Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of
Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
Ann.Rev.Anthropol.1980.9:235-73
Copyright
i 1980 byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreserved
ECOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
+9656
Benjamin S. Orlove
Divisionof Environmental
Studiesand Departmentof Anthropology,
Universityof California,Davis, California95616
INTRODUCTION
Ecologicalanthropologymaybe definedas the studyof the relationsamong
the populationdynamics,socialorganization,andcultureof humanpopulations and the environmentsin which they live. It includescomparative
researchas well as analysesof specificpopulationsfrom both synchronic
and diachronicperspectives.In manycases,systemsof productionconstitute importantlinksamongpopulationdynamics,social organization,culture, and environment.Definedas such, ecologicalanthropologyprovides
a materialistexaminationof the rangeof humanactivityand thusbearsan
affinityto other materialisticapproachesin the social and biological
sciences.
0084-6570/80/1015-0235$01.00
236
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
237
238
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 239
Despitetheirsimilarities,therewereseveralfundamentaldifferencesbetweenthesetwo foundersof ecologicalanthropology.Whitewas unwilling
to admitthe utilityof othertheoreticalframeworks,but Stewardspecifically
designatedthe areaswhere other approaches,such as historicalparticularism,couldcomplementhis ownwork.In bothsynchronicanddiachronic
studies,Whitewas muchless interestedin adaptationof groupsto specific
environmentsthanStewardwas. Finally,althoughthe distinctionis not as
rigid as some critics have made it out to be, White'smodels of cultural
evolution were unilinearand monocausal,whereas Stewardadmitteda
numberof differentlinesof culturaldevelopmentand a numberof different
causalfactors.Thesedifferencesposeda problemthat was simultaneously
intellectualand sociological;not only did many anthropologistswish to
resolvethe theoreticaldisagreementsbetweenthe two, but they soughtto
avoidfactionalismin specificinstitutionalsettingssuchas academicdepartments.
Neoevolutionism
The neoevolutionists,drawinginspirationfromthe centennialof Darwin's
publication,TheOriginofSpecies,establisheda seriesof evolutionarystages
and used the notionsof specificand generalevolution(266a)to accommodate Steward'smethodof culturalecology to White'swork on unilineal
evolution.The term neoevolutionismserves to distinguishtheir writings
from those of earlierevolutionistssuch as Tylor and Morgan.General
evolution,which tends to be unilinear,includedfeaturesfrom Steward's
work (level of integration)as well as from White's(energyuse per capita
peryear).ElmanService(276), for example,dedicatedhis PrimitiveSocial
Organization:
An Evolutionary
Approachto Stewardand White. General
evolutionstronglyresemblesthe long discardedview in biologythat evolution is progressiveand leads towardnew and betterforms in succeeding
periods. Much of this work has involved the establishmentof a small
numberof evolutionarystages.Theseformulationsalso show the influence
240
ORLOVE
Neofunctionalism
The neofunctionalist
schoolrepresentsa secondline of resolutionof Steward and White.It is associatedwith MarvinHarrisand the earlywork of
AndrewVaydaand Roy Rappaport;like the firstline of resolution,it was
concentratedfora numberof yearsat Columbiaand Michiganuniversities.
The termneofunctionalism
is used becausethe followersof this approach
see the socialorganizationand cultureof specificpopulationsas functional
adaptationswhich permitthe populationsto exploit their environments
successfullywithout exceeding their carrying capacity. This approach
differsfromotherfunctionalistapproachesin the socialsciencesin that the
unit whichis maintainedis a populationratherthan a socialorder.It also
differsfrom the treatmentof adaptationin biologicalecologyby treating
populationsratherthan individualsas the units which adaptto environments.It formsa school,althoughtherearedifferencesbetweenindividuals
in it (Harris'sgreaterconcernwith causality,Vaydaand Rappaport'swith
systemfunctioning),andsomemembershaveshiftedtheirtheoreticalposition in recentyears.
In general,neofunctionalists
explainspecificaspectsof social organizationandculturein termsof the functionswhichtheyservein adaptinglocal
populationsto theirenvironments.A close parallelmightbe notedbetween
White'stechnological,social, and ideologicalcomponentsof cultureand
Harris'sdivisionof socioculturaladaptationsinto ecologicalpatterns(inand demographicaspects),social structure,
cludingtechnoenvironmental
ECOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 241
andideology(129),whichreappear,in slightlymodifiedform,as infrastructure, structure,and superstructure
(131), with a strongsimilarityevident
to the Marxistconceptof modeof productionand its componentsof forces
of production,relationsof production,and superstructure.However,it
wouldbe moreaccurateto agreewith the membersof the neofunctionalist
school and dwell on the sharpdiscontinuitybetweentheir work and that
of Stewardand Whiteinsteadof the similarities.They adoptlocal populations rather than culturesas their units of analysis.They examinethe
interactionbetweenenvironmentsand populationsratherthantreatingthe
environmentas a passivebackgroundwhich shapesculturebut is not influencedby it, andtheirmethodologyis moreexplicit,rigorous,andquantitative than that of earlierwriters.They are concernedto adopt concepts
frombiologicalecology,althoughthey often use these conceptsin a naive
or outdatedfashionbecauseof the weakhistorical,institutional,and interpersonallinksbetweenanthropologyandbiologicalecology.Specificterms
whichwereborrowedincludeadaptation,niche,and carryingcapacity(11,
121, 122, 183,243, 339), althoughtherewerenumerousproblemswith all
three cases (35, 137, 175, 182, 216, 296). [For more thoughtfultreatment
of the conceptof adaptation,see Alland(4) andVayda(310);therearealso
a few cases (106, 175) of appropriateuse of the niche concept.]Their
uncriticaluse of Wynne-Edwards'
notions of group selectionis another
exampleof this problematicborrowing;examples(205)of the uncriticaluse
of this conceptcan be foundmorethan 10 yearsaftera devastatingattack
on it had been published(331). Like the neoevolutionists,this school is
influencedby systemstheory,both generally,in its choice of homeostatic
equilibriummodels, and specifically,in its concernwith energy flow in
ecosystems(72).
Neoevolutionism
and NeofunctionalismCompared
The neofunctionalistand neoevolutionistschools tend to follow certain
trendswithinbiologicalecology.They focus on regularitiesin ecosystemlevelprocess.In this approach,humanpopulationsarebelievedto function
withinecosystemsas otherpopulationsdo, and the interactionof different
humanpopulationsis like the interactionof differentspecieswithinecosystems (313). This approachleadsto an emphasis(237) on energyand nutrient cycling. They also adopt a view of ecosystemsas relativelytightly
integrated,andthey accepta seriesof conceptsthat areassociatedwith the
notionof "succession,"or the orderlyand regularreplacementof species
in a disturbedecosystemovertimeas it goesfroma "pioneer"to a "climax"
stage. More "mature"ecosystemsare supposedto be more complex,diverse,stable,and efficient.[Rappaport's(236) comparisonbetweenTsem-
242
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 243
Columbiaand Michiganuniversitieshad representatives
of both for many
years. Some individualswork in both approaches.Furthermore,the
concernof the neoevolutioniststo definestages (141) in generalcultural
evolution (e.g. "bands," "tribes") dovetails with the efforts of the
neofunctionaliststo establishbasic productiontypes (e.g. "huntingand
gathering,""swiddenagriculture");in some cases, as in the ones listed,
evolutionarystagesand productiontypes can be correlated(63, 73, 287).
Earlyneofunctionalist
analysis(228, 297) of the NorthwestCoastgroups
showedthat the apparentlyexotic customof the potlatchservedadaptive
functionsby encouragingthe redistributionof food from groupswith a
temporarysurplusto those with a temporarydeficit.Part of the appealof
this analysis(71, 162, 211) derivedfrom the abilityto challengeBoas on
his own ground,since the culturesof that area were amongthe ones he
studiedmostintensively.In addition,it begana tendency,still quitestrong,
withinneofunctionalecologicalanthropology,to defineone of its tasksas
the explicationof ethnographicriddles (130). In this line of work, an
ecologicalanthropologistpicksa customor practicewhichwouldseem to
demonstratethe extremeinterculturalvariabilityof humanbehaviorand
the lackof fitbetweencultureandenvironment;
the supposedlyimpractical
culturalelementsareshownto possesspositiveadaptivevalue.The second
such riddlewas the sacredcattleof India(127, 128, 208). Otherexamples
have appeared,the most currentlyfamousof which is Aztec cannibalism
andits purportednutritionalsignificance(125, 222, 231:see also 143,253).
The adoptionof riddleexplicationas a goal would seem to be justifiedby
the followinglogic:if apparentlyimpracticalbehaviorcan be explainedon
ecologicalgrounds,thenlessimpracticalbehaviormustsurelyalsobe explicable in the same manner.Although the discussionof such riddleshas
attracteda fair amountof attentionwithinstrictlyanthropologicalcircles
and othersas well (134), it has often not led to a more thoroughattempt
to explainthe less bizarrebehaviorthat makes up much of the subject
matterof ecologicalanthropology(6). Insteadit has led to the proposalof
alternativesolutionsto the riddles(67-69) with little possibilityof empirically testingthem.
The neofunctionalist
schoolhas broughtcertainbenefits,particularlythe
generationof detaileddescriptionsof food-producingsystems(5, 153, 199,
256), a greaterconcernfor recordingenvironmentalanddemographicdata
(200), the suggestionof the systematicnatureof the interactionsbetween
the environmenton the one hand and social organizationand cultureon
the other, and the demonstrationof certainweak points in the work of
Stewardand White.Thereare severalproblemswhichhaveemergedfrom
it, some of which also apply to the neoevolutionists:(a) Functionalist
are simplyincorrectin attemptingto argue
fallacy.The neofunctionalists
244
ORLOVE
ANTHROPOLOGY 245
ECOLOGICAL
libriumare difficultto assessbecausethey requirea long time scale. The
workalso tendsto presenta sharpdisjuncturebetweensynchronicequilibrium and long-termmacroevolutioncorrespondingto the separationbetween the neofunctionalistsand the neoevolutionists.Mechanismsof
short-termculturalevolutionare also oftenlacking.[See,however,Leeds's
(169) treatmentof microinvention.]
246
ORLOVE
Actor-BasedModelsand ProcessualEcologicalAnthropology
A majorinfluenceon the processualecologicalanthropologyis the actorbasedmodelswhichhavereceivedgeneralinterestin socialanthropology.
The literatureon these modelsis large and diverse;one particularfocus,
decision-making
models,will be emphasizedhere.The actor-basedmodels
formpartof a generalshiftin postwaranthropologyin bothBritainandthe
UnitedStatesfromsocialstructureto socialprocess,fromtreatingpopulations as uniformto examiningdiversityand variabilitywithin them, and
fromnormativeandjuralaspectsto behavioralaspectsof social relations.
Firth's(92-94) distinctionbetweensocialstructureandsocialorganization
is a majorpointof departure.He underscoredthe importanceof variability
in decisionmakingand individualbehavior,and demonstratedthat many
social systemscontainoptionsamongwhich individualsmust choose.
The actor-basedmodels have several advantages:they account for a
widerrangeof socialorganizationthanpreviousmodelsdo; they permita
more preciseanalysisof the parametersof behaviorand the variationof
behaviorwithin populations;they admit more readilyan examinationof
conflictand competition;and they offerthe potentialof examiningchange
throughan analysisof theprocesseswhichgenerateeconomic,political,and
social relations.One importantaspect of actor-basedmodelsis decisionmakingmodels,whichmaybe looselydividedinto two types:cognitiveor
naturalisticmodelsandmicroeconomicmodels.Thesetypesare not necessarily opposed, as attemptsat synthesis(47a, 147) show; they remain,
however, largely distinct. The former, borrowingfrom cognitive anthropology,attemptto depict actual psychologicalprocessesof decision
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
247
makingby locatingthe cognizedalternativesand the proceduresfor choosing among them. Quinn (234, p. 42) distinguisheswithin these among
"informationprocessingmodels,""retrodictivemodels,"and "modelsof
culturalprinciples."Thesetypesall tendto be employedto analyzecontexts
in which individualsmust select among a small numberof alternatives,
often on the basis of considerationof social status. Postmaritalresidence
and adoptionare commontopics.Thesemodelsofferusefullinksbetween
studiesof nativesystemsof classificationandactualbehavior;suchethnosemanticmodelshavebeendevelopedfor the plantingdecisionsof Brazilian
sharecroppers
(154-156)and the marketingdecisionsof WestAfricanfish
vendors(108).Thesemodelsoftenare appliedto situationsin whichalternativesare finiteand maybe distinguishedby discreteratherthancontinuous variables.The parameterswhich affectthe choices tend to be few in
number,and the outcomesof choices are certain,or nearlyso.
Themicroeconomicmodelsresembleeconomicmodelsof choicemaking.
Actors operatingundera set of constraintsallocatescarceresourcesto a
hierarchicalseriesof endsor goals. Manysuch modelsassumethat actors
attempt to maximize some valued state, although some authors have
proposedmorecomplexmodelsof optimizationssuchas "satisficing,"
minimax strategies,and hierarchiesof strategies(18, 274). In this fashionthey
avoidthe rigiditiesoftenattributedto modelsof rationalactors(139).There
is a largerconcernwith the outcomeof the decisionand less emphasison
theprocessof decisionmaking.Thesemodelsareappliedto situationswith
greateruncertaintyand ambiguity,wherethe rangeof alternativesand the
outcomesof choicesare less well defined.The alternativesmay be distinguishedby continuousas well as discretevariables,and manyparameters
may influencethem. Barth's (12) effortsat generativemodels of social
organizationare an exampleof such work.Borrowingfrom game theory,
he attemptsto explainpoliticalorganizationamongPathansas a structure
which had emergedfroma largenumberof individualdecisionsmadeby
actors operatingunderdifferentconstraints.Ortiz's(220, 221) studiesof
plantingand marketingdecisionsby small-scalefarmersin Colombiaare
anotherexample.Althoughthese models can be criticizedfor takingthe
goals and constraintsas givens and failing to examine the patternsof
resourcedistribution,they have been of considerableuse in anthropology
as in politicalscienceand economics.
The potentiallinks between ecological anthropologyand actor-based
modelsare strong,but they have not been utilizedextensively.Ecological
anthropology,particularlyin its firsttwo historicalstages,emphasizedthe
importanceof environmental
factorsin shapingcollectivepatternsof behavior.The neglectof the examinationof individualswhichthisfocushasoften
producedmay be explainedin partby the repudiationof the examination
248
ORLOVE
ProcessualEcologicalAnthropology,
BiologicalEcology,
and Evolution
The emphasison individualdecisionmakingalso correspondsto recent
developmentsin biologicalecology,with its stresson naturalselectionon
the levelof individualorganismsas a principlewhichorganizespopulations
and communities(176, 185, 245). The links betweenmicroeconomicand
ecologicalmodelshave been drawnto show parallelsbetweenconsumer
choiceand foragingstrategies,investmentbehaviorand life-historystrategies, locationsof firmsand refugingbehavior,marketbehaviorand predator-preyinteractions,andthe like(146,241). In addition,the criticismsthat
the neofunctionalists
and neoevolutionistshave establisheda rigidseparation betweensynchronicstudiesof homeostaticequilibriaand diachronic
studies of long-termevolutiondirectlyparallelthe criticismthat earlier
workin ecology,typifiedby Odumandothers,failsto synthesizeadequately
energy-flowstudiesandstudiesof ecosystemsuccession.Theeffortsof these
ecologiststo linkthe two throughecosystem-levelprocessessuchas ecosystem strategiesand maturityhave run into serious difficulties.Majorresearchprojectsalongtheselinesin the InternationalBiologicalProgramdid
ECOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
249
Componentsof ProcessualEcologicalAnthropology
modelsarecloselytiedto
DEMOGRAPHY Demographicdecision-making
the specifictrendsin processualecologicalanthropologymentionedearlier
250
ORLOVE
in this section. They bear on the recent work in demographyand anthropologywhich has contributedto processualecologicalanthropology.
Neofunctionalistwork emphasizednegativefeedbackmechanismswhich
maintainedpopulationsat staticlevels:neoevolutionists
lookedat the broad
details of human demographichistory, and often missed the details of
particularcases.
A seminalworkin this fieldis Boserup'sThe Conditionsof Agricultural
Growth(31). Her well-knownhypothesesreverseMalthusiandescriptions
of humandemographyto suggestthat populationpressurecauses rather
than follows agriculturalintensification;people shift from more efficient
extensivesystemsto less efficientintensiveones only when drivenby the
necessityof feedingmoreindividuals.The generaloutlinesof her argument
andthe detailsof hersequenceof stagesin agriculturalintensification
have
attracteda great deal of attention.Many authorshave pointed out the
shortcomingsof her excessivelysimple scheme, and indicatethat other
factorscan alsoinfluencethe sequencesof agriculturalintensification;
these
includemarketsystems,politicalpressures,and environmentalvariables.
Boserup'sworkandstudiesby Spooner(286) andothers(14, 17,25, 37, 61,
113, 124, 126, 190, 203, 307, 325) stimulatedby it may be classifiedas
processual,for severalreasons.The effortto assessthe linksbetweenpopulationpressureandagriculturalintensificationhaveled to diachronicstudies (190) in which changes in single groups are traced through time;
researchin otherareasfor whichlittle historicalreconstructionis possible
hasbeencarriedoutby examiningthe covariationof populationdensityand
agriculturalintensity(34a), with the assumptionthat currentdistribution
of associationsresemblespast sequences.The studiesoften rest on an implicit decision-makingmodel in which actors actuallyallocatescarce resources (labor) in order to achieve goals (food production). The
mechanismsof changeare seen in the connectionbetweenpopulationand
resources,linkedthroughsystemsof agriculturalproductionandthe necessity to feed local populations.Individualdecisionshavecumulativeconsequenceswhich lead to broaderchange;shorteningof fallow periodsmay
lead to a shift from communaltenureto privateproperty,for instance.
Otherwork links demographicand ideologicalchange(20).
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS Vayda& McCay(311, 312) arguethat
the literatureon the responseto environmentalproblemsis an important
shift awayfromthe strongfocuson energeticsand fromthe assumptionof
as they show,it also permitsan examinationof individstableequilibrium;
forces.Waddell's(314)
ualas wellas populationresponsesto environmental
workon the responseof the FringeEngain highlandNew Guineadescribes
threetypesof responsesto threelevelsof frostintensityandduration,with
ECOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 251
larger(thoughstillsubpopulation)
setsof individualsactingin casesof more
severepotentialor actualdamageto crops. Earlierwork by Vayda(308,
309) and others(120) on the natureof warfareand the choiceof different
formsof attackratherthan otherresponsesto certainsituationssimilarly
makesthe pointthat the natureof the responsecan be correlatedwith the
scaleof the problem.Otherworksshowthat responsescanvaryon individual as well as collectivelevels to naturalstresses such as storms (17),
droughts(171, 212, 232, 243), famine(159, 219), and earthquakes(210).
Laughlin's(163, 164)well-documented
analysisof the responsesof the So
in East Africato periodiccrop failuresis anothergood exampleof use of
decision-making
modelsandthe analysisof environmental
problems.Britan
& Denich (33) addresssimilarissuesin Newfoundlandand Yugoslaviain
casesof secularratherthancyclicalchange.Someefforts(209a)havebeen
made to quantifyenvironmentalhazards.
ADAPTIVE STRATEGIES The notionof adaptivestrategyfollowsclosely
from that of decisionmaking.The idea of adaptivestrategysuggeststhat
individuals,by repeatedlyoptingfor certainactivitiesratherthan others,
constructalternativeswhich othersmay then choose or imitate.It is also
congruentwith the emphasison strategiesand fitness in evolutionary
biology(304).A focuson adaptivestrategiesleadsto an examinationof the
mannerin which a largernumberof choices made by individualscan
influencethe widersetting(27, 47a, 178,278a, 300, 323, 330). Rutz's(258)
analysisof householddecisionmakingin a Fijianvalley,for instance,shows
the unplannedvillage-levelconsequencesof interactionbetweenhouseholds
and their resolutionof competitionover differenttypes of land. McCay
(186) examinestwo types of adaptivestrategiesamongFogo Islandersas
responsesto a periodof decline in the nearbyfisheries.Individualsand
householdsmay adopt "diversification"
and "intensification"
responses,
and the latter in particularled to outside interventionby governmental
agencies,whichmadethe environmentalproblemsmore severe.The concept of adaptivestrategy,however,is often more elusivethan one might
suspect, as suggestedby definitionssuch as Bennett's(22, p. 14): "the
patternsformedby the many separateadjustmentsthat peopledevise in
order to obtainand use resourcesand to solve the immediateproblems
confrontingthem."The issuesof the consciousnessof the adaptivestrategies and the ease with which they may be adoptedare often not wholly
confronted;the sameworkby Bennetton a regionin the CanadianGreat
Plains recognizesfour strategies(rancher,farmer,Hutterite,Indian)but
does not fully examinethe consequencesof the fact that it is easier for
farmersandranchersto shiftbetweenthosetwo strategiesthanto adoptthe
Hutteriteor Indianone.
252
ORLOVE
of Marxismbecome
MARXISM It is at thisjuncturethatthe contributions
evident.The importantroleof Marxismin the two earlierstagesof ecological anthropologymakesits contributionsin the third stageappropriate.If
adaptivestrategiesareseenas the outcomeof decisionmaking,or repeated
allocationof scarceresourcesto a hierarchyof goals underconditionsof
constraint,then it is necessaryto examinethe patternof resourcedistribution and the source of the goals and constraints.This is preciselythe
contributionof recentworkin Marxism,includingmuchstructuralMarxism (29, 103, 111)andthe new politicaleconomy.In particular,a reconsiderationof the notionof modeof productionquestionedthe rigidsequence
by the
of successionof modesand the determinationof the superstructure
andneofuncbase(140, 172,215),parallelinga rejectionof neoevolutionism
tionalism.Dependencytheoryraisedsimilarissues on the relationof economics and politics and suggestedthe importanceof an examinationof
worldsystems.Thisworkis compatiblewiththe emerginginterestin political economywithinanthropology(1, 36, 49, 114, 119, 151, 180, 213, 250,
269, 273), the concernfor a historicalmaterialistperspective(59), and an
emphasison the links betweenlocal populationsand widersystems(3la,
36a,259), includingregionalstudies(16), studiesof complexsociety(334),
and a world-systemsperspective(217). This workthus contrastswith the
neofunctionalistecologicalanthropology,which often adoptedthe local
populationas its unit of analysis.For a structuralMarxistcritiqueand
reply,see (102) and (240). Each socialformationmay be seen as havinga
characteristicset of forcesand relationsof productionand an associated
by
This socialformationis pushedtowardtransformation
superstructure.
andbetween
conffictswithinthe base,betweenthe baseandsuperstructure,
the social formationand its wider naturaland social setting.Any social
formationis a transformation
of the ones that precededit. This criticism
is similarto the one madeby Sahlins,that ecologicalanthropologyreduces
cultureto "proteinand profit"(266, p. 45), that it misses the fact that
activityand ideologyforma coherentstructuredwholeof meaningand its
expression.This criticismalso attacksthe lack of satisfactorytreatmentof
the mechanismswhich generatehuman behavioron the part of many
neofunctionalistsand neoevolutionists.
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
253
254
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
255
qualityor availability;
Harris& Ross (133)presenta contraryposition,that
preferencesfor differentsortsof meatmirrortheiravailabilityand quality.
Sahlinsarguesby alludingto the symbolicmeaningsattachedto animalsin
otherdomains,whichtransformbiologicallyedibleanimalssuch as cattle,
swine,dogs, andhorsesinto distinctculturaldegreesof edibilityandinedibility;Ross (251)juxtaposesdataon animalproductionandmeatpreservation in the United Stateswith statementson relativepreferencefor cattle
and swine. One mightarguethat the truthlies somewherein between,as
does one analyst(322) of Americancommoditiesinterestedin predicting
futurelevels of consumption;if the price of one type of meat goes down,
peoplewillbuymoreof it, butcertaintraditionalpreferenceschangeslowly.
It might also be arguedthat both are wrongsince neitherone focuseson
individualsas actors,but ratheron superorganicsystems.It is difficultfor
Sahlinsto accountfor changingfood preferences,and Harris& Ross (133)
cannot explain lags in changingavailabilityand consumptionpatterns.
Decisionsaboutdiet, like manyotherdecisions,are not alwaysmadefully
consciously,and they reflecta numberof goals and constraints,yet their
cumulativeimpactis large.
The relativeisolationof islandsocietiesandthe recentsettlementof some
make the examinationof the interrelationof social and culturalpatterns
with the environmentparticularlyclearin the Pacificcase.Anothersimilar
case, however,may be foundin Europe.In a study of an alpinevalleyin
northernItaly, Cole & Wolf (54) find strikingdifferencesbetweena Germanicanda Romance-speaking
village,despitesimilaritiesin environment,
technology,and population.Thoughboth villagesare Catholic,they partakeof the somewhatdifferentculturesof northernEuropeand the Mediterranean.The inheritancepatterns(335) in each, for instance,representa
compromisebetweenthe respectiveculturalidealsof impartibleand partible inheritanceon the one handandthe exigenciesof alpineagricultureand
livestockraisingon the other;the two areclosebut still distinct.Settlement
patternsand villagepoliticalsystemsalso reflectthe culturaldifferences
betweenthe two. Thesefactsare takento indicatesome "doubts... about
the usefulnessof ecologicalanthropologyin the studyof complexsocieties"
(54, p. 284); it might betterbe arguedthat it is neofunctionalecological
anthropologywhoseutilityis dubious.The historyof each villageincludes
a seriesof contactswith othervillagesand widerpoliticalunits;this, however,is also trueof mostMelanesianandmanyPolynesiansocietiesas well.
The two villagesare the outcomeof a long historyof interactionbetween
environment,social structure,and culturein the valley and surrounding
region. The debateabout whetherthey really have more in commonas
Alpinepeasantsor less in commonas Germanicsand Latinsis not wholly
256
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
257
Mechanismsof Change
modelscanprovide
In processualecologicalanthropology,decision-making
a mechanismof changebecausethere is interactionbetweenthe choices
which actorsmake,behaviorson an individualand grouplevel, and the
biological,social,and culturalsystemswhich influencethe distributionof
resources,constrainthe possibleadaptivestrategies,and providesome of
the goals which the actors attempt to meet. In this view, culture and
but as proximatecauseswhichshape
ideologyarenot seenas epiphenomena
humanaction.They influencethe optionsamongwhich individualsselect
andin turnareinfluencedby the cumulativeconsequencesof such choices.
This view facilitatesthe synthesisof recentMarxistwork and ecological
anthropology.Thesepointsare supportedby recentliteratureon Highland
New Guinea(31a, 187, 188, 195,279, 299, 320), the Philippines(7, 74, 82),
pastoralnomads(148,225, 226, 269, 270, 278a,305), andothergroups(64,
78, 115, 275, 288, 329).
Otherwriters,dissatisfiedwith such eclecticism,have soughtmoreconcise and formalizedpresentationsof mechanismsof change.One approach
is the previouslymentionedculturaldeterminismof Sahlinsandothers.His
(265),however,looksat qualitativechange
treatmentof "transformations"
withoutexaminingthe quantitativechangewithwhichit is inextricablyand
dialecticallylinked.To drawan analogy,he wouldsuggestthat a comparisonof a fewframesfroma filmis sufficientto depictthe eventsandprocesses
which were recorded.Such still photographs,though, even if they were
analyzedin detail,couldnot portraymotion.The viewof sociobiology(47)
is that humanbehavior,like that of otherspecies,is shapedby the dictates
of naturalselectionon geneticvariation.This pointresemblesthat of other
writerswho emphasizepopulationsize and growth as an indicationof
adaptation,althoughit differson insistingon a geneticratherthana cultural
basisof behavior.The debatessurroundingthis approachwill not be summarizedhere.[It is worthnoting,however,thatargumentsmadein sociobiologicaltermscanfrequentlybe recastwithoutany referenceto the genetic
basisfor behavior.Thus, in a recentarticle,Dyson-Hudson& Smith(81)
presentan argumentthathumanterritorialbehaviorfollowsthe predictions
of ecologicaltheory with regardto spatial patternsof resourceuse and
defense;they show that territorialityamong Basin-PlateauIndians, the
258
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
259
SpecificCases
Two recentworkswhichexemplifyprocessualecologicalanthropologyare
TheRaftFishermen(98) andFieldsof the Tzotzil(55).Theformeranalyzes
the retentionof fishingfromraftsin a Brazilianvillagewhereboats,which
wouldpermitlargercatches,arealso available.The studyexaminesa local
populationbutplacesit in the contextsof extralocaleconomicandpolitical
systems.Forman'sexplanationbegins with the decisionsthat individual
actors make. He shows that local elites would be able to dominatethe
fishermenevenmorethoroughlythantheycurrentlydo if the shiftin fishing
techniquestook place.The fishermenaccuratelyperceivethat they would
have an absolutelyas well as a relativelysmallershareof the total catchif
that catchwereincreasedby shiftingto boat fishing.The lack of changeis
thusa dynamicratherthana staticequilibrium;
if certainaspectsof external
dominationwere to change(such as the systemof patron-clientrelations
on the regionalandnationallevel),the localsituationwouldchangeas well.
[However,Forman(97) has recentlybeen criticized(60, 186) for leaning
towardneofunctionalism
in makingrelativelyunsubstantiated
claimsthat
secrecy about identifyingfishingspots serves to reducecompetitionand
preventoverfishing,and his analysisof kinship has been challengedon
methodologicalgrounds(191).]
Collier'sstudyin southernMexicoaddressesa generallysimilarquestion,
the reasonsfor the retentionof traditionalidentitiesamongpeasants,as
Indiansin distinctionto ladinosand as membersof specificcommunities
(municipios)in distinctionto othersuchcommunities.He showsthe benefits that these identitieswould confer on individualsand the difficulties
whichthe loss of identitieswouldbringabout.He examineslocal systems
of productionin detailandshowsthe consequencesof demographic
increase
and externalpressureson them. He thus retains much of the systems
orientationof earlierwork withoutfalling into a functionalistbias. The
detaileddataon changingpatternsof lineagecomposition,landtenure,and
labor utilizationsystematicallydocumentthe responseof individualsto
shifting environmentaland demographicconstraints,and the historical
materialshows the impactof the cumulativeconsequencesof these decisionson the environment
andwidereconomicandpoliticalsystems.He also
integratesregionaland nationallevel processeswith the study of local
populationsmorethoroughlythan Forman.This workthus drawson the
areasof processualecologicalanthropologymentionedearlier-the relation
of demographicvariablesand productionsystems,the responseof populationsto environmental
stress,andthe formationandconsolidationof adaptive strategies.This work, however, has been criticized recently both
implicitlyand explicitlyfor failingto analyzecorrectlythe role of Chiapas
260
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICAL
ANTHROPOLOGY 261
thropologists,notablyBarth(13) andLeeds(170),bothof whomhaveused
actor-basedmodelswith considerablesuccessin the analysisof social and
economicorganizationof complexsocieties.Some nonstatesettingshave
also attractedprocessualecological anthropologists(36a). New Guinea
allowsfor the testingof Boserup'shypothesison demographicpressureand
and the natureof Melanesiansocialand politiagriculturalintensification,
cal organizationmakesactor-basedmodelsparticularlyappealing.Nevertheless, many of the factorsidentifiedin complex societies are at work
elsewhere,and even the supposedlyisolatedlocal populationsstudiedby
neofunctionalistecologicalanthropologistshave undergoneprocessesof
historicalchangeandrelyon extralocalresources,as shownby Anderson's
(5) criticismsof Rappaport's(236) analysisof Tsembagain highlandNew
Guinea,Helms'(142)analysisof MiskitoIndiansin lowlandCentralAmerica, studiedby Nietschmann(207), and Schrire's(275a)reexaminationof
the San (166, 166b)of southernAfrica.
CONCLUSIONS
Processualecologicalanthropologyis a reactionto neofunctionalistand
neoevolutionary
approaches,whichwerealsoresponsesto the pioneerwork
of Julian Stewardand Leslie White. Adoptingan historicaltime frame,
ratherthan examiningsynchronichomeostaticequilibriaor the manymillenia of humanhistory,permitsa closer focus on mechanismsof change.
By studyingunitsotherthanthe localpopulationon whichthe neofunctionalists concentrated,studieshave been carriedout of largerunits (political
economy)and smallerones (actor-basedmodels).The eliminationof functionalist assumptionshas had severalconsequences:(a) a focus on the
mechanismswhichlink environmentand behavior;(b) an abilityto incorporateconflictas well as cooperationby recognizingthat not all goals are
population-wide;
(c) more precisestudiesof productiveactivities,settlementpatterns,andthe likewithoutassumptionsaboutequilibriummaintenance.
Processualecologicalanthropologydrawson severalrecenttrendsin the
social sciences:demography,an examinationof environmentalproblems,
the conceptof adaptivestrategies,and recentworkin Marxism.Decisionmaking models link all of them. The gap between anthropologistsand
biologistsis also narrowing,as specialistsin each fieldbecomemoreaware
of workin the otherand havebeguneffortsto link the two theories(as in
dual inheritanceapproaches)and to borrowmore cautiouslythan in the
past. The homologiesbetweenactor-basedmodels and naturalselection
favor this connectionbetweensciences without assumingthat they are
262
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
263
Econ.Monogr.Soc.Anthropol.No. 19.
London:Athlone
13. Barth,F. 1961.NomadsofSouthPersia:
The Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh
Confederacy.
Oslo:Oslo Univ. Press
14. Basehart,H. W. 1973. Cultivationintensity,settlementpatterns,and homesteadformsamongtheMatengoof Tanzania.Ethnology12:57-73
15. Bates,D. G., Lees,S. H. 1977.Therole
of exchangein productivespecialization. Am. Anthropol79:824-41
16. Bates, D. G., Lees, S. H. 1979. The
mythof populationregulation.See Ref.
47, pp. 273-89
17. Bayliss-Smith,
T. 1974.Constraintson
population growth: the case of the
Polynesianoutlieratollsin the precontractperiod.Hum. Ecol 2:259-95
18. Becker,G. S. 1976. TheEconomicApproach to Human Behavior.Chicago:
Univ. ChicagoPress
19. Beckerman,S. 1979.The abundanceof
proteinin Amazonia:a replyto Gross.
Am. Anthropol.81:533-60
20. Bell,R. M. 1979.FateandHonor,Famand Culily and Village:Demographic
turalChangein RuralItalySince1800.
Chicago:Univ. ChicagoPress
21. Bennett,A. F., Ruben,J. A. 1979.Endothermyand activity in vertebrates.
Science206:649-54
22. Bennett,J. W. 1969. NorthernPlainsmen: AdaptiveStrategyand Agrarian
Life. Chicago:Aldine
23. Bennett, J. W. 1976. The Ecological
and
Transition:CulturalAnthropology
Human Adaptation.London: Pergamon
24. Bennett,J. W. 1976.Anticipation,adaptation,and the conceptof culturein
anthropology.Science 192:847-953
25. Berreman, G. D. 1978. Ecology,
demographyand domesticstrategiesin
the westernHimalayas.J. Anthropol.
Res 34:326-68
264
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
an Alpine Valley.New York/London:
Academic
55. Collier,G. 1976.Fieldsof the Tzotzil:
The EcologicalBases of Traditionin
HighlandChiapas.Austin:Univ.Texas
Press
56. Collier,G. 1978.The determinantsof
highlandMayakinship.J Fam. Hist.
3(4):439-53
57. Conant,F. P. 1978.Theuse of LANDSAT datain studiesof humanecology.
Curr.Anthropol.19:382-84
57a. Conklin,H. C. 1954.An ethnoecological approachto shifting agriculture.
TransNYAcad.Sci 17(2 ser.):133-42
58. Connell,J. H. 1978.Diversityin tropical rainforestsand coral reefs.Science
199:1302-10
59. Coombs,G., Plog,F. 1977.Theconversionof theChumashIndians:anecological interpretation. Hum. Ecol.
5:309-28
60. Cordell, J. 1978. Carryingcapacity
analysisof fixed-territorial
fishing.Ethnology 17:1-24
61. Cowgill,G. L. 1975.Oncausesandconsequencesof ancientandmodempopulation changes. Am. Anthropol.
77:505-25
61a. Cuadros,J. J. 1977. Informe etnogrifico de Collaguas(1974-1975). In
CollaguasI, ed. F. Pease, pp. 35-52.
Lima:Pontif.Univ. Cat6l.
62. Custred,G. 1977.Peasantkinship,subsistenceand economicsin a high altitude Andeanenvironment.In Andean
KinshipandMarriage,ed.R. Bolton,E.
Mayer,pp. 117-35. Washington:Am.
Anthropol.Assoc.
63. Damas,D., ed. 1969.Contributions
to
anthropology:band societies. Natl.
Mus. Can.Bull. 228
64. Damas,D. 1975.Demographicaspects
of CentralEskimomarriagepatterns.
Am. Ethnol.2:409-18
65. Dayton, P. K., Hessler,R. R. 1972.
Role of biologicaldisturbance
in maintining diversityin the deepsea. DeepSea Res. 19:199-208
66. Despres, L. 1975. Ethnicity and resource competitionin Guyanesesociety. In EthnicityandResourceCompetitionin PluralSocieties,ed. L. Despres,
pp. 87-118. The Hague:Mouton
67. Diener,P. 1974.Ecologyor evolution?
The Hutterite case. Am. Ethnol.
1:601-18
68. Diener,P., Noninc,D., Robkin,E. E.
1978.The dialecticsof the sacredcow:
ecological adaptationversus political
in the originsof India's
appropriation
265
266
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
120. Hailpike,C. R. 1973.Functionalistinterpretations
of primitivewarfare.Man
8:451-70
121. Hardesty,D. L. 1972.The humanecological niche. Am. Anthropol. 74:
458-66
122. Hardesty,D. L. 1975.The niche concept: suggestionsfor its use in human
ecology.Hum. Ecol. 3:71-85
123. Hardesty,D. L. 1977. EcologicalAnthropology.New York:Wiley
124. Harner,M. 1970.Populationpressure
andthe socialevolutionof agriculturalists. Southwest.J. Anthrol.26:67-86
125. Harner,M. 1977.The ecologicalbasis
of Aztec sacrifice. Am. Ethnol.
4:117-35
126. Harris,G. T. 1978.Responsesto population pressure in the Papua New
Guinea Highlands,1957-74. Oceania
48:284-98
127. Harris,M. 1965.Themythof thesacred
cow. In Man, Culture,and Animals:
TheRoleofAnimalsin HumanEcological Adjustments,ed. A. Leeds,A. P.
Vayda,pp. 217-28. Washington:Am.
Assoc. Adv. Sci.
128. Harris,M. 1966.The culturalecology
of India'ssacredcattle.Curr.Anthropol.
7:51-59
129. Harris,M. 1975. Culture,People,Nature:An Introductionto GeneralAnthropology.
NewYork:Crowell.2nded.
130. Harris,M. 1977.Cannibalsand Kings:
The Originsof Cultures.New York:
RandomHouse
131. Harris,M. 1979.CulturalMaterialism:
TheStrugglefor a Scienceof Culture.
New York:RandomHouse
132. Harris,M. 1979.The humanstrategy.
Nat. Hist. 88:30-36
133. Harris,M., Ross,E. B. 1978.Howbeef
becameking. Psychol.Today12:88-94
134. Harris,M., Sahlins,M. D. 1979.'Cannibalsandkings':anexchange.NYRev.
Books26:45-70
135. Harris,0. 1978.El parentescoy la economiaverticalen el AylluLaymi(norte
de Potosi).Avances(La Paz, Bolivia)
267
268
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICALANTHROPOLOGY
191. Mitchell,S. 1974.The influenceof kinshipin the socialorganization
of North
East Brazilianfishermen:a contrastin
casestudies.J Lat.Am.Stud.6:301-13
192. Mitchell, W. P. 1976. Irrigationand
communityin the Central Peruvian
Highlands.Am.Anthropol.78(1):25-44
193. Montgomery,E. 1977.Humanecology
and the populationconcept:the Yelnadu Reddi populationin India. Am.
Ethnol.4:175-89
194. Moran, E. F. 1979. Human Adaptability:An Introductionto Ecological
Anthropology.
NorthScituate:Duxbury
195. Moylan,T. 1973. Disequilibrium
in a
New Guinealocalecosystem.Mankind
9:61-70
196. Murphy,R. F. 1977.Introduction:
The
anthropologicaltheoriesof Julian H.
Steward.In EvolutionandEcology:EssaysonSocialTransformation,
ed. J. H.
Steward,pp. 1-39. Urbana:Univ. Illinois Press
197. Murphy,R. F., Steward,J. H. 1955.
Tappers and trappers:parallel processesin acculturation.
Econ.Dev.Cult.
Change4:335-55
198. Murra,J. V. 1975. Formacionesecon6micasy politicasdel mundoandino.
Lima:Inst. Estud.Peru.
199. Nabhan,G. P., Sheridan,T. E. 1977.
Livingfencerowsof the Rio SanMiguel, Sonora,Mexico:traditionaltechnology for flood plain management.
Hum. Ecol. 5:97-111
200. Naroll,R., Divale,W. T. 1976.Natural
selectionin culturalevolution:warfare
versuspeacefuldiffusion.Am. Ethnol.
3:97-129
201. Netting, R. M. 1968. Hill Farmersof
Nigeria:CulturalEcologyof theKofyar
of theJosPlateau.Seattle:Univ.WashingtonPress
202. Netting, R. M. 1969. Ecosystemsin
process:a comparative
studyof change
in two WestAfricansocieties.In Contributionsto Anthropology:
Ecological
Essays,ed. D. Damas.Natl.Mus. Can.
Bull. 230:102-12
203. Netting, R. M. 1973. Fighting,forest
and the fly:some demographicregulators among the Kofyar.J. Anthropol.
Res. 29:164-79
204. Netting,R. M. 1976.Whatalpinepeasants have in common:observationson
communaltenure in a Swiss village.
Hum. Ecol. 4:13546
205. Netting,R. M. 1977. CulturalEcology
MenloPark:Cummings
206. Newcomer, P. 1972. The Nuer are
Dinka.Man (NS) 7:5-11
269
270
ORLOVE
ECOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
271
272
ORLOVE
the Middle East. J AsianAfr. Stud. 303. Torry, W. I. 1976. Residence rules
7:122-31
amongtheGabranomads:someecolog288. Stauder,J. 1971.TheMajangir:
ical considerations. Ethnology 15:
Ecology
and Societyof a SouthwestEthiopian
269-85
People. Cambridge:CambridgeUniv. 304. Valentine,J. W. 1970.Resourcesupply
Press
and speciesdiversitypatterns.Lethaia
289. Steward,J. H. 1937.Ecologicalaspects
4:51-61
of southwesternsociety. Anthropos 305. VanHorn,L. 1972.Doubledescentand
32:87-104
subsistenceamongthe Hereroof South290. Steward,J. H. 1949.Culturalcausality
west Africa and Botswana.Anthropol.
andlaw:a trialformulation
of thedevelJ. Can. 10:2-15
opmentof earlycivilizations.Am. An- 306. VanStone,J. W. 1976. The Yukon
thropol.51:1-27
RiverIngalik:subsistence,the furtrade
291. Steward,J. H. 1946-1950.TheHandanda changingresourcebase.EthnohisbookofSouthAmericanIndians,Washtory 23:199-212
ington:GPO. 6 vols.
307. Vasey,D. E. 1979.Populationandagri292. Steward,J. H. 1955. Theoryof Culture
culturalintensityin the humidtropics.
Change:TheMethodology
of MultilinHum. Ecol. 7:269-83
ear Evolution.Urbana:Univ. Illinois 308. Vayda,A. P. 1969. The study of the
Press
causesof war with specialreferenceto
293. Steward,J. H. 1960.Evolutionary
prinheadhuntingraidsin Borneo.Ethnohisciplesandsocialtypes.In EvolutionAftory 16:211-24
ter Darwin, ed. S. Tax, 2:169-86. 309. Vayda,
A. P. 1974.Warfarein ecologiChicago:Univ. ChicagoPress
cal perspective.Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
294. Steward,J. H. 1968.The conceptand
5:183-93
methodof culturalecology.In Interna- 310. Vayda,
A. P. 1976. On the "New
tional Encyclopediaof The Social
Ecology" paradigm.Am. Anthropol.
Sciences,ed. D. L. Sills,4:337-44.New
78:645-6
York:Macmillan
295. Steward,J. H. 1977. Evolutionand 311. Vayda,A. P., MacKay,B. 1975.New
directionsin ecologyandecologicalanEcology:Essayson Social Transformathropology. Ann. Rev. Anthropol.
tion, ed. J. C. Steward,R. F. Murphy.
4:293-306
Urbana:Univ. IllinoisPress
296. Street,J. 1969. An evaluationof the 312. Vayda,A. P., MacKay,B. 1977.Problems in the identificationof environconcept of carrying capacity. Prof.
mental problems.In Subsistenceand
Geogr.21:104-7
Survival:Rural Ecologyin the Pacific,
297. Suttles, W. 1960. Affinalties,subsised. T. P. Bayliss-Smith,
R. G. A. Featenceandprestigeamongthe CoastSachem. New York/London:Academic.
lish. Am. Anthropol.62:296-300
In press
298. Testart,A. 1977. Les chasseurs-cueilleurs dans la perspectiveecologique. 313. Vayda, A. P., Rappaport,R. 1968.
Ecology,culturaland non-cultural.In
Soc. Sci Inf/ 16:389-418
Introductionto CulturalAnthropology,
299. Thomas,D. J. 1976. Interpretation
of
ed. J. A. Clifton,pp. 476-98. Boston:
social profflesof productionin TsemHoughtonMifflin
baga-Maring,Simbai Valley, Eastern
Highlands, New Guinea. Oceania 314. Waddell,E. 1975.How the Engacope
withfrost:responsesto climaticpertur47:21-35
bations in the Central Highlandsof
300. Thomas,P. A. 1976.Contrastive
subsisNew Guinea.Hum. Ecol. 3:249-73
tencestrategiesand landuse as factors
for understandingIndian-Whiterela- 315. Wall, L. L. 1976. Anuak politics,
ecology,andthe originsof Shillukkingtions in New England.Ethnohistory
ship. Ethnology15:151-62
23:1-18
R. 1976.Lainvestigacion
301. Thomas,R. B. 1973.Humanadaptation 316. Wasserstrom,
regionalen cienciassociales:una perto a high Andeanenergyflow system.
spectivachiapaneca.Hist.Soc. 9:58-73
Occas.Pap. Anthropol.7. Penn. State
317. Wasserstrom,
R. 1977.Landandlabour
Univ. Dep. Anthropol.
in centralChiapas:A regionalanalysis.
302. Thomas,W. L. Jr. 1963.Thevarietyof
Dev. Change8:441-65
physical environmentsamong Pacific
R. 1978.Theexchangeof
Islands.In Man's Place in the Island 318. Wasserstrom,
saintsin Zinacantan:
Ecosystem:A Symposium,ed. F. R.
the socioeconomic
Fosberg,pp. 7-37. Honolulu:Bishop
bases of religionin southernMexico.
Mus. Press
Ethnology17:179-211
RCOTOGTCAT, ANTHROPOLOGY
273