Our intrepid crew of adventurers ventured out to the Ross Bay Cemetery one dark and foreboding evening after discussion of the Pooley Angel. Discovering few other angels, but a plethora of unique markers, the team set out to catalogue some of the the more-unique monuments of the gravesite. With a data set of eleven unique grave markers, we proceeded to analyze the markers (and their graves) in an attempt to answer our inquiry of whether or not economic factors were involved in the separation (and establishment) of these unique markers, whether there was additional factors involved in the placement of the unique markers and any other details that could be ascertained - such as whether the markers were for individuals or for groups.
Theoretically speaking, it stands to reason that the larger a grave monument is, the more material wealth the family of the interred placed upon the erection of said monument. Uniqueness of the marker might play a role in economic contribution as well. Did this hold true?
It was ascertained that there was a larger number of generally larger and more-elaborate unique grave markers within the 'older' portion of the cemetery along the north-east section; the graves to the south tended to be smaller in marker size (and thus apparent opulence).
According to the history surrounding the Ross Bay Cemetery, the middle 1/3 was opened for burials in 1873, with the western third purchased and utilized as of 1900 and the eastern third in 1906. Of the data set, graves occur in all three 'third-area' and there seems to be no clear delineation as to economic status, other than the overall assumption that in order to be buried in a cemetery with such 'prime real estate' as Ross Bay Cemetery, one would have to have had family buried there already in a family plot (as is the case with the obvious markings on the Bossi, Pooley, Behnsen, Erickson, and Deans monuments) or some form of economic influence (possibly the case with the Pettapiece sundial).
http://www.oldcem.bc.ca/cem_rb_his.htm
Doing a catalogue search of the names on the markers did reveal a small mystery: "Amy Elizabeth Schultz" - the name on the 'Anchor' marker (#7) does not appear in the City of Victoria's burial records for Ross bay Cemetery. As a matter of fact, none of the Schultz's interred in Ross Bay share her date of death. Further adding to the mystery, she was buried in the 'General burial' section (not-necessarily religious) and in a specific section (K) that was used primarily for the burials of Chinese and Japanese immigrants as well as First Nations people until the opening of an additional section (N) for that purpose in 1906.
Whoever "Amy Elizabeth Schultz" was, she was significant enough to warrant having a great anchor placed on top of her gravesite...
http://web.victoria.ca/archives/rosssearch.asp
The cemetery was subdivided in 1879 due to some public concerns that not enough of the acreage was devoted to 'general burial', causing a bylaw to be passed and the Church of England (Anglican), the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church (after paying $300 per acre) to be allotted their specific areas (Sections ABST, CDUV and H, respectively) for their burials. Of the graves on the data set, religion does not appear to play a key factor in specific site location, and one can only surmise the religion of the interred (or more likely correctly, the family of the interred) based upon their marker site.
Inspection of grave inscriptions for patterns to family burial proved to be a little more revealing; with the larger monuments of the north-east collection having plaques detailing entire families being buried together. Conversely, the newer the grave monuments (and subsequently the graves themselves) the more likely we were to find a smaller group (such as a couple) or an individual burial, which reflects different cultural practices concerning death within the family or society. Lewis Binford assessed age ranking as a determinant of mortuary significance, noting that:
"... in egalitarian societies, very young individuals should have very low rank and, hence, share duty-status relations with a very limited number of people" (Binford, 1971).
In this case, Binford's theory does not hold true, as two of the more noteworthy markers - the baby chair of David Burnside Campbell and the anchor of Ann Elizabeth Schultz (assuming Ms. Schultz's inscription of 'our baby' to be one of chronological age significance and not just an affectation) are both noteworthy markers in their size and uniqueness.
Regardless of the mystery surrounding the uniqueness of this data set, I feel it can be safely assumed that uniqueness of character (or possibly social status within the community) and not necessarily specific economic status was the main reasoning for the individuality of the grave markers, and that as time wore on, individual grave markers became the norm as opposed to internment within a family plot with one's relations.
References
1. Adams, J. 1983. Historic guide to Ross Bay Cemetery. Victoria, BC: Sono Nis Press.
2. Binford, L. 1971. Mortuary practices: Their study and their potential. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology, (25), 6-29.
http://web.victoria.ca
http://www.oldcem.bc.ca
