Finding the Point in Northern BC’s Archaeology
Archaeology’s Influence in Oil and Gas

Written By:Mark Amundrud

WHEN MOST OIL AND GAS PROFESSIONALS, INCLUDING THOSE IN THE SURFACE LAND PROFESSION, LOOK AT A NEW WELL LEASE OR PIPELINE RIGHT-OF-WAY, ARCHAEOLOGY WOULD RARELY RANK AS A CONCERN OR CONSTRAINT THAT SHOULD BE EVALUATED. In oil and gas development, the world of flow dynamics, recovery rates, constructability or other technical concerns weights prominent in the minds of most design and construction professionals when selecting a surface location for resource activity. However, across North America regulatory institutions are becoming increasingly interested in ensuring that archaeological assessments are carried out before new construction projects proceed, and nowhere is that more apparent than the emerging natural gas plays in British Columbia.

The Heritage Protection Act of the Province of British Columbia defines an archaeological site as the physical remains of past human activities that occurred prior to 1846, making the clear majority of B.C.’s 12,000 years of archaeology a history of the Aboriginal people of the province.  Since most of, much of First Nations history occurred without any written record, much of their history has been illuminated by the archaeological record that their ancestors were so kind to leave behind across the Province of B.C.

A point is an important archaeological artifact that is found in most archaeological contexts, in B.C.  specifically, and North America generally; often referred to by laypeople as “stone arrow heads”.  The scientific importance of a point or more specifically a group of points (termed an assemblage) can easily be understood.  A modern analogy most people will be familiar with is how over time, Coke cans have changed.  They look different today than they did 50 years ago. The design, branding and even material the cans are made out has changed over time.  Each unique style of Coke can be only produced in a specific period.  For example, all the Coke cans from 1980-85 look the same but are unique from Coke cans made in other time periods.  Thus, we can use the style of the can to date when the can was produced.  Archaeologists do the same thing with diverse types of points, through time points changed in style and in the material, they were made from.  Like Coke cans each style of point comes from a specific time. If a person were to find a point they should be able to find out how old it is by researching other points that are of the same style or material. While this analogy is simple, it accurately reflects the way that archaeology works, and the same principle can apply to the points that are found across North America.  Old points like the Clovis date to 12,500 years ago and newer ones like the Alberta to 1,000 years ago. We can extend the analogy and say that as decades have passed the material that Coke cans are made from has changed and where the materials that make them come from has also changed. In the early days Coke cans were made of local materials that could be sourced via railroad, whereas today Coke cans are part of an integrated global supply chain.  The change in material that Coke cans are made of reflects changes in our economic system, geopolitics and technologies that allow goods to be mass produced and exchanged all over the world. Like Coke, cans the materials that points are made of gives archaeologist insight into changes in regional supply chains in historic periods. New material like obsidian is often found in regions where obsidian does not occur naturally. Often the obsidian appears in a region at a specific point in time and is associated with the production of stone tools like points. These show evidence that obsidian has been traded between regions and gives insight into trade and political relationships of regions and peoples in the past. These are a few examples of the principles of how history can be constructed using archaeological theory.

In practice, industrial archaeology which is completed to satisfy the regulatory requirements in B.C. for new well leases or pipeline right-of-ways is much less scientific in its goal.  Since it is funded by industry, the goal is not to collect data about past societies, but to identify archaeological material that may be impacted by development and to recommend mitigation measures that would minimize impacts to archaeological values.  In most cases the only way to truly know if archaeological sites are going to be disturbed by development is to go out to the field and conduct a survey. Once in the field, teams of archaeologists and First Nation monitors survey the development for areas of the landscape thought to have archaeological potential.  For example, a high potential area for archaeology would be a well-drained knoll near a creek or wetland or a high point in the landscape that would provide good lines of sight. Once an area of potential is identified, the crew starts conducting subsurface archaeological testing. This is a fancy way of saying dig approximately 30cm x 30cm holes in a 5m grid and screen all the soil within the hole through a ¼ inch mesh screen to see if the soil contains any artifacts.  Often areas of potential are tested and no artifacts are identified. Other times one of the subsurface tests is positive and contains some evidence of past human activities in the area.  Most often what is found is evidence of stone tool production or simply an area where in the past someone was creating a tool like a point.

Any oil and gas development these days is subject to a myriad of environmental field studies and recommendations on things like vegetation, wildlife, birds, amphibians and fish. All of them can come with their own conditions and complications.  The advantage of archaeology is that once the assessment is complete if there are no artifacts in the project footprint then there are no archaeological concerns. One does not have to worry about a sensitive or protected species like a raptor (eagle, for example) deciding to nest near a right-of-way part way through construction.  However, if an archaeological site is identified the artifacts themselves may have little consequence on how a local First Nations perceives the value of any single archaeological site. This is not a failing of the First Nation or the archaeologist, but a fundamental piece of human nature. The same object can mean different things to different people. To a local First Nation reviewing a development, a point identified on a pipeline right of way could be sacred or merely interesting. Sometimes it depends on how old it is or where it was found, but there is no science to determining what meaning may be ascribed to it.

In northeastern B.C.  finding points is very difficult when conducting oil and gas assessments.  The nature of the work does not often conflict with large high value archaeological sites, so archaeologists generally find and mitigate small low and medium value sites. I spent several years in the early days of the natural gas plays in B.C. conducting archaeological assessments on future gas well sites or pipeline right of ways. Over that time, I participated in the identification of dozens of archaeological sites in the region, however, I witnessed very few people find a point – I only once removed a point from the earth with my own hands. When I found it, I remember being excited I think I even gave a victory cry. To me it was vindication that I was a good archaeologist. I had finally pulled something out of the ground that was interesting. Looking back though I believe my point was the least meaningful of any of the points I remember being found.

The most memorable point I remember being found was several years later.  There were several of us out that day and I heard that familiar victory cry from one of our First Nation monitors.  She had found a point.  When I went to see her, she was holding it clasp in both hands and reverently saying “the ancestors, the ancestors”.  She looked at me with the largest smile I can remember and showed me her treasure; a beautiful point.  She celebrated her discovery of the point for weeks, told everyone she knew and had a picture of her holding it framed in her living room. I had known her for years and we had worked together many times before so I was happy for her that she had found one. As the years passed and I did what anthropologists tend to do, and analyzed my experiences.  I often think about the point that she found and I began to think about how much more meaningful finding that point had been to her than it had been to me when I found mine. I believe that point meant so much to her because it was the connection to her history that she found that day.  This woman, born in the generation of residential schools taught that she did not really have a history or that her history was not important, and yet here was irrefutable proof from the earth itself that her history existed and it was important.

 

Published: The Negotiator, May 2017

Disclaimer – All articles printed under an author’s, association’s or corporation’s name represent the views of the author;  publication or posting neither implies approval of the opinions expressed, nor accuracy of the facts stated.