Letters CRM Archaeologists Practice Conservation In his “Lay of the Land” column in the Winter 2015-16 issue, Mark Michel paints a picture of CRM archaeologists as advocates for excavation over avoidance and site preservation. In fact, the vast majority of CRM professionals practice a conservation ethic in which preservation is always the preferred alternative. Design adjustments to avoid sites are a standard feature of many projects; excavation is typically a last resort. Michel advocates for increased funding to purchase and preserve other sites as a tradeoff, pointing to wildlife habitat conservation as a potential model. While there have been attempts to apply off-site mitigation, mitigation banking, and similar concepts to the treatment of archaeological and historical sites, the habitat replacement model doesn’t work well for several reasons, principally due to the fundamental differences that distinguish biological and cultural resources and the challenges inherent in identifying appropriate replacement properties. Comparable wildlife habitats are relatively easily identified, and with skillful husbandry resident plant and animal populations can be harvested, propagated, reseeded, and otherwise reestablished in new locations. Archaeological sites are not renewable in the same manner, as they cannot simply be picked up and moved to another location. More to the point, however, is that each site is unique; identifying comparable sites or suites of sites may be quite costly and time consuming, if possible at all, and will not guarantee that the unique values of the sites being destroyed can be preserved at another location. Importantly, the interests of descendant communities with strong ties to specific sites and their surrounding landscapes may not be well served by sacrificing one set of properties in favor of another set at some distance away. Most CRM practitioners share the preservation values of the Conservancy, so excavation and conservation should not be cast as competing interests. Better planning, thoughtful project design, and education of landowners, project developers, regulators, and permitting agency staff can achieve better preservation. Barry A. Price, Managing Principal, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. San Luis Obispo, California
American Archaeology welcomes your letters. Write to us at 1717 Girard Blvd. NE, Albuquerque, NM 87106, or send us e-mail at tacmag@nm.net. We reserve the right to edit and publish letters in the magazine’s Letters department as space permits. Please include your name, address, and telephone number with all correspondence, including e-mail messages.
american archaeology
Editor’s Corner “It’s really sad,” says Judy Bittner, Alaska’s state historic preservation officer. What Bittner laments is the ancient artifact commerce in her state. Some Alaskans dig up and then sell valuable artifacts. This practice is especially common on Saint Lawrence Island in western Alaska, where there is a wealth of ivory artifacts, some of which command thousands of dollars, in an otherwise impoverished area. (See “Artifacts For Sale,” page 12.) People excavate on Saint Lawrence Island because they can. The island is private land, owned by two native corporations. Therefore, if the corporations allow digging on their land, people dig, much to the chagrin of Bittner and other preservationists. Artifact digging has been going on here for generations. Some people refer to it as subsistence digging, saying it’s done not so much out of greed as necessity. “The majority of the population doesn’t work at all,” observes Brian Rookok, vice president of Kukulget, Inc., one of the island’s corporations. The digging is also taking place on government lands, where laws forbid it. Perhaps the most egregious example is Port Clarence, which until recently was the site of a U. S. Coast Guard navigation facility. People routinely loot archaeological sites here with impunity because the authorities apparently lack the resources to stop them. Bittner is working with various organizations to educate Alaskans that looting archaeological sites on government land is illegal. As for digging on private land, Bill Hedman, an archaeologist with the Bureau of Land Management, thinks people need to be “shamed” into abandoning the practice. But that’s not likely to happen soon.
3
