View Ross Bay Cemetery in Victoria, B.C. in a larger map
The map above is of Ross Bay Cemetery located in Fairfield, Victoria, British Columbia. The field work completed for this map was done as a group project in which all members of the group participated. We decided that we would focus on mausoleums and the data set we chose for the cemetery was ten randomly located mausoleums in various parts of the cemetery. The cemetery itself is quite small and there were only a handful of mausoleums, so ten seemed like a representative sample size. If the cemetery had been larger, or included a greater number of mausoleums then it would have most definitely been much more representative to increase our data set so as not to lead to a bias. However, this being said it cannot be sure that our small sample number is completely representative of early Victoria practice involving mausoleums throughout the early settlement.
We posed two research questions in regards to the mausoleums in Ross Bay cemetery. Firstly, we were aiming to understand how people in mausoleums were related to one another and secondly, to know the most common time period in which mausoleums were popular in the cemetery.
Our primary research question focused on the relationships between the deceased within mausoleums. Through understanding such connections a greater insight can be gained into familial organizations and relationships in the Victoria era of Ross Bay Cemetery. In England and the British Isles in general, where a majority of the people buried in Ross Bay cemetery originated from churchyard mausoleums had begun to appear in the mid eighteenth century and reached the peak of popularity by the mid to late 1800s (Pearson 2002). In England mausoleums began to appear mostly in response to the overcrowded churchyards and church crypts, taking the dead “outside the church walls while still retaining the all-important religious connection” (Pearson 2002: 4).
Historically, mausoleums are associated with wealthy families and high status burials (Pearson 2002); they provided “a safe haven for family remains, unsullied by contact with social inferiors (Pearson 2002: 6) and allowed for the re-enforcing of social hierarchy. The grandeur of mausoleums is a visible sign of wealth and social distinctions, it continues to elevate and separate the wealthy, even after death. This is very clear within Ross Bay Cemetery; it is the grand and auspicious mausoleums which immediately draw the eye.
From our data set, only half of the mausoleums we recorded visibly mentioned direct familial relationships and all of those were spouse relationships. They were the graves of Charles Chislett and his wife Elizabeth, Tom Hawkins and his wife Jessie, James Hopkins and his wife Margaret (Fullerton) and Kenneth Mackenzie and his wife Agnes. The other five mausoleums recorded did not mention any direct familial relations in their inscriptions. However, it is possible to conclude that people who shared a common surname were related and perhaps reconstruct these relationships through inference
An example of such inference could be made when looking at the mausoleum of the ‘Houston’ family, which contains the remains of Mary, Jemima and Alex Florence (interestingly none have the name Houston which sits so grandly carved on the outside of the mausoleum). One might infer that since Mary was more than 30 years older than both Jemima and Alex she could most probably be their mother. Alex and Jemima could be married or be siblings. If they were married then, it would have to be Jemima who married into the family and adopted the Florence surname, making Mary Alex’s mother. Another example can be found when examining the mausoleum of the ‘Collins’ family; Amelia Collins and George Collins were 28 years apart in age and died 7 years apart. Although it did not directly state it on the grave marker, one might infer that they were husband and wife since they share a surname and are located together in death. However, they could also have been siblings or father and daughter or even close cousins. It is the fact that they are buried together in the same ‘tomb’ that most probably points to them being husband and wife. A similar inference can be made about the people who share the ‘Johnson’ mausoleum; Byron and Kate Johnson were buried together and Marian and John Johnson were buried together also. Since Byron and Kate share a tomb and Marian and John another it can be inferred that they were probably married couples. However, they are all quite close in age, so one cannot rule out the possibility of them being siblings either. Although, our results do seem to show that people within the mausoleums were related mostly by marriage (spouse couples) or were parent and child.
However, one anomaly to this conclusion can be found with the ‘Clark’ family mausoleum; it contained two (probably) male relatives who shared the same surname yet were too far apart in age to be either siblings or father and son. WS Parker Clark died in 1912 and Frederick Parker Clark was not even born until 9 years later. It is also unclear if W.S was male or female; however we went on the assumption that he was most probably male as the initializing of the name common practice with male names during the Victorian era. Additionally, it is also unclear if the name ‘Parker’ which they both shared is a middle name or whether it forms a double barreled surname. It is most probable that they shared some familial tie, possibly grandparent and grandchild, although WS could be a great uncle or cousin. It is really interesting that there were no females in this mausoleum, only 2 distantly related family members in a chamber most obviously built for more.
In general it is difficult to establish the exact form familial relationships between mausoleum members if there is no inscription which directly states it. Although, it can be said that the people within the mausoleum did all share some form of family ties with one another, be it through blood or marriage. There are problems that arise with inferring relationships; our own cultural biases as to what constitutes family ties can mislead us, as well as a lack of understanding of the mindset of the people buried in the mausoleums and in the Victorian era in general. However, there could be other lines of evidence; since the cemetery is historical there are more than likely parish records which detailed the exact relationships and given for a greater understanding of early Victorian era family organization in the city of Victoria.
Our second research question aimed to conclude during what time period mausoleums were most popular in Ross Bay Cemetery. In England, where a majority of Victoria’s immigrants hailed from, mausoleums became less frequent in the early 1900's (Pearson 2002). From our findings we concluded that the earliest date mausoleums began to appear in Ross Bay cemetery was 1875, this was of Kenneth Mackenzie (the Mackenzie mausoleum). The latest date we recorded was that of Edward Patterson Rithet in 1981. We concluded that mausoleum popularity peaked between the 1920’s and 50’s in Ross Bay cemetery. I found this to be quite surprising as I had imagined mausoleums as a Victoria fad and presumed they had gone out of style past this period.
A more in depth study could be carried out by carrying out the same research questions in other colonial Canadian cities and in England. By comparing the results with the homeland of the immigrants one might be bale to infer changes in attitudes about death or social status in the new colonies that differed from the metropole.
References
Pearson, Lynn
2002 Mausoleums. Buckinghamshire: Shire Publications
