Johnson University

On the Hupdah

An Ethnographic Survey

Matthew J. Morhart

ANTH 3203 Practical Anthropology

Dr. Linda Whitmer

May 5, 2020
2

Introduction

The Hupdah1 are a semi-nomadic people group that have captured and maintained my personal

interest since first learning about them in 2017. Although I didn’t think I would ever have the

opportunity to visit a Hupdah village—as getting there involves multiple flights and a 10-hour

hike through the Amazon jungle—this dream became reality in the spring of 2018. Several

fellow team members and I were able to visit two of the three Hupdah villages in Colombia, and

although our interaction with them was limited, it intensified our interest to learn more about

them and to begin the long journey of seeking to work among the Hupdah in the San Joachin and

Santa Catalina communities.

I was also able to travel to São Gabriel da Cachoeira, Brazil, to meet with Marcelo and

Claudinha Carvalho who have worked with the Hupdah since 2004. The Carvalhos are linguists

and anthropologists serving with WEC International and have developed multiple resources in

Hupdah. Marcelo also introduced me to the doctoral thesis of Patience Epps, and other resources

as well (including his own works highlighting Hupdah culture).

Following these visits and information gathering, I spent time writing a phonological overview

of the Hupdah language for my phonology class at the Summer Institute of Linguistics in the

summer of 2018. It is due to this personal interest and background that I have chosen to write

this ethnographic survey, highlighting the geographical, historical, and cultural contexts of the

Hupdah people.

Geographical Context
1
As with many minority groups with limited exposure, there are many spelling variants for this
group: Hupdë, Hup, Hupda, Hupdé, Jupde, Ubdé, Hupdʉ, Húpd’äh, Hupd’äh, and Hupdah. As
different designations are used by different writers addressing this topic, I have chosen to use the
autonym “Hupdah” consistently throughout this document for clarity and ease of reading.
3

The Hupdah people are located in the Amazon basin on the border of Brazil and Colombia

(Epps, Grammatical 551). Approximately 2,220 Hupdah live in 35 indigenous communities in

Brazil (Marcelo Carvalho, personal communication, April 22, 2018), and approximately 200

(Simons & Fennig, 2018) live in 3 indigenous communities in Colombia (Emilio Tamayo,

personal communication, March 19, 2018). These population numbers are higher than the 1,500

listed by Ethnologue (Simons & Fennig, 2018), but are more current figures based on recent

interaction. The communities on the Brazil side are located in the Amazonas department, within

the Amazon Basin, along the Colombia-Brazil border in a 3,300 square mile area between three

rivers with the Tiquié River to the south,

the Papurí River to the north, and the

Vaupés River to the east (Epps, A

Grammar 1) (Map 1). In Colombia, the

communities are located in the Vaupés

department and are also between the

Tiquié and Papurí rivers.

Hupdah communities are isolated

(Ramirez, 7), small in size (between 15-

50 people [Ramirez, 12]), and are normally located in the interfluvial areas—from which comes

the denomination “Forest People”—as opposed to along the main rivers (Tiquié, Papurí, and

Vaupés) where the “River Indians” maintain their settlements (Epps and Bolaños, 4). This whole

region is covered in humid, tropical rain forest that is mostly flat and is covered in a vast network

of streams of all sizes that terminate in one of the three main rivers previously mentioned (Reid,

13).
4

Historical Context

There are 2 hypotheses concerning how the Amazon basin was originally colonized by

indigenous peoples. The first posits that these “mobile hunting tribes” are remnants of “archaic

hunter-gatherers” who were the first people to inhabit the Amazon. The other theory proposes

that these semi-nomadic groups are “devolved” members of other cultures that initially colonized

the flood-plain of the Amazon (it is suggested that these groups are “emigrants” from the

growing populations of the river tribes) (Reid, 18-19).

Reid argues that the first is more likely since there are clearly two distinct groups of Indians in

the North-West Amazon culture: the “Makú,” consisting of: Hupdah, Yuhup, Dâw, and Kakua

[Epps and Bolaños, 4]), and the “River Indians,” from East Tukanoan and Arawakan tribes (Epps

and Bolaños, 470). Reid highlights cultural, linguistic, and physical differences as proofs that

even if they originated from the same location, the emigrations must have happened at different

times (Reid, 20). This is also supported by the verbal histories of both the River Indians and the

Forest Indians. The Hupdah say they came from the East by foot through the jungle, and were

the first to inhabit the area, while the River Indians claim to have come from the mouth of the

Río Negro by canoe (Reid, 21).

The history of Amazonian indigenous peoples has been punctuated by “invasions” from “the

outside.” The rubber hunters, exotic skin hunters/traders, foresters, narco-traffickers, miners, and

guerillas had no interest in the indigenous people upon contact (except to occasionally enslave

them for their particular industry), but these encounters seemingly always put the indigenous

people at risk (Franco, 75) and the indigenous people often fled from these violent invasions

(Caycedo, 473). Encounters with these profiteers began in early 1900’s and some of these groups

continue to invade these cultures to this day (Franco, 77). These encounters help to explain, in
5

part, the prolonged “distant and frightened” reception that people like Reid met with when

seeking to engage the Hupdah (Reid, 7).

In regards to the Hupdah specifically, although missionary work began in the Amazon basin as

early as the 1940’s (Franco, 83), Reid states that up until 1974, the only “intrusions” into the

Hupdah communities on the Brazil side had been perpetrated by the Salesian missionaries

(initiated in 1914 [Pozzobon, 1999]), but that in 1974, the Brazilian indigenous protection

agency, FUNAI, became interested and involved with the Hupdah as well (Reid, 5).

Historically, contact with the Hupdah people has been extremely limited—so limited in fact that

in 1975, there was purportedly only 1 Hupdah man who was fluent in Portuguese (Reid, 12) and

even in this age of globalization, it is estimated that only 20% of all the Forest Peoples speak the

national language (Pozzobon, 1999). Also, the majority of the contact with the Forest Peoples

has been initiated and maintained via the River People (who have had direct contact with them

for many years) and consequently, much of the early understanding of the Hupdah was distorted

by the negative perceptions, perspectives, and opinions about them on the part of the River

peoples (Epps and Bolaños, 4-5).

Cultural Context

Culture Type

Drawing from the economic-based “three-cultures model” posited by Dye (Kraft, 43), which

features: dependent, face-to-face kinship culture, the intra-dependent peasant culture, and the

inter-dependent industrial culture, Shaw adds a fourth category (post-industrial) (296), and

instead of clearly identifying a culture as one type or another, plots the culture type on an

interactive space diagram (Shaw, 292). In analyzing the Hupdah culture in light of the criterion

Figure 1
6

provided by Shaw (294-295), we see that while the Hupdah predominately display kinship type

features in all domains (Economy, Ideology, Social Relationships, and Political Organization),

their close, dependent ties to the River Indians also cause them to display peasant features in the

following: Dominant institution (lord-servant), Economic base (crafts), Economy (sell part,

eat part, some goods for trade, dependent on nature and elite), and Social Relationships (parent-

child, patron-worker). Due to the fact that these factors are relatively few, and in many cases not

the dominant aspect of their culture, using Shaw’s interactive space diagram, we would plot the

Hupdah culture as strongly kinship with a few peasant traits as shown by the dot in Figure 1.

Cultural Subsystems

In his treatise, “Culture as a system with subsystems,” David Clarke identifies the five following

subsystems: Social, Religious, Psychological, Economic, and Material Culture (45). However, in

his book, “Anthropology for Christian Witness,” Charles H. Kraft lists five possible subsystems

of cultural as: Social, Communication, Religion, Economics, and Technology, and posits that

there could be additional subsystems as well (Kraft, 122). In this ethnographic survey, we will

use the five subsystems identified by Kraft to provide a basic summary of the cultural context of

the Hupdah.

Although it is helpful to analyze each of these subsystems separately, it’s important to keep in

mind that these systems are interrelated and that change within one subsystem necessarily affects

change within the other systems as well. No one subsystem is an isolated phenomenon (Kraft,

165). An example of this in the Hupdah culture would be how the economic change of

government aid, in the form of food stipends for education, has enticed the Hupdah to a more

“settled” approach to life (technology) and subjugates their children to the “Western” system of

education as opposed to their traditional educational approach.

7

Social Subsystem

The social subsystem of the Hupdah can be divided into two parts—their relationships with

“outsiders” (i.e. whites, River Indians, etc.) and their “inside” relationships. Traditionally, their

relationships with outsiders has been fraught with tension, conflict, and imposed change—

whether relation to rubber farmers, the Salesian missionaries, or the FUNAI (Reid, 315-322).

However, in spite of these complex relationships of forced servitude, debt slavery, and

indentureship, the Hupdah choose to maintain a high level of contact with these “outsiders” for

economic reasons (Reid, 74-75).

Reid defines the “inside” culture of the Hupdah to be characterized by “a distinctive form of

social organization, characterized by bilateral residential

composition, a high level of movement between social

groups, a highly egalitarian political system, and an almost

conscious rejection of binding, sanctioned rules and

principles of marriage, descent or ownership” (325). A

analysis of the “inside” culture of the Hupdah can be made

through a series of concentric circles as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 shows the “inside” Hupdah culture to be broken into 3 main groups—among whom

Reid states that most of the significant social interaction takes place (108). Various aspects of

these “groups” will be examined in the following subpoints which explore specific aspects of

Hupdah culture, nevertheless, a simple definition of these groups is in order:

 Hearth group—This group is composed of the nuclear family where each member shares

all of their property, food, knowledge, and fortune (Reid, 106). Each Hupdah is
8

profoundly committed to the hearth group while commitment to the local group is

voluntary (Reid, 107).

 Local group—Is composed of 1-8 hearth groups (Reid, 106) and entails the local

community where hunting, eating, and life occur (traditionally communally [Reid, 36-

39], but more “settled” now [Epps, A Grammar 52]).

 Regional group—These groups consist of a cluster of nearby villages (approx. 260 people

and 10 villages) among whom all the adult members know each other by name

(Pozzobon, 1999), and is the level where “extensive visiting, ceremonial activities,

marriages, and residential moves” take place. Although disadvantages exist (overhunting,

etc.), the Hupdah consider the geographical proximity to “greatly enrich their social

lives” (Reid, 107-108).

Family

Due to the communal nature of all Hupdah “insider” relationships, a sense of family extends to

all Hupdah within one’s regional group. However, the very term “hearth group” comes from the

way in which the nuclear Hupdah family organize their hammocks in a triangle around a central

hearth (Pozzobon, 1999). In Hupdah, this “hearth group” is called “Hup Kakaa,” which refers to

the person’s “correct center” (Reid, 106). This hearth group (or nuclear family) is composed of a

husband, a wife, any unmarried children (or newly married ones without children), and possibly

close relatives such as a widowed parent or unmarried adult (Pozzobon, 1999).

Each hearth group is “nominally headed by the father/husband,” but characteristic of their

egalitarian society, each member has a voice in deciding where to move next, what and where to

hunt, etc. (Reid, 106). It’s also interesting to note that within certain domains, like when the
9

hearth group goes on an extended hunting trip together, or when organizing a collective meal, the

women contribute more to the decision making (Reid, 72).

Marriage

In the Hupdah culture, marriage is not celebrated or entered into by a formal ceremony, rather it

is often consummated when a young woman becomes pregnant (Reid, 155). This union is then

“formalized” by the man hanging his hammock by the woman’s around the hearth of her hearth

group, where they remain until the birth of their first child, after which, they form their own

hearth (Reid, 106). Hupdah marriages are normally stable, and most marriages survive until the

death of a spouse (Reid, 160).

Although the majority of indigenous groups around the Hupdah practice marriage along

exogamic lines (based on patrilineal descent), the Hupdah tend to marry within their own

regional group (Reid, 101), and as such, are viewed by other indigenous groups as having

“incestuous” marriage practices (Epps and Bolaños, 4). In addition to marrying within the

regional group, the Hupdah observe a fairly strict pattern of clan exogamy where it’s considered

ideal to marry cross-cousins as parallel-cousin marriage is along clan lines and is prohibited

since it is viewed as incest (Epps, A Grammar 22).

Kinship

Hupdah kinship terminology distinguishes 5 generations (+2 to -2) and these terms mainly

identify individuals according to their generation and sex at all generational levels, but also

between affines and agnates from the +1 to -1 levels as well (Reid, 394). Although clan lineage

is determined patrilineally (Epps, A Grammar 20), equal respect and consideration is given to the
10

+2 generation, not just in terminology, but also in regard to elder care, as Reid’s study shows that

both matrilineal and patrilineal elders were equally cared for by their offspring (396-397).

Education

Traditionally, the Hupdah did not utilize or value Western education. Rather, children were

under the constant supervision of their mothers for roughly the first 3 years of their life (Reid,

143-145). Then, from the ages of 4-9 they were taken care of by the elderly (and began providing

services for them) (Reid, 145). At this point, having acquired the basic skills of “using a

machete, fishing rod, bow and arrow, swimming, basket making, and manioc processing” via

play, and trial and error, the parents begin taking an active role in their children’s education—the

fathers begin taking the boys on hunting trips, and the daughters spend more time with their

mothers in the garden, and in learning to process manioc (Reid, 145-148). Religious and

ritualistic education also began during this period of adolescence as youths are encouraged to

practice playing pan-pipes and to dance, and are taught to do so properly during formal rituals by

mature men in the tribe (where they also receive their education in Hupdah mythology as well)

(Reid, 150, 152).

Although the Salesian missionaries introduced mission schools in the 1960’s, in the year 1976,

only 8 Hupdah children had spent more than a year in a mission school and only 3 of them spoke

intelligible Portuguese (Reid, 292). However, in the following years, as different Hupdah began

to embrace Western education, this inevitably resulted in an increasing abandonment of

traditional ways of life, separating children from their parents, and Western indoctrination (Reid,

317). This trend has increased in the intervening years and has seen the establishing of

government schools in many Hupdah communities (Epps, A Grammar 22) which has in part,
11

been due to the shift in constitutional law and the public view of indigenous rights in the last 30

years (Curriao, 174).

In spite of the effects of modernization and globalization in the Hupdah world, and in spite of the

existence of Western forms of education within their communities, the Hupdah still hold to

traditional egalitarian values in regards to their attitudes towards modern education. Going to

school is left to the volition of the child (Carvalho, 15) and the parents will leave their children in

the care of a few women and the “national” catechist as they go on one of their traditional long

hunts (Jordan Keefe, personal communication, October 10, 2017). However, with the burden of

education being shifted to “outsiders,” cultural loss and changes are to be expected (Reid, 320-

321) and are being seen in the way some of the young people view certain aspects of their

traditional life—like living “in the middle of the jungle,” hunting with blowpipes instead of guns,

etc.—as being “primitive” (Epps, A Grammar 55).

Social Control

Due to their egalitarian culture, Hupdah society not only has fewer rules and taboos in

comparison to surrounding indigenous tribes, but there is also less pressure to observe the rules

that do exist (Epps, A Grammar 21-22). An example of this is how even though interclan

marriage is viewed as incestuous, there are cases of these types of marriage in Hupdah society

and there is a “total absence of any form of sanctions” (Reid, 120). This example also offers us a

glimpse into a possible form of social control in that Reid notes that such relationships were

“considered a subject for mirth” (at the expense of those involved in such relationships) (Reid,

120), and such treatment could potentially be used as a form of social control (Hartling and

Luchetta, 271).
12

In terms of authority, only fathers (and fathers-in-law) are viewed as having a right to give

commands, specifically to sons (and sons-in-law), and to expect obedience. Anyone else who

presumes to give orders is labeled “a River Indian” and can be ignored (Reid, 159). This is also

true for the village leader, who although he is respected, possesses very little special status,

privilege, or prestige, but assumes much responsibility as local host and spokesman (Reid, 164).

Thus, social control is left to the devices of shame and exclusion when a member of the

community has conducted himself inappropriately (Reid, 136).

Communication Subsystem

Language

Hup is a “Developing” language (Simons & Fennig. 2018) and is used in all Hupdah autonomous

sociolinguistic settings. It is a part of the “Makú” or “Nadahup” language family and is not

seriously endangered since virtually all the Hupdah learn it as their first language and many

children are essentially monolingual (Epps, A Grammar 13-14, 46). When interacting with

others, they use Tukano—a trade language with a higher social status (the language of the River

Indians). Hupdah has been classified as having 3 separate dialects, namely Western, Central, and

Eastern (Epps, A Grammar 10–11), and these dialects define the “regional groups” of the

Hupdah. Epps worked mainly with speakers of the Central dialect and concludes that it is the

most conservative (Epps, A Grammar 12–13). The Western dialect extends to the Hupdah

communities in Colombia (Marcelo Carvalho, personal communication, December 22, 2020) and

contains the greatest amount of difference among the dialects (such that some Hupdah from the

Central and Eastern regions describe it as “a different language that is hard to understand” [Epps,

A Grammar 18]).
13

Some of the earliest recorded studies on the Hupdah language were undertaken by a group of

French linguists in the early 20th century (Rivet, Kok & Tastevin. 133-143). More recently,

Henri Ramirez published a Hupdah–Portuguese dictionary and conversation guide, and Marcelo

& Claudia Carvalho have been involved in publishing pedagogic materials (Marcelo Carvalho,

personal communication, April 22, 2018).

Although 100% of adult Hupdah understand Tukano, and 90% can speak with a degree of

fluency, some choose not to speak it more than necessary, and their children only learn it as they

grow up due to their parents’ interactions with the River Indians (Epps, A Grammar 38). It is

largely due to these reasons, and the fact that to a Hupdah, “being Hupdah means speaking Hup,”

that the Hupdah have maintained their language in spite of generations of bilingualism and

linguistic inequality (Epps, A Grammar 39).

Arts

A significant aspect of Hupdah entertainment involves throwing a drinking party every couple of

months where much drinking, verbal abuse, speeches, conversational-style singing, and dancing

occur (Epps, A Grammar 24). In addition to these drinking parties (where even the children get

drunk), verbal art is regularly engaged in by the Hupdah in the forms of traditional and personal

stories which are related on an impromptu basis. These narratives are rich with human

gesticulation, lip and index finger pointing, and the loud “Hey-hey-hey!” of Hupdah laughter

(Epps, A Grammar 28). In addition to these speeches, the Hupdah have an array of woodwind

instruments that include pan-flutes, long flutes, small cane and bone flutes, ritual trumpets, and

the occasional drum (Epps, A Grammar 28). Traditionally, these drinking parties featured

“kapiwaya” songs that were sung by men on hallucinogens in an unintelligible language (Epps,

A Grammar 24-25).
14

Much of Hupdah communication falls into the category of their religious culture since their

myths, spells, and especially the “Yurupari” ritual, form a sizeable portion of their ritualistic

communication (Epps, A Grammar 25-26). The “Yurupari” ritual features sacred bark trumpets

that only initiated men can play and that the women and children aren’t allowed to see (they run

into the jungle when the men enter the village with them). These trumpets are said to embody the

spirit of a Hupdah ancestor that the women “recognize” as they sit in fear in the jungle (Epps, A

Grammar 25-26). It is at the “Yurupari” that the young men are initiated and where they receive

instruction in mythology and chanting (Reid, 152).

Religion Subsystem

Hupdah cosmology has an amazing number of tripartite elements that correspond to the 3 levels

of the cosmos—the above, the here, and the below—from the trifold human composition of

body, soul, and ghost (Reid, 220-223), to the threefold composition of spells (beginning, middle,

and end) (Reid, 277), the three types of myths (“Kagn Teh" myths, stories of mythical heroes,

and myths of the first humans), and the trifold stories they tell with a beginning, a middle, and an

end (Reid, 243). Each of these tripartite elements are interrelated and form the basis of the

traditional Hupdah religion which is governed by a local shaman (if the village is large enough to

have one [Reid, 81]) who is always a man, is highly respected, and at times, feared (Epps, A

Grammar 26). Not many men aspire to become shamans as it demands a rigorous training with

strict dietary regulations, sexual abstinence, etc. (Reid, 157), but these shamans are said to

possess power to heal, curse, shapeshift (Epps, A Grammar 26), and even visit other levels of the

cosmos (Reid, 226). Hupdah cosmology also centers around “Kagn Teh,” who is their cultural

hero, and other malignant spirits that inhabit the jungle and seek to lure people into their clutches

to devour them (Epps, A Grammar 23).

15

As with other aspects of Hupdah culture, the religious system has been transformed in the last

half a century by “outside” influences. Today, the Hupdah are “nominally Catholic, and most

villages hold Sunday services (in Tukano) led by a resident River Indian (who is often also the

schoolteacher). Many people are only marginally involved in these services or do not attend at

all, while a few take it fairly seriously” (Epps, A Grammar 22). Catholic priests also make

rounds to the Hupdah villages and the children are given a Portuguese name when they are

baptized by the visiting priest (Epps, A Grammar 29). This has led to a high level of syncretism

between Catholicism and their traditional cosmology where “Kagn Teh" is equated with God and

the evil spirits are associated with the devil (Epps, A Grammar 22-23). This syncretism is also

displayed in examples where the Hupdah have adopted “Christian” observances, like a day of

rest, strictly for their own benefit—having a day where they “can’t” work for the River Indians

(Reid, 79).

Although elements of the traditional Hupdah cosmology remain, their religious subsystem has

been greatly influenced, not only by the surrounding Tukanoan and Arawak groups, but by the

Catholics as well (Epps, A Grammar 36). However, their “straight-talk” myths (Reid, 242), and

their following a “straight course” till death, at which point the soul goes to join all dead people

in the sky (Reid, 220-223), linger as points of contact.

Technology Subsystem

Housing

Hupdah houses generally have open sides and ends where the eaves of the V-shaped roof reach

almost to the ground (Reid, 34). The roofs are traditionally made from small palm leaves and are

very labor-intensive to construct. These roofs take approximately 35 man-days to finish—so long

that sometimes they never finish thatching a new structure (Reid, 57). Their houses are typically
16

large enough to house 1-4 “hearth groups,” that are closely related (either patrilineally or

matrilineally) with approximately 8 people per house (Pozzobon, 1999).

The houses are situated in a small clearing at the top of a hill in close proximity to a small stream

where the people bathe and wash their manioc (Pozzobon, 1999). Inside, the hammocks are

arranged around each unit’s hearth and the floor is littered with various instruments the Hupdah

use each day, while more valuable items, tools, and instruments are tucked into the leaves of the

roof (Reid, 35). If the family only owns one hammock, the husband and wife share it, if more,

the husband and wife separate and share the hammocks with the children with up to four people

per hammock (Reid, 40).

Tools

As hunter-gatherers in the heart of the jungle, many of the Hupdah tools are self-fashioned.

Although recent years have seen the replacing of traditional implements such as blowguns, bow

and arrow, etc. with guns, and other modern devices, due to the harshness of the jungle climate,

the majority of modern tools and equipment have a relatively short life (Reid, 156). The basic

tools for the men are those listed above with relation to hunting. The woman’s work in the field

requires the use of a machete (many times a broken one from the River Indians), and in her

household duties she makes use of a variety of second-hand metal pots, pans, and graters

obtained through the River Indians as well (Reid, 186). Access to the Catholic mission and

government sources have seen an explosion of material “wealth” among the Hupdah (Reid, 316-

317), and although life has changed dramatically for the Hupdah living in more “modern”

settings (Reid, 315-322), life for the Hupdah living in their traditional communities remains

basically the same in regards to the tools and implements needed and used for their daily

existence.
17

Economic Subsystem

Of the three economic systems identified by Shaw (traditional [tribal], peasant, industrial) (Kraft,

182), the Hupdah clearly fall into the initial category. As a traditional economy within a kinship

society, the Hupdah are responsible for producing the large majority of the goods that they

consume (Kraft, 183) as they rely heavily on hunting and gathering (Epps and Bolaños, 4).

Although there is a shift towards a greater agricultural focus due to more sedentary villages that

result in overhunting, many Hupdah still spend several months a year away from their local

group on hunting and gathering trips (Epps, A Grammar 19).

In regard to specialization within the Hupdah society, it is essentially limited to people of

different ages and abilities performing different aspects of the same hunting, fishing, and

gathering tasks (e.g. a young strong man carrying the game back to camp versus an older man)

(Reid, 57-60). Since Hupdah culture is very local in nature, their activities largely consist of

hunting, fishing, gathering, manioc farming, working for the River Indians (Epps, A Grammar

19), and some basket weaving for trade (Reid, 39). While some individuals excel in certain

domains more than others (Reid, 169), specialization, in the industrial sense, is essentially

nonexistent.

Much of the Hupdah economic system centers around their relationship to the River Indians and

is largely communal—a reflection of their everyday life—as they typically visit and work for the

River Indians as a group (Reid, 76). Their relationship to the River Indians also reveals that they

are task-oriented as opposed to time-oriented due to the fact that they spend upwards of a month

per year building houses for the River Indians and spend even more time preparing gardens for

them than they spend working on their own (Reid, 54, 75-76).
18

Although very demanding, these relationships with the River Indians (also the mission stations

and the government), are tolerated by the Hupdah specifically for economic reasons (Reid, 75-

76). Since Hupdah compensation is built around reciprocity as opposed to payment on receipt of

goods, it’s a bit difficult to determine how much they get paid for their labors (Reid, 81).

However, when a Hupdah feels he has been cheated in his “wages,” he simply steals from his

patron for compensation (Reid, 83).

Contact and Conflict Points

Contact Points with Culture of Researcher

In seeking to minister within a cross-cultural setting, it’s important not only to identify and note

the specifics of the target culture, but it is also essential that one pays attention to their own

background and culture (Shaw, 296). Having been born and raised in the rural U.S. in the

1980’s-1990’s, my own culture of origin is highly industrialized (Shaw, 297). However, due to

having largely lived abroad in the majority world since 2003, the post-industrialized U.S. society

isn’t as prominent a part of my own personal culture (Harfst, Wust, and Nadler, 4). Also, having

been a part of the conservative Anabaptist church all of my life, my personal culture actually

carries certain “peasant culture” elements as opposed to the overriding industrial and post-

industrial cultures of conventional Americans. These “peasant” elements are evidenced in the

economic areas of food production; ideology and the importance of religion, ancestors, religious

specialists, and the importance of “mythology”; social relationships in the type of family,

dominant dyads, and the elderly, sick, and jobless (Shaw, 294-295).

Although very different from the Hupdah kinship culture, certain points of contact can be

identified between my own culture and theirs. The importance of familial relationships within

Hupdah culture is similar to that of my own. Their commitment to their “hearth group” and to
19

their nuclear family is similar to the culture that I am a part of within the Anabaptist world where

divorce rates are close to 0% (Anderson, 141). Our decision to homeschool our children also

underlines the importance that we place on the family unit and on doing things together as a

family, much like the Hupdah’s traditional family hunts, visits, and work trips (Reid, 72). Hence,

these mutual values provide a valuable point of contact between our cultures.

Secondly, while the average American grows up partaking of an extremely materialistic culture,

having been raised as part of the Anabaptist culture that stresses simplicity, economy, and

separation (Statement, 2-3), this provides certain contact points with the Hupdah kinship culture

where material “wealth” is not their primary motivation, but rather social relationships (which

can even be seen in the influence that this priority has on their grammar [Epps, A Grammar 860-

861]).

Just as Hupdah cosmology places great importance on the spiritual world and on passing their

beliefs/stories on to the next generation, so too conservative Christians (like myself) place a high

value on the spiritual, and on the stories of the Bible. Just as the Hupdah take time to teach their

children about “Kagn Teh” and the people and the world he created (Reid, 359, 364), so too we

teach about Jehovah and the people and world He created (Genesis 1). This provides an

important point of cultural contact that we will address later in greater detail.

Conflict Points with Culture of Researcher

Cross-cultural ministry is rife with conflicts, and while some conflict is necessary as the Gospel

naturally contradicts societal worldviews (Kraft, 34), it is important to identify and minimize

unnecessary points of conflict if we desire to minister effectively cross-culturally (Storti, 26-27).

20

In evaluating my own culture vis-à-vis Hupdah culture, there are several potential points of

conflict that are readily apparent.

Kraft notes that one common point of conflict between Western and non-Western cultures has to

do with attitudes regarding work (184). While not having been raised in a highly materialistic

culture, Anabaptists are known for having a strong “work ethic” (Redekop, 1989)—which means

that if there isn’t something to do, we create something to do. This highly contradicts the Hupdah

kinship culture of work as non-industrial cultures tend to be guided by the principle that “if

there’s work to do, do it. If there’s no work to do, don’t work” (Kraft, 184). Kraft also points out

that another common point of conflict has to do with our difference in perception concerning

what is a “work” activity and what is a “leisure-time” activity and how consequently westerners

tend to view people who spend lots of time “just talking” to each other as being lazy (184, 267).

Care must be taken by people from my cultural upbringing to not use our own worldview

paradigm concerning work to incorrectly judge and mislabel people from cultures like the

Hupdah.

Western culture, with its minimum wage, equal opportunity employment, educational

opportunities, and multiplicity of opportunities in many sectors, contrasts sharply with the

egalitarian hunter-gatherer culture of the average Hupdah. These economic differences are

highlighted by the “economic gap” that exists between my culture and that of the Hupdah. Kraft

notes that this “gap” can be extremely formidable but that it “must be traversed” if we are truly

represent Christ to those on the other side of the “gap” (Kraft, 181). While one may be tempted

to simply give lots of gifts and be extremely generous in an effort to “traverse the gap,” the sad

history of the Salesian missionaries (Reid, 204-217) and the Hupdah cultural mentality of

reciprocity and indebtedness (304-305) caution against such an approach. Rather, as Kraft states,
21

“Whether through selling all we have or in some other way, we must get beyond them (economic

barriers) to person-to-personness if we are to be truly Christlike” (181).

Contact Points with the Biblical Message

Kraft asserts that the best way to reach a culture is to ask questions that their culture is not

answering (45). While Hupdah cosmology accounts for the establishment of basic parameters

and processes for the material works through “Kagn Teh" myths and assert that “Kagn Teh"

created the universe and the people in it, their foundation of moral and cultural order is based on

the stories of mythical heroes, and their accounting for the metaphysical hazards that humans

encounter (and appropriate solutions to these hazards) are based on mythologies regarding the

first humans (Reid, 24). Since the Hupdah believe that “Kagn Teh" withdrew to the furthest point

away from Earth after the creation, and that he has little to do with the earth today (Reid, 211), a

pertinent question would be to ask how the mythical heroes can truly be responsible for the

moral and cultural order of a society when these very heroes engaged in many types of behavior

that the Hupdah themselves abhor (e.g. “the bone brothers,” murdering of their grandparents

[Reid, 344-347])? Using their own myths as a starting point to begin asking some hard questions

can serve as a point of contact to introducing the one true God, Who is not only Creator, but also

the source of all that is good and right as the Source of all truth (Lev. 11:45, Isaiah 45:7, James

1:13, 1 John 1:5).

Another point of contact to the Bible message in Hupdah culture is through the form of oral

transmission of their cosmological beliefs. We see via many examples in Scripture, that when

God’s people sought to communicate truth to others, it was often communicated via this same

method of “telling a story” (e.g. Moses’ farewell message/song to the children of Israel [Deut.

31:19-32:47], Peter’s first sermon [Acts 2:14-40], Stephen’s defense [Acts 7:2-53]). While our
22

initial tendency might be to revert to “traditional” {a.k.a. “Western”) methods of speaking truth,

it’s good to remember that it’s not the “media” of transmission that is evil, but the use of it and

the empowerment of satanic power that makes these Hupdah myths evil (Kraft, 258). As Paris

Reidhead states, “Sin is the decision of the will to gratify a good appetite in a bad way”

(00:17:31 – 00:17:45). Thus, it’s not the methodology the Hupdah use that is sinful, and

consequently the Biblical methodology of oral story telling could be used within the context of

the Hupdah culture as an important point of contact.

Possible points of contact also exist within Hupdah beliefs and views on morality. To a Hupdah,

to display anger is a given prelude to murder or harm the object of one’s anger (Reid, 212).

These aspects of their moral code give credence to the God-given “law written in their hearts”

(Romans 2:14-15), as it resonates with the teachings of Jesus and His application of the Law in

Matthew 5:21-22 where He equates anger with murder (see also 1 John 3:15). Hupdah beliefs

also contain the concept of “being born again” within their belief of “transformation” where they

believe in undergoing a symbolic death and re-birth by which they obtain new powers (Reid,

171)—something very similar to the “new birth” that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about in John

chapter 3.

The myths of “Kagn Teh" are also rife with possible contact points. These myths contain

descriptions of a “virgin birth,” (Reid, 333), the man of true daylight that doesn’t need to eat but

does in certain myths (Reid, 348), different manifestations of the same “god” (Reid, 228), a

single creator (Reid, 359), and a common origin for all people (Reid, 364). Although these

stories of “Kagn Teh" have many resemblances to characteristics of the God of the Bible, it’s

important to not make the same mistake that the Catholics did in equating “Kagn Teh" with Jesus

(Epps, A Grammar 22-23) and continue to contribute to the damning syncretism that already
23

exists between “Christianity” and traditional Hupdah beliefs (Epps, A Grammar 22-23). While

these myths can serve as contact points for the biblical message, we must not equate them in our

efforts to reach the Hupdah with the Gospel.

A final observation regarding a point of contact between the Hupdah’s cosmological myths and

the Biblical message has to do with inspiration. Like Hupdah mythology, the Hebrew Scriptures

were originally transmitted from generation to generation, largely via oral means (Carr, Part 1).

However, very much unlike the Hupdah myths, which have an unending variety of variations and

contradictions (Reid, 218), the Bible is a seamless accounting of God’s dealings with man,

attributed to over 30 different authors, several different cultures, and spanning a period of several

millennia (Kranz, 2018). While certain “errors” do exist within the manuscripts in our possession

today (Johnston, 28-32), the Bible is an entire corpus of “Inspired Writing” (Hesselgrave and

Romman, 142-143) upon which we can not only anchor our own faith, but also launch out from

in order to ask and answer questions regarding the inconsistencies and fictitiousness of other

worldview religious claims like those of the Hupdah.

Conclusion

This paper is a brief summary of the ethnography of the Hupdah people. Much more could be

said about them, their history, their worldview, and their culture, and much study has been done

to date. However, the greatest need of the Hupdah people remains to be met. While there are 3

baptized Hupdah believers in Brazil, and a few indigenous believers seeking to reach the Hupdah

in Brazil (Marcelo Carvalho, personal communication April 8, 2020), no one is currently

translating God’s Word into their language. Additionally, in relation to the Hupdah in Colombia,

no active work has been done among them in the past 50 years. Our desire is to be used of God

by His grace to play a part in meeting these needs. May His Kingdom come (Matthew 6:10)!
 Bibliography

Anderson, Cory. “Religious Seekers’ Attraction to the Plain Mennonites and Amish.” Review of

Religious Research. 58.1 (2016): 125–147.

Carr, David M. The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York: Oxford

University Press, 2011.

Carvalho, Marcelo. Inverso: diálogos indígenas no alto rio negro. São Gabriel da Cachoeira:

Edição do Autor, 2014.

Caycedo, Germán Castro. Perdido en el Amazonas. Newcomlab: Planeta, 2011.

Clarke, David. “Culture as a system with subsystems.” Interpreting Objects and Collections. Ed.

Susan M. Pearce. London: Routledge, 1994. 44-47.

Curriao, Maribel Mora. “Educación superior, diversidad cultural e interculturalidad en

Colombia.” Educación superior, diversidad cultural e interculturalidad en América Latina.

Ed. Daniel Mato. Córdoba: Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, 2018. 171-198.

Epps, Patience. A Grammar of Hup. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2008

---. “Grammactical Borrowing in Hup.” Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective.

Eds. Yaron Matras, Jeanette Sakel. Berlin. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2007. 551-65.

Epps, Patience, and Katherine Bolaños. “Reconsidering the ‘Makú’ Language Family of

Northwest Amazonia.” International Journal of American Linguistics 83.3 (2017): 467-507.

25

Franco, Roberto. Cariba Malo: Episodios de Resistencia de un Pueblo Indígena Aíslado del

Amazonas. Bogotá: Feriva S.A., 2012.

Hammarström, Harald & Bank, Sebastian & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin. 2018.

Glottolog 3.2. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.

https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/hupd1244 (Accessed on April 22, 2020).

Harfst, Jörn, Andreas Wust, and Robert Nadler. "Conceptualizing industrial culture." GeoScape

12.1 (2018): 1-9.

Hartling, L.M. and T. Luchetta. “Humiliation: Assessing the Impact of Derision, Degradation,

and Debasement.” The Journal of Primary Prevention 19 (1999). 259–278. 

Hesselgrave, David J. and Edward Rommen. Contextualization: meanings, methods, and models.

Pasadena: William Carey Library, 2000.

Johnston, Robert K. Evangelicals at an Impasse: Biblical Authority in Practice. Eugene: Wipf

and Stock, 1979.

Kraft, Charles H. Anthropology for Christian Witness. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2011.

Kranz, Jeffrey. “The 35 authors who wrote the Bible.” OverviewBible. 9 August 2018. 2018.

Pozzobon, Jorge. “Etnias Maku: Hupda.” Povos Indígenas no Brasil. January 1999. 26 March

2018.

Ramirez, Henri. A Língua dos Hupd'äh do Alto Rio Negro: Dicionário e Guia de Conversação,

São Paulo: Associação Saúde Sem Limites, 2006.

26

Reid, Howard Anthony. Some Apects of Movement, Growth and Change among the Hupdu

Maku Indians of Brazil. University of Cambridge, 1979.

Reidhead, Paris. “Temptation and Sin.” Sermon Index.net, 2002-2020,

http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/visit.php?lid=16439 (Accessed on April

30, 2020).

Redekop, Calvin W. "Work Ethic." Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online. 1989.

Web. 7 May 2020.

Rivet, Paul, Kok, Pères P., and Tastevin, Constant. “Nouvelle Contribution a Étude de la Langue

Makú,” International Journal of American Linguistics. 3.2/4 (1925): 133-192.

Shaw, Daniel R. “Culture and Evangelism: A Model for Missiological Strategy,” Missiology: An

International Review. 18.3 (1990). 291-304.

Simons, Gary F. and Charles D. Fennig (eds.). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Twenty-

first edition. Dallas, Texas: SIL International. Online version:

https://www.ethnologue.com/language/jup (Accessed April 22, 2020).

“Statement of Faith and Practice for Cuba Mennonite Church,” [Word document]. N.p.: 2012.

Storti, Craig. The Art of Crossing Cultures 2nd edition. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing,

2002.

The Holy Bible: King James Version. e-Sword LT, version 7.5, Rick Meyers, 2017.