Friday 10th Feb 2017
We’ve been busy over the last couple of weeks.
With my husband I took a trip up the Wharfedale valley last Saturday
and we had a quick look around three churchyards – at Burnsall, Linton and
Hubberholme.
|
Example of a gravestone style & design that is found at both Burnsall and Embsay |
I took about 200 photographs trying to get a rough idea of the
overlap in gravestone layout and design, and assess how local styles and particularly
iconography vary from one parish to another. It was a fascinating exercise and
one I think is well worth following up
|
Example of a gravestone style & design that is found at both Hubberholme and Embsay |
– the differences and the similarities
between neighbouring parishes is very interesting and raises all sorts of
questions about the cultural interaction between communities within the same
dale, the use of the same stone masons, and even the influence of changing local
geology.
|
Undressed Limestone boulder - examples are found throughout Upper Wharfedale - only in small numbers in Embsay & Linton, but in large numbers at Kettlewell and Conistone-with-Kilnsey |
It was surprising though to find that very few of the older
gravestones have survived – we must assume that even though these three
churches are medieval in origin that the Victorians have swept away the old
memorials from their churchyards – only a handful of late 18thC headstones have
survived in these ancient churchyards - it seems unlikely that no one could afford to set up headstones before the early 19thC in these parishes. (Of course, I am not counting the
Anglo-Scandinavian hogbacks and early medieval crosses which are housed inside
Burnsall church in this assessment!). Looks
like any comparative studies that we may decide to carry out in Upper
Wharfedale may have to be confined to the 19th century.
There have been two more sessions at Sue’s house of typing up more
Reference Sheets for individual gravestones. This is a surprisingly slow
process even with people working in pairs as we are checking the photographic
record against the field survey notes, and adding more information that we can
glean from the photographs. It has shown how important it is to take a
comprehensive set of photographs, making sure all the details of inscriptions,
design features and carved imagery are included as close-ups so these can all
be examined and entered onto the record sheets.
This stage of the process also allows us to check and cross-check any
anomalies against the burial register, and to recognise the variety that there
is in the designs and styles of gravestones.
It is also the time to list any queries that need following up, and
notes on any further field work that needs doing – such as blurred photos that
need to be taken again, or missing measurements, etc.
Sue and I have also been busy preparing a presentation – we finally
gave our talk to the Friends of the Craven Museum in Skipton on Wednesday
evening. Sue started with an overview of the project and how it started and is
progressing, while I followed with two case studies – the gravestones of George
Chamberlain and of Shacklock Mason’s family.
|
The gravestone of George Chamberlain, the very first burial at St Mary's Church, Embsay, 1853 |
There were lots of questions
afterwards which is a good sign that they found it interesting. The title of
the talk was “All life is here; the village churchyard as a window into local history”,
and hopefully encouraged the audience to look at parish churchyards as an
important heritage asset for social, local and family historians alike.
Jane Lunnon