Talk:Hohokam

Title

Please, not to draw too fine a point, yet the Montezuma Castle National Monument was a site associated with the Sinagua tradition and not the Hohokam Culture. I have a number of pictures from the 1965 Snaketown excavation, which are public domain, that can be used if you want? However, I'm restricted from editing the title section and replacing the Montezuma Castle National Monument pic with any of the Snaketown pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CmacQ (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed non-standard term "OasisAmerican culture" from first paragraph as this is not a term used by archaeologists that study the Hohokam. -- Mike Diehl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Diehl (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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 many 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)

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

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)

Lack of in-line references

While this article is quite detailed, it has no in-line references but one. Numerous works are cited at the end of the article, but it remains unclear which part of the text is taken from which source, or if some of the text constitutes original research. The article would be much better, in my view, if authors consistently used in-line citations.--Mschiffler (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Copy/paste?

I added a paragraph (cite 2x), but the rest of the article smells like copy/paste. ~Eric F:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC) ~E:modified74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hohokam life

The Hohokam inhabited the Tucson Basin from about 300 to 1400 A.D. These people lived successfully in the desert, even without the technology of today's society. Using only the natural materials from their immediate surroundings, the Hohokam were able to meet all of their survival needs.

For shelter, they built "pit houses" by digging a pit one to two feet deep and as big around as the builder wanted with most ten to twelve feet across. Although digging was difficult in the hard caliche soil of the Tucson Basin, the Hohokam used various tools including rocks, sticks, and clay scoops.

Poles from the trunks of cottonwood, mesquite, or willow were set in the ground around the edges of the pit with a few in the middle. Beams were placed across the major supports of the roof and covered with Saguaro ribs and ocotillo ribs. These served as the frame for the house. Brush from creosote bushes was piled up around the posts and over the top. When finished, the pit house was about four feet above ground. To complete the construction process, the brush was plastered over with mud and dirt. The interior floor was covered with mud plaster, and a fire hearth was dug into the floor just inside the door. This design allowed the house to stay relatively cool in the summer and warm in the winter.

Agriculture

Agriculture played a major role in Hohokam life. They grew crops of corn, beans, and squash along the Santa Cruz and Rillito Rivers taking advantage of the rich soils occurring there. Small irrigation canals were built to channel the river water to their crops. These canals were dug by hand and could have been 10 feet deep and 30 feet wide. The amount of work it would have taken to keep these waterways clear of sediment, brush and debris must have been overwhelming. On the bajada they used check dams to retain water from rain runoff. The dams were constructed in an area where the water would run down a slope of ground to be caught by the dam and then used to irrigate the crops. Many of these dams are still visible in the vicinity of the Sabino Canyon Visitor Center.

The Hohokam also used the desert to its full potential by gathering available foods that grew wild around them. When the fruit of the prickly pear and saguaro were ripe, the women would set out to their temporary camps close to the fruit. Because saguaro's reach up to 50 feet in height, the Hohokam would use a long cross-shaped picking stick made from the ribs of dead saguaro to pluck the ripe fruit from the cactus. The fruit would usually split when it hit the ground, revealing its scarlet pulp mixed with black seeds. If the fruit didn't split, the pickers would use the stem as a knife to cut around the fruit and split it open. The fruit was boiled down into a cherry red juice used for syrup. The cooked pulp was made into jam and some was dried on racks to make a concoction similar to fruit leather. The black seeds were dried and then made into cakes.

Another important food source for the Hohokam were the beans of the mesquite tree. Mesquite beans were collected and ground with a stone mortar and pestle called a metate. The mesquite flour was used for broths, breads, and stews.

However, the Hohokam were not completely dependent on crops or gathering -- they also hunted. Hunting allowed the Hohokam to supplement their diet with rabbit, deer, and sometimes bighorn sheep, antelope, rodents and birds.

Daily Life

Cooking and daily chores were done for the most part outside of the house in a ramada. They also used the ramada as a communal gathering place and slept under it in warmer weather. When the weather was colder, the people would sleep on woven mats inside their houses. They also hung their baskets and lightweight supplies from the walls of their houses.

When their work was finished they had time for other activities, especially games and art. They expressed themselves by making clay pots, baskets and jewelry. Shells, nose plugs, and stone beads were some of the jewelry worn by the Hohokam.

Shells, which were probably traded with the Indians of Mexico, were fashioned into necklaces, bracelets, and rings. They etched the shells with fermented saguaro juice which acted like an acid on the parts of the shell that had not been coated with wax or pitch.

Great craftspeople, the Hohokam featured frogs, birds, snakes and human forms in their carvings. They could carve cups and trays out of solid rock. The finished products were traded with other Indian tribes or kept for personal use.

End of a Culture

The Hohokam prospered in the Tucson Basin until approximately 1350 AD when they began to decline. Among the speculations for this decline, the most common explanations include famine, climate change, warfare, or disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.233.245.97 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hohokam origins and cultural ties with Mesoamerica

Maybe there should be some mention of a sort of connection with Mesoamerican types of cultures? http://www.academia.edu/1424385/Pueblo_Religion_and_the_Mesoamerican_Connection Word dewd544 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Pottery is not Hohokam

The photograph of the pot with legs and blue and red paint is not Hohokam. It should be removed. Arizona State Museum can provide an image of a Hohokam pot. 128.196.192.70 (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Weaklyjasm.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hohokam. 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/20121130091322/http://www.azmnh.org/arch/hohokam.aspx to http://www.azmnh.org/arch/hohokam.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100527133031/http://www.mesaaz.gov/parksrec/parks/park_canals.aspx to http://www.mesaaz.gov/parksrec/parks/park_canals.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413234727/http://phoenix.gov/PARKS/pueblo.html to http://phoenix.gov/parks/pueblo.html

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) 13:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Culture vs Civilization

User:Epictrex, drop your WP:EDITWAR across multiple articles, learn the rules and put them to use. Provide a cite for that change and all of the other contested changes you have been making across multiple articles. WP:CITE and WP:VERIFY are two of the most important policies here, and you ignore them routinely. You have yet to use a cite ONE time, even though how to do so has been explained to you in excruciatingly minute detail, User talk:Epictrex#WP:CITE, in a way I have never had to explain to an editor in my 13 years here. Heiro 21:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

🦞 Epictrex (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

That's your answer to an editor asking you to source your edits? A fucking emoji? This isn't social media. Heiro 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Heironymous Rowe, stop being a bully to me. Straighten up and learn some respect. I sent that random emoji because I’m not dealing with your crap. I sent that emoji, because you treat me so terribly.

The ancient Hohokam people were an advanced civilization, whether you like that or not. They built buildings out of stone, had an astonishing level of social complexity, just like any other civilization, and lived in permanent towns and villages year round. The land that is now the United States of America was not just inhabited by nomadic tribes, as so many Americans believe, including you too apparently. Most of the land that is now the United States of America was inhabited by advanced civilizations, and I do t think I need to cite a source explaining how the Hohokam were an advanced civilization, simply because I believe there is enough said on the Wikipedia page about the Hohokam to support that the Hohokam was an advanced civilization, and not just a culture or just some tribe. Now, adíos. Epictrex (talk) 21:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

What you believe doesn't matter here one jot. Policy here is WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. I've been editing about indigenous civilizations here for 13 years, I'm the one who cited much of the work on the Mississippian culture, including that they should be described as a "civilization" (see Talk:Mississippian culture#Culture or Civilization). So you can leave whatever you think about my motives aside, and leave the aspersions aside as well. You will cite additions and changes, especially if contested. If you can't handle that, or aren't mature enough to follow along with the policies that everyone else who edits here has to abide by, then this may not be the place for you. Heiro 22:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn’t matter here one jot either. And also I did learn a lot in the Mississippian culture article, I won’t deny that. Epictrex (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I will undo my edit if that will make you happy. Epictrex (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The point Heiro is making is that nobody's opinion matters, but the phrasing used in reliable sources does, and the reason you should believe him is not because he said it, but because you can check the same sources yourself and see the predominant terminology they use. To my limited knowledge, he's correct that the Hohokam are usually referred to as a culture. SnowFire (talk) 22:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Heiro 22:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I just spent the last 15 minutes gathering diffs, edit warring warning links, and filling out a 3RR report. But you have now reverted, so the point is moot. You finally used a citation, albeit on another article. Good. I wont file it at the 3RR board this time. But the above, and the edit warring today on multiple articles, that has to stop. The making of random small uncited and incorrect or incorrectly understood material edits is almost as bad as outright vandalism. They aren't malicious, but they are hard to spot and even harder to deal with when someone goes to multiple articles randomly changing things or editing based on "I do t think I need to cite a source explaining" things. The next time I have to go through the trouble of hunting down diffs to file a report over your edits, it will be filed. Heiro 22:52, 1 May 2021 (UTC)