essay

Dry meat and gender: the absence of Chipewyan ritual for the regulation of hunting and animal numbers

Hunters and gatherers : 2. property, power, and ideologyOxford [oxfordshire]Published In 1991 • Pages: 183-191

By: Sharp, Henry S..

AbstractBrief abstract written by HRAF anthropologists who have done the subject indexing for the document
In this article, Sharp takes issue with the conventional depiction of hunter-gatherers in which Chipewyans are singled out for their lack of ritual, i.e., hunting magic. Sharp immediately discounts as an explanation the legacy of Catholicism and the possible substitution of Catholic ritual for traditional practices. Rather he discusses Chipewyan ideas of causality, which are wrapped up in the notion of a common supernatural realm of man and beast. According to Sharp, the Chipewyan hunters have an intimate connection to animals on the supernatural level, one that does not entail any mediating ritualistic processes in order to achieve desired ends. This connection, or causality, in which an animal gives itself to the hunter is achieved through mental processes of knowing, understanding, and dreaming. As food processors, women have an outsider's relationship to this supernatural realm. The sharing of food in this context is mediated by gender identity itself and not by any ideas of ritualized exchange.
SubjectsDocument-level OCM identifiers given by the anthropology subject indexers at HRAF
Hunting and trapping
Division of labor by gender
Gender status
General character of religion
Ritual
cultureCulture name from the Outline of World Cultures (OWC)
Chipewyans
HRAF PubDateThe date HRAF published the document
2000
RegionThe area the document pertains to
North America
Sub RegionThe more specific area the document pertains to, which is located within the Region
Arctic and Subarctic
Document TypeMay include journal articles, essays, collections of essays, monographs, or chapters/parts of monographs
essay
Evaluation
Creator TypeThe type of person writing the document, e.g. Ethnographer, Missionary, Archaeologist, Folklorist, Linguist, Indigenous Person, and so on.
Ethnologist
Document Rating A ranking done by HRAF anthropologists based on the strength of the source material on a scale of 1 to 5, as follows: 1 - poor; 2 - fair; 3 - good, useful data, but not uniformly excellent; 4 - excellent secondary data; 5 - excellent primary data.
4: Excellent Secondary Data
5: Excellent Primary Data
AnalystThe HRAF anthropologist who subject indexed the document and prepared other materials for the eHRAF culture/tradition collection
Ian Skoggard ; 1999
Field DateThe date the researcher conducted the fieldwork or archival research that produced the document
Not Specified
Coverage DateThe date or dates that the information in the document pertains to
1770-1980
Coverage PlaceLocation of the research culture or tradition (often a smaller unit such as a band, community, or archaeological site)
north-central Canada
NotesAdditional notes
Henry S. Sharp
Includes bibliographical references (p. )
LCCNLibrary of Congress Control Number
87021216
LCSHLibrary of Congress Subject Headings
Chipewyan Indians