How to avoid disturbing Native American graves

How to avoid disturbing Native American graves (11/12/2008)
By Sarah Elmquist

City Planning commissioners heard from Pete Palma, Cultural Resource Specialist with the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council (MIAC) Monday, who told them that protecting Native American burial sites could save time and money in the long run.

Commissioners have been reviewing the city’s proposed bluff protection ordinance, which would require development setbacks from the tops and toes of bluffs. Recently the issue of preserving Native American grave sites has surfaced because many of those sites can be found adjacent to bluffs, and commissioners are considering whether to add grave protection measures to the ordinance.

The first proposal to help protect Native American grave sites came from City Planning Director Mark Moeller, who suggested that a Phase I archeological study could be required for building sites near bluff tops and bottoms. That concept was met with praise from representatives of the MIAC and the Winona-Dakota Unity Alliance (WDUA).

John Borman, of the WDUA, commended city planners for considering the protective archeological studies as part of the ordinance. But he said that he felt it was important for the ordinance to address areas further away from bluff tops and bottoms.

The draft ordinance suggests setbacks and conditions within the first 150 feet of the top of a bluff and 50 feet from the bottom. But Borman said that some burial sites could be even 300 feet from the top of the bluff, and can sometimes be found on plateaus and other areas outside the setbacks suggested. “That’s not adequate,” said Borman. “It has to go beyond that. Burial sites could may well be beyond those areas.”

Palma told Planning Commission members that requiring such an archeological study could avoid the time and legal issues that arise when a burial site is found after construction has begun. Since Minnesota and federal laws protect such grave sites, finding one during construction can mean the loss of money and time.

In a letter to the Planning Commission, Dr. Ernie Boszhardt, archeologist at the Mississippi Valley Archeology Center at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, reiterated Palma’s experience. “Worst case scenario for all, and most expensive option, is to find burials during construction, causing work stoppage for unknown periods and higher costs for rapid response,” he wrote. “Minnesota state law includes provisions for ultimate repatriation of human remains and associated objects, but that process takes time.”

Boszhardt also suggested that while the city and county likely couldn’t afford a comprehensive archeological survey of all lands, there might be a “predictive model” that could help pick out areas that needed a closer look.

He said that such a model could identify high, medium and low probability zones based on best current available knowledge. He said that this approach could eliminate large areas of low to moderate probability for grave sites, keeping the focus on the areas where burials are more likely to be found. And, he said, this approach could end up being more cost-effective than a “piecemeal” approach to archeological surveys.

Palma agreed, and said that a good archeologist can tell you probability based on the appearance of an area, and using a probability model could help get construction clearance quicker for some places.

Planning Commission members thanked Borman and Palma for the information, and will likely discuss how to approach burial protection as the ordinance unfolds.

“Hopefully you can implement some of this,” Palma said. “It’s a good start.”

http://www.winonapost.com:80/stock/functions/VDG_Pub/detail.php?choice=27880&home_page=1&archives=