the Siberian Yukaghirs; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2007.
83.
Shepard GH, Jr., Daly L. Sensory Ecology, Bioeconomy, and the Age of COVID: A Parallax View of Indigenous and Scientific Knowledge.
Top. Cogn. Sci. 2023,
15, 584–607. doi:10.1111/tops.12666.
[Google Scholar]
84.
Wang S, Li Y, Zhou J, Jiang K, Chen J, Ye Z, et al. The anthropogenic effect of land use on population genetics of Malcus inconspicuus.
Evol. Appl. 2023,
16, 98–110. doi:10.1111/eva.13512.
[Google Scholar]
85.
Estes JA, Duggins DO. Sea otters and kelp forests in Alaska: generality and variation in a community ecological paradigm.
Ecol. Monogr. 1995,
65, 75–100. doi:10.2307/2937159.
[Google Scholar]
86.
Schug GR, Buikstra JE, DeWitte SN, Baker BJ, Berger E, Buzon MR, et al. Climate change, human health, and resilience in the Holocene.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023,
120, e2209472120. doi:10.1073/pnas.2209472120.
[Google Scholar]
87.
Prümers H, Betancourt CJ, Iriarte J, Robinson M, Schaich M. Lidar reveals pre-Hispanic low-density urbanism in the Bolivian Amazon.
Nature 2022,
606, 325–328. doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04780-4.
[Google Scholar]
88.
Levis C, Costa FR, Bongers F, Peña-Claros M, Clement CR, Junqueira AB, et al. Persistent effects of pre-Columbian plant domestication on Amazonian forest composition.
Science 2017,
355, 925–931. doi:10.1126/science.aal0157.
[Google Scholar]
89.
Fausto C, Neves EG. Was There Ever a Neolithic in the Neotropics? Plant Familiarisation and Biodiversity in the Amazon.
Antiquity 2018,
92, 1604–1618. doi:10.15184/aqy.2018.157.
[Google Scholar]
90.
Hugh-Jones C. From the Milk River: Spatial and Temporal Processes in Northwest Amazonia; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1979.
91.
Descola, P. In the Society of Nature: A Native Ecology in Amazonia; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1994.
92.
Emperaire L, Velthem LV, Oliveira AGD. Patrimônio Cultural Imaterial e Sistema Agrícola: o manejo da diversidade agrícola no médio rio negro Amazonas.
CiÊNcia E Ambiente 2012,
44, 141–154.
[Google Scholar]
93.
Abad Espinoza, LG. Patterns of human-plant interaction: The nature and significance of Amazonian horticulture. Unpublished manuscript.
94.
Mayshar J, Moav O, Pascali L. The origin of the state: Land productivity or appropriability?
J. Political Econ. 2022,
130, 1091–1144. doi:10.1086/718372.
[Google Scholar]
95.
Hayden B. Archaeological pitfalls of storage.
Curr. Anthropol. 2020,
61, 763–793. doi:10.1086/712087.
[Google Scholar]
96.
Watts J, Hamerslag EM, Sprules C, Shaver JH, Dunbar RI. Food storage facilitates professional religious specialization in hunter–gatherer societies.
Evol. Hum. Sci. 2022,
4, e17. doi:10.1017/ehs.2022.17.
[Google Scholar]
97.
Lorenz C, de Oliveira Lage M, Chiaravalloti-Neto F. Deforestation hotspots, climate crisis, and the perfect scenario for the next epidemic: The Amazon time bomb.
Sci. Total Environ. 2021,
783, 147090. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147090.
[Google Scholar]
98.
Weaver AK, Head JR, Gould CF, Carlton EJ, Remais JV. Environmental factors influencing COVID-19 incidence and severity.
Annu. Rev. Public Health 2022,
43, 271–291. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-052120-101420.
[Google Scholar]
99.
Gallegos-Riofrío CA, Waters WF, Carrasco-Torrontegui A, Iannotti LL. Ecological community: Heterarchical organization in a contemporary agri-food system in Northern Andes.
Geoforum 2021,
127, 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.09.011.
[Google Scholar]
100.
Abad Espinoza, LG. The Ethnographic Quest in the Midst of COVID-19.
Int. J. Qual. Methods 2022,
21, 16094069221135967. doi:10.1177/16094069221135967.
[Google Scholar]
101.
Wright RM. The’Sparks of Kuwai’: Baniwa Cosmovision, Covid-19, and the’Nós Cuidamos’[‘We Care’] Campaign.
J. Study Relig. Nat. Cult. 2022,
16, 50. doi:10.1558/jsrnc.20769.
[Google Scholar]
102.
Bedoya-Molina S, Pérez-Pinzón DM, Rodríguez-Colmenares NA, Gualteros-Lesmes DY, Guzmán-Correa AC, Murcia-Aranguren, M.I. Experiencias y prácticas en salud: COVID-19 y Tuberculosis en dos comunidades multiétnicas en Leticia-Amazonas, Colombia.
Mundo AmazÓNico 2024,
15, e104802. doi:10.15446/ma.v15n1.104802.
[Google Scholar]
103.
Attah AF, Fagbemi AA, Olubiyi O, Dada-Adegbola H, Oluwadotun A, Elujoba A, et al. Therapeutic potentials of antiviral plants used in traditional african medicine with COVID-19 in focus: a Nigerian perspective.
Front. Pharmacol. 2021,
12, 596855. doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.596855.
[Google Scholar]
104.
Maikhuri RK, Maletha A, Singh R, Bhatt G, Agarwal S, Dhyani S, et al. Traditional health care systems and immunity boosting: exploring plant based indigenous knowledge systems amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Discov. Plants 2024,
1, 5. doi:10.1007/s44372-024-00005-2.
[Google Scholar]
105.
Abad Espinoza LG. The moral philosophy of nature: Spiritual Amazonian conceptualisations of the environment.
Open J. Humanit. 2019,
1, 149–190. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/68YNV.
[Google Scholar]
106.
Abad Espinoza LG. Más allá de las operaciones del pensamiento salvaje entre los shuar de la Amazonía ecuatoriana. In Antropologías hechas en Ecuador. El quehacer antropológico-Tomo IV; González T, Imbaquingo CC, Juncosa JE, García F, Eds.; Asociación Latinoamericana de Antropología; Editorial Abya-Yala; Universidad Politécnica Salesiana (UPS) and la Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO-Ecuador): Quito, Ecuador, 2022; pp. 274–286.
107.
Hagen EH, Blackwell AD, Lightner AD, Sullivan RJ. Homo medicus: The transition to meat eating increased pathogen pressure and the use of pharmacological plants in Homo.
Am. J. Biol. Anthropol. 2023,
180, 589–617. doi:10.1002/ajpa.24718.
[Google Scholar]
108.
Laumer IB, Rahman A, Rahmaeti T, Azhari U, Hermansyah, Atmoko SSU, et al. Active self-treatment of a facial wound with a biologically active plant by a male Sumatran orangutan.
Sci. Rep. 2024,
14, 8932. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-58988-7.
[Google Scholar]
109.
Freymann E, Carvalho S, Garbe LA, Dwi Ghazhelia D, Hobaiter C, Huffman MA, et al. Pharmacological and behavioral investigation of putative self-medicative plants in Budongo chimpanzee diets.
PLoS ONE 2024,
19, e0305219. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0305219.
[Google Scholar]
110.
Cámara-Leret R, Bascompte J. Language extinction triggers the loss of unique medicinal knowledge.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021,
118, e2103683118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2103683118.
[Google Scholar]
111.
Giovannini P. Medicinal plants of the Achuar (Jivaro) of Amazonian Ecuador: Ethnobotanical survey and comparison with other Amazonian pharmacopoeias.
J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015,
164, 78–88. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2015.01.038.
[Google Scholar]
112.
Pedrollo CT, Kinupp VF, Shepard G, Jr., Heinrich M. Medicinal plants at Rio Jauaperi, Brazilian Amazon: Ethnobotanical survey and environmental conservation.
J. Ethnopharmacol. 2016,
186, 111–124. doi:10.1016/j.jep.2016.03.055.
[Google Scholar]
113.
Kohn E. How Forests Think: Toward an Anthropology Beyond the Human; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2013.
