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 Forsyth News and Shoddy Journalism
On June 8, 2001, the Forsyth News published the following article.
June 08, 2001
Arborist: ‘Talking Tree’ not old enough to be authentic
By Phillip Hermann
News Editor
http://www.forsythnews.com/main_pages/news.shtml
The Forsyth County Historical Society is not interested in at least one of a pair of trees on property near Lilly Lane that some residents say could be “Talking Trees” emblazoned with carvings made by Cherokee Indians dating from the time of the infamous Trail of Tears.
After consulting with County Arborist Van Moore following his inspection of one of the trees removed from the property late last week, Historical Society President Annette Bramblett said, “We’re not interested because the tree isn’t old enough to contain authentic carvings. We already have enough cute trees, we don’t need another one.”
She added, however, there is a need to identify and preserve Native American remnants in the county. To that end, Historical Society member Bernard Gilliland is working to do just that.
“We’re not willing to discuss specific sites just yet, because when you tell people about things like this you can get a crowd and take the change something could be damaged,” Bramblett said.
Moore said Wednesday he was able to count approximately 76 rings on a section of the fallen tree, approximately 4-1/2 feet above the ground. Based on that count, he estimates the tree is 80 years old and, therefore, couldn’t contain carvings dating back to the Trail of Tears in the 1830s.
“The Talking Tree didn’t do much talking to me,” he quipped, adding he was not assigned by the county to determine the authenticity of the carvings — only the tree’s age. “I really don’t know anything about Native American carvings, but I know how to determine the age of a tree,” he added.
The tree that was removed had fallen years ago and its roots were exposed. The other tree, located not far from the fallen one, is still standing.
Moore said he didn’t inspect the tree that is still standing. That tree is on land that won’t be disturbed by a proposed 44-home subdivision slated to be built on 33.84 acres by Highlands Development.
The controversy over the trees flared during a public hearing May 29 before the Forsyth County Planning Commission on the proposed rezoning needed for the subdivision. The land is zoned for agricultural use and Highlands Development is seeking to change the permitted use to residential.
At the hearing, Lilly Lane resident and Cherokee Indian Edward Reynolds said he is not opposed to the proposed development but wanted Heard to allow either a historian or an archeologist to determine if the trees are really “Talking Trees.”
The planning commission eventually decided to delay making a recommendation on the rezoning until at least its next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 26. The delay was not because of the issue of the trees and their validity, but because other adjoining property owners wanted questions resolved about buffer zones and other issues.
There also will be another public hearing at the June 26 meeting.
Since the first hearing, Heard and his attorney, Phill Bettis, have said the Heard family has taken a number of steps to determine whether the carvings could be authentic.
"An analysis of tree rings has determined this tree is less than 125 years old. The exodus of Native Americans from Forsyth County occurred more than 160 years ago. The tree in question was diseased and virtually fallen,” according to a statement issued by Bettis last Friday.
The statement adds that Heard contacted officials with the Native American museum at Reinhardt College who determined "the carvings were not associated with Native Americans."
The statement continues: "The carvings were very likely made in recent times by local children. The tree trunk will be protected for a reasonable period of time to allow for any preservation deemed appropriate."
Reprinted under the Fair Use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law.
Now, shall we take a look at this shoddy piece of supposed journalism bit by bit and compare it with the facts?
You will note that Van Moore is inspecting a tree that has been removed from the property. No mention is made that the tree was being "inspected" after the request at the Zoning Committee, by IBGAG, that the tree be inspected by an archaeologist on site. No mention is made that the day following, the tree had been removed from the property, destroying the possibility of a true archaeological analysis.
This is an interesting accessment by the Forsyth County Historical Society President. "We already have enough cute trees..." Her use of adjectives is to be applauded. The mention that she feels a need to identify and preserve Native American remnants in the county is to assure us that she is indeed interested in American Indian artifacts. Her refusing to talk about specific sites as they stand a chance of being damaged is a tad ironic considering she has just turned down, as "cute", a tree that had been hacked into pieces. At any rate, the journalist has assured us that Forsyth County is on the ball about American Indian artifacts and the identification of them for preservation.
The arborist, Moore, states that he has approximated the age of the tree based on a counting of rings from a portion approximately 4 1/2 feet off the ground. Edward Reynolds has found from the US Forestry Service that one would have to count the rings at the base of the tree. The Forsyth article does note that the tree had fallen years ago (actually, at least 40 years ago as photos from the 60s already show the tree had fallen), and so that would also have to be taken into account with determining the trees age.
Moore notes that he didn't inspect the tree that was still standing, and the supposed reason for this is that it is on land that won’t be disturbed by the proposed 44-home subdivision slated to be built on 33.84 acres by Highlands Development. This does a lot for determining whether the standing tree contains authentic artifacts. No, the inference is supposed to be that since this fallen tree is here being said not to be old enough, then the 9.5 diameter standing tree isn't old enough either, so no reason, of course, to inspect it. Don't inspect the tree that is living and in place and still of pristine use to archaeologists toward determining authenticity.
Reporting on the Planning Commission meeting, Hermann states that Edward Reynolds is a Lilly Lane resident, which he is not. He also states that Edward Reynolds is a Cherokee Indian. Hermann spoke with Edward Reynolds only briefly following the meeting and was not divulged this information so he has not gone straight to the source.
Hermann erroneously states that the planning commission's decision to delay rezoning had nothing to do with the trees and their validity. There were other issues involved, but a specific reason for the delay was due to the trees. Indeed, the Planning Commission asked for a written proposal concerning the trees to be provided at the June 26th meeting.
Hermann's mission is to lead the reader to believe that the Heards have done everything they can to determine the authenticity of the carvings. Again, he does not mention that the day following the Planning Committee meeting, where Edward Reynolds had said the tree must be inspected on site by an archaeologist, Heard had gone in and removed the tree from the site which rendered an archaeological evaluation useless, and that only after that de he have a portion of the tree be examined by an arborist.
The article states at one point the tree is about 80 years of age. At another point, it states, "An analysis of tree rings has determined this tree is less than 125 years old. The exodus of Native Americans from Forsyth Conty occurred more than 160 years ago."
First, it was not an "exodus" in the classic biblical sense, which the reader may be psychologically inclined to think. It was not an exodus toward freedom, it was a forced removal.
Second, there is a significant difference between 80 years of age and "less than 125 years old." Why "less than 125 years old?" Why not say "less than 160 years old"? One must remember that the tree was already fallen 40 years ago and so has not been growing for the past 40 years. Also, the tree rings were examined 4.5 feet off from the base, which does not provide an accurate count.
There is no source given for who was spoken with at Reinhardt College, who "determined the carvings were not associated with Native Americans." Also, the tree was removed from place on the afternoon of the 30th, and by the morning of the 31st the developer was already saying that Reinhardt College had turned down the tree. A fairly quick turn around time to contact a school, have the carvings examined, and the tree turned down.
The last paragraph is the clincher, an unnamed source stating the tree was carved in recent times by local children. Take a look at this photo of the felled tree taken in the 60s. Is this carving the work of a child?
By inference we are also expected to believe the carving on the standing tree is also the work of a child. Again, is this the handicraft of a child? (The white areas are chalk markings that were made around the carvings to highlight them. The photo is also from the 60s.)
Continue to EPD Violations
Footnotes
Van Moore
Forsyth County
110 East Main Street
Cumming , GA 30040
Phone: (770) 781-2115 EX. 2500
Fax: (770) 781-2197
Email: tvmoore@co.forsyth.ga.us
|
