
Why Do Tourists Visit Ancient Ruins Everywhere Except the United States? - ryan_j_naughton
https://priceonomics.com/why-do-tourists-visit-ancient-ruins-everywhere/
======
SwellJoe
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.

~~~
xelfer
I have a week to explore areas near San Francisco in the first week of
December (driving there from Vegas via LA) can you suggest anything for an
Australian? all I've heard is "Big Sur"

~~~
ktRolster
Yosemite is still worth-while, at the top of the list, but it's a four hour
drive. Mount Diablo is nice, and you can drive to the peak. Fremont peak is
nice, and is a hike. Point Reyes is great hiking (I've seen a white deer
there!). Pinnacles is great. Henry Cowell redwoods park is great, you've never
seen redwoods like that.

Going south across the golden gate bridge, sometimes I just drive along the
coast all the way south to half-moon bay, it's a great drive, and in December
the Mavericks waves might be big. There is a black-sand beach along that
drive, too.

~~~
xelfer
I'm a little worried Yosemite might be closed in the first week of winter or
something? does it get snowed in?

~~~
ktRolster
Winter is a great time to visit. I recommend avoiding the weekend if you can,
because it does get crowded.

This year, since the rainfall has been good, there will probably be some
frozen waterfalls.

~~~
xelfer
Thank you :) I'll try check it out. 4 hours is fine after flying there 14
hours.

------
jefflinwood
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.

~~~
adevine
Exactly - reading this I was thinking "You are surprised that what are now
basically small hills are not tourist Meccas?" And while I don't know the
exact numbers, places that _are_ at least superficially interesting, like the
cliff dwellings, have lots of recognition and are known as cool places to
visit.

------
rdtsc
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
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
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)

~~~
jessriedel
> London's population was a lot more than 10k in the 12th century

Yea, how are we supposed to trust the authors of this article on qualitative
judgement calls when they are so misleading about basic quantitative stuff.
According to Wikipedia, London was 60k people by 100 AD, dropped to 15k around
1100 AD, but then was back to 80k by 1300 AD, which are all very pre-
industrious times.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londinium)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_and_Medieval_London)

Compare this to the article:

> Dr. Timothy Pauketat, an archeologist who wrote a book about Cahokia,
> believes the city was home to over 10,000 people in 1250, with more
> Cahokians living on the surrounding farmland. If that’s the case, Cahokia
> was larger than London.

So, the author cherrypicks an expert who says the population Cahokia at its
peak may possibly have been almost as big as London was at a local minimum
over a 2,000 year history.

~~~
dredmorbius
It's a common trope, though that doesn't entirely excuse it.

The claim is technically accurate (the best kind of accurate, as a friend put
it). But it also borrows off an interpretation of London as a megacity of
millions of inhabitants. The simple addition of "at the time" would make the
claim so much more informative and accurate.

In thinking of common vs. technical interpretations of words, there was the
case of an article on HN a few weeks back titled "Igloos that don't melt". It
turned out the "igloo" wouldn't melt (not without fire at any rate) ...
because it was made from plastic. Someone tried defending this usage on the
basis that the Inuit word "iglu" simply means "house". But the English usage,
and the clear intent of the headline, convey the image of a domed structure
built from blocks of carved snow.

The technique in general is a cheap shot and as you note weakens rather than
strengthens an author's credibility.

There was a similar

------
eddieh
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
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.

~~~
pif
> ...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
>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.)

~~~
te_chris
Yes they did, didn't take minutes though! There's a Stonehenge replica in the
wairarapa in New Zealand.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
Ah, thanks, should have thought to look on Wikipedia also,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_replicas_and_deriva...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehenge_replicas_and_derivatives).

------
adiabatty
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)

~~~
batbomb
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.

------
acomjean
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...](https://www.nps.gov/media/photo/gallery.htm?id=9CAF0AAE-155D-451F-6734567B7B7CB737)

~~~
rallison
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/)

~~~
sizzzzlerz
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.

~~~
dreamcompiler
I live in a rural area, so I'm used to seeing the Milky Way at night. But the
night sky at Chaco Canyon still blows me away.

------
adrianm
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
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
> 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
That's my understanding too, but then I was taught similar about the Native
American people.

------
hugh4life
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
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.

------
sevenless
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
But hey, at least the one in the article is thought to be Objectively Not Our
Fault, having collapsed pre-Columbus.

~~~
Camillo
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.

------
JoeDaDude
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.

------
shriphani
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
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.

------
toodlebunions
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.

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

~~~
CalRobert
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.

------
mch82
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/An...](https://irma.nps.gov/Stats/SSRSReports/National%20Reports/Annual%20Visitation%20by%20Park%20Type%20or%20Region%20\(1979%20-%20Last%20Calendar%20Year\))

[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-
visit...](http://www.travelandleisure.com/slideshows/worlds-most-visited-
ancient-ruins)

------
jccalhoun
"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.

~~~
mch82
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.

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

------
xchaotic
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.

------
mch82
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!

------
arca_vorago
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!"

------
zyngaro
Because there is none as far as I know.

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

~~~
mch82
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.

------
vvdcect
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
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.

------
jimjimjim
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.

------
wlesieutre
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"?

------
Dowwie
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
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.

------
bdcravens
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.

------
dominotw
effigy mounds in iowa vs karnak temple in luxor.

Yea its obvious.

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

~~~
sizzzzlerz
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.

------
powera
Because they look more impressive. Duh.

~~~
SwellJoe
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.

~~~
Keyframe
Would there be some sort of a list of sights like these to visit for someone
outside of USA?

~~~
mch82
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)

