As we were making our way through the cemetery, we found that in many cases children and infants were buried together. Either that just the two of them, or with the rest of the family. We began to think, is there a reason for this? If there a pattern for who is buried together and who is separate? This became our second research question.
We also noticed that there was a number of gravestones that had dates on them from many years ago, but clearly had been made much more recently. A good example of this is the grave of the Kuwabara Family.
The earliest death on the stone is from 1913. But clearly this head stone is much newer than that. Why were some replaced and some not? This became our third research question.
So, to recap, these were our research questions:
1. Is there a noticeable difference in the ornamentation on the graves of children compared to the graves of infants? Is one type more elaborate than the other?
2. Is there a pattern for which children and infants are buried with their parents? Is it mostly infants or mostly children that are buried this way? Is there a specific time period when this is most common?
3. Some headstones have clearly been changed or altered since they were first erected. Is there a pattern for which tombstones have been replaced?
All right, here we go...
When we first set out, I thought that the graves of infants would be less ornamented, simply because the parents who buried them didn't have as much time to 'get to know them' as the parents of passing children. I'm not trying to say that they didn't love their infants, just that few infants have developed distinct personalities or interests. Many of the graves that we think of nowadays have inscriptions relating to what the person did with their life, or even, in the case of the fire hat monument, an object to symbolize the person. I had assumed that the graves of infants would be obviously less ornamented. I think that I was wrong.
While many of the most ornamented monuments that we found were of children, such as the above graves of Dottie Robertson and Leila Englehart, there were also a number of infant graves that were very ornamented, such as D.B. Campbell and William Henry.
It became clear to me when setting up our goggle map that how old the child had been at the time of death didn't matter, because either way they were being buried by their parents. As Pearson (1999, 103) points out, children are not burying themselves. So we are never going to see a grave that truly reflects the life of a child. What we are seeing is a grave that reflects the grief of the parents. For example, the monument of D.B. Campbell (above) features a pair of baby's shoes. Now, it is possible that little D.B. had a favorite pair of shoes, but it is more likely that his or her parents decided to feature baby shoes in the monument because to them the shoes symbolized innocence and infancy. The headstone of Mary Anne Bryant reads "Asleep in Jesus". Mary Anne was only eight years old when she died, and while she probably knew who Jesus was, very few eight years olds have a real concept of Jesus or religion or what it means to go to heaven. I am guessing that her parents added that inscription because it comforted them to think of their daughter peacefully asleep with Jesus.
There is no pattern or rhyme or reason regarding which graves were more heavily ornamented because they were not designed by children or infants, they were designed by grieving parents. These parents chose which ever monument they thought would best honor their lost child. For some parents, like those of Minty Wriglesworth, a simpler monument seemed best, while others chose something more elaborate.
Our second research question was why some infants and children were buried either together or with their entire families. The Kuwabara family (above) is a good example of this, as is the Anderson Family. I have three different theories for why this would happen.
2. Is there a pattern for which children and infants are buried with their parents? Is it mostly infants or mostly children that are buried this way? Is there a specific time period when this is most common?
3. Some headstones have clearly been changed or altered since they were first erected. Is there a pattern for which tombstones have been replaced?
All right, here we go...
When we first set out, I thought that the graves of infants would be less ornamented, simply because the parents who buried them didn't have as much time to 'get to know them' as the parents of passing children. I'm not trying to say that they didn't love their infants, just that few infants have developed distinct personalities or interests. Many of the graves that we think of nowadays have inscriptions relating to what the person did with their life, or even, in the case of the fire hat monument, an object to symbolize the person. I had assumed that the graves of infants would be obviously less ornamented. I think that I was wrong.
While many of the most ornamented monuments that we found were of children, such as the above graves of Dottie Robertson and Leila Englehart, there were also a number of infant graves that were very ornamented, such as D.B. Campbell and William Henry.
It became clear to me when setting up our goggle map that how old the child had been at the time of death didn't matter, because either way they were being buried by their parents. As Pearson (1999, 103) points out, children are not burying themselves. So we are never going to see a grave that truly reflects the life of a child. What we are seeing is a grave that reflects the grief of the parents. For example, the monument of D.B. Campbell (above) features a pair of baby's shoes. Now, it is possible that little D.B. had a favorite pair of shoes, but it is more likely that his or her parents decided to feature baby shoes in the monument because to them the shoes symbolized innocence and infancy. The headstone of Mary Anne Bryant reads "Asleep in Jesus". Mary Anne was only eight years old when she died, and while she probably knew who Jesus was, very few eight years olds have a real concept of Jesus or religion or what it means to go to heaven. I am guessing that her parents added that inscription because it comforted them to think of their daughter peacefully asleep with Jesus.
There is no pattern or rhyme or reason regarding which graves were more heavily ornamented because they were not designed by children or infants, they were designed by grieving parents. These parents chose which ever monument they thought would best honor their lost child. For some parents, like those of Minty Wriglesworth, a simpler monument seemed best, while others chose something more elaborate.
Our second research question was why some infants and children were buried either together or with their entire families. The Kuwabara family (above) is a good example of this, as is the Anderson Family. I have three different theories for why this would happen.
In this example all members of the family died at different times, and yet were still buried together. As Aragon (2002) points out, often families are buried together as a way to preserve the social ties that existed in life. This particular monument was included in our data set because M. V. Anderson was just an infant when they died. The whole family was probably buried together as a way to symbolically and physically keep them together. This is my first theory.
In other cases it appears that members were buried together because they passed away at about the same time. In the case of the Sprinkling family, Jane passed away at about the same time as Baby Max.
Having two family members pass away at the same time could be a reason that these three were buried together. This is my second theory. However, there could be another reason that Baby Max was buried here. As I mentioned earlier, children are often buried in a way that most comforts the parents, or the caregiver who is burying them, and perhaps Max's parents took comfort in knowing that his final resting place was with his grandparents, who would look after him. This is my third theory, that children and infants are buried with family members because it brings some comfort to those that are burying them. This may seem similar to the first theory, but they are actually subtly different. In this case Max's parents may not have buried him with his grandparents to maintain any kinship ties, but rather to make sure there was someone that they trusted around to look after him. I think another good example of this kind of group burial is the grave of Nonnie Kelly and Willie Hogan.
When these two were buried Nonnie was seven years old, and Willie was seven months. There are no years on the monument, so we cannot tell if they died at the same time. However, the inscription under Willie's name reads "Our Baby". This leads me to believe that in life Nonnie's role was to look after Willie because he was, well, the baby. There is also an inscription that reads "Erected by Mother". Maybe because the mother could not always be with them, she made sure that they were with each other.
However, another point that Aragon makes in her article (2002) is that often mortuary evidence is misinterpreted. While it seems logical to assume that The Anderson family wanted to be together in death because they were together in life, perhaps they were buried together because there was no more space left in the cemetery. Maybe this family fought when they were alive and did not speak, but a relative who was in charge of burying them thought that they should be together. We can never really know. Perhaps family members are buried together because it is cheaper to do so that way. You don't have to spend as much money on plots, and only have to pay for one tomb stone. While the three theories that I outlined seem logical to me, I am also coming at this from a middle-class, 21st century viewpoint. I could be very, very wrong. And that is always a possibility in archaeology. Nothing is ever 100%.
As far as out third research question goes, I am not going to say very much about it. According to the Old Cemetery Society, when the cemetery first opened many of the monuments were made of wood, because those erecting them could not afford stone. Because wood decays (as we in archaeology know all too well), by 1983 all of the markers were replaced with stone ones. This could explain why so many 'older' monuments were clearly made very recently. The society also works to preserve the monuments, and keep them clean. More information about this work can be found here:
http://www.oldcem.bc.ca/gp.htm
Over all, the monument analysis was a lot more interesting and enjoyable than I thought it would be. I think it was an interesting projects, because we were able to go out and do the kind of thing that archaeologists regularly do. And the Ross Bay Cemetery was so peaceful- how could you not enjoy it?!
References:
Aragon, L.V., 2008. Collective Burials and Community Memories: Interpreting the Placement of the Dead in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States with Reference to Ethnographic Cases from Indonesia. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 11 (1), 27-54. Available through Wiley Online Library [Accessed February 14th 2012].
Pearson, M. P., 2008. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. 5h ed. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
However, another point that Aragon makes in her article (2002) is that often mortuary evidence is misinterpreted. While it seems logical to assume that The Anderson family wanted to be together in death because they were together in life, perhaps they were buried together because there was no more space left in the cemetery. Maybe this family fought when they were alive and did not speak, but a relative who was in charge of burying them thought that they should be together. We can never really know. Perhaps family members are buried together because it is cheaper to do so that way. You don't have to spend as much money on plots, and only have to pay for one tomb stone. While the three theories that I outlined seem logical to me, I am also coming at this from a middle-class, 21st century viewpoint. I could be very, very wrong. And that is always a possibility in archaeology. Nothing is ever 100%.
As far as out third research question goes, I am not going to say very much about it. According to the Old Cemetery Society, when the cemetery first opened many of the monuments were made of wood, because those erecting them could not afford stone. Because wood decays (as we in archaeology know all too well), by 1983 all of the markers were replaced with stone ones. This could explain why so many 'older' monuments were clearly made very recently. The society also works to preserve the monuments, and keep them clean. More information about this work can be found here:
http://www.oldcem.bc.ca/gp.htm
Over all, the monument analysis was a lot more interesting and enjoyable than I thought it would be. I think it was an interesting projects, because we were able to go out and do the kind of thing that archaeologists regularly do. And the Ross Bay Cemetery was so peaceful- how could you not enjoy it?!
References:
Aragon, L.V., 2008. Collective Burials and Community Memories: Interpreting the Placement of the Dead in the Southeastern and Mid-Atlantic United States with Reference to Ethnographic Cases from Indonesia. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 11 (1), 27-54. Available through Wiley Online Library [Accessed February 14th 2012].
Pearson, M. P., 2008. The Archaeology of Death and Burial. 5h ed. College Station: Texas A&M University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment