Cemetery/Burying ground/Burial ground

History

In the late eighteenth century, three primary types of burial places existed: land adjoining a church (often termed the “churchyard,” but also called a cemetery or burial ground) [Fig. 1], the family plot at one’s home (the burying ground), and public space that was unaffiliated with any specific denomination.1 This latter type was also denoted as a “burying ground” but most commonly was labeled as a cemetery.2 Initially located in central urban areas such as commons, by the nineteenth century public burial grounds were increasingly located in suburban precincts. As late as 1724 (and perhaps long after) New Englanders “valued graveyards more as meadows than as sacred spaces,” and, in the public’s mind, graveyards were regarded as “common, if not hallowed ground,” according to historian David Charles Sloane.3 The word “cemetery,” which “derived from the Greek word for ‘dormitory’ and implied that death was but a tranquil sleep,” reflected the increasing sentimentalization of death and the Protestant theological shift from punitive to redemptive interpretations of death.4 Notably, the terms “burying ground” and “churchyard” were not completely phased out with the introduction of rural cemeteries and continued to be used interchangeably.5 Although the term “cemetery” was often associated with rural park-like spaces, it also referred to enclosed burial grounds, such as the one described in 1796 by Timothy Dwight in New Haven, Conn.

The New Haven Burying Ground, as it was originally named, was one of the earliest burial places to be located out side the main commercial district of a town [Fi g. 2]. Concerns about public health stemming from overcrowded urban burial places, the development of romantic discourse on the emotional impact of natural scenery, and anxieties about appropriate veneration of the dead resulted in a movement to relocate burial grounds from congested urban sites to more rural settings .6 Observers of the New Haven Burying Ground, including Dwight , praised the proprietors for their orderly and well laid out grounds based upon a geometric plan, with each fenced lot fashioned in the

s hape of a parallelogram. The division of the l a n d sc ape was carried over into the plac e- me nt of the city’s various popul at i o n s — t he p o o r, Yale affil i ates, strangers, and “ n e g ro e s ” — i nto clearly de fin ed, separate s p aces. As such, New Haven Burying Gro u n d be c a me a model for ot her cities. Neve r t he- less, so me writers, such as Re v. Nehe m i a h Adams (1842), cont i n u ed to argue for the use of urban plots in the belief that the dea d s h o uld be permitted to commune with the “ j oyous eve nts” of the city.

The archetypal nineteenth-century burial ground, however, was Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Mass., founded in 1831 on the grounds of a former estate called “Sweet Auburn.”7 The founders of the so-called rural cemetery originally envisioned combining an “experimental” or botanic garden with a burying ground. Given the precedent for a garden cemetery that was set by the famed Père Lachaise (founded in Paris in 1804) and the influence of English landscape gardens upon botanic garden designs of this period, it is not surprising that the planners of Mount Auburn Cemetery desired a rural, naturalistic design.8 They left much of the original grounds and vegetation intact and landscaped the grounds with the introduction of avenues, walks, and waterways [Figs. 3 and 4]. The boundaries of the cemetery were intended to blend into the grounds of the experimental garden through intermingled vegetation and meandering avenues. Throughout the grounds, picturesque views rewarded the visitor. Instead of the regimented landscape at the New Haven Burying Ground, Mount Auburn Cemetery embraced openness, created by the use of serpentine pathways and carefully placed vegetation, which could both screen and create vistas. The actual grave sites, however, were still bounded by iron railings to mark a zone of respect for the dead [Fig. 5].

Although the Mount Auburn Cemetery planners quickly were forced to discard their plans for an experimental garden, they fulfilled their vision of a rural, picturesque, park-like landscape.9 It became the model for a number of subsequent cemeteries, such as Spring Grove Cemetery (Cincinnati), Laurel Hill Cemetery (Philadelphia), and Greenwood Cemetery (Brooklyn), and it earned the praise of such critics as A. J. Downing.10 Even without the existence of a botanic garden, the superintendents of Mount Auburn Cemetery were able to lavish much attention on ornamental plantings. It is worth noting that extensive discussions about the ornamentation of burial places with plant material and other landscape features did not generally appear in treatise literature about the sites until the popularization of rural cemeteries in the nineteenth century.

As Downing pointed out in his 1849 essay “Public Cemeteries and Public Gardens,” Mount Auburn Cemetery also had “the double wealth of rural and moral assoc i at i o n s . . . it awakens, at the same moment, the feeling of human sympathy and the love of natural beauty.” The rural setting, with its suggestions of the sublime, enhanced the experience of mourning for one’s loved ones. The space was also an educational tool, providing exemplary taste in planting arrangements, as well as a guide to American history