We have been involved with a variety of archaeological disasters over the past ten years, directly and indirectly, and are perplexed as to why there have seemingly been so many. By archaeological disasters, we mean archaeological situations that have gone awry and resulted in extremely high economic, cultural, and professional costs.
Horror stories are found across the country, and we’ve had our share in Washington State: Kennewick Man, of which we are all familiar, is estimated to have cost the U.S. taxpayer as much as $3M. The Blaine wastewater treatment plant expansion project destroyed about 30 Lummi Indian burials, and wound up costing the city and the contractor several million dollars each. The Port Angeles dry dock project similarly unearthed 260 complete and 700 partial Lower Elwha Klallam burials, and has cost the Washington Department of Transportation (and you) tens of millions of dollars in archaeological and site relocation costs.
An Underlying Problem
Should we just expect a few high profile cases every year because that is the nature of our business? Or do these cases reflect an underlying problem that should be addressed? To answer this question, we’ve examined a number of these cases and looked for root causes to explain what happened.Actually, it was not quite that easy. We found that once a situation crosses the threshold to “disaster” mode, the lawyers are brought in and gag orders become the rule of the day. It becomes nearly impossible to understand exactly what happened, as facts are hard to come by and accusations fly in every direction. Still, there are persistent themes that appear in case after case. Look at any high profile case, and you’ll find at least one of the following themes.
Persistent Themes
- Human Remains. Human remains, especially those associated with American Indians, are extremely sensitive and have been at the center of many high profile problem projects. Archaeologists must remember that it is not their responsibility to make decisions on what to do with human remains; those decisions are left to tribes, agencies, and SHPOs. Archaeologists often are responsible for identifying human remains in the field, providing immediate notification as outlined in the work plan, and assisting others as needed in making appropriate decisions. To do that effectively, however, one must have human remains expertise; one osteology class in graduate school does not provide that expertise. There continues to be a fundamental problem in our field on the burial issue and we need to address it quickly and decisively, once and for all.
- Doing the Minimum. Agencies and developers typically want to spend the minimum amount when it comes to archaeology, and so they push for doing as little as possible. This minimalist approach often works out, but it has occasionally backfired, and backfired in a big way. When we look at some of these backfires, we see that a little more money spent up front would have saved a lot of time, money and anguish.
- Following the Process. Generally, if you follow the process, projects will go smoothly – at least you won’t wind up in a disaster. Our cultural resource laws are clear, and the SHPO is always available for interpretation and guidance when things are not so clear. Agreements we write to detail actions that must occur in specific situations are usually even clearer. Despite this, it is uncanny how often archaeologists or agencies do not follow the process that has been agreed to. If the legal agreement says to stop work if human remains are discovered, stop work. If it says contact somebody, contact them. If the law says consult with tribes, consult with tribes. If the law says initiate the 106 process before starting a project, initiate the 106 process. It really is that simple. But for some reason, there are those who look for reasons not to follow the process.
- Consultation. One of the few things our cultural resource laws absolutely require is consulting with Indian Tribes and others who are interested in archaeological sites. Agencies are not required to follow recommendations made by others, only to making an informed decision by letting people know what is being done and considering their comments before making a decision. Many of the high profile cases reveal that consultation did not occur, or that comments provided were not seriously considered.
