E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jose Fragoso / Courtesy of Stanford University
Two Wapishana women maintain traditional rock carvings at a spiritual site.
By Megan Gannon
LiveScience
Religious and cultural norms often dictate which animals should be protected, eaten or avoided at all costs. Islam prohibits consuming pork; cows are considered sacred by Hindus; and most Americans squirm at the idea of eating a horse. These varying taboos and customs can change the faunal landscape around certain groups of people.
Researchers from Stanford University investigated how three Christian influences — evangelical, Sabbatarian and Roman Catholic/Anglican — may have altered animal treatment among converted indigenous communities in the Amazon. It turns out that missionaries might not only be changing hearts and minds in the region, but also biodiversity, the researchers say.
Though people of the Makushi and Wapishana tribes have traditionally believed that consuming lowland tapir meat can make them sick, many of them eat the animal anyway, trusting that their shamans will cure the potential illness. But people in the tribes who converted to one of the Sabbatarian faiths, such as such as Seventh-Day Adventism, and strongly rejected shamanism were much less likely to eat tapir, because their new religion made doing so taboo, the researchers found in their survey of 9,900 individuals in the Amazon. [The Awá: Faces of a Threatened Tribe]
While the new religions might mean fewer tapirs are killed, getting rid of shamanism, especially among evangelical and Sabbatarian groups, seems to have hit animals that once enjoyed protection under the indigenous leaders, the researchers say. Shamans often guarded and discouraged hunting in areas of land thought to be swarming with powerful spiritual entities.
"Based on field observations, I think that the removal of shamans has translated into more killing of animals," José Fragoso, a scientist at Stanford University, said in a statement. "Our perception is that they are killing more animals that are not taboo, such as pigs, and also that they are making kills in the holy areas, which were previously off-limits."
Fragoso and his colleagues, whose research is funded by the National Science Foundation, plan to investigate whether some animals are being killed in greater numbers, according to Stanford University. Their most recent findings were published last year in the journal Human Ecology.
Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook and Google+.
- 8 Ways Religion Impacts Your Life
- Image Gallery: One-of-a-Kind Places on Earth
- Amazon Expedition: An Album
Copyright 2013 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
It would be interesting to know why some areas were off-limits in the first place -- whether it was arbitrary, or due to some innate understanding that reserves were important for animal populations.
Well, religous myths are usually couched in historical events rather than pragmatic notions (primitive man had little concept of maintaining animal populations, since their numbers seemed inexhaustible to a single tribe), so I would guess it was closer to arbitrary. Likely a battlefield, site of a natural disaster, or perhaps a place where a "miracle" occured.
Where in the bible does it say that I can't eat lowland tapirs? Where?!?
You have to read between the lines. That's also where you'll find Jeremiah's great insights into molecular biology and particle physics.
Jock59801 raises an interesting point in asking for the reason why certain limits were imposed. In many areas of the world, dietary customs are based on certain historical conditions that were true when the limits were imposed. These reasons and conditions may no longer exist, but they have been enshrined in the sacred texts and have nothing to do with religion, but everything with custom. And, sometimes, the custom is purely associated with one tribe, and not others around this one.
It's too bad sustainability and other practical adaptations aren't part of religious practices. Maybe if it were a sin to cut down a tree or hunt a species to extinction we could blunt some of the biodiversity losses. But that's OK, most religions accept that god wouldn't allow a species to go extinct - he'll just make more!
LOL! The title of this article on the homepage really shocked me and made me go to this article.
Are animals actually getting religion and changing their ways!?! Are jaguars saying grace before attacking their prey!?! Are birds bowing to Mecca five times a day!?!
The business of organized religion can be counted on to cause damage wherever it raises it's ugly head. These people are lucky it has only touched the fringes of their world, so far.