|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 6:59:41 GMT -5
Continued.... Going back a few centuries, Charlemagne organized great campaigns of bear slaughters in Germany in the years 772-773, 782-785, and 794-799. These slaughters were one element in a general policy of the eradication of pagan cults, particularly those having to do with the forces of nature. The Christian religion everywhere replaced or at least overlaid the old cults. Just as thousands of trees were cut down in Saxony and Westphalia, stones displaced or made into buildings, springs diverted or turned into fountains, sacred places turned into chapels, so thousands of bears were massacred. The beast that was too much venerated by the Germans seemed to be an enemy of Christ. So, victims of a major program of evangelization, the bears of northern Germany saw their numbers decrease significantly in the course of thirty years. The decline was speeded by the simultaneous battle against trees and forests, which forced bears to move, change territory, take refuge in still-wooded hills, and then emigrate toward the mountains to the south.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:00:27 GMT -5
Continued.... Charlemagne and his missionaries were imitated a few decades later by other evangelizers who killed bears or cleared forests. To the east, Slavic and Baltic bears were similarly victims of the inroads of Christianity. To the north, the conversion of the Scandinavian countries was less brutal, but bears suffered from the retreat of forests, laid waste by heavy consumption of wood. Indeed, the great clearings everywhere in the West, consequences of demographic growth, changed the forest landscape, plant covering, and the habits of animal populations after the year 1000.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:01:00 GMT -5
Continued.... The bear gradually disappeared from plains areas and became exclusively a mountain animal, coming down only when food was too scarce. At the same time, although the bear remained omnivorous, its diet changed: 80 percent carnivorous in antiquity, the European brown bear was probably only 40 percent carnivorous in the Middle Ages. This evolution, more-over, continued into modern times, so that today something between 85 to 90 percent of the diet of the few brown bears still living in the wild in Europe is vegetarian.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:01:38 GMT -5
Continued.... The long war that the Church had been fighting against the bear since the Merovingian period really began to bear fruit after the year 1000. Physically eliminated by systematic hunts symbolically vanquished by a large number of saints, demonized by texts, images, and sermons, in the High Middle Ages the bear finally descended from his throne and joined the parade of ordinary animals, taking its place among large game animals alongside the stag and the boar. This dethronement took place slowly, of course, and was never complete. IN the feudal period, the bear still preserved certain features of his former rank as royal animal, both admired and feared. But he was no longer the great and venerated wild beast of European forests, the god of warriors, the founding ancestor of several prestigious primitive dynasties, such as those of the kings of Denmark and Norway, the margraves of Brandenburg, the counts of Toulouse, and even King Arthur. His throne was increasingly unstable, so much so that at the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, he was forced to abdicate. The Church had achieved its goal.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:02:03 GMT -5
Continued from post #82... But however symbolic the throne, it could not remain unoccupied. Popular beliefs and habitual ways of thinking would unfailingly have installed another animal in his place, perhaps just as dangerous as the bear or even more pernicious, like the fox, another incarnation of the Evil One, or more venomous, like the vile, perfidious snake. Priests and monks took the matter seriously and decided to install another wild animal on the imaginary throne, invincible like the bear and therefore legitimately an object of fear, admiration, and respect, but completely absent from European forests: the lion.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:02:45 GMT -5
Continued.... The ground had in reality been prepared over the course of several centuries. The Church did not decide suddenly in the years between 1150 and 1200 to replace the bear with the lion. It was rather a long-range maneuver that began in the Carollingian period and was conducted simultaneously with three other strategies described earlier: fighting, taming, and demonizing the bear. But it was not an easy task.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:03:38 GMT -5
Continued.... Coats of arms appeared at a time when the symbolism and imaginative use of the lion were rapidly growing as those of the bear were clearly declining. In the second half of the twelfth century, in all French and Anglo-Norman literary works, the shield of the lion became the stereotypical shield of the Christian knight, now opposed to the shield of the dragon ( or leopard ) of the pagan warrior. Only Germanic regions resisted this proliferation of lions and maintained a connection with the mythological bestiary of ancient pagan Germany for a few decades. In the early thirteenth century, the bear and the boar were still the conventional emblems of literary heroes, but this did not last long. By the middle of the century, a hero as prestigious as Tristan, for example, abandoned in Germany and Scandinavia his traditional boar shield and adopted a lion shield, as he had done the century before in France and England, and would a little later in Austria and northern Italy.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:04:17 GMT -5
Continued.... A few years later, King Richard of England and King William of Scotland, while still alive, were given by chroniclers a nickname taken from the lion, not a bear: "Lionheart" for Richard and "the Generous Lion" for William. From then on, the lion extended his empire everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:04:53 GMT -5
From the book, California Grizzly by Tracy I. Storer and Lloyd P. Tevis Jr. Wild animals in particular were invested with extraordinary significance, and for size and ferocity the most impressive species encountered in California was the grizzly. It was the only truly dangerous animal. Whether an Indian met the bear in its actual form, as known to the white man, or saw it with imagined and usually evil attributes beyond our comprehension, it was an integral part of his environment and one of the factors that shaped his life. The grizzly was certainly the one formidable animal in the environment of the Indian almost throughout the area of California. Before the coming of the Europeans, the big bears rather than man dominated the scene, because the natives lacked adequate weapons and were afraid of grizzlies, whereas the bears had little to fear from any living creature. They were at the top of the food chain and could treat native man with contempt.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:05:33 GMT -5
Continued.... That fact alone explains many attitudes of the Indians toward the great carnivore. He was their hereditary enemy ( Goddard, 1903 ) and the most evil and odious being of which they could conceive ( Powers, 1877 ). His ferocious disposition, according to the Yokuts, was clearly evident even in death when the muscular fibers bristled erect as his flesh was cut with a knife ( Kroeber, 1925 ). Because of this belief in the inherent wickedness and ferocity of the grizzly, the most effective curse a Wintun could hurl at another man was "May the grizzly bear eat you!" or "May the grizzly bear bite your father's head off!" ( Powers, 1877 ). By contrast, the black bear was considered sacred and lucky. It would run from the Indians, and they could hunt it for its flesh and pelt without fear.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:06:30 GMT -5
Continued.... In the cosmology of the Luiseno ( native American people of coastal California ), grizzlies, along with stinging weeds and rattlesnakes, were the avengers whom the great God Chungichnish invoked upon those who disobeyed his commandments ( C.G. Du Bois, 1908 ). The Wiamot, or Chingichnich of the Juaneno, is said to have announced that after his death he would ascend to the stars and from there he would watch people and send bears and other terrible things to punish the faithless ( Kroeber, 1925 ). The Pomo had a hedonistic conception of heaven and believed that the good Indian, after death, would enjoy its delights: in some far, sunny island of the Pacific - an island of fadeless verdure; of cool and shining trees, looped with clinging vines; of bubbling fountains; of flowery fragrant savannas rimmed with lilac shadows, where the purple and wine-stained waves shiver in a spume of gold across the reefs, shot through and through by the level sunbeams of the morning - they ( good Indians ) will dwell forever...and the deer and the antelope will joyously come and offer themselves for food; and the red-fleshed salmon will affectionately rub their sides against them, and softly wriggle into their reluctant hands ( Powers, 1877 ).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:07:07 GMT -5
Continued.... But the ghosts of the wicked Indians had to stay behind in the bodies of miserable and tormented grizzlies, forever roaming the wilderness to be hated and loathed by all who saw them. The Wintun likewise believed in this unhappy palingenesis and would not partake of the flesh of the big bears for fear of absorbing lost souls. It was bad luck, too, to dream about grizzlies, for one who did would then sing bear songs, throw fire around in a hysterical manner, grunt, and walk on all fours ( Loeb, 1932 ).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:07:37 GMT -5
Continued.... The terror that the grizzly inspired among the Indians is not surprising in view of the superstitions associated with the beasts, as well as their natural ferocity. A Shasta expressed the firm conviction that "The biggest man is scared of a grizzly. He will cry and tremble. Anyone who had had trouble with a grizzly will just bawl and cry. If you just hear one, it scares you to death. You may not know you are shaking until you light your pipe and your hand will just be shaking. Nothing else has that power ( Holt, 1946 ). When Dr, Pickering traveled in California with the United States Exploring Expedition during 1841 he noted that, because of the grizzly, Indians "kept on the hills and other high ground very carefully avoiding the favorite resorts of this animal" ( Cassin, 1858 ).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:08:08 GMT -5
Continued.... A victory over the great hereditary enemy was an imporatant occasion, as might be expected. Thomas Jefferson Farnham ( 1849 ), who traveled in California during the middle of the last century ( 1800's ) wrote: It is seldom that the Indians, with their imperfect weapons, venture to attack this formidable animal; and whenever one is killed by them, the occasion becomes a matter of great rejoicing, and the fortunate victor is ever after held in great esteem by his comrades.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:08:43 GMT -5
Continued.... Throughout California the Indians entertained a strongly developed feeling of kinship with wild animals and particularly with the grizzly. Whether they had the cold nerve to hunt the beast or whether because of timidity they tried to stay out of its way, they felt the bear was more closely one of them than any other animal. This was true despite the fact that by nature it was the most evil and odious being of which they could conceive. A reason for this sense of relationship doubtless lay in the manlike attitudes of the bears; they have many gestures, movements, and tricks that make them appear almost human. Furthermore, an enraged grizzly stands on its hind legs and fights with its fists like a man. Such a terrifying phenomenon was cause enough to make an Indian believe that he was looking at close kin, though a monster; and many tribes insisted that at least some of their people could commune with bears.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:09:14 GMT -5
Continued.... According to Joaquin Miller ( 1894 ), the Shasta had the notion that a grizzly would talk to a human being if the person would only sit still long enough to listen to what the bear had to say instead of running away in great fright. One wrinkled old woman in particular was held in great respect because daily she hobbled over a long trail to a heap of rocks at the edge of a thicket, where, so she said, she talked with a grizzly.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:09:43 GMT -5
Continued.... The Cahuilla relied for safety on an ability to converse with the big bears. A person who met one in the mountains called it piwil ( great-grandfather ) and said in a soothing tone, "I am only looking for my food, you are human and understand me, take my word and go away." The bear would rise, brandishing its great paws in the air; then, if it intended peace, it would drop to all fours and scratch dirt to one side. ( Strong, 1929 ).
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:10:13 GMT -5
Continued.... One story of the Cahuilla is about an Indian who attended a bear-and-bull fight at the pueblo of Los Angeles.The grizzly, a cowardly individual, was getting the worst of the battle, being repeatedly knocked down. Then the Cahuilla man whispered to him, "You must fight and defend yourself, they are going to kill you." Whereupon the bear charged the bull and broke its neck.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:10:42 GMT -5
Continued.... Even a female and cubs, the most dangerous and unpredictable of ursine groups, could be influenced by the proper words spoken in a diplomatic manner. Once when a party of Cahuilla encountered a she-bear with young near the modern town of Beaumont, the oldest and most respected man stepped forward and told her that they meant her no harm and that since she was a relative of theirs she should not bother them. The grizzly looked at them, understood, and went peacefully on her way.
|
|
|
Post by brobear on Mar 19, 2017 7:11:29 GMT -5
Continued.... When a man met a bear in the mountains, the object of conversation by the Indian obviously was to assuage the beast. A Spanish-Indian half-breed, who accompanied the famous Bandini brothers on a grizzly hunt with rifles near Cobblestone Mountain, Ventura County, in 1873, had a different objective - but only because he was under the protection of guns. Thus, in a sense, he perverted and degraded the ancient power that had come to him from his mother. When the bear was sighted, he demanded to be allowed to hold brief intercourse with it before the shooting began. Confronting the beast, who stopped eating berries to look at him, he called out, "Que hay vale que estas haciendo aqui? Eso mirame bien; soy tu tatu" ( "Well old pard what are you doing here? Look at me well; I am your Daddy" ). The bear seemed to resent this last insinuation, for he rubbed his claws on the ground angrily. The half-breed then launched forth on a long tirade reflecting on the bravery of all bears from time immemorial, and then, indulging in personalities, he made the most unkind and unwarranted allusions to the grizzly's own pedigree. At last, picking up a stone, he threw it at the bear with the remark, "Tu no eres hombre y me retiro" ( "You are no man and I retire" ). At this last insult the bear charged, and thirteen bullets were required to kill him. ( Bandini, 1893 ).
|
|