Dog in "SALT, DOGS, TOBACCO," 1941
title...etc
Dog in "SALT, DOGS, TOBACCO," 1941
title...etc
Dog. Pp.269-
[p.269] Several of the twenty blocks of lists are defective on dogs, in that they did not specifically inquire whether the animal was kept at all, whether it was bred or obtained from outside, whether it was housed or otherwise cared for .... This gap is the more unfortunate because the Pomo-Miwok region is an area in which dogs were generally not raised or kept. All I can say is that this is a point at which we slipped into the fault that almost every ethnographer sooner or later commits, but which the lists were designed to prevent: to assume a phenomenon, or its absence, instead of specifically inquiring into its occurrence.
Fortunately there are in all lists some references to the use of dogs, as for hunting, and mentions in the notes, which allow at least approximate conclusions on most matters of interest.
Domestication.- Although it is generally assumed that the dog is man's universal companion and dependent, this is of course not quite accurate. There are dogless tribes in South America; and an area half-encircling San Francisco Bay on the north and east has now to be added.
p.270
Dogs were not entirely lacking in this region. All the local languages have a word for the animal. But dogs were not kept regularly; they were secured as scattered individuals from outside; they would be bought and would be taken care of as prized pets, somewhat as we keep parrots or monkeys; and they were not used ordinarily for hunting or other useful purpose. The crucial point seems to be that they remained rare enough for a local breed not to develop. The dog therefore was known to these cultures and entered into them as an occasional luxury element, but not as a normal feature or with a standardized function ....
Map 5 (Fig. 3) shows the well-defined area in which dogs either were not kept at all or were occasionally imported, kept as pets rather than as hunting aids, and remained so scarce that normally they did not perpetuate themselves by breeding ....
It must be emphasized that none of the tribes in question were entirely ignorant of dogs. Scatteringly they even imported them, paid for them, named, pampered, and buried them like persons; but always in small numbers. This affect attitude is evidently the correlate of scarcity. Of the two, the scarcity may be assumed as prior. It is indeed conceivable that an interest and concern in dogs might spring up of itself: Linton has given such a case for the Comanche. But it is hardly conceivable that a people having such an interest should then proceed to get rid of all or nearly all their dogs. The historic Comanche however had another domestic animal: the horse; and Linton's point is that the useful horse was treated as a utilitarian instrument, the useless dog as an object of affect, much as by our Californian tribes. We must rather conclude that the tribes of our Californian area first lost the habit of keeping dogs, and then sporadically began to reimport individual animals as something curious and interesting. What caused the loss is obscure.
The archaeological evidence corroborates the list survey findings. Heizer and Hewes, in collecting instances of prehistoric ceremonial burial of bears, coyotes deer, eagles, and other animals in central California, especially in the region of the Sacramento - San Joaquin delta, point out that there is no record of the discovery of dog bones, either in deposits which appear archaeologically late or in those which seem early. This would argue that, at least in the region occupied by the historic Plains and Northern Miwok, Nisenan, and Patwin, the absence of regular keeping or breeding of dogs is an old matter.
Heizer and Hewes's data further suggest that, while certain of the animals may have been caught for use in ritual, at least some were taken young, reared as pets, and then formally buried when they died, or perhaps, in the case of bears, after having to be killed when they became large and dangerous. These ancient indications of pet-keeping, not very frequently but with much fuss when it did happen, fit in exactly with the attitudes of the historic tribes of the region in regard to dogs.
Dogs as food.-In general, dogs were not eaten west of the Rockies. The principal area in which they were regularly used as food centers around the Yokuts of the San Joaquin Valley, with some scattering outliers (map 6, Fig. 3) ....
Ceremonial eating of live dogs. - The spirit-possessed dancer who devours dogs is known to the Haida; Tsimshian; mainland Kwakiutl; Bella Coola; Wikeno Kwakiutl; the Squamish, Nanaimo, Cowichan, and Sanetch and Klallam Salish. The record is negative for the Tlingit, Vancouver Island Kwakiutl other than Wikeno, Nutka, Makah, Klahuse, Sechelt, Pentlatch, Comox, Skokomish, and, by inference, for all interior tribes. [p.272] The solid core of the occurrence is evidently Haida -- Tsimshian -- mainland Kwakiutl; to the south it is scattering and rather on the inner coast than fronting the ocean.
In the Northwest again, Barnett records, under Guardian Spirit, "dog-eating power specifically malignant" among Squamish, Nanaimo, and Pentlatch (negatives from Sechelt and Comox). This may be another aspect of the foregoing.
Dogs are occasionally eaten alive by the Zuni Newekwe clowns, but as an incident rather than as a standard performance. There may be other Southwestern occurrences; our list contains no ritual items for the Pueblos.
The Kutenay and Flathead have a Crazy-Dog Society of Plains type.
Dogs believed poisonous. - The Yurok believed dog flesh to be virulently poisonous. Unfortunately this item did not get incorporated in the list for the area, so its extent in northwestern California remains unknown. Barnett encountered the belief only among the Tolowa; the Oregon coast tribes denied it or knew notliing of it. Both Kalapuya informants, the Skokomish, and the Makah are reported +; which however may be an error, .since the entries for the Chinook, Klallam, and all Northern interior tribes are -. I suspect a confusion between aversion to dog flesh and fear of it. Inasmuch as to the south the Lassik and Yuki deny poisonousness, and from the Shasta east the item does not appear - the Trinity Wintun upstream from the Hupa and Chimariko even eating dogs - it seems that the belief is confined to a few of the most specialized Northwest California tribes. It is in accord with their puritanical temperament and love of precise fears.
Use in transport. - This is rare and peripheral (map 7, Fig. 3) in the area covered by the element survey ....
Dog travois occurs among the Umatilla, Bannock, Promontory Point Shoshone. It was denied by all Southwestern tribes, including Lipan and both Jicarilla divisions. These distributions suggest that the travois is not old in the Columbia region, coming in only with the horse and then being occasionally applied to the dog by poor people; and that on the other hand if the Plains Apache originally used the dog travois, as is generally assumed, they have had horses so long and in such numbers that the dog travois has become forgotten.
Dog 'Wool for textiles. - This is a Coast Salish tract: 10 out of 11 tribes. Gunther adds the Wakashan Makah; but has a denial for the Skokomish of Puget Sound. From the Nutka and Kwakiutl north, Drucker has a universal negative; and Ray does not mention the item either for the interior tribes, Salish or other, or for the Chinook (map 7, Fig. 3)
Mountain-goat wool is used more widely. Dog wool is therefore probably a substitute or supplement.
Hunting. - As might be expected, the use of dogs for hunting was widespread; but it varied in intensity according to the nature of the game and of the country. In general, free-running animals in open country, like the antelope, were not often hunted with dogs. In the Great Plains, whole herds of buffalo might have been stampeded and lost through dogs being turned on them. On the whole, the deer is the animal most often hunted with dogs, especially where it can be driven to water; but in parts of the Basin and the Southwest it is denied that dogs were used for deer. Mountain sheep and mountain goat can often be successfully distracted, held, or driven past an ambush with dogs. For small game the practice varies ....
In general, the two most consistently negative areas for hunting with dogs are the Papago-Yuman-Cahuilla tract of low-lying creosote-bush desert, and the Ute-Southern Paiute region of high semidesert. Between were the Apache, Navaho, and Pueblos, who allege that [p.273] they hunted with dogs. Is it possible that their habit is due to the early introduction of Spanish dogs and Spanish methods?
Training of hunting dogs is mentioned rather regularly north of the Columbia. The specific practices cited include: wild onion in eyes; trained on deer viscera and urine; nose rubbed on meat which is (then) set out for the crows; nose cut, concoction put in; head painted; sung to; heated deer hoofs rubbed on nose; rolled in fresh bear or beaver skin; mountain goat's forefoot warmed and pressed against pup's feet on four successive days. Obviously the training is sometimes practical, often merely magical. No single practice has a wide distribution, but one or more of them occur among most tribes in the north. South of the Columbia they are scarcely mentioned. I do not think this is due to lack of interest on the part of the southern list collectors. Rather did the northern informants volunteer items on training because their cultures. were interested in the training of dogs.
Breeds of native dogs. - This is a matter on which reliable information is obviously difficult to get at this date. Several collectors have made the attempt. Barnett, Gunther, and Ray inquired as to shaggy and short-haired dogs. Ten Salish tribes claim only long-haired dogs .... Short-haired dogs, besides shaggy ones, were affirmed by four Salish and two other tribes. The Santiam Kalapuya specified short erect ears.
"Large" dogs were described by six tribes, all but one more or less In the area of dog transport.
For northeastern California, Voegelin obtained several descriptions, given in her notes. These summarize thus:
One breed only: 3 groups.
Height 12.-18 inches, size of fox (or coyote): 4 groups.
Prick ears: 6 groups.
Short hair: 4 groups.
Various colors: 3 groups.
Long hair also: I group.
Large dog also: I group.
For the Northern Paiute generally, Stewart has the note: "No dogs; only Indian dogs with erect ears."
From the Eastern Navaho Gifford records: "Short-haired type height of fox terrier; long-haired type larger."
It is clear that size as well as Coat varied; that some tribes had two or more varieties, whereas others had only one; but that all mentions of ears are to the erect form ....
Housing. - Some of the lists omit dog shelters as trivial. Others specify kenneling in a hole in the bank, brush shelters, little domes of willow brush or lean-tos of bark, and the like. The distribution of these several types of shelter usually varies locally within any one list; and it is likely that nowhere was anyone form of dog hut standard or constructed for all dogs in the tribe, only proved hunting dogs or special pets being favored. The situation nowhere was like that of the Eskimo, to many of whom the preservation of their dogs is a matter of extreme importance, sometimes even of survival.
Whether dogs were allowed to sleep in the living house no doubt also varied tribally and individually. There is however an area in which it was more or less customary. Driver reports it universally for Northwest California. Here the frame houses were built with an anteroom where firewood was kept dry and the dogs allowed to find shelter. Also, rio Northwest California group admitted knowing anything about a dog hut. To the north, in Oregon and Washington, Barnett, Gunther, and Ray report dogs sleeping in the house only here and there. The tribal scattering suggests nonstandardized practice. In Northeast California, however, E. Voegelin reports 8 groups allowing. their dogs in the house, only 4 building a dog hut. To the south, the Kato, Lassik, [p.274] and Yuki also took their few dogs in at night: they were too valuable to be allowed to stray away or to be stolen. The distribution thus radiates out from a Northwest California center.
Dead dogs. - As among ourselves in the country, the carcasses of Indian dogs were variously got rid of without formality or channeled procedure. Only among the Lassik, Kato, and Yuki, who had so few dogs that they bought, sheltered, and rampered them, do we hear of "burial like persons," sometimes with shell money. The.Yurok however were likely to throw them into the Klamath, dog flesh being poisonous enough to contaminate springs, air, and land, and the river too polluted anyway to be fit to drink.
On the death of his owner, a dog might be killed or kept. The lists that inquire into the point show much local variation, which no doubt also represents individual variation in many instances. Driver first turned up a specialty: a dog is hanged by the neck from a tree on his owner's death. This he reports for Yurok, Karok, Hupa, Nongatl, and Sinkyone; the other tribes in the area denied the practice. However, so did one of his two Yurok and one of his two Karok informants deny it. Whenever adjacent tribes repeatedly vary in this region of small and sessile groups, we may be reasonably sure that the custom was not too rigorously standardized intra-tribally and that It varied individually or according to occasion. To the south, the Lassik and Kato knew the custom, and to the east the Western and Eastern Shasta, the Trinity Wintu ("because the dog liked it"), and, at a greater distance, the Mountain Maidu. Twelve of Voegelin's Northeast Californian groups answered No to the point. The method is specific, but the irregular distribution shows that the practice is only a hesitant "half-folkway."
Dog-beating at eclipses.-A more or less worldwide custom is to beat pots and pans and make dogs howl in Qrder to scare away eclipses which are under way. This item was not in our original list; but it soon obtruded in fieild work, with thunder or lightning sometimes being added to eclipses or replacing them ....
Data that appear and disappear locally like these obviously cannot bear the usual distributional meaning. They are again "semifolkways." They can carry little compulsive force, except for excitable or suggestible individuals. They may be known to only part of each population. If so, it may be argued that a questionnaire got from one Individual as representative of his tribe is inappropriate. I agree. Only, it does make very little difference whether the particular Chilula, whom most ethnologists cannot even place on the map and nearly all nonethnologists have never heard of, do or do not pInch their dogs' ears when the face of the moon begins to be covered up. Any real significance is evidently in a wider distribution. And if in a larger area fifty informants affirm and fifty deny the practice, the distribution of the two answers being randomly scattered, it seems a fair inference that this conflict of opinion means that tribal custom in the area is also conflicting, dubious, ambivalent, or halfhearted. In other words, the culture trait is widely spread but not crystallized culturally; it is perhaps only half-believed in, or not taken very seriously. At any rate, it is in a state of flux, potentially ready either to acquire significant value or to go entirely out of usage; but perhaps, nevertheless, remaining for a long time in indecisive status. It is thus that I would interpret distributional data of this order.
I admit that there are many errors in our lists, and on an item of this sort they are likely to be particularly heavy. Informants are mainly reporting hearsay, [p.275] and some of it may refer to other groups. However, I doubt whether the most painstaking questioning of ten informants per tribe, with indefinite rechecking, would yield materially different results on this point for die area as a whole. What our questionnaire data do show, and show rapidly, on specific items not easily subject to verbal misunderstanding, is which traits are firmly established in the cultures of a region and are of value to them, and which are not and therefore fluctuate in their appearance. Dog-beating at eclipses and thunder is evidently of the latter character, in northern California: it is culturally unimportant; and this seems perhaps the most Important fact about it.
I have gone into this
trivial case because it seems worth demonstrating that Judgements as to
cultural weight, value, function, and affect, which are sometimes
thought to be obtainable only by intensive studIes on many individuals
in still living cultures, can sometimes also be obtained by a more
superficial study of cultures existing chiefly in memory, provided that
the study is sufficiently extensive -- and the investigator of course
open-minded to problems.
リンク
文献
その他の情報
