19 ms·

Why Do Tourists Visit Ancient Ruins Everywhere Except the United States?

powera 10y ago
Because they look more impressive. Duh.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Do they? I mean, sure there's some great stuff all over the world, but the US has some really interesting stuff, too. Casa Grande is incredible, the Gila Cliff Dwellings are awesome, the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde is something to see, Monks Mound and several other mound/pyramid structures are pretty fun, too. One of my favorite things to find when I'm out hiking is ancient man-made stairs or tunnels cut into mountains, or other evidence of habitation...and there's a lot of those, including in places you might not even know were historically inhabited. I also think it's amazing to roam around a bunch of structures built 2,500 years ago, and that were occupied and in use for about 1,000 years (the Casa Grande site was inhabited from around ~450BCE until 1450CE), by a massive and advanced civilization. There's some really cool stuff to see in the US, is what I'm trying to say.
  - wybiral 10y ago
    There are even some non-ruin places in the US that are at-least equally as striking as the big tourist spots. Last year I went to see the black canyon of the gunnison, which was new to me, and was totally awe-struck.
  - Keyframe 10y ago
    Would there be some sort of a list of sights like these to visit for someone outside of USA?
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      While I just berated American tourists for taking the path of least resistance and mostly sticking to the "big" National Parks, there is some value in sorting out the "must-see" from the "also amazing, but not as much amazing stuff to see in one location". If you can only stay in the US for a few weeks, hitting the high points may make sense. I've been traveling for years, and still haven't seen all of them, though I'm trying. If human ruins are a priority for you, then the ones I've mentioned are maybe the best starting points (though Casa Grande Ruins is "only" a National Monument, and not a National Park; it's maybe a place to visit for a day or two on your way to or from somewhere else, unless you have a specific interest in the Hohokam civilization or that era). Mesa Verde is astonishing in its history; it was inhabited, off and on, for thousands of years, with evidence of habitation as far back as 7500BCE, and multiple eras of civilization represented. That'd be a good one to visit if you want to learn about ancient civilizations in the Americas. Frankly, I think one could make an amazing vacation by visiting almost any National Park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_... I like to spend a week or two or three camped in the park, depending on the size of the park, and what kinds of exploration one can do. Some are bigger than others. Denali could take weeks to explore pretty thoroughly, Yosemite is maybe more of a long weekend. Note that for most of those, the archaeology/anthropology angle is minimal, though almost always present; it's usually the terrain itself that is the star of the show. Most of our National Parks will have good materials about who lived in the area and when (and it's often fascinating and a good way to spend a day or two of your visit, and there's likely to be tours that focus on that aspect of the park), but the geological/natural features are often the focus. Our National Parks system is among the things I'm most proud of about my country (and I have lots of things to be critical of). I wish I could show it to everyone in the world; but, most Americans haven't even visited more than one or two, so I guess we should start there.
    - mch82 10y ago
      Here is a directory of National Conservation Lands maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html (I didn't find a way to search by features, like presence of ruins). Edit: I found another page with a helpful written overview of the National Conservation Lands http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html
  - foobarian 10y ago
    There are ancient ruins anywhere but the volume around Europe is just immense. I grew up in a random Eastern European town and there was a 2k year old roman arch on one of the downtown blocks attached to modern office buildings/residences that nobody even bats an eye at.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      As Eddie Izzard says, Europe is where the history comes from. But, there's a lot of wonderful old things to see in the Americas, including some wonderful old things made by people.
      - pyrale 10y ago
        It's more like, Europe is where the historians come from.
        thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Partly true; India for example is infamous for not having history. But China has a long tradition of carefully curated history; "historian" was a profession of some respect. I've read one analysis that said you don't get so much emphasis on Chinese ruins because the Chinese mostly built in wood rather than stone. Stone ruins remain impressive for a long time. Wood... rots.
- weberc2 10y ago
  Not only that, but in other places in the world, there's actually a history to connect to these ancient places. Native Americans left relatively little historical record compared to ancient people in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. I'm much more likely to appreciate an ancient site if I know more about the people who inhabited it.
SwellJoe 10y ago
I'm often struck by how arbitrary our nation's tourists are. Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.: packed with tourists every single day they're open; while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors. I live in an RV and travel most of the time...I make it a point to visit any National anything (park, forest, monument, as well was BLM lands that seem interesting) and state parks, within 50-100 miles of my route (depending on my schedule and ability to go off the grid at that time). There are places where you'll see maybe a dozen people on your hike; while in the "big" parks, you can't spit without hitting somebody taking photos from an obvious vantage point. I've stayed in BLM campgrounds that are stunningly beautiful, and I may be the only person there for a week or more. These places often have historical significance; as much of the US does, since there were great civilizations that rose and fell here before Europeans arrived. There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place.
- cesarbs 10y ago
  Can you recommend any of those near-deserted places in WA? Also, you live in an RV - you're my hero! How I wish I could do that...
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Washington is one of the states I've visited least. I'm in the Pacific Northwest at the moment in Oregon, we'd intended to go on up north through Washington, but got waylaid for a while because my girlfriend wanted to work for a while in a regular job (her online income is much smaller than mine). I've passed through Washington once on my way to Alaska in 2012 or 2013, but I was in a hurry because the summer season in AK is very limited and strictly enforced (you don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of the mountains coming down through Canada in a big motorhome when the snows come). So, I'm not the best person to ask; I just did the obvious tourist stuff and kept on driving. "How I wish I could do that..." I'm gonna let you in on a secret: You (almost certainly) can! It costs less than living in a house, if you set out to live cheaply and travel slowly (the driving part, and the paying nightly rates rather than weekly or monthly rates in RV parks is how you can spend a lot living in an RV). Mobile internet coverage is better and faster than ever, though much more expensive than ever (I pay nearly $300/month). If you're a software developer of any sort, you've got a lot more freedom to live however you want than most people who have ever existed in history.
sevenless 10y ago
Most countries founded on invasion and genocide don't want to think about the victims, or acknowledge they had a 'real' civilization. Especially when their nationalism and Constitution-worship glorifies the genociders.
- jldugger 10y ago
  But hey, at least the one in the article is thought to be Objectively Not Our Fault, having collapsed pre-Columbus.
  - Camillo 10y ago
    But notice how the entire angle of the article is Our Fault (well, your fault, I'm not American). That's what people want to hear nowadays. So the fact that it is "objectively not our fault", as you say, is actually a liability.
- jimjimjim 10y ago
  wtf, anyplace with an "ancient" anything anywhere in the world is almost guaranteed to have been the victim or aggressor of an invasion at some point in history. go read some world history books.
- alphonsegaston 10y ago
  You're being downvoted, but I don't think you're that wide of the mark. I think what's at issue in the U.S. is the proximity of the genocidal acts (as well as the ongoing racism) and the social consequences of honestly addressing them. Italians today don't care about the consequences of Carthage because it's so far in the past as to almost seem fictional. But if you take a more proximate example - say, the Armenian genocide in Turkey - you find a similar phenomenon of widespread denial and/or ignorance.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  You d be hard pressed to find ANY country not based on invasion and genocide. Even China which was never fully invaded has a long history of civil wars and genocides to unite the different regions or keep them united.
adrianm 10y ago
Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I guess it's because I didn't realize ancient cities like this existed in the United States. Now that I know they do, I find myself wanting to visit and curious to learn more about the history.
- taneq 10y ago
  My knee-jerk response was "because the U.S. doesn't have any really ancient ruins, duh." Well, guess I was wrong. Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too.
  - masklinn 10y ago
    > Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too. AFAIK most if not all aboriginal communities were hunter-gatherers (unless you include torres strait islanders), not settled agriculturalists, hence didn't have large fixed-place communities (and thus no source material for ruins).
    - taneq 10y ago
      That's my understanding too, but then I was taught similar about the Native American people.
- y0y 10y ago
  That was my first thought, as well, followed by the fact that it may also be because we (or at least, I) know very little about those civilizations. When I go to Rome I am imagining what Roman life was like based on my knowledge of it. My pre-existing knowledge makes the sites come alive in my imagination, and thus makes them more intriguing to me.
- dvtv75 10y ago
  I don't visit American ancient ruins because I really don't want to be treated like a terrorist or criminal on entry or exit. If I'm a guest, particularly one who's paying my own way, I want to be treated like that. I know a lot of people won't like that, and others will say "But security!" That's fine, but it's my choice and that's why I've chosen that.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
adiabatty 10y ago
I don't know about Cahokia, but the oldest ruins out West is Mesa Verde, and there's nothing touristy close to it other than Four Corners. A buddy of mine from Toronto came to visit California and managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego in the space of a week and two weekends, but seeing anything older than a mission[1] would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde. Sure, you could see it if you're in the states as an outdoorsy type who wants to see all the majesty of the American Southwest, but this wasn't that sort of trip. Stonehenge, by contrast, ought to be less of a detour for someone who wants to hit all the UK highlights in a week or two. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California
- jacobolus 10y ago
  > managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego [...] but seeing anything older than a mission would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_... You’re right though that most indigenous peoples’ dwellings in California were made of wood or mud, and have not survived the past 500 years. The artifacts recovered from archeological digs can be seen in museums, but there aren’t really any grand monuments. It’s a tragedy, as there once was an incredible diversity of cultures in California. For instance, I’ve heard that linguistically, the pre-Columbian languages in California had more diversity than all the languages in Eurasia. Now almost all of those are extinct or headed for extinction.
- batbomb 10y ago
  Telluride, Monument Valley, Canyonlands, Durango+Silverton, Arches, Chaco Canyon, Bisti Badlands, and tons of smaller sites (Aztec, Salmon). I grew up in the area. You can't really (reasonably) fly within 3 hours, but between the 34th and 39th parallels, Nevada to Kansas, is wonderful, vast, and beautiful.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jimjimjim 10y ago
tourist attractions have fashions and trends. places are popular because they are popular. either because of wanting to see what so many people have talked about or because they want to be able to impress people with where they have been.
toodlebunions 10y ago
They do, and they bring a lot of vandalism with them. Rampant in the southwest, unfortunately. One of many very good reasons to support the creation of a Bears Ears national monument.
eternalban 10y ago
There are quite a lot of tourists in New York using our subway system, every day.
acomjean 10y ago
my brother worked at Mesa Verde. That park is kinda busy. On the way back east I met up with him and went to see the ruins at Chaco Culture national park (mentioned in the article). its beautiful but not super popular. Its far away from things and marginally difficult drive. You can stay overnight at a camp ground on site. The ruins are really interesting, but they know very little about the people who made them, and the wildlife is less prevalent, so its not for everyone. All those reasons make it less popular. I think wildlife is the big draw of the more popular parks. The directions give some idea of how remote: https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm pictures https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D-451F-6734567B7B7CB737 https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D...
- rallison 10y ago
  Chaco is definitely on the remote side. I think you are right about the reasons for it being not as popular. I'll also throw out that Chaco can be incredibly gorgeous right after a snowfall. I was lucky enough to see it right after a few inches fell: https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/ https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/
  - acomjean 10y ago
    Snow in the desert. It does get very cold at night even in september. Beautiful. Nice panorama photo. The place is beautiful.
    - dreamcompiler 10y ago
      High desert, like much of New Mexico. Chaco Canyon is at 6200 feet.
  - sizzzzlerz 10y ago
    Chaco also has some of the darkest skies in the US. It even as an astronomy program during the summer months with several telescopes people can look through. It is a really amazing place to visit.
davycro 10y ago
It's still possible, and relatively easy, to discover new ruins in the southwest. Especially around Cedar Mesa.
- sizzzzlerz 10y ago
  I read there are tens of thousands of Anazasi sites in the Four Corners area. Mesa Verde and Chaco are obviously two of the largest but there are also small sites like graineries and single family ruins out there waiting to be found. I've done a fair amount of exploring in canyon country and coming upon a ruin unexpectedly gets my heart pumping. I find unrestored ruins to be far more interesting than the reconstructed affairs found in the parks.
- batbomb 10y ago
  I grew up in Farmington. We had a fake archaeological dig at my elementary school growing up, and we actually found some legitimate artifacts, namely some pottery shards. They also found quite a bit of stuff when the Pinon Hills Golf Course was built.
rdtsc 10y ago
I guess the conclusion is that because the history was rewritten to mean this content was mostly unpopulated, ready to receive the settlers, with some pockets of Indian tribes here and there. Anything that contradicts it is difficult to accept. Also most people don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know. The later is most important. I think even if told, or specifically taught in school, people will try to forget it quickly. It is uncomfortable to think of this country as great and glorious and then put the killing of all the Indians and slavery next to that. It just doesn't fit. Even on a more superficial level, people don't care because they don't feel it is part of their ancestry. It is a bit strange to me (but it is just me being weird) that a lot of Americans talk about themselves as Irish, Italian, or German. So I ask usually "so your parents are from Ireland?". And they'd say something like "Oh, no they came in 1850". Yet they have a kilt and go to "Irish" festivals. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains why on vacation they want to go to Europe to visit "history" and not to Cahokia.
- empath75 10y ago
  Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too. A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis. No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Yup. The UK is covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists. It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)
jefflinwood 10y ago
One particular reason is that historic sites that contain Mississippian culture mounds aren't that interesting - they are very hard to interpret, and there isn't much known about the underlying civilization. I visit many of these sites when I can (for instance, Hopewell Culture National Historic Park, Emerald Mound, and Poverty Point), and there just isn't really much to really bring in tourists. There's absolutely no comparison to something like Tikal in Guatemala. I wouldn't recommend them to any casual tourists. The only reason I went to these sites is that I'm in the process of visiting all of the national park system units in the United States. The Anasazi ruins in the Southwest are much easier to understand - Mesa Verde and Canyon de Chelly have extremely striking settings, and the lack of vegetation means that the underlying structure is easy to see. When I visited Hovenweep, I found a pottery shard that rodents had dug up, and when I visited Mesa Verde, rodents had brought an ancient corn cob to the surface - so it's a lot more fun to visit these sites. Also, Mesa Verde is pretty close to Durango, CO, and is on the "Grand Circle" tour of southwest US national parks, forests, and monuments. So it's going to get a lot more tourists than something like Chaco Canyon which is way off the beaten path, and doesn't have much infrastructure.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  I am really into exploring the mounds and ancient dig areas. Have all sorts of old books with maps that cover many of the mound areas. Amazes me that many people have never heard of them. Taking the old maps and then using satellite maps to locate them is great fun to me. Many of the locations are forgotten about and very cool to explore. I do agree to an average tourist they arent much to "look at" at first. If anyone is in the mid east river areas they are all around you though. Ohio, Ill. Mi. Miss. etc. The history alone is fascinating and very much not talked about surprisingly. I found it to be something that the more I researched the more I want to know and more excited I get to find spots.
- VLM 10y ago
  I would agree with and extend your remarks in that I live in an area with geologically interesting formations, but the general public is like "um OK you've shown me a narrow valley and I heard there's an ice cream stand up ahead?"
shriphani 10y ago
An anecdote related to ruins. I made a pit-stop at the Timbisha-Shoshone tribe's reservation when visiting Death valley. They clearly had a long-running feud with the federal government about land (often mentioning that they felt like cattle when someone erected a fence around them). I asked them where I could see some historic Indian artifacts in the area - paintings, burial grounds and the like and they were pretty offended that I had the gall to enquire such stuff. I guess for most native Americans not enough time has passed for the wounds to heal and there is a sense of humiliation when folks show up expecting a good photo op as if they are some extinct civilization.
- danharaj 10y ago
  I mean, those wounds continue to be inflicted to this day. Currently in the news is the Dakota Access Pipeline which is being built against the wishes of the inhabitants of the area and the conflict has turned violent.
eddieh 10y ago
Tourist do visit the ruins we have, Monk Mound, Mesa Verde, Montezuma Castle, Gila Cliff Dwellings just to name a few. I don't want to be culturally insensitive, but our ruins are not as impressive as the pyramids in Mexico, South America or Egypt for that matter. We have nothing that even comes close to ruins in Itally, China, Burma, Syria, or Iraq. I've even been to a bunch of ruins and ancient dwellings in the US and I had to look up their names.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  i think the major difference is the ruins we have in the US are basically just .. really old housing. and to be fair all the interesting stuff is in the natural history museums, which people visit _a lot_ in the US.
  - eddieh 10y ago
    I think that is right, dwellings just don't compare to a temple or a colosseum.
  - pif 10y ago
    > ...are basically just .. really old housing. Indeed, old is not enough. Old and grandiose (at least for that epoch) is what attracts curiosity. For example, something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery, but several centuries ago it was more than the state of the art. Furthermore, it hints to a knowledge of astronomy which is daily knowledge in the epoch of Hubble, but is astonishing considerind that the first telescope would have to wait for Galileo to be born. Another example: in Italy there are plenty of majestic cathedrals. We may discuss about the utility of spending so much money and man-centuries on cathedrals, but they are just so beautiful that you get speechless once inside.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      >something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery // I'd visit that, has anyone done it? Would be great to have some of the burial mounds created so you could walk through and see them from the inside too. You could have a "moving of the stones" festival where people could come and camp and have the opportunity to take part in moving and placing some megaliths. That'd be fun! (Kinda like a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) project.)
soufron 10y ago
That's what happens when you focus too much on STEMS education and forget about Humanities ;)
- endisukaj 10y ago
  How is that related?
- CalRobert 10y ago
  I think that's the idea behind STEAM, but the reality is the A there is meaningless until people following the A can reasonably hope to make a halfway decent living.
vvdcect 10y ago
I'm heading to new york,colorado and austin in october, are there anything under appreciated ruins/monuments/national parks to visit there? So far I'm only penciled in to visit dinosaur ridge in colorado. Thanks.
- narrowrail 10y ago
  I would say:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument It is about 6hr drive from Denver, however, and I don't know what kind of time you have available.
bdcravens 10y ago
Huh - about an hour ago I watched a show on Cahokia on the Smithsonian Channel, and I was amazed at how I had never heard of it before.
hugh4life 10y ago
I grew up a few hours away from St Louis and visited Cahokia a few times when I was young. I figure(though may be wrong) most people who grew up in south to central Illinois have been there at least once. It was hugely fascinating and it does spark the imagination about how life would be living in such a community, but IIRC it was mostly a big mound and a museum which was mostly reconstructions. And the big reason there's not all that much interest is that there was never any direct European contact and it was not as advanced as the Aztec/Maya/Incas.
jaunkst 10y ago
I often spent time in New Mexico to visit family as a child and we would often find unmarked sites of Indian culture. I found them to be absolutely wonderful. Some where marked with little flags noting sites. I have never been to a place more exposed and ready for discovery in my entire life. Most place I have lived are overgrown and their secrets even more hidden. Getting to the point though, I feel that the most Americans have the perspective that cultured, and ancient sites are beyond America. America is something new and the rest of the world is older and more cultured. Sadly, we have hidden a lot of the culture and history that existed here before our country. We are not the same a civilizations that has been rooted in the land like China. They have 3,500 years of written continuous history. Our tourism in America is and has always been Westernized, not a continuation of something old but an idea of something new.
mch82 10y ago
Maybe the answer to the question posed by the article's title is given in this line found near its conclusion? > By 1492, American Indians had created a giant park whose beauty and riches inspired thousands and thousands of Europeans to cross a continent. The park, not the ruins of buildings, is what North America’s ancient inhabitants left us. People continue to conserve, visit, and learn about our natural lands today (even if we've only recently begun to understand how to care for them as past civilizations did). Not to minimize the value of archeological sites, both ruins and hieroglyphics across the United States are fascinating to visit!
niahmiah 10y ago
Because there is nothing ancient in the U.S. .... It has only been a country for a few hundred years.
- kajjffkk 10y ago
  So, in the beginning there was nothing. And then there was the USA government?
- mch82 10y ago
  Canyon De Chelly as an example of a place in the United States where people have lived "for nearly 5,000 years" and people visit there. https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm And many trees are thousands of years old, which is pretty awesome and makes them fun to visit :-) It's possible we may learn more about these places as part of the grade school curriculum in the south western U.S.
jccalhoun 10y ago
"The concept of tourists flockingto American Indian archeological sites may seem strange if you learned in school—like this author did—that America was sparsely inhabited wilderness before Europeans arrived." Are people actually taught this? I don't think I was. Perhaps on some level there was an unspoken assumption of this but I really don't remember anyone ever explicitly making this argument.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  From conversations I've had with Americans raised in the American schools system, at least through the 1980s and even early 1990s (I'm less certain of more recent experience), yes, that's quite common. Public school history education is grossly misbilled. Between the politics, poor understanding of many (though not all) teachers, texts, and more, it only provides the barest outlines of reality, and often only a highly distorted image of that.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  Not only are they taught this, it is still the prevailing theory, with the number somewhere between 2 and 20 million people for the US and Canada. The cold hard truth is there isn't enough evidence to make anything but wildly rough guesses.
- mch82 10y ago
  I was not taught this. As a young student I was first taught to be thankful to the Native Americans for helping the first European settlers learn how to farm and live on the continent. That idea is enshrined in the national holiday of Thanksgiving. Later, as teenage students, we learned more of the gory details of the displacement of Native Americans. There's no way to undo history, but we definitely learn that behavior was wrong. The evidence, in the form of renamed sports teams, place names, and the pending $20 bill redesign, along with tourism numbers that far exceed those implied in "Why Do Tourists Visit..." article, all indicate that attempts to teach Americans about the tragedy of our past behavior are making a positive difference.
xchaotic 10y ago
Actually ruins are just that - pieces of broken stone at best. They are not that interesting on their own in my view, but they are often in great locations - old towns with cafes and museum or top of the hill, with great views etc If it's just ruins with no infrastructure, then there is simply not that much to do. Actually the same can be said of Stonehenge or Egyptian Pyramids - they are really in the middle of nowhere and there is not that much to see. I'm not saying you shouldn't visit, but given we all have limited time on earth and 'free' time is even more scarce, it woudln't be my top choice. Source: I have visited 70+ countries so far, lived in a few of them.
JoeDaDude 10y ago
I visited Chaco Canyon ("Anasazi" ruins), which requires driving some 17 miles over a dirt road. The ranger told me the state had offered to pave the road so more visitors could attend, but the park service declined, citing the fragility of the ruins.
dominotw 10y ago
effigy mounds in iowa vs karnak temple in luxor. Yea its obvious.
Dowwie 10y ago
The ruins are there, depending on what you consider to be ruin. Take for instance the Hetch Hetchy. It is the the sister valley in Yosemite that was flooded to provide water to the San Francisco Bay area.
peter303 10y ago
Preliterate versus historical site: European sites not in the Greek, Egyptian or Biblical histories are often a mystery too and not heavily visited, with the exception of Stonehedge.
zyngaro 10y ago
Because there is none as far as I know.
arca_vorago 10y ago
I grew up living in a small village surrounding by national forest. Good, and lets keep it that way. Tourist are the most destructive force I have ever seen, they pollute and litter and break things and have no respect. One of my favorite shirts as a teenager was a picture of a bear chewing on some bones that said, "Bring more tourists... the last ones were delicious!"
mch82 10y ago
Tourists do visit archeological, ruins, & historic sites in the United States. U.S. National Park Service statistics report over 307 million people visited sites in 2015, ~24 million of whom visited National Monuments [1]. Travel & Leisure [2] lists three of those Monuments among the top 38 visited ancient ruins in the world [3]: #19. Canyon De Chelly, >800k visitors #25. Montezuma Castle, >500k #26. Mesa Verde, >500k [1]: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20by%20Park%20Type%20or%20Region%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year) https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/An... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure An American travel magazine published since 1937. [3]: http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visited-ancient-ruins http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visit...
wlesieutre 10y ago
The pueblo sites in the southwest are relatively popular, aren't they? I've been to Bandelier and it was far from empty. IIRC they're <1000 years old, do they not qualify as "ancient"?

Because they look more impressive. Duh.

SwellJoe 10y ago
Do they? I mean, sure there's some great stuff all over the world, but the US has some really interesting stuff, too. Casa Grande is incredible, the Gila Cliff Dwellings are awesome, the Cliff Palace at Mesa Verde is something to see, Monks Mound and several other mound/pyramid structures are pretty fun, too. One of my favorite things to find when I'm out hiking is ancient man-made stairs or tunnels cut into mountains, or other evidence of habitation...and there's a lot of those, including in places you might not even know were historically inhabited. I also think it's amazing to roam around a bunch of structures built 2,500 years ago, and that were occupied and in use for about 1,000 years (the Casa Grande site was inhabited from around ~450BCE until 1450CE), by a massive and advanced civilization. There's some really cool stuff to see in the US, is what I'm trying to say.
- wybiral 10y ago
  There are even some non-ruin places in the US that are at-least equally as striking as the big tourist spots. Last year I went to see the black canyon of the gunnison, which was new to me, and was totally awe-struck.
- Keyframe 10y ago
  Would there be some sort of a list of sights like these to visit for someone outside of USA?
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    While I just berated American tourists for taking the path of least resistance and mostly sticking to the "big" National Parks, there is some value in sorting out the "must-see" from the "also amazing, but not as much amazing stuff to see in one location". If you can only stay in the US for a few weeks, hitting the high points may make sense. I've been traveling for years, and still haven't seen all of them, though I'm trying. If human ruins are a priority for you, then the ones I've mentioned are maybe the best starting points (though Casa Grande Ruins is "only" a National Monument, and not a National Park; it's maybe a place to visit for a day or two on your way to or from somewhere else, unless you have a specific interest in the Hohokam civilization or that era). Mesa Verde is astonishing in its history; it was inhabited, off and on, for thousands of years, with evidence of habitation as far back as 7500BCE, and multiple eras of civilization represented. That'd be a good one to visit if you want to learn about ancient civilizations in the Americas. Frankly, I think one could make an amazing vacation by visiting almost any National Park: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_parks_of_the_... I like to spend a week or two or three camped in the park, depending on the size of the park, and what kinds of exploration one can do. Some are bigger than others. Denali could take weeks to explore pretty thoroughly, Yosemite is maybe more of a long weekend. Note that for most of those, the archaeology/anthropology angle is minimal, though almost always present; it's usually the terrain itself that is the star of the show. Most of our National Parks will have good materials about who lived in the area and when (and it's often fascinating and a good way to spend a day or two of your visit, and there's likely to be tours that focus on that aspect of the park), but the geological/natural features are often the focus. Our National Parks system is among the things I'm most proud of about my country (and I have lots of things to be critical of). I wish I could show it to everyone in the world; but, most Americans haven't even visited more than one or two, so I guess we should start there.
  - mch82 10y ago
    Here is a directory of National Conservation Lands maintained by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/nlcs.html (I didn't find a way to search by features, like presence of ruins). Edit: I found another page with a helpful written overview of the National Conservation Lands http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/blm_special_areas/NLCS.html
- foobarian 10y ago
  There are ancient ruins anywhere but the volume around Europe is just immense. I grew up in a random Eastern European town and there was a 2k year old roman arch on one of the downtown blocks attached to modern office buildings/residences that nobody even bats an eye at.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    As Eddie Izzard says, Europe is where the history comes from. But, there's a lot of wonderful old things to see in the Americas, including some wonderful old things made by people.
    - pyrale 10y ago
      It's more like, Europe is where the historians come from.
      - thaumasiotes 10y ago
        Partly true; India for example is infamous for not having history. But China has a long tradition of carefully curated history; "historian" was a profession of some respect. I've read one analysis that said you don't get so much emphasis on Chinese ruins because the Chinese mostly built in wood rather than stone. Stone ruins remain impressive for a long time. Wood... rots.
weberc2 10y ago
Not only that, but in other places in the world, there's actually a history to connect to these ancient places. Native Americans left relatively little historical record compared to ancient people in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East. I'm much more likely to appreciate an ancient site if I know more about the people who inhabited it.

I'm often struck by how arbitrary our nation's tourists are. Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, etc.: packed with tourists every single day they're open; while dozens of surrounding National Monuments and National Parks and National Forests (mostly free to visit), are often nearly devoid of visitors. I live in an RV and travel most of the time...I make it a point to visit any National anything (park, forest, monument, as well was BLM lands that seem interesting) and state parks, within 50-100 miles of my route (depending on my schedule and ability to go off the grid at that time). There are places where you'll see maybe a dozen people on your hike; while in the "big" parks, you can't spit without hitting somebody taking photos from an obvious vantage point. I've stayed in BLM campgrounds that are stunningly beautiful, and I may be the only person there for a week or more. These places often have historical significance; as much of the US does, since there were great civilizations that rose and fell here before Europeans arrived. There's like a weird need for there to be a gate with a ranger taking entrance fees and such, for someone in the US to want to see and experience a place.

cesarbs 10y ago
Can you recommend any of those near-deserted places in WA? Also, you live in an RV - you're my hero! How I wish I could do that...
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Washington is one of the states I've visited least. I'm in the Pacific Northwest at the moment in Oregon, we'd intended to go on up north through Washington, but got waylaid for a while because my girlfriend wanted to work for a while in a regular job (her online income is much smaller than mine). I've passed through Washington once on my way to Alaska in 2012 or 2013, but I was in a hurry because the summer season in AK is very limited and strictly enforced (you don't want to get stuck on the wrong side of the mountains coming down through Canada in a big motorhome when the snows come). So, I'm not the best person to ask; I just did the obvious tourist stuff and kept on driving. "How I wish I could do that..." I'm gonna let you in on a secret: You (almost certainly) can! It costs less than living in a house, if you set out to live cheaply and travel slowly (the driving part, and the paying nightly rates rather than weekly or monthly rates in RV parks is how you can spend a lot living in an RV). Mobile internet coverage is better and faster than ever, though much more expensive than ever (I pay nearly $300/month). If you're a software developer of any sort, you've got a lot more freedom to live however you want than most people who have ever existed in history.

sevenless 10y ago

Most countries founded on invasion and genocide don't want to think about the victims, or acknowledge they had a 'real' civilization. Especially when their nationalism and Constitution-worship glorifies the genociders.

jldugger 10y ago
But hey, at least the one in the article is thought to be Objectively Not Our Fault, having collapsed pre-Columbus.
- Camillo 10y ago
  But notice how the entire angle of the article is Our Fault (well, your fault, I'm not American). That's what people want to hear nowadays. So the fact that it is "objectively not our fault", as you say, is actually a liability.
jimjimjim 10y ago
wtf, anyplace with an "ancient" anything anywhere in the world is almost guaranteed to have been the victim or aggressor of an invasion at some point in history. go read some world history books.
alphonsegaston 10y ago
You're being downvoted, but I don't think you're that wide of the mark. I think what's at issue in the U.S. is the proximity of the genocidal acts (as well as the ongoing racism) and the social consequences of honestly addressing them. Italians today don't care about the consequences of Carthage because it's so far in the past as to almost seem fictional. But if you take a more proximate example - say, the Armenian genocide in Turkey - you find a similar phenomenon of widespread denial and/or ignorance.
ekianjo 10y ago
You d be hard pressed to find ANY country not based on invasion and genocide. Even China which was never fully invaded has a long history of civil wars and genocides to unite the different regions or keep them united.

adrianm 10y ago

Well, I can't speak for anyone but myself but I guess it's because I didn't realize ancient cities like this existed in the United States. Now that I know they do, I find myself wanting to visit and curious to learn more about the history.

taneq 10y ago
My knee-jerk response was "because the U.S. doesn't have any really ancient ruins, duh." Well, guess I was wrong. Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too.
- masklinn 10y ago
  > Now I'm wondering if there are similar things in Australia, too. AFAIK most if not all aboriginal communities were hunter-gatherers (unless you include torres strait islanders), not settled agriculturalists, hence didn't have large fixed-place communities (and thus no source material for ruins).
  - taneq 10y ago
    That's my understanding too, but then I was taught similar about the Native American people.
y0y 10y ago
That was my first thought, as well, followed by the fact that it may also be because we (or at least, I) know very little about those civilizations. When I go to Rome I am imagining what Roman life was like based on my knowledge of it. My pre-existing knowledge makes the sites come alive in my imagination, and thus makes them more intriguing to me.
dvtv75 10y ago
I don't visit American ancient ruins because I really don't want to be treated like a terrorist or criminal on entry or exit. If I'm a guest, particularly one who's paying my own way, I want to be treated like that. I know a lot of people won't like that, and others will say "But security!" That's fine, but it's my choice and that's why I've chosen that.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

adiabatty 10y ago

I don't know about Cahokia, but the oldest ruins out West is Mesa Verde, and there's nothing touristy close to it other than Four Corners. A buddy of mine from Toronto came to visit California and managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego in the space of a week and two weekends, but seeing anything older than a mission[1] would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde. Sure, you could see it if you're in the states as an outdoorsy type who wants to see all the majesty of the American Southwest, but this wasn't that sort of trip. Stonehenge, by contrast, ought to be less of a detour for someone who wants to hit all the UK highlights in a week or two. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_missions_in_California

jacobolus 10y ago
> managed to hit SF, LA, and San Diego [...] but seeing anything older than a mission would've taken ten hours of driving — one way — to get to Mesa Verde. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_on_the_National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_sites_... You’re right though that most indigenous peoples’ dwellings in California were made of wood or mud, and have not survived the past 500 years. The artifacts recovered from archeological digs can be seen in museums, but there aren’t really any grand monuments. It’s a tragedy, as there once was an incredible diversity of cultures in California. For instance, I’ve heard that linguistically, the pre-Columbian languages in California had more diversity than all the languages in Eurasia. Now almost all of those are extinct or headed for extinction.
batbomb 10y ago
Telluride, Monument Valley, Canyonlands, Durango+Silverton, Arches, Chaco Canyon, Bisti Badlands, and tons of smaller sites (Aztec, Salmon). I grew up in the area. You can't really (reasonably) fly within 3 hours, but between the 34th and 39th parallels, Nevada to Kansas, is wonderful, vast, and beautiful.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jimjimjim 10y ago

tourist attractions have fashions and trends. places are popular because they are popular. either because of wanting to see what so many people have talked about or because they want to be able to impress people with where they have been.

toodlebunions 10y ago

They do, and they bring a lot of vandalism with them. Rampant in the southwest, unfortunately. One of many very good reasons to support the creation of a Bears Ears national monument.

eternalban 10y ago

There are quite a lot of tourists in New York using our subway system, every day.

acomjean 10y ago

my brother worked at Mesa Verde. That park is kinda busy. On the way back east I met up with him and went to see the ruins at Chaco Culture national park (mentioned in the article). its beautiful but not super popular. Its far away from things and marginally difficult drive. You can stay overnight at a camp ground on site. The ruins are really interesting, but they know very little about the people who made them, and the wildlife is less prevalent, so its not for everyone. All those reasons make it less popular. I think wildlife is the big draw of the more popular parks. The directions give some idea of how remote: https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm https://www.nps.gov/chcu/planyourvisit/directions.htm pictures https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D-451F-6734567B7B7CB737 https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D...

rallison 10y ago
Chaco is definitely on the remote side. I think you are right about the reasons for it being not as popular. I'll also throw out that Chaco can be incredibly gorgeous right after a snowfall. I was lucky enough to see it right after a few inches fell: https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/ https://roundme.com/tour/23482/view/57102/
- acomjean 10y ago
  Snow in the desert. It does get very cold at night even in september. Beautiful. Nice panorama photo. The place is beautiful.
  - dreamcompiler 10y ago
    High desert, like much of New Mexico. Chaco Canyon is at 6200 feet.
- sizzzzlerz 10y ago
  Chaco also has some of the darkest skies in the US. It even as an astronomy program during the summer months with several telescopes people can look through. It is a really amazing place to visit.

davycro 10y ago

It's still possible, and relatively easy, to discover new ruins in the southwest. Especially around Cedar Mesa.

sizzzzlerz 10y ago
I read there are tens of thousands of Anazasi sites in the Four Corners area. Mesa Verde and Chaco are obviously two of the largest but there are also small sites like graineries and single family ruins out there waiting to be found. I've done a fair amount of exploring in canyon country and coming upon a ruin unexpectedly gets my heart pumping. I find unrestored ruins to be far more interesting than the reconstructed affairs found in the parks.
batbomb 10y ago
I grew up in Farmington. We had a fake archaeological dig at my elementary school growing up, and we actually found some legitimate artifacts, namely some pottery shards. They also found quite a bit of stuff when the Pinon Hills Golf Course was built.

rdtsc 10y ago

I guess the conclusion is that because the history was rewritten to mean this content was mostly unpopulated, ready to receive the settlers, with some pockets of Indian tribes here and there. Anything that contradicts it is difficult to accept. Also most people don't know, and most importantly they don't want to know. The later is most important. I think even if told, or specifically taught in school, people will try to forget it quickly. It is uncomfortable to think of this country as great and glorious and then put the killing of all the Indians and slavery next to that. It just doesn't fit. Even on a more superficial level, people don't care because they don't feel it is part of their ancestry. It is a bit strange to me (but it is just me being weird) that a lot of Americans talk about themselves as Irish, Italian, or German. So I ask usually "so your parents are from Ireland?". And they'd say something like "Oh, no they came in 1850". Yet they have a kilt and go to "Irish" festivals. Nothing wrong with that, but I think it explains why on vacation they want to go to Europe to visit "history" and not to Cahokia.

empath75 10y ago
Well, there's also that there isn't much history to talk about with Cahokia, since not even the Indians knew what it was for by the time North America was colonized. I don't think people would care much about Stonehenge if it was just a round dirt mound, no matter how old it is, since we know so little about the people who built that one, too. A big part of the appeal of historic sites is the connection with a familiar narrative. There are stories written on the walls of chichen itza, or tikal. We know almost nothing about the people that built the mounds in St. Louis. No narrative, and not particularly visually appealing, and you're not going to have much of a tourist site.
- notahacker 10y ago
  Yup. The UK is covered with artificial mounds and earthworks other than Stonehenge, and most of them aren't that well understood or much of a draw for tourists. It doesn't help matters when the article starts comparing Cahokia with sites as visually arresting and technically impressive as Macchu Picchu or Angkor Wat, wondering why it doesn't get as many visitors as an architecturally marvellous cathedral in the middle of a large city in a heavily touristed region or suggesting that it was bigger than London. (London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century, and for that matter the 1st century AD, and we still build supermarkets on top of the old city's rather more substantial ruins)

jefflinwood 10y ago

One particular reason is that historic sites that contain Mississippian culture mounds aren't that interesting - they are very hard to interpret, and there isn't much known about the underlying civilization. I visit many of these sites when I can (for instance, Hopewell Culture National Historic Park, Emerald Mound, and Poverty Point), and there just isn't really much to really bring in tourists. There's absolutely no comparison to something like Tikal in Guatemala. I wouldn't recommend them to any casual tourists. The only reason I went to these sites is that I'm in the process of visiting all of the national park system units in the United States. The Anasazi ruins in the Southwest are much easier to understand - Mesa Verde and Canyon de Chelly have extremely striking settings, and the lack of vegetation means that the underlying structure is easy to see. When I visited Hovenweep, I found a pottery shard that rodents had dug up, and when I visited Mesa Verde, rodents had brought an ancient corn cob to the surface - so it's a lot more fun to visit these sites. Also, Mesa Verde is pretty close to Durango, CO, and is on the "Grand Circle" tour of southwest US national parks, forests, and monuments. So it's going to get a lot more tourists than something like Chaco Canyon which is way off the beaten path, and doesn't have much infrastructure.

Mendenhall 10y ago
I am really into exploring the mounds and ancient dig areas. Have all sorts of old books with maps that cover many of the mound areas. Amazes me that many people have never heard of them. Taking the old maps and then using satellite maps to locate them is great fun to me. Many of the locations are forgotten about and very cool to explore. I do agree to an average tourist they arent much to "look at" at first. If anyone is in the mid east river areas they are all around you though. Ohio, Ill. Mi. Miss. etc. The history alone is fascinating and very much not talked about surprisingly. I found it to be something that the more I researched the more I want to know and more excited I get to find spots.
VLM 10y ago
I would agree with and extend your remarks in that I live in an area with geologically interesting formations, but the general public is like "um OK you've shown me a narrow valley and I heard there's an ice cream stand up ahead?"

shriphani 10y ago

An anecdote related to ruins. I made a pit-stop at the Timbisha-Shoshone tribe's reservation when visiting Death valley. They clearly had a long-running feud with the federal government about land (often mentioning that they felt like cattle when someone erected a fence around them). I asked them where I could see some historic Indian artifacts in the area - paintings, burial grounds and the like and they were pretty offended that I had the gall to enquire such stuff. I guess for most native Americans not enough time has passed for the wounds to heal and there is a sense of humiliation when folks show up expecting a good photo op as if they are some extinct civilization.

danharaj 10y ago
I mean, those wounds continue to be inflicted to this day. Currently in the news is the Dakota Access Pipeline which is being built against the wishes of the inhabitants of the area and the conflict has turned violent.

eddieh 10y ago

Tourist do visit the ruins we have, Monk Mound, Mesa Verde, Montezuma Castle, Gila Cliff Dwellings just to name a few. I don't want to be culturally insensitive, but our ruins are not as impressive as the pyramids in Mexico, South America or Egypt for that matter. We have nothing that even comes close to ruins in Itally, China, Burma, Syria, or Iraq. I've even been to a bunch of ruins and ancient dwellings in the US and I had to look up their names.

beachstartup 10y ago
i think the major difference is the ruins we have in the US are basically just .. really old housing. and to be fair all the interesting stuff is in the natural history museums, which people visit _a lot_ in the US.
- eddieh 10y ago
  I think that is right, dwellings just don't compare to a temple or a colosseum.
- pif 10y ago
  > ...are basically just .. really old housing. Indeed, old is not enough. Old and grandiose (at least for that epoch) is what attracts curiosity. For example, something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery, but several centuries ago it was more than the state of the art. Furthermore, it hints to a knowledge of astronomy which is daily knowledge in the epoch of Hubble, but is astonishing considerind that the first telescope would have to wait for Galileo to be born. Another example: in Italy there are plenty of majestic cathedrals. We may discuss about the utility of spending so much money and man-centuries on cathedrals, but they are just so beautiful that you get speechless once inside.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    >something like Stonehenge could be assembled in a matter of minutes with modern machinery // I'd visit that, has anyone done it? Would be great to have some of the burial mounds created so you could walk through and see them from the inside too. You could have a "moving of the stones" festival where people could come and camp and have the opportunity to take part in moving and placing some megaliths. That'd be fun! (Kinda like a Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA) project.)

soufron 10y ago

That's what happens when you focus too much on STEMS education and forget about Humanities ;)

endisukaj 10y ago
How is that related?
CalRobert 10y ago
I think that's the idea behind STEAM, but the reality is the A there is meaningless until people following the A can reasonably hope to make a halfway decent living.

vvdcect 10y ago

I'm heading to new york,colorado and austin in october, are there anything under appreciated ruins/monuments/national parks to visit there? So far I'm only penciled in to visit dinosaur ridge in colorado. Thanks.

narrowrail 10y ago
I would say:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_National_Monument It is about 6hr drive from Denver, however, and I don't know what kind of time you have available.

bdcravens 10y ago

Huh - about an hour ago I watched a show on Cahokia on the Smithsonian Channel, and I was amazed at how I had never heard of it before.

hugh4life 10y ago

I grew up a few hours away from St Louis and visited Cahokia a few times when I was young. I figure(though may be wrong) most people who grew up in south to central Illinois have been there at least once. It was hugely fascinating and it does spark the imagination about how life would be living in such a community, but IIRC it was mostly a big mound and a museum which was mostly reconstructions. And the big reason there's not all that much interest is that there was never any direct European contact and it was not as advanced as the Aztec/Maya/Incas.

jaunkst 10y ago

I often spent time in New Mexico to visit family as a child and we would often find unmarked sites of Indian culture. I found them to be absolutely wonderful. Some where marked with little flags noting sites. I have never been to a place more exposed and ready for discovery in my entire life. Most place I have lived are overgrown and their secrets even more hidden. Getting to the point though, I feel that the most Americans have the perspective that cultured, and ancient sites are beyond America. America is something new and the rest of the world is older and more cultured. Sadly, we have hidden a lot of the culture and history that existed here before our country. We are not the same a civilizations that has been rooted in the land like China. They have 3,500 years of written continuous history. Our tourism in America is and has always been Westernized, not a continuation of something old but an idea of something new.

mch82 10y ago

Maybe the answer to the question posed by the article's title is given in this line found near its conclusion? > By 1492, American Indians had created a giant park whose beauty and riches inspired thousands and thousands of Europeans to cross a continent. The park, not the ruins of buildings, is what North America’s ancient inhabitants left us. People continue to conserve, visit, and learn about our natural lands today (even if we've only recently begun to understand how to care for them as past civilizations did). Not to minimize the value of archeological sites, both ruins and hieroglyphics across the United States are fascinating to visit!

niahmiah 10y ago

Because there is nothing ancient in the U.S. .... It has only been a country for a few hundred years.

kajjffkk 10y ago
So, in the beginning there was nothing. And then there was the USA government?
mch82 10y ago
Canyon De Chelly as an example of a place in the United States where people have lived "for nearly 5,000 years" and people visit there. https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm https://www.nps.gov/cach/index.htm And many trees are thousands of years old, which is pretty awesome and makes them fun to visit :-) It's possible we may learn more about these places as part of the grade school curriculum in the south western U.S.

jccalhoun 10y ago

"The concept of tourists flockingto American Indian archeological sites may seem strange if you learned in school—like this author did—that America was sparsely inhabited wilderness before Europeans arrived." Are people actually taught this? I don't think I was. Perhaps on some level there was an unspoken assumption of this but I really don't remember anyone ever explicitly making this argument.

dredmorbius 10y ago
From conversations I've had with Americans raised in the American schools system, at least through the 1980s and even early 1990s (I'm less certain of more recent experience), yes, that's quite common. Public school history education is grossly misbilled. Between the politics, poor understanding of many (though not all) teachers, texts, and more, it only provides the barest outlines of reality, and often only a highly distorted image of that.
merpnderp 10y ago
Not only are they taught this, it is still the prevailing theory, with the number somewhere between 2 and 20 million people for the US and Canada. The cold hard truth is there isn't enough evidence to make anything but wildly rough guesses.
mch82 10y ago
I was not taught this. As a young student I was first taught to be thankful to the Native Americans for helping the first European settlers learn how to farm and live on the continent. That idea is enshrined in the national holiday of Thanksgiving. Later, as teenage students, we learned more of the gory details of the displacement of Native Americans. There's no way to undo history, but we definitely learn that behavior was wrong. The evidence, in the form of renamed sports teams, place names, and the pending $20 bill redesign, along with tourism numbers that far exceed those implied in "Why Do Tourists Visit..." article, all indicate that attempts to teach Americans about the tragedy of our past behavior are making a positive difference.

xchaotic 10y ago

Actually ruins are just that - pieces of broken stone at best. They are not that interesting on their own in my view, but they are often in great locations - old towns with cafes and museum or top of the hill, with great views etc If it's just ruins with no infrastructure, then there is simply not that much to do. Actually the same can be said of Stonehenge or Egyptian Pyramids - they are really in the middle of nowhere and there is not that much to see. I'm not saying you shouldn't visit, but given we all have limited time on earth and 'free' time is even more scarce, it woudln't be my top choice. Source: I have visited 70+ countries so far, lived in a few of them.

JoeDaDude 10y ago

I visited Chaco Canyon ("Anasazi" ruins), which requires driving some 17 miles over a dirt road. The ranger told me the state had offered to pave the road so more visitors could attend, but the park service declined, citing the fragility of the ruins.

dominotw 10y ago

effigy mounds in iowa vs karnak temple in luxor. Yea its obvious.

Dowwie 10y ago

The ruins are there, depending on what you consider to be ruin. Take for instance the Hetch Hetchy. It is the the sister valley in Yosemite that was flooded to provide water to the San Francisco Bay area.

peter303 10y ago

Preliterate versus historical site: European sites not in the Greek, Egyptian or Biblical histories are often a mystery too and not heavily visited, with the exception of Stonehedge.

zyngaro 10y ago

Because there is none as far as I know.

arca_vorago 10y ago

I grew up living in a small village surrounding by national forest. Good, and lets keep it that way. Tourist are the most destructive force I have ever seen, they pollute and litter and break things and have no respect. One of my favorite shirts as a teenager was a picture of a bear chewing on some bones that said, "Bring more tourists... the last ones were delicious!"

mch82 10y ago

Tourists do visit archeological, ruins, & historic sites in the United States. U.S. National Park Service statistics report over 307 million people visited sites in 2015, ~24 million of whom visited National Monuments [1]. Travel & Leisure [2] lists three of those Monuments among the top 38 visited ancient ruins in the world [3]: #19. Canyon De Chelly, >800k visitors #25. Montezuma Castle, >500k #26. Mesa Verde, >500k [1]: https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20by%20Park%20Type%20or%20Region%20(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year) https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/An... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travel_%2B_Leisure An American travel magazine published since 1937. [3]: http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visited-ancient-ruins http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visit...

wlesieutre 10y ago

The pueblo sites in the southwest are relatively popular, aren't they? I've been to Bandelier and it was far from empty. IIRC they're <1000 years old, do they not qualify as "ancient"?