In a message dated 2/17/02 11:40:18 AM US Eastern Standard Time, andimac@oz.net writes: > > It is my opinion that archeologists are interested in burials in a > historical sense but are not interested in current cemetery preservation. > One is in the past, the other is current. I might call an archeologist if > I > needed to know if there is a historical Native American burial, but I would > not call an archeologist to conserve a stone. > > -------------- > Andrea D. MacDonald "Andi" > andimac@oz.net > > Andi, you said exactly what I feel about the Ancient Native Americans and what I call modern man, from the last 200 odd years. My question is WHY are they different. And If you can't disturb a "Modern Burial " site, how can you dig up a Native American and Cart them off for studies. Study WHAT. They died and were buried. No one should be able to remove anything buried in a grave site, just to find out WHAT ? When a Burial Site is Discovered, LET IT BE. For 68 years I have heard that a Burial Site is Hallowed Ground. Why can't people honor that and work around them. I;m sorry I won't be around when these Large Beautiful cemeteries run out of money, or ground and Grow up with Brush. It will happen, not today, not tomorrow but maybe a Hundred years from now just like the small ones we worry about now. They never dreamed anything would happen to them either. My wife and I are going to be Creamated. No one will ever have to worry about us. And $5,000 dollar stones wont have to be bulldozed when the area we will be scattered at is graded off. And they can put in a Airport, Factory, House, etc, etc. WE WONT CARE. Thanks for the story Andi, I for one understand that you make sense Jack E. Briles Sr. jb502000@aol.com