I have the impression, too, that this has been changing; that the Army, in
particular, has become more sensitive about moving graves, or preserving
them on site--closing cemeteries on DoD lands to training, etc.  Of course,
as part of the government, each and every law applies to them.  But, I
can't document it.
 
"Fence-row to fence-row" plowing becomes a major issue for farmstead
studies, as we see fewer and fewer occupied farmsteads, or farmsteads
changing to equipment/storage stations or "country houses."  The family
cemeteries once associated with farms, family lands, would not be protected
under NAGPRA--they might be protected under state or local statues.  Are
such laws honored more in the breach--are they unenforceable, given the
economic compulsion of "fence-row to fence-row?"  Obviously, there's great
potential to lose even more of the rural cultural landscape.  If economic
necessity (real or perceived) comes up against a change in how we regard
cemeteries, or human remains--which idea wins?
 
 
 
 
At 10:25 AM 3/30/99 -0600, you wrote:
>Hi all:
>
>I was having an electronic conversation with somebody the other day, and
>somewhere along the way I made the point that EuroAmerican attitudes toward
>human skeletal remains have changed in the past forty years or so. I only
>have anecdotal evidence for this--I'm referring to stories about 'moving
>graveyards' which involved moving the grave stone alone or using a bucket
>auger to get a little bone out to give to the survivors or the disastrous
>farming policy of fence-row to fence-row plowing when lots of gravestones
>were simply taken away and discarded. I argued that that is less likely to
>happen now. Does anybody know of anthro research in the last few years that
>would support (or even dispute) this notion?
>
>thanks
>
>kris
>Kris Hirst
>Office of the State Archaeologist
>The University of Iowa
>[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
><http://archaeology.miningco.com>
>Scribal Traditions http://scribaltraditions.com
>