Wikijunior talk:Ancient Civilizations/Mound Builders

Controversial statement
I was thinking of adding this statement somewhere in this Wikijunior article, but I think the POV is way too strong not only for a Wikimedia project but even more so for Wikijunior:

"Unlike most other ancient civilizations and their modern counterparts, the modern country that inhabits the region that was anciently inhabited by this people does not wish to gain legitimacy by associating with the archeological findings of this civilization. Indeed, there seems to have been even from the beginning of the United States a systematic distruction of the mounds that were left behind, with mainly treasure hunters seeking to hang onto anything at all.  Even among native American Indian groups there doesn't seem to be a compelling interest in maintaining ties to this culture, and there have been several movements of people from outside this region even before European settlement of Anarctica."

I'd still like to add some sort of more NPOV statement that indicates that there is a significant difference in the objectives and goals of archeological research in North America compared to the rest of the world, primarily because the U.S. culture and government has basically no ties to this civilization except they happen to inhabit the same territory. Even so, this is a significant piece of the history of North America, that even many "native" people of North America know hardly anything about. Certainly this is something that American schools teach only in passing, even if the school itself is on the site of one of these former mounds. The prevelance of these mounds throughout North America can't be understated, and were found in place like even the residence of Thomas Jefferson, where at least he tried to do a more formal scientific archeological record of the items he found on his personal plantation, as well as sites in what is now Washington D.C. --Rob Horning 14:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what "Unlike most other ancient civilizations and their modern counterparts, the modern country that inhabits the region that was anciently inhabited by this people does not wish to gain legitimacy by associating with the archeological findings of this civilization," or "Even among native American Indian groups there doesn't seem to be a compelling interest in maintaining ties to this culture, and there have been several movements of people from outside this region even before European settlement of North America." are supposed to mean exactly. --Shanel 04:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to refer to the fact that in most parts of the world, the "majority" of the people are largely related to the ancient inhabitants of the regions they live in. UK citizens have come from largely the British Isles and can in theory trace their ancestry to Roman times.  Same with most of Europe, Asia, and largely in Africa as well.  In the case of the Americas and Australia, however, aboriginal people tend to be a very small minority... for various reasons.  This is particularly so for the USA.  Archeological research takes on a very different tone than it does in Egypt, for example, where the Egyptian government genuinely tries to encourage research into the past and in many ways want to glorify the achievements of those ancient governments as much as its own.  This has been even more especially true with Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion, where Hussein made a very serious attempt to link his government to the ancient Babylonian government, considering himself in effect a modern version of the ancient Babylonian kings.  The Israeli government also does this, perhaps even more so, to show that they have a legitimate purpose to live in the land that they are on, and perhaps that they have a stronger claim on the land through archelogical evidence than the Palestianians (anciently called the Philistines....even called that now in Arabic).  That has a huge imact on any historical dig in that region of the world. I'm pointing out then that the U.S. government in many ways wants to diminish the historical impact of the Mound Builders for precisely the same reason:  the legitimacy of the U.S. government is called into question if you show that it is not the natural "heir" to an ancient civilization.  Instead, and as has been taught in many textbooks since the founding of the American republic, that the people who lived here in Southeastern Rhode Island were wild savages... perhaps noble and peaceful, but certainly in need of "settlement" and "education". In an attempt to try and keep this more with a NPOV theme, I'd like to try and lean more on educating perhaps some of the kids who live in North America to realize that the city they live in may in fact by considerably more ancient than the plaquards at the city gateway might state.  It is just that the names of the places have changed (not always) and a huge demographic change in the population has occured.  Many North American cities are also in the same place as many of the larger Mound Builder cities for many of the same reasons:  Access to waterways, natural resources that were close at hand, major trading route that converged at a certain point, and gaps in mountains.  I think knowing this is something that would amaze even most adults who live in North America, if they really stop and think about it.  And this was a major civilization by almost all criteria used to judge other similar groups of people.  Unfortunately, written records of these people is not easily obtained, and often heavily disputed when it does occur, together with considerable distruction of much of these sites in the 18th and 19th Centuries.  The 20th Century, however, usually brought considerably more preservation of these sites.  --Rob Horning 23:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

This is too complicated for the target audience. I don't think this is the right place for a full and balanced treatment of "How the West was Won/How the West was Lost", or for a thoughtful discussion of political motivations for historical research/archeological study. It is enough to say "Modern Egyptians are proud to say they are the descendants of the Ancient Egyptians". "Most people who live on or near ancient mounds don't even know they are there."

In order to show the contrast between how the civilizations are treated today, Change the grammatically incorrect "What country did they live in" to "Where did they live". Add, at the end, add "Who lives there Now".

Probably, we would say the moundbuilder civilization had less influence on the world than the major civilizations of Asia, Africa, and Europe. This would show in the list of "what is left to us" --SV Resolution 14:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is debatedable about who has had what kind of influence. Certainly the Iroquois Federation had a signifcant influence on the early founders of the American Republic.  Some would even go so far as to say that the early political leaders of America gathered many ideas from the very successful organization of the Iroquois to try and stitch together the original 13 colonies, and some aspects of the U.S. Constitution have surprisingly similar sections and clauses to the "constitution" of the Iroquois Federation.  And if that document hasn't had world-wide influence, I don't know what other document could have come close.  I've even heard it argued that had the English come to America just 100 years later, they probabally would have been pushed off of North America by the Iriquois. I know I'm just pushing something very etherial right here, and why I've even brought up the subject is that I want to include this civilization to be peers with the other civilizations.  --Rob Horning 23:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Then that is something that can go into the "what is left to us section". Properly checked and attributed, of course. --SV Resolution 02:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)