The folk zoological taxonomy of the Nage people of central Flores (Indonesia) classifies wild mammals into thirteen named folk generic taxa (sensu Berlin). Of these, nearly half denote murids (rats and mice). In addition, Nage employdhéke, a name that can specifically refer to large commensal rats, to further designate a folk intermediate taxon that subsumes other murid folk generics, thus resulting in a notably more elaborate classification of mice and rats than of other mammals. Murids also receive comparably distinctive treatment in other, special purpose forms of animal classification, and they occupy an especially prominent place in Nage symbolism. The paper considers how these several conceptual orders may be connected, including whether the ethnotaxonomic elaboration of murids may either reflect or be reflected in their symbolic value.
ArndtPaul. 1959. Tod und Jenseitsvorstellungen bei den Ngadha auf Flores. Anthropos54:370–376.
3.
ArndtPaul. 1961. Wörterbuch der Ngadhasprache. Studia Instituti Anthropos, 15. Anthropos-Institut, Posieux. Fribourg.
4.
AtranScott. 1983. Covert Fragmenta and the Origin of the Biological Family. Man18:51–71.
5.
BerlinBrent. 1992. Ethnobiological Classification: Principles of Categorization of Plants and Animals in Traditional Societies. Princeton University Press. Princeton.
6.
BrownCecil H.1974. Unique Beginners and Covert Categories in Folk Biological Taxonomies. American Anthropologist76:325–27.
7.
BulmerRalph. 1979. Mystical and Mundane in Kalam Classification of Birds. InClassifications in their Social Context. eds.EllenR. F. and ReasonD.. pp.57–97. Academic Press. London.
8.
DouglasMary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. Routledge and Kegan Paul. London.
9.
EcoUmberto. 2003. Mouse or Rat?: Translation as Negotiation. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. London.
10.
EllenRoy. 1993a. The Cultural Relations of Classification: An Analysis of Animal Categories from Central Seram. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
11.
EllenRoy. 1993b. Nuaulu Ethnozoology: A Systematic InventoryCentre for Social Anthropology and Computing Monograph 6. CSAC in co-operation with the Centre for South-East Asian Studies, University of Kent at Canterbury.
12.
EllenRoy. 2006. The Categorical Impulse: Essays in the Anthropology of Classifying Behaviour. Berghahn Books. New York, Oxford.
13.
ErbMaribeth. 1987. When Rocks Were Young and Earth Was Soft: Ritual and Mythology in Northeastern ManggaraiPhD Dissertation (Anthropology). State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York.
14.
ForthGregory. 1981. Rindi: An Ethnographic Study of a Traditional Domain in Eastern Sumba. Martinus Nijhoff. The Hague.
15.
ForthGregory. 1993. Social and Symbolic Aspects of the Witch among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. InUnderstanding Witchcraft and Sorcery in Southeast Asia. eds.WatsonC. W. and EllenR. F.. pp.99–122. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu.
16.
ForthGregory. 1995. Ethnozoological Classification and Classificatory Language among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology15:45–69.
17.
ForthGregory. 1998a. Beneath the Volcano: Religion, Cosmology and Spirit Classification among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. KITLV Press. Leiden.
18.
ForthGregory. 1998b. On Deer and Dolphins: Nage Ideas Regarding Animal Transformation. Oceania68(4):271–293.
19.
ForthGregory. 2004a. The Category of ‘Animal’ in Eastern Indonesia. Journal of Ethnobiology24:51–73.
20.
ForthGregory. 2004b. A Cock and Bull Story: Nage Sex Terms and their Implications for Ethnozoological Classification. Anthropological Linguistics46(4):427–449.
21.
ForthGregory. 2007. Can Animals Break Taboos?: Applications of ‘Taboo’ among the Nage of Eastern Indonesia. Oceania77(2):215–231.
22.
ForthGregory. 2009. Symbolic Birds and Ironic Bats: Varieties of Classification in Nage Folk Ornithology. Ethnology48(2):139–159.
23.
ForthGregory. 2010. Symbolic Classification: Retrospective Remarks on an Unrecognized Invention. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute (N.S.)16:707–725.
24.
HaysTerence E.1982. Utilitarian/Adaptionist Explanations of Folk Biological Classification: Some Cautionary Notes. Journal of Ethnobiology2:89–94.
25.
HunnEugene S.1999. Size as Limiting the Recognition of Biodiversity in Folkbiological Classifications: One of Four Factors Governing the Cultural Recognition of Biological Taxa. InFolkbiology. eds.MedinDouglas L. and AtranScott. pp.47–69. The MIT Press. Cambridge.
26.
MonkKathryn, de FretesYance, and Reksodiharjo-LilleyGayatri. 1997. The Ecology of Nusa Tenggara and Maluku. The Ecology of Indonesia Series Volume V. Periplus Editions. Hong Kong.
27.
MusserG. G.1981. The Giant Rat of Flores and its Relatives East of Borneo and Bali. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History169:71–175.
28.
OnvleeLouis. 1984. Kamberaas (Oost-Soembaas)-Nederlands woordenbook. Foris Publications. Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
29.
Van den BerghG. D., MeijerH. J. M., DueRokus Awe, MorwoodM. J., SzaboK., van den Hoek OstendeL. W., SutiknaT., SaptomoE. W., PiperP. J., and DobneyK. M.. 2009. The Liang Bua Faunal Remains: A 95 k.yr. Sequence from Flores, East Indonesia. Journal of Human Evolution57:527–37.
30.
VerheijenJ. A. J.1967. Kamus Manggarai I: Manggarai-IndonesiaMartinus Nijhoff ‘s-Gravenhage.
