An ethnographic expose of Mithun-human interrelationship among the Kuki community of Northeast India

Pub Date : 2023-11-05 DOI:10.1080/14631369.2023.2275588
Paul Lelen Haokip, None Maya M, D. Benjamin Haokip
{"title":"An ethnographic expose of Mithun-human interrelationship among the Kuki community of Northeast India","authors":"Paul Lelen Haokip, None Maya M, D. Benjamin Haokip","doi":"10.1080/14631369.2023.2275588","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTUnrestrained consumption and a lack of a proper breeding ecosystem have depleted the variety and species count of mithun (Bos frontalis). Indigenous Kuki tribes have a unique relationship with mithun, reared in the semi-domestic countryside. For the Kuki community, a mithun is used during community festivals, as a bride price in marriages, to settle disputes, in land-deed covenants, and at death ceremonies. Mithun-human interrelationship lessens poverty, empowers community survival, guarantees the completion of critical cultural obligations, and maintains marital bonds in the Kuki community. The head of a mithun signifies solemnity and celebration in many cultural underpinnings. A white cock, a dog, a goat, a pig, and a mithun were sacrificial elements to appease the unseen spirits for good health and prosperity. While some Indigenous practices have faded with the arrival of Christianity, the cultural involvement of mithun persists to this date.KEYWORDS: Mithun-human interrelationshipKukiculturemithunbride price AcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge Christ University for providing access to articles through its library portals. A special thanks to Dr James Vungjangam Haokip, Assistant Professor, Sikkim University, Gangtok, India, for his input in translating Thadou-Kuki words into English.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Gangte, “The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis”2. Hangshing, “Understanding the Politics of the Stateless Kukis: Was it by Choice?”.3. Gangte, “The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis”4. Grierson, “Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. III (Part III)”5. Lunkim, “Traditional Kuki Chieftainship: It’s Evolution with Special Reference to.Custom, Beliefs and Practices in Establishing a Village.”6. Gangte, “Evolution of Kuki Chieftainship through Customary Laws – Its Modern.Conceptuality.”7. Kipgen, “Revisiting the ‘Military’: Role of som institution in the Anglo-Kuki War,” 211–.233.8. Sections, “The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, Sections (Citation1960),” 7.9. Brosius et.al., “Ethnoecology: An Approach to Understanding Traditional Agricultural.Knowledge,” 187–198.10. Ali et.al., “Tribal Situation in North East India,” 141–148.11. Oma, “Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals,”.175–187.12. Gough, “Healing the Earth within Us: Environmental Education as Cultural Criticism,”.12–17.13. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”14. Tiwari, “Biodiversity”15. Hurn, “Intersubjectivity,” 125–138.16. Wang et.al., “Therapeutic uses of animal biles in traditional Chinese medicine: An.ethnopharmacological, biophysical chemical and medicinal review,” 9952–9975.17. Ibid., 9952–9975.18. Hurn, “Why Look at Human-Animal Interactions? in Humans and Other Animals: Cross.Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions.”19. Keulartz et.al., “Changing Relationships with Non-human Animals in the Anthropocene .- An Introduction,”1–24.20. Oma, “Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals,”.175–187.21. Keulartz et.al., “Changing Relationships with Non-human Animals in the Anthropocene.– An Introduction,”1–24.22. Damian, “The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age”23. Gahrton, “Green Parties, Green Future: From Local Groups to the International Stage”24. Pritchard, “The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions.of a Nilotic People.”25. Rappaport, “Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations among a New Guinea.People,” 17–30.26. Rivers, “The Todas”27. Walker, “On the origins, customs and changing lifestyle of the tribal community in the.Nilgiris,” 1–11.28. Shanklin, “Donegal’s Changing Traditions: An Ethnographic Study”29. Kirksey et.al., “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography,” 545–576.30. Blascovich et.al., “Presence of Human Friends and Pet Dogs as Moderators of.Autonomic Responses to Stress in Women,” 582–589.31. Blascovich et.al., “Presence of Human Friends and Pet Dogs as Moderators of.Autonomic Responses to Stress in Women,” 582–589.32. Friedmann et.al., ‘The Animal – Human Bond,’ 73–88.33. Haokip, ‘Relevance of Thempu in Pastoral Ministry’34. Haokip, “The Role of Oral Tradition with Special Reference to the Thadou-Kuki.Society,” 62–75.35. Bharracharyya et.al., “First Record Case of Seminal Vesiculitis in Mithun,” 38–39.36. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”37. Yadav et.al., “Mithun – An Animal of Indian Pride,” 32–36.38. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”39. Simoons et.al., “The Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Cultures, and.History with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle.”40. Dorji et.al., “Mithun (Bos frontalis): The neglected cattle species and their significance to.ethnic communities in the Eastern Himalaya,” 1727–1738.41. Bharracharyya et.al., “First Record Case of Seminal Vesiculitis in Mithun,” 38–39.42. Blackburn, “Oral stories and culture areas: From Northeast India to Southwest China,”.419–437.43. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”44. Simoons et.al., “The Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Cultures, and.History with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle.”45. Hangshing, “Understanding the Politics of the Stateless Kukis: Was it by Choice? in The.Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture (ed. Haokip, T.).”46. Chongloi, “Impact of Christianity on the Thadou-Kuki marriage,” 205–217.47. Ibid., 205–217.48. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”49. Ibid.50. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”Additional informationNotes on contributorsPaul Lelen HaokipPaul Lelen Haokip is a PhD research scholar, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. He has authored four book namely, The Groaning for Peace (2016), The Joy of Being Myself (2018), Revelanve of Thempu in Pastoral Ministry (2020), Programme Your Self (2022) and published papers in Scopus Indexed Journals. Maya MMaya M is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. She earned her doctorate from the University of Kerala with the dissertation entitled, “Tribal Development and Participatory Approach in Kerala: Problems and Prospects.” She is a life member of Indian Sociological Society and Kerala Sociological Society.D. Benjamin HaokipD. Benjamin Haokip is a PhD research scholar at the Department of International Development, Governance and Inclusive Development, Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. His academic interests lie in education, armed conflict, conflict resolution and peace advocacy.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14631369.2023.2275588","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTUnrestrained consumption and a lack of a proper breeding ecosystem have depleted the variety and species count of mithun (Bos frontalis). Indigenous Kuki tribes have a unique relationship with mithun, reared in the semi-domestic countryside. For the Kuki community, a mithun is used during community festivals, as a bride price in marriages, to settle disputes, in land-deed covenants, and at death ceremonies. Mithun-human interrelationship lessens poverty, empowers community survival, guarantees the completion of critical cultural obligations, and maintains marital bonds in the Kuki community. The head of a mithun signifies solemnity and celebration in many cultural underpinnings. A white cock, a dog, a goat, a pig, and a mithun were sacrificial elements to appease the unseen spirits for good health and prosperity. While some Indigenous practices have faded with the arrival of Christianity, the cultural involvement of mithun persists to this date.KEYWORDS: Mithun-human interrelationshipKukiculturemithunbride price AcknowledgmentsThe authors acknowledge Christ University for providing access to articles through its library portals. A special thanks to Dr James Vungjangam Haokip, Assistant Professor, Sikkim University, Gangtok, India, for his input in translating Thadou-Kuki words into English.Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Notes1. Gangte, “The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis”2. Hangshing, “Understanding the Politics of the Stateless Kukis: Was it by Choice?”.3. Gangte, “The Kukis of Manipur: A Historical Analysis”4. Grierson, “Linguistic Survey of India, Vol. III (Part III)”5. Lunkim, “Traditional Kuki Chieftainship: It’s Evolution with Special Reference to.Custom, Beliefs and Practices in Establishing a Village.”6. Gangte, “Evolution of Kuki Chieftainship through Customary Laws – Its Modern.Conceptuality.”7. Kipgen, “Revisiting the ‘Military’: Role of som institution in the Anglo-Kuki War,” 211–.233.8. Sections, “The Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, Sections (Citation1960),” 7.9. Brosius et.al., “Ethnoecology: An Approach to Understanding Traditional Agricultural.Knowledge,” 187–198.10. Ali et.al., “Tribal Situation in North East India,” 141–148.11. Oma, “Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals,”.175–187.12. Gough, “Healing the Earth within Us: Environmental Education as Cultural Criticism,”.12–17.13. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”14. Tiwari, “Biodiversity”15. Hurn, “Intersubjectivity,” 125–138.16. Wang et.al., “Therapeutic uses of animal biles in traditional Chinese medicine: An.ethnopharmacological, biophysical chemical and medicinal review,” 9952–9975.17. Ibid., 9952–9975.18. Hurn, “Why Look at Human-Animal Interactions? in Humans and Other Animals: Cross.Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions.”19. Keulartz et.al., “Changing Relationships with Non-human Animals in the Anthropocene .- An Introduction,”1–24.20. Oma, “Between trust and domination: social contracts between humans and animals,”.175–187.21. Keulartz et.al., “Changing Relationships with Non-human Animals in the Anthropocene.– An Introduction,”1–24.22. Damian, “The Anthropocene epoch: scientists declare dawn of human-influenced age”23. Gahrton, “Green Parties, Green Future: From Local Groups to the International Stage”24. Pritchard, “The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions.of a Nilotic People.”25. Rappaport, “Ritual Regulation of Environmental Relations among a New Guinea.People,” 17–30.26. Rivers, “The Todas”27. Walker, “On the origins, customs and changing lifestyle of the tribal community in the.Nilgiris,” 1–11.28. Shanklin, “Donegal’s Changing Traditions: An Ethnographic Study”29. Kirksey et.al., “The Emergence of Multispecies Ethnography,” 545–576.30. Blascovich et.al., “Presence of Human Friends and Pet Dogs as Moderators of.Autonomic Responses to Stress in Women,” 582–589.31. Blascovich et.al., “Presence of Human Friends and Pet Dogs as Moderators of.Autonomic Responses to Stress in Women,” 582–589.32. Friedmann et.al., ‘The Animal – Human Bond,’ 73–88.33. Haokip, ‘Relevance of Thempu in Pastoral Ministry’34. Haokip, “The Role of Oral Tradition with Special Reference to the Thadou-Kuki.Society,” 62–75.35. Bharracharyya et.al., “First Record Case of Seminal Vesiculitis in Mithun,” 38–39.36. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”37. Yadav et.al., “Mithun – An Animal of Indian Pride,” 32–36.38. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”39. Simoons et.al., “The Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Cultures, and.History with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle.”40. Dorji et.al., “Mithun (Bos frontalis): The neglected cattle species and their significance to.ethnic communities in the Eastern Himalaya,” 1727–1738.41. Bharracharyya et.al., “First Record Case of Seminal Vesiculitis in Mithun,” 38–39.42. Blackburn, “Oral stories and culture areas: From Northeast India to Southwest China,”.419–437.43. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”44. Simoons et.al., “The Ceremonial Ox of India: The Mithan in Nature, Cultures, and.History with Notes on the Domestication of Common Cattle.”45. Hangshing, “Understanding the Politics of the Stateless Kukis: Was it by Choice? in The.Kukis of Northeast India: Politics and Culture (ed. Haokip, T.).”46. Chongloi, “Impact of Christianity on the Thadou-Kuki marriage,” 205–217.47. Ibid., 205–217.48. Shaw, “The Thadou Kukis”49. Ibid.50. Chaurasia, “Mithun (Bos Frontalis): Animal with a difference”Additional informationNotes on contributorsPaul Lelen HaokipPaul Lelen Haokip is a PhD research scholar, Department of Sociology and Social Work, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. He has authored four book namely, The Groaning for Peace (2016), The Joy of Being Myself (2018), Revelanve of Thempu in Pastoral Ministry (2020), Programme Your Self (2022) and published papers in Scopus Indexed Journals. Maya MMaya M is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology and Social Work, Christ University, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. She earned her doctorate from the University of Kerala with the dissertation entitled, “Tribal Development and Participatory Approach in Kerala: Problems and Prospects.” She is a life member of Indian Sociological Society and Kerala Sociological Society.D. Benjamin HaokipD. Benjamin Haokip is a PhD research scholar at the Department of International Development, Governance and Inclusive Development, Amsterdam Institute of Social Science Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam, Netherlands. His academic interests lie in education, armed conflict, conflict resolution and peace advocacy.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
印度东北部库基人社区中米图恩-人类相互关系的民族志揭露
摘要无限制的消费和缺乏适当的繁殖生态系统,已经耗尽了米洪(Bos frontalis)的种类和数量。土著库基部落与在半家庭农村长大的米图恩有着独特的关系。对于库基族来说,mithun在社区节日中使用,作为结婚的彩礼,解决纠纷,在土地契约中使用,在死亡仪式上使用。人与人类的相互关系减少了贫困,使社区得以生存,保证了关键文化义务的完成,并维持了库基社区的婚姻关系。在许多文化基础中,太阳神的头象征着庄严和庆祝。一只白公鸡、一只狗、一只山羊、一只猪和一只米图恩是用来安抚看不见的灵魂,祈求健康和繁荣的祭祀元素。虽然一些土著习俗随着基督教的到来而消失,但mithun的文化参与一直持续到今天。作者感谢基督大学通过其图书馆门户网站提供对文章的访问。特别感谢印度Gangtok锡金大学助理教授James Vungjangam Haokip博士将Thadou-Kuki词翻译成英语。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。Gangte,《曼尼普尔的库奇人:一个历史分析》2。Hangshing,“理解无国籍库奇人的政治:是自己选择的吗?”《曼尼普尔的库奇人:一个历史分析》4。格里尔森,“印度语言调查,第三卷(第三部分)”伦金,《传统的国族首领制:一种特别参考的演变》。建村的风俗、信仰与实践”。“习惯法下的国族族长制演变——其现代观念”,第7期。《重新审视“军事”:某些机构在英库基战争中的作用》,第211 - 233.8页。章节,“曼尼普尔邦土地收入和土地改革法案,章节(Citation1960),”7.9。Brosius出版社。民族生态学:一种理解传统农业的方法。知识,“187 - 198.10。阿里出版社。,《东北印度的部落状况》,141-148.11。信任与统治之间:人与动物之间的社会契约>,第175 - 187.12页。“疗愈我们内心的地球:作为文化批判的环境教育”,第12 - 17.13页。肖,《塔杜·库奇一家》女子,“生物多样性”15。胡恩,“主体间性”,125-138.16。王出版社。动物胆汁在中医中的治疗作用:安。民族药理学,生物物理化学和医学评论,9952-9975.17。出处同上,9952 - 9975.18。“为什么要关注人与动物的互动?”人类和其他动物:交叉。人类与动物互动的文化视角> 19。Keulartz出版社。,“人类世中与非人类动物的关系变化”-导论,1-24.20。信任与统治之间:人与动物之间的社会契约>,第175 - 187.21页。Keulartz出版社。,《人类世与非人类动物关系的变化》。——《引言》,1-24.22。达米安,“人类世时代:科学家宣布人类黎明时代”23。《绿党,绿色未来:从地方团体到国际舞台》24。普里查德:《努尔人:对生计模式和政治制度的描述》。尼罗河人民的故事。”拉帕波特,《新几内亚环境关系的仪式规范》。人,”17 - 30.26。里弗斯,《托达斯》沃克,“关于起源,习俗和不断变化的生活方式的部落社区。”1 - 11.28 Nilgiris。”《多尼戈尔不断变化的传统:一个民族志研究》,第29页。Kirksey出版社。,“多物种人种学的出现”,545-576.30。Blascovich出版社。,“人类朋友和宠物狗作为版主的存在”。《女性对压力的自主反应》,582-589.31。Blascovich出版社。,“人类朋友和宠物狗作为版主的存在”。《女性对压力的自主反应》,582-589.32。弗里德曼出版社。,《动物与人类的纽带》,73-88.33。郝普,“田姆布与牧灵事工的关系”34。“口述传统的作用,特别以塔杜-库奇为例”。社会,“62 - 75.35。Bharracharyya出版社。,《北京市首例精囊炎病例》,38-39.36。churasia,“Mithun (Bos Frontalis):与众不同的动物”37。Yadav出版社。, " Mithun -一种印第安人骄傲的动物",32-36.38。Chaurasia,“Mithun (Bos Frontalis):与众不同的动物”39。西蒙风出版社。,《印度礼仪牛:自然、文化和文化中的弥旦》。《普通牛驯化的历史注释》40。Dorji出版社。, " Mithun (Bos frontalis):被忽视的牛种及其对人类的意义。东喜马拉雅地区的少数民族社区”,1727-1738.41。Bharracharyya出版社。,《北京市首例精囊炎病例》,38-39.42。 《口述故事与文化区域:从印度东北部到中国西南部》,第419 - 437.43页。肖,《塔杜·库奇一家》44。西蒙风出版社。,《印度礼仪牛:自然、文化和文化中的弥旦》。《普通牲畜驯化的历史注释》45。《理解无国籍库奇人的政治:是自己选择的吗?》在。东北印度的库基斯人:政治与文化(郝基普主编,T.)。崇来,“基督教对田杜-库基婚姻的影响”,205-217.47。出处同上,205 - 217.48。肖,《塔杜·库奇一家》49。Ibid.50。churasia,“Mithun (Bos Frontalis):与众不同的动物”附加信息paul Lelen Haokip,印度卡纳塔克邦班加罗尔基督大学社会与社会工作系博士研究学者。著有《为和平而呻吟》(2016年)、《做我自己的快乐》(2018年)、《天布牧灵启示》(2020年)、《规划你自己》(2022年)四部著作,并在Scopus索引期刊上发表论文。Maya M是印度卡纳塔克邦班加罗尔基督大学社会与社会工作系的助理教授。她在喀拉拉邦大学获得博士学位,论文题为“喀拉拉邦的部落发展和参与式方法:问题与前景”。她是印度社会学学会和喀拉拉邦社会学学会的终身会员。本杰明HaokipD。Benjamin Haokip,荷兰阿姆斯特丹大学阿姆斯特丹社会科学研究所(AISSR)国际发展、治理和包容性发展系博士研究员。主要研究方向为教育、武装冲突、冲突解决与和平倡导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1