OAS

President's Message

September/October 2008
(as published in Arch Notes New Series 13(5))

In mid-September I attended, along with about 25 others, a meeting in Kingston, organized by the Ministry of Culture. It was the Eastern Archaeology Regional Roundtable. By now, most licensed archaeologists in Ontario will have participated in similar regional discussion groups across the province, either in person or via teleconference. As an event, it will undoubtedly be repeated, and most in attendance seemed to agree that the opportunity of meeting and exchanging information was worthwhile.

For the Ministry and Neil Downs, in particular, this was an important chance to meet with the people 'in the trenches' so to speak. Neil is new to archaeology and to the Culture Programs Unit that he manages (he joined them in 2007). He began the evening's session by updating participants on the goings-on within the unit: issues surrounding staffing, the backlog of unreviewed reports, the report review process, Aboriginal engagement, the Draft Standards and Guidelines question, terms and conditions, PIF procedures, collections management issues and emergency reviews.

From his presentation, it is clear that he and his staff face some fairly daunting challenges, not the least of which is to clear the backlog of post- 2005 reports. This presentation was followed by a lively and at times heated discussion of issues of interest to those present. A lot of debate surrounded the ways in which consultants reports are reviewed by the Ministry.

An interesting point to emerge was the way that the Ministry's role in the archaeological process has undergone metamorphosis and continues to do so. The Ministry issues archaeological licences under the Ontario Heritage Act, a piece of legislation for which it is responsible. The Ministry reviews the reports in order to ensure that all the pieces are there: proper presentation, elements of content, etc. If they pass muster, then the reports are added to ėthe Register': an ever-expanding collection of archaeological reports that can be consulted by the public (see section 65 or Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act).

Much was made of this goal of adding reports to this register. But surprisingly, the Ministry no longer evaluates the intellectual content of the reports per se: 'we are not an approval agency.' That all-important responsibility is now apparently assumed by others, such as municipalities for example. And from what we heard at that meeting, and from what we hear from others elsewhere in Ontario, those approval agencies set the bar for heritage conservation in their part of Ontario. If a municipality has no bylaws requiring heritage assessments, there is nothing to trigger this process.

Further, the approval agencies determine significance and standards. This is why, apparently, in the GTA, consultants are held to the new, but unapproved, Draft Standards and Guidelines, while elsewhere in the province, the old, now long-in-the-tooth Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines (1993) continue to be used.

It is an odd situation where there are no longer uniform yardsticks for assessing whether work has been properly done. Moreover, the ability of municipal planners to assess not only the form of consultants' reports, but the intellectual contents of these, remains to be developed. This should be a cause for serious concern by OAS members. A checklist approach to evaluating the work of a consultant only reflects on the consultant's report structuring ability (beware of boiler plates!). Less easily assessed by someone unfamiliar with archaeological ėscience' is the logic behind the assessments or determinations of things like significance, potential and ultimately, the soundness of the recommendations which can either save a heritage site through mitigation or conservation, or consign it to the back of a dump truck and oblivion in a landfill or under a parking lot. Such expertise, it would seem to me, should be found within the Ministry of Culture and it should be exercised from within that branch of government. At present, this no longer seems to be the case. But I stand to be corrected.

This whole situation was echoed lately in Eastern Ontario, near the town of St. Isidore. Like elsewhere, the municipality there is anxious to attract new industries and see employment created within their region. One proposal would see the presumed location of an early XIXth century church and associated graveyard turned into one such new center of much needed jobs.

In theory, this should not be an issue. Archaeological assessment and mitigation should clear it, one way or another. It seems though, that the necessity of undertaking this additional expense is not broadly shared by local planners. Some local citizens are concerned that possible burials that now lie unmarked, will be disturbed without proper efforts taken to either protect them or move them. Moreover, the reception these citizens have received about their concerns have been less than encouraging. It has not been pleasant and it's not over, but I naively thought the Heritage Act and the Cemeteries Act were clear on such matters, but local officials may not share that understanding or awareness.

As of this writing, a Stage 1 study has been requested. This is a good sign. Everyone should adopt a wait and see position before anything else is done. Certainly, many will be interested in the findings and recommendations.

How many other similar cases take place across the province? For me, it highlights the need for municipalities to be made perfectly aware of their responsibilities and how to carry them out. Information and training are key. With 445 municipalities currently in Ontario, this is a daunting task, but it is one that must be taken up with some urgency.

Beyond these issues, something that struck home once again as we sat for more than three hours near the shores of Lake Ontario was the tremendous amount of archaeological work that takes place every year in Ontario. The pace is staggering and when we stop and think of the infinitesimal amount of that information that ever goes beyond the consultant field report stage, I wonder about the nature of our understanding of the past.

Ontario Archaeology

As you read this message, you should have received your most recent copy of Ontario Archaeology (81/82). It's a great issue with solid articles written by professionals, students, professors, avocationals. It shows that old questions can be revisited with new insight (Dave Croft), that we can acquire valuable insights into our profession by knowing about those who came before us (Noble), that new and innovative research continues to mine collections gathered quite some time ago (Bittner and Jamieson, Murphy) and that consultants can find the time to present the results of some of their fieldwork and actually carry out analyses beyond the report requirements, thus happily contradicting the fears expressed in the previous paragraph.

Toronto Symposium

The OAS Symposium held in Toronto is now behind us. The organizers put their heart and souls into developing a theme which is near and dear to archaeologists: that of collaborations. Archaeology is an esoteric pursuit for many. We have the challenge and the responsibility to break down the barriers that make archaeology appear like a distant and complex area of inquiry.

An important element of collaboration is first being understood, then enlisting the support and help of others. Many of us left the symposium with clearer perspectives on what we should do to improve all of the collaborations that we are currently participating in or which we should be part of. And to the organizers and participants of this year's symposium, merci! Very importantly, the OAS thanks the elders (Native and non- Native) who shared their understandings with all present.

New Executive Director

On the late breaking news front, the board of directors join all OAS members in welcoming Lorie Harris as our new Executive-Director (you can read about Lorie elsewhere in the issue of Arch Notes). We also extend our thanks to all those who applied for this important position.

Finalement

Et finalement, je veux simplement attirer votre attention au fait que le site internet de la Société ontarienne d'archéologie est dorénavant bilingue. Deux grandes sections du site demeurent disponibles qu'en anglais (le Sommaire de l'archéologie de l'Ontario et les messages du président), mais nous envisageons nous attaquer à ce défi dans les mois à venir. La traduction a été entreprise par un bénévole (moi!) et je suis le premier à avouer qu'il n'est pas parfait. Si vous voyez des erreurs, s'il vous plait, laissez-moi le savoir.

Jean-Luc Pilon