Cheryl:
I'm not sure if you were subscribed in time to read two messages that Rich
Green and I had posted (almost simultaneously) regarding the definition of
"artifact". Based on the proposed change, a grave marker which is more than 100
years old would be considered an artifact since it undoubtedly was man-made.
The fear is that this definition would be enforced to exclude the removal,
repair, or replacement of the tombstone and would place those that restore
cemeteries at a great disadvantage. It would appear this definition as presented
could easily be interpreted as such...and that is of great concern.
May I ask what group or individual proposed these legislative changes and
what the actual intent is? And what legislator(s) is/are sponsoring the
amendments?
It appears that there will be proposed legislation from more than one front
as far as cemeteries are concerned, and it would be nice to try and have
everyone on one page if possible, or at least understand each other's intentions.
The worst thing that could happen is if we end up not supporting one another's
proposals and testifying against each other now that we finally have the ear
of some of our state legislators as far cemeteries go.
thanks for answering some of these concerns.
Kyle D. Conrad
Brook, IN
Seems to me that anyone who is involved with archaeology and is concerned with restoration
of cemeteries would do their homework before trying to revise the law. The problem will be
dealing with "interpretation" of the revision and WHO will determine the date
that an "artifact" was produced.
First, The 1903 date will open up a maze of problems. For instance, since concrete is of
"human workmanship" and may have been placed in the ground before 1903 would the
concrete now be considered an artifact? IF that is the case then I have thrown about 2000
pounds of "artifacts" in a fill ravine this year. If you want any of these
concrete artifacts let me know and you are welcome to them. Also clay bricks used for
support of stones and produced in the 1830-1903 era would be an artifact also. This really
becomes a problem for restoration efforts if these become artifacts.
Second, I don't see where the law addresses "artifacts" NOT of human
workmanship. Sea shells placed over the gravesites by a loving family and disturbed during
restoration don't seem to be included. Would our hard working,underpaid Conservation
Officers come out and make sure every fragment of sea shell is placed back in the
gravesite if the law is written to cover these type of artifacts? I doubt it...the
DNR-DHPA has bigger problems to deal with. Right now its the conscience of the restorer
that drives the return of the artifacts back to the gravesite during restoration. I put
them back and don't consider them "mine"...a family tenderly placed those
artifacts on that gravesite and I have no right to remove them. I think everyone that is
involved in any restoration effort would agree that those artifacts belong in the
gravesite soil and not to be placed on a shelf at home. Would archaeologists consider that
any artifact in a cemetery could be removed from the site for st!
udy? ....And just when you thought it was safe to return that broken pottery and cup back
into that African American gravesite!!
Third, How will township trustees,private cemetery associations, and cemetery commissions
be able to weed through the maze of paperwork that may be required for a
"archaeological plan" just to restore one stone? They time,money and effort
required to "jump through all the hoops" may cause some to throw up their hands
and say "its not worth it", and how does that help cemeteries come back to
life?
Fourth, I am all for protection of cemeteries from Coal mining,cattle grazing and
encroachment.
Fifth, If ground disturbance becomes a enforced misdemeanor you might as well throw every
volunteer, Boy Scout, Sons of Union Veterans, DAR, American Legion member in jail....think
about it. How many times have groups like these gone out to cemeteries for clean up
efforts? A lot. And technically they could be in violation of the law if they even set a
stone back up on its base since its now considered an artifact..AM I RIGHT OR NOT? On
the flip side I say throw the book at "artifact hunters" who disturb soil in
cemeteries.
Sixth, Would the mortars used in bases and monuments now be considered an artifact? Think
about it. These mortars were made before 1903 and are of "human workmanship". I
can see a small clear plastic container of mortar chips on display at the IHS and marked
"mortar chip artifacts" from XYZ cemetery in XYZ county,IN. Bet a lot of smiles
and snickers would result from that.
Seventh, What do we really learn by studying artifacts from IN Pioneer cemeteries? So
much study has been completed on the lifestyles of Indiana pioneers,African Americans and
their burial customs in post 1850 cemeteries...How much more can we invade into this very
private,personal area of people who are gone on to eternity? I say leave the artifacts
alone and lets get busy returning dignity and honor to the overwhelming multitude of
cemeteries that need help.
Off the soapbox for now.
Mark Davis