, I . .
_ i...
3.3.

..

.

521%! l
a. 9:39.. of. .t
... tacit-w: “I. (:21 3...: .

3h

_
“um .

am?» nu

”#923: J.

a

A.

,
g
by 3%,,“
Y
s againwgsm
ﬁﬂtav

 

a.

s. .. vi a...

. “4.1193 “33.3....
1:}? $1. $5.59.):
.12.. . it 695...: u
a ‘35:... s... “mm...“

.1. 1

5’6? Jae—44.1.”. «(u

.2. it. .«h

s...

.46..

‘4“.
*‘j v . .vnﬁ’
vi...“
» 4. Lani
J a...“r&L.-.i

, .t’xll'la‘
.32. £3
.2 5;...)

.u
: ... 9...;
.sk c3! 4

. a: i

 

 

, . . ‘

, . . r I . . V ‘ .1 A .1; >1.

. ‘ . “Jmu. an». a u: . ‘ unﬁ— 5w. 5!. ‘ may. isi V . .. . . V . 5 .. .

éuwfé . an girisn. 3v. ha.‘..~v£n.....¢nﬁ was? $.35. .. mm” 2.2.. . gamma. hiya; . .Sw :ﬂwﬁrﬁwfm 15$.»
.3 1. H........L.._V.HS§1aﬂxnu. :3. m .. .maﬂui..pmwr¥n§:§ .umn. L12. 15.? .hn.§..i§33ﬂféz K}: . . ‘ (re: .2

$1.. .7; ... .

 

. f.

 

s
3’06“ LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A STUDY OF ETHNICITY IN AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN
CEMETERY IN FLINT, MICHIGAN

presented by
Nicole Jennifer Burritt

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of Arts degree in Anthropology

 

 

 

a

/Major Professor’s Signature

7% 144 3 r3/’//

 

’Qg

MSU is an Afﬁnnative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5I08 K:IProlecc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

A STUDY OF ETHNICITY IN AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CEMETERY IN
FLINT, MICHIGAN

By

Nicole Jennifer Burritt

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Anthropology

2009

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF ETHNICITY IN AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN CEMETERY IN
FLINT, MICHIGAN

By
Nicole Jennifer Burritt

This thesis examines ethnicity through the lens of changing gravestone attributes
in an Orthodox Christian Cemetery in Flint, Michigan. hnmigrants from Central and
Southeastern Europe as well as second-generation and later Americans are represented in
the cemetery. Attributes on gravestones are compared among individuals based on their
origin (categorized as North American- or foreign-born) to explore changing styles which
represent negotiations of identity as an immigrant population becomes increasingly
integrated into mainstream American culture. By situating these results within the
broader realm of gravestone studies and anthropology, changes sensitive to ethnic
identity and assimilation can be examined in concert with changes due to larger societal
trends. One of the key ﬁndings in this study is the identiﬁcation of pronounced
differences in the way that ethnic identity markers (such as language of inscription) are
selected for the gravestones of foreign-born as compared to North American-born
individuals. This suggests that ethnic identity as represented in the cemetery may vary
greatly among individuals based on their origin, despite a broader shared status as
“ethnics.” This has implications for subsequent research on ethnicity in cemeteries, as it
is common in past studies for gravestones to be grouped as “ethnic” without

consideration to individual origin.

To My Family

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This thesis was completed with the continuing support and inspiration of my
family. In particular, my husband Jake provided unfaltering and constant encouragement
and enthusiasm for this project, and provided valuable assistance in recording this
cemetery. His sense of humor and enthusiasm for all things historical make him an
excellent companion on any adventure. Both he and my family early on decided to
exercise patience and acceptance of my need to stop at old cemeteries wherever travels
take us; sometimes they even join in. The idea for this thesis grew out of such stops, and
Michigan itself possesses such a rich immigrant history that I found it impossible not to
combine these two interests of mine.

Many thanks go to my committee for their assistance and support. My advisor,
Dr. Jodie O’Gorman, encouraged my initial idea for this project and provided suggestions
and guidance throughout. Dr. Lynne Goldstein lent valuable insights into the ﬁeld of
mortuary studies and statistical analysis. Dr. Ken Lewis offered enthusiasm as well as
indispensable advice in conducting historical research. Dr. Keely Stauter-Halsted guided
me to key resources in the ﬁeld of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Eastern
European history. Both faculty and students in the department also assisted me during
my time at Michigan State. In particular, Drs. Bill Lovis, Bob Hitchcock, and John
Norder were always available for discussion and support.

Outside of the Anthropology Department, much gratitude goes to Dr. David
Prestel, Chair of the Linguistics Department, for the application of his diverse language
skills in the translation of weathered gravestone inscriptions. Drs. Bill and Yvonne

Lockwood lent insights into Southeastern European culture. I also extend gratitude to the

iv

participants of the Cemeteries and Gravemarkers section of the 2008 PCA conference, for
their warm welcome and helpful suggestions for a ﬁrst—time presenter and relative
newcomer to the ﬁeld of cemetery studies. In particular, Dr. David Gradwohl offered
enthusiastic encouragement for this project and very generously provided me with access
to his own publications which served as an important example for this study.

This project could not have happened without the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
community. Father Matthew-Peter Butrie provided invaluable assistance throughout,
kindly aiding me in the compilation of information on the Church and the St. John Street
community. Warm thanks to Frank Evanoff, Stephanie Fohey and John Zelenko for their
generosity in taking the time to recount their memories of the St. John Street
neighborhood. Thanks also to Silvana Totan of Canton, Michigan, and her family for
their valuable translation of Romanian inscriptions. This thesis represents the
contributions of many different individuals, not the least of whom are the immigrants and
the descendants themselves whose information is now preserved in stone. America’s
cemeteries stand as museums of culture and history for all who take the time to stop and

visit.

.. vanqﬁmm A ~.
‘ . |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
Statement of Problem ................................................................................................. 1
Review of Literature .................................................................................................. 2
Historical Cemeteries as Places to Study Ethnic Interaction ......................... 3
Eastern European Orthodox Cemeteries in North America ........................... 4
Quantitative Approaches to Ethnic Cemeteries ............................................. 5
Ethnicity and Identity ..................................................................................... 6
Background of Dataset ............................................................................................... 8
Church Afﬁliation and Composition of the Congregation ............................ 10
Research and Methodology ........................................................................................ 12
General Trends in the Cemetery .................................................................... 13
Differences between North American- and F oreign-Bom ............................. 13
Signiﬁcance of Research to the Field of Anthropology ............................................. 14
CHAPTER 2
ETHNICITY AND IDENTITY ............................................................................................. 16
Identity ....................................................................................................................... 16
Toward a Deﬁnition of Identity ................................................................................. 18
Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... 20
Toward a Deﬁnition of Ethnicity ............................................................................... 24
CHAPTER 3
THE IMMIGRATION OF CENTRAL AND SOUTHEASTERN EUROPEANS TO
AMERICA IN THE NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH CENTURIES ............................ 27
Assimilation versus Acculturation ............................................................................. 27
Impetus to Migrate ..................................................................................................... 28
Traditional versus Modern Societies? ........................................................................ 30
Ethnic Identity and the Importance of Religion ......................................................... 32
Intra-Ethnic Conﬂict .................................................................................................. 34
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 36
CHAPTER 4
CENTRAL AND SOUTHEASTERN EUROPEANS IN FLINT ......................................... 38
A Brief History of Flint, Michigan ............................................................................ 38
The St. John Street Neighborhood ............................................................................. 41
The International Institute .......................................................................................... 42
Churches .................................................................................................................... 43
Benevolent and Relief Societies ................................................................................ 45
Schools ....................................................................................................................... 46
vi

lg- ' . o “EIIVA'. I A“ "I

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d.)

Gathering Places ........................................................................................................ 47
Halls ........................................................................................................................... 48
Additional Sources of Tension in the St. John Street Neighborhood ........................ 50
Urban Renewal: The End of an Era ........................................................................... 52
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 53
CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 55
Historical Research .................................................................................................... 55
Field Methodology ..................................................................................................... 58
Variables .................................................................................................................... 59
Year of Gravestone (Date of Death) .............................................................. 59
Shape of Gravestone ...................................................................................... 60
Other Physical Characteristics of Gravestones .............................................. 62
Gravestone Measurements ............................................................................. 62
Area of Inscriptions and Symbols .................................................................. 63
Inscription ...................................................................................................... 63
Language of Inscription ................................................................................. 64
Iconography ................................................................................................... 64
Dimensions of Comparison ............................................................................ 66
Methods of Analysis .................................................................................................. 68
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 68
CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ................................................................................................ 69
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 69
Overview of Analyses ................................................................................................ 70
Organization of the Cemetery .................................................................................... 71
Gravestone Frequency through Time ......................................................................... 72
Gravestone Shape ....................................................................................................... 74
Shape 1: Form ................................................................................................ 74
Shape 2: Proﬁle .............................................................................................. 81
Gravestone Material ................................................................................................... 84
Directions Gravestones Face ...................................................................................... 88
Number of Individuals per Gravestone ...................................................................... 90
Epitaph Length ........................................................................................................... 92
Language of Inscription ............................................................................................. 95
Symbols and Iconography .......................................................................................... 98
Number of Motifs per Gravestone ............................................................................. 100
Engraved Cross Type ................................................................................................. 103
Discussion .................................................................................................................. 106
CHAPTER 7
PERSONAL IDENTITY IN THE CEMETERY ....................................................... 108

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont’d.)

Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................... 109
Kinship ....................................................................................................................... 1 16
Title and Occupation .................................................................................................. 119
Age ............................................................................................................................. 120
Epitaph Length by Gender and Age at Death ............................................................ 123
Discussion .................................................................................................................. l 26
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................... 129
Introduction ................................................................................................................ 129
Summary of Findings ................................................................................................. 130
Implications for Ethnic Cemetery Research .............................................................. 134
Future Research Directions ........................................................................................ 136
Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 136
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 138
Appendix A: Map of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery ....................................... 139
Appendix B: Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables ................................... 141
Appendix C: Chi-Square Results ............................................................................... 143
Appendix D: Frequency Tables ................................................................................. 147
Appendix E: Dataset .................................................................................................. 150
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................. 1 87

viii

”75;: I ~..... .m._§m¢ . 37"

LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1 Table of Analyses Performed on the Cemetery as a Whole .............................. 71
Table 6.2 Comparisons of Gravestone Forms .................................................................... 75

Table 6.3 Differences in Visibility of Gravestone Forms between North American- and

Foreign-80m ...................................................................................................................... 80
Table 6.4 Frequency of the Six Most Popular Gravestone Proﬁles in the Cemetery ........ 81
Table 7.1 Language on Gravestones through Time ......................................................... 111
Table 7.2 Language on Gravestones by Gender .............................................................. 113
Table 7.3 Origins of Individuals ...................................................................................... 113
Table 7.4 Origin on Gravestone ....................................................................................... 114
Table 7.5 Gendered Kinship Terms in Order of Frequency ............................................ 116
Table 7.6 Title and Occupation on Gravestone ............................................................... 119
Table 7.7 Age at Death through Time ............................................................................. 120
Table 7.8 Age and Epitaph Length by Frequency ........................................................... 124
Table B.l Gravestone Height ........................................................................................... 141
Table 8.2 Gravestone Average Width ............................................................................. 141
Table B.3 Gravestone Length .......................................................................................... 141
Table B.4 Number of Words in Epitaph .......................................................................... 141
Table B.5 Number of Motifs per Gravestone .................................................................. 141
Table C]: F our Most Common Gravestone Forms ......................................................... 143
Table C.2 Four Most Common Gravestone Styles .......................................................... 143
Table C.3 Material of Gravestone .................................................................................... 143
Table C.4 Directions Gravestones Face ........................................................................... 143
Table C.5 Number of Individuals .................................................................................... 144

ix

Table C.6 Language of Inscription (English or Other) .................................................... 144

Table C.7 Language of Inscription (English or Other/Both) ........................................... 144
Table C.8 Number of Motifs per Gravestone (Excluding 4 Motifs) ................................ 144
Table C.9 Cross Type (Excluding Cross 3) ..................................................................... 145
Table D.1 Flora Symbol Frequencies .............................................................................. 147
Table D2 Non-Flora Symbol Frequencies ...................................................................... 147
Table D3 Gravestone Proﬁle (Shape 2) Frequencies ...................................................... 148
Table E.1 Dataset Part I ................................................................................................... 151
Table E.2 Dataset Part II .................................................................................................. 157
Table E.3 Dataset Part III ................................................................................................. 163
Table E.4 Dataset Part IV ................................................................................................ 169
Table E.5 Dataset Part V .................................................................................................. 175
Table E.6 Dataset Part VI ................................................................................................ 181
x

 

FIJI; “lg—I- .- nﬂ“: 7'
I . . - - . _

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.1 Gravestone Form (Shape 1) Chart .................................................................... 60
Figure 5.2 Gravestone Proﬁle (Shape 2) Chart .................................................................. 61
Figure 6.1 Gravestone Frequency through Time ............................................................... 73
Figure 6.2 Gravestone Proportional Frequencies by Origin .............................................. 73
Figure 6.3 Gravestone Frequencies by Form ..................................................................... 75
Figure 6.4 Gravestone Form through Time ....................................................................... 76
Figure 6.5 Foreign-Born: Gravestone Form through Time ............................................... 78
Figure 6.6 North American-Born: Gravestone Form through Time .................................. 78
Figure 6.7 Gravestone Proﬁle through Time ..................................................................... 82
Figure 6.8 Foreign-Born: Gravestone Proﬁle through Time ............................................. 83
Figure 6.9 North American-Born: Gravestone Proﬁle through Time ................................ 83
Figure 6.10 Gravestone Material through Time ................................................................ 86
Figure 6.11 Foreign-Born: Gravestone Material through Time ......................................... 86
Figure 6.12 North American-Born: Gravestone Material through Time ........................... 87
Figure 6.13 Direction Gravestones Face ............................................................................ 88
Figure 6.14 Foreign-Born: Direction Gravestones Face .................................................... 89
Figure 6.15 North American-Born: Direction Gravestones Face ...................................... 89
Figure 6.16 Number of Individuals per Gravestone through Time ................................... 91
Figure 6.17 Foreign-Born: Number of Individuals per Gravestone through Time ............ 91
Figure 6.18 North American-Born: Number of Individuals per Gravestone through Time

............................................................................................................................................ 92
Figure 6.19 Epitaph Length through Time ........................................................................ 93
Figure 6.20 Foreign-Born: Epitaph Length through Time ................................................. 94

xi

_“. ‘1.er “I.

 

Figure 6.21 North American-Born: Epitaph Length through Time ................................... 94

Figure 6.22 Language on Gravestones through Time... ..................................................... 96
Figure 6.23 Foreign-Born: Language on Gravestones through Time ................................ 97
Figure 6.24 North American-Born: Language on Gravestones through Time .................. 97
Figure 6.25 Number of Motifs per Gravestone through Time ......................................... 100
Figure 6.26 F oreign-Born: Number of Motifs per Gravestone through Time ................. 101

Figure 6.27 North American-Born: Number of Motifs per Gravestone through Time 1 01

Figure 6.28 Engraved Cross Type through Time ............................................................. 104
Figure 6.29 Foreign-Born: Engraved Cross Type through Time ..................................... 105
Figure 6.30 North American-Born: Engraved Cross Type through Time ....................... 105
Figure 7.1 Average at Death ............................................................................................ 121
Figure 7.2 Gender and Age at Death ............................................................................... 122
Figure 7.3 Gender and Epitaph Length ............................................................................ 123
Figure 7.4 Age and Epitaph Length ................................................................................. 124
Figure A.1 Map of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery (Not to Scale) ......................... 139

xii

Chapter 1: Introduction
Statement of Problem

Cemeteries represent concentrations of the material culture of death, in which
elements such as gravemarkers, associated funerary structures, and grave site decorations
can reveal insights into social organization, behavior, identity, and beliefs. Historical
archaeology in particular offers the opportunity to explore ethnic identity in a mortuary
context using a combination of material evidence and documentary sources. This thesis
will examine the negotiation of ethnic identity as evidenced by changing gravestone
attributes among North American-bom and foreign-born (immigrant) individuals in an
Orthodox Christian cemetery in Flint, Michigan using both a quantitative and qualitative
approach. In this paper, the term “Orthodox” refers to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, of
which a number of branches, commonly associated with speciﬁc ethnicities or
nationalities, exist (such as Russian Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, and Ukrainian
Orthodox). The results will be situated in the context of existing research on ethnicity as
evidenced in the historical cemetery and on ethnic and religious identity negotiation and
acculturation among immigrants and their descendants, as well as archaeological
approaches to ethnicity and material mortuary culture.

Richard E. Meyer’s 1993 introduction to Ethnicity and the American Cemetery
states: “Collectively, America’s ethnic cemeteries represent largely untapped resources
for the study of evolving patterns of ethnicity in American culture” (Meyer 199323). In
2007, Gary Collison, in the introduction to the annual publication of the Association for
Gravestone Studies, Markers, noted “there are many potential topics I would like to see

covered in future issues of Markers including. . .ethnic cemeteries, especially the so-

$‘mmmﬂM‘ " ' "

called ‘national’ cemeteries for immigrant groups” (Collison 2007:v). A number of
studies followed Meyer’s original suggestion (e. g. Gradwohl 1993, Watters 1994;
Garman 1994; Bennett 1994; Jamieson 1995; Handler 1996; Zucchi 1997; Prince 2002;
Eckert 2002; Goldstein and Buikstra 2004; Hodge 2005, Gradwohl 2007), making clear
the vast and ever-expanding range of possibilities for research on historical ethnic
cemeteries, as well as the need for both comparative data and research on often neglected
ethnic groups. The proposed thesis will build on this important and growing body of
work, while contributing to the literature of historical ethnic cemeteries.
Review of Literature

A number of previous works have addressed the topic of ethnicity in historical
American cemeteries. Perhaps the most comprehensive contribution to this area of study
has been Richard E. Meyer’s Ethnicity in the American Cemetery (1993). This edited
volume features essays on a variety of different ethnic cemeteries (e. g. Native American,
Jewish, Euro-American, Mexican-American, Polynesian, and Asian). Similarly, Richard
E. Meyer’s Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of American Culture (1989) also
includes essays on ethnic cemeteries (e. g. African-American, Mexican-American). In
both volumes, the essays are primarily descriptive, and interpretations are based largely
on comparative ethnographic, historical, and documentary sources on the ethnic groups.
Similarly, Markers has also published a number of articles on ethnic cemeteries,
primarily those representing Western European-American, Native American, and
Aﬁican-American populations. The essays and articles noted above provide valuable
examples on how issues of ethnic identity and acculturation in the historical cemetery can

be explored. Primarily, they rely on a qualitative approach, but studies on ethnic

WmWn-Jtytw

cemeteries also beneﬁt from the use of quantitative approaches and the exploration of
different facets of ethnic identity among less-studied groups.
Historical Cemeteries as Places to Study Ethnic Interaction

A common theme in studies on historical ethnic cemeteries in America has been
the interaction between native or oppressed cultures (i.e. African American, Native
American) and Euro-American culture. In particular, such studies address issues of
acculturation and resistance as manifested in mortuary artifacts (such as gravemarkers).
For example, Prince (2002) and Blackman (1973) focus on above-ground mortuary
materials in First Nation and Native American cemeteries, and what these reveal about
the processes of Euro-American cultural oppression and Native identity negotiation.
Garman (1994) examines the negotiation of race as evidenced by the selection of
attributes for Aﬁican-American and Euro-American gravestones, as does Tashjian and
Tashjian (1989), while Jamieson (1995) and Watters (1994) explore African slave burial
practices. All of these articles focus on the interaction between cultures and the resultant
tensions in symbols of ethnicity, a theme relevant to the research proposed here.

Likewise, Hodge (2005) examines burial practices at a eighteenth century
Wampanoag Quaker cemetery to examine the ways in which Wampanoags resisted some
acculturation efforts, while adopting certain Quaker burial practices that coincided with
their beliefs. Similarly, Whelan (1991) examines a nineteenth century Dakota cemetery
in southeastern Minnesota with the goal of identifying Dakota gender categories signiﬁed
using both Native and Euro-American grave goods.

On the other hand, Euro-American burial practices in America have lent insight

into how European immigrants adapted to their new environment, and which mortuary

practices they maintained or modiﬁed. Goldstein and Brinkmann (2008) explore Russian
burial practices, among others, at the California Fort Ross colony, and suggest that an
adherence to Russian Orthodox burial practices may represent a way to provide “comfort
or even an insurance policy” in the face of foreign environmental hazards (Goldstein and
Brinkmann 2008: 17). Jeane (2007) also identiﬁes the retention of mortuary practices
among Euro-Americans. He argues for an English rather than Native American origin for
graveshelters by noting their antiquity in England cemeteries, and the continuity of their
usage from England to America. Jeane suggests that Native Americans may have adapted

this practice ﬁ'om English immigrants who modiﬁed it from lych-gates. These articles

wt.” 'Wmﬁ' “.1.”

point to the ways in which ethnic interaction and mortuary behavior retention and
adaptation can be explored in cemeteries. In particular, a focus on Native-American,
African-American, and Western Euro-American mortuary practices (with the exception
of Goldstein and Brinkmann 2008) can be observed in ethnic cemetery literature. The
next section explores studies on Eastern European ethnic cemeteries in America, with
special emphasis on Orthodox Christian cemeteries.
Eastern European Orthodox Cemeteries in North America

Studies on Eastern European Orthodox cemeteries in North America are
underrepresented compared to those of other ethnic and religious immigrant groups. This
is due in part to the relatively recent arrival of Eastern Europeans in the US; Orthodox
Bastem Europeans did not arrive in any signiﬁcant numbers to this continent until the late
nineteenth century. Of the research on Orthodox Christian cemeteries in North America,
studies on Orthodox Ukrainian cemeteries appear to be the most common (e. g. Carlson-

Cumbo 1989, Kostecki 1989, Medwidsky 1989, and Graves 1993). These examine

Ukrainian-Canadian, (and in Grave’s case, Ukrainian-American) gravernarkers for what
they can reveal about acculturation and identity retention among Ukrainian immigrants
and their descendants. Speciﬁcally, these articles focus on symbols of ethnicity on
gravestones, although the observed data are not quantiﬁed.

In addition to the aforementioned studies, Paraskevas (2006) and Eckert (2002)
both examine language use patterns among immigrants and their descendants. Greek
immigrants are discussed in the former article, and Czech (non-Orthodox) immigrants in
the latter. Both authors observe the different changes that language use in inscriptions
undergoes, and how it becomes more formulaic and less speciﬁc or personalized through
time as language ﬂuency is lost in subsequent generations. These approaches are quite
valuable for what they reveal about the process of acculturation among Eastern
Europeans. However, the ﬁeld of ethnicity and historical cemetery studies can also
beneﬁt from studies that employ a quantitative approach, which adds an additional layer
of understanding to observed phenomena.

Quantitative Approaches to Ethnic Cemeteries

A number of historical above-ground cemetery studies do utilize quantitative
approaches, such as Clark (1987) and McGuire (1988) in which gravestone
characteristics between “nonethnics” and “ethnics” are quantitatively compared.
Similarly, Gorrnan and DiBlasi (1981) take a quantitative approach to examining
differences in gravestone characteristics between immigrants and native-bom; these
categories are determined based on birth place information provided in gravestone
inscriptions (Gorrnan and DiBlasi 1981 :82). In addition, Mallios and Caterino (2007)

demonstrate a comprehensive quantitative approach to the study of gravemarker

attributes in San Diego County cemeteries, although they do not directly address
ethnicity. Gradwohl (1988, 1993, 2007) employs quantitative methods in his
ethnoarchaeological approach to intra-diversity in Jewish cemeteries, speciﬁcally in the
quantitative comparison of gravestone attributes such as language. These studies
demonstrate ways in which a quantitative approach adds to an understanding of ethnicity
in historical cemeteries, and serve as a basis from which additional quantitative research P
can build. 1.-
A quantitative approach can provide a more nuanced understanding of patterned

change through time among gravestone attributes by making explicit quantiﬁable

 

differences, and reveal the ways in which attributes relate to one another. In addition, the
careful and controlled recording of gravestone attributes (including text) preserves the
cemetery data even after gravernarkers may be removed or destroyed. A variety of
comparative approaches are enabled through the use of quantitative techniques, for
example both inter- and intra-cemetery studies are facilitated, which is important for
gaining an understanding of these issues across space, time, and ethnic afﬁliation.
Ethnicity and Identity

A brief mention should be made here regarding the use of the terms “ethnicity”
and “identity” (the meanings behind these terms are explored in greater depth in Chapter
2). The two terms themselves can introduce confusion if their meaning as understood
here is not made explicit. A number of publications have raised issues surrounding the
use of the terms “ethnicity” (e.g. Barth 1969, Stein 1975, Stern 1977, Morawska 1977,
Cohen 1978, Patterson 1978, Kushner 1980, Padgett 1980, McGuire 1981, Brubaker

2004, Trimble and Dickson) and “identity” (Bennett 1978, Hammond 1988, Naylor 1997,

Brubaker and Cooper 2000), and the intersection between the two (i.e. “ethnic identity”).
In this research project, the concept of ethnic identity needs to be understood in a way
that is relevant to its study as manifested by above-ground material culture in a historical
cemetery. Therefore, identity as used in this project refers to the variety of social roles
(social persona) that an individual occupies in life (e. g. wife, mother, factory worker,
practicing Orthodox Christian, Macedonian, immigrant, priest, president of fraternal
organization), and the roles that are made visible through the process of selection of
attributes for an individual’s gravemarker by friends or family. Identity can become
implicit or explicit depending on context (i.e. situational identity) (Trimble and Dickson
2008)

Ethnicity is deﬁned here as the association (by self-ascription or group
acceptance) with an ethnic group, which is in turn deﬁned as a group of individuals who
are connected by certain shared cultural and social traits, which might include language,
religion, common ancestry, place of origin and nationality, that are perceived as requisite
for membership in the group. Speciﬁc symbols, reﬂecting the requisite cultural and
social traits, are utilized to maintain and adapt boundaries between members and
nonmembers. This deﬁnition accepts the basic tenets of ethnicity as set forth by
Vermeulen and Govers (1994), and acknowledges the social and cultural (and indirectly,
psychological and behavioral), aspects of ethnicity noted by others. In addition, the view
of ethnic groups as maintaining and adjusting barriers with “nonmembers” is also
retained (e. g. Barth 1969, McGuire 1981). I accept the assumption that ethnicity persists,

but often in adaptive permutations, particularly as the expression and content of ethnic

identity changes through time (and generations). This view is advocated by Bodnar
(1976), Stern (1977), Scourby (1980), and Erdmans (1995), among others.

With the exception of a small number of pre-need gravestones, individuals in the
cemetery of interest do not appear to typically choose their own gravestones. However, I
argue that one’s identity as seen by relatives and the ethnic community is different
depending on whether one originated from America (as the descendants of immigrants)
or was an immigrant oneself. This perceived identity affected the attributes that were
selected for one’s gravestone, as did the identities of those who chose the gravestone. It
is important to recognize that, although individuals themselves are not choosing the
attributes for their own gravestones in the vast majority of cases, their identity in life still
has meaning within their family and ethnic community that inﬂuences the gravestone
attributes that are ultimately selected.

Background of Dataset

The dataset for this thesis was recorded at the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery in
Flint, Michigan. The cemetery’s associated church, the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church,
was established under the Russian Missionaries Diocese in 1916. The land for the St.
Nicholas Orthodox cemetery was purchased by the church on April 16, 1918. The
cemetery was initially referred to in obituaries as the “Russian Cemetery,” and later
became known by its present name (Biemacki 199519). The earliest gravestone dates to
1918. Although a total of approximately 255 gravestones or gravestone locations were
noted, the published burial records list a total of over 450 individuals buried (Hardy
2000). Part of the discrepancy may come from the fact that many are shared gravestones;

however, it appears that some gravestones may be missing, due to decay or vandalism.

 

Chapter 3 provides a more in-depth examination of the circumstances surrounding
Southeastern and Central European immigration in the late nineteenth and twentieth
century; however, a brief overview is provided here. Immigrants from the Austro-
Hungarian and Russian Empires composed the early congregation of the church
associated with the cemetery. Their countries of origin included Russia, Yugoslavia,
Austria-Hungary, Poland, Macedonia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine. These
individuals had emigrated from primarily agricultural areas, in which a number of social,
political and economic upheavals were in ﬂux. Land reforms which divided up
communal land holdings into individual plots that were often too small for subsistence,
rapid population increases, agricultural depression, and the transition from a feudal goods
and services exchange-based economy to a modern, money-based economy were all
factors in the decision to immigrate (Morawska 1984, Blank 1994).

Such changes resulted in a large, excess agricultural population who did not have
enough land to support themselves; they began migrating to ﬁnd money-based labor jobs
within Europe. Industrial America soon became a draw. Peasants could earn
substantially more in America than in Europe. Letters home from relatives and ﬁ'iends
who had already migrated to America, or their demonstrations of success upon returning,
provided a positive impetus for those considering the move. Many of these migrants did
not intend to stay in America, but rather desired to earn enough to return home and buy
an adequate amount of land in their home village. However, due to circumstances and
the formation of new ties, a number of migrants remained in America.

Flint offered a draw for immigrants because of its burgeoning industry in the early

twentieth century. Flint housed a number of auto manufacturing plants during this time,

and during both World Wars manufactured war-time equipment such as tanks. The
economic down-tum Flint experienced beginning in the 19603 (Thomas 2005) likely
reduced its appeal for new arrivals, effectively preventing an inﬂux of new immigrants
from Central and Southeastern Europe following the removal of immigration restrictions
in the 1960s (V rga 1971). Chapter 4 examines the social and economic history of Flint,
and explores the ways in which Eastern European immigrants adapted to life in industrial
Flint.

Immigrants from Central and Southeastern Europe ﬁlled low—level factory jobs in
early twentieth-century America. They also suffered discrimination, and were the focus
of a number of Arnericanization movements designed to fully assimilate the immigrants
(Graham and Koed 1993). Central and Southeastern European immigrants were
frequently viewed with suspicion and distrust, especially following the Bolshevik
revolution, and the “red scares” of the 19503 (Roucek 1969). The 1924 Immigration Act
drastically restricted immigrants from these regions (Gabaccia 1996). This served to
facilitate assimilation, and also resulted in a “culture clash” between the “old” Central
and Southeastern European immigrants (those from the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century) and their descendants, and the “new” immigrants from the same
regions who arrived in the 19603 following the removal of restrictions with the
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Vrga 1971).

Church Aﬁ‘iliation and Composition of the Congregation

From 1916 to 1949, the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church was a member of the

Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, which at that time was also known

as the Metropolia (Biemacki 1995:22). In August of 1949, a decision was made to bring

10

 

the parish under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Synod Abroad. Twenty-eight
years later, the parish and the Bulgarian Diocese of Toledo rejoined the Orthodox Church
in America (formerly the Metropolia). The Orthodox Church in America, with which the
St. Nicholas Church is still afﬁliated today, incorporates multiple Orthodox churches
without aligning itself with a speciﬁc ethnicity or nationality. Father Znamensky, who
became priest of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in 1944, made a point to emphasize
the multi-ethnic character of the congregation to enhance unity and encourage the parish
to expand. He also instituted a gradual transition in the language of worship from Church
Slavonic to English in the mid 19403 (Biemacki 1995:21), suggesting that English had
become the common language of the congregation by this time.

Although the multi-ethnic nature of the congregation may seem anomalous, in
light of the fact that Orthodox Churches are often afﬁliated with speciﬁc ethnicities or
nationalities (e. g. Serbian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Ukrainian Orthodox, Greek
Orthodox), it was not unusual for different ethnicities to share a church when
congregation numbers precluded the formation of separate churches by ethnicity
(Hoerder 19961245). Smith states “in the Old World, the developing sense of people-
hood depended heavily upon religious identiﬁcation, in some cases more so than upon
language or myths about common descent” (Smith 1978:1161). This speaks to how the
immigrants were able to overcome ethnic and linguistic differences and unite to a certain
extent under their shared religion for the purpose of worship and a sense of community.
The history of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church is addressed in greater detail in Chapter

4.

11

*I‘

‘I'l' ”LI-TAD. mar-H.111-

_ :4

' t l
.r't'

.65

Research and Methodology

Chapter 5 provides a detailed description of methodology and research techniques
utilized in this study, however, a summary is provided here. In October of 2007, a
number of variables were recorded at the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery. These
included size, shape, style, and material of gravestones, iconography, names, dates, and
other inscriptions, language used for inscriptions, and the size of symbols and inscriptions
relative to the area of the gravestone face. In addition, gravestones were photographed,
and epitaphs in Church Slavonic, Macedonian, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, and
Ukrainian were translated into English. See Appendix A for the dataset. I

Initially, variables on all gravestones were analyzed to determine general trends
through time within the cemetery. Descriptive statistics were compiled for continuous
variables, and consisted of total number of cases, mean, median, mode, minimum,
maximum, and standard deviation (Appendix B). Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) was
used to analyze both continuous and meristic variables for the total cemetery dataset.
The chi-square test was performed on categorical, non-parametric data, including form,
style, and material of gravestones, the language of inscription, number of motifs per
gravestone, and cross type on gravestones. In all cases, the cut off level for signiﬁcance
was a=0.05. Variables which exhibited signiﬁcant results are addressed below. See
Appendix C for the chi-square results.

These statistical tests were carried out to determine if variation between time
periods was due to random “sampling” variation, or if there was in fact signiﬁcant
patterned differences between time periods. Following these initial analyses, the burial

records from the church (Hardy 2000), as well as immigration, naturalization, and census

12

records, were utilized to assign origin to individuals for the purposes of comparison
between North American- and foreign-born gravestones.
General Trends in the Cemetery

Variables that exhibited patterned change through time for the whole cemetery
were gravestone form, style, and material, language of inscription, number of motifs per
gravestone, and cross type. Variables that did not exhibit patterned change through time
include epitaph length, the direction gravestones face, and number of individuals per
gravestone.

Diﬂerences between North American- and F oreign-Born

Following these analyses, the gravestone dataset for the cemetery was divided
into two groups based on an individual’s place of origin: North American-bom,
designating those who were listed in the Church’s burial register as from Canada or
America, and foreign-bom, those listed as originating from Central or Southeastern
EurOpe. This was done to highlight gravestone attribute choices that can lend insight
into the process of acculturation and identity negotiation through time. Gravestones were
the units of analysis rather than individuals, although individual place of origin was used
to assign a gravestone to a category.

Exploratory Data Analysis was then used to compare trends among North
American-bom and foreign-bom. Line graphs were constructed to examine how the
occurrence of certain gravestone attributes changed through time for the two groups. The
results show that differences between North American- and foreign-bom gravestone
attributes in an Orthodox cemetery include: language of inscription, variety in number of

motifs, use of cross type, and form and material of gravestones. In addition, changing

l3

'12.”;er Ann—W - ’7‘”

patterns of immigrants are revealed through the graphing of gravestones by place of
origin for each time period. The nature of these changes was interpreted using multiple
lines of evidence concerning the community, economic and historical trends in Flint,
Michigan, and characteristics of this ethnic and religious group. Results for all analyses
are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7.

Historical research was undertaken concerning the Eastern European Orthodox
community in Flint, and centered on exploring the ways in which this community
intersected with the larger non-Orthodox community, the institutions and community
groups they formed, and broader economic, social, and historical trends in Flint. This
research utilized census data, city directories, newspapers, and church records. Studies of
acculturation of Orthodox and Eastern European immigrants in America were also drawn
on to develop a framework of analysis for identifying acculturation and identity
negotiation in a mortuary context; this is discussed ﬁrrther in Chapter 4.

Significance of Research to the Field of Anthropology

This thesis contributes to the literature on ethnicity and historical cemeteries by
taking a quantitative approach that utilizes statistical and Exploratory Data Analysis
techniques. The quantitative analysis of speciﬁc gravestone attributes allows patterned
change through time among North American- and foreign-bom Orthodox Christians to be
observed and quantiﬁed, and enables statistically relevant interpretations to be made
regarding these changes. By quantifying changes and differences in gravestone
attributes, one moves beyond the anecdotal observation stage and can make testable

statements regarding choice of gravestone attributes in an ethnic and religious

l4

community. This approach also allows for comparisons to be made with other cemetery
datasets.

As the study of ethnicity in historical cemeteries becomes increasingly recognized
for the contribution it can make to the understanding of mortuary beliefs, issues of
identity negotiation, and change through subsequent generations, there is a growing need
for data on often neglected immigrant groups. Few studies have been done on Orthodox
Christian gravemarkers in the United States (Paraskevas 2006, Carlson-Cumbo 1989,
Kostecki 1989, Medwidsky 1989, and Graves 1993), and virtually none of these utilize a
quantitative approach. It is hoped that this thesis will facilitate subsequent quantitative
studies on historical gravemarkers in Orthodox cemeteries in the United States.
Likewise, this research contributes to the growing literature utilizing quantitative
methods in historical cemeteries, as well as generates additional data and interpretations

on an often-neglected religious and ethnic group.

15

Chapter 2: Ethnicity and Identity

This chapter addresses some of the issues concerning the study of ethnic identity,
with the goal of constructing working deﬁnitions of the terms for interpretation and
discussion within this thesis. Although research on ethnic identity has proliferated since
the 19603, the concepts of “ethnicity” and “identity” have since come under scrutiny.
Brubaker and Cooper (2000) reject the term “identity” itself, arguing that this concept is
made to do too many types of analytical work, even at times hosting conﬂicting
deﬁnitions and analytical categories. Others (Cohen 1978, Stern 1977, Patterson 1978,
Kushner 1980) take a closer look at the concept of “ethnicity,” which came into usage in
the social sciences in the 19603, contemporaneous with the rise of ethnic and other
identity movements (Trimble and Dickson 2008), and question its current usage and role
in analysis.

Given the debates surrounding the usage of these terms, it becomes necessary to
delve into their contested meanings, determining which concepts are applicable to my
own area of research. I then provide deﬁnitions of the terms so that they are available for
application in this thesis without entering the pitfalls of ambiguity and contradictoriness.
Identity

The term identity has been employed in countless ethnic studies, much of the time
without critical evaluation of its meaning. In fact, as often as not an author does not
deﬁne it, perhaps because the word itself seems to be ubiquitous, and therefore assumed
to be common knowledge. But as Brubaker and Cooper state, “if identity is everywhere,
it is nowhere” (Brubaker and Cooper 2000: 1). They argue that the term’s ubiquitous

usage does not qualify it as a category of analysis, nor does it necessarily imply that

16

“identities” actually exist (Brubaker and Cooper 200016). “Identity” is used to refer to
often contradictory concepts, for example, in some cases, its usage “highlight[s]
fundamental sameness — sameness across persons and over time - while [other] uses
reject notions of fundamental or abiding sameness” (Brubaker and Cooper 2000:8,
emphases in original).

Because of its at times conﬂicting meanings, Brubaker and Cooper advocate the
replacement of the term with a host of others, among these “identiﬁcation,” which is a
processual and active term, and allows, but does not require, the speciﬁcation of the
agents that do the identifying. Brubaker and Cooper also emphasize that the end result of
“identiﬁcation” is not necessarily identity — instead, it is the process that is important for
analysis (Brubaker and Cooper 2000:16). Others also note the dangers of focusing on the
“end result” (Erickson 1973, Stein 1975). Stein critiques the new ethnicity movement as
“mistak[ing] identity consciousness raising for the identity process itself” (Stein
1975:277). These examples illustrate the view of identity as a process.

Some authors observe that “identity” can refer to either an essential and persisting
sameness, or an ongoing process as mentioned above. Hammond (1988) describes Mol’s
(1978) views on identity as referencing either an immutable core personality or a
“transient and changeable self as persons move ﬁom one social encounter to another”
(Hammond 19882). This is echoed in Fitzgerald, as quoted in Bennett (1978):

“identity. . .is of two sorts, a more or less ﬁxed equation, and a more situationally
speciﬁc. . .the former might be called cultural identity, and the latter social identities”
(Fitzgerald 197423, quoted in Bennett 1978). This latter approach is more commonly

referred to as “situational identity,” which refers to the way in which individuals are able

l7

to manage multiple layers of identity depending on the context they are operating in
(Naylor 1997: 120).

Situational identity, (speciﬁcally, situational ethnicity) is particularly relevant to
studies concerning the descendants of immigrants. This is because those of subsequent
generations may appear as a “nonethnic” American in certain contexts, but can chose to
emphasize their ethnic identity in other contexts (Bennett 1978, Padgett 1980, Erdmans
1995). In other words, ethnic identity and allegiance to that identity is voluntary for the
second or later generationl white ethnic, but not for the immigrant (Erdmans 1995: l 82.)
Naylor cautions that situational ethnicity must take into account the variety of factors
comprising interactive networks in which ethnicity can manifest, and advocates a both
subjective and objective focus with consideration of psychological, cultural, and social
elements (N aylor 1997: 120). Padgett in turn seeks to examine a different facet of
situational identity, termed voluntary identity, to determine “how, when, and under what
circumstances members of speciﬁc groups choose to assert their ethnic identity” (Padgett
1980255).

Toward a Definition of Identity

Because the research in question concerns markers of identity in an Orthodox
Christian cemetery in Michigan, it is necessary to evaluate which deﬁnition of “identity”
will function as a concept for analysis, or if another term (for example, as proposed by
Brubaker and Cooper 2000) should be used instead of “identity.” It is important to note
that there are certain key differences in this approach compared to the studies of living
individuals cited above. In the study of “identity” within a cemetery, the “processual”

view of identity is only relevant in the sense that the community’s view of itself may be

 

' In this thesis, “ﬁrst generation” refers to the immigrant generation (i.e. foreign-bom).

18

changing through time, and this can manifest through the popularity and decline of
certain gravestone attributes over time. But, an individual’s own process of self-
understanding or self-identiﬁcation is not visible in the available material culture in most
cases. Therefore, this study will not be concerned with processual views of identity,
except in the sense of changing attributes within the cemetery through time. Secondly,
situational identity is relevant in the sense that family members or ﬁiends are choosing to
emphasize certain facets of the deceased’s identity through selection of gravestone
attributes, but the deceased themselves are not actively exhibiting ‘Woluntary” ethnicity
or identity (very few of the markers in this cemetery are pre-need).

Therefore, I argue for the use of “identiﬁcation” to describe the process of the
selection of attributes for an individual’s gravemarker, with the recognition of “identity”
as the end result of that process. Brubaker and Cooper use “identiﬁcation” in one sense
to refer to a process in which individuals are identifying another individual “by
membership in a class of persons sharing some categorical attribute”; in this case, the
“classes” include religion, ethnicity, family, and community (Brubaker and Cooper
2000: 15). They emphasize that “identiﬁcation” need not result in “identity,” and perhaps
that is especially relevant to examine here, since the attributes on an individual’s
gravestone, as selected by others, do not reﬂect directly the individual’s own self-
understanding while living.

In contrast to Brubaker and Cooper, I argue that the selection of gravestone
attributes does create an “identity,” in the sense that a deceased individual becomes
identiﬁed with certain roles (e. g. son, priest), certain organizations (6. g. member of

religious congregation), and certain ethnic groups (e. g. Macedonian) through the

19

presence of “identity” markers on their gravestone. And in this sense, I feel the term
“identity” is relevant as the “end result” of the process of identiﬁcation in which
individuals select gravestone attributes for others, thereby afﬁxing “identities” to the
deceased. In this sense, “identity” denotes the association of an individual with speciﬁc
roles or categories through “identiﬁcation,” the selection of gravestone attributes,
particularly symbols and text, for the deceased’s gravemaker. This is not to say that an
individual cannot request of their loved ones certain symbols or text to be placed on their
gravestone, but the assumption is that in this Orthodox cemetery, ultimate selection of
gravestone attributes falls to individuals other than the deceased in the vast majority of
cases.
Ethnicity

The term “ethnicity” proves to be nearly as problematic as “identity,” and of
course they often appear together, generating additional layers of ambiguity particularly
if both fail to be deﬁned. In the 19603 and 19703, the term ethnicity proliferated in
literature and in common speech. Minority—led movements, such as Black Power,
ushered in a time of “identity politics,” much of which centered on ethnicity (Trimble and
Dickson 2008, Stein 197 5). In addition, the descendants of Southern, Eastern, and
Central European immigrants were beginning to claim their own ethnic identity as “white
ethnics” (Novak 1974, Stein 1975, Brubaker and Cooper 2000). Despite the profusion of
literature on ethnicity, in a 1974 analysis of 65 anthropological and sociological studies
of ethnicity Isajiw found that 80% of these did not give an explicit deﬁnition of ethnicity
(Isajiw 1974, quoted in Morawska 19772xv). The need to deﬁne ethnicity is particularly

important since a number of disagreements have arisen concerning its meaning and

20

application, whether it persists among immigrants and their descendants, and if so, in
what forms.

Morawska (1977) identiﬁes a number of themes that can be found in ethnic
literature, such as the debate over the decline of ethnicity, which some assert is being
replaced by religious differences, and the new ethnicity movement, in which ethnicity has
come to involve “self-consciousness and situational choice.” In addition, scholars are
divided over whether or not a revival of ethnicity is taking place, whether it has persisted
all along, which aspects of ethnicity persist, and if values identiﬁed as “ethnic” are in fact
inextricably tied to “class” (Morawska 1977, Patterson 1979). This variety of themes
highlights some of the areas of controversy.

Stein (1975) for example, feels that the new ethnicity movement involves the
selective recreation of past heritage to claim and justify power in the present. He also
feels that it works to artiﬁcially homogenize ethnic groups. Patterson critiques what he
terms the “academic ethnicity industry,” claiming that academics are churning out articles
on “ethnicity” that herald “the slightest symbols of ethnic distinctiveness as proof of
ethnic pluralism in America” (Patterson 19792104). Instead, he feels that most symbolic
ethnic-based activities such as ethnic picnics and dance groups do not indicate true ethic
pluralism in America, “since a majority of those involved have lost the language and
other important cultural markers” (Patterson 1979: 104). However, Patterson does not
deﬁne what these markers are, despite the fact that he claims “there are pockets of real
ethnicity, especially in Canada” (Patterson 19792105); again without deﬁning what

constitutes “real ethnicity.”

21

Kushner (1980) offers a valid critique of Patterson, citing the lack of deﬁnitions
and support in Patterson’s argument. Kushner also notes that, contrary to Patterson’s
assertion that numerous studies point toward ethnic decline through assimilation, in fact
ethnic identity is more adaptive and persistent than Patterson recognizes. Kushner states
“the loss of traits such as ‘language and other important cultural markers’ and ‘attendance
at... symbolic ethnic-based activities may. . .be evidence of the persistence of ethnic
distinctiveness rather than assimilation” (Kushner 1980: 124). Scourby (1980) and others
(e. g. Bodnar 1976) also acknowledge that ethnicity is persistent, adaptive, and ﬂuid,
existing on a continuum. Similarly, ethnicity takes on different forms in subsequent
generations (Scourby 1980:44-45, Erdmans 1995, Stern 1977).

In addition to the debate over the persistence of ethnicity, attempts to deﬁne the
term usually focus on which realm to emphasize when it comes to ethnicity: cultural,
social, or psychological (or all three). Brubaker, after lamenting the ambiguity of the
term, cautions against equating ethnicity with either common descent or culture, but
nonetheless does not provide a succinct deﬁnition (2004: 136-7). Lockwood (1981),
following Barth (1969) argues that ethnicity is social rather than cultural, in that it is the
social boundary, rather than cultural traits, which is relevant to how the members of the
group deﬁne themselves. Similarly, the social boundary is determined by speciﬁc
cultural features, for example, religious and linguistic afﬁliation, as is the casein Bosnia-
Herzegovina (Lockwood 1981 :71 -72).

In most cases, researchers recognize aspects of more than one realm. For
example, Bennett (1978) deﬁnes ethnic identity as “a feeling of attachment to and

afﬁliation with an ethnic group that is based upon learning meaningful cultural symbols,

22

values, and behaviors that are incorporated into the social life of the group and upon
learning social roles appropriate for interaction within an ethnic group” (Bennett

197 8:1 1). Morawska (1977), on the other hand, deﬁnes ethnicity as “a social-cultural
value which, in a given structural context, somehow determines mechanisms of
adaptation in a pluralist environment” (Morawska 19772xx, emphasis in original). While
Morawska recognizes that a process is occurring, she does not elucidate the ways in
which the mechanism of adaptation are determined, nor by what. However, both of these
deﬁnitions point to the difﬁculty in separating out social, cultural, and psychological
aspects of ethnicity.

Vermeulen and Govers, in their edited volume that represents an evaluation of
work following Barth’s 1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, note that the central tenets
in Barth’s work concerning ethnicity still hold true. These tenets are as follows “ 1)
ethnicity is a form of social organization; this implies that 2) ‘the critical focus for
investigation becomes the ethnic boundary that deﬁnes the group rather than the cultural
stuff that it encloses’ (Barth 1969215); [and] the critical feature of ethnic groups is 3) the
characteristic of self—ascription and ascription by others” (Vermeulen and Govers
1994: 1). These assumptions are particularly relevant to the study of ethnicity as
evidenced in material culture, because they support the view that the markers of the
ethnic boundary itself are important for examination. This view will be explored in
greater depth below.

It appears that, in a research context, social scientists often approach self-ascribed
ethnicity by the use of questionnaires and observation of behavior (i.e. Padgett 1980,

Bennett 1978, Bennett 1981). Similarly, Brubaker describes a shift in recent years in the

23

conception of ethnicity from “objective commonalities” to “participant’s beliefs,
perceptions, understandings, and identiﬁcations,” leading to “an increasing concern with
categorization and classiﬁcation” (Brubaker 2004264). Subsequently, Brubaker
advocates the cognitive approach, in which ethnicity is a perspective on rather than a
“thing” in the world (Brubaker 2004:65). Brubaker argues for a move beyond Barth’s
view of ethnicity as “practices of classiﬁcation and categorization,” by and of both self
and others, encouraging the asking of “how, when, and why people interpret social
experience in. . .ethnic. . .terms” (Brubaker 2004:87). He states that a cognitive
perspective will aid in recognizing the mechanisms by which ethnicity is reproduced
daily.
Toward a Deﬁnition of Ethnicity

While acknowledging the importance of the cognitive approach to ethnicity,
which focuses on how people act and interpret social circumstances in ethnic terms, the
study I will be undertaking is dealing with the material culture end results of actions,
interpretations, and decisions that people have made, rather than the decision-making
process itself. A cemetery represents an accumulation of the end results of choices, some
of which determine the identity markers a gravemaker exhibits. Therefore, a deﬁnition of
ethnicity that allows for the study of the facets of identity that concern group membership
of a religious, national, linguistic, cultural, and common descent nature through material
culture is necessary.

In this context, subtle boundaries are established through the utilization of
symbols and text on gravemarkers. This raises certain questions: which facets of an

individual’s identity are made salient? How does this reﬂect the living community itself?

24

How does the choice of identity markers change through time and in association with
which other attributes? Brubaker notes that “the schemes of perception and interpretation
through which the social world is experienced in. . .etlmic. . .terms - is social in a double
sense: it is socially shared knowledge of social objects” (Brubaker 2004:86). I do not
rule out a cognitive aspect in my approach to ethnicity, but instead note that a study of
mortuary material culture focuses on the end result of individual decisions operating from
Brubaker’s “socially shared knowledge of social objects.”

McGuire (1981) speciﬁcally addresses the issue of ethnicity in historical
archaeology. He states “the nature and persistence of ethnic groups depend on the
existence of an ethnic boundary (Barth 1969: 144) which ethnic groups maintain through
the manipulation and display of symbols (Spicer 1971 :796). . .these symbols may be
behavioral or material in form” (McGuire 1981:161). Although Brubaker makes a valid
argument for viewing “ethnicity without groups”, the study of ethnicity in a cemetery
concerns boundaries in a very real sense. The Orthodox cemetery itself is spatially
separated from neighboring cemeteries by a physical barrier (fencing), and various visual
cues are used to proclaim ethnic and religious identity (among other forms of identity)
through gravemarkers, proclaiming a barrier between members and nonmembers.

This research therefore utilizes the following deﬁnition of ethnicity: the
association (by self-ascription or group acceptance) with an ethnic group, which is
deﬁned as a group of individuals who are connected by certain shared cultural and social
traits, which might include language, religion, common ancestry, place of origin, and
nationality, that are perceived as requisite for membership in the group. Speciﬁc

symbols, reﬂecting the requisite cultural and social traits, are utilized to maintain and

25

adapt boundaries between members and nonmembers. This deﬁnition accepts the basic
tenets of ethnicity as set forth by Vermeulen and Govers (1994), and acknowledges the
social and cultural (and indirectly, psychological and behavioral), aspects of ethnicity
noted by others. In addition, the view of ethnic groups as maintaining and adjusting
barriers with nonmembers is also retained. I accept the assumption that ethnicity persists,
but often in adaptive permutations, particularly as the expression and content of ethnic
identity changes through time (and generations). This view is advocated by Bodnar
(1976), Stern (1977), Scourby (1980), and Erdmans (1995), among others.

This chapter has reviewed the current issues surrounding the use and deﬁnitions
of the terms “ethnicity” and “identity,” with the purpose of formulating a workable
deﬁnition for each term that is applicable to the study of ethnic identity in an Orthodox
Christian cemetery composed of Southeastern and Central European immigrants and their
descendants. It is recognized that “ethnicity” is one facet of identity, and that
gravemarkers feature a variety of identity markers, which signal religious, ethnic,
community, occupational, and kinship identities. Which identities are selected for
representation on gravemarkers is of interest, including how this selection changes
through time, and whether it is linked to an individual’s place of origin, immigrant or
descendant status, age, or gender. It is the hope that the meanings of “identity” and
“ethnicity” outlined above will provide a basic framework which these research questions

can be addressed.

26

Chapter 3: The Immigration of Central and Southeastern Europeans to America in
the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries

Assimilation versus Acculturation
Much attention has been given to the process immigrants undergo upon arrival in

America. Acculturation and assimilation are two terms that have been used to describe
this process, although their meanings vary. In particular, “assimilation” is falling out of
favor in modern literature, likely due to its association with the outdated “melting pot”
concept in which immigrant members of one culture are said to be fully absorbed into the
host culture (Speck 1926, Kishinevsky 2004). Kishinevsky, in her study of late
twentieth-century Russian immigrants in America, describes acculturation as “the
adaptive process of cultural adjustment and adoption of new competencies, which occurs
as the result of contact and interaction between two distinct cultures” (Kishinevsky
2004z6). She contrasts this with Taft’s (1977) equation of full acculturation with
assimilation, in which case the assimilated individual will not be distinguishable from a
member of the dominant society (quoted in Kishinevsky 200427). Gordon stated that
acculturation can occur without assimilation, with the latter suggesting “the
disappearance of the ethnic group as a separate entity” (Gordon 1964:81).

It appears, therefore, that both acculturation and assimilation refer to changes in
an immigrant’s mind and behavior, due to internal conditions (e. g. age, family status,
education level, personal attitudes) and external conditions (e. g. size of immigrant group,
political atmosphere, and social supports in the host society) (Kishinevsky 2004:8).
However, the concept of acculturation allows for the retainment of characteristics ﬁ'om
the culture of origin, and/or psychological or behavioral innovations outside of the strict

deﬁnition of “American,” while assimilation suggests that an immigrant becomes

27

 

indistinguishable from non-immigrant Americans. Similarly, Archdeacon (1985)
cautions against the equation of assimilation and acculturation, suggesting that
assimilation is based more on a national expectation ideal than the reality of immigration
and ethnicity in America (Archdeacon 1985:113). In addition, Gordon (1964)
acknowledges that the process of acculturation can affect the cultural patterns of the host
group as well as that of the immigrants. In this thesis, acculturation is considered from r
the immigrant’s point of view. Both internal and external, objective and subjective

factors and conditions contribute to the experience of acculturation that an immigrant

 

undergoes (Hoerder 1996, Morawska 1982, 1984). More consideration will be given to
these factors, and the forms that acculturation can take, below.

Impetus to Migrate

Conditions contributing to emigration from Europe, particularly Central and

Southeastern Europe, included rapid fragmentation of land, increasing proletarianization
among segments of rural society, rapid population growth, and prolonged agricultural
depression in the late nineteenth century (Morawska 1984:3 88, Blank 19942235). Areas
with the highest dependence on agriculture in the Austro-Hungarian Empire also had the
highest levels of emigrants (F assmann 19942281). This was because a number of factors,
including those above, had made a living based on agriculture untenable for many. The
transition from feudal to industrial society heralded a change from a system that operated
on the exchange of labor and goods to one based on monetary exchange. Suddenly, labor
was a means of acquiring money on which the “new” economy now Operated (Morawska
19842388). In Russia, as elsewhere in Eastern Europe, land reforms were coupled with

peasant emancipation laws. Land that had been comrnunally worked was parceled out in

28

small amounts to individual peasants, an unfamiliar form of land tenure. Because there
was not enough land for everyone to have subsistence-sized parcels, such reforms led to
individual land shortage and indebtedness (Blank 19942215). Contemporaneous with
increasing modernization, which led to a surplus of agrarian populations in the nineteenth
century, was an increasing mobilization of the peasantry, as wage work rose in economic
importance (Fassmann 19942268, 264). The 1848 Austro-Hungarian emancipation from
serfdom allowed for unrestricted internal migration (Fassmann 19942266).

Hoerder (1996) emphasizes the importance of considering not only conditions in
the country of origin when examining the impetus to migrate, but also the “mental
disposition” of migrants. He states that “the ‘objective’ push factors become the
subjective ones,” meaning that individuals form personal interpretations as a result of
changing political, economic and social conditions in larger society, which can then
prompt them to action (Hoerder 1996:217). Likewise, an individual’s networks,
personality traits, the information they receive about migration opportunities and
potential outcomes, family structure and situations, and the migration behavior of those
close to them are all important factors (Hoerder 19962217, 218).

One of the important conceptual shifts that occurred among peasants in
Southeastern and Central Europe is termed by Hoerder the “secularization of hope.” In
premodem peasant society, religious teachings situated the present between a glorious

past and a better world that death would bring. There was little hope of improving one’s
socioeconomic standing during one’s lifetime. However, with the advent of
modernization, a monetary economy, and migration to obtain better paying jobs, peasants

were introduced to the idea of “secularized” hope, which replaced the idea that fate or

29

spiritual beings predetermined life courses (Hoerder 19962219). Even so, one form of
myth replaced another, as the “American myth” was often “more real than reality”
(Hoerder 1996:220). The opportunities in America were aggrandized by those writing
home or returning from America, and the costs of the increased wages were often left to
be read between the lines. More than one author quotes a common saying among
immigrant Slavic peasants: “America for the oxen, Europe for the men,” which
underlined the extremely harsh living and working conditions that immigrants faced in
America (Hoerder 19962 234, Morawska 1984:392).

It is important to examine both push and pull, objective and subjective factors
within the context of the immigrants’ point of view. Despite adverse conditions, not
everyone in parts of Southeastern and Central Europe chose to migrate, just as everyone
who migrated did not choose to stay in America. Those who made the decision to
migrate were inﬂuenced by a variety of factors which was not limited to external
conditions, but also included their own unique experiences and perspectives.
Traditional versus Modern Societies?

Bodnar (1976) and Hoerder (1994) caution against a dichotomy of traditional
versus modern societies, in which the transition from a traditional to a modern culture
necessitates the destruction of the traditional culture and the ﬁrll embracement of the
modern. Instead, these authors argue for a new model allowing for both the persistence

of aspects of traditional culture, as well as change and innovation. Bodnar states that
many of the conditions which peasants encountered in industrial America may have
actually necessitated the persistence of certain traditional patterns. In other words, these

patterns may have persisted because of the conditions encountered in America, not in

30

spite of them (Bodnar 1976:45). For example, a survey of household data collected by
the United States Immigration Commission in the early twentieth century reveals that
Serbians and Croatians lived in extended family households more than all other American
immigrant groups. This patrilineal, extended family household, known as the zadruga,2
was the primarily family structure among “premodem” Serbians and Croatians in
Yugoslavia (Bodnar 197 6:46). Supek and Capo (1994) examine the zadruga system in
Croatia, and argue that, despite women’s lack of control in the system, they actively
contributed to its disruption and break-up in the Old World in the later part of the
nineteenth century. When the dowry custom was introduced in the second half of the
nineteenth century, women took control of the inheritance patterns of their dowry, which
they passed on to their daughters. This directly contrasted with the traditional pattern of
patrilineal inheritance, which had applied to all property (Supek and Capo 19942317).
This is an interesting example of how a system that was changing in the Old World was
apparently revitalized, at least for a time, in New World conditions.

In particular, patterns such as pooling of family resources and keeping of farm
animals allowed the southern Slavs to survive in America in poverty conditions where
work was irregular and pay low (Bodnar 1976:45). Hoerder and Morawska also observe
that the pattern of peasants substituting other tasks in the downtime of agricultural labor
worked to their advantage as industrial laborers. In America, they ﬁlled in with
subsistence activities such as raising pigs and goats, chopping wood, and tending gardens

when industrial work was scarce (Hoerder 1996:231, Morawska 19842396). Their

ﬂexible work “identity” facilitated such adaptive behaviors; “by living a semipeasant

 

2 See Todorova 2006 for a discussion of the problematic nature of the term “zadruga.”

31

 

lifestyle, peasant-workers could live through long periods of unemployment or strikes by
relying on other income” (Hoerder 1996: 231).
Ethnic Identity and the Importance of Religion

Ethnic identity is far from a straight-forward concept in immigration studies. In
her study of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, Kishinevsky notes that
immigrants from Russia, Ukraine, and the Caucasian regions could be categorized by
their country of origin, the language they spoke, or their religion (Kishinevsky 2004:10).
Padgett observes that immigrants who arrived prior to WWII identiﬁed themselves by
their provincial origin (Padgett 19902263). Similarly, during community-building
processes, migrants preferred to aggregate with those from the same village or region.
Loyalty was to the local culture rather than to “nationality” (Hoerder 1996: 245), no
doubt in large part because of the multi-national ethnic empires controlling most of
Southeastern and Central Europe during the time of immigration.

In addition to the signiﬁcance of local villages or communities, religious
afﬁliation played an important part in self-identiﬁcation. Smith (1978) states “in the Old
World, the developing sense of people-hood depended heavily upon religious
identiﬁcation, in some cases more so than upon language or myths about common
descent” (Smith 197821161). Peasants in the area between the Polish and Russian
territories in the ﬁrst two decades of the twentieth century identiﬁed themselves by their
religion (Catholic or Orthodox) rather than by ethnicity (Hoerder and Blank 1994275).
Likewise, Morawska (1982) observes that immigrants from border regions typically
identiﬁed their ethnicity by their religious background, while at the same time indicating

confusion. Hoerder and Blank note that in many parts of Southeastern and Central

32

Europe, “religious leaders of autocephalous Churches were considered political leaders of
their respective groups. . .in these a change of a person’s religion meant leaving the ethno-
cultural groups as well as the political unit” (Hoerder and Blank 1994244).

Religion played a central role in community life in both the old country and the
new (Bodnar 1976247, Hoerder 1996:247). Likewise, priests served an important
function as “professional migrants,” who could mediate between the working-class
immigrants and the host society; however, it was important that they “remain sufﬁciently
close to their own people in order to hold on to their economic base” (Hoerder 19962
216). Inter-c00peration among ethnic groups, for example Orthodox Slavs, was
particularly common when aggregations were still small. Hoerder notes that “it took
years to establish a community with associations, a parish, and informal networks”,
because of this, churches were often used jointly by various ethnicities for these purposes
(Hoerder 1996: 245, 246). Smith observes that mixed nationality churches were common
in the Minnesota Iron Range, as the individual ethnic communities were not large enough
to independently form organized congregations (Smith 19662207).

The formation of immigrant communities was often a catalyst for individuals to
assert their ethnic identity and national loyalty (Puskas 19942402). Nonetheless, because
it was not uncommon for more than one ethnic group to share a religion, church, or
congregation, as mentioned above, “ethnic priests also had an important role in
cementing community cohesion when ethnic interests had to be articulated in the face of
an ethnically different church hierarchy” (Hoerder 1996:248). However, not all ethnic

pairings worked; some mixed congregation groups, though of the same religion, split due

33

to differences, such as the short-lived Polish-Slovenian Catholic Church (Smith
1966:220).

The congregation acted as a substitute for the kin group and community left
behind in the old world (Smith 19662217). However, there were some differences,
because although the church had a similar spiritual role in America as in the Old Country,
the new social setting in which it was situated was different (Hoerder 19962247). For that
reason, the congregation had to act in ways that both “preserve[d] as well as
refashion[ed] an ancient faith” (Smith 19662217). Church functions were activity centers
for both sexes, but particularly for women. Formal associations in which “class and
ethnicity merged into a shared community” were also founded, such as benevolent
societies (Hoerder 19962246). These provided a much-needed safety net to immigrants
who operated in an otherwise uncertain world.

Immigrants had a variety of facets to their identity, including on the language(s)
they spoke, their ethnicity, nationality, and religion. Religion proved to be an important
focal point of community organization; however it also brought together different
ethnicities that did not always maintain their links once they were able to construct their
own separate churches. Identity was likewise affected by the shifting of political
boundaries and the rise and fall of empires in the Old World. The way in which
immigrants organized their communities reveals much of the way they viewed
themselves.

Inna-Ethnic Conﬂict
As discussed, cooperation among different ethnic groups could at times give way

to conﬂict, such as in the splitting off of mixed-ethnicity congregations. However,

34

conﬂict could also arise within an ethnic group. One cause of intra-ethnic conﬂict came
from the arrival of other waves of immigrants, namely those arriving after World War II
as political refugees, and those who followed with the lessening of restrictive
immigration quotas in the 19603. Erdmans (1995) describes the conﬂicts that arose
between “new” Polish irnmi grants arriving in Chicago in the 19603, and the established
Polish-American community (made up of “old immigrants” arriving before WWII and
their descendants). The new immigrants possessed a different socioeconomic
background, including a greater level of formal education, and came from a very different
Poland than the “old” Polish immigrants, who had been peasant class, and came from a
Poland that was very much of the past to the new immigrants. The new immigrants
found the Polish-American organizations, which centered on cultural preservation, to be
totally inadequate for their basic needs of ﬁnding employment, housing, and information
on citizenship. On the other hand, the “Old Poles” were suspicious of these new
immigrants, who seemed to want a “free handout” without demonstrating an interest in
sharing and contributing to the ethnic identity that they were trying to sustain. These
differences between immigration waves occurred within other Eastern European ethnic
groups as well.

For example, Vrga (1971) examines the dramatic schism that took place in the
Serbian Orthodox Church during the early 19603 and ﬁnds that the split occurred largely
along the lines of the old (pre-WWII) and new (post-WWII) Serbian immigrants. The
schism arose when the Serbian Orthodox Church in Yugoslavia tried to divest Bishop
Dionysus and divide the single Serbian Orthodox diocese in North America into three

separate dioceses. The supporters of the bishop claimed that the Serbian Orthodox

35

Church in Yugoslavia was operating under communist pressure, and was trying to
subjugate free Serbs. Vrga outlines a number of factors that may have contributed to the
pattern of new immigrants supporting the bishop (what he terms the “autonomy” stance),
and the old immigrants and American-bom Serbs supporting the “unity” stance.

Like Erdmans, Vrga identiﬁes long-suppressed tensions between the two groups,
arising from issues such as political and economic differences, and the inadequacy of
“old immigrant” organizations to meet the needs of the “new immigrants,” resulting in
the formation of a number of new organizations to which only new immigrants belonged.
In general, old immigrants migrated for economic reasons, while new immigrants
migrated for political ones. New immigrants were therefore more likely to be sensitive to
issues concerning the political shifts in the country of origin beginning in the 19603,
following their migration, compared to old immigrants and their descendants. This is not
to say that old immigrants remained impartial to the Old Country after their migration, as
it was not uncommon for them to send money, and often men, back to their homeland to
provide aid in times of hardship and war (Evanoff 1989).

Discussion

In the Old World, would-be immigrants experienced and participated in a variety
of life-altering processes: peasant emancipation, land reforms, the rise and fall of
empires, increasing modernization, industrialization, and mobilization, and demographic
changes. In the process of becoming immigrants, they underwent the voyage and
transition to American society in which identity was renegotiated and the process of
acculturation took place. Throughout, identity was not just a given, but constantly

determined by both external and internal circumstances. It was something that was

36

worked and reworked by peasants in their culture of origin, and in the ethnic
communities that they built in America. A further negotiation of identity occurred with
the arrival of subsequent waves of immigrants: the new immigrants of the 19603 had
different concepts of what it meant, for example, to be Polish or Serbian in America than
the Polish-Americans and Serbian-Americans that they encountered upon arrival.
Ultimately, the exploration of the immigrant experience, and the ways in which identity
changes across borders and time reveals much about ethnicity, culture and individual
identity. Terms such as acculturation encompass complex, multi-faceted processes,
which warrant exploration from a variety of angles: historical, anthropological, political

and sociological, to further elucidate the complexities of the immigrant experience.

37

 

Chapter 4: Central and Southeastern Europeans in Flint

One of the potential pitfalls of a cemetery study is the focus on stationary,
inanimate objects as stand-ins for individuals. Gravemarkers can offer much when it
comes to the understanding of identity, both during life and as assigned after death.
However, it is equally important to consider information on the living community
associated with a cemetery, including the lives of the individuals represented by
gravemarkers, when available. There is a danger of losing sight of the fact that
gravestones represent (and fail to represent) a multitude of facets of individual life. Here,
the history of the Central and Southeastern European community in Flint, and its place
within the economic and cultural life of the city, is explored. This is done to provide a
better understanding of the historical and cultural context in which the individuals
represented in this study lived. First, an overview history of Flint is provided to establish
the historical context for the city and its patterns of industry and ethnic relations. Then,
the Eastern European ethnic community of Flint is explored in greater depth, along with a
discussion of the cultural institutions and socioeconomic characteristics of the
community.
A Brief History of Flint, Michigan

In the early nineteenth century, the area that was to become the city of Flint was
home to the Ojibwe people. The present-day city of Flint is located along the Flint River,
which merges with the Cass, Shiawassee, Pine, Chippewa, and Tittabawassee Rivers to
form the Saginaw, which eventually empties into Saginaw Bay. One of the primary
Ojibwe villages in the area was located near the present day town of Montrose, Michigan,

which is approximately 20 miles northwest of Flint. In 1819, the Ojibwe were pressured

38

into selling 6 million acres of land including the area of modem-day Flint at a council
called by Lewis Cass at Saginaw. That same year, Jacob Smith, a fur trader who had
served as guide for Cass and who acted as a mediator in the treaty, established a trading
post at what was to become Flint. By the 18303, settlers began moving into the area in
large numbers (Gustin 1976).

Flint’s initial draw came ﬁom its location on the Saginaw trail between Detroit
and Saginaw, but its proximity to the Flint River and dense forests soon turned it into a
center for lumber. In 183 8, Flint’s population was around 300, and it boasted a post
ofﬁce, bank association, grocery and dry goods stores, sawmill, and edge-tool factory, as
well as the title of county seat. The year before, a settler noted: “The tide of emigration is
rapidly increasing. We cannot cast our eyes toward the road any day without seeing
people teaming ...to or from Saginaw, the ‘great city of the West’” (Gustin 1976231). By
1862, “Flint was a prosperous lumbering town of 3,000” led by lumber baron Henry
Howland Crapo (Gustin 1976249).

F lint’s success as a lumbering town was eventually eclipsed by its success in the
carriage-making industry, which also had early roots in Flint. In 1839, a carriage
business was established, which was joined by “several other wagon and carriage makers
in the Flint area” in the 18403 (Gustin 1976279). This industry continued to prosper, and
would eventually evolve into automobile production at the turn of the century. Another
booming industry in late nineteenth-century Flint was cigar-making. In 1899 there were
eight cigar companies operating there, and, as well as being the highest paid workers,
cigar makers were one of the earliest workers to organize a local union in Flint, in 1882

(Gustin 19762112).

39

In 1898, Judge Charles H. Wisner built the ﬁrst “horseless carriage” in Flint
(Gustin 1976:112). Wisner’s design did not have lasting success; however, soon after
David Dunbar Buick and his associate Walter L. Marr joined forces with Flint Wagon
Works to produce their version of the automobile. Because the Flint Wagon Works did
not have the necessary starting capital, James H. Whiting, one of the company’s
directors, appealed to the Durant-Don Carriage Company, then “the largest volume
producer of carriages in the United States, if not the world” (Gustin 1976). It was a
successful partnership that went on to establish contracts with other companies to
produce parts for their model. This included the Weston-Mott company, which was
granted an exclusive contract to produce wheels and axles for Buick. W. C. “Billy”
Durant, treasurer of the Durant-Dort Carriage Co. which he started with J. Dallas Dort,
began incorporating companies under the General Motors Company in 1908. This
included, in addition to Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac, Oakland (forerunner of Pontiac),
AC Spark Plug, and later Chevrolet (Gustin 1976). Although Durant eventually lost
control of General Motors as a result of massive debt, General Motors went on to become
the world’s largest automobile producer, a position it held from 1930 to 2007 (Lienert
2008)

With the expanding number of auto factories after 1900 came the ﬁrst large-scale
wave of immigrants to Flint. Primary employers included the Buick, Chevrolet, AC
Spark Plug, Weston-Mott Axle, and Fisher Body factories (Hart 2007244). New arrivals
in search of labor came not only from European, but also the southern United States.
Between 1900 to 1920, the Aﬁican-American population of Flint increased by 600%;

much of the increase was due to arrivals from the South (Gustin 19762171). Poles and

40

Hungarians were the most numerous immigrants from Eastern Europe, although a
signiﬁcant number of Southeastern Europeans immigrated as well. A lack of housing
was a problem at ﬁrst for many of the new arrivals. This was soon mediated with the
construction of the Buick Barracks, an on—site housing complex at the Buick factory; in
addition, many immigrant families in the St. John Street neighborhood east of the Buick
factories took in boarders as a source of extra income (Hart 2007246).
The St. John Street Neighborhood

Just east of the Buick factories was the area known as the St. John Street
neighborhood. This area ﬂourished as a vibrant ethnic enclave in the industrial city
during its peak from the 19203 to the 19503. Populated predominantly by Eastern
Europeans, along with mix of Western Europeans and Aﬁican Americans, the
neighborhood soon became largely self-sufﬁcient, with its own groceries, bakeries,
doctors, churches, school, restaurants, and cultural halls (Edsforth 1987). The earliest
South Slavs began arriving in Flint around 1909, with most settling east of the Buick
factory so they could walk to work. Numerous ethnic groceries, bakeries and restaurants,
as well as other immigrant-run businesses were opened in the neighborhood. One of
ﬁxtures of the community was the lntemational Institute, which provided English lessons
and classes in US. citizenship, as well as a gathering place for various ethnicities who
came together for social events such as festivals and dances (Evanoff 1989).

Perhaps the primary source on the ethnic life of the St. John Street neighborhood
is Michael Evanoff’s St. John Street Through the Melting Pot: An Ethnic Historical
Remembrance, Flint Michigan, 1874-19 74. In this memoir, Evanoff offers a dense,

evocative portrayal of the individuals and organizations that made up this neighborhood.

41

 

Evanoff himself is Macedonian, but his book addresses nearly all the ethnicities of the
neighborhood with equal attention to names and details. Evanoff observes “the nearest
thing to life in our ‘old country’ or ‘stari kraj,’ as we call it, was our life in the
lntemational Village era of St. John Street” (Evanoff 19892290). Perhaps the most
striking aspect of the St. John Street neighborhood is not the diversity of ethnicities, but
the ways in which their lives intertwined, built largely on a foundation of mutual respect
and reliance. Although there were certainly tensions that manifested as a result of
cultural and racial differences, a perusal of the census and City Directories reveal many
different ethnicities living as neighbors on the same street. This neighborhood was not
divided up into distinct enclaves, and the businesses, social halls, and gathering areas
were shared by groups with histories of conﬂict in the home countries (Evanoff 1989,
Hart 2007, Flint City Directory 1918 and 1919/1920).
The lntemational Institute

One of the ﬁrst places that immigrants could turn after arriving in Flint was the
lntemational Institute. Founded in 1922, the Institute offered English lessons, citizenship
training, information in adjusting to American life, and contacts with others of the same
ethnicity. Their services were designed not just to instruct immigrants, but to help with
loneliness and homesickness through providing a forum for shared experiences. Classes
in dancing, music, arts and crafts, as well as fairs and festivals, were held at the Institute
(Evanoff 1989). The lntemational Institute, around since the beginning of the mass
immigration to Flint, and through the changing composition of new arrivals, only recently

closed in 2007 due to a lack of funding. Mexican-American Services, a new consulting

42

business in Flint, will be the sole organization offering assistance to immigrants in the
area (Onile-Ere 2007).
Churches

Another very signiﬁcant institution for immigrants arriving in Flint was a church
of their own faith. In some cases, this meant that ethnic groups shared a church when
their numbers were not large enough to warrant a separate church. One of the best
examples of this is the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, originally named the Russian
Orthodox Church. Founded in 1916, this church soon incorporated many other
ethnicities in addition to Russians: Macedonians, Bulgarians, Serbians, Ukrainians, and
Romanians, among others, were all part of the congregation. The church originally
belonged to the Metropolia, also known as the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church
in America. In 1950, the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church joined the Russian Orthodox
Synod Abroad, which was distinct from the Metropolia. Later, the church was placed
under the Bulgarian Diocese of the United States and Canada by a decree of the Russian
Orthodox Synod Abroad. Then, in 1977, Bishop Kyrill brought the Bulgarian Diocese
under the Orthodox Church in America, which the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church is part
of to this day (Biemacki 1999, Hart 2007).

Initially, Assyrians were part of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in addition to
the ethnicities named above, but due to tensions over changing demographics in the
congregation as new ethnicities joined, they split off in 1922, ﬁrst attending the
Assumption Greek Orthodox Church, and later founding the St. George Orthodox
Church, which is part of the Antiochian Archdiocese (Biemacki 199929, 65). In addition,

Flint City Directories of the 19203 list St. Michael’s Greek Orthodox Church as another

43

church of the Orthodox faith in the area (Flint City Directory for 1921, 1923, and 1924).
Currently, there is also the St. Mary Magdalene Orthodox Church, part of the Orthodox
Church in America, located in Fenton, Michigan, just south of Flint. Likewise, at one
time there was St. Volodymyr, a Ukrainian Orthodox Church founded by the post-WWII
Ukrainian immigrants to Flint (Gustin 1976). In 1975, the Holy Cross Society was
established, to serve as an interfaith cooperation between the three Orthodox Churches in
the Flint area: the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, the Assumption Greek Orthodox
Church (part of the Greek Archdiocese), and the St. George Orthodox Church. The
purpose of the group is to combine services for major feasts and fasts within the
Orthodox calendar, as well as cooperate in youth and adult programs (Biemacki
1999265).

Along with these churches, temporary churches were sometimes set up when the
presence of a priest permitted. For example, a school building used by the Serbians to
provide children lessons in their native language also functioned as a church when a full-
time Serbian Orthodox priest was available (Evanoff 19892338). In immigrant America,
priests might travel across the country providing services to ethnic communities, and
were often appointed to various different newly formed congregations during their
lifetime (Hoerder 1996: 216). Father Alexander Znamensky, the longest-serving priest at
St. Nicholas Church, headed parishes in Montreal, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Windsor
Canada before coming to St. Nicholas Orthodox Church in 1944 (Biemacki 1999212).

In addition to churches of the Orthodox Faith, Eastern European Catholic
immigrants also founded their own churches. Polish immigrants established the All

Saints Parish in 1910 (Evanoff 1989234), and the Hungarian Reformed Church and

44

Hungarian Baptist Mission were both established before 1920. Similarly, St. Joseph’s
Roman Catholic Hungarian Church lasted from its establishment in 1921 to its closure in
1973. At that time, the congregation merged with the Blessed Sacrament Church,
founded in 1957 in Burton (Brenner 1989214). Even today, the Hungarian members of
the Blessed Sacrament strive to hold a monthly Hungarian Mass (Lowe 2008).
Benevolent and Relief Societies

Benevolent societies were an important component of immigrant’s lives,
providing ﬁnancial and social security against the hazards of daily life. One example of
such a society is Flint’s Serbian fraternal lodge, St. John the Baptist. This lodge was
founded in 1916 and even in the ﬁrst year, women joined as well as men. The lodge
offered sickness beneﬁts to members, death beneﬁts to members’ families, supported
national causes, supplied volunteers to ﬁght the Austro-Hungarian Empire during WW1,
and made donations to the American and Serbian Red Crosses and the Serb National
Defense. A youth group, Kolo Podmladaka, was also formed in 1928. In the 19703,
perhaps in response to another wave of immigration, an additional society, the Serbian
Benevolent Society, formed a chapter in Flint (Hart 2007). The Serbian Benevolent
Society later joined with St. John the Baptist lodge. Similarly, the Croatian Zrinkski-
F rankopani Fraternal Order and the Croatian Fraternal Union no. 561, as well as other
benevolent societies were founded in Flint to provide aid and social opportunities for
immigrants (Evanoff 1989:139).

In addition to forming benevolent societies, immigrants in Flint also formed relief
organizations that would provide supplies and ﬁnancial aid to their countries of origin.

Two of these groups, the United American Slav Committee and the Russian Progressive

45

 

Society, formed to provide overseas assistance during WWII. While the Russian
Progressive Society sent food and clothing to their homeland (Gustin 1976:209), the
United American Slav Committee raised money to send to Slavs overseas to offer relief
during the time of war and poverty (Cetinich 2003266, Evanoff 1989292). Many
immigrants across America returned to ﬁght for their homelands in both world wars
(Cetinich 2003). In addition, in 1930 Hungarians in Flint held a “Justice for Hungary”
meeting to raise awareness about the ramiﬁcations of the Treaty of Trianon which 10
years earlier had reduced Hungary’s land by two-thirds. Shortly after, a “Flight to
Hungary” was arranged, in which two local Hungarians served as captains. Likewise,
Macedonians in Flint organized to send petitions and delegations arguing for the
uniﬁcation of Macedonia (Evanoff 19892163, 167). Although the Macedonian cause was
not successful, they as well as other immigrant groups continued to have an active
interest in and passion for their homelands.

Schools

Fairview was the neighborhood school for the St. John Street area. Before the

school opened in 1915, children attended school in a series of structures on St. John
Street and Massachusetts Avenue known as the “St. John Street School.” An article on
the closing of the Fairview school in 1971 notes “almost everyone in the area spoke a
foreign language,” and at one point, there were 32 different nationalities represented
among the students (Lethbridge 1989). Likewise, the student body was racially mixed,
accommodating the changing composition of the St. John Street neighborhood in the

19503. During WWII, increasing numbers of African Americans moved into the area to

46

work at the defense plants, at the same time that Eastern Europeans began moving out of
the neighborhood (Lethbridge 19892122).

In addition to the neighborhood’s main school were Sunday schools associated
with the churches, as well as ethnic schools formed by members of the immigrant
community who wanted to ensure that their language and culture were passed on to the
next generation. Todor Veljkov, a Serbian immigrant, opened a school in which lessons
were taught in Serbian. The classes were held on Saturday morning, with a regular
attendance of 25-30 children (Hart 2007250, Evanoff 19892338). Similarly, Evanoff’s
mother, Lenka Evanoff, held classes in Bulgarian and Macedonian for several years at the
Bulgarian Hall. Lenka notes that “many of our people who are now in their middle years
learned to speak Bulgarian and Macedonian because of these classes. They could not
always learn at home because of their parents not. . .taking time to teach them... [and]
because it was necessary to teach with grammar” (Evanoff 19892273).

Gathering Places

Picnic spots, in which traditional food could be cooked and served amid festivities
and conversation, were a favorite gathering place for St. John Street residents. These
included Pulaski Park in the Mt. Morris township, frequented by various ethnicities,
Daisy Beach along the Flint River, which was used by the Bulgarians and Macedonians,
the Connell farm, which was owned by a Dr. Connell and his Serbian wife, Stella, and the
Murphy Drive park, which had been purchased and developed for use as a picnic ground
by St. John the Baptist Lodge, and was also popular with various ethnicities (Evanoff
1989, Hart 2007). Churches would frequently hold events at such gathering places, as

well as on their own property when space would allow. Evanoff notes that “not only

47

Yugoslavs but Bulgarians, Hungarians, and many other nationalities would attend the
various functions, such as those given at St. Nicholas Church” (Evanoff 19892339).
Although the Balkan Bakery would cook pigs and lambs for a fee, the communities
enjoyed the opportunity to roast their meats outdoors on traditional-style spits (Hart
2007)

Halls

A number of halls and cultural clubs were established by St. John Street
immigrants to provide a venue for social events. These included the Assyrian Hall,
Bulgarian-Macedonian Hall, Croatian-Slovene Hall, the Hungarian American Cultural
Club, Kovacs Hall, the Tilden Hall, which was later replaced by Dom Polski, and the
Ukrainski Narodny Dom (Ukrainian National Home), popularly known as Mississippi
Hall (Evanoff 1989). Some of the halls occupied parts of buildings, such as the
Bulgarian-Macedonian Hall, located on the second ﬂoor of the furniture store owned by
the Hertz family, who were Jewish. Other halls were quite large and utilized by many
different ethnic groups, such as the Dom Polski, which was two stories high with a bar on
the ﬁrst ﬂoor and banquet area on the second (Hart 2007248).

One signiﬁcant feature of ethnic halls was that they were ﬁ'equented by diverse
ethnicities. Not only did, for example, Serbs hold weddings and wakes in the Croatian-
Slovene Hall and the Ukrainian National Homes, but different cultural groups came
together in the halls to experience times of joy and sorrow. Evanoff includes a variety of
photographs of weddings and funerals in his publication, and a glance over the names of
those attending includes a diversity of origins. Hungarians, Macedonians, Slovaks,

Croatians, and Serbians might come together to mark the loss of a Bulgarian well-loved

48

in their multi-ethnic neighborhood. Such intersections of diverse cultural origins were not
uncommon in many different amalgarnations; at another time, a variety of ethnicities
converged at the Croatian-Slovene Hall to see Zebich the Serbian Strongman (Hart
2007254). Another type of shared entertainment at such halls was local bands.
Tamburitza groups were popular in Flint, and represented a shared joy of Balkan music
(Hart 2007253, Evanoff 19892143). Lenka Evanoff notes “Besides our activities in the
lntemational Institute, we were very active with the Bulgarian-Macedonian and Croatian-
Slovene Halls in all the plays, dances, weddings, theatrical presentations and all kinds of
cultural educational activities that took place there” (Evanoff 1989:273).

This theme of inter-ethnic relations is echoed many times in Evanoffs writing. In
his capacity as a lawyer, he at times made trips to Southeastern Europe to execute wills of
Flint residents who still had relatives overseas, managing to merge these trips with visits
to his own relatives in the old country. Evanoff describes a number of instances in which
he utilizes his ability to not only speak multiple languages, but to participate in the music
and dancing of various Southeastern European ethnic groups, to gain entry into local
social interactions. This type of ethnic awareness (in the form of multilingual ability, and
knowledge of the social mores, music, and dance forms of various cultures) characterized
the St. John Street Neighborhood. This multi-ethnic awareness was not unique to the
Southeastern European immigrants: Evanoff wonders at the curiosity an outsider to Flint
might feel when hearing an Aﬁican American from the neighborhood engage in social
pleasantries in the Macedonian language.

This is not to say that there were no ethnic or racial tensions in the St. John Street

Neighborhood; certainly there were. But there was also an awareness among the

49

neighborhood residents of the beneﬁts that came with demonstrating ﬂexibility and
acceptance in social interactions. Southeastern Europeans (as well as other ethnicities in
the neighborhood) were brought together in the shared social sphere of their
neighborhood. They frequented the same gathering places, relied on the same
institutions, and worked for the same employers. They interrnarried, were neighbors and
friends to one another. Although ethnic tensions existed, they existed within the context
of human relations in the neighborhood, and they were not the only source of tension in
immigrants’ lives. Class, gender, language barriers, and the stresses of poverty were all
present. Residents of the neighborhood found common ground to meet on most of the
time, and in the process embraced the food, music and festivities of their diverse
neighbors. Evanoff himself personiﬁed this attitude, and the beneﬁts that came with it.
He sums it up by noting: “it pays to know your ethnicities” (Evanoff 19892313).
Additional Sources of Tension in the St John Street Neighborhood

In addition to tensions among the residents as a result of ethnic differences,
working conditions in the factories, and the relative poverty in which many residents
lived, were a source of stress. The majority of men (adult and adolescent) in the
neighborhood worked in the factories associated with the automobile industry. In the
19303, tensions between the workers and their employers concerning worker’s rights
were reaching a boiling point. Beginning December 29, 1936, Flint autoworkers in two
different factories, Fisher Plants Number 1 and 2, went on strike, causing General Motors
automobile production to cease (Hart 2007249). The workers who were striking locked
themselves into the plants. Although GM decided to wait them out by denying them

food, water and heat, the wives and daughters of the strikers, calling themselves the

50

“Women’s Emergency Brigade,” provided food by tossing it into the plants. Police tried
to storm the plant on January 11, 1937, but the workers persisted. On February 1, a much
larger sit-down strike occurred at the Chevrolet Plant #4. Finally, on February 11, 1937,
the strike ended (Hart 2007).

Michael Evanoff, fresh out of law school, became the local attorney for the
United Autoworkers Union, who had led the strike, backed by the Congress of Industrial
Workers. Evanoff, long interested in human rights activism, suffered consequences for
his defense of the Union, including the threat that he would be disbarred (Evanoff
19892366). He remarked that “at that time, it was risky for any attorney to side with the
Union. Those of us who did so suffered for it for many years afterwar ” (Evanoff
19892381). In fact, when the local Federation of the Teachers Union chose to support the
newly organized autoworkers, “the Board of Education, then controlled by the bankers
and industrialists,” ﬁred four of the six founding members of the Federation of teachers
following a biased trial; Evanoff notes that “the school board was the prosecutor, judge
and jury” (Evanoff 19892379). This reﬂects some of the antagonism that unions faced in
Flint, as well as other industrial cities around America at that time. Nonetheless,
although the Flint autoworker strikers of 1936-7 did not get all their demands met,
eventually “General Motors was forced to recognize the UAW in the plants that had been
on strike and to allow them to organize the other plants” (Hart 2007249).

Another source of tension that neighborhood residents faced was discrimination,
whether because of their ethnicity or race, from nativist organizations such as Ku Klux
Klan. As Chalmers notes, ”The Klan’s platform and appeal consisted mainly of the

things it was against: corruption, foreigners, Roman Catholics, and Negroes” (Chalmers

51

19872194). In 1924, a Klan-supported candidate was elected mayor of Flint, and Klan
membership in Michigan peaked in the mid-19203, a time of strong anti-imrnigrant and
anti-minority sentiments, with approximately 75-80,000 members. Dimitroff, a
Macedonian from the St. John Street neighborhood, recalls how as a child he watched his
immigrant father throw a coin into a folded American ﬂag used for collection in a K
parade in Flint. When asked why he did so, his father replied “It is not for those crooks
but for the ﬂag” (Evanoff 19892342). Such a quote illustrates the pressure that
immigrants faced to Americanize, while they strove to take advantage of the
opportunities they believed their adopted country stood for.
Urban Renewal: The End of an Era

Following WWII, descendants of the original immigrants began to move out.
Many of the original immigrants had passed away by the 19503 and 19603, and their
children were able to secure middle class jobs in the suburbs through education and
opportunity. In the 19603 and 19703, the city of Flint, under the St. John Street Urban
Renewal Project and via eminent domain, “began to acquire and destroy all of the homes,
businesses, and churches in the area” (Hart 2007255). Residents of the neighborhood
began to move out in increasing numbers and places of worship were relocated to the
suburbs as “both a cause and effect of urban renewal development” (Evanoff 19892325).
This abandonment/destruction phase of the neighborhood was concurrent with an
economic downturn (Faires and Hanﬂik 2005). General Motors was in decline, and in
the 19803, Buick remodeled its plants to increase reliance on robotics, resulting in a
decrease in jobs. In the late 19803, Fisher and Chevrolet plants in Flint closed, and in

1999, Buick was moved to Detroit (Hart 2007255). Today, nothing of the St. John Street

52

Neighborhood remains. However, many of the churches and organizations that the
immigrants formed still exist in Flint and its outlying areas, a testament to the persistence
of ethnicity in this area.

This continuation of ethnic practices is in contrast to the now outdated idea of the
“melting pot,” a concept which Evanoff himself decried. The term itself comes from the
1908 play The Melting Pot written by Jewish immigrant Israel Zangwill. Zangwill
adamantly opposed discrimination against immigrants, and saw the solution to their
troubles in assimilation. However, the concept was seized upon to illustrate the necessity
of swift and absolute assimilation of immigrants into American culture, without retention
of ethnic ways. In a letter to the editor in response to an article that described the St.
John Street neighborhood as a “melting pot,” and “turbulent,” Evanoff states:

I am certain that, instead of losing their ethnic identity, the people emphasized it,

organized for it, built churches, halls, clubs and societies around their ethnic

groups, and what is more they ﬁ'aternized with each other and came to appreciate
the good that was in their neighbor’s ethnic background. . .no one got ‘melted’ into

anything. . .this did not detract from their Americanism (Evanoff 19892317).
Despite the eventual destruction of the St. John Street Neighborhood, its residents
contributed much to Flint’s growth and culture. The churches and cultural organizations
that the descendants of the original immigrants founded continue, although many have
moved to the suburbs. Flint’s economic downturn and drastically reduced immigration
have not resulted in the absence of cultural traditions. Even today, one can ﬁnd frequent
ethnic dinners and dances held by third- and fourth-generation Americans in the area.
Discussion

This chapter explores the living community associated with the cemetery of

interest in this study. By examining the environment in which the immigrants found

53

themselves, and, most importantly, how they responded, we ﬁnd adaptability as well as
the persistence of ethnic identity took place. Individuals of different backgrounds, many
of whom came from nations at odds with one another, forged relationships of ﬁiendship
and mutual reliance in Flint. Churches, native language schools, benevolent societies and
social halls were just some of the institutions that immigrants established to enrich and
empower their lives. In addition, the social and economic stresses they faced were linked
to movements such as Ku Klux Klan and the discriminatory legislation to restrict
immigrants from regions that included Central and Southeastern Europe. The residents
of the St. John Street neighborhood, however, were far from powerless. Their
involvement in the labor movement had lasting effects, and the community networks they
formed established continuing support systems. In the process of a cemetery study, one
must not lose sight of the community whose identities are summarized and coded within

inscriptions on the stones.

54

Chapter 5: Methodology
Introduction

This cemetery study examines how aspects of identity are manifested in the
selection of gravestone attributes within a population of immigrants and their
descendants. Within the population, religion is controlled for; all individuals interred in
the cemetery were members of the Orthodox Church. Differences among individuals
include, but are not limited to, age, gender, occupation, socio-economic status, ethnicity,
and level of education. Variables were chosen based on the variation among the
gravestones, as well as for their potential for answering questions concerning aspects of
identity.
Historical Research

For the purposes of understanding the background and context of the community
represented in the cemetery, research on immigration from Central and Southeastern
Europe, where nearly all the immigrants who composed the early congregation were
from, and research on the church, congregation, surrounding community, and the city of
Flint was conducted. A number of primary sources were utilized for research on the
community and church, including church burial records, census records from 1910 to
1930, and Flint city directories ﬁom the 19103 through 19503. Such information was
gathered to form a more comprehensive view of the community represented in the
cemetery. Other sources were also utilized, including Evanoff’s St. John Street Through
the Melting Pot (1989) and Pejovié’s Srbi Na Srednjem Zapadu (1936), both of which

provide biographical information on individuals interred in the cemetery.

55

A number of obstacles to conducting historical research on an immigrant
community whose native language is not English became apparent in the course of this
research. The primary obstacle is in the variety of forms and spellings both given names
and surnames can take. First, among these ethnicities, names changed depending on the
ethnic and political context in which they were used. For example, Evanoff notes that his
own surname was changed to Yovanovich when the part of Macedonia in which he lived
fell under Serbian control (Evanoff 19892207). The meaning of his name did not change;
Yovanovich was the Serbian equivalent of Evanoff. In America, which name was
retained was based on which ethnicity and political view individuals identiﬁed with;
Evanoffs family changed their name back to the Macedonian version. However, Evanoff
recounts the incident of another family of three brothers in Flint, two of whom chose to
retain the “—off’ Macedonian ending in their last name, while the third brother kept the
Serbian “-ic ” ending (Evanoff 1989246).

Second, names were spelled differently by individuals themselves (many of the
immigrants were illiterate), and by census takers and record keepers, most of whom were
unlikely to be familiar with, or sensitive to, how names were rendered in the native
language of the immigrants. Evanoff, while conducting historical research in preparation
for his book, encountered this difﬁculty. In reference to one particular individual whose
name was spelled at least four different ways, Evanoff noted “as was the case with many
other people, his name was spelled differently every time it appears in writing” (Evanoff
1989:160.) I came across nine different spellings for one family’s surname in various
documents and on the gravestones, including the way it was originally rendered in the

Cyrillic alphabet.

56

Third, names were often reported by individuals differently; for example, one
name (perhaps an Americanized version) would be used for “ofﬁcial” records, while
another would be used in the ethnic community (e. g. Ivan or loan becomes John, Todor
becomes Theodore). Fourth, Eastern Europeans commonly use nicknames and kinship
terms to denote closeness and/or respect; this can include not only accepted nicknames
for given names (many of which bear no resemblance to the original), but also the use of
terms in the native language such as Dedo (“grandfather” in Macedonian) to show respect
for elders in the community. Fifth, it should be noted that there is much overlap among
ﬁrst and last names within the immigrant community, making it difficult to distinguish
individuals when other identifying characteristics (date of birth, spouse, etc.) are not
provided.

Finally, in Macedonian, last names traditionally could change with every
generation, with the son taking the last name meaning “son of (Father’s name)”
Eventually this changed to a static surname inheritance in America, but there are
instances of individuals within the community of interest who continued this practice.
Another circumstance in which surnames could change in a generation concerned the
descendants of priests; “every member of a family whose grandfather [on the patrilineal
side] had been a priest could call himself, if male, Poppoff and if female, Poppova”
(Evanoff 19892193). In addition, it should be noted that, as with other communities, a
common surname does not indicate a biological relationship. Evanoff registers his
surprise upon being informed that, even in very small villages in the old country, families

that have the same last name are not necessarily considered related (Evanoff 19892160).

57

Many of the immigrants arriving in Flint came from the same villages, but kinship cannot
be assumed based on surnames and origin.
Field Methodology
In the fall of 2007, the cemetery was recorded. This involved photographing and
measuring all visible gravestones, as well as recording by hand relevant information that
would not be preserved by photography, such as faint inscriptions. Gravestones were h
photographed using a digital camera. Variables recorded for each gravestone include: int
size, shape, style, material, iconography, inscriptions (names, dates, and epitaphs) the
direction gravestones face, and language of inscription. Individual gravestones were fr
selected as the unit of analysis for most of the analyses, while individuals were the unit of
analysis for examinations of kinship, gender, age, and occupation. Primary areas of
interest were identiﬁed as differences among gravestones based on the following
characteristics of the‘individuals represented: birth in North America vs. birth in Europe,
gender, age, ethnicity, and occupation/title. In addition, change in variables through time
for the entire cemetery were examined to determine if variation between time periods was
random or pattered.
A total of 258 gravestones and gravestone locations (where the stone was missing
but a base was present) were initially recorded. Thirteen of these were excluded from
further analysis either due to a missing or totally blank gravestone, or a stone that had
been tipped over face down and was unreadable. This left 245 stones, of which an
additional 3 stones were excluded from further analysis: two due to unreadable
inscriptions, and the third was a monument to the church rather than an actual gravestone.

Therefore, 242 gravestones exhibited most of the variables of interest. For the

58

computation of descriptive statistics, all 242 gravestones were used, but in temporal
analyses an additional three were excluded due to the lack of a death date, which
precluded analysis of change through time. At other times, certain gravestones were
excluded in analyses depending on whether they met the criteria for the variable being
analyzed.

Variables

Year of Gravestone (Date of Death)

For the purposes of temporal analyses, the date of death was used for the year of a
gravestone. Of the 242 gravestones analyzed, 53 are double gravestones, one
commemorates three individuals, and one commemorates four individuals. In these
cases, the earliest death date is used. Three of the single gravestones were apparently
purchased pre-need, and did not have the death date inscribed. These gravestones were
utilized in descriptive statistic analyses that did not require a death date (i.e., those
analyses that were not comparing variables across time periods.) The range of years was
originally divided into 15 groups for analyses, by 6 year increments. It was determined
after the initial analyses that combining the time periods into larger groups aided in the
understanding of general trends through time. The original time periods of 6 years
proved too narrow to allow for a visual demonstration of the general trends through time
for this cemetery. In other words, the initial time period divisions were too ﬁne-grained,
resulting in excess “noise” which obscured trends. The new division resulted in ﬁve time
periods of 18 consecutive years each, beginning with 1918 (the earliest gravestone date)

and terminating with the year of the study (2007).

59

Shape of Gravestone

The shape of the gravestones can be analyzed two different ways: the overall form
of the stone itself (Figure 5.1) and the proﬁle of the gravestone, or shape that the top of
the gravestone is fashioned into (Figure 5.2). In analyses, the ﬁrst category of gravestone
shape was coded as Shape 1 (form), and the second category as Shape 2 (proﬁle).
Common terminology was used for Shape 1 when available, while Shape 2 was coded
based on the variety of gravestone outlines observed in the cemetery; each variation was
assigned a number 1-20. Shape 2 is partially determined by Shape 12 for example, a
raised stone was always classiﬁed as “l” in the Shape 2 category, because all the raised
stones had ﬂat tops.

Figure 5.1 Gravestone Form (Shape 1) Chart

’—l

1 F
2 \l
L\'~' \\1
3'
r/ ' \ l ‘r i
t "

Tablet

1 ‘7, /

L“._____._/

 

,1
: l...“
T.

J

l 1
F7
:

 

 

 

 

 

Raised Top

 

 

 

. / ;
. .
v, (I .
,1 ii I
r r .
!_.—~—’ I D
j 3
.
‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____L__.__: .
ML Pulpit Lawn

60

Figure 5.2 Gravestone Profile (Shape 2) Chart

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15
cross)

 

Cross-shaped gravestones fall into three categories for the purpose of form

analysis. The ﬁrst is “Cross 1,” which describes a gravestone in the shape of an Eastern

Orthodox 8-pointed cross (also referred to as an Orthodox cross). The second is “Cross

2,” which references a “generic” four-pointed cross (also referred to as a Latin cross).

The third category consists of simply “Cross-shaped” and encompasses all gravestones

that are clearly cross-shaped, but due to damage the original cross-type cannot be

determined. It should be noted that, in this paper, cross-shaped is classiﬁed under both

gravestone form (Shape 1) and gravestone proﬁle (Shape 2). For most analyses, the three

categories of cross-shaped gravestones were combined.

61

 

Other Physical Characteristics of Gravestones

The material of each gravestone was assessed in the ﬁeld. Material types consist
of concrete, concrete/bronze (a concrete block with a bronze plaque attached, commonly
found on military graves), granite, granite/bronze (granite block with bronze plaque
attached), and marble. For the purposes of analyses, concrete/bronze was grouped with
concrete, and granite/bronze was grouped with granite. The direction that each
gravestone faces, as determined by the direction that the side with the majority of
information faces, was also recorded. In one case, it was impossible to tell, as the stone
was removed from its original context and leaning against the fence surrounding the
cemetery; in another, the stone was south-facing and it was not clear whether it had been
moved from its original context. A number of stones had been vandalized and at least
three tipped over, but it was still apparent which way the stone had faced when upright.
The direction these stones originally faced was recorded, but they were not included in
the analyses since I was unable to record further information such as names, dates, or
symbols.
Gravestone Measurements

All gravestones were measured for length, width, and height; measurements were
recorded in centimeters. For height, width, and length, the maximum measurements for
each stone was calculated. An exception to this was slant block stones. In the case of
slant block stones, both the top width and the base width were added together and then
divided by two, resulting in an average width. This was done so that the “triangular”

proﬁle of the stone would be balanced out in the calculation of stone volume. In the case

62

of broken or sunken stones, the maximum height of the remaining portion was measured;
if all portions were present, maximum height was calculated using the portions.
Inscription

Inscriptions contain a variety of information, including names, dates, and
sentiments or additional biographical information in epitaphs. First, the number of
individuals commemorated on each gravestone was determined. Double stones for
married couples are not uncommon; however there is also one triple and one quadruple
stone in this cemetery. These are coded in the data set as S=single, D=double, T=triple,
Q=quadruple. Because there is only one triple and one quadruple stone, these were
omitted from further analyses.

Second, the number of words in each epitaph was calculated by counting all
words inscribed on a stone excluding name, date of birth (DOB), and date of death
(DOD). For example, if the only words in addition to the name and dates were “born”
and “died,” then a count of two for the length of the epitaph was recorded. Likewise,
“Son” was counted as one word, and so on. This was done to determine the amount of
words that were dictated for the inscription beyond the minimum found on all
gravestones in the cemetery. All stones present in the cemetery exhibit name, DOB and
DOD in the inscription, except in the case of three stones which do not yet have any
DOD inscribed. There are two cases where more than 16 additional words were
inscribed; one epitaph is 28 words long and the other 34 words long. In a few cases, the
gravestone had sunken into the soil, obscuring part of the inscription; in these instances,

the amount of words visible was recorded. Many of the stones with longer epitaphs are

63

military stones, which contain a wealth of information concerning an individual’s rank
and service in the military.
Language of Inscription

Of the 242 gravestones analyzed, 30 were in languages other than English, and 12
were in both English and another language. These were coded as follows: language was
recorded as “English” (E) in cases where the entire inscription on the stone was in
English, “Other” (0) when, conversely, the entire inscription was in a language besides
English, and “Both” (B) when both English and another language were present in the
inscription. No cases were observed where two non-English languages were found on a
single stone. Non-English languages include Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian, Romanian,
Macedonian, and Church Slavic; these were not distinguished for the purpose of analyses,
but rather grouped together to compare the occurrence of English with non-English
languages.

One problematic aspect of recording language is in cases where only a name and
dates were present on the stone, because some Eastern European alphabets, such as
Romanian, have many shared letters with English. If a name is composed of letters that
are shared between English and another language, it is difﬁcult, if not impossible, to
know the “intended language” of the inscription. In these cases, the inscription was
recorded as “English” when it contained all English letters in a name and no other
information that would give insight into the language intended was present.
Iconography

Symbols other than crosses were divided into two types, ﬂora and “other.” As

previously mentioned, crosses are treated as a separate category, except in total counts of

64

symbol types per gravestone (see below). Flora symbols are those consisting of ﬂowers,
leaves, or trees, and include ivy, roses, primroses, morning glories, etc. “Other” symbols
include angels, banners, birds, clasped hands, open books, closed books, photographs of
the deceased, etc. See Tables El and E2 in Appendix E for a complete listing of
symbols, including ﬁequency. In addition to recording the frequency of symbols in the
cemetery, the number of symbol types (including crosses) was counted for each
gravestone. For example, if a stone exhibited a primrose, two crosses of the same type,
and a banner, a value of three was recorded. It is interesting that while both 8-pointed
and 4-pointed crosses were common throughout the cemetery, no stone exhibited more
than one type of cross.

Three major categories of engraved crosses were determined based on shape. The
ﬁrst is Cross 1, again referring to the eight-pointed cross associated with the Eastern
Orthodox religion. Cross 2 is the standard “generic” Christian four-pointed or Latin
cross, in which the horizontal bar is shorter in length than the vertical bar. Two
subgroups of Cross 2, which were noted but not analyzed separately, consist of a
“leaning” Latin cross, and a Latin cross with a rosary draped over it. Cross 3 contains
trefoils on its four (or at times 8) points, and can be associated with the Ukrainian, Greek,
and Serbian Orthodox churches. Only ﬁve Cross 35 were observed in the cemetery, one
of which was on a gravestone with no date of death. For the purposes of some analyses,
the Cross 33 were grouped with either Cross 1 or Cross 2 depending on how many bars
they exhibit. In addition, it should be noted that Cross 1 and Cross 2 are at times depicted

as a cruciﬁx. Sometimes either Cross 1 or Cross 2 is used as a symbol between birth and

65

death dates. These were not recorded if they were the same size as the lettering of the
dates, but only if they were an independent motif on the gravestone.
Dimensions of Comparison

The variables outlined above were chosen both to encompass variations on the
gravestones, and to allow for the comparison of gravestones across a variety of
dimensions of interest. The primary focus of analysis concerned differences among
gravestones of North American- vs. foreign-born individuals, but other dimensions of
comparison were also examined. These included differences in use of kinship terms
between gravestones based on gender, age and ethnicity, and an examination of how
occupation or title was utilized as a dimension of identity on the gravestones. It should
be noted that a minority of gravestones contained kinship, occupation, and ethnicity
information, but gender could be surmised from the names of individuals in all cases. In
the gender, kinship, age and ethnicity analyses, individuals were the units of analysis
rather than gravestones.

Gravestones were assigned a “North American-bom” or “foreign-bom” status
based on the place of origin provided for individuals in the church burial record. This
was conﬁrmed with census and obituary data when practical. The gravestone dataset for
the cemetery was divided into two groups based on an individual’s place of origin:
native-born, designating those who were listed in the Church’s burial register as from
Canada or America, and foreign-bom, those listed as originating from Central or
Southeastern Europe. Those individuals without a place of origin listed were excluded

from further analysis; all individuals fell into one of these three categories.

66

Gravestones were the unit of analysis for the North American vs. foreign-born
analyses rather than individuals, although individual place of origin was used to assign a
gravestone to a category. Therefore, for example, if a double gravestone had two
individuals who were foreign-bom, the stone was counted once in the foreign-bom
category for analysis. In all but three cases, individuals sharing a gravestone fell into the
same origin grouping. In small number of cases where the two individuals on a
gravestone had different origins, the origin for the individual who had the older death
date was used, as the stone was likely selected at the time of their death.

In this cemetery, six individuals were commemorated on two different stones. Of
these, two were commemorated with two separate single stones, one was commemorated
on one single and one quadruple stone, two were commemorated on one single and one
triple stone, and one was commemorated on one single and one double stone. In one of
these cases, an individual was commemorated on a gravestone both in the plot of their
birth family, and in the family they married into. In another case, an indiVidual had one
gravestone in English and Ukrainian, and the other gravestone entirely in Ukrainian. All
of these gravestones were included in analyses for which gravestones were the unit of
analysis.

These dimensions of comparison were selected to examine different facets of
individual identity as manifested on gravestones. In addition, most of these dimensions
overlap with information provided in census and obituary sources, allowing one to
compare which “roles” are ultimately selected for gravestones, compared to the “roles”

individuals are assigned in other documentary sources.

67

Methods of A nalysis

After the data was compiled in an excel spreadsheet, a number of statistical
analyses were performed. For continuous data, descriptive statistics included: total
number of cases, mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation (see
Appendix B for results). Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) was performed on both
continuous and meristic data, to identify whether variables co-occurred; results are
discussed in Chapter 6. The chi-square test was used to analyze categorical, non-
parametric data, including the shape, style, material of gravestones, language of
inscription, number of motifs per gravestone, and cross type on gravestone (see Appendix
D for results). In all statistical analyses, the cut-off level for signiﬁcance was a=0.05.
Discussion

The methodology described above has been implemented with the intention of
harnessing data relevant to the study of ethnicity and identity using a cemetery dataset.
All inscription and iconography data, as well as the physical characteristics of the
gravestones themselves, including measurements, material, form and style, and the
directions they face, were recorded. For the purposes of this study, in-depth spatial
analysis was not included; however, casual observations on cemetery layout and
organization were recorded. For a schematic map of the cemetery, see Appendix A. In

the next chapter, the analysis results of the aforementioned variables are discussed.

68

Chapter 6: Analysis and Results
Introduction

This section discusses the results of the analyses performed on the St. Nicholas
Orthodox Cemetery dataset. Results are organized by variable; for each variable, trends
for the cemetery as a whole are discussed, and then trends between North American- and
foreign-bom are compared. Statistical analyses performed on the dataset were
Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) and the chi-square test. The chi-square test was
utilized to determine if certain variables exhibited statistically signiﬁcant patterned
change through time. EDA was then used to draw out more nuanced patterns within
variables. EDA provides a way to thoroughly explore the data in question, and discover
the ways that variables relate to one another (Hartwi g and Dealing 1979).

The following chapter provides an overview of the results of the chi-square test
results in table format, but relies predominantly on graphical representations of EDA
results to develop the potential for more meaningful interpretations of patterns. For
example, a chi-square test is able to identify that gravestone forms exhibited a statistically
signiﬁcant pattern of change through time, but by graphing the results using EDA, we are
able to learn which forms were popular during which time periods, and hypothesize why.
Ultimately, the majority of the analyses presented here are descriptive and comparative,
and while trends for the cemetery as a whole are explored, most of the results discussed
focus on the comparison of gravestone variables by place of origin (North American- or
foreign-born) using EDA to elucidate differences between the two groups. Additional

comparisons are discussed in Chapter 7.

69

As part of EDA, descriptive statistics were computed for each variable that
consisted of continuous data. The descriptive statistics calculated were: total number of
cases, mean, median, mode, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation; see Appendix
B for results. As mentioned above, temporal analyses using the chi-square test, as well as
EDA techniques, were canied out to identify the occurrence of patterned change through
time in the cemetery, with the purpose of determining how the results interfaced with
general trends observed in contemporaneous American cemeteries. The results of the
chi-square test are depicted in Table 6.1, but actual interpretation of the variables follows
graphical representations of the patterns below. Through the course of these analyses, a
number of differences between the gravestones of individuals based on their origin have
been noted, and results from other cemetery studies have been utilized when they are able
to lend insights into the interpretation of these variations.

Overview of A nalyses

A total of 242 gravestones met all or most of the requirements for analysis: they
are relatively intact, and most of the inscriptions are legible. Three of these did not have
death dates ﬁlled in at the time of recording, so these three were excluded from analyses
that concerned change through time. As illustrated in Table 6.1, Variables that exhibited
statistically signiﬁcant patterned change through time for the whole cemetery were
gravestone form, style, and material, language of inscription, number of motifs per
gravestone, and cross type. Variables that did not exhibit patterned change through time
include epitaph length, the direction gravestones face, and number of individuals per
gravestone. These results will be interpreted following the graphical representations

below.

70

Table 6.1 Table of Analyses Performed on the Cemetery as a Whole

 

 

 

- Non-parametric
- Categorical
° Independent

 

(Shape 1)

Analysis Variable (through Time) Results

Exploratory Data All variables To be discussed
Analysis

Chi-Square Form of gravestone P = <0.0012 Significant

 

Style of gravestone
Shape 2)

P = <0.0012 Significant

 

Material of gravestone

P = <0.0012 Significant

 

Direction gravestone
faces

P = 0.411: Not signiﬁcant

 

Number of individuals

P = 0.2042 Not signiﬁcant

 

(single or double) per
_gravestone
Language (English or P = <0.0012 Significant (in
Other, English or both cases)
Other/Both)

 

Number of motifs per
gravestone

P = 0.0072 Significant

 

 

Cross type

 

P = 0.001: Significant

 

Significant results: indicates that there is signiﬁcant change in use of this gravestone variable through time
that is not due to random sampling variation. Cut-off level for significance: (1 = 0.05.

Organization of the Cemetery

The cemetery is organized around an oval-shaped drive that curves around the

cemetery, and a central drive that bisects the oval (see Appendix A for a map of the

cemetery). Burial plots are located in the two central portions of the cemetery, as well as

around the perimeter of the drive. In the center of the cemetery facing the entryway is a

large Orthodox cross identifying this as an Orthodox Christian burial ground. The

cemetery is generally organized by family groups, with a small children’s section in the

northeast comer. Single plots are located on the east side of the eastern central portion of

the cemetery, as well as along the eastern-most edge outside the central portion. In

addition, all of the plots in the children’s area are single plots. McGuire notes that,

following World War 11, infants were often buried in a separate section of the cemetery

(McGuire 19882455).

71

 

The spatial organization of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery is consistent with
that of memorial gardens of the early twentieth century. During this time, cemeteries
began to be laid out in more curvilinear lines around a central winding road system,
which softened the rigid grid-like layouts of the previous century (Francaviglia
19712505). The organization of the burials by family group is also common for
American cemeteries in the ﬁrst part of the twentieth century, at which point the
emphasis gradually shifts to spouse plots (McGuire 19982452, 454). At the St. Nicholas
Orthodox Cemetery, many of the family plots are delineated by low concrete barriers,
and a few plots are fenced off with metal fencing. This has been observed in other
cemeteries as well, for example among Czech cemeteries in Texas (Kiest 1993285,
Anderson 1993213).

Gravestone Frequency through Time

Figure 6.1 depicts the number of gravestones for each time period. A gradual
decline in the number of burials after the peak in 1954-1971 is apparent. This could
reﬂect changing population size within the community, or a different pattern of cemetery
usage among the congregation. The former explanation is likely, as the St. John Street
neighborhood had largely begun to disintegrate by the 19603 as a result of urban renewal,
and by the 19703 most individuals had moved to outlying areas (Hart 2007, Evanoff
1989). In addition, by this time Flint was no longer a center for immigration from

Southeastern and Central Europeans.

72

Figure 6.1 Gravestone Frequency through Time

 

l
; Gravestone Frequency Through Time
1
l

O)\l
COCO

 

 

Frequency
-8 N (a) A 01

 

 

COCO

 

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
‘ 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

l Year

Figure 6.2 Gravestone Proportional Frequencies by Origin

 

Gravestone Frequency Through Time

 

90.00%
80.00% LH—ﬁ
70.00% \ -- l
60.00% +~¥=é
5000% V1 —.— North American
40.00% , —I— Foreign-00m

30-00% * 1 —A—-Unknown
20.00% “ n *l l

10.00% it—— -———_ . __,_.1

0.00% t ,

 

n_m.l

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage

 

 

 

 

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990‘
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

Year

 

 

Figure 6.2 illustrates the changing demographic composition of the cemetery
through time. The decrease in foreign-bom individuals following the peak in 1954-1971
likely reﬂects broad changes in immigration patterns. In the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, there were a high number of Central and Southeastern European

immigrants arriving in America. Following World War I, the Immigration Act of 1924

73

quotas were implemented to drastically restrict immigrants from South, Southeastern and
Central Europe, as well as from Asia (Gabaccia 1996, Anderson 1993211). The peak in
foreign-bom burials in 1954-1971 likely reﬂects when the largest immigrant “cohort” of
the early 19003-19203 reached their age of mortality. An immigrant who arrived in
America in 1905 at the age of 24 (immigrants during this period were commonly in their
early twenties) would be 74 in 1955. The hnmigration and Nationality Act of 1965
discontinued the restrictive quotas of 1924, re-opening the United States to immigration
from Central and Southeastern Europe (V rga 1971). North American-born internments in
the cemetery nearly equal, and then surpass, foreign-bom internments in the last two time
periods, again as a result of the lower number of foreign-bom immigrants reaching
mortality in the last three decades due to immigration restrictions from the 19203 to 1965.
Gravestone Shape
Shape 1: Form

There are eight different gravestone forms represented in the cemetery: block
(sometimes referred to as monument), cross-shaped, lawn, pulpit, raised, slant block,
square column, and tablet. See Figure 5.1 in Chapter 5 and Table 6.2 for images of these
shapes. Figure 6.3 illustrates the popularity of gravestones forms in the cemetery as a
whole, while Table 6.2 and Figure 6.4 provide a break-down of the popularity of these

gravestone shapes in the cemetery through time.

74

Figure 6.3 Gravestone Frequencies by Form

 

Total Gravestone Frequencies for Cemetery

 

  
  

 

  
 

I
I}:

    
 
   

€532:

 

   

'-:-'.

   
 

  
 
 
  
 

ﬂ,-

 

.. .. ‘
. . J
fifth?“

. .
{-334

 

  

, .
{it

 

 
  
 

. .ttti'

 

Frequency

 

 

 

 

   

- - wum-a-a-eq

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.2 Corn )arison of Gravestone Forms

1918-1935 1936-1953 1954-1971 1972-1989 1990-2007
Block 7.02% 26.53% 33.85% 39.13% 22.73%
Cross-
Shaped 42.11% 14.29% 4.62% 2.17% 0.00%
5
Lawn 0.00% 10.20% 7.69% 15.22% 4.55%
Pulpit 3.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Raised Top 15.79% 12.24% 12.31% 19.57% 18.18%
Slant Block 22.81% 32.65% 41.54% 23.91% 50.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

75

 

 

Table 6.2 (cont’d).

 

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Square
column 3.51 % 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Tablet 5.36% 4.08% 0.00% 0.00% 4.55%
Figure 6.4
Gravestone Form Through Time
70.00% ~-—‘ﬁ—~—~—A -
o —0- Block
6000/" —D - Cross Shaped
8: 50.00% —a— Lawn I
g 40.00% - -x- - Pulpit
§ 30.00% —I— Raised
& 2000% —.— Slant BIOCk
10 00% _ q —+— Square Column
Tablet
1 0.00% . . . . .
i 1918- 1936- 1 954- 1 972- 1990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
} Year
g

 

 

As shown in Figure 6.3, the most popular gravestone form in the cemetery is the

slant block, followed by the block and raised top shapes. The most uncommon forms are

the square column and pulpit, followed by the tablet shape. In an examination of

gravestone forms through time (Table 6.2 and Figure 6.4), it is revealed that cross forms

peaked during the ﬁrst time period and then dropped off dramatically to zero during the

last time period. Raised top, tablet, square column, and lawn forms all remained

relatively stable, though not highly popular, throughout. The block form increased in

popularity from being relatively uncommon in the ﬁrst time period to its peak of over

76

 

one—third of the gavestones in the cemetery during 1972-1989. The slant block peaked
twice, once during 1954-1971, and once during the last time period; in both of these time
periods, slant blocks represented over 40 percent of the gravestones in the cemetery.
These patterns are consistent with general trends in American cemeteries during
the twentieth century (Fracaviglia 1971). It is not uncommon for a cemetery,
particularly one spanning the twentieth and early twenty-ﬁrst centuries; to contain a
relatively small number of gravestone forms. Francaviglia himself identiﬁes nine
different forms, while other cemeteries contain even fewer (for example, see Broce’s
1996 of a Slovak cemetery in rural Colorado, which exhibits only ﬁve gravestone forms).
The turn of the twentieth century brought about a decrease in variation and
omateness of monuments, in what has been termed the “modern plain style,” spanning
from 1900 to the present as deﬁned by Hijiya (1983). Similarly, Fracaviglia delineates a
“conservative period” spanning 1906-1929, during which “slant pulpits” and block forms
become common and stone heights decrease; this is followed by the “modern period”
(1930-1970), in which simpliﬁcation increases, giving way to a proliferation of raised
tops and lawn gravestones (Francaviglia 19712508). McGuire also notes an increase in
the uniformity of memorials, speciﬁcally following the interwar period (McGuire
19882453). Although Francaviglia only discusses gravestone trends to 1970, Figure 6.4
above illustrates that the trends he identiﬁed persist, with slant block, block, and raised
top gravestones remaining popular into the early twenty-ﬁrst century. Finally, many
cemeteries have implemented increased restrictions on monument types for ease of
maintenance and upkeep, which exerts another inﬂuence on the diversity of forms

(Carlson-Gumbo 1989277).

77

Figure 6.5

 

Foreign-Born: Gravestone Form through Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70.00%
60.00% 1 —0— Block
/ \ —D - Cross

8, 50.00% «————__ A/ ‘___ Lawn
g 40.00% CL 4,\ _ i: _ Raised
g 30'00% x +Slant block
8 ”-00% / - $741.— —0-Tablet

10.00% « - r ' - ~ I — — —+— Pulpit

o 00% _ . ~A‘ Square Column

l 1913- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
1 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
I

Year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.6
l
l North American-Born: Gravestone Form through
5 Time
70.00%
l 60.00% —9- B'Ock
3, 50.00% —D - Cross
:3 40.00% —a—Lawn
§ 30.00% — - - ->i<- - Raised
at ”-00% ‘ ' +Slant Block
10.00% —O—Tablet
0.00% —

 

 

 

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1 990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

i
1 Year .

 

There are some pronounced differences between the gravestone forms of North
American-bom and foreign-bom individuals through time (see Figures 6.5 and 6.6,

above). Block gravestones, which were the most popular shape for foreign-bom

78

individuals in the last two times periods (approximately 60% and 50%, respectively),
were relatively uncommon for North American-bom during all time periods, and
remained between 20% and 10% during the last two periods. Similarly, lawn gravestones
peaked in popularity for North American-bom at over 45% of total gravestones for that
demographic in 1954-1971, while the largest proportion of lawn gravestones among
foreign-born was only 10% in 1936-1953, and there were no lawn gravestones among
foreign-born during three of the time periods. Slant blocks were common between both
groups, but their use peaked during different periods. For North American-bom, the
peaks occurred in 1936-1953 (50%) and 1990-2000 (55%), while for foreign-born the
slant block peaked in 1954-1971 at 48%, when slant blocks among North-American born
were at an all time low (18%). Tablets were found in low numbers between both groups,
and two forms, pulpits and square columns, were found only among foreign-bom, albeit
in small numbers. The cross shape was popular among both North American born (44%)
and foreign-born (37%) in the ﬁrst period. However, the cross shape was not used again
by North American born after this time, while it gradually decreased in popularity among
foreign-born.

Another way to consider the different gravestone forms is by evaluating their
visibility on the landscape, based on height. By grouping gravestones into high visibility
(as deﬁned by the average height of their form being a minimum of 15 cm in height) and
low visibility (under 15 cm in height), new insights into differences between North
American- and foreign-born are revealed. Gravestone forms with a greater proﬁle are
more common among foreign—bom than North American-bom. There is a high degree of

standardization in gravestone shape and height. Although 15 cm was chosen as the

79

dividing line, in reality the vast majority of raised top and lawn gravestones are well

below this height, while the other forms are generally much taller than 150m unless they

have sunk into the ground.

Table 6.3 Differences in Visibility of Gravestone Forms between North American-

and Foreign-Born

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I North American-Bum [ Foreign-Born

High Proﬁle Forms

Block 13.04% 33.78%
Cross 10.14% 14.19%
Pulpit 0.00% 1 .35%
Slant Block 33.33% 33.11%
Square Column 0.00% 1.35%
Tablet 4.35% 1.35%
Low Profile Forms

Lawn 18.84% 2.70%
Raised Top 20.29% 12.16%
High Profile Percentage Total 60.87% 85.14%
Low Profile Percentage Total 39.13% 14.86%

 

 

As evidenced in Table 6.3, high proﬁle gravestone forms are more common
choices for the gravestones of foreign-born individuals compared to American born. A
number of studies have observed that the gravestones of Southern and Eastern European
ethnic groups in America are larger and greater in height than those of Anglo-Saxon
Protestants in the twentieth century (McGuire 198 8, Clark 1987, Kiest 1993290, Sloane
1991). Interestingly, the data above suggests that the gravestones selected for American-
bom individuals are more in line with the trends of gravestone selection for “non-ethnic”
Anglo-Saxon America than gravestones selected for foreign-born individuals.

Speciﬁcally, even though the majority of North American-bom gravestones
(60.87%) at this cemetery are “high proﬁle,” lower proﬁle gravestones are much more
likely to be selected for a North-American born individual (almost 40%) than for a

foreign-born individual (almost 15%). This trend among the former has more in common

80

with general trends in “non-ethnic” cemeteries in the United States (Francaviglia 1971,
Broce 19962178). One possible inﬂuence on this pattern may be that the number of
North American-bom individuals increased through time, while average height of
gravestones decreased in American cemeteries, but overall the cemetery still had more
foreign-born individuals than North American-bom in all but the last time period, so this
explanation does not fully sufﬁce. In other words, the pattern does not appear to be
completely explained by the fact that many North-American born individuals were buried
later in time, although this is likely a factor.
Shape 2: Profile

The most popular “proﬁles” for gravestones in the cemetery are, in order of
ﬁequency from highest to lowest, style 1, style 10, crosses, and style 2. Although 20
different styles are represented in the cemetery, the ﬁ'equency of other styles drops off
sharply after the four most common (styles 4, 6, and 19 were combined to make the
“crosses” category). The next most popular styles following those four are styles 12, and
3, which are represented by only ﬁve and four gravestones in the cemetery respectively
(See Table 6.4, which uses frequencies rather than percentages to convey the marked low
frequency of less common styles compared to the four most common). Most styles only
are represented by only one gravestone each in the entire cemetery (see Table E.3
Appendix E for frequencies of all the styles).

Table 6.4 Frequency of the Six Most Popular Gravestone Profiles in the Cemetery

 

[—1

F7

“iii?

V7

[—1

{—1

 

Style 1

Style 10

Crosses
Combined

Style 2

Style 12

Style 3

 

 

92

 

65

 

35

 

24

 

 

 

81

 

Figure 6.7 illustrates the changing frequency of styles for the entire cemetery
through time. Style 10 slowly increased in popularity through time, becoming the most
popular in the last time period. Style 1 is overall the most popular, and peaks during the
fourth time period. Style 2 peaks in popularity during the second and ﬁfth time periods.
The other styles remain consistent (in small frequencies). As mentioned above, the cross
shape counts are the same for gravestone form, and therefore they exhibit a similar
pattern as discussed above, peaking during the ﬁrst time period as the most common

shape, then dramatically dropping off to a percentage of zero in the ﬁfth time period.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
    

 

 

 

Figure 6.7
F Gravestone Proﬁle through Time
i 70.00% L._ z
1 60.00% ‘ ———l "" Cmsses
_. .
l 3, 50.00% : - WW ~- -~ 7!: m4 :3:
‘ ,9 ~ -¢s- e
o .4 _ .

‘340'005 ._,‘.--l-- u T --)K--Style3

8 30 00% I - -7 1
i a ' | -Il-Snﬂe10
‘ a ”-00% ’ i —o—Styie 12
, 1000%.T—— -— "'””“""'

000%.4—-

1913- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990- l
l 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

Year l

82

Figure 6.8

 

 

 

  
      

 

 

 

   

 

l Foreign-Born: Gravestone Proﬁle through Time
I 70.00%-‘- —-----, ,,,2,,,
60.00% T _AA;)_ , 7 d fl —0— Crosses
l 31 50.00% l————— - "' ’ Stylel
' g 40.00%-i—— —A—Sty|e2
§ 30.00% - -)K- - Style 3
I o
l n' ”-00% " l +Style 10
l o -- 7_ ;
10.00/o j Style 12
l 0.00% : -
1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
‘ 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
l Year
g
Figure 6.9
North American-Born: Gravestone Proﬁle through
Time
100.00% - 7 7 ~ W- 7 .7 7
90.00% k ,7 7R ”m 7 i —e— Crosses
80.00% 4 7- - l, “ —I - Stylei
g 70.00% 7 7 i ’ \hii ll —A—Style 2
60.00°/ ,. -- ~ -
l g 50.00%: “#7 - 7 i - ->K- - Style 3
2 g 40.00% ~ ‘7 -,,, +Sty'e 10
l 0. 30.00% - - , ‘ —o—Style 16
20.00% 7 - , - - m —+—Style 17
l 10.00% »- , ,. " Style 20
l 0.00% -- 1 , i In.
1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
Year

 

 

The occurrence of gravestone proﬁle styles varies through time between North
American- and foreign-born (see Figures 6.8 and 6.9). Style 1 is extremely popular

among North American-bom, remaining the most common style (along with crosses in

83

the ﬁrst time period), until it ﬁnally drops to 30% in the ﬁﬁh period, after a high of 91%
in the third period. This is in marked contrast to the occurrence of style 1 among foreign-
born; although it is relatively popular compared to the other styles, it remains steady
between 25% and roughly 40% of gravestones during all time period. Conversely, style
10 remains fairly steady among foreign-born as well, between 15% and 40%, whereas
among North American born style 10 is quite uncommon until it rises to 40%, and then
60%, during the last two time periods.

Another source of variation between North American- and foreign born is the
presence of three additional styles (16, 17, and 20) which each reach levels of at least 5%
of the gravestones in at least one time period among North American-bom. Although
North American-bom individuals ultimately had a greater number of styles represented, a
larger percentage of this group utilized only a couple of styles, while different styles were
more evenly distributed among foreign-hem.

It is difﬁcult to interpret what these trends in gravestone styles mean, as the
gravestone proﬁles represent a relatively arbitrary stylistic component (with the exception
of crosses) that is not directly linked to symbolic meaning, but rather secular aesthetic
taste. In addition, the style of the upper proﬁle of the gravestone is determined in part by
the overall form of the gravestone, so differing trends in gravestone form selection
between North American- and foreign-born inﬂuence the trends in style.

Gravestone Material

Only four gravestone materials are found in the cemetery. In order of popularity,

they are granite, marble, concrete, and limestone. A ﬁfth material used as an accent to

gravestones, bronze, is found in conjunction with granite and concrete. As evidenced in

84

Figure 6.10, granite is overwhelmingly the most popular material in the second through
ﬁfth time periods. In the ﬁrst time period, marble is the most popular material,
comprising 50% of the gravestones. After this point, marble drops off markedly in use.
This correlates with the drop in cross-shaped gravestones during this time, the vast
majority of which are made of marble. Limestone in particular is very uncommon, and
was used for only two gravestones. This pattern of usage is consistent at what can be
found at other cemeteries in the Midwest, where the use of limestone has been relatively
uncommon and sporadic, except in some rural cemeteries located near a limestone source
(Bauer et al. 2002:90). Concrete was also relatively uncommon; for the most part it was
used as a lawn marker with bronze, but in three cases it was used to fashion a “home-
made” gravestone.

The accepted chronology for gravestone materials in the United States describes
marble as remaining popular during the ﬁrst quarter of the twentieth century, while
granite appears in the mid-nineteenth century and becomes common by the early
twentieth century (Ames 1981, Bauer et al. 2002, Broce 19962180, Liebens 2003263).
There was a lag-time in the increase of granite’s popularity after its introduction in the
mid-nineteenth century because its greater durability meant that it was much more
difﬁcult to carve, and therefore was quite expensive until carving technology advanced in
the early twentieth century (Bauer et al. 2002:93). It should also be noted that some
cemeteries no longer allow marble except as a replacement stone, likely because it is less

resistant to weathering and damage than granite (Bauer et al. 2002:91).

85

Figure 6.10

 

 

 

Percentage

100.00%
90.00%
80.00%

60.00%

40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%

0.00%

Figure 6.11

70.00% ~

50.00% -

Gravestone Material through Time

 

 

 

‘r— ____ T

,, [-

 

 

4

 

 

_,
-4. awn

-Jl

ll
ll

 

-0— Concrete
—I - Granite

—A— Marble

- -)K- - Limestone l

 

 

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-

1935 1953 1971 1989

Year

2007

 

 

l
l
l
l
l

 

Percentage

Foreign-Born: Gravestone Material through Time

1 00.00%

 

’

O

 

90.00%
80.00%
70.00%

_.._._.__;..L__

' r

 

60.00%

50.00% %
40.00%

 

-_ 5..
l

 

 

g

 

30.00%
20.00%

10.00% ~~ ——~*

——1'

I

 

 

 

0.00%

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972-
1935 1953 1971 1989

Year

86

a—P~
rm

 

1 990-
2007

 

J

—0— Concrete
—I - Granite

—A-— Marble

 

Figure 6.12

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘w—j

North American-Bom: Gravestone Material through l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
!
Time l
100.00% > |
90.00% ~— — J l
| 80.00% Ir %~ - \ *
g, 70.00% «~— .£ ‘4‘ r . ' J e
g 60.00% ' —0— Concrete
3 50-00% E -—I - Granite
3 40'00% -A—Marble
0' 30'00% WX—u‘?‘ - ->K- - Limestone
20.00% / .1 \x.‘ ‘
10.00% X .l
0.00% 4——O’——r;%-TH «aw—*4- ,
l 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990- l
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 l
{ Year 1

 

The trends in gravestone materials are similar for North American- and foreign-
born, with one notable exception: concrete experiences a marked increase in popularity
among North American-bom during 1954-1971. This likely corresponds to the increased
popularity of lawn markers during this time, a number of which are made of concrete.
Conversely, there is a lack of popularity of lawn markers among foreign-born throughout
all of the time periods. In addition, the presence of two marble markers for North
American-bom graves causes a slight decrease in the high percentage of granite
gravestones during the last time period. Rainville notes that gravestone material does not
accurately predict the status of the deceased, but rather is a reﬂection of wider ideological
and economic trends (Rainville 19992576). It appears that, with the exception of the
variation caused by the differential use of lawn gravestones, gravestone material trends in

this cemetery correspond to wider patterns in material usage in American cemeteries.

87

Directions Gravestones Face

Of the gravestones in the cemetery with death dates, 128 face east, 108 face west,
the direction of two gravestones could not be determined, and one gravestone faces south
(possibly as a result of being moved out of position.) The similar proportion of east— and
west-facing gravestones through time in the cemetery is likely due to the orientation of
gravestones to face the three main roads that trisect the cemetery lengthwise. This
creates a largely symmetrical division of four sections in which plots are located,
resulting in relatively equal numbers of gravestones facing east or west as oriented to the
roads. In the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery, the roads run north-south lengthwise,

enabling the gravestones to align with the east-west axis.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.13
' Direction Gravestone Faces
l 70.00% ~.
60.00°/ N-
° .\ .A. l
a, 50.00% r '
°’ ‘ L
g 40.00% -—“-'-—r--'l— +East
§ 30.00% ‘ —~ "" ' was“ l
c, .
“- 20.00% ire—‘— -1 1
k .
l 10.00% i — 41 ’
1 1
l 0.00% l» . . , l l
l 1913- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990- 1
l 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 i
l Year 7
l

 

88

Figure 6.14

 

 

l
l
l

 

 

 

Foreign-Born: Direction Gravestone Faces

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

70.00% l
60.00% r ‘ ‘ I // ' "’-—-1'
a, 50.00% N/
U) \
g 40.00% Ail—- ‘ -_ _ _ "I—l +East
§ 30.00% J —' ' West
Q l
‘1 20.00% t~——--—~#-A——-* — J
10.00% J»——» +
l 0.00% —— 1 . . —— J
: 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990- 1
l 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 l
9 Year l
l j
Figure 6.15
I
l North American-Born: Direction Gravestone Faces
1 100.00% S
I 90.00% ——‘—
E 80.00% J.— —— —— —— I
c, 70.00% «~—--- . / \~ ‘
g 60.00% (A ~ ' ['4 -—o—East
c 50.00% ‘ —I - West
° \
I}: 40.00% \\ /r li‘ii—l
‘ CL 30.00% .s... - n
l 20.00% \4 J
; 10.00% “Mm ~- ——1—- —— ——»——w l
l 0.00% . - 7 e .
y 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
! 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
3 Year

 

 

As evidenced in ﬁgures 6.13, 6.14, and 6.15, both North American- and foreign-
bom gravestones have similar patterns of directions facing to that of the cemetery as a

whole. Because individuals are not spatially segregated in the cemetery based on their

89

origin, but rather mixed throughout, it makes sense that North American-born and
foreign-born individuals would have similar proportions of east- and west-facing
gravestones. These patterns reﬂect the trend for the cemetery as a whole, in which
gravestones are oriented to face the three main roads running lengthwise on a north-south
axis through the cemetery. The reverse in a slight majority of west-facing versus east-
facing gravestones that occurs in the third time period may relate to the way that the
cemetery was spatially utilized through time.
Number of Individuals per Gravestone

Single gravestones are by far the most common in the cemetery, although double
gravestones slightly increase in popularity through time. There is also one triple and one
quadruple gravestone (not included in Figure 6.16). McGuire describes a trend among
Broome County, New York cemeteries in which the spouse plot surpasses the family plot
as the dominant group organization in the 19503 (McGuire 1988:454). During this time,
gravestones began to speciﬁcally emphasize the relationship between manied couples,
and dates of marriage became a common inscription on these stones, as well as epitaphs
such as “together forever” (McGuire 1988:454-455). This trend is visible to a degree in
Figure 6.16, which depicts a slight increase in double plots, with two small peaks
occurring between 1954-1971, and 1990-2007. It appears that double gravestones did
increase in popularity following WWII, as McGuire observed in his study. It is unclear
what may have accounted for the slight rise again in single plots from 1972-1989, but this
trend is slight enough that it may be attributable to random variation in individual

selections.

9O

Figure 6.16

 

I

Number of Individuals per Gravestone through Time

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 100. 00% e———— ——w
I 90.00%I 7 I
80.00%-—— m — —
I g 70.00% 1 , ,, W
5’ 60.00% I J 1 +Single
E, 50.00% i ' —l - Double
I g 40.00% I " T T
0- 30.00% Li ’77:.r TT‘TLI
‘ 20.00% :‘J—J
I 10.00% I ilL— _____,_ — I
1 0.00% 1 . -.
I 1 91 8- 1 936- 1 954- 1 972- 1 990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
Year
Figure 6.17
I Foreign-Born: Number of Individuals per
Gravestone
I 100.00% rrrrr
90.00% ~
1 80.00% + _
I 8: 70.00% , I+S'"9'e
0 . if , ,7 I.
- g 23:33,: 7 7777 7 7 7 I —n - Double
0
I: 2332? * ' * 1+“p'e
. o ‘ ’ /. - '7 ' ‘I— . . _. I
23.38:.) - I’ , ' ~ , ,, r ‘ - ->K- -Quadruple
. 0 ' i’ ' ' ’ T’ *—
I 0.00% . k’M—m—x , 1
1918— 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
I
Year

 

91

 

 

Figure 6.18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year '

I

41

' j
I North American-Born: Number of Individuals per I
I Gravestone I
I 100.00% ———- _ «I I
0 ._
33334? ‘3’” ° \ I
. \ I
g 70.00%1-~—~ w ——A -— —.
g 60.00% —— I Single
5 50.00% ~ --—-— __, _' 7 D bl
g 40.00% , - 0“ e
a 30.00% —~~ -—-—-——~_—:.——
I 20.00% .r . e
I 10.00% -——J=*‘—'—-I»°——+“ ' I
I 0.00% 1 I 1 ﬁ "1
‘ 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
I
L

 

The gravestones of foreign-born individuals (Figure 6.17) followed the general
temporal trends of the cemetery (Figure 6.16). The only exception is that there is one
triple and one quadruple gravestone among the foreign-born; these are the only
gravestones in the cemetery commemorating more than two individuals. During the
second and third time periods the differences between single and double gravestones
between foreign-born versus North American-born were more pronounced; 90 and 91 %
of gravestones were single among North American-bom during these two periods
respectively, while only 67% and 66% were single among foreign-bom. Trends between
the groups became more similar during the fourth and ﬁfth periods, approaching
approximately three-fourths of the gravestones being single in the ﬁfth time period.
Epitaph Length

As mentioned previously, epitaph length in this study refers to a count of words

beyond the customary name, date of birth, and date of death found on all gravestones in

92

the cemetery (with the exception of three gravestones missing death dates, which were
excluded from temporal analyses). Hijiya observed that during the “modern plain style”
(1900-2001), there is a minimum of inscription, down from the wordy yet formulaic
epitaphs of the Victorian period (Hijiya 1983). In the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery,
gravestones with an epitaph of one to four words in length predominate slightly in all
time periods, vacillating between 37.50% and 55.10% (see Figure 6.19). The next most
common length range is zero words beyond the basic inscription of name and dates.
Longer epitaphs of 5 to 9 words in length increase slightly in popularity during the last
two time periods, but overall it is striking how the length ranges for epitaphs remain
relatively steady through time. There does not seem to be strong temporal based patterns
for epitaph length in this cemetery between 1918 and 2007, but rather a largely steady

distribution of epitaph lengths through time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.19
I Epitaph Length through Time
I 80.00%
70.00% ~—- —— — - - — — -- —
0: 60.00% I ,,,,___
E 507000/0 ’ / ‘ § ‘ I —0'— 0 VIDl‘dS
C 40.00% "77 _ _ “ .4.’ ‘ ' —. ' 1 to4words
§ 0 U \ + 5 to 9 words
a 30.00 /0 - —
I ”700% - ->K- - 10 or more
I 10.00%) ‘ ,_ ~ aﬁx—S—‘i—
1 0.00% . ’ 'J . 1 x
I 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
I Year
I

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.20

 

 

 

I
I Foreign-Born: Epitaph Length
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80.00% 7‘ I
70.00% 1-- ‘V-, JJJJJ -._,.*_-_1
o -__W___ __________¥ 7_ __

g, 232:: I77__ _ _ 77 —o— 0words
‘3 40.000; ' —l - 1 to4 words
g 3000?: +~———<{— €- 45 I +5 to 9 words
0" . _I -->K--100rrnore

20.00% 1.. T - __,-

 

 

rw_

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

I Year

I
I 10.00% I—
I 0.00%

I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.21
I North American-Born: Epitaph Length
I 80.00% I l
I 70.00% ‘--— ~ 1- , ----- I —<>— Owords
w 60.00%I /' —————- 1‘ —- - 1to4words
g 50.00% F \ /' s» I +5t09words
: o ' __ ‘ ' ~ . .. . .
3 4000/0 I—I’ . - / ‘ X7 10 or more
3 30.00% —<>~:—— a
n_ \
20.00% ——><>=—;—o—— I
10.00% e-Jﬁw— , , —— -1
0.00% L _, - ‘X' . . ‘X-ﬂ-X i

 

 

I
I 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007
I

Year

 

 

The trends for epitaph length between North American- and foreign-born
individuals differ; speciﬁcally in that the absence of an epitaph beyond the customary

name and dates is more common among foreign-born (Figure 6.20). Conversely, North

94

American-born individuals are more likely to have an epitaph, albeit a short one of one to
four words in length (Figure 6.21). Much longer epitaphs (10 or more words)
experienced a slight rise in popularity among foreign-born during the last two time
periods (up to 22.73%), while they reached their peak of almost 20% among North
American-bom in the third time period. Finally, mid-length epitaphs of 5 to 9 words
varied greatly between the two groups; they steadily rose in popularity among North
American-bom to become the most common length in the ﬁﬁh time period, while they
remained unpopular and eventually declined to a percentage of zero during the last time
period among foreign-bom. It is not clear what explains these differing trends in epitaph
length among North American- and foreign-bom; perhaps the aspects of identity that are
emphasized for the two groups through epitaphs are slightly different. One explanation
may be the number of gravestones with epitaphs describing a military career, which have
substantially longer inscriptions than average. Of the ﬁfteen military stones in the
cemetery, eleven mark the graves of individuals born in North America. Interestingly,
two of the foreign-born gravestones with a military inscription refer to service in the
Russian White Army (Beam? Apmuu).
Language of Inscription

English is the predominant language used for gravestones inscriptions in the
cemetery. Between 1918-1935, foreign-language gravestones made up nearly 40% of the
total gravestones in the cemetery, but after this point the use of languages other than
English declined dramatically and remained low (Figure 6.22). A few stones in every
time period have been bilingual, with one of the languages always being English. Studies

of other immigrant cemeteries note a similar trend; Kiest ﬁnds that, among Czech-

95

 

 

 

American cemeteries in Texas following the 19205, virtually all inscriptions are in
English, and headstones are low to the ground (Kiest 1993:99). Otto, in a study of
Norwegian-American cemeteries, notes that between 1886 and 1910 the majority of
gravestones were in Norwegian, while by 1911-1935 the vast majority were in English
(Otto 2004:5). These patterns reﬂect the adaptation of English in the second generation,
as well as increasingly ﬂuency and literacy among the immigrants with time spent in
America.

Figure 6.22

 

Language on Gravestones through Time
100.00% 1

O _,____-. /______
9000 A I5 —O- English
80.00% I— -—- -- ——1 _l. . Both
70.00% — -A- Other

60.00% IT/’—“ - .

50.00% -
40.00% 1—- ‘---—-— - “I
30.00% 1h" — —-——— 1 1 1—1 --1
20.00% 1
10.00% ~—--' \ J
0.00% f . a r “-4

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-

I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

I Year

 

 

 

 

I
I
I

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

96

 

Figure 6.23

I
I Foreign-Born: Language on Gravestones I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

100.00% »—1
I 90.00% I” f\ .
80 000/ __‘______ _-__\_N4_ _ EngllSh
° 0° L _7 ___ #ﬁ _: —I - Both
m 70.00/0 I 0th
3’ 60.00% J? » I 8 e'
g 50.00% M- - I
3 40.00% ~ -——+—~~ I
'0- 30.00% ~— — ———— ——h —# HI
20.00% 1
I x I
10.00% L . - ~ *-
I 0.00% 4 if .’ . ‘ I
I 1918— 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 I
I Year I
Figure 6.24

 

North American-Born: Language on Gravestones

I

I 100.00% I

I 3833:? ’ —0-—English
- 0 —I - Both

70.00% / - ' ‘ —A— Other

60.00% . .

I
50.00% - - “I
40.00% - I

30.00% J \ _—.——I
20.00% < ~ ~

10.00% \

0.00% ~

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Percentage

 

 

 

 

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

Year

 

 

There was a marked increase in gravestone inscriptions in languages other than
English among foreign-born in 1972-1989, resulting in a drop to approximately 78% of

the stones in English-only during that time (Figure 6.23), compared to 100% English

'97

inscriptions among contemporaneous North American-bom (Figure 6.24). This likely
reﬂects the age of mortality trend for the initial immigrant cohort. This pattern may also
reﬂect the new ethnicity movement beginning in the 19603 and 19703, in which third and
fourth generation South and Eastern Europeans were exhibiting increased interest in their
ethnic heritage (N ovak 1974). These latter generations would have likely been involved
in the selection of gravestones for their older relatives who passed away, and may have
chosen to honor their foreign-born ancestors by selecting inscriptions in their native
language. In an examination of Ukrainian-Canadian cemeteries, Lehr notes that “the
resurgence of ethnic pride, or awareness of heritage, is best seen in the appearance of
bilingual gravestones in the late 19703” (Lehr 1989:10).

The presence of inscriptions in languages other than English on the gravestones of
North American-bom individuals points to a very interesting pattern. The ages at death
of all but one of the six North American-hem individuals whose gravestone inscriptions
were in a language other than English were 18 and younger. Because of this, it seems
probable that parents or older relatives, who were likely foreign-born themselves, may
have selected the gravestone inscriptions.
Symbols and Iconography

A wide variety of symbols engraved on gravestones were observed in the
cemetery, however few occur in great enough numbers for statistical or graphical
analysis. See Appendix E for the frequency of symbols identiﬁed in the cemetery.
Nearly all the iconography observed, such as doves, roses, and hands clasped in prayer,
can be directly associated with religious meaning. This conforms to Orthodox guidelines

that prohibit any “words or symbols other than that of the Orthodox faith” to be

98

introduced into the church or funeral home during an Orthodox funeral service
(Guidelines for Clergy in the Orthodox Church in America). Similarly, although a prayer
commemorating military, union, or fraternal organization membership may be offered at
the service, freemasonry is designated to be incompatible with Orthodoxy, and all related
symbols are prohibited (Guidelines for Clergy in the Orthodox Church in America).

Other studies of Orthodox cemeteries have also noted the presence of general
Christian religious symbols; for example, crosses and cruciﬁxes, ﬂora such as the
primrose, rose, grape vine, and oak, the “book of life,” and wheat sheaves associated with
resurrection (Carlson-Cumbo 1989, Graves 1993). These symbols are all found in the St.
Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery, along with other religious symbols common in American
cemeteries, such as the use of lamb and angel iconography for children’s graves (Edgette
1999). It has been noted that certain symbols can connote a religious occupation, such as
the chalice or bible (Mytum 2004: 1 50, Goldstein and Buisktra 2004159, Graves 1993 :47).
With one exception, symbol use does not seem to be restricted in such a way at the St.
Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery. There are three priests and a deacon interred in the
cemetery. The gravestones of the priests have the following iconography: two chalices,
two tulips, and an Orthodox cross; an Orthodox cross; an Orthodox cross with wheat,
primrose, and grape leaves. The gravestone of the deacon has a rose, “book of life”, and
Orthodox cross. These symbols are not unique to the priests and deacon in the cemetery,
but shared with lay people as well, with the exception of the chalice symbol, which is

only found on the gravestone of one of the priests.

99

Number of Motifs per Gravestone

As illustrated in Figure 6.25, two motifs is the most common number of motifs
per gravestone in the cemetery, with one motif (usually a cross) being the next most
common and increasing through time after a brief decline in the second time period.
Gravestones with no motifs declined steadily through time, from nearly 30% in the ﬁrst
time period to zero in the last time period. Those with three motifs are less common, but
steadily rose over time, while four motifs are rare, but relatively stable in percentage of

total gravestones through time. No gravestone exhibits more than four motifs in the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cemetery.
Figure 6.25
Number of Motifs per Gravestone through Time
I 60.00%
50.00% W - _ —O— O Motif
g, 40.00% . _' ' 1 Mm"
g —-A-—2 Motif
c 30.00% —
§ - -)K- - 3 Mot'rf
20.00"/ , .I
n- o . — {xx '* I -D—4 Motif
10.00% X 3‘ r
0.00% I— . , , , J

 

 

1918- 1936- 1954- 1972— 1990-
1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

Year

100

 

Table 6.26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I
I Foreign-Born: Number of Motifs per Gravestone I
I 60.00% I
50.000/0 “IT TX“? __._ 0 mm—‘
3,4000% . I —I - 1 Motif
g — ‘ . . -A—2 Motif
a, 30.00% 4 , ’ —~ .
g *- ‘1’ \ / ,X \ " 'X' " 3 Wt”
Q. 20.000/0 I \ of % H +4 thf
_ . 0K - - \->K . . 4
10.00‘y0 “*TX ’ ‘ __ ——K \ I I
I 0.00% I I I I w
I 1918— 1936- 1954— 1972- 1990- I
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 I
I Year I
I
Table 6.27
I “‘ “I
I North American-Born: Number of Motifs per I
I Gravestone I
I 60.00% ’7 I
I I I _ -
I 50.00% I— I ,i -4! 0- OthIf
. ~ / _ - .
g 40.00% ‘I—‘— O s I I 1 Motif
5 30.00% , x., Y \A -_-I +2 NW
g 0 K" I -->K--3Motif
. 0. 20.00/0 'TV'Z'. ﬁ/K‘ . .. ‘;*—)K;~—' “—" *7“ n'
I 10.00% —:—————0-——¢\ Jars-"I
I 0.00% I I . 5s", 4

 

I
I 191s 193a 1954— 1972- 1990 I
I 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 I

Year

Two motifs per gravestone slightly dominate among foreign-born in most time
periods; in addition, foreign-born gravestones exhibit an increase in the use of three

motifs per gravestone through time (Figure 6.26). This contrasts with the steady increase

101

in one motif and decline in two and three motifs per gravestone among North American-
bom through time (Figure 6.27). One study that can lend insight into the increase in
motif variety among foreign—bom is Lynn Clark’s (1987) “Gravestones: Reﬂectors of
Ethnicity or Class?” Clark ﬁnds that following the 1930s, ethnic, in this case Italian,
Jewish and Slovak, gravestones in New York exhibited increasing variation and amounts
of decoration, particularly of crosses and religious motifs (Clark 1987:392, 393). These
ﬁndings conform to the results of my analyses in which foreign-born gravestones exhibit
an increase in variety of motifs and the use of crosses, however, this change takes place
beginning in the 1950s. This delay can be explained by the fact that it is common for such
changes to occur in the Midwest a couple of decades later than in the Eastern United
States. Clark interprets this increasing elaboration of gravestone decoration among
ethnics as an attempt to assert their prestige within their ethnic community rather than
within larger society. As the ethnic group becomes more assimilated, she asserts that
their gravestones will conform more closely to those of “nonethnics” (Clark 1987).
However, it should be noted that Clark does not distinguish between North
American and foreign origin; therefore, it is likely that some of the gravestones in her
study belong to second or later generation “ethnic” Americans. It is interesting that in the
St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery, gravestones of foreign-bom individuals seem to
conform more closely to the trend that Clark notes for ethnic gravestones; namely that
variation in motifs increases through time. Again, this seems to suggest that certain
identities may be symbolically emphasized for foreign-born individuals in this cemetery,
which may require slightly different uses of iconography than that selected for North

American-bom.

102

Engraved Cross Type

Within the cemetery as a whole, Orthodox crosses (Cross 1) predominate,
exhibiting peak popularity during 1972-1989 (Figure 6.28). The absence of a cross
mirrors the trend of Cross 1; when one peaks, the other shows a period of decline. On the
other hand, the use of the Latin cross (Cross 2) is essentially stable through time. It is
interesting that in times when the Orthodox Cross is popular, there are fewer gravestones
without crosses. This suggests that, during certain times, members of the congregation
chose to emphasize the Orthodox religious identity on gravestones by selecting the
Orthodox Cross as a motif. In the ﬁrst time period, gravestones without crosses are the
most common, comprising approximately 45% of the total; they gradually decline
through time until exhibiting a upsurge in the last time period.

Gravestones without a cross are the least common during 1972-1989; perhaps due
in part to the new ethnicity movement, in which ethnic Americans chose to emphasize
their ethnic identity to a greater degree (N ovak 1974). Carlson-Cumbo notes that, among
Ukrainian-Canadians, the Orthodox cross has come to signify their ethnic identity in
addition to being an emblem of faith (Carlson-Cumbo 1989:78). Likewise, Kostecki, in a
study of the use of the cross as symbol among Ukrainian-Canadians, states “with the
growth of national consciousness, often enhanced by religious concerns, crosses have
become symbols of distinctive national identities” (Kostecki 1989:55). This suggests that
the persistence of the Orthodox cross as a symbol in the cemetery may be due in part to
the emphasis of ethnic as well as religious identity. This is consistent with the way that
many Eastern Europe peasants and immigrants in the early twentieth century identiﬁed

their ethnicity by way of their religion (Smith 1978, Hoerder and Blank 1994, Morawska

103

1982). Similarly, in studies of Serbian immigrants and their descendants in Milwaukee,
Washington DC. and Pennsylvania, Padgett (1980, 1990) and Bennett (1978, 1981) note
that Serbs consistently identify themselves as members of an “ethnic church body”
(Bennett 1978131), and that the Orthodox church is central to their ethnic as well as

religious identity (Padgett 1980:66, Padgett 1990282, Bennett 1981:103).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6.28
Engraved Cross Type through Time I
70.00% #— I
L. .____. Wm _- 2.2.“; I
60.00% ” 2 4—\ —o— Cross1
a 50.00% aL——~—————7/ \9 I —I - Cross 2
a: \
3 40.00% X4 ‘ / 2’ 4 -A-—Cross 3
§ 30 00°/ #1!“ ' 'X' - None
3 ' ° .’ I:— “~l-—-',l I
“- 20.00% I~—-~ - . 7 - I I
’>K . ~ , , i I
10.00% ‘ rx‘ I I
0.00% ‘I—H W I
1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990-
1935 1953 1971 1939 2007 I
Year I
L

 

 

104

Figure 6.29

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign-Born: Engraved Cross Type
70.00% 1 1
60.00% L—— ____ 44—5—jS —o— Cross1
50 000/ 9 —I - Cross 2
o . O /
a: X —i‘r— Cross 3
g 40.00% , / ~w~ - .x. - None
4: ~ “ “T
0 30.000/ ~——l~ ‘
3 0 (ﬁx. """"---I
.°- 20.00% Sue" = . x l
I 10.00% ‘ ~ - A.1 i
j 0.00% I— 7 7 ‘ x 4 |
1918- 1936- 1954— 1972- 1990- i
l 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 I
; Year .
1
Figure 6.30
1 North American-Born: Engraved Cross Type i
1 70.00% L I
l o - _ _j —0- Cross1 l
' 6000/" /‘ i —I - CrossZ
50.00% ~~— /I ,1 \ —-A-Cross 3
g) X ‘ . i \ 0’ \ X E - ->K- - None I
a 40.00% i; 4 : + 1
g \ s / k ~ '\ l I
g 30.00% /=<4é ‘ i '.’ _‘. 1 l
- “- 20.00% ——.’ x. —— ; J l
l 10.00% ‘ ~ ﬁﬁ' l
l ,
I 0.00% a r I I u ' l
I 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990- '
l 1935 1953 1971 1989 2007 I
’ Year i
l

 

The use of crosses as a gravestone motif varies between North American- and
foreign-born individuals. Latin Crosses (Cross 2) peak among North American-bom in

the second time period, then undergo a slight decline through time, while being surpassed

105

by peak use of the Orthodox Cross (Cross 1) between 1972 and 1989 (Figure 6.30). As
mentioned, this time period overlaps with the new ethnicity movement, and may suggest
that the ethnic identity of second and later generation individuals is being emphasized at
this time through the use of the Orthodox cross, as the Orthodox cross possesses a more
“ethnic” meaning than the generic Christian cross (Carlson-Cumbo 1989, Kostecki 1989).

The absence of crosses on gravestones among North American-bom reﬂects the
pattern of the cemetery as a whole, with a peak both during the ﬁrst and ﬁfth time period,
when gravestones without crosses are the most common. Among foreign-born,
gravestones without crosses undergo a nearly identical trend until the last time period,
when they decline to zero (Figure 6.29). This is in marked contrast to the predominance
of gravestones without crosses among North American born during the last time period.
The Latin cross (Cross 2) remains somewhat common, although never dominant, among
foreign-born, while the Orthodox cross (Cross 1) rises in popularity to reach a peak of
over 60% among foreign-born gravestones in the last time period. Again, we see that a
motif (Cross 1) is selected for the gravestones of foreign-born (and to a lesser extent,
North American-born) individuals that emphasizes the religious, and likely ethnic,
aspects of their identity.
Discussion

Trends for gravestones characteristics have been examined for the cemetery as a
whole, and differences in these characteristics compared between gravestones for North
American- and foreign born individuals. The EDA graphing techniques utilized above
allow for a comparison of gravestone attributes in the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery

with general trends noted in American cemeteries for this time period, as well as facilitate

106

the identiﬁcation of differences in the selection of gravestone attributes based on the
deceased’s origin and therefore status as an immigrant or later generation. As noted
above, there are a number of attributes that differ between North American and foreign-
bom gravestones; in illustrating these comparisons graphically, we see how an analysis of
the cemetery as a whole without taking into account origin disguises such variation. In
particular, it appears that differences among gravestone attributes based on origin may
have to do with the choice to emphasize different aspects of the deceased’s identity,
based on their status as an immigrant or later generation. Of course, the fact that their
descendants in most cases are selecting the gravestone should be kept in mind, although
no doubt some individuals make known their wishes ahead of time, or even purchase a
gravestone pre-need. Although the main question of this thesis focuses on differences
between foreign- and North American-bom gravestones, the next chapter brieﬂy
discusses gravestone attributes related more speciﬁcally to personal identity markers,
including kinship and age, as well as offers a more in-depth look at ethnicity in the

cemetery.

107

Chapter 7: Personal Identity in the Cemetery

In addition to the analysis of general gravestone attributes between North
American- and foreign-born in the previous chapter, it is worthwhile to brieﬂy explore
some of the other identity markers found on gravestones. This chapter explores attributes
of the gravestones which more speciﬁcally reference individual roles, such as kinship
terms, occupation, and gender, and does so through the use of descriptive analyses
including graphs and data tables. This chapter also provides a closer examination of
ethnicity, speciﬁcally concerning foreign language use and identiﬁcation of place of
origin on gravestones. As Mytum notes, “all individuals have many personae which
cannot all be elaborated on the memorial” (Mytum 2004: 137), therefore it is interesting to
examine which were selected for inclusion on gravestones. Aspects of identity that are at
times made salient in this cemetery besides name and dates of birth and death are
religious afﬁliation, occupation, kinship status, and ethnicity. Gender is discussed within
these sections.

In this chapter, gravestone attributes are not separated out by North American-
and foreign-bom, but rather, examined for the cemetery as a whole. This is done to get a
feel for the way in which individual identity is expressed within the cemetery, beyond
what can be inferred through the origin of individuals based on historical records. After
all, a diverse ethnic community is represented in this cemetery, and the origin of each
individual cannot alone account for differences in gravestone attributes. As such, these

analyses examine other aspects of individual identity as evidenced on the gravestones.

108

Ethnicity

Ethnicity is of particular interest in this study, and can be examined through the
language of gravestone inscriptions and place of origin as identiﬁed in the inscription, in
addition to the comparisons between North American- and foreign-born analyses in the
previous chapter. As mentioned earlier, virtually all the individuals in this cemetery can
be considered “ethnic,” as the word is used in other cemetery studies. Most of these
individuals were born in Eastern Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, and the vast majority of the others interred are direct descendants of these
immigrants. Nearly all of the North American-bom individuals interred in the cemetery
were raised by, and brought up in, a community of Orthodox Eastern European
immigrants. Therefore, it is worthwhile to look at not only gravestone attributes based on
origin as identiﬁed through historical records, but information expressed through epitaphs
for what they reveal about the way ethnic identity is expressed.

Factors that may inﬂuence the degree to which ethnicity is emphasized in a
cemetery in which “ethnic” individuals are interred include: the proximity of the
cemetery to a church, the presence of individuals of other ethnicities in the cemetery, and
the location of the cemetery outside of the country of origin. Mytum ﬁnds that
cemeteries for those who died abroad tend to emphasize ethnicity, likely in part because
the individuals are far ﬁom their birthplace at their time of death (Mytum 2004:147).
Broce, in an examination of Slovak cemeteries in rural Colorado, notes that Orthodox
cemeteries near the Orthodox Church display more ethnic attributes on gravestones,
including inscriptions in native languages, than those located a distance from the church

(Broce 1996:176-7). Finally, McGuire and Clark both observe pronounced differences in

109

choice of gravestone size and elaboration among Eastern EurOpean-Americans and more
“acculturated” Protestant Americans within the same cemeteries in Broome County, New
York (Clark 1987, McGuire 198 8). All these examples illustrate inﬂuences on the
display of ethnicity in the cemetery.

These observations suggest that there is a continuum along which ethnic identity
is expressed in the cemetery: if a community is isolated from its homeland, it is likely to
emphasize ethnic identity through gravestone attributes; similarly, if two or more ethnic
communities share a cemetery, at least one group may choose to emphasize its different
ethnic identity. Similarly, the proximity of an ethnic cemetery to the community’s
church increases the likelihood that the ethnic identity will be further emphasized in the
cemetery. In sum, it seems that ethnicity is especially likely to be emphasized in a
cemetery if the individuals are in some way ethnically distinct or if the cemetery is linked
closely (physically and otherwise) with the community church, which is often recognized
as a cultural 'bearer for some ethnic groups including Southeastern and Central Europeans
(Mediwsky 1989, Lehr 1989, Smith 1966 and 1978, Graves 1993). In the case of the St.
Nicholas Cemetery, most of the individuals interred are far from their homeland, and
there are a variety of ethnicities present, despite the fact that they share a common
religion. The cemetery is located approximately two miles from the church’s original
location, which it occupied from 1916 to 1949, and approximately 8 miles from its
current location, which it has occupied since 1966. Although the cemetery is not located
directly next to the church, only individuals from the church congregation are interred at

this cemetery, which signiﬁes a close link with the church.

110

At the St. Nicholas Cemetery, ethnicity is manifested in two primary ways: by the
use of non-English languages in inscriptions, and by the identiﬁcation of homeland in the
inscriptions. Forty-two of the 242 gravestones with visible inscriptions exhibit non-
English languages, and 13 of the 15 origins on gravestones reference locations in the Old
Country. One way in which ethnic identity is not emphasized in this cemetery is through
the use of speciﬁc cultural symbols on the gravestones. In some ethnic Eastern European
cemeteries in North America, folk images are used to reafﬁrm the heritage of the
community (Eckert 2002, Graves 1993, Mediwsky 1989, Kostecki, 1989). However, in
this cemetery, virtually all the symbols can be associated with Christianity in general
and/or the Orthodox Church speciﬁcally. Below, Table 7.1 depicts the relative frequency
of language use in gravestone inscriptions through time.

Table 7.1 Langggge on Gravestones through Time3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Langggge" 1918-1935 1936—1953 1954-1971 1972-1989 1990-2007
English 58% 96% 89% 88% 96%
Church Slavic 3% 2% 0% 0% 0%
Greek 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Hungarian 2% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Macedonian 5% 0% 0% 2% 4%
Romanian 5% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Russian 1 0% 0% 6% 10% 0%
Serbian 8% 2% 3% 0% 0%
Syrian 2% 0% 1% 0% 0%
Ukrainian 5% 0% 1% 0% 0%

 

 

*Gravestones with two languages were tallied twice, once for each language.

 

3 Hungarian and Greek are only found on one gravestone each. It is likely that most Hungarian-speaking
individuals in the Flint area were members of the Hungarian Reformed Church and Hungarian Baptist
Mission, both established before 1920, as very few ethnic Hungarians are Orthodox Christian (Hungarian
Central Statistical Ofﬁce 2004). Most of the Greek immigrants to Flint were Orthodox Christian, however
the majority likely joined the St. Michael Greek Orthodox Church or the Assumption Greek Orthodox
Church (both founded by the early 19203) (Biemacki 1999, Flint City Directory 1921). Even though three
individuals in the cemetery originated from Greece and 27 from Austria-Hungary (Table 7.3), ethnicity
cannot be equated with country of origin in the absence of other evidence. The use of Greek and
Hungarian in the inscriptions suggests a stronger clue to ethnicity than origin based on historical records.

111

It is clear in Table 7.1 that the majority of gravestones with foreign language
inscriptions were erected in the ﬁrst time period. This was during a time when the vast
majority of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church congregation was composed of recent
immigrants, and it is likely that most knew little English. In Table 7.1 we also ﬁnd that
the second highest percentage of foreign language gravestone inscriptions was during
1972-1989, a time period that spans the new ethnicity movement, as mentioned in
Chapter 6. Again, this suggests that individuals were choosing to emphasize ethnicity
through the use of their family’s native language on gravestones. It is not surprising that
there are few foreign language gravestones in the second time period, as it overlaps with
the “red scares” of the 1950s, in which Central and Southeastern Europeans were viewed
with distrust and suspected of having communist sympathies. During this time in
America, emphasizing one's ethnic identity, particularly from certain regions such as
Eastern Europe, was not viewed as favorably as it would be in the coming decades.

Finally, the low frequency of foreign language gravestones between 1990 and
2007 can likely be explained by the gradual loss of native language in the ethnic
community. It is rare for third or greater generation individuals to speak their ancestral
language beyond a few customary greetings and religious terminology (Frank Evanoff,
personal communication). This loss of language is evidenced within the broader Eastern
European ethnic community in Flint as well (Lowe 2008). Similarly, Bennett noted that
89.1% of third generation Southern Slavs in Washington DC. did not speak their

ancestral language (Bennett 197 8:59).

112

Table 7.2 Language on Gravestones by Gender

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Female Male
Both 5.65% 5.68%
English 83.87% 82.39%
Other 10.48% 1 1.93%

 

 

The proportions of gravestones in English, more than one language, and in a
foreign language were very similar for males and females (Table 7.2). This suggests that
ethnic identity as reﬂected in the use of language was not ascribed differently to males
and females. It is interesting that one gender was not more likely than the other to have
gravestones in a language other than English. Men worked outside the home more
frequently than women particularly in the ﬁrst half of the twentieth century (when most
of the foreign language gravestones were engraved), so it would seem that they would
acquire English at a faster rate than women. However, it is likely that female family
members helped select gravestone attributes, and no doubt immigrant men continued to
use their native language at home. Ultimately, the community as a whole selected foreign
language inscriptions in very similar proportions for men and women.

Table 7.3 Origins of Individuals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Location Count Percentage
North America 74 24.67%
Russia 60 20.00%
Unknown 37 l 2.3 3%
Austria-Hungary 27 9.00%
Poland 23 7.67%
Yugoslavia 22 7.33%
Romania 1 2 4.00%
Macedonia 9 3.00%
Ukraine 7 2.33%
Other 7 2.3 3%
Turkey 4 1 .33%
Czechoslovakia 3 l .00%
Greece 3 1 .00%
Hungary 3 l .00%
Persia (Iran) 3 1.00%

 

 

113

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.3 (eont’d).

Bulgaria 2 0.67%
Estonia 2 0.67%
Lithuania 1 0.33%
Syria 1 0.33%
Total 3 00 l 00.00%

 

 

 

 

 

Origin information obtained ﬁ'om church burial records, US. Census records, naturalization records, and
ship manifests.

For the purpose of compiling Table 7.3, individuals from the United States and
Canada were grouped together in the “North America” category, to show the total
number of North American-bom individuals in the cemetery. Other places of origin were
assigned by country, or in the case of Austria-Hungary, by empire (as this was as speciﬁc
as some records were, and reﬂects political divisions of the time). The country with the
largest number of irnmi grants represented in the cemetery is Russia, which is reﬂected in
the original name of the church as the Russian Orthodox Church.

Table 7.4 Origyn Gravestone
Macedonia
Michigan“
Ohio
Romania
Russia
Ukraine
Bukovina 1
Total 15

*It is unclear if these two inscriptions refer to birth location, death location, or both.

 

 

 

 

 

 

r—ti—Iwi—INQ

 

 

 

 

 

 

A small proportion of gravestones also include an individual’s place of origin in
the inscription (Table 7.4). This is typically done using the following formats: “By birth
from. . .”, “Born in. . .”, or “From...” Of the 15 gravestones with this information, 13
mention overseas origins. Two inscriptions read “Flint, Michigan” without specifying if
this is the birth location, death location, or both. Twelve belong to men, and two to
women; one is a double (spouse) gravestone. Mytum suggests that the inclusion of birth

(and sometimes death) location is done to afﬁrm the linkages of the individual with those

114

speciﬁc communities. He notes “place of birth can be stated, showing an identity with
another region, and where place of death is of some distance away this may be implying a
different form of relationship to the community within which the memorial is erected”
(Mytum 2004: 153). Graves, in his study of an Orthodox Ukrainian cemetery in
Pennsylvania, ﬁnds that the places of birth and death are often included in gravestone
inscriptions (Graves 1993 :40).

Although the inclusion of birth (and death) locations is relatively rare in this
cemetery, it is interesting that those ethnicities that did choose to include birth place were
not necessarily from the most populous ethnic group in the congregation (i.e. Russian,
based on origin data). This may reﬂect the theory that individuals sometimes choose to
emphasize their ethnic identity when they are in close quarters with other ethnicities
(McGuire 1982).

One of most interesting aspects of the church and its associated cemetery is the
diversity of ethnicities represented. Through the analyses, we ﬁnd that although ethnicity
is at times emphasized, individuals’ identity as Orthodox Christian appears to take
primacy on most gravestones. This is evidenced by the fact that Orthodox crosses are
more popular than any other cross type, and most, if not all, of the iconography can be
associated with religious meaning. There is also a relative lack of ethnic identity
markers, with the exception of native language inscriptions and the relatively rare
inclusion of origin on the gravestones. Even the fact that Orthodox crosses have ethnic as
well as religious meaning does not contradict this interpretation. The Orthodox cross
signiﬁes a pan-Eastem European Orthodox ethnicity, and is therefore a symbol not

limited to any one speciﬁc ethnicity, but used by many.

115

Despite the lack of distinct ethnic symbols in the cemetery, ethnicity was (and is)
an important and daily part of the lives of the congregation members. As discussed in
Chapter 4, Macedonian barbeques, Syrian dances, and Croatian plays, as well as
weddings, funerals, and other events, have been attended and enjoyed by multiple
ethnicities ﬁ'om the congregation. An abundance of cultural activities takes place within
the church community, but, at death, religion seems to take primacy over individual
ethnicity in most cases. This ﬁnding is consistent with Mytum’s observation that
“religion is never more important Within a family or community than at the time of
dea ” (Mytum 2004:138).

Kinship

One hundred and forty-one kinship terms were identiﬁed on gravestones. Some
gravestones contained more than one, as in cases of double gravestones (e. g. “Father” and
“Mother”), or on single gravestones containing multiple terms referring to one individual
such as the inscription “Wife, Mother and Grandmother.” As illustrated in Table 7.5,

“Mother” was the most common kinship term,4 followed by “Father,” “Husband” and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Son.”

Table 7.5 Gendered Kinship Terms in Order of Frec uency
Female Count Male Count Neutral Count
Mother 45 Father 37 Baby 4
Wife 9 Husband I 2 Family 1
Daughter 6 Son 1 3
Sister 3 Brother 6
Grandmother 3 Grandfather 2
Aunt 1
Total 67 Total 70 Total 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 This has been observed in other cemeteries as well, for example see Broce 1996 and Ames 1981.

116

Of the 142 kinship terms, eight are “proxy” kinship terms. By proxy, it is meant
that the kinship terms of surviving family members, rather than that of the decedent
themselves, are engraved on the gravestone. For example, a young boy has
“Brothers/Parents” engraved on his stone. This way of denoting kinship records the
family members who grieve the decedent’s passing, signifying the individual’s own
kinship status indirectly. In tabulating the kinship terms, the implied kinship term was
recorded rather than what was actually there. For example, in the above example, the
boy’s kinship was recorded as son and brother. These eight proxy kinship terms are on
four different gravestones. One of the gravestones has two separate inscriptions for two
brothers, one on either side of the gravestone, suggesting that the gravestone was
“reused” by the family when the second brother died. Of particular interest is the fact
that all four of these gravestones belong to ﬁve different Serbian individuals, and, in
addition to the brothers’ gravestone, two of the other gravestones likely represent related
individuals as well, based on identical surnames. This suggests that there may be an
ethnic component to the use of kinship terms in such a way, where kinship inscriptions
record the surviving relatives. However, it should be noted there are other Serbian
individuals in the cemetery who use direct kinship terms, but no other ethnicity in the
cemetery used proxy kinship terms.

As evidenced in Table 7.5, for both male and female individuals, one’s status as a
parent is more likely to be identiﬁed than any other familial role. These ﬁndings suggest
that an identity as a parent is particularly important role, followed by status as a spouse,
and then child. No doubt the likelihood that these kinship terms will be included on a

gravestone is reinforced by the fact that, if an elderly parent dies, their surviving spouse

117

or adult children will likely select the headstone, while if a young child dies, the parents
will select the headstone. Similarly, when grandparents die, it is more likely that their
adult children or surviving spouse, rather than their grandchildren, will select the
gravestone. Therefore, the representations of the child-parent and spouse-spouse bonds
are reinforced on the gravestone because of who is likely to be selecting the gravestone.
Aspects of gender representation are also apparent in this examination of kinship
terms. As mentioned, “Mother” is the most common kinship term in the cemetery. This
is not surprising given the importance assigned to the role of mother in South Slavic
culture (Simié 1999: l 3). Similarly, fact that male children and siblings are twice as
frequently identiﬁed as female children and siblings ﬁts South Slavic kinship patterns as
well. Simié, in a study of Balkan kinship patterns, notes the “male-oriented nature” of
the culture, observing a “social charter stressing patrilineality, patrilocality, and male
dominance,” which nonetheless is “more a public than private fact” (Simié 1999:13-14).
This public emphasis on male kinship roles obscures the “important affectual power of
women” which is achieved by becoming mothers, particularly of sons (Simié 1999114).
Of the gender-neutral terms, “baby” is used twice in conjunction with “son,” the
other two times an additional kinship term is not used to indicate gender. However, in
these two latter cases the names of the children are provided, which are unequivocally
female. The term “family” was used on the one quadruple gravestone in the cemetery,
and was accompanied by kinship terms for each of the individuals represented on the
stone: “Mother,” “Father,” “Son,” and “Wife.” The individuals identiﬁed as “Wife” and
“Son” were married to one another, indicating an emphasis on the parents of the son as

the central unit of the family.

118

Title and Occupation

Table 7.6 Title and Occupation on Gravestone

 

 

 

Priest/Deacon 4
Wife of Priest* 4
Military (U.S.) 13

 

Military (White Russian) 2
Founder of an Organization 1
Choir Director 1

Total 25
*In the Orthodox religion, there is a speciﬁc title for the priest’s wife, with variations in different

languages. These include Presbytera (Greek), Matushka (Russian), Popadija (Serbian), and Panimatka
(Ukrainian), among others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Few occupations were identiﬁed on gravestones; there were a total of 25, 15 of
which identiﬁed military service (Table 7.6). Nine of the occupations identiﬁed were
religious: three were priests, one was a deacon, one a choir director of the church, and
four were the wives of priests (note: one priest and one priest’s wife were not married to
each other; their spouses were interred in different cemeteries). This is consistent with
Mytum’s observation that, when males are identiﬁed by occupation, it is frequently a
religious one (Mytum 20042148). Similarly, he notes, “the memorials of religious leaders
were often important monuments at the time of their erection, as they reﬂected not only a
family’s loss, but that of a community and wider organization” (Mytum 2004:150). This
also holds true, as the most prominent gravestone in the cemetery belonged to the man
who served as priest of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church for almost 30 years. Finally,
one individual was identiﬁed as the founder of an organization. No additional
information could be located on the organization, as a lack of the speciﬁc name of the
organization, spelling errors in the original Romanian inscription and time depth had

obscured a search for records. However, it is possible that the organization (“society”)

119

referred to was a benevolent society for other immigrants, a common institution in Flint

and other areas of high immigration at the time (see Chapter 4).

It is interesting that four of the individuals with titles are women, as it is much

more common for men’s occupations and titles to be identiﬁed in American cemeteries

(Mytum 2004, Giguere 2007, Rainville 1999). However, it is notable that all the

women’s titles refer to their role as the wife of a religious leader. Other gravestone

studies have observed the way in which women’s status in the cemetery is conferred

through their family (often spouse) (Rainville 19992570, Liebens 2003:63), and this

appears to be no exception. There is a noticeable absence of titles used in older

cemeteries, such as Mr., Mrs., and Miss, likely due to the time span of the St. Nicholas

 

 

 

 

 

 

Orthodox Cemetery.

Age

Table 7.7 Age at Death through Time
Time
Period Under] 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 to 35 36 to 50 51 to 65 66 to 80 Over 80
1918-
1935 12% 18% 7% 25% 25% 7% 5% 2%
1936-
1953 2% 4% 2% 9% 15% 42% 26% 0%
1954-
1971 4% 0% 0% 0% 7% 1 5% 59% 1 5%
1972-
1989 0% 0% 2% 0% 10% 20% 33% 35%
1990-
2007 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 6% 41 % 50%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120

 

Figure 7.1

 

Average Age at Death

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1918-1935 1936—1953 1954—1971 1972-1989 1990-2007

Year

 

 

 

The number of children interred at the cemetery declined through time, while
average age at death increased through time for the cemetery as a whole (Table 7.7). The
increase of the average age of death through time (Figure 7.1) is typical for demographics
in the United States during the twentieth century. However the average age at death of
individuals in the cemetery is lower for the ﬁrst part of the twentieth century than the
national average, meaning that individuals in this population were dying earlier on
average than the nation as whole (National Center for Health Statistics 20092203). This
could be the result of random sampling bias, or due to the fact that immi grants may have
worked in more physically strenuous or dangerous jobs, and had a higher incidence of
poverty, less access to medical assistance (likely in part due to language and monetary

barriers), and/or a greater incidence of malnutrition or other ailments.

121

Figure 7.2

 

Gender and Age at Death

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0% I T l 1 I f

Under 1to 11to 21 to 36to 51 to 66to Over
1 10 20 35 50 65 80 80

 

Age

 

 

 

Males and females had similar rates of death for the different age groups (Figure
7.2). It is unclear without looking at cause of death what accounts for the lower
incidence of deaths among males the 51 to 65 years in age, however it is typical for
females to live slightly longer than men. Deaths were relatively uncommon for children,
particularly during 11 to 20 years of age, which had the lowest number of deaths
represented in the cemetery. The most common age of death range in the cemetery is 66

to 80 years old, which is consistent with current United States life expectancy (United

States Department of Health and Human Services 2007:3).

122

Epitaph Length by Gender and Age at Death

Figure 7 .3 Gender and Epitaph Length

 

Gender and Epitaph Length

 

60.00%
50.00%
40.00%

 

 

 

 

30.00% 4

10.00% -

(1000/0 52:2 r L'lzl
0 words 1 to 4 5 to 9 10 or
words words more

Epitaph Length

 

 

Percentage

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is not a lot of variation between the genders in terms of length of epitaph,
however, men are more likely to have longer epitaphs than women (Figure 7.3). One
factor in this trend is the fact that all 15 inscriptions in the cemetery referencing military
service are on men’s gravestones, and the average length of a military inscription is 8.1
words (ﬁve are 10 or more words in length). The percentage of each gender that had no
epitaph is quite similar. Overall, epitaph length appears to have a slight correlation to
gender, in that men are more likely to have longer epitaphs (ﬁve or more words) than
women, while women are more likely to have shorter epitaphs of one to four words. It
appears that men’s epitaphs are more likely to contain information about their
background (origin, military service, etc.): 12 of the 15 gravestones containing origin
information belonged to men, two to women, and one to a couple, and as mentioned, all

the military inscriptions are on men’s gravestones. Inscriptions with such information are

123

longer on average than those with kinship terms, which are the more common

inscriptions for women’s graves. Again, we see some different emphases in identities for

men versus women, which show up as slight differences in epitaph length.

Figure 7.4 Age and Epitaph Length

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j
Age and Epitaph Length 1
70.00% 1
60.00% CK R 1
g 50.000/0 W— I 0 words 1»
0 _
5 $3.32: W— 0 “04mm
0 .
3 0 +5 to 9 word
0- 20.00% /X ,-
- -10 E
10.00% TEX —X——$Z X‘F X or mo—rt:J
1 0.000/0 “—X I l I I r u
‘ 606‘ ONQ or]? 00.30 0‘30 06.) 0 Q ‘%Q 1
x x x x x x o
‘30 \ KN 0:” “be” ‘0" 6° 04 1
Age

 

Table 7.8 Age and Epitaph Length lby Fre uency

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Under 1 to 11 to 21 to 36 to 51 to 66 to Over
1 year 10 20 35 50 65 80 80
0 words 4 6 2 6 9 17 36 20
1 to 4
words 6 5 2 8 21 23 45 24
5 to 9
words 1 1 1 2 4 9 9 l
10 or more 1 1 4 2 3 6 4
Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2
Total
(minus
Unknown) 1 1 13 6 20 36 52 96 49

 

 

There does not seem to be a strong correlation between epitaph length and age at

death, but several patterns are apparent (Figure 7 .4). It is not feasible to perform a chi-

square test on this data, as more than 20% of the cells have expected values of less than 5

124

(Table 7.8). However, a visual assessment suggests a number of trends. There are
relatively high rates of epitaphs of one to four words for the under 1 and 36 to 50 age
goups, while an absence of an epitaph was more common among those 36 to 50 years
old than for other age groups. Most epitaphs of one to four words are composed of
kinship terms, however, many also consist of the words “born” and “died” or impart
religious sentiments of bereavement, such as “Lord Rest Her Soul.”

By focusing on those short epitaphs that are composed of kinship terms, and
taking into account that the most common kinship terms are “mother” and “father”,
followed by terms for spouse and child, a hypothesis can be put forth. It is possible that
the reason that epitaphs of one to four words peaks among ages 36 to 50 is because
individuals who died at this age were likely to be married as well as parents, with
children who were probably old enough to have a role in selecting gravestone attributes,
but not old enough to have established families of their own. Therefore, the death of their
parents at this age may have prompted the selection of parental kinship terms for the
epitaph. In addition, the surviving parent or other family members likely identiﬁed the
decedent as having a primary role as a parent and spouse. Because of this, a number of
these short epitaphs likely reference the role of the individual as husband or wife as well,
as it is probable that an individual who died between the ages of 36 and 50 left a
surviving spouse. Short epitaphs of l to 4 words are also common among infants;
common epitaphs for this age group are “our baby” and “our son” (none use speciﬁcally
female-gendered kinship terms).

Figure 7.4 illustrates that epitaphs of 10 or more words were most common

among younger adults, speciﬁcally ages 21 to 35, but also ages 11 to 20. However, a

125

closer look at the actual frequencies (Table 7.8) reveals that there is in fact only one
epitaph longer than 10 words among the 11 to 20 age group (which had the smallest
frequency of deaths of all age groups). However, there are four epitaphs longer than 10
words in the 21 to 36 age group; therefore, small frequencies skew the percentages. All
four of these longer inscriptions include detailed origin information.

Discussion

By examining some of the speciﬁc identity markers which show up on
gravestones, a better understanding of individual identity in this cemetery is gained. As
previously noted, speciﬁc facets of identity are emphasized when gravestone attributes
are chosen. These include not only general aesthetic qualities, such as gravestone
material, form and size, but also information imparted in inscriptions, such as native
language, kinship roles, origin, and occupation or title. Gender and age are also indicated
through various ways, such as name and kinship terms.

In this cemetery, religious identity is apparent through the use of crosses on most
gravestones. Both religious and ethnic identity (as Orthodox Eastern European) is
emphasized through the dominance of the Orthodox cross form as opposed to the
“generic” Latin cross, although the latter is found in large numbers as well. The
importance of the church community is also apparent in the central placement and
impressive size of the gravestone for the church’s longest-serving priest, Reverend
Alexander Znamensky, as well as the inclusion of a large Orthodox Cross sculpture, also
centrally located, in the cemetery. Finally, with the exception of military service and the
identiﬁcation of one individual as the founder of an organization, the only occupations

and titles identiﬁed in gravestone inscriptions were religious ones.

126

Ethnicity is marked in various ways in this cemetery as well. Almost eighteen
percent of the gravestones contain inscriptions in a language other than English, and
thirteen of the ﬁfteen markers identifying origin reference overseas locations. The use of
languages other than English for gravestone inscriptions is very similar for gravestones of
males and females. Conversely, it is much more common for males to have their origin
inscribed on gravestones. Other possible ethnic markers are not utilized in the cemetery,
such as images or symbols on gravestones that reference speciﬁc cultures. Overall,
ethnic identity is visible in the cemetery, but it does not appear to be the primary identity
emphasized.

Kinship terms are relatively common, with parental terms being the most popular,
followed by terms for spouse, and then children. Male kinship terms are slightly more
popular than female kinship terms, particularly for siblings and children. The age groups
for the cemetery reﬂect contemporaneous mortality trends in America, with the exception
that individuals interred at the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery in the ﬁrst part of the
twentieth century died at an earlier average age compared to America as a whole.
Epitaph length does not seem to vary greatly based on age, although some trends are
apparent. Such trends appear based in part on the ways that epitaphs are utilized to
provide kinship, origin, and occupation information at the cemetery. For example, the
frequency at which individuals of a certain age are likely to have short epitaphs reﬂects
the likelihood that many of these epitaphs identify their role as parent, spouse or child.
Similarly, epitaph length does not seem strongly linked to gender, although men are
slightly more likely to have longer epitaphs than women are. This reﬂects in part that

many of the longer epitaphs containing origin information are on the gravestones of

127

males rather than females; likewise, military epitaphs, which are longer than average, are
only found on the gravestones of men in the cemetery.

Overall, a number of identity makers are apparent. In this chapter, those which
can be linked to individual identity roles are examined for a more ﬁne-grained
understanding of how such roles are made salient in the cemetery. Through an
exploration of the facets of identity that are visible, we also are made aware of those that
are not emphasized, such as other occupations, and membership in non-religious
institutions. Similarly, although ethnic identity is certainly visible in the cemetery,
symbols unique to speciﬁc ethnicities are not utilized. This suggests that, although
identities of speciﬁc ethnic groups are not disguised or suppressed, such identities are
secondary, at least in the cemetery, to one’s identity as an Orthodox Christian.
Nonetheless, as discussed above, Orthodox Christianity is primarily a religious identity,
but the symbol of the Orthodox cross can indicate a broader Orthodox Eastern European

ethnic identity as well.

128

Chapter 8: Conclusion
Introduction

Through the analysis of gravestone attributes in the St. Nicholas Orthodox
cemetery, a number of insights into ethnicity and identity are realized. In comparing
individuals by origin (North American- versus foreign-born) we ﬁnd that in some
respects, gravestone attributes selected for immi grants differ from those selected for
second- generation or later individuals. These include the use of languages other than
English for inscriptions, gravestone forms, origin information in epitaphs, and the
proportion of single to double gravestones. For other attributes, such as the directions
gravestones face, there is very little difference between the two groups.

The unique contributions of this study include the identiﬁcation of the importance
of categorizing gravestones by the deceased's origin as North American or foreign-born;
this appears to be a determining factor in gravestone attribute selection. Some past
studies, while making important advances to the ﬁeld of cemetery studies in many
respects, fail to elucidate generational differences in gravestones due to their reliance on
subjective or vague attributions of ethnicity to gravestones. By using historical
documents to determine individual origin, 1 was able to conclusively demonstrate that
immigrant's gravestones in an ethnically mixed, but religiously uniﬁed cemetery varied in
substantial ways from second-generation or later gravestones, speciﬁcally in the use of
ethnic identity markers. Therefore, when studies group gravestones by "ethnic" and
"nonethnic" with no consideration for generation, an entire dimension of variability is

overlooked.

129

In previous studies, an “ethnic” cemetery has been deﬁned as one in which recent
(approximately mid-nineteenth century or later) immigrants and their descendants are
interred. However, as mentioned, these studies do not separate out individuals by
generation (for example, Anderson 1993, Broce 1996, Carlson-Cumbo 1989, Eckert
2002, Mediwsky 1989, Otto 2004). Other studies compare ethnic gravestones to
“nonethnic” gravestones, deﬁned as those belonging to individuals whose ancestors had
immigrated to America prior to the mid-nineteenth century (Clark 1987:383). This is not
to say that these authors ignore the differences that are likely present between
generations, but they do not explicitly assign individuals (and therefore their gravestones)
to immigrant or later- generation status. Rather, assumptions are made regarding
generation based on gravestone attributes; for example, degree of ﬂuency in a non-
English language on gravestone inscriptions might suggest a later generation individual.
Such approaches can provide important insights, but this study suggests that
dissimilarities between generations based on concrete identiﬁcation of individuals by
origin as determined through census, naturalization, or immigration records, may be
obscured.

Summary of Findings

This study of the cemetery of an ethnically mixed congregation provides new
layers of understanding concerning how ethnic and religious identities manifest on
gravestones. As noted, religion appears to be the primary identity for the cemetery as a
whole, which suggests the importance that the community placed on remaining
religiously uniﬁed despite ethnic differences. However, the acknowledgement of

individual ethnic identity still appears in the form of native language inscriptions and the

130

identiﬁcation of individual origins on gravemarkers. This suggests that the need for
religious uniﬁcation was strong, but not to the extent that it eclipsed individual ethnic
identity. This illustrates the importance of asserting ethnic identity at death for some
members of the community.

With the consideration of language of inscription and the identiﬁcation of origin
in inscriptions as the two primary ethnicity markers in this cemetery, results demonstrate
that foreign-born individuals had their ethnic identity emphasized to a greater degree.
Foreign-bom gravestones were also more likely to exhibit an Orthodox cross, which may
be considered a marker of pan-Eastem European Orthodox ethnicity as well as religious
identity (Kostecki 1989, Carlson-Cumbo 1989). With some variables, such as language
of inscription, the difference between North American-bom and foreign-born was
pronounced, with foreign-born being much more likely to have a foreign-language
inscription. This indicates that there is variation in the way that ethnicity is “assigned” at
death depending on whether an individual is native born or foreign born.

An individual’s place of origin can be a very important factor in shaping identity;
therefore, it is not surprising that this may be signiﬁed at death. In the cemetery,
individuals born overseas were more likely to have their origin noted on their gravestone,
and were more likely to have the inscription in their native language than North
American-bom individuals. Foreign-born were also more likely to have an Orthodox
cross engraved on their gravestone. All indicators of ethnicity (language of inscription,
identiﬁcation of origin in inscription, and the presence of an Orthodox cross) in the
cemetery were more likely to be found on foreign-born than North American-bom

individuals’ gravestones.

131

Speciﬁcally, there was a pronounced difference in the use of language between
foreign- and North American-bom in this study. This makes sense, particularly if
descendants are selecting theinscriptions. The third generation who might select the
second generation’s gravestone will probably not be ﬂuent in the ancestral language, and
would therefore likely select the language that both they and their parents spoke ﬂuently
(i.e. English). Along these lines, those selecting the inscription may wish to emphasize
ethnicity, but choose to do so in other ways if they do not have the language ﬂuency to
select or compose predominantly foreign-language inscriptions. For example, they may
select kinship terms in the ancestral language; there are numerous gravestones in the
cemetery which are in both English and another language, commonly with kinship terms
in the non-English language. Of course, individual ethnic identity may be manifested
within the community in various ways other than language use, for example, in foodways
and community events, many of which will not be visible in the cemetery.

Ethnicity was no doubt most pronounced in certain unalterable ways, such as
language ﬂuency, mannerisms, and knowledge of America, in the immigrant generation.
Because of this, it is not surprising that ethnic identity is marked on the gravestones of
more immigrants than North American-bom individuals in the cemetery. Those born in
North America certainly had an identity as an “ethnic” American, such as Russian-
American, but they would have been able to function in American culture unmarked by a
distinctive ethnic identity in many situations.

In addition, it is possible that Flint's Eastern European community had a relatively
high rate of out-maniage, at least for individual ethnicities. This might account for a

more rapid dissipation of speciﬁc ethnic identities through the generations, at least as

132

evidenced by gravestone attributes. Many factors could result in this, including the
drastic decrease in immigration from Eastern Europe due to government-imposed quotas
from the 19203 to the 19603. By the time restrictions were lifted, Eastern Europeans
were no longer immigrating to the US for unskilled labor positions in large numbers
(Bennett 19812101, Padgett 19902261, Erdmans 1995); hence F lint’s manufacturing
industry did not provide a draw. Similarly, around the time that the immigration
restrictions were removed, Flint began its economic decline (Faires and Hanﬂik
2005:122, 126). As a result of these factors, there was not a steady inﬂux of individuals
of the same religion and ethnicity into Flint following the 19203. No single ethnicity
represented in the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church congregation was large enough to
warrant its own church; therefore, there was no doubt intermarriage between ethnicities
in the congregation, which also may have led to a decrease on the emphasis of individual
etlmicities in favor of a pan-Eastem European ethnicity. Indeed, the community was
remarkable in the degree to which different ethnicities intermixed in their work, religion,
and social aspects of daily lives. In addition to joining together to form the St. Nicholas
Orthodox Church, members of the congregation lived in the culturally diverse and
integrated St. John Street neighborhood, as well as participated in numerous ethnically
mixed social events and clubs. This interrnixing likely reinforced the presence of a pan-
Eastem European identity within the congregation.

It should be noted that the higher incidence of ethnic markers on foreign-born
gravestones is not as inevitable an outcome as it may seem, despite the fact that foreign-
bom would in many respects be considered more ethnic both within the community and

outside of it. There are numerous reasons why family members would choose not to

133

select ethnic identity markers for gravestones of foreign-born relatives. Similarly, even
though foreign-bom individuals were more likely to have ethnic markers on their
gravestones than North American-bom, the majority of foreign-born gravestones did not
exhibit distinct ethnicity markers beyond the predominance of the Orthodox cross.

Reasons might include acceptance of an American identity as the primary
ethnicity (despite overseas origins), reluctance on the part of family members (or the
individuals themselves) to draw attention to the fact that one’s family is “ethnic,” at least
on the gravestone, and the primacy of other identities, such as religion. Similarly, the
new ethnicity movement of the 19703 took place among second and third generation
ethnic Americans, demonstrating that the utilization of cultural symbols to proclaim
ethnic identity is not limited to foreign-born individuals, and in fact could have been
equaled or surpassed by North American-bom individuals in the cemetery. Therefore, the
fact that foreign-born individuals had a higher incidence of ethnic identity markers on
their gravestones was not inevitable, but rather provides an interesting insight into how
ethnicity was demonstrated within this cemetery.
Implications for Ethnic Cemetery Research

As mentioned, for many cemetery studies, individuals are often grouped into
categories based on their ethnicity as perceived by the researcher. This can be
determined through historical research on the community, use of surname dictionaries,
and conversations with local individuals. Such approaches are useful for establishing the
existence of ethnicity in a cemetery, but often result in the grouping of North American-

and foreign-born individuals together as “ethnic.” This is certainly a valid category in

134

many cases and there is much to be learned by looking at a distinct ethnic community
across many generations without separating out individuals by origin.

However, it is also worthwhile to compare some of the differences in ethnic
identity ascription based on an individual’s status as an immigrant or later generation
American, as demonstrated in this study. In respect to some attributes observed in this
cemetery, North American-bom gravemarkers more closely parallel general trends in
American cemeteries. For example, the use of lower proﬁle gravestones, less variation in
form, less motifs per gravestone, and use of the Latin cross on North American-bom
gravestones mirrored broader trends in American cemeteries, while foreign-born
gravestones differed in these respects. Therefore, the categorization of individuals based
on their origin or “generation” can yield new insights into ethnic identity representation
in the cemetery. Thus, this research conclusively demonstrates a whole new level of
variability in “ethnic” cemeteries that has not been detected in previous studies which do
not categorize individuals (and hence, gravestones) by origin.

This thesis contributes to the ﬁeld of cemetery studies by providing analyses and
interpretation of data on a less-researched ethnic and religious group: Eastern European
Orthodox Christian. In addition, the combined use of quantitative and qualitative
approaches reveal unique layers of information concerning the use of gravestone
attributes through time, particularly when comparing individuals by origin. The
quantitative approach in particular facilitates comparison with datasets from other
cemeteries, and enables statistically signiﬁcant trends to be identiﬁed. This approach

also allowed for the detection of patterns in the data that would not be evident at the level

135

of observation alone. Likewise, the categorization of individuals by origin allowed for a
more nuanced understanding of changes in identity through successive generations.
Future Research Directions

One avenue of research that would enhance this study of ethnic identity as
manifested on gravestones would be to examine the selection process of gravestone
attributes within an ethnic community. This could involve interviews with community
members who have participated in this process, and also with local funeral homes that
facilitate the process. A detailed spatial analysis of the cemetery, which takes into
consideration year of burial, family relationships and ethnicity, would also lend
additional insights into the way in which the cemetery is utilized, perhaps revealing
further information concerning identity. The collection of additional information on the
familial relationships among individuals would provide a way to ascertain if certain
traditions or patterns of gravestone attribute selection were unique to speciﬁc families.
Finally, a comparison of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery with other cemeteries
would be fascinating. These could include other cemeteries in the area that are not
composed primarily of recent immigrants to get a better idea of how unique the cemetery
of focus is, cemeteries in one or more of the countries of origin to determine if certain
gravestone attributes persisted across space, and studies of single-ethnicity cemeteries in
the US. to determine if some of the traits in this cemetery are due to signiﬁcant ethnic
admixture.
Conclusion

This study focuses on gravemarkers of an ethnically diverse congregation who

intermixed to a large extent in life. Individuals were neither clustered by ethnicity in the

136

neighborhood in which they lived, nor spatially divided by ethnicity in burial. Similarly,
the results of analyses show that the Orthodox facet of individual identity was
emphasized to a great degree in the cemetery, suggesting that religious unity was an
important aspect of this congregation. Even so, individual ethnicity was not completely
absent in the cemetery. Examples of this include inscriptions in diverse native languages
and the identiﬁcation of overseas origins. Of particular interest is theme of the term
Macedonia, which was not recognized as a separate country or republic at the time it was
listed as a place of origin on three of the gravemakers.

Both qualitative and quantitative forms of research were utilized to carry out a
systematic study of ethnicity as evidenced by gravestones, and historical research was
conducted to determine individual origin. This combined approach will hopefully serve
as a starting point for future comprehensive gravestone studies concerning ethnicity. This
study brings to the fore a number of unique observations about how identity is manifested
in a mixed-ethnicity cemetery representing a single religious congregation. Likewise, it
is apparent that a much richer understanding of how identity is linked to generation
becomes apparent when gravestones are categorized by the North American or overseas
origin of individuals. It is hoped that both the approach and results of this study will
make a contribution to the way in which ethnicity in the cemetery is studied and

understood.

137

APPENDICES

138

APPENDIX A

Map of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery

139

 

lie

 

Figure A.1 Map of the St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery (Not to Scale)

SECTION B

     

SECTION H SECTION A

SECTION C

 

SECTION G

 

SECTION F

I-——I

Approx. 10m

 

 

 

140

Appendix B

Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables

141

 

Table B.1 Gravestone Height

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Height in cm
Mean 49.36287
Median 45.5
Mode 31
Min 20
Max 175
St Dev 21.35141

 

 

 

Table B.2 Gravestone Average Width

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average width in cm
Mean 19.59267
Median 16
Mode 10
Min 3
Max 910
St Dev 58.9125
Table 8.3 Gravestone Length
Length in cm
Mean 63.59205
Median 62
Mode 62
Min 29
Max 147
St Dev 21.23987
Table B.4 Number of Words in Epitaph
Number of Words
Mean 2.761506
Median 1
Mode 0
Min 0
Max 34
St Dev 4.329596
Table B.5 Number of Motifs per Gravestone
Number of Motifs
Mean 1.65272
Median 2
Mode 2
Minimum 0
Maximum 4
St Dev 0.991933

 

 

 

 

142

 

 

Appendix C

Chi-Square Results

143

 

Table C.l Four Most Common Gravestone Forms

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period Block Cross Shape Raised Slant Block
1918-1935 4 (14.47) 24 (8.29) 9 (8.53) 13 (18.5)
1936—1953 13 (12.3) 7 (6.97) 16 (7.17) 16 (15.5)
1954-1971 22 (17.6) 3 (9.95) 8 (10.2) 22.2 (27)
1972—1989 18 (11.5) 1 (6.47) 9 (6.65) 11 (14.4)
1990-2007 5 (5.88) 0 (3.32) 413.41) 11 (7.39)
{=6zz
degrees of freedom = 12
probability = 0.000 (signiﬁcant)5
Table C.2 Four Most Common Gravestone Styles
Time Period Crosses Style 1 Style 2 £er 10
1918-1935 24 (8.43) 20(22.1) l (5.78) 7 (15.6)
1936—1953 7 (6.97) 18 (18.3) 8 (4.78) 10 (12.9)
1954-1971 3 (9.24) 24 (24.3) 7 (6.33) 23 (17.2)
1972-1989 1 (7.13) 23 (18.7) 4 (4.89) 16 (13.2)
1990-2007 0 (3.24) 7 (8.52) 4 (2.22) 9 (6.02)
{=602
degrees of freedom = 12
probability = 0.000 (signiﬁcant)
Table C.3 Material of Gravestone
Time Period Granite Marble
1918-1935 26 (44.0) 29 (11.0)
1936-1953 38 (36.0) 7 (9.04)
1954-1971 56 (48.7) 5 (12.3)
1972-1989 40 (33.6) 2 (8.44)
1990-2007 19 (16.8) 2 (4.22)
{=561
degrees of freedom = 4
probability = 0.000 (signiﬁcant)
Table C.4 Directions Gravestones Face
Time Period East West
1918-1935 29 (29.8) 26 (25.2)
1936-1953 21 (26.6) 28 (22.4)
1954-1971 37 (34.7) 27 (29.3)
1972-1989 28 (24.9) 18 (21.1)
1990-2007 13 (11.9) 9 (10.1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 Cut-off level for signiﬁcance: u=0.05

M4

 

 

f=396

degrees of freedom = 4

probability = 0.411 (not signiﬁcant)

Table C.5 Number of Individuals

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period Single Double
1918—1935 51 (45) 7 (13.0)
1936-1953 36 (36.5) 11 (10.5)
1954-1971 46 (49.7) 18 (14.3)
1972-1989 36 (35.7) 10 (10.3)
1990-2007 15 (17.1) 7 (4.92)

 

* Triple and quadruple stones excluded

f=594

degrees of freedom = 4

probability = 0.204 (not signiﬁcant)

Table C.6 Langu_age of Inscription (English or Other)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period English Other

1918-1935 32 (47.5) 23 (7.51)

1936-1953 46 (41.4) 2 (6.56)

1954-1971 57 (51.8) 3 (8.19L

1972-1989 40 (37.1) 3 (5.87)

1990-2007 21 (18.1) 0 (2.87)
f=494

degrees of ﬁ'eedom = 4
probability = 0.000 (signiﬁcant)

Table C.7 Language of Inscription (English or Other/Both)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period English Other and Both

1918-1935 32 (47.6) 26 (10.4)

1936-1953 46 (40.2) 3 (8.82)

1954-1971 57 (52.5) 7 (11.5)

1972-1989 40 (37.7) 6 (8.28)

1990-2007 21 Q80) 1 (3.96)
{=3a6

degrees of freedom = 4
probability = 0.000 (signiﬁcant)

145

 

 

 

Table C.8 Number of Motifs per Gravestone (Excluding 4 Motifs)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Time Period 0 Motifs 1 Motif 2 Motifs 3 Motifs
1918-1935 16 (8.43) 17 (16.9) 18 (22.3) 7 (10.4)
1936-1953 11 (6.97) 7 (13.9) 22 (18.5) 8 (8.62)
1954-1971 5 (9.15) 20 (18.3) 27 (24.2) 11 (11.3)
1972-1989 2 (6.39) 16 (12.8) 16 (16.9) 10 (7.90)
1990-2007 0 (3.05) 8 (6.10) 7 (8.08) 6 (3.77)

x2 = 27.2

degrees of freedom = 12

probability = 0.007 (signiﬁcant)

Table C.9 Cross Type (Excluding Cross 3)
Time Period Cross 1 (Orthodox) Cross 2 (Latin) None
1918—1935 14 (26.8) 18 (17.0) 25 (13.3)
1936-1953 22 (23.0) 14 (14.6) 13 (11.4)
1954-1971 36 (30.1) 19 (19.0) 9 (14.9)
1972-1989 28 (20.7) 12 (13.1) 4 (10.2)
1990-2007 9 (8.46) 6 (5.35) 3 (4.19)

x2 = 27.3

degrees of freedom = 8
probability = 0.001 (signiﬁcant)

146

 

 

Appendix D

Frequency Tables

147

.3.-

 

Only frequency tables for iconography and gravestone proﬁles are included in this
appendix. Frequencies for these two variables are included as tables because these
variables exhibit a very wide range of types in small frequencies, and therefore are not
suitable for graphical representations or most statistical analyses. Engraved cross type is
not included in the iconography table because the frequencies were sufﬁcient for analysis
results are discussed in Chapter 5.

In Table D. 1 , iconography was tallied based on discrete symbols to reﬂect the
cost of having a certain number of motifs engraved. For example, “ﬂowers and leaves” is
counted separately from “ﬂowers” or “leaves” because there were certain discrete
engravings composed of a ﬂower-and-leaf motif, which differed from a ﬂower motif
spatially distinct from a leaf motif on the same gravestone. The same holds true for
“Grapes” versus “Grapes and Leaves,” and “Primrose” versus “Primrose and Buds.”

":13
A 'A I '

Table D.1 Flora Symbol Frequencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D.2 Non-Flora Symbol Frequencies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Symbol Count Percentage
Open Book 10 14.08%
Photograph 9 12.68%
Banner 7 9.86%
Closed Book 7 9.86%
Heart 7 9.86%
Angel 5 7.04%
Clasped Hands 5 7.04%

 

148

Symbol Count Percentage ; .-
Primrose 47 35.88% ‘
Rose 31 23.66% . .
Leaves 1 l 8.40% '7'
Ivy 8 6.11%

Flower 4 3.05%

Oak Leaves and Acorns 4 3.05%

Flowers and Leaves 3 2.29%

Grapes and Leaves 3 2.29%

Morning Glory 4 3.05%

Primrose and Buds 3 2.29%

Dogwood 2 1.53%

Lilies 2 1.53%

Primrose and Leaves 2 1.53%

Tulip 2 1.53%

Calla Lily l 0.76%

Grapes 1 0.76%

Passion Flower l 0.76%

Wheat 1 0.76%

Willow 1 0.76%

Total 1 3 1 100.00%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table D.2 Gont’d).
Image of Jesus 3 4.23%
Scroll with "INRI" 3 4.23%
Bird on Branch 2 2.82%
Doves 2 2.82%
Chalices l 1 .41 %
Child 1 1.41%
Column 1 1.41%
Cruciﬁxion Scene 1 1.41%
Gothic Arch 1 1.41%
Lamb 1 1.41%
Rocks 1 1.41%
Saint in Prayer 1 1.41%
Scroll 1 1.41%
Vase 1 1.41%
Waves 1 1.41%
Total 71 100.00%

Table D.3 Gravestone Profile (Shape 2) Frequencies
Style 1918- 1936- 1954- 1972- 1990- Total Percentage

1935 1953 1971 1989 2007

1 20 18 24 23 7 92 38.66%
2 1 8 7 4 4 24 10.08%
3 1 3 0 0 0 4 1.68%
4 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.84%
5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.42%
6 l6 4 1 0 0 21 8.82%
7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.42%
8 l 0 0 0 0 1 0.42%
9 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.42%
10 7 10 23 16 9 65 27.31%
11 0 0 1 0 O 1 0.42%
12 0 0 4 1 0 5 2.10%
13 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.42%
14 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.42%
15 0 0 l 0 0 1 0.42%
16 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.42%
17 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.42%
18 0 0 1 1 0 2 0.84%
19 8 3 1 0 0 12 5.04%
20 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.42%
Crosses 24 7 3 1 0 35
combined 14.71%
Total 57 49 65 47 20 238 100.00%

 

149

 

 

Appendix E

Dataset

150

Table E.l Dataset Part I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Coding for Age at
No. Country of Origin Origin Death DOB DOD

1 Yugoslavia Old World 81 1888 1969

2 Russia Old World 74 1892 1966

3 United States North America 75 1 924 2000

4 United States North America 75 1924 2000

5 Russia Old World 74 1895 1970

6 United States North America 58 191 5 1975

7 United States North America 73 191 1 1985

8 United States North America 47 191 5 1963

9 Yugoslavia Old World 74 1885 1959
10 United States North America 65 1920 1 985
1 1 Ukraine Old World 64 1893 1957
12 United States North America 82 1921 2003
13 Romania Old World 80 1884 1964
14 United States North America 71 1927 1999
1 5 United States North America 49 1924 1973
1 6 United States North America 65 1 904 1 970
1 7 United States North America 56 1884 1940
18 Carpathia Old World 77 1874 1952
19 United States North America 74 191 1 1986
20 United States North America 67 1927 1995
21 United States North America 17 Days 1967 1967
22 United States North America 73 1918 1 992
23 Austria Old World 86 1 880 1966
24 Austria Old World 60 1 878 1 948
25 Canada North America 61 1918 1980
26 Poland Old World 83 1877 1961
27 United States/Poland North America 64 1903 1967
28 United States North America 42 1945 1988
29 Russia Old World 73 1885 1958
30 Unknown Unknown 46 1 891 1937
31 Russia Old World 73 1899 1973
32 Russia Old World 77 1897 1974
33 United States North America 23 1921 1944
34 Czechoslavakia Old World 64 1 882 1942
35 United States North America 36 1 91 7 1953
36 United States North America 79 1918 1 997
37 Unknown Unknown 15 1966 1981
38 Unknown Unknown 50 1917 1967
39 United States North America 72 1 91 5 1 987
40 Bulgaria Old World 62 1895 1957
41 Ukraine/Austria Old World 55 1890 1 945
42 Unknown Unknown 7 1 939 1948
43 Austria Old World 60 1 890 1 950
44 Austria Old World 68 1894 1 963
45 Austria/Russia Old World 68 1880 1948
46 United States North America 42 191 3 1955

 

151

 

 

Table E.1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Coding for Age at

No. Country of Origin Origin Death DOB DOD
47 United States North America 50 191 7 1967
48 United States North America 60 1914 1975
49 Russia Old World 72 1882 1954
50 Austria/Hungary Old World 70 1880 1950
51 United States North America 61 1914 1976
52 Austria Old World 80 1875 1959
53 Russia Old World 65 1883 1949
54 Unknown Unknown 86 1914 2000
55 Romania Old World 68 1878 1951
56 Poland/Russia Old World 66 1875 1941
57 United States North America 52 1940 1992
58 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1919 None
59 Unknown Unknown Unknown 1943 None
60 United States North America 64 1 91 6 1 980
61 United States North America 11 Months 1954 1955
62 Russia Old World 70 1916 1987
63 Unknown Unknown 76 1 926 2002
64 Russia Old World 76 1921 1998
65 Russia Old World 88 1898 1987
66 United States North America 66 191 7 1984
67 Poland/Romania Old World 62 1897 1 959
68 United States North America 13 Hours 1969 1969
69 United States North America 63 1916 1979
70 Russia Old World 79 1886 1965
71 Ukraine/Czechoslovakia Old World 79 1898 1978
72 German Poland/ United States Old World 70 1868 1938
73 Yuggslavia Old World 50 1 899 1949
74 Yugoslavia Old World 72 1887 1960
75 Yugslavia Old World 84 1895 1980
76 Serbia Old World 66 1870 1934
77 Yugoslavia Old World 67 1890 1957
78 United States North America 6 1932 1937
79 Russia Old World 54 1877 1931
80 Russia Old World 77 1876 1953
81 Russia/United States Old World 64 1908 1973
82 United States North America 52 1948 2000
83 United States North America 43 1919 1963
84 United States North America 62 1923 1985
85 Austria Old World 71 1 885 1956
86 Austria Old World 5 1913 1918
87 Poland Old World 76 1880 1956
88 United States North America 75 1919 1995
89 United States North America 51 1 909 1 961
90 Russia Old World 70 1884 1955
91 Russia Old World 82 1880 1972
92 Romania Old World 4 1896 1935

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

152

 

Table E.l (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Coding for Age at
No. Country of Orngn Origin Death DOB DOD
93 Romania Old World 74 1898 1973
94 Austria Old World 71 1 880 1 954
95 Unknown Unknown 47 1892 1939
96 Romania Old World 62 1885 1947
97 Poland Old World 80 1906 None
98 Lithuania Old World 83 1880 1964
99 Unknown Unknown 69 1 873 1942
100 Poland Old World 58 1 897 1956
101 United States North America 21 191 8 1 948
102 Poland Old World 41 1910 1951
103 Russia Old World 54 1884 1967
104 Russia Old World 74 1887 1961
105 Poland/ Unknown Old World 69 1885 1954
106 Russia Old World 80 1888 1968
107 Russia Old World 57 1908 1966
108 Austria/Y ugoslavia/ Russia Old World 57 1885 1942
109 Yugoslavia Old World 77 1887 1965
1 10 Russia Old World 61 1869 1930
1 1 1 Russia Old World 28 1904 1933
1 12 Unknown Unknown 74 1891 1966
1 13 Poland/Galicia Old World 54 1876 1930
1 14 United States North America <1 year 1951 1951
1 15 United States North America 93 1907 2000
1 16 United States/Austria North America 1 6 1 91 0 1926
1 17 United States North America 44 1929 1974
1 18 Russia Old World 39 1890 1930
1 19 Russia Old World 88 1868 1956
120 Russia Old World 79 1892 1972
1 21 United States North America 1 6 1 926 1 942
122 Russia Old World 32 1 895 1929
123 United States North America 69 191 5 1985
124 Poland/Poland Old World 42 1891 1931
125 United States North America 27 191 7 1945
126 United States North America 28 1889 1918
127 Unknown Unknown 23 1895 1918
128 Poland Old World 96 1907 2003
129 United States North America 23 1927 1951
130 Ukraine Old World 58 1917 1975
131 Russia Old World 36 1900 1932
132 Poland Old World 46 1889 1934
133 Austria Old World 45 1881 1928
134 Austria Old World 45 1881 1928
135 Unknown Unknown 49 1896 1939
136 United States/Austria North America 38 1890 1928
137 United States North America 4 Months 1929 1930
138 United States North America 18 191 3 1931

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

 

 

 

Table E.l (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Coding for Age at
No. Country of Origin Origin Death DOB DOD
139 Unknown Unknown 50 1890 1940
140 Russia Old World 58 1889 1947
141 Austria/Unknown Old World 19 1912 1932
142 Russia Old World 65 ~1880 1944
143 Russia Old World 85 1870 1935
144 Canada North America 54 1915 1970
145 Austria Old World 48 1890 1935
146 Romania Old World 70 1849 1 936
147 Yugoslavia Old World 80 1894 1975
148 Russia Old World 81 1910 1991
149 Russia Old World 69 1890 1960
150 Russia Old World 55 1883 1938
151 Unknown Unknown 52 1885 1938
152 Russia Old World 59 1889 1948
153 Austria Old World 59 1885 1945
154 Russia Old World 96 1904 2000
155 Russia Old World 83 1904 1988
156 Russia Old World 44 1934 1979
157 Russia Old World 24 1907 1931
158 Macedonia Old World 55 1905 1960
1 59 Unknown Unknown 70 1866 1 936
160 Poland Old World 43 1892 1935
161 Unknown Unknown 76 1866 1934
162 Yugoslavia Old World 51 1889 1944
163 Unknown Unknown 15 1905 1920
164 Hungary Old World 43 1881 1924
165 United States North America 6 Months 1921 1921
166 Romania Old World 31 1889 1920
167 Macedonia Old World 23 1 896 1920
168 Macedonia Old World 69 1919 1988
169 Macedonia Old World 33 1888 1918
1 70 Turkey Old World 28 1896 1924
1 71 Unknown Unknown 30 1 894 1 924
172 Greece Old World 70 1890 1971
1 73 Turkey Old World 67 1892 1959
1 74 Persia Old World 99 1870 1969
175 Unknown Unknown 94 1909 2003
1 76 United States North America 2 1918 1920
177 Estonia Old World 87 191 5 2002
178 Estonia Old World 44 1924 1968
1 79 United States North America 10 191 6 1926
180 Macedonia Old World Unknown Unknown 1918
181 Russia Old World 32 1895 1929
182 United States North America 27 191 7 1945
183 Russia Old World 75 1895 1971
184 Austria/Hungry Old World 67 1876 1945

 

 

 

 

154

 

 

Table E.1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Coding for Age at
No. Country of Origin Origin Death DOB DOD
185 United States North America 64 191 1 1975
186 Unknown Unknown 5 1919 1924
187 United States North America 9 1 91 3 1 922
188 Other Old World 87 1896 1985
189 Unknown Unknown 93 1895 1988
190 Other Old World 70 1897 1967
191 Ukraine Old World 76 1917 1994
192 Russia Old World 89 1890 1979
193 Russia Old World 74 1 889 1963
1 94 Other/ Unknown Old World 72 1909 1 982
195 Russia Old World 87 1887 1974
196 Poland/Austria and Galicia Old World 70 1888 1959
197 Austria Old World 72 1885 1957
198 United States North America 73 191 5 1988
199 United States North America 71 1912 1 983
200 Russia Old World 53 1886 1940
201 Austria Old World 8 1917 1926
202 Russia Old World 53 1886 1939
203 Ukraine Old World 73 1885 1958
204 Unknown Unknown 52 1932 1984
205 quoslavia Old World 83 1910 1993
206 Poland Old World 70 1 894 1 965
207 Romania Old World 70 1888 1959
208 United States North America 5 1 91 6 1 922
209 United States North America 80 1907 1987
210 Yugoslavia Old World 53 1896 1950
211 United States North America 47 1939 1986
212 Macedonia Old World 37 1893 1932
21 3 Syria Old World 35 1891 1926
214 Unknown Unknown 7 1916 1923
21 5 Austria Old World 23 1895 1918
216 United States North America 2 Days 1925 1925
21 7 Other Old World 36 1884 1920
218 United States North America <1 year 1920 1920
21 9 United States North America 1 1 921 1 922
220 United States North America 2 1920 1923
221 United States North America 4 1918 1 923
222 Romania Old World 45 1878 1930
223 United States North America 9 Months 1927 1928
224 Russia Old World 55 1889 1944
225 Hungary Old World 70 1882 1952
226 Yugslavia Old World 61 1888 1950
227 Unknown Unknown 54 1897 1951
228 Yugslavia Old World 79 1 873 1 955
229 Serbia Old World 34 1887 1 922
230 Ukraine Old World 79 1879 1959

 

 

 

 

 

 

155

 

 

 

Table E.1 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Coding for Age at

No. Country of Origin Origin Death DOB DOD
231 Greece Old World 88 1872 1 960
232 Macedonia Old World 82 1907 1 990
233 Macedonia Old World 89 1898 1 988
234 Austria/Greece Old World 52 1910 1962
235 Macedonia Old World 67 1896 1963
236 Yugoslavia Old World 71 1892 1964
237 Greece Old World 66 1 902 1969
238 Yigoslavia Old World 85 1888 1 973
239 Bglqaria Old World 84 1889 1974
240 Persia Old World 67 1895 1 962
241 Persia Old World 76 1857 1 933
242 Other Old World 37 1897 1 934

 

 

 

 

 

 

156

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.2 Dataset Part II
Grave Time No. of Profile
No. Period6 Individuals Form (Shagej (ShapeZ)
1 3 S Slant block 1
2 3 D Slant block 10
3 5 S Lawn 1
4 5 D Slant block 10
5 3 D Block 2
6 4 S Lawn 1
7 4 S Raised 1
8 3 S Raised 1
9 3 D Block 10
10 4 S Lawn 1
1 1 3 D Slant Block 10
1 2 5 S Slant block 10
1 3 3 D Block 1
14 5 S Tablet Unknown
1 5 4 S Slant block 1
16 3 S Lawn 1
1 7 2 S Slant block 3
18 2 S Slant block 3
19 4 S Raised 1
20 5 S Slant block 2
21 3 S Raised 1
22 5 S Raised 1
23 3 S Block 1 1
24 2 S Block 2
25 4 8 Block 10
26 3 D Block 10
27 3 D Block 1
28 4 S Block 1 0
29 3 D Block 1 2
3O 2 D Block 1 3
31 4 D Block 1
32 4 S Block 1
33 2 S Slant block 1
34 2 D Block 10
35 2 D Slant block 2
36 5 D Slant block 10
37 4 S Raised 1
38 3 S Raised 1
39 4 D Slant block 10
40 3 S Slant block 1 2
41 2 D Block 10
42 2 S Slant block 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 Time Period 1: 1918-1935; Time Period 221936-1953; Time Period 3: 1954-1972; Time Period 4: 1972-
1989; Time Period 521990-2007. Those gravestones coded “0” for Time Period do not have date of death
engraved.

157

 

 

Table E.2 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Time No. of Proﬁle
No. Period Individuals Form (Shape 1) (ShapeZL
43 2 S Slant block 1
44 3 S Block 1
45 2 D Block 10
46 3 S Lawn 1
47 3 S Lawn 1
48 4 S Lawn 1
49 3 D Block 10
50 2 D Block 10
51 4 S Lawn 1
52 3 S Cross1 shaped 4
53 2 D Slant block 10
54 5 D Slant block 14
55 2 S Lawn 1
56 2 S Block 2
57 5 D Slant block 10
58 0 S Slant block 10
59 0 S Slant block 1
60 4 S Raised 1
61 3 S Slant block 1
62 4 D Slant block 10
63 5 D Slant block 2
64 5 D Block 10
65 4 S Block 10
66 4 D Block 10
67 3 D Block 15
68 3 S Slant block 1
69 4 D Block 10
70 3 D Block 1
71 4 D Block 10
72 2 Q Block 2
73 2 S Raised 1
74 3 D Slant block 10
75 4 S Slant block 10
76 1 S Block 1
77 3 D Block 10
78 2 S Tablet with lamb top 16
79 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
80 2 S Slant block 10
81 4 D Block 10
82 5 S Raised 1
83 3 8 Lawn 1
84 4 S Raised 1
85 3 S Slant block 12
86 1 8 Square block w/ column (broken) 7
87 3 S Slant block 12
88 5 S Block 10

 

 

 

 

 

158

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.2 (cont’d).
Grave Time No. of Proﬁle
No. Period Individuals Form (Shape 1) (ShapeZ)
89 3 S Block 1 7
90 3 8 Block 1 8
91 4 8 Block 18
92 1 S Square column 3
93 4 S Block 1 2
94 3 S Raised 1
95 2 8 Lawn 1
96 2 S Lawn 1
97 0 S Raised 1
98 3 S Raised 1
99 2 S Raised 1
100 3 D Block 1 0
101 2 S Block 10
1 02 2 D Block 3
103 3 D Block 10
1 04 3 S Block 10
105 3 D Slant block 10
106 3 S Slant block 2
107 3 S Slant block 10
108 2 T Slant block 10
109 3 S Slant block 2
1 10 1 S Slant block 1
111 1 S Slant block 10
1 1 2 3 S Block 10
113 1 S Block 10
1 14 2 8 Block 1
115 5 S Slant block 10
1 16 1 D Cross2 Shaped 6
117 4 S Slant block 10
1 18 1 S Raised 1
119 3 S Slant block 10
1 20 4 S Raised 1
1 21 2 S Raised 1
122 1 S Raised 1
123 4 S Slant block 10
124 1 D Slant block 10
125 2 S Slant block 2
126 1 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
127 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
1 28 5 S Slant block 1
1 29 2 S Slant block 1
1 30 4 S Slant block 1
131 1 S Slant block 1
1 32 1 S Slant block 1
133 1 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
1 34 1 S Slant block 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

159

 

 

Table E.2 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Time No. of Proﬁle
No. Period Individuals Form (Shape 1) (ShapeZ)
135 2 S CrossZ Shaped 6
136 1 D CrossZ Shaped 6
137 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
138 1 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
139 2 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
140 2 S Block 2
141 1 D CrossZ shaped 6
142 2 S CrossZ Shaped 6
143 1 8 Cross Shaped (broken) 19
144 3 8 Lawn 1
145 1 D Slant block 2
146 2 S Raised 1
147 4 D Block 2
148 5 D Block 2
149 3 S Slant block 10
150 2 D Slant block 10
151 2 S Slant block 2
152 2 S CrossZ Shaped 6
153 2 S Raised ' 1
154 5 S Raised 1
155 4 S Raised 1
156 4 8 Lawn 1
157 1 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
158 3 S Slant block 10
159 2 S CrossZ Shaped 6
160 1 S Slant block 1
161 1 S Crossz Shaped 6
162 2 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
163 1 D Slant block 10
164 1 S Tablet 8
165 1 S Slant block 10
166 1 S Crossz Shaped 6
167 1 S Cross-shaped (broken) 19
168 4 S Cross1 shaped (broken) 4
169 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
170 1 D Block 10
171 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
172 3 S Slant block 10
173 3 S Slant block 2
174 3 S Slant block 1
175 5 S Slant block 1
176 1 S Slant block 1
177 5 S Slant block 10
178 3 S Slant block 10
179 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
180 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6

 

 

160

4's”)?
I " v .
I

 

king} ' r. .

 

 

 

Table E.2 (eont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Time No. of Proﬁle
No. Period Individuals Form (Shape 1) (Shape2)
181 1 S Block 1
182 2 S Lawn 1
183 3 S Slant block 10
184 2 D Slant block 10
185 4 S Slant block 10
186 1 S Raised 1
187 1 S Raised 1
188 4 S Block 10
189 4 S Block 10
190 3 S CrossZ Shaped 6
191 5 S Block 2
192 4 S Block 2
193 3 S Block 2
194 4 D Block 2
195 4 S Block 2
196 3 D Block 2
197 3 D Slant block 10
198 4 S Lawn 1
1 99 4 S Lawn 1
200 2 8 Block 9
201 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
202 2 S Cross Shaped (brokenL 19
203 3 S Block 2
204 4 D Raised 1
205 5 S Raised 1
206 3 S Raised 1
207 3 S Raised 1
208 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
209 4 S Slant block 1
210 2 S Slant block 1
21 1 4 S Slant block 1
21 2 1 S Tablet 5
21 3 1 S Raised 1
214 1 S CrossZ Shaped 6
215 1 S CrossZ Shap_ed 6
216 1 S Raised 1
217 1 8 Cross Shaped (broken) 19
21 8 1 S Raised 1
21 9 1 S Raised 1
220 1 S Raised 1
221 1 S Slant block 1
222 1 S Pulpit 1
223 1 S Tablet 20
224 2 S Lawn 1
225 2 S Raised 1
226 2 S Slant block 1

 

 

 

 

 

161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.2 (cont’d).

Grave Time No. of Profile

No. Period Individuals Form (Shape 1) (Shape2)
227 2 S Tablet 2
228 3 S Slant block 1
229 1 S Slant block 10
230 3 S Slant block 10
231 3 S Slant block 1
232 5 S Block 10
233 4 S Block 10
234 3 D Block 10
235 3 S Slant block 1
236 3 S Slant block 10
237 3 S Raised 1
238 4 S Raised 1
239 4 S Slant block 1
240 3 S Cross Shaped (broken) 1 9
241 1 S Cross Shaped (broken) 19
242 1 S Pulpit 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

162

Table E.3 Dataset Part III

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Direction
No. Material Facing Flora1 Flora2 Cross Type
1 Granite E Rose Crosst
2 Granite E Primrose Cross1
3 Concrete/ Bronze E Primrose
4 Granite E Rose
5 Granite E Rose CrossZ
6 Concrete/Bronze E CrossZ
Cross3
(CrossZ
7 Granite E Trefoil)
Cross3
(CrossZ
8 Granite E Trefoil)
9 Granite E Morning Glory CrossZ
1 0 Concrete/Bronze E CrossZ
1 1 Granite E Primrose CrossZ
1 2 Granite E Rose CrossZ
1 3 Granite E Ivy Cross1
14 Marble E
1 5 Granite E Rose Cross1
1 6 Concrete/ Bronze E Cross1
1 7 Granite W Primrose Cross1
18 Granite W Primrose Cross1
19 Granite W Primrose Cross1
20 Granite W Rose
21 Granite W
22 Marble W Cross2
23 Marble W Calla Lily
24 Granite W
Cross1
25 Granite W (Cruciﬁx)
26 Granite W Primrose Cross1
27 Granite W Ivy Cross1
28 Granite W Rose Cross1
29 Granite W Cross1
30 Granite W Waves Cross1
31 Granite E Passion Flower Cross1
32 Granite W Cross1
33 Granite W Primrose Cross1
34 Granite W Primrose Cross1
35 Granite W Primrose Cross1
36 Granite W Grapes and Leaves Cross1
37 Granite W Cross1
38 Granite W Rose Cross1
39 Granite W Rose
Oak Leaves and
40 Granite W Acorns Cross1
41 Granite W Primrose Cross1

 

 

163

.11. .5

 

1r

 

Table E.3 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Direction
No. Material Facing Flora1 Flora2 Cross Type
42 Granite W Doves
43 Granite W
44 Granite W
45 Granite W Dogwood Cross1
46 Concrete/Bronze W CrossZ
47 Marble W CrossZ
48 Marble W CrossZ
49 Granite W Cross1
50 Granite W Cross1
51 Concrete/Bronze W CrossZ
52 Marble W
53 Granite W Primrose Cross1
54 Granite W Primrose
55 Granite E Primrose CrossZ
56 Granite W Flowers and Leaves Cross2
57 Granite W Doves Cross1
Cross3
(Cross1
58 Granite W Trefoil)
59 Granite W Cross1
60 Granite W Primrose and Buds
61 Granite W Cross1
62 Granite W Primrose Cross1
63 Granite W Rose Cross1
64 Granite E Rose Cross1
65 Granite E Rose Cross1
66 Granite E Cross1
67 Marble E Primrose Cross1
68 Granite E Flower Cross1
69 Granite E Rose Cross1
70 Granite E Cross1
71 Granite E Primrose Cross1
CrossZ
72 Granite E Flowers and Leaves (Cruciﬁx)
73 Granite E CrossZ
74 Granite E Cross2
Cross2
75 Granite E Leaning
CrossZ
76 Granite E Leaning
77 Granite E Crossz
CrossZ
78 Marble E Flowers and Leaves Leaning
CrossZ
79 Marble E Leaves (Cruciﬁx)
80 Granite E Primrose and Buds Cross1
81 Granite E Primrose Cross1

 

164

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.3 (cont’d).
Grave Direction
No. Material Facing Flora1 Flora2 Cross Type
82 Granite E Cross1
83 Concrete/ Bronze E CrossZ
84 Granite E Rose Cross1
CrossZ with
85 Granite E Morningﬁrry Rosary
86 Marble E Rocks
Cross2 with
87 Granite E MorningGlory Rosary
88 Granite E Rose
89 Granite E Primrose Cross1
90 Granite E Primrose and Leaves Cross1
91 Granite E Primrose and Leaves Cross1
92 Marble E
93 Granite E Lilies Cross1
94 Granite E Primrose Cross1
95 Granite E
96 Granite E
97 Granite E Leaves CrossZ
98 Granite E Leaves CrossZ
99 Granite E Leaves CrossZ
100 Granite E Primrose Cross1
101 Granite E Primrose CrossZ
102 Granite E Prim rose Cross1
103 Granite E Rose Cross1
104 Granite E Mornigg Glory Cross1
105 Granite E Primrose Cross1
106 Granite W Primrose Cross1
107 Granite W Flower Cross1
108 Granite W Cross1
109 Granite W Prim rose Cross1
1 10 Granite W Primrose Cross1
11 1 Granite W Crosst
1 12 Granite W Rose Cross1
1 13 Granite W Rose Cross1
1 14 Granite W Flower CrossZ
1 15 Granite E Grapes CrossZ
CrossZ
1 16 Limestone W Leaves (Cruciﬁx)
1 1 7 Granite W Cross1
1 18 Granite W Cross1
119 Granite W Cross1
120 Granite W
121 Granite W
122 Granite W
123 Granite W Primrose and Buds Cross1
124 Granite W Primrose

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165

 

 

 

Table E.3 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Direction
No. Material Facigg Flora1 Flora2 Cross Type
125 Granite W Tulip
1 26 Marble W Leaves
CrossZ
127 Limestone E (Cruciﬁx)
1 28 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
129 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
1 30 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
1 31 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
1 32 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
1 33 Marble W
134 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
CrossZ
1 35 Marble W (Cruciﬁx)
Cross2
1 36 Marble W LCruciﬁx)
1 37 Marble W
1 38 Marble W
139 Marble W Ivy CrossZ
140 Granite W Tulip Cross1
Cross2
141 Marble W (Cruciﬁx)
142 Marble W
143 Marble W
144 Granite W Dogwood CrossZ
145 Granite W Cross1
146 Granite W Primrose Cross1
147 Granite W Rose Cross2
148 Granite W Rose Cross1
149 Granite E Grapes and Leaves Cross1
150 Granite E Grapes and Leaves Cross1
1 51 Granite E Primrose Cross1
1 52 Concrete E
1 53 Concrete W
Cross3
(CrossZ
1 54 Granite E Trefoil)
Cross3
(CrossZ
1 55 Granite E Trefoil)
1 56 Concrete! Bronze E CrossZ
1 57 Marble W
Oak Leaves and
1 58 Granite E Acorns
1 59 Concrete E
160 Granite E Cross1
Cross1
161 Marble E (Cruciﬁx)
162 Marble E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.3 (cont’d).
Grave Direction
No. Material Facing Flora1 Flora2 Cross Type
163 Granite E Rose Cross1
164 Marble E Willow Tree Cross1
165 Granite E Rose
166 Marble E
167 Marble E Leaves
168 Marble E
CrossZ
169 Marble E (Cruciﬁx)
1 70 Granite E Rose Cross1
1 71 Marble E
1 72 Granite E Primrose Cross1
1 73 Granite/Bronze E Cross2
1 74 Granite E Rose
175 Granite E CrossZ
1 76 Granite E CrossZ
1 77 Granite E Ivy Cross1
1 78 Granite E lvy Cross1
1 79 Marble E
180 Marble E
181 Granite E Cross2
1 82 Concrete/ Bronze W CrossZ
183 Granite E Cross1
184 Granite E Cross1
185 Granite E Cross1
186 Granite E
187 Granite E
188 Granite E Cross1
1 89 Granite E Primrose Cross1
190 Granite E Primrose Cross1
191 Granite E Cross1
192 Granite E Cross1
193 Granite E Cross1
194 Granite E Cross1
195 Granite E Cross1
196 Granite E CrossZ
197 Granite E Rose CrossZ
198 Granite E Rose CrossZ
199 Granite E Rose Cross2
CrossZ with
200 Granite E Ivy HIS
CrossZ
201 Marble E Leaves (Cruciﬁx)
202 Marble E
203 Granite E Leaves Cross1
204 Granite E Primrose Wheat Cross1
205 Granite E Rose CrossZ

 

 

 

 

 

 

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.3 (eont’d).

Grave Direction

No. Material Facing Flora1 Flora2 Cross Type
206 Concrete E Cross1
207 Granite E
208 Marble E
209 Granite E Primrose Cross1
210 Granite E Primrose Cross1
21 1 Granite E Primrose Cross1
212 Marble Unknown Ivy
21 3 Granite S
214 Marble E
21 5 Marble E
216 Granite E Cross1
21 7 Marble W
218 Granite W Cross2
219 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
220 Granite W Primrose Cross1
221 Granite W Flower Cross1
222 Concrete W CrossZ
223 Marble E Leaves CrossZ
224 Granite W Cross1
225 Granite W CrossZ
226 Granite W Cross1
227 Marble W Cross1
228 Granite W CrossZ

Oak Leaves and
229 Granite W Acorns CrossZ
230 Granite W Rose Cross1
Oak Leaves and
231 Granite W Acorns
232 Granite W Rose Cross1
233 Granite W Rose Cross1
234 Granite W Primrose Cross1
235 Granite W Ivy Cross2
CrossZ

236 Granite W Lilies Leaning
237 Granite W Primrose CrossZ
238 Granite W CrossZ
239 Granite W CrossZ
240 Marble E
241 Marble E
242 Marble Leaves Cross1

 

 

 

 

 

 

168

 

 

Table E.4 Dataset Part IV
Grave Other Total # Language
No. Other Motif1 Motif2 Words’ Code

Book

(DmVODUIth-‘i

 

Sh

Russian

A—L

Banner

Hean
Banner

Banner

mrnmrnrnmrnmmrnrnwmmmwornrnmrnrnmrnrnrnmrnrnrnmmmrnmrnrnmmrnmrnrnrnmmm

0
3
0
2
2
8
1
1
4
6
2
0
2
5
1
7
1
1
3
5
0
6
1
1
3
2
0
6
0
0
1
5
1
2
2
6
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
1

Qu—‘L

47

 

 

7 The total number of words in an epitaph reﬂects the actual count in the language of inscription. This
count may not correspond exactly with the English translation of the epitaph.

169

Table E.4 cont’
Grave

No.

48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

61
62
63
54
65
66
67

68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78

79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94

Other Motif1

Gothic

Hands

Angel Kneeling
in

Banner
Banner
Hean

Angel Kneeling
in
Hands

Banner
Cruciﬁxion

Scroll

Other Total #
Motifz Words

170

NONNNNOO dOO-ﬁO-‘ONOVOOV

dN-BONOU'IOOODN

AOWODQ-F-F-F-bwhtomo-‘Cﬂ

Language
Code

rnmomrnmrnrnommrnrnmmcn OWCDITIWITIITII'I'IITII'I'IITI ITIITII'I'II'I'IFI'II'I'IITI rnmmmmmmrnmmmmm

Serbian
Church

Church Slavic

Ukrainian

 

 

Table E.4 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Other Total # Language
No. Other Motif1 Motif2 Words Code Language
95 3 E English
96 0 E English
97 0 E English
98 1 E Egglish
99 1 E English
100 0 E English
101 2 E English
102 0 E English
103 Closed Book Banner 6 B Russian/qulish
104 0 E English
105 Heart 5 E English
106 0 E English
107 Open Book 1 E English
108 0 E English
109 0 E English
1 10 1 E English
111 0 E English
112 0 E English
1 13 0 E English
114 Angel 0 E English
1 15 3 E English
1 16 20 0 Serbian
117 0 E English
1 18 2 E Egglish
119 1 E English
120 1 E English
121 1 E English
122 1 E English
123 Open Book O E English
124 Photograph 0 E English
125 3 E English
126 13 0 Serbian(?)
127 0 E English
128 Closed Book 0 E English
129 Closed Book 0 E English
130 Closed Book 0 E English
131 Closed Book 0 E English
132 Closed Book 0 E English
133 4 O Ukrainian
134 Closed Book 4 B Ukrainian/English
135 Scroll with INRI Photgraph 2 E English
136 Scroll with INRI Photograph 2 E English
137 4 0 Russian
138 6 0 Russian
Church
139 4 O Slavic/English
140 Chalices 13 E English
141 4 0 Russian
142 0 E English
143 4 0 Russian

 

171

 

 

 

Table E.4 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave Other Total # Language

No. Other Motif1 Motif2 Words Code Lame
144 Image of Jesus 0 E English
145 Image of Jesus 2 E English
146 1 E English
147 2 E English
148 Vase 0 E English
149 1 E English
150 2 E English
151 1 E English
152 2 E English
153 0 E English
154 Clasped Hands 1 E English
155 Clasped Hands 1 E English
156 3 E English
157 4 0 Serbian
158 0 E English
159 4 E English
160 1 E English
161 0 E English
162 1 . E English
163 Open Book O E English
164 5 0 Hungarian

Angel Kneeling
165 in Prayer 0 E English
166 Photograph 28 0 Romanian
167 11 O Macedonian
168 12+ 0 Macedonian
169 Scroll with INRI 11+ 0 Macedonian
170 2 E English
171 0 0 Greek
172 1 E English
173 10 E English
174 1 E English
175 1 E English
Child Kneeling

176 in Prayer 2 E Egglish
177 3 E English
178 1 E English
179 0 E English
180 9+ 0 Macedonian/English
181 2 0 Russian
182 8 E English
183 0 0 Russian
184 Open Book 0 E English
185 Open Book 1 E English
186 Bird on Branch 0 E English
187 Bird on Branch 0 E English
188 0 E English
189 0 E English
190 6 0 Russian
191 4 E English

 

 

 

 

 

 

172

 

 

Table E.4 cont’
Grave Other Total #

No.

Other Motif1 Motif2 Words
192 1 1
193 1 1
1 94
1 95
1 96
1 97
1 98
1 99
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
21 0
21 1
21 2
21 3
214
21 5
21 6
21 7
21 8
219
220 Lamb
221
222
223 Heart
224
225
226
227 Heart
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239 I of Jesus
240 Unknown
241 Unknown

gNOOOONCO-ﬁ

CO-‘OONNQO4000000000010=‘NO‘INOD-‘OO-i-F-3CDOOON

173

O
O
Q
0

oommrnrnmrnmmmmmmrnrnmmmmmmmmornrnornmmmrnommmwwmommmmmmoww

Russ
Russian

Russian

Russ

Serbian

Romanian

Romanian

 

 

Table E.4 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

Grave Other Total it Language
No. Other Motif1 Motif2 Words Code Language
242 E English

 

 

 

 

 

 

174

 

 

Table E.5 Dataset Part V

 

No.

Grave

Ejitaph

 

 

Rest in Peace/Choir Director of St. Nicholas Church

 

 

ngether Forever

 

Father/Mother

 

Michigan/Capt Army Air ForcesNVorld War II

 

Father

 

GNOO‘IDWN-ﬁ

Mother

 

(O

Born/Died Father/Mother

 

.3
0

PFC US ArmyNVorld War II

 

A
.A

Father/Mother

 

.4
N

 

.3
(D

Father/Mother

 

A
$3

US ArmyNVorld War II

 

.3
01

Daughter

 

..s
C)

Michigan/T e05 Trans CorpsNVorld War II

 

.1.
\1

Mother

 

—L
00

Father

 

—L
(D

Daughter 8 Mother

 

N
O

Beloved Daughter/Sister and Aunt

 

N
.A

 

N
N

PVT US Army/World War II

 

N
OD

Father

 

N
A

Mother

 

N
01

Wife & Mother

 

N
O)

Mother/Father

 

N
‘1

 

N
C!)

In Loving Memory/Daughter 8 Sister

 

N
(O

 

(JD
0

 

31

Eternal Memory Dear Father and Grandfather/Dear Wife, Mother and Grandmother

(Russian)

 

32

Rt. Rev./Born...Died (English)/Thy will be done/Eternal memory (Russian)/Pastor St.

Nicholas 1944-1973 (English)

 

33

Sister

 

Mother/Father

 

35

Daughter/Husband

 

36

Memory Eternal/Dedo, Baba/Flint Michigan

 

37

 

Mother

 

39

Married May 7, 1936

 

40

 

41

 

42

 

43

 

 

 

 

175

 

 

Table E.5 (cont’d).

 

Grave

No.

Epitaph

 

45

Mother/Father

 

46

Michigan/PVT CO H 414 INF 104 INF DIVNVorId War II

 

47

Michigan/1 st SGT 602 AAA Gun BN CACNVorId War II

 

48

1st LT US ArmyNVorld War II

 

49

 

50

 

51

TEC 4 US ArmyNVorld War II

 

52

 

53

Mother/Father

 

54

 

55

Mother

 

56

 

57

Father/My Cinderella Daughter

 

58

 

59

 

60

Mother

 

61

Our BabyLSon

 

62

Mother/Father

 

63

Memory Eternal

 

64

Dad/Mom

 

65

Our Beloved Mother/And Grandmother, Whose/Spirit Will Forever LiveNVithin Us

 

66

Dad/Mom/Married/Sept. 15, 1940

 

67

HusbandNVife

 

68

Our Baby

 

69

Dad/Mom/Married/May 6, 1939

 

70

 

71

 

72

Family/Wife Son Father Mother

 

73

 

74

Father/Mother (English)

 

75

 

76

Popadija (Priest’s Wife) Grateful Children LSerbian) /Mother (English)

 

77

Father/Mother (Serbian)

 

78

Brothers/Parents (Serbian)

 

79

Mother (English)/Lord Rest Her Soul (Church Slavic)

 

80

Father

 

81

 

82

Loving Husband/Son 8 Brother

 

83

Michigan/CPL 311 Figgter SQ AAFNVorld War II

 

84

Beloved Wife 8 Mother

 

85

Husband/Born/Died

 

86

Here Rests...Born/Died/Lord Rest Her Soul (Church Slavic)

 

87

Wife

 

88

Wife

 

89

Husband

 

 

90

 

Father/Born...Died

 

176

 

 

 

 

Table E.5 (cont’d).

 

Grave

No.

Epitaph

 

91

Mother/Born Died

 

92

Here Rests. . .B./DiediUkrainian)

 

93

 

94

Brother

 

95

Rest in Peace

 

96

 

97

 

98

Mother

 

99

Father

 

100

 

101

Born Died

 

102

 

103

Rev. Archdeacon/Book of Life

 

104

 

105

Mother/Father/Toggther in Memory

 

106

 

107

Father

 

108

 

109

 

110

Father

 

111

 

112

 

113

 

114

 

115

In Loving Memog

 

116

Here Rests the Servant of God/...Born/Died/You are remembered to brother Risto,
Mother Stana and several brothers and sisters (Serbiarp

 

117

 

118

Beloved Mother

 

119

Mother

 

120

Father

 

121

Son

 

122

Mother

 

123

 

124

 

125

Our Beloved Brother

 

126

Here Rests...Bom...Kelleys Island Ohio/Died...0tisville, Michigan/of chorola [sic]
inﬂuenza (Serbian?)

 

127

 

128

 

129

 

130

 

131

 

132

 

133

Born. . .Year/Died. . .Year

 

 

134

 

Born. . .Year/Died. . .Year

 

177

 

 

Table E.5 (cont’d).

 

Grave

No.

Epitaph

 

135

Born/Died

 

136

Born/Died

 

137

Lord Rest His Soul (Russian)

 

138

Born. . .lDied. . ./Lord Rest Her Soul (Russian)

 

139

Matushka (Priest's Wife)/Lord Rest Her Soul (Church Slavic)

 

140

V. Rev./Give Rest, O Lord, To thel Soul of Thy Departed Servant

 

141

Lord Rest Her Soul (Russian/Church SlavicL

 

142

 

143

Born/DiedlEternal Memory to Him (Russian)

 

144

 

145

Father/Mother

 

146

Mother

 

147

HusbandNVife

 

148

 

149

Husband

 

150

Mother/Father

 

151

Mother

 

152

Born/Died

 

153

 

154

Father

 

155

Mother

 

156

PFC US Army

 

157

Bom/Died/Mother Zorka (Serbian)

 

158

 

159

Born/Died/Flint Mich.

 

160

Father

 

161

 

162

Husband

 

163

 

164

Here Rests...Peace to His Ashes

 

165

 

166

Born...in Sebesiul, Sesegu, Sibiu County, Romania, Died...He was the founder of
the society of (invinjer?). He was Romanian from Flint, Michigan. May the Earth be
gghtweight. (Romanian)

 

167

Here Rests.../By birth from ?? Macedonia/Born.../Died...(Macedonian)

 

168

Here rests.../By birth from Macedonia near (7) Born/Died (Macedonian)

 

169

Here rests. . .From Skogie Macedonia...(continues, illegible) (Macedonian)

 

170

Father/Mother

 

171

Name in Greek letters

 

172

Father

 

173

PVT 343 SVC Park Unit MTC/ World War I

 

174

Mother

 

175

Son

 

176

Our Baby

 

177

In Loving Memory

 

 

178

 

Husband

 

178

 

 

Table E.5 (cont’d).

 

Grave

No.

Epitaph

 

179

 

180

Very weatheredkgible inscription/Macedonia... (Macedonian)

 

181

Here rests...(Russian)

 

182

PFC 254 INF 63 DIVNVorld War II

 

183

 

184

 

185

Husband

 

186

 

187

 

188

 

189

 

190

BorrﬂnegéLGutkina/Eternal Memory, Dear Mama (Russian)

 

191

Born in lzjum, Russia (English)

 

192

Captain of the Russian ArmyNeteran of the First Great War and the White Army
(Russian)

 

193

Colonel of the Russian ArmyNeteran of the First Great War and the White Army
(Russian)

 

194

Thlwill be done (Russian)

 

195

 

196

 

197

Married 1909

 

198

 

199

 

200

 

201

 

202

Born/Died

 

203

Here rests...Born in Poltava Ukraine/Died...He dear brother in eternal memory we
have placed this monument to you. For my memory your last quiet word farewell.
Lord rest his soul. (Ukrainian)

 

204

Archpriest/Matushka

 

205

 

206

 

207

 

208

Here rests.../Born/Died/ May the Earth be Light to Her [May she rest in
peace](SerbianL

 

209

Mother

 

210

Father

 

211

Son

 

212

 

213

 

214

...G.R.l.L.G/Born../Died...lParents from Musca...Lupsa Mare Tunda/Aires Romnia
(Romanian)

 

215

Born in Bukovina, Died in Flint (rest illegible)

 

216

Our Son

 

217

From Bosanci, Died (?) (Romanian)

 

 

218

 

Baby/Son of Wm. 8 Mary Loik

 

179

 

 

Table E.5 (cont’d).

 

Grave
No.

Epitaph

 

219

Son

 

220

Our Son

 

221

 

222

 

223

 

224

 

225

 

226

 

227

Died/Age 54

 

228

 

229

 

230

Mother

 

231

 

232

Together/Foreverl... and.../Born in Celo Gabres/Macedonia/Beloved Husband...

 

233

Born in Celobouf/Macedonia/Beloved Wife...

 

234

Mother/Father

 

235

 

236

 

237

Father

 

238

 

239

 

240

(Not Translated)

 

241

(Not Translated)

 

 

242

 

Husband/Father/Our Loved One

 

180

 

 

Table E.6 Dataset Part VI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave
No. Stone Length Stone Height Stone Width

1 61 39 1 3.5
2 93 46 1 7.5
3 71 7 41
4 94 42 18.5
5 108 72 20
6 60 1 5 31
7 63 20 30
8 62 18 32
9 86 63 21
10 60 1 5 31
1 1 91 39 17
12 62 48 17
1 3 88 51 16
14 103 32 9
1 5 64 44 1 3
16 61 1O 30
1 7 62 42 20
18 62 42 20
19 62 10 32
20 64 46 1 7
21 41 5 21
22 61 8 31
23 45.5 36 10
24 45.5 41.5 23
25 60.5 52 16
26 90 47.5 17
27 92.5 51 1 5.5
28 76 53 16
29 95 87 1 5
30 115 54 19
31 82 52 1 5
32 90 175 23
33 62 45 18
34 102 52 22
35 91 42 18
36 91 42 18
37 42 1 7 21
38 62 1 7 31
39 93 43 1 7.5
40 61 46 1 5
41 86 42 21
42 61 34 16
43 62 40 20.5
44 62 40 20.5
45 76 53 16
46 60 7 29

 

181

 

 

Table E.6 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave
No. Stone Length Stone Heiﬂ Stone Width
47 60 7 29
48 60 7 29
49 1 13 72 21
50 105 72 22
51 66 5 36
52 46 92 1 5
53 93 45 1 7
54 92 52 15
55 60 5 32
56 57 53 21
57 78 49 17
58 62.5 42 19
59 38 43 1 5
60 61 1 5 31
61 52 35 1 3
62 92 46 16
63 92 46 16
64 108 69 17
65 51 68 16
66 104 66 21
67 1 31 51 1 5
68 52 39 1 5
69 108 53 18
70 90 57 1 5
71 76 51 1 7
72 147 108 21
73 52 18 26
74 107 50 17
75 62 50 1 5
76 50 66 18
77 89 61 19
78 30 41 1O
79 46 92 10
80 61 44 17
81 92 51 16
82 63 1 7 32
83 61 1 5 31
84 63 1 7 32
85 78 45 17
86 41 64 34
87 77 44 15
88 62.5 52 1 7
89 65 69 16
90 46.5 75.5 1 5
91 46.5 75.5 15
92 36 88.5 15

 

 

 

 

182

 

 

Table E.6 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ane
No. Grave No. Grave No. Grave No.
93 101 59 21
94 52 18 25
95 53 5 30
96 60 5 32
97 62 15 31
98 62 15 31
99 62 15 31
100 107 73 20
101 48 77 18
102 109 78 21
103 90 52 16
104 55 59 16
105 92 48 17
106 61 46 16
107 61 46 16
108 92 48 17
109 61 46 17
110 50 36 16
111 61 46 16
112 62 72 21
113 62 72 21
114 41 21 16
115 61 44 16
116 40 77 10
117 62 44 17
118 62 10 31
119 62 44 17
120 62 10 31
121 62 1O 31
122 62 10 31
123 62 40 17
124 92 46 20
125 63 47 17
126 41 51 17
127 30 46 10
128 62 46 18
129 62 46 18
130 62 46 18
131 62 46 18
132 62 46 18
133 34 45 15
134 63 50 17
135 36 83 10
136 36 83 10
137 36 46 10
138 36 45 15

 

 

 

 

 

183

 

 

 

 

 

Table E.6 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave
No. Grave No. Grave No. Grave No.
139 51 81 20
140 59 77 22
141 41 74 10
142 42 73 10
143 35 49 10
144 62 4 32
145 94 36 17
146 52 15 27
147 91 50 1 5.5
148 90 61 20
149 63 48 18
150 92 50 18
151 61 31 15
152 32 66 12
153 76 17 44
154 61 1O 32
155 61 10 32
156 66 5 34
157 35 36 10
158 52 23 15
159 33 69 12
160 51 .5 49 16
161 36 45.5 10
162 33 60 10
163 92 48 17
164 39 74 11.5
165 53 40 16
166 61 116 20
167 46 85 10
168 35 58 8
169 40 50 7
170 86 52 16
171 41 77 10
172 62 38 16
173 75 48 17
174 62 48 15
175 62 50 17
176 52 31 15
177 62 39 15
178 62 39 15
179 40 71 8
180 41 75 8
181 82 88 30
182 60 5 19
183 62 39 16
184 92 40 16

 

 

 

 

 

184

 

 

 

Table E.6 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave
No. Grave No. Grave No. Grave No.
185 61 38 16
186 42 17 22
187 42 17 22
188 90 62 20
189 52 78 20
190 102 155 21
191 52 78 16
192 52 78 16
193 52 78 16
194 63 100 21
195 66 100 21
196 91 63 22
197 79 40 16
198 62 5 30
199 62 5 30
200 66 80 22
201 40 77 10
202 40 77 10
203 56 77 15
204 62 16 32
205 61 13 32
206 52 8 30
207 53 5 27
208 32 48 10
209 62 40 16
210 62 40 16
211 62 40 16
212 40 44 10
213 62 20 33
214 40 76 11
215 30 61 8
216 42 21 18
217 29 23 10
218 42 21 18
219 52 6 27
220 42 5 21
221 37 42 16
222 30 32 31
223 30 33 10
224 63 6 31
225 42 21 11
226 53 28 15
227 30 41 10
228 47 36 15
229 62 36 16
230 64 39 15

 

 

 

 

185

 

 

 

 

Table 15.6 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grave

No. Grave No. Grave No. Grave No.
231 52 27 1 5
232 61 53 1 7
233 61 53 1 7
234 1 07 52 22
235 42 36 1 5
236 61 40 24
237 62 21 32
238 62 10 31
239 63 38 1 5
240 No Data No Data No Data
241 No Data No Data No Data
242 No Data No Data No Data

 

 

186

WWI—,8 ;ﬁ_

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ames, Kenneth L.
1981 Ideologies in Stone: Meanings in Victorian Gravestones. Journal of
Popular Culture 14(4):641-656.

Anderson, Timothy G.
1993 Czech-Catholic Cemeteries in East-Central Texas: Material Culture and
Ethnicity in Seven Rural Communities. Material Culture 25(3)21-18.

Archdeacon, Thomas J.
1985 Problems and Possibilities in the Study of American Immigration and Ethnic
History. International Migration Review 19(1): 1 12-134.

Barth, Fredrick
1969 Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Culture
Difference. Little, Brown, and Company, Boston.

Bauer, Andrew, Joseph T. Hannibal, Claudia Britt Hanson, and Jesse V. Elmore
2002 Distribution in Time, Provenance, and Weathering of Gravestones in Three
Northeastern Ohio Cemeteries. Ohio Journal of Science 102(4):82-96.

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

Bennett, Linda A.
1978 Personal choice in Ethnic Identity Maintenance: Serbs, Croats and Slovenes
in Washington D. C. Ragusan Press, Palo Alto.

Bennett, Linda A.
1981 Nationality and Religion in Serbian-American Ethnicity. In Anthropological
Careers: Perspectives on Research, Employment, and Training, edited by Ruth H.
Landman; with Linda A. Bennett, Alison Brooks, and Phyllis P. Chock, pp. 99-
109. Anthropological Society of Washington, Washington DC.

Biemacki, Archpriest Raphael
1995 A History of the Saint Nicholas Orthodox Church. Saint Nicholas Orthodox
Church, Burton, Michigan.

Blackman, Margaret B.

1973 Totems to Tombstones: Culture Change as Viewed through the Haida
Mortuary Complex, 1877-1971. Ethnology 12(1):47-56.

188

 

Blank, Inge
1994 A Vast Migratory Experience: Eastern Europe in the Pre and Post-
Emancipation Era (1780-1914). In Roots of the Transplanted Vol. I, edited by
Dirk Hoerder, Horst Rossler, and Inge Blank, pp. 201-252. Columbia University
Press, New York.

Bodnar, John
1976 lrnnrigration and Modernization: The Case of Slavic Peasants in Industrial
America. Journal of Social History 10(1):44-71.

Brenner, Betty
1989 [1973] St. Joseph Era Coming to End This Weekend. The Flint Journal,
March 25, 1973. In St. John Street Through the Melting Pot: An Ethnic Historical
Remembrance, Flint Michigan, 1874-1974, by Michael Evanoff, p. 14. 4th Edition.
Edelweiss Press, Flint, Michigan.

Broce, Gerald
1996 Juris: An Ethnic Cemetery on the High Plains. Plains Anthropologist
41(156):175-183.

Brubaker, Rogers
2004 Ethnicity Without Groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Brubaker, Rogers and Frederick Cooper
2000 Beyond “Identity.” Theory and Society 29(1): 1-47.

Carlson-Cumbo, Enrico
1989 Contemporary Ukrainian-Canadian Grave Markers in Urban Southern
Ontario. Material History Bulletin 29:76-80.

Cetinich, Daniel
2003 South Slavs in Michigan. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing.

Chalmers, David Mark.
1987 Hooded Americanism: A History of the Ku Klux Klan. 3rd Edition. Duke
University Press, Durham, North Carolina.

Clark, Lynn
1987 Gravestones: Reﬂectors of Ethnicity or Class? In Consumer Choice in
Historical Archaeology, edited by Suzanne M. Spencer-Wood, pp. 383-395.
Plenum Press, New York.

Cohen, Ronald
197 8 Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology. Annual Review of
Anthropology 72379-403.

189

 

 

 

Collison, Gary
2007 Letter from the Editor. Markers XXIV: iv-v.

Eckert, Eva
2002 From Moravia to Texas: Immigrant Acculturation at the Cemetery. Markers
XIX: 174-211.

Edgette, J. Joseph
1999 “Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep...” Symbols and Their Meaning on
Children’s Gravemarkers. The Children ’s Folklore Review 22(1):7-24.

Edsforth, Ronald
1987 Class Conﬂict and Cultural Consensus: The Making of a Mass Consumer
Society in Flint, Michigan. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

Erdmans, Mary Patrice
1995 Immigrants and Ethnics: Conﬂict and Identity in Chicago Polonia. The
Sociological Quarterly 36(1):]75-195.

Erikson, Kai T. (editor)
1973 In Search of Common Ground: Conversations with Erik H. Erikson and
Huey P. Newton. W.W. Norton, New York.

Evanoff, Frank
Personal Communication. February, 28 2009.

Evanoff, Michael W.
1989 [1979] St. John Street Through the Melting Pot: An Ethnic Historical
Remembrance, Flint, Michigan, 1874-1974. 4th Edition. Edelweiss Press, Flint,
Michigan.

Fassmann, Heinz
1994 Emigration, Immigration, and Internal Migration in the Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy, 1910. In Roots of the Transplanted Vol. 1, edited by Dirk Hoerder,
Horst Rossler, and Inge Blank, pp. 253-310. Columbia University Press, New
York.

Francaviglia, Richard V.
1971 The Cemetery as an Evolving Cultural Landscape. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 61(3):501-509.

Gabaccia, Donna
1996 Women of the Mass Migrations: From Minority to Majority, 1820-1930. In
European Migrants: Global and Local Perspectives, edited by Dirk Hoerder and
Leslie Page Moch, pp. 90—111. Northeastern University Press, Boston.

190

 

Garman, James C.
1994 Viewing the Color Line through the Material Culture of Death. Historical

Archaeology 28(3):74-93.

Giguere, Joy M.
2007 Virtuous Women, Useful Men, & Lovely Children: Epitaph Language and

the Construction of Gender and Social Status in Cumberland County, Maine,
1720-1820. Markers 100 V: 1 ~23.

Goldstein, Lynne G. and Jane E. Buikstra
2004 A Nineteenth-Century Rural Irish Cemetery in McDonough County, Illinois.

In An Upper Great Lakes Archaeological Odyssey: Essays in Honor of Charles E.
Cleland, edited by William A. Lovis, pp. 43-63. Wayne State University Press,

Detroit.

Goldstein, Lynne and Robert A. Brinkmann
2008 The Context of the Cemetery at Fort Ross: Multiple Lines of Evidence,

Multiple Research Questions. Paciﬁc Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 39:4:1-21

Gonnan, Frederick J. E. and Michael DiBlasi
1981 Gravestone Iconography and Mortuary Ideology. Ethnohistory 28(1):79-98.

Gordon, Milton M.
1964 Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National

Origins. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Graham, Jr. Otis L. and Elizabeth Koed
1993 Americanizing the Immigrant, Past and Future History and Implications of a

Social Movement. The Public Historian 15(4):24-49.

Gradwohl, David Mayer and Hanna Rosenberg Gradwohl
1988 That is the Pillar of Rachel’s Grave unto This Day: An Ethnoarchaeological

Comparison of Two Jewish Cemeteries in Lincoln, Nebraska. In Persistence and

Flexibility: Anthropological Perspectives on the American Jewish Experience,
edited by Walter P. Zenner, pp. 223-259. State University of New York Press,

New York.

Gradwohl, David Mayer
1993 Intra-Group Diversity in Midwest American Jewish Cemeteries: An

Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Archaeology of Eastern North America:
Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams, edited by James B. Stoltman, pp. 363-3 82.

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson.

191

 

Gradwohl, David Mayer
2007 Like Tablets of the Law Thrown Down: The Colonial Jewish Burying
Ground, Newport, Rhode Island. Sigler Printing, Ames, Iowa.

Graves, Thomas E.
1993 Keeping Ukraine Alive through Death: Ukrainian-American Gravestones as
Cultural Markers. In Ethnicity and the American Cemetery, edited by Richard E.
Meyer, pp. 36-76. Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling Green.

Gustin, Lawrence R., editor
1976 The Flint Journal Centennial Picture History of F lint. William B. Erdmans
Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Hammond, Phillip E.
1988 Religion and the Persistence of Identity. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion 27(1):1-1 1.

Handler, Jerome S.
1996 A Prone Burial from a Plantation Slave Cemetery in Barbados, West Indies:
Possible Evidence for an African-Type Witch or Other Negatively Viewed
Person. Historical Archaeology 30(3):76-86.

Hardy, Audrey (compiled by)
2000 St. Nicholas Orthodox Cemetery City of F lint Genesee Co., Michigan
Burials 1918-I998. Flint Genealogical Society, Flint, Michigan.

Hart, Philip D.
2007 The Serbs of Flint, Michigan Serb World USA. 23(4):44-55.

Hartwig, Frederick and Brian E. Dearing
1979 Exploratory Data Analysis. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.

Haveman, Melissa
1999 A Sociohistorical Analysis of Children’s Gravestones. Illness, Crisis & Loss
7(3):266-286.

Hijiya, James A.
1983 American Gravestones and Attitudes toward Death: A Brief History.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 127(5):339-363.

Hodge, Christina J.
2005 Faith and Practice at an Early-Eighteenth-Century Wampanoag Burial
Ground: The Waldo Farm Site in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. Historical
Archaeology 39(4):73-94.

192

 

Hoerder, Dirk
1994 Introduction. In Roots of the Transplanted Vol. I, edited by Dirk Hoerder,
Horst Rossler, and Inge Blank, pp. 1-34. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hoerder, Dirk
1996 From Migrants to Ethnics: Acculturation in a Societal Framework. In
European Migrants: Global and Local Perspectives, edited by Dirk Hoerder and
Leslie Page Moch, pp. 211-262. Northeastern University Press, Boston.

Hoerder, Dirk, and Inge Blank
1994 Ethnic and National Consciousness ﬁom the Enlightenment to the 18808. In
Roots of the Transplanted Vol. I, edited by Dirk Hoerder, Horst Rossler, and Inge
Blank, pp. 37-109. Columbia University Press, New York.

Hungarian Central Statistical Ofﬁce
2004 Demographic Data: Population by Religion and Sex, 1930—1949, 2001.
Population Census 2001.
http://www.nepszamlalas.hu/eng/volumes/ 1 8/tables/load l_26.html. Accessed
April 2, 2009.

J amieson, Ross W.
1995 Material Culture and Social Death: Aﬁican-American Burial Practices.
Historical Archaeology 29(4):39-58.

Jeane, Donald Gregory
Southern Graveshelters and English Lych- gates: The Search for Culture Trait
Origins. Tributaries Vol. 3, Alabama Folklife Association.
http://www.samford.edu/~dgieane/lych_gates.html. Accessed Nov. 5, 2007

Kiest, Karen S.
1993 Czech Cemeteries in Nebraska from 1868: Cultural Imprints on the Prairie.
In Ethnicity and the American Cemetery, edited by Richard E. Meyer, pp. 77-103.
Bowling Green State University Popular Press, Bowling Green.

Kishinevsky, Vera
2004 Russian Immigrants in the United States: Adapting to American Culture.
LFB Scholarly Publishing, LLC, New York.

Kostecki, A. M.
1989 Crosses of East Slavic Christianity among Ukrainians in Western Canada.
Material History Bulletin 29:55-58.

Kushner, Gilbert

1980 On Patterson’s “A Critique of the New Ethnicity.” American
Anthropologist 82(1):]23-125.

193

 

Lehr, John C.
1989 The Ukrainian Sacred Landscape: A Metaphor of Survival and
Acculturation. Material History Bulletin 29:3-11.

Lethbridge, Alice G.
1989 [1971] Fairview to Close Doors This Month. The Flint Journal, June 10,
1971. In St. John Street Through the Melting Pot: An Ethnic Historical
Remembrance, Flint Michigan, 1874-1974, by Michael Evanoff, p. 122. 4th
Edition. Edelweiss Press, Flint, Michigan.

Liebens, Johan
2003 Map and Database Construction for an Historic Cemetery: Methods and
Applications. Historical Archaeology 37(4):56-68.

Lienert, Paul
GM Edges Toyota in Global Sales in 2007. Edmund ’s Inside Line. January 24,
2008. http://wwwedmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleld=124482. Accessed

November 7, 2008.

Lockwood, William G.
1981 Religion and Language as Criteria of Ethnic Identity: An Exploratory
Comparison. In Ethnicity and Nationalism in Southeastern Europe, edited by S.
Beck and J. W. Cole, pp. 71-82. Antropologish-Sociologish Centrum,
Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam.

Lowe, Elizabeth
Hungarian Culture of Burton Parishioners Remains Intertwined with Faith,
Despite Changes. The Burton News, October 19, 2008.
http://www.mlive.com/burton/index.ssf/2008/10/hungarian_culture_of_burton_pa
.h_tml. Accessed November 8, 2008.

Mallios, Seth, and David Caterino ,
2007 Transformations in San Diego County Gravestones and Cemeteries.
Historical Archaeology 4 1 (4) : 50-71 .

McGuire, Randall H.
1982 The Study of Ethnicity in Historical Archaeology. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 1 :159-178.

McGuire, Randall H.
1988 Dialogues with the Dead: Ideology in the Cemetery. In The Recovery of
Meaning: Historical Archaeology in the Eastern United States, edited by Mark P.
Leone and Parker B. Potter, Jr., pp. 435-480. Smithsonian Institute Press,
Washington DC.

194

Medwidsky, Bohdan
1989 Ukrainian Grave Markers in East-Central Alberta. Material History Bulletin
29:72-75.

Meyer, Richard E. (editor)
1989 Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of American Culture. University of
Michigan Research Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Meyer, Richard E. (editor)
1993 Ethnicity and the American Cemetery. Bowling Green State University
Popular Press, Bowling Green.

Mol, Hans (editor)
1978 Identity and Religion. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California.

Morawska, Ewa T.
1977 The Maintenance of Ethnicity: Case Study of the Polish-American
Community in Greater Boston. R & E Research Associates, Inc., San Francisco.

Morawska, Ewa
1984 For Bread with Butter: Life-Worlds of Peasant-Immi grants from East
Central Europe, 1880- 1914. Journal of Social History 17(3):387-404.

Mytum, Harold
2004 Mortuary Monuments and Burial Grounds of the Historic Period. Kluwer
Acadenric/Plenum Publishers, New York.

National Center for Health Statistics
2009 Health, United States, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hu508.pd£
Accessed April 2, 2009.

Naylor, Larry L.
1997 Cultural Diversity in the United States. Greenwood Publishing Group,
Santa Barbara, California.

Novak, Michael
1974 The New Ethnicity. Center Magazine 7(4):] 8-25.

Onile-Ere, Bisi
Flint International Institute Closed: Lack of Funding Forces Closure. WJRT-
TV/DT, April 30, 2007.
http://abclocal.go.com/wlﬁstory?section=newsﬂocal&id=5259887. Accessed
October 18, 2008.

195

Otto, Jennifer
2004 An Analysis of Norwegian-American Mortuary Art in Vernon County,
Wisconsin. U W-L Journal of Undergraduate Research, Vol. II.
www.uwlax‘.edu/urc/jur—onlinehgdf/2004/otto.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2007.

Padgett, Deborah
1980 Symbolic Ethnicity and Patterns of Ethnic Identity Assertion in American-
bom Serbs. Ethnic Groups 3:55-77.

Paraskevas, Cornelia
2006 The Geography of the Cemetery: A Sociolinguistic Approach. Studies in
the Literary Imagination 39(1): 143-168.

Patterson, James G.
1979 A Critique of “The New Ethnicity.” American Anthropologist 81(1): 103-
105.

Pejovic', Luka M.
1936 Srbi Na Srednjem Zapadu: Drugo Izdanje Prvi Deo Michigan / Prikupio i
Napisao. Ragusan Press, San Carlos, California.

Prince, Paul
2002 Cultural Coherency and Resistance in Historic-Period Northwest-Coast
Mortuary Practices at Kimsquit. Historical Archaeology 36(4):50-65.

Puskas, Julianna
1994 Consequences of Overseas Migration for the Country of Origin: The Case of
Hungary. In Roots of the Transplanted Vol. I, edited by Dirk Hoerder, Horst
Rossler, and Inge Blank, pp. 391-413. Columbia University Press, New York.

R. L. Polk & Co.
1918 Flint City Directory. Polk & Co., Livonia, Michigan.

R. L. Polk & Co.
1921 Flint City Directory. Polk & Co., Livonia, Michigan.

R. L. Polk & Co.
1923 Flint City Directory. Polk & Co., Livonia, Michigan.

R. L. Polk & Co.
1924 Flint City Directory. Polk & Co., Livonia, Michigan.

Rainville, Lynn.

1999 Hanover Deathscapes: Mortuary Variability in New Hampshire, 1770-1920.
Ethnohistory 46(3):541-597.

196

 

Roucek, Joseph S.
1969 The Image of the Slav in US. History and in Immigration Policy. American
Journal of Economics and Sociology 28(1):29-48.

Scourby, Alice
1980 Three Generations of Greek Americans: A Study in Ethnicity. International
Migration Review l4(l):43-52.

Simié, Andrei
1999 Machismo and Cryptomatriarchy: Power, Affect, and Authority in the
Traditional Yugoslav Family. In Gender Politics in the Western Balkans: Women
and Society in Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav Successor States, edited by Sabrina P.
Ramet, pp. 11-29. Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park.

Smith, Timothy L.
1966 Religious Denominations as Ethnic Communities: A Regional Case Study.
Church History 35(2):207-226.

Smith, Timothy L.
1978 Religion and Ethnicity in America. The American Historical Review
83(5):]155-1185.

Speck, Peter A. .

1926 The Meaning of Nationality and Americanization. The American Journal of
Sociology 32(2):237-249.

Stein, Howard F.
1975 Ethnicity, Identity and Ideology. The School Review 83(2):273-300.

Stern, Stephen
1977 Ethnic Folklore and the Folklore of Ethnicity. Western Folklore 36(1):7-32.

Supek, Olga and Jasna Capo
1994 Effects of Emigration on a Rural Society: Demography, Family Structure
and Gender Relations in Croatia. In Roots of the Transplanted Vol. 1, edited by
Dirk Hoerder, Horst Rossler, and Inge Blank, pp. 311-340. Columbia University
Press, New York.

Taft, Ronald
1977 Coping with Unfamiliar Cultures. In Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Vol. I, edited by Neil Warren, pp. 125-153. Academic Press, London.

197

 

 

Tashjian, Dikran and Ann Tashjian
1989 The Afro-American Section of NeWport, Rhode Island’s Common Burying
Ground. In Cemeteries and Gravemarkers: Voices of American Culture, edited by
Richard E. Meyer, pp. 163-196. University of Michigan Research Press, Ann
Arbor.

Thomas, Len
2005 Flint History Timeline. http://www.ﬂinthistorv.com/history/timeline.shtrnl.
Accessed February 29, 2008.

Todorova, Maria N.
2006 Balkan Family Structure and the European Pattern: Demographic
Developments in Ottoman Bulgaria. Central European University Press, New
York.

Trimble, Joseph E. and Ryan Dickson
2008 Ethnic Identity. In Applied Developmental Science: An Encyclopedia of
Research, Policies, and Programs, edited by GE. Fisher and R. M. Lerner. Sage
Press, Thousand Oaks, California.
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~trimble/ethnicitv_identity.htrn. Accessed April 21,
2008.

Watters, David R.
1994 Mortuary Patterns of the Harney Site Slave Cemetery, Montserrat, in
Caribbean Perspective. Historical Archaeology 28(3):56—73.

United States Department of Health and Human Services
2007 National Vital Statistics Reports 56(9), December 28, 2007.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nver6/nvsr56_09.pdf. Accessed April 2,
2009.

Vermeulen, Hans and Cora Govers
1994 The Anthropology of Ethnicity: Beyond Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. Het
Spinhuis, Amsterdam.

Vrga, Djuro J.
1971 Differential Associational Involvement of Successive Ethnic Immigrations:
An Indicator of Ethno-Religious Factionalism and Alienation of Immigrants.
Social Forces 50(2):239-248.

Zucchi, Alberta
1997 Tombs and Testaments: Mortuary Practices During the Seventeenth to the

Nineteenth Centuries in the Spanish-Venezuelan Catholic Tradition. Historical
Archaeology 31(2):31-41.

198

 

    
 
 

  

TYL

Milli“

7420

 

Mlcll'lellllllllllll llllllllllll
3 12 9 3 O 3 0 6 2