Advertisement

Cemeteries: A Reflection and Epilogue

  • Gary S. FosterEmail author
  • William E. Lovekamp
Chapter
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Cemeteries constitute a viable data source in the absence of more conventional data sources, and they augment traditional data sources when they are available. Their value as intellectual real estate cannot be exaggerated. Yet, cemeteries, especially small, unused, and abandoned, are threatened by, and subject to the vagaries and vulnerabilities of erosive time and weathering, natural disasters, neglect, vandalism, and theft. Though “cut in stone,” gravestone data lack the permanence implied, but there are collective actions that can ameliorate and preserve the cemetery record for posterity.

Keywords

Cemeteries as commons Threats to cemeteries Preservation 

References

  1. Coutts, Christopher, Carlton Basmajian, Dwight Merriam, and Patricia Salkin. 2013. Planning for the Deceased. Washington, DC: American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  2. Foster, Gary S., and William E. Lovekamp. 2015. “Disaster and Cemeteries: A Clarion Call for Matters of Grave Urgency.” ASG Quarterly 39 (3): 14–19.Google Scholar
  3. Foster, Gary S., and William E. Lovekamp. 2018. “Identity Denied: Gravestones as Collectibles.” AGS Quarterly 42 (3): 23–29.Google Scholar
  4. Foster, Gary S., William E. Lovekamp, and Donald H. Holly. 2016. “The Old Kelley Cemetery: A Theft of Grave Concern.” AGS Quarterly 41 (2): 3–9.Google Scholar
  5. Hufford, Mary. 1997. “American Ginseng and the Idea of the Commons.” Folklife Center News XIX (1/2): 3–18.Google Scholar
  6. Hufford, Mary. 2002. “Reclaiming the Commons: Narratives of Progress, Preservation, and Ginseng.” In Culture, Environment and Conservation in the Appalachian South, edited by Benita J. Howell, 100–120. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  7. Jabbour, Alan, and Karen Singer Jabbour. 2010. Decoration Day in the Mountains: Traditions of Cemetery Decoration in the Southern Appalachians. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  8. Kot, Elizabeth Gorrell, and James D. Kot. 1994. United States Cemetery Addresses Book 1994–1995. Vallejo, CA: Indices.Google Scholar
  9. Lovekamp, William E. and Gary S. Foster. 2017. “A Sociological Reconstruction of Cades Cove Cemeteries.” Investigators Scientific Study Final Research Report #2. U.S. National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, GRSM-01120.Google Scholar
  10. Lovekamp, William E., Gary S. Foster, and Steven M. Di Naso. 2016. “Protecting the Dead—Cemetery Preservation and Disaster Planning.” Natural Hazards Observer 40 (6): 4–9.Google Scholar
  11. Lovekamp, William E., Gary S. Foster, and Steven M. Di Naso. 2017. “Inventory of Cades Cove Cemeteries.” Investigators Scientific Study Final Research Report #1. U.S. National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, GRSM-01120.Google Scholar
  12. Maples, James N., and Elizabeth A. East. 2013. “Destroying Mountains, Destroying Cemeteries: Historic Mountain Cemeteries in the Coalfields of Boone, Kanawha, and Raleigh Counties, West Virginia.” Journal of Appalachian Studies 19 (1/2): 7–26.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sociology, Anthropology, and CriminologyEastern Illinois UniversityCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations