Cherubs Or Putti? Gravemarkers Demonstrating Conspicuous Consumption and the Rococo Fashion in the Eighteenth Century

Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 DOI 10.1007/s10761-013-0246-x

Cherubs or Putti? Gravemarkers Demonstrating Conspicuous Consumption and the Rococo Fashion in the Eighteenth Century

Adam R. Heinrich

Published online: 6 December 2013 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Since the 1960s, James Deetz and other archaeologists have attributed the appearance of the cherub icon on colonial-period gravemarkers to religious movements such as the Great Awakening or diminished Puritan influence during the eighteenth century. The cherub has been interpreted by many scholars as a symbol of a heavenly being that reflects freer perceptions on life and the afterlife. This article challenges the long-held religious connotations of the cherub icon. Instead, this article demonstrates that the icon relates to the wider Rococo artistic trend that was the prime influence on the forms and decorations of contemporary material culture. In this artistic fashion, the cherub is a putto, a Classical allegorical element that remained common in architectural and mortuary sculpture. The use of the putto comes with a number of additional contemporary elements and shows that consumer choice connected to the latest fashion instead of changing religious attitudes being the driver behind iconographic and decoration change on colonial gravemarkers.

Keywords Gravemarkers . Rococo . Conspicuous consumption . Fashion

Introduction

By the mid-seventeenth century, New England folk artisans were producing gravemarkers that were derived from earlier European mortuary traditions. This phe- nomenon later influenced distinctive local traditions north to Nova Scotia (Irwin 2007), Maine (Giguere 2005) and New Hampshire (Rainville 1999), and south through Rhode Island (Luti 2002), Connecticut (Ludwig 1966;Slater1987), the Hudson River Valley (Welch 1983, 1987), and northern New Jersey (Veit 1991, 1996, 2009; Zielenski 2004). Monmouth County, New Jersey, is recognized as the most southern contiguous area

A. R. Heinrich (*) Department of History and Anthropology, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Lane, West Long Branch, NJ 07764, USA e-mail: [email protected] 38 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 where the tradition can be found on a large scale (Heinrich 2003, 2011;McLeod1979; Veit 2000, p. 127), though a number of icon-adorned gravemarkers made by New Jersey and New England carvers were exported as far south as the Carolinas, Georgia, and the Caribbean (Gorman and DiBlasi 1981; Little 1998;MouldandLoewe2006, pp. 208–209; Paonessa 1990). These icon-adorned gravemarkers have been valuable resources for scholars study- ing the social values of colonial and Federal period North Americans. Due to the common association of death with religion and concepts of an afterlife, the decorations, especially the imagery or iconography in the tympanums of these early gravemarkers, have generally been married to religious interpretations. As such, scholars have associated evolutions of the imagery found on the markers with religious movements. Gravemarkers are also robust, enduring, and public displays of status and purchasing power. The influential interpretations on the appearances and changes of gravemarker iconography connected to religious movements have been foundation research for wide numbers of introductory and historical archaeology studies on seriation and cultural change. This article challenges the long-held religious connotations of the cherub icon and its contemporaneous decorations, and it presents an alternative historically and economically-grounded explanation where the changes in the gravemarkers’ iconogra- phies in addition to secondary imagery reflect the fashions observed on contemporary material culture and therefore they reflect the consumer and not the religious ideology of those who purchased the stones. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate geographic locales where significant gravemarker studies were performed and are referred to in this article.

Religious Associations of Gravemarker Iconography

In the New World context, the earliest dated gravemarkers and the first systematic studies of their iconography are from New England; hence, the historic and regional influence of the Puritans has been used to explain the preponderance of mortality symbols on the earliest markers. These earliest mortality symbols in the forms of winged death’s heads, hourglasses, skulls, and crossbones have been attributed to the stereotypic and probably overdrawn perceptions of the Puritans as individuals who emphasized the impermanence of the mortal body and their uncertainty about their fates after death (Deetz and Dethlefsen 1967, p. 30; Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966,p.506; Ludwig 1966, pp. 4, 21–51). The later changes in colonial gravemarker iconography were also connected to religious movements. In the mid-eighteenth century, the winged cherubs (also called soul effigies or human faces with wings) appear and generally replace mortality symbols in popularity. Due to the loose contemporaneity with the Great Awakening, archaeologists Edwin Dethlefsen and James Deetz (1966, pp. 504–508) argued that the perceived freer, more enthusiastic religious movement caused a departure from the morbid mortality images to the more hopeful cherubs where the immortal part of the person was emphasized rather than the mortality of man. Similarly, Deetz and Dethlefsen connected the change from cherubs to Neoclassical symbols such as the willow tree and urn, which memorializing the memory of the individual at the end of the eighteenth century, to increasing secularization due to the presence of additional religions such as Unitarianism and Methodism. Art historian Allan Ludwig (1966,pp. Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 39

42–52) attributed the appearance of the cherub to the diminished authority of the Puritans in New England. Building off these early Massachusetts studies, numerous other researchers attempted to seriate colonial gravemarkers using their iconography. These studies cover much of the East Coast and range from Nova Scotia and New Hampshire to as far south as Georgia and they have connected changes and icon meanings to the religious movements argued in the early New England publications, often in attempts to replicate or identify deviations from the patterns described by Dethlefsen and Deetz (Benes 1977; Gorman and DiBlasi 1977, p. 111, 1981,pp.89–90, 94; Irwin 2007,pp.57–63; McLeod 1979,pp.49–75; Rainville 1999, pp. 557–560; Stone 2009, pp. 153–154; Tashjian and Tashjian 1974). Other scholars have critiqued the theoretical underpinnings of Ludwig’s as well as Deetz and Dethlefsen’s works. Religious historian David Hall (1977) critically rejected the religious connections to gravestone iconography arguing that the religious groups were not uniformly monolithic and there are too many variables unanswered by religious explanations. As archaeological researchers tested the New England work, several were not convinced that iconographic change was related to religious trends and instead suggest that the icons and their change reflected unknown cultural processes (Baugher and Winter 1983, p. 53; Heinrich 2011, p. 10; Levine 1978,p.53;Veit2009, p. 117).

Fig. 1 Map illustrating locales for gravemarker studies and images mentioned in this article (drawn by author, 2013) 40 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Fig. 2 Map illustrating the numerous locales surveyed and photographed in New Jersey (outline by Rutgers University Cartography)

Over the last 50 years, a body of literature has accumulated showing that there are no religious boundaries with the main colonial-period gravestone symbols. Throughout the colonies where the carving tradition appears, death’s heads and the other mortality symbols dominate the earliest stones found in Presbyterian, Anglican, Dutch Reformed, Baptist, and common burial grounds. Indeed, there is even one in the Quaker burial ground in Shrewsbury, New Jersey. Cherubs are also found in the burial grounds of all the earliest religions (Baugher and Winter 1983,p.53;Heinrich2011, pp. 7, 10, 16; Stone 2009, pp. 153–154; Veit 1991, pp. 125–129, 2009, pp. 128–139), including Quakers (Brennan 2011, p. 107), a few examples from the colonial Jewish Burying Ground in Newport, Rhode Island (Gradwohl 2007, pp. 35–40), and even Catholic burial grounds in Ireland (Mytum 2003) and Scotland (Willsher and Hunter 1978). A variety of additional central icons also appear across the northeastern colonies. Specific to New Jersey and New York in the mid-eighteenth century, stylized tulips and sunbursts/scallops appear, and while they are also not religion specific, the tulips show correlations with young, generally unmarried, women and the sunbursts/scallops with children, though these correlations are not exclusive (Veit 1991,p.63,2009, p. 123). At the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth centuries, monograms that now prominently placed the deceased’s initials in the tympanum served as memorializing equivalents for the willows and urns of New England (Veit 1991, pp. 67–69, 2009,p.117). The icon-adorned markers in the Quaker and Jewish burial grounds are puzzling if they are considered in religious contexts because each religion supposedly eschewed “graven images” based on strict interpretations of the Old Testament (Gradwohl 2007, p. 38; Stone 1991, p. 9). The cross-religious use of the icons, including those found in the Quaker and Jewish burial grounds, is likely due to a civic attitude toward Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 41 commemorating the dead where the decorations were removed from the religious sphere even if the burial ground was associated with a church or meeting house. Puritan preacher Samuel Mather stated in his Testimony from the Scripture against Idolatry and Superstition of 1672, “the Civil use of Images is lawful for the represen- tation & remembrance of a person absent, for honour and Civil worship to any worthy person, as also for ornament” (quoted in Tashjian and Tashjian 1974,p.8).Researchon the documents and sermons that discuss zealous Puritan objections to imagery have exclusively been in regards to images of Christ, the Virgin, saints, and the like which could lead to idolatry (Watters 1981). Images such as death’s heads and cherubs were considered civil or allegorical and therefore not part of the forbidden imagery. Further complication is added to discussions of religious connotations of the icons as cherubs were used on markers by leaders such as Colonel Israel Williams, Reverend Jonathan Ashley, and Colonel Oliver Partridge who were such staunch public critics of the Great Awakening to the point where Partridge took part in dismissing Jonathan Edwards from western Massachusetts in 1750 (Sweeney 1985, pp. 10–11). Additionally, cherubs are especially rare in Monmouth County, New Jersey where New Light stars of the Great Awakening John, Gilbert, and William Tennent preached and established congregations. These examples help suggest that there were no particular religious ideological meanings for the cherub. It is now well-understood that the use of mortality symbols was a continuation of the traditional medieval European iconography that stressed Life’s briefness and the corruptibility of the mortal body—the memento mori tradition (Brooke 1988,p.467; Hall 1977,pp.29–30; Veit 2009, p. 117; Wright 1957, p. 207). This iconography was not limited to gravemarkers but was commonly seen in genre and still-life paintings, mortuary sculpture, death placards, and, more accessibly, in engravings such as Hans Holbein’s widely disseminated early sixteenth-century Dance of Death series which emphasized universal mortality regardless of one’s earthly privileges. Additionally, the appearance of the willows, urns, and other memorial symbols at the end of the colonial period is easily connected to the Neoclassical fashions influenced by the late eighteenth-century archaeological discoveries in Italy and Greece. The reason for the cherub (and the other mid-century symbols) within the sequence between the medieval mortality and the Neoclassical symbols has not been adequately explained.

The Rococo and the Cherub

The late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries were a dynamic period where purchasing power and social mobility created markets fed by a flourishing of crafts and fashions (e.g., Carson 1994). Within this context, a new anti-Classical style out of Versailles was becoming the fashion of the elite classes across continental Europe by the 1720s. This French style departed from the sharp angles, weighty pillars, and academic symmetry of Renaissance and Baroque Classicism by establishing highly ornamental and asymmetric, naturalistic curved forms and embellishments. During its time, it was simply called the “new,”“modern,”“fashionable,” or “latest” style. In the nineteenth century, this style was eventually labeled the Rococo, which was intended to be a pejorative description mocking the natural and stylized shapes of rocks and shells (the rocaille and coquilles from which the term Rococo is derived), as well as flora, 42 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 fauna, and allegorical motifs that were commonly integrated into the decorations. Through the use of natural elements along with winding, serpentine curves, the spirit of the Rococo was one of elegance, imagination, lightness, and movement (Heckscher and Bowman 1992,p.1;Post1921, pp. 26–27). The artistic movement towards naturalism continued to incorporate Classical elements especially in stucco work and sculpture with allegorical figures, satyrs, and particularly putti—winged infants associated with notions of love and freedoms that frequently serve as supporting characters for other themes or as holders of structures, symbolic objects, mirrors, and reserve frames (Fig. 3). As London rebuilt after the devastating fire of 1666, new construction was in an Italian Renaissance Classical style following the imported architectural treatises by Andrea Palladio. Due to the late incorporation of Palladian style, the English were less open to incorporating the French fashion (Mowl and Earnshaw 1999,p.25),andasaresultthe English manifestation of the Rococo has often been considered muted, and only a “poor provincial offshoot” (Snodin 1986, p. 6). It is now recognized that the Rococo had made deep inroads into English architecture and fashion, though it was frequently incorporated into interiors, portable objects, and as embellishments onto established Gothic, Classical, Baroque, and Chinoiserie elements (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, pp. 16–34;Mowland Earnshaw 1999,pp.93–108, 121–122; Sweeney 1994,p.28). The Rococo was brought to England by continental artisans. French Huguenots fleeing Louis XIV’s repeal of the Edict of Nantes introduced the Rococo as they established their crafts in London (Crown 1990, p. 276; Heckscher and Bowman 1992,

Fig. 3 A sixteenth-century interi- or monument in the floor of the Oude Kirk, Amsterdam, the Netherlands showing two full bodied putti holding an armorial crest (photo by author 2008) Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 43 p. 2; Watney 1972, p. 826). Swiss-Italian stuccoers followed, decorating interiors where the Rococo really flourished (Mowl and Earnshaw 1999, pp. 3–5). Other prominent Rococo artists visited England; Antoine Watteau traveled to England between 1710 and 1712 (Rowland Michel 1986, p. 46). Engraver and designer, Hubert Gravelot was in London by 1732 and influenced all aspects of art as a teacher at Saint Martin’s Lane Academy, the chief school for English artists (Crown 1990, p. 278; Heckscher and Bowman 1992,p.2). The Rococo fashion quickly diffused to the American colonies. By as early as the late 1720s and 1730s, the upper classes that maintained close connections to their English counterparts and demanded fashionable goods brought shipments across the ocean. The newest style made it to the colonies through engravings and design books, imported goods, and immigrant artisans. Indeed many Rococo designs in the colonies can be traced back to printed media (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 5; Park 1961,p.122). The Rococo flourished in seaports linked to the English trade. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York filled with English goods and these cities and their surroundings served as markets for local industries to develop in pottery, silver, and furniture. Charleston and Williamsburg generally relied on imported goods from England and the northern colonies to satisfy their demands for the latest fashion (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 9; Jones 1927, p. 220). This appetite for new style goods increased trade from England “almost eightfold from 1700 to 1773” (Bailyn 1976,p.447). Eighteenth-century material culture shows the pervasiveness of the Rococo fashion. The great artisan names from the eighteenth century established their reputations with Rococo-style products, spawning numerous competitors and imitators that often copied designs from pattern books trying to take advantage of the demand in the growing markets. Thomas Whieldon’s and Josiah Wedgewood’s matched white salt-glazed stoneware, creamware, and early pearlware table settings were English Rococo with curved rims embellished with floral designs, as well as the most profuse shell-edged motif that seems ubiquitous in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century archaeological sites. Thomas Chippendale, a publisher of his own pattern books, worked to fill the homes with the chairs, cabinets, and other furniture that became essential in an increasingly material world. Chippendale frequently worked Rococo curves and elements into Gothic or Chinoiserie bases (Crown 1990, p. 274; Tunis 1965,p.88).Paul Revere also worked asymmetric naturalistic forms into his silver, engravings, and prints (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 166). The most famous portrait of Revere by John Singleton Copley (dating to 1768) naturalistically reflects the subject on the polished table and in the Rococo teapot held in his hands (illustrated in Prown 1980,p.200). Besides being master craftsmen, these masters were also àlamode, understanding their markets’ fashions and changing to Neoclassical-styled products near the Revolution and the closing of the eighteenth century (i.e., McKendrick 1960). As the Rococo infiltrated the forms and decorations of the material culture, the fashion also manifested itself in grave art. Predominately, the cherub became a greater part of the decorative lexicon with the new fashion, as the putto. Putti, winged infants, maintained popularity as elements on the most elite tomb monuments found in churches throughout continental Europe and England during the Renaissance Classical and Baroque periods (Post 1921,pp.54–55). The great dissemination of printed architectural and decorative forms by the second quarter of the eighteenth century helped bring the putto image to folk artisans who would begin to incorporate them on more generally consumed materials such as gravemarkers (Fig. 4). 44 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Fig. 4 An 1880 reprint of William Hogarth’s 1753 Analysis of Beauty highlighting the winged putto in lower right. Also note the acanthus leaf (numbered 37) illustrated on the right side just above the central panel (author’s collection)

Eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith, David Hume, Joshua Reynolds, and Comte de Buffon who wrote discourses on fashion and taste touted the beauty of natural (i.e., Rococo) forms while simultaneously discussed Classical thinking, art, and mythology (Kramnick 1995, pp. 319–329, 342–349; Smith 2002, pp. 227–234). The incorporation of Classical allegorical symbols with the naturalistic fashion of the mid-eighteenth century was the epitome of taste and fashion. Interior church monuments throughout Europe show the continuity between the Old World and the New World traditions. Full bodied as well as the winged head forms of putti or cherubs had been frequent inclusions on European tomb sculptures since the Renaissance and are well illustrated through the Baroque sixteenth and seventeenth centuries (see Fig. 3). The decorations as winged heads are generally centered on the monuments above or below the effigy of the deceased as they are continued on English and colonial American markers as the Rococo developed. Notably, illustrated English monuments that incorporate the full bodied and winged head forms of the putti/cherub are routinely secularly or allegorically and not religiously themed (i.e., Esdaile 1946, plates 1, 3, 25, 28, 29; Whinney 1964,plates8B,9B,30,45,56). What the cherub, or putto, meant to the contemporary person is uncertain, whether it was seen as a Classical allegorical image or if it represented a Judeo-Christian heavenly being. The John Stevens shop, a very prolific carving shop in Newport, Rhode Island, recorded the image as a “cherub” in their account books from the early eighteenth century (e.g., Stevens 1953, p. 33). There seems to be a long-standing confusion about the identification of the image especially since there are no known contemporary accounts explaining the symbol’smeaning. Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 45

By the time the Baroque Era came about, which might arguably have been the high point for Cherubim and Putti, both of these little beings were usually being depicted in the same way. Which one they were, simply depended upon the theme of the painting or sculpture: If religious (sacred)—they were Cherubs. If secular or mythic (profane)—they were Putti.(Martinez2004,np.)

Artistic usage of the winged infant in English-speaking society has routinely confused its identification (Garner 1998, p. 117), and as Martinez (2004)pointsout, the context may have been the sole differentiator. With the diffusion of the icon through printed media or immigrant carvers, its allegorical meaning may not have been clear in the folk art realm. Regardless, the profusion of the icon in the eighteenth century was a result of a move away from the medieval mortality icons as the Rococo fashion pervaded contemporary material culture. While it is argued here that the cherub is actually a Classical allegorical putto, the term cherub will be used since the distinction between the two terms have been confused and used interchangeably for centuries, especially in regards to gravemarker iconography in the last 50 years.

The Cherub, Status, and the Market

A correlation between an individual’s social status and having a gravemarker has long been recognized. It is clear through surveys of colonial burial grounds that the numbers of gravemarkers do not accurately reflect the local populations. To provide New Jersey examples, Middlesex County has about 634 late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century markers for a population that reached 10,204 by 1772 (Veit 1991, p. 129) while in neighboring Monmouth County, a total of only 433 recordable eighteenth-century markers represents a population that grew to 16,918 by 1796 (Heinrich 2011,p.8; Wacker 1975, p. 15). Burial ground destruction through building development and erosional taphonomy cannot account for these great disparities. Apart from their religious connections to icon replacement, Deetz and Dethlefsen (1971, p. 31) had also realized the correlation between gravemarker iconography and social status, especially with the use of the cherub. In Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts, they reported that 59 % of cherub-adorned stones have some sort of title indicating status, which contrasts dramatically with only 5 % of those with death’s heads. This connec- tion of the cherub to status via men’s personal titles is recognized in Maine (Giguere 2005, p. 44) and through New Jersey as far south as Trenton where the Reverend David Cowell (died 1760) was purchased by his family or congregation a large imported Rhode Island slate headstone inscribed with the details of his birth in Dorchester, England, his Harvard education, and his ordainment. By the second quarter of the eighteenth century, increased purchasing abilities by the growing middle class blurred social boundaries with the older, established upper classes. “Competitive consumption” by the middle class to attain an elevated position prompted the higher classes to spend more in order to separate and distinguish themselves (Carson 1994, pp. 522–532; Hofstadter 1971, p. 134; Sweeney 1994,pp. 28, 35). This was especially true in the growing population centers where craftsmen set up their shops, and consumption came to mean “spending ever greater proportions of total moveable wealth on consumer goods” (Carr and Walsh 1994, p. 102). The 46 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Rococo, or “latest” fashion, was a means for the higher classes to initially elevate themselves apart from the growing middle class (e.g., Sweeney 1994, p. 58), and their use of the latest fashions on gravemarkers served as robust and conspicuous reminders of their social positions that post-mortally continued to hold “meanings [that] were bound up with a customary world of face-to-face relations” (Breen 1993,p.230).At this point, the eighteenth-century funeral “had become an occasion of conspicuous consumption” (Breen 1993, p. 246). By purchasing a fashionable gravemarker, one would express their social position to churchgoers, passersby on the street, and especially attendees of funerals of those who passed afterwards. Throughout the northeastern American colonies as well as English, Irish, and Scottish burial grounds, the numbers of gravemarkers markedly increase beginning in the 1720–1740s period coinciding with this rapidly increasing consumerism and need to conspicuously demonstrate status (e.g. Heinrich 2011,pp.9–10; Mytum 2006, pp. 103–105; Tarlow 1998, pp. 33–43, 1999,p.59). In this context, Richard Veit (2009) has been able to illustrate the growth of market systems in the eighteenth century through New Jersey’s and New York’s gravemarkers. Here, the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century gravemarker carvers were anonymous and limited to a few individuals or workshops. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the numbers of carvers (with apprentices and slaves) expanded in the early population centers that then spread to smaller centers as the populations in the peripheries grew. These new carvers working in New Jersey and New York identified and distinguished themselves through recognizable idiosyncratic styles, newspaper advertisements, and by occasionally inscribing their names and places of work on their stones for the first time in the 1740s (Baugher and Veit 2013,p.229–230; Gottesman 1938, p. 231; Veit 1991,p.61,2009, p. 128; Welch 1983,pp.37,51).Thisexpansion of the carving industry coincides with the great proliferation of cherub-adorned markers that markedly increased in the 1750s and 1760s. Two of the most productive New Jersey carvers Uzal Ward (1726–1793) of Newark and Ebenezer Price (1728–1788) of Elizabeth, with their workshops or imitators, were responsible for most of the cherub- adorned markers throughout the colony, while Ward concurrently carved death’sheads and Price and his people carved other iconographic elements like tulips and sunbursts/ scallops. Thomas H. Huxley (1898, pp. 239–240) writing on David Hume’sEnlightenment discourses on taste and fashion stated, “some there are who cannot feel the difference between the ‘Sonata Appassionata’ and ‘Cherry Ripe’; or between a grave-stone- cutter’s cherub and the Apollo Belvidere; but the canons of art are none the less acknowledged.” The cherub icon is characterized by diversity where each carver created his own distinct style which often spawned a number of imitators who may or may not have worked in a workshop with the known artisans (e.g., Zielenski 2004, pp. 135–139). The Tashjian and Tashjian (1974, p. 84), interpreting the icon as a heavenly being, claimed that religious texts only provided vague descriptions for the cherub so the carver had greater freedom to exercise his creativity. For the most part, gravemarkers remained in the realm of the folk artisan who locally and individually determined his forms and styles influenced by printed design media and others’ works (Sweeney 1994, p. 40). Some cherubs look more naturalistic in higher relief, some are more two-dimensional and abstract, most have a more infant-like appearance, while some like those made by Ebenezer Price and his apprentices have an adult-like face Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 47 with a contemporary-styled powdered wig. John Stevens III (1753–1817) of the John Steven’s Shop of Newport, Rhode Island engraved his cherubs in low-relief, three- quarters profile that were occasionally individualized to the deceased. Some enslaved and free Africans in Newport’sGod’s Little Acre burial ground have stones engraved by Stevens III and the family’s slaves depicting African physical features such as the famous Pompey Brenton (d. 1772) stone. A few carvers provided cheaper versions of their classic designs in order to widen their consumer base. Price has left a small number of more shallowly carved, two-dimensional cherubs often seen on smaller sized markers for children and some women, while Thomas Brown who worked in New York City carved pencil-sketch styled cherubs and death’s heads (Fig. 5). Taking a capitalistic perspective, it may instead be argued that each carver’s distinctive cherub was their public trade card or advertisement, and more cheaply engraved styles broadened the consumer base. This may be emphasized by apprentices and imitators who continued to carve cherubs in the style of the local masters, often well after the death of the master. While the American colonial gravemarker carver was a folk artisan, his European contemporary, who was still considered a mere craftsman, was often carving cherubs in high-artistic style (J. B. Le Blanc 1745 in Crown 1990, p. 273; Burgess 1963,plates3, 5, 8–11). This can be illustrated by William Valentine, an English carver who came to the colonies during the 1770s (a 1749 stone in Charleston is back-dated) (Welch 1987, p. 42). Valentine’s cherubs are naturalistically carved in a style reminiscent of stucco and lead work with realistic infant faces, hair, and feathery wings along with accessory

Fig. 5 Gravemarker adorned with a lower-relief, two- dimensional cherub for Tabitha Price (1756) in the Westfield Presbyterian burial ground, New Jersey, carved by Ebenezer Price (photo by author, 2011) 48 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 images such as acanthus leaves, an element that is very common in Rococo architectural decoration (i.e., Weaver 1905,p.433,Figs.9 and 10)(Fig.6). Valentine’scherubs are some the highest relief observed in colonial grave art and all identified examples found in New York City and Monmouth County, New Jersey belong to people with inscriptions noting their high status. There is evidence that the artisans in the expanding gravemarker industry developed connections with their consumers. Noticeable throughout the New England carving tradition’s range, families regularly showed preference for specific carvers or their workshops. This “personal choice” includes examples of families having chosen carvers that were more distant than other accessible, nearer ones. For example, the Stelle family started erecting black and green slate markers made by the Stevens shop from Newport, Rhode Island in the 1710s in Shrewsbury, New Jersey, and continued their patronage through the 1740s to the 1760s after the family relocated to Piscatawaytown, New Jersey. Later, in the 1770s, 1780s, and 1790s, the Stelles purchased their markers from local carvers, either Henry or Jonathan Hand Osborn who were working in Woodbridge and Scotch Plains, New Jersey respectively. The Stelles abided by the changing fashions using the mortality images early then switching to cherubs from the 1740s until the early 1780s from both Stevens and Osborn, and finally ending with the memorializing monograms in the 1780s and 1790s. This raises the question of why the Stelle family opted to use Rhode Island slates, especially since locally carved markers were available throughout the eighteenth

Fig. 6 The naturalistic cherub and acanthus leaves carved by William Valentine for John Bowne Esq., (1771) in the Middletown Presbyterian burial ground, New Jersey (photo by author 2013) Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 49 century. The Stelle family could have chosen the Stevens’ Rhode Island slates since they were more naturalistically carved cherubs, or perhaps because the slate markers would have been conspicuous amongst a field of markers made from New Jersey’s native red sandstone. Encoded in the slates stones would have been the added costs to ship the markers from Rhode Island. A visitor to the burial ground would have recognized that the slate markers were not local, had been imported, were well- carved, and were associated with a prominent family. It is likely that they were used as emblems of conspicuous consumption. Connections between the carvers and the consumers can be regularly observed. In Monmouth County, New Jersey, the use of the cherub icon shows correlations with family groups where 60.9 % (n=28) of the cherubs can be organized into individual families (Heinrich 2011,pp.23–24). A comparable correlation is noted for family patronage of favored carvers, sometimes regardless of iconography where families purchased a carver’sstoneswithdeath’s heads, cherubs, as well as the later monograms throughout New Jersey. Kevin Sweeney (1985, pp. 6, 14) working in western Massachusetts also observed that interrelated families chose to purchase gravemarkers from particular and often more distant carvers similar to the behavior seen with the Stelles in New Jersey. Additionally, the Kempton family on Long Island, New York commissioned stones from a carver in their previous hometown in Massachusetts (Levine 1978, p. 54). These patterns and examples suggest that consumers made purchases based on particular carvers and icons due to their stylistic characteristics, workmanship, or even established reputations.

The Timing of the Cherub

The first appearances and popularity peaks of the cherub’s usage have received much attention from previous researchers trying to seriate iconography wherever it is found. The first appearance has been used as a determinate for how quickly the icon will reach popularity, where the later the appearance in a particular area, the quicker it became the dominant icon (Deetz and Dethlefsen 1967, p. 33; Gorman and DiBlasi 1981, p. 93). The first appearance of an icon on a gravemarker can be a troublesome measure since a number of stones were back-dated for a number of reasons (Mytum 2002,pp.2–7). They were purchased as replacements for wooden markers or unmarked graves or when a family was able to afford them, and gravestones took varying amounts of time from the death of the individual, the placement of the order, and the manufacture and shipment of the marker. For example, the earliest dated cherub in Middletown, New Jersey for Captain John Bowne Junior is dated 1715/6 but the stylistic characteristics of the marker indicate that it was most likely carved between 1720 and 1740 by an anonymous carver called the “East Jersey Soul Carver.” Without a deep investigation of a sculptor’s work, it is impossible to argue the manufacture date of every early cherub published, but the rare early cherubs should be viewed skeptically. Late appearances of an icon could also reflect a variety of variables that are not often explained in published research, for instance, it might reflect small sample sizes, a population center that was established after the icon was already widely used elsewhere, or it could represent a late diffusion of the fashion to the area (e.g., Rainville 1999,p.557). 50 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Since most material culture in the forms of furniture, ceramics, clothing, interior stuccoing, and silver was not stamped with its date of manufacture, we, at best, often have ranges of dates to attribute to these objects and their use. Gravemarkers can be particularly valuable in this regard since the date of death was inscribed on the stone, obviously, being aware of deeply back-dated markers. Popularity peaks provide more compelling evidence about the use of the cherub and the manifestation of the Rococo in colonial material culture. The fashion developed rapidly in England and its introduction to the colonies was almost immediate, occurring as early as the 1720s. Diffusion of the Rococo relied on expanding markets and consumers. By the late 1730s and 1740s, coinciding with an increase in design book publications and numbers of artisans, the fashion was becoming widespread (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 165; Park 1961, pp. 112, 130). From the 1750s through 1780s, the Rococo flourished across all types of materials before being phased out by the newer Neoclassical fashion. This trend is precisely that which one observes in the cherub-adorned gravemarkers (Tables 1 and 2). The cherub began to make regular appearances by the 1720s and 1730s in the early ports for English goods such as urban centers in Massachusetts, New York, and eastern New Jersey. In places with settlement by mid-century, the cherub was widespread and had reached its peak of greatest popularity between the 1750s and 1780s, generally phasing out by the 1790s or early 1800s. The cherub’s appearance on gravemarkers accurately reflects the expression of the Rococo throughout the eighteenth century. In most places where the New England carving tradition was predominant, the cherub became the chief icon, at its peak of popularity replacing the medieval mortality images and subsequently being replaced by monograms or Neoclassical images such as the willow and urn or even unadorned markers (e.g. Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966,pp. 505–508; Veit 2009, pp. 128–136). While the Rococo and the cherub rapidly diffused through the colonies, frontier areas show an uneven presence of the new design. For example, the cherub never became the dominant icon on the northern frontier in Cumberland County, Maine, or at the southern limit in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Mirrored at both edges of the tradition’s range, mortality images, such as the death’s head, remained the most popular icon throughout the century, peaking in the 1760s and 1770s and persisting as the dominant icon until the 1790s, while even extending into the early 1800s in Maine (Fig. 7)(Giguere2005, p. 31; Heinrich 2003, 2011,pp.8–9). Monmouth County was not as deeply connected to the modes of the denser populated areas to the north, whether it was due to conservative consumer ideology or lesser social pressure to keep up with the latest fashion. This may have been due to a sparser, agrarian population attested to by the high proportion of gravemarkers in the scattered family burial grounds (Heinrich 2011,pp.8–9). Other variations can be seen on the outskirts of the larger population centers that would have been more closely connected to social pressures. Possibly following similar explanations for the death’s head persistence in Monmouth County, Hanover Township in central northern New Jersey shows that the cherub maintained popularity later into the early 1800s, which contrasts with other nearby areas where the Neoclassical style with monograms was already at its popularity (see Table 2). Further west, Bedminster Township represented by the Lamington Presbyterian and Bedminster Dutch Reformed Church burial grounds illustrates how the region was at the margins of at least three distinct carving traditions. Here cherubs carved by the prolific eastern New Jersey carvers (including two that seem to be by local amateurs imitating the eastern masters) Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 51

Ta b l e 1 The popularity of the cherub icon across the American colonies

Colony Locations Beginning Period of peak Ending Reference popularity popularity popularity date date

ME Cumberland County 1747b 1800s Giguere 2005:38 NH Hanover Townshipa 1773b Rainville 1999:557 MA Cambridge 1720s 1760s–1790s 1800s Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966:505 Concord 1730s 1750s–1780s 1790s Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966:505 Plymouth 1730s 1770s–1790s 1810s Dethlefsen and Deetz 1966:505 Old Hampshire County 1740s Sweeney 1985:10 Stoneham 1760s 1770s–1790s 1800s Deetz 1996:97 RI Jewish Burying Ground, 1760s 1760s–1780s 1780s Gradwohl 2007:34-41 Newport Nine cemeteries, Jamestown 1730s 1740s–1790s 1800s Brennan 2011:111 Friends’ Quaker Cemetery, 1730s 1740s–1790s 1800s Brennan 2011:111 Jamestown NY Trinity Church, Manhattan, 1720s 1740s–1770s 1780s Welch 1987:12; Baugher NYC and Winter 1983:50 Nyack 1750s 1770s–1780s 1780s Surveyed by author 2011 Tarrytown Dutch Reformed 1750s 1760s–1790s 1800s Surveyed by author 2011 Fishkill Dutch Reformed 1740s 1760s–1780s 1780s Surveyed by author 2013 Long Island 1720s 1750s–1790s 1800s Stone 2009:155 SC Huguenot, Charleston 1750sb 1760s Gorman and DiBlasi 1981:93 St. Phillip’s Anglican, 1710sb 1770s Gorman and DiBlasi Charleston 1981:93 St. Michael’s Anglican, 1760sb 1770s Gorman and DiBlasi Charleston 1981:93 GA Savannah 1770sb 1770s Gorman and DiBlasi 1981:93 Sunbury 1760sb 1790s Gorman and DiBlasi 1981:93 Midway 1730sb 1760s Gorman and DiBlasi 1981:93 a Burial grounds were not in use until 1774 (Rainville 1999, p. 546), showing late settlement b These are dates of introduction (Gorman and DiBlasi 1981, p. 93; Rainville 1999, p. 557; Giguere 2005,p. 38). These may represent back-dated markers and not the beginning of the cherub’s regular appearance, especially the 1710s marker at St. Phillip’s, Charleston are few in number scattered between the 1740s and 1780s and mixed with high proportions of undecorated and cherub-adorned marbles from Pennsylvania as well as two slate death’s heads from Massachusetts and two markers carved by John Solomon Teetzel, a German immigrant carver working in the heavily German-settled regions of northwestern New Jersey (Veit 2000). 52 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Ta b l e 2 The popularity of the cherub icon across New Jersey

Colony Locations Beginning Period of peak Ending Reference popularity popularity popularity date date

NJ Elizabeth First Presbyterian 1730s 1750s–1780s 1790s Veit 2009:128–129 Westfield Presbyterian 1740s 1750s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author 2011 Woodbridge First 1730s 1760s–1780s 1790s Veit 2009:135–136 Presbyterian St. Peter’s, Perth Amboy 1720s 1760s–1780s 1780s Veit 2009:132 Rahway First Presbyterian 1740s 1760s–1780s 1790s Veit 2009:129 Orange First Presbyterian 1750s 1760s–1790s 1800s Surveyed by author 2011 Metuchen First Presbyterian 1760s 1760s–1780s 1780s Surveyed by author 2011 Piscatawaytown Common 1740s 1750s–1770s 1780s Surveyed by author and Stelton Baptist, Edison 2011 Van Liew, Willow Grove, 3 1740s 1750s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author Mile Run, Christ Episcopal 2011 and First Reformed, New Brunswick Morristown First Presbyteriana 1760s 1760s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author 2011 Madison First Presbyterianb 1750s 1770s–1790s 1790s Surveyed by author 2011 First Presbyterian and 1730s 1760s–1790s 1800s Surveyed by author Whippany Burying Yard, 2011 Hanover Township Succasunna First 1770s 1770s–1780s 1780s Surveyed by author Presbyterianc 2011 Lamington Presbyterian and 1780s 1780s 1780s Surveyed by author Bedminster Reformed, 2011 Bedminster Townshipd Cranbury Presbyterian 1750s 1760s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author 2011 Monmouth County 1720s 1730s, 1760s–1780s 1790s Heinrich 2011:9 a Isolated early and late cherubs dated 1752 and 1800 b Church established in 1748. Isolated late cherub dated 1804 c Congregation established 1758, church built in 1760. Isolated late cherub dated 1791 d Four cherubs in the 1780s. Isolated cherubs dated 1741, 1753, 1769, 1779 are in the Lamington Presbyterian Burial Ground

Other Expressions of the Rococo in Gravemarkers

While the putto or cherub is the most conspicuous and widespread Rococo element on eighteenth-century gravemarkers, a variety of other primary and secondary elements can be attributed to the fashion such as shells, tulips, acanthus leaves, hearts, the stones’ Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 53

Fig. 7 Distribution of the major gravemarker icons in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Cherubs demonstrate three peaks of popularity in the 1730s, 1760s, and 1780s. Death’s heads predominate as the most frequent iconographic image throughout the century silhouettes, and epigraphy. One can find a few examples of these motifs and decorations on gravemarkers from New England to New Jersey before the arrival of the Rococo fashion, but they take on a new and wider conspicuity around and after mid-century. As mentioned earlier, Price and his shop popularized two iconographic images alongside their cherubs, the shell, and tulips. Their particular shell design, which has also been called a sunburst or a fan, resembles a stylized scallop shell and reflects the wide use of shell motifs in architecture, furniture, and ceramics throughout the latter half of the century. In New Jersey, the shell is predominately used between the 1750s and 1790s on markers for children (Veit 2009, p. 123), though this is not exclusive and a few examples have been found for adults and later carvers occasionally used the image as a primary decorative element into the early nineteenth century. The shell, in a more naturalistic form, is also found in Massachusetts in conjunction with traditional medieval elements such as on Thomas Faunce’s 1745 stone in Plymouth, which depicts Death and his scythe sitting atop a winged hourglass (illustrated in Ludwig 1966,plate 7). James Jeffrey’s 1755 gravemarker from the Old Burying Point, Salem, Massachusetts incorporates a textbook asymmetrical Rococo shell above a skull with crossed bones in profile (Fig. 8). These two Massachusetts markers are noteworthy because they show hybridization between the earlier medieval and newer Rococo styles. During the Neoclassical period, the shell became a common secondary decoration used on the shoulder lobes and accessory lobes on top of the tympanum by New Jersey carvers. Throughout the history of art, many images have held symbolic meanings that have been applied to historical gravemarker interpretations. For example, the shell can be considered a symbol of the “voyage of the soul” in earlier Renaissance painting as in 54 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Fig. 8 James Jeffrey’s (1755) gravemarker in the Old Burying Point, Salem, Massachusetts showing an asymmetrical Rococo shell and acanthus leaves above a skull and crossed bones (photo by author, 2010)

Sandro Botticelli’sfamous1486Birth of Venus (Baugher 2012). On gravemarkers, shells could be assumed symbols of voyage, pilgrimage, or baptism (Bouchard 2000,p. 3; Keister 2004, p. 87). But with the Rococo, imagery such as shells may simply represent the beauty of naturalism particularly because they were commonly incorporated into the designs of material culture such as furniture and ceramics that had little association with memorializing the dead. The second design, the tulip is a three-part icon with some flowers as buds, some in full bloom, and some wilting representing the broad stages of Life, holding a more symbolic message than other motifs coming with the Rococo. Tulips along with other floral motifs, such as flowers, vines, and leaves were widely used in the suite of naturalistic elements that was so important to the Rococo. This was in part due to the fact that floral motifs, vines and the like incorporated the essential C and S-shaped curves. In the New York City area, tulips adorn markers for people with French or Dutch surnames (Baugher and Winter 1983, p. 52), but this does not hold true in New Jersey where they can be found across ethnicities. Instead, here they correlate with young or unmarried women, though again this is not exclusive (Veit 2009,p.123). Popularized by Price and his followers, the tulips design showed up on gravemarkers in the 1730s and continued into the early nineteenth century (Veit 2009,p.123). Secondary decorative elements also demonstrate the Rococo’s incorporation into colonial grave art. While some of the seventeenth-century gravemarkers in Massachusetts were well-ornamented particularly in the marker’s borders along the sides of the inscriptions, the early carvers in New York and New Jersey were carving comparatively simple markers (Veit 2009, p. 119). In the 1730s, coinciding with the Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 55 development and permeation of the ornamental Rococo, greater amounts of the gravemarkers in these colonies became more elaborately decorated. It is possible that the immigration of Philip Stevens, of the Newport, Rhode Island carving family, to the Hudson Valley/New Jersey region may have influenced the local carvers to adopt more intricate ornamentation (Luti 2002, pp. 165–177). For the most part, these ornamenta- tions were floral designs where vines curled and twisted up the sides of the gravemarkers. These border designs begin to be used with mortality symbols and continue into the cherub period. Price and his shop favored vines that ended in flowers, tulips, and trefoil leaves reminiscent of clovers. Jonathan Hand Osborn (active 1770s– 1810s) of Scotch Plains, New Jersey, left a small number of single-lobed markers between Bedminster and Metuchen that used similar trefoil-leaved vines that continued along the full edge of the stone, sometimes along with tulips and monograms near the end of the eighteenth century. Acanthus leaves were particularly common elements in Rococo ornamentation. These leaves, which have been used regularly in sculpture since the Classical Greeks on Corinthian columns, are long and curled with deeply cut edges that provided complex curves epitomizing the naturalism and curvature of the Rococo style. In fact, an acanthus leaf is illustrated by Hogarth in Fig. 4. Acanthus leaves appear on gravemarkers in a variety of forms such as realistic leaves like those seen on the illustrated Valentine stone (see Fig. 6). Acanthus designs were also carved more stylistically. Stylistic acanthus designs even served as primary tympanum decorations for New England carvers such as George Allen Sr. (died 1774) of the Narragansett Bay area who exported stones dating to the 1760s to Piscatawaytown and New Brunswick, New Jersey, and Ebenezer Winslow (1772–1841) of Berkley, Massachusetts, who carved a 1790-dated stone for his nephew buried in the Old Presbyterian Burial Ground in Middletown, New Jersey (Fig. 9). Acanthus leaves were also used to frame the shells and mortality images on the Faunce and Jeffrey markers mentioned earlier (see Fig. 8). At least two talented carvers used heart images to further incorporate the Rococo fashion in their gravemarkers. In New Jersey, Price or apprentices placed the marker’s inscription within a heart reserve with intricate vines filling the voids between the heart and the stone’s straight vertical sides (Fig. 10). Examples date between the 1740s and 1760s and they are concentrated in and around Price’s workshop in Elizabeth. It is uncertain if there may have been an original printed model, but Price’s design seems to mimic a pair of stones carved by an unidentified carver in New England (illustrated in Ludwig 1966, plates 70b, 71, 72, 73a, 73b). This unidentified carver has left a 1716- dated (likely back-dated) stone present in Rumford, Rhode Island and a 1736-dated one in Rehoboth, Massachusetts. These New England stones include full bodied putti lifting the inscription’s heart-shaped reserve. Ludwig (1966, p. 260) claims the heart symbol- izes “the soul in bliss,” however hearts are allegorical symbols of the Classical love god Eros or Cupid who is commonly accompanied by his putti.

The Rococo in Gravemarker Silhouettes

By the 1770s, a number of carvers in the Connecticut River Valley that extends up into western Massachusetts broke away from the tripartite upright headboard-shaped 56 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Fig. 9 Stylized acanthus leaves decorate the tympanum of the marker for Elizabeth Leydt (1760) in the 3 Mile Run burial ground, New Brunswick, New Jersey, by George Allen Sr from the Narragansett Bay area of Rhode Island (photo by author, 2011)

markers that were widely used from New England to New Jersey. Carvers such as John Walden (1734–1807), Thomas Johnson II (1718–1774) and III (1750–1789), William Crosby (1764–1801), John Johnson (1748–1826), and William Buckland (1727–1795), among others, sculpted their tympanums in a manner where the decorative elements extend beyond the margins (illustrated in Slater 1987, pp. 26, 59, 65, 72, 73, 82, 288, 305; Sweeney 1985,pp.14–15; Welch 1983,pp.60–62). The stones’ edges follow the contours of the curving scrolls, acanthus leaves, and cherub wings. The tympanums made by these Connecticut carvers mimic Rococo picture frames and interior stuccoing where the ornamentation reaches off the main lines of the frames and moldings to interact with the spaces around them (Heckscher and Bowman 1992,p.167;Prown 1980,p.205). Beyond the Connecticut River Valley, carvers making icon-adorned gravemarkers generally limited their work to stones with the standard arched tympanum, which frequently had shoulder lobes and straight vertical sides. John Zuricher (died 1784) carving in New York City left a limited number of markers where he broke away from the tripartite or square-shouldered stone shape and allowed spiraling curves to disrupt the smooth, linear outlines (illustrated in Welch 1983, pp. 44, 46). Even rarer, Price’s Elizabeth, New Jersey shop left behind a few gravemarkers where pairs of S-curves create a Rococo silhouette with undulating, waisted sides that supports the typical arched tympanum and shoulder lobes (Fig. 11). Outside of the New England carving tradition’s range, generally undecorated marble markers from Philadelphia, exported to western and southern New Jersey, Maryland, Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 57

Fig. 10 A double stone for Lydia and Christopher Crane (1760) in Westfield Presbyterian burial ground, New Jersey, from the Ebenezer Price workshop using hearts and elaborate serpentine vines to frame the inscriptions (photo by author, 2011) and Tidewater Virginia, also depict the changing fashions in the silhouette of the stone. Elizabeth Crowell (1981, p. 24) noticed that most of the mid-eighteenth-century markers’ tympanums resemble the shape of winged cherubs where S-curves slope away from a central arc towards the shoulders (Fig. 12). These curved stones, which were most popular in the 1760s and 1770s, gave way to squarer, more structured Neoclassical shapes in the 1780s. Crowell (1981, p. 26) suggested there was a deeper meaning like that of the cherub icon encoded in the stone shape where the carvers and their customers were expressing their ideology while trying to get around the strong Quaker pressures against adornment around the Delaware River Valley. Instead, the change in shape from curved to structured corresponds to the transition from Rococo to Neoclassical designs observed on the icon-adorned gravemarkers produced from northeastern New Jersey through New England. While they may have been against grave adornments, the Quakers were not opposed to consuming the latest fashions. As John Adams recorded during his visits to the Philadelphia region in the 1770s, Quakers were living in stately mansions full of Chippendale-style furniture and ornamented silver (Wertenbaker 1949, p. 9). Philadelphia, the port city of the Quaker-founded colony, was a major center for the production of Rococo style furniture and silver (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 170). Philadelphia carvers did ornament some markers as shown by a 58 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Fig. 11 Gravemarker for John Davis (1760) in Westfield Presbyterian burial ground, New Jersey, carved by the Ebenezer Price workshop with pairs of double S-curves creating a Rococo silhouette (photo by author, 2011)

1771 cherub and a 1774 shell adorned stones in Lamington as well as 1791 and 1802 cherubs found in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. Although Philadelphian carvers’ consumers were not heavy participants in the icon-adorned gravemarker carving tradition, they were able to regularly demonstrate the dominant fashion in the gravemarkers through the use of curves.

The Rococo in the Epigraphy

One element of gravemarker adornment that saw very limited Rococo influence was the epigraphy. Across the regions where New England and Philadelphia markers were used, inscriptions were executed in rather plain typeset-like lettering, which occasionally retained rather archaic letter forms such as capital As with bent cross bars. One major carver, Ward developed his own lettering that shows a modest Rococo influence. Ward took advantage of naturally curvy letters where he emphasized those curves (Fig. 13). The bases of his lowercase and sometimes capital Js, Ys, and Ts and the tops of his Fs curl around more dramatically towards their main shafts than those of most other carvers. His capital and lowercase Ss and Cs belly out along with enlarged serifs Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 59

Fig. 12 A Philadelphia-carved gravemarker for Mary Polhemus (1781) in Allentown Presbyterian, Allentown, New Jersey, where the unadorned tympanum has S-curves sloping away from a central arch (photo by author, 2011)

at each end which emphasize the curves. Capital Rs bring the forward foot upward into a curl. Ward developed this style to his fullest at a slightly later point in his carving career. Initially in the 1750s when Ward carved rather square-jawed cherubs, his curled letters were relatively restrained. By the 1760s when Ward developed his emotional pear-shaped cherub, his lettering style incorporated his characteristic fuller curls. Interestingly, Ward’s imitators like William Grant (active 1740s–1790s) did not reach the same level of style in their lettering or icon execution as their master. Ward was one of only a few carvers who incorporated the Rococo in their inscription. Carver Thomas Johnson III of Connecticut, known for his elaborate tympanums discussed earlier, carved letters that emphasized the curves, particularly the extended curves of Js, Ys, and Fs (illustrated in Welch 1983, p. 149). Other carvers remained more conservative in their lettering or epitaph decoration. Valentine, the carver of higher-art cherubs, often included a single word in Rococo calligraphy where the lines curled and spiraled away from the word. The first word “Here” on the illustrated stone (see Fig. 5) starts with an asymmetrical H and fills the full width of the marker with its curls. If others did embellish their epitaphs, they were generally limited to spirals, short arched curves that filled space within breaks of the epitaph, or lightly inscribed arched stems to flowers that continued off the ends of the inscriptions, and most seem to have been New Jersey and New York carvers. Zuricher occasionally used the spirals though preferred trumpet-like wedges, while Price and his followers including the Osborns 60 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Fig. 13 Gravemarker for Margaret Forman (1765) in the Old Scot’s burial ground, Marlboro, New Jersey. This marker was carved by Uzal Ward and illustrates some of the curves accentuated on some letters such as s, t, y, and c. Also note the S-curve marking the end of the inscription(photobyauthor, 2011)

used spirals as well as flowers at the ends of their inscriptions (see Figs. 4, 9, 10,and12). While the Rococo made minimal inroads into the epitaph epigraphy, the style had a valuable role during the Neoclassical fashion that became dominant at the end of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Several carvers using the memorializing equivalent monograms of the New York/New Jersey region adopted Rococo lettering to stylishly engrave the initials of the deceased in the tympanum. Lettering followed the forms common on silver engraving, signage, and prints such as Johann Merken’s (1782,platesii–vii) Liber Artificiosus Alphabeti Maioris.

Conclusions

The Rococo has been an oft-overlooked artistic movement in discussions of colonial culture. Perhaps this has been due to the Rococo’s break from academic rules and later ridicule as a fanciful departure, its appearance as an interlude between more conspicuous Classical movements, or perhaps its past perception as being a limited French style. Regardless, the Rococo was the significant fashion across Europe and the American colonies as it shaped the forms and decorations of a wide range of material culture in the years preceding the American Revolution. The manifestation of the Rococo throughout all forms of material culture shows that artistic styles are more Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 61 than what is seen in academies and museums, their fashions shape the experiences of the people who encountered the objects, placed meanings in them, and endeavored to own them in order to establish and maintain prestige within their society. The appearance, meaning, widespread use, and popularity of the cherub and its contemporary secondary decorative elements have been interpreted primarily in religious contexts for more than 50 years of scientific gravemarker study. Art and economic historical approaches to the cherub decorated gravemarkers of colonial America, as well as those in Ireland, Scotland, and England, provide a different and compelling explanation for the iconographic changes studied by so many researchers. The Rococo explains these issues. Perhaps it has been our modern eschatological preoccupations with death and the afterlife which has caused many gravemarker researchers to have imposed this religious bias on iconographic interpretations. In the end, the cherub, or putto, can be removed from the Great Awakening’sinfluenceon religious ideology. Instead, it should be considered an allegorical symbol brought out of the Classics to replace the earlier and morbid medieval mortality imagery. The cherub was a symbol used by participants in the regional market economies to conspicuously express their social standing through the iconography on their own or family member’s gravemarkers. More broadly, the cherub, along with the secondary decorations, coming into grave art through the Rococo fashion, emphasizes how the American colonies were an extension of Europe, while at the same time the development of distinct local carving traditions shows that the colonies were unique and diverse across the regions where the gravemarker industries developed.

Acknowledgments I foremost must thank Richard Veit for long support of my gravemarker studies and, with particular relevance to this research, for fielding numerous lunch and office discussions where I overly enthusiastically talked about how everything is the Rococo. I also thank Harold Mytum and Sherene Baugher for support of this work through inclusion and discussion at the 2012 SHA conference in Baltimore and also for encouraging reviewer comments on this article. Richard Veit and Carmel Schrire have also provided much appreciated comments on earlier drafts of this work. Lastly, I am indebted to all the previous researchers who have provided such a large amount of data to see cultural changes over such a large region.

References

Bailyn, B. (1976). 1776: a year of challenge, a world transformed. Journal of Law and Economics 19: 437– 466. Baugher, S. (2012). Discussant in Symposium: Investigating the Individual and the Family through Mortuary Data. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Baltimore, Maryland. Baugher, S., and Veit, R. F. (2013). John Zuricher, stone cutter, and his imprint on the religious landscape of colonial New York. In Janowitz, M. F., and Dallal, D. (eds.), Tales of Gotham: Historical Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Microhistory of New York City, Springer, New York, pp. 225–247. Baugher, S., and Winter, F. (1983). Early American gravestones: archaeological perspectives on three cemeteries of Old New York. Archaeology 36(5): 46–54. Benes, P. (1977). The Masks of Orthodoxy: Folk Gravestone Carving in Plymouth County, Massachusetts, 1689–1805, University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst. Bouchard, B. J. (2000). Our Silent Neighbors: A Study of Gravestones in the Old Salem Area, Gangi Printing, Massachusetts. Breen, T. H. (1993). “Baubles of Britain”: the American and consumer revolutions of the eighteenth century. In Morgan, P. (ed.), Diversity and Unity in Early North America, Routledge, New York, pp. 227–256. 62 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Brennan, M. L. (2011). Geological survey of historical cemeteries, Jamestown, Rhode Island, 1693–1900. Historical Archaeology 45(4): 102–114. Brooke, J. L. (1988). “For honour and civil worship to any worthy person”: burial, baptism, and community on the Massachusetts near frontier, 1730–1790. In St. George, R. B. (ed.), Material Life in America, 1600–1860, Northeastern University Press, Boston, pp. 463–486. Burgess, F. B. (1963). English Churchyard Memorials, Lutterworth Press, London. Carr, L. G., and Walsh, L. S. (1994). Changing lifestyles and consumer behavior in the colonial Chesapeake. In Carson, C., Hoffman, R., and Albert, P. (eds.), Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 59–166. Carson, C. (1994). The consumer revolution in colonial British America: why demand? In Carson, C., Hoffman,R.,andAlbert,P.(eds.),Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 483–697. Crowell, E. A. (1981). Philadelphia gravestones, 1760–1820. Northeast Historical Archaeology 10: 23–26. Crown, P. (1990). British Rococo as social and political style. Eighteenth-Century Studies 23: 269–282. Deetz, J. F. (1996). In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life, Anchor Books, New York. Deetz, J. F., and Dethlefsen, E. (1967). Death’s heads, cherub, urn and willow. Natural History 76(3): 29–37. Deetz, J. F., and Dethlefsen, E. (1971). Some social aspects of New England colonial mortuary art. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 25: 30–38. Dethlefsen, E., and Deetz, J. F. (1966). Death’s heads, cherubs, and willow trees: experimental archaeology in colonial cemeteries. American Antiquity 31: 502–510. Esdaile, K. (1946). English Church Monuments, 1510 to 1840, B. T. Batsford, London. Garner,B.(1998).Garner’s Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Giguere, J. M. (2005). Death and Commemoration in the Frontier: An Archaeological Analysis of Early Gravestones in Cumberland County, Maine. Master’s thesis, University of Maine, Orono. Gorman, F. J. E., and DiBlasi, M. (1977). Nonchronological sources of variation in the seriation of gravestone motifs in the Northeast and southeast colonies. In Benes, P. (ed.), Puritan Gravestone Art: The Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife Annual Proceedings 1976, Boston University, Boston, pp. 79–87. Gorman, F. J. E., and DiBlasi, M. (1981). Gravestone iconography and mortuary ideology. Ethnohistory 28: 79–98. Gottesman, R. (1938). The Arts and Crafts in New York, 1726–1776: Advertisements and News Items from New York City Newspapers, New York Historical Society, New York. Gradwohl, D. M. (2007). Like Tablets of the Law Thrown Down: The Colonial Jewish Burying Ground in Newport, Rhode Island, Sigler Printing, Ames. Hall, D. D. (1977). The gravestone image as a Puritan cultural code. In Benes, P. (ed.), Puritan Gravestone Art: The Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife Annual Proceedings 1976, Boston University, Boston, pp. 23–32. Heckscher, M. H., and Bowman, L. G. (1992). American Rococo, 1750–1775: Elegance in Ornament, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Heinrich,A.R.(2003).“Remember Me…” But “Be Mindfull of Death”: The Art of Commemoration in Eighteenth Century Monmouth County, New Jersey. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island. Heinrich, A. R. (2011). “Remember me…” but “be mindfull of death”: the artistic, social, and personal choice expressions observed on the gravemarkers of eighteenth century Monmouth County, New Jersey. New Jersey History 126(1): 26–57. Hofstadter, R. (1971). America at 1750: A Social Portrait, Random House, New York. Hogarth, W. (1880). Analysis of Beauty, London Printing and Publishing, London. Huxley, T. H. (1898). Hume, With Helps to the Study of Berkeley: Essays, D. Appleton, New York. Irwin, J. (2007). Old Canadian Cemeteries: Places of Memory, Firefly Books, Richmond Hill. Jones, H. M. (1927). America and French Culture, 1750–1848, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Keister, D. (2004). Stories in Stone: A Field Guide to Cemetery Symbolism and Iconography,MJFBooks, New York. Kramnick, I. (ed.) (1995). The Portable Enlightenment Reader, Penguin, New York. Levine, G. S. (1978). Colonial Long Island grave stones: trade network indicators, 1670–1799. In Benes, P. (ed.), Puritan Gravestone Art II: The Dublin Seminar for New England Folklife Annual Proceedings June 24 and 25, 1978, Boston University, Boston, pp. 46–57. Little,M.R.(1998).Sticks and Stones: Three Centuries of North Carolina Gravemarkers, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. Ludwig, A. I. (1966). Graven Images: New England Stonecarving and Its Symbols, 1650–1815, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown. Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 63

Luti, V. (2002). Mallet and Chisel: Gravestone Carvers of Newport, Rhode Island in the 18th Century,New England Genealogical Society, Boston. Martinez, J. C. (2004). What’s with the Cherubs? Art Renewal Center. http://www.artrenewal.com/pages/ archives.php?articleid=1435. McKendrick, N. (1960). Josiah Wedgwood: an eighteenth century entrepreneur in salesmanship and marketing techniques. Economic History Review 12: 408–433. McLeod,P.J.(1979).A Study of the Gravestones of Monmouth County New Jersey 1716–1835: Reflections of a Lifestyle. Unpublished paper in possession of the author. Merken, J. (1782). Liber Artificiosus Alphabeti Maioris: oder, Neu Inventirtes Kunst- Schreib- und Zeichenbuch, Mühlheim am Rhein, Germany. Mould, D. R., and Loewe, M. (2006). Historic Gravestone Art of Charleston, South Carolina, 1695–1802, McFarland, Jefferson. Mowl, T., and Earnshaw, B. (1999). An Insular Rococo: Architecture, Politics, and Society in Ireland and England, 1710–1770, Reaktion, London. Mytum, H. (2002). The dating of graveyard memorials: the evidence from the stones. Post-Medieval Archaeology 36: 1–38. Mytum, H. (2003). Death’s Heads and Cherubs: Complex Messages in Protestant and Catholic Eighteenth- Century West Ulster. Paper presented at the 36th Conference on Historical and Underwater Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island. Mytum, H. (2006). Popular attitudes to memory, the body, and social identity: the rise of external commemoration in Britain, Ireland, and New England. Post-Medieval Archaeology 40: 96–110. Paonessa, L. I. (1990). The Cemeteries of St. Eustatius, N. A.: Status in a Caribbean Community. Master’s thesis, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. Park, H. (1961). A list of architectural books available in America before the Revolution. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 20: 115–130. Post,C.R.(1921).A History of European and American Sculpture: From the Early Christian Period to the Present Day, Volume II, Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Prown, J. D. (1980). Style as evidence. Winterthur Portfolio 15(3): 197–210. Rainville, L. (1999). Hanover deathscapes: mortuary variability in New Hampshire, 1770–1920. Ethnohistory 46: 541–597. Rowland Michel, M. (1986). Watteau and England. In Hind, C. (ed.), The Rococo in England: A Symposium, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, pp. 46–59. Slater, J. A. (1987). Memoirs of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences Volume XXI: The Colonial Burying Grounds of Eastern Connecticut and the Men Who Made Them, Archon Books, Hamden. Smith, A. (2002). In Haakonssen, K. (ed.), The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Snodin, M. (1986). Introduction. In Hind, C. (ed.), The Rococo in England: A Symposium, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, pp. 6–7. Stevens, J. (1953). John Stevens, His Book, 1705, Newport Historical Society, Newport. Stone, G. S. (1991). Material evidence of ideological and ethnic choice in Long Island gravestones, 1670– 1800. Material Culture 23: 1–29. Stone, G. S. (2009). Sacred landscape: material evidence of ideological and ethnic choice in Long Island, New York. Historical Archaeology 43(1): 142–159. Sweeney, K. M. (1985). Where the bay meets the river: gravestones and stonecutters in the river towns of western Massachusetts, 1690–1810. Markers III: The Journal of the Association for Gravestone Studies 3: 1–46. Sweeney, K. M. (1994). High-style vernacular: lifestyles of the colonial elite. In Carson, C., Hoffman, R., and Albert, P. (eds.), Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville, pp. 1–58. Tarlow, S. (1998). Romancing the stones: the graveyard boom of the later 18th Century. In Cox, M. (ed.), Grave Concerns: Death and Burial in England 1700 to 1850. Council for British Archaeology Research Reports 113, York, pp. 33–43. Tarlow,S.(1999).Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality, Blackwell, Oxford. Tashjian, D., and Tashjian, A. (1974). Memorials for Children of Change: The Art of Early New England Stonecarving, Wesleyan University Press, Middletown. Tunis, E. (1965). Colonial Craftsmen and the Beginning of American Industry, World Publishing, New York. Veit,R.F.(1991).Middlesex County New Jersey Gravestones 1687–1799: Shadows of a Changing Culture. Master’s thesis, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. 64 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

Veit, R. F. (1996). Grave insights into Middlesex County’s colonial culture. New Jersey History 114(3–4): 74– 94. Veit, R. F. (2000). John Solomon Teetzel and the Anglo-German gravestone carving tradition of northwestern New Jersey. Marker 17: Journal of the Association for Gravestone Studies 17: 124–161. Veit,R.F.(2009).“Resolved to strike out a new path”: consumerism and iconographic change in New Jersey gravestones, 1680–1820. Historical Archaeology 43(1): 115–141. Wacker, P. (1975). The Cultural Geography of Eighteenth Century New Jersey, Historical Commission, Trenton. Watney, B. (1972). Origins of the designs for English ceramics of the eighteenth century. The Burlington Magazine 114(837): 818–828. Watters, D. H. (1981). “With Bodilie Eyes” Eschatological Themes in Puritan Literature and Gravestone Art, UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor. Weaver, L. (1905). Some English architectural leadwork, part II (conclusions): the later period. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs 7(30): 428–434. Welch, R. F. (1983). Memento Mori: The Gravestones of Early Long Island 1680–1810,FriendsforLong Island’s Heritage, Syosset. Welch, R. F. (1987). The New York and New Jersey gravestone carving tradition. Markers IV: The Journal of the Association for Gravestone Studies 4: 1–54. Wertenbaker, T. J. (1949). The Golden Age of Colonial Culture, New York University Press, New York. Whinney, M. (1964). Sculpture in Britain: 1530–1830, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Willsher, B., and Hunter, D. (1978). Stones: Eighteenth Century Scottish Gravestones, Cannongate, Edinburgh. Wright, L. B. (1957). The Cultural Life of the American Colonies, 1607–1763, Harper and Brothers, New York. Zielenski, J. (2004). “Shaping a Soul of Stone: The Soul Effigy Gravestones of Uzal Ward, William Grant, and the Anonymous Pear Head Carvers of Eighteenth-Century New Jersey - A Stylistic Study and Comprehensive Survey.” Master’s thesis, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.