For our field exercise, our group attended the Chaco Canyon field trip and made observations as we explored the landscape and the ruins. Some of our observations are recorded here.
Bailey: The one thing that bothered me entirely was the fact that there was reconstruction of the original structure. Our tour guide was very happy that they had to reconstruct and alter the original scene. I started thinking to myself, it’s just like an entitled American to believe they are right when changing things and other cultures that do not fit with their own way of living. The white man came in and decided to wreck ancient history because they wanted to preserve it their way. And also taking credit for a structure that was built by thousands of people before you is disrespectful in my opinion. I fully lost interest in the tour when I learned more about the reconstruction. It was more than just a wall they fixed the rangers just went in and modified what they thought needed to be modified instead of letting the natural environment take over like Dr. Kells stated. It would still be there but it just wouldn’t be fabricated as much as it is now.
Christina: At Chaco Canyon, I was most interested in the rhetoric used to discuss land and inanimate objects in the video we watched when we first arrived at the park, and with the juxtaposition between the use of land in the video vs in the national park system. In the movie, the land was spoken of in very human-like terms and it was clearly very well-respected. A Pueblo woman discussed going into kivas – places of worship built in the ground – as “going back into the womb.” A statement like this both humanizes the land and recognizes it as a place of beginning, where all life comes from. A Navajo man in the film discussed the earth and origins of people in similar ways. When discussing the sacred mountains, he described them as the center of all life, where people were born from the earth. He also spoke of the artifacts that could be found in Chaco Canyon, and instead of giving the typical reason not to steal from the park (to preserve the park for future generations), he was more concerned about the life cycle of the artifacts than about the people who might visit the park and not see the artifacts. He said that the pot shards “are living themselves and need to return to where they need to go.”
Lauren: I was impressed with the fairly advanced architecture of Pueblo Bonito, and curious about the true purpose of the structure. I think I agree most with theories that it was used as a trade center, especially with the goods that were found in the rooms and the sheer size of the pueblo in contrast with what it could realistically support. I also think the sheer grandeur of the pueblo was very intentional, probably to impress visitors—which is continues to do centuries later! Although I appreciate the idea of letting the ruins return to nature, I’m glad they have been preserved. I think that the site has immense cultural value, and offers insight into the people of the past. It’s a privilege to be able to visit a site with so much history, and I don’t think that protecting this site is wrong. Rather, the reconstruction and visitors are adding to its history.
No comments:
Post a Comment