THREE CULTURES IN ONE CITY: A STUDY OF THREE MUTUAL-AID SOCIETY CEMETERIES IN YBOR CITY AS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES by DESIREE ESTABROOK (Under the Direction of MARK REINBERGER) ABSTRACT This investigative study examines the unique burial traits of three cemeteries in Ybor City, Florida founded by immigrant mutual-aid societies in the early 20th century. By thorough documentation and careful analysis, an argument for their potential National Register eligibility will be crafted to further support their preservation. Cemeteries on a whole deserve better protection, both locally and nationally, as they inherently deal with different circumstances than structures or buildings face in terms of eligibility. This thesis serves to highlight the underappreciated burial typologies found in the three mutual-aid society cemeteries in Ybor City. INDEX WORDS: cemetery, cemeteries, preservation, Ybor City, Tampa, Florida, mutual-aid society, cigar industry, burial typology, tile-mosaic, photo-ceramic portrait THREE CULTURES IN ONE CITY: A STUDY OF THREE MUTUAL-AID SOCIETY CEMETERIES IN YBOR CITY AS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES by DESIREE ESTABROOK B.A., University of Central Florida, 2006 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION ATHENS, GEORGIA 2008 © 2008 Desiree Estabrook All Rights Reserved THREE CULTURES IN ONE CITY: A STUDY OF THREE MUTUAL-AID SOCIETY CEMETERIES IN YBOR CITY AS TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTIES by DESIREE ESTABROOK Major Professor: Mark Reinberger Committee: Wayde Brown David Berle Allison Moon Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2008 DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my ‘gift from China’ - Jianchuan. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to extend my deep appreciation for my committee, and especially my major professor, for lending the time and support to see this vision through. Additionally, I would like to thank the many dedicated individuals continuously working to save these special cemeteries. Lastly, having an archaeologist for a father is pretty cool - thanks, Dad. v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................1 Intent of Study ...............................................................................................4 General Cemetery History ...........................................................................10 2 History of Ybor City and the Immigrant Community .....................................15 Social Structure and Physical Division with the Cigar Factories ................21 The Founding of the Mutual-Aid Society ...................................................24 The Decline of a Cigar-Making Empire ......................................................33 3 Methodology of Field Work ............................................................................37 Desired Impact of Work ..............................................................................40 Conditions Assessment as a Method ...........................................................41 Procedural Methodology .............................................................................43 Further Review ............................................................................................46 4 Results of Field Survey ....................................................................................49 Spatial Setting and Site Observations .........................................................49 Observed Burial Traits ................................................................................60 Findings of Results ......................................................................................72 vi 5 Analysis of Results ........................................................................................102 Flowers, Statuary, and Other Grave Artifacts ...........................................103 Photo-Ceramic Portrait Burials .................................................................107 Tile-Mosaic Burials ...................................................................................110 Issues of Site Integrity ...............................................................................114 6 Conclusions and Further Recommendations .................................................127 Conclusions ...............................................................................................127 Recommendations .....................................................................................132 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................138 APPENDICES ..................................................................... (following individual chapters) A Photo Appendix for Results .............................................................................86 B Photo Appendix for Analysis .........................................................................120 C Photo Appendix for Conclusions ...................................................................135 vii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1: Measured Traits of the Three Cemeteries in Comparison ...................................74 Table 2: Measured Traits of the Centro Asturiano Cemetery ............................................75 Table 3: Measured Traits of the Centro Espanol Cemetery ...............................................79 viii Chapter 1: Introduction In dealing with preservation of the built environment, cemeteries are unlike historic structures in that they are designed for a singular use. They cannot begin as factories for manufacturing and then find rehabilitative use in partitioned office or living space. They cannot drastically change in appearance either, or it would betray their original intent, as well as integrity. Cemeteries are plots of land, limited in capacity, set aside for the distinct purpose of holding sacred remains. Once a cemetery reaches full capacity, it loses its appeal for new clients and therefore relies heavily upon the families that have members interred there. Perhaps one hundred years ago, it may have been common for families to live close to a cemetery and so provide grave maintenance; churches, too, would provide protection and maintenance for their cemeteries. Modern society, however, has been greatly characterized by frequent migration patterns that are shown by scattered family groups that often live states apart. Larger and often commercial cemeteries have since developed perpetual care programs to remedy cemetery degradation. However few options remains for smaller family plots or community graveyards. A cemetery may seem permanent in nature, but if the field of historic preservation has anything to teach us, it is that aging historic materials face a perilous existence. Constantly changing weather conditions test the durability of the material at hand, as well as its inherent construction. Humans do no favors to historic materials either, which often suffer in the hands of use, and unfortunately some directed abuse. Cemeteries are 1 no stranger to the effects of vandalism, neglect, and change often wrought by human hands. All of these factors help explain why few cemeteries are nominated for the National Register of Historic Places. Only 902 cemeteries are nationally listed within the NR's online searchable database (and most are associated with on-site structures) – a small percentage of the approximately 80,000 other historic resources that are listed.1 Why are more not considered for their intrinsic value, and perhaps, does a better tool exist for ensuring the preservation of a cemetery? For one thing, most cemeteries are unlikely candidates for expository narratives, tributes for artistic achievement, or designation as cultural landscapes. This perhaps was not the case during the Victorian era, when death permeated culture through poetry, religion, and everyday social behavior. Quite often, to keep a loved one’s lock of hair or tooth as a keepsake was not at all uncommon. Some parents even feared naming newborns knowing that disease and illness were all too prevalent. However, the Victorians' reticent if not mercurial acceptance of death changed over time to the current mode of thought that author H.B. Dunning-Grubb summarizes so nicely in 1920. “There is a modern tendency to avoid a funeral aspect in cemeteries as though a cemetery was after all something to be ashamed of and which ought to be disguised as something else.”2 Our way is often to hide a cemetery in plain sight, to disguise it as a park. The idea of such a memorial park came to fruition at the turn of the century as a way of ‘beautifying’ death. This transition, the way in which we choose to treat our dead, 1 www.nps.org/nr, last accessed January 6th, 2008. As an interesting note, the official publication c.1992 [Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places] states that “roughly 1,700 cemeteries and burial places in all parts of the country have been entered into the National Register since 1966…” 2 p.143 H.B. Dunning c.1920 in Park and Cemetery; quoted