The circle of stones sits in the Utah desert, on a
bench above the murky waters of the river. Nearby, more stones are
strewn about in an orderly fashion. And everywhere, pieces of gray,
red and corrugated pottery lie scattered.
Hundreds of
years ago, this was a sacred Puebloan site. The circle, about 50
feet across, is what remains of a great kiva, most likely used for
dances or other ceremonies. After decades of worshipping here, the
people moved on. Their descendents now live in the Pueblos along
the Rio Grande, or at Hopi, Acoma or Zuni. For centuries, the kiva
and its attendant structures sat here, undisturbed. Eventually,
however, a new wave of settlement crashed over the landscape. Right
next to the kiva, Mormon pioneers built a wagon road, now passable
by car. Today, hundreds of people raft by on the river each year.
It was inevitable that this place would be looted, its artifacts
carried away.
When I visited the kiva earlier this month,
I considered all that had once been here and was now sitting
gathering dust on some shelf somewhere. Like Craig Childs in this
issue's cover story, I felt sad, even a bit outraged. But I also
felt a twinge of guilt.
A long time ago, when I was just
a kid, my family spent a lot of time cruising around the canyons of
the Four Corners region, looking at the remains of ancient
communities. My brother and I also picked up a lot of pottery and
arrowheads we found scattered around the rubble. It was just what
folks did in this part of the world. It never occurred to us that
with each artifact pilfered, we were carrying away part of the
past. Then, when I was about 8 or 9, an archaeologist informed us
that what we were doing was wrong. We quickly changed our ways, and
I never took another piece of pottery home again. The damage,
however, had been done.
Now, I see the world quite a bit
differently. Not only do I no longer pick up artifacts, but I have
begun to question why archaeologists take so many. Which is why I
found Craig's story intriguing: He wonders just how much
archaeology differs from pothunting, and comes up with some
interesting, unexpected answers.
Serious archaeology is
on a far different plane than my juvenile arrowhead-gathering.
However, I sometimes wonder whether enough digging has been done,
enough artifacts collected. It seems an archaeologist could learn
more about the great kiva I visited from just looking around it, at
its geographical context, than from removing and analyzing the
material remains. (The kiva sits in the center of a spectacular
landscape, at the nexus of ancient Puebloan worlds, and you simply
cannot put something like that in a museum storeroom.) An
archaeologist could learn even more from talking to today's
Puebloans, the descendants of those who once lived here. And, of
course, he could leave something for future archaeologists, who may
regard our scientific methods the way we do the pothunters'
digging. Artifacts are fascinating, but they are increasingly
secondary when it comes to gaining knowledge of the past.
That doesn't mean they aren't important, however. And it's
heartening to me to watch my daughters walk carefully across the
rubble, searching intently for pieces of pottery. When one finds a
shard, she picks it up, turns it around in her little hands and
memorizes the ancient design. Then she gently puts it back, right
where she found it.
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Google
Spurl
Wists
Simpy
Newsvine
Blinklist
Furl
Reddit
Fark
Blogmarks
Smarking
Magnolia
Ozmozr


The article speaks of site preservation which is excellent of course, but what about the preservation of the artifacts. If we are talking about a protected (from both weather and vandalism) area, then your idea is best. But if the site is not protected, it would be best for the preservation of history to photograph the artifacts in situ and remove them to a museum (just my opinion).