User talk:TriNotch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Devine Direction Theory

TriNotch, thank you for your professionalism, I appreciate the suggestion.

[edit] Mississippian

Hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. Your contributions are welcome. In the future, instead of creating a whole separate article, it is good to add to existing articles. :) One can move articles if you feel the title is inappropriate. Right now Mississippian culture and Mississippian civilization probably should be merged into one article. -- Decumanus 04:50, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

I added a number of links to the Mississippian culture article. I was going to link to mound until I noticed that it redirects to barrow and only discusses British types. We also have no articles on mound building, mound builder, mound building culture, mound building civiliation. Perhaps you could add to these areas. Rmhermen 04:55, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Monks Mound

My responses to the statements listed, are below those of the complainer and should help clarify this situation.


Cahokia Mounds management did not have a permit to dig into monks mound.

False Statement. There was a permit for the repair project on the mound from IHPA and the IHPA initiated the project through the Capital Development Board after two years of research, consulting, engineering and geotechnical studies. Management did not dig into the mound but after numerous meetings with the A&E, Oates & Associates, and Shively Geotechnical, Inc, the IHPA and CDB officials authorized the project and bids went out for a contractor to do the earth removal and reapairs, which went to Plocher Construction.

The Illinois Historic Preservation agency gave them permission to remove only the historic fill.

False Statement. The contract documents state that it would be necessary to remove not only the fill that had been placed in 1988 but also the mound soil displaced by the slumping and to cut back behind the slip faces,or slickensides, in terraces into intact mound fill in order to provide stable soils on which to compact the new repair soils.

The site director did this on his own initiative. I saw the letters on the IAS website detailing the site management's explanation of the work on monks mound. They clained to be doing this work to reduce the risk of erosion and to correct the slumpage issue which occurred over 20 years ago. Their comments to the Illinois Archaeology Society are an indictment that they never even considered the archeology when the 30,000 cubic feet of monks mound was torn out of the mound from three separate areas. The site management explanation makes the problem apparent that they did not consider the archaeological impact that this work would have.

An article on this project will appear in the next Cahokian quarterly, published by the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, and the principals involved will be presenting professional papers on it at the upcoming meetings of the Illinois Archaeological Survey, the Midwest Archaeological Conferenced, and the Southeast Archaeological Conference. These should help dispel some of the misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and myths surrounding this project, such as those perpretrated by the complainer.

Misinformation and false or incorrect interpretation of statements. The site director did not do this on his own initiative. As state above there were numerous people involved in this decision and how to proceed. It is true that the repair of the slump was the primary factor in order to keep the slumping from eating back further into the mound. It is not correct that the archaeology was never considered. From the beginning, before remediation took place, geomorphologists and archaeologists examined cores made into the slump areas and the contract required that an archaeologist be on hand at all times during any work on the mound to observe anything that might come up and they always had the authority to stop the project if something unusual was encountered. Once the project proceeded, it became apparent that to get behind the slip faces, much more soil had to be removed than originally anticipated and that larger exposures would be created, requiring more than just monitoring the cuts and that much more archaeological documentation was needed and would be possible, which was done. Only two areas of the mound were examined, not three, and the soil was removed with amazing precision with a trackhoe in well-defined terraces.

The fact is that the mound is actually a series of ancient sacred temples stacked on top of one another that the mound may have been covered with elaborate earthen layer of colored in blue, red, white, black, grey, brown, and orange soils.

There were layers and basketloading consisting of different colors and textures--sands, silts, silty clays and clays and the layering may have been intentionally done, and some have suggested to help provide internal drainage. One profile did show a probably former mound face with a light colored soil. Most soils ranged from light colored sand to variations of black, gray and brown. The orange was the result of oxidation of iron in some of the soils from moisture penetration.

The site management never mentioned the other "Rejected Possibilities" that were proposed for this work in Cahokia Archaeological Society meetings. The website also makes it clear the professional archaeological community had no idea that this work was going to be done. I served as Vice President of the Cahokia Archaeological Society for 2004-2006 and this work of digging deeply into the mound was never mentioned to the CAS. The possibility exists that it was done by accident. However, the site managment dis state in the CAS meetings they said they were looking forward to doing some "minor cosmetic work" on the mound.

Brief mentions of the proposed repairs were mentioned at several meetings but the final details were not worked out until more recently and it was not really necessary to discuss fine details to the group as they play no role in decision making at the site. The idea of terracing back into the mound was brought up but as mentioned, it was not until the project was actually underway that it then became necessary to go deeper into the mound than originally anticipated, and this was between meetings of CAS.

An elaborate earth painting or series of earth paintings covering the mound is a real possibility considering the complexity of color use in the top 10 feet of the surface of the mound.

There may have been selective uses of colored earth on the mound but not enough has been exposed to confirm that for sure. And, the exposure on the north side looked very different than the east, so it does not seem there was a consistent covering, if there was one. Actually, there is less complexity of color in the top ten feet than there is in the lower portions exposed.


The unfortunate fact is that no floats were taken, no artifact bags lying around, or clip-boards were on site, No screening took place and the dirt was removed with track-hoe (no hand excavations going on at the time of destruction), and the dirt was piled up in multiple areas around the mound.

False Statements. Archaeologists from Washington University took over one hundred soil samples from the exposures, especially at soil layer intefaces. Surprisingly, only a handful of artifacts were found in the entire project, a few pottery sherds and chert flakes, and these were bagged when found according to their provenience. Hand excavation was carried out for two weeks by dozens of archaeologists and students, shovel scraping and troweling the exposed terrace faces and side profiles. Numerous hours were spent mapping and documenting all these faces and over 1000 detailed digital images were made of all of them. It is deplorable and insulting and incredibly insensitive that this complainer refused to recognize the efforts made by so many people for two weeks in 100 degree weather to say no archaeology was done. Obviously he was not there when the work was in progress or he would know better. We have numerous photos showing the work in progress. In fact, the archaeologists shut down the contractors for two full days in order to get the mapping and documenting done and get ahead of the backfilling process. Also, the dirt piled up at the base of the mound was not the dirt removed from the slump but dirt brought in for the repair project, as was the dirt on top of the mound.


As of August 25th, the large piles of dirt were still piled on top of monks mound but the excavations were completely filled in with loam with grass seed freshly spread on the soil that had been dumped in place by a dump truck. There was a large geotextile covering half of the newly deposited soil.

False Statements. The dirt placed in the slump was not "dumped in place by a dumptruck" which would have been obvious to anyone who actually saw what was going on. Obviously, the dirt was trucked in to the base of the mound. Then a large trackhoe lifted the soil which was NOT loam but gumbo clay selected especially for this project from a borrow bit in the region that was cleared for use. Once the soil was placed, small machines distributed it in one foot horizontal levels over a geotechnical grid placed on the terraces and between each 1 foot lift. Then a compacting machine compacted the soil which the soil engineers then tested for proper compaction. This was the process that the soil engineers said would be the most successful procedure. This was then seeded by hand with brome grass, which is a good, sturdy, drought resistant grass that we have used on other parts of the mound. Geotechnical matting was then placed over most the repair to hold down the soil and stabilize the surface while the new grass grows up through it. Once grown, the matting will not be visible and will continue to help with stabilization. The soil piles on top of the mound will be used to fill in other erosions, low spots and dips around the edges of the summit that are channeling water down gullies or ponding it on the top, contributing to some of the problems. It is also a gumbo clay

After attempting to inspect the mound, I was told to stay off the mound by construction workers, who had parked their vehicles on the top of the mound. Construction and crew workers were parking vehicles on top of the smaller mounds, not to mention very large backhoes parked on the top of the mounds.

There was no need for him to be "inspecting" the mound, especially in the areas that had already been filled. Some of the contractors did drive to the top of the mound as that is where they needed most of their equipment. And there was a trackhoe ontop as that was needed to place the soil filling in the upper terraces and the bucket was used to help compact the soil as well. Other vehicles were not parked on smaller mounds but parked around the base of Monks Mound under trees.

According to Paula Cross, they were only supposed to remove the previous repair fill - and not impact the mound fill. But they went over a meter deep through a 50 ft wide and 50 ft long area. I calculated the volume of removed moundfill to total 30,000 cubic feet based on measurements of the piled up dirt south of the silos that are between Monks Mound and Woodhenge. The IHPA gave site management permission to repair the damage. The depth of the excavations may have been caused by accidental removal of too much soil. However, a contractor should know that when digging into an archaeological site, the permits must be followed exactly.

As noted before, it was always known that we would have to remove more than just the old backfill and cut into the mound fill some. It just turned out to be more than originally anticipated, but none more than was necessary. It was not accidental and the contractors did follow their contracts. I believe he misinterpreted Ms. Cross' comments.

After a circle of limestone slabs and cedar posts had been hit by the backhoes, Tim Pauketat, an archeology professor at the University of Illinois stopped this excavation and expressed his unhappiness with the work (according to the IAS newsflash website).

Incorrect Statements. A series of limestone slabs was hit by the trackhoe and the archaeologist in charge immediately stopped them from digging more at that location. I (site archaeologist) came up to to project immediately after that happened and also told him we would need the contractor to stop working in this area. Tim Pauketat came up shortly after that to take some photos, saw the freshly exposed stones and asked if we had stopped the machines and we said yes. Tim did not stop the project and the IAS newsflash I saw did not state that he did. It did state that he had expressed his displeasure with the project to IHPA. Furthermore, this was not a "circle" of slabs, but a stack of slabs of many sizes that had partially been displaced by ancient slumping and erosion, as is obvious in their tumbled and scattered placement. There were two wood remnants (at least one now identified as bald cypress) that had also been

displaced by the ancient movement and knocked or compressed by overburden to be somewhat horizontal.

The site management told me that "as long as its ripped wide open" then we should salvage what we can find. So they hired archaeologists to look at the profiles of the excavations for a few days. During this time, there were drawings made and measurements taken of the exposed features. However, "as long as it's ripped wide open" was illegal and should never have happened. Foremost for the reason that it is a desecration of sacred burial mounds.

It was not site managment but the volunteer coordinator that made that statement and in the context that he really did not know exactly what was going on and that it would be good to recover whatever information that could be while it was open. The archaeologists had already been hired since the beginning of the project and as mentioned before, many other archaoelogists and students, including soils specialists, helped out when this became a larger project and for much more than a "few days." Some days there were 15-20 people working on documenting all the soil profiles and features. As far as saying this "should never have happened," how ignorant. I guess the complainer would prefer to see the mound eaten away by more erosion and slumping. We did what was needed to repair and stabilize the impacted areas. It would be desecration NOT to do something.

A Doctor of Geophysics with professional licenses including geology, groundwater hydrology, and geophysics, looked at the slumpage with me after it occurred in 2004. His professional opinion of the slumping situation is to improve surface drainage of the mound by installing drainage. Possible methods include installing drainage tubing around the surface of the mound to allow for stormwater runoff to be diverted away from the mound. He said also pumped wells or drainage tubing could be installed to pump the waters out of the mound in extreme situations (like landfills). The archaeological impact of this work is the foremost consideration when deciding what to do.

Basic soil engineering mechanics show that the area from the bottom of the excavation to the 45 degree angle from vertical is the affected range of soil. The unsupported excavations with backhoes in monks mound subject a much greater area to the catastrophic collapse. The excavations were about 40 feet deep vertically. The 40 feet over from the top edge of the excavations falls into the angle of repose. This means that point of unstable soil caused by slippage into the mound is now located 40 feet closer to the center of the top of the mound. The recommended methods used to reduce erosion and slumpage in saturated soil includes planting a strong cover of vegetation, and installing stormwater fences with drainage tubing. These recommendations were presented to site directors before the digging into monks mound with a backhoe occurred.
The plan to fill in the depressed areas on the summit and edges will help to redirect and shed surface water more evenly and have a similar effect. We have tried to install drain tubes in the west slump area but they were not successful. One has to directly encounter the perched water deposits and it is almost impossible to determine those exact locations. Some of the other ideas have been examined and rejected for various reasons. Besides, any of those plans would not repair the slump! They might help prevent future ones, but this project was to repair and stabilize the mound. The recommendations followed were presented by professional geotechnical people and soil engineers who are more than qualified and it is insulting to imply they do not know what they are doing and that only the complainer knows what is best

Digging into the mound made the problem worse because the angle of repose was ignored. The clay soil of the mound will provide a slip zone for the loam that was deposited on the mound. Also, soil profiling was done after the cuts into the mound were made by the Backhoes. The soil from the mound was not sifted by anyone and this work was done in the area of the "birdman" tablet discovery. I walked around the piled up heaps of monks mound, and quickly found 14 sherds of bright red pottery on the surface of the heaps. Some of the pottery was vivid purple or magenta and red. Preservation is defined as following the laws to protect the archaeological sites.

The soil of the mound, as noted previously, is quite mixed, with sands, silts and clays. The soil of the repairs, again, was NOT LOAM, but bottomland gumbo clay. This was used because the same soil had been used for another successful repair on the north side of the mound in the early 1990s, and it held well. Laying and compacting the clay in horizontal layers with geotechnical grid, back beyond former slip faces, will have a good chance of success. Nothing is guaranteed and there may be future failures here or elsewhere on the mound and we will have to address those at that time. The amount of soil removed was not sifted. Part of this was due to the volume involved, plus about 90% of the removed soil was old backfill or displaced soil, only about 10% intact mound fill. It was not possible for the contractors to keep the old, displaced, and new soils separated in the removal process. Plus, as mentioned before, when cleaning and preparing the soil profiles for mapping, almost no artifacts were found. This is a valid archaeological sampling procedure. Although it would be nice to find artifacts, our primary goal was to document the structure of the mound while exposed, and it was essential to keep the time of exposure to a minimum to avoid storm damage. We were fortunate that it was a dry two weeks. Also, most artifacts found were not directly associated with surface activities but included in the fill used by the Indians to build the mound. The exception being the limestone slabs.

The limestone cairn lined with cedar logs and charred remains that was hit by the backhoe is most likely a burial. The Collected Works of Gregory Perino show many examples of limestone circles, and almost without exception, these surround burials. You might want to further consider the legal problem. Before disturbing an archaeological site a contractor is required to have a permit from the state historical preservation agency. If they only had a permit to remove the historic fill, then there was a criminal violation. The contractor had to know this and Site management had to know this.

The limestone structure might be burial associated or not. We will never know for sure. Only a small portion of one end was exposed. It was not a circular feature from what we could see. There were no charred remains associated with it, however there was a deposit or dark organic matter that was determined to be decayed wood (species not identified yet), which had been in a horizontal position. In the vertical profile, it can be seen as a dark curving band that lines up with more of the log remnant that had been exposed to the east. Apparently, as the log decayed the soil above it collapsed into the void, as can be seen in the profile. This was not a central chamber.

The complainer is not aware of all the procedures that were followed to organize and authorize this project and therefore not in a position to objectively criticize it, other than with personal biases. The laws were followed in all aspects, as were professional archaeological methods.

An article on this project will appear in the next Cahokian quarterly, published by the Cahokia Mounds Museum Society, and the principals involved will be presenting professional papers on it at the upcoming meetings of the Illinois Archaeological Survey, the Midwest Archaeological Conferenced, and the Southeast Archaeological Conference. These should help dispel some of the misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and myths surrounding this project, such as those perpretrated by the complainer.


The issue is that the mound was in No immanent threat of eroding wide open or washing away or being irreparable. It is clear that the archaeologists came in after the mound was opened and they all did great work. Conflating this issue with the mounds actual destruction is not acceptable. Repairing the slump does not mean damage the mound that has slumped by ripping it out with backhoes. The surface erosion of the recently added fill could have easily and permanently been fixed by adding soil and better drainage. The authorization to repair a slump as I said was given, but this is not equal to authorization to rip out the original mound with backhoes. Any archeology done on the Monks mound should have been done layer by layer, carefully plotting every feature rather than with backhoes and no archaeological inspection occurring until after the destruction occurred. The mound is an artifact itself, and should be treated as such. It is not just a heap of dirt; rather it is a series of ancient sacred temples, burial place, and the archaeological integrity must be cared about beyond the flat linear appearance of its sides. --Marburg72
I finally got a response to my FOIA request. The legal boss said “No permit is required when they are working on their own property.” They are going to send me a letter saying the same thing. Marburg72 20:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Native American Prehistory

Hi! I've been working on archaeological cultures, sites and artifacts in the American southwest for the past few months. I have plans to create a Prehistoric America structure or tree dealing with various cultural aspects. Big job. But, to start with, I've put a list of cultures in Native American pottery. If you have clay/pottery info from the southeast, it would be very welcome. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 21:21, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I probably should have written back on this sooner, but I will definitely contribute as soon as I can. I took a look, and made a couple of very minor edits in some areas, but it does look like more is needed. I'll get back to it when I get a chance. TriNotch 01:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Thanks for being respectful. I've responded to your note at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. Let me know if you are interested in the Cahokia pics. May take a while to dig them up and scan them in... -Visorstuff 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Respectful archaeology is what I'm all about. I'm definitely interested in the Cahokia pics, but take your time. I'm glad my edits could help. TriNotch 01:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metallurgy

Thanks for following up on Hopewell culture. I wanted to remove the reference to metallurgy altogether but couldn't spare the research (I have an exam on Eastern North American archaeology in 20 minutes :) silsor 16:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Which I did well in ... silsor 20:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I just took a similar exam this afternoon. I also did well. TriNotch 21:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Native American cultures

I recently started a list article (List of archaeological cultures in North America) but I can't say I am satisfied with the organization of the list. I am less worried about the incompleteness as I mostly just linked to pre-existing Wikipedia articles. Any ideas on how to do this better? Any major things missing? Rmhermen 16:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You recently changed the dates of early Woodland and middle Woodland in this article. I reverted these changes to keep it in line with the Woodland period article. Possibly that article is incorrect? Rmhermen 22:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it is both right and wrong. The 0 AD or 300 BC limit is purely arbitrary, and depends on the adoption of particular traits in particular areas. Most researchers generalize the time periods as 1000-0, 0-500, and 500-1000 for convenience- but the Woodland period article correctly identifies the Middle Woodland Hopewell culture as starting before that, so... Its a grey area. I prefer 0 AD for general description and specific centuries for particular cultures, like the Hopewell or Swift Creek (200 BC and 100 AD respectively). I may go change the dates in both articles again. TriNotch 22:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi TriNotch,

Thanks for the welcome (you posted on my userpage).

I just discovered that somebody has been messing with the Lenape page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenape). I'm not sure how to go about fixing it or I would do it myself. Also not sure this is the best way to send you a message, as I'm a Wikipedia newbie and unsure about the various rules of ettiquette, etc.

Thanks, Doppelbock 16:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TriNotch, thanks for the feedback you posted on my user page -- glad to see I wasn't violating etiquette ;-). I am really just a layman who is interested in the Adena, Hopewell and their descendants; I don't really have much to contribute here. I live in Ohio, just a few miles from the Miamisburg mound, and have become fascinated with pre-Columbus Native American cultures. Really I'm just surfing around here trying to find if anybody knows who the descendants of the Hopewell are. I'm starting to think that it's all so mixed up, what with intermarraiges and taking of captives and whatnot, that probably everybody is related to everybody else!

Thanks, Doppelbock 11:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info, especially the books you suggested! If you don't mind answering just one more dumb question, since I gather you are very knowledgable regarding Cahokia -- I have come across two different versions of how the Lenape originally migrated to the Delaware River area. One version (I believe the Lenape's own tribal history) has it that the Lenape migrated from the west, encountered the "Allegewi" at Cahokia, defeated them with the help of the Iroquois, then journeyed on eastward. (I recall one source saying this happened around 1300 A.D.) Another version has it that the Lenape actually came not from the west, but from north of Lake Superior, and encountered the "Allegewi" at the Detroit River. This latter version seems to be more commonly accepted. Do you have any insight into this? Thanks for all the help! Doppelbock 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad my dumb question prompted something useful! Here is one link that might prove helpful (though I'm not sure what the pedigree of this information is): http://www.daytonhistorybooks.citymax.com/page/page/2651180.htm. I really haven't been able to find anything recent and authoritative on this subject. I'd also be interested to know if you have any insight into who the Allegewi/Tallegewi might have been. (Some references indicate they may have been predecessors to the Cherokee.) Thanks! Doppelbock 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walum Olum/ Walam Olum

You mentioned "textual evidence" that the Walam Olum was a hoax, but I am not sure what the evidence was. Moreover, this debunking appears to be relatively new and carried on by a few authors. Shouldn't we take said debunking with a grain of salt? — Rickyrab | Talk 04:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to know what the textual evidence was. Marburg72 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jade/Greenstone

Hi TriNotch; thanks for the props! Saw your bit on greenstone:

New Zealand greenstone, which is geologically jade, and other greenstone, which is distinctly not jade. There is also no section on Native American greenstone use.

and did a double-take, as jade/greenstone plays a big role in BC history and also to some degree (though not as much as you'd expect) in native cultures here; world's largest deposit of nephrite and all that. Not sure what sources I can dig up for you on NW Coast/Plateau jade use but I'll try; it had a famous role in the gold rushes of '58-'66 as the Chinese crated up "black rocks" and shipped them to China without explanation; apparently a lot of the jade carvings you might be on import from China are made from BC jade, either bought/exported during the last hundred and fifty odd years, or possibly traded tribe-to-tribe into China over the centuries (no one's sure). Anyway, I'm not sure jade was ever of much utility around here because of the presence of more useful stones (argillite, obsidian - nephrite shatters easily, as you may know, unlike jadeite as used in Mexican technology).Skookum1 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America Newsletter - July '06

The Indigenous Peoples of North America Portal has been established, as a starting point for those wishing to learn more about the subject, with information and links on a wide variety of issues. It also contains news regarding the continent's various tribes and nations. It's a graphically pleasing site, and everyone is encouraged to check it out.
The project's home page has a new design, featuring tabbed subpages on participants, templates, articles, categories, and the to do list.
The Article Classification lists have been moved to their own subpage due to size. This is a sign of progress in the ongoing work of this project.
The project's talk page template has been updated, along with the classification system, to include the assessment on the talk pages of the articles that have been classified and assessed.
Balance
As the Project reaches its first six months of activity, the great effort all of you have invested in it has turned the vast information available on Indigenous North American topics from a deorganized cumulous into an excellent and easy to consult database. Although much work is still in order, few WikiProjects are able to obtain the amazing results we are proud to show today. To all of you, thank you and congratulations!
The assessment of articles within the scope of the project is still an ongoing process. We need people to help in this who are not contributors to the articles they are assessing. Also, there is the ongoing need for identifying and cataloguing articles that fall within the scope of this project. As of today, nearly 1,500 have been identified within the Project's scope.
Signed by
Aaron Walden & Phaedriel - 15:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synchronic

Thank you for providing links to synchronic. But I notice that you used external links. It seems to me it is easier and more attractive to use inter-wiki links as in this change. --teb728 00:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User mvs

A tag has been placed on Template:User mvs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] laughable

you compare the minoans with the missisippian culture , if we accepted your date 2000 bc you realize 2000 b.c happend before 800 a.d so tell me did that culture have the knowledge of the wheel which is as basic as fire,so in doing so you make your arguement look small and pathetic.I think i have found the first case of native american centric face it friend the native north americans were no different from sub sahran africans--Wikiscribe (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cahokia

Hey there TriNotch, thanks for pointing out my silly misreading of the statement about the Grand Plaza. However, I have once again replaced the uncited statement with a simple measurement, because I looked pretty far and pretty wide for anything saying that Grand Plaza was "largest" and couldn't find anything. So, maybe we can leave the statement out until it's cited? Murderbike (talk) 04:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have not doubt it is, I just hate seeing those annoying "citation needed" tags lying around articles. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hey, so I was looking at your userpage, and I really like your attitude about archaeology. I just started working on an article about the Marmes Rockshelter in my user space, and thought you might be a good person to get a little guidance from on it, since I'm way more in to regular ol history than archaeology. The only real question I have, is whether or not I should refer to the site in the present or past tense. But any other opinions about my progress would be more than welcome. Murderbike (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the contributions, and compliments! Don't worry about the userspace thing, I very much feel like if somebody does something inappropriate, it can be undone. I definitely don't want to own articles, so contributions from others (especially those with more expertise than myself!) is always welcome. I'll probably take the article live here in a second, and add a little more info as I plow through the several books I got on the subject. Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You probably deserved this a while ago.

The Editor's Barnstar
Most recently, you get this for your bold slashing of deadwood from Civilization. But hopefully, the star also acknowledges your long history of editing with discretion and, rarer still, expertise. Fishal (talk) 07:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilization

Heh-- if you want to talk about procrastination, that civilization draft has more or less been collecting virtual dust since last September, when an online collaborative fiction network replaced Wikipedia as my main online diversion. I'm easing my way back into the swing of things right now, and I hope we can make real changes to that article, seeing as how it's a core topic and all. I have to say I'm surprised that that was your first star-- you actually work in the field you write about, and it shows. Fishal (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crystalinks

Hi TriNotch. Re those apparent copyvios you've tagged for Maya architecture and Maya art- indeed both of these are original wikipedia articles, having been associated with them for some time now, and are not taken from that crystalinks site. In fact, whoever's behind crystalinks would appear to be either a long-term plagiarist, or at least ignorant (wilfully?) of copyrights and licensing. I've several times found passages I know I've written or contributed to appearing on their site (they have a couple dozen pages on Mesoamerican as well as esoteric topics), and as far as I can tell every page there is cobbled together from somewhere else- mainly wikipedia, but also other sources. Sometimes they interweave passages taken from wikipedia with other material, but I feel sure they aren't writing anything original themselves. A lot of their pics seem to be lifted from other sources, eg Nat. Geographic, and although there's a simple mention of NG I doubt they have permission.

Actually, if you look closely you can see a tiny, tiny one-word hyperlink back to a corresponding wikipedia article- in my book that doesn't satisfy GDFL requirements.

Re whether they should be pinged for these apparent violations- yes, and I believe they have been reported- see Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Crystalinks.com. Also listed as "low/none compliance" at WP:GFDLC. It seems a GFDL violation letter or two has been sent, with unsatisfactory results thus far. I guess they could be taken further through the non compliance process, and be issued with sterner warnings if someone has the time to do it (though probably better for someone in the same jurisdiction to do this).

Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 07:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art

Hi TriNotch, nice to meet you...User:CJLL Wright thought yu might be a good person to ask for help on the "Americas" section of User:Ling.Nut/Funerary art... interested? Thanks! Ling.Nut (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hopewell

There's a recent change of dates in the Hopewell article. I suspect it's vandalism - but it could also be a minor true correction. Can You check? Kdammers (talk) 04:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)