When Gary Beiter, then-Field Director for Miami-Dade County Archeological/Historic Sites Surveys, asked if I could “do” the Anthropology at the historic and largely abandoned Pinewood Cemetery he and his assistants were sketch-mapping, I readily agreed. While a cemetery of recent date (late 19th to early 20th centuries) might not hold out much promise for radical new insights into past cultural or social conditions, and since grave removal and excavation were not a consideration, the challenge was hardly one for a “dirt archeologist.” Still, surficial dispositions at sites (graves, their markers, stones, etc.) no matter what the culture, or where located, harbor many significant data – can we but attain the requisite level of observation and inductive/deductive reasoning about what we see. At the least, it was a chance to employ “living archeology” (a darling of the moment) in a time increasingly given over to passive investigations in a once vigorous field.

This report addendum, then, makes no pretense of a complete approach or a standard method: it is rather the attempt to synthesize a number of free-wheeling “guesstimates” about many “things” and many conditions at Pinewood. Many of the avenues thus suggested would themselves require yet further time-consuming study, and so “final answers” are not our goal here: if anything we say here stimulates fellow historians, researchers, or students-of-the-past to pursue said avenues on their own, we will have fulfilled our desire.

Pinewood, a.k.a. Cocoa Plum, Cocoplum, and Pineywoods, is located off S.W. 72nd Ave south of Miami, FL in Coral Gables. It is the region’s oldest cemetery, and roughly an elongated N-S rectangle, about 2 acres in extent, paralleling the road on its East side. Unlike some of its contemporaries, Pinewood has no “lich-gate” (corpse gate)1, nor even the attenuated arch of same often seen elsewhere: corpses and funeral processions as well as visitors and all others apparently having entered through the one and only (un-arched) main gate (Figure 2). A primary goal of Beiter’s assignment was to sketch-map grave loci and other observable features as a preliminary “first approximation” to a later Ground Resistivity Survey and/or perhaps a GPS (Ground Penetrating Radar) Study (Figure 6). These latter would locate more precisely the many disturbed, lost, or obscured graves, and any features related to them.

Existing data (Figure 3) suggest the cemetery was largely the work of private citizens, who banded together in 1897 to create the region’s first official burying ground. The earliest documented burial seems to be that of Walter Pickford, sawmill operator, buried here the following year, though I failed to locate it during my surveys. The cemetery thereafter received the deceased up into the 1940’s, when “activity” declined steeply (a few late-date “memorial markers” and one or two burials (?) are as recent as the 1990’s.). By modern times the surrounding region had largely changed, of course, from its earlier “settlement” nature to a modern suburban neighborhood, inhabited by people largely from outside the region. Family plots were neglected; descendants had moved away.

Though never completely abandoned to ruin, Pinewood nevertheless suffered a lack of maintenance, and in this tropical climate, was over-run with tropical growth, including numerous cabbage palms and other trees, vines, and bushes (Figure 8). Most distressing of all, vandals likely later damaged many graves, and removed tombstones and presumably other memorials and objects. Hearsay holds that “college students” and others (further below) may have removed skulls (?) and/or tunneled into or perhaps probed some graves. Hollows and depressions suggest (both) collapse of now unmarked graves, and/or possibly desecration of same by illicit digging. Presumably, a careful sectioning with limited trenching in these depressed areas, with close attention to stratification anomalies (reversed or churned stratigraphy, for instance) might reveal the exact cause in specific cases for the slumping or “disturbance,” but this was not part of the current assignment. I mention it, since trained field archeologists ought to be able to shed light on this specific issue, if requested. This, of course, being highly unlikely in the current “Age of Passive PC Archeology” only.

Types. An immediate observation reveals that “graves” here are distributed along a continuum from the 1) barely discernible and unmarked “hollows” mentioned earlier, to 2) discernible shaft openings hacked into the oolite (with and without trees sprouting from them) Figure 10, to 3) very old graves showing disturbed (i.e., toppled, broken or missing) headstones as well as apparently some in more undisturbed condition, (Figure 11) to 4) graves with full-length horizontal slabs (broken and whole) of the type I believe called a “ledger tomb” ) Figure 12, to 5) some more recent graves showing largely just neglect of maintenance. A possible further type would be 6) cenotaphs – but this has not been determined. Presence of several military memorials (Figure 13) and/or gravestones suggests, however, that cenotaphs could be a logical expectation. No slot-and-tab tombs, of a type said to be “favored” in some Southern cemeteries, were noted 2. And there are no aboveground burials (mausoleae, crypts) of the type said to be favored by Spanish-speakers. This no doubt attests the earlier Anglo predominance in this region. Though some graves have been “lost” and others left with a confused orientation at the surface, most graves appear to lie on an east-west axis, favored traditionally by Christians on supposition that the deceaseds are thus correctly situated to sit upright in their graves facing the rising sun on the Judgment Day.

Shaft Preparation. A constraint in this graveyard had to be the underlying Miami Oolite bedrock, which is at or near the surface in most places. There are two methods of excavation that have been mentioned.

1) Pickaxe. While “breakable” with a pick and pinchbar (Oolite being nowhere near as hard as granite or many igneous stones), it would have taken considerable effort to dig these shafts in pre-backhoe days, so this perhaps says much for a likely ethnic labor force locally available for the task. I favor this pickaxe hypothesis myself, for the site is littered with thousands of what I take to be corroborative roughly melon-sized chunks of Oolite, (Figure 14) weathered and grey – and here and there these chunks have been further utilized as boundary markers and low walls for (incipient?) or lower-status (see further below) “family plots”, while likewise being piled here and there as bases for monuments and markers around the grounds. I believe these chunks come from use of pickaxes when digging graves. Where said “chunks” are sometimes turned out from beneath the current soil surface, however, and particularly if they have drusy, or more properly “shiny” or “wet” looking spots or exteriors and/or adhering “encrustations” of greater or lesser extent, they might relate to the “concretion problem” for such objects in overburdens on the local oolite – similar to the ongoing “controversy” that has surrounded the ‘controversial-itself,” prehistoric “Miami Circle Site’ (8DA12), not many miles distant from Pinewood, and whose various “official” assessments have rarely been publicly questioned, an exception perhaps being my own such questioning 3.

2) Dynamite. Hearsay however, says “…dynamite was sometimes used.” But one wonders at that. Precision “blowing” with dynamite is the purview of miners and sappers who require training and skill to master their art and control its effects. It seems unlikely to me that dynamite would be used in such crowded quarters as a cemetery – both for practical as well as “esthetic” reasons (“respect for the dead”, etc.). Still, I might have added to my list of explosives handlers above, early “farmers” living close to the land (one can assume an early community around here likely had at least a few resident “oldtimers” who knew “stump blowing:” a widespread practice in early land clearing). Nobel patented dynamite in 1867, and presumably it would have been locally available by the 90’s. Alternatively, perhaps black powder was used. I know of no direct evidence bearing on this issue at this locale at this time: perhaps though, types-of-fractures in the bedrock (shatter cones even?) might bear mute testimony; even artifacts like lost fuse caps, igniter parts, wires, or other paraphernalia, should they ever come to light, might help resolve this… (This suggested presence of metallic objects perhaps underscores the reasonableness for a magnetic metal detector sweep of the entire grounds here: a tactic perhaps too “dynamic” for local modern sensibilities and legal rulings, and is so far not officially endorsed, to my knowledge).

Votive Offerings, Etc.

Floral Containers. The most cursory inspection of the grounds suggests that there are often broken, and in the case of plastic or “later” materials, (Figure15) whole objects, containers at, near, or around headstones that must have certainly held floral offerings. This suggests that in the case of the glass or ceramic containers and their more likely shards, that a “ceramic analysis” might yield interesting data. For instance, near some headstones, one finds clear shards of common flint glass. These might be (special) funerary vessels made for floral displays, or they might be sherds of common “mason jar” or utility containers. A careful study might suggest which. If “mason jars” or common containers, this might suggest something about status of the deceased (and/or their mourners), cultural practices, and other factors. In at least one case (N328/E11), clear sherds collected near its base, were retained against such analysis. This grave is near the road, just over the fence. It was suggested that the sherds might be “only” coke bottle fragments or equivalent, perhaps tossed from speeding cars, or deliberately smashed against the stones. Indeed they might. But if they were not, and the “type” of vessel proved to be a Mason Jar or Ball Jar or some such equivalent, they might support different interpretation…

Some stones seem to show scatter-surrounds of a dark green modern glass, too. This is rather more likely the dark green glass seen in small, whole or unbroken, commercial, votive candle containers noted here also (some still with intact candles – suggesting possibly quite recent use…). Again, the dark green glass may hint at ginger ale bottles, or beer bottles deliberately smashed here (assuredly not by the mourners…!) or who knows what? A profitable study might be a sherd analysis of the fragments around these stones. Other than this cursory observation and suggestion though, no further study along these lines was undertaken as part of this project.

Plastic flowers, Flags, etc. There is a “scatter” here and there throughout the cemetery, under the leaf litter and in hollows, of synthetic flowers and arrangements, plastic containers for same, and small American flag fragments – of the type often placed on soldiers’ graves on Memorial Day. (Figure 16). At the least, these suggest continuing visitations by members of the community down to very recent times. Long-lasting, endurable plastic flower bouquets mark some graves – their relative indestructibility being somewhat at odds for estimating how recent they might be…

Natural Flowers. One finds from time to time, small “hollows” and hummocks where there are apparent deliberate “set outs” (i.e., plantings) of solitary “exotic” or “special” plants. The exact meaning or purpose of these remains obscure: they do not necessarily seem to mark or correspond to graves – yet they are obviously set with care and to a purpose. Figure 17 illustrates one such, the onetime plastic container for the plant still seen carelessly rolled to one side…

Vegetation in old burying grounds can contain many “keys” to activities and practices in the past, if one has at least some botanical skills and is generally familiar with plants of the surrounding area. In my own more familiar region of New England, for instance, we often looked for the wildflowers “butter-and-eggs,” lily-of-the-valley, and sometimes Iris (“Flags”), too, when combing woods and old pastures for lost cemeteries and isolated burial plots of the Colonials 4 , for these plants are demonstrated favorites as graveside plantings of our ancestors, and mark many an otherwise unnoticed burial plot. Non-native English Ivy running rampant over trees (as it will do) is often a tip-off, too. At Pinewood, of course, another “biota” (tropic) predominates, (Figure 18), and it would be surprising if some of the flowering vines, understory plants and bushes, and perhaps even some of the hardwood trees here did not harbor similar “clues” as to exotic origins and “intent” in this place. One “indicator” flower that may play the same role in Southeastern U.S. cemeteries, as those I cited for more northern regions, is Periwinkle or Vinca minor. (Figure 19). One source says of it specifically,

“This plant has been planted as a ground cover especially in cemeteries where it has spread and, in the case of very old cemeteries, is now often the only clue that a grave may be nearby“ 5

Certain it is that (name?) – a common tropical “marker “ type plant growing hereabouts in profusion (Figure 20) in clumps and vague “set-outs,” has likely been artificially introduced. Along the East wall is a dense stand of ferns – whether natural or set-outs being yet unknown. And the ubiquitous “palms” of South Florida (Pinewood has apparent “set out” cabbage palms (Sabal palmetto) – the “official” palm of Florida - growing across it) as well as Saw palmettos (Serenoa repens Fig. 21) and these may have more hidden connotation in this spot than might first occur to the unwary. Here, for instance, is what one source notes in re palms in cemeteries:

“Romans engraved palm fronds on the tombs of heroes to commemorate their victories in North Africa. By 33 AD, the palm was used to greet any popular figure. Christians recognize it as the emblem marking the beginning of the Passion which ended in Christ's victory over death.” 6

One plant present that has wild equivalents – though I do not know if its representatives here are domestics or not – is Coreopsis – a rather spindly, stalky plant (Figure 22) that bears a tiny, yellow, ray-like flower. It appears to have been quite obviously set out here and there in the cemetery in perhaps very recent times (even currently?) – as individual plants, often surrounded by a small ring of stones at their bases. Whether these are “markers” of some kind (and if so, what do they mark?) – or just decorative features remains unclear. It may be of interest to record that these are rayed flowers, members of the Compositae/Asteraceae or daisy/aster family. Such flowers have since very early times, been associated with “the Sun” – the seat of all Life, and (later) iconic of the Christian Resurrection. Though a vulgarism in our time, “Pushing up daisies” may have a more symbolic etymological connotation than we moderns are aware of… I believe at least one source also notes Coreopsis fragments present in the Tomb of King Tut. In graveyards, another source says they represent “faithfulness.” (Perhaps interestingly also, Coreopsis is the wildflower from which the Navahos extract a yellow dye for their famed Rugs. This perhaps says much for the wide range in habitats that this plant occupies…). Thus, Coreopsis.

An interesting observation (Beiter, on site) is that limestone bedrock seems relatively inhospitable for tree growth. He suggested, however, that (conceivably) as new graves “sink in” or collapse (mounding over graves, in this relatively “soil-less” location does not seem to have been a practice here), from their original flat-surfaced “filled” state (as coffin lids gave way below and/or body cavities collapsed, etc.), that the resultant hollows and the grave shafts beneath them, would then be natural moisture-collectors, and this might be exploited by germination of tropical trees. That this did happen on at least one occasion, is suggested in Figure 10. Were this the general case, I then wondered if perhaps there might be vague “alignments” or “runs” of the older trees across the cemetery and through the underbrush which might mark rows of aligned (and collapsed or sunken) graves in adjacent plots… (?). To date, no check has been made for this, but it might prove interesting to pursue. Some sources suggest trees may have been planted deliberately over adjoining (or common) graves of husband-and-wife, as later visual reminders, when grown, of the deceaseds’ “oneness.” This same idea may be traceable as far back as Elizabethan times in the lyrics of the still-popular ballad, “Barbara Allen,” recorded by no less than Joan Baez some years back, in which she sings of a hard-hearted lover (Barbara) interred alongside her would-be swain (Sweet William), and of their ultimate fate…

…Barbara Allen was buried in the old churchyard
Sweet William was buried beside her
Out of Sweet William's heart grew a red red rose
Out of Barbara Allen's a briar
They grew and grew in the old churchyard
Till they could grow no higher
At the end they formed a true lovers' knot
And the rose grew round the briar…

The headstones present at Pinewood might be categorized in a number of ways, many “overlapping,” – or that is to say, many stones may be classed in more than one category:

By Material. Granite (both a red, and a “blue” or blue-and-grey type) have been used here. The red granite so far as I have ascertained, is confined mainly to one family plot – and bespeaks a “well off,” perhaps upscale group – see further under Family Plots below (Figure 23). Grey granite seems widely used here, including some of the earliest dated stones. The likeliest nearby source for tombstone granite is GA, I believe, and transportation of such heavy stock must have been well-established by the time of the cemetery’s creation. Another stone material present here is that used in a number of the military graves: it is the familiar snow-white, tabular, limestone or marble marker seen on American service personnel graves the world around. See further below as to the occupants of such graves and what the stones record.

An unusual type of headstone I noted here is what I would call a “homemade” marker – for it is nothing other than poorly consolidated “poured” or perhaps molded concrete! (See Figures 24, 25). It would be tempting to infer that such markers evidence “low socio-economic” class expressed here at the cemetery (as our Sociology colleagues might put it) – but this may not necessarily be so. For another reason for a “homemade” stone (or indeed, any of the ‘mortuary furniture’) might be as a very personal and emotional expression for a specific loved one – and thus say nothing, really, about the survivor’s social class, per se. Be that as it may, several of these concrete markers are broken, and at least part of one seems to have been dragged or carried quite some distance away from the other part… This is almost surely vandalism (see further below). One interesting feature of these low-grade concrete markers is that they sometimes bear what must be dates and names (of course) – and these seem to have been done by “writing” with one’s finger across the wet concrete, and subsequently in a couple of cases, making vague drag marks across it with the fingers or a stick, too (?) (Fig. 24). Noteworthy (perhaps) may be the observation that these “inscriptions” are very faint and sloppily (perhaps even hastily) done… almost a feeling of indifference when you look at them or try to decipher them. Is this saying anything about the creators? Were they (perhaps) illiterates? Did they not know their “letters” well? Were they, by turn, “low status” individuals in their community? It hardly seems likely that so extreme a condition applies to a cemetery where burials were being made less than 75 years ago… but could these be markers for felons, perhaps? Pesthouse or epidemic victims? Death and the silence of cemeteries keep their secrets well. Unless we ask, or try to ask questions of what we see, no answers are forthcoming…

One other interesting observation about these concrete markers: in at least one case, a number in an otherwise obliterated date (year) is yet traceable: it is either a “6” or a “9” – (Figure 25) - depending upon which way the stone is oriented, as there is no clue as to which is right way up here. But this figure has been made by carefully impressing into the still unset concrete, a strand of white electrical wire (!) – of the type and diameter I believe is called “bell wire.” One wonders even if we are seeing some hint at a folk-art sort of thing here – or are these just indifferently and hastily made markers after all?

(A masterful study into social and cultural conditions reflected in the physical materials of American churchyards, is in fact that of a onetime associate – the late, esteemed Dr. Jim Deetz, then of Harvard. Deetz and I were dig companions on the old Buffalo Pasture Site in Central South Dakota more than fifty years ago (!) when we both served our first summer-in-the-field together as incipient diggers for the Smithsonian, in a Bureau of American Ethnology “dig” party in the Arikara village sites along the Middle Missouri. (The locale itself later that seen in the movie Dances With Wolves). His tombstone evolution thesis remains a model of scientific observation and inference, and beside his many technical articles on same (as Dethlefsen, et al, which see) was later reprinted very widely in compendia and anthologies. No serious student of cemeteries, old burying grounds, burial practices and the like should be unfamiliar with it).

Thus, of “motifs” on the stones present at Pinewood, only one, that of a reclining lamb on (presumably) a child’s (possibly two children’s combined) grave (Figure 26) seems vaguely related to trends in the larger society, as just suggested. The “lamb” of course, is a pre-imminent icon of Christianity and its Savior who is the “Shepherd” calling home “His flock.” (One authority holds it is most often seen over Catholic children’s graves). The only other iconic device noted here, save one, is the occasional Christian Cross seen on some stones (with and without further sentiment) and present, I believe, on all the Military headstones. The stone of the Pater familias of the group buried in the family plot containing the red granite markers (several), mentioned earlier, bears the well-known “scribing compass” Masonic device upon it. (Figure 51). No other religious or even private devices were noted by me. There are no Stars-of-David. Pinewood, though, I take it, was “public” or at least non-denominational, as there seems to be no associated church or house of worship nearby. But this I have not researched independently.

By Date. No chronological assessments of date-of-death spreads, clusters, etc. at Pinewood were undertaken as part of this project.

By Gender. No study was made as to sex ratios present. There is an impression that several “older” males may have had two or more wives buried alongside them: not unusual for the higher female mortality of those days.

By Age. There is a strong suggestion of higher infant mortality than today: there are many child’s graves markers (younger years), and many childbirth and “one month old” markers… hinting, perhaps, at the attained level of sophistication for both childbirth and medical practices available to this community at the time. (Figures 27, 51).

Military Graves. There are two marked graves of CSA veterans of the Civil War, (Figure 30) and one Yankee vet (Figure 31) hinting always, as these markers do, at adventurous lives out of the past and one wonders a bit just how an enlistee in a Massachusetts line regiment came to rest at long last, in a far Southern graveyard…). Interestingly there is also a grave of a veteran of the Seminole Wars, (Figure 28), a local engagement of which was as close as the celebrated attack on the Key Biscayne (Cape Florida) Lighthouse (Figure 29). How and when the 19th century Federal Government came to authorize (and provide) markers for CSA veterans as well as GAR veterans, how the shape and dimensions were finally determined for the tabular military markers, the preferential use of white marble, and many other interesting particulars too lengthy to include here, are covered on a National Cemetery Association website - noted in the attached Suggested Further Reading, which see. A humorous observation (there is not a great deal that is entertaining about graveyards!) might be in order relative to a sharply pointed top profile approved for some military stones versus the later universally-adopted rounded upper edge seen today: they were said to have been designed with the points, so as to discourage Yankee soldiers from sitting on the markers of the Confederate deceaseds!

There are also, at Pinewood, a number of tiny “memorial plaques” or placards as I would call them (Figure 32) which commemorate (by contrast to marking the spot of an actual grave) the loss or death of military personnel – some of whom’s “connection” to affairs of this community seem rather obscure (as the 340 men on the “USS Trenton LPD14,” not all of whom, one surmises, can be from this community, and most of whom – since the ship is yet in service according to a quick on-line check - might be some taken aback by fact they are “already” honored in a South Florida abandoned graveyard!). Yet other markers note the death of a military flyer “over France” and the further demise of an aviator over Edwards Air Force Base in CA.

Earthquake Record. It is little appreciated that tombstones act as “natural” seismometers due to their heavy upright mass and rotational inertia. Headstones proper, which are mounted on other stone bases (capitals?), have frequently resisted torsional land surface movements beneath them while said bases nevertheless “rotated” – resulting in visible scratches in the base stone. Sometimes, too, adjacent rows of stones all later noted to be skewed or tipped the same way bespeak the passage of a quake. Conversely, stones may topple completely from tremors and quakes, and this might be attributed to “vandalism” later, but this need not necessarily be so – particularly if rows of stones are all toppled simultaneously and most lie at or near the same angle to their former bases. (Though conceivably, diehard vandals could run down rows of stones pushing them over this way, too…). But the effect is rather striking, not unlike the rows of columns in ancient temple ruins, known to be result of long ago earthquakes (see, for instance Figure 33). A check was made for this interesting phenomenon at Pinewood, but due probably to Florida’s exceptional seismic stability (cf. Randazzo, et al) and to there being few if any stones one could actually say were “rotated” upon their bases, (Figure 34), it is unlikely that there is any such evidence here.

Graffitti, Obscenities. There was no evidence of spray-painting defacement, magic marker scribblngs or the like at Pinewood.

Metal and Plaque Robbers. There have been times (as in wartime) when scrap-metal is at a premium, and graveyards have been desecrated (perhaps “cannibalized”) for their bronze and brass fittings, markers, plaques, cannon barrels, iron picket fences, and statues. This does not really seem in evidence at Pinewood, though such depredations might have occurred in the past (WWII was a bad time for this everywhere). Missing bronzes, especially after long contact with stone, usually are obvious by green cuprous stains left behind, broken edges, exposed lead screw anchors and the like and we noticed none of this in our survey. Indeed, the several recent intact “testimonials” (Figure 36) to local officials and others for attempts to “reforest,” and/or “restore” the grounds here, seem a most congenial amount of mutual civic acclaim and argue for little likelihood of metal-robbing here.

Vandalism. There is at least some evidence for what is taken as vandalism at Pinewood. The aforementioned “slumping” and “potholing” in places suggest strongly there has been illicit digging. There are missing stones (Figure 37) and broken stones (Figure 25) and stones skewed and tipped awry, etc. Who might have done this? I suggest at least two candidate categories: the young of all ages, who for various reasons (the strongest perhaps being “a dare”) would visit a graveyard at night and bring home (or back to the dorm!), a stone as a “trophy” of their adventure. And the second a more ominous category: “Devil cults, ” sickos and misfits generally, and practicioners of Santeria and the allied “Palo Mayombe” cult – which have a known following in this area (one student estimates 60,000 followers in South Florida alone7). In an Age of Recognition for Everyone, it is sometimes hard to find out just who or what qualifies as a legitimate (“recognized”) religion under current liberal Federal Government rulings, but Palo may (just) get in under the wire, I don’t know for sure. Most sources say it is “part of” or strongly allied with Santeria, and the latter is, for a fact, apparently so-recognized:

“Santería is legally recognized as a legitimate religion in the United States. On June 11, 1992 the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the practitioners of Santería had a constitutional right to sacrifice animals in connection with their rituals. 7

These syncretic mish-mosh “religions” of the so-called African Diaspora thus presumably then merit tax exemptions and all the other benefits of more formal and mainline belief systems accorded them by a beneficent and patronizing government. 8 Well, why not? If Wiccans can qualify, why not tomb robbers? Followers of Palo Mayombe presumably include those who would directly violate graves in search of talismans, tokens and … skulls, and to a lesser extent, “other bones.”

“Similarly to Voodoo and Santeria practitioners, Paleros claim that they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs and stigmatized for their ritual practices. However, there is a significant difference; regardless of whether the Palero’s intent is to heal or harm, Palo Mayombe ritually requires the use of human bones, hence this practice always entails the theft of human remains.” 9

Why someone would swipe tombstones out of a cemetery escapes me. True, I have known personally of such things, (cf, for instance, my own Gothic America, p. 112 etc. on this website), and again have “heard” of gardeners and others who favored such trophies for their private garden walks and surrounds. I once, myself, came near to buying, with my father, an old Connecticut Inn, whose first proprietor was rumored to be buried ‘neath the taproom bar. Certain it was that his tombstone was there, and it was necessary when ordering a drink, to step upon the old and wholly illegible marker mortared into the floor. In a relatively “stoneless” land such as South Florida (save for the ubiquitous oolite), one might assume that nicely cut and (often) polished tabular stones might go for a premium, but this seems somehow altogether too risky and uncertain a market to find much local support. For these several reasons, I tend to favor the “trophy” thesis as I have stated earlier, and for “dares” perhaps gone too far some times. (Perhaps a day (or night?) of “amnesty” might profitably be declared sometime for return of any missing or unwanted tombstones. Who knows what might materialize?).

As to “missing bones” taken from graves and the like, save for a chance “find” perhaps of something dropped or overlooked during such depredations, only a controlled investigation at suspected graves might lay this supposition to rest.

Animal Burrows. There is little evidence among the graves or upon the grounds for animal burrows currently. This may not have always been the case in the past, however. The depredations of armadillos (Dasypus novemcinctus) in Southern cemeteries is a matter of record. So anecdotally for that of ‘possums (which I first learned of from the Black Folklore of Texas where I grew up…). Suspicion thus also transfers to others of the burrowing Rodentia, generally, it would seem. To which we might add some of the Reptilia as well, I imagine. As noted previously, only careful field checks for ancient burrow profiles, soil pile anomalies, and the like would be apt to yield much information here, and this was not part of this study.

The names, dates of passing, and other particulars recorded hereabouts tell of another Miami, another day… pages out of the region’s tumultuous past. In the far NW corner, there is what may be one of the oldest burials – a Scot he was, and born amongst the bonnie braes and hills there in 18__ (Figure 38). A white marble marker tells of Mary Addison, (Figure 39) who in youth “Settled on the Hunting Ground – Mid 1860’s – Later Called The Charles Deering Estate”. John Addison, (her husband?) whom we have met previously, lies nearby, (Figure 40) born in 1827 and was a “Mounted Volunteer – Indian Wars – 3rd Seminole War” and moreover the “1st Cutler Settler.” George Perry sleeps here beneath a bronze marker (Figure 41) advising us that he was a member of Company H, 64th GA Regiment, CSA. Nearby lies his comrade-in-arms, (Figure 42) John Pent – late of Company K, Florida Infantry, CSA. Some distance away lie the mouldering bones of another George… George Richardson, (Figure 31) 18th Massachusetts Infantry, Civil War – onetime foes all, now come to their common rest in a forgotten Florida graveyard.

Perhaps fulfilling the prophecy that “…there shall be wars and rumors of war until the end of time”, Lemuel O. Anderson, he a private of Company D, the 1st Tennessee Infantry, Spanish-American War, was laid to rest here in 1934 (Figure 43).

It was a harsh land, too. Allen Barnett (5 years old?) Figure 44, drowned at Bayfront in nearby Coconut Grove. And what would an ancient graveyard be in this land, without at least a toll of Hurricane victims? Ethel and Dorothy Walls and Mattie Brinson (she “of GA”) all perished alike in the Great 1926 Miami Hurricane – one of the region’s worst – and share alike (Figure 45) the same simple grey-granite capital stone above their heads.

We have mentioned the many stone markers over infants here – suggestive indeed, of the high infant mortality of earlier days. There is one to “Baby Boy Scott;” and to Welburn Barnett – dead at the age of “5 mos. 12 days”; “Baby Boy Wilson;” the “Lamb Motif” marker we have mentioned earlier, marking the resting place of Cecil Bruce and Cecilia Bell Perry, jointly. And the four children dead in childbirth for the Brooke family – they of the red granite markers… (Figure 46).

Apparently, not all died a-borning here, though… William Judge Perry (?) (Figure 47) was laid away, mourned by “….Kate and Nine Kids.” And then there are all the “memorial” plaques to seamen and aviators of other more-distant wars… What tales these bones could relate here in simple Pinewood, all but unknown perhaps except to a few locals today – and silent behind its low oolite walls and screening brush…

Personal tragedy leaps out at us with the marker (Figure 48) of a Ms Brown “…married six weeks.” To be offset in turn perhaps, with humor-among-the-ashes as we read of another young Ms, desiring apparently to be remembered throughout eternity as “…the daughter of the Tax Collector” (Figure 49).

The layout of an extant site plat (name source) suggests Pinewood was conceived as separate adjoining “family plots” inside around the wall perimeters (internal rows or streets? Check on), and a large interior “Memorial Oval” or center area devoid of graves. Due to the badly disturbed and overgrown conditions in areas where graves are suspected, it was my suggestion on-site that the resistivity equipment could be “set” or tested against this grave-free interior area to ready the detectors for readings in the suspected grave-bearing areas.

The cemetery site is relatively level. The majority of the graves appear to be in the northern two-thirds of the rectangle. The southern third seems rather more barren (there has apparently been some major brush clearing in this end of the cemetery not too long ago). Soil cover over the oolite seems thinner here, also. However, there is no real evidence for “scraping” in my opinion – a practice said to be prevalent in many early Southern graveyards. (It is reported from Texas and elsewhere (reference) and may derive from the more widespread custom of “scraped” and grass-free yards around some oldtime southern homes. Curious, perhaps, to we moderns, is an earlier aversion to grass anywhere about one’s place or abode, being then a sign of indolence perhaps, or laziness. Puts one in mind of yet another “saying” which may also have ancient roots in long-forgotten cemetery rites and practices: “There’s no grass growing on me!” The same idea of grass being unwanted in most aspects may emerge in an idiom from another theater of human activity: “Grass don’t grow on a racetrack, ya know!”….

Low stone walls surround the graveyard on (three?) sides. The northern and northeastern peripheries of the cemetery give appearance of having been used for “dumping” and discards of brickbats – even upon or near obvious graves. Included are bits of broken masonry, enigmatic (modern) cement blocks (what were they used for or in? No structures apparent here utilize such building materials…), and in one spot (Figure 50) are two abandoned and partly broken, concrete, grave-size “frames” or retainers of some kind – whose immediate use escapes me (?). In this same far NE corner, there is also evidence of a faint circle of stones (chunks) laid out upon the surface, perhaps 10 or 15 feet in diameter. Its purpose is unknown.

An enigmatic series of iron pipes, driven almost flush with the ground, and spray-painted orange, sometimes associated with wire engineer’s flags or tape, were noted here and there in the cemetery, along with fluorescent-type engineers’ tape tied around neighboring tree trunks. These are earmarks of surveyors or field engineers of some kind, but there were no data as to whom or what organization or bureau these evidences might relate.

There are few “family plots” that have been set off by railings or fences. An exception is the family interred toward the central East side under red granite markers. This is the plot of the Masonic Order member alluded to earlier, and there are several lesser red granite headstones before his more imposing marker – four of which mark infants who died in or near childbirth (Figure 46). The plot, almost alone now in this forsaken spot, has yet a durable iron pipe or low iron-railing separator in good repair around it. Near the center of the graveyard, north of the Oval (?), there are a number of apparent “plots” set off or surrounded by low, piled, oolite-chunk walls (sometimes just a single row of adjoining chunks along the ground). Cursory examination suggests there are few if any actual tombstones or markers within these putative “plots” – though there is apparent potholing and other anomalies, the whole obscured by rather dense underbrush.

At least one other plot was fenced with low, twisted or ornamental wire fencing – of the type once seen along garden edges and walks years ago. It is all but rusted away now, and mashed flat in many places…

Of the Memorial Oval today, it is rather ill defined but identifiable. There are several curved marble benches associated with it; at least one was observed to bear a modern or recent-date dedication plaque. The presence of many feet of garden hose winding here and there throughout the grounds is taken as evidence that someone or some group is “watering” plants here on a more or less regular routine currently – but no further information is available in this regard.

It is to be hoped that the foregoing is at least a “first approximation” to the anthropology at Pinewood, and that observations and suggestions tendered here, might stimulate yet further research in the future. It would seem, based on this first field survey, that Pinewood, said to be Miami’s oldest cemetery, received the deceased through the better part of the first four decades of the last century, many such being 19th Century citizens, in their primes during the tumultuous “Indian Wars” and later Civil War in our Nation’s past, and who pioneered and settled this region. Drownings, storms, and high infant mortality are all recorded here and attest the more rugged lifestyle of those times. Markers, inscriptions, and grave dispositions hint at social practices and classes. There may be some introduced vegetation of types reported elsewhere for historic cemeteries, roughly at the same temporal level as Pinewood. After 1940, interments largely ceased, but there was an activity apparently of placing very small “memorial” marker plaques low to the ground, often near tree bases – commemorating persons and military personnel and things and events (i.e., U.S.S. Trenton) of later wars, etc. Floral offerings, both natural “set-outs”, and (later) plastic reproductions, not always clearly associated with known or discernible graves, continued sporadically and apparently with diminished frequency down to recent times. As also may have the annual practice of placing small American flags on the graves of veterans. There is little evidence for “earmark” practices cited for other Southern cemeteries as slot-and-tab tombs; “scraped” surfaces and grounds; etc. Nor apparently was there ever a lich-gate (corpse gate), often cited for 19th century burying grounds.

More specifically, iconography on the stones, and East/West orientation for most of the graves suggest the cemetery is nearly wholly Christian. Other than the obvious symbology of palms growing in Christian graveyards, and the “folklore” of Coreopsis and ray-flowers, other “key flower” or plant identifications are yet wanting here. Most graves lie in the northern two-thirds of the cemetery. There is some suggestion of “status” – not at all sharply delineated – by stones which range from (very) crude poured or puddled concrete, to incised and impressive red and grey-granite markers. Vandalism seems quite apparent in the evidence of stones missing from their bases; broken, overturned and missing stones; and suggestive “potholing” and depressions here and there throughout the grounds, but none of it seems to be current. Presence of Santeria and Palo Mayombe followers in the current ethnic mix resident in the surrounding communities, may relate to these latter observations. It is felt that the proposed GPS survey would be a most worthwhile undertaking to further clarify grave locations here, and promote a restored sense of responsibility to the maintenance of this historic ground.