anasazi ruins
Rats of Multa
Posts: 250
i'm curious how this sort of economic-activity is seen by the diverse population here at the tenclub pit,....
"Utah developer wants to build houses while preserving Anasazi ruins"
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/57658.html
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 27, 2007
KANAB, Utah (AP) - For more than 1,200 years the ancient Anasazi made their home here along the Utah-Arizona border. Now, a developer wants to set a modern-day subdivision among the ruins sites, clustering homes so they capitalize on rather than harm what remains of the ancient dwellings.
St. George developer Milo McCowan wants to build 700 to 800 houses and town homes on 270 acres west of Kanab Creek. The area is in the process of being annexed into city of Kanab.
But most important, McCowan said, is preserving and even encouraging more study of the area's archaeological resources.
"We are dedicating 20 acres in the project for long-term archaeological excavation and study, hopefully in partnership with a university," McCowan said. "Amateur archaeologists could move here and live and assist with a significant dig in their own neighborhood."
The subdivision -- named Chaco Canyon after the famous Anasazi ruins in New Mexico -- would also include open spaces, trails, an amphitheater for the performing arts and a museum featuring the area's artifacts, he said. The entrance road will wind between two ruin sites.
A private consulting firm run by Doug McFadden, former head archaeologist with the Bureau of Land Management's nearby Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, conducted an archaeological survey of the area for McCowan last year.
McFadden said the ruins at 14 sites offer excellent examples of how the Virgin Anasazi lived from the year 1 to the 1200s, when they abruptly vanished. The ancient dwellings are layered and built in blocks of rooms extending down about 15 feet and were used for living and storage space.
"They show us the different periods of occupation from the early (Anasazi) to the late period," McFadden said. "It's a neat situation to have that continuity of occupation. It allows us to study how things changed for them over time."
McFadden lauded McCowan for going out of his way to preserve the sites. He said McCowan is not required by law to do an archaeological inventory.
The Division of State History also is pleased with McCowan's efforts.
A letter from state historic preservation officer Wilson Martin praises McCowan for combining the area's archaeological heritage into his development and offers McCowan assistance in obtaining grants and tax incentives for the development.
"Utah developer wants to build houses while preserving Anasazi ruins"
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/57658.html
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
February 27, 2007
KANAB, Utah (AP) - For more than 1,200 years the ancient Anasazi made their home here along the Utah-Arizona border. Now, a developer wants to set a modern-day subdivision among the ruins sites, clustering homes so they capitalize on rather than harm what remains of the ancient dwellings.
St. George developer Milo McCowan wants to build 700 to 800 houses and town homes on 270 acres west of Kanab Creek. The area is in the process of being annexed into city of Kanab.
But most important, McCowan said, is preserving and even encouraging more study of the area's archaeological resources.
"We are dedicating 20 acres in the project for long-term archaeological excavation and study, hopefully in partnership with a university," McCowan said. "Amateur archaeologists could move here and live and assist with a significant dig in their own neighborhood."
The subdivision -- named Chaco Canyon after the famous Anasazi ruins in New Mexico -- would also include open spaces, trails, an amphitheater for the performing arts and a museum featuring the area's artifacts, he said. The entrance road will wind between two ruin sites.
A private consulting firm run by Doug McFadden, former head archaeologist with the Bureau of Land Management's nearby Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, conducted an archaeological survey of the area for McCowan last year.
McFadden said the ruins at 14 sites offer excellent examples of how the Virgin Anasazi lived from the year 1 to the 1200s, when they abruptly vanished. The ancient dwellings are layered and built in blocks of rooms extending down about 15 feet and were used for living and storage space.
"They show us the different periods of occupation from the early (Anasazi) to the late period," McFadden said. "It's a neat situation to have that continuity of occupation. It allows us to study how things changed for them over time."
McFadden lauded McCowan for going out of his way to preserve the sites. He said McCowan is not required by law to do an archaeological inventory.
The Division of State History also is pleased with McCowan's efforts.
A letter from state historic preservation officer Wilson Martin praises McCowan for combining the area's archaeological heritage into his development and offers McCowan assistance in obtaining grants and tax incentives for the development.
we don’t know just where our bones will rest,
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://www.hcn.org/servlets/hcn.Article?article_id=3672
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
indeed,.. i rarely feel as though i know any more than 25% of the whole story when the "associated press" is involved.
i'd like to know what archaeologists think, rather then mere conservationists--20 acres out of 270 doesn't seem like responsible preservation to me.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
true, but i dont think that ought to suffice for justification.
my thinking is that this is exactly the kind of site that archeologists today should be working on,... instead our modern socio-political circumstances allow and promote the destruction of such heritage-sites for economic-exploitation.
i mean,.. well,.. i'll rephrase interrogatively: don't you think that developing upon such a site (of history) would/will taint whatever findings might be retrieved centuries down the line?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
i think you're right.
did you read the adjoining article i posted? "conservation" as a facade of environmental/Natural concern,... makes me sick the political awareness in america is so low that this can happen so easily.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
many,.. yeah, i would even venture to say most cases,... but then i'm a cynical bastard.
the only parties i've ever known of with no direct ties to economic-interest have almost always involved multiple kegs, so.....?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
Yeah...me neither.
Hehe...ok. In all fairness, however, I'm not sure how this qualifies as a "heritage site" since the Anasazi disappeared without a trace, right? Or perhaps I'm succumbing to urban legend and they do have some kind of ancestors who could make claim to this site.
All development is on sites of history friend. Dinosaurs died where you live, probably. Human beings once roamed your plains. Perhaps glaciers entombed yet unknown species under your feet.
Welcome to Earth.
i figured as much. thanks for keeping this thing alive for a bit.
yeah i wasnt really thinking in terms of Official 'heritage-sites" or anything,.. just that this story is occurring, therefore this must be a site of some interest [otherwise this is one of millions of development plots around the world].
i'm not sure about the legends and the facts of the anasazi either, but according to the x-files there are 2-3 elders still living in the deserts of az/nm who maintain their top-secret, uber-complex fabled-language history..... ?
perhaps,.. indeed,...
still, human-development [as in evolution, not strip-malls] is far more interesting and valuable from a standpoint of historical-research,.....
my concern in all of this as i have mentioned in previous threads is that there is little discussion about how humanity ought to be developing, constructing, promoting, and executing in terms of culture and industrialization.
this is kind of vague what i have just said here--but New Orleans is a perfect example, and will prove to be a perfect example of our contemporary failure to execute the means needed to act as a unified society [i think this is the case-point of why centralized gov't is somewhat important (even though "ours" has so far proven to be an inept failure bent on war-profiteering)].....
or one might say: there is no centralized culture worth adherence-to and building-upon. now, whether there should or shouldn't be one is an entirely different type of question--but i would vote Yes in a heartbeat if that mattered.
cheers,.. welcome to Multa.
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
According to the x-files??? Awesome. And thanks for using uber. Always good for a smile.
Why? I mean, seriously -- we're going to preserve what will most likely turn out to be an 800 year old pottery exposition. How's that any different than researching strip-malls 800 years from now? A strip-mall, trite and banal as it may be, is as much part of "evolution" as an Anasazi clay dwelling. One's just older than the other and therefore can be surrounded in some illusion of fascination. But they share more in common than they do in difference.
My concern is that you think there actually is an "ought" there.
Humanity develops. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Usually both at the same time and for different reasons. There's really no "ought" to, however.
There is no "centralized culture". And that's a good thing. Want to get closer to a "centralized culture"??? Travel back and time and become an Anasazi -- see how far conforming to a singular notion of "ought to" works out for a society. New Orleans "fails" and it takes down a city for a decade and a few thousand people. The Anasazi fail and it takes down a civilization. I'll take diversity, thank you.
any time.
yeah, perhaps,.. but then language exists on pottery. which is probably more valuable, unearthing long lost remains of the anasazii' wondrous language or uncovering another in a long line of consumerists'-hubris? there is no correct answer, since the future may have different interests or needs than ours, but that again is a prime point of why it is extra-important for us, today [in modernity], to preserve such objects as might be burried beneath "Chaco Canyon Circle".
no worries, i know better,.. i know there is not an authority with any ethical justification for imposing such an "ought-to",...
BUT,.. there is still the fact of ethics [or morality if you really want to push the issue],.... and to me that continues--since here there is an action under review there is thus a question of degrees of correctness and wrongness,... my "ought-to" is more akin to an "ought-not to..."
i know this isnt much better--basically i'm just really crafty with meaningless jargon
your wording here helps--in my view there ought to be an "ought to", hence humanity would develop more efficiently towards a more effective state of creative-existence.
i dont see why a centralized system of culture would be necessarily deficient of diversity?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
ok i've resorted to quoting myself before, so f*it...
i dont really think there should be an imposed "ought to",.. as i said there is no perfect philosophy to support such an authority [although i'd bet gw begs to differ]...
i just think there ought to be a way to create a state of the world in which ethics [based on historical-vitality] are promoted over and beyond any actions which produce merely isolated benefits.
i hope that makes some sense,..?
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
It makes lots of sense, just not as the absolute you're trying the build out of it.
"Historical vitality" can quickly become a laughable contradiction when taken too far. History is exacly that, history. It has passed. While history can be "living" in the sense that it can applicable to the present, that's a case that has to be made, not assumed by default.
Imagine 800 years from now, future archeologists standing above us, looking down at the homes and strip-malls built here. Wouldn't you find it a bit silly, them arguing over preserving our junk and our records, sacrificing their needs and desires in the meantime? Furthermore, go back 800 years and picture the Anasazi, standing over this site and choosing between preserving whatever might have been their before them and building a life and place for themselves. I just can't find too many common justifications for that.
A society that values other societies as sources of learning, trade, and cooperation is a healthy society. However, a society that values other cultures more than their own is a sick one, begging for a dependence that can likely spell their doom, particularly if that other society is one from the distant past.
I'm not suggesting that human development should rape and pillage the past. It shouldn't. But we shouldn't sacrifice the present or the future based on a misguided nostalgia or the corrupt ethics of heritage-worship.
All of this above provides my own ethical basis and view of human development. It may certainly differ from your own, and that's totally cool. A diversity of viewpoints on these topics is a wonderful thing as it ensures a healthy balance between a number of valid concerns. So, contrary to other posters here who suggest that a non-involved party (read: the UN, the federal government, some central body) should determine the "ought" here, I support letting the owners of the site determine for themselves their course of action. Those who differ should make their own choices with their own properties.
fascinating. very, very fascinating--thanks. [and in perfect time too cause i gotta leave work early here in the next 5min. for my friday night futbal game].
i wanna say i think we have very similar ethical views, at least in this particular instance.
i think all history is applicable in one way or another for any contemporary society that is healthy--and by healthy i refer to those cultures seeking the best possible means and methods for pursuing survival and pleasure(s).
this seems to be a perfect example for me to uphold my devil's advocacy,.. since the Anasazi were/are so mysterious per the historical-knowledge of modernity--their "junk" carries an inherent [potential] value above and beyond the typical connotations of what 'junk' is. but you're right,.. the whole process of "histoical-accumulation" [perhaps there is better language for this..?] is silly and potentially dangerous to the basic wants of a healthy civilization. *my thought is that perhaps we should learn from this basic historical fact,... so as not to refrain from producing meaningless junk!
in my view,.. land-ownership is superficial and false, whether legally defensible or not [after-all,.. the law, by many accounts, is far from flawless]... making this story precisely the sort of issue that could [and would!] be best met [solved..?] by a centralized 'system' i]policy[/i of "culture".... or, if you'd like,... "Government".
thanks for talking farfrom,.. has far exceeded "interesting status" for me,...
ciao for now,
-t
to dust i guess,
forgotten and absorbed into the earth below,..
You and I share a very similar view, based on this last paragraph. Survival, or life, and pleasure, or happiness, are the ultimate values of human existance.
Hehe...very valid.
Cool. I disagree that "land-ownership" is false, though superficial I can definitely get on board with. If we reduce land ownership to a system of fiat, that means we believe land is simply owned by force. And I believe that's a place we should move away from, not closer towards. But a minor difference. I think we're pretty close on this issue.
Nice thread, and thanks for sharing your views.
Be good.
I don't really understand your question. I'm not interested in ensuring that college history exams are "easy", particularly at the cost of people who want houses to live in, and I'm not sure how maintaining Anasazi ruins somehow prevents dishonest history.
And again, I am pretty damn sure that there are plenty of other places to build those houses, why does it have to be there?
(The rants of a historian/anthropologist) What the hell am i really gonna do with this degree....
I'm guessing that every other inch of Arizona and Utah has a house built on it already.
Hail, Hail!!!
Ok, I understand your point a little better here and I don't really disagree with anything you're saying here.
My only point is that the understanding of this part of history, by default, is not necessarily more valuable than serving the needs of the people who own this site and those who will potentially live/work on it. That's a case that needs to be made. And I simply haven't heard that case for this particular site.