In the Public Interest... Creative Approaches to Section 106 Compliance... Volume 22, No. 3... United States Department of the Interior... 1999

34 Pages·1999·9 MB·English

by  Department of the Interior

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
T 2% /QA222/ 3
nterest
Ose 0)V enda RO) ma slam iva acilele
I Poh akelarelm cael a Greiclaviler
( wihael } Ry Ince
\
Contents VOLUME 22 8NO.3 1999
In the Public Interest
Working Together for Better Solutions ..........scsseeeeeeeeeeeeeeveseeeees 3
Jane Crisler, Kris Mitchell, and Carol Gleichman
The Bighorn Medicine Wheel 1988-1999 ........cccceceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 5
Fred Chapman |
The Shoshone Irrigation Project
Educational Exhibits as Mitigation ............ poo conenesauesosesevens 10
Mike Andrews
Government to Government
King County’s Program for Tribal Involvement in Water Quality Decisions ... .13
Karen E. Watkins
Buying the FARM
A Forest Service Model for Legal Compliance .............0ceeeeeeesuees 16
Denise McLemore and Robert J. Jackson
Discover Cathlapotle
Partnerships for the Past and Present
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ........ 0c cccceeceee eece eeeeeeaeee es 21
Virginia Parks
Staying Upright
Reflections on the Section 106 Process and
the Glen Canyon Dam Cultural Program ............0sceceeeeeeeeeeees 23
Janet R. Balsom
A Framework for Creative Mitigation .............csceeeeeeeeeeeseeeuenees 27
Brenda Barrett
Comments on Compliance and Management ..............0seeeeeeeeeeuees 30
Tom McCulloch and Alan Stanfill
Cover: Bighorn Medicine Wheel. Photo by Richard Collier, courtesy Wyoming Division of Cultural
Resources. Inset: Photo courtesy Larson Anthropological Archaeological Services Limited.
Statements of fact and views are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect an opinion or endorsement on the part of the editors, the CRM
advisors and consultants, or the National Park Service. Send articles and correspondence to the Editor, CRM, U.S. Department of the interior, National Park
Service, Cultural Resources, 18C4 St9ree t, NW, Suite 350NC, Washington, DC 20240; 202-343-8164, fax [phone]; email: <[email protected]>.
2 CRM No 3—1999
Jane Crisler, Kris Mitchell, and Carol Gleichman
Working Together
for Better Solutions
n the years since Congress passed the The articles in this issue of CRM illustrate
National Historic Preservation Act the value of informed decisionmaking, collabora-
(NHPA) in 1966, federal agencies have tion, and effective use of the Section 106 process
become increasingly adept at meeting in making management decisions affecting historic
the requireme *ts of Section 106 of the NHPA. properties. The authors were asked to contribute
Section 106 calls for federal agencies to consider because all were key participants in projects or
the affects of their actions on historic properties programs that stand out as unusual and creative
and to seek the comments of the Advisory Council approaches to managing historic properties or
on Historic Preservation (Council). Agencies meet complying with Section 106. Each author faced
these requirements by following the Council's the difficult challenge of balancing the desire to
implementi tions, “Protection of Historic protect historic properties and the interests of the
Properties” (36 CFR Part 800). The Council's reg- public and/or Indian tribes with agency missions
ulations define a broad approach for how an and other public needs.
agency should consider the effects of its actions on The articles contained in this issue were ini-
historic properties in the public interest. Today, tially presented in sessions that we organized for
however, the consideration and treatment of his- two professional meetings: the first, a symposium
toric buildings, structures, objects, and archeologi- at the Society for American Archaeology (SAA)
cal sites by the federal government are often rou- Annual Meeting in Seattle, Washington, March
tine. Standardized approaches often help appli- 17, 1998; and the second, a workshop at the
cants and licensees get through the process and annual meeting of the National Council on Public
minimize the chance of disagreements with the History (NCPH) in Austin, Texas, April 16, 1998.
State Historic Preservation Officer or the Council. The idea for both sessions arose quite indepen-
With the increasing use of programmatic agree- dently, and from slightly different perspectives,
ments, in which agencies may develop alternative but with similar goals in mind: to highlight a sam-
procedures for compliance with Section 106, ple of the successes in federal historic preservation
many federal agencies are afforded increased and planning and to stimulate creativity in the
opportunities to streamline review and consulta- treatment of threatened historic properties.
tion. Although such streamlining is a worthy goal, During the development of these sessions, it was
it must not overshadow the premise of Section discovered that many in the historic preservation
106 consultation, which is thoughtful decision- field have been contemplating these issues for
making in the public interest. years, and wondered why there was not more pro-
CRNo M3—19 99
fessional dialogue about creative approaches to another area. If such avoidance is not possible,
preservation treatment. sites are excavated to recover the information they
It is easy for those of us working daily with contain. The decision usually boils down to which
Section 106 to get tangled in the mechanics of alternative is least costly to the federal government
compliance while losing sight of its purpose. The or the project proponent. When data recovery is
mandate of Section 106, to take into account the the choice, too often Indian tribes with historic
effect of federal undertakings on properties listed ties to the area, or to specific sites being investi-
in or eligible for listing in the National Register of gated, are not provided a meaningful role in deci-
Historic Places, requires all federal agencies to sionmaking, and the resulting reports are never
weigh and balance historic properties protection published or summarized for distribution to inter-
against other public interests. For federal land- ested tribes or the public.
managing agencies, the public, in effect, owns the Those professionals who implement and reg-
cultural resources. These agencies and others also ulate the NHPA compliance process are integral
may provide federal assistance for projects that players in the Section 106 process; but not the pri-
impact historic resources. The end result of the mary constituent. In order to improve public
Section 106 process should therefore benefit those involvement, professionals must engage interested
who foot the bill: the general public. persons in a meaningful dialogue, and in order to
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. This is be effective, public input must occur before treat-
not to say that today’s staidard forms of mitiga- ment decisions are made. Of course, the level of
tion, such as architectural documentation and public input sought by a federal agency should be
archeological data recovery, are inappropriate or commensurate with the scope of the project and
ineffectual. Professionals do, however, need to the significance of the affected resources. In many
consider whether the most common and accepted cases, the public can be represented effectively by
forms of mitigation and management truly benefit local archeological and historic societies or muse-
the public and whether there is a reasonable rela- ums. It is important to note that it is communi-
tionship between the damage or loss of the historic ties, license applicants, Indian tribes, and others
property and the proposed treatment measures. that ultimately must live with the results of con-
Will the results of consultation effectively preserve sultation.
that which is historically important, or adequately Many of the complicated Section 106
compensate the public for the loss of its cultural cases reviewed by the Advisory Council involve
heritage? disputes between the federal agency and con-
If a building listed in the National Register cerned Indian tribes or Native Hawaiian organi-
of Historic Places based on Criterion A for its zations. These groups do not wish to see places
association with an important event in local his- of traditional cultural importance or sacred sites
cory is threatened by a federal undertaking, the destroyed by development projects primarily
responsible agency often may prepare architectural intended to benefit non-Indian communities.
drawings and photographs to mitigate the loss of With the publication of National Register
this historic property. It is, however, not the archi- Bulletin 38: Guidelines for Evaluating and
tecture of the building that makes it significant. A Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties,
more effective form of documentation might federal agencies and their consultants have
entail performing contextual research regarding access to useful guidance on how to apply the
the role of the building in the events for which it National Register criteria to traditional cultural
is significant, conducting oral history interviews, properties. Many agencies, however, remain
or preparing informational exhibits for display in fearful of the implications of finding a National
the community. Too often these less conventional Register-eligible traditional cultural property in
options are overlooked in favor of traditional doc- a project area. The case studies in this volume
umentation approaches. illustrate that no standard, streamlined
When c xcumentation is prepared or archeo- approach to addressing Native American con-
logical data recovery carried out, the benefits to cerns exists in the Section 106 process. Rather,
the general public may be indirect and minimal, opening the door to problem-solving and work-
particularly if the materials are not translated and ing together with tribes and other interested
distributed to the public. With archeological prop- parties for mutually acceptable solutions is the
erties in particular, there is a tendency to limit key to successful resolution.
mitigation options to two choices. Federal agen- These articles represent the views of the indi-
cies may first attempt to avoid archeological sites vidual authors regarding compliance and manage-
by relocating ground disturbing activities to ment, and are not necessarily those of the Council.
4 CRM No 3—1999
To provide a Council perspective, Tom McCulloch
and Alan Stanfill, who represented the Council as Carol Gleichman and Jane Crisler are historic preservation
specialists with the Advisory Council on Historic
the discussants at the workshop in Austin and the
Preservation, Office ofP lanning and Review, Lakewood, -
symposium in Seattle, offer a discussion of the
Colorado. They were the guest editors for this issue ofC RM.
case studies at the end of this volume. The projects
Kris Mitchell is a historian with Mason Hanger Corporation,
and programs included in this issue are excellent
Amarillo, Texas.
examples of how federal agencies, State Historic
Preservation Officers, Indian tribes, historians,
and archeologists can work together with other
interested persons to achieve effective historic
preservation outcomes. Other good examples
exist, but we hope those presented here will inspire
readers to think creatively when faced with similar may
challenges to the preservation and long-term man- United States. Visit the web site
<http://www.achp.gov>.
agement of archeological and historic resources.
Fred Chapman
The Bighorn Medicine Wheel 1988-1999
n the fall of 1988, the Bighorn National of the Bighorn Mountains of north central
Forest introduced plans for access road Wyoming. It occupies a high, alpine plateau about
and facility improvements at the 30 miles east of Lovell, Wyoming. The Bighorn
Medicine Wheel National Historic Medicine Wheel is the type site for medicine
Landmark (NHL) in order to accommodate wheels in North America. Between 70 and 150
increasing tourism. During a field consultation medicine wheels have been identified in South
with Forest Service personnel, Northern Arapaho Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Alberta, and
traditional elders expressed concerns that the pro- Saskatchewan. Most are found in southern Alberta
posed construction would disturb or possibly and Saskatchewan. The oldest medicine wheel is
destroy the spiritual life that surrounds the the 5,500-year-old Majorville Cairn in southern
Medicine Wheel. The elders later recounted how a Alberta.
federal official advised them that the Forest Service The most conspicuous feature of the
could “bulldoze the Medicine Wheel” as long as Landmark is a circular alignment of limestone
the agency followed certain undisclosed regulatory boulders that measures about 80 feet in diameter
procedures.! This notorious incident marked the and contains 28 rock “spokes” that radiate from a
beginning of years of intricate negotiations and prominent central cairn. Five smaller stone enclo-
chronic acrimony between federal, state, and local sures are connected to the outer circumference of
government agencies, the general public, and the Wheel. A sixth and westernmost enclosure is
Native American traditional elders representing 16 located exterior to the Medicine Wheel but is
Indian tribes. What began as a straightforward clearly linked to the central cairn by one of the
federal undertaking turned into Wyoming's most “spokes.” The enclosures are round, oval, or horse-
complex and protracted Section 106 case. Viewed shoe-shaped and closely resemble Northern and
retrospectively, the Medicine Wheel was a water- Northwestern Plains vision quest structures
shed historic preservation event in the described by several researchers over the past 30
Northwestern Plains that decisively changed the years. The surrounding 23,000-acre study area
practice of public archeology in Wyoming by contains approximately 44 historic and prehistoric
demonstrating the bericfits and necessity of Native sites that include tipi rings, lithic scatters, buried
American consultation. archeological sites, and a system of relict prehis-
Prehistoric and Ethnohistoric Context toric Indian trails all superimposed by a century of
The Bighorn Medicine Wheel NHL is non-native use by loggers, ranchers, miners, and
located at an elevation of 9,642 feet near the crest recreationalists.
CRM No 3—1999
The study area also contains 14 contempo- 4,400-year-old projectile point that was reportedly
rary Native American traditional use areas and fea- encountered beneath the central cairn structure.°
tures. These include ceremonial staging areas, med- Four hearth charcoal samples recovered from
icinal and ceremonial plant gathering areas, sweat within 400 yards of the Medicine Wheel have pro-
lodge sites, alters, offering locales and vision quest duced dates ranging from the modern era (post
enclosures. Many of these traditional use areas 1950) to 6650 B.P. At a multi-component site
coincide with prehistoric sites containing problem- located in the upper Crystal Creek drainage basin
atic rock alignments that probably relate to early approximately three miles southeast of the
ceremonial or spiritual use. An accumulating body Medicine Wheel, charcoal and wood samples
of ethnographic evidence collected over the past yielded dates ranging from 1450 B.P. to about 980
five years demonstrates that the Medicine Wheel B.P. This limited radiometric data suggests that
and the surrounding landscape is and has been a prehistoric occupation and use of the general study
major ceremonial and traditional use area for many area occurred mainly during the first half of the
regional Indian tribes. Contemporary traditional Late Prehistoric Period. However, most datable
Arapaho, Bannock, Blackfeet, Cheyenne, Crow, archeological materials found in close proximity to
Kootenai-Salish, Plains Cree, Shoshone, and Sioux, the Medicine Wheel itself date to the latter half of
generally venerate the Medicine Wheel because it the Late Prehistoric Period. Although these diag-
embodies uniquely important and powerful spiri- nostic artifacts and radiocarbon dates fail to deci-
tual principles that figure prominently in tribal, sively explain the construction and use of the
family, and band-specific oral and ceremonial tra- Medicine Wheel, the evidence clearly indicates that
ditions. To many Native Americans, the rock align- the study area was used by prehistoric Native
ments and cairns that make up the Medicine Americans for nearly 7,000 years. Whether or not
Wheel represent religious architecture rather than this prehistoric occupation and use were predomi-
archeological data. It is probably fair to say that nantly oriented toward ceremonial or spiritual
most knowledgeable Indian religious practitioners use—with the Medicine Wheel as the central
regard the Medicine Wheel as an essential but sec- focus—is a speculative issue that archeological data
ondary component of a much larger spiritual land- probably wont be able to resolve. In this regard,
One of the earii-
est photos of the
Medicine Wheel,
taken in 1916 by
H. H. Thompson,
shows a Crow
Indian named
Cut Ear praying
at the eastern
end of the
Wheel. Photo
courtesy
Wyoming
Division of
Cultural
Resources. scape composed of the surrounding alpine forests Michael Wilson’s comments are especially perti-
and mountain peaks. nent. He notes the tendency of researchers to
Professional researchers generally believe that “,..€levate the Medicine Wheel to the position of
the Medicine Wheel is a Late Prehistoric composite shrine...”© by overlooking the numerous sites that
feature that was constructed over a period of several express the more mundane activities of hunting
hundred years. Twelve ceramic sherds were recov- and camping. He also suggests that to fully com-
ered from the eastern half of the Medicine Wheel prehend a site like the Medicine Wheel “...proba-
during fieldwork conducted by the Sheridan bly requires a world view in which the secular/reli-
Chapter of the Wyoming Archaeological Society in gious dichotomy simply does not exist.””
1958.2 Originally identified as Shoshone pottery, Assigning tribal affiliation to the Medicine
two of the sherds were subsequently identified as Wheel by archeological means is a matter of infer-
Crow. The 1958 fieldwork project also produced ence rather than fact. As mentioned previously,
nine early-19th-century glass beads found near the ceramics recovered from the interior of the
central cairn,4 a wood sample from one of the Medicine Wheel have been identified as Crow and
cairns that was tentatively dated to 1760 A.D. by Shoshone in orig'n. Frison and Wilson comment
means of dendrochronological techniques, and a that there is a great deal of archeological evidence
6 CRM No 3—1999
supporting an extensive Crow presence on the Native American involvement and motives. An
western slopes of the Big Horn Mountains begin- influential former state senator from Big Horn
ning in the latter part of the 16th century or possi- County stated publicly that “...the ceremonies con-
bly earlier. During this Late Prehistoric Period, evi- ducted by Indians might be an attraction for
dence for a substantial Shoshone occupation can be tourists.” A growing assembly of cultural resource
seen in the western Big Horn Basin rather than in advisory agencies and natural resource advocacy
the Bighorn Mountains. Finally, it is important to organizations uniformly opposed the planned con-
note that horseshoe-shaped enclosures like those struction activity on the grounds that it would seri-
found in direct association with the Medicine ously impact the values that contributed to thes ig-
Wheel have been associated with the Crow Indian tem of the cultural landscape that included ©
fasting (vision quest) ritualism. the Landmark. The Forest Service was dismissive
Administrative History and responded by insisting the preferred alternative
Efforts to memorialize the Medicine Wheel would not significantly affect the ical val-
began in 1915, when the National Park Service rec- ues on which the 1970 NHL designation was
ommended to the Secretary of Agriculture that the based. In a public comment analysis published by
site should be designated a national monument. In the Forest Service in 1989, the 659 Indian peti-
1956, in response to a rumor that the federal gov- tions (which represented 85% of all public com-
ernment intended to relocate the Medicine Wheel ment) were counted as a single response. The battle
to a more accessible elevation, Wyoming governor lines were now clearly drawn.
Milward L. Simpson requested assurances from the By 1990, it had become apparent to most
National Park Service and the U. S. Forest Service interested parties that the Forest Service's inability
that the “Indian Medicine Wheel” would not be to reach a public consensus concerning the man-
moved. Federal authorities responded in June of agement of the Medicine Wheel was profoundly
1957, when the Forest Service formaily withdrew influenced by the fact that the and
the Medicine Wheel and the surrounding 120 acres ethnohistoric parameters of the Medicine Wheel
*..-from all forms of appropriation under the pub- were not well known. Although the Medicine
lic land laws, including the mining and the min- Wheel had been studied by numerous professional
eral-leasing laws....” Due to the influence of several researchers beginning in 1903 with S. C. Simms of
locally prominent officials, efforts to formally com- the Chicago Field Museum, no comprehensive
memorate the Medicine Wheel were renewed in effort had ever been made to synthesize the existing
the 1950s and the required supporting documenta- data. Further, ethnohistoric and ethnographic
tion was compiled in the 1960s. In recognition information concerning the use of the Wheel by
that the Medicine Wheel was “...the largest and Native Americans had never been compiled. Based
most elaborate Indian structure of its type,” the site on fieldwork conducted by Wilson, Reher and
was designated a National Historic Landmark in Wedel, Laurent, and Reeves, it was clear that the
September 1970 by Walter J. Hickel, the Secretary Medicine Wheel was merely part of a much larger
of the Interior at that time. cultural landscape containing numerous archeolog-
As mentioned previously, in 1988 the Forest ical and ethnographic localities. Although initially
Service proposed changes designed to accommo- opposed by the Forest Service, the involved govern-
date and encourage tourism at the Landmark. The ment agencies eventually agreed to cooperatively
preferred development alternative included the sponsor and produce a NHL boundary revision
construction of a large parking lot, a viewing/pho- study designed to establish boundaries encompass-
tography tower, and a modest visitor center all ing all historic, ethnographic, and archeological
within about 100 meters of the Medicine Wheel. sites associated with the cultural that
Public response was revealing. The Native included the Medicine Wheel. In 1991, the
American community circulated a petition that Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office
asked the Forest Service to recognize the Bighorn (WYSHPO) awarded a $15,000 matching grant to
Medicine Wheel as an important Native American the Medicine Wheel Coalition, a prominent Native
religious site, allow Indian people 12 days a year to American advocacy organization, to begin the col-
conduct ceremonies at the Wheel, and prohibit lection of pertinent ethnographic information
new construction within one-half mile of the regarding tribal use of the Medicine Wheel and
Landmark. Eventually, 659 signed petitions were surrounding landscape.
submitted to the Forest Service. Commentary from Throughout the eariy 1990s, the Forest
the local cominunity was often racist in nature. Service committed a number of miscues that
Rather than addressing the preferred construction severely undercut their credibility in the eyes of the
alternative, much of the commentary vilified Native American community. The Bighorn
CRNo M3—19 99
National Forest buckles, condoms, tampons, and other inappropri-
Supervisor, in a gen- ate items to the fence. To historic preservationists,
erous overture of sup- the physical impacts were alarming. To traditional
port for Indian reli- Native Americans, the consequences of un
gious practices, visitation at the Medicine Wheel constituted the
administratively des- worst kind of spiritual desecration.
ignated a staging area With the physical integrity of the Landmark
for Native American now undeniably and visibly at risk, the Forest
use near the Medicine Service finally acknowledged the necessity of find-
Wheel. ing viable solutions for the long-term protection of
Unfortunately, the Medicine Wheel. The bureaucratic response to
agency cultural these impawcats esnco uraging. The consulting
resource s parties, which by this time included the Bighorn
were not consulted National Forest, the Advisory Council on Historic
beforehand, and the Preservation, the Big Horn County
designated area was Commissioners, the WYSHPO, the Medicine
later found to coin- Wheel Coalition, and the Medicine Wheel
cide with a prehis- Alliance, began slowly to work together more
toric site containing cooperatively. A series of interim t docu-
numerous surface fea- ments was executed that prohibited vehicula.
tures and subsurface cultural deposits. The Forest access and also provided for Native American spiri-
Service rescinded the administrative action. tual use of the Medicine Wheel. Additional fund-
The Forest Service later scheduled a series of ing was secured to complete the ethnographic sur-
open house events intended to solicit public input vey and the Forest Service hired an archeologist to
and participation concerning various management compile and synthesize all archeological informa-
proposals for the Medicine Wheel. An open house tion relating to the study area.
was scheduled for Riverton, Wyoming, which In 1994, the consulting parties Legan work
adjoins the Wind River Indian Reservation, home on a Historic Preservation Plan for the Medicine
to the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Wheel and vicinity. This difficult work proceeded
tribes. Forest Service officials expressed disappoint- slowly due to endless revisions, bureaucratic skir-
ment that no Native Americans attended the mishes, internecine warfare between contending
Riverton open house and concluded that there was tribal factions, and a deliberate strategy of delay
little real interest in the Medicine Wheel within the later openly acknowledged by Forest Service man-
Indian community. Only later did the Forest agers. The resulting preservation plan and pro-
Service discover they had scheduled the open house grammatic agreement, executed in September of
during the Arapaho and Shoshone sundances—a 1996, were compromise documents that reflected
time when traditional Native Americans are least the diverse and contending interests of the consult-
likely to participate in any event not related to the ing parties. The document establishes a 23,000-
sundance. acre “area of consultation” that encompasses all cul-
By 1993, increasing visitation—which rose tural resources associated with the Medicine
from 2,100 visitors in 1967 to approximately Wheel. The preservation plan also facilitates tradi-
70,000 visitors in 1992—was noticeably impacting tional cultural use by Native American practition-
the Medicine Wheel. In this it is important ers by providing for scheduled ceremonial use and
to point out that the Medicine Wheel is inaccessi- allowing plant gathering in support of religious
ble to normal traffic for eight or nine months of activities. Vehicular access is generally prohibited
the year due to snow cover. Consequent!), visita- and replaced by pedestrian access, although excep-
tion is concentrated during the three summer tions can be made for disabled and elderly visitors.
months. the summer of 1992, the informal Livestock grazing and timber harvestiug is
path that surrounded the Medicine Wheel became restricted but not prohibited. The site will be care-
a 10°-12” rutted trail and the fragile alpine vegeta- fully and systematically monitored for adverse
tion that normally covers the landscape had all but effects using well defined baseline data collected in
disappeared. In an apparent effort to emulate the 1993. And finally, the historic preservation plan
Native American religious custom of leaving prayer provides for the completion of a revised NHL
flags and other religious offerings on the fence sur- nomination and stipulates that the NHL will be
rounding the Medicine Wheel, noi.-Indian visitors formally withdrawn from future mineral extraction
attached used cigarette lighters, fish hooks, belt
activities.
8 CRM No 3—1999
Epilogue conservative advocacy organizations, Wyoming's
In any battle there are casualties. The congressional delegation, and local citizens who do
Medicine Wheel is no exception. Since 1988, the not believe Native Americans have any legitimate
Bighorn National Forest has seen four Medicine cultural ties to the Medicine Wheel. What began as
Wheel District Rangers and three Forest an effort to revise the boundaries based on objec-
Supervisors. Four of these managers resigned from tive criteria has now become an issue where poli-
the Forest Service and three were reassigned. By tics, rather than facts, will likely determine the out-
any measure, this is a high rate of upper manage- come.
ment turnover. One District Ranger was asked to Despite this discouraging prognosis, the
retire due to his unwillingness to work coopera- “Battle of the Big Horn Medicine Wheel” includes
tively with Native Americans and cultural resource an outcome that may more than compensate for
advocacy organizations. The children of another the previously mentioned losses. Consultation
District Ranger were harassed by schoolmates between archeologists and Native American tradi-
because of their “Indian loving” father. He was tional leaders, subject to a set of unwritten proto-
later reassigned after receiving anonymous death cols and etiquette developed during the Medicine
threats by phone. The Medicine Wheel probably Wheel negotiations, is now a more or less perma-
played a key role in the departure of two others. nent fixture of the Section 106 landscape in
The Native American community most often Wyoming. Public archeology in the Northwestern
sent their highest ranking traditional elders and Plains will never be the same.
medicine men to negotiate with the Forest Service
concerning the Medicine Wheel. Between 1988 In 1999, Mountain Seazes
and 1996, six traditiona! elders who figured promi- Foundation filed suita gaitnhes Fotres t
nently in the Medicine Wheel saga passed away behalf Sawmills, Inc. ~ art
due to a variety of medical complications associ- Os ee eee. |
ated with old age. They include Anthony Sitting pended a timber sale to consultation
Eagle, senior traditional elder of the Northern with Tribes the ef .
Arapaho tribe; Vince Redman, principal Northern traffic on the Wheel.T he
Arapaho medicine man; Bill Tallbull, a highly that establishment oft he Medicine Wheel
respected Northern Cheyenne elder probably best Historic Preservation Plan ar: '
known to this audience as an appointed member of pry cs See het aM
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and of fedelrawas lan d
the NAGPRA Review Committee; Art Bigman, a yer terse bo aca
prominent Crow elder whose great grandfather,
Amendment.
Cut Ear, is featured in the 1916 H. H. Thompson
photo (see page 6); and the Southern Arapaho
chiefs Virgil Franklin and Alton Harrison. Notes
| A. Sitting Eagle. Personal communication with the
There was at least one other casualty. In
author, 1989.
1995, the WYSHPO Native American Affairs
2D. Grey. Summary Report oft he Medicine Wheel
Program was effectively terminated due to efforts
Investigation. Symposium on Early Cretaceous Rocks of
by state and federal managers to remove the State Wyoming and Adjacent Areas, edited by R.L. Enyert and
of Wyoming from the controversial arena of Native W.H. Curry, pp. 316-317.
American Section 106 consultation. The Association Guidebook, SeventeentAnhn ual Field
Conference 1962.
WYSHPO consequently withdrew from active par-
3 R. York. Medicine Mountain Archeological Assessment.
ticipation in the Medicine Wheel negotiations, but
USDA Forest Service, Bighorn National Forest Service,
retained observer status. To the Native American Sheridan, 1995.
traditional community the message was clear. If 4 D. Grey. Bighorn Medicine Wheel Site, 48BH302.
you were a white rancher, oil company executive, Plains Anthropologist, 8 (19):27-40.
5D. Grey. SumRemporta oft rhe Myedic ine Wheel
mine opecator, or government bureaucrat, the
Investigation.
WYSHPO would assist with historic preservation
6 M. Wilson. A Preliminary Archeological Inventory of the
compliance issues—but not if you were an Indian.
Northern Big Horn Mountains of Wyoming. University
Not all Medicine Wheel issues have been ofW yoming-USFS Bighorn National Forest Cooperative
fully resolved. The Medicine Wheel boundary revi- Study, Laramie and Sheridan, 1973.
7 M. Wilson. A Test of the Stone Circle Size-Age
sion study, which was intended to establish
pe mtg ye From Microcosm to
National Historic Landmark boundaries that
Macrocosm: Advances in Tipi Ring | and
reflect both archeological and ethnographic values, I editbeydL . B. Davis, pp.1 13-137. Plains
is currently under attack by the logging industry, Andapelagin Menai1 9, Vol.28, No.1 02, Part 2, 1981.
CRM No 3—1999 9
Laurent, R. Cultural Resource Survey of the Medicine Wheel
References National Historic Landmark Protection and Interpretatwn
, JH. Medicine Wheels ont he Northern Plains: A Project. USFS—Bi National Forest Project/Report
Summary and Ap; Surveoyf #BH-88-04, 1989.
Alberta Man No, 12. Alberta Culture and NikifA.o Sarcrued kCir,cle s. Canadian Geographic, Vol.
112, No4., p p. 50-60. Royal Canadian Geographical
Edmonton, 1988 Society, VanierO ntario.1992
Burley, D.V. Evidence for a PrehisVitsioon rQuiesct in
Saskatchewan: The Creek Overlook Site. National Registero fH istoric PlacesN omination Form.
Saskatchewan 6:33-35. Department of Anthropology, U ofW yoming—
Calder, J.M. The Majorville Cairn and Medicine Wheel NationalP rkSe rviceJ ointS eay.B ighornN ason
Site, Alberta. National Museum of Man Mercury Series
Paper No. 62. ArchaeolSurovegy iofc Caanalda ,
Ottawa, 1977.
Connor, S. W. of the Crow Indian Vision Wyoming.
Quest. inM ontana 23(3):85-127,1982. Calgary Study. USFS Bighorn NationalF ore,
Dormaar, J. F. And B. O. K. Reeves. Vision Quest Sites in Sheridan.1991
Southern Alberta and Northern Montana. In Smeal,H .F . The Battle oft he Big Horn Medicine Wheel:
Kunaitupii, Coming Together on Native Sacred Sites, A Religious Freedom, Self-D eterminaatndi Poolniti,ca l
Native and Non-Native Forum, edited by B. O. K. Power among the Plains Indians. MacArthur Foundation
Reeves and M. A. Kennedy, pp. 96-101. Archaeological ResDerafat Prropocsal.h 19 89
Society of Alberta, Calgary. 1993. Tall Bull, W. andN . Price. The Battle for the Big Horn
Fredlund, D. Vision Quest Sites and Structures. Archaeology Medicine Wheel. InK unaiCtomuingp Tiogeithe,r on
in Montana 10 (1/2):14-20.1969 Native Sacred Sites, A Native and Non-Native Forum,
Frison,G .C and M. Wilson. An Introductto Biigohnor n editebyd B .O . K.R eevaends M . A. Kennedyp,p . 96-
101. ArchaSeocioetyl ofoA lbgertia, cCalgaaryl.19 93
Basin Archaeology. ay PGeomlo gigcaol Association 27th
Annual Field nal Lode,b es
Horse ,G. P. ThS oomVV iisidoonsw s Fred Chapman is the Senior ist and Native
Claw Press, AnnA rbor, Michigan. +
Preservation ing. He has worked
forh eW romin SHPO 12 years
Mike Andrews
The Shoshone Irrigation Project
Educational Exhibits as Mitigation
he Bureau of Reclamation of the vation compliance for projects at the high-profile
U.S. Department of the Interior is dams is rarely debated. However, it can be a chal-
responsible for the development lenge to comply with the National Historic
and conservation of the nation’s PresAcet forr pvrojeacts ton ithe ocananls and
water resources in the Western United States. ditches, especially if one wants to get beyond a
With itso riginal purpose “to provfori thde reecl a-
mation of arid and semiarid lands in the West,” Project in northwest Wyoming illustrates such
Reclamation set about to construct largei rrigation challenges and one possible solution for their reso-
systems, especially during the first half of this cen- lution.
tury. These irrigation projects played a significant Irrigation systems are dynamic systems. They
role in the settling of the West. reqaug rieatr deeal of periodic maintenantcoe b e
Reclahimstoray itncliudeso bunild’ings la rge kept operaManty oif tohe nsystaem'ls c.omp o-
and impressive dams, many of which are listed in nents suffer from to the elements:
the National Registero fH istoric Places. In con- eat tien walls erode, canal bottoms silt up, con-
trast, the: irrigation systems which are fundamental crete structureasr e subject to freeze-thaw action,
elements of these projects are subtle and unspec- and wooden features deteriorate. As a result, con-
tacular to most people. In fact, some archeologists ea.
consider them so unremaars ktoa nobt ble ewo r-
thy of evaluation. The necessity of historic preser-
10