N

Ec PT
Pr ol EL
D of. ogy On
In epa N A lin
di rt ga nd e
an m m S C
In en jah oc ert
st t o a ie ific
itu f o ty a
te Hu Kip tio
of m ge n
a
Te n n
ch itie
no s a
lo nd
gy S
G oc
uw ia
ah l S
at cie
i nce
s
Ecological Anthropology
 Basic premises
 Ecological anthropology focuses upon the complex relations between
people and their environment. Human populations have ongoing
contact with and impact upon the land, climate, plant, and animal

s
ce
species in their vicinities, and these elements of their environment have

n
at cie
ah l S
reciprocal impacts on humans (Salzman and Attwood 1996:169).

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
 Ecological anthropology investigates the ways that a population shapes

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
its environment and the subsequent manners in which these relations

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
form the population's social, economic, and political life (Salzman and
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
Attwood 1996:169).
 In a general sense, ecological anthropology attempts to provide a
materialist explanation of human society and culture as products of
adaptation to given environmental conditions (Seymour-Smith 1986:62).
In The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin presented
a synthetic theory of evolution based on the idea of
descent with modification (influence by Malthus – for

s
cen
at cie
details see next slide).

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a
In each generation, more individuals are produced than

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
can survive (because of limited resources), and

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
competition between individuals arises.
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N

Individuals with favourable characteristics, or variations,

survive to reproduce. It is the environmental context that
determines whether or not a trait is beneficial.
 Malthus, Thomas R. (1766-1834)-
Thomas R. Malthus work Essay on Population (1798) greatly
influenced Charles Darwin.
Malthus argued that populations grow exponentially, while

s
cen
at cie
resources only grow geometrically.

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
Eventually, populations deplete their resources to such a

st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
degree that competition for survival becomes inevitable.

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
This assumes that a struggle for existence will ensue, and
Ec PT
N
only a certain number of individuals will survive.
Malthus's ideas helped to form the ecological basis for
Darwin’s theory of natural selection.
 Malthus pioneered demographic studies, arguing that human
populations naturally tend to outstrip their food supply
(Seymour-Smith 1986:87).

s
cen
at cie
 This circumstance leads to disease and hunger which eventually

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
put a limit on the growth of the population (Seymour-Smith

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert
1986:87).

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
 Haekel coined our modern understanding of ecology in 1870,
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
defining it as "the study of the economy, of the household, of
N

animal organisms. This includes the relationships of animals with

the inorganic and organic environments, above all the
beneficial and inimical relations Darwin referred to as the
conditions for the struggle of existence" (Netting 1977:1).
 Ecosystem?
 An ecosystem is the structural and functional interrelationships
among living organisms and the environment of which they are a
part (Moran 1990:3).

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
 Moran’s study of soils in the Amazon is an example of micro-level

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a
ecosystem analysis.

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
 Emilio F. Moran is a specialist in ecological anthropology,

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
resource management, and agricultural development (Moran
Ec PT
N
1984:ix). Moran studied the Brazilian Amazon extensively. His
micro-level ecosystem analysis of soils in the Amazon revealed
substantial areas of nutrient rich soils, which are completely
overlooked in macro-level analyses (Balée 1996).
 As a reaction to Darwin’s theory, some anthropologists eventually turned
to “environmental determinism”as a mechanism for explanation.
 The earliest attempts at environmental determinism mapped cultural

s
ce
features of human populations according to environmental information

n
at cie
ah l S
(for example, correlations were drawn between natural features and

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a
human technologies) (Milton 1997).

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
 A detailed ethnographic accounts of Boas, Malinowski, and others led to

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
the realization that environmental determinism could not sufficiently
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
account for observed realities, and a weaker form of determinism began
to emerge (Milton 1997).
 At this juncture, Julian Steward looked for the adaptive responses to
similar environments that gave rise to cross-cultural similarities (Netting
1996:267) and coined the term "cultural ecology“.
 Steward, Julian (1902-1972)
 Steward’s theory centered around a culture core, which he
defined as "the constellation of features which are most closely
related to subsistence activities and economic arrangements"

s
ce
(Steward 1955:37).

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
 Steward demonstrated that lower population densities exist in

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
areas where the tree is sparsely distributed, thus illustrating the

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
direct relationship between resource base and population

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
density. Ec PT
N

 Steward was also interested in the expression of this relationship in

regards to water availability and management.
 His ideas on cultural ecology were also influenced by studies of
South American indigenous groups.
 Steward specified three steps in the investigation of the
cultural ecology of a society:
 (1) describing the natural resources and the technology
used to extract and process them;
 (2) outlining the social organization of work for these

s
cen
at cie
subsistence and economic activities;

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
 (3) tracing the influence of these two phenomena on

st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
other aspects of culture (Barfield 1997:448). Julian Steward

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
often fluctuated between determinism and possiblism
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
(Balée 1996).
 He was interested in the comparative method in order to
discover the laws of cultural phenomena (Barfield
1997:448).
 By the 1960s and 1970s, cultural ecology and environmental determinism lost
favour within anthropology.
 Ecological anthropologists formed new schools of thought, including the

s
ce
ecosystem model, ethnoecology (see next slide for details), and historical

n
at cie
ah l S
ecology (Barfield 1997:138).

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
 Researchers hoped that ecological anthropology and the study of

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
adaptations would provide explanations of customs and institutions (Salzman

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
and Attwood 1996:169).
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
 Ecological anthropologists believe that populations are not engaged with
the total environment around them, but rather with a habitat consisting of
certain selected aspects and local ecosystems (Kottak 1999:23-4).
 Furthermore, each population has its own adaptations institutionalized in the
culture of the group, especially in their technologies (Salzman and Attwood
1996:169).
Ethnoecology

Ethnoecology is the paradigm that investigates

native thought about environmental phenomena

s
ce
(Barfield 1997:138).

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C
Studies in ethnoecology often focus on indigenous

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
classification hierarchies referring to particular
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
aspects of the environment (for example, soil types,
plants, and animals).
 Relevance of Ecological Anthropology
 A field such as ecological anthropology is particularly relevant
to contemporary concerns with the state of the general
environment.

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
 Anthropological knowledge has the potential to inform and

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
instruct humans about how to construct sustainable ways of life.

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
 Anthropology, especially when it has an environmental focus,

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
also demonstrates the importance of preserving cultural
Ec PT
N
diversity.
 Biological diversity is necessary for the adaptation and survival
of all species; culture diversity may serve a similar role for the
human species because it is clearly one of our most important
mechanisms of adaptation.
 This new perspective considers the role of the physical environment in
cultural change in a more sophisticated manner than environmental
determinism.

s
cen
at cie
 Ecological anthropology is also a reaction to idealism, which is the idea that

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
all objects in nature and experience are representations of the mind.

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
 Ecological anthropology inherently opposes the notion that ideas drive all

ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
human activities and existence.

Pr ol EL
Ec PT
 This particular field illustrates a turn toward the study of the material
N

conditions of the environment, which have the potential to affect ideas.

 Steward was disillusioned with historical particularism and culture area
approaches, and he subsequently emphasized environmental influences
on culture and cultural evolution (Barfield 1997:448).
 During the 1960s, a shift in focus occurred in ecological
anthropology because of changing trends and interactions
within the global system.

s
cen
 There has been a gradual adaptation of the discipline to not

at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
only focusing on localized human/ecosystem interactions, but

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
including global influences and how the global community is

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
affecting how groups across the world interact with their

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
ecosystems (Kottak 1999:25).
Ec PT
N

 Such global influences include aspects once associated with

colonialism (i.e., the exploitation of foreign raw resources or
misinterpretation of indigenous agricultural practices) (Kottak
1999:25-6).
 Harris, Marvin (1927-2001)
 Marvin Harris, best known for his development of “cultural materialism”.
 This school of thought centers on the notion that technological and

s
economic features of a society have the primary role in shaping its

cen
at cie
particular characteristics. He assigned research priority to concepts of

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio
infrastructure over structure and superstructure (Barfield 1997:137).

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C
 The infrastructure is composed of the mode of production, demography,

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
and mating patterns.
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
 Structure refers to domestic and political economy, and superstructure
consists of recreational and aesthetic products and services.
 Harris’s purpose was to demonstrate the adaptive, materialist rationality
of all cultural features by relating them to their particular environment
(Milton 1997).
 Rappaport, Roy A. (1926-1997)
 Roy A. Rappaport was responsible for bringing ecology and structural
functionalism together. Rappaport defined and was included in a
paradigm called neofunctionalism (see next slide for details).

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
 He saw culture as a function of the ecosystem. The carrying capacity

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio
(see next slide for details) and energy expenditure are central themes in

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
Rappaport’s studies, conducted in New Guinea.

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
 Rappaport completed the first systematic study of ritual, religion, and
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
ecology, and this study is characterized as synchronic (see next slide for
N

details) and functionalist.

 The scientific revolution, functionalism in anthropology, and new ecology
are the three main influences upon Rappaport.
 Neofunctionalism
 This term represents a productive but short-lived 1960s revision of
structural-functionalism. Neofunctionalism attends explicitly to the
modeling of systems-level interactions, especially negative

s
cen
feedback, and assigns primary importance to techno-

at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
environmental forces, especially environment, ecology, and

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
population (Bettinger 1996:851).

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
 Within neofunctionalism, culture is reduced to an adaptation, and

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
functional behaviors are homeostatic and deviation
Ec PT
N

counteracting, serving to maintain the system at large (Bettinger

1996:851).
 Neofunctional well being is measured in tangible currencies, such
as population density, that relate to fitness (as in evolutionary
biology) (Bettinger 1996:852).
 Carrying Capacity
According to Moran (1979:326), carrying capacity is "[t]he
number of individuals that a habitat can support" (Moran
1979:326).

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
This idea is related to population pressure, referring to the

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
demands of a population on the resources of its ecosystem

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
(Moran 1979:334).

ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
If the technology of a group shifts, then the carrying
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
capacity changes as well. An example of the application
of carrying capacity within ecological anthropology is
demonstrated in Rappaport’s study of the Tsembaga
Maring.
 N
Ec PT
Pr ol EL
D of. ogy On
In epa N A lin
di rt ga nd e
an m m S C
In en jah oc ert
Synchronic Study

st t o a ie ific
itu f o ty a
te Hu Kip tio
of m ge n
a
Te n n
ch itie
no s a
lo nd
gy S
G oc
uw ia
ah l S
at cie
i n ce
s
time and do not consider historical processes.
short-term investigations that occur at one point in
Rappaport conducted synchronic studies. These are
 Conklin, Harold (1926- )
 Harold Conklin is most noted within ecological anthropology for
showing that slash-and-burn cultivation under conditions of abundant
land and sparse population is not environmentally destructive (Netting

s
1996:268).

cen
at cie
ah l S
 Furthermore, he gives complete descriptions of the wide and detailed

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
knowledge of plant and animal species, climate, topography, and soils

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
that makes up the ethnoscientific repertoire of indigenous food

an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
producers (Netting 1996:268).
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
 He sets the standards for ecological description with detailed maps of
topography, land use, and village boundaries (Netting 1996:268).
 Conklin’s work focuses on integrating the ethnoecology and cultural
ecology of the agroecosystems of the Hanunoo and Ifugao in the
Philippines (Barfield 1997:138).
 Ellen, Roy F. (1947- )
 Roy F. Ellen studies the ecology of subsistence behaviours,
ethnobiology, classification, and the social organization of

s
ce
trade (Moran 1990:x).

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
 His work with the Nuaulu in West Java has led him to develop

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
awareness concepts concerning indigenous peoples and

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
their understandings of the environment (Ellen 1993).

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
 Ellen has published Nuaulu Settlement and Ecology (1981);
Ec PT
N

Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-

Scale Social Formations (1982); Social and Ecological Systems;
and Malinowski between Worlds (1989).
Culture Core

Julian Steward (1955:37) defined the cultural core as

the features of a society that are the most closely

s
ce
related to subsistence activities and economic

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
arrangements.

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Furthermore, the core includes political, religious,
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
and social patterns that are connected to (or in
relationship with) such arrangements (Steward
1955:37).
 Ethnobotany

Ethnobotany is an ethnoscientific study of the

relationship between human beings and plant life.

s
ce
During the 1960's ethnobotanical units were used in

n
at cie
ah l S
ecological comparisons (Kottak 1999:24).

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
Latent Function

 A latent function of a behaviour is not explicitly stated,

recognized, or intended by the people involved. Thus, they

s
are identified by observers.

cen
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
 Latent functions are associated with etic and operational

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
models. For example, in Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Ecology of a New Guinea People (2000), the latent function
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
of the sacrifice is the presence of too many pigs, while its
manifest function is the sacrifice of pigs to ancestors (Balée
1996).
Manifest Function
A manifest function is explicitly stated and
understood by the participants in the relevant action.

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
For example, in a rain dance the manifest function is

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
to produce rain, and this outcome is intended and

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
desired by people participating in the ritual. This

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
could also be defined as emic with cognized models.
N
 Historical Ecology
 Historical ecology examines how culture and environment
mutually influence each other over time (Barfield 1997:138).
These studies have diachronic dimensions.

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
 Historical ecology is holistic and affirms that life is not

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
independent from culture. This is an ecological perspective

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
adhering to the idea that the relationship between a human

an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
population and its physical environment can be examined
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
holistically, rather than deterministically.
N

 Landscapes can be understood historically, as well as

ecologically. Historical ecology attempts to study land as an
artifact of human activity (Balée 1996).
 Methodologies
Ecological anthropology has utilized several different
methodologies during the course of its development.

s
ce
The methodology employed by cultural ecology, popular

n
at cie
ah l S
in the 1950s and early 1960s, involved the initial

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
identification of the technology employed by populations

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
in the use of environmental resources (Milton 1997).

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
Patterns of behavior relevant to the use of that technology
N

are then defined, and lastly, the extent to which these

behaviours affect other cultural characteristics is examined
(Milton 1997).
 Cont.

Marvin Harris’s work led to the development of new

methodologies in the 1960s.
Harris’s cultural materialism incorporates the ecological

s
cen
at cie
explanation and advances a more explicit and systematic

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
scientific research strategy (Barfield 1997:137).

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
The concept of adaptation was Harris’s main explanatory

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
mechanism (Milton 1997). His research, describe in The
Ec PT
N

Cultural Ecology of India's Sacred Cattle (1966), indicated

his methodology of extensive literary research and
comparison.
 Cont.
Rappaport and Vayda also contributed importantly to the
application of new methodologies in the 1960s.

s
ce
They focus upon the ecosystem approach, systems

n
at cie
ah l S
functioning, and the flow of energy.

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
This ecosystem approach remained popular among

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
ecological anthropologists during the 1960s and the 1970s

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
(Milton 1997). Ethnoecology was a prevalent approach
Ec PT
N

throughout the same decades.

The methodology of ethnoecology falls within cognitive
anthropology
 The Ecosystem-based model of human ecology
American anthropologists Andrew Vayda and Roy
Rappaport suggested that instead of studying how cultures
are adapted to the environment attention should be

s
cen
at cie
focused on the relationship of specific human populations

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio
to specific ecosystems.

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
In their view, human beings constitute simply another
Ec PT
N

population among the many populations of plant and

animal species that interact with each other and with the
nonliving components (climate, soil, water) of their local
ecosystem.
Thus the ecosystem, rather than the culture, constitutes
the fundamental unit of analysis in their conceptual

s
ce
framework for human ecology.

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C
Cultural traits are of interest only as they can be shown

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
to contribute to the population's survival in the context
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
of the ecosystem.
 Roy Rappaport
Roy Rappaport's well-known work Pigs for the Ancestors
(1968), follows the ecosystem-based model of human
ecology and attempted to demonstrate how the religious

s
cen
at cie
rituals practiced by the Tsembaga tribal group of New

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
Guinea functioned to maintain their population in balance

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
with the available resources of their environment.

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Rappaport saw religion, an institution that Steward had
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
largely excluded from his concept of the ecologically
adaptive cultural core, as playing a key regulatory role in
relations between the Tsembaga population and the other
components of their ecosystem.
The Tsembaga employ a swidden system of farming
similar to that described by Geertz for the outer

s
cen
at cie
islands of Indonesia.

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
The principal domestic animal raised by these New

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
Guinea tribes is the pig.N
 Religious ritual and the environment

The great ritual feasts (slaughtering of pigs) have often

been thought to be an example of a maladaptive cultural

s
ce
trait similar to the sacred cows of India.

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C
Rappaport argued that, far from being a maladaptive

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
feature of their culture, the ritual regulation of pig killing
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
actually functions to better adapt the Tsembaga
population to their tropical forest ecosystem.
Rappaport asserted that the ritual restrictions of killing pigs
only on certain ceremonial occasions serves to -

s
ce
(1) maximize the supply of protein at times when the

n
at cie
ah l S
Tsembaga most need it, and

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
(2) maintain the size of the Tsembaga population in balance

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
with available resources.

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N

Tsembaga killing of pigs is done for supernatural reasons to

appease evil spirits believed to cause sickness and ensure
the help of ancestral spirits in fighting
Rappaport not only sees ritual as serving the nutritional best
interests of the Tsembaga population; he further claims the
ritual cycle functions to maintain the population density

s
cen
compatible with the long-term carrying capacity of the

at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
ecosystem by regulating die frequency and intensity with

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert
which warfare occurs.

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
According to the cultural ground rules followed by the
tribes of the New Guinea highlands, war is only permitted
during certain limited periods, the beginnings and ends of
which are signaled by great ritual pig feasts.
No group can go to war, however great the
provocation, until a sufficient herd has been assembled

s
cen
to hold a proper feast.

at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
Thus, the very ability of the Tsembaga to engage in war

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
is determined by their ability to produce pigs, and their
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
ability to raise pigs is determined by the overall state of
their ecosystem.
Of course the Tsembaga are not concerned with
ecological efficiency; they slaughter pigs for religious and
social reasons and not because they are striving to ensure

s
cen
at cie
the maximum flow of protein from the ecosystem to

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio
themselves.

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
In particular, the mass slaughter of pigs at the end of a
Ec PT
N

truce is intended to display the wealth and power of the

tribe to potential friends and enemies alike while ensuring
the support of both their ancestoral spirits and their human
allies in the next round of fighting.
 The mass consumption of pork on these occasions,
however wasteful it may be from a nutritional standpoint,

s
serves the social needs of the Tsembaga by promoting

cen
at cie
ah l S
the formation of effective alliances with needed allies in

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
the coming war.

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
 The efficacy of the ritual slaughter should therefore be
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
assessed, not as Rappaport has done in terms of the
interaction of the Tsembaga population with their local
ecosystem, but-in terms of the adaptation of the tribal
society to the conflict-ridden social environment of the
New Guinea highlands.
 Actor-based model of human ecology
 This actor-based model of human ecology, as Orlove (1980) has
labeled it, has become the major new wave in human ecology.
[Adaptation occurs at the level of individuals rather than of

s
cen
at cie
cultures or populations]

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
 The model reflects both anthropologists' general concern with

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
individual decision-making processes and evolutionary biologists'

ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
current preoccupation with showing that natural selection
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
operates exclusively at the level of the individual organism.
N

 From this perspective, any higher levels of organization, whether

communities, ecosystems, or human social systems, exist only as
the fortuitous outcome of interactions among many individual
organisms.
In the case of human society, therefore, environmental
adaptation is seen as occurring not as the result of natural
selection on the cultural or social system level but rather as

s
cen
at cie
the result of the outcome of thousands of individual

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio
decisions about how best to interact with the environment.

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Individuals are assumed to be making choices constantly
Ec PT
N

about how to exploit available resources while coping with

environmental hazards. Those who make the "correct"
choices will survive and prosper; those who choose less
wisely will be selected against.
For example, an actor-based analysis of the Tsembaga
might explain the ritual cycle of pig killing described by
Rappaport as simply the accidental outcome of hundreds of

s
cen
at cie
separate decisions by individual tribesmen about how to

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
best maximize the use of the limited resources available in

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
order to achieve power and prestige within their society.

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N

Thus, while the success of the feast from the societal

viewpoint is measured by the total number of pigs that are
sacrificed, the status of each individual Tsembaga male is
enhanced only in direct relationship to the number of pigs
that he contributes.
 The larger the number of animals he can kill, the greater
the number of guests he can entertain and the larger

s
the portions of meat he is able to present to his guests,

cen
at cie
ah l S
thus placing them under greater obligation to assist him

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
in the future.

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
 Each Tsembaga male therefore will seek to build up the
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
largest herd that his family's labor force can support.
Only when he reaches that limit will he want to hold the
feast and only when a sufficient number of men have
achieved the desired number of pigs will the community as

s
cen
a whole agree that it is time for the ceremonial slaughter.

at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
It may be, as Rappaport claims, that this happens before

ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
the carrying capacity of the ecosystem is exceeded and
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
its future productivity degraded but, from the perspective
N

of the actor-based model of decision making, this happy

result is no more than the summed outcome of many
separate individual decisions.
The actor-based model, with its emphasis on the processes
by which people make decisions about how to interact with

s
their environment, is a valuable approach for understanding

cen
at cie
ah l S
how change occurs in social systems in response to

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a
environmental perturbations.

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
The approach is particularly useful for the insight it gives in to
N

why traditional farmers accept or reject agricultural

innovations.
A study by Michael Mocrman (1968) has, for example,
helped to explain why peasant rice farmers in northern

s
ce
Thailand have adopted tractors under certain

n
at cie
ah l S
environmental circumstances while they continue to rely on

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
water buffalo under other circumstances.

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
Similarly, Michael Calavan (1977) has shown how willingness
of Thai farmers to plant improved rice varieties reflects
rational consideration of environmental forces affecting
crop yields.
Asian peasants are shown to be highly rational decision
makers who carefully assess agricultural innovations in
terms of potential benefits and costs.

s
cen
at cie
Despite their promise of higher yields, "modern" cropping

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio
methods are often rejected because such innovations

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
may require high inputs of fertilizer, pesticides, and water.

ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
These inputs are unavailable to the poorer farmers, and
Ec PT
N
modern cropping methods are also much more vulnerable
to environmental hazards such as floods, droughts, and
insect and disease outbreaks.
 An individual Tsembaga tries to raise the largest possible pig
herd, not because that is the optimum strategy for adapting to
the New Guinea environment but because that is the way in

s
ce
which he can gain status within Tsembaga society;

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
 Similarly, a Thai farmer chooses to grow rice variety A instead of

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
rice variety B because he believes that it will give him a higher

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
yield from his land and a higher yield will allow him to live in the

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
style that Thai culture considers good.
Ec PT
N

 Their decisions may or may not be correct ones within the

context of their cultural values, but they as individuals did not
create these values. Instead, the values are a pre-existing aspect
of the social systems into which these individuals were born.
As children they were socialized to accept these values as
correct, and as adults they make their choices about

s
interactions with the environment in terms of those values.

cen
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
The actor-based model of human ecology is thus one of

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
limited applicability. It can reveal a great deal about why

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
individuals within a particular social system make the
N

particular choices about interactions with the environment

that they do, but it cannot explain why their social system
presents them with the particular choices it does.
 The system model of human ecology
A "general systems theory,” is concerned with the general
properties of the structures and functions of systems as such,

s
ce
rather than with their specific contents.

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
According to this theoretical approach, atoms, cells,

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
organisms, ecosystems, societies, and even the universe as a

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
whole all share the common properties of being self-

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
organizing systems and can therefore be studied in terms of
N

a common theoretical perspective.

French sociologist Emile Durkheim The Elementary Forms of
Religious Life (1915), provided the basis for the development
of the structural-functional social systems model.
Structural-functionalism, as first theoretically articulated
by A .R. Radcliffe-Brown (1965) and Bronislaw

s
ce
Malinowski (1922), and as developed empirically by E.E.

n
at cie
ah l S
Evans-Pritchard(1940) and especially Sir Raymond Firth

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
(1936), saw all of the diverse institutions of society as

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin
being organized into an integrated system, where each

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
institution fits harmoniously with every other one, and
Ec PT
N

where change in any single institution would ramify into

complementary change in all of the other institutions
with which it was functionally connected.
The structural-functional model, with its conception of
societies as systems proved to be of great value
operationally, producing many new insights into the ways in
which societies were organized.

s
cen
For example, the payment of "bride price" in tribal

at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
societies, became comprehensible when it was

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
perceived that it served to strengthen marriage bonds by

In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
making divorce more difficult and that such

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
strengthening was important since marriages served
N

politically to unite other-wise autonomous clans.

Thus, what had earlier been perceived as a quaint,
"savage" custom was now recognized as serving important
functions in the maintenance of tribal social solidarity.
Durkheim (1938) argued that “social facts” must be
explained only in terms of other “social facts”; one could
not seek the causes of social change outside the

s
ce
boundaries of the social system itself.

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
The development of human ecology can be seen as an

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
attempt to escape this theoretical impasse by treating

of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
social systems as open rather than closed systems.
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
Beginning with Julian Steward's concept of cultural
ecology (1955, 1968), it was recognized that "social facts"
might be explained not only in terms of other "social facts"
but also in terms of "ecological facts."
An alternative approach, the "systems model of human
ecology," describes social systems as they interact with
ecological systems.

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
Adaptation is assumed to occur, not at the level of discrete

In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
cultural traits or social institutions—as in the model of

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
cultural ecology—or in terms of specific human
N

populations—as in the ecosystem-based model of human

ecology—or in terms of specific individual decision
makers—as in the actor-based model of human ecology—
but at the level of the total social system as a system.
Cultural trails, therefore, do not necessarily function to ensure the
welfare of either individuals or local populations but instead serve
primarily to ensure the survival of the social system itself.

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
 From this perspective, the ritually regulated warfare of the

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
Tsembaga is not seen as directly benefiting either most

an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
individual Tsembaga or the Tsembaga local population as a
Pr ol EL
whole. Ec PT
N

 In the systems model of human ecology both the social system

and the ecosystem with which it interacts retain their integrity as
systems, with each changing its structural configuration
according to its internal dynamics.
 The System model of human ecology emphasizes
four relational aspects:

s
ce
1. Inputs from the ecosystem into the social system—These

n
at cie
ah l S
inputs can be in the form of flows of energy (e.g., food,

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
petroleum), materials (e.g., protein, construction

st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
materials), or information (e.g., sounds, visual stimuli).

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
2. Inputs from the social system into the ecosystem—
Ec PT
N

Again, these can take the form of flows of energy,

materials, or information generated by human activities.
3. Change in the institutions making up the social system in
response to inputs from the ecosystem—may be and often
are adaptive, that is, they contribute to the continuing

s
cen
at cie
survival of the social system under changed environmental

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
conditions.

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
In other words, it is the social system itself, rather than the
Ec PT
N

people who are involved in it, that is the unit of natural

selection and adaptation.
4. Changes in the ecosystem in response to inputs from
the social system— Just as human society changes in

s
cen
at cie
response to environmental influences, so does the

ah l S
i
uw ia
G oc
n
ecosystem change in response to human influences.

tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
Such change may be either primary, the direct impact of

D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
a human activity on an ecosystem component such as
N

the killing of a particular animals’ species by overhunting,

or secondary, alterations in other ecosystem components
caused by anthropogenic primary change in one
component.
 The point of this discussion is that the relationship between
the social system and the ecosystem is both complex and
dynamic.

s
cen
at cie
ah l S
 The virtue of the systems model of human ecology is that it

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
focuses attention on the processes of change and

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C
adaptation rather than emphasizes the static structural

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
characteristics of the social and ecological systems.
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N

 Moreover, this approach avoids any necessity for

specification of any universal "prime mover" for change:
neither environmental nor social factors have any a priori
primacy because impulses for change may flow in either
direction
 There is no inherent contradiction between the systems model
and the actor-based model of human ecology.

s
 The latter approach is simply one among many that can be

cen
at cie
ah l S
incorporated within the larger social systems framework.

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
Certainly, decision making by individual participants affects

itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C
both the character of the social system and its interactions

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
with (the ecosystem, but, as has already been discussed, all
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
such decisions are made within the context of these systems).
 Perhaps the greatest virtue of (the systems model of human
ecology) is that it offers specific guidelines for doing research
on human interactions with the environment.
 Cont.
The 1970s and 1980s saw the emergence of radical
cultural relativism.

s
In the 1990s, ecological anthropologists rejected extreme

cen
at cie
ah l S
cultural relativism and attacked modernist dichotomies

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a
(body and mind, action and thought, nature and culture)

lo nd
st t o a ie ific

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
(Milton 1997).

di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
Recent ecological anthropology studies have included
political ecology, uniting more traditional concerns for the

s
ce
environment–technology-social-organization nexus with

n
at cie
ah l S
i
uw ia
the emphasis of political economy on power and

G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
inequality seen historically, the evaluation and critique of

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin
Third World development programs, and the analysis of

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
environmental degradation (Netting 1996:270).
Ec PT
N
 Accomplishments
Anthropological knowledge has been advanced by
ecological approaches. The application of biological

s
ecology to cultural anthropology adds a new, scientific

cen
at cie
ah l S
perspective to the discipline.

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
Ecological anthropology contributes to the development of

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
extended models of sustainability for humankind. Through

In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
research and study with indigenous peoples in an
Ec PT
N

ecological framework, anthropologists learn more about

intimate interactions between humans and their
environments.
In the 1990s, this field has enhanced our perceptions of the
consequences of the development of the Amazon. The

s
ce
presence of ecology, an interdisciplinary undertaking, and

n
at cie
ah l S
the concept of the ecosystem in anthropology add new

i
uw ia
G oc
n
tio

gy S
itu f o ty a

lo nd
st t o a ie ific
dimensions to theory and methodology.

no s a
In en jah oc ert

Te n n
of m ge
ch itie
an m m S C

te Hu Kip
di rt ga nd e
In epa N A lin

a
D of. ogy On
Pr ol EL
Ec PT
N
Thus, ecological investigations bring additional hybrid vigour
to the field of anthropology.