Alabama's Heritage Mounds

Archive for February 2010

Anniston Star – Local News, Business, Sports, Events, Blogs, Videos, Podcasts – Anniston, Ala.

State Sen. Wendell Mitchell, D-Luverne, says a pair of bills he sponsored to offer greater protection to American Indian sites in Alabama have passed the state Senate.

If one of the bills becomes law, it would close a loophole in state law that currently allows for the removal of ancient Indian burial sites under certain circumstances. Under current Alabama law, anybody who desecrates graves and mutilates corpses is guilty of a Class C felony, which is punishable by up to 10 years in prison. However, the law sets a different standard for American Indian burial sites.

The current law states that any person who maliciously desecrates an American Indian place of burial or funerary objects on property not owned by the person shall be guilty of a Class C felony. It’s the “not owned” part of the law that has given property owners the final say on what happens to many Indian burial sites.

Wendell said another bill that passed the Senate today would require people removing grave sites to get permission from a local governing body. If it’s in Oxford, for example, permission would have to come from the Oxford City Council, he said.

Mitchell said neither bill has a House sponsor and did not know if anyone in the local legislative delegation was interested in taking up the cause.

Advertisements

Experts refute claims in 2nd mound report

Some experts and academics around the state are disagreeing with a University of Alabama archaeologist’s report concluding a pile of stones in Oxford is a natural phenomenon — not built by American Indians centuries ago.

Kelly Gregg, a Jacksonville State University geology professor who has visited the site located behind the Oxford Exchange, has repeatedly said the stone mound is not natural. He was not dissuaded from his opinion after reviewing the report.(…more)

Mound Behind Oxford Exchange - November 2009

Mound Behind Oxford Exchange - November 2009

Anniston Star – Document Archaeological monitoring of dismantling of Site 1Ca636 part 2 <—click for details—<

Document: Archaeological monitoring of dismantling of Site 1Ca636 (part 2)

Anniston Star – Document Archaeological monitoring of dismantling of Site 1Ca636 part 1 <—click for details—<

Document: Archaeological monitoring of dismantling of Site 1Ca636 (part 1)

Anniston Star – Mound of embarrassment

Re “UA professor: American Indian site is gone” (News article, Jan. 21):

I am embarrassed every time I read an article like I read this morning in The Star. It was written by reporter Patrick McCreless about our rich Native American culture in Oxford. He is obviously a man of knowledge and culture. He knows what a rich Indian history we have. Oxford, listen and learn from him.

I am embarrassed at how illiterate and culturally backward some of Oxford’s leaders are. People of Oxford, it’s my opinion you would do well to vote some of these people out of office as quickly as possible before all of the Indian history is completely destroyed. I feel sure there are many intelligent, cultured people in Oxford who would help preserve it. Find them, vote for them and make Oxford and Calhoun County proud.

Anniston Star – Second mound report released

slideshow
OXFORD — A University of Alabama archaeologist has released a report stating a pile of stones in Oxford was created by natural forces and not American Indians centuries ago — a report written two months after he signed another report stating the opposite.

Robert Clouse, director of the Office of Archaeological Research at the University of Alabama and director of the University of Alabama Museums, mailed the second report on the mound behind the Oxford Exchange to The Star at a reporter’s request.

The report cites different geologic surveys of the area and other American Indian archaeological excavations for comparison. Clouse is not a geologist, though he says he minored in geology as an undergraduate student.

The report states the mound is a natural formation and is not culturally significant.

The stone mound became the center of a dispute last summer, which ended with the City of Oxford backing away from plans to level the mound and use dirt beneath it for fill at a nearby construction site. City officials have repeatedly stated the mound was not man-made. They also later claimed they had not touched the mound, a claim contradicted by pictures contained in Clouse’s second report which show heavy equipment dismantling it.

The second report concluding the mound was natural was produced in July during the thick of the controversy over the site which began in June. The first report, which said the site was significant, was produced in April.


Advertisements

  • None
  • myeagermind: Reblogged this on Lenora's Culture
  • Mashu White Feather: Sgi, Edutsi, I appreciate the advice. Donadagahv'i, Mashu
  • Leonard Lewis: There's a lot of support for this cause....don't give up.....just make sure the response is directed to those responsible for all this mess and make t

Categories