Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
That reminds me of a lot things people believe about origins.azbackpackr wrote:Wilcox says the actual archaeology does not support...tradition, ... he feels that it needs to be interpreted within a cultural context.
Right on. It is interesting how many people believe that statement, but won't apply it to their own beliefs. As though it would only apply to "others".Joad Cressbeckler wrote:That reminds me of a lot things people believe about origins.azbackpackr wrote:Wilcox says the actual archaeology does not support...tradition, ... he feels that it needs to be interpreted within a cultural context.
???big_load wrote:I've been told that "history" does not support any relationship between the Hopis and the masonry-building cultures.
Gottcha. Sounds like he may not be a person who matters? Correct?big_load wrote:To clarify, the person who set me off claimed that "history" doesn't accept that any modern peoples are descended from the Anasazi; that they really did just vanish without a trace. The position taken implied that even the possibility of connection to the Hopis and Zunis ("the locals", he called them) is not taken seriously by anyone who matters.
That was my conclusion. I started reflecting on the commonly-used names of eras, and the little I know about continuity of symbology, etc., and then just decided it just wasn't worth the trouble.PageRob wrote:Sounds like he may not be a person who matters? Correct?
Yes, the more I learn, the harder it is to believe. There isn't a lot of time between the end of occupation at the latest sites and the arrival of the Spanish. Could strangers have slipped in and adopted such a similar existence based only on the remains they found? It's not impossible, but it does seem implausible. I'm not surprised that the tribes object to testing. Maybe their views will change over time.azbackpackr wrote:The people who think the Anasazi just mysteriously disappeared are kind of blind, don't you think?