After seeing photos from an Oregon cemetery showing old marble markers with painted black lettering, the OHCA contacted Lynette Strangstad, author of Graveyard Preservation Primer and noted authority on the cleaning, repairing, and preservation of gravestones, to ask if she knew of this practice and if it was harmful to gravestones or appropriate. Her reply, in part, follows:

As to "enhanced stones," a marble stone on which the lettering has been painted in black, it is not uncommon, nor is it acceptable. My guess is that the attempt is to make the "white on white" lettering in marble more easily read.

The technique is to paint the lettering, then grind the surface to make the edges appear sharper. Well, you know what that does to the precious 2-4" of stone we’re working with -- about the same as 50 years’ weathering! You may get the argument that the grinding resurfacing technique is used in Europe, has been for hundreds of years, and in fact, the surface becomes smoother after grinding, thereby enhancing the longevity of the stone since a smooth surface weathers more slowly than a rough one. All of this is true; however, the context in which the technique is used is building stones -- which tend to be 18-30" thick! If you lose a thirty-second, or even an eighth or a sixteenth inch of such stones every hundred years, it really isn’t a big deal (as long as there’s no carving on them), and in fact, does increase longevity. But with gravestones, in which the top quarter inch holds nearly all the important information, it is quite a different story.

So, the grinding probably does the most damage, but even if the surface isn’t reground, adding paint in the crevices will tend to hold moisture and accelerate deterioration. In this case, the moisture can also go around the paint, so it is not the worst possible consequence. But it is not good for the stone, and it is not appropriate: gravestone lettering is not traditionally painted.

Perhaps there’s a confusion of materials here, inasmuch as wood markers were painted as often as they were carved, and use of both techniques on the same marker was not unusual. Some cultures (Hispanic, for one) sometimes paint the entire surface (which is even worse, of course), but that, I think, stems from the earlier tradition of whitewashing them. When the whitewash was lime and alum (or any number of other combinations, but primarily lime), no damage was done. It may even have helped preserve the marker from the elements (though it would not have "enhanced" the lettering in any way, since it would tend to fill in depressions). But when paint became the coating of choice, a whole different set of conditions set in. In any case, I would not expect any cultures I have known to use that technique to be found in a traditional sense in your part of the country, and besides, white paint/whitewash over the surface of a marker is quite different from what you describe.

There is one other correlation I can think of, offhand, and that is inside some churches. Sometimes marble plaques, which are placed in memory of the deceased, may have lettering painted in, in black. This is less damaging indoors, inasmuch as there is a greater degree of climate control.

SO -- in summary, yes, I’ve heard of the condition. No, it is not acceptable, nor is it good for the stone. I suggest you stress the use of mirrors, photography, and documentation to "enhance" the reading of gravestones.

Hope this helps.

Lyn