|
Because of the Author's own interest, and
advancement of the archaeology of Costa Rica - the following is reprinted
from the
SAA (Society for American
Archaeology) Bulletin January 2000.
All tourists that visit Costa Rica, should
make it clear to the Costa Rican Embassy and the National Tourism
Institute, that Archaeology is as important as the ecology of Costa Rica.
Too much has been lost to looting, corruption, and apathy. What
remains must be protected!
On October 12, 1999, the "Día de las Culturas"
designated in 1992 as a celebration of the country's indigenous heritage
and cultural diversity, Miguel Angel Rodríguez, then president of Costa
Rica, and members of his cabinet signed a decree eliminating the
requirement that archaeological impact studies be undertaken prior to the
execution of development projects. With this measure, the Costa Rican
government reversed several years of progress in the discovery and
protection of endangered archaeological sites. It also fostered a negative
image of the country at the international level as news and sharp
criticism of the decree has been disseminated in press reports and over
the Internet.
Environmental impact studies became a prerequisite for the execution of
all development projects in 1995 with the establishment of the "Ley
Orgánica del Ambiente." An archaeological component has been considered as
an essential part of these studies since their inception. Unfortunately,
this was expressed in documents that were not part of the law itself,
making the inclusion of archaeological evaluations in environmental impact
studies susceptible to modification via presidential decree. An existing "Ley
de Patrimonio Arqueológico," passed in 1982, required that projects be
halted and notice be given to the National Museum of Costa Rica only in
the event that archaeological remains appeared at the moment of
earthmoving activity. However, that happened only occasionally as a result
of formal complaints by third parties who observed the destruction of
significant sites. It was exceptionally rare to receive a communication
directly from developers. In Costa Rica, where most of the sites consist
of stratified deposits of artifacts and features without prominent
architectural structures, an incalculable number of archaeological sites
were destroyed without any intervention or sanction due to the
shortcomings of the 1982 legislation.
The new environmental legislation of 1995 brought significant changes to
the practice of rescue archaeology in Costa Rica. Developers were required
to obtain certification of the absence of archaeological remains on
properties they wished to develop prior to earthmoving activities. This
was to be provided by the National Museum, the entity in charge of the
formal registry of archaeological sites. However, in spite of the fact
that more than 2,000 sites have been registered to date, most of Costa
Rican territory has never been explored archaeologically. It was therefore
necessary to undertake authorized inspections to assess the presence of
archaeological remains. When remains were present, the next step was to
undertake formal evaluations to establish their basic characteristics and
the expected degree of impact. In cases where archaeological sites were in
danger of destruction, more extensive mitigation was required. The cost of
evaluations and mitigation (including both field and lab activities) was
assessed to the developers.
Initially, the National Museum carried out the evaluations itself. It
subsequently limited its role primarily to initial inspections and the
monitoring of projects as the Foundation of the National Museum (a
private, nonprofit organization) and independent archaeologists began to
take responsibility for field and laboratory evaluations. A fundamental
step in this process was the approval of proposals for archaeological
evaluations by the National Archaeological Commission (CAN), an
inter-institutional entity created by the 1982 legislation and based at the
National Museum.
As a result of the increased number of evaluations, a large number of new
sites that would be potentially affected by development projects were
registered and studied, especially in areas of urban expansion and both
industrial and agricultural development. As result of these evaluations,
decisions were made as to whether sites required protection, salvage, or
whether the initial information obtained was adequate for authorization of
the development project. The materials recovered during this process had
to be analyzed in approved laboratories and ultimately deposited at the
National Museum.
The predominant interpretation of the law was that only the National
Museum would be allowed to undertake archaeological mitigation involving
excavation because of the complexity of these operations, the presence of
objects with potential monetary value, and the special requirements of
human remains. One case that received a great deal of media attention in
Costa Rica was the salvage of La Ribera de Belén, a complex prehistoric
site with numerous funerary and domestic features that was discovered on
land slated for the construction of a large microprocessor manufacturing
plant by Intel Corporation. Construction proceeded as planned subsequent
to archaeological mitigation, but not without significant controversy over
the way the project had been handled.
Some unanticipated results of new approaches to archaeological protection,
not contemplated in the 1995 legislation, were the establishment of
archaeological reserves through negotiation with individual companies. In
some cases, it was possible to modify the design or location of works to
minimize or avoid the impact. However, in the years following the 1995
legislation the procedures, duration, and cost of archaeological impact
studies began to generate problems with developers. This was particularly
true for those who did not consider these studies in the planning stages
of their projects or who were forced to undertake them just prior to
beginning work or after operations had already begun. Archaeological
evaluations in areas of several (two to six) hectares lasted for four to
six months and their cost ranged from 500,000 to 3 million colones
(approximately $1500 to $10,000).
The recent presidential decree resulted from pressure placed on the
government by the home construction industry and other development
interests. It has had a number of potentially deleterious effects.
Archaeological evaluations are once again voluntary, rather than
mandatory, and developers are only required to report archaeological
remains if they are exposed during earthmoving operationsthat is, after an
archaeological site has been altered. Naturally, it is highly unlikely
that sites with anything less than impressive ceramic vessels, stone
sculpture, or large features will be reported. The likelihood of theft and
looting has also been dramatically increased. The National Museum no
longer has the exclusive authority to conduct inspections and
archaeological salvage, making the monitoring of evaluations an even
greater concern. The decree states that earthmoving activities do not
require direct supervision unless archaeological sites have been
previously recorded in the area. However, for an institution like the
National Museum, with its very limited operating budget, the ability to
monitor multiple development projects is minimal. The decree also modified
the responsibilities of the CAN. This entity, composed of ad honorem
members and operating without its own funds, is now required to meet
weekly. The period allowed for the review of proposals has been reduced
from two months to ten days. If a decision has not been reached within
that time, a study can proceed without further review. The required
contents of proposals for archaeological evaluations have been reduced to
a brief summary of antecedent studies and a description of the proposed
methodology. This derives from arguments that these evaluations do not
constitute normal archaeological research and therefore enjoy a special
status. The decree also establishes questionable distinctions between
important and unimportant sites using characteristics that do not
correspond with archaeological criteria.
With the archaeological impact studies that began in 1995, Costa Rica had
taken significant steps to protect its archaeological sites and cultural
patrimony. These measures helped compensate for centuries of looting and
the destruction of ancient cemeteries and settlements. Moreover, they were
representative of an enlightened attitude toward cultural patrimony and
the increasing self-awareness of Costa Rica's multiethnic and plurilingual
identity. The change in the celebration of October 12 from the "Day of the
Race" (glorifying the "discovery" of the New World by Christopher
Columbus) to a "Day of Cultures" was a positive step in the recognition of
the contributions of indigenous peoples to Costa Rica's history. It is
especially ironic that President Rodriguez chose this day to announce a
decree that drastically reduced opportunities for studying and protecting
the material remains of Costa Rica's indigenous heritage.
In so doing, the Costa Rican government has sent exactly the wrong message
to countries that had previously considered Costa Rica an exceptional
leader in the protection of the natural environment (represented by a
Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Oscar Arias in 1987) and its
archaeological patrimony. With these measures and announcements of plans
for further deregulation of environmental impact studies, the country has
taken a step backwards in international leadership. The October 12 decree
unmasks a duplicitous policy that sacrifices irreplaceable archaeological
resources for the short-term gains of a small group of national
developers.
Since the decree, Costa Rican anthropologists and archaeologists have
protested the measure in an ongoing effort to reverse the decision. This
effort has been led by the Asociación Antropológica Costarricense,
archaeologists from the University of Costa Rica, the National Museum, and
independent contractors. They have found support from other sectors of
Costa Rican society as well as foreign individuals and institutions.
Important legal support came from the Office for the Defense of Citizens
(the national Ombudsman) which considers the new decree to be
unconstitutional in that the Article 89 of the Costa Rican Constitution
states ". . . the Republic must conserve and develop the historical and
artistic patrimony of the nation . . ." The Ombudsman has presented
arguments of unconstitutionality to the Constitutional Court of the
Judicial Branch. An alternative decree has been prepared in anticipation
of a favorable decision from the Constitutional Court and submitted to the
official authorities for their consideration. The resolution of the
present situation will determine the shape of Costa Rican archaeology in
the new millenium.
Messages of protest and expressions of solidarity with Costa Rican
archaeologists should be sent to the following directions:
Francisco Corrales U. is an archaeologist on the staff of the National
Museum of Costa Rica and a doctoral candidate in anthropology at the
University of Kansas. John W. Hoopes is an associate professor in the
Department of Anthropology at the University of Kansas.
|
Recommended Costa Rican
Precolumbian Websites:
|
