Talk:Pre-Columbian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cleanup 2 Afrians in Pre-Columbian America 3 Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates 4 Migrations via the South Pacific 5 Article title 6 Pre-Columbian What? 7 Vanadlism

[edit] Cleanup

This article is getting to be a bit of a mish-mash and doesn't quite flow very well. Yes, it's my fault. I expanded the article but the end result doesn't quite scan. Any assistance in expanding and re-organizing the article would be much appreciated.

--Richard 20:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I reorganized it, and deleted this, which didn't seem to fit in this article, but maybe should be elsewhere. Also, maybe this article should be titled Pre-Columbian Civilizations? ArgentTurquoise 19:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Amazon

Some 5 to 7 million people lived in the Amazon region, divided between comparatively dense coastal settlements and more nomadic inland dwellers. The latter lived on a complex combination of swiddlen agriculture, alteration of the forest ecosystem, and hunting and gathering.^[1]

--Red_black

"Although not as technologically advanced or politically complex as the Mesoamerican civilizations further south, there were extensive pre-Columbian sedentary societies in what is now the United States of America." Where is your evidence to back this up, in my own research this isn't the case. For instance, read some of the political histories on the Iroquois, especially regarding the Iroquois Constitution and their influence on the United States Constitution (http://www.native-languages.org/iroquois.htm).

--PatrickandBrenda 00:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Red_Black. Check out "Stolen Continents: 500 Years of Conquest and Resistance in the Americas" by Ronald Wright. It covers the Iroquois league and their founding system of democracy. They ruled by true debate and concensus as I recall. Something I do not believe any other society has ever achieved.

[edit] Afrians in Pre-Columbian America

Why is it not added? Asia is added but not Africa even with evidence that Africans were in the Americas you do not add it. WHY?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0394402456/104-3059786-9468717?v=glance&n=283155 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Columbian_trans-oceanic_contact

[edit] Check out the new Pre-Columbian templates

The original template is at Template:Pre-Columbian. The "new and improved" version is at Template:Pre-Columbian/Test.

Once we have a usable version of Template:Pre-Columbian/Test, we plan to move it into Template:Pre-Columbian and then insert it at the bottom of the Aztec, Maya civilization and Inca empire articles.

Discussion is at Template talk:Pre-Columbian. Please share any feedback and suggestions that you may have.

--Richard 19:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Migrations via the South Pacific

The article in its present state completely ignores theories and archaeological evidence with respect to possible early migrations from Australia and Polynesia to South America. These migrations may have been the "first wave." --Matses 17:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence for any migrations from Australia to South America, and no one with any credibility has suggested such migrations took place. Perhaps you mistyped when you wrote Australia above.

There is indirect evidence of contact between Polynesian people and South America in the spread of the sweet potato across the Pacific, but no genetic evidence to support the idea of any migration. South America was peopled by migration down from North America long before Polynesians reached the eastern Pacific.-gadfium 20:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article title

Is it right? "Classical antiquity" is a noun, as article titles generally should be. Pre-Columbian is an adjective. "Pre-Columbian Americas" as a change? Would anyone mind? Marskell 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I suppose not, though it is kinda handy being able to use the shorthand when writing La Blanca is a [[pre-Columbian]] archaeological site of Mesoamerica, located.., which I do quite often. I guess it would still work as a redirect if the title is changed. Alternative titles to consider might include pre-Columbian era, pre-Columbian history, or similar.--cjllw | TALK 03:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd mind slightly. I see your point, but agree with the qualifier "generally", and think this is one of the exceptions to "generally". This is pretty general usage, it seems to me. And I'm not familiar with the term being used for anywhere other than the Americas, so adding that seems unnecessary to me. -- Infrogmation 11:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would present usage have to be altered at all? You could still write/link "Pre-Columbian" just as you do Mesoamerican now (taking you to Mesoamerica). If no "Americas" is to be added, I'd suggest a shift in denotation to noun form, at least: "The Pre-Columbian is a historical era..." This would avoid clunky uses of "is used to refer to" that are needed with adjective or adverbial titles.

Part of it is that I don't like the lead here. There seems a hesitation over whether history or historiography should be discussed. I think the former; the latter can be gone over in a "Use of the term" section after the intro. Marskell 12:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that the lead (and some of the body) of the article could do a better job in defining the focus. I've attempted a slight rewrite in that vein to avoid the 'term refers to' framing.--cjllw | TALK 15:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A related question is whether we should capitalize it. "The Pre-Columbian era", as it's proper noun? But maybe that'll just muddy things. I'm sitting with a few papers and Preceramic is getting capitalized all over the place. Marskell 17:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, good point, I actually hadn't thought too much about the distinction before now. I typically use pre-Columbian, but I guess that's usually as an adjective. Maybe when standing for the era it could be capitalised, per accepted usage of Preclassic, Classic, Postclassic. Problem is, the references themselves are not always consistent, but generally I've seen nocaps usage. Perhaps we should capitalise the specific phrase Pre-Columbian era (or Era ?), and leave other mentions of it as pre-Columbian...?--cjllw | TALK 00:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

A glance at Google scholar confirms that both are used, but that lower case is more common, as you suggest. I think we should capitalize, however, when using it for the era. "The Pre-Columbian comprises..." makes more sense to me than "The pre-Columbian comprises..." Maybe there's a third opinion around? Marskell 13:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Columbian What?

I am not sure that the word 'waspcentric' exists. I would prefer it, however, if the title had a noun, but, much more important, that it was moved to occupy a more central position in the history of America, noth and south. As an outsider I notice that the material on the United States is not helpfully linked to this article which, I would have thought, should occupy a central position in the history of the United States (and also the other countries of America). Roger Arguile 13:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And the Seminoles? What happened to them? It does seem to an outsider the WP lacks people who have taken a serious interest in the host peoples of the Americas. One doe snot hear their voices at all? Is this not much taught in the USA as a subject of study? Roger Arguile 13:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanadlism

Some idiot put "COLUBIA SUCKS" on the first line in the article. Obviously I'm taking it out. Just giving a heads up. Nadiasama 16:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• • edit: Nevermind. Someone got it.