Talk:Walam Olum

Misc. comments upon article creation

Maybe some other Wikipedians can help with this one: What category SHOULD this article go into? It isn't really Native American History, since it is imaginary Native American history... Anyway, I'm looking for suitable cats. TriNotch 20:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Be careful to remove your biased words and see what you are left with. The major effort to discredit this important document on behalf of archaeologist shows more about their character than the character of the text. Is the goal of wikipedia to encourage literacy or not? If so, then this document should not be discredited so eagerly. See Ed Grondine's book entitled "Man and Impact in the Americas" for a more reliable source. Marburg72 03:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why you view Ed Grondine, space journalist, as a more reliable source than Herbert Kraft, Delaware specialist.

It also isn't clear to me why you think archaeologists would want to discredit this document. On the contrary, it claims to document the Bering Land Bridge migration with native tradition, and archaeologists loved it for decades for that reason. Unless I miss my guess, that is also why Ed Grondine uses it. TriNotch 04:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

12.215.241.55 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Guess again.

I give the Wallum Olum as handed down.

My interpretation of what the Lenape ancestors were trying to tell us is clearly indicated, so that the original may be read without my interpretation.

As I understand it, the tradition as preserved appears to begin with the Lenapewak hunting sea turtle on the west coast of Canada. At the time I wrote, I thought the cometary impact they described occured ca. 8,350 BCE. We now know that it occured ca. 10,900 BCE - vide Kenneth et al.

Would you please be kind enough to read my book before commenting on it?

E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas

To clear up the confusion, read Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibwe, and read The Deleware Indian Big House Ceremony by Frank Speck. These sources do not reference Herbert Kraft and show a massive amount of parallel with the walam olum. They verify its authenticity.

the archaeologists have put forth great effort to discredit all written evidence including petroglyphs, birchbark scrolls, codices, stone engravings, shell engravings, pipes, and other anomalous artifacts that has ever showed up on the north American continent for over 300 years. This does not convince me that they know what they are talking about, just demonstrates thier negative attitutde of the past. When you say "convincingly demonstrated that the Walam Olum is not an authentic historical record and, in fact, must have been composed by someone having only a slight familiarity with the Lenape language," it does not convince me. That is your opinion that his words were convincing. I suggest removing "In Fact, must have" as well. Because that is opininated and biased wording. Marburg72 13:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Frank Speck was a great anthropologist, but he passed away in 1950. The Delaware Big House Ceremony was first published in 1931, long before the Walam Olum was satisfactorily debunked. The Big House Ceremony described overlaps the material of the Walam Olum only in a few details; most of the origin narrative of the Walam Olum does not match with Speck's work. Furthermore, there has been suspicion that the Big House Ceremony was the work of a revitalization prophet; that is, the Big House Ceremony was recent, not ancient- and scholarly consensus appears to be that even if it had been ancient, it had been modified after the Delaware move to Indiana, before Speck's work was done. I have recent citations for this if you would like them.

As for the Sacred Scrolls book, although a book about historic esoteric practices of the Ojibwe is assuredly interesting, I'm not sure what it has to do with the Walam Olum at all. If anything, I would suspect it means that 20th century Ojibwe had read the Walam Olum.

In either case, I'm not sure why you think these sources address the authenticity of the Walam Olum at all, and I still don't know why you see Ed Grondine as a reliable source for Native American history.

12.215.241.55 (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Probably because the traditions and the archaeological evidence agree, which I point out. E.P.

But regardless of my serious doubts about your sources, I hope you will also note that I did not write this article by myself, and I have no claim to it, since articles in Wikipedia are not owned. If you have legitimate changes to make to the article, you are welcome to do so. Keep in mind that I will be watching, so I hope your edits will be well-thought-out, well-cited, and NPOV. But I encourage you to edit the article yourself if you feel the present language is too extreme. I look forward to your response, or your edits. TriNotch 16:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To begin with, I agree that Frank Speck was a great anthropologist. I do not see what difference it makes that he is no longer alive. Can you explain that? As for your claim that he was part of some revitalization prophet, that is nonsense. I am not going to waste my time reading rubbish like that. Frank Speck had access to the greatest wisdom of tribal elders and presented everthing in a very clear and well referenced way. This book relates in many ways to the Walam Olum. Who are you to say what the "scholarly consensus" is? That is just like saying codex candadiensis, codex megalabicchi, codex borbonicus, codex laud, codex ferjervary-mayor, and others are haoxes. The Sacred Scrolls book also mentions wooden tablets as well as pottery tablets, and is completely filled with valuable insight into the cultural practices about the creation myths. Your serious doubts with my sources are unjustified. Marburg72 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Marburg, I am not trying to be confrontational. It isn't the fact the Frank Speck isn't alive, it is that he died before the published refutation that concerns me. He would not have been aware of more recent evidence. I didn't say that he was part of a revitalization movement. I said the Delaware Big House Ceremony may have been part of a revitalization movement, and may originate in the late 19th century, rather than being an ancient Delaware tradition. Even if Speck's information was accurate (and I think it was), it may not relate to ancient practices. In terms of my ability to speak for scholarly consensus, I merely meant that the recent sources I checked seemed to agree, not that I personally was an authority. That is why I chose the words "appears to be" rather than stating it as fact.

As for the Sacred Scrolls book, evidently written in 1975 from 20th century sources, it simply isn't clear to me what 20th century Ojibwe have to do with the ancient Delaware in your mind. But since I haven't read the book, perhaps I am missing something? In terms of the codices you mentioned, since all but one of them are Aztec, and the remaining one was written by a Frenchman, I don't see their relevance either. TriNotch 21:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to Ed Grondine

My apologies to you, sir, for any offense given. I intended no criticism of you or your work. I do still think a Delaware specialist is a better choice of citations for this subject. However, I will refrain from further comment on your book until I have read it. TriNotch (talk) 23:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

74.39.32.182 (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Thank you.

(I hope you will excuse the typos in the following, as I've had a stroke.)

I suppose that your comments reflect your training. Most anthropologists lump all of any peoples' oral corpus altogether, children's instructional tales, adventures, romances, jokes, teaching allegories, their historical traditions all thrown into the same pot, treated as equivalent.

A better way of thinking of any peoples' oral corpus would be as a library.

In the case of the oral histories, the keepers of these were usually especially chosen for their abilities. (For an example at hand, the Medewiwin Society of the Ojibwe).

Memnonic aides such as pictographs and wampum belts were also used to ensure the accuracy of transmission. (For an example at hand, the birch bark scrolls of the Ojibwe which you mention.)

The oral histories, the traditions, were usually recited before the assembled people once a year - they were of extreme importance to a people, as the information in them could ensure a people's survival.

You mention the later Lenape Big House ceremony. As many of the tradition keepers died during the European conquest, the different peoples in the East later tried to recover as much as they could, from what little remained.

What I did in my book was to pass on complete the earliest preserved tellings, where they survived. I greatly regret that the Medewiwin Society had not released their history at the time I wrote, so it is not among my books appendices. The loss of the Cherokee history is greatly to be regretted as well.

The important information that I want to convey to you is this: over the millenia, there were massive climatic collapses in North America, collapses that led the peoples living here to take extraordinary actions.

Those events will happen again, and we're living here now.

Consider this a gift.

E.P.- Talako

I suppose I'll have to make this as easy as possible for you, and to give others a warning as well.

For a discussion of the appearance in eastern Wisconsin of Oneota culture, see Victoria Durst, The People of the Dunes, Whitefish Dunes State Park, 1993, p. 46-63. For a discussion of the appearance of Oneota culture at Redwing, see Clark A. Dobbs, Red Wing Archaeological Preserve, Goodhue-Pierce Archaeological Society Planning Committee, Institute for Minnesota Archaeology, Minneapolis, 1990, p. 7. For a discussion of the western Oneota culture appearance and distribution, see James L. Theler and Robert F. Boszhardt, Twelve Millenia, Archaeology of the Upper Mississippi River Valley, pages 152-155, particularly abandonment of effigy mounds, p. 155. In their book on The Gottschall Rockshelter, Robert J. Salzer and Grace Rajnovich cite cannibalism at Aztalan, citing Fred A, Finney and James B. Stohlman, The Fred Edwards Site, New Perspectives on Cahokia, Prehistory Press, Madison. One problem assigning this here to a climate collapse is Oneota occupancy at Aztalan, following on the Stirling phase occupancy at the site. For carbon dates at this site: Lynne Goldstine, Joan Freeman, Aztalan State Park, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1995 for group burials and stockade history.

For radio carbon dates for the stockade and later fall of Cahokia, see the literature. For the radio carbon dates for Angel Mounds, see the literature. For "Middle Fort Ancient" sites in this area, see the literature - but note that "Middle Fort Ancient" attacker and defender sites are seldom clearly delineated. (Please forgive me for not having the time, energy and money to steer you personally to the best of these; perhaps wikipedia articles will lead you to them. That said, in this regard note especially the Ana Lynn site on the Blue River in Indiana, rc 1170-1270 CE, for evidence of the Lenape flanking move around Cahokia ("Twakanhah" in Iroquois, "Towako" in the Walum Olum) and their recent defeat of a Mississippian people on the Ohio River.)

For the east central areas of North America, the "Wellsburg" complex appears to be equivalent to Oneota. It goes by a yet another different name further east in far Western Maryland and central Pennsylvania, a name which escapes me entirely since my stroke.

In as much as Rafinesque had no knowledge of any of these excavations when he purportedly concocted his "forgery", that it is a forgery is highly unlikely, as the tradition agrees in detail with the physical evidence of the Lenape migration in North America during the Little Ice Age. Thus in my opinion one must side with Brinton's appraisal of Rafinesques work.

You may be involved with Lenape or who think otherwise; which in my view is unfortunate, because at the end of this line of the physical evidence of the Lenape migrations lie the Lenape homelands at the time of European contact. If the preceding chain of physical evidence is denied, then the Lenape have no claim to those lands, as there is no physical evidence for them ever having lived in them. The Lenape will also loose any claim to the remains of their ancestors along the way.

Do not claim Shawnee ancestral lands or ceremonial sites, if you wish to be invited, and do not encourage others to do so.

E.P. Grondine - Talako

Problems with the structure of the article

There is no structure. I'll think about it, anyone else with suggestions please chime in. Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

References section

I find it a bit hard to believe that everything in the references section was used in creating this article, it would be much better if that had been the case. If anyone has added anything that they actually haven't used in any edits, could they please create a 'Further reading' section and move them there. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to include a reliable source that supports your claim that Naproa accepts the document as a "hoax". Marburg72 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I said I would, I'm cooking a meal, couldn't you wait? Wasn't it you that asked for a citation not be removed? The source is Oestreicher, David M. 2005. Tale of a Hoax, in The Algonquian Spirit, edited by Brian Swann. University of Nebraska Press, and I'll add it properly. It would be courteous of you to rv your removal of text, I'll be back in a hour or so. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a reputable source for supporting the claim that Napora said something that would directly contradict his study and entire book. Oestreicher apparently has an itch to discredit anything associated with remote intellect concerning Amerindians. Your argument is down to rumors of he said she said - very weak. Your tendency to be critial of scholarly works simply shows your bias. The study of Selwyn Dewdney for comparable symbolism and supporting examples is also much more reliable.Marburg72 (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I am definitely not critical of scholarly work and try to rely on it whenever possible. You are the one who has been rejecting references to books published by university presses. The book and the author are reputable sources and verifiable (particularly easy in this case as you can search Amazon). Oestreicher states explicitly that he had direct communication with Napora about this. Absolutely no rumour involved. I am not the one being critical of a scholarly work here, and it is definitely not critical to suggest that Napora could change his mind. You are also confused about reliability, although I have tried to explain to you before. Wikipedia guidelines say "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves."

It isn't up to editors to decide what is 'more reliable' in the sense of being 'more truthful', but I will note that a search on Google scholar for anything Dewdney wrote on the Walum Olum turns up nothing (indeed a general Google search turns up nothing also) Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Apparently you are very confused about what is reliable and as I have reminded you numerous times, "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" is the point that I am debating. A single authors opinion in insufficient to justify a claim about the authenticity of 1800's studies of birchbark scrolls. You really think Napora would confess that his lifes work was wasted after based on an article by a detractor? Your authors claim/decision to write that he communicated with Napora is not a trustworthy claim considering his long and determined effort to be a detractor to the document. Your references are all highly critical of scholarly resources. Perhaps you should read Dewdneys book (which is also from a University Press - Toronto in this case) before you attempt to be a detractor from it as well, as the record shows you have attempted. Marburg72 (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all confused. Oestreicher is either lying or telling the truth. Are you calling him a liar, because it certainly looks as though you are. As for Dewdney, I am simply pointing out the lack of scholarly references to his work on the Walam Olum. Doug Weller (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that it is a goal of wikipedia to present unbiased balanced perspective? Dewdney was referenced about his work on the Walam Olum in Joe Napora's study, which states that Dewdney's account is the most eloquent and complete study available. I do not care to debate your accusations of "liar" with you.Marburg72 (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I take it what you accept Oestreicher's statement about Napora. I was asking, not accusing. Napora clearly changed his mind about Dewdney if he accepted that the Walam Olum is a hoax. It is a goal of Wikipedia to present with due weight all significant views from reliable, verifable sources. Doug Weller (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are going to have to talk with Napora yourself to find out on your speculation about "Napora changing his mind on Dewdney". That is a very speculative claim, and is assuming that you believe everything Osest. writes and nothing that the others write!Marburg72 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I believe that Napora thought the Walam Olum was genuine when he wrote about it. I either have to believe Oestreicher is telling the truth about Napora's communication with him or that he is lying, and I have no reason to think he is lying. If you don't believe Oestreicher than it is up to you to prove him wrong, not up to me to prove that he isn't lying. This is very different from opinions about what Oestreicher or anyone else thinks about the authenticity of the Walam Olum. Doug Weller (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

What you believe has nothing to do with the Walam Olum. If Verifyable references in your view are Oest. saying that Napora read his article and then confessed that his entire work was wrong, then you should take a look at the scientific method - that sort of claim is evident to the most casual observer that he was fanning his own sail. Marburg72 (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, when Wikipedia policies and guidelines talk about verifiability, they are not referring to whether or not a statement is true, they mean can a reader check to see if it was reported correctly. Which I have clearly done and you can read the statement itself on at least 2 sites, Google Books and Amazon. I note that once again when you don't like what a book says you simply result to insulting the author, in this case implications that Oestreicher is distorting the truth or reporting something completely false. Doug Weller (talk) 14:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Selwyn Dewdney

If someone is going to call him an expert on the basis of a review that simply calls him an artist(Quimby's review), let's see what other reviews of his more relevant work say. "Edward S. Rogers Reviewed work(s): The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway" Ethnohistory, Vol. 22, No. 1, (Winter, 1975), pp. 81-85 "183-191). Dewdney's book will be subjected to either praise or damnation. As to the former, Dewdney is to be commended for his perseverance and dedication. He has provided the first comprehensive listing, with reproductions and pertinent data, of some 150 scrolls. For anyone wishing to study the topic further, this book provides a starting point. As for damnation, one cannot hope to adequately cope in one review with all the possible 'bones of contention' the book contains. Some comments, though, on the book's ethnographic and ethnohistorical relevance are indicated. Dewdney's failure to mention James Red Sky's book (edited by James Stevens), published three years before Dewdney's book appeared, is most mystifying when one recalls that it was the same James Red Sky who provided Dewdney with so much information about Midewiwin scrolls. And it is not that Red Sky has nothing to say on this subject in his own book. He does. Even more baffling are the contradictions that occur between these two books concerning Red Sky's life (Dewdney 1975:2,81,178; Red Sky 1972:13-14, 21). Dewdney's attempts to cope with the intricacies of Ojibwa culture and history have much to be desired. His motives for introducing the subject are honorable, for as he said, "for those who are unfamiliar with the physical setting and ethnohistorical background I have tried to supply what I could as the need arose, while avoiding tedious detail and not leaping on the back of a passing hobby horse" (p. 10). But Dewdney was unconsciously seduced by his own cultural background, especially his early training as a student missionary. The Ojibwa are the ones who now suffer. A classic example is provided by his formulation of pre- and post-Midewiwin society (if such can be proven to have transpired):

Essentially it was the outcome of an extraordinary attempt to replace the old amoral, socially irresponsible, visionary shamanism of a highly individualistic bush people with a tutorial shamanism aimed - consciously or intuitively - at building healthy, harmonious village communities [p. 144; see also p. 170].

Aside from the fact that this statement is ethnographically untenable, it imposes upon the Ojibwa a Western polarity that never existed in their history." I can't copy it all here obviously, but also: "Furthermore, Dewdney is apt to rely upon ethnographic generalizations that were in vogue a quarter of a century ago, but in the intervening years have been modified or disproven...Dewdney handles ethnohistorical matters no better than he does ethnographic topics..."Dewdney has deceived the unwary who do not realize that the exact distributions and certain proposed migrations of Ojibwa still remain unresolved."

This is the expert being called upon to verify the Walam Olum? Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that my removal of Dewdney was because I have not found anything mentioned about him in connection with the Walam Olum. A quote with page numbers would help a lot. But we can't ignore the review above. Doug Weller (talk) 14

57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You also failed to note the reason that Rogers explained for his statement that Dewdney is making the Ojibway "suffer". Rogers explained this is because Dewdney revealed something sacred to the Ojibway, and sacred things should be private.Marburg72 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are once again ignoring relevant information and covering it up by deleting Dewdney. The source previously discussed by Napora suggests that Birchbark Scrolls were the source of the Walam olum study - whick makes Dewdneys entire book relavent to this topic. You must have had to search very hard to find anything negative about Dewdney. The only fact presented in your article that is relevant states that Dewdney compiled the most complete record of Birchbark Scrolls. If you want to attack Dewdney, do it on his wikipedia site Selwyn Dewdney

Raymond H. Thompson Reviewed work(s): The Sacred Scrolls of the Southern Ojibway by Selwyn Dewdney American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Summer, 1977), pp. 165-167 (review consists of 3 pages) Published by: University of Nebraska Press http://www.jstor.org/pss/1184188

birchbark scholar Selwyn Dewdney who cites a 1,000-year-old birchbark scroll remnant http://westgatehouse.com/art36.html

Later Selwyn Dewdney, an artist and anthropologist, saw his work and learned a lot from him about native life and taught him a lot http://www.pastforward.ca/perspectives/March_32006.htm

the late Selwyn Dewdney, Canada's foremost authority on pictographs http://cycloparcppj.org/oiseau/rocheroiseau_a.htm

Selwyn Dewdney - Art educator and noted expert on Ojibway art and anthropology. http://norvalmorrisseau.blogspot.com/2007/11/selwyn-dewdney-about-norval-morrisseau.html

Dewdney who became known as the expert on the rock paintings scattered throughout the Canadian Shield http://www.native-art-in-canada.com/norvalmorrisseau.html

http://www.lib.uwo.ca/archives/archives%20finding%20aids/test_Dewdney,%20Selwyn%20fonds%20AFC%2021%20070707.pdf

Marburg72 (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the comments on Dewdney came from the first review on JSTOR that I read. No hard searching required. Thompson's short review may be the most positive, the one I quoted is substantially longer and more detailed. Vecsey's even shorter review says "Dewdney assumes that Ojibwa society was always so disintegrated and bases his thesis on that misunderstanding. He distorts his presentation by projecting modern condi- tions onto the 18th century and even into prehistory. Despite the fact that he has supplied much information and deserves commenda- tion for his detective work in unearthing the many scrolls, Dewdney leaves his reader with an interpretation which goes little further than previous works on Ojibwa ethnohistory."

But the bottom line is that you replaced the unsourced statement "Ojibwe expert Selwyn Dewdney wrote the comprehensive study of Birchbark Scrolls which detailed the similarity to the Walam Olum". And now you appear to be saying that Dewdney's book doesn't mention the Walam Olum. If that is the case, it is irrelevant to this article which is meant to be encyclopedic. If you were writing an essay or an article for publication elsewhere, it might be very relevant. But not here unless it specifically mentions the Walam Olum. Doug Weller (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong once again! See direct quote from Dewdney. If you have something constructive to add to this, please do! Marburg72 (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Darn, I responded and could swear I saved it. I know I wrote that Dewdney does mention the Walam Olum, but it appears to be only a mention, not the detailed analysis I thought you were claiming it to be when you wrote "the comprehensive study of Birchbark Scrolls which detailed the similarity to the Walam Olum," -- I see no detail about similarity in the quotation. I can see now that various older edits have added some confusion to the article and am trying to rectify that while at the same time adding some other stuff. Doug Weller (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this information is detailing the similarity between birchbark scrolls and the Walam Olum. You should read the study to see the overall context of the excerpt - I am not going to copy it here for you. Marburg72 (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Calling people experts

I would like to prevent an edit war on this. On June 10th Marburg72 removed the description of Herbert Kraft which called him 'an expert on the Lenape', saying that it needed a citation. Now Kraft clearly was an expert and not only am I surprised that this was questioned, it would have been easy for him to find a reliably sourced citation. Which I did. Then Selwyn Dewdney suddenly becomes "a noted expert on Ojibway art and anthropology" with no citation from Marburg72, which seems a tad unreasonable as he doesn't seem to think that a citations was required for that. So I looked for a reliable citation for that and the only thing that shows up is the blogspot referenced above. That is clearly not a reliable source for calling Dewdney a "noted expert on Ojibway art and anthropology", and I have removed it. Given both Wikipedia guidelines and Marburg's own request for a citation for an acknowledged expert like Kraft, I hope that such claims won't be returned to the page without sources equivalent to the ones provided for Kraft. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the authority card is going to be played then it seems only reasonable that the standards apply to each of the Walam Olum commentators to be mentioned in the article.

Haven't totally caught up yet on the recent exchanges and issues discussed for this article to date, but one common refrain I've seen in researching the authenticity question lately, is that Oestreicher's 94/95 thesis seems to have resulted in a tide of scholarly agreement with the proposition (that the WA is not the genuine article). Have come across at least a dozen or so published scholars, reviews and academics in the field agreeing with him, some even noting it as a watershed. The (my) investigation is prob. too preliminary to allow a safe conclusion that a majority of practising and published scholars in the relevant field now think this way, but it seems to me that the number of sceptics ought to be characterised better or more than "some", as the article intro currently does.

I guess a question is, are there Lenape or Native Am. historical academics who have, post-Oestreicher, continued to maintain and write about the document as authentic? Examples currently given in the article that are supportive of the authenticity pre-date, some considerably, the later analyses from the 1980s and onwards. --cjllw ʘ TALK 09:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See above commentary on talk page from Ed Grondine, expert on Native American History - who wrote : Man and Impact in the Americas. I disagree with removal of my wording on Dewdney, I did provide numerous citation for "a noted expert on Ojibway art and anthropology" - see above discussion. Doug Wellers suggestion of "artist, art therapist and researcher" ingores the scholarly consensus of his expertise on Ojibway art and anthropology clearly does not match with the majority of scholarly reviews. Also,Your removal of the article in American Antiquity about relevant birchbark scrolls found in Archaeological context is not appropriate because of Krafts reference "did not square with the archaeological record". Marburg72 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I know Ed, he sends me stuff of his to read from time to time. Why do you bring him into this discussion, and what has made you decide he is an expert on Native American history? His background is space reporting, his book is self-published. You provided no citations from reliable sources to call Dewdney a reliable source, I looked at all of them. I have also read the scholarly reviews, and none of them call him a noted expert (or, from memory, an expert). I don't believe Kraft was talking about scrolls, I will try to check. If he was, fine, if not, it's irrelevant. And we are not talking about birchbark scrolls but cedar wood tablets or sticks anyway. Doug Weller (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed Grondine addressed the authenticity and translation in his book from 1998- thats relavent to the discussion. Your opinion that allthe sources that I cited about Dewdney not being reliable and yours only being reliable only shows your bias. Birchbark Scrolls are once again relavent to this discussion - especially information about their discovery in archaeological context. Marburg72 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed is not relevant. Nor is the suggestion that Lenape is Old Norse (made last year). He is self-published, and can't be used because of that.

As for Dewdney, I am asking you once again to try to use words like reliable the way Wikipedia uses them. Perhaps you could repeat which sources call Dewdney a 'noted expert'. You removed the word expert from Kraft, and now up the ante with Dewdney making him a 'noted expert'. The sources you quote are a blog and a cycle park, a site that complains that Dewdney's name should be removed from a memorial and is in any case a personal website, another personal site which simply calls him a birchbark scholar, and the University of Ontario pdf which doesn't use the word expert. I am happy with researcher or even scholar, but not expert.

And you still haven't offered any evidence he did more than mention the Walam Olum. Doug Weller (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Above question posed: "are there Lenape or Native Am. historical academics who have, post-Oestreicher, continued to maintain and write about the document as authentic". Answer, Yes, Grondine did, and Grondine apparenlty is a native american author who has put a large amount of research into the Walam Olum in his book. Whether it was self published or not is not relavent - it addresses the topic. Marburg72 (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

{unindent}

CJLL Wright, I think you are correct, there has been a watershed since Oestreicher. Grondine is not an academic, Native American or otherwise. Oestreicher wrote that Joe Napora "was dismayed that the sources upon whom he had relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document and that the hoax should have continued as long as it has." If he's communicated his opinion to other people, that may have had a strong impact. So, we have Oestricher, Barnhart and Leonard Warren's 2005 biographyConstantine Samuel Rafinesque: A Voice in the American Wilderness University Press of Kentucky, May 2005, ISBN 978-0813123165 [1] wrote (p 209)Leonard Warren quotes Charles Wilkins Short who Knew Rafinesque and who wrote to a friend "Everybody knows that poor Raffy was a most bare-faced liar, not to say rogue", and (Warren) goes on to write "There is now very good reason to believe that he fabricated (word in italics) important data and documents...The most egregious example is the Lenni Lenape migration saga, Walam Olum, which has perplexed scholars for one and a half centuries. Rafinesque wrote the Walam Olum believing it to be authentic (italics) because it accorded with his own belief--he was merely recording and giving substance to what must be true. It was a damaging, culpably dishonest act, which misled scholars in search of the real truth, far more damaging than his childish creations, which could be easily dismissed; this was more than mischief.

In Bioarchaeology: The Contextual Analysis of Human Remains by Jane Buikstra & Lane Beck,(eds)Academic Press 2006 ISBN 978-0123695413, Della Collins Cook says of the Indiana study "the scholarly essays are best read as exercises in stating one's contradictory conclusions in a manner designed to give as little offense as possible to one's sponsor. To the end of his life Lilly [the sponsor] remained convinced that the Walam Olum would eventually prove to be authentic. At a 1974 celebrating the Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology at Indiana University, Black's successor, James A. Kellar, suggested that the team had shown it to be inauthentic. Mr Lilly rose and said that he considered 'the jury to be still out'. Doug Weller (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'm not an academic, and being only 1/8 shawnee I am not BIA shawnee, not that that's any of your business. What does any of that have to do with the archaeological sequence given above which confirms the Walam Olum and salvages Constantin Rafinesque's personal reputation? Or are you worried about NAGPRA kicking in? If so, don't worry, it will. E.P. Grondine, Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.190 (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - I agree with you about Lenape not being old Norse. If you'd like a copy of my expose of cult leader Richard Kieninger and the roots of today's cult archeology you can write me for one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.190 (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ed. You ought to get a login account and don't forget to sign with 4 '~'s, it makes it easier to understand the talk page. I wasn't the one who brought up your ethnic backgound. I don't know the relevance of NAGPRA, I hadn't even thought about it in this context. I hope you understand that Wipipedia policy is clear about self-published books not being used as sources. See WP:SPS This isn't the place to debate whether Kraft is right or not, although I can suggest other forums where that would be appropriate. As editors of an encyclopedia we report on what other significant sources have said about the subject of an article. Doug Weller (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doug - A couple of perspectives. First, Rafinesque has been abused since he was in Nashville - I tend to view this current debate as a continuation of those slanders. While CSR had some pretty wild ideas, he did the best he could, and brought everything he could to bear on the problems before him. He had a good heart, and that's probably why those Lenape materials found their way to him. I side with Brinton's opinion, a man who knew the Lenape language far better than most of the commentators here.

My responsibility is to preserve the traditions as best I can, and to pass them on. The ancestors remembered comet and asteroid impacts, and their warnings need to be passed on. I don't know if the academic community will accept this during my lifetime. The Lenape traditions are likely to be questioned along with everyone else's, despite the big holes in the ground.

Since "Man and Impact in the Americas" fundamentally solves the sequence for SE north America, it raises NAGPRA issues, and many archaeologists do not want to deal with them.

Earlier, simply as a space reporter trying to locate impact events, I found the state of North American anthropology to be pretty pathetic; it made that work very difficult. Since then I've since gained a better appreciation of the funding levels and general public biases in which the archaeologists work, and am a little more charitable to many of them, but there are still some who really don't understand.

I am off to powwow, where I will share some of the peoples' histories with them. Since the archaeological evidence given above has not had much of an effect on CSR's slanderers' opinions here, I may not spend any more time with them. As you know, pokvano is a pretty serious offense, and I really want to stay away from this. I think that some here are oblivious to the seriousness of their "academic" comments, and view this as a game. It's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.157 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kraft the archaeologist says that the Lenape were there for a very very long time. You say he's wrong. But even if you were right, which I doubt, that can't be used to prove that Rafinesque didn't create a forgery. And yes, it is not a game - nor is it pokvano - as is evident by the anger shown by his biographer Leonard Warren. Doug Weller (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Kraft and the archaeological evidence

Marburg72 is arguing that the fact that there exist real birchbark scrolls is somehow relevant in the light of "Krafts reference "did not square with the archaeological record". I don't see the relevance still, as what Kraft meant is that the archaeological record shows the Lenape and their ancestors as having been in the area for 12,000 years. This is clearly in conflict with the migration record as reported by Rafinesque. Nothing to do with scrolls. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Read Napora, Joe 1992. The Walam olum / as translated by Joe Napora. Greenfield Center, N.Y. : Greenfield Review Press. ISBN 0912678828

Napora demonstrates that birchbark scrolls were the source of Walam Olum - I have told you this before. You apparently have difficulty understanding. Marburg72 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please calm down. Napora thinks it is a hoax. And 'demonstrated'? Doug Weller (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ostch. says that Napora thinks its a hoax after Ostch article. - Napora did not publish anything first hand on your claim. Read Napora to see what he said, not what Osth. else said that Napora said. This is not "he said she said" science.Marburg72 (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a noted scholar making a definitive statement about a direct communication from Napora, which few people would confuse with 'he said she said'. This is after Napora wrote about the Walam Olum, in other words, he changed his mind. You are once again suggesting that Oestreicher is not telling the truth. Doug Weller (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we have Grondine who is apparently still unpersuaded by Oestreicher's analysis and conclusions (although not clear to me—leaving aside for the moment discussion on expertise/qualifications—whether Grondine has made any specific published response to the contents of Oestreicher, as opposed to just maintaining a position arrived at earlier).

Anyone else, though? Any, for example, published scholarly reviews critical of Oestreicher's conclusions or scholarship? I've come across several in agreement, none (as yet) taking him to task for his results. Was going to put together some sort of list, but seem to have run out of time today; maybe in the next couple of days.--cjllw ʘ TALK 09:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside a post on a forum criticising him for not recognising that the Walam Olum is Old Norse, I haven't found anything critical yet. I found one more agreement in Red Matters by Arnold Krupat [2].

The New York Times mentions that he received an "award from the Archaeological Society of New Jersey for his work". [3]/]

Native Languages of the Southeastern United State by Heather K. Hardy (Editor), Janine Scancarelli University of Nebraska Press, ISBN 978-0803242357 March 1 2005 says that "He [Rafinesque] did mislead many people into the late twentieth century with his invention of the Walam-Olum epic, which was finally in 1994 decisively proven by David Oestreicher to be fraudulent."

I have at least one more but I seem to be hitting something that loses my text, so I'll save in a minute. But it does look as though his publication in 1994 was a watershed. Doug Weller (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[unindent] See: University Ph.D dissertation ("The Anatomy of the Walam Olum: The Dissection of a Nineteenth-Century Anthropological Hoax"), that Rafinesque created the "Walam Olum" hoax, out of a desire for public recognition in an era when America's scientists and scholars were taking him less and less seriously. Oestreicher also presents the intriguing theory that Rafinesque was more than a little inspired by Joseph Smith's claims for an alternative American Indian history. Rafinesque openly denounced the Book of Mormon as being a fraudulent history, but he could not ignore the phenomenal growth and widespread publicity the Mormon Church enjoyed between 1830 and 1836. Oestreicher's reporting leaves the reader uncertain as to whether Rafinesque was hoping to manufacture an American legend that parallel and exceeded the Mormon beliefs, or was simply attempting to undermine the LDS announcements saying that the Indians were wandering ancient Israelites http://solomonspalding.com/SRP/saga2/sagawt0c.htm

A Note on Rafinesque, the Walam Olum, the Book of Mormon, and the Mayan Glyphs by Charles Boewe, Numen, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 (Jul., 1985), pp. 101-113 “Rafinesque had no contact with Joseph Smith”

See also: Walam Olum, 1, 17: A Proof of Rafinesque’s Integrity. August C. Mahr. American Anthropologist. New Series Vol. 59. No 4. Aug 1957. pp. 705-708. Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the American Anthropological Association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point is that you are trying to make with the first url about the Mormons. The second article by Mahr is of course pre-Oestreicher. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Point is: Ostc. argument about Raf. "creating" the walam olum study to contradict mormon religion is refuted in the Numen article. And also the claims that Ostc. uses against the character of Raf. are directly contradicted in Mahr's article - but Ostc. did not address this in his debunking attempt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The first url you gave doesn't say Oestreicher claims that Raf created the Walam Olum to contradict the LDS, and he doesn't mention the LDS in his article in 'Algonquian Spirit..'. You think Mahr is right in his 1957 article, fine, but what scholars agree with him since Oestreicher first published? And are you saying you've read everything Oestreicher wrote about the Walam Olum? Doug Weller (talk) 13:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Just in case people are wondering what Mahr wrote, it boils down to "But most essential of all, this line proves beyond doubt that Rafinesque's text of the Walam Olum, far from being a forgery, was written by him as heard from the lips of an Unami informant. Had he compiled it from the Mora- vians' word lists available to him, as charged by insufficiently informed critics, Rafinesque would hardly have split a perfectly intelligible Unami compound, kiwiswunand, into two senseless halves, also dividing it in the wrong place and then trying to translate the resulting nonsense as separate units". Doug Weller (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And yet another academic endorsing Oestreicher: Historical Evidence and Argument By David P. Henige University of Wisconsin Press 2005 ISBN 978-0299214104 "By applying systematic doubt to an issue that more random doubt had already kept open, he was able at last to approach certainty. If his solution does not surprise most observers, it is no less of value for that, for it reminds us that even the most refractory historical questions can yield to sustained inquiry." p. 40 [4]Doug Weller (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Oestreicher is also endorsed in Social theory as politics in knowledge By Jennifer M. Lehmann JAI Press Dec 2005 978-0762312368 searchable at [5] Doug Weller (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

{unindent] How do you interpret the statement "Later, David Oestreicher wrote that "Napora was dismayed that the sources upon whom he relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document and that the hoax should have been continued as long as it has". (Oestricher 2005:23-24" as meaning "Napora told me he changed his mind?". It is clear that Napora was saying just the opposite meaning completely.Marburg72 (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How in the world do you get that? Oestreicher wrote "he now recognised that the Walam Olum is indeed a hoax'. Doug Weller (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation about Notched Sticks and Birchbark scrolls found in archaeological context is relavent to the Walam Olum - which Were notched sticks and birchbark scrolls. Please do not remove this reference again!Marburg72 (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still missing the point of the very first paragraph in this section of the discussion. I'll reword the article to explain as unambiguously as possible. David Trochos (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The attempt to separate Napora's acknowledgement that the Walam Olum is a hoax from his earlier belief it was authentic

Napora's acknowledgement that the Walam Olum is a hoax is not part of some Oestreicher section which should be separated from his earlier beliefs. It is a key part of the shift of opinion and should be shown clearly and I can see no NPOV rationale for this continued attempt to keep them separate.

See the Walam Olum presentation by Napora for clearing up Napora's view - on links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link as it is what he wrote in 1992 before he changed his mind. We know that at that point he thought the Walam Olum was authentic. Now he doesn't, see below. Doug Weller (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove this important presentation by Napora again. Napora did not change his mind - Ostc said entirely the opposite. Your misinterpreting Ostc. entirely. Also, Naporas presentation is the only thing on here that actually discusses the translation and uses the acutal symbols. Its an important contribution. Marburg72 (talk) 12:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you bothered to read what Oestreicher wrote? That he (Napora) "now recognises that the Walam Olum is indeed a hoax"? How have I misinterprted that? Or my quote which is from Napora directly below, which I shall repeat: ""I contratulate you not only on your scholarship but the great detective work you did in tracking down the sources that matter most in not so much the unmasking as the unraveling of the mystery surrounding the Walam Olum. Unmasking may be the most appropriate word since there is not little doubt that this was a fraud on Rafinesque's part" Napora adds "The Delaware speakers that Joe Bruchac knows had many doubts about the Walum Olum, how did Voeglin, especially, pass over these same doubts that other Delaware must have had?" That seems pretty clear. Doug Weller (talk) 13:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you interpret that as meaning Napora still thinks the Walam Olum is authentic?

I also note that you use the link as a reference for a quote from Napora that isn't in the link. How do you justify that? Do you have Napora's book, and if so, are you positive that the French bit isn't just a French translation of the introduction or something? Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug is Wrong again about Naproas article being Pre-oest "opinion" or Napora changing his mind... Naporas article was published in N°24 October 1996. See:

http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/0sommaire.htm Here it is in Naporas own words. The Walam Olum tells the story of the migration of Leni-Lenape, the ancestors of the Delawares, Asia via the Bering Strait and then to the south and the east coast of North America. C'est un mélange de mythe de création et de récit historique transmis par la transcription de glyphes préservés sur une écorce de bouleau. It is a mixture of myth of creation and historical narrative conveyed by the transcript of glyphs preserved on a birch bark. Les glyphes, leur nombre, leur arrangement, et leur précision ainsi que les mots delawares qui les accompagnent sont controversés. The glyphs, their number, arrangement, and their accuracy and delawares the words that accompany them are controversial. Il n'est pas de l'intérêt de la poésie de poursuivre cette dispute, car les morceaux restants montrent un mythe de l'émergence qui constitue un récit complet en ce sens qu'il va de l'indéfini au particulier. It is not in the interest of poetry to continue this dispute because the remaining pieces show a myth of the emergence which is a complete story in the sense that it is undefined in the particular. Le Walam Olum est la transcription d'une dynamique toujours active qui émerge -est littéralement née du néant- de l'intemporel et d'une sécurité trompeuse. The Walam Olum is the transcript of a dynamic still active emerging-east literally born of nothing-the timeless and security misleading. Les individus se déplacent dans la crainte, de leur ancien territoire "la vieille île de la Tortue" vers une définition d'eux-mêmes en tant que peuple transformant un nouveau monde et étant transformé par lui. Individuals moving in fear of their former territory "Old Turtle Island" to a definition of themselves as a people turning a new world and being transformed by it. Le Temps (le Serpent) et le Lieu (la Tortue) fournissent le mécanisme du Walam Olum . Le Temps (Serpent) and Location (Turtle) provide the mechanism of Walam Olum. Comme toute épopée qui surgit du besoin d'un peuple, elle dresse d'abord la carte du territoire inconnu. Like any epic, which arises from the need of a people, it stands first map of unknown territory. Ici, les coordonnées sont une période de milliers d'années et un espace de milliers de miles. Here, the details are a period of thousands of years and a space for thousands of miles.

Un mythe de création est une nouvelle représentation de l'émergence de chaque individu afin qu'il accepte la souffrance du changement, d'une obscurité aussi réelle qu'indéfinie vers la lumière du jour qui est aussi un tropisme définissant une direction et fournissant un projet qui ancre inextricablement l'individu dans l'espace et le temps. A creation myth is a new representation of the emergence of each individual to accept the suffering of change, a darkness as real qu'indéfinie to daylight which is also a tropism setting a direction and providing a inextricably anchor project that the individual in space and time. Ce document devient individuel, n'est pas seulement une abstraction de l'histoire, si nous le voulons bien. This document becomes individual, is not just an abstraction of history, if we want. Notre intervention en fait une histoire réelle. Our intervention in fact a true story. Notre intervention complète les fragments manquants. Our intervention complete fragments missing. C'est une histoire réelle, bien qu'elle ait été perdu pendant trop longtemps pour nous. This is a true story, although it has been lost for too long for us. Cette perte de notre héritage est une constante de l'invasion européenne. This loss of our heritage is a constant of the European invasion. L'Amérique, en tant que nation anglophone, fut fondée sur la croyance que le temps et l'espace peuvent être détruits ou ignorés. America, as English-speaking nation was founded on the belief that the time and space could be destroyed or ignored. William Bradford en 1620, du pont du Mayflower regarda le territoire indien et ne vit qu'une "sauvagerie hideuse". William Bradford in 1620, the bridge of Mayflower looked Indian territory and not living a "hideous barbarity". Thomas Jefferson, plus d'un siècle plus tard déclara que, "Les morts n'ont pas de droits. Ils ne sont rien : et rien ne peut rien obtenir..." Thomas Jefferson, more than a century later said that "The dead have no rights. They are nothing: and nothing can get anything ..." La terrible conséquence fut une ruée pour conquérir l'espace et détruire le temps qui n'est qu'un symptôme révélant la perte de l'harmonie que les Delawares, eux, possédaient. The terrible result was a rush to conquer space and destroy the time is a symptom revealing the loss of harmony that the Delawares, they possessed. C'est de cela que nous sommes reconnaissants, car notre intervention active est aussi un mode de guérison. That is what we are grateful because our active intervention is also a way of healing.

Cette version est ma manière de remercier pour ce que les Delaware ont accompli. This version is my way of thanking her for what Delaware have done. Lorsque j'ai commencé à travailler avec le Walam Olum à l'automne 1976, je me demandais si, n'étant pas Delaware, pas Indien, je pouvais contribuer à cette histoire. When I started working with the Walam Olum in autumn 1976, I wondered if, not Delaware, not India, I could contribute to this story. J'ai décidé que je le pouvais, que je devais le faire. I decided that I could, that I had to do so. Cette version des deux premières parties sont devenues un moyen pour moi de tenter de commencer à accomplir ma propre histoire. This version of the first two parts have become a way for me to try to begin to accomplish my own history. Les dernières lignes du poème disent : The last lines of the poem say:

Les hommes blancs arrivent The white men arrive

et ils font des signes de paix and they are signs of peace

qui sont-ils? Who are they? Marburg72 (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I know when it was published, the question is when did he write it? Did he write it specifically for that publication? It looks very much like an excerpt from something written earlier. Doug Weller (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Napora's letter and more comments on Oestreicher's work

Here is part of what Napora wrote to Oestreicher:"I contratulate you not only on your scholarship but the great detective work you did in tracking down the sources that matter most in not so much the unmasking as the unraveling of the mystery surrounding the Walam Olum. Unmasking may be the most appropriate word since there is not little doubt that this was a fraud on Rafinesque's part" He adds "The Delaware speakers that Joe Bruchac knows had many doubts about the Walum Olum, how did Voeglin, especially, pass over these same doubts that other Delaware must have had?"

. . . your prodigious effort has convincingly demolished the Rafinesque fake. For all thoughtful, rational people, the controversy is now buried once and for all. Congratulations. -- W. W. Newcomb, author of Culture and Acculturation Among the Delawares.

Your control over R[afinesque’s] manipulations is phenomenal [and] should kill any further attempts to resuscitate the W.O. . . . I’m sorry my contemporaries have not lived to read the total destruction of the W.O. -- the late James B. Griffin, former member of the Lilly team and leading archaeologist, Smithsonian Institution.

. . . it is with great satisfaction that I have been reading your pieces on the Walam Olum in the New Jersey Archaeological Society bulletins and in Natural History. It is an impressive and convincing job of historical detective work and congratulations are in order. -- Anthony F. C. Wallace, University Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at the University of Pennsylvania, member of the APS, and author of numerous seminal works.

I’m sorry to say you have convinced me completely. Rafinesque forged the Walam Olum . . . its a real pleasure to read such great work. -- The late Rafinesque scholar and translator of Rafinesque’s works, Arthur J. Cain, University of Liverpool, England.

Alas, three times alas! I am very convinced of the fraudulence of this sacred (or satanic?) C.S.R.! He would without doubt be delighted to know that people still speak about him 150 years after his death, and perhaps even in spite of the unflattering terms . . . Bravo . . . for your pugnacity and patience. -- Rafinesque scholar and author Georges Reynaud, Université de Provence, Marseille, France.

I did think it would be impossible to demonstrate beyond cavil after all this time that Rafinesque had concocted it from whole cloth. But I think that you’ve been able to do just that, to an even more striking degree than critics were able to accomplish for the Kensington Stone. -- David Henige, University of Wisconsin.

. . . a magnificent and wholly gratifying piece of literary sleuthing and scientific research. I heartily congratulate you [Natural History magazine] and Mr. Oestreicher for another example of Natural History’s informative, highly readable, and scientifically sound stories. -- J Harold Ellens, University of Michigan.

. . . a fine piece of scholarly detective work and an airtight case against the accused . . . Thanks again for your sleuthing and for giving us a fascinating forger who makes our Henry Rowe Schoolcraft look like a paragon of scholarly probity. -- Martin W. Walsh, University of Michigan.

I write to . . . record my admiration for your thoroughness, imagination, and lucid literary style in your investigation . . . You seem to have left no stone unturned in solving the mystery, and you have been eminently fair to Rafinesque and to his commentators. -- John C. Green, Professor Emeritus of History, University of Connecticut, author of American Science in the Age of Jefferson and The Death of Adam.

It is a splendid piece of work -- you have indeed, without a possible shadow of a doubt, proven that Rafinesque forged the Walam Olum . . . You have caught R. red-handed time and time again. -- Stephen Williams, author of Fantastic Archaeology, and Curator for North American Archaeology, Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

David Oestreicher has employed linguistic, historic, and archival evidence that details, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the entire Walam Olum is a fraud perpetrated by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. -- the late Herbert C. Kraft, former Director of Seton Hall University Museum and author of numerous seminal works on the Lenape.

I congratulate you on not only your scholarship but the great detective work in tracking down the sources that matter most in . . . the unraveling of the mystery surrounding the Walam Olum . . . a genuine achievement, something that many have tried and no one until now has succeeded at doing. -- Joe Napora, author of the Walam Olum [a new translation, 1992], conceding that he had been mistaken about the Walam Olum.

Its great! Its crushing, convincing, clever and thoughtful. And interestingly and entertainingly written. Way to go! -- Stephen Epstein, Curator at the University of Pennsylvania Museum.

Its exciting and controversial and pioneering and there you have it! -- Jennifer Brown, University of Winnipeg.

I am amazed at the depth and detail of the scholarship . . . the historical study of early anthropology is also highly developed and very sophisticated. -- J. Peter Denny, University of Western Ontario.

I was just thrilled to observe your sophisticated analysis of the Walam Olum . . . -- Rafinesque scholar Vilen Belyi, Vinnitsa Technical University, Ukraine.

It will raise the level of scholarship . . . I think it opens up a whole new chapter in the history of anthropology. -- Noted anthologist of Amerindian Literature, John Bierhorst.

Very accessibly written and persuasively argued. Altogether superb. -- Alex Shoumatoff, author of The Mountain of Names, The Rivers Amazon, and other noted works.

When David Oestreicher was able to show it was a fraud, many people were offended. But you have to go where the facts lead you. -- Bruce Pearson, renowned Lenape Language scholar and retired linguistics professor, University of South Carolina.

Oestreicher presents conclusive proof of the fraudulence of one of the most widely discussed 19th-century American Indian documents, laying to rest a controversy that has raged ever since Constantine Rafinesque “discovered” it in 1834 .-- Newsletter XV:1, The Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas.

Oestreicher’s work has spelled an end to more than 150 years of denial by scholars . . . Oestreicher’s work is considered to be solid. It’s receiving increasing attention and acceptability in both native circles and scholarly circles. -- ethnohistorian Lawrence Hauptman, State University of New York at New Paltz and author of numerous seminal works on American Indians.

I am most impressed by the hard and imaginative research you have done. It sure looks like you have unmasked the hoax. -- James H. Madison, Chair, Department of History, Indiana University, and author of Eli Lilly: A Life, 1885-1977.

I have given it a thorough reading and I believe that you make your case. -- William N. Fenton, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, State University of New York at Albany, and acknowledged Dean of Iroquois studies.

I am absolutely overwhelmed by the thoroughness of your exposé. You effectively attack this work’s authenticity from many different directions, any one of which would have convinced the most stubborn romantic . . . We owe you a great debt of gratitude for the finality with which you have disposed of all doubts! -- Raymond Whritenour, Lenape Language scholar and editor of Delaware-English Lexicon.

Oestreicher convincingly argues that the Walam Olum . . . is in fact a fraud composed by Constantine Rafinesque . . . Oestreicher’s paper on this issue . . . is definitive, if correct. -- Hugh McCulloch, Ohio State University. Doug Weller (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

apparently Oest. was taking comments out of context and using them to support his attempt to be a [[debunker}]. For example: Oest. provided partial info from Hugh McCulloch when he included only excerpts in the quote "Walam Olum . . . is in fact a fraud composed by Constantine Rafinesque . . . Oestreicher’s paper on this issue . . . is definitive, if correct." The fact that Oest was using only parts of comments that support his attempt to be a dubunker shows that none of his efforts can be trusted. He was using his personal bias, and not presenting NPOV, which is a guideline of wikipedia. Marburg72 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Who has refuted Oestreicher? Most scholars today do think it is a hoax

Please note that any references have to actually mention Oestreicher. Let's see the list. You can list separately the scholars (using reliable sources of course) who since 1994 have published their belief that the Walam Olum is authentic. Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote - the article must present a neutral point of view. What source do you have other than oest?. See above sources and SEE NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not a vote. I've asked a simple question. I've given details of a number of reviews and books published since 1994 that say it is a hoax. I've asked for your sources since then that say it is authentic. Your response makes me think you have none.

And although not a vote, if it can be shown that a number of scholars support the hoax position, and it can't be shown that a number of scholars support the authentic position, then 'some' is not correct, 'most' is and is probably an understatement. If you can't substantiate your claim, the lead should say 'most'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Napora in 'On the back of the tortoise'

The journal, originally paper and then web only, that is referenced exists to bring Native American literature, etc to French speakers.[6] It has reprinted a translation of something by Napora that appears to be the introduction to his book, eg "This version is my manner of thanking for what Delaware achieved. When I started to work with Walam Olum with the autumn 1976, I wondered whether, not being Delaware, not Indien, I could contribute to this history. I decided that I could it, that I was to do it. This version of the first two parts became a means for me of trying to start to achieve my own history." and a bibliography that is not drawn on in the bit on the web. It should not be dated with the date of the publication of the translation, and it is unlikely that Napora would write a letter stating his belief that the Walam Olum is a hoax and after that submit this to 'On the back of the tortoise'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is printed for the first time in 1996 is not in Naporas 1992 Book on the Walam Olum. Napora speaks for Napora - Not oest. why dont you understand that? Marburg72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Napora speaks for Napora, and please note that I have quoted from his letter. I've got a copy of it. You do know that there was an earlier version of Napora's 1992 book I presume? Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "letter from Napora" is not published material, therefore it is not acceptable to include per wikipedia standards. By default anything in the letter that you interpret is not credible - you cant cite a source to defend it.

As long as you are not going to accept that Ed Grondine's expertise about the Walam Olum in his book Man and Impact trumps Oest. Your claim as not permissible because it was self-published applies also to your "letter." And once again, Your author Oest does not meet NPOV standards of Wikipedia - because he uses chopped up sentences from others - taking only the words that he think will support his effort to be a debunker. Oest failed to provide a NPOV.Marburg72 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the letter is not. I agree. Oestreicher's book however says the same thing about Napora. A space reporter's self-published book not cited in any scholarly literature doesn't 'trump' anything. And you simply do not understand Wikipedia policies, NPOV does not mean what you think it means. It means "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." It applies to articles, in other words. You are just ignoring all the scholarly reviews and other support for Oestreicher and trying your best to rubbish him. You are, in other words, trying to prevent the article from being NPOV. You also refuse to give any reliable sources (in Wikipedian terms, not your interpretation) since 1994 that support the authenticity of the Walam Olum, but I presume still insist that it is not true that 'most' scholars since then say it's a hoax. Doug Weller (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You also have no evidence as to when Napora wrote the piece in Sur le Dos de la Tortue. Another issue has an interview with someone that took place about 10 years before the issue was published. It is a journal republishing in French previous work of Native American authors, not publishing new work. Doug Weller (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is improper for Napora. The original is written in 1996 - No french work was ever published prior to this and it is not a duplicate of something earlier. However, Oest publications all reused the same old "Debunking" attempts that were proposed in his thesis. If you are going to attempt to refute a publication date- this also appies to all of Oest's biased, not-neutral, and very repetetive writing. The article should not include so many Oest citations anyhow because it is repetative and does not present a fair and balanced neutral point of view. SEE NPOV again. Marburg72 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation reflects the only information we have. You have no knowledge of when the original, whatever it was, was written, only when a translation was published. Once again, your opinion of Oestreicher is irrelevant (and I'm not refuting a publication date, let's be honest, this is all about an attempt to show that Napora changed his mind again, not about anything else). All relevant scholarly publications have a right to be in the article. They don't appear to be repetitive except for perhaps the encyclopedia one, which I'll remove. (sorry, forgot to sign this) Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that "Napora Changed his mind" is not true - nor is it even relavent or defenable because your claim was never published. Napora never published anything that stated this. You are attempting to rubbish Naporas significant work - and his Post Oest claims. The publication date on the french article is the first time ever that the article was published. It is not proper to say we dont know when it was written. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication

Also, there is no "scholarly consensus" that has developed except among Oest. Napora clearly stated post-oest "is not in the interest of poetry to continue this dispute". It is a biased opinion that there is a "consensus" favoriing Oest's debunking effort. Oests publications are entirely repeating his thesis and information is not relavent to the article. Again, only sources used in the article should be referenced. Marburg72 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oestreicher specifically says Napora changed his mind. That is published. And even if I can't use Napora's letter, it's real and to deny it isn't doing Napora any favors. Yes, the publication date is the first time -- that the French translation was published, that's all it is. We don't know the date of the original English version. This is what the journal exists to do, provide translations of Native American literature for French speakers.

I have given numerous quotes and references from scholarly books and articles favoring Oestreicher's analysis of the Walam Olum. That is why I am claiming a scholarly consensus. It is not the job of editor's to decide that a scholarly work is biassed. You haven't read all of Oestreicher's publications and cannot say what is repetitious. I can't see how his publications on the Walam Olum can be irrelevant to the article. Further, you cannot say what sources were used by editors, as sources often are used without a specific citation to them. The first few versions of the article lacked inline citations but had references. In any case, you shouldn't remove them you should just move them to Further reading.

The lead now more or less states that the Walam Olum is genuine. Perhaps we should go back to the original, which doesn't call it a hoax, just a "fictitious account". It certainly can't stay the way it is now. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if you subscribe to Oest's opinion. Your choice of author or opinion should not be stated in the beginning. Stating that the document is a Lenape (also called "Delaware") Native American creation narrative is completely unbiased and true. No statement of "genuine" or "hoax" is given. This is NPOV that allows the reader to examine the rest of the information without bias. Marburg72 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is the whole issue. It is not NPOV to have a lead that says that what Rafinesque published is a Lenape creation narrative. And this business of 'my choice of authors' is a red herring. Scholarly opinion for the last 14 years has been virtually unanimous. For instance, the 2 recent biographies of Raphinesque that I cite above. The recent book Native Languages of the Southeastern United State is another. What opinion I subscribe to is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia and should be based upon reliable sources, and there are plenty of good scholarly sources on this. So far, you have found nothing published since 1994 that argues for the Walam Olum being authentic. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of this quote suggests Napora didn't change his mind?

Here is the quote from Oestreicher again (a bit fuller this time: "that he now recognises that the Walam Olum is indeed a hoax. Napora was dismayed that the sources upon whom he relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document and that the hoax should have been continued as long as it has". Marburg72, why do you claim this doesn't show that Napora changed his mind? (Again with the caveat too much time and article space may be being spent on this). Doug Weller (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Napora did not publish that, and oest did. Oest's long and determined effort to be a debunker included that he was attempting to refute anything that shows otherwise. That is Oest. opinion of Naporas opinion. Why dont you understand that oest is not Napora? If Napora was dismayed that the sources had been so negligent in their investigation - he is clearly saying that debunkers was being negligent by ignoring the relavent info such as Dewdney and the archaeological evidence. Napora is saying he is dismayed about the attitude of "Hoax" (which means he cannot believe that). Marburg72 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point out where in the article the following sources are used. Otherwise, these should be removed.

Oestreicher, David M. 1995b. Text Out of Context: The Arguments that Created and Sustained the Walam Olum. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 50:31–52. Oestreicher, David M. 1996. Unraveling the Walam Olum. Natural History 105 (10):14–21. Subsequently revised and reprinted in Profiles of Rafinesque, Edited by Charles Boewe. University of Tennessee Press, 2003. Oestreicher, David M. 1997. Reply to Harry Monesson Regarding the Walam Olum. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 52:98–99. Oestreicher, David M. 2000. In Search of the Lenape: The Delaware Indians Past and Present. Catalogue of the exhibition at the Scarsdale Historical Society. Scarsdale Historical Society, Scarsdale New York. [First published by Scarsdale Historical Society, 1995]. Oestreicher, David M. 2002. The European Roots of the Walam Olum: Constantine Samuel Rafinesque and the Intellectual Heritage of the early 19th Century. In New Perspectives on the Origins of American Archaeology. Edited by Stephen Williams and David Browman. The University of Alabama Press. Oestreicher, David M. 2002. The Algonquian of New York. The Rosen Publishing Group’s Power Kid’s Press. New York, NY. Marburg72 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the original article so I can't say what was used, nor can I say what was used by editors whose work has now been removed by other editors. As you haven't read those references, you can't say what wasn't used. But it's a silly argument and you are responding in the wrong section.

What I was trying to write when my PC crashed was that it is not Oestreicher's opinion of Napora's letter but his report of Napora's letter, and once more you are insinuating that he is lying. Napora's letter does not refer to 'debunkers' (a term you seem to be using as a smear word) or Dewdney, he is disappointed with Weslager and particularly Voeglin. He comments that Rafinesque's life was "a fiction of his own writing' and that even more now he sees the Walam Olum as literature (this is after he writes that there is little doubt that the Walam Olum is a fraud). Doug Weller (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The French translation again - it's an introduction or preface to something

Although once again it isn't key to the argument, this French translation is clearly an introduction to a longer piece. Besides things like a bibliography is in but not used in the translation, he wrote "The glyphes, their number, their arrangement, and their precision as well as the words delawares which accompany them are discussed.". That is clearly an introduction. Added to the fact that we do not know when it was written, that the French journal reproduces French translations from older works, it is misleading to label it something he wrote in 1996. If it can be used to add to the article, then it can be replaced so long as there is no claim it was actually written in 1996, which is what the text I removed claimed. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it adds to the article as we don't know when it was written (we absolutely do not know when it was written, and we do know that it is a translation and that the journal exists to publish French translations - and as I've said above, it definitely looks like an introduction to something else he wrote). I've left it for the time being but removed the claim as to when he wrote it (it would be unusual to make a claim as to when someone wrote a book for instance, as it can be quite a time distance between the writing and the publication -- ditto for articles). Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says in the article title that it's a "présentation"- i.e. possibly taken from a talk given by Napora. What's interesting to me is what isn't in the article, viz. any details of how to obtain the full text of Napora's version of the W.O. ! David Trochos (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be anything. The full text is in Napora's book, but I don't know how much he stands by it now. One of the things he says in his letter is that "the pictographs are derivative even more than I suspected." Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was- if Napora's translation had been published at the time the presentation was given, ought it not to have been mentioned in the bibliography? It would be really nice if somebody could find a paper copy of the magazine, which presumably has information about contributors. David Trochos (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know there were two versions:

the 1992 Translation of the epic poem of the Lenni Lenape, Walam olum, or, Red score, with an introd. (p. 3-12)

"An earlier version of this book was published in 1983 in a limited fine print edition by The Landlocked Press of Milwaukee, Wisconsin"--T.p. verso. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Or to be precise, Madison, Wisconsin (100 copies with colour linocut illustrations by Ruth Lingen, based on the original glyphs, 31cm high, ii+37 pages, bound in brown cloth with a glyph stamped on the front.) 82.19.10.211 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of Napora translation

The Greenfield Review Press Vol 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82page 54 à 61. traduction en français. Manuel Van ThienenN° 'évidemment épuisé depuis longtemps. Consultable chez moi. In other words, written in 1981. Marburg72, I don't see any point in leaving this in the article, what do you think? I won't edit the article right now as you originally added this and I hope you will do whatever is best for the article. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The winter 1981-2 issue of the Greenfield Review was a special double-issue (266 pages!) on "American Indian Writing". There's a review of it, mentioning the inclusion of Napora's translation, in American Indian Quarterly [Vol. 6, No. 3/4 (Autumn - Winter, 1982), pp. 382-385], available online via JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0095-182X(198223%2F24)6%3A3%2F4%3C382%3ATGRSIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

82.31.9.167 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Here's the relevant bit.

The question such a collection really asks, however, is what presently constitutes "American Indian Writing"? And since this issue has no introduction in which the editors wrestle with it, I'll try to point out how varied are the works in this collection. Here are some examples:

-- Joy Harjo's and Carroll Arnett's "Bio-Poetic" statements on who they are and how they write;

-- Joe Napora's modern translation of theWalam Olum the pictographs of Leni-Lenape representing the Creation and their migrations;

Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Naporas translation was published in 1996. See:

http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/0sommaire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the editor Manuel Van Thienen, it was from the The Greenfield Review Press Vol 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82. So, written around 1981, translation published in On the back of the Tortoise in 1996. Have you got a problem with this? Doug Weller (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being clear perhaps. I emailed the editor to ask, and got the reply today.

"J'ai enfin retrouvé la référence...

The Greenfield Review Press Vol 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82

page 54 à 61. traduction en français. Manuel Van Thienen

N° 'évidemment épuisé depuis longtemps. Consultable chez moi.

Amicalement

Manuel Van Thienen" I really hope this settles the issue, and given good faith, it should Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your dialog translates to:

"I at last rediscovered the reference... The Greenfield Review in a hurry Flight 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82 Page 54 to 61. translation in French. Manual Van Thienen N° 'evidently exhausted since a long time. Available for consultation at my place. Friendly Manual Van Thienen"

How does that relate to the Naproa's 1996 publication? And why does this play such a significant part in your mind. Your attitude that "the majority" of commentators should not include Napora does not meet NPOV standards. Also , the wikilinks should be re-added because they provide useful info. Marburg72 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the wikilinks do not provide useful information. Readers surely know what the Atlantic is, what is meant by anger, art, poetry, etc. Some of the links were adjacent and looked like they linked to articles, which they didn't. The one to emergence was irrelevant, and others were duplicates. I appreciate that you worked hard, but they just clutter the article, make it harder to read, and should only be used when they are really important to understand the article.

The 1996 publication you refer to is, according to its editor, from the 1981/82 issue of The Greenfield Review. The majority of commentators does include Napora.

I have said several times that Napora isn't that important for the article. The only reason I have been pushing this is because is the dispute you have over whether Oestreicher is telling the truth, and your attempt to claim with absolutely no evidence that Napora wrote something in 1996, simply because it was (re)published in 1996. Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way "Naproa's 1996 publication" is in reality Napora's 1981 publication, translated into French in 1996 by Manuel Van Thienen. Which explains a lot. David Trochos (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Napora's "1981 publication" does not exist according to Naproa's list of publications on his personal website - and this was before his book was written in 1992. Also PRESENTED: "Introduction to The Walam Olum" at the Kentucky Philological Association in 1992 - according to his website. Perhaps he forgot but I doubt it. Perhaps Manuel Van Thienen created an earlier date?

http://webs.ashlandctc.org/jnapora/Default.htm

The earlier version of his book published in 1983 in a limited fine print edition by The Landlocked Press doesn't appear there either. But I have a copy of the review by Robert F. Sayre Reviewed work(s): The Greenfield Review: Special Issue on "American Indian Writing" Vol. 9, Nos. 3 & 4, 1981 by Joseph Bruchac, III; Carol Worthen Bruchac and that mentions, as I've already said, "Joe Napora's modern translation of the Walam Olum the pictographs of Leni-Lenape representing the Creation and their migrations;". So that verifies what the editor has said, and of course it can be additionally verified by looking at the relevant issue of The Greenfield Review, which means it is well and truly verified as a 1981 document republished in 1996 in French. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling Napora a liar?Marburg72 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I certainly am not calling him a liar. Exactly what do you mean by suggesting that? The review by Robert Sayre makes it clear that Napora's translation was in the special issue of the Greenfield Review. You aren't suggesting that Sayre was wrong, surely? There's a clear progress towards his 1992 book -- first the article in the 1981/1982 Greenfield Review, then the limited edition in 1983, then the full book. Oestreicher wasn't lying (although you insinuated he was), and I don't know what Napora could have lied about. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

M72, if you read Joe's website carefully, you'll find there is actually no conflict. At http://webs.ashlandctc.org/jnapora/hum-faculty/syllabi/resume.html he indicates that he has contributed poetry etc. to a number of journals, but does not give a complete list. David Trochos (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On that website, Naporas resume shows no indication that Napora worked on the Walam Olum prior to 1992. His presentation is between the 1992 dates - not 1981. The article in question was published in 1996 - not 1981. It is apparent that you are attempting to detract from Naporas contribution to the study of the Walam Olum by saying it is not current as others. However, this website indicates that Naporas publication is very current and from 1992. The contribution that Napora made is still significant and very important to this topic. Marburg72 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your penultimate statement about his publication (if you mean his book in its full form) is from 1992. I don't think 1992 is current, and its significance is that it is the latest translation. But how can it matter what it says on Ashland's website. If you disagree with the statement that he published an earlier version in the Greenfield Review of winter 81/82, please explain why the review of it says he did. And the limited edition book of 1983 on the Walam Olum, how do you explain that if he didn't work on the Walam Olum before 1992? But at the end of the day, he is a poet, not an anthropologist, expert on Delaware languages, archeologist, etc., and he relied on what other people wrote for his book. And after reading Oestreicher, changed his mind. Doug Weller (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re article and discussion focus

It seems to me that some of this discussion is beginning to circle around a couple of debating points that are not particularly relevant to the main purpose here, which is how to improve this article so that it reasonably reflects the current scholarly/citeable understanding of this document.

In order for the case claiming the Walam Olum as authentic to be given equal footing with the converse —or at least for the sceptical angle to be downplayed— then the prerequisites and process to accomplish this are straightforward.

• Either conduct, or find someone who has conducted, several years' in-depth research on the document and its origins. Preferably in a formal setting, such as towards a degree or as part of an acknowledged research project. Amass and document reams of data in support of its authenticity, from across multiple lines of evidence and backed up by cross-referenced, validly sourced and internally consistent analyses. Said analyses to pay all due courtesy to Occam's razor, be couched in potentially falsifiable terms, and take into account and have an answer for significant prior claims that argued against.
• After compiling a comprehensive thesis, submit this to the rigours of scholarly review by qualified peers; who, although colleagues, are also generally equally ambitious and competitive and only too keen to pick holes in any ill-considered argument.
• Having passed this hurdle arrange for publication by one, or better several, substantial peer-reviewed journals or academic/scientific/university publishing houses, ie publishers that are known to care about their scholarly reputation and have a notable Native Americanist booklist. (NB, for these purposes vanity-presses, self-publication in print or on the web, or outfits like Inner Traditions would not ordinarily be considered reliable).
• After publishing, garner notable and wide-ranging attention from journal and book reviews, and individual scholars with experience in the field. Accumulate dozens of endorsements from these sources and commentators. Amongst all this enthusiasm in favour there should be very few, if any, negative reviews or ready dismissals by folks who might be expected to have foreknowledge of the topic.
• With no troublesome flaws identified after this exposure to criticism, watch as all or a majority of subsequent publications that have cause to mention or reproduce the Walam Olum take up the thesis, either by indirectly mirroring/repeating what is claimed or with direct and approving acknowledgement and citation of the work. While an apparent total absence of modern publs. that hold to the previous paradigm is not of itself proof that everyone is now convinced and thinking the same way, it's a pretty good indicator that some sort of shift has occurred.

If someone can thus emulate Oestreicher's achievement, only arguing the reverse, then we —mere and innovation-adverse encyclopaedists that we are— would be only too happy to correct the record and the article so that it reflects the up-to-date thinking on the subject.

This isn't meant to be facetious, but constructive. This is what it really would take. Until there's consistent evidence that a substantial body of publs. after the mid-1990s still maintain it as authentic —and notwithstanding Grondine and whether Napora did or did not change his mind— then the article really needs to say more than just 'some people think it's a hoax'. Any novel or diverging views should be mentioned only where they are both (a) notably published and commented upon by independent sources, not just their authors and (b) in proportion to the claim's acceptance, as has been pointed out before. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

if you choose to ignore achievements of Grondine, Dewdney, Napora, the Indiana Historical Society, Kenneth Kidd, Daniel Brinton, Rafinesque, and any other relavent unbiased information on this topic, and instead choose the diametrically opposed opinions of Oests - it is your decision. Frankly, your method for refuting Oest. "achievement" could never happen among the american archaeological community because of the severe bias against any sign of intelligence (or writing) from aboriginal cultures in the unitied states. Fortunately, the aforementioned reliable scholars that cite material evidence are reliable. The Walam Olum article presents a far from neutral point of view - by choosing to support one authors opinion over the majority of the others. Marburg72 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Doug, below, this is becoming tedious, if not a little silly. We are supposed to be documenting the state of scholarly knowledge and opinion as it is now in 2008, not as it was 30, 50, or 100 and more years ago when Brinton, Squier, the Voegelins, and others you've brought up were writing. And CSR, whatever else he was, is hardly "unbiased" in this particular circumstance. If we were writing this article back in the 1950s we'd cast this article in a different light, and follow the opinions such as in the IHS reproduction you seem rather fond of. But we're not, and it seems clear the wind has changed.

By all means, we can and should mention the opinions of those earlier notable Walam Olum commentators here — but in the context of giving the historical background and development of opinion. While they may have espoused the normative consensus at the time they were made, they can't by themselves be relied upon as representative of the contemporary view. We need —obviously— contemporary authorship for that; and while abundant contemporary sources have been provided in support of Oestreicher's conclusions, the other side of the ledger is thus far blank, even after several requests.

Without any slight at all intended towards them, I'm afraid that the triumvirate of "Grondine, Dewdney, Napora" —who seem to be the only halfway-modern "pro-authenticity" writers to be found— are neither scholars whose works/opinions are widely cited, nor a convincing majority. Also, one of these evidently no longer holds that view, another died 15 years before Oestreicher's publications, and it's not clear whether the third has responded at all to Oestreicher's thesis and presentation of new data.

Had it been made in the late 1800s, your comment supposing that Native Americanist scholars think the aboriginal cultures capable of only the simplest achievements would have been out-of-date. Here, in the 21st C, it seems positively archaic.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim of "consensus" falls short once again - see the websites referenced below for even more current scholarly reviews. And your claim of my being fond of something is completely off based. Also your claim that three authors "are neither scholars whose works/opinions are widely cited, nor a convincing majority" merely shows that you are uninformed about the topic. Nothing from Naproa shows napora ever changed his mind. Oests claim of such are highly suspect considering the Napora post-oest publication. The true scholars you mention are examining the material evidence - and not making biased statements of "hoax fraud fake" while ignoring material evidence. Despite the lamented loss that Dewdney died- his significant work remains the most complete study of materials that parallel this study. Clearly, you need to take another look at the sources below for a more current view.Marburg72 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem unwilling or unable to recognise the process by which a consensus (or at least, a significant majority view) forms in this real world example, perhaps the formation of consensus on wikipedia will be a simpler task to digest. Thus far you, with the possible exception of a couple of anonymous passing remarks attributed to Grondine, are the only person here arguing your case. On the other hand, four separate editors have engaged with you here pointing out —at some length— that all locatable, legitimate, and citeable contemporary sources and commentary do not agree with you. While this is by no means a community consensus, with the rest of the wikipedian community blissfully unaware of the topic and this debate, it is or should be a practical one.

If you really do think you are being unfairly represented and ignored, then you'd be most welcome to take this along to to some wider dispute resolution forum here, such as WP:RFC. Otherwise, if you don't feel able to abide by the editing policies and guidelines pointed out to you many times before, then I'd suggest going elsewhere to pursue your cause.

Without some change in tune, any further discussion seems pointless.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

David M. Oestreicher : No Scholarly Reviews

In addition, you listed the requirement that "after publishing, garner notable and wide-ranging attention from journal and book reviews, and individual scholars with experience in the field". After an exhaustive search of JSTOR, it is clear that Oest has no reviews on his work that can be found on JSTOR- Please let me know if you can find any! Until then, the journal and book reviews that your requirement states are not applicable to any of Oest's work.207.193.87.114 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Marburg, please try to remember to login. And please don't tell us you did an exhaustive search on JSTOR, because you didn't.

"David M. Oestreicher's "Roots of the Walam Olum," dealing with the fascinating and frustrating figure of Constantine Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1783-1840), the slippery polymath manqud of Philadelphia and Transylvania College, adds detail to his case (first made in Natural History in 1996) that Rafinesque was a hoaxer. The Walum Olum was the supposed origin myth of the Lenape tribe of the Delaware valley, inscribed on wooden tablets in "hieroglyphics" and accompanied by an oral version which Rafinesque had transcribed from native informants. Oestreicher shows that the Walum Olum was in fact constructed from sources including the Ossian poems of James MacPherson-themselves a hoax-and other European publications, then trans- lated from English into Lenape. The wooden tablets, like American Antiquity, 69(1), 2004, pp. 151-191 CopyrightO 2004 by the Society for American Archaeology 151 152 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 1, 2004] the gold plates on which the Book ofMormon was writ- ten, were never seen by anybody else. Oestreicher men-tions in passing that Rafinesque's claims to originality in the decipherment of Maya glyphs are also false: another paper would be welcome." from"Norman Hammond Reviewed work(s): New Perspectives on the Origins of Americanist Archaeology by David L. Browman ; Stephen Williams Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 69, No. 1, (Jan., 2004)

JSTOR of course has only a limited set of sources. I've listed other comments on Oestreich above, eg Lehmann, Henige, Barnhart, etc. I am sure that you have read this talk page and know about them, this is getting boring.

It appears that virtually everyone who has mentioned the Walam Olum in the last 12 or more years has said that it is a forgery. There's been plenty of time to find good sources saying it is authentic (yes, Grondine does but he published his own book, anyone can publish a book themselves if they have money enough). Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did search JSTOR prior to my previous post. I searched for Oestreicher Review, David Oestreicher review, and nothing came up as a review of his work. It is apparently because the word "review" is not in the two short comments that you found. Leaving aside your completely false claim that "virtually everyone" said it is a forgery in the last 12 years, The two short comments that you came up with are dealing with poetry, native informants, the mormans and gold plates, and mayan glphs seem to have more to do with the article previously referenced by Boewe, Charles. 1985. A Note on Rafinesque, the Walam Olum, the Book of Mormon, and the Mayan Glyphs, Numen, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 pp. 101-113? It was Oest. effort to attempt to refute Boewe and Mahr. Also, it is very suspicious that there are no acutal reviews of his work considering the outpouring of elated comments that you copied from his book.Marburg72 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources in the last 12 years who have commented on the Walam Olum and not said it was a forgery

Marburg 72 wrote "your completely false claim that "virtually everyone" said it is a forgery in the last 12 years,". I'd like him to show it is 'completely false'. I could only find the book that Grondine published himself. Doug Weller (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See March 2002 comment " This is one of the only indigenous pre-contact written texts available from North America. Long controversial as to its authenticity, but a key document nevertheless. With pictographs, Delaware and English translation.

" at http://www.ewebtribe.com/NACulture/articles/WalamOlum/

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/walamolum.htm, Copyright 2004-2008,

"Walam Olum. The sacred tribal chronicle of the Lenape or Delawares. The name signifies 'painted tally' or 'red score,' from walam, 'painted,' particularly 'red painted,' and olum,' a score or tally.' The Walam Olum was first published in 1836 in a work entitled "The American Nations," by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, an erratic French scholar, who spent a number of years in this country, dying in Philadelphia in 1840. He asserted that it was a translation of a manuscript in the Delaware language, which was an interpretation of an ancient sacred metrical legend of the tribe, recorded in pictographs cut upon wood, which had been obtained in 1820 by a Dr Ward from the Delawares then living in Indiana. He claimed that the original pictograph record had first been obtained, but without explanation, until two years later, when the accompanying songs were procured in the Lenape language from another individual, these being then translated by himself with the aid of various dictionaries. Although considerable doubt was cast at the time upon the alleged Indian record, Brinton, after a critical investigation, arrived at the conclusion that it was a genuine native production, and it is now known that similar ritual records upon wood or birchbark are common to several cognate tribes, notably the Chippewa. After the death of Rafinesque his manuscripts were scattered, those of the Walam Olum finally coming into the hands of Squier, who again brought the legend to public attention in a paper read before the New York Historical Society in 1848, which was published in the American Review of Feb. 1849, reprinted by Beach in his Indian Miscellany in 1877, and again in a later (15th) edition of Drake's Aboriginal Races of North America. All of these reprints were more or less inaccurate and incomplete, and it remained for Brinton to publish the complete pictography, text, and tradition, with notes and critical investigation of the whole subject, with the aid of native Lenape scholars, in " The Lenâpé and their Legends, with the complete text and symbols of the Walam Olum," as No. 5 of his library of Aboriginal American Literature, Phila., 1885. After sifting the evidence as to its authenticity, Brinton concludes (p. 158): "It is a genuine native production, which was repeated orally to some one indifferently conversant with the Delaware language, who wrote it down to the best of his ability. In its present form. it can, as a whole, lay no claim either to antiquity or to purity of linguistic form. Yet, as an authentic modern version, slightly colored by European teachings, of the ancient tribal traditions, it is well worth preservation and will repay more study in the future than is given it in this volume. The narrator was probably one of the native chiefs or priests, who had spent his life in the Ohio and Indiana towns of the Lenape, and who, though with some knowledge of Christian instruction, preferred the pagan rites, legends, and myths of his ancestors. Probably certain lines and passages were repeated in the archaic form in which they had been handed down for generations."

http://www.native-languages.org/lenape_culture.htm

Websites about the Walam Olum (Red Record or Score). Today the Walam Olum is thought to have been a hoax

by a white writer, but some Delaware people believe he based his writing on real Lenape stories. Native Languages of the ::Americas website © 1998-2007

Marburg72 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would all be interested to note that the Pennsylvania Lenape have publicly stated that they have been in Pennsylvania and generally in the Delaware River Valley for more than 10,000 years (which directly opposes the Walum Olum account). See the following website. [7] and also [8] TriNotch (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about Delaware Indian "territory" See the following website for a more complete explanation of their "territory". http://www.tolatsga.org/dela.html

Marburg72 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the phrase 'local area' that you I believe added that was the problem. Raf never suggested that the sticks came from Ontario. Plus of course the Ontario scrolls have nothing to do with Lenape never having heard of the Walam Olum.

I also note that you have found no reliable sources in the last 12 years. You've found people citing a 19th century source, Brinton, no surprise there. But 'reliable sources' has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Yours aren't. As another editor was kind enough to leave them in, I will for now, but don't be surprised if someone comes along and notices that they fail the criteria and removes them. Doug Weller (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to raise the bar a little. It is very easy to comment on the Walam Olum and not say it's a forgery, if you haven't studied the evidence indicating that it is a forgery (one reason why I think the stuff about Joe Napora pre-1994 should be minimised in the article; it's not fair to him post-1994). What needs to be found is direct refutation of the evidence offered by Oestreicher and others (which, I think, will only be possible if it can be proved that that evidence is itself a forgery) or a clear, peer-reviewed demonstration that none of the said evidence is actually relevant. David Trochos (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Marburg72's sources have certainly not been scholarly and so far as I can see fail Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Anyone can quote Brinton and say they agree with him (and for all we know, it is perfectly possible that none of the sources MB cites have heard of or read Oestreicher, which makes their comments even more meaningless in this context). It really isn't a 'developing consensus' any more, it's a consensus. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Native American experts writing about the document is important and even more current and scholarly than a white writer. It is clear that Native writers take on a document about their heritage as shown above is more important to this topic - and cannot be ignored. Why are you attempting to ignore the Native American Viewpoint? Marburg72 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I added a link to the viewpoint of one Lenape nation yesterday, it should be clear that I am not attempting to ignore the Native American viewpoint. But it has to be based on reliable sources, not the personal opinion of unidentified individuals. And I do wonder if those individuals really understood that the Walam Olum suggests a recent migration from Asia, as recent as 336 AD. Are you supporting the recent migration implications of the Walam Olum? Doug Weller (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

'Native American experts'

I have tried very hard to explain to Marburg72 Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources to no avail. On the Cahokia talk pge[9] there was even a situation where MB was insisting I couldn't use a quote from a University press book co-authored by the archaeologist considered the dean of Cahokia archaeology because, he wrote, it was unreliable and unverifiable until I found a scholarly source agreeing with it. (As just one example, he wrote about the quote "Until you cite a scientific journal that references this material, it should be left out." (He also at first said that the book had "not been referenced in any scholarly journal and is entirely about petty arguments and opinions" - it was easy to find two journal reviews and a mention in another book). I mention this here to give an idea of both his understanding of policies and guidelines and the level of demand he ask for about a quotation he objected to.
In this article, when asked for some reliable sources suggesting the Walam Olum was not a forgery, he found some anonymous websites citing with no analysis a 19th century author, Brinton, and giving no indication that they had read anything more recent. He also has apparently called these sources scholarly. He added them to the article and I, probably unwisely, didn't remove them although they clearly are not reliable sources in Wikipedia terms as I understand them. Another editor also kept them in with some rewording, and I again told Marburg72 these were not reliable sources. Instead of responding, he added them yet again to the conclusion of the article, labelled the anonymous authors 'native American experts', and on the basis of a copyright date 2004-2008 asserted that one of them had been written this year.
This is, I think, getting to the point of being disruptive. I am removing the personal (and anonymous) and genealogical websites. They are clearly not 'reliable' and there is no evidence they were written by native American experts. Doug Weller (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You again forgot that Melvin Fowler wrote Melvin L. Fowler, Jerome Rose, Barbara Vander Leest, Steven R. Ahler. "The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia." (1999) - which states nothing of Young's speculation that veritcal finger bones found in Mound 72 were "buried alive" evidence. As discussed on the Cahokia talk page, Racist attitudes should be considered when discussing human burials and making such claims about them. Why is this sensationalist suggestion so appealing to you? Take this discussion to the Cahokia Page.

The majority of scholars today do not subscribe to Oest's ideas about the Walam Olum: As shown by the above websites, the majority of current Amerindian authors say entirely the opposite. Native American authors know more about their heritage that you give them credit for. The Walam Olum is a fascinating document that deserves more study without the academic turf protection and careerism that infects so much of todays "academia".Marburg72 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Fowler's later book co-authored with Young that has the statement about vertical finger bones, not something by Young. Please don't accuse Fowler of having racist attitudes. The real racists who write about Native American history (or in this case wrote as they are both dead) are people like Barry Fell and Gloria Fowler in their attempts to rewrite the prehistory of the Americas.

As for 'majority of scholars', please name even one by name who has published in a reliable source an analysis that says the Walam Olum is authentic, or has criticised Oestreicher or any of the other recent authors who have said it is a hoax. (It would be a start if you could name even one scholar wherever they have published - and Grondine is a researcher and space reporter, not a scholar.) Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point about Grondine- the actual subject of his book is impact events, not the reliability of sources. As for the view of "The majority of scholars today"- as I mentioned above, anybody can state a viewpoint, but if they do not specifically refute the evidence that the Walam Olum is a hoax, merely stating their view that it is not a hoax is irrelevant. David Trochos (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My removal of Marburg72's recent edits

I removed the additional Kidd material because not only did it add nothing useful to the article, it was confusing as it said "The period or periods at which this was done is far from clear" which Kidd wrote before the carbon dating which at least added some clarification. I removed the quote from Coleman because this article is definitely not about Midewiwin scrolls, which already have more coverage later in the article than seems relevant. And finally I removed an attempt which I can only think was meant to link the Walam Olum to Upper Paleolithic Europe via Greenman's 1963 discredited article (which in fact clearly also says "The hourglass shape has nothing to do with palaeolithic art" in one of the companion pieces). This definitely does not belong here. Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug removed relavent information about the provinance in origin of such artifacts. The date, which he had previously added stating that scrolls were made around the 1500's was unsupported in Kidd's article. Supplimental material was added to clear up a direct quote from Kidd's article that stated the origins were unclear. It could either be that symbols used on scrolls originated in upper paleolithic - as indicated in the Greenman article or that the scrolls were more recent copies of older scrolls, a custom noted by Dewdney. Coleman exaplains the use of the scrolls in cermonies - a point which this section was trying to make. Please do not remove this relavent information again. Marburg72 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the information to the Midewiwin Page upon suggestion by Trochos.Marburg72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the 1965 article did not support the date, the dating was later and I gave a source. Greenman is not only over half a century out of date, he was refuted in the same article and hasn't been taken seriously since. If anyone wants to use him anywhere, they need to be sure the reference is NPOV and this one clearly wasn't (and I've removed it from the Midewiwin page -- I don't think it will help the Midewiwin article to have a long discussion there of what Greenman said and what his critics said, and it is clearly not a significant view (confusing too, Greenman argues for an Atlantic connection and Raf for a Bering Strait one for I think the same people). Doug Weller (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the information to the Midewiwin page because your opinion does not matter about Greenman. The information presented by Greenman is relavent and in a scholarly journal accessible on JSTOR called Current Anthropology. It is not a "fringe" publication. What his critics say is also irrelevant to a discussion of Midewiwin origins. Drop it!Marburg72 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. It is Greenman's ideas where which are fringe (and you know that), not CA. And if you are going to try to use him to push your fringe POV I'll simply have to add what his critics say. Making the hourglass claim without pointing out that the samea article refutes it is not acceptable and is clearly POV. Just checking also, the only direct quote I can find from Kidd that mentions something not being clear I think was added by Marburg72 [10] but the newer dating helped with thatDoug Weller (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Doug, Greenman's ideas are not fringe and you are wrong to even state that as if it is a fact. Your website on fringe shows that you are the only person who cares about Fringe theories so much. Your additions to the Midewiwin page should be constructive about Mide - Not an effort to attack someone. Again, Drop it!Marburg72 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

10,000 years reference is needed for sentence that states this is contradiction

The repeated removal of a citation needed icon is not helping the understanding of the article - because no citation is added for this opinion. Several sources indicate the 10,000 year date is accurately portrayed in the Walam Olum. Kraft’s last work and magnum opus, The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000 uses this date. Marburg72 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)