Talk:Mound Builders

Untitled

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)

Lack of Sources

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)

Because it's a 1960s style "No one appreciates the Indians" piece supported by a few "early American equivalent" UFO abduction books. The early excavation franchises always sold the recovered pieces as Native American. As is still done in a less official venue.
Steven G. Liggett 07:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steven-G-Liggett (talk • contribs)

No useful information

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)

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)

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)

Lack of scientific basis

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

The more recent Mesoamerican Setting

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)

I saw on the History channel a show called "Apocalypse Island", it was about the mayan culture and 2012 (yes, sounds ridiculous...) but on the show it's suggested that the mound builders are descendants of mesoamerican explorers. 169.203.136.2 (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

It's more than a little strong to refer to the Book of Mormon's setting as "Mound Builder". Joseph Smith clearly associated the mound builders with the peoples of the Book of Mormon initially, but other than that, there's no grounds for referring to a "Mound Builder" setting for the Book of Mormon. The most strongly naturalstic/environmentalist theory of Book of Mormon origins would be hard pressed to identify anything "Mound-Builder-y" in the Book of Mormon, aside from the Nephites who built buildings and temples. Givens' By the Hand of Mormon has pretty solid account of the shift in Smith's vision of Book of Mormon peoples from the Mound Builders to Mesoamerica, but there's no evidence for a Mound Builder setting in the text of the book.108.197.32.152 (talk) 04:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

The earliest known name on maps from the late 1600s for the Tennessee River was "Kalli-mako" - this word in the Itza Mayan dictionary published by the National Autonomous University of Mexico means "House of the King" - both cultures used identical stone box graves - there is a Mayan connection. valkyree 19:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

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)

Map

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)

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.

• 
  Hopewell traditions map
• 
  Mississippian culture map
• 
  Plaquemine culture map
• 
  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)

Giants

Can info be added here about the giant Human remains found in some mounds. The info has been deleted from the Giant (mythology) page, (check the revisions). (comment by user:156.34.178.145

Only if its cited to reliable scientific sources. Heiro 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Numerous Native American histories tell of the ancient "giant white indians" who built the "mounds". Similar histories of giants exist on all continents in all cultures. Megalithic architecture is also a prevalent global phenomena. Giant-sized mammalian megafauna of many types is well represented in the fossil record. Ancient men of modern size had no reason to put forth the monumental effort to build megalithic architecture. Modern scholars resist admitting the truth but humans were larger in the past and there is ample evidence to prove it. We have many accurate sources of ancient information and we need to take them seriously. I would add some links but wikipedia does not allow it here. valkyree 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

As above, find iron clad mainstream scientific archaeological publications that state this or it will not even be contemplated to add such WP:FRINGE pseudoarchaeological nonsense into this or any other article. Heiro 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

says who? you and your lap-poodle?

Anyone interested in ancient sources of information about larger people (giants) and mound builders and other interesting aspects of ancient history can to go to Russian, Siberian, Mongolian, Chinese, Japanese, Javanese, Indian, Sumerian, Babylonian, Hebraic, Persian, Arabic, Syriac, Greek, Scandinavian, Celtic, Baltic, Slavic, Polynesian, Melanesian, Maori, Hawaiian, hundreds of North American "Indian" tribes, Meso-American (Maya) and Incan sources for a wealth of information. Do not rely upon "western mainstream scientific" sources - for whatever reason they will not acknowledge the amazing wealth of information from the rest of the world. valkyree 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

WP:FRINGE states: "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence..." If this is true then why will it not acknowledge the exceedingly vast preponderance of ancient global documentation which is in agreement with what the western scientific community considers fringe? valkyree 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

The fossil evidence of homo sapiens doesn't support your claims. What we do know is that fossils, including those of megafauna are the sources of a number of legends. Read the works of Adrienne Mayor, they are fascinating and illuminating. Your claim that "Ancient men of modern size had no reason to put forth the monumental effort to build megalithic architecture." makes no sense. As with similar architecture built during historical ages - Roman, the huge cathedrals of medieval Europe, demonstrations of power and religion were great motivators.

But I have another issue. Wikipedia is not a forum. However, your user page says you are " now starting to make comments on various talk pages mainly involving legendary histories found around the world - I respect these ancient sources of information - " Except for one article, all of your edits are to talk pages pushing your views. This is inappropriate. As WP:NOT says, "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." If you have specific suggestions to make about an article, with sources, etc then they can be discussed, but general commentary, especially when that seems to be your sole purpose, is not something we want. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This section was started by a person interested in giant human remains - my responses are appropriate to that initial comment. Not everyone shares your views. Wikipedia is for everyone - not just people with your views. Another area to study is fossil remains of Gigantopithecus - keep in mind an entire skeleton has not been found and western anthropologists make a lot of assumptions they cannot prove - for instance when they find what could be some giant human teeth they immediately assume it was a huge hairy ape. valkyree — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs) 20:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It does make sense that modern sized ancient man had no reason to be trying to move around huge carved pieces of rock that weighed several hundred tons each. There are other explanations in all legendary histories found on all continents. If people choose to accept these logical alternate histories as fact then they are being reasonable. valkyree 20:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTFORUM, this is an encyclopedia, not a venue to discuss whether or not a fringe pseudoscientific belief has validity. Heiro 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Roman works such as at Baalbek were built on top of older structures - it is the older foundational structure underneath the Roman work that contains the huge megalithic blocks. valkyree 21:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the subject of mounds, it is just fringe nonsense pushing disruption, which you can be blocked for it you persist.. Heiro 21:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. V wishes to deny the work of archaeologists (eg those who worked at Baalbek, paleontologists, etc. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for this. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I was simply supplying information on the section topic of ancient men of giant stature. My "off-topic" comments are in response to your "off-topic" remarks. I have read many talk pages where there is plenty of discussion like this. Your over-reactions threatening to block me for responding to someone's honest question are inappropriate. valkyree 04:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

Another source of valuable information for the original topic of giant human remains found in mounds by early settlers is the online book entitled The History of Tennessee by John Haywood pub. 1823. It is available at archive dot org. valkyree 04:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)

Historic Continuity

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)

• Please someone knowledgable provide a timeline which should be sufficiently detailed to draw conclusions about whether the building of the mounds occured more-or-less continually, versus whether the construction occured sporadically with long interludes between outbreaks. It should also include enough detail on the basis of the dating so as to be convincing, or if such bases are not convincing, that should also be transparent.

FTN

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. We have clear consensus that this is the primary topic. The title will be capitalizes as proposed per the rough consensus in this discussion. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Mound builder (people) → Mound Builders – As this is the primary topic, there is no need for a dab on the name. Aside from link counts here at Wiki, every single link for at least the first 10 pages of Google results is for these Indian people or (much less commonly) similar peoples in South America. Usually capitalized. Usually spaced. The hatnote dab is already prepared, linking to the other much less notable articles sharing the name. — LlywelynII 15:17, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Dougweller (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support per nom. bd2412 T 19:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: What about the capitalization? This doesn't seem like a proper name. Shouldn't it be Mound builders? Also, I notice that it is consistently lowercase throughout the article – except in the boldfaced lead phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support moving to Mound builders for proper capitalization. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support I think the above rationale for making this change is spot on and appropriate. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Burial mounds of the Silla kings in Korea built by mound builders, not the Mound Builders

• Support "Mound Builders". The plural form is typically used for peoples. The term should be capitalized because the article is about a specific group of people called Mound Builders and not mound builders in general. —  AjaxSmack  21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uninformative and slightly misleading

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)

Sources that meet WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

Heckewelder

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Apologists" discussion

I have to agree with the IP editor who keeps trying to change

Some Mormon writers have considered the Book of Mormon narrative a description of the mound-building cultures; other Mormon apologists argue for a Mesoamerican or South American setting.

to

Some Mormon writers have considered the Book of Mormon narrative a description of the mound-building cultures; while others argue for a Mesoamerican or South American setting.

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)

References

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. @2605:A601:A996:5000:5401:1090:6C8E:E00D:, 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 @Schazjmd: did for this. Heiro 19:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw the edit this morning that replaced that sentence so all is well now. Schazjmd (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Oldest known Burial Mound in North America

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)

Wiki Education assignment: FYSEM-UA 900 Busting 11 myths about the archaeology of human evolution

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmlslleon (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hkolyvek.

Mound builders in the Old World

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)

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)

Might be useful for the myth section

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'".

References

Doug Weller talk 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Charles Whittlesey (geologist) (Newark Holy Stones section)

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)

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)

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)

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)

'process' or 'prowess' ?

"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)

I agree that "prowess" makes more sense in context and have changed the word. Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

@Schazjmd No problem. I use the Chrome extension Who Wrote That? Invaluable. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

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)