> they simply didn't have the modern technology to stop a fire started by lightning.

Or as much fixed and immobile infrastructure that would be endangered by fire-- if there is nothing you care about nearby, why not set a fire to aid in hunting or to clear out plants you can't eat in favor of ones you can?

Just because they intentionally set fires that doesn't itself make it environmentally good-- it's an extraordinarily racist view that the indigenous people weren't capable of environmental destruction just because they were less effective at it than industrial civilizations. The noble savage protector of the land is a racist fantasy of people raised on a diet of Disney movies, not reality.

Right. For some reason people have figured out that “noble savage” is racism, but there’s a bit of latency when it comes to “ignoble white man” flavor of racism.

>forests were actively managed by controlled burns conducted by nature.

This is, by definition, not a controlled burn.

It is, just controlled in a larger macro sense than what humans are capable of.

What they knew was that it was easier to hunt and forage in forests after fire had removed the underbrush. They knew that they would be back next year chasing dear, so they decided to light a fire on the way out to make it easier. No advanced knowledge needed. As time went on, the practice became a ritual.