User talk:Doppelbock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I responded to your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. Very interesting topic. Did no one welcome you to Wikipedia? Well, let me correct that, although it looks as though you have things figured out: Welcome! TriNotch 00:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doppelbock, your Wikipedia:Etiquette in terms of leaving me a message on my user talk page is exactly right. I see that someone has already fixed the Lenape page, or I would have done it; thanks for noting that. For your information, the best way to remove recent Wikipedia:Vandalism is to perform a revert, as per Help:Reverting. Basically you click on page history, choose the version that predates all recent vandalism, and edit that page. When you save it, all more recent versions are reverted to that version. That takes care of most one-time vandals. For more information, also check out Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism.

If your primary interest is Native Americans, you might consider joining us on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America. But if not, I hope you'll still have a good time on Wikipedia. TriNotch 21:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hopewell descendents- Well, as you've probably figured out, after the Hopewell era (also called more generally the Middle Woodland), the populations that had aggregated in Ohio seem to disperse into the countryside. For whatever reason, they mostly stop meeting in large ceremonial sites. As you said, they then intermarry, move around, take captives, shift territory, and generally keep an archaeologically low profile for 500 years- the Late Woodland period. Then clearly SOME of the Ohio Hopewell descendents become the Fort Ancient peoples, while SOME of the Illinois Hopewell probably became the people at Cahokia and related sites. Others seem to maintain sort of a Late Woodland lifestyle until Europeans show up. Even more bizarre to me, although the Ohio Hopewell scatter into the countryside, the Hopewellian cultures further to the South and East do NOT disperse- we can see continuity from Swift Creek culture Middle Woodland to Weeden Island culture Late Woodland, for example. Overall its a complicated transition, and I agree with you that we don't really know who is related to whom. If you want pretty good review of the present thought on the Hopewell, from professional sources, there is a new book that is generating a lot of archaeological talk: Gathering Hopewell: Society, Ritual and Ritual Interaction by Christopher Carr and D. Troy Case. Also, for the Late Woodland, I've heard Late Woodland Societies: Tradition and Transformation Across the Midcontinent by Thomas E. Emerson, Dale L. McElrath, and Andrew C. Fortier is pretty good. I don't own either, because I study the later period of the Mississippian culture, but I've heard they're really quite good. Good talking to you in any case. I certainly agree that pre-Columbian Native culture is fascinating, I'm making a pretty fun career out of it so far! TriNotch 17:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your latest question sent me on a very fruitful quest for authentic information- I learned so much, I wrote a new Wikipedia article. So thanks a lot for asking! Check out Walam Olum for my extended explanation of the source of the western origin idea for the Lenape. I actually didn't find the sources for the northern origin, so I guess I'm still looking, but the western origin idea seems to have been debunked. I can tell you that the rest of the Algonkian language group did come in from the north and somewhat west, so presumably the Lenape did too. TriNotch 21:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the Allegewi don't exist; they aren't a real Lenape legend, they are from the Walam Olum, which isn't real. So, too bad. Made up by a white guy in 1833, who knew there were moundbuilders to the west, that would make the account sound believable. TriNotch 00:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hopewell culture

I notice that you put up a citation request tag (which generally I detest) but then made a dating change which would, in my opinion, require a source. Do you have one that says the Hopewell culture survived until 400? Please include it. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 00:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well is a citation needed? After all "Any source can be used in Wikipedia -- any source -- no matter how reputable, how self-serving, how fantastic. A source does not distinguish garbage from opinion -- it simply documents opinion." left by anon : 86.151.154.226

don't mind the above, Doppelbock. He's following me around because I disagree with deleting a section from an unrelated article. and yes, the quote above is mine. I do think we need to improve our sources. Sorry you got involved in this unrelated spat. WBardwin (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Well surely a little humour is always welcome. And isn't it ironic that within minutes of you suggesting references are not necessary that you request references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.154.226 (talk) 00:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it from "200 AD" to "400 A.D." because (a) it should be "A.D." not "AD" and (b) the beginning of the article said the Hopewell culture was from 100 B.C. to 400 A.D., so 200 A.D. would be inconsistent with what the article had already stated. The literature elsewhere widely reports 400 A.D. as the date when the Hopewell culture declined/disappeared (a quick google of "Hopewell +decline" shows that 400 A.D. is widely referenced as well as "400-500 A.D."), although I recall seeing some sources later than this. --Doppelbock (talk) 15:04, 21 December 2007 (UTC)