Talk:Archaeology of the Americas

message: This page has problems.  When I got here, this was a series of barely related opinions on the Peopling of the New World, alongside Willey and Phillip's chronology and some slightly unclear statements about the NAGPRA legislation.  I've removed many items that should really go in more specific articles, and tried to leave in wiki-links to the pages where such topics are covered.  Nevertheless, this is still not a very good page.  I gave the page a stub status to indicate the lack of present coverage of the topic.  For a good article on this topic, I think the history of archaeology aspect should be covered first, with a focus on the contributions made in the Americas.  This would certainly allow for Willey's chronology to be covered, as well as various other important advancements (Midwestern Taxonomic Method, maybe).  The actual complexities of performing archaeology in a given part of the Americas- like the NAGPRA section- might fit nicely at the end.  The peopling of the Americas should probably NOT be covered in depth, since there are separate articles to deal with that.
For the record, the opinions of the Andamanese Society are probably not sufficient as professional references for American archaeology.  I have removed those links as well.  They would be more useful/interesting/relevant as part of the Models of migration to the New World page, but I would encourage future editors to use that source of  information cautiously. TriNotch 09:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work. American archaeology is quite patchily covered in the wiki at present so I hope you will be able to offer further guidance. adamsan 13:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  

message: I want to thank Bob A, but I had to revert that edit due to some curious confusion about the word- See the usage section of main archaeology article for a discussion of why "archaeology" is preferable to "archeology" in the Americas.  TriNotch 23:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i converted the spelling primarily because the title of the article itself is spelled that way. way is that? Bob A 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archaeology vs Archeology

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support. as per the nomination.--cjllw | TALK 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Archaeology of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120313061401/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/13/beringia-native-american-02.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/13/beringia-native-american-02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the article mississippian cultures are listed under "formative" which is "dated from 1000 BCE to 500 CE". In the article about "mississippian culture" it is dated from "from approximately 800 CE to 1600 CE". Formative is 'defined as "village agriculture" based.' Well, everybody knows that cahokia was one of the biggest amerindian cities ever... so mississippian cultures clearly seem to belong to "classic" ("early civilizations" - if civilisation is not defined strictly by elaborate scripture; e.g. the inca) and time-wise even "post-classic"... so can somebody please deal with this possible error? Thanx. --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  mississippian cultures formative?? 

message: Why is the main picture on this page a fake "stone circle" that no serious scholar believes was erected by a pre-columbian culture?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.98.64 (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burnt Hill Stone Circle