Subjects
Active cases
Closed cases
Wall of Shame
Please inform the webmaster of any broken links!
| Sites in Need of Protection
Trail of Tears and marker arborglyphs, Forsyth Co. GAA Rundown
Photos of the trees
The Initial Predicament of the Trees
History of the Trail of Tears Trees
The May 29th Meeting with the Forsyth Planning Committee
After the Planning Committee Meeting
The Forsyth News and shoddy journalism
EPD Violations
Edward Reynolds response to the Forsyth News and addresses
Atlanta Journal Constitution Article on the trees
June 26th Planning Commission Meeting outcome
The May 29th Meeting with the Planning Committee
If the trees are potential artifacts, why not just go in and examine them? What's the problem? Well the problem is they are on private land. NAGPRA law applies to federal land. States each have their own laws concerning artifacts and each varies in the amount of protection provided. Georgia law has provided little protection. Archaeologists can only step on private land if invited, unless burials are encountered, and then individuals are required by law to notify authorities, but this doesn't mean they will do so. So, it seemed the only hope for looking at the tree was to convince the developer to allow it after his taking possession.
The sale/zoning of this land was to go before the Forsyth County Planning Committee on May 29th 2001. The decision was made to speak before the Planning Committee about the matter. In the meanwhile, individuals endeavored to contact people and organizations who it was hoped might be able to help with the trees. Because there was no access to the trees for authentication, slim to little success was had.
At the May 29th meeting of the Planning Committee, Edward Reynolds of IBGAG (Indian Burial Grounds Action Group) spoke before the Planning Committee on the predicament of the trees. He told them some of the history of the trees, and of the fact there wasn't an archaeologist report on file with the zoning board, and that although the potential new owner was willing to help, the current one refused to grant access to the property.
The developer told the committee that he was not opposed to permitting the tree to be taken as long as it did not interfere with development. The Planning Committee asked how long it would take to remove the tree and Edward Reynolds explained how access to the tree couldn't be had by archaeologists for authentication until the property transfer in July, but arrangements could be made so that with authentication the tree could be removed quickly.
The Planning Committee expressed interest and due to the matter of the trees, and some other unrelated concerns, put off a ruling on that particular property. They asked that at the June 26th meeting a written proposal concerning the trees be turned over.
After the Planning Committee Meeting
It was later learned that the developer and the owner of the land approached the Planning Committee after the meeting and protested the trees were far too young to be marker trees. The owner told the committee, as well as a reporter, that he had a qualified individual examine the carvings who said they could be no more than twenty-five years of age. And he displayed a photo to the reporter of a lovers' carving on one of the tree branches and even intimated that there was no other carving but that one.
That particular lovers' carving is known to be older than 25 years of age and is in far, far, far superior condition to the other carvings.
Max Shelton, of the Planning Committee, perhaps isn't aware of how artifacts must be examined by archaeologists on the scene where they are found; he told the developer and owner in order to avoid conflict to just go ahead and move the tree to the edge of the property where IBGAG could pick it up.
The owner and developer apparently didn't like this advice.
There are conflicting accounts of what happened the day after the meeting of the Planning Committee. An initial account was that the owner had taken both the standing and the felled tree, destroyed the carvings with a chain saw, demolished the trees and carried them off.
A second account was that the carvings were chainsawed off the felled tree and the tree destroyed, while the carvings were taken elsewhere for later disposal.
It is now uncertain whether it was just the fallen tree that was destroyed or both.
The day after the butchering, the developer came forward and announced that he had the carved portion of the fallen tree in a "safe place" and had been attempting to find some place to donate it to. He said he had attempted to donate it to Reinhardt College and had been turned down (this in the matter of a few hours?). He then said he would attempt to donate it to the Forsyth County Historical Society. Lamar Sneed, a historian for the Forsyth County Historical Society, had expressed a vital interest in the trees and so it was hoped that this would happen, and that he would turn the tree over for authentication. However, there has been no word since then on what has become of one or both of the trees.
Following the cutting of the tree, the owner was understood to be busy speaking with reporters.
Continue to the The Forsyth News and shoddy journalism
|
