Native American Oral Traditions and Archaeological
Native American oral traditions have long been
ignored and passed off as superstitious myths. Although the theoretical
objective of anthropology is to implement the ideology of cultural relativism
to all cultures, anthropologists have often failed to do so. Unfortunately,
anthropologists have been especially indifferent to the case of Native
Americans. Anthropologists in general are guilty of ethnocentricism
but archaeologists are definitely leading the pack. Although some archaeologists
have good intentions, most are unwilling to consider that Native Americans
have preserved an ancient history in their oral traditions. The unwillingness
to reach a compromise between archaeological and Indigenous knowledge
is a tragedy that the field should work hard to overcome otherwise archaeology
will forever rely upon inaccurate data.
The most influential paradigm in archaeology is the Bering Strait theory.
This theory first conceptualized by Spanish priests who believed the
natives to be the lost tribe of Israel is the backbone of many other
theories and if it were to fall, the currently accepted model of human
history would have to be reconstructed. Because it was believed at the
time that primitive people couldn’t travel across water, the only
logical conclusion was that they crossed over from the Bering land bridge
that was supposedly exposed after the last ice age 12,000 years ago.
According to Jeffrey Goodman, “the host of more or less fanciful
theories on Indian origins put forth over the past four hundred years
exemplifies a still-discernible tendency to draw large, often misrepresentative
conclusions about Indians from an inadequate store of facts.”1
These fanciful theories are a result of the method that anthropologists
employ: they begin research with a pre-conceived notion of what they
will find and where their discoveries will fit into human history.
The absurdity of this method is apparent when archaeologists argue that
the Bering Strait theory is valid. Not only are their arguments illogical,
they contradict the plethora of evidence that has been found. According
to Kenneth L. Feder, an archaeologist who accepts this theory, “when
Beringia became exposed as sea level fell, people adapted to their interior
habitats of northeast Asia would have been able to expand their territories
by moving east through the interior of the land bridge and then into
the interior of northwestern North America.”2 Assuming this statement
is true, these people must have had a motive to leave their homes in
Siberia and travel across the ice-free corridor. Jared Diamond proposes
that “…when the first Clovis hunters emerged from the ice-free
corridor, they saw before them the Great Plains stretching to the horizon,
empty of humans but teeming with herds of mammoths and other beasts.”3
The great herds of megafauna was thus the motive for these Paleolithic
hunters to leave their homes and enter the New World in order to hunt
a land teeming with prey. If this were true, one would expect there
to be evidence that these travelers were megafauna hunters and that
the megafauna actually crossed Beringia beforehand. To the dismay of
archaeologists however, this has not been the case.
Archaeologists tell us there was an ice-free corridor that was formed
after the last ice age around12,000 B.P. Geologists and Biologists have
gathered substantial evidence demonstrating that although Beringia may
have been ice-free, the weather conditions were not suitable to accommodate
a migration of megafauna or humans. First of all, “… it
was not until just 8,000 years ago that the ice-free corridor opened
up – 4,000 years too late to make the Bering route scenario work.”4
If of course a few brave herds of megafauna ventured to cross the ice-free
corridor after 8,000 B.P., they would be met with “a set of rugged
mountain ranges on both sides of the Bering Strait [which would be]
a major barrier even if a land bridge does exist.”5 The Bering
Strait was a barren wasteland which would have been a major deterrent
to both megafauna and/or Paleolithic hunters and not an appealing paradise
as archaeologists have claimed.
Froelich Rainey has pointed out that “under the current weather
conditions, northwestern America and northeastern Asia present the most
insurmountable barrier to human communication anywhere in the world
and the ice age must have been much worse.”6 The available evidence
overwhelmingly contradicts the outdated pre-conceived assumption that
there must have been a lush paradise to accommodate the herds of megafauna
waiting patiently for the ice-corridor to develop in order so that they
may rush across into the New World.
According to Dr. Arthur Jelinek of the University of Arizona, “there
is no evidence at all that any herds of reindeer or any other animals
crossed the land bridge. The harsh weather seems to be a deterrent for
any migration through Beringia.”7 This lack of any animal remains
in the corridor presents a peculiar problem to archaeologists that they
have been hard pressed to solve. They are however content with basing
their theory upon this absence of evidence.
If there was no megafauna migrating to the New World, then what other
motive could have stimulated a migration of Paleolithic hunters? Goodman
points out that “To pass through the 625-kilometer corridor would
take fifty days if man traveled a very brisk 14 miles a day or 3 miles
per hour based on an eight-hour day; at this rate of travel, it is unlikely
that he could have carried a fifty-day food supply.”8 Discarding
the false notion that megafauna migrated south and Paleolithic man was
close behind, there would be no other motive for the migration to occur.
It is highly unlikely that these Paleolithic hunters would make the
trip into a cold, dangerous, barren wasteland if there were no visible
incentives for doing so.
In light of the contradicting evidence, archaeology continues to rely
upon the Bering Strait theory and has developed a scenario for the entirety
of Native American history based upon this false doctrine. The accepted
date of entry into the New World therefore is based upon the time period
of the end of last ice age. The Clovis point findings made in 1932 support
the idea that the earliest date of entrance in the New World must have
been roughly 12,000 – 13,000 B.P. (based upon the date of 13,000
B.P. attained at Santa Rose Island in California for human remains).9
From that point on, Clovis Point has become the holy grail of archaeology
and all Native American studies are based upon this theory. Any evidence
found that even remotely contradicts the Clovis Point theory is immediately
criticized and/or disregarded by the majority of archaeologists who
unfortunately subscribe to this doctrine.
Clovis Point was not the first flawed theory to become indoctrinated
into archaeology however. Although there has been a wide range of speculation
(including the lingering belief that survivors of Atlantis and Mu, or
the lost tribes of Israel colonized the New World), The first scholarly
inquiry regarding the date of early man’s entrance into the New
World was addressed by Dr. Ales Hrdlicka. Hrdlicka argued that man entered
the New World by way of Beringia no earlier than 3,000 B.P. Because
Hrdlicka had many scholars on his side, his doctrine remained valid
for three centuries.10
Because archaeologists lacked the courage to confront the imposing figure
that Hrdlicka had become, it took the curiosity of a cowboy in New Mexico
named George McJunkin to finally debunk the theory. McJunkin was riding
along the Cimarron River when he discovered several flint spear points
that were grooved at the tip (these grooves are today called “fluting”)
and noticeably longer than the usual points found in the area. Along
with these points were massive bones which would later turn out to be
the remains of a larger variety of bison that had been extinct for 10,000
years. J.D. Higgins who was director of the Colorado Museum of Natural
History in Denver managed to retrieve and analyze the bones. He then
came to the conclusion that the association of the bison bones and spear
points was conclusive evidence that early man was in the New World by
10,000 B.P. This new doctrine called Folsom Point became the dogma of
the field until 1932 when the Clovis Point took it’s place.11
Although Higgins successfully maintained his status in the academic
world, the few scholars who have ventured to refute the Clovis Point
theory based on solid evidence were severely ostracized and their careers
were destroyed. In 1951, Dr. Thomas Lee who worked at the National Museum
of Canada excavated a site in Sheguiandah, Canada. When the site was
analyzed, it dated to between 30,000 and 100,000 B.P. Because his work
conflicted with the accepted Clovis Point doctrine, the museum at which
he had worked fired him and his papers on the findings were mysteriously
stolen. Lee claimed that both Canadian and American scholars blacklisted
him and enforced an eight-year period of unemployment upon him. His
friend who was a prominent anthropologist articulated dismay at his
discoveries and quickly advised Lee to rebury his site and rebuild his
career upon doctrinally acceptable guidelines.12 The archaeologists
at the top of the power structure obviously have significant influence
in the field and are able to manipulate the overall knowledge that is
incorporated into the archaeological field. This is unfortunate because
they are upholding data that is severely flawed and should have been
discredited long ago with the initial discoveries of early dates of
man in the New World.
Understandably, the Anthropologists after Lee have decided not to challenge
the Clovis Point theory and those who have discovered sites that offer
evidence of dates older than 12,000 B.P. swiftly rebury them to save
their reputation in the field. E.F. Greenman and Werner Muller both
adhered to this practice for the majority of their careers. Instead
of discarding their evidence however, they preserved it and waited patiently
for their careers to come to an end. At that point, they published their
data knowing they would be viciously attacked. E.F. Greenman published
an article titled “The Upper Paleolithic and the New World”
in the February 1963 issue of Current Anthropology and in it argued
that there is no evidence of a migration from Asia to America through
the Bering Strait. He went on to propose that there is more evidence
supporting an arrival in the northeastern United States and not through
the Bering Strait by way of open water canoes.13 Because Greenman wisely
published his findings at the end of his career, the subsequent blacklisting
did not affect him.
Werner Muller was a well-respected anthropologist before he published
his book America: The New World or the Old? in which he argued that
the finds made at Hueyatlaco, Calico, and Toca de Esperanca provide
us with strong evidence that there has been human occupation in the
New World for over 200,000 years. After his book was published, he was
dismissed by the academic community as being “a little crazy”
although he had been considered a responsible scholar beforehand. Not
only did Muller discredit the Bering Strait and Clovis theories with
his findings, but he also ventured to refute the theory of evolution
as it stood. Muller did not have only archaeologists attacking him but
physical anthropologists quickly began an assault upon his work when
he ventured to address the discrepancies in their precious evolutionary
timeline. Muller theorized that based on the evidence in America, it
was overwhelmingly clear that the emergence of man probably did not
occur in one place but most likely occurred on several different continents.14
According to Goodman, “During the first half of the twentieth
century…the academic world took a very conservative view of Indian
origins, maintaining that man was a relative new-comer to the New World,
a position it generally adheres to even now.”15 This is an unfortunate
result of academic politics and the timid reluctance of anthropologists
to oppose those scholars with substantial power. Therefore, if a certain
paradigm exists in the field, and many powerful scholars adhere to it,
nobody will dare question it because by doing so they would also be
questioning the powerful proponents of the theory which would in turn
jeopardize their careers. The problem therefore is not that there hasn’t
been any sites found older than 12,000 B.P. but that the scholars in
power do not allow archaeologists to dig beneath the Clovis strata.
It has already been demonstrated that those who venture to do so will
be unjustly refuted and their careers will be destroyed. Few anthropologists
desire these severe repercussions and are thus reluctant to publish
any evidence that might contradict the doctrine. The harsh attacks made
upon these anthropologists who are simply attempting to contribute additional
knowledge to the field is appalling.
The treatment of these scholars fails in comparison to the degree to
which Native Americans are attacked for their claims to knowledge. Although
anthropology is ideally bound to the doctrine of cultural relativism
(whereas no one culture is superior to another and all cultures are
equally valuable), anthropologists have scoffed at the idea that Native
Americans could actually possess accurate knowledge of their own origins
and history. Because of this attitude, Native American elders are reluctant
to reveal their oral traditions that relate to their origins; for no
one likes to be ridiculed. But it would be beneficial if anthropologists
were to finally implement the idea of cultural relativism into their
own research and accept the knowledge of Native Americans as equally
valid as their own.
The question at point here is whether or not Native Americans could
have memorized ancient historical events. The evidence provided by the
oral traditions we have today suggests that Native Americans have indeed
preserved an ancient memory within their culture. And the archaeological
evidence overwhelmingly supports what the elders have been telling us
all along. Instead of denying them the fact that they actually know
something, anthropologists should be comparing and verifying their own
data with that of the Natives.
Native Americans have a specific way of revealing their historical knowledge.
Their oral stories are often embellished with interactions between historical
events and supernatural beings. Anthropologists have thus denied them
their knowledge based on their assumption that because supernatural
beings are involved, they must be mythical stories with no historical
backing. This is unfortunate because history has taught us this is not
the case. The lost city of Troy and Noah’s Flood were both discovered
based upon written evidence that was an exact copy of ancient oral traditions.
The Odyssey and the Holy Bible are nothing more than the written form
of oral traditions of the Greek and Hebrew people. Although interactions
between supernatural beings permeate the stories, no one today can deny
that they are historical events simply shrouded in the biased beliefs
of the respective cultures.
In the case of Native Americans, they “have aggressively opposed
the Bering Strait migration doctrine because it does not reflect any
of the memories or traditions passed down by the ancestors over many
generations.”16 All of the recorded Native American traditions
tell us that their ancestors did not migrate to the New World from Asia
but that they originated here or arrived by way of islands long ago.
It has already been proven by many archaeologists that the Native American
oral traditions are extremely accurate and reflect historical facts
that can be verified with archaeological sites. The problematic question
is how far do these oral traditions reach into history? With the evidence
we currently possess, it is apparent that the oral traditions reach
deep into ancient history many thousands of years.
David M. Pendergast and Clement W. Meighan have proven that the memories
of the Paiute in particular are records of historical fact. They have
accomplished this by correlating data collected from Paiute elders with
the archaeological evidence that was available on the Paiute at the
time. They have pointed out that “…the collective knowledge
of the group seems to include an abbreviated but accurate history of
events and peoples some 800 years in the past.”17 The informants
described a people called the Mukwitch who occupied an adjacent area
to that of the Paiute in Utah between 800 A.D. and 1150 A.D. They described
the Mukwitch use of metates, their relatively short stature, the structure
of their houses, and their specialized diet of deer and wild plant foods.
All of their descriptions were subsequently verified by the archaeological
digs conducted by Pendergast and Meighan. The informants all had no
previous knowledge of local archaeology and only one spoke English;
thus eradicating the idea that they could have attained their information
any other way. Pendergast and Meighan thus concluded that, “…
the investigation of such folk histories is well worth the attention
of anthropologists. The archaeologist in particular should explore the
possibilities of correlating historical traditions with archaeological
data, since the historical information may substantiate, and in some
cases broaden, inferences based solely on archaeological materials.”18
These two archaeologists have succeeded in correlating historical traditions
with archaeological data and although their work should be crucial to
the advancing of archaeology, their method has largely been dismissed.
While Pendergast and Meighan have clearly proven oral traditions can
span hundreds of years, W.D. Strong has proven they can span thousands
of years. In 1934, Strong published a convincing article detailing the
Native American knowledge of the wooly mammoth. The Naskapi describe
a monster they call Kátcheetokúskw (present in many of
their myths) as being very large, having a big head, large ears and
teeth, and a long nose with which he hit people. When presented with
photos of modern elephants, the informants said they fit the description
of Kátcheetokúskw as represented in their oral history.
The Penobscot of Maine describe a huge animal with long teeth that leaned
against certain trees to sleep (noting that when these beasts lay down,
they could not get back up). The Ojibwa and Iroquois note the existence
of a large beast that once ranged through the forest and was so strong
that it would easily knock down any trees that stood in it’s path.
These “elephant” legends are rampant in many other Indigenous
cultures such as the Micmac, Alabama, Koasati, and Chitimacha.19 In
the article, Strong anticipates the onslaught of conservative anthropologists
and in his concluding argument complains that, “To date, palaeontologists
have seemed more willing to grant recency to the mammoth than have the
majority of American anthropologists to grant any geological antiquity
to the American Indian.”20 Strong’s insights are very revealing
as it is apparent that the rift between the Bering Strait theorists
and the opposition was in place by the early date of 1934. More importantly
however, if Native Americans have preserved accurate descriptions of
the mammoth, they must represent an oral history going back thousands
In 1944, M.F. Ashley Montagu confirmed Strong’s finding in an
article published in American Anthropologist. The Osage of Missouri
preserved a record of an incident that involved the encroachment of
a herd of megafauna upon the land of the smaller animals already living
there. The Osage of course incorporate supernatural beings into their
account and attribute the encounter to the actions of the Great Spirit.
At a certain period, many monstrous animals encroached upon the territory
(along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers) of the much smaller animals
already living there. The Osage were forced to abandon their homes and
refrain from hunting because the gigantic animals posed a deadly threat.
They remained at a sufficient distance however to witness the courageous
smaller animals attack the invading monstrous animals. After a long
battle, the larger animals prevailed and continued their march eastward.
The Osage then burnt some of the bodies as an offering to the Great
Spirit while the rest were buried in the Pomme de Terre (which was later
called Big Bone river). The Osage considered this to be a sacred place
thereafter and subsequently gave offerings periodically to commemorate
the battle. In 1839, American settlers seized the sacred land to the
great dismay of the Osage and began the construction of a tub-mill (a
machine used to pound corn). After digging, the settlers discovered
a mass of bones, which were identified as those of young mastodons.21
The fact that the Osage story correlated precisely with the findings
made by the settlers is adequate evidence that the oral history of Native
peoples goes back into deep time.
It can thus be concluded that Native American oral history is very ancient
indeed. To further test the limits of its extension into time however
we should examine those oral traditions relating to geological formations.
The Klamath have preserved an oral tradition detailing the violent eruption
of Mount Mazama. According to the Klamath account:
“Red-hot rocks as large as the hills hurtled
through the skies. Burning
ashes fell like rain. The Chief of the Below World spewed fire from
his mouth. Like an ocean of flame it devoured the forests on the
mountains and in the valleys. On and on the Curse of Fire swept until
it reached the homes of the people. Fleeing in terror before it, the
people found refuge in the waters of Klamath Lake.”22
Dr. Howel Williams of the University of California
at Berkeley has confirmed this account with geological testing of the
site. According to his findings, there were heated avalanches spewing
until the peak finally collapsed into the center of the volcano. The
eruption is dated to 6,500 B.P. and human artifacts such as sandals
have been found beneath the ashes, which indicate a human occupation
before the eruption. It is apparent from the oral traditions that these
people were the Klamath and they have obviously preserved the history
of their people for at least the past 6,500 years.23
In the case of Mount Multnomah (which is a grouping of three adjacent
volcanoes) in Central Oregon, informants from the Warm Springs reservation
provided Ella Clark with the following account of its creation:
“Klah Klahnee, the Three Sisters, was
once the biggest and
highest mountain of all; it could be seen for many miles.
One time the earth shook for days, and the mountain boiled
Inside. It boiled over, and hot rocks came out of the top of
It. Flames and smoke rose high in the air. Red-hot stones
Were thrown out in ever direction. Many villages and many
Indians were buried by the rocks. When the mountain
Became quiet again, most of it was gone. Only three points
This is an accurate account of the formation
of Mount Multnomah that was later confirmed by a geologist named Edwin
T. Hodge. In 1924, Hodge did extensive fieldwork at the Mount Multnomah
site. He concluded that the three adjacent volcanoes were once a part
of a larger, once standing ancient volcano. Hodge said that this ancient
volcano erupted in what was a gigantic explosion and subsequently formed
the three smaller volcanoes present today.25 The Native American account
obviously requires that this particular tribe was present when the original
volcano erupted and created the three peaks. There is no other way to
explain how they could have attained such accurate knowledge of the
A major problem arises however with the date of eruption calculated
by Hodge using the potassium-argon dating method. The date given by
Hodge is approximately 25 million to 27 million years ago. Although
it cannot be denied that the Warm Springs tribe was present during the
eruption, it is highly unlikely that oral history can be stretched this
far deep into time. The problem then is not with the oral tradition
but with the dating method. According to Cremo and Thompson, the Potassium-argon
dating method is very inaccurate. They cite an incident whereas “…scientists
have obtained ages ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years for
Hawaiian lava flows that occurred in the year 1800.”26 Hodge himself
has doubts about the dating method as he relates that “The most
striking peculiarity of the Three Sisters region is the obvious youth
of the many volcanic floods, volcanoes, and cinder fields…[and]
these black, scoriaceous, volcanic rocks look so young that many are
convinced that they have congealed within historic time.”27 Although
Hodge admits the volcanic rocks appear to be very young, he goes against
his own logic and maintains the eruption occurred 25 million to 27 million
years ago. Perhaps a random guess at the date of eruption would have
made as much sense.
Vine Deloria Jr. remarks that, “the idea that people have only
been in the Western Hemisphere for 12,000 years is simply an agreement
among scholars who neither think nor read and who have been stuck on
a few Clovis and Folsom sites for a generation.”28 However grim
the statement sounds, it is unfortunately true. It is apparent that
if the Bering Strait theory were true, it would be reflected in the
oral history of Native Americans. If such significant historical events
such as volcanic eruptions have been preserved then surely a great migration
into a new continent would also be preserved. We know that Native Americans
consider migrations to be extremely important because there are many
stories involving great treks amongst many different tribes. A trek
from northeast Asia to America would definitely be preserved as a significant
event if it actually occurred but the evidence (oral and archaeological)
does not support this long- standing scenario.
The problem does not lie simply in the treatment of Native Americans
however. If the archaeological sites dated to over 100,000 B.P. were
taken into account, the human evolutionary timeline would be discredited.
No matter how sympathetic anthropologists are towards Native Americans,
very few if any would venture to accept that their theory of
evolution is also inaccurate. Clifford Geertz once said that a cultural
group could withstand anything except for the breakdown of their culture.
To even suggest that human beings could have developed independent of
each other would be enough to anger even the most confident of scholars.
What if only some humans came out of Africa in 100,000 B.P. and
others such as Australian aborigines and Native Americans arose from
their respective continents independently. This would make much more
sense considering there have been archaeological sites dating to over
200,000 B.P. for both America and Australia. The fact that there were
people already living in America before Homo Sapiens “evolved”
from Homo Erectus in Africa is evidence enough to discredit the Bering
Strait theory. No sane anthropologist would accept this however because
to do so would signify the breakdown of hundreds of years of scholarly
Most interestingly however is an argument proposed by J.M. Blaut which
states that Europeans created the theory of evolution during the course
of their colonial ventures. Because colonialism required the subjugation
of the Native peoples, Europeans developed an intricate ideology entitled
“geographical diffusionism.” This ideology stated that Europeans
were more powerful than other groups because they had evolved culturally
whereas the others had remained stagnant.29 This was the formation of
the theory of evolution centuries before Charles Darwin began his inquiries.
Only during the time of colonialism did Europeans feel a sense of superiority
over non-Europeans and their explanation for this was not only racist
but it also led to the theory of evolution. It is now known (but hardly
accepted by scholars) that Europeans are not superior to non-Europeans;
they are simply willing to subjugate others for their own profit. The
ruling class has a significant stake in evolutionary theory even today
because otherwise neocolonialism, globalization, modernization, and
industrialization would no longer be justified. This is an even more
powerful reason why the current evolutionary timeline cannot be discredited.
Because the Bering Strait theory keeps the evolutionary timeline intact,
it cannot fall; this is the basic structure of colonialism and neo-colonialism
The politics of Anthropology and the practice of publishing data that
is beneficial to the ruling classes has unfortunately become more important
than the attainment of objective knowledge and the field has suffered
greatly. For the past seventy years, anthropologists have blindly followed
the Bering Strait and Clovis Point theories without testing the validity
of the doctrines for themselves. Because of this blind faith, anthropologists
have been forced to abandon the principles of cultural relativism and
have instead adopted an ethnocentric approach, which marginalizes the
cultures they are supposed to be preserving for the advancement of the
field. Only until Anthropology becomes a truly holistic discipline based
upon data that actually correlates with the oral traditions of the very
people they are studying will it begin to produce objective knowledge
that can be verified.
1 Jeffrey Goodman. American Genesis. New York; Summit Books, 1981. Page
2 Kenneth L. Feder. The Past in Perspective:
An Introduction to Human Prehistory. 2d ed. Mountain View: Mayfield
Publishing Company, 2000. Page 247.
3 Jared Diamond. “The American Blitzkrieg:
A Mammoth Undertaking.” Discover (June 1987): 82-88.
4 This date is based upon the research of Dr.
Reid Bryson; a Meteorologist at the University of Wisconsin. He conducted
his research with the use of radiocarbon dating. He also emphasized
that even after the ice-corridor opened, the ideal lush valley that
archaeologists claim existed is pure fantasy. Instead Beringia was ridden
with “miserable meteorological conditions, and lower temperatures,
and stronger winds than those encountered on top of the ice sheet itself.”
Not surprisingly, archaeologists have stood clear of Bryson’s
study and have failed to even comment about his findings. (Jeffrey Goodman,
American Genesis [New York: Summit Books, 1981], 65).
5 Vine Deloria Jr. Red Earth, White Lies. Golden;
Fulcrum Publishing, 1997. Page 90.
6 Froelich Rainey is an archaeologist who worked
at the University of Arizona during the 1940’s and 1950’s
. Jeffrey Goodman. American Genesis. New York; Summit Books, 1981. Page
7 Ibid., Page 61-62.
8 Ibid., Page 65.
9 Kenneth L. Feder. The Past in Perspective:
An Introduction to Human Prehistory. 2d ed. Mountain View; Mayfield
Publishing Company, 2000. Page 256.
10 Dr. Ales Hrdlicka was curator at the U.S.
National Museum from 1909 to 1941. Although no date is given for when
he first proposed his theory, it is known that Hrdlicka formulated his
theory during the time of his curation at the museum. (Jeffrey Goodman,
American Genesis [New York: Summit Books, 1981], 43).
11 Ibid., Pages 44-46.
12 The scholars who attacked Lee failed to provide
evidence that his data was in any way flawed and attacked him based
solely on his attempt to attain accurate knowledge of Paleolithic man
in the Americas and his refusal to adhere to the outdated Clovis Point
theory. (Vine Deloria Jr., Red Earth, White Lies [Golden: Fulcrum Publishing,
13 In the article, Greenman cites substantial
evidence such as human remains in the northeast U.S., the canoes of
the Beothuk peoples which were designed for open water travel, and the
similarities in cave drawings of the Old and New Worlds. The arguments
proposed against Greenman’s findings by such scholars as A.D.
Krieger and Thor Heyerdahl were absolutely ridiculous. In response to
Greenman’s assertion that there is no evidence a migration occurred
by way of Beringia, T. Van der Hammen responded by saying that although
nothing has been found, the situation is sure to change very soon. (E.F.
Greenman, “The Upper Paleolithic and the New World.” Current
Anthropology 5, no. 1 [February 1963]: 41-91.)
14 Muller elaborated on his theory by saying
Homo sapiens and Homo erectus were probably contemporaries and not linked
by any evolutionary line as had been claimed. If modern humans had been
in the New World by 200,000 B.P. and the accepted evolutionary dogma
maintains that Homo sapiens arose from Homo erectus in Africa about
100,000 B.P., the contradiction would force the evolutionary timeline
to incorporate these findings and make significant modifications. (Vine
Deloria Jr., Red Earth, White Lies [Golden: Fulcrum Publishing, 1997],
15 Jeffrey Goodman, Page 41.
16 Vine Deloria Jr., Page 81.
17 David M. Pendergast and Clement W. Meighan.
“Folk Traditions as Historical Fact: A Paiute Example.”
Journal of American Folklore 72 (1959): 128-33. Page 131.
18 Ibid.. Page 133.
19 W.D. Strong. “North American Indian
Traditions Suggesting a Knowledge of the Mammoth.” American Anthropologist
36 (1934): 81-88. Pages 81-87.
20 Ibid., Page 88.
21 M.F. Ashley Montagu. “An Indian Tradition
Relating to the Mastodon.” American Anthropologist 46 (1944):
568-71. Pages 568-71
22 Ella E. Clark. Indian Legends of the Pacific
Northwest. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952. Page 54.
23 Vine Deloria Jr., Pages 178-79.
24 Ella E. Clark, Pages 13-14.
25 Vine Deloria Jr., Pages 179-80.
26 Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson. “Forbidden
Archeology.” San Diego: Bhaktivedanta Institute, 1993. Page 694.
27 Vine Deloria Jr., Page 182.
28 Ibid., Page 186.
29 J.M. Blaut. The Colonizer’s Model of
the World: Geographical Diffusionism and Eurocentric History. New York:
Gulford Press, 1993. Pages 2-43.
Article by Itztli Ehecatl ©2002, Revised 3/3/2003; all rights reserved
War Club - Riotstage
Hear more War Cub music @
Add Mexica Uprising
friends list to get updates, news,
enter contests, and get free revolutionary contraband.
Academia Semillas del Pueblo
"If Brown (vs. Board
of Education) was just about letting Black people into a White
school, well we don’t care about that anymore. We don’t
necessarily want to go to White schools. What we want to do is
teach ourselves, teach our children the way we have of teaching.
We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain...We
don’t need a White water fountain. So the whole issue of
segregation and the whole issue of the Civil Rights Movement is
all within the box of White culture and White supremacy. We should
not still be fighting for what they have. We are not interested
in what they have because we have so much more and because the
world is so much larger. And ultimately the White way, the American
way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead
to our own destruction. And so it isn’t about an argument
of joining neo liberalism, it’s about us being able, as
human beings, to surpass the barrier."
- Marcos Aguilar
(Principal, Academia Semillas del Pueblo)
a Mexica Garden
Aztecs: Their History,
Manners, and Customs by:
6 New Music Videos
Dead Prez, Quinto Sol,
"Mixcoatl" mp3 album
download Now Available
Now Available for Purchase
"Til We Get There"
T-shirt Now Available for Purchase
11 New Music Videos Including
Dead Prez, Native Guns,
El Vuh, and Olmeca
History of the United States
T-shirts Now in Stock
Free Online Books
from Aztlan Underground
Now Available for Purchase
"Ya Basta" T-shirt
Now Available for Purchase
of Nahuatl by Frances