This past week geologist Erin Matchan, writing with colleagues in Geology, claimed that the Gunditjmara people of southern Australia preserve the world’s oldest oral tradition, dating back 37,000 years. Being conservative on such things, I find it difficult to accept that claim, since preservation over such long periods occurs nowhere else in the world, and the evidence is suggestive without being conclusive. Matchan alleges—while admitting that she does not have proof—that the Gunditjmara origin story for the Budj Bim (Mount Eccles) volcano records its catastrophic formation over a period of months tens of thousands of years ago. She bases this date on her dating of the volcano’s rocks, which, so far as I can tell, has nothing to do with the oral story since the oral tradition does not describe the formation of a volcano. Previous estimates placed the volcano’s origins around 25,000 BCE. The best-known version of the Gunditjmara tale, and the one used by most scholars in discussing it, was recorded in the far-away time of 2010 in a book the Gunditjmara wrote with G. Wettenhall, The People of Budj Bim: Engineers of Aquaculture, Builders of Stone House Settlements and Warriors Defending Country: At the dawn of time, it was the Ancestral Beings – part human, part beast – who brought what was previously barren land to life. At the end of the Dreaming journeys, the Ancestral Being left aspects of themselves behind transformed into part of the landscape. To the Gunditjmara people, Budj Bim’s domed hill represents the forehead of one such Being, with the lava that spat out as the head burst through the earth forming his teeth. In the Dhauwurd wurrung language, budj bim means “high head,” and tung att means “teeth belonging to it”, referring to the scattered red scoria. This account is a bit of a hybrid. The second half is derived from a word list in a nineteenth century book, and the first half comes from more recent accounts.
The problem is that the use of “lava that spat out,” which does not appear in nineteenth century sources, seems to imply that the story refers to an active lava flow. But the story as we have it today has been influenced by more than a century of geological work on the mountain and the 2004 Australian government heritage designation that tied the mountain as an erupting volcano to the Gunditjmara’s sacred landscape. The government asserted that “the link between the eruption of the volcano and Budj Bim is of outstanding heritage value as a designation of the process through which ancestral beings reveal themselves in the landscape.” Before 2004, that wasn’t quite what was described. Earlier references merely describe the “scoria cones”—the conical hills leftover from spouting lava—as the “teeth” of the supernatural creature whose head is the mountain. This is what was given by James Dawson in his glossary of terms in his 1881 Australian Aborigines, the ultimate source for the quoted paragraph. This is not very different from other Aboriginal legends explaining the origin of mountains as petrified beings, giants’ ovens, and such. Accounts of local Aboriginal peoples possessing stories of their ancestors witnessing volcanism were not necessarily associated with the giant’s head popping out of the ground. Geologically speaking, the Budj Bim volcano last erupted 8,000 years ago, so if we assume that the story refers to an actual eruption (as the Australian government and most Australian scholars do), there is no specific reason to associate it with the first formative eruption of 37,000 years ago. It is possible, but definitely unproven. We might just as well claim that the Phoenician story that the Anti-Lebanon mountains were formed from petrified giants preserves a memory of their formation. As Patrick Nunn discussed in his overstated but not necessarily wrong book The Edge of Memory (2017), there are stories across Australia associating former volcanoes with fire, so it would seem that the more likely explanation is that the stories have an Ice Age provenance, but not one going so far back in time. The Australian government agrees, writing that “There are two areas in Australia where Aboriginal people witnessed volcanism: the area of the younger volcanics of the Atherton Tablelands; and, the younger volcanics in Victoria, which includes Mt Eccles.” This seems confirmed by nineteenth century sources, which quote Gunditjmara informants to the effect that their ancestors had witnessed various eruptions and a tsunami. Dawson recorded an Aboriginal informant telling him that his grandfather had personally witnessed a volcanic eruption in Victoria. Neither of these stories, though, implies witnessing the formation of a volcano sui generis. In 1938, geologist Edmund Gill described the volcano at neighboring Tower Hill as having thrown ash over fossilized human footprints, confirming that humans lived in the area before at least one of the volcano’s eruptions. There is no archaeological evidence of a human occupation at Budj Bim before about 13,000 BCE, but Matchan wishes to challenge this, citing a report from the 1940s that a stone axe had been found nine feet beneath a volcanic ash layer at Tower Hill. The National Museum of Victoria studied the axe and concluded in a 1944 report that it was between 4,000 and 6,000 years old, based on estimates of the age of the ancient postglacial flood plain on which it sat, estimates derived from studying the geology of the site and the fossil shell remains in the layer. Matchan re-dated the volcanic layer to 37,000 years ago using argon-argon dating. H. F. Wickham offers confirmation of the younger date in his early research from the turn of the twentieth century. He reported the discovery of a dingo skeleton beneath the same volcanic layer. Since dingoes entered Australia around 3,500 years ago, it strongly suggests that the human occupation beneath the volcanic layer cannot be 37,000 years old. I honestly don’t know what to make of the conflicting lines of evidence, but it seems odd that the argon-argon dating would be 30,000 years different from all of the other lines of evidence previously used to construct a timeline of human activity in the region. But even if we accept all of the evidence in the Geology article at face value, there still is nothing in the oral tradition that demands it refer to the formation of the volcano rather than representing a fairly logical set of conclusions (within the Dreaming framework) about Budj Bim from observable facts.
83 Comments
Crazy
2/14/2020 09:51:17 am
Even if correct, it's unprovable because reading and writing was non-existent for hundreds and thousands of years after the origin of language.
Reply
Crash55
2/14/2020 01:09:21 pm
Argon-argon dating is a relative method so maybe their reference standard was no valid?
Reply
Dale Simpson
2/14/2020 01:45:51 pm
“Lava that spat out” could describe my bathroom experience this morning after eating a sriracha burrito bowl for dinner last night.
Reply
Julia Child
2/14/2020 03:37:30 pm
“Lava that spat out” could describe my bathroom experience this morning after eating a sriracha burrito bowl..."
Reply
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/14/2020 05:00:13 pm
First mistake: Burrito bowls are actually a thing.
Julia Child
2/14/2020 05:52:28 pm
@JR. ANTHONY WARREN
Not Kent
2/15/2020 12:36:16 am
Also: I'm never alone as long as I am NOT KENT.
David Childress
2/14/2020 02:14:24 pm
I really like the smell of my own poopie.
Reply
Stuart
2/16/2020 07:36:59 pm
Yes Childress, obviously. You have to. You have to live with the smell of your shit everyday.
Reply
Jr. Time Lord
2/14/2020 03:40:24 pm
What's the deal with all the geologists and their crazy theories? There is a trend within pseudoscience of phds publishing their pet theories from outside of their area of expertise. Why are so many geologists playing this game? Are they just hard up for work?
Reply
Doc Rock
2/17/2020 02:48:06 pm
Time Lord
Reply
Kent
2/17/2020 04:27:14 pm
There's a reason they call it "rocks for jocks".
Jr. Time Lord
2/17/2020 06:51:03 pm
Doc,
Rockhound
2/19/2020 11:32:13 am
Lower division geology classes can be easy but there are other easier majors. At my school we called the Modern Languages department "Easy B's for the Braindead." Some of my friends got decent jobs right out of college with geology degrees. The people I know with BA degrees in language had to go to graduate school or get jobs that had nothing to do with knowing another language.
No ONe Cares
2/19/2020 12:09:02 pm
When a B is your goal... you've already failed.
The assumption of a non-written, oral historical tradition over a longer period of time is always nonsense. We only have to look for well-studied examples where we have written (!) sources:
Reply
The Historical Jesus (T. Franke)
2/14/2020 05:35:46 pm
There are no references to a historical Jesus in the first century. The name Pilate is never mentioned by any first century Christians in relation to the crucifixion and it is not given a historical setting - the crucifixion in first century Christianity depicts Jesus Christ as an atoning sacrifice devoid of historical context. It is entirely a spiritual concept, When the gospels were contrived during the second century these spiritual concepts of the first century were turned into a mythic historical narrative. Note that the Pilate in the Gospels is depicted as a pliable softie whilst according to the accounts by Josephus and Philo (and others) he was a brutal tyrant.
Reply
Of course
2/14/2020 05:40:57 pm
Jesus Christ was not crucified on any old day. Jesus Christ was crucified during a specific religious festival and the Last Supper preceding that event was only a variation of the Jewish Passover Meal.
Reply
@TheHistoricalJesus(T.Franke)
Reply
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/14/2020 06:50:14 pm
Who are these 1st century Christians whose accounts you're reading?
Reply
@Jr. Anthony Warren
@ T. Franke
2/14/2020 07:27:13 pm
Nobody knows who wrote the gospels, where the gospels were written, or when the gospels were written.
Herodotus was a thorough man (T. Franke)
2/14/2020 05:44:35 pm
Herodotus is not taken seriously by historians, and you need to do your homework in relation to your other points in your post.
Reply
I am very very sorry, but to say that "Herodotus is not taken seriously by historians" is simply wrong, if not ridiculous. You obviously have no idea about the real discussions in academia. Herodotus is taken absolutely seriously, the discussion is more about how to interpret Herodotus' histories. Only pseudoscientists do confuse the two things: Taking an author seriously, and taking his writings literally.
Reply
10 Historical Facts That Herodotus Got Hilariously Wrong
2/14/2020 07:03:08 pm
10 Historical Facts That Herodotus Got Hilariously Wrong
Reply
@10HistoricalFacts.....
Reply
@ T. Franke again
2/14/2020 07:29:52 pm
Sean Sheehan is a freelance writer and independent scholar
"Sean Sheehan is a freelance writer and independent scholar"
fringe minority view among historians
2/14/2020 07:09:36 pm
I don't care less about the historians - I only look and analyse the evidence and here the [fringe] atheists and rationalists - who get their facts about Christianity from German Protestant Bible Encyclopedias of the 19th century present the facts as they exist and are disregarded by your historians.
Reply
I do not believe anything
2/14/2020 07:46:48 pm
That's why I don't believe in the historical Christ - because it's not a fact - but a belief
"That's why I don't believe in the historical Christ - because it's not a fact - but a belief"
Rationalists & Jesus Christ mythology
2/14/2020 08:24:59 pm
Are you seriously suggesting that rationalists and critical thinkers take the rubbish of the Bible seriously ?
Nativity of Jesus Christ
2/14/2020 08:27:32 pm
I wonder if you will ever find out the real nativity of Jesus Christ, T. Franke.
Look, in the first place, a rationalist and critical thinker would never call the Bible "rubbish". The Bible is an important part of humankind's cultural heritage, whether you like it or not. Rationalist thinkers know this. It is of importance even for non-Christians like me. In the second place, a rationalist and critical thinker is not so silly to dismiss the Bible as a whole, from a historian's point of view. It is exactly this anti-rational buy-it-all-or-dismiss-it-all attitude which is a striking feature of pseudoscience. But I am repeating myself. It is time for you to stop your irrational Bible-hating and start to surrender to rationality.
To T, Franke
2/15/2020 10:30:17 am
To be blunt, T. Franke, you don't know what you are talking about. 19th century Protestant Scholars concluded that the Gospels were totally unhistorical and rested entirely on Faith. Christianity was founded on Faith, not upon History.
To T.Franke - Tacitus
2/15/2020 10:34:30 am
The passages in Tacitus about the crucifixion were unknown before the 15th century. Certainly not mentioned by Eusebius, who would have lapped up that reference in his Ecclesiastical History - had it existed during his lifetime. Bear in mind that the "Histories" by Tacitus only exist in fragments and that is a great method by a forger to deploy. Much more harder to counterfeit a whole book (or series of books) imitating the author's style.
You make me laugh.
Atlantis & Christianity
2/15/2020 12:01:54 pm
Atlantis & Christianity go pretty well together - both being products of not so fertile imaginations. Although Christianity took far longer to develop - its embryo found in the Book of Daniel Son of Man theology when Judea was occupied by the Seleucid kings and with whom the High Priests of Jerusalem Temple collaborated.
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/15/2020 01:28:57 pm
Neither the Benedictines nor the state university instructors I studied under considered Bultmann 'fringe" rather mainstream.
Atlantis & Christianity
2/15/2020 02:00:10 pm
Some people read far too many coffee table books Your teachers were dishonest to you? Bultmann contradicts many Christian and especially Catholic doctrines. He may be mainstream among a Western liberal elite who used Bultmann to silently abandon Christian faith without saying so. Maybe your teachers had an agenda and did not inform you correctly? And no, Benedictines have not extra credit only because they are monks.
Christian Faith ?
2/15/2020 02:29:32 pm
Christian faith does not add up to anything at all.
Christian faith ....
written tradition is not very reliable
2/15/2020 03:02:25 pm
Christianity chopped and changed its pedigree very quickly for a specific reason that is not being examined simply because of scholarly dogma that muscles in certain rubbish that it regards should remain static and motionless for all eternity.
Oral Tradition in Christianity
2/15/2020 05:32:11 pm
Non-existent. That's what I can see. Witness the difference in Church history between Acts and Paul's Epistles. Not allowed to know about that in Roman Catholicism - banned.
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/15/2020 07:51:02 pm
I think Mr. Franke is confusing "Christian or Catholic doctrines" with "stuff I've heard some people believe." The operative word being "doctrine".
LArry storch
2/16/2020 12:55:38 am
“It is about the question of Jason's posting whether oral traditions can go back thousands of years. They can not.” Larry Storch ..... errrr, WHO twisted this comment section into an argument about the historicity of early Christianity? I did not (laughter), I presented SIX (!) examples of written traditions to point out the problems even with written traditions, and then some OTHERS came along and picked exactly ONE of the six examples, Christianity, in order to present their extreme fringe theories about early Christianity.
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/14/2020 07:57:36 pm
Again, who are these 1st century Christians whose accounts you are relying on?
Reply
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/15/2020 09:33:13 am
"x) Why 'accounts'? I talked of a tradition which is notoriously unreliable (though not fully invented), although it is a written tradition."
JR. Anthony Warren
2/15/2020 10:38:23 am
Okay I understand that you need a post that SOLELY DEALS WITH YOU, like a personalized invitation.
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/15/2020 01:25:54 pm
"x) Why 'accounts'? I talked of a tradition which is notoriously unreliable (though not fully invented), although it is a written tradition."
Jr. Anthony Warren
2/15/2020 07:46:20 pm
So lonely.
Joe Scales
2/16/2020 12:20:32 am
I always play the starring role...
Herodotus' Histories
2/14/2020 07:20:50 pm
Donald Lateiner, Deceptions and Delusions in Herodotus. Classical Antiquity Volume 9, Number 2 (October, 1990), pages 230-246 (University of California Press)
Reply
Donald Lateiner:
Reply
Yes
2/14/2020 07:36:55 pm
Herodotus was repeating deception and delusion but without discrediting the accounts the way they should have been discredited.
@YES
Quoting Aristotle
2/14/2020 07:48:10 pm
"Herodotus is wrong to maintain that the semen of Ethiopians is black (Histories 3. 101, where he says the same also of some Indians), as if every part of a person with black skin should be black; he said this even though he could see that a black-skinned person's teeth are white" (Aristotle, On The Generation of Animals, 736a).
Quoting Aristotle:
An Anonymous Nerd
2/15/2020 08:03:39 pm
The Fringe has gotten pretty good at marring this site with inane and semi-related comments.
Reply
To Anonymous Nerd
2/16/2020 02:05:29 am
The consensus about the historicity of Jesus will always be yes for the simple reason that the edifice of Biblical Scholarship will always never say no to maintain its existence to say yes.
Reply
Only Robert M. Price
2/16/2020 02:19:14 am
I can only think of ex-Baptist Minister and New Testament scholar Robert M. Price who disputes the historicity of Jesus from inside the Biblical Establishment. Elaine Pagels can also be added as a sceptic of the historicity of Christianity, (Professor of Religion at Princeton University).
Kent
2/16/2020 07:33:26 am
"Was there really a miracle-worker in Judea not mentioned anywhere during the first century by Christians and non-Christians."
Josephus Again
2/16/2020 08:51:48 am
How many times has it got to be repeated that no Christian before Eusebius mentioned the references to Jesus Christ in Josephus, and the earliest extant fragments of Josephus date from the 10th century. Note the existence of the Slavonic Josephus that is overflowing with fake references to Christianity. There are scholars who have claimed the reference to Jesus in Josephus was faked by Eusebius. The parallel paragraph found in another work by Josephus is missing while the preceding and following paragraphs are identical in the other work by Josephus. Also, the reference to John the Baptist is not entirely trustworthy, bearing in mind the disputed reference to Jesus Christ in Josephus.
Josephus and Vespasian
2/16/2020 09:18:26 am
This passage by Josephus, renegade Jew and supporter of Roman occupation of Judea, shows the passage about Jesus to have been inserted by the Christians.
Anthony Watten The ex-Benedictine
2/16/2020 01:58:58 am
Anthony Warren the ex-Benedictine has never heard of the Early Church Fathers. Poor Anthony Warren the ex-Benedictine.
Reply
Apostolic Fathers
2/16/2020 06:35:47 am
The Early Church Fathers are now commonly called the Apostolic Fathers. It is plain from their writings that they were unacquainted with the existence of the Gospels.
Reply
Kent
2/16/2020 07:56:46 am
Based on the link you posted, what you said is not correct.
READ THIS ANTHONY WARREN
2/16/2020 08:45:18 am
Church Fathers who lived in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD
American Indians are now commonly called Eskimos
2/16/2020 08:59:57 am
You can throw that at the barmy New Testament scholars in relation to their theories and conjectures that merely represent their wishful thinking
Christine Erikson
2/17/2020 09:10:57 pm
the differing radiometric dating systems for rocks don't agree with each other on the same specimen so the systems are wrong.
Reply
Böckström
2/20/2020 08:58:58 am
There is a oral saga out there that goes far way back than this one, and that's the Bock Saga. Have a look at Welcome to Hell and Welcome to Altlantis on YouTube, very interesting stuff that can be easily proven/disproven if the Church and the Finnish Government would allow a few minor digs.
Reply
Kent
2/20/2020 12:05:46 pm
Even ancient-origins.net doesn't buy that nonsense.
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|