Talk:Walam Olum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Misc. comments upon article creation 2 Apologies to Ed Grondine 3 Problems with the structure of the article 4 References section 5 Selwyn Dewdney 6 Calling people experts 7 Kraft and the archaeological evidence

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)