Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We are not the first observers to recognize that the WDS emerged as part of the Midwinter Feast at some point around 1800. Beauchamp (1885: 235; 1888: 198; 1895: 198; cf. Tooker 1970: 102-103) recognized the WDS as a recent addition to midwinter rituals. Perhaps Beauchamp's 1892 summary says it best:In its essential feature of sacrifice the white dog feast seems quite modem, but in point of time [season of the year] it corresponds with the old Dream Feast, taking its place and retaining some of its features.Beauchamp 1892: 85Boyle (1898), Waugh (1916: 133), and Lloyd (1922: 261-263) all agreed with Beauchamp. Waugh had spent time from 1912 to 1915 among the Iroquois of Ontario, Quebec and New York, when the WDS was ending, but he, as those before him, must have read enough of the literature to reach a similar conclusion. Waugh believed the sacrifice to be a survival of earlier dog feasts, whereas we might call it an evolutionary transformation.Lloyd (1922) listed the only eight references in which he could find any form of dog sacrifice anywhere in the Northeast that predated the period of Handsome Lake. Lloyd's listing includes a number of errors, but the overall pattern is the same. Dog sacrifice existed in forms that may be ancestral to what emerged after 1800. Several of these accounts also are mentioned in the Whipple Report (1889: 419, 425,448; see under New York [State] Assembly). All of them have been summarized or detailed in this volume.Reconstructing Origins: Why Two Dogs?The very first known or prototypic WDS was reported by Kirkland in 1800. He noted the killing or sacrifice by strangulation of pure white dogs. Cord strangulation, often specified, does not mar or damage the pelt or skin, nor stain it with blood. Kirkland indicates that three dogs were killed, only two of which were cremated. Reports of the sacrifice of two dogs are common in early accounts. Fenton's recognition (1944: 161) that the offering of two dogs reflected the gifts of the moieties to the Creator, reflecting the roles of moiety divisions in these feasts, has been noted only by Tooker (1970: 41) but not pursued by other scholars. We've pointed out that Kirkland's account in 1800 clearly specifies that two wampum bands worn by the sacrificed dog, hung up to rot, represented the moieties of the Oneida. The decline in traditional Iroquoian kinship, and a shift to patrilineal descent, appears correlated with a loss of functional duality in each of these cultures. The sacrifice of a single dog may be one of the most evident indications of the decline in the kinship system with which Lewis Morgan, fortunately, became so concerned. The evidence for moiety participation in the early WDS is strongest in Kirkland's account, where we are not placing undue emphasis on the significance of cooking of two dogs. The number sacrificed may be another element of the rite that was improvised by the elders or reflects peculiarities of the situation of any specific year.Two observations on native Iroquoian culture by outside observers (Sir William Johnson and later C. A. Hirschfelder) reveal aspects of overall stability in various implicit designs for living that should be considered here. Some basic elements of culture may have remained unchanged despite hundreds of years of European contacts. The earlier of these two observation dates from 1771, while the other is more recent; yet each reveals why small changes (or perhaps variations) within the culture can be irrelevant to the overall trajectory of change. In 1771 a letter written by Sir William Johnson and pointed out by William Starna (2008: 300) contains observations that reveal Sir William as a brilliant ethnographer. Sir William's observations of the differences in the customs and manners of the distinct tribes of the Five Nations are as follow:In all inquiries of this sort we should Distinguish between the more remote Tribes & those Indns who from having been next to our settlemls for sev1 years,
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».