To tell you the truth, until recently EuroAmerican graves were,
and still are being treated with a lot less respect. If an
undertaker contracts to move the cemetery, they use a front end
loader and just scoop them up, mixing burials and leaving some of
the bones of the deceased. I'm sure in some cases the cemetery was
just bulldozed and built on, without moving the cemetery. If you
have archaeologists doing it, at least the burials are dug one at
a time, archaeologically. They should also, and in many cases do,
have osteological investigation, like Native Americans. The main
reason there isn't osteological investigation is when the party
paying refuses to do it. A lot can be learned from osteology and
it should be done.
Marge Green

> "Grover, Margan A POA02" wrote:
>
> This is a very interesting string... Just to stir up trouble...
> Somehow I feel like the general consensus is that EuroAmericam
> graves are associated with cemeteries and churches, but Native
> American graves are often approached as archaeological sites.
> What's the difference between a four hundred year-old Native
> cemetery and a four-hundred year-old EuroAmerican one in our
> minds? Could it be the association with the familiar sacredness
> of a church consecrated burial that Euroamericans can relate to?
> Why is that different from the sacredness of a Native American
> burial?
>
> Moving the cemeteries comes down to the question if the
> descendants or property owners are willing to allow the
> relocation. If a Native group doesn't want a burial moved, why
> can't we treat that the same as if it were EuroAmericans,
> African Americans, Mexican Americans, etc? People couldn't.
>
> That is why we needed NAGPRA.