Heinrich, A. R. (2014). Cherubs or Putti? Gravemarkers demonstrating conspicuous consumption and the Rococo fashion in the eighteenth century. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 18(1), 37-64.
Following the work of Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965), Heinrich (2014) studies the cherub icon, also referred to as the putti, on colonial-period grave monuments. Using the existing body of literature, the paper interrogates the relationship between ideology and commemoration. The author rejects Deetz and Dethlefsen’s (1965) conclusion that changing religious attitudes are responsible for the observable changes in iconographic and decorative change on historical grave monuments. Instead, Heinrich (2014) argues that consumer choice, connected to the latest fashion, is the driving force behind stylistic evolution. Rather than a culture- or social-based approach, which Deetz and Dethlefsen (1965) employ, Heinrich (2014) takes an individual approach.
Beginning in the 18th century, Rococo fashion established itself as the fashion of the elite classes. Rococo, the high fashion of the time, departed from the previously dominant Renaissance and Baroque Classicism styles by establishing highly ornamental and asymmetric, naturalistic curved forms and embellishments. The “spirit of the Rococo” was one of elegance, lightness and movement. This movement incorporated Classical elements and sculpture with allegorical figures – particularly putti (Heinrich, 2014, 42). As a result, the cherub/putti cannot be interpreted as an exclusively religious emblem. Instead, it must be understood as an icon that was popularized for its evocation of a specific aesthetic and its connection to a fashion trend. Though incorrect, its attribution to religiosity is likely due to the common association of death with religion and concepts of an afterlife. As Heinrich (2014) indicates, the decorations, especially the imagery or iconography found on gravestones, have generally been married to religious interpretations. Subsequently, scholars have mistakenly associated evolutions of the imagery found on the markers with religious movements (Heinrich, 2014, 38).
As many scholars have indicated, Deetz and Dethlefsen’s (1965) connection of gravestone iconography to the Great Awakening was based on a fallacy. Religious connections to iconography are flawed because they are largely based on that supposition that religious groups were uniformly monolithic. In sum, there are too many variables unanswered by religious explanations. Heinrich (2014) contributes to this general consensus among scholars by demonstrating that some geographic areas and people rejected the “Great Awakening” movement, and yet putti are found on their gravestones.
Though Heinrich’s (2014) work is largely quite successful, I take issue with Heinrich’s (2014) argument that “there is evidence that the artisans in the expanding gravemarker industry developed connections with their consumers. Noticeable throughout the New England carving tradition’s range, families regularly showed preference for specific carvers or their workshops.” He maintains that the continued use of a carver’s work denotes a connection to the carver, evidenced by families continued selection of their work. This conclusion is not effectively fleshed out. White Bronze monuments demonstrate that this preference could have been for the monument itself, rather than the artisan. As these monuments were mass produced, it seems unlikely that consumers returned to the use of this type, as the result of a connection to the producer. Further research is required.
The value of this paper, in relation to my own work, is in its demonstration that grave monuments exist as public displays of status and purchasing power, which are inextricably connected to “markets fed by a flourishing of crafts and fashions” (Heinrich, 2014, 41). It effectively demonstrates that the dynamism of historical cemeteries must be understood as the result of ever-evolving fashion and fads and makes clear that situating mortuary practice within larger cultural processes, such as religious movements, is problematic. This article is useful within my own work as it draws attention to the vitality of understanding fashion and consumer choice within grave monument studies.
Mullins, P. R. (2011). The archaeology of consumption. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40, 133-144.
Although seemingly an unusual article selection for an annotated bibliography focused on historic cemeteries and mortuary archaeology, grave monuments existed as goods to be produced and consumed and, subsequently, they must be recognized as such. Mullins (2011) argues that consumption studies reflect the ways consumers negotiate, accept, and resist goods-dominant meanings within rich social, global, historical, and cultural contexts. Consumption has often loomed in archaeological thought as a logical and predictable and point for goods or for a straightforward relationship between supply and demand, rather than as the focus of analysis examining how agents shape the meaning of things and the social world. This, Mullins (2011) argues, is a failure on the part of archaeologists. To rectify this, the author argues for the adoption of consumption as a conceptual framework that could encompass any archaeological scholarship. Such a framework enables one to examine how people socialize material goods. Grave monuments, as potent goods, are an especially interesting avenue of study to apply this conceptual framework to.
The article presents several case studies to discuss how archaeologists might apply consumption as a framework. Especially relevant to my own research is the author’s discussion of the Georgian Revolution and Georgian materialism. This discussion considers the role of Georgian materialism as an instrumental mechanism that the gentry wielded to solidify and, rather importantly, rationalize their position. Such a mechanism was useful because it distanced them from their “middling neighbours” (Mullins, 2011, 139). When elites were threatened in some way, they used novel material culture to demonstrate their power publicly in new forms that would reestablish gentry dominance. This is a discernible trend, evidenced by historic cemetery studies; however, as Mullins notes, sometimes individuals “performed piecemeal adoption of practices,” which illustrates consumer agency that did not simply reproduce gentry materialism. This nuanced understanding of consumption will be useful as it is directly applicable to the study of White Bronze grave monuments. It enables a deeper understanding of the individual agents and broader social categories, who may have been responsible for their acceptation and/or rejection. Furthermore, these monuments exist, rather uniquely, as gravestones of mass-production. Mullins (2011) recognizes that the Georgian revolution served as the introduction to objects of mass-production, though more research into the significance of this phenomenon is required.
Mytum, H. (2016). An archaeology of remembering and forgetting: ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deaths on Irish mariners’ memorials. Journal of Irish Archaeology, 25, 105-122.
The concept of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deaths is explored by Mytum (2016) using two historic cemeteries in Ireland. Mariners, having had high-risk jobs, had a particularly tumultuous relationship with such conceptualizations of death and dying. Interestingly, what was theorised as a ‘good’ death differed between Protestant and Catholic people; however, the ‘bad’ death seemed to have been common and the fear of it universal. Sudden losses and those without proper preparation were perceived as bad (undesirable, frightening, shameful) and Mytum (2016) found that most Irish mariners who were lost at sea were not publicly commemorated. This is arguably because they were believed to have suffered bad deaths. He concludes by arguing that the study displays the necessity of considering how absences should be part of analyses, as these individuals were missing/hidden from the archaeological record.
This would be a valuable paper to employ in considering and potentially writing about railway workers’ deaths in St. Thomas – perhaps there are similar concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ deaths evidenced by historical cemeteries. St. Thomas, Ontario was a railway hub and, although not as dangerous an occupation as a mariner, the job posed many risks. It was not uncommon for workers to be killed on the job. It seems worth investigating how death and dying was dealt with, specifically by railway employees and those they left behind. Casual observations in the St. Thomas Cemetery revealed that if railway workers died as a result of their occupation, both their occupation and the circumstances of their death were frequently mentioned on the monument. This is an interesting phenomenon that warrants further study.
Although an interesting paper, some of the reasons for absences are not effectively evaluated. Those who had ‘bad’ deaths were not commemorated as often as those who had ‘good’ deaths, which Mytum (2016) argues is indicative of public attitudes towards their deaths; however, it seems likely that ‘bad’ deaths are less often commemorated because the bodies of the those who succumbed to them were less often recovered. The bereaved, as a result, erected monuments for them less often because the physical remains were unavailable for inhumation.
Grave New World 
Leave a comment