Talk:Dreamtime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Dreamtime is part of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Australia To-do:
  • The Dreamtime is the era before the Earth was created, ...
  • The Dreamtime still exists and can be accessed for spiritual purposes.
  • ...he created the Earth and then retired as the Dreamtime vanished.

Can somebody explain how these 3 excerpts from the article can be true at the same time. How can the Dreamtime still exist when it has vanished? Is the Dreamtime really an era in time which has finished, or is it rather some sort of parallel space-time concept? I'm well aware that I shouldn't see space and time here as they are understood in the West, but I'm unsure how I should see it then. D.D. 09:18, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As I understood it, different aboriginal cultures have slightly different stories; one doesn't have to agree with the other... Or maybe it's some sort of "Time is meaningless in the Dreamtime" sort of deal? Perhaps the Dreamtime WILL vanish when the Earth is done being created?

In a culture without writing or printing, the dreamtime is any time before living memory.

PS: why on earth expect people's religions to make sense? Try working out what the trinity is supposed to be all about, or the hypostatic union, then come back and criticise the dreamtime.

Moved this link off the article:

Music to Dream to: http://music.onino.co.uk/music/dreamtime_2.html CD 2001 Dreamtime - Stranglers

this should be made a link to an article, not to an external commercial site. --FvdP 18:27, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, while the Dreaming is the prehistoric time during which the world was created by the Ancestors, it also refers to the present and future times because of the spiritual link between Aborigines and the Ancestors through the Country. Thus there is an understanding of the 'Dreaming worldview', where the Ancestor's spirits make a direct contribution to the world. Similar to say Greco-Roman mythology, or the Old Testament notion of God, where gods interact with mankind, rather than being distant. Artiste-extraordinaire 05:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I see it as the time of creation, but rather than existing at the beginning linearly, it is outside time. I could be wrong.

Surely the article goes on to explain how the Dreamtime can have ended and still be continuing when it explains the Aboriginal concept of time - ie that linear time is created by our own subjective consciousness and is subjective while an objective view of things is that all time is simultaneous (cf T S Eliot's The Four Quartets). Most religions including Christianity and Judiasm see God as existing outside Time and Space. I think this is pretty clear in the article, which seems excellent to me by the way. ThePeg 12.8.2006

Contents

[edit] Moved "An Opinion" from page

moved this "opinion" added by an anonymous contributor from the article page as wikipedia articles should not include opinions. that said, some of the content may be salvageable and re-added back into the article if it is rewritten in a npov-style. clarkk 06:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An Opinion
Dreamtime stories perform the usual function of mythologies - giving lessons about morality and history. In Australia's harsh climate, however, they serve an additional function. They encode information about the terrain - where the waterholes are, where to find food etc. The men traditionally hold these stories secret. By this means territory is held, in that other tribes simply cannot survive in one's territory because they "do not know the dreamings" - do not know where to find water, food etc.
A tribe's culture, therefore, is not simply a matter of drawings and songs. It relates to the actual terrain. "See that hill over there? That's where the echidna-spirit slept for 3 years, and that's where we are heading now - there's water there". Information like this cannot really be passed on from one generation to the next without physically walking over the tribe's range.
Environmental change (fencing, mining, farming) and wholesale relocation of aboriginal tribes by European settlement inevitably destroys a tribe's culture by gutting its content. There is no way around this - it is a permanent and intractable problem. It furthermore leaves no role for the menfolk to occupy, causing a variety of social ills.

The first two paragraphs (and first sentence of the third) are pretty much NPOV and I think an accurate description. Sad mouse 22:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV, perhaps, but not exactly accurate, and maybe even a bit inconsiderate. For example, Aboriginal culture doesn't have the Western notion of "territory", but rather the area in which each tribe and clan lives is under their ritual responsibility to maintain. It isn't a matter of wanting to take over another tribes area, since each tribe has a notion of where they belong: in the Country of their Ancestors. Also, the 'quote' wtih the echidna-spirit is a potentially insulting generalisation, unless it can be shown to have come from somewhere. Lastly, with the last paragraph, it might be a good idea to point out that the relocation of Aboriginal tribes by successive colonial and State governments, as well as the restriction of their freedom of movement (from about 1850 until the early 1970's), had the negative effect on Aboriginal peoples' ability to celebrate the Dreaming, since the inextricable connection to their land had been severed.
This passage can be saved, someone just needs to fix up some of the inaccuracies. I would, but I just couldn't be asked.Artiste-extraordinaire 05:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Before Existence

The Aboriginal Dreamtime makes excellent sense when looked at in terms of Potential. Before anything can be said to exist it must have the potential to exist. Potential has no substance and nor does a dream. Potentials represent ideas, possibilities or a blueprint for what can be. Given energy potentials can be actualised. These Potentials/Dreamtime can still be accessed as an idea can be accessed. When a potential is fullfilled it is no longer a potential but an actuality. It cannot be said that the potential has ceased to exist once it is fullfilled because potentials do not truly exist in the first place. To access the Dreamtime would be to access the world of Potentials.

Nice analogy. Do any experts have anything to say about this?Artiste-extraordinaire 05:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving definition to top

The definition of what the dreamtime actually is was buried in the middle, I am moving it to the top. GreatAlfredini 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a Christian and I can make sense of it this way:

· The Dreamtime is the era before the Earth was created, ... In the beginning there was only God, a spiritual being without form. Therefore there existed nothing physical. Anywhere.

· ...he created the Earth and then retired as the Dreamtime vanished. In the Genesis story God manifested himself and created the earth and the heavens. Afterwhich he "retired" or unmanifested himself, and since now there is physical presence [his creations] the dreamtime was transformed. If you think of the Dreamtime as an empty room and you put furniture in the room. The empty room "vanishes" and in its place is a room with furniture. The "empty" room still exists, you just cant see it. Remove the furniture and it reappears.

· The Dreamtime still exists and can be accessed for spiritual purposes. Just as God exists [to believers], even though he isnt perceivable to us we know that through prayer we can "access" him. Now instead of an empty room think of Dreamtime as God's mind before he created the known universe, with no perceivable thought. Even though he has his creations to keep his mind occupied, you can still get his undivided attention. It make sense to me; I hope this helped. ElOne

Bang on, ElOne. Couldn't have put it better myself. Now add in the Hindu concept of Brahma and the Creation of the Universe, the Vedic description, the Kabbalist description and you will get consistent descriptions of the same phenomenon. Then have a think about the Big Bang Theory and wonder if the scientific and religious ideas of Creation aren't perhaps mirrors/metaphors for each other. :-) ThePeg 12.8.2006

[edit] Discovery

I'd never heard of the Dreamtime until an Aussie mate mentioned it to me - having found this article it seems like a very beautiful mythology. Why isn't it more well-known? And why isn't it classified as a religion? I can see that there seem to be very diverse interpretations of it depending on which aboriginal peoples you're talking about, but Hinduism is equally diverse. That idea of potential is nice too - links into prana and buddhist concepts of energy. Hope someone in the know expands this article, it's excellent! Joziboy 1 March 2006, 21:49 UTC

It's not very well-known because the ideas in it aren't exactly concrete: they are defined differently between different cultural groups. Not only that, the beliefs have a strong connection to specifc geographical locations which makes it somewhat unpalatable to outsiders to understand; similar to Judaism's obsession with the physical place of Israel, except Judaism has played a much more prominent role in human history than Indigenous Australians. And true, Aboriginal spirituality is more closely connected to the more metaphysical Indus religions, and it would be good to include a link between them and Hinduism/Buddhism, but unless an expert has published anything, it would just be opinions.
Joziboy - It isn't well known because, alas, there hasn't been a great deal of enthusiasm for Aboriginal culture before recently, particularly in Australia itself where, even now, Aboriginals are not treated terribly - how shall I put it? - well? In fact the Aboriginal concept of reality has extraordinary parallels with many discoveries of Quantum Phsyics. For example the Aboriginals recognise eleven dimensions to existence. Cartesian/Newtonian Physics recognise three with Einstein suggesting Time as the fourth. The latest developments in modern String Theory posits the existence of eleven - so teh Aboriginals were there first. Similarly the Aboriginal concept of Time and its relationship to consciousness relates to David Bohm's idea of Time being different in the Enfolded and Non-Enfolded realities of existence, and his idea of consciousness defining our perception of reality. The Aboriginal idea that all Time is eternally present and that linear time is a human idea is common to can be found in T S Eliot's The Four Quartets and the theories of J W Dunne. If the Aboriginals are genuinely operating on a different wavelength to us in terms of reality it would explain the gulf of understanding between them and we Westerners with our three-dimensional, rational materialism. THe irony is that these people with no or at least a different concept of time or possession may be closer to the truth than us lot with our obsession with ammassing as much as possible before our time runs out. Now wouldn't that be funny? One thing's for sure, their harmony with the ecosystem puts our precipitate rush towards destroying ours through greedy consumption to shame. Perhaps we have something to learn from these people? :-) ThePeg 12.8.2006
They certainly deserve to be respected more than they have been in the past, but I think promoting them to perfect superhumans is just as insulting. They're just people, just like everyone else. They don't have secret knowledge of the way of the universe. They have special knowledge about the environment they live in—just like any people who have lived in an environment for several generations gains knowledge about it. Ethnobiologists do try to learn what indigenous peoples know about the world around them, and we're discovering habits of animals and uses of plants we didn't know about before. But somehow I doubt there is going to be a field of ethnophysics.
Do you have a source for "the Aboriginals recognise eleven dimensions to existence"? I've never heard of it. It's interesting when you consider that Aboriginal languages don't have words for numbers as high as eleven. --Ptcamn 19:24, 12 August 2006 (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 don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 15:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Could we move this page?

The Dreamtime is actually an offensive term to the Aborigines, it was invented as a condesending term for the silly things they believe. The correct term (and more accurate one) is the Tjukurpa, which is a network of beliefs that covers creation myths, tribal laws, family interactions, hunting/gathering advice, etc. So maybe "dreamtime" could redirect to Tjukurpa and the opening paragraph could explain that the Dreamtime was the European name for their belief system. Sad mouse 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Sambo 03:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe it is offensive, or at least not to all Aboriginal groups, since I've seen it used in works that are otherwise very sensitive to cultural issues. Tjukurpa, on the other hand, is its name in just one of many languages. --Ptcamn 03:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The trick is to find a term that isn't offensive to any Aboriginal group. I'm thinking, I'm thinking... Sambo 03:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a link or a citation before we do anything. And even then it might be better to just stick with Dreamtime if no better term is actually in use. --Ptcamn 03:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed that it is only the name in one language, how has this problem been overcome in other cases? but disagree that we should stick with an offensive and inaccurate term just because it is commonly used - people will still find the article if it is redirected. Until recently Ayer's Rock was the only name anyone used for Uluru but the official dual name policy (Ayer's Rock to Ayer's Rock-Uluru to Uluru-Ayer's Rock) changed that. Sad mouse 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

JA: Maybe it's best to go through the formal procedure on this one. I will do the paperwork. Jon Awbrey 15:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose see above --Ptcamn 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per previous discussion, pending further evidence to the contrary. Jon Awbrey 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support moving away from "Dreamtime", since it can be offensive. If someone knows a better term to use than Tjukurpa that would be good. I doubt there is a common word in the different languages, so perhaps the most common language should be used with alternatives noted in the opening. Either way it would be more accurate because it includes the broader scope of culture and law rather than just creation myths. Sad mouse 17:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - better to offend fewer. Would support Tjukurpa followed by bracketed non-offensive English term for clarity. Sambo 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now; "Tjukurpa" is a virtually unknown term. Once it gains some traction in the wider Australian community, I would support. Incidentally, I've heard it said that "the Dreamtime" has been deprecated in favour of "the Dreaming" because the former incorrectly implies that it refers to a past era, whereas the latter correctly implies that it continues in the present day. Snottygobble 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I've heard aborigine speakers refer to Dreamtime on many occasions, and Tjukurpa is the concept in one of hundreds of dialects (from those around Uluru, I believe). Steve 00:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per SnottyG. Is there any demonstration that the current title is considered widely offensive? Taking a term which has only a specific regional/linguistic use seems problematic, in that it could imply there's a greater degree of homogeneity to belief systems than is actually the case.--cjllw | TALK 01:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Steve (User:Slf67), and as in fact noted in the bottom of the article that there are many different words in different dialects. Use redirects to link from differing dialects. Tjukurpa may indeed merit its own articles - Dreamtime is not actually a homogenous concept either, any more than christianity is - you wouldn't redirect Christianity to Roman Catholic Church (I hope not anyway). --A Y Arktos\talk 01:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. Eurocentric, certainly, but I'd need to see some evidence that it's a term of disparagement. -- I@n ≡ talk 01:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per Steve. It's too exclusive, whereas we are looking for an umbrella term to describe all the Australian indigenous spiritual beliefs/systems. Would support rename to "Austalian aboriginal/indigenous mythology/spirituality" or similar if "Dreamtime" is offensive as an umbrella term. — Donama 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there are/were more than 500 different Indigenous Australian languages, and picking a word which is not used by all of them defeats the very goal that it professes to achieve. --bainer (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, notwithstanding the fact that there are hundreds of names for this particular mythology, and this is only one of them, it is called "Dreamtime" in English. Do we move the article on Greek Mythology to something in Greek, to avoid offending Zeus-worshippers? Lankiveil 06:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Not right to use name from only some dialects of many indigenous languages, unless it has widespred English usage. I would support moving to "the Dreaming" per Snottygobble. JPD (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Snottygrobble. Andjam 10:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Tjukurpa should be a great article... on Western Desert traditional law specifically. The proposed move is like renaming the article on Native Americans Lakota. ～J.K. 00:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree that Tjukurrpa could be an interesting article, but as a word found in a restricted set of languages (Western Desert Language and some of its close relatives and neighbours) I think it could also be construed as (offensively) privileging one group over others who have similar traditional mythology but use different terms. Dougg 03:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments
  • Slightly off topic, but why do you keep talking about "dialects"? Dialects may very well actually use the same word. It's languages that tend to differ from each other. --Ptcamn 01:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    • A dialect is a variety of a language used by people from a particular geographic area. Varieties of language such as dialects ... can be distinguished ... by their vocabulary and grammar. Steve 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure Ptcamn already knows what a dialect is; he's one of our resident linguistics experts. The point he's making is that the word Tjukurpa may well share a common meaning across most or even all indigenous dialects. Does anyone know if this is the case? I'll ask Dougg. Snottygobble 03:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually the point I was going to make that "dialect" is sometimes used disparagingly, as though it's not a full language. I doubt that's the sense it was being used in above, but I don't know why it was being used at all--I mean, nobody ever refers to French and German as "European dialects".
I doubt Tjukurpa is used outside of the Western Desert Language, and even within it there's certainly going to be variation. --Ptcamn 03:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, Tjukurpa is used in at least Pitjantjatjara and Yankunytjatjara, but Kokatha, further south, uses Tjukurr (I've probably spelt that wrong, but you get the idea: it's a similar word, not the same). As for languages and dialects, the distinction is cultural as much as anything else, and I understand "language" is the preferred usage among the Aboriginals who speak them no matter how great the differences between one language and another might be. ～J.K. 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
'Tjukurr' and 'Tjukurrpa' are really the same word--some WDL varieties don't like final consonants so they add the '-pa'. The word 'tjukurrpa' is also found in a few languages closely related to (or neighbours of) the WDL (e.g. Wajarri, Warlpiri) but certainly not many. My understanding is that 'the Dreaming' was the earlier term used for this concept and later on the term 'Dreamtime' gained currency. My own experience is that many Aboriginal people prefer the term 'dreaming' and find this a more appropriate translation of their own words for the concept. I would like to see that become the title of the article, with redirects from Dreamtime and Tjukurrpa, and perhaps an article (entitled something like) Indigenous Australian religion and mythology. Dougg 03:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I note the suggestion that this article be renamed with words including mythology. Isn't that offensive, and isn't it implicit in doing so that you brand the topic we're discussing fictitious? I wouldn't have thought that one would call Bible stories myths and rightfully claim culturally sensitivity... Sambo 07:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that Thebainer's suggestion above sounds sensible, and that there's a good argument for this present article claiming the most notable/widespread use of the term. Not that mythology itself is necessarily a belittling description- there's a recognised formal/academic use of the term which does not mean 'ficticious' or 'clearly false' (from the POV of some dominant culture). See for eg Religion and mythology.--cjllw | TALK 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • In further support of this idea, I note that just about every article currently with a link to Dreamtime intended to link to this one.--cjllw | TALK 14:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support primary dab and move of current dab as per Thebainer and CJLL Wright--A Y Arktos\talk 19:55, 6 June 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.

[edit] Sensitivity warning?

It should be noted that some of the things discussed in this article are considered restricted information. The information about spirit-babies is, in at least some places, supposed to only be known by women (and mature ones at that). I don't recall seeing any kind of sensitivity warning on any other article in Wikipedia, but I think it could be something worth using here. It only needs to say that the article contains information which some indigenous people might find offensive or inappropriate. What do others think? Is there a WP policy on this kind of thing? Dougg 04:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" would seem relevant, although I realise you're not proposing to censor the article. Rather you're proposing something along the lines of a spoiler warning.
This is a difficult one. I wouldn't oppose including a sensitivity warning provided that was the beginning and end of our efforts to protect indigenous Australian sensitivities. My concern is that once we take this action, it is only a very small step to removing or downgrading highly worthwhile but potentially offensive material, such as the painting at the top of article Yagan. I would most firmly oppose this. Snottygobble 04:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily support removing any information, but there's nothing wrong with something akin to a spoiler warning. --bainer (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
That's a good comparison and is exactly what I had in mind. It would involve no change to the information in the article and would, in fact, be an addition as it would inform not only indigenous people that there's sensitiive information ahead (that they may prefer to avoid), but also makes non-indigenous people aware that they should be cautious with how they use the information. Dougg 10:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored Deleted References

The references section at the end of the article was deleted. At first, I thought it was done on purpose, but when I found no discussion on the talk page about the deletion of the references, I realised that this has probably been done by someone from the IP address 161.97.164.101. It appears that this is the same person who had appended the sentence "The girll named Heather........" at the end of the article. The reference section is now restored.

Savio mit electronics 21:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Altjira/Tjukurpa

The end of the intro has the claim that the Arrernte have a 'sky-god' called Altjira, and gives names for this 'god' in several other languages. I'd like to see a reference for this as I'm pretty sure it's incorrect. The word 'altjira' (usually spelled altyerre in one of the Arrernte orthographies), like the Western Desert word tjukurpa, means 'story' and is used as a name for the Dreaming. I don't believe it is the name of a 'god'. Dougg 00:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikification

This page is basically a giant preamble, then gets to actual sections in the last 3/4. It should probably be broken up into relevant paragraphs for a better "Wikipedia" format.

--Alekjds 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/r/e/Talk%7EDreamtime_2a67.html"