MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1163508966

Chapter 8: Were Simple Baskets Always Central to the WDS?: Putting All Yours Sins in One Basket

2013· article· en· W1163508966 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marshall Joseph Becker, Jonathan C. Lainey

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransactions of the American Philosophical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueMormonism, Religion, and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésNarrativeWhite (mutation)ArtHistoryPeriod (music)Ancient historyArt historyGenealogyLiteratureAestheticsBiology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Onondaga Transition, by 1894, from Dogs to BasketsIn what may be prototype of WDS among Oneida in 1800, presented earlier, Kirkland described ritual killing of three dogs, one of which was left to decompose. The other two Dogs are thrown into fire, & shortly after of (Pilkington 1980: 365367). Baskets had been burned for as long as white dogs, and probably before, but external observers have continued to focus on death and cremation of dogs. An important note on antiquity of burning, and its link with WDS, is an unreferenced note made by Elisabeth Tooker. In her effort to place origin of WDS before period of Handsome Lake, Tooker (1970: 110) presents an account of dog feast that she dates to time of American Revolution. She offers no reference, but we offer here her narration of this report:... others went round to every with basket, in which each individual was required to deposit something. This basket, with all its contents, was first cast into fire. Afterward dog was laid on and thoroughly roasted, and was then eaten. This was followed by . . .(Tooker 1970: 110)other events typical of midwinter feast at which dog was eaten. Note that and its contents were burned first. later transformation to white dog that was sacrificed without its flesh being eaten was part of development of rituals of WDS. If anything, sacrifice predated WDS. This gathering of sins in form of offerings to be burned is distinct from another collection noted in Tooker's synthetic Seneca account in which Tooker (1970: 138) describes an woman carrying huge basket who, on third and fourth days (of seven), went from to and gathered materials for feast.By bringing all of detailed descriptions of WDS together, we can shift our collective gaze to one element of ritual that previously had seemed relatively minor. most visual, intense part of WDS involved ritual killing, ornamentation, hanging, and burning of dog or dogs. low level of concern with presence of baskets at midwinter rituals is clearly demonstrated by many synthetic accounts of WDS. Not single synthetic example includes mention of burning of baskets. This lack of attention to baskets as part of ritual appears to be function of ethnographic blind spots.In 1884, pyre at Onondaga was used for burning dog together with baskets of tobacco and herbs (Anonymous 1884a). Canadian Onondaga in that same year carried of incense in procession and presumably burned both (Anonymous 1884b; Herschfelder 1886).Not long after, William Beauchamp declared that actual sacrifice of dogs at Midwinter Feast had ended, he attended the concluding ceremonies of White Dog Feast at Onondaga, N. Y., January 18, 1894, under escort of Daniel La Fort, head chief' (Beauchamp 1895: 209). While term white dog remained associated with name of Midwinter Feast among outsiders, in 1894 white or baskets and perhaps their contents had come to replace sacrificial dog as principal offering (cf. Becker manuscript A, regarding baskets and wampum).Recorded as being in attendance at Onondaga in 1894 were dozen women as well as some 30 men, including Thomas Webster, keeper of wampum, [who] wore feather (cf. Becker, in review A). This headdress was of gustawa type. procession of elders from short house to council-house, also known as longhouse, consisted of three men, the last of whom bore white basket, which represents dog.The Seneca group observed by Boyle in 1898 (1898: 95) placed a small old chip-basket with homegrown tobacco near tail of sacrificial dog. At various points during procedure, they threw tobacco into fire and lastly with remaining tobacco. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,724
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,039
Tête enseignante GPT0,229
Écart entre enseignants0,189 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2013
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransactions of the American Philosophical SocietyMême sujetMormonism, Religion, and HistoryTravaux en français237 207