Artifacts of Mourning: Archaeology of the Historic Burial Ground of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia 9798888571101

Citation preview

Artifacts of Mourning

STUDIES IN FUNERARY ARCHAEOLOGY NO. 17

Artifacts of Mourning Archaeology of the Historic Burial Ground of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia

George M. Leader

Oxford & Philadelphia

Published in the United Kingdom in 2024 by OXBOW BOOKS The Old Music Hall, 106-108 Cowley Road, Oxford, OX4 1JE and in the United States by OXBOW BOOKS 1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083 © Oxbow Books and the author 2024 Paperback Edition: ISBN 979-8-88857-110-1 Digital Edition: ISBN 979-8-88857-111-8 (ePub) A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Control Number: 2023950794 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.

Printed in the United Kingdom by Short Run Press Typeset in India by DiTech Publishing Services For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact: UNITED KINGDOM Oxbow Books Telephone (0)1226 734350 Email: [email protected] www.oxbowbooks.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Oxbow Books Telephone (610) 853-9131, Fax (610) 853-9146 Email: [email protected] www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow

Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group Front cover: A lid plaque from burial G-286. A winged angel holding a crown up in their right hand, Rococo style trim to the bottom sides (photo: John Wynn). Back cover: A handle grip plate displaying a single central cherub at the top, eyes gazing right, funerary curtains to the sides. A Tuesly and Cooper match. From burial G-212 (photo: John Wynn).

Contents List of figures ....................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................. xi Foreword............................................................................................................................... xiii Preface .................................................................................................................................. xv 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................

1

2. The First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and burial ground .................................

5

3. Excavating an historic burial ground ......................................................................... 11 4. Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries .......................... 31 5. Evidence of funerary dress and textiles .................................................................... 43 . Coffins from the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia burial ground .................. 51 7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground....................................................... 65 8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques ....................................... 79 9. On the archaeology of mourning ................................................................................ 125 References ............................................................................................................................ 131

List of figures Figure 1.1. Figure 2.1. Figure 2.2. Figure 2.3.

Map of Philadelphia showing locations mentioned ............................... 1762 map of Philadelphia............................................................................ Advertisement from the Public-Ledger 1859 ............................................. The headstone of Joseph (d.1765) and Johanna Anthony (d.1809) at the FBCP plot at Mount Moriah Cemetery .......................... Figure .1. A row of coffins is exposed while excavating in the south-east corner of the site in 2017 ............................................................................ Figure 3.2. Anna Dhody discussing excavations while volunteer archaeologists map in burials .................................................................... Figure . . Ani Hat a inspects an exposed coffin in March of 201 ........................ Figure . . Measuring a coffin exposed by the construction backhoe and soon to be excavated by archaeologists ................................................... Figure . . A coffin in the process of being exposed during excavations in March 2017 .................................................................................................... Figure . . Excavating a coffin ....................................................................................... Figure . . A large coffin prepared to be transported from the site to the storage facility .............................................................................................. Figure .8. A large coffin is stabli ed with heavy duty tape before transport...... Figure .9. Plastic wrapped coffins await study in the back of the temporary lab space ........................................................................................................ Figure .10. Researchers examine a coffin and begin removed sediment on the exterior to document the handles and features ..................................... Figure .11. Excavating skeletal remains from a coffin. Here the researcher collected sediment samples........................................................................ Figure .12. A coffin (G100) filled with muddy sediment was probably sub ect to either repeated water damage or buried near the water table ...... Figure .1 . Many coffins such as burial G were recovered in fragments from 200 years of decay .............................................................................. Figure 3.14. Archaeologists working in March 2017 .................................................... Figure .1 . A coffin, broken an exposed by construction ......................................... Figure .1 . A coffin is exposed by the teeth of the backhoe prior to being excavated ....................................................................................................... Figure 3.17. Excavation map from 218 Arch Street ...................................................... Figure 3.18. 1859 Map of Second and Arch Street showing the location of the First Baptist Church and the cemetery ....................................................

2 6 8 9 14 14 15 15 16 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 26 27

viii

ist of figures

Figure 4.1. Cherubs and funerary curtains in a funeral invitation. 1756 ............... Figure .1. Copper wire shroud pins from burial G-22 .............................................. Figure .2. Shroud pins wrapped in ‘gold’ leaf from burial G-180 .......................... Figure . . A shell button from burial G- 2 ................................................................. Figure . . Buttons and decorative shroud rings from burial G-188....................... Figure . . Two bone buttons from burial G-19 ........................................................ Figure . . Two of the set of four facetted glass buttons from burial G- ........... Figure . . ‘Gold’ decorative shroud rings found with burial G- 00 ....................... Figure .8. Interior view of copper alloy button from burial G-2 ....................... Figure .9. Wool ribbon from burial G- .................................................................... Figure .10. Bast ribbon wrapped around the stalks of owers from burial G- ..................................................................................................... Figure 5.11. A silk fragment with a shroud pin still stuck through the piece from burial G-1 9 ......................................................................................... Figure .12. Tortoise shell comb from burial G-12 ..................................................... Figure .1. A small gabled coffin for a toddler, G-22 ................................................. Figure .2. Coffin G-29 after conservation research .................................................. Figure . . T-headed wrought iron nails, L-headed tack nails, and fragments recovered from burial G-22 ...................................................................... Figure . . Screws from burial G-1 9. ............................................................................ Figure . . A small hinge recovered inside the coffin of burial G- 2...................... Figure . . Small hinge recovered in burial G-1 ..................................................... Figure . . Small hinge recovered in burial G-122 ..................................................... Figure .8. Burial G- 00 lid ............................................................................................. Figure .9. ery dried coffin filled with sediment which has hardened probably due to calcification processes, from burial G- ................... Figure .10. Burial G- 9 coffin with a hole in the bottom .......................................... Figure .11. A volunteer examines a coffin exposed and damaged by a backhoe ....................................................................................................... Figure .12. Underside of the uvenile coffin from burial G-211, showing two leather straps attached on the baseboard ............................................... Figure .1 . Copper alloy coffin lace from burial G-8 ................................................ Figure 6.14. A Tuesly and Cooper Catalog ..................................................................... Figure .1 . A cotter pin from burial G-1 9 .................................................................. Figure 7.1. Black and white annularware from Area E .............................................. Figure .2. Transferware ceramic plate rim recovered with burial G-1 ............... Figure . . Artifacts found in Area B, not associated with a burial ........................ Figure . . Bottle glass, whiteware ceramic, gla ed and ungla ed redware, and the sole of a shoe recovered from Area C ........................................ Figure 7.5. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from Area D ...................................... Figure . . White salt-gla ed stoneware ceramic fragments part of a dot, diaper, and basket motif, excavated from burial G-2 ......................................

37 44 44 45 45 46 46 47 47 48 48 49 49 53 53 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 59 60 61 62 62 63 67 67 68 69 70 71

ist of figures

ix

Figure . . arious artifacts excavated from burial G- .......................................... 71 Figure .8. A walnut excavated from burial G-1 9 ..................................................... 72 Figure .9. Gla ed brick excavated from burial G-28 ............................................... 72 Figure .10. Scissors excavated from burial G....................................................... 72 Figure .11. Tin-ware ceramic teacup excavated from burial G- ......................... 73 Figure 7.12. Miscellaneous artifacts recovered from the site unassociated with any burials ..................................................................................................... 74 Figure .1 . A copper alloy cuneiform back plate with pear-shaped drop handle excavated from G-198..................................................................... 75 Figure .1 . Copper alloy handle excavated from burial G-2 ................................. 75 Figure .1 . Oyster shells excavated from burial G-2 .............................................. 76 Figure .1 . A large oyster shell excavated from G-1 .............................................. 77 Figure .1 . Two coins recovered from burial G-1 9 were found near the cranium and maybe have been intentionally placed over the eyelids of the uvenile ................................................................................. 77 Figure 8.1. Components of a coffin handle, here demonstrated on a wrought iron handle .................................................................................................... 80 Figure 8.2. Coffin length and handle length (both wrought iron and copper alloy) have a positive correlation ................................................ 82 Figure 8. . Wrought iron handle grip plates from different coffins showing the variation in size and shape.................................................................. 84 Figure 8. . A set of wrought iron handles excavated from burial G- 8 ................ 85 Figure 8.5–36. Handle grip plates and comparative examples from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog ............................................................................. 88–110 Figure 8.37–44. Lid plaques and comparative examples from the Tuesly and Cooper and ‘EL’ catalogs ..................................................................... 112–120 Figure 8.45. The headstone of Israel Morris .................................................................. 121

Acknowledgements This book would not be possible without the many people who have all contributed to the pro ect in various ways. First to be acknowledged must be my co-principal investigators of the pro ect, Kimberlee Moran, Anna Dhody, Jared Beatrice, and Nicolas Bonneau. Together we have put in thousands of hours excavating, cleaning, cataloging, measuring, photographing, writing, and editing to share the wealth of knowledge provided by this site. I am grateful to the four of them for taking on this massive pro ect with me on top of all our prior teaching and research commitments and for appreciating the privilege and responsibility that come along with it. For the duration of the pro ect we always sought to treat the research of skeletal remains and artifacts with the highest ethical considerations in mind. Kimberly Morrell, an archaeologist with AECOM and her team conducted the final round of excavations and recovered the ma ority of the burials that I discuss here. She is an excellent archaeologist whose detailed field notes have provided a valuable record. Many thanks to her and her team for their great, precise, and thorough work. Archaeological lab work, particularly a pro ect of this si e, takes help. Do ens of volunteers including colleagues, graduate students, undergraduate students, high school students, and eager members of the public helped to move, clean, photograph, record, and analy e many of the materials. Some whom I worked with closely I would like to mention by name, but there are many others I did not work with whose contributions are of e ual value. Thanks to Tara O’Keefe, Billy Russo, Ciara Byrne, Alexander Soto, Genevieve Duran, Billy Russo, Kristin Bridges, Cecilia Wingard, Erin Meyer, Chloe Bethea-Jones, Kimberly Eberle-Wang, Noel Davis, Jason Hammer, Dominic Fargnoli, Chelsea Cordle, Philip DePaola, Laura Mina, Sophia Hayda, Aylar Abdola ahdeh, Olav B ornerud, Adrianna agelli, Maya Jacoby, Hanna Polasky, Ellie Kreider, and Alyssa Connell Haslam. Archaeologist Ani Hat a, worked closely with the team during early excavations, thank are due to her. Historian Nick Bonneau spent many hours in archives to find burial records and other historical documents shedding light on the individuals interred at the burial ground and involved with the church. We look forward to seeing all his findings put together. Thanks are due to Allison Grunwald for analy ing the faunal remains for the pro ect. In addition to research with students at The College of New Jersey, analyses of the material culture have also been conducted by researchers at the Universities of Liverpool, Delaware Monmouth, Rutgers Camden, and Pennsylvania, and Winterthur Museum. Many thanks to our colleagues for all the collaborative efforts.

xii

Acknowledgements

The First Baptist Church of Philadelphia as well as the Friends of Mount Moriah Cemetery were instrumental in this pro ect, granting their full support of our team’s efforts to study and re-inter the artifacts and remains. Our team is very grateful, and we hope that as temporary custodians of the artifacts and remains we have learned and shared something valuable and in a respectable manner. As the available descendent community, thank you for your support of the pro ect. Doug Mooney, President of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, worked tirelessly to ensure the correct legal proceedings were in place for the pro ect. He is a long-time champion of historic preservation in Philadelphia. Thank you for standing up for historic Philadelphia. Rich eit, a true expert on historic burial grounds and historical archaeology, provided me with many valuable pieces of advice during early analysis. Thank you for helping me develop a deep appreciation for historical archaeology. Historic furniture conservator Chris Storb assisted with the identification and description the non-coffin (furniture) handles found in the assemblage. Thank you. Many of the artifacts were professionally photographed by John Wynn. His skill in capturing their detail is incredible and adds a valuable visual record of the hardware to the archaeological record. Thank you. The first phone call I made for advice on beginning a manuscript was to my friend, Jay Stiefel. He graciously shared his experience publishing his own work, offering me invaluable advice. Many thanks, Jay. Julie Gardiner at Oxbow Books was instrumental in seeing this manuscript come together. Thank you for believing in the book. Thanks are also due to the four anonymous reviewers for their feedback on the manuscript which helped it to become a stronger work. Writing this book, indeed much of my research, would not be possible without the support of my wife. Our first daughter was born during uarantine, making it an especially challenging year to begin writing a manuscript while our second daughter was born during peer reviews and edits. Thank you for support during my many late nights of writing.

Foreword Richard Veit, Ph.D., Professor of Anthropology, Monmouth University

America’s cities, great and small, share a secret. Beneath parking lots and office towers, under sidewalks and public parks, lie the remains of former residents. Some were lovingly laid to rest in churchyards and burial grounds, others received a pauper’s burial, a simple shroud and an ephemeral marker. Today, they are all but forgotten. Time, that great leveler, and the insatiable growth of our nation’s urban places has swallowed them up. Sometimes, however, development or construction pro ects lead to their rediscovery. The results are rarely pretty and often controversial. The remains may be figuratively swept under the rug and with no one the wiser. In other instances, they are rediscovered thanks to the diligence of cultural resource management professionals performing archaeological surveys. Then, if time and budgets allow, the remains are meticulously documented and prepared for reburial in a new and one hopes more permanent final resting place. Perhaps the most famous example of this sort of undertaking is the excavation of New York City’s famous African Burial Ground. Philadelphia, which grew from a small nucleus along the Delaware River, and follows a carefully defined gridiron plan, is a city of neighborhoods, each of which once had its own churchyards and burial grounds. Some remains, such as the burial ground associated with Christ Church where Ben amin Franklin lies, well remembered by tourists who leave coins on his marble slab. The city also has an important early Jewish burial ground, Mikveh Israel, the final resting place of Rebecca Grat . In the early 19th century, as churchyards and burial grounds filled to overcrowding, Philadelphia was the site of one of the first true cemeteries, Laurel Hill, founded in 18 . Other cemeteries soon followed, including Mount Moriah, closely associated with this pro ect. However, for every burial place that survives, several have been lost. In Philadelphia, archaeologists have investigated numerous Philadelphia burial grounds including the First African Baptist Church Cemetery, the Mother Bethel Burying Ground, the Germantown Potter’s Field, as well as burials associated with the Arch Street Meeting House, St Paul’s Church, the Blockley Almshouse, and many others. The Philadelphia Archaeological Forum’s web page contains a useful Geographic Information Systems map and database re ecting the locations of do ens of burial grounds (https: www.phillyarchaeology.net paf-activities burial-places-forum ). That said, the pro ect described at the burial ground of Philadelphia’s First Baptist Church, also called the Arch Street Pro ect, is unusual and significant. Significant,

xiv

Foreword

because it represents a true collaboration between volunteers and professional archaeologists, all guided by a desire to save information from a clearly significant site that was in danger of being lost to development. In 201 , a construction pro ect on the site of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia’s burial ground led to the accidental discovery of human remains. That a burial ground had existed on the Arch Street property was well known however, the best available evidence indicated that the remains and grave markers had been relocated to Mount Moriah Burial Ground in 18 0. Making matters even more challenging, existing legislation did not protect the burial ground. Nevertheless, a team of volunteers, led by Kimberlee Moran, Anna Dhody, George Leader, Jared Beatrice, and Nicolas Bonneau created an all-volunteer pro ect to salvage document the burial ground. Ultimately several hundred burials were documented by this team of motivated citizen scientists. Portions of the site were also studied by Cultural Resource Professionals. This well-illustrated volume authored by the pro ect’s lead archaeologist George Leader provides an archaeological perspective on this important pro ect and illustrates some of the artifacts recovered from the site. He and his teammates are to be congratulated on accomplishing something that is often nearly impossible to do, a ma or salvage excavation of a historic burial ground accomplished on a shoestring budget. The results of their work provide us with important new information about the residents of colonial and early 19th century Philadelphia, the Baptist Church, and burial practices during the period pre-dating 18 0. The level of preservation in parts of the burial ground was astounding and the coffin hardware, human remains not discussed here and coffins themselves, show a remarkable level of preservation. Thanks to their hard work, what could have been a preservation disaster was mitigated. While Leader and his colleagues did a remarkable ob, one hopes that Philadelphia, one of the nation’s most historic cities, takes steps to prevent future accidental discoveries of historic burial grounds and if and when such sites are unearthed, invests appropriately in their study and documentation.

Preface Historic burials grounds are commonplace in Philadelphia. Doug Mooney, President of the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, along with his colleagues, have spent countless hours putting together an online resource (phillyarchaeology.net) to document the known historical burial grounds so that incidents like the disturbance of the burial ground in this book can be avoided. This does not even include every single one of the many small family plots, unmarked, or forgotten burial grounds. It goes without saying that in historic cities like Philadelphia, anywhere you sink a shovel you are likely to find an archaeological site. Philadelphia’s Washington S uare is atop a potter’s field (or burial ground). These rediscovered burial grounds will appear again and again. It is up to the City Council to enact the proper laws to protect these sacred places and to only excavate them to be moved when absolutely necessary, by professional archaeologists. Strong archaeological intervention is a much more common practice in places like London and other European cities but in the United States many loopholes exist which too often result in destruction of this history. Perhaps what many people outside of the archaeological community do not reali e is that burial grounds still hold important cultural and scientific value. Many archaeologists, including myself, agree that these burials grounds should not be disturbed unless absolutely unavoidable. Unlike many other archaeological sites, the remains of the deceased buried in cemeteries were placed there intentionally and with the reasonable expectation that they would remain there forever. Only if disturbance is entirely unavoidable should there be an excavation. When such an excavation must happen there is still much to be learned from burial ground grave goods and biological remains. For example, at the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia’s burial ground discussed in this book, there are 22 uni ue handle grip plates produced on copper alloy. These are adorned with many various styles of cherubs and urns among other motifs. This variety was unexpected – few contemporaneous burial grounds, in the United States or England, have such a number. Immediately, this raises uestions surrounding importation of goods from England, the rise of local production of metallurgical ornamentation, and the cultural values surrounding funerary practice. Paired with our understanding of Baptists of the day as practicing a simplistic and non-materialistic lifestyle, it again appears surprising. When analyses of the biological remains are complete, they will offer us a glimpse into the health and hardships of some of Philadelphia’s earliest citizens. Trauma and developmental stress skeletal signatures can be indicators of status and access to healthcare. The active duration of the burial ground spans no less than 28 epidemics in the city of Philadelphia. New technologies are allowing

xvi

Preface

for non-destructive se uencing of genetic and pathogenic material. Pathogens that may have been the cause of an individual’s death can now even be detected in the sediments that spent hundreds of years in contact with the body. Some pathogens, from a pre-antibiotic age and often ancestral to their modern counterparts, can inform modern researchers as to the evolution of disease and possibly the human genetic signatures of the individuals who were most likely to survive. Thus, these sites can even help inform modern medicine. Historical archaeology provides an opportunity to fill in the gaps of written history. Often in colonial American history, documents were written by educated, white, landowning males. Of the many types of documents, whether diaries or account books, the records kept may omit what is considered obvious or unimportant. The material culture, that is the artifacts recovered from a site, serve to act as the physical evidence of such behavior to confirm or refute historical documentation. In all, burial grounds are hallowed ground and as such, disturbance should be avoided at all costs. et, in our ever-expanding world these grounds will consistently lose the battle to development and expansion. In such instances the descendant communities must be consulted, their desires respected, and the remains properly excavated and re-interred, as was done for these individuals and artifacts. Working with the descendant communities is important for a multitude of reasons. Different cultures have different beliefs associated with death and the afterlife. Religious beliefs also often mandate the specifics of burial rituals and treatment of the body. For centuries, burial grounds around the world have been mistreated or even pillaged in the name of science, often with highly racist practices. In this case, the descendent community has been supportive of the research conducted during this pro ect. Because there are no names on headstones, the current First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and the overseers of Mt Moriah Cemetery were consulted and acted to help ensure the ethical treatment, study, and eventual re-interment of the remains. Between exhumation and re-interment, however, much knowledge can be gained. It is at this time that history has a chance to be revisited and possibly revised. An additional terminological note I would like to make is on the use of the term ‘burial ground’. In fact, though today the words cemetery, graveyard, and burial ground are often used interchangeably, the words historically have slight difference in their meanings. A graveyard is typically used to refer to a burial ground specifically associated with a church, while a cemetery may be public or private or have no religious affiliation. Burial ground can also be used to refer to either a graveyard or cemetery, but it can also be used to refer to a less formal tract of land which was not intentionally demarcated for interments. Despite the small differences in the three terms, I often, and without reservation, use them interchangeably, though I prefer the term burial ground. When this term is used, I am referring to the FBCP’s burial ground, as it is the focus of this book or, if discussing another burial ground, I provide the name so that its association with a church can be deduced.

Preface

xvii

Of great importance to note is that throughout this book I shall refer to the 18th and 19th centuries in Philadelphia as ‘early Philadelphia’, or individuals as ‘early citi ens’ of Philadelphia. I use these terms with the understanding that the focus of the book is an 18th 19th century Baptist burial ground. However, the land that Philadelphia now occupies has at least 12,000 years of history prior to the arrival of William Penn, other Europeans, and enslaved Africans. The once rich waters of the Delaware and the Schuylkill Rivers and the lush woodlands are part of the wide area of land home to the Lenape peoples and their ancestors. The European arrival and, with them, enslaved Africans displaced these groups of Native Americans to establish urban centers such as Philadelphia. With that acknowledgement in mind, ‘early’ Philadelphia is a reference to citizens of the city that took form by the late 17th century. It has been a great privilege to be charged with the study of the material culture from this burial ground. The weight of responsibility of the pro ect has been felt by our entire team from the first day of recovery. It is our responsibility therefore, to study and record the hundreds of biological remains, and thousands of artifacts, prior to their re-interment. In accomplishing this, we will have helped to tell their story. Accuracy, efficiency, and coordination are critical elements of such a large research pro ect. Hopefully, upon re-interment, these individuals and their personal effects will never be disturbed again, as they should never have been disturbed in the first place. We are fortunate to have one final opportunity to learn from these individuals about life as some of Philadelphia’s early citizens. George M. Leader

Chapter 1 Introduction

In November of 2016 The Philadelphia Inquirer published a story detailing the unexpected discovery of human remains at a construction site at 218 Arch Street (Salibury 2016). Just a few blocks from Independence Hall, this neighborhood is among the oldest sections of the city of Philadelphia (Fig. 1.1). It was uickly confirmed that this property was part of the location of the burial ground for the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia (FBCP) during the 18th and 19th centuries. Referred to at times in historical documents as La Grange Place, the burial ground was used from about 1722 to 1859, at which time it was contracted to be exhumed and moved to Mount Moriah Cemetery in West Philadelphia, or so it was thought for 160 years. It is unclear as to how many burials, if any, were moved to Mount Moriah cemetery in 1859. By February of 2017 it was apparent that more than just a few sets of human remains were still beneath the sediments of the property and professional archaeologists, along with volunteers, began the first excavations. By the conclusion of the excavations, in September of 2017, almost skeletal remains of almost 500 individuals had been recovered from the site along with thousands of artifacts. Because the burial ground’s period of use (ca 1722–1859) spans colonial (pre-American Revolution), revolutionary (1776–1783), and young republic (post-Revolutionary War) eras in one of the most historically important cities in the United States, it is of paramount importance to our understanding the unique culture and practices associated with death and mourning at the time. However important the cultural practices might be, of equal brilliance are the artistic symbols and deep meanings embedded in the artifacts made to adorn the departed and their coffins for eternal afterlife. The growing financial investment into funerary goods is demonstrated by the variety of styles and figures present. Many of the handles which ornament the coffins (discussed in Chapter 8) are of little functional

2

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 1.1. Map of Philadelphia showing locations mentioned in this chapter.

value, held into the sideboard of the coffin with small lugs similar to cotter pins and incapable of holding the great weight of the coffin. Thus, the purpose of the handle and grip plate is largely symbolic. The purpose of this book is to present these remarkable artifacts of 18th and 19th century funerary practice from the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia. In this regard this book is archaeological in nature. While the skeletal remains receive brief mentions, the biological anthropology is not the focal point of this book. Certainly, much can be learned from studying the skeletal remains but this work is being meticulously conducted by the project’s biological anthropologists. As an archaeologist, I study artifacts not skeletal remains. The results of the analysis of the biological remains will support archaeological evidence while archaeological conclusions will support skeletal studies. This research approach is called a biocultural approach. Essentially, the biological and cultural evidence are used together for a fuller picture of the past. The biological research is still underway and we look forward to all we can learn about who these individuals are from the coming results. In terms of the contents of this book, Chapter 2 will provide a history of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and introduce a brief history of the burial ground. Chapter 3 will share the complex story of the discovery and excavations conducted at 218 Arch Street from February through September 2017, as well as the excavations conducted in the laboratory once remains were removed from the site. Chapter 4 provides background to the religious climate of the 18th century, intended to add important context for the symbolic meaning embedded in the artifacts. The Great Awakening and the lesser-known Beautification of Death are presented. Chapter 5 discusses the many types of evidence of textiles recovered in the excavations,

1. Introduction

3

providing an idea of what types of dress was used for interment. In Chapter 6, the coffin types are discussed, with coffin production process and history of coffin use examined along with the types of fasteners used in their manufacture. Chapter 7 presents many different types of miscellaneous artifacts from the excavations. Most of the artifacts in this chapter were not intended to be associated with the burials, instead they are waste products, likely tossed away from the homes, stables, and businesses surrounding the burial ground in the 18th and 19th centuries. Chapter 8 focuses on the coffin furniture, known as hardware. The chapter illustrates the wide variety of styles and symbolism found within the coffin handles and lid pla ues of the assemblage. With the exception of a handful of researchers and public lecture attendees, this is the first time these artifacts are available to be viewed by the public in 2 0 years. Simply put, they are magnificent. They spill over with artistry and powerful symbolic motifs such as cherubs and death’s heads. Every single style is presented. The visual presentation of these handles will significantly add to the growing body of artifacts from burial grounds of the 18th and 19th centuries from around the world. They will contribute enormously to the collections used by archaeologists to compare the exchange of hardware in time and space, informing us on trade and cultural change. For the lay reader, these images provide an appreciation for the skilled craftsmen producing the rich symbolism in these metals. They serve as a reminder of the splendid artistry that existed in historic times. Final remarks on the project, artifacts, their meaning, and importance are presented in Chapter 9. It is with humility that I attempt to write to two audiences: experts who have spent decades studying funerary practice and artifacts, longer than myself, as well as the general public who may be interested, but less familiar with academic terminology. To address these two groups, the language of this book attempts to be a hybrid of general interest and academic writing. The intention in writing it, and in such a manner, is twofold. First, the book may be of interest to those outside of archaeology who are interested in the archaeological methods (or lack of methods as was partially the case in during this project) to excavate and manage a large project such as this one. Archaeology still has a romantici ed image in the decades since the first Indiana Jones movies. More often, sites are not in far off remote corners of the world and artifacts are not exotic but equally informative on culture and history. Others interested in religious symbols, historical trade, or funerary practice may find the artifacts to be strong reminders of humans’ long tradition of investment in mourning the departed. With the general interest reader in mind, much of the discussions are limited to the language and depth needed to fully appreciate and understand the artifacts and, intentionally, avoid too detailed a focus on any specific matter. Secondly, I hope my colleagues in archaeology or other fields of burial ground studies may appreciate the discussion, description, and images of coffin hardware as valuable reference and a comparative tool for the many historic burial grounds that have been, and will be, excavated around the world. The more burial ground books that publish the imagery

4

Artifacts of Mourning

of the full spectrum of hardware, the more accurately researchers can compare the wide-reaching spread of these English produced items as well as the spread of symbolic culture. Further, for the interested non-professional, I have attempted to avoid heavy interpretations or overly deep histories. Detailed analyses and in-depth discussions are better reserved for concise, focused academic papers. This book instead provides succinct historical and contextual sections which, I hope, offer a suitable amount of background knowledge in several relevant areas to contextualize the artifacts for the reader. In the fall of 2023, all human remains from this project, along with every single artifact belonging to each individual, were reinterred in the original plot reserved for the FBCP in Mount Moriah Cemetery, West Philadelphia. This pro ect, therefore, was the final chance to document these magnificent artifacts. As such, the photographs presented here will serve as an important record of the artifacts for future studies in both Philadelphia history and burial grounds around the world. In all, the story of the (re)discovery and excavations of the burial ground is an important one so that others may learn what went right and what went wrong. It is an opportunity for the city to re ect on who and how should be uicker to act upon the discovery of historic material and the procedures that need to be in place to ensure they receive the respect they deserve. While the process was not straightforward for this project as will be discussed, the knowledge gained and shared is a reward: a reward to those who continued to work tirelessly, to study and publicly share this story. This book presents artifacts of mourning and, as will be presented, they can teach us much about culture, funerary practice, and life in Philadelphia. First, however, their familiarity reminds us that humans long gone were in fact, just like us; emotional, social beings who mourned loss as we still do today.

Chapter 2 The First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and burial ground

First Baptist Church of Philadelphia A Protestant Christianity, the Baptist Church takes form in the early 1600s in Amsterdam under English Pastor John Smyth. But as early as 1662, Baptists from Wales began arriving in the Americas (Hoadley 1986, 12). Leaving behind religious persecution and the often-resulting poverty, they followed the lead of other separatist non-conformist Quaker communities who began arriving just before them. New arrivals established two Baptist churches in the outskirts of Philadelphia, followed by the formation of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia, whose congregation began worshipping at an abandoned warehouse at Second and Chestnut Streets in 1695 (Keen 1899, 20; Hoadley 1986, 16; Fig 2.1). Often joining the congregants in Philadelphia were brethren from the Pennepack [Pennypack] Church who were eager to now meet for worship in with this new congregation rather than make the longer journey out to their church in Pennepack (now part of northeast Philadelphia; Hoadley 1986, 16). A continued steady arrival of Baptists from Wales, paired with a growing population in the colonies, allowed for several Baptist churches to be established between 1688 and 1715 in the Philadelphia region. The Pennepack Church was founded in 1688, followed by the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia in 1698. Just outside of the city, Devon’s church was established in 1711, and Chadds Ford in 1715 (Hoadley 1986, 28). Such swift growth was not without occasional complications. Some new arrivals brought different interpretations and practices not universally accepted by already established congregations (Hoadley 1986, 17). By 1707, a Philadelphia Baptist Association had to be established to address the needs of the growing number of worshippers.

Artifacts of Mourning Figure 2.1. 1762 map of Philadelphia. The star shows the location of ‘The Anababtist Meeting House’ at Second and Arch Streets (adapted from the Greater Encyclopedia of Philadelphia, Library of Congress).

6

The house of worship used by a then declining Keithian Quaker congregation at ‘Lagrange Place [La Grange]’ between Second and Arch Street became the meetinghouse of the FBCP in 1707. When later ownership disputes were resolved by the 1730s, it became the Baptists’ permanent house of worship. The FBCP congregation continued worshipping at this location until moving to a newly constructed church at Broad and Arch Street in 1856 (Keen 1899, 25; Hoadley 1986, 16).

2. The First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and burial ground

7

Growth continued, and by the 1760s the FBCP listed 82 members but over 700 regular ‘hearers’ attending services. 1761 ushered the arrival of a new pastor, Morgan Edwards. Years later, Pastor Edwards would address the First Continental Congress on the importance of religious freedoms. Despite having been influenced by the religious revival and producing sermons described as unsurpassed by others, he left abruptly after only ten years at the pulpit (Hoadley 1986, 30). Even though he had previously addressed the Continental Congress, he was a long time Tory loyalist. Years later he would recant this identity in support of the American rebellion. Congregational splits from the FBCP occurred over the years such as in 1809 when the First African Baptist Church was formed in Philadelphia (Keen 1899; Hoadley 1986, 38). The FBCP had welcomed worshippers of African descent, many of whom were formerly enslaved. Yet, prejudice and discontent with a lack of representation in the church led some members of African descent to the form the First African Baptist Church congregation (Cotter et al. 1992, 285). Almost 20 years later, Pastor Henry Holcombe’s liberal view on Calvinism (predestination) caused a rift in the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia. Eventually, Holcombe’s followers established the Spruce Street Baptist Church, in 1826 (Keen 1899, 94; Hoadley 1986, 59). Many other Baptist congregations faced similar ideological differences causing several churches to split and, in 18 , a State Convention was organized and held at the FBCP (Hoadley 1986, 62). By 1835 a congregation of more than 600 created a need for a new and larger location (Keen 1899). By 1853 construction began on a new church on the corner of Broad and Arch Streets (FBCP website). In June of 1862, the property of the La Grange burial ground, which was believed to have been exhumed and moved by this time, and the meetinghouse, were sold for 19,10 (Keen 1899, 10 ) effectively ending the church’s ties to that location. In 1900 a final move to 1 th and Sansom Street was completed, where the church still stands to this day.

The burial ground The burial ground of the Church, excavated in 2017 from what is today 218 Arch Street, appears to have had its first interments around 1 22 but perhaps earlier (Bonneau 2022). The burial ground sat just to the west of the 18th century church (see Fig. 3.18). Common practice of the time was for interments to begin closest to the church, thus expanding the burial ground away from the church, in this case west. Wealthy patrons could also reserve plots closer to the burial ground for future use. The section of the cemetery immediately next to the location of the church remains unexcavated (still under modern buildings) so it is impossible to know if this is how the burial ground expanded. Instead, we must rely on church records. Church records are a valuable tool for any archaeological project that includes a burial ground. Many churches kept thorough financial books, membership lists,

8

Artifacts of Mourning

sermons and lectures, and burial records. The process of finding these documents can be painstakingly slow and can leave the researcher disappointed. Over 250 years records are lost to moves, fires, oods, and all the woes of time. An investigation of the historical records has found almost 3000 individuals who were interred at the cemetery between 1722 and 1859. A source of great anguish for the research team, it is not currently possible to link the known names of these individuals to the recovered burials because of the lack of headstones. The church records do indicate that both members and fee-paying non-members were interred there (Bonneau 2022). There remains much research to be done on the historical documents associated with the cemetery and the church. This research is being conducted by members of the history research team and in years to come will provide a much fuller picture of the congregation. Prior to 1859, the cemetery had fallen into a state of disrepair and waste (‘A chapter of local history’: The Press, March 16, 1860). This was likely associated with the church’s move away from that location. Ultimately, in 1859, the congregation decided to relocate the burials to Mount Moriah Cemetery in West Philadelphia (Advertisement Public-Ledger February 18, 1860, Philadelphia, PA) (Fig. 2.2). The contract for the exhumation was awarded to William Brown and burials were to be moved ‘in good workmanlike manner and according to all his skill’. It is difficult to determine how many burials were exhumed and reinterred in Mount Moriah. An account of the exhumation is provided in the Pennsylvania Press suggests that at least some exhumation did take place: During the process of removing these remains, which has been carried on for the past week or two, we have taken occasion to pay several visits to the scene of the removal. The remains, as a general thing, have been found in a state of excellent preservation, and no one instance of unlawful visit to the dead has been discovered. One of two remarkable instances – we might say phenomena have been seen. As yet, no instance of petrification, so often published as occurring, has been witnessed. Bodies have been raised, after remaining in the ground for thirty years, bearing very few marks of decay. In one case, an elderly man recognized the features of his mother, who had been buried for nearly thirty years. (‘A chapter of local history’ The Press, March 16, 1860)

Figure 2.2. Advertisement from the Public-Ledger 1859.

2. The First Baptist Church of Philadelphia and burial ground

9

By another account, the superintendent of the burial ground B.R. Loxley notes in church records: Removed the remains of the Dead from our Burial ground 2d below Arch Street and reintered them in our new Ground at Mt. Moriah Cemetery. Commenced the work Jany. 16, 1860 and took up the last remains including those in the vaults and house March 16, 1860. Superintended the work myself. (PA Vital Records 002568-617)

According to this account, at least some of the burials were exhumed and, as archaeological investigations later confirmed, headstones were also removed. isiting the FBCP plot, Section 112, at Mount Moriah only produces more questions than answers. At most, a dozen headstones from the period are present (Fig. 2.3). Many of these are intentionally laid into the ground to form a sort of walkway which was a fairly common practice for moved headstones in historic times. In the center of the plot, a large obelisk commemorates the pastors of the church but headstones of the potentially thousands of individuals which should have been there are missing. The number of individuals moved to Mount Moriah will likely never be known though one estimate based on historical records suggests 120–160 (Bonneau 2022). The population of the burial ground, while largely Baptist, is actually not ancestrally homogeneous. Looking at both biological profiles of the recovered remains and burial records confirms that the interred population was largely of European descent but at least two or more individuals of African and mixed ancestry are also present. This is re ective of two things. First, the early congregation of the FBCP welcomed worshippers of African descent. However, the nature of the physical space afforded to Black congregants during worship cannot be said at this time, but, if similar to other practices, Black worshippers may have been consigned to balconies or specific sections of the church. Secondly, the burial ground was not strictly reserved for FBCP members. Indeed, non-members were who wished to be interred in this space were able to purchase a plot for their burial. Considering that persons outside of the congregation could purchase a Figure 2.3. The headstone of Joseph (d. 1765) and plot in the burial ground, as well as the Johanna Anthony (d. 1809) at the FBCP plot at presence of at least a small proportion of Mount Moriah Cemetery. ancestral differences, the burial ground

10

Artifacts of Mourning

is to some degree representative of the Philadelphia population. Even if overstated, at the very minimum the burial ground’s interred population, while fairly homogeneous, is broader than exclusively Baptists from Wales or England, or American-born Welsh and English descent. This expanded diversity of the interred population, even if minimal, increases the importance of this burial ground a great deal. When sites of a historic period are rediscovered, regardless of the type of site, the snapshot of the population that is available is often limited. Many of the conclusions that can be drawn from different sites are limited by family, ethnic, or ancestral origins. While it is certain that the majority of the interred population at this cemetery are Baptists of European descent, the inclusion of public or non-members brings further value by providing a slightly fuller range of customs and culture.

Chapter 3 Excavating an historic burial ground

A discovery of bones The project began not with shovels and trowels, but rather a newspaper article, which announced that while digging the foundation and underground parking garage of a soon-to-be high-rise luxury condo building, developers hit ‘a snarl of bones and gravestones’. Shrouded in mystery, the tip-off that this was happening came from an anonymous informant. Photos from the article show a person holding a single box of human bones with the construction site in the background. Upon reading the Inquirer article, Kimberlee Moran, a forensic archaeologist at nearby Rutgers University at Camden, called a colleague at the College of Physicians of Philadelphia’s Mütter Museum, biological anthropologist Anna Dhody. Together, they reached out to the developers with an offer to take possession of the human remains. Their goals were simple – to study the remains to see if any clues could be found as to who they might be and where they might belong so they could be reinterred carefully and respectfully. From the first moment of the announcement, it was very clear to anybody who took the time to look at the historical maps available that the property being developed into luxury condominiums sat right on top of the location of the former burial ground of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia. A quick Google search immediately turned up multiple maps showing the burial ground still located there as recently as 1859. As previously mentioned, this burial ground was used as early as 1722 until it was contracted to be exhumed and moved in 1859 (‘A chapter of local history’, Philadelphia Press 1860). How the developers were unaware and unprepared for the potential discovery of a burial ground in a historic section of Philadelphia remains unknown.

12

Artifacts of Mourning

The skeletal remains were quickly deemed to be historic, rather than modern and, accordingly, a number of government agencies shrugged off responsibility. Stephen Salisbury writes in the Philadelphia Inquirer article: The State Historical and Museum Commission, the City Department of Licenses and Inspections, and the Philadelphia Historical Commission were all informed by the medical examiner. All agencies said there was nothing they could do; all said they lacked jurisdiction in the matter. (Salisbury 2016)

With no agency overseeing the site, construction continued. Development and construction at the site continued for a few months until Moran and Dhody received a phone call in late February from the construction foreman. They were finding so many bones he didn’t know what to do. Moran immediately went to the site. Initially declining to halt construction, developers decided to allow Moran and colleague Ani Hatza, a forensic anthropologist with extensive recovery experience, on site to stand alongside of the backhoe and collect any human remains and artifacts while the backhoe continued scooping sediment. Moran admits they were furious at the situation but that there appeared to be no other option. Ideally, they wanted to have the construction ceased so that a team of professional archaeologists would be able to properly excavate the burials. They believed it was the legal obligation of the developers to cease work. However, with no city, state, or federal agency claiming jurisdiction, and no watchdog, Moran and Dhody had only themselves to be whistleblowers. For two weeks in February they stood next to the backhoe, collecting bones and artifacts. Co-mingled and without recorded spatial context, these skeletal remains and artifacts lost a considerable amount of scientific and cultural value, not to mention the lack of ethical treatment for human skeletal remains. An estimated 86 individual skeletons were collected over the course of two weeks though, due to the breakage and mixing, analysis of this first collection is significantly limited. As the backhoe worked, bones would spill out everywhere, every moment agonizing to Moran and Hatza who felt all but helpless. In the evenings, Moran would go home and spend time looking up heritage preservation laws to see what, if anything, could be done to convince the developers to halt construction for proper excavations. After the first Inquirer article, other media outlets quickly began to cover the story while a local archaeology group began looking at the legality. However, other professionals, despite being upset, offered little or no support. Moran recalls one archaeologist’s reaction on the phone telling her: ‘this will set Philadelphia archaeology back 30 years’. Determined to not let it become somebody else’s problem and end up quietly going away, Kimberlee, Ani, and Anna would not be deterred. Finally, by early March there was no sign of a decline in burials, the developers, now facing more critical media coverage, ultimately agreed to halt work temporarily. They offered Moran and Dhody a week in March to excavate the remaining burials. Moran and Dhody asked the developers to cease work for a longer period of time and hire a larger cultural resource management (CRM) firm, which is essentially a team of professional contract archaeologists, but they were not interested at the time.

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

13

First archaeological excavations So began the second phase of the excavations in which a team of volunteers lead by Moran, Dhody, and Ani commenced excavations at the site (Figs 3.1 and 3.2). With work temporarily halted and the construction workers now assisting Moran and Dhody and their team, burials could be carefully exposed and mapped. As word of the ‘forgotten burial ground’ spread around the city, bystanders showed up to peer through the fencing and news helicopters appeared in the sky, covering the discovery from the air. Moran will readily admit these excavations were anything but perfect. She was unable to use a Total Station to map the site, instead having to rely on a grid system and measuring with 50 m tape measures. A Total Station, or theodolite, is a shoebox sized electronic laser system that is often used by engineers or surveyors mapping on the sides of the road. Driving along the road, one might see a person looking through a small box at the top of a tripod, while another person, standing some distance away, is holding a re ective prism. Archaeologists use Total Stations to map sites with an x, y, z coordinate system, accurate to the millimeter. In this day in age, mapping archaeological sites by tape measure is less common practice due to the availability of more modern technologies. Often, measuring by hand is reserved for sites located in places that make it difficult to take high-tech e uipment such as remote desert or jungle locations. In addition to hand-measuring and mapping, the excavations themselves moved more quickly than traditional archaeology (Fig. 3.3 and 3.4). Moran and Dhody feared that after the one week window, developers, still seemingly under no legal obligation to halt work further, would simply end the excavations and resume construction. It appeared to them as if the construction could not be stopped for long. It was during the March excavations that my own life was to become intertwined with the project. On a bitterly cold day, having seen another update on the local news that morning, I decided to bicycle across the city and offer my support to their team. My aim was to see if I could help their cause by making any calls or sending any emails to various agencies in my capacity as an archaeologist to help Moran and Dhody lobby for halting the construction for a longer period of time. I had no intention on being involved in the project in any way, I simply wanted to help do the right thing. When I arrived at the site, my first impression was that it looked like a typical construction site, a familiar sight to all who live in any major city. The site was fenced off and canvas on the chain link fence reduced visibility of the entirety of the site. Finding a few slots, I looked through and could see construction workers and archaeologists huddled in a few locations at the back of the site. Other bystanders were also on the sidewalk peeking through the fence with curiosity after hearing about the project on the news. I then went over to the gate and introduced myself to Moran and Dhody who were standing close by at that moment and who I recognized from the news segment. I explained who I was, very brie y sharing my credentials and offering to help contact

14

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .1. A row of coffins is exposed while excavating in the south-east corner of the site in 2 17 photo: Evi Newman .

Figure .2. Anna Dhody in purple shirt discussing excavations while volunteer archaeologists map in urials photo: Arch St Project .

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

15

Figure . . Ani Hat a inspects an exposed coffin in arch of 2 17 photo: Claire Gold .

Figure . . easuring a coffin exposed y the construction ackhoe and soon to e excavated y archaeologists photo: Claire Gold .

16

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .5. A coffin in the process of eing exposed during excavations in arch 2 17 photo: Claire Gold .

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

17

local archaeologists to organize any help they could provide. Kimberlee and Anna, who have since become good friends and colleagues, re ected my offer to email and drum up any support for them, but rather asked if I would stay and help excavate. ‘We have lots of wonderful volunteers with some experience, but I could use a few more professional archaeologists helping supervise’, I recall Moran telling me. Though it was never my intention to be involved in excavation (or further research and analysis), I could see their need for support. I cannot recall why I could not stay that day, perhaps a meeting or a commitment in my lab, but I returned the following day, to help during on what would be the final day of the March excavations. My small gesture of assistance would ultimately grow into co-leading a major interdisciplinary, multi-institutional project involving experts from all over the world. During the one week period in March, 79 burials were mapped and excavated. The coffins were of varying levels of preservation but, as often as possible, coffins were removed whole and still closed (Figs . and . ). To accomplish this, coffins were exposed on all sides, mapped, recorded, and carefully wrapped with plastic sheeting and then secured with heavy-duty, low-stick, ribbon tape (Fig. . and .8). Each coffin was lifted onto a plywood support and then moved to an off-site storage facility. Even coffins that appeared largely intact or sealed were often astonishingly heavy. Over 250 years sediments can work their way through even the smallest cracks in the lid and fill much of the coffin. Some may have weighed up to 0 lb (ca 1 0 kg), and required a full team surrounding the plywood, looking much like pall bearers, to move them to the vehicles. On the morning of the final day of the March excavations, snow urries began. In the extreme cold we huddled around large heaters in between excavating coffins. By the end of the day, a massive snowstorm had covered the city and so too the excavations. Luckily, the priority sediments had been successfully excavated and it was hoped these would be the last coffins. As the final coffins were removed, several feet of sediments were raked back and showed no signs of coffins. It was thought that indicated the vertical extent of the cemetery and, therefore, the completion of the excavations. With the final coffins out of the ground, they were carried to the vehicles and sent to the storage facilities. In the days after the excavations, the remains were now sitting in multiple storage units under the control of the developers and Dhody continued to press for access. She wanted to ensure the coffins were moved to a secure, climate-controlled location where the team of professional archaeologists and biological anthropologists could assess them properly prior to reburial. The messy steps by developers which seemed to conceal the discovery of human remains resulted in un attering media coverage and eventually the company landed in The Orphan’s Court of Philadelphia, the court responsible for ruling on unidentified historic remains. In 2017, the Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, a group dedicated to raising awareness of archaeological sites and historic preservation, appeared in court to petition on behalf of the burial remains while the developers did what they could to

18

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . Excavating a coffin photo: Arch St Project .

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

Figure .7. A large coffin prepared to e transported from the site to the storage facility photo: Arch St Project .

Figure . . A large coffin is sta li ed with heavy duty tape efore transport photo: Arch St Project .

19

save face in the wake of their missteps and poor management of this historic site. Ultimately it was decreed by the court the that ‘the reinterment of all the remains shall occur … no later than September 30, 2023’ (Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia County, Orphans’ Court Division 1805048868). Moran and I also sat in the back of the courtroom during the hearing and listened as the judge expressed his disappointment in the situation. We were pleased and hoped that this would help propel Philadelphia towards considering heritage preservation and law more seriously. Coffins from the March excavation had been taken by truck to two undisclosed storage locations owned by the developers until the court ruling could be determined. Once completed, the developers disclosed that one of the storage locations was, in fact, two shipping containers under the Interstate 95 overpass in South Philadelphia, as well as the basement of one of their other apartment buildings. The coffins, having sat in the shipping containers for so long, were smoldering in the extreme summer heat and still, musky air. Because of the moisture trapped inside each plastic wrapped coffin, many had large amounts of mold inside. Protective equipment had to be worn by archaeologists while loading them up to be moved. Quickly, a new location had to be found to store the coffins.

20

Artifacts of Mourning

Considerable effort was put into finding a space. It needed to be large enough to allow for coffins and 0 boxes of skeletal remains (when coffins were to decayed to be saved) to be laid out, secure, climate-controlled, and dry. That kind of space is difficult for any university to provide quickly. Rutgers University – Camden (Rutgers), The College of New Jersey (TCNJ), and the Mütter Research Institute (MRI) all were willing to help but large space was difficult to find on any of the campuses. Moran eventually found a warehouse for short-term lease, midway between Rutgers’ Camden campus and TCNJ. In June of 201 the coffins from the storage containers were finally moved to a rented storage space that could be converted into a laboratory space (Fig. 3.9). Rutgers-Camden paid the bill for the rented lab space and The College of New Jersey approved a field school course to teach archaeology students excavation, recording, and preservation methods as well as discuss the ethical considerations that need to be made when working with burial grounds. In late June, a dozen undergraduate and graduate students from all over the United States, as well as other professional archaeologists and biological anthropologists arrived for the course led by Moran, Dhody, and myself, and Jared Beatrice, a biological anthropologist at TCNJ. Together we began the meticulous process of unwrapping, photographing, excavating the interior, and recording data on what most thought was

Figure . . Plastic wrapped coffins await study in the ack of the temporary la space photo: Arch St Project .

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

21

Figure .1 . Researchers examine a coffin and egin removed sediment on the exterior to document the handles and features photo: Arch St Project .

22

Artifacts of Mourning

Figures .11. Excavating skeletal remains from a coffin. Here the researcher collected sediment samples photo: Arch St Project .

going to be a total of 77 burials (Figs 3.10 and 3.11). The team was particularly excited and eager to learn yet felt a great sense of responsibility. These burials represented a sample of the Philadelphia’s earliest citizens and a great deal of biological and cultural knowledge could be gained. Of course, the obligation to careful, accurate research was at the forefront of the goals – this would be the only chance to learn who these individuals were before returning them to their final resting place. To begin the process, a coffin was selected and brought from the climate-controlled backroom to a table in the workspace. There it was first carefully unwrapped and the exterior was photographed to documents its condition. Detailed notes were recorded throughout the procedure. Though most of the coffins were already warped and open to some degree, the coffin’s exterior was documented first. Wood types, types of handles, and handle grips (known as coffin furniture or hardware), the shape, features of the coffin, and its condition were all recorded. Once the data was logged, the loose boards were pulled apart and disposed. Unfortunately, due to the wood’s condition – often wet, rotting, and moldy – it was unable to be retained. When possible, a small sample of the wood was saved for identification. Once the coffin was open, the slow and meticulous excavations of the interior began (Fig. 3.12). Archaeologists and supervised students slowly used brushes, spoons,

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

23

Figure .12. A coffin G-1 filled with muddy sediment was pro a ly su ject to either repeated water damage or uried near the water ta le photo: Arch St Project .

wooden skewers, and other wooden tools to remove loose sediments, carefully exposing the skeletal remains without adjusting their position. Artifacts, whether burial goods that were intentionally buried with the individual or historic rubbish mixed in with the grave shaft backfill, were recorded and bagged (Fig. .1 ).

More bones found The first few days of work in the new laboratory space moved along steadily. However, just a week into the laboratory excavations Moran received an email that would change the course of the project. Back at the site, while proceeding on to deeper levels, the backhoe had exposed more burials. The construction crew seemed to think that there were going to be a lot more coffins. Moran, Dhody, Beatrice, and myself consulted and the team declined to return to the site, instead insisting that the developers absolutely had to hire a full team of professional archaeologists this time. This project could no longer be managed by a volunteer group. Moran suggested they hire AECOM, a wellknown CRM firm whose teams are familiar with Philadelphia excavations and historic burial grounds. AECOM teams had led the excavations for the Interstate 95 expansion archaeological projects, a massive decade long renovation of the aging highway along

24

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .1 . any coffins such as urial G 7 were recovered in fragments from 2 photo: Arch St Project .

years of decay

Figure .1 . Archaeologists working in arch 2 17 photo: Arch St Project .

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

25

Philadelphia’s eastern boundary Delaware river. That project recovered over a million historic and prehistoric artifacts. The developers agreed to the plan and hired an AECOM team. To allow the new team to work they halted construction in the areas thought to contain burials. This second round of excavations, led by experienced archaeologist Kimberley Morrell, began just days later in mid-July. The new excavation team also immediately realized the large number of burials that possibly remained hidden beneath the ground. It appeared as though the initial coffins were ust the tip of the iceberg. Over the course of the next two months, Morrell’s team excavated daily. They only took off for torrential rain, which limits use of the sieve because sediments simply turn to mud. The late summer sun ushered in a few heat waves that year and still the team worked under tarps, though they sometimes had to end the day early to avoid the brutally hot conditions. By each day’s end they had exposed, recorded, and mapped anywhere from three to ten burials, depending on size and complexity. This excavation now had the time, space, and (mostly pleasant) summer weather needed to dig meticulously as archaeologists do. Unlike the March excavations, each burial was carefully mapped using a Total Station (Figs 3.14–3.16). The handmapping of the first 77 remains, once digitized, was digitally stitched together with Morrell’s Total Station map providing the first real glimpse of the full scope of the burials (Figs 3.17 and 3.18). The excavation map (Fig. 3.17) shows a picture of just how densely the site was packed with burials. Commonly, in urban burials grounds of the 18th and 19th centuries, burials were stacked, or shafts were close to one another. Space is limited in urban burial grounds and active management often required exhumation and moving of coffins, resulting in densely packed space. This was part of the reason for the growth of rural burial grounds in the 19th century, Mount Moriah, at that time, was one such example. From July 13th until September Figure .15. A coffin, roken an exposed y construction. 30th, the AECOM archaeology team Few skeletal remains are left, and the lower section of excavated an incredible 325 burials from the sediments in the deeper the coffin is missing photo: Arch St Project .

26

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .1 . A coffin is exposed y the teeth of the ackhoe prior to eing excavated photo: Arch St Project .

Figure .17. Excavation map from 21 Arch Street. Areas 1, 2, and are largely from oran s first excavations. Areas – are from orrell s second excavations. Note the slightly di erent shapes of the coffins in Areas 1– are the result of two maps eing com ined. The unexcavated area is all the sediments that had een removed y the developers prior to them permitting archaeologists on site map ased on . orrell and G. eader com ined excavation maps .

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

27

Figure .1 . 1 5 ap of Second and Arch Street showing the location of the First Baptist Church and the cemetery adapted from Hexamer and ocher, 1 5 .

levels. At the end of each workday, I would close up the lab where all the coffins were being recorded and drive back to Philadelphia to the excavation site. There, Morrell and her team would load any coffins, boxed skeletal remains, and artifacts recovered that day into my SUV. I would then take drive them back to the lab space where they would await further recording and analysis. Including the estimated 86 co-mingled human remains that were collected alongside the backhoe six months prior, a total of 496 individuals (or burials) were recovered from the burial ground. It is possible that hundreds of burials may have been destroyed prior to archaeologist intervention (see Fig. 3.18). Each was given a unique ‘G’ number, to refer to the grave during the analysis. This is a truly remarkable number of burials offering a glimpse into life and culture during the infancy of Philadelphia. Over the past six years, numerous experts from institutions all around the world have been busy conducting research on the material. Because, as an archaeologist, I specifically study artifacts, not skeletal remains (as a biological anthropologist does), this book is focused on the artifacts, but it is worth mentioning the other fascinating projects which are producing truly remarkable information. Many of these projects are still in their infancy and therefore conclusions are not available yet but modern technology is expanding what we can learn even the tiniest bits of evidence.

28

Artifacts of Mourning

It should also be reminded that working with and studying skeletal remains is a contentious practice. So many skeletal collections in museums and universities from around the world were collected, looted, or ust stolen in the early days of the field of biological anthropology. Often, the remains taken were from individuals or cultures with little power or agency to prevent this theft. Today, many institutions around the world are all in the process of repatriating their skeletal collections back to the original peoples and descendants. For this research, all studies were conducted only with the explicit permission and support from the modern FBCP as the acting descendent community. This is the proper ethical procedure. The artifacts discussed in this book, though less sensitive, were also studied only with the support of the FBCP and treated with the same level of respect. So much can be learned about these individuals’ lives from the biological material. Pla ue, known as dental calculus when it minerali es, can be scraped off the teeth. It contains information on pathogens, nutrition, and genetics. Only in the past few years have scientists been able to extract genetic information from dental calculus. Not only genetics from the individual, but genetic sequences of the pathogens that may have infected them during their lifetime. Some of the pathogens are ancestral strains to our 21st century infections and therefore valuable to modern medicine for potentially examining the evolution of disease. More importantly, to assist in finding out who these individuals are, the signatures of the dental calculus can tell us what diseases may have been responsible for their death. Lipids from soft tissues were analyzed to see how long they preserve and under what conditions. This data will add to our understanding of death intervals, a critical variable for forensic scientists who’s work often includes crime scenes. Isotopes are offering clues as to the ancestral locations where individuals may have been born before arriving in Philadelphia. Isotopic signatures remain in teeth and bones and differ based on the diet consumed by the individual and the location where that food was consumed. If an individual was born and raised in Europe and immigrated to Philadelphia as an adult, isotopic signatures can re ect that change. Signatures on teeth and bone such as hypoplasia, hyperostosis, as well as bone trauma, tell us about the lives, injuries, disease, or developmental stresses of the individuals. Many of the skeletal remains show broken – and healed – bones. We may never know the cause of most of the trauma, perhaps a fall from one’s horse, but occasionally a trauma is very clear. For example, pipe tooth was identified on one elderly man. Pipe tooth is a distinctive wear pattern on the front teeth – a circle that is formed between the upper and lower canines and lateral incisors, the exact spot one would clench a round pipe stem between the teeth. This is a fine example of piece of biocultural evidence; the evidence shows the circular wear pattern in the teeth and from that we can deduce a simple cultural behavior, that the individual smoked a pipe for a long time. With today’s modern technology, the skeletal remains can inform scientists in so many ways – most with zero or very little disruption to the bones themselves. For

3. Excavating an historic burial ground

29

the next decade, long after the remains and artifacts are back resting in the ground, the data from this assemblage will still be informing us, revising our understanding of the history of Philadelphia and, perhaps, even providing information that is useful to modern medicine. Very few historic burial grounds from America have ever provided such a large assemblage. Many of the largest historic burial grounds were well enough recorded and demarcated to remain known and left in place. At the largest known burial grounds, when and if development must take place, careful planning allows for a smooth exhumation and reinterment. A clear process and smooth reburial are preferable but this often limits the possibility for any multi-year, multidisciplinary study. The excavation and collection from the FBCP burial ground presented a unique learning opportunity rarely available at such a scale. It is these factors that make this the largest, well-studied burial ground ever to be excavated in Philadelphia. This is possibly the only opportunity to study this type of assemblage for the next several decades or, perhaps, forever.

Chapter 4 Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries

Philadelphia was a hub of social change in the 18th and 19th centuries. Politicians and laborers alike sat at the taverns just steps from FBCP talking taxation, secession, and a looming war. By the turn of the 19th century, a new government now had a sovereign nation to lead out of the aftermath of war only to uickly find itself in another. Free Black men and women walked the streets while enslaved men and women worked in the homes and built the infrastructure. Abolitionists pushed for an end to slavery while anti-abolishionists argued for its continuation. Towards the end of the 18th century Philadelphia was the capital of both the nation and the state of Pennsylvania before the former ended up in a new federal enclave on the Potomac River and the latter a moved new rural site on the Susquehanna River. Still Philadelphia’s in uence as a ma or port would stand for decades to come. Indeed, young Philadelphia was central to United States history and societal change. Because of the rich history, Philadelphia has been the focus of countless books and no story of the history of the United States is complete without a reference to the city. Many of these books have explored politics, revolution, enslavement, and trade. Because this intense period of change is intertwined with the politics of American history, it should come as no surprise that other important changes have received far less attention. For example, though today we attempt to separate religion and politics, religious belief is expressed throughout the founding fathers’ writings and political documents. These documents are important of course but a different type of dataset, such as artifacts from a burial ground, provide new and more unique data from which to extrapolate knowledge and meaning about the time period. Archaeologists have written on many areas of historical importance and artifacts from Philadelphia and been able to add significantly to the general history of the city. So, from an archaeological perspective, the artifacts associated with funerary practices, like those from the FBCP,

32

Artifacts of Mourning

provide a powerful means to examine the religious practices and mourning associated with death during this period. In an age of epidemics and, by today’s standards, rudimentary medical procedures, death was a part of life. Mourning, in turn, was commonplace. Attentiveness to death, or the prospect of death, was never far. Living during this period in which disease could strike at any moment, mourning, as it does today, undoubtedly played a valuable role in easing the commonality of death. The increase in funerary culture, seen by the surge in items available for purchase during this era, is perhaps tied to the ‘Great Awakening’ and the ‘Beautification of Death’ phenomena. To fully understand and appreciate the symbolism within the coffin hardware and the associated funerary artifacts, a background to these phenomena is presented in this chapter.

‘The Great Awakening’ ‘The Great Awakening’ terms a period of religious revitalization beginning around the early 18th century and ending towards the turn of the 19th, though it is difficult to place it within firm dates (Butler 1982). Challenging to define, Donald G. Matthews links the revival movement with ‘emotionalism and devout piety, heart over reason, commitment as opposed to disinterestedness’ (19 9, 2 ). Prior to the appearance of religious awakening in the American colony, Europe, particularly England, Scotland, and Germany had experienced a similar revival phenomenon. During the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment of the 1 th and early 18th centuries, scientific advances and medical breakthroughs appeared to allow less room for religious explanation. Science began to find new ages of geological formations and the great antiquity of life was further emerging. Simultaneously, worship services seem to have become static and impersonal. Attendance at churches appeared to be slowly declining as educated colonialists found themselves drawn to atheism and Unitarianism (Smith 201 , 2). Further, a great diversity of churches in the middle colonies regularly competed with one another for converts. But by the 1 0s, the Age of Reason appeared to give way to a renewed Age of Faith. A new generation of non-conformist preachers, most notably Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, often travelling, began attracting large audiences to their animated and powerful sermons. During this period, many people became revitali ed by the new message and the potential to have a more personal relationship with God, rather than the earlier and seemingly cold, God-fearing teachings. Jonathan Edwards of Northampton, Massachusetts is often credited with the New England beginnings of the ‘Christian Revival’, delivering his powerful sermons from 1 onwards. Subse uent ‘revivals’ began throughout New England and the northeast coast, leading up to the arrival of George Whitefield (Tracy 18 2). British-born George Whitefield Whitfield arrived in the American colony in 1 8, bringing immediate in uence. His theatrical and impassioned sermons commanded crowds in the thousands up and down the coast. Arriving in Philadelphia

4. Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries

33

in November 1 9, his in uence was significant. By June of 1 0, The Philadelphia Postboy published a notice: Philadelphia, June 12. During the session of the Presbyterian Synod, which began on the 28th of last month, and continued to the third instant, there were no less than fourteen sermons preached on Society Hill to large audiences, by the Rev. Messrs. Tennents, Mr. Davenport, Mr. Rowland, and Mr. Blair, besides what were delivered at the Presbyterians and Baptists meetings and expoundings and exhortations in private houses. The alteration in the face of religion here is altogether surprising. Never did the people so great a willingness to attend sermons, nor the preachers greater zeal and diligence in performing the duties of their function. Religion is become the subject of most conversations. No books are in request but those of piety and devotion; and instead of idle songs and ballads, the people are everywhere entertaining themselves with psalms and hymns and spirituals songs. All which, under God, is owning to the successful labors of the Rev. Mr. Whitefield. (Tracy 18 2, 2)

George Whitefield’s reinvigoration in faith crossed denominations and his preaching allies carried his message in the street and pulpits. The same article continues: On Sunday last the Rev. Mr. Gilbert Tennent preached four times; at seven in the morning at Society Hill, at ten in the Presbyterian meetinghouse, at three in the afternoon at the Baptist meetinghouse, and at seven in the evening on Society Hill, again at which last sermon it is thought there were near eight thousand people. (Tracy 18 2, )

Some scholars have downplayed the in uence of Whitefield on the spread of the Baptist church (Hoadley 198 , 20) In 1 0, Ebene er Kinnersley, son of an assistant preacher, burst out after a sermon by one of Whitefield’s disciples at the FBCP. I am not against the Preaching of Terror, in order to convince prophane, impenitent Sinners of their awful and tremendous Danger, provided it be prudently managed, but such preaching as we have been entertained with, I do now openly profess my Abhorrence of it (Pennsylvania Gazette issue no. 0 Hoadley 198 , 20)

His outburst demonstrates not all were impressed with Whitefield’s (or his pupil’s) sermons. However, whether due to the outburst or in disagreement with the sentiment, Kinnersley was tried by the church, disciplined, and forbidden communion. Such a move by the church demonstrates at the very least a small defense of the new teachings. Ultimately, Kinnersley left the church and spent some time worshipping at the Episcopal Church before returning to the FBCP (Keen 1899, ). In 18 0, the Philadelphia Press, re ecting on the exhumation of the FBCP burial ground, mentions by name a few of the prominent citizens and references one of the individuals lending their front porch for the sermons of Whitefield: The name of Captain Ben amin Loxley is familiar to every student of Philadelphia history. He was a noted man in his day. His remains were interred in this grave-yard, where they sleep side by side with those of his descendants to the fourth and fifth generation. He resided in a frame house of singular construction, at the unction of Little Dock and Second streets. In the early days of our history, it is written that George Whitfield sic was accustomed to preach to the citizens from the balcony in the front of the house. The house was then in ‘the suburbs of the town,’ and large were the audiences that congregated every Sabbath to hear the wonderfully elo uent Whitfield sic . (Philadelphia Press 18 0)

34

Artifacts of Mourning

Loxley’s Philadelphia home was one and a half blocks from the FBCP meetinghouse near what is today Fourth and Arch Streets. Here again, the history of the FBCP is intertwined with the in uence of Whitefield. This Great Awakening, led by Whitefield, reinvigorated many citi ens to a more accessible Christianity. Its in uence, clearly reaching a great portion of the population, crossed various denominations. As to Whitefield himself, it is important to note that while he welcomed enslaved and free Africans to his sermons and advocated for better treatment of the enslaved, he was a slave owner at his plantation in Georgia. This fact certainly adds complexity to how one today must think about his teachings. Astonishingly he used the profit from his Georgia slave plantation and from donations received from the throughout the colony and abroad to fund an orphanage. It is possible to say then, that the Great Awakening period, whether significantly or at the very least, moderately, revived or perhaps more accurately, refreshed religion. Even at the very least, for a period of time in the mid-18th century religion was often a topic of conversation, thanks in part to the many sermons of Whitefield and his followers. As historian John Howard Smith writes, Whitefield’s American tour in 1 9 1 0 also marks the First Great Awakening’s advent as a transatlantic phenomenon. What had been a light epistolary fully among like-minded revivalist clergy between the colonies and across the Atlantic in the early 1 0s became a bli ard at the end of the decade on account of Whitefield’s activities. A loose network of evangelicals grew larger and tight with the sharp upswing in revivals in the wake of Whitefield’s tour, but the great effects were found not ust in the surge in the newspaper accounts of revivals in the colonies and Britain, but also in the fact that people from across the socioeconomic spectrum responded to and displayed religious “enthusiasm” on an unprecedented scale. (Smith 201 , 12 )

A religious revolution in a time when unexpected death was still largely commonplace may certainly have persuaded the average citizen to examine not only their relationship with God in life, but to ask questions of death and the afterlife. Whitefield’s sermons, both spoken and printed in newspapers, allowed for an accessible religion, one that ‘infatuated common People … and promoted ecumenism’ (Smith 201 , 118). With less of a need to fear the hand of death, mourning practice appears to have embraced beautification and resulted in an increased expenditure in funerary items. Even the poor felt it important to provide loved ones a proper farewell (Bell 1990, ). It is challenging to criti ue the full effect of the Great Awakening and its preachers on the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia or the Baptists of the greater region. Hoadley (198 , 20) argues there was very little in uence, but perhaps he is referring to in uence in Baptist belief systems. However, the revivalism felt throughout Philadelphia and the region at a social level is certainly evident in the growth of the Baptist church between the mid 18th century and the beginning of the 19th (Hoadley 198 ). As further evidence that the revivalist period did have in uence on the Baptist Church comes from the adoption of the Philadelphia Confession of Faith in 1 2.

4. Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries In the year 1 2 the Baptist Association rewrote their own version of the 1 89 Second London Confession of Faith. This ordinance essentially represents a doctrine of beliefs of the church. The Philadelphia Confession of Faith is nearly identical to the 1 89 document with two exceptions. First, it allows for hymns to be sung during the Lord’s Supper. Secondly, it allows for the laying-of-hands during baptism. The adoption of these two practices is a only a small parting from the previous practices. More importantly, the 1 2 date of the rewrite places the change during some of the most active periods of public sermons by revivalist preachers. As such, the adoption of the doctrine, at this particular time, may itself be indicative of the Great Awakening in uence on the regional Baptist congregation. Others disagree, in his book, By God’s Own Hands, Frank Hoadley (198 ), attributes the laying-of-hands and hymn singing additions to the arrival of a new wave of Welsh Baptists in America in the 1 0s (198 , 1 ). Whether brought by new arrivals to the colony or as a result of the in uence of the many vocal preachers, the change to the Confession of Faith occurs in the middle of a religiously tumultuous period and it is the same period that the majority of the archaeological material from this burial ground falls within. That this period falls right over the date range of the archaeological material makes the symbols on the artifacts, and the artifacts themselves, a receptacle of culture of the period, and all the more interesting.

Beautification of death During this period of religious awakening, it should be no surprise that an increase in investment of funerary goods is also demonstrated. By the 1 0s, coffin ‘furniture’ including breast plates, handle grips, and grip plates were of good quality but limited in variety (Litten 1991, 10 ), perhaps due to a time-consuming manufacturing process. The style of these items was possibly in uenced by the popularity of the rococo trend of the time, as seen in many paintings and furniture. The growing funeral industry was soon fueled by increased production of funerary adornments in the 18th century, much of which can be attributed to the development of power assisted metal stamping in 1 9 (Litten 1991, 10 Loe and Boston 2019, 1 1). This machine-assisted process produced coffin furniture so inexpensively that it remained cheap even when exported to the colonies, which may have hindered the development of the industry outside of Britain (Litten 1991, 109). The increased speed of production may have had an additional impact by allowing a wider variety of motifs and types of stamped metal pieces (i.e. handle grip plates or lid pla ues) to be produced. Indeed, by this time the availability of inexpensive coffin hardware allowed even those of fewer financial means to invest in a proper send off for loved ones.

he funeral There is a quickly growing body of literature focused on burial ground archaeology. These studies have furthered our understanding of the funerary practices through

Artifacts of Mourning historical documentation and material remains (see, for instance, Baugher and eit 201 or Mytum and Burgess 2018). One of the earlier collections of funeral descriptions of these historic periods comes from Julian Litten’s seminal 1991 book The English Way of Death: the common funeral since 1450. Pulling from surviving descriptions as well as depictions in contemporary paintings, Litten sheds light on all aspects of the common funeral from practice to material culture. Upon the death of an individual, in a time when little preservation was available, a body may have spent an average of three days being prepared and viewed prior to burial. At that time, friends and relatives might have come to the home to pay respect to the deceased by viewing either an open or closed coffin (Litten 1991, ). In 1 th century England the use of winding sheets, used to cover the body of the deceased for burial, was gradually replaced by the coffin (Tharp 199 ). The body was still shrouded however, but then placed in a coffin. In the American colonies, it seems that coffins were largely the norm for a Christian burial from the earliest days of European arrival. As the early 18th century continued, funerals increasingly became a spectacle (Tharp 199 ), with some families spending up to a uarter of their wealth on a single funeral. The funeral, in fact, became one of the most elaborate religious rituals by the early 1 00s. The extravagance of the funerals of the wealthiest of the population simply could not be maintained or matched. By the mid-18th century, burials in the American colony had become too extravagant for many tastes and there was a general narrowing and simplifying of the practice (Tharp 199 , ). This did not mean the end of adorning the coffin with hardware the continued availability and increased production of such items meant that even the least wealthy were often able to purchase some element of hardware. During this same period, funeral furnishers were commonly advertising available coffins. Some were described in detail, such as those from John Middleton of London who advertised a twopence-a-week subscription for ‘A strong Elm Coffin, cover in Black, and finished with Two Rows all around closed drove with Black Japanned Nails, adorned with rich ornamental Drops, a handsome Plate of Inscription, Angle above the Plate and Flower beneath, and a pair of Handsome Handles with wrought Gripes sic ’ (Litten 1991, 1 ). In Philadelphia, through the second half of the 1 00s, advertisements in newspapers for coffins for sale and handles to adorn them rose steeply (Tharp 199 ). In other words, the funeral industry was still ourishing even with a ‘simplification’ of the ceremony itself. In fact, by the early 19th century English funerals for paupers could be accommodated for as little 1 1 s ust over 2 in modern terms) and include ‘a plain pine coffin, four bearers and the hire of a bai e pall’ (Litten 1991, 1 ). Coffins were considered a basic requirement for burial so much so that by the mid-18th century in England charitable organi ations donated simple coffins for paupers unable to afford them (Tharp 199 , ). At the time, the sending of invitations or ‘tickets’ for a funeral was not uncommon (Litten 1991, Fig. .1). By today’s standards, the practice may seem unusual but the

4. Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries

Figure 4.1. Cherubs and funerary curtains in a funeral invitation, 1756 (Museum of London).

surviving invitations provide a record of important motifs associated with the culture of death. They illustrate the same familiar symbolism that is re ected in the hardware from the coffins cherubs, urns, willows, and death’s heads. In many, including the 1 invitation illustrated in Figure .1, curtains are drawn to the sides, often by cherubs, revealing a central design. These motifs and symbols are not just found on funeral invitations of the time, but within the handles, plaques, and headstones as well. Symbolism associated with funerary practices has changed very little and many still hold the same meanings as they did in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Belief and symbolism The historical records demonstrate that while many of those interred at the cemetery were members of the FBCP others, non-Baptists, were also laid to rest at the site. So, while it is necessary to brie y highlight Baptist beliefs in relation to the symbolism of the hardware, this relationship may not hold for all the individuals buried there. Further, it should be noted here that archaeology, as a method of studying the past, does not have direct access to ‘belief ’ but rather finds evidence of ‘practice’ (Tarlow 201 ). So, much like today, an individual’s beliefs and practices may not always align.

38

Artifacts of Mourning

The same can be said for an individual’s vocal declaration of beliefs versus their true beliefs. Though there is certainly a range of individual’s beliefs within any Christian congregation, the Baptists have doctrines to which they ascribe. In fact, Baptists have been called the People of the Book and assert that the Bible is ‘infallible and without error in the original manuscripts’ (Fickett 19 , 20). Many of these beliefs, teachings, and creeds are similar to other protestant faiths. Rather than review Baptist belief systems in their entirety, there are a few that warrant mentioning as they can provide some context to the symbolism found in the funerary hardware. Still, as discussed elsewhere in this book, the available coffin hardware and, therefore, the symbols to choose from, were also likely dictated by economic factors such as what the producers made based on what they felt was the most popular style of the time. It is also worth mentioning that because Baptist Churches act to an extent autonomously of one another there are many unique belief systems that deviate from others. The symbols found on the hardware are all associated with religion, both then and now. Angels and cherubs (see below) are fre uently found and generally speaking Baptists believe in angels. They do not, however, declare if each worshipper has a personal guardian angel but accept that the Bible makes it clear that angels are all around us: in Psalm 91:11 ‘ He shall give His angels charge over you, to keep you in all your ways’ (Olsen 2022). Baptists believe that individual church members can relate directly or personally with God and therefore needs no intercessor, such as a priest (FBCP website). This is surely demonstrative of a personali ed and accessible religion. These beliefs ensure the angel a central and frequent position in many motifs. Embedded in their name, Baptist, the practice of baptism is an important ritual in the church. The practice itself is a powerful symbol used to demonstrate one’s faith in God. The immersion in water represents both the rebirth of Christ as well as the death of a sinner now promised resurrection (Duncan 2019) to the Kingdom of Heaven. Much of funerary practice lies with the notion of Heaven and the afterlife. Baptists, drawing from the Bible, believe that Heaven is both a place and a state. Arriving in Heaven brings relief from sin and eternal life in the service of God (Mullins 1912). Whether a place or a state, worshippers of Christ are buried in order to present their bodies to God for eternity. The symbols embedded in the coffins’ hardware in this case would appear to take on further meaning; not only to be viewed by friends and family before burial, but perhaps intended as symbols to fall on God’s eyes in the moments before udgement. Perhaps, they serve as final reminders of the departed’s commitment to The Lord. Humans’ relationships to the power of symbols is not to be under-estimated. They are tied to and in uence our everyday from the earliest evidence of rock art, painted some ,000 years ago (Brumm et al. 2021), to the signage that riddles our daily commutes. Likewise, when symbols are combined with grief and death, they become all-the-more powerful as both a re ection of one’s life and the hope that

4. Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries

39

comes with the unknowns of death. Funerary symbols in the 18th and 19th centuries are then carefully tied to religious meanings. Motifs, specifically symbolism, associated with funerary practice of the period shifted in popularity during the Great Awakening period and the ensuing trend of the Beautification of Death. Dethlefsen and Deet ’s (19 ) celebrated work details a shift in mortuary symbols found on headstones in colonial New England burial grounds. Coffin fitting styles, such as handle grip plates (as seen in Chapter ), may have been slower to change than their above-ground counterparts through the period (Hoile 2019, 2 1), but the symbolism remains powerful nonetheless. Death’s Heads Among the most known symbols associated with funerary tradition is the Death’s Head, or skull. This formidable symbol is regularly seen in burial grounds from the early 1 th and 18th centuries in New England and the Atlantic coast. In New England they are most often associated with earlier Puritan burial grounds as a demonstration of the fear of death. Puritan belief of the time maintained that death was the ultimate punishment for Adam and Eve’s original sin. The Death’s Head, like many funerary symbols, changed stylistically over time and place and was often depicted as winged. This may have represented not just death of the individual, but a metamorphosis of change to the afterlife. The Death’s Head is also more commonly found on headstones than on coffin hardware. This is exemplified by FBCP burial ground samples. Cherub In Christianity, the cherub represents a powerful angel, a guardian of the Lord watchful at the throne of the Lord. A symbol not of death but of life after death; the cherub is a constant presence in funeral culture of the time and today. Sculpture and artwork depict cherubs as far back as the By antium (see Figs 8. 8.11). Urn A strong symbol of death, possibly dating back to pre-Christian Romans and Greeks who frequently used urns to hold the ashes of the deceased. As such, the urn also has been known to represent the return to ashes of the physical body. When depicted with ames coming from the top, the meaning has been interpreted as eternal remembrance. In the FBCP excavation, the urn is not commonly portrayed, but is still present (see Figs 8.12 and 8.1 ). Urn and Willow An urn is often paired with a willow tree and commonly referred to in literature as the ‘Urn and Willow’ motif. Biblical references to the willow suggest that it is a representation of both the eternality life as well as grief. Also tied to the Greek revivalist style trend of the early 19th century, the willow has been associated with the Greek Goddess Persephone. Though it appears on funerary items, particularly headstones, during the period, there are no identifiable urns and willows in the FBCP assemblage.

0

Artifacts of Mourning

Urn with fire Another variation of the Urn and Willow is the urn with ames of fire rising from the top. Fire is believed to be representative of eternal life, although some have suggested that the urn represents dust as the body passes to eternal life. Flower To this day, the ower remains an important part of mourning the departed. Bou uets and wreaths are often used to decorate coffins during viewing and laid around or in the grave shaft during burial. A strong symbol of compassion and hope, owers were indeed used for these purposes in the 18th and 19th centuries. Little organic material remains but in at least one burial the stalks of owers, still wrapped in a ribbon, were discovered. The ower as a symbol is found on one handle grip plate (Fig. 8.1 ), but more fre uently appears on lid pla ues. In particular, a daisy has been associated with childhood (Boston 2009). Other types of foliage are less identifiable in this specific assemblage. Angel The angel is familiar to many of us today as a symbol of many meanings. It can be interpreted as hope, love, faith, and strength. An angel can also be intended to be a messenger from God. Possibly in the context of death, an angel can be a protector or even an usher to heaven (Figs 8. 8 8. 9). As profound as these symbols may be, it has been also proposed that it was often not the family of the deceased who was even responsible for the selection of the handle types and other coffin fittings (Tharp 199 ), Instead, some have argued that the undertaker may have primarily been responsible for selecting the style of fittings (Mytum 2018). It must be considered that funerals must have been arranged in a timely manner as preservation of the body was difficult during this period. Because of the strains of grieving in the days immediately after the passing of a loved one, the choice of handle type may have been left to the undertaker. This would leave the family to attend to other important affairs in the wake of the death. It has also been suggested that the type of metal on which the handle was produced was of more importance than the motif itself based on how the handles were advertised, regularly describing nothing but the type of metal (Hoile 2019). The idea that somebody other than the deceased or the family of the deceased could have been responsible for the selection of the styles of handles is interesting. So much meaning is rooted in the symbols that it seems obvious to connect them to the deceased’s beliefs. Yet, raising the question of who was selecting the styles presents an interesting alternative. The possibility that the symbols were not as individually meaningful or, perhaps, interchangeable, or more emphasis was placed on the generalized attractiveness of the handles, raises questions as to the economic in uence behind funerary hardware. Still, it cannot be denied that no matter who chose the hardware, it is still a person, with intentionality. In this case the handles are a demonstration of agency

4. Religious revival and mourning in the 18th and 19th centuries

41

of choice, either an economic or religious choice. Even if some of the hardware was selected by an undertaker, there is a high likelihood that they would have consulted the family or, at the very least, attempted to select based on their understanding of what the deceased individual or family of the deceased would have preferred. This is another demonstration of the complexity of inferring meaning associated with behavior based on small pieces of evidence in the past. The challenge, however, provides us an opportunity to think about a wider range of cultural exchange than perhaps a solely simple explanation such as a family being the only ones responsible for choosing the hardware.

Epidemics The in uence of the Great Awakening on cultural and religious practice and the full power of the ‘Beautification of Death’ is often debated. However, the many epidemics to pass through Philadelphia in the 18th century may also have driven the growth of the funeral business. Regardless of the sorrow that accompanies death, it was still a business opportunity and epidemics were an opportunity for profit. A large number of recorded epidemics took a hard toll on the city of Philadelphia through the 18th and 19th centuries. Some records mention only a few dozen deaths, others a few hundred. It is hard to know the full scope these events may have had on the population not just culturally and economically, but psychologically as well. Unrecorded causes of death, or unrecorded deaths of the poorest persons would certainly increase some of the numbers of the deceased. Either way, some of the known epidemics occurred within the window of time and likely population of the FBCP burial ground. In 1 0 smallpox claimed at least 288 lives in Philadelphia and re-appeared in 1 1 (Packard 19 2). Only ten years later, measles claimed a lesser 22 lives and 2 more in 1 9 (Klepp 1991). 1 89 1 91 saw locali ed in uen a outbreaks. However, the largest and perhaps most well-known epidemic is 1 9 ’s yellow fever outbreak. The virus devastated the city at a grand scale and is estimated to have claimed the lives of up to 000 Philadelphians. At that time, the population of Philadelphia was only about 0,000 citi ens, making the scale of its impact all the more devastating. Many families, maybe totaling up to 1 ,000 individuals, ed the city to rural farms, country houses, or relatives’ homes when they could. Burial grounds could not keep up with the death toll. Coffins were produced in mass during these periods (Tharp 199 ) and, fre uently, traditional funerals were replaced with expedited burials. A byproduct of such a significant death toll in such a short period of time was the continued necessity for coffin and hardware. Events like these fueled the growing funerary industry. This is not intended to vilify the funeral industry by any means. Rather, one could potentially view it as the opposite. The common funeral, as a method of mourning, had become financially viable to even the less wealthy and an opportunity

42

Artifacts of Mourning

to formali e mourning. Coffin makers and undertakers, in this sense, were providing a service, albeit with a range of options for wealthy or poor. Nonetheless, it was a service which in some small manner may have added to a family’s comfort by providing some standardized tradition in the burial process. Indeed, the history of Philadelphia is complex politically, socially, and religiously. Culture and religion experience changes with the arrivals of fresh ideas being preached in new ways. New mass production techniques and a constant supply in an important port city paired with less fearful notions of death may lead to increasing investment in items to adorn coffins. Illness and epidemics taking thousands of lives and touching the lives of thousands more create a constant need for undertaker services. There are many forces that cause changes to culture. The evolution of death rituals and funerary customs is not an exception. So, the artifacts from the FBCP are themselves intertwined with this complex and fascinating history in Philadelphia.

Chapter 5 Evidence of funerary dress and textiles

This chapter examines the evidence or, as is often the case, the lack of evidence, of funerary dress. Textiles are important artifacts in archaeological sites around the world but are often found extremely decayed or in small pieces. This makes them difficult to understand and analy e and, therefore, they are often overlooked. So much meaning is conveyed through modern clothing; the meaning intended by wearing a suit and tie is far different than the meaning behind a bathrobe. The dress, shroud, or clothing that a person is dressed in for burial also follows traditions and is an intentional decision. In the 18th and 19th centuries, funerary dress took a number of forms based on wealth, personal preference, or religious belief. Corresponding with the religious revival in progress and the now common use of coffins, funerary dress shifted from a functional barrier between the individual and the sediment around them to indicative of the peaceful eternal ‘sleep’ the deceased had entered. Most frequently in the Americas, once the body was washed it was dressed in a burial shroud. Shrouds resembled the nightgowns of the era (Cherryson 2018, 1), loosely fitting around the deceased and split down the back where it could be tied. Usually made of linen or wool the shroud could be elaborate or simple, aligned with the family’s wealth or beliefs. A more elaborate burial shroud may have included ru es or even decorative rings (Cherryson 2018). By the mid-1 00s a cap and bonnet might have been included (for those with additional money to spend), further paralleling common nightwear. Ru es or pleats may have additionally adorned the shrouds of the wealthy (King 2018). Of course, textiles are delicate and rarely preserve for long periods of time. At the FBCP burial ground only twelve burials were found with tiny fragments of textile. These were identified as wool, bast (likely hemp or ax), and silk.

Artifacts of Mourning No cotton was identified. The absence of cotton could be due to lack of preservation, but it was also a luxury item at the time and often repurposed as a garment aged. Because of the lack of textile preservation, it is frequently the artifacts made of other material that inform us to the past presence of textile or fabric. Shroud pins are commonly found in burial ground excavations from 18th and 19th century sites in the United States and England. Often, they are the only evidence of textile that remains. Most common is the simple copper alloy shroud pin which, in burial with little disturbance, may still sit in locations indicative of their original placement (Fig. .1). On occasion, and in at least two burials from the FBCP, the pins are wrapped in a gold leaf (Fig. .2). These pins many be an indication of personal preference or wealth but, when analy ed in the lab, it was discovered the gold is nothing more than Fool’s Gold.

Figure 5.1. Copper wire shroud pins from burial G-22 (avg. length 2.8 cm; photo: John Wynn).

Figure 5.2. Shroud pins wrapped in ‘gold’ leaf from burial G-180. The gold leaf was tested and is actually an iron sulfate, similar to what is known as ‘fool’s gold’ (avg. length 2.8 cm; photo: John Wynn).

5. Evidence of funerary dress and textiles

Figure 5.3. A shell button from burial G-42 (diam. 1.2 cm; photo: John Wynn).

Pins were found in 2 . of burials from the FBCP site, making them the largest indicator of funerary dress in the form of shrouding. However, it should be noted that . of burials have no pins found with them. This might be due to lack of preservation but may simply indicate that the shroud or potentially other clothing was free of pins. Buttons also offer clues as to the types of funerary dress the deceased may have been adorned in for interment. Made from shell, bone, metal, and glass, buttons indicated that clothing other than a shroud was preferred for that

Figure 5.4. Six bone buttons, four smaller and two larger, and two decorative shroud rings from burial G-188 (large button avg. diams 2.1 cm, small button avg. diam. 1.3 cm, ring avg. diam. 1 cm; photo: John Wynn).

Artifacts of Mourning individual (Figs . . ). A shell button, like that recovered from burial G- 2, is difficult to date (Fig. . ). Shell buttons were commonly used through the entire 18th and early 19th centuries. Usually, they were used as shirt buttons or, perhaps, shirt cuff buttons. Large and small bone buttons (Figs . and . ) were typical of men’s clothing. Breeches are the likely garment for the larger bone buttons at the waist and the smaller buttons may have been attached Figure 5.5. Two bone buttons from burial G-195 to the legs. The number of these suggests (avg. diam. 1.5 cm; photo: John Wynn). complete sets and indicates that the individual may have been buried in day clothes. A burial in day clothes, while not unknown, is certainly unusual practice when compared to the majority of the evidence from FBCP burial ground. Of particular note are the facetted, glassed buttons found with burial G(Fig. . ). This stunning set of four buttons were found clustered around each lower forearm. The setting of the button is made of copper alloy and a glass ‘jewel’, facetted to look like a precious stone, is held within the setting. These are clearly unique and more than likely indicate above average wealth. Interestingly, no textile was found with the burial. These may have adorned a man’s shirt, perhaps silk, but will never be known. Unusual sets of gold rings were found with burials G-188 and G- 00 (Fig. . ). Two small rings in G-188 maybe have been gilded with the gold leaf like in G 00, Figure 5.6. Two of the set of four facetted glass buttons from burial G-43 (length 1.35 cm; photo: but only one had remnants. They may John Wynn). have possibly been used to decorate the shroud, or had a more functional purpose. et, the gold rings of G- 00 leave little doubt of a decorative nature. The set of nine gold rings were clustered around the pelvis and lower forearm of the individual. The striking gold color was likely intended to be seen, rather

5. Evidence of funerary dress and textiles

Figure 5.7. ‘Gold’ decorative shroud rings found with burial G-300 (avg. diam. 1.2 cm; photo: John Wynn).

Figure 5.8. Interior view of copper alloy button from burial G-234. Typically found on a frock style coat. This piece was probably the face with the interior having a bone or wood interior and a copper eye or ‘loop’ attached to the back (diameter 2.6 cm; photo: John Wynn).

than hidden from view in a functional sense. Using a scanning electron microscope, the rings were tested for elemental composition and are not made of real gold, but rather a fool’s gold. Their use, however, either functional or decorative as well as the specifics as to how they may have adorned a shroud or clothing, remain unknown. Similar rings were recovered at All Saints, Chelsea Old Church, in London, England, though not wrapped in gold their function is also unknown (Cowie et al. 2008). The button in Figure .8 is made of a copper alloy. The curvature suggests it is the embossed button face that once was fitted over a bone or wood backing with a copper eye fascinated to the back. Of all the burials excavated, 12 had actual textile material recovered with them. Some appear to have been part of clothing

8

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 5.9. Wool ribbon from burial G-44 (photo: George Leader).

Figure 5.1 . Bast ri on wrapped around the stalks of owers from urial G-

photo: George eader .

while others may have been ribbons to keep hair in place or to hold the mouth closed during the viewing. The ribbon showing in Figure 5.9 is a wool twill not associated with a location on the skeletal remains. One bast ribbon, perhaps hemp, was recovered from burial G- and still had the stalks of owers inside, laid inside the coffin to be buried with the departed (Fig. .10). The types of owers have not been identified.

5. Evidence of funerary dress and textiles

9

Under the majority of soil conditions, regardless of the pH level, textile materials do not preserve well. One occasional exception is Mineral Preserved Organic (MPO). Copper is known to act as a biocide and when copper alloy pins are in close proximity to textile, it can occasionally fend off bacteria that might degrade the textile (Janaway 2001). This might have been the case in burial G-1 9 in which textile material is found with a pin still inside (Fig. .11). The most delicate dress item to have survived is a tortoise shell comb from burial G-12 (Fig. .12). The comb was found at the occipital bone at the back of the cranium of Figure 5.11. A silk fragment with a shroud pin the skeletal remains. The deceased was an still stuck through the piece, from burial G-159 adult female and this piece held her hair in (pin length 2.9 cm; photo: George Leader). place for her final rest. All the items of clothing were chosen by somebody with intentionality. Perhaps little effort was put into the choice, or for some a great deal of thought. The tortoise shell comb is especially meaningful. An item perhaps associated with the individual in life, it is indicative of a clear decision made by loved ones to

Figure 5.12. Tortoise shell com from urial G-12 . ore specifically, a hair com to hold a woman s hair back or in a bun (length 9 cm; photo: John Wynn).

0

Artifacts of Mourning

adorn the individual with the item for eternity. It is in this way that textiles inform on cultural behavior. They illustrate what may be the norm, in this case shrouds or what may be unique, like a silk shirt with glass buttons. From these small, fragmented occurrences archaeologists can interpret possible meaning but there is a limit to how much can be inferred. For many of the items we will never know the full meaning or reason behind their placement. That fact leaves an element of unknown for some but, importantly, it leaves room for various interpretations.

Chapter 6 Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia burial ground

Outside of archaeology coffins are not often thought of as ‘artifacts’ and perhaps given little attention as an interesting cultural item. But, in reality, these were constructed by skilled craftsmen using hand tools. Therefore, they retain signatures of production processes and what styles might have been popular at the time.

Coffin production Possibly due to an association with death, or simply because of their under-studied nature, the craftmanship with which coffins were manufactured during this period is largely under-appreciated. Coffins, having become the standard of burial practice for both wealthy and poor by the early 18th century (Tharp 199 ), were manufactured by the same skilled cabinet and furniture makers whose proficiency in oining is still appreciated in the glamorous dressers, tables, desks, and chairs that have survived to this day. By the end of the 18th century, there are at least 119 known furniture craftsmen listed in Philadelphia alone. This number uickly grew to 211 by 182 , indicative of a growing demand for furniture both in the colonies and for export (Catalano 19 9). The coffin, as a symbol, invokes powerful and layered meanings to the observer. Prior to the common use of the coffin, winding sheets and shrouds had very little distinction from one another. Brent Tharp notes in his 199 research on historic American coffins: ‘No matter what the status or taste of the deceased, there was little or no variation in shroud material, style, or color’ (Tharp 199 , ). Alternatively, the coffin could be adorned with hardware, draped and pro ect status. Death, the great e uali er, has found an adversary in the coffin, a medium to pro ect status and meaning.

2

Artifacts of Mourning

By the mid-19th century, trade catalogs in England were advertising over a hundred varieties of coffins (Henderson et al. 201 ). It is unlikely that such an abundant selection was available in America from the earliest days of the FBCP burial ground but, indeed, some selection existed for the consumer. Coffins were often made individually to order at the time of death (Tharp 199 Bromberg and Shephard 200 ). During a period of epidemic, they were produced en masse (Tharp 199 ). After excavations, when researchers are observing the coffin with skeletal remains inside, the form fitting custom si e becomes obvious most of the remains fit very snugly inside, with little extra room. Associating the FBCP burial ground coffins to a particular furniture maker would rely on the monumental task of pairing burial records with scarce remains of cabinet makers’ account books, by matching family name and date of purchase. The primary producers of coffins by the early 18th century were craftsmen such as cabinet and furniture makers and upholsterers (Tharp 199 ). Early furniture maker record books are exceptionally rare. It is known, however, that the prominent cabinet maker, John Head, lived and worked ust a block from the burial ground at Third and Mulberry (Arch) Street. More fortunate is that his account book is well documented with at least coffins listed (Stiefel 2019, 2 ). This record may offer a strong indication of prices of coffins similar to those excavated from the FBCP burial ground. The expense of coffins documented in John Head’s account book reveals an inclusive price availability from inexpensive to costly. As an example of a coffin at the lower end of the cost spectrum, a local shoemaker, Joseph Hooper, was ‘debited a modest 0-12-0’ and settled his debt a month later offering Head ‘ a payer pair of shoes’. The type of wood used is also a strong in uencer of the price. 0-1 -0 is charged for a less expensive ‘ pin e Cofin’ for Joseph Elger in 1 22 (Stiefel 2019, 2 8). A coffin constructed for James Way in 1 28 was listed for 2- -0 and described as a ‘redged ridged Cofin’, likely referring to a gabled lid. Head’s account book indicates his earliest coffin was constructed in 1 18 for Thomas Shut at 2-0-0. The last coffin listed is recorded as costing 1-0-0, made for Ben amin Mason’s daughter in November of 1 0 (Stiefel 2019, 2 ). Between 1 18 and 1 0 Head sold at least coffins, though only six are recorded as walnut none as mahogany. This is in stark contrast to the FBCP wood samples in which more than 0 are produced on these two types of wood.

Excavated coffins The coffins at FBCP cannot be attributed specifically to John Head’s workshop and were likely produced at numerous workshops in the city. The style within the assemblage is remarkably homogeneous with the vast ma ority having a ‘gable’ lid (Figs .1 and .2). Unlike the at-topped coffin, the gabled coffin lid was produced on four individual pieces of wood and provided a central peak running from the headboard to the footboard. Forty-seven samples of coffin wood were able to be identified for species. The sample represents 12. of the burials recovered and is therefore a strong indicator of the

. Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia urial ground overall amounts present. The coffins are produced on seven types of wood: black walnut ( .1 ), true mahogany group (2 . ), sweet gum (1 ), yellow pine group (10. ) white pine group ( .2 ), American Atlantic white cedar (2.1 ), and red cedar (2.1 ). Certainly, some hardwoods may be more resistant to deterioration while soil composition throughout the site might affect preservation. et, with most of the burials some wood was present even when the coffin was largely decomposed. Samples were Figure .1. A small ga led coffin for a toddler, G-22. The taken from coffins in both good and lid is produced from four oards joined y nails and poor condition and is therefore likely secured to the side oards and end oards with screws not biased. 71 25 1 cm photo . Wynn . Coffin construction takes different forms in different periods and locations. Remarkably, at St Mary’s City Catholic burial ground (1 8 1 0), Maryland, archaeologists documented an incredible seven distinct coffin shapes (Riordan 2009). These include at lidded coffins in four shapes:

Figure .2. Coffin G-2 after conservation research. Hexagonal shape and ga led lid photo: Olav Bjornerud .

Artifacts of Mourning hexagonal, rectangular, anthropomorphic, and tapered. Gable lidded coffins have been documented in three styles: hexagonal with a four-piece lid, hexagonal with a two-piece lid, and tapered (Riordan 2009). It has been reported that the at-topped coffin was actually the standard of the 18th century (Tharp 199 , 80) but this seems to fall apart at the FBCP where the overwhelming ma ority are gabled lids. One of the interesting findings from a detailed examination of one of the coffins (G-29, Fig. .2) was that the lid was not constructed in four pieces nor the side two pieces, as it may appear in the photos. Those pieces are actually the result of breakage of single pieces that were ‘kerfed’ at the shoulder and crest of the lid. A kerf is a type of cut made on a single piece of wood that allows it to be ‘bent’ to form an edge rather than being constructed from two pieces. This gives that edge a smooth look and is often used in furniture production of the time. Unlike the many styles found at the St Mary’s City Catholic burial ground, at the FBCP the coffins recovered are exclusively hexagonal in shape and overwhelmingly gabled. In the entire assemblage, only 2 are found with at lids while 1 have gabled lids. Other burial ground excavations have recorded gabled lids produced on two pieces of wood, but those from FBCP are all constructed using four pieces. This indicates either a clear preference for gabled hexagonal coffins or a lack of availability of other styles. The unexpectedly overwhelming number of hexagonal gabled lids can be interpreted a few ways. Often when compared to the simpler at lid, it is assumed that the gabled lid represents a significant price increase. However, the preponderance of hexagonal gabled lids makes it seem unlikely that only ( at lids) represent less wealthly individuals. Instead, a new interpretation must be explored. The high number of gabled lids may have been a widely available and popular style with little variation in price between the gabled and at forms. The price range instead, may have had more to do with variation of other features, such as wood types and coffin hardware. This uniformity in construction, as well as the lack of dated headstones at FBCP, makes any assessment of trends in shape changes difficult but the hexagonal gabled style is most popular by the 1 0s at the historic burial ground at St Mary’s City (Riordan 2009). That appears consistent with the FBCP burial ground as the St Mary’s date is firmly within the range for the FBCP burial ground and in line with the evidence.

Coffin fasteners Steadily improving production techni ues and the eventual introduction of machine production make nails and screws useful artifacts for dating furniture and structures. In the 18th century both nails and screws were hand produced. Nails were hammered from wrought iron leaving the shaft s uared. Common nail heads include a pyramidal shaped called a ‘rose head’, but they were often ‘L’ or ‘T’ headed (No l Hume 19 9). The arrival of the machine cut nail around 181 further tapered the shaft and increased

. Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia urial ground

55

production, though the head was often still shaped by hand. Screws followed a similar trend of production. In the 18th century, s uare nail stock was used to start the hand-made process. Once red-hot, the shank was grasped with tongs and threading was begun ust below the grip of the tongs leaving a portion of the shaft unthreaded ust below the head. This techni ue did not allow for a steady taper from head to tip nor a pointed tip. At FBCP headboards and footboards were Figure . . T-headed wrought iron nails attached to the sideboards and baseboards some roken heads give the impression exclusively using nails as opposed to screws. of eing heads , -headed tack nails, arious si es were used (Fig. . ), but all larger and fragments recovered from urial si ed nails are hand-made T-headed wrought iron, G-225. Also shown are two of the screws common in carpentry during the late 18th century which attached the lid to the side-, foot- (No l Hume 19 9). Some of the coffins had wooden and head oards photo: ohn Wynn . trim along the base which was attached with smaller L-headed tack nails. The homogeneity of the nails confirms the sample of coffins within the mid- to late 18th century fails to provide evidence of later (post-18 0s) production. Unlike the nailed sideboards and headboards, lids were only observed to be fastened to the coffin using screws (Fig. . ). Screws were never recorded as fastening baseboards, sideboards, headboards, and footboards together, rather only attaching the lid to the side-, foot-, and Figure . . Screws from urial G-15 avg. length: . cm photo: ohn Wynn . headboards. Most screws collected and observed are hand-made rather than machine produced, which places the sample pre-181 . Screws used are round headed with a hand-made slot or drive. Only a single coffin was produced with at-headed screws. The shank, ust below the head of the screw, is of e ual or greater thickness as the threading and rarely appears tapered. The points are die-point rather than pointed which is a sign of hand production and would need a pilot hole to be drilled prior to driving the screw. Most of the screws that were in a condition to be assessed had these clear signatures of hand production. However, two coffins had screws with slightly thinner threading, remarkably regular spacing, and consistent angles of incline. This may be indicative of early machine-produced screws which arrived as early as 181 . Alternatively, these may have been produced by more skilled smiths or using newer tools. The generally poor and oxidi ed condition of many of the screws make some details difficult to assess.

56

Artifacts of Mourning

Using evidence such as a small sample of screws in con unction with the spatial layout of the burials, archaeologists can sometimes extrapolate chronological evidence. The coffins with very few screws that may be machine produced were located on the burial ground map to see if they may lie towards the west. Since the burial ground probably expanded in that direction, the location of these later style screws might help indicate a more recent section of the burial ground than the eastern section. It could be presumed this techni ue would help provide evidence in how the burial ground expanded. However, while one of the coffins is in the farthest western section, the others lie in the middle of the recovered coffins. Thus, the screws place the sample within the mid-18th and early 19th centuries but no further chronology is evident from fasteners. A larger sample of screws and nails was examined as a pro ect in determining the standardi ation of their production. Machine produced nails should be more standardi ed in form si e, shape, and consistency. Once measurements were taken, nails were grouped by either location (east to west) or depth to examine possible statistical similarities or differences in form. As no pattern was found it suggests that the assemblage, as believed, largely falls in the earlier time range of the burial ground’s usage, namely pre-early 1800s Figure .5. A small hinge, 2 cm in length, recovered inside the coffin of urial G- 2. and pre-machine cut nails. t was not found attached to any part of the coffin photo: ohn Wynn .

Hinges Only three hinges were recovered in the entire assemblage (Figure . . ). Each was found inside a coffin, but alone, rather than in pairs or sets. Only one still had wood adhering to it. These small hinges could be fastened to the lid for opening during a viewing but it appears that at least two may have then removed completely when the lid was screwed shut for burial. Exact matches of two of the hinges (Figs . and . ) were found at the 18th century uaker burial ground in North Shields, England (Procter et al. 201 ). The practice of a viewing using a hinged lid appears common in that particular congregation as more than half of the coffins had hinges found with them.

Figure . . Small hinge, cm in length, recovered in urial G-157. Decorative and made on copper alloy metal its use, whether on the coffin or simply a waste product mixed into the ackfill, is unknown photo: ohn Wynn .

. Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia urial ground

Figure .7. Small hinge, 2 cm in length, recovered in urial G-122. Similar to the hinge of G- 57 Fig. . , ut smaller. This is the only hinge still adhering to wood photo: ohn Wynn .

If viewing was a common practice with the FBCP burial ground population, there must have been either a removal of the hinges upon closing the coffin or an alternative method such as leaving the coffin lid unattached during a viewing. The three hinges recovered were also very small in si e (2 cm) so small that several would have been needed to come close to supporting the weight of an open section of the lid. One coffin was observed to have a ‘dove tail’, used to oin two of the lid boards (Fig. .8). This was a common furniture making techni ue at the time. Though this was only recorded on one coffin, it is likely that others may have had this feature and a lack of preservation of many of the coffins made it impossible to record.

Historic disturbance

Figure . . Burial G- lid. Dove tail or utter y joining techni ue. The view here is the interior of the coffin lid. The dove tail is at the very top, close to the head oard at the superior position of the deceased photo: ohn Wynn .

Preservation varies but is not evenly distributed throughout the burial ground. Coffins in poor condition or that were severely waterlogged were recovered near coffins in excellent condition and that were relatively dry. Condition is not exclusively linked to depth either. Water damage or waterlogged coffins were common but not fre uent (see Fig. .12). Often, coffin wood was very dry with dry loose sediments inside. Many of the coffins, however, were filled with dry solidified sediments (Fig. .9). The solidified sediments were extremely hard and made transportation difficult. Early expectations were that solidified sediments from the interior of the coffin would have helped to maintain some integrity of the position of the skeletal remains. While this did occur, it was the exception rather than the rule. Most of the skeletal remains were no longer in the burial positions due to decomposition or taphonomic processes affecting them prior to the solidification in sediments. As soft tissue dries and disintegrates, particularly at the oints, the skeletal remains

8

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . Very dried coffin filled with sediment which has hardened pro a ly due to calcification processes. From urial G- photo: Arch Street Project .

disarticulate. The disarticulation process appears to have most often occurred prior to the coffin slowly filling with sediment.

Burial ground management An urban burial ground in a growing city re uires active management of the space. Coffins may have been exhumed and moved, stacked and restacked, and reburied during the years of active interment. All this was done in an effort to create more space for additional interments by uniting family members, or even moving older burials within the burial ground. The process of managing and exhuming burials included digging down in the shaft and may have involved the use of a probe to determine whether or not a coffin was even there and at what depth. Evidence of the use of a probe or pickaxe is found only in one coffin, G- 9 (Fig. .10). When excavated in 201 , the coffin was missing a lid and entirely filled with mixed sediment. Upon excavating the interior, no skeletal remains were recovered with the exception of a few tarsals (foot bones). As the final removal of dirt was completed, a discovery was made which perhaps provides an explanation for the empty coffin’s missing skeletal remains. A hole was found in the central part

. Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia urial ground

9

Figure .1 . Burial G-5 coffin with a hole in the ottom. Note that the hole is splintered around the edges rather than gnawed from rodent activity length 1 5 cm photo: ohn Wynn .

of the baseboard. The hole is not consistent with any gnawing or chewing associated with rodent or scavenger activity. Such activity would have been unlikely at such depth. Instead, perimeter of the hole is splintered as if a heavy metal probe struck right through the soft wet wood of a long-buried coffin. Consistent coloration, deterioration, and sediment adhesion all support the conclusion that the damage was an historic event rather than modern construction damage. While only an interpretation, if a caretaker was tasked with exhuming remains to be removed to another location, they may have dug to a certain point and used a probe or pick which struck right through the weakened coffin. The remains may have then be taken elsewhere to be reburied, leaving the coffin empty.

Body snatching Another possibility exists for the presence of a hole in coffin G- 9. Particularly when considering that no skeletal remains were recovered from the coffin. The 18th century saw a rise in the number of medical colleges throughout the colonies. Body snatchers could earn money by stealing recently buried corpses and selling them to these schools. The schools were in need of cadavers on which medical students could examine internal anatomy and practice surgical techni ues. The practice is very well documented in historic England, particularly in London.

0

Artifacts of Mourning

At one point in time, body snatching became such a problem that a whole new market of anti-snatching products was developed. These varied widely from cage-like iron bars placed over the burial, to iron fences built around the grave shaft. Even new methods of digging burial shafts have been documented. Brick was occasionally used to line part of the base and to seal in the coffin to deter body snatchers that had made it that far. For a short period of time in the 19th century, even iron coffins weighing hundreds of pounds were produced, providing an almost impenetrable final resting place. Though none of these items or features was documented in the archaeology of the FBCP, it must be recalled that that surface of the burial ground was historically cleared and uickly built over, erasing the physical record of headstones, mausoleums, any iron snatching fences, or other cemetery features. Of course, body snatching was illegal, but definitely not unheard of in Philadelphia. From the 1 0s until the late 19th century, the remains of Black Philadelphians were known to have been stolen from burial grounds near University of Pennsylvania’s campus (Wolff Mitchell 2021). Some of these individuals are still held in museum collections creating, rightfully, a dialog about ethics of skeletal study and reinterment. With the single exception of the hole in the coffin with no remains, no other clear or ambiguous evidence of body snatching was identified during excavations (Morrell 201 ).

Modern disturbance The ma ority of damage to the coffins and artifacts was caused by the construction taking place at the site prior to archaeologists being permitted to intervene. The backhoe excavator worked continuously in removing sediments from the site in the winter of 201 1 . The actual number of burials that were destroyed may never be known. When the action was ceased, a wall of sediment was left between where the sediment had been removed and where the dirt was still intact. All along this wall, wooden frames of coffins were numerous, utting out, splintered, and broken. Many had skeletal remains spilling out of them to the ground below. The coffins excavated from the northern most edge of the site along this rift (see excavation map, Fig. .1 ) were mostly in poor shape, having ust split in two or more pieces from the backhoe (Fig. .11).

Figure .11. A volunteer examines a coffin exposed and damaged y a ackhoe photo: Arch St. Project, Claire Gold .

. Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia urial ground

1

The coffins that were significantly damaged by construction are limited in the cultural information they can provide. The destroyed or damaged coffins create an obstacle for researchers in a few ways. If not all the features can be observed on a coffin, a particular feature may be rendered indeterminable or unobservable. Another feature on the same damaged coffin may remain very clear. A different coffin close by may have the same two features but opposing in terms of damage. The overall picture from so many damaged coffins is the inability to assess the same features across the whole of the coffin assemblage. Instead, the archaeologist is left to utili e percentages of coffins on which any feature can be observed.

Baseboard straps An interestingly uni ue feature was discovered on the underside of coffin G-211. The coffin is that of a small uvenile. No handles or pla ues adorned the coffin and it was gabled like the ma ority of the others. It has two leather straps screwed lengthwise along the long axis of the coffin baseboard (Fig. .12). In the entire assemblage this is the only coffin which has this feature. The purpose of the straps was probably for transportation during a funeral procession or transport of the coffin. Two planks of wood would easily slide through the straps, supporting the small coffin but ensuring its stability for four pallbearers, each on one end of the beam, to walk the individual to their final resting place.

Figure .12. nderside of the juvenile coffin from urial G-211, showing two leather straps attached on the ase oard length 1 .5 cm photo: ohn Wynn .

2

Artifacts of Mourning

Coffin trim Many of the coffins were constructed with simple decorative wooden trim along the baseboard’s exterior. Only a few fragments of copper alloy ‘lace’ trim were recovered, demonstrating it was not commonly used as coffin adornment at the FBCP. The burial of G-8 is one example of the ornate metal lace trim. The copper alloy trim recovered from that coffin is ust under 1 cm wide and displays a

Figure .1 . Copper alloy coffin lace from urial Gphoto: ohn Wynn .

Figure .1 . Tuesly and Cooper Catalog. This page advertises coffin lace. The styles in the fifth and sixth rows from the top match the type found at FBCP urial ground photo: Anna Dhody .

. Coffins from First Baptist Church of Philadelphia urial ground repeating series of decorative circles (Fig. .1 ). Figure .1 shows a matching illustration as number ‘11 ’, which could be purchased with ‘white’ or ‘blk’ black nails from the 1 8 Tuesly and Cooper catalog. Further tying them to English production, this same style of lace was found at the contemporaneous Christ Church, Spitalfields burial ground in London during archaeological excavations (Reeve and Adams 199 ). Figure .15 A cotter pin from urial G-1 . This Without exception, all handle grip particular example has not een separated length plates were secured to the coffins with . cm photo: ohn Wynn . cotter pins (Fig. .1 ). Modern cotter pins are used in a variety of ways but in the construction these historic coffins the pin was inserted through a hole drilled through both the handle grip plate and the sideboard of the coffin. The two ad acent sides of the pin would then be pulled away from one another and pushed back against the interior of the coffin. This method easily secured the handle firmly to the coffin but raises uestions about the functionality of the handle with regards to strength. The weight of the coffin including a deceased adult was extensive. Whether or not all the handles were strong enough to be used to carry the coffin is difficult to determine. They may have been largely decorative, with the coffin being carried instead from the base and placed on a cart for long distance movement. The coffin is not a single item but a conglomerate of parts and features. Much more than simple stylistic preference of the deceased’s family can be learned from the study of coffins. The wood may have been felled hundreds of miles away or the lid may have been hinged for a viewing, the former can tell us about economics and trade of the day while the latter illustrates a funerary behavior. Even small pieces of evidence, screws and nails, help to provide dates or, at the very least, date ranges. No artifact is insignificant in this sense.

Chapter 7 Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

Miscellaneous artifacts Historic burial grounds provide a wealth of cultural information in the artifacts associated with individual burials. Much meaning is embedded within the artifacts, revealing cultural and religious tradition derived from generations of practices. The symbols, too, show tradition but also transformation towards changing systems of belief or availability of new styles. The burial ground of the FBCP lacks dated headstones which were likely removed in or before 18 9, making a chronology of symbolic change difficult to construct. Attempting to understand cultural change using relative depth of the burials demonstrated no obvious patterns (Leader et al. 2021). In urban historic burial grounds, particularly those with quickly growing populations, space was limited. As previously mentioned, cemetery management required exhuming and moving burials as well as stacking burials, both of which were done at the FBCP burial ground. This process produces backfill piles of sediment that become mixed with rubbish and waste tossed there from the tenant houses which surrounded the property. When a grave is exhumed, older artifacts already in a shaft are intermixed with the backfill, possibly mixed with waste products from more recent time periods and the now further mixed backfill is used to fill in the grave shaft again. Thus, the artifacts from rubbish are often of multiple time periods and not always a strong indicator of a burial’s age. As is often the case with historic burial grounds, many artifacts are recovered which are not likely to have been intentionally placed with the burial by either the grieving family or the sexton. Often, they are mentioned waste items, or in the case of the FBCP, likely to be surrounding neighbor’s trash. Recall that it was reported that by the latter days of the burial ground’s usage, it had grown to a state of disrepair and waste:

66

Artifacts of Mourning The grave-yard attached to the church is surrounded by a row of tenement houses, families of tenants occupying every room. To these houses are attached no yards, and the occupants for a few years past have been in the habit of throwing offal and refuse of their domestic economy into the grave-yard. This practice has reduced the yard to a most offensive condition and it soon became evident that before many years the graves and grave-stones would be entirely buried beneath the accumulation of filth. (Philadelphia Press, March 16, 1860)

Whether or not this account is overstated, the burial ground clearly fell into quite a state of disrepair and waste after the church’s move to new location. Though the waste was not likely significant enough to actually ‘bury’ the headstones, the ground may have been heavily littered with rubbish. Fortunately for archaeologists, this waste reveals a great deal of information on the lives of the Philadelphians living around the burial ground, but it is not as informative about the individuals actually interred there. These artifacts slowly de ate into the ground over many years. The practice of moving some of the rubbish into the grave backfill may have even been intentional, as a method of combating accumulation of trash on the surface. The waste artifacts can even move further within the ground. After 250 years of decay, the lid of a coffin, under the weight of the grave shaft backfill, often collapses in on itself. This allows sediments, sometimes only loosely associated with the date of the coffin, to fall directly into it. Even coffins which, at first glance, appear to be intact, frequently have small cracks along the edges of the boards. After long periods of time, a surprisingly large amount of sediment can end up filling the coffin. Mixed in, these backfill sediments are the artifacts which once littered the ground. These artifacts may lack significant information on funerary culture itself but they provide a wealth of information on the cultural goings-on of the residents of the city of Philadelphia during this time. Archaeologists are trained in extracting information from as many sources as possible, not ust the coffin itself or the pins which secure the shroud but also items like buttons and pipe stems – all sources of data. This chapter explores these artifacts and the information drawn from them. Broken ceramics are numerous in the assemblage. Rarely would a person outside of archaeology presume that a historic coffin, when excavated, would contain ceramics. However, for reasons discussed, they are present. A number of types are found in the backfill of the burials and from unassociated sediments. Black and white banded annularware fragments (Fig. 7.1) were recovered from upper levels during the backhoe’s digging. Transferware, likely the rim of a plate, was discovered mixed into the sediments of burial G-13. The pattern on the piece shows a person, maybe a shepherd, next to a tree on the far left, and the hind legs of an animal, which could be a cow or horse, to the right side (Fig. 7.2). This style is typically found as early as the beginning of the 19th century. The uppermost sediment layer at the south-east section of the site also yielded a few ceramics and bottle glass fragments (Fig. 7.3). One fragment of hand painted creamware is a common style ranging from 1760 to 1780. The same hoard includes

7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

67

Figure 7.1. Black and white annularware from Area E. These fragments were not associated with a specific urial. Black ands like these ecome a popular style in the 1 5 s photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure 7.2. Transferware ceramic plate rim recovered with urial G-1 photo: ohn Wynn .

68

Artifacts of Mourning

the base of a liquor or beer bottle, a separate piece of green bottle glass, as well as a fragment of green bottle glass with a maker’s mark ‘ERT S’ visible on it. This matches bottles manufactured by E. Duffy Son, Filbert St. Amongst other products, E. Duffy Son produced bottles in the mid-19th century. That time period is at the latter end of the burial ground span. Just to the west of Area B’s ceramics and bottle glass, the leather sole of a shoe was recovered out-of-context during the backhoe’s digging of sediments (Fig. . ). Nail holes outlining the edge of the heel show where the heel was once attached. Items nearby include ceramic and food stuff faunal remains (Fig. . ). One fragment of green embossed ‘shell edged’ whiteware ceramic rim, likely dating between 1810 and 1830. Only a few faunal remains were Figure 7. . Artifacts found in Area B, not associated with a urial. Hand painted creamware ceramic, recovered from the excavations of the glass ottle ase, and ottle glass. The dark coffins but a larger number of animal green glass fragment appears to e from a ottle bones were recovered from the early manufactured y E. Du y and Son, Fil ert St. phase of bone collection conducted by The ERT S making up part of F BERT ST, which Moran and Dhody. The higher number was featured on their ottles photo: ohn Wynn . of faunal remains in the early phase is expected as much of that collection was conducted on upper-level sediments. Dr Allison Grunwald analyzed these remains and they are consistent with food stuffs almost certainly disposed from the tenants’ houses surrounding the burial ground. Remains of cattle, sheep, pig, chicken, turkey, goose, deer, cat, horse, and dog skeletal remains were all identified from the site (Grunwald 2018). Many of the bones have cut marks on them, typical evidence of butchering. Some also have gnawing marks from rodent activity while they were at the surface level. Tenants’ house waste is not the only possibility for this accumulation of bone. A stable was located along the northern edge of the burial ground. The activities associated with keeping and potentially, butchering, animals may have added to the accumulation of the cut marked bones. There are many types of artifacts to note, but some particularly striking and interesting examples must be presented. From burial G-235, two fragments of salt-glazed stoneware with a dot, diaper, and basket pattern, common of the late

7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

69

Figure 7. . Bottle glass, whiteware ceramic, gla ed and ungla ed redware, and the sole of a shoe recovered from Area C photo: ohn Wynn .

18th century, were excavated from the mixed interior sediments of the coffin (Fig. 7.6). Burial G-67, contained an assortment of typical waste product from the 18th and 19th centuries regularly found at historical sites: brick, glass, ceramic, oyster shell, pipe stems, and a loose screw (Fig. . ). A walnut was found inside the coffin of burial G-179 (Fig. 7.8). Walnuts are documented to have been placed in the mouth of a deceased mentally ill person in a 19th century Quaker burial ground in Kingston-upon-Thames, London, England (Bashford and Sibun 200 ), but this walnut was not found particularly close to the individual’s mouth and it was mixed in upper sediments on the interior of the coffin. A single fragment of gla ed brick was found in burial G-283 (Fig. 7.9). Burial G-366 produced one of the more unexpected artifacts. A pair of scissors was excavated from within the coffin (Fig. .10). They most resemble a style dated to around 1 80 (Noel Hume 19 9, 2 8) which fits right in the time range of the assemblage. Caution should be taken when interpreting their discovery. They were broken in historical times, leaving them unusable. The missing pieces were not recovered in the coffin, so it is

70

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 7.5. iscellaneous artifacts recovered from Area D. Gla ed redware in the upper right, salt-gla ed stoneware in the center. n the lower right a green, shell edged em ossed ceramic rim with a fragment of undecorated whiteware a ove it photo: ohn Wynn .

likely they were broken prior to being deposited. Whether or not the individual was a passionate seamstress or tailor, or they were accidently left behind while preparing the body, may never be answered. Two fragments of a tin-ware teacup were recovered from burial G-367 (Fig. 7.11). The glaze, a beautiful shiny light blue, pools on the base imperfectly. Like the many broken artifacts associated with backfill, it is impossible to determine whether or not this was intentionally placed or part of the historical waste. Its fragmented condition indicates that the latter is more likely. In some burial traditions, most often associated with historical African American burials, a pair of shoes may have been placed either underneath or on top of the coffin. This has been interpreted as associated with an historical creolized African tradition

7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

Figure 7. . White salt-gla ed stoneware ceramic fragments part of a dot, diaper, and asket motif, excavated from urial G-2 5. ate 17 s photo: ohn Wynn .

71

with the shoe acting as a trap for evil (Davidson 2010). As with the adult shoe sole recovered from Area C shown in Figure . , the uvenile shoe sole in Figure 7.12 was likely part of the trash from the unkept burial ground rather than associated with a deliberate burial ritual. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the metal handles were attached directly to the coffin with cotter pins and thus may have been decorative pieces as opposed to weight bearing. However, two types of smaller handles were recovered in two burials and their placement. A lack of wood adhering to the back and lack of cotter pins still attached indicate that these may not have been attached to any coffin

Figure 7.7. Various artifacts excavated from urial G- 7. Bottle glass, rick, whiteware ceramic, shell, a screw, and window glass. n the center on the right, two fragments of a to acco pipe stem photo: ohn Wynn .

72

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 7. . A walnut excavated from urial G-17 length 2. cm photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure 7.1 . Scissors excavated from urial G-

Figure 7. . Gla ed rick excavated from urial G-2 photo: ohn Wynn .

photo: ohn Wynn .

(Figs .1 and .1 ). The first is a drawer handle (Fig. .1 ). It is a cruciform backplate with a design punched into it and a pear-shaped drop. It is a common handle on drawers in the first uarter of the 18th century in Britain and the American colonies, likely 1 00 1720. The second has a D-handle or loop in front of a shaped back plate with punched

7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

73

decorations. This style of handle was very common on furniture from about 1715 well into the 1730s. Elsewhere, these have been dated to a range even earlier, 1690s-1720s (Noel Hume 19 9). Both would have been peculiar to place on a coffin and the lack of a full set makes it all the more unlikely that they were attached. Though coffins elsewhere have been recorded with single handles not matching a set on the head- or footboard, these two handles have no further evidence to support that placement. Still, it is curious that these, considered valuable pieces, should be casually or intentionally discarded. The meaning behind their recovery may never be full understood. It is not entirely impossible that items we expect to have been valuable in the 18th century might have been discarded. Conservators of historic furniture often find that pulls and handles were updated on chests Figure 7.11. Tin-ware ceramic teacup excavated or other pieces as they were repaired. Wire from urial G- 7 photo: ohn Wynn . loops were a weak link and were subject to breaking. When enough pulls were broken on an object and the newer fashion pulls were available that would prove much sturdier, many furniture makers chose to go with the new pull styles. In this case, having no use for the earlier style pulls that did not perform as the new bolt and nut attachments, it is not hard to imagine them being discarded (Chris Storb, personal comm.) Oyster shells are an item commonly found in historic archaeological sites. Oysters provided an important and relatively easy to obtain source of food during the 18th and 19th centuries. The coastal waters, bays, and brackish waters surrounding many early settlements often held healthy populations of oysters offering a source of income for those willing to collect and sell them. Oyster shells are also found at more rural archaeological sites having been crushed and spread around plants and crops. The calcium helped to balance the pH level in the soils and increase the crop’s nitrate intake. Oysters recovered in burials G-266 and G-167 (Fig. 7.15 and 7.16), as well as many other burials, are probably part of food stuff waste that was discarded at the burial ground and ended up being reburied in grave shaft backfill. The practice of placing coins over the eyes was becoming less frequent during this period but it is still recorded in illustrations and texts. The practice seems to have not been used often at FBCP or at least the physical evidence has been taken. The best example for the possibility of this is burial G-169. Two coins were excavated near the cranium of the skeleton (Fig. 7.17). These may have originally

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 7.12. iscellaneous artifacts recovered from the site unassociated with any urials. ncluding red and whiteware ceramics, pipe stems, a metal handle grip, ottle glass, and a shoe sole photo: ohn Wynn .

been placed over the eyes. The individual was a sub-adult (Morrell 2017). At the contemporaneous St. Marylebone’s burial ground in London, coins over the eyes was practiced infrequently but, when found, it is more common on juveniles (Henderson et al. 2015).

Tenant’s trash As stated throughout this chapter, these artifacts are not particularly useful in informing us on the lives of the individuals interred in the burial ground. Rather, they are more representative of the lives of the folks living in the surrounding homes. By 18 9 (and starting much earlier) the burial ground was enveloped by ‘tenants’ houses. This dense area of the city would have accumulated its fair share of rubbish. When the FBCP moved locations and ultimately less upkeep was provided for the burial ground, some of the rubbish ended up within the grounds. In fact, these non-burial related artifacts would be more informative if they were excavated from ground that was not associated with burial shafts. The damage done

7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

Figure 7.1 . A copper alloy cuneiform ack plate with pear-shaped drop handle excavated from G-1 . t does not appear to have een attached to the coffin photo: ohn Wynn .

75

Figure 7.1 . Copper alloy handle excavated from urial G-2 5. t does not appear to have ever een attached to the coffin photo: ohn Wynn .

to the site by construction paired with the focus of the archaeological excavations on burials limits the amount of archaeological excavation that was conducted on the spaces further away from burial shafts. It is those spaces that may have held more stratigraphic (layers of sediment and artifacts) information. The carefully layered sediments provide an opportunity for archaeologist to place artifacts into a relative timeframe of older to younger artifacts. The mixing with historic urban grave shafts and even in the sediment-filled coffins, jumbles these artifacts into a matrix disturbed soil. Time then can often become lost to use, though the artifacts themselves retain function, style, and other features that still highlight Philadelphian culture in a wide period of time. Most of the artifacts that can be loosely dated attest to accumulation from the late 18th to mid-19th century. Ceramic whitewares such as the transferware in Figure 7.2 can date to the early 19th century and was typically more expensive than other contemporary types of ceramics. The green shell edge ceramic (Fig. 7.5) is embossed and with a symmetrically scalloped edge was probably also was produced between

76

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 7.15. Oyster shells excavated from urial G-2 . t is not possi le to determine if they were intentionally placed or are intrusive artifacts photo: ohn Wynn .

1800 and 18 0. Slightly later, the annularware seen in Figure .1 gained popularity in the mid-19th century. One piece of ceramic that probably dates slightly earlier in production is the saltglazed stoneware in Figure 7.6. This particular pattern was popular in the late 1700s. Though it is important here to be reminded that the date when the vessel broke or was discarded could have been much later. A few other artifacts may also date towards the late 18th century. Stylistically the scissors (Fig. .10) are most similar to scissors from the 1 80s (No l Hume 19 9). The draw handles are most common in the early 1700s but may have only been discarded later when the furniture pieces on which they were attached were discarded or restored with handles of newer styles. In the entire assemblage, seven fragments of tobacco pipe stem were recovered, some associated with burials or at least with backfill inside coffins, while others were recovered from the disturbed surface, not associated with a burial shaft. Stems are datable based on the diameter of the bore hole in the kaolin pipes. From the late 1 00s the bore hole becomes smaller through time (No l Hume 19 9). Five of

7. Miscellaneous artifacts from the burial ground

77

Figure 7.1 . A large oyster shell excavated Figure 7.17. Two coins recovered from urial G-1 from G-1 7. t is difficult to determine if it was were found near the cranium and may e have intentionally placed with the urial or from ackfill een intentionally placed over the eyelids of the photo: ohn Wynn . juvenile each diam. cm photo: ohn Wynn .

the pipe stems measure inch (1.98 mm) placing them in the date range of 1 20 1 0. The other two measure inch (1. 9 mm) which is common from 1 0 to 1800 (No l Hume 19 9). The artifacts that provide datable features tell a clear picture of accumulation of waste material from the mid-18th century all the way through the mid-19th. Of course, the population living around the burial ground can certainly not be described homogeneously based the long timespan of the accumulation of artifacts. But the artifacts do demonstrate that citizens during this time had access to quite a range of ceramic types, furniture decorated with copper alloy handles, and household goods representative of the time. The wide range of artifact types and condition are similar to types of artifacts recovered in many of the historic privies excavated in Philadelphia. Broken ceramics, glassware, pipe stems, and metal items were frequently disposed of in privies. The similarities of the artifact assemblage compared to assemblages excavated from privies underscores the interpretation of accumulated waste being disposed at the burial ground. The artifacts also provide supplementary evidence of the availability of a wider range of goods arriving in the important trading city of Philadelphia.

Chapter 8 Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

Funerary symbolism While all artifacts hold significant cultural or practical value, few compare visually to the powerful symbolism embedded in the coffin handles or, more specifically, the hand grip plates. Handles appear on coffins as early as they begin to be used, though not all coffins are adorned with handles. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a detailed visual presentation of all the symbols found on each of the types of coffin handle grip plates and lid pla ues. Many available burial ground reports from the 1990s 2000s provide descriptions of the handle grip plates rather than photographs and not all of the styles are presented. This is problematic as many of the handles are very similar when described with words but display distinctive differences which are obvious only when seen. Researchers have no standard nomenclature for the description of coffin hardware (Springate 201 ). For example, as one observes in the figures that follow, many of the handle grip plates have central cherubs positioned in the upper middle portion. When many of the grip plates are viewed together, it becomes obvious that this type of simple description cannot account for the subtle differences that are clearly seen in the cherubs. ariances include, for example, the direction of their ga e, the style of their hair, the si e of the face, or facial expressions themselves. It is for this reason that a visual presentation of these handles is so important. As with the skeletal remains, all the artifacts have been reinterred, meaning that this book provides the lasting record of these motifs. There are two primary components of a coffin handle: the grip or handle itself and the grip plate, the at metal piece that sits ush against the coffin behind the handle against the sideboard, footboard, or headboard (Fig. 8.1). It is on the handle grip plates that the ma ority of the symbols are displayed. These symbols, and the

80

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .1. Components of a coffin handle, here demonstrated on a wrought iron handle illustration y George eader .

slight differences between them, make a big difference when trying to interpret their meaning and to determine the possible origins of production. Note that this book is intended to be for both the interested public as well as providing discussion on much of the assemblage for fellow archaeologists. So, for the purpose of simplicity, the handles’ combined components (i.e. the handle grip and the handle grip plate) will be referred to in the single collo uial term ‘handle’ unless further specification needs to be made. As there was no large-scale American producer of coffin hardware until 1800 the items were imported from England (Tharp 199 , 8 ). The production locations were most likely limited to London and Birmingham (Tharp 199 Hoile 2019). There are an extremely limited number of coffin hardware catalogs from the 18th and 19th centuries. In particular, two of these are widely cited in the burial ground reports the Tuelsy and Cooper Catalog and the ‘EL’ catalog.

Tuesly and Cooper Catalog The Tuesly and Cooper catalog ( ictoria and Albert Museum collections, E99 -E1011-1902) is one of the earliest known existing coffin hardware catalogs. Believed to be printed in 1 8 , it contains 1 pages of handle illustrations for sale by the company. A 20th century misreading of the name Tuesly and Cooper on the catalog resulted in it being referenced almost exclusively as ‘Tuesby and Cooper’ in literature over the past 0 years. Upon closer inspection however, one can see that the 18th century script on the cover reads TuesLy, rather than TuesBy. In her doctoral dissertation, Sarah Hoile corrects some of the longstanding misconceptions, including that Tuesly and

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

81

Cooper were the manufacturers as opposed to the sellers. Hoile’s research suggests that the company registered as Tuesly, Burden, and Cooper were ironmongers in Southwark, London. She even discovered that, years later in 181 , the Tuesly and Cooper partnership was dissolved and William Henry Tuesly declared bankruptcy in 181 (Hoile 2019, 90). The handles and pla ues advertised in the Catalog show a commitment to the funerary industry through a diverse availability of styles. Many of the styles found in it reappear throughout British and American burial grounds with perhaps the most well-known being the Morior in Spe grip plate (discussed later see Figures 8.20 8.22).

The ‘EL’ catalog The ‘EL’ catalog, like Tuesly and Cooper, is curated at the ictoria and Albert Museum (E 09 - 1 -1910). This catalog contains 9 pages of sketches depicting the handle grip plates, lid pla ues, and other funerary decorations for sale. The ‘EL’ may refer to the name of a known hardware manufacturer from Birmingham, Edward Lingard (Hoile 2019, 8). The catalog was produced in 182 , a full years after th Tuesly and Cooper. Interestingly, many of the illustrations in the two catalogs are of identical handles, though not identical in illustration as they appear to have been drawn by different artists. Many contemporaneous burial ground excavations in Britain, for example at St Marylebone’s on Paddington Street, London (Henderson et al. 201 ), have resulted in fine examples of not only decorative copper alloy grip plates, but also copper alloy handle grips (hanging in front of the grip plate) which also feature elaborate motifs. These ornate copper alloy handles do not occur in the FBCP assemblage. Rather, it is singularly iron handle grips in front of the copper alloy grip plates.

Metallurgical composition The handles from the FBCP are produced on either copper alloy or wrought iron metals. A sample of twelve copper alloy handles was sub ected to a test of elemental composition using a scanning election microscope to determine if there was a consistency in the metal components of their make-up. The handles, specifically the grip plate behind the handle, were first washed and then carefully polished with a diamond studded rotary tool to remove surface adhesions and sediments. The results were surprising and not indicative of a single composition which may have helped narrow a production location or time. Some had large amounts of iron, while many did not. Another had a high amount of copper, while others only had small amounts. All had very high amounts of tin. This is expected as the pieces were ‘tin-dipped’ providing the shiny color of the final product. A second archaeology lab conducted the same experiment, using a scanning election microscope to assess the metal composition. Having a second lab work

82

Artifacts of Mourning

on the same experiment created a blinding of the results. Both labs identified that the handles comprised of differing amounts of elements. That is an important discovery. If all the handles were very similar in composition, it might be easy to assume they were produced in a single location within a single time period. This period of time however saw a huge increase in metal stamping and mass production. Companies producing metal ornamentation attempted to trademark their designs but competitors were always uick to produce similar designs. The many elements in the handles may re ect different producers or different raw materials (‘ingredients’) for metals.

Handle size The handles are found in many si es. There is a clear linear relationship between handle si e and coffin si e the larger the coffin the larger the handles (Fig. 8.2). This is common sense as most smaller coffins for uveniles were constructed with smaller handles. Some advertisements for coffin hardware in late 1 00s Philadelphia specify children’s hardware for sale (Tharp 199 ). In the Tuesly and Cooper and ‘EL’ catalogs the different si es available are listed next to the illustrations for each style.

Figure .2. Coffin length and handle length oth wrought iron and copper alloy have a positive correlation. The sample measured here is taken from complete, at, handles image y George eader .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

8

Wrought iron handles In addition to the elegant copper alloy grip plates, wrought iron grip plates are commonly found in historic burial grounds throughout America and Britain. Though at first glance they appear homogeneous, the standardi ed pattern has a remarkable range of si e and shapes (Fig. 8. ). Probably due to their repeated simultaneous discovery alongside ashier, shiny, copper alloy handles, these grip plates have been relegated to being associated with less expensive funerary investment, namely poor families. However, this may be an unfair association, possibly derived from the fact that one of the earliest and largest burial ground pro ects in the United States was the African Burial Ground in New ork City. There, only wrought iron handles, and in small numbers, were found on coffins (Frohne 201 ). But excavations of other burial grounds of even very wealthy families have demonstrated wide varieties of hardware and, on occasion, none at all (Little et al. 1992). Though these grip plates were certainly less expensive than the copper alloy handles shown in this chapter, personal preference towards the handle by either the grieving family or the financial limitations dictated to the undertaker (Mytum 2018) may have in uenced the selection. The problematic assumption that the wrought iron grip plates were reserved for less wealthy is not the only early mis-interpretation that has been made of them. These handle types feature two ad acent holes punched in the central portion of the plate (Fig. 8. ). It has been suggested that these ‘heart shaped’ holes may have had a symbolic West African origin relating to the Sankofa symbol deriving from Ghana and C te d’Ivoire peoples (Springate 201 ). These handles were a common style of the African Burial Ground in New ork City excavated in the 1990s. However, more recent occurrences of this handle grip plate type at burial grounds associated with European ancestry in both America and England indicate that these holes were likely decorative rather than linked to a singular West African tradition. At another 18th century Baptist burial ground in Poole, England, the overwhelming ma ority of handles excavated are wrought iron (McKinley 2008) of the same style as FBCP. In this case, it appears that plain, non-conformist tradition in uenced the selection of simple handles, rather than the elaborately decorated copper alloy handles which are only found in two burials (McKinley 2008, ). The same ma ority (all with the exception of one handle) are wrought iron at the uaker burial ground in North Shields, England (Proctor et al. 201 ). The proximity of these two examples to the coffin hardware production locations in England would have easily allowed for access to the more elaborate copper alloy handles. This reinforces the uni uely high amount of copper alloy handle styles at the FBCP. The variation in si e of the wrought iron handles is interesting in that it is re ective of handmade manufacture, unlike the later period copper alloy handle grip plates which may have been machine stamped. There are si e variations in the copper alloy handle grip plates found at FBCP burial ground, but not among handles with the same designs. A variety of handle si e options was clearly available for coffins of different si es. This si e relationship is important because, in many instances when historical

8

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . Wrought iron handle grip plates from di erent coffins showing the variation in si e and shape image y George eader .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

Figure . . A set of wrought iron handles excavated from urial Gohn Wynn .

8

handle length 1 cm photo:

8

Artifacts of Mourning

burials are excavated, the coffin is not preserved but the metal (nails, handles, etc.) remain. Therefore, understanding the relationship of si e of coffin to si e of handle could potentially aid archaeologists in predicting the si e of the coffin when it has been completely degraded when only metal handles are recovered.

Copper alloy handles Perhaps the most striking feature of the whole assemblage are the many copper alloy grip plates which simultaneously present the powerful, eternal motifs, while showcasing the stunning artistic craftsmanship that went into 18th century metal ornamentation. Forty-nine coffins from the excavation were adorned with these spectacular handle grip plates and there a total of 2 uni ue designs. This number is high as many other contemporaneous burial grounds do not have such a high number of uni ue designs. That is potentially for two reasons. First, it may have ust been a case of good preservation. At the FBCP the preservation throughout the site is not regular but still it may ust be pure coincidence that so many designs were still identifiable compared to other burial grounds. However, the second hypothesis is interesting but is challenging to demonstrate. Philadelphia at that time was an emerging market for British businesses to increase their trade to the young colony. The growing population of the colony (and later sovereign nation) provided an opportunity to expand the sale of many goods, including funerary goods. Many of these handle designs are linked to production in London or Birmingham (see above Tharp 199 , 81). As an important point of entry for these types of goods, a wider variety of styles may have found their way to the Philadelphia market before being dispersed to other areas throughout the colony. Cherubs or angels are most fre uently the principal feature. Whether in the center, side, or bottom, their commonality is indicative of the still eternal symbol ushering the deceased to the afterlife. However, the cherubs themselves are individual. It is here that we must also call into uestion the terminological use of cherub versus angel. A cherub is a representation of a winged child or baby, sometimes collo uially referred to as ‘cupid’ in modern day. A cherub without a body, ust the face, is meant to symboli e the soul. However, as the age of the face appears older, there must be a point where the individual is no longer considered a cherub, but rather an angel. This distinction is difficult for two reasons. First, it can be difficult to tell facial features on a heavily degraded motif. Secondly, at what age or representation should one consider the motif shows a mature face Other mortuary symbols displayed are owers, urns, fire, and the death’s head (skull) are all common funerary symbols and accounted for in this assemblage, though in less fre uent numbers (see Chapter ). The in uence of the late Baro ue or Rococo styles of the period comes through in the symmetrical and uid trim. The popular Rococo style, emerging in the mid18th century towards the end of the Baro ue period is uite visible in many of the handle grip plates. Softly owing braided trim or garland weaves around and through

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

8

the ornate symbols. Undulating curvature of the borders and trim often includes an oval. et, the Rococo style emerges in the mid-18th century and has a significant difference from the earlier Baro ue predecessor more asymmetry which is never found in the copper alloy styles. This assemblage of handles is thought to represent a sample of the burial ground from the mid-18th to early 19th century. However, each is highly symmetrical which suggests an earlier period. One explanation is that most of these handles are, in actuality, from earlier periods of the burial ground. This could certainly be the case, as no dated headstones are available to provide a more accurate chronology. Alternatively, stylistic trends take time to diffuse, particularly in the 18th century. The popularity of styles in the colonies, whether architectural or fashion, usually has a lag time of years or decades behind European styles of the day. Therefore, the designs from the FBCP may have been at the peak of their popularity during the mid 1ate 18th century in the American colony.

Handles featuring cherubs or angels The first eight handles presented here are grouped together based on their shared placement of the cherub or angels (Figs 8. 8.1 ). Relative to many of the others, the cherub’s face in Figure 8. is small. Centrally placed at the top, the cherub is framed by sunbursts radiating upwards, the eyes open, looking to the observer’s right. Familiar Rococo trim curls around the edges of the handle. A central angel ga es down towards their left in Figure 8. . This motif, however, is larger and rather than sunbursts, a ring of feathers pro ects outwards from the visible upper chest and face. This particular cherub along with the feathers, takes up a significant portion of the handle surface area but the often-seen Rococo style trim completes the handle’s sides. At first glance the angel in Figure 8. is much like that in Figure 8. , but closer inspection reveals differences. The angle of the face is different, though still ga ing to their left. While inconclusive, the hair appears drawn to the side. The trim on the sides is much less ornate but of similar style. Like Figure 8. , the hair of the angel appears to be pulled back and to the side in the handle shown in Figure 8.8. This is a more convincing example of the hair pulled back. This hair also suggests maturity and the facial features, though sub ective, appear also more mature. As mentioned, maturity in the features could be used to distinguish between an angel and a (younger) cherub. Typical Rococo trim frames the full handle in Figure 8.9. The smaller central faces at the top are difficult to distinguish as either cherub or angel. Feathers around the neckline could indicate the latter. Short hair, with strands running down the forehead, are clearly visible. The edges at the corners are more s uared off than most of the other handles giving the piece an almost rectangular appearance. The face of the cherub in the handles from G- 00 (Fig. 8.10) ga es to neither side but rather looks straight forward. Though degraded heavily, the hair appears to sit evenly distributed on the top of the head. Feathers highlight the cherub but the trim is mostly indistinguishable.

88

Artifacts of Mourning

The double cherub in Figure 8.11 is a stunning example of the detail that is present in many of the handles but is often obscured by 2 0 years of oxidation. The two faces are positioned towards one another in an upper central position on the handle. Both are winged with elaborate feathers, which are so well preserved that the detail of the individual barbs and vanes is still visible. This handle is symmetrical with the exception of the cherubs’ faces and hair. Though only present on two coffins from the FBCP burial ground, variations of a double cherub design appear to have been uite popular, appearing at a number of burial grounds in England including St Marylebone’s in London, Sheffield Cathedral, Christ Church Spitalfields, and St George’s Church, Bloomsbury, London (Reeve and Adams 199 Boston 2009 Mahoney-Swales et al. 2011 Henderson et al. 201 ). None of the motifs from the British burial grounds ais identical to those found at FBCP. Only one coffin, from burial G-1 1, bears a set of handles that features both an urn and a cherub (Fig. 8.12). At the top of the piece, an urn with ames rising out sits prominently. At the bottom is the face of the cherub with feathers around the neck. This example is still attached to the footboard of the coffin. Though it may

Figure .5. A handle grip plate displaying a small central cheru at the top, sun ursts projecting from the cheru , Rococo style trim around the sides and edges n , where n is the total num er of coffins the style of handle is found on in the entire assem lage . From urial G-12 photo: ohn Wynn .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

Figure . . A handle grip plate displaying a large central cheru with feathered ring around n From urial Gphoto: ohn Wynn .

89

.

Figure .7. A handle grip plate showing a large central cheru , hair possi ly pulled ack to the side. Trim on the sides resem ling the Rococo style n 1 . From urial G- 1 photo: ohn Wynn .

90

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . A handle grip plate showing a central cheru with eyes open wide, ga ing to the right n 1 . From urial G-1 photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure . . A handle grip plate with dou le small central cheru s, rococo style trim and edging n 1 . From urial G-1 photo: ohn Wynn .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

91

Figure .1 . A handle grip plate featuring a central cheru with feathers around the neck. Similar, ut not identical to Fig. .1 n 1 . Still attached to the side oard of G- . Note the wooden trim along the ottom edge of the side oard photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure .11. A handle grip plate showing two large cheru s at the top center, wings on either side and collared with feathers, rococo trim elow n 2 . From urial G- photo: ohn Wynn .

92

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .12. A handle grip plate. The top center features an urn with fire coming from the top. The center ottom features a cheru ga ing to the right. Rococo style trim on the sides n 1 . This handle is still attached to the foot oard from coffin G-1 1 photo: ohn Wynn .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

9

Figure .1 . A handle grip plate with central sun ursts at the top, with cheru s to the sides n 2 . From urial G- 1 photo: ohn Wynn .

appear to be too wide for the width of the footboard, each of the coffin’s sides was an inch or so wider when the sideboards were attached. The nails in Figure 8.12 show the true width of the coffin. Two similar examples of this handle are described from the Christ Church, Spitalfields burial ground pro ect in London (Reeve and Adams 199 ) and the Tenth Street African Baptist burial ground in Philadelphia (Crist et al. 199 ). Figure 8.1 shows profiles of two cherub faces on each side of the handles from burial G- 10. Their wings are slender and point back and up, giving the appearance of the cherub leaning back or looking upwards. The sunbursts, in the center top of the piece, are similar to those that radiate from the cherub in handle G-12 (Fig. 8. ). There are other examples of cherubs in profile, as well as cherubs to the sides which will be discussed along with the other styles that are matches to the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog.

Handles without cherubs or angels The following group of handles are e ually stunning as those featuring cherubs, angels, or urns, but are void of any of those designs. It would be improper to label these as simple or plain, rather they are different because they do not feature any central prominent motif. Many of these still have the familiar trim of the other groups and appear otherwise stylistically similar.

9

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .1 . A small ovular design perhaps with rococo patterns projecting from the upper center n 1 . From urial G-1 photo: George eader .

Figure .15. A handle grip plate displaying a wicker pattern. At the top center is possi ly either a cheru or a ower n 1 . From urial Gphoto: George eader

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

9

Figure .1 . A handle grip plate with a central ower n 1 . From urial G-27 photo: ohn Wynn .

One of the smallest copper alloy handles was found on burial G-19 (Fig. 8.1 ). Due to solidified sediment that adheres to much of the meta, the patterns are difficult to distinguish. The visible portion immediately resembles an urn but closer inspection refutes that. The handle has the same Rococo style trim as the others but is simply without a central symbol. The coffin of burial G- 08 has handles that were excavated in very poor condition (Fig. 8.1 ). As such, it is not possible to say with certainty whether the round feature at the top is a cherub. What does make the handle uni ue is the wickerlike patterning seen in the middle of the handle. Most of the ovular designs on the other handles are smooth and plain, free of any designs. The ower prominently displayed in the center of the handle in Figure 8.1 is the only ower on any of the handles. Unfortunately, the poor condition of the piece makes it difficult to determine other features. It is possible that the features below the ower are either braided trim or feathers. The ower (or owers) hold such a strong relationship to grieving in modern day that it is curious as to why that as a symbol it is so infre uently seen on the hardware. One other burial contained the remains of owers wrapped in cloth and placed in the coffin, but certainly there were others in which the evidence has disintegrated. There is no correct theory as to why so few handles have ower motifs, but one answer may be simply that actual owers were available to be placed with the coffin for the funeral. (Of course,

9

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .17. A handle grip plate featuring a large central urn n 1 . Still attached to the foot oard of coffin G-1 photo: ohn Wynn .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

9

Figure .1 . A handle grip plate with raided trim along the edges n 2 . From urial G-17 photo: ohn Wynn .

98

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .1 . A handle grip plate with plain smooth rounded sides n 1 . From urial G-2 2 cm photo: ohn Wynn .

length

ower type and availability was seasonal and limited in the days prior to expedited transit and climate control.) G-18 ’s handle shows a complete example of the urn motif (Fig. 8.1 ). There do not appear to be ames coming from the top like in the urn in G1 1 (Fig. 8.12). The center of the urn has a pattern similar to a wicker or rattan pattern. The handle designs in Figures 8.18 and 8.19 are intriguing, not due to their motifs but, rather the opposite, for their simplicity. Both handles are smooth and plain on the interior and their edges are bordered by simple trim – in handle G-1 9 a simple twisted border trim (Fig. 8.18) and in G-2 an even more simple solid line (Fig. 8.19). They present an interesting uestion: with the availability of these elaborate designs and motifs produced on copper alloy, why would somebody choose such a ‘plain’ style The obvious answer might be price. While these less elaborate styles may have been less expensive, that does not fully answer the uestion. Once the mold for any design was made, the price was less affected by the ornate motifs. The si e, specifically the amount of material needed to produce the piece, would have been the driver of price. These plain handles are made of the same type of copper alloy as the others and they are both uite large. This may mean that the price was not significantly different from the others. In this case, we may see some element of human choice in these handles. If they are the same relative price as many of the other elaborate handles, and yet they were chosen by either the deceased or their family, there is an intentionality in choosing this plain style handle.

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

99

As previously discussed, the Baptists of the time often embraced a simplicity in material possessions. Sometimes this practice ethic was ust on paper, sometimes it was in practice. However, the decision to use these stylistically simpler handles on a coffin could re ect maintenance of that belief in the few coffins on which they were found.

Handles matched to Tuesly and Cooper Catalog The following handles are grouped together as they all have a direct match to the Tuesly and Cooper hardware Catalog discussed earlier. The Tuesly and Cooper illustrations, while for the most part identical to the corresponding handle that was recovered, do demonstrate minimal differences. The handles, of course, had to be drawn by an artist to be featured in the Catalog. Therefore, small differences are evident between the handle produced in metal and the drawings. One clear example of these illustration-to-artifact differences is visible in perhaps the most well-known of the Tuesly and Cooper handles, the ‘Morior in Spe’ handle (Fig. 8.20). The handle’s most eye-catching feature is the motto Morior in Spe which translates from Latin to ‘Hope in Death’. Garland trim and coiled scroll work

Figure .2 . A handle grip plate with the words Morior in Spe and foliage trim to the sides n From urial G- 52 photo: ohn Wynn .

.

100

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure 8.21. A Morior in Spe handle grip plate from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog identical to the one from Fig. .25 and found in numerous urial grounds in England and colonial America Tuesly and Cooper Catalog, Victoria and Al ert useum, ondon .

complete the crest shaped handle. Because of the powerful declaration across the center, this handle leaves an impression. Indeed, this style has been recovered from numerous burial grounds in the 18th and 19th centuries across the mid-Atlantic and Britain. The illustration is accurately drawn but small details are changed. The most obvious is the difference in the font of the Morier in Spe and the si e of the lettering, which is larger in the illustration. The difference between the handle’s actual font and advertised font is not misleading to the buyer, but rather an example of the human element of production and design of the time. Making the differences between the handle and illustration even more interesting is the recovery of a Morior In Spe Type 2 handle (Fig. 8.22). In this version, the font and si e of the lettering is a match to the illustration in the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog but other details are noticeably different. The discovery of the two types of the ‘same’ handles raises further uestions about their production and dates. Were they produced at the same time and at the same factory Perhaps they were made by the same company, but at different times Perhaps they were produced by competing companies attempting to reproduce a popular design It highlights how competition between producers lead to many designs being copied.

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

101

Figure 8.22. Morior in Spe Type 2 handle from urial G-121. Note the di erence in font and si e in the writing as compares to the handle from G- 52 in Fig. .2 . This handle is more similar to the Tuesly and Cooper illustration length 1 . cm photo: George eader .

Whether or not the handle from burial G- 1 represents an angel or cherub is challenging to determine. Ga ing to the observer’s left, their arms are crossed over their chest. Heavily degraded, the handle’s illustration from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog (Fig. 8.2 ) shows what detail was once visible. The central front facing cherub in Figure 8.2 is very similar to that in Figure 8.10, but differences can be seen around the aw line. The handle from G- 2 (Fig. 8.2 ) has thinner aw and feathers are arranged further away from the neck. Its match is advertised as No. ‘1 ’ in Tuesly and Cooper (Fig. 8.2 ). Remarkably fine detail is well-preserved in the handle from G-1 9 (Fig. 8.2 ). Centered at the top, the cherub’s face is small relative to others and ga es to the observer’s left. The wings extend hori ontally away from the face and connect with the trim. This features the common oval in the center of the handle, which is lined with foliage. The leaves in this particular pattern look to be bay leaves or laurel, sometimes symbolic of a distinction in life (Boston et al. 2009). The handle is found on three different coffins in the assemblage and also matches the Tuesly and Cooper handle (Fig. 8.28).

102

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .2 . A handle grip plate displaying a large central winged cheru , eyes ga ing downwards to the left n . From urial G- 1 photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure .2 . Hardware from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog a handle matching that of Fig. .2 photo: Anna Dhody .

Two cherubs on the sides of Figure 8.29 from burial G-1 are in profile, looking outwards away from the center of the piece. Their torsos are also visible to the waist. Their feathered wings reach back and meet at a point at the top of the handle. The detail of the trim is clear in the Tuesly and Cooper image (Fig. 8. 0).

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

10

Figure .25. A handle grip plate featuring a large front facing central cheru , eyes towards the front n . From urial G-72 photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure .2 . Hardware from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog, type no. 1 . Similar to that of Fig. .25, displaying the large front facing central cheru , eyes towards the front photo: Anna Dhody .

10

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure .27. A handle grip plate displaying a small central cheru at the top, eyes ga ing down to the left, foliage trim circles a central oval, Rococo trim to the sides. A Tuesly and Cooper match n . From urial G-15 photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure .2 . A handle grip plate from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog matching the grip plate from Fig. .27 photo: Anna Dhody .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

10

Figure .2 A handle grip plate displaying a cheru head at the top of each side, in profile view facing outwards, Rococo trim around the ottom n 1 . From urial G-17 photo: ohn Wynn .

Figure . . A handle grip plate from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog matching Fig. .2 photo: Anna Dhody .

10

Artifacts of Mourning

Tuesly and Cooper funerary curtains handles The next series of handle motifs share the feature of curtains pulled to the sides. There are three variations of the curtain theme. All have a cherub’s face in the upper center with feathered wings to the sides and around the neckline. The distinctions are on the sides of the handles. The first curtain-themed handle has no additional imagery. The curtains are tied back at the tops and are loosely hanging along the sides of the handle (Fig. 8. 1). The writing in the central oval of the Tuesly and Cooper illustration give prices for the handles (Fig. 8. 2). There is no evidence on any handles in the entire assemblage that this central oval was ever engraved with writing. The second variation is represented by the handle from burial G-2 9 (Figs 8. and 8. ). The handle is essentially expanded to include a cherub, or perhaps the Angel Gabriel, holding a trumpet on either side of the curtains. Gabriel has been interpreted as ‘announcing or ushering’ one to the gates of heaven. The trumpet is held not at the lips but diagonally across the chest and stomach with the bell of the horn at the bottom. The handle is of further interest given that it has a date associated from the lid pla ue of Ben amin Britton, 1 82. The Tuesly and Cooper Catalog is believed to be dated to 1 8 . These handles were available for years,

Figure . 1. A handle grip plate displaying a single central cheru at the top, eyes ga ing right, funerary curtains to the sides. A Tuesly and Cooper match n . From urial G-212 photo: ohn Wynn .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

10

Figure . 2. A handle grip plate advertised in the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog matching the handle grip plate from Fig. . showing prices White 5 per o ., Black Shields , Gilt ead or Black, with the final price illegi le photo: Anna Dhody .

Figure . . A handle grip plate featuring a central cheru at the top, funerary curtains and cheru s with trumpets to the sides. The same handle found at the Tenth Street African Baptist Church excavation and in Tuesly and Cooper Catalog n 2 . From urial G-25 , a man named Benjamin Britton photo: ohn Wynn .

108

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . A handle grip plate advertised in Tuesly and Cooper Catalog matching that of Fig. . photo: Anna Dhody .

though catalogs were probably updated regularly, the handle types were not changed stylistically over long periods. This handle is further evidence of the difficulty of determining wealth or status using these pieces of hardware. This example is not only a match to Tuesly and Cooper, but was also discovered during excavations of the Tenth Street African Baptist Church of Philadelphia where Crist et al. describe a coffin thus: The iconography of all six plates was identical, with an angel standing on either side of the plate and the head of a cherub situated above a draped oval in the center. Each angel held a long trumpet, presumably the trumpet that the Angel Gabriel will blow in the east to announce the onset of Judgement Day, according to Christian tradition. (Crist et al. 199 , 18)

Furthermore, the same handles were also found at excavations of the Eighth Street African Baptist Church in 198 (Parrington et al. 1989). Both these burial grounds are dated to the early 19th century, perhaps making them a slightly younger sample than the assemblage from the FBCP but still within window of contemporaneity. Black Africans and African Americans in Philadelphia often were afforded more liberties than those living elsewhere, though the notion that Philadelphia was somehow entirely void of enslavement is incorrect (Nash 1988). Black Africans and African Americans, even freed, lived under constant discrimination and threat. While some were able to establish business relationships and ac uire moderate wealth, the ma ority were systemically kept from achieving success. For the individuals at the Tenth and Eighth Street African Baptists Churches to have been interred with such handles represents the those who many had this type of wealth available for investment in their burial. It also has been suggested that adoption of Christian customs in burial practice shows the long pursuit of

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

109

Figure . 5. Top: a handle grip plate with a central cheru at the top and with funerary curtains and cheru trumpeters to the side, ut also displaying a death s head in the center of the ottom ottom: close up of the death s head n 1 . From urial G-1 7 photo: ohn Wynn .

110

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . A handle grip plate advertised in Tuesly and Cooper Catalog matching the handle from urial G-1 7 in Fig. . 5. Type no. 17 from the Catalog with the measurements written in the oval center photo: Anna Dhody .

adopting European tradition as an effort to assimilate into Anglo-American society (Nash 1988). However, many African traditions were incorporated into freed and enslaved African burials at the contemporaneous African Burial Ground in New ork City (Frohne 201 ). The final handle in the funerary curtain group is uni ue not only within the group but within the whole assemblage. In the FBCP assemblage, symbols of hope and eternal life are dominant, with the cherub being the most obviously example. Prior to the appearance of the cherub, death’s heads (skulls) were more common. The handles from burial G-1 combine both elements of hope in the cherub at the top, Angel Gabriel to the sides, and a morbid mortality symbol, the death’s head (Fig. 8. ). Due to the poor and bent condition of the handle and the similarity to the other curtain-themed examples, the small death’s head at the bottom was originally missed. As images from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog were being looked at, a small death’s head could be seen on this curtain style handle, and an additional look confirmed that the FBCP had a match (Fig. 8. ). This is the single instance in the assemblage of a death’s head.

Lid plaques Lid pla ues, also call breast plates, are a feature that has mostly been associated with a higher degree of wealth or status of the deceased. While this assumption appears to hold up for the most part, there is still a large amount of known variation in burial grounds throughout the mid-Atlantic and England in which wealthy families

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

111

preferred simple coffins or that middle class families may have invested more into funerary practices. Thus, it is likely that the individuals from FBCP whose coffins have lid pla ues were of comfortable wealth, but it should not always be assumed they were among the most elite and wealthy. A total of 12 lid pla ues were recorded, most in such poor shape that no features, shapes, or inscription could be recorded. Here, seven lid pla ues are discussed because they were preserved enough to assess to various degrees. The pla ues fall into two groups: decorative (symbolic), those displaying meaningful symbols and memoriam, those inscribed with names and dates of the departed, a brief epitaph. Only on rare occasions are more than one lid pla ue present on a coffin from the FBCP. Most often, when used, a single pla ue is attached to the lid above the chest. In the case of a second pla ue being present, the additional pla ue is attached on the lid around the knees. This is only documented on two coffins, one of which the lids were historically removed but the stains left behind were still visible.

Symbolic lid plaques Burial G- 2 features a large angel with her hair pulled to the side and tied along the back, her eyes closed but head facing down to her left (Fig. 8. ). The angel’s hands, dropped to her sides, appear to be grasping her robe. It has been suggested that the angel may have African features (Morrell 201 ). Given the disparities that exist in the illustrations of all the handles when compared to the catalogs, and the difficulty of manufacture, this suggestion cannot be supported. The poor preservation of the skeletal remains from G- 2 also make an ancestral origin of the individual impossible to determine (Beatrice pers. comm.). The upper lid pla ue from burial G-28 is also an angel (Fig. 8. 8). Here, the angel is wearing her long hair down and it sits in front of her left shoulder. Her right hand holds up a crown in front of the detail feathers of her wings. The right side of the pla ue is fragmented and features on that side are indeterminable. The crown is symbolic of Jesus or immortality (Boston 2009). A second lid pla ue is featured on this coffin and discussed in the next section. Almost mirroring the G-28 pla ue is the angel from G-2 9 (Fig. 8. 9). The matte silver color is clearly a different metal composition or finish, though no lid pla ue metal has been tested. The angel’s left hand holds up a crown, the right, a trumpet is lowered towards the ground. Her left leg is bent slightly and crossed in front of her right while she hovers above clouds at her feet. The head of the angel is broken due to degradation. The imagery is found illustrated in the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog, but also the ‘EL’ catalog. The two images are drawn very differently but appear to be representing the same piece (Fig. 8. 0).

112

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . 7. A lid pla ue from urial G- 25 featuring a winged angle ga ing down to the right n 1 photo: George eader .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

11

Figure . . A lid pla ue from urial G-2 . A winged angel holding a crown up in their right hand, Rococo style trim to the ottom sides n 1 photo: ohn Wynn .

11

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . The upper lid pla ue featuring an angel holding up a crown in their left hand and a trumpet at the waist in their right hand n 1 . From urial G-25 , a man named Benjamin Britton photo: ohn Wynn .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

11

Figure . . Tuesly and Cooper Catalog left and E catalog right lid pla ues similar to Fig. . adapted from photo y A. Dhody .

Memoriam lid plaques In contemporaneous burial grounds from England, a large sample of inscribed lid pla ues have been recovered from decades of archaeological excavations prior to modern urban development (Reeve and Adams 199 Henderson et al. 201 ). A great many of these share a common, trape oidal shape. It is therefore interesting, given the many matching handles that are found on both sides of the Atlantic, that none of the lid pla ues excavated from the FBCP is trape oidal. Of the three that are partially legible, are all primarily ovular with curtain or foliage trim. At the English burial grounds of the time most epitaphs on lid pla ues provided simple information on the departed such as name, date of death, and age. It is very rare that any emotional language descriptors are featured such as words like ‘cherished’ (Hoile 2019). The memoriam lid pla ues from FBCP are consistent with this brief language.

11

Artifacts of Mourning

The first, from burial G-12 , is a large oval shape with, on the right, curtains drawn back (Fig. 8. 1). The poor condition of the piece makes comparison difficult and two pieces (shown in the center of Fig. 8. 1) are unable to be pieced onto the pla ue. The unfitted central piece shows some hints of a more elaborate symbol but it remains unidentified. The upper left side of the largest piece has the faded traces of the only legible writing, the letters ‘PR’. The inscribed lid pla ue of burial G-2 9 provided the most information on an individual of any artifact recovered from the excavation. The pla ue in Figure 8. 2 is the lower of two that were attached to the coffin lid (the other being Fig. 8. 9). The pla ue reads: Ben amin Britton. Departed this life February 1 th 1 82 Aged 8

A short online search turns up some ancestry information on Mr Britton. He was a baker and a bolter in Philadelphia. A bolter is a person who sold grains wholesale. It seems Mr Britton ac uired some moderate wealth during his life. There are numerous symbols associated with funerals, death, and the afterlife, and only a few are common in the FBCP assemblage, as seen on the many handles presented in this book. One that cannot be positively identified elsewhere in the collection may be present on Mr Britton’s inscribed lid pla ue. In the lower righthand corner the foliage trim looks very similar to acanthus leaves. These leaves have been associated with the gardens of heaven (Boston 2009) and are found with some regularity on other funerary related items of the period. Another highly revealing lid pla ue is from G-129 (Fig. 8. ). Again, this was the lower of two lid pla ues on the coffin. The upper one was found in heavily worn condition making any inferences as to the motifs impossible. The inscribed lid pla ue is partially legible: Thomas Weir Died J Aged 2 ears

Mr Weir’s age at death is illegible as is the date of death. However, the J may be the beginning of ‘January’ and the ‘ ’ is perhaps the last visible portion of 1 . This date would be consistent with the time range of the recovered assemblage. The second digit of Mr Weir’s age is not legible. This pla ue also demonstrates the use of ink and etching not only for the writing of words but for decoration as well. Just above ‘Weir’ at the top of the piece, decorative ink has been added on the edge of the at interior portion of the plaque. The final lid pla ue with some legible inscription is that of Mr R. Watson (burial G-28 , Fig. 8. ). The pla ue’s legible portion reads:

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

11

R. Watson Departed this life 1 Aged ears

The pla ue is not ovular but an elaborate shape resembling an hourglass, narrowing in the middle. Its trim is stylistically similar to the ma ority of the handles, suggestive of contemporaneity. Though heavily degraded and broken, the lower section has traces of a oral design. Daisies are featured on a piece of the upper lid place which was found broken in many pieces.

Figure . 1. A lid pla ue with the letters PR legi le from urial G-12 . A curtain design distinguisha le on the unattached piece on the right side photo: ohn Wynn .

118

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . 2. The lower lid pla ue featuring the name of Benjamin Britton . From urial G-25 . Acanthus leaves could e the foliage in the lower right photo: ohn Wynn .

Limited by space, the memoriam pla ues are not wordy. They are not emotional, which is to be expected for that era. There are so few examples of inscriptions on lid pla ues from 18th and 19th century United States burial grounds that a comparison of language is difficult. Such an undertaking would be valuable but it would likely take a dedicated researcher many years to find any contemporaneous inscriptions from

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

Figure . . The lid pla ue of Thomas Weir s coffin, urial G-12 photo: ohn Wynn .

119

120

Artifacts of Mourning

Figure . . From urial G-2 , the lower lid pla ue from r Watson s coffin photo: George eader .

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

121

the United States and England. This would, however, provide an interesting insight as to how the language describing the departed changed, if at all, throughout the Great Awakening period and afterwards.

Headstones The FBCP burial ground was once filled with headstones of many shapes and si es. A church record entered by the superintendent, Mr B.R. Loxley, states that he supervised when they ‘took up the last remains including those in the vaults and house March 1 , 18 0’ (PA ital Records 002 8- 1 ). This seems to imply there were at least some larger ‘vault-type’ burials or ‘mausolea’. Perhaps during the 18 0 exhumation, or conceivably slowly over the years before 18 0 by looters, the headstones were all removed. Only three pieces of headstone were excavated from the burial ground and of these, only one has an inscription (Fig. 8. ). The inscription reads: In Memory of ISRAEL MORRIS: who died Decemr 9th, 1 Aged 2 ears.

Figure . 5. The headstone of srael orris inscri ed: n emory of srael orris: who died Decemr th 175 Aged 25 ears photo: ohn Wynn .

122

Artifacts of Mourning

The headstone of Mr Morris was found collapsed over a stacked grave shaft. It is broken at the base and perhaps its tumble and the subse uent cover by vegetation is what saved it from being looted and repurposed in the 1800s. Biological anthropologists have identified one of the skeletal remains in the stacked burial shaft as male in the age range of Mr Morris. This is the most likely candidate to have been this individual. It is hoped that historical records on Mr Morris will be discovered so that we can know something of his life. The headstone shape, perhaps not ironically, is termed Philadelphia style. The top and ‘shoulders’ of the headstone were uite a popular trend in the region into the 19th century. This assemblage has the distinct disadvantage of being recovered without headstones and, therefore, the dates associated with the artifacts. Other studies, particularly on gravestone symbolism, have been able to provide trends on changing symbols throughout time (see Heinrich 201 Baugher and eit 201 , among many). Further research focused on stylistic change of lid pla ues through the mid-18th the mid-19th centuries demonstrated very slow change (Hoile 2019). In the likely window of the sample of burials from the FBCP (ca 1 0s 1820s) stylistic change may also have been slow. Hardware was obtained from England and thus bound to English trends.

Many symbols As demonstrated by the preceding section of this chapter, there are many symbols found on the coffin hardware at the FBCP cemetery. Previous chapters have discussed the meaning of these symbols, when used in religious contexts, and the beliefs of Baptists. However, as discussed above, the uestion of who was responsible for choosing the hardware has also been raised. This leaves a larger uestion unanswered, what do the symbols mean in this context A growing body of research has been conducted on the meanings of the symbols and motifs fre uently featured in historic burial grounds (Springate 201 Baugher and eit 201 Mytum and Burgess 2018). Several studies have linked them to religious meaning (Springate 201 ), religious change (Dethlefsen and Deet 19 ), or to more secular trends of economics (Heinrich 201 Mytum 2018). Symbols like angels with crowns hold religious significance and re ect the sovereignty of Christ (Springate 201 ) but others also fre uently associated with religion, like cherubs may be more related to consumerism (Heinrich 201 ). Heinrich (201 ) notes that the designs associated with the popular Rococo style of the time include cherubs. Producers of coffin hardware, desiring maximi e profits, incorporates the winding symmetry and motifs often seen on other furniture and artwork of the period. Funerary symbolic change has in the mid-18th century has also been ascribed to religious change associated with a decline in puritanism of the Great Awakening period (Dethlefsen and Deet 19 ). Dethlefsen and Deet ’s examined gravestone

8. Funerary symbolism: handle grip plates and lid plaques

12

motifs, death’s heads, cherubs, and urn and willow, in cemeteries in New England. They found a linear trend moving away from the death’s head’s strict and God-fearing meaning towards a the more hopeful cherubs and urns. The symbols on the hardware at the FBCP are largely cherubs, angels with crowns, and only one death’s head is found. Because chronology cannot be established it is impossible to see if these change through time. However, the symbols, particularly cherubs, are found a Baptist and other Christian burial grounds in America and England at the same time. The cherub that is so fre uent at FBCP is found elsewhere, sometimes in lower numbers (Crist et al. 199 Cowie et al. 2008 Proctor et al. 201 ), or on lid pla ues rather than handle grip plates (Miles et al. 2008). At other burial grounds copper alloy handles were too degraded to make out motifs but very similarly styled cherubs were recorded (Henderson et al. 201 ). There is no doubt that the cherub motif holds strong religious meaning but, simultaneously, the cherub design and trim fulfils the popular Rococo style of the time. Other less-central motifs, such as the ora or foliage, may symboli e cycles of life and death (Springate 201 ) or again represent more secular fashionable styles (Heinrich 201 ), for they too are found fre uently in Rococo period decor. One of the uni ue features of the FBCP hardware is the high numbers of burials with handles. Forty-nine coffins have copper alley handle grip plates totalling 2 individual motifs. This number is higher than other published contemporaneous burial grounds (Crist et al. 199 Cowie et al. 2008 Miles et al. 2008 Frohne 201 Proctor et al. 201 ). The high number is not indicative of more extravagance but rather availability. As discussed above, the increase in machine assisted production of hardware in England paired with Philadelphia’s development as a ma or port city probably made funerary hardware widely available.

In all their splendor Of course, these handles are spectacular in their own right. But it is still challenging for today’s reader to either imagine them prior to the 2 0 years of decay and oxidation or to fully appreciate them. Modern people are spoiled by the availability of cheap metals which give the illusion of expense and luster. We frequently are unimpressed by the true artistry that goes into the production of hand-made products. We live in a world saturated by inexpensive material options. But 2 0 years ago, these handles were bright, shiny, ‘brass’-colored ornaments. Against the backdrop of a deep colored wooden coffin, polished and clean, these would have been eye catching and impressive. They would have made a statement. But to whom and of what purpose that statement is intended is only known by those responsible for their selection. A statement of success to fellow man, a plea of forgiveness or commitment to God, or, perhaps still, a last reminder to the deceased’s family of their beliefs. Regardless of the intention, the handles would have been striking.

12

Artifacts of Mourning

Modern analogies The discussions above on religious meaning and economics in relation to coffin hardware demonstrate ust how powerful the knowledge held within these artifacts can be. It cannot be forgotten that these are old, partially decayed coffin handles from more than 2 0 years ago. ery few people today would consider these items even remotely interesting or think there is any possible knowledge to be gained from them. Not only is there knowledge gained on that historic period but the discussions about economics and religion still apply to human behavior today. Today, people are still caught between the social and economic forces that govern our behavior. We find ourselves uestioning what agency we have and what structures we operate within. The individual, as an agent, at times has much agency, or power to make their own choices, while at other times is restricted by acceptable culture, tradition, and social obligations, among other forces. It’s incredible that coffin handles from 2 0 years ago illustrate these same issues. Were individuals free to select handles based on the symbols they felt most represented their belief systems Or rather, were early mass-produced handles of the time expendable merchandise, only to be seen for a brief period during a viewing and then buried for eternity Further, who is determining which symbols are produced and available Do the symbols re ect the desires of religious congregants in the 18th and 19th centuries, or have the producers identified fast fashion trends which will appeal to the consumer If the latter, the forces of production and economics have demonstrated their mighty force was as strong 2 0 years ago as it is today. If the former, the agency of individual and the strength of their beliefs are evident.

Chapter 9 On the archaeology of mourning

Most of us have lost somebody we have loved dearly. Those fortunate to not have experienced it yet, will. In this sense, mourning, like death, is something every human on the planet will experience at some time. It is an experience that many will share with others. Some of us chose to mourn alone quietly. How we mourn and the practices associated with mourning are determined by many factors – culture, beliefs, customs, and rituals. Whether religious or economic, funerary tradition is steeped in symbolism. Symbols can depict the successes in life or the hopes in death. The symbols embedded in the handles themselves are powerful; so much so that their meanings and usage have changed little since they were attached to the coffins some 250 years ago. Whether or not they represent the will of the deceased, that of the family, or were even chosen at the discretion of the undertaker will never be known for individual burials. The choice probably came from a combination of the three agents and the choice still represents human agency – a deliberate decision to select that hardware based on cultural norms or expectations. In the early days of Philadelphia, the population was small and, by default, somewhat close-knit amongst the various societal groups and classes. Attending funerals was a part of the social fabric and reinforced relationships of the mourners (Tharp 1996, 90). The exponential growth of the European population on the East Coast slowly reduced these close ties and, with it, the funeral’s full social significance. However, as demonstrated by the increase in the production, availability, and variety of coffins and hardware, the funeral itself remained an important ritual throughout the 18th and into the 19th century.

126

Artifacts of Mourning

Limitations As archaeologists, on occasion we become caught up in the objects themselves. Indeed, the splendor of a tortoise-shell comb is undeniable. Painstakingly refitting the small pieces of a broken lid plaque can quickly turn into obsession. Despite this, the objects themselves are only the medium serving as data, ushering us towards our end goal: explaining human culture. We are still anthropologists in this sense. In this case, we use artifacts to retrieve cultural information that may not be complete without the physical material supporting the written record. It then becomes the job of the archaeologist to interpret the data and to provide evidence-based explanations for the cultural meanings held by the objects. As a book for both general interest readers as well as burial ground researchers, there has been an intentional softening of conclusive interpretations of these items. While interpretations are presented in the discussions of meanings and usage of the artifacts, the symbols are alive in the sense that they cannot be definitively interpreted by a single person, in this case, the author. Rather, these symbols and how they were intended to be viewed is of a personal nature. The deceased individual, the family, other Baptists, and certainly the readers of this book, all may have a similar understanding of the intended meaning of the symbol but, still, meanings only take shape fully at the individual level. Perhaps this should not be considered a limitation of the artifacts’ potential to provide conclusive answers, but rather a freedom expanding their power to mean many things to many people. A real factor limiting interpretation of cultural change is the lack of temporal data. In the entire assemblage there are only four known dates associated with burials: 1 82, 1 , 1 , and one that is assumed to be 1 (the ‘1 ’ is difficult to make out). There are matching handles from the Tuesly and Cooper Catalog, of which the date is believed to be 1 8 . The handles from Ben amin Britton’s coffin are dated to 1782, just a year before the Catalog’s assumed date. Tuesly and Cooper handles appear earlier and later at other burial grounds. Miscellaneous artifacts from the intermixed backfill must be considered out of context and therefore do not offer a strong dating solution, but still the styles and types are consistent with the period. All of this combined suggests that the assemblage falls in a mid-18th to early 19th century date range. That date range is evidence based, but inexact, and dissuades one from providing more interpretive language. Further, funerary symbolic change has been demonstrated to happen very slowly within coffin hardware (Hoile 2019). Whereas many above-ground burial ground studies have shown stylistic and symbolic change using headstones, the coffin handles are used for a wide range of time. Thus, a specific date needs to be associated with the handles to expect to draw conclusions on change through time. A temporal argument could be made for the depth of the coffins. However, again, in an urban historic burial ground this presents challenges. Burial grounds often

9. On the archaeology of mourning

127

expanded away from the church with the earliest interment closest to the church. However, some congregants may have reserved plots closer to the church, a sign of status. The portion of the burial ground that was closest to the church is still unexcavated, sitting under buildings to the east of the excavation site. Also, burials may have been stacked and restacked out of their original order as space was limited. Finally, sediment deposits were occasionally added at burial grounds when it was thought that they may have been the source of disease in the city. Further adding to the problems with using the depth for chronology is the knowledge that some of the burials were perhaps exhumed in 1859. How many or from which part of the burial ground may never be known. These unknowns are limiting factors on dates. When handles were analyzed looking for patterns or style changes by depth, no clear patterns were found (Leader et al. 2021). There is, however, still much to be learned without temporal control. If we consider the assemblage as a snapshot of time it is still an incredible snapshot. The objects provide us a glimpse into the lives, beliefs, and practices of early Philadelphians and, in short, culture.

A snapshot of culture Demonstrative of agency and choice, the departed or their family have at times individualized their traditions. Ignoring religious simplicity, excavations recovered evidence of the deceased buried in day-clothes as opposed to shrouds. Some of these clothes were so elaborate that they had facetted glass buttons still attached. Signifying an individual’s success or wealth, some coffins once sparkled with shiny handles, multiple lid plaques, and trim. Unique behaviors, or individualism, in mourning practice is shown through leaving coins on the eyes of a departed juvenile or placing a bou uet of owers wrapped in hemp ribbon inside the coffin of a loved one. Each unique example of individualism may represent a small breach in tradition of the simplistic Baptist practice, or simply an acceptable personalization within the tradition.

Social complexity and change Brent Tharp of Georgia Southern University notes that early 17th century America’s ‘geography and environment made Christianity an even more diverse system than it had been in England’ (Tharp 1996, 52). Embedded in the history of the church, like many churches, is the story of ideological differences between new arrivals and traditional beliefs. Multiple church splits throughout the 18th (and later in the 19th) century show that not all ideological difference could be settled by discussion. Nor were Philadelphia’s churches exempt from racial discriminations, as seen by the discontent of Black congregants who formed the First African Baptist Church in 1809.

128

Artifacts of Mourning

Commonality Colonial America and, later, the young sovereign United States, had many disagreements with England. These landed the two on either side of the battlefield more than once but they now are close allies. The traditions that earlier English men and women and other Europeans brought to the colony may have transformed over the years but the roots are familiar. Symbols found on funerary items throughout the 18th and early 19th centuries and on both sides of the Atlantic demonstrate a commonality of belief. Certainly, economic considerations cannot be overlooked, such as producers manufacturing handles featuring popular symbols and styles of the day (i.e. Rococo). But the symbols are found again and again in English and American burial grounds. They are used consistently in a similar manner on hardware. They span religious denominations and space. Even though there are a host of disparities between the many branches of Christianity, these symbols are a reminder of the underlying beliefs that are common to many within the faith.

Filling in the gaps Much of history, here specifically 18th and 19th century Philadelphia but broadly applicable, is written by men. Moreover, a considerable amount was written or dictated by white, educated, land-owning men. Undoubtedly, this presents a bias in the historical record. For a hundred years, the field of historical archaeology has attempted to fill in the gaps of this historical record. The inaccuracies may have not always been intentional, but they are there. The role of the recovered material culture then becomes not to confirm or deny history but to provide support or to repair the historical record. The mundane is rarely recorded, as even today people neglect to write about the ordinary. Artifacts from the FBCP excavations now add to limited knowledge of funerary ritual and tradition in Philadelphia in the 18th and 19th centuries. Much of what we know on this subject comes from very few historical sources and more so from subse uent archaeological studies. In this sense, artifacts serve to fill-in the gaps of knowledge. They serve as evidence of what traditions and rituals were practiced then. ery few hinges were recovered and none still attached directly to a coffin. This is a break from other burial grounds in England and tells us that if a viewing was conducted, it is very likely that that entirety of the lid was removed and replaced afterwards. Small pieces of information like this combine together to reconstruct the days and observations leading up to the burial of an individual. These small pieces of evidence rarely tell the whole story but, like a mathematical equation, they can help solve for x. It gives us an opportunity to re ect on how behavior has changed and to expand knowledge.

9. On the archaeology of mourning

129

A reminder of the ordinary The artifacts from FBCP burial ground are the story of ordinary people. There may be some extraordinary achievers interred in the burial ground (i.e. a signatory of the Declaration of Independence, a Governor) but, on the whole, these are just citizens of Philadelphia. In the 19th century, Henry Mercer, an amateur archaeologist and antique collector, opened an exhibition in Bucks County displaying simple, ordinary objects he had collected throughout his lifetime. ‘Tools of the Nation Maker’ the exhibit was titled, upholding his belief that simple tools and those who used them were the true illustration of nation building (Nash 2006, 59). The display was therefore representative of the ordinary, the common person, and the simple items they relied upon. The FBCP burial ground in many ways is very similar. The artifacts might represent many things but overwhelmingly they are just objects of the common man. Some of the probable meanings are offered but not with an authoritative goal in mind but rather as options for the observer to consider. No singular authoritative meaning can be placed on an angel or a cherub, for its meaning is different to each ordinary person. One can draw many conclusions from these artifacts, collected from a spectrum of society but for the most part, they are from ordinary people.

Meaning Meaning, or the interpretation of meaning, is personal and it should be noted that the author is not a Baptist. Meaning changes through the lenses from which one observes. As archaeologists, we are by default anthropologists and, like all humans, not free of bias. Today, a practicing Baptist may interpret the motifs differently than other Baptists or non-religious people. The same was true in the 18th and 19th centuries. From the start, I have indicated that my interpretations are intentionally limited and that they should not be read as the final word but ust one of many. It is my hope that the value of this book is in the presentation of the artifacts for everyone to appreciate. The study of the artifacts from an historic burial ground may not stir up the gleams of excitement which are often associated with the field of archaeology (i.e. Indiana Jones). It may not ump off the page to some who instead might view it as morbid. But in actuality, the artifacts presented in this book teach us much about human culture. They teach us not only about death but rather about life. They teach us about beliefs from the time and help us to re ect upon our beliefs today. They remind us that even then people mourned lost loved ones, just as we do today. The artifacts, which were intentionally placed with the departed, were intended to accompany that individual on their journey in the afterlife. As such, they show us hope – hope in life and hope in death: Morier in Spe.

References

Bashford, L. and Siburn, L. 2007. Excavations at the Quaker Burial Ground, Kingston-upon-Thames, London. Post-Medieval Archaeology 41(1), 100–54. Baugher, S. and Veit, R. 2016. The Archaeology of American Cemeteries and Gravemarkers (reprint edition). Gainswille FL: University of Florida Press. Bell, E. 1990. Historical archaeology of mortuary behavior: coffin hardware from Uxbridge, Massachusetts. Historical Archeology 24(3), 54–78. Bonneau, N. 2022. Accounting for the Dead: A History of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia Cemetery (The Arch Street Project). Unpublished lecture 4 April, Online Public Lecture. Boston, C. 2009. Burial practice and material culture. In Boston et al. (eds), 147–72. Boston, C., Boyle, A., Gill, J. and Witkin, A. (eds) 2009. ‘In the Vaults Beneath’; Archaeological Recording at St George’s Church, Bloomsbury. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology Monograph 8. Bromberg, F.W. and Shepherd, S.J. 2006. The Quaker burying ground in Alexandria, Virginia: a study of burial practices of the Religious Society of Friends. Historical Archaeology 40(1), 57–88. Brumm, A., Oktaviana, A.A., Burhan B., Hakim, B., Lebe, R., Jian-Zhao, X., Sulistyarto, P.H., Ririmasse, M., Adhityatama, S., Sumantri, I. and Aubert, M. 2021. Oldest cave art found in Sulawesi. Science Advances 7(3). [Doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd4648] Butler, J. 1982. Enthusiasm described and decried: The Great Awakening as interpretative fiction. Journal of American History 69(2), 305–25. Catalano, K.M. 1979. Cabinetmaking in Philadelphia 1820–1840: transition from craft to industry. Winterthur Portfolio 13: American Furniture and Its Makers, 81–138. Cherryson, A.K. 2018. Dressing for the grave: the archaeological evidence for the preparation and presentation of the corpse in post-medieval England. In Mytum and Burgess (eds), 37–55. Cotter, J.L., Roberts, D.G. and Parrington, M. 1992. The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Court of Common Pleas, of Philadelphia County, Orphans’ Court Division 1805048868 Cowie, R., Bekvalac, J. and Kausmally, T. 2008. Late 17th–19th century burial and earlier occupation at All Saints, Chelsea Old Church, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. London: Museum of London Archaeology Service Series 18. Crist, T., Pitts, R.H., Washburn, A., McCarthy, J.P. and Roberts, D.G. 1996. A Distinct Church of the Lord Jesus: The History, Archeology, and Physical Anthropology of the Tenth Street First African Baptist Church Cemetery, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Site Number 36PH72. West Chester PA: John Milner Associates, unpublished report. Davidson, J.M. 2010. Keeping the Devil at bay: the shoe on the coffin lid and other grave charms in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century America. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 14, 614–49. Dethlefsen, E.S. and Deetz, J.F. 1966. Death’s Heads, cherubs, and willow trees: experimental archaeology in Colonial cemeteries. American Antiquity 31(4), 502–10. Duncan, K. 2019. What do Baptists Believe About Baptism. Available at https://www.stjohnsbaptistvb. org/what-baptists-believe-about-baptism/ Fickett, H.L. 1965. The Layman’s Guide to Baptists Beliefs. Grand Rapids MI: Zondervan Publishing House. Frohne, A.E. 2015. The African Burial Ground in New York City: Memory, Spirituality, and Space. Syracuse NY: Syracuse University Press.

132

Artifacts of Mourning

Grunwald, A. 2018. Ten right-sided sheep femora and other peculiarities. What to make of the Arch Street faunal assemblage. Unpublished paper presented at the Society of American Archaeology Meeting, Washington DC, April. Heinrich, A. 2013. Cherubs or putti? Gravemarkers demonstrating conspicuous consumption and the Rococo fashion in the eighteenth century. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 18(1), 37–64. Henderson, M., Miles, A. and Walker, D. 2015. St Marylebone’s Paddington Street North Burial Ground. London: Museum of London Archaeology Archaeology Studies Series 34. Hexamer and Locher. 1859. Maps of the City of Philadelphia. Available at Free Library of Philadelphia Plate 45. Hoadley, F.T. 1986. By God’s Own Hand: The Story of American Baptists in Pennsylvania and Delaware. Valley Forge PA: Abcopad Press. Hoile, S.A.E. 2019. Death, Time and Commerce: Innovation and Conservatism in Styles of Funerary Material Culture in 18th–19th century London. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University College London. Janaway, R.C. 2001. Degradation of clothing and other dress materials associated with buried bodies of archaeological and forensic interest. In Haglund, W.D. and Sorg, M.H. (eds), Advances in Forensic Taphonomy, Method, Theory, and Archaeological Perspectives, 380–99. Boca Raton FL: CRC Press. Keen, W.W. 1899. Bi-Centennial Celebration of the Founding of the First Baptists Church of the City of Philadelphia, 1898. Miami FL: Hard Press. Klepp, S.E. 1991. The Swift Progress of Population: A Documentary and Bibliographic Study of Philadelphia’s Growth, 1642–1859. Philadelphia PA: Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 187. Leader, G.M., Moran, K.S., Beatrice, J., Dhody, A. and Veit, R. 2021. 18th and 19th century funerary hardware and material culture from the historic cemetery (1702–1859) of the First Baptist Church of Philadelphia. Historical Archaeology 56, 72–90. Litten, J. 1991. The English Way of Death: The Common Funeral Since 1450. London: Robert Hale. Little, B.J., Lanphear, K.M. and Owsley, D.W. 1992. Mortuary display and status in a nineteenthcentury Anglo-American cemetery in Manassas, Virginia. American Antiquity 57(3), 397–418. Loe, L. and Boston, C. 2018. Eighteenth- and nineteenth-century coffin furniture from St George’s Crypt, Bloomsbury, and the churchyard and crypt of St Luke’s, Islington. In Mytum and Burgess (eds), 129–64. Mahoney-Swales, D., O’Neill, R. and Willmott, H. 2011. The hidden material culture of death: coffins and grave goods in late 18th- and early 19th-century Sheffield. In King, C. and Sayer, D. (eds), The Archaeology of Post-Medieval Religion, 215–31. Woodbridge: Boydell Press. Matthews, D.G. 1969. The second Great Awakening as an organizing process, 1780–1830: an hypothesis. American Quarterly 21(1), 23–43. McKinley, J. 2008. The 18th Century Baptist Church and Burial Ground at West Butts Street, Poole, Dorset. Salisbury: Wessex Archaeology. Miles, A., Powers, N., Wroe-Brown, R. and Walker, D. 2008. St Marylebone Church and burial ground in the 18th to 19th centuries: Excavations at St Marylebone School, 1992 and 2004–6. London: Museum of London Monograph 46. Morrell, K. 2017. 218 Arch Street/First Baptist Church of Philadelphia Cemetery Relocation Project, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Unpublished report prepared for PMC Property Group. Available by request. Mullins, E.Y. 1912. Baptist Beliefs. Louisville KT: Baptist World Publishing Company. Mytum, H. 2018. Explaining stylistic change in mortuary material culture: the dynamic of power relations between the bereaved and the undertaker. In Mytum and Burgess (eds), 75–93. Mytum, H. and Burgess, L. (eds) 2018. Death Across Oceans: Archaeology of Coffins and Vaults in Britain, America, and Australia. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

References

133

Nash, G.B. 1988. Forging Freedom: The Formation of Philadelphia’s Black Community, 1720–1840. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Nash, G.B. 2006. First City: Philadelphia and the Forging of Historical Memory. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Noël Hume, I. 1969. A Guide to Artifacts of Colonial America. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Olsen, N. 2022. Baptist Bulletin. Available at www.baptistbulletin.org. PA Vital Records 002568-617. Pennsylvania Department of Health. www.health.pa.gov. Packard, F.R. 1932. History of Medicine in the United States. New York: Paul B. Hoeber. Parrington, M., Roberts, D.G., Pinter, S.A. and Wideman, J.C. 1989. The First African Baptist Church Cemetery: Bioarcheology, Demography, and Acculturation of Early Nineteenth Century Philadelphia Blacks. Philadelphia PA: John Milner Associates, unpublished report prepared for the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, Proctor, J., Gaimster, M. and Langthorne, J.Y. 2016. A Quaker Burial Ground in North Shields. Brockley: Pre-Construct Archaeology Monograph 20. Reeve, J. and Adams, M. 1993. The Spitalfields Project Volume 1: Across the Styx. York: Council for British Archaeology Research Report 85 Riordan, T.B. 2009. ‘Carry Me to yon Kirk Yard’: an investigation of changing burial practices in the seventeenth-century cemetery at St. Mary’s City, Maryland. Historical Archaeology 43(1), 81–92. Salisbury, S. 2016. Old bones found – and nobody’s in charge. The Philadelphia Inquirer November 4, 2016. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/entertainment/20161102_Old_bones_turn_up_during_ construction__regulatory_agencies_shrug.html\ Smith, J.H. 2015. The First Great Awakening: Redefining Religion in British America, 1725–1775. Madison WI: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Springate, M. 2015. Coffin Hardware in Nineteenth-century America. Walnut Creek CA: Left Coast Press. Stiefel, J. 2019. The Cabinetmaker’s Account: John Head’s Record of Craft and Commerce in Colonial Philadelphia, 1718–1753. Philadelphia PA: American Philosophical Society Press. Tarlow, S. 2013. Belief and the archaeology of death. In Tarlow, S. and Nilsson S.L. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of The Archaeology of Death and Burial, 617–630. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tharp, B.W. 1996. ‘Preserving Their Form and Features’: The Role of Coffins in the American Understanding of Death, 1607–1870. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, William and Mary College. Tracy, J. 1842. The Great Awakening: A History of the Revival of Religion in the Time of Edwards and Whitefield. London: Republication, Banner of Truth 2019. Wolff, M.P. 2021. Black Philadelphians in the Samuel George Morton Cranial Collection. Philadelphia PA: Penn Program on Race, Science and Society, university of Pennsylvania [https://prss.sas.upenn. edu/penn-medicines-role/black-philadelphians-samuel-george-morton-cranial-collection]