"Joshua- Xowalaci and His Companion"

"Salinan- After the Flood"

"Maidu- In the Beginning"

     In all three of these North American myths, and others, the ocean (or sea) figures prominently. Water is the primordial state of the world, and familiar animals (dogs, snakes, turtles, eagles, coyotes, etc.) participate in the creation of land and of humans. There's a sort of childlike innocence to the North American myths. For me, it evokes a people that lived simply and that were very much in tune with the natural world.

     I was most reminded of the African myths in these Native American creation stories, and I think the similarity comes from the fact that on both continents there were many isolated tribes that were also either nomadic or very primitive in their horticulture. The gods for such societies tend to be either animals that have been anthropomorphized or almost literally human themselves. There's no grand and elaborate cosmology, or some genealogically complex pantheon of gods. It's my opinion that, for whatever reason, Europe is the most dissimilar to these North American or African myths. I guess there was a lot more trade and intermixing of disparate cultures in Europe.

     Interesting also that the god in the Joshua myth, Xowalaci, tries twice to make humans and fails. We saw this vulnerability in the African myths too, with gods that became afraid of humans. More primitive cultures don't envision such omnipotent creators as their more advanced counterparts such as Europe or the Near East. What is the reason for this? Do gods grow in power relative to the power of the cultures that conceive them? So it would seem.

     I think one can see a common view among these myths, based on the observations above. The animals and landmarks that were prevalent in these people's worlds are reflected in their creation stories. And they all tend to keep things very basic.

     I want to comment on one other very peculiar story in this selection- the "Wyot- The Origin of Man". Whoever translated this one should maybe have tried again! (The footnote Sproul provides cites a lady named Gladys Reichard; I wouldn't want credit myself...) It is all but unintelligible. I have to question its addition to the book.