Comparative Study & Cross Cultural Contamination

Comparative Study & Cross Cultural Contamination:

Kelly writes in "My Neighbor Has Petroglyphs in Her Backyard"; 

"This captivates the observer's mind and eyes raising questions about their meaning and bringing forth a longing for their understanding. This question of meaning is one of the endless possibilities that don't necessarily reflect the maker's intentions. Oftentimes, ascribed meanings are directly related to the experience and interpretation of the observer instead of the intentions of the pictographs and petroglyphs makers. This is not necessarily an issue and can result in beautiful creations and human expressions, but it does become troublesome when studied academically."

As Kelly states, endless possibilities, do not reflect the intentions of the "pictographs and petroglyphs" makers. Kelly uses archeological language to describe our symbols. When regarded in said terms as "petroglyphs" or "pictographs" it creates a phantom effect of double meaning to what is the nature of these symbols. When regarded as symbols, it pertains closely to stories and traditional ways. Academic study would fall under the endless possibilities of interpretations and reflect the interpretation of the observe. This sub-par acknowledge of epistemologically limitation still does not account for the impact of archeology on indigenous heritage. 

Versteeg' assertion in "The Archeology of Aruba: Pictographs and Petroglyph";

"But certainly with two so similar, parallel pictographs we have to consider a dualistic concept. Dualistic concepts were also noted in the Fontein site. It is obvious, in Fontein, that there are no two exact copies. We see similar pictographs, but not copies - there is always some difference. That is also true for these dualistic pictographs at Arikok...

...This human-like red drawing together with the overlapping and surrounding white drawings is one of the most interesting pictograph groups of Aruba. It seems probable that we have here a group of drawings that certainly represents more than just nice drawings. As always, the human-like figure is not a naturalistic human, but is different. It should be interpreted as a transformed human, such as a shaman or a god-like creature, manipulating a sun and other items, normally out of reach for normal humans.

De Haseth interprets this drawing and the items connected to the arms-hands as "a human figure with sun and rain and connects it with stories of the sun and the moon, documented by Pané in 1498 (De Haseth, 1981:7)."

With no background in inheriting traditions and meaning, there can be no interpretation made.
Thus, we find the comparative study is an attempt to unravel the meanings of our symbols, yet it is a eurocentric process, and one the takes from medicine people of the Trio people. 

Cultural Interpretations:

There are various interpretations regarding many symbols left by our ancestors. Some interpretations stem from personal speculation by visitors and locals, to historians that presume a cosmological meaning, or organizations that claim heritage however provide misinformation while committing gentrification. The latter two is where we continue to face more risk of loss of culture.

On the matter of speculation by locals is it of no harm, as these speculation do not reach into the sweatshops of colonialism which produce marble items stolen from indigenous culture and heritage, they are not the generators of false narratives, although as people curious of heritage or culture, they may be co-opted into false narratives. Descendants have every right to speculate or ruminate on the meanings of symbols rooted in their somewhat unknown ancestral culture, danger comes when we do not hold autonomy to fulfill our own road. Where interpretations rooted in a process originating from Western knowledge systems take dominance upon the meaning, wherein descendants are unable to develop their own relationship with cultural remains and resurrections, we see the imposition take effect in the same way the colonist superimposed religious institutes or economic ports on sacred sites.

- Symbols & Tradition I: The Caquetio Ball Game, 1st Ed.

Indigenous Peoples reserve the right to culture preservation and revitalization through traditional mediums.

Our statement encourages descedants to interpret. With art, more than just so called subjectivity, we find reconnecting individual return to meaning, myself included. Thus, we also caution descedents in conferring with archeologists, anthropologist, etc. We have provided a list in our privacy policy.

When we innerstand, or overstand, art as an extension of the Spirit. Art is then not only a preservation of culture but a restoration of it if it was lost.

Versteeg and Kelly commit epistemic injustice, overruling indigenous sovereignty to the meaning of our symbols, by applying comparative approaches or discarding interpretation in favor of academia and western approaches. A comparison robs both us and Trio people of sovereignty to our culture, and conflates the two; cross cultural contamination. A true exchange comes from meeting and talking, and not by proxy of western practitioners.

These acts violate numerous articles in UNDRIP, mainly:

Article 11 of UNDRIP asserts Indigenous peoples' right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions. Article 31 acknowledges their right to control, protect, and develop their cultural heritage.

- Privacy Policy

Our traditional ways have brought the resurrection of the Ball Game.

Here are two symbols they will attempt to compare, among a few other.

- Chayo