"Practicality is stopping and thinking......." Sometimes we stop and think
until it's too late to do anything.
It all depends on your goal. If your goal is to simply to preserve the stone
in place and it is under some sort of ACTIVE protection then by all means
leave it alone. But if your goal is to record information from a cemetery
that is under the very REAL threat of vandalism, natural elements or neglect
then it is your responsibility to use whatever means are necessary to record
that information. Starting, of course, with the least invasive methods.
To clarify my original message, I do NOT "scoff" at digital photography. I
employ digital photography in a number of applications on a daily basis.
It's one of the more useful tools at my disposal. But anyone who has ever
used a camera, digital or otherwise, knows, sometimes the results are less
than acceptable despite your best efforts. Sometimes even Photoshop can't
fix it.
The information on a tombstone that has weathered to the point that it can
no longer be read with the naked eye is, for all practical purposes, almost
lost already. Little more than a physical marker of where a grave is. And
while that is important enough in itself, the information on the stone is
equally important. Otherwise it wouldn't have been chiseled on there in the
first place. I hardly think that a few minutes exposure to Cool Whip or
shaving cream (I don't think I mentioned household cleansers.....can't see
how they would be much use anyway.) is going to have any significant
negative effects. Especially if they are immediately and thoroughly washed
off with water which you have the responsibility to do. At the worst you are
going to accelerate the deterioration by a full five minutes. Not very long
in the grand scheme of things. If 50 people a day did it to the same stone
every day for a decade it might be a different story. In any case, I think
the trade off is pretty cheap considering the likely alternatives.
Perhaps the cemeteries under the care of the National Park Service are
subject to active protection and preservation efforts (one hopes so!) but
there are thousands of cemeteries lost in the backwoods of someone's north
forty that don't receive the same courtesy. If you take on the
responsibility of recording the information in these lost cemeteries and can
do it by looking at the stone and writing down the inscription, then do that
first. If you can't, try photography or some other non invasive or low
impact method. If that doesn't work, ratchet it up a step. My sense of rural
practicality says do whatever it takes to get the job done.
If you get caught up in "preserving" a tombstone to the point that you don't
get all the information it has to offer, then you really haven't preserved
much, have you?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alicia Paresi" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: safe gravestone rubbing
>
>
>
>
>
> Practicality is stopping and thinking before doing. Employing the use of
> chemicals or household cleansers on a stone with the justification that
the
> stone will inevitably be destroyed some day is a ridiculous argument.
>
> You scoff at digital photography, but a photograph may be the only way 40
> pieces can be properly reconstructed to resemble the original gravestone.
> An inscription gleaned from shaving cream won’t be nearly as helpful.
>
> “Purty” tombstones only stay that way from the efforts people who care to
> protect them. If a stone will some day be knocked over by a 16-year old
> then such is life. Until then, we can do our best to safeguard cemeteries
> by educating ourselves and the public.
>
> We teach by example.
>
>
>
> Alicia Paresi Friedman
> Archeologist
> National Park Service
>
>
>
>
>
> Larry Porter
> <lporter@AR-DIGIT To: [log in to unmask]
> .NET> cc: (bcc: Alicia
Paresi/Boston/NPS)
> Sent by: Subject: Re: safe
gravestone rubbing
> HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
> <[log in to unmask]
> >
>
>
> 04/13/2004 09:05
> PM EST
> Please respond to
> HISTORICAL
> ARCHAEOLOGY
>
>
>
>
>
> I couldn't agree more, Jeff. As archeologists we routinely, without a
> second
> thought, destroy archeological sites.....UTTERLY destroy archeological
> sites.... on the self righteous premise that we are saving the information
> they contain and, yet, at the same time, wring our hands and moan and fret
> and worry about whether or not a little shaving cream is going to damage a
> damn tombstone. From the point of view of pragmatism and practicality,
> qualities we archeologists seem curiously lacking in, it seems to me the 5
> minutes a tombstone is exposed to shaving cream, Cool Whip, flour, talcom
> powder, or what have you is worth the risk in light of the very real
> possibility that tomorrow a 16 year old on a 4 wheeler is going to knock
> the
> stone over for the sheer hell of it or your neighbor down the road is
going
> to decide that "purty" tombstone would sure look good in his patio. Even
> digital photography with oblique side lighting ain't going do you much
good
> on a stone that's been broken into 40 pieces and scattered all over hell
> and
> gone. I say break out the Cool Whip and squeegee and get the information
> while you can.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Holland, Jeff" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:36 PM
> Subject: safe gravestone rubbing
>
>
> > Not to sound insensitive, but it seems that some of the concerns
> mentioned
> here seem minor with respect to the purpose of doing rubbings (i.e.
> recording the data from the stone before it becomes illegible). Given that
> the inscriptions are so faint as to require such methods, the microscopic
> damage caused by a crayon or charcoal rubbing seems irrelevant when
> considered against the fact that another year of wind and rain will cause
> the same amount of damage and bring the inscription even closer to total
> illegibility. Obviously one should use the least destructive method
> practicable. But lacking the necessary time, tools, supplies, money, etc.,
> would it not be better to record the info as best as one can before it is
> lost to the elements, vandalism, etc.?
> >
> > Jeff
> > *************************
> > Jeffrey L. Holland
> > Senior Historian
> > TRC Companies, Inc.
> > 3772 Pleasantdale Road,
> > Suite 200
> > Atlanta, Georgia 30340
> > 770-270-1192
> > ************************
> >
>
|