============================================================ Get 11 Free CDs, with nothing more to buy, ever! Simply join BMG Music Service and you can choose your FREE CDs with membership. It's 100% RISK FREE! http://click.topica.com/caaac8ub1ddNBb2HgmNa/BMG ============================================================ Subj: FWD: BLACK CREEK SITE/IMPORTANT WE NEED YOUR HELP-Part Two Date: 08/29/2001 5:55:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time BLACK CREEK SITE/IMPORTANT WE NEED YOUR HELP-Part Two------------------------------------------------------------------- > A VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES: > AN INFORMAL REPORT ON WORK AT THE BLACK CREEK SITE > > Dr. Cara Lee Blume, Senior Archaeologist, Heite Consulting > > I have just returned to my home in Dover, Delaware after one of the most intense > and exhilarating archaeological experiences of my entire 35-year career in this > field. Over three days last week, as consultant to the Nanticoke Lenni Lenape > Tribe of New Jersey, I visited the controversial Black Creek site and observed > the geomorphological testing conducted by geologist Phil La Porta and the archaeological > sampling conducted by archaeologist Phil Perazio. I also examined the artifact > collection made by archaeologist Rick Patterson and the records he has kept > while making this collection. I have talked to citizens of Vernon Township, > Township officials and employees, and met with members of the local and regional > press. On the last day of the archaeological phase of the project, I participated > in a prayer ceremony at the entrance to the property with Native Americans from > all over the United States and Canada. > > My firm, Heite Consulting of Camden, Delaware, was asked by Tribal Chairman > Mark Gould and Tribal Counselor Urie Ridgeway to advise the tribe after the > Township excavated a trench through the middle of the site while a court hearing > was in progress. My job, as unpaid consultant to the Tribe, has been, first > of all, to provide my professional assessment of the eligibility of the site > for listing on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, and > secondly, to represent the tribe as an observer of the geological testing conducted > on August 13, 14 and 15, 2001. > > In evaluating the New Jersey and National Register eligibility of the site, > I draw on a long experience in historic preservation and cultural resources > management. I have written a number of archaeological nominations, revised > a number of others to meet standards, and have reviewed the eligibility of sites > under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 is > a process for ensuring that significant archaeological and historic properties > are considered in the planning stages of federally funded, licensed, or permitted > projects. New Jersey has a similar process at the state level. > > In providing my assessment, I reviewed an early draft of the New Jersey and > National Register nomination for the site (the same form is used for both), > read the report prepared for the Township by Richard Grubb & Associates, Inc., > and obtained information on the excavations by Louis Berger & Associates, Inc. > Based on this information, I concluded that the Black Creek site consisted > of two elements, a lithic processing area at the southern end of the site where > flaked stone tools had been made for as much as 10,000 years, and a domestic > area that had been in use for the same period of time. These two elements are > intimately related because they were occupied at the same time, but serving > different functions. One was, in effect, the industrial part of town while > the other was the residential area. This kind of distinct separation within > a single site is unusual for Native American sites. Most frequently, lithic > processing took place within residential areas, forming separate activity areas > that overlapped with other activities at the site or at much smaller, more distant > camps. I concluded that the Black Creek site as a whole was indeed eligible > for listing on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, without > any reservations. > > The current controversy is focused on the southern, or industrial, part of the > site, and seems to me to be based on misconceptions about the characteristics > of sites that are eligible for listing on the New Jersey and National Registers. > Rather than attempt to refute specific statements made both publicly and privately, > I will simply review the characteristics of the contested area that make it > significant. > > The main justification that is used to nominate archaeological sites to the > New Jersey and National Registers is called Criterion D, which states that the > site must have yielded or have the potential to yield information important > in the study of prehistory or history. One way to determine whether a site > meets this requirement is to conduct surface collections in cultivated fields. > If differences in the distribution of various kinds of artifacts can be seen > in different parts of the site, the site is said to show patterning, and has > the potential to provide information about the past. Usually, a grid is laid > across the site so that collections can be made in squares of a set size, often > 10 meters (or 32.5 feet) on a side. Typically, the site is only collected once. > > Rick Patterson, on the other hand, used a much more accurate (and time-consuming) > method to identify patterns in the distribution of artifacts across the southern > part of the site. He carefully mapped the location of every tool, tool fragment, > pottery sherd, or unusual type of stone material using a method called triangulation. > He did this over and over again across a 10 year time period. As a result, > we have an unusually detailed picture of the distribution of artifacts across > the site. By looking at the distribution of one tool type, spear points for > example, we can see that different parts of the site were used during different > time periods because the points made in one style are found in a different part > of the site from points made in a different style. Each style of spear point > represents a different time period. Excavation of the site might yield more > information or different kinds of information on the various cultures that used > the site over time, but Pattersons study is more than sufficient to demonstrate > that information exists within the site, and that the site is eligible for listing > on the New Jersey and National Registers. > > Once it has been established that there is sufficient evidence to evaluate a > site as eligible for listing on the New Jersey and National Registers, good > preservation practice requires that no further archaeological investigation > take place. In the case of the Black Creek site, the Nanticoke Lenni Lenape, > through their attorney, argued that good preservation practice should be followed. > Judge Mackenzie ruled that the Township should have an opportunity to examine > the question of eligibility using their own consultant. When the Township was > unable to obtain the services of a fully qualified archaeologist, they contracted > with local geologist Philip La Porta to provide a geological study. Mr. La > Portas methodology was apparently based in part on the erroneous assumption > that the disputed part of the site would only be eligible for listing on the > New Jersey and National Registers if stratified (layered) deposits containing > buried artifacts and other cultural remains were found below the present cultivated > surface. Such deposits do, in fact, exist in the undisputed parts of the Black > Creek site, but are not necessary to evaluate a site as significant. > > On Monday, August 13, ten trenches were excavated through the rich cultural > deposits of the disputed southern part of the Black Creek site. Each trench > was approximately six meters (20 ft.) long and about one meter (3 ft.) wide. > The depth of the trenches varied between approximately 3 meters (10 ft.) and > 6 meters (20 ft.) The backhoe operator deposited a backhoe bucket full of soil > from each different soil layer in separate piles on one side of the trench. > Some effort was made to make sure that this bucketful of soil was free of material > from higher and lower deposits. Archaeologist Phil Perazio and his two assistants > sifted a small sample of each pile to recover any artifacts. The remaining > soil from all layers was deposited on the other side of the trench and was not > sampled in any way. > > Each trench revealed a dozen or more soil layers, beginning with a plow zone > 30 to 35 cm thick (12-15 inches). The deposits below the plow zone ranged from > silt loams overlying a silty clay loam in the northernmost trenches to silt > loams and sands in the southernmost trenches. Artifacts were recovered from > the plow zone in all but one trench, including one spearpoint approximately > 5,000 years old. > > Although interesting information has been gathered about the development of > the surface on which people lived for as much as 10,000 years, sadly, none of > this information changes or contributes in any important way to the discussion > of the eligibility of this portion of the Black Creek site. Even more distressing > is the much larger amount of information that has been forever lost because > of the excavation methods used. Archaeologists most frequently excavate in > squares called excavation units that are 1 meter (3 ft.) on a side. Each 6 > meter long trench is the equivalent of 6 standard excavation units. Ten of > these trenches would be the equivalent of 60 standard 1 meter by 1 meter excavation > units, a rather large number of units to excavate at this stage of an investigation > in a site with excellent surface information. Unfortunately, less than 2% of > the soil from the plow zone was sifted to recover artifacts, and an even smaller > percentage of the deeper deposits, which were thicker than the plow zone. In > other words, the methods used failed to recover more than 98% of the artifacts > excavated in each trench, or less. And even those artifacts that were recovered > lack what archaeologists call "context," the association of one artifact with > other artifacts or with other kinds of evidence such as soil stains. > > For an archaeologist, watching an important site being treated so insensitively, > if not brutally, is a wrenching and frustrating experience. But as I walked > across the two cultivated fields that make up the disputed part of the site > and up onto the limestone ridges that bound it on two sides, I succumbed to > the spirit of the place itself. The stone ridges shelter this narrow valley, > shielding it from the world outside, from the sounds of traffic on Maple Grange > Road, and even from the demands of cell phones. Sitting at the top of one of > these ridges, I imagined a place of tranquility, sheltered from the demands > of modern life. A place with native wildflowers, shrubs, and trees scattered > among winding trails, benches, and picnic tables, where Native Americans and > more recent arrivals alike can come to find restoration and reconciliation, > and the spirits of those now gone can rest in peace. > > Dr. Cara Blume > > ============================================================ Coffee, pastry, orange juice, and developerWorks. Fuel for a developer's day. Get the developerWorks newsletter. http://click.topica.com/caaacCLb1ddNBb2HgmNf/developerWorks ============================================================ Visit and show your support for the Grass Roots Oyate http://members.tripod.com/GrassRootsOyate Clemency for Leonard Peltier. Sign the Petition. http://petitiononline.com/Release/petition.html ==^================================================================ EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?b1ddNB.b2HgmN Or send an email To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This email was sent to: [email protected] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
