Dear Yksin,
Thank You very much for Your work and Your answer.
The unity versus diversity of Eskimo cultures seems to me as a fragrant balance. A certain beauty is conveyed by the tension between unity versus diversity.
Maybe some examples can be shown centered around the following case studies:
Such distant groups like Caribou Eskimos, Greenland Eskimos, Igluliks knew the concept of tupilak. [1] But the details differed:
E.g. at Caribou Eskimos (but similar things were much more widespread), the "own" soul, "personal" soul of the newborn child was so weak, that it needed a guradianship of a more experienced soul. A naming ritual associated the "name" of a recently dead relative to the child. This name-soul took the guardianship over the child. This lead to a gentle behavior towards the child: if the child spoke, he/she spoke with the wisdom of the dead relative. [3]Pryde also adds that the associating the name of the dead to a child was a necessity, so that the ghost of the dead do not turn into a restless being. At Perry Island, at least a newborn dog had to bear the name of the dead! If they forgot complely about this, it could result later in heavy illness. [4]
Now the main point comes: this notion of name-soul can amount to a reincarnation-like thought. The dead comes alive in the body of the soul at Caribou Eskimos. At other groups, it is only a guardianship. (But in both cases, the parents treat the child in a gentle way.) [5]
Maybe is it a spectrum? I do not know.
Naarsuk is often thought to be associated to weather (storms). Beyond this generality, also he shows several local variations [6]:
A beautiful example: of course, Greenland Eskimos never met Indians. Despite of this, they had a world in their languages which is related to the same world the American Eskimos use for Indians. Of cause, the "Indians" of Greenland Eskimos are more like mythological beings.
As the above examples show, we have to present the reader the beauty of tension between both diversity and unity of Eskimo cultures. This double, dialectical task also affects the way we should structure the article.
Eskimo article is one direction: as Labongo intended, it concentrates itself for the presentation of the distinct groups. The article does not aim to "factor out" a unity of them.
The other direction would be to write a general article about common or at least widespread things, discussing the various aspects of cultural life. The disadvantage: it is harder to illustrate the diversity.
It seems to me like a factorisation problem (which can manifest itself in may guises):
I mean that
Thus, there are two main alternative approaches (standing in a duality relation). Both of them suffer a cross-cutting concern (the difference between them is that the "direction" of crosscutting is the opposite). The combination of the two approaches (thus, a "bidrectional" treatment) can solve the probem of cross-cutting concern.
If we structure our article according to local groups, then we have a list (or tree, if we organize them in the ToC herarchy according to the genalogical tree) of groups.In each group, we disscuss many things (local variation of soul dualism, whether the notion of name-soul entails reincarnation, or only a guardianship etc.).
Stub example (just for illustrating the structure, now not the contents is the main point, I admit it is not careful):
I express this approach like this: the article is organized according to the groups, and the various aspects of cultural life are scattered because they are repeated again (with some variation) for each local group.
For short, I shall use a terminology loaned from aspect-oriented programming:
I think such distinctions are present in all sciences, maybe not in this name.
The structure presented above has an opposite (or dual) alternative. An article can be organized according to aspects of religious life, and then, in each aspect of religious life we mention, which groups think which way. Stub example:
I think the main point can be seen now. If we organize the article according to local groups, then the many aspects of religious life will crosscut the article. This is not a problem, but -- as #Certain unity of Eskimo cultures argues -- the many overlapping features can cause a certain slothfulness.
Maybe the opposite solution (which is widespread [8] [9] [7]) is better -- we simply organize the article with sections discussing various aspects of shamanism, and take care of denominating the local group(s), from where the ethnographic record is observed.
Maybe the best is when we combine the two approaches.
Locality-restricted | Aspect crosscut by locality | Locality (group) crosscut by aspect | Locality (tree) crosscute by apect | Many-many mixed combinations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Menovshchikov, Rubcova [10] | Merkur [9], Kleivan&Sonne [8] Gabus [7] | Rasmussen [11] |
Locality-restricted is not ourcase now. In the followings, I shall omit it.
Maybe a scheme capable of finer distinctions (by analysing category "mixed" better):
Aspect crosscut by locality | Locality crosscut by aspect | ||
group | tree | ||
Merkur | |||
---|---|---|---|
Kleivan&Sonne | |||
Rasmussen | |||
Gabus | |||
Ours | ? | ? | ? |
I suggest for ours the following alernatives:
Aspect crosscut by locality | Locality crosscut by aspect | ||
group | tree | ||
Merkur, Kleivan&Sonne, Gabus | |||
---|---|---|---|
A bidirectional solution + structuring groups by tree |
with the latter preferred. As can bee seen, I think "Aspect crosscut by locality" must not lack. Beacuse of #Certain unity of Eskimo cultures makes many overlapping things.
Closing section ("Farewell") of [11], p. 2 of [8], [9], [12].
Even if Rasmussen could not see all Eskimo groups, his travels seem to spread across the whole area from Greenland to Bering strait:
The route of Rasmussen's travel (I scanned it from the Hungarian publication of his Thulefahrt) [11]
He wrote the following, (for me) astonishing statements, as closing his book with the following words:
In the last (XXIII.) section ("Farewell") of his book "Thulefahrt" [11]:
“ | I am happy that it has been granted me to travel from settlement to settlement in times when the ancient soul was still alive. That is why we could see the wonder that on the wast area reaching from Greenland to the pacific Ocean, we did not meet only a people with unity in their language, but also a unity in the culture, which remains forecer the memento of human susceptibility, power and beuty | ” |
Made after Hungarian publication. Citing is surely not literal
Chapter XIII, "Talking to shamans":
“ | The common language and natural environment joins all Eskimo peoples in such an intimateway, that the identity manifesting in their mythology and religious concepts permeates also their mythology. The memories of the past overlap astonishingly, may we listen to story-tellers of the Arctic landsacpes of either Greenland or Canada. These myths (provided that they are not about local events), elaborate the identical events of the common ancient past, and their structure reveals the same ability -- which ability grants these people the fame that they are magnificent observers. | ” |
I do not know, how far was the linguistical unity meant. For me, Sirenik language and Ungazik variant of Siberian Yupik seem rather different, although I found also welcome similarities in them.
Now, let us see the concrete details how Rasmussen might mean this cultural unity:
“ | No utensil of the inland Eskimos reveals, that their ancestors have ever lived on the seashore.
It turned out also that not only many of their traditions is common with those of Greenland Eskimos, but also many of their myths, both in their form and contents. Out of the fifty-two myths I recorded at Padlermiuts by Hikoligjuaq, thirty is identical with myth heard in Greenland. And since thousands of years, there is no contact between the two tribes! |
” |
Section "the ancient Eskimos" (a subsection of "VIII. Among Caribou Eskimos"). Made after Hungarian publication. Citing is surely not literal
Maybe that's why I'd like to structure the article in a way that both diversities and unity can be treated in a natureal way, while showing the beauty in their tension. -- Physis 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Rhe sources from different localities at different ties provide anything but a homogenous picture of the Eskimos' notions of the universe | ” |
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Text "series: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis / Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion" ignored (
help)Dear Yksin,
Thank You very much for Your work and Your answer.
The unity versus diversity of Eskimo cultures seems to me as a fragrant balance. A certain beauty is conveyed by the tension between unity versus diversity.
Maybe some examples can be shown centered around the following case studies:
Such distant groups like Caribou Eskimos, Greenland Eskimos, Igluliks knew the concept of tupilak. [1] But the details differed:
E.g. at Caribou Eskimos (but similar things were much more widespread), the "own" soul, "personal" soul of the newborn child was so weak, that it needed a guradianship of a more experienced soul. A naming ritual associated the "name" of a recently dead relative to the child. This name-soul took the guardianship over the child. This lead to a gentle behavior towards the child: if the child spoke, he/she spoke with the wisdom of the dead relative. [3]Pryde also adds that the associating the name of the dead to a child was a necessity, so that the ghost of the dead do not turn into a restless being. At Perry Island, at least a newborn dog had to bear the name of the dead! If they forgot complely about this, it could result later in heavy illness. [4]
Now the main point comes: this notion of name-soul can amount to a reincarnation-like thought. The dead comes alive in the body of the soul at Caribou Eskimos. At other groups, it is only a guardianship. (But in both cases, the parents treat the child in a gentle way.) [5]
Maybe is it a spectrum? I do not know.
Naarsuk is often thought to be associated to weather (storms). Beyond this generality, also he shows several local variations [6]:
A beautiful example: of course, Greenland Eskimos never met Indians. Despite of this, they had a world in their languages which is related to the same world the American Eskimos use for Indians. Of cause, the "Indians" of Greenland Eskimos are more like mythological beings.
As the above examples show, we have to present the reader the beauty of tension between both diversity and unity of Eskimo cultures. This double, dialectical task also affects the way we should structure the article.
Eskimo article is one direction: as Labongo intended, it concentrates itself for the presentation of the distinct groups. The article does not aim to "factor out" a unity of them.
The other direction would be to write a general article about common or at least widespread things, discussing the various aspects of cultural life. The disadvantage: it is harder to illustrate the diversity.
It seems to me like a factorisation problem (which can manifest itself in may guises):
I mean that
Thus, there are two main alternative approaches (standing in a duality relation). Both of them suffer a cross-cutting concern (the difference between them is that the "direction" of crosscutting is the opposite). The combination of the two approaches (thus, a "bidrectional" treatment) can solve the probem of cross-cutting concern.
If we structure our article according to local groups, then we have a list (or tree, if we organize them in the ToC herarchy according to the genalogical tree) of groups.In each group, we disscuss many things (local variation of soul dualism, whether the notion of name-soul entails reincarnation, or only a guardianship etc.).
Stub example (just for illustrating the structure, now not the contents is the main point, I admit it is not careful):
I express this approach like this: the article is organized according to the groups, and the various aspects of cultural life are scattered because they are repeated again (with some variation) for each local group.
For short, I shall use a terminology loaned from aspect-oriented programming:
I think such distinctions are present in all sciences, maybe not in this name.
The structure presented above has an opposite (or dual) alternative. An article can be organized according to aspects of religious life, and then, in each aspect of religious life we mention, which groups think which way. Stub example:
I think the main point can be seen now. If we organize the article according to local groups, then the many aspects of religious life will crosscut the article. This is not a problem, but -- as #Certain unity of Eskimo cultures argues -- the many overlapping features can cause a certain slothfulness.
Maybe the opposite solution (which is widespread [8] [9] [7]) is better -- we simply organize the article with sections discussing various aspects of shamanism, and take care of denominating the local group(s), from where the ethnographic record is observed.
Maybe the best is when we combine the two approaches.
Locality-restricted | Aspect crosscut by locality | Locality (group) crosscut by aspect | Locality (tree) crosscute by apect | Many-many mixed combinations |
---|---|---|---|---|
Menovshchikov, Rubcova [10] | Merkur [9], Kleivan&Sonne [8] Gabus [7] | Rasmussen [11] |
Locality-restricted is not ourcase now. In the followings, I shall omit it.
Maybe a scheme capable of finer distinctions (by analysing category "mixed" better):
Aspect crosscut by locality | Locality crosscut by aspect | ||
group | tree | ||
Merkur | |||
---|---|---|---|
Kleivan&Sonne | |||
Rasmussen | |||
Gabus | |||
Ours | ? | ? | ? |
I suggest for ours the following alernatives:
Aspect crosscut by locality | Locality crosscut by aspect | ||
group | tree | ||
Merkur, Kleivan&Sonne, Gabus | |||
---|---|---|---|
A bidirectional solution + structuring groups by tree |
with the latter preferred. As can bee seen, I think "Aspect crosscut by locality" must not lack. Beacuse of #Certain unity of Eskimo cultures makes many overlapping things.
Closing section ("Farewell") of [11], p. 2 of [8], [9], [12].
Even if Rasmussen could not see all Eskimo groups, his travels seem to spread across the whole area from Greenland to Bering strait:
The route of Rasmussen's travel (I scanned it from the Hungarian publication of his Thulefahrt) [11]
He wrote the following, (for me) astonishing statements, as closing his book with the following words:
In the last (XXIII.) section ("Farewell") of his book "Thulefahrt" [11]:
“ | I am happy that it has been granted me to travel from settlement to settlement in times when the ancient soul was still alive. That is why we could see the wonder that on the wast area reaching from Greenland to the pacific Ocean, we did not meet only a people with unity in their language, but also a unity in the culture, which remains forecer the memento of human susceptibility, power and beuty | ” |
Made after Hungarian publication. Citing is surely not literal
Chapter XIII, "Talking to shamans":
“ | The common language and natural environment joins all Eskimo peoples in such an intimateway, that the identity manifesting in their mythology and religious concepts permeates also their mythology. The memories of the past overlap astonishingly, may we listen to story-tellers of the Arctic landsacpes of either Greenland or Canada. These myths (provided that they are not about local events), elaborate the identical events of the common ancient past, and their structure reveals the same ability -- which ability grants these people the fame that they are magnificent observers. | ” |
I do not know, how far was the linguistical unity meant. For me, Sirenik language and Ungazik variant of Siberian Yupik seem rather different, although I found also welcome similarities in them.
Now, let us see the concrete details how Rasmussen might mean this cultural unity:
“ | No utensil of the inland Eskimos reveals, that their ancestors have ever lived on the seashore.
It turned out also that not only many of their traditions is common with those of Greenland Eskimos, but also many of their myths, both in their form and contents. Out of the fifty-two myths I recorded at Padlermiuts by Hikoligjuaq, thirty is identical with myth heard in Greenland. And since thousands of years, there is no contact between the two tribes! |
” |
Section "the ancient Eskimos" (a subsection of "VIII. Among Caribou Eskimos"). Made after Hungarian publication. Citing is surely not literal
Maybe that's why I'd like to structure the article in a way that both diversities and unity can be treated in a natureal way, while showing the beauty in their tension. -- Physis 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
“ | Rhe sources from different localities at different ties provide anything but a homogenous picture of the Eskimos' notions of the universe | ” |
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Text "series: Acta Universitatis Stockholmiensis / Stockholm Studies in Comparative Religion" ignored (
help)