Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
the article in the Indy Star today re: twp trustees, doesn't mention but
couple or three duties of the trustees, and of course overseeing 'neglected'
cemeteries isn't one mentioned......Ruth Pride Wheatland, Knox Co.
I can't speak for fire protection (I remember those days on a department
though), poor relief, and other issues involving trustee's, but a sure
way to get a cemetery issue resolved with either action or a little
money is the county commissioners. Trustee's seldom hold
a public meeting much less attract any attendance. Thus commissioners
and the county council have the public eye upon them. You will get a
response, as they can't very well just brush you off without listening.
Ironically several of the council and two of the commissioners have old
family plots located on their properties.
Again, I don't claim to know whats best
with or without the trustee's, I seldom deal with one.
Lee Creed
Greencastle
Why do you think that the commissioners can not handle it any better than
the trustees? They handle most all the other county business on a county
wide basis. I, for one, think it would it be a much better deal and I also
believe that the money is there for this if they would just use it to the
best advantage. Too many fingers are in the pie now and strictly for
political reasons.
Jon Andrews
>I can assure you the county is in no position to take on the
responsibilities of the townships
_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com
Hi...I corresponded with you last year...re George Steele et al, Barbara
Love etc.
What can I do for you ?
Susanna Steele Noe
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rhonda Stoffer" <rstoffer(a)marion.lib.in.us>
To: <INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 7:02 AM
Subject: [INPCRP] Steele stones in Marion IOOF
> Last summer I checked on some stones for a lady related to the George
Steele
> family in the Marion Estates of Serenity (IOOF) cemetery. Would you please
> contact me again, off list. I have some questions for you about the Steele
> family. Thanks!
>
> Rhonda Stoffer
> Head of Indiana History and Genealogy Services
> Marion Public Library
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
>
Anyone who would like to view the text of any bill in legislature can go
here:
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2004&session=1...
cousin Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: <KidClerk(a)aol.com>
To: <INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 10:32 AM
Subject: [INPCRP] Township legislation
> I don't know how many of you here in Indiana watch politics very closely,
but
> there are some issues that have arisen in the last few months that seem to
be
> getting more and more attention in the Indiana General Assembly that would
> have a direct affect on our activities. I'm not sure if it will be good
or bad
> to tell you the truth when it comes to cemeteries, but it is something to
> start keeping on our radar screen. Maybe our township trustees and
township
> association reps here on the list can let us know what they're hearing. I
> personally think it will affect me as a volunteer firefighter and fire
chief more than
> my interests in cemetery preservation.
>
> There is proposed legislation this session in SB0187 which would require
the
> merger of townships and in HB1155 to eliminate townships totally. While
there
> have been efforts to do this in the past that were not successful, it
appears
> that gubernatorial candidates from both parties are at least saying that
this
> should be looked at. And with the recent re-assessment debacle still
going
> on, our legislators seem to want to blame everyone but themselves for
screwing
> things up...and are going to take it our on the township, and possibly
county,
> forms of government. Without getting on my soapbox about government
closer
> to the people being the most effective (I guess I just did :) I will say
that
> the legislation that eliminates townships transfers most if not all
services
> previously administered by the townships over to the county. Now let's
think
> about this...if you have a problematic township trustee that lives a mile
from
> a neglected pioneer cemetery and can't get any cooperation, what about
trying
> to convince two out of three county commissioners, none of whom live
anywhere
> near the cemetery, let alone in that township.
>
> I should add that HB 1155 appears to form a study commission that will
> propose legislation in 2005, so it won't happen for over a year, but it is
something
> we here in Indiana should watch closely.
>
> Having gotten my start in government as a township board member and then
> county clerk, I can assure you the county is in no position to take on the
> responsibilities of the townships..and therefore they will be considered,
pardon my
> language, the "adopted bastard stepchildren" of county services...and we
will
> all lose in the process.
>
> OK...so I lied..I did get on my soapbox....
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Kyle D. Conrad
> Brook, IN
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> Scott Satterthwaite < ssattert(a)localnet.com > is the INPCRP State
Coordinator. Feel free to contact him directly regarding questions or
comments you may have about the INPCRP.
>
>
I don't know how many of you here in Indiana watch politics very closely, but
there are some issues that have arisen in the last few months that seem to be
getting more and more attention in the Indiana General Assembly that would
have a direct affect on our activities. I'm not sure if it will be good or bad
to tell you the truth when it comes to cemeteries, but it is something to
start keeping on our radar screen. Maybe our township trustees and township
association reps here on the list can let us know what they're hearing. I
personally think it will affect me as a volunteer firefighter and fire chief more than
my interests in cemetery preservation.
There is proposed legislation this session in SB0187 which would require the
merger of townships and in HB1155 to eliminate townships totally. While there
have been efforts to do this in the past that were not successful, it appears
that gubernatorial candidates from both parties are at least saying that this
should be looked at. And with the recent re-assessment debacle still going
on, our legislators seem to want to blame everyone but themselves for screwing
things up...and are going to take it our on the township, and possibly county,
forms of government. Without getting on my soapbox about government closer
to the people being the most effective (I guess I just did :) I will say that
the legislation that eliminates townships transfers most if not all services
previously administered by the townships over to the county. Now let's think
about this...if you have a problematic township trustee that lives a mile from
a neglected pioneer cemetery and can't get any cooperation, what about trying
to convince two out of three county commissioners, none of whom live anywhere
near the cemetery, let alone in that township.
I should add that HB 1155 appears to form a study commission that will
propose legislation in 2005, so it won't happen for over a year, but it is something
we here in Indiana should watch closely.
Having gotten my start in government as a township board member and then
county clerk, I can assure you the county is in no position to take on the
responsibilities of the townships..and therefore they will be considered, pardon my
language, the "adopted bastard stepchildren" of county services...and we will
all lose in the process.
OK...so I lied..I did get on my soapbox....
Thanks for your time.
Kyle D. Conrad
Brook, IN
Last summer I checked on some stones for a lady related to the George Steele
family in the Marion Estates of Serenity (IOOF) cemetery. Would you please
contact me again, off list. I have some questions for you about the Steele
family. Thanks!
Rhonda Stoffer
Head of Indiana History and Genealogy Services
Marion Public Library
Texas Cemetery Offers Eco-Friendly Burial
By LIZ AUSTIN
HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) - George Russell believes in ashes to ashes, dust to dust. No embalming fluid. No airtight caskets. No steel vaults.
That's why he offers a different kind of funeral at his Ethician Family Cemetery - Texas' first ``green cemetery.'' There, bodies are wrapped in cloth for burial under towering pine and oak trees near Lake Livingston.
``Isn't it wonderful if my body nurtures this huge oak tree, and in its branches are the nests of beautiful songbirds,'' said Russell, 58, who plans to be buried the same way at his family's private plot near the cemetery. ``In that way you really never die, because you become a part of that songbird, you become a part of that tree, you become a part of that beauty.''
The cemetery on 81 acres of dense forest about 90 miles north of Houston marks a growing trend in burial options that don't harm the environment and allow the body to decompose naturally.
Green cemeteries are common in the United Kingdom, but the first one labeled as such in the United States opened in South Carolina in 1996. Another followed in Florida, and Russell opened his in November. No national statistics track the number of green cemeteries, but Billy Campbell, president of Memorial Ecosystems in South Carolina, said a handful of others are planned around the country.
Bob Fells, external chief operating officer for the International Cemetery and Funeral Association, said it's hard to predict whether green cemeteries will become more commonplace.
``I don't think anyone really knows what things are really going to click with the public ... and what kind of things just have a novelty value,'' he said.
Terri Reed, a 52-year-old investigations assistant with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security who lives near Russell, was the first person to buy a plot in his cemetery.
Reed said traditional funerals have become too materialistic.
``I'm the kind of person who just doesn't like the way modern America commercializes everything,'' said Reed. ``I've always been interested in the idea of just being passed into the earth, you know, without all the rigamarole that the funerals go through nowadays.''
Russell had the same concerns. He said he wanted to give families an affordable alternative to funerals, which industry experts say averages around $5,000. That excludes a burial plot, which can add thousands.
Environmental reasons, not cost, motivated 59-year-old David Cocke to buy a plot. The chemistry and civil engineering professor at Lamar University says he disapproves of the huge amounts of water, pesticides and herbicides used to keep cemetery grounds immaculate. And cremation, he says, wastes energy and pollutes the air.
``You're left with not much of an alternative, if you want to be environmentally conscious about what you're going to contribute to the future pollution load,'' he said.
Russell, who owns an educational video production company in Huntsville, got the idea for the cemetery in 1968, when he and his wife lived in Central America. After watching natives bury their dead in the rainforest, he knew he would not want to spend eternity in a traditional cemetery.
``They'd lovingly dig a little grave by hand, say under the branches of a huge rain-forest tree with orchids cascading down and parrots squawking,'' he recalled. ``It was just as if you had returned to the Garden of Eden.''
The plan germinated in Russell's mind for decades before he discovered Lake Livingston and the surrounding undeveloped land and realized it was the perfect spot for his 248-plot cemetery.
The land was mapped out in the 1970s as a resort and retirement community called Waterwood. But most people who bought land there couldn't afford to build a house after the global oil slump hit in the 1980s, and it never was developed.
Russell's family wanted to preserve Waterwood, so he and his parents bought 2,500 acres near the lake, about 10 miles from the Sam Houston National Forest. Besides the cemetery, they have used the land to establish sanctuaries for alligators and eagles, a 131-acre longleaf pine preserve and a 110-acre research forest.
``I feel like the only permanent legacy that a person can leave is a piece of America the beautiful,'' Russell said. ``With this concept, even in death, in this cemetery ... that beautiful forest will always be there for everyone to enjoy.''
The cemetery's first occupant is a 40-year-old food service clerk who was estranged from his family. His friends decided to bury him at the Ethician cemetery Jan. 2.
``I think we did everything in a Christian, dignified manner. I didn't see any problems with it and wouldn't hesitate to do it again,'' said Riley Smith, the funeral director.
People who buy a plot, each of which can accommodate up to 12 graves, cannot plant flowers or cut down or damage trees. They are encouraged to install markers with short biographies of the deceased and must submit a record of the exact location of each grave using GPS equipment.
Anyone can buy a one-quarter to one-third-acre plot by making whatever donation they can afford to the Universal Ethician Church, an interfaith, ecumenical congregation that Russell founded a few years ago. Individual spaces are also available.
``I've seen so many families who spend money, sometimes tens of thousands of dollars, to pickle grandmother or their mother or their father or their child,'' he said. ``The sad thing is that we tend to be so caught up in our material selves and our material world and what other people think.''
Mark Davis
4 Lakeview Ct.
Hartford City,Indiana 47348
md9105(a)skyenet.net
With malice toward none, with charity for all,with
firmness in the right as God gives us to see the
right,let us strive on to finish the work we are in...
A. Lincoln March 4,1865
In a message dated 1/15/04 12:19:48 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cherylannmunson(a)hotmail.com writes:
> I have to wonder whether
> you are upset because, as I've been told, you worked on the I-69 cemetery
> study -- as a paid consultant -- and perhaps had some responsibility for its
>
> preparation.
Cheryl, and the List,
That is what I had reference to in my E-mail. We all need to get our
facts straight before answering to quickly. We have all worked to hard on
cemetery preservation to let the List deteriorate in to a "He" said "she" said.
This past summer I walked within 5 feet of 3 Tombstones and I never saw them. I
walked the area for 2 hours before they "magically" appeared. On the
cemeteries involved in the I-69 discussion I can understand how this could happen.
Hopefully they will all be found.
Respectfully,
Jack
Never mind, I hit the send instead of delete.
_________________________________________________________________
High-speed usersbe more efficient online with the new MSN Premium Internet
Software. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/prem&ST=1
>From: "Rich Green" <rgreen(a)insightbb.com>
>Reply-To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
>To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
>Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 12:24:30 -0500
>
>Mrs. Munson,
>
>Well, I'll go ahead and give you the last word(s) on this increasingly
>off-topic discussion (even though I'm tempted to continue following it
>along the lines of professional integrity), but please remember that YOU
>took the discussion here rather than answering my repeated and very direct
>questions about the 100-year threshold artifact description that YOU are
>trying to push through.
>
>My feeling, and I'm quite certain that I'm not yet alone, is that when
>someone purposely dodges specific questions and redirects the discussion to
>other important subject matter instead, their credibility and yes their
>integrity are suspect. But that's just me.
>
>To the list:
>
>My sincere apologies to my friends on the list (who suffer through reading
>these discussions) for having followed the thread and for having continued
>to vigorously pursue an honest and truthful answer to my original post. I
>should have known better.
>
>Enough is right.
>
>Rich Green
>
>
>Rich Green
>
>
>==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
>Quote from William Gladstone (1809-1897), three-time Prime Minister of
>England
>and Victorian contemporary of Benjamin Disraeli:
> "Show me the manner in which a nation or community
> cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical
> exactness the tender mercies of its people, their
> respect for the laws of the land, and their loyalty
> to high ideals."
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find high-speed net deals comparison-shop your local providers here.
https://broadband.msn.com
Mrs. Munson,
Well, I'll go ahead and give you the last word(s) on this increasingly off-topic discussion (even though I'm tempted to continue following it along the lines of professional integrity), but please remember that YOU took the discussion here rather than answering my repeated and very direct questions about the 100-year threshold artifact description that YOU are trying to push through.
My feeling, and I'm quite certain that I'm not yet alone, is that when someone purposely dodges specific questions and redirects the discussion to other important subject matter instead, their credibility and yes their integrity are suspect. But that's just me.
To the list:
My sincere apologies to my friends on the list (who suffer through reading these discussions) for having followed the thread and for having continued to vigorously pursue an honest and truthful answer to my original post. I should have known better.
Enough is right.
Rich Green
Rich Green
HOUSE BILL No. 1097
_____
DIGEST OF INTRODUCED BILL
Citations Affected: IC 14-8-2-289; IC 14-21-1.
Synopsis: Burial grounds and cemeteries. Defines "artifact", for purposes of
the historic preservation law, as any human made object that is more than
100 years old. Requires a person to contact the department of natural
resources to determine whether the ground that will be disturbed is within
100 feet of a recorded burial ground or cemetery. Except for certain coal
operations, requires approval of a development plan before disturbing the
ground within 100 feet of a burial ground or cemetery.
Effective: July 1, 2004.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Pierce, Saunders, Welch
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
January 13, 2004, read first time and referred to Committee on
Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Introduced
Second Regular Session 113th General Assembly (2004)
PRINTING CODE. Amendments: Whenever an existing statute (or a section of the
Indiana Constitution) is being amended, the text of the existing provision
will appear in this style type, additions will appear in this style type,
and deletions will appear in this style type.
Additions: Whenever a new statutory provision is being enacted (or a new
constitutional provision adopted), the text of the new provision will appear
in this style type. Also, the word NEW will appear in that style type in the
introductory clause of each SECTION that adds a new provision to the Indiana
Code or the Indiana Constitution.
Conflict reconciliation: Text in a statute in this style type or this style
type reconciles conflicts between statutes enacted by the 2003 Regular
Session of the General Assembly.
HOUSE BILL No. 1097
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
A BILL FOR AN ACT to amend the Indiana Code concerning natural and
cultural resources.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:
SOURCE: IC 14-8-2-289; (04)IN1097.1.1. --> SECTION 1. IC 14-8-2-289, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.52-2001, SECTION 4, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 289. "Unit of local government" has the following
meaning:
(1) For purposes of IC 14-12-1, has the meaning set forth in IC
14-12-1-3. and
(2) For purposes of IC 14-21-1 and IC 14-22-10, means a:
(A) county;
(B) city;
(C) town; or
(D) township;
located in Indiana.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-2; (04)IN1097.1.2. --> SECTION 2. IC 14-21-1-2 IS
AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 2. As used in this
chapter, "artifact" means an object made or shaped by human workmanship
before December 11, 1816. that is at least one hundred (100) years old.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-8; (04)IN1097.1.3. --> SECTION 3. IC 14-21-1-8, AS
AMENDED BY P.L.46-2000, SECTION 7, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 8. (a) As used in this chapter, "plan" refers to:
(1) an archeological plan, as described in subsection (b); or
(2) a development plan, as described in subsection (c).
(b) As used in this chapter, "archeological plan" means a plan for the
systematic recovery, analysis, and disposition by scientific methods of
material evidence and information about the life and culture in past ages.
(c) As used in this chapter, "development plan" means a plan for the
erection, alteration, an activity that will disturb the land surface or
subsurface and that will:
(1) erect, alter, or repair of any a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas
well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.4; (04)IN1097.1.4. --> SECTION 4. IC 14-21-1-26.4
IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE AS A NEW SECTION TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE
JULY 1, 2004]: Sec. 26.4. (a) This section does not apply to the following:
(1) A surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under
IC 14-34.
(2) The repair of a structure.
(b) If a person intends to engage in an activity that will disturb the
land surface or subsurface to:
(1) erect or alter a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas
well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel;
the person, before beginning the activity, must contact the department to
determine whether the ground that will be disturbed is within one hundred
(100) feet of a recorded burial ground or cemetery.
(c) The department shall respond in writing to a request made under
subsection (b) within thirty (30) days.
(d) A person shall attach a copy of the department's written response
issued under subsection (c) regarding the proposed activity with any
application for a permit that is submitted to the state or a unit of local
government.
SOURCE: IC 14-21-1-26.5; (04)IN1097.1.5. --> SECTION 5. IC 14-21-1-26.5,
AS AMENDED BY P.L.177-2001,
SECTION 3, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2004]: Sec.
26.5. (a) This section applies to a person who intends to disturb the land
surface or subsurface to:
(1) erect or alter a structure;
(2) construct or modify a utility line or transmission facility;
(3) drill or change drilling operations for an oil well or a gas
well; or
(4) remove sand and gravel.
Notwithstanding IC 23-14-44-1, this section does not apply to the following:
(1) A public utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(a)).
(2) A corporation organized under IC 8-1-13.
(3) A municipally owned utility (as defined in IC 8-1-2-1(h)).
(4) a surface coal mining and reclamation operation permitted under
IC 14-34.
(b) Except as provided in this subsection, subsection (b), subsections
(c) and subsection (c), (d), a person may not disturb the ground within one
hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery: for the purpose of
erecting, altering, or repairing any structure
(1) without having a development plan approved by the department
under section 25 of this chapter; or
(2) in violation of a development plan approved by the department
under section 25 of this chapter.
The department must review the development plan not later than sixty (60)
days after the development plan is submitted.
(b) (c) A development plan:
(1) must be approved if a person intends to construct a new
structure or alter or repair an existing structure disturb the land surface
or subsurface in a manner that would significantly impact the burial ground
or cemetery; and
(2) is not required if a person intends to erect, alter, or repair
an existing land or building structure for an incidental or existing use
that would not impact the burial ground or cemetery.
(c) (d) A development plan for a governmental entity to disturb ground
within one hundred (100) feet of a burial ground or cemetery must be
approved as follows:
(1) A development plan of a municipality requires approval of the
executive of the municipality and does not require the approval of the
department. However, if the burial ground or cemetery is located outside the
municipality, approval is also required by the executive of the county where
the burial ground or cemetery is located. A county cemetery commission
established under
IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the executive of the municipality on whether to
approve a development plan.
(2) A development plan of a governmental entity other than:
(A) a municipality; or
(B) the state;
requires the approval of the executive of the county where the
governmental entity is located and does not require the approval of the
department. However, if the governmental entity is located in more than one
(1) county, only the approval of the executive of the county where the
burial ground or cemetery is located is required. A county cemetery
commission established under IC 23-14-67-2 may advise the county executive
on whether to approve a development plan.
(3) A development plan of the state requires the approval of the
department.
(d) (e) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates
this section commits a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class
D felony if the person disturbs buried human remains or grave markers while
committing the offense.
The dead line is today to file new bills, they are to be filed this morning.
To review current bills that have been filed see
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2004&session=1...
and hope that the cemetery ones make it that far!
Donna
----- Original Message -----
From: <KidClerk(a)aol.com>
To: <INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2004 5:55 AM
Subject: [INPCRP] Legislative watch
> With the General Assembly in full swing, has anyone had an opportunity to
see
> if any of our proposed cemetery legislation has been filed? What about
the
> legislation that Cheryl explained that definitely needs to be tracked?
>
> Just curious.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know.
>
>
>
With the General Assembly in full swing, has anyone had an opportunity to see
if any of our proposed cemetery legislation has been filed? What about the
legislation that Cheryl explained that definitely needs to be tracked?
Just curious.
Thanks,
Kyle
To Rich Green - and INPCRP folks:
All right, Rich. Enough.
INPCRP-l is very far from the kind of forum that it was in years past!
I've tried to answer when I've checked into the list, and now there's no
point in my participating further except to respond in this message to
Rich's insulting misrepresentations - and outright false allegations -
regarding not only my professional work, but my husband's.
First, Rich, you said (Jan 5, 2004) that we should have reported the
cemeteries that we knew were missed in the I-69 study and then (Jan 6) "
since conscientious archaeologists like the Munsons would have expeditiously
provided this site information to the State "
This insinuation might have led people on this list to conclude that we did
not responsibly share information. As I replied, Patrick Munson and I
indeed alerted (Nov 2002) INDOT's consultants to missed cemeteries in their
study. We also shared a copy of our letter with state and local officials.
In your response today to my response, you ignore what I reported, and then
slid from insinuation to accusation, saying: "Incidentally, I attended
several meetings during the Tier 1 EIS and the Munson's were absent during
this process other than to write letters "
Absent? This is patently false: I attended three meetings held in
Bloomington, and Patrick attended two. Did you not hear my public statement
made at one meeting from a microphone on the stage? Did you not attend
these meetings? Or did you not check the records of the people who signed
in? At these meetings we also spoke at length with various members of the
consulting firm and INDOT representatives. Oh well. . . .
On another point regarding the cemeteries that we found to have been missed
in the initial I-69 study, you said "To suggest that we all somehow missed a
cemetery clearly identified on one of the associated quadrangles is another
irresponsible inaccuracy put forth with absolutely no supporting evidence."
You continue on today, to allege that we wrote "letters that contained the
same sort of inaccuracies and half-truths that we see from Cheryl."
These are attacks on our professional integrity. I have to wonder whether
you are upset because, as I've been told, you worked on the I-69 cemetery
study -- as a paid consultant -- and perhaps had some responsibility for its
preparation. In any case, the "irresponsible inaccuracy" (your phrase) that
you accuse us of was not ours. Nor did we personally criticize the people
who worked on the initial study. We just attempted to correct the
inaccuracy, since oversights do happen.
The "supporting evidence" is listed in our Nov 2002 letter: the Ketcham
Cemetery, clearly marked on the USGS Clear Creek map, was "missed" in the
initial study, as were eight other cemeteries that are listed in published
volumes. If anyone would want to check, the DEIS for I-69 maps with
cemeteries are on online, as is our letter reporting on the nine missed
cemeteries in that initial study (Comments in FEIS, #1102014). The
published volumes are available at both the Monroe County public library and
the Monroe County Historical Society library.
In any case, the oversight has been corrected, and that is really what was
important. We all know that if project developers don't know that
cemeteries are present in the planning phase of a project, it is very hard
to protect them. Protection was the point from our perspective.
It still is.
Enough.
Cheryl
____________________
Cheryl Ann Munson
>From: "Rich Green" <rgreen(a)insightbb.com>
>Reply-To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
>To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
>Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:46:02 -0500
>
>INPCRP Listers:
>
>We seem to be straying off on a tangent here, and since my original
>questions with specific regard for this proposed legislation and it's
>impact on private property owners has been repeatedly ignored, I am
>reluctant to respond to any other questions. However, since many of my
>friends on the list here may be confused by the acronyms and somewhat
>technical jargon of this most recent sidestep, I'll try to make this more
>plain.
>
>Firstly, I think it's important to understand that the I-69 Environmental
>Impact Statement is being carried out in a tiered process. The draft
>document (DEIS) and final document (FEIS) were both part of a lengthy
>process of research carried out during Tier 1. The draft and final Tier 1
>documents as they pertain to cemeteries and other archaeological resources
>are vastly different simply because they were works in progress at a given
>time during the course of the research.
>
>Each proposed alternative was studied in 2-mile wide corridors even though
>the actual road alignment is only approximately 400-feet wide. Studies
>like this one are done in this manner so as to permit room to move the
>final chosen alignment in order to avoid important areas or cultural
>resources. Obviously, cemeteries fall into this category.
>
>During Tier 2 of the EIS, this same research will be carried out again and
>further refined by a number of completely different contractors who will
>take responsibility for smaller segments of the chosen alternative route.
>Field investigations will be carried out at this time and, in all
>probability, there will be additional discoveries that will ultimately need
>to be addressed. Mrs. Munson certainly understands that this is how the
>tiered process works.
>
>As many of the folks on this list will attest, every effort was made to
>identify all known cemeteries within each proposed 2-mile wide alternative
>through intensive research that made use of all existing archival records,
>as well as, INPCRP volunteers and County Historians who provided cemetery
>site locations on digital USGS quadrangle maps. Was every cemetery
>identified? I think certainly not; however, this simply isn't feasible
>during Tier 1 since field investigations necessary to confirm precise
>locations don't typically take place until Tier 2. The bottom line is that
>the Tier 1 cemetery investigations were as thorough as possible.
>
>Finally, I don't think that this is the appropriate forum to argue over how
>proposed federal highways are studied by INDOT. Whether anyone likes how
>this is done is irrelevant to the question at hand. Incidentally, I
>attended several meetings during the Tier 1 EIS and the Munson's were
>absent during this process other than to write letters that contained the
>same sort of inaccuracies and half-truths that we see from Cheryl here on
>the INPCRP list.
>
>I suppose it's easier to snipe someone else's efforts than it is to become
>part of the solution, but again we're straying away from my original
>questions and concerns. I guess that this is the intention.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rich Green
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Cheryl Munson
> To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
>
>
> To Rich, Larry, and all:
>
> I hope I can clarify some misunderstandings about "missed" cemeteries
>that
> Patrick Munson and I reported re: the draft EIS for I-69. Our work in
>this
> regard goes back several years. Also, we have just received and
>reviewed
> the lengthy final EIS, and have a question which Rich or Larry or others
> might answer.
>
> After we saw that several cemeteries were missed on the DEIS maps for
>I-69
> in a small area that we know well, Patrick and I did indeed check
>additional
> records and identified nine cemeteries that were missed by the DEIS.
>The
> area we checked was limited to Monroe County and to eastern Greene
>County,
> where there were three alternate alignments (3a-c).
> We wrote to INDOT's I-69 environmental consultant in Nov. 02 to report
>these
> missed cemeteries, and copied our letter to INDOT, the Indiana Division
>of
> Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Greene and Monroe County
>Historical
> Societies, and other officials. Our letter is also included in the FEIS
> (comment #1102014). See the paste-in of the letter, below.
>
> To accompany our letter we made a map showing the locations of the
>missed
> cemeteries at a county scale; this will not paste in, but I can send it
> later as an attachment if this would be needed by anyone.
>
> The information for our letter came from the records and publications of
>the
> county historical societies, which we carefully reviewed before writing
>our
> letter, plus our on-the-ground observations. The Ketcham Cemetery is in
> fact on the USGS map, as I wrote earlier. The Adams Cemetery is
>described
> in several Monroe County publications.
>
> For the final EIS there are maps for only one alignment and its location
>has
> been slightly shifted in some segments from the DEIS, so some of the
>missed
> cemeteries in our report are no longer in or immediately next to the
> preferred highway alignment. The missing cemeteries we reported have
>been
> added to the map of the study area. Only one of the nine cemeteries we
> reported in our letter -- Adams -- is shown in the 400-foot alignment.
> Another of the cemeteries -- Storm -- was shown on the DEIS maps and
>well as
> the FEIS map as in the 400-foot alginment.
>
> We don't know why these cemeteries are not being avoided.
> Is there a plan for treating these cemeteries in the EIS document? We
>have
> scanned this lengthy document, but can't find a statement on this.
>
> If anyone knows the page number for the section describing treatment of
> cemeteries, I hope you would post this.
>
> We did find one FEIS statement re cemetery data that I copied and
>pasted,
> but I neglected to write down the page reference (duh).
>
> The FEIS says that the cemetery data "has been updated from field
>reviews of
> the 2-mile wide study bands. It was also updated using Quadrangle DRG
>files
> for those USGS
> intersect the 2-mile wide study band of the proposed routes for I-69
>from
> Evansville to Indianapolis (Tier 1). Further updates were cemeteries
>marked
> in the Indiana Historic Landmark Foundation county interim reports and
> described by public comment to the DEIS."
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Cheryl
> ________________
> Cheryl Ann Munson
>
> **********
> (Paste-in of Nov 02 letter)
>
> Patrick J. Munson and Cheryl Ann Munson
> 6707 W. Rock East Road
> Bloomington, IN 47403
> (812-824-7717)
>
> 2 November 2002
>
> Mr. Mike Grovak, Project Manager
> Bernardin, Lochmueller & Assoc., Inc.
> 6200 Vogel Road
> Evansville, IN 47715
>
> Re: Recorded historic cemeteries in Proposed I-69 Alt. 3a-c, Monroe and
> eastern
> Greene counties
>
> Dear Sir:
>
> Our comments address only those segments of Proposed I-69 Alternatives
>3a,
> 3b, and 3c that lie in Monroe County and immediately adjacent parts of
> northeastern Greene County (see enclosed map).
>
> In these segments the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) shows
>43
> historic cemeteries within the Two-Mile Study Bands. The great majority
>of
> these lie outside the 2000' study corridor, and hence would be, we
>assume,
> easily avoided. However, four cemeteries (Freeman, Storm, Carmichael,
>Ham -
> all in Greene County) lie directly in the 2000' corridors. Two of
>these,
> given their locations relative to the centerline, are of particular
>note:
>
>
> Storm lies on the proposed centerline where a bridge would cross Indian
> Creek. This is one of oldest cemeteries in Greene Co. (first burial
>1819),
> and contains among it 50+ graves, including those of at least three
>veterans
> of the Revolutionary War.
>
> Carmichael lies just west of the proposed centerline where there is a
> proposed overpass or underpass for Carmichael Road. This is a large
> cemetery, with hundreds of graves.
>
>
> Of greater concern at this stage of planning are nine cemeteries that
>are
> recorded by the Monroe County Historical Society and the Greene County
> Historical Society and are located in the Study Bands, but are not shown
>in
> the DEIS. Five of these (Wright, Hoadley, Wampler, Collier, Star) are
>small
> cemeteries that lie outside the 2000' corridor, as it is presently
>drawn.
> However, the other four are of particular concern:
>
>
> Adams, is in the northern part of Sec. 7, Indian Creek Twp., Monroe Co.
> This very old, well-known, well-maintained cemetery of about 75 graves
>lies
> on the centerline where Alt. 3c diverges from Alt. 3a-b.
>
>
> Hardy Sparks, SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 Sec. 12, Center Twp., Greene Co. (not to
>be
> confused with Sparks Cemetery near center of Sec. 1 of the same
>township),
> is about 2000' southwest of the Adams Cemetery and is on the western
>edge of
> the combined Alt. 3a-c in the 2000' Corridor. It contains at least
>eight
> graves (including one veteran of the War of 1812).
>
> Philpot, NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 sec. 25, Beech Creek Twp., Greene Co., lies
>along
> eastern edge of the Alt. 3a-b's 2000' Corridor.
>
> Ketcham, NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 6, Clear Twp., Monroe Co., is a very old,
> well-maintained, and well-known cemetery (which is clearly marked on the
> USGS Clear Creek quad) of about 60 graves, including a veteran of the
> Revolutionary War. It lies in the Two-Mile Band and not very far
>outside
> the 2000' Corridor of Alt. 3c.
>
>
> We take some comfort in INDOT's statement that cemeteries will be
>avoided
> "whenever possible." But how can engineers design a right-of-way that
> avoids cemeteries if their locations are not part of the planning study?
>
> Yet another observation and question: In the small part of the Proposed
>I-69
> corridors considered here there are 52 recorded cemeteries, of which
>nine
> were missed or omitted in the DEIS. Is this "failure rate" (17%)
>typical
> for recorded cemeteries in others parts of the proposed corridors?
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Patrick J. Munson
>
>
> Cheryl Ann Munson
>
>
> cc: B. Nichol (INDOT)
> State Historic Preservation Officer
> Monroe County Historical Society
> Greene County Historical Society
> Monroe County Commissioners
> Monroe County Plan Commission
> T. & S. Tokarski (CARR)
> *****
>
> can't past in map, see attached.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Rich Green" <rgreen(a)insightbb.com>
> >Reply-To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> >Subject: Re: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
> >Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:10:16 -0500
> >
> >Hi Larry,
> >
> >Sorry I didn't initially see your question at the bottom of this
>message.
> >
> >Reported cemetery locations should be included in the Cemetery
>Registry.
> >I'm not certain about the current protocol for researching the data;
> >however, we had a person that went to the offices of the DHPA 2-3 days
>per
> >week for several months when the 1-69 cemetery GIS was being assembled.
> >You should contact the director of the Cemetery Registry for more
> >information as to data access.
> >
> >With specific regard to the two cemeteries mentioned in this post, I
>would
> >suggest that they too must now be a part of the Indiana Cemetery
>Registry
> >since conscientious archaeologists like the Munsons would have
> >expeditiously provided this site information to the State when it was
> >discovered.
> >
> >Rich Green
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> > From: Stephens, Larry V
> > To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> > Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:32 PM
> > Subject: RE: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
> >
> >
> >
> > Since I was directly involved in the cemetery research for the I-69
> >project, I would beg to differ with Mrs. Munson that there exist any
>known
> >cemetery sites near Virginia Iron Works that were missed by the Tier 1
> >investigations, and clearly no such sites that exist on the USGS
> >quadrangles were missed. I would further suggest that the Tier 1
>cemetery
> >work was more comprehensive than the existing Cemetery Registry by
>virtue
> >of the man-hours applied and the methods utilized. I would further
>suggest
> >that the Mrs. Munson obtain a copy of the completed work before making
>such
> >unwarranted comments.
> >
> > Many of the people here on the INPCRP list took an active hand in
> >identifying ALL known cemeteries within the proposed I-69 alternatives
>and
> >digital copies of all associated USGS topographical maps were
>distributed
> >personally by me to volunteer program participants; some of whom are
>from
> >Monroe County. To suggest that we all somehow missed a cemetery
>clearly
> >identified on one of the associated quadrangles is another
>irresponsible
> >inaccuracy put forth with absolutely no supporting evidence.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > There seems to be some disagreement over missed cemeteries. Is the
>data
> >mentioned here available to us so we can see if we know of cemeteries
>not
> >shown?
> >
> >
> > Larry V. Stephens
> > Office of Risk Management
> > 812-855-9758
> > stephenL(a)indiana.edu
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software - optimizes dial-up to the
>max!
> http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1
>
>
> ==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
> "Show me your cemeteries, and I will tell you what kind of people you
>have."
> Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790)
>
>
>==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
>Scott Satterthwaite < ssattert(a)localnet.com > is the INPCRP State
>Coordinator. Feel free to contact him directly regarding questions or
>comments you may have about the INPCRP.
>
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers!
http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
In a message dated 1/14/04 11:47:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
rgreen(a)insightbb.com writes:
> Incidentally, I attended several meetings during the Tier 1 EIS and the
> Munson's were absent during this process other than to write letters that
> contained the same sort of inaccuracies and half-truths that we see from Cheryl
> here on the INPCRP list.
>
> I suppose it's easier to snipe someone else's efforts than it is to become
> part of the solution, but again we're straying away from my original questions
> and concerns. I guess that this is the intention.
>
> Regards,
>
> Rich Green
>
Rich,
Am I right that you have a vested interest in attending "several"
meetings and the Munsons don't. Because they were not there doesn't mean they are
not highly concerned. I can understand their concern. It is well meant, but
seemingly attacking their work, and words, does not help the situation.
Contributing useful information, and answers as Cheryl suggested would seem to be the
proper approach to her concerns. I personal am not interested in any part of
I-69, but I am highly interested in any cemeteries that may be involved.
Jack
To Rich, Larry, and all:
I hope I can clarify some misunderstandings about "missed" cemeteries that
Patrick Munson and I reported re: the draft EIS for I-69. Our work in this
regard goes back several years. Also, we have just received and reviewed
the lengthy final EIS, and have a question which Rich or Larry or others
might answer.
After we saw that several cemeteries were missed on the DEIS maps for I-69
in a small area that we know well, Patrick and I did indeed check additional
records and identified nine cemeteries that were missed by the DEIS. The
area we checked was limited to Monroe County and to eastern Greene County,
where there were three alternate alignments (3a-c).
We wrote to INDOT's I-69 environmental consultant in Nov. 02 to report these
missed cemeteries, and copied our letter to INDOT, the Indiana Division of
Historic Preservation and Archaeology, Greene and Monroe County Historical
Societies, and other officials. Our letter is also included in the FEIS
(comment #1102014). See the paste-in of the letter, below.
To accompany our letter we made a map showing the locations of the missed
cemeteries at a county scale; this will not paste in, but I can send it
later as an attachment if this would be needed by anyone.
The information for our letter came from the records and publications of the
county historical societies, which we carefully reviewed before writing our
letter, plus our on-the-ground observations. The Ketcham Cemetery is in
fact on the USGS map, as I wrote earlier. The Adams Cemetery is described
in several Monroe County publications.
For the final EIS there are maps for only one alignment and its location has
been slightly shifted in some segments from the DEIS, so some of the missed
cemeteries in our report are no longer in or immediately next to the
preferred highway alignment. The missing cemeteries we reported have been
added to the map of the study area. Only one of the nine cemeteries we
reported in our letter -- Adams -- is shown in the 400-foot alignment.
Another of the cemeteries -- Storm -- was shown on the DEIS maps and well as
the FEIS map as in the 400-foot alginment.
We don't know why these cemeteries are not being avoided.
Is there a plan for treating these cemeteries in the EIS document? We have
scanned this lengthy document, but can't find a statement on this.
If anyone knows the page number for the section describing treatment of
cemeteries, I hope you would post this.
We did find one FEIS statement re cemetery data that I copied and pasted,
but I neglected to write down the page reference (duh).
The FEIS says that the cemetery data "has been updated from field reviews of
the 2-mile wide study bands. It was also updated using Quadrangle DRG files
for those USGS
intersect the 2-mile wide study band of the proposed routes for I-69 from
Evansville to Indianapolis (Tier 1). Further updates were cemeteries marked
in the Indiana Historic Landmark Foundation county interim reports and
described by public comment to the DEIS."
Yours truly,
Cheryl
________________
Cheryl Ann Munson
**********
(Paste-in of Nov 02 letter)
Patrick J. Munson and Cheryl Ann Munson
6707 W. Rock East Road
Bloomington, IN 47403
(812-824-7717)
2 November 2002
Mr. Mike Grovak, Project Manager
Bernardin, Lochmueller & Assoc., Inc.
6200 Vogel Road
Evansville, IN 47715
Re: Recorded historic cemeteries in Proposed I-69 Alt. 3a-c, Monroe and
eastern
Greene counties
Dear Sir:
Our comments address only those segments of Proposed I-69 Alternatives 3a,
3b, and 3c that lie in Monroe County and immediately adjacent parts of
northeastern Greene County (see enclosed map).
In these segments the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) shows 43
historic cemeteries within the Two-Mile Study Bands. The great majority of
these lie outside the 2000' study corridor, and hence would be, we assume,
easily avoided. However, four cemeteries (Freeman, Storm, Carmichael, Ham
all in Greene County) lie directly in the 2000' corridors. Two of these,
given their locations relative to the centerline, are of particular note:
Storm lies on the proposed centerline where a bridge would cross Indian
Creek. This is one of oldest cemeteries in Greene Co. (first burial 1819),
and contains among it 50+ graves, including those of at least three veterans
of the Revolutionary War.
Carmichael lies just west of the proposed centerline where there is a
proposed overpass or underpass for Carmichael Road. This is a large
cemetery, with hundreds of graves.
Of greater concern at this stage of planning are nine cemeteries that are
recorded by the Monroe County Historical Society and the Greene County
Historical Society and are located in the Study Bands, but are not shown in
the DEIS. Five of these (Wright, Hoadley, Wampler, Collier, Star) are small
cemeteries that lie outside the 2000' corridor, as it is presently drawn.
However, the other four are of particular concern:
Adams, is in the northern part of Sec. 7, Indian Creek Twp., Monroe Co.
This very old, well-known, well-maintained cemetery of about 75 graves lies
on the centerline where Alt. 3c diverges from Alt. 3a-b.
Hardy Sparks, SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 Sec. 12, Center Twp., Greene Co. (not to be
confused with Sparks Cemetery near center of Sec. 1 of the same township),
is about 2000' southwest of the Adams Cemetery and is on the western edge of
the combined Alt. 3a-c in the 2000' Corridor. It contains at least eight
graves (including one veteran of the War of 1812).
Philpot, NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 sec. 25, Beech Creek Twp., Greene Co., lies along
eastern edge of the Alt. 3a-bs 2000' Corridor.
Ketcham, NW 1/4 of NW 1/4 Sec. 6, Clear Twp., Monroe Co., is a very old,
well-maintained, and well-known cemetery (which is clearly marked on the
USGS Clear Creek quad) of about 60 graves, including a veteran of the
Revolutionary War. It lies in the Two-Mile Band and not very far outside
the 2000' Corridor of Alt. 3c.
We take some comfort in INDOTs statement that cemeteries will be avoided
whenever possible. But how can engineers design a right-of-way that
avoids cemeteries if their locations are not part of the planning study?
Yet another observation and question: In the small part of the Proposed I-69
corridors considered here there are 52 recorded cemeteries, of which nine
were missed or omitted in the DEIS. Is this failure rate (17%) typical
for recorded cemeteries in others parts of the proposed corridors?
Sincerely,
Patrick J. Munson
Cheryl Ann Munson
cc: B. Nichol (INDOT)
State Historic Preservation Officer
Monroe County Historical Society
Greene County Historical Society
Monroe County Commissioners
Monroe County Plan Commission
T. & S. Tokarski (CARR)
*****
can't past in map, see attached.
>From: "Rich Green" <rgreen(a)insightbb.com>
>Reply-To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
>To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
>Subject: Re: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
>Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 12:10:16 -0500
>
>Hi Larry,
>
>Sorry I didn't initially see your question at the bottom of this message.
>
>Reported cemetery locations should be included in the Cemetery Registry.
>I'm not certain about the current protocol for researching the data;
>however, we had a person that went to the offices of the DHPA 2-3 days per
>week for several months when the 1-69 cemetery GIS was being assembled.
>You should contact the director of the Cemetery Registry for more
>information as to data access.
>
>With specific regard to the two cemeteries mentioned in this post, I would
>suggest that they too must now be a part of the Indiana Cemetery Registry
>since conscientious archaeologists like the Munsons would have
>expeditiously provided this site information to the State when it was
>discovered.
>
>Rich Green
>
>----- Original Message -----
> From: Stephens, Larry V
> To: INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com
> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2004 2:32 PM
> Subject: RE: [INPCRP] proposed Indiana legislation
>
>
>
> Since I was directly involved in the cemetery research for the I-69
>project, I would beg to differ with Mrs. Munson that there exist any known
>cemetery sites near Virginia Iron Works that were missed by the Tier 1
>investigations, and clearly no such sites that exist on the USGS
>quadrangles were missed. I would further suggest that the Tier 1 cemetery
>work was more comprehensive than the existing Cemetery Registry by virtue
>of the man-hours applied and the methods utilized. I would further suggest
>that the Mrs. Munson obtain a copy of the completed work before making such
>unwarranted comments.
>
> Many of the people here on the INPCRP list took an active hand in
>identifying ALL known cemeteries within the proposed I-69 alternatives and
>digital copies of all associated USGS topographical maps were distributed
>personally by me to volunteer program participants; some of whom are from
>Monroe County. To suggest that we all somehow missed a cemetery clearly
>identified on one of the associated quadrangles is another irresponsible
>inaccuracy put forth with absolutely no supporting evidence.
>
> [snip]
>
> There seems to be some disagreement over missed cemeteries. Is the data
>mentioned here available to us so we can see if we know of cemeteries not
>shown?
>
>
> Larry V. Stephens
> Office of Risk Management
> 812-855-9758
> stephenL(a)indiana.edu
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software optimizes dial-up to the max!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-us&page=byoa/plus&ST=1
I live in Bloomington and am just getting started on a book which will
contain photographs of cemetery statues in Southern Indiana (the area
south of US highway 40).
Because I'm not familiar with all the cemeteries in the entire area, I
would appreciate it if anyone could tell me if there are cemeteries in
their county that have any statues of children, adults, or angels (or
anything of an unusual nature)?
I'm not interested in tree trunks or the smaller, newer concrete statues
that some people use to decorate graves. Instead, I'm after stone
statues (marble, granite, limestone) that are often life-size (although
some are smaller that life-size, and a few are larger).
I am able find my way around fairly easily, so I usually only need some
general directions. Thanks for your time. You can email me off-list at
john(a)studioindiana.com
John Bower
--
John Bower
The Healthy House Institute is at http://www.hhinst.com/
John's photography is at http://www.studioindiana.com/