MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1130195991

Chapter 9: Distribution of the Ritual: Dog Feasting and the White Dog Sacrifice

2013· article· en· W1130195991 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marshall Joseph Becker, Jonathan C. Lainey

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the American Philosophical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMormonism, Religion, and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSacrificeSilenceHistoryGeographyEthnologyAncient historyZoologyArtArchaeologyBiologyAesthetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dogs, when available, were a favored food among many if not most North American natives (Delâge 2005). The members of the Lewis and Clark expedition came to enjoy and prefer dog meat. Reports of natives using dogs as pack animals and also eating them are known from the colonial period (Browne 1890, VIII: 515). In their superlative study of every aspect of the use of dogs by native peoples in the Northeastern Woodlands, Butler and Hadlock (1949) provide an unsurpassed review of the literature. The absence of any evidence for the sacrifice of dogs in New England is notable. Beauchamp's (1888: 203, nl) note referring to Cotton Mather's Magnalia, implying that a WDS is noted therein, is incorrect. Mather describes the native killing of dogs, supposedly as a sacrifice to the devil, but actually only to silence the dogs of the colonists to prevent them from warning of an attack (Mather 1855 (1702], I: 560, Butler and Hadlock 1949: 22-23, n67). Mather's observations in New England is remarkably similar to a 1642 account in the Jesuit Relations in which a dog was publicly offered to the Demon of then killed and eaten. As we can see in the foregoing compendium, Tooker's belief (1970: 84, 102) that human (prisoners) and dog sacrifices for the New Fire were related to war is in no way supported by any aspect of the evidenceConsumption of the meat of the dog, or dogs, sacrificed in the WDS is nowhere reported, except as part of the ritual during a transitional phase just after 1800 CE. Later reports of the WDS represent a specific and evolved ritual with a very limited distribution among tribes of the League of the Iroquois. The direct evidence suggests that, like so many customs among the Five Nations Iroquois, the custom of ritual sacrifice, as distinct from simple consumption of dog meat, was specific to only two tribes: the Seneca and Onondaga.Popular accounts commonly confuse the eating of dog with the WDS (Fig. 10). An illustration by William Thomas Smedley (1858-1920) that appears in a popular Canadian tourist book depicts a group of Native men gathered around the bodies of two dogs. The caption reads:59 The Feast of the Dog is celebrated once a year when the Indians meet to receive their treaty money. Conducted with the utmost gravity by the principal medicine man, a dog is slain, cut up, cooked and eaten. White dogs are preferred, but a dog of any other shade will answer the purpose(Grant 1882: 340)Smedley depicts a simple dog feast or meal. The common disjuncture between an illustration and its caption is evident in this figure. Two dogs are shown but only one is specified in the caption. The preference for a white dog suggests the writer was aware of the WDS, but that is irrelevant to this meal. The caption to this same illustration as it appears in a reprint of this volume (1975) is entirely different.What appear to be true dog sacrifices are seen in two photographs generated in 1920 by Frederick Wilkerson Waugh (1872-1924) during fieldwork among the Ojibway on the Whitefish River, Lac Seul, Ontario. Both are described as Midewiwin deposits in bush round trees, with dog sacrifice: Photo CD file numbers CD96-631 (PCD no. 5798-1631-0110-010 [& Oil]) 48871. The dog in each photograph appears to have been left on the ground to decay.Archaeological EvidenceThe documentary and historical evidence demonstrates that few of the Haudenosaunee, and none of their near neighbors, practiced the WDS. Consideration of the evidence for these rites from an archaeological perspective provides us with no single trait that might be discovered through excavation. Archaeological finds of dog burials, however, are common throughout North America (see Oberholtzer 2003; also Delâge 2005), but there is nothing to associate the remains of dogs recovered through archaeology with the WDS.Of some interest is what may be the few finds of dog burials in the Core Area of wampum use (Fig. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the American Philosophical SocietySame topicMormonism, Religion, and HistoryFrench-language works237,207