Talk:Selwyn Dewdney

Sources on Dewdney
Raymond H. Thompson Reviewed work(s): The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway by Selwyn Dewdney American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer, 1977), pp. 165-167 (review consists of 3 pages) Published by: University of Nebraska Press http://www.jstor.org/pss/1184188

birchbark scholar Selwyn Dewdney who cites a 1,000-year-old birchbark scroll remnant http://westgatehouse.com/art36.html

Later Selwyn Dewdney, an artist and anthropologist, saw his work and learned a lot from him about native life and taught him a lot http://www.pastforward.ca/perspectives/March_32006.htm

the late Selwyn Dewdney, Canada's foremost authority on pictographs http://www.friendsofoiseaurock.ca/conservation.htm

Selwyn Dewdney - Art educator and noted expert on Ojibway art and anthropology. http://norvalmorrisseau.blogspot.com/2007/11/selwyn-dewdney-about-norval-morrisseau.html

Dewdney who became known as the expert on the rock paintings scattered throughout the Canadian Shield http://www.native-art-in-canada.com/norvalmorrisseau.html

Selwyn Dewdney Fonds http://www.lib.uwo.ca/files/archives/archives%20finding%20aids/test_Dewdney,%20Selwyn%20fonds%20AFC%2021%20070707.pdf

Dewdney was fondly called The Father of Rock Art in Daylight in the Swamp by A.K. Dewdney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.168.194 (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Selwyn Dewdney, the founding father of Canadian rock art research. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6922/is_1_24/ai_n28429514/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.41.89 (talk • contribs) 8 February 2010

1655 claim
The citation that was added to the article ("Voices from the Delaware Big House Ceremony", pg 23) does not substantiate the claim being made, that is that the Midewiwin Society was first documented in 1655. The Grumet book is referring to the documentation of the "Big House" (Gamwing) ceremony existing during that period among the Lenape people, not the Midewiwin, which is associated with the Anishinaabeg. I'm entirely open to the possibility of the idea that the existence of Midewiwin predates what is currently claimed in the article, but that must be substantiated by a reliably sourced reference before it can appear in the encyclopedia, the citation pointing to "Voices from the Delaware Big House Ceremony" pg. 23, does not support the claim. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps your confusion is based on the identity of the ceremony being perfomed by Midewiwin, Anishinaabeg, Gamwing, Lenape, or Delaware. Read Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway and then Read Voices from the Delware Big House Ceremony. The entire ceremony is defined also by Frank Speck, performed in the Same way as the Delaware Indian Big House ceremony. The articles claim that the society "originated" in 1700's or even 1655 is unsupported by your reference, and this more recent reference is certainly reliable. For example, See Midewiwin
 * ''Tribal groups who have such societies include the Abenaki, Quiripi, Nipmuc, Wampanoag, Anishinaabe (Algonquin, Ojibwa/Chippewa, Odawa/Ottawa and Potawatomi), Miami, Fox, Sac, Sioux and the Winnebago. These indigenous peoples of Turtle Island (North America) known either as First Nations or as Native Americans passed along birch bark scrolls, teachings, and have degrees of initiations and ceremonies. They are often associated with the Seven Fires Society, and other aboriginal groups or organizations. The Miigis shell, or cowrie shell, is used in some ceremonies, along with bundles, sacred items, etc. There are many oral teachings, symbols, stories, history, and wisdom passed along and preserved from one generation to the next by these groups.
 * Whiteshell Provincial Park is named after the white shell (cowrie) used in Midewiwin ceremonies. This park contains some petroforms that are over 1000 years old, or possibly older, and therefore may predate some aboriginal groups that came later to the area.''
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.168.194 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * But the sharing of some physical elements of ceremony by religious practitioners within a selected group of nations; or even if they hold a few elements of their respective symbolic universes in common, isn't the same thing as saying they are "identical", now, or even in the past for that matter. We're also not allowing for important qualifier that all these groups changed through time, for instance there's evidence to suggest that the "Midewewin" of the 18th century was not the "Midewewin" of the 19th, in terms of what was actually taught to initiates. When you introduce European religious folkways into a given area for the first time, I'd wager that process of change even accelerates. In my opinion, the current version of the article is positing an unsupported theoretical position arrived at through original research; and that the reference being offered in support, does not in fact support what is being claimed. I've already asked for another opinion on this matter, hopefully they will offer another perspective. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In regards to the practices within the midewigaaning of the midewiwin and the practices within the gam'wing, they may have been identical (due to a common shared history), but that does not make the two faith-systems identical, mainly because of differing external influences shaping the theological ideas behind the dogma of the two faith systems.
 * In the pan-Indian movement since the 1960's, it is common to say all indigenous faith systems of North America are one and the same, but with different specific flavour, but this statement does not hold in an anthropological view point. Also, due to the economic and political influences various Anishinaabe and Waabanaki groups have had over the past 300 years, they have socially influenced their neighbours, causing leaching of the midewiwin practices especially into other Algonquian groups (such as with the Sac and Fox) and to varying degrees of influence to non-Angonquian groups (near-fully with the Ho-chunks/Winnebagos, significantly with the Dakotas, minimally with other Siouan peoples). More recently, added to this complexity are the New Age movements that are blending aspects of many indigenous faith systems and in the process of re-claiming these practices away from the New Age movements, the blended practices are then "reclaimed"... which in the pan-Indian movement, this is OK to do because "all indigenous faith systems of North America are one and the same, but with different specific flavour".
 * For the case of Wikipedia, we need to be objective and have the articles be NPOV... moreover, the articles need to be documentable. We can combine the Anishinaabe and Waabanaki midewiwin practices into a single article because not only do they have the same name but also because of independently documented common origin based on oral tradition. The article, though, is still lacking where there are the specific differences among all the Anishinaabe and Waabanaki groups. This kind of documentation, between midewiwin and gam'ing do not exist (as far as I am aware), so even if the oral tradition claim a common origin for the midewiwin and gam'ing, unless that detail has been documented and be verifyable, we here at Wikipedia cannot link the two. We can say the two are similar, because they are and there are ample example of that, but the bottom line here is if there is verifyable source connecting the two, and as said above, I don't know of one. CJLippert (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been diligently attempting to find something in the literature that identifying the two groups as synonymous and have come up with nothing. The cite from "Voices from the Delaware Big House Ceremony" demonstrates that some version of gam'ing was documented by Europeans in the mid 1600's, but that's it. Unless a reliable source can be provided to demonstrate the idea that the two groups are in fact synonymous, then I'm going to treat this as a case of WP:OR and edit it accordingly. Thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The question seems to be whether the origin of the Midewiwin society dates to 1700. An earlier source is plausible considering the time period of european contact would be difficult to create an elaborate society with deep traditions. As Dewdney States, the origin "Surely Predates European Influence".

Archaeological evidence of the Presence of Midewiwin society is seen in the legend of Bear's Journey. "While the content and meaning of the ritual may change over time and may differ from that known in the historic period, it is clear that Bear's origin narrative was present by A.D. 1200-1400. Our case shows that the Bear's Journey portion of the Midewiwin rite has existed as a major focus of Native ritual activity since at least A.D. 1200. Obviously no historical document could demonstrate such an assertion" Bear's Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology Author(s): Meghan C. L. Howey and John M. O'Shea Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 71, No. 2 (Apr., Published by: Society for American Archaeology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40035905
 * Interesting paper, thanks for passing it along. I'd suggest that to strengthen their argument, they're going to have to do a fair bit more field work on these sites investigating and elaborating on features that they're suggesting represent the 'footsteps of the Bear'. So far it seems to me that they're reading a great deal into the presence of two juxtaposed "enclosures" and a few features directly associated with them. It would be interesting to see what turns up if they expanded their examination more evenly over the entire site(s). cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The statement that the society was first reported in the 1700's is inaccurate. A medicine society was reported for the Huron by Father Jean Brebeuf in 1636. Thwaites, Jesuit Relations, vol. 10, pp. 207, 209 and again for the same people by Father Paul Ragueneau for 1645- 1646. Thwaites, Jesuit Relations,vol. 30, p. 23.

Recollet Priest Chrétien Le Clercq arrived to Acadia in 1676. He had observed little children scratching symbols with pieces of charcoal on birch bark so that they could remember their prayers. Bibliography of the Algonquian Languages By James Constantine Pilling, Wilberforce Eames Published by Govt. print. off., 1891

Also, The History of Cartography By John Brian Harley, David Woodward, G. Malcolm Lewis recorded birchbark maps among the Micmacs from 1675-1687. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.39.168.194 (talk • contribs)
 * As has already been pointed out, if you can come up with reliably sourced references to support the conclusions you're presenting, you're welcome to add them. As it it stands right now, it appears to me that you are engaging in original research. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As CJL suggests above and I agree with, few would disagree that the conceptual roots of Midewiwin (at least in some form) in all likelihood predates the early 18th century. I have no problem with anyone incorporating a properly cited indication of that in the article. As long as the claims being made are in fact supported by the references provided, I'm happy. My difficulty all along has been with what appeared to me to be the unsupported conflation of Midewiwin and Gam'ing into a single entity. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dec. Stated twice that this could be added, now removes it as "vanadlism". EXPLAIN! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.86.97 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll attempt to "explain" it one final time to aid any administrator that potentially might have to deal with this. The claim that you are continually re-adding is simply not supported by the citation that you're providing, this isn't just a matter of a differing interpretation between the two of us, the reference you're providing may support the documentation of a particular belief system by the Europeans in the 17th century, but it is not the same belief system that is being discussed in context in the article. It appears that you hold a strong belief that the two are in fact synonymous, but without a reference to support that conclusion, what you're doing constitutes both an "extraordinary claim" and WP:OR. If you believe what you're contending can be supported in a reliable source, please, by all means provide it, believe it or not, I'd love to see that reference. It would be most helpful if you simply provided a direct quote and citation right here on the talk page for discussion first before adding it to the article. In closing, I'd like to remind you that removing warning templates from your talk page is not an effective way of avoiding Wikipedia policies, even if they are removed, they are considered to have been "read" once they're posted. thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this situation now appears to have degraded into an edit war, I'm going to refrain from reverting your last edit for the moment in order to comply with the 3R rule. What continues to perplex me is why you don't simply comply with my request to post the direct quote from the Grumet book that you believe supports what is being claimed, in particular a quote from "pg. 24" of the book that you claim supports your contention. I looked at the source material you've pointed out and I can only see one mention of Midewiwin, in the entire book, apart from bibliographical and footnote entries and it's unrelated what you're claiming. At this point, I'm prepared to have any fair minded editor arbitrate this situation, I'm arguing in defence of the idea that a citation in the encyclopedia must actually support what is being claimed in the article. Without that as a basic guiding principle, the information in Wikipedia is worse than 'thin', it's misleading. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can determine the Grumet book makes one small oblique reference to the Midewiwin, it's not on "pg. 24" as claimed,


 * http://books.google.com/books?id=87Bst5IBCAsC&dq=oices+from+the+Delaware+Big+House+Ceremony&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=nsqokx5-pX&sig=HbCxSvRNlCja0x_6wWVIVqnkjwY&hl=en&ei=k96ISf6lEqKBtwep24GgBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result#PPT37,M1

it's in the preface and it makes no mention at all of when the Midewiwin were first documented by incoming Europeans. Unless, as I said earlier, you're conflating all North American (or at least the eastern ones) medicine societies of the 17th century into one large entity through OR, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you're attempting to argue here. Again, perhaps if you quoted directly from the Grumet book, I'd be able to get a handle on it, at this point I'm not counting on that happening. I'll get over it.
 * "Still, there is evidence that medicine societies among certain northeastern woodland peoples existed very near the dawn of the historical period.8 A medicine society was re- ported for the Huron by Father Jean Brebeuf in 1636,9 and again for the same people by Father Paul Ragueneau for 1645- 1646.10 There is not enough detail in those descriptions to tell whether such societies met regularly, or even whether the people at large were invited or had free access to the ceremonial grounds during the performances, as was the case when the Midewiwin was held in later years among the Chippewa. Again, there is a description of a medicine society among the Illinois, which may also relate to the Miami, written by Sieur Pierre Deliette, nephew of the explorer Sieur Henri de Tonti, sometime during the first two decades of the 18th cen- tury,ll but which may refer to 17th century practice. The men and women of this society met two or three times during the summer in an enclosure especially prepared for the purpose of holding the ceremonial. According to Deliette the practitoners would decide beforehand what they would do: . . .in order more easily to hoodwink the young people and keep alive the faith in their magical powers, both for the rewards which they get for attending to the sick and also with a view to keeping the younger generation under their influence when they wish them to do something for the security of their village or the repose of their wives and children.l2 The suggestion here of a connection between the medicine society and the welfare of the village implies, perhaps, a tie up between the religious and civil authority. This is reminis- cent of a statement by the 19th century part-Chippewa historian, William Whipple Warren, who wrote that among the people of the 18th century Chippewa village at Chequamegon Peninsula of the south shore of Lake Superior, "the system of civil polity" Hickerson, Page 406 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.86.97 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Hickerson reference that you provided tonight in support of the claim that Midewiwin was "first documented by Europeans around the mid 1600's",actually specifically refutes that claim on pg. 418 :

"As I have pointed out elsewhere, Kinietz is perhaps on more solid ground when he suggests that the description of a Saulteur (proto-Chippewa) cult in 1709 or 1710 by Antoine Denis Raudot was a Mide ceremonial. But even in that description, lacking in detail as it is, we are not yet certain that it was the full-fledged Midewiwin with its degrees, its paraphernalia and its medicinal and mythological lore to which Raudot referred. We may assert, then, that there has been no proof yet advanced for the aboriginality of the Midewiwin. All indication is (and here I must refer again to my paper cited above) that the Midewiwin was developed at approximately the turn of the 18th century as a functional response to changes in the social and political organization of proto-Chippewa communities occurring in the late 17th century." [Hickerson Pg. 418]

In my opinion, if you're looking for academic support for the prehistoric existence of Midewiwin, Hickerson is probably a really bad choice. In my opinion he's kind of biased the other way. The final reference you added tonight, Howey and O'Shea, again, actually specifically refutes the claim that Midewiwin was "first documented by Europeans around the mid 1600's". Ironically enough, even though they point to a prehistoric origin in their archaeological work, they agree with Hickerson in terms of when the Society was first noted by Europeans:

"Using additional historical evidence (such as the fact that the first definite mention of the Midewiwin in colonial accounts didn't occur until 1714 in relation to the Potawatomi at Detroit [Hickerson 1963:76]), Hickerson argued that "all indication is that the Midewiwin was developed at approximately the turn of the 18th century" (Hickerson 1962:418). Hickerson's argument for a post-European contact origin of the Midewiwin has been the widely accepted position (Aldenderfer 1993; Dewdney 1975; Schlesier 1990; Spindler 1978)." [Howey and O'Shea pg. 263]


 * "Our case shows that the Bear's Journey portion of the Midewiwin rite has existed as a major focus of Native ritual activity since at least A.D. 1200. Obviously no historical document could demon- strate such an assertion. The archaeological record allowed us to establish time depth and this has altered the historical understanding of the Midewi- win ceremony and contributed new insights into its development during the contact era. By critically considering how our understand- ing of the past was altered when the meaning behind the Missaukee Earthworks was revealed by the Midewiwin ethnohistoric data, we found that such new knowledge, while certainly animating the archaeological finds, had surprisingly little impact on our broader understanding of the society in the past." [Howey and O'Shea pg. 279] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.86.97 (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be bold and edit out the first two references as either OR, or simply failing to support the claim that's being made, but I'm going to move the Howey and O'Shea reference to support the claim below it, which seems much more appropriate to me. As I said earlier, personally I think they've got methodological problems there that need some ironing out, but it appears to be reputably published and that's what counts. Please stop simply reverting these edits or adding references that upon examination don't back up what's being claimed and then blanking pages or ignoring attempts engage in discussion, the Howey and O'Shea article is an interesting and useful find and it's appreciated. The rest of it can easily be viewed as disruptive. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone cares to add the Hickerson reference to support the early 1700's first documentation date, be my guest, I thought it would be a little "much" for me to do it under the circumstances. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Two sources that argue for pre-1700 origin of the Midewiwin:
 * 1) Old Religion among the Delawares: The Gamwing (Big House Rite), Jay Miller, Ethnohistory, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Winter, 1997), :: pages 113-134 Published by: Duke University Press ::Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/482903
 * Specifically, Miller stated "The Gamwing Origin saga was first written down in 1679."... "My argument about the Gamwing has parallels with revised thinking about the Midewiwin of the Ojibways and Great Lakes, which was recast, not "invented" at Chequamegon about 1700... "
 * 2)Angel, Michael. Preserving the sacred: historical perspectives on the Ojibwa Midewiwin. University of Manitoba Press. 2002. "For the origin of the Midewiwin, ::"One must look farther back in the Ojibway past than their first settlement at Chequamegon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)Angel, Michael. Preserving the sacred: historical perspectives on the Ojibwa Midewiwin. University of Manitoba Press. 2002. "For the origin of the Midewiwin, ::"One must look farther back in the Ojibway past than their first settlement at Chequamegon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute regarding first euro documentation of Midewiwin
I've started a new section in the hope that it will make it easier to read for anyone interested in trying to follow this, it becomes increasingly difficult to track anything at all when edits become interspersed. Let's see if I can condense this down to the basics from my perspective. Recent edits to the article posted three separate citations which supposedly support the claim in the current version of the article that Midewiwin was "first documented by Europeans around the mid 1600's". The first reference purportedly offered is from "page 24" in the Grumet book. The problem is that page 24 of the Grumet book contains no mention of the Midewiwin at all, let alone anything regarding the date of its first documentation by Europeans. This afternoon an editor in the old section above this one, posted a link to a map on page 6 of the Grumet book labelled "Delaware Diaspora 1600-2000". Once again, there is no mention of the Midewiwin Society anywhere on this document, so it too fails to support what is being claimed.

The second reference allegedly backing up a mid 17th century documentation of the group, is the Hickerson article, which I quote above. Read in its entirety, it specifically dismisses the idea of any European contact with the Midewiwin society before 1700, which is plainly evident not only in the quote that I provided, but also is strongly inferred in the quote that an editor posted this afternoon which they present as supporting the position that the group was first documented by Europeans in the "mid 1600's"!

The final citation being put forward in support of the claim is from "Bear's Journey and the Study of Ritual in Archaeology", which I've read in its entirety and also quote from in the section above. Despite the fact that Howey and O'Shea come out strongly in the article in support of the prehistoric existence of Midewiwin, no where in the article do they dispute Hickerson's findings that the group was first documented by Europeans in the early 18th century, in fact they appear to agree with him. None of those citations in fact support what's being claimed. Because of that, and because none of the contributing editors involved seem interested in engaging in a discussion of how they're arriving at their conclusions, from this point forward, barring the addition of new reference materials to the mix, I going to regard the continuation of replacing these unsupported claims as vandalism and treat them as such. If because of this an intervening administrator determines that I am violating the "3R" rule and decides to block me because of it, I'm prepared to take "the hit" and plead innocent. lol It would be my first one in almost three years of "unblemished" service to Wikipeida. At this point I can use the rest. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Michael Angel "Many Ojibwa, however, consider his (Hickerson's) theories to be culturally arrogant as well as inaccurate. A few contemporary Euro-American scholars such as Howard (the Plains-Ojibwa. 133-134) have taken issue with Hickerson's arguments. Deleary (in his thesis "Midewiwin") is, as far as I am aware, the only Ojibwa scholar to use both Anishinaabe oral traditions and Euro-American documents to critique Hickerson"s arguments."

See Nicholas Deleary Bio: http://www.shingwauku.com/facultyandstaff.php?pageid=21