10

Rethinking the Historical Dimensions of

Mortuary Practices: A Case from Nisky Hill
Cemetery, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
David B. Small
Lehigh University

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

n an important article, Cannon (1989) explored some

of the historical dimensions of mortuary elaboration.
Building on earlier work, such as that of Parker Pearson
(1982) and Miller (1982, 1985), Cannon demonstrated
that changes in mortuary elaboration often correlated with
cycles of competition between elites and non-elites over
time. Simply put, ostentation in mortuary behavior does
not always correlate with elite families. For example,
ostentatious mortuary elaboration can at first separate
elites from non-elites in society, but non-elites often
imitate this elaboration. This creates a case of what Cannon referred to as "expressive redundancy" wherein the
elites are no longer symbolically separated from nonelites 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 contrast to the more elaborate non-elite markers.
This investigation was important. Like the earlier
work of Binford (1971), it pointed the way for social
scientists to research changes in mortuary elaboration,
outside the ahistorical observations of early theorists such
as Kroeber (1927), who sought to chart the independent
change of elaboration in fashion over time. As Cannon
(1989:447) argued, "Historical cycles in the intensity of
mortuary display are the result of social tensions and sta-

tus comparisons among individuals, and they develop as

the function of common processes of human social and
expressive behaviour." With that framework, he was able
to explore some of the strategies behind these cycles.
Cannon's data came from a study of 3,500 nineteenthcentury cemetery monuments in Cambridgeshire. His
analysis of the cemeteries demonstrated that
...(1) the diversity of monument shapes increased until
the middle of the 19th century and subsequently declined...(2) the pattern of increasing and decreasing
monument-shape diversity was matched by rural economic trends...(3) the decline in monument-shape
diversity toward century's end occurred despite an increase in the number of monuments erected.. .(4) higher
social classes had greater access to the monument medium at an earlier date and tended to utilize styles prior
to their peak of popularity, while lower-status individuals tended to be commemorated by monument styles
that were well past their peak of popularity...(5) there
was a tendency to use attribute channels of expression
within the monument medium (e.g.. lettering, shape,
and material) according to the economic means available and the extent to which such use had pervaded lower
levels of the social order (e.g., elaborate lettering was
less in use among higher-status individuals by the time
it was appropriated for use on the monuments of the
lowest class of agricultural labourers); and (6) with the
century's-end decline in the diversity of expression in

162

David B. Small

monument shape and lettering, expressive distinction

was achieved through the use of a diverse array of new
monument materials, as exemplified by the rapid increase in monuments of white marble (3.6% in 187180, 14.2% in 1891-1900). (Cannon 1989:439)

coming to work in the steel mills, were using elaborate

stones, probably for status aspiration, a la Parker
Pearson's study, and that many of the elites were leading the move to less and less fancy grave markers, as we
might expect from Cannon's observations.
So far, so good. Cannon has charted the dynamics of
Again, so far, so good. But the longer we worked in
monument elaboration and, in summary, puts forth his our cemetery, the more we became convinced that in
historical explanation for these changes within his addition to noticeable changes in monument elaboration over time, there were important observations that
cemeteries.
were surfacing with regard to the analysis of monument
English mortuary behaviour over the past two centucemeteries as spatial contexts that provided additional
ries has been a product of the social process of comopportunities for status elaboration. We began to underpetitive display. Increasing wealth in the 18th and 19th
centuries and a progressive dissemination of relative
stand that there also was a significant amount of social
affluence created individual opportunities for challenge
markingeither competitive, aspiring, or legitimating
to the prevailing social order. The resulting social flux
that we were missing by focusing solely on the annual
and status uncertainty engendered a need for symbols
change in stone elaboration.
to express status and status aspirations. The occasion
I can best explain what I am getting at by referring
of death, because of the attention it draws, was simply
one of a number of forums open to symbolic status exto examples: below, I highlight five means of status dispression. The various media of funerals, mourning,
tinction that can be seen in this cemetery, in addition to
monuments, etc., and attribute channels such as monuhistorical changes in mortuary elaboration, and discuss
ment shape, lettering, and material all followed a use
briefly the historical questions of social strategy they
pattern that was a function of the principles of effective
frame. Since the whole cemetery is too large to describe
display....Innovative mortuary expressions capable of
conveying high status lost this capacity when they were
in these examples, I am focusing on one section, Section
rendered redundant through a multiplicity of competE, which is fairly representative of the different types of
ing and emulating forms. (Cannon 1989:441)
stones used in the cemetery. Section E contains 653 tombA similar studyundertaken from a Marxist perspec- stones. The earliest burial was in 1871 and the latest was
tivewas conducted by Randall McGuire and his stu- in 2000. In this section we can see five principal means
dents in Binghamton, New York (see McGuire 1988). of status negotiation that stand outside the play of hisSubsequent work by archaeologists such as Little et torical monument change in elaboration.
al. (1992) have put this type of investigation to use,
1. Visual distinction signaled by family stones. A
charting changing patterns of ostentation and possible family stone is defined as a stone whose primary pursocial correlates of competition between status groups pose is to advertise the family name. It most often bears
over time.
the name of the family alone and is seldom an individual
grave marker. There are twenty-one family stones that
dominate this section by their large size when compared
The Nisky Hill Cemetery Project
with the individual grave markers. These family stones
In 1992, I began a cemetery project with my own provide material for status negotiation in the following
students in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (see Small 1995, manner. Because people rarely walk into Section E it1999), investigating a large cemetery that contains more self and observe the small stones from close-up, one perthan 13,000 graves. The cemetery, known as Nisky Hill, ceives these twenty-one family stones as advertising that
dates from the 1860s and is still expanding. We were these marked families have a higher status than individuable to recognize important changes in cemetery elabo- als and families marked by smaller stones. In addition,
ration as we would expect from Cannon's study. In gen- the fact that newer monuments in this section tend to be
eral, there was an initial period of elaborate gravestones, much less ostentatious than the family stones dramatiwith ever-increasing de-elaboration until 1968, when the cally tips the scale of symbolic importance to families
Board of Trustees for Nisky Hill passed a set of rules who already have erected large family stones.
2. Funeral association with the family stones.
and regulations limiting, in most cases, the gravestone
Continued funeral activity can Utilize association with
to a flat, flush marker.
More specifically, looking at the rate of change in these family stones to negotiate an elevated status for
tombstone elaboration over time, we were able to see those being currently interred. If the ceremony takes place
that some marginal groups, such as German immigrants, in a plot with an elaborate family stone, those who are in

Rethinking Historical Dimensions: Nisky Hill Cemetery

the funeral party are associating themselves with this

visual dominance rather than with the subordinate
character of the smaller stones. Since 1968, when rules
were passed that made flush markers almost mandatory,
there have been six burials in Section E within familystone plots.
3. Erection of non-ground-flush stones after the
ruling of the Board of Directors mandating groundflush markers. Even though the Board passed a rule that
post-1968 burials were to use ground-flush markers, exceptions are possible. A family may choose to duplicate
pre-1968 elaborate stones, rather than using the new flush
stones, if there already is an elaborate marker within the
family plot. Thus, some post-1968 tombstones can be
elaborate. Thirty-four cases have arisen in which family
members have had this choice, and in fifteen cases they
chose to erect a more elaborate monument.
4. Cleaning of the stones. Because of their location
in Bethlehem, a consistent problem with the monuments
has been discoloration and decay as a result of acid pollution from the steel mills. Within ten years after erection, a dark brown patina coats the stones, even eating
into stones of soft material, such as marble. When the
stones are cleaned, however, they immediately stand out
against dirty stones, drawing the attention of the visitor.
Like elaboration, then, cleaning can be used to mark
individuals and families in status display. It is unique,
however, in that it is a distinction that is available to
families and individuals after burial and the erection of
the headstone. In this section, thirty-three stones have
been cleaned. Most contracts for cleaning are set up so
that the stones are cleaned on a scheduled basis, some as
often as annually, but never as much as five years apart.
As far as we could determine, the earliest contract was
begun in 1931 and the latest in 1992. In some cases the
monuments that were cleaned had not been reused by
later family members until, as in the case of three
families, eighty-one years after the stone had initially
been set.
5. Placement of military symbols next to the monuments^ This last distinction is very much different from
the others. Rather than being the result of behavior of
the relatives of the deceased, and thereby an attempt to
elevate the status of the individual or family, military
markers were placed by a third party. Looking at the
entire cemetery, rather than just Section E, there are 299
markers in the cemetery, commemorating veterans of the
Civil, Spanish American, First, Second, Korean, and
Vietnam wars. What makes these markers important is
that they were not placed by the relatives of the deceased,
but by local veterans organizations. Thus, the cemetery,

163

in this case, is used to advertise the presence of local

veterans organizations, rather than the status of the individuals or families.

Archaeological Application
Field work at Nisky Hill has demonstrated that
we need to consider the cemetery as a context for status display in addition to charting change in monument
elaboration over time, if we are to fully understand the
historical dimension in mortuary expressions. Like
other artifacts and other built environments, monument cemeteries provide a context that should offer
similar opportunities for status display throughout
many archaeological cultures. Noticed similar material manipulation in archaeological cemeteries suggests
analytical frames for further cultural investigation. The
first distinction discussed above marks families who already have been marked with elevated status in the cemetery. If we take culture to be an aggregate of multiple
contexts of interaction, which I would advocate, then the
question for us is, how does this assured position in the
cemetery affect the advertisement of individuals and
groups in other community contexts? The second two
distinctions have to do with remarking or reassociating
individuals and groups with family distinctions of the
past. Again, why would these people be choosing to do
this, and how are they marking themselves in other contexts? The next distinction is the most unusual because
it does not necessarily involve association with privileged
past elaboration, since some of the stones that were
cleaned were not elaborate ones. Here we have a conscious attempt to reidentify with the individual or group
so marked in the cemetery. Again, why would this be
done? An interesting answer here might be what we have
come to understand indirectly, that is, one of the cleaning contracts was signed by a man who lives in Californiacould it be that he is trying to link himself with his
ancestral roots? Again, why?
Our last distinction, that of military symbols, is perhaps the most unnerving when it comes to archaeological analysis of cemeteries. We are conditioned to assume
that adornment of the grave is the result of strategies
employed by the family of the deceased, but this is not
necessarily so. In Nisky Hill, local veterans groups were
using the cemetery not so much to mark the individual,
but to raise the profile of veterans groups within the
Lehigh Valley. We need to reexamine the full nature of
monument manipulation in the past to identify exactly
who was manipulating the symbols of the cemetery. It
could very well be that some of this display was not to

164

David B. Small

benefit the kin of the deceased, but other corporate the importance of the reuse of these monuments in social strategies.
groups entirely.
Such questions are often considered beyond the
Oddly enough, the closest parallel I have found to
scope of archaeology, at least for prehistoric societies. the type of analysis I am advocating comes from work
But I would like to point out two pertinent features of on the Late Bronze Age Mycenae in Greece. The reason
this type of analysis. First, by treating culture as an ag- 1 say that this is odd is that scholars there have been
gregate of many contexts of interaction, we can, even at working in a fascinating cemetery context, but the imour distance, focus on some of these contexts, such as portance of their work is little known. A closer look at
those of the market, the home, and religion. People stra- the issue of Mycenae highlights the parallels to the Nisky
tegically link these very fundamental contexts and a rec- Hill study.
ognized strategy should manifest itself in several of them.
Although the site in question is that of a Late Bronze
My second point is rather old-fashioned, but deserves to Age (1350-1200 B.C.) palace, the original site was an
be said. The strategies involved in projecting status in elite cemetery, populated with a mix of tholos tombs and
different contexts more often than not revolve around a few grave circles, that is, enclosed burial groups, that
status maintenance, aspiration, and legitimation. The rise probably represented a distinct lineage. The most famous
and fall of economic fortune is directly correlated with circle is Grave Circle B, originally excavated by Heinrich
these strategies and. if archaeologists can spot anything Schliemann. The circle was constructed in the fifteenth
century B.C. The first stages of the palace at Mycenae
at all, it is economic status and trends in the past.
were built in the early half of the fourteenth century B.C.
However, the palace was redesigned about a hundred
A Question of Analytical Method
years later, and it is this redesign that summons our atThe findings in Nisky Hill argue strongly that, in tention. When the palace was redesigned it was given a
addition to elite/non-elite status competition as seen in monumental entranceway, the famous Lion Gate, but to
changes in elaboration styles, there are other means of do this, the circuit wall of the palace was extended to
distinction in cemeteries that have definite historical incorporate Grave Circle B, which originally lay outside
meaning. What we need to do is recognize that cemeter- the palace walls. When the circle was incorporated, it
ies that incorporate monuments, in addition to providing also was refurbished, with a nice new circular enclosure;
a context of competition between elites and non-elites, the headstones were turned around as well (Figure 10.1).
as seen in the change in monument elaboration, also con- This incorporation and refurbishing parallels quite well
struct a long-term built environment. That is. the stones what we witness in Nisky Hill and moves us to ask a
do not usually disappear. They remain in their setting historical question: why? We probably will never really
to constitute a larger context, a context within which know for sure, but there are some initial hypotheses, such
different monuments can be used over time in different as the usurpation of the past by an upstart dynasty that
social strategies. 1 would thus argue that we need to con- was attempting to legitimate their newly acquired power.
sider monument cemeteries as landscapes, landscapes If that were the case, then we can also begin to think of
that, in their form and composition, provide materials ways to test this hypothesis and extend our investigation
of this interesting social strategy.
for later status display.
Attempts to view cemeteries as landscapes are not
totally new, but they are somewhat different from what I
am advocating. For example, we have recognized the
power of the cemetery parks movement of the nineteenth
century in providing a naturalizing setting for elite status display (Aries 1991: Farrell 1980). Also, 1 am very
interested in the progress of monumental landscape studies in Neolithic northern Europe (for recent statements
see Bradley 1998; Parker Pearson, this volume). But in
each of these lines of investigation and analysis the focus is on the issue of symbolic ideologyreferences to
the psycho/religious nature of the monumental landscaperather than a more close analysis of the monuments themselves, their relationship to one another, and

Conclusion
The conclusion to this chapter is not very complicated. Good work has been done to open up lines of investigation in the historical dimensions of status display
in cemeteries. Additional work on this subject at Nisky
Hill Cemetery strongly demonstrates that there are other
profitable lines of inquiry in addition to charting change
in monument elaboration. 1 am not advocating that every cemetery is like Nisky Hill, but I am indeed arguing
that we need to develop more techniques that treat cemeteries as socially charged landscapes in our look at the
place and space of death.

Rethinking Historical Dimensions. Nisky Hill Cemetery

M.i

A
B
C
D
E
F

Lion Gate
Granary
Ramp to Palace
Grave Circle
Ramp House
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
1.1 owe these data to one of my recent undergraduate students, David Esposito. The information is taken
from a final project he conducted in Nisk\ Hill.
References
Aries, P.
1991 The Hour of Our Death. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Binford, L.
1971 Mortuary Practices: Their Study and Their Potentia). In Approaches to the Social Dimensions of
Mortuary Practices, J. Brown, ed., pp. 6 29. Mem-

oirs of the Sociei> tor American ArchaeoJogv

No, 25, Washin-ton. DC.
Bradley. R.
1998 The Significance of Monuments On flu Shaping <>/ Human Experience in Neolithic and
Bronze A^L Europe London: Routledue.
Cannon. A.
19X9 The Historical Dimension in Mortuan Lxpressions
of Status and Sentiment. Current Anthropology
30:437 58
Farrell. J.
1980 Inventing the Imerican Hay of Death. IS30 192(1.
Philadelphia: Temple I ni\ersit\ Press.

166

David B. Small

Kroeber, A.
1927 Disposal of the Dead. American Anthropologist
29:308-15.

1985 Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic

Variability in Central India. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

Little, B., K. Lanphear, and D. Owsley

1992 Mortuary Display and Status in a NineteenthCentury Anglo-American Cemetery in Manassas, Virginia. American Antiquity 57:397-418.

Parker Pearson, M.
1982 Mortuary Practices, Society and Ideology: An
Ethnoarchaeological Study. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder, ed., pp. 99-113.
Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

McGuire, R.
1988 Dialogues with the Dead: Ideology and the Cemetery. In The Recovery of Meaning: Historical
Archaeology in the Eastern United States, M.
Leone and P. Potter, eds., pp. 435-80. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Miller, D.
1982 Artefacts as Products of Human Categorisation
Processes. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, I. Hodder, ed., pp. 17-25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Small, D.
1995 Monuments, Laws, and Analysis. Combining Archaeology and Text in Ancient Athens. In Methods in the Mediterranean: Historical and Archaeological Views on Texts and Archaeology, D. Small,
ed., pp. 143-74. Leiden. E. J. Brill.
1999 The Tyranny of the Text: Lost Social Strategies in
Current Historical Period Archaeology in the Classical Mediterranean. In Back from the Edge: Archaeology in History, P. Funari, M. Hall, and S.
Jones, eds., pp. 122-35. London: Unwin Hyman.