That’s a part of Cliff Palace, one of the large cliff dwellings at Mesa Verde National Park.
Did you answer the question about who lived here with Anasazi? That’s what most people with some familiarity reply. But that term isn’t accurate; indeed, it is offensive to some. More correctly (politically and otherwise) the people who lived in the cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde and throughout the four corners area from 1100 to 700 years ago are called the Ancestral Puebloans. Their descendants are the Pueblo Indians of modern New Mexico and Arizona.
Anasazi derives from the Navajo words for ancient and enemy. The term was first applied to the cliff dwellings and other deserted settlements by Richard Wetherill, a rancher who was among the first Anglos to explore the area. It was adapted by archaeologists in the 1920s and came into popular usage in part as a result of ranger-led tours and National Park Service literature. In the past decade Ancestral Puebloans has become the generally preferred term.
NewMexiKen photo, August 9, 2006. Click for larger version.
This issue is troublesome. “Offensive to some” is just too vague. Part of the offense is in who gets to pick names for whom, and who is related to whom. But the practical matter is you can’t just stop using Anasazi and start using Hisatsinom (as the Hopi would like, but do the Zuni agree?) or the bland Ancestral Puebloan, an English-Spanish hybrid, without creating a discontinuity in the record. Therefore, we are doomed to repeat in every single reference forever “formerly called the Anasazi.”
I generally believe in calling people what they want to be called. Have all of the Descendant Puebloans been surveyed?
The term Redskins isn’t offensive to every American Indian either, but that still doesn’t make it right. Anasazi means ancient ones or, worse, ancient enemy. Who’s enemy?
As has been written, Indian nations were often named by their enemies, as for example, pointing toward France, “What do you call the people that live across that channel?” “Oh, them, we call them the bloody frogs.”
You may be right, Mark. It may not be all that much better to call the peoples formerly known as Anasazi Ancestral Puebloans, but at least it speaks to their story. I can remember visiting sites a generation ago and having the ranger or volunteer say, “No one knows what happened to these people.” At least now the name prevents that prevailing ignorance.
I don’t think we have a quarrel here. However, “redskin” and “bloody frogs” are not terms used exclusively for 100 years, including by the top experts.
So much depends on the “real” meaning of Anasazi, which seems very questionable. How about “our *former* enemies”? Keep in mind our anglo perspective may complicate this. Imagine “ancient enemies” is a shameful reminder of Navajo history and regret. (Speculative. I still want to know *who* is offended by the word Anasazi.)
These ancients did have enemies, or so it seems by the development of fortifications over time. Perhaps those enemies preceded the Navajo, who most people forget were once fierce aggressors against other peoples.
I wonder if Descendant Puebloans take any umbrage at Navajos (as we call them) playing a very big role in present day Chaco. Dine’tah, the largest tribe. The victors write history. (I’m not saying that’s the way it should be.)
I believe the argument for retaining the name Redskins is longevity and custom. It has been the franchise nickname since 1933. The comparison of course would be Washington Darkies, which I suggest would not have lasted so long, whatever the custom.
[If I owned the team, I would change the name. I would make a fortune selling the existing merchandise to collectors. I would make another fortune selling the new name and logo to fans. I am obviously much smarter than Dan Snyder, the owner. He is, however, a lot richer.]
If an alien landed in England and asked the Englishman at the pub about the people across the channel, he might hear them called bloody frogs. He would record that, bastardizing the English into his extraterrestrial language. Meanwhile the French call themselves Francais. This is exactly what happened to many Indian tribes.
Why should the cowboy Richard Wetherill and his Navajo riders get naming rights for the peoples who lived in the Four Corners 800-1000 years ago? If many of the descendants of those people do not like the term Anasazi for their ancestors, it seems another should be used.