It now appears a special state review panel will be ready to vote sometime in March on whether to allow developer Richard Baccari to build 53 houses over the remains of a 900-year-old Indian village that archeologists says is unique and nationally significant.
Baccari’s lawyer, William R. Landry, maintains the state’s efforts to block the development amount to an illegal taking. But Grover Fugate, executive director of the state’s Coastal Resources Management Council, says the developer never completed the archaeological surveys that were required before building could begin.
A subcommittee of the CRMC, chaired by council member Raymond C. Coia, held its final hearing on the issue Monday night at Narragansett Town Hall. The disputed building site is between the Salt Pond Shopping Center and Point Judith Pond. The CRMC regulates the work because it’s in a coastal area.
During the last few months, lawyers for Baccari and the attorney general’s office, which is representing the state’s Historic Preservation & Heritage Commission, have questioned witnesses about the historical importance of the site as well as the money Baccari has spent buying it and trying to develop it.
Last year, there was talk of a state purchase of the 25-acre site. Edward F. Sanderson, executive director of the historic commission, said the state considered offering $2 million, but Baccari wanted $10 million to $12 million.
On Monday, Pierre Morenon, chairman of the department of anthropology at Rhode Island College, said scientists had only a sketchy idea of how Narragansett Indians lived prior to the arrival of Europeans. Roger Williams wrote extensively about the Narragansetts, but never described their villages, he said.
So the site in Narragansett, with the features of at least 21 houses, food-storage areas and spiritual areas clustered together closely was “completely new” and “amazing to us,” Morenon said.
“Nothing in New England has this level of information,” he said. “It provides a body of knowledge that is irretrievable. These types of sites don’t grow on trees, they are exceedingly rare. And they are important to the Narragansetts, too.”
Kevin A. McBride, associate professor of anthropology at the University of Connecticut, said any words he used to describe the site would be an understatement. “It’s an extraordinary find. It’s pretty rare.”
The site is particularly useful, he said, because it was only occupied for a few years. So it is not cluttered by the “noise” of more recent inhabitants.
“Given the extraordinary integrity of the site, you see exactly how the village was laid out,” McBride said. “I don’t think we’ve ever seen anything like this. It greatly expands our understanding of tribal culture, use of space, a village layout and horticulture. There is a magnitude of knowledge we’ve already gained from the site. It’s something we’ve never seen before.”
Fugate testified that the CRMC initially gave Baccari a permit because he needed to quickly run a sewer line through the site. Typically, Fugate said, all the archaeological work would be required first. But then, no one expected that so many critical historic features would be found on the site.
“This is an extraordinary situation, is it not?” asked Landry. “Where a developer has to collect data on the entire site at his expense, while not building any houses.”
Yes it is, Fugate said. But he said it was also unusual to find such a treasure of artifacts on any site.
Richard Vamgermeersch, a professor emeritus of accounting at the University of Rhode Island, was the only member of the public to offer comments. He said he has been researching a book on the Narragansett tribe and he has concluded that they were of worldwide renown, and that makes the village site even more significant.
Gregory Schulz, a lawyer for the attorney general’s office, said he wanted to submit an affidavit from the Narragansett Indians, whose representatives were unable to attend Monday’s hearing. Then, he would rest his case.
Coia gave Schulz and Landry until Jan. 4 to work out the details of the Narragansett affidavit. They will then have 45 days to file legal briefs and 20 days for replies. Then the subcommittee will vote on a recommendation to the full council.
Author: Peter B. Lord | Source: Projo [December 15, 2010]