Talk:Mound Builders

message: The recent addition of the Book of Mormon issue on this page is appropriate, as the LDS beliefs have significantly contributed to the longevity of the Mound Builder concept.  I have clarified and expanded the comment somewhat.  One could, of course, point to a large number of other religious and ethnic groups that have been blamed/credited for the mounds (Welsh, Phoenicians, Egyptians, Mayans, etc.)  TriNotch 04:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why does it seem that there is a LOT of writing, yet barely any sources?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROMaster2 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Sources 

message: I can't write a report with this, it's totally useless, the article needs to be totally rewritten to have more information on culture ans stuff like that and less information on the various minority theories. 74.166.95.229 (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: consider not using encyclopedias as references for reports. books and articles will serve you much better in the long run. Kingturtle (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Or try following the links to actual mound building cultures mentioned in the article, such as the Adena culture, Hopewell tradition, and the Mississippian culture. It's called work, do a little and watch the results! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No useful information 

message: Most of the text sounds like half-cocked preconceptions that cannot be substantiated.
Musicwriter (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of scientific basis 

message: A reference has been added to an early Mormon newspaper article which demonstrates the shift from a focus on mound builder works, to Central American stone ruins. The Book of Mormon (with its mound builder setting) had been in print for over a decade at this point. 
132.190.12.40 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I'm sure a show called "Apocalypose Island" is just full of reliable information. They also have a show now about "Ancient Astronauts", which is also B.S.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: The current information is WP:CITEd, you additions are WP:OR and not cited. Only add cited information, not your personal interpretations, please. Heiro 04:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

text: WP:CITE, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:VERIFY, but to be more specific WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Find an archaeologist, linguist or other historian who supports this in peer reviewed literature and isn't laughed at by ALL of his/her colleagues. Heiro 20:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The more recent Mesoamerican Setting 

message: Something that would significantly benefit this article is a map of the extent of the mound builder culture.  I haven't been able to locate a public domain one, but if anybody has the skills (I don't) to create one, it would be much appreciated  Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure a map could be made(or is needed), as the "moundbuilders" were not one culture, that existed in one time and physical location. The term describes several different cultures who lived in different places at vastly different times. WP pages for the various cultures are linked to in this article, and many of them have maps for their specific culture.
File:Hopewellsphere2 map HRoe 2008.jpg|Hopewell traditions map
File:Mississippiancultures map HRoe 2008.jpg|Mississippian culture map
File:Plaquemine culture map HRoe 2008.jpg|Plaquemine culture map
File:Ohio Arch Cultures map HRoe 2008.jpg|Adena culture map
I don't think we need to duplicate all of these maps on this main page, all the reader has to do is go to the specific page for each specific culture.
Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I removed the following lines from the introductory paragraphs:
"early cultures distinctly separate from the historical Native American tribes extant at the time of European colonization of North America.  The historical Native Americans were generally not knowledgeable about the civilizations that produced the mounds."
These statements do not reflect current archaeological or anthropological research on North American mound builders. It is not true that mounds were built by people "distinctly separate from the historical Native American tribes". There is in fact much evidence for continuity in the use of mound sites into the contact and post-contact historic period, particularly for Mississippian sites in the Southeast. The historic Creek are thought to be descended from Mississippian peoples who constructed mounds across Alabama and they continued to use and revere these mound sites until (and even after) their forced removal west.
When Euro-American settlement moved into the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys in the late 18th and early 19th c. they mostly came in contact with heterogeneous Native American groups that had been displaced from the east coast. These groups were made up of displaced individuals from many cultural and language backgrounds, who had little traditional knowledge of the new areas they inhabited. This led to the myth of the "mound builders" as somehow different from the "Indians" the new Euro-American settlers were actively trying to remove from desirable lands.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.160.218.42 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historic Continuity 

message: Alerted WP:FTN about the large amount of material I removed as a violation of WP:UNDUE. 128.59.171.10 (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a cited section of material explaining debunked fringe theories. No one at the board would side with you on this. Do not remove this again. Heiro 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

text: Everything's now inline cited except the Afrocentrism ancient Black civilization part. I couldn't find sources for all its individual claims. Sects like the "Washitaw" among others seem to claim they built the mounds. I only found poor primary sources (filled with much "this fact cannot be denied" and "the reality of this"!) covering that, although not the wider Afrocentric ancient civilizations or primitivism points. Some facts cited to the Feder book involved nonconsecutive pages, so the page ranges cover a lot. This shows which pages cover what points, in case future editors need to verify quickly or separate the refs. --92.6.200.56 (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTN 

message: The mounds were not built for "ceremonial" purposes, they were almost exclusively built to protect against floods.  Nearly all of the mounds were either built in floodplains or next to major rivers like the Mississippi, which experienced annual flooding, this is no coincidence.
Nowhere in this article does it mention or cite a source which explains this.  The article even goes as far as to point out that they were all built near major rivers, but doesn't go any further than that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.216.153 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources that meet WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Indeed this is an interesting theory. I was under the impression the mounds were refuse piles. Do you have sources for your editorial suggestions? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uninformative and slightly misleading 

message: 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.
[ → http://books.google.de/books?id=rWxMyFEbAuYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=de&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false] --109.193.152.145 (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heckewelder 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mound Builders. 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/20120110032136/http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/LAPREHIS/marca.htm to http://www.crt.state.la.us/archaeology/virtualbooks/LAPREHIS/marca.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205072907/http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/research/renotes/rn-27txt.htm to http://mcclungmuseum.utk.edu/research/renotes/rn-27txt.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070105173208/http://www.4literature.net/William_Cullen_Bryant/Prairies/ to http://www.4literature.net/William_Cullen_Bryant/Prairies/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mound Builders. 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/20080828083500/http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1969/4/1969_4_60.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1969/4/1969_4_60.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: I have to agree with the IP editor who keeps trying to change  to  It's completely unclear why the two sources are respectively labelled "writers" and "apologists". Bruce Porter is a likelier candidate for the "apologist" label, if it's even necessary, which I don't think it is. (Not to mention that the second source there is a college term paper for a class — not even a thesis. Not really a reliable source.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I haven't really had time to address this. It seems User:Doug Weller has made what I think is a good solution to all of the above. , per your comment at my talk, there does not have to be an existing section on a talk page. When there is an issue you wish to discuss, you can create one for it, as  did for this. Heiro 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw the edit this morning that replaced that sentence so all is well now. Schazjmd (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Apologists" discussion 

message: In the section "Chronology", sub-section "Archaic era", it is mentioned that 
"Horr's Island, Florida, now a gated community next to Marco Island, when excavated by Michael Russo in 1980 found an Archaic Indian village site. Mound A was a burial mound that dated to 3400 BCE, making it the oldest known burial mound in North America" 
But I could not found any substantial evidence that this IS the Oldest known Burial Mound in North America. Yes, it was discovered by Micheal Russo but there are 0 articles suggesting that it is the oldest known burial mound in North America. So I am proposing that the sentence is removed unless someone else can present a better citation for the claim.
LostCitrationHunter (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest known Burial Mound in North America 

message: I think there are mounds that have been man made in the old world Europe Asia and Africa but there is no mention of those people on this article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.222.180.90 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a term used by archaeologists to describe “A number of pre-Columbian cultures”, not mound builders in general. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mound builders in the Old World 

message: Would need attribution to Bat Creek Stone
However, "Despite the preponderance of archaeological evidence that these mound complexes were the work of sophisticated Native American civilizations," this fact has been "obscured by the Myth of the Mound Builders". The Myth of the Mound-builders is a damaging belief that discredits Native American peoples by claiming they were not the creators of the phenomenal mounds, and another group of people, frequently referred to as a "Vanished Race", are responsible for their creation and persisting splendor. This belief was influential and "adopted by many Americans in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries". The reasons are complicated for the popularity of this obfuscation of the facts of Native American societies, but it is clear that it reflects the sentiments of European settler colonialism. Historian Sarah E. Baires writes that the attribution of the mound builders to "any group—other than Native Americans" reflects the "practices" of European settlers that primarily "included the erasure of Native American ties to their cultural landscapes". The forced removal of Native peoples from their land and the severing of Native people from their heritage was partially enacted by "destroying indigenous pyramid mounds" and "The creation of the Myth of the Mounds". These acts are a form of cultural genocide by European colonizers which enabled settlers "to make way for the movement of 'new' Americans into the Western 'frontier'".
 Doug Weller talk 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Might be useful for the myth section 

message: Should we be calling Charles Whittlesey (geologist) an "archaeologist" in that section? Archaeology as a discipline did not really exist at that time. He was more of a gentleman "antiquarian", and technically a geologist as our article title defines him. Our own article on him does not call him an archaeologist. Heiro 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I haven't looked at that section yet and am  not sure how much it reflects our article on the stones. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think as a whole that section is a little too credulous, leans pro-woo, and is probably too long for this article, since we already have a whole article dedicated to it. It could def use some editing for content and length. Heiro 17:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely. I need to write up something on the Mound Builders and nationalism by the way. Doug Weller talk 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Whittlesey (geologist)  (Newark Holy Stones section) 

message: "The Mound Builders’ sophisticated societies are evidenced by their impressive earthen structures, which remain as monuments to their cultural and engineering process."  I Think 'process' wants to be 'prowess'.  So either the writer didn't know the difference, or his composing software "helped" him. 73.134.183.13 (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "prowess" makes more sense in context and have changed the word. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Schazjmd The sentence was added in February. The source itself is one I've looked at before and don't see it as meeting RS, nor as really backing the text.  It should just be removed. Maybe the suggestion that software was used is correct.  I see it's their only edit. Doug Weller talk 10:46, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Doug Weller, I should have looked into the history of the sentence, not just the wording. My mistake. I've removed the sentence. Schazjmd (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Schazjmd No problem. I use the Chrome extension Who Wrote That?  Invaluable. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too, it's a fantastic tool. I just didn't take that extra step this time. Schazjmd (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  'process' or 'prowess' ?