Alexis M. Jordan, Catherine R. Jones, and Shannon K. Freire

The sum of their parts: reconstituting individuality from atypical mixed burials at the Milwaukee County Institution Grounds Poor Farm Cemetery

Alexis M. Jordan, Catherine R. Jones, and Shannon K. Freire

Introduction

[SLIDE 1] The mixed burial contexts of the 2013 Milwaukee County Institution Grounds Poor Farm Cemetery excavation can be viewed as extreme physical manifestations of the marginalization of individuals buried in this pauper cemetery. Exteriorly, these coffins were not outside the range of variation present at the site. The coffin contents and the remains themselves, however, display a number of practices outside the scope of contemporary societal decency. The lack of individual interment, coupled with the high frequency of anatomization, the likely related absence of bodily completeness, and the inclusion of medical waste materials illustrates a lack of adherence to even the most basic of socially and legally acceptable interment practices in Milwaukee and resulted in the posthumous loss of the embodied individuality of the deceased. In our efforts to understand these atypical mortuary assemblages through the sociocultural contextualization of the postmortem dissections and interment practices at play, we have the opportunity and the obligation to give a voice to those posthumously stripped of their identity, lived history, and agency, and to begin the process of reconstituting their embodied individuality.

Embodiment, Marginalization, and Social Identity

[SLIDE 2] For the purposes of MCIG mixed burial analysis, an Individual was defined as “a set of articulated skeletal elements which represent 50% or more of one human skeleton”. While this osteological and archaeological designation confers a sense of personhood, it was not designed to encompass concepts of social theory or discussions of cultural context. When coupled with theories of embodiment, however, our conception of the Individual is more robust, allowing us to include those Commingled skeletal elements that currently remain unassociated and better contextualize the experiences of this population in life and in death.

Discussions of embodiment in archaeology investigate the production of social meaning on to and into the body. Through material and biological expressions (such as clothing or body modification) archaeologists can explore the dynamic relationships between individuals and their environment and culture. In this manner, the construction and manipulation of social identities can also be examined. In the case of bioarchaeology, the physical effects of these relationships and identities are preserved in the biological archives of bone and teeth (Knudson and Stojanowski 2008:412; Krieger 2005:352; Nystrom 2011:165; Zuckerman et al. 2014). In analyzing skeletal data through this contextualized lens of bodily experience, while incorporating related historical and archaeological data, we can identify the “differential creation and use of bodies in relation to their social, economic, political and historical circumstances” (Zuckerman et al. 2014:515). The body then, can offer insight into stories not visible archaeologically or historically, including the experiences of marginalized peoples.

Marginalization resulting from sociopolitical and economic pressures can have a number of potential consequences on the body in life and death (Nystrom 2011:165; Brown et al.:1998; Turner and Young:2007). Most notably for our purposes, marginalization can impact societal perceptions and actions towards the bodies of the disenfranchised, thus inscribing social identities of inequality postmortem (Nystrom 2011:164-165, 169). Ken Nystrom has explored these connections in his discussion of postmortem medical examinations and the embodiment of inequality. Nystrom describes the anatomization of the disenfranchised during the nineteenth century as the posthumous embodiment of a marginalized social identity, imposed through dissection of the bodies of these individuals against their wishes (Nystrom 2011).

A Social Historical Narrative of Potter’s Fields and Anatomization in Milwaukee

[SLIDE 3] In nineteenth century America and specifically within the Milwaukee County Institutional Grounds cemeteries, anatomization can be contextualized and understood in two ways: contemporary attitudes about the practice of dissection itself, and the close association between dissection and the poor. To that end, a brief social historical narrative of a Milwaukee specific context regarding law, potter’s fields, and contemporary fears of anatomization are integral to our understanding the marginalized individuals interred at the MCIG cemeteries.

[SLIDE 4] Rule 17 of the Milwaukee County Rules and Regulations for the County Farm and Almshouse provided for the following elements in a Milwaukee potter’s field burial (SEE SLIDE) (Richards et al. 2015). Burial at the County Grounds was the result of one of four circumstances: indigence, residence at one of the Milwaukee County Institutions, the status of being unclaimed, and anatomization by a local medical college (Richards et al. 2015).

[SLIDE 5] While indigent burial, as legally mandated in Wisconsin, was designed to fulfill basic standards of decency, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, pauper’s burials were stigmatized and viewed with dread by the poor (Richards 1997:282). This view likely included the very real fear of grave robbing of corpses for dissection; while not exclusive to potter’s fields, was significantly more frequent (Garment et al. 2007; Sappol 2002). [SLIDE 6] An additional fear, particularly for immigrants, was the disruption of ethnic social identities that were carefully maintained through churches and specific religious rituals of death (Sappol 2002). Local churches provided an integral way to maintain a sense of community as an immigrant, and the industrial-style practices of legally regulated potter’s fields threatened the inscription of an identity of anonymity rather than membership in a community.

[SLIDE 7] Sappol describes dissection as a metaphor for class relations, “the poor were meat to be preyed upon and eaten by the upwardly aspiring professional elite” (2002:131). The meat-corpse analogy is illustrated in the satirical, but morbid, humor of the day, “… Now where’s the difference? to th’ impartial eye / A leg of mutton and a human thigh …” (Nemerov 2001:110). [SLIDE 8] The contemporary conflation of the status of the human body with slaughtered meat exemplifies just how far the “degrading and sacrilegious” practice of dissection was seen to be from Christian attitudes about the body (Nystrom 2011; Sappol 2002:104). Unlike Christian burials that placed intact bodies out of view to await resurrection, anatomization involved the exhibitions of bodies through anatomy lessons for medical colleges (Hartwell 1881:13; Sappol 2002:103). Coupled with that was the association of dissection with punishment. The punitive associations of dissection were more than simple overtones; dissection was explicitly added as further punishment in death to those convicted of murder, those that died in state prison or jail, and those convicted of other offenses resulting in capital punishment, including arson and burglary (Hartwell 1881:29-31).

[SLIDE 9] Those in the medical profession attempted to frame dissection as a service to society, and particularly to the poor, though the poor were in reality the most likely to become the ‘prey’ of nineteenth century medical colleges (Sappol 2002). An 1829 petition to Massachusetts state legislature argued, “so far as the poor are concerned, it is for their especial benefit …the diseases and lameness of many paupers have passed from a curable to an incurable condition for the lack of surgical skill which could only have been derived from a knowledge of practical anatomy,” (Hartwell 1881:23). This sentiment was expressed during a period of increasingly ‘liberal’ and legal means for medical schools to acquire cadavers beyond those convicted of serious crimes as Anatomy Acts began to be passed state-by-state (Garment et al. 2007:1001; Sappol 2002:123-4). Once unclaimed bodies, particularly including paupers, were now legally obtainable, a new public logic for dissection was apparent. A Washington Post editorialist exclaimed in 1887, “Why would those who have made war on society or been a burden to it be permitted to say what shall be done with their remains? Why should they not be compelled to be of some use after death, having failed to be of value to the world during life? If all dead felons and paupers were assigned straightaway to the nearest medical college, they would be able to contribute a trifle in the way of compensating the world for the waste and loss they have inflicted on it,” (Editorial, The Washington Post 1887:2). The association between the destitute and dissection was reaffirmed; and Anatomy Acts offered yet another deterrent against indigence beyond the avoidance of the potter’s field (Garment et al. 2007:1001).

Marginalized communities operationalized a number of strategies to avoid a pauper’s burial including community collections, affiliations with religious institutions and charities, and insurance schemes (Richardson 1987:278; Sappol 2002:134). In association with the fear of dissection, examples of families ‘keeping the dead’ until decomposed past the point of utility for dissectors, are known from United Kingdom, a choice deemed preferable to a loved one falling in with the limbo of the unclaimed (Richardson 1987:278; Sappol 2002:135).

[SLIDE 10] While obtaining corpses for medial dissection began as an illegal practice, during the use life of the MCIG cemeteries, its legality was established through the 1868 Anatomy Act (Wisconsin 1868: Chp. 53, 1-3). [SLIDE 11] The law and statutes defining legalized dissection became more elaborate over time, and particularly for our interests, began to make the ‘aftermath’ of dissection an explicit event (Wisconsin and Brossard 1925; Wisconsin et al. 1889; Wisconsin et al. 1911). As described by Section 1437, the decent burial of remains “without public charge” was a condition of the delivery of bodies by public officers and medical agents for dissection (Wisconsin et al. 1889:Ch 58.1437). This complements pre-existing statutes that explicitly require “decent burial” for the unclaimed (Richards et al. 2015: in press; Wisconsin et al. 1889).

[SLIDE 12] The story of Martin Bargaron of Marinette is at the intersection of law and practice, and is a critical reminder of one family’s loss in the face of a failed system of putative protections for the poor and unclaimed. On June 24, 1899, Martin Bargaron died after being hit by a train. His brother, Larry, wrote to the coroner, J.P. Van Lare, asking for information regarding his brother’s death and place of burial. On July 7th, a request was made on behalf Milwaukee Medical College for the body. Having heard nothing from Van Lare and being unable to travel due to disability, Bargaron wrote again early the following year. Whether Van Lare flouted the law that made specific provisions against the transfer of ‘strangers or travelers who had died suddenly’ is unclear, but it is likely that Martin’s body was sent on to the Milwaukee Medical College, epitomizing the fear that little protection existed for individuals that were interred at the state’s- or medical colleges’ expense (Bargaron 1899; Earles 1899; Van Lare 1899).

Discussion

This brings us to what is visible in the archaeological record. The mixed burials excavated at MCIG in 2013 attest to the loss of individuality and identity to differing degrees. Three burials provide an illustration of these varying stages of loss. At their most basic level, the mixed burials in this cemetery violate Wisconsin laws and statutes requiring a decent burial, which is understood as one individual, one coffin.

[SLIDE 13] Lots 10315 and 10477 contained the nearly complete remains of two individuals oriented at opposite ends of a single coffin. Neither individual’s head was included in the burial, robbing them of what is often recognized as the most distinctive skeletal element.

[SLIDE 14] Moving down the scale of loss, Lots 10538, 11048, and 11049 represent segments of two Individuals and one lot of Commingled bone. In contrast to the previous example, these two Individuals have lost not only their heads but the top halves of their bodies as well, and have been given only cursory burial positioning. The bones of the Commingled lot, contained remains representing a minimum of at least 5 individuals, show no positioning or care, and have been haphazardly placed in the center of the coffin.

[SLIDE 15] Finally, Lot 10983 contained the commingled remains of at least 4 individuals. Marks of cadaver use were visible on at least one surface of every recovered bone. No formal positioning was evident and a significant amount of material culture and medical detritus was recovered around the remains. The concluded ‘use life’ of these waste materials can be compared to the ‘use life’ of the anatomized human remains. The utter loss of individuality is striking, as there is no distinction between the treatment of the remains and the ‘other’ objects in the coffin.

As is evident in these lots, the forced postmortem imposition of social inequality referenced by Nystrom is visible not only in anatomization of skeletal remains but also in the lack of adherence to social standards regarding individual interment, bodily completeness, and the inclusion of medial waste materials within coffins. These additional indignities contributed a new component to the marginalized social identities forced on these individuals, that of a loss of individuality that relegated these people to solely the sum of their parts. However, in approaching both the Individual and Commingled remains found within these mixed burials through the lens of embodied individuality, we have contextualized the marginalizing experiences suffered by those interred here both during life and in death, gleaning insight into one shared chapter of their stories.

Conclusion

[SLIDE 16]

The mixed burial analysis undertaken as a component of the 2013 MCIG excavation should be considered only the first step in restoring individuality to people anatomized and interred under the auspices of the Milwaukee medical institutions. Unlike the public officers of the past, as archaeologists and researchers, we do not have a forty-eight hour mandate for the reclamation of personhood. Bioarchaeological approaches provide seemingly endless possibilities for future research in pursuit of reversing the anatomization of individuals interred at the Milwaukee County Institution Grounds, including DNA, isotopic, XRF elemental, and statistical osteometric comparative analyses. However, an acute awareness of ethical responsibility must go hand in hand with the exhaustion of scientific possibility. For our work to not create a new kind of anatomization, the restoration of personhood must be contingent on a historically holistic approach, and telling the stories of individuals must be given equal priority as relating results (Zuckerman et al. 2014). Even when the limits of new knowledge are reached, our obligation to continue this narrative only increases. If we imagine that the loss of individuality and marginalization are merely morality tales of the past, rather than ongoing conversations, it will be to all our detriment. [SLIDE 17]