Preserving Indian Mounds

  • Roger and Margaret Martin visit the effigy and burial mounds. (Photo by Brian Bull)

Historians, archaeologists, and Native American tribes are fighting to save ancient
mounds. The mounds are found scattered across much of North America. These
earthen, man-made formations mark the presence of prehistoric, indigenous people. But,
Brian Bull reports many are disappearing because of development or neglect:

Transcript

Historians, archaeologists, and Native American tribes are fighting to save ancient
mounds. The mounds are found scattered across much of North America. These
earthen, man-made formations mark the presence of prehistoric, indigenous people. But,
Brian Bull reports many are disappearing because of development or neglect:



Jay Toth is walking through the Kingsley-Bend Indian Mounds site. Toth is an
archeologist with the Ho-Chunk tribe in Wisconsin. He surveys nearly 30 mounds here,
including several that he says contain human remains. Toth says these mounds range
from 800 to 2000 years old, and are considered sacred, which is why Toth isn’t happy
when a man lets his dog use one for a bathroom:


“There’s a sign right there…”



“The guy saw the sign coming in, he didn’t bother…think that’s a good reflection on why
mounds are continually destroyed. There’s just no consideration.”


The tribe has painstakingly restored and maintained this site with its own money. But
Toth says out of 20,000 groups of mounds across Wisconsin alone, only a quarter
survive today. Many are still being desecrated or destroyed by construction and
development:


“It’s just too bad that we don’t have the respect for the religious aspects of what these are
all about. No one would expect the Ho-Chunk Nation or
any other tribe to go in and buy up public cemeteries and subdivide it up for housing
development, but somehow mound sites and other native burial seem to be okay.”


And it’s not just in Wisconsin. Similar problems exist for Indian mounds in other states,
including Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, and Tennessee. Development is supposed to stop if a
mound is discovered, but authorities can only act on the calls they receive.


Samantha Greendeer is a Ho-Chunk attorney. She’s working with tribal, state, and federal
officials to revive legislation first introduced by West Virginia Congressman Nick Rahall.
It would proactively protect burial mounds, rather than after they’re disturbed:


“We seem to have to deal with this a little bit more just because a lot of the old ancestral
mounds and burials of native people are not in organized European-type cemeteries that
are zoned and properly accounted for. They don’t get that extra
bit of protection that a normal burial site would get.”


If passed, the federal government would have to deal with Native American and Native
Hawaiian tribes before taking action that would affect any land deemed sacred. Attitudes
about the mounds are changing.


(Sound of jackhammers)


Construction workers are tearing up old concrete foundations, to help set up new
buildings on the University of Wisconsin campus. But it’s a different story near the
University observatory. Campus developers plan to displace newer structures with the
older architecture. Gary Brown points to a sidewalk built in the 1950s. It’s right next to a
centuries-old bird effigy mound which some Native Americans still use for ceremonies:


“We’ll be coming back several feet away from the edges of the mound, carefully remove
the sidewalk, reconstruct the sidewalk a little bit further away. It’ll be a lot of hand labor,
there won’t be a lot of major big machinery…”


And moving the sidewalk will create a buffer zone to help protect the ancient mound.



Some people outside of the tribes realized the value of the mounds decades ago.
Roger and Margaret Martin walk in the rain with umbrellas, to show several effigy and
burial mounds in their backyard:


“When friends come to visit, we take ’em out back and point them out…We’re standing
on the bird effigy, swept back from both sides are the bird’s wings…the one on the left is
much more pronounced.”


Back when the neighborhood was being built, most people flattened the mounds. But, he
Martins signed up with what’s called an archaeological covenant program. They’ve
promised not to alter the mounds on their property. They also get a tax break on any land
containing a mound.


The Martins say they’d like to begin a ceremony where they visit the mounds and think of
their makers, the early North American cultures. Such reverence means a lot to Ho-Chunk
archeologist Jay Toth, who says the formations are rich in meaning and history for his
people:


“These mounds represent the deed to the land for all Native Americans. This you can’t
take away.”


Toth and other preservationists hope Congress passes laws to better protect ancient
mounds. They hope in time that people come to regard both burial and effigy mounds as
items to preserve, rather than destroy.


For the Environment Report, I’m Brian Bull.

Related Links

Scientists Buff Up Their Tinseltown Image

When we go to the movies, we expect to escape from reality. Visiting aliens, time travel, extinct animals coming back to life… that’s the dazzling stuff blockbusters are made of. But not everybody is thrilled by the way scientists look in the movies. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams has the story of screenwriters who want to make movie scientists a little less weird:

Transcript

When we go to the movies, we expect to escape from reality. Visiting
aliens, time travel, extinct animals coming back to life, that’s the dazzling
stuff blockbusters are made of. But not everybody is thrilled by the way
scientists look in the movies. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams has the
story of screenwriters who want to make movie scientists a little less
weird:


(Theme music from “Back To The Future”)


So Dr. Frankenstein and Doc Brown from “Back to the Future” are a
little… freaky. But they’re smart… and enterprising. But those kinds of wacky
movie scientists make real life scientists hurl their popcorn.


Researcher Paula Grisafi says movie stereotypes about scientists are actually
worse than those about lawyers or politicians.


“My sense of movies about scientists is that there are maybe 10% good
guys and 90% bad guys. Or not even just bad guys but misguided, even
when they’re trying to be good, they’re usually sufficiently misguided
that what they start out to do turns out wrong.”


Paula Grisafi says there are a few oddballs in real science labs, but she says her peers are really much more normal.


Really — instead of hair frizzing out of control… they have nice haircuts. And they never, ever wear pocket protectors. Grisafi’s day job is at MIT in
Cambridge, but she’s also an aspiring screenwriter. She’s working on
scripts that she says shake up the Hollywood stereotypes.


“These sort of scientist archetypes are Frankenstein and Jekyll and Hyde.
They’re people who were loners obsessed with their work to the point of
being a danger to themselves or to others. It’s usually frowned upon in
science to experiment on yourself.”


Take Jeff Goldblum’s character Seth Brundle, in “The Fly.” When
Brundle tests his transport machine on himself, the experiment backfires.
Brundle becomes a genetic mutant, but he’s kinda proud of it.


“Am I becoming an 185 pound fly? No, I’m becoming something that
never existed before! I’m becoming Brundle-Fly! Don’t you think that’s
worth a Nobel Prize or two?”


Maybe Brundle should’ve stopped when he turned that baboon inside out.


Paula Grisafi admits there are a few movies that show scientists as
somewhat normal people. Jodie Foster’s character in “Contact” for
example. But Grisafi says there aren’t enough to balance out the weirdos.
She says at worst, distorted images of scientists might give audiences the
impression that science is more dangerous than good.


So Grisafi jumped at the chance to be part of a screenwriting workshop
for scientists in LA last summer. It was an intense crash course with
sessions called Plot and Character, and of course, Agents and Managers.


The workshop was dreamt up by Martin Gundersen. He’s an electrical
engineer who’s had a brush with fame. He added credibility to Val
Kilmer’s lasers in the film “Real Genius.”


“I’ve met people now who are young faculty members who have told me
they were influenced by that picture to think seriously about science.”


Martin Gundersen says if the scientists in movies were more appealing,
more people might want to go into the sciences. He says the Defense
Department and companies like Boeing are really concerned that fewer
people want careers in science and engineering. In fact, Gundersen
actually landed money from the Pentagon for the workshop.


But Gundersen admits he’s still testing the theory that scientists can be
screenwriters.


“Oh it’s impossible (laughs). That’s the thing – you can’t promise that
somebody’s going to get their picture made. To me the truest cliché in
Hollywood is that everyone has a script.”


And so, can chemists and engineers possibly compete?


One box office expert says — sure. Paul Dergarabedian is president of
Exhibitor Relations Company in LA. He says scientists have as good a
chance as anyone at selling a script… as long as their stories are
compelling.


“And it’s the more interesting characters who bring that scientific
element, or you have a scientist who’s not the typical nerdy scientist. He
might be more of a sophisticated kind of character in terms of lets say a ladies’
man or something like that you wouldn’t necessarily expect.”


And actually, there is a ladies’ man in one of Paula Grisafi’s scripts. Her
story features two rivals thrown together to figure out why sea life is
dying. The stars of the story are a lovely young marine ecologist and a
hotshot microbiologist from Norway. Grisafi’s been advised that playing
up the romance might help sell the story.


“I guess I was sort of writing for a PG audience. I spent eight years in
Catholic girls’ school so I’m not sure how competent I’m going to be to
write really steamy sex scenes, but I’ll make an effort.”


Grisafi says even if she never sells a script, she’ll still get up at 5 a.m. to
write, and then she’ll put in a full day at the lab.


These new screenwriters hope to prove you don’t have to be a mad
scientist or a loner in the lab to invent movies that sell tickets.


For the GLRC, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Campaigning on Great Lakes Cleanup

Cleaning up the Great Lakes has become part of the environment platform for at least one party in Canada’s national election campaign. Canadian Prime minister Paul Martin’s liberals are promising to spend one billion dollars toward cleaning up the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

Cleaning up the Great Lakes has become part of the environment
platform for at least one party in Canada’s national election campaign.
Canadian Prime minister Paul Martin’s liberals are promising to spend
one billion dollars toward cleaning up the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Seaway. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:


Paul Martin says the pledge is another aspect of the Liberal party’s green
plan. Martin says the one billion dollars would be spent over ten years in
an effort to clean up toxic hot spots along the world’s largest freshwater
ecosystem.


“By taking action we will better protect our water and our wildlife, we’ll
make our waterfronts more vibrant and healthy, and we will ensure that
the revitalization of these ecosystems stands out as our collective
legacy.”


Martin says half the money, about five hundred million dollars, would be
earmarked for sites that have been used for decades as a dump for
industrial and household waste. Some of the money would also go to
assessing ecological threats posed by pharmaceuticals and other
pollutants, and researching the effects of human action on these
ecosystems.


For the GLRC, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Study: Canadian Gas Emissions Rise

Canada is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol – an international agreement aimed at curbing heat trapping gas emissions. Now, a new study shows that these gas emissions have risen sharply in Canada over the past ten years. The release of the study comes just days after the prime minister criticized Washington for its climate change policies. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:

Transcript

Canada is a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol – an international agreement
aimed at curbing heat trapping gas emissions. Now, a new study shows
that these gas emissions have risen sharply in Canada over the past ten
years. The release of the study comes just days after the Prime Minister
criticized Washington for its climate change policies. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports:


The study was prepared by the Environment, Health and Statistics
departments of the Canadian government. It shows as of a couple of
years ago emissions of greenhouse gases were 32 percent above the
targets laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.


Alberta and Ontario had the worst emissions of all the provinces.


The study found that the most of the greenhouse gas emissions came
from energy production and consumption. Vehicular traffic accounted
for about twenty percent, an increase reflected in the shift from
automobiles to vans, SUV’s and trucks. Those heavier vehicles emit
about 40 percent more greenhouse gasses on average.


Climate change has become a touchy issue between Ottawa and
Washington. Recently, Prime minister Paul Martin said the White House
had failed to yield to a global conscience in its refusal to sign the Kyoto
Protocol. Washington warned him to tone down his anti-US rhetoric,
describing it as cheap electioneering.


For the GLRC, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Traveling Activists Build Support for Forests

Two environmentalists are crisscrossing the country to spread their message of stopping deforestation in America. While saving the forests is a national issue, their approach for building support has a local emphasis. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports: