Talk:Walam Olum/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Who has refuted Oestreicher? Most scholars today do think it is a hoax

Please note that any references have to actually mention Oestreicher. Let's see the list. You can list separately the scholars (using reliable sources of course) who since 1994 have published their belief that the Walam Olum is authentic. Doug Weller (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a vote - the article must present a neutral point of view. What source do you have other than oest?. See above sources and SEE NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is not a vote. I've asked a simple question. I've given details of a number of reviews and books published since 1994 that say it is a hoax. I've asked for your sources since then that say it is authentic. Your response makes me think you have none.

And although not a vote, if it can be shown that a number of scholars support the hoax position, and it can't be shown that a number of scholars support the authentic position, then 'some' is not correct, 'most' is and is probably an understatement. If you can't substantiate your claim, the lead should say 'most'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Napora in 'On the back of the tortoise'

The journal, originally paper and then web only, that is referenced exists to bring Native American literature, etc to French speakers.[1] It has reprinted a translation of something by Napora that appears to be the introduction to his book, eg "This version is my manner of thanking for what Delaware achieved. When I started to work with Walam Olum with the autumn 1976, I wondered whether, not being Delaware, not Indien, I could contribute to this history. I decided that I could it, that I was to do it. This version of the first two parts became a means for me of trying to start to achieve my own history." and a bibliography that is not drawn on in the bit on the web. It should not be dated with the date of the publication of the translation, and it is unlikely that Napora would write a letter stating his belief that the Walam Olum is a hoax and after that submit this to 'On the back of the tortoise'. Doug Weller (talk) 17:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this article is printed for the first time in 1996 is not in Naporas 1992 Book on the Walam Olum. Napora speaks for Napora - Not oest. why dont you understand that? Marburg72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Napora speaks for Napora, and please note that I have quoted from his letter. I've got a copy of it. You do know that there was an earlier version of Napora's 1992 book I presume? Doug Weller (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Your "letter from Napora" is not published material, therefore it is not acceptable to include per wikipedia standards. By default anything in the letter that you interpret is not credible - you cant cite a source to defend it.

As long as you are not going to accept that Ed Grondine's expertise about the Walam Olum in his book Man and Impact trumps Oest. Your claim as not permissible because it was self-published applies also to your "letter." And once again, Your author Oest does not meet NPOV standards of Wikipedia - because he uses chopped up sentences from others - taking only the words that he think will support his effort to be a debunker. Oest failed to provide a NPOV.Marburg72 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the letter is not. I agree. Oestreicher's book however says the same thing about Napora. A space reporter's self-published book not cited in any scholarly literature doesn't 'trump' anything. And you simply do not understand Wikipedia policies, NPOV does not mean what you think it means. It means "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias." It applies to articles, in other words. You are just ignoring all the scholarly reviews and other support for Oestreicher and trying your best to rubbish him. You are, in other words, trying to prevent the article from being NPOV. You also refuse to give any reliable sources (in Wikipedian terms, not your interpretation) since 1994 that support the authenticity of the Walam Olum, but I presume still insist that it is not true that 'most' scholars since then say it's a hoax. Doug Weller (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You also have no evidence as to when Napora wrote the piece in Sur le Dos de la Tortue. Another issue has an interview with someone that took place about 10 years before the issue was published. It is a journal republishing in French previous work of Native American authors, not publishing new work. Doug Weller (talk) 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your citation is improper for Napora. The original is written in 1996 - No french work was ever published prior to this and it is not a duplicate of something earlier. However, Oest publications all reused the same old "Debunking" attempts that were proposed in his thesis. If you are going to attempt to refute a publication date- this also appies to all of Oest's biased, not-neutral, and very repetetive writing. The article should not include so many Oest citations anyhow because it is repetative and does not present a fair and balanced neutral point of view. SEE NPOV again. Marburg72 (talk) 03:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The citation reflects the only information we have. You have no knowledge of when the original, whatever it was, was written, only when a translation was published. Once again, your opinion of Oestreicher is irrelevant (and I'm not refuting a publication date, let's be honest, this is all about an attempt to show that Napora changed his mind again, not about anything else). All relevant scholarly publications have a right to be in the article. They don't appear to be repetitive except for perhaps the encyclopedia one, which I'll remove. (sorry, forgot to sign this) Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion that "Napora Changed his mind" is not true - nor is it even relavent or defenable because your claim was never published. Napora never published anything that stated this. You are attempting to rubbish Naporas significant work - and his Post Oest claims. The publication date on the french article is the first time ever that the article was published. It is not proper to say we dont know when it was written. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication

Also, there is no "scholarly consensus" that has developed except among Oest. Napora clearly stated post-oest "is not in the interest of poetry to continue this dispute". It is a biased opinion that there is a "consensus" favoriing Oest's debunking effort. Oests publications are entirely repeating his thesis and information is not relavent to the article. Again, only sources used in the article should be referenced. Marburg72 (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oestreicher specifically says Napora changed his mind. That is published. And even if I can't use Napora's letter, it's real and to deny it isn't doing Napora any favors. Yes, the publication date is the first time -- that the French translation was published, that's all it is. We don't know the date of the original English version. This is what the journal exists to do, provide translations of Native American literature for French speakers.

I have given numerous quotes and references from scholarly books and articles favoring Oestreicher's analysis of the Walam Olum. That is why I am claiming a scholarly consensus. It is not the job of editor's to decide that a scholarly work is biassed. You haven't read all of Oestreicher's publications and cannot say what is repetitious. I can't see how his publications on the Walam Olum can be irrelevant to the article. Further, you cannot say what sources were used by editors, as sources often are used without a specific citation to them. The first few versions of the article lacked inline citations but had references. In any case, you shouldn't remove them you should just move them to Further reading.

The lead now more or less states that the Walam Olum is genuine. Perhaps we should go back to the original, which doesn't call it a hoax, just a "fictitious account". It certainly can't stay the way it is now. Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter if you subscribe to Oest's opinion. Your choice of author or opinion should not be stated in the beginning. Stating that the document is a Lenape (also called "Delaware") Native American creation narrative is completely unbiased and true. No statement of "genuine" or "hoax" is given. This is NPOV that allows the reader to examine the rest of the information without bias. Marburg72 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But that is the whole issue. It is not NPOV to have a lead that says that what Rafinesque published is a Lenape creation narrative. And this business of 'my choice of authors' is a red herring. Scholarly opinion for the last 14 years has been virtually unanimous. For instance, the 2 recent biographies of Raphinesque that I cite above. The recent book Native Languages of the Southeastern United State is another. What opinion I subscribe to is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia and should be based upon reliable sources, and there are plenty of good scholarly sources on this. So far, you have found nothing published since 1994 that argues for the Walam Olum being authentic. Doug Weller (talk) 14:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What part of this quote suggests Napora didn't change his mind?

Here is the quote from Oestreicher again (a bit fuller this time: "that he now recognises that the Walam Olum is indeed a hoax. Napora was dismayed that the sources upon whom he relied had been so negligent in their investigation of the document and that the hoax should have been continued as long as it has". Marburg72, why do you claim this doesn't show that Napora changed his mind? (Again with the caveat too much time and article space may be being spent on this). Doug Weller (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, Napora did not publish that, and oest did. Oest's long and determined effort to be a debunker included that he was attempting to refute anything that shows otherwise. That is Oest. opinion of Naporas opinion. Why dont you understand that oest is not Napora? If Napora was dismayed that the sources had been so negligent in their investigation - he is clearly saying that debunkers was being negligent by ignoring the relavent info such as Dewdney and the archaeological evidence. Napora is saying he is dismayed about the attitude of "Hoax" (which means he cannot believe that). Marburg72 (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Point out where in the article the following sources are used. Otherwise, these should be removed.

Oestreicher, David M. 1995b. Text Out of Context: The Arguments that Created and Sustained the Walam Olum. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 50:31–52. Oestreicher, David M. 1996. Unraveling the Walam Olum. Natural History 105 (10):14–21. Subsequently revised and reprinted in Profiles of Rafinesque, Edited by Charles Boewe. University of Tennessee Press, 2003. Oestreicher, David M. 1997. Reply to Harry Monesson Regarding the Walam Olum. Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of New Jersey 52:98–99. Oestreicher, David M. 2000. In Search of the Lenape: The Delaware Indians Past and Present. Catalogue of the exhibition at the Scarsdale Historical Society. Scarsdale Historical Society, Scarsdale New York. [First published by Scarsdale Historical Society, 1995]. Oestreicher, David M. 2002. The European Roots of the Walam Olum: Constantine Samuel Rafinesque and the Intellectual Heritage of the early 19th Century. In New Perspectives on the Origins of American Archaeology. Edited by Stephen Williams and David Browman. The University of Alabama Press. Oestreicher, David M. 2002. The Algonquian of New York. The Rosen Publishing Group’s Power Kid’s Press. New York, NY. Marburg72 (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write the original article so I can't say what was used, nor can I say what was used by editors whose work has now been removed by other editors. As you haven't read those references, you can't say what wasn't used. But it's a silly argument and you are responding in the wrong section.

What I was trying to write when my PC crashed was that it is not Oestreicher's opinion of Napora's letter but his report of Napora's letter, and once more you are insinuating that he is lying. Napora's letter does not refer to 'debunkers' (a term you seem to be using as a smear word) or Dewdney, he is disappointed with Weslager and particularly Voeglin. He comments that Rafinesque's life was "a fiction of his own writing' and that even more now he sees the Walam Olum as literature (this is after he writes that there is little doubt that the Walam Olum is a fraud). Doug Weller (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote from Napora as of April 2010 "I Never recanted anything". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no reason to believe you, I had personal contact with him and he was very clear to me in what he said. Dougweller (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Word for word per Joe Napora April 5, 2010: "I never recanted anything. But I have always had doubts about Rafinesque. Anyone would. One of my plans, one that will never be realized, is to do a book on Rafinesque. I see him as a sort of European trickster figure. I also had serious reservations about working with the Walam Olum if it was a part of Delaware sacred ritual. Of course it's not always clear in a tribal culture what is sacred and what is not since there is not that clear (and false) division that we have in western cultures. Joe Bruchac assured me that it wasn't, and he, too, had reservations about Raf. But, if the question is, do I think that the Walam Olum as reported (reconstructed or even constructed) by Rafiinesque to be a viable reflection of Delaware culture, then yes I agree. Did Raf create parts of the WO? Almost certainly. I think that he was trying to impose a syntax where it was not in the originals. I think that people, like Oestreicher, placed way too much emphasis on the narrative structure, which, I believe, Raf put in order. If the question is is the WO as represented by Rafinesque a real translation of original graphics in the order that he received them, that were given him by that Doctor Ward who may or may not have existed, I don't think so. Perhaps I'm just splitting hairs in order to not take a stance one way or the other, but it's a stance that seems besides the point. And I don't think that the point has been clarified. I also question the good faith of Oestreicher. I am familiar with the texts that you mention below, except for The Book of Wild. What does that that have to offer? ::There is a lot of unacknowledged and seemingly unrecognized prejudice against native American texts. A scholar like Dewdney is rare. One like Oestreicher is common." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That's more or less what he told me. He doesn't think the WO as it exists is genuine. And if you continue to violate WP:BLP anywhere by calling people liars, including talk pages, you should know you'll end up being blocked (this is a statement about actions and consequences, not a threat). Dougweller (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What part of this statement indicates he "recanted" or "changed his mind"? And What part of the following is "commentary", "Personal analysis", or "original research" as Doug claimed? Newman's article also calls attention to "the capstone of the Walam Olum’s publication history as an authentic document". ( The Multilingual Anthology of American literature: a reader of original texts with English translations. Marc Shell, Werner Sollors. New York University Press, 2000.) Further, Why is Doug Weller fighting to block this source from being added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.36.249 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 9 April 2010

This is the way you have worked since you had an account. Newman's article is explicitly an examination of a literary hoax that was accepted for a long time: after discussing briefly the publication in "several prestigious literary journals" of some poetry that should have been recognisd easily as a hoax, he writes "In this essay, also with the benefit of hindsight, I use the longstanding acceptance of an earlier work of apocrypha as a similar occasion for critique." He uses the 'capstone' publication as a major example, the culmination/capstone of almost 2 centuries of acceptance of this hoax. Dougweller (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was once taken in by the Walam Olum and cited it in print, I have to agree with Doug's comment on it and on his understanding of Newman's article. Nowhere does Newman imply the Walam Olum was an authentic document; Newman is commenting on Shell and Sollors' presentation of it as if it were an authentic document. Since User:71.81.36.249 has now removed this misleading passage from the article, I won't continue the discussion any further. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC), revised 20:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The French translation again - it's an introduction or preface to something

Although once again it isn't key to the argument, this French translation is clearly an introduction to a longer piece. Besides things like a bibliography is in but not used in the translation, he wrote "The glyphes, their number, their arrangement, and their precision as well as the words delawares which accompany them are discussed.". That is clearly an introduction. Added to the fact that we do not know when it was written, that the French journal reproduces French translations from older works, it is misleading to label it something he wrote in 1996. If it can be used to add to the article, then it can be replaced so long as there is no claim it was actually written in 1996, which is what the text I removed claimed. Doug Weller (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it adds to the article as we don't know when it was written (we absolutely do not know when it was written, and we do know that it is a translation and that the journal exists to publish French translations - and as I've said above, it definitely looks like an introduction to something else he wrote). I've left it for the time being but removed the claim as to when he wrote it (it would be unusual to make a claim as to when someone wrote a book for instance, as it can be quite a time distance between the writing and the publication -- ditto for articles). Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it says in the article title that it's a "présentation"- i.e. possibly taken from a talk given by Napora. What's interesting to me is what isn't in the article, viz. any details of how to obtain the full text of Napora's version of the W.O. ! David Trochos (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It might be anything. The full text is in Napora's book, but I don't know how much he stands by it now. One of the things he says in his letter is that "the pictographs are derivative even more than I suspected." Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was- if Napora's translation had been published at the time the presentation was given, ought it not to have been mentioned in the bibliography? It would be really nice if somebody could find a paper copy of the magazine, which presumably has information about contributors. David Trochos (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know there were two versions:

the 1992 Translation of the epic poem of the Lenni Lenape, Walam olum, or, Red score, with an introd. (p. 3-12)

"An earlier version of this book was published in 1983 in a limited fine print edition by The Landlocked Press of Milwaukee, Wisconsin"--T.p. verso. Doug Weller (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Or to be precise, Madison, Wisconsin (100 copies with colour linocut illustrations by Ruth Lingen, based on the original glyphs, 31cm high, ii+37 pages, bound in brown cloth with a glyph stamped on the front.) 82.19.10.211 (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of Napora translation

The Greenfield Review Press Vol 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82page 54 à 61. traduction en français. Manuel Van ThienenN° 'évidemment épuisé depuis longtemps. Consultable chez moi. In other words, written in 1981. Marburg72, I don't see any point in leaving this in the article, what do you think? I won't edit the article right now as you originally added this and I hope you will do whatever is best for the article. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The winter 1981-2 issue of the Greenfield Review was a special double-issue (266 pages!) on "American Indian Writing". There's a review of it, mentioning the inclusion of Napora's translation, in American Indian Quarterly [Vol. 6, No. 3/4 (Autumn - Winter, 1982), pp. 382-385], available online via JSTOR:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0095-182X(198223%2F24)6%3A3%2F4%3C382%3ATGRSIO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-M

82.31.9.167 (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Here's the relevant bit.

The question such a collection really asks, however, is what presently constitutes "American Indian Writing"? And since this issue has no introduction in which the editors wrestle with it, I'll try to point out how varied are the works in this collection. Here are some examples:

-- Joy Harjo's and Carroll Arnett's "Bio-Poetic" statements on who they are and how they write;

-- Joe Napora's modern translation of theWalam Olum the pictographs of Leni-Lenape representing the Creation and their migrations;

Doug Weller (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, Naporas translation was published in 1996. See:

http://surledosdelatortue.free.fr/0sommaire.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marburg72 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the editor Manuel Van Thienen, it was from the The Greenfield Review Press Vol 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82. So, written around 1981, translation published in On the back of the Tortoise in 1996. Have you got a problem with this? Doug Weller (talk) 15:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being clear perhaps. I emailed the editor to ask, and got the reply today.

"J'ai enfin retrouvé la référence...

The Greenfield Review Press Vol 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82

page 54 à 61. traduction en français. Manuel Van Thienen

N° 'évidemment épuisé depuis longtemps. Consultable chez moi.

Amicalement

Manuel Van Thienen" I really hope this settles the issue, and given good faith, it should Doug Weller (talk) 15:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your dialog translates to:

"I at last rediscovered the reference... The Greenfield Review in a hurry Flight 9 numbers 3 & 4. Winter 81/82 Page 54 to 61. translation in French. Manual Van Thienen N° 'evidently exhausted since a long time. Available for consultation at my place. Friendly Manual Van Thienen"

How does that relate to the Naproa's 1996 publication? And why does this play such a significant part in your mind. Your attitude that "the majority" of commentators should not include Napora does not meet NPOV standards. Also , the wikilinks should be re-added because they provide useful info. Marburg72 (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the wikilinks do not provide useful information. Readers surely know what the Atlantic is, what is meant by anger, art, poetry, etc. Some of the links were adjacent and looked like they linked to articles, which they didn't. The one to emergence was irrelevant, and others were duplicates. I appreciate that you worked hard, but they just clutter the article, make it harder to read, and should only be used when they are really important to understand the article.

The 1996 publication you refer to is, according to its editor, from the 1981/82 issue of The Greenfield Review. The majority of commentators does include Napora.

I have said several times that Napora isn't that important for the article. The only reason I have been pushing this is because is the dispute you have over whether Oestreicher is telling the truth, and your attempt to claim with absolutely no evidence that Napora wrote something in 1996, simply because it was (re)published in 1996. Doug Weller (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Or to put it another way "Naproa's 1996 publication" is in reality Napora's 1981 publication, translated into French in 1996 by Manuel Van Thienen. Which explains a lot. David Trochos (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Napora's "1981 publication" does not exist according to Naproa's list of publications on his personal website - and this was before his book was written in 1992. Also PRESENTED: "Introduction to The Walam Olum" at the Kentucky Philological Association in 1992 - according to his website. Perhaps he forgot but I doubt it. Perhaps Manuel Van Thienen created an earlier date?

http://webs.ashlandctc.org/jnapora/Default.htm

The earlier version of his book published in 1983 in a limited fine print edition by The Landlocked Press doesn't appear there either. But I have a copy of the review by Robert F. Sayre Reviewed work(s): The Greenfield Review: Special Issue on "American Indian Writing" Vol. 9, Nos. 3 & 4, 1981 by Joseph Bruchac, III; Carol Worthen Bruchac and that mentions, as I've already said, "Joe Napora's modern translation of the Walam Olum the pictographs of Leni-Lenape representing the Creation and their migrations;". So that verifies what the editor has said, and of course it can be additionally verified by looking at the relevant issue of The Greenfield Review, which means it is well and truly verified as a 1981 document republished in 1996 in French. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you calling Napora a liar?Marburg72 (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I certainly am not calling him a liar. Exactly what do you mean by suggesting that? The review by Robert Sayre makes it clear that Napora's translation was in the special issue of the Greenfield Review. You aren't suggesting that Sayre was wrong, surely? There's a clear progress towards his 1992 book -- first the article in the 1981/1982 Greenfield Review, then the limited edition in 1983, then the full book. Oestreicher wasn't lying (although you insinuated he was), and I don't know what Napora could have lied about. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

M72, if you read Joe's website carefully, you'll find there is actually no conflict. At http://webs.ashlandctc.org/jnapora/hum-faculty/syllabi/resume.html he indicates that he has contributed poetry etc. to a number of journals, but does not give a complete list. David Trochos (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

On that website, Naporas resume shows no indication that Napora worked on the Walam Olum prior to 1992. His presentation is between the 1992 dates - not 1981. The article in question was published in 1996 - not 1981. It is apparent that you are attempting to detract from Naporas contribution to the study of the Walam Olum by saying it is not current as others. However, this website indicates that Naporas publication is very current and from 1992. The contribution that Napora made is still significant and very important to this topic. Marburg72 (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your penultimate statement about his publication (if you mean his book in its full form) is from 1992. I don't think 1992 is current, and its significance is that it is the latest translation. But how can it matter what it says on Ashland's website. If you disagree with the statement that he published an earlier version in the Greenfield Review of winter 81/82, please explain why the review of it says he did. And the limited edition book of 1983 on the Walam Olum, how do you explain that if he didn't work on the Walam Olum before 1992? But at the end of the day, he is a poet, not an anthropologist, expert on Delaware languages, archeologist, etc., and he relied on what other people wrote for his book. And after reading Oestreicher, changed his mind. Doug Weller (talk) 09:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Re article and discussion focus

It seems to me that some of this discussion is beginning to circle around a couple of debating points that are not particularly relevant to the main purpose here, which is how to improve this article so that it reasonably reflects the current scholarly/citeable understanding of this document.

In order for the case claiming the Walam Olum as authentic to be given equal footing with the converse —or at least for the sceptical angle to be downplayed— then the prerequisites and process to accomplish this are straightforward.

• Either conduct, or find someone who has conducted, several years' in-depth research on the document and its origins. Preferably in a formal setting, such as towards a degree or as part of an acknowledged research project. Amass and document reams of data in support of its authenticity, from across multiple lines of evidence and backed up by cross-referenced, validly sourced and internally consistent analyses. Said analyses to pay all due courtesy to Occam's razor, be couched in potentially falsifiable terms, and take into account and have an answer for significant prior claims that argued against.
• After compiling a comprehensive thesis, submit this to the rigours of scholarly review by qualified peers; who, although colleagues, are also generally equally ambitious and competitive and only too keen to pick holes in any ill-considered argument.
• Having passed this hurdle arrange for publication by one, or better several, substantial peer-reviewed journals or academic/scientific/university publishing houses, ie publishers that are known to care about their scholarly reputation and have a notable Native Americanist booklist. (NB, for these purposes vanity-presses, self-publication in print or on the web, or outfits like Inner Traditions would not ordinarily be considered reliable).
• After publishing, garner notable and wide-ranging attention from journal and book reviews, and individual scholars with experience in the field. Accumulate dozens of endorsements from these sources and commentators. Amongst all this enthusiasm in favour there should be very few, if any, negative reviews or ready dismissals by folks who might be expected to have foreknowledge of the topic.
• With no troublesome flaws identified after this exposure to criticism, watch as all or a majority of subsequent publications that have cause to mention or reproduce the Walam Olum take up the thesis, either by indirectly mirroring/repeating what is claimed or with direct and approving acknowledgement and citation of the work. While an apparent total absence of modern publs. that hold to the previous paradigm is not of itself proof that everyone is now convinced and thinking the same way, it's a pretty good indicator that some sort of shift has occurred.

If someone can thus emulate Oestreicher's achievement, only arguing the reverse, then we —mere and innovation-adverse encyclopaedists that we are— would be only too happy to correct the record and the article so that it reflects the up-to-date thinking on the subject.

This isn't meant to be facetious, but constructive. This is what it really would take. Until there's consistent evidence that a substantial body of publs. after the mid-1990s still maintain it as authentic —and notwithstanding Grondine and whether Napora did or did not change his mind— then the article really needs to say more than just 'some people think it's a hoax'. Any novel or diverging views should be mentioned only where they are both (a) notably published and commented upon by independent sources, not just their authors and (b) in proportion to the claim's acceptance, as has been pointed out before. --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

if you choose to ignore achievements of Grondine, Dewdney, Napora, the Indiana Historical Society, Kenneth Kidd, Daniel Brinton, Rafinesque, and any other relavent unbiased information on this topic, and instead choose the diametrically opposed opinions of Oests - it is your decision. Frankly, your method for refuting Oest. "achievement" could never happen among the american archaeological community because of the severe bias against any sign of intelligence (or writing) from aboriginal cultures in the unitied states. Fortunately, the aforementioned reliable scholars that cite material evidence are reliable. The Walam Olum article presents a far from neutral point of view - by choosing to support one authors opinion over the majority of the others. Marburg72 (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Doug, below, this is becoming tedious, if not a little silly. We are supposed to be documenting the state of scholarly knowledge and opinion as it is now in 2008, not as it was 30, 50, or 100 and more years ago when Brinton, Squier, the Voegelins, and others you've brought up were writing. And CSR, whatever else he was, is hardly "unbiased" in this particular circumstance. If we were writing this article back in the 1950s we'd cast this article in a different light, and follow the opinions such as in the IHS reproduction you seem rather fond of. But we're not, and it seems clear the wind has changed.

By all means, we can and should mention the opinions of those earlier notable Walam Olum commentators here — but in the context of giving the historical background and development of opinion. While they may have espoused the normative consensus at the time they were made, they can't by themselves be relied upon as representative of the contemporary view. We need —obviously— contemporary authorship for that; and while abundant contemporary sources have been provided in support of Oestreicher's conclusions, the other side of the ledger is thus far blank, even after several requests.

Without any slight at all intended towards them, I'm afraid that the triumvirate of "Grondine, Dewdney, Napora" —who seem to be the only halfway-modern "pro-authenticity" writers to be found— are neither scholars whose works/opinions are widely cited, nor a convincing majority. Also, one of these evidently no longer holds that view, another died 15 years before Oestreicher's publications, and it's not clear whether the third has responded at all to Oestreicher's thesis and presentation of new data.

Had it been made in the late 1800s, your comment supposing that Native Americanist scholars think the aboriginal cultures capable of only the simplest achievements would have been out-of-date. Here, in the 21st C, it seems positively archaic.--cjllw ʘ TALK 07:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Your claim of "consensus" falls short once again - see the websites referenced below for even more current scholarly reviews. And your claim of my being fond of something is completely off based. Also your claim that three authors "are neither scholars whose works/opinions are widely cited, nor a convincing majority" merely shows that you are uninformed about the topic. Nothing from Naproa shows napora ever changed his mind. Oests claim of such are highly suspect considering the Napora post-oest publication. The true scholars you mention are examining the material evidence - and not making biased statements of "hoax fraud fake" while ignoring material evidence. Despite the lamented loss that Dewdney died- his significant work remains the most complete study of materials that parallel this study. Clearly, you need to take another look at the sources below for a more current view.Marburg72 (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you seem unwilling or unable to recognise the process by which a consensus (or at least, a significant majority view) forms in this real world example, perhaps the formation of consensus on wikipedia will be a simpler task to digest. Thus far you, with the possible exception of a couple of anonymous passing remarks attributed to Grondine, are the only person here arguing your case. On the other hand, four separate editors have engaged with you here pointing out —at some length— that all locatable, legitimate, and citeable contemporary sources and commentary do not agree with you. While this is by no means a community consensus, with the rest of the wikipedian community blissfully unaware of the topic and this debate, it is or should be a practical one.

If you really do think you are being unfairly represented and ignored, then you'd be most welcome to take this along to to some wider dispute resolution forum here, such as WP:RFC. Otherwise, if you don't feel able to abide by the editing policies and guidelines pointed out to you many times before, then I'd suggest going elsewhere to pursue your cause.

Without some change in tune, any further discussion seems pointless.--cjllw ʘ TALK 03:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

David M. Oestreicher : No Scholarly Reviews

In addition, you listed the requirement that "after publishing, garner notable and wide-ranging attention from journal and book reviews, and individual scholars with experience in the field". After an exhaustive search of JSTOR, it is clear that Oest has no reviews on his work that can be found on JSTOR- Please let me know if you can find any! Until then, the journal and book reviews that your requirement states are not applicable to any of Oest's work.207.193.87.114 (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Marburg, please try to remember to login. And please don't tell us you did an exhaustive search on JSTOR, because you didn't.

"David M. Oestreicher's "Roots of the Walam Olum," dealing with the fascinating and frustrating figure of Constantine Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1783-1840), the slippery polymath manqud of Philadelphia and Transylvania College, adds detail to his case (first made in Natural History in 1996) that Rafinesque was a hoaxer. The Walum Olum was the supposed origin myth of the Lenape tribe of the Delaware valley, inscribed on wooden tablets in "hieroglyphics" and accompanied by an oral version which Rafinesque had transcribed from native informants. Oestreicher shows that the Walum Olum was in fact constructed from sources including the Ossian poems of James MacPherson-themselves a hoax-and other European publications, then trans- lated from English into Lenape. The wooden tablets, like American Antiquity, 69(1), 2004, pp. 151-191 CopyrightO 2004 by the Society for American Archaeology 151 152 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 69, No. 1, 2004] the gold plates on which the Book ofMormon was writ- ten, were never seen by anybody else. Oestreicher men-tions in passing that Rafinesque's claims to originality in the decipherment of Maya glyphs are also false: another paper would be welcome." from"Norman Hammond Reviewed work(s): New Perspectives on the Origins of Americanist Archaeology by David L. Browman ; Stephen Williams Source: American Antiquity, Vol. 69, No. 1, (Jan., 2004)

JSTOR of course has only a limited set of sources. I've listed other comments on Oestreich above, eg Lehmann, Henige, Barnhart, etc. I am sure that you have read this talk page and know about them, this is getting boring.

It appears that virtually everyone who has mentioned the Walam Olum in the last 12 or more years has said that it is a forgery. There's been plenty of time to find good sources saying it is authentic (yes, Grondine does but he published his own book, anyone can publish a book themselves if they have money enough). Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug Weller (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did search JSTOR prior to my previous post. I searched for Oestreicher Review, David Oestreicher review, and nothing came up as a review of his work. It is apparently because the word "review" is not in the two short comments that you found. Leaving aside your completely false claim that "virtually everyone" said it is a forgery in the last 12 years, The two short comments that you came up with are dealing with poetry, native informants, the mormans and gold plates, and mayan glphs seem to have more to do with the article previously referenced by Boewe, Charles. 1985. A Note on Rafinesque, the Walam Olum, the Book of Mormon, and the Mayan Glyphs, Numen, Vol. 32, Fasc. 1 pp. 101-113? It was Oest. effort to attempt to refute Boewe and Mahr. Also, it is very suspicious that there are no acutal reviews of his work considering the outpouring of elated comments that you copied from his book.Marburg72 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking for reliable sources in the last 12 years who have commented on the Walam Olum and not said it was a forgery

Marburg 72 wrote "your completely false claim that "virtually everyone" said it is a forgery in the last 12 years,". I'd like him to show it is 'completely false'. I could only find the book that Grondine published himself. Doug Weller (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

See March 2002 comment " This is one of the only indigenous pre-contact written texts available from North America. Long controversial as to its authenticity, but a key document nevertheless. With pictographs, Delaware and English translation.

" at http://www.ewebtribe.com/NACulture/articles/WalamOlum/

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/native/tribes/walamolum.htm, Copyright 2004-2008,

"Walam Olum. The sacred tribal chronicle of the Lenape or Delawares. The name signifies 'painted tally' or 'red score,' from walam, 'painted,' particularly 'red painted,' and olum,' a score or tally.' The Walam Olum was first published in 1836 in a work entitled "The American Nations," by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, an erratic French scholar, who spent a number of years in this country, dying in Philadelphia in 1840. He asserted that it was a translation of a manuscript in the Delaware language, which was an interpretation of an ancient sacred metrical legend of the tribe, recorded in pictographs cut upon wood, which had been obtained in 1820 by a Dr Ward from the Delawares then living in Indiana. He claimed that the original pictograph record had first been obtained, but without explanation, until two years later, when the accompanying songs were procured in the Lenape language from another individual, these being then translated by himself with the aid of various dictionaries. Although considerable doubt was cast at the time upon the alleged Indian record, Brinton, after a critical investigation, arrived at the conclusion that it was a genuine native production, and it is now known that similar ritual records upon wood or birchbark are common to several cognate tribes, notably the Chippewa. After the death of Rafinesque his manuscripts were scattered, those of the Walam Olum finally coming into the hands of Squier, who again brought the legend to public attention in a paper read before the New York Historical Society in 1848, which was published in the American Review of Feb. 1849, reprinted by Beach in his Indian Miscellany in 1877, and again in a later (15th) edition of Drake's Aboriginal Races of North America. All of these reprints were more or less inaccurate and incomplete, and it remained for Brinton to publish the complete pictography, text, and tradition, with notes and critical investigation of the whole subject, with the aid of native Lenape scholars, in " The Lenâpé and their Legends, with the complete text and symbols of the Walam Olum," as No. 5 of his library of Aboriginal American Literature, Phila., 1885. After sifting the evidence as to its authenticity, Brinton concludes (p. 158): "It is a genuine native production, which was repeated orally to some one indifferently conversant with the Delaware language, who wrote it down to the best of his ability. In its present form. it can, as a whole, lay no claim either to antiquity or to purity of linguistic form. Yet, as an authentic modern version, slightly colored by European teachings, of the ancient tribal traditions, it is well worth preservation and will repay more study in the future than is given it in this volume. The narrator was probably one of the native chiefs or priests, who had spent his life in the Ohio and Indiana towns of the Lenape, and who, though with some knowledge of Christian instruction, preferred the pagan rites, legends, and myths of his ancestors. Probably certain lines and passages were repeated in the archaic form in which they had been handed down for generations."

http://www.native-languages.org/lenape_culture.htm

Websites about the Walam Olum (Red Record or Score). Today the Walam Olum is thought to have been a hoax

by a white writer, but some Delaware people believe he based his writing on real Lenape stories. Native Languages of the ::Americas website © 1998-2007

Marburg72 (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you would all be interested to note that the Pennsylvania Lenape have publicly stated that they have been in Pennsylvania and generally in the Delaware River Valley for more than 10,000 years (which directly opposes the Walum Olum account). See the following website. [2] and also [3] TriNotch (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion about Delaware Indian "territory" See the following website for a more complete explanation of their "territory". http://www.tolatsga.org/dela.html

Marburg72 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is the phrase 'local area' that you I believe added that was the problem. Raf never suggested that the sticks came from Ontario. Plus of course the Ontario scrolls have nothing to do with Lenape never having heard of the Walam Olum.

I also note that you have found no reliable sources in the last 12 years. You've found people citing a 19th century source, Brinton, no surprise there. But 'reliable sources' has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Yours aren't. As another editor was kind enough to leave them in, I will for now, but don't be surprised if someone comes along and notices that they fail the criteria and removes them. Doug Weller (talk) 05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to raise the bar a little. It is very easy to comment on the Walam Olum and not say it's a forgery, if you haven't studied the evidence indicating that it is a forgery (one reason why I think the stuff about Joe Napora pre-1994 should be minimised in the article; it's not fair to him post-1994). What needs to be found is direct refutation of the evidence offered by Oestreicher and others (which, I think, will only be possible if it can be proved that that evidence is itself a forgery) or a clear, peer-reviewed demonstration that none of the said evidence is actually relevant. David Trochos (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Marburg72's sources have certainly not been scholarly and so far as I can see fail Wikipedia's standards for reliability. Anyone can quote Brinton and say they agree with him (and for all we know, it is perfectly possible that none of the sources MB cites have heard of or read Oestreicher, which makes their comments even more meaningless in this context). It really isn't a 'developing consensus' any more, it's a consensus. Doug Weller (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Native American experts writing about the document is important and even more current and scholarly than a white writer. It is clear that Native writers take on a document about their heritage as shown above is more important to this topic - and cannot be ignored. Why are you attempting to ignore the Native American Viewpoint? Marburg72 (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As I added a link to the viewpoint of one Lenape nation yesterday, it should be clear that I am not attempting to ignore the Native American viewpoint. But it has to be based on reliable sources, not the personal opinion of unidentified individuals. And I do wonder if those individuals really understood that the Walam Olum suggests a recent migration from Asia, as recent as 336 AD. Are you supporting the recent migration implications of the Walam Olum? Doug Weller (talk) 05:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has no one mentioned C.A. Weslager's work in this discussion? He researched the WO down to the manuscript level, and concluded it was legitimate. See C.A. Weslager, The Delaware Indians, Rutgers, 2000, in particular "The Walam Olum" pages 77-97, including in particular footnote 25. E.P. Grondine - Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.156 (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A counter-question to answer the above question. Why did Weslager not discuss Oestreicher's work in his chapter on the Walam Olum? As noted elsewhere on this page, until that work is specifically refuted, it must stand as the state-of-the-art. David Trochos (talk) 00:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

'Native American experts'

I have tried very hard to explain to Marburg72 Wikipedia policies and guidelines on reliable sources to no avail. On the Cahokia talk pge[4] there was even a situation where MB was insisting I couldn't use a quote from a University press book co-authored by the archaeologist considered the dean of Cahokia archaeology because, he wrote, it was unreliable and unverifiable until I found a scholarly source agreeing with it. (As just one example, he wrote about the quote "Until you cite a scientific journal that references this material, it should be left out." (He also at first said that the book had "not been referenced in any scholarly journal and is entirely about petty arguments and opinions" - it was easy to find two journal reviews and a mention in another book). I mention this here to give an idea of both his understanding of policies and guidelines and the level of demand he ask for about a quotation he objected to.
In this article, when asked for some reliable sources suggesting the Walam Olum was not a forgery, he found some anonymous websites citing with no analysis a 19th century author, Brinton, and giving no indication that they had read anything more recent. He also has apparently called these sources scholarly. He added them to the article and I, probably unwisely, didn't remove them although they clearly are not reliable sources in Wikipedia terms as I understand them. Another editor also kept them in with some rewording, and I again told Marburg72 these were not reliable sources. Instead of responding, he added them yet again to the conclusion of the article, labelled the anonymous authors 'native American experts', and on the basis of a copyright date 2004-2008 asserted that one of them had been written this year.
This is, I think, getting to the point of being disruptive. I am removing the personal (and anonymous) and genealogical websites. They are clearly not 'reliable' and there is no evidence they were written by native American experts. Doug Weller (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You again forgot that Melvin Fowler wrote Melvin L. Fowler, Jerome Rose, Barbara Vander Leest, Steven R. Ahler. "The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia." (1999) - which states nothing of Young's speculation that veritcal finger bones found in Mound 72 were "buried alive" evidence. As discussed on the Cahokia talk page, Racist attitudes should be considered when discussing human burials and making such claims about them. Why is this sensationalist suggestion so appealing to you? Take this discussion to the Cahokia Page.

The majority of scholars today do not subscribe to Oest's ideas about the Walam Olum: As shown by the above websites, the majority of current Amerindian authors say entirely the opposite. Native American authors know more about their heritage that you give them credit for. The Walam Olum is a fascinating document that deserves more study without the academic turf protection and careerism that infects so much of todays "academia".Marburg72 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Fowler's later book co-authored with Young that has the statement about vertical finger bones, not something by Young. Please don't accuse Fowler of having racist attitudes. The real racists who write about Native American history (or in this case wrote as they are both dead) are people like Barry Fell and Gloria Fowler in their attempts to rewrite the prehistory of the Americas.

As for 'majority of scholars', please name even one by name who has published in a reliable source an analysis that says the Walam Olum is authentic, or has criticised Oestreicher or any of the other recent authors who have said it is a hoax. (It would be a start if you could name even one scholar wherever they have published - and Grondine is a researcher and space reporter, not a scholar.) Doug Weller (talk) 08:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another point about Grondine- the actual subject of his book is impact events, not the reliability of sources. As for the view of "The majority of scholars today"- as I mentioned above, anybody can state a viewpoint, but if they do not specifically refute the evidence that the Walam Olum is a hoax, merely stating their view that it is not a hoax is irrelevant. David Trochos (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

My removal of Marburg72's recent edits

I removed the additional Kidd material because not only did it add nothing useful to the article, it was confusing as it said "The period or periods at which this was done is far from clear" which Kidd wrote before the carbon dating which at least added some clarification. I removed the quote from Coleman because this article is definitely not about Midewiwin scrolls, which already have more coverage later in the article than seems relevant. And finally I removed an attempt which I can only think was meant to link the Walam Olum to Upper Paleolithic Europe via Greenman's 1963 discredited article (which in fact clearly also says "The hourglass shape has nothing to do with palaeolithic art" in one of the companion pieces). This definitely does not belong here. Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Doug removed relavent information about the provinance in origin of such artifacts. The date, which he had previously added stating that scrolls were made around the 1500's was unsupported in Kidd's article. Supplimental material was added to clear up a direct quote from Kidd's article that stated the origins were unclear. It could either be that symbols used on scrolls originated in upper paleolithic - as indicated in the Greenman article or that the scrolls were more recent copies of older scrolls, a custom noted by Dewdney. Coleman exaplains the use of the scrolls in cermonies - a point which this section was trying to make. Please do not remove this relavent information again. Marburg72 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the information to the Midewiwin Page upon suggestion by Trochos.Marburg72 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the 1965 article did not support the date, the dating was later and I gave a source. Greenman is not only over half a century out of date, he was refuted in the same article and hasn't been taken seriously since. If anyone wants to use him anywhere, they need to be sure the reference is NPOV and this one clearly wasn't (and I've removed it from the Midewiwin page -- I don't think it will help the Midewiwin article to have a long discussion there of what Greenman said and what his critics said, and it is clearly not a significant view (confusing too, Greenman argues for an Atlantic connection and Raf for a Bering Strait one for I think the same people). Doug Weller (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added the information to the Midewiwin page because your opinion does not matter about Greenman. The information presented by Greenman is relavent and in a scholarly journal accessible on JSTOR called Current Anthropology. It is not a "fringe" publication. What his critics say is also irrelevant to a discussion of Midewiwin origins. Drop it!Marburg72 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth. It is Greenman's ideas where which are fringe (and you know that), not CA. And if you are going to try to use him to push your fringe POV I'll simply have to add what his critics say. Making the hourglass claim without pointing out that the samea article refutes it is not acceptable and is clearly POV. Just checking also, the only direct quote I can find from Kidd that mentions something not being clear I think was added by Marburg72 [5] but the newer dating helped with thatDoug Weller (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Doug, Greenman's ideas are not fringe and you are wrong to even state that as if it is a fact. Your website on fringe shows that you are the only person who cares about Fringe theories so much. Your additions to the Midewiwin page should be constructive about Mide - Not an effort to attack someone. Again, Drop it!Marburg72 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

10,000 years reference is needed for sentence that states this is contradiction

The repeated removal of a citation needed icon is not helping the understanding of the article - because no citation is added for this opinion. Several sources indicate the 10,000 year date is accurately portrayed in the Walam Olum. Kraft’s last work and magnum opus, The Lenape-Delaware Indian Heritage: 10,000 BC to AD 2000 uses this date. Marburg72 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

But Kraft isn't referring to the Walam Olum but to the archaeology. What are the sources that say the Walam Olum portrays a date anywhere near that early? The earliest date I've seen so far is 2nd millennium BCE, and Lilly thinks the migration was far more recent. Doug Weller (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a contradiction according to http://128.192.54.192/bobk/walams.html

http://www.native-languages.org/lenape_culture.htm (See Last 12,000 years) - specifically mentioned on bottom of page. Synopsis of the separate parts. I.The formation of the universe by the Great Manito is described. In the primal fog and watery waste he formed land and sky, and the heavens cleared. He then created men and animals. These lived in peace and joy until a certain evil Manito came, and sowed discord and misery. This canto is a version of the Delaware tradition mentioned in the Heckewelder MSS. which I have given previously, p. 135. The notion of the earth rising from the primal waters is strictly a part of the earliest Algonkin mythology, as I have amply shown in previous discussions of the subject. See my Myths of the New World, p. 213, and American Hero Myths, Chap. II. Marburg72 (talk) 15:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

One of us is confused here. We aren't talking about a migration from Siberia. Brinton and Squier for instance both think the WO is about migration within North America, to the current Lenape homeland. What source suggests that the Lenape arrived in their homeland 10,000 years ago? Kraft's book is about them living in their traditional homeland for 10,000 years. Doug Weller (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The confusion is that we are talking about creation myths as recorded in the Walam Olum. It does not seem to matter which direction they came from or went to - if they lived there, and the document records their creation myths of the time beginning 12000 years ago, then the statement of a contradiction should be removed. Marburg72 (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It documents their migration. Forget about the creation myth bit, the article says "The Walam Olum includes a creation account, a flood story, and the narrative of a series of migrations," and I think everyone agrees it documents their migration. I know of no one who has interpreted it as saying that they have lived in their current homeland 10,000 years. I also have no idea who wrote what in the post ending 'American Hero Myths, Chap.II.' as some of it is by an unsigned IP editor -- who needs to avoid doing that as it confuses everyone. Doug Weller (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The confusion lies in the statement the "Lenape Nation of Pennsylvania make clear their belief that they have been in the area for 10,000 years [24]". What source explains that the walam olum legends and stories of creation could have been separately brought in to them 6000 years later but 4000 years ago?? That time frame is very confused and how would we have any idea - the original document is gone so it cannot be carbon dated.Marburg72 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Walam Olum, which is a migration myth at least in part about a migration from west to East across North America, has been interpreted as meaning that the migration took place 10,000 years ago? Give me a reliable citation for that and I might acknowledge that you have a point. Doug Weller (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What the Walam Olum States is a creation Myth - these were passed down from generation to generation - and here it was recorded in this important document. The Lenape of pennsylvania state that they have been in the area for 10,000 years. What source do you have that indicates no creation myths or stories existed among them. Further, the original document is lost so no carbon dating can be done. Even if carbon dating on the actual document could be done, it could have been a more recent copy of earlier work - a custom noted by Dewdney that older scrolls were copied onto new scrolls, with attention given to copy it precisely. Why is that considered by you to be a "direct contradiction" to the Walam Olum - which states no precise dates at all?Marburg72 (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have never said the Penn Lenape have no creation myths, I am not talking about creation myths. I think I am asking a simple question. In the various interpretations of the WO, various dates have been given for the arrival of the Lenape in their present homeland. All the dates I know about are far later than 10000 years ago. I have no idea why you think carbon dating some document (I have no idea what document either) is relevant. Doug Weller (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to answer your question as simply as possible. Point is: No dates are written on the walam olum. Therefore there is no "direct contradiction". Someone can extrapolate the number of chiefs and approximate the average age at death of each chief written and then arrive at an approximate date. But this is purely speculation - not directly from the walam olum at all. This statement of a direct contradiction is false.Marburg72 (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. First you ask for a citation, then while we are discussing it you just go ahead and delete it. Nice. Doug Weller (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a specific reference for a date directly out of the Walam Olum then this could be considered. However, there are no dates in the Walam Olum. This is because aboriginal cultures did not use the same calendar or dating conventions as Europeans. Marburg72 (talk) 02:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case it's because the Walam Olum was invented by a white guy in 1834 in an attempt to make some money and bolster his academic reputation. David Trochos (talk) 07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi David -

Re: dating

Note the archaeological sequence which I gave above. I did not create those sites, nor did I excavate them, nor did I self publish them.

If you want to imagine that hard data away, then there is no point in continuing.

As far as WO dating goes, the Holocene Start Impacts remembered in the opening of the WO are now pretty well shown to have occurred at 10,900 BCE.

I expect that as coastal and underwater sites are excavated on the west coast of Canada are excavated, the WO will be further confirmed. mt A DNA haplogroup is showing up quite early there.

I'll side with Brinton on CSR and his work, and would suggest that you might want to reconsider your opinion of CSR, or at least your words, before you embarrass yourself publicly again.

E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.181 (talk) 23:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If there's anyone here with a remote cause to be embarrassed by behaviour in this discussion, it's certainly not David. I suggest, instead of seeking to belittle a contributor, if you've anything specific, relevant, and backed up by reliable independent sources to add, then do so. Otherwise, unless they bring a hand clutching the WO sticks up to the surface from somewhere along the migration path, then whatever might be found in a maritime dig, or shows up in a haplogroup analysis, is quite irrelevant and says nothing about the authenticity of CSR's WO or that it speaks of events 10kya. --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ed. This section of the discussion was about the discrepancy between the apparent consecutive listing of Lenape chiefs in the W.O., which appeared to put the start date back in relatively late BCE, and its depiction of an an ocean crossing on ice, which would appear to relate to events now known to have occurred many thousands of years earlier. If Oestreicher's (very strong) evidence that the W.O. is Rafinesque's hoax is accepted, there is no need to resolve this discrepancy- Rafinesque is known to have favoured an early version of the Beringia theory, and lived in an era when geological time was not understood. The W.O. also contains numerous echoes of Christian culture, and it is not surprising that these should include the Flood, given the knowledge in Rafinesque's time of Flood legends in many cultures. Early Holocene impact events may have had real effects on the climate (and consequently on human migration)- but the Walam Olum is almost certainly not genuine evidence of such events. David Trochos (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have Ed arguing that there was a migration which conflicts with the statement I had that the Lenape had been in their homeland for 10,000 years, and Marburg arguing that there is nothing in the WO that conficts with the Lenape in their homeland for 10,000 years. Doug Weller (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

In the WO, earlier periods of time were summarized. The continuous chief's list picks up much later, with the change in leadership to another clan and Beautiful Head, and this most likely was the period when pictographic records first were adopted. The first hard date after this is the stockades at Aztlan, dated to 1100 CE, so move back a few hundred years and you probably have a good date for the start of the use of pictographs.

Over the last 14,000 years, impacts and impact mega-tsunamis were much more frequent than is currently understood by most of the anthropological community. Thus "flood stories" abound in many cultures, including stories of those floods caused by "normal" flooding. Many Christians view all of these accounts from a Christian perspective. But note that in the WO "the flood" is associated with the comet impacts of 10,900 BCE. There is no reason for CSR to have made that detail up, and it joins the list given above of hard details which remain unexplained by O. in his analysis.

My guess is that there are currently some who are misidentifying Mohigan remains as being Lenape. This may also fit well with a desire by some for casinos in the New York City area by some, which is their business. I have no doubt that Mohigans were in that area for a long while, or that they were conquered and assimilated by the Lenape. As a matter of fact, in the WO that is explicitly stated to have occurred.

The conquest sequence is perhaps better seen in Western Pennsylvania and the Maryland panhandle.

The archaeological sequence is as I gave above. Those are the hard facts, and so far no one here has commented on them. The population distributions were as I gave above, and so far no one has commented on them. For some reason opinions have been given more weight than hard facts in this discussion here.

However CSR worked with Lenape, there are simply too many "coincidences" in the WO for me to consider it a product of CSR's imagination.

E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas.

RE: Pictographic stick records

These were used by "Mississipian" peoples to remember their histories, and in "Man and Impact in the Americas" you may find Le Page du Pratz's eyewitness account of them. Even though none of them survive today, we may assume that every "Mississipian" chiefdom had a set, as their use was linked to the religious structure and personnel. That would include "mississipian" chiefedoms well to the north. Thus their adoption by the Lenape at the time stated above would not be surprising, but rather be expected, based on similar adoptions of "writing" technologies by peoples living elsewhere on the Earth.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.176 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with "coincidences" is that they are often merely the products of our interpretation- the Walam Olum flood being a possible example. Interpreting the generic enemy-figure of the snake as a comet is perfectly reasonable, but it's not the only possible interpretation. On the other hand, I suppose it can be argued that just because Rafinesque made no mention at all of the Walam Olum in his various writings on Native American culture for the Atlantic Journal around 1833, the interpretation that he was then unaware of the existence of any such document is not the only possible interpretation. But just as there are many "coincidences" pointing to the authenticity of the Walam Olum narrative, so there are many indications that Rafinesque was not working on the Walam Olum before the fall of 1834, when significant material was published by another scholar. David Trochos (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - Thanks for your civil comments. Please expand your comment on the "significant material" as for me this most likely explains what happened: CSR admitted he had been completely stymied by the Lenape language for many years, and perhaps this material gave him a "key" so that he could feel confident in proceeding with a translation.

I still suspect that CSR was working from a transcript, because of the coincidences in toponyms and ethnonyms (ethnographs - peoples) given above, and there are more of them than those I listed here. As for CSR's failure to mention the WO in 1833, perhaps it could be ascribed to his desire for an exclusive accomplishment: in other words, if he had of announced its existence, other scholars would have come in and taken "his glory". This had happened before to CSR, and repeatedly, by people of who held both him and Native Americans in bad heart.

I agree completely with your statement about "coincidences". I have seen Linear A "translated" as everything from Slav to Hebrew. It's simply that in the case of the WO the overwhelming number of "coincidences", and the hard facts of the archaeological record, led me not to give O.'s studies time - my book does cover nearly all of the peoples in the Americas after all, and the Lenape are but one of them, and thus what time I spent with CSR was focused on his writings, from the UVA Rare Book Room to the Library of Congress Microfilm Reading Room.

There is something else which I would like to mention to those engaged here in this discussion. My stroke has left me with limited linguistic abilities, and what I have left of them I would like to spend on the Shawnee "Principal Narrative", which appears to be an astronomical allegory running back to "Hopewell" times, and ending in an eclipse. And we all know about the ring structures in the Ohio River drainage.

I hope that under these circumstances my personal desire to work with Shawnee rather than Lenape may be understood.

E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.145 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The theme of the Volney Prize for 1835, awarded by the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres in France, was the grammar of the Algonkian languages. In October 1834, Rafinesque submitted a long essay concentrating on the Lenape language, and using an innovative statistical method to demonstrate its links with the Samoyed languages of Siberia. This matched a theory he had first published in 1824 (in "Ancient Annals of Kentucky") and now restated, that the ancestors of the Leni Lenape must have come to America via the Bering Strait. He backed up this theory in the 1834 essay with a Shawnee legend about how their ancestors had crosssed "over the ice"- but despite the prestige and monetary value of this prize, he made no mention of the Walam Olum, or indeed of any Native American pictograms whatever.

The following month, the American Philosophical Society published a new edition of the late John Heckewelder's 1822 list of Delaware toponyms, edited by Peter Du Ponceau (who as it happened was the only other entrant for the Volney Prize- and the eventual winner) and expanded to include some personal names, notably chiefs over the previous couple of centuries. A few weeks later, in December, Rafinesque submitted to the Volney Prize judges a supplement to his essay: the Walam Olum. Living in a fairly remote corner of England, I can only take David Oestreicher's word for the relationship between the Walam Olum and the expanded Heckewelder list, but I would guess that you can obtain AmPhilSoc publications more easily. Compare names of chiefs, and their place in the chronology. Incidentally, there are also suspicions that Rafinesque plagiarized Heckewelder's "History, Manners, and Customs of the Indian Nations Who Once Inhabited Pennsylvania and the Neighboring States" (1819) for his 1824 "Ancient Annals" work- for example the struggle with the Talligewi. David Trochos (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, David, but I have had a stroke, and getting to AmPhilSoc publications would be both difficult and expensive for me.

O. is accusing CSR of plagiarizing du Ponceau, but is it possible instead that du Ponceau plagiarized CSR? Or that CSR's correspondence with Heckewelder was du Ponceaau's source? And that the "contest" was wired from the start?

Finally, there is absolutely no reason why there may not have been two identical or very nearly identical tellings of Lenape history. Indeed, that's the way they set up their system to work in the first place.

The technology of pictographic sticks I dealt with above. I used to have a link to a U of I image of a pictographic stick, not that it matters.

In any case, the chiefs' names had to come from some source, and that source would appear to be reliable. The toponyms and ethnonyms would argue for a realiable source transcription, but more tellingly, the archaeological sequence supports a realiable source.

My reading of CSR's situation, when I examined the materials in 2000, was that CSR was pretty well persecuted in Lexington for treating Native Americans and their remains with respect. This was not a popular stance in Lexington in those days.

PS - It would be better to use "Lenape", and not "Delaware", when referring to the Lenape. I have been told "lenapewak" is even better, and used in preference to Leni Lenape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.159 (talk) 07:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Oestreicher is not simply accusing CSR of (among other dubious activities) plagiarizing du Ponceau's edition of Heckewelder, he is accusing him of taking from that list a couple of dozen names of chiefs whom the Leni Lenape described as fairly recent, and applying them to much earlier chiefs, on the assumption that the French academicians do not make a habit of reading lists in the transactions of the AmPhilSoc. If CSR's early correspondence was a source for the additional material in the Heckewelder list, one would expect elements of it to surface in CSR's earlier publications- in this case there is not the excuse that he wanted to keep it secret until he was ready to publish, because Heckewelder's papers were available to the AmPhilSoc.

If you can't check and refute Oestreicher's work on the Walam Olum, you have a problem, because until somebody does refute it, in detail, with academically acceptable evidence, Oestreicher's work stands as the state-of-the-art on this subject, and the Walam Olum should be considered a hoax. David Trochos (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - The problem is not mine alone. The problem is that the ethnonyms and toponyms and archaeological record support the WO as authentic. They were set out above, and if you care to refute them, then do so.

Again, the only way CSR could have made all of these details up would be if he had superhuman powers. Is that what you or O. want to say? You can't simply claim that the archaeological remains are the product of my imagination or perception. That simply won't work.

You and O. make the assumption that du Ponceau committed no "academic" crime, including any use of any copy of a WO transcription in Heckewelder's possession. You've made the assertion that the Leni Lenape described those chiefs as being recent, but is there any proof of the assertion that these chiefs were recent aside from du Ponceau?

Even if they were recently used, there is the re-use of personal names.

CSR claimed that he could not translate the transcription he had. Perhaps du Ponceau/Heckewelder's list provided him with a key to the historical present tense. Perhaps du Ponceau sent CSR a copy of the WO. Again, the problem is the archaeological sequence, and the ethnonyms and toponyms.

Its funny to think about it, but the problem of the WO is likely to live on for at least the next serveral hundred years, long after we have both passed. And in the future there will be many more biographers of CSR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.39.32.160 (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, of course, to say that the problem is not yours alone- but it definitely isn't mine, or any other Wikipedia editor's, because we are supposed to reflect the state-of-the-art of published and academically accepted information, not cutting-edge speculation. Strictly speaking, I should not even be engaging in this discussion within the confines of Wikipedia! David Trochos (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the civil tone, David. My favorite piece on wikipedia: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902

Undoubtedly, there are multiple references on wikipedia to the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs, instead of to the comet impact that killed the dinosaurs.

Humor aside, I still remain sceptical of O.'s argument, for the hard facts given above. If I am wrong, I will join a long list of distinguised scholars who were decieved by CSR. I don't mind being in their company.

E.P. Grondine Man and Impact in the Americas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.215.249.12 (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

A quote copied from another website stated on Saturday, May 08, 2004:

"See the "Walam Olum" published by the Indiana Historical Society. Also, See "The Lenape and their Legends" by Brinton. It is believed that it is not a hoax. The history of the Lenape was handed down for millenia by means of pictographs on sticks or bark as well as orally ( or story telling."James Albany President,Lenni Lenape Historical Society