dig

June 20, 2024 10:56 AM

archaeological dig at the site turned up over 2,000 artifacts, including remnants of longhouses and evidence of a Native American village [pop mechanics]

WCCB Charlotte: “These folks are out here trying to build development and housing, but the regulatory environment in North Carolina prohibits that,” North Carolina State Senator Michael Lazzara said.

The Department of Cultural and Natural Resources confirms the only development in the state being held up by these rules is the one owned by his donors.

posted by HearHere (6 comments total)

We can’t all have luxury hotels/apartments, but this development-cum-archeological dig-cum-development in Turkey suggests a novel approach to have your antiquities and eat it too. It seems like an arms race: make antiquities protected national patrimony so individuals don’t (sell it off to someone who) hide it away, make more laws to protect it, then make more laws to enforce discovery so individuals don’t destroy it just to avoid the previous laws, etc. How do we move to a pluralist system where everyone gets what they want?: Development, heritage, excitement about irreplaceable history/art/culture.

Oh wait… plus the inconvenient truth someone was and has continued to be here already.
posted by rubatan at 11:16 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]

I am currently on a job site building a nice new building on historically significant native land. Our client is the tribe. Our resolution for discovered artefacts takes a few weeks at most; I would say our local electrical authority has done more to hold up the project.
posted by q*ben at 11:56 AM on June 20 [4 favorites]

It's very hard from the undetailed reporting to know exactly what the regulatory posture is here. If there is any federal money associated with the housing development -- or any federal permits such as a wetland permit from the Corps of Engineers -- then the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act would be triggered. The construction would not be able to go forward without a signed agreement between the State and the various parties, committing to mitigation for the destruction of the archaeological site; and if there are any federally-recognized tribes with an interest, they would lean heavily on the agencies to ensure the remains are handled with respect and delicacy.

However if the site is on purely private land and there's no federal connection, you're stuck with state law, and I have no familiarity with NC cultural resources laws. Some states have pretty strict requirements, including claiming state ownership of subsurface cultural resources in order to prevent or prosecute looting and so forth. It really depends on who owns the property, if there's any federal involvement, and what the state law requires.

It's entirely possible that the site could be bulldozed, although I think the state would require the burials to be handled in a respectful manner, and of course it's a felony to sell or transport them.
posted by suelac at 12:41 PM on June 20 [2 favorites]

someone was and has continued to be here already
yeah "122,110 American Indians located in the state of North Carolina when the 2010 US Census was conducted. North Carolina is home to the largest population of American Indians east of the Mississippi River." [UNC]
posted by HearHere at 2:55 PM on June 20

Is the FPP missing a first sentence? It seems cut off.
posted by star gentle uterus at 5:54 AM on June 21 [1 favorite]

star gentle uterus, there are two words that appear before "archaeological dig" in the sentence i selected for the FPP: A subsequent. 'subsequent' references an earlier sentence in the original article mentioning bones found. a comment on a recent thread raised concern about violence & language on FPPs. 'bones' seemed unnecessary to me to lead with. 'subsequent' then would be a non sequitur. so that was my thought process with the lede. i hope that helps. apologies for any confusion, still figuring how best to navigate this
posted by HearHere at 1:08 PM on June 21