Talk:Jan Eskymo Welzl

message: I am learning the language of Central Siberian Yupik language, and I plan also to learn Sireniki Eskimo language, a very pecular, "outsider" Eskimo language (sometimes it is considered a standalone, third branch inside the entire Eskimo family).
As far as I know, any other Eskimo languages spoken in Siberia (for example, Naukan Siberian Yupik) are very related to Central Siberian Yupik.
As for Jan Welzl, he cites "Eskimo" texts, allegedly recorded in New Siberia.
Ha maa a ina hutuka?	How are you?
Ha  maa io huta?    	How are we?
O chu tu.           	It's OK.
Katio muio ia toha. 	There is nothing for sale.
Ahaatj, tujuhuh.    	OK, we'll see it later.
Notyoha.            	I don't know.
Koh cho took.       	If I have, I'll give, too.
Kayaho ta lau!      	Hang up yourself!
As far as I can judge, these do not even seem to be part of the Eskimo-Aleut language family. Not a single word is familiar for me (not even such basic words like "give", "girl", "day" (!), "take".
Moreover, the structure of the sentences and the words does not seem to have "incorporative", "polysysnthetic" typology, althogh this is characteristic to all Eskimo languages (maybe also to all Eskimo-Aleut languages?).
As for the ethnographic details in the book: some of them are plausible, some of them are special but theoretically possible, but some of them are very strange, amounting to untenability.
;Eskimos with native coal mining possibility?
:I have never heard, but I admit, there are indeed Eskimos who use native copper, and Peter Freuchen also recorded the trading meteorite iron among some groups. Thus, this may be plausible, although unheard of by me yet.
;Eskimos living in caves?
:Strange, but I admit, at least at an occasional plot, Peter Freuchen recorded that Eskimos made advantage of finding a comfortable, large cave. I admit also that Siberian Eskimos are recorded to use semi-subterrain sod huts, dugouts.
;Eskimos capable to count only to six?
:In Central Siberian Yupik, Menovshchikov recorded in the 1950s the usage of large, sophisticated, complicated numerals cca up to 400, although the larger ones are rather lengthy. In generally, uncontacted (or only recently contacted) hunter-gatherers are often lacking large numerals (but at the same time, such languages usually abound in the sophisticatedness of expressing ecological, biological details, local fauna, flora, names of relatives, complexity of , kinship).
;Eskimos having tattoos
:That is O.K. It has indeed been recorded among Yupiks of Siberia.
;Eskimos using oil lamps
:It is O.K.
;Marital habits
:Marriage rules and ceremonies are indeed less formal. But the rude selling-buying attitude presented by Welzl can be either challenged as fiction, or be an isolated anomie, an untypical, pathologic occurrence. Although asymmetry between gender's status is harsher than in the case of other hunter-gatherers, but Welzl clearly describes a seriously anomic practice (essentially, amounting to prostitution), its ethnographical significance and range, prevalence might be very restricted.
But besides such plausible or at least theoretically possible details, there are also very strange, possibly untenable ones.
In generally, Welzl's Eskimos behave very seriously anomic. Such a level of anomie is usually caused by very serious external trauma (colonization, genocide, loss of entire original lifestyle, loss of base of sustinance). But Welzl describes areas only slightly affected by civilization (although, I admit, he describes genocide-like effects of the crimes of alcohol traders).
Besides of the extreme anomie, Welzl's Eskimos are attributed as having such idol-worshiping religions that they build 7-8 meters high, zoomorphic  idol-statues, composed of several animal figures: monkey(!), "marine tiger" (!), "marine elephant".
Monkey seems to be out-of-place, maybe also ecologically untenable. If "marine tiger" is meant as orca, then it is O.K., reverence towards orca has indeed been recorded among Siberian Yupik, although the material manifestation of this reverence is restricted to small amulets hanging from the hunter's belt, figures on the boat, sacrifice tobacco strewn into water. But, as far as I know, the building of such totem-like poles has not been recorded among Eskimos. Moreover, totemism itself is said to be lacking among Siberian Yupik, although I admit, Kleivan & Sonne 1985 records some details for Eskimos (but in America!) which seem for me to be traces or external influences of totemism.
As for the "Indian jurisdiction": it seems for me either totally external influence, or fiction. As for Eskimos, they did not have any formal jurisdiction, murder was usually a private offense, punished with blood feud by a relative or friend of the victim. Informal ways were applied also to public nuisances (where the whole community was offended): these cases were punished in informal ways, too: ridicule, putting to shame, mock songs (song contests). More serious public nuisances could be punished by murder against the "bad boy" of the community, where the "offender" could feel that his deed is approved by many, and he will not be "punished back" by blood feud. Sometimes the possibliity of a further blood feud was avoided intentionally: such a man was asked to do the murder job against the "bad boy", who stand in such a close relatedness to the intended victim, that a blood feud was out of question. Whoever would be justified to take avenge, when the murderer was the very son (or brother) of the victim? In most cases I know, there was no open trial, instead, the intended victim was simply (mostly even sectretly) ambushed, although in one case I read, the murderer openly confessed his task (which he undertook unwilling), to the victim (his own father), moreover, he let him to choose the way of death. As for American Indians, I know almost nothing about their customs, but I think, hunter-gatherers usually lack formal jurisdiction and use informal ways, embedded into the logic of their kinship systems or magic beliefs. I admit, Welzl does not hold definite claims about this "Indian jurisdiction", he mentions almost nothing more about its origin than its name, and that it is an "ancient Indian custom law". From the context of the details he presents, it seems for me to be rather either a secondary phenomenon, or an external influence, brought in by fur-traders.
In summary, for me, the story seems to be not real, the linguistic data provided by the author are so strange that either it is an extremely isolated Eskimo language, or it is fiction. Sireniki Eskimo language, that has much less peculiarities inside the Eskimo family, has raised considerable scientific debates. Thus it can be expected, that Welzl's "New Siberian", very peculiar  Eskimo language should have raised much more scientific debate. It has no words that are familiar (compared to Central Siberian Yupik), it does not seem to share the typology of all other Eskimo languages, shows no polysynthetic, incorporative features, why has it not been discussed in the scientific community? Eskimos are generally not considered as practicing totemism, why are Welzl's records about 6-8 m zoomorphic, composed high totem poles not discussed? Welzl attributes to "ancient American Indian custom law" a formal jurisdiction system, one almost comparable to that of a modern state, why has this cultural anthropological question not been  discussed in the anthropological literature? Such contradictions seem for me to be untenable, thus I suspect, the story is not real.
Physis (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the story real?