3 The Distinctive Interdisciplinary Nature of Ecological Anthropology

Ajeet Jaiswal

Contents:

1. Introduction

2. Ecological Anthropology

3. Basic Concept of Ecological Anthropology

4. Interdisciplinary nature of Ecological Anthropology

4.1 Ecological Anthropology as an inclusive synthesis

4.2 Ecological Anthropology viewed as identical with human geography

4.3 Ecological Anthropology as an application of biological principles

4.4 Ecological Anthropology as a study of sub-social relations among men

4.5 Ecological Anthropology as the study of social-cultural areas

4.6 Ecological Anthropology as the study of spatial distributions

4.7 Ecological Anthropology as coterminous with studies of communities and regions

5. Summary

Learning Outcomes:

The learner will be able to understand:

About the basic concept of ecological Anthropology and interdisciplinary nature of ecological Anthropology.
The distinctive interdisciplinary nature of ecological Anthropology.

1. Introduction

Understanding our environment and culture has long been the centre of scientific enterprise, and is becoming increasingly important as growth in human populations and economic activities intensifies the stresses the humans place on the environment. The consequences of those stresses are increasingly evident, such as habitat degradation, climate change, hole in the ozone layer, climatic stress, etc.

The Science of anthropology has traditionally been a “holistic” discipline. Anthropologists have advocated a broad, comparative study of human behaviour in the search for general laws and principles, and little about man has been left out. It is perhaps not surprising, then, to find that anthropological “explanations” has also been far away in its attempts to make find out the chaos of human diversity. At one time or the other anthropologists have explained human behaviour with reference to current topics in biology, ecology, history, evolution, diffusion, and independent invention, for example to explore the ways in which “environment” is used in anthropological explanations, an area of endeavor currently referred to as “ecological anthropology”. The roots of ecological anthropology are to be found in several different traditions of environmental explanation, some of which are tightly woven into Western thought.

2. Ecological Anthropology

Ecological anthropology studies the relations between human beings and their environments. Its foundations were laid by Julian Steward in the mid twentieth century. Steward emphasized the dynamic, two way nature of the culture environment relation, and the importance of the concept of adaptation in understanding it. Steward distinguished ‘cultural’ from ‘biological’ ecology on the grounds that the former was about the adaptation of culture as a system existing outside of individual human organisms. By contrast, in the so called ‘new ecology’ of the 1960s, culture was seen as the means of environmental adaptation of human populations.

Theories developed in animal ecology were considered applicable to humans as well. Drawing on one such theory, of group selection, ecological anthropologists focused on how aspects of cultural behaviour maintain balance or ‘homeostasis’ in the relations between a local group and its environmental resources, and so promote its long term survival.

In the 1970s and 1980s, ecological anthropology was overtaken by sociobiology. Emphasizing the gene rather than the group as the unit of selection, sociobiologists argued that the adaptive role of cultural behaviour is to contribute to the representation of individuals’ genes in future generations. One recent offshoot of sociobiology, ‘evolutionary behavioural ecology’, is dedicated to showing how adaptive strategies established through natural selection are played out under variable environmental conditions. For example, studies of human foraging have explained the relationship between food procurement patterns and energy returns. During the 1990s, however, a quite different trend has emerged in ecological anthropology. This approach looks at the totality of relations existing between persons and their environments and privileges neither genetics nor culture in explanations of human action and perception (Tim Ingold, 2016).

Ecological anthropology is a sub-field of anthropology and is defined as the “study of cultural adaptations to environments”. The sub-field is also defined as, “the study of relationships between a population of humans and their biophysical environment”. The focus of its research concerns “how cultural beliefs and practices helped human populations adapt to their environments, and how people used elements of their culture to maintain their ecosystems.” Ecological anthropology developed from the approach of cultural ecology, and it provided a conceptual framework more suitable for scientific inquiry than the cultural ecology approach. Research pursued under this approach aims to study a wide range of human responses to environmental problems.

3. Basic Concept of Ecological Anthropology

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 species in their vicinities and these elements of their environment have reciprocal impacts on humans (Salzman and Attwood, 1996). Ecological anthropology investigates the ways that a population shapes its environment and the subsequent manners in which these relations form the population’s social, economic, and political life (Salzman and Attwood, 1996). 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 (Smith, 1986).

In The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin presented a synthetic theory of evolution based on the idea of descent with modification. In each generation, more individuals are produced than can survive (because of limited resources), and competition between individuals arises. Individuals with favorable characteristics, or variations, survive to reproduce. It is the environmental context that determines whether or not a trait is beneficial. Thomas R. Malthus had an obvious influence on Darwin’s formulations. Malthus pioneered demographic studies, arguing that human populations naturally tend to outstrip their food supply (Smith, 1986). This circumstance leads to disease and hunger which eventually put a limit on the growth of the population (Smith, 1986).

The word “ecology” is derived from the Greek word oikos, meaning habitation. Haeckel coined our modern understanding of ecology in 1870, defining it as “the study of the economy of the household of 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). Therefore, an ecosystem consists of organisms acting in a bounded environment.

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 features of human populations according to environmental information (for example, correlations were drawn between natural features and human technologies) (Milton, 1997). The detailed ethnographic accounts of Boas, Malinowski, and others led to the realization that environmental determinism could not sufficiently account for observed realities, and a weaker form of determinism began to emerge (Milton, 1997).

At this time, Julian Steward coined the term “cultural ecology”. He looked for the adaptive responses to similar environments that gave rise to cross cultural similarities (Netting, 1996). 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” (Steward, 1955).

By the 1960s and 1970s, cultural ecology and environmental determinism lost favor within anthropology. Ecological anthropologists formed new schools of thought, including the ecosystem model, ethnoecology, and historical ecology (Barfield, 1997). Researchers hoped that ecological anthropology and the study of adaptations would provide explanations of customs and institutions (Salzman and Attwood, 1996).

Ecological anthropologists believed 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). Furthermore, each population has its own adaptations institutionalized in the culture of the group, especially in their technologies (Salzman and Attwood, 1996).

A field such as ecological anthropology is particularly relevant to contemporary concerns with the state of the general environment. Anthropological knowledge has the potential to inform and instruct humans about how to construct sustainable ways of life. Anthropology, especially when it has an environmental focus, also demonstrates the importance of preserving cultural 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.

4. Interdisciplinary nature of Ecological Anthropology

Ecological anthropology is a subfield of anthropology and is defined as the “study of cultural adaptations to environments” (Kottak, 2010). The subfield is also defined as, “the study of relationships between a population of humans and their biophysical environment” (Townsend, 2009). The focus of its research concerns “how cultural beliefs and practices helped human populations adapt to their environments, and how people used elements of their culture to maintain their ecosystems” (Kottak, 2010). Ecological anthropology developed from the approach of cultural ecology, and it provided a conceptual framework more suitable for scientific inquiry than the cultural ecology approach (Moran, 2006). Research pursued under this approach aims to study a wide range of human responses to environmental problems (Moran, 2006).

Since the Ecological anthropology is complex and actually made up of many different environments, including natural, constructed and cultural environments, Ecological anthropology studies is the inter disciplinary examination of how biology, geology, politics policy studies, law, geology, religion, engineering, chemistry and economics combine to inform the consideration of humanity’s effects on the natural world. This subject educates the students to appreciate the complexity of ecological issues and citizens and experts in many fields. By studying ecological anthropology, students may develop a breadth of the interdisciplinary and methodological knowledge in the ecological fields that enables them to facilitate the definition and solution of ecological problems.

Ecological factors greatly influence every organism and their activities. The major areas in which the role of environmental scientists are of vital importance are natural resources, ecosystems, biodiversity and its conservation, environmental pollution, social issues and environment human population and environment. It is essentially a multidisciplinary approach and its components include Biology, Geology, Chemistry, Physics, Engineering, Sociology, Health Sciences, Anthropology, Economics, Statistics and Philosophy It is essentially a multidisciplinary approach. An Understanding of the working of the environment requires the knowledge from wide ranging fields.

Although students of ecological anthropology all agree that the basic distinguishing characteristic of their discipline consists of the study of relations between man and environment, they differ concerning the inclusiveness of this field and the kinds of investigations that should be emphasized within it. The seven contrasting points of view that are summarized herein respectively picture ecological anthropology as an inclusive synthesis of many traditional sciences, as identical with human geography, as the specialized application to man of certain general principles of biology, as a study of sub-social human relations, as the study of distinctive social- cultural sub areas of the city, as the study of spatial distributions of human phenomena, and as coterminous with studies of communities and regions.

4.1 Ecological Anthropology as an inclusive synthesis

J.W. Bews, a botanist, presents the most inclusive conception of human ecology/ecological anthropology found in ecological literature. He describes this field as an inclusive synthesis that “unifies all the human sciences and enables each one to find its proper place in the generalized society of man” (Bews, 1935). “Sometimes it concentrates on the environment itself, sometimes on man himself, sometimes on the interaction between the two, but finally it always endeavors to view the environment-function-organism triad as one definitely integrated whole” (Bews, 1935). This broad point of view makes ecological anthropology include in their entirely all those sciences that deal with (1). the human organism per se, (2). the environment per se, and (3). relations between the two.

In particular, Bews conceives ecological anthropology as including such traditional studies as anatomy and physiology, which treat the structure and functioning of the individual human organism; eugenics, embryology, and evolution, which describe man’s biological heritage and development; geology and geography, which analyze the material environment and man’s direct relations to it; psychological, which studies man as a thinking animal who adjusts to his surroundings; anthropology, which describes man’s culture; and sociology, which studies human interrelations. In addition, ecological anthropology has the function of synthesizing all knowledge about man and environment and their relations into an integrated whole.

Bews assumes as a basic for his point of view that man and environment are inseparable, that “life apart from environment does not exist, and cannot be conceived….” That “environment apart from life is …..meaningless,” and that life “consists essentially of a process of interchange between the life-substance or protoplasm and the environment…..Environment, function, and organism constitute together…the fundamental biological triad. This triad must be studied as one complete whole, and this study is essentially what we mean by ecology” (Bews, 1935).

Bews distinguishes between autoecology and synecology as subdivisions of human ecology. Autoecology studies the relation between individual organisms and environment, and Synecology the relations between groups and the environment.

Other human ecologists agree with Bews that man and environment are inseparable so that neither can be understood except in relation to the other, that the synthesis of all knowledge concerning man is highly important. They would restrict their field, however, to the relationship aspect of the triad and would not include studies of either the organism or the environment per se.

4.2 Ecological Anthropology viewed as identical with human geography

Human geographers who cauterized their field as the study of mutual relations between man and his environment make it, by definition, identical with human ecology or ecological anthropology as defined in the restricted sense mentioned above (Harlan, 1936). But geographers typically do not study the entire field of reciprocal relations between man and environment. Textbooks on various aspects of human geography- regional, economic, political- and numerous geographic monographs on specific areas either omit or pay scant attention to the ecological processes that many anthropologist or sociologist regards as fundamental in ecological study. Geographers place much greater emphasis on direct relations between man and environment than on the integrated functional- spatial pattern of relations among men, which anthropological ecologists emphasize.

4.3 Ecological Anthropology as an application of biological principles

Biologists who admit the existence of a field of ecological anthropology usually think of it as consisting of the direct application to man of certain biological principles, especially principles of plant and animal ecology. They believe that just as the study of simple forms of living organisms aids in understanding the complex human body, so the relatively simple principles exhibited in plant and animal communities give insight into the complex social life of man (Charles, 1938). They have developed several general ecological concepts-competition, cooperation, succession, invasion, gradient, web of life, food chain, niche, natural area- that they would apply directly to the study of human communities. They look upon ecological anthropology as the extension to man of general ecological concepts and principles. This point of view neglects completely the factor of culture, which makes ecological anthropology differ in certain fundamental ways from plant and animal ecology; and it fails to provide a theoretical framework for the analysis of complex integrated areas that are themselves composed of diverse specialized sub areas.

4.4 Ecological Anthropology as a study of sub-social relations among men

Within the field of anthropology, one important point of view pictures ecological anthropology as the study of those sub-social (Charles, 1938) aspects of areal organization that arise and change through “competition”. This point of view omits all studies of the strictly social aspects of human interrelations. It emphasizes the points that the men and institutions of an area become integrated into a sub-social “communal organism” as the result of impersonal “competitive” processes (Mckenzie). Through these processes each individual units finds a functional niche and a spatial position that enable it to play a part within the functionally and spatially organized area. This point of view is the most logical basis for differentiating the anthropological part of ecological anthropology as a distinctive branch of anthropological theory.

Considerable confusion exists and numerous controversies occur in anthropology about this point of view. For example, one author declares that both a symbiotic society based on “competition” and a cultural society based on symbol communication do exist, that these aspects of human interrelations can and should be differentiated, and that many elusive aspects of cultural social life can best be approached through the study of this symbiotic sub-structure; whereas other authors seriously question the value of distinguishing sharply between the symbiotic and social aspects of man’s relation with other men. Again, one investigator makes use of the concept “natural area” whereas another denies its value. One pictures ecological interaction as non cultural, whereas another regards culture as inextricably involved in this processes among men. Almost every proposal made in connection with this point of view, which pictures ecological anthropology as the study of sub- social relations among men, has been both sharply challenged and vigorously supported.

4.5 Ecological Anthropology as the study of social-cultural areas

Many studies of rural and urban communities and neighbourhood were being made by anthropologist at the time ecological anthropology became recognized as a division of anthropological field. Some of these studies, especially those made in western world, were tied together in an ecological frame of reference by the Burgress hypothesis of concentric zones (Ernest,1925) although individually they placed major emphasis on institutions, personality types, and social processes. Monographs on Hobohemia, (Nels,1923) the Gold Coast, Little Sicily (Harvey,1929), the Black belt (Franklin, 1932), and other distinctive sub areas were primarily studies of the social- cultural complex rather than of the sub-social spatial structure. These studies became so widely identified with the ecological approach, however, that some anthropologist have tended to look upon ecological anthropology as the study of rural-urban social-cultural areas. This social-cultural conception of ecological anthropology seems inadequate as a means of defining the field, notwithstanding the excellent monographic studies of areas that have been identified with it.

4.6 Ecological Anthropology as the study of spatial distributions

To some anthropologist ecological anthropology includes all studies of spatial distributions of human phenomena. These persons would include as ecological all spatial studies of the sub-social and social organization of areas but, in addition, would admit purely descriptive displays of spatially distributed areas. Thus, they would regard as ecological all investigations that make use of mapping techniques to show the spatial spread of population, institutions or problems within an area. These persons regard spatial distribution as the distinguishing feature of ecological study. This conception of ecological anthropology appears to be both inadequate and logically indefensible both because ecology studies something more than mere spatial distribution and because some spatial distributions, such as an army unit on parade, do not result from ecological processes.

4.7 Ecological Anthropology as coterminous with studies of communities and regions

During recent years an increasing number of anthropologists have come to identify ecological anthropology with studies of communities and regions. Within a community or a region the population, the environment, and the culture are bound together in an intricate complex so that no part can be understood except in relation to the whole. These distinctive areal complexes presumably afford into useful means of dividing the complex web of human relations into convenient units for study. Because a spatial area is necessarily an environmental concept, this point of view assumes that any such areal study necessarily involves man’s adjustment to environment and, therefore, is ecological.

This point of view has been variously presented or illustrated by different authors. For example as an inseparable whole has been emphasized by Mukherjee (Radhakamal, 1928); Odum and Moore (1938) have insisted on the regional approach as basic to the understanding and control of human affair; and rural anthropologist and sociologist, beginning with Galpin, have made comprehensive studies of rural communities in conformity with this point of view (Galpin, 1915). Some anthropological investigators have not attempted to make comprehensive studies of the total areal complex, but have restricted their attention to one or more aspects of it. All of these authors seem to agree, however, that a study is ecological to the extent that it examines any aspect of the spatial-functional-cultural complex of a community or a region.

This emphasis on communities and regions as the distinguishing feature of ecological anthropology affords a practical basis for systematizing the wide variety of contemporary materials now characteristic of the field.

5. Summary

Understanding our environment and culture has long been central to the scientific enterprise, and is becoming increasingly important as growth in human populations and economic activities intensifies the stresses the humans placed on the environment.
The Science of anthropology has traditionally been a “holistic” discipline.
At one time or other anthropologists have explained human behaviour with reference to current topics in biology, ecology, history, evolution, diffusion, and independent invention, for example to explore the ways in which “environment” is used in anthropological explanations, an area of endeavor currently referred as “ecological anthropology”.
Ecological anthropology is a sub-field of anthropology.
Ecological anthropology studies the relations between human beings and their environments.
Steward distinguished ‘cultural’ from ‘biological’ ecology on the grounds that the former was about the adaptation of culture as a system existing outside of individual human organisms.
Theories developed in animal ecology were considered applicable to humans as well. Ecological anthropology developed from the approach of cultural ecology,
Human populations have ongoing contact with and impact upon the land, climate, plant, and animal species in their vicinities and these elements of their environment have reciprocal impacts on humans
In The Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin presented a synthetic theory of evolution based on the idea of descent with modification.
The word “ecology” is derived from the Greek word oikos, meaning habitation. Haeckel coined our modern understanding of ecology
Julian Steward coined the term “cultural ecology”.
A field such as ecological anthropology is particularly relevant to contemporary concerns with the state of the general environment.
Ecological anthropology is a complex and actually made up of many different environments, including natural, constructed and cultural environments,
Ecological anthropology studies is the inter disciplinary examination of how biology, geology, politics policy studies, law, geology, religion, engineering, chemistry and economics combine to inform the consideration of humanity’s effects on the natural world.

you can view video on The Distinctive Interdisciplinary Nature of Ecological Anthropology

References

Barfield, Thomas. 1997. The Dictionary of Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bews J.W. 1935, The grasses and grasslands of South Africa, Pietermaritzburg, P. David & Sons, Ltd., Printers

Charles, Marston. 1938. The Prevalence of People. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Ernest, B.1925. Environmental Anthropology: A Historical Reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Franklin F. 1932. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Galpin, M 1915, Review of seasonal climate forecasting for agriculture. The Natural History Press.

Harvey C. 1929. Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Ingold, T. (2016). The Life of Lines. “Key Debates in Anthropology” Routledge, London.

Kottak, Conrad P. 1999. The New Ecological Anthropology. In American Anthropologist 101:23-35.

Milton, Kay. 1997. Ecologies: Anthropology, Culture and the Environment. In International Social Sciences Journal 49:477-495.

Moran, Emilio F. 2006. People and Nature: An Introduction to Human Ecological Relations. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

Nels, F. 1923. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. Reading, Massachusetts: Cummings Publishing Company.

Netting, Robert McC. 1996. Cultural Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four Volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 267-271. New York: Henry Holt.

Radhakamal, K 1928, Adaptation and the Structural Transformation of Environment, 40 In. Envtl. j. 218-38.

Salzman, Phillip Carl and Donald W. Attwood. 1996. “Ecological Anthropology.” In Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Alan Barnard and Jonathan Spencer, eds. Pp. 169-172. London: Routledge.

Seymour-Smith, Charlotte. 1986. Dictionary of Anthropology. Boston: G. K. Hall and Company.

Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Townsend, Patricia. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Politics. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Suggested Reading

Balée, William. 1996. Personal communication (lectures for “Ecological Anthropology”).

Barfield, Thomas. 1997. The Dictionary of Anthropology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bates, Marston. 1955. The Prevalence of People. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Bennett, John W. 2005. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation. Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Bettinger, Robert. 1996. “Neofunctionalism.” In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 851-853. New York: Henry Holt.

Descola, Philippe and Gísli Pálsson eds. 1996. Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspective. New York: Routledge.

Dove, Michael R. and Carol Carpenter. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: A Historical Reader. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Ellen, Roy eds. 2007. Modern Crises and Traditional Strategies: Local Ecological Knowledge in Island Southeast Asia. New York: Berghahn Books.

Ellen, Roy. 1982. Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Geertz, Clifford. 1963. Agricultural Involution: The Process of Ecological Change in Indonesia. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Haenn, Nora and Richard Wilk eds. 2006. The Environment in Anthropology: A Reader in Ecology, Culture, and Sustainable Living. New York: New York University Press

Harris, Marvin. 1966. The Cultural Ecology of India’s Sacred Cattle. In Current Anthropology 7:51-66.

Harris, Marvin. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of Culture. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Headland, Thomas N. 1997. Revisionism in Ecological Anthropology. In Current Anthropology 38:605-630.

Kottak, Conrad P. 1999. The New Ecological Anthropology. In American Anthropologist 101:23-35.

Mc Elroy, Ann and Patricia K. Townsend. 2008. Medical Anthropology in Ecological Perspective. 5th ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Milton, Kay. 1997. Ecologies: Anthropology, Culture and the Environment. In International Social Sciences Journal 49:477-495.

Moran, Emilio F. 1979. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Moran, Emilio F. 1983. The Dilemma of Amazonian Development. 2nd eds. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Moran, Emilio F. 1984. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Moran, Emilio F. 1990. The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology. 2nd ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Moran, Emilio F. 2006. People and Nature: An Introduction to Human Ecological Relations. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

Moran, Emilio F. 2007. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 3rd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Moran, Emilio F. 2000. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 2nd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Netting, Robert McC. 1977. Cultural Ecology. Reading, Massachusetts: Cummings Publishing Company.

Netting, Robert McC. 1986. Cultural Ecology. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Netting, Robert McC. 1996. Cultural Ecology. In Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology. Four Volumes. David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds. Pp. 267-271. New York: Henry Holt.

Orlove, Benjamin S. 1980. Ecological Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology 9:235-273.

Rappaport, Roy A. 1968. Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea People. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale Universty Press.

Seymour-Smith, Charlotte. 1986. Dictionary of Anthropology. Boston: G. K. Hall and Company.

Steward, Julian. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Steward, Julian. 1977. Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformations. Jane C. Steward and Robert F. Murphy, eds. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Townsend, Patricia. 2008. Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Politics. 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Vayda Andrew P. and Bonnie J. McCay. 1975. New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology 4:293-306.

Vayda, Andrew P. 2009. Explaining Human Actions and Environmental Changes. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

Vayda, Andrew P., ed. 1969 Environment and Cultural Behavior. Garden City, New York: The Natural History Press.

Walters, Bradley B., Bonnie J. McCay, Paige West, and Susan Lees. 2008. Against the Grain: The Vayda Tradition in Human Ecology and Ecological Anthropology. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press.

White, Leslie A. 1959. Energy and Tools. In Readings for a History of Anthropological Theory 3rd. Paul A. Erickson and Liam D. Murphy, eds. Pp. 293-310. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press, Inc.

Winthrop, Robert H. 1991. Dictionary of Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Greenwood Press

Glossary

EcologicalAnthropology:

Ecology:

The word “ecology” is derived from the Greek oikos, meaning habitation. Haekel coined our modern understanding of ecology in 1870, defining it as “the study of the economy, of the household, of 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”. Therefore, an ecosystem consists of organisms acting in a bounded environment.

Interdisciplinary nature of Ecological Anthropology

Ecological anthropology is complex and actually made up of many different environments,including natural, constructed and cultural environments, Ecological anthropology studies is the interdisciplinary examination of how biology, geology, politics policy studies, law, geology,religion, engineering, chemistry and economics combine to inform the consideration ofhumanity’s effects on the natural world. This subject educates thestudents to appreciate the complexity of ecological issues and citizens and experts inmany fields. By studying ecological anthropology, students may develop a breadth of theinterdisciplinary and methodological knowledge in the ecological fields that enablesthem to facilitate the definition and solution of ecological problems.