30.12.2012 Views

Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

Ethnoecology, Resource Use, Conservation And Development In A ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

context is provided by Wapishana cultural ecology, of which a broad overview is thus<br />

provided. Particular attention is given to the ecological effects of existing patterns of<br />

resource use. The major theoretical influences on the approach used are summarised<br />

below. A comprehensive review of Amazonian cultural ecology is provided by Sponsel<br />

(1986); a more recent general overview of Amazonian ethnography includes a<br />

section on human ecology and thus updates this somewhat (Viveiros de Castro<br />

1996).<br />

The modern discipline of ethnobiology dates back to the pioneering work of<br />

Conklin (1954), whose description of Hanunoo plant nomenclature and classification<br />

represented the academic community's first recognition of the accuracy and<br />

complexity of non-western biological knowledge systems, and of the cognitive<br />

underpinning they provide to human exploitation of the natural environment. Since<br />

then, a substantial body of data has accumulated on the classificatory systems<br />

underlying perception of and engagement with the natural world. Best known of this<br />

is the work of Brent Berlin and his associates, from which has emerged a description<br />

of a complex psychological basis to botanical and zoological classification among the<br />

Tzeltal Maya, forming the basis of a model which Berlin considers to be generally<br />

applicable to folk systems of biological classification (Berlin et al. 1974; Hunn 1977;<br />

Berlin 1992). Following in Berlin's footsteps, researchers have documented elaborate<br />

systems of folk classification of biological kinds among many other tribal groups (e.g.,<br />

Taylor 1990). Many of these studies are somewhat limited by their use of linguistic<br />

data recorded in interview settings highly abstracted from its usage in everyday<br />

practical situations. Study of folk classification within its broader cultural context has<br />

revealed dimensions of complexity obscure to studies with a narrower psychological<br />

focus (Ellen 1975, 1993; Randall 1976; Gardner 1976; Kay 1975). Similarly, several<br />

ethnobiological studies have focused on the employment of conceptual knowledge<br />

within the practice of various subsistence activities, including swidden agriculture<br />

(Johnson 1974), hunting (Hyndman 1984), and collection of wild plants (Alcorn<br />

1981). Such studies have illuminated complex and sophisticated cognitive<br />

foundations of subsistence practices among geographically and culturally diverse<br />

groups of people. Over the same time period, a variety of approaches in the study of<br />

human ecology has demonstrated the practical complexity of traditional strategies of<br />

resource use.<br />

The pioneering work of Julian Steward and Betty Meggers on Amazonian human<br />

ecology was closely focused on the nature of environmental constraints on culture<br />

(Steward and Murphy 1977; Meggers 1954, 1996). The emphasis of these studies on

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!