Battle of Chustenahlah

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Indigenous peoples of North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Mexico Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Archaeology Start‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchaeologyWikipedia:WikiProject ArchaeologyTemplate:WikiProject ArchaeologyArchaeology articles Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Indigenous peoples of the Americas Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indigenous peoples of the Americas on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of the AmericasWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the AmericasIndigenous peoples of the Americas articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

There are so many things wrong with this Oasisamerica page it is difficult to know where to begin.63.226.60.86 (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this comment does little to help... -- Erik Anderson, 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The only way to help would be to delete the page. No archaeologist who works in the area uses the term. Most of the terms used in the article are either fictitious, no longer used, or confuse modern political boundaries ("Four Corners Area" refers to the place where the state lines of Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and Mexico converge) with prehistoric ones (Ancestral Pueblos are distributed over a much wider region than the towns in the vicinity of the four corners). "Desert Tradition" is an anachronism. "Rio Bravo" is not a river within the United States. "Aridoamerica" is not a term used by any archaeologists working in the American southwest or northwestern Mexico. The "story" that begins under the heading "Cultural Development" is wholly ficitional (which is why the author of this page was unable to provide any citations, one supposes). -- Mike Diehl — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Diehl (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence of this subsection mentions an important number of skeletons of guacamayas that were carefully transported from the forests of southeastern Mexico -- is the "guacamaya" mentioned here a macaw? -- Erik Anderson, 16:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I discovered the insertion of the phrase "oasisamerica" in the Mogollon article. This is a new term to me, despite being a professional archaeologist for 20+ years and specializing in Mogollon and Hohokam archaeology. It seems to imply a common cultural heritage with "Mesoamerica." The claim is not supported archaeologically, although there are some deep Utoaztecan linguistic roots for SOME but not all of the indiginous native American groups living in the area mapped as "oasis america." Notable exceptions to the linguistic commonality include the athapaskan linguistic groups (Apache and Navajo in the broadest sense), and the Zuni (who are a linguistic isolate). So from where does this concept originate? Mike Diehl (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Oasisamerica" is used more frequently by writers from Mexico than the United States but it is definitely used in published literature. Oasisamerican, Aridoamerica, and Mesoamerica are extremely useful geographical terms, and the terms are used to distinguish these diverse cultural regions. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Characterization of "Hohokam as Nomadic is just plain wrong.

The Hohokam are neither poorly understood relative to research on Ancestral Pueblo nor were they "nomadic" in the common sense of the word. They were agricultural groups with sedentary or semi-sedentary occupations that started using agriculture (if they're related to the oldest agriculturists in the area) around 2000 BC and intensified that effort, replete with extensive irrigation networks, new crops, and monumental architecture by the 9th century A.D. The OasisAmerica article isn't even consistent with the Hohokam article. Mike Diehl (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then please feel free make the corrections with citations. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

Good heavens no. The Oasis America concept has no archaeological validity as subdivision of north America, is not congruent with the boundaries of any archaeologically studied culture, is not congruent with the boundaries of known Native American Indian groups, does not reflect a common linguistic heritage, and is only used in the way described here by two Mexican historians with no demonstrated PRIMARY research expertise in the region's prehistory. The article should remain rife with the many errors of fact and logic to make it apparent that it has no bearing on the prehistory of NW Mexico or the US SW, and has not received input from anyone working in the area. It can be the special editorial playground for the uninformed. Cheerio. MikeDiehl 22:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, this term is used in multiple sources (and is mentioned in dozens of existing Wikipedia articles, as well as an extensive article in Spanish Wikipedia and a much shorter one in French Wikipedia) so simply deleting it wouldn't be helpful to readers. It would be more helpful to clarify the extent to which the concept is a disputed or contentious one. In the meantime I added a tag, and a bit of text and a source in the lead, to note that this concept is a subject of dispute.---Arxiloxos (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is more accurate, although you still describe it as 'southwestern North America'. The issue is that Oasisamerica is a term really only used by Mexican Mesoamerican anthropologists/archaeologists. Archaeologists who work in Chihuahua and Sonora tend to call the region (including the southwestern United States) 'Northwest Mexico' or 'North Mexico'. The issue comes down to whether it is appropriate to term a culture area based on geographic direction/characteristics from a single vantage point. The area was, when culture areas were developed and named in the late 19th/early 20th century, the Southwest. Although supposed Mesoamerican occupation in the area has historically been stated by earlier archaeologists (see 'Aztec Ruins' or 'Montezuma's Castle'), it has since been strongly refuted. 'Oasisamerica' as a term was really first used in this vein of thought (1950s by Kirchhoff) to support his depiction of 'Mesoamerica' as a culture area. This happened at least over 50 years after the Southwest as a term had been recognized and widely disseminated in archaeological publications (see Bandolier, Kidder, etc.). Basically, the only reason, as I or any North American archaeologist, can see for the presence of a page dedicated to 'Oasisamerica' is because it was made by a Mexican Mesoamericanist. Additionally, they link it to the supposed concept of 'Aridoamerica'...yet they seem to have the same geographic area. The entire page is filled with errors--no mention of basin and range physiographic province and the 'Cultural Development' section is just plain wrong... DiSchamelrider (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the article appears to state, in Wikipedia's voice, that any contentious content is true, it can and should be edited so that it's clearer that Wikipedia is reporting what the proponents of the "Oasisamerica/Aridoamerica" construct say. Interested editors are certainly welcome to make appropriate edits consistent with reliable sources, and the same goes for Aridoamerica. Basic GBooks searches indicate that this terminology is used in a substantial number of sources in both English and Spanish, and this recent book, for example, goes into some considerable detail in describing the different models. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Valid, but besides the discussion over the name, the rest of the page can be found with appropriate citations and accurate information at Prehistoric Southwestern Cultural Divisions and linked pages there. Wouldn't it be more appropriate, and historically accurate, to have a section on that page describing alternate terms/debates over terms for the cultural area (e.g. Chichimeca (Di Peso et al. 1974), North Mexico (Phillips 1989), etc.)? That would at least provide a centralized place to mention the contentions over naming, whilst not having 2 pages (Aridoamerica/Oasisamerica) that hold little cited/up-to-date information and if updated would merely be quasi duplicates of other existing pages. DiSchamelrider (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth resurfacing this idea. From what I can tell, Oasisamerica is a valuable encyclopedic entry for its role as a theory and alternative terminology for Southwestern Archaeology. Presently, the Southwestern Archaeology page uses Oasisamerica as a main article link from the Post-Archaic cultures and civilizations section. It is also included as a main article reference for the History section of Southwestern United States. So, this article has a surprisingly large presence in surrounding articles.

I suggest that Southwestern Archaeology, using the more common term for the area, should house information about Oasisamerica, making it possible to remove this page. The content over on Southwestern Archaeology covers much the same information as this article does, albeit more succinctly, and links to the relevant cultural groups whose pages are all well-developed. This change would open the door to mentioning the theory of Oasisamerica and how it has been framed in comparison/contrast to Mesoamerica and Aridoamerica without needing pages for each concept.

If indeed each of these concepts warrants a page of its own, that page should absolutely be rewritten as an article about archaeological theory, rather than as an article about the archaeology itself. Phlaximus (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]