BASIC INTRO: animals in anthropology?

Animal studies in anthropology are still largely at mystery.  For reasons including the same misconceptions anthropologists makes in any division of anthropology.    However, animals have always been a focus of anthropological curiosity.

Isn't it so that when investigating the evolution of us (humans) we have pondered the lineage of apes and chimps to further understand our knowledge about ourself?  As you can probably assume, the role of animals gives people historical importance as well as functional importance.

What I mean by functional importance is....animals have adapted and survived the harshest of times without help from Iphone weather predictors and grocery delivery services.  They have found the food the need, the shelter to cover them, and their mates to reproduce.   Observing them over the years has not only led to insight on our own historical origins but as well as insight on survival and how animals part take in their own environment, by adapting....not adapting the environment to it.

Human-animal relationships have also taken a huge leap in the focus scale for anthropologists, it is even a subject being taught by cultural anthropologists, archaeologists, and biological anthropologists.  They may just seem like 'vehicles with which to explore a particular social formation or process' according to ethnography classics like Geertz.  But the contingency of human's relationship with animals are revealing how emerging forms of animal manufacture/management are redefining the human-animal relationship.

For example, in recent times...the topic of domestication of what once evolved from wild animals is a dichotomy for scientists.  Anthopologists are trying to conceptualize the idea that animals such as dogs and cats are life long friends (..sometimes the only friend) for some people, and bring purpose to their lives.  Where as, for others, animals serve as property that could be reproduced and multiplied.  It's almost like animals as crops for indigenous people versus colonized people.

Should we capitalize on animals like some already do? Look to it as a trade? Sell parts of animals on the black market, breed them senseless and sell them to questionable homes, use them as a sport and hunt them down?

Or should we look about it a way that many indigenous people would? As an awe inspiring thing, as gifts that we can take as friends or respect as parts of environments.   Each animal serves a purpose, we know that because of the food chain.  But do we always give animals a chance to be purposeful?  Even when we kill animals for food and material goods? Do we utilize each and every bone?  Use each and every single piece of hair or fur?

Just a thought.

kiyomi kimura

The Kaleidoscopic Monkey

Long before the dawn of our dear and darling friend Darwin, monkeys have been symbolically potent creatures in native cultures. They don a brilliant array of folkloric faces; supernatural power, divinity, enlightenment, menace, mischief. In the review of Neotropical Primates in the Subsistence and Symbolism of Indigenous Lowland South American Peoples (Loretta Cormier, 2006), seventy native groups were considered for their distinct relationships with monkeys. Numerous connections are identified uniting indigenous culture to ethnoprimatological biodiversity.

In terms of aboriginal subsistence, monkeys are an incredibly practical source of food for Amazonian inhabitants. An enormous variety is hunted. Larger-bodied primates are usually favored, and some cultures hunt seasonally. For example, during the wet season, as fruit ripens on the trees, monkeys become delightfully fattened and equally ripened for the slaughter. As deforestation and development extends ever further, the density and distribution of primates is inevitably affected. Even so, monkeys remain a prevalent dietary feature in native Amazonian cultures.

Despite the abundance of monkeys, the availability of a species does not necessarily correlate positively with the degree to which they are hunted. Of the seventy groups recorded, nineteen of them adhere to a monkey taboo/avoidance. There are a series of age related, gender related, and specie related taboos. Among the Siriono, only seniors may eat howler and owl monkeys, while the Kayapo prohibit all women from eating monkeys entirely. As mentioned, larger monkeys are more frequently used for food, but they are also more often avoided due to cultural taboo. Howler monkeys (Alouatta) hold a particularly notorious place in many indigenous Amazonian cultures. A common mythological theme centers on the foolish and mischievous nature of the howler. They are believed to be unintelligent and lazy; the Bari won’t even use their teeth for necklaces. Tales are told of naughty humans suffering the punishment of transformation into a howler, a shamed and cursed fate. Clearly, indigenous Amazonian cultures developed beyond a purely subsistence based structure. But from where do these myths derive? Are there possibe environmental factors lying at the root of howler aversion? WELL…Consider: The howler monkey happens to be the most densely populated mammal living among the Matisgenka of Peru, yet is rarely exploited for food. Instead, primarily spider and woolly monkeys (of similar size) are snatched for feasting. The reason? As the Matisgenka report quite straightforwardly: howlers simply aren’t as delicious! Apparently their rather folivorous diet (chiefly leaf comprised) does not lend itself to the tastiness of their flesh. Interesting. I sense great potential in the knowledge or practical "sense" that could be enveloped in the ethnopoetics of monkey avoidances. (Not that any justification is required).

Uniquely, the Parakana (Pará, Brazil) and Parintintin (Amazonas, Brazil) oppose the consumption of all species of monkey. These are the only two groups of the seventy that contain this cultural trait. The Parintintin explain that although they do not observe a taboo against monkeys, they avoid eating them due to their extreme physical likeness to humans. I find this fascinating. Yet I am even further absorbed by the case of the Kalapalo (Mato Grosso, Brazil). They are repulsed by the eating of all land animals except monkeys, because they appear so humanlike. It is the resemblance to humans actually qualifies the species as an acceptable or “clean” source of food. There is surely great complexity deeply embedded in both cases…or in all cases of taboo and avoidance, where an outsider can never be entirely certain of how closely connected survival and symbolism may be.

Beyond the material purpose of monkeys in indigenous tradition, there exists a profound cultural bond. Several cultures associate monkeys with supernatural and shamanic forces, regarding them with fearful respect for the power of their spiritual abilities. Some believe in the anthromorphism of animality, while many believe in the zoomorphism of humanity. Throughout the vast region, a myriad of native myths encompass the neotropical primates. Yet most notably, in the elaborate realm of nearly all Amazonian folklore and animism, monkeys play a major role in defining humanity….representing the divine bridge between humans and animals, or the living schism between nature and culture.


Marguerite

greetings from the gods!

The deification of animals (among other sacred practices) is a timeless thread woven through innumerable cultures. Some of the earliest and most recognized documentations trace back to ancient Greek mythology. Greek historian, Diodorus, recorded that the gods transformed themselves into animals as a protective measure against evil predators, particularly evil giants. It is also stated that Zeus favored his animal form, but often for the sole purpose of escaping the watchful eye of his wife, Hera. (What a sly cat!) In many ancient statues and drawings, the Gods and Goddesses are depicted as part human and part animal, illustrating the vital union between a divine figure and its animal identity. The Greek Pantheon is famous for its remarkable animal representations. Other ancient civilizations, the Egyptians and the Indus people for example, believed that gods walked among men and women through animal spirits. Countless religions hold the common belief that sacred animals possess power ful abilities to heal all spiritual and physical maladies, along with the gift of vision into the divinity of a “godly” place. 

In the study of a culture’s spiritual and ritualistic relationship with animals, what ethnobiological impacts will be revealed?  And what environmental factors contribute to the forming of these beliefs and practices? We seek to examine these fascinating connections! Our journey begins!

Ameer

Marguerite