Talk:Walam Olum

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indigenous peoples of North America Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Heckewelder[edit]

The Walam Olum may be a hoax, but John Heckewelder reported already in 1818 (!) in his book „Account of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States“ (Philadelphia, 1818) the narratives by the Lenni Lenape about the Talligewi/ALLIGEWI. [1] --109.193.152.145 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The book you link to was revised in 1876, which was ~40 years after the publication of the Walam Olum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.87.188.191 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which parts may be correct[edit]

Not that some random person on Wikipedia is anything to go by, but if the Creation story aspect is a full explanation of what is given in the document, it looks like the only parts that are wrong are the inclusion of Nanabush (aka Nanabuzho), which is an exclusive character to the Anishinaabeg cultural sphere, & probably bringing up some sort of creation war between a good spirit & an evil one. That seems Iroquoian- not that it's impossible for the Lenape to have taken some ideas from Iroquoian peoples into their stories, but it doesn't feel like it matches how Mediwiwin religion tends to work. I don't think it's outside of the question for there to be evil spirits in a Mediwiwin religion, but for them to get so deeply entwined in creation myth is weird for that culture.

With the flood starting because of a frog spirit & a snake spirit- many of the Algonquian flood myths utilize a snake spirit, have the world saved by the tribal cultural hero & there seems to be a uniquely east coast tradition of stories involving either a frog or turtle keeping all the water for itself & something usually having to happen to pry it loose. I'd imagine, in the original version (& because Algonquian cultural heroes are usually tricksters in & of themselves), that the cultural hero may have gotten the two spirits fighting one another in an attempt to get the water, but made a grievous error in judgement, causing the flood which he then had to help rectify himself.

I imagine almost all of the "history" may be fictionalized. Algonquians didn't have a real writing system. They did have sacred bark scrolls of pictographs, which were used to help pass down stories, but it's more of a visual aid sort of circumstance. I have to suspect that the man got scrolls & had the stories involved explained in part to him, or had a written account of an explanation which he, himself, could follow, & mixed everything all up with a billion other things he heard from all over the place. Bobbotronica (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbotronica thanks, but our articles are meant to be based on reliably published sources. That's what should be discussed here. This page really isn't for discussion of the subject of the article. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another source[edit]

[2] discusses where some of Raf's language came from, etc. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]