Commons Burial Ground_Final

8/14/2019 Commons Burial Ground_Final

1/29

December 10, 2009

Robert Emlen Al Lees

Department of American Civilization M.A. Candidate

AMCV 1250b Public Humanities andGravestones and Burial Grounds Cultural Heritage

Brown University

Providence, Rhode Island

The Commons Burial Ground, Little Compton, Rhode Island:

A Material Investigation

Early New England gravestones are among the most studied of colonial artifacts.

Since James Deetz and Edwin Dethlefsen recognized in the early 1960s that mortuary art

provides scholars with a unique investigative opportunity, historians, archaeologists and

folklorists, among others, have studied and attempted to interpret gravestones, especially

colonial and post-colonial New England examples, as a way of gaining access into the

cultural and social practices of those who produced and acquired them. Gravestones are

set in time and place; they have definable conformations, and, in most instances, are

grouped together in a large enough collection for investigators to discern patterns of

thought and activity. Produced by literate people, mortuary art, juxtaposed with other

material and documentary evidence from the same time period, enables us to develop a

richer sense of the past. However, the study of mortuary art found in colonial New

England burial grounds is not the exclusive domain of the scholar, but for all who look to

the past for their inspiration.

Burial grounds are about people, those interred and those who mourn. They are

also for the curious, who wander through rows of ancient stones, absorbing the sense ofantiquity and permanence that the experience conjures, and for the educators, who use

these accidental public museums as interpretive gateways for learning. More than ones

final resting place, or the scholars laboratory, colonial burial grounds are important

windows to the past, where one can come into contact with history in tangible ways. As

Marjorie OToole, director of the Little Compton (RI) Historical Society stated, the


2/29

towns burial ground is its most important asset. 1 The abundance of 18th and early 19th

century gravestones at what was once a fringe outpost on the Massachusetts-Rhode Island

border is an uncommon opportunity to trace the development of colonial religious and

social thought beyond the influence of rigid orthodoxy.

I will argue that geographic, environmental, and social factors forced a

decoupling from strict Puritanism in Little Compton, which allowed for more rapid

ideological develop than their contemporaries who lived closer to Boston and Plymouth

and that this coincides with John Stevens arrival in Newport in 1705. This study will

loosely follow Deetz and Dethlefsons methodology, as articulated in a paper presented

to the Society of American Archaeology2, by relating Little Comptons historicity to its

gravestone iconography, carving techniques and placing it in context with their study of

burial grounds in Cambridge, Concord, and Plymouth. While one goal is academic, the

ultimate purpose of this paper is to help connect the casual observer and lifetime learners

alike with colonial history as viewed through the lens of the Commons Burial Ground.

Let us begin by placing colonial Little Compton in context, from just after King

Phillips War until 1749, when it officially became part of Rhode Island. This admittedly

brief introduction will give the reader an opportunity to envision some of the social,

political, economic, religious influences that affected those who are the subjects of this

research. Next, will be a discussion of how colonial New England viewed death, and

articulated it through the commonly recognized motifs found in all colonial New England

graveyards. Lastly, this study will present evidence gathered from the Commons Burial

Ground, place it in context with Cambridge, Concord and Plymouth Massachusetts, and

offer possible reasons for their similarities and dissimilarities.

What makes the study of colonial gravestones so compelling? Paraphrasing Deetz

and Dethlefsen, and suggesting others, the following possibilities are that:

Because there were no professional stone carvers in the early colonial period, they

are true folk objects. (This statement is not absolutely true, for the John Stevens

1Conversation with Marjorie OToole, Little Compton, Rhode Island, October 2009.2Dethlefsen, Edwin and James Deetz. Death's Heads, Cherubs, and Willow Trees: ExperimentalArchaeology in Colonial Cemeteries, AmericanAntiquity, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Apr., 1966),pp. 502-510.http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694382

2


3/29

and John Bull shops in Newport Rhode Island were, and are professional stone

carving houses. Nevertheless, their evidence suggests that, in many instances this

was the case throughout New England.)

Gravestones, by their very function carry with them a chronology. They are dated,

and in most instances identify the age of the person interred, which can provide

the researcher with valuable demographic information. This chronology also

allows one to view with certainty changing material and decorative patterns over

time.

Most epitaphs are accompanied by relationship information, a valuable source of

information for the genealogist.

The distinctive symbology found on colonial gravestones are in part religiouswhich provide clues as to how religious attitudes changed in relation to other

social and cultural aspects.

It is possible to trace family affiliation over time through designs employed as

well as through burial patterns within the grounds.

Little Compton, Rhode Island: A Brief Look at the first Years.3

Colonel Benjamin Church and other English adventurers first settled Little ComptonRhode Island at the time of King Philips War (1675-1676) although it was not fully

incorporated as part of the Plymouth (Massachusetts) colony until 1682. As a secondary

phase of the Old Dartmouth purchase of 1652, portions of what is now Little Compton

were connected geographically, culturally and legally with Puritan Massachusetts;

however it would take another 20 years before the first recorded deed transfer of land in

the western portion of the town was recorded. This neck of land, at the absolute fringe of

civilization, was the land of the Sakonnets, led by their squaw-sachem Awashonks.Virtually inaccessible by any route other than narrow Indian trails or by sea around Cape

Cod, what would become known as Little Compton was the last portion of Southeastern

Massachusetts to be sold by native people to the English. After a brief interlude of epic

proportion during the so-called King Philips War, where many Sakonnets fought

3I am indebted to the work of Janet Lisle who so succinctly placed the early history of Little ComptonRhode Island in context.

3


4/29

valiantly at the side of the English, most notably Benjamin Church, settlement continued

slowly, then unabatedly into the 18th century.

Puritans these newcomers were, by birth and affiliation, but they were not ideologues

in that they did not come to this land to proselytize the native population or to escape the

rigid dogma associated with Boston and, to a lesser degree, Plymouth Puritanism. In fact,

Church and the others appear to have had, if not a close relationship with, at least a

cordial one with the Sakonnets. It was also an era of great flux, when time was running

out for native control of the land. By 1676, Philip was dead and hundreds, if not

thousands of native people were either bonded and transported into slavery or diminished

to the point of poverty and servitude. This dark time in colonial history also coincides

with an ever-increasing English appetite for land, as waves of immigrants arrived on the

shores of New England seeking religious and economic freedom. To satisfy these

newcomers, as they were called, Plymouth officials continued to look west. The Old

Dartmouth purchase incorporated the lands as far West as the present towns of Westport

and portions of Little Compton, as well as nearby Tiverton. Sakonnet, hard against the

Sakonnet River across from the Rhode Island settlements of Portsmouth and Newport,

was the last piece to be purchased.

Pressured by the expansive mood of the unnerving dissidents in Rhode Island, and

from many of the proprietors who could see economic opportunity, it was time to make a

move. In 1682, portions of Sakonnet were officially incorporated, by royal decree, into

the Plymouth colony, and by the late 1690s most of the remaining native land had been

sold to the English. Little Compton, as it was now known would remain in legal if not

actual control of Plymouth colony until 1749 when it was annexed by neighboring Rhode

Island.

Prior to this official act; however, the activity of settlement had begun in earnest. In

March of 1677, the proprietors met in Duxbury to select a town center. By May a

committee comprised of Captain William Southworth, Captain Benjamin Church,

Nathaniel Thomas and William Pabodie were appointed to divide the village into house

lots, with the further mandate of setting aside land in to accommodate a burial ground, a

fenced pound, and a meeting house.4 Although actual construction of these

4Lisle, Janet, from an as yet unpublished manuscript, 40.

4


5/29

amenities would not occur until the early 1690s there was most certainly optimism for

the towns eventual success.

Small steadings materialized in the newly purchased area, and a sense of normalcy

prevailed, as new English families moved in, first among them some of the original

purchasers and later families from Aquidneck Island just across the river. They worked

hard, clearing the land and establishing homes and farms. This was, after all, to become a

rural agricultural community. Blessed with arable land, at least in the central and western

portions of the town, much of it was put to use grazing livestock and growing agricultural

crops, for personal consumption as well as a means of income. Native people posed little

or no threat by now. The few that remained were, like most of New Englands native

population, confined to fewer and smaller parcels of land, relying on work as wage

laborers for the newcomers. Life began settling into a routine of sorts in a place that was

rapidly becoming less of a frontier town and more of a member of the prevailing colonial

society. Which colonial society; however, was a question posed by the Plymouth court,

who appear to have grave concerns over Little Comptons independent spirit.

In 1682, a court order from Plymouth was issued to Joseph Church to command the

town to accept colony oversight for local policing of community morals, for religious

worship for the election of representatives to Court and the levying of taxes and fines to

the colony.5Was this order was simply a next step in the development of Puritan

governmental oversight over newly established towns, or might it be a nervousness on the

part of officials who viewed this new town as a dangerous mix of frontier independence

and dissident ideology? Author Janet Lisle gives a particularly good account of the

Puritan activities in A Town With a Mind of Its Own. Her contention is that Plymouth

was most galled by the towns slowness to organize as a formal church community (read

Puritan church.) In addition, no pastor was chosen during the towns early years, and

those itinerant preachers sent by Plymouth officials were not paid by townspeople until

tremendous pressure was placed on them. In secular matters, the town defied authority.

Given their distance from Plymouth, Little Comptoners regularly took matters into their

own hands, including their reluctance or outright refusal to pay taxes levied by

5Ibid., 45.

5


6/29

Plymouth.6This does not, I believe, complete the narrative. As much as Plymouth

officials wanted to exert their authority over their brethren, social forces largely based on

personal convictions of independence and the proximity to liberal Rhode Island, only a

half-days sail away, conspired to decouple the residents of the town from their legal and

theological overseers. Newport was developing as the political, economic and cultural

center of Rhode Island and Little Compton farmers were uniquely situated to prosper

from and be influenced by this burgeoning cosmopolitan city.

The second wave of Little Compton settlers came primarily from Aquidneck Island.

Anne Hutchinson, whose blasphemous ramblings moved Puritan authorities to force

she and her followers out of Massachusetts and onto Aquidneck Island, had to have

influenced the towns culture. This combination of theologically liberal newcomers, and

the no nonsense, independently minded spirit of Little Compton Puritans must have

created a toxic blend of social and cultural intermingling that was intolerable even to the

relatively liberal Plymouth Puritans. However, not all who came from Aquidneck Island

were from Portsmouth, or followers of Hutchinson. At the other end of the island was the

developing commercial and intellectual center of Newport, Rhode Island. Blessed with

deep water that spawned its commercial activity and relative geographic isolation from

the other New England colonies, it became fertile ground for the socially, culturally, and

ethnically diverse. Quakers, Jews, and Blacks shared the streets with merchants, Puritans

and every one in-between in a freewheeling space that could not have been beyond the

notice of Little Compton farmers who would logically have transported their goods to the

nearest and most profitable market town. Whatever cultural isolation the town might have

afforded them, once the farmers were within the orbit of Newport, the very environment

would have offered them a worldview unlike that they were used to.

Newport was abuzz with activity, especially along the breadth of Thames Street

and the docks, which was not only its commercial center, but also the center of

information from across the Atlantic world. Without land based natural resources,

Newporters turned to the sea, opening the doors of the world to this small corner of

colonial America. When the Little Compton sloops set sail for Newport, they carried

more than goods, but also families and friends who hitched a ride. This opportunity to

6 Ibid.,47-49

6


7/29

socialize beyond the confines of the town inevitably exposed them to a sophistication of

thought not generally available to their contemporaries within the Plymouth colony.

Though Newport was a fledgling outpost in the early 18th century, by the mid 1700s it

rivaled Boston as a commercial and intellectual center. The exposure to various

ideologies, the emerging decorative arts scene typified by Townsend, Goddard and John

Stevens, and the expansive commercialism centered on the Triangle trade, among a host

of other temptations must have been seductive and intoxicating. Little Comptoners

were geographically and culturally placed squarely between two opposing tensions of

rigid, controlling Puritanism and the more intellectually expansive and freewheeling

space of Newport County. How they may have resolved this tension, as viewed through

the lens of death, follows.

The Evidence:

Our attention will now focus on the material evidence found in the Commons Burial

Ground, a tree framed west-facing

plot of land adjacent to a classically

appointed Congregational church

(1832). The setting is quintessential

New England suggestive of Puritan

aesthetics; the town green, with the

governing church at its head

overseeing its congregation either

living in the homes flanking the green or in the adjacent burial yard to the West. It is said

that Little Compton Commons is the only town in Rhode Island with a town green,

linking the town to its Puritan heritage and creating a defensive barrier against the

independent and radical religious beliefs of the nearby Rhode Island colony. What is

visually striking about this burial ground is the juxtaposition of the slate tripartite

gravestones clusters with the more subdued memorial aesthetic of the 19th and 20th

centuries, something that could provide future researchers with an uncommon

opportunity to study the 300-year progression of memorialization in New England.

In total, over 200 photographs from two collections were analyzed, the larger of the

7


8/29

two generously donated by Vincent Luti, who spent 30 years exhaustively researching

and writing about the gravestone carvings of Newport County in the 18th century, and the

second from the private collection of local photographer, Cindy West. Each photograph

was analyzed based on the form, motif design, particularly the effigies, and typography

and textual references. At this juncture, no attempt was made to analyze either border

designs or material composition, although further study of this is warranted and could

provide further clues into the cultural patterns of belief. A relational database was created

and all of the relevant information extracted from the gravestones was deconstructed,

quantified, and entered in blocks of 10-year spans of time. Given the relatively rapid

social changes present during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, dividing the

information in this manner seemed the most appropriate method to detect patterns of

change over time.

The date range of all sample gravestones is from 1698 to 1824, although only two

legible extant examples prior to 1700 and twelve examples between 1800 and 1824 exist,

leaving a total of one hundred and eighty two 18 th century gravestones. Due to

environmental and human effects, not all of the samples were able to be fully analyzed

which skew some of the final totals; however, this will not significantly alter any

categorical analysis.

Age and Gender by Decade - Little Compton

Male

Femal

e Male


9/29

During the span of time surveyed, seventy nine men (1698-1816), eighty four women

(1700-1824), thirteen male children fourteen years of age or less (1706-1781) and

nineteen female children fourteen years of age or less (1705-1819) were buried in the

grounds. Deconstruction of these aggregate numbers reveals patterns of death amongst

the four groups. (Detailed tables can be found in the Appendix I Tables 1-3.) For

example:

For the entire subject period, 27% (22) of males died before the age of forty as

compared with 39% (30) of women. Disease and complications from childbirth

are two possible explanations why this is so.

Of those adults under the age of forty who died, 20% of all women and 27% of all

men died during the 1710s and 13.5% of all men and 17% of all women died in

the 1750s.

Slightly more than half of male children died before 1730 and except for three

deaths of male children between the ages of 8-14 during the 1750s decade, only

one additional death occurred during the subject period.

Female childrens deaths are distributed slightly more evenly, although the 1710-

decade and particularly the 1770s decade stand out and coincide with male

childrens deaths, giving credence to the idea that Little Compton was struck by

an epidemic.

Only two male children died after 1769, and none after 1789. Female children did

not fair as well. Noteworthy are that six lost their lives in during the 1770s;

however, only two deaths are known after this time. Possible explanations are the

availability of better nutrition in Little Compton and the proximity of better and

more advanced medical care.

Only 7% (6) of the entire male population buried at the commons died between

the ages of forty and fifty-nine. 53% (43) lived to old age (60 and older).

Womens deaths were a bit more evenly distributed, with 22% (17) dying

between the ages of forty and sixty and 39% (30) living into old age.

Studying patterns of death by age and gender offer researchers valuable clues that

9


10/29

could lead to further study on subjects such as the causality of death, familial

involvement with disease and death, or conversely improvements in nutrition and medical

care. For example, from the material evidence we know that John and Mary Wood lost

six of their seven children in 1712, certainly from disease. This is important in two ways;

it provides clues to an abnormality within the Little Compton community and it also

skews the distribution of data. How might ones research conclusions alter if this

information is factored into the total number of childrens deaths? Were the early decades

of the 18th century more hospitable to children than currently supposed? It is beyond the

scope of this paper to deviate into these subject areas; however it illustrates how even the

most basic analysis of gravestone carving can lead into unforeseen areas of investigation.

Our interest is to investigate how the material evidence reflects the social and theological

attitudes of the Little Compton during the 18th and early 19th century.

Stylization:

For the period 1698 until 1824, five distinct styles of gravestone motifs present

themselves for investigation at the Commons Burial Ground. Where Deetz and

Dethlefsen identified three universal styles (deaths head, cherub, and willows) and

James Hijiya offers us plain style as a fourth alternative, Little Compton features a fifth

style, that of tombstone and tablet. One other style, or lack thereof, that randomly appears

is the fieldstone marker with no inscription. While this study does not take these into

account, their very existence represents a cultural belief; one that, while ignored, should

be recognized. This is not to say that the three universal styles are not dominant in our

survey. as they were in Deetz study; it is that they are not the only stylistic

representations of mortuary art during this period. Having said this, by the 1710s the

plain and the tombstone styles are extinct, save for an extension of the Church familys

apparent pleasure of being entombed, and the plain style exists as a temporal and formal

exception. We begin our investigation with the one extant example of the Plain style

found in the Commons.

Plain Style:

The plain style is the earliest known colonial gravestone carving generally

10


11/29

associated with the mid to late 17th century. Though its use is not known for certain,

economic and/or theological reasons are usually given as explanations for its existence.

The economic argument is fairly obvious; colonists with little money were inclined to

create their own memorials by scratching crude letters into a plain stone. Although not

exhibiting the elegance of later styles crafted by competent carvers, they nevertheless

serve to locate and memorialize the deceased in the best way the family is capable of.

The other more intriguing suggestion for this style is theological.

One strand of 17th century theological thought centered on the insignificance of

man. In comparison to God, writes James Hijiya, man was a piece of valiant dust.7

Innumerable sermons from the pulpit by Puritan ministers bent on controlling the beliefs

of their parishioners, constantly reminded them of their lowly and humble worldly status

and their sinful ways. Insofar as this belief was internalized, it is possible that plain

gravestones, or no gravestone at all was an expression of this belief. Another idea for the

plain style, suggested by Hijiya, is the tenet that ones soul, and not their body, is of

importance. Thus, a persons remains were merely deposited with no need to make any

statement other than where they were buried. And yet a third explanation is that from the

Middle Ages until the Early Modern period, Europeans had a calm, almost absent-minded

attitude towards death. Death was a natural way of living, an unremarkable event.8

The only extant

example of this style found in

our samples is that of Mary

Clap (1740). Only 1 year old

when she died, her remains

are buried beneath a classic

plain style gravestone. This is

unusual and post-dates by

almost forty years the end of

its era and the beginning of Mary Clap 1740

7Hijiya, James. American Gravestones and Attitudes toward Death: A Brief History Proceedings of theAmerican Philosophical Society, Vol. 127, No. 5 (Oct. 14, 1983), p. 342,

http://www.jstor.org/stable/986503.8Ibid., 343

11


12/29

the deaths head reign. Nevertheless, there it is sitting amongst images that long ago

turned their backs on Puritan darkness towards the New Light of the Great Awakening.

The only reasonable explanation for this style to exist is economic. Professional carvers

were available in the area by this time and religious beliefs were well established. The

rough face of the stone, the simple top, and the scratch carving all suggest that the Claps

had little means to pay for more. This is a reminder to us that stylistic change does not

always flow in a linear progression.

Tombstone tablet:

A second variant from the three universally accepted gravestone motifs of 18th

century New England is the tombstone tablet. By placing a solid sheet of stone on top of

a persons mortal remains, one makes a statement in form and language; its size creating

an immortal presence for the interred. Tablets are material embodiments of status, power

and wealth.The seven examples at the Commons burial ground are all from one extended

family. Benjamin and Alice Church, famed Ranger and early settlers of Little Compton,

their children and grandchildren, and William and Rebekah Southworth, original

proprietors of the Old Dartmouth and Little Compton purchases, and the mother and

father of Alice Church. Through deeds and position, both patriarchs were men of status

and power, not only within the Little Compton community but also in the greater orbit of

New England society. That they chose, in death, to reflect this through entombment

makes a statement of their own self-importance and their desire to convey their legacy.

What is striking is the absence, or at least diminishment, of religious iconography.

The epitaph on the Southworth tablet is enclosed by a round top outline, reminiscent of

the later neo-classical form of early

19th century gravestones. In the arch

is a floating, moon faced soul effigy

with small straight wings, an icon

that is unique among almost 200

samples in Little Compton. The text

is crisp, regular and with no hint of

the looser textual carving styles of

12


13/29

the period. There can be little doubt that this tablet was carved by a professional stone

carver. The Church family stones, though similar to the Southworths are even plainer in

style. There is no outlined border on the tablet and religious iconography is absent,

though there is a faint suggestion of a fleur de lis in the corners of Benjamin and Alices

tablet. Their children and grandchildrens tablets show no such adornment, in fact there is

no visible adornment at all, though the regularized text and the tablet themselves draw

attention to their significance in time and space.

Little scholarly literature addresses the symbolic significance of the tombstone

tablet in colonial New England, possibly because of their uniqueness. Deetz and

Dethlefsen record no tombstone tablets in the three burial grounds of Cambridge,

Concord and Plymouth, Massachusetts. This is not to say that none exist, for examples

are found in places like the North Burial Ground in Providence, Rhode Island, but it does

reinforce the belief that tablet memorialization is uncommon and materially represents a

sense of self importance that is rarely found within the graveyards of colonial New

England. This abnormality of belief, literally carved in stone, is not reflective of any

universal belief amongst the dead at the Commons Burial Ground, but rather a unique

familial trait of self-aggrandizement.

The Trinity:

Scholars researching the meaning of early New England gravestones have long

focused their attention on the three most prevalent motifs, the deaths head, the cherub (or

soul effigy) and the neo-classical urn and willow. That research would concentrate on

these three styles is understandable, for they are the most widely carved stylistic patterns

found throughout colonial New England. Such is the case in Little Compton, where more

than 180 gravestones fit these three motifs. This relatively large sample size allows us to

examine, with a fairly high degree of certainty, stylistic trends over time, and creates a

basis from which to interpret plausible social, economic and religious progression of

beliefs as they relate to those people buried in the Commons Burial Ground. General

design characteristics were traced from 1698 until 1824 and categorized under the general

headings of deaths head, cherub (with its variant styles of Pancake, Moon-face, and

lifelike) and neo-classical (See Appendix Table 4) Each occurrence of a particular

13


14/29

style was further subdivided by decade. To begin, motifs were divided into the three

conventional classifications proposed by Deetz and Dethlefsen9 so that comparisons

could be made between the findings in Little Compton and those in Cambridge, Concord,

and Plymouth as seen in the following graph:

When plotted over time, the Deaths Head and Cherub motifs found in Little

Compton produce the classic battleship pattern that one would suspect. What is unusual

9Dethlefsen and Deetz, op.cit., p. 505.

Design Styles-Little Compton

Deaths

Head Cherub Neo-Classical Total/Decade

Before 1700 1 1

1700-1709 12 1 0 13

1710-1719 17 3 0 20

1720-1729 1 6 0 7

1730-1739 0 15 0 15

1740-1749 0 17 0 17

1750-1759 0 16 0 16

1760-1769 0 19 0 191770-1779 1-JB 29 0 29

1780-1789 0 8 0 8

1790-1799 0 14 0 14

1800-1809 0 2 0 2

1810-1819 0 0 9 9

Over 1820 0 0 2 2

Total/Age 32 140 11

14


15/29

when compared against the other three examples is how early change occurred.With the

exception of one John Bull example from 1775, the use of the deaths head motif is found

only in first twenty years of the 18th century in Little Compton and except for an isolated

instance, abruptly became extinct in 1720. The ages of those interred are fairly evenly

distributed, giving us no indication that the choice of the deaths head was generational.

Plymouth and Concord, on the other hand, retained this motif style until well into the

1760s, and in Cambridge throughout the entire century. This abrupt termination suggests

that a significant shift in worldview away from the rigid Puritan orthodoxy and towards a

softening attitude of death, associative with the Great Awakening, occurred much earlier

here than with their contemporaries who lived closer to Boston.

Cherubs, celebrating the joyous hope of life after death, began appearing in Little

Compton during the first decade of the 18th century. Plymouth had no deviation from the

death head motif until the 1730s, though cherubs began appearing in Cambridge and

Concord by the 1720s. This is still a full 10 15 years after the first occurrence in Little

Compton. On the other end of the scale, the first decade of the 1800s saw the final use of

the cherub design, which by now was a fully developed representative portrait, coinciding

with the styles demise in the other three examples. By 1810, the neo-classical style had

taken hold in all of the communities, signaling the shift from the sacred to the secular in

post-colonial New England thought. Memorialization, independence of mind and spirit,

and democratic thought finally replaced the religious symbolism of the previous century.

We now turn our focus on each of the three universal styles, their theological significance

and how patterns of change in Little Compton compare with their three contemporaries.

The Deaths Head

The literature is replete with various scholarly interpretations of motifs as they

relate to social attitudes towards death, many of which focus on strict Puritan orthodoxy

and its rather dismal view of life and

death in the face of a judgmental God.

Death was feared, and the hope of eternal

salvation was always in question. The

low ached winged skull in the tympanum

15


16/29

of a dark slate gravestone was a daily reminder of their inevitable place, on earth and in

Heaven. Others, however, have taken a more expansive view and, while acknowledging

that death was always feared, there was also the hope of death as a release from the toil

and earthly bondage of the soul and its deliverance to a better place. In other words, as

both Gordon Geddes and David Stannard have argued, a tension between the horror of

death and the anticipation of salvation existed in colonial America that in their estimation

was self-reinforcing.10The earthly horrors of death therefore make the prospect of

ultimate salvation more desirable.

The death head with low- slung outstretched wings therefore can signify more

than one meaning. On the one hand, the bare skull with sunken eye sockets and bared

teeth represent the inevitable outcome of the flesh. In this interpretation, there is no

pretense that death is anything other than horrific and final. The low slumping wings

amplify the humility of man reflected against God, cowering at the thought of meeting

his/her maker after having led the imperfect life of a sinner. This is a fairly traditional

view of the death heads symbolic meaning and comes, I suggest, from extrapolating a

narrowly focused view of Boston Puritanism to the broader New England population. A

more expansive interpretation of the deaths head is that through death, there is release

from the earthly bonds of the body and the hope for ultimate salvation. Symbolically the

skull is present, evoking the mortality of the flesh, but the wings, in full flight lift the soul

upwards towards Heaven. Rather than short wings that may evoke a lack of purpose, the

soul wandering aimlessly, long expansive wings fill the tympanum and suggest a

purposefulness of flight from the earth and the soul rising to the sky. Yet another, more

cynical interpretation is that the wings simply have no other purpose than aesthetic;

framing the skull and filling the space within the tympanum. As Freud once supposedly

quipped, Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Whatever interpretation one chooses to

embrace, it is clear from the data that by 1720, Little Compton society, in general, had all

but rejected the Puritan notion of death in favor of a softer more expansive liberal

worldview.

Cherubs

10Hijiya, op.cit., p. 346-347.

16


17/29

Cherubic, or soul effigy symbology found its way to Little Compton very early in

the 18th century. The first recorded reference is found on the tombstone tablets of William

and Rebekah Southworth in 1704. Three more were added in the 1710s and by the

1720s they had all but displaced the death head as the towns preferred symbolic

reference to death. Based loosely on Vincent Lutis suggested facial classification of soul

effigies, four distinct typologies are represented in this study; cherub, flat pancake, moon

face and lifelike. Although subcategories do exist, especially within the lifelike

classification, this research would not benefit from further differentiation beyond the

aforementioned typologies.

Comparing Deetz and Dethlefsons study of graveyards in Cambridge, Concord,

and Plymouth, it is clear that an attitudinal shift towards the liberal religious ideology of

the Great Awakening took place in Little Compton much earlier than in the Plymouth and

Massachusetts colonies. Based on their research, the first cherub design appeared in

Cambridge in the 1720s and in Concord and Plymouth by the 1730s. They suggest the

earlier usage of cherubs in Cambridge comes from its more educated and therefore liberal

attitudes, and their connection to the English intellectual community whose 17th century

use of the cherub design coincides with the English Great Awakening which began fifty

or so years before New Englands. If one applies their hypothesis that adoption of

stylistic change moves outward from urban centers (in this case Boston) at the rate of one

mile per year, Concord and Plymouths stylistic change occurred right on schedule.

Having said this, it does not account for the abrupt shift exhibited in Little Compton, nor

does it account for the fact that change began at least a decade before liberal

Cambridge. Something other force was at work, one that I posit is Little Comptons

geographic location, placing it within the urban orbit of Newport.

In his landmark book,In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early

American Life, Deetz suggests that mortuary art may exhibit random or even irregular

changes along boundaries between various socio-political units as compared with more

inland, and therefore stable ones. He illustrates this by looking at the seemingly irregular

patterns of change from Cape Cod and the Rhode Island border as proof of his

17


18/29

hypothesis.11The explanation suggested by Deetz may well be true along the isolated arm

of Cape Cod, or along the contested Rhode Island/Massachusetts border closer to

Providence, but it does not hold up well where Little Compton is concerned. Again, the

data exhibits no pattern randomness between the deaths head and the cherub. To the

contrary, it clearly shows that a definable break from one style to another occurred in the

1720s and prevailed in various forms until the first decade of the 19 th century, when it

disappeared in favor of the neo-classical urn and willow motif. There is every indication,

based on changes in gravestone iconography that Little Compton underwent uncommon,

if not unique, societal and cultural changes earlier than previously suspected of

Massachusetts border towns, a change that is worthy of investigation. Acknowledging

that a complete understanding of the dynamics that occurred in Little Compton is

impossible to accurately reconstruct, it is still possible to imagine why and how this

conversion took place.

A review of the earlier section A Brief Look at the Early Years provides many

supporting clues for this contention, some of which have been suggest previously:

Those who came were an independent lot, intent on establishing themselves and

their families in a new environment that rewarded independence and hard work.

Many of them had a cordial, possibly friendly and to an extent symbiotic

relationship with the native population of Sakonnet, enlisting them in an alliance

against Metacom (King Philip) during the War.

There is no mention in the literature surveyed that they came to proselytize and in

fact, they were chastised by Plymouth officials for not having established a

church or engaging a minister until forced to.

Scores of immigrants from Rhode Island, trying to escape the congestion of

Aquidneck Island were allowed to settle in Little Compton. This polyglot of

ideologies, Baptist, Quaker, and New Lights was certainly not conducive to

maintaining a cohesive theology, if one ever existed in the first place. Another

feature that contributed to Little Comptons.

11Deetz, James,In Small Things Considered: An Archaeology of Early American Life (New York: AnchorBooks, 1996), 120-121.

18


19/29

Their relative geographic isolation. Access from the eastern town of Dartmouth

and the northern town of Tiverton was slow, tedious, and in some cases

treacherous, the roads little more than widened Indian trails of dirt and mud.

Little commercial activity was present in Dartmouth, though merchants were

beginning to establish shops in the areas known as Stone Bridge, although this too

was a long and arduous journey. To the South and West the Sakonnet River and

Rhode Island Sound formed a natural barrier against easy intrusion. The people in

Little Compton were most certainly isolated, which would have bred a sense of

physical and social independence in the general population.

Although it has just been argued that Little Compton was geographically isolated,

the urban center of Newport, Rhode Island, by the 1740s a major maritime and

cultural center was but a half-days sail away.

Coastal and trans-Atlantic commerce brought to Newport a world view of

stimulating new thought. The liberal Protestant ideology, known as the Great

Awakening was taking form, especially in Newport, where Quakers, Protestants,

and Jews discussed and formulated their own theological notions of self, God and

the afterlife. It was here that the people of Little Compton would have been

exposed to a very liberal social, religious and political line of thought

unimaginable in early 17th century Boston or Plymouth. Isolation at some level

liberated them, and it is this liberation that is reflected in the gravestones they

chose.

These clues support the contention that Little Compton became an ideological melting

pot earlier than their contemporaries in Plymouth and Boston, but, they do not explain the

abrupt iconographic shift in the 1720s, when cherubs replaced death skulls. Admittedly

conjectural, I suggest that the only plausible explanation is the appearance in Newport of

John Stevens in 1705.

The Stevens Shop in Newport,

Rhode Island

Vincent Luti, a scholar of early

19


20/29

colonial gravestones in Newport County, Rhode Island and authorMallet and Chisel:

Gravestone Carvers of Newport, Rhode Island, in the 18th Century has written a masterful

work that traces the evolution of the regions professional carving styles. The earliest and

most influential of these was the Stevens Shop. Arriving from Boston by way of England,

John Stevens I immediately began producing fairly crude deaths head skulls, most likely

in the same style that he carved John Dye 1716 Attributed to John Stevens

in Boston. His first body of work dates from 1705 until approximately 1718 and does not,

in general, vary in form, iconography or lettering, although crude attempts late in his

career were made to transition from the bare skull to a more human form. One example

of this transition discovered in Little Compton, (John Dye -1716) illustrates this emerging

style.

Winged soul effigies suddenly appear from the Stevens shop sometime between

1715 and 1717, which coincided precisely with the gravestones found in the Commons

Burial Ground in Little Compton. The first example of this style is found in Newport on

the stone of one Joseph Church, (1715)12followed three months later in Little Compton

on Mary Palmers stone (February, 1716). Both effigies are identical in conformation as

is the border, excepting for the star shape at the top of Churchs and the flower shape on

Mary Palmers. Their epitaphs are identical in form and reference, with lettering in both

upper and lower case and the older spelling of the word lyeth. The next identifiable

example of a soul effigy from this era, other than the entombed Church family, was John

Coe (1728). Stylistically it compares favorably with Abigail Nichols (1723)13 stone

located in Newport. Both feature a moon-face with subtle chin, and a high arched wing

effigy with an hourglass perched above the head. The different spellings Here lyeth

and Here lieth may indicate that the Little Compton example is from another carver but

it does suggest a stylistic link between Little Compton and Newport. The change in

spelling also coincides with the shift from the deaths head to the cherub, or soul effigy

designs.

By the late 1730s Little Compton, further evidence that suggests Little Compton

12Luti, Vincent,Mallet and Chisel: Gravestone Carvers of Newport, Rhode Island in the 18th Century.Rockland: Picton Press, 2002, p. 10.13Ibid.,14.

20


21/29

sensibilities had shifted from the art of dying to the art of living 14 is in the form of

commemoration. No longer are the words, Here lieth instead one finds the first use

of In Memory of on Mary Churchs (1736/7) epitaph. No other example would be

found on any example in Little Compton from this date forward. Once it (death) became

a matter for contemplation, death could no longer remain banal, an inevitability to be

accepted on faith alone. 15

The chronology of John Stevens evolutionary style can be further traced from

Newport to Little Compton. Between the dates of 1729 and 1737, hearts, flowers and

wigs began to appear, though earlier

examples do exist in Newport.16In Little

Compton, it was left to the family of

Patience Richmond to lead the way. In this

example, high arched wings surround the

moon-faced effigy and V shaped bib that

conforms to the heart shape around her

epitaph. The border, made up of symbolic Patience Richmond - 1728

vines, is similarly anchored to the heart shape, filling the entire space of the tablet.

This style is not the exclusive domain of women though, for it appears one year later on

the stone of William Baley (1730). Once again, the link with the more expressive

Newport style is evident in Little Compton.

Not all members of Little Compton society either sought or could afford this new

departure of carving. In 1728/29 Jane Woodwarths family commissioned John Stevens17

to produce a gravestone more stylistically in keeping with the tradition of the period;

moon faced subtle chin effigy surrounded by high arched anchored wings with a fairlytraditional border and epitaph. The bald head of the effigy on her stone was common, as

wigs were not particularly in vogue in Newport until the 1740s, though rare earlier

14Linden, Blanche M.G., Silent City on the Hill: Picturesque Landscapes of Memory and Bostons Mount

Auburn Cemetery. China: C&C Offset Printing Co., Ltd., 2007, 29.15Ibid.16Luti, op.cit., 75.17Note from Vincent Luti, John Stevens (II) 1st Account Book 1729.

21


22/29

examples do exist, both there and in Little Compton. Samuel Crandell (1736) sporting a

raked wig that may be attributed to William Stevens18 is the only wigged effigy found in

our samples prior to 1740 and only five others are

identified prior to 1760 when the wigged effigy became

commonplace. Whether wigged or bare headed, it is clear

from the material evidence that Little Compton shared

with Newport a more evolved stylization towards death

and memorialization as compared with Cambridge,

Concord, and Plymouth, all of whom would not adopt

these changes until much later.

From the mid to late 18th century, Little Comptons

gravestones took became more regularized, continuing

with the traditional moon face effigy and high arched

wings. Wigs became more commonplace, as did more facial features (eyes and nose).

This style continued until the late 1770s when it vanished in favor of the life-like effigy,

a timeframe that loosely parallels Stevens work. Of course it is difficult to satisfy

everyones interpretation of what constitutes a fully featured moon effigy and a lifelike

one. Having said this, it appears that the earliest of its kind in Little Compton is Hannah

Southworths (1765), which, according to Luti, predates Stevens' work by approximately

10 years, suggests that there were other carvers working in the area, which there surely

must have been by the last half of the 18th century. Five other examples exist from 1766

until 1777, when Stevens newer body of work appears. An overlap of late soul effigy

styles continues until 1800, when it, like the earlier deaths head, abruptly vanishes from

use. Although Little Compton iconography may have lagged behind that of Cambridge

and Concord, the contemplative aspects of life and death were evidently embraced well

before their contemporaries.

Neo-Classical

Examples of the deaths head in Cambridge continue in usage as late as 1799,

though by 1769 they disappeared from both Concord and Plymouth. This is still 40 years

18Ibid.,105.

22


23/29

after the death head essentially vanished from Little Compton. If as Deetz suggests, the

use of the cherub in place of the deaths head signals the end of Puritanism, this religious

shift places Little Compton on the cutting edge of colonial religious thought. By the end

of the 18th century though, they lagged behind. The first evidence of neo-classicism at the

Commons Burial Ground was for Joseph Thacher, of Boston (1800). It is probable that he

commissioned his own stone, as no other Thachers are buried here, and he made it known

that he was from away. The design was transitional- a tripartite form with an oval in

the center surrounding a pedestal and urn. This transitional form is found in every

instance, save one from 1800-1824, (Fenno-1819). Only three examples contain the urn

and willow design, the rest are either simple urn or lamp motifs.

On the other hand, Cambridge, Concord, and

Plymouth gravestones exhibited neo-classical styles as

early as the 1780s (Cambridge), followed by the

1790s (Concord), and finally Plymouth, which

loosely parallels Little Compton. Though

conjectural, this may suggest that once Puritanism

was safely behind them, intellectual thought in and

around Boston flourished, reflecting post-colonial

secular thought centered on the individual, art,

culture and noble melancholy as antidotes to the

darkness that they lived with for so long. It might

also suggest that once religious tolerance was available, they embraced the opportunity

for decorative expression and applied it in a variety of ways, including in their mortuary

art. The material evidence found in all four burial grounds, now turned cemeteries, points

in this direction.

Final Thoughts:

I am loath to consider my research a conclusion for it is only a beginning. It began

with the supposition that the early colonists, with their clearly established Puritan

pedigree were not religious ideologues, but instead adventurers, and economic

opportunists who, through a combination of circumstances put aside their Puritan

23


24/29

baggage and rapidly embraced a more expansive social and theological worldview than

their contemporaries further to the East. Individualism, Native American contact, and the

proximity to religious dissidents began their conversion process, and the proximity to

the cultural and economic polyglot of Newport Rhode Island made the conversion

complete. Little Compton had socially and intellectually turned their backs on the rigid

orthodoxy of Puritan Plymouth and Massachusetts, and they represented their beliefs in

stone. The local availability of stone carvers, especially the Stevens shop, allowed them

to express in their thoughts through mortuary art. 18th century Little Compton gravestones

represent the progressive attitudes of a regions people who were allowed to intellectually

develop in a free and open environment.

In contrast, the evolution of mortuary art in Cambridge, Concord and Plymouth,

closer to the epicenter of Puritan thought, was decidedly less progressive that Little

Comptons, possibly due to the lack of exposure to diverse opinions or possibly because

of the repressive nature of Puritan society in the early to mid 18 th century. Regardless of

the cause, these four examples vividly illustrate very real and divergent patterns of New

England thought. By mid century, new religious and individualistic attitudes followed the

death of Puritanism, and this was represented in Cambridge, Concord and Plymouth by a

rapid shift how life and death was viewed. This rate of change, as represented in their

mortuary art, progressed rapidly, converging and eventually overtaking Little Comptons.

Not to be viewed as a race, this illustrates, in bold relief the extent to which Little

Compton rejected its Puritan orthodoxy in favor of progressive social and theological

thought much earlier than might have been suspected. It took fifty years before all four

reflected a similar belief structure.

I say that this is but a beginning, for there are many possibilities for new and

thoughtful research. After all, this is a cemetery that has over three hundred years of

people and stories contained within it; more research into the early history of Little

Compton awaits. Familial burial patterns, changing belief structures amongst and

between families, demographic, health and nutritional studies are but some of the

possibilities. It might also be that an historian will come along and use this place as a

micro-history, as Jill Lapore, John Demos, and others have done, as a way of viewing

larger social contexts through a narrow, more manageable lens. The point is that

24


25/29

graveyards, be they colonial, post colonial, antebellum, modern or postmodern all has

stories to tell. Those who are interred have created the narrative; it is up to us to listen.

Appendix I Distribution by Age and Gender

Table 1 Little Compton Men

Males Little Compton

16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 >90 Total/Decade

Before 1700

1700-1709 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

25


26/29

1710-1719 3 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 9

1720-1729 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3

1730-1739 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 5

1740-1749 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 7

1750-1759 0 1 0 0 10 0 4 0 15

1760-1769 0 1 0 1 4 1 2 0 91770-1779 3 0 1 0 3 3 1 0 11

1780-1789 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

1790-1799 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 5

1800-1809 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

1810-1819 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Over 1820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total/Age 9 13 2 4 21 14 9 0

Table 2 Little Compton Women

Females

16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 >90 Total/Decade

Before 1700

1700-1709 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 5

1710-1719 5 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10

1720-1729 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4

1730-1739 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 7

1740-1749 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 5

1750-1759 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 7

1760-1769 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 5

1770-1779 4 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 10

1780-1789 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 61790-1799 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 1 8

1800-1809 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1 7

1810-1819 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Over 1820 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2

Total/Age 21 9 13 4 7 10 9 4

Table 3 Little Compton Children

Children Male Female


27/29

1710-1719 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 5

1720-1729 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

1730-1739 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

1740-1749 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 3

1750-1759 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 4

1760-17690 0 0 0 0 2 0 1

3

1770-1779 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 6

1780-1789 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

1790-1799 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

1800-1809 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

1810-1819 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1

Over 1820 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total/Age 6 2 1 4 4 4 4 7

Table 4 Design Distribution, Little Compton

Design

Bulb

Skull Cherub Pancake Moon-Face Lifelike Neo-Classical Total/Decade

Before 1700 1 1

1700-1709 12 0 0 1 0 0 13

1710-1719 17 0 2 1 0 0 20

1720-1729 1 0 3 3 0 0 7

1730-1739 0 0 3 12 0 0 15

1740-1749 0 0 2 15 0 0 17

1750-1759 0 0 2 14 0 0 161760-1769 0 0 0 17 2 0 19

1770-1779 0 0 0 17 12 0 29

1780-1789 0 1 1 0 6 0 8

1790-1799 0 0 0 1 13 0 14

1800-1809 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

1810-1819 0 0 0 0 0 9 9

Over 1820 0 0 0 0 0 2 2

Total/Age 31 1 13 81 35 11

Bibliography

Deetz, James,In Small Things Considered: An Archaeology of Early American Life. New

York: Anchor Books, 1996.

Dethlefsen, Edwin and James Deetz. Death's Heads, Cherubs, and Willow Trees:

27


28/29

Experimental Archaeology in Colonial Cemeteries.American Antiquity, Vol. 31, No. 4

(Apr., 1966), pp. 502-510. Available from: Society of American Archaeology,

[http://www.jstor.org/stable/2694382].

Hijiya, James. American Gravestones and Attitudes toward Death: A Brief History

Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 127, No. 5 (Oct. 14, 1983):pp.339-363. Available from: American Philosophical Society,


Linden, Blanche M.G., Silent City on the Hill: Picturesque Landscapes of Memory and

Bostons Mount Auburn Cemetery. China: C&C Offset Printing Co., Ltd., 2007.

Luti, Vincent,Mallet and Chisel: Gravestone Carvers of Newport, Rhode Island in the

18th Century. Rockland: Picton Press, 2002.

Luti, Vincent. Over 200 Images of 18th and Early 19th century gravestones in the

Commons Burial Ground, Little Compton, Rhode Island. From his private collection

West, Cindy. Over 50 Images of 18th and Early 19th century gravestones in the Commons

Burial Ground, Little Compton, Rhode Island. From her private collection

Other References

Deetz, James and Edwin N. Dethlefsen. Some Social Aspects of New England Colonial

Mortuary Art.Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology No. 25, Approaches to

the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices (1971), pp. 30-38. Available from: Societyfor American Archaeology, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/25146710].

Deetz, James and Richard Bushman. A Cognitive Historical Model for American

Material Culture: 1620-1835.Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research.

Supplementary Studies, No. 20 (1974), pp. 21-27. Available from: The American Schools

of Oriental Research, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/20066624].

Dunn, Richard S.. The Social History of Early America.American Quarterly, Vol. 24,

No. 5 (Dec., 1972), pp. 661-679. Available from: The John Hopkins University Press,


Moran, Gerald F. and Maris A. Vinovskis.. The Puritan Family and Religion: A Critical

Reappraisal. The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 39, No.1, The Family

in Early American History and Culture (Jan. 1982), pp. 29-63. Available from:

Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture,


Stannard, David E. Death and Dying in Puritan New England. The American

Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 5 (Dec., 1973), pp. 1305-1330. Available from:

28


29/29

American Historical Association, [http://www.jstor.org/stable/1854094].

Commons Burial Ground_Final

Documents

Transcript of Commons Burial Ground_Final