Talk:Mogollon culture/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

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

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)

• Pre-historic Southwestern Cultural Divisions created by Tainter.

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 (talk • contribs) 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?

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

"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

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

Archive 1