3 ms·

Of course, it would be unjust to judge academic research from a one-line summary that a journalist wrote. But at least on the surface, this is unconvincing: >

Of course, it would be unjust to judge academic research from a one-line summary that a journalist wrote. But at least on the surface, this is unconvincing: > D’Huy is applying these methods to study how ancient myths can inform what we know about our connection with other animals such as sheep — their mythological link with the sun could have led to domestication. Symbolic, rather than utilitarian, reasons for domestication could explain a lot of data, he says. Why would hunter-gatherers in a resource-constrained environment keep food around and not eat it? I would rather bet that my ancestors had exactly the same mythological connection with their flock of sheep that I have with my freezer.

ncmncm 4y ago
It is probably a mistake to discount d'Huy. He is not certain to be right, but if wrong he is certain to be interestingly wrong. Association of dogs with Sirius far enough back to precede populating the Americas is pretty astounding. Apparently the river and ferryman elements associated with dying do, too. The association of sisters with the Pleiades apparently goes back much farther, maybe to before we left Africa.
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  Reputation based argumentation is pretty weak though. His reasoning may be sound but it is still highly speculative. Speculating some myself, it's easy to see how a domesticated wolf could be useful for hunting, guard duty, or even offensive use. The nature of wolfs is that they are pack animals so they'd submit to a strong master. Probably, early hunter gatherers, would have encountered and occasionally killed wolfs in the wild. The chances of encountering a wolf with some pubs would have been non zero and it raises the question what a hunter would do with some pups after disposing of the mother. Just speculating here but it seems that that's a story that just writes itself. From there to breeding animals is a small leap.
- permo-w 4y ago
  what is the evidence for these associations?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Apparently the way this kind of research is pursued today, one starts with one or more respectable worldwide databases of oral traditions, and identifies a collection of apparently similar myths by noting various sometimes-shared features, or motifs. These are entered into a phylogenetic tree analysis. This is the same thing biologists use in teasing out genetic lineages of more or less related animal, plant, or fungus species. The output is a proposed "this one came first, and spawned this or these others", all down the line. Biologists cross-check this against a timeline and geography. It is easy for such an analysis to go wrong: garbage in, garbage out. Its results are always, "assuming (the input), (the output) is the best fit for paths of descent." Different people invariably produce different input and get more or less different output. But often certain aspects of the analyses are robust across unrelated analyses: birds always show up in Dinosauria, mammals never. For oral traditions, you generally expect to see a geographical progression from a central point of origin, with progressively different versions in oral traditions taken farther away. For something like the Pleiades, where once seven stars were discernable and later six, you may see details appear to account for the change. Such observationally shared details need not trace to a single parent myth, and so may introduce noise to the analysis. But where similar accountings appear, they might each be traced to an origin. All this is very difficult to make rigorous, but often curious relationships emerge that no one had noticed before. These may then be checked against other data. One such is connections between stories told in Oceania and in South America, which need to be accounted for. Waves of migration may appear, as later arrivals may displace earlier versions except in less favored environments. The same process is used in tracing language evolution, where instead of oral-tradition motifs, cognate words and pronunciation shifts are tracked. And, it is used to trace genetic relationships among groups of people who have migrated and settled the globe. Comparing genetic, language, and oral tradition analyses helps to strengthen all three. Genetic similarities between people in Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America, and Australian aboriginals may be accounted for by these migration waves. Peculiarities in languages in western Europe and central Asia, likewise. In each case the details are presumed to have once matched throughout the range, but have been displaced by later forms except at the ends. Anyway that is how I understand it. I have not performed any phylogenetic analyses, myself.

ncmncm 4y ago

It is probably a mistake to discount d'Huy. He is not certain to be right, but if wrong he is certain to be interestingly wrong. Association of dogs with Sirius far enough back to precede populating the Americas is pretty astounding. Apparently the river and ferryman elements associated with dying do, too. The association of sisters with the Pleiades apparently goes back much farther, maybe to before we left Africa.

jillesvangurp 4y ago
Reputation based argumentation is pretty weak though. His reasoning may be sound but it is still highly speculative. Speculating some myself, it's easy to see how a domesticated wolf could be useful for hunting, guard duty, or even offensive use. The nature of wolfs is that they are pack animals so they'd submit to a strong master. Probably, early hunter gatherers, would have encountered and occasionally killed wolfs in the wild. The chances of encountering a wolf with some pubs would have been non zero and it raises the question what a hunter would do with some pups after disposing of the mother. Just speculating here but it seems that that's a story that just writes itself. From there to breeding animals is a small leap.
permo-w 4y ago
what is the evidence for these associations?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Apparently the way this kind of research is pursued today, one starts with one or more respectable worldwide databases of oral traditions, and identifies a collection of apparently similar myths by noting various sometimes-shared features, or motifs. These are entered into a phylogenetic tree analysis. This is the same thing biologists use in teasing out genetic lineages of more or less related animal, plant, or fungus species. The output is a proposed "this one came first, and spawned this or these others", all down the line. Biologists cross-check this against a timeline and geography. It is easy for such an analysis to go wrong: garbage in, garbage out. Its results are always, "assuming (the input), (the output) is the best fit for paths of descent." Different people invariably produce different input and get more or less different output. But often certain aspects of the analyses are robust across unrelated analyses: birds always show up in Dinosauria, mammals never. For oral traditions, you generally expect to see a geographical progression from a central point of origin, with progressively different versions in oral traditions taken farther away. For something like the Pleiades, where once seven stars were discernable and later six, you may see details appear to account for the change. Such observationally shared details need not trace to a single parent myth, and so may introduce noise to the analysis. But where similar accountings appear, they might each be traced to an origin. All this is very difficult to make rigorous, but often curious relationships emerge that no one had noticed before. These may then be checked against other data. One such is connections between stories told in Oceania and in South America, which need to be accounted for. Waves of migration may appear, as later arrivals may displace earlier versions except in less favored environments. The same process is used in tracing language evolution, where instead of oral-tradition motifs, cognate words and pronunciation shifts are tracked. And, it is used to trace genetic relationships among groups of people who have migrated and settled the globe. Comparing genetic, language, and oral tradition analyses helps to strengthen all three. Genetic similarities between people in Tierra del Fuego, at the southern tip of South America, and Australian aboriginals may be accounted for by these migration waves. Peculiarities in languages in western Europe and central Asia, likewise. In each case the details are presumed to have once matched throughout the range, but have been displaced by later forms except at the ends. Anyway that is how I understand it. I have not performed any phylogenetic analyses, myself.