Talk:Hohokam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, Inuit, Métis and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

	This article is part of WikiProject Arizona, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Arizona.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as Start-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Sequence

The actual characteristics of the archaeological sequence need to be filled-in. I could go back to textbooks and on-line research, but that takes a while. I just wanted an overview that was actually informative and interesting. As for expanded text in the sequence, categories including pottery, housing, as well as canal progress should be added. --Abqwildcat 20:50, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the posted Hohokam chronological sequence. I can provide a fix, however I don't have the time right now. For example, its not the Hohokam 'archaeological sequence,' rather its the 'chronological sequence.' Additionally, to avoid the interpretive bias inherit in the Gladwinian scheme (i.e. Pioneer, Colonial, Sedentary periods) some researchers offer a Formitive, Preclassic, and Classic period outline for the sequence. Herein, each period includes several phases.

Formitive Period	Preclassic Period	Classic Period
Red Mountain Phase	Snaketown Phase	Santan Phase?
Vahki Phase	Gila Butte Phase	Soho Phase
Estrella Phase	Santa Cruz Phase	Civano Phase
Sweetwater Phase	Sacaton Phase	Polvoron Phase

The traits also radically vary from one period to the next. For example the dominant burial type in the Formitive period was flexed inhumation, cremation in the Preclassic period, and extended inhumation by the end of the Classic period. I fact, the degree of cultural change is so significant that may researchers do not refer to the Formitive Period as Hohokam and clearly distinguish between the Preclassic from the Classic Hohokam. There are also significant problems with the traits listed for each of the posted Gladwinian periods.--User:CmacQ, 19 Febuary 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CmacQ (talk • contribs) 21:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piman vs. Papago

I have at least one verifiable source (textbook, actually with citations) which cites the word as "hohokam" and from the "Piman" language. Would be curious to see information re: the "papago" word. Just want this article to be as accurate as we can get it. --Abqwildcat 08:10, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Ho:ho:gam" is an O'odham word which wasn't "coined" by that man, it has been used for quite a while by the O'odham to refer to the artefacts and material culture of those people. It doesn't mean "those who have disappeared". Pima and Papago are dialects of the same languages with only minimal differences, so the word is the same in both. (added by user:24.251.243.233 on March 13, 2005)

Further researching online, with other textbooks, and a few talks with some professors suggests that to say the Hohokam were ancestral to the modern Pima or Tohono O'odham would not only be simplistic, but unproven. The direct linkage is missing though modern oral tradition maintains the connection. Archaeology leaves the issue as unsettled and it would be wise to perhaps note the possible connection lacks evidence in the article. I'm adding such a reference. --Abqwildcat 21:17, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The term is indeed the plural form of an Akimel O'odham word; however it was only used to denote the physical remains of the people that once lived in the abandoned settlements, or VahKi, that dot the landscape of south central Arizona. The term was only recently applied to denote the actual culture and people associated with these remains and this is largely due to its usage as an archaeological construct. Sadly, it has since taken on a life of its own. For the meaning of the word please see; Frank Russell 2006 (reprint), The Pima Indians, by Kessinger Publishing. The singular form hokam, means ‘used up,’ while the plural ho-hokam, can be rendered as ‘all used up.’ This term has no special meaning and in everyday use it literally means ‘trash’ or ‘garbage.’ The reason the O’odham used this word is because they were referring to the ruins which were typically marked by clearly visable trash mounds.

Additionally, as I am extremely familiar with the subject and associated professional literature, the use of 'Hohokam,' as an archaeological construct has been standardized for at least 70 years, and I've never seen the use of Hobokam, Huhugam, or Huhukam applied thusly.--User:CmacQ 20:43, 19 Febuary 2008

[edit] Hohokam ancestry

SORRY but could some one edit refferences they were mentioned in Ishmael as the people the iriquois called "the ones who dissapeard" "The Hohokam may be the ancestors of the modern Pima and Tohono O'odham peoples in Southern Arizona, and local oral tradition maintains the link, though it cannot yet be proven archaeologically."

I've included the original text here for the purposes of discussion. I removed the bolded (by me) word "yet" from the article. I think its inclusion was the result of an editorial bias, and is unacceptably POV in a Wikipedia article. If there's evidence for or against the link, I think that's far more important than just simply saying "yet" as though it's just a matter of time. It may never be proven, or alternatively the link may be incorrectly proven false or positive. Anyone have any evidence one way or another? Language branch, pottery styles, even genetics? I'd be genuinely very interested in expanding this aspect of the article.

From previous edits on this article, I understand that the ancestry link is particularly a heated subject among some members of the Pima and O'odham peoples. I mean no disrespect in asking these questions, and would value some information on the oral tradition that is the source of this link. We're not here to prove one thing one way or another, just to put information together in an organized way. --ABQCat 20:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)