John, thanks for your insight. Though I don't agree with your analysis (surprise surprise), I appreciate your POV especially as you've visited the area recently.
I apologize for not answering this sooner. Among other excuses, the mail server I use is giving me problems. JDG wrote: > What's truly odd, however, is that not only does Diamond > use the term "Anasazi" exclusively, but he doesn't even acknowledge > the existence of the debate. I don't find it odd at all, really. His book isn't about the politically correct terms for the people he's writing about so why would he boar his readers with those details. Easter Island isn't called that by its natives either, should he spend several paragraphs each chapter chasing political correctness? In any case, in my opinion the awkward, hyphenated amalgam of Spanish and English words to describe a Native American culture is at least as insulting as the Native American term used by archeologists. Note also that one reason it is still used is because the Pueblo's themselves have been unable to agree upon an appropriate name for their ancestors. See the wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Pueblo_Peoples sub heading: Anasazi as a cultural label > > Now while Diamond does in fact point out that modern-day Puebloans > are indeed descendants of the people of Chaco Canyon and Mesa Verde, > I can't help but feel that he brushes over that fact. After all, > if the Chaco Canyon people continue to thrive to this day, then they > don't make a very good type-example of "collapse"! Here you are misinterpreting what Diamond means by collapse. From page 3 in the trade paperback: "By collapse, I mean a drastic decrease in human population size and/ or political/economic/social complexity, over a considerable area, for an extended time" Indeed, if he had adopted a definition that meant "completely wiped out" there would have been little to write about. <snip> > Is it possible that religious and social factors > played as large a role, if not a larger role, than the environmental > factors Diamond cites particular if this is a case not of > civilizational "collapse", but civilization "transience"? Certainly we don't know exactly what function Chaco Canyon had. As Diamond implies it could have been both a population center _and_ a cultural/religious center. The point is that it was once the center of an extensive culture, and evidence suggests that it was abandoned due to environmental factors such as deforestation and drought not just in the canyon itself but in the entire surrounding area. The fact that related people founded the Mesa Verde site has no direct bearing on this idea. > Yet, according to the National Park Service, Chaco > Canyon was just reaching the height of its influence and > this "Golden Age" would last until the mid-1100's. Set against > this timeline, the connection between environmental degradation and > civilization collapse seems much weaker. Even moreso when you > consider that Mesa Verde, to the north, wouldn't be abandoned until > the 1300's. I think that you're missing the idea that Chaco Canyon was the center of a culture that encompassed a much larger area. Please refer to the paragraph (page 150 in the trade paperback) beginning "Why would outlying settlements have supported the Chaco center" > Finally, Diamond dismisses the role of hostile neighbors in collapse > here, in part because he is only concerned about Chaco Canyon. It > is interesting to note, however, that the Ancestral Puebloan > settlements at and around Mesa Verde do show evidence that the > Ancestral Puebloans were concerned about defense, particularly in > the late 1200's. This is discussed starting on page 151 of the text. Within the first paragraph: "At those Southwestern sites that outlasted Chaco and survived until after A.D. 1250 , warfare evidently became intense, as reflected in a proliferation of defensive walls and moats and towers, (etc. etc.) > So far, our three examples of "collapse", Easter, Pitcairn, and > Chaco Canyon have all shared the feature of being settled in a > marginal environment. Is a marginal environment a prerequisite > for "collapse"? > I think the next chapter might answer that question. Is anyone interested in leading that discussion? Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
