Residents living near a proposed quarry in northwestern Alabama raised objections that were partially based on a Native American town site known as archaeological site 1FR2. The controversy is fueled by a flawed national process that neither protects Native American sites nor business investments made in the vicinity of those sites.
In 2010 the State of Alabama received unwelcomed national attention when the Town of Oxford, AL purchased an Indian mound to provide fill dirt for a private sector project, a Sams Club store. Native Americans exposed the project. Alabama state officials and archaeologists were horrified that a cultural landmark could be destroyed for such a non-essential purpose. Mounting public outrage eventually stopped complete destruction of the 1800 year old archaeological site, but much damage was done.
Some residents of Franklin County, AL in the northwestern tip of the state are currently opposing a proposed 100 acre quarry that would partially consume a former Native American village. The site is located adjacent to Bear Creek in the town of Red Bay. The Native American town was probably a ‘talula” or district administrative center, associated with the massive indigenous city now called Moundville, 108 miles to the south, or a smaller mound complex at Shiloh, TN, 54 miles to the west.
Thomas “Bubba” Comer, President of Limestone Red Bay Quarry, Inc. of Columbus, MS, applied to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on March 16 for air and water release permits. An initial public meeting was held on March 26 to invite public opinion. Originally April 15 was set as the deadline for receiving public comments, but this now has been extended to mid-May when ADEM will discuss the issues with the public and quarry officials. It will be held in the Red Bay High School auditorium.
A visible mound of the town site is outside the current northern boundaries of the quarry. However, smaller burial mounds within the first phase of excavation may have been disguised by past agricultural activities. The Alabama State Historic Preservation Office has determined that the village associated with the main mound probably extended into the initial excavation area, and that the site of the quarry probably contains human remains. Future developments or expansion of the quarry could destroy the visible mound and the remainder of the village.
On April 1, 2011 Elizabeth Ann Brown, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, sent a letter to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) informing them of her agency’s concern for the proposed quarry. The letter requested that an archaeologist carry out a professional investigation of the property. Her request was based on Section 106 of the National Preservation Act and the Alabama Burial Act, which protects Native American remains.
ADEM has advertised in a local newspaper for public comments concerning issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Air Quality Impact Permit. Under the laws of the State of Alabama and the United States, the land of a proposed quarry can not be disturbed until these permits are issued. Alabama law also requires that sedimentation control devices, approved in advance by inspectors, must be erected in advance of any land disturbance.
ADEM instructed Limestone Red Bay Quarry, Inc. to install sedimentation control devices. Once those devices were installed, he could begin some earth moving activities such as construction of a retention pond. In an interview with this examiner on April 27, 2011 Mr. Comer stated that he had not begun construction on the pond, but had already installed the siltation fencing mandated by the state agency. He also reiterated that he would comply with any requests made by the ADEM or its inspectors as required by Federal and Alabama state environmental laws.
Crushed stone is an essential material of the construction industry
Although sometimes controversial, quarries for producing crushed stone (gravel) provide essential ingredients for concrete and road paving. Because of its weight, crushed stone is relatively expensive to haul long distances. Therefore, suppliers of crushed stone in the past preferred to maintain quarries within an hour’s drive of most customers. The stark increase in diesel fuel prices has provided additional incentive for reducing transportation costs by establishing new quarries.
Thomas Comer, the president of Limestone Red Bay Quarry, Inc. is also the owner of Bulldog Sand and Gravel near Columbus, MS. He also in the past has been involved in the ready-mix concrete business. Comer confirmed that he was following a nationwide trend of building a quarry in his region to compensate for diesel prices, which are now range from $3.84 to $4.29 a gallon in Alabama. A local source of crushed stone would reduce the distance that the company’s trucks must travel to deliver gravel and sand. The problem that Comer currently faces is that most citizens prefer to drive on paved roads, but do not want a quarry next door. The primary concerns expressed by potential neighbors were its environmental impacts and depression of nearby property values.
In the April 27, 2011 interview, Mr. Comer stated that there were several chicken houses in the vicinity of the proposed quarry. In his opinion the odors and large volumes of manure produced by these chicken houses were a far more significant detriment to community’s environmental quality that the proposed quarry.
Flaws in the current approach to the protection of Native American sites
Several residents who attended the March 26 meeting publicly expressed hope that the presence of Native American artifacts would stop excavation of the quarry. Although refusal of ADEM to issue a permit for soil disturbance would stop the quarry, national and Alabama laws affecting Native American burial sites would not. Property owners can be required to retain professional archaeologists to study a site and relocate all known Native American remains, but once this is done, construction can proceed. Under current laws, property owners must pay for the archaeological study out of their own pocket.
Mr. Comer stated in his interview that the land tract had been farmed for well over 100 years and little mention had been made in the past about the Native American occupation of the area. After an Examiner article this week made him aware of the significance of the archaeological site, he personally journeyed to the state capital in Montgomery. He discussed the ramifications of various state and federal laws with staff members of the Alabama Historic Preservation Office. Comer requested to be put on public record that if any archaeological resources or human remains are found on the 100 acre tract in Red Bay, he will fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws, plus cooperate with the Alabama State Historic Preservation Office.
In practice, the destruction of Native American archaeological sites is stopped by voluntary actions by a land owner, not because of any law protecting such destruction. Judging from the extensive investment by the State of Alabama in the protection and promotion of Native American sites such as Moundville, the majority of Alabamans are proud of the state’s Native heritage, and many Alabaman families, of their own Native American heritage. Most Alabama property owners do not harm Native American sites, because “they feel it is the right thing to do.”
Neither Federal nor Alabama laws related to Native American sites, provide a mechanism to compensate the private owners of land for not being able to use that land for income producing activities. In most cases, if a private property owner was prohibited from using such a property by any level of government because of the presence of cultural resources (archaeological-historical sites) the owner could demand in litigation to be compensated fairly for the loss of the value of the property. Under the current interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, land use zoning laws are considered within the domain of “providing for the common good” whereas restrictions on use of Native American settlements are not. English Common Law in regard to burials has been found by courts to extend to Native American burials, however. One can not disturb the grave of any human without following specific legal procedures.
In the Southeast, there is an even more serious flaw in current review procedures. A map was drawn by the U.S. National Park Service in 1978 to designate traditional Native American occupation areas. (See this map in the attached slide show.) This map was obviously prepared by some agency that was ignorant of the Southeast’s Native American history. The map totally leaves out many ethnic groups, who were important political entities until the late 1700s.
The largest ethnic group in Alabama until 1763 (end of the French & Indian War) was the Alabamas. Large sections of Alabama were also once occupied by the Chickasaws and Choctaws. None of these tribes are even mentioned on the National Park Service map. Creek Indians from South Carolina, Georgia and western North Carolina flooded into Alabama after 1763. However, the map incorrectly states that a large portion of the state was always occupied by the Cherokees. The Cherokees never lived in northwestern Alabama, and only occupied northeastern Alabama in relatively small numbers between the late 1700s and 1838. The map also placed a large section of Chickasaw and Shawnee territory in Tennessee as either being Cherokee or unknown ethnic group.
The inaccurate 1978 National Park Service map was adopted in 1990 by the Native American Graves and Reparation Act. This act established laws for the protection of Native American remains and artifacts associated with those remains. It established territorial jurisdictions for which federally recognized tribes would have the ultimate authority over the deposition of remains and artifacts. Three tribal governments, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Kituwah Cherokee Band of Oklahoma and the Eastern Band of Cherokees in North Carolina, were assigned responsibility for protecting Native American resources in Franklin County, AL. The Cherokees never lived there and have no ethnological association with Alabama’s Muskogean mound builders. Until occupied by European and African settlers, Franklin County was the home of the ancestors of the Alabama or Chickasaw Indians.
More public awareness is needed
Few people in Franklin County, AL were aware that an archaeological site eligible for the National Register of Historic Places was located in Red Bay. Controversy over the proposed quarry has raised awareness of its existence in the community. Once the owner of the proposed quarry tract was made aware of the archaeological site, he expressed willingness to comply with appropriate laws affecting him.
With the direct descendants of the indigenous people, who occupied the Red Bay quarry site having no official role in its protection, the determination of its future will occur in a political environment in which descendants of other Native American groups and Alabama state officials seek to provide what protection is possible under current legislative restrictions. Cultural values held by Mr. Comer that are typical of Alabama and Mississippi; appear to have saved this site from being destroyed before archaeologists could study it. Preservation of the portion of the Native American town site outside the Limestone Red Bay property boundaries is an issue that will probably not be addressed within the forthcoming hearings on the quarry.
Comments