Rest in Review

Follow me through my hot takes on some works in historical cemeteries! Although I critique all these pieces, I must say, I didn’t read minding any of them. Well written with good structure, each piece serves its own unique purpose, no matter how highly specific.

ARTICLE ONE: Ethnohistory, 1981, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter, 1981), pp. 79-98 Frederick J. E. Gorman and Michael DiBlasi

In their research, Gorman and DiBlasi take on the analysis of 311 gravestones from six cemeteries established between 1710 and 1829. The cemeteries were located in South Carolina and Georgia, and made an attempt to establish how iconography present on gravestones could be indicative of social attitudes, religiosity, and economic status of groups and their individuals at the time of death. The acknowledge potential sample bias, whereby French Protestant and Interdenominational burials may face underrepresentation whereas Congregational and Episcopal cemeteries may be overrepresented. It was determined that the appearance of common motifs (willow and urn, death’s heads, and cherubs) were found in the expected sequence and times. Religious denomination did not play any substantial tole in the differentiation of mortuary concept, and spatial patterning was insignificant. When present, all factors (economic, social, and religious) were found, such as how more affluent families could afford to import gravestone motifs to display higher status.

Gorman and DiBlasi commit two sins in my eyes – firstly, their methodology. They state that the latest date present on a stone will be accepted as the age of the stone when multiple burials are present. However, they state no reason as to why they chose to do this, when common practice in the field is exactly opposite. Stones are typically dated based on earliest burial. Even then, there is no solid evidence oftentimes, unless using census or mortuary record, which indicates when a stone was created. They could have solved this by simply offering why they made this choice, but neglect to do so. They also do not account for the fact that stones also face a delay in erection or even occasional are commissioned and erected prior to death as per Harold Mytum in his 2018 writing “Explaining Stylistic Changes in Mortuary Material Culture; The Dynamic of Power Relations between the Bereaved and the Undertaker.” A methodological decision, especially that which escapes from the norm, needs to be appropriately explained. Overall, the issue with the article is that there was much data collection, but no overall point. None of their findings really stood out from what would be expected, they do not elucidate why they would attempt the study in the first place, and proceed to make no binding statements as to an interpretive conclusion aside from summing up data points. The entire thing has a hollowness, leaving a reader wondering what they had really learned from their time spent with this article.

For my thesis work, they do make an interesting point at the end. There was no significant difference in the data that indicated sex or age would influence motif choice. They also state women and children appear no less valued than the men of their societies. The reasons as to why they assess this is not fully clear aside from a demographic assessment, but it is fairly common (as will be seen) for authors to throw this type of information in willy nilly. Hence, where I come in – I make the willy, nilly.

ARTICLE TWO: Plains Anthropologist, May 1996, Vol. 41, No. 156 (May 1996), pp. 175-182 Gerald Broce

Juris Cemetery rests in the High Plains of Colorado, home to the bodies of 28 Slovak settlers. who died from 1898-1980. Broce approached his assessment of the cemetery from the point of ethnicity and how this group of people chose to approach burial rites, be they in tune with expected Slovak practices or more typical burials expected of Americans. Broce found a rather unremarkable cemetery – grave distribution, material, form, and epitaph offered very little information on the deceased. There appears to be remarkable similarities no matter gender, age, or socio-economic status. This is likely due to the close-knit nature of community, whereby it would be unnecessary to display this information to individuals who would already be privy to it. Surprisingly, Broce found very little loyalty to traditional practices and almost a total acculturation of the people. Despite kin bonds often being prominent in burial with families appearing to have a preference for being buried with family members, no attempt is made to save nearby space for future burials, with at least one member from each family in the cemetery having been buried in a neighbouring area.

The main issue with Broce is that, despite the paper hinging on deviation from traditional Slovak burial practice, he never elaborates on what a typical practice would be. The main note is that national symbols and ethnic language are absent from stones. Thus, one cannot understand how the differences truly manifest. There is also no answers to the potential questions of readers – why might they have acculturated so readily? Do any cemeteries nearby retain or reject traditional practice as well? Was this shift part of a greater societal trend? Of course, due to the limited space afforded by this article, broaching the answers to all of these questions would have been outside the scope, so a concise assessment of findings is to be expected. It does, however, leave the reader wanting what appears to be fairly basic information.

Broce again notes sex distinctions, or lack thereof. The height of a stone is seemingly not influenced by the sex of the deceased (nor their age). Broce asserts that this counters an argument from 1959 by Lloyd Warner in “The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans,” whereby it was claimed cemeteries reflect the social positions of children and females, which were subordinate to men at the time. Broce also cares to mention that the crosses that appear on stones are equal between males and females, though one middle aged woman was buried with flying dove iconography. Again, no mention of why this would really matter or how it truly factors into the study. However, an interesting continuation of the theme of “women and men are buried equally in regards to iconography” seen in Gorman and DiBlasi.

ARTICLE THREE: J. Joseph Edgette, The Epitaph and Personality Revelation, 1992. Book Title: Cemeteries Gravemarkers Book Editor(s): Richard E. Meyer Published by: University Press of Colorado

I admit, I cheated with this one accidentally. It isn’t from an article, but a book, and I did forget this until I was finished the entire review and finalizing this too late at night to change it. However, I stand by this being a good piece of writing to review.

Edgette’s writing is a fun one. Mostly one of those papers you use to go ‘this seems obviously, but likely needs a citation,’ I’d recommend it as a fun ‘academic vacation’ read, when you feel you should still be working, but want something that is easy to digest and somewhat entertaining. Edgette uses numerous examples of epitaphs to emphasize the point that the epitaph is an optimal place through which to garner understanding of the person as they lived. Noting that there is a decline in the frequency of epitaphs present on grave markers (and that this may be potentially due to ever increasing cost), he asserts that they still play a key role in how the living can continue to characterize the deceased. Edgette finds that epitaphs seem to take on one of two common themes – religious or poetic. He believes they capture the ‘essence’ of an individuals personality, even though it can be argued that when someone dies they cease to have a personality at all. The article is spent assessing specific case studies of burials. Using examples of a family annihilator (buried on the same stone as his wife who died earlier, whom he memorialized with an adoring poem), a jokester, and an atheist, he clearly displays how distinct aspects of an individuals personality can be demonstrated through the use of complex or simple epitaphs.

There are two qualms I take with this article. Firstly, Edgette is not remaking the wheel here. Nothing is revolutionary about the fact that “personality is shown on a gravestone.” This is a resounding chance for a person to be memorialized, so it is evident that they would be represented either: 1) as they saw themself, 2) as they were seen by others, 3) how they/their family would wish them to be seen by society or to raise their societal status. Gravestones do not often carry lies about who a person was, even if what about them being represented is selective. Edgette also focuses on specific epitaph examples, not of religious or poetic origin despite his assertion of their commonality. Given that it is specific, general aspect of the epitaph and its connection to personality is lost. He also does not address when they are unspecific insofar as having multiple burials on the same stone represented by one epitaph. Who does it relate to? Is it commemorative of all personalities? Finally, does he think there is ever an epitaph that does not represent personality, such as basic bible verses (those wishing “farewell” are less about the deceased than the living). This paper works well in conversation with one written by Vajta in 2021, titled “Identity beyond death; messages and meanings in Alsatian cemeteries.” There, she uses epitaphs to look at identity in relation to ethnicity and language practices in an area that changed hands between Germany and France after WW1. While not exactly personality, insight into personal identity is displayed depending on the language used on the epitaph at time of death.

This is not directly pertinent to my thesis work, but, if I work with John Locke and the ‘blank slate’ for my paper in this class, it would be a useful tool to say ‘a stone gets chiseled to represent the dead.’ I had hoped it would offer more for my thesis and future papers, but it left a lot to be desired as to new and interesting approaches to the topic. I read it as epitaphs are, weirdly, often overlooked in historical cemeteries as a truly pertinent part of burial memorialization. I had hoped to garner a deeper understanding of their importance and choices made. So, while well intentioned, the efforts were rewarded with amusement as opposed to education – but, hey, sometimes that isn’t a bad thing amidst the inherently morbid work we do.