How does this study relate to typology?

What do the authors say about the relationship between

the gravestones and the ideational culture of the people who used them? Do you see examples
of middle or high-level theory in the article?
This study relates to typology because gravestones can fit all three types of types. They
can be morphologically described based on their appearance, material and shape. They are all
dated so we can see what appearances occurred at what time and where. Those differences in
appearances can be compared from one location to another. They all are different but all of them
share the same functional type: a marker for the burial location of the dead.
The authors say the type and design of the gravestones has much to do with the religious
and ideational culture of the people who used them, but they noticed that in a large area that
there were more similarities during a given period of time. But these changes in design
proliferated into different areas at different times. They say that the changes relate to the Great
Awakening and Puritanism with the idea of a life after death changing to a more positive symbol
of the cherub. And later with Unitarianian and Methodist religions and their more depersonalized
outlook on death. They say this disconnection is symbolized by the change to the willow tree and
the urn.
I see both middle and high level theories in the article. An example of middle level theory
is that we see that the common trend from the deaths head motif and onto the cherub motif is
simplification. Archaeologists can hypothesize that simplification is easily observable on a dated
gravestone marker and that human behavior tends to lean towards conserving energy input (in
this case cost).
Assuming the peoples attitudes toward death at different times is an example of high
level theory as it is a large why question. Why did the design of gravestones change similarly to
the change in religion and cultural thinking?