Talk:Mound Builders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Lack of Sources[edit]

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

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

No useful information[edit]

I can't write a report with this, it's totally useless, the article needs to be totally rewritten to have more information on culture ans stuff like that and less information on the various minority theories. (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

consider not using encyclopedias as references for reports. books and articles will serve you much better in the long run. Kingturtle (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Or try following the links to actual mound building cultures mentioned in the article, such as the Adena culture, Hopewell tradition, and the Mississippian culture. It's called work, do a little and watch the results! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of scientific basis[edit]

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

The more recent Mesoamerican Setting[edit]

A reference has been added to an early Mormon newspaper article which demonstrates the shift from a focus on mound builder works, to Central American stone ruins. The Book of Mormon (with its mound builder setting) had been in print for over a decade at this point. (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Yeah, I'm sure a show called "Apocalypose Island" is just full of reliable information. They also have a show now about "Ancient Astronauts", which is also B.S.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


Something that would significantly benefit this article is a map of the extent of the mound builder culture. I haven't been able to locate a public domain one, but if anybody has the skills (I don't) to create one, it would be much appreciated Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a map could be made(or is needed), as the "moundbuilders" were not one culture, that existed in one time and physical location. The term describes several different cultures who lived in different places at vastly different times. WP pages for the various cultures are linked to in this article, and many of them have maps for their specific culture.

I don't think we need to duplicate all of these maps on this main page, all the reader has to do is go to the specific page for each specific culture.

Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


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

Only if its cited to reliable scientific sources. Heiro 19:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Numerous Native American histories tell of the ancient "giant white indians" who built the "mounds". Similar histories of giants exist on all continents in all cultures. Megalithic architecture is also a prevalent global phenomena. Giant-sized mammalian megafauna of many types is well represented in the fossil record. Ancient men of modern size had no reason to put forth the monumental effort to build megalithic architecture. Modern scholars resist admitting the truth but humans were larger in the past and there is ample evidence to prove it. We have many accurate sources of ancient information and we need to take them seriously. I would add some links but wikipedia does not allow it here. valkyree 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkyree (talkcontribs)
As above, find iron clad mainstream scientific archaeological publications that state this or it will not even be contemplated to add such WP:FRINGE pseudoarchaeological nonsense into this or any other article. Heiro 20:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
says who? you and your lap-poodle?

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

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

The fossil evidence of homo sapiens doesn't support your claims. What we do know is that fossils, including those of megafauna are the sources of a number of legends. Read the works of Adrienne Mayor, they are fascinating and illuminating. Your claim that "Ancient men of modern size had no reason to put forth the monumental effort to build megalithic architecture." makes no sense. As with similar architecture built during historical ages - Roman, the huge cathedrals of medieval Europe, demonstrations of power and religion were great motivators.
But I have another issue. Wikipedia is not a forum. However, your user page says you are " now starting to make comments on various talk pages mainly involving legendary histories found around the world - I respect these ancient sources of information - " Except for one article, all of your edits are to talk pages pushing your views. This is inappropriate. As WP:NOT says, "Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." If you have specific suggestions to make about an article, with sources, etc then they can be discussed, but general commentary, especially when that seems to be your sole purpose, is not something we want. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That has nothing to do with the subject of mounds, it is just fringe nonsense pushing disruption, which you can be blocked for it you persist.. Heiro 21:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. V wishes to deny the work of archaeologists (eg those who worked at Baalbek, paleontologists, etc. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for this. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Historic Continuity[edit]

I removed the following lines from the introductory paragraphs:

"early cultures distinctly separate from the historical Native American tribes extant at the time of European colonization of North America. The historical Native Americans were generally not knowledgeable about the civilizations that produced the mounds."

These statements do not reflect current archaeological or anthropological research on North American mound builders. It is not true that mounds were built by people "distinctly separate from the historical Native American tribes". There is in fact much evidence for continuity in the use of mound sites into the contact and post-contact historic period, particularly for Mississippian sites in the Southeast. The historic Creek are thought to be descended from Mississippian peoples who constructed mounds across Alabama and they continued to use and revere these mound sites until (and even after) their forced removal west.

When Euro-American settlement moved into the Ohio and Mississippi Valleys in the late 18th and early 19th c. they mostly came in contact with heterogeneous Native American groups that had been displaced from the east coast. These groups were made up of displaced individuals from many cultural and language backgrounds, who had little traditional knowledge of the new areas they inhabited. This led to the myth of the "mound builders" as somehow different from the "Indians" the new Euro-American settlers were actively trying to remove from desirable lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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


Alerted WP:FTN about the large amount of material I removed as a violation of WP:UNDUE. (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This was a cited section of material explaining debunked fringe theories. No one at the board would side with you on this. Do not remove this again. Heiro 20:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Everything's now inline cited except the Afrocentrism ancient Black civilization part. I couldn't find sources for all its individual claims. Sects like the "Washitaw" among others seem to claim they built the mounds. I only found poor primary sources (filled with much "this fact cannot be denied" and "the reality of this"!) covering that, although not the wider Afrocentric ancient civilizations or primitivism points. Some facts cited to the Feder book involved nonconsecutive pages, so the page ranges cover a lot. This shows which pages cover what points, in case future editors need to verify quickly or separate the refs. -- (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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

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

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

  • Support per nom. bd2412 T 19:49, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: What about the capitalization? This doesn't seem like a proper name. Shouldn't it be Mound builders? Also, I notice that it is consistently lowercase throughout the article – except in the boldfaced lead phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I think the above rationale for making this change is spot on and appropriate. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Burial mounds of the Silla kings in Korea built by mound builders, not the Mound Builders
  • Support "Mound Builders". The plural form is typically used for peoples. The term should be capitalized because the article is about a specific group of people called Mound Builders and not mound builders in general. —  AjaxSmack  21:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Uninformative and slightly misleading[edit]

The mounds were not built for "ceremonial" purposes, they were almost exclusively built to protect against floods. Nearly all of the mounds were either built in floodplains or next to major rivers like the Mississippi, which experienced annual flooding, this is no coincidence.

Nowhere in this article does it mention or cite a source which explains this. The article even goes as far as to point out that they were all built near major rivers, but doesn't go any further than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources that meet WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Indeed this is an interesting theory. I was under the impression the mounds were refuse piles. Do you have sources for your editorial suggestions? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:50, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


The Walam Olum may be a hoax, but John Heckewelder reported already in 1818 (!) in his book „Account of the History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations who once inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States“ (Philadelphia, 1818) the narratives by the Lenni Lenape about the Talligewi/ALLIGEWI. [ →] -- (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)