The issue of ancient Oral Traditions

Archaeologists and anthropologists, by the nature of their training, are trained in a way that renders them incapable of understanding ancient cultures and what happened in the past.

For example, they are taught to assign a "ritualistic" or "superstitous" purpose to any ancient artifact they find. They are taught that all ancient people were stupid and intellectually inferior to people today, and that all they did was believe in superstitons . Like if an archaeologist finds an artifact, well, it must have had a superstitous purpose like maybe it was used to pray to the rain gods for more rain, as if ancient people were all stupid and superstitous.

Another issue is that archaeologists believe that if a tradition is strictly an oral traditon and was never written down, it must be all made up and pure bull#. They don't believe that it's possible for an oral tradition to be preserved for hundreds or thousands of years intact. If it's not written, then it's fake, is what they believe.

Yet some ancient people kept their oral traditions intact better than written records could be even. They have many ways of doing this. The hopi people here explain how they preserve their heritage and their ancestors traditions
www.atlantis.to...

AB: How does Grandfather feel about the accuracy of the word that has been handed down? Many people dispute the Bible and whether or not IT is accurate. With regard to Hopi prophecy, how does HE feel about the accuracy of the prophecy?


GF2: [Asks?] From the time when (?) was the chief, he had been carrying this message. But mainly the message had been carried forth by word of mouth. The accuracy had to deal with how well each individual that was given the opportunity to maintain the exactness of the prophecies. They were all given this prophecy, so they all had to meet at least once or twice a year, in the Kivas, where they would actually sit down and go back through that. One person would talk about the prophecies, and if he ever so much as added something to it or left something out, then the rest of the group would know that part of the prophecies was missing. So, they would tell him, "Well, you didn't say this one here," or "You added this to it." So, that is how this was kept alive through word of mouth and everyone had to remember just what those prophecies were about.

But archaeologists don't want to admit that the people themselves understand their own past much better than an archaeologist trained in limited western misunderstandings of how things work is capable of. Admitting the truth would shatter their Church Of Progress religous beliefs and destroy the notion that they are knowledgable about anything compared to ancient people's knowledge.



[edit on 30-7-2008 by Hollywood11]

Gourd of Ashes Prophecy Rock is thousands of years old
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Archaeologists and anthropologists, by the nature of their training, are trained in a way that renders them incapable of understanding ancient cultures and what happened in the past.

How many of these people do you know, personally? Serious question. Not "met on the board" or "claim to be"... but someone you sat down and ate a meal with type "know".

For example, they are taught to assign a "ritualistic" or "superstitous" purpose to any ancient artifact they find.

I don't think you can back that up. For instance, if you just browse through any museum exhibit (like, say, the Hatshepsut one that came around recently or maybe Tut (who's coming around the US again)) you will find a lot of things that are identified as ordinary everyday household objects -- lots of cups and plates, statues that are portraits of specific people, etc. I like museums so I've seen museums with prehistoric Native American items that included whistles, bull-roarers, rabbit skin blankets, water jars, food baskets, carrying straps, gaming pebbles... and none of them were ever labeled as "superstitious" or "ritualistic." The arrowheads and spearpoints certainly aren't labeled ritualistic or supersititous, and lots of research is done on cutting implements (stone knives and the like) that show they're being used to cut up meat and dress skins.

So I don't think your claims are at all accurate.

They are taught that all ancient people were stupid and intellectually inferior to people today, and that all they did was believe in superstitons .

Actually, they spend a lot of their time trying to teach people that the ancients were pretty darn smart and very sophisticated -- so there's lots of papers on engineering techniques and analyzing pottery firing and glazes and a whole branch of archaeology on weaving and fibers and so on and so forth.

I see the "ancient people were too stupid to figure out (how to make a wheel, how to cast iron into a tower, how to do mass production of amulets, etc)" line from people who aren't into archaeology and anthropology. I haven't EVER seen an anthropologist claim this since about 1920 (when the "theory of cultures" was overthrown by Franz Boaz).

Another issue is that archaeologists believe that if a tradition is strictly an oral traditon and was never written down, it must be all made up and pure bull#. They don't believe that it's possible for an oral tradition to be preserved for hundreds or thousands of years intact. If it's not written, then it's fake, is what they believe.

Anthropologists who study the Aboriginal Dreamtime claim, in fact, that the oral tradition is very ancient and well over a thousand years old.

To see how they value and study ancient oral traditions, here's a whole book on the subject (one of many) by an anthropologist and it's available on Google Books. Just google for this title : Who Needs the Past?: Indigenous Values and Archaeology

Yet some ancient people kept their oral traditions intact better than written records could be even. They have many ways of doing this. The hopi people here explain how they preserve their heritage and their ancestors traditions
www.atlantis.to...

But other Hopi elders tell a different story. The story that these elders tell was a story that developed after the 1890's and the Ghost Dance revival that almost destroyed all the Native Americans. Much of the information in there dates to the "Blue Star Kachina" era, which was a prophecy that arose only when the tribes split -- one group following the new Christian ways and the others following the old ways.

And it's not the Hopi way to kill another for his beliefs.

Good page on Hopi stuff:
www.fourdir.com...

But archaeologists don't want to admit that the people themselves understand their own past much better than an archaeologist trained in limited western misunderstandings of how things work is capable of. Admitting the truth would shatter their Church Of Progress religous beliefs and destroy the notion that they are knowledgable about anything compared to ancient people's knowledge.

I hope you will rethink this. Archaeologists don't actually study religions and religious practices. They just dig up stuff and identify it.

Anthropologists study religion and they are the ones yelling and screaming for aboriginal people around the world to be allowed to have their tradition and yelling VERY loudly when missionaries come in to try and "civilize and Christianize" the tribal people.

Here's just one of thousands of articles on this... from 1980, an anthropologist writes about trying to find justice for aborigines and trying to preserve their culture:
www.anthrosource.net...

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Gourd of Ashes Prophecy Rock is thousands of years old
www.youtube.com...

Actually, it isn't. It's a modern fake.

THIS is what Hopi rock art looks like:
raysweb.net...

And this:
www.jqjacobs.net...

Here's a professor's page. He studies rock art and ancient traditions among the Hopi. You can easily see that these genuinely old rock art panels are very differen than the rather lame scratchings at "prophecy rock" :
oak.ucc.nau.edu...

Just a big ditto to what Byrd said

I see the "ancient people were too stupid to figure out (how to make a wheel, how to cast iron into a tower, how to do mass production of amulets, etc)" line from people who aren't into archaeology and anthropology. I haven't EVER seen an anthropologist claim this since about 1920

The only people I've seen make this claim are fringe people stating that ancients needed "advanced humans or aliens" to figure stuff out for them.

Some of the smartest people I met were Nepalese, Maya, Rapa Nui and Honduran's who were by modern measure, uneducated, but very wise, gentle and very happy.

Originally posted by Byrd

I don't think you can back that up. For instance, if you just browse through any museum exhibit (like, say, the Hatshepsut one that came around recently or maybe Tut (who's coming around the US again)) you will find a lot of things that are identified as ordinary everyday household objects -- lots of cups and plates, statues that are portraits of specific people, etc. I like museums so I've seen museums with prehistoric Native American items that included whistles, bull-roarers, rabbit skin blankets, water jars, food baskets, carrying straps, gaming pebbles... and none of them were ever labeled as "superstitious" or "ritualistic." The arrowheads and spearpoints certainly aren't labeled ritualistic or supersititous, and lots of research is done on cutting implements (stone knives and the like) that show they're being used to cut up meat and dress skins.

So I don't think your claims are at all accurate.

I'm talking about items where simple functionality is not always immediately apparent. It's how they view the people of the past and are trained to interpret cultural items, as superstitous or ritualistc.

Actually, they spend a lot of their time trying to teach people that the ancients were pretty darn smart and very sophisticated -- so there's lots of papers on engineering techniques and analyzing pottery firing and glazes and a whole branch of archaeology on weaving and fibers and so on and so forth.

Studying pottery shards can only get you so far, really. Pottery shards also are often misused to date the construction of a site. For example, if there is 1000 year old pottery shards near a megalithic construction, the archaeologist will then assume the megalith is also 1000 years old. This is faulty thinking and often not the case.

line from people who aren't into archaeology and anthropology. I haven't EVER seen an anthropologist claim this since about 1920 (when the "theory of cultures" was overthrown by Franz Boaz).

I'm not really talking about that they were too stupid to make functional invention, but skeptics and academics claim that the way the ancient peoples viewed the universe was primitive and superstitous.

Anthropologists who study the Aboriginal Dreamtime claim, in fact, that the oral tradition is very ancient and well over a thousand years old.

To see how they value and study ancient oral traditions, here's a whole book on the subject (one of many) by an anthropologist and it's available on Google Books. Just google for this title : Who Needs the Past?: Indigenous Values and Archaeology

But other Hopi elders tell a different story. The story that these elders tell was a story that developed after the 1890's and the Ghost Dance revival that almost destroyed all the Native Americans. Much of the information in there dates to the "Blue Star Kachina" era, which was a prophecy that arose only when the tribes split -- one group following the new Christian ways and the others following the old ways.

Kachina's and stories of Kachina's are native to the Hopi tadition, not christian, in fact, Kachinas at one time really existed on earth and the Hopi's had seen them around the time of the destruction of Atlantis.

If what you say about the Hopi's splitting is true, then all that shows is that Hopi teachings and christianity were compatible and shared a common ancestor.

However, your claims about the prophecy rock tradition being "christian" or part of this so called "split" is easily proven wrong. Prophecy rock warns that the Hopi people must not give up their traditions and must not follow christianity when it comes to them. Prophecy Rock comes down through Thomas Banayanca who is the authentic inheriter of the original Hopi tradition

I hope you will rethink this. Archaeologists don't actually study religions and religious practices. They just dig up stuff and identify it.

And then they interpret the things they dig up based on an atheistic church of progress dogmatic belif system and preconceptions about how the past was.

Here's just one of thousands of articles on this... from 1980, an anthropologist writes about trying to find justice for aborigines and trying to preserve their culture:
www.anthrosource.net...

I'm not really talking about individual people's actions, I'm talking about a systematic way that they are programmed and taught to think as a whole feild.

It's like how Jane Goodall fights for apes, but evolution is still false.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Hollywood11
Gourd of Ashes Prophecy Rock is thousands of years old
www.youtube.com...

Actually, it isn't. It's a modern fake.



Here's a professor's page. He studies rock art and ancient traditions among the Hopi. You can easily see that these genuinely old rock art panels are very differen than the rather lame scratchings at "prophecy rock" :
oak.ucc.nau.edu...

Prophecy Rock isn't Art, it's a prophecy

Howdy Hollywood

Prophecy Rock isn't Art, it's a prophecy

Hans: Show us how you know that Hollywood. Take us thru the criteria and observations you use to determine that.

If you ever even watch a doc on the history channel, you'll see your points are mostly invalid.
Most docs generally try to show how ingenious a lot of Ancient tech was, fairly sophisticated, and how very close we've come before to achieving today's level (which is actually more of a relative reckoning actually, it's been supposed that in some ways the ancients were better than us, in certain fields.

Most of what you are talking about seems to be the popular stereotype of a archaeologist.
Most of the people I've met are amazed by the artifacts, but more they are amazed that artifacts like cups, spoons, rings, and pins are still able to be found in condition (even if in the last case, they are found in your finger), like the person just lost them. It's a bit of reverence of age, and a acknowledgment of the people who lived and died a long time ago.

Never met a archaeologist or paleo-anthropologist who considered the people or culture they study as simple in any sense, even the ones studying the very early tribal groups.
At least not in modern groups. The only people I've met or talked to who seem to doubt the Ancients brilliance an capabilities have, like Hanslune mentioned, been fringe scientists.
Well, and a British fellow, in all honesty. But that's it.
Institutionally speaking, I've never encountered anything published within the last fifty dd years that even makes primitive man look stupid, and recent (within the last ten, twenty years) have even shown that the Neanderthal had a complicated and well worth studying culture.

One additional comment:

In the 18-19th century as a reaction to the "noble savage" concept a number of writers stated that Egyptian and other ancient people would have needed "Indo-European" help in developing there civilizations.

It would be a big stretch to say they were anthropologists, there rather racist views were discredited in the later 19th and 20th century.

This was the first appearance of the "advance human" concept wrapped up in the European/Christian superiority concept of that time.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Howdy Hollywood

Prophecy Rock isn't Art, it's a prophecy

Hans: Show us how you know that Hollywood. Take us thru the criteria and observations you use to determine that.

The Hopi people don't treat it as art, they treat it as a prophecy that is in line with their oral tradition

The Hopi people don't treat it as art, they treat it as a prophecy that is in line with their oral tradition

Yes you keep saying that - can you back it up with some evidence?

I do think the OP is trying to say that a large portion of the academic teachings passed down from professors in the field tends to be biased toward the oral history of Native American people. I have seen some written materials from professors who claim that all the original people within the Americas migrated from another place to get here. But in oral history it says that the people have always been here but they also claim they have always been visited by others.

I have no assumption of people when it comes to the teachings of antropology or any other scientific field. As more knowledge of the past comes to the light you will see that some of the oral history of the original people of the Americas knew some things the other continents didn't.

Take for instance the simple growing of the Potato. This concept of growing the potato was not even in Europe before the arrival of Europeans. When the first Europeans came over here they saw the Potato, learned how to cultivate it, and the result was millions of lives saved in Europe. The potato saved millions upon millions of lives in Europe and this method of agriculture was far more advanced then Europeans had at the time before they "discovered" the Americas.

You also must give credit to the Mayan. Not all history of the original peoples was "Oral" history but in fact written down. They Mayan also used iron and knew of metallurgy. The also were experts in mathematical calculations (take for instance the first Calendar).

A lot of the oral history claimed the world was flat. If you go 500 years ago into the history of European scientists; a large portion believed the earth was still flat. On the other hand oral history claims that the Creator or Great Spirit worked in a circle pattern. That the basic principle of life was in geometry and that we are all connected (doesn't this sound like science?).

I would like to believe one could lump all people into one category. But as of the history of both continents it was very, very different. That is why I believe a natural study of oral and scientific anthropology would find more truth then say the nature of people is divided just because a handful of "racist" made papers declaring this or that about people.

I don't believe for a second Hitler's scientists or their research paper of the "supreme" being or super man is legit. They believed themselves to be superior and their science backed up these false claims due to the hatred they followed in the world.

We can't blame society for going through the rough edges of the world and pulling out the best and the worst of humanity. I'd like to think the Elders of the Native people and the Elders of the European world know the truth regardless if their daughters and sons are still arguing over who is who and what is what.

Howdy clg79

Good comments. Two things you might want to check on. AFAIK the Maya didn't have Iron and European scientists 500 years ago didn't think the world was flat. That's a myth that came up in the 19th century concerning Columbus.

Oral histories can be deceptive. Unless you have a world view that recognizes you are in a vast world and your clan or group can move around in it. You tend to think where ever you are is where you came from. ie Native Americans who came from Asia still thought they were in their ancestoral grounds because where ever they moved to IS their ancestoral grounds.

A lack of geographical knowledge will lead to that idea. Its a common human trait to think where you are born is where everyone else was born.
This is true of not just Native Americans.