Jump to content

Talk:Ancestral Puebloans

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doug Weller (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 1 July 2019 (move to bottom, fringe, self-published). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Archiving

This discussion page was way overdue for archiving (it was at 112,901 bytes!); however, I didn't want to archive the previous move discussions while the third one was still active, so people could easily read other editors' previous responses. For future reference, the three move discussions can be found here:

-Uyvsdi (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

New Jersey

Also, is there a compelling reason why this article is part of the New Jersey wikiproject? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

None I can see, though the tags are to specific Universities, if that matters. Was some sort of really significant research done via those institutions? And I can't seem to see how to toss them, so maybe someone vandalized a template? Montanabw(talk) 19:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC) Follow up - it does appear to be a formatting glitch, I've put in a request at WP US for someone to fix it. Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Name should be either "Ancestral Puebloans" or "Anasazi"

Please note: This article, as so many others (including the one in the Encyclopedia Brittanica), mistakenly names these people. They are not "Ancient Pueblo peoples", nor are they "Ancestral Pueblo peoples". As explained in Mesa Verde National Park literature ( http://www.nps.gov/meve/forteachers/upload/ancestral_puebloans.pdf ) and as called by the Park and by the Hopi people, the name is "Ancestral Puebloans". Everyone who works at Mesa Verde or lives anywhere in the Four Corners area calls them either "Ancestral Puebloans" or "Anasazi". Why?

Years ago the Hopi Nation expressed their certainty that their ancestors were the people who populated the Four Corners area for several thousand years. When that culture collapsed (for many reasons), the people migrated into the Rio Grande Valley and into Arizona where they merged with already existing cultures. In the late 20th century, the Hopi expressed grave concerns that their ancestors from this ancient culture were being called by a Navajo name, for the Hopi and Navajos have had many centuries of conflict. The Hopi's prevailed on Mesa Verde National Park staff to change all references to the ancient culture from "Anasazi" to the name that the Hopi's preferred, "Ancestral Puebloans". Some scholars and land managers in the Four Corners area have accepted the "Ancestral Puebloan" name. Others, such as, the Bureau of Land Management, have not. The BLM, for instance, calls its museum just north of Mesa Verde, "The Anasazi Heritage Center".

What difference does the name make? "Ancestral Puebloan" is the name the Hopis have chosen and to say "Ancester Pueblos" or "Ancient Pueblo peoples" or any of the numerous other names that people who live out of the Four Corners area have made up, is simply disrespectful and sloppy scholarship. Granted, the term "Ancestral Puebloans" is a tongue-twisting mouthful, but that is the ONLY correct name chosen by the Hopis. Also granted, it can be seen as a strange name choice since "Puebloans" is a Spanish word. One would have thought the Hopis would push for their Hopi name for their ancestors. They didn't, and we should respect their name choice. End of note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al Schneider 1 (talk • contribs) 2013-02-16 04:02:41

Effectively you are asking that the article be moved. Have you read the three links above to earlier move discussions? Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier repeated move proposals proposed "Anasazi" on the basis of WP:UCN citing Google Scholar citation counts, overruled by the objection that the people most closely associated with the term objected to its use. A move to "Ancestral Puebloan" addresses both concerns. As stated above, this name is actually favored by people most closely associated to it, while a GScholar search for publications in 2013 finds roughly equal support for "Puebloan" as "Anasazi." Also, the article title for the present-day continuation of the ancestral Puebloan culture is already "Puebloan peoples." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.144.120 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been approached by another editor with the same concern, and the google scholar hits are also suggestive that a move to Ancestral Puebloans may be warranted. I don't think the fact that the Hopi favor the word is fully persuasive, because there are other pueblo people who also count the ancient pueblo cultures as their ancestors - we don't know what they favor. To me the fact that "Ancestral Puebloans" have almost 3 time as many hits on google scholar than "Ancient pueblo people" is a strong argument.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Maunus. And would add that Anasazi means ancient enemy, so that's not the best term. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 March 2015: "Ancient Pueblo people" > "Ancestral Puebloans"

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 21:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Ancient Pueblo peoples → Ancestral Puebloans – See discussion above ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Support. The google scvholar hit suggets this is the common name. Discussion above suggests it is also the most neutral. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Rationalobserver (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

There's no criteria that "see also" links must be used by archaeologists or anthropologists. Oasisamerica is a related Wikipedia article. The term is used more commonly by writers from Mexico than from the United States; however, Wikipedia is global in perspective and actively trying to counter systematic bias. The term Oasisamerica is very much in use in published sources. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Citation for violence of puebloans

We can use this scientific article: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/the_most_violent_era_in_america_was_before_europeans_arrived-141847 ...as a citation for the violence of puebloans before Europeans arrived.74.14.22.58 (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC>

Great Drought

The claim that the Great Drought was 300 years long is contradicted by [1], though the definition may depend on how bad a drop in rainfall counts as a drought. -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Great North Road

The last paragraph references a paper published of strontium isotopes as evidence of long distance timber transportation.

I am planning on deleting.

The referenced paper misinterprets it's own references. How it was legitimayely published based on the face of it's assertion, I don't even know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicus Utrecht (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not really up to one editor to decide that a peer reviewed paper is wrong. However, that's an old paper and there's been work done since, so I'd suggest using [2] as a source to discuss potential timber sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestral Puebloan dwellings

The Ancestral Puebloan dwellings article and its subarticles include all precontact Southwestern and Fremont culture as being "Ancestral Puebloan." Should these articles be renamed to reflect their true scope or should all non-Ancestral Puebloan entries be removed??? Yuchitown (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ancestral Puebloans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ancestral Puebloans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ancestral Puebloans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oracles using

John A. Ruskamp Jr., Ed.d., reports that he has identified an outstanding treasure hidden in plain sight. He found there are oracles the Ancestral Puebloans were using on the rocks of Arizona and New Mexico as well as California. He compare those oracles to the ancient Chinese oracles, find it very similar and they meaning behind it can be tell. Those oracles were mentioning "King", "Male" and some sacrifice from using animals. The picture on the right shows a comparison between the oracles found in New Mexico and the Ancient Chinese oracles. Interesting thing is, females were not mentioned so much in the oracles. The male were a dominant for the society and at the time, the king has true power. Women views as a subsidiary for males. But, just because the oracles didn't mention much about females in the society, doesn't mean females were not contributing, maybe it was because the male has political power and power in the society and they were the one that is carve those oracles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramenboy123 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:Ramenboy123 , but this appears to be fringe nonsense. See this article. Note particularly "In a review of “Asiatic Echoes,” in the journal American Antiquity, Nevada archaeologist Angus Quinlan slammed Ruskamp’s analysis, calling it “deductive thinking at its worst,” and that the presumption that American pictographs were inspired by foreigners was “disrespectful of the Native American cultures that used rock art in their sociocultural routines.”" Ruskamp hasn't even been able to find a publisher for his books. If we include it it will have to be based on sources such as the review in Antiquity and the linked article. Doug Weller talk 09:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ancestral_Puebloans&oldid=904312496"