The Importance of Spiritual Ecology in the Qingyuan Forest Mushroom Co-Cultivation System
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A well written, well structured and cohesive article that requires attention to English in places and major work to the literary review (and possibly discussion). Given that the article addresses
the strong relationship of local people with trees, Shanshen (mountains), Fengshui forests, and Gunshan forests it might be better to restructure the article predicated on the broader category of “spiritual ecology” (Sponsel 2012) rather than the narrow and anomalous term “tree worship”.
The authors have failed to provide an adequate literature review of the anomalous nature of “tree worship” or to describe it in the context of animism, numina or spiritual ecology. Furthermore the authors rely much too heavily on Frazer’s take on “tree worship” and the “Golden Bough” given that it is outmoded, contrived and exogenous (i.e. predicated on armchair anthropology). I was surprised there were no references to the recent literature on Sacred Natural Sites (Verschuuren et al 2010, Verschuuren and Furuta 2016, Studley 2019) or the Spiritual and Cultural Significance of Nature (Verschuuren and Brown 2019).
On the basis of what the authors have written they:-
- Have failed to define “tree worship” or explain the anomalous nature of the term. Among many indigenous people the tree is NOT the object of worship or considered divine (Dafni 2006). Furthermore many animistic ethnic groups do not define their strong association with trees or relationship with tree spirits as “worship” (Yeh and Lama 2015)
- do not critique James Frazer’s armchair classicist approach to anthropology. He never did any field work (Kumar 2016) and may have only visited Greece once (Baird 1992)
- do not critique the “Golden Bough” (See Baird 1992, Coren 2019, Douglas 1978, Kumar 2016, Leach 1961 1965 1985, Smith 1973, Wittgenstein 1993)
- do not recognise that the sacred oak/mistletoe referred to in the Golden Bough might well have been contrived (Baird 1992)
- do not appear to recognise Frazer’s Victorian view of so called “tree worship” was ex situ and predicated on a imperialistic colonial view of “primitive savages” and not from endogenous field work or on the basis of knowledge system parity (Velthuizen 2019)
- Failed to address “tree worship” in the context of animism which is found among many indigenous people including the Tibetans (Samuel 1978) Qiang (Li Xing, Bingqing Yu - 2003), Dai (Zeng 2018) and the Han (Crotty 2005).
- Failed to mention that trees are NOT “worshipped” for themselves (Dafni 2006)
- Failed to mention that the worship of a tree, as in itself divine, does not appear to have prevailed in any age of the world (The Encyclopedia Americana 1920)
- Failed to recognise (from field work) that the Tibetans and the Qiang do not “worship trees/forests/mountains” or the numina that reside in them but honour (bkur) and appease the spirits (Yeh and Lama 2015) as they would a Lord or nobleman. bkur means to honour or attend to.
- Should, given the narrow and anomalous nature of the term “tree worship” consider changing the emphasis to “spiritual ecology” (Sponsel 2012) and “enspirited trees” which “spiritualize the landscape” (Maringira 2019:9) and “enspirited places/landscapes” (Allison 2011 Yu 2015:36) which are a “sphere of nurture” (Ingold 2000 144). The title could be changed to “the importance of spiritual ecology in the Qingyuan Forest Mushroom Co-cultural system……”
- Should recognise that in an international journal and in the postmodern age we live in it is more appropriate to use “chthonic” (Goldsmith 1998) rather than “primitive beliefs” (Line 54) to describe the practices and “knowledge systems” (Banuri and Marglin 1993) of indigenous people.
- Have failed to recognise that the numina that inhabit tree, mountains, forest, mounds and rocks are usually referred to as spirits and NOT gods. Spirits are mundane and this-worldly in contrast to Gods who are usually considered as other-worldly or celestial deities.
Tree Worship
The term “tree worship” is an anomalous term given that more often than not the tree is NOT the object of worship or considered divine (The Encyclopedia Americana 1920) and many ethnic groups do not define their strong association or deep affection (Line 563) with trees as “worship”. African indigenous people, for example, do not “worship” trees but honour/appease the spirits that inhabit them (encyclopedia.com). We have no way of knowing if the ethnic groups referred to in the Golden Bough (Frazer 1993) actually used the term “worship” (or its dynamic equivalent in their language) to describe their strong association with trees/tree spirits. Frazer did not conduct any field research so he or his informers may well have used “tree worship” to describe local practice from an exogenous perspective. I have conducted research in the Sichuan Ethnic corridor off and on since 1999 and the Tibetic and Qiangic speaking people I have interviewed have never used the term “worship” to describe their strong association with trees/tree spirits. In fact they categorically deny “worshipping” trees/forests/mountains or the spirits that inhabit them (Yeh and Lama 2015). They typically honour/attend to (Tib. (Wylie) bkur) and appease (Tib. skong ba) the tree/forest/place spirits (Tib. gzhi bdag) as “other-than-human persons” (Hallowell, 1960: 21) in the same manner as they would Lords or noblemen on the basis of contractual reciprocity (Coggins and Hutchinson 2006). Given the anomalous nature of the term “tree worship” I would suggest that to avoid confusion the authors define the strong association with trees/tree spirits in terms of the broader term spiritual ecology.
Numina
A numen is a 'spirit of place' or genius loci that is present within an object or place (mountain, forest, spring, idol). Numina (the plural of numen) were very common in ancient Rome (Mehta-Jones, 2005), and the same concept continues to be widespread among Indigenous people throughout the world (Tucci 1988, York 2005). They are known as gzhi bdag by the Tibetans and huaca in the Andes
James Frazer
Many accounts of Frazer describe him as the stereotype of the unworldly professor, buried in books and absorbed in the nuances of written accounts (Downie 1970 Beard 1992). He was an armchair anthropologist who never designed or conducted ethnographic fieldwork and only visited Greece once (to visit Nemi). He based his books on the second hand travel logs and field reports of others (including missionaries). He came to anthropology as an established classicist and most of his writing was framed in relation to Greco-Roman or Hebrew religious work (Kumar 2016). Much of his work was based on excessive speculation and assumptions and the fanciful reconstructions of “savage humanity” adding details where necessary to fit his theory (Weimer undated). Frazer, for example, falsely assumes that magic is based on incorrect beliefs about nature rather than meaningful experience and an awakening human spirit which provides meaning and his “spirituality” was akin to that of an English parson with the same ‘stupidity and dullness’ (Wittgenstein 1993). Since his death there has been a shift in anthropology which realized long ago that progress from “savagery to civilization” is a false progress based on an inaccurate premise and nothing matches the greatness of Frazer’s fame so well as the completeness of its eclipse among anthropologists today (Douglas 1978)
The Golden Bough
It has been argued that The Golden Bough is predicated on plagiarism and distortion and consists of little more than a pastiche or bricolage of direct quotations from earlier ethnographic accounts and the re-writing of source material to give the impression that they backed up his more tendentious theories (Leach 1961). Frazer’s account of the Golden Bough/mistletoe appears to be contrived as there is a lack of evidence for equating the sacred branch of Nemi with Virgil’s Golden Bough. The evidence offered by Frazer comes from Servius. In a complicated and allusive passage Servius appears to include the branch of Nemi as one of the four possible identifications of the Virgilian Gold Bough. There is even less foundation for equating either the branch at Nemi or the Virgilian Gold Bough with mistletoe (Beard 1992). The identification of the sacred branch at Nemi with the Golden Bough and the mistletoe appear to be central to the structure of the book and Frazer’s comparative scheme. Frazer wanted to link Nemi with the second part of the book and to Balder the Beautiful who was killed by a shaft of mistletoe plucked from a sacred oak. In order to show a clear and direct link between the myth of a dying king Frazer must show that the branch of Nemi was, like Balder’s mistletoe. There is no other direct link to keep the whole book together (Smith 1973)
Chthonic
Chthonic stems from the word autochthon, meaning “any of the earliest known dwellers in a region; an original inhabitant, an aboriginal” or “a human being living in his or her place of origin” (The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1993). Importantly “Chthonic” was used by ecologist Edward Goldsmith in describing people who live ecological lives by being chthonic, that is, by living in or in close harmony with the earth (Goldsmith 1998).
Animism
Most chthonic people who associate strongly with tree or forest spirits are animists. Animism is the most ancient, geographically widespread and diverse of all belief systems, adhered to today by some 300 million Indigenous people (Sponsel, 2012), and 1.266 billion if Indian Hindus are included (Tiwari, 2002). Contrary to popular belief, Animism is not dying out (Tippett, 1973), and it has not been replaced by secularism, humanism or communism. Indeed, at least 40% of the world’s population are Animists (van Rheenen, 2013), and the growth of Animism is described as a trend of the future (Myers, 1994). The larger animistic groups in China include the Zhuang, Yi, Miao, Dong, Naxi, Bai, Li, Lingao, Buyi, Yao, Tibetans and Mongolians and even the Han have strong currents of animism in their folk practices. Animism is predicated on the assumption that biophysical entities such as mountains, trees, forests and rocks are capable of being inhabited by numina (Sponsel, 2007) which are enspirited by humankind. For an Animist, one aspect of some (but not all) natural resources actually is the deity (that inhabits them) in contrast to other traditions where they only may represent the deity or its divine aspects (Seeland 1993). Enspiriting is predicated on a ritual (and sometimes liturgical) process whereby a spirit or numina is “called down” by humankind and invited to inhabit a biophysical entity (mountain, forest, rock, idol) which takes up permanent residence providing the spirit is honoured and appeased on a regular basis (Studley 2019)
Comments on Text
Line 30 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Gushan and Fengshui Forest and NOT “sacrificing Gushan Forest”
Line 54 Surely its misplaced to use the term “primitive” in the postmodern era (后现代) where there is parity between “knowledge systems” (Banuri and Marglin, 1993 Velthuizen 2019) and one is not privileged over another. A more descriptive term that is less patronising might be “chthonic” (Goldsmith 1998) or alternatively exclude “primitive” altogether.
Line 55 It is more conventional, in an animistic context, to refer to spirits or numina that inhabit trees or forest rather than “god of trees”
Line 56 tree spirits NOT gods
Line 58 What does GIAHS stand for
Line 62 should read behaviour and not behaviours
Line 64 although the works of Frazer might be popular among the general public he is regarded by most academics as outmoded and infamous!
Line 65 the term “tree worship” is an anomalous term as often the tree is not an object of worship and some ethnic groups categorically deny worshipping trees or the spirits that inhabit then. It might be better to re-work your article on the basis of “enspirited trees” (Maringira 2019:9) under the aegis of spiritual ecology and the ecological implications of honouring and appeasing the spirits that inhabit trees.
Line 67 the Golden Bough does not provide a very sound foundation for arguing in favour of “tree worship” given that it is not predicated on endogenous field work and we have no idea if the ethnic groups referred to explained their strong association with trees/tree spirits in terms of “tree worship” or the dynamic equivalent in their language. Furthermore the link between sacred branch of Nemi, the Virgilian Golden Bough and mistletoe lack a firm foundation and appears to be entirely contrived.
Line 73 Using the term a “tree with a soul” is confusing and surely “enspirited tree” is more precise
Line 74 Forests are capable of being enspirited as well as trees and they are inhabited by spirits (rather than gods) who are honoured and appeased by local people
Line 78-80 Having conducted field work in the Sichuan Ethnic Corridor off and on since 1999 I can say with some authority on the basis of 200+ interviews that neither the Tibetans or Qiang engage in “tree worship”. The Tibetans in particular categorically denied worshipping tree/forests/mountains but they honour and appease the tree spirits in the same way as Lords or Noblemen. I can confirm that the people I interviewed are enjoined by the spirits (in addition to taboos) to protect the local flora and fauna, which includes medicinal plants.
Unfortunately I cannot read much Chinese so I can’t comment on the papers by Chen (2005), Ni (1997), Zhong (1998) and Fan (2016)
Line 84 Although I have not conducted field research in Mongolia their animistic beliefs are very similar to the Tibetans and their spirits have similar roles (See Sneath 2006) and although they “worship” (shütekh) the tngri (High Gods) I think you will find they honour (khündetgel) and appease (taivshruulakh) the tree spirits (modny sünsnüüd).
Line 85 Once again you refer to Frazer in the context of China but given his outmoded approach to anthropology should you should reference the work of more recent researchers perhaps at Kunming Institute of Botany (Pei 1993, 1999, 2002, 2007, 2010; Xu Jianchu 2003, 2004, 2005a, 2005b)
Line 89 spirits not gods
Line 93 It is very common to have to secure permission from the spirit who inhabits an enspirited forest prior to removing dead trees or other products (especially in large quantities). If permission is not secured and the spirit is not appeased it can result in some form of retribution (death, illness, crop failure etc)
Line 97 I was able to collect a list of taboos (behaviour that was/was not sanctioned) in enspirited locales (inhabited by a gzhi bdag) in 12 villages in NW Yunnan in 2013. There was 84% familiarity with the taboos. It would have been higher but only 50% of those interviewed were able to provide me with forms of retribution.
Line 103 I found that a mixture of taboos and the enjoinment of the ‘spirit of place’ guided human behaviour in NW Yunnan. The means of communication was via trance mediums, divination, omens, catastrophes, visions, dreams, and theophanies.
Line 132 chthonic rather than primitive
Line 133 “clear logic” is not just the preserve of non-chthonic man – indigenous knowledge systems are also predicated on clear logic
Line 164 I think that “spiritual ecology” is a much more suitable term than “Tree worship” and it covers the honouring/appeasing the spirits of tree, forests and mountains (Shanshen) as well a Fengshui forests, Gunshan forests and obtaining Yinshu.
Line 166/76 You are repeating yourself
Line 173 with reference to “tree worship” see my comments on Line 164
Line 176/77 you are repeating yourself
Line 178 Trees are NOT usually objects of worship (Dafni 2006, The Encyclopedia Americana 1920, Yeh and Lama 2015) but the honouring and appeasement of the spirits that inhabit some trees/forests result in their protection
Line 202 with reference to “tree worship” see my comments on Line 164
Line 216 with reference to “tree worship” see my comments on Line 164
Line 233 How many times did you visit the research area and for how long
Line 236 Is the word immediately necessary or was there a reason why you had to visit the research area immediately?
Line 242 Did the research team include an anthropologist?
Line 255 Were the structured interviews open-ended?
Line 324 with reference to “tree worship” see my comments on Line 164
Line 325 consider “customary rituals of spiritual ecology” as a more comprehensive term
Line 336 consider “biodiversity conservation results from practices of spiritual ecology” as a broader term
Line 341 with reference to “tree worship” see my comments on Line 164
Line 345 Surely you mean grow or cultivate mushrooms rather than “make”
Line 354 It might be better to say that the enhancement of biodiversity and spiritual ecology have a close relationship leading to strong internal constrains….
Line 362 The indigenous people of the Andes are animistic and they honour/appease the spirits which are known as huaca. In the animistic Andes effectively the whole world is ‘alive’ and intimately interrelated. It is through the concept of the huaca that Andean animism is expressed. Features of the landscape are represented by huaca. The huaca denotes a spirit that inhabits an object such as a tree, rock, mountain, hill, river, spring (Insoll 201)
Line 367 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Fengshui Forest?
Line 368 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Gushan Forest?
Line 377 What do you mean by “sacrifice Fengshui Forest”? Do you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit Fengshui forests?
Line 386 with reference to “tree worship” see my comments on Line 164
Line 402 Perhaps you could refer to recent papers by Coggins et al on Fengshui forests, spiritual ecology and nature conservation (Coggins et al 2018, 2019)
Line 460/1 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Fengshui Forest?
Line 469 It makes much more sense to include the honouring/appeasing of the spirits of Gushan and Shanshen under the broader aegis of spiritual ecology – it does not make sense to include the honouring/appeasing of mountains under “tree worship”
Line 473 Please clarify - I assume you mean the honouring and appeasing the mountain spirits rather than “mountain sacrifice”?
Line 495 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Gushan Forest?
Line 500 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Gushan Forest rather than “Sacrificing Gushan Forest”
Line 501/2 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirit of Shanshen?
Line 503 Many indigenous people honour and appease mountain spirits (in this context)
Line 506 Surely you are referring to an inspirited mound inhabited by a numina?
Line 539/40 Surely you mean honouring/appeasing the spirits that inhabit the Gushan and Fengshui Forest?
Line 540-42 This paragraph is not clear – I am not sure what you are trying to say. It makes much more sense to include the honouring/appeasing of trees, Fengshui, Gushan and Shanshen under the broader category of spiritual ecology than “Tree worship”
Line 555 Do you mean thanking the tree spirits?
Line 563 Could the deep affection for trees be described as arborophilia? (Diamond 2011)
Line 569 Hanging objects from enspirited trees is quite common among indigenous people. Perhaps you could refer to other examples. I have come across them in Western Sichuan, Nepal and Scotland. In Scotland (and among Celtic peoples) such trees are referred to as clootie trees (Kynes 2006)
Line 597 Better to use spiritual ecology rather than “tree worship”
Line 602 The honouring/appeasing of spirits of trees/forests/mountains includes a thanking element for the blessing, favour and protection the spirits have provided.
Line 680/1 I would have to question if the “tree worship” customs you refer to have “evolved” into conservation. Many indigenous people (including Tibetans, Pumi, Mosuo and Yi) regard conservation science negatively and of low importance to them (Rowcroft et al 2006). The local people, in your study, have sustainably maintained their customs and traditions for generations which happen to mimic behaviour considered by conservationists as biodiversity enhancement. Their nurture of flora and flora appears to be spirit based (at the enjoinment of the spirits) and not predicated on conservation science or evolution.
References
Coggins, C. and Minor, J. (2018) ‘Fengshui Forests as A Socio-natural Reservoir in the Face of
Climate Change and Environmental Transformation.’ Asia Pacific Perspectives, Vol. 15, no. 2, 4-29.
Coggins, C. Minor, J. Chen, B. Zhang, Y. Tiso, P. Lam, J and Gultekin, C (2019) China's Community Fengshui Forests: Spiritual ecology and nature conservation in Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature in Protected Areas: Governance, Management and Policy ed by Verschuuren, B. and Brown, S. Earthscan/Routledge 225-237
Coggins, C. and Hutchinson, T. (2006) ‘The Political Ecology of Geopiety: Nature Conservation in Tibetan Communities of Northwest Yunnan’. Asian Geographer 25 (1–2), 85–107
Crotty, W (2005) ‘Democratic Development & Political Terrorism: The Global Perspective’. Northeastern University Press
Dafni, A. (2006) ‘On the Typology and the Worship Status of Sacred Trees with a Special Reference to the Middle East’. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 2 (26)
Diamond, J. (2011) Arborophilia: Writings on Trees. Enhancement Books
Douglas, M. (1978) ‘Judgments on James Frazer’. Daedalus 4, 151–164
Downie, A. (1970) Frazer and the Golden Bough. London: Victor Gollancz
Encyclopdia.com (undated) Indigenous Religions [online] available from https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/indigenous-religions
Encyclopedia Americana (1920) Tree Worship [online] available from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Encyclopedia_Americana_(1920)/Tree_Worship
Frazer, S.J. (1993) The Golden Bough. Ware UK: Wordsworth Editions Ltd
Goldsmith, E. (1998) The Way: An Ecological World-View. University of Georgia Press
Hallowell, A.I. (1960) ‘Ojibwa Ontology, Behavior and World View’. in Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin. New York: Columbia . ed. by Diamond, S. New York: Columbia University Press, 1–25
Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge
Insoll, T. (2011) The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion, Oxford University Press
Kumar, V. (2016) ‘To Walk alongside: Myth, Magic and Mind in “The Golden Bough”’. Hau: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6 (2), 233–254
Kynes, S. (2006) Whispers from the Woods: The Lore & Magic of Trees. Llewellyn Publications
Leach, E. (1985) ‘Reflections on a Visit to Nemi’. Anthropology Today 2–3
Leach, E. (1965) ‘On the Founding Fathers’. Encounter 25, 24–36
Leach, E. (1961) ‘Golden Bough or Gilded Twig?’ Daedalus 90, 371–399
Li, X. and Yu, B. (2003) China’s Ethnic Minorities. Foreign Languages Press
Maringira, G. (2019) ‘Soldiers, Sacred Waters, and Landscapes: Zimbabwean Soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo War (1998-2002)’. Journal of Ware and Culture Studies 1–13
Mehta-Jones, S. (2005) Life in Ancient Rome Crabtree Publications
Myers, B. (1994) ‘What’s Going On’. MARC Newslatter 94 (3)
Pei Shengji (2010) ‘The Road to the Future? The Biocultural Values of the Holy Hill Forests of Yunnan Province, China’. in Sacred Natural Sites: Conserving Nature and Culture. ed. by Verschuuren, B., wild, R., McNeely, J., and Oviedo, G. Earthscan, 98–106
Pei Shengji (2007) Indigenous Knowledge of the Mountain People and Conservation of Biodiversity in the Mountain Ecosystems.
Pei Shengji (2002) ‘Bio-Cultural Diversity and Development of Western China’. Journal of The Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences 19 (2), 107–114
Pei Shengji (1999) ‘The Holy Hills of the Dai’. in Cultural & Spiritual Values of Biodiversity. ed. by Posey, D. ed. London: Intermediate Technology Press and United Nations Environment Programme - UNEP, 381
Pei Shengji (1993) ‘Managing for Biological Diversity Conservation in Temple Yards and Holy Hills’. in Ethics Religion & Biodiversity. ed. by Hamilton, L. ed. Cambridge: The White Horse Press, 118–132
Rowcroft, P., Studley, J., and Ward, K. (2006) ‘Eliciting Forest Values for Community Plantations and Nature Conservation’. Forests Trees and Livelihoods 16, 329–358
Samuel, G. (1978) ‘Religion in Tibetan Society - A New Approach: Part Two - A Structural Model’. Kailash 6 (2), 99–114
Seeland, K. (1993) Sanskritisation and Environmental Perception Among Tibeto-Burman Speaking Groups. in Anthropology of Tibet and the Himalaya. ed. by Ramble, C. and Brauen, M. ed. Zurich: University of Zurich, 354–363
Smith, J. (1973) ‘When the Bough Breaks’. History of Religions 12 (4), 342–371
Sneath, D. (2006) ‘Ritual Idioms and Spatial Orders: Comparing The Rites for Mongolian and Tibetan “Local Deities”’. in The Mongolia-Tibet Interface. ed. by Bulag, U. and Diemberger, H. Leiden: Brill, 135–158
Sponsel, L. (2012) Spiritual Ecology: A Quiet Revolution. ABC-CLIO
Sponsel, L. (2007) ‘Animism’. in Encyclopaedia of Environment and Society. ed. by Robbins, P. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 49–50
Studley, J. (2019) Indigenous Sacred Natural Sites and Spiritual Governance: The Legal Case for Juristic Personhood. Routledge
Tippett, A.R. (1973) Aspects of Pacific Ethnohistory. William Carey Library Pub
Tiwari, S.K. (2002) Tribal Roots of Hinduism Sarup & Sons.
Tucci, G. (1988) The Religions of Tibet. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
Velthuizen, A. (2019) African knowledge as a system : towards global parity in knowledge production for democratization, socio-economic growth and human development, Indilinga African Journal of Indigenous Knowledge Systems 18 (2) https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1aaa56f185 (accessed 13/10/21)
Van Rheenen, G. (2013) Communicating Christ in Animistic Contexts. William Carey Library
Verschuuren, B., Wild, R., McNeely, J., and Oviedo, G. (eds.) (2010) Sacred Natural Sites- Conserving Nature and Culture. London: Earthscan/Routledge.
Verschuuren, B. and Furuta, N. (eds) (2016) Asian Sacred Natural Sites: Philosophy and Practice in Protected Areas and Conservation Earthscan/Routledge.
Verschuuren, B. and Brown, S. (eds.) (2019) Cultural and Spiritual Significance of Nature in Protected Areas: Governance, Management and Policy. Earthscan/Routledge
Weimer, C. (undated) Is The Golden Bough Still Relevant Today? [online] available from https://mythology.stackexchange.com/questions/998/is-the-golden-bough-still-relevant-today#:~:text=Generally%20speaking%2C%20Frazer's%20work%2C%20including,the%20facts%20that%20it%20reports.
Wittgenstein, L. (1993) ‘Remarks on Frazer’s Golden Bough’. in Philosophical Occasions 1912-1951. ed. by Klagge, J. and Nordmann, A. Hackett, 118–155
Xu, J., Ma, E., Tashi, D., Fu, Y., Lu, Z., and Melick, D. (2005a) ‘Integrating Sacred Knowledge for Conservation: Cultures and Landscapes in Southwest China’. Ecology and Society 10 (2)
Xu Jianchu (2005b) Who Drives Conservation in China? A Case Study in Protected Areas in Yunnan, Southwest China. Forest Trends
Xu Jianchu, Ma Erzi, Tashi Duojie, Fu Yongshou, Lu Zhi, and Melick, D. (2004) Integrating Sacred Knowledge for Conservation: Cultures and Landscapes in SW China. in ‘Bridging Scales and Epistemologies: Linking Local Knowledge and Global Science in Multi-Scale Assess’. held 2004
Xu Jianchu, S., M. (2003) Moving the Periphery to the Centre: Indigenous People, Culture and Knowledge in a Changing Yunnan. ed. by M. Kaosaard, M. and Dore, J. Bangkok: White Lotus, 123–145
Yeh, E and Kunga Lama (2015) Shielding the Mountains: Study Guide. available from http://tibetsacredmountain.org/wp-content/uploads/doc/StudyGuide.pdf
York, M. (2005) Pagan Theology: Paganism as a World Religion, NYU Press
Yü, D.S. (2015) ‘Mindscaping the Landscape of Tibet’ in Place, Memorability, Ecoaesthetics vol. 60. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Zeng, L. (2018) Transformations of Indigenous Identity and Changing Meanings of Sacred Nature in Xishuangbanna, China. PhD Thesis. Yale
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of the article is indeed fascinating, and to say truth I am happy to see that the manuscript of such a topic is going to be published. The article is timely and the authors are well acquainted with the discussions about the topic they have chosen. The used material and examples are insightfully selected and most of the conclusions are interested and are based on the analysis.
However there are some shortcomings and the lacks in the article.
First of all, the disadvantage is that links are only given to Chinese sources describing the Chinese situation. If the article claims to have international academic value when conclusions can be applied not only to Chinese situation, then examples are needed when folk traditions would support national parks in other countries. But if only the Chinese trend is described, and this does not exist in other countries, then this needs a special reservation. In this case, the wording is very general, and from the text we can conclude that the authors admit extrapolation of their conclusions to the worldwide situation, and not only to the Chinese one.
It seems to me that in the introduction it is worth disclosing the concept of worship, since, most likely, this concept is understood differently in different studies.
The goal / hypothesis (s) is not indicated, although it can be understood from the paragraph on scientific novelty:
(121–126) …The academic innovation of this study lies in the fact that through the field investigation and in-depth study of the tree worship practices in Qingyuan, the authors reveal the multiple functions of the tree worship practices inherited from ancient times in the forest-mushroom co-culture heritage system for ecological nourishment and sustainable development, as well as their important ecological value and historical reference significance in contemporary times.
Besides, the authors in this paragraph talk about ecological nourishment and sustainable development, but in the work there are no references at all to the literature on approaches to sustainable development of forest areas, scientifically based methods of forest conservation and restoration, there is no correlation of these methods with the folk traditions of China, although here common features can be found. For example, the authors write about the forest-mushroom co-culture system a following information:
(675–678) Third, when mushroom farmers cut trees, they strictly adhere to the technical principles of “cutting the old and leaving the new, cutting the dense and leaving the sparse, performing intermediate cutting, and changing the site,” thus reflecting the superior ecological wisdom of harmonious coexistence between man and nature.
Arguments in favor of selective felling could be made here. It seems that in general, there is a lack of references to documents and literature on forest conservation - at least to documents from the United Nations, Council of Europe, Forest Europe (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe) on biodiversity conservation, species habitats, climate as examples of recognized approaches.
Moreover, it is obvious that China may have its own declared goals for forest conservation and proposed methods. If so, then Chinese traditional beliefs can help achieve these goals. This is an important context, especially given the recent UN summit in Glasgow, where Chinese President Xi Jinping sent his appeal, but did not personally come.
There is only one reference in the methodology section (332). This seems not sufficient enough. When describing the method of investigation (251–287), there are not enough: 1) references to authoritative works on field methods and /or 2) references to works on similar topics, where exactly such a stack of methods is successfully used - which researchers are the authors of? There is a literature review on the topic of tree worship in China (76–93) - if the authors rely on these developments, do they use the same methods or different ones?
(376, section 3.1) It seems to me that it would be worth giving a brief introductory information about what primeval forests are, because earlier in the text it was not written about this anywhere, but now we are talking directly about this type of forests. The fact is that primeval forests can be understood as different (depending on the legislation of the country). What are the criteria for the intactness of forests in China?
(377) How do primeval forests and Feng Shui forests correlate? Probably, One can admit that Feng Shui forests are always the most old forests. I am sorry if I mistake – for me as a reader it is not clear. One can find the first description of Feng Shui forests only on lines 405–407 and this description concerns only its location. I suppose it would be better if the concept of Feng Shui forests determined and described at the beginning of the section.
Section 3.2 (Ecological Connotation of Tree Worship on Sustainable Use of Economic Timber Forests) in the first paragraph (460–467) refers to the Gushan forest:
(461–462) …The Fengshui forest is to keep the forest in its original state, while the Gushan forest is an economic forest for picking and growing mushrooms.
It turns out that Gushan is not an economic timber forest. Why then the section 3.2 is called “Ecological Connotation of Tree Worship on Sustainable Use of Economic Timber Fore”, but does it talk about all economic forests, not just timber? Even if the territory of Gushan is cleared for growing mushrooms, this still does not allow us to consider it a timber forest. In timber forests, trees are planted and attempts are made to grow them as quickly as possible. And here the territory is valuable after clearing, if I understand correctly. At least Gushan is not directly referred to as a timber forest.
It is not clear how ‘taking a name’ relates to tree worship in this passage:
(544–549) In the traditional practice of Chinese early childhood care, there is a child-rearing ritual called “taking a name”[32]. The practice is that after the birth of a child, the child is taken to a temple and worship a monk or nun as a teacher in order to grow up healthily, but the child is not ordained as a monk or nun. In Qingyuan, however, “taking a name” for a child is not to worship the monks and nuns but to “acknowledge Shuniang.” This is an extension of the custom of “taking a name,” a folkloric expression of tree worship.
The authors conclude: (637-638) “… the belief in tree worship in Qingyuan has contributed positively to the maintenance of the sustainability of the heritage system.” But the article did not reveal how positively tree worship has influenced the conservation of forests. It is redundant to prove, that if there is tree worship, then there must be trees and therefore they are trying to preserve them. As I see it, it is necessary to include in the article: 1) a description of the symbolic value of the rituals - in more detail about how forests are perceived (through the prism of some religious methodology, because other religions also have sacred groves); 2) excerpts from interviews showing the attitude of local residents and tourists to the territory (including the everyday aspects of life near Feng Shui forests, how it affects economic activities, what restrictions do those living in those places face - the article mentioned only three rules (422-436)); 3) Cases in which tree worship played a positive role, and led to the adoption of important environmental decisions (if any).
Section 5 “Conclusions and Insights” should be renamed to “Conclusion”, because there is a general conclusion, or the authors need to write in more detail what the authors mean by the word “insights”.
Indeed it is a very nice and rare topic which is discussed in the manuscript I hope to see this remarkable manuscript have been published in the journal. A lot of thanks to the authors for this article.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper about the ritual role of trees and foests in a region in China is very interesting and describes a unique local interaction of people and trees. However the paper is writing with a convoluted style, often using unclear expressions (like “for thousands of years”) without exact sources. Thus the paper should undergo a major revision.
The main problem with the paper is that results and discussion are mixed up. The results should only describe the results of the authors without quoting bibliography. They should just write what THEY observed. Only in discussion (and intro) they should use cited literature.
There is no data on the number of interviews carried out, gender or age of the interviewees.
There is no information what ethnic group are the villagers.
I think the following important works should be cited:
De Cleene, M. and Lejeune, M.C., 2003. Compendium of symbolic and ritual plants in Europe, vol 1 (trees and shrubs), vol 2 (herbs). Ghent: Mens & Cultuur Uitgevers.
Dafni, A., 2007. Rituals, ceremonies and customs related to sacred trees with a special reference to the Middle East. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 3(1), pp.1-15.
Dafni also wrote more works in tree worship in SW Asia – maybe this could be a good material for comparisons with Chine
I would also mention Buddhist temples as places for the protection of old trees (e.g. that is why Gingko trees survived up to nowadays.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Spiritual Ecology
Much improved on the basis of its conceptual underpinning. Some work still required “polishing” the English.
Comment on Text
Line 17 – It might be better to say “The ecological value is encapsulated in the term spiritual ecology....”
Line 20 – I think you mean “from different studies”
Line 22 – I think chthonic or indigenous people might be better. Although “chthonic” and “autochthonous” are semantically related the latter is often used to describe people who are locally dominant but fear future marginalisation and has other negative connotations (See Gausset et al 2011). To make things cleared you should probably use “chthonic” and reference (Goldsmith 1998)
Line 23 – better to write “made this the global birthplace....” rather than “in the world”
Line 30 – better to write “to reveal the function spiritual ecology plays in ecological conservation, forest protection, identity, and the maintenance of community interests”
Line 33 – better to write “is still being propagated resulting in expansion and social cohesion”
Line 40 – “Ecological resources.... disappearing” - Source needed
Line 68 – better to write “chthonic beliefs”
Line 69 – better to write “They believe that tree spirits have the power...”
Line 76 – I think you mean “maintains their established lifestyle”
Line 82 – I think you mean “over a long period of time”
Line 83 – I think you mean a panel “for” the study...
Line 103 – I think you mean “of the Hebrews”
Line 106 – Leach uses the following to describe the people that Frazer writes about – “The behaviour he describes are represented as totally irrational” and as “’survivals’ from an age of brutal and childish absurdity”
Line 110 – I think you mean “and as a result his name.....”
Lines 110-115 – This sentence is much too long – consider breaking it up into 4 sentences
Line 126 – I think you mean “trees”
Line 127 I think you mean “have” and “are” (not had and were)
Line 129 Why don’t you consider using “enspirited forest” in place of “spiritual forests”
Line 133 I think you mean “had led to the formation”
Line 134 Do you need to include “folk beliefs”
Line 136 Do you need to include “folklore”
Line 151 Do you mean “from different countries”
Line 152 Would it be better to write “is predicated on the multi-faceted, multi-level dimensions of spiritual ecology”, which provides.....
Line 157 Why don’t you link the Qingyuan forest people with spiritual ecology by saying “for the Qingyuan forest people spiritual ecology implies......”
Line 163-168 – Long sentence – break it up into several sentences
Line 174 – “chthonic belief” would be better
Line 175 “the” is not required
Line 196 Do you mean “native” woody plants
Line 245 Would it be better to say “predicated on spiritual ecology”
Line 281 – I think in this context it might be better to say “indigenous Han nationality”
Line 352 – I think it might be better to say “indigenous elderly people”
Line 367 – Is “the folklore” necessary?
Line 404 Do you need to include “folklore”?
Line 407 Do you mean “elicited”?
Line 406-412 – long sentence – consider breaking it up
Line 414 – Although not incorrect it is somewhat dated to use the term “folklore” for addressing spiritual ecology. On the basis of current scholarship (since the mid 1980’s) it is much more common to use “indigenous knowledge”, “indigenous knowledge systems”, “traditional ecological knowledge”, or “indigenous ecological knowledge” (See Berkes 1998, CIAD 1994)
Line 420 Do you mean “in the autumn”
Line 429 Do you mean “is shared”
Line 438 Do you mean “prayer”
Line 440 Do you mean “have included”
Line 444 Do you mean “the selection of.....”
Line 457 It might be better to say “have their headwaters” .....
Line 459 Could you clarify “awe and comfort spirit”
Line 469 “has” is not required
Line 541 Do you mean “appeasing the Gushan spirit”?
Line 545 What do you mean by ethical groups? Don’t you mean that pacifying mountain spirits in the context of “enspirited mountains” (Arhem & Sprenger 2016, Janowski 2016;200) or sacred mountains (i.e. shenshan) is universal (Bernbaum 1995). It’s important to differentiate because not all sacred mountains are enspirited.
Line 546 Would it be better to write “mountain spirits are sometimes represented by or inhabit an ancient tree, rock or cairn” (Enspirited cairns on mountain passes are very common in Tibet and Mongolia - in Tibetan they are known as lhatse and in Mongolian they are known as obo)
Line 559 – I think “chthonic belief” would be better
Line 565 – Could you use another expression rather than “mysterious nature”
Line 577 Would it be better to write “The spiritual ecology that is exemplified in Qingyuan also includes the custom.....”
Line 623 Consider writing “A villager honouring/appeasing the Yinshu spirit inhabiting the tree in order to obtain Yinshu”
Line 627 Why not say “there are many ways of favouring the spirits”
Line 629 What are temper fairs?
Line 633 Don’t you mean “have” to cross
Line 634 What are “corridor bridges”?
Line 637 why not say “for favouring the Yinshu spirits”
Line 640 “custom” is not required
Line 643 “not been” is not required
Line 645 “custom” is not required
Line 649 It might be better to say “The example of Qingyuan’s spiritual ecology may help....”
Line 652 I think you mean “in which”
Line 654 I think you need to add “resulting in” salinization and desertification
Line 661 I think you mean “and weave....”
Line 667 The Daizu still do believe in the concept of animism
Line 677 I think you mean “paying”
Line 682 I think you mean “largest”
Line 685 I think you mean “customary”
Line 704 - Although you mention transcending “the stage of folk beliefs” you might want to go a bit further. In the post-modern era anthropologists (following Latour 1991) recognise equitable “globes of knowledge” (Sillitoe 2006) rather than evolutionary stages (from animism through to organised religion or science). In other words science and animism are on an equal footing (as globes of knowledge) and we need to look for synergy between the two (the enhancement of biodiversity is a good example). There is recognition that animism is predicated on “relational epistemologies” rather than a failure of chthonic reasoning (Bird-David 1999) and that animists do not see themselves as separate from their environment (Ingold 2000)
I am not sure if the “age of ignorance” applies given that it stems from Arabic cultures prior to Islam.
Line 737 What do you mean by “built ecology”?
Line 739 Is this a quote? If so what is its source
Line Do you mean “are obtained from local sources”
Line 772-775 - The whole purpose of mentioning Maringira (2019:9) was to refer you to the concept of “enspirited trees” that “spiritualize the entire landscape”. In the DRC if Zambian soldiers were to cut down enspirited trees this would enrage the spirits who would deploy huge snakes who would attack the soldiers. I do think that “enspirited trees” (or forests or mountains) is the most apposite term to use in the context of your paper where trees are inhabited with spirits.
Line 776 Would it be better to say “one important aspect of the spiritual ecology of Bhutan is characterised by the way in which indigenous people contribute knowledge”
Line 794 Do you mean the spirit who inhabits the sacred mountain is considered to be the political leader?
Line 807 I am not sure that spiritual ecology began as some sort of “spiritual solace” given that animistic beliefs are predicated on “relational epistemologies” (Bird-David 1999)
Line 823 do you mean “has gone”
Line 831 do you mean “by the spiritual ecology”
References
Arhem, K. and Sprenger, G. (2016) Animism in Southeast Asia, Routledge.
Berkes, F. (1998) ‘Indigenous Knowledge and Resource Management Systems in the Canadian Subarctic’. in Linking Social & Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. ed. by Berkes, F., Folke, C., and Colding, J. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 98–128
Bernbaum, E. (1998) Sacred Mountains of the World. University of California Press
Bird-David, N. (1999) ‘“Animism” Revisited: Personhood, Environment, and Relational Epistemology 1’. Current Anthropology 40 (S1), S67–S91
CIAD (1994) Indigenous Knowledge Systems and Rural Development in China. in ‘Proceedings of the Workshop April 18th to 29th 1994’. held 1994. Center for Integrated Agricultural Development
Gausset, Q., Kenrick, J., and Gibb, R. (2011) ‘Indigeneity and Autochthony: A Couple of False Twins?’ Social Anthropology 19 (2), 13–142
Goldsmith, E. (1998) The Way: An Ecological World-View. University of Georgia Press
Ingold, T. (2000) The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London: Routledge
Janowski, M. (2016) ‘The Dynamics of the Cosmic Conversation: Beliefs about Spirits among the Kelabit and Penan of the Upper Baram River, Sarawak’. in Animism in Southeast Asia. ed. by Arhem, K. and Sprenger, G. Routledge, 181–204
Latour, B. (1991) We Have Never Been Modern. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester
Maringira, G. (2019) ‘Soldiers, Sacred Waters, and Landscapes: Zimbabwean Soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo War (1998-2002)’. Journal of Ware and Culture Studies 1–13
Sillitoe, P. (2006) ‘Introduction: Indigenous Knowledge in Development’. Anthropology in Action 13 (3), 1–12
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has been sufficiantly improved. I think it can be accpeted in present form.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for acknowledgment of the revised manuscript and providing helpful suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is very interesting and improved a lot but still needs some work.
- Please quote De Cleene and Lejeune Compendium of Symbolic and Ritual Plants in Europe – it is a major work and should be acknowledged. It also contains thousands of examples of tree worship – worth actually reading before submitting the revised version.
- Line 92: I propose deleting this sentence: But he has won praises and suffered criticisms at the same 92 time from the beginning.
- Please make sure there are spaces before [ sign.
- “Tree-niang: is it an English word or Chinese?, explain better
- ginkgo biloba write Ginkgo biloba or just gingko
- illogical: Many ethnical 544 groups around the world have the custom of venerating and pacifying Shanshen spirits as Shanshen is a Chinese term? so why world
- For me a bit premature statement, delete: The above examples all show that spiritual ecology is universal in the world. In China, 780 all ethnic groups, including the Han nationality, which accounts for the majority of the 781 population, also inherit spiritual ecological beliefs and customs.
- Maybe the authors should mention Marvin Harris and his cultural materialism – trying to explain some rituals phenomena from materialistic and ecological perspective?
- “These old trees alongside the 587 villages are deeply rooted in the soil and covered with thick shade, with lush branches 588 and leaves, showing vigorous vitality.” Can you list species of these trees? In general in the work there is little mention of actually what species of trees are worshipped? Maybe maps of these trees?
- Please go through the text and look for too general statements. If you make general statements give plenty of example.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The reference
Austin, Daniel F. Compendium of Symbolic and Ritual Plants in Europe. Economic Botany, 58(1) : 121. /Marcel de Cleene and 950 Marie C. Lejeune: An outline of symbolic and ceremonial plants in the European Union. Vol. 1 (Trees and Shrubs), p. 885; 951 Vol.2 (Herbs).2002. Man & Culture, Ghent, Belgium.
is a reference to the review of the book by De Cleene
it should rather be cited as
De Cleene M and Lejeunese MC. Compendium of Symbolic and Ritual Plants in Europe. Man & Culture, Ghent, Belgium. 2002
Author Response
We have revised and updated the reference accordingly. Thank you！
