Paper presented at the XVth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences in Florence, Italy, July 5-12, 2003.
ECOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY:
A CRITICAL RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS
Leslie E. Sponsel
University of Hawai`i
OUTLINE
Introduction
Part I - Trends
1. Formation
2. Maturation
3. Diversification
Part II - Needs
1. Training
2. Research
3. Integration
4. Application
Part III - Priorities
1. Human environmental impact
2. Loss of diversity
3. Resource wars
4. Spiritual ecology
Conclusions
1. Radical ecology
2. Security
________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
What is the place of humans in nature? What should be the place of humans in nature? What is the relationship between culture and nature? What is the impact of nature on culture, and visa versa? These and related questions are perennial, elemental, and pivotal (Coates 1998, Glacken 1967, Palmer 2001). Anthropologists as well as biologists, historians, philosophers, and theologians have addressed such queries (Adams 1998, Sidky 2004). Moreover, these concerns increasingly have practical as well as intellectual significance in light of the persistent and even worsening environmental crises and problems throughout the world (Pepper 1996, Worster 1994).
The purpose of this essay is to provide some introductory and integrative background concerning progress in anthropological research on interactions between humans and nature. First, a few of the more important developments from the history of ecological anthropology in the United States during the 20th century will be highlighted. Second, a working list of primary needs, priorities, problems, and issues for ecological anthropology during the first quarter of the 21st century will be presented. This essay also provides information about many different kinds of resources for pursuing ecological anthropology, whether as student, teaching, or researcher.
PART I - TRENDS
1. Formation
Ecological anthropology appears to have first originated and flourished in the United States of America rather than in Europe or elsewhere. This development may reflect the personal background and experience of its founder, Julian H. Steward (1902-1972), including the environmental and economic problems during the formative period of his work in the 1930s, the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression, respectively. The materialism of American culture in general may be among the other contributing factors.
During the first half of the 20th century, Steward was by far the single most important pioneer in the formation of ecological anthropology. In the 1950s-60s, he developed the generic theoretical and methodological framework for what he called cultural ecology, this rooted in his fieldwork during the two previous decades with Shoshone and Paiute in the Great Basin and Plateau region (Steward 1938, 1955, 1968). Steward’s framework persists to this day in various degrees and forms in the research of subsequent ecologically oriented anthropologists, regardless of their criticisms of any specifics in his work (Sponsel 1997a).
Steward transcended the prior armchair debate between environmental determinists and possibilists by pursuing the influence of the natural environment on culture as a question for empirical research (see Speth 1978, 1999). Thus, he sought to identify the aspects of a particular culture that are most influenced by its biophysical environment through fieldwork focused on the natural resources that the society depends on for survival along with the technology used to extract and process them; the ways the society organizes work in order to accomplish this; and how these two factors delimit the culture core, those aspects of culture most closely related to ecology. Accordingly, Steward and other cultural ecologists offered materialistic and functional explanations for some aspects of culture as a behavioral mechanism for adapting human societies to their natural environment. (For further discussion about Steward see Clemmer, et al., 1999, Kerns 2003, Manners 1964, Sponsel 1997a, and Steward and Murphy 1977).
One of the practical contributions of cultural ecology, and of ecological anthropology as its successor, has been to demonstrate the environmental rationale, or eco-logic, of aspects of the culture of indigenous societies, which otherwise often have been evaluated negatively by outsiders through their own ignorance and prejudice, such as “slash-and-burn,” swidden, or shifting horticulture (Conklin 1957, Netting 1986). Moreover, environmentalists and others are increasingly recognizing the importance for environmental and biodiversity conservation of local people and their knowledge, culture, and practices in sustainable resource use and management (Bates and Lees 1996, IUCN 1997, Klee 1980, McNeely 1995, Redford and Mansour 1996).
While continuities remain from the work of Steward and his contemporaries as well as his predecessors, many subsequent ecologically oriented cultural anthropologists developed new approaches in response to the deficiencies they perceived in previous work. For example, Steward, like others at the time, viewed the environment as a distinctive natural landscape with a particular assemblage of plants and animals. The environment was not yet conceived as an ecosystem involving dynamic processes like energy flow, nutrient cycling, and succession. Furthermore, the primary focus of cultural ecology was on subsistence activities with little attempt to pursue their connections with population, nutrition, health, risks and hazards (e.g., Oliver-Smith and Hoffman 1999). In retrospect, the environment and culture both tended to be treated as isolated, static, pristine, and homogeneous, ignoring human impact on the local environment and also external influences on the local culture from the regional to the global political economies (Balee 1998, Bodley 1999, Wolf 1982).
2. Maturation
In the 1960s, Roy A. Rappaport (1926-1997) and others started to develop a new systems approach to investigate the interplay of culture and ecology as human populations adapt to the ecosystems in their habitat (Messer and Lambek 2001, Vayda 1969). They applied concepts from biological ecology more directly and systematically to human societies, including population as the unit of analysis, ecosystem as the context, adaptation as the dynamic processes of interaction between population and ecosystem, and carrying capacity and limiting factors as the underlying framework (Moran 1990, Vayda and Rappaport 1968). The systems approach was elegantly implemented by Rappaport in his fieldwork with the Tsembaga in New Guinea, viewing their ritual and warfare as regulating the delicate balance between the human and pig populations to reduce competition between these two species (Rappaport 1967/1984). This "biologization" of the ecological approach in cultural anthropology by Rappaport and others led to the label ecological anthropology replacing Steward's cultural ecology, although the two terms are still sometimes used as synonyms (Netting 1977/1986, 1996). (For further discussion of the contributions by Rappaport see Biersack 1999, and Messer and Lambeck 2001).
A third outstanding contributor to the advancement of ecological anthropology was Marvin Harris (1929-2001) through his explicit, systematic, and penetrating development of cultural materialism as a research strategy. He divided the cultural system into three components: infrastructure as the product of the interactions of the environment, population, and technology; structure as the local domestic economy and the wider political economy; and superstructure as the ideational realm of the cultural system including religion, myth, and arts. Harris considered infrastructure to be most basic and influential because it functioned as the ultimate adaptive mechanism for the very survival and maintenance of individuals and society. He asserted that infrastructure was the primary cause for most of the rest of the cultural system, and assigned research priority to it. He demonstrated the explanatory power of cultural materialism with ingenious analyses of many cultural puzzles, such as Aztec ritual sacrifice, the sacred cow of India, and the Islamic and Jewish prohibitions on eating pork (Harris 1974, 1979, Murphy and Margolis 1995). To this day most ecologically oriented anthropologists are cultural materialists in various ways to some degree, although they may disagree with Harris on specific points in his analyses of cultural puzzles.
The works of Rappaport, Harris, and others of a similar character have been criticized as neofunctionalist--- confusing function with origin, assuming something was adaptive merely because it existed, and discovering or inventing an adaptive function for nearly everything (e.g., Edgerton 1992). Also their attempts to quantify subsistence activities through measuring energy input/output were criticized as caloric obsession and energetic reductionism. In addition, most of the research was not very successful in formulating and testing hypotheses empirically with quantitative field data to actually demonstrate the proposed relationships. The individual actor in the decision-making process of ongoing adaptation was usually ignored as well (Ellen 1982, Orlove 1980).
Beyond the enduring influences of these three giants--- Steward, Rappaport, and Harris--- others have contributed significantly to the development of ecological anthropology, too many to adequately discuss in the space available here. Fortunately, several reviews are readily available [See Appendix 1, and also Sidky 2004 (Chapters 10 and 14), Wilson 1999 (Chapters 2 and 10), and Young 1983].
In spite of various deficiencies, in time ecological anthropology matured, as evidenced by a series of successive critical reviews since 1953; two dozen textbooks in two generations since 1969; the establishment in 1972 of the journal Human Ecology; a special organization called the Anthropology and Environment section within the American Anthropological Association since 1996 and its web site and internet listserv; festschrifts honoring the above and other pioneers since 1964; and the development of special graduate training programs since the 1980s. In terms of university anthropology departments with a major concentration of faculty interested in ecology, the locus of activity switched from the University of California at Berkeley prior to WWII to afterward at Columbia University, University of Illinois, and the University of Michigan. (Steward was associated with all four of these universities at one time or another, while Rappaport was associated with Columbia as a student and later Michigan as a faculty member, and Harris as a faculty member with Columbia and later the University of Florida). Within the last decade or so, about a dozen universities in the United States have developed some kind of a training program or concentration in ecological and/or environmental anthropology. (See Appendices 1-4 and Sponsel 2004).
3. Diversification
During the 1960s, each of the subfields of anthropology in the United States developed its own approach to human ecology, although there is some overlap: prehistoric ecology or palaeoecology in archaeology; primate ecology, human adaptability (or more narrowly physiological anthropology), and human behavioral (or evolutionary) ecology in physical or biological anthropology; cultural ecology, and later systems ecology or ecological anthropology in cultural anthropology; ethnoecology in linguistic anthropology; and environmental anthropology in applied anthropology (Sponsel 1987). (See Appendix 5).
Since the 1980s, other specialized approaches to human ecology have been developing such as historical ecology, spiritual ecology, political ecology, radical ecology, ecofeminism, and postmodern environmentalism. These reflect something in academia analogous to adaptive radiation, a differentiation into various intellectual niches. (See, for example, Balee 1998, Kinsley 1995, Merchant 1992, Milton 1993, 1996, and Robbins 2004).
Throughout the 1990s there has been a very substantial expansion in the spatial and temporal scale of the phenomena researched as well as markedly increasing concern about practical environmental problems and issues, including applied, policy, and advocacy, some with non-governmental organizations. Other topics which have usually been afforded far more attention than previously are the political situation encompassing colonialism, neocolonialism, and globalization; environmental racism; conflict and human rights including intellectual property rights; multiple factors, sites, levels, and times, and their linkages; ecological awareness and environmental risk perceptions; ethnoecology; biodiversity studies and conservation; systematic comparisons (intercommunity within same and different regions and countries); team research with some ongoing longitudinal projects; and greater collaboration with host country colleagues, local assistants, and other community residents. Nevertheless, as before research usually remains preoccupied with culture, community, ecosystem, systems, adaptation, maladaptation, process, change, and history. However, recently postmodern revisionism has penetrated ecological anthropology too, challenging basic ideas such as nature, wilderness, environmentalism, conservation, sustainability, and development as social or cultural constructions. (See Biersack 1999, Castree and Braun 2001, Crumley 2001, Kottak 1999, Little 1999, Milton 1993, 1996, Simmons 1994, and Soule and Lease 1994).
Collectively these diverse approaches to human ecology provide more or less holistic anthropological coverage of human-nature interactions, except that they are not integrated. There is still little prospect of a genuine synthesis on the horizon. Also, rather than viewing different approaches as complementary, some practitioners consider their own approach as not simply a personal preference or emphasis, but the best one, sometimes to the exclusion of all others. To use an analogy, the situation is something like the ancient fable of the blind men and the elephant, each touching a different part of the animal and accordingly developing a distinctive interpretation, none of them necessarily wrong, but each still incomplete. There is also a tendency to see certain aspects as incompatible or antithetical, rather than complementary: equilibrium/chaos, adaptation/maladaptation, thought/behavior, mentalist/materialist, emic/etic, qualitative/quantitative description, and so on (Sponsel 1997b).
PART II - NEEDS
The trends in the development of ecological anthropology just surveyed in this essay must be assessed in relation to the fact that currently we are witnessing a period in human evolution, and even in biological evolution itself, that involves unprecedented crises. Consequently, new and more effective approaches to understanding human-nature relationships are urgently needed as one response to these ongoing and worsening environmental crises.
Two trends underlying these crises may be identified. The first is maladaptive globalization. Here this refers essentially to John Bennett's (1976) concept of the worldwide ecological transition, an accelerating shift from adaptive societies in relative equilibrium to maladaptive societies in disequilibrium. The second trend is the megatrend reversal. There has been a general movement in biological evolution over some four billion years, and also in cultural evolution over two million years, toward increasing diversity and adaptability. This has been reversed in the last 500 years, and increasingly so in recent decades with the erosion of biological and cultural diversity. (See Broswimmer 2002, Maffi 2001, Wackernagel and Rees 1996, Terborgh 1999, and Wilson 1989, 1999, 2003).
Moreover, these two trends are interrelated. Maladaptive societies which destroy diversity are progressively oppressing and exploiting, if not even destroying and replacing, formerly adaptive societies that often preserved or even enhanced diversity (Bodley 2001, Sponsel 1992, 2001a). In other words, there is an unprecedented global synergy of ecocide, ethnocide, and genocide (Bodley 1999). This all becomes even more dangerous as well as complicated with the emergence of global warming with its multitude of deleterious consequences, the character of which still remain to be seen, let alone ameliorated to any degree. Adaptability refers to the capacity to respond successfully to changes that challenge survival and well being. Future adaptability depends on diversity. Decreased diversity means decreased adaptability, an impoverished future for humanity as well as the biosphere, to say the least. (See Ayers 1999, Flannery 1995, Hartmann 1999, Leslie 1996, and Rees 2003).
1. Training
Undergraduate and graduate level training programs in ecological anthropology need to be more adequately recognized for their potential importance in contributing to the future of society, the human species, and the biosphere (see Sponsel 2004). Accordingly, they must be far better funded, developed programmatically and in terms of facilities, staffed by more instructors, and populated by more students. Ideally, the different programs should be complementary in the approaches, topics, problems, issues, and regions they cover, given the limited and diminishing financial resources available. Also there is a need for multidisciplinary, or better, trans-disciplinary, teaching and research teams in ecological anthropology, including in the development of field schools (Balee 1996, Sponsel 1987).
2. Research
Ecological approaches in anthropology have been stronger on culture than ecology, theory than method, qualitative than quantitative methods and data, and so on. One way to deal more adequately with such deficiencies is through multidisciplinary team research, rather than the usual solitary fieldworker. Also a more standardized repertoire of field methods needs to be developed, widely disseminated, and followed as much as feasible in particular projects in order to allow for greater comparability of data and results (Conant, et al., 1983, Martin 1995, Moran 1994). In addition, there is need for more critical assessment and application of basic concepts such as ecosystem, adaptation, equilibrium, tragedy of the commons, wilderness, nature, environmental impact, environmental security, and holism (Castree and Braun 2001, Moran 1990, Soule and Lease 1994).
3. Integration
It is unlikely that a synthesis of the variegated theories, methods, and data of the more than a dozen disparate anthropological approaches to human-environment interactions will be achieved for some time yet, maybe even not for decades, although some initial efforts point in this direction (e.g., Goodman and Leatherman 1998, Moran 1979/2000, Wilson 1999: Chapter 10). For instance, although a second generation of textbooks in ecological anthropology has been published in recent years, as in the first generation, the scope of each textbook in the second one remains partial, rather than holistic. (See Appendix 3).
4. Application
The term environmental anthropology has been used in recent years to refer to what is in essence applied ecological anthropology (Erven 2005, Moran 1996, Townsend 2000). However, environmental anthropology, in contrast to ecological anthropology, tends to be more inclusive, diverse, interdisciplinary, dependent on research teams, and comparative; focused on the human dimensions of practical environmental problems and issues from the local to the global levels; and thus multiscalar, multitemporal, and multinational in scope (Moran 1996). Tropical deforestation and the erosion of cultural (including linguistic) as well as biological diversity are among the major concerns of environmental anthropology (Maffi 2001, Sponsel, et al., 1996). Environmental anthropology has also become increasingly attentive to environmental and social justice (Johnston 1994, 1995, 1997, 2001, Sponsel 1995).
As James Peacock (1997) has argued, anthropology must become more public or perish. Because most publications are still written primarily for colleagues and students within the profession, the wider public as well as governments and economic development agencies have not been influenced as much as they might be by ecological anthropology. This may well be one of the greatest challenges facing ecological anthropology, to realize more of its potential relevance to a much wider audience beyond the profession itself. However, information about ecological anthropology matters often reaches the public through popular writers who are not trained or well-versed in anthropology (e.g., Diamond 1999, 2004).
Another aspect of reaching a wider public involves collaborating much more closely in all phases of research, from initial design to the reporting of the results, with the host community where fieldwork is conducted. Here various methods developed in applied anthropology such as needs assessment and participatory action research are especially salient (Ervin 2005, Russell and Harshbarger 2003). Ecological anthropology can help empower local communities by contributing relevant research that addresses their own concerns.
PART III - PRIORITIES
1. Human Environmental Impact
The greatest achievement of ecological anthropology may yet be the demonstration that many societies have created a benign place in nature or sustainable niche, and thereby flourished for centuries or even millennia (Sponsel 1992, 1995, 1997b). An extremely important correlate is that the human species is not necessarily inherently anti-nature, environmentally destructive, maladaptive, or ecocidal, the notion of Homo devastans (Balee 1998a). Indeed, historical ecology reveals that most of the more serious environmental problems are remarkably recent, largely a result successively of colonialism, industrialization, economic development, and globalization, although there have been significant human environmental impacts extending far into prehistory. (See Balee 1998b, Flannery 1995, Hackenberg 1974, Ponting 1991, Redman 1999, Sponsel 1992, 1998, 2001a, and Turner 1990). It is quite possible for humans to harmoniously coexist socially and ecologically within the biosphere far into the future, if, among other things, they can learn and follow the knowledge and wisdom of many past generations that have achieved this so successfully. (See Clay 1988, Dobson 1991, IUCN 1997, Metzner 1999, Meyer and Moosang 1992, and Myers 1984). Case studies by ecological anthropologists provide heuristic models for designing future systems for more successful human adaptation. (See Appendix 6).
2. Loss Of Diversity
The trend toward the greater application of ecological anthropology to practical environmental matters is also stimulated by the growing concern over the enormous tragedy of tropical deforestation (Sponsel, et al., 1996). The deforestation crisis and related issues nourished a new frontier in science in the 1990s, biodiversity studies and conservation. (See Heywood 1995, Levin 2001, Takacs 1996, and Wilson 1989, 1999).
Human impact on biodiversity, either direct or indirect, involves four basic factors: over-exploitation of natural resources; habitat modification, conversion, and fragmentation; the introduction of exotic (non-native) species; and pollution. Any one of these four factors may negatively influence ecosystem composition, structure, and function; ecological processes; and biodiversity, especially through species extinction. Throughout human prehistory and history, human impacts on biodiversity have reached progressively higher thresholds (e.g., Sponsel 1998). Because of the widespread direct and indirect impacts of humans on biodiversity, an adequate consideration of biodiversity must assess the possibilities of human influence, and here ecological anthropology is of special relevance (Sponsel 2001a).
In general, several authorities have observed independently that the greatest concentrations of biological diversity tend to coincide with those of cultural and linguistic diversity, especially in tropical forest areas, and most of all in the so-called megadiversity countries of Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Zaire, Madagascar, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea. Thus, whenever biological diversity is threatened and eroded, it is likely that cultural and linguistic diversity will be decreased as well, and vice versa. A correlate of this diversity principle is that the loss of cultural and linguistic diversity also involves a loss of local ecological knowledge, understanding, and wisdom (Maffi 2001, Sponsel 2001a, Wilcox and Duin 1995). However, in recent years, there has been growing appreciation of traditional environmental knowledge, the fact that indigenous and folk societies that interact in an intimate way on a daily basis with their habitat for subsistence possess an enormous wealth of reliable empirical information about local plants, animals, and their web of interrelationships in ecosystems. (See Johannes 1981, Nabhan 1997, Nazarea 1999, Norberg-Hodge 1991, Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971, 1976, and Ventocilla, et al., 1995). Furthermore, wherever indigenous societies thrive, biodiversity probably does so as well. (See Byers, et al., 2001, Durning 1992, IUCN 1997, Nabhan 1997, Posey, et al., 1999, Redford and Mansour 1996, Sponsel 1992, and Stevens 1997).
The degradation and destruction of cultural and linguistic diversity, like that of biodiversity, seriously endangers the future adaptability of the human species. The negative impacts of humans on this unique planet's biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere are probably the single greatest challenge facing humankind in the 21st century. Clearly this is a challenge for ecological anthropology as well for biodiversity studies. (See Maffi 2001, Oldfield and Alcorn 191, Orlove and Brush 1996, Posey, et al., 1999, and Sponsel 2001a).
3. Resource Wars
The accelerated growth of population and economic pressures on natural resources and the environment is among the more important catalysts for human conflict, violence, and war. Michael Klare (2001) provides one of the best critical analyses of the contemporary situation, and some of his statements are well worth quoting here. He defines as "resource wars--- conflicts that revolve, to a significant degree, over the pursuit or possession of critical materials" (Klare 2001:25). Furthermore, he asserts that:
"Conflict over valuable resources---and the power and wealth they confer--- has become an increasingly prominent feature of the global landscape. Often intermixed with ethnic, religious, and tribal antagonisms, such conflict has posed a significant and growing threat to peace and stability in many areas of the world" (Klare 2001:ix).
Also Klare (2001:xii-xiii) cautions:
"Ethnic and political factions seeking control over a lucrative source of income--- a valuable copper mine, diamond field, or timber stand--- may become drawn into bloody internecine feuds stretching over several generations. With the demand for such resources increasing, and many poor countries sliding deeper into debt, conflict over disputed zones will only grow more intense."
Finally, Klare (2001:10) concludes:
"Resource concerns have decisively moved to center stage in international security affairs. As we proceed further into the twenty-first century, these issues are destined to play an increasingly significant role in the shaping of American military policy."
In light of Klare's statements, and given similar ones by others, surely one of the top priorities for both basic and applied research in ecological anthropology must be critical analyses of resource competition and conflict including the associated violence and warfare. (See Barnaby 1988, Klare 2001a,b, Myers 1984, Peet and Watts 1996, Peluso and Watts 2001, and Richards 1996).
4. Spiritual Ecology
As alluded to earlier, spiritual ecology is also a new frontier for both basic and applied research in ecological anthropology. One impetus is simply an intellectual fascination with exploring the relationships between religions and environment. Beyond this curiosity, however, there is something far more significant and urgent--- the growing realization that science, technology, education, government, law, politics, and economics have proven insufficient in alleviating environmental crises, even if they are necessary and helpful. Thus, far deeper changes in human environmental ideas and actions are required, and in many instances religion may be the single most important source for such transformations. (See Bassett 2000, Kinsley 1995, Foltz 2002, Gottlieb 1996/2004, Gardner 2002, Grim 2001, Hamilton 1993, Palmer and Finlay 2003, Posey, et a., 1999, Rockefeller 1992, Sponsel 2001b, Taylor 2005, and Tucker 1997, 2003).
CONCLUSION
Many of the trends, themes, needs, priorities, problems, and issues in ecological and environmental anthropology just outlined are reflected in two insightful statements which provide an appropriate conclusion.
Frank Barnaby (1988:212) outlines a holistic concept of security:
True security rests on a supportive and sustainable ecological base, on spiritual as well as material well-being, on trust and reliance in one's neighbors, and on justice and understanding in a disarmed world."
Carolyn Merchant (1992:1) writes:
Radical ecology emerges from a sense of crisis in the industrialized world. It acts on a new perception that the domination of nature entails the domination of human beings along lines of race, class, and gender. Radical ecology confronts the illusion that people are free to exploit nature and to move in society at the expense of others, with a new consciousness of our responsibilities to the rest of nature and to other humans. It seeks a new ethic of the nurture of nature and the nurture of people. It empowers people to make changes in the world consistent with a new social vision and a new ethic.
These two quotes also reflect some of the greatest challenges in the 21st century facing ecological and environmental anthropology and other specializations within anthropology and beyond. Ecological anthropology needs to be transformative as well as informative in exploring human-environment relationships. While the disparate approaches each have their vailidity and utility, political ecology and spiritual ecology may well prove most significant in the long run.
NOTE:
This essay has been thoroughly revised and updated from an original paper prepared as an introduction to a session the author organized and chaired called “Ecological Anthropology: Priorities for the 21st Century” for the International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences held in Florence, Italy, on July 5-12, 2003.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1. STATUS REVIEWS
1953 Marston Bates, "Human Ecology," in Anthropology Today, Alfred L. Kroeber, ed., Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 700-713.
1962, June Helm, "The Ecological Approach in Anthropology," American Journal of Sociology 17:630-639.
1973, James N. Anderson, "Ecological Anthropology and Anthropological Ecology" in Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology, John J. Honigmann, ed., Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 179-239.
1975, Andrew P. Vayda and Bonnie J. McCay, "New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology," Annual Review of Anthropology 4:293-306.
1976, Andrew P. Vayda and Roy A. Rappaport, "Ecology: cultural and non-cultural," in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, James A. Clifton, ed., Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., pp. 477-497.
1980, Benjamin S. Orlove, "Ecological Anthropology," Annual Review of Anthropology 9:235-273.
1997b, Leslie E. Sponsel, "Ecological Anthropology," in The Dictionary of Anthropology, Thomas Barfield, ed., Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 137-140.
1999, Aletta Biersack, "Introduction: From the "New Ecology" to the New Ecologies," American Anthropologist 101(1):5-18.
1999, Conrad Kottak, "The New Ecological Anthropology," American Anthropologist 101(1):23-35.
1999, Paul E. Little, "Environmentalists and Environmentalisms in Anthropological Research: Facing a New Millennium," Annual Review of Anthropology 28:253-284.
APPENDIX 2. FESTSCHRIFTS
Julian H. Steward
Clemmer, Richard O., L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, eds., 1999, Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist, Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
Manners, Robert A., ed., 1964, Process and Pattern in Culture: Essays in Honor of Julian Steward, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
Roy A. Rappaport
Biersack, Aletta, 1999, “Ecologies for Tomorrow: Reading Rappaport Today,” American Anthropologist 101(1):5-112.
Messer, Ellen, and Michael Lambek, eds., 2001, Ecology and the Sacred: Engaging the Anthropology of Roy A. Rappaport, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Marvin Harris
Murphy, Martin F., and Maxine L. Margolis, eds., 1995, Science, Materialism, and the Study of Culture, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
John W. Bennett
Smith, Sheldon, and E. Reeves, eds., 1989, Human Systems Ecology: Studies in the Integration of Political Economy, Adaptation, and Socionatural Regions, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
APPENDIX 3. TEXTBOOKS
1969, Andrew P. Vayda, ed., Environment and Cultural Behavior, Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
1976, John W. Bennett, 1976, The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation, New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
1977, Donald L. Hardesty, Ecological Anthropology, New York, NY: John Willey and Sons.
1977/1986, Robert M. Netting, Cultural Ecology, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
1979/1993, Roberto A. Frisancho, Human Adaptation and Accomodation, Ann Arbor, Michigan Press.
1979/2000, Emilio F. Moran, Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
1980, Gary Klee, ed., World Systems of Traditional Resource Management, New York, NY: John Wiley and Co.
1981, Michael A. Jochim, Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context, New York, NY: Academic Press.
1982, Roy F. Ellen, Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
1982/1995, Bernard Campbell, Human Ecology: The story of our place in nature from prehistory to the present, New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Co.
1985, Alison Richard, Primates in Nature, San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
1991, Daniel G. Bates, and Fred Plog, Human Adaptive Strategies, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
1992, Eric Alden Smith, and Bruce Winterhalder, eds., Evolutionary Ecology and Human Behavior. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
1993, Kay Milton, ed., Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, New York, NY: Routledge.
1996, Daniel G. Bates, and Susan H. Lees, eds., Case Studies in Human Ecology, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
1996, Kay Milton, Environmentalism and Culture Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse, New York, NY: Routledge.
1998, Alan H. Goodman and Thomas L. Leatherman, eds., Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
1998, Edward J. Kormondy, and Daniel E. Brown, Fundamentals of Human Ecology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
1999, Charles L. Redman, Human Impact on Ancient Environments, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
2000, Stephen Molnar, and Iva M. Molnar, Environmental Change and Human Survival: Some Dimensions of Human Ecology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2000, Karen B. Strier, Primate Behavioral Ecology, Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
2000, Patricia K. Townsend, Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Policies, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
2001, Carole Crumley, ed., New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, Thousand Oaks, CA: AltaMira Press.
2001, Daniel G. Bates, Human Adaptive Strategies: Ecology, Culture and Politics, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2001, Gerald G. Martin, Human Ecology: Basic Concepts for Sustainable Development, Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.
2004, Mark Q. Sutton, and E.N. Anderson, Introduction to Cultural Ecology, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
APPENDIX 4. TRAINING PROGRAMS IN THE U.S.A.*
University of Arizona
University of California/Berkeley
University of California/Davis
University of California/Riverside
University of California/Santa Barbara
University of Georgia
University of Florida
University of Hawai`i
Indiana University
University of Maryland
University of Massachusetts/Amherst
University of Michigan
University of New Mexico
University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill
Rutgers University
University of Washington/Seattle
*See Sponsel 2004 for more detail.
APPENDIX 5. SUBFIELDS AND ECOLOGICAL APPROACHES
BIOLOGICAL (PHYSICAL) ANTHROPOLOGY
primate ecology
human adaptability
(physiological ecology)
behavioral ecology
evolutionary ecology
ARCHAEOLOGY
prehistoric ecology
(paleoecology, environmental archaeology)
historical ecology
CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY
cultural ecology
ecological anthropology
LINGUISTICS
ethnoecology
(eco-linguistics)
APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY
environmental anthropology
APPENDIX 6.
GENERAL TRENDS IN SOCIO-CULTURAL EVOLUTION CORRELATED WITH
INCREASING THRESHOLDS OF HUMAN IMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY*
1. population - nomadic to sedentary settlement pattern with increasing population density, nucleation (settlements to cities), and pollution
2. food - wild to domesticated foods with shift from foraging to farming
3. energy - somatic (human and animal) to extrasomatic (water, wind, wood, fossil fuel, nuclear) sources of energy for work
4. land - extensive (horticultural) to intensive (agricultural) land use; land tenure - community/public to private/corporate ownership
5. economy - subsistence (satisfying basic physiological needs) to market of surplus production to materialist consumerism; local self-sufficient to regionally and then globally interdependent economy (globalization)
6. waste - organic products which are readily biodegradable to more recently those like metals and plastics which disintegrate very slowly
7. scale - small and decentralized to large and centralized societies (states), the latter with increasing import of natural resources from ecosystems in distant regions
8. differentiation - egalitarian to hierarchical (stratified) societies, the latter with increasing inequality in access to resources, goods, and services and institutionalized warfare
9. alienation - daily to occasional contact with and feedback (monitoring human impact) from the natural environment; eventually with alienation from nature and other humans, and increasingly decisions made by agents far removed from the locations they impact
10. worldview - ecocentric to anthropocentric and egocentric worldviews, attitudes, and values; also sacred/moral to secular/amoral and utilitarian orientation to nature;' may include shift from biophilia (love of nature) to biophobia (fear of nature)
11. balance - some degree of dynamic ecological equilibrium with recognition of limits to increasing disequilibrium with assumption that there are no limits (i.e. ecological transition)
12. impact - environmental modification to conversion (natural to cultural landscapes) and fragmentation (remnant patches of nature); also toxification with industrialization; local to global impact on biodiversity and environments
*After Sponsel 2001a:397.
REFERENCES CITED
Note: Citations in Appendices are not necessarily repeated here.
Adams, William Y., 1998, The Philosophical Roots of Anthropology, Stanford, CA: Leland Stanford University Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Ayers, Ed, 1999, God’s Last Offer: Negotiating for a Sustainable Future, New York, NY: Four Walls, Eight Windows.
Balee, William, 1996, "Anthropology," in Greening the College Curriculum: A Guide to Environmental Teaching in the Liberal Arts, Jonathan Collett and Stephen Karakashian, eds., Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 24-49.
_____, 1998a, "Historical Ecology: Premises and Postulates," in Advances in Historical Ecology, William Balee, ed., New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 13-29.
_____, 1998b, ed., Advances in Historical Ecology, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Barnaby, Frank, ed., 1988, The Gaia Peace Atlas, New York, NY: Doubelday.
Bassett, Libby, John T. Brinkman, and Kusumita P. Pedersen, eds., 2000, Earth and Faith: A Book of Reflection and Action, New York, NY: United Nations Environment Programme Interfaith Partnership for the Environment.
Bates, Daniel G., and Susan H. Lees, eds., 1996, Case Studies in Human Ecology, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Bennett, John W., 1976, The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human Adaptation, New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Biersack, Aletta, Guest Editor, 1999, "Ecologies for Tomorrow: Reading Rappaport Today,” American Anthropologist 101(1):5-112.
Bodley, John, 1999, Victims of Progress, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
_____, 2001, Anthropology and Contemporary Human Problems, Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Co.
Broswimmer, Franz J., 2002, Ecocide: A Short History of the Mass Extinction of Species, Stirling, VA: Pluto Press.
Byers, Bruce A., Robert N. Cunliffe, and Andrew T. Hudak, 2001, "Linking Conservation of Culture and Nature: A Case Study of Sacred Forests in Zimbabwe," Human Ecology 29(2):187-218.
Clay, Jason W., 1988, Indigenous Peoples and Tropical Forests: Models of Land Use and Management from Latin America, Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, Inc.
Castree, Noel, and Bruce Braun, eds., 2001, Social Nature: Theory, Practice, and Politics, New York, NY: Blackwell Publishers.
Clemmer, Richard O., L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, eds., 1999, Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist, Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.
Coates, Peter, 1998, Nature: Western Attitudes Since Ancient Times, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Conklin, Harold C., 1957, Hanunoo Agriculture: A Report on an Integral System of Shifting Cultivation in the Philippines, Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Conant, Francis, et al., 1983, Resource Inventory and Baseline Study Methods for Developing Countries, Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science Publication No. 83-3.
Crumley, Carole L., 2001, New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, Thousand Oaks, CA: AltaMira Press.
Diamond, Jared, 1999, Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fate of Human Societies, New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
_____, 2004, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, New York, NY: Viking Books.
Dobson, Andrew, ed., 1991, The Green Reader: Essays Toward a Sustainable Society, London, UK: Deutsch.
Durning, A.T., 1992, Guardians of the Earth: Indigenous Peoples and the Health of the Earth, Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Paper No. 112.
Edgerton, Robert B., 1992, Sick Societies: The Myth of Primitive Harmony, New York, NY: Free Press.
Ellen, Roy, 1982, Environment, Subsistence and System: The Ecology of Small-Scale Social Formations, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ervin, Alexander M., 2005, Applied Anthropology: Tools and Perspectives for Contemporary Practice, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Flannery, T.F., 1995, Future Eaters: An Ecological History of the Australasian Lands and People, New York, NY: George Braziller.
Foltz, Richard, ed., 2002, Worldviews, Religion and the Environment: A Global Anthology, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.
Gardner, Gary, 2002, Invoking the Spirit: Religion and Spirituality in the Quest for a Sustainable World, Washington, D.C.: WorldWatch Paper 164.
Glacken, Clarence J., 1967, Traces on a Rhodian Shore: Nature and Culture in Western Thought from Ancient Times to the End of the Eighteenth Century, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Goodman, Alan H., and Thomas L. Leatherman, eds., 1998, Building a New Biocultural Synthesis: Political-Economic Perspectives on Human Biology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Gottlieb, Roger S., ed., 1996/2004, This Sacred Earth: Religion, Nature, Environment, New York, NY: Routledge.
Grim, John A., ed., 2001, Indigenous Traditions and Ecology: The Interbeing of Cosmology and Community, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Grinde, Donald A., and Bruce E. Johansen, 1995, Ecocide of Native America: Environmental Destruction of Indian Lands and Peoples, Santa Fe, NM: Clear Light Publishers.
Hackenberg, Robert A., 1974, "Ecosystem Channeling: Cultural Ecology from the Viewpoint of Aerial Photography," in Aerial Photography in Anthropological Field Research, Evon Z. Vogt, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 28-39.
Hamilton, Lawrence S., ed., 1993, Ethics, Religion, and Biodiversity: Relations Between Conservation and Cultural Values, Cambridge, UK: White Horse Press.
Harris, Marvin, 1974, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, New York, NY: Random House.
_____, 1979, Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture, New York, NY: Random House.
Hartmann, Thom, 1999, The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight: Waking Up to Personal and Global Transformation, New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Heywood, V.H., ed., 1995, Global Biodiversity Assessment, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1997, Indigenous Peoples and Sustainability: Cases and Actions, International Books, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johannes, R.F., 1981, Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia, Berekeley, CA: University of California Press.
Johnston, Barbara R., ed., 1994, Who Pays the Price? The Sociocultural Context of Environmental Crisis, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
_____, 1995, "Human Rights and the Environment," Human Ecology 23(2):111-123.
______, ed., 1997, Life and Death Matters: Human Rights and the Environment at the End of the Millennium, Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
_____, 2001, “Anthropology and Environmental Justice: Analysts, Advocates, Mediators, and Troublemakers,” in New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, pp. 132-149.
Kerns, Virginia, 2003, Scenes from the High Desert: Julian Steward`s Life and Theory, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kinsley, David, 1955, Ecology and Religion: Ecological Spirituality in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Klare, Michael, 2001a (May-June), "The New Geography of Conflict," Foreign Affairs 80(3):49-61.
_____, 2001b, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co.
Klee, Gary, ed., 1980, World Systems of Traditional Resource Management, New York, NY: John Wiley and Co.
Kottak, Conrad, 1999, "The New Ecological Anthropology," American Anthropologist 101(1):23-35.
Leslie, John, 1996, The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction, New York, NY: Routledge.
Levin, Simon Asher, Editor-in-Chief, 2001, Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Little, Paul E., 1999, "Environmentalists and Environmentalisms in Anthropological Research: Facing a New Millennium," Annual Review of Anthropology 28:253-284.
Maffi, Luisa, ed., 2001, On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language, Knowledge, and the Environment, Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Manners, Robert A., ed., 1964, Process and Pattern in Culture: Essays in Honor of Julian Steward, Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.
Martin, Gary J., 1995, Ethnobotany: A Methods Manual, New York, NY: Chapman and Hall.
Merchant, Carolyn, 1992, Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World, New York, NY: Routledge.
Messer, Ellen, and Michael Lambek, eds., 2001, Ecology and the Sacred: Engaging the Anthropology of Roy A. Rappaport, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Metzner, Ralph, 1999, Green Psychology: Transforming Our Relationship to the Earth, Rochester, VT: Parl Street Press.
Meyer, Christine, and Faith Moosang, eds., 1992, Living with the Land: Communities Restoring the Earth, Philadelphia, PA: New Society Publishers.
Milton, Kay, ed., 1993, Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology, New York, NY: Routledge.
______, 1996, Environmentalism and Cultural Theory: Exploring the Role of Anthropology in Environmental Discourse, New York, NY: Routledge.
Moran, Emilio F., 1979/2000, Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
_____, ed., 1990, The Ecosystem Approach in Anthropology, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
_____, 1994, The Comparative Study of Human Societies: Toward Common Standards for Data Collection and Reporting, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
_____, 1996, "Environmental Anthropology," in Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds., New York, NY: Henry Holt and Co., 2:283-389.
Murphy, Martin F., and Maxine L. Margolis, eds., 1995, Science, Materialism, and the Study of Culture, Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Myers, Norman, ed., 1984, Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Nabhan, Gary Paul, 1997, Cultures of Habitat: One Nature, Culture, and Story, Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.
Nazarea, Virginia D., ed., 1999, Ethnoecology: Situated Knowledge/Located Lives, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Netting, Robert M., 1977/1986, Cultural Ecology, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
_____, 1996, "Cultural Ecology," in Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology, David Levinson and Melvin Ember, eds., 1:267-271.
Norberg-Hodge, Helena, 1991, Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh, San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club Books.
Oldfield, Margery L., and Janis B. Alcorn, eds., 1991, Biodiversity: Culture, Conservation, and Ecodevelopment, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Oliver-Smith, Anthony, and Susanna M. Hoffman, eds., 1999, The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, New York, NY: Routledge.
Orlove, Benjamin S., 1980, "Ecological Anthropology," Annual Review of Anthropology 9:235-273.
_____, and Stephen B. Brush, 1996, "Anthropology and the Conservation of Biodiversity," Annual Review of Anthropology 25:329-352.
Palmer, Joy A., ed., 2001, Fifty Key Thinkers on the Environment, New York, NY: Routledge.
Palmer, Martin, and Victoria Finlay, 2003, Faith in Conservation: New Approaches to Religions and the Environment, Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Peacock, James L., 1997, "The Future of Anthropology," American Anthropologist 99(1):9-29.
Peet, Richard, and Michael Watts, eds., 1996, Liberation Ecologies: Environment, Development and Social Movements, New York, NY: Routledge.
Peluso, Nancy Lee, and Michael Watts, eds., 2001, Violent Environments, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Pepper, D., 1996, Modern Environmentalism: An Introduction,
New York, NY: Routledge.
Ponting, Clive, 1991, A Green History of the World: The Environment and Collapse of Great Civilizations, New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Posey, Darrell Addison, et al., eds., 1999, Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications/UNEP.
Rappaport, Roy A., 1967/1984, Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual and Ecology in New Guinea Peoples New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Redford, Kent H., and J.A. Mansour, eds., 1996, Traditional Peoples and Biodiversity Conservation in Large Tropical Landscapes, American Verde Publications, Arlington, VA.
Redman, Charles L., 1999, Human Impact on Ancient Environments, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
Rees, Martin, 2003, Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning: A Scientist’s Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind’s Future in This Century--- On Earth and Beyond, New York, NY: Basic Books.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, Gerardo, 1971, Amazonian Cosmos: The Sexual and Religious Symbolism of the Tukano Indians, Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
_____, 1976, "Cosmology as Ecological Analysis: A View from the Rainforest," Man 11:307-318.
Richards, Paul, 1996, Fighting for the Rain Forest: War, Youth, and Resources in Sierra Leone, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Robbins, Paul, 2004, Political Ecology: A Critical Introduction, Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Rockefeller, Steven, and John C. Edler, eds., 1992, Spirit and Nature: Why the Environment is a Religious Issue, Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Russell, Diane, and Camilla Harshbarger, eds., 2003, Groundwork for Community-Based Conservation: Strategies for Social Research, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Sidky, H., 2004, Perspectives on Culture: A Critical Introduction to Theory in Cultural Anthropology, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Simmons, I.G., 1994, Interpreting Nature: Cultural Constructions of the Environment, New York, NY: Routledge.
Soule, Michael, and Gary Lease, eds., 1994, Reinventing Nature? Responses to Postmodern Deconstructionism, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Speth, William W., 1978, “The Anthropogenic Theory of Franz Boas,” Anthropos 73(1/2):1-31.
______, 1999, How It Came to Be: Carl Sauer, Franz Boas, and the Meaning of Anthropogeography, Ellensburg, WA: Ephemera Press.
Sponsel, Leslie E., 1987, "Cultural Ecology and Environmental Education," Journal of Environmental Education 19(1):31-42.
_____, 1992, "The Environmental History of Amazonia: Natural and Human Disturbances, and the Ecological Transition," Changing Tropical Forests: Historical Perspectives on Today's Challenges in Central and South America, Harold K. Steen and Richard P. Tucker, eds., Durham, NC: Forest History Society, pp. 233-251.
_____, 1995, "Relationships among the world system, indigenous peoples, and ecological anthropology in the endangered Amazon," in Leslie E. Sponsel, ed., Indigenous Peoples and the Future of Amazonia: An Ecological Anthropology of an Endangered World, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, pp. 263-293.
_____, 1997a, "Julian Steward," in The Dictionary of Anthropology, Thomas Barfield, ed., Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 448-450.
_____, 1997b, "Ecological Anthropology," in The Dictionary of Anthropology, Thomas Barfield, ed., Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers, pp. 137-140.
_____, 1998, "The Historical Ecology of Thailand: Increasing Thresholds of Human Environmental Impact from Prehistory to the Present," in Advances in Historical Ecology, Willam Balee, ed., New York, NY: Columbia University Press, pp. 376-404.
______, 2001a, "Human Impact on Biodiversity, Overview," Encyclopedia of Biodiversity, Simon Asher Levin, Editor-in-Chief, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 3:395-409.
_____, 2001b, Anthropologists Need Religion, and Vice Versa? Adventures and Dangers in Spiritual Ecology," in New Directions in Anthropology and Environment: Intersections, Carole L. Crumley, ed., Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2001, 177-200.
_____, 2004, “Contemporary Ecological Anthropology: A Survey, Analysis, and Commentary on its Academic Characteristics and Resources,” unpublished manuscript.
_____, Thomas N. Headland, and Robert C. Bailey, eds., 1996, Tropical Deforestation: The Human Dimension, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Stevens, S., ed., 1997, Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas, Washington, D.C., Island Press.
Steward, Jane C., and Robert F. Murphy, eds., 1977, Evolution and Ecology: Essays on Social Transformation by Julian H. Steward, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Steward, Julian H., 1938, Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Socio-Political Groups, Washington, D.C.: Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin No. 120.
_____, 1955, Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
_____, 1968, "Cultural Ecology," in International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, David Sills, ed., New York, NY: Macmillan, 4:337-344.
Takacs, David, 1996, The Idea of Biodiversity: Philosophies of Paradise, Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
_____, et al., 2004, Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, New York, NY: Continuum Press, Volumes I-II.
Taylor, Bron, Editor-in-Chief, 2005, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Nature, New York, NY: Continuum Press.
Terborgh, John, 1999, Requiem for Nature, Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Townsend, Patricia K., 2000, Environmental Anthropology: From Pigs to Policies, Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Tucker, Mary Evelyn, 1997, "The Emerging Alliance of Religion and Ecology," Worldviews: Environment, Culture and Religion 1(1):3-24.
_____, with Judith A. Berling, 2003, Worldly Wonder: Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase, La Salle, IL: Open Court.
Turner, B. L., ed., 1990, The Earth as Transformed by human Action, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Vayda, Andrew P., ed., 1969, Environment and Cultural Behavior, Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
_____, and Bonnie J. McCay, 1975, “New Directions in Ecology and Ecological Anthropology,” Annual Review of Anthropology 4:293-306.
_____, and Roy A. Rappaport, 1968, "Ecology, Cultural and Non-cultural," in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, James A. Clifton, ed., Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., pp. 476-497.
Ventocilla, J., H. Herrera, and V. Nunez, 1995, Plants and Animals in the Life of the Kuna, Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Wackernagel, Mathis, and William Rees, eds., 1996, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth, Stony Creek, CT: New Society Publishers.
Wilcox, Bruce A., and K.N. Duin, 1995, "Indigenous Cultural Diversity and Biological Diversity: Overlapping Values of Latin American Ecoregions," Cultural Survival Quarterly 18(4):49-53.
Wilson, Daniel J., 1999, Indigenous South Americans of the Past and Present: An Ecological Perspective, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wilson, Edward O., 1989, "Threats to Biodiversity," Scientific American 26(3):108-117.
_____, 1999, The Diversity of Life, New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
_____, 2002, The Future of Life, ew York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Wolf, Eric R., 1982, Europe and the People without History, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
World Resources Institute (WRI), et al., 2000, World Resources 2000-2001: People and Ecosystems - The Fraying Web of Life, Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
Worster, Donald, 1994, Nature’s Economy: A History of Ecological Ideas, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Young, G.L., ed., 1983, Origins of Human Ecology, Stroudsburg, PA: Hutchinson Ross Publishing Co.