We are celebrating our dear colleague Adrienne Kaeppler and I will do that through comparison and reflection upon some of our differences in point of departure and the resulting differences in methodologies seen in the context of trends in our fields. She is an anthropologist of dance specialising on Tonga and Hawaiʻi, while I am an ethnochoreologists specialising on Norway and the Nordic Countries. I will describe my own point of departure in a quite personal way, while I have had to base my reference to Adrienne more on her published works. Her engagement with the safeguarding of dance in Tonga already during the very first years of the twenty-first century has been followed up by similar engagements from many colleagues, each for cultures they study. It does in my mind signalise the need for ethnochoreologists and dance anthropologists to engage with tools for transmission, two of which are transcription and description. My article ends with an apology for, a definition, and an exemplification of those.
Some memoriesAt the ICTM world conference in Edinburgh in 1969, I was listening to Adrienne Kaeppler presenting her work on the dance in Tonga. As a first-timer with a rather weak command of English, but still having experience in fieldwork and dance analysis, I was very impressed by her presentation. She was one of the young stars there, and I may have stuttered a few words to her at some point. As far as I can remember the two of us did not meet again until around 1990 when the ICTM Study Group on Ethnochoreology made a new start, attracting anthropologists of dance from the USA and Western Europe. Before that, through the 1970s and 1980s I worked intensively with documenting traditional dances of my country for research purposes, but even more for the purpose of supporting their transmission, as a cultural value for the communities from which they came, and I mostly published in Norwegian for a Nordic readership. In the same period, Adrienne worked intensively at the Bishop museum in Honolulu and from about 1980 at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington DC, also with fieldwork, research projects and publications in English.
Norwegian discussionMy perspective on work with dance first came from my strong involvement in the organised Norwegian folk dance movement, but also from the attitudes of the mostly old traditional dancers and musicians, as well as from some young people in their communities. They saw traditional dance first of all as valuable heritage, which also became part of the vision for my professional work at the Norwegian Centre for Traditional Music and Dance. I felt pressure from many sides of the research environment against the validity of treating dances or immaterial folk culture as objects of value. My teachers of folkloristics in the 1960s, Svale Solheim,