I agree, Mark. This seems to go back to a discussion we had on here a
couple of years ago about the intent of the Historic Preservation and
Archeology Codes, in that some that were designed to prevent destruction of
pre-historic sites, the hunting of indian & pre-historic artifacts, etc.,
are wrongly being applied to cemeteries. I think we discussed that when
the "probing" issue surfaced.
The December 11, 1816 date used in the definition of "artifact" to me, is
intended to separate pre-historic sites, relics, artifacts etc. more
commonly associated with the indians and other pre-historic dwellers that
lived here hundreds and thousands of years ago from what we know as
"cemeteries". It fooks to me like if I want to merely straighten a stone
in a Pioneer Cemetery, with this proposed change I will be required to
first to submit an "archeological plan" and a "development plan" so I
can
dig around the stone and level it.
I, too, question the true intent of this change, or if it has been well
thought out.
Ernie
At 12:07 PM 12/24/2003 -0500, you wrote:
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.