Talk:Ancestral Puebloans/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Commons category name controversy

Hi folks. I am a Commoner (have probably made over 10K edits there), and seldom venture outside of my hole to the outside world of the wikis. There is a dispute on Commons regarding the name for the category corresponding to Hisatsimon/Ancient Pueblo Peoples/Anasazi. We are a multilingual database and I note that most wikis use the term Anasazi. However the country of origin of this term is the United states so it seems a US authority should be used, and en:wiki is the corresponding authority for that country.

I just learned about this naming controversy a few days ago and in deference to what you folks have collectively decided, have taken the position that Ancient Pueblo Peoples should be used. I would like to see the support for the statement that the term is pejorative. The quotes I have seen thus far equivocate. Can someone provide me a strong uniquivocal quote from some authority (preferably an authority from the community of Pueblo peoples) that the term is pejorative and that it is the dominant interpretation amoung pueblo peoples. I find it difficult to believe it is as intense as the use of the term nigger from a white to black person that aren't close friends. Really, in some neighborhoods in the US you could die from using that particular term.

Thanks in advance for any assistance you folks might render. In the meantime, here is a collection of pictures related to this subject. -Mak Thorpe 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. But -- as in most "politically correct" debates, I'm afraid your "strong uniquivocal quote" probably doesn't yet exist. Archaeologists, historians and other scholars still strongly prefer "Anasazi" although most of them will occasionally use "Ancient Pueblo People" as an alternate reference. To my knowledge, the governments/councils of modern Pueblo peoples haven't addressed the issue in an official manner. A younger, more militant, subset of the Pueblo peoples (which seem to strongly resent the word "Anasazi") have become quite vocal in the last decade or so. I also suspect the word has become "loaded"" with more modern connotations due to conflicts with the Navajo in the southwest. Until agreement in the real world is reached, I would continue to advocate "Ancient Pueblo People" with both an "Anasazi" redirect and mention in relevant articles for Wikipedia. Best wishes. WBardwin 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I suspected there would not be, but thought I'd ask on the off chance anyway. Unfortunately, this set off an edit war on Commons. I have a few questions on the facts concerning how this article came to be named the way it is.

1. My understanding is the article was originally named Anasazi. Correct?
2. Somewhere in 2004, it was renamed to the present name. (Correct?)
3. Did some sort of discussion precede the renaming, or was the rename done boldly by a single individual?
4. Approximately how may people have joined in the debate on whether this was the correct move?
5. I see no talk pages prior to spring 2005. Was there simply no dicussion prior, or was the data moved to an obsure location/lost?

-Mak Thorpe 06:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I began actively editing in Feb 2005 -- and this article was Ancient Pueblo Peoples at that time. In regards to your questions, I have not yet looked back in history. This has been a generally quiet article during my time, with perhaps three other active editors. The most extensive discussion (that I'm aware of) on the name topic is found above. An editor whose time here was brief wanted to eliminate all reference to Anasazi -- but eventually conceded that the word has some historic context. I expect the topic might become hot and acrimonious at intervals. Sorry that I'm not more help. WBardwin 09:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I do not want to misrepresent the process on WP and now have a clearer perspective. Regards and thanks for sharing your expertise on this subject. I recall my first trip to Mesa Verde as a boy, and was particularly intrigued by what I saw there. -Mak Thorpe 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever heard someone named Anasazi? And if so, what do you think of the name? Should they change their name to Ancient Pueblo Peoples? I understand completely the stress that it is causing, but it is ancient history, so I would advise you all to ask a Navajo person, does the name Anasazi really bother them. If so, use the term Ancient Pueblo Peoples. If not, stick with Anasazi. It's shorter.

I'm afraid you misunderstand. The Navajo are not descendants of the Anasazi, but use the term regularly. The various Pueblo people, including the Zuni, appear to be descendants. It is a subset of the Pueblo that resent the use of the term "Anasazi" which appears to be of Ute origin and may mean "ancient enemy" or "ancient people.". WBardwin 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi my name is Unity and I am looking up Anasazi for social studies grade it is hard too find stuff about Anasazi.

Try looking up "pigeon" here and you'll have the same problem. The tail wags the dog, so you'll just have to get used to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.102.55 (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannibalism

The human remains found in the human coprolites is... fairly conclusive, I fear. 68.228.89.148 04:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

But is there any evidence if it being institutionalised, or incidental (as a byproduct of the event that caused the decline of the civilisation - i.e. desperation)? Steewi (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the mention of "strong indications of cannibalism," what are these strong indications? The sentences following this statement mention dismembered and unburied remains, but the paragraph is not structured to clearly present these features as the strong indications referred to in the lead-in. Are there other indications? If so, what are they? (I'm not interested in debating the veracity of the claim - I don't care either way - just want to know what the indications referred to are.)Blcklbl (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Collapse

Nothing here says anything about their sudden collapse around the 1400's. They had started to decline from 1250's onwards. Tourskin 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

branches and map

This article is in dire need of a section that discusses the different branches of the Anasazi/Ancestral Puebloans. I find it strange that there is nothing really about this in the article. The branches are: Kayenta, Virgin, Chacoan, and Rio Grande. If I had time I would do this but I do not. I just wanted to get this out there for people to discuss and do. I also take issue with the map. It doesn't encompass some areas which have been definied as most certainly Anasazi. I don't have references off hand but as someone who conducts research in some of the excluded areas I find it important to have a map which represents all the areas considered to fall within the Anasazi world. And to be anal, this article needs cleanup and proper references and formatting used. It's all over the place and is not concise at all. Cheers!--Tainter 04:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural characteristics

Please fix this line: "... unusual dwelling in ..." [The line terminates abruptly at the end of a paragraph.]

Typofixer76 21:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Cannibalism

Has anyone thought about the significance. I think the Anasazi were under attack by "barbarians" in a basic rhythm of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtloweman (talk • contribs) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Consider "Little Ice Age" as causal to disappearance of Anasazi

In Europe, with written languages, a lengthy period of climate change was called the Little Ice Age. The climate changes led to widespread famine and death due to crop failures in Europe, and spread of diseases in a population that was weakened. There is no good reason to think that American Indian cultures would not be so affected, lying in the same northern hemisphere of our earth. The Anasazi would be particularly vulnerable due to the arid and sometimes cold climate of a barely subsistence people. At least some, but sadly, not many, archeologists think this would be the perfect explanation for the "disappearance" of the "Anasazi", given the dates. I consider Wikipedia as quite sophisticated, and think at least a mention of this topic would be in order. 216.143.245.5 (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)BDCA

Archaeologists have long asserted, and I would certainly concur, that environmental factors were major contributors to the movement of the Anasazi and the abandonment of settlement areas (no one but the media ever thought they had truly disappeared). Drought and deforestation are among the environmental causes explored. If you have a good source on effects of the Little Ice Age in North American, that would be a great addition to the article. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In answer to WBardwin: As to a good source on effects of Little Ice Age, my background is of decades of taking field archeology classes, while living in the area of the "anasazi". None of the things I could cite are in writing, such as books, it comes from lectures. Of course, the "anasazi" did not leave written records, or the entire subject would be much more clear. Currently I teach ceramics (pottery) at Eastern Arizona College. I make "anasazi" reproductions that everyone raves about. I could say I am the incarnation of an "anasazi", which I personally believe, and it would be taken with the same disbelief as suggesting that the Little Ice Age (please see the Wikipedia article on this subject)could be causative to the abandonment of the "anasazi" homelands. A New York Times article of this date (Vanished: A Pueblo Mystery)does mention Little Ice Age, but generally dismisses it as causal, preferring a way more complicated explanation. Unfortunately the field is filled with a LOT of subjective information, even or perhaps especially, by the "experts". I do believe that a mention IS in order, even if others disagree, particularly since it IS plausible, with verification from European sources. A Google search of "anasazi little ice age" leads to several confirming articles, but who knows the credentials of the authors? BDCA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.245.8 (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Alas, "sourcing" is increasingly important on Wikipedia and unsourced material can be summarily deleted (often to my annoyance). As I implied above, climatic change impacts human prehistory and history in many ways. As we come to understand the cyclic patterns, including the Little Ice Age, I'm sure we will see their influence on archaeology in the America's (which is heavily conservative!). However, even the negative mention in your NY Times article can be cited here -- so you could put in a sentence on the topic and note that it is currently a minority or controversial opinion. By the way -- always nice to see another potter here. It is amazing how many people with archaeology backgrounds also work in clay. Go ahead and write your sentence in (with the source) and then go get your hands dirty. WBardwin (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my first attempt to make any comments about a Wikipedia article, and you have lost me at this point, I do not know how to proceed. I do appreciate hearing from you, and have learned something about how Wikipedia generates it's articles. Interesting. Most of my older pottery students are very aware of the ancient pottery sherds which are numerous in yards and fields in the Safford Valley. Archeologists are aware of an influx of Kayenta people way back when. So perhaps this is a good place to be when global warming catches up with the unsuspecting public and spreads ice around again! BDCA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.245.12 (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, just as you came to and altered this article's discussion page, you can go the the article page and appropriately place a sentence or two addressing the possible impact of the Little Ice Age. Then, just as you would acknowledge a quote or general reference in any academic paper, provide the source for the idea/information. People here use a variety of "systems" for references, but the easiest is simply following your section with the (author, source, date, page number) in parentheses, as used by the "Harvard" reference system or its variants. Of course people with a strong penchant for the more automated Wiki reference structure will follow you and "automate" your reference and others will edit your grammer, spelling and usage. But that is the glory of Wikipedia -- we all build on the contributions of others. If it would help you as a "newby" -- you could draft your submittal here on the discussion page and then "watch" where/how I place it in the article.

It appears to me that you would make good contributions as an editor here -- we have many articles in process on the American Southwest, archaeology, and pottery. To join Wikipedia, you should open an account (free) as a formal editor and go through the available tutorials for new editors. But I warn you, once you start to edit you probably won't stop. This darn place is addictive! Hope to work with you soon! WBardwin (talk) 21:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Google brings up the following NYT sources. Is yours among them? WBardwin (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Anasazi - Ancient Migration - A Pueblo Mystery - (New York TimesApr 8, 2008 ... Kevin Moloney for The New York Times). The ruins of an Anasazi home near the Chimney Rock ... factors like the onset of a great drought or a little ice age. ... www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08anasazi.html?ref=science - Similar pages

• Anasazi (The New York Times August 20, 1996, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final) ... moister grounds by a worldwide cooling trend called the Little Age Ice. ... www.santafe.edu/~johnson/articles.anasazi.html - 13k - Cached - Similar pages

Thanks WBardwin. I think just now I need to do my IRS taxes, then I indeed might follow your instructions and see how it goes. Thank you so much for the detailed instructions!

Tne NYTimes article is dated 9 april 2008, title "Vanished A Pueblo Mystery" and concerns a conference at Amerind Foundation (between here and Tucson and very worth repeat visits). It is a thoughtful article and should be easy for you to call up and read, especially so recent a date. I especially appreciate the line about, could you explain the Mormon migration by tree ring dating.

Every time I visit the Museum of Northern Arizona in Flagstaff they would try to get me as a docent, but the the 100+ mile commute from Page was more than I could envision. Working from home as a Wiki editors sounds "easier". Thanks for your encouragement! Sounds like a good hobby for a Mensan as well. BDCA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.245.12 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction: NYTimes article is dated 4-8-08. BDCArmstrong (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet another 'Newby' here... I was checking this article while looking up things on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). As far as potential contribution of the Little Ice Age on the demise of the Anasazi it is also worth noting that the rise of this group (as well as the Inca in the southern hemisphere) coincided with MWP. Cite-able research seems to be scarce, but the Wiki article on the MWP does reference a study indicating a warm period in Alaska from 800-1300.

What I did wish to address is the ridiculous statement under the "Origins" section that "...this tenfold increase in population over the course of a few generations could not be achieved by increased birthrate alone". Uh, if the rise was from 700-1130 AD, that would be 430 years or 21 generations. A ten-fold increase is merely a doubling of the population about 3 1/3 times (2^3.33 ~ 10). This means you would only need to double the population every 130 years or 6 1/2 generations. More than easily doable, and then some. Some African/Middle East nations have a Total Fertility Rate today that could double their population with every generation. +++Mikey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.225.82 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Vague and Confusing

Can someone cite a source for this, or at least clean it up so it makes some sense?

They settled first in the Anasazi areas for a few hundred years, then migrated to their current location. The migrations were undertaken in furtherance of a perfection ethos and to remain in harmony with the environment and preserve the people from total annihilation.

I don't get what the "perfection ethos" part means at all. As for the others, to "remain in harmony with the environment" and prevent extinction, aren't those the reasons for almost every migration throughout history (excluding conquest obviously)? So other than perpetuating the "native Americans as proto-ecologist" myth, and throwing in that strange "perfection ethos" bit, does this not boil down to "they later migrated when conditions changed and made moving necessary"? 68.55.132.231 (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed that sentence and added a citation request. Vsmith (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pueblo and other Native Americans should be remembered!

I myself am part Native American and I think people should study or something because while I was at school a few days ago they didn't say my tribe! They forgot all about the Choctaw tribe and I'm mad my family was forgoten! Now I think I'll...

My great great great grandma was 1 of the actuall Choctaws alive back then. She's dead now so to have her tribe forgoten is horrible! Please don't let her be forgoten! Your friend, AutumΆύΤύΜ

Perhaps you should visit the Choctaw article and try and contribute there. Please note, in the interest in clarity on the talk page, that I reduced your duplicate entry and corrected the format of some of your material. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Name issue/reference

The following IP 98.230.206.164 edit regarding the use of Anasazi was removed for discussion. If any material is retained it should, in my opinion, be placed in the subsection: Anasazi as a cultural label. WBardwin (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The term "Anasazi" has been incorrectly used by archeologists and others to describe the many Ancestral Pueblo People tribes. Amateur explorer Richard Wetherill is credited with inadvertedly popularizing the word "Anasazi", which the Navajo used to describe their "Ancient Enemies" in the Four Corners area of the United States. The correct term for these ancient peoples is the individual tribe's name for themselves, but this name is many times unknown to modern researchers. This is the same problem found with the term "indian" when referring the many Indigenous peoples of the Americas except that descendants of Ancestral Pueblo People rightly find the term "Anazazi" offensive.

IP editor replaced material without responding to discussion request. I again reverted and referred them here. WBardwin (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)