This page is referenced by:

• 1 2018-05-07T21:01:24+00:00 Haunting the Environment 1 gallery 2018-05-07T21:01:24+00:00 Often overlooked by environmentalists, it is not hard to understand why historical scholarship has failed to provide an overview of the relationship between the environment and the cemetery. The cemetery is one of several intertwined elements that have influenced the way American’s detach from their dead. And yet, the business of death is a billion dollar a year industry. There have been books and scholarship written about the funeral industry, and while some highlight the broader context of the funeral industry most are parochial in their approach. Perhaps then, this is why environmental scholarship is lacking in regards to the cemetery and the other inner workings of the funeral industry. A closer look would suggest that the funeral industry and the environment have a unique relationship. The health concerns of decaying bodies spreading disease are not a thing of the past. On the contrary, although the scale may change the scope has remained largely the same. Early fears of airborne pathogens leading to yellow fever provide what may be the first example of environmental concerns from the burial of the dead. While our medical understanding of disease and bacteria has long discredited these claims contemporary concerns still exist.
              The placement of bodies and location of cemeteries differ according to the epoch, although most cemeteries found after the early nineteenth-century are located on the outskirts of town. A perceived threat due to the decomposition of bodies and inadequate space promulgated the change from the use of inner-city churchyards. Ironically, many of the earlier rural-cemeteries now find themselves surrounded by the very elements they sought to combat such as neighborhoods and housing developments. In some cases, such as that of a small developer in Georgia unearth the graves of ghosts past. [1] However, the environmental risk of pre-Civil War graves may not be as threatening as those during or after the war. The practice of embalming which became common during the Civil War is now a distinct ritual of American burial practices. Early embalmers used arsenic to preserve the dead bodies of the deceased and trace elements have been recorded in minor research cases. During the early years of the nineteenth-century, the use of arsenic was made illegal, and formaldehyde replaced arsenic as the preferred chemical agent for the preservation of bodies. Formaldehyde, which is a known carcinogen provides threats of its own. And although no large-scale studies have been conducted to determine the extent of soil or water contamination from burials, some small scale geological studies indicate a heightened presence of contamination from burial sites. A geological study of a small nineteenth-century cemetery conducted by Alison Spongberg and Paul M. Becks from the University of Toledo provides evidence of arsenic in the cemetery soil.[2]  In addition, their research highlights a lack of government involvement and the use of cemeteries for background sampling which leads Spongberg and Becks to question how undisturbed the ground used in these samples may be? In other words, background sampling calls for the testing of undisturbed ground, and yet, the ground used in cemeteries has been disturbed and continues to disturb the soil and water around it as leachate ensures the spread of arsenic, formaldehyde, metals, varnishes and paints used on the vaults and coffins for burial. In a different study, green burial advocate Mark Harris states that other research conducted within several Civil-War cemeteries by John Konofres from the University of Northern Iowa indicates that increased levels of arsenic exist in the well water. According to Konofres, this is significant because arsenic is not typically found in the groundwater or soil of Iowa.[3] Arguably less harmful than arsenic, formaldehyde which displaced arsenic as the active agent for corpse preservation in 1905 is a known carcinogen and studies have indicated heightened exposure to the substance places embalmers at an increased risk for cancer.[4] Because of this, formaldehyde is strictly regulated by The Occupational Safety and Health Administration to reduce the risk of those who are regularly exposed to the chemical.[5] And yet, the threat of these chemical agents contaminating soil or water appears to be of little concern to government officials or scholars. Konofres, Spongberg, and Becks have all called for large-scale research efforts to provide a greater understanding of the threats from exposure or contamination from both arsenic and formaldehyde. Unfortunately, to date, no large-scale efforts by the scholarly community or government agencies have taken place.
              Arsenic and formaldehyde may arguably be the most obvious concerns from geologists. However, a deeper analysis suggests that they are not the most evident. As cemeteries transitioned from the small churchyard, domestic, and frontier gravesites into sprawling pastoral and suburban cemeteries the environmental effects of such efforts changed in scale and scope. From the massive efforts of cemetery developers the landscapes and functions of the cemetery would permanently alter both the spatial and physical environment. To transform Spring Grove Cemetery according to a “scientific plan,” Adolph Strauch navigated the problem of marshy wetlands that existed within the cemetery by draining the water from the marshy areas into the water elements of his lawn-park design.[6] The diverting of the waters must have adversely affected the biota in these particular areas. Also, in the American tradition of land exploitation and capitalism Strauch expanded saleable plots to the former marshy areas of Spring Grove. The expansion of the rural, lawn-park, and memorial-park cemeteries diverted water sources and challenged the existing biota. The rural-cemetery became littered with iron gates, fences, monuments, and mausoleums that were erected in honor of a families name or a reflection of one’s success. Ornamental gates and fences were meant to keep undesirables out, create physical boundaries, and add to the picturesque sentimentality of Victorian era trends. Lawn-park and memorial-park cemeteries would add to the growing list of environmental concerns by implementing their pastoral and suburban like features. The maintenance of such vast expanses of land with perfectly manicured lawns calls for the use of pesticides, fertilizers, and thousands of gallons of water per day. The runoff from the continued watering transfers the fertilizers and pesticides into the waterways and directly threatens human and non-human life who inhabit the cemeteries and regions downstream from them. Also, as modern technology such as lawn mowers, weed eaters, and backhoes became conventional tools cemeteries inadvertently affect the environment through their reliance on fossil fuels and oil. The use of these resources then, becomes part of the larger web of American’s carbon footprint and landscapes of intensification.  
              In addition to the chemical pollutants and water waste are the effects of change on aging cemeteries. Many older cemeteries which paid for maintenance through perpetual-care plans where lot holders paid a one-time fee upon the purchase of a plot failed to take into consideration the effects of inflation. Some, however, to negate the issue began yearly or monthly payments to pay for cemetery maintenance. Both efforts failed for many of the oldest rural and lawn-park cemeteries. In doing so, many old cemeteries have fallen into disrepair and have become surrounded by urban expansion. Certain cases, such as that of Calvary Cemetery in San Diego illuminate the changing trends during the eighteenth and nineteenth-century. However, what is of importance for this examination is what was done with the grave markers of what is now Pioneer Park.[7] According to Gabriel Lawson, the grave markers of Calvary Cemetery were dumped into a mass grave in the Mount Hope Cemetery. Also of interest is that Calvary Cemetery was only closed after a new city ordinance declared the area a public health hazard in 1968.[8] This poses a larger question when considering cemetery waste in a theoretical manner. Those who were interred at Calvary Cemetery have remained and continue to lie underneath the feet of those who walk across the ground of the park. May we ask if those who were left in an unmarked grave are another example of the waste, neglect, and detachment from both the dead and the land which is so familiar to American culture? Furthermore, lacking a deeper analysis of historical scholarship it is hard to say with certainty what happened to the large monuments, gates, and fences that were destroyed as newer design trends displaced the old and families ceased to exist or assert control of their ancestral burial grounds. While some of the older cemeteries have been maintained through funds provided by non-profit organizations, many of the older cemeteries that still exist are very often mired in financial difficulty, thus presenting an eyesore and public safety hazard to the surrounding communities. What can be ascertained is that cemeteries and the processes by which Americans bury their dead do have a profound effect on the environment. As Mark Harris informs us in his book Grave Matters “For all their landscaping above ground, our cemeteries function less as verdant resting grounds of the dead than as landfills for the materials that infuse and encase them. The typical 10-acre swath of cemetery ground, for example, contains enough coffin wood to construct more than 40 homes, nine hundred-plus tons of casket steel, and another twenty thousand tons of vault concrete. To that add a volume of embalming fluid sufficient to fill a small backyard swimming pool and untold gallons of pesticide and weed killer to keep the graveyard preternaturally green.”[9] Broader analysis may help answer many questions of cemetery waste and contamination, however, contemporary scholars must look to themselves to provide the research needed for a greater understanding. After all, a dead man tells no tales.  
   

  ---

  [1] Galbraith, Kate. "New Homes Confront Old Burial Grounds." The New York Times. June 16, 2007. Accessed December 11, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/business/yourmoney/17natreal.html.
   

  [2] Spongberg, Alison L., and Paul M. Becks. "Inorganic Soil Contamination from Cemetery Leachate." In Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: An International Journal of Environmental Pollution, 313-27.

  [3] Harris, Mark. "Arsenic Contamination in Graveyards: How the Dead Are Hurting the Environment - Environment - Utne Reader." Utne. June 04, 2013. Accessed December 3, 2016. https://www.utne.com/environment/arsenic-contamination-ze0z1306zpit?pageid=1#PageContent1.

  [4] "Formaldehyde Exposure at a Mortuary Science Embalming Laboratory — Ohio." Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 29, no. 33 (August 22, 1980). Accessed December 11, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/23302419?ref=search-gateway:0b29a7d3d3494e48a77f33f32dd2a4db.

  [5] "UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR." Accessed December 9, 2016. https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_id=10075&p_table=STANDARDS.

  [6] Sloane, David Charles. The Last Great Necessity: Cemeteries in American History, pg. 100

  [7] Lawson, Gabriel. "The Role of Cemeteries in Historical Research: The Curious Case of Pioneer Park." Journal of San Diego History.

  [8] Ibid, pg. 56

  [9] Harris, Mark. Grave Matters: A Journey through the Modern Funeral Industry to a Natural Way of Burial. New York: Scribner, 2007.