Calif. developer finds, then paves over ancient Indian village to build $55 million project

[Skidmore]

WTF is wrong with people?


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/24/calif-developer-finds-then-paves-over-ancient-indian-village-to-build-55-million-project/#.U1kbtRopbuw.facebook

An ancient American Indian village and burial site in California that was older than King Tut’s tomb was discovered and then paved over so that a $55 million housing project could move forward.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the ancient site was found at the location of the Rose Lane development in Larkspur. The site reportedly contained a “treasure trove” of details about Coast Miwok life from as long as 4,500 years ago.

But all of the 600 human burials, the tools, the musical instruments and other items were reburied so that development could continue.

“This was a site of considerable archaeological value,” archaeologist Dwight Simons, who helped analyze the site, told the Chronicle. “My estimate of bones and fragments in the entire site was easily over a million, and probably more than that. It was staggering.”..more

[RKP5637]

1. F'ers like this should wind up in a cold jail sell. Many are sociopaths, they don't' give

a F about anything. They are beyond repair!

[merrily]

2. Respecting an archaeological treasure trove can only mean delay and time is money.

Nothing trumps money. (no pun intended)

[Brickbat]

3. What's interesting is that the tribe that was designated as the cultural descendants of the people

who created those artifacts said the artifacts should be moved, not studied, and then reburied as quickly as possible.

[NYC_SKP]

4. ~~~ “The notion that these cultural artifacts belong to the public is a colonial view.” ~~~

Rather than react to the provocative headline, I decided to read further.

...American Indian leaders were the ones who reportedly decided how the artifacts would be handled.

“The philosophy of the tribe in general is that we would like to protect our cultural resources and leave them as is,” Sacred Sites Protection Committee member Nick Tipon pointed out in defending the decision. “The notion that these cultural artifacts belong to the public is a colonial view.”

Tribal chairman Greg Sarris (pictured above) told KPIX that the first choice would be to leave the artifacts alone, and reburying the items was necessary if they had been exposed.

Archaeologists, however, said that all hopes of future study had been lost because developers had destroyed the geologic record by moving all of the items to an undisclosed location, and then paving them over.

So, it's not like the developer (and I loathe developers) didn't follow the law to the letter, it's just that the descendents had their way about it.

It's their, not our, decision to make.

Very thoughtful of them, IMHO.

Respect the artifacts, don't go bit-by-bit poring over them disrespectfully.

[The2ndWheel]

8. That does sort of change things a little bit

I like it though. In a world of information overload, an almost relentless zeal to know everything, we don't get to know about this particular piece of history. I find it comforting that something like that can happen.

[csziggy]

5. Better this than totally destroying the site

I've read of developers trashing sites they've found so their projects are not slowed down or so they don't have to spend any money to work around them.

At least paving over preserves the site so if the cultural, political and scientific means arrive in the future, it can be studied. Look at what paving did for the Richard III grave: Richard III dig: DNA confirms bones are king's http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

Some Native American groups are coming around to the idea of allowing study of their supposed ancestors' remains *. Those studies are the only way the prehistory of their ancestors can be learned, so it is valuable. It's not as though anthropologists treat the remains of their own possible ancestors any different - see the Richard III article above!

*'Supposed' because the chances of 4500 year old remains being the genetic ancestors of survivors of a nomadic culture are very slim.

[Tikki]

6. This is what I, also, know about certain indigenous sites.

I know certain procedures are accomplished before development is commenced.


Worse than residing above an ancestral site is having bits and pieces of your ancestor's remains
sitting on a shelf in someone's garage.


Tikki

[csziggy]

9. Yes - paving the site will make sure looters and amateurs aren't rooting around

And taking bits away.

And look at the advances in archaeology in the last 100 years. Where possible, sites should be preserved so they can be excavated or examined with more advanced techniques in the future. I can imagine that it could be possible to virtually excavate a site without having to dig up anything.

For instance, in the Richard III site, they did ground penetrating radar, located several possible burial sites and selected one as their first excavation. It just happened that the one burial selected was the one that is now presumed to be Richard III (through DNA studies). In the past, British archaeologists would have a backhoe scrape the surface, locate possible soil disturbances, then excavate. The process was much more random and distructive!

[Iggo]

7. Didn't a couple things happen between "finds" and "paves over"?

[2naSalit]

10. When I revealed to my

sweat-lodge family that I was studying anthropology in college, they asked if I was into archeology. I told them that was my initial interest until I realized how disrespectful much of that was, I shifted my focus. They then related how they felt about archaeologists who would ask them where some of their burial sites were located. The elder told me that he responded by asking the archaeologist where his grandmother was buried so he could go dig her up and make up stories about her.

We need to address the manner of respect we offer indigenous peoples and allow them to determine how their ancestors' remains should be honored just as we expect for our cultural system's norms.

[B2G]

11. This was discussed at length yesterday

I suggest you read the whole article.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4861414