Hardesty, Donald. (¢F4- Ecological Ructhve pelogy » Jolin Unter + Soe Nw E INTRODUCTION The science of anthropology has traditionally been a “Dolistie” discipline. Anthropologists have advo- tied a broad, comparative study of human behavior in the search for general laws and principles, and litle about man thas been left out. Itis, pethaps not surprising, then, tofind that ‘anthropological “explanation” Fas algo been far-rangingiin its attempts to make order out of the chaos of eee an diversity. Atone time or another anthropologists have explained Raman behavior with reference to current topics in biology, ecology, history, evolution, diffusion, and indpenclent inventions for example. “The purpose ofthis books to exptore the waysin which “environment” je eved fn anthropological explanation, an area of endeavor currently * fonred to as ecological anthropology. The roots of ecological ‘anthropology ie to be found in several different taditions of environmental explana- tion, vome of which are tightly woven into Western thought. Let us begin by examining these roots. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM Perhaps the most pervasive theme js the belief that the physical cavironreat plays therole of "primemover” in human afais, Perional ity, morality, politics and government, religion, material culture, bidlogy—-all of theseand morehaveatone tine ‘oranotherbeen subject to explanation by environmental determinism. Theme Henry of Hippoc- cane probably the single, most important foundation for environs vail determinism until the nineteenth century. (This discussion of Teenie theory is based on Glacken, 1967, pp. 80-115.) Hippocrates sett rare tn bony ashing four kinds of “humours—yellow bile, black bile, phlegm, and blood, representing fire, cath, water, nd blood, respectively. The relative proportions of the four humans caused varia~ respectively Hua physique and persorality, as well as in sickness and Yots2 INTRODUCTION health. Climate was believed to be responsible for the “balance” of the humous and, therefore, for geographic differences in physical form and personality. Thus people living in hot climates were passionate, given toviolence, lazy, short-lived, light, and agile because of an excess of hot air and lack of water. ‘The effect of climate on personality ancl intelligence determined other human affairs, particularly government and religion, Both Plato and Aristotle associated climate with government, viewing temperate Greeceas the ideal climate for democratic government and for producing. people fit to rule others. Despotic governments, on the other hand, were best suited forhot climates because the people lacked spirit and a love for iberty and were given to passionate excesses. Cold climates had no real form of govemment because the peopie lacked skills and intelligenceand were strongly given to a love of individual liberty. i ‘The eighteenth century Frenchman Montesquieu continued this line of reasoning and applied it to religion, Hot climates create lethargy, according to this scholar, and are apt to be associated with passive religions. Buddhism in India was given asa classic example, By contrast, religions in cold climates, Montesquieu believed, are dominated by ag- ‘gressivencss to match the love of individual liberty and activity. (Christ- ianity, Montesquieu’s religion, was elevated above environmental de- terminism because it was revealed.) The geographer Ellsworth Huntington (1945) carvied this thinking well into the twentieth century by arguing, in theMaisprings of Civilization, that the highest forms of religion are found intemperate regions of the world, His basicargument was that temperate dlimates are more conducive to intellectual thinking, ‘Thenineteenth and early twentieth centuries broughta dediinein the popularity of humour theory but no less vigorous apologists for environ menial determinism. ‘There are several reasons for its persistence. The developing method of science was marked by the search for simple, Tinear, cause-and-effect relationships; thatis, A causes causes C, and so forth, There was no recognition of the complex interactions and feedback processes that make today’s science. Anthropologists and geographers searched for simple causes of the geographical distribution of culture traits. Some proposed environment while others favored diffusion. Both offered simple, straightforward explanations that were consistent with linear science. ‘Therefore, it is not surprising to see the resurgence of environmental determinism at this time. The rise of “technological de- terminism,” as espoused by Marxist social philosophy, also contributed to the resurgence. Environmental determinism was a rebuttal to the antienvironmental position of Marxist writers. Finally, an explanatory model ofthis kind was a simple way to categorize and explain the mass of i | | data on human div tion, in much thes andentortiactT this purpose, allow be dassified into a Some early geogt: correspondence b« environment cust Material cult. the environment. American South thropologist, state itisheremademanif of the particular stoc their loa! environs: However, nonmal Hodge, editor of published in 1907, that the effects of this Aesideratura in thes functions, manners olism, and, most of ever-recurring tong Perhaps the mor nonmaterial culty American anthro} of ritual behavior ‘was aware of thee interaction and d 1896, p. 699) Today the t replaced by the + environment a1 mutual interactio humans continue geneticchangeinNance’ of the ihysical form passionate, ofan excess = determined n. Both Plato ng temperate ‘orproducing crhand, were anda love for shad no real ‘elligenceand svued this line cate lethargy, with passive . By contrast, inated by ag- Svity. (Charist- onmental de- *Huntington hy arguing, in ion are found ‘hat temperate sh for simple, uusesC, andso >and feedback { geographers Vion of culture iiffusion. Both onsistent with resurgence of ‘nological de- v0 contributed ebuttal to the nr explanatory nin the mass of INTRODUCTION 3 data on human diversity being accumulated as a result of world explora~ tion, in much thesame way that the “Three-Age System” helped classify ancient artifacts. The “culture area” concept was particularly suitable for this purpose, allowing diverse cultures within large geographical areas to bbe classified into a single type because some traits are held in common, Some early geographers and anthropologists quickly noted the general correspondence between culture areas and natural areas ancl argued that environment aitised the occurrence of distinct cultural areas. "Material cullare and technology were believed to be mostaaffected by the environment. For example, in a discussion of the prehistory of the “American Southwest, William H. Holmes, a tum-of-the-century an- thropologist, states that itis heremmde manifest that itis not sooich the capabilities and cultural heritage of Bepartculr stock of people that determines the form of material cultureas itis their local environment, (1919, p. 47) However, nonmaterial culture was also explained environmentally.F. W. Hodge, editor of the Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico, published in 1907, explains, aso with xegard to the American Southwest, that the effects of this environment, where the finding of springs twas the chef desiderntum in the struggle for existence, were to influence social structure and Jjenctons, rarners and customs, esthetic products and motives, lore ad sy olism, and, most ofall creed and cut, zohich were conditioned by the nnending, cever-recurring longing for tonter. (p-430) Perhaps the most kucid proponent of environmental, explanation for nonmaterial culture was J. W. Fewkes, another tur-of-the-century ‘American anthropologist, who was particularly interested in the origins ‘Of ritual behavior. However, unlike most of his contemporaries, Fewkes was aware ofthe complexities underlying the study of man-environmental interaction and did not assume a simple one-to-one relationship. (e.g 1896, p. 699) ‘Today the theme of environmental determinism has been largely replaced by the emergence of man-environmental models that assign ‘environment a “limiting” but uncreative role or that recognize complex mutual interaction, However, the explanation of biological diversity in, humans continues to have a strong, deterministic orientation. Models of sgenetiechange in human populations, forinstance,arestill dominated by