UPSC Handwritten Notes Introduction To Environmental Anthropology | Important Notes Free PDF Download

Notes By-

Sachin Gupta

Cleared UPSC 2017 with AIR-3

INTRODUCTION

Humans have a long history of interacting with their immediate environment
that has resulted in shaping biological as well as cultural evolution to a large
extent.Anthropology as a discipline, specializing in bio-cultural study of humans,
right from its inception has taken keen interest in such interactions. The ancient
Greeko-Roman philosophers as observers of human behaviour and values have
hypothesized that environmental factors like climate and humidity, etc. determine
human culture. Although strict environmental determinism has been rejected,
environmental anthropologists have long focused on how humans adjust and
adapt to their natural environment. Therefore, the question of the degree to which
human action is conditioned by the environment and how human groups might
be classified according to the ways in which they interact with their environment
are some of the on-going anthropological concerns.
As a sub-branch of socio-cultural anthropology, environmental anthropology
concentrates on basic scientific and academic research on the relationship between
people and their environment and how culture mediates in this relationship. It
can be the basis for understanding how past and present human populations
contribute and respond to local and global environmental change. The relationship
between humans and environment through the looking glass of culture can help
understanding the major environmental problems that we confront today and
their possible solutions.
In this Block, assuming that the learner has no prior knowledge of the subject of
Environmental Anthropology, the Unit 1 tries to introduce a basic understanding
of the subject, from introduction to environmental enthropology to its scientific
inquiry, and ends upwith a brief history of its growth and development.The Unit
2 provides an introduction to the basic concepts used in ecology and environmental
anthropology.The Unit 3 describes various environmental pressures which shape
primate behaviour and evaluates different bio-cultural activities adopted as
adaptive strategies by the humans.The Unit 4 discusses about environmental
stress and how these stresses disturb homeostasis. Further, itprovides information
about how the human population with its biological plasticity and cultural
adaptability tries to minimise environmentalstress or increases its strain tolerance.
All the Units in this Block explore key concepts, theories and approaches in the
study of human culture and social activity in relation to ecological systems and
environment. This Block introduces the learners to Environmental Anthropology
and focuses on developing an understanding of natural resources and community
values. Emphasis is placed on cultural, social, economic and political linkages
in natural resource use regimes. The Block also identifies some key areas where
Anthropology can contribute to our understanding of human-environmental
relations.

UNIT 1 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANTHROPOLOGY

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Since its inception, the discipline of Anthropology has broadly dealt with
“environmental” questions, including human perceptions of the natural world
and the relationship between “Nature” and “Culture,” as well as the ways human
populations use culture as an adaptive strategy to cope up with their habitats and
ecosystems. Late in the 19th century and early in the 20th studies of humans and
their environment moved from the “environmental determinism” of the
anthropogeographers, to the “environmental possibilism” of the ethnographers,
and to the “cultural ecology” of Julian Steward (for detail see block 2, unit 1).
More recently, “Environmental Anthropology” has grown as a specialisation
within Anthropology, focusing broadly on the study of environmental issues,
problems, and solutions from an anthropological perspective.Assuming that the
learner has no prior knowledge of the subject or Environmental Anthropology,
the unit tries to build an understanding from the ground up introduction to
ecological anthropology, to scientific inquiry, and endswith an overview of growth
and development of Environmental Anthropology.
Ecology is the study of the interaction between living things and their
environment. Human ecology is the study of the relationships and interactions
among humans, their biology, their cultures, and their physical environments.
Before going to know the meaning, definition and scope of Environmental
Anthropology, it is important to first understand what Ecological Anthropology
is historically and philosophically speaking, the roots of Western notions of the
interrelations between man and environment are very old. Since the 1950s
Anthropology has developed approaches to human-environment interactions and
developed the concept Ecological Anthropology. Ecological Anthropology is the
study of how people interact with their social and biophysical environments.
Mostly we try to understand why people behave or think the way that they do. It
represents the link between the sciences of ecology and human culture. The core
ideas – human adaptation, ecosystems, and environmental change – are similar
to those of traditional ecology, but the anthropological notion of culture is added
as an additional level of complexity.
1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF ECOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE IN ANTHROPOLOGY
Interest in the study between people and the environment around them has a
long history in anthropology. Since the beginnings of the discipline in the 19th
century, scholars have been concerned with the ways in which societies interact
with their environment and utilise natural resources, as with the ways in which
natural processes are conceptualised and classified (Rival, 1998). Much of this
interest centered on the study of subsistence patterns by which populations adapted
to particular biophysical conditions. Precisely for this, according to E. F. Moran
(1996) environmental researchin Anthropology has been a part of the discipline
from its very beginning. It is often referred to as the ecological approach in
Anthropology. Ecological or environmental approach in Anthropology includes
topics as diverse as Primate Ecology, Human Ecology, Ethno-ecology, Historical
Ecology, Political Ecology, Ecofeminism, Environmentalism, Environmental
Justice, Evolutionary ecology, Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK),
Conservation, Environmental Risk, Liberation Ecology, and a number of other
areas, many of them interdisciplinary in scope and methodology
1.2.1 Defining Ecological Anthropology
Ecological Anthropology is broadly concerned with people’s perceptions of and
interactions with their physical and biological surroundings, and the various
linkages between biological, cultural, and linguistic diversity. In Ecological
Anthropology topics to be explored from simple to complex and general to
specific which include subsistence strategies, the ecology of ethnic foodways,
human alteration of the environment, traditional knowledge of wild plants,
ethnobiological classification, natural resource sustainability, intellectual property
rights among indigenous peoples, the Anthropology of tourism, environmental
racism, and conservation policies in both simple and complex societies. It can
involve skills like analyzing tape recordings of conversations to find out what
environmental themes are important to people, following people and recording
their behaviour, or archeology. Ecological anthropology tries to explore the
multilevel ways in which humans adjust to their surrounding by both biological
and socio-cultural processes.
Salzman and Attwood (1996 ) defined Ecological Anthropology is a subfield of
anthropology that deals with complex relationships between humans and their
environment, or between nature and culture, over time and space. It investigates
the ways that a population shapes its environment and may be shaped by it, and
the subsequent manners in which these relations form the population’s social,
economic, and political life. In a general sense Seymour-Smith (1986) describe
show Ecological Anthropology attempts to provide a materialist explanation of
human society and culture as products of adaptation to given environmental
conditions.According to Ellen (1982) Ecological Anthropology applies a systems
approach to the study of the interrelationship between culture and environment.
At the heart of contemporary ecological anthropology is an at the heart of
contemporary ecological anthropology is an “understanding that proceeds from
a notion of the mutualism of person and environment” (Ingold, 1992) and the
reciprocity between nature and culture (Harvey, 1996). As such, ecological
anthropology is itself closely related to human behavioural ecology and
environmental anthropology (Stacy McGrath
1.2.2 Environmental Determinism Vs. Cultural Determinism
There have been several attempts to structure and organize the area of manenvironment
relations in anthropology over roughly hundred from now. In the
era before the turn of the century, when anthropology was evolving as a distinct
discipline, anthropologists and geographers were concerned about the manenvironment
relationships.Development of basic conceptsin ecological
anthropology was not as a smooth accumulation of information and insights, but
as a series of stages.Every stage was a reaction to the previous one rather than
merely an addition to it. “The first stage, is characterised by the work of Julian
Steward and Leslie White, the second is termed neo-functionalism and neoevolutionism,
and the third one is called processual ecological anthropology.The
attempts to address the similarities and differences of Steward and White mark
the second stage of Ecological Anthropology. Boldly oversimplifying, one could
argue that there are two main trends in this second stage: the neoevolutionists,
who claimed that Steward and White were both correct, and the neofunctionalists,
who argued that they were both wrong”. (see Orlove, 1980).
During thue late 19th and early the 20th centuries a number of comprehensive
treatment of environmental thinking in Anthropology and the environment vs
culture controversy have been complied by socio-cultural anthropologists who
have found that an ecological approach is fruitful both in research and teaching.
The framework of these theoretical perspectives reviews has been provided by
some contrasting major schools of thoughts or conceptual approaches, viz,
environmental determinism, environmental possibilsm, functionalism, culturearea
approaches, cultural ecology, racism, evolutionism, historicismand current
approaches in ecological Anthropology including actor-based model, eco-system
based model, ethno-ecology and systems-ecology model etc.
The above conceptual and theoretical perspectives you will learn in detail in the
block 2, unit 1, 2, and 3.In this unit, I will briefly discuss development stages of
basic theoretical Concepts in Ecological Anthropology and history of development
of an environmental perspective in Anthropology.
The concept of cultural evolution and the series of ideas on the relationship
between culture and environment were developed in early Greek view. This idea
was widely accepted throughout the nineteenth century. In the twentieth century
ecological anthropology has proposed, or drawn on, several useful and innovative
theories. Smith, along with Thomas Malthus (1977), developed the ideas of
competition in nature and in human affairs that later fed into contemporary
ecological theories.
Ecological Anthropology was named as such during the 1960s, but it has many
ancestors, including Daryll Forde, Alfred Kroeber, and, especially, Julian Steward.
Columbia University can be identified as the birthplace of Ecological
Anthropology. Early studies of humans and their environment moved from the
“environmental determinism” of the anthropogeographers, to the “Environmental
Possibilism” of the ethnographers, and to the “cultural ecology” of Julian Steward
(Michael A. Little, 2007). The first major theory regarding the interaction between
culture and environment, one that has been in circulation since the time of classical
Greece, is Environmental Determinism (ED), or Environmentalism.In this concept
the idea basically states that environment mechanically “dictates” how a culture
adapts(for detail see block 2, unit 1).For example, the Polynesians must fish and
live in grass huts because they live on tropical islands.
The general orientation of explanations of man-environment interrelations in
the United States shifted towards what came to be called “possibilism”/
environmental possibilism (EP) in the late 1920s and the 1930s. In possibilism,
the environment is seen as a limiting or enabling factor rather than a determining
factor. Possibilism is really an interactive process between culture and the
environment.Daryll Forde, Boas, Wissler and Kroeber are the believers of this
thought (for detail see block 2, unit 1)The common features of the above themes
ED and EP are that they conceptualised the interaction between the human and
their environment as mainly unidirectional, rather than systematic. They
emphasised stages rather than the process.
During the 1920s-30s the time was ripe for a reassessment of the prevalent views
on the relation between man, culture, and environment; as well as the evolution
of cultures. The inadequacy in explaining cultural diversity, however, remained
an issue and in a search for a more precise understanding of the effect of the
environment on cultures Steward (1955) developed a methodology called Cultural
Ecology.Due to contact with noted geographer Carl Sauer, Steward’s work in
cultural ecology led him to examine the effect of environment on culture. In the
1950s-60s significant progress came from the development of what came to be
known as “Cultural Ecology,” engaged with the analysis of cultural adaptation
to natural environments.He conducted pioneering field research on the interaction
of a particular human society and its natural environment in the Western United
States working with Shoshone, Paiute, and other Native Americans. He moved
cultural ecology a step forward by rejecting the “fruitless assumption that culture
comes from culture” (Steward, 1955). Steward searched for the adaptive responses
of various cultures to similar environments (Orlove, 1980). He examined the
available resources and distribution in relation to the technology, economic
arrangements, social organisation and demography of a certain place. As a result,
he identified a ‘culture core’ consisting of the elements of a culture influenced
by the environment, i.e. the features most closely related to subsistence activities
and economic arrangements. Yet, cultural ecology could neither provide a model
for explaining the origin and persistence of cultural features, nor for determining
the extent of environmental influence in the evolution of specific cultures (Netting
1977; Orlove, 1980).
As a reaction, in the 1960s and 1970s new schools of thought were formed based
on cultural determinism, i.e. the idea that culture influences the environment.
One of those schools, ethno-ecology, describes the conceptual models that people
have of their environment (see details in the block 2, unit 3). Researchers like
Brent Berlin, Harold Conklin, Charles Frake, and others pioneered the
development of ethno-ecology. It distinguished, for example, ‘folk nature’ or the
perceptions that people have on nature, from ‘real nature’ on which these
perceptions are based. The approach used classifications and shared its methods
and underlying premises with cognitive Anthropology. In the end, however, neither
environmental nor cultural determinism formed a satisfactory basis to describe
human-environment relationships. Alternatively, instead of shaping or being
shaped by environmental factors, human beings were understood to interact with
their environments in mutually constructive ways (Milton, 1996
1.2.3 The Ecosystem Approach, Human Ecology and Processual  Human Ecology
Other approaches followed Cultural Ecology that expanded the scope of
environmental research inAnthropology. In the 1960s and 1970s, the field became
influenced by new concepts developed by anthropologists who largely structured
their data based on ecological models. Roy A. Rappaport, and Andrew P. Vayda
(1968), developed an ecosystem approach that treated human populations as one
of a number of interacting species and physical components and transformed
Cultural Ecology into Ecological Anthropology.While Steward tied culture with
the environment, a new approach, called the “new ecology,” tied culture with the
emerging science of systems ecology (e.g.,Vayda and Rappaport, 1968). The
ecosystem approach, brought into play by anthropologists like Rappaport (1968)
and Vayda (1969), conceptualised human populations as participants in
ecosystems. It was a first attempt to reconcile ecological sciences with
functionalismin Anthropology. Research focused, amongst others, on the material
outcomes of economic activities and the efficiency of subsistence systems. Yet,
the approach was limited with its focus on ‘units’ and ‘populations’ rather than
cultures and its preference for small-scale (Island) societies (Rappaport,
1969).They suggested that instead of studying how cultures are adapted to the
environment, attention should be focused on the relationship of specific human
population to specific ecosystem. In their view, human beings constitute simply
another population among the many populations of plants and animals species
that interact with each other with the non-living components (climate, soil, water
etc) of their local ecosystem. Thus, the ecosystem rather that culture, constitutes
the fundamental unit of analysis in their conceptual framework for human ecology.
The analytic unit shifted from “culture” to the ecological population, which was
seen as using culture as a means (the primary means) of adaptation to
environments. It was argued that human cultures were not unique but formed
only one of the population units interacting “to form food webs, biotic
communities, and ecosystems” (Vayda and Rappaport, 1968). A broader focus
was presented by Human Ecology which was concerned with the ways human
populations interact with their environment. Yet, even though it acknowledged
the importance of knowledge, information, and people’s understanding of the
world (Ellen, 1982), the ecosystem approach excluded the unobservable
components of culture.
In the mid 1970s, in contrast to Cultural Ecology, neo-evolutionism and
neofunctionalism, another approach emerged: Processual Ecological
Anthropology. The use of the term “process” refers to the importance of diachronic
studies in Ecological Anthropology and to the need to examine mechanisms of
change. However, the term “ProcessualEcological Anthropology” signifying
current developments in the field does appear to be new. It focused on the
processual relationship between the local population and their immediate
environment conditioned by the intervention of external political, legal, and
economic factors. Important research trends were, amongst others, the relation
between demographic variables and production systems, the response of
populations to environmental stress, and the formation and consolidation of
adaptive strategies (Orlove, 1980). ProcessualEcological Anthropology examined
shifts and changes in individual and group activities and focused on the
mechanisms by which behaviour and external constraints influenced each other.
It stimulated the importance of decision-making models in Ecological
Anthropology.
Two additional theoretical and methodological frameworks were developed
mainly in the 1980s and 1990s to try to render Ecological Anthropology more
scientific. The Neomaterialist, Marvin Harris, developed the approach of Cultural
Materialism. It is a practical, rather straightforward, functionalist approach to
Anthropology with a focus on the specific hows and whys of culture.Marvin
Harris vigorously pursued explicitly and systematically the development of
cultural materialism as a research strategy to reveal and explain the ecological
rationale underlying various aspects of culture. He divided the cultural system
into three components infrastructure,structure, and superstructure. Harris argued
that the infrastructure is most basic and most influential because it functions as
the ultimate adaptive mechanism for the very survival and maintenance of
individuals and society as a whole (see details in the block 2, unit 2).
Human behavioural or evolutionary ecology is the second innovative framework
pioneered by Eric Alden Smith and Bruce Winterhalder. It shifts attention to
individuals as the locus of adaptation with an emphasis on decision making in
the use of natural resources ranked according to their relative costs and benefits
(optimal foraging theory). This connects human ecology more directly with natural
selection and other evolutionary theories. Both of these special frameworks,
cultural materialism and human behavioural ecology, have been criticized as
simplistic and reductionistic. Nevertheless, both have proven to have some validity
and utility in advancing the anthropological understanding of human-environment
interactions.
In the following years, anthropologist who had borrowed analytic concepts from
other disciplines used them to critique then-prevailing understandings of humanenvironment
relations, including the view that indigenous landuse systems were
inferior to modern scientific models. Numerous research experiences by
ecological anthropologists demonstrated the intimate associations between local
communities and their environments and the extensive knowledge generated
through these associations. The insights acquired into such resource use systems
contributed to undermining orthodoxy in natural sciences. Of particular
importance was that they showed that these systems were not always destructive
for the environment. This was critical for the late-modern move away from a
dichotomised conception of nature and culture (Dove, 2001).
Previous research had been largely synchronic, examining a particular society as
if it wereisolated, traditional, static, and timeless, and also as if the society had
no lasting cumulative impact on its environment and the latter was static as well.
Ecological anthropology diversified further in 1990s by adding research variously
focused on historical, political, or spiritual aspects of human ecology and
adaptation. William Balee, John Bennett, and Carole Crumley, among others,
developed a diachronic approach to examining the interactions between the
sociocultural and environmental systems over extended periods of time as they
transformed one another within a regional landscape. Since the 1990s substantial
diversification of approaches within ecological anthropology involves a growing
emphasis on applied rather than basic research, although certainly the two are
often interdependent. However, with the worsening ecocrisis and other factors,
increasingly research has concentrated on identifying and solving practical
environmental questions, problems, and issues. This is the arena of environmental
anthropology per se. Researchers in this arena still pursue various approaches
within Ecological Anthropology to investigate matters of survival, adaptation,
and change with an emphasis on culture, communities, and fieldwork.
1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALISM PERSPECTIVE IN ANTHROPOLOGY
Anthropology traditionally has strong links to the study of the environment
through its focus on human interaction in environmental context. This basic
connection is depicted by Milton, who says: ‘If one accepts the anthropological
cliche´ that culture is the mechanism through which human beings interact with
(or, more controversially, adapt to) their environment (Ingold, 1992), then the
whole field of cultural anthropology can be characterised as human ecology’.
Since the 1980s, anthropological research on environmental issues has been part
of a broad public sphere that has witnessed a sharp increase in environmental
concerns and activism throughout the world. That has, in turn, been accompanied
by significant interrelational changes between humans and their environment,
resulting from the use of new communication and biological technologies. Given
the breadth and complexity of environmental issues, academic disciplinary
boundaries are easily crossed and new sites of transdisciplinary research have
emerged that combine natural and social-scientific approaches in unique ways.
Anthropology, however, has specific contributions to make to the wider
environmental research field (Paul Little, 1999).
1.3.1 Anthropological Engagement with Environmentalism
In common usage, the term environment is often used as a synonym for Nature
(i.e. the biophysical or nonhuman environment), but this usage creates great
conceptual confusion because the environment of a particular human group
includes both cultural and biophysical elements. By extension, the organism/
environment dynamic, which is relational and perspectivist, is often incorrectly
fused with the nature/cultured dualism, which is essentialist and substantive.
The concept of environment as a research tool allows for the delimitation of a
wide range of socio-natural units of analysis that transect the nature/culture
division orthogonally (see Paul Little, 1999).
In this context, Paul Little and other anthropologists preferthe term
environmentalism to an explicit, active concern with the relationship between
human groups and their respective environments. Although “environmentalist”
usually refersto political activists, the termcan reasonablyinclude persons and
groups that are directly involved with understandingand/or mediating
thisrelationship. Thus, anthropologists and other social scientistswho are involved
in environmental research can be considered as representingthe environmental
wing of their respective disciplines.
Current environmental research in Anthropology falls into two major areas that
have distinct methodologies and objects of study. The first, called Ecological
Anthropology, uses ecological methodologies to study the interrelations between
human groups and their environment. The second, called Environmental
Anthropology involve policy and value orientation, application,analytic unit,
scale, and method to study environmentalism as a type of human action.
The sub field Environmental Anthropology holisticallyunderstands the importance
of cultural perceptions when dealing with environmental issues. There are number
of anthropologists who are concerned to engage with the discourse of
environmentalism. Initially, let us consider Brosius’ (1999) statement that
environmentalism refers broadly to the field of ‘discursive constructions of nature
and human agency’. He makes the point that the study of environmentalism
should encompass much more than an analysis of the different social movements
involved and their various trajectories over time and space. As stated above, he
feels that at the crux of environmentalism is the ongoing discourse about human
beings and their place within nature. As a postmodernist thinker and an
anthropologist, Brosius declares that the relevance of Anthropology in this field
of investigation is due to its unique concentration upon the phenomenon of culture.
He urges anthropologists to see environmentalism as a ‘rich site of cultural
production’ (ibid:277) and stresses that ‘a whole new discursive regime is
emerging and giving shape to the relationships between and among natures,
nations, movements, individuals, and institutions’ (ibid).
Similarly, Milton depictsenvironmentalism as a trans-cultural discourse that, not
being rooted in any specific culture, spans the local through to the global and
now has become a specific cultural discourse existing within, although not
bounded by, other cultural systems. Thus, environmentalism is perceived by her
to transcend many traditional geographical and conceptual boundaries such as
east/west, north/south, first world/third world and left/right. As Milton describes
it, environmentalism incorporates ‘all culturally defined environmental
responsibilities, whether they are innovative or conventional, radical or
conservative’.Obviously, these responsibilities vary between cultural settings but,
as Milton observes, they originate from the recognition that environmental
problems are caused by human interaction with the environment. She feels that
the key to a viable future lies in a better understanding of human activity (ibid:11).
Furthermore, in her view environ-mental discourse does not merely articulate
perceptions of the environment, it contributes to their formulation. In this way,
the whole spectrum of thought is included in Milton’s analysis because a proenvironmentalist
stance is not required for discourse to be considered
environmental (ibid:8). If we also take into account Brosius’ description of
environmentalism provided earlier, we see that anthropologists have begun to
discern environmentalism as being expressed through a myriad of social and
cultural relationships and situations. Milton explains this well when she writes:
“In this framework, social movements and political ideologies become specific
cultural forms through which environmental responsibilities might be expressed
and communicated. Instead of environmentalism being seen as a category of
social movement or ideology, these forms of cultural expression become types
of environmentalism”. (ibid: 8).
Many environmental problems that have emerged from the multiplicity of
interrelations between humans and their environments have been accompanied
by a concomitant surge in environmentalisms, each with their respective
environmentalists. The ethnographic analysis of and political involvement in
these many environmentalisms on the part of anthropologists and other social
scientists have generated, during the past two decades, a field of study in its own
right.
In recent past there has been much discussion about the relevance of the discipline
of Anthropology to the various emergent discourses on the environment. Kay
Milton has made a number of important contributions to this area of
anthropological investigation over recent years. In 1993 she edited a work, entitled
Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, which attempted to position
anthropology more centrally with in the multi-disciplinary study of
environmentalism (see Milton, 1993).Eeva Berglund is another anthropologist
who wishes to establish Anthropology as a legitimate participant in the study of
environmentalism. In her book, Knowing Nature, Knowing Science: An
Ethnography of Environmental Activism, she explores the role of what she terms
‘techno-science’ in environmental discourse (see Berglund, 1998).
Brosius in his article in Current Anthropology (1999) provides an overview of
the engagement by anthropologists in the field of environmentalism, which
includes aspects of the past, present and future. He says the recent trend toward
anthropological engagement with environmentalism was not at all inevitable.
Rather, it is the result of a series of particular historical contingencies, both
practical and theoretical. He addressed this by noting significant differences
between ‘the Ecological Anthropology of the 1960s and early 1970s and what
some are calling the ‘‘Environmental Anthropology’’ of the present. Drawing its
insights primarily from the field of ecology, the former is characterised by a
persistent interest in localised adaptations to specific ecosystems and by an abiding
scientism: to the extent that cultural or ideational factors enter into analyses of
this sort, they are viewed primarily with respect to their adaptive significance.
1.3.2 Emergence and Development of Environmental Anthropology
Although the discipline of Anthropology has its origin in the study of smallscale
societies, anthropologists began to consider human entities and their
environments as located in complex social processes. Greater appreciation of
the complexity of social and ecological systems developed alongside a growing
interest in interpreting the dynamics of ecological systems in terms of the dynamics
of larger political systems. Beyond the study of subsistence communities, scholars
enlarged their frame of reference to encompass global structures and situated the
cultures they studied within the broader international political economy. The
changes in Ecological Anthropology reflect a more general shift in anthropological
research drawing attention towards the intersection of global, national, regional
and local systems. New approaches emerged mainly in the 1990s concerned
with the impact of markets, social inequalities, and political conflicts to analyse
forms of social and cultural disintegration associated with the incorporation of
local communities into a modern world system (Paulson et al., 2005). It became
a challenge for anthropology to study local environmental and social changes
associated with global trends. Thereby, anthropologists have shown an extensive
interest in questions of nationalism and identity, of focusing on the hybrid
relationships between local integration and global politics, places-in-between,
and on what has come to be termed modernity (Lovell, 1999). While looking at
the mutual processes of definition and appropriation that take place between
what has been termed local and global settings, conceptual, spatial, and cultural
scales expanded in academic discourse.
A major difficulty in analysing the complexity of human-nature relationship is
that no single social theory of environmental phenomena in human experience
has been developed, just as there is a lack of methods and basic categories to
study them (Arizpe et al., 1996). Finding an appropriate methodology to shed
light on amalgamations between nature and culture is the prime challenge in
cross-cultural investigation. The understanding of how nature is constructed and
resource management is conceived in different cultural settings is not an easy
task, for the questions raised and the answers sought lie along the margins of
several disciplines. Referring to recent theoretical trends, Brosius writes of a
rather complicated scenario that is informed by a considerable degree of overlap
between various areas of theoretical and empirical focus (1999). To address both
the dynamics of culture and natural resources requires not only transcending
disciplinary lines but also that natural and social sciences be brought together.
The result, it has been suggested by Nakashima (1998), may be compared to a
labyrinth through which one must navigate with caution. This challenge has
been taken up by a number of anthropologists with different scopes and research
traditions. Out of the multi-layered engagement an environmental anthropology
emerged (see Townsend, 2000; Haenn and Wilk, 2006). While the Ecological
Anthropology of the 1960s and 1970s was characterised by an interest in localised
adaptations to specific ecosystems and by an ethnoscientific gaze, contemporary
environmental anthropology is more attentive to issues of power and inequality,
the contingency of cultural and historical formations, the significance of regimes
of knowledge production, and the acceleration of translocal processes (Brosius,
1999).The primary approaches within contemporary Ecological Anthropology
are cultural ecology, historical ecology, political ecology, and spiritual ecology.
Environmental anthropology builds on the above past experience of
1.3.3 Definition and Scope of Environmental Anthropology
Environmental Anthropology is a more recent outgrowth of Ecological
Anthropology, which can be characterised as the study of the interrelationship
between human groups, cultures, and societies and the ecosystems in which they
are embedded in all times and all places across planet earth. Scholars have
delineated Environmental Anthropology as becoming more prominent in the
1980s and typically focusing on analysis and application of anthropological
knowledge to contemporary environmental issues. Ecological and Environmental
anthropology can most productively be viewed as a single interrelated discipline,
with Ecological Anthropology focusing more on basic academic research and
Environmental Anthropology being more focused on contemporary environmental
issues and having more of an applied, practicing, critical, and/or advocacy
approach.
According to Peter Brosius (1999) Environmental Anthropology provides a broad
disciplinary framework.He describes Environmental Anthropology as
investigating discourse, power, knowledge, resistance, development, cultural
studies, and political ecology through transdisciplinary work, and he identifies
three major current trends: a critique of essentialised images, an emphasis on
contestation and consideration of stakeholders, and an interest in globalisation.
Environment anthropology studies the way communities and social groups
identify and solve environmental problems by examining culturally diverse
perceptions, values and behaviours. Environmental anthropology contributes to
policy formulation and planning by improving and facilitating the communication
UNIT 2 BASIC CONCEPTS OF ECOLOGY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
Understanding ecology is very important to the understanding of man’s future. It
provides the basis for considerable utilisation of natural resources facilitating in
the conservation of habitats and species, and also for the prediction on reflection
of man’s activities on natural environment. This clearly explains that ecology is
concerned with relationships between living organisms: plants, animals,
microorganisms and their environment. Ecologists study the way in which
organisms, populations, communities and ecosystems function and in doing so
encompass many other areas of knowledge.
2.2 WHAT IS ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY?
Before going to know the other fundamental concepts, it is important to first
understand the meaning of terms ‘Ecology and Environment’. The term ecology
or “oekologie” formed by two Greek words oikos and logos which mean “study
of household” was coined by the German Biologist Ernst Haeckel (1866). Ecology
in most simple term refers to the branch of science that studies the interactions
between organisms and their environment. What is this interaction? It is with
2.3 ECOSYSTEM DEVELOPMENT
Ecosystem is noticeably a geographically restricted system where a particular
group of organisms interact with both the components of the environment, abiotic
and biotic. The magnitude of ecosystems is dependent on how and why it is
defined. Presently biosphere occupies the position of largest ecosystem.
It goes to the credit of Odum (1953) who formalised the concept of the ecosystem,
and Golley (1993) with the history of the idea. Ecosystems essentially have
conceptual component, therefore are defined on context of reference. Say if you
are studying tundra region you would define it as an ecosystem and would find it
inhabited by a different sort of plants; which would form a community related to
one another in an overall symbiotic relationship. Similar would be situation for
various species, how they are related to one another, their population cycles, and
so on. However, it must be clearly understood that tundra or for that matter any
other ecosystem is linked to other things as well, thus being a part of a larger
system.
Ecology spans a broad spectrum of interacting levels of organisation right from
micro-level (e.g., cells) to planetary scale (e.g., ecosphere) phenomena. Another
significant aspect – the time span is undefined in an ecosystem; it can take
thousands of years for ecological processes to mature through and until the final
successional stages of a forest. The area of an ecosystem can be from very small
to very big. While classifying a forest ecosystem a single tree holds no importance
but then it is of vital importance to the smaller organisms living in and on it. The
nature of associations in ecological communities cannot be elucidated by only
having knowing particulars of each species in isolation. This holds significance
because the developing pattern is neither discovered nor envisaged unless the
ecosystem is studied in totality.
Thus, we realise that ecosystems are defined at a variety of scales for different
rationale, but are eventually connected to one another. This creates the division
of ecosystems rather random. Interestingly, islands can be designated as “more
separate” ecosystem serving as better laboratories to study ecological interaction.
What could be the origin of ecology is quite complex since its interdisciplinary
nature has resulted in its multifaceted origin. It is unambiguous that Ancient
Greek Philosophers especially Hippocrates and Aristotle were amongst the first
ones to have recorded observations on natural history. Interestingly the ancient
Greek theorist are of belief that life is an unchanging element, in such a situation
there is no question of adaptation which primarily is the basis of contemporary
ecological theory.
In 1700s, with the published works of microscopist Antoni van Leeuwenhoek
and botanist Richard Bradley, modern concepts such as food chains, population
regulation and productivity were developed. Biogeographer Alexander von
Humbolt was also one among the early ecological thinkers and was pioneer in
recognizing ecological gradients. Ecology was an analytical form of natural history
evaluating the interaction of organisms with both their environment and their
community, during the early 20th century. Natural historians, including James
Hutton and Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, laid the foundation for noteworthy works
that placed the foundations of the modern ecological sciences.
The term “ecology” was first coined by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel in
his book Generelle Morphologie der Organismen (1866). Haeckel was not only
a zoologist, but was also an artist, writer, and later in life a professor of
comparative anatomy. There has been differing opinions about the founder of
modern ecological theory. Some perceived Haeckel’s definition as the beginning
of modern ecological theory, while others marked that it was Eugenius Warming
2.4 COMMUNITY AND POPULATION
Human ecology is thus a study of total ecosystem with a stance specifically from
the viewpoint of human factor within the entire system. Humans are found in
any habitat be it cold tundra region or hot equatorial belt, consequently qualifies
human populations to be polytypic both in the characteristic of the population
and their ecological relationship.
It is imperative to study the complex relationship between man and the physical
setting in which they live to understand the environment. Man has made immense
contributions to environment. What we witness today are results of our scientific
and development strategies. Human-made Environment is the environment which
has been created by human himself to fulfill his needs and to make his life more
convenient and easy. There are many issues related to man made environment.
The consequence of poor environment directly affects the habitat resulting in the
formation of slums, heap of garbage, congested roads etc. The environment also
has pollution component in it. Air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution and
all other pollution do have an impact on human beings.
There are number of sources of energy which has an impact on the environment.
Solar, wind, hydro and tidal energy- the non- conventional methods of energy
sources are environment friendly whereas thermal power stations and nuclear
energy have negative environmental impact.
2.5 HABITAT AND ECOLOGICAL NICHE
The geographic setting where a species lives and functions is called its habitat.
Niche and habitat have a close relationship and are dependent on each other. Let
us take an example: some species of primates eat only fruit, while others only
leaves, and still others eat just about anything. Now all three species of primates
probably coexist in the same habitat yet occupying three different niches. In a
forest, on the same tree two different species may occupy different habitats, one
may live in the canopy while others live on the ground.
There have been many definitions of niche since 1917 but G. Evelyn Hutchinson
made conceptual developments in 1957 with the presentation of the most
extensively accepted definition, “which a species is able to persist and maintain
stable population sizes.” In the ecology of organisms, ecological niche is a central
concept and has been sub-divided into fundamental and realised niche.
Fundamental niche denotes the set of environmental conditions under which a
species is capable of persisting; where as realised niche signifies the set of
environmental plus ecological settings under which a species persists.
Each species have explicit functional traits that are entirely adapted to particular
ecological niche. Trait stimuli performance of an organism and is an assessable
property, phenotype, or characteristic. In the development and expression of traits,
it is the gene which plays a vital role. The appreciation of a species traits and
niche necessities are essential in elucidating or foreseeing the bio-geographical
patterns and range distributions. Occupant species develop their traits that are
tailored to their resident environment, which gives them a competitive advantage
and discourages comparable species adaptation from taking an overlapping
geographic range. This competitive exclusion principle proposes that two species
cannot coexist indefinitely by living off the same restrictive resource. Closer
examination into equally adapted species, found to overlap geographically
divulges elusive ecological differences in their habitat or dietary requirements. Basic Concept of Ecology
The ecotope which combines both habitat and the niche is a complete range of
environmental and biological variables having an impact on entire species.
Niche is defined by the species activity, what it eats and by how it reproduces
whereas habitat is the geographic location of a species in which it lives and
operates. Habitat and niche are interrelated and dependent to some extent on
each other since the nature of habitat will influence the probable niches there.
Ecosystems contain numerous niches. Even though several organisms may be
competing to occupy a niche, it is specific and can be engaged by only one
organism in the same geographic place, which would serve as habitat to a large
number of species in diverse niches. The same niche may be inhabited by different
organisms in different geographically isolated habitats.
What is Niche construction? It has been defined as the process and concept of
ecosystem engineering. Ecosystem engineers are defined as “…organisms that
directly or indirectly modulate the availability of resources to other species, by
causing physical state changes in biotic or abiotic materials. In so doing they
modify, maintain and create habitats.” Organisms are modifiers of their habitats,
though they are also subject to environmental pressures.
The terms niche construction is usually used in reference to the mechanism of
natural selection imparting forces on the abiotic niche. Ecosystem engineering
concept has motivated a new approval for the degree of influence organisms
encompassing on the ecosystem and evolutionary process.
Niches come into reality and go out as systems change. In a young forest, the
niche of a high-canopy leaf eater does not occur, so it would not work as habitat
to the animal. But as the forest develops, habitat apt for high-canopy leaf eater
comes into being, and then the niche survives, which may lead to their movement
and settlement into the niche in the new habitat or the niche may even remain
unused. On the other hand, an existing species may evolve and adapt to the
niche.
Human beings have succeeded in occupying and dominated most of the terrestrial
habitats. Through the use of modern technology, humans modify habitat to suit
their needs even creating artificial habitats like cities. Adding to adaptability it is
the ability of humans to quickly alter their practices and diet. Humans occupy a
very broad niche and modern human culture has created a new urban-industrial
niche to suit their requirements.
2.6 HOMEOSTASIS OF THE ECOSYSTEM
Homeostasis of the ecosystem is also acknowledged as a biological equilibrium;
in other words balance of Nature. Homeostasis is the state when an ecosystem
maintains a biological equilibrium between the different components. It continues
to change with the time and is not stationary yet it maintains a stability which is
sustained by the number of factors including the carrying capacity of the
environment and the capacity for recycling of the waste.
2.7 ECOLOGICAL SUCCESSION
Ecological succession is a course of action by which a community gradually
transforms itself until a stable community is formed. This is the foundation in
ecology, and the alteration that occurs is comparatively expected formation of
an ecological community. The genesis of succession lies either by formation of
new, unoccupied habitat (e.g., a lava flow or a severe landslide) or by some form
of disturbance (e.g. fire, severe wind throw, logging) of an existing community.
There are two types of succession: Primary succession and Secondary Succession.
Primary succession is the chain of community transformation which takes place
on a totally new habitat which has never been colonized earlier e.g. a newly
quarried rock face or sand dunes. Whereas secondary succession is the chain of
community transformation which take place on a previously colonized, though
on disturbed or damaged habitat e.g. subsequent to felling trees in a woodland,
land clearance or a fire. Another distinguishing feature is that primary succession
begins in areas where no soil is initially present whereas secondary succession
begins in areas where soil is already present.
An Ecological succession is the process in which change in the structure of species
of an ecological community takes place over a period. This process results at
times in some species becoming abundant or appearance of a new species or
may some even fade away entirely from an ecosystem. This visible transformation,
over a period of time in what is living in a particular ecosystem is “ecological
succession”.
Now, the question arises why does this phenomenon of ecological succession
happen? We all will agree that every species need certain optimal environmental
situation which is complacent for its growth and reproduction. In such a situation
in a given ecosystem all those species which are most suited to conditions to
grow and reproduce will become abundant. This means if ecosystem’s set of
environmental conditions remain unchanged, the species which are the best
adapted to those conditions will prosper. The original environment may have
quite conducive for first species be it plant or animal, but the modified
environment is often conducive for some other species of plant or animal. With
the change in the condition of the environment, the earlier dominant species
may not prosper and another species may increase.
Another scenario when the ecological succession may occur is when the
conditions of an environment unexpectedly and severely change. The conditions
like forest fires, wind storms, and human activities like agriculture contribute
significantly in modifying the conditions of an environment. These colossal forces
are capable of wiping out of species thereby altering the dynamics of the prompting Basic Concept of Ecology
a rush for dominance among the species still present in the ecological community.
The concept of succession holds importance. There is a very well defined and
predictable pattern through different stages of development until the final stage
each with differing measure of efficiency and diversity as a community evolves.
The stages of succession are concerned with the classification system of a definite
group and its use of the environment. For instance some faction of present-day
Maya believes that there are six stages of forest regrowth once the land is cleared
for agriculture. This becomes significant in appreciating the succession and its
allied agricultural implication which are critical to the timing of reuse of the
land for agriculture. The processes involved in succession would be the same;
however, the actual species involved in the process in a specific area are influenced
by Geology and History of the area, the climate, microclimate, weather, soil type
and other environmental factors. The time period of succession is not definite
and may vary in timescales, ranging from a few days to hundreds of years. It
takes hundreds of years for a succession of climax woodland to develop, whereas
the succession of invertebrates and fungi within single cow dung may be over
within as little as 3 months- the dung would have been changed into humus and
nutrients and recycled back into the soil. The holes evidently observable in the
cow dung are result of animals which have colonized it.
Is man affected by ecological succession? The answer is in the affirmative.
Ecological succession is not man-made but a power of nature. Ecosystems as we
understand are in continuous state of change and restructuring. Let us take an
example to appreciate how ecological succession affects humans and realise the
unbelievable time and money involved in ecological succession. Imagine a newly
ploughed garden plot. The land has been cleared by preparing the soil for new
planting has resulted in the disruption and restructuring of the earlier stable
ecosystem- this is major external event executed by man. The disturbed ecosystem
will without delay begin the progression of ecological succession.
Does ecological succession reach the stage of standstill?
There is a notion in ecological succession termed as the “climax” community.
Earlier school of thought was of the opinion that ecological succession finally
culminated having a stable end-stage called the climax. This proposal has been
discarded by modern ecologists in support of non-equilibrium ideas of how
ecosystems function. The climax community characterises a steady end product
of the succession sequence. There are certain species in plants that maintain
itself for a very long time i.e. their structure and composition would not alter
noticeably over an observable time. We can to this extent believe that ecological
succession has stopped. But then, it is a known fact that any ecosystem to whatever
degree it may be naturally established and constant; is susceptible to substantial
external upsetting forces like fires and storms that could reorganize and re-start
the succession process. Till these probable calamities exist, it is incorrect to
believe that succession has stopped. One point to be appreciated is that over
long periods of time there is a change in the climate conditions and other original
characteristics of an ecosystem. These changes are not evident in our “ecological”
time, but it is certain that their fundamental existence and historical reality is not
doubtful. Hence, no ecosystem whether it is past or future will continue living
unaffected or fixed over a geological time scale. Let us take concept of climax
UNIT 3 HUMAN BIO-CULTURAL  ADAPTATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Darwin’s publication “On the origin of species” has crystallised the understanding
of the evolutionary process revealing natural selection as the key to evolution. In
the struggle for existence the individuals with favorable variations were selected
for survival by nature while unfavorable were eliminated. From genetic
perspective evolution is defined as change in allele frequency from one generation
to the next. The mechanism of evolutionary changes produced by natural selection
can be summarized as:
a) A trait must be inherited from parents.
b) Natural selection acts on existing variation within species which is potentially
impasse without inheritance of characteristics.
3.2 EMERGENCE OF PRIMATES
Primate displays a wide range of behaviours and social organisations that vary
from species to species as well as within species under different environmental
situations such as predation intensities and population densities (Swindler, 1988).
It is generally agreed that the primates may have emerged by the Paleocene, 65
million to 55 million years approximately and perhaps earlier in late Cretaceous
climatic changes due to continental drift that had profound effect on the evolution
of primates. Expansion and diversification of deciduous trees and flowering plants
probably led to mammalian expansion and diversification. Primates evolved from
one of these mammalian radiations, probably from the insectivora order of
mammals that was is adapted to eating insects
3.3 PRIMATE ECOLOGY
Primates occupy all the seven continents – Africa, Asia, South America, Europe,
North America Australia, Antarctica and the nearby islands. Although primates
occupy only marginal areas of Europe (Gibraltor) and North America (Central
and Southern Mexico), they were formally wide spread on both the continents.
Within this geographic range, living primates are found in a variety of habitats,
ranging from deserts to tropical rain forests. Despite, they are largely restricted
to the tropical forested regions of Central and South America, Sub – Saharan
Africa, Madagascar and Southern Asia. Each of these bio-geographical regions
has a distinctive climate, topography, geology, flora and fauna. In a tropical forest
which reaches a height of 80 m; the temperature and humidity, the kind of plant
food, shapes of branches, and the type of other animals a species encounters are
usually quite different on the ground level where they are subjected to inadequate
light and terrestrial predators (Fleagle, 1999). However, in higher canopy
horizontally spread branches provide convenient highways for arboreal travel
and abundance of leaves and fruits. Still higher in the emergent layer, the canopy
become discontinuous and heat from sun may be quite intense and primates are
exposed to aerial predators. Primates are gregarious and social animals. However,
not all primates are found in larger groups and solitarity in some species is
probably related to diet, distribution of resources and predator avoidance.
The nutritional requirements of animal are related to the body size and basal
metabolic rate. Smaller animals have high BMR than larger ones and require
energy rich diet rich in protein (insects), fat (nuts and seeds), and carbohydrates
(fruits and seeds). While larger primates don’t depend on high energy diet/food
and consume leaves, stems and other types. Insect on the other hand, may be
widely scattered and the animals that rely on them usually feed alone and in
small groups of 2 or 3. Fruits, nuts and berries in dispersed trees and shrubs
occur in clumps. They can most efficiently be exploited by smaller groups of
animals, so large groups frequently break up into smaller subunits may consist
of one male, multi female group and matrilines (a line of descent in which an
individual is considered to belong to the same descent group as her or his mother).
Species that feed on abundantly distributed resources may also live in one-male,
multi female groups and because food is plentiful, these units are able to join
with others to form large, stable communities which may appear to be multi
male and multi female groups.
In tropical forests attacks by birds of prey, cats, large animals and humans are all
potentials cause of mortality. Typically when predation pressure is high, large
communities are advantageous and when body size is small, large communities
3.4 PRIMATE BEHAVIOUR AND SOCIAL
STRUCTURE
3.4.1 Dominance
As most of the primate lives in groups, they compete with one another from time
to time for food and mates. This result in establishment of dominance hierarchy
that involves individual differences in behaviour based on size, age, sex, status
and kinship. It imposes a certain degree of order within groups by establishing
parameters of individual behaviour, thereby reducing causes of intergroup
agonistic behaviour (Jurmain et al., 2006). Dominant animal exerts control over
aggressive behaviour of other animals by making a dominating, threatening
gesture or behaviour. Higher ranking individuals have greater access to preferred
food items and mating partners than lower ranking individuals. Dominance
hierarchies have sometimes been referred to as “Pecking Orders”. Dominance
increases the reproductive success of the animal. Higher ranking females have
greater access to food than subordinate females and are provided with more
energy for offspring production and care (Fedigan, 1983) For instance, offspring
of high ranking female chimpanzee at Gombe National Park , Tanzania had
significantly higher rates of infant survival. Their daughter matured faster
indicating shorter inter-birth interval and consequently produced more offsprings
(Pusey et al., 1997).
Males are usually dominant over females. However, in multi female groups
associated with one or several adult males, males and females have separate
hierarchies. Although very high ranking females can dominate the lowest ranking
males and among many species female are dominant sex (lemur) or among species
that form monogamous pairs, males and females are co-dominant (eg. Indris,
gibbons). An individual’s position in the hierarchy is not permanent and changes
throughout life. It is influenced by factors including sex, age, level of aggression,
amount of time spent in the group, intelligence and sometimes the mother’s
social position (Jurmain et al., 2006).
3.5 HUMAN BIO-CULTURAL ADAPTATION
Humans have occupied a wide range of habitats because of their ability to
intervene environment- the living and inanimate, for their purposes. This approach
is largely based on a notion of adaptability, which regards individuals as being
equipped with a set of biological traits that provide means of survival within
certain limits. It involves physiological, structural, behavioural or cultural changes
aimed at improving the organism’s functional performance in the face of
environmental stress. These adjustment can either be temporary or permanent,
acquired either through short term or lifetime processes. Thereby expressed in
terms of phenotype variation of continuous trait, physiological acclimatisation
and learned behaviour. There seems to be few situations in which human
population develop genetic adaption to specific environment expressed in terms
of phenotypic variation which eventually leads to differences in allele frequency
between populations. On the other hand, decades of research affirm that biological
plasticity or physiological acclimatisation is species wide adaptive mechanisms
which enable individuals to maintain internal constancy or homeostasis. These
adaptive strategies represent the continuum and elaboration of adaptive patterns
which characterise primate.
Within the broader content of Human Evolution coping with ecological constrains
include culturally coded survival strategies. Culture is a complex entity of
technological inventiveness, social institutions, belief systems and idiosyncratic
amalgamation with our evolutionary biological and behavioural heritage. It
includes technology which range from computers, subsistence pattern ranging
 

Download Free PDF – UPSC Handwritten Notes

Sharing is caring!