Talk:Chaco Culture National Historical Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chaco Culture National Historical Park is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Article Milestones Date Process Result February 10, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects Click [show] for further details
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. B This article has been rated as B-Class 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. This article has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
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 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.
Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance 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. FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 2 Chaco Canyon sites dates 3 Sun Dagger 4 rebuilt? 5 Alignment 6 Gigapixel photo of Pueblo Bonito 7 Infobox: World Heritage Site

[edit]

Original draft was almost completely taken from the US Government Web site linked to the page. Additional information added. Your edits and comments welcome. WBardwin 06:31, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've done a great job expanding the article. I would also like to see the article expand upon the 10 major sites and a discussion of the current park. There's a lot to add here. --Viriditas | Talk 10:29, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chaco Canyon sites dates

In the section Chaco Canyon sites there are a couple of references to the 1100's. From reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), I believe this should be either 1100s (which is the decade 1100-1109, note: no apostrophy) or 12th century. I'm guessing the author intended 12th century, but could someone who knows the dates better please fix this? --66.216.68.28 21:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sun Dagger

Why is there no mention of the Sun Dagger here -- or indeed, in Wikipedia at all? It's the most famous feature of Chaco Canyon, thanks largely to the movie of the same name. ShawnVW 04:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in Fajada Butte; a link of which appears in the third paragraph of the lead in this article. —Viriditas | Talk 05:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rebuilt?

are the structures depcted on this page rebuilt? i don't think they could have withstood a thousand years of weather

Justforasecond 15:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they are nearly entirely original. The National Park Service sometimes coats them with a protective material, I believe, but the structures themselves are original. They are very impressive and were probably built better than most buildings today. If you are in New Mexico, it is worth a visit. Nationalparks 16:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And even so, the Park Service has only had control for less than 100 years, so they withstood time until then entirely on their own. Nationalparks 16:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alignment

Why is there not any mention of the way that the cities , their walls, and the roads freqently line up exactly with the paths of the sun and moon? Or that a large portion of the "rooms" are sealed off and would have originally been inacessible? Or that there are very few large trash mounds, which would have been necessary if as large a population as is frequently claimed actually did live there? All of this pointing to a more religious purpose for the site? I belive NOVA did a show on all of this... 71.196.218.82

I saw these discussed in a documentary "The Mystery of Chaco Canyon" [1] 2000, narrated by Robert Redford. They did mention that underlying rooms seemed to be sealed off or inaccessible, suggesting they were built primarily to raise higher rooms up. I didn't gather that they were 100% sure that the rooms were sealed off and unused, but that the soil in the rooms lacked organic signatures (ash, debris, etc.) consistent with human usage, and had no ventilation and thus it's impossible to have a fire in them. Beyond this, the structures appeared to be designed in a way that maximized their external visual impact, rather than their usability. For example, walls with no obvious use were positioned in front of cliffs in a way that makes the structure look much grander. This suggests that perhaps the empty lower rooms simply served as support structures to enable the buildings to reach 4-5 stories in height, in order to achieve an aesthetic impact or to emphasize the astrological alignments of the building (or both).

The documentary said that they found large man-made mounds near Chaco, but their composition was not what was expected. There was hardly any organic matter found, which rules them out as trash mounds. Instead, the mounds appeared to have been built from a huge number of intentionally shattered pottery. The culture held that by shattering pottery, it was an offering to the otherworld. Thus it would seem that pilgrims came to Chaco with offerings of pottery, which they broke and left in the mounds.

They also showed evidence that a number of outlying buildings - some great distances apart - were aligned with Chaco along astronomical lines. For example, the main great walls of Chaco align perfectly with walls, centerlines, etc. on buildings across the valley. These alignments correspond to the paths of the moon and sun at various astronomically significant points, such as the lunar maximum and minimum rise and set, and the solar equinox. The mapping of the lunar cycle is unique among ancient cultures; it takes many generations to track, and serves no functional purpose like tracking of the sun would, but could have been a very important part of Chacoan religion. Bryce 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gigapixel photo of Pueblo Bonito

I would like to add http://www.xrez.com/gallery/chaco/xRez_chaco.html to the links. It contains the most detailed photo of Pueblo Bonito ever taken, it is 4 gigapixels and web-viewable. You can see every individual stone in the structure. I did not add it myself because there was a note in the links section to bring this up in "discussion" before adding links.

I agree with its addition. If others disagree, they can also comment. Thanks. Saravask 23:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox: World Heritage Site

Mediation participants: Joey80 and Saravask Mediator: Alan.ca

The infobox is meant to emphasize that the Chaco Culture has been recognized as a World Heritage Site. It includes the criteria which became the bases for its inclusion on the List, as well as the year when it was recognized as such. Other information such as identification numbers and geographic locations are also provided. Overall, the infobox is meant to throw light and give focus on the World Heritage program (and mind you, the 99% of readers who don't care, as user Saravask claims is an unsourced statement). In any case, the goal of the infobox is to introduce this to this "99%" (including the editor who claimed it). An ordinary reader may not be familiar with it, but it doesn't automatically mean that it is unimportant or rubbish--that's why there are links within the infobox directing to pages that explain the concepts. Also, if, as Saravask continues to assert the claim that it is "infocruft", then I might as well propose that we remove the IUCN infobox. I myself don't understand that and don't really care about it, much like how some readers might feel for the World Heritage infobox. Besides, as has been widely agreed upon in the international level of protection and conservation, the World Heritage Site commands the highest priority and level of importance. So in this case, the priority in the World Heritage infobox over the IUCN infobox. Joey80 04:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Mediator questions for Joey80:

1. Please source: "the World Heritage Site commands the highest priority and level of importance"
2. Why is it not sufficient to write a paragraph on the world heritage site status?
3. Please stay focussed on the points that support your argument and less on Saravask!
4. Can you cite any FA status articles on Wikipedia that have this infobox included?
5. Is there a WikiProject or other interested group that might be able to provide a wider prospective on this matter?

Alan.ca 06:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My answers:

1. Refer to page 15 of this publication/page 17 of the pdf file: http://whc.unesco.org/cairns/iucn-priorities.pdf The schematic included shows the status of World Heritage Site at the top of the pyramid. The IUCN categories (National Parks, Natural Parks, etc.), meanwhile, are found in the second tier from the bottom.
2. If you include this as a paragraph in an article, it will go like this: "In <year>, <name of place> was recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site because..." Actually, it is seldom that mentions of such a status even reach the "because..." part. Most of the time, it makes mere mention of it (just like in this case). Comparing this to an infobox, where the year, name, criteria (why it was recognized), type, current state (i.e. if it is in danger or not, in case of Chaco, it is not), and links are provided, then the infobox provides a more complete summary of its World Heritage status. Referring to Canadian World Heritage Sites, there is a paragraph citation, as well as the infobox. So in response to your question, why is it not sufficient to place an infobox concerning its world heritage site status?
3. Yes, I recognized that, my apology. However, Saravask has yet to respond to this case. But perusing at the history of revisions and looking at the comments made by the editor, please note the reasons provided.
4. Some featured articles with this infobox: Palace of Westminster, and other American World heritage sites like Redwood National and State Parks, Yosemite National Park, Yellowstone National Park. Mind you, there are featured articles not having this box. But this is due to the fact that the article just pertains to a part of a designated World Heritage Site, not the entire place. Examples: Sanssouci (see Palaces and Parks of Potsdam and Berlin), Banff National Park (see Canadian Rocky Mountain Parks). In the case of Chaco Culture National Historical Park, since this is a stand-alone World Heritage Site, then the infobox should be appropriately placed in this article.
5. According to the World Heritage Site article, it is placed under the group Architecture. However, taking note that some sites are not really manmade and even manmade sites may not refer to buildings but landscapes and other forms, that group does not wholly encompass the World Heritage Site concept.

Joey80 13:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Saravask, please respond to Joey's points. Alan.ca 05:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Notice:

1. Joey80 created, then spammed {{Infobox World Heritage Site}} across dozens of articles within the past few weeks. Not enough time has elapsed to determine whether the community has deemed Joey80's new creature useful.
2. Comment by Nemonoman at Talk:Taj_Mahal#Unesco_infobox—just one example (on my watchlist) of another article's principal author questioning Joey80's box. (this uninformative infobox does not deserve such a prominent position. ID=252? That deserves top billing? Please discuss your reasons on the talk page.)
3. {{Infobox Protected area}} presents such fundamental data as area, visitation, and location. I have no clue why Joey80 is calling it the "IUCN infobox". Meanwhile, his box has things like "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session". As Nemonoman states, Enough.
4. If Joey80 still wants such things as "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session" present in an article's infobox, then why not just merge them all into the {{Infobox Protected area}} infobox, since a World Heritage Site is just another type of protected area? Saravask 15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Joey80, how do you feel about Savarask's compromise to add "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session" to the {{Infobox Protected area}} infobox? Alan.ca 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • To quote, "Not enough time has elapsed to determine whether the community has deemed Joey80's new creature useful." Hence, if that's the case, why did Saravask already prejudged the template to be of no use and removed it? Like you said in the quote, you have to let the community decide. Even in the case of Nemonoman which you cited, the infobox was not removed, but was just moved. Joey80 13:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Joey80, how do you feel about Savarask's compromise to add "Identification no" and "WH Committee Session" to the {{Infobox Protected area}} infobox? Alan.ca 17:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that will be a good compromise. Come to think of it, the infobox may tend to be repetitive especially when put together in the same article as a protected areas infobox. In any case, I forwarded a request already to Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas to revise the template and either incorporate it into the current format of infobox being used, or make change it so as to be similar in format with the protected areas infobox. Joey80 04:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent, thank you gentlemen, I have closed the medcab case. Alan.ca 20:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)