From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Africans in Pre-Columbian America

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

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

I agree. The Spanish recorded that there were Africans (Guineans) serving in the Inca administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.123.76 ( talk) 11:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply
No need to get testy. Rainexpert ( talk) 02:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC) reply

Pre-Colombian technology

I know that the wheel was unknown in the Americas before the Europeans arrived but how about metal work? Did the pre-Colombians have bronze or iron? I would like some mention of this in the article please.  SmokeyTheCat   •TALK• 05:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC) reply

The Maya had an extensive history of scientific observations and the mathematics to tie it all together but the only technology they produced was three calendars. The only metals technology they possessed was use of gold, silver, and maybe copper for decoration by high-class individuals. They never reached a Bronze Age and certainly not an Iron Age. At the time of Columbus' arrival, the Americans were firmly implanted in the Stone Age. They only had stone, bone, and wood tools for agriculture and hunting. Iron technology was brought over by the Europeans. The horse did not exist anywhere in the Americas. Horses, cattle, sheep, and pigs were all introduced by the Europeans. This in no way suggests that the Americans were inferior. It's just how things were. It seems to me a subsection on Pre-Columbian American technology would be in order simply to describe what existed prior to 1492.-- Virgil H. Soule ( talk) 14:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC) reply
Rubbish. The Inca, Aztec and Maya were all long past what is known as 'stone-age' culture. They had all achieved civilization, as had many of their precursors in Central America. 104.169.21.238 ( talk) 18:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply
Yea... Metallurgy was practiced. In fact its pretty much proven that the mindalae social trading class, and the Chincha traders went to western mexico around the 12th century and brought metal work. Im not saying rubbish, even the specific article on andean balsa rafts mentions this. However these two polities were the only ones known for trading, and outside contact was rare, it happened sporadically. I am familiar with Andean civilizations and the Inca were stuck in the bronze age. The 'stone age' thing reminds of some horrible pop science, like Guns, Germs, and steel... Encyclopédisme ( talk) 12:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
One could copy other article pieces alone and compile a good assessment of technology, pre-Columbian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.86.28 ( talk) 04:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC) reply

Great civilizations

The third paragraph starts with the phrase "Pre-Columbian is used in the context of discussing the great indigenous civilizations of the Americas..." While I don't have any input one way or the other about how great any of these civilizations were or are, it just strikes me as a little too subjective a statement, seeming to make some kind of values judgments about the civilizations that I don't think should appear in a historical article. I think it should be removed, but preferred to bring it up here to let the decision be made by someone with more expertise. Shanedphillips ( talk) 01:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC) reply

That's not what "great" means in the context - this is a common term used by historians and archaeologists. 50.111.22.12 ( talk) 04:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Pre-Columbian era. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Lack of famine in the Americas

In a radio interview, the author of 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus claimed that in the pre-contact Americas, widespread famine was not known as it was in Europe (though that article mentions the collapse of the Maya due to exceeding the environmental carrying capacity). I assume this claim is explored in the book in more detail; it might be worth tracking down. It would be interesting to describe in the article for which cultures this was true, and why. This article by the same author explains that the introduction of maize to the Old World greatly reduced hunger there, and so it may be that cultures that farmed it in the New World had fewer famines than say, Europe. Though this medical article points out historic over-reliance on maize in the diet in some cases caused iron deficiency and anemia. -- Beland ( talk) 14:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I've taken a look at the book and I don't think it is. Doug Weller talk 06:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Norse Vinland, Greenland and Iceland; Easter Island; Eskimos

Why does this article sanitize pre-Columbian Americas of their non-Amerindian inhabitants and fossil records? There was no vacuum between the time of the Irish Papar in Iceland and the voyage of Columbus. Also, what about Easter Island? Those people were Polynesian, but is it not American? If this article rightly points out the differing genetics of Eskimos and other Arctic tribesmen from the vast majority, then what is the criterion delimiting Norse and Polynesian genetics found in pre-Columbian graves, or any continual inheritance, such as the people of Iceland, whose existence is at least partly American, for even Reykjavik is on the North American plate and the country's history is tied with Greenland and Vinland?

If someone wants to say that Whiteness disqualifies them from being American, that those are matters relating to Europe, well then, explain how this willful blindness helps deliver absolute context, or how Iceland, Greenland and Vinland somehow cease being American, if the Columbian colonies failed to change the whole of the Americas from also becoming part of Europe. Why do political matters affect this? Many of the Antilles are still colonies of Europe, so if they're too European to be covered in the Arctic, why not in the West Indies? Conversely, if the Antilles belong to pre-Columbian America, then so do the islands of the North Atlantic, or else the definition and scope is specious. All or nothing of the Americas must be pre-Columbian, not selective misnomers.

Eskimos continued living on both sides of the Bering Sea into the time Russia followed them from Siberia to Alaska, so they as Asians should qualify as no more or less pre-Columbian than Icelanders straddling Europe. The lack of explanation for or against what is American for pre-Columbian purposes, seems to conflate Irish monks and Norse settlers with subsequent colonies founded in the Renaissance and specifically because of successful Italian navigators employed by Western Europe. If so, then the attempt to racially categorize all Whites as the Other and irrelevant, despite cohabitation in the "New World", doesn't account for Polynesian and Siberian colonies known to have been present as unlike the rest. Perhaps this article should specify what kinds of people and places are the focus and why others aren't, but a change of title to "Pre-Columbian Latin America" could be helpful too.

Furthermore, if European colonies of all kinds and times are going to be Othered, it must be pointed out that the genetics section refers to Y-DNA haplogroup Q, the article of which mentions it's a brother to haplogroup R (and their father is P haplogroup), the most common post-Columbian haplogroup beginning with the Irish and Norse, but steadily ever since Columbus. Polynesians are not known to be especially high percentages of either Q or R haplogroups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.233.13 ( talk) 19:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Norse settlement circa 1000 CE

Hi, I had an edit reverted which mentioned small scale Norse settlement around 1000 CE with specific mention of the UNESCO world heritage site at L'Anse aux Meadows. I also mentioned historical references to America as Vinland, and the explorer Leif Erikson (all pre-Columbian era). The edit was reverted by user:Heironymous Rowe partly on the basis that the page was for pre-Columbian era cultures. I am somewhat stumped by this as the settlement predates Columbus by 500 years. Whilst it can always be assumed a people practices a culture, the site additionally has numerous cultural artifacts which demonstrate the way of life i.e. evidence of iron working, carpentry, boat repair etc. So the reason for the reversion obviously ignores the factual content of the edit. Can anyone shed some light on this? I find it difficult to believe that anyone researching pre-Columbian era America would want to omit obvious evidence for a people being present. Another reason given for the reversion was that it is categorisable as colonisation but that seems like far too strong a term given the current mainstream view of events. Any ideas on how to go forward with this? RickyBennison ( talk) 18:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

My full edit summary "this is an article about the cultures of pre-columbian Americas, that subject is covered in other articles about the colonization of Americas, no need to duplicate here". That subject is covered pretty well elsewhere. I don't think it belongs here. You've spent a week trying to shoehorn this one pic and few short sentences (or variations thereof) into multiple articles. Maybe other editors on this article will disagree with me. I do not think so. I'd advise against re-adding it without gaining consensus for it's inclusion. He iro 18:40, 4 June 2020 (UTC) reply

Historically Inaccurate Maps

I've noticed that some of the maps on here are inaccurate with regard to agriculture. They claim that most of North America was inhabited by hunter gatherers, when many of these regions had light farming. This is rather odd, given the state of current scholarship and public debate, especially with popular science books like 1491 published by Charles Mann. The labels on this map are incorrect, and align with social theories from 60 years ago that have been largely discarded. It is sort of bizarre to call the Puebloans "Desert Hunter Gatherers" when they have some of the oldest villages in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackKausch ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Are you suggesting that "hunter-gatherer" implies nomads only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.21.238 ( talk) 18:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Reference number 4

Ref 4 seems to be unrelated. It’s an article about the possible origin of biological life as self-replicating RNA molecules. It doesn’t describe the study of historical pattern of DNA mutation. 2001:B07:A12:8F56:2C6F:91E3:C36E:FC1B ( talk) 23:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Very little information on about independent native groups post-Aztec/Incas

Aside from a brief explanation in a picture description of a tribe surviving European contact, there is hardly anything in regards to the remaining independent holdouts of Native Americans outside of the modern borders of the United States (Chile, Argentina, inner jungles and highlands of South America), all we hear about are the Aztecs and Incas and how were they conquered by the Spanish, Spanish/Portuguese occupation, and later South American struggles for independence and modern political instability. Take this article for example: /info/en/?search=Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas#Chile Yourlocallordandsavior ( talk) 04:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply

This article is about the pre-Columbian era. It is not intended to cover the history of indigenous peoples after European contact. A good place to start for coverage of post-European contact is Indigenous people of the Americas, starting with the sub-section on European colonization. There are also numerous articles in Wikipedia about indigenous peoples throughout the Americas. Of course, coverage is strongest for indigenous peoples in the United States and Canada (which reflects that there are more reliable sources available in English about those peoples). Every part of Wikipedia can be improved, and you are welcome to help improve the coverage of all indigenous peoples in the Americas. - Donald Albury 14:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC) reply
I digress. Its a problem that coverage is strongest for north america, as it is a problem which editors recognize that there is not enough coverage of north america on say fr.wiki. There are far, far more reliable sources describing the two main corners of "civilization" in the Pre-columbian Americas, Mesoamerica and Andean America. So yes, this article needs to be looked at, and sourced. Encyclopédisme ( talk) 12:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
As always, we are all volunteers, and improvements in any given area are dependent on editors being interested enough to do the work. I spend a fair amount of my editing time on Native Americans and their predecessors in Florida and adjacent areas, and have paid only a little attention to the rest of the Americas (my last venture into South America was Haush four years ago). Personally, I could spend the next decade or so (if I live that long) just working on the topics I currently have on my wish/to-do lists, so will not commit myself to working on anything else. If you work on the article yourself, you might inspire others to join you. Donald Albury 15:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I agree with you, and I will be working on it once i've found the time and the energy! Its great to see subjects often ignored in the past like everything north of Mexico to be included more thoroughly, as they captivate the interests of academics more and more lately. I was just commenting on the idea that most english sources examine these cultures and not the Inca or Aztec empires, simply because of geography. I too only really know about the Andean world, and am not able to correctly contribute on other areas. Cheers. Encyclopédisme ( talk) 15:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pre-Columbian_era&oldid=1211324964"