10Rethinking the Historical Dimensions of

Mortuary Practices: A Case from Nisky HillCemetery, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

David B. SmallLehigh University

ABSTRACTRecent work in cemetery archaeology has focused on the history of the social emulation. Work in Nisky HillCemetery in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, has continued that focus, but also has highlighted the nature of cem-eteries as built landscapes. These landscapes provide contexts for additional uses of cemeteries by variouscommunity groups in strategies of competition and status construction. The potential for analyzing cemeter-ies within archaeological contexts is re-evaluated with a look at a large and important Late Bronze Agecemetery in Greece.

In an important article, Cannon (1989) explored someof the historical dimensions of mortuary elaboration.Building on earlier work, such as that of Parker Pearson(1982) and Miller (1982, 1985), Cannon demonstratedthat changes in mortuary elaboration often correlated withcycles of competition between elites and non-elites overtime. Simply put, ostentation in mortuary behavior doesnot always correlate with elite families. For example,ostentatious mortuary elaboration can at first separateelites from non-elites in society, but non-elites oftenimitate this elaboration. This creates a case of what Can-non referred to as "expressive redundancy" wherein theelites are no longer symbolically separated from non-elites who aspire to copy their status. When this occurs,the elites often turn to less elaborate mortuary practices,often seen by the adoption of plain headstones in con-trast to the more elaborate non-elite markers.

This investigation was important. Like the earlierwork of Binford (1971), it pointed the way for socialscientists to research changes in mortuary elaboration,outside the ahistorical observations of early theorists suchas Kroeber (1927), who sought to chart the independentchange of elaboration in fashion over time. As Cannon(1989:447) argued, "Historical cycles in the intensity ofmortuary display are the result of social tensions and sta-

tus comparisons among individuals, and they develop asthe function of common processes of human social andexpressive behaviour." With that framework, he was ableto explore some of the strategies behind these cycles.Cannon's data came from a study of 3,500 nineteenth-century cemetery monuments in Cambridgeshire. Hisanalysis of the cemeteries demonstrated that

...(1) the diversity of monument shapes increased untilthe middle of the 19th century and subsequently de-clined...(2) the pattern of increasing and decreasingmonument-shape diversity was matched by rural eco-nomic trends...(3) the decline in monument-shapediversity toward century's end occurred despite an in-crease in the number of monuments erected.. .(4) highersocial classes had greater access to the monument me-dium at an earlier date and tended to utilize styles priorto their peak of popularity, while lower-status individu-als tended to be commemorated by monument stylesthat were well past their peak of popularity...(5) therewas a tendency to use attribute channels of expressionwithin the monument medium (e.g.. lettering, shape,and material) according to the economic means avail-able and the extent to which such use had pervaded lowerlevels of the social order (e.g., elaborate lettering wasless in use among higher-status individuals by the timeit was appropriated for use on the monuments of thelowest class of agricultural labourers); and (6) with thecentury's-end decline in the diversity of expression in

162 David B. Small

monument shape and lettering, expressive distinctionwas achieved through the use of a diverse array of newmonument materials, as exemplified by the rapid in-crease in monuments of white marble (3.6% in 1871-80, 14.2% in 1891-1900). (Cannon 1989:439)

So far, so good. Cannon has charted the dynamics ofmonument elaboration and, in summary, puts forth hishistorical explanation for these changes within hiscemeteries.

English mortuary behaviour over the past two centu-ries has been a product of the social process of com-petitive display. Increasing wealth in the 18th and 19thcenturies and a progressive dissemination of relativeaffluence created individual opportunities for challengeto the prevailing social order. The resulting social fluxand status uncertainty engendered a need for symbolsto express status and status aspirations. The occasionof death, because of the attention it draws, was simplyone of a number of forums open to symbolic status ex-pression. The various media of funerals, mourning,monuments, etc., and attribute channels such as monu-ment shape, lettering, and material all followed a usepattern that was a function of the principles of effectivedisplay....Innovative mortuary expressions capable ofconveying high status lost this capacity when they wererendered redundant through a multiplicity of compet-ing and emulating forms. (Cannon 1989:441)A similar studyundertaken from a Marxist perspec-

tivewas conducted by Randall McGuire and his stu-dents in Binghamton, New York (see McGuire 1988).Subsequent work by archaeologists such as Little etal. (1992) have put this type of investigation to use,charting changing patterns of ostentation and possiblesocial correlates of competition between status groupsover time.

The Nisky Hill Cemetery ProjectIn 1992, I began a cemetery project with my own

students in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (see Small 1995,1999), investigating a large cemetery that contains morethan 13,000 graves. The cemetery, known as Nisky Hill,dates from the 1860s and is still expanding. We wereable to recognize important changes in cemetery elabo-ration as we would expect from Cannon's study. In gen-eral, there was an initial period of elaborate gravestones,with ever-increasing de-elaboration until 1968, when theBoard of Trustees for Nisky Hill passed a set of rulesand regulations limiting, in most cases, the gravestoneto a flat, flush marker.

More specifically, looking at the rate of change intombstone elaboration over time, we were able to seethat some marginal groups, such as German immigrants,

coming to work in the steel mills, were using elaboratestones, probably for status aspiration, a la ParkerPearson's study, and that many of the elites were lead-ing the move to less and less fancy grave markers, as wemight expect from Cannon's observations.

Again, so far, so good. But the longer we worked inour cemetery, the more we became convinced that inaddition to noticeable changes in monument elabora-tion over time, there were important observations thatwere surfacing with regard to the analysis of monumentcemeteries as spatial contexts that provided additionalopportunities for status elaboration. We began to under-stand that there also was a significant amount of socialmarkingeither competitive, aspiring, or legitimatingthat we were missing by focusing solely on the annualchange in stone elaboration.

I can best explain what I am getting at by referringto examples: below, I highlight five means of status dis-tinction that can be seen in this cemetery, in addition tohistorical changes in mortuary elaboration, and discussbriefly the historical questions of social strategy theyframe. Since the whole cemetery is too large to describein these examples, I am focusing on one section, SectionE, which is fairly representative of the different types ofstones used in the cemetery. Section E contains 653 tomb-stones. The earliest burial was in 1871 and the latest wasin 2000. In this section we can see five principal meansof status negotiation that stand outside the play of his-torical monument change in elaboration.

1. Visual distinction signaled by family stones. Afamily stone is defined as a stone whose primary pur-pose is to advertise the family name. It most often bearsthe name of the family alone and is seldom an individualgrave marker. There are twenty-one family stones thatdominate this section by their large size when comparedwith the individual grave markers. These family stonesprovide material for status negotiation in the followingmanner. Because people rarely walk into Section E it-self and observe the small stones from close-up, one per-ceives these twenty-one family stones as advertising thatthese marked families have a higher status than individu-als and families marked by smaller stones. In addition,the fact that newer monuments in this section tend to bemuch less ostentatious than the family stones dramati-cally tips the scale of symbolic importance to familieswho already have erected large family stones.

2. Funeral association with the family stones.Continued funeral activity can Utilize association withthese family stones to negotiate an elevated status forthose being currently interred. If the ceremony takes placein a plot with an elaborate family stone, those who are in

Rethinking Historical Dimensions: Nisky Hill Cemetery 163

the funeral party are associating themselves with thisvisual dominance rather than with the subordinatecharacter of the smaller stones. Since 1968, when ruleswere passed that made flush markers almost mandatory,there have been six burials in Section E within family-stone plots.

3. Erection of non-ground-flush stones after theruling of the Board of Directors mandating ground-flush markers. Even though the Board passed a rule thatpost-1968 burials were to use ground-flush markers, ex-ceptions are possible. A family may choose to duplicatepre-1968 elaborate stones, rather than using the new flushstones, if there already is an elaborate marker within thefamily plot. Thus, some post-1968 tombstones can beelaborate. Thirty-four cases have arisen in which familymembers have had this choice, and in fifteen cases theychose to erect a more elaborate monument.

4. Cleaning of the stones. Because of their locationin Bethlehem, a consistent problem with the monumentshas been discoloration and decay as a result of acid pol-lution from the steel mills. Within ten years after erec-tion, a dark brown patina coats the stones, even eatinginto stones of soft material, such as marble. When thestones are cleaned, however, they immediately stand outagainst dirty stones, drawing the attention of the visitor.Like elaboration, then, cleaning can be used to markindividuals and families in status display. It is unique,however, in that it is a distinction that is available tofamilies and individuals after burial and the erection ofthe headstone. In this section, thirty-three stones havebeen cleaned. Most contracts for cleaning are set up sothat the stones are cleaned on a scheduled basis, some asoften as annually, but never as much as five years apart.As far as we could determine, the earliest contract wasbegun in 1931 and the latest in 1992. In some cases themonuments that were cleaned had not been reused bylater family members until, as in the case of threefamilies, eighty-one years after the stone had initiallybeen set.

5. Placement of military symbols next to the monu-ments^ This last distinction is very much different fromthe others. Rather than being the result of behavior ofthe relatives of the deceased, and thereby an attempt toelevate the status of the individual or family, militarymarkers were placed by a third party. Looking at theentire cemetery, rather than just Section E, there are 299markers in the cemetery, commemorating veterans of theCivil, Spanish American, First, Second, Korean, andVietnam wars. What makes these markers important isthat they were not placed by the relatives of the deceased,but by local veterans organizations. Thus, the cemetery,

in this case, is used to advertise the presence of localveterans organizations, rather than the status of the indi-viduals or families.

Archaeological Application

Field work at Nisky Hill has demonstrated thatwe need to consider the cemetery as a context for sta-tus display in addition to charting change in monumentelaboration over time, if we are to fully understand thehistorical dimension in mortuary expressions. Likeother artifacts and other built environments, monu-ment cemeteries provide a context that should offersimilar opportunities for status display throughoutmany archaeological cultures. Noticed similar mate-rial manipulation in archaeological cemeteries suggestsanalytical frames for further cultural investigation. Thefirst distinction discussed above marks families who al-ready have been marked with elevated status in the cem-etery. If we take culture to be an aggregate of multiplecontexts of interaction, which I would advocate, then thequestion for us is, how does this assured position in thecemetery affect the advertisement of individuals andgroups in other community contexts? The second twodistinctions have to do with remarking or reassociatingindividuals and groups with family distinctions of thepast. Again, why would these people be choosing to dothis, and how are they marking themselves in other con-texts? The next distinction is the most unusual becauseit does not necessarily involve association with privilegedpast elaboration, since some of the stones that werecleaned were not elaborate ones. Here we have a con-scious attempt to reidentify with the individual or groupso marked in the cemetery. Again, why would this bedone? An interesting answer here might be what we havecome to understand indirectly, that is, one of the clean-ing contracts was signed by a man who lives in Califor-niacould it be that he is trying to link himself with hisancestral roots? Again, why?

Our last distinction, that of military symbols, is per-haps the most unnerving when it comes to archaeologi-cal analysis of cemeteries. We are conditioned to assumethat adornment of the grave is the result of strategiesemployed by the family of the deceased, but this is notnecessarily so. In Nisky Hill, local veterans groups wereusing the cemetery not so much to mark the individual,but to raise the profile of veterans groups within theLehigh Valley. We need to reexamine the full nature ofmonument manipulation in the past to identify exactlywho was manipulating the symbols of the cemetery. Itcould very well be that some of this display was not to

164 David B. Small

benefit the kin of the deceased, but other corporategroups entirely.

Such questions are often considered beyond thescope of archaeology, at least for prehistoric societies.But I would like to point out two pertinent features ofthis type of analysis. First, by treating culture as an ag-gregate of many contexts of interaction, we can, even atour distance, focus on some of these contexts, such asthose of the market, the home, and religion. People stra-tegically link these very fundamental contexts and a rec-ognized strategy should manifest itself in several of them.My second point is rather old-fashioned, but deserves tobe said. The strategies involved in projecting status indifferent contexts more often than not revolve aroundstatus maintenance, aspiration, and legitimation. The riseand fall of economic fortune is directly correlated withthese strategies and. if archaeologists can spot anythingat all, it is economic status and trends in the past.

A Question of Analytical MethodThe findings in Nisky Hill argue strongly that, in

addition to elite/non-elite status competition as seen inchanges in elaboration styles, there are other means ofdistinction in cemeteries that have definite historicalmeaning. What we need to do is recognize that cemeter-ies that incorporate monuments, in addition to providinga context of competition between elites and non-elites,as seen in the change in monument elaboration, also con-struct a long-term built environment. That is. the stonesdo not usually disappear. They remain in their settingto constitute a larger context, a context within whichdifferent monuments can be used over time in differentsocial strategies. 1 would thus argue that we need to con-sider monument cemeteries as landscapes, landscapesthat, in their form and composition, provide materialsfor later status display.

Attempts to view cemeteries as landscapes are nottotally new, but they are somewhat different from what Iam advocating. For example, we have recognized thepower of the cemetery parks movement of the nineteenthcentury in providing a naturalizing setting for elite sta-tus display (Aries 1991: Farrell 1980). Also, 1 am veryinterested in the progress of monumental landscape stud-ies in Neolithic northern Europe (for recent statementssee Bradley 1998; Parker Pearson, this volume). But ineach of these lines of investigation and analysis the fo-cus is on the issue of symbolic ideologyreferences tothe psycho/religious nature of the monumental land-scaperather than a more close analysis of the monu-ments themselves, their relationship to one another, and

the importance of the reuse of these monuments in so-cial strategies.

Oddly enough, the closest parallel I have found tothe type of analysis I am advocating comes from workon the Late Bronze Age Mycenae in Greece. The reason1 say that this is odd is that scholars there have beenworking in a fascinating cemetery context, but the im-portance of their work is little known. A closer look atthe issue of Mycenae highlights the parallels to the NiskyHill study.

Although the site in question is that of a Late BronzeAge (1350-1200 B.C.) palace, the original site was anelite cemetery, populated with a mix of tholos tombs anda few grave circles, that is, enclosed burial groups, thatprobably represented a distinct lineage. The most famouscircle is Grave Circle B, originally excavated by HeinrichSchliemann. The circle was constructed in the fifteenthcentury B.C. The first stages of the palace at Mycenaewere built in the early half of the fourteenth century B.C.However, the palace was redesigned about a hundredyears later, and it is this redesign that summons our at-tention. When the palace was redesigned it was given amonumental entranceway, the famous Lion Gate, but todo this, the circuit wall of the palace was extended toincorporate Grave Circle B, which originally lay outsidethe palace walls. When the circle was incorporated, italso was refurbished, with a nice new circular enclosure;the headstones were turned around as well (Figure 10.1).This incorporation and refurbishing parallels quite wellwhat we witness in Nisky Hill and moves us to ask ahistorical question: why? We probably will never reallyknow for sure, but there are some initial hypotheses, suchas the usurpation of the past by an upstart dynasty thatwas attempting to legitimate their newly acquired power.If that were the case, then we can also begin to think ofways to test this hypothesis and extend our investigationof this interesting social strategy.

Conclusion

The conclusion to this chapter is not very compli-cated. Good work has been done to open up lines of in-vestigation in the historical dimensions of status displayin cemeteries. Additional work on this subject at NiskyHill Cemetery strongly demonstrates that there are otherprofitable lines of inquiry in addition to charting changein monument elaboration. 1 am not advocating that ev-ery cemetery is like Nisky Hill, but I am indeed arguingthat we need to develop more techniques that treat cem-eteries as socially charged landscapes in our look at theplace and space of death.

Rethinking Historical Dimensions. Nisky Hill Cemetery M.i

A Lion GateB GranaryC Ramp to PalaceD Grave CircleE Ramp HouseF South House

Figure 10.1. The entrance to \hcenae with restored Grave Circle From A. (I Lawrence Greek Architecture, fig. 42 London:Pelican (1974).

Note oirs of the Sociei> tor American ArchaeoJogvNo, 25, Washin-ton. DC.

1.1 owe these data to one of my recent undergradu-ate students, David Esposito. The information is taken Bradley. R.from a final project he conducted in Nisk\ Hill. 1998 The Significance of Monuments On flu Shap-

ing / Human Experience in Neolithic andReferences Bronze A^L Europe London: Routledue.

Aries, P. Cannon. A.1991 The Hour of Our Death. Oxford: Oxford Univer- 19X9 The Historical Dimension in Mortuan Lxpressions

sity Press. of Status and Sentiment. Current Anthropology30:437 58

Binford, L.1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Poten- Farrell. J.

tia). In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of 1980 Inventing the Imerican Hay of Death. IS30 192(1.Mortuary Practices, J. Brown, ed., pp. 6 29. Mem- Philadelphia: Temple I ni\ersit\ Press.

166 David B. Small

Kroeber, A.1927 Disposal of the Dead. American Anthropologist

29:308-15.

Little, B., K. Lanphear, and D. Owsley1992 Mortuary Display and Status in a Nineteenth-

Century Anglo-American Cemetery in Manas-sas, Virginia. American Antiquity 57:397-418.

McGuire, R.1988 Dialogues with the Dead: Ideology and the Cem-

etery. In The Recovery of Meaning: HistoricalArchaeology in the Eastern United States, M.Leone and P. Potter, eds., pp. 435-80. Washing-ton, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Miller, D.1982 Artefacts as Products of Human Categorisation

Processes. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeol-ogy, I. Hodder, ed., pp. 17-25. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

1985 Artefacts as Categories: A Study of CeramicVariability in Central India. Cambridge. Cam-bridge University Press.

Parker Pearson, M.1982 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An

Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Symbolic and Struc-tural Archaeology, I. Hodder, ed., pp. 99-113.Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Small, D.1995 Monuments, Laws, and Analysis. Combining Ar-

chaeology and Text in Ancient Athens. In Meth-ods in the Mediterranean: Historical and Archaeo-logical Views on Texts and Archaeology, D. Small,ed., pp. 143-74. Leiden. E. J. Brill.

1999 The Tyranny of the Text: Lost Social Strategies inCurrent Historical Period Archaeology in the Clas-sical Mediterranean. In Back from the Edge: Ar-chaeology in History, P. Funari, M. Hall, and S.Jones, eds., pp. 122-35. London: Unwin Hyman.