Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T04:49:47.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Omniscience and ignorance: Variation in Nuaulu knowledge, identification and classification of animals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Roy F. Ellen
Roy F. Ellen
Affiliation:
University of Kent at Canterbury
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ethnographic analysis of categories is still largely based on assumptions of cultural uniformity, although, during the past decade, the significance of variation has become increasingly evident as attempts have been made to measure it. Delineation and measurement are themselves complex tasks, however. In a single body of data there may be variation according to many criteria which are often cross-cutting and reinforce each other irregularly. These issues are discussed in this paper in relation to different types and contexts of variation evident in animal classifications of the Nuaulu of eastern Indonesia. Yet, the kinds of assumptions made in formal studies of individual variation are as problematic as those concerning cultural uniformity. It is important to appreciate that the techniques and representations employed to describe classifications and their variation are often inadequate, concealing those things that are operationally of most significance and reifying ‘classifications’ which do not always exist in practice. The products of classifying behaviour inevitably reflect the immediate social conditions of the situations in which they are used. (Analysis of categories, cultural variability, ethnozoology, social context; Nuaulu of eastern Indonesia.)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 8 , Issue 2-3 , August 1979 , pp. 337 - 359
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Berlin, B. (1972). Speculations on the growth of ethnobotanical nomenclature. LinS 1 (1). 51–86.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. & Raven, P. (1974). Principles of Tzeltal plant classification: An introduction to the botanical ethnography of a Mayan-speaking people of the highland Chiapas. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, M. (1971). The moral and tactical meaning of kinship terms. Man 6 (1). 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice (trans. Nice, Richard). (Cambridge Studies in Social Anthropology No. 16.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, V. R. (1974). Some cognitive implications of informant variability in Zinacanteco speech classification. LinS 3. 69–82.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. (1969). Field methods in ethno-zoology with special reference to the New Guinea highlands. University of Papua and New Guinea: mimeographed.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. (1970). Which came first, the chicken or the egg-head? In Pouillon, J. & Maranda, P. (eds), Échanges et communications: Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss, Vol. 2. The Hague—Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. (1974). Memoirs of a small game hunter: On the track of unknown animal categories in New Guinea. Journal d'Agriculture Tropique Botanique Appliquée 21 (4–6). 79–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. (1975). Folk-biology in the New Guinea highlands. Social Science Information 13 (4/5). 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. & Menzies, J. I. (1972–1973). Karam classification of marsupials and rodents. Journal of the Polynesian Society 81 (4). 472–99; 82 (1). 86–107.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H., Menzies, J. I. & Parker, F. (1975). Kalam classification of reptiles and fishes. Journal of the Polynesian Society 84 (3). 267–308.Google Scholar
Bulmer, R. N. H. & Tyler, M. J. (1968). Karam classification of frogs. Journal of the Polynesian Society 77 (4). 333–385.Google Scholar
Coxon, A. (1977). Classification and hierarchy construction as methods of eliciting subjective information. Paper presented at the Social Science Research Council seminar on ‘Classification systems and the anthropology of knowledge’ at the University of Kent at Canterbury, June 1977.Google Scholar
Ellen, R. F. (1975). Variable constructs in Nuaulu zoological classification. Social Science Information 14 (3/4). 201–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, R.F. (1976). Restricted faunas and ethnozoological inventories in Wallacea. Working Papers in Southeast Asian Studies. Second series, No. 10. School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.Google Scholar
Ellen, R.F. (1979). Formal categories in their social context. In Ellen, R. F. & Reason, D. (eds) Classifications in their social context. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ellen, R. F., Stimson, A. F. & Menzies, J. I. (1976). Structure and inconsistency in Nuaulu categories for amphibians. Journal d'Agriculture Tropique Botanique Appliquée 23 (7–12). 125–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, R.F. (1977). The content of categories and experience: The case for some Nuaulu reptiles. Journal d'Agriculture Tropique Botanique Appliquée 24 (1). 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellen, R.F. (1977a). On some further aspects of Nuaulu classification of snakes and other reptiles. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Friedberg, C. (1968). Les méthodes d'enquéte en ethnobotanique. Journal d'Agriculture Tropique Botanique Appliquée 15 (7–8). 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedberg, C. (1970). Analyse de quelques groupements de végétaux comme introduction à l'étude de Ia classification botanique Bunaq. In Pouillon, J. & Maranda, P. (eds), Échanges et communications: Mélanges offerts à Claude Lévi-Strauss, Vol. 2. The Hague—Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
Friedberg, C. (1971). Aperçu sur Ia classification botanique Bunaq (Timor central). Bulletin Botanique Française 118. 255–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedberg, C. (1974). Les processus classificatoires appliqués aux objets naturels et leur mise en évidence: Quelques principes méthodologiques. Journal d'Agriculture Tropique Botanique Appliquée 21 (10–12). 313–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, S. (1973). Inter-informant variability in an ethno-zoological taxonomy. Anthropological Linguistics 15. 203–19.Google Scholar
Gardner, P. M. (1976). Birds, words and a requiem for the omniscient informant. American Ethnologist 8. 446–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hage, P. & Hawkes, K. (1975). Binumarien color categories. Ethnology 14 (3). 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, M. (1964). The nature of cultural things. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1968). The rise of anthropological theory. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
Harris, M. (1970). Referential ambiguity in the calculus of Brazilian racial identity. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 26 (1). 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, T. E. (1974). Mauna: Explorations in Ndumba ethnobotany. Ph.D dissertation. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
Hays, T. E. (1976). An empirical method for the identification of covert categories in ethnobiology. American Ethnologist 8. 489–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heider, E. R. (1972). Probabilities, sampling and ethnographic methods: The case of Dani colour names. Man 7 (3). 448–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henderson, J. & Harrington, J. P. (1941). Ethnozoology of the Tewa Indians. (Bulletins of the Bureau of American Ethnology, No. 56.) Washington: Government Printing Ofilce.Google Scholar
Hunn, E. (1973). Tzeltal folk zoology: The classification of discontinuities in nature: Ph.D. dissertation. Berkeley: University of California.Google Scholar
Hunn, E. (1975). The Tenejapa Tzeltal version of the animal kingdom. Anthropological Quarterly 48. 14–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunn, E. (1975a). Cognitive processes in folk ornithology: The identification of gulls. Working paper 42. Language Behavior Research Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Malkin, B. (1958). Cora ethnozoology, herpetological knowledge: A bio-ecological and cross-cultural approach. Anthropological Quarterly 31 (3). 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, P. K. & Fabrega, H. Jr, (1976). Fieldwork and the ‘new ethnography’. Man 11 (1). 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Needham, R. (1975). Polythetic classification: Convergence and consequences. Man 10 (3). 349–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosaldo, M. Z. (1972). Metaphors and folk-classification. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28 (1). 83–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, G. (1971). Quantitative analysis of sharing and variability in a cognitive model. Ethnology 10. 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, G. G. (1961). Principles of animal taxonomy. New York: Columbia Universtiy PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sokal, R. R. & Sneath, P. H. (1963). Principles of numerical taxonomy. San Francisco—London: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (1975). Pourquoi les animaux parfaits, les hybrides et les monstres sont-ils bon à penser symboliquement? L'Homme 15 (2). 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stresemann, E. (1927). Die Lauterscheinungen in den amboinischen Sprachen. Zeitschrift für Eingeboren-Sprachen 10.Google Scholar
Tyler, S. A. (ed.) (1969). Cognitive anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Wallace, A. F. C. (1970). Culture and personality (2nd ed). New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Whiteley, W. H. (1966). Social anthropology, meaning and linguistics. Man 1 (2). 139–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar