Author: Catherine R. Jones
Paper: Mixed Burials and Commingled Human Remains Recovered from the Milwaukee
County Institution Grounds Poor Farm Cemetery
Symposium: People that no one had use for, had nothing to give to, no place to offer:
The Milwaukee County Institution Grounds Poor Farm Cemetery, Society for American
Archaeology 2015 Meetings
[SLIDE 1] [Welcome and Introduction] [SLIDE 2]
From the mid-1800s to their abandonment in 1974, the four cemeteries at the
Milwaukee County Institution Grounds (MCIG) in the western suburb of Wauwatosa,
Wisconsin, served as a burial place for the poor and indigent of the bustling Milwaukee
community, as well as residents of the city’s various public relief institutions, and the
unidentified and unclaimed individuals whose remains passed through the county
Coroner’s Office.
State law outlined the government’s role upon receipt of a deceased individual at
the Coroner’s office or any of the county institutions. [SLIDE 3] Among other
responsibilities, the public official was required to “cause the same to be decently buried
in the County Farm Cemetery [Milwaukee County (Wis.) Board of Supervisors, 1886].”
This was later amended to allow local medical schools to apply for the mortal remains of
unclaimed or abandoned individuals for use as cadavers in the teaching of anatomy. If
such an application was granted, both the care of the body and the onus of providing a
“decent burial” were transferred to the respective institution. Unfortunately, as has been
seen from the historical research by Drew and Richards, it appears that many of these
individuals whose bodies were given to the advancement of science were not given the
courtesy of the “decent burial” owed them. Those few individuals used as cadavers who
were listed in the MCIG burial register are recorded as being interred in individual lots,
and yet during the 2013 excavations at the County Grounds the majority of remains
1
showing signs of post-mortem intervention and cadaver use were recovered not from
single graves but from commingled deposits. [SLIDE 4]
Soon after the 2013 excavations commenced, archaeologists began finding coffins
containing the remains of more than one individual, a situation commonly referred to as
“commingling.” This was not a wholly unexpected development; the 1991/92
excavations at the County grounds had recovered 1649 lots, including 59 commingled
burials; 78% (n=46) of those earlier commingled burials contained the remains of only 2
individuals and appeared to have been created by the disposal of extraneous limbs,
removed through amputation or other means (Richards 1997). The commingled burials
encountered in the 2013 excavation proved to be entirely more complex in nature and
required a customized nomenclature to facilitate excavation and analysis. [SLIDE 5]
“Commingling” as a general categorical term refers to several forms of mixed
interment that differ based on the degree of skeletal amalgamation and the utilization of
the site. It has recently been suggested that instances of commingling can be understood
as one of three categories: long-tem usage assemblages, episodic-usage assemblages, and
assemblages that result from laboratory or curatorial commingling (Osterholtz et al.
2013). As the 2013 excavation continued, it became clear that this section of the cemetery
contained several small-scale episodic-usage commingled deposits. In order to clearly
reference the varying number of individuals and commingled contexts in these deposits,
three specific terms were put into use: “Individual”, “Commingled”, and “Mixed burial”.
In order to effectively account for the number of personal remains present at the site, a
base standard of archaeological individuality had to be established. In cases of multiple
interments, a set of articulated skeletal elements that constituted 50% or more of one
2
human skeleton was considered to represent an “Individual.” “Commingled” lots then
referred to those skeletal assemblages that contain the remains of more than one
individual but not more than 50% of any one Individual. Finally, “Mixed burial” was
employed as an umbrella term to encompass a variety of combinations of Individual and
Commingled lots in a single burial deposit throughout the cemetery. Used in practice, for
example, the Mixed Burial of Lots 10733/10909/10910 contains two Individual lots and
one Commingled Lot. [SLIDE 6]
During the first month of excavation, it became clear that these deposits were not
isolated incidents and that a formal procedure was needed to effectively and efficiently
recover these burials. Identifying the nature of the burial as early in the excavation as
possible allowed the most thorough and rigorous recovery of the feature as a whole,
ensuring that detailed notes were kept regarding all element associations. The higher the
percentage of articulated remains that could be successfully recovered, the higher was the
likelihood of later combining and reassembling an entire Individual from the
disarticulated remains (Komar and Potter 2007). Because the closed context of the coffin
and grave shaft minimized the risk of element shifting during removal of the overburden,
the surrounding soils were completely removed and the remains pedestaled before being
formally photographed (Cheetham et al. 2008). [SLIDE 7]
With the aid of an osteologist, the burials were then carefully excavated in the
reverse order of how they were interred in order to accurately record the stratigraphic
creation of the feature. Once the feature had been entirely excavated, the labeled remains
were transferred to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s Archaeological Research
Laboratory for final separation and analysis. [SLIDE 8]
3
There is no ‘one best approach’ to analyzing all cases of commingled remains;
each case must have a method custom tailored to the remains present and the depositional
context in which the burial was created and the bones recovered. With the larger goals of
the MCIG Poor Farm Cemetery Project in mind, laboratory procedures were designed
with the aim of separating and identifying Individuals from the mixed remains.
After being transferred from the field to the laboratory, the remains were cleaned
with water and brush and allowed to air-dry. Analysis of the Mixed Burials involved
well-established methods of observation and comparison, including refitting fragmented
bone, pair-matching homologous elements, and assessment of contiguous elements for
articulation (Adams and Byrd 2006). Analysts also worked closely with high-resolution
photos of the pedestaled burial throughout the investigation in order to confirm and
evaluate field element associations. Once full elements were reassociated and pairmatched to the extent possible, and any unassociated bone and bone fragments had been
accounted for, an inventory and biological profile were completed for each Individual
and Commingled lot. Finally an MNI assessment by most frequently represented element
landmark was completed to gauge the number of individuals represented by each
Commingled lot (Barker et al. 2008; Baustian et al. 2013). [SLIDE 9]
The distribution of age ranges represented by the mixed burials reflects that of the
larger cemetery in all categories except juveniles. The same is true for the distribution of
sex. These numbers indicate that there was no one biological group in the 2013 sample
that was preferenced for inclusion in a mixed burial over any other. All biological groups
were selected from equally. Whatever the social factors were that influenced a body’s
4
inclusion in a mixed burial, they could affect the full range of the biological population.
[SLIDE 10]
As part of the biological profile, several markers of pathology and taphonomy
were evaluated for each set of remains, including markers associated with postmortem
treatment of the body. Of particular note were those marks associated with autopsy and
medical cadaver use. Care was taken to ensure differentiation between incisions made by
cutting instruments and cuts that can be made by excavation tools and postmortem
taphonomic fracture (McFarlin and Wineski, 1997). Contemporary autopsy manuals were
consulted to ascertain the procedures that might have been utilized by regional anatomists
during the active years of the cemetery, and an osteoarchaeological profile of postmortem intervention was devised. Two main categories were distinguished based on the
patterning of cut marks and disarticulation observed. [SLIDE 11]
The first was a profile of autopsied individuals, osteological markers of which
included: any of a wide variety of craniotomy cuts (covered later in this session by Frie
and Richards); severing cuts to the body or sternal ends of multiple ribs; and severing,
oblique cuts to several bones of the vertebral column. Each of these cuts is consistent
with contemporary investigative practices of examining the brain, opening the chest
cavity, and removing the nerves of the spinal cord. Additionally, these individuals were
most often recovered articulated in single hexagonal coffins and the presence of grave
inclusions was minimal or absent. [SLIDE 12]
The other primary category of post-mortem intervention was dismemberment for
use as a medical cadaver. Osteological markers of this practice included: severing cuts to
one or both clavicles; full cross-section cuts to one or more bones of the post-cranial
5
skeleton; and extraneous cuts to the cranium which are not associated with craniotomy.
Furthermore, the practice of medical specimen collection was inferred from the presence
of small, slivered cuts of sampled bone, and from the prevalence of severing cuts to the
cervical vertebrae concurrent with absence of the cranium and mandible, suggesting that
the skulls of these individuals were being removed and kept elsewhere. Additionally,
these remains were most often recovered in mixed burials, with rectangular or hexagonal
coffins and an abundance of grave inclusions. [SLIDE 13]
The fifty-one lots containing autopsied individuals were evenly distributed
throughout the site. However, the ninety-three lots containing remains with evidence of
cadaver use [SLIDE 14] appear to be arranged in specific clusters. When overlaid [SLIDE
15]
with the sixty-five total mixed burial locations, a specific pattern of interment begins
to emerge. [SLIDE 16]
Each of the sixty-five mixed burials located and recovered during the 2013
excavations was sorted into one of seven Mixed Burial Categories depending upon its
internal distribution of Individual and Commingled lots. These burials consisted of the
remains of adults and the combined remains of adults and juveniles; 9 additional Mixed
Burials containing the combined remains of 2 prenatal Individuals each will not be
discussed here.
When viewed on the excavation map, it is clear that the depositional pattern of the
Mixed Burials creates seven clusters, suggesting that each was interred during a distinct
depositional episode. The majority of Category 1 deposits, whose coffins contain the
fewest and most complete Individual remains, were recovered from the eastern half of the
site, 46% (n=6) of them from one specific cluster. While maintaining a mixture of burial
6
type throughout the site, the deposits do appear to grow in complexity, increasing the
number of Commingled deposits and layered Individual remains toward the western end
of the site. This is possibly in keeping with evolving temporal use of the cemetery,
correlation of which requires further investigation. [SLIDE 17]
These seven categories of mixed burial were established in order to quantify and
organize the unexpectedly wide range of mortuary deposition represented at the site. The
rectangular and hexagonal coffins of the mixed burials contained skeletal remains in
varying degrees of completeness. Some held whole or nearly whole individuals interred
on opposite ends of the coffin; some held partial body segments and articulated limbs
scattered throughout the coffin space; and some were almost overfilled with discrete bone
assemblages which required extensive analysis to separate. [SLIDE 18]
Of particular interest were the Category 7 deposits, which contained commingled
bone and were the most atypical of the Mixed Burials. While always containing at least
one fragment of human bone, the majority also contained grave inclusions in the form of
containers, tools, fabric, medical waste, and trash. Human remains interred in these
graves are given no nod to individuality or formal burial practices, and seem to be treated
with the same regard as the broken glass, scrap metal, and even peanut shells that
surround them. [SLIDES 19-24, TIMED ADVANCE]
Further investigation of the Category 7 deposits in the context of the wider
excavation presents a particular pattern of deposition. At least one Category 7
commingled deposit was excavated in six of the seven identified clusters of Mixed
Burials. This would suggest that the mixed burials were not only interred during the same
depositional episode, but that a commingled coffin was deliberately included in that
7
episode as a collecting point for extraneous materials. As these deposits were not
externally distinguished as different from any other burial at the site, and as they
contained large, recognizable human remains interred amidst refuse and other material
culture with no discernable formal burial positioning, it can be inferred that the inclusion
of these deposits was a conscious and deliberate choice on the part of those who put these
bones and debris into a coffin meant to be interred in a cemetery. [SLIDE 25] The seventh
cluster of mixed burials does not show an associated Category 7 commingled lot. Given
the correlation of these lots to other mixed burial clusters, it is likely that an associated
Category 7 lot does exist for this cluster, but remains outside of the 2013 site boundaries
in the unexcavated portion of the cemetery still interred under a heavily utilized road to
the south of the project area. No plans currently exist to recover these burials. [SLIDE 26]
Excavation, inventory, and analysis showed that [SLIDE 27] the Mixed Burials
contained the skeletal remains of 96 Individuals. Further laboratory analysis determined
[SLIDE 28] a total MNI of 162 for the associated Commingled lots. Combined, analysis to
date shows that the Mixed Burials represent [SLIDE 29] a minimum of 258 individuals in
65 coffins. When added to the adult and juvenile population of 550, the Mixed Burials
increase the representation of people interred in this cemetery by 50%. [SLIDE 30]
Mortuary research is rooted in the idea that the deposition of a body can inform
the investigator about the life role of the interred individual and the mindset of those
doing the interring, and this holds especially true when investigating commingled
remains (Baustian et al. 2013). Each individual buried in the Milwaukee County
Institution Grounds Cemetery under the custody of the city governance and the
Milwaukee area medical schools was owed a “decent burial,” both as codified in law and
8
in their innate humanity. The minimum remains of 258 people recovered from mixed
burial contexts during the 2013 excavations at the site speak to a total disregard for this
social mandate of decency as well as for the Individuality of these people. Analysis to
separate their remains has been the first step along the line to recovering this lost
individuality. It is hoped that a successful petition for final dispensation and ongoing
curation and research will allow the Milwaukee community to further rediscover these
people whose lives were hard and whose endowment to anatomical science was repaid
with no more than an indecent burial. [SLIDE 31]
9
REFERENCES CITED
Adams, Bradley J., and John E. Byrd
2006 Resolution of small-scale commingling: A case report from the Vietnam
War. Forensic Science International 156(1): 63–69.
Barker, Caroline, Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Joanna Laver, and Louise Loe
2008 Mortuary procedures II - Skeletal analysis I: basic procedures and
demographic assessment. In The Scientific Investigation of Mass Graves:
Towards Protocols and Standard Operating Procedures, edited by Margaret Cox,
Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson, Joanna Laver, and Roland Wessling, pp. 295–382.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Baustian, Kathryn M, Anna J. Osterholtz, and Della Collins Cook
2013 Taking Analyses of Commingled Remains into the Future: Challenges and
Prospects. In Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains, edited by Anna J.
Osterholtz, Kathryn M Baustian, and Debra L. Martin, pp. 265–274. Springer,
New York.
Cheetham, Paul, Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson, Tim Haynie, David Oxlee,
and Roland Wessling
2008 Search, location, excavation, and recovery. In The Scientific Investigation
of Mass Graves: Towards Protocols and Standard Operating Procedures, edited
by Margaret Cox, Ambika Flavel, Ian Hanson, Joanna Laver, and Roland
Wessling, pp. 183–267. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Komar, Debra A., and Wendy E. Potter
2007 Percentage of body recovered and its effect on identification rates and cause
and manner of death determination. Journal of Forensic Sciences 52(3): 528–531.
Milwaukee County (Wis.) Board of Supervisors
1886 Rules and Regulations for the Government of City Poor Department,
County Hospital, County Alms House, County Wood Yard and District
Physicians, Milwaukee Co., Wis. USA.
Osterholtz, Anna J., Kathryn M Baustian, and Debra L. Martin
2013 Introduction. In Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains, edited by
Anna J. Osterholtz, Kathryn M Baustian, and Debra L. Martin, pp. 1–13.
Springer, New York.
Richards, Patricia B.
1997 Unknown man No. 198: The archaeology of the Milwaukee County Poor
Farm Cemetery. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
10