Wikipedia

Talk:Paleo-Indians/Archive 1

< Talk:Paleo-Indians
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Firejuggler86 in topic Paleo-Indian?
Archive 1
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Paleo-Indians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paleo-Indians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Title hit count

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • Paleoindian
32,900 Google
    53 FindArticles
    15 PubMed
  • Paleo-Indian
23,300 Google
    41 FindArticles
     7 PubMed
  • Paleo-Indians
15,300 Google
    44 FindArticles
    12 PubMed
  • Paleoindians
 7,990 Google
    18 FindArticles
     6 PubMed

--Viriditas | Talk 10:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

  Resolved
..going with the archaeological community spelling

Paleo-Indian?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Are we sure about going with this term? Perhaps it's better to go with the more universal term of "Paleo-American" as the default term for this article instead.

It would also remove the unnecessary confusion between these people and the Paleolithic people of INDIA.

Paleo-american is not necessarily any more universal than Paleo-Indian, tbh... "American" and "Indian" are both words of European origin.. once, the Europeans used "india" also the "indies" to mean the entire Far East, and all the far Eastern people "indians." that became extended to the new world, which led to "west Indians" vs "east indians." america and americans was another name that caught on early.

Regarding the modern country of India...from british India...quite honestly, all "indians" appear to have been labeled so by their British colonisers. Fighting over who has exclusive rights to a name is silly. Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Monte Verde

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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.[1][2], although vocal "Clovis-first" advocates remain[3] Dentren | Talk 14:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Monte Verde Archaeological Site - UNESCO World Heritage Centre
  2. ^ Ancient seaweed chews confirm age of Chilean site | Science | Reuters
  3. ^ http://www.uky.edu/Projects/MonteVerde/
  Resolved
.. 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.

  Resolved
..This article has been expanded and is now to large to merge

"Mongoloid" edits

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

  Resolved
...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)

Haplogroupx

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

  Resolved
has been copy edited for an easier read ...Buzzzsherman (talk) 01:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Defining Prehistoric North America

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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:

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.
    • Clovis
    • Folsom
    • 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.
    • Cahokia
    • Mississippian
    • Oneota


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.

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Paleo-Indians/Archive_1&oldid=1079020934"