History, grad school, and gravestones!
My two cents says this stone originally could have stood on someone else's grave. I say this for few reasons: First, the new cuts are a different shade than the surrounding stone's color, which implies the original surface has been exposed to the elements longer than the "corrections." (An argument against this is that the cut-in repairs surfaces are more protected from the elements and thus have aged better, although I don't think this is the case. Another argument against is that when the carver made the stone he applied a chemical (an acid?) to the surface of the stone to change the color.) Second, the "3" in the age looks like a "7" and this number may have been altered when the other corrections were made. Third, the curl in the lower part of the "y's"in uncorrected parts are different than curl in the "corrected" name. I could probably find other reasons why it's possible this is a recycled stone, if such things happened back then. My main reason is the difference in the tones between the altered and unaltered parts. These tonal differences suggest that it could have been many years from the time when the stone was first exposed to the elements and when the corrections were made.
That certainly sounds plausible to me. It wouldn't be the first time someone reused a stone.
The link in your reply to one of your earlier posts is no longer there. Care to repost it?
Post a Comment