Ruins Preservation: More Than Stuffing Mud

Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage Ruins Preservation: More than Stuffing Mud Janet R. Balsom, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023; [email protected] Amy Horn, Grand Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129, Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023; [email protected] Ruins preservation efforts in the American Southwest have mainly focused on the treatment of historic fabric (i.e., walls). The practice of preservation was left to the masons, with some direction from archeologists. Early on, archeologists thought they were masons, doing much of the work themselves. Sidewalk cement and creative reconstruction best describe their early efforts at stabilization. In the last 10 years, National Park Service (NPS) specialists have embarked on an ambitious program of ruins preservation under the title “Vanishing Treasures.” Although this program has provided much-needed preservation treatment for masonry ruins, more could be done to better understand and interpret prehistoric culture through the study of architecture as artifact. The underlying value in ruins preservation is the interpretation of culture—that the details revealed through architectural documentation may hold a window to the past that has yet to be opened. The Past described by Haury. The features are more Over the past 70 years, NPS has embarked likely reconstructions based upon the notions on a ruins preservation program that was of the workers in 1930 rather than interpreta- more stabilization than preservation, and tion of the features based upon archeological more creative reconstruction than accurate evidence. Common past interpretation of the portrayals of historic properties. This practice site also suggested a second story, something can be found throughout the Southwest; unlikely given the lack of substantial founda- examples primarily from Grand Canyon tion rocks. National Park will be used here to illustrate The early classification of structures likely that point. The first archaeological excava- provided an inherent bias toward a particular tions and stabilization at Grand Canyon way of thinking about the architecture, poten- occurred in 1930 at Tusayan Ruins. This site, tially limiting the possibilities based upon the located 23 miles east of the South Rim Village, system in use. While early archeologists was one of the first sites excavated and treated focused on architectural style as one element by an archeological research group called Gila of attempting to classify archeological sites, Pueblo. Emil Haury, then a graduate student, they recognized the differences in puebloan was instrumental in the excavation and stabi- architecture and its inferences toward clan lization of the site. Harold Gladwin, later asso- societies. In A Study of Pueblo Architecture in ciated with the Museum of Northern Arizona, Tusayan and Cibola (first published in 1891), also played a prominent role in the project. As Victor Mindeleff attempted to describe the we look at the site today, we can see a small various architectural styles he observed at the pueblo, constructed of unshaped Kaibab lime- Hopi and Zuni villages, looking specifically at stone boulders, with considerable portland construction style in his analysis. In his dis- cement visible at the mortar joints. The kivas, cussion of the site of “Tebigkihu (Fire identified as “A” and ”B,” bear little resem- House),” he says: blance today to those described during the As the plan clearly shows, this pueblo archeological excavations (Haury 1931). As a is very different from the typical matter of fact, Tusayan Ruins is the proud Tusayan villages that have been previ- owner of a cement sipapu in the reconstructed ously described. The apparent unity of kiva, along with a central fire hearth complete- the plan, and the skillful workmanship ly out of scale with the size and construction somewhat resembling the pueblo of the Chaco are in marked contrast to 165 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage the irregularity and careless construc- Marble Canyon to the pueblos at Unkar, the tion of most of the Tusayan ruins. Its only common thread in the architecture seems distance from the center of the to be that they are made of stone. Material province too, suggests outside rela- types differ, mortar styles differ, masonry tech- tionship; but still the Tusayan tradi- niques differ, yet all are looked at as represent- tions undoubtedly connect the place ing ancestral puebloan occupations sometime with some of the ancestral gentes... between AD 1050 and 1200. Surely, there is (1989:57). more to the architecture than just expedient construction. And more to the Kayenta In describing Shumopavi, Mindeleff Branch of the Ancestral Puebloans than the states: 60% stone and 40% mud described by Dean (1969). [T]he stonework of this village also possesses a somewhat distinctive Vanishing Treasures character. Exposed masonry, though The Vanishing Treasures program has comparatively rare in this well plas- allowed NPS to focus much more heavily on tered pueblo, show that stones of suit- the specifics of architecture than ever before. able fracture were selected and that But has the emphasis been on the people who they were more carefully laid than in made the structures or is there too much focus the other villages. In places, the on the rocks and mortar joints? Can the level masonry bears a close resemblance to of documentation done for Vanishing some of the ancient work, where the Treasures provide a window on greater under- spaces between the longer tablets of standing of the prehistoric inhabitants of these stone were carefully chinked with places, possibly allowing us to discretely iden- small bits of stone, bringing the whole tify subgroups within the Kayenta family? wall to a uniform face, and is much in Vanishing Treasures is an NPS ruins advance of the ordinary slovenly meth- preservation initiative focused on forty-one ods of construction followed in national parks, monuments, historic sites, and Tusayan (1989:75). recreation areas in the arid West.The initiative aims to address the backlog of maintenance From all accounts, in Mindeleff’s opinion, the work needed on the resources, and at the same masonry work in Zuni far exceeded the work time develop a permanent, professional work in Hopi, although both groups represented force to manage and maintain the sites. In gen- puebloan communities. eral, Vanishing Treasures resources are in a ruined state, have intact architectural fabric, The Present are not occupied or utilized for their original Let’s look at the range of masonry ruins at function, and are part of a park’s enabling leg- Grand Canyon identified archeologically as islation or are listed or eligible for listing on puebloan, primarily late PII–early PIII. If one the National Register of Historic Places (NPS looks at the architecture (similar to how one 2002). Typical Vanishing Treasures resources looks at projectile points or ceramics) as arti- include pueblos, cliff dwellings, churches, and fact, how would one be able to classify all of forts. The long-term goal of the initiative is to the sites being examined as ancestral develop a sustainable infrastructure capable of puebloan? Some masonry ruins, tens of miles maintaining the Park Service’s ruins. apart, show remarkable similarities, suggest- Between its inception in fiscal year 1998 ing the same cultural traditions, if not the same and the end of fiscal year 2001, the initiative people, were responsible. Other masonry added 48 new permanent archeologists, structures, some in close proximity, show no masons, craftspeople, architectural conserva- similarities at all. From the ruins at Tusayan to tors, engineers, and architects in 22 parks. In the granaries at Nankoweap, the granaries in the same five years, 65 projects, with a total 166 Managing Cultural Resources and Heritage value of $3,958,500, were implemented in 27 sites. In general, these questions seek to parks. understand construction techniques and orig- Understandably, the Vanishing Treasures inal sociocultural organization by recording initiative (and Grand Canyon National Park) the elements of architecture, engineering, and has focused on backlog maintenance and put- construction found in the sites and structures. ting personnel in place to complete work. This concept has guided the Vanishing Prior to any stabilization, detailed architectur- Treasures program and the research questions al documentation is completed to document in this document have been adopted by many the current condition of the resource, previ- parks. ous treatments, and original construction But in general, preservation guidelines and techniques. Many ground-breaking tech- practice stress treatment and documentation niques in architectural documentation have standards with minimal attention to the been developed within the Vanishing research questions guiding them. Little men- Treasures initiative. For example, photo- tion of research questions can be found in the graphs are scaled and rectified in CAD (com- draft NPS ruins preservation guidelines puter-aided design) software, allowing arche- (Nordby and Metzger 1998). The present ologists to produce wall profile drawings more authors believe the development of research accurate than ever before. Laser “scanning” of questions should play a more central role in structures produces the most accurate and ruins preservation. Why are we preserving detailed two-dimensional representations of ruins if not to increase our understanding of sites and features ever possible.

Load more