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

[manofthesea]

Seriously

The Search For Bigfoot: Episode #1:

lay it down for you in the teepee

Just got back from back east. Man, there are alot of trees in Virginia. Didn't sight any bigfoots, sadly enough. There were quite a few deer sprawled along the roadways, as if something flung them against a tree or something, but most definitely roadkill. My wife saw something red and furry at Natural Bridge, I suggested it was a fox, but she stated that they're "rare". The indian ladies there were quite genuine, but stated that their tribes haven't inhabited that particular valley in over 200 years.
Saw a bobcat in Shenandoah Nat'l Park, but no definitive pics. Stalked it around the forest with my 6yo. nephew. Ranger pulled me over for speeding on Skyline Dr., and said "you wanna see the animals, not run them over", and gave me an official warning on DOI stationary.
Gotta tell ya, the people in Roanoke gave great honor to the EMS honorees. http://good-times.webshots.com/album/563615521CUTjTB
But still, no bigfoot.

 

[Correa Neto]

On-topic questions:

How can one safely identify and isolate within a myth, the components derived from totemic and antropomorphic thinking in a manner that a real bipedal primate (other than H. sapiens) at its core may be a plausible possibility?

How can one separate a "wildman myth" without a bipedal ape (other than H. sapiens) at its root from one where such a creature is present?

What is the methodology, what are the sets of criteria and how safe they are?
Can the obtained results de repeated?
Can they be falsified?

 

[Drewbot]

A question on BFF, got me reading this thread again, so I thought I'd update MOTS on the Kennewick Man problem.

Also FYI Clovis Culture was approx. 13,000 years ago, and Kennewick Man was Carbon Dated at 9300 years old.

This is the result of the Kennewick Man Ancestry examination.

Anthropologist Joseph Powell of the University of New Mexico was finally allowed to examine the remains and his conclusions were contradictory. Kennewick Man was in fact not European but rather resembled south Asians and the Ainu people of northeast Asia.[5] The results of a graphic comparison, including size, of Kennewick Man to 18 modern populations conducted by Chatters et al. to determine the skeleton’s relation to modern ancestry showed that he was most closely related to the Ainu. However, when size was excluded as a factor, no association to any population was established

 

[manofthesea]

Heavy dose of ignorance in the morning, huh?

Nothing new here.

 

[manofthesea]

P.S., your feigned ignorance may not be so feigned at all.

So what if Clovis predated Kennewick man. Kennewick man has not been definitively identified. FYI, bigfoot is probably hominid, meaning that it is closely related to human beings. It would logically have a skeleton that resembles human beings. Or do you suggest it would appear completely different. If so, then what would it's skeleton look like?

And if you don't mind, what exactly does "resembles an Ainu" supposed to mean. In what ways exactly does Kennewick man resemble an Ainu? Disregarding the obvious, even to an imbecile, stated difference in size. You realize that Kitakaze was unable and unwilling to defend his Ainu reference don't you?

At least you're not an Atlantaen worshipper, like a certain skeptic here, who now claims to have made numerous costumes, but typically as with any pseudoskeptic, unwilling to provide any proof of these wild speculations.

PPS, I know of two reasons for suffering hallucinogenic episodes, drugs or brain damage. Any others?

 

[Drewbot]

Lack of sleep, fever, chemical ingestion, fungi, Mult. personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia

 

[kitakaze]

FYI, bigfoot is probably hominid,

Man, and there I was thinking social construct. Colour me embarrassed.

You realize that Kitakaze was unable and unwilling to defend his Ainu reference don't you?

Yeah, that's it. I've already given MOTS all the info he needs regarding Kennewick Man investigations and the conclusions or lack thereof. He knows KM was not a Bigfoot. He's welcome to pull up a post where I definitively state that KM was Ainu. He knows this comment of mine is not one such statement:

Kennewick Man may have been from the same stock as the Ainu. His people may have followed shellfish harvesting routes from Japan up the coastlines along to North America. We know that KM's remains showed genetic drift indicating that his stock had been established for at least some thousands of years. It's conjecture but it at least has some basis in fact.

You know, as opposed to calling Bigfoot.

 

[Drewbot]

Kitikaze, is there any evidence that Native Americans actually saw any of the in-question beasts that are depicted in any of their artwork? If not, why does the claim that their artwork depicts Bigfoot, seem to take precedence in bigfoot circles, over the possibilities that the artwork depicts; A form 'seen' in a dream or hallucination, an artistic rendition of a character in an oral fictional story/myth?

Is it possible these legends were made up for the purpose of keeping their children away from certain areas, or to keep rival tribes from entering their claimed areas?

 

[drapier]

When we had this discussion a few months ago (I think it was on a different thread), the answer from the believer position was that Native Americans never depicted creatures that were not based on a real creature. I don't remember any convincing arguments presented to defend this position.

 

[Correa Neto]

Drew & Kitakaze:
Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus has a nice review about Clovis, Folsom, Kennewick man and Luzia (Chapter 5 IIRC). Its shows the reasons why some investigators consider they may represent a pre-Clovis population (or some other migration wave) as well as the quest for finding Luzia's DNA fingerprint among (the now extinct) Brazil's Botocudos tribes. Note that the book is from 2005; do not expect to find material less than 3 years old there. The "behind-the-scenes" story of the researchs regarding Clovis people is also fascinating. He also sheds lights on the political agendas of some groups that oppose to one or another theory.

This book also brings some interesting informations which I consider interesting for the topic in question. They were already touched here, but its not a bad idea to remember them.

- Native North American cultures were not isolated; there was a lot of cultural exchange and trade. It blows another hole in the "since many tribes scattered across North America had the same myths, they must have been based on a real creature because the odds of independently building similar descriptions are very small" argument.

- North America, contrary to what some footers say, was not covered with pristine forests where bigfeet could roam freely before the arrival of Columbus. The natives regularly handled the environment with the use of fire to create grazing fields; forest cover by Columbus' time was actually smaller than when the Mayflower arrived. Another gap where bigfeet could live became smaller.

- Cultural interchange between some native tribes and European settlers was not as small as some footers say. So, its perfectly possible that some Native Americans could have heard -and even seen pictures- of apes centuries ago and incorporated them in to their lore. Possible cultural contamination from Europeans must be taken in to account.

Drew:
Myths are multi-purpose tools; choose the purpose (as well as the meaning) which best suits you and go ahead!

 

[manofthesea]

- Native North American cultures were not isolated; there was a lot of cultural exchange and trade. It blows another hole in the "since many tribes scattered across North America had the same myths, they must have been based on a real creature because the odds of independently building similar descriptions are very small" argument.

- North America, contrary to what some footers say, was not covered with pristine forests where bigfeet could roam freely before the arrival of Columbus. The natives regularly handled the environment with the use of fire to create grazing fields; forest cover by Columbus' time was actually smaller than when the Mayflower arrived. Another gap where bigfeet could live became smaller.

- Cultural interchange between some native tribes and European settlers was not as small as some footers say. So, its perfectly possible that some Native Americans could have heard -and even seen pictures- of apes centuries ago and incorporated them in to their lore. Possible cultural contamination from Europeans must be taken in to account.

!

Boy, that all sounds real scholarly. But if you waste a few cells and think about it for a (one) second, you'll then realize the self defeating purpose of that post.

If indians derived their 'apelike' representations from Euros, you'd then be able to presume that they also would have legends/myths and carvings of unicorns, fairies, trojan horses, centaurs, beasts at the gate of hell, and so on.

 

[William Parcher]

If indians derived their 'apelike' representations from Euros, you'd then be able to presume that they also would have legends/myths and carvings of unicorns, fairies, trojan horses, centaurs, beasts at the gate of hell, and so on.

You forgot trolls. They didn't carve trolls. LOL!

 

[Correa Neto]

Unicorns, centaurs, etc. are mythical creatures which did not actually belonged to the European settlers' culture; they did not believed they were real. On the other hand, they knew apes are real. If the European settlers were say, Brittish, French or Dannish from the Middle Ages or Helenic Greeks, instead of English, French, Spanish, etc. from the XVII and XVIII Centuries, maybe your argument could be reasonable.

By the way, the Trojan horse does not belong to the list, since it was never supposed to be an actual animal.

Not to mention that since Native American tribes were not isolated, tales about howling monkeys could have reached some of them and be incorporated in to their lore. Eventually the refurbished myth may spread to other tribes, receive more changes and the process goes on and on and on...

Still expecting for a good, unbiased and reliable methodology to derive a real animal from sasquatch myths. Something better than the words "giant", "hairy", "howling", "wild", "man-like"... Especially because usually just one or two of the previous are present. Still expecting to see how the influence of non-native cultures can be isolated.

And lets not forget these other problems:

- Native North American cultures were not isolated; there was a lot of cultural exchange and trade. It blows another hole in the "since many tribes scattered across North America had the same myths, they must have been based on a real creature because the odds of independently building similar descriptions are very small" argument.

- North America, contrary to what some footers say, was not covered with pristine forests where bigfeet could roam freely before the arrival of Columbus. The natives regularly handled the environment with the use of fire to create grazing fields; forest cover by Columbus' time was actually smaller than when the Mayflower arrived. Another gap where bigfeet could live became smaller.

 

[manofthesea]

Unicorns, centaurs, etc. are mythical creatures which did not actually belonged to the European settlers' culture; they did not believed they were real. On the other hand, they knew apes are real. If the European settlers were say, Brittish, French or Dannish from the Middle Ages or Helenic Greeks, instead of English, French, Spanish, etc. from the XVII and XVIII Centuries, maybe your argument could be reasonable.

By the way, the Trojan horse does not belong to the list, since it was never supposed to be an actual animal.

Not to mention that since Native American tribes were not isolated, tales about howling monkeys could have reached some of them and be incorporated in to their lore. Eventually the refurbished myth may spread to other tribes, receive more changes and the process goes on and on and on...

Still expecting for a good, unbiased and reliable methodology to derive a real animal from sasquatch myths. Something better than the words "giant", "hairy", "howling", "wild", "man-like"... Especially because usually just one or two of the previous are present. Still expecting to see how the influence of non-native cultures can be isolated.

And lets not forget these other problems:

Now it's howler monkeys. Alaska Natives and Native Americans' myths of wildman are supposed to be howler monkeys? That's ripe.

 

[manofthesea]

- North America, contrary to what some footers say, was not covered with pristine forests where bigfeet could roam freely before the arrival of Columbus. The natives regularly handled the environment with the use of fire to create grazing fields; forest cover by Columbus' time was actually smaller than when the Mayflower arrived. Another gap where bigfeet could live became smaller.

!

You mean you felt this part was notable? Okay, so exactly what did native americans create grazing fields for?

Buffalo were migratory. Their range was massive. They numbered in the hundreds of millions. Indians may have cleared spots for easier hunting, but the sheer number of buffalo dictated that their habitat was healthy and self sustaining before and after Mayflower. It was the advance of the railroad which brought their demise.

Your arguments seem to almost come from 'outer space'.

 

[Correa Neto]

Now it's howler monkeys. Alaska Natives and Native Americans' myths of wildman are supposed to be howler monkeys? That's ripe.

Read carefully what I wrote:

Not to mention that since Native American tribes were not isolated, tales about howling monkeys could have reached some of them and be incorporated in to their lore. Eventually the refurbished myth may spread to other tribes, receive more changes and the process goes on and on and on...

In other words, tales about howler monkeys may have been integrated in to what later would become one of the sasquatch myths. If you disagree, and want to debate, state your reasons.

You mean you felt this part was notable? Okay, so exactly what did native americans create grazing fields for?

Buffalo were migratory. Their range was massive. They numbered in the hundreds of millions. Indians may have cleared spots for easier hunting, but the sheer number of buffalo dictated that their habitat was healthy and self sustaining before and after Mayflower. It was the advance of the railroad which brought their demise.

Your arguments seem to almost come from 'outer space'.

Read Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, especially the chapters regarding Native North American cultures and civilizations then come back to debate.

 

[manofthesea]

Read carefully what I wrote:

Read Charles Mann's 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus, especially the chapters regarding Native North American cultures and civilizations then come back to debate.

No thanks. I got that silly book ol' Parch recommended, Manlike Monsters, and it really sucked.

I asked what type of animal indians cleared the forest for. And you suggest Charles Mann. I invented a new word for you, 'scibab'. Scientific babbling.

 

[Drewbot]

MOTS, just so I'm clear, you can accept that you were chased by a Giant, Hairy, Unclassified, Bipedal, Whooping, Backstroking, Infrasound-having, Primate, but you just can't believe that Native Americans performed controlled burns, and were Anti-Forest? Would this be a correct evaluation?

http://cpluhna.nau.edu/Change/reintroduction_of_fire.htm

Wildfires had an essential part of in the ecology of many of the Colorado Plateau's biotic communities prior to Euro-American settlement. Whether lightning-caused or started by native peoples, wildfires were once quite common occurences throughout the grasslands and forests of the region. These frequent fires maintained an open forest structure in the ponderosa pine forests, and prevented tree encroachment into high elevation meadows and grasslands.

 

[Dreams_In_Digital]

Well, not to discount you, but I'd like to point out something.

Not too far from here is a small town called Willow Creek, settled in the Six Rivers National Forest along the Trinity river. There have been bigfoot sightings up that way since about 1936 (most notably there are rumors of a woman who claims she was held captive and raped by bigfoot over the course of a week but I haven't been able to find evidence of this besides the rumors). The sightings pretty much stopped at the end of the 1960s but occasionally there are stories of a hiker or two who spotted one.

Willow Creek has learned the value of marketing and milking it for all it's worth. There's a Bigfoot museum, Bigfoot motel, Bigfoot grocery, you get the idea. There's even a Bigfoot days towards the end of summer, I think it's coming up actually, where there's a parade and all sorts of weirdness but no one ever really takes it seriously.

The point of all of this is Willow Creek is right next to the Hoopa reservation, where the Hoopa and Yurok Native Americans live. I asked them if there were any old legends regarding bigfoot and you know what happened? They laughed at me, my one friend Eddie even said, "You're kidding right? You [white] folks invented that [expletive]." So, even in what's been deemed Bigfoot Country, there are no records of Bigfoot legends among the native people.

Just thought I'd add that.

 

[Correa Neto]

To be fair, I think some Native Americans may have different opinions. Kathy Strain collected several Native American myths and tales which she believes, may be related to bigfoot. Her main criteria, if I got it right, is that the person who tells the tale must correlate it with bigfoot (something I consider fair enough in principle but not free of issues). She has a book about it but I haven't read it yet. Not sure if she managed to apply this core concept to all the material she collected.

What actually happens, according to my point of view, is that many people cherry pick details among the descriptions of mythical creatures and force-fit them in to their preconceived ideas about what bigfeet are and behave (mind you, it frequently happens with other fringe subjects - Daniken is the first one who came to my mind). As far as I know, there are no good matches between the sasquatch (a fabricated word, BTW) myths and current bigfoot lore - at least not what I would call good matches.