Talk:Ancestral Puebloans

Anasazi not ancient pueblo

Fact: the pueblo and anasazi are DIFFERENT. Although it is widely accepted that the pueblo are the decendants of the anasazi, they are infact vastly different. The article title must be changed back to anasazi.

Well remember that the word "Anasazi" like other ancient america peoples is a word given to them by the Colonizers of the 16th and 17th centuries. Tourskin 23:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hate to correct you here but "Anasazi" is not of that origin. It's a Navajo word. And technically Anasazi is more correct from an understanding point of view (how many people have heard of the Anasazi? A lot. How many have heard of "ancient pueblo people"? Probably mainly archaeologists and anthropologists.) It's also more correct from a political point of view as calling them Ancient Pueblo people separates them from the Navajo who strongly object to this separation as they see a spiritual, cultural and genetic link between themselves and the Anasazi. --86.135.245.203 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anasazi is actually a Ute word for the ancient ones, adopted by the Navajo and used by white explorers/archaeologists. As we do not know what, if anything, these people called themselves, we must give them a name. Archaeologists, in general, prefer "Anasazi" as a general term, however the descendents of the ancient people, the various modern Pueblo, do not like the term. Most Navajo do not aline themselves genetically with the ancient people, recognizing that their ancestors moved into the land at a later time. They may have some cultural links with the Pueblo, as the new immigrants learned farming techniques, weaving, pottery and other skills from the established people of the area. As for spiritual connection -- Navajo religion does not usually include kivas or kachina images, which are found in the ancient ruins. This issue, loaded with emotion and political connections, is discussed below in more detail. WBardwin (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, that "people who claim to be their descendents don't like the word because it means 'enemy'" argument is ridiculous. There are a number of other ethnic/culture names that have a "negative" meaning, yet we still use the name because it has been adopted into the language, for instance Maroon (lit. "fugative"), or Slavic peoples (lit. "slaves"). The term "anasazi" is commonly used in science, while noone uses the term "Ancient Pueblo Peoples". --bender235 (talk) 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that by claiming the "Anasazi" as ancestral, modern Pueblos have quasi-legal or legal claims to the use or management of archeological sites and lands? Although the discussion below is couched in terms of offensiveness and racial insensitivity, I suspect this is a matter of claims over artifacts and even monetary stakes. It would be much better if there were more evidence for linking modern Pueblos to the ancient cliff dwellers, but so far the article and discussion only has unsubstantiated claims. I suppose if it is possible, DNA evidence linking the "ancient ones" to modern Pueblos (and/or Navajo and Ute peoples) would provide sufficient scientific evidence. As it stands, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Pueblos. Although Navajo may or may not claim ancestry or "align" themselves with the "Anasazi," wikipedia contributors should be prepared to note any serious evidence that links or definitively un-links the Ancient Pueblo People to modern Native Americans 71.184.105.86 (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.105.86 (talk)

The "disappearance" of the Anasazi

I have a problem with the section that follows and immediately discredits the "disappearance" theories without even attempting to discuss them:

"Most modern Pueblo peoples (whether Keresans, Hopi, or Tanoans) and historians like James W. Loewen, in his book Lies Across America, assert these people did not "vanish," as is commonly portrayed, but merged into the various pueblo peoples whose descendants still live in Arizona and New Mexico. This perspective is not new and was also presented in reports from early 20th century anthropologists, including Frank Hamilton Cushing, J. Walter Fewkes and Alfred V. Kidder. Many modern Pueblo tribes trace their lineage from settlements in the Anasazi area and areas inhabited by their cultural neighbors, the Mogollon. For example, the San Ildefonso Pueblo people believe that their ancestors lived in both the Mesa Verde area and the current Bandelier."

The entire discussion is encapsulated in the phrase "as is commonly portrayed." If it's commonly portrayed -- shouldn't the common portrayal be discussed? Shouldn't the theories and theorists be cited?

While I am no expert, I've read plenty of discussion from people who are experts who do believe that there was some sort of disappearance or mass exodus, not explained by theories in the above paragraph. Shouldn't this be included? In fact, the above paragraph seems absolutely incomplete - as if it followed a paragraph on the disappearance, as if its rebutting an argument that was never made.

This whole article seems very non-NPOV to me, focused on ignoring what the article itself calls a "common portrayal" and choosing instead to waste bandwidth on debating the term "Anasazi." 172.191.72.191 16:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So ........., if you would like, go ahead and add some of those "theories". But --the idea of a "vanished" people-- well, that portrayal originated in the media. It makes a better story than a migration to more dependable sources of water, i.e. river valleys and drainage areas with higher rainfall. "Vanished" or "Lost Tribe" also sold more books and lecture tickets for popular writers. But, even with the popular portrayal, I don't think that anyone ever seriously thought they disappeared into midair, or that they all were massacred, or that they all died of a virulent disease or that they were picked up by UFO's.

The biggest questions about the Anasazi were always "Where did they go?" and "Why did they leave?" Since the article is clear on the prevailing opinion on "Where?," perhaps we should add more information on "Why?" The most commonly accepted reasons are summarized briefly above the segment you quote. College classes over the years have discussed many reasons why these people might have chosen to leave their homeland: drought, environmental degradation, de-forestation, hostility from new arrivals, religious change, even influence from MesoAmerican cultures. These ideas ebb and flow, as interests and fashions change. Expansion on those reasons might be a good addition here, and good sources are available. Would a paragraph on those reasons address your concerns? I've added a few of the points above. WBardwin 04:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Media References

"*The X-Files tv series has several connections with the Anasazi and Navajo throughout the seasons." -contribution by an anonymous editor 217.208.53.14 moved here for discussion.

Specific X-files information would be helpful. A section on media portrayals (good and bad) might be interesting. I remember a couple of PBS things in the last few years as well. Comments welcome. WBardwin 16:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well... There's an episode called Anasazi... but although I do agree they've been mentioned a couple of times I don't quite remember which ones specifically, nor their place in the story. -- MiG 01:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of Objectionable Terms

"Today, the Navajo, Theif(sic) in their language, still consider the decendents of the Ancestral Puebloans to be enemies."

Moved anon contribution from the article for discussion. Not true of the Navajo people I know -- unless you are referring to the recent conflict with the Hopi and that was the fault of the US federal governement. Expanded information and sources please. WBardwin 28 June 2005 18:30 (UTC)

IN RESPONSE

As you say in a reminder to yourself: "...Absence of evidence for your hypothesis does not mean that the opposite of the hypothesis is true, nor does it mean that the hypothesis must be false. Likewise, absence of evidence against your hypothesis does not mean that the hypothesis is true, or that the opposite of your hypothesis is false."

It is purposely so that there is an absence of evidence for the reasons why Navajos choose to call Ancestral Puebloans as Anasazi which has a literal translation of "The Enemies of our Ancestors." The reason to use Anasazi is to perpetuate the true feelings of Navajo jealousy and hate toward Puebloans. The Navajo mentality is to take what they can not have through falsehoods and ambiguity, and simultaneously blame the US Federal Government for their wrong doings. To truly understand what is said here is to understand why the Navajos were force by the US Army on the "Long Walk". Please read: Pedro Pino: Governor of Zuni Pueblo, 1830-1878 written by E. Richard Hart. ISBN: 0874215633

The thievery of the Navajo people reported today is a long standing stigma witnessed and expressed by the 19 Pueblos of New Mexico and other bordering tribes in the southwest including Hopi. Moreover, the rest of the 510 federally recognized Native American tribes would testify that the Navajo people are thieves. Shiwi 8 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Pejorative terms for their neighbors is a long standing tradition among peoples of the Americas (and probably the world). And, if the meaning of the term is "thief," it would probably make sense that modern Navajo prefer the name Dine. But it would violate Wiki's NPOV to call all Navajo (Dine) people "thieves", and Wiki guidelines encourage us to avoid presenting our personal opinion and emotions as fact. Relationships between the Navajo (and their cousins the Apache) and the Pueblo people have a checkered history. Pre-historically and historically, they often traded with the pueblo's and wintered in their territory. Relationships were not always peaceful, and in some cases real emnity existed between the groups. I'm sure some thievery occurred as well. Some historians believe their trade relationship contributed to the Pueblo attempt cast off the Spanish yoke. But, according to Spanish records, a real and productive trade relationship existed.

Since Anasazi is a historic term used in references, and our readers would be referencing information by that term, it is appropriate to use the term in the encyclopedia's article. I am not certain when or how the use of the Navajo term Anasazi for the ancient pueblo people emerged. I suspect it was simply because the Navajo lived in the areas where the first professional pot hunters began digging. It would be an interesting project to find out, but the sources would probably be obscure. I also suspect that it would be difficult to document any modern Navajo conspiracy to continue using the term. However, if your point is that the term "Anasazi" carries cultural baggage, I would agree with you. That is why it is not formally used by modern archaeologists. If you have some references, a couple of sentences on the origin of the term, its historic use, and modern connotations to the descendants of the ancient people would be a good addition to the article.

It is very interesting to hear your perspective. Does Wiki have an article on modern relationships between Native people of the Southwest? If not, have you considered writing one? That would be great! Comments welcome. WBardwin 8 July 2005 18:16 (UTC)

It is ironic to say that pejorative terms, personal opinions and emotions are discouraged from use as fact, but in the same breadth a reinforcement of the term Anasazi is encouraged for historic purposes. The name Anasazi is of the same effect as "nigger". The word "nigger" is an extremely controversial term and is discouraged in its use. Therefore, it is not at all appropriate to use the term "Anasazi" in the encyclopedia’s article. Modern archeologist prefer to use names derived from the Puebloans, such as Hisatsinom, or others such as Chacoans, etc.

And, for the same reason to not use "Anasazi" or "nigger", Diné is the prefered name for Navajo at their request. With this in mind therefore, it is my request to discourage you from perpetuating the use of "Anasazi" as the preferred historical term.

I ask you to make this request as part of the information you provide in your Wikipedia entry for "Anasazi".

I am relatively new to this forum, but I am working up to the level of discussing relationships between Native People of the Southwest and other special topics; hence my comment to your entry. You should consider my perspective words to be authentic from the Southwest, for I am Shiwi.

Please reference my comments regarding the Zuni language portrayed in the "Zuni Enigma" by Yaw Davis. Her theory is another example of falsehoods perpetuated by mass media through her book. My truth revealing comments were banned from Amazon.com at her request. This shows you to what degree and means are put forth to prohibit perspectives from the indigenous people being written about. So much for her open mindedness in the research.

Nevertheless, you can download RealPlayer [1] and listen online [2] to the rebuttal by the Zuni Councilmen, religious leaders and official representatives on her book and her theory on the Zuni Language. Along with Yaw Davis, they assess her book to answer the following questions: Did a group of thirteenth century Japanese pilgrims come to the American Southwest and merge with the people of Zuni? Did these Asians influence the language and religion of the Zuni people? According to Dr. Nancy Yaw Davis, the answer to both questions is yes. She claims to have uncovered evidence that suggests the Zuni were visited by Japanese travelers some seven hundred years ago. Is it true? Guests include Nancy Yaw Davis, author of "The Zuni Enigma" and Malcolm Bowekety, member of the Zuni Nation. Recordings provided by Native America Calling and American Indian Radio on Satellite (Airos.org) [3] Shiwi 8 July 2005 1:15(GMT-7:00)

I do appreciate your perspective. But, when pejorative terms are used in a historic time/place, they become part of history. You will find "nigger" used in this encyclopedia, both in a historic sense and in modern arguments over correct usage and human rights. It was a historic term, although presently offensive, and so is referenced in the encyclopedia. Other prejorative terms used by one group to describe another are also referenced, but not emphasized. "Anasazi" is not the name of the article, nor is it the preferred term, and is included only so people can find the article from their current frame of reference. Hopefully they will learn to use a more appropriate term, although a more concise name than "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" would be easier to reference and perhaps remember. Unfortunately, there is no native or archaelogical concensus on a new name, to my knowledge. The article currently notes that modern Pueblo people object to the historic and modern usage of the name. If you wanted to make that point more strongly, I would have no objection.

As to your heritage and interest in presenting a native perspective, welcome. We have a very small group of people writing about native peoples here, and most of us seem to be pretty "white." You might talk to User:Kevin Myers. He has done some very good historical work on native issues, mostly dealing with the east coast and with the impact of the Western contact (see Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples). Western and Southwestern native peoples have been sadly neglected on Wiki (there are a plethora of techies here!). Good articles, historic and modern, on your people and other relevant areas would be wonderful. WBardwin 8 July 2005 21:32 (UTC)

You are absolutely right about pejorative terms used in a historic time/place, and they become part of history. However, Anasazi is not so historic, but rather an emergence of modern times. The term began its use in historical time reference within the past 10 years, if not less, and therefore does not constitute as historical in the sense it is used. Because there is a consensus among modern day Pueblo people to dismiss Anasazi as the name to use, the current Hopi name, Hisatsinom, is preferred. I will make this point more strongly on your entry. It is okay to leave Anasazi at the very top for reference as you say, but I recommend to eliminate the term, Anasazi and replace it with Hisatsinom in the body of the text. Shiwi 8 July 2005 16:50(GMT-7:00)

Your changes will be ok for now, but I don't believe the general group of Wiki editors will support "Hisatsimon" as the preferred term without a written or internet source which shows concensus either from academics or from the native people descended from the Ancient Pueblos. You imply there is a concensus on the negative side -- so be sure and cite it. Do you have one for the use of the new term? We would need more concensus than just from Hopi speakers, I'm afraid. But I have noticed that Hisatsimon is coming into more frequent use in articles and academic works. So it may win out over time.

As to your time frame -- I must disagree. "Anasazi" was used in academic publications at least as early as the turn of the twentieth century, by ethnologists including J. Walter Fewkes. It has been used academically since that time in history, anthropology and archaeology classes and texts. The term has become culturally controversial within the last twenty years or so, to my knowledge. During the same time period, ironically, it has become more widely used in media and print. Consequently, I would expect the term is much better known to the general public than anything else anyone has proposed. If you want to write a history on the use of the term, that could make an interesting section here or even a separate article. I probably have some of the early ethnologist's, who used the term, on my shelves should we need references for the early date. As I said, I expect it came into use when the local Navajo were asked something like "were these your ancestors?" by early anthropologists. Your perspective may indicate that the usage of the term has changed, over time, into something more negative than it was originally. Again an interesting point. You might look over the very well written "Nigger" article for ways this topic could be addressed. WBardwin 8 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Additional notes:

• a quick review of my book shelves finds a reference to the term "Anasazi" in conjunction with the discoverer of Mesa Verde (circa 1888), and many other ruins in the San Juan area, Richard Wetherill. He referred to the ancient people as "Cliff Dwellers" but is reported to have been told by a Ute chief that these were houses of the "Ancient Ones" (no indication of the language the Ute used to make the reference). An online reference said that Wetherill himself was nicknamed "Anasazi" later in life. I would have to come up with firmer data before I put it in the article -- but it does focus the date.
• Also, in about 1859 - 1861, a geologist and photographer began examining ruins in the San Juan basin. I have no information yet about any name he may have attached to the ancient pueblo peoples, but a slightly later photographer named Jackson used a Ute term "Hovenweep" for the area now in the national monument.
• Other materials say that Navajo names were given to cliff dwellings and free standing ruins. So the existing tribes in the area were used as a source of information for naming sites and ruins, and probably the ancient people as well.
• Pecos Classification is a division of all of known Ancient Pueblo Peoples culture into chronological phases. The original classification originated in 1927, at an archæological conference held in Pecos, New Mexico. In the classification, Anasazi seems to have been a common term for people of the later pueblo periods. This system is still widely used by archaeologists.

This is kind of fun -- could be a good section of the article. WBardwin 9 July 2005 07:13 (UTC)

Okay, now that you've found references by non-Pueblo descendents, shift your focus on the name used by Pueblo people. Because, it is more appropriate that way. Look on both sides of the coin. I too will do my research, but need more time. I'm battling 3 fronts as we speak. I will try to get input from the All Indian Pueblo Council of New Mexico, comprised of the 19 Pueblo Governors, to find an agreed name. The All Indian Pueblo Council (AIPC) is a consortium of the nineteen (19) Pueblo Indian tribes of New Mexico. The nineteen (19) Pueblos include the Pueblos of Acoma, Cochiti, Isleta, Jemez, Laguna, Nambe, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, San Juan, Sandia, Santa Ana, Santa Clara, Santo Domingo, Taos, Tesuque, Zia, and Zuni. These Pueblos and their Governors comprise the All Indian Pueblo Council, whose offices are located in Albuquerque, NM. Each of these Pueblos maintain individual sovereign governing bodies which elect their leadership traditionally (by appointment) or through an elective process.

AIPC was first recognized as a sovereign entity by the Spanish government in 1598, and in 1965 adopted a constitution to promote justice and encourage the common welfare, to foster the social and economic advancement of all the Pueblo Indians, to preserve and protect their common interest.

AIPC, Inc. is the non-profit subsidiary of the All Indian Pueblo Council. Its purpose is to provide essential services that would otherwise be inaccessible to the Pueblo people. The scope of their programs include the areas of health, education, job training, economic development, environmental protection, and child welfare.

All Indian Pueblo Council, Inc.

Street Address:

123 Fourth Street SW

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 400

Albuquerque, NM 87103

Telephone Numbers (505) 884-3820

Fax (505) 884-1474

Shiwi 9 July 2005 08:20(GMT-7:00)

Great effort -- I hope there is a general concensus or preference from the Pueblo side. That would make objections easier to deal with on all related articles. Do you think there is a history among the various tribes of many different names in different languages? I imagine this organization has written material about the various tribes and their history. That would also be an informative section - showing how the ancient people were viewed by various descendants. Historical Wiki articles, dealing with archaeologists, national parks, and sites will probably continue to use both terms, but we can make it clear that Hisatsinom (or Ancient Pueblo, ...whatever) is the modern preferred term for Pueblo people and push it as a non-academic term. Academic references take forever to change, and Wiki would probably not have much influence. But Wiki's preference would increase the new name's presence on the web.

I know you feel an urgency here, but in my time on the Wiki, I've eased back and learned that preparation and research makes a better product and reduces friction. We have to remember, too, that Wiki policies prohibit "original research." So our material has to be from written sources accessible to other people here. So, if the council has come or does come to a decision on a name, a press release or mention on a web page would give us a reference to cite. Gather what you can, as you can, and I (and hopefully others who notice our discussion) will chime in too. I think we have the beginnings of a really innovation article or section even now. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 9 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

From book, "Prehistory of the Southwest," by archaeologist Linda Cordell, discussing the word's etymology and use:

"The name "Anasazi" has come to mean "ancient people," although the word itself is Navajo, meaning "enemy ancestors." It is unfortunate that a non-Pueblo word has come to stand for a tradition that is certainly ancestral Pueblo. The term was first applied to ruins of the Mesa Verde by Richard Wetherill, a rancher and trader who, in 1888-1889, was the first Anglo-American to explore the sites in that area. Wetherill knew and worked with Navajos and understood what the word meant. The name was further sanctioned in archaeology when it was adopted by Alfred V. Kidder, the acknowledged dean of Southwestern Archaeology. Kidder felt that is was less cumbersome than a more technical term he might have used. Subsequently some archaeologists who would try to change the term have worried that because the Pueblos speak different languages, there are different words for "ancestor," and using one might be offensive to people speaking other languages. My own preference is to use Ancient Pueblo or Ancestral Pueblo, where posible, but this too is problematical. Such usage obscures the observation that the Mogollon tradition is also considered by many to be ancestral to Pueblo peoples. Further, archaeologists are themselves tradition bound and would not be dissuaded from continuing to use the term Anasazi, which features so prominently in their professional literature."

Narrowing it down -- Wetherill is probably the origin of the name. See story above. WBardwin 17:12, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

Requested move (February 2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move. Ucucha 17:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Ancient Pueblo Peoples → Anasazi — The current title is conjectural and not used in science. "Anasazi" is the name commonly used for that ancient culture. The argument that people who may or may not be their descendants don't like the word "Anasazi" is meaningless. And, by the way, take a look at the interlanguage links—none of the other Wikipedias use "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" (or something similar), because it is absurd. —bender235 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• STRONGLY OPPOSE. Wrongheaded and factually incorrect proposal. Some current Pueblo people (esp. Hopi, ims) object to the use of "Anasazi", a Navajo word meaning (roughly) "enemy ancestors". The current archaeological usage is "Ancestral Pueblo", if we want to conform to that. --Pete Tillman (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

There are a number of archaeological/historical terms that have a negative meaning, like Seminole (literally "wild men"), Maroon (lit. "fugatives"), Slavic (lit. "slaves"), Saracen (lit. "plunderers") etc. Yet we still use the names because they have been adopted into the language.

Search for "Ancestral Pueblo" on Google Scholar returns 483 results [4], searching for "Anasazi" returns 9,190 [5]. So could you please name the source for your claim that "Ancestral Pueblo" is used in archaeology today? --bender235 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment A search of Google Scholar, when trying to determine current archaeological usage, is meaningless unless you give the publication dates for the various hits. If the change is fairly recent, it wouldn't show up in items published 10, 50 or 100 years ago, would it? Skinsmoke (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. So here are the results from Google Scholar of scientific publications since 2000: "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" -> 17 returns. "Ancestral Pueblo" -> 326 returns, "Anasazi" -> 4030 returns. Strengthens my argument even futher. --bender235 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Google results don't count -- they are simply a poll of computer geeks like us. Real scholarly opinion, your 'scientificly correct', is still mixed on the topic. 40 years ago, Anasazi was the preferred archeological term, 20 years ago, or so, Ancient Pueblo Peoples was preferred. Now things are slowly moving to Ancestral Pueblo or Ancestral Pueblo Cultures. But most publications I've recently read use Ancient Pueblo Peoples (Anasazi) which is the way this article is set up. I still oppose a change, as apparently does everyone but you. So concensus is................? WBardwin (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd take a closer look, you might realize that Google Scholar is not "a poll of computer geeks", but a database of scientific papers and books. And it clearly shows that "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" is not prefered, neither in the past 10 years (17 results vs. 4,030 for "Anasazi"), nor past 20 years (23 vs. 6,320). --bender235 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's online - isn't it? i.e. computer geeks. Start tabulating from paper - professional publications, thesis, etc. and you'll get different numbers. Of course, that will take a research project in itself. Isn't it funny how shortcuts don't really work. WBardwin (talk) 02:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what a bibliographic database is, have you? Those entries on Google Scholar aren't some Usenet entries by computer geeks. Those are scanned scholarly "publications, thesis, etc.", and just because they're available online doesn't mean they're worthless. --bender235 (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - the page was originally named "Anasazi" and received an significant amount of comment on the current objections to the name. The issue was discussed, prior to my time on Wikipedia, and the page moved. Since that time, the issue of the name comes up repeatedly. This page currently addresses both names and the controversy, and should remain as is. WBardwin (talk) 04:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

So we can't name this article scientificly correct (that would be "Anasazi") and still adress the "controversy" regarding that name? Explain why, please! For example, there is some controversy regarding the name of the country Macedonia (the Greeks complained it shouldn't be named such), yet the article is named "Macedonia" and there's a section explaining the "Macedonia naming dispute". Why can't we do the same here? --bender235 (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

Ancient Pueblo Peoples → Anasazi — The current title violates WP:UCN, as it is not used in science and is not used by anyone, including science. For example, compare a Google Scholar search for "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" with a search for "Anasazi". The name might be controversial, but so are the names of dozens of other peoples and ethnic groups (e.g. Seminole, Maroon, Slavic), who are nonetheless filed under their respective common name. —bender235 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Should this article be named Ancient Pueblo Peoples or Anasazi? --bender235 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose move. See all the reasons above. Bender235, in my opinion, you should learn the concept of consensus -- learn to work with others rather than pushing an agenda. WBardwin (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, there was no consensus above. Also, your only "argument" was your misconception about what Google Scholar is. Please name any reason why this article should not be filed under its common name. --bender235 (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hm-Hm-Hm. Tricky, very tricky. Guess what we call our stupid little image-stub over at Navajo-wikipedia? Yepp, that's right: nv:Anaasází. On the other hand, if a Hopi read it, he'd probably throw a small fit. I don't really care about this, but the politically correct who want to "not offend" anyone have to realize that someone will be pissed off. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The name Macedonia offends Greek people, yet we use the name because of WP:UCN (and address the controversy in a section within the article). So should we with this article. --bender235 (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(shrugs) I was just reminding the concerned voices above that political correctness is probably futile here. For all I care, they're called Anasazi, that's what I learned in school and college, and that's what I call them. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. --bender235 (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks for the invitation, Bender. I hope the regular editors will be patient with my input as I am an uninvolved editor (I removed a "hi" that screwed with the format). I've noticed Google scholar being used in previous discussion and out of curiosity clicked on one of User:Bender235's links to see what resulted for Anasazi. On the first page two of the first three hits were climate articles and the third was referencing a software's efficacy in relation to eigenvalue problems. I'm just attempting to add a bit of perspective. I'm hoping to add more relevant input, however I'm a plodder and the discussion may close before my abilities can kick in. Regards Tiderolls 14:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Indeed, some of the "Anasazi" articles on Google Scholar are climate articles, which is because of the theory that the disappearance of the Anasazi was caused by a climate change in the 12th century. --bender235 (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make (rather obliquely, I admit) was that the uses of "Anasazi" in the Google scholar hits were not directly related to the point in this discussion. Seb (an editor I respect and whose opinion I would trust in most instances) raises a valid point re: naming an article based on the common usage of a term or phrase being a standard convention on Wikipedia. However, there exists a redirect from Anasazi here and there is a section in the article outlining the naming concerns. IMO this is sufficient. I believe consensus will be difficult to obtain in this instance and that the status quo should rule without a more clear argument to the contrary. That's just my two cents and I'd be eager to see alternate opinions. Tiderolls 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• From above: "The current title violates WP:UCN, as it is not used in science." Huh?!? Common names frequently deviate from scientific usage. The point of WP:UCN is an extension of the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for a general audience, not a scientific treatise or a realm for specialists (WP:NOTGUIDE #5). — AjaxSmack 20:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so let me put it that way: "The current title violates WP:UCN and is not used by anyone, including science." --bender235 (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WP:UCN. Flamarande (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As this MoveReq discussion nears completion, I want to remind everyone that the only person objecting the move is WBardwin, and he has yet to name a valid argument (other than his perception of Google Scholar being a "poll of computer geeks") why we should not follow WP:UCN here. —bender235 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Bender235, you should note that User:Tide rolls above asserts that we retain the status quo as do I. That makes 2 against! This article was not called "Anasazi" when I arrived here several years ago, so I do not know the original reason for the name nor do I have a vested interest in the present name. However, please see sections above: Use of Objectionable Terms and Commons category name controversy. The first extended discussion contains the viewpoint expressed by some of our readers. As indicated in this discussion, among residents in the Southwest this issue seems to have become more heated in the last ten years. The second talks about the history of this article and related issues on other Wiki sites.

We "..redirect from Anasazi here and there is a section in the article outlining the naming concerns" (comment by User:Tide rolls, above) in the article. In my opinion, if we rename to Anasazi, much of the regular editors' time will be spent responding to objections regarding political correctness. To my knowledge, although many scholarly journals continue to use Anasazi, there is no common concensus on an appropriate name among scholars or among tribes in the American Southwest, including tribes considered descendents of the culture by anthropological evidence and tribal tradition. As to my concern about using Google counts -- only certain types of references get placed on the internet. The very nature of the internet weights it in favor of modern media summaries, speculation, blogs, and opinion pieces. Scholarly works without copyright status, i.e. old, on the net will inevitably use Anasazi as the type name. And newspaper articles consistently use Anasazi. However, tribal groups have a minor web presence as do some categories of modern social science conferences, and their usage/opinions would not be counted. Most modern thesis methods, which would reveal the most recent usage pattern, do not yet include internet publication. So, I assert, that the Google count, and related internet methods, are only one measure of term usage and should not be exclusively used to make this decision. WBardwin (talk) 07:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you demonstrate your inability to understand what Google Scholar is. Those are not "scholarly works without copyright status, i.e. old", but very new ones as well. In fact, there are 364 using "Anasazi" from 2009 and 2010 (and 2, yes two, using "Ancient Pueblo Peoples" in that same period of time).

And further, you still don't understand how we deal with "controversy" on Wikipedia. Look at the article of Macedonia. This country is universally named "Macedonia", except in Greece, where the people believe "Macedonia" is part of their country, and therefore the country Macedonia should be called something else. Now from your perspective, we should rename the article Macedonia to whatever Greeks prefer. But of course we do not, because it would be ridiculous. The article is still named Macedonia, but the controversy is discussed in a section within the article. We can do it the same here: rename the article "Anasazi", and then add a section regarding the controversy (about that small group of people who may or may not be their ancestors and don't like the name).

WP:UCN is very clear on this: "Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article. [...] Search engine testing sometimes helps decide which of alternative names is more common." "Anasazi" clear passes this test. --bender235 (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Bender235: I do understand what Google scholar is -- I don't appreciate your implication that I'm an idiot! It is simply inapropriate to change any Wikipedia entry based on one gathering device - electronic, paper, or individual. And citing WP:UCN incessently is simply wikilawyering. You seem to have taken this minor issue as a crusade. Have you done any major editing on this or related articles? Do you have a background in Southwestern archaeology? Do you have current written sources addressing the controversy and political issues related to the use of Anasazi? If not, what in the world are you basing your obsession on? You seem to be a type of editor, seen all to frequently in my years here, that says -- "Do it my way or I will make everyone's life miserable." This kind of argument is simply a waste of time. And I don't want to waste time in the future answering political correctness complaints about the use of a controverial term in this article. For all of our sake -- get serious, write articles and produce the encyclopedia! GwenW (talk) 23:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)