Native American archaeological sites have fared poorly at the hands of the design and planning professions. This case study highlights an innovative approach to cultural resources protection that planners and local governments can implement to protect such resources in a cost effective, collaborative manner.

1. Cultural Resources
Protection
a
Pro-active Approach
George R. Frantz, AICP
Presented to American Planning Association
Chicago, IL, November 23, 2010
Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
1

2. The Issue
Native American historical and cultural sites
have fared poorly at the hand of the design
professions.

“Shovel and shut-up” approach
unfortunately still exists in too many places.
2

3. The Issue
 Archaeological sites
unknown quantity;
 Federal & state laws
limited effectiveness;
 Generally only apply
where public $$$
involved;
 New York: State
Environmental Quality
Review – public & private
projects.
Cartoon: Dolores Hayden, Grand Domestic
Revolution. 1980
3

4. The Issue
Tangible Resources vs. Intangible Resources
4

5. Project Genesis
 Desire to locate and
protect the site of
Coreorgonel, an
Iroquoian town of
+/- 2,000 destroyed
by American forces
in Revolutionary
War.
Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
5

6. Project Genesis
 Desire to avoid the
conflict that many
times erupts when
developers’ plans
are pitted against
protection of
cultural resources.
Image Source: www.nysgis.state.ny.us
6

7. The Challenge
 Accommodating growth
and development.
while
 Protecting an important
cultural resource and
sensitive Native American
site, and doing so in a
unique, cost effective and
non-adversarial manner.
Image Source: Microsoft Bing
7

8. Project Objectives
 Short-circuit potential controversy using pre-
emptive cultural resources survey to identify
areas of archaeological importance in the
valley.
 Develop a model for collaboration between
academic institutions, local governments and
landowners to identify & protect cultural
resources.
8

9. Project Objectives
 Permit the design and
approval of two future
residential developments
in the area while
protecting critical historic
and cultural resources.
 Create a constituency
within the community
for the protection of
cultural resources.
9

10. Methodology
• Phase I-a literature
search & report;
• Phase I-b shovel test
pits on 125 acres;
10

11. Methodology
• Parkland dedications
ID’ed in collaboration
with developers;
• Development phasing
determined
• Phase II excavations on
5 features identified in
Phase I-b.
11

12. Evolution
 A catalyst for a multi-
year research, design
and public education
initiative.
 A place redefined: the
Inlet Valley from
highway corridor to an
area rich in history.
12

13. “We’re Not Dead Yet”
 A rediscovery of a rich
native American heritage
in the occupation of the
Inlet valley by the
Tutelo/Saponi peoples.
 A new public park that
includes a space set aside
for contemplation and
commemoration of
Native American
heritage.
13

14. Participants
 Department of City & Regional Planning, Department
of Landscape Architecture, Cornell University.
 Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
 Developers : Eddydale Homes & E. Tomlinson, III
 Cayuga Nation of Indians
 Tutelo and Saponi nations
14

15. Lessons Learned
 Communities can and
should pro-actively
embark on cultural
resources surveys
wherever the historic
record shows the
potential presence of
archaeological site.
15

16. Lessons Learned
 Planners can and
should work with
landowners and the
community to
determine presence of
archaeological sites
before design begins.
16

17. Lessons Learned
 The Native American
community can and
should be brought to
the table early on as
an active partner and
valuable informant.
17

18. Lessons Learned
 Colleges and
universities have an
important role:
 critical expertise in
archaeology;
 resources to conduct
excavations.
18

19. Lessons Learned
 A proactive, cooperative approach to
identifying cultural resources is both practical
and cost effective.
 Controversy over historic and cultural
resources can be short-circuited.
 The development review and approval
process does not have to be delayed.
19

20. Lessons Learned
 The authority
municipalities possess
in many states to
require park and open
space dedications of
developers can be a tool
for protecting cultural
resources.
20

21. Present & Future
 A new constituency for the protection of
the Coreorgonel townsite is established.
21

22. Present & Future
 Town of Ithaca in
September 1999 named
one of two park sites
acquired as a result of
the IVAS “Tutelo Park.”
 Dedicated the park to
preserving the heritage
of the native American
presence in the Inlet
Valley.
22

23. Present & Future
 In September 2006 the
commemoration was
expanded into the
“Homecoming Festival of
Native American
Culture,” a one-day event
featuring music, dance, food,
presentations and exhibits at
Tutelo Park.
23

24. IVAS Part II
March 2010
 Local micro-brewery
acquires site to build new
brewery/restaurant/beer
garden;
 Presents sketch plan to
Town of Ithaca Planning
Board;
 Proposed development
outside IVAS test area.
24

25. IVAS Part II
Under NY State
Environmental Quality
Review Act, Town of
Ithaca must consider
potential impacts on
historic and cultural
resources prior to
approving project.
25

26. IVAS Part II
• Developer hires
archaeologist to
complete Phase I-a,
Phase I-b studies;
• Development site is
“clean;”
• Report incorporated in
Town’s environmental
review
26

27. Questions?
George R. Frantz, AICP
Department of City & Regional Planning
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
grf4@cornell.edu
27