In his book Human Natures: Genes, Culture and the Human
Prospect , Paul Ehrlich argues that the cultural practices of a given
society develop largely as a result of the large-scale environmental factors
of the area in which the society lives. He gives the striking example that
all religions that developed in deserts are monotheistic, whereas those that
began in rainforests are polytheistic (Ehrlich, pp 9 of handout, 2000). Ehrlich
argues that the size and geography of a region, its climate, the availability
of resources - the "macroevolutionary" forces - will have an enormous
effects on the cultures that develop there.
Ehrlich continues by pointing out that cultures do not only develop as simple,
predictable reflections of their environments. The influences do not only
run in one direction; cultural beliefs and practices may lead to large-scale
environmental changes made by a society. The culture of a given society may
influence how and to what extent that society interacts with its environment.
The rate at which cultures acquire new technologies has historically been
highly variable; on the one hand, a culture may deliberately restrict the
use of a given technology or simply may not have the cultural demand for an
available technology (1) . On the other hand, many cultures seem to have desires
and appetites that far exceed a sustainable method of utilizing their environment.
All too often, the practices of a society over-strain its existing resources
in ways that leave those resources irretrievably damaged.
A telling example of the complex interactions between a culture and its surroundings
is the relative fates of two Pacific islands: Easter Island and Tikopia. Although
it would be impossible to pin-point a simple cause-and-effect relationship
between the people of each island and their respective environments, there
are several interesting features of the ecosystems and cultures on the two
islands that seem to have largely affected how their histories played out
up to the point of their initial contact with Europeans in the 18th century.
Clive Ponting (1991) gives the history of Easter Island roughly as follows:
In the fifth century CE, the 150 sq. mile island (2) was reached by no more
than twenty or thirty Polynesians. The population slowly grew as agriculture
developed on the island. Many native Polynesian food sources could not be
propagated on the island, but sweet potatoes and chickens were successfully
imported. The islanders were also heavily dependent on fishing, which they
did in wooden canoes. By the sixteenth century, the population peaked at around
7,000 people. Initially, the agriculture was successful enough so as to only
require a relatively small amount of labor, leaving the inhabitants with large
amounts of free time that enabled them to develop complex religious ceremonies
and rituals.
The most striking aspect of the religion on Easter Island was the carving
of up to a thousand massive stone busts located throughout the island, some
weighing nearly eighty tons. Although their function is not completely understood,
these statues are generally believed to have been used in religious ceremonies
and also as signs of prestige among the different clans on the island. These
statues were transported over the island on enormous systems of wooden tracks.
Ponting suggests that the building of these giant wooden transport structures
was ultimately responsible for the almost complete deforestation of the island.
By 1600, this deforestation had dried out and practically ruined the soil,
making agriculture much less productive. In addition, the islanders could
no longer make boats for fishing, and more importantly, were essentially trapped
on the island. In 1722, when Easter Island was first discovered by Dutch explorers,
the 3,000 islanders were "engaged in almost perpetual warfare and resorting
to cannibalism in a desperate attempt to supplement the meager food supplies
available on the island." (Ponting, pp 1, 1991)(3) .
Although many of the details regarding Easter Island are unknown, it is interesting
to think about the way in which the environment of the island contributed
to the development of certain cultural practices, and the subsequent ways
that the culture had a massive effect on the environment. The ease of farming
gave the people sufficient time to develop their culture, the availability
of stone allowed for the massive quarrying, and the lack of draught animals
and the seeming abundance of trees most likely prompted the people to transport
these statues the way that they did. Because the trees native to Easter Island
are extremely slow growing (Ehrlich, 2000), what may have been a standard
deforesting process for the early islanders in their previous homes could
have been too much for Easter Island to support. Although the culture that
developed on Easter Island seems to have been largely influenced by the ecosystem
of the island, certain aspects of the society became increasingly incompatible
with that ecosystem. It was the cultural practices of the islanders and their
inability to change their ways that destroyed the resources (namely forests)
that the society depended on, ultimately destroying the society of Easter
Island.
The society that developed on Tikopia turned out quite differently. First
settled in 900 BCE, Tikopia is the western-most Polynesian island. Though
it is much smaller than Easter Island (Ehrlich reports the size as 1.8 sq.
mi), the maximum population density of Tikopia was much greater than that
of Easter Island (4).
According to Ehrlich, the first thousand years of resource depletion on the
island were similar to those of Easter Island. Indeed, by 500 BCE, megapode
and other wild birds were extinct on Tikopia (Kirch & Yen, pp 361, 1982).
However, between 100 CE and 1200 CE, a sustainable orchard-system unlike anything
on Easter Island was implemented that has allowed for a relatively stable
population to this day.
In many ways, the physical environment of Tikopia may have made it more capable
of sustaining human life than Easter Island. As Ehrlich points out, Easter
Island was large enough for several groups to develop independently and relatively
isolated from each other while Tikopia was small enough that "everyone
in the relatively small population must have been on rather close terms with
everyone else, and this encouraged collective decision making." (Ehrlich,
pp 246, 2000). In addition, the soil of Tikopia was highly fertile and supported
much more diversity of crops (Ehrlich, 2000)
The anthropologist Raymond Firth has done extensive cultural studies of Tikopia
from the 1920s through the 1960s, and his book History and Traditions of
Tikopia explains some aspects of the culture that may have contributed
to the people's survival. His findings both support Ehrlich's assertions that
the geography of Tikopia had an incredible effect on the culture that developed
there, and also include other fascinating aspects of Tikopian society that
may have played important roles in its survival.
Firth's description of Tikopian folklore reinforces the notion that the size
of the island led to the development of a singular culture on the island.
At the time that he was writing, there were 23 lineages on the island, each
"with major ritual privileges and an office-holder as head." (Firth,
pp 85,1961). Eight of these lineages claim to have descended from immigrants
to Tikopia, and the remaining are fifteen are said to be "earth-sprung,"
meaning that they originated on the island. Clan loyalties are important in
social affairs, but Firth says that all Tikopians recognize one culture-hero,
The Supreme Deity of Kafika. "He was regarded as having been responsible
for many of the major items of Tikopia culture." (Firth, pp 95,1961).
The people of Tikopia therefore have a notion that all people on the island
(aside from the immigrant lineages) descended from the same stock, all partake
in the same governmental structure, and have at least some sense of unity
of all inhabitants on the island. Firth also mentions that although tensions
between lineages do exist, marriages between clans and other cross-lineage
relationships prevent deep rivalries from forming.
Certainly, recognition of common ancestry or a singular culture-hero do not
necessarily lead to a healthy and cohesive society (Christianity seems like
a good counter-example), but the ability to make society-wide decisions as
a group has definitely made a contribution to the relative peace on Tikopia.
The island is described by Marc Howard Ross as a "low-conflict society."
Ross claims that although verbal abuse occurs on the island, physical violence
is rare. Ross, citing Firth, attributes this to cultural beliefs of Tikopians,
which do "not promote peaceful conflict management through the threat
of force. Rather
the leader's legitimacy is well established and connected
to strong identification with the community." (Ross, pp 53, 1993).
There are several other ways in which Tikopian culture has allowed for sustainability.
As Firth describes, one of the defining characteristics of life on the island
is the practice of frequent oversea voyages. Firth estimates that over the
four generations preceding his arrival, 100 over-sea voyages were made. Of
the men on these 100 voyages, more than half died at sea and more were said
to have died in foreign lands. In all, only one-third of the voyagers were
thought to have returned.
According to Firth, these voyages are undertaken for excitement and adventure
and as a matter of prestige among men. They were also often the result of
shame on the island, when a man lost face. As Firth notes, this has proved
to be powerful population control mechanism: "the institution of overseas
voyaging served as an overflow mechanism for population pressure." (Firth,
pp 151, 1961). In his writing about Tikopia, Ehrlich claims that infanticide,
celibacy, and birth-control also contributed to population-controls (Ehrlich,
pp 245, 2000). (5)
One of the most interesting aspects of cultural history on Tikopia is the
deliberate removal of pigs from the island sometime around 1600. Patrick Kirch
and D. E. Yen describe this decision as largely the response to environmental
pressure (pigs were continually eating or destroying a large amount of crops),
but at a recognized social cost. Because pigs were detrimental to the orchard
system on the island, their removal led to increased stability. However, pigs
were used in religious rituals, so "the positive effects were thus environmental,
the negative, cultural." (Kirch & Yen, pp 358,1982). While exact
evidence is scarce, it seems that the islanders were aware that pigs were
becoming too great a strain on the agriculture of the island, and were able
to sacrifice a part of their culture for the benefit of the society.
Kirch and Yen also note other instances of deliberate avoidances of certain
edible animals. From about 100 BCE until 1200 CE, sharks, turtles and rays
were not hunted. Kirch and Yen speculate that his may have had to do with
their religious importance rather than an environmental precaution. At 1200
CE, the prohibition was lifted and these animals have been eaten since. However,
the authors do say that currently eel and puffer fish are not eaten on Tikopia,
and that the islanders find "the eating of eel flesh disgusting."
(358). While this avoidance is clearly not a deliberate attempt to further
sustainability, it may help do so anyway.
All of these cultural practices and more must have contributed to the survival
of the Tikopians. They are also a beautiful example of the complex interactions
between a culture and it's surroundings - it is nearly impossible to identify
which are the causes and which are the effects of these practices. As Firth
wrote, "in this island the works of nature and of man merge easily."
(Firth, as quoted by Kirch & Yen,1936).
I do not think there is any reason to believe that the inhabitants of Easter
Island were irresponsible and short-sighted, while those of Tikopia were patient
and considerate. Rather, it seems that the geography and resources of each
island contributed differently to the cultures that developed there. With
a hundreds years of hindsight, it may be easy to realize the beneficial decisions
and the mistakes made by each culture, but it seems much more realistic to
imagine that each of these decisions was made slowly, not always deliberately,
and certainly without accurate knowledge of the consequences. For example,
it seems ridiculous to assume that the Tikopians developed a cultural habit
of sending their young men to die at sea as a conscious effort to reduce the
population. It appears more likely to me that whatever the origins of this
practice, it was most likely one of the causes of their success, not a deliberate
reaction to the threat of doom. In other words, I would argue that this practice
was not developed as a conscious fix-it for an environmental stress, but rather
sprung from much more complex and mysterious ideas and appears to have been
an integral part of the societies survival.
The fates of Easter Island and Tikopia both illustrate the ways that an environment
influence the development of a culture and that culture may in turn affects
its environment. In the case of Easter Island, the society that developed
had such a drastic effect on their environment as to make it virtually uninhabitable.
The Tikopian society, on the other hand, was able to accommodate for the precarious
ecosystem on their island and developed cultural and technological practices
that allowed for their survival. On both islands, the cultures developed not
as simple mirrors of their surroundings, but rather as complex interactions
between humans and their environments. As in any society, it is impossible
to imagine what may have happened had any small part of each island's history
been different. Every interaction between the islanders and their environment
must have built on the past but also taken their society in an unforeseeable
direction, affecting their future.
(1): Ehrlich gives the example of China. China had, for instance, gunpowder, the "Bessemer" steel process, and an incredibly advanced fleet of large sea-ships well before Europe did. Yet, due largely to cultural views of these technologies, they did not have such an explosive effect on the planet until they spread to Europe. (Ehrlich, 2000)
(2) This is the size given by Ponting. The Encarta Encyclopedia
says that Easter Island is closer to 45 sq. mi.
(3) In 1877, 110 inhabitants remained, the rest having been
taken into slavery by European explorers.
(4) My own calculation. The peak population of Easter Island is given by Ponting as 7,000, so the population density would have been 46.7 people/sq. mi. The earliest population estimates for Tikopia (1828), as given by Kirch & Yen, was 400-500 people, which would yield approximately 222.2 - 277.8 people/sq. mi. In addition, the highest recorded population for Tikopia (in 1952) is reported as 1,753, which would give a density of 973.9 people/sq. mi, about 20 times more than that of Easter Island.
(5) Tikopia is also highly prone to massive storms. For example, in January of 2003, Cyclone Zoe hit Tikopia. No islanders were killed because they had received early notice and were able to protect themselves in caves. However, their water supply was affected, threatening their fruit supply. These storms have historically hit the island with terrible frequency. In one instance in the 1950s, 200 islanders were killed by a famine in the aftermath by a storm. (ABC News Online, January 4, 2003)
Literature Cited:
Ehrlich, Paul. Human Natures: Genes, Culture, and the Human Prospect. Island
Press, 2000.
Firth, Raymond. History and Traditions of Tikopia. New Zealand: Avery Press Limited. 1961.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton and Yen, D.E. Tikopia: The Prehistory and Ecology of a Polynesian Outlier. Hawaii: Bishop Museum Press. 1982
Ponting, Clive. A Green History of the World. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1991.
Ross, Marc Howard. The Management of Conflict. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1993.
Send message to Swarthmore College Environmental Studies
last updated 2/20/03
webmaster