Cultural Ecology- A Brief Overview

8/12/2019 Cultural Ecology- A Brief Overview

1/11

University of Nebraska - Lincoln

DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of

1-1-1980

CULTUL ECOLOGY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW

Michael C. Gunn

University of Nebraska-Lincoln

Follow this and additional works at: hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro

Part of theAnthropology Commons

is Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It

has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln.

Gunn, Michael C., "CULTUL ECOLOGY: A BRIEF OVERVIEW" (1980).Nebraska Anthropologist. Paper 149.hp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/149
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthro?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/318?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/149?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/149?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/318?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthro?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPageshttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/?utm_source=digitalcommons.unl.edu%2Fnebanthro%2F149&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages


2/11


3/11

19

1 ology is based on the interact ion of culture, man, and encu1turaT ~ h understanding of th is re la t ionship the present paper dis ronment ~ g i n and development of cultural ecology, the various appl ica-us ses t :e orhniqUes of cultural ecology by the anthropological discipline ,ions an11teccriticisms and future goals of an ecological anthropology.fina y,

1 Y i s not an anthropological subdiscipl ine, nor i s i t even aEco ogd dized approach in anthropology (Bates, 1953). Ecology may be def1nedtan ar h h d f bl f Ih science dealing W t t e stu y 0 ent1re assem ages 0 1v1ng or-t e and their physical milieus, which together const i tu te integrateds (Anderson, 1973:182). More simply, ecology i s the study of the s trucr ~ e n d dynamics of nature, mankind being a par t of nature (alum, 1975:1).th of these definit ions stem from concepts developed from biology and theio1og ica l nature of the world. The dualism which separates the study oftural environment from the study of human environment had effect ivelyin the past to isola te the natural sciences from the social sciences.The holis t ic concept of ecosystem - - a type of general system capable ofincluding the act iv i t ies of man - - has recent ly gained wide acceptance. The

ecosystem conceptually unites the biology, organizat ion, and behavior of manth other animals, plants, and inorganic concepts within a single frameworkin which the in teract ion of the components may be studied (Anderson, 1973:183). This i s part icular ly appealing to anthropology since t allows forthe study of the mutually dependent in teract ions of organic, inorganic, andsociocultural components.Within the discipl ine of anthropology, the concept of cultural ecologyarose from a long series of thoughts and publicat ions concerning environ

mental problems (e .g . , Semple, 1911; McKenzie, 1924, 1926; Forde, 1934;Alihan, 1938; Kroeber, 1939; and others) . Early in the ecological study ofculture two in te l lec tua l camps formed. The environmental deterministsclaimed culture resulted from a mechanical '1ction of natural forces upona purely receptive humanity. The environmental poss ib i l i s t s fe l t culturesact selectively, i f not capriciously, upon their environments, exploi t ingsome possibil i t ies while ignoring others (Sahlins, 1964:132). There werethose, though, who found ut i l i ty in a combination of these theor ies . OtisMason (1905:427) fe l t that nonhuman environmental factors determined culturaldevelopment, but also stated that the environment provided options for cultures.

Perhaps the most inf luentia l figure in the development of cultural ecologyJulian Steward. Steward recognized that the principle di f f icu l ty in usingthe cultural factor in ecological studies was the lack of clear object ivesfound in the biological use of ecology. Steward proposed the use of an explanatory or causal method with cul tura l ecology and an operat ional toolrather than as an end in i t se l f . To do th is , two different object ives weresuggested: 1) an understanding of the organic function and genetic var ia t ionsof man as a purely biological species, and 2) a determination of how cultureis affected by i t s adaptat ion to environment (Steward, 1955:31). For anthropology, the second of these object ives was seen to have the most emphasis,Steward defined cultural ecology as a methodological tool for ascerta ining


4/11

20

f a culture to i t s environment may enta i l certain changes,the adaptation 0 to determine whether similar adjustments occur in s imilarn a larger sense,t Steward, 1955:42).ironmen sf I t that the relationship of man, the organism, to the environStewardb e onsidered separately from the re la t ionship of cul ture to theto e c . fThe biological adaptatlon 0 man lS seen as const l tu t lng at . t of ecological research (Rayda and Rappaport, 1968:483). The

._ T . . te segmene t for anthropology, then, lS the ln te r re la t lon between culture andcon Pt This is the best studied through the use of three fundamentalironmen 1) h 1 1 . h .of cultural ecology: tec noenVlronmenta re atlons lPS,exploi tat ion s tra tegies , adn 3) the effects of technological -exploi ta t ionedures on other aspects of culture (Steward, 1955:40-41).

The purpose of cultural ecology is to explain the origins of par t icular1tura1 patterns which characterize part icular cultural areas instead ofriving general principles applicable to any cultural-environmental s i tuation

Steward, 1955:36, 1968:337). Emphasis i s placed on the study of the part icurs of local environments rather than on unique cul tures his tor ies Wayda andr t , 1968:483). However, Steward s method ul t imately leads to theidentif ication of related types of exploi ta t ive and demographic patterns whichshape kinship organization Helm, 1962:631).At the present time the f ie ld of cultural ecology can be divided intodifferent approaches, each approach tending to center on one or morespects of the relationship of culture to environment. Others (Anderson,

1973; Richtsmeier, 1978) have devised c lass i f ica t ion schemes for some of theapproaches toward cul tura l ecology. For the purpose of th is report , cer ta inof the categories as defined by Anderson and/or Richtsmeier, and deemed par t i -cularly s ignif icant by this author, wil l be examined in l ight of their pastachievements and future potentials .

The f i r s t of the approaches to be examined is that of demography andpopulation s t ructure . The centra l question of th is approach i s , ow do sociocultural and other ecological variables re la te to the numbers and dis tr ibutionsof human populations (Anderson, 1973:194)? Factors such as fe r t i l i ty ,mortal i ty, disease, nutr i t ion, migration, and socia l organization are a l lpertinent variables that must be examined. Research in demographics may bedirected a t l iving e.g . , Birdsel l , 1953, 1970; Lorimer, 1954; Barth, 1956) orprehistoric e.g. , Birdsel l , 1958; Carniero and Hi1se, 1967; McArthur, 1970)populations. A new aspect of th is category recently garnering much a t ten t ionis the concept of carrying capacity. Carrying capacity deals with the optimalnumber of people that a part icular resource area can support. While s t i l l ini t s developmental stages, several people are using this concept to furthertheir demographic knowledge in re la t ion to archeological circumstances e.g . ,Zubrow, 1971, 1975). While carrying capacity may develop great demographicut i l i ty i f the techniques involved are ref ined, a t present i t is under a gooddeal of cri t icism e.g . , Brush, 1975, 1976; Hayden, 1975). Crit icisms havebeen levied against the often arbitrary process of ecosystem boundary delineationthe u n e f ~ n e varying intensi ty with which groups use port ions of their ecosystem:especla11y the high margin of error present in the s t a t i s t i ca l methods used.


5/11

2

f bsistence patterns in re la t ion to cul tura l ecology probablyThe use S ~ s t percentage of the cul tura l ecology l i te ra ture . Hunteries thed ar tora1 nomadic societ ies have been the focus of anthropologicaltherers an pa years Central to these studies i s analysis of the energeticsfor many . .h food procurement processes. Whether the analyses show max1ma1lved in t em minimal energy expenditure e.g . , Lee, 1969) or an energysistence ro . . 1968) .struggle for sustenance e.g . , W1111ams, . to:a1 energet1c pro-i unclear. Analyses of human energy re1at10ns 1n these types ofcessesiremaiSnhypothetica11Y simplist ic , one reason being that they are seensociet es . I h 1d b d h hi t independent of other soc1et1es. t s ou e no t e , owever, t a tto exds ot (Richtsmeier, 1978). The subsistence oriented cultural ecologicalthey 0 n 1 d .,. . t . h 1) d t . .studies take an essential y eterm1n1st1c POS 10n t at : a ap at :on 1Ss the major process in culture change and therefore these stud1es haveseen a 1 l . d h l h' bvolutionary tone, 2 ana YS S 1S 1m1te to t e re at10ns 1p etweenv ~ r o n m e n t a l and subsistence concerns, 3 both culture and environment are

divided into relevant and i r relevant parts , and 4) the goal i s to uncovermodels of l inear causation by describing relationships which obtain betweenrelevant variables (Richtsmeier, 1978:14).

An addit ional aspect of the subsistence pattern studies i s the use ofcultural ecology in studies of land use and the development of agricul ture.When dealing with agricul tural development a greater number of variables mustbe taken into account. Such things as the paleo-ecology of the area, thedemographic and population dis tr ibution figures, the level of technology, andthe social organization are especially important. Through the use of paleobotanyand cultural variables cer tain progress has been achieved in th is area e.g . ,Boserup, 1965; Cohen, 1971; Bender, 1975, 1978).

Social organization in re la t ion to cultural ecology i s br ie f ly mentionedprevious sect ions. The problem of th is approach centers around the effectfeatures of the habitat upon the organizat ion of groups, s t ra t i f ica t ion,leadership, and other socia l inst i tu t ions. Ecological studies are often basedon the bel ief that socio-cu1tura1 ins t i tu t ions of populations - - laws e.g . ,Oliver, 1965), r i tua l e.g . , Rappaport, 1971), warfare e.g . , Vayda, 1974,1976), poli t ical organization e.g . , Stevenson, 1968), economic organizat ione.g. , Sah1ins, 1971), etc. - - are adaptive processes of these populations tothe surrounding environment. This requires a greater appreciat ion of the manculture-environment connection (Richtsmeier, 1978). The major cr i t ic i sm ofthis type of study centers around the use of certain cul tural variables to

the exclusion of others, making the studies par t icula te ra ther than hol i s t ic .. Human biobehaviora1 studies provide a l ink between ecological and evo1ut10nary studies. Application of the principles of mammalian ecology to proto

hominid ecology has provided useful results in the reconstruct ion or protohominidevolution e.g . , Bartho1onew and Birdsel l , 1953). Studies dealing with thesocial behavior and the ecology of sub-human primate populations contribute~ r e a t 1 Y to the reconstruct ion of hominid biobehaviora1 evolution e.g . , Wash-

u ~ n 1961). An understanding of the importance of biological factors in theor1gins of cultural behavior has done much to develop our knowledge of humanevolution (Anderson, 1973).


6/11

22

f i 1 approach to be discussed in this report is perhaps the oneThe . na the most potent ia l . At the present only a few descr ipt ive ande s e n t ~ n g t u d i e s of specific human populations and their environments ast iC: v: been attempted. These studies are general ly longitudinal interns : involve investigative attempts which necess i ta te an in te rd isc i -ture ~ e m of researchers. These studies have focused on maintenance pro-ry f particular subsistence systems that keep crucial variables within

e S p ~ i v e range (Anderson, 1973:198). The studies of Conklin (1954a, 1954b),(1965, 1969), and Rappaport (1967a, 1967b) stand out as the best examplesf the systemic approach in cultural ecology. Despite high levels of accom

ishrnent, these studies exhibi t several weaknesses that can be avoided insequent studies. The works of Conklin are comprehensive and well done,t his separation of environmental features from cul tural features leaveshe work jus t short of a ful ly systemic approach. The works of Lee andppaport are especial ly well done in their use of caloric measurements andtein intake to estimate productivi ty and carrying capacity. Rappaport 'sin problems center around his use of data that lacks a l ink with theory ands failure to fully use the concept of energy flow within the ecosystem. Lee'sstudies also lack suff ic ient a t ten t ion to the concepts of productivi ty, predation, and energy flow. These are the peioneering works of this approach, andi t is only in their weakensses that improvements need be made. As more variables come under considerat ion more complex problems wil l appear, but these

problems to be dealt with in the future, not the present (Anderson, 1973).As ideas sow a harvest of knowledge, they also reap i t s l imitat ions;is the heurist ic success of philosophical perspectives, theoret ica l

viewpoints, methodological s t ra teg ies and research techniques are inevitablyaccompanied by counter-productive consequences (Anderson, 1973:201). Theconcept of man against nature i s looked upon by many as a powerful influence.an is seen locked in a constant bat t le for conquest over nature. an is

placed above and separate from nature, nature being placed a t the disposalof man to be used as man's ra t iona l i ty and purposes dic ta te . Growing fromthese ideas i s the nature-nurture question and the idea of progress definedas technological advancement. While most, i f not a l l anthropologists woulddeny that any of the above ideas influence their perspective, each of theseretarded man-nature studies in anthropology for many years and s t i l l areseen to influence the thoughts of many outside the discipl ine. A second andsomewhat re la ted concept is the image of environment as an external, discreteand essent ia l ly s ta t i c ent i ty to be subdued by cul ture in the course ofhuman progress. This produced much the same effect on cul ture ecologystudies as did the man vs. nature controversy. Culture must be seen as asystem l inked to the environment in continuous and dynamic feedback (Berkley,1967)

In recent years the number of studies dealing with the interact ion of man,culture, and environment has increased tremendously. The l inking of anthropology to ecology is expanding beyond the original ideas of cul tural ecologyto what many are now cal l ing ecological anthropology or anthropologicalecology. The greates t factor responsible for the delay of inst i tu t ing th is


7/11

23

is the required reuniting of culture and biology. To accomplish thisanthropologist must stop t rying to explain cul ture only in termste h . t fand begin to use t e 1n eract10n 0 env1ronmental behavioral

cu ture h h . i l h d .t r l factors. en t S S accomp S e 1ntegrated research maythe benefi t of l l involved.


8/11

24

REFERENCES CITED

Alihan MilIa A1938 Soc1al Ecology. New York: Columbia Universi ty Press.James NEcological Anthropology and Anthropological Ecology.In: Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology,J. J . Honigmann ed. Chicago: Rand-McNally. pp. 179-239.

Barth Frederiki956 Ecological Relationships among the Ethnic Groups inSwat, Northern Pakistan, American Anthropologist 63:1079-1089.

Bartheo1omew G.A., Jr and J.B. Birdsel l1953 Ecology and the Proto-Hominids. American Anthropologist55:481-498.

Bates, Marston1953 Human Ecology. In: Anthropology Today, A.L. Kroeber, ed. ,Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 700-713.

Bender, Barbara1975 Farming in Prehistory. New York: St. Martin s Press.1978 Hunter-Gatherer to Farming: A Social Perspective.World Archaeology 10(2):204-222.

Birdsell, J.B.1953 Some Environmental and Cultural Factors Influencing theStructuring of Australian Aboriginal Populations. AmericanNatural is t 87:171-207.1958 Some Population Problems Involving Pleistocene Man. In:Population Studies: Animal Ecology and DemographyK.B. Warren, ed. Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on QuantitativeBiology 24:47-70.

1970 Local Group Composition among the Australian Aborigines:A Critique of the Evidence of Field work conducted since1930. Current Anthropology 11:115-142

Boserup, Ester1965 The Condition of Agricultural Growth: The Economics ofAgrarian Change Under Population Pressure. Chicago: A1dine.


9/11

25

The concept of Carrying a p ~ c i t y for Systems of Shift ing Cult ivat ion. American Anthropolog1st 77:799-811.

1976 Reply to Vayda. American Anthropologist 78:646-647.Buckley, W1967 Sociology and Modern Systems Theory. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall .Rober t L. and D.F. HilseCarniero,1966 On Determining the Probable Rate of Population GrowthDuring the Neoli thic. American Anthropologist 68:177-180.

Cohen, M Nathan1971 Food Cris is in Prehistory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Conklin, Harold C.1954a The Relations of the Hanunoo Culture to the Plant World.Unpublished Ph.D. disser ta t ion Department of Anthropology,

Yale University.1954b An Ethnoecological Approach to Shift ing Agriculture. Transact ions of the New York Academy of Sciences, ser ies 2, 17:133-142.

Forde, C. Darryl1934 Habitat , Economy, and Society, Loncon: Methuen.Hayden, B.1975

Helm, June1962

The Carrying Capacity Dilemma: An Alternate Approach. In:Population Studies in Archaeology and Biological Anthropology:A Symposium, A.C. Swedlund, ed. Society for American Archaeology,Memoir 30. pp. 11-21.

The Ecological Approach in Anthropology, American Journal ofSociology 67 6): 630-639.Kroeber, Alfred E.1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. Universi ty

of California Publicat ions in American Archaeology andEthnology, 38.Lee, Richard B.

1965 Subsistence Ecology of Kung Bushmen. Unpublished Ph.D.disser tat ion. Department of Anthropology, University ofCalifornia-Berkeley.1969 Kung Bushman Subsistence: An Input-Output Analysis.In: Environment and Cultural Behavior, A.P. Vayda, ed.

Garden City: Natural History Press.


10/11

26imer Frankor 1954 Culture and Human Fer t i l i ty UNESCO Population and Culture Series.Paris: UNESCO.

N. The Demography of Primit ive Populations. Science 167:1097-1101.

Roderick D.The Ecological Approach to the Study of Human Community.American Journal of Sociology 30:287-301.

1926 The Scope of Human Ecology. American Journal of Sociology32: 141-154.

Mason Otis T.1905 Environment. In: Handbook of Indians North of Mexico F.W. Hodgeed. Bureau of American Ethnography 30.Odum Eugene P.1975 Ecology: The Link between the Natural and the Social Sciences.

New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston.Oliver S.C.1965 Individuali ty Freedom of Choice and Cultural Flexib i l i tyof the Kamba American Anthropologist 67:421-428.Rappaport Roy A.

1967a Ritual Regulations of Environmental Relations among a NewGuinea People. Ethnology 6:17-30.1967b Pigs for the Ancestors. New Haven: Yale University Press .

Richtsmeier Joan T.1978 Cultural Ecology: Histor ical Development and ContemporaryIssues. Unpublished. Department of Anthropology Universityof Nebraska-Lincoln.Sah1ins Marshall D.1964 Culture and Environment: The Study of Cultural Ecology;

In: Horizons in Anthropology S. Tax ed.1971 Land Use and the Extended Family in Moa1a Fi j i . In:

Man in Adaptation Y. Cohen ed. Chicago: A1dine. pp. 38-49.Semple Ellen C.

1911 Influences of Georgraphic Environment. New York: Holt.


11/11

27

son R.F.S t e v e ~ 9 6 8 population and Pol i t ica l Systems in Tropical Africa.New York: Columbia University Press.

Steward Julian H1955 The Concept and Method of Cultural Ecology. In:Theory of Culture Change. Urbana: Universi ty of I l l inoisPress.

1968 Cultural Ecology. In: Internat ional Encyclopedia of theSocial Sciences 4. pp. 337-344.Vayda Andrew P.1974 Warfare in Ecological Perspective. Annual Review ofEcological Systems 5: 183-193.

1976 War in Ecological Perspective. New York: Plenum.Vayda Andrew P. and Roy A. Rappaport1968 Ecology: Cultural and Noncultural. In: Introductionto Cultural Anthropology J.A. Clif ton ed. Boston:

Houghton Mifflin. pp. 467-498.Washburn S.L.1961 Social Life of Early Man. Viking Fund Publicat ions inAnthrop ology no. 21. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation.Williams B.J.

1968 The Birhor of Indian and Some Comments on Band Organization.In: Man the Hunter R.B. Lee and I DeVore eds. Chicago:Aldine. pp. 126-131.Zubrow Ezra B.W.1971 Carrying Capacity and Dynamic Equilibrium in the PrehistoricSouthwest. American Antiquity 36:127-138.

1975 Prehistoric Carrying Capacity: A Model. Menlo Park: Cummings.

Documents

Cultural Ecology- A Brief Overview