The Good Funeral Guide Blog

Earth to earth

Tuesday, 10 January 2012

Photo

 

Our religious correspondent, Richard Rawlinson, ponders the importance of a physical signifier of absence.

 

Whether we choose burial or cremation, should we offer those we leave behind a tombstone or plaque forming a physical destination for paying respects?

I know the reasons for favouring cremation: immediacy over slow decomposition, shortage of burial space, cost and the difficulty of upkeeping graves among families who might live far away.

But how widespread is the trend for throwing cremains to the wind in a natural setting cherished by the deceased rather than burying them in an urn, either on consecrated land or another favoured burial site?

A plaque marking the site of cremains doesn’t require the upkeep or the space of a stone above a body in a coffin. Is it not helpful to the bereaved to know they can visit a specific memorial destination, even if circumstances don’t allow for regular visits? Do they get the same emotional impact from visiting the scene where cremains were scattered, but have since dispersed into, at least physical, nothingness?

2 comments on “Earth to earth

  1. Tuesday 10th January 2012 at 8:09 pm

    Interesting post, Richard, and gm’s comments too.
    Surprisingly, families seem pretty clear about what they prefer – a plaque in a cemetery with other monuments to grief and memory (to help focus feelings?)and used as specific pilgimage site; or a place of wild beauty, which represents a more universal dispersal. Water seems attractive, with the thought that the person will now go everywhere. This universality perhaps a more frequently visited reminder?
    PS. Basic upkeep round here is covered by the burial fees, so not an issue.

  2. Tuesday 10th January 2012 at 12:22 pm

    […] ceramist, Alan Braidford — in answer, it almost seemed, to Richard Rawlinson’s post earlier on today. Wonderful work, we’re sure you’ll agree. There are virtually no makers of funeral urns […]

  3. Tuesday 10th January 2012 at 8:53 am

    Humane thinking here, I feel, and practical too.

    Does the answer to your question depend on how people feel about the web of life, returning to the natural elements amidst the beauties of nature (after an industrial sort of process, it must be admitted!)

    You might say, Richard, that if people let go of the idea of a soul and an afterlife, they look for some way of feeling continuity in the physical world – and a little stone, or a tree, might offer more comfort to those still living than a spatially vaguer sense of rejoining the flow.

    Also, sometimes the dear departed might have a powerful association with a lovely part of the world(“he always used to sit and look across the bay of an evening”) but it may not work so well on the North Circular, if he lived there all his life, and retired to Margate a year before he died.

    Certainly, there are sensitive quandaries and very different alternatives to be explored here.

Leave a Comment