The idea that European Americans respect historic burials more than native
american burials is a joke, at least here in Eastern North Carolina when
developer money is on the line. In the last five years several historic
downtown
Wilmington cemeteries have been "relocated" -- by undertakers, or rather,
their
unskilled workmen after limited archival investigation. The methodology was of
the "thigh bone here, thigh bone there" variety (for the gentleman tracking
"methods").  One of these cemetaries was the original potters field of the
colonial town; another was a yellow fever cemetary -- these were not innocuous
contexts, particularly for a region with as little archaeolgical background as
eastern Carolina. They were on private land (in one case owned by a church)
and
were old enough not to bring relatives running when they were desecrated, as
they surely were. Things like this are not protected in most parts of the
United
States. There's nothing like NAGPRA for the general dead -- surely we are all
aware of this? The question struck me as a bit naive.

Maureen Basedow
UNC-Wilmington












>===== Original Message From HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY <[log in to unmask]> =====
>HISTARCHers:
>
>Gaye Norton's query about historic graves reminded me of something I've
>been meaning to ask the list for some time. (Sorry Gaye, this doesn't
>answer your question!).
>
>First some background. I occassionally am able to listen to little bits and
>pieces of a radio talk show on National Public Radio (in the United States,
>for the benefit of our European and Australian members), called "Native
>American Calling." On a show about a month ago, the topic was the consent
>of a tribal government to a developer to build a golf course. In the course
>of getting the appropriate cultural resource compliance, Native American
>graves were discovered. The show, I believe, was discussing the probability
>that the tribal government was going to allow the graves to be moved in
>order to allow the development to continue.
>
>As can be imagined, most of the Native American callers were indignant. One
>caller in particular hit a sore point for me, as an archeologist. She said
>something to the effect of "They wouldn't put a golf course over Arlington
>Cemetery, would they?" As usual, "they" was not defined, but her
>implication was that the sanctity most Americans hold for the premier
>cemetery dedicated to honoring the nation's soldiers was somehow comparable
>to the sanctity most Native Americans hold for any Native American remains.
>
>Now, as an American of European descent, I continually have to remind
>myself that my perceptions of degree of significance (that is, Arlington
>cemetery has greater sanctity than a small town church cemetery) is not the
>same as for many Native American groups. We in the western part of the
>country are continually reminded by Native Americans that everything is
>sacred, and that there is no higher and lower degree of significance. (We
>Euroamericans have a hierachical society; most Native American groups do
>not, so hierachies may be harder for some of them to think about?). Its a
>hard difference in value systems for the folks trying to make decisions
>about what to save and what to mitigate or let go, and its very hard to get
>around.
>
>Now, for my question. How many of you know of examples of moving historic
>Euroamerican cemeteries to make way for development? The underlying
>implication by the caller was that Euroamericans would not do this to their
>own cemeteries, only to Native American graves. I know that is not true,
>but I don't have case studies. I am particularly interested in cases that
>are not potters fields, but are cemeteries containing headstones and
>Euroamerican people with living, known descendents.
>
>Thanks for any enlightenment!
>
>
>Cathy Spude
>[log in to unmask]
>
>National Park Service
>Santa Fe, New Mexico
>
>As usual, the opinions expressed here may not be those of my employer.