Native American myths/traditions support Bigfoot? A critical look.

[Correa Neto]

And care to explain the relevance of it all to the topic this thread is supposed to discuss?

 

[XBoxWarrior]

A common theme that has often come up here and in general with proponents is the statement as fact that Native American traditions and myths support the existence of bigfoot. This has been discussed many times to varying degrees of depth in other threads but I think it would be best to have a devoted thread on the subject as it is a persistent notion.

It is my assertion that Native American traditions do not support the existence of bigfoot and that what is put forth by bigfoot enthusiasts as evidence for the existence of bigfoot has been cherry-picked and misrepresented. IMO this at best amounts to a collection of boogeyman tales not significantly different than that of countless other cultures.

A good example of this is the lengthy discussion in the 'Simple Challenge for Bigfoot Supporters' thread regarding kushtaka (kû'cta-qa), a mythical being in the traditions of the Tlingit people of northwestern North America. We were told that kushtaka was a well-known and supported term for bigfoot and after much discussion and examination by skeptics the claim was dropped after the 'Land Otter Man' nature of the myth was established.

More recently we were told of the bukwus of the Kwakiutl people of Northern Vancouver Island:



This poster was apparently unaware of the legendary Thunderbird and its place in Kwakiutl mythology. As for the supposed sasquatch/bukwus, again, critical examination reveals...

From the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture:

https://www.washington.edu/burkemuse...y.php?ID=93120

From northwestcoastnativeartists.com:



http://www.northwestcoastnativeartis...bolsDetail=008

One of the main proponents of correlations between Native traditions/mythology and bigfoot existence is a lady we've enjoyed much discussion with on the subject in the past here, US Forest Service Archaeologist Kathy Moskowitz Strain. Kathy is a bright women with a fine sense of humour who has over the years invested much study on the matter. She has a book on the subject forthcoming that is due to be released sometime this year IIRC. Kathy is a well-known bigfoot proponent/researcher who has appeared on the History Channel series Monster Quest a number of times. She posts here under the handle 'Hairyman'.

Here is a youtube clip of her speaking on Native myths/traditions and bigfoot on the 'Gigantopithecus: The Real King Kong' episode of Monster Quest:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vUThgEGxjEM

I find myself in disagreement with some key ideas of Kathy's on the subject and think some can be illustrated by her comments in the above Monster Quest clip. For example, the statement "...as a scientist and archaeologist it doesn't make sense to me that tribes would give names to imaginary creatures." I find it difficult following Strain's reasoning here. It seems to presuppose the idea that Native American cultures did not have mythical creatures when, as is clear with the example of the ubiquitous Thunderbird, we know this to not be the case.

She also states in the clip "that Native Americans have literally a hundred names for these creatures and I'm still discovering them." Interestingly she then lists a few and includes the word 'sasquatch' which we have often been told to be a native word. Once again, upon further examination the word turns out to be a neologism coined in the 20's by a British Colombian school teacher, J.W. Burns:



Here is a partial list of tradtional Native names from the eastern United States provided by Strain that are supposed to represent bigfoot:



One thing I would like to accomplish in this thread is to examine some of these myths and traditions critically and see how well they correlate to what we are commonly told of bigfoot. One should keep in mind though that there is nowhere near a consensus on what bigfoot is.

My question to bigfoot enthusiasts is what Native American myth or tradition do you think most clearly and obviously represents bigfoot? For my part I will attempt to identify and examine some of the more touted examples.

I just felt like WASTING some more bandwidth........whew, that felt good!!

So, some indians believed in the bigfoot? and some americans believe in some dude that dies on a cross.......

Show me the difference?

 

[kitakaze]

I just felt like WASTING some more bandwidth........whew, that felt good!!

I'm sorry, XBW, I may be interpreting this the wrong way but am I to gather that you find the OP or the subject it pertains to to be a waste of time? If so, you're welcome to the opinion but I strongly disagree.

So, some indians believed in the bigfoot? and some americans believe in some dude that dies on a cross.......

Show me the difference?

Maybe you are missing the point of the OP or maybe you do get the point but think it irrelevant. Either way, I'll reiterate it.

Bigfoot enthusiasts constantly assert as common knowledge the idea that indigenous cultures of North America widely hold beliefs of bigfoot and have countless myths and traditions pertaining to the creature. I am contending that this is a false social construct propagated and perpetuated by bigfooters to garner support for their fantasy beast.

 

[Creekfreak]

So what you are saying is that the many thousands of people that are not indains that have seen it are all haveing the same fantasy ?
Do you really think all the people that have seen this creature are geting together to try and make up a big hoax ?
Man Ive never seen such lack of trust for the human species as you have .

And you say us bigfooters are crazzy thats the crazzest thing Ive ever heard .

 

[LazyPint]

Given that the many thousands of people cannot come up with any evidence better than "The Native Indians say it exists", the likelihood is that they were all mistaken.

 

[m_huber]

Native American folklore is a valuable commodity. Given that much of it is oral tradition, what is the probability that some of the stories about sasquatch/bigfoot began after Western culture colonized America? Native Americans are as human as anybody else.. and many understand capitalism quite well. The exchange might be, "Heard anything about bigfoot?" "Got any dough?" "yes." "yes."

 

[Correa Neto]

...snip...So, some indians believed in the bigfoot? and some americans believe in some dude that dies on a cross.......

Show me the difference?

Now, here's an interesting line!

See, sasquatch myths can be seen as part of Native American religions (Kathy Strain, if you are reading this, please correct me if I'm wrong). Modern bigfoot myth (which is part of modern North American folklore) was thus partly built through assimilation of some bits of religious mythology. I think it would be accurate to say through the rationalization or "scientification" of the myths- twisting, actually, if you ask me.

In this process, aspects which were compatible with a flesh-and-bones ape-like creature were selected, used and emphasized. Most of these aspects are related to the physical descriptions of the creatures. The religious or "paranormal" side (shape-shifting, spiritual guides, travelling through worlds, etc.) were left aside and discarted as "unscientific". This, in many cases, its in my opinion, distortion, twisting and misinterpretation (OK, one can argue if myths can really be misinterpreted).

As a sidenote, the original core functions or roles of the myths (pass messages and teatchings) are lost in such process. The myth becomes nothing but an empty shell. Of course, these highly modified versions of the sasquatch myths, when incorporated in the current bigfoot myth, will acquire new meanings and pass new messages. Please note that at this precise point, its no longer fair to say "myth distortion" or "twisting", since we are seeing a proccess that happens when cultures (and subcultures as well) somehow contact each other, regardless of our personal feelings about this.

Back on track, a very similar -if not identical- case can be seen in UFOlogy. Selected pieces of ancient myths and religious texts are incorporated in to UFO and similar lores as ancient astronauts.

No, its not a surprise!
Many people all around the world believe Christ was the son of god. A number of them believe Christ and god were an aliens! A few will see evidences for bigfeet in the Bible and ancient religious mythological texts. And the wheel keeps turning...

 

[Drewbot]

Native American folklore is a valuable commodity. Given that much of it is oral tradition, what is the probability that some of the stories about sasquatch/bigfoot began after Western culture colonized America? Native Americans are as human as anybody else.. and many understand capitalism quite well. The exchange might be, "Heard anything about bigfoot?" "Got any dough?" "yes." "yes."

Western Culture may have influenced the perpetuation of the bigfoot myth in two ways.

1. They brought disease to the New World that the Native Americans had no defense against. This may have included fevers which led to Hallucinations, which were interpreted by the Shamans as 'Spirits'

2. The Legends of Spiritual Beings in Indian Storytelling would have suffered different fates depending on the Region and the severity of the disease in that area. Areas around Cape Cod, 90% of the Native Americans were killed by disease whereas the death rate in the Western tribes was probably not as high. So the stories were passed on in tribes where they were not as decimated. White explorers would sit with Native Americans and hear these stories, and go back to their editors and relate the stories to them, thus birthing the 'Bigfoot' legend.

 

[kitakaze]

So what you are saying is that the many thousands of people that are not indains that have seen it are all haveing the same fantasy ?

I challenge you to show that many thousands of people have seen bigfoot. Better yet, I'll make it easier for you. I set to you the challenge of even partially supporting your statement by showing that many thousands of people even claim to have seen bigfoot. Documented evidence that many thousands of people claim to have seen unambiguously with their own eyes bigfoot. Can you do that? I'm quite confident you can't. Will you be the consumate bigfoot enthusiast and state wishes as fact? I'm quite confident you will.

 

[Spektator]

Native American folklore is a valuable commodity. Given that much of it is oral tradition, what is the probability that some of the stories about sasquatch/bigfoot began after Western culture colonized America? Native Americans are as human as anybody else.. and many understand capitalism quite well. The exchange might be, "Heard anything about bigfoot?" "Got any dough?" "yes." "yes."

It's not only valuable, but variable. Cherokee mythology alone has many different variants of the basic mythos--and while there are no "bigfoot" tales per se, the Cherokee have myths of the "moon-eyed people," essentially spirits who can be dangerous, helpful, or merely tricky.

 

[Correa Neto]

I don't think its that hard to imagine a scenario like this:

Somewhere and sometime in the XIX Century a naturalist or a hunter hires a Native American guide. At night they chat about important stuff: game, women, guns, women, game, guns, women and, oh, yes, and also about their beliefs.

The Native American, at a certain point, talks about the legend of a hairy wildman. The naturalist (or hunter) says: "You seem to be describing a gorilla!". "What's a gorilla?" asks the guide. The naturalist (or hunter) then describes a gorilla. Both men store the information tidbits they care about.

Later:

Native American at his tribe- "Hey fellows, you know that white guy who hired me? He says something like the Kecleh-Kudleh is real and lives at a land beyond the ocean.

Naturalist (or hunter) back home- "Hey fellows, a Cherokee guy I hired as a guide talked about gorillas-like animals in the forests!"

A seed for bigfoot myth was planted...

 

[kitakaze]

Please note that at this precise point, its no longer fair to say "myth distortion" or "twisting", since we are seeing a proccess that happens when cultures (and subcultures as well) somehow contact each other, regardless of our personal feelings about this.

Excellent point, Correa. That's another slant that I didn't mention in any of my posts that must be considered. Bigfoot is a myth. A modern myth but a myth nonetheless. Made in North America by modern North Americans, known by many names, a variation on the old. I believe it is a myth that will only continue to grow.

Let us not forget that the cherry-picking of native traditions and myths to tailor fit the currently popular notion of bigfoot as an upright ape (as Meldrum devotes the entire third chapter of his 'Sasquatch' book to do) is still a point of much contention within the bigfoot enthusiast community. A major portion still contend that bigfoot is no ape but rather something more human. I believe the relatively recent push within bigfootery to solidify the ape position is spearheaded by those who actively strive to gain scientific credibility.

When bigfoot was first being conceptualized by people like Patterson words like Neanderthal floated around much more freely. The question begging to be asked is what values this new myth instills in us or aspect of our psyche it speaks to. The whole man-beast aspect is one of the obvious elements. As is our anxiety at the destruction of nature around us and our desire to be more harmonious with it.

I think instead of rehashing what's been already said, I would point to where the issue is addressed far more in depth in David Brewster's 'Our Last Monster' article that I partially quoted above.

 

[kitakaze]

It's not only valuable, but variable. Cherokee mythology alone has many different variants of the basic mythos--and while there are no "bigfoot" tales per se, the Cherokee have myths of the "moon-eyed people," essentially spirits who can be dangerous, helpful, or merely tricky.

I'm very glad to see you in this thread, Spektator. To be frank your skills with fact checking and research are most welcome.

 

[Big Les]

Nice work kitakaze. I've seen Native Americans used as a human woo shield before. It's a useful strategy, because it makes casual debunking that much harder, and the claim that much more ancient, mystical and appealing. Even those who won't buy it as proof of a thing's existence, may well take it on face value as proof that the myth in question has greater antiquity than it actually does.

 

[kitakaze]

I don't think its that hard to imagine a scenario like this.

Or this:

19th century Kwakiutl village where trade is being conducted with western mariners. An illiterate British sailor knowledgable of superstitions is chatting with an illiterate tribesman knowledgable of superstions.

Sailor: "What's that funny carving there?"

Tribesman: "That is Dsonoqua. She is the wild woman of the woods."

S: "Oh... We have those too. We call them woodwoses."

T: "Oh..."

...

 

[kitakaze]

Nice work kitakaze. I've seen Native Americans used as a human woo shield before.

It's a useful strategy, because it makes casual debunking that much harder, and the claim that much more ancient, mystical and appealing. Even those who won't buy it as proof of a thing's existence, may well take it on face value as proof that the myth in question has greater antiquity than it actually does.

You know, that's good that you bring that up, Les. I was thinking about just that today; about how it's been posited as fact for such a long time and that so many skeptics (myself included) had taken it at face value.

We allowed ourselves to be preoccupied with explaining to footers the fultility of using myths to back up arguments that we forgot to say "Wait a minute, let's just have a look at that." I think the same is the case when you see so many footers like Creekfreak talk about the many thousands of people that have seen a bigfoot. I think it's something they pull out of their hats so often because they've gotten so used to nobody challenging it. Every time it comes out of the hat the number of claimers shoots up, the number of indigenous names shoots up.

You scratch a little and you find that this database made by footers here has 300ish reports in it, a hefty portion of which don't mention only sounds or some snapped branches and the feeling of being watched. You check and you find this native word you were told means bigfoot actually comes out to 'beaver scare noisy butt'.

 

[Spektator]

I'm very glad to see you in this thread, Spektator. To be frank your skills with fact checking and research are most welcome.

Thanks--if I have the time! I'm teaching again this semester, and the historian whose book I'm checking (I can't give much away, but it covers the years 1965-2000) is turning in great chunks of material to me now. I have to review it and verify all the quotations (hey! I'm getting to read some FBI and CIA files declassified under the Freedom of Information Act! Dreadfully dull stuff, sadly). Anyway, the book is due at the publisher March 1, and the writer is behind schedule. We're just up to 1980 with his last chapters, and tomorrow I'm expecting to get chapters running from 1980-85, or thereabouts. I'd expected to be finished by this point!

 

[Maldon]

"...as a scientist and archaeologist it doesn't make sense to me that tribes would give names to imaginary creatures."

As a fellow archaeologist I find this statement to be embarrassing.
Or maybe I should go to Lebanon and look for Huwawa (Humbaba in Arcadian).
There might be more than the one Gilgamesh killed.
I mean, native people won't make such things up!

But good topic, Kit.
These myths needs to be investigated some more.

 

[William Parcher]

Excellent point, Correa. That's another slant that I didn't mention in any of my posts that must be considered. Bigfoot is a myth. A modern myth but a myth nonetheless. Made in North America by modern North Americans, known by many names, a variation on the old. I believe it is a myth that will only continue to grow.

I believe that it is shrinking in noticible ways. I'm not talking about the total number of people who believe at any given time. I'm talking about how the argument for Bigfoot is being forced to redefine itself in the face of skepticism. It is painting itself into an increasingly smaller corner. This comes from a combination of their own proclamations and public arguments with skeptics. It is a conflicting dynamic that resembles predator/prey relationships. Both evolve over time with no purpose other than to continually 'pick each others' locks'. Each side 'believes' in its own righteousness and the necessity of self-preservation. BF skeptics force changes in Bigfootery and vice-versa. It is also similar to the conflict between creationists and evolutionists.

The battle moves forward in time with an increasing hyperdefinition of what it means to be a creationist or an evolutionist. The two sides do engage each other in argument, but the bulk of time and effort is spent talking to your own side. New 'inductees' to either side seem to be more numerous than noticible 'defections' from one side to the other. The most devoted and convicted are not easily swayed to switching sides. The most devoted Bigfooters want skeptics to somehow prove that Bigfoot does not exist before they will concede to being wrong. The skeptics want a body (or other valid biological evidence) before they will concede to being wrong. So you can see the writing-on-the-wall that comes from the inherent disparity of the two positions. Belief in BF can continue ad infinitum even without any confirmatory evidence and also with an increasingly powerful skeptical position. But skepticism must stop in its tracks the moment a body is delivered.

The discussion of modern and evolving Bigfootery is not tangential to to the topic of this thread. You really have to look at the believers and how they argue to understand the fundamentals of Bigfoot belief and why it perpetuates. Each individual believer is a case in itself, while the whole of them is what we all regard as "Bigfooters". They do come in all flavors, and it even includes the most simple single scoop of vanilla... "I think all of the evidence is pretty crappy and unsupportable; but I still believe."

 

[kitakaze]

As a fellow archaeologist I find this statement to be embarrassing.
Or maybe I should go to Lebanon and look for Huwawa (Humbaba in Arcadian).
There might be more than the one Gilgamesh killed.
I mean, native people won't make such things up!

But good topic, Kit.
These myths needs to be investigated some more.

Thank you, Maldon. I think poor Mrs. Strain is going to think I'm picking on her but just prior to that statement in this clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vUThgEGxjEM

...she says "One of the things that, as an archaeologist, solidifies that this is a real animal is the Native Americans have literally a hundred names, and I'm still discovering them, for this animal and it is... Such as stemahah, omah, sasquatch, skookum. There's many, many names and (into the statement I already quoted).

I'm afraid that I have to strongly disagree with that statement and I don't think she properly considered what she was saying.