BLOOD FIESTA

BLOOD FIESTA

My personal journey in Spain crossed paths with a beautiful array of kind and gentle people, so it is not my intention to vilify Spanish culture. However, I am compelled to report another provocative relationship between animals and Spanish tradition. Throughout the research I conducted on behalf of bullfighting, I noticed recurring and impassioned referral to “blood fiestas”. It was quite a remarkable discovery for me, once I delved into it, as was it nearly impossible to remain unbiased in my investigations. Blood fiestas are a private cultural practice. Those that follow the tradition prefer minimal touristic and media exposure; primarily to shield the shocking events from the unforgiving light of contemporary animal rights sentiments (my own included). So despite my efforts, I could not locate information in support of blood fiestas, nor was I able to collect any relevant historical and symbolic analysis. Therefore, all accounts provided are from sources foreign to the practice, written in protest.

Every year, thousands of blood fiestas are held in villages throughout Spain, drawing both male and female spectators of all ages.  A particularly detailed description was produced by Danny Penman, who witnessed the annual Toro de la Vega blood fiesta in Tordesillas. For this occasion, a bull is chased through the streets and into an open meadow where it faces a barrage of hungry lances, piercing him until he is weakened beyond resistance. Once he can no longer fight back, the participants engage in close-range bludgeoning and stabbing. As Penman claims, the bull was still alive when his ears were severed and awarded to the designated victor, customarily in addition to the testicles, which he may either eat or flaunt through town, according to his desire. Bull testicles are considered a gastronomical delicacy in Spain, so they are typically consumed eventually by the honored recipient. Penman was appalled at the cruel display, but further horrified by the extensive practices that accompany it. The Toro de la Vega is really only a taste of traditional bloodsport. Bulls are also frequently subjected to drowning, live castration, and darting (in this case “bull’s-eye” adopts a literal definition; I suspect this is the origin of the term). Fire bulls are a favored tradition, as well, for the spectacle of a rampaging bull with flaming horns is surely quite a thrill. Cattle are the most commonly sacrificed for the occasion, followed by chickens, but a variety of other creatures are zealously incorporated into the ritual slaughter, including donkeys, rabbits, squirrels, geese, pigeons, ducks, and pigs. Apparently the activities entail a series of simple yet inventive methods of torture and execution. In an article (FAAC), I saw a photo taken in Tordesilla of a chicken hung upside down from a line whilst a blindfolded young woman attempts to hack it to smithereens with a blunted sword. Chickens are also occasionally buried up to their necks and decapitated by blindfolded villagers. Blindfolds and chickens are a popular party combination. I saw a photo from Manganeses de la Polvorosa of a goat being thrown from the top of a church tower, after first being paraded through town wearing human underwear. Sometimes pigeons and squirrels are trapped inside of clay pots and stoned. I saw a photo of this, too, although it was a bit difficult to distinguish what was really going on. I certainly absorbed a fair share of blood from these photographic representations, specifically from the slain bulls. I can only imagine the overwhelming effect of this would have on an unfamiliar and disapproving witness. But an incredible energy can also be detected in the photographs, in the utterly consumed expressions and body language of those surrounding the animal. Blood fiestas carry centuries of history behind them. At least 300 years of cultural practice precede today’s controversial celebration of the slaughter. The older generations harbor the strongest devotion, insisting in the spiritual and artistic importance of the ritual. Of course, these passionate declarations are trampled in the debate over the cruelty of such customs. The possible corruption of funding for the events is also in fervent inquiry. So how much longer will the notorious blood fiestas rage on?

I will admit the intense repugnance these blood fiestas fill me with. I do not doubt that these celebrations were once profound, but the study of tradition creates a major rift between two disparate perspectives of change: will blood fiestas be abolished as a result of the modern corrosion of divinity, or the enlightened progress of society?

MARGUERITE

Danny Penman
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1313480/Spains-blood-fiestas-make-bullfights-tame-youre-paying-them.html
FAAC
http://www.faace.co.uk/bfiestas.htm

B U L L F I G H T

[L A  T A U R O M A Q U I A]

e l    t o r o   i    el    t r a j e    d e    l u c e s 

Around five o’clock in the morning last April, I stood gawking before the Plaza de Toros de la Maestranza in Seville, Spain. I was quite out of my mind at the time (this I remember well), but the sight left an incredible impression nonetheless. The Plaza is a magnificent structure; the traditional white, red, and gold Spanish façade regally conceals the vast open-air arena reminiscent of gladiatorial grandeur. Indeed, a revered history of bloodshed marks the sand. I didn’t realize it then, in my typical dazed and psychotically fatigued travelling state, but I was marveling at one of the oldest bullrings in Spain. Construction began in 1749 and was completed at last in 1881. It sits today, ever precariously, upon the bold throne of Spanish tradition.

Bullfighting, la tauromaquia, is heralded both as Spain’s most treasured and most controversial tradition: the dramatic public spectacle of a bull’s ritualized slaughter, la corrida. The master of the ring, the matador or torero, is responsible for leading the bull’s sacrifice. He faces the bull on foot, adorned in the customary traje de luces, an elaborate gold embroidered “suit of lights”. To followers of tauromachy, a famous matador is more than a celebrity; he is a hero. His entrance into the arena is greeted with incomparable adulation from the crowd. In the initial phase of the corrida, the matador introduces himself to the bull with a series of basic gestures, brandishing his cape provocatively. The audience’s enthusiasm is expressed with increased fervor the closer the matador dares to approach the bull’s horns. Rivalry is established, the battle is inspired! In the common “Ronda” style, matadors are accompanied by two picadors and three banderilleros, who challenge the bull in stages, intending to injure and exhaust him in preparation for the matador’s final kill. The picadors operate during the second phase of the corrida, mounted on horses, wielding their lances. The bull is pierced about three times, after which a trumpet signals the entrance of the banderilleros. Engaging the bull on foot, they bear colorfully adorned banderillos. These barbed sticks are strategically stabbed into the bull’s shoulders, which forces the bull to lower his head. The trumpet sounds once more, the banderilleros scamper off, and the matador takes over to execute the final phase in the corrida. The “moment of truth”, as they call it, unfolds between man and beast. A frenzy is unleashed within the crowd! The suffering bull is well aware, at this point, where his true nemesis lies: behind the taunting cape. His focus and aggression climax in pursuit of the matador. Consequently, it is during this time that the majority of matador goring takes place. (I’ve seen photos that made my soul squirm…The other patrons at the coffee shop I was occupying were having a hell of a time ignoring my horrified reactions). With his estoque (sword) and muleta (a smaller, more manageable cape reserved for this critical concluding procedure), the matador attempts to guide the estoque between the bull’s horns and into his chest. The placement of the banderillos, having lowered the head, provides the matador with an enormous advantage. Even so, the maneuver requires extraordinary skill and finesse.   Upon delivering the fatal thrust into the bull’s chest, if the matador is not gruesomely impaled in the process, he is usually hurtled over the back of the dying bull by its forceful descent. Triumph. La corrida roars to a spirited close…blood blood blood bloooooood…The ears are often cut from the bull’s head and gifted to the matador as a prize for his victorious slaying. Blood. A hero.

 Bullfighting derives from ancient customs, despite that the current form of la corrida has only been a part of Spanish culture for about 300 years (haha, only 300 years. Remarkably, the procedure has remained essentially unchanged throughout this time). The earliest record of bull sport was discovered painted on a wall in the Knossos Palace (potentially a necropolis, interestingly enough) of 2000 BC Minoan Crete. This glimpse into the adrenaline junkies of antiquity depicts acrobats grabbing the horns of charging bulls and vaulting over their backs. However, the closest resemblance to the Ronda style practiced today first began to develop in the Iberian Peninsula. When the North African Moors overran Andalusia in AD 711, the Visigoth’s seemingly tactless bull-slaughtering pastimes were transformed into a more masterful ritualistic occasion corresponding with feast days. The Moors originally attacked the bulls from atop highly trained horses, whilst men on foot assisted in positioning the bulls using careful cape maneuvers. The skilled footwork and flourish of the groundlings drew increasingly more attention, and thus inspired the birth of the celebrated matador.

Naturally, tauromaquia is fraught with symbolism. Bulls themselves have long carried heavy symbolic significance. Most often they signify strength, courage, aggression, fertility, and masculinity. When Spain’s organized practice of public bullfighting gained popularity, Catholicism was deeply embedded in the ritualism of the event. In fact, the liturgical calendar was the original basis for the bullfighting calendar. The tauromachy season began with the feast of St. Joseph in Valencia and concluded with the Virgin of Pilar in Zaragoza. Dedication of the bull’s sacrifice went to Holy Mary the Immaculata, whose virginal virtuosity was strikingly contrastive to the bull’s raging aggression and symbolically “indefatigable capacity for copulation” (Biles). A fascinating connection, I’d say… In addition, the initial exchange between matador and bull during the corrida is made through a series cape maneuvers called “Veronicas”, after the biblical woman who offered a cloth to Christ during his crucifixion. (How ironic that the matador offers the cloth, not to comfort, but to murderously provoke). With all of this in mind, anthropologist Julian Pitt-Rivers believes that the significance of Catholicism in Spanish bullfighting gained its form from the pagan traditions of the pre-Christian Roman religion, Mithraism. The central act of worship in Mithraism was the sacrifice of the sacred bull. Pitt-Rivers considers tauromaquia comparable to a Christian “cult of the bull”.

The decline of religious devotion in contemporary Spanish culture has not, however, created a decline in bullfighting fanaticism. Secular symbolism maintains potency in the tradition; courage, ferocity, masculinity, etc. FUrthermore, grace is a particularly essential quality of the practice. A major factor in determining a matador’s skill is based upon the elegance of his movements whilst increasing the suicidal proximity to the horns of the bull. They call this the “dance with death”. Mastery, daring, cunning, control, and beauty are illustrated to prevail in the face of chaotic hostility. In addition, bullfighting is frequently associated symbolically with eroticism.  The bullfight is, after all, basically a fertility rite. But sensuality within the ring is also perceived in part through the combination of the bull’s raw virility and the matador’s graceful gestures, further accentuated with luxurious dress. (Very similar to what I detect in wrestling and football—a highly sexual experience for the participants, I suspect. J) Above all, the most devout supporters of bullfighting consider it an art form. In the brutal struggle between the bull and the matador, they identify a profound demonstration of man’s battle against nature, within himself. The bull is honored as a worthy adversary. And in his death, they feel the power of an inescapable condition: the brutality of life and the inevitability of death.

Of course, tremendous objections are now raised against bullfighting. While travelling Spain, I noticed numerous signs of protest in the defense of animal rights. “LA TORTURA NO ES CULTURA” and “TAUROMAQUIA ABALICIÓN” screamed from blood-splattered posters (“torture is not culture”, “abolish bullfighting”). Hundreds of thousands of bulls are slaughtered in the bullfighting industry every year, purchased with money that many suspect is siphoned from agricultural grants given by the European Union. (Throughout the months I was living in mountain farming villages in Spain, I heard plenty of grumbling about the mysterious disappearance of critical maintenance funds). As a rebuttal to issues regarding animal cruelty, supporters of bullfighting mention that fighting bulls are permitted one year longer to live than bulls assigned to the slaughter house. Animal rights supporters don’t seem to give a damn; they still find the slow, miserable murder of animals to be a grotesque entertainment. Bullfighting fans insist that the practice isn’t merely entertainment, but a profound, creative element of their national identity, lending an invaluable richness to Spanish culture. Opposition asserts that placing a drugged bull in an arena for public slaughter is a disgrace to both art and Spanish identity. Many claim that the custom is simply a glorification of violence, driven more by blood thirst and industrial agenda than art. These days, a matador’s salary is equal to a professional sports player or musician. Millionaire matadors are like carnage superstars. Epic. Of course, my vulgar description doesn’t convey the deep, distinguished nobility of a matador’s cultural role. If a parent so desires, they may send their macho nine-year-old boy to a government funded bullfighting school, with the full knowledge that their child may very well meet a horrific end like Manolete’s (famous bullfighter gored to death in the ring. In a twisted sense, this is exactly the goal of any novice matador, considering that Manolete was Spain’s most beloved bullfighter). The matador’s path is an honored peril.

But the swell against bullfighting is gathering force. This year, Catalonia became the first Spanish mainland region to ban bullfighting. The ban takes effect in January 2012. A mad frenzy is stirring within bullfighting associations. Eduardo Martin-Penato, bull breeder and President of Spain's leading bullfighting industry association, insists that "under the Constitution the government is obliged to protect culture" (L.A. Unleashed). Thus, combative measures are being taken to insure that a widespread anti-bullfighting uprising doesn’t actually succeed in abolishing the tradition. Spain’s center-right Popular Party is submitting a proposal to the Cultural Ministry that bullfighting be placed under official cultural heritage protection. The eradication of bullfighting would then be legally prevented. A battle is a-brewin’.

As the societal pendulum swings, the relevance of tradition is subject to mounting scrutiny. The dogmatic sensationalism of bullfighting automatically drags it to the forefront of cultural assessment and reformation. Just as the tauromaquia “convey[s] and ritually enshrine[s] the most cherished values of the society in which it is performed” (Biles), so may its death.

marguerite

L.A. Unleased, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2010/08/spanish-party-seeks-to-enshrine-bullfighting-as-part-of-the-countrys-cultural-heritage.html

Jeremy Biles: Sacred Bull Sex, death, and the sacred in the Spanish bullfight http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/culture/2792/sacred_bull/

The sacred cow is related to me

Many Sikhs and Hindus were forced to flee India during the Indo-Pakistani War in 1947; my grandmother’s family was one of the many who settle in the northeastern region of Thailand, a province known as Ubon Ratchathani. Although Bangkok is the capital of Thailand, life was easier and businesses were blooming in the Northern/Eastern Region. Her Sikh tradition and cultural ways are strong. The one type of meat which the Sikhs and the Hindus do not devour is beef. Instead, they worshipped them. She believes that the cow is sacred, that the cow is a symbol of god and human combine into one. What I mean by this is that the cow’s feces would help rice and vegetables grow, but not only that, it also gives milk to help the human species grow and develop. The cow is used to pull heavy agriculture equipments, but that was when the iphone could be compared to animals such as cows, donkeys and camels right? The cow flourishes the planet. My grandmother’s teachings grew onto her nine children, which grew onto my generation. Now that I’m more educated this lifetime, I understand fully why my grandmother do the things she does and where she learned her beliefs. Still today, my grandmother is a truly outstanding vegetarian.

My grandparents moved to Bangkok, where I was born and raised. I essentially grew up around Sikh culture which was my grandparent’s tradition and teachings with Buddhism as a second religion. I never ate beef the first ten years of my life. Then I moved to the United States, to reside with father, who migrated to the U.S. three years prior. He broke my grandmother’s tradition and was first children to have beef as a part of his diet. His teachings became my way of life and I now also eat beef (No offense to anyone who doesn’t).

Gandhi once wrote “"If someone were to ask me what the most important outward manifestation of Hinduism was, I would suggest that it was the idea of cow protection," It was 3000 years ago when the faith of the cow first evolved near the Indus River. Trace of cow worshipping was tracked back to Lord Krishna. Cow worshipping were mentioned in texts, popular names used by people such as “Govinda” meaning “one who brings satisfaction to the cows.” Having cows meant you were wealthy and prosper. Milk continues to be part of rituals in India and Nepal. Cows often roam free in cities and streets because they are exalted. As New Delhi rises in population every day, more space is being occupied by car and motorcycles. The mother cow is a threat and danger to the community by starting accidents, huge traffics and tearing up garbage near homes and roads.  City leaders are hiring cow catchers to take most of the cows to reserved care places or the city limits.

As you can see, traditions begin and end in family lines. It is up to you to choose which tradition you want your children to carry on from your generation. Old ones will end and new ones will begin. Cows worshipping has been around for 3000-5000 years and I am writing about it to tell you that it is ending in my family line, but only in my teachings, who knows what my cousins will teach their children. My father stopped eating beef because his mother was not around to influence him anymore and McDonald’s dollar menu didn’t help either. Through my experiences this lifetime with elderly teachings, I have adopted three different cultures and traditions which I absolute love; American, Sikh and Buddhist. Traditions comes and goes, grasp the one that is important to you, that has a meaning to you which may not agree with others but If you like that act because it reminds you of family, ancestry and the meaning of living then you are on the right path.

Sources :

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/holycow/hinduism.html

http://www.saching.com/Article/Hindus-and-sacred-cow---Why-do-Hindus-worship-cows-in-India--Beef-consumption-in-India/123

ANIMAL RIGHTS? and anthromorphism

Scientists will sometimes attribute human traits to non-human creatures whether it be because of personal experience, animal history displaying great attributes, or because of reasons on the basis of mythology.  This is referred to as anthromorphism.  

Anthropology in itself is the study of humans and their interactions with each other, and sometimes the technique of anthromorphism combined with anthropological arguments to promote animals rights.

The question is, is it valid enough to support the argument of promoting animal rights?

There has been reverse anthromorphism for hundreds of years.  Humans have given and been given animal traits for centuries.  It's a sense of respect for some cultures, giving them self names like cheetah because they are extremely fast, and then a sense of disrespect for others  such as calling an enemy an ape (trying to suggest they are primitive...or hairy)  But if you look at ancient mythology from Ancient Egypt and South America many of the idolized or gods have animal characteristics and even animal heads!  It seems that throughout the times, at least part of mankind has always retained the idea that animals in some sense are more knowledgeable than we think.  I mean it makes sense if you think about, flight and the ability to breathe under water are both animal feats that humans could only wish for.

The interchanging of giving animals human characteristics and humans animal characteristics have occurred all the way to the present.  But do animals see the way the world humans do?

It actually has been proven that animals do see the world very differently from man. Some cannot see color and some hear sound differently from people.  Their sense of smell and touch is often above par compared to the abilities of humans.  This in fact has led them to an altered version of our shared universe.

And although they have extended abilities that may be favored by natural selection, we have emotion, and it gives the ability to feel, lose, laugh, hope, and even struggle.  The topic of how much emotional ability is actually shared by humans and animals is still at mystery.

But now you have one insight into the reasons why we should promote animal rights, but what do you believe?

-kk

When it comes to survival, we're animals. When it comes to ancestry, are we afraid we're animals?

So basically I'm taking this biology of anthropology class this quarter as well an environmental anthropology.

I've learned many things about primates and mankind so far, many things which have scared me... for example...

Did you know that bonobo chimpanzees use sex as a substitute for aggression? Meaning that they literally are not fighters..they're lovers.  Whether that's appropriate or not, it results them in having a lot less conspecific casualties as well as more amicable relationships with one another.  Another interesting fact is that within chimps as well (which happen to be the closest primate relative to us...well the closest animal in general to us) practice this strategy called  'infanticide'.  This strategy, still needs a lot of research because it's not quite yet understood completely, but the gist of it is that alpha male chimps will the infants of female chimps that they necessarily want to mate with.  The alpha males do this sometimes with bravado, displaying the killing of an infant as a show, and even engaging in cannibalism afterwards with other alpha males.  The most supported theory for this type of behavior is seen as a reproductive strategy to promise the alpha male the most reproductive success, which by natural selection terms, is survival of the fittest.  This is because when a female chimpanzee just gives birth to an offspring, it is already hormonal and lactating and basically efficiently ready to have another offspring right away.  Therefore, if a male chimp were to engage in reproducing with a chimp that just gave birth and a chimp that did not just give birth, the chimp who just gave birth would not only have much greater chances of becoming impregnated but also carry out the offspring with much more efficiency since it's cycles are already on track.  Which is why biologists such as Sarah Hrdy says that alpha males kill the infant of new mothers, so that they may reproduce with these mothers and ensure themselves a more successful opportunity to reproducing their own offspring.  This has created controversy with many biologists on the topic of whether this is wrong or not, because it is favored by natural selection.  By Darwin's postulates, this act of infanticide is just another act of survival.  But it's cruel demeanor has scientists wondering if it's a "natural fallacy" which is the misunderstanding of thinking that because it is right in nature and occurs by means of selection, that it is right for us as humans as well because after all, we did evolve from the same ancestor as chimpanzees.

Of course by modern means this is ethically and morally wrong,  but what I'm wondering is how did we get to this state where it is morally wrong for us?  How did we develop such self awareness, nonetheless awareness of other people's property and emotion.

In fact, infanticide is not just a thing of primates and animals alike, it has occurred throughout history of humankind in Arabia, Judaism, Christianity, India, China, and even colonial America.  And then there are the few cases that occur today of deranged people who kill their children because they "felt" it needed to be done, for example Andrea Yates who drowned her children because it was better for them to die than to live in her opinion, and that she was actually saving their souls.  For whatever reason it is, it seems that people to this day actually do horrible things to ones they once loved (be it children, or spouses) for reasons that we see astounding, but then when you take a closer look, it almost seems very animalistic or characteristic of Darwin's 'sexual selection' a sub category of natural selection.  For example, when a husband feels the need to murder his wife on the basis he wants a divorce or has an affair with another woman.  If this man were a primate, Darwin would say he did this because he reproduced or mated with his wife and received results that did not outweigh the costs and therefore he must find another mate to reproduce and mate with to increase his "fitness" benefits or survival.

These are all just thoughts and ideas  and what if's, I am not at all saying that natural selection is the cause for murders and infanticide within humankind today.  I am saying, that these animals we evolved from practiced something so evidently wrong to us, but by scientific terms it is just survival.  Then what happened along the way to us to cause us to feel this way, that we commit crimes of this stature today and deem it through insanity and murder?  We are such just, moral creatures that it makes me curious to try and understand how these feelings evolved?  Did pity evolve into revenge which evolved into justice which evolved into what is right and wrong?

We are animals.......but are we really?




-KK

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