The issue of probing was brought up at the Cemetery Preservation Committee of the Delaware Co. Historical Society on10/22/04. "When Mark Kreps and Bob Good went for training they understood that it took a permit from the state before probing could proceed in a cemetery." Is that correct? My understanding is that the property owner or Township Trustee must approve probing before it occurs. But now a new (to my knowledge) step of approval as I understand the probing issue needs to be processed through the DNR. Perhaps Jeannie Dinius-Regan of the DNR could provide some guidance in this area. Someone told me that DNR still wouldn't approve probing but I never found out why. The reason I am asking is that the Delaware County Preservation folks are considering improving/preserving a cemetery in Muncie that has over half of the stones submerged in the ground or missing (according to a 1940 reading). It is on a main thoroughfare in Muncie, literally hundreds of people driving by. I don't want any trouble, a bad name, jail time or prison record because someone calls the police, the prosecutor finds the issue to his interest to prosecute someone probing even though the local Township Trustee supports the probing. I am rethinking the probing issue according to the Indiana law (see below) and the possibility of probing and disturbing, in some minds, being the same thing. I don't mind turning over a plan to the state. Simply let me know the process and how and where to file "the plan." IC 14-21-1-26 Disturbance of grounds for purpose of discovering artifacts or burial objects Sec. 26. (a) A person who disturbs the ground for the purpose of discovering artifacts or burial objects must do so in accordance with a plan approved by the department under section 25 of this chapter or under IC 14-3-3.4-14 (before its repeal). (b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates this section commits a Class A misdemeanor. As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.14.

I have been following the issue of probing. The laws have been strengthened over the last several years to lessen the chance of cemetery mischief. This is of course a good thing. But the dedicated cemetery restorationist/preservationists are not considered in the current law. Maybe if the law is revisited, we can try to get language to specifically allow for legitimate restoration work. This sort of thing is one of the ideas I was trying to stress a few weeks ago with the idea of some sort of certification, recoginition, etc., of those qualified to restore the cemeteries. I still think the idea is worthy of discussion. And I didn't mean to imply we would seek government involvement. I would prefer we have a recognized oversight body from within our group (LA for instance) that could write the rules for do's and dont's. And that group instill some sort of certification or recognition program that would recognize the individuals that have attained the requisite skills in cemetery restoration. I think it would really help if the law allowed for restoration work done by, or under the supervision of, a certified, recognized, etc., individual, while still retaining the current provisions for prosecution for mischief. Maybe a certification, recognition, etc., could be provided to the county cemetery board, for the counties that have one, for their endorsement? And the only government involvement I was implying was for DNR or whoever to recognize that restoration done by a certified/recognized individual or group. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to put a sign up saying something like "This cemetery is being restored by ____, certified by ____, with the permission of (a) the __ county cemetery board (b) ___ township trustee, or (c) owner." Has anyone had a heart to heart talk to their county prosecutor? Would it be possible to explain the work you are doing up front to avoid the chance of possible prosecution? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark Kreps" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, October 22, 2004 11:32 PM Subject: [INPCRP] Re: probing > The issue of probing was brought up at the Cemetery Preservation Committee > of the Delaware Co. Historical Society on10/22/04. "When Mark Kreps and Bob > Good went for training they understood that it took a permit from the state > before probing could proceed in a cemetery." Is that correct? > My understanding is that the property owner or Township Trustee must approve > probing before it occurs. But now a new (to my knowledge) step of approval > as I understand the probing issue needs to be processed through the DNR. > Perhaps Jeannie Dinius-Regan of the DNR could provide some guidance in this > area. Someone told me that DNR still wouldn't approve probing but I never > found out why. The reason I am asking is that the Delaware County > Preservation folks are considering improving/preserving a cemetery in Muncie > that has over half of the stones submerged in the ground or missing > (according to a 1940 reading). It is on a main thoroughfare in Muncie, > literally hundreds of people driving by. I don't want any trouble, a bad > name, jail time or prison record because someone calls the police, the > prosecutor finds the issue to his interest to prosecute someone probing even > though the local Township Trustee supports the probing. I am rethinking the > probing issue according to the Indiana law (see below) and the possibility > of probing and disturbing, in some minds, being the same thing. I don't mind > turning over a plan to the state. Simply let me know the process and how and > where to file "the plan." > > > IC 14-21-1-26 > Disturbance of grounds for purpose of discovering artifacts or burial > objects > Sec. 26. (a) A person who disturbs the ground for the purpose of discovering > artifacts or burial objects must do so in accordance with a plan approved by > the department under section 25 of this chapter or under IC 14-3-3.4-14 > (before its repeal). > (b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates this > section commits a Class A misdemeanor. > As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.14. > > > > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > Quote from William Gladstone (1809-1897), three-time Prime Minister of England > and Victorian contemporary of Benjamin Disraeli: > "Show me the manner in which a nation or community > cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical > exactness the tender mercies of its people, their > respect for the laws of the land, and their loyalty > to high ideals." > >

I'm sorry, but I still think this law is being mis-applied to grave markers and cemeteries as we know them, and was written and intended to protect prehistoric and native americian burial grounds. Headstones, footstones and bases have absolutely nothing to do with the intent of the law, which was written to keep people from going out and digging up mounds in search of indian relics. The law was written around the time of the expansion of the GE Plastics Division plant at Mount Vernon IN where prehistoric burial mounds were discovered during construction. Several people went in and dug up a large collection of artifacts before State archelogists had a chance to do a proper "dig", and these valuable artifacts ended up in private collections, antique shops and flea markets. By the time State or Indiana University teams got to the site many of the artifacts were long gone. The law was written to stop or control prehistoric digs and has nothing to do with searching for gravestones! See : NAWROCKI, Stephen. "Bioarcheology and Forensics in Indiana, 1991-1995." (excerpt) Between October 1991 and April 1995, a total of 60 cases had been received and processed, representing most of the skeletal recoveries made in Indiana in that time period. Eight of these turned out to be non-human and 7 were simple donations of human skeletal materials, leaving 45 human remains cases requiring analysis. Of these 45, 24 were accidental archeological discoveries from prehistoric (16 sites with 75+ individuals) or historic (8 sites with 35+ individuals) contexts, falling under the purview of the State Archeologist and the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. Examples include an Archaic period rockshelter burial, modified human trophy mandibles from the Mount Vernon ("General Electric") Hopewell mound, a number of isolated Woodland burials (one of which was eaten by the finder's year-old Dalmatian, complicating the analysis somewhat), a number of isolated historic coffin burials, and a heavily disturbed collection of "repatriated" historic cemetery remains. At least a few of these cases were discovered after illegal looting activities. Also, References Beard, T. C., 1997. The Mound. In Hopewell in Mt. Vernon: A Study of the Mt. Vernon Site, pp.1–9. Project report produced by the General Electric Company. Munson, C. A., M. M. Jones, and R. E. Fry, 1995. The GE Mound: An ARPA Case Study. American Antiquity 60:131-159. From the National Register of Historic Places: Mount Vernon Site (added 1996 - Site - #95001542) Also known as GE Mount;12Po885 and IDOH Site No. 65-30 Address Restricted, Mount Vernon Historic Significance: Information Potential Area of Significance: Prehistoric Cultural Affiliation: Middle Woodland Hopewell, Mann Phase Period of Significance: 499-0 AD Owner: Private Historic Function: Funerary, Religion Historic Sub-function: Ceremonial Site, Graves/Burials Current Function: Industry/Processing/Extraction, Landscape Current Sub-function: Forest, Manufacturing Facility, Unoccupied Land > >IC 14-21-1-26 >Disturbance of grounds for purpose of discovering artifacts or burial >objects >Sec. 26. (a) A person who disturbs the ground for the purpose of discovering >artifacts or burial objects must do so in accordance with a plan approved by >the department under section 25 of this chapter or under IC 14-3-3.4-14 >(before its repeal). >(b) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violates this >section commits a Class A misdemeanor. >As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.14. >