By By JONATHAN CLAYBORNE
jonathan@wdnweb.com
Staff Writer
PotashCorp has withdrawn its offer to cooperate in an archaeological investigation of land it owns on Bath Creek.
Despite this development, a couple of sources close to the proposed project said it would continue unabated.
A number of experts contend the Potash-owned site, located at Beasley Point, is the most likely candidate for the lost Secotan Indian village.
This village, the capital of the Secotan nation, was featured in internationally famous watercolors painted by English gentleman John White as part of a 1585 expedition to the New World.
Advocates of the archaeological project point to artifacts and documentary evidence showing this land was home to an Algonquian Indian village during the “contact period” when Europeans encountered native populations here, and say that digging into Beasley Point could answer questions about whether this plot was Secotan.
In a letter dated Jan. 3, Steve Beckel, general manager of Potash’s Aurora facility, asserted the methods prescribed by the company in advance of the called-for investigation had not been followed.
“As the landowner, we have the right to dictate our requirements for access to our property,” Beckel wrote.
The letter was sent to the following recipients: Jerry Langley, chairman of the Beaufort County commissioners; Al Klemm, chairman of the Beaufort County Economic Development Commission and a county commissioner; and Tom Richter, chairman of the Beaufort County Committee of 100.
In the document, Beckel referred to his Sept. 30 letter to Langley and others in which Potash set forth requirements it said would have to be adhered to before site work could begin.
“Our participation was contingent on following the methodical and scientific approach that was supplied to you in that letter,” he wrote. “That approach provided very well-defined, specific steps that would have to be accomplished in order to obtain our cooperation. However, the prescribed steps have not been followed. In addition, articles in the press, as well as newsletters from those associated with the project, indicate that there is no intention to follow the steps and procedure which we outlined.”
Beckel concluded the letter by indicating the company planned to close its books on Secotan.
“Due to the blatant disregard for those requirements (set forth in the Sept. 30 letter) and the stated intention to continue to disregard our requirements, I am notifying you that we are withdrawing our participation in this project,” he wrote.
Among other points, the Sept. 30 letter called for a feasibility study that would confirm whether a replica Indian village modeled on Secotan could reap tourism dollars. Apparently, no such study has come to light recently.
The letter also stressed the need to form an advisory committee of historians and archaeologists, and called for analysis of records that “could help prove or disprove the village location.”
Proponents of the project have argued the records already have been explored, and have pointed out the Secotan 1585 committee was initiated last year to gather people interested in the project.
Attempts to obtain further comment from Potash officials weren’t immediately successful Saturday. A spokeswoman for the company said she would try to answer follow-up questions submitted by the Washington Daily News.
Tom Thompson is Beaufort County’s chief economic developer and one of the leading advocates of building a replica of the Algonquian village depicted in White’s paintings.
Thompson has noted that such groups as the nonprofit Committee of 100 and the nonprofit First Colony Foundation have expressed interest in the project.
In an interview Saturday, Thompson said these and other entities pursuing the Secotan initiative had been engaged in meeting Potash’s requirements as they worked to draw up an archaeological plan for Beasley Point.
Thompson was asked for his reaction to Beckel’s Jan. 3 letter.
“My reaction is I am dismayed because I think PotashCorp in general is aware that this has a very high probability of being the most famous Indian village in the world,” he said.
Asked what further steps could be taken by the coalition of organizations pursuing the resurrection of Secotan, Thompson said, “The options are very simple. We will continue to communicate with PotashCorp and continue to make them aware of the fact that this is nationally and internationally significant.”
Thompson said he had offered to have First Colony Foundation archaeologist Clay Swindell and Nicholas Luccketti, research vice president for the foundation, meet with Beckel.
He said these two First Colony associates had asked to see the Beasley Point property firsthand in order to get a better idea of how to answer Potash’s concerns.
According to Thompson, Beckel “refused us outright any opportunity for a meeting.”
Speaking of the process described by Potash, Thompson said, “We were engaged in that. It took quite a while to do it, and we hadn’t even finished it.”
Asked for his response to Beckel’s letter, Richter, one of the letter’s recipients, said he was “very disappointed.”
“It seems to me that we have an national asset here in our backyard that over time will be explored,” Richter added.
Asked whether Potash’s latest position spells the end of the Secotan project, Richter stated: “Absolutely not.”
“This is a well-known historical asset that is key to the manner in which the nation developed,” he remarked. “To think that there would be a cessation of interest in Secotan and its site seems unlikely. And since this is the most likely site on the basis of what we know today, I see nothing but continuing interest.”