BURIAL, RITE OF PASSAGE OR WASTE PROBLEM?
Posted: 05 Mar 2026, 02:56
BURIAL, RITE OF PASSAGE OR WASTE PROBLEM?
(18 July 2004)
I can think of few questions more likely to provoke strong feeling and difference of opinion than the disposal of human remains. Whatever people’s attitudes are, they should be respected. Archaeology seems to suggest that as long ago as at least 100,000 BC humans were concerned that family members should be respectfully treated and buried at quite significant cost in resources with grave goods, site markers and ceremonies. This aspect of human behaviour can be traced right up to the present day.
I often wonder though just what proportion of the dead were treated like this. After all, if a body was just left where it fell or thrown into the sea or a river nature would take care of the problem and return the constituents of the body to the earth cycle, no archaeological trace would remain. I suppose the modern equivalent of this is exposing the body to carrion, burial at sea or cremation and the scattering of the ashes. My father requested that his ashes go back to Australia and he specified exactly what he wanted. He was cremated and after keeping his ashes on the mantelpiece for 14 years I took them to Australia and scattered them in the McQuarrie River. I read recently of a woman who specified that her ashes should be loaded into a rocket, fired into the air and scattered by an explosion so they drifted back to earth over the widest possible area. I quite like that idea, I'll have a word with the Kids!
Thanks to the pressure from Humanists and environmentalists we now see quite a lot of ‘Green Burials’ where the minimum of resources are used in the burial, cardboard or wicker coffins and trees for markers if desired. My son in law Harry and his father are buried in Australia in a cemetery where only small flat grave markers are allowed and Kangaroos roam about. It looks exactly like a piece of the surrounding bush. (Watch out for the ticks when visiting the graves!)
We have seen comment on the oneguy site recently about the state of some of our churchyards and cemeteries and how burial records are being treated. It is a major problem and one that sooner or later is going to have to be addressed. The question is, how do you deal with this without doing violence to some people’s beliefs? The individual solutions range from complete cremation and scattering of ashes to interment with the largest monument that the authorities will allow. Status is important to some, even in death.
The last time this problem was addressed on a large scale was after the Great War. In the early days, the dead were buried in sections of public cemeteries and marked by the army with a simple wooden cross with a metal plate on which the deceased person’s details were embossed. There was no objection made to families erecting their own memorial markers over the graves, some of them very large and ornate. When Sir Edwin Lutyens was commissioned to set design standards for these war graves the principle adopted was that of equality. Every grave had to have the same basic design of headstone. This was the genesis of the serried ranks of white headstones so familiar to anyone who has visited the war cemeteries on what was the Western Front. The only variation allowed was in the inscription on the stone. Curiously enough, a slight variation did creep in based on religious practice. When I was over there I noticed that some headstones had small stones lined up on the top edge. These were all Jewish graves and I found out later that these were Kaddish Stones. The Jews believe that the Kaddish, or prayer for the dead, should be said over the grave every year and a small marker stone placed to show that this had been done. I found this incredibly moving and later enquired of a Rabbi if it was allowed for a Gentile to place a stone to show they cared. He told me that this was not only acceptable but welcomed.
The large municipal cemeteries are the exact opposite of the war graves. Status is marked by the size and complexity of memorials. Queen Victoria did nothing to curb this when she caused the Albert Memorial to be erected in London. Go to any churchyard or cemetery and look at some of the monstrosities that have been built to commemorate the deceased, we are left in no doubt as to status. The most grotesque example of this I have ever seen is the Glasgow Necropolis which looks like a petrified forest.
So what do we do about our present problem of overcrowded and badly maintained burial grounds? This is far too sensitive a problem for rigid views and proposals. All I will do is say that I have sympathy with the oft-reported curbs being put on the size and design of memorials by the people in charge of the burial places. It seems to me that if a marker is needed it should be small and flat so as to be easily mowed over or grazed. I favour cremation and scattering of ashes, in other words, re-cycling. I don’t think we can do anything about the monuments that exist apart from leave them for nature to destroy. My only problem about this is that the high status memorials will win out in the end because they will last longer!
Someone once told me that all you can leave behind you is your children and your work. If I have a memorial it will be the engines and chimneys I have saved and the archives holding the results of my research. Think of the informants in the Lancashire Textile Project, one of their most enduring memorials will be the transcripts of their life stories and achievements. What better way of commemorating a life?
As for the records of the graves and the information on the headstones and grave markers, this is information in the public domain and part of the individuals life story and should not be barred from view by high access charges. All this information should be free to air and any expenses borne by the state. When all is said and done, society and the state were happy to extract profit from these people when they were alive, they have a moral duty to accept the death as final and make all records of the life freely available.
There is a famous quotation from Ecclesiasticus, one of the books in the Apocrypha, which says it all really:
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us.
Such as did bear rule in their kingdoms,
Men renowned for their power,
Such as found out musical tunes,
And recited verses in writing:
All these were honoured in their generations,...
And some there be, which have no memorial;
Who are perished as though they had never been.
Their bodies are buried in peace;
But their name lives for evermore.
The people shall tell of their wisdom.
This is what the study of history does best, it celebrates our forefathers and usually honours them. I’m naïve enough to believe that these are far more enduring memorials than headstones in a burial ground but they need just as much maintenance. So my view is that we should let the stone headstones fade away and devote what energy we have to the more durable memorial of well-researched history.
(18 July 2004)
(18 July 2004)
I can think of few questions more likely to provoke strong feeling and difference of opinion than the disposal of human remains. Whatever people’s attitudes are, they should be respected. Archaeology seems to suggest that as long ago as at least 100,000 BC humans were concerned that family members should be respectfully treated and buried at quite significant cost in resources with grave goods, site markers and ceremonies. This aspect of human behaviour can be traced right up to the present day.
I often wonder though just what proportion of the dead were treated like this. After all, if a body was just left where it fell or thrown into the sea or a river nature would take care of the problem and return the constituents of the body to the earth cycle, no archaeological trace would remain. I suppose the modern equivalent of this is exposing the body to carrion, burial at sea or cremation and the scattering of the ashes. My father requested that his ashes go back to Australia and he specified exactly what he wanted. He was cremated and after keeping his ashes on the mantelpiece for 14 years I took them to Australia and scattered them in the McQuarrie River. I read recently of a woman who specified that her ashes should be loaded into a rocket, fired into the air and scattered by an explosion so they drifted back to earth over the widest possible area. I quite like that idea, I'll have a word with the Kids!
Thanks to the pressure from Humanists and environmentalists we now see quite a lot of ‘Green Burials’ where the minimum of resources are used in the burial, cardboard or wicker coffins and trees for markers if desired. My son in law Harry and his father are buried in Australia in a cemetery where only small flat grave markers are allowed and Kangaroos roam about. It looks exactly like a piece of the surrounding bush. (Watch out for the ticks when visiting the graves!)
We have seen comment on the oneguy site recently about the state of some of our churchyards and cemeteries and how burial records are being treated. It is a major problem and one that sooner or later is going to have to be addressed. The question is, how do you deal with this without doing violence to some people’s beliefs? The individual solutions range from complete cremation and scattering of ashes to interment with the largest monument that the authorities will allow. Status is important to some, even in death.
The last time this problem was addressed on a large scale was after the Great War. In the early days, the dead were buried in sections of public cemeteries and marked by the army with a simple wooden cross with a metal plate on which the deceased person’s details were embossed. There was no objection made to families erecting their own memorial markers over the graves, some of them very large and ornate. When Sir Edwin Lutyens was commissioned to set design standards for these war graves the principle adopted was that of equality. Every grave had to have the same basic design of headstone. This was the genesis of the serried ranks of white headstones so familiar to anyone who has visited the war cemeteries on what was the Western Front. The only variation allowed was in the inscription on the stone. Curiously enough, a slight variation did creep in based on religious practice. When I was over there I noticed that some headstones had small stones lined up on the top edge. These were all Jewish graves and I found out later that these were Kaddish Stones. The Jews believe that the Kaddish, or prayer for the dead, should be said over the grave every year and a small marker stone placed to show that this had been done. I found this incredibly moving and later enquired of a Rabbi if it was allowed for a Gentile to place a stone to show they cared. He told me that this was not only acceptable but welcomed.
The large municipal cemeteries are the exact opposite of the war graves. Status is marked by the size and complexity of memorials. Queen Victoria did nothing to curb this when she caused the Albert Memorial to be erected in London. Go to any churchyard or cemetery and look at some of the monstrosities that have been built to commemorate the deceased, we are left in no doubt as to status. The most grotesque example of this I have ever seen is the Glasgow Necropolis which looks like a petrified forest.
So what do we do about our present problem of overcrowded and badly maintained burial grounds? This is far too sensitive a problem for rigid views and proposals. All I will do is say that I have sympathy with the oft-reported curbs being put on the size and design of memorials by the people in charge of the burial places. It seems to me that if a marker is needed it should be small and flat so as to be easily mowed over or grazed. I favour cremation and scattering of ashes, in other words, re-cycling. I don’t think we can do anything about the monuments that exist apart from leave them for nature to destroy. My only problem about this is that the high status memorials will win out in the end because they will last longer!
Someone once told me that all you can leave behind you is your children and your work. If I have a memorial it will be the engines and chimneys I have saved and the archives holding the results of my research. Think of the informants in the Lancashire Textile Project, one of their most enduring memorials will be the transcripts of their life stories and achievements. What better way of commemorating a life?
As for the records of the graves and the information on the headstones and grave markers, this is information in the public domain and part of the individuals life story and should not be barred from view by high access charges. All this information should be free to air and any expenses borne by the state. When all is said and done, society and the state were happy to extract profit from these people when they were alive, they have a moral duty to accept the death as final and make all records of the life freely available.
There is a famous quotation from Ecclesiasticus, one of the books in the Apocrypha, which says it all really:
Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers that begat us.
Such as did bear rule in their kingdoms,
Men renowned for their power,
Such as found out musical tunes,
And recited verses in writing:
All these were honoured in their generations,...
And some there be, which have no memorial;
Who are perished as though they had never been.
Their bodies are buried in peace;
But their name lives for evermore.
The people shall tell of their wisdom.
This is what the study of history does best, it celebrates our forefathers and usually honours them. I’m naïve enough to believe that these are far more enduring memorials than headstones in a burial ground but they need just as much maintenance. So my view is that we should let the stone headstones fade away and devote what energy we have to the more durable memorial of well-researched history.
(18 July 2004)