The sociopolitics of the living and the dead: The ...

Death Studies

ISSN: 0748-1187 (Print) 1091-7683 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/udst20

The sociopolitics of the living and the dead: The treatment of historic and prehistoric remains in contemporary midwest america Thomas E. Emerson & Paula G. Cross To cite this article: Thomas E. Emerson & Paula G. Cross (1990) The sociopolitics of the living and the dead: The treatment of historic and prehistoric remains in contemporary midwest america, Death Studies, 14:6, 555-576, DOI: 10.1080/07481189008252394 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07481189008252394

Published online: 14 Aug 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

Citing articles: 2 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=udst20 Download by: [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign]

Date: 30 April 2016, At: 11:37

Downloaded by [University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign] at 11:37 30 April 2016

THE SOCIOPOLITICS OF THE LIVING AND THE DEAD: THE TREATMENT OF HISTORIC AND PREHISTORIC REMAINS IN CONTEMPORARY MIDWEST AMERICA

THOMAS E. EMERSON and PAULA G . CROSS Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Springfield

I n this article we explore the perceptions and realities in the treatment of prehistoric and historic human remains in the American Midwest, focusing on Illinois. Numerous case studies are examined involving the disturbance of human burials, with causes ranging from accidental disturbance to deliberate grave robbing. Public reaction to these disturbances has been mixed, however, generally expressing a concern for the sanctity of human burials. The legal status of human remains from prehistoric and historic contexts often has been poorly defined. Few clear guidelines exist for dealing with such remains. Consequently, the actual treatment of disturbed burials often has been contradictory to legal requirements as well as to the public’s beliefs and wishes. One of the greatest discrepancies in the past has been the dichotomy in the treatment of white versus Indian remains. The authors suggest that this situation is changing because of the public’s increased sensitivity to Native American concerns, disgust for grave looting, and an increased identification of archaeological remains as part of American heritage. Increased awareness and cooperation by many groups have stimulated the passage of new laws guaranteeing more equitable treatment and greater protection for all grave sitesfor humans. The information on which this article is based has been gathered under the aegis of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. For the past six years, the agency has conducted an ongoing program to protect and preserve human burial places through resource studies, direct and indirect intervention, and legislative initiatives. Throughout the process we have had the logistical, philosophical, and practical support of the agency through Dr. Michael Devine, Director, Mr. William Wheeler, Associate Director, and Theodore Hild, Deputy S H P O , for which we are extremely appreciative. T h e authors thank Kenneth Farnsworth, George Milner, Timothy Pauketat, Randall McGuire, John Walthall, William Wheeler, and the volume editors for commenting on earlier versions of this article. We also are grateful for information on the various cases provided by Daniel Haas, David Keene, Alan Harn, and Floyd Mansberger.

Death Studies, 14:555-576, 1990 Copyright @ 1990 by Hemisphere Publishing Corporation

555


556

T E. Emerson and P G. Cross

A pioneer cemetery is bulldozed to make way for a shopping mall. A prehistoric Indian burial ground is ravaged for grave artifacts. A farmer removes tombstones from an abandoned cemetery in order to plow. All of these are common occurrences in the Midwest. Such activities have been perfectly legal. Until recently, there were few standards and little legal guidance for the treatment of human remains from historic and prehistoric graves. Existing cemetery legislation focuses on finance and administration of active cemeteries, not with graves from the past. Public opinion, however, generally has inferred that all graves are protected; consequently, disturbance of historic and prehistoric graves has elicited their concern. This divergence between perception and reality in the treatment of such human skeletal remains in the state of Illinois is the focus of this article. \Ve describe a number of case studies in some detail. The purpose of presenting these cases is, to the extent possible, to push aside the rhetoric and examine actual actions, attitudes, and final results in the treatment of human remains. These include a small pioneer cemetery at Lake Shelbyville, an early cemetery in Pekin that was officially “moved,” a large urban cemetery in Chicago containing over 15,000 burials that was “lost,” two historic cemeteries that were looted, and an Irish family cemetery that was archaeologically excavated. To provide an instructive dichotomy, we have also documented grave robbery at several prehistoric sites and reactions from the general public and various authorities. The grave robbing occurred at three National Register sites: Albany Mounds and Fitzgibbon on public lands and the privately owned Duffv site. To understand the implications of the case studies, it is necessary to discuss briefly the backdrop of European and American cultural values concerning death and the dead (e.g., 1-5). In EuroAmerican culture, death is perceived as a permanent physical state, and within that framework burial represents the transfer of the bodv to its “eternal resting place.” This action takes place with appropriate rituals to symbolize the transfer of the individual from one state to another. Although it generally is accepted that the corporal body is corrupt and will decay, it is often assumed that the grave,” the monument, the burial area will be perpetuated as a memorial to the deceased. When that burial ground is “sacred,” it L (


Treatment of Historic Remains

557

achieves a special significance, one that presumably all people will understand and respect. Most people believe these are universal values, but unfortunately these perceptions are often far from reality. Through time and across cultures, people consistently and routinely have disturbed, destroyed, or moved burials, sometimes from their own cultures, sometimes from previous or contemporaneous cultures. The destruction or disturbance of burials is not a new phenomenon; it is not limited to present times or to special groups. What is important is the fact that what different groups have perceived as the proper treatment of the dead has varied in time and space. To place these issues in a social and political context, we have chosen to explore a number of case studies drawn from archaeological evidence, historic documentation, and recent events in Illinois.

The Legal Contexts To provide the background for the case studies, it is necessary to understand their legal context. Within Illinois, an examination of legislation gives insights into how the legal profession, the business community, and past legislators perceived burial places. A historical view indicates the protection of cemeteries and burial places from vandalism was one of the earliest concerns of Illinoisans. One of the first cemetery protection ordinances in the state was enacted in 1851 by the city of Springfield. Its provisions created a city sexton, whose responsibilities included the protection of the monuments from defacement and injury. The initial state cemetery legislation (185 1) provided that any person could dedicate land as a burying ground, and if deeded to the county in which it was situated, the land was to remain as a burial ground in perpetuity (6, par. 1). Subsequent legislation enabled administrators in cities, villages, townships, and road districts to organize cemetery boards for the management of cemeteries within their jurisdiction (6, par. 4-7). A subsequent act allowed townships to appropriate funds “to be used for the purpose of putting any old, neglected graves and cemeteries in the Township in a cleaner and more respectable condition” (6, par. 14b-c).


558

T E. Emerson and P G . Cross

In 1885 an act was passed specifically for the preservation and protection of cemeteries (6, par. 15). This legislation stated that “any person who shall willfully destroy, mutilate or injure any tomb, monument, stone, vault, tree, shrub or ornament, or any object whatever, in any cemetery, or in any avenue, lot, or part thereof . . . shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars for each offense.” Subsequent legislation, including a 1903 law providing for the organization, ownership, management, and control of cemetery associations, provided support to cemetery organizations interested in maintaining local cemeteries, including neglected and abandoned ones (6, par. 35-55). More recent legislative initiatives have focused on the fiscal responsibilities of cemetery associations (6, par. 64.124), the dedication of abandoned cemeteries as natural areas (7), and the prevention of discriminatory vandalism against any group’s graves (8). Previous legislation has been directed toward two main concerns. First, there was a focus on responsibility for maintenance and care. As Illinois populations grew and became more urbanized and industrial development increased, the majority of cemeteries were no longer small plots tended by family members or maintained by churches; therefore, a broader mandate for care was required. A correlate of this growth and change was the need to create a process to move cemeteries. As early as the mid-19th century, cemeteries began to be displaced for “progress.” By the late 1800s, burial places began to be viewed as movable and impermanent features of the landscapes, especially in urban areas. These events were not unique to Illinois, but rather were part of a widespread pattern in the United States often called the “rural cemetery movement’’ (9). Second, there was a continuing concern by legislative bodies and the public, dating from the mid-1800s to the present, regarding vandalism and malicious destruction of graves. Despite ongoing public and private concern for cemeteries, there was a noticeable lack of clarity in the Illinois statutes. What laws and regulations did exist were often confusing or ambiguous. To the average citizen, it might appear that the issue of what is a grave or a cemetery is fairly straightforward. In the law, a “ ‘grave’ means a space of ground in a cemetery, used, or intended to be


Eeatment

Historic Remains

559

used, for burial,” and a “ ‘cemetery’ means any land or structure in this State dedicated to and used, or intended to be used, for the interment of human remains” (6, par. 64.2). A closer reading of the laws, however, indicates that the obligations to protect and preserve a cemetery apply only to those parcels that have been registered specifically with the state comptroller’s office by a cemetery authority (6, par. 64.8). Because only active cemeteries usually are registered, whole categories of prehistoric, early historic, and abandoned burial areas were excluded from legal protection. None of the case studies examined in this article fell under the protection of existing cemetery laws.

Euro-American Burial Places The Tharp Cemetery In April 1988, we became aware that proposed construction of a new shopping complex in Pekin might destroy portions of an early pioneer cemetery that occupied the site from about 1830 to 1880. According to county histories, 100 burials had been moved from Tharp cemetery in 1880, although conflicting information suggested that the early disinterment had been only partially performed. (We have noted in a number of instances that partial removal of graves is a common occurrence.) With the projected development of the area, this issue became a matter of local concern. The Committee for Historic Preservation of Pekin and other citizens contacted our office for assistance. A review of the situation demonstrated that there was little legal basis for requiring either the developers or local government to address the issue of human burials that might be disturbed by construction. In the early stages of this case, we continued to serve as an intermediary between developers and citizenry. In the meantime, newspaper articles carried accounts suggesting that infant remains may have been left in the Tharp cemetery, and that a prehistoric cemetery was part of the property. One man recounted that when a schoolhouse on the property was expanded in 1921 he and his playmates found several human skulls. Con-


560

7: E. Emerson and ?! G. Cross

struction workers involved in subsequent school construction in 1959 reported unearthing human bones and caskets. Opinions in the community differed about what action should be taken. Developers indicated that if they encountered burials they would treat them “appropriately.” Others believed that the area should be set aside and fenced and a memorial plaque erected. After discussion, the solution most acceptable to all parties called for the monitoring of construction by an anthropologist and the removal of any human remains. A local museum archaeologist and a volunteer group agreed to assist the developer at no expense. The newspaper account (10) reported that the museum “likely would keep any aboriginal, or prehistoric, bones that might be found for study at the museum. The county would retain any remains of early pioneers and likely bury them at the Lakeside Cemetery, where the other Tharp graves were moved in the 1800s. . . . ” Once the earth moving began, there was considerable public interest. The first recovery of a single human bone fragment elicited front-page coverage, and subsequent excavation of 13 burials was well covered in the media. The human remains recovered were all analyzed to determined basic information on sex, age, pathologies, and so on. All of the burials removed were early Pekin residents from the 19th-century Tharp cemetery. The skeletal material eventually was turned over to the county for burial in a cemetery. This interment was accompanied by Christian rites.

The Old Irish Cemetery In 1981 a small central Illinois pioneer cemetery was excavated archaeologically (11) to remove the burials from an area to be stripmined. The Old Irish Cemetery had been in use from 1848 to 1871 and then abandoned. The presence of the cemetery was unknown until it was located during the cultural resources survey conducted before mining. The coal company proceeded to have the cemetery legally declared abandoned by the court and contracted with a funeral home to have the burials removed. Because the gravestones had been scattered, however, the burials could not be located. Eventually, archaeologists were hired to locate and excavate the graves. As each burial was uncovered, the remains were analyzed and recorded. Emphasis was placed on recovering information that


Zeatment of Historic Remains

561

would help identify the individuals in order to link them with names on gravestones. Members of four families were discovered. Standard morphological information was collected on these individuals, providing data about sex, age, diet, health, and disease as well as genetic connections. A preliminary report was prepared, which discussed the anthropological implications of the data. During the excavations, descendants of the deceased visited the sites to observe the process. None of these individuals expressed concern and, in fact, were interested in the information that the analysis could provide them about their relatives. As far as we could ascertain, there was little or no media coverage of the excavations. After analysis, skeletal remains of these individuals were turned over to the funeral director for reburial.

Sprindield Cemeteries A historical perspective demonstrates that our legal system always has been carefully crafted toward the relocation of burial areas for economic convenience. The Tharp cemetery relocation previously discussed serves as an example. A detailed case study of cemetery relocations, particularly urban ones, as movable sites is documented by Floyd Mansberger (12) in his discussion of Illinois cemeteries, Early Springfield, Illinois typically had cemeteries around the outskirts of the community. As the city grew, these cemeteries were in the path of development. In 1856 a city ordinance declared the Springfield City Cemetery to be a nuisance and prohibited future burials. The ordinance ordered the relocation of hundreds of graves to Oak Ridge Cemetery beginning in 1860. In 1864 12 bodies from the Kelly family plot (circa 1819) were moved to the recently organized Oak Ridge Cemetery. Once again, in 1866, a city ordinance was passed prohibiting further use of Hutchinson Cemetery; burials from this cemetery were relocated between 1861 and 1890. Throughout Illinois, cemetery abandonment and relocation has been ongoing and continuous.

Hidden Cemetery In June 1987, a fisherman notified the Shelby County Sheriff's Department that a burial was exposed along an eroded bank at


562

T E. Emerson and P G.

Cross

Lake Shelbyville. The county coroner and Corps of Engineer (CoE) personnel were notified subsequently. The CoE staff archaeologist consulted with the district archaeologist and the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concerning proper treatment and removal of the human remains. T h e burial was within a known cemetery (Hidden Cemetery) supposedly moved by a private cemetery relocation company to Quigley Cemetery in 1965 before lake impoundment. The CoE insisted that proper recovery methods be used during disinterment, while the coroner felt his responsibilities demanded that the burial be removed as quickly as possible. A small group, including the coroner, CoE personnel, a county sheriff‘s officer, and the staff archaeologist, convened the next morning to claim the remains. T h e eroded bank was surveyed for other burials. Two additional graves were located, and a field decision was made to remove them. Burials 1 and 3 were removed, but midway through excavation of Burial 2 the process was halted by another CoE section. By the following morning, agreement had been reached by all parties to finish the removal. All burials were analyzed, identifying one adult male, one adult female, and one infant. Associated grave items were minimal, consisting of a few personal adornments and remnants of casket hardware. An effort was made to locate descendants of the Hidden family. A local resident informed the CoE of a Ms. Hidden living nearby who was the daughter of the person who had signed the authorization to originally relocate the cemetery. Ms. Hidden was contacted and, although she expressed interest, she was not upset by the exposure, removal, and analysis of the burials Arrangements for reinterment at Quigley Cemetery were made by the county coroner and the staff archaeologist. These arrangements included filing of disinterment and reinterment forms in the Shelby County Recorder’s Office, construction of small wooden caskets for each burial, and contracting for the digging of the new graves. The reinterments were conducted with no ceremony five days after their discovery. Temporary markers were placed until the county provided permanent ones. According to the original relocation report, these three burials had been identified and moved. Such incidents suggesting the practice of reporting burials as having been moved or simply moving the marker but not the actual burial could be considered as “sym-



563

bolic relocation.” This appears to have been a fairly common practice and is noted in other case studies here. Mansberger (12) noted that although the majority of the bodies from relocated cemeteries were moved, there is reliable evidence to suggest that many individuals, especially the poor, were not. H e quoted a study (13) of a Sangamon County cemetery relocation, which stated that “It is likely that not all the bodies were rerrloved since there are records of persons being buried here and no record of removal of their bodies.” The incomplete removal of burials during relocation is also documented for other areas. While excavating for a new basement at the site of the relocated Stephen Reid Burial Ground in Jacksonville, Illinois, a grave was located that had not been removed. Decatur workers laying street pavement discovered bodies in unmarked graves at the site of the former Common Burial Grounds, which supposedly had been relocated in 1939.

Dunning Cemetery Dunning Cemetery is the largest example of burial disturbance yet encountered in Illinois. In the spring of 1989, we received reports of burials in the Chicago area being disturbed by a private housing development. Rumors indicated that masses of human skeletal materials had been unearthed during ongoing construction. When a portion of an embalmed body was brought up by the backhoe, the situation finally was reported to the authorities. Officials from the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office, who had made a site visit to confirm that the skeletal remains were human, suggested that a “forgotten” cemetery had been impacted during construction. A site visit by our staff noted hundreds of human bone fragments in the construction area. Further contacts with the Medical Examiner’s Office and members of the public began to provide additional information. It appears that this area, beginning in the mid-19th century, had been sequentially a county poor farm and an institution for the criminally insane, each using portions of the property as a cemetery. Unconfirmed stories indicate that victims of the Chicago fire also were buried here. In addition, it may have been used as a


564

T E. Emerson and I? G. Cross

public cemetery for many years. Conservative estimates place the total number of burials at about 15,000. At present, there is a court-ordered work stoppage to prevent further disturbance of the burials. Public opinion as expressed in the newspapers has been fairly vocal in demanding a solution. This very complex situation is currently under discussion by private, local, county, and state authorities. Issues include (a) who is responsible for the burials?, (b) what should be done to rectify the current impasse?, (c) who is to pay for relocation costs? O u r office consistently has reminded all parties that this is also an important historic resource that can provide a virtually unique opportunity for biological study of a large Euro-American burial population from the last half of the 19th century. Negotiations to have the skeletal material excavated. recorded, and analyzed by professional archaeologists and physical anthropologists are ongoing. For many, the most frustrating aspect of this case has been looters’ removal of the fragmented, scattered human bones that litter the area for unknown purposes. Until questions of legal responsibility are clarified, however, little can be done to rectify the situation. Lost Cemeteries

Forgotten or lost cemeteries such as the Dunning site are a serious, unknown factor in our attempts to protect burial places. One goal of the Illinois Historic Presenation Agency’s (IHPA) cemetery study (12) was an attempt to estimate numbers of forgotten cemeteries in Illinois. Although a study of the entire state was out of the question, a study of eight counties was initiated. Working with surveys and various historical documents, Mansberger (12) defined three categories of cemeteries: actiL’e, abandoned, and despoiled. Active cemeteries are those that have received a burial within the last 30 years and are actively maintained. Abandoned cemeteries are those that have not received a burial within the last 30 years and are not being maintained. Despoiled cemeteries are those in which there are no intact above-ground features that distinguish it as a cemetery. Of 979 cemeteries located within the eight-county area, 471 are active, 272 are abandoned, and 236 are despoiled. If this sample is truly reflective of the state as a whole, over one quarter of all historic period cemeteries are lost and another one quarter are


565

abandoned. This conclusion does not even address the issue of the literally thousands of unrecorded prehistoric cemeteries present.


The Whiteside Pioneer Cemetery In May 1987, officials in Whiteside County discovered that a remote pioneer cemetery had been disturbed by vandals. The cemetery, which contained about a dozen burials, was on an isolated hill and had not been used for over a century. Local citizens reported the disturbances to the county sheriff. The graves of a husband and wife were disturbed; the husband’s grave was completely excavated. Only a few scattered bones remained visible. Immediately after this investigation, the Whiteside County Crime Stoppers offered a reward for information leading to the arrest of those responsible. Public response was immediate. Shortly thereafter, two men were arrested for the digging. According to their statements to the police, they looted the graves to “see what 100-year-old bones and caskets looked like.” Because this was in a recognized cemetery, both men were charged with Class A misdemeanors, which carry fines of up to $1,000 and one year in prison. The fragmented bones were returned to the graves and reburied. The Joiner Cemetery The interest of looters in early historic graves is well illustrated in the Joiner Cemetery in southern Illinois. This graveyard contained five graves, only two of which were marked with tombstones. The two marked graves were opened by looters in the fall of 1987. Thieves cut through the coffin in one case, removing most of the skeleton but leaving the feet and casket end in the grave. In the other instance, they missed the grave, not realizing that Veteran Administration markers are put at the feet rather than the head of the grave. In this instance of grave robbing, the vandal’s motives may have been mixed. Presumably, the attraction was the fact that one of the graves was of a Civil War soldier, a corporal in Company H, 60th Regiment, Illinois Infantry. Veterans’ graves are of increasing interest to thieves because of the rising value of Civil War memorabilia. The looters also left a broken Ouija board in the backdirt pile,


566

?: E. Emerson and P G. Cross

suggesting their participation in “cult”-type activities that simply may have required the bone. Local law-enforcement personnel around the state have attributed a number of bizarre happenings to such groups often labeled as satanic cults. Forest Service personnel originally responded to the report of vandalism, examined the crime scene, and collected numerous skeletal fragments. When it became clear that the burial area was on private land, the county sheriffs office was notified. T h e grave robbery was not made public, and no one has been apprehended in this case. T h e skeletal material is being curated.

Prehistoric Indian Burial Places The Fitzgibbon Site

One of the most complex grave robbery cases took place in the Shawnee National Forest in 1984. In this instance, the Forest Service discovered that there had been long-term, large-scale looting of the prehistoric Fitzgibbon site, which is located on an isolated portion of federal land in Gallatin County. T h e Forest Service immediately took action to collect over 1,000 fragments of visible human remains. Aided by local landowners, the Forest Service and sheriff“s office staked out the site and arrested three men. Later another indiiridual was apprehended. While this process was underway, a pan-Indian group contacted the Forest Service and requested the skeletal material for reburial. In the meantime, the SHPO requested that the recovered human bones be analyzed and retained. Adding to the complexity of the situation was the fact that the site was multicomponent, including occupations and cemeteries from the Middle Archaic, Middle Woodland, and Late Woodland traditions. Although virtually ignored by federal and Indian groups, it also included a 19th-century Euro-American cemetery. The recovered bones were analyzed, and additional excavations were undertaken at Fitzgibbon to salvage archaeological information. Recovery of any remaining human bones, collection of evidence to assist in the prosecution of the looters, and restoration of the landscape also became priorities. After a great deal of discussion, an agreement was reached by all parties that scientific analysis


Teatment of Historic Remains

567

of all remains would take place followed by their reburial at the Fitzgibbon site. During the Fitzgibbon reburial, interestingly, we found that the question of pioneer burials being present among the vandalized skeletons was ignored totally by the parties in charge when they were deciding on final disposition of the Indian remains. Under the direction of Delaware and Lakota medicine men, the remains of over 20 individuals, wrapped in medicine blankets, were reburied in November 1985. Later, anger and concern were expressed by a number of tribal groups historically associated with the region regarding the nature of the reburial ceremonies and the failure of the Forest Service to contact them. The Gallatin County looting received widespread media attention by regional press, but to some extent the focus was directed more toward the reburial ceremonies than the looting. The prosecution of one of the looters, however, received much press. The case was actively pursued by the Gallatin County State’s Attorney, and the individual was sentenced to 18 months in the state prison and fined $1,000. Charges against three other men apprehended in the case were later pursued by the United State’s Attorney’s Office. Each of these defendants was given five years probation and fined $4,132.34. The severity of the sentences was generally applauded and seen as a deterrent to further looting.

Albany Mounds Whiteside County was the scene of a major prehistoric grave robbery in September 1986. The Albany Mounds State Historic Site lies just outside the small town of Albany. This Middle Woodland site contained over 100 burial mounds and a village at the time of Christ. Now owned by the state, the site has been maintained primarily as a natural area covered by forest and prairie grasses. In March 1987, it was discovered that under cover of the dense vegetation looters had disturbed two burial mounds. In the case of one mound, it was clear from the numerous scattered bones that a mass grave had been disturbed. IHPA archaeologists cleaned and refilled the vandal’s holes. From this work it became clear that many of the human bones must have been removed and carried away by the grave robbers. Because of the time that had elapsed between the


568


actual robbery and its discovery, there was little hope that the violators would be apprehended. The modern inhabitants of Albany and local Department of Conservation (DOC) police, however, were not willing to allow graves to be robbed or looters to go unpunished. Articles in area newspapers decried the desecration of graves, and DOC police continued searching for evidence. When no results were forthcoming, officials at the city bank and newspaper ran an entire page advertisement. offering a $2,000 reward for the arrest of the looters. Within weeks two men were in custody. The case was prosecuted actively by thc Whiteside State’s Attorney’s Office and both men werc convicted, sentenced to 20 consecutive weekends in jail and each fined $1,250.

The Duffr Site No issue has so united Indians, archaeologists, collectors, and the general public as the ongoing legal grave looting at the Duffy site in southeastern Illinois. Following on the heels of the well-publicized Slack Farm incident in nearby Kentucky, the Duffy site provided the necessary impetus for a statewide effort to eliminate grave robbing. In 1976 the Duffy site was listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a 60-acre village and burial area dating to about 1000 A 1). At the time the site was listed, it had suffered little damage from looting, although occasional potholes had been noted by visitors Reports of intensive grave mining first began to come to our attention in the summer of 1988. During the following months, local citizens, who were aware of the situation, called our office to report these incidents under the mistaken belief that such activities were illegal. Unfortunately, in the case of the Duffy site, the looters actually were digging with the permission of the landowners. Never had the absence of laws been felt so strongly by such a large number of citizens. Partially as a response to this situation and similar ones in the area, local Indians and citizens formed the Society Against Grave Exploitation (SAGE). This group provided a focal point for those frustrated with the situation, and became an important force in keeping the issue in the public awareness. Public meetings, tours of looted grave sites, protests at artifact meetings, and a


Treatment

of Historic Remains

569

Memorial Day visit to fill-in looted graves at the Duffy site made it clear to the public that incidents such as that at Slack Farm were being repeated in Illinois. Public expressions were virtually unanimous in their condemnation of the grave robbing. Newspapers in the Tri-State area (Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois) published articles, editorials, and surveys supportive of halting such activities. The major newspaper in the region, the Evansville Courier, contained an editorial claiming that “this disgusting business of digging up graves and archaeological sites for fun and profit continues to bring shame on the Tri-State [area]” (14). The editorial concluded with this statement: “Whether or not digging ancient grave sites is permissible under written law, it surely violates our society’s sense of decency.’’ The results of a regional survey conducted by the Research Systems Corporation (15) surprised many by indicating that the overwhelming majority of citizens believed that “grave desecration” should be a felony, that the government should regulate or halt the sale of Indian artifacts, and that the government should be able to take possession of lands where Indian sites or burials exist so they could be preserved. It was the public outcry and outrage at the digging of these prehistoric graves that provided the impetus to bring the various interest groups together to draft legislation to protect unregistered graves and to provide a process for their management. The initial draft was prepared by Thomas Emerson after preliminary consultation with concerned private and public groups. Critical, face-toface discussions involved the IHPA, the Illinois Archaeological Survey (the professional organization), the Illinois Association for the Advancement of Archaeology (the amateur archaeology group), the Illinois State Archaeological Society (the collectors), and SAGE (the primary Indian group). The successful cooperative union of these diverse groups was due primarily to our initial, very frank discussions that clearly demonstrated there were a number of basic philosophical issues on which we did not agree. Consequently, we agreed to set these aside and work on the issue on which there was total consensus: Grave looting had to be stopped. As a result, on August 11, 1989, Governor James Thompson signed into law a bill finally to end the legal robbery of graves in Illinois.

5 70

T E. Emerson and P G. CrosJ


Discussion

In this short essay, we cannot investigate, much less understand, all of the diverse factors that contribute to the complex pattern of Euro-American beliefs and treatment of human remains and cemeteries. We have been able, however, to isolate some areas of consensus and threads of continuity and, at the same time, show some perplexing contradictions between beliefs and actions. If there is a dominant theme in public discussions of the treatment of human remains, graves, and cemeteries, it is that these deserve a special respect. Elaborate funeral rites, cemetery organization, and commemorative holiday rituals instill and reinforce such feelings. We also have noted the general belief in the permanence of the “final resting place” and the attribution of such values to all peoples. The pervasiveness of these beliefs is revealed in discussions of cemetery and burial laws. There is virtually unanimous shock when it is revealed that few of these beliefs are reflected in law. Few realize that the notion of the eternal resting place is a historical misperception. There is a significant contradiction between what the public perceives as the proper treatment of burials and the reality reflected in law. An examination of the laws indicates that cemeteries are classed as a movable commodity, with the place of burial having no inherent sacredness. This fact might suggest that human remains are the important entity and, when removed, the location is free of any cultural value (i.e., sacredness is transportable). Although this suggestion appears to reflect the feelings expressed in moving burials, in reality this is not the case. As noted in various examples, the removal of human remains from cemeteries always has been rather haphazard, with more emphasis on form than thoroughness. Cemetery removal is done to appease the living rather than the dead. Despite an apparent consensus by the public that one should treat the remains and graves of the dead with respect, there is little uniformity in the implementation of such concern. It is still very clear that Euro-Americans, as well as most other ethnic groups, treat the dead differentially on the basis of time, distance, age, ethnic affiliation, and social status of those remains. In fact, in one modern New York community the dead were viewed primarily as


Eeatment of Historic Remains

571

the concern of the relatives and the cemetery authority (2). There is no doubt that the public expresses the greatest concern when dealing with remains of those who have immediate relatives in the local community. As time passes, as the connection with the local population decreases, and as one crosses ethnic and social boundaries, there is generally decreasing public concern. There is, however, a factor that seems to cross-cut time and ethnic affiliation: the sense of place or “community.” Typically, despite the separation of hundreds or thousands of years and radically different cultures, local towns and cities often feel a “responsibility” for prehistoric grave sites in their area. In each case discussed, the citizens of the local region expressed the most concern and outrage over looting and grave robbing. There is no doubt that these citizens look upon such sites as part of the community’s common history. Such a perspective is part of the Euro-American attachment to “political/geographical place.’’ This principle is reflected in our easy discussions of the geology, vegetation, zoology, archaeology, or the history of Illinois even though we know well that such phenomena are not limited to or a creation of the state’s political boundaries. Randall McGuire (3), in a stimulating article, demonstrated the negative results of the adoption by Euro-Americans of this “common national heritage” perspective. As he convincingly argued, it often has served to disenfranchise Native Americans from their past and from any meaningful role in the present. We do not dispute his major points but do note that, from a pragmatic viewpoint, the positive association communities feel because of a “continuity of place/heritage” can serve as one of the important tools in the preservation of prehistoric sites. The reunion of the past with the present and equity for those living descendants is an issue yet to be resolved. As noted over and over by Native American activists, this lack of equity is most blatant in the postexcavation disposition of human remains. There is no question that most Native American remains are retained in academic collections, while most Euro-American remains are reburied. We stress the word most: There has been a limited number of Native American remains reburied and there are large numbers of Euro-American remains in storage. Because it is easier to obtain better preserved and more complete Euro-


572

T E. Emerson and I? G. Cross

American skeletal remains from currently living populations, little effort has been made to collect samples from graves. The skeletal biology of Euro-American and Afro-American populations, howe.irer. increasingly has become the focus of research among physical anthropologists (e.g., 16-20). As the importance of historical time depth in studying Euro-American and Afro-American human skeletal biology becomes clear, more effort has been exerted to collect early remains (for example, the important Dunning Cemetery collection). There is another factor that is important in the public perception of the treatment of burials: the nature of the disturbance. There are acceptable and unacceptable disturbances to burials. In America, there is an entire legal framework established for the remo\.al and transport of burials that impede economic and social expansion. This is deemed as an appropriate treatment. In cases such as those involving Tharp or Hidden cemeteries, when burials are overlooked, the situation is seen as regrettable but easily corrected by removal. In massive disturbances such as that which occurred at Dunning Cemetery, there are many factors influencing puhlic opinion. Although there \vas public concern expressed early in the process, there was not a public outcry until it became obvious that, despite the fact that human remains were being unearthed in vast quantities, construction was proceeding. The discovery of human remains during construction is seen as accidental and therefore acceptable. To disregard such graves and continue with their disturbance is clearly not acceptable. It is also not acceptable to disturb graves to obtain skeletal material or artifacts for sale or private ownership. In short, grave robbery is an anathema. In the cases of looting of the prehistoric Native American burial sites described previously, the public outcry was unanimous in its condemnation. The fact that the guilty individuals robbing prehistoric graves were apprehended primarily was because of public assistance. T h e Gallatin County State’s Attorney, in discussing why his office had been so active in the prosecution of the 1,andals at the Fitzgibbon site, noted: “It’s my feeling that anybody who’ll rob a grave will d o just about anything” (21). H e warned: “It’s a grisly kind of crime, grave robbing. Digging at a n Indian burial ground is not any different than someone going out to Westwood Cemetery and digging up my grandparents . , . T h e



5 73

American Indian has the right to be accorded the dignity of any [other] group of people in this country” (22). In describing the white versus Indian concept of the sanctity of grave, McGuire (2) indicated that whites are concerned primarily for the family of the deceased, whereas Indians are concerned for the sacred nature of the grave and the communal ancestors. He further argued that one of the reasons why whites have accepted the digging of Indian graves is because they are “ancient” and thus have no family to be injured by their disruption. Yet it is an interesting point that in the Illinois cases, at times, it has been easier to arouse public concern over the looting of Native American sites than over the destruction of historic Euro-American graves. Given white attitudes, this concern seems contradictory. In part, we attribute public concern to widespread sympathy for Native Americans and disgust with the large-scale looting of prehistoric graves in Illinois. The media has been an effective tool for Native American activists in the midwest. National attention, for example, the National Geographic coverage (23) of the carnage to burials at Slack Farm, Kentucky, brought the issue to the forefront in many local newspapers, magazines, and radio and television shows. Local stories about the massive grave robbing in Illinois helped bring the point home. This coverage included numerous statements from Native Americans expressing their grief over the desecration of Indian graves. This publicity demonstrated to local whites that there was an injured “family” in Indian grave robbing. When discussing the issue, the most common phrase heard from the white public was some version of “I won’t want someone digging up my grandmother.” At least for the present, for some of the population, Indian graves have been redefined in white terms as those of “family” and therefore as deserving of respect. The grave robbery issue in Illinois is one in which the crucial impetus was provided by a joint state government-archaeologistcollector-Native American coalition. Early on, we met with all concerned parties to establish priorities and to develop a unified approach to the grave-robbing issue. Consequently, there was no polarization of archaeological versus Indian versus collector factions. This unified front virtually assured us that there was no substantive opposition to our legislative efforts. O u r efforts were also successful because of the increasing sophistication of Native Ameri-


5 74

T E. Emerson and P G.

Cross

can political action groups and, more slowly, anthropologists in using the media. We would be remiss if we did not at least briefly address the issue of archaeological excavations of human remains in Illinois. Since 1984, IHPA policy has been to oppose excavation of human remains on state lands solely for research purposes. No such excavations have taken place. We also have argued against research excavations of human remains in Illinois on private lands. In general, the archaeological community has been supportive. The only approved excavations of human remains in Illinois since 1984 relate to burial areas that are impacted by construction or vandalism. Popular acceptance of archaeological research, including that with skeletons, is widespread in the state. Public attitudes in Illinois supporting the archaeological excavation of prehistoric burials might seem to indicate that such remains are judged by the public as “ancient,” thus specimens rather than humans. Yet, as the examples at the Old Irish, Hidden, and Tharp cemeteries show, whites, in some instances direct relatives of the deceased, also have calmly accepted the archaeological excavations of historic pioneer graves. We suggest that public acceptance of such burial excavations lies, at least partially, in the respect the public holds for science and the demonstrable care and, therefore, respect that archaeologists are perceived as using to remove and handle skeletons. In the Fitzgibbon case, for example, while the state’s attorney vehemently denounced the grave robbery, he carefully distinguished it from archaeological research, which was seen as acceptable (2 1). Right or wrong, the popular image of a scientist using dental picks and brushes to carefully excavate a skeleton has done much to counteract the profession’s portrayal by some Native Americans as no better than grave robbers. As many Native Americans point out, however, burial, reburial, or curation in and of itself is not the issue (cf. 24); for a n international perspective on this issue see Hubert (25). One result of disenfranchisement has been the exclusion of Native Americans in decisions concerning the disposition of Indian remains. In every Illinois case that involved Euro-American remains, the local community was provided input into the final disposition decision. In no instance were Native Americans voluntarily consulted about the treatment of their racial or cultural ancestors’ remains. It is this



5 75

exclusion from the decision-making process that is the ultimate insult to many Indians. A major premise of this article has been that while there appears to be a broad consensus within the general Euro-American population regarding the treatment of human remains and burial areas, these perceptions often are contradicted by law. As demonstrated in our case studies, burial areas often have little permanence and less sanctity. Although most people attribute a respect for places of burial and a concern over destruction of such areas to themselves and others, the law and common practice provide no such consensus. There is an increasing awareness of this dichotomy, and recent efforts in the legislative arena have closed the gap between public perception and the law. I n the past, the dead have often had little protection and even less permanence of resting place; the future may be different.

References 1. Aries, P. (1974). Mstern attitudes towards deathfrom the Middle Ages to the present. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2. McGuire, R. H. (1989). The sanctity of the grave: White concepts and American Indian burials. In R. Layton (Ed.), Conzict in the archaeology of living traditions (pp. 167-184). London, England: Unwin Hyman. 3. McGuire, R . H. (1989, August). Archaeology and the vanishing American. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Conference, Vermillion, SD. 4. Stannard, D. E. (Ed.). (1975). Death in America. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. 5. Wensing, M. G. (1989). The Christian tradition concerning the treatment of the dead and its understanding of the body-soul relationship. Paper presented at the World Archaeological Conference, Vermillion, SD. 6. State Bar Association. (1987). Cemeteries. In Illinois revised statutes 1987 (Vol. 1, pp. 845-879). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. 7 . State Bar Association. (1987). Parks. In Illinois revised statutes 1 9 8 7 ( V o l . 3 , pp. 852-972). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. 8. State Bar Association. (1987). Criminal law and procedure. In Illinois revised statutes 1987 (Vol. 2 , pp. 1-282). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing. 9. French, S. (1975). The cemetery as cultural institution: The establishment of Mount Auburn and the “rural cemetery movement.” In D. Stannard (Ed.), Death in America (pp. 69-91). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.


576


10. Dinquel. E. (1988. May 4). Anthropologists to watch digging at store site. Peoria Journal Star, p. D6. 1 1 . Goldstein, L. (1981). A preliminary report ofexcarations at a nineteenth century Irish c r m e t q , .I4cDonough Countj, Illinois. Unpublished manuscript. (on file with Illinois Historic Preservation Agency) 12. Mansberger, F. (1989). T h e Illinois cemetery project: T h e current status of human burial sits and their protection Springfield, IL: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. 13. Barringer. F. (197 1). Sangarnon Countj cemeteries. Springfield, IL. 14. luley, T. (1989, February 2). Digging up graves. Emnsuille Courier, p. 2 . 15. Rose. J . (1988, January 18). Indian cause draws Tri-State's sympathy. Euansiille Courier, p. A l . 16. Hill. M . C . , 8: Baker. B. J . (1989, August). H u m a n skeletalpopulations: Bones of contention in biomedical and biocultural research. Papcr presented at the World Archaeological Congress, Vermillion, SD. 1 7 . Owsley. D. FV., Manheim, h i . H . , 8: Whitmer. A. M . (1988). Burial archaeolo ~ and ~ y o s t e o l q u 0 f a Confederate cemetey at Port Hudson, Louisiana (16EF68). Baton Rouge: Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Office of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. 18. Owsley. D. LV.. Orser, C . E.. Montgomery, R . , & Holland, C . C . (1985). An archaeological and phjsical anthropological study of the first cemetery in N e w Orleans, Louisiana. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Division of Archaeology, Office of Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. 19. Parrington, M.,& Wideman, J . (1986). Acculturation in a n urban setting: The archaeology of a Black Philadelphia cemetery. Expedition, 28( l ) , 58-62. 20. Rose, J . (1985). Gone to a better land: h biohistory of a rural Black cemetery in the Post Reconstruction South. In Arkansas Archaeological Series, 25. Fayetteville: Arkansas Archaeological Survey. 21. Anonymous. (1985, Xiarch 20). Prosecutor vows protection for ancient burial ground. Litchfield ,Vews-Herald, p. 2 . 22. Anonymous. (1985. March 21). Jury verdict on Gauger may be warning to others. S h a u w e t o w n Gallatin Democrat. p . I . 23. Arden. H . (1989). N'ho owns the past? .Vatlonu1 Geographic Magazine, 175, 376392. 24. Ll'orld Council of Indigenous Peoples. (1989, August). 7'he sacred and the profanr: 7 %reburial ~ issue as an issue Paper presented at the World Archaeological Congress, Vermillion, SD. 2.5. Hubert. J . (1989). A proper place for the dead: A critical review of the "reburial" issue. T h e Journal of!ndigenous Studies, 1(1), 27-62.