cherubs or putti? gravemarkers demonstrating … documents...cherubs or putti? gravemarkers...

Cherubs or Putti? Gravemarkers DemonstratingConspicuous Consumption and the Rococo Fashionin 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 theappearance of the cherub icon on colonial-period gravemarkers to religious movementssuch as the Great Awakening or diminished Puritan influence during the eighteenthcentury. The cherub has been interpreted by many scholars as a symbol of a heavenlybeing that reflects freer perceptions on life and the afterlife. This article challenges thelong-held religious connotations of the cherub icon. Instead, this article demonstratesthat the icon relates to the wider Rococo artistic trend that was the prime influence onthe forms and decorations of contemporary material culture. In this artistic fashion, thecherub is a putto, a Classical allegorical element that remained common in architecturaland mortuary sculpture. The use of the putto comes with a number of additionalcontemporary elements and shows that consumer choice connected to the latest fashioninstead of changing religious attitudes being the driver behind iconographic anddecoration change on colonial gravemarkers.

Keywords Gravemarkers . Rococo . Conspicuous consumption . Fashion

Introduction

By the mid-seventeenth century, New England folk artisans were producinggravemarkers 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 RhodeIsland (Luti 2002), Connecticut (Ludwig 1966; Slater 1987), 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

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

A. R. Heinrich (*)Department of History and Anthropology, Monmouth University, 400 Cedar Lane,West Long Branch, NJ 07764, USAe-mail: [email protected]

where the tradition can be found on a large scale (Heinrich 2003, 2011; McLeod 1979;Veit 2000, p. 127), though a number of icon-adorned gravemarkers made by NewJersey and New England carvers were exported as far south as the Carolinas, Georgia,and the Caribbean (Gorman and DiBlasi 1981; Little 1998; Mould and Loewe 2006,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 thecommon 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 haveassociated evolutions of the imagery found on the markers with religious movements.Gravemarkers are also robust, enduring, and public displays of status and purchasingpower. The influential interpretations on the appearances and changes of gravemarkericonography connected to religious movements have been foundation research for widenumbers of introductory and historical archaeology studies on seriation and culturalchange. This article challenges the long-held religious connotations of the cherub iconand its contemporaneous decorations, and it presents an alternative historically andeconomically-grounded explanation where the changes in the gravemarkers’ iconogra-phies in addition to secondary imagery reflect the fashions observed on contemporarymaterial culture and therefore they reflect the consumer and not the religious ideologyof those who purchased the stones. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate geographic locales wheresignificant 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 systematicstudies of their iconography are from New England; hence, the historic and regionalinfluence of the Puritans has been used to explain the preponderance of mortalitysymbols on the earliest markers. These earliest mortality symbols in the forms ofwinged death’s heads, hourglasses, skulls, and crossbones have been attributed to thestereotypic and probably overdrawn perceptions of the Puritans as individuals whoemphasized the impermanence of the mortal body and their uncertainty about their fatesafter 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 toreligious movements. In the mid-eighteenth century, the winged cherubs (also calledsoul effigies or human faces with wings) appear and generally replace mortalitysymbols in popularity. Due to the loose contemporaneity with the Great Awakening,archaeologists Edwin Dethlefsen and James Deetz (1966, pp. 504–508) argued that theperceived freer, more enthusiastic religious movement caused a departure from themorbid mortality images to the more hopeful cherubs where the immortal part of theperson was emphasized rather than the mortality of man. Similarly, Deetz andDethlefsen connected the change from cherubs to Neoclassical symbols such as thewillow tree and urn, which memorializing the memory of the individual at the end ofthe eighteenth century, to increasing secularization due to the presence of additionalreligions such as Unitarianism and Methodism. Art historian Allan Ludwig (1966, pp.

38 Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64

42–52) attributed the appearance of the cherub to the diminished authority of thePuritans in New England.

Building off these early Massachusetts studies, numerous other researchersattempted to seriate colonial gravemarkers using their iconography. These studies covermuch of the East Coast and range from Nova Scotia and New Hampshire to as far southas Georgia and they have connected changes and icon meanings to the religiousmovements argued in the early New England publications, often in attempts to replicateor identify deviations from the patterns described by Dethlefsen and Deetz (Benes1977; 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 asDeetz and Dethlefsen’s works. Religious historian David Hall (1977) critically rejectedthe religious connections to gravestone iconography arguing that the religious groupswere not uniformly monolithic and there are too many variables unanswered byreligious explanations. As archaeological researchers tested the New England work,several were not convinced that iconographic change was related to religious trends andinstead 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; Veit 2009,p. 117).

Fig. 1 Map illustrating localesfor gravemarker studies andimages mentioned in thisarticle (drawn by author, 2013)

Int J Histor Archaeol (2014) 18:37–64 39

Over the last 50 years, a body of literature has accumulated showing that there are noreligious boundaries with the main colonial-period gravestone symbols. Throughout thecolonies where the carving tradition appears, death’s heads and the other mortalitysymbols dominate the earliest stones found in Presbyterian, Anglican, Dutch Reformed,Baptist, and common burial grounds. Indeed, there is even one in the Quaker burialground in Shrewsbury, New Jersey. Cherubs are also found in the burial grounds of all theearliest religions (Baugher and Winter 1983, p. 53; Heinrich 2011, pp. 7, 10, 16; Stone2009, 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 inNewport, Rhode Island (Gradwohl 2007, pp. 35–40), and even Catholic burial grounds inIreland (Mytum 2003) and Scotland (Willsher and Hunter 1978). A variety of additionalcentral icons also appear across the northeastern colonies. Specific to New Jersey andNewYork in themid-eighteenth century, stylized tulips and sunbursts/scallops appear, andwhile they are also not religion specific, the tulips show correlations with young, generallyunmarried, women and the sunbursts/scallops with children, though these correlations arenot exclusive (Veit 1991, p. 63, 2009, p. 123). At the end of the eighteenth and thebeginning of the nineteenth centuries, monograms that now prominently placed thedeceased’s initials in the tympanum served as memorializing equivalents for the willowsand 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 ifthey 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 inthe Quaker and Jewish burial grounds, is likely due to a civic attitude toward

Fig. 2 Map illustrating thenumerous locales surveyed andphotographed in New Jersey(outline by Rutgers UniversityCartography)


commemorating the dead where the decorations were removed from the religioussphere even if the burial ground was associated with a church or meeting house.Puritan preacher Samuel Mather stated in his Testimony from the Scripture againstIdolatry 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 worthyperson, as also for ornament” (quoted in Tashjian and Tashjian 1974, p. 8). Research onthe documents and sermons that discuss zealous Puritan objections to imagery haveexclusively been in regards to images of Christ, the Virgin, saints, and the like whichcould lead to idolatry (Watters 1981). Images such as death’s heads and cherubs wereconsidered civil or allegorical and therefore not part of the forbidden imagery.

Further complication is added to discussions of religious connotations of the icons ascherubs were used on markers by leaders such as Colonel Israel Williams, ReverendJonathan Ashley, and Colonel Oliver Partridge who were such staunch public critics ofthe Great Awakening to the point where Partridge took part in dismissing JonathanEdwards from western Massachusetts in 1750 (Sweeney 1985, pp. 10–11).Additionally, cherubs are especially rare in Monmouth County, New Jersey whereNew Light stars of the Great Awakening John, Gilbert, and William Tennent preachedand established congregations. These examples help suggest that there were no partic-ular religious ideological meanings for the cherub.

It is now well-understood that the use of mortality symbols was a continuation of thetraditional medieval European iconography that stressed Life’s briefness and thecorruptibility 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 wasnot limited to gravemarkers but was commonly seen in genre and still-life paintings,mortuary sculpture, death placards, and, more accessibly, in engravings such as HansHolbein’s widely disseminated early sixteenth-century Dance of Death series whichemphasized universal mortality regardless of one’s earthly privileges. Additionally, theappearance of the willows, urns, and other memorial symbols at the end of the colonialperiod is easily connected to the Neoclassical fashions influenced by the lateeighteenth-century archaeological discoveries in Italy and Greece. The reason for thecherub (and the other mid-century symbols) within the sequence between the medievalmortality 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 wherepurchasing power and social mobility created markets fed by a flourishing of craftsand fashions (e.g., Carson 1994). Within this context, a new anti-Classical style out ofVersailles was becoming the fashion of the elite classes across continental Europe bythe 1720s. This French style departed from the sharp angles, weighty pillars, andacademic symmetry of Renaissance and Baroque Classicism by establishing highlyornamental and asymmetric, naturalistic curved forms and embellishments. During itstime, it was simply called the “new,” “modern,” “fashionable,” or “latest” style. In thenineteenth century, this style was eventually labeled the Rococo, which was intended tobe 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,


fauna, and allegorical motifs that were commonly integrated into the decorations. Throughthe use of natural elements along with winding, serpentine curves, the spirit of the Rococowas one of elegance, imagination, lightness, and movement (Heckscher and Bowman1992, p. 1; Post 1921, pp. 26–27). The artistic movement towards naturalism continued toincorporate Classical elements especially in stucco work and sculpture with allegoricalfigures, satyrs, and particularly putti—winged infants associated with notions of love andfreedoms that frequently serve as supporting characters for other themes or as holders ofstructures, symbolic objects, mirrors, and reserve frames (Fig. 3).

As London rebuilt after the devastating fire of 1666, new construction was in an ItalianRenaissance Classical style following the imported architectural treatises by AndreaPalladio. Due to the late incorporation of Palladian style, the English were less open toincorporating the French fashion (Mowl and Earnshaw 1999, p. 25), and as a result theEnglish manifestation of the Rococo has often been considered muted, and only a “poorprovincial offshoot” (Snodin 1986, p. 6). It is now recognized that the Rococo had madedeep inroads into English architecture and fashion, though it was frequently incorporatedinto interiors, portable objects, and as embellishments onto established Gothic, Classical,Baroque, and Chinoiserie elements (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, pp. 16–34; Mowl andEarnshaw 1999, pp. 93–108, 121–122; Sweeney 1994, p. 28).

The Rococo was brought to England by continental artisans. French Huguenotsfleeing Louis XIV’s repeal of the Edict of Nantes introduced the Rococo as theyestablished their crafts in London (Crown 1990, p. 276; Heckscher and Bowman 1992,

Fig. 3 A sixteenth-century interi-or monument in the floor of theOude Kirk, Amsterdam, theNetherlands showing two fullbodied putti holding an armorialcrest (photo by author 2008)


p. 2; Watney 1972, p. 826). Swiss-Italian stuccoers followed, decorating interiors where theRococo really flourished (Mowl and Earnshaw 1999, pp. 3–5). Other prominent Rococoartists visited England; Antoine Watteau traveled to England between 1710 and 1712(Rowland Michel 1986, p. 46). Engraver and designer, Hubert Gravelot was in Londonby 1732 and influenced all aspects of art as a teacher at Saint Martin’s Lane Academy, thechief 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 late1720s and 1730s, the upper classes that maintained close connections to their Englishcounterparts and demanded fashionable goods brought shipments across the ocean. Thenewest style made it to the colonies through engravings and design books, importedgoods, and immigrant artisans. Indeed many Rococo designs in the colonies can betraced 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, andNew York filled with English goods and these cities and their surroundings served asmarkets for local industries to develop in pottery, silver, and furniture. Charleston andWilliamsburg generally relied on imported goods from England and the northerncolonies 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 fromEngland“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 withRococo-style products, spawning numerous competitors and imitators that often copieddesigns from pattern books trying to take advantage of the demand in the growingmarkets. Thomas Whieldon’s and Josiah Wedgewood’s matched white salt-glazedstoneware, creamware, and early pearlware table settings were English Rococo withcurved rims embellished with floral designs, as well as the most profuse shell-edgedmotif that seems ubiquitous in eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century archaeologicalsites. Thomas Chippendale, a publisher of his own pattern books, worked to fill thehomes with the chairs, cabinets, and other furniture that became essential in anincreasingly material world. Chippendale frequently worked Rococo curves and ele-ments into Gothic or Chinoiserie bases (Crown 1990, p. 274; Tunis 1965, p. 88). PaulRevere also worked asymmetric naturalistic forms into his silver, engravings, and prints(Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 166). The most famous portrait of Revere by JohnSingleton Copley (dating to 1768) naturalistically reflects the subject on the polishedtable and in the Rococo teapot held in his hands (illustrated in Prown 1980, p. 200).Besides being master craftsmen, these masters were also à la mode, understanding theirmarkets’ fashions and changing to Neoclassical-styled products near the Revolutionand the closing of the eighteenth century (i.e., McKendrick 1960).

As the Rococo infiltrated the forms and decorations of the material culture, thefashion also manifested itself in grave art. Predominately, the cherub became a greaterpart 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 inchurches throughout continental Europe and England during the RenaissanceClassical and Baroque periods (Post 1921, pp. 54–55). The great dissemination ofprinted architectural and decorative forms by the second quarter of the eighteenthcentury helped bring the putto image to folk artisans who would begin to incorporatethem on more generally consumed materials such as gravemarkers (Fig. 4).


Eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophers such as Adam Smith, DavidHume, Joshua Reynolds, and Comte de Buffon who wrote discourses on fashionand taste touted the beauty of natural (i.e., Rococo) forms while simultaneouslydiscussed Classical thinking, art, and mythology (Kramnick 1995, pp. 319–329,342–349; Smith 2002, pp. 227–234). The incorporation of Classical allegoricalsymbols with the naturalistic fashion of the mid-eighteenth century was the epitomeof taste and fashion.

Interior church monuments throughout Europe show the continuity between the OldWorld and the New World traditions. Full bodied as well as the winged head forms ofputti or cherubs had been frequent inclusions on European tomb sculptures since theRenaissance and are well illustrated through the Baroque sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies (see Fig. 3). The decorations as winged heads are generally centered on themonuments above or below the effigy of the deceased as they are continued on Englishand colonial American markers as the Rococo developed. Notably, illustrated Englishmonuments that incorporate the full bodied and winged head forms of the putti/cherubare routinely secularly or allegorically and not religiously themed (i.e., Esdaile 1946,plates 1, 3, 25, 28, 29; Whinney 1964, plates 8B, 9B, 30, 45, 56).

What the cherub, or putto, meant to the contemporary person is uncertain, whether itwas seen as a Classical allegorical image or if it represented a Judeo-Christian heavenlybeing. 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 eighteenthcentury (e.g., Stevens 1953, p. 33). There seems to be a long-standing confusion aboutthe identification of the image especially since there are no known contemporaryaccounts explaining the symbol’s meaning.

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


By the time the Baroque Era came about, which might arguably have been thehigh point for Cherubim and Putti, both of these little beings were usually beingdepicted in the same way. Which one they were, simply depended upon thetheme of the painting or sculpture: If religious (sacred)—they were Cherubs. Ifsecular or mythic (profane)—they were Putti. (Martinez 2004, np.)

Artistic usage of the winged infant in English-speaking society has routinelyconfused its identification (Garner 1998, p. 117), and as Martinez (2004) points out,the context may have been the sole differentiator. With the diffusion of the icon throughprinted media or immigrant carvers, its allegorical meaning may not have been clear inthe folk art realm. Regardless, the profusion of the icon in the eighteenth century was aresult of a move away from the medieval mortality icons as the Rococo fashionpervaded contemporary material culture. While it is argued here that the cherub isactually a Classical allegorical putto, the term cherub will be used since the distinctionbetween 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 longbeen recognized. It is clear through surveys of colonial burial grounds that the numbersof gravemarkers do not accurately reflect the local populations. To provide New Jerseyexamples, Middlesex County has about 634 late seventeenth- and eighteenth-centurymarkers for a population that reached 10,204 by 1772 (Veit 1991, p. 129) while inneighboring Monmouth County, a total of only 433 recordable eighteenth-centurymarkers represents a population that grew to 16,918 by 1796 (Heinrich 2011, p. 8;Wacker 1975, p. 15). Burial ground destruction through building development anderosional taphonomy cannot account for these great disparities. Apart from theirreligious connections to icon replacement, Deetz and Dethlefsen (1971, p. 31) had alsorealized the correlation between gravemarker iconography and social status, especiallywith the use of the cherub. In Harvard Square, Cambridge, Massachusetts, theyreported 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 (Giguere2005, p. 44) and through New Jersey as far south as Trenton where the Reverend DavidCowell (died 1760) was purchased by his family or congregation a large importedRhode 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 thegrowing middle class blurred social boundaries with the older, established upperclasses. “Competitive consumption” by the middle class to attain an elevated positionprompted the higher classes to spend more in order to separate and distinguishthemselves (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 setup their shops, and consumption came to mean “spending ever greater proportions oftotal moveable wealth on consumer goods” (Carr and Walsh 1994, p. 102). The


Rococo, or “latest” fashion, was a means for the higher classes to initially elevatethemselves apart from the growing middle class (e.g., Sweeney 1994, p. 58), and theiruse of the latest fashions on gravemarkers served as robust and conspicuous remindersof their social positions that post-mortally continued to hold “meanings [that] werebound up with a customary world of face-to-face relations” (Breen 1993, p. 230). Atthis point, the eighteenth-century funeral “had become an occasion of conspicuousconsumption” (Breen 1993, p. 246). By purchasing a fashionable gravemarker, onewould express their social position to churchgoers, passersby on the street, andespecially attendees of funerals of those who passed afterwards. Throughout thenortheastern American colonies as well as English, Irish, and Scottish burial grounds,the numbers of gravemarkers markedly increase beginning in the 1720–1740s periodcoinciding with this rapidly increasing consumerism and need to conspicuously dem-onstrate 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 marketsystems in the eighteenth century through New Jersey’s and New York’s gravemarkers.Here, the late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century gravemarker carvers wereanonymous and limited to a few individuals or workshops. By the middle of theeighteenth century, the numbers of carvers (with apprentices and slaves) expanded inthe early population centers that then spread to smaller centers as the populations in theperipheries grew. These new carvers working in New Jersey and New York identifiedand distinguished themselves through recognizable idiosyncratic styles, newspaperadvertisements, and by occasionally inscribing their names and places of work on theirstones for the first time in the 1740s (Baugher and Veit 2013, p. 229–230; Gottesman1938, p. 231; Veit 1991, p. 61, 2009, p. 128; Welch 1983, pp. 37, 51). This expansionof the carving industry coincides with the great proliferation of cherub-adorned markersthat markedly increased in the 1750s and 1760s. Two of the most productive NewJersey carvers Uzal Ward (1726–1793) of Newark and Ebenezer Price (1728–1788) ofElizabeth, with their workshops or imitators, were responsible for most of the cherub-adorned markers throughout the colony, while Ward concurrently carved death’s headsand Price and his people carved other iconographic elements like tulips and sunbursts/scallops.

Thomas H. Huxley (1898, pp. 239–240) writing on David Hume’s Enlightenmentdiscourses on taste and fashion stated, “some there are who cannot feel the differencebetween 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 lessacknowledged.” The cherub icon is characterized by diversity where each carvercreated his own distinct style which often spawned a number of imitators who mayor 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 aheavenly being, claimed that religious texts only provided vague descriptions for thecherub 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 individuallydetermined 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 aremore two-dimensional and abstract, most have a more infant-like appearance, whilesome like those made by Ebenezer Price and his apprentices have an adult-like face


with a contemporary-styled powdered wig. John Stevens III (1753–1817) of the JohnSteven’s Shop of Newport, Rhode Island engraved his cherubs in low-relief, three-quarters profile that were occasionally individualized to the deceased. Some enslavedand free Africans in Newport’s God’s Little Acre burial ground have stones engravedby Stevens III and the family’s slaves depicting African physical features such as thefamous Pompey Brenton (d. 1772) stone. A few carvers provided cheaper versions oftheir classic designs in order to widen their consumer base. Price has left a smallnumber of more shallowly carved, two-dimensional cherubs often seen on smaller sizedmarkers for children and some women, while Thomas Brown who worked in NewYork City carved pencil-sketch styled cherubs and death’s heads (Fig. 5). Taking acapitalistic perspective, it may instead be argued that each carver’s distinctive cherubwas their public trade card or advertisement, and more cheaply engraved stylesbroadened the consumer base. This may be emphasized by apprentices and imitatorswho continued to carve cherubs in the style of the local masters, often well after thedeath of the master.

While the American colonial gravemarker carver was a folk artisan, his Europeancontemporary, who was still considered a mere craftsman, was often carving cherubs inhigh-artistic style (J. B. Le Blanc 1745 in Crown 1990, p. 273; Burgess 1963, plates 3,5, 8–11). This can be illustrated by William Valentine, an English carver who came tothe 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 stuccoand lead work with realistic infant faces, hair, and feathery wings along with accessory

Fig. 5 Gravemarkeradorned with a lower-relief, two-dimensional cherub for TabithaPrice (1756) in the WestfieldPresbyterian burial ground, NewJersey, carved by Ebenezer Price(photo by author, 2011)


images such as acanthus leaves, an element that is very common in Rococo architec-tural decoration (i.e., Weaver 1905, p. 433, Figs. 9 and 10) (Fig. 6). Valentine’s cherubsare some the highest relief observed in colonial grave art and all identified examplesfound in New York City and Monmouth County, New Jersey belong to people withinscriptions noting their high status.

There is evidence that the artisans in the expanding gravemarker industry developedconnections with their consumers. Noticeable throughout the New England carvingtradition’s range, families regularly showed preference for specific carvers or theirworkshops. This “personal choice” includes examples of families having chosencarvers that were more distant than other accessible, nearer ones. For example, theStelle family started erecting black and green slate markers made by the Stevens shopfrom Newport, Rhode Island in the 1710s in Shrewsbury, New Jersey, and continuedtheir patronage through the 1740s to the 1760s after the family relocated toPiscatawaytown, New Jersey. Later, in the 1770s, 1780s, and 1790s, the Stellespurchased their markers from local carvers, either Henry or Jonathan Hand Osbornwho were working in Woodbridge and Scotch Plains, New Jersey respectively. TheStelles abided by the changing fashions using the mortality images early then switchingto cherubs from the 1740s until the early 1780s from both Stevens and Osborn, andfinally 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 cheruband acanthus leaves carved byWilliam Valentine for JohnBowne Esq., (1771) in theMiddletown Presbyterian burialground, New Jersey (photo byauthor 2013)


century. The Stelle family could have chosen the Stevens’ Rhode Island slates sincethey were more naturalistically carved cherubs, or perhaps because the slate markerswould have been conspicuous amongst a field of markers made from New Jersey’snative red sandstone. Encoded in the slates stones would have been the added costs toship the markers from Rhode Island. A visitor to the burial ground would haverecognized 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 usedas emblems of conspicuous consumption.

Connections between the carvers and the consumers can be regularly observed. InMonmouth County, New Jersey, the use of the cherub icon shows correlations withfamily groups where 60.9 % (n=28) of the cherubs can be organized into individualfamilies (Heinrich 2011, pp. 23–24). A comparable correlation is noted for familypatronage of favored carvers, sometimes regardless of iconography where familiespurchased a carver’s stones with death’s heads, cherubs, as well as the later monogramsthroughout New Jersey. Kevin Sweeney (1985, pp. 6, 14) working in westernMassachusetts also observed that interrelated families chose to purchase gravemarkersfrom particular and often more distant carvers similar to the behavior seen with theStelles in New Jersey. Additionally, the Kempton family on Long Island, New Yorkcommissioned stones from a carver in their previous hometown in Massachusetts(Levine 1978, p. 54). These patterns and examples suggest that consumers madepurchases 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 receivedmuch attention from previous researchers trying to seriate iconography wherever it isfound. The first appearance has been used as a determinate for how quickly the iconwill reach popularity, where the later the appearance in a particular area, the quickerit became the dominant icon (Deetz and Dethlefsen 1967, p. 33; Gorman andDiBlasi 1981, p. 93). The first appearance of an icon on a gravemarker can be atroublesome measure since a number of stones were back-dated for a number ofreasons (Mytum 2002, pp. 2–7). They were purchased as replacements for woodenmarkers or unmarked graves or when a family was able to afford them, andgravestones took varying amounts of time from the death of the individual, theplacement of the order, and the manufacture and shipment of the marker. Forexample, the earliest dated cherub in Middletown, New Jersey for Captain JohnBowne Junior is dated 1715/6 but the stylistic characteristics of the marker indicatethat it was most likely carved between 1720 and 1740 by an anonymous carvercalled the “East Jersey Soul Carver.” Without a deep investigation of a sculptor’swork, 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 iconcould also reflect a variety of variables that are not often explained in publishedresearch, for instance, it might reflect small sample sizes, a population center thatwas established after the icon was already widely used elsewhere, or it couldrepresent a late diffusion of the fashion to the area (e.g., Rainville 1999, p. 557).


Since most material culture in the forms of furniture, ceramics, clothing, interiorstuccoing, and silver was not stamped with its date of manufacture, we, at best, oftenhave ranges of dates to attribute to these objects and their use. Gravemarkers can beparticularly 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 morecompelling evidence about the use of the cherub and the manifestation of the Rococo incolonial material culture. The fashion developed rapidly in England and its introductionto the colonies was almost immediate, occurring as early as the 1720s. Diffusion of theRococo relied on expanding markets and consumers. By the late 1730s and 1740s,coinciding with an increase in design book publications and numbers of artisans, thefashion 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 ofmaterials before being phased out by the newer Neoclassical fashion. This trend isprecisely 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 earlyports for English goods such as urban centers in Massachusetts, New York, and easternNew Jersey. In places with settlement by mid-century, the cherub was widespread andhad reached its peak of greatest popularity between the 1750s and 1780s, generallyphasing out by the 1790s or early 1800s. The cherub’s appearance on gravemarkersaccurately reflects the expression of the Rococo throughout the eighteenth century.

In most places where the New England carving tradition was predominant, thecherub became the chief icon, at its peak of popularity replacing the medieval mortalityimages and subsequently being replaced by monograms or Neoclassical images such asthe 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 diffusedthrough the colonies, frontier areas show an uneven presence of the new design. Forexample, the cherub never became the dominant icon on the northern frontier inCumberland County, Maine, or at the southern limit in Monmouth County, NewJersey. Mirrored at both edges of the tradition’s range, mortality images, such as thedeath’s head, remained the most popular icon throughout the century, peaking in the1760s and 1770s and persisting as the dominant icon until the 1790s, while evenextending into the early 1800s in Maine (Fig. 7) (Giguere 2005, p. 31; Heinrich 2003,2011, pp. 8–9). Monmouth County was not as deeply connected to the modes of thedenser populated areas to the north, whether it was due to conservative consumerideology or lesser social pressure to keep up with the latest fashion. This may have beendue to a sparser, agrarian population attested to by the high proportion of gravemarkersin the scattered family burial grounds (Heinrich 2011, pp. 8–9).

Other variations can be seen on the outskirts of the larger population centers thatwould have been more closely connected to social pressures. Possibly following similarexplanations for the death’s head persistence in Monmouth County, Hanover Townshipin central northern New Jersey shows that the cherub maintained popularity later intothe early 1800s, which contrasts with other nearby areas where the Neoclassical stylewith monograms was already at its popularity (see Table 2). Further west, BedminsterTownship represented by the Lamington Presbyterian and Bedminster Dutch ReformedChurch burial grounds illustrates how the region was at the margins of at least threedistinct carving traditions. Here cherubs carved by the prolific eastern New Jerseycarvers (including two that seem to be by local amateurs imitating the eastern masters)


are few in number scattered between the 1740s and 1780s and mixed with highproportions of undecorated and cherub-adorned marbles from Pennsylvania as wellas two slate death’s heads from Massachusetts and two markers carved by JohnSolomon Teetzel, a German immigrant carver working in the heavily German-settledregions of northwestern New Jersey (Veit 2000).

Table 1 The popularity of the cherub icon across the American colonies

Colony Locations Beginningpopularitydate

Period of peakpopularity

Endingpopularitydate

Reference

ME Cumberland County 1747b 1800s Giguere 2005:38

NH Hanover Townshipa 1773b Rainville 1999:557

MA Cambridge 1720s 1760s–1790s 1800s Dethlefsen and Deetz1966:505

Concord 1730s 1750s–1780s 1790s Dethlefsen and Deetz1966:505

Plymouth 1730s 1770s–1790s 1810s Dethlefsen and Deetz1966:505

Old Hampshire County 1740s Sweeney 1985:10

Stoneham 1760s 1770s–1790s 1800s Deetz 1996:97

RI Jewish Burying Ground,Newport

1760s 1760s–1780s 1780s Gradwohl 2007:34-41

Nine cemeteries, Jamestown 1730s 1740s–1790s 1800s Brennan 2011:111

Friends’ Quaker Cemetery,Jamestown

1730s 1740s–1790s 1800s Brennan 2011:111

NY Trinity Church, Manhattan,NYC

1720s 1740s–1770s 1780s Welch 1987:12; Baugherand 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 DiBlasi1981:93

St. Phillip’s Anglican,Charleston

1710sb 1770s Gorman and DiBlasi1981:93

St. Michael’s Anglican,Charleston

1760sb 1770s Gorman and DiBlasi1981:93

GA Savannah 1770sb 1770s Gorman and DiBlasi1981:93

Sunbury 1760sb 1790s Gorman and DiBlasi1981:93

Midway 1730sb 1760s Gorman and DiBlasi1981:93

a Burial grounds were not in use until 1774 (Rainville 1999, p. 546), showing late settlementb 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


Other Expressions of the Rococo in Gravemarkers

While the putto or cherub is the most conspicuous and widespread Rococo element oneighteenth-century gravemarkers, a variety of other primary and secondary elementscan be attributed to the fashion such as shells, tulips, acanthus leaves, hearts, the stones’

Table 2 The popularity of the cherub icon across New Jersey

Colony Locations Beginningpopularitydate

Period of peakpopularity

Endingpopularitydate

Reference

NJ Elizabeth First Presbyterian 1730s 1750s–1780s 1790s Veit 2009:128–129

Westfield Presbyterian 1740s 1750s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author2011

Woodbridge FirstPresbyterian

1730s 1760s–1780s 1790s Veit 2009:135–136

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 author2011

Metuchen First Presbyterian 1760s 1760s–1780s 1780s Surveyed by author2011

Piscatawaytown Commonand Stelton Baptist, Edison

1740s 1750s–1770s 1780s Surveyed by author2011

Van Liew, Willow Grove, 3Mile Run, Christ Episcopaland First Reformed, NewBrunswick


Morristown First Presbyteriana 1760s 1760s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author2011

Madison First Presbyterianb 1750s 1770s–1790s 1790s Surveyed by author2011

First Presbyterian andWhippany Burying Yard,Hanover Township


Succasunna FirstPresbyterianc


Lamington Presbyterian andBedminster Reformed,Bedminster Townshipd

1780s 1780s 1780s Surveyed by author2011

Cranbury Presbyterian 1750s 1760s–1780s 1790s Surveyed by author2011

Monmouth County 1720s 1730s, 1760s–1780s 1790s Heinrich 2011:9

a Isolated early and late cherubs dated 1752 and 1800b Church established in 1748. Isolated late cherub dated 1804c Congregation established 1758, church built in 1760. Isolated late cherub dated 1791d Four cherubs in the 1780s. Isolated cherubs dated 1741, 1753, 1769, 1779 are in the Lamington PresbyterianBurial Ground


silhouettes, and epigraphy. One can find a few examples of these motifs anddecorations on gravemarkers from New England to New Jersey before thearrival of the Rococo fashion, but they take on a new and wider conspicuityaround and after mid-century.

As mentioned earlier, Price and his shop popularized two iconographic imagesalongside their cherubs, the shell, and tulips. Their particular shell design, which hasalso been called a sunburst or a fan, resembles a stylized scallop shell and reflects thewide use of shell motifs in architecture, furniture, and ceramics throughout the latterhalf of the century. In New Jersey, the shell is predominately used between the 1750sand 1790s on markers for children (Veit 2009, p. 123), though this is not exclusive anda few examples have been found for adults and later carvers occasionally used theimage as a primary decorative element into the early nineteenth century. The shell, in amore naturalistic form, is also found in Massachusetts in conjunction with traditionalmedieval elements such as on Thomas Faunce’s 1745 stone in Plymouth, which depictsDeath and his scythe sitting atop a winged hourglass (illustrated in Ludwig 1966, plate7). James Jeffrey’s 1755 gravemarker from the Old Burying Point, Salem,Massachusetts incorporates a textbook asymmetrical Rococo shell above a skull withcrossed bones in profile (Fig. 8). These two Massachusetts markers are noteworthybecause they show hybridization between the earlier medieval and newer Rococostyles. During the Neoclassical period, the shell became a common secondary decora-tion used on the shoulder lobes and accessory lobes on top of the tympanum by NewJersey carvers.

Throughout the history of art, many images have held symbolic meanings that havebeen applied to historical gravemarker interpretations. For example, the shell can beconsidered a symbol of the “voyage of the soul” in earlier Renaissance painting as in

Fig. 7 Distribution of the major gravemarker icons in Monmouth County, New Jersey. Cherubs demonstratethree peaks of popularity in the 1730s, 1760s, and 1780s. Death’s heads predominate as the most frequenticonographic image throughout the century


Sandro Botticelli’s famous 1486 Birth 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 simplyrepresent the beauty of naturalism particularly because they were commonly incorpo-rated into the designs of material culture such as furniture and ceramics that had littleassociation with memorializing the dead.

The second design, the tulip is a three-part icon with some flowers as buds, some infull bloom, and some wilting representing the broad stages of Life, holding a moresymbolic message than other motifs coming with the Rococo. Tulips along with otherfloral motifs, such as flowers, vines, and leaves were widely used in the suite ofnaturalistic elements that was so important to the Rococo. This was in part due to thefact that floral motifs, vines and the like incorporated the essential C and S-shapedcurves. In the New York City area, tulips adorn markers for people with French orDutch surnames (Baugher and Winter 1983, p. 52), but this does not hold true in NewJersey where they can be found across ethnicities. Instead, here they correlate withyoung 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 inthe 1730s and continued into the early nineteenth century (Veit 2009, p. 123).

Secondary decorative elements also demonstrate the Rococo’s incorporation intocolonial grave art. While some of the seventeenth-century gravemarkers inMassachusetts were well-ornamented particularly in the marker’s borders along thesides of the inscriptions, the early carvers in New York and New Jersey were carvingcomparatively simple markers (Veit 2009, p. 119). In the 1730s, coinciding with the

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


development and permeation of the ornamental Rococo, greater amounts of thegravemarkers in these colonies became more elaborately decorated. It is possible thatthe immigration of Philip Stevens, of the Newport, Rhode Island carving family, to theHudson Valley/New Jersey region may have influenced the local carvers to adopt moreintricate 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 thegravemarkers. These border designs begin to be used with mortality symbols andcontinue 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 markersbetween Bedminster and Metuchen that used similar trefoil-leaved vines that continuedalong the full edge of the stone, sometimes along with tulips and monograms near theend 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 Greekson Corinthian columns, are long and curled with deeply cut edges that providedcomplex 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 ongravemarkers in a variety of forms such as realistic leaves like those seen on theillustrated Valentine stone (see Fig. 6). Acanthus designs were also carved morestylistically. Stylistic acanthus designs even served as primary tympanum decorationsfor New England carvers such as George Allen Sr. (died 1774) of the Narragansett Bayarea who exported stones dating to the 1760s to Piscatawaytown and New Brunswick,New Jersey, and Ebenezer Winslow (1772–1841) of Berkley, Massachusetts, whocarved a 1790-dated stone for his nephew buried in the Old Presbyterian BurialGround in Middletown, New Jersey (Fig. 9). Acanthus leaves were also used to framethe 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 Rococofashion in their gravemarkers. In New Jersey, Price or apprentices placed the marker’sinscription within a heart reserve with intricate vines filling the voids between the heartand the stone’s straight vertical sides (Fig. 10). Examples date between the 1740s and1760s and they are concentrated in and around Price’s workshop in Elizabeth. It isuncertain if there may have been an original printed model, but Price’s design seems tomimic a pair of stones carved by an unidentified carver in New England (illustrated inLudwig 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 onein Rehoboth, Massachusetts. These New England stones include full bodied putti liftingthe 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 godEros 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 intowestern Massachusetts broke away from the tripartite upright headboard-shaped


markers that were widely used from New England to New Jersey. Carvers such as JohnWalden (1734–1807), Thomas Johnson II (1718–1774) and III (1750–1789), WilliamCrosby (1764–1801), John Johnson (1748–1826), and William Buckland (1727–1795),among others, sculpted their tympanums in a manner where the decorative elementsextend 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 thecontours of the curving scrolls, acanthus leaves, and cherub wings. The tympanumsmade by these Connecticut carvers mimic Rococo picture frames and interior stuccoingwhere the ornamentation reaches off the main lines of the frames and moldings tointeract with the spaces around them (Heckscher and Bowman 1992, p. 167; Prown1980, p. 205).

Beyond the Connecticut River Valley, carvers making icon-adorned gravemarkersgenerally limited their work to stones with the standard arched tympanum, whichfrequently 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 fromthe tripartite or square-shouldered stone shape and allowed spiraling curves to disruptthe smooth, linear outlines (illustrated in Welch 1983, pp. 44, 46). Even rarer, Price’sElizabeth, New Jersey shop left behind a few gravemarkers where pairs of S-curvescreate a Rococo silhouette with undulating, waisted sides that supports the typicalarched tympanum and shoulder lobes (Fig. 11).

Outside of the New England carving tradition’s range, generally undecorated marblemarkers from Philadelphia, exported to western and southern New Jersey, Maryland,

Fig. 9 Stylized acanthus leavesdecorate the tympanum of themarker for Elizabeth Leydt (1760)in the 3 Mile Run burial ground,New Brunswick, New Jersey, byGeorge Allen Sr from theNarragansett Bay area of RhodeIsland (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-centurymarkers’ tympanums resemble the shape of winged cherubs where S-curves slopeaway from a central arc towards the shoulders (Fig. 12). These curved stones, whichwere most popular in the 1760s and 1770s, gave way to squarer, more structuredNeoclassical shapes in the 1780s. Crowell (1981, p. 26) suggested there was a deepermeaning like that of the cherub icon encoded in the stone shape where the carvers andtheir customers were expressing their ideology while trying to get around the strongQuaker pressures against adornment around the Delaware River Valley. Instead, thechange in shape from curved to structured corresponds to the transition from Rococo toNeoclassical designs observed on the icon-adorned gravemarkers produced from north-eastern New Jersey through New England. While they may have been against graveadornments, the Quakers were not opposed to consuming the latest fashions. As JohnAdams recorded during his visits to the Philadelphia region in the 1770s, Quakers wereliving in stately mansions full of Chippendale-style furniture and ornamented silver(Wertenbaker 1949, p. 9). Philadelphia, the port city of the Quaker-founded colony, wasa major center for the production of Rococo style furniture and silver (Heckscher andBowman 1992, p. 170). Philadelphia carvers did ornament some markers as shown by a

Fig. 10 A double stone for Lydia and Christopher Crane (1760) in Westfield Presbyterian burial ground, NewJersey, from the Ebenezer Price workshop using hearts and elaborate serpentine vines to frame the inscriptions(photo by author, 2011)


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

The Rococo in the Epigraphy

One element of gravemarker adornment that saw very limited Rococo influence wasthe epigraphy. Across the regions where New England and Philadelphia markers wereused, inscriptions were executed in rather plain typeset-like lettering, which occasion-ally retained rather archaic letter forms such as capital As with bent cross bars. Onemajor 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 topsof his Fs curl around more dramatically towards their main shafts than those of mostother carvers. His capital and lowercase Ss and Cs belly out along with enlarged serifs

Fig. 11 Gravemarker for JohnDavis (1760) in WestfieldPresbyterian burial ground, NewJersey, carved by the EbenezerPrice workshop with pairs ofdouble S-curves creating aRococo silhouette (photo byauthor, 2011)


at each end which emphasize the curves. Capital Rs bring the forward foot upward intoa curl. Ward developed this style to his fullest at a slightly later point in his carvingcareer. Initially in the 1750s when Ward carved rather square-jawed cherubs, his curledletters were relatively restrained. By the 1760s when Ward developed his emotionalpear-shaped cherub, his lettering style incorporated his characteristic fuller curls.Interestingly, Ward’s imitators like William Grant (active 1740s–1790s) did not reachthe 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 inscrip-tion. Carver Thomas Johnson III of Connecticut, known for his elaborate tympanumsdiscussed earlier, carved letters that emphasized the curves, particularly the extendedcurves of Js, Ys, and Fs (illustrated in Welch 1983, p. 149). Other carvers remainedmore conservative in their lettering or epitaph decoration. Valentine, the carver ofhigher-art cherubs, often included a single word in Rococo calligraphy where the linescurled 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 itscurls. If others did embellish their epitaphs, they were generally limited to spirals, shortarched curves that filled space within breaks of the epitaph, or lightly inscribed archedstems to flowers that continued off the ends of the inscriptions, and most seem to havebeen New Jersey and New York carvers. Zuricher occasionally used the spirals thoughpreferred trumpet-like wedges, while Price and his followers including the Osborns

Fig. 12 A Philadelphia-carvedgravemarker for Mary Polhemus(1781) in Allentown Presbyterian,Allentown, New Jersey, where theunadorned tympanum hasS-curves sloping away from acentral arch (photo by author,2011)


used spirals as well as flowers at the ends of their inscriptions (see Figs. 4, 9,10, and 12).

While the Rococo made minimal inroads into the epitaph epigraphy, the style had avaluable role during the Neoclassical fashion that became dominant at the end of theeighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Several carvers using the memorializingequivalent monograms of the New York/New Jersey region adopted Rococo letteringto stylishly engrave the initials of the deceased in the tympanum. Lettering followed theforms common on silver engraving, signage, and prints such as Johann Merken’s(1782, plates ii–vii) Liber Artificiosus Alphabeti Maioris.

Conclusions

The Rococo has been an oft-overlooked artistic movement in discussions of colonialculture. Perhaps this has been due to the Rococo’s break from academic rules and laterridicule as a fanciful departure, its appearance as an interlude between more conspic-uous Classical movements, or perhaps its past perception as being a limited Frenchstyle. Regardless, the Rococo was the significant fashion across Europe and theAmerican colonies as it shaped the forms and decorations of a wide range of materialculture in the years preceding the American Revolution. The manifestation of theRococo throughout all forms of material culture shows that artistic styles are more

Fig. 13 Gravemarker forMargaret Forman (1765) in theOld Scot’s burial ground,Marlboro, New Jersey. Thismarker was carved by Uzal Wardand illustrates some of the curvesaccentuated on some letters suchas s, t, y, and c. Also note theS-curve marking the end of theinscription (photo by author,2011)


than what is seen in academies and museums, their fashions shape the experiences ofthe people who encountered the objects, placed meanings in them, and endeavored toown them in order to establish and maintain prestige within their society.

The appearance, meaning, widespread use, and popularity of the cherub and itscontemporary secondary decorative elements have been interpreted primarily in reli-gious contexts for more than 50 years of scientific gravemarker study. Art andeconomic historical approaches to the cherub decorated gravemarkers of colonialAmerica, as well as those in Ireland, Scotland, and England, provide a different andcompelling explanation for the iconographic changes studied by so many researchers.The Rococo explains these issues. Perhaps it has been our modern eschatologicalpreoccupations with death and the afterlife which has caused many gravemarkerresearchers to have imposed this religious bias on iconographic interpretations. In theend, the cherub, or putto, can be removed from the Great Awakening’s influence onreligious ideology. Instead, it should be considered an allegorical symbol brought out ofthe Classics to replace the earlier and morbid medieval mortality imagery. The cherubwas a symbol used by participants in the regional market economies to conspicuouslyexpress their social standing through the iconography on their own or family member’sgravemarkers. More broadly, the cherub, along with the secondary decorations, cominginto grave art through the Rococo fashion, emphasizes how the American colonieswere an extension of Europe, while at the same time the development of distinct localcarving traditions shows that the colonies were unique and diverse across the regionswhere 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 overlyenthusiastically talked about how everything is the Rococo. I also thank Harold Mytum and Sherene Baugherfor support of this work through inclusion and discussion at the 2012 SHA conference in Baltimore and alsofor encouraging reviewer comments on this article. Richard Veit and Carmel Schrire have also provided muchappreciated comments on earlier drafts of this work. Lastly, I am indebted to all the previous researchers whohave 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 MortuaryData. 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 ofcolonial 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 threecemeteries 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.


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 communityon 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 theEighteenth 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., and Albert, 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 DublinSeminar 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 fromNew 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 inNewport, Rhode Island, Sigler Printing, Ames.

Hall, D. D. (1977). The gravestone image as a Puritan cultural code. In Benes, P. (ed.), Puritan GravestoneArt: 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 inEighteenth Century Monmouth County, New Jersey. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Conference onHistorical and Underwater Archaeology, Providence, Rhode Island.

Heinrich, A. R. (2011). “Remember me…” but “be mindfull of death”: the artistic, social, and personal choiceexpressions observed on the gravemarkers of eighteenth century Monmouth County, New Jersey. NewJersey 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, MJF Books,

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 June24 and 25, 1978, Boston University, Boston, pp. 46–57.

Little, M. R. (1998). Sticks and Stones: Three Centuries of North Carolina Gravemarkers, University of NorthCarolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Ludwig, A. I. (1966). Graven Images: New England Stonecarving and Its Symbols, 1650–1815, WesleyanUniversity Press, Middletown.


Luti, V. (2002). Mallet and Chisel: Gravestone Carvers of Newport, Rhode Island in the 18th Century, NewEngland 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 marketingtechniques. Economic History Review 12: 408–433.

McLeod, P. J. (1979). A Study of the Gravestones of Monmouth County New Jersey 1716–1835: Reflections ofa Lifestyle. Unpublished paper in possession of the author.

Merken, J. (1782). Liber Artificiosus Alphabeti Maioris: oder, Neu Inventirtes Kunst- Schreib- undZeichenbuch, 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 andEngland, 1710–1770, Reaktion, London.

Mytum, H. (2002). The dating of graveyard memorials: the evidence from the stones. Post-MedievalArchaeology 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 commem-oration 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’sthesis, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia.

Park, H. (1961). A list of architectural books available in America before the Revolution. Journal of theSociety of Architectural Historians 20: 115–130.

Post, C. R. (1921). A History of European and American Sculpture: From the Early Christian Period to thePresent 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, ArchonBooks, 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 AlbertMuseum, 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 Studies3: 1–46.

Sweeney, K. M. (1994). High-style vernacular: lifestyles of the colonial elite. In Carson, C., Hoffman, R., andAlbert, P. (eds.), Of Consuming Interests: The Style of Life in the Eighteenth Century, University Press ofVirginia, 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 ResearchReports 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.


http://www.artrenewal.com/pages/archives.php?articleid=1435

http://www.artrenewal.com/pages/archives.php?articleid=1435

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 northwesternNew 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 Jerseygravestones, 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 BurlingtonMagazine 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 BurlingtonMagazine for Connoisseurs 7(30): 428–434.

Welch, R. F. (1983). Memento Mori: The Gravestones of Early Long Island 1680–1810, Friends for LongIsland’s Heritage, Syosset.

Welch, R. F. (1987). The New York and New Jersey gravestone carving tradition.Markers IV: The Journal ofthe 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 andComprehensive Survey.” Master’s thesis, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ.


cherubs or putti? gravemarkers demonstrating … documents...cherubs or putti? gravemarkers...

Documents