Ambiguous Birds: Ideas about Bats on Flores Island and Elsewhere

IF 2.9 3区 社会学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of Ethnobiology Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.2993/0278-0771-41.1.105
G. Forth
{"title":"Ambiguous Birds: Ideas about Bats on Flores Island and Elsewhere","authors":"G. Forth","doi":"10.2993/0278-0771-41.1.105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Drawing on previous publications by the author, this article brings together information on folk classification and symbolic values of bats among the Nage people of the Indonesian island of Flores. This information is supplemented by new data from more recent field-based ethnobiological research in Nage and other parts of Flores, and is analyzed comparatively with reference to ideas about Chiropterans from other parts of the world. The way Nage and other Flores Islanders treat bats may appear cross-culturally unusual, but their ideas are shown to fit within a range of ways humans think about these remarkable creatures. In a more general vein, attention is given to the widely recognized morphological and behavioral ambiguity of bats and the variable extent to which this ambiguity affects their representation—both in folk zoological classification (or ethnotaxonomy) and symbolic thought (including taboo, spiritual belief, myth, and metaphor). A comparative analysis also demonstrates how, by contrast to the stereotypical view of bats as embodiments of evil in European thought, both Westerners and non-Westerners can represent bats positively, and that even where a generally negative view prevails, bats can possess a positive value contextually.","PeriodicalId":54838,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethnobiology","volume":"41 1","pages":"105 - 120"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethnobiology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2993/0278-0771-41.1.105","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract. Drawing on previous publications by the author, this article brings together information on folk classification and symbolic values of bats among the Nage people of the Indonesian island of Flores. This information is supplemented by new data from more recent field-based ethnobiological research in Nage and other parts of Flores, and is analyzed comparatively with reference to ideas about Chiropterans from other parts of the world. The way Nage and other Flores Islanders treat bats may appear cross-culturally unusual, but their ideas are shown to fit within a range of ways humans think about these remarkable creatures. In a more general vein, attention is given to the widely recognized morphological and behavioral ambiguity of bats and the variable extent to which this ambiguity affects their representation—both in folk zoological classification (or ethnotaxonomy) and symbolic thought (including taboo, spiritual belief, myth, and metaphor). A comparative analysis also demonstrates how, by contrast to the stereotypical view of bats as embodiments of evil in European thought, both Westerners and non-Westerners can represent bats positively, and that even where a generally negative view prevails, bats can possess a positive value contextually.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
暧昧的鸟类:关于弗洛雷斯岛和其他地方蝙蝠的想法
摘要借鉴作者以前的出版物,本文汇集了关于蝙蝠的民间分类和印度尼西亚弗洛雷斯岛的内格人的象征价值的信息。这些信息还补充了最近在内格和弗洛雷斯其他地区进行的实地民族生物学研究的新数据,并与世界其他地区关于翼手类动物的观点进行了比较分析。内奇和其他弗洛雷斯群岛居民对待蝙蝠的方式可能在跨文化中显得不同寻常,但他们的想法被证明符合人类对这些非凡生物的一系列看法。在更普遍的情况下,关注蝙蝠广泛认可的形态和行为上的模糊性,以及这种模糊性在不同程度上影响它们的表现——无论是在民间动物学分类(或民族分类学)还是符号思想(包括禁忌、精神信仰、神话和隐喻)。对比分析还表明,与欧洲人认为蝙蝠是邪恶化身的刻板印象相反,西方人和非西方人都可以积极地代表蝙蝠,即使在普遍消极的观点盛行的地方,蝙蝠也可以在语境中具有积极的价值。
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
来源期刊
Journal of Ethnobiology
Journal of Ethnobiology Social Sciences-Anthropology
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.40%
发文量
21
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: JoE’s readership is as wide and diverse as ethnobiology itself, with readers spanning from both the natural and social sciences. Not surprisingly, a glance at the papers published in the Journal reveals the depth and breadth of topics, extending from studies in archaeology and the origins of agriculture, to folk classification systems, to food composition, plants, birds, mammals, fungi and everything in between. Research areas published in JoE include but are not limited to neo- and paleo-ethnobiology, zooarchaeology, ethnobotany, ethnozoology, ethnopharmacology, ethnoecology, linguistic ethnobiology, human paleoecology, and many other related fields of study within anthropology and biology, such as taxonomy, conservation biology, ethnography, political ecology, and cognitive and cultural anthropology. JoE does not limit itself to a single perspective, approach or discipline, but seeks to represent the full spectrum and wide diversity of the field of ethnobiology, including cognitive, symbolic, linguistic, ecological, and economic aspects of human interactions with our living world. Articles that significantly advance ethnobiological theory and/or methodology are particularly welcome, as well as studies bridging across disciplines and knowledge systems. JoE does not publish uncontextualized data such as species lists; appropriate submissions must elaborate on the ethnobiological context of findings.
期刊最新文献
Vegetal Agency in Street Tree Stewardship Practices: People-Plant Involutions Within Urban Green Infrastructure in New York City Cotton Monocultures and Reorganizing Socioecological Life in Telangana, India Cycad Regulation and Community Creation: South African Stakeholder Perspectives on Conservation What Do We Know About Threshing Traditional Grains in Australia? Indigenous Traditional Knowledge on Wild Edible Mushrooms: Cultural Significance, Extraction Practices, and Factors Leading to Changes in Their Abundance in Central Mexico
×
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