Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
> Month is missing, as well as name. Even a child dead on birth would have
> a name. (it has been christened, otherwise no "obiit", hence a name is
> missing...

I agree that it needs a name, but what does "obit" have to do with it?

> a cross instead of a skull is also more appropriate (but will
> not be politically-correct... Muslim would have written in Arabic, Jews
> in Hebraic, so it is not already politically correct anyway)

What does political correctness have to do with this?

> Latin on tombstone, but USA's tombstone (or english ?): european
> tombstone would have a stone to cover the grave cut. If fresh, the grave
> backfill would be visible as delimitation of the burial, until the cover
> stone is done.
> Cheap tomb could get gravel instead of cover stone, but at least the
> gravel would be in a delimited box.
>
> The tree near the tombstone made it USA. May be a private grave ? (as
> there is no path nearby, and no other stones)

I didn't realize that there were so many characteristics of graves that depended
on nationality.

Post a reply to this message