Wednesday, March 26, 2014


Field Exercise #2 

Chaco Canyon was memorable; I wanted to get to know the land just as much as the native rangers that lived there because it was nothing like I have seen before. I do live in the city so the openness of Chaco was astounding and appealing to me. I’ll start with my positive observation and will move into a more critical one, but don’t get me wrong it was life changing!
Positively speaking the structure/ building we stopped to see was Pueblo Bonito I believe. It was extremely large and covered around a football stadium. Most building today do not expand lengthwise they expand up. Pueblo Bonito did have different floors; I believe Kayla our tour guide said there were three stories up of the Pueblo. It was massive and impressive and took probably hundreds of years to complete by hand and ancient tools. The native people who still survive today do not remark Chaco Canyons Pueblos as Ruins, perhaps because it is still standing and the structure hasn’t changed much or because it is alive and well. The weather was indifferent and wanted to change every minute with a new challenge for us. I could only imagine what the residents of Chaco Canyon did to stay moderately stabilized. They probably had lots of fire in the winter and probably no clothes in the summer, until it rained. I noticed how structured the people of Pueblo Bonito were and how they must have had to work together to make their lifestyle work. They used every resource around them they could until it was exhausted and then moved on when the land couldn’t give them anything anymore in my opinion.
On a more critical note 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 mentioned that you could see the piping they used to try and hold “Death Rock” up with. I am not even sure what they named the rock but it didn’t come from the ancient people so in my opinion I could name the rock what even I want because Americans are entitled. If it doesn’t have a name, we name it. If it doesn’t have a purpose, we make it useful and if it isn’t beautiful we modify it. The mentality of Americans couldn’t be described better than that, again in my opinion.

All in all I enjoyed the experience of being in an ancient Pueblo and learning about the history from the short film and then being able to get out there and discover something I am not familiar with. I enjoyed the details of the place but did not like the guessing about the way things were for the people there. I know there an idea that we should try to put the pieces together about things we don’t know so that we can educate ourselves but when most of it is presumption and fact less it seems fabricated and what we want out of the ancient place not what actually went on. Bittersweet is the adjective I would use to describe my experience at Chaco Canyon. Maybe I will take a trip on my own and study the Pueblos myself.

1 comment:

  1. This is a really perceptive blog about the trip we took to Chaco. I have to say, I couldn’t agree more about the way in which the ruins have been treated. I like how Bailey points out that the pueblo is only even considered ruins by people visiting the site as a tourist attraction, whereas for native peoples, pueblo bonito is still a living part of history.
    The way in which we preserve history, if we do it at all, is a topic in need of debate. I am inclined to side with Bailey in arguing that the way in which Chaco has been preserved, or at least the way in which the tour guide described it, is disrespectful. It seems as though by discussing what archaeologists have done to keep the site as they believe it should be, the tour guide basically suggested that the pueblo is a site under ownership of the Americans who have decided to use it for their own ends.
    While I was glad to be able to visit Chaco, and this may not have even been possible were it not for the archaeologists who have taken on the task of preserving it, I don’t know whether I agree with the way that they went about preserving it, or even if they should have done it at all. The environment is a power that we cannot tame, and it seems like trying to stop the natural process of decomposition taking place within nature is a futile task. Who is to say that the way in which nature would overcome the pueblo is not the way it should be? The “threatening rock” that they tried to prevent from falling was always going to fall. I think it is a quality of humanity that causes us to become attached to objects and to sites, particularly if they are historical because we don’t want to miss out on knowing as much as possible about where we came from and who we once were. However, I think this is unnecessary when it causes us to push too hard against nature because nature will always win out eventually.

    ReplyDelete