Titiev provides the first explanation to consider. Taking all of Titiev's arguments together, he suggests that internal social structure pressures and instabilities led to the disintegration of the Oraibi pueblo (Titiev 1992: 48). Titiev's analys

The final step of Bradfield's explanation is to relate these data directly to external events that affected the agricultural foundation of Hopi society. According to Bradfield, sometime between 1901 and 1906, the main wash in lower Oraibi Valley became eroded to the point where flood-water irrigation of the surrounding fields was impossible (Waters 1977: 48). The walls of the gorge were too high to allow irrigation and as a result hundreds of acres of farm land in the valley were lost. Consequently, the agricultural system could no longer support the Oraibi population.

According to Whiteley, Oraibi leaders at the time of the split interpreted events as satisfying the conditions specificed by two Hopi prophesies. The first concerned Pahaana, an elder white brother character of Hopi mythology (Titiev 1992: 98). He was to return to the Hopis during a period of corruption, after departing for the east. Some Hopis first interpreted European-Americans to represent Pahaana. Thus, they thought the prophecy was fulfilled. Eventually, no outsider appeared with the requisite token of mythological connection, so Hopis concluded that European Americans did not qualify for the Pahaana role (Titiev 1992: 99). The conditions of social and religious deterioration that dominated Oraibi life around this time played a role in the second prophesy. This prophesy concerned the fate of Oraibi and of the Hopi ritual order; in it, the conditions of the corruption were to signal the end of Oraibi (Titiev 1992: 101). As indicated by Whiteley, Oraibi leaders felt it was necessary to take drastic steps in ending the corruption by destroying the cause of it. Hopi religious leaders then orchestrated a political dispute over the acceptance or rejection of European-American customs and beliefs through ritual competition. The result of this dispute led to the disintegration of the pueblo. Whiteley proposes that the split resulted from deliberate decisions made in the secret manner of Hopi "ritualized planning" (Titiev 1992: 105).

Richard O. Clemmer provides a third justification of the Oraibi split. In this study, Clemmer provides an ethnographic, historical, and political analysis of the twentieth-century Hopi Traditionalist movement. Hopi Traditionalists of modern times oppose change that originates from groups other than the Hopis themselves. According to Clemmer, contemporary Traditionalists seek self-determination, following a strategy based on ancestral Hopi social organization, culture, and history (Clemmer 1995: 24). He contrasts Traditionalists with the Hopi Tribal Council, who also seeks self-determination, but follows a strategy allied with the European-American political-economic system. The Hopi Traditionalist movement occurred in response to the contact between Hopis and the U.S. go

Some common words found in the essay are:
July August, Taking Titiev's, Whiteley Oraibi, Oraibi Wash, Hopi Traditionalist, Oraibi Valley, Third Mesa, Oraibi Split, Bradfield Clemmer, Clemmer Whiteley's, oraibi split, titiev 1992, disintegration pueblo, waters 1977, loftin 1991, social structure, controlling factors, clemmer 1995, traditionalist movement, hopi social, hopi social structure, resulted disintegration pueblo, whiteley oraibi leaders, controlling factors hopi, wong 1988 87,
Approximate Word count = 1893
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)