From this morning's Montgomery Advertiser comes this sad story. A development in Oxford, Alabama for a new Sam's Club is going to use earth from a Native American mound, constructed perhaps 1500 years ago, for fill. Dan Whisenhunt's article (longer version is available at the Tuscaloosa News) is well worth a read. What's not clear to me is whether that entire mound was built by the Natives; if so, that's mighty impressive. It's got to be one of the larger existing mounds.
Update as of 7/12: The Anniston Star has a lot more on this developing story, including correspondence regarding the mound's historical significance here. And two other stories are here and here.
And another story here ("State law offers few protections for mounds") that reports on the Alabama Historical Commission's reluctance to get involved, despite one statute that makes it a misdemeanor to excavate Native mounds. I actually wouldn't think that the primary obligation for enforcing this statute would fall to the Historical Commission–however, I also think the statute is somewhat broader than does their counsel quoted in the article. (I think it applies to Native artifacts on private property–but I'm just not sure how far that goes.)
The relevant statute seems to be 41-3-1 (though what's not clear to me is what are "
the rights of the owner of theland upon which such antiquities are situated, for agricultural,
domestic or industrial purposes"):
privilege of exploring, excavating or surveying, through its authorized
officers, agents or employees, all aboriginal mounds and other
antiquities, earthworks, ancient or historical forts and burial sites
within the State of Alabama, subject to the rights of the owner of the
land upon which such antiquities are situated, for agricultural,
domestic or industrial purposes, and the ownership of the state is
hereby expressly declared in any and all objects whatsoever which may
be found or located therein.
I used a statute very similar to that on my property final when I taught atht eUniversity of Hawaii; the question was whether it was a taking. But leaving that important issue aside (the statute was passed in 1915 or thereabouts), it seems to me that the statute protects mounds–but recognizes the right of the owner of the land to make agricultral, domestic, and industrial use of the land. I'm not sure it contemplates the removal of mounds–just allows landowners to use the land on which mounds are situated. At least that's one reasonable interpretation of the statute. Seems to me that if there's some doubt, there ought to be an injunction while the meaning of that statute (and its constitutionality) are figured out.
Whatever the legal rights of the owner of the property and whatever the morality (or legality) of allowing the destruction of this mound through a no bid contract, it seems to me this is a really bad idea. Though it seems that the city is preparing the site for Sam's Club–and thus it seems inappropriate to charge Sam's Club with this destruction–I cannot imagine that this is the kind of publicity that Sam's Club wants. And I find this particularly strange because Alice Walton is spending a fortune to create a world class art museum in Bentonville, Crystal Bridges. Ms. Walton has already established a fabulous collection; at the center of it is Asher Durand's Kindred Spirits, purchased from the New York Public Library for an astronomical sum (reported to be at least $35 million). I've been looking forward to making a pilgrimage to Bentonville when Crystal Bridges opens.
So my question about this is: what kind of sense does it make to destroy an irreplaceable mound while spending a fortune to create a museum of art? (And I get that people say it's a pile of dirt; please, before you invoke that objection visit the Moundville archaeological site). Doesn't this just look terrible for the richest woman in the world (at least according to wikipedia), whose love is art — in addition to her heroic work on Crystal Bridges, Ms. Walton is on the board of directors of the Amon Carter in Fort Worth — to be standing by while a parking lot is created for Sam's Club from a prehistoric Indian mound?
Noooo…! that is so sad, that someone might destroy the mounds… even more tragic they might end up as part of a wal-mart parking lot. Is there
I thought that moundsville was a state park… (?) … I hope those mounds have more protection…
These people are no better than the ones who are bulldozing Civil War battlesites to build shopping malls. History is who we are. These
people are fools.
Hi Miriam–Moundville is a state park (and was the beneficiary of a lot of restorative work during by the WPA). It's really worth a visit–as you know–whenever folks are in the Tuscaloosa area. It's stunning, for sure.
I agree with you, Pat.
ya'll need to stop showing that picture and you neede to tell people that thatis not the mound the mound is a pile of rocks stacked up not that big hill that why people get sued everyday for slander and false information so if ya'll get sued i will laugh because thats what you get for lieing the way that you do so you get wat you deserve you spread lies and slander peoples name then you payout that money for those lies that you put out there retarts