Examining Gender Differentiation in the Headstones of the ...

Goldstone 1

Examining Gender Differentiation in the Headstones of the B’nai

Israel Cemetery in Gainesville, Florida

By: Simon Goldstone

Undergraduate Honors Thesis Department of Anthropology

University of Florida April 2014

Redacted

Goldstone 2

Table of Contents

List of Figures 3

Abstract 4

Introduction 5

Jewish Burial Practices and Rituals 7

Historical Background 12

Field and Research Methods 16

Demography 21

Results and Findings 23

Conclusions 50

References Cited 52

Appendix A: Recording Form 54

Appendix B: Data Table (Name, Gender, Year of Death, and Age) 54

Appendix C: Data Table (Grave Type, Basic Form, Headstone Volume, Material) 59

Appendix D: Data Table (Lettering, Base, Curbing, Horizontal Slab) 64

Appendix E: Data Table (Motif Use) 68

Goldstone 3

List of Figures

Figure 1: NWB006 Headstone 20

Figure 2: NWB012 Headstone 20

Figure 3: Headstone Material Use by Decade 23

Figure 4: Gender Differences in Headstone Material 24

Figure 5: Temporal Analysis of Headstone Forms 26

Figure 6: Gender Differences in Average Volume of Headstones 28

Figure 7: Gender Differences in Average Surface Area of Lawn-Level Markers 29

Figure 8: Differences in Average Headstone Volume Based on Age and Gender 31

Figure 9: Differences in Average Surface Area of Lawn-Level Markers Based

on Age and Gender 31

Figure 10: Gender Differences in Average Headstone Volume by Decade 33

Figure 11: Gender Differences in Average Surface Area of Lawn-Level Markers

by Decade 35

Figure 12: Presence of Motifs by Gender 37

Figure 13: NWD041 Headstone 39


Figure 15: NWH097 Headstone 40

Figure 16: NWA001 Headstone 41




Figure 20: NWJ120 Headstone 48

Goldstone 4

Abstract

Ethnoarchaeological analysis of headstones offers insightful perspectives into

differentiation of individuals within cultural groups. Studies in the past have examined

diversity in Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jewish cemeteries (i.e., Gradwohl

1993). The goal of this study is to analyze gender differentiation in headstone

morphology and style within the B’nai Israel Cemetery in Gainesville, Florida. As the

oldest Jewish cemetery in Gainesville, this site also offered insights into the temporal

changes in headstone morphology and style.

Goldstone 5

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to analyze temporal patterns in headstone material,

form, size, and motif amongst the headstones of the B’nai Israel Cemetery in Gainesville,

Florida. The B’nai Israel Cemetery is the oldest Jewish cemetery in Gainesville, and is

the only Jewish cemetery in Gainesville owned by its congregation. Established in 1872,

the cemetery is located on the corner of Waldo Road and University Avenue. This study

also aims to reveal information about morphological and stylistic differences between the

headstones of male and female individuals represented within this cemetery. Elizabeth

Scott explains “studying gender does not mean only studying women… one cannot

examine women’s lives in the past or present without also examining men’s lives and the

ways in which they are interrelated” (1994). Studying gender through ethnoarchaeology

uncovers the relational differences in both women’s and men’s lives, and set a precedent

for viewing race, gender, class, and their interrelatedness (Scott 1994).

In 1993, David Mayer Gradwohl published a paper titled “Intra-Group Diversity

in Midwest American Jewish Cemeteries: An Ethnoarchaeological Perpective.” Within

this paper, Gradwohl discusses intra-group differences in headstone styles between

Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jews. The goal of Gradwohl’s study was to

examine “Jewish identities as manifested in cemeteries and associated mortuary behavior

patterns in the Midwestern United States” (1993). The study presented in the current

paper is modeled after Gradwohl’s research. While Gradwohl’s study looked at intra-

group diversity between the separate sectors of Judaism, the aim of the study presented in

this paper is to look at intra-group diversity along gender lines.

Goldstone 6

To accomplish this, an ethnoarchaeological approach was employed.

Ethnoarchaeology has been defined by Parker Pearson as “the use of field observations in

the ethnographic present gathered by archaeologists addressing particular questions posed

by archaeological data” (2000:34). The study presented in this paper fits this definition

of ethnoarchaeology because it examines both the historic and modern mortuary patterns

of the B’nai Israel Congregation of Gainesville, Florida, through data collection in the

B’nai Israel Cemetery, as well as through interviews with the rabbi of the congregation,

Rabbi David Kaiman, and the cemetery director, Dr. Ralph Lowenstein.

Gender in this study refers to an individual’s expression of either a male or female

identity based on the context of the headstone that represents them. Characteristics that

contributed to the classification of an individual’s gender included names and descriptive

phrases (i.e., infant son, beloved wife). In some cases, the presence of a Hebrew name—

expressed as “[child’s name] son/daughter of [parents’ names]”— helped determine the

gender of an individual. Within this study, gender identity is described in terms of the

common binary of “male” and “female.” These terms do not accurately represent the full

spectrum of gender identity, and are more appropriate for the description of biological

sex. However, since the headstones within the cemetery are only capable of representing

these two points on the gender spectrum, the use of these terms was deemed sufficient.

Goldstone 7

Jewish Burial Practices and Rituals

In the words of Alfred J. Kolatch, “Just as there is a Jewish way of life, there is a

Jewish way of death” (2004:49). Religion transcends mortality, and is bound to the spirit

in eternal afterlife. In order to achieve a comprehensive understanding of the Jewish

perception of death and afterlife, it is important to study the mortuary customs performed

by the living.

There are very few Jewish laws that pertain to burial practices, and none that

stipulate differential treatment between male-associated and female-associated graves

(Kaiman 2014). Instead, burial practices are dictated mainly by local tradition. Within

Judaism there are two basic principles that guide the traditions of death and mourning:

kevod ha-met, or respect for the dead, and kevod ha-chai, or respect for the living,

specifically those in mourning (Kolatch 2004:49-50). Another significant concept within

Judaism is that the body must be buried within the earth in order for it to return to its

original state (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm 2000:54-55). It is because of this concept that

cremation, viewed as being an unnaturally rapid method of disposal, is banned within the

Jewish religion. Embalming and autopsies, which involve mutilating the body, are also

banned in most cases for the same reason (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm 2000:12-16,

Lamm 2000:55). These practices are viewed as being disrespectful to the deceased, and

violate kevod ha-met.

Jewish tradition calls for all Jews to be buried in the same type of garment,

indicating that the rich and poor are all equal before God (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm

2000:11-12). The bodies are dressed in shrouds made of inexpensive cotton, muslin, or

linen, and they are traditionally white to represent purity. The shrouds do not have any

Goldstone 8

pockets, which symbolizes that none of the individual’s material possessions can be

brought with them into the afterlife (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm 2000:11-12).

While today it is common in Israel for Jews to be buried without a coffin, Western

countries generally require by law that individuals be buried in coffins (Kolatch 2004:49-

76). It is common practice for caskets to be made of wood. The origin of this practice

can be traced back to the Old Testament, when Adam and Eve hid among the trees in the

Garden of Eden as God called to them. This passage has been interpreted to mean that

bodies should be placed within wooden coffins at the time of death, or when one is being

called upon by God (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm 2000:19-21). There are no stipulations

regarding the type of wood that should be used, although softer woods are sometimes

preferred, because they are believed to decompose at a similar rate to the body. Wood is

also preferred over other materials because it is considered simple and modest, which is

the traditional manner of Jewish burials. Ostentatious burials are traditionally frowned

upon in favor of modest ones (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm 2000).

Metal adornments are allowed on caskets, however. Nails and metal handles may

be used on the caskets (Lamm 2000:19-21), although, according to Hummer (N.d.), the

Gainesville community prefers caskets with wooden pegs as binders. Hummer also notes

that the Jewish community in Gainesville commonly “uses a plain, unvarnished pine box,

into which they place dirt from the Holy Land at the time of burial” (N.d.). Kolatch

(2004:49-76) explains that dirt from the Holy Land is placed in the coffin because, in the

Jewish religion, it is believed that the return of the Messiah will cause a resurrection of

the deceased in the Holy Land.

Goldstone 9

For this reason, it is against the Jewish tradition to place the casket within

concrete vaults in the ground, as this would prevent resurrection. Placing the casket in a

concrete vault is also regarded as an immodest practice, because they can be unnecessary.

In addition, these vaults hinder decomposition of the remains, which is strongly

discouraged in Jewish burials. However, in the case that the ground is unstable and prone

to shifting, the use of concrete vaults is permissible (Lamm 2000:56-57). This is the case

within the B’nai Israel Cemetery, where the ground is prone to collapsing as the bodies

decompose in their graves. According to Hummer (N.d.), a crew of gravediggers lowers

the casket into the concrete vault before the procession arrives. The diggers wait outside

of the cemetery until the ceremony is finished, and reenter to place the cap on the vault

and fill in the grave.

It is not until some time after burial that a headstone is placed over the grave. The

practice of placing headstones over Jewish graves dates back to biblical times, when

Jacob placed a pillar alongside Rachel’s grave in Genesis 35:20 (Kolatch 2004:49-76,

Lamm 2000:187-188). Within Judaism, there are three main purposes for placing a

tombstone. The first is to mark the place of a burial, so that Kohanim (priests) may avoid

impurity from contact with the dead. Secondly, headstones serve to properly designate

the grave so that family members and friends may visit it. Finally, headstones are placed

to respect and honor the deceased (Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm, 2000:187-188).

Following the recurring theme of simplicity, Jewish tombstones traditionally

favor modesty. There are no rules that dictate the form or material of the headstone,

however. Headstones are the responsibility of the heirs, but the decedent’s desires should

also be taken into consideration, as well as the type of marker that is common to the

Goldstone 10

cemetery. As Lamm puts it, “one should do honor to the deceased, but one should not

use funds for a monument for the dead that are needed for the expense of the living”

(Lamm 2000:188).

Tombstones are usually erected twelve months after burial (Kolatch 2004:49-76).

There are a couple of reasons for this practice. While it is widely agreed by religious

authorities that a monument may be erected at any time, it is believed that during the first

twelve months the deceased is still well remembered, and there is no need for a headstone

to be placed during this period (Kolatch 2004:49-76). A more practical reason, explained

by Kolatch (2004:49-76), is that waiting a year gives the earth a chance to settle,

preventing the headstone from sinking into the ground. Lamm (2000:189-190), however,

contends that it is more appropriate to arrange for a monument or tombstone to be placed

as soon after shiva, the seven days of mourning that take place after the burial, as

possible. He notes that “honoring the dead should take priority over his being

remembered, and arrangements for the stone should be made as soon as practicable”

(Lamm 2000:190). It is evident that there are contrasting views on the matter, and it may

be wise to follow local tradition.

Inscriptions on Jewish headstones are traditionally minimal. The inscription

should include both the English and Hebrew names of the deceased, the Hebrew names

of the parents, and the English and Hebrew dates of birth and death (Lamm 2000:190-

191). It is deemed inappropriate by some to exclude the Hebrew dates when the English

dates are given. It is also common for a brief descriptive phrase to be included in the

inscription, such as “Eshet Chayil,” meaning “Woman of Valor” (Lamm 2000:190-191).

Other common inscriptions include the Hebrew abbreviation phay nun (פ'נ), which stands

Goldstone 11

for po nikbar. This phrase translates to “Here Lies” (Gradwohl 1993). Another Hebrew

abbreviation that is commonly inscribed on Jewish headstones is tahnehtzayvah (תנצבה).

This abbreviation stands for “t’hee nafsho tz’roora beetzror hachaim,” which translates to

“may his soul be bound up in the bond of everlasting life” (Terrell 2005:62).

It is also common for headstones to display decorative engravings. Common

Jewish motifs include the Star of David, the menorah or candelabrum, the “hands of

blessing,” and the tablets of the torah (Gradwohl 1993, Halporn 1993, Schwartzman

1993:40-45). While these are but a few of the motifs associated with Jewish headstones,

they are quite common. The “hands of blessing” motif is a symbol that is reserved for

members of the Kohanim, the priestly order (Gradwohl 1993, Kolatch 2004:49-76, Lamm

2000:190-191, Schwartzmann 1993:22-25, Terrell 2005:62). “The Star (or shield) of

David is typically associated with males, while the menorah is correlated with females”

(Gradwohl 1993). According to Roberta Halporn (1993), the menorah is used on female-

associated headstones to describe them as a holy woman.

Goldstone 12

Historical Background

The first Jewish family in Gainesville, the Endel family, arrived shortly after the

Civil War (Hummer N.d.). After their arrival, other Jewish families began moving to the

area (Hummer N.d.). At the time that the Jewish cemetery was consecrated there were no

more than five Jewish families in Gainesville. Gerson Joseph and Pincus Pinkussohn

bought the land for the cemetery in 1872, paying ten dollars for an acre of land. The first

burials in the cemetery, however, were interred in 1871, before the deed for the land was

finalized (Lowenstein 2014). There are four burials from the year 1871, and they belong

to the children of Pincus Pinkussohn and Gerson Joseph. These graves belong to

Abraham Pinkussohn (NWI112), Kiev Joseph (NWI113), Rosa Joseph (NWI114), and

Deborah Joseph (NWI115). According to Rabbi David Kaiman (2014), the rabbi of the

B’nai Israel Congregation in Gainesville, these four individuals were victims of the

yellow fever epidemic that struck Gainesville in 1871. According to an article written by

Doris Chandler (2004) in the Gainesville Sun, fifty people were killed in the 1871 yellow

fever epidemic in Gainesville.

In the later years of the nineteenth century, there were many influential Jewish

families residing in Gainesville. Jacob and Marcus Endel, whose relatives are buried in

the B’nai Israel Cemetery, owned a popular general store in downtown Gainesville

(Hummer N.d.). The Burkhims, related to the Endels through marriage, had a diverse

business presence in Gainesville, as they were involved in merchandising, insurance, and

car sales (Hummer N.d.). The Burkhims are also buried within the Jewish cemetery.

Other prominent families included the Berleins in the late nineteenth century, as well as

the Weils in the 1920’s. Joesph Weil, who was the Dean of Engineering at the University

Goldstone 13

of Florida, was regarded as the leader of the Jewish community in Gainesville during this

era (Hummer, N.d.). Weil Hall, the engineering building at the University of Florida, is

named after him (Hummer N.d., Kaiman 2014).

In 1921, the B’nai Israel Congregation was officially incorporated, and consisted

of nine families (Lowenstein 2014). At this time, the congregation did not possess a

temple in which to hold services. As such, services were held in private homes, and the

Masonic temple was rented out for High Holiday services. Since the congregation did

not have a Rabbi, the locals led services, and a rabbi from a different area was brought in

for special occasions (Hummer N.d.).

In 1924, the congregation raised enough money to build a synagogue. Half of the

money for the synagogue had been donated by non-Jewish members of the Gainesville

community (Hummer N.d.). A cornerstone for the synagogue was donated by the

Thomas Funeral Home, but when it arrived, the congregation realized that it was a

tombstone, and could not be used for building (Hummer N.d.). It was Joseph Weil who

came up with the idea of using the tombstone as a plaque to commemorate the charter

members of the synagogue. Because he was regarded as the leader of the community,

Joseph Weil’s name was the first to be inscribed on the plaque (Hummer N.d.).

Before World War II, many Jewish Americans became complacent in their

adherence to Jewish traditions and practices, as they attempted to assimilate into

American society (Hummer N.d.). While the Gainesville Jewish community, which

consisted of conservative and orthodox Jews, was not as lax in their practices, there was

still a strong desire for assimilation. This desire changed after the Holocaust, which

Goldstone 14

created a strong group identity among Jewish communities in America, and saw a return

to Jewish traditions (Hummer N.d.).

After the war, the Jewish population increased in Gainesville as the town itself

expanded. The large number of Jews that entered the community meant that the

congregation needed to hire a rabbi, and in 1973, Alan Cohen became the congregation’s

first full-time spiritual leader (Hummer N.d.). Another consequence of the growth in the

Jewish community was the need for the synagogue to be expanded in order to

accommodate the increasing Jewish population. In 1962, an education center was built

for the congregation (Hummer N.d.). A new synagogue for B’nai Israel was built in 1980

with a much larger capacity, and is the current home of the B’nai Israel Congregation

(Hummer N.d.). A reform synagogue, belonging to the Temple Shir Shalom-Reform

Congregation, was established in Gainesville in 1989, according to the congregation’s

website.

Around this time, the B’nai Israel Cemetery began experiencing some changes as

well. Prior to 1988, plots within the cemetery were given to members of the

congregation for free. With the number of members in the community increasing, the

congregation began selling plots in the cemetery in 1988. Initially, the cost of a plot was

$1,000 for members of the congregation, while non-members had to pay $1,800 per plot.

Eventually, space within the cemetery became limited, so the congregation purchased

four additional acres in September of 2001. This additional property includes contiguous

land with the initial cemetery, as well as currently undeveloped land on an adjacent

block. In 2008 new walls and gates were built around the cemetery, and a Holocaust

memorial was erected. Today, members can buy plots for $1,400, while non-members

Goldstone 15

can buy plots for $2,800. Anyone can be buried within the cemetery as long as they are

Jewish (Lowenstein 2014).

Goldstone 16

Field and Research Methods

Due to limited resources, only a sample of the headstones at B’nai Israel

Cemetery was surveyed. The first step in the process of creating a sample was to divide

the cemetery into four quadrants: northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast. A

paved walkway served as a boundary that separated the two eastern quadrants from the

western quadrants. Similarly, the NE and SE quadrants were also separated by a paved

walkway. While the NW and SW quadrants were separated spatially, there was no clear

boundary, such as a paved walkway, to divide them. Instead, they are distinct from each

other based on the orientation of the markers in these two quadrants. The markers in the

NW quadrant face northeast, while the markers in the SW quadrant all face east. Thus,

the cemetery can be separated into four distinct quadrants.

To ensure that the sample chosen was representative of the cemetery, data was

collected from the entire northwest quadrant of the cemetery. There were multiple

factors that contributed to why this specific section was chosen for the sample. Firstly,

the northwest quadrant contains almost half of the graves found in the cemetery. Most

importantly, this quadrant has been in continuous use since the cemetery was established

in 1872. Because of this, the sample provides data of how headstones have changed

stylistically and morphologically since the cemetery’s inception into the present day. The

data collected from this quadrant creates the most accurate illustration of how these

stylistic and morphological changes occurred through time.

Once the sample was chosen, each headstone or monument was given a grave

number if it was viewed as being the primary marker of a grave or graves. Because many

of the headstones and monuments marked the graves of more than one individual, many

Goldstone 17

graves were associated with a single grave number. In some instances, a monument or

headstone marked a group plot with multiple interments, and each interment was marked

individually, as well. In such an instance, the monument or headstone that demarcated

the group plot was considered the primary marker, while the individual markers were

considered secondary grave items. Thus, only the primary marker was given a grave

number. These secondary grave items were still accounted for, however, during data

collection.

The grave numbers consisted of six characters, utilizing both letters and numbers.

For example, the first grave number assigned was NWA001. The first two characters of

the grave number indicate the quadrant in which the primary marker is located. Since all

of the graves in this study were located in the northwest quadrant, all of the grave

numbers begin with “NW.” The third character indicates the row in which the primary

marker was located. Rows were assigned letters starting with the northernmost row (Row

A), and ending with the southernmost row (Row J). The last three characters of the grave

number indicate the actual number of the primary marker, starting with 001 and ending

with 125. Primary markers were counted by row from east to west, and numbers were

assigned based on their number within the quadrant, not within the row. Therefore, the

first primary marker in Row B was given the number NWB006, because it was the sixth

primary marker recorded in the northwest quadrant.

The recording form (see Appendix A) included data pertaining to headstone size

and shape, inscription, motifs, and other associated grave items. Initially, data collection

was performed solely by the author of this paper. However, data collection was

progressing more slowly than anticipated, and another anthropology student at the

Goldstone 18

University of Florida began to provide assistance, which expedited the process. Data

forms were filled out for every primary marker within the NW quadrant, and photographs

were taken of the headstone or monument, as well as any secondary grave items.

During data collection, measurements were taken of headstone dimensions, as

well as the dimensions of other grave items, if present. These grave items include bases,

curbing, footstones, or other types of markers. Once the data was entered into

spreadsheets, only the volume of the headstones were entered, while the presence of these

other grave items were noted, instead of their dimensions. Because the shape of the

headstones can be irregular, only estimations of their volume could be produced. Due to

time constraints, it was not feasible to analyze all aspects of the graves within the

cemetery, limiting this study to a much narrower scope.

To determine the form of the headstone, various sources were used as references.

These include the “Quick Field Guide to Monument Types,” published by the Chicora

Foundation (1999); Coleen L. Nutty’s “Cemetery Symbolism of Prairie Pioneers:

Gravestone Art and Social Change in Story County, Iowa” (1984); and a list of

monument styles provided by the Endicott Artistic Memorial Company, accessed via

their website (see References Cited for link to webpage).

The presence of motifs was taken into account as well. One of the purposes of

this study was to examine the use of gendered motifs within the cemetery, specifically the

Star of David and the menorah. The presence of other motifs, such as flowers or foliage,

was recorded as well, but the Star of David and the menorah were of main concern.

Motifs were recorded if they were present on the primary marker, or any secondary items,

such as slabs or footstones. Thus, all the motifs in the NW quadrant were accounted for.

Goldstone 19

If a husband and wife shared a primary marker, motifs could either be associated with

both of the decedents, or just one of the decedents. Examples of both of these instances

are provided on the next page (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1 displays a shared headstone (NWB006) with engravings of both the Star

of David and the menorah. Because the menorah is placed in the top left corner of the

headstone, it was recorded as being associated with the grave of Rena Zalph Sperling,

whose name is engraved on the left side of the tablet. Using the same logic, the Star of

David, placed in the top right corner of the tablet, was recorded as being associated with

Julius Stephen Sperling, whose name is engraved on the right side of the tablet.

Figure 2 shows a shared headstone (NWB012) with a single motif, a Star of

David, placed in the center of the headstone between the names of the individuals.

Because of the motif’s position on the headstone, it was recorded as being associated

with both individuals, rather than only one of the individuals.

Goldstone 20

Figure 1: Shared headstone (NWB006) displaying gendered motifs. The menorah (top left corner of headstone) is associated with Rena Zalph Sperling. The Star of David (top right corner of headstone) is associated with Julius Stephen Sperling.

Figure 2: Shared headstone (NWB012) displaying a single gendered motif. Since the Star of David is positioned in the center of the headstone, between the names of the two decedents, the motif is associated with both individuals.

Goldstone 21

Demography

Archaeological analysis of Jewish cemeteries, especially headstones, reveals

valuable insights into the Jewish perspectives regarding ethnicity and gender. Ethnic and

gendered “identities of Jews are manifested not only in life, but in death” (Gradwohl

1993). Because headstones are specific to the individual whom they represent, no two

are identical. Patterns in headstone morphology and motif, however, are discernable, and

can indicate membership within a particular group or sub-group, as well as differential

behavior patterns based on gender.

The headstones in the Northwest quadrant of the B’nai Israel Cemetery date from

1871 through 2012. In total, it was determined that there were 125 primary markers

within the quadrant, representing 146 individuals. Of these 125 primary markers,

nineteen (15.2%) are shared headstones; fifty-three (42.4%) are associated with males;

forty-eight (38.4%) are associated with females; and five (4%) headstones are of

unknown gender. Of the 146 individuals represented by primary markers, seventy-four

(50.7%) are males; sixty-seven (45.9%) are females; and 5 individuals (3.4%) are

associated with persons of unknown gender.

The individuals in this sample can also be divided into groups based on age.

Individuals were classified as subadults if they were sixteen years old or younger.

Individuals over the age of sixteen were classified as adults. Of the 146 individuals,

fourteen (9.6%) were classified as subadults, and 122 (83.6%) were classified as adults.

There were ten individuals (6.8%) whose age could not be determined from their

headstones.

Goldstone 22

Of the fourteen subadults, there were six females, six males, and two individuals of

unknown gender. Of the 122 adults, there were fifty-nine females (48.4%) and sixty-

three males (51.6%). Of the ten individuals whose age could not be determined, three

(30%) had indeterminable gender, as well. The other seven individuals were comprised

of five males (50%) and 2 females (20%).

The B’nai Israel Cemetery saw an increase in the rate of new burials in the era

following World War II, which ended in 1945. Of the 146 individuals represented in this

sample, forty (27.4%) were buried prior to 1946. One hundred individuals (68.5%) in

this sample were buried in 1946 or later, and six (4.1%) were buried on an indeterminable

date. As one can tell, the cemetery, which is now 142 years old, experienced a large

increase in the rate of new burials in the latter half of its existence (the midpoint being the

year 1941). This increase is likely due to the growth of the Jewish community in

Gainesville in the years following World War II (Hummer N.d.).

Goldstone 23

Results and Findings

Headstone Material

One of the goals of this study was to examine how headstone materials have

changed over time, and whether there were any gender differences in the type of material

used in headstones. Only two types of material were used for headstones in the NW

quadrant of the B’nai Israel cemetery: granite and marble. An analysis was performed to

examine the frequency of material use by decade (Figure 3).

Figure 3

In the 1870’s and 1880’s, headstones in the NW quadrant were made exclusively

of marble. Granite headstones first appeared within the quadrant in 1890, although they

were used less frequently than marble headstones in this decade. This trend continued

through the 1940’s, with the exception of the 1910’s, where new headstones were

actually made of granite more often than marble. New headstones made of granite were

0

5

10

15

20

25

18

70

18

80

18

90

19

00

19

10

19

20

19

30

19

40

19

50

19

60

19

70

19

80

19

90

20

00

20

10N

um

be

r o

f H

ea

dst

on

es

Decade

Headstone Material Use by Decade

Granite

Marble

Goldstone 24

consistently erected more often than marble headstones from the 1950’s through the

present day. Beginning in the 1990’s, headstones became exclusively made from granite,

instead of marble.

Figure 4

A breakdown of the number of granite and marble headstones by gender

categories is illustrated in Figure 4. Categories included female-associated headstones,

male-associated headstones, shared (for headstones that marked multiple graves)

headstones, and headstones of unknown gender. This graph shows that there are no

discernable gender differences in headstone material. Of the female-associated

headstones, 79.2% were made of granite, while 20.8% were made of marble. In male-

associated headstones, 73.6% were made of granite, and 26.4% were made of marble.

Granite headstones made up 84.2% of shared headstones, while marble made up 15.8%

38 39

16

2

1014

3 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

Female Male Shared Unknown

Nu

mb

er

of

He

ad

sto

ne

s

Gender Categories

Gender Differences in Headstone Material

Granite

Marble

Goldstone 25

of this category. Headstones of unknown gender were the only category in which marble

headstones (60%) were more common than granite (40%).

These analyses show that there is no differential use of headstone material based

on gender. Rather, they show a temporal shift in headstone material from marble to

granite. One possible reason for this shift is that granite preserves better than marble. On

the Mohs Scale, which assigns numerical values to minerals based on their hardness,

marble rates between three and four, while granite has a score between six and seven.

This means that marble is a much softer material and can be more easily worked than

granite (Trinkley 2013). It is probable that, because marble was more easily workable

than granite, it was more commonly used in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Marble is also expensive, and prone to deterioration from atmospheric pollutants

(Trinkley 2013). Trinkley (2013) also cites weathering and erosion as common problems

faced by marble headstones. This is evident in many of the marble headstones in the

B’nai Israel Cemetery, which have been eroded to the point of illegibility (see Figure 17).

As technology improved in the 20th century, it may have become more cost

effective to produce headstones made of granite, which were worth less money than

marble and preserved much better, meaning even less money spent on maintenance. This

interpretation is somewhat speculative, however, and requires more investigation in the

future.

Headstone Form

Temporal and gender analyses of headstone form were performed, as well. The

most common headstone forms included tablets, slanted headstones, and horizontal slabs,

Goldstone 26

although many other forms were present. From these analyses, it was determined that

there were no discernable patterns in headstone form based on gender. There were some

noticeable temporal trends (Figure 5), however.

The most noticeable trend involves tablet headstones. Tablets are simple

headstones that are placed upright (see Figure 17). This form of headstone has been used

in every decade since the cemetery’s inception, and is the most common form of

headstone within the NW quadrant. The only other temporal trend that was significant

was the use of slant headstones (similar to tablets but the face of inscription is slanted

rather than vertical; see Figure 13), which became popular in the 1960’s and became even

more common in the following decades.

Figure 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nu

mb

er

of

He

ad

sto

ne

s

Decade

Temporal Analysis of Headstone Forms

Bedstead

Horizontal Slab

Irregular

Lawn-Level

Obelisk

Pedestal

Slant

Slanted Block

Square

Tablet

Goldstone 27

It is important to note that there have been no tablets used in the NW quadrant

during the 2010’s, in which decade slanted headstones also display a dramatic decrease.

There are a few explanations for this. First, data collection was performed in this

quadrant in December 2013, so there are only four years worth of headstones represented

in this category, while all the other categories represent a full decade. Secondly, because

it is the oldest section of the cemetery, the NW quadrant has far fewer plots available

than the other quadrants, and has become almost entirely filled up. Because of this, the

NW quadrant will likely not have any new burials in the future (Lowenstein 2014).

Headstone Size

Analysis of the data also examined gender differences in average volume of

headstones. In this initial analysis (Figure 6), headstone volume was examined by gender

categories including male, female, shared (for headstones that marked multiple graves),

and unknown. Lawn-level markers were excluded from this analysis because their depth

was not measurable. A similar analysis of lawn-level markers was performed separately

(Figure 7). Grave NWD038 was also excluded from the analyses in this section. This

shared monument, which dates from 1918, is by far the largest monument in the cemetery

with an estimated volume of 21,009,062.7 cubic centimeters. By including this grave in

the analyses, the data would have been greatly skewed by this outlier. It was determined

by the author that this monument would be excluded from these analyses, and would be

discussed separately as a special case.

The results of Figure 6 show that the largest headstones within the cemetery are

shared headstones. This comes as no surprise, considering that these shared headstones

Goldstone 28

need to be large enough to accommodate inscriptions for each individual being

represented. The headstones with unknown genders were on average the smallest

headstones in the cemetery. This group consisted of only three headstones from the

overall sample, and these headstones were either illegible because of weathering, or were

fragmented. Male-associated headstones were on average 17% larger than female-

associated headstones within the cemetery, but were more similar in size with female-

associated headstones than when compared to the volume of shared headstones or

headstones of unknown gender.

Figure 6

Figure 7 examines gender differences in average surface area of lawn-level

markers. Similar to the analysis performed in Figure 6, gender groups included

7422.066667

57419.9707366964.57955

147886.9816

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Unknown Female Male Shared

Av

era

ge

Vo

lum

e o

f H

ea

dst

on

es(

cub

ic c

m)

Gender

Gender Differences in Average Volume of Headstones

Goldstone 29

unknown, male, and female. There were no shared lawn-level markers, so this category

is not included in the analysis.

In this analysis, lawn-level markers with unknown gender were again

significantly smaller than those with known genders. The disparity in size between male-

associated and female-associated markers was even greater in this analysis, with male-

associated lawn-level markers approximately 40% larger than female-associated markers.

Figure 7

To examine how age affected headstone size, analyses of headstone size based on

age and gender (Figures 8 and 9) were performed. This was accomplished by splitting

the headstones into groups that included subadults, adult females, adult males, and shared

954.35

5879.057143

8231.366667

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

Unknown Female Male

Su

rfa

ce A

rea

of

La

wn

-Le

ve

l M

ark

ers

(sq

ua

re c

m)

Gender

Gender Differences in Average Surface Area of Lawn-Level Markers

Goldstone 30

adult headstones. In this study, subadults are defined as all individuals aged 16 or

younger, regardless of gender. Adults are defined as individuals older than the age of 16,

and were divided into separate groups based on their gender. Only the headstones of

individuals with identifiable age were included in these analyses. Figure 8 excludes

lawn-level markers, for which volume was immeasurable. Figure 9 contains the analysis

of these lawn-level markers.

Figure 8 shows again that shared adult headstones are much larger than any other

category, while subadult headstones were the smallest of the four categories. This age

breakdown shows, however, that adult male-associated and adult female-associated

headstones are virtually equal in size, with adult male-associated headstones only a mere

1% larger than adult female-associated headstones on average.

The data presented in Figure 9 shows a different trend than the one portrayed in

Figure 8. Adult male-associated markers are the largest on average, while subadult

markers are second largest, and adult females are the smallest. The data for the analysis

in Figure 9 may not be truly representative, however. Only 14 graves were included in

this analysis, only three of which fell into the subadult category. The sample size for this

analysis is very small, calling into question its representativeness.

Another factor that may confound these results is the various forms of the lawn

level-markers in this analysis. These markers exist in two main forms: flat markers and

horizontal slabs. Flat markers are relatively small and cover only a tiny fraction of the

grave, while horizontal slabs are large and cover the entirety of the grave. The fact that

horizontal slabs are fundamentally larger than flat markers may account for the

Goldstone 31

Figure 8

Figure 9

35149.32727

70230.00857 70997.00526

145072.0919

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

Subadult Adult Female Adult Male Shared Adult

Av

era

ge

He

ad

sto

ne

Vo

lum

e (

cub

ic c

m)

Age/Gender Groups

Differences in Average Headstone Volume Based on Age and Gender

7519.1333336536.1

10249.82

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

Subadult Adult Female Adult Male

Av

era

ge

Su

rfa

ce A

rea

of

La

wn

-Le

ve

k

Ma

rke

rs (

squ

are

cm)

Age/Gender Groups

Diferences in Average Surface Area of Lawn-Level Markers Based on Age and

Gender

Goldstone 32

differences observed in average size, rather than gender inequalities. The presence of

horizontal slabs among male-associated and female-associated graves supports this, as

well. About 16% of male-associated graves are marked by or incorporate horizontal

slabs, while roughly 18% of female-associated graves are marked by or incorporate

horizontal slabs. This means that horizontal slabs are not necessarily more common

amongst a specific gender, and do not indicate any gender inequalities. Thus, the small

sample size coupled with the inherent size disparity between the two marker styles

examined in Figure 9 cause its representativeness to be questionable.

To better understand the how headstone sizes have changed over time, an analysis

examining the headstone size by decade and gender was created (Figure 10). This

analysis excludes data from lawn-level markers. A separate analysis of lawn-level

markers is displayed in Figure 11. Only monuments with determinable age were

included in these analyses.

Figure 10 shows some intriguing trends. The most noticeable trend is in regard to

the changes in size of all headstones, both male-associated and female-associated. In the

1870’s, headstones within the cemetery were quite small. There are only four headstones

from this decade, three of which belonged to young children. Children generally have

smaller headstones than adults (see Figure 8), which may contribute to the small average

size of headstones from this decade. There is only one headstone from the 1880’s in this

cemetery, belonging to a male. Although there are only a few headstones in the cemetery

at this time, an increase in the size of male-associated headstones is visible.

Goldstone 33

Figure 10

This trend continued over the next few decades, with a significant increase in the

size of male-associated headstones between the 1890’s and 1910’s. The first shared

headstones were erected in the cemetery in the 1890’s, and they were significantly larger

than the headstones of males or females. Female-associated headstones were much

smaller than their male-associated counterparts, but they did increase in average size

significantly between the first and second decade of the 1900’s. In fact, average volume

for male-associated, female-associated, and shared headstones peaked in the 1910’s.

In the following decades, the average of volume of headstones decreased sharply.

There is only one headstone in this sample that was placed in the 1920’s, providing little

data about the headstones of this decade. Between the 1920’s and 1950’s, male-

associated headstones decreased in size by about 50%. Female-associated headstones,

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

Av

era

ge

He

ad

sto

ne

Vo

lum

e (

cub

ic c

m)

Decade

Gender Differences in Average Headstone Volume by Decade

Male

Female

Shared

Unknown

Goldstone 34

after experiencing a major decrease from their average in the 1910’s, display an increase

in average volume between the 1920’s and 1950’s. From the 1940’s into the present day,

the average volumes of male-associated and female-associated headstones plateau around

60,000 cubic cm.

In the 1960’s, an interesting trend appears. From this decade on, female-

associated headstones were on average slightly larger than their male-associated

counterparts. Shared headstones reappear in the NW quadrant in the 1970’s. While

much smaller than they were at their peak in the 1910’s, shared headstones were still

larger than the headstones of males and females from the 1970’s onward.

In summary, the average volume of headstones increased rapidly from the 1870’s

to the 1910’s, where they reached their peak. During this era, male-associated headstones

were significantly larger than female-associated headstones, although shared headstones

were the largest of the categories. After a sharp decrease in size between the 1910’s and

1920’s, male-associated and female-associated headstones were almost equal in size in

the following decades, although female-associated headstones became slightly larger than

those associated with males. Shared headstones were larger than both male-associated

and female-associated headstones.

Figure 11 shows the average surface area of lawn-level markers for each gender

by decade. Since there are very few lawn-level markers in the sample, this data is not

very informative, nor is it representative of trends within the cemetery.

Goldstone 35

Figure 11

Because there are no Jewish laws concerning headstone morphology, the gender

differences noted above are likely caused by cultural factors, rather than religious ones.

The Jewish population in Gainesville is largely descended from eastern Europeans

(Kaiman, 2014; Lowenstein, 2014). This group of Jews brought with them a “fine

monument tradition from Europe” (Halporn 1993), evidenced by the large, elaborate

monuments dating to the early decades of the cemetery’s history (see Figure 18 for an

example). As the younger generations of the Jewish community became more

assimilated, the less ornate their markers became (Halporn, 1993). Halporn adds that

contemporary stones show “little more design than the name of the deceased and the

death date” (1993). The overall decrease in headstone size from their peak in the 1910’s

shows that the trends visible within the B’nai Israel Cemetery in Gainesville are

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

Av

era

ge

Su

rfa

ce A

rea

(sq

ua

re c

m)

Decade

Gender Differences in Average Surface Area of Lawn-Level Markers by Decade

Male

Female

Goldstone 36

congruent with trends in headstone size in other Jewish cemeteries throughout America

(Halporn 1993).

In the first few decades of the cemetery’s operation male-associated headstones

are vastly larger than their female-associated counterparts. This would be expected, since

men generally had greater social status than women in this time period. Around the time

that male-associated and female-associated headstones became more equal in size,

headstones were beginning to be manufactured by machines in greater numbers, causing

headstones to become more uniform in size (Halporn, 1993). While female-associated

headstones have been slightly larger than male-associated headstones since the 1950’s,

this difference is not significant enough to suggest any gender inequalities. Perhaps if

this data were compared to similar datasets from other Jewish cemeteries, a more

significant trend would appear.

Motifs

The use of motifs on headstones was also examined. According to Gradwohl

(1993), the Star of David motif is traditionally associated with male individuals and the

menorah motif is associated with female individuals. To test whether these motifs are

associated with a specific gender, an analysis examining the presence of these motifs on

the headstones within the NW quadrant of the B’nai Israel Cemetery was performed

(Figure 12). This analysis included all of the headstones within the NW quadrant, and

divided them into five gender categories: male, female, shared male (for motifs

associated with a male individual represented by a shared headstone), shared female (for

motifs associated with a female individual represented by a shared headstone), and

Goldstone 37

unknown. Within each gender category, it was noted how many individuals were

associated with a Star of David, a menorah, both motifs, or neither.

Of the 146 individuals in this quadrant, seventy-three individuals (50%) were

associated with neither the Star of David nor the menorah. The Star of David was the

most frequently used motif in this quadrant. Sixty individuals (41.1%) were associated

with the Star of David only, while eight individuals (5.5%) were associated with the

menorah only. Five individuals (3.4%) were associated with both the Star of David and

the menorah.

Figure 12

15

21

12

10

2

5

01

2

0

21 1 1

0

26

31

76

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Female Male Shared Male SharedFemale

Unknown

Nu

mb

ero

f G

rav

es

Gender Categories

Presence of Motifs by Gender

Star of David

Menorah

Both

Neither

Goldstone 38

Of the sixty individuals who were only associated with the Star of David motif,

twenty-one were male (35%), fifteen were female (25%), twelve were shared male

(20%), ten were shared female (16.7%), and two were unknown (3.3%). There were

eight individuals associated with the menorah motif: five females (62.5%), zero males

(0%), one shared male (12.5%), two shared females (25%), and zero unknown (0%). In

addition, five individuals were associated with both motifs: two females (40%), one male

(20%), one shared male (20%), and one shared female (20%).

This data shows that the Star of David motif is commonly featured on the

headstones of both genders. The menorah, which was used much less frequently than the

Star of David, was associated with zero headstones belonging to males, except for a man

who shared a headstone with his wife. The menorah motif was demonstratively

associated with females.

The use of these motifs has varied through the cemetery’s history. While motifs

have appeared on headstones since the cemetery’s inception in 1871, the Star of David

motif did not appear in the Northwest quadrant until 1935. It did not become commonly

used until a few years after World War II. Since 1951, the Star of David has been

associated with 59.6% of the individuals buried in the NW quadrant. Of the forty-seven

individuals buried in this quadrant before 1951, the Star of David was associated with

only one individual (2.1%). The menorah motif was not introduced in the NW quadrant

until 1972. This motif has been associated with 16.3% of the individuals buried in the

quadrant since then, the majority of who were females.

Other non-Jewish, non-gendered motifs were also present within the NW

quadrant. Foliage motifs were associated with seventeen individuals, and were the

Goldstone 39

second most common motif found in the cemetery behind the Star of David. Flowers

were the third most common motif engraved on headstones, being associated with

thirteen individuals. Linear patterns were associated with the headstones of eleven

individuals. Other motifs were much less common. One individual was associated with

the Masonic symbol and a wreath (Figure 15), while another individual had a helicopter

and the Army Corp of Engineers insignia engraved upon his headstone (Figure 16). On

the headstone of an infant girl, a motif of a flower with a severed stem is found (Figure

17). This motif is commonly associated with the death of a small child (Halporn, 1993).

There were no discernable patterns of gender differences in the use of these motifs.

Figure 13: The headstone of Michael Brown (NWD041) contains foliage motifs (top right and left corners of headstone). A Star of David is also present on the top center of the headstone. An angel statue and an American flag have also been placed next to the marker.

Goldstone 40

Figure 14: The headstone of Susan K. Hendrix (NWD035) contains flower motifs in the top left and right corners of the headstone.

Figure 15: The headstone of Moses Edelstein (NWH097) features the Masonic symbol (top center of headstone) and a wreath motif (bottom center of headstone).

Goldstone 41

Figure 16: The headstone of Harold “Hal” Silver (NWA001) features flower motifs (bottom left and right corners), a Star of David (top right corner), Corp of Engineers insignia (top left corner), and a helicopter (top center).

Figure 17: The marble headstone of an infant girl (NWH095) displaying a motif of a flower with a severed stem (top center of headstone). This motif is commonly associated with a shortened life. The inscription on this marker is no longer legible due to erosion.

Goldstone 42

From the data gathered about the Star of David and menorah motifs, it is apparent

that the Star of David is not a gendered motif within the B’nai Israel Cemetery, and is

associated fairly equally with both male and female individuals. This contradicts the

findings of Gradwohl’s (1993) study. There are two factors that may contribute to this

discrepancy. The first may be regional differences, with this study taking place in the

Southeast, while Gradwohl’s (1993) study examined Jewish cemeteries in the Midwest.

Secondly, Gradwohl’s (1993) findings about the Star of David and menorah come from

analysis of an Orthodox cemetery, while the B’nai Israel Cemetery is traditionally

Conservative.

The increased use of the Star of David motif within the B’nai Israel Cemetery is

likely due to the symbols adoption by the Jews as a symbol of honor, and its placement

on the flag of the newly born Israel in 1948 (Eder 1987:18-19). The Star of David has

become the most identifiable symbol in Judaism, and is inseparable from the group’s

identity. For this reason, the Star of David has become the most frequently appearing

motif in the B’nai Israel Cemetery. It is a symbol of unity for the Jewish community, not

a mark of differentiation between genders.

Prior to the adoption of the Star of David as the identifying symbol of Judaism,

the menorah was actually “the most universal symbol of a Jewish grave” (Halporn 1993).

From the data within this study, it was determined that the menorah was a gendered

motif, representing females. This is congruent with the findings of Halporn (1993),

Gradwohl (1993), and Shwartzman (1993:40-45). The menorah motif did not appear in

the B’nai Israel Cemetery until 1972, however. When looking at the data about

Goldstone 43

headstone size and motif together, we see that as the use of size as gender differentiation

decreases, the use of the menorah motif as gender differentiation increases. Further

investigations involving other cemeteries are necessary to examine the menorah’s history

as a gendered motif.

Special Cases

This section examines three of the more unique monuments in the cemetery.

These monuments include the shared monument of the Berleins (NWD038), and two

lawn-level markers that simply read “A Friend of B’nai Israel” (NWH100 and

NWHJ120).

The shared monument of Cora Fostena Mills Berlein and A. Berlein (Figure 18) is

the largest monument found within the cemetery. It has an estimated volume of

21,009,062.7 cubic centimeters. The monument is made of marble, and was erected in

1918. The monument features three large marble blocks stacked on top of each other.

On top of the third block are stacked two pillars, topped with an arch. An urn with a veil

is placed on top of the arch. On the middle marble block, the last name “Berlein” is

inscribed. The right side of the top marble block is inscribed with the name “Cora

Fostena Mills,” as well as her date of birth and date of death. The left side is inscribed

with the phrase “Beloved Husband,” as well as his date of birth and date of death. One

the bottom portion of the left pillar, the word “MOTHER” is engraved, while “FATHER”

is engraved on the bottom of the right pillar.

In addition to the shared monument, there are two horizontal slabs placed over the

two graves. The slab on the left has “Cora Fostena Berlein” engraved on it, while the

Goldstone 44

right slab has “A. Berlein” engraved on it, as well as a lengthy Hebrew inscription, which

includes the phay nun and the tahnehtzayvah. The Hebrew text can be translated to:

“Here Lies/ Our Dear Father Who Has Seen God/ Abraham Shalom Son of David/ May

His Soul Be Bound Up in the Bond of Everlasting Life.”

This monument is interesting not only because of its grandiose design, but

because of the differences in how the husband and wife are memorialized. As mentioned

earlier, Jewish tradition discourages ostentatious burials. This tradition has obviously

been overlooked by the erection of this massive monument, as well as the placement of

large, marble slabs over the individual graves. On the monument itself, the wife’s full

name is inscribed, along with her date of death and date of birth. However, the husband’s

name does not appear on the monument. He is memorialized on this monument by the

inscription “Beloved Husband,” and his dates of birth and death. On the slab placed over

his grave, only his first initial and last name are inscribed, while his wife’s full name is

inscribed on the slab over her grave. A. Berlein, the husband, does have a Hebrew

inscription on his slab, however, a feature that does not appear on his wife’s.

In most of the shared monuments within the cemetery, the wife and the husband

are memorialized equally in regards to their inscription. In other words, inscriptions on

shared headstones generally display the same information about the individuals being

represented. For example, if full Hebrew and English names appear for one individual

they are usually present for the other individual, as well. Differences usually only arise

in the motif associated with each individual.

Goldstone 45

Figure 18: Berlein monument (NWD038) features an elaborate, marble monument, as well as two marble slabs.

Goldstone 46

This monument is interesting not only because of its grandiose design, but

because of the differences in how the husband and wife are memorialized. As mentioned

earlier, Jewish tradition discourages ostentatious burials. This tradition has obviously

been overlooked by the erection of this massive monument, as well as the placement of

large, marble slabs over the individual graves. On the monument itself, the wife’s full

name is inscribed, along with her date of death and date of birth. However, the husband’s

name does not appear on the monument. He is memorialized on this monument by the

inscription “Beloved Husband,” and his dates of birth and death. On the slab placed over

his grave, only his first initial and last name are inscribed, while his wife’s full name is

inscribed on the slab over her grave. A. Berlein, the husband, does have a Hebrew

inscription on his slab, however, a feature that does not appear on his wife’s.

In most of the shared monuments within the cemetery, the wife and the husband

are memorialized equally in regards to their inscription. In other words, inscriptions on

shared headstones generally display the same information about the individuals being

represented. For example, if full Hebrew and English names appear for one individual

they are usually present for the other individual, as well. Differences usually only arise

in the motif associated with each individual.

This is not the case with the Berlein monument (NWD038), however. The wife’s

full English name appears on both the monument and the slab placed over her grave. The

husband’s full English name does not appear on either the monument or his slab. His

Hebrew name is included on his slab, a feature that is lacking in his wife’s representation.

The Hebrew inscription also includes a descriptive phrase (Our Dear Father), and the

monument refers to him as “Beloved Husband.” It is peculiar that there is no uniformity

Goldstone 47

in the inscriptions of these individuals, other than the inclusion of their dates of birth and

death. It is difficult to speculate as to whether these differences are due to gender, as

both individuals’ inscriptions have some features that are absent in the other.

There are two other markers in the NW quadrant of the B’nai Israel Cemetery that

have peculiar inscriptions. The primary markers of NWH100 and NWJ120 (Figures 19

and 20, respectively) only contain the inscription “A Friend of B’nai Israel,” and both

feature a motif of a Star of David. These small, lawn-level markers are inconspicuous,

hidden by their simplicity amongst the larger, more elaborate monuments that surround

them. NWJ120 was almost unnoticed in the initial survey of the cemetery because of soil

coverage, as well as debris from a nearby tree.

Figure 19: NWH100 bears only the inscription “A Friend of B’nai Israel.”

Goldstone 48

Figure 20: NWJ120 bears only the inscription “A Friend of B’nai Israel.”

These markers are unique because they do not identify the decedents by name, nor

offer any information about them other than their affiliation with the B’nai Israel

Cemetery. If one were to assume that the Star of David motif was indicative of gender,

as Gradwohl (1993) suggests, they might assume that these headstones mark the graves

of male individuals. As the data in this study shows, the Star of David is not a motif that

is indicative of a specific gender, at least within the contexts of the B’nai Israel

Cemetery. Therefore, no conclusions can be made about the gender of these individuals

based on their markers.

Goldstone 49

These markers remained a mystery until Rabbi David Kaiman, the rabbi of the

B’nai Israel Congregation, was interviewed on March 20, 2014. During this interview,

Rabbi Kaiman explained that these markers were placed within the cemetery around 8

years ago. There were no markers on these plots prior to that time, and it was unknown

whether any bodies were buried there or not. A soil test showed that there were in fact

bodies buried in these plots, and that their graves were unmarked. Rabbi Kaiman stated

that he decided to have markers made for these individuals to respect them properly.

Because it is not known to whom these graves belong, the markers are purposely

ambiguous about the identities of the individuals.

Goldstone 50

Conclusions

The headstones in the B’nai Israel Cemetery display many interesting temporal

and gender-related patterns. During the history of this cemetery, which was established

in 1871, a gradual shift from marble to granite headstones is apparent. This shift in

headstone material was due to granite becoming a more viable option not only because of

improved stone-cutting technology, but because it preserves better than marble while also

costing less. While temporal patterns in headstone form were less distinct, it was

concluded that there was no association between headstone form or material and gender.

Analysis of headstone size showed that in the late nineteenth and early twentieth

centuries, male-associated headstones outsized their female-associated counterparts. This

size difference vanished in the mid-twentieth century, as male-associated and female-

associated headstones became virtually equal in size. This was likely caused by a gradual

shift in headstone manufacture from handicraft to machinery, which brought increased

uniformity amongst headstone size.

One of the goals of this study was to examine whether the Star of David and

menorah motifs were linked to gender. Analyses of these motifs showed that the Star of

David, the most common motif found in this sample, was not gendered, and was more

likely used as a symbol Jewish identity, rather than a mark of gender within this religious

group. The menorah, on the other hand, was used almost exclusively used on female-

associated headstones, being associated with only one male individual, who shared a

headstone with his wife. Therefore, the menorah was concluded to be a gendered motif

associated with Jewish women.

Goldstone 51

Although this study is revealing, it is limited by its narrow scope. While the

sample used was representative, the analysis would have been strengthened if the dataset

had included all of the headstones within the B’nai Israel Cemetery. The findings in this

study do warrant further study across other Jewish cemeteries in the region in order to

test whether the patterns noted within this study can be found in other cemeteries, or are

only present within the B’nai Israel Cemetery.

This study highlights the mortuary practices of the Jewish community. Through

the analysis of headstones, described by Gradwohl (1993) as “material expressions of

ethnicity,” valuable insights are gained about the Jewish community and how their

identity is displayed within their cemeteries.

Goldstone 52

References Cited

Chicora Foundation, "Quick Field Guide to Monument Types." Last modified 1999. Accessed April 10, 2014. http://chicora.org/pdfs/Types%20of%20markers.pdf. Chandler, Doris 2004 MEDICINE: Yellow Fever Epidemic Hits County. Gainesville Sun, July 28. Eder, Asher 1987 The Star of David: An Ancient Symbol of Integration. Jerusalem: Rubin Mass Ltd. Endicott Artistic Memorial Company, "Monument Styles." Accessed April 10, 2014. http://www.endicottmemorials.com/monumentstyles.htm. Gradwohl, David Mayer 1993 Intra-Group Diversity in Midwest American Jewish Cemeteries: An Ethnoarchaeological Perspective. In Archaeology of Eastern North America Papers in Honor of Stephen Williams. James B. Stoltman, ed. Archaeological Report No. 25, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS. Halporn, Roberta 1993 American Jewish Cemeteries: A Mirror of History. In Ethnicity and the American Cemetery. Richard E. Meyer, ed. Pp. 131-155. Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Press. Hummer, Hans N.d. Ethnoarchaeology of the Gainesville Jewish Cemetery. Unpublished Term Paper, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida. Kaiman, David 2014 Personal Communication, March 20, 2014. Kolatch, Alfred J. 2004 The Jewish Book of Why. Middle Village, New York: Jonathan David Publishers, Inc. Lamm, Maurice 2000 The Jewish Way in Death and Mourning: Revised and Expanded. Middle Village, New York: Jonathan David Publishers, Inc. Lowenstein, Ralph 2014 Personal Communication, April 1, 2014.

Goldstone 53

Nutty, Coleen L. 1984 Cemetery Symbolism of Prairie Pioneers: Gravestone Art and Social Change in

Story County, Iowa. Journal of the Iowa Archaeological Society 31:1-135. Pearson, Mike Parker 2000 The Archaeology of Death and Burial. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Schwartzman, Arnold 1993 Graven Images: Graphic Motifs of the Jewish Gravestone. New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Scott, Elizabeth 1994 Through the Lens of Gender: Archaeology, Inequality, and Those “of Little Note.” In Those of Little Note: Gender, Race, and Class in Historical Archaeology. Eizabeth Scott, ed. Pp. 3-26. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Terrell, Michelle M. 2005 The Jewish Community of Early Historical Nevis: A Historical Archaeological Study. Gainesville, Florida: University Press of Florida. Trinkley, Michael 2013 Conservation Talk: Marble and Its Deterioration. AGS Quarterly 37(2):21- 24.

Goldstone 54

Appendix A

Headstone Recording Form

Goldstone 55

Appendix B

Grave

No. Last Name First Name Gender

Year of

Death Age

NWA001 Silver Harold Male Unknown 87(A)

NWA002 Silver Beatrice Female 2005 78

NWA003 Berner Lewis Male 2004 89

NWA004 Berner Amelia Female 2004 85

NWA005 Melker Rosalind Shared F Unknown 91(A)

NWA005-

A Melker Irving Shared M 2000 79

NWB006 Sperling Rena Shared F 2007 83

NWB006-

A Sperling Julius Shared M 2006 91

NWB007 Hendeles Irving Shared M 2008 97

NWB007-

A Hendeles Frances Shared F 2002 90

NWB008 Friedland Julius Male 2003 87

NWB009 Friedland Evelyn Female 2001 89

NWB010 Saperstein Dorothy Female 1992 79

NWB011 Cohen Alex Male 1988 91

NWB012 Lash Phyllis Shared F 1996 70

NWB012-

A Lash Mason Shared M 1987 60

NWB013 Wolfe Max Shared M 1986 86

NWB013-

A Wolfe Sallie Shared F 1986 84

NWB014 Goldin Selig Male 1980 41

NWB015 Smilowitz Sam Male 1978 63

NWB016 Goldberg Sam Male 1989 93

NWC017

Humphreys-

Beher Michael Gary Male 2001 46

NWC018 Brodach Rita Female 2003 82

NWC019 Brodach Solomon Male 1995 78

NWC020 Banks Monty Male 1992 83

NWC021 Banks Florence Female 1990 69

NWC022 Berlein Moses Louie Male 1954 60

NWC023 Kesler

Samuel

Benjamin Male 1968 80

NWC024 Kesler Fannye Berlein Female 1971 73

NWC025 Kesler Foster Berlein Male 1989 69

NWC026 Goldstein Frances D. Shared F 1975 70

NWC026-

A Goldstein Harry Shared M 1990 90

NWC027 Koppel Gertrude Female 1978 75

NWC028 Uram Sarah K. Female 1999 91

NWC029 Oberlander Solomon Male 1983 81

NWC030 Oberlander Minnie Shapiro Female 1992 88

NWC031 Cohen Mildred M. Female 2012 94

NWC032 Cohen Harry Male 1981 65

NWD033 Goldberg Marvin Male 1996 74

NWD034 Biber Susannah Ellen Female 2008 62

Goldstone 56

Grave


Year of

Death Age

NWD035 Hendrix Susan K. Female 1977 28

NWD036 Biber Gladys Miller Female 1986 74

NWD037 Biber David Male 1969 62

NWD038 Berlein Cora Fostena Shared F 1918 42

NWD038-

A Berlein A Shared M 1931 61

NWD039 Berlein Ida Female 1944 66

NWD040 Osbrach Elizabeth Shared F 1999 85

NWD040-

A Osbrach Irving Shared M 1976 70

NWD041 Brown Michael Male 1997 50

NWD042 Campus Nathan Male 1982 70

NWD043 Tenenbaum Jacob Shared M 1990 79

NWD043-

A Tenenbaum Bertha Shared F 1984 62

NWD044 Dennis Carl W. Male 2004 92

NWD045 Dennis Sara E. Female 1982 74

NWD046 Braunstein Esther Shared F 2008 97

NWD046-

A Braunstein Henry J. Shared M 1972 56

NWD047 Mehlberg Henry Male 1979 75

NWE048 Kulok Fleta Ellis Shared F 1994 80

NWE048-

A Kulok Martin Edward Shared M 1990 71

NWE049 Weiss Natalie Light Female 2000 30

NWE050 Weiss Simon Male 2008 92

NWE051 Weiss Mitzi Female 1988 67

NWE052 Sternberger [Infant] Female 1900 Unknown

NWE053 Turner Jeffrey M. Male 1945

2

months

NWE054 Vaughns Michelle Paula Female 1982 36

NWE055 Cooper Philip Male 1972 64

NWE056 Weiner Fannie Ballis Female 1993 82

NWE057 Ross Jack J. Shared M 1985 71

NWE057-

A Ross Evelyn Z. Shared F 1975 53

NWE058 Benchimol Emilie Female 1990 83

NWE059 Chapnick Ralph H. Male 1973 67

NWE060 Chapnick Irene R. Female 2005 83

NWF061 Weil Cyrille B. Female 1911 103 (A)

NWF062 Weil Joseph Male 1977 80

NWF063 Weil Anna A. Female 1963 66

NWF064 Orlin Andrew Miles Male 1989 33

NWF065 Gussie Naomi Isabella Female 1900 39

NWF066 Manasse Annie D. Female 1985 86

NWF067 Manasse Roy W. Male 1930 36

NWF068 Manasse Julius Philip Male 1926 16

NWF069 Manasse Dora Female 1912 38

NWF070 Manasse Joseph Male 1937 72

NWF071 Weintraub Charles H. Male 1965 75

NWF072 Weintraub Lillian L. Female 1974 78

Goldstone 57

Grave


Year of

Death Age

NWF073 Kasler Rozelle A. Female 1992 86

NWF074 Burkhim Louis Jacob, Jr. Male 1964 63

NWF075 Burkhim Belle McKinnon Female 1963 57

NWF076 Katz Maxey Male 1898 25

NWG077 Kornblum David George Male 1991 45

NWG078 Sternberg Pearl Female 1968 68

NWG079 Sternberg Mollie Female 1951 84

NWG080 Sternberg Willie Male 1899 6

NWG081 Levy

Clare

Hershkovitz Female 1997 84

NWG082 Shiretzki Raphael Shared M 1899 23

NWG082-

A Shiretzki David S. Shared M 1899 19

NWG083 Abrahams Mena Female 1893 81

NWG084 Wertheim Julius Male 1901 57

NWG085 Wertheim Annie Female 1931 80

NWG086 Wertheim Clarence Male 1947 65

NWG087 Barnes Annie Shared F 1913 32

NWG087-

A Barnes Isadore Shared M 1918 29

NWG088 Endel Moses Male 1892 63

NWG089 Endel Matilda Female 1900 Unknown

NWG090 Goffman Irving Male 1993 60

NWH091 Bogdanofff Lester Male 1991 Unknown

NWH092 Bogdanofff Joan S. Female 1973 28

NWH093 Landsman Theodore Male 1990 78

NWH094 Jacobson Louis Male 1935 Unknown

NWH095 Katz?

[Infant

Daughter] Female 189? Unknown

NWH096 Benjamin H. Male 1882 62

NWH097 Edelstein Moses Male 1918 42

NWH098 Schneider Sam Shared M 1980 65

NWH098-

A Greenfield

Roberta

Schneider Shared F 1986 44

NWH099 Chester Kadeem Benson Male 1993 Unknown

NWH100

A Friend of

B'Nai Israel Unknown Unknown Unknown

NWH101 Roth Harry Shared M 1942 46

NWH101-

A Roth Fannye Shared F 1959 67

NWH102 Burkhim Ida C. Shared F 1972 88

NWH102-

A Burkhim Annie Shared F 1890 32

NWH102-

B Burkhim Leroy W. Shared M 1890 3

NWH102-

C Burkhim Yetta Endel Shared F 1937 77

NWH102-

D Burkhim Louis Jacob, Sr. Shared M 1942 86

NWH103 Altmayer Fanny Bernice Female 1890 1

NWI104 Silverman Sarah Female 1927 Unknown

Goldstone 58

Grave


Year of

Death Age

NWI105 Moss Joseph Leon Male 1991 83

NWI106 Levy Arthur Male 1986 78

NWI107 Simonson Alfred Male 1881 22

NWI108 Unknown Unknown Male 1879 6

NWI109 Zeiger Zachary David Male 1989 1

NWI110 Shiretzki Sego Unknown 1877 3

NWI111 Benjamin Unknown Unknown 1876 1

NWI112 Pinkussohn Abraham Male 1871 20

NWI113 Joseph Kiev Male Unknown Unknown

NWI114 Joseph Rosa Female 1871 4

NWI115 Joseph Deborah Female 1874 4

NWJ116 Kaplan Ilene Gail Female 1956 6

NWJ117 Sherwin

Bertha

Silverstein Female 1959 61

NWJ118 Lerner Abraham Male 1981 Unknown

NWJ119 Mintz Mildred Female 1984 77

NWJ120

A Friend of

B'Nai Israel Unknown Unknown Unknown

NWJ121 Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown

NWJ122 Hilbert Betsy Sokolof Female 2001 60

NWJ123 Sokolof William Shared M 1981 79

NWJ123-A Sokolof Rose Golub Shared F 1987 80

NWJ124 Fox Robert Shared M 1985 56

NWJ125 Vendeland Malvyn Female 1986 69

Goldstone 59

Appendix C

Grave

No.

Grave

Type Basic Form

Headstone Volume

(cubic cm) Material

NWA001

double

plot slant 125212.6 granite

NWA002

double


NWA003

double


NWA004

double


NWA005

double

plot tablet 122193.3 granite

NWA005-A

double


NWB006

double


NWB006-A

double


NWB007

double


NWB007-A

double


NWB008 individual tablet 91949.3 granite


NWB010 individual lawn-level,flat *1455.1 square cm granite


NWB012

double


NWB012-A

double


NWB013

double


NWB013-A

double


NWB014 individual

slanted single

block 32738.9 granite


NWB016 individual slant 46436.8 granite

NWC017 individual tablet 56267.3 granite

NWC018 individual slant 29928 granite

NWC019 individual slant 32781.9 granite



NWC022 individual horizontal slab *15327.5 square cm marble




NWC026

double


Goldstone 60

Grave

No.

Grave

Type Basic Form

Headstone Volume

(cubic cm) Material

NWC026-A

double



NWC028 individual lawn-level,flat *2344.9 square cm granite





NWD033 individual slant 56808.5 granite

NWD034 individual tablet 67823.8 granite


NWD036 individual tablet 69432 granite


NWD038

double

plot

irregualr

monument 21009062.7 marble

NWD038-

A

double

plot

irregualr

monument 21009062.7 marble

NWD039 individual horizontal slab *15263.3 square cm marble

NWD040

double


NWD040-

A

double


NWD041 individual slant 23876.8 granite

NWD042 individual lawn-level,flat *1901.9 square cm granite

NWD043

double


NWD043-

A

double


NWD044 individual

slanted single

block 32476 granite

NWD045

double

plot

slanted single

block 29269 granite

NWD046

double


NWD046-

A

double


NWD047 individual tablet 56281 granite

NWE048

double


NWE048-A

double


NWE049 individual tablet 97223.8 granite

NWE050 individual tablet 95707 granite


NWE052 individual tablet 9318.4 marble

NWE053 individual lawn-level,flat *838.4 square cm marble

NWE054 individual slant 31201.9 granite

NWE055 individual slant 32752 granite

Goldstone 61

Grave

No.

Grave

Type Basic Form

Headstone Volume

(cubic cm) Material


NWE057

double


NWE057-A

double



NWE059

double


NWE060

double


NWF061 individual tablet 117765.9 granite




NWF065 individual tablet 25522.3 marble


NWF067 individual tablet 53929.5 marble

NWF068 individual horizontal slab *19782.2 square cm marble

NWF069 individual tablet 196835 granite




NWF073 individual lawn-level,flat *2000 square cm granite

NWF074

double


NWF075

double


NWF076 individual pedestal 78580.5 marble

NWG077 individual

slanted single

block 33003.7 granite

NWG078 individual slant 64933.1 granite


NWG080 individual tablet 9547.7 marble

NWG081 individual tablet 19039.3 granite

NWG082

double

plot square 359003.2 granite

NWG082-

A

double

plot square 359003.2 granite


NWG084 individual square 148198.4 granite

NWG085 individual tablet 29415.3 marble


NWG087

double


NWG087-

A

double


NWG088 individual square pedestal 148187.6 marble

NWG089 individual bedstead 10729 marble

Goldstone 62

Grave

No.

Grave

Type Basic Form

Headstone Volume

(cubic cm) Material


NWH091 individual tablet 77808.2 granite




NWH095 individual tablet 6852 granite

NWH096 individual tablet 41570.6 marble


NWH098

double


NWH098-

A

double


NWH099 individual lawn-level,flat *911.5 square cm granite

NWH100 individual lawn-level,flat *979 scuare cm granite

NWH101

double

plot tablet 4233.4 marble

NWH101-

A

double

plot tablet 4233.4 marble

NWH102 group plot pedestal 252037.9 marble

NWH102-

A group plot pedestal 252037.9 marble

NWH102-

B group plot pedestal 252037.9 marble

NWH102-

C group plot pedestal 252037.9 marble

NWH102-

D group plot pedestal 252037.9 marble

NWH103 individual slant 6726 marble

NWI104 individual tablet 8157.3 marble

NWI105 individual slant 48669 granite

NWI106 individual lawn-level,flat *1878.8 square cm granite



NWI109 individual tablet 60480.8 granite


NWI111 individual obleisk 12295.9 marble





NWJ116 individual lawn-level,flat *1936.8 square cm granite

NWJ117 individual tablet 63409.5 granite


NWJ119 individual lawn-level,flat *1978 square cm granite


NWJ121 individual tablet (broken) 2327.2 marble

NWJ122 individual tablet 50794.9 granite

Goldstone 63

Grave

No.

Grave

Type Basic Form

Headstone Volume

(cubic cm) Material

NWJ123

double


NWJ123-A

double


NWJ124

double


NWJ125

double

plot tablet 76646 granite

Goldstone 64

Appendix D

Grave No. Lettering Base Curbing Horizontal Slab

NWA001 engraved/painted X


NWA003 engraved X

NWA004 engraved X


NWA005-A engraved/painted X

NWB006 engraved/painted X

NWB006-A engraved/painted X





NWB010 engraved/painted

NWB011 engraved X



NWB013 engraved X X

NWB013-A engraved X X


NWB015 engraved X

NWB016 engraved X

NWC017 engraved/painted X

NWC018 engraved X

NWC019 engraved X

NWC020 engraved X

NWC021 engraved X

NWC022 engraved X

NWC023 engraved X

NWC024 engraved X

NWC025 engraved X

NWC026 engraved

NWC026-A engraved

NWC027 engraved X

NWC028 engraved/painted


NWC030 engraved X


NWC032 engraved X

NWD033 engraved X

NWD034 engraved/painted

NWD035 engraved X

NWD036 engraved X

NWD037 engraved X

Goldstone 65


NWD038 engraved X X

NWD038-A engraved X X

NWD039 engraved X

NWD040 engraved/painted X

NWD040-A engraved/painted X

NWD041 engraved/painted

NWD042 engraved

NWD043 engraved X

NWD043-A engraved X

NWD044 engraved X

NWD045 engraved X

NWD046 engraved/painted X

NWD046-A engraved/painted X

NWD047 engraved x

NWE048 engraved X

NWE048-A engraved X

NWE049 engraved X X

NWE050 engraved X X

NWE051 engraved X X X

NWE052 engraved X

NWE053 engraved

NWE054 engraved/painted X

NWE055 engraved/painted

NWE056 engraved/painted X

NWE057 engraved X

NWE057-A engraved X

NWE058 engraved X

NWE059 engraved X

NWE060 engraved X

NWF061 engraved X X

NWF062 engraved X X

NWF063 engraved X X X

NWF064 engraved X

NWF065 engraved X

NWF066 engraved X

NWF067 engraved X

NWF068 engraved X

NWF069 engraved X

NWF070 engraved X

NWF071 engraved X X

NWF072 engraved X X

NWF073 engraved

NWF074 engraved X

NWF075 engraved X

NWF076 engraved X

Goldstone 66


NWG077 engraved X

NWG078 engraved X

NWG079 engraved X

NWG080 engraved X

NWG081 engraved X

NWG082 engraved X

NWG082-A engraved X

NWG083 engraved X

NWG084 engraved X

NWG085 engraved X

NWG086 engraved X

NWG087 engraved X X

NWG087-A engraved X X

NWG088 engraved X X

NWG089 engraved X

NWG090 engraved/painted

NWH091 engraved X

NWH092 engraved X

NWH093 engraved X

NWH094 engraved X

NWH095 engraved

NWH096 engraved X X

NWH097 engraved X X

NWH098 engraved/painted X

NWH098-A engraved/painted X

NWH099 engraved/painted

NWH100 engraved/painted

NWH101 engraved

NWH101-A engraved

NWH102 engraved X

NWH102-A engraved X X

NWH102-B engraved X X

NWH102-C engraved X

NWH102-D engraved X

NWH103 engraved X

NWI104 engraved

NWI105 engraved X X

NWI106 engraved

NWI107 engraved X X

NWI108 engraved

NWI109 engraved

NWI110 engraved

NWI111 engraved X

NWI112 engraved X

NWI113 engraved X

Goldstone 67


NWI114 engraved X

NWI115 engraved X

NWJ116 engraved

NWJ117 engraved X

NWJ118 engraved

NWJ119 engraved/painted

NWJ120 engraved/painted

NWJ121 none/illegible

NWJ122 engraved X

NWJ123 engraved

NWJ123-A engraved

NWJ124 engraved/painted X X X

NWJ125 engraved X X

Goldstone 68

Appendix E

Grave

No.

Star of David

Motif

Menorah

Motif Other Motif

NWA001 X

helicopter, corp of engineers,

flowers

NWA002 X X flowers

NWA003 X

NWA004 X

NWA005 X

NWA005-

A X

NWB006 X

NWB006-

A X

NWB007 X

NWB007-

A X

NWB008 X

NWB009 X

NWB010 foliage

NWB011 X

NWB012 X

NWB012-

A X

NWB013 X

NWB013-

A X

NWB014

NWB015

banner across top "Rest In Peace",

foliage

NWB016 X

NWC017 X

NWC018 X

NWC019 X

NWC020

NWC021

NWC022

NWC023

NWC024

NWC025

NWC026 X

NWC026-

A X

NWC027 X

NWC028 X

NWC029

NWC030

NWC031 X

Goldstone 69

Grave

No.

Motif #1 (Star

of David)

Motif #2

(Menorah) Motif #3 (Other)

NWC032 X hand symbol of Kohanim

NWD033 rope border

NWD034 lines

NWD035 X foliage, flowers

NWD036 lines

NWD037 lines

NWD038 urn/pillars

NWD038-

A urn/pillars

NWD039

NWD040 X

NWD040-

A X

NWD041 X foliage

NWD042

NWD043 X X

NWD043-

A X X

NWD044

NWD045

NWD046 X

NWD046-

A X

NWD047 X foliage (irregular)

NWE048 X

NWE048-

A

NWE049 X

NWE050 X X

NWE051 X X

NWE052 flower

NWE053

NWE054 X

NWE055 X

NWE056 X

NWE057 X

NWE057-

A X

NWE058 flowers, foliage

NWE059 X

NWE060 X

NWF061 flowers, foliage, vertical lines

NWF062 flowers, foliage, vertical lines

NWF063 X flowers, foliage, vertical lines

NWF064 X

Goldstone 70

Grave

No.

Motif #1 (Star

of David)

Motif #2


NWF065

circular emblem, too faded to

identify motif

NWF066

NWF067

NWF068

NWF069

NWF070

NWF071 X

NWF072 X

NWF073

NWF074

NWF075

NWF076 foliage, rope

NWG077

NWG078 X

NWG079 X

NWG080

NWG081 X

NWG082

NWG082-

A

NWG083

NWG084

NWG085

NWG086 flowers, foliage

NWG087 foliage,

NWG087-

A foliage,

NWG088 foliage,

NWG089

NWG090

NWH091 X

NWH092 X

NWH093 X

NWH094 X

NWH095 dying flower

NWH096

NWH097 masonic, wreath

NWH098 X

NWH098-

A X

NWH099

NWH100 X

NWH101

NWH101-

A

Goldstone 71

Grave

No.

Motif #1 (Star

of David)

Motif #2


NWH102 "B" monogram, line pattern

NWH102-

A "B" monogram, line pattern

NWH102-

B "B" monogram, line pattern

NWH102-

C "B" monogram, line pattern

NWH102-

D "B" monogram, line pattern

NWH103 flowers

NWI104

NWI105 X

NWI106 X

NWI107

NWI108

NWI109 X

NWI110

NWI111

NWI112 flowers, foliage

NWI113

NWI114

NWI115

NWJ116

NWJ117 X flowers, foliage

NWJ118 X

NWJ119

NWJ120 X

NWJ121

NWJ122 X

NWJ123 X

NWJ123-

A X

NWJ124 X X

NWJ125 X flowers, foliage

Examining Gender Differentiation in the Headstones of the ...

Documents

Transcript of Examining Gender Differentiation in the Headstones of the ...