Episode 10: Cemetery Tourism in NYC and Boston

15 août 2018 · Death, et seq.

00:35:42

Episode Transcript:

My name is Tanya Marsh and you’re listening to Death, et seq. We’ve been talking about funerals a lot on this podcast so far, and I wanted to switch gears this week and talk about one of my favorite topics – cemeteries. I love cemeteries. As my friends and family will attest, I am a semi-professional cemetery tourist. When I visit a new place, I want to check out the historic cemeteries. When I visit a place that I’ve been dozens of times, I still want to check out the cemeteries. So in a new series that I’m going to call “Cemetery Tourism,” I’ll be looking at different clusters of cemeteries that share similar characteristics or a similar history. I’m going to start the series in the Northeastern United States, in two of our earliest urban centers — New York City and Boston. Both of these cities were founded in the mid-1600s, and their early cemeteries share some common characteristics, but they also differed in important ways because of the people who founded those two cities.

American cemeteries are different from cemeteries anywhere else in the world, for a couple of reasons. In the colonial era, we were obviously heavily influenced by the law of England and the social norms that had been established there and carried here. The England of the 17th century had an established church – the Church of England. The theology of the Church of England placed great importance on burial in consecrated ground. So the law of England reflected the assumption that all people in good standing with the church and entitled to burial within the church would be buried in their local parish churchyard. There were people that weren’t in good standing, or members of other religions, so allowances had to be made for them too, but the vast majority of people were buried in the local parish churchyard owned by the Church of England. That’s just how it was set up.

But colonial America was a fairly diverse place. For example, Puritan colonists from England of course settled Massachusetts Bay Colony, while a more diverse group of English, Dutch, and German immigrants settled the former New Amsterdam, there were all kinds of ethnic groups and faiths on William Penn’s land, and the English Virginia Company established settlements focused on economics rather than religious liberty. Each of the colonies was different from the English system, but they were also each different from each other. These realities forced Americans to innovate. Massachusetts established (and still retains) a law that each town must create a burying ground for the use of residents and strangers. Unlike the English system, these are secular cemeteries, owned and managed by the government. In the densely populated cities like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, cemeteries were established downtown and despite practices designed to maximize the capacity of cemeteries, soon became overcrowded. In the Chesapeake, where the population was more widely dispersed, family burying grounds were established in addition to more traditional churchyards. Although the location of American burials differed from the uniform English precedent, other aspects of the process were the same during colonial times. Remains were wrapped in a shroud or encased in a wood coffin, then placed in the earth, a family tomb, or a mausoleum. Americans originally followed other European Christian customs—most graves were not individually memorialized and many contained the remains of more than one person.

American disposition practices shifted after the Civil War. Embalming was rarely practiced before the war. During the war, a crude method of embalming was used to stabilize the remains of wealthier men, primarily on the Union side, so they could be sent home for burial. After the Civil War, undertakers trained in embalming evolved into funeral directors. Into the twentieth century, death moved from the home to the hospital; and the ceremonies surrounding death moved from the parlor to the funeral parlor. Undertaking had once been a complementary profession for carpenters—they could build the coffin and transport the remains to the cemetery. But the Industrial Revolution moved casket production from small workshops to factories, particularly after World War II. “Modern business principles” were applied to create modern cemeteries, owned by for-profit companies in many states, larger in scale and designed to minimize the costs of maintenance. These companies benefited from laws that gave great deference to cemetery owners—traditionally families, religious organizations and municipalities—to establish their own rules and regulations. Modern cemeteries adopted rules that required concrete and/or steel vaults or grave liners that would encase the coffin and prevent the uneven terrain that follows grave collapse. These companies also adopted rules that limited graves to a single interment. The cumulative effect is a very different set of practices than existed before the Civil War. Nearly all modern graves in the United States are dedicated in perpetuity to the remains of a single individual, memorialized with a tombstone.

On today’s episode, I’ll talk about the history and development of cemeteries in New York City and Boston. If you’re interested in photographs and maps, be sure to check out the show notes at the podcast’s website – www.deathetseq.com.

The Dutch first settled New Amsterdam, then just the southern tip of Manhattan, in 1624. A detailed city map called the Castello Plan was created in 1660 – it shows virtually every structure that existed in New Amsterdam at that time. In 1664, four English frigates sailed into New Amsterdam’s harbor and demanded the surrender of New Netherlands. Articles of Capitulation were signed that September and in 1665, New Amsterdam was reincorporated under English law as New York City. The settlement was named for the Duke of York, the brother of the English King Charles II who later became King James II.

During most of the 17th century, even after the English took over, the Reformed Dutch Church was the dominant religious authority in New Amsterdam/New York. There were scattered Congregational, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in the region, as well as Quakers, Catholics, and a few Jews. With the English in 1665, however, also came the established Church of England.

One of the first significant cemeteries in New York City was established in the 1630s on the west side of Broadway, a little north of Morris Street. It was referred to as the “Old Graveyard” In 1656, there was a petition to “divide the Old Graveyard which is wholly in ruins, into lots to be built upon, and to make another Graveyard south of the Fort.” Apparently it persisted until at least 1665, when a collection was made to repair the graveyard because it was “very open and unfenced, so that the hogs root in the same.” By 1677, however, the graveyard had been cut up into four building lots and sold at auction to the highest bidder. There is no record regarding where the graves from this “Old Graveyard” were moved, but construction on the site more than a century later uncovered “a great many skulls and other relics of humanity,” so it sounds like perhaps they weren’t moved at all. Some things in Poltergeist are real, people.

In 1662, the Dutch established a new burial ground on Broadway, on a parcel that was then located outside the city’s gates. That burial ground became a part of the Trinity churchyard when Trinity Church was established in thirty years later.

In 1693, the New York Assembly passed an act to build several Episcopal churches in New York City and “all the inhabitants were compelled to support the Church of England, whatever might be their religious opinion.” In 1696, a plot of land stretching 310 feet from Rector Street to the Dutch burial ground that had been established on Broadway in 1662 was acquired by the Episcopalians and the Charter of Trinity Church was issued on May 6, 1697. The charter declared:

“[Trinity Church] situate in and near the street called the Broadway, within our said city of New York, and the ground thereunto adjoining, enclosed and used for a cemetery or church-yard, shall be the parish church, and church-yard of the parish of Trinity Church … and the same is hereby declared to be forever separated and dedicated to the service of God, and to be applied thereunto for the use and behalf of the inhabitants … within our said city of New York, in communion with our said Protestant Church of England.”

By the time of the Revolution, the churchyard at Trinity, including the old portion that had been the Dutch burial ground, was said to contain 160,000 graves.

In 1847 a proposal to extend Albany Street to connect it with Pine Street would have disturbed the northern portion of the Trinity Church churchyard, part of the 1662 Dutch burial ground. A government report advocated against the extension:

“[The burial ground] was established by the Dutch on their first settlement... It is nearly a century older than the other sections of the yard. It was originally a valley, about thirty feet lower at its extreme depth than the present surface, and has undergone successive fillings, as the density of interments rendered it necessary, to raise the land until it reached the present surface: so that the earth now, to a depth of several feet below the original, and thence to the present time of interment, is in truth filled with human remains, or rather composed of human ashes. The bodies buried there were [approximately 30,000 to 40,000] persons of several generations, and of all ages, sects and conditions, including a large number of the officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary War, who died whilst in British captivity; and almost every old family that is or ever was in this city, has friends or connections lying there.”

In an 1892 guidebook to New York City, Moses King wrote:

"Only the established and powerful corporations of Trinity and a few other churches have been able to resist the demands of modern life and business for the ground once sacred to the dead. Hundreds of acres [in Manhattan], now covered by huge buildings or converted into public thoroughfares, were at some time burial-places; over ninety of which have been thus existed, and passed away. Of most of them even the location has been forgotten…”

Trinity Churchyard still resides on Broadway at Rector Street, in lower Manhattan, two blocks from Federal Hall, the building where George Washington was sworn in, the “room where it happened” in the very early days of the Republic, and the New York Stock Exchange. The Anglican St. Paul’s Chapel, established on Broadway between Fulton and Vesey Streets around 1766, and its surrounding churchyard still remains in the shadow of the World Trade Center. Many of the other cemeteries that once resided in lower Manhattan are relics of memory. For example:
• The Middle Dutch Church, on the east side of Nassau Street between Cedar and Liberty Streets, was surrounded by a burial ground beginning in 1729. The bodies were removed sometime after 1844. The North Dutch Church on William Street between Fulton and Ann Streets had an adjacent burial ground from 1769 to 1875.
• The French burial ground on the northeast corner of Nassau and Pine Streets, extending north to Cedar Street (1704-1830);
• The Presbyterian churchyard on the north side of Wall Street opposite the end of New Street (1717-1844);
• The Old Brick Presbyterian Church graveyard on Beekman Street between Chatham and Nassau Streets (1768-1856);
• The cemetery located at Pearl, Duane, and Rose Streets which was leased from the city as early as 1765 but not used as a cemetery until after the Revolution; and
• A Lutheran Church and adjacent burial ground on south Pearl Street, a site which had become a vegetable market by 1706.
A cemetery on the south side of Houston Street between Eldridge and Stanton Street was used from 1796 to 1851 as the Reformed Dutch Church Cemetery, to provide excess capacity for the crowded churchyards. The bodies were disinterred and removed around 1874.

Meanwhile, Puritan colonists from England founded Boston in 1630. Unlike the religious and ethnic diversity that could be found in New Amsterdam/New York City during this time period, the Puritan leaders of Boston punished religious dissenters. Baptist minister Obadiah Holmes was publicly whipped in 1651 and Mary Dyer was hanged in Boston Common in 1660 for repeatedly defying a law banning Quaker from being in Massachusetts Bay Colony. However, prosperity in Boston led to the development of a more diverse community that included Catholics and Quakers and other groups that were initially persecuted by the Puritans. Eventually the Puritans began to accept that they could not have a unified church and state.

Puritan burying grounds were often located adjacent to the town’s meeting house. Headstones were expensive and many of the earliest were imported from England. Most often, early burials were marked with wood markers or primitive stones, if they were marked at all. The Puritan burying ground was a utilitarian space simply used to bury the dead. Puritans did not visit graves or maintain them. They were often very disorganized. Graves were tightly clustered and gravestones were often broken or buried as the cemetery became more populated. In many cases, graves were dug deep enough to accommodate 12 or more coffins placed on top of each other to within five feet of the surface.

Recall that in the 1650s, there was a petition to remove the Old Graveyard in New Amsterdam because hogs were rooting around. In Boston, the early burying grounds were used as communal space to graze cattle.

The oldest burying ground in Boston is King’s Chapel which is not, as the name suggests, the churchyard for the adjacent King’s Chapel. What was originally simply known as the “Burying Ground” was established in 1630 and was Boston’s only cemetery for 30 years. King’s Chapel is quite small, less than half an acre. It was used as a burial ground for 200 years, but estimates are that there are only about 1,500 burials. There are only 615 gravestones and 29 tabletop tomb markers remaining. Most graves include about four burials on top of one another. Excess remains were excavated and the bones were deposited in the charnel house that can still be seen on the edge of the burying ground. A charnel house would be a very familiar idea for the English colonists because English churchyards were similarly overcrowded. When the cemetery authorities ran out of ground for fresh burials, older burials were simply dug up and the bones were placed in a communal pit in the consecrated ground, or catacombs beneath the church. If you’ve visited any European churches, you’re probably familiar with this idea.

Although the idea of the charnel house was a feature of English churchyards, King’s Chapel Burying Ground was not a churchyard. It was a community burial ground and included people of all faiths, not just Puritans. It was more like a municipal, secular cemetery than a churchyard.

In all of the Boston burying grounds, it was common to have a headstone, highly decorated with the name and sometimes the biography of the deceased, and a footstone with only the name of the deceased. Graves were placed so that the feet of the deceased faced east. This was believed to have been done so that when Christ returns, the dead can simply stand up and walk to Jerusalem.

King’s Chapel also includes 29 underground tombs which consist of a burial room made of brick and covered with earth and grass. These are marked with box structures, but the boxes are just markers, not the tombs themselves. When the tombs needed to be opened, the box was removed and the entrance dug up.

In the early 1700s, 24 tombs were built along the back fence and in 1738, 23 tombs were built along Tremont Street. These are actually underneath the present-day sidewalk of Tremont Street and their markets and entrances are inside the fence.

King’s Chapel Burying Ground also includes a curious structure that looks like the top of a tomb or pit. That’s actually a subway fresh air ventilator shaft that was constructed in 1896. Human remains in that portion of the burying ground were relocated during the construction.

It is called King’s Chapel Burying Ground today because in 1686, Governor Edmund Andros wanted to build an Anglican church in Puritan Boston. This was an unpopular idea, so no one would sell him any land. So Andros built his church in part of the existing Burying Ground, right over existing graves. As you can imagine, this didn’t make Andros any more popular with the Puritans of Boston. After King’s Chapel was consecrated, people began referring to the adjacent cemetery as King’s Chapel Burying Ground, which also couldn’t have made the Puritans very happy.

In 1660, King’s Chapel was ordered closed “for some convenient season” and new burials directed to the second burying ground. Of course tombs were installed decades later and grave burials in King’s Chapel Burying Ground weren’t outlawed until 1826, although they continued until 1896.

The second burial ground in Boston was established in 1659 when the Selectment of Boston purchased ½ acre in the northern end of town. Originally called the North Burying Place or the North Burying Ground, the parcel was expanded in 1711 and 1809. It is now known as Copp’s Hill Burying Ground and is located just down the street from the Old North Church.

The City of Boston has counted 2,230 grave markers and 228 tombs in Copp’s Hill but the exact number of burials is unknown. Estimates range from 8,000 to 10,000. This includes an estimate of over 1,000 unmarked graves of African and African American slaves.

The third burying ground in Boston is located just down Tremont Street from King’s Chapel. Also established in 1660, the Old Granary Burying Ground is the final resting place of many important figures from the Revolutionary War including Paul Revere, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and the men killed in the Boston Massacre. Benjamin Franklin’s parents are also buried here.

Granary is located on 2 acres and contains 2,345 gravestones. In 1922, it was estimated that there were 8,030 burials over its 260 year history. Originally, Granary Burying Ground was part of the Boston Common, which then extended up Tremont Street. It was originally called the South Burying Ground, then renamed the Middle Burying Ground when one was established further south. It was finally renamed Granary Burying Ground because of the 12,000 bushel grain storage building built in 1737 to provide food for the poor and called the granary. The granary was moved to Dorchester in 1809 to make room for Park Street Church.

The final colonial burial ground that I’ll mention is the Central Burying Ground, which was established in 1754 on 1.4 acres at the corner of Boston Common on Boylston Street between Charles and Tremont Streets. There are only about 487 markers remaining, but records indicate that approximately 5,000 people are buried in Central Burying Ground, including many unmarked graves of paupers from the Alms House and inmates from the House of Industry. There are some unique tombs visible in Central Burying Ground because they are surrounded by a “moat” on both sides. The first tomb is thought to have been built in 1771. 149 tombs were built on the four sides of the burying ground and nearly half of the burials were in the tombs. But in 1836, Boylston Street was widened and 69 tombs were destroyed – the owners moved the remains either to the 60 tombs in the Dell or to the then-new Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. In 1895, the subway was being constructed along Boylston Street disturbing the remains of approximately 2,000 people. They were reburied in a mass grave in the northeast corner of Central Burying Ground. The last grave burial took placed in 1856, but tomb burials continued until the 1950s.

Until 1810, Central Burying Ground was called South Burying Ground, which is when Granary was renamed. Identifying burying grounds by their relative location to one another is clearly a bad strategy, as the constant re-naming of cemeteries in Boston demonstrates.

So I’ve described the first four cemeteries in Boston and the most famous cemetery in colonial New York – Trinity. The four colonial cemeteries in Boston were all owned by the government and non-sectarian, even though their practices resembled those of churchyards in England. New York, on the other hand, was dominated by churchyards in colonial days and the early days of the Republic. The challenges that these cemeteries faced in the beginning of the 1800s was similar in both cities, but the way that the cemeteries were changed as a result was very different. All four cemeteries I described are still in the heart of downtown Boston. In lower Manhattan, only Trinity and St. Paul’s Chapel remain.

The backlash against the colonial cemeteries was triggered by their overuse and their general lack of organization and maintenance.

In 1807, an Englishman named John Lambert visited New York. In his diary, he referred to Trinity Church and St. Paul’s Chapel as “handsome structures” but added:

"The adjoining churchyards, which occupy a large space of ground railed in from the street and crowded with tombstones, are far from being agreeable spectacles in such a populous city. … One would think there was a scarcity of land in America to see such large pieces of ground in one of the finest streets of New York occupied by the dead. The continual view of such a crowd of white and brown tombstones and monuments as is exhibited in the Broadway must tend very much to depress the spirits."

Some burial places had been closed and relocated in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. But the Nineteenth Century significantly accelerated that process. Overcrowded church yards and vaults (referred to as “intra-mural” burial grounds) were criticized by public health officials as “injurious to health, offensive to the senses, [and] repulsive to the taste of a refined age.”

In New York City, the precipitating event to efforts to halt intra-mural burial was the Yellow Fever epidemic that began in late July 1822 on Rector Street. Reported cases spread quickly and when the first cases on Broadway were reported, public health officials feared that if the disease was not contained, it would quickly engulf City Hall and force the government into exile. On August 7th, the Board of Health ordered that an area around Rector Street be quarantined by the erection of fences. The quarantine area had to be expanded quickly. Searching for a cause of the epidemic and an effective way to halt the spread of the disease, the Board of Health began to panic.

Prevailing medical thought of the day blamed epidemics on “miasma” and “infected air.” In early August, concerned about the cluster of cases in the area around Trinity Church, the Board of Health appointed a committee to “inquire into the expediency of regulating or preventing the interment of the dead in Trinity Church Yard during the continuance of the present epidemic.” The committee concluded that “the yard of that Church is at times, offensive to persons in its vicinity, and that, in the evening especially, the exhalations are such as perhaps are dangerous to the health of the citizens in its immediate neighborhood.” It was therefore recommended that “no grave be permitted to be opened or dug in Trinity Church Yard, until the further order of the Board of Health, under the penalty of one hundred dollars.” The proposed resolution was adopted by the Common Council on August 22nd.

Around the same time, a report from Dr. Samuel Ackerly to the Board of Health recommended that the ban on interments at Trinity be made permanent. Dr. Ackerly related the story of the Cathedral of Dijon, “which [recently] produced a malignant disease in the congregation from the putrid bodies of the persons buried in the vaults of the Church. The disease ceased after the Church was ventilated and fumigated.” This case was presented to the Board of Health as “proof that noxious exhalations may arise from dead bodies.” Accordingly, Dr. Ackerly suggested that the source of the Yellow Fever epidemic may be Trinity Church Yard, where “the ground has been one hundred and twenty-four years receiving the dead, and the evil day has at length arrived. To strike at the root of the evil,” Dr. Ackerly advised, “no further interments should be allowed there. The graves might be leveled and covered with a body of clay, upon which a layer of lime, ashes and charcoal should be placed, and the grave stones laid flat, that the rain may run off and not penetrate the soil to hasten putrefaction and increase the exhalations.”

On September 15th, the Board of Health “respectfully request[ed]” that churches with adjacent burial grounds in lower Manhattan cover their graves “thickly with lime, or charcoal, or both.” On September 23rd, Trinity Church Yard was covered with 52 casks of lime. The next day, 192 bushels of slacked lime were spread in St. Paul’s church yard, a few blocks north of Trinity Church. On September 28th, 172 bushels of slacked lime were spread “upon the grave-yard and about the vaults of the North Dutch church corner of William and Fulton-streets. The grounds about this church were not extensive and principally occupied by vaults, which nevertheless emitted very offensive effluvia.” Thirty additional casks of lime were slacked and spread at Trinity Church on October 1st. On October 8th, the vaults of the Middle Dutch Church at the corner of Liberty and Nassau were covered with 40 casks of lime. “These vaults were exceedingly offensive,” the Board of Health reported. It was also reported that “the vaults of the French church in Pine-street in the vicinity of the former church also emitted disagreeable smells.”

By late November 1822, the Yellow Fever epidemic had subsided. With an eye towards preventing the next outbreak, the Common Council passed a resolution to consider the future of intra-mural burial.

"It appears to be the opinion of Medical Men that the great number of the dead interred in the several cemeteries within the bounds of this City, is attended with injurious consequences to the health of the inhabitants. This subject is therefore worthy of consideration and if the effects are in reality such as some of the faculty declare them to be, ought not future interments be prohibited at least during a part of the year. …"

A law forbidding interments south of Canal Street was proposed in early 1823. At the time, there were at least 23 separate burial grounds south of Canal Street, many adjacent to churches. The leaders of the Reformed Dutch Church, the First Presbyterian Church, Grace Church, St. George’s Church, Christ’s Church, and Vestry of Zion Church all presented remonstrances to the Common Council in February 1823 objecting to the proposed law. Over those objections, a Law Respecting the Interment of the Dead was enacted by the Common Council on March 31, 1823.

"Be it ordained by the Mayor Aldermen & Commonalty of the City of New York in Common Council Convened. That if any Person or Persons shall after the first day of June next dig up or open any grave or cause or procure any grave to be opened in any burying ground cemetery or church yard or in any other part or place in this City which lies to the Southward of a line commencing at the centre of Canal Street on the North River and running through the centre of Canal Street to Sullivan Street thence through Sullivan st. to Grand Street thence through Grand St. to the East river or shall inter or deposit or cause or procure to be interred or deposited in any such grave any dead body every such person shall forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of Two hundred and fifty dollars."

"And be it further Ordained that no dead body shall after the first day of June aforesaid be interred or deposited in any vault or tomb south of the aforesaid line under the penalty of Two hundred and fifty dollars for each and every offence."

Churches south of Canal Street continued to fight the law. On April 21, 1823, the leaders of St. George Church, the Brick Presbyterian Church, the First Presbyterian Church of Wall Street, and Trinity Church requested revisions to permit some burials and entombments in private vaults. But the die had been cast. As the population of Manhattan grew, the Common Council moved the line prohibiting new burials northward, first to 14th Street, then to 86th Street. Without the income generated by burials, many churches closed their doors and relocated their dead to the new rural cemeteries in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.

Similar complaints in Boston prompted the creation of Mount Auburn Cemetery, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of the most important and earliest rural cemeteries. Justice Joseph Story gave the address at the dedication of Mount Auburn cemetery in 1831. Story, then an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court and a professor at Harvard Law School, emphasized “the duty of the living” to “provide for the dead.” He explained that although the obligation to provide “grounds … for the repose of the dead” is a Christian duty, our “tender regard for the dead” is universal and “deeply founded in human affection.”

Justice Story explained that Mount Auburn had been founded to cure the problem with the Boston colonial cemeteries.

"It is painful to reflect, that the Cemeteries in our cities, crowded on all sides by the overhanging habitations of the living, are walled in only to preserve them from violation. And that in our country towns they are left in a sad, neglected state, exposed to every sort of intrusion, with scarcely a tree to shelter their barrenness, or a shrub to spread a grateful shade over the new-made hillock."

Story argued that “there are higher moral purposes” that lead us to establish and care for cemeteries—"[i]t should not be for the poor purpose of gratifying our vanity or pride, that we should erect columns, and obelisks, and monuments to the dead; but that we may read thereon much of our own destiny and duty.”

"[T]he repositories of the dead bring home thoughts full of admonition, of instruction, and slowly but surely, of consolation also. They admonish us, but their very silence, of our own frail and transitory being. They instruct us in the true value of life, and in its noble purposes, its duties, and its destinations. … We return to the world, and we feel ourselves purer, and better, and wiser, from this communion with the dead.

I hope you’ve enjoyed this first episode in my series on Cemetery Tourism, and I hope that next time you’re in New York or Boston, you take the time to check out not only these colonial cemeteries located in the heart of the old cities, but the beautiful rural cemeteries that were later constructed – Mount Auburn in Cambridge, Green-wood in Brooklyn and Woodlawn in the Bronx. I’ll perhaps talk about the rural cemetery movement in a future episode. If you are interested in having me focus on particular cemeteries, please let me know by visiting www.deathetseq.com or dropping me a comment or a direct message on Facebook or Twitter.

Thank you for joining me today on Death, et seq.

Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
S’abonner Se désabonner
Partager

Episodes

Episode 22: NYC Cemeteries & Crematories in the COVID 19 Pandemic
26 avril 2020· Death, et seq.
The death care system in the New York City metropolitan area is overwhelmed. In this episode, we speak with Phil Tassi, President of the New York State Association of Cemeteries (NYSAC), and David Fleming, legislative director of NYSAC, to better understand the challenges facing cemeteries and crematories in the state.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 21: Death Care in the Time of COVID 19 with Amy Cunningham
19 avril 2020· Death, et seq.
Recorded on April 18, 2020, Brooklyn funeral director Amy Cunningham explains how death care is being handled in New York City a month into the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episodes manquant?

Cliquez ici pour raffraichir la page manuellement.
Episode 20: Planning for Incapacity with Jonah Bamel and Greg Volk
4 févr. 2019· Death, et seq.
Estate planning should involve more than simply creating the appropriate documents to address who will receive your property after your death. Modern estate planning also includes some planning for a period of time prior to death, particularly if circumstances arise that a person cannot manage their own property or cannot make health care decisions for themselves. The vast majority of people will die after a period of some incapacity. If that period is short, then there are few problems. But because that period can be months or even years, many people want to make arrangements with respect to their property and health care in case the need arises.
There are three basic documents for planning for the period of incapacity that Jonah Bamel, Greg Volk and Tanya Marsh discuss in this episode: (1) a health care proxy or health care power of attorney; (2) living will or advance directive; and (3) durable power of attorney.
Visit www.deathetseq.com for links to additional resources.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 19: Discussing Cremation with Barbara Kemmis of CANA
14 janv. 2019· Death, et seq.
On this week’s episode, I am happy to share with you a conversation that I recently had with Barbara Kemmis, the Executive Director of the Cremation Association of North America, or CANA. Cremation is on the rise in the United States. As Barbara will explain, after it was legalized in a handful of states in the 1870s, it took about a century for the cremation rate to hit 5% in this country. For the past several years, cremation has been a more popular option in the United States than burial, which represents a seismic shift in American disposition practices. Barbara and I will discuss the rising cremation rate, some of the reasons that people have been embracing cremation, and research conducted by CANA regarding correlations between demographic information and the cremation rate. I also ask Barbara about the environmental impacts of cremation and she shares some of the research that CANA has done in that area as well.
To learn more:
Industry Statistics: https://www.cremationassociation.org/page/IndustryStatistics
Roaming/Rooted Blogpost Link: https://www.cremationassociation.org/blogpost/776820/280926/Enhanced-Statistics-Enhance-Your-Business-Success
Link to all posts about stats: https://www.cremationassociation.org/blogpost/776820/The-Cremation-Logs?tag=statistics
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 18: Music & Mortality: Murder Ballads and The Couldn't Be Happiers
7 janv. 2019· Death, et seq.
Jodi Hildebran Lee and Jordan Crosby Lee are the Couldn't Be Happiers. Check them out at www.couldbehappiers.com. On this episode, they play murder ballads The Long Black Veil and a feminist re-imagining of Pretty Polly, plus their original song Jackson Square (which may or may not be about reincarnation).
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 17: The Impact of the Protestant Reformation on Burial Practices (with Jordan Artrip)
7 janv. 2019· Death, et seq.
The Protestant Reformation of the early 16th century changed countless aspects of everyday life for every kind of person across Europe. One of the things most profoundly affected was the popular conception of death. On this episode, I will be speaking with third year Wake Forest University Law School student Jordan Artrip about how the theology of the Reformation caused a paradigm shift for how death and the dead were viewed by society, as well as the practical effects of that shift on life and religious practice.
Topics addressed in episode:
For everyday people living during Christendom, one’s view of death and the dead was inextricably linked to the teaching of whichever church was dominant in their particular time and region. How did the theology of the Medieval Church shape peoples’ view of death and the dead on the eve of the Reformation?How did this belief in purgatory and the efficacy of intercessional prayer manifest itself in the practices of the Church regarding the dead?How did changes brought by the Reformation impact the level of memorialization that we see today in churches?How did changes in theology impact local burial practices?How did practices change in areas of Europe where the Catholic Church remained dominant?What impact did the Reformation and related changes in burial practices in Christian Europe have on the development of the law and social norms in the United States?
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 16: Music, Mortality & The Avett Brothers with Tim Mossberger
3 nov. 2018· Death, et seq.
About a month ago, I sat down with my friend Tim Mossberger in Champaign, Illinois to talk about our mutual favorite band, The Avett Brothers, and a bunch of their songs that deal with topics related to mortality.
Tim has a website called As My Life Turns to a Song – The Avett Brothers Archive. He has been methodically collecting and documenting the history of the band, and together with Paul Oehler has created an Avett setlist database that is as comprehensive as possible. And with me, Tim has created Tales of Avett News, a blog where we publish concert reviews, interviews with Avett fans and people connected with the band, and other content of interest to Avett fans.
In this episode, Tim and I discuss a number of Avett Brothers songs that deal with various aspects of mortality including:
The Fall
Talk on Indolence
The Lowering
Die Die Die
Another Youngster
Am I Born to Die (cover)
Live and Die
Life
Through My Prayers
Once and Future Carpenter
Morning Song
Murder in the City
No Hard Feelings
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 15: Death Related Holidays with Tyler Cunningham
29 oct. 2018· Death, et seq.
Death is celebrated all over the world on annual basis. More than 175 million Americans will celebrate Halloween this year, with total spending in 2018 reaching $9 billion, with the average consumer planning to spend $86.79 on decorations, candy, costumes and more. While celebrated on a mass scale, most Americans likely do not know the history behind Halloween and how it has turned into a billion-dollar industry.
Another major death related holiday that is often associated with Halloween, Dia de los Muertos, is actually its own unique holiday, where families spend even more than the average American consumer, as anywhere from two weeks to two months wages are spent on average honoring the dead.
Today's podcast will discuss the history and current trends of Halloween and Dias de los Muertos, as well as take a deeper look into some other interesting death related holidays from around the world that our listeners may be less familiar with.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 14: Cemetery Tourism in Philadelphia and Music by Dan Zlotnick
26 oct. 2018· Death, et seq.
This hybrid episode combines Cemetery Tourism in Philadelphia and the music of recording artist Dan Zlotnick. In Part I, I discuss the history and some of the notable burials in Spruce Street Cemetery, the Old Pine Street Church churchyard, Christ Church churchyard and burial ground, the potter’s field in Washington Square, and Laurel Hill Cemetery. In Part II, singer-songwriter Dan Zlotnick shares two original songs, “Day 2 for Dina,” and “The Man Who Died Here Saved Me,” as well as his covers of The Avett Brothers’ “The Greatest Sum” and the folk song “Hang Me, Oh Hang Me.”
Check out Dan's music at https://www.danzlotnick.com/.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 13: Sarah Crews on Conservation Burial, Home Funerals, Music & Mortality
8 oct. 2018· Death, et seq.
This is Tanya Marsh and you’re listening to Death, et seq. My guest this week is Sarah Crews, the director of Heart Land Prairie Cemetery in Salina, Kansas, the first all natural burial ground in Kansas, and the President of the National Home Funeral Alliance. Sarah also has a background in hospice and music.
Links:
National Home Funeral Alliance
Heart Land Prairie Cemetery
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 12: Josh Slocum of The Funeral Consumers Alliance
24 sept. 2018· Death, et seq.
My guest this week is my friend Josh Slocum, who is the Executive Director of Funeral Consumers Alliance and the co-author of Final Rights: Reclaiming the American Way of Death. Josh is a consumer advocate who is also willing to give consumers a little tough love in the face of what he refers to as learned helplessness. At the same time, he argues that the industry should be more transparent with pricing so that consumers are better able to make decisions that are meaningful and affordable.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 11: Amy Cunningham and the Meaningful Funeral
27 août 2018· Death, et seq.
Amy Cunningham is a progressive funeral director and the owner of Fitting Tribute Funeral Services in New York City. A former journalist, Amy co-authors a blog, The Inspired Funeral, with Kateyanne Unullisi.
Full Transcript:
Intro: This is Tanya Marsh and you’re listening to Death, et seq. The Fall semester just started at Wake Forest, so we’ve gone to episodes every other week for a little while, but the students in my Funeral and Cemetery Law class this semester will be helping me with some episodes, so you can look forward to some interesting topics. In the near future, you can look forward to an interview with Josh Slocum, the Executive Director of Funeral Consumers Alliance, and a conversation with my friend Tim Mossberger, the unofficial archivist of The Avett Brothers, about their music and mortality.
But today’s episode is an interview with my friend Amy Cunningham, who is a progressive funeral director in Brooklyn, New York. Amy went to mortuary school in her 50s and embarked on this second career with an incredible amount of energy and empathy. She is the owner of Fitting Tribute Funeral Services and she is one of my favorite people. I hope you enjoy our conversation.
Tanya Marsh: I am sitting with Amy Cunningham today in Brooklyn. Thank you, Amy so much for joining me on Death, et seq.
Amy Cunningham: Hi Tanya. I’m very excited to be here.
Tanya: Amy, I think of you as a non-traditional funeral director for a couple of reasons. You don't come from a funeral family. This is your second career. And you actively promote home funerals, green burials, and a number of other of “non-traditional” processes, rituals, and methods of disposition. And you do all of this in a state, New York, whose licensing makes it particularly difficult to be a non-traditional funeral director because of the licensing requirements. So can you just share your story and what motivated you to become a funeral director?
Amy: Sure, it started with my father's death in South Carolina in the care of hospice and you know down there it's obvious to people in the small towns who to call when they need a funeral director—they know the funeral director from the Chamber of Commerce, from Rotary. So when my dad died we gave him a magnificent music-infused funeral service in the Presbyterian Church. I was amazed by the sweetness of the funeral director down there.
I came back to Brooklyn. I was then a journalist writing about Buddhism meditations, spirituality, the new spiritual marketplace in the United States, how families were into marrying and mixing faith within their family system. I came back to Brooklyn after Dad's funeral and said to my husband, “gosh I admired that funeral director so much. I wonder what it would be like to be a funeral director. I wonder how you go about doing that.” That was in 2009, and six months later I was enrolled in mortuary school here in New York.
It was a very rigorous demanding year and far more embalming and chemistry and science education than I ever anticipated. I'm not bitter about that now, but I was then. I got through all that and then took six months to, at the age of 54, not many funeral homes are eager to hire a mother of two who's had a career in journalism that doesn't seem applicable to the funeral biz. So it took a while to get a residency. But I did land a good one with a marvelous man who trained me and then I stayed there for three years and was always consistently interested in meeting the needs of families with a lot going on in terms of their faith constellation. The average family I meet with in Brooklyn these days—someone's a lapsed Catholic, someone's Jewish, someone's going to Buddhist retreats and practicing yoga. And they're trying to figure out how to arrange a funeral for a grandmother who had no faith at all, but then became a Mormon in the nursing home where she fell in love with the chaplain who was a Mormon and people come to me in that state. And when I sit with the family like that I feel I'm really in my sweet spot that I can truly help validate them and show them that they are not atypical that this is really the way we are right now in the United States. We can build a good ceremony.
Tanya: I like that phrase “faith constellation” because that kind of pushes back on the notion—a notion about America in general, but maybe Brooklyn in particular, that we are increasingly unchurched and without faith. But that's suggesting that you actually have this sort of diversity and these mixed families of different ritual backgrounds, different faith backgrounds and so trying to find the middle ground or factors that are common to all of them, something that's meaningful.
Amy: And yes there's a core of spirituality there and there may even be prayers or poetry that is loved within that family. So it's finding the right mix of language and music and the flowers and the right casket for that kind of group. They've got a lot going on so they want to keep it simple. And they're terrified about being ripped off or paying too much and too many people come in quite uninformed so to guide that kind of family through an experience that that then leaves them in an exalted, uplifted place is very meaningful work and I love it.
Tanya: So what would you say your goal is as a funeral director with respect to families and the funerals that you're trying to accomplish.
Amy: While I do a lot of alternative services, home funerals, green burials, witnessed cremations, I start out a bit simpler than that. I just want to give them a kind of ritual, a separation ritual that will be meaningful to them and that will endorse or include the values of the deceased and also send them out of the cemetery or out of the crematory that day off to their luncheon or whatever meal they're going to have after the service send them off in a place where they feel that that deceased person was loved, honored take good care of, and that we really did as a group the best job we possibly could.
Tanya: Do you tend to deal with people more on a preneed basis? Do you have a lot of people come to you in advance to arrange their own funerals, or do you find that you're dealing more with families after the fact, or is it a mixture.
Amy: Increasingly, as I get better now I've been very fortunate to have some good press, people are coming to me in advance. But I would say more frequently they're calling me the night of or two days prior to the death and the care of hospice occurring. A lot of my folks are dying in the care of hospice. I'm making inroads through hospice and getting known to hospice workers as someone who will take not only take great care of the deceased person but manage that complex family constellation.
Tanya: And so mostly you're serving people in Brooklyn?
Amy: Brooklyn and Manhattan, and Queens recently.
Tanya: And then where are their families located? Are the families predominantly local. Or is an aspect of it that … I mean is part of the reason that people are calling you sort of at the last minute because the families coming in from out of town and nobody has made any arrangements.
Amy: Some of that. I'm calling people who are in hospital corridors. But the cell phone will say they live in Portland or Cincinnati or Florida. So a lot of kids with parents dying here in New York because that's got that's got to be a challenge.
Tanya: If you're not from a funeral family, you're not inheriting a funeral home or buying into an existing funeral home that has a book of business.
Amy: Right.
Tanya: Because most funeral consumers, the studies show, don't shop around. And there's an incredible reliance on using the funeral home that you've gone to funerals at before, to stick with a funeral director or a funeral home for multiple generations. So what are some ways just from a marketing perspective, getting started as a new business owner that you've tried to use to combat some of that.
Amy: I used my background in journalism to develop some PowerPoint presentations that are purely educational or are not sales pitches. I just show people what a cremation is. What is cremation history. What did cremations look like in ancient Rome. And I started delivering those presentations at the Park Slope Food Co-op. Now we have 15,000 members in an alternative grocery store here in Brooklyn. And then my little show kind of took off and went on the road and Greenwood Cemetery now has me giving those kinds of workshops monthly and that's been great for all of Brooklyn. If someone asks me for a business card I may give it to them but it's not about spreading the word of my company, it's more about just giving them the facts because I think all funeral directors need to see themselves as educators. Death is a rather complicated today and there are a lot of important decisions to make involving thousands of dollars. And families will really feel cared for when they feel like they've been educated not just sold a bunch of goods.
Tanya: Is it that younger people? Older people?
Amy: It's neat. A lot of older people sometimes maybe couples in their 50s, 60s, 70s saying to each other “we really got to get going on this. We want to spare our children the struggle of putting a funeral together for us.” But then also I'm seeing people in their 20s and 30s are interested in funeral planning but also looking at careers in the end of life sphere. And I love these kids. I'm really impressed with the young people I'm meeting. I tell older people are in good hands because these are the people who are going to be taking care of us. And I think the book has not yet been written on how 9/11 influenced a whole generation of people. and deaths awareness and Caitlin Doughty’s books and all the great articles that have been running in The New York Times about getting ready for death and how to face it with dignity and courage. All of that is feeding a culture of young people who really want to get involved and help do death differently. In whatever way that means. And we used to say … I lead a Death Cafe at the cemetery now and it used to be said that death was the last thing any family wanted to discuss. And it was a forbidden topic. I don't find that to be true anymore. I think podcasts like yours, everything that's going on, has made death much more interesting to folks and a great topic to contemplate daily, just as the Buddhists advocate that life is improved through death and contemplation and then awareness.
Tanya: The rural cemetery movement of which Greenwood was a part of, Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge Massachusetts as a part, were designed in part to give lessons to the living. They were designed as places of contemplation. I mean that was a thing that was part of our culture not that long ago a century, a century ago, and that we've really lost connection with. That acknowledging death and its inevitability and trying to think about how we want to deal with it both for ourselves and for the people that we care about doesn't have to be a scary icky saying it's actually an affirming thing right.
Amy: Right. I may be a funeral director because I spent two weeks every summer of my girlhood in Texas and my grandparents used to take me to church every Sunday. And then after church we would drive to the cemetery. It wasn't even a topic of conversation. We would just go pull weeds up look at the stones and say, oh you know, there's Aunt Mildred. And then just go out to lunch. Nothing was really spoken, that was just a ritual that we had.
Tanya: I mean I used to go to Nebraska in the summer of visit my grandparents and my grandmother and I in particular we used to go around to all the cemeteries in the county and she'd point out to me who all our people were. We'd pull grass. We were just in Nebraska about three weeks ago and cleaned up some grass around some of the tombstones, and I think I put on Facebook that were visiting my grandmother.
Amy: It’s a lovely thing.
Tanya: It's a connection. It's a connection through the generations and your relationships with people don't end at death. So Amy, you've talked about people coming from a whole diversity of backgrounds and positions of faith or ways of looking at the world and what some of the common factors in a good funeral might be. So have you thought about what makes a good funeral regardless of your background?
Amy: I think even folks who are secular do well to study the structure of a religious funeral, because there are keys to the high notes and the important moments there. Even the terminology and the names of things are wonderful to study. I was just looking up the “death knell.” They used to ring bells when deaths occurred. There used to be callers out on the street, centuries ago, who would notify the community of the death. Today we have Facebook. We toll the bell in a completely different way, but a good funeral involves acknowledgement of the death, an announcement, an obituary, something like that.
Tanya: An acknowledgement to the community and by the community.
Amy: Right. And then kind of separating process. You know not all deaths occur in the presence of family. But when that death has occurred in the hospital room and family members are standing there weeping…we need to figure out how to, if there's not going to be a home funeral, preferably, it's wonderful to advise the family, if you get them early enough and can educate them, to spend some time with that deceased person and alert them to the fact that it is perfectly legal to keep that deceased person in a hospital room for three or four hours, or if death has occurred in a home in the care of hospice, that person doesn't need to be whisked away. We shouldn't be afraid of the body that we can actually sit there, cry, tell stories … hold the hand of the deceased, comb the deceased’s hair, maybe dress them, wrap them in a shroud. There's things that we can do at these moments that are very beautiful. So a good funeral I feel involves some involvement with the body. That doesn't mean if it's not your tradition, or not your inclination to be with a deceased person's physical body, you can sit in a quiet chapel at the crematory or at the funeral home in the presence of the body in a closed casket, you're still with the body, the body is still there. So I help people who are intimidated by too big an old fashioned deathbed experience to at least maybe sit in the funeral firm for a moment and have something like a visitation. So the announcement, the body, and then some kind of acknowledgement of the meaningfulness of that deceased person's life through a eulogy, through could be a written statement, something often in the context of a service, I think is great. And just feeling like you said to that person everything you had to say and that if you loved them, you said that in the presence of their body even when life is no longer going on within it. And then I think there should be something having to do with friends and a meal or you know these are the the bits, and I divide it up and look at it. And every family does part of it differently and some families try to forego a lot of it, but if they can just have one piece of it, then I feel like they have something they can talk about later and share with their friends that we did the best we could. We gave mom a good send off … we looked through photo albums. There's just there's a lot to it. And the days that unfold after death in the family… we call it a liminal time and space. Sometimes I call it sacred. If someone is secular and they don't like that word it's a special time. It's not every day you have a death in the family. So do whatever you can carefully try to seal yourself away from work and find activities that that will help you honor that person. It could be as a small ritual as if your grandfather washed his car every Saturday, you could start washing your car every Saturday. Some kind of little funny thing that brings that life back to you. You could change your Facebook password to have that person's name in it. Little teeny salutes to the value of that person's existence. I think make for a pretty good funeral.
Tanya: We’ve also talked about that you think the start of a good funeral is with the transfer process and there are improvements that the industry more generally could make to the transfer process.
Amy: Tanya, if I could make one change in the funeral business, if I could just help the industry see that that transfer from the place of death is the beginning of the funeral. This is where the healing will begin. To train the people who are coming into hospital, walking down the corridor with the rolling funeral home stretcher or cot and orchestrating a transfer from that bed where the deceased person died in and taking … it's a changing of the guard. It's taking a deceased person out of the hospital or the home and into the funeral home and doing that with grace and art and respect. And so many families come to me and say “oh my god my mother died and these guys came and they asked us to leave the room and then we heard the zipping of this bag and then they left as if they didn't want to talk to us anymore. And that was that. And we felt there was a tremendous rupture and sadness and that's when we began to grieve.” That's an unfortunate moment. So I like to go to hospitals with flowers in my arms. I greet the family. I speak to the deceased person by name. And everybody seems to feel good about that … that they know they're giving me permission to transfer that deceased person and take them into my care. But on a slower schedule, at a pace that they can tolerate, and including them and asking them to put music on a cellphone so that when we walk out the door and down the hospital corridor there's some kind of ballad in the background that articulates something about their love for that person. I have a very pretty cot cover. Nothing's ugly. I put flowers in the arms of the deceased so often. There might be flowers on the window sill that have been languishing there through the whole prolonged end of life period. So I take those flowers and I put them in the deceased’s hands and we cover with a pretty cot cover and we only cover the face when the family has told us it's OK to cover the face. So it's a moment and it's a … I make it a thing. I've tried to bring pageantry and a kind of ecstasy back into the whole period and make people feel like home. Okay, now we can go home we can bathe we can be ourselves for a while and let's get ready for the next phase of this thing.
Tanya: I think it's so interesting because I've had a lot of conversations so far with people talking about the diminishment of the ritual as in the funeral. But you're talking about imbuing this whole period right after death with ritual that I think we have not had more broadly speaking right. And you're right. I mean the death of a person is such an abrupt transformation. Psychologists and sociologists have talked about, how at least in Western culture, we view human remains as unclean and that part of the funeral ritual like embalming and dressing and putting makeup on is and making a person look more alive is a way of socially transforming this unclean thing into a clean thing because it appears to be alive. Which is I think sort of, more traditionally for the past century, the way that we've all kind of viewed this and so if you look at it through that lens, yeah, take the unclean thing away immediately and then make it presentable again to be given to the living but you're sort of rejecting that idea. And I don't think you're alone in that. I mean I think there are a number of people who are rejecting that idea and saying that it is in fact that abrupt transformation or wrenching away the body that is unhealthy right to processing grief and saying goodbye.
Amy: I think of it energetically and I feel like there's still even after a death has occurred a life energy in the room. So I happen to feel, at least it's very helpful to me. I don't know if a soul exists. It's very helpful to me as a funeral director to believe that one does because I comport myself as if the soul is watching me at all times. And it's a mindfulness practice. You have to feel that that deceased person has their eyes on you and that's a lovely relationship. It's not scary. It's a great thing. I talk to deceased people. I that kind of energy in the room. And I think people respond very positively to that. My funeral families seem to like me for that reason. None of us know. But it’s a good idea to just trust.
Tanya: So I I've been asking this question of a lot of people and plan to continue to do and to do so and I think your answer just sort of showed your hand on how you might answer it. But do you think that funerals are for the dead or for the living. In other words, should we be respecting the wishes of the deceased with respect to their own funerals. Or should we be focusing more on what those that they've left behind want out of the whole process.
Amy: This is the great mystic question. Actually, it was discussed in the first week mortuary school. And I think the technical answer is that it is for the living.
Tanya: What do you mean the technical answer, you mean the answer that funeral school…
Amy: Yeah, that you're wanting to engage that family in in a meaningful experience and that they are paying for a meaningful experience. But the wishes of the deceased certainly have to come in there. If grandma was a strict Roman Catholic, many families come to me saying we don't go to Mass anymore but grandma would want us to do this. This is what we're doing. Or they might adapt it a little bit, change it slightly. But I do think sometimes the wishes of the deceased can be disobeyed. And this is my example of that. It's not what you think. A friend of mine's mother said “I will haunt you,” as she was dying, “if you give me any kind of funeral. I don't want any funeral.” And they didn't have a funeral. And months later my friend was saying you know that was like Mom's final deprivation. We should have done something. So I think sometimes dying people may insist they don't want much but I think we can give them more than they ask for.
Tanya: Well I think it's interesting especially since you mentioned that in the first week of funeral school that this was something you talked about, because the position of the law, and this has been true since Roman times, is that it's the decedent's wishes that matter. Right now part of this I think in the Anglo-American system had to do with the established Church of England and Christian doctrine about you need to be buried in consecrated ground. You needed to have, you know, the priest or the minister preside over your funeral if you were going to be resurrected eventually. So it was so important for the deceased that there remains be treated in the correct way and their eternal salvation rested upon that. That it was like a social contract. I'll take care of you, if you take care of me. And it was sort of an assumed baseline of what the decedents were going to want.
Amy: It’s fascinating.
Tanya: So the attitude of the funeral industry is so opposite to the tradition of the law that that's just it's really fascinating to me when you have these kind of incredible tensions and disconnect between two different institutions that are both sort of longstanding. No wonder people are confused, right?
Amy: And that makes the appointment of agent to control the disposition of remains that are very important for people who whose wishes run contrary to the wishes of their families and that they want to make sure that they're protected.
Tanya: Well and you know a practical problem that I've heard a lot of funeral directors say is that especially if a person died and they didn't have a spouse or their spouse predecease them and they have children where they have you know some other category of people who get to make a decision and that there's disagreement within the category. Divorced parents making a decision for a deceased child or children making a decision on behalf of a parent that you can have real practical problems and try and sort it all out. And that's the deceased left behind instructions then that's going to be a lot easier for everybody.
Amy: Exactly.
Tanya: So what kind of conversations do you have with people on a preneed or an at-need basis in terms of what kind of goods and services that they're looking for from you. In other words, why are families or soon to be decedents coming to you and so some other funeral establishment.
Amy: Well one thing that I offer, and I'm very clear about on my website, is that I make every effort to make the funeral eco-friendly. So my customers tend to come to me because they know I'm going to offer them a simple casket and they also are not interested in embalming. My customer almost uniformly … I think maybe I might have one or two embalmings a year. And I don't mean to upset embalmers or be anti-embalming. It's just interesting to note that my customer is wary of embalming and not desiring that. So they may even ask about it, “You're not going to embalm.” And I say as you know, that's what I say on my website, I make every every effort not to embalm. I partner, I have my registration at a Jewish firm and it has a very large refrigerated space. So all our deceased people live back there, they are kept cool and can last a long time without any chemical intervention. That's … I've found that there are enough New Yorkers who find that important that they come to me and trust me.
Tanya: And so a lot of people are coming to because of environmental considerations.
Amy: Yes.
Tanya: And so you have observed that their objection to embalming is part and parcel of their environmental considerations? Or is there something else going on with their objection to embalming?
Amy: That’s a great question. I think they want as little intervention as possible. And here's the key word—they want an authentic experience. They want authenticity the whole way.
Tanya: And they're viewing embalming as antithetical to authenticity.
Amy: Yes. And I feel that there's a new generation of funeral customer who wants to see what death looks like. I recently had a family that even said “don't even close Dad's mouth.” A lot of funeral directors would find that outrageous, that of course you're going to close the deceased’s mouth for them. But this family said he looks fine. And they want things as natural as possible. And they're sometimes very amenable to viewing with very minimal care. They say goodbye at the hospital. They may take a glance or sit with the open casket for a time and they don't feel that chemicals are useful to them. And this is a customer that wants to watch money. But I also feel like they might be shopping at Whole Foods where they may be paying a bit extra for an organic apple just because it's organic.
Tanya: Right. So interest in driving down the price of the funeral is not something that you've observed is a primary consideration.
Amy: I tell that to other funeral directors as the good news of this thing because this customer wants it real and is willing to pay for that.
Tanya: So what does a home funeral look like in New York City? Because it's always seemed to me that the urban areas were some of the first places where funeral homes became popular and widespread because people simply didn't have enough space in their own parlors. They had to go to a funeral parlor. And you still have some of the space considerations and people don't have cars. I mean you have a lot of sort of practical constraints in a city like this that you don't have in many other places that would that would seem to complicate a home funeral. So are you looking at home funerals and for the folks that come to you, it's like a whole range of different options?
Amy: Sometimes a home funeral in New York is a delayed transfer or pickup. I'll get a call from a family they'll say “we've just called hospice. Mom is dead. We'd like four hours.” And I say “great you know let's set a time. Let's send text messages to each other. You tell me when you're ready and we’ll come over.” That's a mini home funeral. You don't need any dry ice for that. Sometimes it's an overnight. We've done quite a few of those. Sometimes it's a longer, more prolonged ritual. I had a Tibetan case where we kept a deceased gentleman in an apartment in Bushwick Brooklyn for almost three days.
Tanya: You used dry ice?
Amy: I left dry ice there but that particular gentleman was an advanced tantric practitioner. He visited with the Dalai Lama before his death. That gentleman was almost incorruptible. He was magnificent and knew how to die. And if ice was used, it was very little. Quite fascinating. But that was a great experience. But there have been other times where we brought deceased individuals into a brownstone in Brooklyn and laid them out in the parlor in the old fashioned way and then taken them back to the funeral home in the casket that night. So you're right, we have smaller living spaces, I think where the family centered funeral is really inhibited in New York and only at the point of families ever using their own cars or carrying someone out onto West 57th Street. That's not gonna happen anytime soon. I've had conversations with Josh Slocum about this. Much can be overcome that the city does pose some obstacles.
Tanya: You mean just the practical realities of living in the city.
Amy: I envy the Texans who can put granddad's casket in a pickup truck and take to the cemetery themselves. That's a tall order here in New York. We still have and that's why part of my business is rather conventional. I still use hearses and sometimes limousines. We have old fashioned cortège going to the cemetery and cars in sequence and all the old trapping, but New Yorkers still gravitate to that and want a little bit of pomp and circumstance.
Tanya: So you mentioned witnessed cremations a couple of times. And I think that's really interesting to talk about. Because I've been to … Fresh Pond Crematory and toured that and that's a fascinating historical place that is really set up to and oriented to witnessed cremations for people from a whole bunch of different faith perspectives. I mean I think they've made a real effort to be to be inclusive in that way. But not every state has witnessed cremations or makes it very easy to have a witnessed cremation. So what do you think is valuable for families if anything about experiencing a witness cremation?
Amy: Witnessed cremation has gone up a lot in my practice in the last two years. I think some people want to accompany their loved one the whole way as far as they can almost as if it's to the edge of a kind of grave they want of an experience. It's not that … I am careful with my language … it's not that they want it but they find benefit in the witness. What is a witness—it means that after the chapel service at the crematory or a funeral home, you can go to the area of the cremation plant or facility and witness the casket entering the cremation chamber or retort. The door is opened. Generally at Green-Wood the casket is on a lift, a hydraulic lift, it lifts up to the height of the retort and then the men gently guide that vessel into the chamber …
Tanya: I've been I've been to the crematory at Green-Wood as well, and so the family is standing in a separate room, right? And so there's curtains…
Amy: They’ve redesigned it. We’re going into the retort room now because it's so beautifully styled and designed. It's so beautiful back there. The metal of the doors is a kind of bronze and they're symbols of the world of antiquity back there that are very touching and moving. When that chamber opens you see a sort of arch of brick on the top of it and the glow of the embers. You don't see flames but if the family opts for this they can push a button on the wall that then lowers very slowly the door of the retort. It has a kind of magnificence to it. And certainly a finality. I don't use the word closure because there is no such thing as closure. You're going to carry this loss with you for the rest of your life. But it does make people feel like wow I took it as far as I could. I was with her every step of the way. And I was sort of available for every emotional aspect of this experience. People's knees buckle a little bit but they walk out of the room saying “Wow I've never seen anything like that before. Thank you.”
Tanya: So that really challenges the notion that people are opting for cremation primarily because of cost. I mean because it was I guess it all has to do with the ritual that surrounds it because the pushing the button and the witnessing seems very similar to a graveside service where you're where you're putting a handful of dirt on the casket.
Amy: Yeah. People want to do things even in a time of grief. And when I think of my male compatriots and my teachers in the industry who I love. I notice that in their lovely masculine way they've been depriving people of experiences because they feel that those experiences aren't good for them. And they say we will take it off your hands. We will do it for you. We are here for you. And it's very nice. And some families like that but increasingly families are saying “no we want to do that. We want to be there. You don't have to take it off our hands. We want to pay you to allow us to be there and be fully present.”
Tanya: That we're going to get more value as a family from involving ourselves in the process.
Amy: I recently had a group of people, a family, seated in the home with the deceased person present. They had on their own after death lit candles, put rose petals around her body, bathed her, brushed her hair, and then they were ready for me to come. I ended up coming with my own two man stretcher which is like a fireman's pallet. And I didn't call the man at the firm that I used to help me with these transfers. I went by myself and we were on the upstairs level of a two-story townhome and I said to the people assembled: “Listen, I thought about you guys, I knew that you have dressed her and cared for her and been here all this time. I thought that you might want to help me carry her out down the stairs.” Not every funeral director would be comfortable with this because there are liabilities, what if somebody stumbles. What if… it's always gone well for me, I don't know how to explain it any better, because it's like this family would have paid more to have the experience of carrying their loved one out of the house. That's an extreme example. But when we got to the bottom of the stairs we put this lovely woman, we covered her respectfully in gorgeous fabric. We put her in the back of my car. I closed the door. I turned to them and the gratitude was amazing to observe.
These are very small ways that we can include families and continuing to love the person that they are now missing and help them in their adjustment to the new reality.
Tanya: Let me ask you a final question for you but before we get to that this is sort of a mundane question. A lot of the things that you described doing do not fit with the general price list.
Amy: Yes.
Tanya: So how do you try to forge this new set of services? The gorgeous fabric, the involving the family, and transporting the body, the transfer process. A lot of these things that you're talking about—you did a direct burial not too long ago and there is a play list that you played. These are all services and incredibly important touches. But I'm just wondering how you reconcile that with a very formalized set of requirements imposed by the Funeral Rule. And then also sort of the established norms of how this industry works.
Amy: I recently found myself standing in a Bed Bath and Beyond looking for some kind of piece of fabric or throw to put over a casket in the deceased person's favorite shade of robin's egg blue. And I stood there asking myself “how do I get this onto the Price List?” The GPL is not working for me. In time all I can imagine is perhaps getting so well-known for this kind of lovely series of gestures that I could raise my non-negotiable…my arrangements fee. It doesn't fit anywhere else doesn't it well. I mean there's no hourly wage, there's no funeral preparation hourly fee or something like that. I'm not able to monetize it yet. All I'm doing is building my brand and getting the word out that I'm available to you to do these kinds of things right.
Tanya: Right. Because I mean the GPL is set up for … even though you still have this non-declinable fee for covering a lot of your profit and, you know, your services in the cost of goods. But if you're not doing an embalming that's out the door.
Amy: The caskets aren’t expensive and they’re not marked up.
Tanya: So that's a real challenge for people who are sort of pursuing a nontraditional kind of a path. That is much more service oriented. But the question is how do you accurately communicate the cost of those services to families. And right now there's transparency and fairness and that you're getting fully compensated for your time and expertise right and that they know what they're getting themselves into. That's the challenge.
Amy: The guys at the funeral home watch me arrange rose petals in the interior of the casket where the deceased is never going to be viewed. They say, “Amy, just close the casket.” Well I want to finesse the shroud a little better. Yeah, I don't know. I mean I don't think I'll ever have any feeling of … I have to learn to protect myself, I guess. But I would love to sit down with others in the industry and figure out how we can offer these kinds of things and really save the funeral industry in so many words because it's not working the way it's set up right now.
Tanya: So my final question is what sort of advice do you have for people who are considering following a path like you have. What have you learned? What would you do differently? Do you think that this is a path that others should follow?
Amy: I think there are so many opportunities for thoughtful people in this business. And it's such fulfilling work. I would never discourage anyone from getting into it. However there are so many impediments and barriers to entry and hoops to jump through. My husband used to watch me studying late into the night in mortuary school and he'd say “honey this is like a hazing. I can't believe this. You know you want to just do good funeral services why are you having to memorize every bone in the foot.”
So one thing I do say is that you really have to want to get into it, if you're in any way unsure then maybe it's not for you. It tends to be a business that is so hard to enter that you really have to want it more than anything else and almost see that there's no other path for you. If that requirement is satisfied then go on, get through the school that will maybe be one of the worst years of your life. But it's only a year you'll get through it. You'll be proud of yourself. Your family will be proud of you. And then try to negotiate the best residency you possibly can in those states that insist upon that yeah. And the embalming requirements are really tough and each state is different. So I was advised to just show my boss what I was good at. And I think he acknowledged after about four months of having me back there in what is known as the pit that really wasn't my gift. So I got through that part with all the legal requirements for residency and licensing in the state of New York and it's good to know a bit about embalming but I don't want to say it's going to be obsolete. There's always going to be a call for it but I don't know that the emphasis in the in the mortuary schools needs to be so focused on it.
Tanya: Well there's definitely been some studies have indicated that the number of women who are interested in becoming funeral directors is artificially depressed by the embalming curriculum. Large numbers of women have said that they would be much because they're more interested in the I guess you call “front of the house.”
Amy: Right. The suits, yes. The people who want to sell the funerals.
Tanya: Well or just be involved in the experiences and helping people have a meaningful experience and funeral but they're not interested in the embalming side of it. And so coupling those two different professions into one. And the requirements to become both into one has cut down on a lot of people who would probably be pretty funeral directors
Amy: Yeah, yeah. I am finding that the men in the industry I'm around are very moved by what I do and don't criticize me or make fun of me in any way at this point because they see that this is sort of why they got into the business themselves in the first place. I help remind people of the gorgeous nature of this work. And I think we all need each other and can work together and make for a new way for families to say goodbye.
Tanya: Well I think that you are an absolutely inspiring funeral director and you're so positive. And that we could all learn a lot from the experience that you have and what you're trying to bring to families.
Amy: Thank you thank you so much. You know by the way I have a blog that I write with Kateyanne Unullisi, a Seattle funeral celebrant, called The Inspired Funeral. And a lot of these ideas are on there. We divide the whole end of life period into nine different moments and we have readings for each of those moments and a lot of good material.
Tanya: I'll put that in the show notes.
Amy: My life as a journalist continues.
Tanya: Awesome. Thank you so much Amy.
Amy: Thank you.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 10: Cemetery Tourism in NYC and Boston
15 août 2018· Death, et seq.
Episode Transcript:
My name is Tanya Marsh and you’re listening to Death, et seq. We’ve been talking about funerals a lot on this podcast so far, and I wanted to switch gears this week and talk about one of my favorite topics – cemeteries. I love cemeteries. As my friends and family will attest, I am a semi-professional cemetery tourist. When I visit a new place, I want to check out the historic cemeteries. When I visit a place that I’ve been dozens of times, I still want to check out the cemeteries. So in a new series that I’m going to call “Cemetery Tourism,” I’ll be looking at different clusters of cemeteries that share similar characteristics or a similar history. I’m going to start the series in the Northeastern United States, in two of our earliest urban centers — New York City and Boston. Both of these cities were founded in the mid-1600s, and their early cemeteries share some common characteristics, but they also differed in important ways because of the people who founded those two cities.
American cemeteries are different from cemeteries anywhere else in the world, for a couple of reasons. In the colonial era, we were obviously heavily influenced by the law of England and the social norms that had been established there and carried here. The England of the 17th century had an established church – the Church of England. The theology of the Church of England placed great importance on burial in consecrated ground. So the law of England reflected the assumption that all people in good standing with the church and entitled to burial within the church would be buried in their local parish churchyard. There were people that weren’t in good standing, or members of other religions, so allowances had to be made for them too, but the vast majority of people were buried in the local parish churchyard owned by the Church of England. That’s just how it was set up.
But colonial America was a fairly diverse place. For example, Puritan colonists from England of course settled Massachusetts Bay Colony, while a more diverse group of English, Dutch, and German immigrants settled the former New Amsterdam, there were all kinds of ethnic groups and faiths on William Penn’s land, and the English Virginia Company established settlements focused on economics rather than religious liberty. Each of the colonies was different from the English system, but they were also each different from each other. These realities forced Americans to innovate. Massachusetts established (and still retains) a law that each town must create a burying ground for the use of residents and strangers. Unlike the English system, these are secular cemeteries, owned and managed by the government. In the densely populated cities like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, cemeteries were established downtown and despite practices designed to maximize the capacity of cemeteries, soon became overcrowded. In the Chesapeake, where the population was more widely dispersed, family burying grounds were established in addition to more traditional churchyards. Although the location of American burials differed from the uniform English precedent, other aspects of the process were the same during colonial times. Remains were wrapped in a shroud or encased in a wood coffin, then placed in the earth, a family tomb, or a mausoleum. Americans originally followed other European Christian customs—most graves were not individually memorialized and many contained the remains of more than one person.
American disposition practices shifted after the Civil War. Embalming was rarely practiced before the war. During the war, a crude method of embalming was used to stabilize the remains of wealthier men, primarily on the Union side, so they could be sent home for burial. After the Civil War, undertakers trained in embalming evolved into funeral directors. Into the twentieth century, death moved from the home to the hospital; and the ceremonies surrounding death moved from the parlor to the funeral parlor. Undertaking had once been a complementary profession for carpenters—they could build the coffin and transport the remains to the cemetery. But the Industrial Revolution moved casket production from small workshops to factories, particularly after World War II. “Modern business principles” were applied to create modern cemeteries, owned by for-profit companies in many states, larger in scale and designed to minimize the costs of maintenance. These companies benefited from laws that gave great deference to cemetery owners—traditionally families, religious organizations and municipalities—to establish their own rules and regulations. Modern cemeteries adopted rules that required concrete and/or steel vaults or grave liners that would encase the coffin and prevent the uneven terrain that follows grave collapse. These companies also adopted rules that limited graves to a single interment. The cumulative effect is a very different set of practices than existed before the Civil War. Nearly all modern graves in the United States are dedicated in perpetuity to the remains of a single individual, memorialized with a tombstone.
On today’s episode, I’ll talk about the history and development of cemeteries in New York City and Boston. If you’re interested in photographs and maps, be sure to check out the show notes at the podcast’s website – www.deathetseq.com.
The Dutch first settled New Amsterdam, then just the southern tip of Manhattan, in 1624. A detailed city map called the Castello Plan was created in 1660 – it shows virtually every structure that existed in New Amsterdam at that time. In 1664, four English frigates sailed into New Amsterdam’s harbor and demanded the surrender of New Netherlands. Articles of Capitulation were signed that September and in 1665, New Amsterdam was reincorporated under English law as New York City. The settlement was named for the Duke of York, the brother of the English King Charles II who later became King James II.
During most of the 17th century, even after the English took over, the Reformed Dutch Church was the dominant religious authority in New Amsterdam/New York. There were scattered Congregational, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches in the region, as well as Quakers, Catholics, and a few Jews. With the English in 1665, however, also came the established Church of England.
One of the first significant cemeteries in New York City was established in the 1630s on the west side of Broadway, a little north of Morris Street. It was referred to as the “Old Graveyard” In 1656, there was a petition to “divide the Old Graveyard which is wholly in ruins, into lots to be built upon, and to make another Graveyard south of the Fort.” Apparently it persisted until at least 1665, when a collection was made to repair the graveyard because it was “very open and unfenced, so that the hogs root in the same.” By 1677, however, the graveyard had been cut up into four building lots and sold at auction to the highest bidder. There is no record regarding where the graves from this “Old Graveyard” were moved, but construction on the site more than a century later uncovered “a great many skulls and other relics of humanity,” so it sounds like perhaps they weren’t moved at all. Some things in Poltergeist are real, people.
In 1662, the Dutch established a new burial ground on Broadway, on a parcel that was then located outside the city’s gates. That burial ground became a part of the Trinity churchyard when Trinity Church was established in thirty years later.
In 1693, the New York Assembly passed an act to build several Episcopal churches in New York City and “all the inhabitants were compelled to support the Church of England, whatever might be their religious opinion.” In 1696, a plot of land stretching 310 feet from Rector Street to the Dutch burial ground that had been established on Broadway in 1662 was acquired by the Episcopalians and the Charter of Trinity Church was issued on May 6, 1697. The charter declared:
“[Trinity Church] situate in and near the street called the Broadway, within our said city of New York, and the ground thereunto adjoining, enclosed and used for a cemetery or church-yard, shall be the parish church, and church-yard of the parish of Trinity Church … and the same is hereby declared to be forever separated and dedicated to the service of God, and to be applied thereunto for the use and behalf of the inhabitants … within our said city of New York, in communion with our said Protestant Church of England.”
By the time of the Revolution, the churchyard at Trinity, including the old portion that had been the Dutch burial ground, was said to contain 160,000 graves.
In 1847 a proposal to extend Albany Street to connect it with Pine Street would have disturbed the northern portion of the Trinity Church churchyard, part of the 1662 Dutch burial ground. A government report advocated against the extension:
“[The burial ground] was established by the Dutch on their first settlement... It is nearly a century older than the other sections of the yard. It was originally a valley, about thirty feet lower at its extreme depth than the present surface, and has undergone successive fillings, as the density of interments rendered it necessary, to raise the land until it reached the present surface: so that the earth now, to a depth of several feet below the original, and thence to the present time of interment, is in truth filled with human remains, or rather composed of human ashes. The bodies buried there were [approximately 30,000 to 40,000] persons of several generations, and of all ages, sects and conditions, including a large number of the officers and soldiers of the Revolutionary War, who died whilst in British captivity; and almost every old family that is or ever was in this city, has friends or connections lying there.”
In an 1892 guidebook to New York City, Moses King wrote:
"Only the established and powerful corporations of Trinity and a few other churches have been able to resist the demands of modern life and business for the ground once sacred to the dead. Hundreds of acres [in Manhattan], now covered by huge buildings or converted into public thoroughfares, were at some time burial-places; over ninety of which have been thus existed, and passed away. Of most of them even the location has been forgotten…”
Trinity Churchyard still resides on Broadway at Rector Street, in lower Manhattan, two blocks from Federal Hall, the building where George Washington was sworn in, the “room where it happened” in the very early days of the Republic, and the New York Stock Exchange. The Anglican St. Paul’s Chapel, established on Broadway between Fulton and Vesey Streets around 1766, and its surrounding churchyard still remains in the shadow of the World Trade Center. Many of the other cemeteries that once resided in lower Manhattan are relics of memory. For example:
• The Middle Dutch Church, on the east side of Nassau Street between Cedar and Liberty Streets, was surrounded by a burial ground beginning in 1729. The bodies were removed sometime after 1844. The North Dutch Church on William Street between Fulton and Ann Streets had an adjacent burial ground from 1769 to 1875.
• The French burial ground on the northeast corner of Nassau and Pine Streets, extending north to Cedar Street (1704-1830);
• The Presbyterian churchyard on the north side of Wall Street opposite the end of New Street (1717-1844);
• The Old Brick Presbyterian Church graveyard on Beekman Street between Chatham and Nassau Streets (1768-1856);
• The cemetery located at Pearl, Duane, and Rose Streets which was leased from the city as early as 1765 but not used as a cemetery until after the Revolution; and
• A Lutheran Church and adjacent burial ground on south Pearl Street, a site which had become a vegetable market by 1706.
A cemetery on the south side of Houston Street between Eldridge and Stanton Street was used from 1796 to 1851 as the Reformed Dutch Church Cemetery, to provide excess capacity for the crowded churchyards. The bodies were disinterred and removed around 1874.
Meanwhile, Puritan colonists from England founded Boston in 1630. Unlike the religious and ethnic diversity that could be found in New Amsterdam/New York City during this time period, the Puritan leaders of Boston punished religious dissenters. Baptist minister Obadiah Holmes was publicly whipped in 1651 and Mary Dyer was hanged in Boston Common in 1660 for repeatedly defying a law banning Quaker from being in Massachusetts Bay Colony. However, prosperity in Boston led to the development of a more diverse community that included Catholics and Quakers and other groups that were initially persecuted by the Puritans. Eventually the Puritans began to accept that they could not have a unified church and state.
Puritan burying grounds were often located adjacent to the town’s meeting house. Headstones were expensive and many of the earliest were imported from England. Most often, early burials were marked with wood markers or primitive stones, if they were marked at all. The Puritan burying ground was a utilitarian space simply used to bury the dead. Puritans did not visit graves or maintain them. They were often very disorganized. Graves were tightly clustered and gravestones were often broken or buried as the cemetery became more populated. In many cases, graves were dug deep enough to accommodate 12 or more coffins placed on top of each other to within five feet of the surface.
Recall that in the 1650s, there was a petition to remove the Old Graveyard in New Amsterdam because hogs were rooting around. In Boston, the early burying grounds were used as communal space to graze cattle.
The oldest burying ground in Boston is King’s Chapel which is not, as the name suggests, the churchyard for the adjacent King’s Chapel. What was originally simply known as the “Burying Ground” was established in 1630 and was Boston’s only cemetery for 30 years. King’s Chapel is quite small, less than half an acre. It was used as a burial ground for 200 years, but estimates are that there are only about 1,500 burials. There are only 615 gravestones and 29 tabletop tomb markers remaining. Most graves include about four burials on top of one another. Excess remains were excavated and the bones were deposited in the charnel house that can still be seen on the edge of the burying ground. A charnel house would be a very familiar idea for the English colonists because English churchyards were similarly overcrowded. When the cemetery authorities ran out of ground for fresh burials, older burials were simply dug up and the bones were placed in a communal pit in the consecrated ground, or catacombs beneath the church. If you’ve visited any European churches, you’re probably familiar with this idea.
Although the idea of the charnel house was a feature of English churchyards, King’s Chapel Burying Ground was not a churchyard. It was a community burial ground and included people of all faiths, not just Puritans. It was more like a municipal, secular cemetery than a churchyard.
In all of the Boston burying grounds, it was common to have a headstone, highly decorated with the name and sometimes the biography of the deceased, and a footstone with only the name of the deceased. Graves were placed so that the feet of the deceased faced east. This was believed to have been done so that when Christ returns, the dead can simply stand up and walk to Jerusalem.
King’s Chapel also includes 29 underground tombs which consist of a burial room made of brick and covered with earth and grass. These are marked with box structures, but the boxes are just markers, not the tombs themselves. When the tombs needed to be opened, the box was removed and the entrance dug up.
In the early 1700s, 24 tombs were built along the back fence and in 1738, 23 tombs were built along Tremont Street. These are actually underneath the present-day sidewalk of Tremont Street and their markets and entrances are inside the fence.
King’s Chapel Burying Ground also includes a curious structure that looks like the top of a tomb or pit. That’s actually a subway fresh air ventilator shaft that was constructed in 1896. Human remains in that portion of the burying ground were relocated during the construction.
It is called King’s Chapel Burying Ground today because in 1686, Governor Edmund Andros wanted to build an Anglican church in Puritan Boston. This was an unpopular idea, so no one would sell him any land. So Andros built his church in part of the existing Burying Ground, right over existing graves. As you can imagine, this didn’t make Andros any more popular with the Puritans of Boston. After King’s Chapel was consecrated, people began referring to the adjacent cemetery as King’s Chapel Burying Ground, which also couldn’t have made the Puritans very happy.
In 1660, King’s Chapel was ordered closed “for some convenient season” and new burials directed to the second burying ground. Of course tombs were installed decades later and grave burials in King’s Chapel Burying Ground weren’t outlawed until 1826, although they continued until 1896.
The second burial ground in Boston was established in 1659 when the Selectment of Boston purchased ½ acre in the northern end of town. Originally called the North Burying Place or the North Burying Ground, the parcel was expanded in 1711 and 1809. It is now known as Copp’s Hill Burying Ground and is located just down the street from the Old North Church.
The City of Boston has counted 2,230 grave markers and 228 tombs in Copp’s Hill but the exact number of burials is unknown. Estimates range from 8,000 to 10,000. This includes an estimate of over 1,000 unmarked graves of African and African American slaves.
The third burying ground in Boston is located just down Tremont Street from King’s Chapel. Also established in 1660, the Old Granary Burying Ground is the final resting place of many important figures from the Revolutionary War including Paul Revere, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and the men killed in the Boston Massacre. Benjamin Franklin’s parents are also buried here.
Granary is located on 2 acres and contains 2,345 gravestones. In 1922, it was estimated that there were 8,030 burials over its 260 year history. Originally, Granary Burying Ground was part of the Boston Common, which then extended up Tremont Street. It was originally called the South Burying Ground, then renamed the Middle Burying Ground when one was established further south. It was finally renamed Granary Burying Ground because of the 12,000 bushel grain storage building built in 1737 to provide food for the poor and called the granary. The granary was moved to Dorchester in 1809 to make room for Park Street Church.
The final colonial burial ground that I’ll mention is the Central Burying Ground, which was established in 1754 on 1.4 acres at the corner of Boston Common on Boylston Street between Charles and Tremont Streets. There are only about 487 markers remaining, but records indicate that approximately 5,000 people are buried in Central Burying Ground, including many unmarked graves of paupers from the Alms House and inmates from the House of Industry. There are some unique tombs visible in Central Burying Ground because they are surrounded by a “moat” on both sides. The first tomb is thought to have been built in 1771. 149 tombs were built on the four sides of the burying ground and nearly half of the burials were in the tombs. But in 1836, Boylston Street was widened and 69 tombs were destroyed – the owners moved the remains either to the 60 tombs in the Dell or to the then-new Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge. In 1895, the subway was being constructed along Boylston Street disturbing the remains of approximately 2,000 people. They were reburied in a mass grave in the northeast corner of Central Burying Ground. The last grave burial took placed in 1856, but tomb burials continued until the 1950s.
Until 1810, Central Burying Ground was called South Burying Ground, which is when Granary was renamed. Identifying burying grounds by their relative location to one another is clearly a bad strategy, as the constant re-naming of cemeteries in Boston demonstrates.
So I’ve described the first four cemeteries in Boston and the most famous cemetery in colonial New York – Trinity. The four colonial cemeteries in Boston were all owned by the government and non-sectarian, even though their practices resembled those of churchyards in England. New York, on the other hand, was dominated by churchyards in colonial days and the early days of the Republic. The challenges that these cemeteries faced in the beginning of the 1800s was similar in both cities, but the way that the cemeteries were changed as a result was very different. All four cemeteries I described are still in the heart of downtown Boston. In lower Manhattan, only Trinity and St. Paul’s Chapel remain.
The backlash against the colonial cemeteries was triggered by their overuse and their general lack of organization and maintenance.
In 1807, an Englishman named John Lambert visited New York. In his diary, he referred to Trinity Church and St. Paul’s Chapel as “handsome structures” but added:
"The adjoining churchyards, which occupy a large space of ground railed in from the street and crowded with tombstones, are far from being agreeable spectacles in such a populous city. … One would think there was a scarcity of land in America to see such large pieces of ground in one of the finest streets of New York occupied by the dead. The continual view of such a crowd of white and brown tombstones and monuments as is exhibited in the Broadway must tend very much to depress the spirits."
Some burial places had been closed and relocated in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. But the Nineteenth Century significantly accelerated that process. Overcrowded church yards and vaults (referred to as “intra-mural” burial grounds) were criticized by public health officials as “injurious to health, offensive to the senses, [and] repulsive to the taste of a refined age.”
In New York City, the precipitating event to efforts to halt intra-mural burial was the Yellow Fever epidemic that began in late July 1822 on Rector Street. Reported cases spread quickly and when the first cases on Broadway were reported, public health officials feared that if the disease was not contained, it would quickly engulf City Hall and force the government into exile. On August 7th, the Board of Health ordered that an area around Rector Street be quarantined by the erection of fences. The quarantine area had to be expanded quickly. Searching for a cause of the epidemic and an effective way to halt the spread of the disease, the Board of Health began to panic.
Prevailing medical thought of the day blamed epidemics on “miasma” and “infected air.” In early August, concerned about the cluster of cases in the area around Trinity Church, the Board of Health appointed a committee to “inquire into the expediency of regulating or preventing the interment of the dead in Trinity Church Yard during the continuance of the present epidemic.” The committee concluded that “the yard of that Church is at times, offensive to persons in its vicinity, and that, in the evening especially, the exhalations are such as perhaps are dangerous to the health of the citizens in its immediate neighborhood.” It was therefore recommended that “no grave be permitted to be opened or dug in Trinity Church Yard, until the further order of the Board of Health, under the penalty of one hundred dollars.” The proposed resolution was adopted by the Common Council on August 22nd.
Around the same time, a report from Dr. Samuel Ackerly to the Board of Health recommended that the ban on interments at Trinity be made permanent. Dr. Ackerly related the story of the Cathedral of Dijon, “which [recently] produced a malignant disease in the congregation from the putrid bodies of the persons buried in the vaults of the Church. The disease ceased after the Church was ventilated and fumigated.” This case was presented to the Board of Health as “proof that noxious exhalations may arise from dead bodies.” Accordingly, Dr. Ackerly suggested that the source of the Yellow Fever epidemic may be Trinity Church Yard, where “the ground has been one hundred and twenty-four years receiving the dead, and the evil day has at length arrived. To strike at the root of the evil,” Dr. Ackerly advised, “no further interments should be allowed there. The graves might be leveled and covered with a body of clay, upon which a layer of lime, ashes and charcoal should be placed, and the grave stones laid flat, that the rain may run off and not penetrate the soil to hasten putrefaction and increase the exhalations.”
On September 15th, the Board of Health “respectfully request[ed]” that churches with adjacent burial grounds in lower Manhattan cover their graves “thickly with lime, or charcoal, or both.” On September 23rd, Trinity Church Yard was covered with 52 casks of lime. The next day, 192 bushels of slacked lime were spread in St. Paul’s church yard, a few blocks north of Trinity Church. On September 28th, 172 bushels of slacked lime were spread “upon the grave-yard and about the vaults of the North Dutch church corner of William and Fulton-streets. The grounds about this church were not extensive and principally occupied by vaults, which nevertheless emitted very offensive effluvia.” Thirty additional casks of lime were slacked and spread at Trinity Church on October 1st. On October 8th, the vaults of the Middle Dutch Church at the corner of Liberty and Nassau were covered with 40 casks of lime. “These vaults were exceedingly offensive,” the Board of Health reported. It was also reported that “the vaults of the French church in Pine-street in the vicinity of the former church also emitted disagreeable smells.”
By late November 1822, the Yellow Fever epidemic had subsided. With an eye towards preventing the next outbreak, the Common Council passed a resolution to consider the future of intra-mural burial.
"It appears to be the opinion of Medical Men that the great number of the dead interred in the several cemeteries within the bounds of this City, is attended with injurious consequences to the health of the inhabitants. This subject is therefore worthy of consideration and if the effects are in reality such as some of the faculty declare them to be, ought not future interments be prohibited at least during a part of the year. …"
A law forbidding interments south of Canal Street was proposed in early 1823. At the time, there were at least 23 separate burial grounds south of Canal Street, many adjacent to churches. The leaders of the Reformed Dutch Church, the First Presbyterian Church, Grace Church, St. George’s Church, Christ’s Church, and Vestry of Zion Church all presented remonstrances to the Common Council in February 1823 objecting to the proposed law. Over those objections, a Law Respecting the Interment of the Dead was enacted by the Common Council on March 31, 1823.
"Be it ordained by the Mayor Aldermen & Commonalty of the City of New York in Common Council Convened. That if any Person or Persons shall after the first day of June next dig up or open any grave or cause or procure any grave to be opened in any burying ground cemetery or church yard or in any other part or place in this City which lies to the Southward of a line commencing at the centre of Canal Street on the North River and running through the centre of Canal Street to Sullivan Street thence through Sullivan st. to Grand Street thence through Grand St. to the East river or shall inter or deposit or cause or procure to be interred or deposited in any such grave any dead body every such person shall forfeit and pay for every such offence the sum of Two hundred and fifty dollars."
"And be it further Ordained that no dead body shall after the first day of June aforesaid be interred or deposited in any vault or tomb south of the aforesaid line under the penalty of Two hundred and fifty dollars for each and every offence."
Churches south of Canal Street continued to fight the law. On April 21, 1823, the leaders of St. George Church, the Brick Presbyterian Church, the First Presbyterian Church of Wall Street, and Trinity Church requested revisions to permit some burials and entombments in private vaults. But the die had been cast. As the population of Manhattan grew, the Common Council moved the line prohibiting new burials northward, first to 14th Street, then to 86th Street. Without the income generated by burials, many churches closed their doors and relocated their dead to the new rural cemeteries in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx.
Similar complaints in Boston prompted the creation of Mount Auburn Cemetery, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of the most important and earliest rural cemeteries. Justice Joseph Story gave the address at the dedication of Mount Auburn cemetery in 1831. Story, then an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court and a professor at Harvard Law School, emphasized “the duty of the living” to “provide for the dead.” He explained that although the obligation to provide “grounds … for the repose of the dead” is a Christian duty, our “tender regard for the dead” is universal and “deeply founded in human affection.”
Justice Story explained that Mount Auburn had been founded to cure the problem with the Boston colonial cemeteries.
"It is painful to reflect, that the Cemeteries in our cities, crowded on all sides by the overhanging habitations of the living, are walled in only to preserve them from violation. And that in our country towns they are left in a sad, neglected state, exposed to every sort of intrusion, with scarcely a tree to shelter their barrenness, or a shrub to spread a grateful shade over the new-made hillock."
Story argued that “there are higher moral purposes” that lead us to establish and care for cemeteries—"[i]t should not be for the poor purpose of gratifying our vanity or pride, that we should erect columns, and obelisks, and monuments to the dead; but that we may read thereon much of our own destiny and duty.”
"[T]he repositories of the dead bring home thoughts full of admonition, of instruction, and slowly but surely, of consolation also. They admonish us, but their very silence, of our own frail and transitory being. They instruct us in the true value of life, and in its noble purposes, its duties, and its destinations. … We return to the world, and we feel ourselves purer, and better, and wiser, from this communion with the dead.
I hope you’ve enjoyed this first episode in my series on Cemetery Tourism, and I hope that next time you’re in New York or Boston, you take the time to check out not only these colonial cemeteries located in the heart of the old cities, but the beautiful rural cemeteries that were later constructed – Mount Auburn in Cambridge, Green-wood in Brooklyn and Woodlawn in the Bronx. I’ll perhaps talk about the rural cemetery movement in a future episode. If you are interested in having me focus on particular cemeteries, please let me know by visiting www.deathetseq.com or dropping me a comment or a direct message on Facebook or Twitter.
Thank you for joining me today on Death, et seq.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 9: Lee Webster on Home Funerals, Green Burials & Social Justice
30 juil. 2018· Death, et seq.
Lee Webster discusses her educational and advocacy efforts in the "neo-traditional" home funeral and green burial movements.
Links to organizations and resources mentioned in this episode:
Green Burial Council
National Home Funeral Alliance
New Hampshire Funeral Resources, Education & Advocacy
Changing Landscapes: Exploring the growth of ethical, compassionate, and environmentally sustainable green funeral practice
Selected quotes:
Home funerals are “family led and family directed.”“We don’t recognize death as an emergency.”“One of the main characteristics of a home funeral is that it’s okay for people to look dead. We’re taking the time to be present and nearby and to engage with what’s happening. It’s taking the time to be with them.”In green burial, “we do nothing to impede decomposition. That’s pretty basic. No concrete, no metal, no exotic woods, no embalming, no toxic chemicals of any kind. We are letting nature take its course at its own pace.”“Green burial is bringing back ritual to a society that has been losing it because we’ve been trying to avoid the heavy costs of funerals and going with direct cremation.”We want people to think about “what is truly authentic about the life of the person they’re honoring.”"Funeral reform is very much needed. There are certain practices within the industry itself that do need change in a very big way."“People are hungering for this information.”"One of the largest issues for me is simply access.""The sooner we can get grassroots activism going, the sooner this will all be a moot issue.""The Catholic Church is really leading the way in green burial because we're getting back to full body burial. They never wanted cremation.""Unitarian Universalists, from the very beginning, have been big leaders in funeral reform."
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 8: Bob Fells of ICCFA on The Value of the Traditional Funeral
23 juil. 2018· Death, et seq.
One of my major goals with this podcast is to introduce listeners to a variety of perspectives on the funeral industry and changing death practices. In Episode 3, I talked to Dan Isard, who is a management and financial consultant to funeral homes. In Episode 4, I talked to Caitlin Doughty, who is a non-traditional funeral director in Los Angeles with a critique to the status quo. In the next few weeks you’ll hear from Lee Webster, who has been very active in the home funeral and green burial movements, and from Amy Cunningham, who takes a very thoughtful and non-traditional approach to her second career as a funeral director.
Several questions have emerged from my conversations with these folks, and some fundamental tensions have been revealed in their answers to these questions. Are funerals for the living or the dead? What is a “good” funeral? Are people less interested in rituals than they were before and, if so, why? What are the pressures facing the funeral industry and how should the industry react? Today’s podcast touches on many of these questions, from the perspective of a long-time leader of a funeral and cemetery industry trade association.
There are three major trade associations that represent participants in the funeral and cemetery industries in the United States – The National Funeral Director’s Association, known as NFDA, the Cremation Association of North America, known as CANA, and the International Cemetery, Cremation, and Funeral Association, known as ICCFA. ICCFA was founded in 1887 as the Association of American Cemetery Superintendents. Today it has more than 9,000 member businesses representing all segments of the cemetery, funeral services, cremation, and memorialization profession.
Today’s podcast features my conversation with Bob Fells, who is the General Counsel of ICCFA. Bob was formerly the Executive Director and General Counsel of ICCFA, retiring from his role as Executive Director in 2017. Bob joined the staff of ICCFA in 1983 and has been working on behalf of the funeral service profession on legal and legislative issues since 1975.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 7: A Preview of Dark Archives with Megan Rosenbloom
16 juil. 2018· Death, et seq.
Megan Rosenbloom is Associate Director for Instruction Services at the Norris Medical Library of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and the co-founder and director of Death Salon, the event arm of The Order of the Good Death. Rosenbloom is writing a book called Dark Archives, anticipated to be published in 2019, which describes the history and discusses the ethics involved in "anthropodermic bibliopegy," books alleged to have been bound in human skin.
Megan recommends the book Death, Dissection, and the Destitute by Ruth Richardson for more information on the Anatomy Acts. Here is a brief explanation:
Throughout history, the use of cadavers has been hugely important to medical innovation and advancement. The demand for cadavers often vastly outweighed the available supply. Religious, moral and legal concerns often bred a reluctance to address the issue. With a relatively small supply of legally-obtained cadavers, some enterprising individuals turn to grave-robbing to cash in on the high demand. In few extreme cases, certain individuals even resorted to outright murder to generate a cadaver supply.
The imbalance between demand and supply eventually forced lawmakers to act. The Murder Act of 1752 passed by Parliament in the United Kingdom allowed doctors and medical schools in need of cadavers to use the bodies of executed convicted murderers. As executions declined in number and demand for cadavers continued to increase, this solution proved insufficient. Growing public awareness and aversion to the corpse trade ushered in a climate of acceptance toward the Anatomy Act of 1832 in England. This Act gave doctors, medical students and the like more access to the cadavers of those who died in the care of the state.
The 1832 Anatomy Act in particular had a strong influence on state legislatures in the United States. Even though grave robbing was illegal in colonial America, the practice grew with demand as it did in Europe. In 1788, riots broke out in Manhattan when someone discovered mutilated remains in the medical school at Columbia University. New York’s legislature responded by outlawing grave robbing and ordering that remains of executed criminals may be dissected.
For an example of a U.S. statute, see Ohio Rev. Code § 1713.34:
“Superintendents of city hospitals, directors or superintendents of city infirmaries, county homes, or other charitable institutions, directors or superintendents of workhouses, founded and supported in whole or in part at public expense, superintendents or managing officers of state benevolent institutions, boards of township trustees, sheriffs, or coroners, in possession of bodies not claimed or identified, or which must be buried at the expense of the state, county, or township, before burial, shall notify the professor of anatomy in a college which by its charter is empowered to teach anatomy, or the secretary of the board of embalmers and funeral directors of this state, of the fact that such bodies are being so held. If after a period of thirty-six hours the body has not been accepted by friends or relatives for burial at their expense, such superintendent, director, or other officer, on the written application of such professor, or the secretary of the board of embalmers and funeral directors, shall deliver to such professor or secretary, for the purpose of medical or surgical study or dissection or for the study of embalming, the body of any such person who died in any of such institutions from any disease which is not infectious. The expense of the delivery of the body shall be borne by the parties in whose keeping the body was placed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1713.38:
“The bodies of strangers or travelers, who die in any of the institutions named in section 1713.34 of the Revised Code, shall not be delivered for the purpose of dissection unless the stranger or traveler belongs to that class commonly known as tramps. Bodies delivered as provided in such section shall be used for medical, surgical, and anatomical study only, and within this state.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1713.41:
“No superintendent of a city hospital, city infirmary, county home, workhouse, hospital for the mentally ill, or other charitable institution founded and supported in whole or in part at public expense, coroner, infirmary director, sheriff, or township trustee, shall fail to deliver a body of a deceased person when applied for, in conformity to law, or charge, receive, or accept money or other valuable consideration for the delivery.”
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 6: History, Music, and Mortality with David Childers and Phil Chaney
9 juil. 2018· Death, et seq.
In this week’s episode of Death, et seq., I am talking to two of my favorite people about two very different topics. First, I’ll be talking to my uncle, Philip Chaney, about his experience growing up in a funeral family in a small town in Nebraska in the mid-20th century. There were two funeral homes in the county — one Catholic and one Protestant. The funeral homes were both combined with furniture stores, because there weren’t enough calls to make funeral directing a full time job. Another sideline for the funeral directors was running the ambulance service which Phil, as a teenage employee of the furniture store, also was involved in. We will talk about the history of the funeral and cemetery industries quite a bit in this podcast, because the human stories of how these industries developed can help us understand the legal rules and social norms that govern us today.
Second, I’ll be talking to my friend David Childers, a recording artist on Ramseur Records, the singer and guitar player that you hear along with my son Riley Sherman on the music that opens each episode of Death, et seq. Music is an important part of the rituals surrounding death, and I am looking forward to having a number of episodes in which I talk to musicians about the connection between music and mortality.
So, today on Death, et seq. — history, music, and mortality.
Links to David Childers' Work:
His website: www.davidchilders.com
The video for Run Skeleton Run by Corey Ziegler and Robert Childers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlauDVWJdew
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 5: Introduction to Funeral & Disposition Planning (with Prof. Rebecca Morrow)
2 juil. 2018· Death, et seq.
This episode discusses funeral and disposition planning in the context of estate planning, explains why pre-planning is a good idea, and discusses the major options available to American funeral consumers including the "traditional" American funeral of embalming, open casket viewing, and in-ground burial or cremation, and alternatives such as home funerals and green burial.
The laws regarding the distribution of property after death are determined by the state in which the deceased person (known as the “decedent”) resided at the time of their death. If a person does not leave a validly executed will, then the court with probate jurisdiction will apply the “intestacy laws” to determine the distribution of a decedent’s property and payment of any debts left at death. Funeral expenses have top priority for payment from the estate at the time of death.
The laws regarding the disposition of human remains are determined by the state in which the person died. Many (but not all) states allow people to designate an agent or leave binding funeral and disposition instructions. There is significant variety between the states in terms of what kinds of documents are needed to designate an agent or leave instructions. If a person does not leave validly executed instructions, then the laws of the state where the person died will determine who gets to take control of the remains and make decisions regarding funeral and disposition.
Visit www.deathetseq.com for more extensive show notes and links to resources.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 4: Caitlin Doughty and the Death Positive Movement
25 juin 2018· Death, et seq.
I am so happy to have Caitlin Doughty as my guest on Episode 4. Caitlin is a licensed funeral director and the owner of Undertaking LA, a funeral home in Los Angeles. She is the co-founder of Death Salon and the founder of The Order of the Good Death. She is the host of Ask a Mortician, which is a highly entertaining series of videos on YouTube (my favorite is the one on Viking burials).
Caitlin is also the author of TWO best-selling books – Smoke Gets In Your Eyes: And Other Lessons from the Crematory, in which she discusses her experience working in a crematory, and From Here to Eternity: Traveling the World to Find the Good Death, which was published last year.
In this episode of Death, et seq., Caitlin discusses what the death positive movement IS. In this blog post, she explains what the death positive movement IS NOT.
Discussion topics:
⇒ Defining "death positivism"
⇒ What kind of pushback Caitlin receives, and what parts of her message resonate broadly
⇒ How social justice is an integral part of the death positive movement
⇒ Caitlin's relationship with the funeral industry
⇒ What each of us can do to be more death positive on a daily basis
For more extensive show notes and to submit questions, please visit our website at www.deathetseq.com.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Episode 3: Dan Isard and the State of the Modern Funeral Industry
25 juin 2018· Death, et seq.
In the United States today, most funerals are arranged by licensed funeral directors, most bodies are prepared for disposition by licensed embalmers, and many funerals take place in licensed funeral homes. The funeral industry has been handling the dead in America for only a century. This is largely an industry made up of “mom and pop” family owned businesses, passed down from generation to generation, although there are a few large companies and even a few that are publicly traded.
I thought that an interview Dan Isard, the president of The Foresight Companies and an expert on the funeral industry, would be a great way to begin to lay a foundation on Death, et seq. We can’t understand how the world of death care may be changing until we understand how that world functions in the first place. In today’s episode, Dan and I discuss the structure of the funeral industry and some of the challenges that it faces.
Dan Isard has been providing management and financial consulting services to the funeral industry for 25 years. He is a frequent speaker on topics related to the funeral industry and writes a column for The Director magazine.
Takeaways:
⇒ Isard’s research shows that there are between 19,000 and 20,000 funeral homes, down about 10% from a decade ago. About 15,000 funeral homes are owned by approximately 9,000 to 10,000 privately owned “Mom and Pop” businesses.
⇒ About 60% of bodies are embalmed.
⇒ Number of locations is declining, total deaths is increasing, our population continues to increase and our death rate is increasing. I asked Isard: “That should suggest boom times for the funeral industry, right?”
⇒ Recent trends cited by Isard: Dramatic increase in cremation disposition and large increase in pre-arrangement, but the profitability of those pre-arrangements is decreasing.
⇒ Isard argues that in order to save the funeral services industry, we have to “blow up” the licensure regime.
⇒ The pricing of cremation also needs to be “blown up” because “burial is subsidizing cremation.”
For more extensive show notes or to submit questions, please visit the website, www.deathetseq.com.
- Écouter Écoute encore Continuer Écoutez...
- Écoutez plus tard Écoutez plus tard
Montre plus

Episodes

Episode 22: NYC Cemeteries & Crematories in the COVID 19 Pandemic

Episode 21: Death Care in the Time of COVID 19 with Amy Cunningham

Episode 20: Planning for Incapacity with Jonah Bamel and Greg Volk

Episode 19: Discussing Cremation with Barbara Kemmis of CANA

Episode 18: Music & Mortality: Murder Ballads and The Couldn't Be Happiers

Episode 17: The Impact of the Protestant Reformation on Burial Practices (with Jordan Artrip)

Episode 16: Music, Mortality & The Avett Brothers with Tim Mossberger

Episode 15: Death Related Holidays with Tyler Cunningham

Episode 14: Cemetery Tourism in Philadelphia and Music by Dan Zlotnick

Episode 13: Sarah Crews on Conservation Burial, Home Funerals, Music & Mortality

Episode 12: Josh Slocum of The Funeral Consumers Alliance

Episode 11: Amy Cunningham and the Meaningful Funeral

Episode 10: Cemetery Tourism in NYC and Boston

Episode 9: Lee Webster on Home Funerals, Green Burials & Social Justice

Episode 8: Bob Fells of ICCFA on The Value of the Traditional Funeral

Episode 7: A Preview of Dark Archives with Megan Rosenbloom

Episode 6: History, Music, and Mortality with David Childers and Phil Chaney

Episode 5: Introduction to Funeral & Disposition Planning (with Prof. Rebecca Morrow)

Episode 4: Caitlin Doughty and the Death Positive Movement

Episode 3: Dan Isard and the State of the Modern Funeral Industry