Examples of Public Archaeology and Historic Preservation in Michigan

                Historical preservation and archaeology occasionally make their way into the news, which is actually an ideal situation for both fields. We desperately want and need the public to know about what we’re doing, and news outlets such as online newspapers and social media, for example, are fantastic platforms for that. An example that I’ll provide in this post is that of the Warner Pioneer Homestead and the Hicks School, which received a bit of local media attention in recent years. Then, I’ll write a short blurb about Michigan Archaeology Day, which is an amazing public archaeology event held in Lansing every year.

Tim Bennett’s family has worked on a couple of large excursions in historic preservation and archaeology: the Hicks one-room schoolhouse and the Warner family homestead, which are now both situated in Brighton, Livingston County, Michigan. The Livingston Daily has covered these projects in detail, but only one is mentioned in this paper: “Hicks Schoolhouse Arrives Safe at New Home”, published on June 8^th, 2016. The original location of the school was near the town of Pinkney, Michigan, and was owned by David Keller. Keller decided that he wanted to use the property as a site for building duplexes, so the historic building was in danger of getting destroyed. Keller stated, “I love history and think it's important. . . . I preferred that it have a historical use" (Eberbach 2016). He offered to donate the schoolhouse structure to anyone, as long as they could move it and restore it. Tim Bennett, a local archaeologist, took Keller up on his offer. The schoolhouse now sits on the same site as the historic Warner Homestead, which has been in Bennett’s family for over 175 years (Bennett 2016).

                Physically moving the school from its original property was a challenge in itself; the roof had to be removed in order to move the property to the Warner farmstead. Much of the roof actually had to be reproduced after the move (Bennett 2016). However, the Bennett family is trying as hard as they can to keep the Hicks school in its original condition. According to Tyler et al (2009: 194), restoration is an intervention process that involves “returning a building to its condition at a specific time period, often to its original condition”. The decision to restore a building rather than preserve it should be a careful one, as a structure’s “natural evolution” can be lost. However, if the building in question has had a significant historical past, restoration can be perfectly justified (Tyler et al 2009: 194). The Hicks schoolhouse was the main source of education for the community for at least 170 years, so restoration was, therefore, justified. Restoration specialist Randy Klepinger and his company, Klepinger Construction, were hired to head the restoration process (Bennett 2016).  Additionally, the original schoolhouse property was excavated archaeologically by Bennett, in order to learn more about the materials that were used during the building’s use. The site’s artifacts will be displayed inside of the school, once the reconstruction is complete. Several of the area’s residents have also donated items that were from the original site (Bennett 2016).

                As mentioned previously, the Hicks Schoolhouse now resides on the same property as the Warner farm and homestead, which has been in Tim Bennett’s family for over a hundred years. Like the Hicks School, the Greek Revival Warner home has been restored to its original condition as far as possible. When Bennett bought the property years ago, the house was in such bad shape that restoration efforts were justified (Bennett, personal communication 2017). Tim Bennett and his family live there part-time, while they work on the restoration of the house as well as archaeologically excavating the yard. Every year, a sixth grade class from University Liggett School in Grosse Point visit the site, to learn about the historic home and the Hicks School, as well as the history of the area, and what pioneer life was like. The students also participate in an archaeological “dig”, in which they learn hands-on some of the aspects of archaeological research (Eberbach 2016; Bennett 2016). With its move from one site to another, the Hicks School has been taken out of its original historic context. Sometimes the students get confused about why the Hicks School is on the same site as the Warner farm (Tim Bennett, personal communication 2017). At any rate, both the Hicks School and the Warner homestead are great pieces of Michigan history, and overall, restoring both buildings has been beneficial to the public. Although neither the Hicks School site nor the Warner Homestead are registered on the National Register for Historic Places in Michigan, both original sites are registered as archaeological sites through the SHPO of Michigan. The Bennett family run a website for the Warner Homestead: http://www.warnerhomestead.com/

                I volunteered with the Bennet family a few times – once at the Hicks School site in Pinkney (after the school was moved), and twice for the student dig at the Warner Homestead (2016 and 2017). Although I’m not very experienced with public archaeology yet, the experiences that I gained during the student digs were incredibly rewarding. Being sixth graders, the kids are always inquisitive – they ask questions, sometimes in ways that you wouldn’t expect. During the dig, we helped them learn what artifacts looked like, what they were used for, their significance, etc. Maybe, one day, one of them will be tempted to enter the field of archaeology because of this experience.

                Since I’m talking about public archaeology, I think it’s key to bring up Michigan Archaeology Day. Each October, this huge event is held at the Michigan History Center in Lansing, MI. The event typically lasts all day, and it is sponsored by the MSHDA (Michigan State Housing Development Authority), the Michigan SHPO (State Historic Preservation Office), the Michigan DNR (Department of Natural Resources), and the Michigan History Center. During this event, archaeologists from all over the state of Michigan – advocational, academic, and professional cultural resource management archaeologists alike – set up tables that display their research. There are usually three or more presentations going on as well in the auditorium. Outside, visitors can try their hand at throwing an atlatl (a wooden device that Indigenous peoples used to throw spears over considerable distances) at decoy deer. The event is free to the public, and there’s an average of 1000 people who attend each year. An event like this is incredibly important – regular, every-day people come to learn about the archaeological process, what to do if they find artifacts, and the like.

Tim Maze and myself at Michigan Archaeology Day

                Universities in Michigan that have undergrad and graduate programs in anthropology and archaeology also have tables at the event, at which they display the qualities that their programs have to offer, as well as showing off the research that their students have done. On Michigan Archaeology Day in 2018, students from Eastern Michigan University (namely the EMU Anthropology Club) attended and set up one of these tables. Tim Maze, Dr. Brad Ensor, and I put together posters that outlined what the archaeology field school does, how and why archaeologists do what they do, as well as presented aspects of our individual research. 

Examples of what our posters looked like 

We also brought in artifacts to show the visitors – artifact reproductions, as well as “the real deal” – to use as tools to help teach them about material and functional categories. To do this, we set the artifacts up with a game; on one end of the table, we prompted visitors to sort Pre-Contact artifacts by their material category. These artifacts included actual stone debitage (stone flakes that were byproducts of stone tool manufacture), pottery sherds, fire-cracked rock, and reproductions of projectile points. On the other end of the table were historical artifacts and artifact reproductions, and we prompted visitors to separate them by functional categories. These artifacts included square nails, window glass (fake plastic version – we don’t want kids to handle sharp objects), ceramic sherds, broken glass stemware (again, the less dangerous plastic version), and tableware (an antique spoon). The functional categories included architecture and food service. The goal of the game was to help teach visitors what artifacts look like, what materials they’re made of/how they were made, and what the artifacts were ultimately used for.

                Michigan Archaeology Day is an event for all ages. There were equally as many kids as there were adults who visited our table, and both age groups seemed to at least learn something from participating in our artifact challenge.

We also wanted folks to get an idea of how and why we do fieldwork. On our table, we set out the common “tools of the trade” – tape measures, unit level forms, shovel test paperwork, trowels, etc. On our posters, we displayed photos and maps of the sites that the Eastern Michigan University Archaeology Field School investigated, as well as brief descriptions of the various field and lab methods that took place.

The EMU Anthropology Club

 References:

Bennett, Tim.
2016. Hicks School. Electronic document, http://warnerhomestead.com/hicks_school. Accessed 18 September 2017. 

Eberbach, Jennifer.
2016. Kids Excavate Hicks One-Room School’s New Home. Electronic document, http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/community/brighton-township/2016/09/17/kids-excavate-hicks-one-room-schools-new-home/90266158/. Accessed 19 September 2017.

Eberbach, Jennifer.
2016. Hicks Schoolhouse Arrives Safe at New Home. Electronic document, http://www.livingstondaily.com/story/news/local/community/brighton-township/2016/06/08/hicks-schoolhouse-arrives-safe-new-home/85611928/. Accessed 18 September 2017.

Tyler, Norman, Ted J. Ligibel, and Ilene R. Tyler.
2009. Historic Preservation: an Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice, pp. 194. W. W. Norton & Company, New York, New York.

Investigations at 20WN21 – a multi-component site in Wayne County, Michigan

In June and August of 2018, myself and fellow Eastern Michigan University alumni and students helped conduct excavations and site surveys at 20WN21. I mentioned this site in an earlier post – I analyzed Late Woodland ceramics from this site. Since I’m expanding that analysis significantly, I wanted to share my experiences excavating this site (it’s also low-key my favorite local site at which I’ve worked). Dr. Brad Ensor has a field school each summer (EMUAFS – Eastern Michigan University Archaeology Field School), and the field school’s goals for the 2018 season were ambitious. Brad requested the help of past field school students, and of course, we delivered and did a fantastic job at the site. It was also fun – despite the weather being in the high 90s, we had a blast.

The landscape of 20WN21 - the site sits on a terrace overlooking the Huron River Floodplain

On a weekend in late June, a crew of 6-7 of previous field school students helped conduct broad excavations of 20WN21. The excavation units were three meters-by-three meters large, and were excavated in 10-centimeter arbitrary levels, unless there was a natural or cultural soil change. The soil was screened, and the artifacts were collected according to their horizontal and vertical proveniences; they were then sorted according to their material categories. The artifacts were then re-bagged and re-labeled with their provenience information before we left the field. This is the general procedure for collecting artifacts professionally in the field, although some archaeologists don’t sort the artifacts until they are being cataloged and washed in the lab. As long as the artifacts are kept with their original context information, it’s fine – every archaeologist does things differently. The excavation units yielded mostly Pre-Contact Indigenous artifacts, most of which date to the Late Woodland period. Very few Euro-American artifacts were recovered from these units. Each level of the excavation units was recorded via paperwork – a level summary sheet – when the current level was dug out. Soil colors, the depths of the level from each corner, and artifact quantities are recorded on these sheets. When full excavation units were dug completely, the unit walls and floor were mapped out. Since our plan was to just dig out a couple of the levels that weekend, we didn’t get to map anything.

Excavation units at the end of the day. We had to put up caution tape to prevent visitors from entering the excavation units. 

Part of the crew, in the middle of excavating and screening a level. 

We had an incredibly solid crew in June – I met and made friends with a few archaeologists/historical preservation folks and worked with folks that I already met in previous classes.

An awesome bunch. 

The fieldwork at 20WN21 went for a longer period – a full week – in early August 2018. The weather this time was much more temperate, and the leaves were already beginning to fall – a situation that made for a very picturesque time in the field. We had a slightly larger crew this time – 8 or 9 people – and we conducted an extensive site survey. We dug shovel tests – holes that were 30-35 centimeters in diameter, approx. 70-75 centimeters deep, 10 meters apart – at 20WN21, which is a typical method for site surveys in Michigan. In order to dig the tests in accurate locations, we used a field compass and pacing. Similar to the excavation units, the shovel tests were dug in 10-15-centimeter levels, to ensure that the vertical proveniences of the artifacts were recorded accurately. Once we hit sterile soil (at this site, it was sterile clay), we stopped digging the test, recorded soil colors and depths, and artifact proveniences. We got a lot of shovel tests done during this week.

Tim, who is screening soil from a shovel test. 

Dr. Brad taught us how to measure elevations for topographic map making that week, using a tripod scope and meter stick. This is a useful skill for folks who make maps by hand. The EMUAFS does not teach students how to use handheld GPS units – although the EMUAFS is CRM-oriented, most CRM firms use GPS units to store maps and record the locations and contents of shovel tests – which is one of the few downsides to the program. However, the level mapping method is still useful, especially in locations where GPS units don’t have satellite power. While Brad taught some of the volunteers how to use the tripod scope, he put me in charge as a crew chief. This required me to tell the rest of the crew where to dig their shovel tests and to place the shovel tests in an accurate position on the map, in addition to other responsibilities as a crew leader overall.

At the end of each day, the artifacts were transported to the anthropology lab, located at Eastern Michigan University. The artifacts were given catalog numbers and were then washed. Once dry, the artifacts were re-bagged using paper bags with the artifacts’ catalog numbers and provenience information. The artifacts are then stored for curation and analysis. The analysis bit takes more time; each single artifact is measured, weighed, and its other attributes were recorded. This data was then entered on a series of spreadsheets, via Microsoft Excel. The lab work conducted by the EMUAFS is extremely similar to the ways in which other archaeological labs do lab work, except for minor differences in the terminologies used for some artifact categories.

Newly washed Euro-American artifacts, drying in the lab. 

The whole reason we were digging at 20WN21 in the first place is because the Huron-Clinton Metroparks want to expand the parking lot nearby for a new boat launch which will lead into the Huron River. The parking lot expansion will also make the Metropark more accessible. However, this expansion would destroy 20WN21, and considering the amount of material culture that was recovered from the site this year, the planned construction must be put on hold. In CRM, this is called the “mitigation” process – the client (in this case, the Huron-Metroparks) pays us, the CRM archaeologists, to conduct field work to see if an archaeological site is present or if anymore information can be analyzed from a current site – and, depending on the results, the client either goes on to finish the construction on the land or they can’t continue due to the historical and cultural significance of the site.

Tim Maze and myself did some work for Dr. Brad a couple of times before he requested the help of more volunteers (we just happened to be the closest help at the time). Overall, volunteering for the EMUAFS was a genuinely beneficial experience and resume/CV builder.

THEORY THOUGHTS: Initial thoughts on Ross 2013

As archaeologists, we need to study theory. We can’t DO ARCHAEOLOGY without archaeological theory. Yet, I have met so many working archaeologists who despise theory, claiming that they simply don’t need it. And that hurts my soul. Realistically, though, so many folks probably hate theory because 90% of it is dry, cumbersome reading – written by some old white dude who hasn’t used a trowel in his life – that isn’t applicable to current archaeological research anyway since it was written so long ago. I used to feel extremely intimidated by theory; however, taking one of Dr. Brad’s writing-intensive (and equally stress-intensive) theory classes sort of gave me an epiphany. One of the keys to studying theory is also studying the social, historical, and political contexts in which the theory is written. Also, knowing anything about the same contexts of anthropological theory helps, since archaeological thought closely follows anthropological thought. Like all things in archaeology…context is important (Thanks, Bruce Trigger).

I won’t go down the “Where is theory RIGHT NOW!?” rabbit hole in this post, but I do want to talk about a book that I’ve been reading. In 2013, Douglas E. Ross wrote “An Archaeology of Asian Transnationalism”. One of my mentors, Dr. Ken, asked me to review it a while ago, but I’m just now finally getting around to doing that. Please bear in mind that I have not read the whole thing yet; no one else in my circles has read it, though, and there’s a few concepts in the book that are actually really profound, and I just really need to talk to someone about it. Archaeologists typically adhere to one or two theoretical themes or frameworks (sometimes they’re “blended” versions of a couple of different ones), but more responsible archaeologists will explicitly

Ross studied the sites of early 20^th century salmon canneries, in which Chinese and Japanese migrant workers lived and worked. These sites are on the Don and Lion Islands, in Vancouver, Canada. Ross’s goal was to study the experiences of these Asian migrant workers through their material culture from these sites, as well as adding to the volumes of scholarship regarding the Asian transnational experience. The latter is described in the first chapters as being fairly limited, due to the fact that diaspora and transnational studies have not yet matured in the field of archaeology. The first chapters are essentially an extensive (and incredibly useful) review on diaspora and transnational theory, including the theoretical backgrounds and definitions thereof. He includes anthropological theory and historical studies as well, since this is an interdisciplinary study of sorts. And, like a good and responsible archaeologist, Ross stated the historical contexts of the theory he uses in this endeavor.

An extremely important concept to take away from this book is that in order to study migrant populations through their material culture, one needs to also study the contexts from which the migrants came – i.e., their homelands. No culture is static or unchanging; therefore, Chinese and Japanese migrants underwent processes of both change and persistence, which gave them extremely complex experiences. Material culture “played an active role in creating identities and relationships” (Ross 2013: 9), which adds dimensions to their complex experiences. Later on in the book, Ross described the differences between Chinese and Japanese cultures during the early 20^th century, including the foods they preferred, the types of ceramics, tableware, and cooking utilities they likely used, and so on, using historical documents. These differences ultimately influenced the materials that these migrant workers used and consumed during their experiences as migrants in North America.

When I’m finished reading the whole thing, I’ll write about it again. However, I wanted to express how useful this book is, in regarding contemporary theory – namely about transnationalism and diaspora, which are important factors to analyze when studying migrant populations through their material culture.

Cemetery Creepin’: Historical Cemeteries in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan

I’m an archaeologist. One of the many things that I do for a career is work in cultural resource management (CRM) – which means that I travel a lot in the Midwest. My favorite thing about working in the CRM industry is that I get to work with friends, in addition to making new ones. Also, I see a lot of cool things while traveling from project to project.

In November, a friend of mine from field school – Tim – and I managed to get hired on a project together, and we worked at a site in northern Ohio. We teamed up with Tom, our new friend, who we met during the same project – and scouted a number of historical cemeteries in the areas around where we were staying. These activities sparked an interest in historical cemeteries in general; ever since then, I’ve been visiting as many historical local/rural cemeteries as I can.

In this post, I’ll briefly talk about the historical cemeteries that we visited in Pennsylvania and Ohio, as well as a couple of local Michigan ones. Pennsylvania cemeteries include the St. Lawrence Cemetery and the Mahoning Township Presbyterian Cemetery. The Canfield Historical Cemetery, and the Newton Falls local cemetery and mausoleums are located in Ohio. Then, I’ll talk about the following cemeteries in southeast Michigan: the Holy Ghost Lutheran and St. Patrick Catholic cemeteries.  Lastly, I’ll quickly go over a book that I recently picked up, titled “Cemeteries & Gravemarkers: Voices of American Culture”, edited and compiled by Richard E. Meyer with forward by James Deetz.

We were working on a project in Ohio – why drive all the way to PA to see old cemeteries? Well, because PA is really, really haunted. I’ll mention that later. On our way to PA, though, we stopped in Newton Falls and Canfield, OH. The historical portion of the Newton Falls cemetery is situated upon a hill, overlooking the nearby river. The overall condition of the headstones is what you'd expect in a historical cemetery - come are in pristine condition, while some are broken and eroded. There is a crypt that is built into the hill itself, but the names have long been removed from the building. There is also a small chapel, which is boarded up and no longer in use.

Moss likes to grow in these old markers 

The landscape of the Newton Falls community cemetery

Tom and Tim investigate the crypt

A tilted gravemarker

The Canfield historical cemetery dates to the 1790s, when the town of Canfield was settled by Europeans. Like most historical cemeteries, some gravemarkers were covered in moss, sandblasted or eroded, and broken. It’s always an unfortunate site to see, but that’s what the weather does to headstones. Family plots and mausoleums and the graves of military members were seen here. 

The historical marker in the cemetery - I forgot to take a picture of the other side. Drat. 

Cemetery landscape

The finger pointing up to the sky is a common symbol found on historical Euro-American gravemarkers. Unlike the rest of the grave markers, this one is made out of metal. 

Then, we arrived in Mahoning County, Pennsylvania. According to local lore, the areas near Edinburg and Hillsville, PA, have an ominous past - filled with serial killers, angry “Bridge People”, and the Mafia, mainly. Therefore, the area has an unofficial name: Zombieland. I won’t get too much into the local legends, but if you want to read more, our friend Tom wrote it about it in his blog: http://www.technogypsie.com/reviews/?p=39779. Because we wanted to see these infamous places in person, we decided to take the trip during our three-day weekend. The first cemetery we stopped at is the St. Lawerance Cemetery, which is located on a hill behind an old Catholic cathedral (which was converted into an apartment complex). In front of the cemetery, across the street, is a statue of Mary. According to the local lore, if her hands outstretched, it's safe to enter Zombieland; if they're clasped together, it's unsafe. 

*"Hail Mary" by Makaveli plays softly in the background*

The historical section of the cemetery is tucked away behind the modern graves, and many of the headstones are hidden in the bushes and vines. The majority of the names and headstone inscriptions are in Italian; this makes sense, since the area contained the highest Italian immigrant population in PA during the early 20^th century. The dates on the headstones range from the late 1800s through the early 1930s. 

Landscape and vegetation in the cemetery

 The headstones that stuck me the most were the ones in which photographs were shown – especially that of Maria Rose Dalu. This portion of the cemetery contained headstones that were crudely inscribed, as well as simple metal crosses that had no name attached to them. Over all, the cemetery was in “okay condition”, despite the overgrown vegetation, exfoliated headstones, moss, and occasional broken gravemarker. There were also many young people buried here. 

 

Captivating image of the deceased. I couldn't take my eyes away from her grave. 

A child's grave. Note the sleeping child on top of the headstone - this was a common feature of children's graves during this time. 

The base of a gravemarker - the top portion could not be seen anywhere. 

Another headstone that features a photo of the deceased. 

Tom in St. Lawrence Cemetery 

Vines growing on a gravemarker. Can't stop Nature from doing her thing. 

The next cemetery we visited was the historical Mahoning Township Presbyterian Cemetery. According to the lore, the historical church nearby is haunted; and, in the cemetery at night, one can see mysterious green lights. Sightings of the area’s “Green Man” have also been reported in the cemetery. 

The supposedly haunted Presbyterian church in Mahoning

Luckily, we didn’t run into any green men, but the cemetery grounds are certainly eerie. First of all, the ground in which the graves are dug is uneven; the earth covering the graves is significantly lower than the rest, meaning that either the cemetery is poorly managed, or the earth is subjected to occasional shifting (which, from a geological perspective, is normal over time). Being able to physically see where the people were buried is unsettling, especially in a context in which gravemarkers are only meant to be seen. I wasn’t able to get any pictures of the ground’s condition. As I stated before, historical cemeteries in the Midwest are subjected to the region’s weather, which makes their condition worsen over time. Many of the gravemarkers were crooked or broken. Historical cemeteries, no matter the region, always display evidence of high infant mortality – and seeing the headstones of children will always be upsetting to me, especially if they are in poor condition. 

An infant's grave - his/her headstone upturned

A marker memorializing three infants. Are they buried here? 

Broken headstones, leaning against a family marker...which is also crooked at the base

The landscape of the Mahoning Presbyterian cemetery 

Tom and Tim in the Mahoning Presbyterian Cemetery

A couple of months after visiting those places in OH and PA, I conned my friend Tyler into investigating a couple of local historical cemeteries, in Monroe County, Michigan with me. Unfortunately, I know of no local legends of hauntings or supernatural phenomenon – but it was still fun. First, we paid a visit to the Holy Ghost Lutheran cemetery. The cemetery dates to the 1820s, which was when the original church was first built. Nowadays, the cemetery is tucked between the modern parochial school and a local farmer’s property. Apparently, I have German ancestors that are buried here – I recently procured some old church records from my cousin, and hopefully soon, I’ll be able to figure out exactly which ancestors are buried here. According to the headstones themselves, quite a few German immigrants are buried there (names, dates, and places of birth are inscribed on the gravemarkers – many are inscribed only in the German language). The iconography on the gravemarkers interest me; there are some symbols that I have never seen before, so I’ll have to do some more research on those. 

Ornate - Lutheran symbol on the left

Hands holding together - common Victorian headstone iconography

More hand symbols

Landscape of the Holy Ghost Lutheran Cemetery

Interesting iconography

Landscape of the Holy Ghost Lutheran Cemetery - note the cross carved like wood in the front 

 The modern cemetery associated with Holy Ghost is located across the street, but both cemeteries are supposedly managed by Gethsemane – I’m not sure if Gethsemane is a memorial service, or something else, but the church does not manage the cemeteries – and the historical section is in desperate need of preservation and restoration. Headstones are sunken into the ground, broken, or eroded enough that one can no longer read the inscriptions, and they have been that way for a long time.

Fallen headstone, which has sunken into the ground

Broken headstone

Fallen headstones - also sunken into the ground

Eroded gravemarker; note the slumped headstones in the background 

The last cemetery that Tyler and I visited is located within the outskirts of Carleton, which is a small village in Monroe County. Located directly across from Labo Road, the historical section of St. Patrick Cemetery is separated from two other cemeteries that are connected to the church, which contain more recent graves. Similar to the German gravemarkers at Holy Ghost, many of the markers in this cemetery memorialize Irish immigrants. The inscriptions on the markers include Irish surnames and the counties in Ireland from which these people came. The markers date from the 1820s through the early 1900s – most of which date to the 1850s. Unlike the Lutheran cemetery just a few miles away, the iconography of the headstones are fairly homogenous; most of the symbols include a cross inside of a heart, or hands that are clasped together – which is a common feature of Victorian headstones. 

Typical Victorian iconography

Since the act of visiting historical cemeteries has become a favorite past time for me, I've been reading this book lately. It's kind of amazing. The authors use anthropology and anthropological theory to study modern grave sites - as well as historical anthropology to study the historical ones. It's essentially a cross-cultural analysis of how folks from different religious, ethnic, and historical backgrounds treat(ed) their deceased in America. The book was published in 1987, but the content and theory holds up really well. 

Please excuse my poor lighting 

Chapters such as "Innocents in a Worldly World: Victorian Children's Gravemarkers" and "The Afro-American Section of Newport, Rhode Island's Common Burying Ground" were actually kind of hard to read, emotionally. But these chapters contain important research. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the anthropology of death - and the cultural and historical contexts thereof. I would love to find a book that covers the restoration and preservation of cemetery grounds and gravemarkers. Also, although this book covers the iconography and symbols found on headstones (as well as their historical contexts), I would like to find a “field guide”, if you will, to common symbols that are found within historical cemeteries.