Looking North from New Alto
When I was working at Chaco, we would often get visitors who would complain about how hard it was to get there. They usually focused on the road in and asked why there wasn’t more effort to pave it and make it more accessible to the American public. After all, isn’t that what national parks are for? Well, no, I would often respond. The Park Service mission is preservation foremost and visitor services secondarily, and most of the time concerns about preservation trump concerns about accessibility and interpretation. There is one interesting exception at Chaco, but for the most part the park is concerned more with preserving the sites than with showing them to the public.
"Area Closed" Sign on Peñasco Blanco Trail
Some people were satisfied with this explanation, but many weren’t. I didn’t have much to say to those who took a more absolutist position on the right of the public to access the parks. That’s just a basic philosophical difference, and the best we could do was agree to differ.
Downtown Farmington, New Mexico
One thing I often thought about saying, however, was that it might be better to just build a full-scale model of Pueblo Bonito in downtown Farmington (or even Albuquerque). For a lot of the visitors who come to Chaco, it’s really just a matter of seeing Pueblo Bonito, marveling at it, and going on their way. They’re the ones who complain about how hard it is to get there; arguments about how the isolation is part of the point carry no water with them. I never actually said this, but I do wonder if it might be a good idea. One of the ways in which the two aspects of the Park Service mission are very much in tension is that preservation and visitation are not only different, they’re actually often in direct conflict. Visitor impacts are among the most serious threats to the preservation of the sites. Sometimes people deliberately vandalize the sites, carve their names one the canyon walls, or steal artifacts, but even the vast majority of visitors who don’t do anything deliberately nonetheless destabilize the sites just by being there, walking through them, inadvertently touching the walls, and so forth. The biggest single thing the park could do to improve preservation of the sites would be to limit public access to them.
Pueblo Bonito from Above
A full-scale replica of Pueblo Bonito in another location would have a similar effect: drawing the casual visitors away from the canyon and leaving it to the more serious people who are willing to brave the road to get there. There would be little need to recreate any of the other sites, except perhaps Casa Rinconada; Bonito is what people come to Chaco for.
Casa Rinconada, Looking North
It won’t happen, of course, but it’s not as crazy an idea as it sounds. I was reminded of it by Paul Barford’s recent post on an idea proposed by Trevor Watkins for dealing with the recent disputes among governments over some high-profile antiquities. The proposal is to make replicas indistinguishable from the originals, then trade both the originals and the replicas back and forth between the source countries and the countries that currently have the objects without telling the public if what they see is original or a copy. This seems like a bizarre thing to do, and I kind of doubt the source countries will be in favor of it (though they might like a version in which they get to keep the originals permanently and the acquiring countries have to make do with copies), but the proposal notes that there are actually some archaeological sites, particularly the Paleolithic caves at Lascaux and Altamira, that have full-scale replicas, and visitors seem to like them just fine and to even say that they are better than the originals because they allow better visibility of the interesting parts, which in the case of the caves are the cave paintings for which they are famous. This is kind of an extreme version of the reconstruction of prehistoric sites that was popular in the Southwest in the 1930s, moving beyond that only in that the replicas are not adding on to the originals but are separate entirely. In addition to being more convenient for visitors, this would also be better for preservation of the original sites. I think American archaeology might actually be moving in this direction too, with the reburial of Baker Village after excavation, with only the protective capping on the walls visible from the service, being an early indication.
Low Walls at Pueblo Alto
More directly relevant to Watkins’s proposal, perhaps, is the famous jet frog found in Room 38 at Pueblo Bonito by the Hyde Exploring Expedition in 1897. Often considered one of the most remarkable Anasazi artifacts known, the frog is made of jet with turquoise inlay forming its eyes and neck, and is intact except for a couple of pieces of inlay on the neck. Like all the rest of the material found by that expedition, the frog was sent to the American Museum of Natural History in New York, where it remains to this day, not on display but somewhere back in the storage cabinets.
Jet Frog Replica at Chaco Museum
There is, however, a jet frog prominently displayed in the museum at the Chaco visitor center. Although it is not labeled as such, this is an exact replica of the original, right down to the missing inlay pieces. Since the American Museum is notoriously protective of its collections, this is the best the park could do to show what the jet frog looks like. This is exactly what Watkins is advocating: exact replicas, put on display without any indication that they aren’t original. Unlike his proposal, of course, in this case the original and the replica don’t move back and forth, but any real-life implementation of the proposal would probably end up that way.
Museum of Chaco Culture
What all this goes to show, I think, is that most people who come to archaeological sites and museums to see the wonders of the past aren’t all that concerned with the “authenticity” of what they see. Indeed, for a lot of people an impressive reconstruction is preferable to an unimpressive original. We would get some people who really wanted all the sites to be rebuilt to their original state. (No way that’s ever going to happen, for a lot of reasons.) There are visitors who only want to see the “real stuff,” but it’s important to realize that that isn’t everybody, and it may not even be a majority. Many people go to see this stuff as entertainment, and they judge it on that basis.
Pepper, G. (1905). Ceremonial Objects and Ornaments from Pueblo Bonito, New Mexico American Anthropologist, 7 (2), 183-197 DOI: 10.1525/aa.1905.7.2.02a00010
Reminded me of something in a paper I wrote for a class some time back, so I dug out the citation:
AlSayyad, Nezar, ed. 2001. “Global norms and urban forms in the age of tourism: Manufacturing heritage, consuming tradition,” in Consuming tradition, manufacturing heritage, N. AlSayyad, ed. London: Routledge, pp 1-33.
Been a while, so your mileage may vary, but maybe it’s worth a look for you. cheers.
Looks interesting; thanks.
I’m reminded of an anecdote in Douglas Adams’ wonderful non-fiction book, Last Chance to See. He describes a visit to a Japanese temple which the guide proudly describes as the original temple, and immediately follows by saying it had burned down several times. Some back and forth between Adams and the guide suggests that the Japanese consider the form of the building to be the essential part, and are much less obsessed with details such as it being the original material.
I guess some cultures might have a much easier time with the proposal mentioned here than one might think…
A Chaco replica sounds like a good idea to me. It wouldn’t even need to be an exact replica, and people would flock to see it. Some because it was a replica… and nearby rather than a long drive off.
This would be an excellent WPA-type project. The visitors would probably want some complete reconstruction, too, a la Aztec. But that’s OK, as none of it would be “real.” I’m sure this attraction would be very popular, especially if it were near the regular tourist routes.
Those of us who wanted to respectfully view the real thing, absorb the environment and hike to the outliers, could still do that in peace and quietude.
I guess some cultures might have a much easier time with the proposal mentioned here than one might think…
Yeah, that’s another thing. This whole “authenticity” thing is very much a product of a very specific western mindset that is by no means universal.
The visitors would probably want some complete reconstruction, too, a la Aztec.
Actually, a second-best version of this idea might be to just send them to Aztec. Not exactly the same as Chaco, but close enough for most people’s needs, and much easier to get to. In fact, I think I’ve probably done exactly that when talking to some visitors who called the park and hadn’t realized how isolated it was. I can’t recall any specific examples, but it seems like the kind of thing I would do.
Hi Teofilo,
This one’s really fun.
The conflict between the need to preserve and the need to show in the NPS organic act leaves the NPS in a quandry which will last until politicians stick their noses into the question.
The issue of ease-of-access for Chaco is the same as that for Toroweap, at the Grand Canyon. The debate reminds me of the issue of equal opportunity vs equal success. For my part- stop grading the road for a year, and let those who wish to visit, earn the visit.
Since so many of the known spectacular artifacts rest within environments which prohibit visits by the unwashed masses, replicas will just have to do.
An additional, though somewhat connected issue, is the message from on high to the NPS field reps that sensitive sites are not to be commented on, nor visits encouraged. Quantum physicists would argue that any observation results in degradation of the observed data, but the NPS has decided (from behind a desk) that none of us who do not work within the aegis of NPS are unworthy or without necessary knowledge to visit a site without unwitting damage to the site.
The result for myself, is that I have shared a location for a pictograph procession panel w/ a BLM employee, only as a trade for location information from that individual. This is the double-edged sword, back to restrict the agencies of the Federal Government from the ‘protection role’.
sign me, ‘Just a Broken Down Construction Worker-Tourist’
I was a visitor to Chaco on October 29 2009 and would like to express my discontent.
First of all I would like to say that the ruins were impressive and I was pleased to be allowed access to many of the rooms. Access to these rooms were necessary due to the nature of my research. I felt the museum displays were done in a most creative fashion, and exemplified a reflection of ancient masonry techniques.
I was on the other hand very disappointed with the theme that the museum portrayed. I expected to learn more of the Chaco branch Anasazi while visiting the museum but was disappointed to only hear views from Native Americans about their “stories” of the Chacoans based on oral traditions. I expected to see and hear “facts” based on scientific research through organized archaeological data collection. I also expected to see original hallmark artifacts that our tax payer dollars have unearthed; instead I witnessed second rate material and replicas such as a plastic frog! I have grown tired of hearing how these inanimate objects are sacred or ceremonial and we must revere the feelings of the Native Americans and put archaeological evidence aside.
This National heritage belongs to All American people and the study of human cultural development should be shared with All regardless of the color of your skin! One race, the human race. I respect the religious ideologies of another but do not appreciate the person that imposes or enforces them upon me. I do not follow pagan idolatry and do not expect to have this imposed upon me at our government funded museums. I would expect to see archaeological data, Hallmark pottery from Chaco and some of the finest artifacts on display. What I witnessed there was political correctness gone amuck. I respect the oral traditions of the Native Americans and find them interesting as a side note within anthropological context but not up front and center within the context of an archaeological center such as this.
Sincerely, Dace D. Hyatt Hyatt Restorations
teofilo:
First off, great weblog you have here. I wish I’d found it before my September 2009 trip to Chaco. Blame my poor “googling” skills.
The tension between the goals of preservation and public access is interesting. On one hand, I’m not certain that there truly is such a tension in the National Park Service’s Mission Statement. The statement does not juxtapose conservation and access as alternatives so much as it frames the former as being a tool to promote and enable the latter.
“The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”
In other words, conservation is not an end in and of itself. The key is preservation for what purpose? I read that purpose to be the “enjoyment, education and inspiration” of the public today and into the future. Creating parks where preservation materially impedes “enjoyment” of natural and cultural resources by the public doesn’t seem to fit the charter.
On the other hand, I would hardly say that Chaco Culture NHP has elevated preservation over access in any inappropriate way. In fact, I was extremely surprised by the freedom of access given to the major sites in the Park. I do not think that the thin barriers of two bumpy roads and trust (i.e., trusting guests to be honorable when visiting sites) constitute sufficient preservation of the cultural resources. I realize that the Park covers a huge area, particularly for the size of the staff, but I have no doubt that plenty of potsherds and other “souvenirs” walk out of the Park every year. Has there been any consideration of a more robust site visit registration system (so that the staff know which guests were at which site at a given time)? How about solar powered, pole mounted web cameras (even non-functional dummies) placed at sites as a deterrent to theft and vandalism?
Paradoxically, I was disappointed that certain areas were off limits. For example, I wanted to visit the Shabik’eschee site, but was told “no can do”. Actually, I was told that there had been a recent “special occasion” (anniversary of some kind?) ranger-led tour of the site, but I’d missed it. I was also saddened that there was no lawful way to backpack the path of the Great North Road from Pueblo Alto to northern outliers like Pierre’s complex, Halfway House, etc. Perhaps having bi-annual, docent-led “for fee” outings to some of the Park’s less-visited resources would be a way of upping the funding for other preservation work.
In sum, I found Chaco to be the best National Park I’ve visited. I’d take it hands down over Yosemite, Yellowstone, Bryce, Zion, Joshua Tree, you name it. If the preservation strategy for the foreseeable future is poor road quality, I suggest less frequent grading. I entered via the south road and found it anticlimactic. Actually dread of the challenge of the south road gave me the adrenaline bursts I needed to complete my trip to the Park in two 18-hour driving days. The reality was that my fully loaded (over-loaded to be honest; two week’s worth of camping and hiking gear, food and astronomy gear) compact station wagon had no trouble with the south road. The only delay I faced was a black bull standing in the middle of the road about half way to the Park. After a stare-down, the Subaru won and the bull meandered on his way.
Lastly, a couple of questions. At the junction of Route 9 with Route 14, it looked as if there was a smaller ruin just south of the junction. Was that Bee’s Burrow? Also, on mid-60s USGS survey maps there are several “Indian Ruins” plotted within Park boundaries or, in the case of the South Gap, perhaps just over the border, that are not shown in the current Park guides. Do Park staff ever lead guest visits to such sites?
Kind regards,
Jim
Hi Jim,
Thanks for stopping by. You make some good points about the tension (or lack thereof) between preservation and visitation. The key word in the NPS Mission Statement, I think, is “unimpaired”; it makes sense to see preservation as a tool to promote the public’s “enjoyment, education, and inspiration,” but in many cases, particularly with historical/archaeological sites, the public’s “enjoyment” is the main cause of “impairment” to the fragile resources, and some sort of balance has to be struck. So I do think there’s a fundamental tension there, although in many cases it can be managed quite adequately.
As for Chaco specifically, I agree that it’s not actually very well protected, and you’re right that lots of stuff gets stolen all the time. In fact, a good way to judge the level of visitation of a given site in the park is by the number of potsherds around it. The more sherds, the less visited the site. Pueblo Bonito has virtually none. Pueblo Alto has a fair number. The sites that are off-limits to the public are covered in them. I think the main barrier to increasing protection is just funding, but there’s also a certain mindset among the staff at Chaco that’s very much a throwback to an earlier era in the Park Service. I don’t have experience working at any other park, but from people I’ve talked to who have it sounds like they work very differently.
There’s a perennial struggle between the Interpretation and Cultural Resources divisions in the park over how much access to allow to the sites. The interp people always want to have more and to arrange things like special ranger-led tours, while the archaeologists do whatever they can to stop that and would really prefer to limit public access to all the sites. Shabik’eshchee is a good example. For a while interp was doing occasional guided tours there, but then CR managed to stop that and put a hard limit on the number of people allowed to visit even for official park purposes each year. It is an exceptionally fragile site, apparently. I’ve only been there once, but one of the rangers who has been there many times told me that every time he visits it has visibly deteriorated since the last time. And that’s with no public access at all.
For some of the less fragile sites in the backcountry, I think occasional ranger-guided tours would be a good idea, and a lot of parks do things like that. Again, though, the Chaco way seems to be all or nothing: unfettered access to the major sites and no access at all to any others. The Great North Road, by the way, is inaccessible for a slightly different reason. Only a very small portion of it at the southern end is in the park, and the rest passes through a large area of complicated land ownership. A lot of that land is private, and the landowners are often not very friendly.
The ruins shown on the USGS quad maps are among the ones not open to the public, and there are no tours to them. (I’m sure the NPS would prefer it if the USGS didn’t put them on the maps, but that’s the federal government for you. Plus things were different back when the maps were made.) They’re mostly small-house sites similar to the ones near Casa Rinconada except unexcavated. Since they’re unexcavated, very few have any visible architecture; they mostly just look like little hills covered in potsherds. You can see a lot of them from the loop road if you know where to look. The ones outside the park boundary are mostly on private land, so the park can’t stop people from going to them, but the landowners can.
The ruins at the junction of US 9 and NM 57 are not prehistoric, as far as I know. I believe they’re the remains of an old ranch house. They do seem to be made of sandstone that was probably taken from the many Chacoan sites (mostly small houses) in the area. Bee Burrow is a few miles to the northwest. There are two great houses near 57 a few miles south of the park boundary: Greenlee on the east side and Upper Kin Klizhin on the west. I don’t know if either is visible from the road, though.
Glad to hear you enjoyed Chaco, and thanks for all the interesting comments and questions.