User:Heironymous Rowe/Talk archive Feb 2010-Sept 2010

Squier and Davis

I've finally gotten access to a copy of Ancient Monuments thanks to interlibrary loan; I've taken in-depth notes, so I expect to be able to use it for sourcing after it's returned to the library. Curious, would you be able to scan individual plates and upload them for use with articles? For example, there's a plan of the Fortified Hill Works on plate VI. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll check my copy later today. Busy right now getting materials ready for a juried show, the real world intrudes, lol. I'll see what I can do later tho. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

This what you had in mind? [[File:Fortified Hill Works Squier and Davis Plate VI.jpg]] . Although, on the page where you have its uses as "fortification", I doubt that that's the current theory on its purpose. From what I've read all of the "fortified works" were ceremonial sites that wouldn't have actually functioned well as forts. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Really...hmm, I'm surprised, since I'd figured that the hilltop locations would have made them rather defensible. However, all that I've read about them (which isn't much) is early twentieth-century or earlier; I've never seen anything close to recent. The image is just what I meant, so thanks; hope the exhibition goes well! Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the edit history, you'll see that my expansion of the infobox just now was the first time that I'd edited the content of the article; since its creation by a bot in 2007, the actual text of the article (including the use of "Fortification") has never been changed. This bot created a lot of miniature stubs for Ohio NRHP listings; every site in Hamilton and Butler counties has such an article, as do all sites statewide starting with "A". Nyttend (talk) 14:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool, never even looked at its history, was just remarking on what stuck out me on page. Happy editing, and just drop me a line if you need any more S and D, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, could you do many more? I was using the Fortified Hill Works as an example. Nyttend (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't have time right now to do all at once, but can can do a few at a time. Anything specific? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a few more, some alreadfy with pages, a few that need it. Will do more when I have the time, cheers! Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I don't expect to be working on any of these soon (most of my writing right now is on churches in the Land of the Cross-Tipped Churches), but I'm sure that they'll be useful in the future. I've finally been able to get a driver's license, so I'm hoping to be able to visit sites that are neither within bicycling distance nor along the way to funerals. Nyttend (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, lol, congrats! Have fun and be careful out there. I'll add more later sometime as I have the spare time. I will eventually get the whole thing I think, would be a good project for me right now. The real world is intruding lately and I don't really have time to research and add/edit articles right now, and probably wont til the fall. It's getting close to my busy on the road season, which actually means I'll be back in Ohio in a few months, and editing will be restricted to things I can do relatively quickly when I have a few spare minutes. If you need a specific one before I get to it, just drop me a note. Be safe on those roads, lots maniacs out there, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I was with family members in the Cincinnati area today, and I decided to be safe on the roads of

Mariemont Embankment and Village Site and the Odd Fellows' Cemetery Mound respectively. Do you know anything about either of these? As far as I know, the mound isn't particularly significant, but the village site (which really includes the embankment) is also known as the Madisonville Site, and it appears to be a very important Fort Ancient site. I didn't know the location of the village site until returning home this evening, so all I got was the embankment; however, I've gotten a bit of information from the National Historic Landmark District nomination form for the Village of Mariemont, of which the embankment-and-village-site is a part. While I've not checked to see whether S&D cover the embankment, it's noted in the Archaeological Atlas of Ohio, and I've found multiple sources on Google Books that mention it. Nyttend (talk

) 01:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Don't know much about it, but if I remember correctly, I've already included it in the template I made for Ft Ancient. There were 4 foci for the Ft Ancient, one of them named for the Madisonville site. I had planned on revamping the ft ancient article, including the four foci info, sites associated with each, etc., but unfortunately will have to wait for when I have more wiki time. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes,

Madisonville Site is linked from {{Fort Ancient culture}}; I'll set up a redirect. I'm hoping to expand the embankment-and-village-site article. Unfortunately, I don't expect to be able to be back in the area anytime soon to photograph the village site proper; I've been visiting relatives in the Cincinnati area all my life, but this is the first time that I've ever been to Mariemont. Nyttend (talk

) 03:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rite on! One more crossed off the mental list of articles in need of creation, lol. I'd like to eventually get all of the red links in that template to blue, good thing Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Good work!. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just curious about some of the redlinks — would "Baum Site" and "Gartner Site" be

Howard Baum Site (33RO270) and Gartner Mound and Village Site, both in Ross County, Ohio? Sorry that I couldn't get the Hahn Field sites today — although they're just a few miles away from Newtown and Mariemont, I ran out of time and needed to return to the family members. Nyttend (talk

) 03:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar :-D Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is entirely possible. Look at the map I made for Ft ancient and Monogahela cultures, I included alot of the sites on there. If they match up with the locations of those sites you mentioned, they are probably them. I used a map in [7] this book when creating the map, and I plan on also using the book as a reference when I finally expand the Ft ancient article. And you welcome, you earned it, lol. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I just realised that the Baum Site and the Howard Baum Site may be different — see the map on page 265 of this dissertation, which examines Fort Ancient period sites along the Scioto River. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

[Outdent]It would appear they are differant sites. Looks like there are quit a few other sites listed there that could eventually be included as well, if we could ever find any more info on them anyway. I read thru the first 10 or so pages of the pdf, it could be useful in re-writing and expanding Fort Ancient article as well. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I encountered this document while searching for locations of some sites in Adams, Hamilton, and Warren counties. By the way, I may have found another site for you — the Clarke Farm Site in Clermont County has a Mississippian component; are there any Mississippian sites in southwestern Ohio that aren't Fort Ancient? Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, shouldn't be described as "Mississippian" I'd think. From what I know, the mississippian sites around Louisville, Ky over to Corbin , Ky are the most north and easterly purely Mississippian sites. Although some Mississippian traits and artifacts have been found at Ft Ancient sites, which has been the big debate about Ft Ancient since it was first described as a separate culture. The pdf earlier actually seemed to describe some of the varoius thoughts on the subject over the years. Also the book I mentioned earlier deals alot with the exact nature of the relationship between the Mississippian and Ft Ancient. In the beginning it was thought to be an actual intrusion of Mississippian peoples into the area, a colonization of sorts. It is now believed to be a local development by local peoples, who traded with and became increasingly influenced by Mississippian peioples to their south west. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I've never known much at all about the Fort Ancient people. Never gotten to visit the actual fort...hopefully that will come eventually. Are you familiar with the Middle or Late Whittlesey periods? I'm writing about a village that was seemingly occupied during these times, and I've never heard of either one. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of illustrations

You wrote on my talk page: I'm wondering why your removing illustrations i've contributed to many articles about the Mississippiaqn culture? I've been a professional historical artist for 15 years. I've done the research for these images. Could you please explain yourself? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got started doing that, for the simple reason that their authenticity is unclear -- they're not sanctioned by any scientific or ethnographic organization. That said, the skill, care and professionalism are evident (it's not like the person who kept installing his own "artist's conception" of the

Sure. I do research them pretty strenously. As you can see below, this was used to illustrate an interpretative panel at the archaeological site. The second is a digital painting I did, which illustrates the

Kings Crossing Site, and a mural I painted in Vicksburg, Mississippi

. With these 2 I worked with various archaeologists, namely Kit Wesler, Ian Brown, Brian Butler and Jon Muller.

Plus I have also professionally illustrated several hundred other subjects in my day job as a historical muralist. Altho quit a few of the ones I added here have been solely because I'm interested in the subjects. Many of them were sparsely illustrated, so I contribute to Wiki with my time. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The bottom 3 pics, 1.) is a photo of an exhibit organized by Dr. Marti Allen[8] at the University of Arkansas State Museum in Joneboro "Portals of the Soul-Ancient Peoples of Northeast Arkansas" from the summer of 2009. 2.) and 3.) are visible in photo 1.) Heironymous Rowe (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

New section

Dear Heironymous rowe I do not in any way wish yo offend you, but why are you accusing me of vandilism when it is my page you are vandilising. Signed you know who PS i dont appriciate slandering historical figures. (comment left by Special:Contributions/24.118.52.32)

Replied at their user talk. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Heironymous Rowe

The Sioux in general despised the English for providing weapons to there enemies including the Ojibwa, Sauk and Meskwaki and you have no right to tell me i cant edit my own page.

No offense intended

Have a nice day. (comment left by Special:Contributions/24.118.52.32)

Comment moved to this section with previous post and sig added by me, since they obviously cant be bothered.

Responded at their talk page here [9]. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Shawnee Nation URB Information

Heironymous Rowe,

I am the Sub-Chief for the Shawnee Nation United Remnant Band. A few weeks ago I uploaded a photo of our tribal flag, which i see is now gone. I would like to know what we have to do to get that image back under the Shawnee flags of the other Shawnee Bands? I also wrote some information about the tribe and there was some message about copyright. I am the tribal person that maintains our tribal website and would like that information to show as I wrote it. Can you please help me with this?

I tried to get our flag picture to show up again but it did not work.

Thanks and call me if you have any questions. 614-348-6878 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gedirman (talk • contribs) 20:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fort Ancient help?

I've expanded

I can check tomorrow when I'm back in my studio. I'm at my girlfriends tonight, and suffering from a terible head cold, lol. But will see what I have. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! When I wrote the previous message, I was in the process of writing; I hadn't realised how much information could be gained from the dissertation (it's the one that I've linked in the S&D section above), and eventually I got so much information that the article ended up being far longer than I expected. Still, any more help would be appreciated. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm finishing two more articles on Fort Ancient sites in southwestern Ohio; neither has been excavated, so their focus or foci are unknown. Two questions — if they should be added to the template, where should they go? And do we have an article that covers the idea of an archaeological focus? Focus (archaeology) is a redlink. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats on the new articles. Not sure what to do about the foci. Maybe create a new section of the template for unaffiliated? It would solve any OR problems with just adding them by geographical proximity to a specific foci without verification. Not sure about a page for Focus, never looked for it. Probably wouldnt be to hard to write one up tho. I know I saw a definition somewhere, cant remember exactly where tho. I think there is a break down, something like tradition-culture-complex-focus-? Altho not sure of the accuracy of that order. Would probably be a good article to have. I bet we could post it at the Wikiproject Archaeology and get some answers there. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've posted a request for help there. In case you're curious, the articles are Bone Mound II and Bone Stone Graves. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Wapasha I and IP editor

Look im sorry if we got off on the wrong foot i think we can resolve this like civilized people i dont hate you for anything and i hope theres nothing personel involved i just disagree with you thats all im just saying that i dought wabasha was an english ally as the british (who owned the hudson bay company) provided guns for they're enemies which in sioux culture is a serious no-no.

besides in sioux land the biggest threats were smallpox and loyalist settlers. (comment left by Special:Contributions/24.118.52.32)

I don't know anything about that time period specifically. Allies or otherwise, smallpox or otherwise, its a period and geographical area I havent personally read alot about. My problems are your refusal to edit within our policies. Information added to articles need to be sourced in specific ways. If a reference is need for some info, a tag will be added to request such a refere nce be added. You can not remove thoise tags unless you add the reference. I've provided links to explain how those things are done. Abide by these and we have no problems. I dont mean to come off harsh or unfriendly, but you keep refusing to abide by our rules here. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because an RFC has been initiated at

Cole culture?

Do you know anything about the Cole culture (not Coles Creek, just Cole), who lived north and west of Columbus, Ohio during the Late Woodland period? I've read about two of their sites, the Ufferman Site and the Carl Potter Mound, but I know pretty much nothing about them. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I had noticed the culture mentioned in one or two places, but really know nothing about them, nor have noticed enough info to contribute to an article about them. Sorry. Off hand, can't even remember exactly what time period the culture was in existence. Someone has to have written about them, but I have no idea where to even start. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, have one book that mentions them in a few places. Found this:

• 1000 to 1300 CE-chronological chart on page 8
• "Fort Ancient developed out of one or more late Woodland traditions after AD 900 and persisted until or about the time that Euro-American exploration of the region began. Cole developed out of one or more late Woodland traditions, but endured for only two or three centuries as a distinct culture." page 13.
• "The Cole Culture (about 1000 to 1300 CE)-Relatively little is known about the Late Prehistoric Cole people who occupied central Ohio, north of the emerging Fort Ancient culture area, in the upper Scioto and Muskingum drainages around and after 1000 CE. The Cole people, like many of their Late Prehistoric contemporaries in and beyond the middle Ohio Valley, did build earthworks--embankments with exterior ditches--at some of their village locations, presumably as protective features. These embankments were utilitarian and adapted to local topography, not geometrically controlled or artistically inspired, and were sometimes--perhaps always--reinforced with a stockade. The only publicly accessible site in the middle Ohio Vally attributed to the Cole culture is the Highbanks Park Works at Highbanks Metro Park, a short distance north of Columbus, Ohio. " pages 73-74.
• And then there is several pages describing the Highbank Park Works, including an illustration from Squier and Davis for the site., pages 140, 141, and 142. All of this info is from "Woodward, Susan L., and Jerry N. McDonald. Indian Mounds of the Middle Ohio Valley: A Guide to Mounds and Earthworks of the Adena, Hopewell, Cole, and Fort Ancient People. Lincoln: The University of Nebraska Press, 2002". If you don't have this book, you should invest in a copy. It has several hundred sites in Ohio, Ky, and WVA from Adena to Ft Ancient, locations, maps, some descriptions, etc. A good guide book for someone who takes day trips to look for such things, also gives info for which ones are publicly accessible and which arent. All I have on Cole culture. Hope this helps some. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the Squier and Davis image in the book(included here). The book also says the site has 2 subconical Adena era mounds and the Cole culture embankment in the park, known as Highbanks Metro Park, located in southernmost Delaware County, immediately east of the Olentangy River. The 2 mounds are known as the Highbanks Park Mound I(also known as Muma Mound) and Highbanks Park Mound II(also known as Orchard Mound and Selvey Mound). The 2 mounds are not located within the embankment, but are about .5 and 1 mile away. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and put together a stub page for the Highbanks Park embankment site. If you can find a map or illustration that shows the geographical extent of the Cole culture, I will add it and whatever sites you have for it to the map I made of the Ft Ancient and Monongahela cultures, since it seems to be same time period and would fit nicely just above the Ft Ancient. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect such a detailed reply; thanks! No, I don't own the book; I'll check it out on Amazon. I'll see what I can do with Cole; the Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places that I've recently gotten has information on all of these Cole sites, so I may put together a stub with information from it and the copy of S&D that I got rather recently. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool, no problem. I also just created a stub for Highbanks Metropolitan Park Mounds I and II, if you want to add anything to it. Takes 2 off your list to get started, lol. Happy hunting, and definitely get that book from Amazon, you'll have a lot of fun with it. i like to use it for day trips in the summer with my daughter and little brother, has good maps for finding publicly accessible sites.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll expand it. Curious, does the book include anything in Indiana? I'm beginning a grad program this fall at

IU-Bloomington, so I don't expect to be in Ohio very much while in school. I recently ran across something (perhaps in the IU library; I was there last weekend and found that they had lots of information on Ohio archaeology) with pictures and a description of how to get to the Highbanks mounds and works, so I may try to get down there some time soon. Nyttend (talk

) 04:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont believe so, the book is pretty much the 3 states I mentioned, and mostly Middle Ohio Valley specific, if there are its just a few in the Cincy area. Although, Evanston has a great museum at the Angel Mounds site, and there are quit a few Hopewell, Mississippian and Caborn-Welborn sites in the southern end of the state. I've done a few articles, but I'm sure there are plenty more for the area that need doing. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm hoping to be able to explore while in Bloomington, but I don't have the locations for many Indiana sites, and anyway I'll be busy with work and school. By the way, had you see that someone wrote an article about you? I just discovered it while looking for links to Simon Kenton. Nyttend (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where exactly any of the sites are in Southern Indiana either, have only been to the Angel Site, which has one of the better Mississippian culture museums I've been to. As for the article, I noticed it several weeks ago, but have opted to ignore it, lol. It seems reasonably accurate, if kinda weighted toward my mural stuff. But then again, that has been the most prominent part of my career. I'll just have to get busy and get better known for my oil paintings I guess. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

84.84.167.237 blocked

Fair enough - I've blocked them for 31 hours. Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 14:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopewell template

I've just greatly expanded Shawnee Lookout Archeological District, a group of sites near Cincinnati that has a Hopewellian component. Should it be added to {{Hopewellian peoples}}, or is that only for the more important sites? Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing, sounds fine to me. I'd meant the template to be for all Hopewell sites. Unless it ever got to be so big that we'd need a list page and a link to it from the template. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I modified one of your maps

Hey Herb! I used one of your great maps to illustrate the article History of Randolph, Tennessee. I hope that is OK with you. doxTxob \ ^talk 04:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Map request

Hello Herb, Do you think you can make a good map from this:

It has these artifact steps in the diagonal lines.

doxTxob \ ^talk 04:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you could do with that, except start from the beginning with a larger file size before scaling down. What program did you use to make it? Heiro 21:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I started actually pretty simple with a spreadsheet (LOL) that I then twisted a screenshot in some graphics program to give it the appropriate propotions. I know, that's not how it is done but I wanted to have that map in the article and had no better idea how to do it. doxTxob \ ^talk 23:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Giftiger wunsch|ts=19:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)}}

Hello, Heironymous Rowe. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 19:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fort Ancient

Curious, have you produced any artwork for the museum at Fort Ancient? I visited the site today for the first time, and I found the 2-D artwork more interesting than the statues that they have in the museum. Nyttend (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not personally, unless they've licensed something I did with my old employer and I don't know about it. Would like to go there tho. Is it at the actual Ft Ancient site? Might try to make it this summer, have tentative plans to be in the vicinty for a week in August to visit family. BTW, what do you know about using pics from .gov sites? Guess this is more of a Commons question. I'm putting together an article for Shiloh Indian Mounds Site, which is NHL and NRHP on its own, but only has about a 2 line blurb in Shiloh National Military Park. I've never been there, but found a good pic here [10] credited as NPS PHOTO. I remember reading somewhere that images created by govt employees were in public domain, but do you know for sure the rules and would this one be ok to add to Commons? Heiro 01:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything with your name or signature, either on the artwork or on a caption, but I was so pressed for time that I wasn't really looking; my brother was scheduled to rent an airplane at a nearby airport, so we had to leave before either of us wanted to. The museum is in the northern part of the actual fort site; State Route 350 now occupies the roadbed of the "Lebanon to Chillicothee" road marked on the map, and the museum lies in the "Cleared Field" area. I'd like to upload several images (I took a few dozen), but I've never been able to get good photos of most earthworks — the best of today's pictures were no better than

Copyright status of work by the U.S. government. If it's credited to an NPS employee, you can upload it to Commons with a {{PD-USGov-NPS}} tag. Be careful with many pictures on the NPS website; they tend to use the term "public domain" to mean "anyone can view this image", so don't upload images from National Register nomination forms unless they were prepared by federal employees, and don't upload other images hosted on the NPS website unless they're anonymous (they typically credit others whose images they use) or unless they're credited to federal employees. Nyttend (talk

) 05:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mound sites are notoriously hard to photograph, especially ones that aren't cleared of trees or where you can get back to get a good enough vantage point. The multi mound and Hopewell enclosures are the worst, because the only adequate way to really show them is from the air. I will check into the photo, should be able to figure it out if its kosher to use it or not. If not, leaving for western Kentucky tomorrow for several months of work, will only be 2 to 3 hrs away, may make a weekend trip while I'm there. Heiro 06:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Over the last two days, I visited Ross County, including all parts of the Hopewell Culture NHP, and I can even better see what you mean about hard-to-photograph — especially since the High Banks and Hopeton components of the NHP are closed to the public, and excavations have reduced the original Hopewell Group to almost nothing except flat fields. I notice your photo at Mound City; have you visited any of the other four components? Nyttend (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mound builders link?

To me, the key reason to link to

Yeah, I'm the one who added a good bit of what is useful about that section [11].

Well, now you know what I think of your work; I hadn't checked the history, so I didn't know who had added it when I wrote above. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like to link to that page too much, as the term tends to perpetuate the Mound Builder Myth instead of the new understanding we've developed over the last 100 yrs. Where possible I like to link to the actual culture articles instead, especially not so prominently as in the first sentence of an article. Maybe it would be better in those articles to have for example:

Such and such Mound Complex Site is an insert culture here archaeological site located in or near City name here, County, State. It consists of (insert mound, village, earthwork, etc. here). And then other pertinent info afterward.

Which is how I usually try to start one out. It gives precedence to the culture in the ones we can assign a culture to, and the ones we cant can be sent to Mound builder (people). Just my preference anyway, lol. 05:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)Heiro

I like this idea better than either my previous intro style or the one with which you replaced it; thanks. Now we'll have to see if I can remember to use it...Nyttend (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I usually start an article by copy and pasting a few things like that and then changing all of the info to the new article. And then of course tweaking any grammar, etc. Its good to copyedit a few times tho, as I've occasionally missed a few things that needed changing, especially with infobox fields, lol. Heiro 18:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hampson Museum

Hello Herb!

Thanks for checking the categories for the tons of photos I took at the Hampson Museum in Wilson, AR this weekend. I do not know many details about the Nodena culture but I sure loved to see the exhibit and appreciate your assistance with the categorization and descriptions. The reason I went there was to take a photo of the Island 35 Mastodon's femur fragment and since they allowed photography I took photos of about everything on display there. ;-)

Have a great day, doxTxob \ ^talk 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool. You got some great shots. I had photos of some of them, but came out blurry and couldn't use them, was in a hurry the day I was there, had just driven 2 days straight from San Diego and it was the day before Xmas eve, was trying to get to Ky to see my kiddo, lol. Looks like that Mastadon was there after all, remember you asking about it once, but really dont remember it being there, but as explained above, was in a hurry that day. Heiro 14:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a year ago I called them and the lady said that the mastodon bones were in storage off site. They also have a pelvis fragment but that was not on display. I guess they change their exhibit from time to time. Maybe next time, it is not very far from here, may a 90 minute trip to the country. For such a small museum that was quite interesting, I enjoyed my time there. It is well worth the trip if you live around. thanks again for your assistance with the categories. doxTxob \ ^talk 21:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Native American + clarity

Hi Heironymous Rowe, Will see what you find redundant in Category:Native American topics etc.; concern is for "lost articles" only findable by "experts" knowing nomenclature and how to navigate "technical category hierarchies". Can see it's better to err on less cat. linking though. Thanks for your clarity efforts.---Look2See1 t a l k → 21:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mississippian stone statuary

Hi there, you may want to check the nomination again as there are some changes to it. Cheers, AngChenrui (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Dodge Site

I really don't know what to say here; the Dictionary of Ohio Historic Places source that I used on the article reads:

According to the source, "A thin layer of Upper Mississippian material, dated to around A. D. 1300, constitutes the upper component of the site."

Does the date help at all? Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh, yeah, I kinda figured that. "Upper Mississippian culture" is a separate thing from Mississippian culture proper, encompassing Oneota, Fort Ancient, and a few other groups who were influenced by the Mississippian culture, but weren't fully Mississippianized. I'll change it in the article real quick, add the Mississippian template and add the article to the template, which has a separate category for Upper Mississippian. Heiro 18:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, okay; I thought that the double appearance of "upper" was some sort of redundancy; i.e. "a thin layer of Mississippian material on the upper part of the site, dated...constitutes the upper component of the site". Thanks for the correction. Nyttend (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Mississippian stone statuary

— Rlevse • Talk