Dead-end discoveries?
Many archaeological finds are reburied in mounds of dull reports. One way to help: Hire storytellers to help daylight what comes from digs.
(Page 2 of 2)
How can we get the story out that archaeological research, including CRM [Cultural Resources Management] archaeology, has meaningful results? We, all archaeologists — academic, private, government — really, really need to find a way to express the meaning of discoveries, and not just fall back on lame 'you have to do it, it’s the law' excuses.
He continues in the comment thread:
Maybe the money [private property owners pay for archaeology] should just go to First Nations to support an indigenous archaeology and cultural history program. If archaeologists can't or won't explain themselves then that might well be an improved direction.
What I mean is, archaeologists need to write real human history-as-a-story, in addition to their careful descriptions of stones and bones. There is no real reason why consultants should be discharged of this responsibility. I know "storytelling" makes a funny line item in a proposed budget but let's figure out a way to make it happen nonetheless.
Storytelling alone won't fix all or most of the problems with the system that Tom King and others have identified. That would take a legal overhaul that's not on the horizon. But it should become part of the operating standard that smart archaeologists and agencies utilize more frequently.
The EIS process absolutely needs reform: Expecting agencies to be objective and unbiased about their own work is unrealistic, and consultants should not be rewarded for downplaying or burying their findings because they are poor communicators, in a hurry doing work on the cheap, or because their client agency wants to keep things hidden or fuzzy.
It's absolutely true that many public agencies regard the EIS process as a nuisance, an item to be checked off a list, and that they often seek to minimize public consultation and response because it might get in the way of their plans and timetables (see the Seattle downtown tunnel project).
Good storytelling could mobilize people against a project, or steer it where the agency doesn't want to go. But it can also be a reward, a bonus, even a legacy of projects that go forward responsibly. It daylights the process and highlights the benefits, which merely fulfilling requirements by producing dull, unreadable reports does not. What's the good of government "transparency" if what's on the other side is as clear as mud?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Apr 6, 9:38 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Berger, your reporting on archaeological issues is quite simply the best I've read anywhere, not just in newspapers (beginning of course with The New York Times and its superb coverage of all the sciences), but in the professional journals as well. Thank you; this alone would suffice to make Crosscut worth reading.
Posted Wed, Apr 6, 10:30 a.m. Inappropriate
Subjugating the future to the present - derailing a rail line because of a pottery shard - is regressive and leads to bankruptcy. Archeology is a useful tool for NIMBYs.
Posted Wed, Apr 6, 10:36 a.m. Inappropriate
"Some artifacts find their way to museums, though often in deep storage"
And some museums, like the excellent state historical museum in Tacoma, are in danger of being put in deep storage themselves.
My family is a bunch of history geeks, and we often visit history museums as we wander around, using the detritus of the past to understand the people who came before us. Your suggestion (to put storytellers on the job) is an excellent one, but would be even more powerful when linked to the objects themselves. As someone with a basement full of family stuff, I know that looking through a box is a visit with the people it represents. Isn't the Smithsonian sometimes called "The Nation's Attic?"
Posted Wed, Apr 6, 10:57 a.m. Inappropriate
I find it curiously circumspect that Mr. Berger chose not to mention the Washington Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation(DAHP). Here is a tiny governmental agency, answerable to no one, run by a passionate scientist(Dr. Allyson Brooks), responsible for millions of dollars annually in project expenses paid by taxpayers, with no accountability as to efficiency, transparency, or even results.
DAHP is frightening example of a legitimate public interest that takes on insidious bureaucratic form. Once formed, DAHP moved out of the usual monitored agency channels and quietly began to define itself as an indispensable part of the very fabric of daily life. In embarrassment over the Great Graving Dock Disaster, the Governor issued Executive Order 0505 granting vague comprehensive powers to scientist Brooks, who took control of practically every spadeful of dirt turned with state funding, all the while denying the existence of the power to do so.
While one might argue that government, science, and passion are all mutually exclusive, it makes a better argument to maintain they are incompatible. Archeological and preservation issues are certainly valid public and regulatory concerns, but Mr. Berger's point that EIS' sometimes soft-pedal them must be balanced by the scary reality that state archeological permitting is administered in a rock-hard matrix of technocratic rules, subject always to the latest scientific "truth".
Posted Thu, Apr 7, 7:58 a.m. Inappropriate
Dear @grayreigns,
Thank you for referring to me as a passionate scientist. While I am not sure it was meant as a compliment, at my age, any description of me as 'passionate' is nice to hear. In any case, it is clear that you are frustrated with our agency, and I presume, with me as the Director. If I am interpreting your frustration correctly, you have issues with the amount of archaeological surveys we are requesting. Therefore, I would like to invite you to meet with me or call so we can discuss your frustration with our agency. I would hope that we can explain why we are making the decisions we are making. Perhaps you have some concerns that we haven't considered. If some of your frustrations are with the Executive Order or the federal or state laws I would be happy to discuss those as well. Please call (or visit) I look forward to meeting you.
Most Sincerely,
Your "passionate scientist" Allyson Brooks
Posted Thu, Apr 7, 2:10 p.m. Inappropriate
Whether you call it storytelling or full disclosure the notion that we convert environmental impact discoveries into clear public information is unarguably smart. The idea also lines up nicely with the access we all have to better storytelling tools and technology. Like the podcasts of BBC’s brilliant “History of the World in 100 Objects” series or the recent past material popping up on HistoryLink, we should be using new evidence of the past and new tools for connecting with one another to fill in our collective story. Great piece Knute
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.