This has been an interesting topic. Maybe we can take it off the path of "pauper" angle to save it from being halted. Deborah made the valid point of not using "blanket" generalizations to describe an entire community with varied traditions and Michael also offered a valid argument for the fact that most wealthy, or prominent folks are more likely to have markers than the less well-off but again it can not be said that All Without markers are thus Paupers. My question has more to do with the occupation of MASONRY...I have heard that when possible tombstones were sometimes brought back from Ireland as ballast. With all the Rocks in Newfoundland was there not the appropriate type of stone for carving, like Limestone available in Ireland? So that the occupation of Masonry did not develop with ease in outport communities early on and it had more to do with the availability of materials and a skilled mason. Also were bodies kept over the winter for Spring burial...I can't imagine a grave could be dug during many months of the long winter. I do not believe my Newfoundland ancestors to be paupers based on their grave marker or casket type alone as inspite of our affluence today as their descendants we still think it quite a waste to spend money in a superfluous manner on the dead and this is a perspective passed down thru generations. Now, the information that markers provide for the family genealogist can be invaluable...here is what was found on my Kennedy ancestors in Carbonear...I am sure many more of this family were buried there but not all had markers, for whatever reasons. Joanne http://www.ancestraldigs.com/NorthWestCemetery.htm