Human Ecology in Anthropology: Past, Present, and Prospects

CHAPTER 4 Human Ecology in Anthropology: Past, Present, and Prospects

Michael A. Little

INTRODUCTION sui generis, that is, in and of itself! Historical processes play an important role in this latter Anthropology is, by its very nature and scenario. These two fundamental approaches to tradition, a kind of multidisciplinary science. anthropological inquiry have characterized the Sociocultural anthropology has history and science for many years. The functionalist school humanities as components of its heritage, but is of anthropological theory, in which cultural squarely situated within the social sciences. attributes were identified as part of an interrelated Linguistic anthropology, in some ways, is even system, was heavily criticized because it neglected closer to the humanities than sociocultural historical explanation and human agency, that is anthropology, yet several branches of this field human actions contributing to culture. are quite empirical, and some are experimental, Environmental determinism and possibilism, and can be allied with psychology. The functionalism, culture-area approaches, racism, archaeology branch of anthropology, while also evolutionism, and historicism were conceptual firmly tied to social science, has somewhat closer and theoretical perspectives that were all mixed linkages to the natural sciences for purposes of in complex ways during the late 19th and early dating, faunal and floral analysis, and stratigraphy 20th centuries in anthropology. Franz Boas, the and geomorphology. Archaeologists also feel a founder of American anthropology, demonstrated close affinity to historians. Biological anthro- the influence of the environment on body size pology is often considered the least associated and form in migrants in the first decade of the with social science, being linked to the biological, 20th century, yet he rejected evolutionary evolutionary, and biomedical sciences. However, explanations and identified human behavior and its real contribution to scientific inquiry comes culture as arising from historical forces not from an integration of the biological and social environmental forces. sciences along with a long-standing interest in Early social studies of humans and their human evolution. These four branches of environment moved from the “environmental anthropology, despite a common concern with determinism” of the anthropogeographers (Ratzel, the central concept of culture and of social 1889-91; Semple, 1911), to the “environmental behavior, have quite different traditions of theory, possibilism” of the ethnographers (Forde,1934; training, method, and practice. The traditions of Evans-Pritchard, 1940), and to the “cultural human ecology in anthropology tend also to be ecology” of Julian Steward (1938, 1955). In the separated into their constituent subfields, 1930s, Steward moved cultural ecology a step although there have been efforts at integration in forward by rejecting the “...fruitless assumption anthropology under the theoretical framework of that culture comes from culture...” (Steward, 955: human ecology. Some of these bases for division 36). He also developed the concept of culture and integration of human ecology will be core as the behavior patterns most closely linked discussed. to the environment (e.g., subsistence and food acquisition). He advocated a three-fold analysis Cultural Ecology of relationships between (1) the environment and subsistence, (2) subsistence and behavior Within anthropology, ecological approaches patterns, and (3) behavior patterns and other have been employed in a variety of ways. components of the culture, and his view of ecology Cultural ecology has been applied in socio- was closely linked to the concept of “adaptation cultural studies as an alternative to a deterministic to the environment” (Vayda and Rappaport, 1968). application of “culture” as the primary causal Later studies criticized Steward’s “culture core” agent leading to new “culture.” In other words, concept as too narrowly conceived. This form of culture, as ideas and behavior, can arise from the criticism is quite characteristic of anthropology: environmental circumstances (both social and rather than building on previous ideas and data, physical) of people’s lives or culture can arise ideas are rejected sequentially as new theoretical 26 MICHAEL A. LITTLE approaches appear and rise in popularity. theory has successfully been used to extend the Anthropological progress over the past century synthesis between ecology and anthropology, has been constrained because the pattern of focusing primarily on individuals rather than exploration has been: first, limited application of higher levels of organization (Winterhalder and scientific design and hypothesis testing; second, Smith, 1981; Smith and Winterhalder, 1993). a continual succession of new theoretical Prominent in nearly all ecological theory in frameworks and approaches without full anthropology has been the concept of adaptation exploration; and third, little validation of research to the environment (Alland, 1975; Baker, 1966; results and limited development of a tested body Moran, 1979). Ecological studies in biological of fundamental principles. anthropology were stimulated in the 1960s by the work being done in ecosystems ecology by the Ecology within Archaeology scientists in the International Biological Program or IBP. At this time, there were several Human Within archaeology, interests in the Adaptability Projects associated with the IBP that environment date back to the 19th century. Eco- were influenced by systems science and efforts logical theory in archaeology tended to be linked to modeling complex ecological systems. to processes of culture change and evolution through the writings of Leslie White (1949) on TWO EARLY STUDIES unilinear evolution and Julian Steward (1955) on multilinear evolution. More recent interests in the There were two very original anthropological 1960s and 1970s were in systems theory in studies that were done in the 1960s that were behavior, and most recently, within the past decade subject to a great deal of criticism in the anthro- or so, archaeologists have directed their interests pological literature. The first is the ecological toward regional climate change, historical ecology, study of the Tsembaga Maring of New Guinea by and landscape ecology. It is also the case, as Karl the late Roy Rappaport. The work was done in Butzer (1990: 92) stated: that there has been an the central highlands of New Guinea. The second “..advantage of exposing archaeology to the is the energy-flow study of Andean Quechua intellectual cross-currents of anthropology. But it Indians of Peru by Brooke Thomas. This work has also been disadvantageous, exposing was done on the Peuvian altiplano at a base archaeology to disciplinary fads and limiting elevation of 4,000 meters above sea level. In the effective contacts with other scientists.” first case, Rappaport was a single investigator with an overwhelming task that he set out for Ecology within Biological Anthropology himself. This is a long-established tradition in anthropology for one investigator to live with a Biological anthropologists moved from 19th people and, through participant-observation, to century and early 20th century typological learn about the workings of the society or culture. approaches and race studies to the understanding Rappaport not only took on the job of describing of humans and their evolution via modern ideas and understanding the inner workings of about adaptation to the environment as a basis Tsembaga culture, he also attempted to under- for understanding human variation. Ecological stand this in the context of Tsembaga ecology. theory was tied also to evolutionary processes, In the second case, Thomas’s task was no less but more in the realm of biobehavioral evolution daunting, but his work was done within the and associated with the Darwinian concepts of framework of an integrated project. This was the “selection” and “adaptation to the environment” Andean Biocultural Studies project, initiated by (Warren, 1951; Weiner, 1964). Ecological theory Paul Baker (Baker and Little, 1976) at the in biological anthropology became a fusion of Pennsylvania State University in the U.S., with evolutionary and ecological theory (Bates, 1953, the primary objective of studying the patterns of 1960), along with ideas from environmental adaptation of high-altitude natives to the hypoxia physiology (Dill et al., 1964), biogeography and and cold of the Andean altiplano. When Thomas human biogeography (Coon et al., 1950), began his work, several years of data on social demography (Spuhler, 1959), and human biology conditions, nutrition, human physiology, (Baker and Weiner, 1966; Lasker, 1969; Little, 1982; demography, and weather conditions had already Little et al., 1990). Recently, socioecological been collected, and the area had been mapped. HUMAN ECOLOGY IN ANTHROPOLOGY 27 Rappaport’s Work of interpretation to another); and (7) dealing with an “impoverished” ecosystem approach (in Rappaport’s research was reported in a now contrast to “evolutionary ecology”). Scientists famous book entitled Pigs for the Ancestors, in the ecology community were debating some of which was published in 1968, and reprinted in these issues, but in many cases, anthropologists 1984 with a 190-page Epilogue, in which he did not fully understand the bases for the debates, addressed his critics and reevaluated some of the plus the human dimension added profound levels research (Rappaport ,1968, 1984). The work is of complexity to these issues. In any case, the brilliant, in that it addresses some of the emotion behind these critical writings and the use fundamental issues underlying anthropological of such intemperate terms such as “reification,” theory, including: social control, environmental “vulgar,” “obsession,” “false,” and “impoverished” causality for behavior, and the connection reflected the intense feelings about ecological and between individual behavior and cultural norms cultural materialistic approaches by a majority of or prescribed social behavior. In the work, anthropologists. Rappaport suggested first, that human population numbers, pig population numbers, the warfare Thomas’s Work cycle, agricultural productivity, patterns of exchange of goods, the distribution of land and The work that Brooke Thomas conducted on people, and the maintenance of the ecosystem as energy flow research in a highland native a productive system were all tightly interrelated community in Peru was begun in the late 1960s as a working system. Second, he suggested that after Rappaport’s and Vayda’s ecological studies the system was in a state of equilibrium maintained of New Guinea populations. The work was by feedback mechanisms. And third, and perhaps stimulated by Rappaport’s and others’ research most controversial, that the regulating or and by the ecologist H.T. Odum’s graphic controlling mechanism that kept the system going shorthand language to represent the flows and was the information provided in the form of ritual controls of energy through ecosystems. At the and a ritual cycle. Within this research, he took time of the study, Quechua natives of the altiplano both a materialistic and a functionalist approach employed a mixed subsistence of cultivation of to social science, he identified human behavior potatoes (and other tubers) and quinoa as adaptive in the context of the social and (chenopods) and herding of llamas, alpacas, and ecological systems, and he identified human sheep. By comparing food energy production behaviors as subject to selection of favorable (outputs) with labor expenditures (inputs), behaviors in the context of maintenance of the Thomas demonstrated that cultivation provided human/ecological system. a 10: 1 return, while livestock herding provided Needless to say, and despite the fact that only a 2: 1 energy return (Thomas, 1976). Animal ecological anthropology was in vogue at that time, products (meat, hides, wool) were highly prized Rappaport’s critics in sociocultural anthropology at lower elevations; hence, trade of animal were severe in their verbal assaults. His work products for other foods (e.g., maize, sugar) had attacked some of the fundamental icons of increased the ratio to more than 7: 1. Thomas’s anthropology. He and other ecological anthro- model, although representing averages and a pologists were accused of: (1) reifying the eco- simplified view of the energetics of production system (to treat the abstraction of an ecosystem and expenditure in this community, nevertheless as if it had material existence); (2) vulgar quantitatively demonstrated the utility of some materialism (a belief that the materialistic of the principles of Quechua native subsistence approaches used in ecological anthropology were through energy flow. simplistic in their social context); (3) a calorific Thomas’s work was the focus of an intense obsession (placing too much emphasis on flows critique in a book called Energy and Effort that of energy through the system); (4) excluding was edited by the distinguished human biologist historical factors (too much emphasis on Geoffrey A. Harrison (1982). The critique was equilibrium and stability in diachronic state in the penned by Philip Burnham, who began his systems studied); (5) setting up false boundaries comments by criticizing H.T. Odum’s (1971) work (human cultures go beyond ecosystem boundaries); on Environment, Power, and Society, identifying (6) shifting levels of analysis (applying one level it as “reductionist” and “breathtakingly naive.” 28 MICHAEL A. LITTLE This book was somewhat naive, particularly in anthropology linked to different traditions and its chapters on human politics and religion, but approaches to inquiry. For sociocultural many of the analytical approaches were very anthropology, the balance between scientific and useful. Burnham (1982) continued his comments humanistic approaches moved in favor of the by outlining methodological problems that he saw humanistic in the late 1970s. “Critical as limiting understanding of human behavior by anthropology,” “deconstuctionist,” Marxist, and energy flow studies. One point has merit, where “postmodern” literary approaches began to find he stated: “...there is the problem of the multi- their way into anthropology theory. Applied disciplinary competencies required of a single studies, within the realm of economic develop- researcher engaged in human ecological field ment in the Third World, began to increase. At study...” (Burnham, 1982: 233). Other arguments the same time, in the United States many graduate that he made were: (1) that the costs are too high programs in anthropology moved away from what for the “pay-offs” of energetics (anthropologists limited scientific and quantitative training that have grown accustomed to very modest research they had received in the past. Biological anthro- budgets); (2) adequate nutritional assessment is pology during the second half of the 20th century impossible from field studies (Michael Latham, had been the most scientific of the subfields of an eminent nutritional scientist from Cornell anthropology. But because the traditions of University once told me that it was really the research were growing apart, biological anthro- anthropologist who could address several key pologists and scientifically-oriented sociocultural nutritional issues from extended field work); (3) anthropologists were becoming marginalized too many simplifying assumptions were made within the anthropological community. All of these (this is a key to modeling, but only at the outset); events affected the application of ecological (4) it is impossible to account for all of the social principles to the solution of anthropological issues (but, this is never even possible in problems during that period. sociocultural analyses); (5) it is inappropriate to By the early 1990s, the position of human apply the functional/adaptational paradigm ecology within anthropology appeared to be borrowed from biology (this reflects the hostile moving in a positive direction. In a revised views toward the biological sciences that many version of Emilio Moran’s (1984) edited work on social scientists feel). Adaptation as a concept The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology was criticized heavily where he expressed his view published by Moran in 1990, the introduction and on “...the inadequacy of the concept of adaptation papers that followed were forward looking and as applied to social behavior!” In brief, Burnham encouraging about ecological approaches to typified the views of many sociocultural anthro- anthropology. Rappaport (1990), who contributed pologists (despite his interests in human ecology) to this edition discussed the frequent shifts in where a materialistic, adaptational, quantitative theoretical perspectives that plague the field of approach that draws on basic biological principles anthropology: somehow sidesteps the fundamental bases of “I both predict and encourage another swing human culture and society. of the pendulum. I predict revitalization of the ecosystem concept because it seems in accord CHANGES FROM THE 1980S TO 1990S with a general public’s commonsence experience of a world beset by multiplying and interrelated Ecological anthropology was popular within environmental disorders, most of which it can the anthropological community during the 1960s attribute to humanity itself. I encourage this and early 1970s. This was also the period of the revitalization, with appropriate modifications, International Biological Programme and dramatic because the ecosystem concept itself is a vital advances in ecosystems science, but these were element in the construction, maintenance and largely separate events. In anthropology the reconstruction of the webs of life upon which, by ecological approach to understanding human whatever name we call them, we are absolutely social behavior soon began to fall out of favor, dependent.” (Rappaport, 1990: 69) such that the late 1970s and 1980s were The anthropological pendulum did appear to characterized by approaches that were antithetical be swinging back, but with a series of different to science. During the 20th century and into the approaches than those in the 1960s when 21st century there have been tensions within Rappaport’s first research was conducted. HUMAN ECOLOGY IN ANTHROPOLOGY 29 But before we deal with some of these newer Some time ago, postmodernism entered ecological approaches in anthropology, let me anthropology via literary theory with challenges discuss some of the theoretical issues that make against the fundamental value of systematically- it difficult for mainstream sociocultural anthro- gathered information, and even objective reality. pologists to accept ecological approaches within Within the social humanistic side of anthro- their field. pology, there is a strong interest in “praxis” or practice or applied anthropology in reducing the DIVISIVE ISSUES IN effects of poverty in the Third World as well as in ANTHROPOLOGY Western nations. Associated with these appli- (AND OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCES) cations of anthropological knowledge is a kind of “anthropocentrism” (Rappaport, 1984: 387), In 1968, Vayda and Rappaport stated that: “...a which places the environmentalists and scientists unified science of ecology has definite contri- who are concerned with the conservation of butions to make towards the realization of nature at odds with the social scientists, who see anthropological goals and does not entail any the world filled with poverty that has arisen in appreciable sacrifice of traditional anthropological part because of differential knowledge and what interests” (Vayda and Rappaport, 1968: 497). is known as unequal power relationships. In this There are a number of reasons why this objective context, the social scientists are inclined to follow has been achieved only in small measure that the idea of “putting people first,” also the title of relate to some fundamental traditions in anthro- a successful collection of papers of development pology. in the Third World (Cernea, 1991). This struggle Following the Second World War, as with between human needs and the need to maintain many other sciences, there was an increasing viable ecosystems is an exquisite conflict with an specialization by subfield accompanied by a uncertain outcome (Newmark and Hough, 2000). tension between sociocultural anthropology and It is an area of investigation where collaboration biological anthropology. Part of the basis for this between natural and social scientists is urgent! was that in the 19th century and early 20th Another issue is an extraordinarily complex century, physical anthropology was preoccupied one: that of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the with race studies and there were clear racist Commons” (Hardin 1968). A great deal has been elements in many of these studies. This tension written about this issue, both within and outside between “social” and “biological” intensified of anthropology (Bollig and Schulte, 1999; during the second half of the 20th century, when Casimir and Rao, 1998; McCabe, 1990; McCay social scientists were concerned about and Acheson, 1987). The fundamental objection “biological” and “genetic determinism” and other that the anthropologists have against Hardin’s paradigms that placed heavy emphasis on human basic premise is that it violates the concept of biological processes taking precedence over human agency; that is, the ability of humans to behavioral and social processes. A suspicion by manage their own environments, and through social scientists of all biologically based para- cooperation, to avoid the tragedy of environ- digms arose on the one hand and was paralleled mental exploitation that Hardin described. This on the other by a need to defend fundamental belief in human agency is also linked to the social processes and theory on the other. This unwillingness of many anthropologists to even “biophobia” is by no means universal in the social entertain the idea that human behavior can be side of anthropology, but it does play an important influenced by the circumstances of their environ- role in the acceptance of certain ideas. ment. Another tension that divides anthropology An issue of the Social Science Research is the difference in approach between the Council Items & Issues newsletter (Wissoker, scientists and the social humanist/historian 2000) was devoted to an article and commentaries (materialist interpretation vs. a symbolic/cultural on “advancing interdisciplinary research.” In the interpretation). Beliefs that human social behavior lead-in to the collection, the editor noted: is so complex that is can never be fully understood “...indeed, the idea of interdisciplinarity was by conventional scientific approaches are quite practically born here...” What is significant about common among anthropologists, and, in fact, limit the contributions is that all of the commentary is attempts to systematically study human behavior. by social scientists, and there is absolutely no 30 MICHAEL A. LITTLE mention of health, disease, the environment, Some of these major integrated and multi- ecology, or any of the natural sciences in their disciplinary projects are listed here. Adaptation schemes of interdisciplinarity! These social to (1) arid environmental conditions and limited science approaches to human ecology, are what resources in Kalahari hunter-gatherers; (2) high- in anthropology was called “cultural ecology.” altitude hypoxia and cold in Andean Quechua; This approach, with an ecological emphasis on and (3) Arctic cold in circum-polar Siberian, Inuit, sociocultural process within the context of current and Algonkian populations, were studies con- anthropological theory was reviewed 25 years ago ducted within a framework of populations living by Orlove (1980) and more recently by P. Little under the stress of extreme environmental (1999). conditions. Microevolutionary studies were con- Despite the bleak picture I have painted of ducted of the genetics of the Amazonian social science and of anthropology in the context Yanomama, Makiretare, Cayapo, and Xavante, the of science and ecology, some good work has Andean Aymara, the Central American Garifuna, already been done, and I am hopeful that new Solomon Islanders, and several populations of programs of collaborative and multidisciplinary central African Pygmies. Language, genes, research can be initiated between ecologists and demography, culture, and phenotype, were used anthropologists. However, it should be emphasiz- to explore ongoing evolutionary processes in ed again that it is probably impossible for a single these populations, and to reconstruct processes anthropologist or a single ecologist to conduct a in the past. Attempts to reconstruct cultural and study of human ecology and reach meaningful biobehavioral evolution of the paleolithic were conclusions. The tasks are too vast for single made in the Kalahari and Pygmy studies. Health, scientists working alone and the solution is, of epidemiology, and culture change were central course, to establish multidisci-plinary projects. issues in the Circumpolar, Tokelau Island Migrant, Some examples of earlier and ongoing research Samoan Migrant, and several other projects. Here and prospective ecological studies can be dis- the effects of modernization on native popu- cussed. lations were a primary objective. Finally, although an interest in the influence of the environment on INTEGRATED STUDIES OF SINGLE a population’s behavior and biology was a POPULATIONS common theme in all of these integrated projects, only a few had real interests in ecology and Beginning in the early 1960s, at the time that systems approaches (Little et al., 1991). the International Biological Programme (IBP) was As already noted, Thomas (1976) carried out being organized, a number of single-population energy flow modeling on Andean Quechua integrated projects were begun. Most of the farmer-herders. Later modeling focused on projects were identified as a part of the Human attempts to explain why some nutrient sources Adaptability component of the IBP and were are important and why others are not. Gage (1986) initiated with the concern that these populations applied optimal foraging theory to the slash and were endangered, and their extinction would mean burn agriculture of the Samoans and identified the loss to science of populations that most that the net rate of energy production (NREP) closely resemble human populations during the was indeed a central guiding principle when greater part of our evolutionary past. Later Samoans considered production of their three projects in the same pattern of investigation were primary crops: breadfruit, banana, and taro. Hett started in the 1970s, some under the Unesco Man and O’Neill (1974) developed a carbon flow model and the Biosphere (MaB) program. Human for Aleuts that demonstrated a heavy dependence biologists or biological anthropologists organized on marine organisms and the need to incorporate most of these projects, but some were integrated terrestrial and marine ecosystems in the analysis with social scientists playing key roles. There of Aleut food webs. Finally, systems ecology were several themes that these projects figured prominently in the Kenya Turkana represented, including: adaptation to the research because that was a central approach environment, in its broadest sense; microevolu- taken, but also because ecologists and anthro- tion; cultural and biobehavioral evolution; pologists worked closely together (Coughenour health, epidemiology, and culture change; and et al., 1985; Ellis and Swift, 1988; Little et al., 1990; ecology and systems science (Little et al., 1997). Little and Leslie, 1999). The synthesis of this HUMAN ECOLOGY IN ANTHROPOLOGY 31 work concluded that Turkana pastoralists were et al., 1979). Sometimes the research is identified capable of surviving and flourishing in a dry and as behavioral ecology (Borgerhoff Mulder and highly variable ecosystem by complex livestock Sellen,1994). Four areas of research that are management, mobility, opportunistic exploitation germane to anthropology were identified: (1) of resources, and adaptive social patterns of foraging strategies; (2) mating systems and life- sharing – while at the same time, avoiding history strategies; (3) spatial organization and degradation of the ecosystem (Leslie et al., 1999) group formation; and (4) niche theory, population dynamics, and community structure (Smith, 1983). CURRENT APPROACHES IN Much of the research to date has focused on ECOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY optimal foraging among hunter-gatherers such as the Peruvian Amazonian Piro (Alvard ,1995), There are a number of approaches to a human Ituri Pygmies (Bailey, 1991), Paraguayan Ache ecology that have been applied since the early (Hill, 1988), Canadian Inujjuamiut (Smith, 1991), 1980s. These represent the increasing speciali- and Canadian Cree (Winterhalder, 1983). Other zation in anthropology, not only by the subfields applications, such as optimal foraging of nomadic that were described earlier on, but also by diffe- pastoralists have only been applied in a handful rent theoretical approaches. Some approaches, of cases (De Boer and Prins, 1989; Edwards et al., parallel those taken in the field of ecology, but 1994). Borgerhoff Mulder and Sellen (1994: 225) with time lags of several years. identify the future of pastoralist studies as lying in “...a successful combination of quantitatively Political Ecology based studies and powerful modeling techniques,” especially in the application of optimality Political ecology is derived from political models. Anthropologists are particularly well- economy, in which there is concern with social suited to this kind of detailed observational inequalities and power relationships. It developed research, because of lengthy time requirements as a reaction to what some considered as an for field observation within the tradition of emphasis on ecological explanation for human extended field work in anthropology. social behavior to the neglect of political factors. The label has also been used in a Marxist context Historical Ecology with the argument that “...an expanding capitalist economy is destructive to the environment.” (Vayda and Walters, 1999). In this latter context, Historical ecology is a relatively new approach the ideas are principally Marxist in origin, not in ecological anthropology that has been embrac- anthropological. Some anthropologists have ed by some archaeologists and ethnohistorians. criticized the contemporary application of Early works of interest to anthropologists were, political ecology as moving toward too much among others, by Wiliam McNeill (1976) and emphasis on “political” and too little emphasis Alfred Crosby (1972, 1986), historians who on “ecological” relationships (Vayda and documented events linking human health and the Walters, 1999). environment in historical perspective. Based on a conference held at the New School of American Evolutionary Ecology Research in Santa Fe, New Mexico (Crumley, 1994), the field appears to be defined as a frame- Evolutionary ecology arose from Mac work for studies of past ecosystems and their Arthur’s (MacArthur, 1960; MacArthur and changes through time, with attempts to sort out Pianka, 1966) work in the 1960s that combined the effects of anthropogenic and natural (non- ideas from Darwinian evolution, ethology, anthropogenic) processes. Most practitioners of population biology, and mathematical modeling. this approach are from ethnohistory and archaeo- Much of the work deals with mathematical models logy, and they build their theory on ideas from of behavior within an adaptation framework. landscape ecology, geography, archaeology, Anthropologists have been interested in this area history, and ethnohistory. This is an important of combined economic and ecological modeling application of ecology to anthropology, since of human behavior since the 1970s (Dyson- losses in biodiversity during the present century Hudson and Smith, 1978; Smith, 1979; Thomas can be placed in the context of earlier times 32 MICHAEL A. LITTLE through studies of prehistory. This will be Central Arizona-Phoenix LTER was co-directed discussed below in the context of biodiversity. by an archaeologist, and the program is dependent on social scientists to develop realistic Landscape Ecology models within an ecosystems framework (Collins et al., 2000; Redman, 2005). Landscape ecology, with its background in geography and geomorphology, has a particular Ecology of Health and Adaptability appeal to sociocultural anthropologists because of their current interests in land use in the Third Studies of the ecology of health and adaptabi- World (Coppolillo, 2000). Archaeologists, as lity of non-Western populations provide a breadth noted, are also drawn to this framework (in the of environmental and health conditions not context of historical ecology) for research usually experienced by Western peoples. It is because of the anthropogenic transformations of therefore important to study traditional as well as the landscape that are a part of human prehistory industrial peoples to gain insights into the full and history (Balée, 1998). spectrum of environmental influences on health. Ecological and biogeographical approaches and Ecosystems Ecology models are often useful in understanding health threats and risks. One model that has been useful Ecosystems ecology became the dominant employs the movement of people from one research paradigm of the International Biological environment to another to test for effects of the Programme (IBP), but still, the incorporation of new environment on health. An IBP project human populations was limited (Worthington, investigated the effects of movement of nearly 1975; Collins and Weiner, 1977). One of the 1000 Pacific Tokelauan Islanders to New Zealand problems with the Human Adaptability Compo- after a disastrous hurricane struck their island in nent of the IBP was a conflict that arose between 1966. Baseline health data of Tokelauans collected sociocultural and biological anthro-pologists in 1963 were compared with New Zealand during the early planning of the IBP. Margaret Tokelauan health, and these migrants were found Mead argued for a largely social approach to the to have higher prevalences of obesity, type II Human Adaptability research, but was voted diabetes, asthma, and hypertension than the down at an ICSU General Assembly. She then native islanders (Prior et al., 1977; Fleming and pulled out her support for the program and the Prior, 1981). Studies of migrant American Samoans anthropological community followed suit (Weiner to Hawaii demonstrated essentially the same 1977). This then led to a dominance of the Human effects of migration and modernization (Baker, Adaptability research by human biologists and 1984; Baker et al., 1986). The principal variables biological anthropologists. Later, two conferences associated with declines in health have been were held in an attempt to coordinate some of the identified as diet, activity, and levels of stress IBP biome research with human adaptability associated with a Western life style. research projects, but with limited success (Little and Friedman, 1973; Jamison et al., 1976). There Ecology of Reproduction is still resistance among some biological scientists who have interests in ecosystems analysis to The Ecology of reproduction is an area of incorporate human biologists or social scientists interest that is central to human population in their research for some of the obvious reasons ecology and bears on the ecological processes discussed above. However, more projects in the that influence human reproduction. Biological 1980s and 1990s, including those under the aegis scientists have known for a long time that the of Unesco’s Man and the Biosphere Programme, environment, particularly the availability of have successfully conducted collaborative resources, profoundly influences reproduction. ecosystems work on human populations (Boyden, The earliest interest in this area was by anthro- 1992; Hladik et al., 1993, Little and Leslie, 1999; pological demographers, with training in Lusigi, 1981). Collaborative efforts between biobehavioral sciences, who were willing to ecologists, other natural scientists, and social entertain the possibility that humans were subject scientists have been initiated in the urban LTER to the same biological rules as other organisms (Long Term Ecological Research) projects. The (Ellison 1990). I recall the advice of my close HUMAN ECOLOGY IN ANTHROPOLOGY 33 colleague in social anthropology, Neville Dyson- There are disagreements over whether pastora- Hudson, who had a deep interest in livestock. lists and cultivators contribute to desertification, During the planning of the Turkana research, we and how cultivation of the land can be best agreed that if we could identify environmental managed in semi-arid or wet tropical lands. I recall effects on the livestock, then we should look for an important observation that George Innis made similar effects in the human population. This was in modeling slash-and-burn agriculture in the a radical view and would have been scorned by tropical rain forest more than 25 years ago. Innis our sociocultural colleagues, but turned out to (1973) reported that repeated use of tropical be a very productive way to generate hypotheses. swidden plots, even with up to 40 years of fallow It was particularly useful in Turkana studies of between each period of cultivation, would lead child growth, lactation and breastfeeding, to depletion of several essential soil nutrients maternal health, reproduction, and fertility (Gray, (potassium and soil organic matter), and that some 1996; Little et al ,1992, 1993; Little and Leslie, 1999; of these nutrients required more than a hundred Leslie and Fry, 1989; Leslie et al., 1996). years for full recovery. What struck me was that conventional anthropological wisdom dictated PRODUCTIVE DIRECTIONS FOR that the indigenous pattern of eight years fallow ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN was sufficient to maintain sustainability indefina- ANTHROPOLOGY tely. The value of this pattern of use was embedd- ed in the anthropological literature, yet it was I believe that the answer to the question clearly false. In this case, so much could have posed in the title of an earlier talk on whether been gained by collaboration. there is a future for ecological studies in anthropology is “yes,” but probably still at the Historical and Landscape Ecology within margins of anthropology, not in the mainstream. Archaeology Carole Crumley (1998: ix-x), an archaeologist with interests in historical and landscape ecology, Historical ecology, as a new paradigm, has observed that the anthropological subdisciplines been embraced by archaeologists with materialist most closely allied with the sciences- archaeology, and environmental interests. Since the landscape biological anthropology, and human ecology and landscape transformation are central within sociocultural anthropology-have been concerns, the ecological conditions of human marginalized in anthropology for much of the latter history must be understood within the context of half of the 20th century. These are also the the cultural conditions for a comprehensive subdisciplines most closely allied with environ- interpretation. Some consider it “..the most mental sciences, and, hence, are more receptive important current intellectual advance in the study to ecological approaches. of human and environmental relationships” There are several areas of exploration within (Balée, 1998: 2). I would moderate this statement anthropology that would profit from ecological a bit, but I agree that this approach does hold applications and multidisciplinary collaboration. great promise for integrating archaeology, These include studies of: landscape ecology ecology, and history in interesting ways. within sociocultural anthropology, historical Anthropogenic landscape alteration in ecology within archaeology, urban ecology and prehistoric times is well documented, especially managed ecosystems, within anthropology, in the New World before Columbus. Terrace, broadly, and biodiversity and global studies, canal, and road construction in the Andes again, within anthropology, broadly. produced dramatic transformation of the landscape, and the lowland Amazon forest was Landscape Ecology within Sociocultural modified by slash-and-burn cultivation and by Anthropology raised fields. Raised-field cultivation was a widespread agricultural technique and used There is considerable interest in land use in throughout the lowlands of Central and South the Third World by sociocultural anthropologists America. A recent application of this kind of and other social scientists, particularly in the landscape archaeology is in the exploration of context of human population growth and raised cultivation fields in the seasonally flooded increasing pressure on soil and land resources. areas of the Bolivian Llanos de Mojos (Erickson, 34 MICHAEL A. LITTLE 1995). Techniques used in the Llanos de Mojos disturbing patterns associated with anthro- work, in addition to archaeological methods, pogenic effects on the planet (e.g., increased included agro-climatic modeling, ethnobotany, atmospheric CO2 and pollution, progressive soil remote sensing, and experimental construction. loss). Since anthropologists, particularly biolo- Few people use these raised fields today in South gical anthropologists, are more closely attuned America despite their effectiveness and the to environmental effects on humans, they have apparent sustainability of this indigenous pattern been slow to become involved in exploration of of cultivation. biodiversity losses. Another limiting factor to the participation of anthropologists in assessing Urban Ecology and Managed Ecosystems changes in the biosphere is the problem of spatial scale; that is, such large-scale, global problems One of the dominant trends in human popula- are usually outside the scope of anthropological tions over the past century has been the move- investigation. ment of people from rural to urban settings (Bogin, One international program in which 1988). Rural-to-urban migration takes place largely anthropologists and other social scientists might because individuals perceive that cities are participate as members of multidisciplinary teams centers of economic opportunity and excitement. is DIVERSITAS, an international program of The process, whether within or between national biodiversity research, consisting of 11 research boundaries, has contributed to remarkable urban components (Diversitas, 1996). The “Human growth and widespread conditions of congested Dimensions of Biodiversity” component of living that are unprecedented in human history. DIVERSITAS incorporates human-oriented The beginning of the 21st century was marked as disciplines within the general themes of the other the time in which more than 50 percent of the components and is designed to contribute to an earth’s population were living in cities. Migration integrated approach to the study of losses in from the countryside to the city dates back to the biodiversity. Most recently, the U.S. National rise of cities in antiquity (McNeill, 1978), and has Committee for the International Union of been one of the most common types of migration Biological Sciences (IUBS) prepared a document since that time. Indeed, until the last century, that defines how some social scientists and human urban mortality rates were so high that most cities biologists might contribute to DIVERSITAS efforts could not even maintain their sizes, much less (Little et al., 2001). The U.S. National Committee grow, without substantial numbers of immigrants for the International Union of Anthropological (McNeill, 1979). and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) will also The linkages between rural-to-urban migra- contribute to the definition of a U.S. Program in tion, demography, epidemiology, and urban this area. ecology are crucial ones if we are to understand There are several essential areas in which this highly-modified urban ecosystem. The urban anthropologists might contribute to these very LTERs in Phoenix and Baltimore, as well as other important studies. First, there is the area of human urban studies around the world, can serve as test impacts on biodiversity, which is certainly the cases. If the topical mix is demography, epidemio- central feature of biodiversity losses. The impacts logy, and urban ecology, the disciplinary mix of human populations in transforming the should certainly include the social, biomedical, landscape, competing for habitats, contributing and ecological sciences. to pollution, and outright predation, are profound, indeed. Among many kinds of studies, it is here Biodiversity and Global Studies within that archaeologists and ethnohistorians can Anthropology document some of the long-term changes in biodiversity and how rates of loss have varied Within the past two decades or more, through time. Second, how has human biodiversity ecologists have become increasingly aware of changed in the context of other species’ losses? losses in numbers and kinds of organisms around This is a vast area of exploration, but one that the globe and in alterations in the biosphere might draw human biologists into DIVERSITAS (Raven, 1997; Solbrig et al., 1992; Wilson, 1988). research. In a third area of exploration: how do At the same time, climatologists and other human perceptions of biodiversity influence our scientists tracing global trends have identified abilities to respond to losses or to take action? HUMAN ECOLOGY IN ANTHROPOLOGY 35 How does culture play a role in these responses? Bogin, B.: Rural-to-urban migration, pp.90-129. In: Finally, there are the interactive dynamics Biological Aspects of Human Migration, C.G.N. Mascie-Taylor and G.W. Lasker (Eds.). Cambridge between human diversity and the environment, University Press, Cambridge (1988). that is, the influences that losses in biodiversity Bollig, M. and Schulte, A.: Environmental change and will have on human health and well-being, pastoral perceptions: Degradation and indigenous including human social health (Hauser et al., knowledge in two African pastoral populations. Hum. Ecol., 27: 493-514 (1999). 1994). Borgerhoff Mulder, M. and Sellen, D.W.: Pastoralist These are all problems for the future that may decisionmaking: A behavior ecological perspective, or may not be soluble, particularly since solutions pp. 205-229. In: African Pastoralist Systems: An depend not only on technology but on human Integrated Approach, E. Fratkin, K.A. Galvin, and E.A. Roth (Eds.). Lynne Rienner, Boulder (1994). behavior, as well. Such behavior is dependent Boyden, S.: Biohistory: The Interplay Between Human on a complex mix of culture, politics, economics, Society and the Biosphere. Parthenon and Unesco, health, psychological perception, and many other New York (1992). categories of variables. If these problems are Burnham, P.: Energetics and ecological anthropology: soluble, it will only be through integrated and some issues, pp. 229-241. In: Energy and Effort, G.A. Harrison (Ed.). Symposia for the Study of multidisciplinary investigations in which social Human Biology, Vol. 22. Taylor and Francis, London scientists join forces with natural scientists in (1982). this challenging endeavor to preserve our Butzer, K.W.: A human ecosystem framework for biosphere, including the species, Homo sapiens. archaeology, pp. 91-130. In: The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to Practice, E.F. Moran (Ed.). University of Michigan Press, Ann REFERENCES Arbor (1990). Casimir, M.J. and Rao, A.: Sustainable land management Alland, A., Jr.: Adaptation. Ann. Rev. Anthrop., 4: 59-73 and the tragedy of no man’s land: An analysis of (1975). West Himalayan pastures using remote sensing Alvard, M.: Intraspecific prey choice by Amazonian techniques. Hum. Ecol., 26: 113-134 (1998). hunters. Curr. Anthrop.,36: 789-818 (1995). Cernia, M.M.: Putting People First: Sociological Bailey, R.C.: The Behavioral Ecology of Efe Pygmy Variables in Rural Development, 2nd Edition. Oxford Men in the Ituri Forest, Zaire. Anthropological University Press (for the World Bank), Oxford Papers, Museum of Anthropology, No. 86. University (1991). of Michigan, Ann Arbor (1991). Collins, J.P., Kinzig, A., Grimm, N.B., Fagan, W.F., Hope, Baker, P.T.: Human biological variation as an adaptive D., Wu, J., and Borer, E.T.: A new urban ecology. response to the environment. Eugen. Quart., 13: Amer. Scient., 88: 416-425 (2000). 81-91 (1966). Collins, K.J. and Weiner, J.S. (Eds.): Human Adaptability: Baker, P.T.: Migration, genetics, and degenerative diseases A History and Compendium of Research in the of South Pacific Islanders, pp. 209-239. In: International Biological Programme. Taylor and Migration and Mobility: Biosocial Aspects of Human Francis, London (1977). Movement. A.J. Boyce (Ed.). Symposia for the Study Coon, C.S., Garn, S.M., and Birdsell, J.B.: Races: A Study of Human Biology, No. 23. Taylor and Francis, of the Problems of Race Formation in Man. C.C. London (1984). Thomas, Springfield, Illinois (1950). Baker, P.T., Hanna, J.M., and Baker, T.S. (Eds.): The Coppolillo, P.B.: The landscape ecology of pastoral herding: Changing Samoans: Health and Behavior in Spatial analysis of land use and livestock production in Transition. Oxford University Press, New York East Africa. Hum. Ecol,. 28: 527-560 (2000). (1986). Coughenour, M.B., Ellis, J.E., Swift, D.M., Coppock, Baker, P.T. and Little, M. A.: Man in the Andes: A D.L., Galvin, K., McCabe, J.T., and Hart, T.C.: Multidisciplinary Study of High-Altitude Quechua. Energy extraction and use in a nomadic pastoral Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Stroudsburg, population. Science, 230: 619-625 (1985). Pennsylvania (1976). Crosby, A.W., Jr.: The Columbian Exchange: Biological Baker, P.T. and Weiner, J.S. (Eds.): The Biology of and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Greenwood, Human Adaptability. Clarendon Press, Oxford Westport, Connecticut (1972). (1966). Crosby, A.W., Jr.: Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Balée, W.: Introduction, pp. 1-10. In: Advances in Expansion of Europe 900-1900. Cambridge Historical Ecology. W. Balée (Ed.). Columbia University Press, Cambridge (1986). University Press, New York (1998). Crumley, C.L. (Ed.): Historical Ecology: Cultural Bates, M.: Human ecology, pp. 700-713. In: Knowledge and Changing Landscapes. School of Anthropology Today: An Encyclopedic Inventory. American Research Press, Santa Fe (1994). A.L. Kroeber (Ed.). University of Chicago Press, Crumley, C.L.: Foreward, pp. ix-xiv. In: Advances in Chicago (1953). Historical Ecology, W. Balée (Ed.). Columbia Bates, M.: Ecology and evolution, pp. 547-568. In: University Press, New York (1998). Evolution After Darwin, Vol. I, The Evolution of De Boer, W.F. and Prins, H.H.: Decisions of cattle Life, S. Tax (Ed.). University of Chicago Press, herdsmen in Burkina Faso and optimal foraging Chicago (1960). models. Hum. Ecol., 17: 445-464 (1989). 36 MICHAEL A. LITTLE

Dill, D.B., Adolph, E.F., and Wilber, C.G. (Eds.): environment: A prospectus on Project 12 of the Adaptation to the Environment, Section 4, Handbook Man and the Biosphere Program. U.S. MaB 12 of Physiology. American Physiological Society, Directorate Office, The Pennsylvania State Washington, D.C. (1964). University, University Park (1976). Dyson-Hudson, R. and Smith, E.A.: Human territoriality: Lasker, G.W.: Human biological adaptability. Science, an ecological reassessment. Amer. Anthrop., 80: 21- 166: 1480-1486 (1969). 41 (1978). Leslie, P.W. and Fry, P.H.: Extreme seasonality of births Ellis, J.E. and Swift, D.M.: Stability of African pastoral among nomadic Turkana pastoralists. Amer. J. Phys. ecosystems: alternate paradigms and implications Anthrop., 79: 103-115 (1989). for development. J. Range Manage., 41: 450-459 Leslie, P.W., Campbell, K.L., Little, M.A., and Kigondu, (1988). C.S.: Evaluation of reproductive function in Turkana Ellison, P.T.: Human ovarian function and reproductive women with enzyme immunoassays of urinary ecology: new hypotheses. Amer. Anthrop., 92: 933- hormones in the field. Hum. Biol., 68: 95-117 952 (1990). (1996). Erickson, C.L.: Archaeological methods for the study of Leslie, P.W., Little, M.A., Dyson-Hudson, R., and Dyson- ancient landscapes of the Llanos de Mojos in the Hudson, N.: .Synthesis and lessons, pp. 355-373. In: Bolivian Amazon, pp. 66-95. In: Archaeology in Turkana Herders of the Dry Savanna: Ecology and the Lowland American Tropics: Current Analytical Biobehavioral Response of Nomads to an Uncertain Methods and Recent Applications, P.W. Stahl (Ed.). Environment, M.A. Little and P.W. Leslie (Eds.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995). Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999). Evans-Pritchard, E.: The Nuer: A Description of the Little, M.A. The development of ideas on human ecology Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a and adaptation, pp. 405-433. In: A History of Nilotic People. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1940). American Physical Anthropology, 1930-1980, F. Fleming, C. and Prior, I. (Eds.).: Migration, Adaptation, Spencer (Ed.). Academic Press, New York (1982). and Health in the Pacific. Wellington Hospital Little, M.A., Badgely, C., Beall, C.M., Balick, M., Epidemiology Unit, Wellington, New Zealand Munstermann, L.E., Weiss, K.M., Bert, T.M., and (1981). Chernoff, B.: A framework for a program in the Human Forde, C.D.: Habitat, Economy and Society. Methuen, Dimensions of Biodiversity. Biol. International., (Paris) London (1934). 42: 3-15 (1991). Gage, T.B.: Environment and exploitation, pp. 19-38. Little, M.A., Dyson-Hudson, N., Dyson-Hudson, R., Ellis, In: The Changing Samoans: Behavior and Health J.E., Galvin, K.A., Leslie, P.W., and Swift, D.M.: in Transition, P.T. Baker, J.M. Hanna, and T.S. Baker Ecosystem approaches in human biology: their (Eds.). Oxford University Press, New York (1986). history and a case study of the South Turkana Gray, S.J.: The ecology of weaning among nomadic Ecosystem Project, pp. 389-434. In: The Ecosystem Turkana pastoralists of Kenya: maternal thinking, Approach in Anthropology: From Concept to maternal behavior, and human adaptive strategies. Practice, E.F. Moran (Ed.). University of Michigan Hum. Biol., 68: 437-465 (1996). Press, Ann Arbor (1990). Hardin, G.: The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162: Little, M.A., Gray, S.J., and P.W. Leslie, P.W.: Growth 1243-1248 (1968). of nomadic and settled Turkana infants of northwest Harrison, G.A. (Ed.).: Energy and Effort. Symposia for Kenya. Amer. J. Phys. Anthrop., 92: 273-89 (1993). the Study of Human Biology, Vol. 22. Taylor and Little, M.A. and S.M. Friedman (Eds.).: Man in the Francis, London (1982). Hauser, G., Little, M., and Roberts, D.F. (Eds.): Man, Ecosystem: Proceedings of a Conference. Human Culture and Biodiversity: Understanding Interdepen- Adaptability Coordinating Office. The Pennsylvania dencies. Biology International, Special Issue No. State University, University Park (1973). 32. International Union of Biological Sciences, Paris Little, M.A. and Leslie, P.W. (Eds.): Turkana Herders of (1994). the Dry Savanna: Ecology and Biobehavioral Hett, J.M. and O’Neill, R.V.: Systems analysis of the Aleut Response of Nomads to an Uncertain Environment. ecosystem. Arctic Anthrop., 11(1): 31-40 (1974). Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999). Hill, K.: Macronutrient modifications of optimal foraging Little, M.A., Leslie, P.W., and Baker, P.T.: Multidiscip- theory: an approach using indifference curves linary studies of human adaptability: Twenty-five applied to some modern foragers. Hum. Ecol., 16: years of research. J. Indian Anthrop. Soc., 26(1&2): 157-197 (1988). 9-29 (1991). Hladik, C.M., Hladik, A., Linares, O.F., Pagezy, H., Little, M.A., Leslie, P.W., and Baker, P.T.: Multidiscip- Semple, A., and Hadley, M. (Eds.): Tropical Forests, linary research of human biology and behavior, pp. People and Food. Parthenon and Unesco, New York 696-701. In: History of Physical Anthropology: An (1993). Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, Frank Spencer (Ed.). Garland, Innis, G.S.: The natural environment and primitive New York (1997). peoples: a simulation model of swidden agricultural Little M.A., Leslie, P.W., and Campbell, K.L.: Energy systems, p. 6. In: Man in the ecosystem: proceedings reserves and parity of nomadic and settled Turkana of a conference, M.A. Little and S.M. Friedman (Eds.). women. Amer. J. Hum. Biol., 4: 729-38 (1992). Human Adaptability Coordinating Office, The Little, P.E.: Environments and environmentalisms in Pennsylvania State University, University Park anthropological research: facing a new millennium. (1973). Ann.Rev.Anthrop., 28: 253-284 (1999). Jamison, P.L., Friedman, S.M., and Baker, P.T.: Lusigi, W.J.: Combatting Desertification and Rehabili- Interactions of human populations and the tating Degraded Population Systems in Northern HUMAN ECOLOGY IN ANTHROPOLOGY 37

Kenya. Technical report A-4, Unesco/UNEP Smith, E.A.: Human adaptation and energetic efficiency. Integrated Project in Arid Lands. Unesco/UNEP, Hum.Ecol., 7: 53-74 (1979). Nairobi (1981). Smith, E.A.: Evolutionary ecology and the analysis of MacArthur, R.H.: On the relation between reproductive human social behavior, pp. 23-40. In: Rethinking value and optimal predation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Human Adaptation: Biological and Cultural 46: 143-145 (1960). Models, R. Dyson-Hudson and M.A. Little (Eds.). MacArthur, R.H. and Pianka, E.R.: On optimal use of a Westview Press, Boulder (1983). patchy environment. Amer. Naturalist, 100: 603- Smith, E.A.: Inujjuamuit Foraging Strategies: Evolu- 609 (1966). tionary Ecology of an Arctic Hunting Economy. McCabe, J.T.: Turkana pastoralism: a case against the Aldine de Gruyter, New York (1991). tragedy of the commons. Hum. Ecol.,18: 81-103 Smith, E.A. and Winterhalder, B.: Ecology, Evolution, (1990). and Human Behavior. Aldine, Hawthorn, New York McCay, B.J. and Acheson, J.M. (Eds.).: The Question of (1993). the Commons: The Culture and Ecology of Communal Solbrig, O.T., van Emden, H.M., and van Oordt, P.G.W.J. Resources. University of Arizona Press, Tucson (Eds.): Biodiversity and Global Change. Monograph (1987). No. 8, International Union of Biological Sciences McNeill, W.H. 1976. Plagues and Peoples. Doubleday, (IUBS), Paris (1992). New York (1976). Spuhler, J.N.: Physical anthropology and demography, McNeill, W.H.: Human migration: a historical review, pp. 728-758. In: The Study of Population, P.M. pp. 3-19. In Human Migration: Patterns and Hauser and O.D. Duncan (Eds.). University of Chicago Policies, W.H. McNeill and R.S. Adams (Ed.). Indiana Press, Chicago (1959). University Press, Bloomington (1978). Steward, J.H.: Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical McNeill, W.H.: Historical patterns of migration. Curr. Groups. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin Anthrop., 20: 95-102 (1979). 120. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Moran, E.F.: Human Adaptability: An Introduction to (1938). Ecological Anthropology. Duxbury, North Scituate Steward, J.H.: Theory of Culture Change. University of (1979). Illinois Press, Urbana (1955). Moran, E.F. (Ed.): The Ecosystem Concept in Thomas, R.B.: Energy flow at high altitude, pp. 379- Anthropology. American Association for the 404. In: Man in the Andes: A Multidisciplinary Study Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C (1984). of High-Altitude Quechua, P.T. Baker and M.A. Moran, E.F. (Ed.): The Ecosystem Approach in Little (Eds.). Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Anthropology: From Concept to Practice. University Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania (1976). of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1990). Thomas, R.B., Winterhalder, B., and McRae, S.D.: An Newmark, W.D. and Hough, J.L.: Conserving wildlife in anthropological approach to human ecology and Africa: integrated conservation and development adaptive dynamics. Yrbk. Phys. Anthrop., 22: 1-46 projects and beyond. Bioscience,50: 585-592 (1979). (2000). Vayda, A.P. and Rappaport, R.A.: 1968. Ecology, cultural Odum, H.T.: Environment, Power and Society. Wiley- and non-cultural, pp. 476-498. In: Introduction to Interscience, New York (1971). Cultural Anthropology, J.A. Clifton (Ed.). Houghton Orlove, B.: Ecological anthropology. Ann. Rev. Anthrop., Mifflin, Boston (1968). 9: 235-273 (1980). Vayda, A.P. and Walters, B.B.: Against political ecology. Prior, I.A.M., Hooper, A., Huntsman, J.W., Stanhope, Human Ecology, 27(1): 167-179 (1999). J.M., and Salmond, C.E.: The Tokelau Island migrant Warren, K.B. (Ed.): Origin and Evolution of Man. Cold study, pp. 165-186. In: Population Structure and Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Human Variation, G.A. Harrison (Ed.). Cambridge vol. 15. The Biological Laboratory, Cold Spring University Press, Cambridge (1977). Harbor, New York (1951). Ratzel, F.: Anthropogeographie. J. Engelhorns, Stuttgart Weiner, J.S.: Part V. Human ecology, pp. 399-508. In: (1882-1891). Human Biology, G.A. Harrison, J.S. Weiner, J.M. Rappaport, R.A.: Pigs for the Ancestors. Yale University Tanner, and N.A. Barnicot (Eds.). Oxford University Press, New Haven (1968). Press, Oxford (1964). Rappaport, R.A.: Pigs for the Ancestors, revised edition. Weiner, J.S. 1977. The history of the Human Adaptability Yale University Press, New Haven (1984). Section. pp. 1-31. In: Human Adaptability: A Rappaport, R.A.: Ecosystems, populations and people, History and Compendium of Research in the pp. 41-72. In: The Ecosystem Approach in International Biological Programme, K.J. Collins Anthropology: From Concept to Practice, E.F. and J.S. Weiner (Eds.). Taylor and Francis, London Moran (Ed.). University of Michigan Press, Ann (1977). Arbor (1990). White, L.A.: The Science of Culture. Grove Press, New Raven, P.H. (Ed.): Nature and Human Society: The York (1949). Quest for a Sustainable World. National Academy Wilson, E.O. (Ed.): Biodiversity. National Academy Press, Press, Washington, D.C. (1997). Washington, D.C. (1988). Redman, C.J.: Urban sustainability: A research agenda. Wilson, E.O.: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Draft Paper for discussion at the Symposium on Knopf, New York (1998). Rethinking Growth Management, April 14-15. Winterhalder, B.: Boreal foraging strategies, pp. 201- University of Washington, Seattle (2005). 241. In: Boreal Forest Adaptations: the Northern Semple, E.C.: Influences of the Geographic Environment: Algonkians, A.T. Steegmann, Jr. (Ed.). Plenum Press, on the Basis of Ratzel’s Anthropogeography. Holt, New York (1983). New York (1911). Winterhalder, B. and Smith, E.A.: Hunter-Gatherer 38 MICHAEL A. LITTLE

Foraging Strategies: Ethnographic and Archaeo- borders: a symposium. Items & Issues, 1(3-4): 1,5- logical Analyses. University of Chicago Press, 13 (Social Science Research Council) (2000). Chicago (1981). Worthington, E.B.: The Evolution of the IBP. Cambridge Wissoker, K.: Negotiating a passage between disciplinary University Press, Cambridge (1975).

KEYWORDS History of Ecological Anthropology. Ecosystems. Multidisciplinary Studies

ABSTRACT Ecological interests in anthropology date back to the 1930s or earlier, but some work in anthropology is based on the natural history and population biology of Charles Darwin. Anthropology, as a science made up of diverse subfields, has selectively incorporated ecological principals and knowledge over the years. Incorporation of ecological ideas has been hampered by cyclic paradigm shifts in the dominant subfield of sociocultural anthropology. Other divisive issues that have prevented a unified science of human ecology in anthropology are: (1) tension between scientific and humanistic (and applied) anthropology, (2) a modest amount of biophobia in the social sciences, (3) an unwillingness to seek causal bases of behavior beyond human agency, (4) poor training in sciences outside of the social sciences, and (5) limited ability to attack problems by testing hypotheses and good scientific design. Despite these widespread problems in anthropology, there are many anthropologists who take scientific and materialistic approaches to problem solving and are receptive to ecological approaches in the social sciences and collaborative, multidisciplinary work. Some of this work is cited and prospects for a positive future in research are suggested.

Author’s Address: Michael A. Little, Distinguished Professor, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University, State University of New York, Binghamton, New York 13902, U.S.A Fax: 607-777-2477, E-mail: [email protected]