Talk:Ancestral Puebloans

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
 * Talk:Ancient Pueblo peoples/Archive 3
 * Talk:Ancient Pueblo peoples/Archive 3
 * Talk:Ancient Pueblo peoples/Archive 4.

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
 * 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)

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

The Anasazi or Ancient Pueblo Peoples were an ancient Native American culture in what is now the Southwestern United States. The Navajo word may mean "ancient enemies," "enemy ancestors," or simply "ancient non-Navajos."http://www2.nau.edu/~sw-ptry/anasazi.htm Archaeologists borrowed this term to refer to a prehistoric culture area north of those cultures they called Mogollon, Hohokam, and Sinagua, and south of those they called Fremont.

The name "Anasazi" has fallen out of favor, but none of the other names now used for this vanished civilization are satisfactory, either. Using any single, overarching name is simply misleading, because it reinforces the notion that the Anasazi were one distinct group of people. And that is just not true: The archaeological record and reports from living Puebloans reveal myriad ethnicities occupying the Four Corners a thousand or so years ago. https://www.hcn.org/issues/307/15815 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:400:F470:F88A:9D48:BE77:5654 (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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


 * 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)
 * 2) Support Rationalobserver (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. I don't think that this move required an RM as per article at List of ancient Egyptians and discussion at Talk:Azerbaijani people GregKaye 12:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment my knee-jerk reaction was to oppose per WP:UE, but this is way out of my area of expertise, so I won't--that said, I think an RM was appropriate. Red Slash 18:30, 5 March 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

See also links
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

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, though the definition may depend on how bad a drop in rainfall counts as a drought. -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

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)
 * 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 as a source to discuss potential timber sources. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ancestral Puebloans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150925052635/http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50746;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0 to http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50746;jsessionid=aaa5LVF0

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828055734/http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu:80/People/anasazi.htm to http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160125114014/http://www.kidport.com:80/reflib/socialstudies/nativeamericans/Pueblo.htm to http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/SocialStudies/NativeAmericans/Pueblo.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150828055734/http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu:80/People/anasazi.htm to http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091006020354/http://www.valhallaphotos.com:80/Photos/Cliff-Palace.html to http://www.valhallaphotos.com/Photos/Cliff-Palace.html

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

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

External links modified
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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/50746%3Bjsessionid%3Daaa5LVF0
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/anasazi.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205191339/http://cpluhna.nau.edu/People/population_change.htm to http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/People/population_change.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.valhallaphotos.com/Photos/Cliff-Palace.html

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

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

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)


 * 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)

Deleted Ancient religion and road building section
User:Elishop deleted the following: "Other archaeologists think instead that the main purpose of the road system was a religious one, providing pathways for periodic pilgrimages and facilitating regional gatherings for seasonal ceremonies. Furthermore, considering that some of these roads seem to go nowhere, experts suggest they can be linked—especially the Great North Road—to astronomical observations, solstice marking, and agricultural cycles.

This religious explanation is supported by modern Pueblo beliefs about a North Road leading to their place of origin and along which the spirits of the dead travel. According to modern Pueblo people, this road represents the connection to the sipapu, the place of emergence of the ancestors or a dimensional doorway. During their journey from the sipapu to the world of the living, the spirits stop along the road and eat the food left for them by the living.

Astronomy played an important role in Chaco culture. Many ceremonial structures were deliberately built along, a north-south axis alignment. The main buildings at Pueblo Bonito, for example, are arranged according to this direction. They likely served as central places for ceremonial journeys across the landscape.

Sparse concentrations of ceramic fragments along the North Road have been related to some sort of ritual activities carried out along its expanse. Isolated structures located on the roadsides, as well as on top of the canyon cliffs and ridge crests, have been interpreted as shrines related to these activities.

Long, linear grooves were cut into the bedrock along certain roads, but do not seem to point in any specific direction. These have been proposed to be part of pilgrimage paths followed during ritual ceremonies.

Archaeologists agree that the purpose of this road system may have changed through time, and that the Chaco Road system probably functioned for both economic and ideological reasons."

It's ok to delete uncited material but it's always better to try to source it, and I'm hoping others will help me with this. Some sources:,,. I'd hoped to start today, but then real life came along... Doug Weller talk 19:16, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2021
Please change "AD" to "CE" throughout. Thank you. 184.175.60.232 (talk) 07:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, and thank you for the suggestion. This stable article consistently uses AD and BC, rather than BCE and CE, which is fine per Manual of Style MOS:ERA guidelines for Era dates. Netherzone (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In the meanwhile, someone has changed all the instances of "AD" to "CE", but missed the "BC" in the introduction. I've changed the style back. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That was me. Now I have fixed the one I missed in the intro. Suggest fixing things I potentially missed instead of reverting. Michael L. Hall (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Kivas (as used in second ¶)
The claim that "The kiva, a congregational space that was used mostly for ceremonies, was an integral part of the community structure" is not in step with most current interpretations by archaeologists (Lekson, S. H. 1988. The Idea of the Kiva in Anasazi Archaeology. The Kiva 53:213-234; Cater, J. D., and M. L. Chenault. 1988. Kiva Use Reinterpreted. Southwestern Lore 54(3):19-

32). As a new user I can't edit a semi-protected article, but I would suggest that the quoted sentence above be changed to something like "Small kivas (usually round, usually subterranean) develop out of residential pit houses in the last century of the first millennium CE and retain mostly residential functions [cite two articles above]. Larger kivas, usually termed Great Kivas, appear in the 600s CE, and did have exclusively community-level ceremonial functions [cite Stefani A. Crabtree, R. Kyle Bocinsky, Paul L. Hooper, Susan C. Ryan, and Timothy A. Kohler, How to Make a Polity (in the Central Mesa Verde Region), American Antiquity 82(1), 2017, pp. 71–95]." INW1040 (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Warfare
The sentence "Others suggest that more developed villages, such as that at Chaco Canyon, exhausted their environments, resulting in widespread deforestation and eventually the fall of their civilization through warfare over depleted resources" has numerous issues. First, Chaco Canyon is not a "developed village" but is a locale containing numerous anomalously large villages that serve as the nodes in a regional system [citation: Stephen H. Lekson, 2009, A History of the Ancient Southwest, School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe]. Second, although this is more or less the interpretation of Jared Diamond [Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail our Succeed: Revised edition, 2004, Penguin] it is not credited. Third, there is little evidence for warfare within the Chacon regional system; most of it is on the periphery [Timothy A. Kohler, Scott G. Ortman, Katie E. Grundtisch, Carly M. Fitzpatrick, and Sarah M. Cole, The Better Angels of their Nature: Declining Violence through time among Prehispanic Farmers of the Pueblo Southwest, American Antiquity 79(3), 2014, pp. 444–464]. Current interpretations of deforestation in and around Chaco Canyon [Wills, WH, Drake, BL., Dorshow, WB. Prehistoric deforestation at Chaco Canyon? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 11:11584-11591, 2014] conclude that "there is no substantive evidence for deforestation at Chaco and no obvious indications that the depopulation of the canyon in the 13th century was caused by any specific cultural practices or natural events." I would try to put this in but I'm a new user and this page is semi-protected. INW1040 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Ancestral Puebloan DNA
Why exactly does the current version of this article not contain any mention of DNA, genes, or genetics, when our project aims to be encyclopedic, and people using this article would expect to find information about whether any of the modern-day Southwestern tribes have a genetic relationship to the Ancestral Puebloans? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggested sub-section entitled: "Oral teachings on early inhabitants"
After reviewing four YouTube videos, namely this one, this one, this one, and this one, where an elderly Navajo man relates the oral traditions passed-down unto him concerning the separate, early inhabitants known as "Anasazi," and others by the name "Puebloan," and still others by the name "Cliff-dwellers," and, finally, the "Navajo" (the Diné), themselves, it is my conviction that this article can benefit greatly if it had a sub-section which describes in general terms the oral-teachings passed down by this Navajo man regarding the early inhabitants of the Four Corners region, as its inclusion takes a different approach than that which is often cited by archaeologists based on their findings. For example, the elderly man has revealed the following talking points:
 * The Anasazi (a name meaning, "the ancients who are different from us") resided in Chaco Canyon ("the place of crying") and were the cruel "lords" of the land, who enslaved other native peoples (mainly the Puebloans) by trickery and deceit. Eventually, the Navajo (so-called by the Anasazi, meaning "field people") challenged the Anasazi and gained the release of those enslaved captives. The Anasazi were, eventually, exterminated by a prolonged drought. (End Quote)Davidbena (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why something about the Navajo account shouldn't be included, since they occupy much of the old Pueblo land, but you'd want to make sure you gave the Navajo account rather than just that of one man. You'd also want to make clear that this version differs from that of both archaeologists and modern Pueblo peoples. The Navajo have their own reasons for spinning the history differently. LastDodo (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2023 (UTC)