LETTERS TO THE AMA
Letters to the AMA is a section where AMA members and the public are encouraged to write in and discuss current archaeological topics. The data and views expressed in these letters are not necessarily those of the AMA.
Received June 15th 2010
Response to Leigh Syms April 8th letter to the AMA
from
Angela Cassie
Director of
Communications and Executive Services
Canadian Museum for Human Rights
Original available for download HERE
From the Original:
Letter to Association of Manitoba Archaeologists
The Association of Manitoba Archaeologists (AMA) has posted a letter on its website authored by Leigh Syms from April 8, 2010, regarding the archeological mitigation on the site of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights (CMHR). This letter contains a number of inaccurate statements based on what appears to be speculation, falsehoods, and a lack of information regarding the activities surrounding this particular project.
It is our view that in posting this letter in the public domain on the AMA's website, the AMA has associated its membership and code of ethics with these inaccurate and false statements. It is our view that prior to taking such an action, it is incumbent on the AMA to undertake more thorough due diligence, investigating the accuracies, or lack thereof, of the information posted on its website and thereby broadcast to the public.
We would like to rectify the numerous inaccuracies contained in the letter posted and request that this correction be made publicly available in the same manner in which the article by Mr. Syms was posted in the public domain.
We request that the AMA post the attached response on their web site and in their newsletter to ensure that the archeological community bases their understanding on fact. We hope that the AMA will extend the CMHR the same opportunity given to Mr. Syms to express our position on this matter.
Sincerely,
Angela Cassie
Director of Communications and Public Engagement
Canadian Museum for Human Rights
The Importance of the Forks Site
The Canadian Museum for Human Rights places a high importance on Manitoba’s heritage and recognizes the importance of The Forks site which has a rich and storied history of people coming together: beginning with Aboriginal peoples thousands of years ago; then as a center during the Fur Trade; and, with the coming of the railway, as a place where waves of immigrants first glimpsed the West. The CMHR is honoured to call this important land our home and look forward to welcoming the world to the site for years to come.
Prior to the start of construction of the Museum, we worked with the Province of Manitoba, the Forks, and various Aboriginal communities in Winnipeg to ensure that the site where the CMHR is being built is treated with the respect it deserves, including respect to the archaeological significance of this site. These conversations are ongoing and continue to influence the manner in which this project develops.
Archeological Mitigation Plan
Not only did the CMHR fund the 2008 archaeological excavation, the largest dig ever undertaken on The Forks site, it also opened this excavation to the general public and greatly raised awareness about the site, its history, and the field of archeology. Close to 1700 people visited the excavation site, with interpretation services provided by Parks Canada staff and the on-site archaeologist.
In 2009, a full mitigation plan was developed jointly by the Historic Resources Branch and Parks Canada and was systematically implemented by a qualified archaeologist. ALL construction activities that required drilling or digging through the cultural layers, including the pile caps, platform caps and trenches referred to by Mr. Syms, have a required mitigation plan. The CMHR followed all necessary steps and procedures required in heritage recovery projects; the Historic Resources Branch did not modify or diminish any procedures to accommodate the CMHR.
A copy of this mitigation plan is attached.
Treatment of Recovered Artifacts
The mitigation plan provides specific instructions on the requirements related to recovered artifacts. Implementation of these instructions and all handling of the artifacts were supervised by a qualified archaeologist in accordance with standard procedures as mandated by the Historic Resources Branch. All recovered artifacts were washed, identified and catalogued and stored in an interim location for analysis.
Approximately 500,000 artifacts were recovered in 2008 and an additional 80,000 to 90,000 artifacts have been recovered in 2009-2010. The artifacts have since been in the care of qualified archaeologists pending completion of their reports on the excavations. Once the reports are complete, arrangements will be made for the long term storage of the artifacts. The artifacts will be available for students and other interested scholars doing research studies in this area.
Exploratory Trench
Included with Mr. Syms’ letter is a photo depicting a portion of the site where a large area was excavated. An exploratory trench in this area was a requirement of the mitigation plan and the assessment of the trench, completed by Quaternary Consultants, found the area to be sterile. Therefore construction in the area was allowed to continue and no “ancient village layers” were destroyed by the excavation, as claimed by Mr. Syms.
Archaeological Expertise
The owner of Quaternary Consulting, archaeologist Sid Kroeker, was the original contractor for the archaeological project on the CMHR site and he did an exceptional job. Mr. Kroeker advised the CMHR of his intention to retire and thus his hesitation to take on a multi-year project of this magnitude. Quaternary Consulting continued to perform to their usual standards up to a time when a new consultant was ready to take over. Mr. Kroeker was never disrespected by the CMHR or any other party involved with the project and he parted ways with the CMHR on good terms.
PCL, the CMHR’s construction management firm, contracted Stantec Consulting to take over from Quaternary Consulting and complete the archeological requirements under the 2009 Heritage Permit.
The archeological work on the site was ongoing with no break between Quaternary’s work ending and Stantec Consulting beginning. There was a good exchange of information between the two parties which allowed for an appropriate amount of information sharing and continuity on the project.
First Nations History and Participation
The CMHR is highly cognizant of the significance of the Forks site for Aboriginal peoples in Manitoba as well as the importance of ensuring participation of the First Nations, Métis and Inuit peoples in the activities of the Museum. These events may impact not only the social aspects of the community but also the artifacts that have been unearthed during the site preparation and construction of the museum.
The museum has consulted with respected Elders and taken their direction with respect to the handling and care of the items recovered. The Museum, together with its contractors, met with Elders prior to the beginning of the first archeological dig in the Spring of 2008 and again in the Winter of 2009 before the start of construction. On their advice, a medicine bag was deposited into each hole dug for pilings and caissons last summer and fall to show respect for Mother Earth and honour this special site. In Spring 2010, Elders in Winnipeg held a ceremony to honour some of the recovered artifacts.
Our work with Aboriginal communities in Manitoba is ongoing and we are working to ensure their continued involvement throughout the construction and operation of the CMHR.
Budget
A point of contention which Mr. Syms refers to repeatedly throughout his letter is the budget allocated by the CMHR to the archaeological projects on site. The requirements for the 2008 excavations as well as the 2009 mitigation plan were jointly developed by the Historic Resources Branch and Parks Canada. The budgets were developed based on estimates of the number of hours required to complete the work as provided by the qualified archaeologist, not financial constraints imposed by the CMHR, as claimed by Mr. Syms.
Despite the fact that the CMHR has a fixed capital budget, funded in part by public money (which comes with a duty to ensure fiscal responsibility), we recognize the importance of capturing the cultural heritage of the site and have invested significantly to ensure that the resources required to implement the mitigation plan were set aside. At no time did the CMHR limit the recoveries nor the archaeology work required.
To date, the CMHR has spent approximately $1 million on direct costs related to the implementation of the archaeology mitigation program and these costs are ongoing.
Increased Awareness
In addition to the $1 million spent thus far, there have been additional indirect costs incurred associated with managing the excavation process and promoting the progress and the recoveries made.
In June 2009, the CMHR held a 4 day event at The Forks entitled “Amazing Feet” which featured the 800-year-old footprints uncovered during the archaeological dig. Sid Kroeker of Quaternary Consultants was on hand to answer questions on the archaeological record of the site and the CMHR digs. The event attracted thousands of visitors and greatly increased awareness of the cultural richness of the CMHR site.
In keeping with a commitment made on November 26, 2008, all partners are working together to ensure the stories of the site are told and the history of the site is available to the public. The CMHR is currently collaborating with the Province of Manitoba, Parks Canada, and the Friends of the CMHR on a web- based project that will feature previously untold stories about the site based on specialized analysis of selected artifacts found during the excavations.
In conclusion, the CMHR does not take Mr. Syms’ untrue, unfair, and possibly defamatory statements lightly. The CMHR has worked in partnership with the Historic Resources Branch, the Forks Historic Site, and Parks Canada to create mitigation plans, set appropriate budgets, and ensure proper procedures were followed during both the 2008 and 2009 excavations. Qualified archaeologists were employed on
site throughout all stages of the excavations and while foundation work for the CMHR was taking place. We have collaborated with Aboriginal communities to honour the site and its historical significance particularly to First Nations peoples. We are committed to ensuring that all Manitobans can access the history of the Forks site, told through the stories of the cultural material excavated prior to and during the construction of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights.
Angela Cassie
Director of Communications and Executive Services
Canadian Museum for Human Rights
Received April 8th 2010 - Leigh Syms
Accelerated Destruction of First Nations Heritage Beneath the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, 2009
Background
The Canadian Museum of Human Rights (CMHR) is being built at The Forks, a popular centre in Winnipeg. Its design indicates that this $300,000,000 edifice will be stunning. The Forks also happens to have the richest and most complex archaeological record of ancient First Nations heritage, fur trade and early settlement heritage in Manitoba, spanning some 6,000 years, and has been identified by an archaeologist recovering the local heritage as one of the most important sites in Canada.
Accelerated Destruction of First Nations Heritage Beneath the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, 2009.
In 2002, an impact assessment of the CMHR area of the site produced the unbelievably rich record of 72,000 artifacts from 134 m², all of it representing First Nations heritage from about AD 1000-1200. It was estimated that the total area of the museum would yield 7,000,000 million artifacts within its 7,000 m² (about 1.1 football fields in size). Nothing was done until construction began in 2008 when a miniscule budget was allocated to recover about 134 m² or 1.9% of the site, and the remaining 98% was left to be capped and be inaccessible until such time as the museum was dismantled at some distant future date. Despite the efforts of the archaeologists, it was impossible to recover and process the ancient record adequately due to minuscule funding and the lack of standards and enforcement by the Historic Resources Branch (HRB) whose mandate and responsibility is to look after the archaeological heritage in the province. The normal procedure of heritage recovery is for the responsible government department to determine what needs to be done and issue a call for tendering for recovery, to work with a professional CRM (Cultural Resource Management) archaeologist to determine recovery details and necessary budget and then inform the developer what budget is needed; in this case, developments were reversed. The developer determined what budget would be available, the archaeologist scrambled to make the best possible use of the very, very limited budget, and the HRB essentially went along with whatever was decided by the developer. There were no resources to properly label the artifacts so that they could be handled and processed properly, and staff was forbidden to reconstruct any broken pieces of artifacts. No resources were committed to properly store the collection at a place where they could be properly managed and be readily accessible rather than merely stored as small broken fragments in boxes of plastic bags. Only a few samples could be submitted for scientific analyses such as food encrustation analyzes due to very limited funds. See the AMA (Association of Manitoba Archaeologists) November 2008 newsletter for more details and concerns expressed by a variety of people at the AMA website at www.assocmanarch.com.
2008 excavations at the CMHR area at The Forks. The narrow trench along the right side and the small rectangular area toward the back of the site was the total area excavated out of 7,000 m². (Photograph by E. Leigh Syms)
During the subsequent winter, analyses have been undertaken by a number of researchers. Fortunately at least some of these people are so committed that they have been putting in vast numbers of hours of their personal time to provide some detail, even though they have been hampered by limited budget contracts and directives such as not being able to do any artifact reconstruction due to funding limitations. The results of this very limited recovery have produced very exciting results. Despite the tiny sample of excavations, parts of 122 ceramic vessels were recovered from 7 camp/village sites laid down one upon the other over a few hundred years. The ceramics are unique and provide exciting new insights into the rich Woodland Native traditions that probably represented ancient Anishinaabe ancestors. The fauna also apparently show evidence of unique food preferences including antelope. One can only wonder at what the record would have been like if a larger adequate sample had been recovered!
The 2009 Excavations
The CMHR staff had assured concerned individuals and groups such as The Forks Heritage Committee that the 98% of the heritage record that was left behind would be protected and safe for some much later date because the museum was being built on a metal grid on top of the hundreds of concrete pilings and that the record would not even suffer from compaction. However when CMHR staff and construction staff met with the consulting archaeologist in the spring of 2009, a very different story emerged.
1. Many of the tops of pilings would not be poured to levels above the cultural heritage levels, requiring removal of large areas of the cultural layers to build on them.
2. A number of large pits would be dug through the camp/village levels to build large concrete platform caps across groups of pilings whose tops were below the cultural occupations. These were large, including dimensions of 16 X 16 feet.
3. The thousands of metres of trenches for sewer lines and other uses were originally to have been laid down by digging insertion holes vertically only at specific points and the pipes then being placed underneath the cultural layers in a minimally destructive manner. This minimally destructive approach was now being replaced by the massively destructive strategy of digging out the trenches along their entire lengths through the cultural layers in order to lay the service lines into the building.
4. The 100s of piling holes continued to be drilled out rather than being excavated, destroying artifacts and the stratigraphic record of the villages.
The consulting archaeologist was shocked at these sudden and very destructive changes. When he attempted to point out that this change in design would require a lot more mitigation, requiring a larger budget and a minimum of 15 staff, he was yelled at and treated abusively. He decided that he did not need 2 years of this abuse and resigned.
There was now no archaeologist to monitor the site destruction. The consulting archaeologist agreed to work with HRB to monitor the drilling of the holes for the pilings for HRB until another CRM company was found. The story appears to become bazaar at this point. This monitoring project appears to have taken place without any permits being issued by HRB (April to May 2009). It was then reported that HRB even gave the archaeological permit directly to CMHR rather that than to an archaeological firm, which is a bit like giving the key to a chicken house to a fox, if this is true. Eventually, a CRM permit was given to another experienced archaeologist with a reputable firm although again there was no call for tenders. Once again the developer appears to have determined the budget and by default set the severe limitations on the recoveries, and HRB appeared to feel compelled to go along with these developments and not insist that additional work be undertaken, which is within their legal right and responsibility as regulators. I have few details except that the project employed only 3 field assistants to monitor and recover the heritage that was being destroyed by the digging of 2 or more large pits for the piling caps, the back dirt from the drilling of numerous piling bore holes, and digging up on an unknown number of trenches. To cite a famous phrase— never was so much expected of so few!! This was clearly an inadequate staff to recover the detailed, complex record from a large area of such a site with rich, detailed, multi-village record with the care that was practiced the previous year and which was so necessary. During the subsequent winter, analyses have been undertaken by a number of researchers. Fortunately at least some of these people are so committed that they have been putting in vast numbers of hours of their personal time to provide some detail, even though they have been hampered by limited budget contracts and directives such as not being able to do any artifact reconstruction due to funding limitations. The results of this very limited recovery have produced very exciting results. Despite the tiny sample of excavations, parts of 122 ceramic vessels were recovered from 7 camp/village sites laid down one upon the other over a few hundred years. The ceramics are unique and provide exciting new insights into the rich Woodland Native traditions that probably represented ancient Anishinaabe ancestors. The fauna also apparently show evidence of unique food preferences including antelope. One can only wonder at what the record would have been like if a larger adequate sample had been recovered!
2009 excavation at the CMHR site showing one of the cavernous holes that was dug through the ancient village layers for caps for pilings. (Photograph by E. Leigh Syms)2009 excavation at the CMHR site showing one of the cavernous holes that was dug through the ancient village layers for caps for pilings. (Photograph by E. Leigh Syms)
As construction took place over the summer, the magnitude of the impact became somewhat evident. The digging of the pits for the piling caps turned out to be cavernous holes as they included not only the structures but also the surrounding work area for making forms as well as roads for machinery to access the pits. As this limited heritage recovery took place over the summer, comments started to circulate about problems. These included the few field staff not being able to keep up with checking the piling core mounds of back dirt and the excavations, the construction crews digging into the village layers and then informing the crew after the fact, first once and then on a number of occasions, and heritage materials were allowed to be destroyed when the excavation holes were too deep and narrow to be recovered due to health and safety standards. The AMA expressed concerns to the HRB and the consulting archaeologist about these rumours. The supervising CRM archaeologist confirmed that a portion of the record was allowed to be destroyed because of health and safety standards, i.e. the pits being too deep for the width that was being removed; the alternative of widening the excavation units to the bottom of the heritage village levels to meet health and safety standards was apparently not considered or else the heritage was not considered sufficiently important. The consulting archaeologist did point out that he had been in weekly contact with HRB, which had confirmed all decisions. This same archaeologist informed the AMA that he had warned his few staff that if they talked to anyone about the project that they would be fired immediately, an action that itself casts some concerns about what was happening.
This project has raised other questions. Why was such a totally inadequate amount of funds allowed to be expended on recovering this rich heritage so inadequately? Are the artifacts being processed in the same inadequate, manner as in 2008 with no reconstruction of artifacts and no labelling of artifacts so that they cannot be managed properly? Will funds be available to do even the limited analyses such as dating and residue that was conducted in a limited fashion in 2008?
Why was the archaeological field project allowed to be terminated during the week of April 5-9 (due to inadequate funds to even complete this minimal effort?) as reported despite there being ongoing construction excavation and heritage destruction? Are the recovered artifacts going to be processed, i.e. washed, catalogued and labelled? Will there be at least a descriptive report written at the calibre of the 2008 report? Since all decisions were apparently authorized by HRB, thereby making everything legally right, why has the CMHR not addressed its moral and ethical responsibilities to the First Nations heritage that it has been capping and destroying? How does the CMHR address the irony that a human rights museum would have such a blatant disregard for First Nations heritage protection and development? And how and why has HRB sunk to such a low level of confidence and responsibility that it would ignore its responsibilities and allow this damage and totally inadequate project to continue in this fashion?
How do we as concerned individuals work to make certain that the political will is there so that the HRB will feel inclined to enforce the higher standards that are necessary to protect and develop the ancient heritage in the future? If the HRB is allowing this degree of substandard heritage protection to take place here, what is the future for the rest of the heritage at The Forks and other sites throughout the province?
In the 45 years that I have been involved in the rich heritage of the province, this is the worst case of legal destruction of the rich heritage that I have had the misfortune to witness. Archaeologists, all Manitobans, and anyone concerned about heritage need to be concerned about these developments. As people have become aware of these local developments they have been appalled. A Winnipeg Free Press poll in 2008 found that the public was in favour of more archaeological research in a two to one ratio (over 1300 individuals voted). The few archaeologists who have become aware of these developments have tended to express their anger and frustrations quietly because they fear being blackballed by the HRB who is the heritage permitting body and by at least some CRM archaeologists, as the above reaction by the 2009 consulting archaeologists reveal is a real concern. Nevertheless, concerned individuals need to speak up and let the CMHR, provincial government, federal government, and various First Nations such as the Assembly of First Nations know that these developments are not satisfactory and that remedial developments need to take place. Fortunately First Nations whose heritage is being mismanaged at this site are starting to become aware and concerned. As they hear about this travesty to their heritage, they, too, tend to feel betrayed and angry. See the First Nations developed Face book site, Forever Lost: Heritage Beneath the Canadian Museum of Human Rights, at http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/groups.php?gid=17056386933&ref=ts
E. Leigh Syms, PhD
Ancient Heritage researcher, educator, and advocate
Adjunct Professor, University of Manitoba
Former Curator of Archaeology, The Manitoba Museum
slsyms@mts.net
204-786-5455
April 8, 2010