User talk:Marburg72

The authorization permits for the monks mound backhoe destruction from the IHPA were requested August 25, 2007. The state policy to respond to the request for public information such as this is 1 month. As of October 2, 2007, the permits have not been received. This is a violation of the freedom of information act.

I finally got a response to my FOIA request. The legal boss said “No permit is required when they are working on their own property.” They are going to send me a letter saying the same thing. Marburg72 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Walum Olum

Many archaeologists have been convinced it was a hoax for 50 years (Jimmy Griffin and Glenn Black famously addressed this). The recent publications that address this in detail are those by David Oestreicher and Herbert Kraft. The citations are on the Walam Olum page. The debunking is lengthy and I am not truly qualified to summarize it. TriNotch 21:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One book that shows support of the evidence for the authenticity of the Walum Olum is the interesting book "Man and Impact in The Americas". Other supporting evidence for the walum olum includdes: sacred scrolls of the southern ojibwe, Tablets found at Wickliffe Mounds, Pictographs from around the country, the Ketika Figurines from central ohio, and effigy mounds that also depict Walam olum images.Marburg72 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MONKS MOUND DESTRUCTION

a reference to the Monks Mound destruction under the claim that wikipedia or photobucket is not a reliable source to show that the actions were "controversial". One source you should look at that discusses the facts of this fiasco is the Wotanging Itcke Vol 15.051. I recommend this citation for validity that the "excavation" is not appropriate. It also was shown in the article entitled "Accelerated Soil Erosion" located: http://soil.scijournals.org/cgi/reprint/66/6/1911.pdf that soil erosion has not been a problem since farming and plowing has stopped on mound surfaces. The article located on Lithic casting lab about the fiaco also shows that this year was a drought.

Your terminology choice "excavation" does not match any of the types of excavations on Wikipedia. The responses from Professional archaeologists show that no archaeologists were even on site when the backhoes were being used to tear apart monks mound. No inspection was done on the west side at all, and backfilling occurred before any inspctions could be done.

further scientific references relating to the relevence of the slope stability plan can be seen at http://www.kathryncramer.com/kathryn_cramer/2007/08/the-excavation-.html

There are to many misconceptions being passed around about Monks Mound; it is important that the facts be understood. Marburg72 (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you add this source to the article? I'm not questioning that it was controversial, just the way in which it was cited, which was absolutely not okay. Murderbike (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS, I removed the ref to nanews.org because it was not formatted correctly. If an article was published on this website that says there was controversy, please cite the specific article. You may want to read WP:CITE to get some tips on how to cite sources. Murderbike (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy is not a correct term to describe destruction. When part of the mound was removed without inspection, it was destroyed. It either was destroyed or it was not. There is no controversy, it simply was destroyed. That said. the source that you are looking for was added to the references section on the bottom of the page. It is a featured article in the wotanging ikche. Vol 15.051

Ah, here's where the confusion comes in. I didn't question whether or not there was destruction. I added the "citation needed" tag because the sentence says that it was "controversial", which needs to be cited. And i bothered to check the article you cited, but it isn't on their website, the back issues only go up in the 40s, not all the way to 51. If a source can not be provided that states that the action was "controversial", I will remove the wording. Murderbike (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to access the referenced source, Volume 15.051, you will need to send an email and ask the Wotanging Ikche publication for that particular issue. It appears that they have not published it on their website yet. There are no sources that state the opinion that the excavations were controversial accept on wikipedia website. The article discusses the events that took place on the mound. For a professional response on the issue of Cahokia Mounds mismanagement, see the ias professional archaeologists website.http://virtual.parkland.edu/ias/member_com/announcements/announcements.htm Marburg72 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok cool, i'll just remove the wording and leave it be. thanks for your prompt replies. Murderbike (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest instead of removing the sentence completely, adding the following: Removal of 30,000 cubic feet from both sides of Monks Mound caused inappropriate damage to the archaeological record. [Wotanging Ikche. Volume 15 issue 51]

Digging into a mound without a permit is a state crime; unauthorized digging into an Indian grave is a federal crime; destroying part of a World Heritage Site is an outrage. See Wotangng Ikche Volume 15 issue 51 for the complete story of the Monks Mound fiasco. See illinois law 20ILCS 3420 for a complete explanation of the legalities of excavation of over 30.000 cubic feet out of the sides of Monks Mound with Backhoes with no permit. :::::http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=372&ChapAct=20%A0ILCS%A03420/&ChapterID=5&ChapterName=EXECUTIVE+BRANCH&ActName=Illinois+State+Agency+Historic+Resources+Preservation+Act.

"Adverse effect" means: (1) destruction or alteration of all or part of an historic resource;

See also the Human Skeletal Remains Protection Act (Illinois Comp. Stat. Ann. 20 ILCS 3440/0:01, et seq.). yes, Monks mound ::::contains and contained burials - both native and historical. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), ::::P.L. 101-601. What part of this law do you not understand? Marburg72 (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Midewiwin additions

The information you added was indeed relevant, but if you read what I wrote above, you'll see that what I am mostly concerned about is the WAY and PLACE it was added. The same comment applies to your recent edit of Hourglass. David Trochos (talk) 08:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can suggest a better place to discuss hourglass history than in the section Hourglass History, then please do so. Frankly, it is in the correct place in the correct way.Marburg72 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Just stop and think for a moment. Are the things you are referring to made of glass? Do they measure hours? David Trochos (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The hourglass was around as a motif before it was made from glass. Its a historical motif used in tribal art - I transferred this to Symbolic uses now. Happy?Marburg72 (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)