Non-Human Primate Themed American Idioms

Gelada baboons grooming each other, which is an example of nonhuman primate behavior.

 

There are various ways of talking about specific topics.  One way is through language, specifically the number of idioms (phrases) related to the topic.  This is a topic that has been previously addressed in different posts on this blog (see this one and this other one for examples).  Carrying on with this theme, as well as incorporating a broader anthropological focus, today’s blog post will address the origins and history of three nonhuman primate themed idioms.  They are merely linked by their use of a nonhuman primate in the wording of the phrase, but this just makes it all the more interesting as to how and why these creatures are used to express diverse ideas and messages within the English language.

 

Monkey See, Monkey Do

The phrase “monkey see, monkey do” refers to someone who unquestioningly mimics the behavior of someone else.  This type of behavior is often witnessed among children who copy the language and behaviors of any parent or parental figure they imprint on.  Overall, the phrase is not a positive one since it demonstrates a lack of critical thought in what is being done or said through imitation. 

 

The precise origins and history of the phrase “monkey see, monkey do” are difficult to pinpoint. There exists a lot of inaccurate information about the origins, citing a Jamaican, African, or even a Chinese origin.  These pieces of information, however, are unsubstantiated as they lack credible evidence.  The best evidence comes from the research of Neal Whitman, who tracked down some of the original uses of the phrase in American newspapers.

 

The first published evidence of the use of the phrase comes from the late 1800s.  At that time, however, the phrase was a little different.  It was “monkey sees, monkey does”, which is grammatically correct (versus the current way of saying the phrase).  The grammatically correct idiom was found throughout several shoe advertisements, suggesting it was a clever marketing ploy to disparage the competitor while promoting the company that ran the ad.  It is unclear why specifically the advertisement creator opted to use monkeys as a sales pitch, just as it is unknown how or why the phrase changed since that time.  There are several chronicled examples throughout many published pieces of literature that show the degradation of the phrase over time.

 

Go Ape

The phrase “go ape” is a cleaner version of a popular American idiom (to “go apes—t”).  It is typically used to explain negative behavior, such as that associated with violence or insanity.  It can, however, reference any excitable behavior that is not technically bad or deviant (e.g., to raucous/wild celebration).

 

The phrase was first published in American literature in the 1950s, although its exact origins remain unknown.  There are some sources that claim it came from the US military, referencing military personnel who would spend too much time in their barracks and then would go wild when no longer on base.  There are others who associate the phrase with the American Jazz night club scene.  These were places wherein both White and Black patrons could and would interact, dancing and conversing in manners that were not acceptable in more public spaces.  Because such interracial interactions were deemed deviant this may be part of the reason why the phrase is associated with the Jazz night club scene.

 

Monkey Business

Monkey business remains a popular idiom used throughout the English language to this day.  It references any actions deemed silly, mischievous, or underhanded.  As one examines the origins and history of change of this phrase one sees very little modification over time.  This phrase has two potential origins, both of which are derived from its predecessor phrase: monkeyshine. 

 

Monkeyshine was introduced in the early 1800s and referenced dishonorable behavior.  It was used in a popular song that mocked enslaved Blacks and ultimately used as a derogatory way of referencing all African Americans. Another potential origin comes from Sanskrit, a language spoken throughout the country of India.  British colonizers may have adopted the phrase from a Sanskrit idiom that came from watching the literal behavior of nonhuman primates that are commonly found throughout the area.  According to sources the Sanskrit saying used the foolish, silly, and sometimes violent interactions of monkeys to reference similar behaviors among deviant or irrational humans.

 

Works Cited

Friends of KSPS PBS. "Monkey See, Monkey Do." n.d. KSPS PBS. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Idiomorigins.org. "Origin of Ape/Apeshit." n.d. Idiom Origin. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Langeek Inc. "Go Ape." 2020. LanGeek Dictionary. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Osmond, Candace. "‘Monkey Business’ Idiom: The Art Of Trickery and Lies." n.d. The Grammarist. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

The Button Museum. "Go Ape." n.d. The Busy Beaver Button Museum. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Vocabulary.com. "Monkey Business." n.d. Vocabulary.com Dictionary. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

Whitman, Neal. "Why Do We Say "Monkey See, Monkey Do"?" n.d. Vocabulary.com. Electronic. 9 April 2024.

 

Dining on the Dead: Potential Evidence of the Earliest Case of Cannibalism

Figure 1: Evidence of nine butchery marks on a fossilized tibia (Photo by Jennifer Clark)

 

In the 1970s Mary Leakey and her team discovered a hominid tibia.  They initially identified the tibia as belonging to the Paranthropus boisei species, although reanalysis of the tibia in 1990 determined it may belong to a Homo habilis individual.  This tibia remained in the Kenyan National Museum, where Briana Pobiner, an American paleoanthropologist based out of the Smithsonian, began to study it.  It was this analysis that led to an amazing discovery: the earliest definitive evidence of intentional butchery marks on hominid remains, as well as perhaps the earliest case of cannibalism.

 

Pobiner noted nine marks on the tibia where the calf muscle would have been present.  The marks were unique because they were unlike animal bite marks, leading her to take molds of the remains.  The molding technique she used is similar to that dentists use to model teeth.  The dental molds were sent to Michael Pante at the Colorado State University, and he, alongside Trevor Keevil of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind. used 3-D modeling to study the marks.  They compared the marks on the fossilized tibia to almost 900 identified marks, including those created by stone tools, stone pounding implements, animal teeth, and animal hooves trampling the bones.  Pante and Keevil ultimately concluded that the marks on the fossilized tibia were caused by stone tools intentionally being used to cut the bone.

 

Pobiner, Pante, and Keevil published their conclusions in the journal Scientific Reports.  Their discovery marks the earliest case of intentional butchery on hominid remains, but the team did not stop there.  They also resolved that these marks may have been evidence of the earliest case of cannibalism.  They reached this conclusion as the cut marks were located where the calf muscle would have been, leading them to presume the cutter wanted to consume that specific cut of flesh.  It is unclear, however, if these cut marks were made by members of the same species, which would further support this as evidence of cannibalism, or if they were created by members of another species, which could mean they were caused by scavengers seeking to remove flesh.  This is not outside of the realm of possibilities since the fossilized tibia also had definitive bite marks from a large predator (most likely a feline, such as a saber tooth tiger).  The team believe, however, that they have the earliest case of cannibalism, although additional evidence is necessary to fully support this conclusion. 

 

Bibliography

Bower, B. (2023, June 26). Fossil marks suggest hominids butchered one another around 1.45 million years ago. Science News.

Domínguez, N. (2023, June 26). A fossil leg bone may reveal the oldest case of cannibalism, from 1.45 million years ago . El Pias.

Lavery, R., & Kremer, R. (2023, June 26). Humans’ Evolutionary Relatives Butchered One Another 1.45 Million Years Ago. Retrieved from Smithsonian Museum of Natural History: https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/humans-evolutionary-relatives-butchered-one-another-145-million-years-ago

Pobiner, B., Pante, M., & Keevil, T. (2023). Early Pleistocene cut marked hominin fossil from Koobi Fora, Kenya. Scientific Reports, 9896.

 

The Quechua: The Modern Inca

 

Quechua women posing with camelids (Source: World Atlas)

 

Today’s blog post addresses one of the largest Indigenous groups of the Americas: the Quechua.  The word Quechua refers to both the language spoken and the ethnic group, which is reportedly a descendant of the Inca culture.  It is documented that the Quechua ethnic group were conquered by the Inca prior to Spanish conquest, leading them to adopt various Inca cultural traits. After Spanish conquest and colonization the Quechua culture underwent a series of changes that are reflected in their ways of life today.  This blog post will discuss their culture.

 

The Quechua (ethnic group) reside throughout the Andes of Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia.  It is estimated that they number anywhere from 2 to 6 million, although the number of Quechua speakers is estimated to be around 10 million.  Most of the Quechua reside in small villages in the Andean highlands, but several reside in urban centers, working in the service industry and labor occupations.

 

The Quechua maintain their traditional lifeways as subsistence farmers, working in their chacras (fields).  Highland farmers grow and maintain the hundreds of varieties of potatoes, many of which they are credited with creating through their centuries of cultivation techniques.  Lowland farmers specialize in growing quinoa and corn.  Women continue to practice traditional weaving traditions, creating the clothing the Quechua wear and woven items that are sold to tourists. 

 

The Quechua are characterized by their traditional clothing.  Men and women wear colorful ponchos and hats, but women wear colorful skirts.  These are often woven from alpaca wool that they hand spin and dye.  They have also used cotton or made clothing from repurposed fabrics.

 

Ideologically, many of the Quechua practice a mixture of Catholicism and animistic beliefs.  The Quechua were converted through intentional practices by Spanish colonists, and over the years religious missionaries continue to proselytize to the Quechua in hopes of converting them to Protestant faiths.  The syncretic combination of the Quechua’s beliefs is seen in their religious rituals, which celebrate Catholic beliefs and holidays by way of folk traditions.  They also maintain worship of Pachamama, or Mother Earth, a deity worshipped widely by pre-Columbian Andean groups.

 

Works Cited

ABWE Editorial Staff. "The Quechua People: Modern-Day Incas." Message Magazine 18 May 2022. Electronic.

Minority Rights Group International. "World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Bolivia : Highland Aymara and Quechua." 2013. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Electronic. 17 March 2024.

Stephenson, Amanda. "The Quechua: Guardians of the Potato." 15 February 2012. Cultural Survival. Electronic. 17 March 2024.

The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica. Quechua. 30 November 2023. Electronic. 17 March 2024.

The Peoples of the World Foundation. "The Indigenous Quichua People." 2023. The Peoples of the World Foundation. Electronic. 17 March 2024.

Yang, Ina. "Peru's Pitmasters Bury Their Meat In The Earth, Inca-Style." 30 June 2015. NPR. Electronic. 17 March 2024.