User:Physis/Spiritual culture of the Hadzabe

Dear Kwamikagami,

Ludwig Kohl-Larsen is a notable expert in the topic, he has not been discredited, he is often cited: also Berezkin's online motif catalog cites Ludvig Kohl-Larsen ("[Людвиг] Коль-Ларсен") in the Hadza ("хадза")-related items. Thus Kohl-Larsen's approach and opinion must not be deleted: in any case it must be mentioned, at least as a notable opinion. Of course any other approaches can be mentioned alongside, if they are sourced.

I admit that in some myths Haine has indeed some creator-like, demiurgical features and plays a primary role even contrasted to Ischoko. Despite of that, in generally Kohl Larsen's book does not seem for me to support the opinion that Haine could be called "God", because
 * Haine's figure is often strongly anthopomorphized
 * in most other occurrences, the other mythological figure Ischoko has much more features that we could call god-like (being addressed in luck-wishing formulae, featuring more in demiurgical roles, capable of deciding about the fate of human from birth etc.) In the summary part of his book and in the endnotes, Kohl-Larsen seems to attribute some God-like features to Ischoko, moreover, he often refers to this figure as "deity".

In any cases I'd be very cautious about terming mythological figures of hunter-gatherers as "god". Although I cannot exclude the possibility (as I do not know all hunter-gathereres, far from that), but I suspect that we are always very inclined to project our own views onto peoples whom we do not understand completely. I think hunter-gatherers have to cope with different problems and have tried different solutions. This is reflected in mythologies which differ greatly from ours (and even from each other). I propose being over-cautious. Even in cases where they have some figures that look like creator / god, I think eventually it turns out that these superficially god-seeming figures are far from that.

There is also another danger: most hunter-gatherer societies have already been influenced by large paradigms (Islam, Christianity, modernity). As a result, there are syncretisms emerging. We have to keep in mind, when we are recording a syncretisms, and in such cases we must not suggest to the readers that it would be authentic.

Critics against Urmonotheism seem to support my caution. According to the Urmonotheism hypothese: hunter-gatherers have, had or used to have a "primeval monotheism" that lies in the root of their beliefs, and the many animistic, magical etc. features are just on the surface. But this hypothese has not been validated, as far as I know.

In any case I'd like to delete any mentioning of God attributed to Haine from the Kohl-Larsen-cited sentences, because the sources at hand do not support such connotations yet. Even if in the future somebody would find sources about such approaches / opinions, or even if somebody would find such variants of Hadzabe myths / beliefs that are indeed monotheistic, even in this case these thoughts must be mentioned in standalone sentences / sections, and they must not be attributed to Kohl-Larsen. In such a situations, the different approaches must be mentioned separately (Neutral point of view), naming the reference for each alternative approach, or the source of the alternative myth variant (Verifiability). For example:
 * "according to ... author, Haine can be regarded as a God figure"
 * "in the syncretic variant of ... myth, Hadzabe regard Haine as a God".

Linguistical arguments in proving non-linguistical claims
Your remarks about grammatical gender are very valuable, I think You can add them if they can be supported by references, together with the sources. Notes and references about Hadzabe language are surely not off-topic here! But care must be taken:

Original research by synthesis
Although grammatical considerations can impose conjectures about mythology, but they do not suffice as evidence. Wikipedia prohibits original research by synthesis as part of its No original research policy. If a reference, a notable author definitely and directly declares that Haine and Ischoko was such and such gender, then it can be accepted. But if a consequence can be only obtained by deduction from different sources, withut any source supporting it directly, care must be taken. For example if source A says that male and female gender can be recognized by such and such suffixes, and source B narrates about Haine and Ischoko, then the Wikipedia editor is not justified to put together these two facts, he is not justified to deduce at all: he must not declare that Haine and Ischoko were such and such gender on the sole basis of grammatical considerations. Either he finds an indirect reference for the claim, or he must try to publish it himself as a conjecture in a notable medium and wait for acceptance from the scientific community (or at least a notable publisher).

Coherence in pragmatics and mythology
In addition to Wikipedia's prohibition against original research by synthesis, life is not always logical. Mythology is not always coherent (it has a certain degree of coherence, but we can find the extreme of coherence rather in the misbeliefs of a paranoiac or in the lies of a fraud).

Neither is the use of language (pragmatics) entirely coherent. A Hungarian cursing, a concise and "thick" sentence, attributes to God both and it would be risky to conclude that Hungarian slang attributes to God both male and female features. It is better to accept pragmatics as a dynamic thing, giving special semantics to phrases, or to accept that words can have multiple meanings in different contexts etc.
 * 1) a capacity to take part in a sexual intercourse as a male
 * 2) an attribute that is expressed materially by the same word that is also used for "prostitute" in slang

In German, gender is not consequently related to the semantics. I admit that my counterexamples may be irrevelant here: if Hadza language indedd marks genders in a consequent way, then my example about pragmatics of a cursing is not the right example, and also the appeal to the incoherence in German genders turn out to be irrelevant. But in any case, we pay due care to proofs that try to deduce non-linguistical consequences solely from linguistical premises.

In any case, we do not know the exact conditions of Kohl-Larsen's fieldwork, maybe he used simplifying considerations in his records in order to keep some order among the many myth variants. Moreover, the "Tsikayo" myth depicts Haine as a powerful figure who bears a child --- and at the same time Kohl-Larsen refers to Haine by masculine pronoun "er" in this myth, probably because the myth goes on as Haine becoming a father, then a grandfather! The motif of "a male who bears a child" seems to prohibit deductions based solely on commons sense arguments. See details in section.

In any case, even if a reference declared directly that Haine's and Ischoko's gender was definite and not subject to variations, Kohl-Larsen's contradicting opinion (about variations in gender) must be mentioned. Because Kohl-Larsen's approach is easily verifiable by the readers: several online sources say the same: Haine can be either a man or a woman in different myth variants, and also Ischoko's role varies — Ischoko is usually a creator, demiurge and culture hero, but in some variants she is Haine's wife. I admit that these online sources may be not independent from Kohl-Larsen, and Berezkins's online motif catalog definitely does cite Kohl-Larsen in Hadza-related items. In any case, this opinion must be kept in any case, at least as a notable opinion, because it is both notable and easily verifiable (even online).

Userbox on German language knowledge
The fact that i have not userboxed my German knowlegde does not refute my ability to understand and trandlsate German sources. It would not be good if any such things could matter on Wikipedia: user page contents cannot affect credibility (maybe except for some rare exceptional cases). I do not think that Wikipedia's policies would change in any such direction even in the future. User page contents are composed solely by "taste and judgmnent" of individual choice.

Although it does not (and must not) matter, I try to explore the reason why I have never thought of mentioning German knowledge at all. I live in Hungary, Central Europe. To mention German knowledge for a Central European? I have not even thought of that, it is as natural as taking breath. Half of written history of Hungary is intertwinned with that of Austria. German was a de facto lingua franca here even in the beginning of XXth century.

I have userboxed Hungarian because it is my native language. I have userboxed Russian because it is not a trivial thing. But German? I suppose You speak Swahili, and in any case, You speak English. You have not userboxed them, either. I could have userboxed a lot of trivial things yet, but I have not done so, and mentioning German is one of such unuserboxed trivial things. Even my family comes from Austria, from both the paternal and maternal lines — not a rare situation in Hungary. I speak an Austrian German dialect instead of the standard High German, as a family heritage.

To prove all that, You can pose a time period (e.g. 03:05–06:09) from the Hadzabe video "Die letzte Wildbeuter in Ostafrika", and I shall render it in English. Thus I cannot cheat by translation bots. (But I can do all that only daytime evening, with public internet cafés' open-time in Hungary, because the video does not start on my home machine.)

Authentic or consequent, no ad hoc modifications
The transliteration must be kept consequent or authentic, and not changed in an ad hoc basis. Either Kohl-Larsen's original notation must be kept entirely unchanged, or it must be replaced coherently for a correctly elaborated one. Till a well-sourced transcription system is not provided, I'd like to restore Kohl-Larsen's notation: despite of any possible weaknesses or weirdness, it is at least authentic: it satisfies Wikipedia's requirement about verifiability, while an ad hoc modified one fails to. Thus, till then I'd like to restore "Ischoko" instead of "Ishoko".

Analogy of Uralic Phonetic Alphabet
Transliteration, update from Kohl-Larsen's transcription system to a modern one needs experts. I have seen the interesting audio and IPA materials You all provided on Hadza language article, for example UCLA Phonetics Lab Archive. I suppose, an updating to such a modern, sophisticated system is inherently an information-increasing process, thus, much knowledge about Hadza phonetics must be devoted to such a work.

I suppose Kohl-Larsen's transcription tries to designate phonemes. What is the exact sounding of his phonemes? What kind of rules has he taken as granted for their pronunciation? We do not know. If he was not entirely precise, what kind of simplifications has he done? We do not know.

We should decide choices, but any mistake results in distortion. An analogy from the praxis of programming: "Premature optimization is the root of all evil!" It is better if we delay decisions, for example with introducing abstraction. Better if we keep transcription system abstract or uncertain, because then at least we do not fake it.

In other words, we must handle Kohl-Larsen's transcription as an abstract phoneme transcriptions whose exact rules we do not know. If we do not want to "decode" it in a distorted, unauthentic form, then we must keep it intact.

Our situation is similar to the problem of phonetics of restituted Uralic languages: we do not know the exact phonetics of proto-Uralic, thus we have to use abstraction, using phonemes whose exact pronunciation we do not know. That's why Uralic Phonetic Alphabet has been introduced instead of simply using International Phonetic Alphabet. IPA forces us to make choices, and if we are not mature yet to decide them ,then we must introduce abstract or uncertain signs. Kohl-Larsen's notation sytem is at least authentic, any dilettant ad hoc modification would be a distortion of facts.

I am not against an update for a modern transliteration, but that must be an expert work, completed with full heart and knowledge.

Alternatives mentioned
We must avoid ad hoc modification in any case. If You want a less weird transliteration than Kohl-Larsen's, then we can devote a standalone section that mentions the alternative transcriptions. There are very interesting English and Russian transcriptions. I have an online English source, which uses "Ishoko", and there are also surprizingly many and detailed Russian sources ("Ишоко", "Ишойе", "Хайнэ" ).

By the way, the plethora of Russian materials are interesting not only because the transcription system they use, but they are relevant also because their content. For example they shed light also to the celestial connotations other mythological figures: not only Haine is the moon and Ischoko the sun, but also Haine's grandson Schaschaya (= Шашайя) has become the Morning Star. (An unsourced online catalog seems to reinforce Schaschaya's celestial connotation, although it regards Schschaya as female, and attributes also "goddess"-ness to her. Kohl-Larsen's record attributes male gender to Schaschaya, it is clasified under the "Venus is a man" motif in Berezkin's online catalog, citing Kohl-Larsen). Schsachaya's mother and Haine's daughter is Tsikayo (Тсикайо), her story is linked to that, it is summarized online, it cites Kohl-Larsen. A similar, but more compound variant is recorded in the earlier Kohl-Larsen collection.

Syncretism
Are You sure Your source about Haine as "god" is not surveyed in a time/place where already a syncretism has taken place?

Strong anthropomorphism for Haine
Haine has very strong anthropomorphic features. Moreover, he is fallible, vulnerable, mortal (even dies eventually).

As the tale about "Tsikayo" depicts, Haine is a "big" and strong man, he could bind elephants onto his hips, he hang rhinoceroses onto his leg, the earth quaked under his steps, this old man dug his spear into the earth, he called his daughter aloud, he has been tricked by deceit (the tricksters imitated the voice of his daughter, thus they seduced him), he turned angry, killed the animals, but he became very tired, he eventually died of poisonous snake bite.

As the tale about "Haine's death and the his recompensation by Ischoko" depict, Haine has quarreled because of a girl with the hyenas, the hyenas became his enemy, they have taken his son, forced Haine to fight, made him exhausted, killed him with poisonous arrow, eaten his flesh (!!!).

He is not called "god" in the myths themselves. At most, he is called a "great chief", see details in section.

Examples for anthropomorhic figures in other cultures
Besides of these Haine-examples, I think aso the "god"-concepts of many other hunter-gatherers can be also strongly anthropomorphized.

As for the Bushmen, also they have some myths that depict "god" in a strongly anthropomorphic form.

Mythological figure of Life among Siberian Yupik
Also among Ungazigmit, the mythological figure (Life) is strongly anthropomorphized. Despite of that, I admit, this figure is indeed translated as "god" by the author in the Russian text. But the author does not comment this choice of term. Another author describes this figure as without definite depiction, having creator and life-giving features, having several names adjusted to the situation (tale, song, incantation), and featuring in very anthropomorphized and realistic scenes (has a kayak, he is himself a great hunter etc.).

Very important roles for Ischoko
As for online sources, there are also Eglish-language mentioning about Ischoko as featuring in demiurgic, god-like roles, moreover, Haine is also here depicted as Ischoko's wife: Ishoye, Ishoko The High God, the Sun, whose wife is Haine, the moon. He is invoked for successful hunting and ”for protection from wild animals and diseases.” The Hadzapi, Tanzania The environment of the page seems to be "uncivil" with its mysterious popup windows, thus I propose also another online source about this topic, sufficiently detailed, its language is Russian (translate.google.com is a great help).

I admit, I found also a published online reference, a Norwegian-language paper.that regards both Haine and Ischoko as deities, and regards Ischoko as solar, female, and Haine as lunar, male: Hadza-folket har en mannelig og eg kvinnelig guddom. Den mannlige guddommen, Haine, der de i månen, mens de ser den kvinnelige, Ishoko i såla. I admit this supports Your opinion in regards of genders of both figures, and also it support You by regarding Haine as a deity, but still, this forces me to be cautious about any attribution of monotheism: although Haine is male and a deity, but he is not the sole deity. His dominant role (contrasted to Ischoko) is not mentioned in the paper. Moreover, this paper names an online Norwegian newspaper as reference, and this attributes animism to Hadzabe.

I admit, also an online German-language mentions Haine among the "supreme deities", but also here the role of "supreme deities" is shared between Ischoko and Haine. a Genders are not mentioned, but celestial connotations are: Nach den mythischen Vorstellungen der Tindiga (Ostafrika) wurden die E[lefant]en von den höchsten Wesen Ischoko (Sonne) und Haine (Mond) aus Menschen geschaffen, die ein verbotenes Speil spielten. (According to the mythical beliefs of the Tindiga (East Africa), the elephants have been created by the supreme beings Ischoko (sun) and Haine (moon) out of people who played a prohibited game) The usage of plural ("beings") does not seem to support a monotheistic approach.

I admit, that this myth (also present in Kohl-Larsen's records) seems to correspond well with Your suggestion. Here Jetzt fragte Ischoko ihren Mann: »Du Herr, was sollen wir ihnen wegen dieses Spieles antworten?«
 * Haine is male, Ischoko is female (Haine's wife),
 * Ischoko seems to play a secodary role compared to Haine
 * Haine not only rules judges people, but he has also some creator-like, demiurgical features.

Haine sagte: »Wir wollen nicht viele Worte machen, wir werden diese Leute zu Poritieren machen!«

Haine teilte sogleich die Leute in zwei Reihen. Er sagte: »Ich habe euch als Menschen geschaffen, aber jetzt wollt ihr mit eurem Spiel die Bäume zu Schaden bringen, und dadurch zeigt ihr, daß ihr sehr gerne Tiere werden wollt!«

(Emphasis added) (Ischoko asked now: «You, Lord, what sall we reply for this game?» Haine answered: «We do not want to waste many words, we shall make these people into steppe animals!» Haine arranged the people into two rows. He said: «I have» created you to be people, but now you want to harm to the trees with your game, you show with this that you want to turn into animals!»)

This elephant story seems to support Your approach very much. Also in another myth, Haine features alone and the people are regarded as Haine's own creatures. Moreover, here Haine seems to have some resemblances to the Jewish monotheistic God: in the cited myth variant Haine regards both Hadzabe and alien tribes as his creatures, regards both as human alike, protects the victims, tries to help to the errant, punishes insumisions, seems to follow Hadzabe with benevolent attention But I must add that in another myth it is Ischoko who fills in a very similar role, as arranging a quarrel among different tribes (both aliens and Hadzabe) about scarce water resources.

Summarizing the plethora of many myths and their variants, I have not seen at Kohl-Larsen any definite mentioning of Haine being god-like. Also Котляр definitely summarizes that it is rather Ischoko who inititates the demiurgical and culture hero achievements, and it is rather Haine who only executes Ischoko's commands. If we want to call someone "god", Ischoko seems to be a much better candidate. Kohl-Larsen names him "Gottheit der Tindiga" (deity of the Tindiga), He calls this figure the supreme being ("das höchste Wesen"). Haine seems to be treated in the second place: Die höchste Wesen der Tidiga sind Ischoko und Ischoye, beides der Ausdruck für ein und dasselbe, die Sonne. Dazu tritt Haine die Frau Ischokos, eine lunare Gestalt, die meistens als weibliche, manchmal als männliche Gestalt erscheint.

(The supreme beings of the Tindiga are Ischoko and Ischoye, both the expression for the same, the sun. Alongside them is Haine, Ischoko's wife, a lunar figure, who features mostly as a female, but sometimes as a male figure.)

In a story, the role cast between Ischoko and Haine seems to be the right converse than in the previous elephant story. Here it is Ischoko who is male and has creator, demiurgical features, and it is Haine who plays a secondary role, a soft-hearted woman who wants to placate his angry husband Ischoko. In the story, a woman breaks Ischoko's food restriction commandment. The infringement of the food restriction results in illness of the whole population. Ischoko wants to impeach them (call them account), but her wife Ischoko asks him to heal the ill people first. : Alle bluteten bis Mittag.

Da kam Ischoko mit seiner Frau Haine herunter. Ischoko sagte zu ihnen: »Wie steht es, ihr Leute? Ich habe euch doch geheißen, von den Speisen wenig zu essen!«

Die Frau Ischokos, Haine, sagte: »Du mein Mann, heile zuerst, daß die Leute nicht alle zugrunde gehen! Was ist dein Gewinn, wenn alle deine Geschöpfe zugrunde gehen?« (Everybody was bleeding till midday. Then Ischoko came down with his wife Haine and said to them: «What is that, people? I have commanded you to eat only few from the foods!» Ischoko's wife, Haine, said: « You, my husband, heal them first, so that not all of them perish! What is your win if all your creatures perish?»)

By the way, as the phrases above reveal, people are often regarded as Ischoko's creatures.Also in other myths, for example in the myth about the !esengego cannibal giant, Ischoko's words reveal that. Here, Ischoko accuses aloud the cannibals: "I believed, I have created people, but you turned out to be no people any more, as you are incined to devour your fellow-beings!"

Thus, Ischoko's roles seem indeed ramified, including creator, demiurgical and other god-like features:
 * His name is spelled in good wishes for succesfull hunt (see the myth about giant !hongongoschá),
 * He features often in origin myths, see below
 * He seems to be able to decide about the fate of the individual: in a myth, a blind man's blindness is regarded as ordered by Ischoko. The blind man behaves unsocially (hitting a companion hard), the victim cries for revenge, the old people are unwilling: "The fact that he has no eyes belongs to Ischoko! If the blind will be evil, it is our matter to abandon him!"
 * Ischoko is given meat as sacrifice
 * In the myth about the !esengego giant, Ischoko raises persons from the dead

Ischoko in origin myths
Kohl-Larsen groups together origin myths under name "Ursprungssagen". In several of them, Ischoko is the protagonist:
 * Ischoko creates the Hadzabe out of pavians, and designates habitat and subsistence for them
 * Ischoko decides also about the life of several other tribes. He asks them to swallow his, the Hadzabe are unwilling, the other tribes obey, the obedients get goods of agriculture, the Hadzabe are left on their own in the steppe. In another myths Ischoko can also later arrange quarrels among entirely different tribes.
 * Ischoko gives the possiblilty of revival to the dead. The companions must burry the dead Hadzabe, but they can fetch him from the land of Isanzu alive again. Later Ischoko retracts this way of revival: "I, deity, … want to see [the dead] forever in front of my eyes. I do not want to let him back to the earth any more. The only one who should see him is me, Ischoko!". This story is incorporated also in another myth.
 * Ischoko introduced the Epembe dance. Indaya, the dead who could yet revive before Ischoko's retract, brought also a ritual to the Hadzabe from the deity: thus, it was eventually Ischoko who introduced the Epembe dance. Ischoko also ordered the separation of men from women and children during meal.
 * Ischoko also introduced other food orders commandments: prohibition of eating food older than three days, sharing of food (including game and honey) among companions and the whole horde. He also gave natural assistants to people: the honeyguide. He ordered the division of labour between genders: men hunt and take honey, women gather. Ischoko also established collaborative connections between the hunter-gatherer Hadzabe and the hoe-farming Isanzu.
 * Ischoko decied about animals, gives them command for their behavior to follow: the tortoise must hide in dry weather and appear in rain. It is also Ischoko who has given the game (tortoise, ostrich) to Hadzabe for subsistence. It is also Ischoko who commanded the practical hunting methods (how to trace ostrich).

Haine as great chief, messenger or companion
All this stands in harsh contrast with Haine's role: Haine is definitely not regarded a god in most occurrences. At most, he is called a "greater chief" [i.e. greater than Indaya, who is mostly depcted as a chief], see details in section. : Dieser Indaya war aber nich der größte, ein größeres Oberhaupt war Haine.

In an occurrence Haine plays a messenger role for Ischoko: Ischoko gives fire and the ability of sitting to Hadzabe via Haine. It is also him who takes the initiative to roll together sky and earth like two sheets of leather and swap their orders, and it is Haine who follows the proposal. Es lebte einmal ein Mensch mit Namen Tsogwana. Ischoko ließ ihm durch Haine sagen: »Am besten ist es, du setzest dich!« In jener Zeit konnten sich die Menschen noch nicht setzen.

(There lived once a man, called Tsogwana. Ischoko had Haine tell him: «It is the best if You sit down!» In that time the people were unable yet to sit.)

It is Ischoko who recompensates for Haine's death: it is Ischoko who punishes the Haine's killers: Als sie sich gesättigt hatten, kam Ischoko und sagte: »Ihr habt Haine getötet und habt ihn aufgegessen, und jetzt habt ihr noch all sein Fleisch gegessen! Was soll ich mit euch anfangen?«

Utsameya erwiderte: »Ja, du Herr, du mußt uns selber richten, wir können uns nicht richten!«

(As they had satisfied themselves, Ischoko came and said: «You have killed Haine, have eaten him up, and now you have even eaten all his meat store! What shall I do with you?» Utsameya replied: «Yes, lord, you must judge over us, we cannot judge ourselves!»)

In a variant of the myth about giant Senganii, Senganii has the role of an appointed representative/resident/governor/viceking of Haine. Haine gives him the right to decide and judge on his own towards people. Senganii gives impossible orders to people, and people begin to contradict him and thez refuse the obedience. Senganii refers to the fact that it was Haine who has given him the right to judge and decide. People seem not to be swept by this argumentation: Senganii sagte: »Weswegen soll ich euch nicht richten? Es ist doch nicht meine eigene Sache, sondern die Gewalt über euch is mir von Haine selbst gegeben!«

Die Leute erwiderten: »Ja, auch wenn dir dies gefohlen ist, aber wir wollen nicht!«

(Senganii said: «why should I not decide about you? It is not my affair, the might over you is given by Haine to me!» The pople replied: «Yes, even if this is commanded to you, we don't want it!»)

Moreover, the people killed the giant later, and then the myth ends. There is no mentioning about any revenge for that, Haine does not even appear in the myth any more except for the very beginning.

Varying genders
I have already given the references in the article for the ambiguity in various myth variants about Haine's (and Ischoko's) gender. Many detailed online available ones in Russian. here I add just one surprising detail. We can experience the variation not only among the myths variants, but also inside a single myth. The myth about "Tsikayo" depicts Haine as a strong and powerful figure (addressed by the masculine pronoun "er", becoming a father , then a grandfather ), who bears a child (called Tsikayo): Dieser Indaya war nicht der Größte, ein größeres Oberhaupt war Haine. Haine wohnte dort am Berge im Süden, der Ngwasingwasika heißt. Haine war sehr groß, er war mächtig bei allen Tieren, er war auch groß bei den Menschen. Er gebar ein Kind. Als er das Kind geboren hatte, zog er mit ihm durch das ganze Land. thus he becomes the father of this child, a daughter: Tsikayo sagte: Begleiten werde ich dich, aber ich kann nicht in dein Haus gehen, denn mein Vater wird sehre böse sein, wenn er zurückkommt und mich nicht zu Hause antrifft! Later this daughter of Haine becomes pregnant, thus Haine becomes a grandfather : Als er sich auf den Heimweg machte, begann er schon den Namen seines Kindes zu rufen: »Tsikayo!«

Sein Kind, welches schwanger war, sagte zu dem Kinde in seinem Leibe: »Dein Großvater ruft dich!« (Emphasis added.)

Monotheism
Although there may exists phenomena among hunter-gatherers that resemble superficially to monotheism, but I think in several cases these are different from that.

Origin of Jewish monotheism
Jewish monotheism is a very special, and rather late phenomen. Centralization in acient states triggered monotheistic tendencies elsewhere as well (Aten cult by Akhenaten), but it was the Jewish state(s) where it was not overcome by resistence of opponent priest interests, and could survive the fall of the military and political origanization. Its ancient forms were far form monotheism (deity of storm, deity of a local tribe conglomeration, idolatry and henotheism). Jewish monotheism developed it specific features as a result of prophets, the calamities of the history, the belief that the calamities and the enemies are God's mere tools to punish his otherwise loved and selected people that gave Jewish monotheism its specific features.

Tokaryev stresses the effect of centralization in the develpoment of monotheism.

But what about hunter-gatheres? I admit, there are some phenomena that resemble to monotheism. I shall list them below. But I write also concerns why we must be cautious and not term them simply as "monotheism", and also we must be very cautious with term "god" too.

Urmonotheism
Tokaryev mentions the efforts of some missionaries to explain some interesting features of hunter-gatherer mythologies with the presence of a primeval monotheism. Such monoitheism used to be attributed to Australian Aborigines (see the mythological figures "sky heroes"), Tasmanian Aborigines, Semang, Andamanese, Yahgan, Bushmen (for Cagn),, Pygmies. In each case, Tokaryev regards such approaches as merely historical, not valid, contradicting to finer details, based on oversimplifications, or overgeneralization of arbitrary selected details.

Similar remarks apply for the.

Deus otiosus
Among several pre-state cultures, the figure of "god" is in fact a rather hidden one. Although maaybe this "deus otiousus" took part in creaton or accomplished crucial things in the past, but then this figure has withdrawn from everyday life, thus now people's life is rather affected by spirits or other beings.

See also "old god" concepts. African hunter-gatherers may have a "god", but its  figure is unspecified, for example among Pygmies and Bushmen, among the latter there are also some myths depicting "god" in a strongly anthropomorphic form.

Unseparated roles
In the introductory part to mythologies in Afrika, Котляр summarizes the Afrika's hunter-gatherer in the following way. Concentrating about the example of Bushmen, he writes that the the roles of the demiurge, culture hero and trickster are not separated yet. He exemplifies such a figure with Cagn, for whom he devotes a standalone article. Котляр does not suggest that it would be a kind of monotheism, and he also sees for me using the term "deity" and "god" with care, using rather terms like "central mythological figure". Rather, at least for Bushmen, he mentions totemistic features and anthropomorphization of nature.

In their summary article about mythologies of Africa's hunter-gatherer peoples, an author pair stersses features like blurring border beween people and nature (especially animals, also mentions animalism. For Bushmen and Pygmies they mention features that they regard as early forms of totemism. Also for Bushmen they claim that the spirit and soul concept is blurred and of an early stage. They acknowledge that there are mythological figures that unite several roles and features, but they do not explain that with monotheism. They emphasize that these figures are of a blurred nature, and their united roles are in fact a result of the early stage of beliefs: the scopes are not differentiated "yet".

Although I am sceptic about some evolutionistic cultural theories in some points, but I suppose that cultures of hunter-gatherers can differ largely from ours and have several specific features, and we must pay due care to avoid any projection of our ideas onto theirs.

Logos concepts among pre-state societies
Sometimes a concept of kind of logos is attributed to some pre-state or even hunter-gatherer peoples. Something consisting of word, air, wind or breath that can permeate nature and it can be present also in people.

Sila
Among the many various Eskimo cultures, term silap inua / sila, hillap inua / hilla (among Inuit), ellam yua / ella (among Yup'ik) is used with some diversity. In many instances it refers “outer space”, “intellect”, “weather”, “sky”, “universe”:    there may be some correspondence with the presocratic concept of logos.

Shamanhood among Eskimo peoples was a diverse phenomenon, just like the various Eskimo cultures themselves. Among Copper Inuit, shamans were believed to obtain their power from this “Wind Indweller”, thus even their helping spirits were termed as silap inue.

Among Siberian Yupik, was depicted as a mighty hunter, catching game just like earthly men, but being capable of controlling whether people paid attention to customs and traditions.

In Sireniki Eskimo language, the word has meanings “universe”, “outer world”, “space”, “free space”, “weather”.

Great Spirit concepts
As mentioned, Tokaryev writes that Great Spirit concepts are not authentic, these are attributed to Indians by misssionaries and spread by popular romans. The original authentic concepts about Wakan, Manitu, Orenda are mana-like inpersonal forces. This class of beleiefs is called animatism.

Environment for Eskimos
There are some arguments, that the difference between our beliefs and the several Eskimo belief systems can be suggested by the environment. The argumentation seems for me to be an ecological approach.

According to this ecological argumentation, the environment of the Eskimos is harsh, life is hard. There is no benevolent deity in Eskimo beleif systems. There is no need for such omnipotent benvolent figure. The environment is full of hostile forces, but people can be optimistic: the good can defend himself standalone, although he must be always vigilant. Other authors seem to support the approach that diffuse fear was indeed absent among Eskimos.

I must admit that ecological approaches are sometimes challenged.

I must admit also that the mythological figure of Life among Siberian Yupik seems for me to definitely very benevolent, moreover, the ethnologist translates his name as "God". That said, this figure is very strongly anthropomorphized.

Sky heroes
There are certain mythological figures, "sky heroes" (Baiame, Daramulum, Nurunderi, Bunjil, Goin, Biral) in the Eastern samples of Australian Aboriginal mythologies.

I admit they have features that resemble to those of "our" God (forming nature to its recent shape, leading people to their recent habitat, giving them laws, introducing rites and material goods, living in the sky, being omnivident and omniscient, being visited by the medicine men and the dead, being depicted as an omnipotent father figure ).

But I have not seen yet Elkin mentioning "monotheism" for this. Moreover, he does not even use the term "god" (at least the Hungarian publication does not suggest that). He uses term "sky heroes" for a collective term over the samples of the various tribes. And in the general introductory part, he characterizes the spiritual life of Indigenous Australians as animistic and believing in magic. At other parts he mentions how keen they are of the interrelated network system of signs nature has: sounds of certain species and appearance of certain constellation "sign" the availability of important games /plants.

Thus, I should be cautious about any mentioning of "monotheism" about several hunter-gatherer cultures. I suppose, despite of some superficial resemblances, in the depth the emphasis must be lain onto other things.

Response
Hi Physis,

Some of this I've addressed elsewhere. Set up your email (under your preferences) and I'll write you directly.

Hey, I'm not challenging your fluency in German! I was just curious where you got the KL material from. Since you speak German, it's no longer a question.

I agree about using the term 'monotheistic'.

I don't understand why Haine being anthropomorphic makes you doubt he's a deity. Jehova is anthropomorphic, as are many other deities around the world. What am I missing here? The Christian god is big (great), the earth quakes before him, he rides a chariot and sits in a throne, throws lighting bolts, fathered a child, and he (as his child) was killed by mere mortals, and we eat his flesh! (Hyenas dispose of the Hadza dead by eating them, so that passage is culturally relevant.) Also, Haine is not called "great chief" in Hadza. There is no word for "chief" in Hadza. They are, after all, foragers. But regardless, Jehova is called "Lord", which is essentially the same as "great chief".

I'm leery of a literal reading of Kohl-Larsen's accounts, since he didn't preserve the original, and what we have was first translated into Isanzu (which has no gender, and which KL did not understand), then by a second person (who understood nothing of Hadza) into Swahili (which was not understood by any of the Hadza), and then finally from Swahili into German. KL's student Berger had a similar setup, but did preserve the Hadza (phonetically) so we can compare. In many places Berger's German translation is heavily distorted, and I have low expectations of the accuracy of KL because of this. Something like Haine bearing a child could simply be him fathering a child; Haine being the wife of Ishoko could be Haine having Ishoko as a wife. Put this paragraph into Babblefish and see how it comes out in Hungarian--that's about the quality of the translations KL was working with. (KL did transcribe a few isolated words, and some were pretty bad.) Certainly any esoteric details would be likely to be lost. Hadza gender is completely regular: "Haine" is grammatically masculine and can only be referred to as "he", "Ishoko" is grammatically feminine and can only be referred to as "she". Whether KL is quoted in the lit is irrelevant: There's only one person in the world who could confirm or discredit him, Woodburn, and he's hardly published a thing in the 50 years he's worked with the Hadza. Anyway, I partially agree with you, but this would be better if taken to email. kwami (talk) 01:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. "Es lebte einmal ein Mensch mit Namen Tsogwana": Ts'okwana is "giraffe". "Utsameya erwiderte": Udzame is "hyena". (Udzameya "it's hyena".) kwami (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)