Culture vs Nature in cemeteries
November 5, 2009
If I have one gripe with many green and woodland cemeteries it is that they don’t think deeply enough about the consequences to humans and human culture of making cemeteries more “natural”. This regards above all finding a place for enduring memorials in natural cemeteries.
This morning I came across an interesting story from the UK, in which the same conflict emerges in another aspect: http://www.midweekherald.co.uk/midweekherald/news/story.aspx?brand=MDWOnline&category=news&tBrand=devon24&tCategory=newsmdw&itemid=DEED03%20Nov%202009%2012%3A32%3A44%3A790
For the time-pressed (or if the link expires), the story essentially concerns the conflicts between mourners in a woodland cemetery and the deer that wander in and quite naturally eat the fresh flowers laid on burial sites. As a woodland cemetery, it is a good sign that the deer like to visit. But what happens when they eat all the natural flowers so that, paradoxically, all that remain are the artificial ones?
This simple example illustrates well the possible conflicts between nature and culture that can only become more evident as woodland and other “green” cemeteries multiply. I find nothing wrong with more natural cemeteries - on the contrary, Perpetua’s Garden aims to be just that. But people need to be clear that natural cemeteries set different boundaries between nature and culture than conventional cemeteries and the consequences need to be accepted. When a cemetery is intended to be a closer part of nature, it is only logical that situations like the above happen.
The issue of the flowers can be extended to memorials and in general to all that is human (ie cultural) in the cemetery. We want a cemetery that blends into and is friendly to nature - this means that we must accept that the human cultural aspect is curbed: that the flowers get eaten (or we use artificial ones) and that the stone memorial is forbidden. That flowers get eaten and must be replaced is a small concession to nature’s cause which we can easily accept; but not being allowed any kind of enduring memorial means the line has been drawn too far on the side of nature and human culture has lost its place altogether in the cemetery. The disappearance of the flowers upsets the direct descendents of the deceased - the absence of personalized, enduring memorials may not be noticed until later, when nature has naturally taken back its domain and no signs remains whatsoever, not even where the body rests. Then it is too late and human culture as a whole suffers.
Where does nature’s place end and culture’s begin, where do we draw the line, what are our priorities and what compromises must we make? Ideally we think about these things in advance and do not have to learn only by our mistakes. Perpetua’s Garden also sets this question as one of its tasks.
Comments
5 Responses to “Culture vs Nature in cemeteries”
Got something to say?
Thomas, I also was alerted to the news item concerning the burial ground’s problem of the deer, the flowers and the bereaved family. I have not visited Seaton Cemetery, but a clue to the problem seems to be in the article, which says that “the top third of the cemetery is a woodland burial site” - perhaps it’s trying to be all things to all men and not succeeding.
It is really important for operators of natural burial grounds to provide a clear statement to users on the short, medium and long-term vision for their burial grounds including the types of mementos and memorials that are permitted and the reasons behind those decisions.
Native Woodland’s natural burial grounds here in the UK are at the deep green end of the spectrum and no memorial stones, mementos, markers or plaques are permitted on the graves. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that there is a deep need for names to be written - to leave a mark in history - especially where the grave quickly blends into its surroundings. So a memorial of some kind is important. Perhaps the difficult question is what form that memorial should take.
Flowers get eaten in all cemeteries here in Northern california where deer abound. However deer are picky. They prefer Roses and Tulips, they HATE all tropical flowers as well as gladiolas. In my years of working in cemeteries before stating Kinkaraco (WWW.GREENBURIALPRODUCTS.COM)
I have seen lots of expensive ornate floral wreaths and display with all the roses eaten out before the family even arrives for the service!
In the Green burial services the flowers are usually put into the grave covering the body and buried and ones brought afterwards should be something the deer like (like roses)!
James, I am glad to hear your cemeteries are coming around to the idea of allowing enduring memorials.
As you know, I put far more emphasis on the memorialization aspect - electronically-based forms (website memorials and GPS chips) are to my mind not sufficient. The website can be a useful addition to a concrete marker, particularly when we all live so far apart and are so mobile. But it is NOT a substitute – fundamentally speaking, nothing is as ephemeral as electronic information, and I don’t care what anyone says about backups, retrocompatibility of technology, etc etc. Data can be lost forever in milliseconds today in all sorts of realistic scenarios – imagine over a century or more…imagine during future wars, or other upheavals.
A GPS system may be accurate, may even be compatible with technology in 100 years. But what is there to look at and remind one of the person lying there?
Which brings me to the trees: in the end, a tree, however beautiful and radiating of positive energy, has a generic aspect until it gets to be very old (IF it gets to be very old). To reverse the saying, one could lose sight of the trees for the forest – “The GPS says it’s here. But these trees all look the same, which is ours?”
And a tree is of course hardly less mortal than a human being. Forest fires, disease, war, or even worse catastrophes make short work of forests. I live in Vienna – the Zentralfriedhof here is full of old stones with bullet holes from WWII, but hardly a tree older than 70 years because they all got blown up or burned in the battles and airraids.. We should not forget that we live in an era of temporary peace – if we consider history, it will evidently not always be that way in the future.
I love the idea of planting a tree where someone is buried but something more durable and personalized has to go with it.
I am glad that you seem not to disagree.
Shroudwoman (Hi Esm.!), you make a good point about choosing edible flowers for the deer!
To which I would only add that the familes who choose such sites for burial need to be informed beforehand that this will happen - the onus here is on the woodland cemetery operator, who should have thought about these and other consequences in advance and made them very explicit to the families making this choice. Freedom is choice is paramount but good explicit information is a prerequisite to it.
Thomas,
How long would be long enough for a memorial to last - 50, 100, 200 500 years? What information should it contain? How much space will it take up? How should it be maintained?
I agree that trees should not become individual memorials - for each of us to have a mature tree on top of our grave, they would need to be planted some 12m apart (~30 traditional grave spaces per tree plot). Some argue that coppiced trees are the solution, allowing closer proximity, but I don’t buy that, and don’t believe that it’s what people want.
Somewhere I recall seeing you advocate boulders - aesthetically beautiful, but surely, there is not the scale of landscape in most places to accommodate such a vision - furthermore - what happens in areas where there are no boulders? I like the idea, but think it would end up being elitist and unsustainable. Each year on earth, approximately 65 million people die - that’s a lot of boulders…
I wholeheartedly agree that a digital record is ephemeral and much more easily lost. However, I fundamentally disagree with your perception that there needs to be a permanent marker on the spot. I believe that we need to ensure that vast areas of land used for burials are not made unsuitable for other productive purposes by individual memorialisation. Individual memorials can be grouped together, at burial grounds, in beautiful and lasting ways - we need to involve good designers with fresh ideas and an understanding of a lasting and sustainable future - a new aesthetic.
James