This is going to be a short blog post just to pass on an interesting and important story that I became aware of this morning through a post in the Cultural Resource Management Group on LinkedIn. The story involves a legal dispute over the investigation and destruction of a protected prehistoric effigy mound that is located atop commercially valuable sand and gravel deposits. The mound, the last surviving component of the Ward group in Dane County, was designated as a protected burial location under Wisconsin's 1985-1986 burial sites preservation law (statute 157.70). This 2014 piece in Indian County provides a good deal of background.
One of the issues in play is the determination of the presence/absence of human remains in the mound. The mound was designated as a burial site based on what is known, in general, about effigy mounds (i.e., that they usually contain human burials). As far as I can tell, there is no direct, site-specific evidence of the presence of human remains in the mound. The owner of the land on which the mound is located, Robert Shea of Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc., alleges that the designation of the site as a burial location is therefore incorrect. Shea points to the results of a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey that did not demonstrate the presence of human remains as evidence that human remains are absent, and argues that he should be allowed to destroy the mound to quarry what's beneath it. Shea's case has apparently now become an issue in the Wisconsin Legislature, where new legislation is being crafted to circumvent the burial sites preservation law (watch this video on YouTube and check out the handy pdf from August 2 available on this Facebook page).
One of the issues in play is the determination of the presence/absence of human remains in the mound. The mound was designated as a burial site based on what is known, in general, about effigy mounds (i.e., that they usually contain human burials). As far as I can tell, there is no direct, site-specific evidence of the presence of human remains in the mound. The owner of the land on which the mound is located, Robert Shea of Wingra Redi-Mix, Inc., alleges that the designation of the site as a burial location is therefore incorrect. Shea points to the results of a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey that did not demonstrate the presence of human remains as evidence that human remains are absent, and argues that he should be allowed to destroy the mound to quarry what's beneath it. Shea's case has apparently now become an issue in the Wisconsin Legislature, where new legislation is being crafted to circumvent the burial sites preservation law (watch this video on YouTube and check out the handy pdf from August 2 available on this Facebook page).
Anyone familiar with the capabilities of GPR will understand immediately the flaw in the expectation that radar would reliably provide positive evidence of human remains if they were present in the mound. GPR relies on contrasts in electromagnetic properties to identify the presence of different materials, changes in sediments, buried objects, etc. GPR is used routinely to successfully and non-invasively map large things like buried stone walls and underground storage tanks. It often works well for locating human remains in historic-period cemeteries where burials were contained within coffins (the surfaces of which cause the GPR's beam to bounce back and register a contrast). If you're looking for things that are small and/or contrast very little with their surrounding sediment matrix (such as highly-decomposed human burials that were interred in the mound fill without coffins), GPR is not a great tool. You can increase the chances of success of detecting small and/or faint things by using a high frequency antenna, but then you lose depth penetration.
In short, I would never rely on GPR data to conclude that human remains are not present in this mound. I doubt many archaeologists will disagree with me on that (let me know if you do). If you understand geophysics and the nature of archaeology and the archaeological record, you understand that there is no non-invasive technique that you could use to rule out the possibility of human remains in the mound. Under the 1985-1986 law, it seems the matter would be put to rest if the presence of human remains was positively demonstrated. Native American stakeholders are apparently opposed to any excavation of the mound. And what would such an excavation entail, anyway? How many square meters would you have to investigate to prove that human remains were not present? You can't really prove a negative without excavating the whole thing.
The battle over this mound has been going on for some time. I plan to watch it carefully now that I'm aware of it. As an archaeologist and an empathetic human, the issue of "what the mound is worth" is an easy one for me to make. Putting aside the impossibility of proving a negative, preserving the mound in any case is worth more than the private profits of a quarry company. I don't know a lot about Wisconsin geology, but I'd be willing to bet that sand and gravel are not that difficult to find. Surviving effigy mounds, however, are in much shorter supply. They need to find a way to continue to protect this one and the others that remain.
In short, I would never rely on GPR data to conclude that human remains are not present in this mound. I doubt many archaeologists will disagree with me on that (let me know if you do). If you understand geophysics and the nature of archaeology and the archaeological record, you understand that there is no non-invasive technique that you could use to rule out the possibility of human remains in the mound. Under the 1985-1986 law, it seems the matter would be put to rest if the presence of human remains was positively demonstrated. Native American stakeholders are apparently opposed to any excavation of the mound. And what would such an excavation entail, anyway? How many square meters would you have to investigate to prove that human remains were not present? You can't really prove a negative without excavating the whole thing.
The battle over this mound has been going on for some time. I plan to watch it carefully now that I'm aware of it. As an archaeologist and an empathetic human, the issue of "what the mound is worth" is an easy one for me to make. Putting aside the impossibility of proving a negative, preserving the mound in any case is worth more than the private profits of a quarry company. I don't know a lot about Wisconsin geology, but I'd be willing to bet that sand and gravel are not that difficult to find. Surviving effigy mounds, however, are in much shorter supply. They need to find a way to continue to protect this one and the others that remain.
RSS Feed
