Talk:Mesa Verde National Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines: To help us prioritise our workload, and in readiness for Wikipedia:1.0, we need to assess our articles for Quality. If this article is Unassessed, please assess it. See the Article Classification for instructions. If you disagree with a rating, you can change it or discuss it at Article Classification. Before assessing this article, be sure to check the existing Archive of assessments made under the previous system (used until July 2006), and feel free to help in migrating the existing comments besides from adding your own evaluation. After assessing this article's quality, please make sure it to add it to the Lists at Article Classification, following the grading scheme detailed there.
Please rate this article and leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of WikiProject Protected Areas, a WikiProject related to national parks and other protected areas worldwide. It may include the protected area infobox.

This article is part of WikiProject Colorado, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Colorado-related articles to a feature-quality standard.

This article is part of WikiProject Archaeology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to archaeology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Gustaf Nordenskiöld the villain?

User:WBardwin has been adding wording that would indicate or imply that Gustaf Nordenskiöld's conduct has been less than perfect. I find it very difficult to believe that a member of one of Scandinavia's most prominent families of scientist and explorers would be guilty of unethical conduct in his scientific work.

Every archelogist wants to study undisturbed and virgin sites. Also, newer methods may enable the extraction of more information from a dig than methods used in previous decades.

To criticise Nordenskiöld one would however have to show that:

1. His methods did not meet the archeological standards of the time, or that they were in some substantive way inferior to todays standards.
2. He did not record his finds or missrepresented the location of the recovery artifacts
3. He showed a lack of respect for the site, its building or for the native culture.

I have not seen any proof for any of these claims. -- Petri Krohn 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm heavily criticising him as an individual-- the earlier versions of the article (produced both from scholarly books and the web) acknowledged that he was a controversial figure in his time and that some of that controversy continues today. Petri Krohn's edits pointed out some aspects of the social situation which were not presented in the books, and frankly made him sound like a "shining light." But, almost all modern archaeologists are mildly ashamed and somewhat critical of their very early peers. By today's standards they were all "pot hunters". They disrupted stratigraphy, damaged dwellings, burned roof beams to cook supper, dug undocumented holes, gathered, sold and destroyed artifacts and tossed away "minor" materials that today would be priceless. We lost much from their work, even though, as with Nordenskiöld, they produced work of scholarly value. Our archaeology articles here should not bless early "pot hunting" because the people were uninformed of modern archaeological methods. I think the present article presents him in quite a positive light, but I am unwilling to make him a hero (a POV!) or say his reputation has been "rehabilitated" (which implies he repented of his sins?). I also believe that a full discussion of his reputation and the social issues involved belong in his article, not the Park's article. I placed a newly published bio as a reference there. Perhaps when someone/we read the book, we'll have more objective material to work with. Best wishes. WBardwin 22:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I am not anonymous User:69.39.6.253, who contributed the text on Gustaf Nordenskiöld.
2. Your edits seem to imply that Gustaf Nordenskiöld was one of those "pot hunters" or otherwise guilty of some kind of unethical conduct. -- Petri Krohn 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For his time, he was not guilty of "unethical" conduct. By modern standards, he was as guilty as all his peers in the Middle East, Egypt, and the Americas. Archaeologists and paleontologists during the early periods were "pot hunters" -- even as they did scholarly research. They gathered big flashy artifacts for their financial backers and institutions, made up private collections, discarded broken artifacts without documentation, and damaged sites. No one at the time was perfect -- no one. And Wikipedia articles should not ignore the faults of their time or unduly praise them. He was a fine scholar, for his time. He did better than average documentation and produced good records, for his time. He might even have been an honorable man, for his time, but I don't know how to document his moral standing. As I said above, he is presented positively here, his contribution is acknowledged, and I believe that a more involved discussion of his contributions and actions belongs on his bio/article. Sorry to misattribute the new information. And please, no more personal attacks. Best.........WBardwin 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we seem to agree on one thing: your wording is intended to cast Nordenskiöld in a less than perfect light. However I do not agree with your arguments. It is true, that many early archeologists were pot hunters. This fact alone does not prove that Nordenskiöld was one of these pot hunters. Neither would I give much weigth to early amateur critics.

Besides, I do not believe the collection at the National Museum of Finland is a collection of "big flashy artifacts"; most likely it is a collection of broken pieces of pottery and other every-day artifacts. -- Petri Krohn 00:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

P. S. Look at this photograph taken by Gustaf Nordenskiöld and ask yourself the question: "did he tear down walls before of after taking the photograph?" Or were the claims of him taking part in the tearing down business untrue? -- Petri Krohn 01:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you personally seen the collection in Finland? Is a book/catalog available? Who knows when he took the photograph? All of these are assumptions and require sources! Sources! Sources! As for real primary sources, we have his book (which I have partially read in translation), we have opinions of his detractors in his lifetime, and we have the considered opinions of archaeologists over the years.

I respect the man, personally. And I have never -- never -- never -- intended to display him in a disparaging fashion. But he should be considered in the context of his time - he was a scholar who decided, on his own, without consultation or advice, what his procedures should be. Some of them are to his credit. And, as there were no established procedures for the field, all early archaeologists made mistakes by modern standards. Mesa Verda, Chaco Canyon and outlying ruins were casually damaged, and artifacts discarded and destroyed, not only by opportunists, but by "professional" explorers and educated visitors. Collectors were rampant. After his explorations, he shipped a fairly large shipment of artifacts home to Europe for display. And, in my opinion, Americans didn't resent him for "dispoiling the ruins" (despite public statements), they resented him for taking valuables out of the country before they could get at them. Profit was a strong motive of the time and fancy collections were a fad. So -- he, other emerging scholars and everyone else around him were "hunting pots" - everyone wanted dramatic materials that would make a nice display and a nice collection.

I'm not really sure what this argument is about except the word "rehabilitated" -- i.e. to restore to a former capacity, to restore to a good repute, to restore to a former state...." That's the only thing I've really objected to in your edits. I don't think his name has been, or ever will be, completely rehabilitated. Not because he wasn't a "nice" man, or came from a very "famous" family (class status, my, what criteria), or had a good education, or modern advocates and a fine press agent. But, because of the time he lived in and the state of arcaeology at the time, he needs to be presented as objectively and accurately as possible. He was not a hero. He was not a time-traveling archaeologist working with modern methods. He was a visitor to a place that had fascinating physical ruins and artifacts, and no one knew much about them. He explored, analyzed, collected and formed opinions. He made mistakes, just like all his peers. Just like all of us. Why don't you want to say that? WBardwin 01:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Reynolds (formerly anonymous user 69.39.6.253) replies

I'm David Reynolds, co-author of the recent book " Nordenskiöld of Mesa Verde: A Biography " and also your anonymous "User 69.39.6.253" who contributed a rewrite to the perfunctory "Brief History" of Mesa Verde National Park. I'm new to Wikipedia but informed, I think, on the issues discussed here.

First I'd like to commend Petri Krohn for the accurate biographical entry on Nordenskiöld. I also support Krohn's remarks in this discussion.

My rewrite was aimed at correcting a number of factual and interpretive errors, by no means limited to Nordenskiöld, in the previous entry. That entry reflected thinking abandoned decades ago, in which Mesa Verde was despoiled by looters and vandals led especially by the Wetherill brothers and by Nordenskiöld. No reputable author today asserts that, in fact the reverse. For the contemporary view see my book, Fred Blackburn's recently issued " The Wetherills: Friends of Mesa Verde, " or the revised edition of Duane Smith's " Mesa Verde: Shadow of the Centuries. " Mesa Verde National Park staff agree completely, as literature and displays at the Park confirm. In 1991 they sponsored an archaeological symposium honoring Nordenskiöld on the centennial of his visit. If that isn't rehabilitation, what is?

Nordenskiöld cannot be blamed for offenses against archaeological practices; archaeology was still being invented in the 1890s, and his careful, thorough methods contributed. Not a shred of evidence supports his guilt. Why then did the myth spread? Examples of prominent looters and vandals were needed to pressure Congress to give protected park status to Mesa Verde, and to outlaw private artifact collection. The Wetherills and Nordenskiöld were the best known collectors. After both legal objectives were reached in 1906, certain Mesa Verde National Park administrators found it useful to keep the myth alive, perhaps to justify their budgets. But that ended long ago.

Some related points:

1. I agree with the depiction of 19th century archaeologists as being highly unprofessional by today's standards. Even at Mesa Verde, the first Ph.D. archaeologist to study it extensively, in the early 20th century, is often described as an ignorant blunderer.
2. The 610 artifacts in Finlands Museum of Cultures are indeed cataloged and computer accessible. The collection does contain many potsherds and other unspectacular items, the majority retrieved from refuse heaps at Mesa Verde. The artifacts were evaluated by American archaeologist Charlie Steen as a "good, representative collection," though not one containing unique items. A Mesa Verde National Park official is on record as saying "we don't want it back," due to storage and maintenance shortcomings at Mesa Verde stemming from inadequate funding.
3. All of Nordenskiöld's excellent photographs, taken in 1891, are indeed at the same museum. Former director Pirjo Varjola published an excellent pamphlet featuring them. Reproduction rights are available but were too expensive for my book.
4. The reputations of the five Wetherill brothers suffered even more grievously. Two generations of Park visitors were told such fictions as that the Wetherills were mainly responsible for permanent loss of our ability to understand the culture of the Ancestral Puebloans who lived there. Given the facts covered in Blackburn's book, I object to the insertion in my text of a negative phrase about their activities. They were the first to agree, however, that Nordenskiöld improved their methods.
5. I also object to the reinsertion of a misleading irrelevancy in my text. Richard Wetherill did rediscover Cliff Palace in 1888, but it had been seen by his brother Al in 1885, several area ranchers claimed to have seen it during the 1880s, and a prospector had published an account of a site sounding like Cliff Palace. Also, we need to remember that the Wetherills began their Mesa Verde explorations in 1882 and were guiding visitors through the cliff structures as early as 1886. Finally, Cliff Palace is only one of hundreds of sites the Wetherills charted, and not necessarily the most spectacular.

I don't know if I'll be a regular here, but when I have time I'll have another go at tweaking the "Brief History" text.

-- Dave Reynolds August 11, 2006 (don't yet know the correct entry format) Fritzfrump 02:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)