Honoring, Contradiction and Chance in American Pet Cemetery Gravestone Image Pairings: Visual Art

Meets Human Animal Studies

By Linda Brant

Introduction

One of the many ways that people honor animals is through the installation of customized gravestones,

the majority of which are dedicated to dogs and cats. Pet cemetery gravestones offer an abundance of

information about the changing nature of the bond between humans and companion animals.

Over the past two years I visited pet cemeteries in central Florida, creating a photographic archive of

graves. Approaching this topic from the perspective of Visual Art, my objectives were 1) to determine

if historical trends in pet cemetery gravestones, as described by Stanley Brandes (2009) are evident in

rural Central Florida, 2) to discover additional features of gravestones that might reflect specific aspects

of the human-animal bond, and 3) to create a series of new images, based on my field work. The new

images, created by pairing photographs of pet gravestones with images from contemporary culture, call

attention to the many contradictions and inconsistencies that exist in our relationships with different

nonhumans and point to the influence of chance factors in determining an animal’s fate.

In this paper, I shall describe each of these objectives in greater depth, providing images to illustrate my

findings.

Historical Trends

In his 2009 paper entitled The Meaning of American Pet Cemetery Gravestones, Brandes provides a

summary of changes in gravestone inscriptions over the past 100 years. His conclusions are based

primarily on his analysis of gravestones in Hartsdale Pet Cemetery, located about 20 miles north of New

York City. Hartsdale is the oldest pet cemetery in America, dating back to 1896. Containing the remains

of over 80,000 pets, it is an ideal site for studying trends in gravestone inscriptions. Most of the pets

interred at Hartsdale were likely owned by individuals who lived in the vicinity or who had the financial

means to travel to New York for the purpose of memorializing their pets in the well-known cemetery. I

was interested in determining whether the trends described by Brandes would hold true for cemeteries

in other locations; thus, I resolved to investigate and photographically document pet gravestones in

rural Florida.

Brandes describes a number of historical changes in pet cemetery gravestones, encompassing three

domains which he identifies as “naming patterns, kinship and family affiliation, and religious and ethnic

identity” (103). All of these changes reflect a greater emphasis on the individual identity of the pet, and

the pet’s increased importance in the lives of human caretakers.

Naming Patterns

Brandes reports that prior to World War II, pet gravestone inscriptions were relatively simple, with most

indicating only the name of the pet, its age, or its years of life. Information about the animal’s species,

breed and sex was typically omitted. During the first half of the 20th century, companion animals were

rarely given human names. Nonhuman names such as Trixie, Rags, Champ and Rusty were most

common. Naming conventions gradually changed and by the 1960s, an increasing number of pets were

identified not only by human first names (such as Maggie, Jasper and Max) but also by the inclusion of

human surnames.

Evidence of this trend was apparent in the Florida gravestones. I had only to walk out my back gate and

into the church yard behind my house to find a solitary grave bearing the following inscription: Spot |

1935-1945. In keeping with most graves from the first half of the 20th century, this simple stone bears

only the nonhuman name of the pet and its years of life (partially covered in my photograph by an

overgrowth of grass and weeds).

Spot, gravestone in Orlando, Florida, dated 1935-1945

I was able to identify numerous Florida pet graves from the latter half of the 20th century with human

first names and surnames. There were also a few noteworthy anomalies. The following two graves

were found in a pet cemetery in Apopka, FL. Each contains a human name, complete with a middle

initial. However, the individuals are identified only as ‘father’ and ‘son.’ They are presumably

nonhuman, as indicated by their years of life; however, the species is not discernable. Moreover, the

owner, in a remarkable demonstration of empathy, chooses to identify the companion animals in terms

of their relationship to one another, rather than in terms of their relationship to him/herself.

Leo B. Weaver, gravestone in Apopka, FL

Toro L. Weaver, gravestone in Apopka, FL

The absence of any information indicative of species is somewhat unusual, given the relatively recent

dates of the stones. Equally surprising is the grave of Claudia, whose caretakers intentionally obscure

her species, choosing instead to describe her with the phrase “The Wild It.”

Claudia, gravestone in Apopka, FL

Kinship

While Leo B. and Toro L. Weaver’s kinship to one another is reflected on their respective gravestones,

pet owners are more likely to use gravestones to express their own familial ties to companion animals.

The inclusion of words and phrases denoting kinship became increasingly more common in the latter

half of the 20th century (Brandes 106). The trend was accompanied by the inclusion of photographs on

gravestones. I had no difficulty finding evidence of kinship on pet cemetery graves in Florida. The grave

of Buddy Jackman, for example, bears a picture of him as well as a description of him as a son, brother

and best friend.

Buddy Jackman, gravestone in Apopka, FL

Winchester Ferguson is described simply as “Our Chubby Baby.”

Winchester Ferguson, gravestone in DeLand, FL

Symbols of Spiritual, Religious and Ethnic Identity

Like references to kinship, symbols and words denoting spiritual, religious and ethnic identity became

more prevalent on pet cemetery gravestones in the last half of the 20th century (Brandes 108).

Examples of commonly seen symbols include the Christian cross, statues of St. Francis, and the Star of

David. Also observed, particularly in graves installed after 1980, are references to the afterlife, such as

‘see you on the other side,’ and ‘joined forever with God in Heaven.’ These messages imply a belief in

the immortality of the pet and an expectation of reunion in the afterlife.

Post-1980 gravestones in Florida cemeteries conformed to this pattern. The grave of Pedro shows a

number of recent features including a human name, a photograph of the deceased, kinship (“my four

legged son”) and a reference to the afterlife.

Pedro, gravestone in Apopka, FL

The grave of Bambino Dalessandro signifies a pet of Italian descent and includes references to both

kinship and heaven at the top of the stone.

Bambino Dalessandro, gravestone in DeLand, FL

Gracie’s gravestone is quite remarkable as it contains a verse explicitly connecting (indeed, nearly

equating) the pet with God.

Gracie, gravestone in DeLand, FL

Ethnic identity is often expressed through the inscription of messages in different languages, as seen on

the grave of Le Petit Garcon (The Little Boy).

Le Petit Garcon, gravestone in Apopka, FL

Evidence of post-WWII changes in naming conventions, references to kinship, and messages denoting

spiritual, religious and ethnic identity was found in pet cemetery gravestones in rural Central Florida.

Although there were some exceptions, the general pattern of findings conforms well to that described

by Brandes (2009).

Additional Insights Gleaned From Florida Pet Cemetery Gravestones

Inspection of my photographic archive not only verified previously documented trends in pet gravestone

inscriptions, but also revealed an additional pattern which I believe merits further investigation. I

noticed a number of graves with humorous names and/or messages that might be described as

“affectionately insulting.” The emotional freedom expressed on these gravestones reflects a

disinhibited style of communication that most likely characterized the human-animal relationship during

the pet’s lifetime. Pet owners often praise their companion animals for being nonjudgmental and

accepting. As Walsh notes in her 2009 review of studies on the human-animal bond, “Pets greet their

human companions enthusiastically on the worst days; they do not notice bad hair; they forgive

mistakes; and they do not need to talk things through” (471). The loyalty, devotion and unconditional

acceptance that pets provide allows humans to express themselves with unfettered spontaneity and

honesty, for they know that their companion animals will not take offense. This openness of expression

is apparent both in life and after death.

A few examples will suffice to document this trend, which I noticed occurring most often on graves

dated after 1980. First I present the grave of Ginger, which bears the inscription, ‘Our Lovable Ding-a-

Ling.’

Ginger, gravestone in Apopka, FL

The grave of Skittles is lovingly adorned with the phrases “My Pittle-Head” and “Granny’s Brat.’

Skittles, gravestone in Apopka, FL

The graves of ‘Nuisance Fiske’ and ‘Pugnacious’ provide examples of affectionately insulting names

bestowed upon companion animals.

Nuisance Fiske, gravestone in DeLand, FL

Pugnacious, gravestone in DeLand, FL

One pet-owner uses the gravestone as an opportunity to warn unsuspecting visitors about Pixie’s

tendency to bite.

Pixie, gravestone in Apopka, FL

Like late 20th century trends in naming conventions, references to kinship, and symbols of spirituality,

religion and ethnicity, affectionately insulting messages on the graves of companion animals further

underscore the individual identity of the pet. These messages allude to the companion animal’s unique

and defining personality, idiosyncrasies, and mannerisms. They imbue the grave with a distinctive

character, giving the disinterested visitor a privileged glimpse of the human-animal relationship that

once existed.

Image Pairings

The process of photographing hundreds of pet cemetery gravestones over the past two years compelled

me to question why humans so disproportionately favor companion animals over other equally worthy

animals such as farm animals and laboratory animals. Inspired by the associative possibilities of the

individual gravestones that I photographed, I developed a series of twelve (12) image pairings. In these

pairings, a single image of a gravestone is complemented by another much smaller image which

functions as a caption. The ‘caption images’ were culled from the internet; carefully selected for their

capacity to reveal contradictions and inconsistencies in our treatment of different nonhumans. These

pieces are intended to provoke dialogue and discussion about the perception, care and treatment of

nonhumans in contemporary culture and the role of chance factors in determining an animal’s fate.

They demonstrate one strategy for using visual art to succinctly convey the many nuanced complexities

that characterize our relationships with nonhumans. I offer a few examples and leave it to the viewer to

generate his/her own ideas, feelings and associations in response to these works.

Harry James Kielmovitch, paired with image of a laboratory rat (2014)

Pepper, paired with image of circus elephant standing on a ball (2014)

George, paired with image of cow undergoing ear tagging (2014)

Smoky, paired with image of a performing tiger jumping through a ring of fire (2014)

Conclusion

In this paper, I have shown how historical trends in pet gravestone inscriptions, as described by Brandes

(2009) are manifested in cemeteries located in rural Central Florida communities. These trends include

an increase in the use of human first names and surnames, references to kinship, and symbols and

messages pertaining to spirituality, the afterlife, religion and ethnicity. In addition to verifying these

previously documented trends, I have presented a collection of graves inscribed with what I have called

‘affectionately insulting’ names and/or messages. Such messages seem to capture the uncensored

spontaneity that characterizes the human-companion animal relationship during the animal’s lifetime.

Like the other trends described herein, the inclusion of these affectionately insulting messages calls

attention to the individual identity or ‘personality’ of the interred pet. In my field work, such messages

were found primarily on post-1980 gravestones. Further investigation of this phenomena may prove

useful in deepening our understanding of how humans represent their relationships with companion

animals through gravestone inscriptions.

Examination of my photographic archive of gravestones in Florida compelled me to question the

disproportionate affection bestowed upon companion animals, relative to other worthy creatures. My

series of pet gravestone image pairings, four of which are presented in this paper, is intended to

stimulate dialogue about the many contradictions and inconsistencies that exist in our perception, care

and treatment of different nonhumans. The image pairings also point to the role of chance factors in

determining an animal’s fate. The line separating the beloved guinea pig and the captive laboratory rat

is a thin one indeed. Conducting field work to inform image production represents one strategy for

approaching and expanding the study of interspecies relationships using visual art.

References

Brandes, Stanley. "The Meaning of American Pet Cemetery Gravestones." Ethnology, 48.2 (2009):

99-118. Web. 15 Oct. 2013.

Walsh, Froma. “Human-Animal Bonds I: The Relational Significance of Companion Animals.” Family

Processes, 48:4 (2009) 462-480. Web. 29 Aug. 2013.