Dead bodies......would you??????

[spittfire]

Would it be unethical to detect where there may be body parts along with jewelry etc? A friend of mine use to dig gravesites and told me that sometimes the records were not so good back in the day and frequently when digging a site he would uncover a body that was not recorded. It would have been in a wooden casket which rotted away and it was not unusual to have parts of a body lifted in the backhoe. Excess soil from the site would be deposited in the back of the cemetary where no gravesites were. So my question is......do you think it is unethical?

[booker]

I would have to pass on that digging

[Lou-CT]

I'd pass too. There's plenty of other places to detect.

[hoser]

I would pass this one up. I agree, there are plenty of other places to hunt.

[SkiWhiz]

Let me ask you this question :
Would it be unethical to detect where there may be body parts along with jewelry etc?
Ok enuff said, and my final answer is I can't believe anyone would ask such a question.
Anyone in their right mind knows it is unethical.
No offense meant to you spittfire, it just gets to me knowing that there are people that would actually dig in such places. Steve.

Opps after reading what I wrote, I want to apologise to spittfire. Sorry for saying I can't believe anyone would ask such a question. It just bothers be so much knowing that there are people detecting at grave yards and such places. So if anyone has the power to delete my post, go for it. I don't want to make anyone upset, because this is the "friendliest" forum on the net. Again I am sorrry spittfire.

[Carol K]

Well, that's a hard one, and I guess it's up to each individual. I think there is a difference in "knowing" there are body parts there, and digging somewhere while "not knowing."

For instance, metal detecting in Russia, or any of those foreign countries where many people have died during a war. If I were to travel overseas, nothing would stop me from metal detecting fields, woods or forests, even though people may have died in those areas.

In my opinion a person would be rather desperate, if they have to resort to digging in or near cemeteries.

[Rick in Mass]

this may not be the same but,, i was on another forum where a few guys did a plane crash site,, they had rings,, tooth fillings,, jewelry,, and all kinds of finds..
personally i didn't think it was right, and i wouldn't do that site either,, but that's just me......seems too personal..

[booker]

Anyone doing sites like that should be staked out !

[Bajanick]

It depends, If I knew Mr T was buried there I would, remember all that jewelry he wore......
No, I would not. It is unethical and even more gruesome, would you want to find a ring with finger bones still inside? LOL.

[spittfire]

So of course none of you would dig a civil war site?
No offense taken, I asked the question because I wanted people's opinions. The actual property is not in the cemetery, it is behind it. If you do sidewalks or median strips this is the same thing, dirt that has been moved. I am not sure if I would hunt it or not because it is in town and very public, and I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

[motor20]

I also know a grave digger and he sometimes uses the extra dirt for fill on some of his construction jobs.

So would it be ok to dig at the construction jobs??????

We swingers are a pretty ethical group.....

[novakpower]

Well if I found bones with jewelry attached I would alert the authorities, leaving the jewelry where it lay.

[CyberSage]

Originally Posted by spittfire

So of course none of you would dig a civil war site?

This is a good point Spittfire! A lot of good men died and are probably scattered about various areas that are hunted. Time is the only difference I guess.

Jack

[Treasurekidd]

Here we go again. You wouldn't catch me anywere near a cemetary with a metal detector, period. Hunting a field where someone MAY have died in battle is not the same as hunting a designated war memorial site or a cemetary. These are places set aside out of respect for the historical aspect of what occured there and out of respect for those who died there, or were laid to rest there. There is a huge difference between the two. If I were out hunting a field and somehow stubled across human remains, I'd simply leave them as found and contact the authorites and let them handle it. The difference between the two is the same as hunting the beach for lost jewelry versus rooting through your neighbors jewelry box for it.

[dooby]

Tough question spitfire !!!

A designated cemetery I wouldn't hunt, but then I hunt my parents yard (they live in the country) knowing that someplace in the yard is buried a little girl ...............

Tough, tough question ...............

[ironsights]

A friend of my folks has some property in southern va where he built a vacation home. An unmarked cemetery was found on the property. He did everything he was required to by law. Called a mortuary to move the remains and contacted living relatives. All the mortuary did was take a back hoe and dig the bodies up and throw them all in a big mass grave and cover them up. He offered that I could go down and detect his property. Revolutionary war period and earlier. Very tempting, there is just something about KNOWING you have disturbed something sacred instead of wondering if you possibly might have. But you know every time we find a war relic from near a battle field there is always that chance that you have found someones remains.

[Lou-CT]

I think Carol sums it up pretty well

[quote=Carol K ]
I think there is a difference in "knowing" there are body parts there, and digging somewhere while "not knowing."

[ironsights]

Didnt mean to be repetative. Read the intro to the post and thought I should tell my story too. Should have read all the way through. I agree with carol.

[DJS]

Originally Posted by dooby

A designated cemetery I wouldn't hunt, but then I hunt my parents yard (they live in the country) knowing that someplace in the yard is buried a little girl ...............

Tough, tough question ...............

as I'm sure you already know that happened alot more than people realise back in the old days, I've heard alot of stories and read of alot of cases(just in my area) of people just buring infants and very young children who've died out somewhere on their property, alot of places just had family cemetaries right on their property also and alot of times there was nothing more than a small stone marker on the graves, which could have easily been lost over time

I know of 2 very small and very old "undesignated" cemetaries out in the woods around here and I also know of one lone grave/stone of a little girl thats way out in the woods on an old, long gone homestead

I know its not very probably at all, but I often wonder about old unmarked grave sites while I'm at an old homestead

theres also a number of very old "designated" cemetaries around here, some quite a ways out in the back country too, most are kept up reasonably well and even have some historical info written on signs at them



a little off topic.... but I actually found a small, old cemetary once years ago out in the woods, all that was left was three old stones laying in the bottom of a big hole on the bank of a creek, I seen the square stones laying there as I walked by and thought they were kind of odd looking but they were covered in moss, grass and leaves so it was hard to tell what they were, and it never even entered my mind at the time that they may have been grave stones...
I jumped down in the hole to check them out, cleared enough of the debris away to see some lettering, realised they were grave stones, and came out of that hole like a cat...

I called the police and historical people and they came out and checked it out, all the lettering was worn pretty bad and was hard to read but from what we could make out they were all wives of priests and had death dates ranging in and around the mid 1800's
there were no records or even mention of that cemetary anywhere, or of it being there, and it took quite a while for the historical people to dig around and come to the conclusion that many, many years ago it had been moved to a bigger cemetary a few miles down the road because over time the creek had changed it route and had started to wash the bank away and expose the graves, but unfortunately thats all the info they could come up with... it was still pretty cool though, they had a big write-up here in the local paper about it




but anyway...

I understand the point behind the question here and to answer it personally, no, I wouldnt mess around anywhere around cemetary... I'd be uneasy at any war site too that there was a high probablility of finding human remains(and that civil war comment was a good point), grave sites are pretty sacred to me and messing with and around by them freaks the sh*t out of me... even if I dont know for sure that there even is any there the fact that there MIGHT be one there is enough to turn me away, its not something I mess with...

the only way I'd detect in or around a cemetary is if I were asked to try to locate lost or unmarked graves so they could be IDed and/or marked, as long as they werent disturbed

I wouldnt even detect the perimeter or parking lot of a cemetary looking for coins/jewlery, it would bother me way too much...

[Detector]

It's a matter of time I would say. Although we all pretty much agree with not digging in a cemetery I'd bet most would jump at the opportunity to dig at the Valley of the Kings in Egypt.