Primate Profile: The Putty Nosed Monkey

Figure 1: Putty Nosed Monkey

Today’s blog post features a primate, specifically a monkey, that you may have not heard of despite its funny sounding name: the Putty Nosed Monkey (Figure 1).  This primate species, which is also known as the greater spot nosed monkey, white-nosed guenons, or greater white-nosed monkey, is not currently considered at great threat of extinction, but it is nearing threatened status.  This blog post will provide you with more information about this species, including their geographical locations, physical appearance, social organization, and unique communication styles.

 

The Putty Nosed Monkey can be found throughout the forests of western and central Africa, specifically Guinea, Liberian Ivory Coast, Nigeria, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Central African Republic, Congo, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  They are diurnal (active during the day), arboreal (tree dwelling) primates that very rarely make contact with the ground, preferring to stay in the high tree top canopies where they consume mostly fruit but will supplement their diets with seeds, nuts, insects, leaves, and flowers.  They are a sexually dimorphic species, wherein males are larger than females.  They weigh typically between 9 to 14.5 pounds, and their bodies are on average 17 to 25 inches long, which is often the same length of their tails.  With the exception of their white noses their bodies are covered with grey/black to greenish yellow fur.

 

They exist in one-male groupings, wherein groups of related females live with one or a few outsider males who enter into the group by leaving their own home groups upon reaching maturity.  These primates typically live in troops of anywhere from 12 to 30 members, and they have been observed coexisting with another related primate species, the Diana monkey.  These different primates often cooperatively forage for food and protect against natural predators.

 

The call systems of the Putty Nosed Monkey are unique in several ways.  Wherein other primates typically communicate in limited calls, simply identifying the most immediate stimulant (e.g., food or danger) these primates can actually combine calls to communicate larger messages, similar to a human sentence.  This means that they can communicate if there is food but also danger, and if there is danger what type and level of threat is present.  What is also interesting is that males’ calls are louder and have a wider vocal range than that of females.  This is due to males having an enhanced throat anatomy that allows for stronger and louder calls.  Most recently it was discovered that females use their calls of danger to alert males of the type and level of threats, and males then assess the situation to determine if and how much back up is required to protect the females and associated juveniles.  Males do not use their calls in this same way, instead alerting the group of danger and to come and help.

 

The Putty Nosed Monkey is critical to its environment as they disperse seeds throughout the forests, revitalizing and planting vegetation throughout the forest.  While not at serious risk of extinction yet these primates are dealing with risks to their survival in the forms of deforestation and hunting from farmers who see them as pests.  As previously mentioned primates are integral to their natural environments, so the loss of this species could be disastrous to the western and central African forests they occupy.

 

References

Covert, T. (2019, August). Putty-Nosed Monkey (Cercopithecus nictitans). Retrieved from New England Primate Conservatory: https://www.neprimateconservancy.org/putty-nosed-monkey.html

Mehon, F. G., & Stephan, C. (2021). Female putty-nosed monkeys (Cercopithecus nictitans) vocally recruit males for predator defence. Royal Society.

Neinast, A. (2012). Cercopithecus nictitans. Retrieved from Animal Diversity Web: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Cercopithecus_nictitans/

 

Queer Anthropology: A (Very!) Brief Introduction

Image Source: Queer Youth Initiative Center of Greater Cleveland

 

Before I regale you with the information about what queer anthropology is I do want to start with a very important disclaimer: the contents of this blog post are not only incredibly brief but also not comprehensively reflective of the intricacies of this field of anthropological study.  This is in part due to the ever-evolving nature of this discipline, but also due to the complexities of study and approaches within it.  Any inaccuracies in representing this field are wholly the fault of the author, and I expect and welcome constructive critique to improve this post.

 

Queer anthropology is the study of variations of gender and sexuality that go against the Western cultural norms, both within and outside of Western cultures.  Queer anthropology also recognizes the sociocultural influences on gender and sexuality, including but not limited to roles, expectations, and categories, as well as the power and impact these plays in what is considered acceptable versus unacceptable and in which specific contexts. 

 

This area of study emerged during the 20^th century as a means of disputing early anthropological discourse that was disrespectful and ethnocentric, as well as supported and promoted Western and Judeo-Christian ideals concerning gender categories (i.e. the binary male and female) and sexuality preferences (i.e. heterosexuality).  It was a reaction among anthropologists seeking to understand how and why other cultural groups held different gender ideals and sexuality categories that ran counter to the Western norms.  Ultimately the field evolved from previous anthropological inquiries in gender and sexuality studies since the inception of the discipline of anthropology.  Early anthropological inquiries were hyperfocused on gender and sexuality, as seen in the work of Bronislaw Malinoswki, Evans Pritchard, Margaret Mead, and many more.  While some early scholars attempted to take a culturally relativistic approach to the subject matter there remained a tension in comparing other cultural norms to those of the Western societies, often characterizing those that ran counter as primitive or deviant. 

 

Over several decades the study of gender and sexuality evolved, and with it the field of study was eventually established.  It went through various iterations, including the anthropology of homosexuality and gay and lesbian anthropology, before settling into what it is known as today: queer anthropology.  The term queer is used because it is the most inclusive of gender and sexuality diversity, as well as reflects the study of power and marginalization that are often a focus among scholars.  The field is also changing and adapting as a result of the incorporation of new knowledge but also the changing cultural dynamics of societies worldwide.  Therefore, what queer anthropology represents at one point of time will most likely not be what it is at a later point.  Ultimately, the goals of this field of study are to better understand and accept cultural diversity through the lens of gender and sexuality.

 

Bibliography

Howe, Cymene. "Queer Anthropology." International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition. Elselvier, 2015. 1-7. Electronic.

Manalansan IV, Martin F. "Queer Anthropology: An Introduction." Cultural Anthropology (2016): 595-597. Electronic.

Weiss, Margot. AnthroBites: Queer Anthropology Jara M. Carrington. 15 October 2018. Podcast.

Wilson, Ara. "Queer Anthropology." 31 July 2019. Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Electronic. 26 May 2021.

 

Mississippian Cultures of North America

 

Figure 1: Geographic territory of Mississippian cultures

 

Between A.D. 1000 and 1700 several different cultural groups that shared common characteristics, including material culture, religion, and sociopolitical organization, flourished across the North American landscape in what is known today as the American Midwest and Southeastern United States (Figure 1).  Collectively known as the Mississippians these cultural groups were regionally distinct despite their commonalities.  While early scholars refused to believe the accomplishments of these people were credited to the ancestors of modern American Indians more recent archaeological inquiries have rectified and refuted those prejudicial ideas.  Today’s blog post will provide an overview of Mississippian cultural characteristics.

 

Mississippian cultures characterized as sedentary groups of people who practiced large scale agriculture, existed within chiefdom societies, and developed large scale monuments, specifically earthen mounds.  Mound building was actually a hold over from the preceding cultural period, the Woodland Period, but the Mississippian Period mounds were different in various ways.  Whereas Woodland Period mounds were largely created for mortuary purposes Mississippian mounds were much larger and served ritual and/or residential purposes, specifically providing elevated housing for chiefs or social elites.  They would reside atop the mounds in wooden, mud plastered houses, using their raised residences to mimic their elevated status among the people.  While Mississippian Period mounds are found throughout the American Midwest and Southeast the largest mounds are found at the site of Cahokia.

 

The Mississippians required a great deal of human labor and effort to construct their monumental earthworks, which required large populations and political leadership.  Both were sustained through large scale agricultural exploits.  Mississippians were adept at maize cultivation, along with beans and squash (often referred to as the “Three Sisters”).  These cultigens provided the primary means of subsistence for Mississippian groups, who also supplemented their diets with meat collected through hunting and fishing activities.

 

Mississippian groups were organized socio-politically into chiefdoms, which dotted the landscapes and provided regional variation among groups.  The chiefs would lead their people in not only the creation of the mounds and the agricultural duties but also in craft specialization.  The Mississippian people had robust crafts, including diagnostic shell tempered ceramics, copper metallurgy, and shell artifacts.  Many of these depict the complex religious traditions of the Mississippian people, including the Long Nosed God, a common motif among various Mississippian groups.

 

The Mississippian cultural groups began to decline around A.D. 1500, which coincides with the arrival of Europeans to the New World.  While diseases and conflict between American Indians and Europeans disrupted many Mississippian lifeways they continued to construct earthen mounds and practice their traditions.  This has been most recently demonstrated by archaeological evidence from the Dyar Mound site in Georgia, although other sites demonstrate similar phenomena.  This just shows the reliance of these people, who eventually abandoned the Mississippian cultural patterns but continued on and still exist among their descendant populations today.

 

Bibliography

Baires, S. E. (2018, February 23). White Settlers Buried the Truth About the Midwest’s Mysterious Mound Cities. Retrieved from Smithsonian Magazine: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/white-settlers-buried-truth-about-midwests-mysterious-mound-cities-180968246/

Emerson, T. E. (1991). The Apple River Mississippian Culture of Northwestern Illinois. In T. E. Emerson, Cahokia and the hinterlands: middle Mississippian cultures of the Midwest. (pp. 164-182). University of Illinois Press.

Mehta, J. (2020). Mississippian Culture and CahokianIdentities as Considered ThroughHousehold Archaeology at Carson, a Monumental Center in North Mississippi. Journal of Archaeological Method & Theory, 27, 28-53.

National Park Service. (No Date). The Mound Builders. Retrieved from Indian Mounds of Missippii: https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/mounds/builders.htm

Powell, E. A. (2021, January/February). Enduring Rites of the Mound Builders. Retrieved from Archaeology Magazine: https://www.archaeology.org/issues/407-features/top10/9271-georgia-dyar-mound?fbclid=IwAR0shXoUG3zXP5lUb3Y-PxM0LQ1-6wJR9i0KR8tJXXN1J9KiSo_eEp7dD1g

Unknown. (n.d.). Mississippi Mound Builders, Ancient Indian Civilizations. Retrieved from AAANativeArts.com: https://www.aaanativearts.com/ancient-indians/mississippi-mound-builders.htm