Introducing Choice of Burial Place as a Theme of Study in Cultural Geography
Amiram Gonen
msgonena@huji.ac.il
Department of Geography, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Paper submitted to the IGU Regional Conference in Santiago, Chile, November 2011
1. Introduction: The need for general framework of study
Choosing a place of burial is a common human practice. In antiquity as well as in modern times
many persons have been occupied with the decision where to be buried or where to bury their
dear ones. Nevertheless, very little geographical research can be found on the nature of this
choice. Recently a team of young American geographers have published on the Internet a
bibliography of “necrogeography” (Kehoe-Forutan and Greine, 2003). Most items in this
bibliography deal with cemeteries as a landscape or land use phenomenon or with the use of
cemetery records for historical and historical-geographical research (e.g. Francaviglia, 1971).
The locational choice is rarely included in such studies. The main purpose of this paper, then, is
to bring to the forefront of geographical research the nature of this choice and its resulting
geographical patterns. The paper offers a list of locational considerations, most of which center
on identity, that affect the choice of burial place. Most of these considerations are often applied
in social and cultural research but are very rarely put to use in the study of the choice of burial
place.
2. Identities of ascribed cultural affinity
Ascribed cultural affinity includes gender, age, family, ethnicity, race and religion, all of which
act to influence in varying degree the choice of burial place for a large segment of world
population.
2.1 Family: Family identity plays the most important role in the selection of a burial place.
Family burial plots were common since antiquity in most cultures and are still a common
phenomenon in many countries where traditional way of life continues to be prevalent. To be
buried in the family ancestral grave is an old tradition in China (Wegars and Chung, 2005).
Inter-generational family burial plots or mausolea are particularly widespread in countries of
Mediterranean Europe. Family plots
and family cemeteries are common in North American
cemeteries (Kniffen, 1967; Warner, 1959, 1961). Family graves are of particular importance in
rural settings, where social and economic life is arranged around families. Such is the case in
village cemeteries in Arab countries.
2.2 Ethnic identity: Family identity nests within the wider identity of ethnicity which also
plays an important role in the choice of burial place. Burial according to ethnicity and race has
been a long tradition in tribal societies, such as among the tribes of East Africa, where it leads to
a lot of disputes between family and tribe identity (Cohen and Odhiambo, 1992; Abdullahi,
1999) or among the Maori population of New Zealand. In these kinds of societies burial in the
tribal cemetery is a cultural dictate, often overriding any other burial place that a person might
choose. Many of the cemeteries in North America keep the ethnic identity at burial as was
reported by Jordan in his work on Texas cemeteries (Jordan, 1981). In some counties foreign
nationals have cemeteries of their own as in Japan or Spain (Grice-Hutchinson, 1964).
2.3 Racial identity: Racial segregation in burial follows often, and in a stricter manner,
segregation in life. Countries that have racially segregated housing and services have segregated
cemeteries or sections in cemeteries, more so than in the case of ethnicity or even religion. In
the United States there are ample examples of racially differentiated cemeteries, even with
regards to members of the armed forces, including those who have died in battle.
2.3 Religious identity: While ethnicity and race are determined by birth one’s religious identity
is shaped by upbringing or change of mind. Nevertheless religion is the most powerful factor of
identity when it comes to the decision where one should be buried, over and beyond the factor
of family identity. This pattern of behavior is particularly evident in societies which though
belonging to one ethnic group have cemeteries each serving each of the existing religious
entities. In many cities one can find municipal cemeteries with burial sections set aside for each
religious group. This pattern of particular religious sections within a cemetery has evolved since
the second half of the 19th century, when city governments have begun to be active in the
provision of burial services in the form of municipal cemeteries. One such prominent example is
the Central Cemetery of Vienna, where there are separate sections for Catholics, Protestants and
Jews. Another example is the municipal cemetery in Belfast, where there is a clear-cut division
between Catholic and Protestant sections (Lindsay, 1989; 114-117).
Most religions are very strict in determining who indeed carries the right identity in
order to be qualified for burial in their cemeteries. These cemeteries are considered consecrated
ground, meaning that only those who are fully qualified members of the religious community
can be buried in such cemeteries. As a result, conflicts often arise in cases when there are
applications for burial of persons who do not qualify as genuine members of the religious
denomination. Such a major conflict had troubled France during the sixteenth and seventeenth
century, when the country was torn between Catholics and Huguenots, the latter insisting on
being buried with their Catholic fathers and forefathers buried in Catholic cemeteries while the
former objected to having persons who have left the Roman Catholic Church being buried on
consecrated ground of a Catholic cemetery (Ariès, 1981: 315-316).
The issue of has the right to be buried in a Jewish cemetery is currently beleaguering
many of the immigrants that have arrived in Israel from the former Soviet Union. A large
proportion of these immigrants include many religiously ‘mixed marriages’ in which one spouse
is not Jewish Others are off-springs of past such marriages which, if born to a non-Jewish
mother, are also considered non-Jewish according to Jewish religious law. As a result many of
these non-Jewish immigrants are buried separately from their Jewish counterparts. Some are
buried in Christian cemeteries. Those considered ‘non-Jews’ are buried in special burial grounds,
which though adjoining a main Jewish cemetery are explicitly separated by a distinct boundary,
such as a fence or a wall. Those considered ‘Jews in doubt’ are buried in special sections within
the Jewish cemetery but according to the customary Jewish religious rites.
In some religions there are focal cemeteries ranking very high as the most appropriate
place of burial even though they are far away from the place where the deceased had long lived.
Some religious Jews strive to be buried in Jerusalem, because of the extra religious qualities of
this holy city in the Jewish religion. This is also the case to some extent with the entire country
of Israel, the holy land of the Jews. Coffins of orthodox Jews, though never residing in
Jerusalem or in Israel beforehand, are shipped for burial their holy city. Thus, Mount of Olives,
east of the Old City of Jerusalem, has evolved through the ages as a large Jewish cemetery.
Similarly, the city of Najaf in southern Iraq, a holy city for the Shiite Muslims, has an enormous
cemetery where several million Shiite Muslims from around the world have been being buried
not far from the tomb of Imam Ali, whose murder has imitated the founding of Shiite Islam. A
somewhat similar example of such focal religious cemetery exists on Koyasan (Mount Koya) in
central Japan, south of the city of Osaka. The immense Okunoin Cemetery on Mount Konya lies
next to the Mausoleum of Kukai, who founded the Shingon sect of Japanese Buddhism in the
early ninth century. His followers and admirers opt to have part of their body buried close to the
burial place of the revered founder of their faith. Those who ask to be buried in Jerusalem, Najaf
expect some religiously based advantage as a result of the proximity to the holy city or the holy
shrine and are willing to go to all the effort to have the coffin transported at considerable
expense to their place of their outmost religious preference.
2.4 Gender identity
It is within the realm of religiously based cemeteries that one can find instances of spatial
separation by gender. Two examples illustrate the role of gender in shaping the micro-geography
of burial. One example comes from Jewish cemeteries in eastern and central Europe, where
women were buried in separate rows alternating with rows of graves where men were buried
(Krajewska, 1993:19). In some cemeteries, such as one established toward the end of the
nineteenth century in the Polish city of Łódź, there were separate sections for the burial of
members of each gender (Wojalski, 2000). This custom, reflecting the spatial separation by
gender in Jewish synagogues, has been occasionally transferred to cemeteries in countries to
which European Jews have immigrated. For instance, in Zikhron Ya’akov, a village established
by Romanian Jews in Ottoman Palestine in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and is now
a small Israeli town. The old section of the cemetery is clearly divided between men and women,
the graves of women occupying marginal rows on both sides of rows containing only graves of
men.
The second example of burial according to gender adds another attribute: age
combined with marital status. The square-shaped cemetery of the Bohemian Brothers, a
Protestant denomination, with origins in Germanic central Europe, is divided into four smaller
square-shaped sections, each containing graves of a particular demographic component of the
congregation. The two front sections are one for married men and one for married women. The
two rear sections are allotted one to unmarried boys and the other to unmarried girls. This
division reflects the way in which the four groups were seated in the church choir of the
Bohemian Brotherhood.
In many societies, ancient and modern, infants often were not considered as full
members of society when judging the spatial pattern of their burial. They were often buried on
the margins of the cemetery, as is the case of the infants’ section in the old part of the cemetery
in Zikhron Yaakov. In Catholic cemeteries this custom exists as well and the reason for it is the
lack of baptism and therefore lack of Catholic status.
3. Identities of achievement
3.1 Socioeconomic status: Socioeconomic status is an important factor in forging the search for
the right place of burial as it does in the choice of lace of residence. Cemeteries of a higher
social class are to be found in many large cities, smaller ones having higher social class sections
in the local cemetery. Often the location that fits the appropriate social identity is amplified by
the size of the tombstone and its ornamental qualities, much the same way affluent people try to
express their position in society by the size of their dwelling and its aesthetic characteristics.
With the growth of the urban upper-middle class in the 19th century, new suburban cemeteries
have evolved away from the inner city, as in the case of Père Lachaise Cemetery on the outskirts
of Paris (Brown, 1973; Worlpole, 2003: 87) and . At the other end of the social scale cemeteries
or section of cemeteries assigned for the poor and the indigent continued to exist since early
times.
The spatial separation by social class was practiced for many centuries in Christianity
when the common place of burial was the church and its yard. The interior of churches was the
preferred burial place of the most privileged in society, aristocrats and the like. The closer to the
alter, the more prestigious the place of burial is (Ariès, 1981: 79-92). Similar social class spatial
differentiation existed in the churchyard for the rest of the parish population. In Jewish
cemeteries the first rows at the entrance to the cemetery are often reserved to the more
prestigious member of society, whether the learned rabbi or the wealthy entrepreneur.
3.2 Elite identity: Societies have several kinds of elite.
3.2.1 The Royal and aristocratic elite had often places of burial of their own, sometimes based
on dynasty, which constitutes family identity in the wider sense. Thus Westminster Abbey in
London served as the burial place of the royal as did the Cathedral of St. Denis in Paris, the
Church of Peter and Paul in St. Petersburg, the Roskilde Cathedral in Denmark, the Imperial
Crypt the Capuchin Church in Vienna and the Wawel Cathedral in Krakow. Churches and
cathedrals lost their role as burial hubs for the royal when new dynasties have been founded or
capitals of kingdoms ad empires were transferred to other cities, as in the case o the move from
Moscow to St. Petersburg
3.2.2 Political elite: Some countries have assigned burial spaces of their political elite. For
instance, The Kremlin in Moscow, once the burial place of czars and dukes has been turned after
the Bolshevik Revolution into a place of burial of the elite leaders of the Soviet Union. On
Mount Herzl in Jerusalem there is a special burial section for ‘The Nation’s Great’, where
presidents, prime ministers and speakers of the Knesset – the Israeli parliament.
3.2.3 Creative elite: Particular burial grounds are assigned in many countries for their
intellectual, scientific and artistic elite, such as the Kerepesi Cemetery in Budapest (Csernu et.
al., 1999). The term often referred to such a burial ground is ‘pantheon’, derived from the
Panthéon in Paris, which drew its name, because of architectural similarity, from the ancient
temple in Rome. The term ‘pantheon’ or ‘panteon’ has become to be known in many countries
as the place of burial of the illustrious, whether of the entire country or of a locality (Worlpole,
2003: 116-120). It seems that with the collapse of aristocracy even democratic societies are in
search of offering its civilian elite a distinctive place of burial, based on merits of creativity.
3.2.4 Priestly status: Priests and other religious functionaries within a particular religious
denomination can also be regarded as a kin of elite and indeed they are often assigned a
particular space for their burial. In many Christian cemeteries, Catholic or Protestant, there are
often sections assigned to priests. A similar pattern has been observed in graveyards adjoining
Buddhist temples in Japan. Burial sections or clusters are assigned to rabbis in Jewish
cemeteries. All these examples serve to show that wherever there is some sort of sorting by
social or merit status, there is a tendency to arrange accordingly the geographical pattern of
burial places.
3.3 Outcasts: Most societies has expresses their attitudes toward al sorts of outcasts by burying
them outside the normative burial space. Among the outcasts are murderers, felons as well as
suicides and apostates (Krajewska, 1993: 19; Pentikäinen, 1989:121) . In France’ until early 19th
century even actors were not allowed to be buried in the churchyard ( Stilgoe, 1983: 222-229).
4. Military service identity
Since the rise of the national state with its national army, and particularly after the American
Civil War and burial place has become to be associate with military service. Most countries
have assigned special military cemeteries for the burial of those who fell in battle or during
active military service (Steere, 1953; Mosse, 1979). The idea that those who fell in battle
should be given special honor and recognition in burial has permeated many societies around
the world as the phenomenon of citizen army replacing mercenaries and professionals has
become widespread. In the United States a different policy has been chosen. Veterans serving in
the armed forces of the nation earn their right to be buried in a national cemetery along with
their wife and their minor children regardless whether they died while active service or
afterwards. Thus serving in the U.S. armed forces turned veterans into a kind of a military class
carrying a very definite identity for the purpose of burial services (This same class identity of
U.S. veterans includes also entitlement for hospital service). But such a policy is not without
some conflict of identity’ pertinent to burial place. Many of the young soldiers who die while in
service have parents or siblings desiring to have their dear ones buried next to family in a local
cemetery. A conflict of identities has to be resolved. For that reason, the national framework for
the burial of servicemen allows for the covering of expenses of burial in local cemeteries but
with military rites, in keeping with the identity of the deceased. A similar arrangement exists in
Israel where those who died in military service can be either be buried in a military cemetery
especially assigned to soldier dying while during military service or in military sections within
local cemeteries.
5. Colleagues, comrades and members
In modern society there is a myriad of identities associated with being involved with one kind of
organization. In some cases such and organizational identity ends up with a person being buried
among other people who share the same organization. In one of the main Jewish cemeteries in
Jerusalem there are graves clusters of professors of the Hebrew University. In the same
cemetery there are also special burial sections where persons who once served as members of
one of the underground Jewish organizations operating during the British rule of the country,
such as the Haganah or the Irgun (known as Etzel). In Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, the
municipal cemetery includes two widely separated burial sections of partisans who have died
while fighting the Germans during World War II. In one section were buried Communist secular
partisans in the other nationalist Catholic partisans. In each section tombstones had their own
particular shape and their own insignia. They were harboring comrades belong to different and
opposing paramilitary organizations.
6. Geographical identity
One major factor affecting the choice of burial place is a person’s geographical identity.
However this factor is often taken for granted and therefore overlooked the reason for this being
that most people chose to be buried in the locality of their residence as a matter of fact. In such
cases what really matter are the other attributes of a person, whether those of belonging or those
of achieving. Indeed, in previous ages, when very few were geographically mobile and the rest
stayed put in one locality, burial in that locality was the obvious choice.
However, with the increase of human mobility and the rising importance of migration
and immigration, many people have experienced life in more than the place were they were born
and have grown up. When people migrate to another place and live there for a considerable
length of time, they develop a sense of attachment to that place, build a social network there,
and make a home for their children. This experience forges a new geographical identity, in
addition to the one they have been molded in their childhood and youth. It follows then that in
modern age, most migrants and immigrants chose to be buried in the place of destination where
they have made a new life for themselves and acquired a new geographical identity.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of examples indicating that when immigrants or migrants are
faced with the need to decide between is their place of origin or the place they have been living
towards the end of their life as their ultimate geographical identity, some do opt for place of
origin. They ask to be sent for burial in their home village or home town, giving rise to a
phenomenon of homecoming at burial. Most often, homecoming is intertwined with family or
ethnic identity (Bloch, 1971). Such returnees strive to fulfill their attachment to family, a fact
that helps to strengthen the weight of place of origin in its competition with place of abode in
later stages in life (Gonen, 2004).
When the returning home for burial involves moving back to one’s country of origin a
phenomenon of posthumous repatriation takes place. With international immigration being on
the upsurge since the late 19th century, as did international transport through the development of
railroads, shipping lines and airways, the practice of returning the dead to their home country is
quite a common practice these days. In the early stages of these development bones of Chinese
laborers, working in the United States in building mines or constructing new railroads, were
eventually repatriated to China in order to join their ancestors. Nowadays, many Mexican
immigrants living for many years prepare the means to have their coffin shipped back to their
hometown in Mexico, to be buried with their family and to be remembered regularly by their
relatives and friends. The coffins of many of the first-generation Bangladeshi living in Britain
are being air-lifted in recent decades back to Bangladesh in order be buried in their homeland.
Among North African immigrants living in France there is also a considerable tendency to be
posthumously repatriated to their home countries (Attias-Donfut and Wolff, 2005). This practice
is nowadays common among all immigrant groups landing in west European countries, so much
so that there are business companies set up precisely for enable families and individuals to
easily arrange for the proper transfer of coffin by air or by rail to the desired destination, when
posthumous repatriation is opted for.
Returning to one’s home village, town or country is not uncommon among persons of
prominence. Political and religious leaders are often found among the ranks of those returning
to their “home” at burial. The list of such examples is inexhaustible. Most presidents of the
United States were buried in their home states. Many French presidents are buried in their home
towns. The 1990s have witnessed a stream of remains of exiled political leaders and cultural
figures back to east European countries after the fall of Communist regime (Veredery, 1999).
After the establishment of the State of Israel, the country was ‘ingathering’ remains of their
great leaders and intellectuals. The most famous among them was Theodore Herzl, the founder
of political Zionism, who died in 1904 and buried with his parents in Vienna. In 1949,
immediately after Herzl’s vision had come through, his remains were transferred from Vienna to
Jerusalem and were buried on a peak of a high mountain, now carrying Herzl’s name and
harboring nearby the plot for the Israel’s highest political dignitaries.
7. Landscape and environment
In recent decades there is an increased incidence of cases of persons opting to be buried in
places which express personal attachment to nature for reason of aesthetics (landscape) and
ideology (environment). There those who search for a place of burial which is associated with a
landscape they particularly like and have visited often during their life. Others are increasingly
bringing in the environmental ideology that cherishes natural settings in line with the general
rise in the environmental movement. Green burial in woods or next to an individual tree has
become an emerging vogue in some Western countries (Bradfield, 1994; Constant, 1994). Even
the marine environment has become a burial destination for devout environmentalists. On the
eastern seaboard of the United States relative and friends spread ashes of their dear ones on
coral reef in order to contribute to the marine environment (Causey, 2002).
8. Personal life project and experience
In my research on the choice of burial place I have found those odd examples of persons opting
to be buried in the place most associated with their life project or life ecperience. A few short
examples will suffice to carry the point. A famous eye surgeon in Sydney, the large Australian
metropolis elects to be buried in the peripheral region of Bourke I New South Wales where he
periodically visited to cure eye diseases among the local aborigines (The Fred Hollows
Foundation, http://www.hollows.org/Fred_Bourke/). By doing this he possibly follows the
example of the famous physician Albert Schweitzer, who asked to be buried in the hospital he
had built and run in the tropical region of Lambaréné in French Equatorial Africa (Noble
Prize.org). A Russian archeologist, who in the 19th century has discovered and excavated an
astronomical observatory built in the 17th century in Samarqand, is buried at the foot of this
ancient structure. Architect of cathedrals sometimes ask to be buried in the edifice they consider
to be their life project. Some mountain climbers found their way again to the top of the
mountain they cherish the most but this time in a coffin or more commonly these days in a urn
of ash. In Israel, Yehoshua Henkin, famous for land acquisition for Jewish settlement projects
during the 1920s is buried along with his wife on the slope of the Gilboa Mountains facing the
Yizre’el Valley the lands of which he waa instrumental in purchasing. Theodore Herzl and
another prominent Zionist leader, Ze’ev Jabotinsky, asked to be buried in the Jewish state, when
the Zionist project is accomplished. Fot these two personalities, it was not just posthumous
repatriation but also coming to rest in the mist of their fulfilled life project.
9. Multiple identities and burial place
The list of identities a person gathers along through life is quite numerous and a potential
conflict may arise between those identities when it comes to make a decision where one should
decide to be buried. Family identity is often in conflict with other identities as in the case of
young soldiers dying in service and provided the option of being honorably buried with heroes
and comrades in arms. Family identity might be in conflict within its own turf between
ancestors and descendants, a dilemma quite common in Japan (Gonen, not yet published). In
more traditional societies of the question arises whether one should be buried in the often far
away historical family plot along with ancestors or in a cemetery easily accessible to children
and their families so as to make periodical visits more convenient (Gonen, 1998). Those who
want their achieved status be recognized and honored through an appropriate burial place often
are faced with the need to forgo family identity and even spouse identity. An inherent conflict
exists between spouses in a modern society that offers increasing power and status to the female
spouse. In such a situation question may arise which family plot or geographical identity should
be chosen for burial, that of the husband or that of the wife.
This is why people are willing to pay high prices for burial plots at the entrance to a huge
cemetery. This is why the “main street” of a cemetery is also a preferred, and therefore more
expensive, place for burial plots.
9. Conclusion
The above is the framework, which I have build on my previous experience with the study of
the way people make choices with regards to their own burial place or concerning the burial
place of others for whom they have the responsibility of finding a place of burial. However,
from the outset of my research I was very aware that cultural and geographical differentiation
will play an important role on the way people make decisions about their place of burial, and
that it would be wise to try and put such a study within the particular cultural and geographical
context where such decision are being taken. It was clear that what is needed in the further
development of research on the way people make locational choices for their burial is to become
more familiar with some case studies around the world, beyond my ongoing research on this
topic on the Israeli arena.
References
Abdullahi, Ahmednasir M. (1999), Burial disputes in modern Kenya: Customary law in a judicial conundrum. Nairobi:
Faculty of Law, University of Nairobi (1999).
Ariès, Philippe (1981), The hour of our death. New York: Alfred A Knopf Inc.
Attias-Donfut, Claudine and Wolff, François-Charles (2005) ‘The preferred burial location of persons born outside
France,’ Population, 60: 699-720.
Atwood, Craig D. (1997), ‘Sleeping in the Arms of Christ: Sanctifying Sexuality in the Eighteenth-Century Moravian
Church,’ Journal of the History of Sexuality, 8: 25-51.
Bloch, Maurice (1971), ‘Placing the Dead: Tombs, Ancestral Villages, and Kinship Organization in Madagascar.’
New York: Seminar Books.
Bradfield J.B. (1994), Green burial: the diy guide to law and practice. London: Natural Death Centre.
Brown, Fredrick (1973), Elysium as Real Estate New York: The Viking Press.
Csernu, Lukas L., Triff, Victor and Zsigmond, Janos (1999), The cemeteries of Budapest. Budapest: Municipality of
Budapest.
Cohen, David W. and E.S. Atieno Odhiambo (1992), Burying SM: The politics of knowledge and the sociology of
power in Africa. Portsmouth: Heineman
Constant, Caroline (1994), The Woodland Cemetery: Toward a spiritual landscape. Stockholm:
Byggförlaget,
Francaviglia, Richard V. (1971), ‘The cemetery as an evolving cultural landscape,’ Annals of the American Association
of Geographers, 61/3: 501-509.
Gonen, Amiram (1998), "Choosing the Right Place of Rest: A Socio-cultural Geography of a Jewish Cemetery in
Jerusalem", in H. Brodtsky ed., Land and Community: Geography in Jewish Studies (pp. 87-104).Baltimore:
University Press of Maryland.
Gonen, Amiram (2004), “Homecoming at Burial”, in J.O. Maos, M. Inbar and D.F. Shmueli
(eds), Contemporary Israeli Geography (pp.421-426). Haifa: Department of Geography, University of
Haifa (Horizons in Geography, Special issue, Vol. 60/61).
Gonen, Amiram (not yet published), ‘Choosing a burial place in Japan: A geographical inquiry.
Grice-Hutchinson, Marjorie (1964), The English Cemetery in Malaga. Exeter: published by author.
Jordan Terry G. (1981), Texas graveyards: A cultural legacy. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Kehoe-Forutan, Sandra and Greine, Alyson (2003) Necrogeography bibliography
(http://departments.bloomu.edu/geog/necrogeography.pdf).
Kniffen, Fred (1967) ‘Necrogeography in the United States’ Geographical Review, 57: 426-427.
Krajewska, Monika (1993), A tribe of strong: Jewish cemeteries in Poland. Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers.
Lindsay, Prior (1989), The social organisation of death: Medical discourse and social practices in Belfast. London:
Maxmillan.
Mosse, George L. (1991), Fallen soldiers: Reshaping the memory of the World Wars. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Noble Prize.org, ‘The Nobel Peace Prize 1952 Albert Schweitzer,’ http://nobelprize.org/
nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1952/schweitzer-bio.html#
Pentikäinen, Juha (1989), ‘The dead without status”, In: Reimund Kvidland and Henning K. Shemdorf
eds.’ Nordic folklore:Recent studies (pp. 128-134). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Steere, Edward (1953), ‘Evolution of the national cemetery system 1865-1880’,
Quartermaster Review, May/June
(http://www.qmfound.com/evolution_of_the_national_ cemetery_system_1865_1880.htm).
Stilgoe, John R. (1983), Common landscape of America, 1580-1845. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Warner, William Lloyd (1959), The living and the dead: A study of the symbolic life of Americans (Yankee City Series
volume 5). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Warner, W. Lloyd. 1961. The Family of God: A Symbolic Study of Christian Life in America. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Wojalski, Miroslaw Z. (2000), The Jewish cemetery of Łódź. Łódź: Wedzewska Oficyna Wydawnicza ZORA
Worlpole, Ken (1993), Last Landscapes: The Architecture of the Cemetery in The West. London: Reaktion Books.
Verdery, Katherine (1999), Political lives of dead bodies: Reburial and postsocialist
change. New York: Columbia University Press.
Causey, Billy (November 2002), Florida Keys National Marine Sancturary Weekly Situation Report
http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/news/sit_rep/11_5_02.html