This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This is an ok article (good for the links if nothing else) but can be improved and is worth keeping because these "mounds" represent very important ancient history of North America. Especially bad is this sentence: While the term "mound" may be applied to historic constructions, most mounds in the United States are pre-columbian earthworks, built by Native American peoples. The so-called native peoples of North America have so many of their own histories (most notably the Hopi People but many others as well including Meso-American sources from Central America) that clearly state these ancient "mounds" were already here in North America when they first migrated here (making then non-native peoples) and whoever built them were already gone. If they themselves know they migrated here from elsewhere and that the "mounds" (many of which can still clearly be seen to have been pyramids) were already here when they got here - why on earth is this not respected by white American scholars? The article "mound builder" discusses the possibilities of who may have built them. valkyree 18:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)
If what you say is true then the case would be settled - but it is not settled because the truth is still not being told - there is a lot of real but unacknowledged evidence and that is why the argument continues on. Ignoring the great body of American Indian legendary history as well as skeletal remains such as the 7 ft tall skeletons found at Fort Loudon by George Washington at the start of the French and Indian War and many other tall skeletons are a couple of reasons why this argument is still being debated. Another important aspect of this issue is the similarity of such structures to others found in many other parts of the globe, such as the kurgans of Russia. There is a much larger explanation that encompasses all of these structures having a common ancient source. Some American Indians may have been using such structures when they were discovered by Europeans but they repeatedly acknowledged themselves as not being the ones who initially built them. They have also explained how they were able to eventually kill off the remaining remnants of these larger people because these larger people were cannibals and hunted smaller men (similar to the Caza de Hombre of the Aztecs). The earliest Viking explorers around 1000AD also told of seeing such larger, vicious people when they came to the shores of Vinland. It is the reason they left! It is simply incorrect to ignore such evidence - calling it balderdash does not change the evidence - it just makes others wonder why you are so eager to throw away all of this evidence. valkyree 17:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talk • contribs)