Contemporary Primatology in Anthropology: Beyond the Epistemological Abyss

Specimens as individuals: Four interventions and recommendations for great ape skeletal collections research and curation

Extensive discourse surrounds the ethics of human skeletal research and curation, but there has yet to be a similar discussion of the treatment of great ape skeletal remains, despite the clear interest in their ethical treatment when alive. Here we trace the history of apes who were killed and collected for natural history museums during the early 20th century and showcase how the guiding research questions of the colonial era continue to influence scholarship. We discuss best practices for improving industry and academic standards of research on, and the curation of, ape remains. The suggested interventions involve restoring individual identity and narrative to great apes while engaging with contextual reflexivity and decolonial theory. The resulting recommendations include contextualizing the individual, piecing individuals back together, challenging/questioning the captive-wild dichotomy, and collaborative international conversations. Our objective is to encourage a conversation regarding ethical and theoretical considerations in great ape skeletal remains research.

Best practices are never best: Evaluating primate conservation education programs (PCEPs) with a decolonial perspective

Who do we aim to educate with primate conservation education programs (PCEPs)? In a commentary published in a recent AJP, Annette Lanjouw suggested that many efforts to "educate" habitat-country communities can be neocolonial in their approaches. Forest destruction and habitat loss are a result of global consumption and expansion. We therefore need to approach conservation education from many angles including local stakeholders, policy makers, government officials, and the humans living in industrialized nations who are major consumers of the items that shrink primate habitats. In this review, we investigate PCEPs to determine if the conservation education goals, education methods, and assessment processes are proceeding within a neocolonial context. We reviewed the last 20 years of primate conservation literature and looked for publications that were focused on education programs. We found that in 50 of 52 publications published between 2001 and 2021, the education programs take place in habitat-country local communities. We also reviewed primate field researcher and field site websites, and in most cases, education programs were also focused on educating local communities living near or in nonhuman primate habitats. Exceptions were student clubs, zoo programs, and a high school outreach program. Many PCEP providers presented a list of "lessons learned" and we compiled their wisdom in combination with our experience to provide a framework for moving forward. We conclude that as conservation primatologists, we must think beyond our field sites to create opportunities for educational outreach. We can reach global consumers by linking to zoos, television/motion picture, print media, social media, and working with schools on curricula. Primatologists can engage our undergraduates to establish clubs and create meaningful assignments that reach beyond the classroom. We encourage primatologists from the Global North to consider their positionality and the history of conservation exclusion in their attempts to conserve primates.

Working from the Inside Out: Fostering Intrinsic Motivation and Expanding Our Criteria for Conservation Success

Primatological research is often associated with understanding animals and their habitats, yet practical conservation depends entirely on human actions. This encompasses the activities of Indigenous and local people, conservationists, and NGOs working on the ground, as well as more remote funders and policymakers. In this paper we explore what it means to be a conservationist in the 2020s. While many primatologists accept the benefits of more socially inclusive dimensions of research and conservation practice, in reality there remain many challenges. We discuss the role primatologists can play to enhance interdisciplinary working and their relationships with communities living in and around their study sites, and examine how increased reflexivity and consideration of one’s positionality can improve primatological practice. Emphasis on education and stakeholder consultation may still echo colonial, top-down dialogues, and the need for greater emphasis on genuine knowledge-sharing among all stakeholders should be recognised. If we are sincere about this approach, we might need to redefine how we see, consider, and define conservation success. We may also have to embrace more compromises. By evaluating success in conservation we explore how reflexive engagements with our positionality and equitable knowledge-sharing contribute to fostering intrinsic motivation and building resilience.

The Primate Cultural Significance Index: applications with Popoluca Indigenous people at Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve

BACKGROUND

The study of the cultural significance (CS) of biodiversity provides key information to develop conservation strategies consistent with traditions and perceptions of human communities. In Los Tuxtlas Biosphere Reserve (TBR) in Mexico, the mantled howler monkeys (Alouatta palliata mexicana) and the black-handed spider monkeys (Ateles geoffroyi vellerosus) have historically coexisted with Popoluca Indigenous Peoples. This study sought to determine how the presence of a natural protected area (TBR location) and a range of sociodemographic factors (gender, age, origin, language proficiency, education level, religion) relate to the CS held by the Popoluca Indigenous People in relation to these two endangered primate species.

METHODS

The first Primate Cultural Significance Index (PCSI) was designed as a composed index of 11 cultural variables (sub-indices) and was applied randomly to a representative size sample of people over 15 years old in two Popolucas communities, one within the TBR (Piedra Labrada = 81 people) and another outside (Los Mangos = 91). U Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the PCSI between communities and Generalized Linear Models (GLM) to evaluate the sociodemographic factors of participants that influenced the sub-indices in the PCSI.

RESULTS

The cultural significance of spider monkeys held by the Popolucas was higher for the community within the TBR than for the community outside, while for howler monkeys it was higher outside. For both primate species across the two communities, the most relevant sub-indices were (1) interest in conservation and (2) touristic significance of primates. Sociodemographic factors of participants influenced nine sub-indices of cultural significance out of the possible 10 sub-indices applied for each primate species. The demographic factors that most influenced each sub-index for both species were location and gender.

CONCLUSIONS

The main differences found between communities may be linked to the conservation and sustainable development programs promoted by the reserve, as well as the greater persistence of Popolucan ancestral traditions within the boundaries of the reserve. We recommend that conservation efforts should focus on people less interested about primate conservation (women, non-natives and residents outside the reserve), and turn to the leadership of people more interested (native men who reside inside the reserve).

Extending Ethnoprimatology: Human-Alloprimate Relationships in Managed Settings

The majority of studies in ethnoprimatology focus on areas of sympatry where humans and nonhuman primates (hereafter, primates) naturally coexist. We argue that much can be gained by extending the field’s scope to incorporate settings where humans manage most aspects of primates’ lives, such as zoos, laboratories, sanctuaries, and rehabilitation centers (hereafter, managed settings). We suggest that the mixed-methods approach of ethnoprimatology, which facilitates examination of both humans’ and primates’ responses to one another, can reveal not only how humans’ ideas about primates shape management strategies, but also how those management strategies affect primates’ lives. Furthermore, we note that a greater focus on managed settings will strengthen links between ethnoprimatology and primate rights/welfare approaches, and will introduce new questions into discussions of ethics in primatology. For example, managed settings raise questions about when it might be justifiable to restrict primates’ freedom for a “greater good,” and the desirability of making primates’ lives more “natural” even if this would decrease their well-being. Finally, we propose that because ethnoprimatology is premised on challenging false dichotomies between categories of field site—specifically, between “natural” and “unnatural” free-ranging populations—it makes sense for ethnoprimatologists to examine settings in which humans exert considerable control over primates’ lives, given that the distinction between “wild” and “captive” is similarly unclear.

Ethics of Primate Fieldwork: Toward an Ethically Engaged Primatology

Field primatologists have ethical responsibilities that extend beyond study subjects to the local human communities living near primate populations and their surrounding ecosystems. In this review, we explore the history of ethical discussions within anthropological primatology and examine the best practices for an ethically engaged primatology that should be followed and role-modeled by primatologists. An increasing number of primates are showing reduced population sizes and are in imminent danger of extinction; thus, we need to carefully consider the ethics of intervening to ensure the survival of remaining populations, the impact of anthropogenic factors (e.g., climate change), and whether long-term field research results in conservation outcomes that consider local human communities. Because best practices change over time as theoretical frameworks and methodological tools advance and scientific goals change, field primatologists must continually reflect on what constitutes ethical practice and consider how research influences the overlapping dimensions of fieldwork: primates, people, and ecosystems.

The promise of primatology fulfilled?

In 1972, Sherwood Washburn, one of the forerunners of biological anthropology, gave an invited address during the 4th Congress of the International Primatological Society in Portland, Oregon, in which he expounded his vision for the field of primatology. His address was published the following year in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology and titled: "The promise of primatology." In this centennial commentary, we revisit Washburn's "promise", 45 years on. His address and article discuss the constraints acting on the field, including a positioning of the discipline across different kinds of university departments, and within the social sciences, which he viewed as a mixed blessing. Prescient aspects of Washburn's address include a focus on the need to study communication multimodally, and a hope that the study of mechanisms would become foundational within the field. We discuss new promising aspects of primatology, focusing on technological advances in a number of areas highlighted by Washburn that have ushered in new eras of research, and the increasingly large number of long-term field sites, which see the discipline well-set for new developmental and longitudinal studies. We find much to admire in Washburn's keen foresight, and natural intuition. Washburn hoped that primatology would repudiate the notion that "the social should be studied without reference to the biological." In this regard, we consider much of Washburn's promise fulfilled.

Breaking Through Disciplinary Barriers: Human-Wildlife Interactions and Multispecies Ethnography

One of the main challenges when integrating biological and social perspectives in primatology is overcoming interdisciplinary barriers. Unfamiliarity with subject-specific theory and language, distinct disciplinary-bound approaches to research, and academic boundaries aimed at "preserving the integrity" of subject disciplines can hinder developments in interdisciplinary research. With growing interest in how humans and other primates share landscapes, and recognition of the importance of combining biological and social information to do this effectively, the disparate use of terminology is becoming more evident. To tackle this problem, we dissect the meaning of what the biological sciences term studies in "human-wildlife conflict" or more recently "human-wildlife interactions" and compare it to what anthropology terms "multispecies ethnography." In the biological sciences, human-wildlife interactions are the actions resulting from people and wild animals sharing landscapes and resources, with outcomes ranging from being beneficial or harmful to one or both species. In the social sciences, human-nonhuman relationships have been explored on a philosophical, analytical, and empirical level. Building on previous work, we advocate viewing landscapes through an interdisciplinary "multispecies lens" in which humans are observed as one of multiple organisms that interact with other species to shape and create environments. To illustrate these interconnections we use the case study of coexistence between people of the Nalu ethnic group and Critically Endangered western chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Cantanhez National Park in Guinea-Bissau, to demonstrate how biological and social research approaches can be complementary and can inform conservation initiatives at the human-primate interface. Finally, we discuss how combining perspectives from ethnoprimatology with those from multispecies ethnography can advance the study of ethnoprimatology to aid productive discourse and enhance future interdisciplinary research.

Multidisciplinary studies of wildlife trade in primates: Challenges and priorities

Wildlife trade is increasingly recognized as an unsustainable threat to primate populations and informing its management is a growing focus and application of primatological research. However, management policies based on ecological research alone cannot address complex socioeconomic or cultural contexts as drivers of wildlife trade. Multidisciplinary research is required to understand trade complexity and identify sustainable management strategies. Here, we define multidisciplinary research as research that combines more than one academic discipline, and highlight how the articles in this issue combine methods and approaches to fill key gaps and offer a more comprehensive understanding of underlying drivers of wildlife trade including consumer demand, enforcement patterns, source population status, and accessibility of targeted species. These articles also focus on how these drivers interact at different scales, how trade patterns relate to ethics, and the potential effectiveness of different policy interventions in reducing wildlife trade. We propose priorities for future research on primate trade including expanding from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary research questions and approaches co-created by research teams that integrate across different disciplines such as cultural anthropology, ecology, economics, and public policy. We also discuss challenges that limit the integration of information across disciplines to meet these priorities.

Biosocial Conservation: Integrating Biological and Ethnographic Methods to Study Human-Primate Interactions

Biodiversity conservation is one of the grand challenges facing society. Many people interested in biodiversity conservation have a background in wildlife biology. However, the diverse social, cultural, political, and historical factors that influence the lives of people and wildlife can be investigated fully only by incorporating social science methods, ideally within an interdisciplinary framework. Cultural hierarchies of knowledge and the hegemony of the natural sciences create a barrier to interdisciplinary understandings. Here, we review three different projects that confront this difficulty, integrating biological and ethnographic methods to study conservation problems. The first project involved wildlife foraging on crops around a newly established national park in Gabon. Biological methods revealed the extent of crop loss, the species responsible, and an effect of field isolation, while ethnography revealed institutional and social vulnerability to foraging wildlife. The second project concerned great ape tourism in the Central African Republic. Biological methods revealed that gorilla tourism poses risks to gorillas, while ethnography revealed why people seek close proximity to gorillas. The third project focused on humans and other primates living alongside one another in Morocco. Incorporating shepherds in the coproduction of ecological knowledge about primates built trust and altered attitudes to the primates. These three case studies demonstrate how the integration of biological and social methods can help us to understand the sustainability of human–wildlife interactions, and thus promote coexistence. In each case, an integrated biosocial approach incorporating ethnographic data produced results that would not otherwise have come to light. Research that transcends conventional academic boundaries requires the openness and flexibility to move beyond one’s comfort zone to understand and acknowledge the legitimacy of “other” kinds of knowledge. It is challenging but crucial if we are to address conservation problems effectively.

A classification system for describing anthropogenic influence on nonhuman primate populations

Many nonhuman primates live in proximity to humans, and all studied primate populations are influenced in some ways by human interaction. While the effects of human interference on primate behavior and ecology are an important area of research in contemporary primatology, to date there is no systematic way to report the types or level of anthropogenic influence for a primate study population. In this paper, I introduce a diagnostic classification system that will allow primate field researchers to clearly and consistently report anthropogenic conditions at their study sites. This system provides a way to identify population conditions for four major variables: landscape, human-nonhuman primate interface, diet, and predation risk. The incredible diversity of the Order Primates necessitates a descriptive system that is applicable across a wide range of habitat types, social groupings, and ecological roles, so the proposed classification system has been specifically designed to avoid quantitative ranking. Instead, the system is intended to provide a standardized way to report a wealth of population and site information in a simple format. This will allow for meta-analysis of specific conditions across study sites, leading to a greater understanding of the effects of different forms of anthropogenic influence on primate behavior and ecology.