One of the problems in researching armorial headstones and tombstones in colonial American burying grounds is that there are many instances where a burial plot where an armiger has been buried is later sold to an entirely different family, whose deceased members are buried there, though the coat of arms still displayed on the stone does not relate to them.
We saw this in our recent post of December 15, 2025 (http://blog.appletonstudios.com/2025/12/we-start-looking-at-some-armorial.html), where one tombstone displays the arms of and an inscription toWilliam Clark, but also has the name of a later owner, Samuel Winslow, carved into it, though he clearly had no relation to the arms seen there.
Today, we're going to take a brief look at two other armorials tombstones which have the same issue as "the Winslow stone" bearing the arms of Clark. (Again, you can click on any of the images here to see the full-size, and more detailed, photographs.)
The first is the tomb of T[homas] and J. Lewis, but it is decorated with the arms are the Hutchinson family of Boston. These arms appear three times in the Gore Roll of Arms, for Elisha Hutchinson, Eliakim Hutchinson, and for William Hutchinson.
Today, we're going to take a brief look at two other armorials tombstones which have the same issue as "the Winslow stone" bearing the arms of Clark. (Again, you can click on any of the images here to see the full-size, and more detailed, photographs.)
The first is the tomb of T[homas] and J. Lewis, but it is decorated with the arms are the Hutchinson family of Boston. These arms appear three times in the Gore Roll of Arms, for Elisha Hutchinson, Eliakim Hutchinson, and for William Hutchinson.
The arms are blazoned: Per pale gules and azure a lion rampant argent within an orle of crosses crosslet or.
The crest (seen in the close-up above, is: Issuant from a ducal coronet a cockatrice azure combed beaked wattled and the tail barbed gules.
Built in 1711, several members of the well-known Hutchinson family have been buried here, but the Copp’s Hill Burying Ground Guide, p. 15, gives a more detailed description of which Hutchinsons were, and which were not, buried here. At some later date, Thomas Lewis purchased the tomb and inscribed it with the Lewis name.
Even more mysterious is another nearby tomb, whose arms do not appear to be related to either of the two families known to be the tomb's owners.
The arms (without knowing the colors), Three crescents. The crest is: An eagle displayed.
Even more mysterious is another nearby tomb, whose arms do not appear to be related to either of the two families known to be the tomb's owners.
The arms (without knowing the colors), Three crescents. The crest is: An eagle displayed.
The Copp’s Hill Burying Ground Guide, p. 23 says: “Edward Martyn (1665-1717/8). Tomb 10 is the first one to the right as you enter Copp’s Hill and bears a coat of arms. He was a merchant, living on Hanover near Richmond, and served on many selectmen’s committees. He left 10 pounds to 2nd Church for a ‘piece of plate and 20 pounds to be distributed to the poor of the flock.’ He owned most of the land from Hanover St. to the water. A[ncient &] H[onorable] A[rtillery] C[ompany], 1702.”
However, the Guide, later on p. xx, gives the name Watts, and says: "On the reverse of the stone bearing the inscription No. 1199, to the Rev. Andrew Eliot, will be found the following arms. [Illustration of the arms photographed above.]
"This however was an honest transaction, as is pointed out in the Heraldic Journal, ii, 119, as the Eliots bought the tomb and paid for altering the stone. The presumption is that the Watts family represented the original owner, and that perhaps the stone came from tomb No. 15. The arms are not inscribed to any family of the name of Watts."
I cannot find these arms of three crescents ascribed to any of the surnames noted in the Guide or in The Heraldic Journal; not to Martyn/Martin, nor Watts, nor Eliot. And looking through the usual ordinaries (Papworth's Dictionary of British Armorials and the more recent The Dictionary of British Arms) gives us way too many potential families of this simple coat of arms to decently research in my "copious free time."
So it's a bit of an heraldic mystery. Most every source seems to agree that it is not the arms of the most recent owner of the tomb, the Eliots, nor does it seem to be the arms of the Watts. And I have no indication of where the author who ascribes this tomb to the Martyns obtained that information.
Still, it's kind of interesting to learn about the purchase and sale of tombs in burying grounds in colonial Boston, Massachusetts Bay Colony, isn't it?
