Preserving the past: Restoring an 1853 grave marker.
The dilemma of Conservation versus Restoration.
The project
We found the Bratney marker leaning dangerously, prone to snap from its own weight at any moment. A leaning stone at three degrees is noticeable, at six degrees a hazard, and this was at fifteen degrees. Gravity on a leaning stone creates leverage, which aided by heavy wind or the nick of a lawn tractor could easily cause disaster. It was not part of our original project at Preston Cemetery,1 but it urgently needed stabilization. A consensus emerged among our conservation volunteers that we would include it along with the other markers slated for repair. It appeared to be an easy fix and one that would prevent destruction in the near future.
We made the original assessment on August 16, 2023. I completed the initial documentation, wrote a proposal and submitted to the cemetery board for approval. The board accepted our work proposal and graciously offered additional assistance of water and labor if needed. We planned to do the actual work during early summer 2024.
The work begins June 16, 2024
Our initial excavation revealed that the limestone base was indeed broken, which in turn had allowed the marble tablet to tilt heavily toward the east. Only the imposing clay soil was preventing it from falling completely horizontal. Importantly, the marker itself was in good condition.
The base was uniquely shaped, similar to a baseball home plate, but it was poorly designed with thin walls on the sides. It would likely fail again. We wanted to use it mainly because of the aesthetic look but did not want to create a structurally unsound repair. An additional issue was that the receiving slot cut into the stone base was at an angle. The bottom of the marble tablet was cut at a similar angle, so that together the base held the tablet upright. If we replaced the base with poured concrete, then we would also have to trim the bottom of the marble marker to make it straight to fit the new concrete base. At this point we put off further work while we grappled with a plan forward.
Conservation vs Restoration
A common question when working with artifacts of some antiquity is the dichotomy between restoration (making it good as new) versus conservation (stabilizing in a way that preserves it for future enjoyment and research). My own preference is conservation, but veering reluctantly into restoration when forced to. This is more than a philosophical point since it guides decisions on specific techniques and products used, as well as the final appearance.2
The guiding principles I use in grave stone repair are:
Conservation, not restoration.
Do the least permanent repairs possible that can be undone in the future if needed.
Remain sensitive to the historical integrity of the marker.
Avoid cookie cutter mentality that uses the exact same mortars, epoxies and products with every situation.
Restrict use of epoxy adhesives to their best use situations.
Remain sensitive to other stakeholders such as mowing crews, cemetery management, academic researchers, legal regulations, and family.
Document the work with photos, logbooks, etc.
Collect an EXACT transcription of the inscription which is publicly posted on FindAGrave.com.
An aesthetic final appearance is desirable but not always obtainable.
A solution
At this point I solicited ideas from several respected individuals in the field of gravestone repair. I sent emails with attached photos and a description of the issues. Several ideas were discussed ultimately giving us a path forward.
The solution? We would pour a concrete base and mortar the original (repaired) base into it. Then we would mortar the marble marker into the original base. We wanted the additional strength of the concrete but by putting the top of the concrete footing at ground level, it would not detract from the unusually shaped original base.
We first repaired the base stone with epoxy, then filled in the gaps with an NHL 3.5 mortar mix. A Styrofoam void form was created to mimic the size of the base stone. This would be used to create a cavity in the poured concrete footing. The base stone would then be set into that cavity.
We encountered practical difficulties due to the unevenness on the bottom of the original stone base. With trial and error we finally got a good seat into the mortar. It helped to make the mortar more flowable with extra water.
Mark Twain
I always do an internet search on any epitaphs I find. The epitaph on Mary Jane Bratney’s marker was commented on by none other than Mark Twain.3 He was expressing approval of the unusual practice of the Philadelphia Ledger that regularly printed epitaphs. A version of this epitaph was given as an example:
Dearest Mary, thou has left us.
Here thy loss we deeply feel
But tis God that hath bereft us.
He can all our sorrow heal.
Yet again we hope to meet thee.
When the day of life is fled.
Then in heaven with joy to greet thee.
Where no farewell tear is shed.
The original source of the verse is from the hymn Sister thou wast mild and lovely by Samuel Francis Smith, published in 1843.
You can see the Mark Twain quote by clicking on this link. Mark Twain quote
Kudos to Mike Rowlands for great advice on this. And thanks to my neighbor, Mike D. a retired master carpenter with shaping the custom block of Styrofoam. All told, six people contributed labor, ideas or skills to make this happen. Thank you all.
Preston Cemetery is located in Randolph County, Illinois near about one mile north of Walsh, Illinois. It is associated with an early Presbyterian church and here interred are early pioneers as well as veterans of the Revolutionary War.
For additional information on gravestone research or conservation guidance see The Association for Gravestone Studies online at www.gravestonestudies.org.
Mark Twain, “Memoranda: Post Mortem Poetry,” The Galaxy, (New York), June 1870.
Wow! What a process for one stone!