Talk:Mogollon culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Aboriginal peoples, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Mexico (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Archaeology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Arizona / New Mexico (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Mexico (marked as Mid-importance).
 

Comment[edit]

Fuck this page as a tie in to Native American pottery. Wiki articles call these people Jornada Mogollon - anyone have references about that name? WBardwin 07:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Jornada Mogollon" now generally used to refer to the area east of the Rio Grande in e.New Mexico and W.Texas. The name comes from Sp. "Jornada del Muerto" [journey of death] -- a reference to the difficult passage a foot traveller experienced in the e.New Mexico/w.Texas "badlands" area (hot, highly dissected terrain, few sources of water). -- Mike Diehl

Cultural divisions section[edit]

I propose to eliminate the the "cultural" divisions section of the article. true this is something that should be addressed when dealing with any pre-historic/archaeological culture but it does not enhance this article when pertaining to the mogollon. i would suggest adding it to a new page deticated to the pre-hiostoric people of the american southwest. i'll wait a week or so to hear if anyone responds and if not the section will be eliminated. if i ever have time to do some real work on wikipedia i will create the formentioned page (if it does not alrerady exist). --Tainter 01:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the primary editor on that section -- I've also attached variants of this section to the other cultural categories, i.e. Hohokam. My original intention was three fold: 1) to remind the reader that archaeological labels are arbitrary, based on research and opinion, 2) to reduce the readers' tendency to assume the Mogollon, and their neighbors, considered themselves distinct identifiable tribes, and finally 3) to point out the archaelogical/anthropological underpinnings to all articles about prehistoric people in the southwest. I have also long intended to create a Wiki article on the Pre-historic Inhabitants of the American Southwest, and a related category scheme as well. So I would support the creation of such an article, and the inclusion of a copy of the cultural section. (What should we name it and what else do you think should go there?) However, I would prefer to retain some of the cultural material here, after a careful copyedit, for the reasons above. Best wishes. WBardwin 04:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
as per any naming scheme in the american southwest/greater southwest there will be issues with creating a name for an article. i'll brainstorm and when i think of something i'll post it. it would be great to have an all encompassing article on the subject.--Tainter 14:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
......and a challenge to write, which is probably part of the reason I've drug my feet. Be glad to help -- particularly in 2007 when my real life slows down. Wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Best wishes. by User:WBardwin (unsigned -- whoops)

I propose to eliminate the reference to "OasisAmerican Culture" as this is not used by area archaeologists. It is not used in, for example, Linda Cordell's Archaeology of the Southwest, 2nd edition, nor in Fagan's Prehistoric North America 4E, nor in Pauketat and Loren's "Alternative Histories." It appears to be a modern geopolitical term, and the only place it is used is in a Wikipedia article. Will remove that on Nov 5 2012 if no rebutting argument is heard. Mike Diehl (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for "Prehistoric Southwestern Cultural Traditions" is a much much stronger article than the wacky OasisAmerica article. I propose to replace the in-line linkage to the OasisAmerica article with an in-line linkage to the Prehistoric Southwest article. Mike Diehl (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Made the proposed change today, replacing OasisAmerican Culture article with Prehistoric Southwestern Cultural Divisions article. MikeDiehl 16:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Undo recent revision that added link to Oasis America wiki page. Oasis America is not a term used by any archaeologist in the United States or Mexico. This article to be kept informative and current as to subject matter, and not to be corrupted with links to nonstandard terminology, links to bigfoot sightings, or whatever. Thanks in advance. Mike Diehl 19 Jan 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Diehl (talkcontribs) 19:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not an either/or proposition. Simply link to both. -Uyvsdi (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

4 southwest cultures?[edit]

Between the Ancient Pueblos, Mogollons, and Hohokams, there's a 4th culture I haven't been able to put my browser on. And what makes these cultures so distinct? Was it their varying political alliances (everybody plays one side against the other, it's the rule of city-states, which were developing in this region)? Xaxafrad 09:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The 4th culture is generally considered the Patayan, found farther west. And we are truly talking about cultural traditions here. So -- styles of artifacts, i.e. home building, masonry styles, pottery, tools, fragments of clothing, food sources and usage, are used to distinguish the groups. Trade seems to have occurred, and it is likely that intermarriages also occurred, so the lines are a little blurry around the edges. These were a non-literate group of people, no history, no information on political alliances. Hope that helps. WBardwin 00:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
No "city states" developing in the US southwest at the time. For Mogollon, Hohokam and Patayan areas major drainage systems best described as a "loose confederacy of like-minded people living in hamlets and villages" seems to better describe the political situation. -- Mike Diehl

Added three references (Anyon & LeB, Diehl & LeB, Shafer) to the discussion. We should probably broaden the entry to include AZ Mogollon for ex work at Grasshopper by Reid & Co and Haury's and Martin's work needs to be included too. I'll get round to it eventually if someone doesn't want to step up. -- Mike Diehl

Main entry needs to be edited[edit]

"American Indian" is an incorrect and inaccurate term that is no longer used. It (correctly) links to another Wikipedia entry "Native American" and that term (Native American) should be used in the Mogollon entry rather than "American Indian." -- Mike Diehl

References vs Further Reading[edit]

The division here makes no sense. Some of that in "References" is tangential and much of what is in "Further Reading" is both core material and provides the substantive basis for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Diehl (talkcontribs) 2007-06-18 21:50:57 (UTC)

If you know a work was not used to build the article, move it into "Further reading". Some articles call this section "Bibliography". Burlywood 15:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, as the article does not cite anything perhaps they should all be under "further reading." The substantive content of the wikipedia entry derives in part from some of the articles listed as references, some that are currently in the "further reading" section, and some (such as Haury's original Gila Pueblo paper) that are not mentioned at all.

It sounds like you are the right person to sort this all out. Do what you think is best for the article. It would be good to get some inline notes or references at appropriate places in the text. I can help with the formatting if needed. Burlywood 17:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been off the radar for a while. I'm starting to add the in-line citations, now that I've figured out how to use them. Added first one today. More to follow. At sompe point I think Emil Haury needs to be added to the reference list. Mike Diehl (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

More edits[edit]

Fleshed out the discussion of the relationship between Mimbres and Mogollon, since the terms are not coeval either in space or time. Added content vis Emil Haury's role in recognizing Mogollon. Deleted content suggesting that the Classic Mimbres were not linked to regional networks. Mike Diehl 19:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Mike Diehl

AD/BC or BCE/CE[edit]

Various editors, at various times, have used both systems. I personally prefer the more academic BCE/CE system for material on non-Christian archaeology. Shall we take a poll? WBardwin (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Option 1: AD/BC


Option 2: BCE/CE

Support. WBardwin (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Support. Bejnar (talk) 18:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

/* Descendants */ needs citation[edit]

I do realize the difficulty of what I am asking here, as these are murky waters. But I'm working on a related topic and it seems to me that the claim that all Pueblo groups are descended from the Mogollon is over-broad, or, if true, requires supporting material. See for example a similar claim made of the Sinagua, which I also found surprising, since I'd been taught that the Pueblo were descended from the Anasazi of Chaco Canyon. I suspect, given the differing language groups, that all of these statements are partly true, or that new findings have shifted the consensus, but ya, a reference (and/or perhaps an edit) seem to be called for. I definitely see a need for a family tree and if that's the link I see above, I may want to use or link to it. thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to meet a Pueblo claim of descent from the Mogollon. The article now says However, the modern Pueblo people in the southwest claim descent from the Mogollon and related cultures,. The use of related cultures may save the sentence, if Chacoan can be considered a related culture. I do know that there were Zuni outliers, at least a ceremonial cave, as far south as the San Francisco River, but the Zuni ca. 1450 were culturally distinct from the later Mogollon. I will check the Skibo and Kelly references. --Bejnar (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
What is a good way to phrase Acoma, Hopi, and Zuni being culturally affiliated with Mogollon culture under NAGPRA? I know NAGPRA doesn't always determine exact descendancy but rather a legal relationship between current tribes and precontact/historic peoples based on cultural affiliation. -Uyvsdi (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
There are a bunch of extant Native American Groups that claim patrimony of or interest in Mogollon per NAGPRA. The specific idea that Mogollon may be ancestral to Zuni was first voiced by Paul S. (pottery Paul) Martin. That hypothesis and others was explored in the Zuni Origins conference and subsequent edited volume (in which, one fellow who is a Zuni participated). The conference was somewhere between inconclusive and critical of the hypothesis of specific links between Zuni and Mogollon, in part because as Tainter noted way above, cultural areas are defined on suites of similar traits that are relatively coeval, but not necessarily related to ethnic identity or language. Zuni is a linguistic isolate, and other "puebloan groups" are linguistically diverse. Given the general turbulence in residence throughout the Co Plateau and Mogollon Rim in the 12th-14thC, it's entirely reasonable that everyone in the area has an ancestral link to the Mogollon, simply by means of intermarriage across the region. MikeDiehl 01:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Right but how would one concisely phrase that NAGPRA reports Mogollon human remains and cultural patrimony to the Acoma, Hopi, and Zuni? -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Perhaps we shouldn't. As I understand things at the moment, NAGPRA reports these things to Acoma, Hopi and Zuni (true) because they claim an interest in things related to Mogollon prehistory (true) because some of them recognize a potential ancestral relationship. The trouble is the last clause. I've heard individuals of those tribes say it, fully admitting that they don't know of specific ancestors from those prehistoric times (fair enough, it was a long time ago even for oral tradition), and out of concern that they need to represent the interests of same. But getting a TRIBE to assert such a claim in anything like a position statement would be a challenging thing to ask of a tribe. To my knowledge specific claims of descent have not been formally expressed, nor does NAGPRA ask for them. Therefore, MAYBE the most neutral pov to take on the matter is to simply leave it ambiguous. But if at some point Hopi, Acoma, or Zuni actually state a direct ancestral relationship, or if the state of the art of archaeology comes up with something more conclusive, then it can be changed as needed. Just my .02. I don't have a strong feeling about the matter. MikeDiehl 16:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

/* Reply to Elinruby */[edit]

I do not think that the article as written suggests that any of the modern pueblo groups were solely descended from people living within the Mogollon area. At any rate it was not intended to imply that. If you could name a woman living at, for example, the Galaz site in the Mimbres valleu around CE 1000, she might be ancestral to persons living in any or all of the modern pueblos, and yet those modern living persons may also be descendants of people that lived in Chaco area around CE 1000 as well. When you run all your ancestry back 1000 years, you wind up with a lot if potential ancestors. That's my 2 cents anyhow. Hope that clarifies it a bit. Paul Martin originally raised the idea of a direct ancestral connection between Mogollon and Zuni about 40 years ago. Mike Diehl (talk) 03:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Added citation to Gregory and Willcox edited volume reviewing evidence for direct ancestral connections between Mogollon and Zuni. Mike Diehl (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

/* In progress. Fixing and updating references and in-text call-outs. */[edit]

This is the place to discuss additions or deletions of references and in-line citations. Thanks in advance. Mike Diehl (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

At some point we need to create more subsections[edit]

I would like to move the list of institutions that have conducted excavations on Mogollon sites to a separate section from the Culture History section. I would also like to develop a second section for links to specific other wiki articles such as the one for Nan Ranch. Perhaps someone could assemble a comprehensive list of links to such wiki pages. We also probably should link this article to Wikipedia articles about Paul Martin as well as Emily Haury. Mike Diehl (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes[edit]

To learn more about footnotes, please read: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Footnotes_in_action. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Need to move Mimbres Culture and Mimbres Pottery (2.1 and 2.2) out of Food procurement.[edit]

They should be 3.1 and 3.2. Anyone know how to fix that? Thx. MikeDiehl 18:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Figured it out. Thx. MikeDiehl 01:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Plainware and log grooves[edit]

From the entry: "....textured plainware. Large ceremonial structures (often called "kivas") are dug deep into the ground and often include distinctive ceremonial features such as foot drums and log grooves."

What are plainware and log grooves?

Also, this part: "Classic Mimbres phase (AD 1000-1130) pueblos can be quite large, with some composed of clusters of communities, each containing up to 150 rooms and all grouped around an open plaza." Can you define "quite large" in terms of feet/centimeters or yards/meters? About how many people lived in one group? Were they all related? Thank you. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Copy editing[edit]

I am a professional copy editor with considerable experience editing encyclopedia entries. I'd like to edit this entry -- I won't change the structure or delete important points and I won't add new text. I know more about the Mimbres than the average person, but I am by no means an expert. Is there anyone here I can ask questions of if I don't understand a term (like plainware and log grooves)? Also, this entry goes back and forth between present and past tense -- which is preferred? I'd like to come back and start on this in about ten days. To repeat -- I won't change the structure, delete important points or add new text. Thank you. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)