|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Paleo-Indians article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Paleo-Indians has been listed as a level-4 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Title hit count
- 2 Monte Verde
- 3 Relation between this article and article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas?
- 4 "Mongoloid" edits
- 5 Haplogroupx
- 6 Defining Prehistoric North America
- 7 Australoid origin theories
- 8 "Indian" Etymology
- 9 Title - sg/pl
- 10 Pre-Clovis is too weakly covered.
- 11 South America
- 12 new paper on "Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Human"
Title hit count
32,900 Google 53 FindArticles 15 PubMed
23,300 Google 41 FindArticles 7 PubMed
15,300 Google 44 FindArticles 12 PubMed
7,990 Google 18 FindArticles 6 PubMed
Since the article says "Paleo" is a prefix, shouldn't there at least be a hyphen? (I think more than once I've seen the prefix "non" used with a blank space and no hyphen following it, so maybe they've stopped teaching hyphens even for things like that. It made me wonder what planet I was on, where things can be done that way.) Michael Hardy 22:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
..going with the archaeological community spelling
The article states: "Although many claims have been made of the existence of Pre-Clovis Paleo Indians in the Americas, none have as of yet been verified.", but currently the discoveries the site of Monte Verde predates Clovis and the evidence is now widely accepted., although vocal "Clovis-first" advocates remain Dentren | Talk 14:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
.. References added
Relation between this article and article on Indigenous peoples of the Americas?
Should these two articles be merged? This article is poorly documented, the other is well documented.
..This article has been expanded and is now to large to merge
An anon just copy/pasted an abstract from an article that talks about "Mongoloid" features and African colonization of S. America. Please discuss here why this shouldn't be considered wp:FRINGE and therefore improper for discussing here. I believe there is a separate article for discussing these theories. NJGW (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
...It's been reverted. The same IP added 'negroid' to the lead of Olmec, also reverted. Hopefully there's no issue to discuss here now. Dougweller (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little confused as to the use of this article in Genetic research as canon as the corresponding article on wikipedia concerning haplogroupx contradicts the information stated in the article reference that they are all descended from one ancestor group only Haplogroup X (mtDNA) --Loganis (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Defining Prehistoric North America
There seems to be a huge disconnect between how Wikipedians have defined prehistoric North American Periods and how text books, academic archaeologists, and educational websites have defined them. Some good examples of how periods are defined:
- National Park Service
- Georgia Encyclopedia
- Iowa Office of the State Archaeologist
- Ohio Historical Society
Summary (all ages approx and vary from region to region):
- Paleoindian period (13,500-10,500 years ago) While Paleoindians were traditionally viewed as big game hunters, more recent research suggests much of their subsistence was derived from small game and wild plants.
- Dalton and other Late Paleoindian
- Archaic period. Overall, populations appear to have increased during the Archaic, despite a changing climate. During this time American Indians transitioned from highly mobile hunters and gatherers with large ranges towards a focus on local resources and ecosystems. Domesticated plants appeared at the end of the Archaic.
- Early Archaic (10,500-7,500 years ago)
- Middle Archaic (7,500-5,000 years ago)
- Late Archaic (5,000-2,800 years ago)
- Woodland period. During the Woodland period, many American Indians shifted away from hunting and gathering and used more domesticated plants, although wild food was still important. Ceramics, the bow and arrow, burial mounds, and evidence of political and social hierarchy became common at Woodland sites.
- Early Woodland (800 B.C.-200 B.C.)
- Middle Woodland (200 B.C.- A.D. 400)
- Havana and Hopewell
- Late Woodland (400-1250)
- Effigy Mound Buildiers
- Late Prehistoric (900-1600)The appearance of extensive maize farming leads to large centers and extreme social compexity.
- I think a greater broader view then just that of a sub region cultures should apply to articles about Indigenous peoples that cover all the Americas. What you have here is just regional classifications. The sub-divide above only covers parts of the United states and does not reflect the divers cultures from the rest of the Americas. Each area of the Americans has its own sub regional cultures so this is why we sill use this old system as its the only one that covers the entire Americans. The Woodland period as you have it shown implies all the Americans were part of this culture, but as we all know its not so.... pls see Archaeology of the Americas and List of archaeological periods....Moxy (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Moxy- W&P's 1958 book is terribly outdated, even their later publications conform to the outline I list above, no one uses "Lithic Stage". Paleoindian and Archaic periods are used throughout the Americas. Woodland and Mississipian is used in North America west of the rockies and south of the boreal forests. Yes, other terms are used for post-Archaic in the rest of the Americas. Your use of inferences from later periods to draw conclusions about Paleoindian is problematic IE., "Hunting and gathering bands usually have no tribal chiefs (Signal leader). The men and women who earned the respect of the group because of their abilities at hunting, healing, or providing some other needed goods or services led the bands. The elders (the average life span was 30–35 years)" none of this is from Paleoindian data, it is from Archiac and Woodland data. Another problem is the extrapolation from one site to the whole Americas, eg the Kinkade shelter. Your statement "Remnant groups of Paleo-Indians were absorbed by new advanced cultures that had developed in surrounding areas" is a gross misreading of the actual argument- that Paleoindian peoples adapted to local environments and became the sucessor cultures. Some of your assertions are unfounded by any archaeolgocial data, such as "Many groups of peoples lived in wigwam like structures made of frame poles and covered with bark slabs or animal hides." What is your source? I'd love to see a paleoindian site with this degree of preservation. The Post-Paleoindian section is a trivia grab-bag of decontextualized information that skips around temporally and geographically at random. It does not belong in an article on the Paleoindian. I strongly recommend scrapping it and just providing a link to the Archaic in the Americas. Good luck and thanks for your time, Bill Whittaker (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- The above should read "east of the Rockies" instead of "west of the Rockies." 13:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
- OK lets try to keep this in one place ..Lets keep it here since it this article in question.
- OK lets try to keep this in one place ..Lets keep it here since it this article in question.
Keeping in mind many have contributed to this article since i have...This is why we made this article because no one uses "Lithic Stage" as you point out!!...
I think the name of the article is out date "Paleo-Indians" anywas... Statement 1: no tribal chiefs (Signal leader) - i agree this sound off and should be removed!
Statement 2: The elders (the average life span was 30–35 years) - this has a references The Ontario Archaeological Society i think its a good ref, but like you say its Archiac period so lets cut it out and move it somewhere as the info is relivent just not here.
Statement 3: Remnant groups of Paleo-Indians were absorbed by new advanced cultures that had developed in surrounding areas - ok i can see a problem here to - lest remove it!
Statement 4: Wigwam stuff - i have always hated, what can we say about this topic in its place, they did not sleep in an open field.
Section on post periods: - ok lets see if its possible to say abit here as there are Paleoindian societies that over lap times periods like Dalton Tradition. So lets me work on finding all the Paleoindian societies that were still around after the Lithic period. The problem with the current way of classifying Paleoindian is a bit off since different areas came out of this period at different times. Much like the very misleading Archaic period from around 8000 B.C. to 2000 B.C, although as its ending is defined by the adoption of sedentary farming, this date can vary "significantly across the Americas, just as the Lithic stage does in reality.
This is good moving forward...Moxy (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Done as per above recommendations... what else do we need to fix?? .....Moxy (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Australoid origin theories
Instead of merely being obstructive like certain users are, can somebody point out to me a way we can integrate the information from this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australoid_race#The_first_Americans.3F into this one? Volunteering to edit Wikipedia is already enough without being treated like garbage. Ladril (talk) 13:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- The problem is that its all just a guess and old - No so called "Australoid" DNA markers have been found in the Americans as of yet. Pls note that all the links at Luzia Woman referring to her as Australoid are dead because they were removed when found to be invalid.Moxy (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
While the modern world is mostly, even totally shaped by the European "Renaissance", it's hard to understand why the scientific/ academic community insists on perpetuating errors. "Indian" has nothing to do with any analysis of original American settlers and inhabitants and merely reflects an error made by a very small number of people in the middle ages. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SBader (talk • contribs) 10:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- We use it because it is the word commonly used by Native North Americans at least in the USA. We shouldn't be renaming them. And of couse as you say it's used by the scientific/academic community. This isn't a forum where we can debate such things. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
That's the problem, the use of 'Indian' to refer to Indigenous peoples of the Americas is always sourced from the USA and therefore the Columbus error in Identifying the peoples. As an example, in Canada 'Indian' is in disuse because 'Indian' refers to India. To say Paleo-Indian would suggest a relation to India - which there isn't one. It is highly misleading to say the least. Paleo-Aborigine or the like is far more accurate representative of whom is in reference. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- So we shouldn't use the name that they use in identifying themselves? Even if it's wrong, it's not Wikipedias role to Right Great Wrongs. Dougweller (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would have no problem with it moved to Paleoamericans - however the reason I pick Paleo-Indians is because the majority of links to the page use this term. The Smithsonian and Anthropology.net have been using Paleoamericans for a long time - however if someone were to search "Paleo-Indians" that would yield many many more results. Paleo-Aborigine is not a word and most would think it relates to Australians.Moxy (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
omg, how can the "scientific/ academic community" insist on keep calling the Greeks Greeks and the Germans Germans, when it is perfectly well known that the Graeci were just one, just. one. Hellenic tribe in Italy, and the Germani were all over the place and include the Anglo-Saxons. How can the "scientific/ academic community" keep calling a cable modem a "modem" when it clearly is not a modulator-demodulator at all? An electron an electron when clearly it isn't made from amber? For that matter, how can they keep calling India India, when clearly the Indus river is in Pakistan? It is all so wrong, wrong, WRONG. But maybe etymology isn't the same as definition? L'arbitraire du signe. --dab (𒁳) 06:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Title - sg/pl
Since Wikipedia has a pretty strong policy about using singular forms instead of plural forms in article titles, I would like to ask why this article, like "Native Americans," uses a plural form.220.127.116.11 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because the term represent multiple peoples and/or groups of cultures as does Native Americans and First Nations. That said the term here is used for a time period and could be singular but there were phases in this time periods also. So not sure here. -- Moxy (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Pre-Clovis is too weakly covered.
There is no mention of the French work in Brazil that claims extremely old dates (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/americas/discoveries-challenge-beliefs-on-humans-arrival-in-the-americas.html?_r=0, ) or of Buttermilk Creek. Paisley Caves (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6091/223) are only listed as a see also. Kdammers (talk) 04:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- 1999 is way old looking for modern scholarly source...bradshawfoundation.com also not the best source. If you like i can list some to read over. Like with Old Crow Flats dates being listed our out of dateKipfer, Barbara Ann (2010). Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology. Springer Science & Business Media. pp. 403–. ISBN 978-0-306-46158-3. --Moxy (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
- J. Oliver is a noted archeologist specialising in Venezuela. Bibliography:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/people/staff/oliver/usercontent_profile/2-publications Eio-cos (talk) 02:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
new paper on "Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Human"
"Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Humans," published in the April issue of the journal Evolutionary Anthropology. The authors examined recent developments in anthropological genetics, archaeology and paleoecology and how these findings inform us about the original migration to the Americas, as well as the human occupation of the former land bridge between Alaska and Siberia, known as "Beringia."Read more at: 
Until recently, the settlement of the Americas seemed largely divorced from the out-of-Africa dispersal of anatomically modern humans, which began at least 50,000 years ago. Native Americans were thought to represent a small subset of the Eurasian population that migrated to the Western Hemisphere less than 15,000 years ago. Archeological discoveries since 2000 reveal, however, that Homo sapiens occupied the high-latitude region between Northeast Asia and northwest North America (that is, Beringia) before 30,000 years ago and the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The settlement of Beringia now appears to have been part of modern human dispersal in northern Eurasia. A 2007 model, the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis, which is based on analysis of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in living people, derives Native Americans from a population that occupied Beringia during the LGM. The model suggests a parallel between ancestral Native Americans and modern human populations that retreated to refugia in other parts of the world during the arid LGM. It is supported by evidence of comparatively mild climates and rich biota in south-central Beringia at this time (30,000-15,000 years ago). These and other developments suggest that the settlement of the Americas may be integrated with the global dispersal of modern humans. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)