(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Markers"

MARKERS XIII 



'^'H 



if^J 



&i' :> V 



>^? 



\ -^ 



.'.n Memory oi' ^ 

\}. MILUX1/J).M. A./Ko I 

I dcpdiricd this life c^iitol]'' 
^1 the ao^^^^ 1798 I 

,y ..a. 87 year.." -^ ; |^ 

£ Vy^c Jurwnoris LOineJJ\cjai)iLol.)<^., 
ml9ijjlfiTuas his fliohlfsPxorttht roriL 



/our {liiii^s rcmcmhcrivdl | , 

i .-7)raih, }uc{0-)n.cnthcavc7i if/irM \S 




Edited by 
Richard E. Meyer 



Markers XIII 



Annual Journal of 
the Association for 
Gravestone Studies 



Edited by 
Richard E. Meyer 



Association for Gravestone Studies 
Worcester, Massachusetts 




Copyright ©1996 by 

Association for Gravestone Studies 

30 Elm Street 
Worcester, Massachusetts 01609 



All rights reserved 
Printed in the United States of America 



ISBN: 1-878381-06-7 

ISSN: 0277-8726 
LCN: 81-642903 



The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of 

American National Standard for Information Sciences - Permanence of 

Paper for Printed Library materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. 



Cover illustration: Alexander Miller, 1798, Plainfield, Connecticut. 
Rubbing by Anne Williams and Susan Kelly. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Page 
Jotham Warren, The Plainfield Trumpeter 

James A. Slater 1 

Tree-Stump Tombstones: Traditional Cultural 
Values and Rustic Funerary Art 

Susanne S. Ridlen 44 

From Jonathan Hartshome to Jeremiah Lane: 

Fifty Years of Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 

Glenn A. Knoblock 74 

The Taylor, Texas, Cemetery: A Language Community 

Scott Baird 112 

John Huntington, Gravestone Carver of Lebanon, 
Connecticut 

Ann F. Shepardson 142 

The Year's Work in Gravemarker/Cemetery Studies 

Richard E. Meyer 223 

Contributors 232 

Index 234 



lU 



MARKERS: ANNUAL JOURNAL OF THE 
ASSOCIATION FOR GRAVESTONE STUDIES 

EDITORIAL BOARD 



Richard E. Meyer, Editor 
Western Oregon State College 



Theodore Chase 
Editor, Markers V-IX 

Jessie Lie Farber 

Mount Holyoke College 

Editor, Markers I 

Richard Francaviglia 
University of Texas at Arlington 

Warren Roberts 

Indiana University 



Barbara Rotundo 

State University of New York at Albany 

James A. Slater 
University of Connecticut 

Dickran Tashjian 
University of California, Irvine 

David Watters 

University of New Hampshire 

Editor, Markers II-IV 



Wilbur Zelinsky 
The Pennsylvania State University 

For the first time in its thirteen-year history of publication, this issue 
of Markers features on its cover a rubbing of an early American grave- 
stone. Besides constituting a tribute to the validity and beauty of this par- 
ticular from of gravestone recording, the illustration reminds us that this 
annual journal - and the organization which stands behind it - has always 
placed great value on the study of these unique artifacts which are so 
dominant a part of the landscape of early America. Indeed, readers of 
Markers XIII will find within its covers no less than three new and signif- 
icant studies of early American gravestone carvers, worthy contributions 
indeed to the tradition pioneered by Harriette Forbes, Ernest Caulfield, 
Allan Ludwig, and others. With its two other essays. Markers XIII contin- 
ues its efforts of the past several years to open its pages to important stud- 
ies representing a wide range of time periods, geographical locales, and 
scholarly techniques - in short, the type of broad-based and balanced 

iv 



examination of gravemarkers, their makers, and the places where they are 
found which is coming to be characteristic of the best recent work in this 
specialized area of Anglo-American folk art and material culture. Markers 
thus continues its leadership role in establishing the standards and defin- 
ing the boundaries of what has been termed by some an important and 
emergent "microdiscipline." 

Any scholarly publication's merits are determined largely by the qual- 
ity of its manuscript submissions and the subsequent efforts of its editor- 
ial review board, and in both these regards my work as editor has been 
greatly aided by the high standards and conscientiousness displayed by 
contributors and members of the editorial board. 1 thank them all, and 
hope that readers with scholarly projects in mind will consider submitting 
their best work for publication consideration in future issues of Markers. 

Others deserve thanks as well, in particular Western Oregon State 
College, which continues to generously support this publication through 
numerous forms of indirect financial assistance; staff members - most 
especially Fred Kennedy - at Lynx Communication Group, Salem, 
Oregon, and Patti Stephens of Philomath, Oregon, all of whom, through 
their design and production skills, make my job a lot easier and this vol- 
ume a lot more handsome; the officers, board members, staff, and gener- 
al membership of the Association for Gravestone Studies, who make it all 
possible in the first place; Dr. Cornelia Paraskevas of the English 
Department faculty at Western Oregon State College, for her special edi- 
torial review assistance with an essay published in this volume; and, 
finally, Lotte Larsen, who once gave me, in Keats's words, "A hope 
beyond the shadow of a dream," and the rest is history. 

Articles published in Markers are indexed in America: History and Life, 
Historical Abstracts, and the MLA International Bibliography. Information 
concerning the submission of manuscripts for future issues of the journal 
may be obtained upon request from Richard E. Meyer, Editor, Markers: 
Journal of the Association for Gravestone Studies, English department. 
Western Oregon State College, Monmouth, Oregon 97361 (Phone: (503) 
838-8362 / E-Mail: meyerr@fsa.wosc.osshe.edu) For information about 
other AGS publications, membership, and activities, write to the 
Association's Executive Director, Miranda Levin, 30 Elm Street, Worcester, 
Massachusetts 01609, or call (508) 831-7753. 

R.E.M. 




r 



/i r^ 











Fig. la. Asa Dow stone, 1795. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



VI 



JOTHAM WARREN, THE PLAINFIELD TRUMPETER 
James A. Slater 

Introduction 

The eighteenth century burying grounds of northeastern Connecticut 
are especially noteworthy in that they contain many gravestones carved 
by local craftsmen. A number of these carvers have not yet been identi- 
fied. Endemism is especially striking in the towns of Killingly, Sterling, 
and Plainfield. Some of these carvers used a hard white stone which has 
withstood the vicissitudes of the New England climate extremely well. 
Others worked on a blue slate that presumably came from a relatively 
nearby source. Where it was quarried is unknown, but it does not have 
the hard impermeability of much of the slate used by Boston and, to an 
extent, Newport area carvers. Among the carvers known to have used this 
type of slate were Jonathan Roberts and Stephen Spaulding (the latter "of 
Killingly"), both of whom signed stones but whose work has not yet been 
studied in detail.' 

A third carver who utilized this blue slate - and in many ways the 
most original and interesting - was Jotham Warren. Although he is now 
known to have signed at least two stones, he apparently escaped the 
sharp eyes of both Mrs. Harriette Forbes and Dr. Ernest J. Caulfield, the 
preeminent early researchers in the field of gravestone carver attribu- 
tion.^ 

Warren was a skilled and innovative carver. The derivation of his style 
is obscure, although he appears certainly to have been influenced by the 
Providence and Newport, Rhode Island, carving traditions. Although we 
now have excellent studies of a number of New England carvers, the 
emphasis has been on craftsmen of the early years of the eighteenth cen- 
tury. Warren, on the other hand, worked at the end of this century and 
into the early decades of the next. An analysis of his work allows us to see 
the shift from cherubim to urn and urn and willow motifs by an innova- 
tive craftsman working in an isolated area. 

Warren's early stones are often most striking at first glance because of 
his use of doll-like trumpeting angels (Figs, la, lb), or, in some cases, 
curved hunting horns (Figs. 7, 8, 11). These angels are usually located at 
the tops of the border panels, but occasionally are found in the tympanum 
as well (Fig. 3). Warren's cherubim faces are also unusual in often appear- 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



ing, to us, to be wearing eye glasses (Fig. 4). Frequently the hair above the 
face is swept upward in a wildly wind-blown fashion (Fig. 4). 

The present article attempts to document the work of Jotham Warren 
and to indicate evolutionary trends in his stones. It also discusses the tran- 
sition that he made from cherubim to urns and willows and indicates the 
diversity of his production of this new motif. 

Biography 

Relatively little is known of the life of Jotham Warren other than that 
he was born in Plainfield, Connecticut, on September 4, 1759, the third son 
of Joseph Warren and Eunice Hide. Sometime before March 3, 1793, he 

married a Jerusha (the exact date of marriage is unknown, but 

they were admitted to the Plainfield church on that date). Jotham is listed 
in the 1790 census as living in Plainfield in a family of two white males of 




Fig. lb. Closeup of trumpeting angel. Asa Dow stone, 1795. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



16 years or older, three males under 16 years of age, and four females (this 
would indicate that Jotham was by 1790 head of this household, perhaps 
caring for parents and /or a brother, apparently also married and with a 
young family). 

Jotham and Jerusha Warren had at least four children - Elisha, Betsey, 
Martin, and Mary - all of whom are buried (as is Jotham) in the Warren 
plot in the old Ames Burying Ground in Lisbon, Connecticut. 

Sometime between 1801 and 1806, Jotham, his wife, and his mother 
moved from Plainfield to Lisbon, a small town east of Norwich, 
Connecticut, where he spent most of the remainder of his long life. It is 
likely that the family left Plainfield in October, 1801, as he, his mother, and 
his brother all sold land there in that year. However, Jotham and his wife 
were not admitted to the Lisbon church until 1806. 

There is some evidence to suggest that he was involved in the early 
mills of the area. In 1813 he owned a grist mill, and his land in Plainfield 
included, or was adjacent to, a sawmill. 

Jotham's activities in the Revolutionary War are enigmatic. The out- 
come of his attempts to establish his Revolutionary War credentials is a 




Fig. 2. Tympanum of Mary Marsh stone, 1793. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



pathetic story. He was 17 years old in 1776. I believe that he did indeed 
serve in that war, although the United States government does not, and to 
recall the history of Warren's attempt to receive a pension for his involve- 
ment in the war is a moving comment on bureaucratic malaise. 

On April 30, 1851, when he was 91 years old, Jotham Warren applied 
for a pension as a Revolutionary War veteran. In his application he called 
himself a musician (striking in view of the trumpets and hunting horns he 
had carved on his gravestones). In this application he also affirmed that 
he served six and one-half months as a fifer for three tours of duty and as 
a drummer in four tours. He stated that in 1832 he had filed an applica- 
tion in which he included documentary evidence of this service and that 
these papers should be on file in Washington, D.C. His 1851 application 
was written by Edwin Palmer, a Notary Public. Palmer stated that Warren 
was a resident of Lisbon and that he had served under Captains Sherebiah 




Fig. 3. Tympanum of Phinehas Parkhurst stone, 1778. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 




Fig. 4. Detail of John Gallup stone, 1796. 
Gallup Buying Ground, Sterling, Connecticut. 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



Butts, Titus Bailey, Tyler ('T think William Tyler"), and Joshua Dunlop. He 
stated that Warren's tours of service were at Bristol, Rhode Island, East 
Greenwich, Rhode Island, and New London and Groton, Connecticut. 
Jotham signed this application with a steady hand and added a touching 
line below his signature which read "and I do hereby certify that I am 
well." 

This 1851 application was forwarded to the Commissioner of Pensions 
on May 5, 1851 by Messrs. Dickens and Coombs (of Washington D.C.), to 
which they attached a letter stating that they hoped his papers could be 
found "as it will be impossible at this late day to supply the evidence con- 
tained in them." 

One feels that Washington hasn't changed very much. On July 22, 
1851, Mr. F.S. Evans replied, for the Commission, to Dickens and Coombs 
that as Jotham Warren's papers "cannot be found in this office, it will 
therefore be necessary for Mr. Warren to produce the usual proof of ser- 
vice, etc." Since this was impossible, Warren's contemporaries all being 








.) 






Fig. 5. Detail of Alexander Miller stone, 1798. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



dead, his application was rejected and apparently the rejection was never 
challenged. Many Revolutionary War applications were approved with- 
out verifying papers, upon the sworn statements of other people. For a 
man 91 years old this was apparently scarcely a viable alternative. One 
suspects the country might have survived a different decision. 
Interestingly, in 1927, Mr. Charles E. Bugbee of Putnam, Connecticut 
asked the government about Jotham Warren. In a letter dated August 13, 
1927, he received a reply from the honorable Winfield Scott (no less) in 
which Scott informed Mr. Bugbee of Jotham' s application, but stated that 
since no dates of service were given, nor was his place of residence at the 
time of enlistment given, the claim was not allowed. 

Thus all that we have today of Jotham Warren, the Revolutionary War 
musician, are his beautiful trumpeting angels carved on the blue slate 
gravestones that grace a number of rural eastern Connecticut burying 
grounds. 

Jotham died in Lisbon, Connecticut, and lies today beneath a large, 
fallen and broken, white, round-topped, marble stone in the old Ames 
Burying Ground in Lisbon, upon which it says only "In memory of 




Fig. 6. Warren signature on Elijah Park stone, 1793. 
Avery Pond Burying Ground, Preston, Connecticut. 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 




Fig. 7. Mary Marsh stone, 1793. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



Jotham Warren who died April 14, 1852 aged 92 years". The stone, inci- 
dentally, is signed by "E. Marston" (who, records indicate, resided in New 
London, Connecticut). No DAR marker is present, nor does an American 
flag fly above the grave on Memorial Day, but bluets bloom in Spring 
between the pieces of the broken stone. His wife Jerusha (born 1765, died 
1840) lies beside him. 

The direct evidence that Jotham Warren was a gravestone carver is 
based upon two signed stones and a probate record. In Plainfield, the 1798 
Alexander Miller stone (Fig. 5 and Markers cover), which was fallen in 
1991, is signed at the bottom "]. Warren Sculpt". The 1793 Elijah Park 
stone in the Avery Pond Burying Ground, Preston, is similarly signed 
(Eig. 6) (this signature was clearly legible in the early 1980s, but was 
almost eroded away by 1991). Einally, on June 3, 1800, Warren was paid 
3-40 for gravestones from the estate of Jonas Wheeler, who died April 1, 
1800, and who lies in Plainfield under a Warren-style stone. 

Major Stone Types 

Based primarily upon the carving designs in the tympanum, it is pos- 
sible to recognize five major design types created by Jotham Warren. 
These types, as will be discussed below, do not follow one another pre- 
cisely in chronological order. However, there is a temporal evolution in 
several of the major stone types and in some of the design features asso- 
ciated with them. 

Type I Stones 

Stones of this type are probably Warren's first efforts, carved when he 
was experimenting with his designs. They are discussed here in some 
detail. These stones have rather heavy-nosed cherubim with a band of 
hair in a tight coil above the face (Eigs. 2, 7, 14, 15). One of the diagnostic 
features is a pair of half circles, one on either side of the neck, made up of 
a series of irregular bands (Eigs. 2, 7, 14, 15). These half circles represent 
stylized wings. The side borders of most Type 1 stones feature large, heart- 
shaped ivy leaves connected to a heavy vine, but the leaves themselves 
are distinctly separated from one another (Eig. 9), in contrast to the use of 
the vine motif on later type stones where the vine leaves are closely 
appressed (Eig. 10). The eight-rayed star with the center circle (Eigs. 2, 3, 
11), so characteristic of much of Warren's work, is first used on several of 
these stones. Here one also finds the small angels (Eig. 7) near the top of 



10 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 




Fig. 8. Detail of angel playing hunting horn. Mary Marsh stone, 1793. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



11 




Fig. 9. Detail of ivy leaf border panel. Mary Marsh stone, 1793. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



12 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



sJU 



Fig. 10. Sketch of appressed vine leaf border panel design. Jesse 
Harris stone, 1803. Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



13 




^%. 










T 



-■^•■' i'.ni 







i < 



A\ 



M 







-."y^^'T?:!' 



■rjt^-' 







Fig. 11. Simon Gordon stone, 1794. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



14 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



the border panels. 

A remarkable feature of Type 1 stones is that when the angel design 
is used, the angelic figure is "playing" what must be called a hunting horn 
(Figs. 7, 8, 11) rather than the trumpet that is seen on Type II and Type III 
stones (Figs, la, lb, 5). 

Within this design category, four distinct subtypes may be distin- 
guished: 

Subtype A: Coiffure above the face composed of a series of irregular, 
undulating lines (Fig. 11); 

Subtype B: Coiffure above the face confined within a distinct, limiting 
outer border, the area within consisting of a series of undulating lines 
(Fig.l2); 

Subtype C: Coiffure above the face consisting of a definite, limiting 
outer border, but the area within made up of vertical or semi- vertical lines 
that form a series of blocks above the face (Fig. 15); 

Subtype D: Coiffure above the face defined by a definite outer border 
with a series of "C," or comma shaped, marks extending downward from 
the outer margin (Figs. 13, 14). 

Probable backdating makes it impossible to state with absolute cer- 
tainly that these Type I markers are the earliest of the Warren stones. 
There are 14 stones of other types with dates as early as any of the Type I 



'4f 








Fig. 12. Detail of Betsy Dunlap stone, 1794. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



15 










Fig. 13. Rachel Spalding stone, 1778. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



16 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



stones: however, these all represent types that become abundant after the 
last date of a Type I stone and almost certainly are backdated. Moreover, 
Type I stones are found only in the two Plainfield burying grounds (the 
area where Warren first lived), whereas all other types are found through- 
out the areas where Warren stones occur. 

The Rachel Spalding stone (Figs. 13, 14), if carved close to her 1778 
death date, would have been executed by Warren when he was 19 years 
old (a convention often used in dating actual carving time is two years 
after the death date, which would then make Warren 21 years old when 
the Spalding stone was carved). This marker is very similar to the 
Prudence Dexter (1783) stone in almost every detail. The Spalding and 
Dexter stones, together with the John Stringer stone (1788), are the only 
Type I markers dated before 1790. 1 would suggest that these represent the 
earliest extant stones carved by Jotham Warren. 

Despite the variation seen in the area above the head in the Rachel 
Spalding stone, all three of the markers noted above are otherwise very 
similar. The half circle wings consist of simple curved lines. The border 
panels (Fig. 13) are much alike (and of a design never again used by 




Fig. 14. Detail of Rachel Spalding stone, 1778. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



17 



Warren), consisting of an elongate vine-like object that curves back and 
forth across the border panel either as a single or double stripe that peri- 
odically terminates to left and right in an enlarged loop or bud. This con- 
figuration appears to be the precursor to the well-designed vine and ivy 
leaf motif found on the other Type I stones. In fact, on the John Stringer 
stone the heart-shaped vine leaf is present in the tympanum on either side 
of the cherub's face. 

The Eunice Spalding (1792) stone (Fig. 15) retains the block-like coif- 
fure above the face, but the lettering has changed somewhat and has 
become typical of Warren's later lettering style. The widely-separated, 
heart-shaped ivy border panels are present (but also retained in the tym- 
panum, as on the 1788 John Stringer stone). On this Spalding stone 
Warren develops the use of a four leaf clover design (Fig. 15). The face is 
almost identical to that on the Prudence Dexter (1783) stone. The Eunice 
Spalding marker is, in fact, a remarkable transitional stone which I believe 
firmly establishes Jotham Warren as the carver of the earlier Rachel 
Spalding and Prudence Dexter markers (whose attribution without the 
presence of this stone might be questioned because of differences in the 
lettering). 








vv Ui 



)i { 



v; p yi 



Fig. 15. Detail of Eunice Spalding stone, 1792. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



18 The Plainfield Trumpeter 



The next Type I stones, chronologically, are dated 1793, although I 
believe that the Betsy Dunlap (1794) stone (Fig. 12) was probably pro- 
duced earlier. This stone has a face much like that on the Eunice Spalding 
(1792) marker (Fig. 15). Further, the heart-shaped ivy leaves are used not 
only in the side panels but also in the tympanum, as on the earlier stones, 
and the half-circle wings consist of a simple series of stripes whose only 
elaboration is the addition of a series of dots. The coiffure above the face 
is somewhat modified (instead of consisting of a series of blocks, the sep- 
arating cross lines are curved), but the essential breakup into a series of 
cross lines is still much the same as on the stones noted above. 

The remaining four Type I stones - dated 1793, 1794, and 1795 - were 
probably all produced at about the same time. They are striking stones, 
and indicate that Warren, now in his mid 30s, had mastered his craft and 
had introduced a number of innovations, some of which he would use 
throughout almost his entire career. The most striking of these innova- 
tions is the presence of a handsome winged angel at the top of each bor- 
der panel (Figs. 2, 11). Not only are these angels a radical departure from 
anything on his earlier stones, they are also remarkable in that on each 
stone the angel is blowing a curving horn. As will be noted later, the 
angels on Type II and Type III Warren stones are blowing straight trum- 
pets (e.g.. Figs, la, lb). On stylistic grounds, the Martha Kinne (1795) 
stone seems to have been carved earlier than the other three. Not only is 
the face of the cherub very similar to those on the Betsy Dunlap and 
Eunice Spalding stones, but the coiffure above the head resembles that on 
the Dunlap stone. An additional feature of these late Type I stones is the 
first use by Warren of a characteristic eight-rayed star (Figs. 8, 11). On the 
Martha Kinne stone, the central area of the star from which the rays radi- 
ate is relatively large and double-circled, suggesting an early experiment 
with this design. All four of these stones retain the widely-separated, 
heart-shaped ivy leaf borders, and the leaves are also retained in the tym- 
panum. The half-circle wings have become a series of undulating lines 
(Fig. 8), quite distinctive from the simple lines of the early Type I stones. 

The 1793-dated Mary Marsh (Figs. 2, 8, 9) stone, although dated two 
years earlier than the Martha Kinne (1795) stone, I believe to have been 
carved later. It is one of the most advanced of the Type I stones. The coif- 
fure over the face, while retaining the outer rim, is complexly undulate, a 
feature that Warren seems to have used increasingly on these stones. The 
face is more elongated, the eight-rayed stars have only a small central core 



James A. Slater 



19 



^^JWRP^i' 



r 



I 



f 





'i'H<"- 










>f- /£^. 




-n 



»;, 













*,.:i, 



Fig. 16. Daniel Parks stone, 1791. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



20 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



(a design used by Warren without much variation for many years subse- 
quently), and the half-circle wings are made up of strongly undulate Hnes. 
I consider the 1794 David Parkhurst and Simon Gordon stones to be the 
most advanced of Warren's Type 1 group. They are very similar to the 
Mary Marsh stone in most respects (same type of star, undulate half-cir- 
cles, etc.), but differ in that the coiffure above the face is not enclosed by 
an outer line but produced instead by a series of two or three undulating 
lines. On these stones, for the first time, the open eyes, while still enclosed 
in heavy lids, feature eyebrows. 

It is thus possible within this series of less than a dozen gravestones to 

V „_^ .^, ■■I 





^ ■ r c- 

ill'''-' 














Fig. 17. Abigail Denham stone, 1791. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 21 



trace the development of Warren's early style and to discover the genesis 
of the design elements used on his later stones. 

Why once having developed these striking cherubim he apparently 
suddenly abandoned them is a mystery. Despite the retention of some 
Type I design elements on later markers, the differences between Type I 
stones and Type II or Type III stones is very marked. Before discussing 
these later type markers, it is necessary to consider two peculiar stones in 
Moosup, Connecticut's Union Burying Ground. 

Two Enigmatic Stones 

The acceptance of the stones for Rachel Spaulding, Prudence Dexter 
and John Stringer as the work of Jotham Warren is critical because of their 
stylistic link to two stones in the Union Burying Ground in Moosup 
(Plainfield). These Moosup stones - for Daniel Parks (1791) (Fig. 16) and 
Abigail Denham (1791) (Fig. 17) - are carved on Warren's typical blue 
slate and resemble Type 1 Warren stones, with similar half-circle wings 
beside a cherub face crowned with a coiffure above. It is not possible to 
attribute them to Jotham Warren, but I suggest that they were produced 
in the Warren shop. It is possible that Jotham was experimenting, but I 
have not been able to find evidence to support this. If the two stones are 
the work of an apprentice, his style must have changed drastically as 
there are no other stones in eastern Connecticut that remotely resemble 
them. Rather, the resemblance is unquestionably with the early Type I 
stones of Jotham Warren. On the other hand, the effigies on both the 
Daniel Parks and Abigail Denham stones feature a somewhat beatifi. 
expression and deeply-cut, closed eyes not found on any Warren stones. 
Most striking is the condition of the border panels, which have a narrow, 
linear curling and twisting design (Figs. 16, 17) also quite unlike other 
Warren stones, but remarkably similar to stones carved by David Lamb 
and his son, David Jr.!-^ Despite the close similarity in the faces, border 
panels and half-circle wings on these two stones, the lettering is com- 
pletely different on the two: the Daniel Parks stone (Fig. 16) has heavy, 
coarse lettering, while the Abigail Denham stone (Fig. 17) features fine, 
narrow, line-like lettering. The design work on the stones is obviously 
carved by the same hand, but the lettering by two different hands, neither 
of which I believe to be those of Jotham Warren. 



22 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



Type II and Type III Stones 

About 1795, Jotham Warren abandoned carving Type I stones and con- 
centrated on stones featuring a cherub face characterized by heavy frames 
around the eyes, with extensions of the frames laterally beyond the eyes, 
and with conspicuous eyebrows above the frames, so that the appearance 
is remarkably like that of a pair of eye glasses (Figs. 4, 18, 19). The nose is 
similar to that on Type 1 stones, but relatively more slender and 
restrained. Stones with cherubim of this type were probably developed 
soon after those of Type I. They dominate Warren's work from 1795 to 
1800 and were still being produced as late as 1806, long after the advent 
of urn and willow types. Hair styling on these Type 11 and Type 111 stones 
varies from a series of hairs that stand upright from the head (Fig. 4) to a 
formal coiffure type (Fig. 18). Although I treat these stones as two distinct 
types, it should be pointed out that the faces, as well as a number of other 
motifs, are similar in both groups. The primary difference lies in two very 
different treatments of the wings. 

Type II stones are those with the features described above and with 
wings beginning below the face and curving outward and upward in a 
sinuate sweep (Figs. 18, 19). There are from one to four layers of wing 
vanes, but the majority of these stones feature from two to four layers of 
vanes. 

Type III stones have a completely different type of wing. With these 




Fig. 18. Sketch of cherub design on Mary Dorrance stone, 1781. 
Oneco Burying Ground, Sterling, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



23 




Fig. 19. Tympanum of Mary Starkwether stone, 1806. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 




Fig. 20. Sketch of Type III wing on Abigail Gordon stone, 1794. 
Oneco Burying Ground, Sterling, Connecticut. 



24 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 




i^^^-^A?^ .kjUl 



Fig. 21. Abigail Gordon stone, 1794. 
Oneco Burying Ground, Sterling, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 25 



stones the wing is either not in contact with the face, or it appears to arise 
from an ear-like lobe beside the face. The upper margin of the wing 
sweeps downward in a broad arc, so that the outer margin is parallel with 
the vertical axis of the stone. Within this outer curve are a series of 
comma-like marks and half-circles that together give the impression of a 
rather abstract downward-tapering wing (Figs. 5, 20, 21). It is remarkable 
that stones with such similar faces should have wings of such different 
designs. 

Despite the close time period and the complications of possible back- 
dating, it is probable that Type III stones were produced earlier than Type 
II stones. Type II stones date from 1775 to 1806, but 24 of 39 stones (62%) 
are dated from 1798 on, and earlier stones of this type have dates of only 
one or at most two in a given year, an evident indication of backdating. By 
contrast. Type III stones become numerous by 1794, and there is only one 
stone of Type 111 dated later than 1798. Thus, as Table I suggests. Type III 
stones were developed at the same time, or very soon after. Type I stones. 
These Type III stones become dominant after 1794 - when Type I stones 
are abandoned - and are largly superceded by Type II stones after 1798. 

In addition to the completely different wing formation of Type II and 
Type III stones, there are additional differences suggesting that they were 
carved at different times. Type II stones almost always have the hair motif 
above the face consisting of a crescent-shaped, cowl-like headdress with 
striat-like hair within (Fig. 18). Only three Type II stone have the 
"wild-haired" series of hairs sprouting from the top of the head (Fig. 22). 
This, however, is the condition almost always found on Type III stones 
(Figs. 4, 21). Two Type 11 stones have sets of upright curls arising from the 
top of the head. Thus the "cowl" occurs on 87% of Type II stones. By con- 
trast, only a single Type III stone has the "cowl' design above the face, 
although, remarkably, it occurs on one of the two known signed Warren 
stones - Alexander Miller, 1798 (Fig. 5 and Markers cover) - almost as 
though the carver was signaling the relationship of the two stone types. 

Warren was an innovate, experimental carver, and while there is a 
great similarity to all of his Type II stones, the wings are also remarkably 
diverse in details for such a limited number of markers. The most simple 
wing design merely has a series of diagonal slits cut across the surface of 
the wing vane (Fig. 22). A more elaborate design appears as a series of 
somewhat separated loops on each vane, which on other stones become 
transverse cross areas that segment the surface of each vane. The longitu- 



26 The Plainfield Trumpeter 



Table I 
Dates on stones carved by division into five basic styles. 







STONE TYPES 




I 


II III IV V 


1818 







17 






16 




00 


15 






14 




00000000000 


13 




000 


12 




ooo 


11 




000000000000 


1810 




0000 


09 




0000000000 


08 




00000000 


07 




0000000 


06 




00 00000000000000 


05 




000 


04 




00 000000 


03 




000000 


02 




00 000 


01 




000 00 0000 


1800 




00000 0000 


99 




0000 000 


98 




000000 0000000 000 


97 




000000 


96 




00 00 00 


95 





00 0000 00 


94 


000 


0000 


93 


00 


000 


92 





00 00 


91 


000 




1790 







89 






88 







87 






86 




00 


85 







84 







83 







82 







81 







1780 







79 







78 





00 


77 







76 






75 


,~vi;.i-:. 


_,.__ • _ „.^ „„.,';,o, _„ 


74 






73 






72 






71 






1770 






69 






68 







67 







66 






1765 







1 



James A. Slater 



27 



dinal borders of the wings may have a raised frame around each vane, or 
only on one or two of the vanes. A few stones have only an interrupted 
series of cuts running longitudinally through the center of the vane. 

Type 111 stones, by contrast, show little variation in wing shape. 
Warren apparently was satisfied with the abstract nature of this wing 
type. It is interesting to note that only on Type III stones does one find the 
true trumpet-playing angels, and, as mentioned earlier, such angels occa- 
sionally occur on the tympanum (Fig. 3). 

Type IV Stones 

These are stones with a half face and with rays arising from the top of 
the head, giving the appearance of a rising or setting sun (Fig. 23). They 
are few in number (12), the design usually being found on stones for chil- 
dren, and date from 1781 to 1804. These marker designs are probably 




Fig. 22. Tympanum of Sarah Throop stone, 1807. 
Hanover Burying Ground, Sprague, Connecticut. 



28 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



derived from stones by George and Gabrial Allen, whose "peeping sun- 
burst" stones occur in several eastern Connecticut burying grounds/ 
although of course Boston and Plymouth area carvers also used the motif. 

Type V Stones 

About 1800, Warren, like many other carvers, shifted from cherubim 
stones to markers featuring urn and urn and willow designs. About 1798 
(or 1800), he began to produce stones with elaborate urns, but without 
accompanying willow trees (Fig. 24). These stones date from 1798 to 1807 
and appear to be chronologically produced at the same period that 
Warren was carving most (if not all) of his Type II stones. This is impor- 
tant as evidence to indicate that the shift to urn designs, while abrupt, did 
not come with a concomitant elimination of the cherubim stones, but sig- 
naled rather a period when both types were produced for about a decade. 

Although the urn-only markers of Warren were not made after 1807, 
the urn with willow stones (Fig. 25) appear to have been first carved a few 
years before this, probably about 1804. In any event, by 1807 these urn- 




Fig. 23. Tympanum of Charles Lester stone, 1804. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



29 






Fig. 24. Sketch of Urn design on Jesse Harris stone, 1803. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 

willow stone were the only type that Warren made and were produced in 
numbers through the second decade of the nineteenth century, with the 
last dated extant stone being 1818. Although Jotham Warren Hved until 
1852, there are no stones that can be attributed to his hand after 1818, and 
thus it may be assumed that he probably stopped carving about 1820. 

Although Warren had many examples to follow, he showed as much 
versatility in the compositon of his urn and urn-willow markers as he did 
with the cherubim stones. It is possible to recognize two rather distinct 
subtypes of urn designs that are also used on some stones with an accom- 
panying willow design. One of these is a quite conventional urn with a 
stepped base. Usually this subtype of urn has ogee-shaped handles pro- 
jecting from each side of the widest portion of the urn proper, although a 




Fig. 25. Sketch of Urn-Willow design on Lucy Kinne stone, 1809. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



30 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



number of variations occur. This is the urn that is used most frequently 
when the willow is added. Variations occur in which no handles are pre- 
sent, where the handle is replaced by a hanging "teardrop" extension, or 
where only a sinuate-curved area extends outward from the urn. 

A second subtype of urn stone is more elaborate. In this subtype the 
urn itself usually has ribbing and scalloping, and from the outer width of 
the urn a long rope extends with a tulip at the end (Fig. 24). Often a sim- 
ilar rope and tulip extends from the apex of the urn. The base is slender, 
usually with elongate branches extending outward. The early urn stones 
tend to retain the finial and border panel designs used on cherubim 
stones, thus strengthening the evidence that both types were carved con- 
temporaneously. 

The urn-willow stones are themselves varied. Perhaps the most attrac- 
tive, and certainly the most elaborate (Fig. 26), are those with the willow 
composed of elongate, downward-bent, and closely appressed leaves 
(this form of willow tree is abundant on stones in Massachusettes and 
Rhode Island). Departures from this type of willow tree are discussed at 
a later point in this article. 




u 






)4l^\^isv:i'^| 



"^a.^f 



om > 



Fig. 26. Details of John Shepard 3rd stone, 1809. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 



31 






4 



Fig. 27. Ezra Crosby stone, 1811. 
Kinsman Burying Ground, Lisbon, Connecticut. 



32 The Plainfield Trumpeter 



On many of the urn- willow stones the tympanum also bears a curious 
monument-like object that, in contrast to most of Warren's carving, tends 
to have block-like right angle margins. 1 have been able to distinguish five 
different shapes of this "monument": by far the the most common is one 
with a wide three-stepped base, then a narrower pedicel, a broader angu- 
late middle, and a rounded terminal cap (Fig. 27). 

Stone Shapes 

Early New England gravestone carvers tended to make most of their 
stones with a rounded central tympanum and a pair of rounded side 
shoulders (apparently this shape was an adaptation of a headboard used 
on wooden markers that are no longer extant). By the time Warren began 
his work, many carvers had broken free of this convention. Warren cer- 
tainly saw the many varied shapes of stone in the burying grounds of 
eastern Connecticut (stones by Wheeler, Collins, Huntington, the 
Mannings, Kimballs, etc.).^ I have been able to recognize 24 different stone 
shapes, as well as some additional variants of these. A number of these 
shapes were used only one or two times. 

Despite this variability, the basic shapes of Warren stones are essen- 
tially elaborations of three principal designs: (1) the conventional round- 
ed tympanum with rounded shoulders (Figs. 5, 7, 9, 21); (2) a simple 
rounded tympanum, but with the shoulders "squared off" at a right angle 
rather than rounded (Fig. 28); (3) a rectangular stone with a flat top and 
lacking shoulders. 

From these three basic designs, Warren was able to vary his outlines in 
a surprising number of ways. The simplest variation was to raise the tym- 
panum into a two-tiered elevation (Fig. 29). From this was developed a 
technique where the first elevation of the tympanum was curved, either 
outward or inward, as sharp or tusk-like projections (Fig. 26). On rare 
occasions Warren combined many of his conventions to produce a stone 
which is scalloped laterally, has a flattened midsection followed by pro- 
jecting points, and features a rounded top. His flat-topped stones are sim- 
pler and vary chiefly by having the sides slanted or scalloped or the tym- 
panum not produced above the rounded shoulders. 

All in all, it is the use of curved scalloping and sharp points, combined 
with squared-off angles, rounded surfaces of varyng heights and shapes, 
and tusk-like sweeping curves, that give striking variety to Warren's 
stone shapes. 



James A. Slater 



33 





St<\vb^H1llcl^ who 

died iVkrcb / :^-i^f^ 



. \[ -v 



licr J\Q( . 



4 



*^-^^'-^^^&H^: 







^:^^^f>^'::W 










Fig. 28. Mary Starkwether stone, 1806. 
Old Plainfield Burying Ground, Plainfield, Connecticut. 



34 The Plainfield Trumpeter 



Despite the variety of stone shapes used, it is doubtful if Warren used 
a shape other than the simple rounded tympanum with either rounded or 
square shoulders before about 1795. Only 11 stones with shapes other 
than these bear dates earlier than 1795, and five of them are square-shoul- 
dered stones with a two-layered tympanum. Even these appear, on the 
basis of other design features, to be backdated. It is only when Warren 
begins to carve urn and urn-willow stones that his stone shapes begin to 
vary noticeably. On his cherubim stones, only simple rounded tympa- 
nums with either round or squared-off shoulders are normally used. The 
square-shouldered type, rather than the round-shouldered variety, is the 
most common (50 stones vs. 24 stones). The double-layered tympanum is 
also commonly used (28 stones). On urn- willow stones, angled shapes are 
most common. Nine designs are used only once, and aside from those 
mentioned above, no stone shape is used more than seven times. 

Border Panels 

Although Jotham Warren used at least 25 different design motifs on 
his border panels, the great majority of his stones have a vine leaf design. 
The vine leaf motif is used on his earliest (Type I) stones and occurs on a 
stone dated as late as 1811. Type I stones, as previously noted, have an 
elaborate vine border (Figs. 7, 9) in which each leaf is distinctly separated 
from the others, with the leaf distinctly projecting away from the stem of 
the vine. This type of vine design is not used after 1795. On most Type II 
and Type III cherubim stones it is replaced by a more stylized and formal 
vine design in which the vine leaves are somewhat arrow-shaped and are 
closely apprressed against one another and to the vine stem itself (Figs. 5, 
28). This same design persists on a few urn and urn-willow stones. 

On 23 stones Warren carved only a single frame border, a feature used 
primarily on urn-willow stones. On many Type V markers he often (24 
stones) did not carve a border design. These tend to be late stones (from 
1811 onwards), although a stone dated 1795 (probably backdated) lacks a 
border panel. On 11 stones he carved an unusual ear-like or bean-like 
series of objects (Fig. 23). These could be considered still another attempt 
to produce a leaf motif. 

Finials 

As might be expected from the variety shown on other parts of his 
stones, the finials on Warren markers are varied. However, the top of the 



James A. Slater 



35 



border is frequently undifferentiated from the rest of the border (43 
stones). On the rest of his stones, 25 different designs, or variations of 
designs, are used. 

The most striking and innovative of these are his trumpeting and 
hunting horn-playing angels. This design, which perhaps more than any 




Fig. 29. Elisabeth Briggs stone, 1795. 
Gallups Burying Ground, Sterling, Connecticut. 



36 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 




Fig. 30. Sketch of clover-like finial on Esther Webb stone, 1813. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 

other feature gives a distinctive aesthetic quaUty to Warren's work, is 
used on 21 stones. 

Warren also frequently used a characteristic eight-rayed star as a finial 
on 10 stones (this design occurs also in the tympanum of a number of 
stones). Most other finial design elements are used only a few times and 
consist mainly of curved, looped, and hook-like objects, chiefly found on 
urn and urn- willow stones. These objects appear to be space fillers more 
than designs with any cohesive or symbolic purpose, or to be extensions 
of his elongate entablatures. 




Fig. 31. Sketch of clover-like finial on Sarah Phillips stone, 1798. 
Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 37 



Occasionally Warren used a six- or four-petaled, clover-like floral 
design (Figs. 30, 31). These designs, as well as the eight-rayed stars, are 
also sometimes used on his otherwise rather simple footstones. 

Twenty-three stones do not have a design in the finial area. 

Urns and Willows 

Warren's treatment of the urn and urn and willow motifs is as variable 
as are his earlier cherubim types. The first stones of this type were proba- 
bly not carved before 1800, although there are 16 stones having earlier 
dates, one as early as 1768. Although presumably all of these pre-1800 
stones are backdated, the evidence for 10 of them is obvious. Stones 
carved with a death date of 1798 and 1799 could be the first of the Warren 
urn-willow markers. If one uses the criterion noted above - and support- 
ed for several carvers by account book evidence - that most stones were 
actually carved about two years after the death date, then the six stones 
bearing 1798 and 1799 dates were probably carved no earlier than 1800. 

When Warren first abandoned his cherubim stones and turned to the 
new fashion, his initial markers featured only urn designs. Such stones 
are dated between 1798 and 1807. Urn and willow markers, by contrast, 
are numerous from 1807 to 1816. Forty-two stones are extant from 1807 to 
1816, whereas only 22 are dated earlier, and it is evident that at least 14 of 
these (and possibly all of them) are backdated, sometimes by decades. 
Table I indicates that once Warren began to use the willow motif he quick- 
ly abandoned stones with urns-only in the tympanum. 

It is an oversimplification, however, to group all of Warren's willow 
stones together. At least three distinct types of "trees" are identifiable. 
Certainly the most elaborate and elegaic is the gracefully curving frond 
with each leaf elongate, slender, and lying closely appressed to one anoth- 
er (Figs. 25, 26), with the whole sweeping downward. This type of "weep- 
ing" willow was produced by many slate carvers in New England. 
Warren's other types of leaf designs are actually not willow-like. While it 
is possible that Warren never actually saw a willow tree, it is also possible 
that he was not attempting to portray willows, but rather young leaflets 
of the resurrection of the afterlife. His second type of tree design (Fig. 29) 
features a series of drooping leaflets, while others have bud-like leaflets 
with modifications in which the leaflets form either a single- or double- 
sided frond. 



38 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



Entablatures 

The horizontal areas below the tympanum design are not elaborately 
developed on early Warren markers. On his cherubim stones, this area 
may be a single line, a line of flat blocks, an undulating wavy line, or a 
series of triangular dots. On his urn-willow stones, this area is more elab- 
orately developed. He used many variations, the two most common being 
some form of a draped rope (Fig. 32) or of a chain-like design, often with 
curved hooks at the outer edges (Fig. 33). 

Summary 

The work of Jotham Warren is significant for a number of reasons, not 
the least of which is the originality that he displayed in his use of such 
designs as angels, star-bursts, vine variations, and other characteristics 
noted in this article. His work is also instructive in allowing the student 
of gravestone carving traditions to follow the evolution of his style dur- 
ing a period of transition in gravestone carving. 




Fig. 32. Sketch of entablature and "monument" design on Zipporah 
Kinne stone, 1811. Union Burying Ground, Moosup, Connecticut. 



James A. Slater 39 




Fig. 33. Sketch of entablature on Elisabeth Palmer stone, 1803. 
Kinsman Burying Ground, Lisbon, Connecticut. 

Beyond the intrinsic value of his carvings is the estabhshment of the 
rapid shift from the cherubim to the urn and willow design in the work of 
a rural carver. This shift has been mentioned many times in gravestone lit- 
erature but has not been carefully documented for a Connecticut crafts- 
man working in a rural environment. The rapidity of the design shift by 
Jotham Warren suggests that strong cultural change was taking place, not 
only in the Boston and Newport carving centers, but throughout New 
England. One should remember that by 1800 a new post-Revolutionary 
War generation had reached maturity, and the change in worldview 
appears to be represented by the Greek Revival in architecture as well as 
in gravestone carving. 

Jotham Warren, then, may be summarized as an innovative carver, 
working in a relatively unsophisticated area of eastern Connecticut - a 
craftsman whose work evolved in time, was influenced only marginally 
by the major carving schools of coastal New England, but nonetheless 
illustrates well his response to the cultural influences amidst which he 
lived. 

NOTES 

I am indebted to Mrs. Carolyn Smith for the probate identity of Jotham Warren and for much 
of the research on the genealogy of Jotham Warren and his revolutionary war pension appli- 
cation; to Ms. Carol Perkins for the sketches used in this article; and to Daniel and Jessie Lie 
Farber for the use of photographs from their collection, represented here by Figs, la, lb, 3, 
5, 11, and 22 (all other photographs are by the author). 

The University of Connecticut Research Foundation supported a portion of the fieldwork 
and photographic record with a grant in aid. 

A complete file of Warren data, together with a stone-by-stone analysis and photographic 
negatives of most of Warren's extant stones, will be deposited in the archives of the 
Association for Gravestone Studies. 



40 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



1. See James A. Slater, The Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut and the Men Who 
Made Them (Hamden, CT, 1987), 88; 97-98; 144; 214-15; 261. 

2. Harriette Merrifield Forbes, Gravestoiies of Early New England and the Men Who Made 
Them, 1653-1800 (Boston, 1927; rpt. Brooklyn, NY, 1989); James A. Slater, ed., "The 
Papers of Dr. Ernest Caulfield on Connecticut Carvers and Their Work," Markers VIII 
(1991): 8-337. 

3. For a discussion of Lamb stones see Ernest J. Caulfield, "Connecticut Gravestones XI: 
The Lambs (1724-1788)," Markers VIU (1991): 152-163. 

4. See Slater, Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut, 110; 112. 

5. See relevant sections of Slater, ed., "The Papers of Dr. Ernest Caulfield." 



APPENDIX 
Chronological List of Warren Stones 

Abbreviations for Burying Grounds: 

AML Lisbon, Ames Burying Ground 

APP Preston, Avery Pond Burying Ground 

BPF Franklin, Birchard Plains Burying Ground 

BSP Pomfret, Bruce Sawyer Burying Ground 

CC Canterbury, Cleveland Burying Ground 

CWH Canterbury, Woodchuck Hill Burying Ground 

DTP Plainfield, Burying Ground behind Dog Track 

GL Griswold, Leonard Burying Ground 

H Sprague, Hanover Burying Ground 

HS Hampton, South Burying Ground 

JCP Preston, Jewett City Burying Ground 

KL Lisbon, Kinsman Burying Ground 

N Norwich, Old Norwichtown Burying Ground 

ON Sterling, Oneco Burying Ground 

PF Frankiin. Pautipaug Burying Ground 

PL Plainfield, Old Plainfield Burying Ground 

SG Sterling, Gallup Burying Ground 

TW Thompson, West Burying Ground 

UN Plainfield, Union Burying Ground (Moosup) 

V Voluntown, Kennedy Burying Ground 

Roman numerals at the right of each entry refers to the Stone Type discussed above. 



1765 Gallup, Bridget, DTP II 

1767 Barrett, Sarah, TW, 111 

1768 Read, John, AML V 

1768 Babcock, Elizabeth, SG, III 
1773 Gallup, Hannah, SG, II 



1775 Waterman, Rosinda, BPF, V 
1775 Crary, Amy, GL, II 

1777 Bradford, James, PL, III 
1778Wylie, Peter, SG, II 

1778 Spalding, Rachel, PL, I 



James A. Slater 



41 



1778 Bradford, Hannah, PL, III 
1778 Parkhurst, Phineas, UN, III 
1779Cutler, Phebe, PL, III 
1780 Waterman, Silence, BPF, IV 

1780 Dixon, Mary, ON, V 

1781 Wylie, Sally, SG, IV 

1781 Dorrance, Mary, ON, II 

1782 Wylie, Celinda, SG, IV 

1782 Spalding, Francis, HS, V 

1783 Dexter, Prudence, UN, I 

1783 Phillips, Joseph, UN, II 

1784 Babcock, Elizabeth, SG, III 

1784 Spalding, Joseph, HS, V 

1785 Starkwether, Sarah, PL, W 

1786 Boston, Jasper, PL, IV 
1786 Starkwether, Mary, GL, V 
1786 Dorrance, Olive, ON, II 
1786 Burgess, Hannah, ON, II 

1788 Stringer, John, UN, I 

1789 Spalding, Jesse, HS, V 

1790 Wyhe, Welcome, SG, IV 

1791 Kendal, Betsey CC, I 
1791 Spalding, Hannah, HS, V 
1791 Spalding, Amos, HS, V 
1791 Denham, Abigail, UN, I 

1791 Parks, Daniel, UN, I 

1792 Whipple, Mehitabel, DTP V 
1792 Taylor, Mary, UN, II 

1792 Frink, Prudence, SG, II 
1792 Shepard, Joseph, UN, III 

1792 Spalding, Eunice, UN, I 

1793 Park, Elijah, APP III 
1793 Kendal, Peter, CC, III 
1793 Gallup, John, UN, III 

1793 Stearns, Nathaniel & Anna (1795), PL, I 
1793Marsh, Mary, PL, I 

1794 Gallup, John Jr., SG, III 
1794 Gordon, Simon, PL, I 
1794 Cutler, Clarissa, PL, III 

1794 Gary, Mary, Anne (1790), PL, type 

unknown 
1794 Gary, Deborah, PL, III 
1794 Parkhurst, David, UN, I 
1794 Dunlap, Betsy, UN, I 

1794 Douglas, (children), ON, III 

1795 Briggs, Elisabeth, SG, II 
1795 Lyon, Ebenezer, CWH, V 

1795 Gordon, Abigail & infant (1794), ON, 
III 



1795 Wheeler, Prudence, PL, V 
1795 Hall, Ruth, UN, III 
1795Dow,Asa, UN, III 
1795 Warren, Abigail, BSP III 

1795 Kinne, Martha, UN, I 

1796 Gallup, John 3rd, SG, III 

1796 Moore children (1790, 1788), CC, V 

1796 Burgess, John, ON, II 

1796 Fuller, Rachel, UN, V 

1796Wylie,AllenDr., V, II 

1 796 Bushnell, Henry, H, no design 

1796 Spalding, Joseph, UN, III 

1797 Wylie, Roxanna, V, IV 
1797 Fuller, William, H, V 
1797 Hall, Esther, PL, III 
1797 Parkhurst, Phebe, UN, III 
1797 Hall, Lovine, UN, II 
1797 Lester, Timothy UN, III 
1797Smith, Lydia, UN, III 
1797 Field, Thomas, ON, ?? 

1797 Montgomery Hannah, ON, III 

1797 Gordon, John, ON, III 

1798 Hunn, Hannah, N, III 
1798 Wylie, Sally SG, II 

1798 Montgomery, Martha, ON, III 

1798Dixon, Sarah, ON, V 

1798 Parke, Elizabeth, ON, II 

1798 Perkins, Oliver, ON, II 

1798 Perkins, Anna, ON, II 

1798 Dixon, Mary Ann, ON, III 

1798 Parkhurst, Isaac, UN, III 

1798 Phillips, Sarah, UN, II 

1798 Fuller, Benjamin children (2), UN, V 

1798 Hall, Amy UN, III 

1798 Bester, Gordus Aaugustus, PL, III 

1798 Crary, Benjamin Lt., DTP, type 

unknown 
1798 Miller, Alexander, PL, III 
1798 Morgan, Esther, JCP V 

1798 Phillips, William, WC, ??? 

1799 Stephens, Jeduthun, PL, V 
1799 Cady Thankful, PL, II 
1799 Boston, Caesar, PL, V 
1799 Parkhurst, Judia, UN, II 
1799 Wilber, Northrup, UN, IV 
1799 Dixon, Robert, ON, V 

1799 Dorrance, James, ON, II 

1800 Hyde, Lydia, AML, V 
1800 Hyde, Oliver, AML, V 



42 



The Plainfield Trumpeter 



1800 GaUup, Bridget, DTP, V 
1800 Spalding, Mercy, PL, V 
1800 MiUer, Charles, PL, II 
1800 Wheeler, Jonas, PL, II 
1800 Palmer, Hannah, UN, II 
1800, Hunn, Jonathan, UN, II 

1800 Gordon, John, ON, II 

1801 Gallup, John Capt., DTP, type 

unknown 
1801 Knight, Chancy, H, IV 
1801 Wylie, Mary, V, II 
1801 Smith, Francis, ON, V 
1801 Phillips, Mary, UN, II 
1801 Shepard, Eunice, UN, IV 
1801 Branch, Abigail, PL, V 
1801 Branch, Mary, PL, V 
1801 Gallup, John, SG, II 

1801 Stevens, Esther, KL, V 

1802 Gorton, Susannah, AML, II 
1802 Bottom, Daniel, AML, V 
1802 Prior, Otes, PL, IV 

1802 Bester, Cata, PL, II 
1802 Harris, Avis, UN, IV 

1802 Kinne, Kezia, UN, IV 

1803 Waterman, Daniel, BPF, V 
1803 Crocker, Asa, BP, V 

1803 Douglass children, ON, IV 
1803 Sessions, George, UN, V 
1803 Harris, Jesse, UN, V 
1803Han,Amy, UN, III 
1803 Palmer, Ehsabeth, KL, V 
1803 Medbery, Dinah, UN, V 

1803 Prior, Eunice, PL, II 

1804 Parkhurst, Hannah, UN, V 
1804 Branch, Abigail, PL, V 
1804 Lyon, Mercy, CWH, V 
1804 Knight, David, H, V 

1804 Knight, Abigail, H, V 
1804 Throop, Sarah, H, II 
1804Palmer,John, KL, II 
1804 Bishop, Hezekiah, AML, V 

1804 Lester, Charles, UN, IV 

1805 Allen, Mary, Lucetia (1799), H, IV 
1805 Spalding, Delight, PL, V 

1805 Robinson, William, PL, V 

1805 Perkins, Olive, AML, V 
1806Prior, Elisha, PL, V 

1806 Smith, Joanna, CWH, V 
1806 Prior, Ohve, PL, V 



1806 Prior, Elisha, PL, V 
1806, Hammett, Betsey, PL, V 
1806 Starkwether, Mary, PL, II 
1806 Starkwether, Lucy, PL, II 
1806 Lee, Tully Dr., H, V 
1806 Knight, Phineas, H, V 
1806 Benedict, Anna, PL, V 
1806 Spalding, Andrew, PL, V 
1806 Shepard, Otis, UN, V 
1806 Phillipes, John, UN, V 
1806 Dunlap, Elizabeth, UN, V 
1806 Clarke, Joseph Capt., UN, V 

1806 Tuckerman, Pieree, ON, V 

1807 Barns, Mary, JCPV 

1807 Brown, Christopher, JCP, V 

1807 Lawrence, Charles, George (1806), 

AML, V 
1807 Dorrance, Olive, ON, V 
1807 Gordon, Thomas, Capt., ON, V 

1807 Collins, Lydia, PL, V 

1808 Spalding, Hezekiah, PL, V 
1808 French, John, UN, V 
1808 Lyon, Pearl. CWH, V 
1808 Barns, Hewet, JCP, V 
1808 Throop, Mary, H, V 

1808 Cutler, Betsey, H, V 

1808 Waterman, Ezekiel, BPF, V 

1808 Hall, Keziah, UN, V 

1809 Throop, Joseph, H, V 
1809 Gidding, Nathaniel, PF, V 
1809 Hyde, John, H, V 

1809 French, Mary, H, V 
1809 Bushnell, Jesse, H, V 
1809 Kinne, Lucy, UN, V 
1809 Palmister, John, JCP V 
1809 Shepard, John 3rd, UN, V 
1809 Babcock, Martha, PL, V 

1809 Starkwether, Martha, PL, V 

1810 Corning, Lydia Clark, JCP, V 
1810 Hartshorn, Oliver, H, V 

1810 Leffingwell, Elisabeth, CWH, V 

1810 French, Mehitable, PL, V 

1811 Hyde, Samuel, Lucy H. (1810), BPF, V 
1811 Waterman, Flavius, Charissa (1803), 

BPF, V 
1811 Parish, Susanna, N, V 
1811 Allen, Sarah, H, V 
1811 Bushnell, Gurdon, H, V 
1811 Cutler, Betsey, H, V 



James A. Slater 43 



1811 Kinne, Zipporah, UN, V 
1811 Warren, Eunice, KL, V 
1811 Crosby, Ezra, KL, V 
1811 Starkwether, Hannah, PL, V 
1811 Bishop, Jerusha, AML, V 

1811 Bottum, Elizabeth, AML, V 

1812 Hyde, Asa, BPF, V 
1812 Palmer, Hannah, UN, V 

1812 Pierce, Eunice, PL, V 

1813 Palmer, Mary, KL, V 
1813 Crosby, Mary Eliza, KL, V 
1813 French, Joseph, H, V 
1813 Webb, Esther, UN, V 

1813 Miller, Ruth, PL, V 

1814 Moore, Abigail, CC, V 
1814 Cady, William, PL, V 
1814 Pierce, Sylvester, PL, V 
1814 Avery, Elizabeth, JCP, V 
1814 Perkins, Jacob, Capt., AML, V 
1814 Perkins, Solomon, AML, V 
1814 Tranum, Happy, UN, V 
1814 Simmons, Peter, UN, V 

1814 Palmer, Yose, UN, V 

1814 Spalding, Lydia, UN, V 

1815 Lyon, Abel, CWH, V 
1815 Tuckerman, Jacob, ON, V 
1815 Spalding, Lucy, UN, V 

1815 Warren, Samuel Dec. & Abigail, UN, V 
1815 Dow, Benjamin, UN, V 

1815 Starkwether, Jabez, ON, V 

1816 Lawrence, Jonathan, AML, V 
1816 Parke, Robert, ON, V 

1818 Collins, Henry, AML, V 



44 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 




Fig. 1, Vertical tree-stump tombstone. Todd monument, 1880. 
I.O.O.F. Cemetery, Delphi, Carroll County, Indiana. 



45 



TREE-STUMP TOMBSTONES: 
TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES AND RUSTIC FUNERARY ART 

Susanne S. Ridlen 

Introduction 

Nowhere are social changes more evident than in the American ceme- 
tery. The shapes and motifs of gravestones serve as permanent monu- 
ments of cultural influences over space and time. David Lowenthal 
asserts that "cemeteries matter less as repositories for the dead than as 
fields of remembrance for the living."^ 

Tree-stump tombstones are unique funerary monuments found in 
nineteenth and twentieth century cemeteries. A tree-stump tombstone is a 
rustic funerary memorial which places emphasis upon the representation 
of a tree or portion thereof in its natural exterior state. This form of rustic 
funerary art is readily identified in cemeteries by its tree-like appearance, 
particularly its imitation of natural bark (Fig. 1), and it is this single motif 
which distinguishes the tree-stump marker from all other gravemarkers 
in the cemetery. 

Most tree-stump monuments are traditionally carved out of limestone 
or marble, with a few out of granite and occasionally out of sandstone. 
These unique and sometimes spectacular artifacts, as a specific genre of 
gravemarkers, reveal numerous motifs, symbols, and meanings which 
provide insight into their now-deceased makers and users. 

To fully appreciate the tree-stump tombstone in the nineteenth and 
twentieth centuries, a brief examination of rusticism and rustic style in 
England and the United States in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twenti- 
eth centuries is necessary. A contemporaneous definition, found in The 
Century Dictionary, 1890, identifies rustic as "of or belonging to the coun- 
try or to country people; characteristic of rural life; hence, plain; homely; 
inartificial; countrified."^ Rustic pieces, in decorative art, are described as 
a "close imitation of nature," ^^ and rustic work is further classified as 
"summer houses, garden furniture . . . made from rough limbs and roots 
of trees arranged in fanciful forms. "^ 

In the mid-1 8th century, pattern books were the primary means by 
which architectural and ornamental designs were distributed to archi- 
tects, patrons, craftsmen, and rural builders.^ One example, Robert 
Manwaring's The Cabinet and Chair-Maker's Real Friend and Companion, 



46 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 



1765, includes twelve designs for rural chairs for summer houses and for 
rural garden seats.^ Five of these are rustic designs (see Fig. 2). 

Writers in America in the 1840s produced works interpreting English 
practices in landscape gardening, while at the same time relating to their 
American readers their own ideas concerning taste, domestic architecture, 
and furnishings. Of particular importance in the context of this study was 
landscape architect Andrew Jackson Downing, a significant contributor to 
such writings and to the popularity of rustic style in this country. 

Following its applications to the home and garden, the next logical 
place for the appearance of rusticism is in the cemetery. In an attempt at 
improved burial practices, the church graveyard - in America as in 
Europe - gave way in the 19th century to the rural cemetery. The pastoral 
nature of the rural cemetery, situated on the outskirts of town and featur- 
ing abundant use of winding roadways and picturesque landscape, pro- 
duced a profound effect on cemetery designs in cities and towns through- 
out the country^ Rural cemeteries, with their garden-like layouts, often 
functioned in the mid-1 800s as parks and recreation areas, precursors of 




Fig. 2. Rural chairs for summer houses. 

Plate 26, from Robert Manwaring's 

The Cabinet and Chair-Maker's Real Friend and Companion (1765). 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



47 




Fig. 3. Earliest recorded tree-stump marker in Indiana. 

Isaac N. Albertson monument, 1854. Green Hill Cemetery 

(Old Cemetery), Orleans, Orange County, Indiana. 



48 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 



urban parks.^ The funerary art in these new and fashionable cemeteries at 
times "acquired a rustic quality, not only in grave furniture, but in the 
design of the headstones . . ."^ Eventually, such design concepts would 
influence gravemarker design in cemeteries of all sizes and types 
throughout the country, including the state of Indiana, which, geographi- 
cally, constitutes the study area for the present essay. 

A state-wide investigation of Indiana tree-stump gravemarkers 
reveals the vast majority of rustic monuments in Indiana to have been 
carved in limestone, a medium which by its properties provides great ver- 
satility and thus broader opportunity for creative artistic expression. The 
greater freedom given to the sculptor of tree-stump monuments - espe- 
cially those fashioned of limestone - to carve the personal or idiosyncratic 
interests of the deceased or of the family seems not only to have appealed 
to both maker and user of these artifacts but also to have provided ele- 
ments of interest and information to the community. 

Some forms of tree-stump tombstones may be found traversing a 100 




Fig. 4. Name of Carver and city of business - 

L. Emmett, Logansport - near base of Moorhous monument, 1908. 

River View Cemetery, Monticello, White County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



49 



year period in Indiana alone. These lifelike tree forms incorporating 
diverse elements of symbolism, while found in Indiana as early as the 
1850s (Fig. 3), begin their rise in the 1870s and 1880s and appear to reach 
a height of acceptance and use in the 1890s before declining in the 1920s 
and 1930s. 

Of the 2124 Indiana tree-stump monuments documented for this 
study only 73, or 3%, bear the name or initials of the carver or monument 
dealer. When present on the stone, the name is usually in a very incon- 
spicuous location at the base of the marker and may be concealed by soil 
and grass (Fig. 4). 

The choice of the tree-stump form with its bark and severed limbs 
reveals personal and community accepted symbols and meanings, while 
the selection of the language of the stone conveys feelings and attitudes 
about death and the life of the individual being remembered. These com- 
munally held perspectives on life reveal the influence of six traditional 
cultural values: Family and Home, Religion, Occupation, Patriotism, 
Association, and Agrarian. 




Fig. 5. Tree-Stump footstone. Brandenburger monument, 1929. 
Crown Hill Cemetery, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. 



50 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 




Fig. 6. Detail of Reitenour monument, 1917. 
Reitenour Cemetery, Deerfield, Randolph County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



51 



Family and Home 

The most explicit conveyance of information about the community's 
shared value of family is the inscription on the tree-stump marker. Nearly 
every member of the family is identified: Mother (Fig. 5), Father, Wife, 
Husband, and Child. The epitaphs proclaim wives and mothers as Devoted, 
Kind, Loving, and True. Husbands and fathers also are Devoted, as well as 
Honest, Faithful and Beloved. Children are Loved, Precious, and Gone But 
[certainly] Not Forgotton. 

The tree-stump monument likewise symbolically conveys the collec- 
tively shared family value. The tree form may portray genealogically the 
"family tree," with the branches representing the number of children in 
the family. The names of each family member may be inscribed on the 
ends of the severed branch stubs (Fig. 6), while rings on the end of the sev- 
ered branches may serve to indicate the age of the deceased and the 
"cracks" intersecting these rings the number of children born to the mar- 
riage (Fig. 7).^° 

Often - in a manner similar to that found with obelisks and other larg- 
er-scale cemetery monuments of the period - a large vertical tree-stump 




Fig. 7. Detail of Michael Durlauf monument (74 years of age, with 8 
children), 1931. St. Joseph Cemetery, Jasper, DuBois County, Indiana. 



52 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 




Fig. 8. Detail of Bayless monument, 1890. 
Skinner Chapel Cemetery, Twelve Mile, Cass County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



53 




Fig. 9. Double verticle tree-stump tombstone. Phillips monument, 
1902. Grandview Cemetery, Bloomfield, Greene County, Indiana. 



54 Tree-Stump Tombstones 



marker bears the family name only and is surrounded by smaller vertical 
or horizontal tree-stump stones or footstones displaying the names of 
individual family members. The collective unit, often outlined by plot 
markers or a stone border, thus represents an entire family. The most 
explicit visually symbolic example of the family unit is the scene carved 
on the tree-stump marker of the husband, wife, and baby, with their home 
visible in the background (Fig. 8). 

The double vertical tree-stump marker with intertwining branches 
portrays in dramatic fashion the love and devotion of husband and wife 
(Fig. 9). Male and female hands may clasp, as if at the altar for the mar- 
riage ceremony, or hold on to a chain or bond of love even unto death (Fig. 
10). Regularly used motifs and symbols on small tree-stump tombstones 
memorializing children are lambs, symbolizing purity and innocence 
(Fig. 11), sailor hats with ribbons or streamers for both little boys and 
girls, shoes and socks, and small chairs, as well as small leaves and flow- 
ers, especially rosebuds with broken stems. To denote an elderly person, 
the tree-stump marker may be ornamented with a sheaf of wheat." Wheat 
combined with a sickle is a symbol of the harvest as well as representing 
the end of life and the harvesting of the faithful. 

In the nineteenth century, the roles of the male and female with respect 
to the family and home are clearly defined in life as well as in death. The 
status of the adult male as head of the family, breadwinner, and father is 
often reflected in the cemetery by a larger monument, with his name 
inscribed first on the joint headstone, or with a carved symbolic portray- 
al of his interests and occupation. ^^ Traditionally, women are the care- 
givers in the home, and in the nineteenth century the "cult of domestici- 
ty" influences the symbols on tree-stump tombstones, reflecting the pre- 
vailing family values. Thus, a tree-stump monument with a spinning 
wheel clearly reflects the woman's role in the household, as does the 
firearm and axe for her husband (Fig. 12). Although not always used for 
a woman, a basket of flowers, representative of the backyard garden, may 
be carved hanging from a branch or stub of the tree-stump monument 
(Fig. 13). 

Religion 

The values of family, home, and religion often go hand-in-hand, serv- 
ing to strengthen and reinforce one another. The family-value-laden tree- 
stump markers, with their explicit inscriptions of familial relationships. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



55 








Fig. 10. Smith monument, 1920. 
Crown Hill Cemetery, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. 



56 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 




Fig. 11. Lamb and portrait with tree-stump tombstone. 

Farris monument, 1947. 

Beech Grove Cemetery, Bedford, Lawrence County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



57 




Fig. 12. Double verticle tree-stump tombstone with 

spinning wheel, rifle, and axe. Philbert monument, 1902. 

Antioch Cemetery, Dugger, Sullivan County, Indiana. 



58 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 




Fig. 13. Basket of flowers on tree-stump tombstone. 

Sculley monument, 1896. Holy Cross and St. Joseph Cemeteries, 

Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



59 




Fig. 14. Cross-shaped tree-stump tombstone. Young monument, 
1904. Fairview Cemetery, Tipton, Tipton County, Indiana. 



60 Tree-Stump Tombstones 



often reflect as well the influence of religion in the lives of the decedents. 
Epitaphs of inspiration, scriptural quotations, and prayers to God express 
the faith and hope of the deceased, or at least of the family, in a life here- 
after. The expressions of Gone Home and At Rest provide comfort to the 
family in their assurances of a better life to come. 

The tree-stump cross is the most obvious rustic design reflecting the 
influence of religious values, especially Christianity (Fig. 14). Often the 
cross is portrayed in conjunction with other symbolic motifs - a rock pile, 
a crown or urn, or figures of Christ, weeping women, or angels. 

Issues of renewal, strength, courage, hope, divine inspiration, and 
resurrection are implicit in other traditional religious symbols carved on 
tree-stump tombstones: anchors, doves, bird's nests with eggs, fallen 
sparrows, books of life. Bibles, fish, lambs, ropes, rocks, and stars, as 
well as a variety of flowers, fruits, plants, leaves, ferns, and vines. The 
Hebrew death date, Cohanim hands, and the Star of David are found on 
several Jewish tree-stump markers in Indiana. All of these symbols 
reflect religious influence on tree-stump monuments and the importance 
of the church and religious and moral values in the lives of the deceased 
and their families in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 

Occupation 

Success in the Horatio Alger tradition of the late nineteenth century 
was often envisioned as the poor boy who makes good, not by social rank 
or position but by pluck and luck and hard work. The familiar maxim pre- 
vailed: "Work hard and ye shall be rewarded." The idea of success, for the 
nineteenth century man and his family, is thus literally set forth in his 
work or occupation, not only in life but also in death. The epitaph on 
Albert S. White's tree-stump marker, found in Lafayette's Greenbush 
Cemetery, epitomizes the values of the latter half of the nineteenth centu- 
ry with respect to position and success: 

The Grave of 
Albert S. White 

Born at 
Blooming Grove Orange Co. N.Y. 

Oct. 20, 1803 
Died at Stockwell Tip. Co. Ind. 
Sept. 4, 1864 



Susanne S. Ridlen 61 



In All Relations of Life 

Admirable 
As a Friend Sincere 
As a Citizen 

Public Spirited 
As a Lawyer Honest 
As a Legislator Wise 
As a Judge 

Without Reproach 

The community, then as now, often defines its members by the work 
that they do and estabHshes a collective identity system based on shared 
symbols. An individual is linked to an occupational group through shared 
traditions in life and may maintain a symbolic relationship in death 
through his or her gravemarker. In the area covered by this study, one of 
the most explicit conveyances of the community's shared value of an 
approved occupation is through the carved tools on tree-stump monu- 
ments. 

Especially symbolic of pioneer life in Indiana are the tools used in the 
working of wood: the axe, mallet, maul, cross cut saw, and wedges are all 
found on tree-stump monuments (Fig. 15). In the limestone-rich counties 
of southern Indiana, even the tools of the stonecarver are portrayed on 
rustic monuments.^^ The anvil and hammer, tools used by the blacksmith, 
an important craftsman in Indiana communities, are also carved in con- 
junction with the tree-stump tombstone. 

It is also possible to find instances where the tools of specialized, and 
often very individualized, occupations are carved on tree-stump memori- 
als - dental instruments, surveyor's instruments, pruning tools, and a 
variety of farming tools and equipment. Titles such as "Dr." inscribed on 
the deceased's monument further define the person's occupational iden- 
tity in the community. 

Patriotism 

Collective group identity, social solidarity, and intense loyalty to coun- 
try are greatest during times of war. During such national crises, conflict- 
ing attitudes and values of individuals and groups are subordinate to the 
collective allegiance to the nation and its symbols. 

The Civil War was important in establishing a national feeling of 



62 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 




Fig. 15. Axe, maul, and wedge on tree-stump tombstone. 

Taylor monument, 1891. 

Gosport Cemetery, Gosport, Owen County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



63 




Fig. 16. Civil War hat, belt, and sword on tree-stump tombstone. 

Batchelor monument, 1890. 

Mt. Hope Cemetery, Logansport, Cass County, Indiana. 



64 Tree-Stump Tombstones 



patriotism in Indiana and other states. Prevalent on Indiana tree-stump 
gravemarkers are various military symbols and inscriptions, especially 
for Civil War veterans. An inscription, following the name of the 
deceased, may give the soldier's rank, unit, and branch of service. A mil- 
itary rifle, hat, belt, canteen, field pack, sword, and crossed cannons are 
visual symbols reflecting the influence of American loyalty and strong 
patriotic values (Fig. 16). 

Association 

Voluntary associations, all-pervading in American culture at the turn 
of the century, provided many Americans with a sense of belonging and 
a shared sense of social identity. Between 1797 and 1897 more than six 
hundred secret societies existed in the United States. In 1897, forty percent 
of the male population of the country, twenty-one years of age and older, 
belonged to a fraternal organization.^'* 

Symbols on gravemarkers, as well as the rituals themselves, reveal the 
social values of the organizations and the sense of social identity the 
groups provide their individual members (Fig. 17). Nearly thirty different 
fraternal societies are portrayed on Indiana tree-stump markers, often 
with several different organizations represented on the same stone. Still, 
there is no indication that any one of these organizations has taken a role 
in either encouraging or discouraging the use of tree-stump tombstones, 
nor is there any evidence to indicate that such society insignia occur with 
either greater or lesser frequency on tree-stump tombstones than on any 
other forms of contemporary monuments. 

There is, however, one category of fraternal organization which has 
consistently employed visual imagery with strong connections to the rus- 
tic tradition. Indeed, the tree-stump forms utilized by woodcraft benefi- 
ciary societies are some of the most visible rustic monuments on the ceme- 
tery landscape. The imagery of the forest and trees, personified in the rit- 
uals of these fraternal organizations, is found as well on the gravestone 
monuments of their members. The woodcraft markers, with their variety 
of tree-stump forms, woodcraft emblems and shields, and the working 
tools of woodcraft (axe, beetle, and wedge), readily identify the dece- 
dents' membership and involvement with these groups to the casual 
cemetery visitor. 

Two woodcraft beneficiary societies of particular significance to the 
study of rustic funerary art are Modern Woodmen of America and 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



65 




Fig. 17. Fraternal symbolism on tree-stump tombstone. 

Voorhis monument, 1891. 
I.O.O.F. Cemetery, New Waverly, Cass County, Indiana. 



66 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 





Fig. 18. Tools of woodcraft on Modern Woodmen of America 

marker. Smith monument, 1905. 
Crown- View Cemetery, Sheridan, Hamilton County, Indiana. 



Susaiuie S. Ridlen 



67 




Fig. 19. Vertical Woodmen of the World tree-stump tombstone 

with stacked four-log base. Fowinkle monument, 1914. 

Mt. Hope Cemetery, Peru, Miami County, Indiana. 



68 Tree-Stump Tombstones 



Woodmen of the World. Founded in 1883, the emblem of Modern 
Woodmen of America consists of an axe, a beetle (mallet), and a wedge - 
the working tools of woodcraft (Fig. 18). Other symbols are the palm, to 
indicate peace, five stars to symbolize light, and the shield to represent 
safety. ^^ Modern woodmen gravestones vary greatly in size and shape: 
some resemble a tree stump, others a stack of cut wood. 

The second organization. Woodmen of the World, was founded in 
1890 following a dispute within Modern Woodmen of America. A 
Woodmen of the World tree-stump monument (Fig. 19) often features the 
following motifs: four-log base, calla lily with leaves, ivy, fern, severed 
branch stubs, and a shield or medallion displaying the emblem of the 
organization, which is represented by an axe, a beetle, and a tree stump 
into which is imbedded a wedge, the accompanying motto Dum Tacet 
Clamat being Latin for "Though silent, he speaks. "^^ The women's auxil- 
iary of Woodmen of the World is Woodmen's Circle. Their emblem is a 
shield with thirteen stars on the upper half and stripes on the lower half; 
an axe, beetle, wedge, and the initials W C are superimposed on the 
shield. 

Despite the misperception that rugged individualism is a traditional 
value in American culture, the need for group identity and belonging is 
personified by voluntary associations. The woodcraft beneficiary groups 
and the many other secret fraternal, labor, and military societies at the end 
of the nineteenth century reflect the influence of the values of association 
and the importance of a sense of community generated by the group (Fig. 
20). 

Agrarian 

As America approached the end of the nineteenth century, the agrari- 
an values upon which this country was founded were affected in a num- 
ber of ways as the population began to shift from predominantly rural to 
urban. The independence and security of rural life in Indiana were 
stressed with the rapid growth of urban communities and the subsequent 
decline of the self-sufficient farm communities, and the importance of 
these values would also find expression in the cemetery (Fig. 21). 
Roderick Nash, speaking of the frontiersmen and pioneers in his work 
Wilderness and the American Mind, noted: "It was their children and grand- 
children, removed from the wilderness condition, who began to sense its 
ethical and aesthetic values."^'' 



Susanne S. Ridlen 



69 




Fig. 20. Multiple fraternal designations - Masonic Blue Lodge, 
Independent Order of Odd Fellows, and Grand Army of the 

Republic - on tree-stump tombstone. Wydman monument, 1890. 
Crown Hill Cemetery, Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. 



70 



Tree-Stump Tombstones 



Although rustic designs for furniture are first documented in 1754, the 
appeal of back-to-nature attitudes and values is more defined during the 
last half of the nineteenth century in art and architecture. The appeal of 
the natural thing was important to the arts and crafts movement and to 
American landscape gardening. The establishment of state and national 
parks and forests reflects the influence of nature and agrarian values. In 
another manifestation of this interest, cemetery superintendents through- 
out the country approved of large boulders and stone replications of trees 
to memorialize the dead. At the Eighth Annual Convention of the 
Association of American Cemetery Superintendents in 1894 in 
Philadelphia, Thomas B. Meehan told the group: 

Even in the matter of headstones and monuments they are showing a 
desire to design them after ideas more natural than the marble shaft and 
square or rounded top headstone. This is shown by the imitations of tree 
trunks and boulders now frequently seen in cemeteries. ^^ 

Although, as previously indicated, tree-stump monuments are docu- 
mented in the early 1850s in Indiana, they reach their height of acceptance 




Fig. 21. Rustic tombstone shaped as a house. Brown monument, 1939. 
Freedom Cemetery, Mitchell, Lawrence County, Indiana. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 71 



and use from 1885 to 1905. The appeal of these rustic monuments during 
this period is no doubt in part heightened by the resurgent stressing of 
agrarian values. In the December, 1888 issue of Scribner's Magazine, 
Hamilton Wright Mabie mused: "Out of the woods we came, and to the 
woods we must return, at frequent intervals, if we would redeem our- 
selves from the vanities of civilization.^^ 

Conclusion 

Cemeteries and gravemarkers are mirrors of culture, reflections of the 
society outside of the walls and gates of the silent cities. As W. Lloyd 
Warner notes: "The cemetery as a collective representation repeats and 
expresses the social structure of the living as a symbolic replica; a city of 
the dead, it is a symbolic replica of the living community."^° Richard E. 
Meyer, writing in A Sense of Place: American Regional Cultures, expresses a 
similar notion when he remarks that "old cemeteries are unique and irre- 
placeable outdoor museums, full of words and images which reflect the 
worldviews and cultural values of bygone eras."^^ In the same sense as an 
entire cemetery, it follows that a single style of gravestone - the tree- 
stump tombstone - may be said to reflect the social and religious values 
of the period in which it maintained its greatest popularity. 

The basic purpose of this study has been to look beyond the "popu- 
larity" of nineteenth century "rusticity" in order to discern traditional 
religious and secular values and attitudes which influenced the design 
and use of tree-stump tombstones at the turn of the century, thus learning 
as much about the motivations and values of the living as the people they 
buried. 

By analyzing and interpreting the designs of the tree-stump markers, 
the carved symbols, and the engraved epitaphs and inscriptions, we have 
been able to see how these unique funerary markers serve to emphasize 
and sustain six traditional American cultural values - Family and Home, 
Religion, Occupation, Patriotism, Association, and Agrarian. These find- 
ings further demonstrate the significance of artifactual research in the 
analysis of culture. 



72 Tree-Stump Tombstones 



NOTES 

Versions of this article were presented on June 27, 1993, at the Association for Gravestone 
Studies Conference, held in New London, Connecticut, and on April 7, 1994, at the 
Cemeteries and Gravemarkers Section of the American Culture Association meeting, held in 
Chicago, Illinois. 

1. David Lowenthal, "Age and Artifact: Dilemmas of Appreciation," in The Interpretation 
of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, ed. D. W. Meinig (New York, 1979), 122. 

2. "Rustic," in The Century Dictionary: An Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, ed. 
William Dwight Whitney, vol. 5 (New York, 1890), 5280. 

3. Jbid. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Christopher P. Moitkhouse and Thomas S. Michie, Furniture in Print: Pattern Books from 
the Redwood Library (Newport, RI, 1989), n. p. 

6. Robert Manwaring, The Cabinet and Chair-Maker's Real Friend and Companion (London, 
1765; rpt. London, 1947), plates 24-30. 

7. See Barbara Rotundo, "The Rural Cemetery Movement," Essex Institute Historical 
Collections 109 (1973): 231-240; and Jules Zanger, "Mount Auburn Cemetery: The Silent 
Suburb," Landscape 24:2 (1980): 23-28. 

8. See Stanley French, "The Cemetery as Cultural Institution: The Establishment of Mount 
Auburn and the 'Rural Cemetery' Movement," American Quarterly 26:1 (1974): 37-59, 
rpt. in Death in America, ed. David E. Stannard (Philadelphia, 1975), 69-91; and Blanche 
Linden-Ward, "Strange but Genteel Pleasure Grounds: Tourist and Leisure Uses of 
Nineteenth-Century Rural Cemeteries," in Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of 
American Culture, ed. Richard E. Meyer (Ann Arbor, MI, 1989; rpt. Logan, UT, 1992), 
293-328. 

9. J. B. Jackson, "The Vanishing Epitaph: From Monument to Place," Landscape 17 (1967- 
68): 25. 

10. Simon J. Bronner, "The Durlauf Family: Three Generations of Stonecarvers in Southern 
Indiana," Pioneer America: Journal of Historic American Material Culture 13:1 (1981): 23-24. 

11. Frances Lichten, Decorative Art of Victoria's Era (New York, 1950), 218. 

12. W. Lloyd Warner, The Living and the Dead: A Study of the Symbolic Life of Americans (New 
Haven, CT, 1959), 293. 



Susanne S. Ridlen 73 



13. See Warren E. Roberts, "Tools on Tombstones: Some Indiana Examples," Pioneer 
America: Journal of Historic American Material Culture 10:1 (1978): 110; and Warren E. 
Roberts, "Traditional Tools as Symbols: Some Examples from Indiana Tombstones," 
Pioneer America: Journal of Historic American Material Culture 12:1 (1980): 56. 

14. Albert C. Stevens, The Cyclopaedia of Fraternities, 2nd ed., rev. (New York, 1907), xvi. For 
an overview of the use of fraternal symbolism in American funerary art see Laurel K. 
Gabel, "Ritual, Regalia and Remembrance: Fraternal Symbolism and Gravestones," 
Markers XI (1994): 1-27. 

15. Este E. Buffum, Modern Woodmen of America: A History, comp. Charles E. Whelan, vol. 1 
(Rock Island, IL, 1927), 2. 

16. James R. Cook and Leland A. Larson, Fraternity at Work: A Histonj of the Woodmen of the 
World Life Insurance Society and/or Omaha Woodmen Life Insurance Society (Omaha, NE, 
1985), 13. 

17. Roderick Nash, Wilderiu^ss and the American Mind, 3rd ed. (New Haven, CT, 1982), 43. 

18. Thomas B. Meehan, "Suitable Trees and Shrubs for a Modern Cemetery," Proceedings of 
the Eighth Annual Convention of the Association of American Cemetenj Superintendents held 
at Philadelphia, Pa., September 11, 12 and 13, 1894 (Chicago, n.d.), 18. 

19. Hamilton Wright Mabie, "Winter in the Adirondacks," Scribner's Magazine 4:6 
(December, 1888): 641. 

20. Warner, 286. 

21. Richard E. Meyer, "Image and Identity in Oregon's Pioneer Cemeteries," in Sense of 
Place: American Regional Cultures, eds. Barbara Allen and Thomas J. Schlereth 
(Lexington, KY, 1990), 101. 



74 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 




Fig. 1. Rachel Moulton, 1774, Hampton, New Hampshire. 
Stone by Jonathan Hartshorne. 



75 



FROM JONATHAN HARTSHORNE TO JEREMIAH LANE: 
FIFTY YEARS OF GRAVESTONE CARVING IN COASTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Glenn A. Knoblock 

Introduction 

In the summer of 1994, while browsing in an old bookstore in 
Portsmouth, New Hampshire, I came by chance upon a copy of Harriete 
Merrifield Forbes' classic study. Gravestones of Early New Ejigland and the 
Men Wlw Made Them. This book was a revelation to me, for although I 
have always been interested in old cemeteries, I had not previously real- 
ized the potential for the scholarly investigation of gravemarkers and 
their makers which exists in New England's older burial grounds. As 
most of Forbes' pioneer work covered Massachusetts and the southern 
New England states, my thoughts began to revolve around my home state 
of New Hampshire, in particular it's Seacoast Region. What kind of grave- 
stone styles were to be found here, and who carved them? 

My first studies concentrated on the historic town of Portsmouth, 
slowly working my way south, town by town and cemetery by cemetery, 
as Summer turned to Fall. As I gained experience through my fieldwork 
and read more on the subject, I was able to identify many different carvers 
whose work is present in the area, including William Mumford, "J.N.", 
the Lamsons, John Hartshorne, the Mullickens, the Leightons, and sever- 
al others. At the same time, I became intrigued by three styles unfamiliar 
to me that seemed predominant in the southern part of the Seacoast 
Region. 

Jonathan Hartshorne 

Research on the oldest of these styles (Fig. 1) indicates that the stones 
carved in this mode were probably the work of Jonathan Hartshorne, the 
grandson of John Hartshorne, originator of the Merrimac Valley style of 
gravestone carving.' Little is known of Jonathan Hartshorne's life. He was 
born in 1703 in Haverhill, Massachusetts. After the Indian massacre there 
in 1708, which claimed the life of his father, his mother remarried and 
moved to Rhode Island. At an unknown date, Jonathan ended up in 
Methuen, a town next to Haverhill. He married there, and had five chil- 
dren. His earliest stones, dated 1738, are found in Methuen, carved for his 



76 Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



children, Elizabeth and John. By 1742, Hartshorne had moved to 
Newburyport, after the death of his first wife. There, he married for the 
second time and had four more children. In 1742 there is also record of his 
carving stones in neighboring Newbury.^ The earliest stone by 
Hartshorne found in the Seacoast Region of New Hampshire is dated 
1753,^ while the latest stones are dated 1776. Since none of his stones are 
found after this date, it is assumed that he died around this time. A search 
of probate records in New Hampshire did not uncover record of any pay- 
ments to this carver. 

The style that I attribute to Jonathan Hartshorne is easy to identify (see 
Fig. 1). His stones have a face with thick frowning lips as their most dis- 
tinctive feature. Almost all are (apparently) male faces with wings, which 
usually have three layers of feathers and are highly arched, nearly to the 
top of the head. Those faces without wings have simple scrolls at each 
side of the head. The eyes are usually oval, though a few of his earlier 
stones show faces with round eyes. Most have wig-like hair, while a few 
are bald. The nose is almost always an elongated triangle that extends 
downward and rests on the upper lip. Hartshorne uses pinwheel finials 
almost exclusively, although one also finds a few with acanthus leaves. 
The borders usually consist of swirling scrolls or vines. The lettering is 
well formed, featuring a mixture of upper- and lower-case letters. He gen- 
erally uses the terms 'Tnterrd" and "DCSt", with the "t" in the latter word 
raised slightly. 

Hartshorne also carved two types of footstones. The first presents the 
title of the deceased (e.g., LIEUT, DCN, MRS) in the tympanum, with a 
plain cut border and the name of the deceased in the center. These also 
feature pinwheel finials that match the headstone. The second style of 
footstone is rounded with two scrolls that meet in the center of the tym- 
panum. Below this is a simple border with the name of the deceased at the 
top portion of the inscription area, all in capital letters. 

Hartshorne's earlier stones were cut from a low grade brown schist. 
This material did not stand up to the elements very well over time, and 
these earlier stones are therefore more difficult to identify. Later stones 
were cut from a reddish-brown sandstone that has survived very well. 
The importance of Jonathan Hartshorne's work is primarily the influence 
it had on the southern Seacoast Region, and the carver who followed him. 
Their combined efforts produced a style that predominated in the area for 
nearly fifty years. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



77 



Jeremiah Lane: Style I 

While studying Hartshorne's stones in the area, I soon noticed anoth- 
er type of marker that shared some features of Hartshorne's work, yet was 
distinctly different and clearly the work of a different carver. These dated 
mostly from 1772 to the late 1790s. Both styles are similar in that they 
depict an (apparently) male face with wings and a frowning mouth (Fig. 
2). Both also use pin wheel finials, scrolled borders, and mixed lettering 
that is well formed. However, there are several major differences that dis- 
tinguish what I call Style I stones from those of Hartshorne. First, all the 
Style I faces have wig-like hair: none are bald. Secondly, the facial features 
differ significantly. These faces have a frowning mouth, but the lips are 





^(^iV/^rv n\ 



n 



^ 



■^ '%.>- 



> A.y 









^' 



Fig. 2. Deacon Jonathan Fellows, 1753, Kensington, New Hampshire. 
A backdated stone, probably carved in the late 1770s. 



78 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



not as thick and distinctively prominent. The eyes are large and usually 
oval, although those with round eyes are found. The nose is very elon- 
gated, and its upper lines curve to form the top lines of the eye or the eye- 
lids. The end of the nose is bulbous, and stops short of touching the mouth. 
A third difference between the two styles is the detailing of the wings. 
Style I wings are more stylized than those carved by Hartshorne, with 
varying degrees of coining and layering in the feathers. They are solidly 
attached, but at a lower level, with a distinct space between them and the 
head of the figure. In addition, the lower edge of the wings is either scal- 
loped or pointed, unlike the straight lines Hartshorne used. The figures 
that have wings with pointed edges are remarkably bat-like in appear- 
ance (Fig. 3). Features of the lettering make up the fourth difference. On a 
number of Style I stones, there is an extra large letter that begins the 







«^-ff^^^ 





Fig. 3. Lieut. Stephen Brown, 1786, Kensington, New Hampshire. 
Note pointed wing edges and detailing of wings. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



79 



inscription, such as "H" for "Here lies", or "E" for "Erected to The 
Memory of" (Fig. 4). In many cases, this letter extends down to the second 
line of the inscription. Also distinctive is the number "5", which has a 
heavy slant to the right, and sometimes is dropped slightly below the 
level of the other numbers. The phrase "IN MEMORY OF" is used most 
often, but this carver also used "HERE LIES", HERE is Interrd", and 
"ERECTED To the Memory of". When "ERected To the Memory of" is 
executed in mixed upper- and lower-case letters, the top of the lower-case 
"t" curves up and over to connect with the lower-case "c" in the word 
"ERected", giving it a unique appearance (Fig. 5). 

Finally, the type of material used by this carver was very different 
from the reddish-brown sandstone that Hartshorne used. It is a brownish- 
gray schist, rough and pitted even on the finished side. This material was 
almost certainly obtained locally, as homemade markers dated before, 
during, and after this time are made of the same material. More than like- 








A 



\r\C 












'.^s^ . 



■afc.^ - 



, i'^.^t , ^»i.' , 




Fig. 4. Col. Samuel Gilman, 1785, Exeter, New Hampshire. 
A "large letter" stone. Note also distinctive slanted "5" in date. 



80 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



ly, it was acquired on an as-needed basis by local farmers and craftsmen, 
as there are no records of commercial quarries in the area. 

While most of the Style I stones have similar characteristics, as 
described above, there are several notable exceptions. The David Steward 
stone (Fig. 6) in Kensington, dated 1788, is unusual in that the standard 
pinwheel finial and scrolled borders are replaced by the legends 
"Remember me" (left side) and "When this you see" (right side), carved 
sideways in bold letters. The Jonathan Ward stone (Fig. 7) in Kensington, 
dated 1787, is unusual in that the lettering is entirely in cursive script. 




S^' 





Fig. 5. John Burleigh, 1776, Newfields, New Hampshire. 

Note connected "c" and "t" in word "ERected." 

This was probably a "large letter" stone also. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



81 



Also unusual is the Benjamin Rowe stone (Fig. 19), which will be dis- 
cussed later in this article. 

Once Style I was clearly established as the work of a different carver, 
my task was to find out who was responsible for this work. Unlike 
Hartshorne's stones. Style I stones are not widespread. After several 
months of extensive fieldwork, I determined that all of them lie within a 
relatively limited area in New Hampshire. The heaviest concentrations 
are in Hampton Falls and Kensington, with fewer in the nearby towns of 
Seabrook, Hampton, Exeter, and Newfields (see Figs. 8a and 8b). Faced 
with this data and about sixty-one stones to study, three possibilities 
emerged: (1) these stones were the work of a local, unknown carver who 
worked on his own; (2) the stones were imported by a "middleman" with 
connections to a carver outside the immediate area; (3) the stones were the 
work of a known carver, or family or carvers, who stayed in the area for 




Fig. 6. David Steward, 1788, Kensington, New Hampshire. 

Unusual two-part inscription in side borders 

has replaced the more common scrolls. 



82 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



a time, then moved on to another location. Based on my fieldwork in 
areas both to the south and north of the study area, as well as my contin- 
uing examination of previous New England gravestone scholarship, I dis- 
counted the last two possibilities. Nowhere had 1 either seen personally 
nor read of examples of this particular style of stone. It seemed more and 
more evident that I was observing the work of a native New Hampshire 
carver whose work had not been previously identified. 

At this point, the question naturally arose as to whether or not the 
carver of Style 1 was an apprentice to Jonathan Hartshorne, whose work 
he loosely copied. While the possibility certainly exists, it seems doubtful. 
In addition to stylistic differences already noted, several factors would 




Fig. 7. Jonathan Ward, 1787, Kensington, New Hampshire. 
Cursive script replaces the more common block lettering on this stone. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



83 



rf\f\\N^ 



\/£l^fr\ciNT 







mfirssA^Huserrs 



Fig. 8a. Region of New Hampshire where Jeremiah Lane 
stones are found. Map by Terry Knoblock. 



84 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



seem to dispel this notion, including the difference in material used, the 
relatively small area in which Style I stones are found, and the lack of sig- 
nificant chronological overlap. I therefore concluded that the carver of 
Style I markers was influenced by the style of Hartshorne and adapted it 
to his own talents and tastes as a stone carver, perhaps to fill a need for 
gravestones after Hartshorne's death in 1776. One might even speculate 
that the two men were acquainted in some way, possibly on a business 
level, though no proof of any such connection has been found. 

Armed with the names, dates, and locations of sixty-one Style I stones, 
I now began research into local records. After fruitless preliminary 
attempts to gain relevant information from a number of sources - ceme- 
tery records of the towns involved, published town histories, special col- 
lections at local libraries and historical societies - I began to focus my 
attention upon probate records, hoping here to find the evidence which 
would reveal the identity of the carver whose work is represented by 



c^)' 



Net/FIELDS 



?0(CV5mDUTH 



SR£E.NLf\l^^ 



(0 



E^erea. 



i£:> 



STP^ATHAfTX 



R>fE- 



ft^prorJ 



•co 






^^Bpl3\He>foi^ 



C^3> 



06> 



SEABilOOic. 



[ififi\fn>fJ 



C3)' 



w 



I I f""-? J 



Fig, 8b. Detail of region where Style I stones are found. 

Numbers in parentheses indicate number of gravestones 

at each location. Map by Terry Knoblock. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



85 



Style I gravemarkers. This, as anyone who has undertaken the task may 
attest, is a long and painstaking process, and at times a most frustrating 
one. Toward the end of one such day of research at the Rockingham 
County probate office in Exeter, I was feeling particularly discouraged, 
having again found no useful information. The next file I checked was 
that of Captain Benjamin Moulton of Hampton Falls, who died in 1782 
(see Fig. 9). Suddenly, here - as clear as could be - I found the reference 
for which I had so long been searching. It read "Jer. Lane on acct. o/b ditto 
for gravestones, 1=5=6.'"* 

The Life of Jeremiah Lane 

Immediately, a new set of questions began to form: who was Jeremiah 
Lane, and was he indeed a carver, or merely a middleman? Starting with 
local town histories and family genealogies, supplemented by other town 
and church records, I gathered what information I could about Lane and 
his life. 



,:/-'£-"^v /^~ 








' r" ^ 1'- ' 








Fig. 9. Captain Benjamin Moulton, 1782, 

Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. 

A probated Style I stone, for which Jeremiah Lane was paid 1=5=6. 



86 Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



Jeremiah Lane was born in Hampton, New Hampshire, on March 10, 
1732, the son of Deacon Joshua and Bathsheba (Robie) Lane. He was one 
of sixteen children. While his father was a cordwainer, Jeremiah took up 
the trade of a tailor, the same trade that his grandfather, William Lane, 
practiced. William Lane (1659-1749), originally of Boston, was the first 
Lane to settle in the area, moving to Hampton about 1685.^ 

While little is known about Jeremiah Lane's early activities, records 
indicate that he continued working as a tailor into the early 1770s.^ About 
1754, he removed to nearby Hampton Falls, and it was here, on January 
18, 1759, that he married Mary Sanborn. Mary was the daughter of Joseph 
Sanborn, and was born May 23, 1736. During their years together they 
had six children: Mary, Sarah, Joshua, Jeremiah, Simeon, and Levi. 

Other brief records shed light upon Jeremiah Lane and his activities 
during his remaining years. In 1762, he appears on a committee to adjust 
the boundaries between Salisbury and Andover, in central New 
Hampshire, then called Stevenstown and New Britain.^ Perhaps one of 
the more cataclysmic events in Lane's life was the death of his father, who 
was struck by lightning and killed on his own doorstep June 14, 1766. 
Jeremiah, though not the oldest son, delivered the sermon, entitled "A 
Memorial and a Tear of Lamentation", at his father's funeral. 

In December of 1768, a committee of Hampton Falls voted to build a 
new meeting house on vacant land next to that owned by Jeremiah Lane. 
After some delay and dispute, the meeting house was dedicated in May 
of 1771.^ It was also during this time that Lane was involved in town 
affairs, and based upon his activities, appears to have been a very respect- 
ed man. In 1772, his name was on a petition to Governor Wentworth 
regarding delinquent taxpayers.*^ In 1773, he made a statement to 
Governor Wentworth and the New Hampshire General Assembly regard- 
ing a parish dispute in Hampton Falls. ^° 

Records also give us a look at some of Lane's business dealings. After 
1776, he is referred to as a yeoman, rather than as a tailor.^^ He is also 
referred to in several instances as a joiner. It is probable that Lane prac- 
ticed all these trades as the need arose, indicating that - like many of his 
time - he was a versatile and skilled man. Lane's dealings were not 
restricted to Hampton Falls. From an account book dated 1772-74, we find 
him purchasing from Jeremiah Fellows, Jr., a blacksmith in nearby 
Kensington, compass needles and clock hinges, as well as having com- 
pass needles and a gun mended by him.^^ 



Glenn A. Knoblock 87 



We can occasionally get a glimpse into the personal thoughts of 
Jeremiah Lane as well. Still extant is a small daybook kept by Lane, with 
entries dating from approximately 1760 to 1792.^-^ In it may be found a 
wide array of writings, including a brief account of the battles of 
Lexington and Concord and the casualties incurred, information on crops 
and beekeeping, and even astrological data (such as the characteristics of 
children born at certain times of the year). The final entry in the daybook 
is a set of rules and regulations for what appears to be a church organiza- 
tion (other research shows that Lane belonged to the Congregational 
Church in Hampton Falls). 

Nearly all the probate records for Hampton Falls and Kensington from 
1770 through the 1780s have been checked for references to Jeremiah 
Lane. In addition to the previously mentioned payment in the Benjamin 
Moulton estate. Lane was also the administrator of the estate of his father- 
in-law, Joseph Sanborn, who died in 1773 and is buried in Hampton Falls. 
In his settlement of the estate we find the following reference: "The cost 
of making gravestones for the deceased and for his wife and son before 
decease Wc stone were on the place. 1=4=0."^* No mention is made of 
who was actually paid for these stones. Sanborn's gravestone has been 
found, and though his name can be read, the design and much of the let- 
tering are very worn. The accompanying footstone, however, identifies it 
as probably being the work of Jonathan Hartshorne. The gravestone of 
Sanborn's wife, Susan, is in the same condition and appears to be of the 
same type. No stone for his son has been positively identified. While not 
proof positive, it seemed significant to me that the only direct references 
to gravestones in local probate records of the time both involved Jeremiah 
Lane. 

Other probate records also mention Jeremiah Lane in various contexts. 
Dated throughout the 1780s, they include unspecified demands on estates 
(Caleb Swain, Nathaniel Healey, and Aaron Smith) and a listing as one of 
the guardians of Josiah Shaw's minor children.^^ No gravestones for any 
of these individuals have been found. 

From the town records, we find that Lane continued to be involved in 
the affairs of Hampton Falls. For brief periods in the 1780s he served as 
town selectman and town pound keeper.^^ In December of 1781, it was 
decided by the town that a new cemetery was needed which would be 
closer to the new meeting house. Subsequently, land was purchased of 
Jeremiah Lane for that purpose. The following is a record of the agreement: 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



Propose to give a deed of half an acre of land off, across the westerly end 

of my lott, by Benjamin Hilliard's, for a burying place for the use of the 

parish for the consideration of the sum of fifteen dollars, upon giving the 

deed, and the parish, or individuals making up the fence in decent order, 

suitable with timber on the wall, and a good gate against the road to enter 

in at. And likewise a good stone wall to separate it from my lott, after the 

crop is taken off. So as to be wholly enclosed, as a burying place ought to 

be. 

JERmLane.17 

The deed was witnessed by Asa and Joshua Lane. Among the Hst of 
proprietors who paid for the land one finds the names Nathan Tilton, 
Jeremiah Blake, Jeremiah Lane, Henry Robie, and Eaton Green. Some of 
these individuals, or their spouses, have Style I gravestones. The highest 
amount paid was six shillings, the lowest one shilling six pence. ^^ The first 
person to be buried in the new cemetery was Deacon Elisha Prescutt (Fig. 
10), who died December 10, 1781, six days after the deed was executed. ^^ 
Inscribed at the bottom of Prescutt's gravestone are the words "The first 
body interr'd in this burying yard - 1781". 

In 1784 and 1785, Lane was involved in land dealings as one of the 
Chichester proprietors, buying and selling land in Chichester, New 
Hampshire, a town nearly sixty miles to the north.-^^ There is no evidence 
that Lane ever actually visited this area, but he did retain an interest in 
lands there until his death, willing them to his son. Descendants of 
Jeremiah Lane were important in helping to develop the town, and the 
Lane name is still prominent there today. 

After the mid-1 780s, few records exist pertaining to Jeremiah Lane, 
other than those that show him as a taxpayer. Parish church records show 
Jeremiah Lane being appointed clerk with "the books placed in his 
hands" in 1801.^^ However, it is unclear whether this refers to the carver 
of Style I gravestones or to his son. The elder Jeremiah Lane died June 21, 
1806, at the age of 74. His wife, who is buried next to him, died 12 years 
later, in 1818. It is fitting that they were buried on their own land which 
they had sold to the town in 1781. 

Though this research into the life of Jeremiah Lane had not conclu- 
sively proven that he was the actual carver of Style I gravestones, the cir- 
cumstantial evidence, in my view, was very supportive of this assump- 
tion. In addition to the probate records, there was Lane's proximity to the 
stones in question, all within five miles of his homestead. The entire 
Moulton family, who had Style I stones, including Captain Benjamin, 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



89 



were neighbors of Lane. Also interesting were the particular individuals 
for whom these Style I stones were carved. Many had close dealings with 
Lane in town or business affairs. The fact that the new town cemetery was 
established on land bought from Lane and adjacent to his own homestead 




Fig. 10. Deacon Elisha Prescutt, 1781, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 
("The first body interr'd in this burying yard - 1781"). 



90 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



seems more than coincidental. As far as having the skill to carve these 
stones, we have seen that Lane was a skilled craftsman. His work as a tai- 
lor and as a joiner required an intricacy that would have served him well 
as a gravestone carver. More and more, the indicators were serving to iso- 
late Jeremiah Lane as the elusive carver I was seeking. The fact that his 
own father, Joshua Lane, has a stone by Jonathan Hartshorne, dated 1766, 
as does his uncle, Samuel Lane, dated 1776 as well, indicates that Jeremiah 
Lane, were he the carver of Style I markers, probably did not start his 
carving until after 1776, which closely coincides with the earliest known 
Style I stone, dated 1772. This is also the only connection found that indi- 
cates Lane may have had some dealings with Jonathan Hartshorne on a 
business level. 




Fig. 11. Ensign Jeremiah Blake, 1800, Hampton Falls, 
New Hampshire. Style II, "squarehead." 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



91 



Jeremiah Lane: Style II 

It was during the period of my research on the hfe of Jeremiah Lane 
that I also began to focus on a third style of gravestone I had begun to 
notice in the area.^^ This style was unique for its design at a time when 
stones with the willow and urn motif were becoming predominant. As 
had been the case with Style I stones, these were also unfamiliar to me. 
While only 19 of these markers have been located, most share similar fea- 
tures. Like Style 1 stones. Style II stones usually depict a male face with 




Fig. 12. Mehetabel Brown, 1800, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. 
Style II, "squarehead" over half circle design. 



92 Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



wings, only in this case the head is usually square (Fig. 11). All but two 
have wig-like hair that fits over the head of the figure like a cap. The 
wings on all are similar to those of Style I, being coined and layered in 
varying degrees, with the lower edges either scalloped or pointed. The 
face itself is usually placed at the top center of the tympanum, while 
below it there generally appears the carved outline of what seems to be a 
globe. The latter is usually represented in either a full circle or a half cir- 
cle (Fig. 12). In several cases there appears at the side of each globe ban- 
ners with scripture or a floral design. 

Two of these Style II stones feature an enlarged version of the square- 
headed male face with wings and no other decoration (Fig. 13). The let- 
tering on all these markers, which date from 1788 to 1806, is very polished 
and consistent, being almost entirely in lower-case script, except for the 
name of the deceased, which is always in capitals, and bold block letter- 
ing. All but two of these stones begin the inscription with the phrase 'TN 
Memory of". Style II stones are also found with square shoulders and 
plain finials. The borders are of two types, either a plain, straight cut bor- 
der, or a simple scalloped one. 

Some stones of the Style II type are rather unusual in that they utilize 
an urn motif. Only six markers of this type have been found, three of 
which are dated 1798. The most unusual of these is that for Susannah 
Porter (Fig. 14). It is dated 1794, though the possibility exists that it may 
be backdated. On this stone, the globe is replaced by an urn, on each side 
of which is an hourglass and a hanging tassel. The winged figure above 
these motifs has a round face with only a few locks of hair. In addition, 
two small spheres are also present, one above each of the hourglasses. 
Another unusual example of this type of stone is that for Billy Dodge (Fig. 
15), which depicts a square-headed figure above an urn, flanked on each 
side by tassels and drapery. Only one of these "urn" stones, that for Ruth 
Shaw in Hampton, depicts an urn alone, without an accompanying fig- 
ure. What prompted the use of the urn on this small number of stones is 
unknown. Perhaps they were designs of an experimental nature, or they 
could have been in response to changing tastes and local competition. The 
carver Paul Noyes, of nearby Newburyport, Massachusetts, whose work 
was predominant in the area, often used an urn of elaborate design as his 
primary motif. 

Another unusual Style II stone that merits attention is that of Major 
Benjamin Barker (Fig. 16), dated 1801, in Stratham. It features the square- 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



93 



headed face, as described above, but without wings. The chin on the face 
of the figure rests on a globe beneath it of the same size, giving the appear- 
ance of an hourglass. Instead of wings, there is a tree branch with leaves 
on each side of the face which follows the curve of the tympanum. Hanging 
on each side from the branches are what appear to be long tassels. 






■TMi-- 



^**^. 



%!rmn 




mm 



IM ,1A1\/| 1..ANE- 



(7//y 



^f^; 




Fig. 13. Deacon William Lane, 1802, Hampton, New Hampshire. 
Enlarged version of "squarehead" with wings. 



94 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



After close study of both Style I and 11 stones, it became very clear to 
me that all were products of the same carver. Shared features include the 
slanted "5", the style of the wings, the connected "t" and "c" in the word 
"Erected" in the inscription, as well as the scalloped and plain borders 
which appear in late Style 1 stones. Also significant was the lettering and 
predominant use of the phrase "IN Memory of". Surely no coincidence. 







i 




Fig. 14. Susannah Porter, 1794, Rye, New Hampshire. 
One of only six Style II "urn" stones. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



95 



out of the 19 Style II stones, three were carved for Lane brothers, includ- 
ing Jeremiah himself, his older brother, William, and his younger brother, 
Ebenezer. It is also significant to note that Jeremiah's own stone, dated 




Fig. 15. Billy Dodge, 1798, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. 
"Squarehead" and urn design. 



96 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



1806, is the last marker of its type to be found in the area. In fact, in the 
years following the death of Jeremiah, there is not a single stone erected 
in the entire area that shows any originality in thought or design beyond 
the ever-present urn and willow motif. 




Fig. 16. Major Benjamin Barker, 1801, Stratham, New Hampshire. 
Unusual Style II design. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 97 



Jeremiah Lane's Stonecarving Career 

When my study of the Styles I and II stones was near its practical end, 
I was still left with a lot of unanswered questions. While I was fairly cer- 
tain that Lane had indeed carved these markers, based on small amounts 
of documented evidence, plus a great deal of circumstantial evidence, I 
felt increasingly frustrated by my inability to find any specific references 
to him as a gravestone carver. Even though it was clear that this would 
not have been his main occupation, I felt as though his activity in this 
area, were he indeed the carver of Styles I and II, would be documented 
in some small way. To find such a reference, I spent long months combing 
through all sorts of period records in addition to those already discussed 

- account books, related family genealogies, contemporary newspapers, 
land records, and a variety of other potential sources. Despite these 
efforts, nothing turned up - until the day I received in the mail a letter, 
enclosed with which was a photocopied page from a booklet entitled Lane 
Families of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, by Rev. James P. Lane.^^ Privately 
printed in 1886, the booklet contained a memorial address given at a Lane 
family reunion that same year in Hampton. Here, at last, was written con- 
firmation of the fact that I had long believed in: 

To the home of the good DEA. JEREMIAH in Hampton Falls, and his sweet 
wife Mary Sanborn. He whose "Tear" fell so tenderly at his father's funer- 
al. He, the tailor, taking the trade of his grandsire William, yet finding the 
time to use his genius as a penman and artist, producing works of rare 
beauty, some of which are still preserved; making gravestones and monu- 
ments with inscriptions of rare beauty and taste in arrangement, some of 
which were in yonder acre and other burial places hereabout.^** 

Having studied all extant gravestones of Styles I and II, and fortified 
now at last with the verification I had been seeking, I was now in a posi- 
tion to construct a brief outline of Lane's career as a gravestone carver. He 
probably began carving some time after 1776. While the oldest Style I 
stone is dated 1753 (Fig. 2), it is certainly backdated, and was probably 
carved in the late 1770s. Stylistic evidence suggests that, of the seven 
stones dating prior to 1779, five of these are backdated and the other two 

- Sarah Moulton, 1772 (Fig. 17), and Abigail Moulton, 1777 - are Lane's 
earliest works. The stones for the Moulton children are simply cut with 
plain borders, and the lettering is condensed at the top of the inscription 
areas with no attempt at spacing. In contrast,the other stones dated prior 
to 1779 are fully developed examples of some of Lane's best work. 



98 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 







Fig. 17. Sarah Moulton, 1772, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. 

Possibly Lane's earliest gravestone. Sarah was the daughter of 

Capt. Benjamin Moulton, who has a probated stone by Lane. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



99 




J^f 













V ■ si 



''> %, \ 



'S<>. 



^>'--/?t\,< ^' 




i^M^^: ': %m^dfi^^^^immtM 



Fig. 18. Boundary marker, circa 1771, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. 
Carved by Jeremiah Lane. 



100 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



It is interesting to note that quite possibly Lane's earliest extant carv- 
ing is not a gravestone at all. In the cemetery in Hampton Falls, on land 
bought from Lane, there stands found a boundary marker (Fig. 18) which 
delineates the boundary of the local minister's land. This land, adjacent to 
Lane's, was purchased by the town in 1768, and in 1771 the new meeting 
house was completed and dedicated. It is likely that this stone was carved 
and set up in this time frame or shortly thereafter. The marker is identical 
to the gravestones for the Moulton children, being square-shouldered 
with a plain cut border, and featuring the same lettering style. The only 
difference is that the tympanum area is left blank. 




Fig. 19. Benjamin Rowe, 1790, Kensington, New Hampshire. 

Note the shape of the stone, unusual for Style I, 
as well as the scroll and heart motif and detailed inscription. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 101 



Jeremiah Lane's most active time as a carver is during the years 1779- 
1786, when his style became more pohshed. Despite the poor quaHty of 
stone he used, his mastery of the gravestone carver's art by this time is 
very evident. Perhaps his crowning achievement in Style I is the Benjamin 
Rowe stone, dated 1790, in Kensington (Fig. 19). Not only is the stone 
shaped differently than his usual tripartite form, it also features delicate- 
ly carved borders, a small heart design, and a wonderfully elaborate 
inscription. The epitaph for Rowe, a highly esteemed physician in the 
area, who treated, among others, Jeremiah Lane, reads as follows: 

Serene calm the Mind in Peace 

His Virtues shown with mild increase 

In Memory of Benjamin Rowe, Esq. 

Who after a life of great usefulness 

& Patiently enduring four years of illness 

with a dropsye Underwent the operation 

of Tapping 67 times. From his Body 

was drawn 2385 pounds of water 

Quietly departed this life the 28th day 

of March Anno Domini 1790 in his 71st Year 

About 1790, Lane began both to slow down in his carving and to 
change styles. After this year, all lettering on his stones is consistent with 
that of Style II. After 1792, we find only four examples of Style I stones, 
the latest dated 1798. The first Style II stone appears in 1788. By this time, 
in the twilight of his years. Lane was carving only occasionally, produc- 
ing but thirteen stones between 1793 and 1799, four of which are of Style 
I design and the rest Style II. From 1800 until his death in 1806, Lane's 
activity again decreased slightly: he produced ten stones during the 
remainder of his life, all Style II, with six of them carved in 1800. The most 
elaborate, and crowning achievement in Style II, is Lane's own gravestone 
(Fig. 20), which he undoubtedly carved himself. Its inscription, augment- 
ed with extensive scriptural quotations, is a fine example of his simple, 
yet elegant style. His wife, Mary, who lies next to him, has a common 
stone typical of its day. No stones similar to those carved by Lane can be 
found in the area after this date, and there is no evidence that his sons, 
some of whom remained in the area, carved gravestones. A search in 
Chichester, where at least one of Lane's sons resided on inherited lands. 



102 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



was unsuccessful in finding any gravestones attributable to Jeremiah 
Lane. 





1 




Fig. 20. Deacon Jeremiah Lane, 1806, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire. 

A style II stone Lane carved for himself. 

Note detailed scriptural quotations to either side of the globe. 



Glenn A. Knoblock 103 



Conclusion 

While my research still continues, it is with renewed focus. Now the 
challenge is to find yet more information concerning Jeremiah Lane, the 
only known gravestone carver native to New Hampshire's Seacoast 
Region prior to the 19th century. During my studies of Lane's life, 1 felt I 
was as close as anyone could be to understanding something of his char- 
acter, thoughts, and ideals. He comes across as a devout man, strong and 
unwavering in his beliefs. One can imagine how tested those beliefs must 
have been with the terrible death of his father. However, he persevered 
and became a solid, steady leader in his small parish. Perhaps his person- 
ality can best be summed up by the reflections of a family member who, 
having seen five of the Lane brothers together, remarked years later: 

They were truly a patriarchal looking band, neatly clad in the costumes of 
those times. They were easy in their manners and moderately sociable, not 
given to loquacity, but talking enough to make conversation agreeable, 
entertaining,and instructive . . . They were all persons of highly respectable 
character . . . Their work was of the best quality and commanded the high- 
est prices in the market. Their shops adjoined their houses so that they 
could enter them without going into the open air. None of them were poor, 
nor were any of them rich. . . All were men of steady habits, regular and 
prudent in their intercourse with the world, strictly honest in their deal- 
ings, careful in making promises and faithful in keeping them."-^ 

With the death of Jeremiah Lane in 1806, we see the end of an era in 
gravestone carving in the area. For over fifty years the evolution of one 
style can be traced. Jonathan Hartshorne started with a vivid face, stern 
and cold in appearance, masterfully carved. Lane adopted Hartshorne's 
face and developed it into a more gentle style. While the face remains 
essentially the same, gone is the cold stare, replaced by a more sympa- 
thetic gaze with an air of sadness (Fig. 10). Indeed, after 1786 Lane nearly 
ceases to put a frown on the faces he carved, replacing it with a more calm 
and serene look. As Lane aged, so correspondingly did the figure he used 
evolve into one of a more ethereal nature. On his last stones, those of Style 
11 type, the faces have the same serene look, with their eyes nearly closed. 
With the suspension of the winged face at the top of the tympanum over 
what appears to be a representation of Earth, there is the definite sugges- 
tion of an ascension to Heaven. 

While one can only speculate, it seems likely that Jeremiah Lane met 
his own end with the same calmness, serenity, and dignity that character- 
ized both his life and the faces he carved. 



104 Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



NOTES 

I wish to thank several people who have been of great help and encouragement to me dur- 
ing my studies on Jeremiah Lane. First, and foremost, 1 could not have completed this study 
without the help and patience of my able research assistant, John Knoblock. I would also like 
to thank my wife, Terry, for her help in reviewing and editing the final draft for this article, 
as well as for her overall support. 1 also wish to thank Ralph Tucker, of Georgetown, Maine, 
and Laurel Gabel, of Pittsford, New York, for their expert help and guidance during the 
course of my research. Any mistakes remaining are strictly my own. The following people 
have also been very helpful at various points during my investigations: Betty Moore, a fel- 
low Bowling Green State University alumni and Director of the Tuck Museum in Hampton, 
New Hampshire; Margaret Perry, Librarian at the Choate Library in Kensington, New 
Hampshire; Eric Small, of Hampton Falls, New Hampshire; and Elizabeth Lambert Perry, of 
Auburn, New York. All photographs are by the author. 

1 . All biographical data on Jonathan Hartshorne was received, courtesy of Ralph Tucker, 
in a letter to the author dated December 24, 1994. As there remains a degree of uncer- 
tainty with regard to certain facts concerning Jonathan Hartshorne, the reader is 
advised to consult as well Ernest Caulfield's "Note" number 4 to his "Connecticut 
Gravestones Xll: John Hartshorn (1650-c. 1738) vs. Joshua Hempstead (1678-1758)," 
Markers VIII (1991): 186. 

2. Essex County, Massachusetts probate records, docket #20968, as follows; "august the 
=17=1742 received of mrs. Mary Addams forty shillings for a pare of Grave Stons for 
her former husband James Pearson Jonathan hartshorn". This information was sup- 
plied by Ralph Tucker also. The above referenced gravestone has not been located. 

3. The Benjamin Choate stone. Plains Cemetery, Kingston, New Hampshire. 

4. File #4857, Rockingham County Probate Records, Exeter, New Hampshire. 

5. Jacob Chapman and James H. Fitts, Lane Genealogies, Vol. 1 (Exeter, NH, 1891), 19. 

6. Rockingham County Deed Records. 

7. Chapman and Fitts, 19. 

8. Warren Brown, History of the Town of Hampton Falls, Vol. 2 (Concord, NH, 1918), 130-31. 

9. Chapman and Fitts, 19. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Rockingham County Deed Records. 

12. Account book of Jeremiah Fellows, Jr, 1772-1806, p. 1 (courtesy of Choate Library, 
Kensington, New Hampshire). 



Glenn A. Knoblock 105 

13. Courtesy of the Tuck Museum, Hampton, New Hampshire. 

14. File #3988, Rockingham County Probate Records. 

15. Files #4021, 4052, 4315, 4377, Rockingham County Probate Records. 

16. Town of Hampton Falls record book. 

17. Brown, 307. 

18. Ibid., 307-08. 

19. Ibid., 308. 

20. Rockingham County Deed Records. 

21. Brown, 41. 

22. One stone of this type, that of William Pitt Moulton (1803), is found 19 miles to the 
north in Dover, New Hampshire. While seemingly out of place, research shows 
Moulton to have been originally of Hampton, the son of General Jonathan Moulton. 
Many of his family members remained in the Hampton area, thus providing a link. 

23. James P. Lane, Lane Families of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (n.p., 1886). For this docu- 
ment I am indebted to Betty Moore, Director of the Tuck Museum, Hampton, New 
Hampshire. 

24. Ibid,. 35. 

25. Ibid., 30-31. 



106 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



APPENDIX 1 
Jonathan Hartshorne Stones in Southern New Hampshire 

This list is admittedly incomplete, as only the area under discussion in 
this article was searched. Many more are undoubtedly to be found in the 
areas of Newburyport, Haverhill, and Methuen, Massachusetts. Some 
stones also exist that can be attributed to Hartshorne by design but are not 
listed, as no name or other identifying data could be discerned owing to 
poor condition. Further research on Hartshorne is being conducted by the 
author. To date, not one probate reference has been discovered. 



Hampton Falls, NH - Old 
Cemetery 

Elizabeth Batchelder - ??? 
Susan Sanborn - ??? 

Nason-175? 

Elizabeth Swett - 175? 

Lydia Swett (daughter to Capt. 

Benjamin) -1757 
Deacon Josiah Batchelder - 1759 
Rev. Joseph Bayley - 1762 
Elizabeth Tilton - 1765 
Joseph Sanborn - 1773 
Samuel Lane (uncle to Jeremiah 

Lane) - 1776 

Kingston, NH - Plains Cemetery 

Stevens (wife) - 17?? 

Elizabeth Stevens (wife to 

Ebenezer) - 17?? 
Benjamin Choate - 1753 
Simon French - 1761 
Tristan Sanborn - 1 771 
Dorcas Hubbard - 1774 



East Kingston, NH - Oak Hill 

Sanborn (wife) - 17?? 

Rebeckah Ordway - 17?? 
Joseph Greeley - 176? 
Moses Morrill - 176? 
Joseph Eastman - 1777 (?) 

Hampton, NH - Pine Grove 

Samuel Nason - ??? 
Lieut. Elisha Smith -1759 
Samuel Palmer - 1761 
James Lampre - 1762 
Nathaniel Drake - 1763 
Deacon Joshua Lane (father to 

Jeremiah Lane, Style 1) - 1766 
Nathaniel Lampre - 1762 
Hannah Moulton - 1772 
Molly Lampre - 1772 
Elizabeth Palmer - 1773 
Molly Lampre (daughter) - 1 773 
Bethiah Fogg - 1773 
James Lewis (shipwrecked, from 

Kennebec to Barnstable) - 1773 



Glenn A. Knoblock 107 



Mary Moulton - 1774 
Rachel Moulton - 1774 
Bethiah Moulton - 17?? 
Josiah Moulton - 1776 
Fogg (daughter) - 1776 

Kensington, NH - Old Cemetery 

Mary Moulton - 17?? 

Sarah Tucke (with footstone) - 

1756 
Edward Tucke (footstone only) - 

??? 
Elizabeth Batchelder (daughter) - 

1756 
Samuel Batchelder - 1757 
John Lamprey - 1757 
Elizabeth Fogg - 177? 
Elizabeth Parsons - 1774 
Samuel Paige - 1774 
Mary Wadleigh - 1774 
Hannah Lane - 1775 
Joanah (sic) Smith - 1775 
Simon Clifford - 1775 
Ruben Smith - 1776 
Anne Wadleigh - 1776 

South Hampton, NH - Old 
Cemetery 

Elizabeth Flanders (with footstone) 

-1773 



108 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



APPENDIX 2 

Chronological list of Jeremiah Lane Style I stones, 

with unique features noted 

K Kensington 

HP Hampton, Pine Grove 

HB Hampton, Bride Hill 

HFN Hampton Falls, Nason Road 

HFO Hampton Falls, Old Cemetery 

HFR Hampton Falls, Rte. 88 

EXF Exeter, Front Street 

EXH Exeter, High Street 

NF Newfields 

S Seabrook 

ST Stratham 

Date in ( ) Probable date of carving 

* Broken or fragmented stone 



Death Date 

1753 (1779) 

1753 (1779) 

1758 (late 1770s) 

N/A(1771) 

1772 

1772 (1779) 

1776 (1779-80) 

1777 

1779 

1779 

1779 

1779 

(ca. 1770s) 

1779 

(ca. 1780s) 

1781 

1781 

1782 



Name and Location 

Mary Weare, K, * 

Deacon Jonathan Fellows, K 

Comfort Lane, K * 

N/A, HFN 

Sarah Moulton, HFR 

Joseph Weare, K, * 

John Burleigh, NF 

Abigail Moulton, HFR 

Mary Brown, K 

Anna Folsom, EXF 

Elizabeth Fogg, K 

Mary Batchelder, K 

Elisabeth Tilton, EXF 

Lieut. Stephen Healey, HFO 

Sarah Weare, S 

Elisha Prescutt, HFN 

Mary Burleigh, NF 

Hannah Wadleigh, HFN 



Features 

Large Letter 
Backdated 

Boundary Marker 
Square Shoulder 
Large Letter 
Large Letter 

"Bat" -Like Wings 
Large Letter 
Scriptural Quote 

Very Worn 
Very Worn 
Very Worn 
Scriptural Quote 

Tympanum Blank 



Glenn A. Knoblock 




109 


Death Date 


Name and Location 


Features 


1782 


Hannah Worthen, K 


Large Letter 


1782 


Benjamin Moulton, K 


■ 


1782 


Simon Taylor, HB 




1782 


Capt. Benjamin Moulton, HFR 


Probate Payment 


1783 


Bettey Wadleigh, K 


"Bat" -Like Wings 


1783 


Mary Moulton, K 




1783 


Capt. Ezekial Worthen, K 


Large Letter 


1784 


Henry Lamprey, K 


Large Letter 


1784 


John Weare, K 




1785 


Abigail Robie, HFN 


Large Letter 


1785 


Sarah Blake, HFN 


Plain Finial 


1785 


Col. Samuel Gilman, EXF 


Large Letter 


1785 


John Marston, HP, * 




1786 


Doctor Richard Rust, ST 


Lengthy Inscription 


1786 


Daniel Brown, HFR 


Style II Lettering 


1786 


Samuel Rowe, K 




1786 


Lieut. Stephen Brown, K 


"Bat" -Like Wings 


1787 


Zechariah Towle, HP 


Carved on Slate 


1787 


Lucy Tilton, HFN, * 


Fragmented 


1787 


Jacob Gove, HFN, * 


Tympanum Blank 


1787 


Bettey Brown, K 




1787 


Jonathan Ward, K 


Cursive Script 


1788 


Lydia Locke, S 


"Bat" -Like Wings 


1788 


Phebe Prescutt, HFN 


Lengthy Inscription 


1788 


Henry Robie, Jr. HFN 




1788 


David Steward, K 


Unusual Border 


1789 


Jonathan Gove, S 


Unspecified Probate 
Payment to Lane 


1789 


Hannah Towle, HP 




1790 


Samuel Dearborn, K 




1790 


Susanne Rowe, K 


Style II Lettering 


1790 


Doctor Benjamin Rowe, K 


Unusual Shape, 
Detailed Inscription 


1790 


Margaret Tilton, HFN 


Unusual Border 


1790 


Ruth Prescutt, HFN 


Scallop Border 


1791 


Hannah Tilton, HFN 


Square Shoulder 


1791 


Sarah Moulton, HFR 


Transitional 



no 



Gravestone Carving in Coastal New Hampshire 



Death Date Name and Location 

1791 Caleb Shaw, K 

1791 Mary Gilman, EXF, * 

1792 Peter Folsom, EXH 
1792 Abigail Healey, HEN 

1792 (?) Eunice Healey, HEN 

1793 Nathan Tilton, HEN 

1797 Capt. Jonathan Tilton, HEN 

1798 Deacon Jonathan Weare, S 
1798 Susanna Safford, EXE 



Features 

Style II Lettering 
Style II Lettering 
Detailed Inscription 
Footstone Only 
Style II Lettering 
Scallop Border 
Style II Lettering 
Scallop Border 



Glenn A. Knoblock 



111 



APPENDIX 3 

Chronological list of Jeremiah Lane Style II stones, 

with unique features noted 

Location abbreviations are the same as in Appendix 2, with the addition 
of the following: 

DV Dover - Pine Hill 

HR Hampton, Ring Swamp Cemetery 

HTC Hampton, Rte. 1 traffic circle 

NH North Hampton, Center Cemetery 

P Portsmouth, North Cemetery 

R Rye 

* Fragmented stones 



Death 

Date Name and Location 

1788 Edward Shaw, HTC 

1792 Dr. Levi Dearborn, NH 

1794 Susannah Porter, R 

1795 Joseph Allcock, P, * 

1795 Dolly Rundlett, EXE, =^ 

1796 Ebenezer Lane, HP 
1798 Billy Dodge, HFO 
1798 Ruth Shaw, HTC 
1798 Thankful Weare, S 
1800 Mehetable Brown, HER 
1800 Ensign Jeremiah Blake, HEN 
1800 Sarah Prescutt, HEN 

1800 Elizabeth Green, HEN 

1800 Jeremiah Towle, HP, * 

1800 John Weare, K 

1801 Major Benjamin Barker, ST 



1802 Deacon William Lane, HR 

1803 William Pitt-Moulton, DV 
1806 Deacon Jeremiah Lane, HEN 



Features 

Figure over Globe 

Figure Only 

Hourglass, Urn Motif 

Bottom Half Only Remaining 

Hourglass, Urn Motif 

Figure over Globe 

Figure over Urn 

Urn with Banners & Tassels 

Figure over Globe with Urns 

Figure over Globe 

Large Footstone 

Figure over Globe 

"widow 36 years" 

Bottom Half Only Remaining 

Banners with Inscription 

Very Worn /Square-Head Only 

over Globe; Wings Replaced by 

Boughs of Leaves. 

Figure Only 

Figure over Globe 

Figure over Full Globe, with 

Extensive Scriptural Quotations 

on Either Side and at Bottom. 



112 



Taylor City Cemetery 




Fig. 1. William W. Seymore, 1911. 



113 



THE TAYLOR, TEXAS, CITY CEMETERY: A LANGUAGE COMMUNITY 

Scott Baird 

Taylor City Cemetery 

Taylor City Cemetery with 20,000 burial records/ beginning in 1852^ 
and continuing through to the present, sprawls out over a large slope, not 
quite a hill, east of Taylor, Texas. The town of Taylor, present population 
11,472,-^ sits comfortably astride Texas Highway 79, about thirty miles 
north and east of Austin, in central Texas. 

On a daily basis and usually in small numbers, living members of the 
Taylor, Texas, community visit the Taylor City Cemetery to communicate 
with each other, with the dead, and with the messages on the gravemark- 
ers. This type of communication, while carried out all over the world 
every day, has received almost no study by sociolinguists.*'^ 

Cemeteries as Language Communities 

Part of the reason for this lack of sociolinguistic research on cemetery 
communication results from the inability of established sociolinguists to 
agree on a definition of any language community - let alone a cemetery 
one (note that sociolinguists use the terms language community, speech 
community, and linguistic community interchangeably). In his introduc- 
tory text on sociolinguistics, Richard Hudson presents an excellent sum- 
mary of the difficulties: some sociolinguists use a given language to 
define a language community; others use daily communication, regard- 
less of numbers of languages involved; still others think that attitude suf- 
fices - if people think they participate in a language community, then they 
do.^ At one point in his summary of all the confusion, Hudson makes a 
plaintive plea for a definition that offers more stability: 

What would help the sociolinguist most in his work would be if he could 
identify some kind of natural speech community with reference to which 
he could make all his generalizations ... 7 

Hudson made his observation in 1980. In 1989, 1 argued in a paper pre- 
sented at the annual meeting of the American Name Society that ceme- 
teries provide such a natural language community^ In essence, I argued 
then - and argue now - that a language community consists of what one 
finds within any given graveyard border. That means that if one walks 



114 Taylor City Cemetery 



into the Taylor City Cemetery, the language community will involve sev- 
eral languages, consisting of data first written in the nineteenth century 
and still being used today. On the other hand, if one walks into Mission 
Park North Cemetery, in San Antonio, the language community will con- 
sist of English only, first written in the 1930s. 

Note, as an aside, that even though daily communication occurs with- 
in the geographically limited space of Taylor City Cemetery, I am enabled 
through this publication of Markers to photograph and communicate mes- 
sages to an extended language community - extended both in space and 
in time. 

Language Change and Sociolinguistic Theory 

In the Taylor City Cemetery, one of the poignant tales being commu- 
nicated involves the 1911 murder of a deaf mute (Fig. 1). Combining 
William Seymore's message with one hundred and thirty years of mes- 
sages on at least 10,000 gravemarkers^ provides ample data for sociolin- 
guists to, in Hudson's terms, make their generalizations. 1 find, in fact, 
that the Taylor City cemetery provide sufficient evidence to challenge 
existing sociolinguistic theories about language change. 

I mentioned earlier that the Taylor City Cemetery encompasses more 
than one language. Taylor, like most of Texas, takes "pride in its ethnic 
diversity, which includes Czech, Polish, German, English, Scotch-Irish 
[sic], Swedish, African- American, Hispanic, Mid-Eastern and other ances- 
try."^° Not all of these languages exist in the City Cemetery. The Polish 
and German can be found in the town's Catholic Cemetery, the Swedish 
in the nearby town of Hutto. The Arabic groups wrote their markers in 
either Spanish or English. One would have to be fluent, however, in at 
least four languages - English, Spanish, German, and Czech - to under- 
stand all of the communication that exists in the City Cemetery language 
community. 

Finding a language community that includes these four languages is 
important if one wishes to extend sociolinguistic generalizations to the 
larger geographic definition of the Texas speech community. Note the 
wide distribution in Texas of all four languages, as illustrated in Figure 2. 
The white spaces on the map indicate the presence of various Texas ceme- 
teries that contain English language gravemarkers. The horizontal black 
lines indicate the presence of gravemarkers written in Spanish; the left-to- 
right upward slanting black lines indicate German; the left-to-right down- 



Scott Baird 



115 



ward slanting black lines indicate Czech." The Taylor City Cemetery lan- 
guage community exists within an area of Texas that includes cemeteries 
with all four of the same language codes: English, Spanish, German, and 
Czech.^2 

Geographer Terry Jordan describes well the numerous Texas environ- 
ments that include such cultural diversity. Jordan, in fact, divides Texas 
into five such cultural /ethnic regions; the area that includes Taylor, he 
calls the Shatter Belt - "where a large European population of Germans, 
Slavs, and Scandinavians is thoroughly mixed with lower-southern 
whites, blacks, upper southerners, and Hispanos."^^ 




Fig. 2. Distribution of Texas's four major language codes. 



116 Taylor City Cemetery 



To illustrate the generalizations that involve sociolinguistic theories of 
language change, sufficient data exist in one particular section of Taylor 
City Cemetery. The data in this subsection tell of the interplay of language 
codes during ninety-two years (1902 through 1994). 

The first generalization one can draw from these data does, indeed, 
extend to all of the City Cemetery language community and to the larger 
Texas language community as well. Basically, the gravemarkers in this 
one section record the shift from a trilingual language community (Czech, 
German, and English) to a contemporary monolingual English one. 

I will later argue that the Spanish language offers a secondary chal- 
lenge to sociolinguistic theories. The Spanish language has not disap- 
peared; it exists in other sections of City Cemetery, and most certainly 
throughout Texas. 

Such complexities of language codes within single language commu- 
nities provide the subject matter for sociolinguistic scholars in such 
diverse fields as sociolinguistics, Creole language studies, and language 
change.^^ As a sociolinguist, 1 argue that a theory of sociolinguistics 
known as Linguistic Variable Rules accounts both for the German and 
Czech shift to English in City Cemetery - and still allows for visitors to 
the cemetery to continue to communicate in the outdated German and 
Czech. 

Other sociolinguistic theories (notably Biological; Wave; Continuum; 
Cluster; Diglossia; and Network theories) cannot adequately account for 
the complexity of communication in such a simple language community. 
And yet all of these theories might help explain the extreme complexity of 
language data that exist in all cemeteries. 

Language Data 

The oldest gravemarkers in Taylor City Cemetery exist in the north- 
western section. The oldest marker that the Cemetery employees and I 
could locate was that of John S. Miller, who died in 1878 (Fig. 3). 

The subsection selected^^ for the data collection of English, German, 
and Czech markers sits in the southwestern portion of the cemetery. The 
subsection holds 103 markers, each of which may contain one name or 
two. In Figures 4 and 5, those markers with one name are designated by 
a single letter: E or C or G, for example. Those with two names have dou- 
ble letters: EE or CC or GG. While seven different types of ethnic sur- 
names appear in this subsection (see Fig. 4), the families involved chose 



Scott Baird 



117 




Fig. 3. John S. Miller, 1878. Oldest marker in City Cemetery. 



118 Taylor City Cemetery 



to encode only three languages - English, German, and Czech - on these 
103 markers (see Fig. 5). 

A close comparison of Figures 4 and 5 reveals that the families with 
Danish, English, Irish, Polish, and Swedish surnames always elected to 
communicate their bereavement in the English language. In addition, 
Czech families chose to write 29 of the 52 Czech markers in English, with 
23 in Czech, while German families chose to write 18 of the German mark- 
ers in English, with six in German. The language data for this section of 
Taylor City Cemetery includes 74 in English, 23 in Czech, and six in 
German. 



E EE 
CICECCCC EESSDD CCCCCCCC EEEE 

CCCCCCC QSGG II 

GG G EEEEE GGGGCGI 

EE E CC C C C C CC C CC C P P C C C EE E GG G 

GGCC CCCCCOCCCCCCCCCCCEEGGGGGGGGGE 
C C 

C=Czech; D=Danish; E=English; G=German; I=Irish; 
P=Polish; S=Swedish. Shaded markers written in English. 



Fig. 4. Taylor City Cemetery (southwestern subsection) 
by ethnicity of surnames. 











E EE 


C E 


E E E E C E 


EE EE EE E E E E E CC C 


E EE E 




E C E CC 


C C 


E E E 


E E 


EG G 




EE E EE 


G E G G C 


E E 


EE E 


EE C C 


E C CC C 


CCEEE EE E EEE 


EE E 


E E E E E E 


E E E E C C 

E E 


c c c C C 


EEECEEEEEEGE 


EEEE 


C=Czech; 


E=English; G= 


^German. Four shaded markers oldest: 


1902. 



Fig. 5. Taylor City Cemetery (southwestern subsection) 
by language on markers. 



Scott Baird 



119 




Fig. 6. P.S. Lundsford, 1902. English language. 



120 



Taylor City Cemetery 




Fig. 7. Ida Geldmacher, 1902. German language. 



Scott Baird 



121 















Fig. 8. Wilhelmine Haverland, 1902. German language. 



122 



Taylor City Cemetery 




i^lKUS 



Fig. 9. Veronyka Mikus, 1902. Czech language. 



Scott Baird 123 



The four oldest markers in this subsection of City Cemetery all show 
death dates of 1902 (note the four shaded areas in Figure 5 for the loca- 
tions of these four markers). For our language study purposes all three 
languages appear in this first year. Most people will have no difficulty 
reading Dr. P.S. Lundsford's marker because it is written in English (see 
Fig. 6). Those visitors, however, who wish to read either Ida 
Geldmacher's (Fig. 7) or Wilhelmine Haverland's marker (Fig. 8) need to 
understand German. ^^ Finally, those visitors who wish to read Veronyka 
Mikus's marker (Fig. 9) need to understand Czech. 

Up to this point, then, the Taylor City Cemetery language data in this 
one subsection include three languages - all three of which date back to 
1902. In addition, we know that 23 of 103 markers have Czech language 
written on them; six of the 103 have German. To complete the three-lan- 
guage overview, the last German language marker (Wilhelmine 
Haverland^^, Fig. 10) has a 1928 death date and the last Czech language 
marker (Johanna Pokorny, Fig. 11) has a 1960 death date. The death date 
for the latest English language marker (Edmond Daniel Pokorny, Fig. 12), 
indicates the period during which the data were collected, 1994. 

The distribution of these data appear in Table 1, Marker language by 
time: 



Table 1. Marker language by time 





English 


Czech 


German 


Total 


1902-1928 


35 


20 


06 


61 


1929-1960 


24 


03 


XX 


27 


1961-1994 


15 


XX 


XX 


15 


Total 


74 


23 


06 


103 



Clearly the data indicate a change in language code usage. In 1902, 
people used all three codes in the inscriptions written on their markers - 
English, German, and Czech. After 1928, however, monument inscribers 
stopped using German and provided only English and Czech. After 1960, 
only English appears on the markers. Communication with these 103 
markers, however, still requires all three languages in present-day Taylor, 
Texas. 

The data, however, reveal an even more complicated language mix- 
ture than appears in this overview. A closer look at Veronyka Mikus's 



124 



Taylor City Cemetery 









Fig. 10. Wilhelmine Haverland, 1928. German language. 



Scott Baird 



125 



marker in Figure 9 reveals a mixture of Czech and English codes; it is a 
bilingual marker. While her name, death date, and birth date are written 
in English, all of the other information is written in Czech. 

Previous research has verified the common presence of such bilingual 
markers in multilingual cemetery language communities.^^ Moreover, 
these bilingual markers tend to mix their languages in a predictable pat- 
tern. One expects to find five basic pieces of information on all grave- 
markers: the name of the deceased, a death date, a birth date, kinship ter- 
minology, and an epitaph. On bilingual markers, if only one piece of 
information is in English, that one type will be the name. If two pieces are 
in English, those two pieces will be the name and death date. If three 
pieces are in English, the three will be the name, death date, and birth 
date; if four, then the kinship terms will appear - with only the epitaph 
remaining in the immigrant language. 

To add to the necessary predictability of the data on these markers, 
sociolinguists also need to note that on monolingual markers (English, 
German, or Czech) the same pattern occurs: if a marker has only one 




Fig. 11. Johanna Pokorny, 1960. Czech language. 



126 



Taylor City Cemetery 



semantic item, that item will be the deceased person's name; if the mark- 
er has two semantic items, those items will be the name and the death 
date; if three, the name, death date, and birth date, etc.^^ 

In addition to these five basic pieces of information, some markers also 
reveal the place of death, the place of birth, and /or the person's occupa- 
tion. The presence of these three additional pieces of information do not 
fit any predictable patterns - a fact that theories of language must also 
incorporate.^^ 

Language Data: A Summary 

The language data in Taylor City Cemetery, especially the data in the 
subsection described above, present four phenomena that sociolinguistic 
theories should be able to explain. First, both historical (1902) communi- 
cation signals and contemporary (1994) communication occurs simulta- 
neously. In language research, scholars refer to this difference (historical 
versus contemporary) as diachronic versus synchronic. 

The second language phenomenon concerns the three languages that 
exist in the data: English has appeared throughout the ninety-two years 
of marker engraving. The German language, however, last appears on a 
marker inscribed in 1928, while the Czech last appears on a 1960 marker. 

The third phenomenon concerns the appearance of semantic items in 
a predictable sequence, no matter what languages appear on the markers. 




Fig. 12. Edmond Daniel Pokorny, 1994. English language. 



Scott Baird 127 



If five items appear, they will be names, death dates, birth dates, kinship 
terminology, and epitaphs; if only four items appear, the marker will have 
no epitaph; if only three items appear, those three will be name, death 
date, and birth date; if two, name and death date; one - only the name. 
While these five items appear in a predictable order, however, three other 
semantic items - occupation, death place, and birth place - may appear, 
but in a non-predictable order. 

The fourth language phenomenon consists of an extension of the third. 
The markers include bilingual examples, but only involving English: the 
data include Czech /English markers and German /English markers - but 
no Czech/German markers. On these bilingual markers, the same pre- 
dictable sequencing occurs as occurs in monolingual markers: If one item 
appears in English, that item will be the person's name; if two items, the 
name and death date; if three, the name, death date, and birth date; and if 
five, the kinship terminology will be added - with only the epitaph 
remaining in either Czech or German. The same caveat pertains to occu- 
pation, death place, and birth place: if they appear on bilingual grave- 
markers, the language code cannot be predicted. 

Theories of Language Change: Variable Rules 

Sociolinguists have access to at least seven theories to help explain 
these types of language phenomenon.^^ Of these seven, one - known as 
Variable Rule Theory^^ accounts for the Taylor Cemetery data rather well. 
In Variable Rule Theory, a series of "rewrite" rules tries to account for all 
the data in a given set. The rules always start with a given assumption - 
written with the mathematical symbol X- For our research, we subsume 
the Taylor data: 

Z: Gravemarkers in Taylor, Texas, City Cemetery 

We start our series of Variable Rules by recognizing that the majority 
of gravemarkers communicate in the English Language - written in our 
rules as E. We also recognize that other languages exist - symbolized as 
OL - and that people who inscribe the markers must make a choice, either 
E or OL. The use of brackets - [ ] - indicates this required choice. At this 
point in the rewrite process, you must choose English or German or 
Czech, no combinations. Thus, Rule number 1 "rewrites" our assumption 
about gravemarkers into a required choice: English or Other Language 
(the use of the arrow =^ indicates the command to "rewrite"): 



128 



Taylor City Cemetery 



Rule 1: Markers 



E 
OL 



We now can rewrite either the EngHsh (E) or Other Language (OL). If 
we choose the EngHsh language, we must write the name (using the sym- 
bol N); but we have an option on the Death Date, DD. We write the option 
with the parentheses symbols ( ): 

E =» N (DD) 

If we choose the option of the death date, then that opens the option 
of the birth date, (BD): 

N (DD) ^ N DD (BD) 

Instead of writing separate rules for each of the Name plus Death Date 
plus Birth Date plus kinship, symbol KIN, plus epitaph, symbol EPT, we 
can collapse all of these options into one rewrite rule - with the symbol # 
at the end, which requires us to cease using the Variable Rules. We have 
finished completing one marker. We now have a compact rewrite rule for 
all English language markers: 

E ^ N (DD (BD (KIN (EPT) ) ) ) # 

If we choose German or Czech, however, all we know for sure is that 
the epitaph must be written in that language; the other items may be writ- 
ten in English - on a bilingual marker. So we write those options: 



OL 



EPT + 



E 
OLl 



Where OL indicates that whatever language you choose, Czech or 
German, that language carries over into the rewrite options. You cannot 
switch between German and Czech, in other words. 

We now can collapse the rewrite of E and OL into one, compact, 
rewrite rule: 



Rule 2: 



E 
OL 



N (DD 
(EPT) + 



(BD (KIN (EPT))))# 
E 
OL 



Scott Baird 



129 



Note that from this point on the EngUsh language options only exist 
on the bilingual markers. The English monolingual markers have all been 
accepted by this rewrite Rule 2. The non-English markers all have their 
epitaphs - if they have epitaphs - written either in German or in Czech. 
We now need to account for those non-English markers that do not have 
epitaphs, but do have kinship terms (KIN) written in German or Czech. 
We also need to account for those non-English markers that do have epi- 
taphs; but some markers have the kinship terms written in English, oth- 
ers do not. Rule 3 accounts for those markers: 



Rule 3: 



E 
OL 



KIN 
(KIN) + 



E 
lOL 



The non-English markers now all have their kinship terms - if they 
have kinship terms - written either in German or in Czech. We now need 
to account for those non-English markers that have neither epitaphs nor 
kinship terms, but do have birth dates (BD) written in German or Czech. 
We also need to account for those non-English markers that do have either 
epitaphs and /or kinship terms; but some markers have the birth dates 
written in English, others do not. Rule 4 accounts for those markers: 



Rule 4: 



E 
OL 



BD 
(BD) 



E 
LOL 



In a similar manner. Rule 5 accounts for those non-English markers 
that have no epitaph, no kinship terms, nor any birth dates, but do have 
death dates (DD) written in German or Czech. Rule 5 also accounts for 
non-English markers that do have epitaphs, and /or kinship terms, and /or 
birth dates; but some of those markers have the death dates written in 
English while others do not: 



Rule 5: 



E : 

OL 



DD 
(DD) 



E 
LOL 



Rule 6, then, will account for the rest of our predictable non-English 
markers. These last markers have only the names (N) to consider: are the 
names written in English or in German or Czech? If in English, we have a 



130 Taylor City Cemetery 



bilingual marker - because Rule 2 already wrote the monolingual English 
markers: 



Rule 6: 



E ^ N 
OL^ N 



Rule 7 will account for the hodgepodge of unpredictable appearances 
of occupation (O), birth place (BP), and death place (DP). We use a comma 
to separate E from OL, because no matter which language we choose, the 
unpredictablness remains the same: 

Rule 7: E,OL ^ (O) (BP) (DP) 

Our last rule converts the Other Languages to German (but will not 
accept German data after 1928) and Czech (but will not accept Czech data 
after 1960). All leftover OL choices that the rules generated will be 
destroyed by the insertion of the third option: OL => 0. Thus: 



Rule 8: OL 



G* 

C** 




*only between 1902 and 1928, inclusive 
**only between 1902 and 1960, inclusive 

Theories of Language Change: Options 

The Variable Rule theory of language change accounts for all of the 
Taylor Cemetery language phenomena except the unpredictablness of 
information concerning occupation, place of birth, and place of death. 
Variable Rule 6 recognizes the problem, but does not address it in any sig- 
nificant manner. 

The seven variable rules account for (1) the presence of both diachron- 
ic and synchronic data - no German after 1928, no Czech after 1960; (2) the 
presence of all three languages today; (3) the sequencing of five semantic 
items on all markers, monolingual or bilingual; and (4) the sequencing of 
English writing on bilingual markers. 

Sociolinguists have, however, other theories - Family Tree (or biologi- 
cal theory); Wave; Continuum; Cluster; and Network - that give insight 
into understanding such language change phenomena.^-^ Understanding 
the viability of Variable Rule theory suffers unless one compares it to the 
other theories. 



Scott Baird 131 



Family Tree: 

Most language scholars have worked with and understand the Family 
Tree or Biological Theory. ^"^ This theory underlies the diagrams of Indo- 
European languages that we can find in most modern dictionaries. The 
theory has helped illustrate the development of Indo-European languages 
into Roman, Germanic (and so forth), "families" or "trees." It has, how- 
ever, never explained how those languages developed. It most certainly 
adds little insight into the Taylor City Cemetery data - other than to ver- 
ify that the languages involved came from the Indo-European family. 

Wave: 

Pater Schmidt, addressing the inability of the Family Tree theory to 
explain how languages changed, proposed Wave theory. ^^ Basically, this 
theory suggests that if you have three languages in one geographical 
space - such as in Taylor City Cemetery - the three languages will affect 
each other. They will cause changes in each other. If one language is dom- 
inant, it will cause the largest changes. 

In the case of Taylor City Cemetery, Wave theory would add to our 
understanding of the importance of the three languages. English domi- 
nates because it still survives after 98 years; German was the weakest 
because it ceased in 1928, as opposed to the Czech presence until 1960. 
The Variable Rule theory only accounts for the disappearance of German 
and Czech; it does not explain why. 

Continuum: 

In the early 1960s, David DeCamp reported on dialect work with 
Jamaican English. He suggested that Creole languages might best be 
understood if one looked at varying language abilities along a continuum: 

Nearly all speakers of English in Jamaica could be arranged in a sort of lin- 
guistic continuum, ranging from the speech of the most backward peasant 
or labourer all the way to that of a well educated urban professional. Each 
speaker represents not a single point but a span of this continuum, for he is 
usually able to adjust his speech upward or downwards for some distance 
on it.^^ 

DeCamp's concept of the Continuum has become an established mea- 
suring tool in Creole studies.^'' All of the work on gravemarker sequenc- 
ing - name, death date, birth date, kinship terminology, epitaphs - dis- 
plays this same concept of a continuum. Markers may be monolingual 
English, German, or Czech. Or they have a mixture of English/German or 



132 Taylor City Cemetery 



English /Czech. The mixtures, though, result in scale on the continuum of 
languages. 

While the concept of the Continuum has, indeed, come from Creole 
studies, the ability to incorporate that concept into Variable Rules has 
added power to the Continuum's analytic value. 

Cluster Analysis: 

Cluster Analysis theory focuses on individual speech communication. 
Each individual exhibits patterns of language behavior that reflect that 
individual's varying degrees of group identity. ^^ When at the beach, we 
talk like other people that go to the beach; when at a formal dinner party, 
we talk differently than we do with the group at the beach - even though 
some of the individuals in the group may be the same people. And when 
we communicate in cemeteries, we adjust our speech to those in the 
group. 

In regard to the Taylor City Cemetery data, some, not all, of the 1902 
Czechs and Germans clustered their language behavior around groups of 
Czech and Germans, respectively. Their gravemarkers were written for 
members of their ethnic groups - not for outsiders. Other Czechs and 
Germans, however, clustered with Taylor citizens with Danish, Swedish, 
Irish, Polish, and English surnames - by writing their gravemarkers in 
English. 

The Variable Rules written above do not explicitly name the potential 
clusters: Danish, Swedish, Irish, Polish, and English. They could be fine- 
tuned to do so; but the rules would then be limited in scope. And since the 
ultimate objective of sociolinguistic theory - as in any theory for any dis- 
cipline - is to account for as much data as possible, such limitations do not 
seem warranted. Nonetheless, the insights of Cluster Analysis theory do 
become incorporate within the Variable Rules, just as did the insights of 
continuum theory. 

Network: 

Network theory affirms Cluster Theory's emphasis upon the effect of 
group affiliation upon individual language behavior.^^ The difference, 
however, lies in the attempt of Network theory to ascertain which groups 
exert the most influence on an individual's behavior. Which group 
attracts an individual the most - the beach group, the formal dinner 
group, or the cemetery group? 

Again the Variable Rules incorporate this information. One cannot 



Scott Baird 133 



accept any German language data after 1928, nor any Czech language 
data after 1960. The English language group clearly holds the most influ- 
ence on Taylor City Cemetery language behavior - at least in this one sub- 
section. 

Linguistic Generalizations 

Sociolinguist Suzanne Romaine argues that "A viable social theory of 
language must present a coherent account of how particular uses, func- 
tions, and kinds of language develop within particular speech communi- 
ties. This will require the testing of methodology on new and different 
kinds of data."^° 

The Taylor City Cemetery data certainly fits the description of being 
new and being different. While limited in scope, the data do allow for the 
testing of various sociolinguistic theories. And these various sociolinguis- 
tic theories - especially the Variable Rule Theory - certainly do "present a 
coherent account of how particular uses, functions, and kinds of language 
develop within" the particular speech community, as we have defined it 
within this one subsection of Taylor City Cemetery. The various theories 
have shown, in fact, that the limited language data accounts for a complex 
system of sociolinguistic communication. 

The insights into language use within cemeteries, however, do not 
stop at the border of this one subsection. Readers of this article, for exam- 
ple, have already heard and understood William Seymore's friends com- 
plain of his 1911 murder (Fig. 1). That communication originated outside 
the subsection being studied, but still within the larger Taylor City 
Cemetery speech community. 

Extending our data pool from 103 markers in the study subsection to 
the full 10,000 markers in Taylor City Cemetery, in fact, offers little chal- 
lenge to the Variable Rules we have already developed. 

We do, however, need to extend the Other Language (OL) time limita- 
tions in Rule 8. Jozef Mikus (Fig. 13), who died in 1893, can thus be includ- 
ed among the Czech language markers. Jozef 's marker, patched and worn 
and standing near John Miller's 1878 marker (Fig. 3), still communicates 
to us from the old, northwest section of City Cemetery. 

The subsection with our 103 markers still contains the oldest and most 
recent of the German markers discovered so far. But if German language 
markers exist outside the parameters of the 1902-1928 time span. Variable 
Rule 8 can be adjusted easily. 



134 



Taylor City Cemetery 




f^tibiMUiM^ 



Fig. 13. Jozef H. Mikus, 1893. Czech language. 



Scott Baird 



135 




Fig. 14. Jose M. Salinas, 1916. Spanish language. 



136 



Taylor City Cemetery 



Rule 8 also needs one major addition. As mentioned earlier, large 
numbers of Spanish language markers also exist and must be included in 
any meaningful discussion of the Taylor City Cemetery speech communi- 
ty. Jose Salinas's monolingual Spanish marker (Fig. 14) has participated in 
City Cemetery discourse since 1916, and Daniel Robles's bilingual 
Spanish /English marker (Fig. 15) started communicating as recently as 
1993. 

The Spanish language participation, moreover, deserves special atten- 
tion. While the Spanish speaking citizens of Taylor itself did not constitute 
a large cluster until after the Mexican Revolution of 1910, the cluster con- 
tinues to flourish and grow - unlike the German and Czech. From the 
viewpoint of Network theory, the importance of this language group may 
even increase in importance in the future. 

Our Variable Rules, then, can account for the language diversity, 
usage, and growth in the entire Taylor City Cemetery - with changes 
made in only one rule. That changed rule. Rule 8, now should read: 




Fig. 15. Daniel S. Robles, 1993. Spanish/English bilingual. 



Scott Baird 



137 



Rule 8: OL => G' 

,0 

'^only between 1902 and 1928, inclusive 
**only between 1898 and I960, inclusive 
***only since 1916 

These rules, of course, should apply to other cemeteries as well. The 
languages, in fact, have little relevance to the communication process in 
any cemetery. I can, for example, envision the rules accounting for the 
same communication among the citizens of Bridgetown, Barbados, West 
Indies, and the markers in the Jewish cemetery there - which utilizes 
Hebrew, Portuguese, and English.^^ 

Conclusion 

The discussion of language communication within the Taylor City 



Z AK 



^'^cMmmM^yisM^m^ 



FATHER 

JIRf 

BORK 

>UG. 6. J652 

1 DIED 

Ji/Y 24. 1.937 



]M f! ~ K f 
NAR. 2-'. 




Fig. 16. Jiri and Rozalie Zak, 1937, 1951. Czech/English bilingual. 



138 Taylor City Cemetery 



Cemetery should not end without one caveat. The real significance of 
gravemarker language lies in its unique social creation. Most markers 
result from the efforts of small groups of people. Unlike death records that 
result from the writing of one trained and educated individual, grave- 
marker language involves input from family and friends of the deceased, 
from the monument merchants, and from the engravers. Gravemarkers 
evolve from a group, in almost all cases. 

The predictability of the sequencing of information, therefore, rests 
upon a pattern - a pattern with many exceptions. As a reminder of those 
exceptions, observe Figure 16. The Zak family originally erected this mon- 
ument in the Taylor City Cemetery in memory of Jiri Zak, who died in 
1937. All of the information on the marker is written in English - except 
Jiri, Rozalie, and Zak. Only the names are written in Czech - the exact 
reversal of the predicted pattern. 

If nothing else, such cemetery data validate once again the venerable 
cliche: the exceptions prove the rule. 

NOTES 

1 . A rough estimate made by curator Ben Zak, while perusing the cemetery directory with 
Scott Baird in July, 1994. In 1984, Mr. Zak more deliberately counted about 17,000 
entries. 

2. According to R.L. Murray, who has worked at City Cemetery for twenty-seven years, 
records indicate that the first burial spot is located either in lot 2 or 4 and remains 
unmarked today. The directory perused by Mr. Zak had one entry that was marked 
1860 - again in an unmarked location. While Taylor, then known as Taylorsville, did not 
incorporate until 1876, the Republic of Texas did establish Fort Block House at the loca- 
tion in 1836. Europeans had lived in the area, moreover, since Spain established the 
nearby San Gabriel Missions in 1746. 

3. Progress '94, supplement to the Taylor Daily Press (25 February 1994), 2 ["Taylor, Texas" 
insert by Taylor Chamber of Commerce]. 

4. Linguists, as disciplined and trained scholars, all study vernacular language usage. We 
disagree, however, on what constitutes the best language data: do we rely upon the 
universal language intuitions all humans possess as a result of their naturally acquired 
language abilities (internal linguistics)? - or do we rely upon external language data 
acquired through meticulous field methods (external linguistics)? More by default than 
reason, all linguists now consider the difference crucial enough that we tend to use the 
terms theoretical linguistics to refer to internal language research and sociolinguistics to 
refer to external language research. Since the data in this essay are clearly external data, 
I use the terms sociolinguistics and sociolinguists when referring to the scope of the 
Taylor City Cemetery research. For a more thorough explanation, see Richard Hudson, 



Scott Baird 139 



Sociolingnistics (Cambridge, England, 1980), 3-5. For an even more detailed discussion, 
see Noam Chomsky, Knowledge of Language: Its Structure, Origin, and Use (New York, 
1986). 

5. For a discussion of this lack of research, see Scott Baird, "Language Codes in Texas 
German Graveyards," Markers IX (1992): 217-255. Since that publication, Eva Eckert has 
conducted two in-depth studies: "Language Change: Testimony of Czech Tombstone 
Inscriptions in Praha, Texas," in Varieties of Czech, ed. Eva Eckert (Atlanta, 1993), 79-121; 
and "The Language of Tombstone Inscriptions: The Issue of Authorship," Studies in 
Slavic Sociolinguistics, special issue of Slavic and East European Journal (in press). 

6. Hudson, 25-30. 

7. Ibid., 29. 

8. Scott Baird, "Tombstone Talk: Names as Evidence for South Texas Diglossia," paper 
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Name Society, Washington, D.C., 
December, 1989. 

9. R.L. Murray (see note 2) estimates that 30 percent of the 20,000 burials in the City 
Cemetery have no markers. In addition, many of the markers memorialize more than 
one person. 

10. Taylor Texas City Map, a publication of the Taylor Chamber of Commerce, 1993. Perhaps 
the best known way Taylor shows its pride in its ethnic diversity occurs every October, 
when the city holds its annual International Barbecue Cookoff. 

11. For illustration purposes one can safely assume that both Spanish and English exist 
throughout most of Texas. Glenn Gilbert discusses the German language distribution 
in "The German Language in Texas: Some Needed Research," in German Culture in 
Texas, ed. Glen E. Lich and Dona B. Reeves (Boston, 1980), 230-31. Clinton Machann and 
James W. Mendl, Jr., eds., discuss the Czech language distribution in their Czech Voices 
(College Station, TX, 1991), xix. 

12. For discussions of the German language codes in Texas cemeteries, see Baird, 
"Language Codes" and "Tombstone Talk"; Scott Baird and Analise Duncan, 
"Tombstone Talk: Variation in a German Dialect," in Proceedings of the Fifth International 
Conference on Methods in Dialectology, ed. W. Werkentyn (Vancouver, Canada, 1984), 93- 
106; and Terry G. Jordan, Texas Graveyards: A Cultural Legacy (Austin, 1983), 89-122. For 
discussions of the Czech language codes in Texas cemeteries, see Eckert, "Language 
Change" and "Language of Tombstone Inscriptions"; and Timothy G. Anderson, 
"Czech-Cathohc Cemeteries in East-Central Texas: Material Culture and Ethnicity in 
Seven Rural Communities," Material Culture 25:3 (1993): 1-18. 

13. Terry G. Jordan, with John L. Bean, Jr., and Willam M. Holmes, Texas: A Geography 
(Boulder, CO, 1984), 91. See also Chapter 5, "Linguistic Geography" 95-113: this chap- 
ter concludes with a solid bibliography on Texas-specific research in linguistic geogra- 
phy. For more information on the vast world-wide scholarship in linguistic geography, 
see Craig M. Carver, American Regional Dialects: A Word Geography (Ann Arbor, MI, 



140 Taylor City Cemetery 



1989); Lawrence Davis, English Dialectology: An Introduction (University, AL, 1983); 
Hans Kurath, Studies in Area Linguistics (Bloomington, IN, 1974); James B. McMillan, 
Annotated Bibliography of Southern American English (Coral Gables, FL, 1971); and Hans 
Kurath, Handbook of the Linguistic Geography of 'New England (Providence, RI, 1939). 

14. For a discussion of these various fields of study within linguistics, see Baird, 
"Language Codes." 

15. Since the amount of language data available for research is, literally, infinite, sociolin- 
guists do not use random selection for their data. We use instead what we call judg- 
mental (sometimes stratified, sometimes quota) selection. For a general introduction to 
this type of sampling, see Davis, 69-84; Hudson, 138-190; or Ronald Wardhaugh, An 
Introduction to Sociolinguistics (New York, 1986), 145-154. For a more detailed discus- 
sion, especially as it relates to gravemarker research, see Baird, "Language Codes," 252- 
53 (note 22). 

16. To illustrate the complexities of using multilingual cemetery data as a means by which 
to indicate the complexities of multilingual language communities of all kinds, I have 
elected not to translate the German, Czech, and (later) Spanish data into English. 
Participants in multilingual language communities vary in their abilities to participate. 
Scholars interested in translations of these data, however, are encouraged to contact the 
author of this article. 

17. Wilhelmine Haverland, the woman memorialized by this marker, was married to a 
man named Fritz Haverland. A different Wilhelmine Haverland - memorialized in one 
of the original 1902 markers (see Fig. 8) - was the daughter of a Fritz Haverland. If Fritz 
Haverland is the same person mentioned on both markers, then his daughter 
Wilhelmine was born in 1865 - eleven years before his wife. 

18. For the latest summary of that research, plus an update with Texas German grave- 
marker data, see Baird, "Language Codes." Note also the additional affirmation in the 
research by Eckert, "Language Change" and "Language of Tombstone Inscriptions." 

19. Scott Baird, "From Territory to Tombstone: Language, Culture, and Rites of Passage," 
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Cemeteries and Gravemarkers Section of 
the American Culture Associating, Toronto, Canada, March 7-10, 1990. 

20. See Baird, "Language Codes," for a discussion of the aberration involving these three 
types of information - why they may or may not appear at all. 

21. Scholars invite trouble in any academic discipline, of course, when they limit them- 
selves to a given number of theories. The seven I discuss here have established reputa- 
tions with many current publications and applications. As this article will clarify, 
though, sociolinguists still have no theory that will handle all the language phenome- 
na we wish to understand. Thus we continue to experiment with new theories. See 
Suzanne Romaine, ed., Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities (London, 1982) for 
a collection of innovative studies. See also various issues of International journal of the 
Sociology of Language and Language in Society - two journals that contain current exper- 
imentation. 



Scott Baird 141 



22. For detailed discussion of this theory see P. Kayo, "Variable Rules, Community 
Grammar and Linguistic Change," in Lijigiiistic Variation: Models and Methods., ed. D. 
Sankoff, (New York, 1978), 71-82; William Labov, The Social Stratification of English in 
New York City (Washington, D.C., 1966); William Labov, Sociolinguistic Patterns 
(Philadelphia, 1972); Suzanne Romaine,"The Status of Variable Rules in Sociolinguistic 
Theory," Journal of Linguistics 17 (1980): 93-121; and Roger Shuy and Ralph Fasold, 
Studies in Language Variation (Washington, D.C., 1977). 

23. For a general discussion of these various theories see Hudson, Sociolingidstics; 
Romaine, ed., Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities; Peter Trudgill, 
Sociolingidstics (Harmondsworth, England, 1974); and Wardhaugh, An Introduction to 
Sociolingidstics. 

24. The scholar who formulated the theory initially was August Schleicher, Laut- und 
Formenlehre der Polabischen Sprache (St. Petersburg, Russia, 1871). American structural 
linguist Leonard Bloomfield discusses the theory in his Language (Chicago, 1933), 311- 
18. For application of the Family Tree and Wave models to the Indo-European lan- 
guages, see H. Pedersen, Linguistic Science in the Nineteenth Century, trans. John Spargo 
(Cambridge, MA, 1931). 

25. Pater Schmidt, Die Sprachfamilien und Sprachenkreise der Erde (Heidelberg, Germany, 
1926). 

26. David DeCamp, "Social and Geographical Factors in Jamaican Dialects," in Creole 
Language Studies U, ed. R.B. Le Page (London, 1961), 61-84. DeCamp later clarified his 
arguments with mathematical modelling, in his "Implicational Scales and 
Sociolinguistic Linearity," Linguistics 71 (1971): 30-43. 

27. See, for example D. Bickerton, Dynamics of a Creole System (Cambridge, MA, 1975); Dell 
Hymes, ed., Pidginization and Creolization of Languages (London, 1971); and A. Valdman 
and A.R. Highfield, eds.. Theoretical Orientations in Creole Studies (New York, 1980). 

28. See B.S. Everitt, Cluster analysis (London, 1974). For explicit adaptations to language 
research see Damian McEntegart and R.B. LePage, "An Appraisal of the Statistical 
Techniques Used in the Sociolinguistic Survey of Multilingual Communities," in 
Romaine, ed., Sociolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities, 28-39. 

29. For general accounts of Network theory, see J. Boissevain, Friends of Friends: Networks, 
Manipulators and Coalitions (Oxford, England, 1974); E. Bott, Family and Social Network, 
rev ed. (London, 1978); and PH. Gulliver, Neighbours and Networks (Berkeley, CA, 1971). 
For adaptations of Network theory to socioHnguistic theory, see Leshe Milroy, 
Language and Social Networks (Oxford, England, 1980). 

30. Romaine, ed., Scoiolinguistic Variation in Speech Communities, 4. 

31. cf. Robert W. Keeler, "The Jewish Cemetery in Bridgetown, Barbados, W.I." paper pre- 
sented at the twenty-fifth annual Society for Historical Archaeology Conference on 
Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Kingston, Jamaica, W.I., January, 1992. 



142 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




•?-^ -1:1 X^ I -^ ^'O-clh^- . c ' ^-^ 









Fig. 1. Daniel Tracy, 1753, Norwichtown Burying Ground. 



143 



JOHN HUNTINGTON, GRAVESTONE CARVER 
OF LEBANON. CONNECTICUT 

Ann F. Shepardson 

Editor's Note 

In the article which follows, Figures 1-17 are found within the text of the arti- 
cle itself. Figure 18 (border designs) appears as Appendix 1; Figure 19 (wing 
chart) as Appendix 2; and Figures 20-78 (various line drawings) as Appendix 3. 
Only photographed stones (i.e., Figs. 1-17) list burying ground in caption. All 
stories illustrated are by John Huntington unless otherwise noted. 

Introduction 

It is now a quarter of a century since Ludwig^ suggested that a dis- 
tinctive gravestone carving tradition developed in interior eastern 
Connecticut, introduced from sources in Essex County, Massachusetts. 
Caulfield^ correctly attributed the origin of this tradition to a carver 
named John Hartshorne. Hartshorne moved to Franklin, Connecticut in 
about 1 722, bringing with him the carving style that he had earlier devel- 
oped in Essex County. Slater and Tucker-^ documented Hartshorne stones 
in detail. The style was continued and refined by Obadiah Wheeler of 
Lebanon'* and by Benjamin Collins of Columbia^, and carried into the 
early years of the 19th century by Josiah Manning and his sons^. 

The work of one important figure in this tradition has remained essen- 
tially unknown. Slater^ notes that the Caulfield manuscripts give his iden- 
tity, discuss him briefly, and indicate the distribution of his stones. This 
craftsman was John Huntington of Lebanon Connecticut, an eclectic and 
sometimes innovative carver. It is therefore of interest not only to docu- 
ment his work but also to try to understand why he has been largely 
neglected by gravestone students. Perhaps one reason is that some of his 
early stones bear a resemblance to those carved in the Collins shop and 
may be confused with them. Secondly, the majority of his stones are in the 
town of Lebanon, and a great many of those in the Trumbull Burying 
Ground. Most of the stones in this graveyard are north facing and are usu- 
ally heavily coated with dark lichen. This, combined with his shallow 
engraving, often serves to obscure his sometimes elaborate work. 

The stones of John Huntington begin to appear a few years after 1749, 
the last date on a stone by Wheeler. Huntington became the most prolific 



144 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



carver of stones for the burying grounds of Lebanon, until his death in 
1777. He may have started carving as early as 1753, when it perhaps 
became evident that there was a market for more stones than the well 
established Collins workshop could provide. 

Despite the difficulty of observing Huntington's work, careful study 
reveals that he was a carver of considerable ability. In the following study 
I have attempted to outline the evolution of his lettering and the visual 
motifs he employed. 

As Slater^, among others, has pointed out, the only substantive way to 
accurately attribute stones and understand style evolution where there is 
no written record is to document the evidence of the stones themselves. In 
this regard, a great deal of evidence is inherent not only in the winged 
heads and borders but in the lettering. This is not a matter of the infor- 
mation given in the inscription (name, dates, etc.), but concerns the char- 
acter of the letters themselves, the way they are formed. Are they linear- 
like letters drawn with a thin pen line, or do they have thicks and thins 
like letters made by a pen with a flat nib? Are they wide or narrow, 
straight or italic? How do they relate to each other? 

Lettering is concerned with spatial relationships, that is, the space 
enclosed by a letter, or the space between letters, words, and lines. 
Lettering is concerned with dark and light, thick and thin, and, of course, 
the shape of the letters themselves. They may be tall and spidery or thick 
and ponderous. Some lettering gives a sense of movement and fluidity. 
Thick block letters with heavy endings appear stolid and sedate. The pos- 
sibilities for variations are infinite. 

In the text which follows two terms are used which may need defini- 
tion: 

COHESIVE: Well designed lettering is cohesive, that is, what- 
ever the style, the letters and the spaces around them relate to each 
other and form a coherent whole; 

COMPRESSED: Compressed lettering occurs when letters of 
normal height are narrowed and squeezed into a limited space in 
preference to using smaller, rounder letters. 

The Life of John Huntington 

John Huntington was born in Lebanon, Connecticut, in 1705/6 and 
died there in 1777. He came of a numerous and illustrious family which 



Ann F. Shepardson 145 



was prominent in the establishment of Norwich and Lebanon. His father, 
Samuel, was born in Norwich in 1665 and married Mary Clark in 1686. 
John was the seventh of their eight children. In about 1727 he married his 
sister-in-law, Mehetabel Metcalf. The couple had ten children, seven of 
whom lived to adulthood.^ The Caulfield papers note that two died "in 
December 1736, at the time a diptheria epidemic was raging in 
Connecticut." The Caulfield manuscript papers also note a number of 
other details, including the fact that at that time (i.e., late 1730s) John was 
classified as a 'yeoman'. He was frequently mentioned in Jonathan 
Trumbull's diary and account books between 1744 and 1775. Trumbull 
paid him for making cellars, chimneys, hearths, stone walls, stepstones 
for the meeting house, and for performing a few odd jobs such as reaping 
barley. William Williams of Lebanon paid Huntington for making hearths 
between 1756 and 1764. He also was paid for making gravestones for 
Trumbull's parents - Joseph, who died in 1755, and Hannah, who died in 
1768. In the Trumbull correspondence at the Connecticut Historical 
Society there is a letter from John Williams, dated at Sharon, 1763, asking 
Trumbull to advance some money to Huntington for making gravestones, 
presumably for some member of the Williams family in Lebanon. The 
estate of William Buell of Lebanon also "Paid to John Huntington for 
grave stones 3-0-0- in 1763."^° The ledger of Jonathan Trumbull, Junior 
includes the following entry under John Huntington: "1769 May By I p 
small Grave Stones for my child 1.18.0."" This stone has not been found. 
John Huntington died February 20, 1777, in his 72nd year. His inven- 
tory, which amounted to only 25-15-4, included "3 stones for Grave Stones 
9/. 6 ditto flowrd [atl 27/." ^^ John and Mehetabel are buried next to each 
other in the Old Trumbull Burying Ground in Lebanon. For her stone, 
dated 1759, John carved a unique fernlike entablature, perhaps inspired 
by the Benjamin Collins stone for Mary Turner (1751) in Trumbull (see 
Figs. 20 & 21). John's own stone was probably carved by Josiah Manning. 

Lettering 

The gravestone carving of John Huntington was influenced by the 
work of Benjamin Collins (1691-1759), who lived in Lebanon North 
Parish, now Columbia, seven miles north of Lebanon. Huntington's 
stones did not make their appearance until the early 1750s, by which time 
stones by Collins had been in the burying grounds of eastern Connecticut 
for two decades. 



146 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



During the 1740s, changes become apparent in the style of CoUins's 
stones. The heads, which had been surrounded by aureoles of encircling 
wings reminiscent of Obadiah Wheeler's work (Figs. 22 & 23), begin to be 
supplanted by heads flanked by rounded wings and extended triangular 
wings (Fig. 19, A, B, C, & D). The star circles and geometric forms of 
Collins's early work (Figs. 23 & 31) change into graceful leafy borders 
(Figs. 25 & 26). At the same time, the lettering, which had been tall and 
linear, now has thicks and thins and is less attenuated. 

During the same period that these changes in Collins's stones were 
taking place, John Huntington's work was beginning to appear. The let- 
tering on early Huntington stones bears such a resemblance to that on 
some stones with borders and tympana by Collins that it seems possible 
that some of the inscriptions on Collins's stones were actually carved by 
John Huntington. Both men's carving is shallow, and most letters and 
numerals are formed in a similar fashion. However, some are invariably 
different. All of the stones by Huntington which are known to exist have 
been studied. There is never an occurrence of a uniquely Collins style let- 
ter or numeral on any stone by Huntington. Until a complete study of the 
lettering on stones with tympana and borders by Benjamin Collins has 
been made, it is impossible to say with certainty whether or not there is 
Huntington lettering on a Collins stone. Although so far none has been 
found, it seems reasonable to assume that Huntington did carve lettering 
and borders for the Collins workshop. 

Studying Huntington's early stones, it becomes evident that he was a 
more proficient carver of inscriptions and borders than he was of winged 
heads. The tympana of his earliest stones seem uncertain in design and 
execution, while on the same stones his lettering and borders are compe- 
tently, even expertly carved. Clearly no one had such a strong influence 
on Huntington's work as Benjamin Collins. Possibly, at some time, he was 
employed in the Collins shop where he may have prepared stones and 
worked on borders and lettering, though Benjamin (or perhaps 
Zerubbable) would have carved the more important winged heads. There 
is no indication that Huntington had any training from Obadiah Wheeler, 
his predecessor in Lebanon, though a few years after Wheeler stopped 
carving, around 1749, John seems to have started. 

Differences in the lettering are shown in Figure 2. The Collins exam- 
ples are from stones dated 1744-1749, while the Huntington examples are 
from stones dated 1748-1755. There are also differences in the style of the 



Ann F. Shepardson 147 



inscriptions. Collins's inscriptions frequently commence with "IN MEM- 
ORY" in capital letters: Huntington's do not. Huntington's inscriptions 
start each line with a capital letter, unless the word is continued from the 
line above: Collins's do not. 

When considering the early variations in stones by Huntington, it is 
especially important to remember that stones were not necessarily carved 



BENJAMIN COLLINS JOHN HUNTINGTON 

9 9 9 9 

1 2 1 

RRFL RR 

H H 

r r p r YT 




y y y 

Ld bd 

p P 

Fig. 2. Lettering Chart. 



148 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



in the order of the inscribed dates. Frequently, but not invariably, stones 
were carved a year or two after the death date and sometimes long after. 
Huntington's lettering developed throughout his career. His earliest 
lettering is carved with extreme care, like letters copied from an exercise 
book. The letters seem strung along, unrelated to each other, with large 
spaces between the words. The lower-case letters are formed to be about 
as wide as they are high whenever possible. The "o" is often nearly round. 
The letters are each allowed as much space as they would occupy if they 




^ ' 






ik2' 



l\ 



V'<. 







;•>. 



% 



X 






•:> /\ 



LV «'>' 



'-^' ."> 



i ,k^ bh.^ [) jiC^!^i> 





















"W] Rurlv hi. v/fPc «.;,•. /(<■'»" .' "IPj 

|i-l<i'//"\\ I..V .■,1-- -\r -^ Ji^A*^ i . ' ^ ^^ 



T^i?<r,...<« 



Fig. 3. Martha Waterman, 1755, Norwichtown Burying Ground. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



149 



had been drawn on a grid. Each, except "i" and "1," gets a whole square. 
This early lettering style may be seen on the Daniel Tracy stone (Fig. 1). 
The Martha Waterman stone (Fig. 3), which probably was carved two or 
three years after the Tracy stone (i.e., in 1757/8), features lettering which 
is more cohesive. Though the letters are still full, and the lower case is half 
the height of the capitals, the spaces between letters and between words 
is reduced. The lines are closer together and kept as even as possible. The 
descenders have been minimalized to such an extent that the tail of the 
"y" hardly decends below the line at all and the loop of the "g" is flat- 
tened. By comparison, note the dangling and varied ways in which the 
tail of the "y" is carved on the Tracy stone. 

The Margret Whitney stone (Fig. 4) displays both full and compressed 
lettering. The first three lines are much like the Martha Waterman stone, 
but the spelling mistake in "relict" causes trouble; "e" takes more space 







■J 





Hoc I '/of I 






Fig. 4. Margret Whitney, 1757, Goshen Hill Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



150 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



than "i", thus the "\" has been moved to the right. The fourth hne is very 
compressed, almost squashed. He had meant to put "Of," in small letters, 
on the line above and start line four with "M^". It is interesting to note the 
importance to John of keeping the first letter of each line capitalized, even 
under these awkward circumstances. The next two lines are back to nor- 
mal, each letter and numeral well carved and spaced. 

Henceforth, Huntington's lettering develops into a cohesive, slightly 
compressed style. It may be seen on such stones as that for Daniel Burley 
(Fig. 5). The lettering is slightly compressed and cohesive. The lower-case 
letters are higher in relation to the capitals, and the parallel verticals are 
emphasized. It is carefully controlled and apparently is directly evolved 
from the style seen on the Martha Waterman and Margret Whitney stones. 
Occasionally, however, it appears somewhat uneven and probably hur- 
ried, as on the 1759 Nathaniel Fitch stone (Fig. 6). Huntington's lettering 
reaches its zenith in stones such as that for Naomi Hide (Fig. 7). The 
lower-case letters are even, compressed, and very tall in proportion to the 




Fig. 5. Daniel Burley, 1759, Birchard Plain Burying Ground, Franklin. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



151 



NV 



> ^-: 






















Wm 



Fig. 6. Nathaniel Fitch, 1759, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon 







152 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 







0. 



v^i- 



m 



Fig. 7. Naomi Hide, 1768, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



Ann F. Shepardson 153 



capitals. Care is taken to keep the verticals parallel. The ascenders and 
descenders extend only a short distance above and below the body of the 
line, an expedient which allows the space between the lines to be reduced 
and produces an even density to the inscription. Within this development, 
John's lettering remains distinguishable, especially the lower-case "r" and 

The effectiveness of Huntington's lettering is often diminished by an 
unfortunate choice of stone; quite often it is convex, giving the appear- 
ance of being warped (the Samuel Gay stone, 1753, in Exeter, is an extreme 
example of this). Frequently the stone is not perfectly flat and the inscrip- 
tion is on an uneven surface, the lettering following the dips and varia- 
tions of the stone. Also, one may be deceived by the cover of lichen, which 
may cause good lettering to appear irregular, and, of course, erosion has 
taken its toll as well. Since the lettering is shallow, it is more vulnerable to 
these maladies than deeply incised lettering would be. 

Noses 

During the course of his career, Huntington's noses develop from 
straight, bell, and pug to elephantine. Figure 8 indicates the dates when 
each style is prevalent. Style A may derive from the long, straight noses of 
Wheeler's stones. Styles B, C, and D are reminiscent of CoUins's styles. 
The rest of the noses resemble light bulbs of ever-increasing wattages. 

Shapes of Stones 

About a third of Huntington's stones bearing dates before 1759 have 
either a curved or pointed tympanum which surmounts a stone without 
shoulders. These shapes probably derive from the stones of Obadiah 
Wheeler (Fig. 24) and Benjamin Collins (Figs. 25 & 26). Contemporary 
with them are a few stones with shoulders so narrow that they might 
almost be called shoulderless. The stones for Abel Stark (Fig. 40) and 
Bethiah Thomas (Fig. 41) are two examples. Wheeler stones such as that 
for Ane Edgerton (Fig. 22) are similar and possibly the model. The shoul- 
ders on Huntington stones are always square. 

Winged Heads 

The wings on Huntington's earliest stones are often enormous and 
ungainly (Fig. 19, F; and Figs. 30, 32, & 33). They are usually high-arched 
and vary in width, but always have many striations denoting feathers. 



154 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



These early, experimental wings will be referred to as HIGH ARCHED. 
Stones with these experimental wings have early-type lettering, early- 
type noses (Fig. 8, B & C), and small, round eyes, with the exception of 
three stones with closed eyes and straight noses (Fig 8, A)." At the neck 
there is some sort of tie or triple loop (Fig. 19, E-J); two have a heart, evi- 
dently a Collins and /or Wheeler influence (Figs. 23 & 24). These hearts 
are present on the stones for Mary Brewster (Fig. 9) and Samuel Throope 
(Fig. 10), both in Trumbull. The neck ruffs, which are common after the 
late 1750s, never occur on these early stones. The mouth on Huntington 
stones is always bow-shaped, except on a few of the earliest stones, on 
which a downturned mouth is represented by the simple semicircle seen 
on stones by Benjamin Collins (Figs. 23 & 10) and many stones by 
Obiadiah Wheeler (Fig. 19, M & N). This downturned mouth is clearly 



^T^ ^^ ^^p ^ 



1753 1753- 1753- 1753- 
1754 1756 1756 

F G H 






1753- 1755- 1756- 1760- 1773 
1757 1757 1760 1773 
Fig. 8. Nose Chart. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



155 



visible on the stones for Mary Brewster (Fig. 9) and Ireney Wattles (Figs. 
11 & 43). As on many Collins and Wheeler stones, the head is surrounded 
by a narrow double band. A frequent, but not inevitable, characteristic is 
the use of high cap ruffles, with a higher point in the center (Fig. 19, F). 
There are fourteen stones with HIGH ARCHED wings: 










I 




/ \^ '■S'M/^ .■>^>\' , "'ip-'^^ 



5."" \ * C 







i'^^^-.5\W 






r'^^'? 



Fig. 9. Mary Brewster, 1746, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



156 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



In Trumbull: Mary Brewster (1746) (Fig. 9) 

William Clark (1753) (Fig. 32) 
Mary Danielson (1748) 
James Danielson (1752) 
Nathaniel Fitch (1751) (Fig. 47) 
Simon Huntington (1753) (Fig. 30) 
Nathaniel Little (1753) 
Jonathan Lyman (1753) (Fig. 33) 
Benjamin Pain (1755) 
Lydia Lyman (1756)^4 

In Norwichtown: Daniel Tracy (1753) (Figs. 1 & 39) 

In Goshen Hill: John Fowler (1754) 

James Mackall (1755) 

Ireney Wattles (1754) (Figs. 11 & 43) 

The Wattles stone, with its droopy wings and uniquely shaped pedi- 
ment, is one of Huntington's more peculiar experiments. However, in all 
other characteristics it is one of the HIGH ARCHED group. The head is 
nearly identical to those of the Daniel Tracy and Mary Brewster stones 
(compare Figs. 1, 9, & 11). 

Perhaps the HIGH ARCHED wings are a development of designs by 
Benjamin Collins (see Fig. 29), but the high, many-striated wings on the 
slate stones carved by the Rhode Island Stevens shop for William Throop 
and his wife (Figs. 27 & 28), in Trumbull, seem closer in character to 
Huntington's early wings and are probably the actual models. High, 
rounded wings by Obadiah Wheeler, such as those on the stone for 
Ephraim Terry (date unclear) and James Fitch (1702), may also have had 
an influence (see Fig. 19, M & N) 

The 1753 stone for Samuel Throope (Fig. 10) is of special interest. It 
shares all the characteristics of the HIGH ARCHED group, but has 
straight wings which fit tightly within what is perhaps the first pointed 
pediment used by Huntington. This stone is probably the forerunner of 
the beautifully crafted and imposing Jonathan Bugbe stone (Fig. 12), 
which also features a pointed pediment and straight wings. The Bugbe 
stone may, in turn, be a precursor to the many Huntington stones with 
straight wings which soon follow (see Fig. 19, J & K; and Figs. 54, 63, & 
64). 



Ann F. Shepardson 



157 



About 1755, a new, more consistent, though sometimes asymmetric, 
wing type appears (see Fig. 19, H & J). The wings become short, with only 
three to five striations. They may be rounded or straight. This wing type 
is used repeatedly, especially on small stones for children, where it 
becomes almost standard (Figs. 34, 35, 60, & 61). It appears to have been 
adapted from Benjamin Collins's stones of the 1740s and early 1750s (Fig. 
19, A & B). Sometimes this short wing is made larger and more imposing, 
with additional striations, on stones for adults (Fig. 51). By about 1755, 




'■-i^;-'- 




'i -'.'I. i, j. 



■ ' ' ^ ■■^T/■^. 
Fig. 10. Samuel Throope, 1753, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 




158 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



Straight wings predominate and soon after are used exclusively. They 
become more and more strictly ruled and stiff as time passes. ^^ 

Arched Scroll 

On seven stones an ARCHED SCROLL, formed by a double line 
which terminates in a star circle at each end, surmounts the winged head 
(Figs. 30, 32, & 33). Huntington may have appropriated the idea from 
stones by Benjamin Collins, such as those for John Hasten (1745, 
Windham) (Fig. 23) and Hanna Huntington (1746, Norwichtown) (Fig. 
31), or from such stones as that for Hanna Sluman (1736, Trumbull) (Fig. 
24) by Obadiah Wheeler. Five of the ARCHED SCROLLS are on tympana 
with HIGH ARCHED wings. All are in Trumbull. They are for: 

Wilham Clark (1753) (Fig. 32) 
Jonathan Lyman (1753) (Fig. 33) 
Simon Huntington (1753) (Fig 30) 











O 



I 









Fig, 



// i\ \ / * ^ 

11. Ireney Wattles, 1754, Goshen Hill Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



Ann F. Shepardson 159 



James Danielson (1752) 
Benjamin Pain (1755) 

Two ARCHED SCROLLS appear on stones without HIGH ARCHED 
wings. They are for: 

Samuel Gay (1753, Exeter) 

Simon, son of Simon Huntington (1753, Trumbull) 

The stone for Simon is the only Huntington marker in which the contour 
of the stone follows the shape of the scroll, a design characteristic com- 
mon on Wheeler stones.^^ 

Borders 

Although Huntington used several types of wings, the most signifiac- 
nt aspect of his stones is the borders. They run the gamut from simple to 
elaborate and from crude to refined. The border styles can be separated 
into eight basic types. Although the styles change over time, there is con- 
siderable overlap in the chronology. A delineation of border patterns may 
be seen on the graph of border designs enumerated according to inscribed 
dates, which is designated as Fig. 18 (Appendix 1): 

Type I: Continuous Fern 13 stones, 1748-1755; Fig. 341 

Type II: Simple Spiral 113 stones, 1746-1756; Figs. 35, 36, 38, 39, 41] 

Type III: Thin Vine [1727-1763] 

Group A: Thin Vine with Fleur-de-lis 

Subgroup 1: Lily [14 stones, 1727-1763; Figs. 43, 49] 
Subgroup 2: Long Lily [4 stones, 1754-1755; Fig. 52] 
Subgroup 3: Tulip [4 stones, 1751-1756; Fig. 47] 
Group B: Tliin Vine with Rowers and /or Leaves [3 stones, 1753; Figs. 

30, 32, 33] 
Group C: Thin Vine with Fronds [8 stones. Figs. 48, 51] 
Group D: Thin Vine with Fan-Lilce Fronds [5 stones, 1755-1758; Fig. 

42] 
Group E: Thin Vine with Volute [22 stones, 1 746-1 761 ; Figs. 54, 40, 55] 
Type IV: Star Circles [1 stone, 1754] 
Type V: Fancy Spiral 

Group A: Teardrop Spirals (with curl) [3 stones, 1754-1755; Figs. 42, 
44] 



160 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



Group B: Lobed Spirals (without curl) [36 stones, \1^\-V71\; Figs. 64, 
65, 66] 

Group C: Thin Spirals (with curl) [14 stones, 1755-1771; Figs. 67, 68] 
Type VI: Hook-Shaped Spirals [3 stones, 1770-1773; Fig. 69] 
Type VII: Scallop [32 stones, 1744-1775; Fig. 74] 
Type VIII: Wide Vines With Fronds [13 stones, 1759-1774; Fig. 78] 

Type I: Continuous Fern 

Among the early stones by Huntington, there are three with continu- 
ous fluted borders which resemble the frond of a fern. They are inscribed 
to Daniel Tracy (1748, Gager Burying Ground, Franklin), Caleb Abel 
(1750, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 34), and Dorothy Morss 
(1755, West Burying Ground, Woodstock). The wings are rounded and 
often asymmetric and are similar to many symmetric pairs carved by 
Collins in the late 1740s (Fig. 19, A & B). It is tempting to think that these 
small stones bearing such early dates and simple borders are John's first, 
but this may not be the case. Their lettering is consistent with that on 
stones dated around 1755/6, rather than the full, wide-spaced lettering 
found on the earliest stones. The size and shape of the stones is common, 
as is the style of their winged heads with "standard" type wings and pug 
noses. 

Type II: Simple Spiral 

These borders, dated 1746 to 1757, are formed of a single, simple spi- 
ral which frames the inscription. There is no attempt at symmetry (Figs. 
35, 36, 38 & 39). The stones for Ann Brown (1754) in Norwichtown and the 
similar stone for Ozias Mackall (1750) in Goshen Hill differ from the 
CONTINUOUS FERN stones only in their borders. They are probably 
part of a group which was carved when a modest stone was required, 
often for a child. 

The shoulderless stone for Daniel Tracy (Figs. 1 & 39) was carved two 
or three years before the Brown and Mackall stones. It has all the attrib- 
utes of a very early stone - HIGH ARCHED wings, an attenuated bell- 
shaped nose, high cap ruffles, and a necktie, as well as the early lettering 
which has been discussed previously. 

The slightly droopy wings of the Submit Seabury stone (1751, 
Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 36) are reminiscent of the 



Ann F. Shepardson 161 



experimental wings on the stone for Ireney Wattles (Figs. 11 & 43): how- 
ever the lettering, though full, is cohesive. It was probably carved no ear- 
lier than 1756. The head is large, with bell nose and necktie. 

Type III: Thin Vine 

Characteristic of this type is an undulating thin vine from which grow 
various organic forms. It represents not only the strong influence of 
Benjamin Collins, but the basic form upon which John developed his most 
elaborate designs. They fall into five groups: thin vine with fleur-de-lis; 
thin vine with flowers and /or leaves; thin vine with fronds; thin vine with 
fan-like fronds; and thin vine with volutes. 

Group A: Thin Vine with Fleur-de-lis 

There are three main styles, or sub-groups, of FLEUR-DE-LIS borders: 
they will be referred to as LILY, LONG LILY, and TULIP. The LILY pattern 
may be seen on the Ireney Wattles stone (Figs. 11 & 43) and the Roswil 
Croker stone (1755, Oak Street Burying Ground, Norwich) (Fig. 49). A few 
stones have a long, wiry LILY pattern, such as may be seen on the Oliver 
Hide stone (1754, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 52). It will be 
referred to as LONG LILY. Three stones have a more tulip-like shape. This 
design may be seen on the Nathaniel Fitch stone (1751, Trumbull Burying 
Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 47). It will be referred to as TULIP. 

The dates on stones with FLEUR-DE-LIS borders range from 1727 to 
1756, plus one stone with a double LILY border dated 1763. This stone, in 
Norwichtown, is inscribed to Phebe Edgerton, and is in every respect con- 
sistent with its 1763 date. The mature lettering, the rounded "light bulb" 
nose, and ruled wings are all typical of the mid 1760s and set it apart from 
the other stones with FLEUR-DE-LIS borders. 

The stone dated 1727 is for Deborah Manning, in Palmer, Scotland. It 
was probably carved about thirty years after the inscribed date. The head, 
LILY border, and lettering are similar to the James Calkin stone (1756, 
Johnson Burying Ground, Bozrah), though the Manning stone has higher 
cap ruffles. Both are shouldered stones with round pediments. 

The LILY design apparently derives from such LILY borders as those 
on the Collins stones for Adonaijah Ackley (1751, Columbia) (Fig. 26) and 
Thomas Linch (1746, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 44). It 
appears more frequently than any other border pattern on Huntington's 



162 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



earliest stones and is often found on the stones with HIGH ARCHED and 
experimental wings (Figs. 9, 10, & 11). 

The LONG LILY design generally occurs on stones which are contem- 
porary or a few months later than the stones with LILY borders. It does 
not occur on stones with HIGH ARCHED wings. The LONG LILY may be 
seen on the Jonathan Bugbe stone (Fig. 12) and the Oliver Hide stone (Fig. 







. W 4 /yf-i/" 



Fig. 12. Jonathan Bugbe, 1754, Hill Burying Ground, Woodstock. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



163 



13). The Hide stone, like the Bugbe stone, continues to use full, early let- 
tering, but the head has a short nose and simple zig-zags for cap ruffles. 

The TULIP design appears on three stones with HIGH ARCHED 
wings and is probably contemporary with the LILY borders (Fig. 47). It 
appears to derive from a Collins design such as that on the Sarah 
Huntington stone (1747, Norwichtown) (Fig. 45). An apparent effort at 
carving a TULIP border occurs on the poorly crafted stone for Sarah 
Lyman (1756, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 50). 

The skillfully carved Abigail Able stone (1748, Trumbull Burying 
Ground, Lebanon) features a pointed pediment with straight wings. Its 
lettering is similar to that on the 1754 Oliver Hide stone (Fig. 13). It is 
clearly backdated, as can also be deduced from its TEARDROP SPIRAL 
entablature. The few borders using this sort of spiral are all dated in the 



I 




\ 






I 











Fig. 13. Oliver Hide, 1754, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon 






164 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



mid 1750s. The LILY border has "petals" which are sHghtly heavier than 
usual in order to match the TEARDROP design. 

Group B: Thin Vines with Flowers and/or Leaves 

This group of three carefully carved stones, dated 1753, represents 
some of John's earliest work and his enthusiasm for the start of a new 
career is palpable. The ambitious nature of these stones is evident in the 
use of the HIGH ARCHED wings, ARCHED SCROLLS, and the diversity 
of the borders, whose designs seem to have been derived from fabric or 
embroidery patterns. They are graceful and charming but were not sub- 
sequently developed or repeated. Though these flowery borders are like 
no other carver's work, John was, during the same period, carving the 
FLEUR-DE-LIS borders derived from Benjamin Collins's designs. All 
have early-type lettering and are in the Trumbull Burying Ground. They 
are for: C^P*^ William Clark (Fig. 32), John's brother, Simon Huntington 
(Fig. 30), and Jonathan Lyman (Fig. 33). Unlike any other Huntington 
stone, the head on the Lyman marker bears a crown. 

Group C: Thin Vine with Fronds 

This group of eight stones with borders composed of upward-sweep- 
ing fronds may be adaptations from a Collins design like that for the John 
Bill stone (1746) in Columbia (Fig. 46). They are extremely handsome, 
though unlike the Collins border, Huntington's FRONDS are not sym- 
metrical. Their dates range from 1752 to 1758. The corners may be filled 
with doubled fronds (Fig. 51), TULIPS (Fig. 48), or STAR CIRCLES (Fig. 
4). Three of these stones have entablatures. 

The small Samuel Gay stone (1753, Exeter Burying Ground, Lebanon) 
is the only shoulderless stone in this group. It is extremely convex, its ped- 
iment, with ARCHED SCROLL, curving back noticably. 

The curious stone for Hanna Mackall (1755, Goshen Hill Burying 
Ground, Lebanon) has a frond border in which the individual elements 
are well carved but the design is completely asymmetric. The top corners 
neither match nor balance, while on the right side all but one group of 
fronds are upside down. 

In this group, all the fronds carved by Huntington are incised below 
the level of the stone, as are those by Benjamin Collins. At the end of his 
career, John carved fronds which are raised above the surface, but these 
stones are of a very different character and will be discussed later. 



Ann F. Shepardson 165 



Group D: Thin Vine with Fan-Like Fronds 

Contemporary with the THIN VINE WITH FRONDS borders are five 
stones whose thin vines support clusters of FAN-LIKE DOUBLE 
FRONDS (Fig. 42). They bear dates from 1755 to 1759. Three of these 
stones have a simple spiral entablature; all but one have shoulders. 

The James Mackall stone (1755, Goshen Hill Burying Ground, 
Lebanon) is probably the earliest stone with a FAN FROND border. It fea- 
tures early, wide-spaced lettering. The head with high cap ruffles is 
flanked by stiff HIGH ARCHED wings which are much less competently 
carved than the border. 

The winged head and entablature of the Martha Waterman stone fit 
perfectly the triangular tympanum of this shoulderless marker (Figs. 3 & 
42). The fan-frond border frames the inscription of full but cohesive let- 
tering which was discussed earlier. 

The Joseph Downer stone (1756, Birchard Plain Burying Ground, 
Franklin) has five fronds precisely carved in each bend of the vine. 
Though the tympanum is rounded, the head, flanked by long, ruled 
wings, is clearly a successor of the Bugbe stone (Fig. 12), though here the 
lettering is compressed. 

The Eliphalet Clark stone (1756) in Exeter is less precisely carved than 
the Waterman and Downer stones. The lettering is large and slightly com- 
pressed. The nose is bulbous, and there is a ruff at the neck. The Clark 
stone is evidently from a later period and backdated four or five years. 

Group E: Thin Vine with Volute 

Much of Huntington's most assured craftsmanship and highest artis- 
tic achievement is expressed in his THIN VINE WITH VOLUTE borders 
(Figs. 40, 54 & 55). The stones range in date from 1746 to 1761, though the 
earliest of these are surely backdated. The borders are composed of thin 
vines to which are attached baroque curls and curves, beautifully carved 
in low relief. All but three stones in this group have shoulders. Several 
have entablatures and STAR CIRCLES in the corners. They have straight 
ruled wings. 

The elaborate border and fine cohesive lettering is still visible, clean 
and without erosion, on the Deacon Gershorn Clark stone (1747, Trumbull 
Burying Ground, Lebanon), although part of the upper portion has fallen 
away. The lettering, which resembles that on the 1759 Daniel Burley stone 
in Franklin (Fig. 5), indicates that it was probably carved at about the 



166 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



same time. The stones for Moses Clark (1749, Trumbull Burying Ground, 
Lebanon) and Mary Bissel (Fig. 14) feature tympana, borders, and letter- 
ing similar to the Gershorn Clark stone. They are probably contemporary 
and thus backdated by about a decade. 

The stone (Fig. 20) which John carved for his wife, Mehetabel 
Huntington, displays the unusual fern-like entablature mentioned earlier. 
This and numerous stones, such as that for Nathaniel Fitch (Fig. 6), have 





\p('lMhf 



\ \ \\'^ \ ji'O ill i /-::<[ ^;^ 



^ I 



I 



y i 









Fig. 14. Mary Bissel, 1751, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



Ann F. Shepardson 167 



long inscriptions of compressed, free (perhaps hurried) lettering. 

The stone for John Vaughan (1756, Trumbull Burying Ground, 
Lebanon) is the only stone whose THIN VINE is drawn by a single, 
instead of double, line. Also curious are the straight, ruled wings which 
have a linear scallop pattern unlike any other. They may, in fact, be the last 
of the experimental wing designs. The nose is a "light bulb" type. The let- 
tering is large and poorly spaced. 

Zerubabbel Collins also used a vine with volute design, but with a 
wide vine, as on the James Ford stone (1757) in Columbia (Fig. 53). 
Although John Huntington and Zerubabbel Collins were both carving 
vines with volutes during the late 1750s, John did not carve borders with 
a wide vine until the late 1760s and 1770s, and then never with volutes. It 
seems probable that both John and Zerubabbel took note of the Stevens 
stones which had been imported from Rhode Island, two of which still 
remain in the Trumbull Burying Ground (Figs. 27 & 28). It is doubtful 
whether Huntington's volute and fancy spiral borders would have been 
created without the influence of the Stevens's work, not only through the 
effect it had on Benjamin Collins (Fig. 25) and Obadiah Wheeler, but on 
Huntington directly. 

Soon after the Stevens stones were imported, Obadiah Wheeler 
appears to have started carving ornate borders. A comparison between 
the constrained 1736 Hanna Sluman stone (Fig. 56) and the border of the 
1742 Simeon Gray stone (Fig. 57), both by Wheeler, illustrates the begin- 
ning of this development. Both are in Lebanon's Trumbull Burying 
Ground. At least nine stones by Wheeler dated between 1742 and 1744 
show the Stevens influence. Their borders have wide, undulating vines 
from which grow alternating fleurs-de-lis or fronds. The Simeon Gray 
stone is one of the first of this group; it retains a certain restraint, where- 
as the border of the Solomon Williams stone (1743, Trumbull Burying 
Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 58) is less confined, and the fleur-de-lis has 
become a palm frond. 

Now comes the conundrum. In the Trumbull Burying Ground, there 
exists a large stone whose winged head and robust border were without 
doubt carved by Obadiah Wheeler (Figs. 15 & 59). It is inscribed to Joseph 
Fitch and bears the date 1741. The wings are of the layered style referred 
to by Slater and Caulfield as TYPE IV,^^ and so were probably carved 
between 1733 and 1749. The date of 1741 lies well within Wheeler's use of 
this motif. The surprise is that the large, shallow, fluid lettering is clearly 



168 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



by John Huntington! The face which is carved within the great aureole of 
Wheeler's wings is in poor condition due to a vein of quartz which comes 
to the surface in that area.^^ The ebullient palm fronds of the border are 
unusually deeply cut and nearly overwhelm the wings and star circles, 
which are incised to the depth customary for these elements on other 




X, 



Vii^' '■ 



'• .* 




.A yf 




Fig. 15. Joseph Fitch, 1741, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



Ann F. Shepardson 169 



stones by Obadiah Wheeler. A typical Wheeler leafy sprig sprouts from 
the base border. It is obvious that for some reason Obadiah did not finish 
the Fitch stone. For one thing, on the right side, the transition between the 
top curve of the vine and the star circle must have been made by someone 
other than Wheeler. The short fronds which are used to fill a few inches at 
the top of that border, as well as the palm frond in the topmost loop, are 
poorly carved and are not symmetrical. Presumably, someone tried to 
copy the fronds which had been completed on the left side without 
reversing them appropriately for use on the right. The 1743 Solomon 
Williams stone (Fig. 58), a few steps away in the Trumbull Burying 
Ground, has a similar transitional area perfectly executed by Wheeler. It 
is this stone which seems to form an link between the fleur-de-lis design 
and the more exuberant palm fronds of the Joseph Fitch stone. 

Huntington's inscription was made much later, probably in the late 
1750s or early 1760s, at the time of his free and compressed lettering (Fig. 
15). It is comparable to lettering on the 1759 Nathaniel Fitch stone in the 
Trumbull Burying Ground (Fig. 6). Though the carving is very shallow, 
even for Huntington, it is evident that the letters are tall, fluid, and com- 
pressed, and that the lower-case has become large in relationship to the 
height of the capitals. 

It might be surmised that Wheeler carved the Fitch stone soon after the 
1743 Solomom Williams stone, say in 1744 or 1745. If so, then it was more 
than a decade after Wheeler had discarded or was unable to finish the 
stone that John carved the inscription which exists today. 

Type IV: Star Circles 

STAR CIRCLES are common on the stones of both Obadiah Wheeler 
and Benjamin Collins. Huntington used them occasionally in the corners 
of THIN VINE borders with FLEURS-DE-LIS, FRONDS, or VOLUTES, as 
well as WIDE VINE borders with FRONDS or HEARTS. 

He also used them more extensively on a small group of stones, all of 
which have extremely narrow shoulders or are shoulderless. They are 
inscribed to the following: 

James Fowler (1754, Goshen Hill Burying Ground, Lebanon). 

This is the only stone known in which the border is completely 

composed of STAR CIRCLES. The tympanum is round with HIGH 

ARCHED wings. 



170 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



Roswil Crocker (1755, Norwichtown) (Fig. 49). This stone, 
which has a THIN VINE WITH LILY border, carries an entabliture 
composed of four STAR CIRCLES in place of the upper border. 
They are unique in that they have only four points and reach part 
way into the tympanum. The wings are freehand. 

Abel Stark (1755, Parkman Burying Ground, Bozrah) (Fig. 40). 
This stone features a THIN VINE WITH VOLUTE border, sur- 
mounted by a high, round tympanum with a straight-winged head 
and an entablature of four STAR CIRCLES. 

Bethiah Thomas (1755, Goshen Hill Burying Ground, Lebanon) 
(Fig. 41). On this stone one finds a SIMPLE SPIRAL border sur- 
mounted by a robust tympanum with a straight-winged head and 
an entablature of six STAR CIRCLES. 

Hanna Metcalf (1756, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) 
(Fig. 16). This stone has an extremely pointed tympanum bearing a 
straight-winged head and an entablature composed of four STAR 
CIRCLES. It surmounts a stone with a SCALLOP border. 

John Tuttle (1756, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon). This 
small, shoulderless stone has a SIMPLE SPIRAL border and round- 
ed pediment bearing an entablature of seven star circles and a head 
flanked by rounded wings. 

Type V: Fancy Spiral 

The borders in this, the largest type, contain shaped spirals which 
grow directly from one another and do not cling to a vine (Figs. 63 & 64). 
They may have been developed as a simplified form of the volute, as they 
would be easier and quicker to carve. They bear dates from 1743 to 1771, 
though the stones dated before the mid 1750s are backdated. The borders 
of these stones are similar but not identical. They are never symmetrical. 
The spirals, as on the VOLUTE and SIMPLE SPIRAL borders, advance 
around the inscription in one continuous direction, arriving at, and turn- 
ing, corners as convenient, sometimes on an upward and sometimes on a 
downward curl. Generally, the spiral is slightly recessed in low relief, with 
triangles, flourishes and/or wiggly lines filling empty spaces. Several 
have entablatures, but most do not. The wings are ruled straight, with the 
exception of a few early and transitional stones. 

The inscriptions on these stones represent some of John Huntington's 



Ann F. Shepardson 



171 



most accomplished lettering. In fact, except for the stones with 
TEARDROP SPIRALS, the lettering is preeminent over the borders, which 







' ^:J 


•H 


s' '* ; 


1 4 


-:t' \ ' 


-'V 


- it ■ i- 


.- .i~J:~ 



j»-' 

.^<.^ 



'^'/^ 



"if-. ( ;i:'/i^f-R*i'-. Vk. 
-v p.-i',4'ii- ■'■■'V %'■<'/ ,, 

-fy^ ■ 

Fig. 16. Hanna Metcalf, 1756, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 





172 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



become repetitious. One especially fine example which is in good condi- 
tion and lichen-free is the north-facing Naomi Hide stone (Fig. 7). Here, as 
discussed earlier, we see Huntington's energetic and fluid lettering at its 
best. 

The backdated Daniel Rockwell stone (1746, Birchard Plain Burying 
Ground, Franklin) (Fig. 37) appears to be a transitional stone. It might be 
included with stones which have SIMPLE SPIRAL type borders. It is con- 
temporary with them, and was probably carved soon after stones such as 
the 1754 Ann Brown stone in Norwichtown (Fig. 35). Although, as with 
simple spiral borders, the width of the spiral never varies, this spiral has 
a secondary curl; it is, however, rudimentary, being only a single line. At 
the same time, the Daniel Rockwell stone appears to be related to the 
stone for Izrahiah Clark (1755, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 
60), which is similar, except that its spirals are shaped, with some varia- 
tion in thickness, and the curls are more prominent. The next step in this 
progression seems to be the transitional Tabithy Rockwell stone (1756, 
Birchard Plain Burying Ground, Franklin) (Fig. 62), whose border on the 
left side is like the Izrahiah Clark stone and on the top and right side is 
composed of TEARDROP SPIRALS with plump secondary curls. The 
asymmetric wings are part ruled, part freehand. The lettering on the 
Daniel and Tabithy Rockwell stones is cohesive and slightly compressed. 

Group A: Teardrop Fancy Spirals (with secondary curl) 

The stone for Hanna Metcalf, dated 1755, in the Trumbull Burying 
Ground (Fig. 63) appears to be in direct progression from the 1 756 Tabithy 
Rockwell stone and was probably carved at about the same time, or soon 
after. The border consists of large, gently curved, teardrop-shaped spirals 
with plump secondary curls. It has straight-ruled wings and a SCALLOP 
entablature. The head features a large nose, small round cap ruffles, and 
a ruff at the neck. The lettering is similar to that on the Rockwell stones. 

The Cretia Abel stone (1754, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 
61) is a graceful and faultlessly carved small stone, with a border of well- 
spaced, gently-curving TEARDROP SPIRALS. It has small rounded 
wings, a short nose, and a necktie. 

The Elisabeth Waterman stone (1755) in Norwichtown has such an 
unusually plump spiral border with secondary curls that it is included 
with the TEARDROP group, though they are of a more curly shape. It is 
probably in transition to the LOBED SPIRAL style which follows. 



Ann F. Shepardson 173 



Group B: Lobed Fancy Spirals (no secondary curl) 

This design consists of shaped spirals with lobed ends and wiggles 
filling the empty spaces. There are no secondary curls (see Fig. 45). The 
LOBED SPIRAL borders occur on stones dated 1743 to 1771 but are most 
frequent on stones dated 1758 to 1764. The few earlier examples are back- 
dated. The 1759 Daniel Burley stone is typical of this group (Figs. 5 & 64). 
These stones have rounded tympana bearing heads with large noses, 
more or less bulbous, and high, many-layered wings. The lettering is 
cohesive and sometimes compressed, depending on the requirements of 
the inscription. 

The imposing stone for John's sister, Elisabeth Clark^^ (1761, Trumbull 
Burying Ground, Lebanon), features a beautifully carved inscription of 
the sort often seen on even the simplest stones by Huntington dated in the 
1760s. When seen in good light, this free, fluid lettering is striking. The 
fine lettering on the Naomi Hide stone (Fig. 7) has been discussed earlier. 

The stone for Mary Birchard, dated 1743, in the Old Stafford Burying 
Ground presents an unevenly carved LOBED SPIRAL border which sur- 
rounds an inscription of surprisingly haphazard lettering (Fig. 65). This 
stone, with ruled, straight wings, neck ruff, and bulbous nose, as well as 
a border typical of the late 1750s and early 1760s, must be backdated by 
nearly twenty years. 

The next two stones to be discussed show little resemblance to other 
LOBED SPIRAL borders, although they do fall within the LOBED SPIRAL 
category. The Ann Clark stone (1764, Trumbull Burying Ground, Leb- 
anon) (Fig. 66) features a winged head whose nearly round face with an 
immense nose is encircled by an atypically wide band but flanked by the 
conventional high, straight-ruled wings used by Huntington in the 1760s 
and 1770s. The occurrence of the wide, rather square lettering, which 
becomes prevalent in the late 1760s, supports the date. There may be 
another hand at work here. The nose, while long, does not have the usual 
Huntington flare; further, the eyes are small, close set, and placed higher 
on the head than are those on any other Huntington stone. 

The border of the small stone for Abigail Spalden (1743, Goshen Hill 
Burying Ground, Lebanon) is nearly identical to that of the Ann Clark 
stone. The wings are high and straight, as is usual on stones after the late 
1750s, though the depiction of feathers in a small checkered pattern is 
unique and probably experimental. The head, with bulbous nose and low 
mouth, is similar to that found on the 1756 John Vaughan stone (Trumbull 



174 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



Burying Ground, Lebanon), which also has an experimental and not- 
repeated wing treatment. The lettering on the Ann Clark stone, which 
starts out large and sprawling but then settles down to a fairly cohesive 
last few lines, is another characteristic shared with the stone for John 
Vaughan. Although their borders are different, the two stones have sever- 
al similarities and were probably carved at about the same time, no earli- 
er than 1756. 

Group C: Thin Spirals (with secondary curl) 

This spiral design occurs on stones dated from 1755 to 1771, but 
appears mostly on those dated 1765 to 1771. The borders are narrow and 
the spiral is generally thin, with little or no variation in width; however, 
the secondary curl is reinstated, and usually the wiggles remain. The 
effect is rather like a border of lace surrounding the inscription. 

The stone for Stephen Tilden (1770, Trumbull Burying Ground, 
Lebanon) (Fig. 67) is typical of this group. It features a head with a flat- 
tened top, an enormous nose, and wings which are ruled high and 
straight. Almond-shaped eyes replace the round eyes which have previ- 
ously appeared on all stones. Henceforth, almond eyes are always used. 
The large, broad lettering is a harbinger of the lettering style which pre- 
vails at the end of Huntinton's career, when he seems to have found larg- 
er letters expedient. 

The THIN SPIRAL border of the Comfort Brewster stone (1771, 
Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) (Fig. 68) surrounds an inscription of 
blocky lettering. It is distinguished by an unusually high tympanum 
which carries an entablature formed of HOOK-SHAPED spirals, in raised 
relief. They are probably derived from some borders carved by Josiah 
Manning. 

Type VI: Hook-Shaped Spirals 

There is a group of small stones of uneven quality whose borders of 
HOOK-SHAPED spirals are the same design as the entablature of the 
Brewster stone (Fig. 68). Wide bands frame the faces, which have heavy- 
lidded, almond eyes and large noses. All have the high, straight-ruled 
wings typical of the stones of the 1770s. All were made for children. They 
are inscribed to Ebenezer Brown (1770, Goshen Hill), William Abel (1773, 
Trumbull), and Isaac Leech (1773, Trumbull) (Fig. 61). Both a rounded and 
a straight upper-case "M" appears in the Ebenezer Brown inscription, an 



Ann F. Shepardson 175 



inconsistency which occurs on several stones of this period. All three 
stones have a mixture of crude and accomplished carving. Perhaps an 
apprentice did part of the work. 

Four Atypical Stones 

The Ensign Daniel Bascom stone (1761, Exeter Burying Ground, 
Lebanon) (Fig. 70) is different from other stones by John Huntington. It 
has a low tympanum with curved wings and a border of large single 
fronds and tendrils which grow from a thin vine. There is considerable 
erosion, especially of the face, but the large, slightly compressed lettering 
supports the date of 1761. 

The William Buel stone (1763, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon) 
(Fig. 71) is unique in having a spiral border which is completely linear and 
without modeling, though the empty spaces between the spirals are filled 
with small triangles. Dr. Caulfield's notes mention the payment of three 
pounds to John Huntington for a stone for William Buell.^° The lettering 
is compressed and slightly italic, though the rough surface of the stone 
conceals its quality. Surprisingly, the tympanum has a head with HIGH 
ARCHED wings, the first time they have appeared since 1756. 

The Isaac Huntington stone (1764, Norwichtown) (Fig. 73) also fea- 
tures HIGH ARCHED wings. The border appears to be an inept copy of 
the Wheeler border on the Joseph Fitch stone (Figs. 15 & 59). The letter- 
ing, which is the fluid and cohesive type that appears on many of 
Huntington's stones in the 1760s, supports the date. It as well is similar to 
the lettering on the Joseph Fitch stone (Fig. 15). The wings and entablature 
are well made, but the face has been damaged and perhaps recarved, as 
apparently also have the birth date and neck ruff. 

There is one other stone which is an even more direct copy of the 
Joseph Fitch stone by Wheeler. This marker, inscribed to John Alden 
(1764, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon), not only copies the PALM 
FROND border but also the aureole of wings surrounding the head, 
which in this case has a Huntington-type face with light bulb nose and 
bow-shaped mouth. It has a SCALLOP entablature. The lettering is simi- 
lar to that on the Isaac Huntington stone. Probably they were both carved 
at about the same time, shortly after John carved the inscription on the 
Joseph Fitch stone. 

A few years after these Wheeler copies, Huntington carved two stones 
of fine craftsmanship, one for Gurdon Huntington (1767, Norwichtown) 



176 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



(Fig. 75), and the other (very like it) for Joseph Fowler (1768, Moodus). 
These borders also appear to derive from Wheeler's work, in this case the 
border on the Hanna Sluman stone (Fig. 56). They have straight-ruled 
wings and almond eyes. 

Type VII: Scallop Borders 

Stones with SCALLOP BORDERS were carved in two different peri- 
ods. Of the six stones which fall in the early period, four are dated 1756, 
one is dated 1752, and one 1744. All appear to be carved at about the same 
time as the stones with TEARDROP SPIRAL borders. The stone for Macy 
Throope (Fig. 17) is closely related to the Tabithy Rockwell stone (1756, 
Birchard Plain Burying Ground, Franklin) (Fig. 62). They have similar 
noses, cap ruffles, and neck ruffs, even similar not-quite-straight wings. 



\K:({ i 




1}A ^ "^ 'A 



'\\X ^k 








Fig. 17. Macy Throope, 1756, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon. 



Ann F. Shepardson 177 



Both have compressed lettering. The Macy Throope stone is also closely 
related to the Hanna Metcalf stone (1755, Trumbull Burying Ground, 
Lebanon) (Fig. 63). The Throope stone has a SCALLOP border and 
TEARDROP SPIRAL entablature, while the Metcalf has the reverse, a 
TEARDROP SPIRAL border and a SCALLOP entablature. 

The small, shoulderless Abigail Gay stone (1744, Exeter Burying 
Ground, Lebanon) has a SCALLOP BORDER which surrounds an inscrip- 
tion of slightly compressed lettering. It resembles the more elaborate (also 
backdated) Abigail Able stone (1748, Trumbull Burying Ground, 
Lebanon), which, as discussed earlier, has a TEARDROP SPIRAL entabla- 
ture and was probably carved in the mid 1750s. 

The 1756 stone for another Hanna Metcalf (Fig. 16) is remarkable for 
its sharply pointed pediment. It has an entablature of four star circles. The 
wings are small and straight. The head features a bell nose, high cap ruf- 
fles, and straight necktie. The lettering, though eroded, appears to be 
somewhat compressed. 

For the next decade, Huntington occupied himself with his VOLUTE 
and FANCY SPIRAL borders, and it was not until the late 1760s that he 
returned to the SCALLOP design. Then he carved a large group of skill- 
fully made stones which show little innovation but display firm lettering 
with the spontaneous quality which is so characteristic of his work (e.g.. 
Fig. 74). No longer is each line invariably capitalized. Sometimes the let- 
tering is compressed and sometimes widely spaced. It is always excellent, 
and the winged heads are skillfully designed and carved. The noses are 
large; the wings are high and ruled straight. All the stones have almond 
eyes (probably copied from Zerubbabel Collins), with the exception of the 
stones for John Edgerton (1768) and Eliab Hide (1760), both in Norwich- 
town. As the backdated stone for William Fowler (1759, Moodus) (Fig. 74) 
has almond eyes, it was probably made after the Hide and Edgerton 
stones, in about 1770. 

The stone for John Throope (1770, Trumbull Burying Ground, Leb- 
anon) has a well-cut border, a rather triangular head, and a very long, nar- 
row nose. It resembles the more crudely carved stone for Betty Throope 
(1774, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon). These children's stones bring 
to mind the awkward carving of the stones with HOOK SHAPED SPIRAL 
borders with which they are contemporary. As the carving appears to be 
by his own hand, it seems likely that some incapacity had affected 
Huntington's work. 



178 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



Type VIII: Wide Vine with Fronds 

With their broad shoulders and low tympana, the stones with WIDE 
VINE FROND borders have a stolidness unfamiliar in the bulk of 
Huntington's work (see Fig. 78). The tympana are low, and several stones 
are nearly as wide as they are high. They are handsome and well carved 
but lack the vivacity and verve of the THIN VINE FRONDS which were 
carved in the 1750s. Here, as on the stones with SCALLOP borders, 
Huntington seems content to repeat a successful style instead of seeking 
new and different designs. Their dates range from 1768 to 1774 (except for 
one stone backdated 1759), though most are dated 1773. Unlike the earli- 
er borders, these fronds are raised above the surface of the stone. Perhaps 
they were influenced by the elaborate wide vine borders of the stones by 
the Stevens shop (Figs. 27 & 28) or Zerubabble Collins (Fig. 53), but the 
border by Obadiah Wheeler on the 1742 Samuel Hide stone in the 
Trumbull Burying Ground (Fig. 11) seems the most likely model. All the 
stones in this group display star circles in the corners. They all have 
almond eyes, sometimes apparently closed. The 1773 stone for Silas 
Newcomb in the Trumbull Burying Ground (Fig. 78) is a wide stone with 
broad shoulders and lettering expanded to suit the space. It is topped by 
a small, low tympanum with an entablature of well carved HOOK 
SHAPED SPIRALS, more evenly carved than those on the 1771 Comfort 
Brewster stone (Fig. 68). The 1759 stone for Edmond Bridges in Colchester 
is well proportioned, with a tympanum which carries a handsome 
winged head and an entablature of HOOK SHAPED SPIRALS. It is back- 
dated from the early 1770s. The only double stone by Huntington which 
has been found features a WIDE VINE FROND BORDER. This 1773 stone 
is inscribed, apparently in John's hand, to Joseph and Elizabeth Tilden. 
The Capital "M" in "Memory" is carved differently on each side of the 
adjacent inscriptions. 

Two stones which share the characteristics of this group have hearts 
growing from the vine in place of fronds (see Fig. 76). They are inscribed 
to Hezekiah Newcomb (1772, Trumbull Burying Ground, Lebanon), 
whose name is spelled with a backward "N", and Gersham Hinkley 
(1774, Goshen Hill Burying Ground, Lebanon). 

Conclusion 

John Huntington's work is the final flowering of the tradition that 
began with John Hartshorne and developed (with some input from the 



Ann F. Shepardson 179 



Stevens shop) through Obadiah Wheeler and Benjamin ColHns. Though 
this tradition continued until the end of the eighteenth century in the 
work of the Mannings, John Walden, and to some extent Jonathan 
Loomis, these latter carvers appear to have been influenced by outside 
sources, while Huntington's work continued entirely in the Hartshorne/ 
Wheeler /Collins tradition. As he has no obvious successor, it appears that 
Huntington worked alone, with perhaps only occasional help in his later 
years, and that he did not train apprentices. However, the carver known 
as the Bozrah Devil Carver does exhibit certain characteristics that may 
imply some relationship to Huntington. This carver's work is yet to be 
studied. 

Even in his most carefully controlled work - such as that on the 
Martha Waterman stone (Figs. 3 & 42) - his style is less constrained than 
that of his forebears. There is usually an unstudied approach, as if he 
experimented with new ideas or borrowings directly on the stone, with- 
out a prior drawing or plan. This may explain the frequent asymmetry of 
the wings and borders. Such an approach, while leading to imperfections, 
does permit a certain directness and sense of intimacy. We feel we know 
this carver. We see his idiosyncrasies. 

Evidently, Huntington responded to his clients' desire for grace and 
elegance, especially in the stones with volute borders, and later in the 
copies of borders by Obadiah Wheeler. While younger contemporary 
carvers such as Josiah Manning (1725-1806) and Zerubbabel Collins (1733- 
1797) were making elaborate and expertly carved stones, Huntington con- 
tinued in the old tradition, with his only effort at a more modern style 
appearing at the end of his career in the stones with heavy WIDE FROND 
borders. 

By the turn of the century, the winged head was replaced by the urn 
and willow on stones often dominated by ornate and florid lettering. 

Postscript 

Those who wish to see the stones described in this article for them- 
selves will find it imperative to provide themselves with a mirror of at 
least 4' X 12". Without such a mirror the carving on north-facing stones is 
not only difficult to see, but often impossible. Even in moderately difficult 
conditions, such a mirror increases the optimal viewing time. In shady 
areas, light may be cast from a sunny location at a considerable distance 
from the stone under scrutiny. 



180 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



NOTES 

With thanks to James Slater for his aid, encouragement and advice. His expertise and expe- 
rience have been invaluable. Without his book. The Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern 
Connecticut, I would not have known where to look. My thanks also for making available to 
me the notes of Dr Ernest Caulfield relating to John Huntington. I am grateful to Laurel 
Gabel for her thoughtful reading of the manuscript and her useful suggestions. Thanks as 
well to Alicia Wayland for the reference to the stone for the child of Jonathan Trumbull, 
Junior 

1. Allan I. Ludwig, Graven Images: Nezo England Stonecarving and its Symbols, 1650-1815 
(Middletown, CT, 1966). 

2. Ernest J. Caulfield, "Connecticut Gravestones XII: John Hartshorn (1650-c. 1738) vs. 
Joshua Hempstead (1678-1758)," Markers VHI (1991): 164-188. 

3. James A. Slater and Ralph L. Tucker, "The Colonial Gravestone Carvings of John 
Hartshorne," in Puritan Gravestone Art II., ed. Peter Benes (Boston, 1978), 79-146. 

4. James A. Slater and Ernest J. Caulfield, "Connecticut Gravestones XVII: The Colonial 
Gravestone Carvings of Obadiah Wheeler," Markers VIII (1991): 270-309. 

5. Ernest J. Caulfield, "Connecticut Gravestones IX: The Collins Family," Markers VIII 
(1991): 128-140. 

6. Ernest J. Caulfield, "Connecticut Gravestones VIII: The Mannings," Markers Vlil (1991): 
108-127. 

7. James A. Slater, The Colonial Bun/ing Grounds of Eastern Connecticut and the Men Wlw 
Made Them (Hamden, CT, 1987), 14-15; 201. 

8. James A. Slater, "Principles and Methods for the Study of the Work of Individual 
Carvers," in Puritan Gravestone Art, ed. Peter Benes (Boston, 1977), 9-13. 

9. Huntington Family Association, The Huntington Family in America, 1633-1915 (Hartford, 
CT, 1915), 834. 

10. Caulfield Manuscript Notes, made available by James Slater, courtesy of the 
Connecticut Historical Society. 

11 . John Trumbull Collection (account book of Jonathan Trumbull, Junior), Yale University 
Library, New Haven, CT. 

12. Caulfield Manuscript Notes. 

13. All are in Trumbull. They are for Mary Danielson, 1748, Nathaniel Little, 1753, and 
Jonathan Lyman, 1753. 



Ann F. Shepardson 181 



14. The small stone for Lydia Lyman (1756, Trumbull) has HIGH ARCHED wings and 
early lettering with the dangling "y"- The head is unusually large and, unlike the other 
stones with HIGH ARCHED wings, it has a short nose. This and the poorly carved 
Sarah Lyman stone (1756, Trumbull) (Fig. 50) are the latest dated stones on which the 
dangling "y" appears. While the lettering on both stones is wide and full, it does not 
have the early, careful look. These two small children's stones probably represent the 
end of "early lettering". 

15. There are three atypical stones. They are for WilHam Buel (1763) (Fig. 71) and John 
Alden (1764), both in Trumbull, and Isaac Huntington (1764), in Norwichtown (Fig. 73). 

16. Simon Huntington was the son of John's younger brother, Simon. He died August 20, 
1753, at about ten years of age. His father, Simon, died of dysentery on August 22, 1753. 
John carved a stone for each. Jabez, a child of about 18 mounths, died August 18, 1753. 
His grave is marked by a crude stone, the product of an unknown carver. See The 
Huntington Family in America 1633-1915, 852. 

17. See Slater and Caulfield, "Connecticut Gravestones XVII: The Colonial Gravestone 
Carvings of Obadiah Wheeler." 

18. The face may also be by Huntington. It appears to be carved as an oblong within the 
circle carved by Wheeler. It has a long rounded nose and Huntington-type eyebrows. 
No mouth is visible. 

19. Elisabeth Clark was a midwife. See The Huntington Family in America 1633-1915, 691. 

20. Caulfield Manuscript Notes. 



182 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 






(50 

c 



o 

5| 

C 
13 

o 
PQ 

oc5 



60 



oz^x; 

&9ZX 

09ZX1 

-j 

j 



U<-i 

o 9 
■o o 

.-I.C 

9 n 
o 

O 

Sfl 

■HtH 
» * 

n ■ 
« a 

o o 
f O 



• o 

o 

• 

• 



-ooo« 
ooo« 

o 
o 



00 
o 



LZLi • 



000 



-o«« 




-•o 



• ••• 

• ••00 






<>•• 



Ann F. Shepardson 



183 




184 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



APPENDIX 2 
Fig. 19. Wing Chart 



WINGS BY COLLINS 



WINGS BY HUNTINGTON 



A 

1747 





E 
1753 



B 

174£ 




c 

1750 





N 
1702 



WINGS BY WHEELER 






Ann F. Shepardson 



185 



APPENDIX 3 
Figs. 20-78 




Fig. 20. Mehetabel Huntington, 1759. 




Fig. 21. Mary Turner, 1751, by Benjamin Collins. 



186 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 22. Ane Edgerton, 1744, by Obadiah Wheeler. 




Fig. 23. John Hasten, 1745, by Benjamin Collins. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



187 




Fig. 24. Hanna Sluman, 1736, by Obadiah Wheeler. 




Fig. 25. Richard English, 1748, by Benjamin Collins. 



188 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 26. Adonaijah Ackley, 1751, by Benjamin Collins. 




Fig. 27. William Throop, 1737, by Stevens shop. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



189 




Fig. 28. Wife of William Throop, 1736, by Stevens shop. 




Fig. 29. Samuel Webb, 1748/9, by Benjamin Collins. 



190 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 30. Simon Huntington, 1753. 




Fig. 31. Hanna Huntington, 1746, by Benjamin Collins. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



191 




Fig. 32. Capt. William Clark, 1753. 




Fig. 33. Lieu. Jonathan Lyman, 1753. 



192 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 34. Caleb Abel, 1750. 




Fig. 35. Ann Brown, 1754. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



193 




Fig. 36. Submit Seabury, 1751. 




Fig. 37. Daniel Rockwell, 1746. 



194 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 38. Lydia Lyman, 1756. 




Fig. 39. Daniel Tracy, 1753. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



195 




Fig. 40. Abel Stark, 1755. 




Fig. 41. Bethiah Thomas, 1755. 



196 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 42. Martha Waterman, 1755. 




Fig. 43. Ireney Wattles, 1754. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



197 




Fig. 44. Thomas Linch, 1746, by Benjamin Collins. 




Fig. 45. Sarah Huntington, 1747, by Benjamin Collins. 



198 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 46. John Bill, 1746, by Benjamin Collins. 




Fig. 47. Nathaniel Fitch, 1751. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



199 




Fig. 48. Joseph Trumble, 1755. 




Fig. 49. Roswil Crocker, 1755. 



200 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 50. Sarah Lyman, 1756. 




Fig. 51. Hanna Huntington, 1753. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



201 




Fig. 52. Oliver Hide, 1754. 




Fig. 53. James Ford, 1757, by Zerubabbel Collins. 



202 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 54. Jonathan Crane, 1757. 




Fig. 55. Mary Bissel, 1751. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



203 




Fig. 56. Hanna Sluman, 1736, by Obadiah Wheeler. 



Fig. 57. Simeon Gray, 1742, by Obadiah Wheeler. 



204 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 58. Solomon Williams, 1743, by Obadiah Wheeler. 




Fig. 59. Joseph Fitch, 1741, mostly by Obadiah Wheeler. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



205 




Fig. 60. Izrahiah Clark, 1755. 




Fig. 61. Cretia Abel, 1754. 



206 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 62. Tabithy Rockwell, 1756. 




Fig. 63. Hanna Metcalf, 1755. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



207 




Fig. 64. Daniel Burley, 1759. 




Fig. 65. Mary Birchard, 1743. 



208 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 








Fig. 66. Ann Clark, 1764. 





Fig. 67. Stephen Tilden, 1770. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



209 




^^^^^m^S)p^)^sy^smi 




Fig. 68. Comfort Brewster, 1771. 




Fig. 69. Isaac Leech, 1773. 



210 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 70. Daniel Bascom, 1761. 




Fig. 71. William Buell, 1763. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



211 




Fig. 72. Hanna Edgerton, 1766, by Josiah Manning. 




Fig. 73. Isaac Huntington, 1764. 



212 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 74. William Fowler, 1759. 




Fig. 75. Gurdon Huntington, 1767. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



213 




Fig. 76. Hezekiah Newcomb, 1772. 



Fig. 77. Samuel Hide, 1742, by Obadiah Wheeler. 



214 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 




Fig. 78. Silas Newcomb, 1773. 



Ann F. Shepardson 



215 





















HI 


3 






1) 


re 


1d "5^ = 












CD 








4=; 

CD 

O 

U 

c 

o 










CD 

T3 


1 ^ X 












U 






Q 

CD 


O 


CD 

13 


o 


Oh 


o 

73 


5 U U 

5 o _o 

bp "Jd 1d 






CD 






Q 
Z 




Oh 
3 


x> 

<D 


re 


S Z 


o 

u 
CD 


re 

CD 


C 73 -^ 
^ O O 
^ O O 

^ ^ ^ 






W 






o 




D 


Q 




















D 






u 




H 


z 

o 




















o 






CD 


cn 




II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II II II 




<u 


CQ 






o 


Cii 


ns 


















D 


< 






u 


>3 














s 


^^X 












CD^ 

Q 
2 

pq 

D 
w 

CO 

O 


s 




z 


H 


s z 


CD 


^ ^ ^ 




TS 


CD 






< 


2 


> 
















X 




tin 

o 

CD 




J 


Q 
Z 

o 


O 


PQ 


















z 








^ 


u 

w 

CD 


PL, 

o 


















o 

4-> 


H 




CD 


X 


X 


_o 


CD 
















< 


C/5 

O 

*•> 
(SO 

c 


g 

cn 
O 

> 

w 

PQ 


< 

CD 

W 

g 


u 
z 

o 

Q 

< 


ANCY SPIRAL WIT 
ANCY SPIRAL WIT 




< 

z 

g 

CD 

z 
o 


C 

C/3 

t2 


o 

en 

c 
o 




i-H 




"re 
re 

U 


Gager 

Andover Road 
, Exeter 






CO 
< 


CD 


H 


ti- 


U-, 


o 

Xi 


> 


> 


X 


CD 


_c" 


= = o 








II 


II 


ll 


II 


CD 


w 


o 


ct; 


re 


OJ 


r- 


2 


^25 














Th 




CQ 


T3 
C 
< 


N 
O 
CQ 


N 
O 
CQ 


U 




re 


PL, X hJ 










Dh 


'B. 


S 
u 


Q 

1 


< 






















01 „ 


o 


CD 


;f 


c^ 
























'Bh '5 


TS 


a 


D 
























6 








w 

tin 




II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II 


II II II 



CI, < O "3 

<CQCQUUt^(jXw 



216 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



O) 0) OJ QJ 



XbO bObObObO '^tJDbO bO ^ bO bC "^ 5 ^ bC ^ ^ ^ "= ^ bC ^ "^ bO "^ 3 bC "^ 

«£ 2222 Sp222322spSiS2SSai^S23232l3g2wD 






Zo oooo coooo'Q,Soo'D-ooo'a.ooo'Q,oooo'a.o 



^(««s 'C-r'fH Tire 

O ^ S -§ -§ g ^ ^ c -o U.§ o ^^ § 6 o § 6 -o 3 S S I ^-§ || I I 

m 
Q 
i-i 

D 
O 

HH_ (/5i/i_i/5 _f5f5cncnt«__i/3c/icncncnt/2__cnc/5_c/i__t«_ 

Xo oajOaj o<i)Q;d>aji»ooijQjQji»dji*ooii0OQ>ooo^o 



tu 



^llM!ill|lll|lHl5l simp III 1 

3 ^ ^ ^-^-^ Si^^c|-Sre.£P^-2-2^:Sre^^|go^o^|go 
<aite'S^j:i;^u5'S<SCx"=i'-^^'««£reN«re3'S5SajreSiSS 

M 

Ht^"— 'foro^f'^m^c^^ovo^Dt^ooooooaNavoOi— 1^1— lojtNrsicNrorococo 



tijn,tr)X!lCDl! <! Ill 

UcnHOUwUUHHUjXtJuHHHUHHHUHHHtJ-IHHHHwZH 



Ann F. Shepardson 



217 



CUTS 


-o 




T3 










T3 












s 














_y 






O o; 


a; 




OJ 










01 












s^ 














*;_, 








re 


t>0 


J5 


-0 

K, 




-0 






X, 


X, 


W3 




X, 


(/J 

T3 

01 

X. 

y 


X. 


73 

c 


-a 


73 
C 
« 


D 


73 
01 

73 
C 


s 
g 


73 
C 

« 


73 
01 


"o t^c 


tiD 


1 


M) 


CLl 
0) 


3 


3 


1 


&p 


1-1 




1-1 


'« 
^ 






3 


3 


01 




3 


>, 


01 
01 


3 


U X 


X 


(/I 


2 


e; 


2 


2 


(A) 


iS 


Cfl 


in 


Cfi 


in 


c« 


^ 

« 


Cfi 


2 


2 


fci 


c/) 


O 
1-1 


re 


ii 


O 






01 



^ ^ 73 

XX." 



■" 3 3 tiJD S £ 3 



■c o o -p -c 15 o 







f« 
















Oh 




"(3 


01 
X 
















b 






OJ 























c 











n 











■-2 


c 





c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 



*^ o re tC 



o o o j5 o o o 



Ccni/iCCCi/iCCC 





Ci, 


re 


re iJ 






■5, p 


u;^ 




(A) (« 



01 .!3 

Oh >,!:! >, JX >, 

^ ^ 2. ^ X, -^ X '^ X 0; 01 

B^ B^'S B^ M ^ tic's b0 3 3 



i; oj 



o £ o 



>^^ o>^6 S re g cfe c_D c-s^>.'3 2i>.g g| c| 



o 
> 



o, ^ ex 

g C ;i: 

.303 



_q; X 

B- bO 
g C >^ 



I-. i/i ui _ 

re 01 01 o 



o o 

oioiOoiOoioireoiOoioiOo;re 



ZZ c 



■i- 1-1 U K ' — I 
-^ f- ^ 1-t ni 






re 01 

::: t^ r 

^ g -03 ° 

? I '2 2 

•^ 5 re -3 

J c^ Q -6 



< 2 

re CO 

t; g 

1-. 3 

u < 



f°|:2 go^ 



X en X 



re 5 



C 
C -C ;i3 re 



■^ j= JS 

-« ^ U 



u 



3 ,« 3 



.S " 



re -^ c -^ -3 



-^ 5 



Z 73 






-^ ^ ^ b 



- _, ■^ a> 

JS 2 i- s 

"S N re 

^ 3 S g 

g e 



O 

x; 



en 

s g 

C H 
■5 ^ 



re 



re 2 



g 

o id 

■^ £ P 

re H t^ 

X 3 -f: 



;^reg^^£5S:;Sure5faC^S55g^x3 



cococorotricnT^T^rt'^'^'^'^Tti-^'^'^inLnLnLnLnLnLnLnLnininiriinLoiri 
iriiOLOinLoinininLninLnininiriiritnLnLOLnLnLniriiriiniriiriLOioioioinio 



5 X 



hhOOhZcqwOU^hh 



218 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



E 'S oi '(5 'to 're 'fc 01 '« 01 -?ri 01 'fc '« 'S E § a; § '5 "re 're 're 're 're 're 're 're a; "re 're 're 
i^cA)'^-i!/)tDc/)cr)M-(y:)M-(Fi^M-.c/)cny:ire^-.'-t-(i-.c/:c/ic/^y5y:ic/3c/:)tnt/:iM-(cr)(/)(A) 



5 ■- ^ 





"u 










Oh 




.t3 






















_g 










o 




u 






















'0 










■^3 




re 














"re 








^ 










Sh 
















)-H 






o 


O "5 


o 


o 


o 


o 


re 

OJ 


o 


en 


O 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


O 'n, O 
C in C 


O 


O 


c 


c 1^ 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


t^ 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


c 


C 


C 



re rerrHi _cnrere 

07^-3 O C7; >^C C S g^ re^-- b re re re ^ -p! -p: c -3 7^-3 '^'n T\ 'n -^ -^ 

m 
Q 







^ 




^ 






^ 





























;-H 




;h 






)-H 




c/l l« ^ 


on Qfi cfi lyi in 


Vh 




u 


1/5 l/l l/l _ 


in 


l-l 




o» 01 


OJ 0) 0* 0* 0* 


re 





re 


01 01 01 


01 


re 





>^ >, C 


>, >^ >, >^ >, 


C 


C 


C 


>,>.>, C 


>, 


C 


C 



I— i( r- V3 wj _ vj wj t/j vj t/j *-i ^ *-i tn I/] ly] [/J j-H (/J vj I/] (/J vj V] _ uj wj i/j uj 

3Cc<i^^Oo)o;o<oio<reOreoioioiOo)reOo»o)Ooioio»oiOoioiO)a) 



g 5 c ^ c Sd_ >. t: c 



o 



CI. oj ° c -TT, r, > 



r-reSQJCreC-j-.cc;g>fe^«^0 re53;£igi£P^ S>^ 






cT) cn 



Hir)iriir)inso^^\r)^o^\£)^^^^£)sDsOvO\J3^t-vt-vC^i:^oooooooooooooo 
<;inLOininir:)inLOini^LoinLnLnininLnLnLnLnLnLOLnLoiOLnLnir)inLOLn 



MJ ^ I 1 I j I j I 1 I |- I I I I I j I I I 

UcQHZZZoauJUHCQHHHHOUHUHUa-iHHCHUHUHIiOHHH 



Ann F. Shepardson 219 












e 



13 
O O QJ O O 



2 




2 




T3 


re 




03 

l-H 






03 






















a. 




Dh 




o 


Uh 




u 






a, 




11 


en 


HI 




CD 


11 


C/5 


ni 


Oh 


en 


Ti 




T1 




QJ 


Ti 




-n 






Ti 


(1) 


3 


(1) 


U 


<u 


:-i 


(u 


y 


j ] 


QJ 


o 


O 
> 


O 


o 
> 


o 


o 
> 


o 


o 
> 


s 

en 


O 





T3 


2 


2 


2 


2 


03 




03 


03 


13 

n 






















ex 


ex 


ex 


ex 


ex 




ex 


ex 




Ji 


17) 


1/) 


tn 


en 


ex 


en 


en 


tH 


T) 


Ti 


T) 


T( 


Ti 


T! 


o 


Ti 


TI 


' ' 


OJ 


QJ 


QJ 


OJ 


q; 


al 


, \ 


QJ 


OJ 


c 


JJ 


J-1 


-L) 


-O 


^ 


^ 


n 


-Q 


-Q 


03 


O 


o 


O 


o 


O 


O 




O 


O 



i^ C ^ ^ u 

:ri ^^ I/) ^ J^ 

•§ 73 ^ Ti 73 T3 -^ 

3 QJ 6C QJ OJ I* 3 

'O -Q c Xi -Q -Q "o 

u t^ 1^ ^-> 1^ LJ >j w v-> -^ O-r^OQO K^ 



en encn^enenenenenenenenen en (/}i/}i/iifi^^ifi^<f)^in^ 

QjOQjQjOQjcjajQjajaiaiQjQj qj QjQjQjaja»iiiQjQjQj<u<UQj 



6 ^ b S 



2* ■!=: ^ o ^ ^ 






O X ►S. w w D < w 2 ^ m 2 JE.Q ^ m 2 :§ U w ^ w Z < D S w w ^ c^cii 



OOQOOOeJOONCjNONONONONONONONONON aNC3N(3NOOOOOOOO^^r-<r-^^ 



WHUUexUUH!2HH>HX HHHWHPuZcQHHPaWHCQCQH 



220 



John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



^ ^ ^ ^ ^ -^ ^ 

60 WD _bJD ^60 _bp ^bC _bC 9^ .W5 ^ 



1/1 *- *^ 

n -C ^ 

= 60 W 

£i ■« ■« 

^ j-j J2 

^ "S "S 



01 

X 

4_. J_. J_. U 

X X ^ S3 
6p_bp_6p^ 



606060606060606060 



X X J3 
60 60 60 



60 60 60 



fC tC fC fC cC (^ 



i: 3 ^ 

t/itOi/iiAii/iXencnc/ic/ic/it/itntfluitficcifiini/iui 



M 






C^ 






D 






H 






< 






_) 






PQ 




a, 


H 






Z 


o o o o o o 


ooooSooo 


tu 


c c c c c c 


CCCCcnCCC 



'a,o'cL,oooooooo 



cc fC cc f^ fC fC fC 



tu 
D 

O 

pa _u ^ 



'S- 


'5- 


a 


■&H 


"S. 




Cfi 


CD 


tn 


t/l 


l/l 




T3 


T1 


T3 


-a 


T! 


C 


<U 


a; 


OJ 


a; 


CIJ 


^ 


Xi 


Xi 


.n 


^ 


O 


O 


o 


o 


O 



CQ '7-' 7J (^ (^ CC 73 

is ^ 2 in in .is C 



ci^ c/1 c/1 . H I I 



^ oigccuaiaiGSSSi^ 
i^Si -s ';?, x^ Xt x> 



2aix£a>!=laic 
=; ^ re •;:; JH to X) 



5 T! TS T3 x; 
tl C C C 3 
O- p P O u 



01 QJ fC 
i T3 TS .b 



opppooo.S :^ o ^SoPoS&^^^^^oi^a-oS-S^-g-gDH 



en en 
01 O) 



Qjoio)QjoioiQjO)OJOiOiOioiajoiajO)oiua>oioioioiojO)Oiojoj 



S X ^ I 

^ t^ £ 

< X a; 

>. Oh X) - 

U O) Ol N 

3 g X X 

hJ ►£. Ch w 



-tt: ■£ J5 >^ 



[i, 


>^'T3 


hJ 


S 


60U 


;h 


X 




N 


UJ 


T3 -" 




X 


^i.. QJ 


01 


re 


O; ii; 


o 



^^ £ X ^ 



QJ X 01 Dh 



s^e 



2 « o 

< u o 

S c "V. 

x: p; 



c 
2 c 

60 2 

S to 

O fO 

■ re 



^£wi75^°<<S^i2 

















60 


^ 


O 










- o o 




C 








Tl 


u 


6r 
































"re 
're 

60 


Oirno 
unting 
unting 


i 

o 


o 

en 

C 

X 

o 


QJ 


_o 
w 

X 


S 
re 


re 

r, 


Si 

X 

X 


"oJ 
X 

< 


QJ 
"en 

5 

CO 


"qj 

& 

re 


er& 
iaH 
is. H 


en 

re 

s 


Pi 

en 
11 


c 
re 
X 


ej 
u 
re 


^ 


g 
re 


re 
C 


c 
o 


_QJ 

"re 
X 


s 

.2 


X 
U 

X 




bO'X •- 




C 








r 












< 


O X J= 
Ci W U 


X 


2 


o; 
Pi 




OJ 
CO 


13 
CD 


O 


u 


^ 


c^ 






U Z 






X X 



Ann F. Shepardson 221 






(S to B3 ^ 



3 g -S^'S^ D 3 3 3 .b g 3 3 S -S^-S^ C 3 

ci,ci.+ 'ii'"'"DH+ + + + ^ o, Q^ Q, o, c^ Pi^ u^'i: 0-Q-+ +—0,'" '"-i: + 

rt (C •;:? -7= ^ ^ tc •;:> -^ •- •- n3 n3 « « n3 n3 05 X .y « « ■- -p? C rt Xl ^ -M •=■ 

(« in ifi !-U ^ ^inincfiifit/) Ui (Tt Ui if) J) ^ in ,C?tntntn(/iv4-;i«,-3^>ai 

«:; 
o 






C 



CL 









JO 



^ O.E °.2 w X X a? w w U 2 U c^ 2 U °. °.w U < ^^ U < H U m U 



OOOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOnOn OnOnOnOnOnOnOnOOOOOi— 'I— 11— II— ' 



XX H X X 



222 John Huntington, Gravestone Carver 



c 
o 

^ bO 60 ^ .£P .^ .^ .^ .tJ3 .^ .M3 ,bp ^bf) ,W) bC .5P .S .£P .2P .SP .^ .£P 



< 

Zoooooog 







73 




13 






re 


T3 


-a 


-o 


(C 




73 


T3 


-a 






T3 








fii 




C 




c 






u 


C 


c 


c 


;-( 




C 


C 


c 






C 








w 




O 




o 






'a 
in 


o 


o 


o 


en 




p 


P 


p 






P 










pi! 

o 


Cl. 


u 


CLh 


;-i 


en 

t; 


a 


u 


>-. 


■ii 


Oh 


■i 


Vh 


0: 


&. 


in 


•a 


a, 


a. 


Cu 


^ 


0) 


^ 


01 


^ 


^ 


01 


a> 


0) 


^ 


^ 


OJ 


QJ 


OJ 


^ 


OJ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


"rt 


T3 


13 


•T3 




"re 


O 
O 


T3 


73 


T3 


O 
O 


a 


T3 


T5 


t3 


13 


CO 
OJ 


T3 


13 


13 


13 


PQ 




■? 


u 

en 


■0 




■? 


■? 


■§ 


u 

en 


■§ 


■? 


■? 


in 


■? 


m 


i-j 

en 


in 


P< 












































W 












































D 












































hJ 












































O 












































in 


en 


en 


en 


en 


in 


tn 


tn 


in 


in 


in 


in 


en 


en 


in 


tn 


in 


in 


in 


m 


tn 


OJ 


(U 


o; 


OJ 


QJ 


OJ 


QJ 


11 


OJ 


OJ 


OJ 


0) 


QJ 


QJ 


QJ 


OJ 


OJ 


OJ 


OJ 


0) 


QJ 


t« 


>. 


>^ 


>^ 


>, 


>, 


>^ 


>^ 


>^ 


>^ 


>^ 


>-, 


>. 


>. 


t^ 


>. 


>. 


>, 


>^ 


>, 


>^ 


>^ 



^^•'^t>cojOj^-rtjt^*jCuoji^tnf-'-"T:'^inr^G>^S; 
Z U w < ^X £ ^ I U N ^ a5 ^ a5 ►a SuShwO 

u 

HfNfNtNfNfNtNmrororororocorom ■^■^•^•^■^Ln 



WW H „ 



223 



THE YEAR'S WORK IN GRAVEMARKER/CEMETERY STUDIES 
Richard E. Meyer 

This annual feature of Markers, inaugurated in 1995, is intended to 
serve as an ongoing, working bibliography of relevant scholarship in the 
interdisciplinary field which is ever more consistently coming to be 
known as Cemetery and Gravemarker Studies. Entries, listed in alphabet- 
ical order by author, consist mainly of books and of articles found within 
scholarly journals: excluded are materials found in newspapers, popular 
magazines, and trade journals (though, as any researcher knows, valuable 
information can sometimes be gleaned from these sources), as well as 
genealogical publications and cemetery "readings," book reviews, video 
productions, electronic resources (e.g., World Wide Web sites), and irre- 
trievably non-scholarly books (i.e., the "Bathroom Book of Grave Humor" 
sort of thing). Though not included here, it should be particularly noted 
that short but valuable critical and analytical pieces are frequently pub- 
lished in the quarterly Newsletter (commencing with the Winter, 1996 
issue, to be officially rechristened the Quarterly) of the Association for 
Gravestone Studies. 

With its debut listing in Markers XII, "The Year's Work" attempted to 
fill gaps in existing bibliographic resources by actually covering the years 
1990 through 1994. Since then, additional materials have been identified 
from this period which are worthy of inclusion. Realizing that, to a certain 
degree at least, this belated identification is likely to occur at any time, 
bibliographic listings will henceforth be presented under two headings: 
(I) materials from roughly 1990 through the previous year's listing which 
have not been previously cited in "The Year's Work"; (II) materials from the 
year just completed. To help facilitate this process, the editor continues to 
welcome addenda from readers {complete bibliographic citations, please) 
for inclusion in future editions. 

I. 1990-1994 

Ashabranner, Brent. A Grateful Nation: The Story of Arlington National 
Cemetery. New York: Putnam, 1990. 



224 



Barozzi, Jacques. Guide des cimitieres Parisiens. Paris: Editions Hervas, 
1990. 

Barrau, Annick. "Les dernieres demeures." In Socio-economie de la mort, de 
la prevoyance aux fleurs de cimitiere. Paris: L'Harmattan, 1992, pp. 
153-176. 

Beesley, Ian, and James, David. Undercliffe: Bradford's Historic Victorian 
Cemetery. Bradford, England: The Undercliffe Cemetery Charity, 1991. 

Bennett, Diane O. "Bury Me in Second Class: Contested Symbols in a 
Greek Cemetery." Anthropological Quarterly 67:3 (1994), pp. 122-134. 

Beyern, Bertrand. Guide des cimitieres en France. Paris: Le cherche-midi edi- 
teur, 1994. 

Bigler, Philip. In Honored Glory: Arlington National Cemetery, The Final Post. 
Arlington, VA: Vandamere Press, 1994. 

Brackner, Joey. "An Overview of the Tombstones of Nineteenth- Century 
Alabama and their Makers." The Southern Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 
21-49. 

Brady, Patricia. "Florville Foy, F.M.C.: Master Marble Cutter and Tomb 
Builder." The Southern Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 8-20. 

Brown, Ian W. "The Lamson-Carved Gravestones of Watertown, 
Massachusetts." In The Art and Mystery of Historical Archaeology: Essays 
in Honor of James Deetz. Edited by Anne Elizabeth Yentsch and Mary C. 
Beaudry Boca Raton, PL: CRC Press, 1992, pp. 165-191. 

Burek, Deborah M., ed. Cemeteries of the United States: A Guide to Contact 
Information for United States Cemeteries and their Records. Florence, KY: 
Gale Research, Inc., 1994. 

Charbo, Eileen. "Numero Uno: The First Foreign U.S. Military Cemetery." 
Journal of the West 30:4 (1991), pp. 76-77. 



225 



Chase, Theodore, and Gabel, Laurel K. "James Ford (1721/22-1781): 
Stonecarver of Salem." Essex County Historical Collection 130:1 (1994), 
pp. 1; 5-17. 

. "John Holliman: Eighteenth-Century Salem Stonecarver." 



Essex County Historical Collection 128:3 (1992), pp. 147-161. 

Christovich, Mary Louise. "Travail, Is Thy Name Preservation?: The Why 
and the How of Save Our Cemeteries." The Southern Quarterly 31:2 
(1993), pp. 123-132. 

Cotter, John L., Roberts, David C, and Parrington, Michael. The Buried 
Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. Philadelphia: University 
of Pennsylvania Press, 1992. 

Curl, James Stevens. "Young's Night Thoughts and the Origins of the 
Garden Cemetery." Journal of Garden History 14 (1994), pp. 92-118. 

Degh, Linda. American Folklore and the Mass Media. Bloomington, IN: 
Indiana University Press, 1994, pp. 153-186 ["Letters to the Dead"]. 

Driskell, Michael Paul. As Befits a Legend: Building a Tomb for Napoleon, 
1840-1861. Kent, OH: The Kent State University Press, 1993. 

Eckert, Eva. "Language Change: Testimony of Czech Tombstone 
Inscriptions in Praha, Texas." In Varieties of Czech. Edited by Eva 
Eckert. Atlanta, 1993, pp. 79-121. 

Fox, Flo. "A Monumental Affair." Sculpture Review 43 (1994), pp. 6-11. 

Frazer, Harriet. Memorials by Artists. Saxmundham, England: Snape 
Priory 1993. 

Gardner, Julian. The Tomb and the Tiara: Curial Tomb Sculpture in Rome and 
Avignon in the Later Middle Ages. New York: Oxford University Press, 
1992. 



226 



Gruber, Samuel, and Myers, Phyllis. Survey of Historic Jewish Monuments in 
Poland. New York: Jewish Heritage Council, 1994. 

Hannon, Bruce. "The Forgetting Rate: Evidence from a Country 
Cemetery." Landscape Journal 9:1 (1990), pp. 16-21. 

Harvey, Anthony, and Mortimer, Richard, eds. The Funeral Effigies at 
Westminster Abbey. Woodbridge, Suffolk, England: Boydell & 
Brewster, 1994. 

Hurst, Sidney C. The Silent Cities: An Illustrated Guide to the War Cemeteries 
and Memorials to the 'Missing' in France and Flanders, 1914-1918.. 
London: The Naval and Military Press, 1993. 

Jaquin-Phillipe, Josette. Les cimitieres de Paris. Paris: Leonce Laget, 1993. 

Jerzy, Waldorf. The Rest is Silence: The Powazki Cemetery in Warsaw. Palo 
Alto, CA: Szwede Slavic Books, 1990. 

Jolas, Jean-Louis. Pere Lachaise: Theatre d'ombres. Paris: La Maison 
Rhodanienne de Poesie, 1990. 

Jones, C.R., and Stewart, Milo V. "The Rural Cemetery in New York." 
Heritage: Magazine of the New York Historical Association 11:1 (1994), pp. 
4-9. 

Jones, Jack B. On the Trail of the Presidents: An Historical Guide to Burial Sites 
and Monuments. San Luis Obispo, CA: Jones & Jones, 1994. 

Kahn, Claude. Landais, Jean, and Bellanger, Andre. Des lieux de memorie: 
Les quinze cimitieres de Nantes. Nantes, France: Universite Inter-Ages de 
Nantes, 1990. 

Koch, Guntram, ed. Roman Funerary Monuments. Santa Monica, CA: J. 
Paul Getty Trust Publications, 1990. 



227 



Kriiger-Kahloula, Angelika. "On the Wrong Side of the Fence: Racial 
Segregation in American Cemeteries." In History and Memory in 
African-American Culture. Edited by Genevieve Fabre and Robert 
O'Meally. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp. 130-149. 

Le Clere, Marcel. Guide des cimitieres de Paris. Paris: Guides Hachette, 1990. 

Little, Barbara J., Lanphear, Kim M., and Owsley, Douglas W. "Mortuary 
Display and Status in a Nineteenth-Century Anglo-American 
Cemetery in Manassas, Virginia." American Antiquity 57:3 (1992), pp. 
397-418. 

Masson, Ann M. "Pere La Chaise and New Orleans Cemeteries." The 
Southern Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 82-97. 

Mauk, Cathy. "Fargo, North Dakota's Lonely Jewish Cemetery." Western 
States Jewish History 26:3 (1994), pp. 251-255. 

Maynard, Mary. Dead and Buried in New England: Respectful Visits to the 
Tombstones and Monuments of 360 Noteworthy Yankees. New York: St. 
Martin's Press, 1993. 

McNerney, Michael J., and Meyer, Herb. Early Pioneer Gravestones of Pope 
County, Illinois. Carbondale, IL: American Resources Group, 1994. 

Millar, Nancy. Remember Me As You Pass By: Stories from Prairie Graveyards. 
Calgary, Alberta, Canada: Glenbow, 1994. 

Moore, Jerry, Blaker, Cynthia, and Smith, Grant. "Cherished Are the Dead: 
Changing Social Dimensions in a Kansas Cemetery." Plains 
Anthropologist 36:133 (1991), pp. 67-78. 

Mytum, Harold. "Language as Symbol in Churchyard Monuments: The 
Use of Welsh in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Pembrokeshire." 
World Archaeology 26 (1994), pp. 252-267. 



228 



Newsom, Rollo K. "Motorcycles and Majorettes: Grave Markers for Youth 
in Central Texas." In Corners of Texas. Edited by Francis Edward 
Abernethy. Denton, TX: University of North Texas Press, 1993, pp. 
246-266. 

Norfleet, Barbara P. Looking at Death. Boston: David R. Godline, 1993. 

Pelletier, Eric. Evolution spatiale des cimitieres du Trois-Rivieres metropolitain: 
(1634-1993). Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada: Universite du Quebec a 
Trois-Rivieres, 1993. 

Polcari, Stephen. "Barnett Newman's Broken Obelisk." Art Journal 53 
(1994), pp. 48-55. 

Richardson, Jeanne Schulte. Here Lies Sioux Falls. Freeman, SD: Pine Hill 
Press, 1992. 

Riley, Thomas J. "Postmortem Spouse Residence in Nineteenth- Century 
Illinois Cemeteries: Patterns of Kinship and Land Tenure." Death 
Studies 16:2 (1992), pp. 125-140. 

Sablow, Mark. "Southern Cemeteries: Places of Presence." The Southern 
Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 157-164. 

Schmitt, Peter J. "Grave Matters: American Cemeteries in Transition." 
Journal of Urban History 18 (1992), pp. 338- 345. 

Scott, Julie. "Oakland Cemetery in Petersburg." Western Illinois Regional 
Studies 14:2 (1991), pp. 35-52. 

Sledge, John. "A Circular Necropolis on the Gulf Coast: Mobile's Old 
Catholic Cemetery." The Southern Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 74-81. 

Slovak, Pauline Anderson. "In Remembrance." East Texas Historical 
Journal 30:1 (1992), pp. 58-65. 



229 



Spiegelman, Vivian, and Kastenbaum, Robert. "Pet Rest Memorial: Is 
Eternity Running Out of Time?" Omega: Journal of Death and Dying 21:1 
(1990), pp. 1-13. 

Stokes, Sherrie. "Gone But Not Forgotten: Wakulla County's Folk 
Graveyards." Florida Historical Quarterly 70:2 (1991), pp. 177-191. 

Thompson, Sharyn. "These Works of Mortuary Masonry: The 
Aboveground Tombs of St. Michael Cemetery, Pensacola, Florida." The 
Southern Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 50-73. 

Thompson, Sharyn, Brackner, Joey, and Lemmon, Alfred E. "Historic 
Cemeteries in the Southern United States: A Preliminary 
Bibliography." The Southern Quarterly 31:2 (1993), pp. 133-146. 

Traywick, Ben T. Tombstone's Boothill. Tombstone, AZ: Red Marie's, 1994. 

Urbain, Jean-Didier. "Avenirs et avatars du cimitiere occidental." 
Gerontologie et societe 58 (1991), pp. 174-180. 

. "Du jardin des morts au cimitiere des plantes: Mort d'une 

memorie au fond d'un jardin anglais..." Thanatologie 83-84 (1990), pp. 
5-20. 

Urbain, Jean-Didier, et Valeyre, Bernard. "Quitter la vie." Gerontologie et 
societe 5S (1991), pp. 181-203. 

Weinstein, R. "Stones of Memory: Revelations from a Cemetery in 
Curaco." American Jewish Archives 44:1 (1992), pp. 81-140. 

Wright, Roberta H. Detroit Memorial Park Cemetery: The Evolution of an 
African- American Corporation. Southfield, MI: Charro Book Company, 
1993. 

Yeoh, Brenda S.A. "The Control of 'Sacred' Space: Conflicts Over the 
Chinese Burial Grounds in Colonial Singapore." Journal of Southeast 
Asian Studies 22(1991), pp. 282-311. 



230 



II. 1995 

Andrews, Owen. Arlington National Cemetery: A Moment of Silence. New 
York: John Wiley & Sons, 1995. 

Christopher, A.J. "Segregation and Cemeteries in Port Elizabeth, South 
Africa." The Geographical Journal 161:1 (1995), pp. 38-46. 

Foster, Gary S., and Hummel, Richard L. "The Adkins-Woodson 
Cemetery: A Sociological Examination of Cemeteries as 
Communities." Markers XII (1995), pp. 92-117. 

Frantom, Marcy. "Gravehouses of North Louisiana: Culture History and 
Typology." Material Culture 27:2 (1995), pp. 21-48. 

Groseclose, Barbara. British Sculpture and the Company Raj: Church 
Monuments and Public Statuary in Madras, Calcutta, and Bombay to 1858. 
Newark, DE: University of Deleware Press, 1995. 

Koortbojian, Michael. Myth, Meaning, and Memory in Roman Sarcophagi. 
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1995. 

Le Normand-Romain, Antoinette. Memorie de marbre: La sculpture funeraire 
en France, 1804-1914. Paris: Bibliotheque historique de la Ville de Paris, 
1995. 

Linden, Blanche M.G. Spring Grove: Celebrating 150 Years. Cincinnati: 
Cincinnati Historical Society, 1995. 

Lynch, Gay. "Contemporary Gravemarkers of Youths: Milestones of Our 
Path through Pain to Joy" Markers XII (1995), pp. 144-159. 

McKillop, Heather. "Recognizing Children's Graves in Nineteenth- 
Century Cemeteries: Excavations in St. Thomas Anglican Churchyard, 
Belleville, Ontario, Canada." Historical Archaeology 29:2 (1995), pp. 
77-99. 



231 



Meyer, Richard E., and Gradwohl, David M. "'Best Damm Dog We Ever 
Had': Some Eolkloroistic and Anthropological Observations on San 
Francisco's Presidio Pet Cemetery." Markers XII (1995), pp. 160-205. 

Powell, Leah Carson, and Dockall, Helen Danzeiser. "Folk Narratives and 
Archaeology: An African-American Cemetery in Texas." Journal of 
Field Archaeology 22:3 (1995), pp. 349-353. 

Robinson, David. Saving Graces: Images of Women in European Cemeteries. 
New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1995. 

Ruby, Jay. Secure the Shadow: Death and Photography in America. Cambridge, 
MA: The MIT Press, 1995. 

Sclair, Helen A. "Ethnic Cemeteries: Underground Rites." In Ethnic 
Chicago: A Multicidtural Portrait, 4th edition. Edited by Melvin G. Holli 
and Peter d'A. Jones. Grand Rapids, MI: Wilham B. Eerdmans 
Publishing Co., 1995, pp. 618-639. 

Tucker, Ralph L. "The Joshua Hempstead Diary." Markers XII (1995), pp. 
118-143. 

Veit, Richard. "'A Piece of Granite That's Been Made in Two Weeks': 
Terra-Cotta Gravemarkers from New Jersey and New York, 1875- 
1930." Markers XII (1995), pp. 1-29. 

Weiss, Hali. "Dust to Dust: Transforming the American Cemetery." 
Tikkum 10:5 (1995), pp. 21-25. 

Willsher, Betty. "Adam and Eve Scenes on Kirkyards in the Scottish 
Lowlands: An Introduction and Gazetteer." Markers XII (1995), pp. 
30-91. 

Yeoh, Brenda S.A., and Hui, Tan Boon. "The Politics of Space: Changing 
Discourses on Chinese Burial Grounds in Post- War Singapore." Journal 
of Historical Geography 21 (1995), pp. 184-201. 



232 



CONTRIBUTORS 

Scott Baird is an Associate professor of English and Chair of the 
Interdisciphnary Program in Linguistics at Trinity University in San 
Antonio, Texas. His article on language codes in Texas German grave- 
yards appears in Markers IX. 

Glenn A. Knoblock holds a degree in history from Bowling Green State 
University. During the eleven years he has lived in New Hampshire, he 
has concentrated his studies on gravestones found in the Seacoast Region 
of that state. He has just completed a research and restoration project on 
the First Parish Burial Ground in Rollingsford, New Hampshire, and is 
currently at work on a book-length study of colonial-era gravestones in 
the Seacoast Region. 

Richard E. Meyer teaches English and Folklore at Western Oregon State 
College in Monmouth, Oregon. Besides serving as editor of Markers, he 
has edited the books Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of American 
Culture (1989, reprinted 1992) and Ethnicity and the American Cemetery 
(1993) and is co-author (with Peggy McDowell) of the book The Revival 
Styles in American Memorial Art (1994). He is a member of the editorial 
board of The Journal of American Culture, and since 1986 has chaired the 
Cemeteries and Gravemarkers section of the American Culture 
Association. His articles on Oregon pioneer gravemarkers and (with 
David M. Gradwohl) on San Francisco's Presidio Pet Cemetery have 
appeared in Markers XI and Markers XII, respectively. 

Susanne S. Ridlen teaches Folklore and American studies courses at 
Indiana University Kokomo, Kokomo, Indiana. She is past president of 
both the Hoosier Folklore Society and the Historical Society of Crown Hill 
Cemetery in Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Ann F. Shepardson is a painter. Her works have been shown in New York 
City and in Connecticut. In addition to painting, her work also includes 
textile design and illustration. 



233 



James A. Slater, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of 
Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, is a charter member of the Association 
for Gravestone Studies and has over the years served that organization as 
both Vice President and member of the Executive Board. He has pub- 
lished a number of books on the Systematics and Biology of Insects, as 
well as more than 250 journal articles. A Fellow of the Entomological 
Society of America, as well as an Honorary Member of the New York 
Entomological Society, his awards have ranged from the Entomological 
Society of America's L.O. Howard Award to the Harriette Merrifield 
Forbes Award of the Association for Gravestone Studies. His previous 
work on gravestones includes studies of the work of Obadiah Wheeler, 
John Hartshorne, and Jonathan and John Loomis, as well as his 1987 book. 
The Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut and the Men Who Made 
Them. He was editor of the papers of Dr. Ernest Caulfield in Markers VIII. 



234 



INDEX 



Boldface page numbers [in brackets] indicate illustrations 



Abel, Caleb 160, [192] 
Abel, Cretia 172, [205] 
Abel, William 174 
Able,Abigaill63, 177 
Ackley, Adonaijah 161, [188] 
Albertson, Isaac N. [47] 
Alden, John 175 
Allen, Gabrial 28 
Allen, George 28 

Ames Burying Ground, Lisbon, CT 3, 7 
Association of American Cemetery 
Superintendents 70 

Barker, Benjamin 92-93, [96] 

Bascom, Daniel 175, [210] 

Batchelor monument, Logansport, IN [63] 

Bayless monument. Twelve Mile, IN [52] 

Bill, John 164, [198] 

Birchard, Mary 173, [207] 

Bissel, Mary 166, [166, 202] 

Blake, Jeremiah 88, [90] 

Bozrah Devil carver 179 

Brandenburger monument, Indianapolis, 

IN [49] 
Brewster, Comfort 174, 178, [209] 
Brewster, Mary 154-156, [155] 
Bridges, Edmond 178 
Bridgetown, Barbados, West Indies 137 
Briggs, Elisabeth [35] 
Brown, Ann 160, 172, [192] 
Brown, Ebenezer 174 
Brown, Mehetabel [91] 
Brown monument, Mitchell, IN [70] 
Brown, Stephen [78] 
Buell, William 145, 175, [210] 
Bugbe, Jonathan 156, 162-163, 165, [162] 
Bugbee, Charles E. 7 
Burleigh, John [80] 
Burley, Daniel 150, 165, 173, [150, 207] 

Calkin, James 161 

Caulfield, Ernest J. 1, 143, 145, 167, 175 

Chichester, NH 88, 101-102 

Clark, Ann 173, [208] 



Clark, Eliphalet 165 

Clark, Elisabeth 173 

Clark, Gershon 165 

Clark, Izrahiah 172, [205] 

Clark, Moses 166 

Clark, William 156, 158, 164, [191] 

Collins, Benjamin 32, 143-222 

Collins, Zerubbable 146, 167, 177-179 

Connecticut (state) 1-43, 142-222 

Connecticut Historical Society 145 

Crane, Jonathan [202] 

Croker, Roswil 161, 170, [199] 

Crosby, Ezra [31] 

Danielson, James 156, 158 
Danielson, Mary 156 
De Camp, David 131 
Denham, Abigail 21, [20] 
Dexter, Prudence 16 
Dodge, Billy 92, [95] 
Dorrance, Mary [22] 
Dow, Asa [vi, 2] 
Downer, Joseph 165 
Downing, Andrew Jackson 46 
Dunlap, Betsy 18, [14] 
Durlauf, Michael [51] 

Edgerton, Ane 153, [186] 
Edgerton, Hanna [211] 
Edgerton, John 177 
Edgerton, Phebe 161 
Emmett, L. [48] 
English, Richard [187] 
Essex County, MA 143 
Evans, F.S. 6 

Farris monument, Bedford, IN [56] 

Fellows, Jeremiah, Jr. 86 

Fellows, Jonathan [77] 

Fitch, James 156 

Fitch, Joseph 167, 169, 175, [168, 204] 

Fitch, Nathaniel 150, 156, 161, 166, 169, 

[151, 198] 
Forbes, Harriette Merrifield 1, 75 



235 



Ford, James 167, [201] 

Fowinkle monument, Peru, IN [67] 

Fowler, James 169 

Fowler, John 156 

Fowler, Joseph 1 76 

Fowler, William 177, [212] 

Gallup, John [5] 

Gay, Abigail 177 

Gay, Samuel 153, 158, 164 

Geldmacher, Ida 123, [120] 

Gilman, Samuel [79] 

Gordon, Abigail [23, 24] 

Gordon, Simon 20, [13] 

Grand Army of the Republic [69] 

Gray, Simeon 167, [203] 

Green, Eaton 88 

Hampton Falls, NH 86-111 

Harris, Jesse [12, 29] 

Hartshorne, Jonathan 74-111 

Hartshorne, John 75, 143, 178 

Hasten, John 158, [186] 

Haverland, Wilhelmine (1865-1902) 123, 

[121] 
Haverland, Wilhelmine (1876-1928) 123, 

[124] 
Healey, Nathaniel 87 
Hide, Ehab 177 
Hide, Eunice 2 
Hide, Naomi 150, 172, [152] 
Hide, Oliver 161, 162-163, [163, 201] 
Hide, Samuel 178, [213] 
Hinkley, Gersham 178 
Hudson, Richard 113 
Huntington, Gurdon 175, [212] 
Huntington, Hanna 158, [190, 200] 
Huntington, Isaac 175, [211] 
Huntington, John 32, 142-222 
Huntington, Mary (Clark) 145 
Huntington, Mehetabel (Metcalf) 145, 166 

[185] 
Huntington, Samuel 145 
Huntington, Sarah 163, [197] 
Huntington, Simon 156, 158, 164, [190] 
Huntington, Simon, Jr. 158 

Independent Order of Odd Fellows [69] 
Indiana (state) 44-73 



"J.N." 75 

Jordan, Terry G. 115 

Kimball family carvers 32 
Kinne, Lucy [29] 
Kinne, Martha 18 
Kinne, Zipporah [38] 

Lamb, David 21 

Lamb, David, Jr. 21 

Lamson family carvers 75 

Lane, Asa 88 

Lane, Bathsheba (Robie) 86 

Lane, Ebenezer 95 

Lane, James R 97 

Lane, Jeremiah 74-111, [102] 

Lane, Joshua 86, 88, 90 

Lane, Mary (Sanborn) 86, 101 

Lane, Samuel 90 

Lane, WiUiam 86, [93] 

Lebanon, CT 142-222 

Leech, Isaac 174 [209] 

Leighton family carvers 75 

Lester, Charles [28] 

Linch, Thomas 161, [197] 

Little, Nathaniel 156 

Loomis, Jonathan 179 

Lowenthal, David 45 

Ludwig, Allan I. 143 

Lundsford, RS. 123, [119] 

Lyman, Jonathan 156, 158, 164, [191] 

Lyman, Lydia 156, [194] 

Lyman, Sarah 163, [200] 

Mabie, Hamilton Wright 71 

Mackall, Hanna 164 

Mackall, James 156, 165 

Mackall, Ozias 160 

Manning, Deborah 161 

Manning family carvers 32 

Manning, Josiah 143, 145, 179 

Manwaring, Robert 45-46, [46] 

Marsh, Mary 18, 20, [8, 10, 11] 

Marston, E. 8 

Masonic Blue Lodge [69] 

Meehan, Thomas B. 70 

Merrimac Valley Style 75 

Metcalf, Hanna (d. 1756) 170, 177, [171] 

Metcalf, Hanna (d. 1755) 172, 177, [206] 



236 



Methuen, MA 75 

Meyer, Richard E. 71 

Mikus, Jozef H. 133, [134] 

Mikus, Veronyka 123, [122] 

Miller, Alexander 8, 25, [cover, 6] 

Miller, John S. 116, 133, [117] 

Modern Woodmen of America 64, 68, [66] 

Moorhous monument, Monticello, IN [48] 

Morss, Dorothy 160 

Moulton, Abigail 97 

Moulton, Benjamin 85, 87-88, 98, [85] 

Moulton, Rachel [74] 

Moulton, Sarah 97, [98] 

Mullicken family carvers 75 

Mumford, William 75 

Nash, Roderick 68 
Newcomb, Hezekiah 178 [213] 
Newcomb, Silas 178, [214] 
New Hampshire (state) 74-111 
Noyes, Paul 92 

Pain, Benjamin 158 

Palmer, Edwin 4 

Palmer, Elisabeth [33] 

Park, Elijah 8, [7] 

Parkhurst, David 20 

Parkhurst, Phineas [4] 

Parks, Daniel 21, [19] 

Philbert monument, Dugger, IN [57] 

Phillips monument, Bloomfield, IN [53] 

Phillips, Sarah [36] 

Plainfield, CT 1-43 

Pokorny Edmond Daniel 123, [126] 

Pokorny, Johanna 123, [125] 

Porter, Susannah 92, [94] 

Prescutt, Elisha 88, [89] 

Reitenour monument, Deerfield, IN [50] 

Roberts, Jonathan 1 

Robie, Henry 88 

Robles, Daniel S. 136, [136] 

Rockwell, Daniel 172, [193] 

Rockwell, Tabithy 172, 176, [206] 

Romaine, Suzanne 133 

Rowe, Benjamin 81, 101, [100] 

Rural Cemetery Movement 46, 48 

Rustic Style 45-73 



Salinas, Jose M. 136, [135] 

Sanborn, Joseph 86-87 

Sanborn, Susan 87 

Schmidt, Pater 131 

Scott, Winfield 7 

Sculley monument, Indianapolis, IN [58] 

Seabury, Submit 160, [193] 

Seymore, William W. 114, 133, [112] 

Shaw, Josiah 87 

Shepard, John 3rd [30] 

Slater, James A. 143-144, 167 

Sluman, Hanna 158, 167, 176, [187, 203] 

Smith, Aaron 87 

Smith monument, Indianapolis, IN [55] 

Smith monument, Sheridan, IN [66] 

Sociolinguistics 112-141 

Spalden, Abigail 173 

Spalding, Eunice 17, [17] 

Spalding, Rachel 16, [15, 16] 

Spaulding, Stephen 1 

Stark, Abel 153, 170, [195] 

Starkwether, Mary [23, 33] 

Stevens shop (Rhode Island) 156, 167, 178- 

179 
Steward, David 80, [81] 
Stringer, John 16 
Swain, Caleb 87 

Taylor monument, Gosport, IN [62] 

Taylor, TX 112-141 

Terry, Ephraim 156 

Texas (state) 112-141 

Thomas, Bethiah 153, 170, [195] 

Throop, Sarah [27] 

Throop, William 156, [188] 

Throop, William (Mrs.) 156, [189] 

Throope, Betty 177 

Throope, John 1 17 

Throope, Macy 176-177, [176] 

Throope, Samuel 154, 156 [157] 

Tilden, Joseph and Elizabeth 178 

Tilden, Stephen 174, [2081 

Tilton, Nathan 88 

Todd monument, Delphi, IN [44] 

Tracy, Daniel 149, 156, 160, [142, 194] 

Trumbull, Hanna 145 

Trumbull, Jomathan 145 

Trumbull, Jonathan, Jr. 145 

Trumbull, Joseph 145, [199] 



237 



Tucker, Ralph 143 
Turner, Mary 145, [185] 
Tuttle, John 170 

Vaughan, John 167, 173-174 

Voorhis monument. New Waverly, IN [65] 

Walden, John 179 

Ward, Jonathan 80, [82] 

Warner, W. Lloyd 71 

Warren, Betsey 3 

Warren, Elisha 3 

Warren, Jerusha 2-3 

Warren, Joseph 2 

Warren, Jotham 1-43 

Warren, Martin 3 

Warren, Mary 3 

Waterman, Elisabeth 172 

Waterman, Martha 149-150, 165, 179, [148, 

196] 
Wattles, Ireney 155-156, 161, [158, 196] 
Webb, Esther [36] 
Webb, Samuel [189] 
Wheeler, Jonas 8 
Wheeler, Obadiah 32, 143-222 
White, Albert S. 60-61 
Whitney Margret 149-150, [149] 
Williams, John 145 
Williams, Solomon 167, 169, [204] 
Williams, Wilham 145 
Woodmen of the World 68, [67] 
Woodmen's Circle 68 
Wydman monument, Indianapolis, IN [69] 

Young monument, Tipton, IN [59] 

Zak, Jiri and RozaUe 138, [137] 



NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS TO 

MARKERS: ANNUAL JOURNAL OF 

THE ASSOCIATION FOR GRAVESTONE STUDIES 

Scope 

The Association for Gravestone Studies was incorporated as a non- 
profit corporation in 1978 as an outgrowth of the Dublin Seminar for New 
England Folklife. The first volume of the Association's annual scholarly 
journal. Markers, appeared in 1980. While the charter purposes of AGS are 
broad, the general editorial policy of Markers is to define its subject mat- 
ter as the analytical study of gravemarkers of all types and encompassing 
all historical periods and geographical regions of North America. 
Gravemarkers are here taken to mean above-ground artifacts that com- 
memorate the spot of burial, thereby excluding memorials or cenotaphs. 
Articles on death and dying in general or on other aspects of death-relat- 
ed material culture would not normally fall within the journal's purview 
unless clearly linked to the study of gravemarkers. Particular cemeteries 
may form the basis of study if a major focus of the article is on the mark- 
ers contained therein and if the purpose of the article is more than simply 
a history or description of the cemeteries themselves. While not necessar- 
ily excluded, articles dealing with material not found in North America 
should seek in some fashion to provide meaningful comparative analysis 
with material found here. Finally, articles submitted for publication in 
Markers should be scholarly, analytical and interpretive, not merely 
descriptive and entertaining. Within these general parameters, the journal 
seeks variety both in subject matter and disciplinary orientation. For illus- 
tration of these general principles, the prospective author is encouraged 
to consult recent issues of Markers. 

Submissions 

Submissions to Markers should be sent to the journal's editor, Richard E. 
Meyer, English Department, Western Oregon State College, Monmouth, OR 
97361 (Telephone: (503) 838-8362 / E-Mail: Meyerr@fsa. wosc.osshe.edu). 
Manuscripts should be submitted in triplicate (original and two duplicate 
copies) and should include originals of any accompanying photographs or 
other illustrations. Generally, articles in Markers run between fifteen and 
twenty-five 8-1/2 x 11 typescripted, double-spaced pages in length, inclu- 
sive of notes and any appended material. Longer articles may be consid- 



ered if they are of exceptional merit and if space permits. 

Should the article be accepted for publication, a final version of the 
manuscript must be submitted to the editor in both a hard copy and com- 
puter diskette format. The following word processing programs are cur- 
rently compatible with the journal's disk translation software (one 
assumes more recent versions of these programs, should they become 
available, will also be acceptable): Ami Pro 1.0, 2.0; AppleWorks WP 2.0 
3.0; DCA-RFT (DisplayWrite); FrameMaker MIF 2.0, 3.0; MacWrite 4.5 
5.0; MacWrite II; Multimate; Multimate 4.0; OfficeWriter 5.O., 6.0; 
Professional Write; RTF (Rich Text Format); Text; Word Mac 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 
Word PC; Word for Windows 1.0, 2.0; WordStar 3.0, 4.0. 5.0, 6.0, 7.0 
WordPerfect 4.2, 5.0; WordPerfect PC 5.1, 6.0 (DOS & Windows) 
WordPerfect Mac 1.0, 2.0, 2.1; Works WP Mac & PC 2.0, 3.0; WriteNow 
Mac 2.0; WriteNow NeXT 1.0, 2.0; XYWrite III. 

Regular volumes of Markers are scheduled to appear annually in 
January. No deadline is established for the initial submission of a manu- 
script, but the articles scheduled for publication in a given volume of the 
journal are generally determined by the chronological order of acceptance 
and submission in final form. 

Style/Notes 

In matters of style, manuscripts should conform to the rules and princi- 
ples enumerated in the most current edition of The Chicago Manual of Style. 

Notes, whether documentary or discursive, should appear as end- 
notes (i.e., at the conclusion of the article) and those of a documentary 
nature should conform in format to the models found in the chapter enti- 
tled "Note Forms" of The Chicago Manual of Style. In manuscript, they 
should be typed double-spaced and appear following the text of the arti- 
cle and before any appended material. Separate bibliographies are not 
desired, though bibliographical material may, of course, be included with- 
in one or more notes. Any acknowledgements should be made in a sepa- 
rate paragraph at the beginning of the note section. 

Again, the prospective author is encouraged to consult recent issues of 
Markers for examples of these principles in context. 

Illustrations 

Markers is a richly illustrated journal, its subject matter naturally lend- 
ing itself to photographs and other visual material. The journal encour- 



ages prospective authors to submit up to twenty photographs, plus any 
number of appropriate pieces of Hne art, with the understanding that 
these be carefully chosen so as to materially enhance the article's value 
through visual presentation of points under discussion in the text. Photos 
should be 5x7 or 8x10 black and white glossies of medium to high con- 
trast, and should be of the highest quality possible. Maps, charts, dia- 
grams or other line art should be rendered as carefully as possible so as to 
enhance presentation. A separate sheet should be provided listing cap- 
tions for each illustration. It is especially important that each illustration 
be numbered and clearly identified by parenthetical reference at the 
appropriate place in the text, e.g. (Fig. 7). 

Review 

Submissions to Markers are sent by the editor to members of the jour- 
nal's editorial advisory board for review and evaluation. Every effort is 
made to conduct this process in as timely a manner as possible. When 
comments have been received from all reviewers, the author will be noti- 
fied of the publication decision. If an article is accepted, suggestions for 
revision may be made and a deadline for submission of a finalized man- 
uscript established. All accepted articles will be carefully edited for style 
and format before publication. 

Copyright 

Authors are responsible for understanding the laws governing copy- 
right and fair use and, where appropriate, securing written permissions 
for use of copyrighted material. Generally, if previously copyrighted 
material of more than 250 words is used in an article, written permission 
from the person holding the copyright must be secured and submitted to 
the editor. In like manner, permission should be obtained from persons 
who have supplied photographs to the author, and credit to the photog- 
rapher should be provided in captions or acknowledgement statement. 

As regards articles published in Markers, copyright is normally given 
to the Association for Gravestone Studies, though requests for permission 
to reprint are readily accommodated. Offset copies of published articles 
are not provided to authors: each contributor, however, receives a com- 
plimentary copy of the volume. 



The Association for Gravestone Studies holds its 
Annual Meeting each year in late June (dates for the 
1996 meeting - in Gorham, Maine - are June 27-30). 
An assorted variety of events, including formal 
lectures and paper presentations, informal slide 
lectures, workshops on gravestone restoration and 
other topics, and guided cemetery tours, are on- 
going features of the Annual Meeting. For informa- 
tion, contact the Association's office at 30 Elm 
Street, Worcester, MA 01609 (508-831-7753). 



>f- >f- >f- 



Coming in Markers XIV ^ ^ ^ 




AGS JOURNALS 



MARKERS I Reprint of 1980 journal. Collection 
of 15 articles on topics such as recording and 
care of gravestones, resources for teachers, some 
unusual markers, and carvers Ithamar Spauldin 
of Concord, Mass. and the Connecticut Hook- 
and-Eye Man. 

182 pages, 100 illustrations 

MARKERS II Signed stones in New England 
and Atlantic coastal states; winged skull symbol 
in Scotland and New England; early symbols in 
religious and wider social perspective; Mass. 
carvers Joseph Barbur, Jr., Stephen and Charles 
Hartshorn, and carver known as "JN"; Portage 
County, Wise, carvers from 1850-1900; and a con- 
temporary carver of San Angelo, Tex. 
226 pages, 168 illustrations 

MARKERS III Gravestone styles in frontier 
towns of Western Mass.; emblems and epitaphs 
on Puritan gravestones; John Hartshorn's carv- 
ings in Essex County, Mass.; and New 
Hampshire carvers Paul Colburn, John Ball, 
Josiah Coolidge Wheat, Coolidge Wheat, and 
Luther Hubbard. 

154 pages, 80 illustrations 

MARKERS IV Delaware children's stones of 
1840-1899; rural southern gravemarkers; New 
York and New Jersey carving traditions; cam- 
posantos of New Mexico; and death Italo- 
American style. 

180 pages, 138 illustrations 

MARKERS V Pennsylvania German grave- 
stones; mausoleum designs of Louis Henri 
Sullivan; Thomas Gold and 7 Boston carvers of 
1700-1725 who signed stones with their initials; 
and Canadian gravestones and yards in Ontario 
and Kings County, Nova Scotia. 
240 pages, 158 illustrations 

MARKERS VI Carver John Dwight of Shirley, 
Mass.; gravestones of Afro-Americans from New 
England to Georgia; sociological study of 
Chicago-area monuments; more on New Mexico 
camposantos; hand symbolism in Southwestern 
Ontario; an epitaph from ancient Turkey; and a 
review essay on James Slater's The Colonial 
Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut. 
245 pages, 90 illustrations 

MARKERS VII A trilogy on cemetery gates and 
plot enclosures; the Boston Historic Burying 
Grounds Initiative; unusual monuments in colo- 



nial tidewater Virginia; tree stones in Southern 
Indiana's Limestone Belt; life and work of 
Virginia carver Charles Miller Walsh; carvers of 
Monroe County, Ind.; Celtic crosses; and monu- 
ments of the Tsimshian Indians of Western 
Canada. 

281 pages, 158 illustrations 

MARKERS VIII A collection of the pioneering 
studies of Dr. Ernest Caulfield on Connecticut 
carvers and their work: fifteen essays edited by 
James A. Slater and three edited by Peter Benes. 
342 pages, 206 illustrations 

MARKERS IX A tribute to the art of Francis 
Duval; the Mullicken Family carvers of 
Bradford, Mass.; the Green Man on Scottish 
markers; photo-essay on the Center Church 
Crypt, New Haven, Conn.; more on Ithamar 
Spauldin and his shop; the Almshouse Burial 
Ground, Uxbridge, Mass.; Thomas Crawford's 
monument for Amos Binney; Salt Lake City 
Temple symbols on Mormon tombstones; lan- 
guage codes in Texas German cemeteries; and 
the disappearing Shaker cemetery. 
281 pages, 176 illustrations 

MARKERS X The markers carved by Calvin 
Barber of Simsbury, Conn.; Chinese markers in a 
midwestern American Cemetery; the stonecarv- 
ing of Charles Lloyd Neale of Alexandria, Va.; 
the Jewish cemeteries of Louisville, Ky.; four 
generations of the Lamson family carvers of 
Charlestown and Maiden, Mass.; and the 
Protestant Cemetery in Florence, Italy. 
254 pages, 122 illustrations 

MARKERS XI Fraternal symbolism and grave- 
markers; regional and denominational identity in 
Louisiana cemeteries; the carvings of Solomon 
Brewer in Westchester County, NY; Theodore 
O'Hara's 'The Bivouac of the Dead'; slave mark- 
ers in colonial Massachusetts; the Leighton and* 
Worster families of carvers; a Kentucky stonecut- 
ter's career; and pioneer gravemarkers in Oregon. 
237 pages, 132 illustrations 

MARKERS XII Terra-Cotta gravemarkers; 
Adam and Eve markers in Scotland; a sociologi- 
cal examination of cemeteries as communities; 
the Joshua Hempstead diary; contemporary 
gravemarkers of youths; San Francisco's 
Presidio Pet Cemetery; and The Year's Work in 
Gravemarker/Cemetery Studies. 
238 pages. 111 illustrations