Summary of Conference Small Group Discussions

GROUP FOUR

Values:

• Communications: work needs to be in a form understandable by the community, including broader community

• Need for quicker communication and understanding

• Better understanding

• Opportunity to listen

• Respecting

• Education for broad community

• Education with younger students

• When it “works” to resolve issues among differing views – willingness to work together on common goals/tasks

• Communication with the people of different communities

• Education for our children to learn their history

• Protecting culture

• Asking!

• The opportunity to study the past (communicate/protection)

• Need for those working in the field to preserve resources

• Mutual respect – open to listen to others – no preconceived answers

• Knowledge and the pursuit of…

• Open minded, respectful communication

• Preserving and sharing oral history

• Open learning process based on good information, cautious with presumptions

• Protecting sacred sties

Opportunities/Issues:

• BL’s system teaches archaeologists to identify sacred sites; possible field school in 2006; potential to influence government

• Role for cultural anthropologists and archaeologists in identifying sacred sites – broad information base and sharing power on decisions

• Issue: what is interpretation of gravesite protection – need a shared definition and understanding

• Issue: sometimes sites should be preserved and respected and not used as learning sites (ex: Bear sacred site)

• Issue: often, people don’t know why we’re digging – communicate/ public education on purpose, not just curiosity

• Issue: Get away from “grave robber” concept.  How do we educate ourselves and others?

• Issue: educate Europeans about sacred sites

Future:

·         More room in the workplace (Universities, business) to reward cooperative approaches.  More recognition that cooperative stewardship is going to benefit all

·         Money to support this

·         More work with preservation groups

·         Integrity about real goals

·         Communication with neighbors.  Ex: educating counties, etc.  more interaction with others and trying to reach those who are afraid to ask

·         Know our own history so we can communicate

·         Get beyond current credentialing – gather knowledge and expertise in different ways.  Be able at University to bring in people without “the letters” to teach

·         More trusting relationship among parties

·         More people access to/reading publications (cultural resource plans). Who pays?  Distribution? Sharing knowledge? How does the broad community get access?  Book?

·         Interact with the communities for information.  Research involves contact.

·         Get the true history written

·         Impact on overall populace – increase awareness and understanding

GROUP FIVE

Values:

• History of all people

• Stories behind what’s found

• Meaning behind what’s found

• Representing people not just things

• Archaeologists can be more than scientists – holistic approach

• Igniting educational interest

• Recognize curiosity and channel correctly and with respect

• Make the “work” relevant and meaningful

• Integration of community served in the work

• Communication: honesty, openness, directness, diversity, humbleness, being vulnerable, listening, hearing, connecting, language suitable to recipient, understandable dissemination of information.

• Preserve and save for Native culture and all cultures

• Make archaeology accessible to more people

• Sharing the decision-making process and results

• Tolerance of learning process, two ways

Opportunities/Issues:

• Issue: Politics

• Issue: Interpretation/definition – laws, roles

• Issue: Some agencies stifling communication between archaeologists and Native community

• Issue: Development pressures

• Issue: Communication between stakeholders

• Issue: Process – who to talk to and when

• Issue: too great a focus on obstacles versus opportunities

• Issue: baggage – old history

• Issue: difference of opinions

• Issue: stewards of resources first versus letter of the law

• Issue: Failure to know, enforce and implement the laws i.e. statewide shoreline rules

• This workshop

• Fieldwork – on the job training for archaeologists and Native Americans

• Engage/seek out dialogue in Native American community

• Include Native American community in reporting process – be part of end analysis/info report

• Recognize and invite input from professionals, non-professionals, Native Americans, etc.

• Broaden base of providers and who does the work

Future:

• Open dialogue between all stakeholders

• Open, meaningful reports/results

• More native voices at the table

• Vastly larger % heritage resources receiving stewardship

• The law reflects ethical values

• More education about what to expect in the field – i.e. ethics

• Before college more exposure to the field of archaeology

• Ongoing cooperative stewardship initiatives

• Comprehensive ongoing consultation and cooperation between stakeholders

• More Native Americans in leadership roles in cultural resources

• Barriers to communication are eliminated

• More clarity regarding protocol

• More than sufficient money for projects and stewardship

• More cost-effective and creative ways to achieve goals

• More culturally sensitive in our work, incorporating cultural traditions

• More educated legislator to increase knowledge and gain support

• Enforce laws relating to developers – results = $

GROUP SIX

Values:

• Heritage resources

• Risk losing ability to interpret the past

• They are non-renewable resources – when they are gone, they’re gone

• They are valuable to understanding the past

• They help illuminate life-ways that are disappearing – tangible link

• They are our past and our culture

• If we lose these resources and the link we lose our future

• We value doing right by these resources

• General education value – gateway to understanding scientific method

Opportunities/Issues:

• Barrier – bureaucrats that direct outcome/procedure do not always mesh with other expectations – this impacts information sharing

• Barrier – site location/information sharing may expose resources to damage

• Barrier – balance protection with open sharing

• Barrier – who is the steward of the resources?

• Opp/challenge – communities want to learn more about what the past says.  Where do you draw this line?  How much and what kind of information is enough?

• Opp – currently, tribes are interested in working together.

• Issue – agencies and organizations that claim ownership of the resource – no consensus between them and communities regarding ownership

• Issue – perceived ownership over the resource

• Challenge – archaeologists want change, regulators stand in the way for the change.  These regulators lack accountability  - specifically SHPO and the State Archaeologist

• Hard for folks to work out of the box – even for right.  SHPO and State Archaeologist not willing to do this

• We need long-term commitment from institutions and individuals to keep moving toward cooperative stewardship

• SHPO and State Archaeologist are entrenched in their positions.  Should there be term limits?

• Some projects are done for people who don’t necessarily care about the resource.

• Opportunity exists to educate private developer as well as public developers.  However, regulators don’t always take advantage of these opportunities.

• Barrier – City and private EAW reviews are not happening

• Barrier – change of leadership thwarted an effort in the Department of Administration to add this type of review

• Barrier - change of leadership in the tribes makes collaboration hard for Archaeologists

• Barrier – A department may impact cultural resources, but do not see it as part of their mission – “I just build roads”

• Currently, some agencies in the National Forest are taking an approach that sees their role in resource protection

• Opportunity – with more communication CRM folks could work with developers to find positive solutions.  CRM firms need to be forthright with develops about the importance of understanding the resource

• Currently, Bands can take credit for successes that have occurred

• Barrier – none of the cultural resource protection departments/programs are adequately funded.  This means that outreach, better communication with tribes, interpretation of findings gets displaced by getting approval for development

• Barrier – regulations don’t prioritize the interpretive role of Arch – no one funds it and the law doesn’t recognize it

Future:

• Archaeologists would be trained (or untrained) to make their findings accessible and relevant

• Accountability to profession and to the communities that these resources belong to – Indian and non-Indian communities

• Changes in legislation to provide accountability with follow up.

• Include cultural resources classes in college for engineers and other training to work in development

• Outreach to local government regarding CRM and the law

• SHPO would have awareness of and make use of local ordinances that protect resources, i.e. shoreline ordinance

• Laws or requirement to getting money would be enforced – Duluth example of CLG $

• Annual events like this conference

GROUP SEVEN

Values:

·         People

·         Environment

·         Home

·         Family

·         Traditions

·         Fundamental respect for the past

·         Ability to pursue curiosity

·         Stories of others

·         Humility – a way of knowing

·         Bring past stories back to life

·         Respect of other cultures, religions, beliefs

·         Traditional resources (sweet grass, etc)

·         Beliefs (ideals)

·         Collaboration

·         Common ground – same path

·         Teaching/learning

·         Personal respect for preserving landscape

·         Cultural perspective of others

·         Seeing how everything is related – traditions, stories, being receptive

·         Relationships

·         Cross-boundary communication (age, gender, time, etc)

·         Balance between today, tomorrow and yesterday

·         Past is key to present

Opportunities/issues:

• Barriers: clash of culture, knowledge and experiences

• Communication needed – what’s important to one group may not be to the other

• Blend story and science

• Maybe information is useful

• Issue – “That’s the way it’s always been done”

• Need people and money to deal with issues

• Bringing stories, past knowledge, traditions, etc into schools 

• Confidentiality/competition between companies – not sharing information i.e. stories etc – intangible

• Pseudo-listening

• Information not communicated well, quality control and enforcement

• Laws that get in the way of what you need to do (concrete bound criteria – technicalities)

• Prejudices – cultural, spiritual, intellectual

• Lack of willingness to confront fear, ignorance of stories, etc.

• Need to be open to what you don’t know.

• Dealing with ego and pride

• Ignorance of stories, what others are doing, what to do with it versus how to be with it

• Ties in with sovereignty issues (who’s in charge)

• Information and misinformation – info not shared, stuff that stirs the pot

• Preaching to the choir (conference attendees) some in Minnesota archaeological not wanting to do collaboration, communication, etc.

Future:

(Note: It was unclear whether the items listed here were the summary prepared for the facilitator’s feedback to the large group, or if they were restated items meant to describe the desired future. They are included here because they do seem to describe a positive future view.)

·         Worldview that sees world as connected.

·         Traditions [respected?] – language, sweet grass, stories, family, cultural landscape

·         Beliefs respected, knowledge [that] we’re all connected

·         Collaboration – common ground, teaching/learning/ relationships

·         Science is bound to material world; Tribal perspective may disagree Truth/truth.  Respect for the differences

NOTES BY GROUP

AFTERNOON

GROUP ONE

Reflection:

• Need more communication between Archaeologist – tribal communities and state agencies

• Tribal representatives for cultural resources need to be on-site to give input and full/true participation.  Educating role

• Importance of true partnership from the very beginning and throughout the process, active true participation

• Imbalance between professional and native “consultant” – need equality on all aspects

• Need to always value indigenous knowledge as on par with any degree or license consultation

• Need to understand appropriate and inappropriate questions.  Are you a spiritual leader?  Can I use your knowledge for my personal gain?

• Less skeptical about the possibility of true partnership

• It is wrong to use knowledge for personal gain

• It is wrong to not acknowledge the spiritual leaders who have given that knowledge, or other individuals acknowledged by their communities for their knowledge

Implications:

• Change is needed

• Co-authorship of reports would demonstrate change and a move from a focus on the “I” to a focus on “we”.  This values the knowledge and expertise of indigenous people

• The use of non-Indian “experts” to inform Indian issues diminishes respect for Indigenous peoples knowledge, work, contribution

• The exploitation of indigenous peoples’ knowledge is a human rights issue that denies people access to their history, culture, heritage

• Academic books are filled with inaccuracies that “become” truth over time.  We need more publications to educate people with updated, informed knowledge from and by tribal people

• We need to reclaim advances that were lost in partnerships.

• We need the roles of the State Archaeologist and SHPO to be equal to THPOs/tribal-cultural authority

• We need to change the statute (307) that states that only the State Archaeologist can determine cultural affiliation

• We need to change statute 138 to give tribes the right to review projects and licenses.  This would work toward true and full consultation.  The State Archaeologist should not have unilateral authority to authenticate or determine proposed project impact

• Do not authenticate a cemetery with a backhoe – it is unethical practice.

• We should work toward authentication with out intrusion.  Technology may make this possible

• Critical to identify in statute the specific positions that make decisions. 

• It is also to have a minimum standard in selecting the State Archaeologist.  The tribes must have a part of that process

• The tribes must have oversight of projects and licenses

• The word consulted should be removed because responsibility can be met with a single letter or call – whether it is answered or not. This is not partnership, it is ancillary

GROUP TWO

Reflection:

• Communication

• Respect

• Anxiety

• Expression of belief

• Less ignorance, more dialog, more education, more workshops to increase understanding

• Importance of integrating the community and the youth into research being done

• Respect (we all have one ancestor)

• Looking for common ground, collaboration among tribes, and between tribes and archaeologists

• Emphasis on great deal of reciprocity is required

• Telling the story is important and sharing the stories with a broad audience

• Heard great discussion (technical) that’s not part of my world or I am not part of that world

• There’s interest in changing how archaeology works

• People are expecting others to make the initiative (Archaeologists are interested but want Native community to act first)

• We need to find common ground, goals and vision

• We have more in common than differences

• Need to collaborate, communicate, educate about each other

• Heard about current problems (laws, communications, politics) and solutions

• Tribal input should be considered to its fullest

• More sincere acceptance of traditional beliefs and tribal recommendations whether academic or not

Implications:

• Need for understandable communications

• Shared willingness to listen/learn

• Conflicts between our traditions/culture and archaeology to find out

• Everyone’s history is destroyed/at risk

• Acknowledge different positions among native people (struggles vary)

• Idea of “reciprocity” is problematic (some knowledge will not/cannot be shared)

• Archaeologists need to “move” more than native people/traditions won’t change

• Some beginnings…some archaeologists consult now….more than in past

• Continue on course (talking/listening/learning)

• Stamp out ignorance

• Including elders by tribal support, creating conversations in ways that depend on the elders

• Identify ways of consulting/gathering resources to deal with differences in interpretation

GROUP THREE

Reflection/implications  (Note: flip chart pages for this group were not clearly marked.  All items are listed together: some were reflections on the morning’s conversation and some pointed specifically to what needs to be done in the future.)

• More conversations with developers – they do seem more aware

• More conversations with tribal government and officials

• How? No clear protocol for communication, even at the tribal level.  Changing tribal councils

• Workshops with examples of sticky situations and how they were solved

• Tribal officials are overextended – too busy

• More direct conversations with other state departments and individuals that deal with archaeology (EQB, Department of Administration) so they understand that they have obligations

• More conversations with Legislators – to change laws, codes, etc.

• More conversations with Sierra club

• More conversations with educators

• Start talking to those who can make a difference!

• Groups that aren’t here – DNR, SHPO, and State Archaeologist – don’t want to be told how to do their jobs.  More concerned with saving their jobs than doing their jobs.  Need to be more consistent, aren’t real clear.  They need to have their jobs threatened, or learn limits on regulatory jobs. How to go about doing this? (1) Make State Archaeologist a political appointee; (2) a board to oversee and recommend State Archaeologist; (3) licensing issue should be clarified.  Hard to overstate this issue

• Support those who take an initiative to do something

• Offer practical things to educate – there’s a lack of available materials.  Incorporate Indian materials and SAA too

• Conversations with professional organization (CMA, Archaeology fair); Tourism people (Spring Lake Park Reserve in Hastings); Municipal organization at the local level; Media (Strib report, public TV)

• Paraprofessional certification (Iowa, Canada). Greater inclusiveness.

• Complexity of the situation can be overwhelming

• Need to solve it piecemeal

• Either depressing or exhilarating

• Sense of urgency – losing sites, etc.

• Actual communication and/or collaboration can be uncomfortable

• Some who claim to be interested in stewardship have a different perspective

• What are the benefits of collaboration?

• MN Archaeologist Journal – solicit articles from non-archaeologists

• More meetings – continue this process

• The elephant in the room: DOT, SHPO, State Archaeologist

GROUP FOUR

Reflection:

·         Importance of communication

·         Clarify “sacred places”

·         Different kinds of knowledge (spiritual, traditional, scientific, legal)

Importance of respect and trust

·         Barriers to solutions: ignorance, fear, prejudice, legal, different world views, confusion over protocols

·         Ongoing cooperative stewardship “events”

·         What are specific Native American hot buttons?

·         Archaeologists will deal with and know to respect

·         When parties don’t understand, use it as a teaching opportunity to change perspective versus being impatient

·         Genuine interest and commitment to working together

·         Still ignorant – after effort

·         Concern regarding EAW guidelines – concern also by tribes.  Need to educate local government

·         Can’t do it today – must be an ongoing process

·         A way needs to be found to engage those key people necessary to the process – even if in opposition to “shake things up”

·         Inclusion of DNR, federal agencies, tribal government, national parks

·         Individual referrals

·         Invite financial/administrative decision makers within state, federal agencies

·         Onsite early collaboration between archaeologists and Native Americans in the field and throughout the project

·         Walk the talk

·         This meeting will facilitate solutions

·         Must facilitate change, set goals

·         By showing up, we are each responsible and making a commitment

·         There are good collaborations going on

·         Where problems, let’s work to solve

·         Learn from what’s right/wrong through case studies

Implications:

• Have meetings – yes – but move on to action

• Bulletin board to offer different perspectives on problem solving, etc.

• Review of Office of State Archaeologist

• What exactly are the areas hoping to be impacted/changed

• Change priorities: personal relationships; guidelines/laws/regulations – a mess; enforcement; communications – share regarding process, what can we learn about the past, informing and educating communities; structural change to SAO and SHPO

• Set goals, measurable

• Set standards

• Establish process and timeline to accomplish

• Early contact with and involvement of related tribes including spiritual elders of the tribe (determined by the tribal leaders – who, how much, etc)

• Central clearinghouse to get beyond talk and planning

• Personal connections to get done.  Problem is, that’s blocked or discouraged. 

• Some programs to support young archaeologists in the field – who do you call?

• Education: student involvement, paid internships

• State preservation plan – revised in ’05 – input and dialogue for goals

• Shift in groups

• Naming is easier, shared agreement; solving is slow, disheartening.

• A goal; article written for MN History Interpreter on outcome of this workshop – trickle down to other newspapers.  Press release

• Money/funding

• Change in OSA

• Clear regulations

• Student assistance

• Clarification and contacts

• Broader list of partners

• Less scattering – associations, relations, etc.

• Increased responsibility

• Regular updates to National Archaeology database

• Create/record personal stories to go with artifacts

• Why site forms

• Simpler licensing

GROUP FIVE

Reflection:

• Communication

• Needs a commitment to actually work on it

• Incorporation o sacred sites/concept that some sites should never be researched

• Need funding

• Impediments to communication

• There are more and more success stories – making progress

• The need/desire for archaeologists to work ethically – within the context of low bid contractors/schedules

• What actually constitutes protection for sites?

• What is respect – different contexts

• Lack of collegiality among MN archaeologists

• How do you find the vehicle to shift the paradigm?  Insight – archaeologists as storytellers

• Conflicts within the archaeological community – how to communicate?

• Physical anthropology – would like more communication with Native groups, archaeologists

• Focus on the material can be in opposition to the narrative

• What would it mean for archaeologists to call themselves storytellers?

• Ask archaeologists – why do you do what you do?

• Midwest last bastion of scientific approach

• Does storytelling have legitimacy?  What does that mean?

• Paraprofessionals – trained in certain areas – what’s qualified?

• Good reason for archaeology to work with historians

• What are all the aspects of being archaeologists?

• Back to “why do we do what we do” – how do the multidisciplinary approaches support our goals?

• If this is a profession, done on behalf of others – necessarily involves them – issues like community, fidelity

Implications:

• Look at the process.  Make it clear to all.  Understand it and change if needed.

• Encourage creativity; doing more than the law requires, not just exactly (limited) amount

• Improve state law – process, roles

• Empowerment – how to get people engaged in the process, public interest

• Transmit to different populations – media, level of information

• Education – early (K – elementary)

• Make persuasive approaches regarding cultural resources at local communities

• Laws that direct to consult, protect – use actively

• Need a plan to bring the “non-choir” members here

• Come to an agreement that more than human remains are sacred

• Many open to trans-disciplinary groups

• There can be individual acts that are part of cultural transformation

• Get archaeologists (not in this room) to agree that others should be involved (historians, Native communities, others)

• Demonstrate success to the non-choir members

• Clearing house newsletter of success stories – create collective memory

• Raise visibility of conversations

• We’re on the front lines – collectively the small things we do will move us forward

• Widen the conversation beyond Native American and archaeologists, to include historians, preservation groups.  “If you build it, they will come.”

• Use Jeffers as a success story – case study for another conference.  Would someone spend money to tell the story?

• The story is what’s sexy – science and interpretation

• Bring archaeology perspective to others – ex; community meetings

• Multidirectional communications

GROUP SIX

Reflection:

• How do we bring folks in and operationalize, concretize?

• “To whom do I speak to?”

• Covering backside (letters) versus engaging (visiting)

• Protocol/process for who, when to consult

• Letter of law versus spirit of law

• Language of law vague – to be inclusive but lack of guidance

• How to develop trust?  Education on the goals of archaeology. 

• Talk to tribal folks when we (archaeologists) want nothing.

• [We] segmentize cultures and compartmentalize land

• Because permits are not always required – good faith effort consultation should be done in lieu 

• Always consult – reciprocal

Implications:

• Present this question (what should we do) to the tribes.

• What is ethical behavior? 

• Fertile ground for improvement

• New blood – indigenous archaeologists

• Change mind-set and educate next generation

• Good faith effort to bridge between science/fact and oral tradition/meaning

• What if science doesn’t match?

• Don’t have to believe oral tradition, but better know it

• Sometimes we won’t agree

• [Need to} reach out when we don’t need anything

GROUP SEVEN

Reflection:

• Turnout!

• Change is happening

• How to manage change

• Greater involvement of Native Americans with archaeologists

Implications:

Roles that need to be rethought

·         Who authenticates?

·         Statutes

·         Conflicting direction/methods from state agencies

·         “Avocational” archaeologists and Native Americans

Training and Education that should occur

·         Native American advice to cultural resource community on etiquette, protocol, what is formal

·         Ways to achieve effective and meaningful consultation

·         Expanded education/information sharing within and between organizations beyond “token”

·         Public

Groups that need to meet:

• American Cultural Resources Association (Minnesota section – create)

• Natural resource land managers

• Multi-disciplinary groups – historic, pre-historic, soils, etc

• County and local zoning personnel

• Developers

• Consulting engineers council

• Archaeologists – Native Americans