Talk:Australian Aboriginal religion and mythology/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

should be moved

This page should be moved. Aborigine is a noun: the adjective is Aboriginal. Saying Aborigine mythology in talking about the dreamtime is like saying Rome mythology when talking about Romulus and Remus.

Trouble is, I'm not sure what to change it to!

  • Aboriginal mythology is more grammatical
  • But perhaps it should be Australian Aboriginal mythology as there are Aboriginies in every continent but the entry is only about the Australian ones.
  • Koori mythology In general, the indigenous word "Koori" is prefered to the European term "Aborigine" which is, if not actually offensive, at least veers marginally in that direction. It's a bit like calling an Innuit an "Eskimo".

Koori is a word meaning "people" and comes from one of the many Aboriginal languages. Many of the communities in NSW and Victoria used either that word or else a rather similar one prior to the European arrival, and in recent years (satarting around about 1970) there has been a strong movement amongst the indigenous Australian community to use the term Koori instead of Aborigine. We should respect that.

However, Koori is a word from only some of the 250-odd Aboriginal languages: strictly it applies only to the people of NSW and perhaps Victoria. It has been adopted by other groups in other states, at least to a certain extent, but I'm not sure if it is considered appropriate to use it nationwide. Does anyone have up-to-date information on this? Tannin 08:41 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)

As an Australian, I have to say that Koori isn't a word that's mainstream in the Australian vocabulary. Part of the problem with a native word for the Aboriginals becoming mainstream is that there are competing words from different Aboriginal languages. In Queensland they prefer Murri in some places, Bama in others. There are around ten competing terms. Although Aboriginals understandably dislike having to use the English name, it's still more universal, even among Aboriginals themselves. The only real alternative may be "Native Australians", but I haven't heard anyone endorsing that one. Carbon Copy Man 13:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

religion

The article seems to say that all the tribes have the SAME religion. Anyone here know whether or not this is actually true or not? Gringo300 17:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's certainly not. --Ptcamn 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Then the next question logically is: Does EACH tribe have it's OWN religion? Gringo300 05:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you can objectively draw lines where one religion ends and another begins, in Aboriginal Australia or anywhere. Traditions between tribes will be the same in some respects and different in others: just how different do they have to be before they stop being two sects of one religion and start being two religions? --Ptcamn 09:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Walkabout

Hey, does the guy who wrote that bit know anything about the term! Walkabout is a term that has been abused ...referring to the fact that Aboriginals went for a long walk after they walked..usually all the way back to their tribal lands.. refer to: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Australians don't use the term disparagingly..at least use another term to describe it or make the difference known!Domsta333 13:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Clean-up

Domsta333 is dead right. I suspect whoever wrote that wasn't Australian, and confused two quite different ideas. I found a few other plain factual errors too, which I've fixed up. I've rewritten that bit, along with a number of other things which have been discussed above, and for which there seems to have been a concensus, but nobody's got around to fixing them. But that list of Figures and elements is an awful mess. Anybody feeling brave? RayNorris 17:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of work by people qualified to do so

I have just made a few edits - but am hesitant to do more without proper authorisation and guidance. I have only been given permission to discuss publicly that which is already recorded in books. As it stands the article gives only a very piecemeal and confusing account of Aboriginal mythology - much of which is considered sacred and/or secret by living people and is therefore only to be shared with properly initiated adults - so it may prove very difficult to write a good general article on the subject. I would be willing to help - but only if proper authorisation and guidance is provided by qualified (i.e. fully initiated and responsible elders). I hope a satisfactory solution can be found for these problems. John Hill (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia policy says that the article should only included material which has already been published elsewhere anyway. The aim should be to present an accurate synopsis of the publicly available knowledge. JPD (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
The difficulties, as I see them, include the fact that much "publicly available knowledge" on the subject is not really knowledge at all and tends frequently to be extremely misleading and even destructive. There is probably at least as much misinformation out there as information - even in material published by "reputable" academic sources. I believe it will be very difficult to find published sources that, first of all, are accurate (there are a lot that aren't - and they will then need to be assessed by appropriate people who really know), and which contain only information that has been gathered with appropriate permission and won't promote further public exposure of secret/sacred material which may cause hurt or even damage to various people and tribes. It will also be hard to sort out what is particular to a certain group and what is more widespread, and how widely; and then how to separate the "mythological" aspects from other facets of Aboriginal life with which they are usually tightly intertwined and then to make sense of all this for people who know little or nothing about Aboriginal culture. I don't know how to resolve these issues and fear this article will remain (like so many other articles and books on Australian Aboriginal mythology), a mishmash of bits and pieces that are really of little value in conveying to others the range and depth and meaning of Aboriginal mythology and culture. Perhaps just a very brief outline of what part "mythology" played, and still plays, for the various Aboriginal peoples is the best we can hope for. I think I will leave it for others to handle. I do worry about how it will be handled, though.
For a start, I will remove the whole section on "Figures and elements" as it mixes up bits of unrelated information from a wide range of language groups and cultures and has no discernible thread of meaning through it - it is just a complete jumble and adds little or nothing to our understanding of Aboriginal mythology. John Hill (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Rewrite of Australian Aboriginal mythology article

Following a request made here, I have offered to have a go at tidying up, expanding and possibly upgrading this article.

Hoping not to cause any offence, I am proceeding with the tidy up as follows:

i. categorise the article as an Australian stub article (it's already been assessed as stub class/quality), inviting others to expand

ii. temporarily cut and paste existing article into the talk page immediately below these comments , so that we may ensure matters identified by previous editors will still be included in new Australian Aboriginal mythologies article

iii. create a new introduction detailing what Australian Aboriginal mythology is, relying in part on description of this exact same subject drawn from the Australian Encyclopaedia of Aboriginal Australia (1994)

iv. slowly and progressively expand or grow this article, perhaps starting with an initial heading 'Characteristics of Aust. Aboriginal myths', etc .. inserting aspects of current article if and where suitable

v. immediately expand and usefully add to external links, bibliography, and references

I hope this is generally agreeable? Bruceanthro (talk) 06:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Full copy of existing edtis, cut and paste, herewith:
Indigenous Australians can be classified into about 400 separate language groups, each of which has a distinct culture. For this reason it is incorrect to classify any attribute as universal to them as a whole. However, almost all the belief systems found seem to be what can be considered a polytheistic, animistic religion. Instead of 'Gods', words like Creator Spirits, Culture Heroes, or Aboriginal Ancestral Spirit are more often used.
Many similarities between the groups may be seen:
  • The Australian Aboriginal cultures are based on nature in every aspect. Many of their mythological beings are commonly known right across Australia, a prominent example being the Rainbow Serpent.
  • Humans are very much part of the land, and are associated with particular places.
  • Another similarity is the so-called "Dreamtime". It is often thought of as the time in which the world was created, but correctly describes the process of the world being called into being. Another general explanation can be seen in anthropologist Max Charlesworth's reference to the Indigenous Australian "Dreamtime" as the ability to 'see with eternal vision' [1]. However, the word Dreamtime is now sometimes discouraged, as it implies a time which has now passed, whereas many Indigenous Australians maintain that The Dreaming time is still with us for those with eyes to see, and also included the future, and so it is now more commonly referred to as the Dreaming. In the Dreaming, there is no clear separation between humans and animals, and several of the spirits are able to change from human form to animal form at will, although clear distinctions are often made between "Dreamtime beings" and living animals and humans.
  • Dreaming paths or songlines describe the path taken by the Ancestral Spirits during the Dreaming. As they travelled along these paths, they "sang" the rocks, plants, and animals into existence. These paths are sacred, and there are songs and ceremonies that describe the journeys along these paths. Particular places along the path (e.g. Ubirr) are especially sacred, and often considered dangerous for uninitiated people, children, or those of the wrong sex to visit.
References
Hiatt, L.R. (1974) Australian Aboriginal Mythology. (AIAS, Canberra)
Lawlor, Robert (1991). Voices Of The First Day: Awakening in the Aboriginal dreamtime. Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions International, Ltd. ISBN 0-89281-355-5

Notes

  1. ^ Max Charlesworth, 'Introduction' in Religion In Aboriginal Australia: An Anthology, ed. by Max Charlesworth, Howard Morphy, Diane Bell and Kenneth Maddock, University of Queensland Press, Queensland, Australia, 1984.
Bruceanthro (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking this on

I am really pleased to see that someone qualified is brave enough to attempt the rewrite. Good on you, mate! If I can help at all - please let me know - and I will when I can spare the time. Good luck with it all. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 07:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous intellectual property Statement

It is noted that some of the Aboriginal lore and other cultural resources relied upon in compiling Australian Aboriginal mythology (ranging from 'names' within stories/myths, through to the content of such names and stories) should properly be considered the intellectual and cultural property of those Aboriginal people's who first gave the material to be documented and recorded.

It is also recognised and noted that within Aboriginal economies of knowledge great store is placed on the act of performing or presenting knowledge, and it is in fact by performing or presenting knowledge (or some version of it), that the ownership of the knowledge is established. The more frequently and effectively particular stories, knowledges, designs or skills are performed, the more they become stamped and owned by the performer, plus, the more the performers performances will be to 'purchase 'obligatory relationships against which claims to real world benefits can be drawn/demanded.

Recognising and acknowledging the above, it is not the authors intention, nor can it be properly considered Wikipedia's organisation's intention to rob the original performers, tellers, knowledge holders of their 'ownership' of those names, stories, or knowledge that may be used in this article. Instead, it is here asserted that any use made of the names etc in this article can not be considered a genuine, authentic, authorised use, and should, rather, be regarded as more of a charactiture of the original, promotional in nature, leading readers towards the actual, authentic knowledge holders, potentially increasing the value of their intellectual and cultural property .. As a matter of practice, in accessing and using such names, stories or knowledges I undertake, whereverpossible, to either name the person/s or family who have originally given the performances/knowledge, and/or the families/group from amongst whom the performances/knowledges find their source.

Bruceanthro (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Aust. Aboriginal totemism - cut and paste from article

For reasons outlined on the editor's talk page, the following edit about Aboriginal totemism has been cut and paste from the article, until further searches/reading/research is done on the topic .. possibly leading to a new section in the article?

This generalisation which explains that Aboriginal mythology or religion is centered on the land as opposed to people is expressed thorough the Aboriginal system of totemism. This system is similar to that used by the Native Americans in that each person is assigned an animal or pland and is responsible for it within the tribal territory. An example of this is if aa Aboriginal child was given the totem kangaroo, he/she would spend the rest of their lives with this symbol and be responsible for its survival within the local ecosystem. It is also believed that the person to which the living thing is assigned will gain the skills and characteristics of that living organism. Through this method of assigning living things to individuals, the survival of that particular species is ensured and the life of that species is protected. This method is a somewhat primitive form of ecological sustainability.[1][2]

Notes

  1. ^ http://www.blessingscornucopia.com/Animal_Communications_Power_Totems_Animal_Speak_Aboriginal_Animal_Totems.htm
  2. ^ http://dreamings.com.au/Retail/dreamings.php

Bruceanthro (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Figures and elements

Two things:

  • I've seen it explicitly said that Australian Aboriginal beliefs do not include gods. Labelling certain personalities "gods" seems like eurocentrism. Perhaps "spirit" would be more appropriate.
  • I really don't like the way random personalities from all different cultures are lumped together. It would be much better if they were moved to subpages for each group. --Ptcamn 19:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone with better knowledge than I should organize the terms according to group, but they should not be thrown out just because they need better organization. It's better to have some information on the various names in the Aboriginal cultures than none at all. Coyoty 18:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This is true - there are no Gods as such in Aboriginal lore - there are Creation beings, Ancestor figures and so on. There is also a pantheon of creatures: Mimi; various types of Hairymen; beings malignant, friendly and indifferent, etc. Again, to say "an Aboriginal" anything is very misleading (see my remark in Koori). I've often seen "the Aboriginal word for..." but there's no such thing. Even to say the "NSW Aboriginal word for.." is wrong. An Aboriginal maybe but not the. It does need reorganising in Wikipedia, true, but it needs to be done by someone with authority - and most with authority or interest are strapped for time. I have a lot of knowledge but no formal qualifications and so no authority.

As far as I have seen on Wikipdeia, aboriginal word for means nobody has bothered finding out what indigenous language group the word came from. It is still an aboriginal word, though. A bit like saying "cafe" is a european word (because french is a european language)Garrie 06:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to move all of these pages at once. —Mets501 (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following pages should to be moved following this consensus.

—Mets501 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support

  • Support Zarbat 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - it will require some reworking of the articles but we need a consistent usage. (I think Premier means he opposes). Adam 12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons of consistency. Has a disambig page been considered as an option to address the A/TSI issue? Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 14:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support for pages that are not intended to focus solely on Australian Aborigines.--cj | talk 12:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, with proviso that if and where used "Indigenous Australians" is understood to include all of the indigenous peoples in Australia. There will be many topics where it will be valid to document at this collective level (eg Land Rights), while there will also be others where it will be better to restrict to only certain groups/cultures, or groups of cultures, such as the TSI peoples. Probably need to ask of each article before reassigning, "is this article's scope relevant to Australia's indigenous peoples collectively/in general, or (eg for languages) relevant to only some subset?" --cjllw | TALK 01:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: There are two Wikipedia principles at play: Respect, and Recognizance. We should move the pages out of respect for the people and how they wish to be referred to, and we can afford to move the pages because people will have no trouble recognizing "Indigenous Australian" as what they may have called "Aboriginal" in the past. Hu 13:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose I think if you move it all to Indigenous you imply that those practices also apply to Torres Strait Island peoples, who seem to generally get overlooked in the discussion of Indigenous Australians. While Aboriginal culture varies from langauge group to language group, it has some fairly basic consistencies, while Torres Strait Islander culture is substantially different, being a Melanesian culture more closely linked to PNG. 138.25.252.110 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Aren't decendants of the colonial poulation indigenous as well? Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia uses the term "Australian aborignals" on the website of the Royal Family. Her Majesty's preference for this term means something - under International Law all Australian citizens are her legal property. Premier 07:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
    • You are confusing two different senses in which words like indigenous are used. One is the common, everyday adjectival sense meaning simply "born in, local to" (your meaning), while the other is the more formal and particular sense whose practical interpretation is more specialised and restrictive, and associated with identity and collective rights as indigenous peoples (see article). This latter sense is very widely recognised for eg. in national/international laws, regulations and treaties across the globe, and is only tangentially-related to the common adjectival definition. If in any further doubt that such distinctions in meaning are valid and are observed, peruse the UN's PFII website or any of hundreds of others which deal with the concept. I don't really see that there's any particular danger that an article entitled Indigenous Australian X could be confused with the former, or not readily understood to be concerned with the latter, of these two meanings.--cjllw | TALK 01:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per scope problems. AFAICT all those articles refer only to the mainland Aborigins, as opposed to Torres Strait Islanders. Merging these topics (appropriate TSI articles don't exist yet?) would obviously be silly, as the two groups are fairly distinct in most aspects. The "Indigenous" should be preserved only where they're referred to commonly, such as in politic issues. Duja► 15:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per scope problems. Andrewa 16:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the scope is different, like relabelling Inuit to Native American everywhere. A potentially better solution might be to split "Australian Aboriginal..." into multiple articles in some cases, if we can find appropriate reliable references to identify the boundaries. "Mythology" appears to already be a redirect, but does not even mention in passing Torres Strait Islanders. "Languages" is also a redirect, but the article doesn't reference Torres Strait Island languages. --Scott Davis Talk 12:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose the list as is. Some of these are workable and even a good idea (eg wordsof indigenous origin). Others are unworkable and akin to mixing Bangaldeshi and European (eg Mythology)Ethel Aardvark (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

These can't be dealt with en bloc. The main page, Indigenous Australians, covers all the indigenous peoples of Australia, including Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders (and thus is properly located at that title). Some of these child articles however are only about Aboriginal Australians; Australian Aboriginal languages for example is distinct from Torres Strait Island languages. --bainer (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm looking at this article, and it looks like it's about all Indigenous Australians, not just the Aborigines. As for the languages, it looks like they can be grouped together under "Australian languages" or "Indigenous Australian languages". But let's see how things work out. I'm open to removing the language move for now if it's going to be problematic. Zarbat 03:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
All the pages mooted for moving deal specifically with Aborigines and don't mention Torres Strait Island culture as far as I can see. Perhaps separate Torres Strait Island culture pages could be created in the future to correspond with these? I don't think changing to Indigenous does Torres Strait Island people and culture justice. For example, I don't know about TSI kinship, but I don't think they have skin system in the way Aboriginal groups do. DRyan 09:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A problem seems to be that the links here direct at "Indigenous Australian ..." but then redirect to "Australian Aboriginal ...". There seems to be some sort of a confusion as to whether the two groups (Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders) should be treated seperately or lumped together as "Indigenous Australians". The other move here seems to be passing pretty smoothly, so I don't really know what to think now. I guess it's better to do this on a case-by-case basis, but I don't really have the time, so I'm just going to accept the outcome of this survey. Zarbat 10:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It may be the case that we end up with some moving that are fairly uncontroversial or can be easily fixed to be entirely inclusive, while others will end up disambiguated so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customs/traditions/etc can be addressed in separate articles in cases where a notable article can be written about each fork in the divide. Orderinchaos78 (t|c) 18:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The consensus quoted by the proposer doesn't seem to me to support this proposal. Andrewa 16:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well it's good to know what people actually think. It wouldn't have been possible without this poll. Zarbat 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I would support per Cyberjunkie, as the ones which are intended to include TSI shoudl be moved. However, I think at least half of them are intended to be more specific, particularly those related to languages. Why have they already been moved? JPD (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was, the proposer cited this previous discussion as a consensus supporting these multiple moves, and I don't think it does. Andrewa 02:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I couldn't find a consensus to support this at that link, either. --Scott Davis Talk 12:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the proposer and I thought that there would be a consensus to move these pages based on that previous discussion. If you look carefully, most people who opposed that previous move are supporting this move. In any case what I meant to say was that this is just a proposal and no one assumed there would be a consensus (or we would have moved the pages without even discussing anything). But in any case it's good to know what people are thinking - in case someone want to propose any moves in the future. Zarbat 13:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clear things up, I'm really indifferent about this, and could care less what the articles are called. This nomination was purely on behalf of Zarbat because he/she was not sure exactly how to go about requesting a move. —Mets501 (talk) 20:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Commendable! Considering how much heat this sort of naming issue generates here in Australia, this whole process has been remarkably civilised IMO. Either way, a win for Wikipedia. Andrewa 01:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

To me the meaning of Aboriginal and Indigenous are very similar and dont propose a seriotype, they both refer to the native inhabitance or species of an area. Enlil Ninlil 12:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • The issue here has more to do with the scope of the terms, not their meaning. Zarbat 09:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not create three articles: Australian Aboriginies, Torres Strait Islanders and Indigenous Australians.

The latter article could explain the term is taken to mean both groups and is controversial.

To see what I mean look at the article for British Isles.

124.184.172.177 15:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The term Australian Aborigines was once widely used but is now largely avoided, and is regarded as offensive by many aboriginal Australians. It should be used as a redirect only IMO, with a note to this effect in the article intro. Andrewa 04:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Further comment: The term aboriginal is inoffensive, both as a noun and as an adjective, although aboriginal Australian is preferred as a noun phrase. It's only Aborigine in its various forms that's a problem AFAIK. No change of vote (see above under oppose). Andrewa 18:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
236 years after Captain Cook made his proclamation on Possession Island there are some descendants of the colonial population who would advance the argument that they are indigenous to Australia too.
124.184.172.177 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, any such descendant (or indeed, any individual born in AU) would be quite at liberty to describe themselves as "indigenous to Australia". However, this does not alter the fact that the nominal phrase "Indigenous Australians" has a particular and well-defined separate meaning as well, as a collective term for the indigenous peoples in Australia per the sense of this present article. The two levels of meanings here are not mutually exclusive, and there should be no grounds for confusion; it's irrelevant.--cjllw | TALK 23:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So why cant we put this at the top of the article then:

The term "Indigenous Australian" can be confusing and is objectionable to some people in Australia.

124.184.172.177 03:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because it's not confusing and it's not objectionable. The phrase "Indigenous Australians" has a definite and distinct meaning, namely the indigenous peoples of Australia. Any person born in Australia might like to call themselves indigenous, but they would be misusing the word. In this context, "indigenous" has the sense of something autochthonous or endemic (as opposed to something innate or intrinsic), and using it to describe any people other than the indigenous peoples of Australia, or as you like to call them, "people of colour", demonstrates an incomprehension of the English language. --bainer (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that is language, meanings change and so do words, Im talking about the word Aboriginal which is only offensive in certain context, it is still regularily used as a classification, like the term european or asia. Enlil Ninlil 04:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, (and at the risk of repeating myself,) I have never heard anyone object to the term aboriginal, in fact it is a source of great pride to many to be aboriginal. It is aborigine that is offensive in some contexts. Frankly I do not understand why this is so, or exactly which contexts these are, but it's taken very seriously by some of those to whom the term is applied, and I'm guessing it is to do with past hurts, of which there are many. In response to this sensitivity, Australian government agencies, church groups and many others now use the term aboriginal rather than aborigine, and I strongly recommend it. No change of vote. Andrewa 14:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A majority of people who identify themselves as Aborignals in the census are part bloods anyway.

124.184.172.177 09:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Thoughts to add some commentary from a book

I've recently become quite interested in this subject, and have access to the book: "Dreamtime, the Aboriginal heritage: Australian Aboriginal myths in paintings / by Ainslie Roberts ; text by Melva Jean Roberts ; line illustrations by Ainslie Roberts"[1]. I just wanted to check first, looking at John Hill's post above, whether anyone is familiar with this work, and can comment on its the authenticity of its contents? I know wikipedia is wikipedia, and anyone can add anything that's been published in reliable sources and nothing that's not, but I'd still defer to real life knowledge when it comes to this subject. If there are no thoughts about the book, I can summarise parts and quote parts and add them to the article where appropriate. It will probably only end up being a matter of several hundred words; unfortunately I don't know enough about the subject to do anything more than that.--Asdfg12345 14:51, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply to a query on my Talk page regarding Roberts' book

Sorry, I have never read this book and can't easily obtain a copy as I live out in the bush. I remember seeing it years ago - but that is all - so I can't comment on it. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal totemism

Dear Friend: Thank you for your note. Certainly I would be more than happy to look at the papers you mentioned on my Talk page and give my thoughts on them. However, I should mention that I am not the most qualified person to do this. First of all, I am not Australian Aboriginal (although I have spent almost half my life living in or close to Aboriginal communities in urban, rural and remote settings and have been very privileged to have been taught a few things and shared many priceless and often life-changing experiences with Aboriginal friends and mentors). Additionally, I am not an academic and have never made a serious academic study of Aboriginal cultures. What I do know and can share is limited - and not only from lack of knowledge - but from the lack of permission to discuss many matters publicly - and subjects such as "totemism" should really be explained by properly initiated or trained people who have the authority to speak (subjects such as these are often very sensitive and sacred or secret and subject to strict Aboriginal Law which I will, and must, respect). However, don't be discouraged - please do send the material and I will think about it and discuss it with others who will know better than I what can or should be said about it in the Wikipedia. Then I will get back to you. Cheers and all best wishes, John Hill (talk) 11:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC) PS Perhaps you should also contact 'Bruceanthro' [2] who is an anthropologist actively working on Aboriginal issues.

Dog and Cat?

Is there a reason that at least the domestic dog isn't mentioned in this article? As far as I know they have an important role in many Australian myths. And shouldn't the article also contain information of changing myths, e.g. the inclusion of the domestic cat and the water buffalo in some rituals and dreamtime stories?--Inugami-bargho (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The article was never comprehensive .. rather sampling couple of widely documented pan-Australian myths (such as Rainbow serpent plus Captain Cook myths) .. plus some documented specific group/place myths ... Please feel free to expand to include other documented examples of either pan-Australian and/or group specific myths and mythologies.
The Captain Cook myth shows the adaptive/accomodating capacity of contemporary mythologies and performance .. though, over in north queensland part of Australia .. there's not too many water buffalos in contemporary mythology ... and have heard more myths/stories about domestic dingos than dogs .. and wouldn't surprise me if there is movement (and slippage?) between the two .. in the telling?? Bruceanthro (talk) 06:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Required move requested

This page desperately requires moving to, i suggest, "Australian Aborigine's religions" or "Religions in Aboriginal Australia". It is not scholarly at all at the moment to title it this current way. Just plain wrong. How about i move Christianity to Christian mythology so you can see the furious uproar and how quickly that move gets shot down as arguing. Two primary scholarly references are:

Charlesworth M., D. Bell, H. Morphy & K. Maddock (ed's) (1992)
Religion in Aboriginal Australia.
An Anthology, 2nd Edition. University of Queensland Press, St Lucia
Max Charlesworth, Françoise Dussart, and Howard Morphy (ed's) (2005)
Aboriginal Religions in Australia: An Anthology of Recent Writings
Series: Vitality of Indigenous Religions Series
Ashgate publishing.
see -> http://books.google.com/books?id=f8SHgsVNoEwC&dq=isbn:0754651282

As a European Australian who has grown up with friends who are Aborigines all my life and extending into many contacts and friends who are Aborigines nowadays at 40 years old, i find this insulting to my intelligence, this page's disrespect. Please at least read the primary literature in European-Australian academia and fix this page accordingly, better still learn directly from developing real relationships with people who are Aborigines in this continent, Australia. --macropneuma 15:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

G'day macropneuma! I will:
i. first respond by noting there IS an article entitled Christian mythology which is not so controversial as to be seen to require any form of protection etc .. and appears to be accepted as just one aspect/dimension of Christianity as a whole;
ii. next respond by suggesting that the real problem would seem to be that there is NO wikipedia article on Australian Aboriginal religions as a whole subject (there are scattering of articles on Dreamtime etc) .. and anyone doing a search on the subject are directed to this article, which deals with just one aspect/dimension of much larger subject
In conclusion, then, might I suggest starting up an article on Australian Aboriginal religion to match the Christianity and/or other such articles ... and note that should you be agreeable to initiate such ambitious (?) undertaking, then I will try to assist?!!  : Also might be worth requesting such article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia, and see who else might be able to assist?! Cheers Bruceanthro (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE and Captain Cook

I suggest the Captain Cook section be mostly deleted - this is an obscure, if interesting, example, relying essentially on one secondary source (Maddock) for its inclusion here, and is relatively insignificant i think in terms of Aborignal mythology as a whole. It gives undue weight to this feature, which would be read by non-Australians as being a major element - even the dominant single story - amongst these mythologies - which is untrue. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this wholeheartedly. There is a distinct difference between folk legends and mythology - the latter deeply rooted in the people's own traditions. The James Cook "myth" is a reaction to European colonialism and is not a part of their own culture. It also gives far too much significance to the story of the colonizer to place him alongside mythic figures like the Rainbow Serpent. In fact, I am going to just go ahead and delete that section until someone can come up with a valid reason for why it belongs here, rather than in some other article about folk legends. Chaosthird (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree there might be a problem with to much on the subject, but that can be dealt with by editing it. These stories are of some importance because the occur over most of the continent, and a random distinction between pre- and post-invasion mythology won't alter that. (The claim that this is "not a part of their own culture" is patently wrong and there are about half a dozen sources.) Consequently I'm reinstating the section.--Misarxist 08:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Then please don't just reinstate it, edit it. The claimed sources are all from one secondary source, and my main original point is this is serious WP:UNDUE - this is an obscure element of Australian Aboriginal mythology and not significant to what a reader would expect to find under this title (primarily mythology of traditional (pre-contact) origins). I agree with Misarxist, however, that the place of the material is not affected by the pre / post-invasion distinction - that is, I accept that post-invasion mythologies are legitimately covered. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear hamiltonstone (talk), while it may not neatly match possible prior preconception, you will note two reliable sources are given documenting the prominence (rather than obscurity) of 'Captain Cook' as significant figure occurring in Aboriginal Australian mythologies across Australia, telling of a dramatic/traumatic and transformative period in whole groups' ways of life.
Also Chaosthird (talk), and hamiltonstone (talk), would appreciate some reliable sourcing of any competing views on either the nature of Aboriginal mythlogies, or the relatively prominence/obscurity of particular myths before deleting?
Should this article's record of this particular myth seem too prominent .. perhaps greater balance could be restored by adding additional pan-Australian myths, perhaps dingo myths, or a two brothers myths, should someone be willing and able to pull together the references to support/match the pan-Aboriginal Australian status/claim of those other myths? Bruceanthro (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Happy with that last suggestion. Bruce, I wasn't suggesting deletion, just that it be trimmed for balance. But you make some interesting points... hamiltonstone (talk) 10:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Mythology = POV?

Describing Dreamtime spirits and stories as 'mythology' is entirely subjective and POV. Can I suggest this article be renamed to Australian Aboriginal beliefs (or characters)? Sambo 16:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "myth". It doesn't have to mean "false". Native American mythology uses the same term in its title. I think it's just the best term for referring to a group of disorganised religious systems. Perhaps this article should model itself after the Native American article? If only I knew where to begin. I know very little about specific Aboriginal cultural groups. Carbon Copy Man 13:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps this article should model itself after the Native American religion article rather than the mythology article. 163.47.68.217 (talk) 02:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Australian Aboriginal mythology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Australian_Aboriginal_religion_and_mythology/Archive_1&oldid=1128028020"