Yes I have found a few stones that were hand carved. Even made a pages to show folks. http://www.rootsweb.com/~intcpcrg/Educate/The_Rocks.html I'm not a great webpage designer. Hopefully it will gets the idea across to someone. One more thing to remember.. Sure is a bunch to learn. ;-) LAC ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ernie & Connie Lasley" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [INPCRP] Routh Cemetery -Left over pieces > If there are no more possibilities of finding additional stones, then I > would do like you suggested and set them in a base in the row near where > they were found. They can also be set temporarily as you suggested in > case a matching headstone is found later. I would NEVER bury a footstone > behind a headstone that it did not match. I agree on setting fragments > in > a slotted base also. Nothing should be discarded or buried unless it is > identified. Even stones or larger rocks should not be discarded, they may > be "fieldstones" marking the grave of someone that could not afford a > marker. We had a large stone like that in Gibson County, a closer > inspection revealed the initials "K F" roughly carved on it. Turns out it > marked the grave of Keen Field, an immigrant pioneer who died in 1815. > His > descendants had a stone made in the style of other headstones in the > cemetery and set it beside the original stone. See: > > http://www.rootsquest.com/~jmurphy/gibson/gibcem/wr_field-morrison/keen_field.htm > > Wondering, have you ever discovered fragments of a stone that was > replaced? I found fragments of a Hindostan Whetstone gravestone that > looked like it had been hit in the center with a sledge hammer and > shattered. After many hours of careful digging with a small trowel, a > spatula and brushes, I recovered enough of it to fit the fragments > together > good enough to read the information, only to discover they were buried > directly over a grave that had a marble headstone with the same name and > dates. Apparently 75 - 100 years ago the stone was replaced for some > reason with the marble stone, and buried behind it. I put it back where > it was. > > Ernie > > At 05:42 PM 10/24/2004 -0400, you wrote: > >I understand Ernie...I thought that there were no more possibilities of > >finding addditional headstones. So if that is the case then what > >headstone > >would you bury the footstones behind if no matched are found? My idea > >would > >be put up the footstones as some type of memorial, and if the headstone > >is > >found later then dig out the footstone and base and move it to the > >appropriate headstone. > > > >The headstone fragments that are not able to be set vertically will be > >tough decisions. I have set headstone fragments in slotted bases where > >only > >25% of the stone remains. I feel it still is better than burying the > >stone. > > > >I never consider the plight of the lawn mower man..if we are restoring > >pioneer cemeteries to their original state then footstones should be > >placed > >just like they were originally.(just my opinion) > > > >Mark Davis > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > To UNSUBSCRIBE, send message consisting only of > "UNSUBSCRIBE" to [email protected] > or to [email protected] (for DIGEST version) > >