The Development of Research on Traditional Subsistence Activities in Relation to Cultural Geography

Abstract

Concerning the appraisal of American cultural geography, two distinct trends are found among English-speaking geographers. Those who attached importance to social and ideological aspects of culture criticized the work in this field for ignoring the dynamic nature of cultural practice. On the other hand, Carl Sauer's thought and attitude attracted the attention of many researchers, and the sources of his originality have been examined as part of a movement.Although these trends seem to be contradictory, they share some common features. Both of them concentrated on the traditional aspects of American cultural geography, and neglected to take recent research themes into consideration. As is well known, diverse research frontiers expanded in relation to this field during these three decades. It is necessary to examine the development of such frontiers in order to see the present state of cultural geography in its proper perspective.Research on traditional subsistence activities as the study of man-environment relationships is one of these themes. It has been expanding steadily in close relation to adjacent scientific fields, especially anthropology, and the results are esteemed in an interdisciplinary arena rather than within geography.The purpose of this review is to trace the development process of this kind of study and to give a new perspective on contemporary cultural gengraphy. It also intends to lay a founation to promote emerging research on similar themes in Japan.The beginning of research on traditional subsistence activities can be recognized in the works of a few geographers in the 1960's. Although a fear of environmental determinism was still felt in this period, the framework of cultural ecology of J. Steward in anthropology encouraged their attempts. Some of these reserchers such as W. C. Clarke and B. Nietschmann adopted the methods of ecological anthropology which emergeds in 1960's criticizing cultural ecology. But it is noteworthy that they gave more attention to environmental change by human use of resources than to the maintenance of the homeostasis in ecological systems, which anthropologists such as R. A. Rappaport regarded as important. By the beginning of 1970's the relevancy of this kind of research was accepted in geography, but most of the studies concentrated on tropical agriculture, especially on shifting cultivation.Since this period, divergent objects and subthemes were pursued, and a new framework in anthropology which emphasized adaptive strategy was gradually adopted. At the same time many geographers became conscious of the common nature of traditional subsistence systems. For example, it became clear that their use of energy is more efficient than that of modern systems which depend heavily on fossil fuels. Sustainability without the supply of external resources was also regarded as a common merit of traditional systems compared with modern ones. In addition, the data accumulated by these studies were applied to inquiries on prehistoric subsistence, such as food production in the ancient civilizations of Central America. This kind of research enabled the realistic reconstruction of the systems.Along with these studies, changes of subsistence systems which have the merits mentioned above attracted the attention of researchers. Most of the societies they studied had exposed to external forces and were compelled to transform their subsistence systems. According to their reports this kind of influence brought drastic changes to the systems, such as the excessive exploitation of local resources of high market value and the reduction of their sustainability.Some researchers extended the scope of analysis to development policies, which not only altered traditional systems but also generated social problems. Emphasizing the role of external influence, the study of disaster in traditional societies adopted a similar point of view.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.