Parks, Trails & Recreation Master Plan

USING ARCHAEOLOGICALLY IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES AS DIRECTORS OF CONCEPT PLAN Multiple archaeological studies have been conducted over time in this area to more specifically identify the locations and components of the cultural resources along the riverfront in Shakopee. Overlaying the information obtained between all of these studies proves the rich cultural resources not just in Memorial Park, but the greater area of the riverfront. The figure on page 208 illustrates the archaeologically studied and documented areas within Shakopee that known cultural resources have been identified, whether by physical archaeological shovel testing, lidar mapping, or ground penetrating radar (GPR). For Memorial Park’s concept plan features, the plan to the left focuses on the immediate area of Memorial Park. The information on this plan is mainly composed of data collected from Goltz, 1993, Lyon, 2000, Bielakowshi, 2007, and Blondo, 2011 (overlayed on a preliminary archaeological review assembled by Bolton & Menk, 2016, and from Goltz’s 1993 study). The solid purple areas indicate areas of shovel tests or GPR that resulted in positive cultural resource testing. The hatched area is a generalized area of extant burial mounds, known as the Pond Mound group, and is considered Native American cemetery. Extant mounds are burial sites that are still (or partially still) intact or in existence, having survived decades of development of city blocks, streets, parks, and other types of infrastructure. Some of these mounds are still fully intact and visible today, some are partially intact, and some have been identifiable only through the use of GPR. These burial mounds and the surrounding land are sacred sites that contain not only the remains of indigenous peoples from this region, but also contain relics from these past communities. The burial mounds in Memorial Park are the only few from the original Pond Mound group that have survived modern development. According to the 1993 Goltz study, “some of these remaining mounds have suffered further damage from park activities, ranging from the placement of a flagpole in the center of one, to

maintenance which disturbed human remains, to impacts from foot traffic and recreational activity.” There were likely originally close to 100 mounds as part of the Pond Mound grouping (for comparison, the Steele Mound group in Murphy’s Landing was originally composed of 111 mounds and has been destroyed down to just a few extant mounds as well). It is important to note that the areas identified on the map to the left are indicative of the constraints of the specific locations of these various studies. The entirety of Memorial Park has not been investigated to these detailed extents, but it can be assumed based on the amount of positively- tested sites already identified that likely the entire park area is host to a great concentration of cultural resources. As an on-site modern case study, the flag pole and granite monument in Memorial Park was originally placed on top of an extant burial mound in 1964 (as mentioned by Goltz, 1993). 34 years later in 1998, the City Administrator was approached by the Indian Affairs Council and the SMSC to address this issue, and the flag pole was promptly relocated later that year with the involvement of the City and the Tribe. The concept plan for Memorial Park and The Landing contained in this master plan document is an evolution of this type of respect towards the recognition of the plethora of cultural resources in this area for members of the Shakopee community and greater metro-wide community. Today, the City works with the SMSC to conduct archaeological studies before any new work takes place along areas of known or likely cultural resources along the riverfront. As an example, a study at the area of the trail bridge is currently being conducted to confirm the replacement location of the pedestrian bridge to re-connect the state trail across the pond. The City should keep this practice up, and commit to reducing as much as possible the risk of further degradation of cultural resources.

209