Oneida County Its just out side of Utica NY In God We Trust

I believe Whitesboro is in Oneida County. Debra Sue Zimmerman Old historians never die; they just past away! -----Original Message----- From: Joan Meddaugh [mailto:lpmj@juno.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:52 AM To: NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [NYMADISO] what county? Can any one tell me what county Whitesboro, NY is in? Joan Meddaugh ==== NYMADISO Mailing List ==== To post to this list - send email from the address you subsribed to the list with to this address - NYMadiso-L@rootsweb.com

Thank you. Joan Meddaugh

In a message dated 4/26/2005 7:53:50 AM Eastern Daylight Time, lpmj@juno.com writes: Whitesboro, NY is in? Oneida

Can any one tell me what county Whitesboro, NY is in? Joan Meddaugh

Thank you, Laurence. Your email address was really familiar but I couldn't put a name to it. BTW, I still haven't found Ephraim, the old codger! Elaine ----- Original Message ----- From: <Breakness@aol.com> To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > > In a message dated 4/25/2005 4:07:03 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > elainedecker@frontiernet.net writes: > > Would you please sign your name so we know who we are talking to? > > > > Sure, Elaine. I was distracted with the phone. > Laurence Lance > Great grandson of Emma E. DECKER > > > ==== NYMADISO Mailing List ==== > Search the list archives: > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl - put NYMADISO for > the name of the list > > >

In a message dated 4/25/2005 4:07:03 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, elainedecker@frontiernet.net writes: Would you please sign your name so we know who we are talking to? Sure, Elaine. I was distracted with the phone. Laurence Lance Great grandson of Emma E. DECKER

Would you please sign your name so we know who we are talking to? ----- Original Message ----- From: <Breakness@aol.com> To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:03 PM Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > > In a message dated 4/25/2005 3:40:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > berger@netstream.net writes: > > I think the other person's comment that "over 90% of academia has a > leftist agenda" is not only inaccurate but gratuitous and off the point. > The political stance of American Indian Movement organization (AIM), > whatever that might be, is also irrelevant to this discussion. Let's not > inject the acid right-wing political agenda here either on a matter on which > we should be able to find friendly common ground on as genealogists and/or > historians. Pam B. > > > > Pam, I take exception to this. You and I have never met. We do not know each > other. > > As Franklin observed "The sting of an argument is in it's truth". I guess > you feel stung, hmmm? It is telling that you characterize my comments as > "Acid right wing political agenda" Please!- guess who is name calling now?? > > Examining your polemic I wonder if you are in academia. Whether you are or > not, it's clear to see your political agenda. > > That the staff of higher education is left to hard left is a simple > statement of fact. I can find the sources but the political stance on nearly every > major university is left. That's not opinion, its fact, and the political lens > through which the staff teaches. > > Let's also remember that "Political Correctness" is a political term. It is > a political LEFT WING term, It is in fact Marxists. It needs to be fought and > defeated at every turn. PC is in every way the antithesis of our basic > freedom of speech and our way of life. > > As for AIM, my comments are entirely appropriate, though they may be > uncomfortable for some. We were after all talking about INDIAN artifacts, not > Egyptian, not Indonesian, not Japanese. > > The question originated around personal property and the identification and > potential evaluation of this property. While you may feel the museums have > some inherent right to art, artifacts held privately, they do not. It's called > "Personal Property" for a reason. > > > ==== NYMADISO Mailing List ==== > To post to this list - send email from the address you subsribed to the list with to this address - NYMadiso-L@rootsweb.com > > >

In a message dated 4/25/2005 3:40:11 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, berger@netstream.net writes: I think the other person's comment that "over 90% of academia has a leftist agenda" is not only inaccurate but gratuitous and off the point. The political stance of American Indian Movement organization (AIM), whatever that might be, is also irrelevant to this discussion. Let's not inject the acid right-wing political agenda here either on a matter on which we should be able to find friendly common ground on as genealogists and/or historians. Pam B. Pam, I take exception to this. You and I have never met. We do not know each other. As Franklin observed "The sting of an argument is in it's truth". I guess you feel stung, hmmm? It is telling that you characterize my comments as "Acid right wing political agenda" Please!- guess who is name calling now?? Examining your polemic I wonder if you are in academia. Whether you are or not, it's clear to see your political agenda. That the staff of higher education is left to hard left is a simple statement of fact. I can find the sources but the political stance on nearly every major university is left. That's not opinion, its fact, and the political lens through which the staff teaches. Let's also remember that "Political Correctness" is a political term. It is a political LEFT WING term, It is in fact Marxists. It needs to be fought and defeated at every turn. PC is in every way the antithesis of our basic freedom of speech and our way of life. As for AIM, my comments are entirely appropriate, though they may be uncomfortable for some. We were after all talking about INDIAN artifacts, not Egyptian, not Indonesian, not Japanese. The question originated around personal property and the identification and potential evaluation of this property. While you may feel the museums have some inherent right to art, artifacts held privately, they do not. It's called "Personal Property" for a reason.

I don't know why the topic should be "incendiary." What do you mean "is it a part of 'political correctness?'" My comments were not political at all. Respecting other cultures and religions would be just the decent thing, wouldn't it? What is the alternative? I would think the meaning of "culturally sensitive" would be obvious, and of course it would apply to any culture or religion--Iroquois, Hungarian, Chinese, African, Moslem, Druid, Roman, Viking, whatever. The original person did not state what the exact relics were, and I think it might be important for them to look into it and take a broad view in case there is something the importance of which they may be unaware. If the items are enough to be in need of an appraisal, there may be things of significance, culturally, religiously, historically, or scientifically. If someone found a Torah that was hidden from the Nazis in WWII, that would be a sacred object to Jewish people and should be offered for return no matter where it was found because it would be an important religious object. If someone found objects in the ruins of an ancient Christian church the Catholics might have strong feelings about them, depending on what they were--bone fragments of saints of whatever. Various Indian tribes also had their sacred objects, though most of us are not knowledgeable enough to say what those might be for any of the hundreds American Indian tribes, many of whose cultural and religious heritage has been completely lost. I have read articles and seen documentaries concerning pipes and medicine bags, certain stones, staffs, and other objects of some tribes that have in the past been taken as collectibles by modern people or inappropriately displayed in museums in a manner hurtful and blasphemous to the people for whom they have religious meaning. Of course some things can go too far or become overly militant without all the facts. I agree that the situation regarding the Kennebec Man as mentioned by someone else was probably wrongly handled. As I understand, the bones were returned to the tribe that claimed them and buried. That relic is now lost to further historical study, which is too bad. It would be added to our knowledge of the ancient world to find out how an apparent Caucasian that ancient came to be on the Pacific coast of the USA. The fact that artifacts may have been found on "one's own property" has little meaning--in the long view such artifacts are part of the cultural heritage of all of us. Indian history is American history. Millions of artifacts were taken from Egypt by collectors for example--robbing them of huge parts of their own cultural heritage and eventually laws were passed against removing antiquities. You may also recall when the Taliban, blew up the giant ancient Buddahs that had been carved into the mountains of Afghanistan and what a loss that was to the cultural heritage of the world. No one is speaking of destroying artifacts here of course, but if even small puzzle pieces are lost to history in a couple of generations they might as well be. Apart from religious and cultural sensitivities of cultural or religious groups, some artifacts are important for scientific study and analysis, and amateurs may not realize what they have. Even how arrowheads are chipped has been important in gathering information on some ancient sites such as Clovis. Not only are some artifacts important themselves, but where they were found, how deep, and how they were oriented in the ground and to each other can impart important clues about cultures that came before us. That is another reason that people can't go digging up Indian mounds, etc. any more, as was accepted years ago. Certainly no one intended any harm and sometimes there may be nothing important lost. However, to be able to study objects that have been dug in the past, while something of their provenance is still known could possibly add a fragment to our historical knowledge. Many artifacts do belong in museums, because of museums' educational mission even if a particular museum has other artifacts like them. Museums may trade or sell artifacts that are needed by other museums or universities elsewhere for their educational missions. Additionally, museums are set up to correctly identify and preserve artifacts with proper storage methods that will insure that the items do not deteriorate and are available for study or display. All museums have much more in storage than on display--that is not a argument against them. While an individual or a generation of people in a family may responsibly preserve artifacts in which they feel a sense of ownership, those items are in danger of being lost and their provenance entirely forgotten eventually when those people pass on. One has only to think of all the family photo albums, portraits, and embroidered linens that have wound up in the dump or unidentified in antique stores to understand that succeeding generations do not always value things as we might hope or expect. I think the other person's comment that "over 90% of academia has a leftist agenda" is not only inaccurate but gratuitous and off the point. The political stance of American Indian Movement organization (AIM), whatever that might be, is also irrelevant to this discussion. Let's not inject the acid right-wing political agenda here either on a matter on which we should be able to find friendly common ground on as genealogists and/or historians. Pam B. > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political > correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to Caucasians as > well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts found on > one's own property and cultural sensitivity? > > This, I realize, can be an incendiary topic; however, it need not be if > we all try to stand back and look at the issues. If I were a resident of > Madison County would I have to determine what is "sacred" and what is not > if I had discovered items on my own property? Don't other religious > faiths have items deemed sacred and should they be treated in like > manner? Has there been an overreaction spurred by the forces of political > correctness? > GMF

In a message dated 4/25/2005 11:59:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmfree@juno.com writes: After I wrote my e-mail I realized I should have excepted a burial ground or bones known to be human from the point I was attempting to make. In fact, I suspect in some states there may be laws relating to human burial grounds regardless of ethnicity. GMF One of my good friends, whose family is Oglalla, is also a new retired funeral director. Yes you are quite correct in that there are laws relating to human remains. These laws are strictly observed and violation of them is a very serious no no. As for anyone who has "grandma's" remains, bones or otherwise without permit and license, they are properly facing some very serious consequences. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment on contacting my local funeral director who could put me in touch with the proper state and federal people and then I would cause that person some major heartache. I would not be in that person's shoes for anything! Yes, I know it was done decades ago, but in todays world? Uh Uh! This has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with basic human decency.

After I wrote my e-mail I realized I should have excepted a burial ground or bones known to be human from the point I was attempting to make. In fact, I suspect in some states there may be laws relating to human burial grounds regardless of ethnicity. GMF On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 14:18:11 -0400 "elainedecker" <elainedecker@frontiernet.net> writes: > Here is one way of looking at this subject. Think of it on a > personal > level, such as, would I want to see my g.g.grandmother's bones on > display on > someone's coffee table? I have seen this. When I was growing up > there was > a man who dug up Indian graves and he had the skulls lined up on his > coffee > table. However, it is highly likely that any relics that you find > on your > property are thousands of years old, but if you come upon an Indian > burial > ground, please let someone know. > Elaine > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <gmfree@juno.com> > To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:05 AM > Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > > > > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of > political > > correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to > Caucasians as > > well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts > found on > > one's own property and cultural sensitivity? > > > > This, I realize, can be an incendiary topic; however, it need not > be if > > we all try to stand back and look at the issues. If I were a > resident of > > Madison County would I have to determine what is "sacred" and what > is not > > if I had discovered items on my own property? Don't other > religious > > faiths have items deemed sacred and should they be treated in like > > manner? Has there been an overreaction spurred by the forces of > political > > correctness? > > GMF > > > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:51:53 -0500 "Pamela Berger" > <berger@netstream.net> > > writes: > > > Attitudes and laws about Indian relics have changed over the >

Here is one way of looking at this subject. Think of it on a personal level, such as, would I want to see my g.g.grandmother's bones on display on someone's coffee table? I have seen this. When I was growing up there was a man who dug up Indian graves and he had the skulls lined up on his coffee table. However, it is highly likely that any relics that you find on your property are thousands of years old, but if you come upon an Indian burial ground, please let someone know. Elaine ----- Original Message ----- From: <gmfree@juno.com> To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:05 AM Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political > correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to Caucasians as > well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts found on > one's own property and cultural sensitivity? > > This, I realize, can be an incendiary topic; however, it need not be if > we all try to stand back and look at the issues. If I were a resident of > Madison County would I have to determine what is "sacred" and what is not > if I had discovered items on my own property? Don't other religious > faiths have items deemed sacred and should they be treated in like > manner? Has there been an overreaction spurred by the forces of political > correctness? > GMF > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:51:53 -0500 "Pamela Berger" <berger@netstream.net> > writes: > > Attitudes and laws about Indian relics have changed over the years. > > Museums > > are returning bones and sacred items to the tribes. Depending on > > what you > > have, perhaps it would be wise to discuss your collection with an > > expert in > > such artifacts at a university or large museum before dispersing it > > to > > assure that there is nothing culturally sensitive. > > --Pam B. > > > ==== NYMADISO Mailing List ==== > Search the list archives: > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl - put NYMADISO for > the name of the list > > >

This discussion should end as it is getting into a personal, religious and political discussion. Unless you belong to a tribe and know the thoughts, ideals and religions of said tribe it is best not to discuss it at all. It is not proper to have "in my opinion" discussions about topics such as this. Thank you. Elaine, member Wiquapaug Eastern Pequot Tribe ----- Original Message ----- From: <Breakness@aol.com> To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 10:36 AM Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > > In a message dated 4/25/2005 7:08:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > gmfree@juno.com writes: > > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political > correctness > > > I'm not trying to romp on anyone here but I do have a very firm opinion on > this issue. My mother's family are in part Lakota Sioux. I have yet to prove it > but I believe my father's people had some Cherokee and possibly some > Delaware. Dad's people arrived in 1738 and my mother's about 100 years earlier so > from just a circumstantial point there is almost certainly native bloodlines > on both sides. > > That said I have a very dim view of AIM (American Indian Movement). I see > these people as purely political opportunists. Kenniwick Man here in Washington > State is a perfect example. The 10,000 plus year old bones were proven not to > be related to any tribe, and the last I read had NO American Indian > characteristics. Of course that didn't for a moment prevent AIM along with lawyers > from demanding the bones be "returned" to a tribe - again, never mind it was > the WRONG tribe, as the bones were Caucasian in morphology. This think hung > up in the courts for years! > > The AIM people, and those of that political persuasion, never tire of > claiming "victim status" for the purpose of political gain. As part Indian I'm > ashamed of them. The "White Man Stole Our Land" nonsense is at it's heart > dishonest as all the tribes competed for hunting grounds and living space. Whichever > tribe was the stronger took what they could and held it for as long as they > could. > > There really shouldn't be any surprise that the heart of the matter was a > culture class between an industrial society and a stone age culture. The > absolutely practicable outcome to that clash shouldn't be a surprise to anyone > either. > > They love to tout the "Nobel Savage" ideal when it suites them. But many of > us who study history know full well that there was never any such thing. > Different tribes conducted their affairs in different ways. More then a few kept > slaves. Some, such as the coast tribes here in the Pacific Northwest, kept > slaves and practiced human sacrifice. > > As for 'returning artifacts' to anyone? Forget about it. Such would in my > opinion do nothing as the artifact would most likely end up in someone's > collection or sold to the highest bidder and you would be left with squat.

In a message dated 4/25/05 9:08:45 A.M. Central Daylight Time, gmfree@juno.com writes: What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to Caucasians as well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts found on one's own property and cultural sensitivity? Just to attempt some clarification, the return of Native American scared objects and human remains by museums is the result of a Federal law, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. You can learn about it by searching Google for its acronym, NAGPRA. The regulations define what is to be considered sacred or culturally sensitive ( in the narrow sense of the law) and to whom the law applies. ~ Dori http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~partsch/

In a message dated 4/25/2005 7:08:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, gmfree@juno.com writes: What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political correctness I'm not trying to romp on anyone here but I do have a very firm opinion on this issue. My mother's family are in part Lakota Sioux. I have yet to prove it but I believe my father's people had some Cherokee and possibly some Delaware. Dad's people arrived in 1738 and my mother's about 100 years earlier so from just a circumstantial point there is almost certainly native bloodlines on both sides. That said I have a very dim view of AIM (American Indian Movement). I see these people as purely political opportunists. Kenniwick Man here in Washington State is a perfect example. The 10,000 plus year old bones were proven not to be related to any tribe, and the last I read had NO American Indian characteristics. Of course that didn't for a moment prevent AIM along with lawyers from demanding the bones be "returned" to a tribe - again, never mind it was the WRONG tribe, as the bones were Caucasian in morphology. This think hung up in the courts for years! The AIM people, and those of that political persuasion, never tire of claiming "victim status" for the purpose of political gain. As part Indian I'm ashamed of them. The "White Man Stole Our Land" nonsense is at it's heart dishonest as all the tribes competed for hunting grounds and living space. Whichever tribe was the stronger took what they could and held it for as long as they could. There really shouldn't be any surprise that the heart of the matter was a culture class between an industrial society and a stone age culture. The absolutely practicable outcome to that clash shouldn't be a surprise to anyone either. They love to tout the "Nobel Savage" ideal when it suites them. But many of us who study history know full well that there was never any such thing. Different tribes conducted their affairs in different ways. More then a few kept slaves. Some, such as the coast tribes here in the Pacific Northwest, kept slaves and practiced human sacrifice. As for 'returning artifacts' to anyone? Forget about it. Such would in my opinion do nothing as the artifact would most likely end up in someone's collection or sold to the highest bidder and you would be left with squat. You could donate to a museum but the ones I have been in have hundreds of times more items then they could ever display. Most people simply have no idea what their storage rooms - warehouses really - look like. Now it's fine with me that they have inventories of this size but the point is they don't need more stuff as it's a virtual certainty they already have 50 examples of everything you have - and their's is of a much finer quality. Yes, you could seek the advice of an academic. Nothing wrong with that in so far as you look for the identity of the items but don't bother looking for a political answer from most of them. You can figure out that for yourself. Over 90% of academia has a leftist agenda. That such is their personal belief is fine with me, that they teach it to the exclusion of all else is not acceptable to me. These are your family artifacts. Do what you will. If they were mine, I'd seek to identify and possibly research their value. But I while I may sell them I would not turn them over to a third party who would sell them for their benefit.

What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of political correctness? Does the term apply to artifacts related to Caucasians as well as Indians? Where does one draw the line between artifacts found on one's own property and cultural sensitivity? This, I realize, can be an incendiary topic; however, it need not be if we all try to stand back and look at the issues. If I were a resident of Madison County would I have to determine what is "sacred" and what is not if I had discovered items on my own property? Don't other religious faiths have items deemed sacred and should they be treated in like manner? Has there been an overreaction spurred by the forces of political correctness? GMF On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 03:51:53 -0500 "Pamela Berger" <berger@netstream.net> writes: > Attitudes and laws about Indian relics have changed over the years. > Museums > are returning bones and sacred items to the tribes. Depending on > what you > have, perhaps it would be wise to discuss your collection with an > expert in > such artifacts at a university or large museum before dispersing it > to > assure that there is nothing culturally sensitive. > --Pam B.

Wow! Yeah...what he just said! I believe that we, who have a love of researching our family lines, understand more than anyone the importance and specialness of the continuity of our ancestors, us and our descendants. The "woven web" of our individual peoples. I also believe that this is being threatened in today's world. Just my two cents, but I would rather try to instill this in my descendants and then pass these precious family treasures on to them, and trust, hopefully, that they will share my feelings, protect them and pass them on down the line. BTW, I don't post a whole lot, mainly lurk, but I just felt compelled to respond to this. Have a good day! . /' // . // |\//7 /' " \ . . . | ( \ '._ | '._ ' '. ' / \'-'_---. ) ) . :.' | \ | . . . . ' . | | | \^ /_-': / / | | '\ .' / /| | \\ | \ \( ) // / \ | | // / L! ! // / Joan Broneske [_] L[_| unicorn@surewest.net ----- Original Message ----- From: <Breakness@aol.com> To: <NYMADISO-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2005 7:36 AM Subject: Re: [NYMADISO] Indian Relics > > In a message dated 4/25/2005 7:08:45 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, > gmfree@juno.com writes: > > What is the definition of culturally sensitive? Is it a part of > political > correctness > > > I'm not trying to romp on anyone here but I do have a very firm opinion on > this issue. My mother's family are in part Lakota Sioux. I have yet to > prove it > but I believe my father's people had some Cherokee and possibly some > Delaware. Dad's people arrived in 1738 and my mother's about 100 years > earlier so > from just a circumstantial point there is almost certainly native > bloodlines > on both sides. > > That said I have a very dim view of AIM (American Indian Movement). I see > these people as purely political opportunists. Kenniwick Man here in > Washington > State is a perfect example. The 10,000 plus year old bones were proven not > to > be related to any tribe, and the last I read had NO American Indian > characteristics. Of course that didn't for a moment prevent AIM along with > lawyers > from demanding the bones be "returned" to a tribe - again, never mind it > was > the WRONG tribe, as the bones were Caucasian in morphology. This think > hung > up in the courts for years! > > The AIM people, and those of that political persuasion, never tire of > claiming "victim status" for the purpose of political gain. As part Indian > I'm > ashamed of them. The "White Man Stole Our Land" nonsense is at it's heart > dishonest as all the tribes competed for hunting grounds and living space. > Whichever > tribe was the stronger took what they could and held it for as long as > they > could. > > There really shouldn't be any surprise that the heart of the matter was a > culture class between an industrial society and a stone age culture. The > absolutely practicable outcome to that clash shouldn't be a surprise to > anyone > either. > > They love to tout the "Nobel Savage" ideal when it suites them. But many > of > us who study history know full well that there was never any such thing. > Different tribes conducted their affairs in different ways. More then a > few kept > slaves. Some, such as the coast tribes here in the Pacific Northwest, > kept > slaves and practiced human sacrifice. > > As for 'returning artifacts' to anyone? Forget about it. Such would in > my > opinion do nothing as the artifact would most likely end up in someone's > collection or sold to the highest bidder and you would be left with squat. > > You could donate to a museum but the ones I have been in have hundreds of > times more items then they could ever display. Most people simply have no > idea > what their storage rooms - warehouses really - look like. Now it's fine > with me that they have inventories of this size but the point is they > don't need > more stuff as it's a virtual certainty they already have 50 examples of > everything you have - and their's is of a much finer quality. > > Yes, you could seek the advice of an academic. Nothing wrong with that in > so > far as you look for the identity of the items but don't bother looking for > a > political answer from most of them. You can figure out that for yourself. > Over 90% of academia has a leftist agenda. That such is their personal > belief is > fine with me, that they teach it to the exclusion of all else is not > acceptable to me. > > These are your family artifacts. Do what you will. If they were mine, I'd > seek to identify and possibly research their value. But I while I may sell > them > I would not turn them over to a third party who would sell them for their > benefit. > > > > > ==== NYMADISO Mailing List ==== > Search the list archives: > http://searches2.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/listsearch.pl - put NYMADISO for > the name of the list > > >

Attitudes and laws about Indian relics have changed over the years. Museums are returning bones and sacred items to the tribes. Depending on what you have, perhaps it would be wise to discuss your collection with an expert in such artifacts at a university or large museum before dispersing it to assure that there is nothing culturally sensitive. --Pam B.

In a message dated 4/24/2005 3:23:18 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, skye523@webtv.net writes: I have one suggestion on this cemetery. The lady that kept the books for many years made unbeievable notations on the axtual records that have been of much assistance to me. Some things noted were maiden names, parent, some graves have 2 or 3 bodies in them and all these are nted..some surprises there! just all sort of stuff. I no longer have the contact info for her, ut perhaps someoe does? i think her last name was "Love"? I would love to have the contact for this person if anyone has it. My g-g-grandmother, Lydia Seamans Wise and her mother, Louisa Sheldon Seamans are both buried at Delphi Falls Cemetery. Lydia died 1881 and her husband Charles Wise brought his two young children to Detroit. His son, John Lurrell Wise was my great grandfather and was an artist in Detroit from 1890s until he died. One of my favorite paintings was a picture that my grandmother said he painted when he returned from a visit to Delphi Falls around 1910. It is a picture of the Falls and a white building with a lot of windows that look like the church... it really is a beautiful picture. This post got me motivated to put the family history online so if anyone wants to take a look here is a link. I added some pictures of Delphi Falls and the church that I have found online. Joanne _http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/e/z/Marion-Pezzullo/_ (http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/p/e/z/Marion-Pezzullo/) Thank You Joanne