Aztec Ruins Administrative History

INSTRUCTIVE OR DESTRUCTIVE ARCHEOLOGY, OR BOTH?

The long recital of the stabilization efforts at Aztec Ruins would be incomplete without some consideration of the pluses and minuses inherent in the practice of field archeology. At the time when excavation first began in the West Ruin, the excavator and the institution sponsoring him were strongly motivated by the desire to acquire the material goods that lay concealed within its heart. More important to both parties, however, was gaining insight into what was then an almost unknown fragment of the nation's patrimony, to strip away the fantasy and replace it with facts. That the exposure of the great house and its contents was a worthwhile endeavor is beyond question. Every scrap of information about man's past enriches all, whether or not there is a biological or cultural connection to present observers. Moreover, if Morris had not reclaimed the treasure trove of perishable artifacts when he did, it is probable that within a decade those in lower deposits would have been reduced to a malodorous ooze of decaying vegetation. Surrounding intensified agricultural pursuits deeply plowed the land and soaked it with diverted river waters in a way far beyond any Anasazi capabilities. That retrieval of Anasazi material culture is the positive side of archeology.

On the other hand, had the rocky rind of the Aztec Ruin mound not been stripped away, the old village would have remained cocooned, perhaps for many centuries. It would have been hidden from a barrage of ruinous natural forces from above and from man's own good and bad intentions toward the site. By removing this mothering mantle, the ruin was put in jeopardy. That is the negative side of archeology. The threat of destruction from underground moisture, nevertheless, would have remained beyond the control of the excavators.

So, which horn of this dilemma should be rejected? Or can there be a satisfactory balance of interests? Although the amount and persistence of the detrimental factors menacing Aztec Ruins are unique, that is a question that continues to haunt regional prehistoric studies. In the case of the Aztec Ruins, the demands of archeology and the commitment to place the results on permanent exhibition were paramount. While concomitant preservation needs were recognized from the outset, their enormity, their perpetual recurrence, their possible distortion of the prehistoric record, and their huge expense were not then appreciated. It was only in later years that the National Park Service came to a full understanding and acceptance of the ramifications of the responsibility it had almost unknowingly acquired.

The costs of preservation have been staggering. The American Museum of Natural History excavation and repair expenditures were approximately $35,000. Subsequent limited government-conducted archeology, done when costs of labor and materials were higher, may have equaled that sum. But a glance at the incomplete tabulations of stabilization costs for Aztec Ruins National Monument show an estimated financial outlay approaching one million dollars (see Appendix A).

To some, the fact that the village has not yet collapsed into a jagged pile of dislodged stone blocks and rotted timbers and that only rare visitors realize that maybe a tiny fraction of what they see is original fabric marks the venture as successful, albeit never finished and not quite honest. To others, the expense does not justify what so far have been only temporary and often inaccurate results. They charge the National Park Service with negligence in not more conscientiously adhering to Anasazi style and form. [158]