Conservation Strategy for Historic Graveyards in the Clyde and Avon Valley Landscape by Clyde and Avon

2 1

Conservation Strategy for Historic Graveyards in the Clyde and Avon Valley Landscape

Consultants Dr Susan Buckham Kirkyard Consulting susan.buckham@kirkyard-‐consutling.co.uk with Fiona Fisher Strathclyde Buildings Preservation Trust http://www.sbpt.org.uk/

12 July 2013

Cover: St Patrick’s Churchyard and Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum, Dalzell

There are many examples of headstones snapping at the base in South Lanarkshire graveyards, the stone above is at Dalserf Churchyard. The use of herbicides is a likely factor contributing to this deterioration pattern.

Contents

Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Strategy brief 1.3 Report structure 2.0 Identifying historic graveyards within the CAVLP area 2.1 Method and sources used 2.2 The dataset 2.3 The CAVLP Historic Graveyards 2.3 i Cambusnethan, St Michael’s Churchyard 2.3 ii Dalzell Estate, St Patrick’s Churchyard, Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum and Pet Cemetery 2.3 iii Stonehouse, St Ninian’s Churchyard 2.3 iv Stonehouse Cemetery 2.3 v Glasshouse Churchyard and Cemetery 2.3 vi Dalserf Churchyard 2.3 vii Mauldslie Estate Private Burial Ground 2.3 viii New Lanark Burial Ground 2.4 Considerations for graveyards falling outside the CAVLP boundary or definition of historic graveyards 2.5 A note on graveyard names and site types 3.0 Documenting the Graveyards 3.1 Are the CAVLP sites included in the main national / regional heritage lists and graveyard inventories? 3.2 What survey records exist for the CAVLP sites? 3.3 Assessment of comprehensiveness of current records 3.4 Future priorities 3.5 Guidance on disseminating information 3.6 Guidance on creating new records 4.0 Graveyard surveys 4.1 Overview 4.2 Survey limitations 4.3 Design of graveyard field survey forms 4.4 Graveyard maps 4.5 A note on recording natural heritage and landscape 4.6 Natural heritage desktop study 5.0 Graveyard Condition and Management 5.1 Management context 5.2 Summary of graveyard site survey findings on current management and condition and the future potential of sites 5.3 Summary of the condition and potential of individual graveyards 5.3.1 Cambusnethan, St Michael’s Churchyard 5.3.2 Dalzell Estate, St Patrick’s Churchyard, Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum and Pet Cemetery 5.3.3 St Ninian’s Churchyard, Stonehouse 5.3.4 Stonehouse Cemetery 5.3.5 Dalserf Parish Churchyard 5.3.6 Mauldslie Estate Private Family Burial Ground 5.3.7 New Lanark Burial Ground 5.3.8 Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery

1 5 5 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 11 11 13 15 15 18 19 20 21 21 21 22 22 23 25 26 28 28 29 29 30 31 32 32 33

6.0 Community Involvement 6.1 What is the community engagement with the CAVLP graveyards to date? 6.2 Evidence for existing public interest in the CAVLP Graveyards 6.3 What is the future potential to build on local community groups’ interest? 6.4 Evidence for future public interest in the CAVLP Graveyards 6.5 Suggestions for future volunteer projects 7.0 Conservation Strategy 7.1 What are the aims of the conservation strategy? 7.2 Why do we need a conservation strategy? 7.3 How does the Conservation strategy work? 7.4 The Conservation Strategy Action Plan 7.5 Application and limits of strategy Appendices Appendix 1: Graveyard site recording forms Appendix 2: Graveyard maps Appendix 3: Discussion of Natural Heritage / Habitat Surveys / Condition and Potential Appendix 3a: Scotland Counts Surveys List produced by The Conservation Volunteers Appendix 4: List of guidance freely available on the conservation and management of historic graveyards Appendix 5: Outline graveyard activity plan Appendix 6: Living kirkyards event questionnaire and results

35 37 38 41 41 44 44 45 46 47 49 126 134 139 140 142 150

Interior of the Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum. The building rubble and rubbish needs to be removed from this category B listed building. The mausoleum also houses an 1608 graveslab, which is the earliest gravestone at the site, but in its current position it is virtually impossible for visitors to view.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Executive summary In January 2013, the Clyde and Avon Valley Landscape Partnership (CAVLP) commissioned Dr Susan Buckham, Kirkyard Consulting, to undertake the following programme of research: 1. A qualitative assessment of any existing records for historic graveyards in the CAVLP area; 2. A survey of historic graveyards the CAVLP area, to identify site ownership, management and maintenance regimes and to make preliminary assessments of current condition, heritage value (built, cultural and natural) and future requirements; 3. An appraisal of local community groups’ interests and capacity to undertake elements of the conservation works action programme; 4. A conservation strategy and conservation action plan for historic graveyards in the CAVLP area based on 1 -‐ 3 above; 5. A short review of guidance publically available for the conservation and management of rural graveyards. The CAVLP historic graveyards dataset The study identified the following eight historic graveyards as falling within the boundaries of the CAVLP area: North Lanarkshire: o Cambusnethan, St Michael’s Churchyard. The churchyard of St Michael's Church is notable for its collection of medieval gravestones. The site contains more than 129 gravestones, including a Covenanter memorial, as well as the Category B Listed Belhaven and Stenton mausoleum and three further B Listed mausolea, which are roofless ruins. o Dalzell Estate, St Patrick’s Churchyard, Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum and Pet Cemetery. This site comprises three different elements within the designed landscape of Dalzell Estate: the churchyard of St Patrick’s Kirk; the Hamilton of Dalzell mausoleum; and a group of pet graves dates to the 20th century. South Lanarkshire: o Stonehouse, St Ninian’s Churchyard The churchyard contains a ruined gable, with bellcote, of the former church and 425 gravestones, including a Covenanter memorial. The site has one of the best collections of 18th century gravestone carvings in the region. o Stonehouse Cemetery was founded in 1906. The site was laid out as a lawn cemetery and contains 577 memorials and Stonehouse’s war memorial. Many of the graves are regularly visited. o Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery the churchyard contains the remains of old church of Glassford and 156 gravestones including a Covenanter memorial. The site has one of the best collections of 18th century gravestone carvings in the region. The late 19th century cemetery surrounds the churchyard and many graves are regularly visited. o Dalserf Churchyard is the only site with an active church. The churchyard contains around 347 gravestones, several of which have links to Covenanting history, as well as a 10th / 11th century hogback stone. o Mauldslie Estate Private Burial Ground is on a tree-‐covered mound formerly within the Mauldslie Castle estate. A lych gate marks the entrance

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

to the 19th century burial ground, which includes two burial enclosures and three carved pedestals stones. New Lanark Burial Ground was established as a non-‐denominational burial ground for the planned industrial village of New Lanark. The site is unenclosed and there are no built features except the 120 headstones and a single ledger stone. The headstones are predominantly small, un-‐ inscribed and irregular in form.

A qualitative assessment of any existing records A desk-‐top survey established the nature of the current records for each site held within the principal national and regional heritage lists or produced by previous recording or research projects. This information was assessed on the basis of its capacity to help understand a graveyard’s significance and condition. The survey found a number of shortcomings in current records, including: • The main national / regional heritage lists do not include all of the CAVLP graveyards and there is a bias towards documenting a church or early-‐carved stones, rather than the churchyard or other type of graveyard. Furthermore, the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information which is included varies considerably; • Existing survey records hold some useful information but do not meet current recording standards or available technologies (particularly digital photography). Accordingly, there are notable gaps in documenting gravestone inscriptions, material, design and condition and many site plans do not link up with other gravestone records. Only one graveyard survey is documented in detail; • Natural heritage surveys are very limited. However, lichen surveys have been carried out at Stonehouse, Glassford and Dalserf churchyards; • There are a small number of specialist studies, including the 18th century gravestone carvings and the hogback stone at Dalserf. Accordingly, urgent and necessary priorities for future work include: • Photographing all sites as a means of rapidly documenting their current appearance and management and to map any recent changes in condition; • Ensuring that all of the graveyards – with Cambusnethan being the highest priority site -‐ have the following surveys, as a minimum: o A site plan showing the position of all main features; o A full record of each gravestone; o Lichen surveys (Cambusnethan, Dalzell and Mauldslie as priorities). Graveyard surveys and site assessment Each site was visited and the graveyard owners and managers interviewed in order to document the graveyard’s current appearance, condition and management. Field survey produced four specific outputs: 1. Individual site record forms, which collate the main details about a graveyard (Appendix 1); 2. Individual graveyard conservation action plans (set out within each site record); 3. Individual site survey plans (Appendix 2); 4. Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 3). Following field survey and analysis of the resultant data, the study has highlighted a number of future priorities, grading these as ‘urgent’, ‘necessary’ and ‘desirable’. The key observations for each graveyard are summarised as follows:

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

•

Cambusnethan -‐ ownership, access issues and any structural and health and safety issues must be resolved before the considerable built and natural heritage potential can be realised. Urgent actions include keeping stock off the site, reinstating the ground to a condition that can be regularly maintained and making a full record of the gravestones; Dalzell Estate -‐ repairs to gravestones, general tidying, developing interpretation and establishing regular grounds maintenance appropriate for a historic graveyard are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan for the Estate as a whole; Stonehouse Churchyard -‐ repairs to gravestones, improving the biodiversity and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed through a conservation management plan. The plan will identify how to best deal with constrained resources and still to make sure improvements are on-‐ going rather than one-‐off actions; Stonehouse Cemetery -‐ improving the biodiversity, implementing policies to protect built heritage values through maintenance and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed through a conservation management plan. Dalserf Churchyard -‐ repairs to gravestones, improving the biodiversity and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed through a conservation management plan. Mauldslie Burial Ground -‐ urgent repairs to the lych gate, fixing broken / unstable monuments, rhododendron clearance, tree management and improving access are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan for the Estate as a whole. New Lanark Burial Ground-‐ improving access, enhancing bio-‐diversity, repairing gravestones and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan for the World Heritage Site. Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery -‐ enhancing bio-‐diversity, repairing gravestones, control of vegetation and developing interpretation and community engagement are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan.

An appraisal of local community groups’ interests and capacity Desk-‐top survey and interviews with local heritage groups revealed that several local societies and special interest groups were formerly, or currently are, involved with work linked to one or more of the CAVLP graveyards. Only Mauldslie Burial Ground and Glassford Cemetery had not benefited from recent community engagement. All of the groups contacted, with one exception, reported issues with capacity. At the same time, while each group had some experience of graveyard related knowledge and skills, they also had wider transferable skills that could be applied to other types of graveyard projects. Interviews with community groups indicated several potential areas for future collaborative working. The ‘Living Kirkyards’ event organised by CAVLP also suggested the potential for developing increased community interest in the graveyards. The results of a questionnaire completed by participants of the seminar suggests the strongest public interest lies research-‐based projects and practical activities. Less interest was expressed in recording

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

the built and natural heritage becoming involved in interpretation and education activities. Potential community-‐based projects are suggested for all eight CAVLP graveyards. Conservation strategy and conservation action plan Fieldwork indicates that the current management is not fully delivering on the graveyard’s potential value as cultural heritage assets and identified strengths and weaknesses in each site’s management and condition. A list of initial recommended actions (assessed as either urgent, necessary or desirable) is included on the graveyard recording forms to create individual graveyard site action plans. The conservation strategy is an outline action plan covering all eight graveyards, that highlights the order in which work should take place in and the sequence of conservation planning that needs to be in place before putting any actions into practice. It sets out a series of steps to draw information together to help stakeholders identify and agree project priorities and to clarify remits and areas of responsibility for carrying out work. It can help identify opportunities for collaborative working, adding benefit to stakeholders’ individual areas of work. The strategy lays the groundwork for developing site conservation management plans. These plans are the fundamental tools for directing future repairs, enhancement and on-‐ going maintenance of a site, in tandem with developing stronger community engagement. To maximise the potential for community engagement, Appendix 5 identifies which tasks might be carried out with volunteers as well as identifying additional volunteer opportunities.

Vandals and cattle have damaged the important collection of medieval gravestones at St Michael’s Churchyard, Cambusnethan. Their current condition is difficult to assess due to partial burial and heavy moss cover,

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background This report is the result of a commission by The Clyde and Avon Valley Landscape Partnership (CAVLP) to Kirkyard Consulting to prepare a conservation strategy for historic graveyards within the CAVLP area. The project commenced in January 2013 and was completed in May 2013. Dr Susan Buckham, Kirkyard Consulting, was the project leader and main researcher. Site surveys and the development of site action plans (Appendix 1) and the conservation strategy (Chapter 7) were carried out jointly with Fiona Fisher, Strathclyde Buildings Preservation Trust. Fiona Fisher additionally prepared each of the graveyard site plans (Appendix 2) and undertook the Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 3). 1.2 Strategy brief The main outputs of the work are: 1) A qualitative assessment of any existing records for historic graveyards in the CAVLP area; 2) A survey of historic graveyards the CAVLP area, to identify site ownership, management and maintenance regimes and to make preliminary assessments of current condition, heritage value (built, cultural and natural) and future requirements; 3) An appraisal of local community groups’ interests and capacity to undertake elements of the conservation works action programme; 4) A conservation strategy and conservation action plan for historic graveyards in the CAVLP area based on 1 -‐ 3 above. 5) A short review of guidance publically available for the conservation and management of rural graveyards. 1.3 Report structure This report is set out in seven main sections with a series of appendices that contain more detailed information. Chapter One provides an introduction to the project and this report. Chapter Two outlines the methods used to identify the CAVLP graveyard dataset and gives a brief description of each of the sites. Chapter Three considers existing graveyard records and assesses the quality and completeness of this information, to make recommendations for future recording and dissemination of information. Chapter Four describes the methods used to record graveyard condition and management and to capture details on any significant features. Chapter Five summarises the current condition of the graveyards and outlines the main issues for site management and maintenance. Chapter Six summarises the feedback from interviews with local community groups and the results of a questionnaire to assess current and potential public engagement with the sites. Chapter Seven sets out an outline conservation action plan for the CAVLP graveyards, linked to individual site action plans (Appendix 1) and a table identifying where actions might involve opportunities for community involvement (Appendix 5). Appendix 1 contains the completed site recording forms for each of the eight CAVLP graveyards, and includes individual site conservation action plans. Appendix 2 contains the individual site survey plans that indicate site layout, condition and highlights key features and management issues. Appendix 3 provides details of the natural heritage and Phase 1 habitat surveys, potential and recommendations. Appendix 4 offers a short review of guidance publically available for the conservation and management of rural graveyards.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Appendix 5 is a draft graveyard activity plan, which highlights opportunities for volunteer involvement in the future conservation of the CAVLP graveyards. Appendix 6 is a copy of the Living Kirkyards event questionnaire and a summary of responses.

Tree management is an issue for all of the CAVLP graveyards. At St Michael’s Churchyard Cambusnethan several gravestones show damage and displacement by unchecked self-‐seeded trees.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

2.0 Identifying Historic Graveyards within the CAVLP Area This section describes the eight graveyard sites in the CAVLP area that form the focus of this report. It explains how these sites were identified; the selection criteria and sources used, and offers an explanation of burial site terms. Potted descriptions are given of CAVLP graveyards and a brief note is made of sites excluded from the survey. 2.1 Method and sources used The list of sites provided by CAVLP1 was checked to see if they fell within the definition of a historic graveyard and maps and inventories were used to confirm whether any additional graveyards existed within the CAVLP area (Figure 1). What is a historic graveyard? There is no widely accepted definition of a historic graveyard. For the purposes of the strategy historic graveyards are defined as places set aside for the disposal of the dead, which may also be associated with commemoration. Graveyards may date from the medieval period to sites established before 1939, however, there must be visible evidence of the graveyard surviving above ground. CANMORE and WOSAS To verify the existing list of sites, the CANMORE database was searched to extract data on burial sites. CANMORE is structured using predefined site types, allowing comprehensive searches to be constructed. The search terms used were 'burial ground, graveyard, churchyard, grave, burial aisle, burial vault, tomb, mausoleum, and cemetery' Both North and South Lanarkshire local authority areas were searched in this way. From the list of results, obviously irrelevant sites were rejected (e.g. those known to be distant from project area, prehistoric burial sites) with the remainder plotted on OS mapping using the CANMORE Mapping tool (this plots sites onto an OS MasterMap base layer). Visual comparison was then made against the site's location and the CAVLP boundary to determine whether it lies within the scope of the project. Copies of all records were made, along with map extracts to assist field survey. This approach was adopted in searching the West of Scotland Archaeology Service (WoSAS) SMR, which like CANMORE has an online mapping tool. As North Lanarkshire Council is not part of the consortium served by WoSAS, it was not possible to obtain any data. Copies of all records were made, along with map extracts to assist field survey. First and Second edition OS maps The National Library of Scotland online maps collection allowed a rapid survey of the area, using the First and Second edition maps. The purpose of this survey was to locate any burial sites within the survey area not documented by CANMORE or WoSAS. Additionally, this allowed historic mapping of the sites to be inspected.

1 Stonehouse Cemetery; Stonehouse Old Kirkyard; Cambusnethan Cemetery; Cambusnethan Mausoleum; St.Patrick’s Churchyard in Dalzell Estate; New Lanark Burial Ground; Dalserf Churchyard; Glassford Cemetery; information on the location of individual covenanter graves (Stonehouse Historical Society, Carluke Historical Society, South Lanarkshire Council, the Covenanters Society).

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Other sources No single, comprehensive list of historic graveyard exists where one could expect to find all historic graveyards in an area, although CANMORE’s data is the most comprehensive. Therefore, several other lists were also consulted to check for other graveyards in the CAVLP area, including: • PastMap Designed landscapes; • Historic Scotland's Listed Buildings and Scheduled Monuments; • Published inventories of Covenanter memorials; • Scottish Association of Family History Societies Graveyard Inventory; • Institute of Cemeteries and Crematoria Management Directory • SCRAN 2.2 The dataset Discounted sites Only one additional site was found: The Mausoleum on the Corehouse estate. Unfortunately due to private ownership access was not possible during the project’s fieldwork programme. Additionally, it was felt that although this site fell within the definition of a historic graveyard, as a building, rather than a burial landscape, it would be unlikely to possess the same balance of natural and built heritage features found at the other graveyard in the CAVLP area. Accordingly, the mausoleum was discounted from any further assessment. The following sites, which had been identified in the CAVLP tender document as possible sites were discounted: • Cambusnethan Cemetery (1861) is discounted as it is located outside the CAVLP area • Glebe Cemetery Stonehouse is discounted due to its recent establishment (1981) means it is not considered to be a historic graveyard. • Glassford Parish church discounted as the church does not have an associated graveyard. 2.3 The CAVLP Historic Graveyards A total of eight historic graveyards are found within the CAVLP area and are these are described below. 2.3 i Cambusnethan, St Michael’s Churchyard Traditionally founded by St Nethan in the 8th century, the ruins of St Michael's church and its surrounding churchyard is located in a rural setting in North Lanarkshire, accessed by a single farm track that heightens the sense of remoteness. The graveyard contains more than 129 gravestones but the site is dominated by the imposing B listed Belhaven and Stenton mausoleum and three further mausolea which are roofless ruins (also B listed). Cambusnethan is also notable for its collection of medieval carvings, including a fragmentary replica of the Cambusnethan cross, a free-‐ standing cross.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

2.3 ii Dalzell Estate, St Patrick’s Churchyard, Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum and Pet Cemetery The burial site at Dalzell lies within the designed landscape of Dalzell House in North Lanarkshire, and is adjacent to an RSPB reserve close to the River Clyde. The site comprises three distinct, but closely related, elements: the churchyard of St Patrick’s Kirk, the Hamilton of Dalzell mausoleum and the informal pet cemetery. Bounded by a rectangular walled enclosure, the churchyard contains over 193 memorials of 18th and 19th century date. The Hamilton mausoleum, built around 1798 using stone from the demolished St Patrick’s Kirk, stands within its own separate enclosure inside the burial ground. The final element is the pet cemetery dating to the 20th century, which is located immediately outside the burial ground. 2.3 iii Stonehouse, St Ninian’s Churchyard Situated on the edge of Stonehouse, South Lanarkshire, St Ninian’s is believed to be a 9th century foundation, although the ruined church visible today dates from at least the late 17th century, when it was noted that it was in disrepair. Standing within a walled enclosure, the churchyard contains 425 memorials ranging from the late 17th century to the first half of the 20th century and it is managed by South Lanarkshire Council. Boasting a fine collection of 18th century carved gravestones showing emblems of mortality and immortality as well as trade symbols. Among the collection of gravestones are two Covenanter’s memorials. 2.3 iv Stonehouse Cemetery Founded in 1906, the cemetery lies on the edge of Stonehouse, South Lanarkshire, in a rural setting. Designed as a lawn cemetery, the site is rectangular in form and bounded by a decorative perimeter wall while the interior is laid out around a simple geometric central feature focussing on the war memorial accessed from the main pathway with the rest of the site laid out in a grid formation. It is landscaped with continuous borders, evergreen trees and flowerbeds near the main entrance. Around 577 memorials are found within the cemetery, which is managed by South Lanarkshire Council. 2.3 v Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery The ruinous old church of Glassford, situated in South Lanarkshire, stands about half a mile to the East of the modern village and comprises a churchyard containing around 156 memorials that span the 18th to 20th centuries. An adjacent modern cemetery contains 150 gravestones and both are in the care of the local authority. The churchyard boasts a fine collection of 18th century gravestones, including one with a rare 'Tree of Life' symbol carving. Additionally, there is a large mural monument commemorating a

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Covenanter, William Gordon of Earlstoun standing against the west wall of the church. 2.3 vi Dalserf Churchyard Dalserf churchyard is the only site within the survey to be associated with an active church. The site, located in an attractive rural village in South Lanarkshire, contains around 347 gravestones dating from the 18th century to the modern day. Among these memorials are a number of gravestones relating to the area's Covenanting past, while a hogback stone, likely of 10th or 11th century AD date, offers evidence of an early foundation for the site. 2.3 vii Mauldslie Estate Private Burial Ground Situated in South Lanarkshire, immediately South-‐west of Carluke and close to the River Clyde, the Mauldslie burial ground is on a tree-‐covered mound that once lay within the estate of Mauldslie Castle. The graveyard and access steps to it remain privately owned by the family, while the hill on which the graveyard sits is owned by the nearby householder through whose garden the site is accessed. A lych gate marks the entrance to the 19th century burial ground, which includes two burial enclosures and three carved pedestals stones. 2.3 viii New Lanark Burial Ground This is an unusual site established by the utopian socialists David Dale and Robert Owen as a non-‐ denominational burial ground for the planned industrial village of New Lanark. The burial ground is located on the steep side of the Clyde valley in a wooded setting. Its gravestones date from the late 18th Century until 1900 and are unusual in the absence of carvings and, in some cases, inscriptions (only 23 from 120 stones recorded at the site are inscribed). The site is unenclosed and there are no built features except the headstones and a single ledger stone. The site is owned by New Lanark Trust.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Figure 1: Map showing the location of CAVLP Historic Graveyards (Reproduction by permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of HMSO. © Crown copyright and database right 2011. All rights reserved. Ordnance Survey Licence number 100020730)

2.4 Considerations for graveyards falling outside the CAVLP boundary or definition of historic graveyards There are instances, like Carluke, where a parish falls partly within but also partly outside the CAVLP area and its parish churchyard lies in the portion outwith the CAVLP boundary. The information that these sites contain is able to inform on the historical and cultural development of the Clyde and Avon Valley. Additionally, in some cases, there may be direct historical or cultural links between graveyards within and graveyards outside the Partnership boundary. For example, South Dalzell Parish Churchyard contains stones moved from Dalzell mausoleum. In other cases, sites may be linked through shared attributes; for example, on Lord Belhaven’s estate there is a pet cemetery, as on the Dalzell Estate. There are many churchyards nearby which have Covenanter memorials, for example, Carluke, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. Additionally, prehistoric burial sites, such as cairns, or archaeological sites known only from documentary evidence are also part of the rich burial heritage of the CAVLP area. Future research and interpretive projects may also benefit making links to graveyards outside the CAVLP dataset. 2.5 A note on graveyard names and site types Two issues made identifying sites in the CAVLP area a less straightforward exercise: 1. Firstly, a single site may be known by more than one name. Cambusnethan, St Michael’s churchyard, for example, is variously known as Kirknethan Kirkyard, Kirkhill Burial Ground and the Covenanters’ Graveyard. In such cases, this report

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

uses CANMORE site names (and any alternative names are noted on Form 1 of the Graveyard recording forms in Appendix 1). 2.

A second factor contributing to confusion over site identities is the inconsistent use of the term churchyards, cemeteries and burial grounds. These are not interchangeable terms but denote specific and distinct types of burial sites. a) A churchyard (or kirkyard) is an area for burials established by a church, even if this building no longer survives; b) Cemeteries were established from 19th century onward for public use, usually by a municipal body or private company and have a designed layout; c) A burial ground is a burial site that was established for use by a particular group, for example a specific family or institution and is not under the authority of the church. This report uses ‘graveyards’ as an umbrella term for a range of different types of burial site.

St Patrick’s Churchyard, Dalzell Estate has a good variety of inscription lettering styles.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

3.0 Documenting the Graveyards 3.1 Are the CAVLP sites included in the main national / regional heritage lists and graveyard inventories?

Table 1: Summary of graveyard entries in national and regional lists

Not all sites are known within national lists Currently, not all of the CAVLP graveyards appear in CANMORE (the main record of archaeological and architectural heritage in Scotland). New Lanark Burial Ground, for example, is surprisingly not included, despite being within a World Heritage Site. Similarly, there are no records of the pet cemetery on the Dalzell Estate, Stonehouse Cemetery or Glassford Cemetery. As the cemeteries at Glassford and Stonehouse are currently in use for burial, entries on both are found in the Directory of the Institute of Cemetery and Crematoria Management (ICCM). Future A ction: Inform the RCAHMS of sites not included in CANMORE

Dalzell Estate Pet ‘Cemetery’.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Existing information is not usually comprehensive enough to document what is to be found at sites The accuracy2 and comprehensiveness of information held in the datasets consulted varies considerably. While the Listed Building descriptions for Cambusnethan, Dalzell and Dalserf provide highly detailed descriptions of the buildings, and more limited information on the churchyards, the descriptions for Stonehouse and Glassford Churchyards in contrast are, respectively, ‘Ruin’ and ‘Dated 1633’. The Scottish Association of Family History Societies (SAFHS) Inventory proved the most comprehensive dataset in the sense that it included each of the eight CAVLP graveyards. However, as very few details have been added these records are of limited value and additionally they fail to include details of all memorial inscription surveys. CANMORE and WOSAS descriptions are generally very similar and strong on identifying when a site first appears in documentary sources and in providing details of what was visible on the ground during any previous field visits. However, the focus of such fieldwork tends to be the church or any early carved stones, rather than the churchyard itself.

Left: Remains of Stonehouse Old Parish Church. Right: Detail of sundial on Glasshouse Old Parish Church

For each of the graveyards, the data collated during the scoping surveys significantly enhances the comprehensiveness and accuracy of existing records in each of the inventories consulted. Therefore, the ability to draw an initial understanding of the cultural values denoted by the CAVLP sites is limited if undertaken solely as desktop exercise. Future Action: Send the graveyard site recording forms to relevant bodies so that CANMORE, WOSAS, SAFHS and SCRAN entries can be expanded and / or corrected.

2 Mauldslie spelt as Maudslie in the SAFHS inventory and the dates given for all of the Stonehouse sites are wrong creating confusion between sites and their records; incorrect site types for Cambusnethan cross shaft and Dalzell medieval stone coffin and cover are used in CANMORE (cross-‐ slab, long-‐cist); WOSAS entry for Glassford Parish church incorrectly suggests there is a surrounding churchyard with a stone to the Covenanter William Gordon (this is in the old Churchyard); and the SCRAN entry for several gravestones at St Ninians Churchyard suggests that they are at the new church on Vicar’s Road, rather than at the Old Churchyard at Manse Road.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

3.2 What survey records exist for the CAVLP sites? This study sought to establish what survey records exist within the public domain to document the eight graveyard sites to help develop a better understanding of their significance and condition.

Table 2: Summary of graveyard surveys and other records

3.3 Assessment of comprehensiveness of current records The records are valuable but are of their time in terms of recording standards and technology All existing records are valuable as they provide some level of documentation of the recent development of a site, which contributes to our understanding of the graveyard. This is especially true in cases where information no longer survives on the ground. For example at Glassford churchyard, an earlier Memorial Inscription (MI) survey provides details of stones no longer legible. Meanwhile at Dalzell, a Betty Willsher photograph documents two stones since lost from the graveyard wall. In general, the date of survey records spans the 1970s to the early 2000s and this influences both recording standards used (and thus the comprehensiveness of records) and the technology available. For example, the majority of CAVLP graveyards lack a photographic survey, as previously digital technology wasn’t so accessible. 3 The critique that follows by necessity concentrates on the limitations of current records in order to highlight priorities for future survey work.

3 A CD of images produced by John Kennedy is held at LFHS centre. This disc couldn’t be consulted

during the scoping study and so it is not clear whether the photographs assist in the documentation of the CAVLP graveyards.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Variability in approaches to recording memorial inscriptions (MI) Not all MI surveys of the CAVLP sites meet current recording standards. Modern MI surveys no longer have a cut-‐off date of 1855 (unlike the Scottish Genealogy Society’s survey of Dalzell) and record all information from every surviving stone, rather in the past where only a summary of key biographical details was taken (see for example, the surveys carried out by the Lanarkshire Family History Society). When MIs are transcribed as part of a survey that also records gravestone material, design and condition, more details are also usually taken for the inscription. This includes information on the use of capital and lower case letters and line breaks. Future Action: Resurvey sites as necessary to ensure MI meet current SAFHS and Archaeology Scotland’s Carved Stones Adviser standards. Ensure previous and future surveys are cross-‐referenced. Gaps in recording gravestone material, design and condition At only three sites have the gravestones been surveyed using a more archaeological approach that seek to make a full record of their appearance. At Dalzell churchyard, the Motherwell Heritage Society initially recorded stones as part of Historic Scotland’s Carved Stone Decay in Scotland pilot project. However, this approach was abandoned part way through as it proved too resource intensive. At New Lanark, the heavily damaged, non-‐standard design and sunken nature of the gravestones present a challenge for volunteers to record. Consequently our capacity to apply their information to assess gravestone significance or condition is limited, particularly in the absence of a full photographic survey. At St Ninian’s, Stonehouse, the gravestone recording forms capture many details of gravestone designs (such as monument type and presence of carved symbols) but unfortunately this is not consistently followed for every stone. While John Young’s accompanying photographs are likely to capture much design information, the collection is not available for public consultation. Future Action: Complete full gravestone surveys at sites not previously recorded, following an established survey method (see 3.6). Create gravestone typologies for Stonehouse Churchyard and New Lanark Burial Ground. Many site plans don’t link up with other records Some form of a site plan exists for all graveyards except for the pet cemetery on the Dalzell Estate. A rapid field assessment suggests a number of the stones at New Lanark appear to have moved from their position as plotted in the 1980s. An initial comparison also suggests the two North Lanarkshire Council (NLC) graveyard plans do not include all of the Headstone at Glassford Churchyard

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

gravestones present at the sites. Additionally, the NLC plan for Dalzell does not include the tombs of Lord and Lady Hamilton situated next to the Mausoleum. The South Lanarkshire Council-‐owned churchyards have been electronically surveyed and the resultant plans combine the positions of all lairs and gravestones. However, the stones aren’t numbered, preventing an easy matching up of any gravestone with MI or other surveys. Other plans are numbered and link the location of stones to gravestone records, including the two surveys at Stonehouse Churchyard and New Lanark Burial Ground. Additionally, the Scottish Genealogy Society MI surveys include a very basic sketch to map out the location of stones but include those stones which have been transcribed. Future Action: Resurvey sites as necessary to ensure the position of all gravestones and key features are plotted. Ensure gravestones are numbered to link MI and other gravestone surveys. Existing photographic surveys are of limited availability As noted, most of the graveyards are lacking a full photographic record. In addition to those sites which not been photographed at all, some only have a partial coverage. A former member of the Dalzell Heritage Trust reported that the RCAHMS were unable to complete their high quality survey of Cambusnethan’s medieval grave-‐slabs and only a selection of stones have been photographed at New Lanark . It lay beyond the scope of this study to research the extent of pictorial evidence for sites, but anecdotal findings are that collections of images are held by a variety of sources including John Young, Dane Love of the Scottish Covenanters’ Memorial Association and Carluke Parish History Society, as well as publications such as Wilson’s 1937 volume ‘A History of Lanarkshire’. Future Action: Undertake a photographic survey of all sites, ensure this matches up w ith any existing gravestones numbering and site plans. Specialist Studies Other surveys can be helpful to understand the significance of particular features in the graveyards. These include Betty Willsher’s important collection of photographs and corresponding field notes, identifying significant C18th gravestones within the Lanarkshire area, and Northlight’s report describing the recent community excavation linked to the hogback stone at Dalserf. Hogback stone at Dalserf At only two sites has gravestone recording data been developed further. John Young, in his series of publications on Stonehouse Churchyard, documents the survey aims, methods and findings to document the churchyard’s main points of interest and its importance to a local audience. Mr Young's subsequent research work has also looked at the early establishment of the church and

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

churchyard site at Stonehouse. Dalzell Heritage Trust, meanwhile, created a leaflet as part of their efforts to attract visitors to Cambusnethan and describe the site’s history as well as its most important gravestones and buildings. Future Action: Investigation of lettering styles (with particular focus on Dalzell and New Lanark) and creation of a typology of gravestone form and decoration (with a specific analysis of New Lanark to establish how many stones are likely to have been professionally produced). Carry out projects as part of a future volunteer activity and site conservation programmes (see Appendix 5). Natural heritage surveys very limited While there is a significant bias towards recording genealogical information and built heritage, only a handful of sites have seen any work on their natural heritage assets. John Young has drawn up a list of plants in Stonehouse churchyard, while John Douglass has carried out lichen surveys at Stonehouse, Glassford and Dalserf churchyards. Future Action: Undertake general habitat surveys at all sites, and lichen surveys at those graveyards currently without one. Complete specialist survey as indicated from initial survey findings. Carry out natural heritage count projects as part of a future volunteer activity programme. 3.4 Future priorities • Priority site: Cambusnethan. Now facing a high level of threat and lacking any previous survey, a record of Cambusnethan is required as a matter of urgency. St Michael’s Churchyard, Cambusnethan Priority action: urgent. Photograph all sites as a means of detecting changes since any previous gravestone or MI surveys (or when plans were created). Photographs should be linked to site plans and cross-‐referenced to the numbering sequence used in existing surveys. Details about the site, stone reference number and which face is being

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

photographed should be documented. Ideally, a photographic survey of a gravestone should comprise each face (including top of headstones) as well as demonstrating the its immediate setting within the graveyard. If possible, photographs should be geotagged, that is, taken using a GPS-‐enabled camera that will record its position. •

Priority action: necessary. Ensure that all sites have the following surveys, as a minimum, to provide a desirable level of documentation (and where existing information exists this should be checked, corrected and further details added as necessary): 1. A site plan showing position of all main features such as gravestones (including numbers) buildings, enclosures, paths, gates and trees; 2. A full record of each gravestone’s position, materials used in its construction, monument class and style, decoration and inscription using a proforma recording sheet or database. Ideally this will follow an established method (see 3.6); 3. A photographic survey of gravestones, buildings, enclosures, paths, gates and trees; 4. Lichen surveys for high priority graveyards (Cambusnethan, Dalzell and Mauldslie).

•

Priority action: desirable 1. Record buildings, walls and structures. Priority sites are the Cambusnethan (mausolea), Glassford Churchyard (church gable, attached walled enclosures and boundary wall), Stonehouse Churchyard (gable, gravedigger’s shed and boundary wall), Dalzell churchyard (boundary wall) and Mauldslie (lych gate); 2. Lichen surveys at medium priority sites (New Lanark and Stonehouse Cemetery); 3. General habitat surveys at all sites; 4. Drawings / rubbings of any gravestone decoration unable to be clearly photographed; 5. Locating and recording buried gravestones (priority sites are Cambusnethan, Dalzell, New Lanark and Stonehouse Churchyard). 6. Specialist studies including an investigation of lettering styles (priority sites Dalzell and New Lanark), creation of a gravestone typology (priority sites New Lanark and Stonehouse Churchyard). Carry out other projects as part of a future volunteer activity and site conservation programmes (see Appendix 5).

3.5 Guidance on disseminating information Making the survey accessible is crucial. The survey archive should be logically organised and copies of information made available for public consultation through local libraries, regional archive centres and national repositories such as the RCAHMS. As a case in point, Dalzell Heritage Trust is no longer active and the whereabouts of their records and survey data is unknown as it was never lodged with local libraries or the RCAHMS. To widen awareness of a survey project, an entry can be submitted to Archaeology Scotland’s ‘Discovery and Excavation in Scotland’. The RCAHMS uses Discovery and Excavation in Scotland as means of enhancing their CANMORE database with new information and research. Therefore, any graveyard surveys reported through Discovery and Excavation will be included in the national database.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Where opportunities exist advantage should be taken of including in the publications dealing with one interest area to highlight other graveyard values. An excellent example of this is the publication of MIs from Crawfordjohn Churchyard, funded by the Crawfordjohn Heritage Venture Trust. In addition to the MIs the booklet includes SLC Cemeteries and Churchyards Habitat Action Plan (not current) and a list of lichens found in the churchyard, which identifies rare lichens with photographs. In addition, the CAVLP website, along with those of other stakeholders and local interest groups, such as a local church or heritage society, offer a useful medium for making records available. Copies of work should also be distributed to project partners. Copies of the graveyard recording forms (Appendix 1) should be offered to all persons interviewed as part of this study. As well as promoting new surveys, it is important to correct and update existing records, particularly those held in national or regional repositories such as the RCAHMS, Scottish Genealogical Society or WoSAS. 3.6 Guidance on creating new records Confusion over location is a common error in graveyard and burial ground entries. Therefore it is important when creating new records to provide not just the site’s name but to also cite its CANMORE database number (where one exists). When dealing with a previously recorded burial ground, verifying the accuracy of existing information is a valuable exercise as this helps improve the quality of data. National bodies such as the RCAHMS are often unable to detect factual errors in their data unless mistakes or changes since previous surveys are highlighted. When submitting a new survey it is important to ensure the data is cross-‐referenced to any earlier records. Equally clearly stating the methodology adopted ensures others may easily re-‐trace the recording process and thinking behind the interpretation of the results. This is particularly important to allow others to use your work for research or perhaps develop a project further. Gravestone and Graveyard recording methods: • Archaeology Scotland’s Carved Stones Adviser Project developed several forms for recording gravestones and graveyards supported by the following guidance which can be downloaded for free from www.scottishgraveyards.org.uk o An Introduction to Graveyard Recording booklet o How to Fill Out the Gravestone Recording Forms manual o Making a graveyard plan guidance sheet • Mytum, H. 2000. Recording and Analysing Graveyards, Practical Handbook in Archaeology 15, Council for British Archaeology (York)

•

Willsher, B. 1985. How to Record Scottish Graveyards, Council for Scottish Archaeology (Edinburgh)

4.0 Graveyard Surveys This section: • Focuses on the approach and methods used to survey the eight CAVLP graveyards; • Sets out the result of the natural heritage desk-‐top survey.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

4.1 Overview From February to April 2013, Dr Susan Buckham and Fiona Fisher visited all eight graveyards to record their current condition and management. Fieldwork also helped to identify initial conservation needs. Field visits lasted from around a half-‐day to a whole day, depending on the site’s size. In each case, permission to visit was secured beforehand and landowners or managers invited to meet on-‐site. During the site visits a five-‐part survey form was completed for each graveyard. A photographic record complimented the recording sheets, while annotated map extracts served to locate significant features. During fieldwork, Dr Susan Buckham led on recording of gravestones and Fiona Fisher took the lead on recording the landscape and natural heritage, which included annotating site survey plans. Survey work produced four specific outputs: 1. Individual site record forms, which collate the main details about a graveyard (Appendix 1); 2. Individual graveyard conservation action plans (set out within each site record); 3. Individual site survey plans (Appendix 2); 4. Phase 1 Habitat Survey (Appendix 3). 4.2 Survey limitations The survey is designed to scope out the potential significance and the initial conservation, repair and interpretation needs of the graveyards, including natural heritage interest as applicable. However, the survey represents a snapshot of a site on a single day. Returning at different times of year or at weekends will doubtlessly produce additional information on management and access, particularly landscape management, flora and fauna present and public use. Therefore, the conservation strategy (and associated records) represents a preliminary study. To develop the conservation planning process at these sites there needs to be further expert surveys (see Chapter 7). 4.3 Design of graveyard field survey forms Specifically designed to aid rapid survey, these forms provide a standard and consistent approach between sites. Based on those used by the Carved Stones Adviser Project, the forms used here are tailored to the needs of the strategy, capturing information on: • Site details: status, any designations and current use; • Access and landscape context: the landscape character of the context in which each graveyard sits was noted (and details also included on site maps). Categories are based on observations and on the Clyde Valley Landscape Character Assessment (land Use Consultants 1999). This is expressed as National/ Regional/ Local type; • Details on setting and associated sites: extracted from existing records (e.g CANMORE, WOSAS, Historic Scotland Listed Building Descriptions, SCRAN); • Site description: covering site layout and landscape, including any structures, with Listed building and other descriptions checked on the ground. Actual, as well as potential habitat in vegetation, gravestones, walls and structures was noted; • Summary of gravestones and grave furniture: by form, decoration, material and date and Listed Building and other descriptions including (Scottish War Graves Project, Statistical Accounts of Scotland, Martyr Graves of Scotland, and Monuments and Memorial Inscriptions of Scotland) checked on the ground;

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

•

Graveyard Condition: a checklist to describe and assess current condition and management, which includes details of gravestone movement, damage or stone deterioration patterns (following ICOMOS glossary); grass and vegetation management, repairs or previous conservation and evidence of anti-‐social use. Forms incorporate information from interviews with graveyard managers and other stakeholders that identify previous work or issues known to affect the sites’ condition.

Following site assessment, a list of recommended works was created. This outlines the various urgent, desirable and long-‐term management aims for the site visited. Any site-‐ specific factors taken into account were noted. Recommended actions, added initially during survey, were refined once all sites had been visited. 4.4 Graveyard maps Prior to fieldwork, SNH provided under license A3 MasterMaps extracts at various scales (scale lines are shown on each survey plan) the same scale. Additionally, plans showing the position of gravestones for every site except Mauldslie Private burial ground were available from both local authorities and the New Lanark Trust. The survey plans were annotated during fieldwork to show access, entrances, boundaries and other key built features, as well as trees and management issues observed. Any additional features not indicated on the map were plotted in by eye. After fieldwork, the maps and aerial photos were imported into publisher as jpgs. Information was plotted on the basis of the Master map, aerial photos and site survey data at the same scale in a publisher file. Although this is not a geographical information system (GIS), this approach still enabled survey data to be captured and presented at a suitable level. It would not, for instance be appropriate to generate quantities of boundary wall repairs or gravestone repairs from this survey as a more detailed survey would first be required in order to draw up a repairs programme. However, the annotated survey plans illustrate the scope of the conservation interest, features, condition and issues clearly and concisely. Mauldslie Burial Ground 4.5 A note on recording natural heritage and landscape The landscape and habitat survey sought to identify features within the graveyard and, where relevant, green corridors that could link to graveyards. This work formed part of the much broader exercise focussing on the conservation of cultural heritage described above (4.3).

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Churchyards, churches and cemeteries are man-‐made areas that can provide valuable habitats supporting many species of plants and animals. As far as it is known there are no overall surveys of CAVLP graveyards and the significance and importance of these areas for species survival is unknown. In other areas of the United Kingdom, these areas are known to be habitats for lichens, mosses, ferns, flowering plants, butterflies and other insects, birds, and bats. Ground flora Phase 1 Habitat Survey information was collected during field visits based on a visual assessment across the site. The data is described in Appendix 3. Surveys involved identifying the ground flora or grassland type and establishing the presence or otherwise of indicator species, classifying the grassland. In addition, trees and shrubs were identified and the presence of ivy, mosses, lichens and other vegetation noted on gravestones, walls and buildings. The presence of kerb-‐sets and of lime and cement pointing on walls was noted as an indication of habitat potential. Trees, hedges and shrubs The overlay of aerial photography onto map bases (4.4) allowed tree positions to be plotted, while survey notes and photographs enabled estimations of trunk diameter and position to be made. However, the extent of the tree canopies is not depicted as, in cases where there are large trees, like Dalzell and New Lanark, this would have obscured much of the site. 4.6 Natural heritage desktop study A review was carried out to ascertain the landscape and the natural heritage designations in the area. Using the SNH Sitelink website4, designated protected sites were searched in three categories: 1. International significance (Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas) 2. National importance (National Nature Reserves and Sites and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) 3. Local importance (Sites which have valuable natural heritage in a local contexts such as Local Nature Reserves, of which there are none known near the graveyard sites) The Clyde and Avon valleys are rich in biodiversity with a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), the RSPB Baron’s Haugh and Clyde Valley woodlands National Nature Reserve (NNR) and various Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) relating to the rivers, flood plains and the woodlands. Designations nearby include:

4 http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/sitelink/index.jsp 23

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Table 3: Summary of natural designations The Clyde Valley Woodlands SAC is particularly related to the river and the SSSI to the wooded valleys in base-‐rich soils (supporting oak and yew and ash woodland) that characterise the Clyde and Avon valley. Protected species were looked at on North Lanarkshire Council’s and South Lanarkshire Council’s websites. The South Lanarkshire Biodiversity Strategy does not contain lists of local priority species. Instead, all species that are viewed as a priority nationally are considered to be a priority locally. Priority species recorded in the area include birds, badgers, bats, water voles, otters, common lizards, slow worms and adders. North Lanarkshire Council5 has identified the following priority species and habitats (which includes graveyards and cemeteries): North Lanarkshire Council Priority Species/Habitats • Bogs habitat: bogs; small pearl-‐bordered fritillary • Farmland habitat: barn owl; floodplain and grazing marsh; redshank, lapwing and snipe; bean goose • Freshwater habitat: rivers and burns; otter; great crested newt; Atlantic salmon; water vole • Urban habitat: bats; churchyards and cemeteries; swift; school grounds; parks and public open spaces • Woodland habitat: bluebell; woodland; willow tit Access to the countryside and linking graveyards, which is potentially important to re-‐ connect communities and visitors to the area with these graveyards, was also assessed by desktop study. The Clyde Walkway Core Path is near Dalzell, Cambusnethan, Mauldslie, Dalserf and New Lanark. The Avon Valley Core Path designate is close to Stonehouse and could potentially link to Glassford. In addition to these major routes, there are further actual and potential local trails offering potential linkages

5 http://www.northlanarkshire.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=12705

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

5.0 Graveyard Condition and Management 5.1 Management context In the CAVLP area, South Lanarkshire Council owns and cares for four sites (Stonehouse Cemetery, Stonehouse Churchyard, Dalserf Churchyard and Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery) and maintains New Lanark Burial Ground on behalf of its owner, the New Lanark Trust. Mauldslie burial ground is privately owned by the family and there is no local manager. The grounds of the Dalzell Estate, within which the churchyard and pet cemetery lie, are owned and managed by North Lanarkshire Council, however, the mausoleum itself is privately owned by the Hamilton family. Ownership of St Michael’s Churchyard, Cambusnethan (also known as Netherton graveyard) is unclear. While a local farmer owns the land on which the site is located, burials continued to take place here into the 1950s during which time North Lanarkshire Council (or its predecessor burgh council) appears to have been the burial authority. Interviews with graveyard owners, managers and neighbours indicated the following: • Not all of the CAVLP graveyards sites are regularly maintained. The sites at Cambusnethan, Dalzell and Mauldslie are not subject to regular maintenance programmes; • None of the sites have any conservation management planning in place. Specifically, there are no graveyard conservation management plans; • Within local authorities there is little difference in the maintenance of historic and modern graveyards. In South Lanarkshire Council following advice from their Ranger Service suggested historic sites are managed with a different attitude towards vegetation such as lichen and ivy. • There is little to no community involvement in the day-‐to-‐day management of the sites. For example, there are no graveyard ‘friends of’ groups, although staff from South Lanarkshire Bereavement Services are in contact with the Fabric Convener at Dalserf Church; • Anti-‐social behaviour is only a significant problem at Cambusnethan. The increasing level of footfall enjoyed at Dalzell has begun to deter this type of behaviour from the graveyard there; • Not all of the sites have health and safety testing in place. In general, memorial stability testing programmes are only carried out at sites owned by the local authorities. Constraints local authorities face in managing historic graveyards North Lanarkshire Council operates the largest cemetery services area in Scotland and South Lanarkshire Council manages a total of 54 graveyards. In discussion, cemetery managers for both local authorities pointed to a number of factors that constrain the ways in which they can manage the historic graveyards in their areas. Both cemetery managers view historic graveyards as cultural heritage assets. Particular issues faced include: •

Limited staff resources available to develop project plans and secure external funding.

Stonehouse cemetery has turreted vehicle and pedestrian entrances, which strongly contribute to the quality of the designed landscape.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

The need to secure match funding from council budgets; Stiff competition for funds within the allocation of departmental resources. CAVLP graveyards compete with other sites of historic importance located outside the CAVLP boundary, with graveyards adjacent to active churches and sites regularly used for burial. Priority tends to be given to those sites that are more frequently used and visited. Additionally, graveyards are among a range of services delivered by the department, meaning that there is significant competition for resources, which need to be balanced over a wide area; • Remedial works require additional finance to be secured beyond the department’s normal operating budget. While capital funding exists for extensions, footpaths and new cemeteries, this is not available for raising the standards of current sites. • On-‐going budget cuts may make it difficult to keep up the present standard of service in the future. 5.2 Summary of graveyard site survey findings on current management and condition and the future potential of sites The graveyard recording forms capture details of current maintenance and management at each site (Appendix 1). The table below provides an overview of this information measured against nine key criteria, with a site’s performance measured as Strong, Weak or Neutral (or a combination thereof). A second rating is given to indicate the potential of a graveyard in these areas if improvements are made to their future maintenance and management. • Strong indicates good current practice • Neutral indicates scope for improvement • Weak indicates considerable room to improve As Table 4 shows, all sites possess the potential to score more highly in at least five areas. Generally, the highest priorities focus on resolving any access and ownership issues to enable other work to take place on site (Cambusnethan and Mauldslie). Grounds maintenance and site management follow as priorities on the basis that these may actively be contributing to the deterioration of the landscape and built features. Priority Graveyards for Conservation and repair actions The highest priority graveyards in the CAVLP groups are (in deceasing order): 1. Cambusnethan 2. Dalzell, Stonehouse Churchyard and Glassford Cemetery and Churchyard; 3. Dalserf Churchyard and New Lanark Burial Ground 4. Stonehouse Cemetery. 5. Mauldslie Burial Ground (based on low potential values) The use of swags with bones is a • •

carved feature unique to Lanarkshire. This headstone at St Michael’s Churchyard, Cambusnethan is unusual with its swag with skull and crossbones below.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Key: W = weak; N = neutral S = strong Table 4: Summary of graveyard survey information showing a site’s current status against an assessment of future potential

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

5.3 Summary of the condition and potential of individual graveyards The following sections offer an overview of the issues facing each graveyard and set out the key actions needed. Details of each site’s condition and specific site action plans are set out in Appendices 1 and 2. 5.3.1 Cambusnethan, St Michael’s Churchyard Lack of clarity over ownership and responsibility for the churchyard, along with the main access route to the site, are the critical issues influencing future conservation at this site. The absence of any positive management, including regular maintenance, has enabled significant damage to take place. This affects the stonework as well as the landscape itself. In part, cattle and vandalism are the root causes but weathering, erosion and self-‐seeded vegetation are also agents for further deterioration. Within the CAVLP group, Cambusnethan is likely to require the greatest level of resources to address its issues. Left: The ground surface is very uneven due to cattle roaming unchecked across the site. Many gravestones have been pushed or fallen over and masonry and broken stones are scatted through out the site. Right: Vandalism seen during fieldwork included fire-‐raising, graffiti, fly-‐tipping, broken beer bottles and cans and damage to stonework by air rifles.

At Cambusnethan, the surviving built heritage and the archaeological potential are exceptionally strong. It is the site of an early medieval cross-‐shaft find, contains a large collection of medieval grave-‐slabs and includes four Category B-‐listed mausolea (the earliest may include masonry from St Michael’s Church). The site is in an attractive natural setting on the valley floor and there is scope to enhance the natural heritage interest by linking the graveyard to the nearby standing water, river and green corridors (Clyde Walkway, Clyde Valley Woodland). At present the habitat value is weak. This is largely through overgrazing although, conversely, it is possible that the hoof prints have created a niche habitat. Volunteer graveyard projects could help improve the condition and understanding of this site while strengthening its links to community as part of a stakeholder-‐led strategy to tackle anti-‐social use. Cambusnethan: Ownership, access issues and any structural and health and safety issues must be resolved before the considerable built and natural heritage potential can be realised. Urgent actions include keeping stock off the site, reinstating the ground to a condition that can be regularly maintained and making a full record of the gravestones.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

5.3.2 Dalzell Estate, St Patrick’s Churchyard, Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum and Pet Cemetery Dalzell offers strong built heritage value and is unique in the CAVLP group because it comprises three different types of burial sites (churchyard, mausoleum and pet cemetery). Each possesses their own significant aspects but share the common feature of being set within a designed landscape where they play an integral role. Already a popular tourist attraction, the Dalzell Estate contains attractive built and natural heritage features and strong natural amenity. With improved interpretation and signage there is great potential for the three burial grounds to become better linked to each other, and to their landscape setting, but also to graveyards and carved stones in the locality.

Left: Within the churchyard ruderals need to be managed to habitat enrichment. Right: This site has surprisingly few 18th century carvings.

With no regular regime, the maintenance of all three Dalzell sites is weak and each requires tidying up to restore general order. Specifically, builders’ rubble needs to be removed from inside the mausoleum and the earliest gravestone (1608) moved so it can be more easily viewed. In the churchyard, a programme of repairs and conservation is needed to address fallen, sunken and broken gravestones and to clear masonry rubble. At the time of survey the pet cemetery was heavily encroached by fallen branches and vegetation debris. Dalzell Estate: Repairs to gravestones, general tidying, developing interpretation and establishing regular grounds maintenance appropriate for a historic graveyard are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan for the Estate as a whole.

5.3.3 St Ninian’s Churchyard, Stonehouse The churchyard contains one of best collection of C18th carvings in Lanarkshire. The B-‐ Listed church ruin, with bellcote, and the Covenanter’s memorials add to the site’s built heritage value and attractiveness. A programme of repairs and conservation is needed to address fallen, sunken and broken gravestones. The site has benefitted from previous community involvement, which created a body of information to be drawn upon and developed as the basis for creating interpretative materials to cover both the built and natural heritage.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Left: One of the C18th headstone, identified by Betty Willsher as contributing to the importance of this site currently lies on the ground where it is vulnerable. Right: A conservation management plan will help ensure that vegetation is regularly managed before it damages historic stonework.

The grass is impoverished but habitat potential exists in the mature trees and the wall around edge of the site. There is potential to increase and improve biodiversity by limiting, and ideally, removing the use of herbicides (also assisting stone preservation), planting bulbs, wildflower plugs or conversion to a wildflower meadow. A conservation management plan is needed to ensure appropriate materials and techniques are used for repairs (unlike some previous examples). This will help prioritise future work so that previously identified actions to improve the churchyard are acted upon in the future. Stonehouse Churchyard: Repairs to gravestones, improving the biodiversity and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed through a conservation management plan. The plan will identify how to best deal with constrained resources and still to make sure improvements are on-‐going rather than one-‐off actions 5.3.4 Stonehouse Cemetery Attractive and well tended, this cemetery is nonetheless vulnerable in the respect that the significance of C20th graveyards is only just beginning to become recognised. The landscape appears to survive with a high degree of integrity from its original design and includes a good amount of grave ephemera (such as shells and lair number markers) but these are vulnerable to loss and damage within current maintenance regimes. What is important here is the burial landscape as a whole – rather than any individual features.

Currently the natural heritage value of the site is low, grass is impoverished and there are only a few small trees. There is potential to improve biodiversity by avoiding the use of herbicides. Installing edging along paths and plots, for example, can allow grass to be mowed over and cut down on spraying. Planting low shrub borders or hedging to

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

compliment the designed layout at the entrance will enhance the amenity as well as habitat potential. Future interpretation and promotion of the cemetery will need to be sensitive to the fact the site is regularly used by the bereaved. Stonehouse Cemetery: Improving the biodiversity, implementing policies to protect built heritage values through maintenance and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed through a conservation management plan. 5.3.5 Dalserf Parish Churchyard This is an attractive B-‐Listed churchyard and the only one in the CAVLP group with an active parish church. The graveyard’s built heritage value is enhanced through an 11th Century hogback stone, the Covenanter’s memorial and numerous 18th century carved gravestones. However, the condition of stonework is poor and many of the sandstone surfaces have deteriorated and become illegible. A programme of repairs and conservation is needed to address fallen, sunken and broken gravestones.

Left: Interpretation could link the Covenanters’ memorial to the Covenanter trail and include information on other aspects of the built and natural heritage. Right: The gravestones at Dalserf are in a worse condition than at the other CAVLP sites.

The graveyard and its setting are highly attractive and there are good views out to the Clyde valley. The church’s ‘bird-‐cage’ bellcote stands out as a local focal point. Although the graveyard habitat is relatively poor, its proximity to the River Clyde and to SSSI woodland provides potential green corridor links. There is also potential to increase and improve biodiversity by limiting, and ideally, removing the use of herbicides (which will also assist stone preservation) and through planting bulbs and wildflower plugs.

Dalserf Churchyard: Repairs to gravestones, improving the biodiversity and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed through a conservation management plan.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

5.3.6 Mauldslie Estate Private Family Burial Ground Mauldslie, the smallest graveyard in the group, dates to the 19th century and lies in the estate of the former Mauldslie Castle on top of a large hill, which documents suggest could be the site of a much earlier setting has been compromised by modern development. Access to the site is via a private garden and rhododendrons and trees now effectively obscure views in and out of the site. It has relatively strong natural heritage potential by virtue of being undisturbed and the proximity of Mauldslie Woods and Jock’s Gill Woodland (part of the Clyde valley NNR). Above: The private burial ground sits on top of a steep hill. Below: The Arts and Crafts lych gate provides access to the two 19th century burial enclosures.

In addition to the issue of ownership and access restrictions, there are physical problems posed by the steep flight of steps to the site and by the absence of existing trails linking the graveyard to other local heritage amenities. Although the built heritage value may be tempered by limited genealogical interest, the site has an unusual shape and the lych gate is a relatively uncommon feature in Scotland. However the gate is in an unstable condition and in urgent need of repair. Mauldslie Burial Ground: Urgent repairs to the lych gate, fixing broken / unstable monuments, rhododendron clearance, tree management and improving access are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan for the Estate as a whole. . 5.3.7 New Lanark Burial Ground The views from this graveyard, located within a World Heritage Site, are spectacular. However, the site’s access and condition are both weak. Situated on a steep slope, it is accessed by an un-‐made woodland path with steps. The condition of the gravestones is poor, the majority of these having fallen over, become broken, or both. The strong natural heritage of the woodland setting is compromised by the fact that the beech leaves suppress ground flora. Planting bulbs or native flowers would improve the site’s appearance, subject to consistency with ecological interests. This is a site of strong historic interest. The establishment of a non-‐denominational burial ground, as opposed to a churchyard, reflects the founders’ Utopian vision for New Lanark. Several of the gravestones here are linked to people displaced by the Highland Clearances. However, in its present form, the site may appear decidedly underwhelming to visitors.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Left: One of the 18th century headstones to a mill worker born in Caithness. Right: The site has a woodland setting with no enclosing boundary.

There is little in the way of immediate artistic or architectural interest and there are no built features, other than gravestones. Many of the stones bear no inscriptions and a few show only initials and dates. Interpretation is therefore of great importance to help visitors understand the significance of the burial ground. Equally, improved signage is required to increase access: at present, there is nothing to direct visitors from the nearby New Lanark car park, or from the church, to the graveyard. New Lanark Burial Ground: Improving access, enhancing bio-‐diversity, repairing gravestones and developing interpretation are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan for the World Heritage Site. . 5.3.8 Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery The site comprises Glassford Churchyard and Glassford Cemetery, which was added in two phases 1878 and 1982. The churchyard contains one of Lanarkshire’s best collections of C18th carvings. As these are vulnerable to damage and movement, a management policy urgently needs to be created to deal with non earth-‐fast stones. The Category B-‐Listed standing gable of the old parish church, with its sundial, and the Covenanter’s memorials add to the built heritage value and attractiveness of this site. Left: The boundary between the churchyard and cemetery may need a fence/hedge barrier to protect the public from the drop. Right: Glassford is located away from the main area of settlement and there has been limited community engagement with the graveyard.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

A programme of repairs and conservation is needed to address fallen, sunken and broken gravestones. The grass is low in diversity but could be improved by avoiding the use of herbicides (which will also assist stone preservation), planting bulbs, wildflower plugs or conversion to a wildflower meadow. Habitat potential could also be enhanced if the wall around edge of the site has its inappropriate hard cement raked out and was repointed and any insecure copings or masonry re-‐set with an appropriate lime mortar. Although Glassford Cemetery presents less historic interest it benefits from being a relatively tidy site with some hedging and shrub planting. With built and natural heritage enhancement, the site’s amenity value is potentially strong. Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery: Enhancing bio-‐diversity, repairing gravestones, control of vegetation and developing interpretation and community engagement are priorities for this site. Actions will be enhanced if executed as a result of developing and implementing a conservation management plan.

Glassford C hurchyard

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

6.0 Community Involvement 6.1 What is the community engagement with the CAVLP graveyards to date? Previous community group engagement with the CAVLP sites can be gauged from their recording work and other graveyard-‐related activities, and this information was gathered through interviews with group members and office bearers and the desk-‐top survey (chapter 3). The following summarises the work known to have been undertaken by groups in the CAVLP graveyards: Scottish Covenanter Memorial Association (SCMA) possess a remit to clean up or replace vandalised or illegible Covenanter’s stones and to provide information boards where needed. • In Glassford Churchyard, the Association held a Conventicle, erected an information plaque, funded the cleaning of a stone and planted an oak tree; • At Stonehouse Churchyard, members paid for a stone to be cleaned, while BBC Radio Scotland recorded a service they held there; • Within Dalserf churchyard, the group funded restoration and cleaning work to the martyrs’ obelisk; • The Association erected a cairn with the same inscription as the vandalised Covenanter stone at Cambusnethan in Wishaw churchyard. Dalzell Heritage Trust (DHT) is no longer active but during the 1980s and 1990s the Trust carried out a range of activities at Cambusnethan St Michael’s Churchyard including: • Producing an information leaflet to attract visitors; • Encouraging the RCAHMS to record the medieval gravestones, with the Trust cleaning the stones beforehand; • Commissioning an amateur local historian to research the site and its medieval stones; • Cleaning up the site on an annual basis, with permission of the landowner who became a member of the Trust. The landowner has since moved away. Lanarkshire Family History Society (LFHS) has published MI inscriptions for the following sites. Different volunteers to those currently undertaking MI transcribing completed the published work: • Dalzell St Patrick’s Churchyard and Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum; • Dalserf Churchyard; • Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery; • Stonehouse Churchyard (survey completed by John Young of Stonehouse Historical Group). Stonehouse Heritage Group (SHG) and John Young (local historian and founder member of the Group) have carried out a series of projects based around Stonehouse Churchyard • John Young recorded and photographed all of the gravestones and created a graveyard plan. The Group then converted the gravestone recording forms into a gravestone database that is available on their website; • The Group (and local councillor Dick Gibb) worked with the Council on three projects to raise and re-‐set fallen, failing and buried stones. The gravestone project used Community Service participants for various tasks, such as re-‐ pointing work to boundary walls and lifting stones; • The Group successfully secured £12,000 in funding from Historic Scotland for repairs to the old parish church gable end;

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

• •

•

Additionally, the Group has raised a further £10,000 at least since then through the HLF for other graveyard projects; John Young runs at least one tour of the churchyard per year, sometimes in conjunction with Doors Open Day. These tours have taken school groups into the churchyard and tours are typically very well attended; John Young’s published research spans documenting the churchyard project, placing the site within the local history of the area and more recently has sought to suggest St Ninian’s was an early Christian foundation. Additionally, the churchyard has been included in a book on local ghost tales; Stonehouse Historical Group also secured funding for the restoration and addition of missing names to the war memorial in Stonehouse Cemetery.

Tour of Stonehouse Churchyard with John Young, part of the CAVLP Living Kirkyards event.

Motherwell Heritage Society (MHS) • In 2000, the Society recorded the gravestones in St Patrick's Churchyard, Dalzell. Dalserf Church • In Partnership with Northlight Heritage, the community archaeology project ‘Hunting Hogbacks’ attracted c.20 people (either members of the church or residents from the parish) to become involved. Lasting a week or so, the project provided training in archaeological excavation. Participants were self-‐selecting and tended to have an interest and commitment to learning more about the heritage, all but one person from Larkhall, were resident in the parish; • A few years ago a corner of the churchyard used by South Lanarkshire Council for dumping cuttings was ‘reclaimed’ by the church for a memorial garden. The

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Church, with the permission of the local authority, oversaw the project and has also partially furnished another seating area to the left of the main entrance. Dalzell Estate Community Projects are organised by Gerry Lewis of North Lanarkshire Council (NLC) and partners who have carried out work involving the graveyard include: • Clydesdale Community Initiatives, a regional organisation who work with young people at risk and adults with mental health issues, have carried out strimming of the site and completed gardening work to the area in front of the mausoleum. The Initiative is currently planning lime mortar repair training (as March 2012); • Phoenix Futures, a national organisation who works with people with addiction issues, is also involved in work on the estate, in the graveyard and in the RSPB reserve. New Lanark Conservation Trust (now the New Lanark Trust) • In 1986, the Trust carried out a survey of the New Lanark Burial Ground, making records of the inscriptions and collating what information is known about the family. The survey data is held in the New Lanark Conservation Trust archives. No recent local community group involvement with either Glassford Churchyard or Mauldslie Estate Burial Ground could be established during the scoping study. An interview with an officer-‐bearer from the Carluke Parish Historical Society (CPHS) clarified that this group had not carried out work linked to any CAVLP graveyard but does hold some photographs of Mauldslie Burial Ground within its archive. 6.2 Evidence for existing public interest in the CAVLP Graveyards It is difficult to establish current public interest in the CAVLP sites. However, to try to capture a sense of this, the study considered evidence for graveyard visitor numbers and family history enquiries. Visitor numbers are hard to assess as no members of staff are based at any of the sites, however the following anecdotal evidence was forthcoming: • The owners of the house adjacent to Mauldslie Burial Ground reported around four visitors to the site per year; • The South Lanarkshire Council’s (SLC) Cemetery Manager had the impression that visitor levels at St Ninian’s are good due to the historical nature of the site and publicity generated by the local society. While Glassford in comparison attracts far fewer people. Meanwhile, the impression of Dalserf is that there are a number who visit during the week because of the historical nature of the site; • Mick Hough, owner of the house next to the access path down to Cambusnethan Churchyard, reported a small of numbers of visitors to the site annually, including family history researchers and bird watchers. However, he suggested that the site is most regularly used by youths in the summer as a place to meet and drink alcohol; • Very few visitors were encountered during the scoping study’s site visits to the graveyards, although admittedly fieldwork did take place on weekdays, out of season. Only at Dalzell and Cambusnethan were any visitors observed, where a total of about 11 people in three different groups and two separate individuals, respectively came to the site;

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Family History Enquiries Everyone interviewed reported public interest in their graveyard(s) in connection to family history, although exact numbers are hard to pin down. For example, Stonehouse Heritage Society reported receiving dozens of family history enquiries each year and noted that people send in photos of relative’s stones. The following figures are available to document families history enquires for all SLC graveyards: 2008-‐2009: 170 2009-‐2010: 196 2010-‐2011: 177 2011-‐2012: 184 2012-‐2013: 8 (as at 31/1/2013). 6.3 What is the future potential to build on local community groups’ interest? To establish the future potential of community participation in the CAVLP graveyards a series of interviews were undertaken involving members and officer bearers from heritage groups (CPHS, DHT, LFHS, MHS, SCMA, SHG) and members of staff associated with other organisations (e.g. Dalserf Church, Northlight Heritage, New Lanark Trust, NLC Dalzell Estate Volunteer Co-‐ordinator). Feedback indicated the following points: Capacity Membership and its impact on a group’s working capacity is an issue for all of the groups mentioned except SCMA (with 400 members worldwide) and for wider-‐focus work of LFHS (480 members worldwide). Other groups interviewed indicated limited resources as follows: • LFHS graveyard recorders comprise four volunteers (the youngest aged 60), who have worked together over the last six or seven years. Calls for additional volunteers at talks have proved ineffective at recruitment; • SHG describe capacity is a big issue for them and note a declining membership. The group currently has around 80 website members, while local talks attract audiences of between 30-‐40 people. However, the core of active members stands at between six to eight individuals, although for popular projects this number might rise to 10-‐20 people; • At Dalserf, there isn’t a member of the church noted as having a particular interest in the churchyard or heritage more generally. The person who formerly wrote the history of the church died in 1989 and since then, the role of church ‘historian’ remains unfilled; • DHT is no longer active and MHS no longer has an active core of volunteers to undertakes fieldwork projects to the same extent as previously. Transferable skills from groups’ wider work. All of the groups spoken to had experience in non-‐graveyard related working that could bring knowledge and skills (or indeed other resources) to benefit graveyard-‐related projects. Examples include: • CPHS has produced a detailed booklet on St Luke’s churchyard (this site is not in the CAVLP area), provided tours (attended by up to 80 people), created a disc of gravestones, and have acted as a pressure group to try to influence SLC to take action to conserve and protect the site; • SHG possess a successful track record as fundraiser for several local projects including the churchyard and cemetery. Bric-‐a-‐brac sales, membership subscriptions and local collection boxes have raised hundreds of pounds. The Group have also successfully applied to grant-‐making bodies such as the Pilgrim Trust and the HLF for several thousand pounds. The Group has its own website that members can access historical datasets from and is currently undertaking a photographic project.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

• • •

MHS produced a 'History of Dalzell' DVD in 2006. Dalserf church has previously participated in Doors Open Day. In the past SCMA have support the production of Covenanting trail leaflets and offered prizes for school projects. At Dalry, Ayrshire, the Association installed artwork to commemorate Covenanters buried there.

Repairing fallen headstones with volunteers at Stonehouse Churchyard as part of the Phoenix Project © John Young Potential areas for future collaborative working During discussion several opportunities for possible options for future projects were mooted. The list below is a summary of notes or expressions of interest (or indeed disinterest) in exploring options for future collaborative working and is not in any way a commitment to projects. • In principle, LFHS would be interested in exploring collaborative projects of mutual benefit. One area proposed was publications, now the Society prints its booklets in-‐ house. The Graveyard arm of LFHS indicated no interest in taking on other types of work to MI recoding. Indeed, they possess no spare capacity as their own area of interest takes up all the resources of their small group. However, they would be willing to entertain tweaking LFHS recording programming to include as higher priorities those CAVLP sites currently lacking full MI survey; • At Dalserf, the church has a list of inscriptions produced by LFHS to help answer Family History queries but no accompanying site plan. Ideally, the church would like to obtain some copies of MI books from LFHS on a sale or return basis, and the Minister feels that it is good to be able to promote the resource in this way. A numbered graveyard plan on the church’s website or as an information board on site was seen as highly desirable. The church hasn’t produced any information or interpretation materials on the graveyard. However, the Rev McPherson felt it would be useful for there to be something on the church in the churchyard for visitors as the building is usually locked. This is a promising area for collaborative working with another group; • The Rev McPherson also felt he could ask someone to take on the role of Dalserf ‘church historian’ (which might include the Churchyard) and that this was desirable. In discussion the Consultant suggested that CAVLP might be able to offer advice and training if needed;

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

•

CPHS main interest is in St Luke’s Kirkyard in Carluke, which is outwith the CAVLP boundary, although the CAVLP area does include the southern half of the parish. The Society currently has a full programme and workload, meaning that they possess limited capacity for taking on new projects. Despite this, the society would be interested in a wider CAVLP project which linked to St Luke’s; In the past, SCMA members have carried out grave maintenance such as weeding but in more recent times this activity has dropped off. Dane Love felt some local members of the Association may want to get involved with a CAVLP graveyard project. However, this had not been the way the organisation has tended to work in the past. SCMA would potentially be interested in getting involved with a project for the Covenanter memorial at Cambusnethan; Gerry Lewis, NLC, noted that the Dalzell Estate Community Projects is now seeking suggestions for new projects, and he felt that it might be possible for volunteers to carry out work in Cambusnethan Churchyard, as well as Dalzell; Northlight Heritage’s ‘Hunting Hogbacks’ report sets out several potential opportunities to build on the results of the 2012 project.

Repairing fallen headstones with volunteers at Stonehouse Churchyard as part of the Phoenix Project © John Young

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

6.4 Evidence for future public interest in the CAVLP Graveyards A primary indicator of potential public interest was the Living Kirkyards event organised by CAVLP held in Stonehouse on 20 April 2013. While similar events delivered by Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust and Archaeology Scotland, had managed to attract audiences of 50+ people, the event at Stonehouse garnered a far smaller audience. Disappointingly, only one or two people contacted during the scoping study and not resident in Stonehouse came along on the day. As a counterbalance, feedback from the scoping study interviews suggested that there is likely to be some level of local interest in projects for at least some of the other CAVLP graveyards: • The Rev McPherson believed that participants in the hogback project may be interested in other graveyard projects and offered to promote the CAVLP Living Kirkyards event to them. • Mick Hough, neighbour to Cambusnethan Churchyard, suggested there was strong local interest in this site and expressed interest in coming along to the CAVLP Living Kirkyards event. • Gavin MacGregor of Northlight Heritage felt their project at Dalserf proved successful because it tapped into the local communities’ general appreciation of the Clyde Valley heritage as a resource plus the proximity to a world heritage site at New Lanark and sense of place recently celebrated through a parish history publication. It is outside the scope of this study to investigate further, but it may be the points raised above suggested that more locally-‐focused events could be more effective at testing (or even developing) local interest in the graveyards. Questionnaire results As part of the Living Kirkyards event attendees were asked to complete a short questionnaire to gauge their interest in graveyard projects, as well as any past experience and potential future training needs (Appendix 6 includes an example form). A total of ten questionnaires were completed. While it is difficult to make a detailed analysis of such a small sample, some very broad trends emerged from the results that give a flavour of local opinion. • Research-‐based work emerges as the strongest area of interest, with every respondent giving this at least one hit. • Practical activities, designed to improve the built and natural heritage, also attracted a significant level of interest from respondents, with each receiving six hits. One individual noted past experience of restoring gravestones. • Markedly less interest was expressed in recording the built and natural heritage features. • Only two respondents indicated a willingness to become involved in interpretation and education activities. However, one of these individuals noted past experience in this type of work. These may be areas where additional work may be needed to stimulate greater interest or develop skills among local community groups. 6.5 Suggestions for future volunteer projects The most successful projects will match the interests of volunteers to a graveyard’s conservation needs. The list of potential projects set out below is more weighted at present to the needs of the graveyards rather than volunteers. These suggestions for future work could be offered as a menu of options to project participants. Discussion with volunteers

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

will shape the design of any work actually carried out and is likely to devise additional, alternative options. As the conservation planning process develops at the sites (see Chapter 7) the graveyard priorities are also likely to change. 1. Cambusnethan (i) Recording project: gravestone recording main task including (ii) Buried stones (iii) Geophysical survey and (iii) Building recording. After the above and gravestone repairs, stabilisation and ground repair have been completed, the next priority would be: (iv) Establishment and management of a regenerated wildflower meadow (this could involve collection of seed, sowing and management by hand weeding and scything), and the (v) Reinstatement of the dry stone dyke boundary walls (a potential training course led by a member of The National Stone Walling Association) or, if that is not feasible, replacement fencing with hedging (subject to maintenance). 2. Dalzell -‐ research and interpretation between the three sites (i) The designed landscape (ii) and The carved stones and other graveyards in locale (iii) -‐ also Check if there is a Covenanter connection. The wildlife interests of the site make this a potential site to record and conserve, following appropriate ecological surveys (iv) Insects, birds, bats and potentially newts and to help to enhance and manage the habitat, including repairing the ground, managing invasive weeds such as nettles and creeping buttercup and planting wild flower plugs. 3. Mauldslie (i) Use of archaeology, landscape and map regression to assist investigations to determine whether this is an early burial site or not. 4. Dalserf Additional research could assist in understanding the site’s early history relating to the medieval/Viking hogback stones (see Northlight report for more detailed discussion). (i) Map regression (ii) Geophysical survey (iii) Field walking (iv) Research into river and (v) Viking context in local area (vi) The aforementioned may involve additional excavation (vii) Meadows can be created from seed (potentially gathered from local sources), sown, managed and scythed by volunteers. 5. Stonehouse (i) Churchyard -‐ C18th carved stones and mason schools, geographic and chronological development, (ii) Develop interpretation from content, (iii) Family history, guided walks, (iv) Recording the old parish church, (v) Training in traditional masonry boundary walls repairs, (vi) Painting gates (vii) Meadows can be created from seed (potentially gathered from local sources), sown, managed and scythed by volunteers. 6. Glassford (i) Cemetery Management Plan with volunteers (ii) Family history, (iii) interpretation, (iv) Guided walks, (v) Recording the old parish church, (vi) Training in traditional masonry boundary walls repairs, (vii) Painting gates and railings (viii) Meadows can be created from seed (potentially gathered from local sources), sown, managed and scythed by volunteers.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Stonehouse Cemetery (i) Research on designed landscape within development of lawn cemetery aesthetic information for CMP and (ii) Develop interpretation from content, (iii) Family history and oral history, (iv) WWI Centenary events. New Lanark (i) Interpretation (ii) Photographic survey, (iii) Mow paths within, (iv) Path improvements to and from (v) Cut back nuisance vegetation (e.g. brambles, elder).

Tour of Stonehouse Churchyard with John Young, part of the CAVLP Living Kirkyards event

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

7.0 Conservation Strategy 7.1 What are the aims of the conservation strategy? The strategy sets down in a straightforward way the process for carrying out work to meet HLF Landscape Partnership outcomes for the CAVLP graveyards (see table below). The strategy draws information together to help Stakeholders identify and agree project priorities and to clarify remits and areas of responsibility for carrying out work. It can help identify opportunities for collaborative working, to add benefit to Stakeholder’s individual areas of work.

Table 5: Aims of the graveyard conservation strategy matched against HLF Landscape Partnership aims and outcomes 7.2 Why do we need a conservation strategy? The graveyard surveys indicate that the current management of the CAVLP graveyards is not fully delivering on their potential value as cultural heritage assets (Chapter 5). The conservation strategy is the first step in thinking about how to organise a programme of work to change this. Future work can help ensure CAVLP graveyards become treasured

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

spaces, sustainably cared for and passed on for future generations to enjoy. The strategy lays the groundwork for developing site conservation management plans. These plans are the fundamental tools for directing future repairs, enhancement and on-‐going maintenance of a site, in tandem with developing stronger community engagement. Conservation planning provides the means for holistic and sustainable management A conservation management plan offers a practical way of drawing information together to understand a graveyard’s historical development, to balance its different areas of interest and to identify the key aims for the future. It provides a framework where all aspects of a site’s significance (such as any archaeological, architectural, landscape and ecological qualities) are balanced in accordance to their relative value. Evaluation should be based on sound knowledge of a graveyard’s most important features as well as an assessment of the most vulnerable aspects of a site. A good conservation management plan will ensure that the regular care of a graveyard is undertaken. In addition to basic requirements such as grass cutting and health and safety, the plan will identify appropriate maintenance techniques and regimes, highlight any examples of inappropriate intervention, materials or modern features that may need to be removed and help to prevent circumstances where ease or cost of maintenance become the overriding management factor at the expense of cultural/ built heritage. Graveyard maintenance should be regarded as curatorship Maintenance affords the best means of preserving graveyards in the long-‐term. An on-‐going lack of maintenance can trigger critical deterioration and decay, which ultimately requires large-‐scale repairs and restoration work to address. Ideally, maintenance takes place on a regular basis and includes caring for all elements of a site from gravestones and buildings, furniture and signage, trees and planting, to the grounds and infrastructure elements, like pathways and drainage. It should be directed by a sensitive conservation policy set out in the conservation management plan. It is worth noting this would not automatically result in greater expense. Indeed, there is scope for economising expenditure and saving on maintenance resources by conversion to meadows and stopping/reducing the use of herbicide. Moreover, on-‐going maintenance will cut the future expense of repairs. 7.3 How does the Conservation strategy work? The graveyard surveys (Appendix 1) identified strengths and weaknesses in each graveyard’s management and condition (chapter 5). A list of initial recommended actions (assessed as either urgent, necessary or desirable) is included on the graveyard recording forms (Appendix 1) and these are the individual graveyard site action plans. The recommendations in the site action plans are predominantly those tasks required to record, conserve, restore, promote and interpret a graveyard’s built and natural heritage. To maximise the potential for community engagement, Appendix 5 identifies which of these tasks might be carried out with volunteers, subject to suitable co-‐ordination, support and training. To identify additional volunteer opportunities, a list of generic graveyard projects, suitable for such groups, is also presented in Appendix 5, accompanied by details of known examples of similar volunteer-‐led initiatives. The conservation strategy is an outline action plan covering all eight graveyards, that highlights the order in which work should take place in and the sequence of conservation planning that needs to be in place before putting any actions into practice.

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

7.4 The Conservation Strategy Action Plan The action plan below sets out the processes for completing conservation work or volunteer projects in the graveyard. Appendix 5 provides greater details on the range of actions and tasks that might be initiated at stages 1, 2, 3, 12, 13 and 14 (including examples of previous volunteer-‐led projects). Appendix 4 sets out guidance on graveyard conservation best practice. Action Action Lead Organisation/ Participating number organisations6 1 Develop Outline Conservation Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group Strategy (for conservation and This report, with its linked research has volunteer activities) from survey delivered the first part of this Action 1. recommendations Consultation between CAVLP Partners Agree the outline outcomes and completes this action and provides the priorities for conservation and basis for A, B and C. activities A Resolving ownership, consents, CAVLP/ Stakeholders/ Steering Group permissions needed and access problems B Audience development Outline consultation and promotional CAVLP/Steering Group events and activities /Consultant/Volunteers C Complete missing documentary Consultant/ CAVLP/Volunteers research identified in the survey Consultant/CAVLP/SNH/ Volunteers Built heritage Natural heritage 2 Risk assessments for volunteers Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group Structural surveys/H&S, including Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group A actions to make safe 3 Surveys and initial preparation of site Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers A Habitat & eco surveys Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers B Gravestone surveys Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers C Standing building surveys Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers D Initial site preparation, tidy up, e.g. CAVLP/Steering vegetation clearance, removal of litter Group/Volunteers/Consultant etc. 4 Develop Conservation Statement and Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Outline Conservation and Activity Group/Volunteers Plan with stakeholders 5 Monitor & Review CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers/Consultant 6 Identify outline costs/funds for Consultant / CAVLP / Steering Group volunteer projects, special surveys and CMP

6 Definitions Stakeholder e.g. an individual or group with ownership, management or use rights relating to a site e.g. community council, NLC, SLC, Bereavement Services, church congregation, local history group etc. Consultant e.g. Archaeologist, Heritage Consultant, Ecologist etc. Volunteers Anyone who contributes unpaid time and effort to the project CAVLP The management of the Clyde and Avon Valley Landscape Project Steering Group

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

A B 7 A B C

8 9 10 11 12 A B C D 13 A B 14 15 16

Community Groups identify areas for involvement and fund-‐raising Identify any necessary sources of additional funding Carry out any detailed surveys required Specialist stone deterioration survey Ecology surveys e.g. bats, lichens Archaeological e.g. EDM survey, geo-‐ physical surveys, buried stones, as necessary Develop Detailed Conservation Management Plan Obtain detailed costs (including quotations) Monitor & Review Apply for & secure any further funding applications as necessary Deliver Conservation Programme Procure/appoint any relevant contractors Enhancement of the built heritage-‐ repairs & conservation Enhancement of the natural heritage & amenity Improve physical access Deliver Activity Programme Promotion, education and interpretation activities Training activities Monitor & review the management strategy Evaluate the project

CAVLP / Volunteers/ Steering Group/ Consultant CAVLP /Consultant / Steering Group Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group Consultant Consultant Consultant /Volunteers

CAVLP /Consultant (with volunteers’ outputs) Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers/Consultant CAVLP/Volunteers Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group/Volunteers Consultant/ CAVLP/Steering Group CAVLP/Volunteers/Steering Group/Consultant CAVLP /Steering Group/Volunteers/ Consultant CAVLP / Consultant / Steering Group/Volunteers CAVLP / Consultant / Steering Group/Volunteers

Complete the Conservation & Activity Programmes, but continue to manage the graveyards for the preservation of the heritage and biodiversity, and for the benefit of the communities Table 6: Table setting out the graveyard conservation strategy as a series of conservation planning stages and actions 7.5 Application and limits of strategy The conservation strategy guides stakeholders through the general graveyard conservation management process. It demonstrates how the various conservation and volunteer tasks fit together through the conservation planning process and indicates the Stakeholders involved at different stages. Rather than being definitive, it offers a checklist for consideration and development. The outline conservation strategy and individual site action plans (Appendix 1) are scoping works that need to be built on with further specialist work. It may not be necessary or appropriate, for example, for every action to be carried out at all CAVLP sites. The

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Conservation Management Plan, for example will identify works for individual stones on a case-‐by-‐case basis to avoid straightening, cleaning, lifting stones as a matter of course. The Conservation Management Plan will also highlight the need and specifications for improvements to particular built heritage features at the different sites and the need for amenities and signage at a specific graveyard, as well as the content and format of interpretative and educational materials to assist its audience development. It will also flag any occasions for volunteer involvement as well as opportunities for habitat enhancement. Additionally, in the future it may be convenient to adopt either a site-‐by-‐site or a thematic conservation strategy. In the latter case, specific actions plans can be tailored accordingly using the outline strategy presented here as their basis. Possible themes include grass management, habitat enhancement, gravestone research and conservation, training and education. It should also be stressed that the outline conservation strategy’s priorities and outcomes should be monitored and reviewed by CAVLP stakeholders, community groups and relevant bodies. Equally, the priorities and deliverable outcomes may require adjustment to better fit available funding and programmes (e.g. Bereavement Services). Similarly, the action plan should be adapted to meet the needs of the community and the project’s objectives.

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS CAMBUSNETHAN, ST MICHAEL’S CHURCH AND GRAVEYARD OTHER NAME (S) KIRKNETHAN (name used by NLC Cemeteries Dept.), THE COVENANTERS’ GRAVEYARD, KIRKHILL BURIAL GROUND Address Wishaw, Netherton, Kirkhill Road Parish Cambusnethan LA area North Lanarkshire Grid reference NS 76771 54028 Owner / Manager North Lanarkshire Council Cemeteries & Open Spaces Dept. SITE REFERENCES CANMORE þ St Michael's Church And Graveyard, NS75SE 4 ; Belhaven and Stenton Mausoleum, NS75SE 4.01 Not WOSAS registered þ no NLC coverage DESIGNATIONS i) Listed Cat B þ Wishaw, Netherton, Kirkhill Road, St Michael's Churchyard, Enclosure and Mausolea, Cambusnethan (Ref: 64); Listed Cat B þ Belhaven and Stenton Mausoleum (Ref:672) ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area No þ iv) WHS No þ v) GDL No þ vi) SSSI No þ vii) NNR No þ viii) LBAP interest Yes þ Proximity to Clyde, surrounded by trees) Water and Clyde Valley Woodland. SITE TYPE Graveyard connected to a church þ Private family burial(s) þ CURRENT USE i) Church, or other building, formerly within the graveyard no longer survives þ ii) burials / commemoration inside mausoleum þ iii) Graveyard closed to new burials þ date of last burial 1955 (info from Motherwell Heritage Society). ACCESS • Signposting to site: no þ • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: no þ • Ease of navigation around site: no þ very uneven due to cattle. • Distance from graveyard: 1 km to road. • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ muddy, as farm. • Signposting through site: no þ n/a for size and of site. • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ but potential. layout • Site part of larger attraction: no þpotential through • No. of car spaces (inc. disabled): N/A no parking. • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ Clyde W alkway and Clyde NNR / SSSI. • Public transport to site -‐ no þ Bus services to • Length of approach and width: 1 km, 3-‐4 m wide. Netherton. • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ • Location: remote þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: yesþ potential. Comments • Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or Feels remote and is fairly inaccessible. Deep vehicle bridleway network: yes þ summer to link to Clyde tracks make footpath to site difficult to walk along. Part Walkway. of route to site is open to cattle posing public safety • Cycle parking: no þ issues, particularly during calving. The site itself is also • Restricted opening times: no þ open to cattle on two sides (N&W). Ground surface in • Locked gates / other barrier: yes þ fence has to be the graveyard very uneven and the extensive cattle climbed and a wooden pallet blocks access track divots are difficult to walk on. Site prone to flooding? down to site. Initial access near to the Clyde Valley Community Forest LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Does the graveyard stand out? yes þ mausoleum. • Part of a designed landscape? no þ • Is it a focal point in the landscape? yes þ • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape? no þ • Is it a positive feature? yes þ potentially. • Nearby landscape designations? yes þ SSSI, NNR . • Are there imp views of it? yes þ from motorway. • Nearby landscape character? valley floor/edge. • Are there imp views from it? yes þ Clyde Valley, • Nearby wildlife corridors? yes þ Clyde and birds by water areas. woodland. • Is it generally attractive yes þ potentially. • How close is the nearest woodland? 1km • How close is the nearest water feature? 30m GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from CANMORE, Historic Scotland Listing Building and SCRAN entries. The churchyard is all that remains of the church founded by St Nethan in the 8th century. The old Cambusnethan church stood in the south of the parish near the river Clyde and is probably the St Michael's Church mentioned in old charters in 1495. It remained in use until circa 1650, when the parish church was moved up to the village. The churchyard is close to the site of the original Cambusnethan House that belonged to the Baird family in the medieval period, succeeding to the Stevensons (Lockhart of Castlehill) in the 17th century. The mausolea that have been built since the Church moved up to the village represent the estates that the original Cambusnethan Baird-‐ 49

owned land was later broken up into (ie Belhaven's of Wishaw, the Stewarts of Coltness and the Lockharts of Castlehill). Coincidentally, all three estates had houses by James Gillepsie Graham, though all are now in various states of ruin. The largest tomb, the Belhaven and Stenton mausoleum, is listed separately and is almost identical to the Miller Mausoleum, Craigentinny Crescent, Edinburgh, built in 1848, by David Rhind. The churchyard contains a replica of the Cambusnethan cross-‐shaft that was found in the graveyard in 1898. The original is on display in Summerlee Industrial Museum.

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? Yes þ The three burial enclosures are located on the site of the former church. There is a elevated rectangular area to the W of the Bellhaven and Stenton Mausoleum which seems to be part of the footprint of the old church. There is an area N that is clear of stones and flattened. LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan Yes þ ii Site size (at widest extent): length 49m, width 36m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? Yes þ Post and wire stock fences form the field boundaries to the E and S sides of the site. The remains of a low stone wall is visible on all four sides of the churchyard (but this forms part of the embankment around the site rather than currently enclosing it). Formerly the site was enclosed by a metal fence on the W and N sides, meaning that the whole of the site was fenced off from cattle. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yesþ Two monolithic stone gate posts gate posts (one broken)at the N. Bank of rounded field stone collapsed wall, with some areas of brick to N end of W boundary. Along the W and N remains of metal posts formerly set into the stone wall are visible. The whole is raised by about 1m above the surrounding land. v. Is site sub-‐divided No þ vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? No þ vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? No þ viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ with rounded corners. The 1st Ed OS 1:25 inch shows the boundary rounded at the corners and the only entrance to the N of the E boundary. ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level Yes þ approx. height 1m. x Ground surfaces other than grass? No þ LANDSCAPE Trees Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass Is it low diversity lawn? No þ Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ Are there many broadleaf flora in the grass? No þ Groups of trees scattered throughout? No þ around Are there ruderals? No þ boundary. Any rank grass? No þ Landscape UK Grassland Character Type: Only a few trees? Yes þ Grass mown No þ Rough wet grazing Classification: Valley F loor/ J1.2 Cultivated Mainly evergreen trees? No þ Ash -‐buttercups across the site Valley Edge / & Sycamore in buildings Cambus means the area between water disturbed ground Mixed policy Grassland-‐ Mixture of EG & deciduous No þ (in the loop of the meander). woodland Buttercup, Mainly ornamental planting? No þ Mown paths? No þ ryegrass, wet and over-‐grazed Are there shrubs planted No þ Are there self-‐sown trees Yes þ Ivy Does ivy grow on walls? Yes þ Central burial Any signs of? enclosures. No þ on gravestones and monuments. Small mammals? Yes þ generally moles, rabbits, roe deer. Is this unchecked? Yes þ Diameter of trunk 25mm. Birds? Yes þ waders, geese, buzzards seen from site. Bats? Yes þ not seen but potential sites, buildings, trees, Are there any? confirmed sighting by Mick Hough (neighbour). Lichens? spps <12þ on gravestones and trees þ Amphibians/reptiles? No þ not seen but likely. Mosses? Yes þ Everywhere. Insects No þ not seen but likely. Bryophytes? Yes þ Any unusual /important plants? No þ BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Extract from Historic Scotland Listing Description: CEMETERY: Levelled and elevated, rectangular site; collapsed rubble boundary wall, entrance on N wall. Former church evidenced in 1953 by slightly raised platform on the west side of the 19th century mortuary vaults may indicate the western outline of the building, but the vaults appear to occupy the site. MAUSOLEA: mid 18th to mid 19th century, 3 adjoining rectangular-‐plan burial enclosures, arranged in L-‐plan, incorporating stonework of medieval Cambusnethan Parish Church. Ruinous and roofless. S ENCLOSURE: mid 18th century, single storey, 3-‐bay, rectangular-‐plan, classical, Coltness mausoleum. S (PRINCIPAL) ELEVATION: diagonally

droved ashlar yellow sandstone. lugged, architraved and corniced doorway to centre, flanking blind windows, rope-‐ moulded panel above inscribed 'Coltness', flanked by blind attic windows; ruinous gable; blank returns. N ENCLOSURE: probably mid 19th century, single storey, 3-‐bay, rectangular-‐plan, Lockhart Mausoleum. Droved ashlar yellow sandstone. E (PRINCIPAL) ELEVATION: wide central opening, flanking blind windows; blank returns. Ruinous above wallhead. W ENCLOSURE: rectangular-‐plan, ruinous, base course only. BELLHAVEN MAUSOLEUM Probably David Rhind of Edinburgh, 1869. 3-‐stage, rectangular-‐plan, tall Roman style, sarcophagus mausoleum, aligned E-‐W. Segmental pediment enclosing deeply carved arms to coffered barrel-‐vaulted, fish-‐scale tiled roof. Polished ashlar yellow sandstone. Tall pedestal and roll-‐ moulded plinth, plain rectangular 2nd stage, full Corinthian order entablature with husk garlands to frieze. N (PRINCIPAL) ELEVATION: architraved, rectangular inscribed panel to 2nd stage, reads: HERE REST ROBERT MORTIMER LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON BARON HAMILTON OF WISHAW K.T. LORD LIEUTENANT OF LANARKSHIRE FORTY YEARS CONVENER OF THE COUNTY TWENTY SEVEN YEARS LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BORN AD MDCCXCIII [1793] DIED MDCCCLXVIII [1868]. Lion masks to cymatium, acroterion masks to corners. S (REAR) ELEVATION: mirror of N except panel dedicated to Lady Belhaven, buried 1873.E (SIDE) ELEVATION: architraved ventilator panel to 2nd stage, carving to tympanum, view obscured by trees. W (SIDE) ELEVATION: architraved and pedimented doorway (walled-‐in) to centre; architraved inscribed panel to 2nd stage, reads: BLESSED ARE THE DEAD WHO DIE IN THE LORD THAT THEY MAY REST FROM THEIR LABOURS AND THEIR WORKS DO FOLLOW THEM BLESSED ARE THE PURE IN HEART FOR THEY SHALL SEE GOD. Lion and Unicorn supporting coat-‐of-‐arms to tympanum. All elements as described Yes þ Additional Features / Comments The Bellhaven Mausoleum inscription panels are carved in relief. There are several other kerbed and railed burial enclosures along the site’s boundary and a couple of smaller monuments with large kerbsets within the site. SITE FURNITURE (e.g. bins, benches, lighting, noticeboards, interpretation panels, other signage). None.

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 129 (figure from LA) ii. Date of earliest stone: Medieval (known from documentary sources and gravestone general forms visible but covered by moss). iii. Date of the most recent stone? 1913 iv. When are most stones erected? C19th but with a number of C18th and medieval stones. GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th C18th C19th Post C19th and earlier þ þ þ □ Headstone 80 ( estimate þ) þ □ □ □ Mural Monument 3 ( estimate □) þ þ þ □ Mural Tablet in central burial enclosure 2 ( estimate □) þ þ þ Grave Slab / Ledger (most with heavy moss cover, 35 ( estimate þ) □ therefore date extrapolated from form. Some examples could be broken table stones). □ □ □ □ Chest Tomb 0 ( estimate □) þ Low Coped Tomb 3 ( estimate □) □ □ □ þ þ Table Tomb 17 ( estimate þ) □ □ þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 14 ( estimate □) □ □ □ þ Freestanding Cross 1( estimate □) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Sculpture 0 ( estimate □) Other Gravestones / Carved Stones 1 ( estimate □) Replica of the Cambusnethan stone, an early þ □ □ □ carved stone c.900 AD, placed on site in 1935 (see below for more details). GRAVE FURNITURE There are several examples of MATERIALS Most Some Few th sets of C19 stone grave maker posts, some with Sandstone þ □ □ ironwork attached. Evidence of iron railings also þ □ □ Granite survive on several of the C19th kerbed enclosures. Marble □ □ □ At least one still has its railings mostly complete, Slate □ □ □ albeit broken and detached. There is much rubble Iron □ □ □ across the site, which may include lair markers. Other …. Damage to the ground surface from cattle means it □ □ □ is impossible to tell if the site has been levelled historically. Mortality / Immortality: No of stones -‐ 15 Portraiture Carvings None seen. (estimated þ) Trade Symbols: None seen. C18th motifs include: skull and crossed bones; ringed Heraldic Carvings None seen. swags; winged souls. Carvings present on headstones and table tomb ends. C19th motifs include inverted torch, urn, wreaths. Carvings present on headstones, mural monuments, obelisk and low coped tomb. Other Carvings -‐ Cambusnethan cross shaft fragment has a large double-‐outlined swastika on both its N and S faces, a symbol uncommon in Scotland (PSAS vol.33 p52 1958-‐9). The design also includes at the base of the N face three figures standing arm on shoulder, with one half-‐sized figure between two of the full-‐sized ones. It is not clear what, if any, scene is being conveyed. A single string of knot work ornaments the upper part of the

fragment. Similar knot work is found on the S face. -‐ One very worn, partially moss-‐covered example of a carving of part of a sword blade was found and all other carvings potentially medieval in date were obscured by heavy moss cover. -‐ A couple of C18th table tomb ends have carved balustrade legs and there are also examples of rosettes and other foliate and flower decoration on one or two C19th gravestones. Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are not aligned in rows (although some attached areas seem to be more organized that others e.g. south side of site) and are generally oriented E-‐facing. There is considerable stone rubble / fragments across the site, although the west side is relatively clear (the amount of rubble is roughly equivalent to 50% of the stones which are identified as gravestones). Two C18th immortality carvings of winged cherubs on non-‐earthfast, heavily moss-‐covered headstones are similar in style to examples found at Stonehouse; both designs have heads carved in deep relief, one with very narrow ‘v’-‐shaped wings, while the other design has more stylised wings in a semi-‐circular shape. The use of swags with bones is noted by Willsher as a feature unique to Lanarkhire. Only one of the swags at Cambusnethan appears to have bones peeking out and is found on a table tomb end support. The swag carving found on the headstone to James Alston (nd) contains no bones, although a skull and crossbones appear below and palm fronds and spiral above. One example of a re-‐used stone (now non-‐earthfast) was found. An early C20th account notes that the site contains two gravestones to the Covenanter ARTHUR INGLIS (see below). These were not seen during the survey nor during a previous survey carried out by Campbell (1996). Photographic evidence (no date but likely late C19th to early C20th) supplied by Dane Love shows a kerb-‐set enclosure containing a large freestanding Celtic cross, mostly painted white, with bible carving and three flat stones. Round-‐headed free-‐standing cross with three equal arms standing on a stepped base. The arms of the cross terminate in rounded ends. The cross is undecorated except for a raised flat-‐topped moulding around its edge. In the centre of the cross-‐head is a short inscription above an open book, presumably the Bible, which is carved in high relief and bears the inscription (given below). Beneath is a date of 1837. Two tapering medieval graveslabs bearing incised decoration, between which there is a prone round headed headstone. The left slab (S) displays a stylised hexafoil cross, where the cross-‐head is a circle divided into six and the shaft is represented by a sword motif. The slab on the right (N) displays across a round-‐headed cross where the head is incised with a Saltire and is mounted on a long, tapering and undecorated shaft. To the left of the cross-‐shaft is a pair of shears. A plain incised border runs around the edge of the upper face of the slab. In 2013, only the concrete surround which formerly held the flat stone, fragment of cross shaft and base remains visible. Photographic evidence provided by Dane Love indicates that all of the cross was present at the site (although not in situ and the cross head and part of shaft had broken away broken) along with the 3 flat stones at the end of 1970s. The SCRAN entry (no date) shows only two of the flat stones, the slab with two circulars and a sword and the prone headstone (broken). The earliest stone found at the site is the Cambusnethan cross shaft (original now housed in the Summerlee Museum) and an account of its discovery is provided in The Antiquary (see below). An 1953 site visit noted many 17th century and possibly earlier, gravestones and a survey in the late 1980s by RCAHMS and the Dalzell Heritage Trust, found 40 early gravestones which may be medieval in date, including one with incised decoration, depicting a sword with stylised crosses placed at its hilt and at its tip. The survey identified two medieval stones photographed by RCAHMS. Many more are likely to date to the medieval period but cannot to be matched to existing information due to extensive moss cover. There are several small stones, likely to be fragments of larger grave slabs.

Description of graveyard and Covenanter’s gravestone from The Martyr Graves of Scotland: We entered it by a small iron gate. Its distance from the populous part of the parish has given it few tenants in recent times, and over a great part of it the ground has not been broken for many years. In the centre, where the old church stood, is the burying-‐place of the Belhaven family, and close by the walls of the church is the mausoleum of Lord Belhaven, who for twenty-‐seven years was Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Established Church. The gravestone we were in search of we found on the south side of the church, within a railed enclosure of some three yards square. The stone is an upright one, about two feet in height. On its east side is the inscription : On the west side: HERE LYES ARTHUR INGLIS IN NETHERTON, WHO WAS SHOT AT STOCKLTON DYKE BY BLOODY GRAHAM OF CLAVERSHOUSE JULY 1679 FOR HIS ADHERANCE TO THE WORD OF GOD AND SCOTLANDS COVENANTED WORK OF REFORMATION, REV. 12 and ii. Erected in the year 1733. At the east end of the enclosure there is a cross about six feet in height; on the one side of the centre-‐piece are the words : Memento mori, When I did live such was the day, Forsaking sin made men a prey, Unto the rage and tyranny, Of that throne of iniquity, Who robbed Christ and killed his saints, And brake and burn d our covenants, I at this time this honour got, To die for Christ upon the spot. On the other: IN MEMORY OF ARTHUR INGLIS I837-‐SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. Extract from Andrew Carnegie. The Antiquary, Vol. 34, 1899, page 49 Mr. Alex. Napier, of Wishaw, has lately found some sculptured stones of no little interest in the old churchyard at Cambusnethan. While searching in and around the church-‐ yard for botanical specimens, he observed several carved stones, and lying half buried was one which specially attracted his attention. The stone is 27 inches high, 16 inches broad at the base and 14 inches at the top. In the centre there is a carving of four legs, and these are arranged so as to form a square. Underneath this, and standing 9 inches from the ground, is a group of four figures, which Mr. Napier took to represent the Crucifixion, the fourth figure presumably being a sitting soldier. At the top is some interlacing knot-‐work. Both sides of the stone seem to be similar in design, but it is broken and somewhat defaced. Mr. Napier had the stones cleaned and then photographed. These photographs, together with several drawings of other old gravestones, on which are carved swords and other symbolic figures, he sent to Mr. Romilly Allen, who replied : " The cross shaft at Cambusnethan is quite new to me, and is, as far as I am aware, an unpublished example. It is certainly pre-‐Norman, and from the similarity of the key pattern to those on some of the Welsh crosses i.e., at Margam, Glamorganshire it is possibly of early date, when Strathclyde was Welsh. The figure-‐subject is not the Crucifixion, and it is not intended for the three children in the fiery furnace. I am unable to suggest any explanation."

GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? Remove Sycamores in S mausoleum Large around boundary some may □ no □ Yes -‐ þ Yes -‐ some □Yes: □ Other damage walls / gravestones. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or Planted: Former boundary hedge structures has become isolated hawthorn trees 1 Yew in S. □ no □yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other Self-‐seeded: Sycamores growing in odd areas (state) across site (state) walls and enclosures. examples C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? Ken Forbes (NLC Cemetery Manager) noted that site is not þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other maintained. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? Very little grass ground cover at the site due to cattle. þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built 10-‐20% of gravestones sunken. up? Also there is a large circular depression to N and raised □ no □ yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other rectangular area to W of Bellhaven odd areas (state) across site (state) and Stenton Mausoleum. examples F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? Cattle have puddled the wet soil, it is uneven and muddy. □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples G: . Grass surfaces eroded? Grass trodden down and grazed by cattle. þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? Trees and grass have grown over a large number of stones. □ no □ yes -‐ □yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples Moss on most stones I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? Ivy on parts of buildings □ no □ yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 75 % of site affected. Assessment included decorative carvings as well as inscriptions. For 45% of the ¾ of stones with illegible carvings this is due to heavy moss cover and 30% due to the erosion of the carved surfaces. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? No þ ground level appears to risen rather than reduced over time and accordingly gravestones are more likely to have sunk rather than have their foundations exposed. Several fallen stones have foundations visible.

L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? Yes þ 70% stones (estimate) affected. Likely causes include vandalism, as well as cattle using gravestones as rubbing stones. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 50% stones (estimate) affected. Figure includes stone rubble at the site which is likely to contain broken stonework. Includes stones where components have become detached and breakages associated with fallen stones. Horizontal and upright stones are both badly affected by breakage. N: Have gravestones been repaired? No þ none seen. O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? No þ P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 75% affected. Patterns evident include scaling, fragmentation, disintegration, erosion and mechanical damage. Factors contributing to deterioration included water-‐run off linked to a gravestone’s design, failure of iron fixtures and moss cover. Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? Yes þ original boundary walls are collapsed / residual. R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths No þ no paths. S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? Yes þ Disintegration on N side of Belhaven mausoleum collapse of stones and collapse of mural monument to NW mausoleum, possibly caused by water ingress/tree growth?

T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? Yes þ 20 % affected NW area stones moved U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? Yes þ -‐ some areas þ Drinks, broken glass/bottles, litter, camping, fires near water, at the base of the sycamore and W end of the Belhaven Mausoleum. Graffiti spray paint on mausoleums (especially Belhaven’s) and gravestones, incised graffiti to W doorway of the Belhaven Mausoleum. V: Any evidence of any littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? Yes þ -‐ some areas þ A large quantity of electric cable dumped to the E of the mausoleums. Litter onsite included evidence of drinking, car parts and clothing. W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Lack of fencing allowing cattle into the site. The cattle have had caused deterioration to stonework and the graveyard’s surface but are also most likely to have had a detrimental effect on the archaeology at this site. Allowing access to stock during winter when the ground is most wet has exacerbated this damage. The broken fencing has metal posts fixed into historic stonework, which is not ideal, and if the fencing is reinstated in the future (as recommended below) the existing posts should be used, where possible. If new posts are required these should avoid using historic stonework and be installed, preferably outside the collapsed stone wall, in a manner that is sympathetic to buried archaeology. Lack of maintenance encourages anti-‐social use / vandalism. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Ownership -‐ lack of clarity over who is responsible for mausoleums and graveyard. Ken Forbes, Cemetery Manager (KF) explained it is not clear who owns the site; if it is the NLC or a local farmer. Discussions between the two parties agreed that while there was consensus that ownership was unclear this did not preclude an agreement to fence off the site to prevent stock access. KF thinks the land may have since changed hands. Poor access, prevents maintenance, safety of access (due to presence of cattle) and ease of visiting site. KF reported that the site was previously maintained by NLC with regular grass cutting, however, this was stopped some time ago when the road which leads down to Carnbarn fell into disrepair. Unclear who owns and has responsibility to repair and due to no suitable access the site is no longer maintained. The Dalzell Heritage Trust used to clean up the site annually. Had permission of the farmer (landowner) who became a member of the Trust. Farmer since moved away and the site has changed owners. In the end the Trust felt that best protection was to let the site become overgrown. Several gravestones are tilting. KF indicated there has not been any memorial stability assessment carried out at this site. The area N of the Bellhaven Mausoleum that is clear of stones and flattened possible causes camp site, cattle feeding, collapsed graves? Y: Any known conservation work? Yes þ Erection of the replica Cambusnethan cross shaft in 1935. The grave slabs and ?other stones were cleaned up by the Dalzell Heritage Trust prior to being photographed in the late 1980s by RCAHMS (survey not completed). Trust carried out basis maintenance work for a number of years (see above). LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) Rating Condition Rating Built Heritage Rating Natural Heritage V Poor Poor but potential v good Poor but potentially good

FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended Works: Recommended works: Urgent Necessary • Establish/address • After appropriate ownership and /or reach environmental a new management surveys (including agreement for site to tree and bat o ensure stock are surveys), crown lift, kept off site; prune and shape o to re-‐establish trees to prevent regular grounds further damage to maintenance; gravestones and o to erect a post walls and for health. and wire stock o Implement fence (+ above to fell electric?) in some trees, keeping with the reduce and site (on N and W prune others boundaries to protect only). monuments, walls and • After carrying out a gravestones. structural survey and/H&S assessment of o Remove ivy all structures and to protect gravestones consider monuments, erecting Heras fencing. walls and • Consult with grounds gravestones managers and • Develop a stakeholders to agree a repairs/consolidatio sustainable grounds n programme for the maintenance mausoleums programme. following tree • Develop proposals to removal. reinstate the ground to a • Identify any condition which can be significant carved maintained to an agreed stones in rubble and level match up fragments • Gravestones where possible. reinstatement to include • Gravestones: assess re-‐setting gravestones individual up off the ground conservation needs. following the method set • Conservation and out in Historic Scotland management plan to guidance include graveyard, • Remove moss and gravestones and lichens (subject to mausoleum. survey and specialist • After appropriate environmental guidance), to survey control moss photograph / draw and on gravestones record. Prioritise (carry out for recording of medieval priority stones in stones. first instance).

Recommended works: Desirable • Improve access (paths surfaces and signage), erect gate where timber fence closes access and consider/ resolve pedestrian access at the top of the access road next to agricultural gate. • Interpretation (prioritise medieval material). • Management-‐consider sheep to manage ground vegetation. • Potential to re-‐build a dry stone boundary wall with volunteers as part of a training activity led by a member of the Dry stone Walling Association. • Consider repairing and reinstating the carved surfaces of the Belhaven mausoleum where they are deteriorating. • Install nesting boxes etc. • Consider planting bulbs / native flower plugs in churchyard. • Consider how to return the Covenanter stones currently being kept for safekeeping at the Parish Church to St Michaels. • Develop local support group. • Consider options to develop a graveyard project to repair and reinstate the gravestones, mausoleums and the graveyard. • After detailed surveys of the natural habitat, landscape, buildings and gravestones and develop a proposal for implementation / funding. • Consider how to implement ongoing regular inspection of the landscape, buildings and gravestones. • Remove graffiti from gravestones and mausoleums. Removal methods will be tested prior to full scale cleaning and will adopt the least-‐aggressive effective option following Historic Scotland guidance. • Graves, reset as necessary (including resetting grave furniture, and reset flat stones following the method set out in Historic Scotland guidance.) • Consider planting hedging (if walls not reinstated). • Consider allowing this site to regenerate to a meadow weighed against access and anti-‐ social use issues and following ground repair and gravestone resetting. • Consider planting hedging (if walls nor reinstated).

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • Several major challenges need to be addressed before work can take place and have a lasting impact (e.g. ownership, access, H&S in relation to unstable masonry and monuments, vandalism and cattle on site). • Site of early medieval cross shaft (no longer at site) and the quantity of medieval stones but of quality only partially documented and condition vulnerable. • Site unrecorded. • Archaeological interest. • Limited / obsolete interpretation • Attractive setting and atmosphere, site feels ‘historic’ and ‘romantic’ • Linked to walkway but no other attractions in the immediate vicinity • Architectural and artistic value of mausoleums (particularly Belhaven) and C18th stones (but unclear how many survive). • Covenanter interest but stones no longer at site. • Current community interest but not formed as a group. Previous efforts have not been sustained although there was past support by the landowner and RCAHMS. Question over local authority capacity to support future community engagement. • Opportunities for practical projects with volunteers that can have a major impact on improving an understanding and appearance of site. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey: 21.02.2013 ii Name of recorders S.Buckham & F. Fisher

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS DALSERF PARISH CHURCHYARD Address Kirk Road, Dalserf Village Parish Dalserf LA area South Lanarkshire Grid reference NS 79979 Owner / Manager South Lanarkshire Council Cemeteries Dept. 50712 SITE REFERENCES CANMORE þ Church And Churchyard, NS75SE 13; Hogback stone, NS75SE 13.O1 WOSAS þ ID 40619 DESIGNATIONS i) Listed Cat A þ Dalserf Village, Dalserf Parish Church, Church of Scotland, including walled churchyard, gatepiers (Ref:5170) ii) Scheduled no þ iii) Cons Area no þ iv) WHS noþ v) GDL no þ vi) SSSI noþ vii) NNR no þ viii) LBAP interest yes þ Potential habitats in wall crevices, trees SITE TYPE Graveyard connected to a church þ CURRENT USE -‐ i) Church in current use þ ii) no evidence for intramural burial þ iii) Graveyard closed to new burials þ date of last burial 1970 (info from LA), strewing of ashes and urn burial may still take place in memorial garden (info from Minister). ACCESS • Restricted opening times: no þ • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: yes þ • Locked gates / other barrier: no þ • Distance from graveyard: 25 m. • Signposting to site: yes þ • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ hardcore. • Ease of navigation around site: yes þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: yes þ • Signposting through site: no þ • No. of car spaces: c.80 (disabled spaces N/A). • Site part of larger attraction: yes þ Covenanter trail. • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ • Public transport to site: yes þ bus route. • Length of approach and width: 25 m, 3-‐4 m. • Location: urban context þ • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ no □ Comments • Gradient suitable for disabled: yesþ no □ Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath Dalserf is a very attractive small hamlet off the A72, with no through access. The nearby rare breeds or bridleway network: no þ on Clyde Valley centre, shown on some maps, closed down a number Tourist Route but no linked cycle network. of years ago. • Cycle parking: no þ LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Does the graveyard stand out: yes þ but the • Part of a designed landscape: no þ church is at end of the lane. • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape: no þ • Is it a focal point in the landscape: yes þ • Nearby landscape designations: no þ • Is it a positive feature: yes þ • Nearby landscape character: Upper Valley. • Are there imp views of it: yes þ visible from the • Nearby wildlife corridors: yes þ Clyde Woodland. road and across the Clyde. • How close is the nearest woodland: <1km. • Are there imp views from it: yes þ Avon Valley. • How close is the nearest water feature: 0.25m • Is it generally attractive: yes þ duck pond. GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES The information below has been extracted from the CANMORE entry, Historic Scotland listing description, SCRAN and Dalserf Parish Church website. Church dates from 17th century or 18th century -‐ hog-‐backed stone outside it on SE side. OS 6" map annotated by O G S Crawford, 13 May 1934. Dalserf Parish Church: a plain, unpretentious building, erected in 1655. Renovated in 1894. Anon 1904. Hog-‐backed stone with four rows of shingle ornament is still in position as described above; 1.8m long, 0.4m wide and 0.3m greatest height. The church is in use as a place of worship, and is of no especial archaeological interest. Visited by OS (JFC) 17 March 1954. Ecclesiastical building in use as such. Built in 1655 on the site of an earlier structure, as evidenced by the finding of an 11th century 'hog's back' stone in the churchyard, suggesting that a Norman structure had previously stood on the site, probably a chapel to St Machan or St Serf. Both the church and the manse were repaired in 1721. The original 17th century T-‐plan church, accommodated a long communion table in the rectangular section with the vestry and belfry projecting from the side wall. Here, as in many churches of this type, the form was enlarged in the 19th century with galleries and further seating added to the other side; the 1840 statistical accounts tell us that these alterations took place in the years 1818 and 1819. The

interior of the church provides an compact and intimate environment with short aisles and a good view of the pulpit from all seating areas. Forestairs give access to the galleries, saving vital space within, and each seating section has its own external access door, allowing quick and easy entry and exit from the church; there are seven external doors as a result. The present Dalserf Church was built in 1655, though there was a Presbyterian church there as far back as the 1590s. The church was extended in the 1890s to its present size. The centre area and galleries were added thanks to a donation from The First Lord Newlands of Mauldslie The present Dalserf Church was built in 1655, though there was a Presbyterian church there as far back as the 1590s. The church was extended in the 1890s to its present size. The centre area and galleries were added thanks to a donation from The First Lord Newlands of Mauldslie. The church now seats nearly 400 people and is still in use by the Church of Scotland. The area has strong Covenanting links, and 52 local people are recorded as having suffered for their beliefs. The churchyard contains burials from both sides of the conflict. The Covenanters are represented by Rev. John MacMillan, the first minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Also present is William Hamilton, one of their most notorious persecutors.

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? Yes þ – describe A few years ago in the NE corner of the churchyard an area used by South Lanarkshire Council for storing cuttings etc. This was ‘reclaimed’ by the church, flagged over and memorial benches placed there. Since then ashes have been interred or scattered in this area (there was no space otherwise available in the churchyard). This alteration was led by the Church, with the permission of the LA. LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan? Yes þ W cast iron gates. Gates 1.8 x 2.5m and 1.2 x 1.0m. ii Site size (at widest extent): length 40m width 45m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? Yes þ -‐ by a stone wall þ most; metal railing þ by Covenanter’s obelisk to allow viewing from outside the churchyard. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yes þ Main entrance pillars with spheres on caps. The memorial garden described above. v. Is site sub-‐divided? Yes þ the small area on the E wall reclaimed as a memorial garden is located outside the E perimeter wall and is itself enclosed by a stone wall. vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? Yes þ concrete slabs around the church from gate with red gravel width 1.5 – 5m. Small paved area by gate to N with bench. vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? No þ viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ but slightly curved as in 1st Ed OS. ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level Yes þ x Ground surfaces other than grass? Yes þ paved slabs in memorial garden, in churchyard around church. LANDSCAPE Trees – Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ Is it low diversity lawn? Yes þ Groups of trees scattered throughout? No þ Are there many broadleaf flora in the grass? No þ Only a few trees? Yes þ Are there ruderals? No þ Landscape UK Grassland Mainly evergreen trees? Yes þ Yews. Character Type: Any rank grass? No þ Classification: Lowland/ W ooded J1.2Cultivated/distur Mixture of EG & deciduous? Yes þ Is the grass mowed? Yes þ valley / Valley side bed land-‐ Amenity Mainly ornamental planting? No þ Mown short all over Yes þ grassland Are there shrubs planted? Yes þ low Mown paths No þ hedge/shrubs S of church, by Covenanter’s stone , tree in memorial garden, localised along E wall. Are there self-‐sown trees? Yes þ A few in walls. Ivy-‐ Does ivy grow on walls? Yes þ Locally on boundary Any signs of? walls and on one or two saplings Small mammals? No þ none seen. On gravestones and monuments? No þ Birds? Yes þ Crows in churchyard trees. Is this unchecked? No þ Bats? No þ none seen. Amphibians/reptiles? No þ none seen. Are there any? Insects? No þ none seen. Lichens? spps >12þ <12□ 0□ Other? No þ none seen. Mosses? Yes þ on Gravestones and locally on walls. Bryophytes? Yes þ black liverwort at base of gravestone. Any unusual /important plants? No þ none seen. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Extract from Historic Scotland Listing Description: CHURCH: 1721, incorporating 1655 fragments; renovated 1818 and 1894. 2 storey, 5-‐bay symmetrical T-‐plan galleried church with tall chatri form belfry to S set to NE of walled graveyard with gatepiers flanking entrance to E. Harled with painted ashlar dressings. Plain margins to openings; plain wrought-‐iron handrails and banisters to forestairs; strip quoins. GATEPIERS, GATES AND BOUNDARY WALLS: channelled and stugged cream sandstone ashlar gatepiers with string

course, cornice and raised ball finial; curved buttress behind S pier; wrought-‐ and cast-‐iron gates; squared sandstone rubble walls with flat ashlar cope. As described Yes þ Additional Features / Comments W wall around the burial section containing the Covenanter’s obelisk contains C18th / early C19th headstones. The obelisk is enclosed by stone corner posts and metal rails. The burial sections to the right / N of the main entrance are raised approx. 1m above the surrounding ground level. There is a large railed burial enclosure with low stone coping immediately W of the main entrance. SITE FURNITURE Wooden bench in entrance, with plastic patio table(L). 1 large double panelled notice board, glassed-‐cabinet style. 1 Sign. Two wooden benches and table in memorial garden.

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 234 (MI info) 347 (LA plan) ii. Date of earliest stone hogback C11th / 1745 (MI info) iii. Date of the most recent stone? 1968 (seen during survey & from MI info) iv. When are most stones erected? C19th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th & C18th C19th Post C19th earlier Headstone (includes upright rectangular lair markers) 310 ( estimate þ þ þ □ þ) þ þ Mural Monument 4 □ □ þ þ Mural Tablet 5 □ □ Grave Slab / Ledger (may include table tombs without 7 þ þ □ □ ends) □ □ □ □ Chest Tomb 0 þ Low Coped Tomb (one also has head and foot stones) 2 □ □ □ þ þ Table Tomb 2 □ □ þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 9 □ □ □ þ Freestanding Cross 1 □ □ □ þ Sculpture (scroll / book) 4 □ □ □ þ Other Gravestones / Carved Stones Hog-‐ 1 backed stone with four rows of shingle ornament SE of church; 1.8m long, 0.4m wide and 0.3m greatest height. GRAVE FURNITURE MATERIALS Most Some Few Occasional flower vases, numbered grave markers next to Sandstone þ □ □ stones, lair marker posts (only one with metal chains – 3 huge þ □ □ Granite posts close to memorial garden unclear which stone associated Marble þ □ □ with), broken immortelle bases and several shells. A small Slate □ □ □ square plinth with metal fixings may be an immortelle base. Iron □ □ □ Two octagonal stone post lair marker with chain in front of þ □ □ Other: concrete Joseph Hutcheson’s stone. Hogback set within rectangular kerb (5) set with square corner posts. Martyr’s obelisk enclosed by Bronze plaque posts joined by metal bar. (2) o Trade Symbols: N of stones 3 Mortality / Immortality: No of stones 75 Blacksmith (horseshoe) x1 (estimated þ) Carpenter x1 (saw, axe and ? another worn object) C18th Mason x1 (dividers, square, recorded by Betty Willsher – joined skull x4; skull and crossed bones x3; with a swag which she notes as an interesting device for a hourglass x5; crossed bones x1; bones x2; mason) winged soul x6; heart x2; drapes x 1; swag Unidentified motif of two squares with vertical grooves at the x1; Bible x1; foliage; flowers bottom of twisted poles – possible trade symbol? (recorded by C19th Betty Willsher). Urn x 3; drapes x2; dove x1; crown x1; o th wreath x4; sarcophagus x1; weeping Portraiture Carvings N of stones 3. Two C18 (recorded by Betty Willsher), one with skull and winged soul carving at base figure x2; pointing finger x1; poppies x1; rosette x12; star x1; quatrefoil HIS x2; of body. One C20th bronze panel. flowers, foliage Heraldic and Other Carvings None

Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are generally aligned in rows N-‐S and oriented E-‐facing. There is a good variety of C19th gravestone symbols and C18th lettering styles. Betty Willsher identified eight C18th stones of interest (five of which have been mentioned in the trade symbol and portrait sections). In addition, Willsher selected the headstone with a winged soul at the top with an unusual shaped skull at the bottom, the stone with central carving of an open book, the stone with a winged skull at its head, rare for the C18th, and the obelisk to the Covenanter Reverend John McMillan. Historic Scotland Listing Description: CHURCHYARD: contains predominantly headstones, most dating from early 19th century, some from 18th century; wall mounted stone to SE commemorates several burials, the earliest for Elizabeth Derson, who died in 1795. Below clock and belfry to SE lies 11th century hog's back stone found on site in 1897. Obelisk, decorated with acanthus leaves to base, restored in 1968, sited to NE of church, commemorates Reverend John McMillan, who died in 1753. As described Yes þ The area has strong Covenanting links, and 52 local people are recorded as having suffered for their beliefs. The churchyard contains burials from both sides of the conflict. The Covenanters are represented by Rev. John MacMillan, the first minister of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. Also present is William Hamilton, one of their most notorious persecutors. [Church website] Entry from Martyr Graves of Scotland p 395: Macmillan died December 1st, 1753, in the eighty-‐fourth year of his age. He was buried in Dalserf churchyard, in the neighborhood of which he had resided since his removal to Clydesdale in August 1727. A monument to his memory, erected so long after his death as 1840, marks the spot where his body lies. The inscription, upon its four sides, from the pen of the late venerable Professor Symington of Paisley, successfully contrives to give a eulogistic but just account of Macmillan and his son and grandson. In the memorial Inscription survey by the Lanarkshire Family History Society one stone (number 27) mentions Robert Laurie covenanter who lived at Park of Mauldslie, died 1st July 1800 aged 85 years. Rogers MMIS p446 notes that in 1840 a monument to his memory [Rev MacMillan] in Dalserf Churchyard was reared by public subscription. Several stones have minor points of interest including headstone with 1720 on the back of stone and 1842 inscription, indicating when the lair was purchased? Several stones have distinctive tooling on their reverse and one has an odd triangular area cut-‐out. In the memorial Inscription survey by the Lanarkshire Family History Society one stone (number 19) makes mention of the person who inherited the stone. The Scottish War Graves Project do not include any records for Dalserf Parish Church.

GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? □ no þ Yes -‐ odd □ Yes -‐ some □ Yes: □ Other examples areas (state) across site (state) B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or structures □ no þ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? □ no □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? þ □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no examples areas (state) across site (state) E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built up? □ no þ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? þ □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no examples areas (state) across site (state) G: . Grass surfaces eroded? þ □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no examples areas (state) across site (state) H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? □ no □ yes -‐ odd þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state)

Remove saplings from wall. Potential to shape and reduce the yews. At terrace and W walls small number either side of the entrance. C19th mural monument on S wall.

Around gravestones soil is exposed.

Especially C18th headstones.

Moss e.g. on hogback stones. Lichens have accelerated decay. Yew canopies/roots encroaching nearby stones. C18th headstone in hedge by main entrance. Shrubs along W wall covering adjacent headstones. I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? Along boundary walls on E, W & S sides where indicated on the survey □ no þ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other plan. examples areas (state) across site (state) J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 15 % of site affected (symbolic carvings faring much worse). K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? Yes þ approx. 20 stones affected. L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? Yes þ 22 stones affected. Up to two courses of bricks visible. Includes examples where foundations or fixings have failed and stone deterioration at the bases causing a headstone to snap and fall over. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 30 % of site affected N: Have gravestones been repaired? Yes þ 3 stones affected, very few visible compounds and lime putty. O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? Yes þ <5% of structure recently repaired but historic cement (ordinary Portland Cement) pointing. OPC also used in the boundary wall in the memorial garden. Base of retaining wall open joints.

P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 50 % affected – give details. Among those visited, this site has the highest incidence of stone deterioration. There are numerous examples of erosion, including differential erosion, and detachment, including disintegration, fragmentation, blistering, (contour) scaling. Moss and lichen growth exacerbating deterioration. Widespread examples of water-‐run off on vertical stones due to design, cracking and fragmentation of concrete stones, and staining of stone surface from lead lettering. A key issue for this site is stone loss at the base of headstones resulting in memorials snapping and falling over. Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? Yes þ 10 % affected. Locally open joints. R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths No þ Minister noted Fabric Convenor’s concern with uneven surface. S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? No þ

T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? Yes þ c.25 affected. Stones appear to have been moved from their original positions and placed around the boundary wall. There are several notably tilting headstones and a collapsed table tomb due to the failure of its stone end panels. The granite wall plaque in burial section N of the main entrance is moving out from the wall. U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? No þ V: Any evidence of littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? No þ W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Iron railings around the burial enclosure to the W of the main entrance looks to be recently painted and will protect against corrosion. The use of stone chippings around the hogback stone mean that this monument is less likely to come in direct contact with herbicide/dampness. In the areas sprayed with herbicide the use of chemical is likely to be a major contributory factor to stone decay and the exposure of foundations. The grounds have a small amount of ornamental planting, including shrubs and bulbs, and benches which improve the interest and amenity of the site and make it feel well cared-‐for and welcoming. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? No þ Y: Any known conservation work Yes þ Restoration of the Covenanter’s monument in 1968 and more recently. The partially painted surface and use of granite plaques on the sandstone memorial are potential triggers for the deterioration of stonework in the future. LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating: Condition Rating: Built Heritage Rating: Natural Heritage Poor Potentially good but poor condition Satisfactory

FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended works: Urgent • Remove saplings • Lift fallen stones, levelling, re-‐ assembling and re-‐orienting. Ensure that all vertical stones are earth-‐fast. Develop protocols for stabilising, re-‐ setting and pinning where stones have eroded and snapped off at the base. • Consider options to limit / remove the use of herbicide. • Assess stability of wall monuments • Cut back hedge around death’s head headstone.

Recommended works: Necessary • After appropriate environmental survey control moss on gravestones (carry out for priority stones in first instance). • Repair table tombs where end stones are failing. • Graves, reset as necessary (including resetting grave furniture, and relay flats stones following the method set out in Historic Scotland guidance.) • Repair walls and steps as required. • Create a strategy to manage grave ephemera (including lair number markers and shells) as part of general maintenance programmes.

Recommended works: Desirable • After appropriate environmental surveys carry out tree shaping for health and amenity. • Enhanced interpretation. • Install nesting boxes etc. • Create a conservation management plan for the churchyard. • Implement quinquennial inspections of landscape, buildings and gravestones. • Repair gravestones where foundations have become significantly exposed and replace turf. • Locate, record and consider keeping open to view, any buried stones in the graveyard. • Restore priority gravestones. • Rationalise missing parts of gravestones, re-‐uniting where possible. Establish future policy for dealing with stone fragments and components. • Analyse C18th carvings to identify the work of specific stonemasons. • Interpretation, Covenanters, hogback stone and C18th stones.

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • Regional significance of gravestones (C18th and C19th stone carvings) and hogback and their current vulnerability. • No onsite information about the historical aspects of the site other than the Covenanter memorial. • Part of the Clyde Valley Tourist Route, Church is listed as one of the attractions. • Covenanter trail is out of date (no ‘green’ sign at site and Dalserf has no links to additional information in the list of rural Covenanter memorials on the Visit Lanarkshire website). • Attractiveness of site in its setting. • Previous community engagement in relation to the hogback stone. Recent parish history commissioned by an American patron. • Limited / obsolete interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey: 6 March 2013 ii Name of recorders: S Buckham, F Fisher

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS DALZELL ST.PATRICK’S CHURCH AND BURIAL GROUND; HAMILTON OF DALZELL MAUSOLEUM; DALZELL ESTATE PET CEMETERY OTHER NAME (S) Dalzeil Address Manse Road, North Lanarkshire, M11 2SG Parish Dalziel LA area North Lanarkshire Owner / Manager North Lanarkshire Council Cemeteries & Open Spaces Dept. Grid reference NS 7548 5485 mausoleum privately owned by Hamilton Family SITE REFERENCES CANMORE þ Burial ground NS75SE 3.00; Mausoleum NS75SE 3.02; Not CANMORE registered þ Pet Cemetery ; Not WOSAS registered þ no NLC coverage DESIGNATIONS) i) Listed Cat B þ Motherwell, Dalzell Park, Hamilton Of Dalzell Mausoleum and St Patrick's Graveyard Including Boundary Walls (Ref:38239; not listed þ pet cemetery ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area no þ iv) WHS no þ v) GDL Yes þ vi) SSSI No þ vii) NNR yes No þ viii) LBAP interest Yes þ SITE TYPE(S) Graveyard connected to a church þ; Private family burial(s) þ ; Pet cemetery þ CURRENT USE i) Church, or other building, formerly within the graveyard no longer survives þ ii) burials / commemoration inside a mausoleum þ iii) Graveyard closed to new burials þ date of last burial 1915 (from MI) ACCESS • Signposting through site: no þn/a for size and layout • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: yes þ of site. No signage to other elements (pet cemetery, mausoleum) but all off estate trail. • Distance from graveyard: c.500m. • Site part of larger attraction: yes þ Dalzell Estate. • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ • Public transport to site -‐ yesþ noted on Estate’s • Gradient suitable for disabled: yes þ o website. • N . of car spaces: c.60 (0 disabled car spaces). • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ • Location: W ider -‐ urban context / Local -‐ semi-‐rural. • Other setting: yes þ designed landscape. • Length of approach and width: c.500, 2m+. • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ gulley erosion. • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ steep in places. Comments Nearby Baron's Haugh RSPB Reserve, River Clyde, small Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or stream from garden, St Patrick’s Well. Crumbling bridleway network: yes þ important paths, signed. boundary walls. Fallen stones. Ivy, moss and self-‐seeded • Cycle parking: no þ trees encroach. Nearby Clyde Valley Woodland NNR. • Restricted opening times: no þ Bollard to prevent vehicle access at point where • Locked gates / other barrier: no þ but gate latch v residential access not required. Tarmac road to this stiff. point, unmade road thereafter to site. • Signposting to site -‐ no þ by estate trails, ‘white walk’ signed but not clearly at eye level. Collapsed stone piers of a former stone arch are located • Ease of navigation around site: no þ outside south of the entrance-‐former public route to the • due to numbers and distrinution of the many stones, Clyde? with no made paths. But small site open to view. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL • Does the graveyard stand out? no þ behind wall. • Is it a focal point in the landscape? yes þ on estate main route paths, including White Walk. • Is it a positive feature? yes þ capacity to enhance. • Are there imp views of it? yes þ Lady Sybil’s grave. • Are there imp views from it? Mausoleum & pet graves yes þ churchyard no þ site is enclosed behind wall. • Is it generally attractive yes þ but distressed.

LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Part of a designed landscape? yes þ • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape? no þ • Nearby landscape designations? yes þ as above, GDL. • Nearby landscape character? designed landscape, policy woodland, the well and Japanese garden (remains of). • Nearby wildlife corridors? yes þ Clyde Walkway. • How close is the nearest woodland? <20m. • How close is the nearest water feature?_<200m .

GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from CANMORE, Historic Scotland Inventory of GDL and Listing Building entries. Additional information taken from Dalzell by Jack Sloan (1986) Part of Dalzell Estate designed landscape and bounds an RSPB reserve. Situated close to the Clyde, the site is reached by the "White Walk", named after early marker stones, a straight road leading down hill terminating at the graveyard, now called Manse Rd. The Old Dalzell Manse is situated half way down the road on the right (separately listed). The entrance gate to the walled churchyard is immediately off this road. The site of St Patrick's Kirk, demolished in 1798, the Hamilton of Dalzell mausoleum being built soon after, using the stone. The gravestone of the Rev James Classon is said to mark the location of the altar. The Hamilton mausoleum stands within its own square enclosure in the NE corner of the graveyard, walled off from the rest of the site with a private entrance from the grounds of Dalzell House. Within the private Hamilton enclosure, but outwith the mausoleum, are the matching gravestones of the last Hamiltons of Dalzell, Lord Gavin George Hamilton (d 1952) and Lady Sybil Mary Hamilton, (d 1933). The octagonal gazebo at the N end of the memorial garden (to N of mausoleum), was built to look out over Lady Sybil's grave and the dogs’ cemetery is located nearby. The estate was sold on the death of Lord Hamilton in 1952 and the family moved to Snowdenham House, Surrey. The house was sold, part of it being used as a boys' school until 1967 when it was purchased by Motherwell & Wishaw Town Council. Dalzell house was transferred to Motherwell District Council in 1975 and was sold in 1985 for conversion into flats. These flats and their gardens are in private ownership. The surrounding Dalzell Estate is owned and managed by North Lanarkshire Council. Sloan (1986) notes that the first Lord Hamilton set up a memorial by the entrance to the mausoleum to his wife, Lady Emily, who died in 1882. In design it is similar to the Baron’s Pillar (which was erected outside Dalzell House) and was moved in 1975 to the grounds of the Parish Church for safe keeping. He also describes a carved slab erected in the terrace wall near the main house and was associated with a stone coffin that was found in the church during its demolition. The coffin was moved into the St Patrick’s Churchyard but was destroyed by vandals in 1965.

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? Yes þ The churchyard boundary doesn’t appear to have been extended. It is irregular, but broadly rectangular, in shape, and has possibly been contracted over time as a result of estate development. Depending on whether the mausoleum is built on the footprint of the church (Motherwell Heritage Society suggest contra), this building and its enclosure are a later encroachment on the churchyard. The Mausoleum and its enclosure, which has open ground to the N and E, are separated from the churchyard by stone walls abutting the mausoleum at NW and E. The pet cemetery is a group of four graves located outside the churchyard, roughly halfway along the E wall. The pet ‘cemetery’ is located in a grass verge next to a main estate path and there is a trail post nearby to the E. LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan No þ. The plan produced by CAVLP Graveyards Strategy (2013) shows the location and dimensions of the pet cemetery. ii Site size (at widest extent): length 30m width 22m. iii. Is the graveyard enclosed? Yes þ all elements are enclosed by a stone wall þ churchyard and mausoleum; railings þ mausoleum N & E walls; other þ -‐ dog grave enclosed by brick on edge kerbs. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yes þ Internal W wall gravestone fragments (excludes examples recorded by Betty Willsher see form 3), garden arch adjoining churchyard to NE. On external N wall are four primitive incised carvings of faces (see below). Remnants of gate fittings inside churchyard, N wall, outside churchyard along W wall. Curved section of wall internal to N boundary wall. (This may be part of a small building shown on the 1st Edition OS). v. Is site sub-‐divided Yes þ by a stone wall þ the mausoleum is separated from churchyard, the dog graves lie outside churchyard E boundary wall. vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? No þ vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? Yes þ surface muddy, width <1m, runs from gate to mausoleum, and along N wall around mausoleum, possibly made by builders. viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level No þ, ground level seems slightly higher outside the churchyard. x Ground surfaces other than grass? Yes þ nettley, buttercups, celandine in churchyard; pebble gravel surface in mausoleum enclosure. LANDSCAPE Trees – Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass – Is it low diversity lawn? No þ 3 ash, 1 oak, 1 maple, 3 sorbus, 1 sycamore. Are there many broadleaf Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ flora in the grass? Yes þ The UK Habitat (ground flora) Groups of trees scattered throughout? Yes þ around Are there ruderals? Yes þ Classification: Tall ruderal edges. At N end more than S end. (C3.1) This category comprises stands Only a few trees? Yes þ Any rank grass? No þ of tall perennial or biennial Mainly evergreen trees? No þ Grass mown No þ dicotyledons, usually more than Mixture of EG & deciduous? Yes þ no grass visible 25cm high, of species such as Chamenon (Chamaenerion) Mainly ornamental planting? Noþ Mown paths? No þ angustifolium, Urtica dioica and Are there shrubs planted ?No þ Landscape Reynoutria japonica. Dominant Character T ype: Are there self-‐sown trees? Yes þ species should be coded. See Policy broadleaf also ephemeral/short perennial woodland (local) (J1). and Flat valley floor (regional)

Ivy-‐ Does ivy grow on walls? Yes þ N side On gravestones and monuments? Yes þ Is this unchecked? Yes þ Diameter of trunk up to 50mm. Are there any? Lichens? spps >6 þ Mosses? Yes þ on gravestones . Bryophytes? Yes þ Black Liverwort. Any unusual /important plants? No þ Not seen. Grassland as above, possible brambles.

Any signs of? Small mammals? No þ not seen. Birds? Yes þ In trees and in flight. Bats? Yes þ trees, confirmed by Gerry Lewis, NLC. Amphibians/reptiles? Yes þ newts in Mausoleum, confirmed by Gerry Lewis, NLC. Insects? Yes þ not seen, but very likely. Other ? Yes þ possibly Clyde/ woodland habitats, noted by Gerry Lewis, NLC.

BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Extract from CANMORE and Historic Scotland Listing descriptions: The site of St Patrick's Church is occupied by a small burial ground. No traces of foundations. Mausoleum built in 1800 on same site and in same plan as the church. CHURCHYARD: mediaeval site of St. Patrick's Church. Levelled rectangular site. Numerous legible gravestones from 1707 to early 20th century, majority 1820-‐1900. BOUNDARY WALL: Early 19th century. Squared and droved coped sandstone courser; segmentally-‐arched carriage entrance to NW corner. Brick wall to Hamilton of Dalzell family enclosure to NE corner within overall boundary. MAUSOLEUM: early 19th century. single storey, gabled, rectangular-‐plan, squared and droved sandstone. Cavetto moulded eaves course; rusticated quoins; narrow ventilation slits. NE (PRINCIPAL) ELEVATION: lugged, moulded architrave to central doorway with yett; flanking slits; rectangular, moulded framed panel, red sandstone, to apex of gable bearing Hamilton of Dalzell arms. SW (REAR) ELEVATION: blind cinquefoil to centre. SE (SIDE) ELEVATION: 3-‐ bay, slits to 2nd and 3rd bay. NW (SIDE) ELEVATION: mirror of SE. Slates stripped since date of listing exposing large slab stones; narrow skews. INTERIOR: stone barrel-‐vault, SW, rear wall re-‐modelled in later 19th century in Romanesque style; ovolo, billet and chevron moulded framing arch supported on paired engaged columns, stiff-‐leaf capitals. Dado height, moulded semicircular arched, blind arcade to rear wall and 1st bay of side walls, engaged columns with scalloped capitals; 3 polychrome mosaic memorial panels to left bays of rear arcading; inscriptions to lower parts, foliate patterns in style of Owen Jones to upper parts. Blind cavetto moulded cinquefoil to tympanum. Is as described Yes þ No þ stone not brick boundary wall and new mild steel railings and gate to Mausoleum Additional Features / Comments Possible that remnants of stone coffin damaged in 1930s mentioned by Sloan (1986 p19) are contained in the mausoleum, which has several untidy piles of stone (two on wooden pallets) and is strewn with stone/rubble. The mausoleum also contains a very early C17th grave slab (see form 3) and there are records of carvings on the floor of the vault denoting C17th and C19th burials, plaque on E wall, C20th mosaic on the W wall but these were not seen during the field visit (LFHS MIs). A later site visit (04.04.13) made during repair works to the exterior N wall revealed as a result of vegetation clearance, three adjacent stones set in the lower course of the boundary wall with four roughly incised human faces. The E carving is at the centre of a roughly dressed stone block with deeply incised eyes and mouth within an oval-‐ shaped head. Although there appears to be no nose, this may be represented by what appears to be an incised line between the eyes. The W stone has two faces, one significantly smaller and not as deeply incised, positioned near the top edge of the stone. In this case, the mouth is 'smiling' mouth. A third carving, executed in near-‐identical style, is located between the E and W examples. The date of these carvings is uncertain, although the smaller example may be relatively modern. A broadly similar carving is recorded in a wall close to St Mary's Well in Irvine. SITE FURNITURE Nothing inside sites. External mobile interpretation point at churchyard entrance (was not working). Signage in vicinity of mausoleum themed ‘a place of memories’ Lady Sybil’s grave in the landscape, with refs in passim to churchyard and section on dog graves. 73

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER: ST PATRICK’S CHURCHYARD i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard: 193 (figure from LA) ii. Date of earliest stone: 1700 iii. Date of the most recent stone: 1915 iv. When are most stones erected: C19th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total Pre-‐C17 C18th C19th Post C19 þ þ Headstone 170 ( estimate þ) □ □ Mural Monument 0 ( estimate □) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Mural Tablet 0 ( estimate □) Grave Slab / Ledger (inscriptions obscured, 10 ( estimate □) þ þ □ □ dates estimated from form) Chest Tomb 0 ( estimate □) □ □ □ □ þ Low Coped Tomb 1 ( estimate □) □ □ □ Table Tomb 0 ( estimate □) □ □ □ □ þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 3 ( estimate □) □ □ □ Freestanding Cross 0 ( estimate □) □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Sculpture 0 ( estimate □) Other Gravestones / Carved Stones 6 ( estimate þ) Grave Slab / ledger stones’ inscriptions Headstoneforms include upright rectangular obscured, so dates have been stones (single or double width) used as lair extrapolated from form. markers. GRAVE FURNITURE There are several examples of MATERIALS Mos Some Few th sets of C19 stone grave maker posts but only or t th two examples of C19 ironwork (twisted grave rails, Sandstone þ □ □ iron posts). Other examples of grave markers may þ Granite □ □ be included in the stone rubble found across the Marble □ □ 1 site. It is hard to tell if the ground has been entirely Slate □ □ □ levelled, as the landscape is fairly crowded and was Iron □ □ □ covered with fallen leaves at the time of survey but Other □ □ □ there were no obvious traces of body mounds. Trade Symbols: No of stones 2 Mortality / Immortality: No of stones: 10 Two examples of tailor’s symbols of scissor and iron (estimated þ) (goose) carvings. One headstone is dated 1706 Examples of shell, inverted torches, urn, wreath, palm (initials of the deceased have eroded). The second fronds, dove, found on selected C19th stones. headstone is broken and only part of the carving Examples of C18th mortality / immortality carvings survives (fragment was previously fixed with epoxy not found, although Willsher documented an example resin). of a C17th death’s head in 1980s. Portraiture Carvings No 0 Heraldic Carvings No. 0 Other Carvings No. 0 Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are generally aligned in rows N-‐S and oriented E-‐ facing. Wilshire documented two mural monument in c.1980s (one with a death’s head surmounted by what appears to be a heraldic panel and two colonnettes) and rectangular mural monument with a moulded border (possibly C18th). No traces were found of these stone at the time of survey but two gravestone fragments were visible in the lower courses of the W wall. A later site visit (04.04.13) made during repair works to the W wall revealed that a section of wall had been entirely lost and had been masked by heavy ivy. It is possible that the stones recorded by Willsher were from this location. Of the stones built into the W wall seen during survey, one was an irregular fragment with worn lettering (face-‐on view blocked by a headstone) and the second was the upper portion of a triangular headstone with rounded acroteria and rounded/spear shaped finial, possibly C18th in date. 74

It seems surprising that no C18th mortality / immortality stones were found during the survey. The speculative winged cherub identified by Willsher is very worn and on close inspection it wasn’t at all clear if a carved surface existed beyond the border. Wilson’s (1937) Contribution to the History of Lanarkshire Vol 2 includes a photograph of a stone coffin, found when the old church was demolished, with decorated sides. This was placed along the W wall adjacent to a C19th pedimented headstone. The coffin was destroyed by vandals in 1965. No trace of the coffin or headstone was found during the survey. Sloan (1986) noted a carved slab (the coffin’s lid) was been erected in the terrace wall near the main house. There is an interesting variety of C18th and early C19th lettering styles, some quite primitive (and accordingly characterful). Several ‘mistakes’ are evident – from the spacing of text on the stone, to spelling (‘Dear Parents weep not for me I am dead and sleep hear’). Several C18th to early C19th stones are family lair markers noting the ‘intended burying space’ and a number of the early to later C19th headstones note who erected the stone. Rev Charles Rogers (1871) Monuments and Monumental Inscriptions in Scotland p 470: In the east end of the old parish church is a former burial-‐place of the family of Dalziel, ancestors of the Earls of Carnwath. One of the family tombstones is inscribed thus:" Heir lyes James Dalyell, Mearchant Bvrger Edr. lawful sone to umql. Thomas Dalyell, wch. Thomas wes lawful sone to the Right Honl. umql. William Dalyell of the ilk, procreat betwix him and his Lady Gelis Hamilton, lawful daughter to the Laird Preston, wch. James depairt tys lyf, at the place of Dalyell, the 8th of March, 1608, being of the age of 78 yeiris." GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER: PET CEMETERY i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard: 4 ii. Date of earliest stone: 1918 iii. Date of the most recent stone: 1935 iv. When are most stones erected: C20th DESCRIPTION Four low rectangular sandstone blocks set within a brick kerb enclosure. Unlike, some other examples of pet cemeteries (e.g. Edinburgh Castle, Hyde Park) the stones used are not miniature headstone designs. The graves are located outside the churchyard, roughly halfway along the E wall. The site is located in a grass verge next to a main estate path and there is a trail post nearby to the E. The site is loosely enclosed by a row of three trees to the N. GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER: HAMILTON OF DAZELL MAUSOLEUM i. No. gravestones 2 (enclosure) (mausoleum) ii. Date of earliest stone: 1 iii. Date of the most recent stone: 1915 iv. When are most stones erected: C19th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total Pre-‐C17 C18th C19th Post C19 þ □ □ □ Mural Monument 1 þ þ □ □ Mural Tablet 3 þ □ □ □ Low Tomb 2 DESCRIPITON There was no access inside the mausoleum and stones are described as visible from the iron gate. The mural monument contains spaces for nine mural panels and three have been erected (mosaic memorial panels with inscriptions to lower parts, foliate patterns in style of Owen Jones to upper parts). There is no public access to the mausoleum and the stones inside could not be closely examined but they appear as in the listing description (see Form 2). Dating to 1608, there is a large rectangular grave-‐slab is presently kept within the Hamilton of Dalziel mausoleum. A finely carved inscription is incised around its outer edge and fills part of the central panel. Beneath, a carved heraldic device depicts what appears to be a male figure hanging on a gibbet. Other than this, the stone bears no other decoration although there is a near circular hole piercing the upper left corner. The mausoleum’s enclosure is covered by a pebble gravel surface and contains two C20th sandstone low 75

tombs, with relief lettering inscription running around the top. Both stones have a central decoration of a relief cross with a foliate-‐style head on a stepped base. Moss cover prevented a closer examination of designs. LFHS MI’s note the following inscriptions on the floor of the vault: 16 FH 77 MR 1818 16 AH 77 which were not seen during field survey, along with an inscribed plaque on the W wall to Archibald Hamilton d 11.01.1834 and a mosaic on the E wall John David Hamilton d. 23.05.1900. Again these were also not seen (the former may not be visible from external view from doorway and the latter may have been lost from a mural panel where now only the panel surround survives).

GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? Churchyard large trees in boundary and across site need major surgery / □ no □ Yes -‐ □ Yes -‐ some þYes: □ Other felling. Trees in mausoleum odd areas (state) across site (state) enclosure need attention. examples B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or Conifer, Sorbus and Acer probably structures planted, Sycamore, Oak and Ash not? Churchyard and to lesser extent □ no þyes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other mausoleum enclosure. N/A pet odd areas (state) across site (state) graves examples C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? Ken Forbes (NLC Cemetery þ Manager) noted that site not recently □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no maintained. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? Very little grass ground cover at the þ site. N/A for mausoleum enclosure □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no and pet graves. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built Stones hard to read where covered. up? N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? Uneven generally. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples G: . Grass surfaces eroded? No grass visible in the churchyard, pet graves or mausoleum enclosure. □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: þ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? S end ivy and moss (also N facing gravestones and walls of □ no □ yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other Mausoleum). N/A for mausoleum odd areas (state) across site (state) enclosure and pet graves. examples South end of site and on walls – see I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? plan. N/A for mausoleum enclosure □ no □ yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other and pet graves. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 33 % of site affected. Assessment made of stones not covered by moss. Where inscriptions were missing this was usually due to erosion of the carved surface. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? No þ ground level appears to have risen rather than reduced over time and accordingly gravestones are more likely to have sunk rather than have their foundations exposed. One or two fallen stones have foundations visible. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves.

L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? Yes þ 65 stones (estimate) affected. Ken Forbes NLC reported that around 10+ years ago a stability check was made of stones in the burial ground and the necessary interventions to make safe carried and some stones may have been laid flat as a result of health and safety interventions. Several stones are leaning. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 30 stones (estimate) affected. Figure includes stones where components have become detached. Some breakages are associated with fallen stones. Figure excludes stone rubble at the site which is likely to contain broken stonework. Both tombs in for mausoleum enclosure broken. N/A for pet graves. N: Have gravestones been repaired? Yes þ 1 stone affected. The only gravestone repair spotted was to a headstone fragment with epoxy resin visible on the fracture, the missing fragment(s) were not evident at the time of survey. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves . O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? Yes þ next to the mausoleum (2012). N/A for pet graves. P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 75% affected. Patterns evident included scaling, fragmentation, disintegration, erosion and mechanical damage. Factors contributing to deterioration included water-‐run off linked to a gravestone’s design and moss and ivy growth. Several stones show notable degrees of stone loss at ground level. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves.

Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? Yes þ 25% W and E wall copings affected, ivy cover (see plan), some repointing needed W and N. N/A for pet graves. R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths No þ path self-‐made. N/A for mausoleum enclosure and pet graves. S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? No þ mausoleum now repaired, but signs of water ingress to stone on N and W elevations. N/A for pet graves. T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? Churchyard No þ moss-‐covered stone rubble visible across whole of site; Yes þ possible stone dump in front of NE entrance. Mausoleum Yes þ piles of stone pieces and rubble within mausoleum. N/A for pet graves. U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? Yes, some areas þ evidence of burning at base of a tree; Other þ Unclear whether fallen stones are the result of vandalism. Mausoleum vandalised shortly after restoration but since repaired. Gerry Lewis reported that as public use of the state had increased, incidents of vandalism had decreased. Evidence of a burnt out car visible outside the churchyard next to W boundary wall. V: Any evidence of littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? Yes þ across site þincludes builders’ rubble, small amount of litter and outside churchyard includes builders’ rubble, remnants of a burnt out car. Bottles in mausoleum. N/A for pet graves but tree branches, ivy piled up to the S. W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Ivy has damaged walls and gravestones. Trees have damaged walls and gravestones in the churchyard. Vandalism has damaged the gravestones in the churchyard and by the mausoleum and mausoleum itself. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ in the churchyard builders have left building materials and debris, creating an eyesore around N wall and W elevation of mausoleum. Site has not actively been maintained by the North Lanarkshire Cemeteries’ Dept. and as a result vegetation has detrimentally affected the condition of built features and gravestones. Three groups of visitors were encountered during the survey (c.10 people), some initially hesitant over whether the site was open to the public. Y: Any known conservation work? Yes þ Mausoleum restored c.2009 and roof repaired after lead theft in 2012. The graveyard is included on the Estate’s heritage trail and was included as a mobile phone interpretation access point. This scheme is no longer working. N/A for pet graves. Summary of Condition: Pet Cemetery The stones are in generally good condition, although the stone commemorating ‘Shot” would benefit from being reset. Clearing the detritus that surrounds the graves (fallen branches, stone rubble etc.) would enhance the graves setting. Summary of Condition: Mausoleum The mausoleum is in good condition, having recently been repaired. The blocks and fragments of stone that have been collected in the mausoleum look a little untidy and could be arranged to better effect. There is a small amount of litter visible that has been blown / thrown into the mausoleum. The Irish Yew trees in the enclosure have recently been trimmed. There is breakage to both low tombs: the 1952 stone has damage to the NW corner and the 1933 stone has damage to the NE corner. Self-‐ seeded saplings are encroaching the tombs and need to be removed. The N and W walls show moss growing at the base and signs of damp (black staining). The stone surface was also found to be soft where it has become stained orange (NW corner). LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating Condition Rating Built Heritage Rating Natural Heritage Poor Churchyard Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory mausoleum & pet graves

FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended works: Urgent • Restore a sense of order, generally: o lifting fallen stones, levelling, re-‐ assembling and re-‐ orienting. Ensure that all vertical stones are earth-‐fast. A suitable fixing method will need to be devised in cases where stones have eroded and snapped off at the base. o Clearing rubble and branches. • Establish a regular grounds maintenance programme appropriate for a historic graveyard and implement • Undertake a memorial stability assessment (including titling stones). • Stabilise gravestones. Stone cleaning – to be undertaken only where necessary to effect repairs. • After appropriate environmental surveys, manage ivy and trees to prevent further damage to gravestones and walls. • After appropriate environmental surveys, manage ground vegetation, cutting and removing brambles, nettles etc.

Recommended works: Necessary • Repair boundary walls where they have collapsed, including re-‐setting coping stones and raking out and re-‐pointing cracks and open joints as required • Identify any significant carved stones in rubble and match up fragments where possible and record if not to be re-‐fixed immediately. • Graves, reset as necessary (including resetting grave furniture, and reset flat stones, including pet graves, following the method set out in Historic Scotland guidance.) • Create a mown path or lay a gravel path to the Mausoleum • Address stiff gate • Tidy up mausoleum, remove builders’ rubble and assess significance of any fragments of worked stone. • Re-‐site C17th grave slab so that it can be more easily viewed. • Create a conservation management plan for the churchyard, mausoleum and pet graves. • After appropriate environmental survey control moss on gravestones (carry out for priority stones in first instance).

Recommended works: Desirable • Interpretation linking the old parish church site, pet graves and mausoleum to each other and to graveyards and carved stones in the locality. Links to covenanters, tree etc. on estate but burials in the graveyard? • Complete further research to confirm the likely location of St Patrick’s Church. • Repair/restore arch outside churchyard. • Implement quinquennial inspections of landscape, buildings and gravestones. • Establish extent of buried stones • Consider planting bulbs / native flowers in churchyard. • Restore priority gravestones following best practice guidelines. • Locate, record and consider keeping open to view, any buried stones in the graveyard. • Manage ruderals with volunteers to allow habitat enrichment

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • Outstanding setting within which sites are integral features of the designed landscape. Key built heritage features that complement the natural heritage value of the setting. • Good access, both via the estate and the three burial sites are all next to each other. • Part of an existing heritage attraction and next to RSPB national nature reserve and Clyde Walkway. • Group value, three different types of burial landscapes whose period of use spans C12th into C20th . • Stronger in historical value of site and gravestones and buildings rather than architectural or artistic importance. • Loss of several early stones but links to carved stones elsewhere on the estate and in the town. • No Covenanter connection known in churchyard. • Previous volunteer activities on-‐site, with potential for future NLC co-‐ordination. • Level of current visitors to the estate is beginning to deter anti-‐social behaviour. • Limited / obsolete interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey: 20.02.2013 ii Name of recorders S.Buckham & F. Fisher

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS GLASSFORD, OLD CHURCH AND CEMETERY OTHER NAME (S) Glasford, Kirk of Glassart, Address Muirburn Road, Glassford, ML10 6TR Parish GLASSFORD LA area South Lanarkshire Grid reference NS 73209 47006 Owner / Manager South Lanarkshire Council Cemeteries Dept. SITE REFERENCES CANMORE þ Burial Ground, Church, Covenanters Grave NS74NW 2; No CANMORE entry þ Glassford Cemetery; WOSAS þ ID 9709 -‐Glassford, Old Church and Martyr's Tomb; No WOSAS entry þ Glassford Cemetery DESIGNATIONS -‐ i) Listed Cat B þ Ruin Of Old Church And Graveyard (Ref:7654) ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area no þ iv) WHS no þ v) GDL no þ vi) SSSI no þ vii) NNR no þ viii) LBAP interest no þ SITE TYPE Graveyard connected to a church þ ; public cemetery est. post 1830 þ CURRENT USE i) Elements of the church, or other building, survive as ruins þ Church, or other building, redundant □ ii) no evidence for intramural burial þ iii) Graveyard closed to new burials þ churchyard date of last burial 1958 (info from LA); Graveyard in use for new burials þ cemetery only. ACCESS • Restricted opening times: yes þ on sign. • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: yes þ • Locked gates / other barrier: no þ pedestrian access but locked to vehicles overnight. • Distance from graveyard: 20 m. • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ road. • Signposting to site: no þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: yes þ • Ease of navigation around site: yes þ o • N . of car spaces: c.10 roadside parking (disabled • Signposting through site: no þ Only sign inside is spaces N/A). churchyard is Covenanter sign, but plan of cemetery and churchyard on sign at gate. • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ N/A • Site part of larger attraction -‐ no þ but potentially part of a Covenanters’’ Heritage Trail. • Length of approach and width: 10 m x 3M. • Public transport to site: no þ Not on a bus route. • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ • Location: rural þ at edge of Glassford. • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ Comments • Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or Access via road narrow with no passing places. bridleway network: no þ • Cycle parking: no þ LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Does the graveyard stand out: yes þ • Part of a designed landscape: no þ • Is it a focal point in the landscape: yes þ • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape: no þ • Is it a positive feature: yes þ • Nearby landscape designations: no þ • Are there imp views of it: yes þ Good views from S & • Nearby landscape character: rolling fields / edge of N. village. • Are there imp views from it: yes þ To E, River Avon. • Nearby wildlife corridors: no þ • Is it generally attractive yes þ • How close is the nearest woodland? 0.8km. • How close is the nearest water feature? 0.8km. GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from CANMORE, WOSAS and Institute of Cemetery and Crematoria Management Bereavement Services Portal entries. A half-‐mile to the east of Glasford are remains of the old church of 1633. F H Groome 1883; NSA 1845. The western gable and belfry of an old church, probably not the original building, stand in the churchyard to the east of Glasford. A church is mentioned in 1278. There is a Martyr's Tomb in the burial ground -‐ 'William Gordon of Earlston, shot in 1679'. J A Wilson 1936-‐7 Roy's Military Survey of Scotland (1747-‐55) shows a building in an enclosure here called "Kirk of Glassart". No other ecclesiastical site is shown in the vicinity, so it is most likely that this is the site of the medieval parish church. An associated small settlement (see WoSAS PIN 53188) is also shown on Roy's map near the site of the manse shown on the First Edition O.S. map. Entered WoSAS (HMcB) 18/04/2006 A new parish church was built in the centre of the village of Glassford in 1820. The old church partially remains. The earliest headstone found is dated 1709. The first cemetery extension opened in 1878 and was built adjacent to the old churchyard with another extension opening in 1982 and this continues to provide lairs for interment for future generations. Cremated remains can also be interred or scattered within family lairs. There are records available from 1912. This area and cemetery is linked to the covenanting trail. Several records (including WOSAS, Scotland’s Churches Trust, SAFHS Inventory) mistake the old churchyard for the church in the village, which doesn’t have a burial ground. 82

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? Yes þ The adjoining cemetery, which can be access from the middle of the E churchyard wall was established in two phases 1878 and 1982. LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan Yes þ Main site entrance, churchyard entrance and access to the cemetery from E wall. Outer gate length 10 m width 2.6 m. ii Site size (at widest extent): length 72 m, width 63 m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? Yes þ by a stone wall þ iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yes þ Verse on back of the Martyr’s stone. The churchyard is accessed via the main cemetery gate, which has stone piers with pyramidal caps, the stone piers at the churchyard gate are ball finial. There is a dog’s leg alignment to the N wall which is curved. Square shaped build in the N wall to the E of the gate, perhaps denoting space for a lair / mural tablet. v. Is site sub-‐divided Yes þ by a stone wall þ between the churchyard and cemetery and the 1878 cemetery layout and 1982 extension. vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? No þ vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? No þ churchyard Yes þ cemetery red whin grit surface <5mm. viii. Is the layout rectilinear No þ polygonal. ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level Yes þ churchyard; No þ cemetery. x Ground surfaces other than grass? No þ the two burial enclosures in the churchyard have bark chip surface, the Covenanter’s memorial has a small area of gravel in front. LANDSCAPE: Trees Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ Is it low diversity lawn? Yes þ Groups of trees scattered throughout? No þ Are there many broadleaf flora in the grass? No þ Only a few trees? Yes þ Are there ruderals? No þ Landscape Char: Mainly evergreen trees? Yes þ Yews Any rank grass? No þ Lowland / Clyde UK Grassland basin farmland / & Cypress. Is the grass mowed? Yes þ Classification: Pasture Mixture of EG & deciduous Yes þ Mown short all over? Yes þ J.1.2. Amenity Mainly ornamental planting? Yes þ Mown paths? No þ grassland Are there shrubs planted No þ in churchyard; Yes þ Rhododendrons/Laurels in cemetery. Are there self-‐sown trees Yes þ Ivy-‐ Does ivy grow on walls? Yes þ as indicated on plan. Any signs of? On gravestones and monuments? Yes þ Only 1 or 2 NE Small mammals? Yes þ -‐ Moles W churchyard. Is this unchecked? No þ Birds? Yes þ -‐ trees, bushes, wall. Bats? No þ not seen. Are there any? Amphibians/reptiles? No þ not seen. Lichens ? ssps <12þ Insects? No þ not seen. Mosses? Yes þ Everywhere? þ Other? No þ Bryophytes? No þ Not seen. Any unusual /important plants? No þ not seen. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Historic Scotland listing description only notes ‘Dated 1633’, however the WoSAS (HMcB) description of 31/08/2009 is more detailed: The west gable and belfry, of rubble masonry approximately 1.0 metre thick, still stand, together with part of the return of the north wall 4.0 metres long and 3.0 metres high. The Martyr's Tomb still stands. Visited by OS (JFC) 26 February 1954. A site visit on 26/11/2001 found the gable wall as described and in good condition, and the graveyard well-‐maintained. Although close access was not possible, the building remains appear to be in good condition and the graveyard is well-‐maintained. The pitch of the surviving gable and the detailing of the skews suggest that in its last form at least, the building was thatched. The northern wall retains a blocked opening partly outlined with red sandstone rybats The structural details such as the surviving eaves moulding suggest a relatively late date, perhaps early eighteenth century, although this may be a late repair or consolidation of an earlier post-‐ Reformation structure. As described? Yes þ But no mention of the sundial visible around 4-‐5 m above ground level set into the SW corner.

Additional Features / Comments All that remains of the old church is the ruin of the W gable with belfry and faces S. There is the broken stump of the metal gnomon, but no numbers visible from ground level or with the aid of a camera. Additionally, on the E of the gable there is the line of an internal bell pull now eroding and tracking water. There are open joints at the top of the gable and in places around the base. The whole has been heavily pointed in cement at some point in the past. The supporting stones for a loft can be seen on the E face. A rectangular structure buts on to the E side of the N half of the gable and extends approximately 4m E. The N wall is 2.5m high and has an uneven wall head with no coping. The S and E wall 1.5m appear to have flat coping stones, although all wall heads are grass covered. The E wall is also 1.5m and has a low lintel over an opening roughly formed with no posts or rybats and blocked off with random rubble. The enclosed space is filled with rubble masonry and a sycamore tree. There are two large railed burial enclosures to the E of the ruined church with chip bark surfaces. The first contains two C18th century table tombs and a C19th headstone. The iron railings are topped with a fleur de lis design, and moulded corner finials. The second enclosure contains a C20th sculptured monument in the form of an open book and a C19th headstone. The railings are topped with Tudor flower style finial and there are rounded decorative finials at the corners. It is likely that the railings date are contemporary with the C19th commemorations. SITE FURNITURE Sign on gate for Covenanter Trail Glassford Graveyard Martyr’s Grave and an upright metal sign inside the churchyard near Covenanter’s stone. This is a good height but an alternative material would be more sympathetic to the historic graveyard setting. While the content of the sign is fine the text may be a little too small and densely laid out for ease of reading. There is a bin, bench and management sign outside the churchyard entrance within the cemetery. There is also a bench in the cemetery extension. The sign for Glassford Cemetery includes a plan of the churchyard (laid out facing north rather than as on the ground to visitors).

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER Burial section: Glassford Churchyard i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 157 (from LA plan), 156 (from FHS MI) ii. Date of earliest stone 1714 (seen during survey) 1709 (from FHS MI) iii. Date of the most recent stone? 1936 (seen during survey) 1930 (from FHS MI) iv. When are most stones erected? C19th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th and C18th C19th Post earlier C19th þ þ þ Headstone 115 ( estimate □ þ) þ □ □ □ Mural Monument 3 þ þ □ □ Mural Tablet 2 þ þ Grave Slab / Ledger [includes poss broken table 17 □ □ tombs] Chest Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ Low Coped Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ Table Tomb [MIs obscured by moss, possibly date into 15 þ □ □ □ C19th] þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 4 □ □ □ Freestanding Cross [with unusual as has attached 1 þ □ □ □ rectangular grave markers, within iron cages] þ Sculpture [scroll] 2 □ □ □ Other Gravestones / Carved Stones Two small thick rectangular grave markers, one with winged soul carved in high relief (possibly a table end) and one with mouldings on the flanks. Date C18th est. from form. GRAVE FURNITURE MATERIALS Most Some Few Fragments of immortelles and occasional lair Sandstone þ □ □ markers (not in situ). Ironwork includes two railed Granite þ □ □ burial enclosures described on Form 2, and two þ Marble □ □ ‘herses’ metal frames recalling mortsafes placed □ □ □ Slate around the rectangular grave makers next to the □ □ □ Iron granite freestanding cross. þ □ □ Other -‐ Concrete Trade Symbols: No of stones: 2 (tentative) Mortality / Immortality: No of stones Anchor on wall plaque where the inscription notes (estimated □) the deceased died at sea. [Free]Mason’s compass C19th Urn 3; Foliage 5; Stylised frond / spear 2; and square. The use of both of these motifs may not Anchors 2; Rosette 2; Wreath 3; Wreath, cross, crown be linked to the trade of the deceased, as both 1; Cross 1; Book 1 symbols possess alternative meanings in their 18th Skull 6; Bones 2; Crossed bones 4; Book 3; Heart period of use. 3; Winged soul 4; Hourglass 4; Scythe and arrow 1. Portraiture Carvings No 1 (tentative) the carved C18th symbols are predominantly carved in relief and head on the C18th mural monument be the found on table tomb ends. Exceptions include a remnants of a carved soul but could also be a headstone with skull (relief) and cross-‐bones portrait, stone too damaged / worn to establish. (incised) and two examples of winged souls, one on a Heraldic Carvings None. mural monument and one on a low rectangular grave marker. Other Carvings: 6 high quality large headstones with C19th architectural forms and mouldings. Geometric carving on C18th table tomb ends (both). Two ribbon style banners on C18th table tomb ends. Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are generally aligned in rows N-‐S and oriented E-‐ facing. The churchyard ground does not appear to have been flattened. Betty Willsher considers this site to possess one of the best collections of C18th carved stones in the county. The stone with the rare and high quality carving of the tree of life documented by Willsher in 1980s is no longer earth-‐fast and lies carved face down on the ground. As a result it’s present condition in uncertain. Carvings of books (Bible) recurrent symbol and the use of the scythe and arrow also unusual for the area. There is also an unusual skull, in profile with projecting bones (some carving is below ground) with a flesh nose and mouth. There are two fine classical style two wall monuments, one commemorating the Covenanter William Gordon of Earlston erected in 1772 (and repaired historically and more recently), the second to Robert Dobie d. 1772 aged 4 years, son of the Rev Alexander Dobie. Several inscriptions appear to indicate the date of ownership of a lair began on stones that were erected at a later date. Similarly, one stone dating to C18th commemorates a C17th death. The naïve lettering and squint 85

layout suggests the inscription on one table tomb was carried out by the family, rather than by a stonemason. Several stones in this churchyard commemorating service men buried elsewhere. The only one who is listed on the CWGC (the other two fall outwith the CWGC criteria) is to NICOLSON, DONALD McDONALD King's Own Scottish Borderers, ‘who fell at Gaza 19 April 1917’. Also the obelisk to Andrew YUILL (5th Dragoon Guards) who ‘drowned on 11th October 1838, somewhere between Newcastle and Leith, when the "Northern Yacht Steam Ship" foundered’ [Scottish War Graves Project]

Martyrs Graves of Scotland: The churchyard is on the opposite side of the road to the manse. It had the

untrimmed, neglected appearance so characteristic of churchyards in the country districts of Scotland. Its gate stood open, and we were told was always so in West Quarter. As in Loudon, the gable walls of the old church still stand. It dates from 1633, and must have been a building of half the size of the present parish church. On the west wall of the churchyard was the object of our visit the monument over the grave of Gordon of Earlston or Earlstoun. It is some seven or eight feet in height. It is built into, or rises out of; the wall of the churchyard. Although it bears to have been once repaired since it was first erected, yet it is now much in need of repair again. The inscription is somewhat lengthy, and is as follows: To the Memory of the very Worthy Pillar of the church, Mr William Gordon of Earlston in Galloway, Shot by a partie of dragoons on his way to Bothwellbridge, 22 June. 1679. aged 65, inscribed by his great grand son, Sir John Gordon, Bart, 11 June. 1772. Silent till now full ninety years hath stood, This humble Monument of Guiltless Blood. Tyranick Sway, forbad his Fate to name Least his known Worth should prove the Tyrants shame. On Bothwell road with love of Freedom fired,The Tyrant s minions boldly him requir d To stop and yield, or it his life would cost. This he disdain d not knowing all was lost. On which they fired. Heaven so decreed His doom. Far from his own laid in this silent Tomb.How leagued with Patriots to maintain the Cause Of true RELIGIOUS LIBERTY and Laws, How learn d, how soft his manner, free from Pride, How clear his Judgement, and how he lived and dyed They well could tell who weeping round him stood On Strevan plains that drank his Patriot Blood. REPAIRED By Sir John Gordon Bart. of Earlston. His Representative. On the other side of the monument, facing the road that runs past the manse, are the lines: IF A HARD FATE DEMANDS, OR CLAIMS A TEAR, STAY, GENTLE PASSENGER, AND SHED IT HERE. GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER Burial section: Glassford Cemetery (1878 section only) i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 150 ii. Date of earliest stone 1891 iii. Date of most recent stone 2012 iv. When are most stones erected? C20th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th C18th C19th Post C19th and earlier Headstone 146 ( estimate þ □ □ 1 þ) þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 1 □ □ □ þ Freestanding Cross 3 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Sculpture 0 þ Other Gravestones / Carved Stones 3 describe Plaques in the shape of shields etc. supported by metal props (not earth-‐fast). Heart-‐ shaped headstone. GRAVE FURNITURE MATERIALS Most Some Few Flower vases, shells and one immortelle base. Sandstone □ □ 1 þ □ □ Granite Two lairs enclosed by kerbsets, one of cement and þ □ □ Marble the other of granite. Slate □ □ □ 86

□ □ □ Iron Modern graves may have a range of personal Other: Concrete and 1 þ □ □ mementos. wooden cross Symbols and Carvings: No of stones with decoration 30% (estimated þ) Early C20th designs include urns; flowers and foliage, doves, wreath, vine Later C20th / early C21st designs include Celtic cross and knot, freemason’s compass and square with G, portraits, scenes of hobbies, animals, landscapes, flowers and foliage etc. Initial of or full surname at the top of the stone found on some C20th stones. Two WWII war graves have regimental carvings (Royal Army Medical Corps; Scots Guards). Comments / Other Significant Stones There is a loose fragment of C18th carved winged soul lying on the ground next to the E wall in the 1887 area of cemetery. There is also a detached C19th urn final next to the W wall. War graves: BOWLES, JAMES, Royal Navy, died 07 November 1943 BOWLES, JAMES Civilian War Dead, died 17 March 1941 (same stone); CROZIER, JAMES BROWNLIE, Highland Light Infantry, died 10 May 1919; J PARK, 27th Field Ambulance, died 27 February 1920; ROBERTSON, DAVID, Scots Guards, died between 11 and 21 May 1941. Other servicemen’s gravestones include the headstone to Surgeon Lieutenant-‐Colonel Thomas Wilson Jackson, Army Medical Staff and Surgeon-‐Commander William Jackson, Royal Navy died 13th February 1961 (same stone).

A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? □ □ Yes, odd þ Yes -‐ some □ Yes: □ Other No examples areas (state) across site (state)

Saplings E side of Church gable and inside enc., some growing into gravestones. Mature Sycamore on E boundary wall. Saplings as above.

B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or structures □ no þ yes, □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? Around gravestones and boundary walls, erosion has taken □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other place. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built Several C18th headstones / grave up? slabs sinking but many fallen headstones also becoming buried. □ no þ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other Notable issue for site. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? Generally uneven but not pronounced. □ no □ yes -‐ þyes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples G: . Grass surfaces eroded? þno □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? Moss and a small number by ivy, including table tombs along W □ no □ yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other boundary. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? Mainly on boundary walls and not too bad. SW corner of one of the N □ no □ yes -‐ þyes -‐ some □ yes: □ other burial enclosure stones displaced. odd areas (state) across site (state) examples J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 50 % of site affected, mainly flat and C18th, result of stone deterioration but also moss, lichen and soil cover. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? Yes þ Estimated 25% stones affected. Bricks failing under large granite obelisk. L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? Yes þ 13 stones affected, including examples that have snapped off at the base due to stone deterioration and the headstone with the rare tree of life carving. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 21 stones affected (includes stones with detached components). N: Have gravestones been repaired? Yes þ2 Fractured headstones repaired with cement mortar and one also with iron staples. One example of a historic repair to inscription Lang stone – ‘ng’ replaced.

O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? Yes þ ordinary Portland Cement 90% of structures affected, Signs of water causing stress fractures along base of wall and base of copings and water being channelled into stone bell-‐pull track. P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 35 % affected. Deterioration patterns present at this site include: water-‐run off on vertical stones due to design; opening of stone joints wall monument; bursting from corroding iron fixtures, cracking and fragmentation of concrete stones,. There are numerous examples of erosion, including differential erosion, and detachment, including fragmentation, blistering and scaling. Fractures in flat stones – possible mechanical damage from mowing? Moss and lichen growth exacerbating deterioration. A significant issue for this site is stone loss at the base of headstones resulting in memorials snapping and falling over. Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? Yes þ 20-‐30 % affected. Movement cracks base of walls. Cracks and open joints. Loose copings. Gate doesn’t open properly.

R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths No þ no paths S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? Yes þ 10-‐15 % affected –details Loose masonry, open joint T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? Yes þ 15 % affected – give details Several table tombs have become displaced from legs and a number of headstones are notably tilting. Some stones appear to have been moved around the edge of the site (e.g. bases and fragments along the W boundary and two headstones to the E of the S burial enclosure). U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? No þ SLC cemeteries manager reported occasional incidents in the past but generally not as issue. V: Any evidence of any littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? Yes þ -‐ isolated examples þ traffic cones W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Moss and ivy has led to gravestone and wall deterioration. Spraying with herbicide has led to gravestone deterioration. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition ? No □ Yes □ – give details Ironwork around burial enclosures rusty and needs repainting. Former painting poor, with pain on stonework. Covenanters’ sign not in keeping. Gravel and polythene sheeting unsightly. Litter bin at gate. Green Covenanters’ Trail sign not appropriate design or fixing. SLC cemeteries manager reported that animal burrows are an issue for visitor health and this and other CALVP sites. Y: Any known conservation work? Yes þ Visible repairs. Scottish Covenanters Memorial Association recently cleaned the Covenanter’s stone, erected an interpretation panel and planted an oak tree between church ruin and W boundary wall. However, this is not suitable location for a large-‐growing tree and it is not clear if the roots have been constrained. Observations on Condition and Management: Cemetery Surface discolouration of light stones is affecting legibility. Issue of migration of stone fragments and components, some obviously from the churchyard. Areas untidy due to boards and earth (associated with burials) not being taken away from the site or stored more sympathetically onsite. Paths in reasonable condition but repairs to steps with handrails needed. Consider replacing the laurel with something more manageable. Tree roots encroaching on gravestones and seedlings on boundary wall between churchyard and cemetery. LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (churchyard only) (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating: Condition Rating: Built Heritage Rating: Natural Heritage Satisfactory / Poor Potentially good but poor condition Satisfactory / Poor

FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended works: Urgent • Lift fallen stones, levelling, re-‐assembling and re-‐ orienting. Ensure that all vertical stones are earth-‐ fast. Develop protcols to re-‐erect, pin and stabilise stones which have eroded and snapped off at the base. • Repair table tombs where end stones are failing. • Assess H & S at drop over east wall, consider raising height, erect fence or low hedge / or a disclaimer. • Remove sapling near walls, gravestones and from the ruin of the old parish church. • Consider options to limit / remove the use of herbicide.

Recommended works: Recommended works: Desirable Necessary • Repair and paint match work on • After appropriate railings, gates and fencing. environmental survey control • Create a conservation management moss on gravestones (carry plan for the churchyard and Old out for priority stones in first Parish Church ruin. instance). • Consult historic Scotland and • After appropriate obtain Listed Building Consent, if environmental surveys, required manage ivy, trees and other • Repair walls, rake out and replace planting to prevent further Ordinary Portland Cement with damage to gravestones and lime on boundary walls and walls. church. • Carry out standing building • Implement quinquennial survey of the old parish inspections of landscape, buildings church and gravestones. • In consultation with Historic • Interpretation, Covenanters, Scotland, repair loose church and C18th stones. masonry on church ruin, like • Develop local support group or for like. interest within an existing local • Rationalise missing parts of heritage or amenity society. gravestones, re-‐uniting where • Install nesting boxes etc. possible? Establish future • Determine if the ruined building policy for dealing with stone adjacent the churchyard has any fragments and components. connections to the site. • Graves, reset as necessary • Analyse C18th carvings to identify (including resetting grave the work of specific stonemasons. furniture, and relay flats • Locate, record and consider stones following the method keeping open to view, any buried set out in Historic Scotland stones in the graveyard. guidance.) • Consider repairs with low sward • Create a strategy to manage grass seed or turf to allow grave ephemera (including conversion to natural meadows. lair number markers and shells) as part of general maintenance programmes. Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • High regional significance of C18th stone carvings and their current vulnerability. • No onsite information about the historical aspects of the site other than the Covenanter memorial. • Attractive Old Parish Church, but relatively un-‐recorded (sun-‐dial observed). • Lack of nearby attractions to help draw visitors to the site. Not near to the Clyde Walkway and no link to Avon. • Covenanter trail is out of date (Glassford is not included in the list of rural Covenanter memorials on the Visit Lanarkshire website). • Attractiveness of site in its setting. Cemetery relatively sympathetic development (1878 section). • No previous community engagement. • Limited / obsolete interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey 7 March 2013 ii Name of recorders Dr S Buckham. F. Fisher

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS MAULDSLIE CASTLE, BURIAL-‐GROUND OTHER NAME (S) HAUGH HILL BURIAL-‐GROUND Address by Mauldslie Nursery, ML8 5QE Parish Carluke LA area South Lanarkshire Grid reference NS 80910 50088 Owner / Manager Privately owned (see form 5) SITE REFERENCES CANMORE þ

Mauldslie Castle, Burial-‐Ground ref NS85SW 56; WOSAS þ

id 50445

DESIGNATIONS i) Not Listed þ ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area no þ iv) WHS no þ v) GDL no þ vi) SSSI no þ vii) NNR no þ viii) LBAP interest yes þ Clyde Woodland, wooded site. SITE TYPE Private family burial(s) þ CURRENT USE i) not associated with a church þ ii) intramural burial N/A þ iii) Graveyard in use for new burials? Not established þ family have moved away, not able to contact. Date of last burial 1930 (from MI). ACCESS • Locked gates / other barrier: yes þ garden gate. • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: no þ • Signposting to site: no þ • Distance from graveyard: 50 m. • Ease of navigation around site: no þ overgrown (nettles in summer). • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ • Signposting through site: no þ N/A for ownership, scale and layout of site. • No. of car spaces N/A (disabled spaces N/A). attraction: no þ but Mauldslie • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ • Site p art o f l arger Woods part of Clyde Valley Woodland NNR. • Length of approach and width: 50 m, 1-‐2 m. • Public transport to site: no þ • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ • Location: remote setting þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ Comments Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or Part of former Maulslie Estate. Now has a sewage bridleway network: no þ cuts through a private treatment works and areas developed for housing. garden, no right of way. Clyde Walkway approx. 300m to S and Mauldslie Woods • Cycle parking: no þ NNR approx. 1km NNW. • Restricted opening times: yes þ not open to public. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL • Does the graveyard stand out? no þ hidden in trees. • Is it a focal point in the landscape? no þ • Is it a positive feature? yes þ Ancient wooded hilltop site with distinctive lych gate. • Are there imp views of it? no þ • Are there imp views from it? no þ • Is it generally attractive? yes þ but very overgrown and setting compromised by garden (decked area).

LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Part of a designed landscape? yes þ sub-‐ inventory. • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape? yes þ • Nearby landscape designations? no þ but part of CAVLP recommended Garden and Designed Landscape study. • Nearby landscape character: designed landscape. • Nearby wildlife corridors: yes þ • How close is the nearest woodland? 0m. • How close is the nearest water feature? 250 m to the River Clyde. GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from CANMORE and WOSAS entries. With additional details from Rathmell Archaeology Ltd, 17th June 2011, Mauldslie Castle Nurseries: Archaeological Evaluation Data Structure Report by Douglas Gordon and Dalserf Church Website. The graveyard is on a tree-‐covered mound on what was once the estate of Mauldslie Castle. Near this mound, a piece of ground beside the river called Abbey Stands is said to have been the site of the early parish church / medieval chapel (WoSAS Id 10331), before the church was built in the village of Carluke for the greater convenience of the inhabitants. The central area and galleries at Dalserf Church were added thanks to a donation from The first Lord Newlands of Mauldslie. To the north is the site of Mauldslie Castle (WoSAS Id 41084), built in 1792 for the 5th Earl of Hyndford to designs by Robert Adam. The castle was remodelled in 1860, after the estate was acquired by Mr James Hozier, with the addition of Scottish Baronial architectural detail. This building was demolished in 1957 although the adjacent Stables still stand. Little is known for certain about the early history of the Mauldslie Estate, but it is known that at one time it was a Royal Hunting Forest (in the 13th century). There is further documentary evidence that it was later transferred during the reign of James VI to Mark Kerr, Commendator of Newbattle Abbey in Midlothian to form part of the new post-‐ Reformation Barony of Newbattle, along with other lands which had belonged to Newbattle Abbey. There is known to have been an earlier castle at Mauldslie before the later Adam House was built (mentioned in the Parliamentary proceedings that transferred the land to Mark Kerr in 1587). Roy’s Military Survey of Scotland predates the construction of the Adam design Mauldslie Castle in the 18th Century. This map depicts the mound on which the graveyard is placed as being on the fringes of the designed landscape / orchard. 92

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? Yes þ There are two separate railed burial enclosures, the first, N one is entirely railed off from the rest of the graveyard, the S one is enclosed on four sides and there is room on the EW to pass to reach the other enclosure. The Scottish Genealogy Society’s MI note the second enclosure was consecrated by the Rt Rev W T Harrison DD Bishop of Glasgow & Galloway on 30.12.1890. LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan Yes þ double timber lychgate and double iron gate, length c. 7m width c. 2.5m. ii Site size (at widest extent): length 40 m, width 10 m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? Yes þ by horizontal metal railings estate style black and rabbit mesh below. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yes þ Timber lych gate with terracotta tiles and ridge. v. Is site sub-‐divided Yes þ by metal railings (see above), vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? No þ vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? Yes þ surface of leaf litter, width < 3m. To E & W of the first enclosure. viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ with the narrow entrance, the graveyard is ‘wine bottle’ shaped. ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level Yes þ The owner of the hill believes this is man-‐made and associated with the early church. x Ground surfaces other than grass? Yes þ woodland floor, nettles primroses and snowdrops. LANDSCAPE Trees – Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass – Is it low diversity lawn? No þ No grass. Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ but trees all Are there many broadleaf flora in the ground cover? Yes þ around and overhanging. Are there ruderals? Yes þScattered across site, but not in Groups of trees scattered throughout? No þ enclosures. Only a few trees? No þ Any rank grass? No þ None seen. Landscape Mainly evergreen trees? No þ Is the grass mowed? No þ No grass. Character Type: Lowland/River Mixture of EG & deciduous No þ UK Grassland Classification: Valley/ River Tall ruderal (C3.1) (tall Mainly ornamental planting? Yes þ Valley Sides/Policy perennial or biennial Are there shrubs planted Yes þ broadleaf dicotyledons) in a Mixed woodland Rhododendron. plantation (A1.3.2) Are there self-‐sown trees Yes þ Ivy Any signs of? List Does ivy grow on walls? No þ Small mammals? Yes þ badger or fox burrows under On gravestones and monuments? No þ tombs in 1st enclosure and in front of kerbs sets in second Is this unchecked? No þ enclosure (W). Birds? Yes þ tits and blackbirds in trees. Are there any? Lichens? spps >12 □ <12þ 0□ Bats? No þ None seen but likely. Mosses? Yesþ Everywhere? þ Amphipians/reptiles? No þ None seen but likely. Bryophytes? Noþ None seen Insects? No þ None seen but likely. Any unusual /important plants? Noþ Other? No þ not seen BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Not described in CANMORE etc. There are 45 steps with stone risers and earth or gravel treads lead up to site, which is entered via a lych gate. The lych gate has a terracotta tiled gabled wooden roof on a stone base, supported by an arrangement of openwork beams, braces and struts and vertical side members. Roof ridge is aligned at right angles to the passageway into the site. Double wooden gates with decorative ironwork on under hinge to keep out rabbits. Lead gutters. The lych gate is an interesting feature as these structures are less commonplace in Scotland than in England. The cast iron ironwork around first burial enclosure is more ornamental that the second enclosure and has pointed, chevron-‐style finials, with occasional corner / gate urn shaped finials. The second enclosure is a plain wrought iron fence style railing in the same design as the graveyard’s boundary fence. All metal work is painted black. Additional Features / Comments None, features described above. SITE FURNITURE (e.g. bins, benches, lighting, noticeboards, interpretation panels, other signage). None

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 9 (including 3 carved pedestals) ii. Date of earliest stone 1817 iii. Date of the most recent stone? 1906 iv. When are most stones erected? C19th (first burial enclosure 1811-‐23; second enclosure 1849-‐1906) GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th C18th C19th Post C19th and earlier Headstone 0 □ □ □ □ Mural Monument (with 3 panels and 4 1 þ kerbed graves, two of which contain prone □ □ □ crosses) □ □ □ □ Mural Tablet 0 þ □ □ □ Grave Slab / Ledger 2 þ □ □ □ Chest Tomb 1 Low Coped Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ Table Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 0 □ □ □ □ þ Freestanding Cross (Celtic on high pedestals) 2 □ □ □ Sculpture 0 □ □ □ □ Other Gravestones / Carved Stones Three square section stone þ? þ? sandstone pedestals with winged cherub carvings stand sentinel-‐like in front of the 1st enclosure. The bases are badly eroded white sandstone with rectangular panels with faces carved in high relief, some of which feature ruffs. The moulded square copes in yellow sandstone feature curved chamfered edges which are carved with a crisp, classical acanthus leaf design. GRAVE FURNITURE Railings around the two MATERIALS Most Some Few st burial enclosures (described on form 2). The mural Sandstone (1 enclosure + þ □ □ pedestals) monument includes four enclosed lairs, two of þ □ □ Granite (2nd enclosure) which have prone Roman crosses. nd þ Marble (2 enclosure) □ □ Symbols and Carvings: No of stones 6 Winged cherubs on the three pedestals’ on N S E W faces (while all have the same composition their facial expressions, as far as can be told with extent of stone decay, seem to vary) and an acanthus design on the moulding along the top edge. The mural monument incorporates a central cross and two prone crosses and in the same enclosure are two freestanding crosses. Additionally, the mural monument has a small lead-‐ inlaid ivy design on both the E and W panels. The freestanding crosses have an central IHS (Christogram based on the first three letters of "Jesus" in Greek in Greek capitals ΙΗΣΟΥΣ or IHSOUS in Latin) There are no trade, heraldic or portrait carvings.

Comments / Other Significant Stones The gravestones are fairly standard early C19th – later C19th designs, and while they are of a monumental nature they don’t display any particularly significant architectural or artistic merit. The three carved pedestals are more intriguing, their style is far more ornamental that the other stones, they don’t have a date inscribed and their function is not clear (i.e. whether components of larger gravestones or memorials or if their use is more ornamental i.e. to symbolise the funerary nature of the site. The do not appear to have has anything fixed above them, such as an urn. The material and level of preservation suggests a date, at least for the upper stones, to the first half of the C19th. The chronology of the site itself is intriguing. The Old Statistical Account of Scotland suggests that the mound is man-‐made and is an ancient burial ground, where quantities of bone and carved stones have been recovered. The Rev Charles Rogers in his Monuments and Monumental Inscriptions in Scotland p443 describes an earlier C18th burial : PARISH OF CARLUKE. A mound near Mauldslie Castle, surrounded with large trees, was an ancient burial-‐place. On its summit was interred Brigadier-‐ General James Carmichael, second Earl of Hyndford. He died 16th August, 1737. The relationship between this site and the suppose site of St Luke’s Church and Cistercian Abbey marked to the W on the first edition OS map is unclear. Data supplied with the CAVLP strategy inception documents were incorrect on the point that Winston Churchill’s sister is buried here (he did not have any sisters). It is possible that his wife Clementine Ogilvy Hozier may be related to the Hozier family burials.

GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? □ no □ Yes -‐ □ Yes -‐ some þ Yes: □ Other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or structures □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? þ □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no odd areas (state) across site (state) examples D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built up? þ □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no odd areas (state) across site (state) examples F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? þ □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no odd areas (state) across site (state) examples G: . Grass surfaces eroded? þ □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no odd areas (state) across site (state) examples H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? □ no □ yes -‐ þ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples

Subject to an arboricultural survey, overhanging mature beech.

Rhododendrons (R. ponticum) generally growing into site. N half has self-‐seeded saplings. One in E grave of mural monument in second burial enclosure in danger of displacing and damaging granite kerb-‐sets.

Sandstone table and slabs moss covered. Rhododendrons generally. The four cherub carved pedestals are overgrown by rhododendrons and access to fully view them (esp two furthest W) is difficult. Rhododendrons.

I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 4 stones affected either as a result of loss of lead lettering or moss cover. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? No þ L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? No þ but freestanding marble cross to E in the second enclosure is unstable and potentially dangerous. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 1 stone affected, inscription panel on chest tomb. N: Have gravestones been repaired? No þ none seen. O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? No þ Burial enclosure and boundary fences need general repairs missing gate. Lych gate also needs urgent roof and general necessary repairs.

P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ There is detachment and erosion of the stonework, particularly to areas carved in relief, on all three carved pedestals. Condition of gravestones in first enclosure difficult to assess due to extensive moss growth. The fragmentation of the panel on the chest tomb may have been triggered by freeze thaw. Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? Yes þ 15-‐20 % affected. The enclosing metal fence is generally failing where parts are fixed together. There are a couple of areas where bars have been bent out of shape, possibly forced due to self-‐seeded vegetation subsequently removed. The first enclosure is missing its gate (possible on-‐site under vegetation) and there are also several rails broken. The metal work by the lych gate is badly rusting. R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths No þ but access virtually impossible to second enclosure from W.

S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? Yes þ 25% affected Lych gate: missing and dislodged roof tiles and ridge pieces, rotting roof timbers, detached lead flashing, star cracks where metal railings have been inserted into stone base. T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? No þ The placement of the carved pedestals seems a little odd, not clear if they are associated with additional carved stones since lost or if they predate other aspects of site. U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? No þ V: Any evidence of any littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? No þ W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Overgrowth by rhododendrons (including overgrowth W access), heavy moss growth on flat stones, unstable freestanding cross. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ The ownership of the site is complex. The gravestones are privately owned and the family has moved away. The nearby householder owns the land round about the graveyard, including the mound but excluding the steps leading to the site and the graveyard itself on top of the mound. Animal burrowing near to graves. Y: Any known conservation work? No þ The owner of land on which the graveyard is built described occasional clearance of rhododendrons during telephone interview. LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating: Condition Rating: Built Heritage Rating: Natural Heritage Satisfactory but overgrown Satisfactory Satisfactory FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended w orks: Recommended works: Recommended works: Urgent Necessary Desirable • Undertake a memorial • Repair l ych g ate ( non-‐urgent • General tree surgery around stability assessment. repairs t o i ronwork, the edges of the site where • Stabilise east freestanding stonework and woodwork). overhanging branches pose a cross and any other stones risk to monuments. • Repair and re-‐paint fences identified above. • Research carved pedestals and • Rhododendron r eduction/ • Repair lych gate roof. archaeological potential of clearance. • Remove saplings. mound. • Repair fractured inscription • Assess potential for panel o n c hest t omb. alternative access. • After appropriate environmental survey control • If access practicable, develop interpretation and links to moss on gravestones Clyde Walkway. (recumbent stones, pedestals and east free-‐standing cross). • Create a conservation management plan for the burial ground. • Consider consolidating the carved surfaces of the pedestal monuments where they are deteriorating. • Consider best system to carry out regular inspection of the steps, lych gate, fencing and gravestones.

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • Ownership and access limited by separate ownership of hill and surrounding area and the graveyard and steps. • No public access to site. • Possible archaeological significance of site on the mound and relationship adjacent site of abbey. • Setting compromised by decking and developments. • Uncertain level of appeal to public for family gravestones. • Clyde Walkway and Clyde Valley Woodland in the vicinity. • No interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey: 6 March 2013 ii Name of recorder: Dr S Buckham & F. Fisher

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS NEW LANARK BURIAL GROUND Address off New Lanark Road, New Lanark Parish Lanark LA area South Lanarkshire Grid reference NS88108 42683 Owner / Manager owner New Lanark Trust, managed by SLC Cemeteries Dept. SITE REFERENCES Not CANMORE registered þ Not WOSAS registered þ DESIGNATIONS i) Not Listed þ ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area Yes þ iv) WHS Yes þ v) GDL Yes þ No þ vii) NNR No þ viii) LBAP interest yes þ

vi) SSSI

SITE TYPE Graveyard associated with an institution (e.g. school, hospital) þ New Lanark Mill CURRENT USE i) no church þ ii) no evidence for intramural burial þ iii) Graveyard closed to new burials þ date of last burial c.1900. Ashes scattered in 2007. ACCESS • Signposting to site: yes þ 2 signs from either end of • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: yes þ footpath but not from outside the church or from the Distance from graveyard: 50 m. car park (so only when actually on the footpath). • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ not currently. • Ease of navigation around site: no þ site not enclosed, gravestones are very low-‐lying and not • Gradient suitable for disabled: yes þ organised into rows. The burial ground is in a hollow • No. of car spaces c.100 (disabled parking in New with steep sites. Lanark village). • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ • Signposting through site: no þ N/A for scale and layout. Not DDA too steep. Steps at foot of hill would benefit from handrail and more even surface. • Site p art of larger attraction: yes þ New Lanark WHS. • Public transport to site: yes þ • Length of approach and width: c. 220m x 2m. • Location: semi-‐urban context þ • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ from car park. • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ Comments • Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or No sign at site and difficult to see coming up from New bridleway network: no þ but on New Lanark Lanark. Easiest access to site would be from car park but footpath. no sign / path. Signage from church might help visitors • Cycle parking: no þ better locate site (esp. as they may expect to the find a • Restricted opening times: no þ graveyard at the church). • Locked gates / other barrier: no þ LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Does the graveyard stand out? no þ • Part of a designed landscape? Yes þ The Falls of Clyde • Is it a focal point in the landscape? no þ but • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape? no þ potential • Nearby landscape designations? no þ But it is GDL • Is it a positive feature? yes þ could better achieve • Nearby landscape character? Steep sided woodland potential with interpretation valley • Are there imp views of it? no þ • Nearby wildlife corridors? yes þ Clyde Woodland • Are there imp views from it? yes þ of New Lanark • How close is the nearest woodland? 0 m • Is it generally attractive yes þ but broken / fallen • How close is the nearest water feature? 250m stones. GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from the New Lanark World Heritage Site Draft Management Plan and SCRAN entries. New Lanark is an exceptional example of a purpose-‐built 18th century mill village, set in a picturesque Scottish landscape near the falls of Clyde, where in the early years of the 19th century, the utopian idealist Robert Owen inspired a model industrial community based on textile production. The village was founded in 1785, and the cotton mills, powered by water-‐wheels, were operational from 1786 to 1968. At the turn of the 19th century the mill buildings formed one of the largest industrial groups in the world. The imposing mill buildings, the spacious and well designed workers’ housing, and the dignified educational institute and school still survive to testify to Owen’s humanism.

100

New Lanark saw the construction not only of well designed and equipped workers’ housing but also public buildings and landscaped areas designed to improve their spiritual needs as well as their physical needs. The level of authenticity at new Lanark is high. The process of conservation and rehabilitation has now been in progress for almost half a century, and major projects continue at to the present day. The village has remained little changed from its heyday of cotton production in the early 19th century. The church post-‐dates Dale's and Owen's involvement with the village by more than 50 years. The fact that they did not provide a church for the mill-‐workers (other than the new buildings and later the institute for the formation of character, where religious services of sorts could be held) indicates Dale's attitude to the established church and Owen's strong opposition to organised religion. David dale had deep religious beliefs and founded the old scotch independents, known as Daleites. He did not approve of the established church but provided meeting rooms for his and three other sects in the village. Owen denounced what he described as ‘absurd and irrational forms of religion' but made some provision for religious observance in the institute. Several of the New Lanark workers / residents are buried in old St Kentigern’s Churchyard in Lanark.

101

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? No þ LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan Yes þ no paths, no boundary wall / fence, no built entrance. ii Site size (at widest extent): length 39.5 m, width 36 m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? No þ remains of a stone wall at NW corner of site. Beech trees line the perimeter on N and generally surround the site. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? No þ no wall or built entrance. v. Is site sub-‐divided No þ vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? No þ vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? No þ viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ but irregular on SW boundary. ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level No þ on a steep slope 25-‐30o. x Ground surfaces other than grass? Yes þ woodland floor, primroses, snowdrops. Surveyed with snow cover. LANDSCAPE Grass – Is it low diversity lawn? No þ Trees – Are there any trees? Yes þ Are there many broadleaf flora in the grass? Not able to Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ fully assess due to snow, possible wood rush, Groups of trees scattered throughout? No þ snowdrops, primrose-‐beech leaves and nuts. Only a few trees? Yes þ Are there ruderals? No þ not seen but site surveyed Lowland: Mainly evergreen trees? No þ under snow. Incised River UK Grassland Mixture of EG & deciduous? Yes þ Any rank grass? No þ Valley: Classification: Steep Mainly ornamental planting? No þ Is the grass mowed? Not able B2.2 Semi-‐improved Wooded Sides Are there shrubs planted? No þ to fully assess due to snow. neutral grassland Are there self-‐sown trees? Yes þ Ivy-‐ Does ivy grow on walls? No þ Any signs of? On gravestones and monuments? No þ Small mammals? Yes þ rabbit footprints . Birds? Yes þ crows nesting in trees. Are there any? Bats? No þ none seen. Lichens? spps >12 þ <12□ 0□ c20 (PA) Amphibians/reptiles? No þ none seen. Mosses? Yes þ on gravestones Bryophytes? No þ not seen but site surveyed under snow. Insects? No þ none seen. Other? No þ none seen. Any unusual /important plants? No þ not seen (snow). BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Not described in CANMORE etc. No built features evident except remnant of a small stretch of wall 8m in length and perhaps around 400mm high made up of three courses of rubble stone and discontinuous and overgrown. Additional Features / Comments None, features as described above. SITE FURNITURE (e.g. bins, benches, lighting, noticeboards, interpretation panels, other signage). None

102

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 120 (1986 survey, 23/120 have an inscription and 18/23 include a date) but c.88 were visible on the ground during the field survey. ii. Date of earliest stone 1792 (one stone is inscribed 79 and may be earlier if the number death date not age) iii. Date of the most recent stone? 1881 iv. When are most stones erected? 6 (2 examples tentative) date to late C18th and 12 date to C19th. GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th and earlier C18th C19th Post C19th Headstone 83 □ 6 77 □ Grave Slab / Ledger – not dated no 1 □ ? ? □ inscription may be late C18th or C19th Other Gravestones / Carved Stones One or two boulders visible, which possibly were employed as grave markers. GRAVE FURNITURE MATERIALS Most Some Few None. Sandstone All □ □ Carvings e.g. trade, mortality / immortality symbols, other carvings. None of the stones have any carvings Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are not organised into rows but scattered across the site and are generally orientated E / SE. The gravestones are all plain, without any ornamentation through decorative carving or architectural profiles. Only one stone shows any degree of elaboration in its design, and has a rusticated finish across the head and base of the stone. Lettering styles are similarly plain, some reasonably skilled letter cutting, others far more naïve (e.g. no. 10 in the 1986 survey/no 7 in the SGS survey). One stone photographed during the 1986 survey (not seen on the ground during 2013 field visit) may possibly be a ‘homemade’ gravestone in light of the quality of its lettering, apparent testing out of technique and irregular profile. Almost all of the gravestones with inscriptions appear to be professionally produced but one or two examples could be homemade. Assessing the nature of production for un-‐inscribed stones is difficult as many are broken or partially buried but many have evidence of worked surfaces suggesting professional treatment. In contrast, others appear less-‐skilfully shaped. Many inscriptions are still legible and are of interest for spellings (Neiu Lanark, dyed, spowse), trades (mason, labourer) and historical interest linked to the movement of people during the Clearances in C18th and C19th (born in Bralbinn parish of Rae Cathness, born in Nodygan parish of Lathren Caithness). Caithness Row in the village is so named because of the early inhabitants who were attracted from the Highlands to find work in the New Lanark Mills [SCRAN]. First Statistical Account of Scotland (p48) notes that a great proportion of the inhabitants are Highlanders. The entry reports that ‘in 1791 a grounded vessel in Greenock put aside 200 immigrants to North America from Skye who came to live and work at New Lanark and to prevent further immigration Mr Dale raised awareness of the opportunities at New Lanark to people in Argyllshire and the Isles’. WHS Officer described David Dale offering displaced Caithness people who had hoped to bound a ship from Glasgow, jobs and shelter in NL. In 1986, a survey of the New Lanark Burial Ground, with records of the inscriptions and such information as is known about the family; it is held in the New Lanark Conservation Trust archives. A 1977 memorial inscription survey carried out by the Scottish Genealogy Society recorded 19 inscribed stones. The study excluded numbers 20/49/65/68/81/87/120 in the 1986 survey but noted two inscriptions which were not included in the later study 10 /11. In the Old Statistical Account for Lanarkshire, it is recorded that David Dale, who founded the village, set aside and enclosed a piece of ground as a Burial Place for New Lanark. Although it ceased to be used around 1900. Some of the oldest contributors to the Sound Archive remember the last burials to take place in the hillside graveyard in the early 1900's, the old clock-‐repairer from the Long Row, and Jenny Ballantyne, who sold 103

sweeties in the Double Row. Much earlier, according to oral tradition, stillborn babies were buried there in boxes from the village store [SCRAN]. GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? □ no □ Yes -‐ odd □ Yes -‐ some □ Yes: þ Other examples areas (state) across site (state) B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or structures □ no □ yes -‐ odd þyes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? þno □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? þ □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no examples areas (state) across site (state) E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built up? □ no □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some þ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? þ □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no examples areas (state) across site (state) G: . Grass surfaces eroded? þno □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? □ no þ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? □ no þ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state)

Some overhanging branches all around the perimeter. Coming in from edges, Elder. Fallen branches SW corner over gravestone.

1986 survey notes that 75 / 120 stones stand 8 inches or less above the ground.

Moss cover over larger areas, as well as mossy patches. Moss growing in cracks within stone surfaces. Broken branches covering group of stones in S corner.

J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 10 stones affected. 23 / 120 stones listed in 1986 as having inscriptions, 9 still fine, 7 have lost some text due to stone deterioration (6 since 1986), 2 inscriptions not found during field survey. Ledger photographed in 1986, but illegible. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? No þ L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? Yes þ. 13 stones affected. 1986 survey notes 11 horizontal stones. This includes fallen and flat stones. 3 recorded as being on the surface suggesting they aren’t earth-‐fast. Photos show at least two stones have fallen over since 1986 (2;8). M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 50 % of site affected. Damage consistent with the result of weathering and erosion, falling stones or from mechanical damage or impact of falling branches. While 23 gravestones were recorded as broken in 1986 survey, this category of information doesn’t appear to have been consistently recorded. N: Have gravestones been repaired? No þ none seen but leger stone appears to have been reset (see Y).

104

O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? No þ No walls, except short residual remains in NW corner. P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 95 % affected. Most of of the small, low gravestones without inscriptions have irregular profiles due to material loss. There are numerous examples of detachment, including delamination, and erosion. Signs of stone erosion due to water run-‐off from overhanging trees. Moss growth is exacerbating cracks within stonework. Some damage appears to be mechanical, possibly the result of mower/strimmer damage or from falling branches. Documentary sources suggest some damage caused during construction of car park and roundabout (see X) Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? No þ No walls and gates, with exception of except short residual remains of a retaining wall in W corner (marked on 1888 estate map). R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths? No þ No paths. S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? No þ No buildings.

105

T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? Yes þ 20% of stones affected. Difficult to assess movement due to irregular nature of site and displacement of stones. Several stones are no longer earth-‐fast and are lying on the surface. Around 5 stones recorded in the 19080s are out of position. U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? Yes þ Isolated examples including one stone has scratched into the reverse ‘Help I am”, lichen growth suggest this took place some time ago (c.20 years?). Documentary sources suggest that vandalism has been a problem at this site previously. V: Any evidence of any littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? No þ W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition ? Yes þ Fallen stones and soil build up encourages water and frost damage. Fallen branches on top of a group of gravestones in S corner. 2001 condition report on the graveyard recorded the site as ‘overgrown, largely inaccessible and difficult to access (although the recent formation of the car park and associated access road has greatly assisted in this respect). Until such time the overgrowth has been removed it is difficult to assess positively the extent of gravestones and other artefacts. In the surveyors’ view any built elements uncovered as a result of woodland management should be retained in their present location, suitably stabilised if necessary against further mechanical damage. We do not believe that any attempt should be made to restore the burial ground or reset headstones in the vertical position, and we recommend that the area should be retained and maintained simply as a disused Burial Ground with continuation of the annual policy of cutting back vegetation and generally tidying up the area as required. Whilst there is no benefit in highlighting access to the Burial Ground because of its vulnerability to vandalism, we believe that the footpath skirting the south side of the site should be restored to enable interested visitors to have more ready access to the site. We have considered the possibility of removing the remaining stones and artefacts to a place of safety but we do not consider this to be appropriate or acceptable since all of these elements belong to this site’. Crichton Lang, Willis & Galloway January 2001. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Overhanging branches threaten gravestones. Grass cuttings seen on stone surfaces (flat and low headstones), known to encourage moss growth. Newspaper (Lanark Gazette 13.07.95) account suggests that building rubble was dumped on the graveyard during the building works to create the car park and roundabout, ‘hiding’ some of the gravestones. Y: Any known conservation work? Yes þ Inscription (no 40 erected c.1803, inscription notes that this stone was repaired by William Watson their son c.1820). The ledger stone (71) has been reset onto a stone base, with cement mortar, at a date unknown (possibly early C21st / late C20th). LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating Condition Rating Built Heritage Rating Natural Heritage Poor Satisfactory Satisfactory

106

FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended works: Recommended works: Necessary Recommended works: Desirable Urgent • General tree surgery to the • Interpretation of gravestones • Undertake a memorial mature beeches around the and natural heritage. Link stability assessment. edges of the site where former to rest of WHS, with a overhanging branches poses focus on people, materials and • Lift fallen stones, a r isk t o m onuments. buildings. levelling, re-‐ • Lift sunk stones. • Signage. assembling and re-‐ • Update r ecording, • Path. orienting. Ensure that particularly photographic • Create a conservation all vertical stones are survey, site plan and management plan for the burial earth-‐fast. Develop recording of inscriptions ground. protocols for previously buried. • Implement quinquennial stabilising, re-‐setting • After appropriate inspections of landscape, and environmental survey gravestones. and pinning where control m oss o n g ravestones • Lichen survey. stones have eroded (carry o ut f or p riority s tones • Prosopography research on and snapped off at the in first instance). buried population. base. • Reset flat stones as necessary • Consider planting bulbs / native • Arboricultural survey. flowers. following the method set out • Remove • Locate, record and consider in Historic Scotland brambles/saplings. keeping open to view, any guidance. buried stones in the graveyard. • Rationalise missing parts of gravestones, re-‐uniting • Consider maintenance regime to where possible. Remove any strimming paths through only extraneous rubble from site. and clearing vegetation around •

stones with volunteers. Consider reinstating a simple boundary fence or hedge to define the graveyard?

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • Outstanding setting (WHS, conservation area, GDL, LAPB interest). • Condition of stones and difficulties of access (steep slopes). • Limited architectural and artistic merit of gravestones. • Strong natural heritage of the woodland setting is compromised (by the fact that it is in a beech wood and ground flora are suppressed by the leaves). • Historical interest of site, unique site type in the CAVLP graveyard group (potential needs to be realised through interpretation, possible linked to ‘personalisation’ style used in New Lanark mill displays). • Professional expertise heritage management and interpretation of New Lanark Trust. • Previous community engagement with graveyard recording project, with potential for future co-‐ ordinated via New Lanark Trust (subject to organisation capacity and priorities Trust hasn’t had any volunteers involved with their work since the 1986 survey and the 2013 project to open an archive room). • No interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey 13 March 2013 ii Name of recorder F. Fisher, P. Aspen & Dr S. Buckham

107

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS SAINT NINIAN'S CHURCHYARD STONEHOUSE Address Manse Road, Stonehouse Parish Stonehouse LA area South Lanarkshire Grid reference Church: NS 7478 4702: Owner / Manager South Lanarkshire Council Cemeteries Dept. Martyr's Tomb NS 7479 4701 SITE REFERENCES CANMORE þSt Ninian's Church, Churchyard and Martyr’s Tomb NS74NW 4; WOSAS þref 9711 DESIGNATIONS i) Listed Cat B þ St Ninian's Church and Graveyard (Ref:18506 ) ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area no þ iv) WHS no þ v) GDL no þ vi) SSSI no þvii) NNR no þ viii) LBAP interest yes þ Near River Avon and woodland SITE TYPE Graveyard connected to a church þ CURRENT USE -‐ i) Elements of the church, or other building, survive as ruins þ ii) intramural burial N/A þ iii) Graveyard closed to new burials þ date of last burial 1931 (info from LA). ACCESS • Cycle parking: no þ • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: yes þ • Restricted opening times: no þ • Distance from graveyard: 0 m. • Locked gates / other barrier: no þ • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ • Signposting to site: no þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: yes þ • Ease of navigation around site: no þ E part of site • No. of car spaces 3 (0 disabled spaces) is on an incline. • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ • Signposting t hrough site: yes þsign by Covenanter stone. • Length of approach and width: n/a no footpath. • Site part of larger attraction: no þ • Surface suitable for disabled: no þ • Public transport to site: yes þ Stonehouse bus route. • Gradient suitable for disabled: no þ • Location: rural þ on edge of town. • Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or Comments Next to Manse. Elevated site on alluvial bridleway network: no þ<1km to core path along terrace of the River Avon. Avon and on wider network routes. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL • Does the graveyard stand out? yes þ Bellcote. • Is it a focal point in the landscape? yes þ • Is it a positive feature? yes þ • Are there imp views of it? Yes þ from town and cemetery. • Are there imp views from it? yes þto River Avon. • Is it generally attractive? yes þ

LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Part of a designed landscape? no þ • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape? yes þ • Nearby landscape designations? yes þ River Avon. • Nearby landscape character? Agricultural/ edge of town. • Nearby wildlife corridors? yes þ river / woodland. • How close is the nearest woodland? 100m. • How close is the nearest water feature? 100m. GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from CANMORE and WOSAS entries. With additional details from the current St Ninian’s Church website, the New Statistical Account of Scotland and research published by John Young (JY), 2012 ‘Here’s tae us!’. The Manse is next to the churchyard to the S (not CANMORE or WOSAS listed). All that now remains of St Ninian's Church is the west gable-‐end which stands to its full height and is complete with bellcote. The martyr's Tomb commemorates the death of James Thomson who was shot in an encounter at Drumclog June 1st 1679. Visited by OS (AC) 23 June 1959. NS74NW 4.01 7478 4702. The date of a stone cist found within St Ninian's Church is uncertain; it may have been prehistoric. RCAHMS 1978; J A Wilson 1937. Timeline (from present church website): 9th century Old kirk dedicated to Ninian / 1734 Restoration work carried out on Old Kirk / 1772 New Kirk built in New Street / 1896 Memorial stone laid for new church in Vicars Road / 1897 Parish Church officially opened /1929 Union of the Churches. The kirk session agreed in recognition of the event to rename the Parish Church as St.Ninian’s Parish Church of Scotland, Stonehouse (this church is Listed Cat B). Manse Road Cemetery opened in 1906 (ICCM Bereavement Services Portal). Statistical Account of Stonehouse 1904: There are several holy wells in the vicinity. St Ninian’s well … lies a few yards from the churchyard on the road to East Mains farm. John Young (2012). Notes that Glassford Kirk was consecrated in 1633 with soil taken from the kirkyard, possibly indicating the auld kirk’s ecclesiastical importance to the wider Christian community in earlier times. Suggests that while the origins of the site are obscured by time though it may well date to the period of Roman occupation resting on the line of the Roman road. 108

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? No þ. There is access to the adjacent Glebe Cemetery (established 1981) from the NE corner of the churchyard. LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan Yes þ, 1.2m turnstile, vehicle gate, path to Glebe 1.2m wide ii Site size (at widest extent): length 70m width 50m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? Yes þ by a stone wall. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yes þ Imposing gateposts (caps missing) potential to re-‐instate. Gate does not function due to upfilling of gravel surface -‐ potential to reinstate. v. Is site sub-‐divided No þ vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? No þ vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? Yes þ red whin grit surface <5mm round perimeter leading to Glebe 2m wide. viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level Yes þ steep drop to N. x Ground surfaces other than grass? Yes þ whin grit paths. LANDSCAPE Trees – Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass – Is it low diversity lawn? Yes þ Sycamore, Yew (same height as belfry), Elder, v Are there many broadleaf flora in the grass? Yes þ Conifers (also noted by John Young). Are there ruderals? No þ Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ Any rank grass? No þ Groups of trees scattered throughout? No þ Is the grass mowed? Yes þ UK Grassland Classification: Only a few trees? Yes þ Mown short all over? Yes þ J1.2 Landscape Mainly evergreen trees? No þ Mown paths? No þ Cultivated/disturbed Character Type: Mixture of EG & deciduous Yes þ Lowland /wooded land-‐ Amenity Mainly ornamental planting? No þ valley/amenity grassland Mossy grassland Are there shrubs planted No þ Are there self-‐sown trees Yes þ Ivy-‐ Does ivy grow on walls? No þ Any signs of? On gravestones and monuments? Noþ Small mammals? Yes þ moles. Is this unchecked? No þ Birds? Yes þwoodpecker heard. JY 2001 noted wren, Great Tit, Crow, Robin. Are there any? Bats: No þ but likely in trees and stone shed. Lichens? spps >12 þ Amphipians/reptiles: No þ none seen. Mosses? Yes þ on gravestones and in lower eastern Insects: No þ none seen. area (also noted by JY 2001). Other: Yes þ sheep droppings and fleece. Bryophytes? No þ not seen. Any unusual /important plants? No þ none seen. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Historic Scotland listing description only notes ‘ruin’, however description by John Young 2001, Stonehouse kirkyard, the Phoenix Project is more detailed: ,

All that now remains of St Ninian's Church is the west gable-‐end which stands to its full height and is complete with bell-‐ turret. John Young (JY) suggests that historic restoration work can be clearly identified and recent work from 1993 can be seen in the belfry. The belfry is typical of the C17th , though the adjoining walls of the belfry tower may be considerably older, possibly C16 th. An inner structure is visible on the east facing wall of the belfry ruins. Whether or not this was internal roof supports, incorporated into the church, or part of an older, previous church is uncertain. An 1860s account of the church describes it as a long narrow structure with an open roof, with no ceiling or seats. The pulpit was located along the S wall, midway along the building, with the bell tolled from within. The surrounding W, N, E walls appear to have been built separately and more recently from the S, which adjoins the manse. Query built from the ruin of the kirk? Wall around manse JY asserts is from an earlier structure and red sandstone and ironstone. The manse walls have been repaired on several occasions. The gate piers of the manse and churchyard are almost identical (but the churchyard has lost its capstones). ? Watchhouse on S wall. Turnstile gate

109

known from photographic evidence to be installed start of C20th (pers comms). As described Yes þ No þ While JY has documentary evidence to show that the structure on S wall was used as a watch house, this building is not watch house as such (in wrong place, no window and no fireplace). Additional Features / Comments Line from internal bell-‐pull eroded into the stone and open joints on wallheads and around base. Inappropriately repaired with Ordinary Portland Cement (instead of lime mortar) in the past. SITE FURNITURE Small rectangular block of imported highly polished black-‐granite style stone denoting ‘Covenanter Martyr’. Style of design easily overlooked and not particularly informative. Choice of material not the most sympathetic for a historic graveyard.

110

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 425 (recorded by John Young) ii. Date of earliest stone: 1663 (seen on site, known from doc evidence / stone 359 in JY’s MI survey erected in 1676) iii. Date of the most recent stone? 1931 (JY survey). iv. When are most stones erected? C19th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th & C18th C19th Post earlier C19th þ þ þ þ Headstone 300 ( estimate þ) Mural Monument 0 □ □ □ □ Mural Tablet 0 □ □ □ □ Grave Slab / Ledger (may include table tombs without 6 □ □ □ □ ends) □ □ □ □ Chest Tomb 0 Low Coped Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ þ þ þ Table Tomb 22 □ þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column x 3 or Obelisk x1 9 □ □ □ þ Freestanding Cross 1 □ □ □ □ □ þ □ Sculpture: book 2 Other Gravestones / Carved Stones N/A ( estimate □) GRAVE FURNITURE MATERIALS Most Some Few Two C19th gravestones have associated low kerb Sandstone þ □ □ sets. The base of one headstone has been inscribed Granite þ □ □ with a lair number, 516. Occasional partial sets of þ Marble □ □ grave posts survey, without associated ironwork. □ □ 1 Slate □ □ □ Iron þ □ □ Other: concrete o Mortality / Immortality: N of stones 75 (estimated þ) 18th Designs appear in a range of compositions. The list below is of the designs viewed during site survey. Many of the stones have buried portions and as a result there may be additional motifs not recorded. The number of examples of a particular combination of designs is given below (this does not necessarily equate to the number of gravestones as memorials may be carved on more than one face). All carvings, unless stated are relief. Skull x 2; Skull incised x 1; Skull and cross bones x 2; Skull and long bone upright x3 (1 recorded by Betty Willsher); Skull and ?crossed bones x 1; Skull, heart, hourglass and crossed bones x1; Skull, heart, hourglass and horizontal long bone x 3 (1 recorded by Betty Willsher); Pair of skulls, two horizontal long bones, memento mori ribbon x 2. Winged soul, winged hour glass, winged heart and 2 rosette squares x 3; Winged soul in the shape of a heart with skull below x 3, plus and a further 2 examples with horizontal long bone (1 recorded by Betty Willsher); Winged soul, skull, horizontal long bone, hourglass and heart x3; Winged soul, skull, hourglass, heart and unidentified tool (same style as previous entry) x1; Winged soul, pair of skulls, ribbon x 1 (1 recorded by Betty Willsher); Winged soul x 3 (1 recorded by Betty Willsher) Crossed bones x 3; Crossed bones, heart, hour glass x 1; Heart, skull, and hourglass x 1; Heart and crossed bones x 1; Hourglass and two hearts x 1; Heart x 1; Bible x 1; Horizontal hourglass, skull, crossed bones; Heart with wrights tools x 1 (recorded by Betty Willsher); Hourglass and ?deid bell x 1 Bible, skull, heart, hourglass, horizontal bone and unidentified tool x1. C19th Symbols include urns, wreaths, foliage, flowers drapes, dove and weeping figure. Forms include broken column, cross and obelisk. Trade Symbols: No of stones 6. Symbols include (in relief unless stated): an unknown tool, crowbar like, an L-‐shape with forked end on the shortest bar x 2 examples also with mortality / immortality symbols; incised 111

axe x 2 headstones (wright, shipright, carpenter); an axe and auger / mallet and chisel (stoneworker e.g. mason or builder, recorded by Betty Willsher); Mill rind on millstone shaped headstone (miller); Blacksmith’s hammer two horse shoes one upside down (recorded by Betty Willsher); Full set of wrights tools (recorded by Betty Willsher); and a spade or shovel (difficult to see moss covered and other carvings may be buried) possibly denoting gardener or maltman. Three trade stone recorded by Betty Willsher not seen (cordiner’s symbols, maltmen’s shovels, axe). Heraldic Carvings None Other Carvings No of stones 4. Includes freemason’s compass and set square x2 (both 19th) and two shields containing initials x 2 (both 18th). Many of the stones are partially buried or covered in moss / lichen, which inhibits identification of designs and it is possible that further carvings have survived but not been recorded. John Young (forthcoming) describes a gravestone probably dating from between the late 17th century to the early 18th century with no legible inscription but a carving on the east face of a crest or shield containing a flanked by a cross on either side. Research didn’t identify it as a local family crests and may be of religious symbolism. Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are generally aligned in rows N-‐S and oriented E-‐ facing. Betty Willsher considers this site to possess one of the best collections of C18th carved stones in the county. The composition of designs suggests several masons’ work and while there is some standardisation in compositions there is also variability evident in specific detailing. The quantity and quality of C18th carvings is the highest among the CAVLP sites visited. The Martyrs Graves of Scotland (1906) notes the site has two gravestones to the Covenanter James Thomson who was shot in an encounter at Drumclog June 1st 1679, .an old one, and a new one, in the form of a large flat slab. The latter contains ‘all the inscriptions upon the old, and an intimation that the monument has been ‘renewed by the descendants of the Thomsons, late in Tannahill, Lesmahagow, 1832’. The descendants have done a good deed in erecting the new monument, for in a few years the old will have crumbled away’. The old stone has particular local significance known as the ‘Bloodstone’, local lore developed from its natural ochre deposit suggesting when a finger is placed in the eye socket it would become blood stained [Stonehouse kirkyard, the Phoenix Project by John Young, 2001). Covenanter Margaret Law is also buried in the churchyard (but without a stone). The Martyrs Graves of Scotland notes that there are one or two C17th stones and John Young notes the oldest stone found is Andrew Hamilton, 1663. John Young (2001, The Pheonix Project) notes a number of interesting quirks among the gravestone assemblage, such as grammatical / spelling mistakes ‘26st’; Feburary; ‘John Ann Crow’. Local figures of interest he identifies include local poet John Walker (d. 1882), Robert Cooper, whose stone was erected by ‘a few females in the village and neighbourhood of Stonehouse as a tribute of respect for his usefulness during 14 years’. Anne Lockheart’s stone (s.o. Thomas Muter d.1730s ) is unique in churchyard for giving the lair dimensions 12 foot breadth. Research by John Young (forthcoming) notes that in 1902 the old kirk graveyard was said to be in such a condition of disrepair that the Heritors asked the local Parish Council to close the graveyard. The Parish Council thus instructed that a survey be carried out to investigate the extent of the problem and identify whether or not the graveyard required to be extended or a new site established to cope with future demand. The survey was carried out in early 1903 revealing a total of 533 lairs (only 425 lairs are visible today), consisting of around 1600 breadths of which most were of three breadths (8ft allowed for 3 breadths). Aa few lairs were of four and five breadths. The Scottish War Graves Project do not include any records for St Ninian’s Churchyard Stonehouse. 112

The SCRAN entries describing several stones recorded by Betty Willsher are incorrectly ascribed to the St Ninian’s Church and Churchyard on Vicar’s Road.

113

GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? þYes -‐ some □ no □ Yes -‐ □ Yes: □ Other areas (state) odd across site (state) examples B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones / structures þyes: □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ other across site (state) odd areas (state) examples C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built up? þ yes: □ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ other across site (state) odd areas (state) examples F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? □ no þ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples G: . Grass surfaces eroded? þ no □ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? □ no þ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples

I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? □ no þ yes -‐ □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other odd areas (state) across site (state) examples

Where previously cut down remove and where grows into gravestones.

Roots and overhanging branches are a risk to gravestones and to the OPC walls. Examples where trees have previously caused damage to stones and have subsequently been cut back but not fully removed.

Many of the earlier headstones, table and ledger stones have sunk. Moles have causes soil banks around stone of the stones. One or two flat / fallen stones are starting to become buried. JY 2001 also noted some stones sunk considerably. Subsidence is historic and gentle.

Moss and lichen on some stones obscures inscriptions esp. on flat gravestones. Several gravestones still overgrown by trees. JY 2001: headstones and pathway surrounding site overgrown, in 2013 path clear of vegetation. Cotoneaster grows out of belfry. Many examples where vegetation damaged gravestones and subsequently been cut back. JY 2001: tree roots dislodge stones, still an issue in 2013.

J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? Yes þ 20-‐25% of site affected. Includes examples where moss and lichen obscure inscription was well as cases where text has become eroded. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? Yes þ 10-‐20 (est.) stones affected

114

L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat Yes þ 25 % of site affected. JY 2001:some fallen due to vandals, subsequent projects with volunteers to reset (>150 examples). Several stones have fallen over due to insufficient foundation and failing dowels. Also includes cases where trees have displaced stones. A smaller number of stones have fallen over due to stone deterioration at the base of the headstone. .Several gravestones are tilting. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 20-‐25 % of site affected. JY 2001: some top stones migrated across site and this is still an issue in 2013. Several table tombs seem to have been broken as a result of moment when table ends fail. A number of vertical stones have broken as a result of falling due to failing fixtures / foundations. N: Have gravestones been repaired? Yes þ 7 stones affected, materials include cement mortars, iron pins, lead wrapped pin and inset stone sections. Cement mortar poorly applied and at least one example is failing. Inset stone section on flat table stone may be a historic repair at time of manufacture or installation. O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? Yes þ 75% of structure affected bur not recent. Areas of cement on S wall and copings missing. W wall pointed (cement).

115

P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 40% affected. There are numerous examples of erosion, including differential erosion, and detachment, including disintegration, fragmentation, blistering, (contour) scaling. Moss and lichen growth exacerbating deterioration. Widespread examples of water-‐run off on vertical stones due to design. There are numerous examples of stone loss at the base of headstones which has resulted in memorials snapping and falling over. Mechanical damage chips to flanks and scratched against face possibly caused during mowing. JY 2001: notes of the 424 stones surveyed 184 need some kind of assistance to prevent their deteriorating state (assessment criteria used in 2013 includes all stones indicating presence of a deterioration pattern). Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? Yes þ 20-‐25% affected. S wall has buttresses but needs coping repair/re-‐set necessary, pointing necessary/ desirable differential weathering due to inappropriate use of cement, missing copings, open joints. Pointing particularly poor on outer wall face at entrance. JY: N wall has risk of drop. Has this been repaired? N wall has insufficient upstand. JY 2001: Wall needs repointing. N section unstable, threatening stability of ruins and graves in this area. In telephone interview JY noted repointing work had taken place and expressed concern over long-‐term stability of N wall. S wall has is leaning & has been buttressed. R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths Yes þ 10% affected. Lining material visible through whin chips, particularly along path running along N wall. Leaves on path on W and E. JY 2001 notes: Outer perimeter should be considered for clearance to facilitate access. The path is no longer overgrown in 2013. During the telephone interview with John Young he noted new path surfaces had been laid (but JY noted surface seems to easily wash away and questioned suitability for a historic graveyard) and resurfaced outside main entrance (but also subject subsequent vandalism). S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? Yes þ 5% affected. Missing stones and limited raking out and re-‐pointing needed –open joints at wallhead. JY 2001: Watch house [gravedigger’s bothy/shed] needs repointing and new door and lock fitted to secure it and to prevent use as a drinking den. In 2013 still no door and still desirable to secure. Indent repairs necessary to the wallhead at the corner of the roof, new door and lock fitted to secure it and to prevent use as a drinking den. General re-‐pointing (with lime mortar). T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? No þ U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? Yes þ some areas. Bottles and rubbish in shed and to SW over wall. Fire lighting under sycamore SW. Impossible to tell if vandalism is a factor in the number of fallen stones but known to have been an issue at the site previously. V: Any evidence of any littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? Yes þ some areas. As detailed above. W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition ? Yes þ Positive changes have been a vast reduction in vandalism at the site due to projects to re-‐erect stones with community justice scheme participants and as a result of education and outreach work. Conservation work listed below has taken place. But several of the issues noted by JY in 2001 remain current in 2013. Entrance is an eyesore. Rubbish and plant materials need to be removed. Waste bin needed at entrance. Storm damaged metal gate need to be repaired / replaced. Interpretation needed (panel at entrance & leaflet). Metal post at OPC gable end needs to be removed (put here during restoration). Stones damaged by vandals (in the past) and trees have caused damage. Sheep have been able to come in to the site from the Glebe and this issue should be addressed to prevent damage to the gravestones. Additionally, the fact that many of the areas where work has taken place between post 2001 but require action again indicate that a more thinking is needed on sustainability of interventions and the creation of a long-‐term maintenance programme. Turfs have been placed around some gravestones to repair exposed foundations. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ A series of recommended actions were drawn up by John Young in 2001 at the end of his recording project. Several were acted upon (described above and below), however, many of which haven’t been dealt with (see above). Evidence that the site is fulfilling amenity roles lost doll left on headstone, chewed up tennis ball (dog walking).

116

Y: Any known conservation work? Yes þ Restoration of Belfry in 1993. Some repairs (gravestone / buildings/boundary walls) carried out in the past have not been carried out to HS / CSA standards. During the interview with John Young he noted several areas where work had taken place including repointing of the boundary walls, cutting back of unwanted trees, laying new path surfaces and three programmes to lift and reset fallen and broken stones. LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating: Condition Rating: Built Heritage Rating: Natural Heritage Poor/Neutral Satisfactory / Poor pot. good but poor condition Poor/Neutral FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended works: Urgent Recommended works: Recommended works: Necessary Desirable • Remove saplings, shrubs encroaching and threatening • After appropriate • Eco surveys (mammals, environmental surveys carry the gravestones, walls, and reptiles, insects, moss etc.). out t ree s haping f or h ealth a nd structures. • Install nesting boxes etc. amenity. • After appropriate • Interpretation, Covenanters, • Secure building on S wall environmental surveys church and C18th stones. currently acting as a drinking (including full tree and bat • Consider best means to allow den. surveys), manage trees to ease of access for wheelchairs • Stop sheep accessing site. prevent further damage to and pushchairs etc. • After appropriate gravestones and walls. environmental survey control • Waste bin by entrance. o Implement above to • Repair damaged metal gate. moss on gravestones (carry fell some trees, reduce out for priority stones in first • Remove metal post at OPC and prune others to instance). gable end. • Repair table tombs where end • Implement quinquennial protect monuments, stones are failing. walls and gravestones. inspections of landscape, • Lift fallen stones, levelling, re-‐ • Graves, reset as necessary buildings and gravestones. (including resetting grave assembling and re-‐orienting. • Consider repairs with low furniture, and relay flats Ensure that all vertical stones sward grass seed or turf to stones following the method are earth-‐fast. Develop allow conversion to natural set out in Historic Scotland protocols for re-‐setting/ meadows. guidance). partial burial/pinning devised • Locate, record and consider • Repair walls as required. in different cases where keeping open to view, any • Repair gravestones where stones have eroded and buried stones in the foundations have become snapped off at the base. graveyard. significantly exposed and • Assess H & S at drop over replace turf. • Restore priority gravestones. north wall, raise wall, and • Rationalise missing parts of • Analyse C18th carvings to erect fence and / or a gravestones, re-‐uniting where identify the work of specific disclaimer. possible. Establish future stonemasons. policy for dealing with stone Interpretation, Covenanters, fragments and components. and C18th stones. • Consider options to limit / remove the use of herbicide. • Create a conservation management plan for the churchyard and old parish church ruin.

117

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • High regional significance of C18th stone carvings and their current vulnerability. • No onsite information about the historical aspects of the site (Covenanter sign also gives no detail). • Church ruin adds to site’s interest and attractiveness. • Proximity to 1903 Manse Road Cemetery and Stonehouse’s other historic attractions (e.g. cinema). • Not near to the Clyde Walkway, but potential link to Avon core path designate • Covenanter trail is out of date (no ‘green’ sign at site but included in the list of rural Covenanter memorials on the Visit Lanarkshire website). • Attractiveness of site in its setting. • Significant level and variety of previous community engagement through John Young / Stonehouse Heritage Group, who both continue to promote and research site. • No on-‐site interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey 27 February 2013 ii Name of recorder Dr S. Buckham, F. Fisher

118

KIRKYARD CONSULTING & SBPT: CAVLP GAVEYARD RECORDING FORM GRAVEYARD DETAILS STONEHOUSE MANSE ROAD CEMETERY Address Manse Road, Stonehouse, ML9 3NX Parish Stonehouse LA area South Lanarkshire Grid reference NS 74715 46837 Owner / Manager South Lanarkshire Council Cemeteries Dept. SITE REFERENCES Not CANMORE registered þ Not WOSAS registered þ

DESIGNATIONS i) Listed No þ ii) Scheduled No þ iii) Cons Area No þ iv) WHS No þ No þ vii) NNR No þ viii) LBAP interest Yes No þ near River Avon and woodland.

v) GDL No þ vi) SSSI

SITE TYPE Public cemetery est. post-‐1830 þ CURRENT USE Graveyard in use for new burials þ where lair rights exist , no new lairs available at the Cemetery. Date of last burial 2012 (data from LA). ACCESS • Restricted opening times: yes þ on signs • Vehicle access-‐suitable road and parking: yes þ • Locked gates / other barrier: yes þ overnight to vehicles. • Distance from graveyard: 0 (m) • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ • Signposting to site: no þ • Gradient suitable for disabled: yes þ • Ease of navigation around site: yes þ onsite plan. o • N . of car spaces: roadside parking 6-‐8 spaces • Signposting through site: no þ n/a for size and (disabled spaces N/A ). layout. • Footpath to graveyard, needs handrails/ramp: no þ • Site p art o f l arger attraction: no þ • Length of approach and width: N/A roadside. • Public transport to site: yes þ c.0.5km from bus stop. • Surface suitable for disabled: yes þ • Location: rural þ on edge of town. • Gradient suitable for disabled: yesþ Comments • Actual/potential connection to a cycle, footpath or Site located at edge of town, surrounded by fields bridleway network: no þ<1km to corepath along (pasture), chicken sheds, individual sites either side of N Avon and on wider network routes . and S. General open landscape with some hedging, • Cycle parking: no þ roadside and garden trees. LANDSCAPE CONTEXT-‐VISUAL LANDSCAPE/BIODIVERSITY CONTEXT • Does the graveyard stand out? yes þ • Part of a designed landscape? no þ • Is it a focal point in the landscape? no þ • A haven in a low biodiversity landscape? no þ • Is it a positive feature? yes þ • Nearby landscape designations no þ • Are there imp views of it? yes þ From the town • Nearby landscape character? Agricultural/ edge of walls visible. town. • Are there imp views from it? yes þ view of Old • Nearby wildlife corridors? yes þ river / woodland. Parish Church. • How close is the nearest woodland? 150m. • Is it generally attractive yes þ • How close is the nearest water feature? 150m, tributary of the River Avon. GRAVEYARD SETTING & ASSOCIATED SITES Information extracted from Institute of Cemetery and Crematoria Management (ICCCM) Bereavement Services Portal entry and research published by John Young (JY), 2012 ‘Here’s tae us!’. Cemetery opened in 1906 (ICCM website) and JY noted the layout was completed in around 1907. Other burial grounds in Stonehouse include the Old Parish Church, located nearby to the NE, and the Glebe Cemetery (next to the Old Churchyard), which opened in 1981. Research by John Young notes that in 1902 the old kirk graveyard was said to be in such a condition of disrepair that the Heritors asked the local Parish Council to close the graveyard. The Parish Council thus instructed that a survey be carried out to investigate the extent of the problem and identify whether or not the graveyard required to be extended or a new site established to cope with future demand. It was further stated that there had been no burials in the cemetery since 1882. Where burials took place between this date and the opening of the new cemetery in unclear. The survey was carried out in early 1903 revealing a total of 533 lairs (only 425 lairs are visible today), consisting of around 1600 breadths of which most were of three breadths (8ft allowed for 3 breadths). a few lairs were of four and five breadths.

119

EXTENSIONS AND ZONES Any areas of ground that have a different history or use? No þ The site does not appear to have been extended and its original layout is intact. The site contains 554 lairs (plan provided by Stonehouse Heritage Society). LAYOUT i. All entrances, enclosures and paths shown on site plan? Yes þ main vehicle entrance and two pedestrian entrances on E boundary. ii Site size (at widest extent): length 106m, width 66m. iii. Is graveyard enclosed? Yes þ by a stone wall. iv. Any notable features at graveyard entrance(s) or along the internal / external face of boundary wall? Yes þ Round section castellated pillars (front). Round section domed corner pillars (back). Curved wall with railings and gate for vehicles. v. Is site sub-‐divided No þ vi. Are there metalled paths / roads? Yes þ asphalt on tarmac. vii. Are there unmade paths / roads? Yes þ surface red small whin chips <5mm / width 1m. viii. Is the layout rectilinear Yes þ with central circular feature. ix. Is site on a mound or higher than surrounding ground level No þ x Ground surfaces other than grass? Yes þ soil in continuous strip beds (recently turned). LANDSCAPE Trees – Are there any trees? Yes þ Grass – Is it low diversity lawn? Yes þ Is the graveyard generally wooded? No þ Are there many broadleaf flora in the grass? Yes þ daisies, Groups of trees scattered not much Landscape UK Grassland throughout? Yes þ Are there ruderals? No þ Character Type: Classification: J1.2 Only a few trees? Yes þ Any rank grass? No þ ornamental lawn Cultivated/distur Mainly evergreen trees? Yes þ Is the grass mowed? Yes þ cemetery bed land-‐ Mixture of EG & deciduous? Yes þ Mown short all over Yes þ Amenity grassland Mainly ornamental planting? Yes þ Mown paths? No þ Mossy Are there shrubs planted Yesþ Are there self-‐sown trees Yes þ but not many Ivy-‐ Does ivy grow on walls? No þ Any signs of? On gravestones and monuments? No þ Small mammals? Yes þ moles central, north side Is this unchecked? Diameter of trunk No þ Birds? Yes þ flying overhead Bats? No þ not seen Are there any? Amphipians/reptiles? No þ not seen Lichens? spps >12 □ <12þ 0□ Insects No þ not seen Mosses ? No þ Other? No þ Bryophytes? No þ Any unusual /important plants? No þ BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES AND OTHER BUILT FEATURES Not described in CANMORE etc. The landscape is in the late C19th – early C20th lawn cemetery style. It contains a simple geometric central feature accessed from the main pathway, with the rest of the site laid out in a grid formation. The landscape includes have continuous borders, evergreen trees and flowerbeds near the main entrance (since utilised for burial). The design resists the use of kerbsets. The design quality of the boundary wall and gates is high with details such as corner posts, castellated entrance gate piers and castle-‐shaped heads on gate’s hinge rail and spike with ornamented inverted omega or spear shaped railheads elsewhere. There are five compartments laid out along the boundary wall, 23 double-‐plot compartments with internal paths running E– W and two further single row compartments in the SW corner. In addition to this grid layout there is an off-‐centre design comprising of two double plot compartments laid out in a circular arrangement, a single triangular plot below to the W. At the entrance there are two double plot compartments laid out in a semi-‐circular arrangement at the W and behind the corresponding E compartment is a single triangular-‐shaped plot. Immediately inside the entrance are two single circular quadrant-‐shaped plots. 120

The cemetery houses the civic war memorial for Stonehouse. It is a simple granite Celtic cross on a stepped base, three-‐course granite and lower course concrete. Octagonal shaft WWI facing E and WWII facing W. It is the focal point of the graveyard. Additional Features / Comments Research by JY (2012) notes that Robert Bruce was the was the main contractor and undertook the foundations and drainage at a cost of £229. Blacksmith, James Frood was awarded the ‘smith works’ (quote £38), provided he resigned as a Parish Councillor due to his conflict of interest. The surrounding wall was commissioned in 1905 and the cemetery was completed around 1907. The architect of the cemetery was Stonehouse born James McLellan Brown. The war memorial was designed by Dr. Macgregor Chalmers, an architect from Glasgow and sculpted by Mr R. Gray of Glasgow. The monument was unveiled by Captain Elliot in 1921 as a result of public subscription and the opening ceremony attracted a crowd of over 2000 people (ref. Hamilton advertiser 15.6.1921). SITE FURNITURE Litter bin and two benches at main entrance, a second bin at the E side entrance; compost NE corner. Sign inside main entrance gate with opening times and site plan. Tap at W side entrance.

121

GRAVESTONE DATE AND NUMBER i. No. gravestones found in the graveyard? 577 (no of lairs on plan from Stonehouse Heritage Group) ii. Date of earliest stone 1906 (date site opened seen during survey) iii. Date of the most recent stone? 2012 (seen during survey) iv. When are most stones erected? C19th GRAVESTONE TYPES Total C17th C18th C19th Post C19th and earlier Headstone 90% ( estimate þ þ □ □ þ) Mural Monument 0 □ □ □ □ Mural Tablet 0 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Grave Slab / Ledger 0 □ □ □ □ Chest Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ Low Coped Tomb 0 □ □ □ □ Table Tomb 0 þ Pedestal Tomb, Broken Column or Obelisk 10 □ □ □ þ Freestanding Cross 10 □ □ □ Sculpture angels (x2), tree trunk with 10 ( estimate þ) þ þ □ □ animals (x1), scrolls, books Other Gravestones / Carved Stones Included under the category of headstones are the stones, not earth fast, which are kept upright by a metal prop. GRAVE FURNITURE MATERIALS Most Some Few Around 10 immortelle bases seen, along with Sandstone þ □ □ fragments of their flowers and inscriptions. There þ □ □ Granite are many shells and metal grave markers (although Marble þ □ □ not necessarily in situ). Most of the graves are not Slate □ □ □ enclosed but there are one or two examples of Iron □ □ 1 ‘homemade’ kerbing and fencing (made of domestic Other: concrete þ □ □ garden materials). Flower vases, some possibly pre-‐ war. Many of the more recent graves are dressed with personal mementos. No of stones with decorative or symbolic motifs 35 % (estimated þ) Mortality / Immortality: Urns, wreath, cross, scroll of God, ivy, rose, rosette, star, angel, flowers, sunset, window, Celtic cross, foliage, clasped hands, crown, sarcophagus. Other designs include: war graves regimental badges. Letter of surname at top of stone. Pictures with no obvious symbolism e.g owls, tree trunk with rabbit and butterfly, Celtic knotwork. Portraits, Heraldic and Trade Carvings None Comments / Other Significant Stones Gravestones are generally aligned in rows N-‐S and oriented E-‐facing, except those which have been placed round the perimeter wall. The site contains a typical range of gravestones for the period. Its main interest lies in its overall landscape design, of which the gravestones as an assemblage are a key element. The level of grave ephemera (shells, numbered lair markers, immortelle basis) is unusual among the CAVLP sites visited in the project. (Falkirk maker’s mark on cast iron stone (nd). This is the only example of a metal gravestone in all of the CAVLP sites visited. The rustic tree trunk is a nice example of this type of rusticated gravestone. No of CWGC burials: 8. There are also several commemorations of men buried elsewhere. This cemetery also houses the civic war memorial for Stonehouse. 122

GRAVEYARD CONDITION AND MANAGEMENT A: Do the trees need thinning, shaping, removal? □ no □ Yes -‐ odd □ Yes -‐ some þ Yes: □ Other examples areas (state) across site (state) B: Are trees (planted or self-‐seeded) damaging gravestones or structures □ no þ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) C: Is herbicide used near gravestones / other features? □ no þyes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) D: Is turf removed from around gravestones / other features? □ no □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: þother examples areas (state) across site (state)

E: . Have any gravestones / other features sunk or banks of soil built up ? þno □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) F: Is the ground condition poor e.g. subsidence or soft soil? þ □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other no examples areas (state) across site (state) G: . Grass surfaces eroded? □ no þyes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) H: Are any gravestones / other features overgrown? □ no □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: þ other examples areas (state) across site (state)

Dislodged and displaced gravestones and too near the wall. One or two only, an ash tree /possibly holly in S walk. The plots are sprayed out. All gravestones are placed in continuous plot beds, with open soil cover and occasional grave site plantings (bulbs, shrubs, annuals etc.) However, smaller grave ephemera e.g. lair number markers when displaced are becoming buried. Road edge has vehicle tracks in S edge of circle. One of the SW compartments has localized grass damaged at the N-‐S section edge. Evidence that several trees previously encroaching / displacing nearby gravestones have been cut-‐ back. One or two examples where trees are still in danger of overgrowing stones.

I: . Are there problems with untended vegetation? þno □ yes -‐ odd □ yes -‐ some □ yes: □ other examples areas (state) across site (state) J: Are any memorial inscriptions illegible? No þ Generally legible. One example where black paint badly applied all over the incised inscription to bring out text. Some surface staining on marble stones that impedes legibility. Some stones have had their inscriptions repainted. K: Do any gravestones have their foundations visible? Yes þ 70 % of site affected (continuous bed system). Around 15 vertical stones have been displaced. Evidence of cracked bricks and concrete, usually two courses visible, but in once case three courses of brickwork is visible. L: Have any gravestones fallen over or been laid flat? Yes þ 19 stones affected, including where foundations have failed or metal props have been lost. M: Are any gravestones broken? Yes þ 15 stones affected, including those which have lost a component e.g. finial. A few tiny chips on the war memorial. N: Have gravestones been repaired? Yes þ 5% of site affected, some inscriptions repainted. O: Have walls or other structures been repaired? No þ Not noticeably, but possibly where trees have been cut down.

123

P: Is there stone deterioration affecting the gravestones? Yes þ 10 % affected. Gravestone are generally in a good condition, however examples of the following deterioration patterns are present at the site: surface discoloration (white stones), cracking and fragmentation (particularly concrete gravestones) and surface erosion (minor). The cast iron gravestone has areas of the inscription plaque which have rusted away. There is significant mechanical damage to the grave ephemera. Q: Is there damage or deterioration to walls and gates? No þ R: Is there damage or deterioration to paths Yes þ 20% affected. Red paths have landscape fabric visible (all across site). S: Is there damage or deterioration to buildings? No þ T: Have gravestones /other features been cleared, tidied up or moved? Yes þ 10% affected gravestones / 25% affected grave ephemera (shells, grave number markers, immortelles). Only minimal movement of previously earth-‐fast gravestones e.g. S wall where tree has been cut down, however, several gravestones formerly erected on the surface with props have lost their props and are now lying on the ground and have possibly migrated from their original position. U: Any evidence of vandalism in the graveyard? No þ Although the headstone with black paint roughly applied over the inscription could be considered an unintended act of vandalism. V: Any evidence of any littering or fly tipping in the graveyard? Yes þ very small amount of flower wrappings etc. W: Has management of the site (or the lack of it) affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ The site is maintained to a very high standard and is well equipped with amenities for visitors (mainly bereaved relatives) and this has produced an attractive and welcoming site. Management does not seem to have compromised the original design layout (although it is possible that there were originally one or two planted beds at the entrance which subsequently were converted into burial plots). The current management could be improved in relation to preventing tree damage to gravestones in the future and addressing the number of exposed foundations and fallen headstones. More care is needed to prevent further damage, loss, displacement and burial of the grave ephemera. X: Any other events or problems that have affected the graveyard’s condition? Yes þ Two examples of dog fouling. Y: Any known conservation work? Yes þ War memorial restored and 28 new names added 2008. LOOKING AFTER THE GRAVEYARD (V Good/Good / Satisfactory / Poor / V Poor) CURRENT Rating Condition Rating Built Heritage Rating Natural Heritage Good Good Satisfactory / Poor

124

FUTURE PRIORITIES Recommended works: Urgent • Lift fallen stones, levelling, re-‐ assembling and re-‐orienting. Ensure that all vertical stones are earth-‐fast, except those, which are propped on the surface. A suitable fixing method will need to be devised in cases where stone props are missing. • After appropriate environmental surveys (including full tree and bat surveys), manage trees to prevent further damage to gravestones and walls. o Implement above to fell some trees, reduce and prune others to protect monuments, walls and gravestones. • Create a strategy to manage grave ephemera (including lair number markers and shells) as part of general maintenance programmes.

Recommended works: Necessary • Consider mulch over plots to cut down erosion/reduce maintenance. • Edge red paths with aluminium/recycled PVC/timber edging to allow mowing over and cut down on edging. The same for plot edges.

Recommended works: Desirable • Paint metal work. • Consider installing planting with year round interest around the war memorial. • Consider reinstating the bottom step of the granite WW1 memorial which has been concreted. • Consider raking back red path surface, removing landscape fabric and replacing with a firmer self-‐binding surface, e.g. whin dust/hoggin. • Interpretation (focus on lawn cemetery design). • Install nesting boxes etc. • Create a conservation management plan for cemetery. • Implement quinquennial inspections of landscape, structures and gravestones. • Consider planting low maintenance shrub borders or hedging to increase biodiversity and compliment designed layout. • Consider removing black paint from over headstone inscription. • Repair gravestones where foundations have become significantly exposed and replace turf.

Factors influencing the selection of priorities above • Integrity and quality of lawn cemetery design. • Still in use/ regularly used by bereaved. • Proximity to 1903 Manse Road Cemetery and Stonehouse’s other historic attractions (e.g. cinema) and Heritage Society / John Young actively promote. • Not near to the Clyde Walkway, but potential link to the Avon Valley designate core path.

Attractiveness of site in its setting. No interpretation. SURVEY DETAILS i Date of survey 27 February 2013 ii Name of recorder Dr S. Buckham, F. Fisher

• •

125

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground. Access (un-surfaced) KEY TO TREES

No fence, remains of fieldstone wall (banked)

Cm Crataegus monogyna ( Hawthorn ) Fe Fraxinus excelsior

( Ash)

Qr Quercus robur ( Oak ) Sa Salix alba Tb

Kissing gate (galvanised)

( Willow )

Taxus baccata ( Yew ) Cm

Field gate (galvanised) Stone gatepost

( Sycamore )

Stone gatepost-broken

Ap Acer pseudoplatanus

Burial enclosure

Collapsed masonry (from burial enclosure)

Raised area

Depression Fe

Kerb set (Approx position only)

Replica of the Cambusnethan cross-shaft

Extents of raised area (old parish church)

Ap Fe

Kerb set Cm

Kerb set

Ap Ap Ap

Cm Cm

Medieval gravestones found in this area

Covenanterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Memorial (broken & missing

Kerb set

Tb C Cm

Burial enclosure

C Qr

C Fe

P+W Stock fence, remains of fieldstone wall (banked)

St. Michaelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Churchyard, Cambusnethan Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

metres

( Ivy )

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground. KEY TO TREES ( Sycamore )

( Ash)

Ap Acer pseudoplatanus

Hedera helix

Taxus baccata ( Yew )

Fe Fraxinus excelsior Tb

Gravestones recorded by B.Willsher

Bench

Tree stumps

Memorial Garden Viewpoint Bench

St Up one sta bou nd nd 60 ary 0 m re m tain up in wa g) rds wa UN ll w -F ith EN fla CE t co D pi DR ng OP .

metres

Viewpoint

CAR PARK

Bench

Raised section

MAIN GATE (stone gate posts with cast iron gate)

Stone boundary wall 1.7m high

Covenanter’s Memorial– enclosed with cast iron railings to front

SIDE GATE (Steps in need of repair)

Burial enclosure

Paved Area

Hogback gravestone

Dalserf Parish Church Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground.

St. Patrick’s Churchyard, Dalzell Estate Hamilton of Dalzell Mausoleum, and Pet Cemetery Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

Ston e arc -no gate h way Ston e with flat arc Entr h doub ance le ga St. P te atric to k’s G rave yard

Possible collapsed end of former gateway arch?

Acc e woo ss thro u dlan d. (R gh arch w oug h tra ay to ga ck) rden s an d

W of roug rep ht i air ron / r e-h gate an in gin ne g ed

Entr a Buri nce to al E nclo sur

Curved section of boundary wall Modern low stone wall, metal railings and double gate

Builder’s rubble, lime and pieces of stone

Stone heigh wall Aver t a missi 1.8m 25% ge ng al copin ong g this

Path Lor to St. P dG avin atrick’ s ’s T emp Well a nd le

Rough track sunken below high stone retaining walls from car park

Entr a mau nce to sole um

Hamilton grave slabs

(Gravel surface) Fs

Hamilton Mausoleum, repaired 2012

Rev. James Glasson’s gravestone

MIXED POLICY WOODLAND INCLUDING OAKS AND YEWS WITH EXOTICS

Gravestones built Into base of wall

Large unsightly sycamore Fe Ap Sa

Secti o of wa n l colla l psed

Gravestones with tailor’s symbols

SYCAMORES

KEY TO TREES Ap Acer pseudoplatanus

( Sycamore )

As Acer spp. ( ornamental maple ) Cm Crataegus monogyna ( Hawthorn ) Fe Fraxinus excelsior

( Ash)

Qr Quercus robur ( Oak ) Sa Salix alba

( Willow )

Stone heigh wall Ave ra t missi 1.8m 30% ge ng al ong t coping his st retch

Copings missing

Hedera helix ( Ivy )

metres

Stone heigh wall Ave ra t missi 1.8m 30% ge ng al ong t coping his st retch

Pet Cemetery (brick kerbs)

On e stre t pa rki ng Ap

KEY TO TREES Ap Acer pseudoplatanus

( Sycamore )

Ilex aquifolium

( Ash)

Cu Cupressus spp. ( Cypress ) Ia Picea spp. ( Spruce )

( Holly )

Pi Taxus baccata ( Yew )

Fe Fraxinus excelsior

Tb Hedera helix ( Ivy )

ck eba ddl ards h sa pw wit 1m u all d g) w Upstan nin etai .5m+ 2 ry r nda ight bou xt. He ne Sto ing. E cop

Bo fen und l ra c e a ar y tu nd for ul ric h m a wt ed b ag ge ho y by ed rn a g ed n h h r e r m or dg icult fo th e ur al r y aw da d h un an Bo ce Path all around in red gravel n fe Boards Ap

Viewpoint

e ton m 8 S ps 1 t h ste wi Laurels de l wi drai n ha

Tree of Life carved stone (fallen)

Burial enclosures

BUILDING RUIN

kc o

St Cu Ge one ne bou ral n h da e i gh r y w t 1 all .2 , t o 1 sadd .4m leb ac

Rhododendrons

Small tree

Close to gravestone

pin g.

Bench

Spoil heap

Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

len /fal . m ose e lo o 1.8 som .6 t ng, ight 1 e o pi k c al h bac ntern I d le sad sing. is all, ry w e m nda som bou s and e ne Sto to tre due

Sundial

ck eb a ddl ED h sa ENC wit F all UNg) w ds nin upwar etai y (r 00mm dar oun nd 4 ne b psta Sto ing. U cop OP DR

Covenanter’s stone and sign

Recently planted

OLD PARISH CHURCH (Ruin)

Entrance to Cemetery Double gate-one leaf missing-wrought iron gate in need of repair 2m high stone gateposts with pyramid caps. GLASSFORD CEMETERY (Extension) Cu e (1980s) ngl pair -Si e PA ar d o f r Winged soul fragment T ch y e d H hur in ne — r to C ate ed nce on g GLASSFORD g r a Bench ntra t ir 6m v . E e CEMETERY ugh sts l1 o1 epo l 1.4 t wro .5 m (1880s) gat . ne . Wal sto s Sign Bin l h a hig fini 2m ball h Cu wit Burial Laurels enclosure Cu

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground.

metres

B fen oun ce dar an y dh f a w or m th ed or b nh y ed agr ge icu ltu ral

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground.

Gate missing

Access up 45 steps to burial ground through private property of the house

Timber lychgate with terracotta tiled roof-in need of repairs

3 Pedestals with winged soul carvings

Burial enclosure 1â&#x20AC;&#x201C; stone table tomb, with 2 ledger stones either side, cast iron railings around

Free-standing marble cross, unstable

Burial enclosure 2 mural monuments

Gate

Encroaching Rhododendron ponticum

Free-standing marble cross

Hilltop site, heavily wooded with beech trees, up to 100 yrs old, and a few sycamore.

metres

Boundary fence, wrought iron horizontal railings

Private Burial Ground, Mauldslie Estate Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

Narrow and rough estate roads

Private house

Access over decking area next to house

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground. Fs

Edge of path between New Lanark World Hertage Centre and car parks

No boundary visible on the ground Fs KEY TO TREES ( trunk positions are indicative ) Fs Fagus sylvatica ( Beech )

Ps Pinus sylvestris ( Scots Pine )

KEY TO GRAVESTONES (positions indicative) Headstone with legible inscription (upright) Headstone with legible inscription (fallen) Raised ledger stone

Fs Fs Fs

Fs Fs

Extent of over-hanging branches (mainly beech)

Fs Fs

Car park 40m this way (no path) Area of scrub (elders)

Dis con ti n u ous

Path to New Lanark World Hertage Centre, 2m wide gravel

Gra

ss p

lo w

ath

ston e

to b

uria l

reta

inin

gw all

grou nd

Fallen tree Ps

Extent of over-hanging branches (mainly beech) Area of scrub (elders and brambles) Fs Ps

No boundary visible on the ground

New Lanark Burial Ground Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

Path from main visitor car park (Approx 2m wide, gravel)

metres

( Sycamore )

Bin

MAIN PATHS Bitmac with Asphalt surface

Bench

SIDE ENTRANCE Stone arch with decorative wrought iron single leaf arched gate Round turreted & castellated bull-faced stone corner posts

Sign

SIDE PATHS 1m wide red gravel

ar hl oll as scr ne d to de ds ul an mo h d s h ig se wit m h es dr all 2-2 th w 1. oo ary gs, Bench Sm und opin bo p c to

MAIN ENTRANCE Curved stone walls with stone round turreted castellated gate posts with outer ball finials, decorative wrought iron double leaf gates

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground.

KEY TO TREES Ap Acer pseudoplatanus Cm Crataegus monogyna ( H awthorn ) ( Ash)

Cu Cupressus spp. ( Cypress ) Fe Fraxinus excelsior Ia Ilex aquifolium ( Holly ) Taxus baccata ( Yew )

Pi Picea spp. ( Spruce ) Tb

SIDE ENTRANCE Stone arch with decorative wrought iron single leaf arched gate Round turreted & castellated bull-faced stone corner posts Water tap

Cu Ia

Litter

SIDE PATHS 1m wide red gravel DOUBLE BEDDED GRAVES with side paths between (not shown)

WWI and WWII War Memorial (granite Celtic Cross on octagonal stepped base)

SIDE PATHS 1m wide red gravel

No slabs/store area

Sandstone boundary wall with saddleback stone copings, broached surfaces, 1.8m high

DOUBLE ROWS of graves with side paths

Bitmac with Asphalt

Cu between (not shown)

Stonehouse Cemetery Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

Sandstone boundary wall with saddleback stone copings, broached surfaces, 2m high

metres

( Sycamore )

Break in Slope

—

red

Access down steps to the Glebe Cemetery

co p

. ing

ll /fa se oo e l m. . om o 3 , s .5 t 3m to ing t 2 .5 op g h t2 t c ei fla . H igh th ng he wi si s de i all e m wi w s 2m ry som ree .5da ht l1 un nd ec ve b o es a be gra ne tre — o St e to EN du RD GA

SE AN

St. Ninian’s Churchyard, Stonehouse Survey Plan by Kirkyard Consulting with Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust for the Clyde and Avon Landscape Partnership

Gravedigger’s shed— masonry loose and door missing, needs repairs and new door

TH PA

t fla

OLD PARISH CHURCH (Ruin)-possible water ingress at the top of belfry

Redundant metal post from a sign Tb

Small gravelsurfaced car park

th wi all yw m dar .5 un o 2 bo m t ne 1.5 Sto ight He

rn tho haw nd ha eec —b NK BA ND ng. vel LA o pi P gra OD at c RO l red WO hf SD d in wit OU oun R all l ar ) w GE h al ing AN Pat tain s D (re ward ry p nda m u bou 400m ne Sto stand Up

SURVEY LIMITATIONS In general, graveyard features have been plotted by sight. Positions have been plotted relative to other OS data and should be checked on the ground. KEY TO TREES Ap Acer pseudoplatanus Cu Cupressus spp. ( Cypress ) Picea spp. ( Spruce )

Ju juniper spp. ( Juniper ) Pi Tb Taxus baccata ( Yew )

Viewpoint

MANSE

Steps

Rendered wall of old stables is unsightly, showing signs of decay/ water ingress

S Covenanter’s fla tone tc b Memorial & sign o p ou i ng nda . U ry p r s ta etai Tb nd ni 1m ng) up wa w ll w ar i ds t h

Entrance Double wrought iron gate in need of repair Stone pillars with caps missing Unusual steel turnstile at the side

metres

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Appendix 3: Discussion of Natural Heritage / Habitat Surveys/Condition and Potential 3.1 Introduction and scope of survey The survey of the natural heritage of the graveyards was designed to allow the recording of those features which enhance the amenity and biodiversity of the eight historic churchyards. Trees add to the character as well as the habitat value of a graveyard. Trees were plotted (from the aerial survey and field surveys) and obvious condition problems were highlighted for specialist survey, particularly where they may pose a threat to the preservation of the built heritage. Shrubs were almost entirely absent from the graveyards and hedges rare. The grassland and ground flora in these man-‐made landscapes is the over-‐riding habitat type and these were classified in the Phase 1 habitat Survey which is discussed separately. The survey information was analysed and the condition and potential of the graveyards identified, generating recommendations. The potential for habitat enhancement on these man-‐made sites was somewhat limited due to the built heritage constraints. A key habitat recommendation is addressing grass management to make it more sustainable and beneficial to built and cultural heritage. 3.2 Phase 1 Habitat Survey Methodology Site surveys were carried at each site, during February, March and April, 2013. Each survey visit was attended by both Susan Buckham and Fiona Fisher and lasted either a whole day or half a day. The Phase 1 Survey concerns itself with grassland identification due to the predominant habitat classification of graveyards as grassland, the level of the survey, its scoping aims and the time of year conducted in February, March and early January. The management regimes in those graveyards with amenity grassland have tended to produce a relatively homogeneous and species-‐poor ground flora, dominated by perennial ryegrass. Variations in micro-‐climate and habitat, within kerb-‐sets and crevices in walls and associated with different aspects, the geology of stone etc. are noted in the recording sheets. The graveyards were classified by observation across the site according to the JNCC Phase 1 habitat Survey Handbook (1999), which is appended. The survey was carried out by identifying the ground flora, usually grassland type and by establishing the presence or otherwise of indicator species, classifying the grassland. In addition, trees and shrubs were identified and the presence of ivy, mosses, lichens and other vegetation on gravestones, walls and buildings. Limitations The surveys were carried out at a time when the herb layer and the annual and biennial plants were least visible. Information from the Draft Clyde Valley Green Network Phase 1 habitat survey was supplied by SNH and where this was available for comparison, it was used as a check. It is possible that returning at a different time of year would produce different results. However, taken with the information about biodiversity designations, landscape character (gleaned from desktop study) together with the knowledge and visible evidence of management regimes, it is deemed to be sufficient for the level of survey (scoping). The information has been recorded below and the colouring method has not been used because of the limitations due to the timing of the survey and due to lack of

134

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

access to GIS, although the information could be plotted at a later date if appropriate. The purpose of gathering Phase 1 habitat information is to scope out the potential for conservation, repair, enhancement and interpretation, including natural heritage interest, as appropriate. Phase 1 habitat survey information is plotted below: Graveyard JNCC Phase 1 Habitat name in Indicator spp.s Habitat handbook Index Dalzell Other tall herb and fen – tall C.3.1 Chamenon angustifolia, Medium ruderal Urtica diocia Cambusnethan Cultivated/disturbed, land-‐ J.1.2 Lolium perenne Medium amenity grassland dominates Mauldslie Other tall herb and fen – tall C.3.1 Chamenon angustifolia, Medium ruderal Urtica diocia Dalserf Poor semi-‐improved Grassland B6 Species poor SI Poor New Lanark Semi-‐improved neutral grassland B2.2 Grassland species Medium suppressed by beech leaf litter Stonehouse St Neutral grassland-‐semi improved B.3.2 Grasses<25% Lolium Poor Ninians perenne Stonehouse Cultivated/disturbed land-‐amenity J.1.2 Lolium perenne Poor Cemetery grassland dominates Glassford Cultivated/disturbed land-‐amenity J.1.2 Lolium perenne Poor Churchyard grassland dominates Glassford Cultivated/disturbed land-‐amenity J.1.2 Lolium perenne Poor Cemetery grassland dominates 3.3 Summary of natural heritage condition Some graveyards had few trees and mainly small-‐medium ornamental evergreens, as at Stonehouse Cemetery, Glassford cemetery and Dalserf. Large trees were present at Dalzell (Sycamore, Whitebeam and Yew), Mauldslie (Beech), St. Ninians Stonehouse (Sycamore and Cypress) Glassford (Sycamore, Cypress and yew)) and New Lanark (Beech). The trees at Cambusnethan are up to medium sized and mainly defunct hedge species, although there is one yew, but it is likely to be less than 100 years old. The biodiversity value of trees is recognised and, where possible and consistent with built heritage conservation objectives, they should be retained. However, self-‐sown trees growing near to or on memorials, buildings and boundary walls need to be managed (by cutting and removing dead or diseased branches and removing self-‐sown saplings) in order to protect the built heritage. This should be carried out, ideally following the advice of a conservation management plan and following an arboricultural survey and an appropriate ecological assessment. Consideration should be given to the fact that these same branches very often provide valuable habitat for wildlife, particularly insects, bats and birds. However, it is not generally consistent with the built heritage conservation aims to leave these dead and diseased branches either in situ or as cut habitat piles as they would potentially damage the built heritage and detract from the amenity of the graveyard. The only potential exceptions would be New Lanark and Mauldslie, where there is space at the edge of the graveyard for habitat piles. In many cases, trees and vegetation are a threat to the historic stone fabric. Branches overhang and roots and shoots dislodge gravestones and masonry as well as causing surface and structural damage. When trees and shrubs are not

135

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

managed by regular pruning to take out dead branches, they become rotten and if tree limbs subsequently drop they can damage the built heritage. Vegetation growth close to or on gravestones or masonry can also act as a conduit for, or trap, water which can cause stone decay, especially in conjunction with freeze-‐thaw action. Self-‐seeded trees (mainly sycamore and ash saplings) and ivy are generally un-‐checked in some graveyards and should be managed on a regular cycle and removed where appropriate. Dense foliage and overhanging trees can also produce a damp and shady microclimate which allows algae, fungi and moss to grow on stone surfaces which can accelerate natural decay processes. A large mature sycamore in Dalzell has already damaged the boundary wall, but Gerry Lewis has advised that it is a bat roost. It is a particularly unsightly tree within the graveyard context and it is recommended that, after appropriate assessment, it should be shaped and managed. Native species hedge (hawthorn) was recorded only at Cambusnethan (defunct), Glassford Cemetery and a very small hedge at Stonehouse cemetery. A small number of ornamental shrubs were recorded at Stonehouse cemetery, Glassford cemetery and Dalserf. 3.4 Potential to enhance the habitat value of graveyards Bird boxes and bat boxes Where there are suitable trees, it is recommended that bat boxes and bird boxes should be added to graveyards. Trees and shrubs, mosses and lichens Where there is potential to plant hedges it has been identified, but this opportunity is small scale and minimal due to the constraints of so many gravestones and burials. It is estimated that there are 10,000 burials in a historic graveyard (Caring for God’s Acre 2012). While trees, shrubs and hedges are hugely beneficial to supporting and enhancing biodiversity, there is very little space for them in historic graveyards. In general, only small trees, shrubs and hedges are consistent with the preservation of the built heritage and only where they have been planted in a suitable position. It is not generally appropriate to plant trees or shrubs, unless it is to replace a tree which has been removed, in which case a suitable space should to be found. The gravestones themselves can be important in supporting lichens and mosses. It may be necessary to remove mosses in order to record inscriptions, but in general it should then be allowed to re-‐colonise, unless built heritage assessments and priorities suggest otherwise. A similar approach could be taken to bryophytes and lichens. Soft plants growing in masonry, apart from saplings, woody plants and ivy, can generally be left. Woody plants, ivy and saplings should be cut back from gravestones, monuments and masonry according to Historic Scotland guidelines. It should then be treated with glyphosate paste applied directly or copper nails. It should be gently pieced out and where growing on masonry should be part of a repairs programme. The open joints and lime mortar in masonry can be an important habitat for a range of flora, lichens, lizards and insects such as beetles and bees. Larger cracks can also house lizards, bats and birds. A repairs programme should develop proposals to stabilise the wall consistent with the conservation of habitat. It is desirable when repairing masonry to avoid hard cement mortar, but use lime mortar, where appropriate, and to carry out the work over several years to minimise the impact of consequent removal and allow successive re-‐ colonisation.

136

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

The sheltered microclimate inside kerb-‐sets and burial enclosures is a valuable habitat space. This could be enhanced by either converting grass, where that exists to meadow or converting gravel to sedum, thyme or other flowering carpetting plants, which once established would require less maintenance. 3.5 Grassland – transition to meadows The main area for biodiversity enhancement would be delivered in the management of the grass/ground flora in a more sustainable way and making a transition to wildflower meadows with paths cut through, where appropriate. This strategy would ideally be developed and agreed with all relevant parties, particularly the communities who may tend to resist this change. It is recognised that a transition to meadow is a change which takes effort and requires promotion, education and management to successfully establish. The recommended transition would produce areas with longer grass and two different heights of grass both factors which would increase habitat potential. The grass and ground flora of the graveyards is generally poor and the intervention needed to protect the gravestones could also provide opportunities for habitat enhancement. The application of herbicide around the base of gravestones can cause serious erosion of the base of the gravestones and where the soil washes away as a consequence of spraying or edging, foundations become exposed, the gravestone may become unstable and could potentially fall and become broken and damaged. It is strongly recommended that herbicide application is reduced as far as possible and where it is necessary it is applied to specific plants as a past or otherwise spot-‐treated. It is further recommended that where there are opportunities for ground and grass reinstatement, that consideration should be given to a transition to meadows in those areas around the gravestones at least. This could be achieved in a number of ways: • Natural regeneration • Sowing or laying turfs of low sward grass (i.e. low in perennial ryegrass) • Sowing an appropriate meadow seed mix (of local provenance) • Plug planting wild flower species into low sward grass It should be noted that wild flowers and meadows establish more readily on soil which is low in fertility, but graveyards are high in fertility for obvious reasons. For this reason, sowing or importing turfs which are low sward (high fescue and clover content) is the preferred option. These can be left to regenerate as meadows from the seed bank in the soil or plug plants can be added, potentially by volunteers. 3.6 Mowing Options Maintenance of meadows would be by strimming twice a year (although scything can be done by suitably trained volunteers). It is desirable to raise the cutting edge of the mowers to allow the grass to develop more flowering species and space for insects and wildlife. A number of options exist for mowing the graveyard: • Meadow (strimmed 2 pa) only around gravestones-‐Continuation of short grass regime 20 times pa elsewhere • Meadow (strimmed 2 pa) only around gravestones-‐Cut slightly longer than before 20 times pa elsewhere • Meadow (strimmed 2 pa) with paths through-‐Cut paths though 20 time pa • Leave as a meadow (strimmed 2 pa) throughout

137

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

It is recommended that Option 2. With slightly longer grass, which would support more insects and other food for birds, be applied to Dalserf, Stonehouse, St. Ninians, Stonehouse Cemetery and Glassford Churchyard and Cemetery. New Lanark and Dalzell will probably need to have tailor-‐made maintenance regimes, following ecological assessments. Cambusnethan would potentially convert well to Option 4 a meadow throughout, with or without paths mown through. It should be noted that this can be done by scything and that some rural graveyards have sheep grazing on them, although these options would have to be monitored and reviewed to ensure no damage is caused to the built or natural heritage. 3.7 Sustainability A key criterion for the inclusion of proposed actions is their sustainability; they should be capable of continuing environmentally, economically and practically. In this respect, unless it is with the express purpose of reading and recording inscriptions and carvings, cleaning biological growth off gravestones should only be undertaken where a regular cleaning programme is a priority supported by the CMP and is viable. On-‐going good maintenance includes managing trees and vegetation for safety (Public and heritage) and amenity in keeping with the enhancement of habitat value, as far as possible. If on-‐going maintenance work to large and vigorous species such as sycamore and ivy is not possible, consideration may have to be given to having them cleared in their entirety and treated, in the interests of preserving valuable built heritage. Any new planting to enhance amenity and habitat, should be carefully selected to realistically fit the maintenance available and located so as not to place built heritage at risk, now or in the future. If converting graveyard grass areas to meadow as recommended, it should be possible to stop, or at least reduce, the application of herbicide and cutting around gravestones. The involvement of volunteers in the conservation, management, maintenance and monitoring of the heritage will also be beneficial in improving the sustainability of all actions, particularly where these contributions are low in carbon emissions, involving the local community and manual work.

138

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Appendix 3a: Scotland Counts Surveys List produced by The Conservation Volunteers Survey(s) Hibernation*Survey

Big*Garden*Birdwatch

Various*bird*surveys Spring*Pack,*Summer* Pack,*Autumn*Pack,* Winter*Pack*etc. Ancient*Tree*Hunt

Bug*Count

Soil*and*earthworm* survey

Air*survey

Climate*survey

Jellyfish*Survey

Alien*Species

Detail Record*any*sightings*of*hedgehogs*when*out.*Recordings*to*be*logged*by*website* ONLY*and*would*prefer*to*have*a*grid*reference*but*postcode/nearest*town*or* county*will*do.*Will*need*a*login*to*upload*sightings*onto*website. Record*the*highest*number*of*each*species*of*bird*seen*in*one*hour.*This*can*be* done*in*a*garden*or*at*the*park.*This*is*an*annual*survey*and*is*only*carried*out*on* one*weekend*in*January.*Results*are*submitted*online*ONLY*but*can*download*a* help*sheet*to*use*while*recording*and*then*upload*findings*online.*Possibly*need*to* become*a*member*to*upload*data. Various*projects*that*collects*data*from*birdwatchers,*bird*recorders,*county*bird* clubs*and*national*datasets*that*targets*bird*species*or*habitat*management*for* birds*of*conservation*concern. Free*packs*available*from:*http://www.naturedetectives.org.uk/packs/play*which* gives*a*list*of*activities*such*as*nest*challenge,*texture*trail*etc*that*can*be*done*at* home*or*at*the*park.*Great*for*beginners*and*children*to*get*involved*in*nature*and* perhaps*invoke*some*to*become*recorders. Involves*people*in*finding*and*mapping*all*the*fat,*old*trees*across*the*UK*to* become*part*of*the*only*living*archive*of*ancient,*veteran*and*notable*trees.* Record*bugs*in*any*area*and*look*out*for*the*six*species*quest*bugs*in*particular.* Recordings*can*be*uploaded*online*anonymously,*by*logging*in*or*by*posting*the* findings.*Can*use*a*postcode,*nearest*town*or*by*selecting*an*area*on*the*map*to* locate*findings.*You*can*download*the*field*notebook,*pocket*ID*guide*and*species* quest*sheet*to*use*while*out. Earthworms*are*extremely*important*and*play*a*vital*role*in*recycling*plant* nutrients*and*aerating*the*soil.*By*taking*part*in*this*survey*you'll*help*improve*our* knowledge*of*earthworms*and*the*soils*they*live*in*X*something*we*know* surprisingly*little*about.*You*can*download*the*field*notebook,*pocket*ID*guide*and* species*quest*sheet*to*use*while*out. We*can*learn*much*about*air*quality*from*the*species*that*live*nearby.*The*OPAL* air*survey*is*studying*lichens*found*on*trees*and*also*looking*for*tar*spot*fungus*on* sycamore*leaves.*Both*can*tell*us*a*great*deal*about*local*air*quality.*You*can* download*the*field*notebook,*pocket*ID*guide*and*species*quest*sheet*to*use*while* out. The*OPAL*climate*survey*is*an*exciting*national*experiment*that*everyone*can*take* part*in.*You'll*help*us*investigate*ways*in*which*we*affect*the*climate*and*how*the* climate*may*affect*us.*The*more*people*that*get*involved*the*more*valuable*our* research*will*become.*You*can*download*the*field*notebook,*pocket*ID*guide*and* species*quest*sheet*to*use*while*out. Record*jellyfish*that*have*become*stranded*on*beaches.*Recordings*can*be* uploaded*online*without*registration*or*by*post.*Can*also*download*Jellyfish* identification*guide*to*help*and*email*pictures*to**peter@mcsuk.org*if*unsure. Working*with*MarLIN*(the*Marine*life*Information*Network*at*the*Marine*Biological* Association)*to*record*invasive*nonXnative*species.*Record*any*seen*on*beaches* using*the*Marine*NonXnative*Species*ID*Guide*which*can*be*downloaded.*Results* are*to*be*uploaded*online*at*http://www.marlin.ac.uk/rml.php*but*must*log*in*first.

Training

Equipment

No*training*needed.

Notebook,*pen,*GPS.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*help*sheet*(or*use*a* notebook),*pen.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*help*sheet*(or*use*a* notebook),*pen.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Packs*are*emailed*then*can*be* printed*out.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*help*sheet*(or*use*a* notebook),*pen.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*field*notebook,*pocket* ID*guide*and*species*quest*sheet.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*field*notebook,*pocket* ID*guide*and*species*quest*sheet.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*field*notebook,*pocket* ID*guide*and*species*quest*sheet.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*field*notebook,*pocket* ID*guide*and*species*quest*sheet.

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Download*jellyfish*identification* guide,*notebook,*pen.

Comfortable

No*training*needed.

Download*marine*nonXnative* species*guide,*notebook,*pen.

Comfortable

Report*any*strandings*of*whales,*dolphins*and*porpoises*(collectively*known*as* cetaceans),*marine*turtles*and*basking*sharks*that*strand*around*the*UK*coastline.* No*training*needed. N/A To*report*a*sighting*for*live*strandings*contact*SSPCA*on*0131*3390111*and*for* dead*strandings*contact*SAC*Veterinary*Services*on*01463*243030*or*07979* 245893*(out*of*hours). Record*any*dead*amphibians*or*fish*in*your*pond.*Can*be*any*pond*and*recordings* Can*print*out*form*to*record,* Big*Pond*Thaw*2012 No*training*needed. can*be*uploaded*online*or*by*posting*the*recording*form*downloaded*from*the* pen. website. Record*species*living*in*garden*or*school*ponds.*Recordings*can*be*uploaded*online* or*by*posting*the*recording*form.*Can*download*survey*sheet*to*help*with* Big*Pond*Dip No*training*needed. White*tray,*sieve,*survey*sheet identification*and*visit* www.pondconservation.org.uk/bigponddip/frogtoadnewtpics*to*help*identify*the* difference*from*toads*and*frogs. Record*the*number*of*frog*spawn*in*a*pond.*Survey*can*be*completed*online*and* Big*Spawn*Count*2012 No*training*needed. Notebook*to*record can*be*entered*several*times. Record*species*of*trees*growing*in*streets,*parks*and*gardens.*Recordings*can*be* uploaded*online*via*the*survey*and*interactive*map.*Help*sheets*are*available*to* Survey*sheet,*pencil/pen,*ID* Urban*Tree*Survey No*training*needed. download*and*print*off.*These*include*help*with*identification*and*also*the*survey* sheets*to*help. form*itself.*It*is*also*advised*to*take*photos.*One*survey*sheet*per*tree*recorded. Record*sightings*of*marine*life.*Recordings*are*uploaded*online*however*login*is* Recording*Marine*Life No*training*needed. Notebook,*pen*etc. needed.*Records*are*sent*to*the*NBN*Gateway*and*a*recording*guide*is*available. Help*us*monitor*longXterm*changes*in*bumblebee*populations.*A*familiarity*with* For*details*of*training*courses* the*common*garden*species*is*required.*Establish*a*1X2km*transect*along*your* go*to*the*BBCT*events* Camera,*recording*sheet,*GPS,* BeeWalk favourite*walk*where*you*are*likely*to*see*bumblebees*and*then*survey*this*once* page*http://bumblebeeconserv pen*etc. per*month*between*March*and*October.*Guidelines*are*made*available*once*you* ation.org/getXinvolved/eventsX register*your*interest*by*emailing*beewalk@bumblebeeconservation.org* calendar If*you*love*digital*photography*and*wish*to*learn*more*about*bumblebees*then* please*upload*your*bumblebee*photos*to*BeeWatch.*Share*some*basic*information* about*the*photo*such*as*the*date*and*location*and*in*return*we*will*teach*you*how* Bee*Watch*X*Schools* to*identify*bumblebees*yourself*through*an*interactive*tool.*An*expert*will*then* specific*bumblebee* No*training*needed. Camera,*notebook,*pen send*you*feedback*with*the*correct*identification*and*some*interesting*information* survey about*that*particular*species.*BeeWatch*allows*us*to*gather*more*valuable* information*about*the*distribution*of*our*24*species*of*bumblebee. Report*Standings

Bird*Track

Breeding*Bird*Survey

Record*birds*seen*in*a*site*or*sites*of*choice.*Need*to*register*to*upload*results.* Need*to*read*instructions*which*are*available*to*download*online.*Enter*location,* time,*date*and*check*off*species*when*filling*in*survey*online.

Entry6Level

No*training*needed.

Advised*to*know*common*bird* The*survey*involves*two*spring*visits*to*a*local*1Xkm*square,*to*count*all*the*birds* species*though*do*provide*a* you*see*or*hear*while*walking*along*two*1Xkm*transects*within*the*square.*Each* number*of*1*day*and*weekend* visit*should*take*less*than*two*hours,*and*it's*recommend*that*you*make*a* training*courses*mainly*on* reconnaissance*visit*to*set*up*or*check*the*transect*route*and*access,*and*complete* teaching*bird*survey* a*habitat*recording*form.*You*can*download*the*instructions*from*the*website.* techniques.*1*day*workshop* Need*to*contact*the*Regional*Organiser*to*allocate*the*1Xkm*BBS*square. costs*£45,*weekend*costs* £180.

Beginner

Beginner Beginner

Beginner

Binoculars,*notepad,*pen*etc.

Beginner

Binoculars,*notepad,*pen*etc.

Comfortable

139

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Survey(s) Nest*Record*Scheme

Flora*Guardians

Wildflowers*Path

Wildflowers*Plot First*Steps*Survey

Batwatch

Detail

Training

1*day*and*weekend*courses* Watch*a*single*nest*box*in*their*garden*or*finding*and*monitoring*nests*in*the*wider* available*to*teach*how*to*find* countryside.*Online*guide*to*monitoring*nests*is*available.*Training*courses*are*also* and*monitor*nests.*1*day* available. course*costs*£10*and*weekend* courses*cost*£40. Allocated*sites*near*to*where*you*live*in*which*you*monitor*a*specific*wild*plant* and*its*habitat*on*a*regular*basis.*These*include*endangered*'Back*from*the*brink'* Full*training*provided*by* species*and*also*non*native*invasive*species*such*as*Japanese*knotweed.*Download* Plantlife. the*enrolment*form. Take*a*walk*through*1km*square*taking*note*of*any*wildflowers*in*the*wildflower* No*training*needed. count*ID*guide*and*the*type*of*habitat.*Wildflower*Count*ID*guide,*survey*sheet* and*guidance*notes*come*in*the*survey*pack.*Enter*results*online.*Register*online. Provided*with*a*small*square*plot,*and*a*small*linear*plot,*square,*within*which*you* note*any*of*the*99*wildflowers*from*the*guide,*along*with*how*abundant*they*are.* No*training*needed. Wildflower*Count*ID*guide,*survey*sheet*and*guidance*notes*come*in*the*survey* pack.*Register*online*and*enter*results*online. Basic*surveys*which*will*help*the*young*or*the*beginner*in*plant*ID*and*recording* No*training*needed. skills. Contact*X*Anne*Youngman Scottish*Bat*Officer,*BCT Unit*10 RFL*House Anderson*Street Dunblane,*FK15*9AJ* Tel:*01786*822107 Email:*ayoungman@bats.org.uk

Cetacean*and*pinniped* surveys

Contact*Bridget*DaviesXRobertson*on*01249*449500*or*info@wdcs.org.*for*more* information*on*volunteering*with*the*WDCS. Recording*after*a*dive*on*an*Observation*form*which*requires*the*main*habitat*and* seabed*cover*types*as*well*as*the*main*species*of*marine*life.*More*detailed* Sea*Search*Recording recording*can*be*done*on*a*Survey*form.*Can*download*guidance*notes*on*the* observation*form*and*survey*form*as*well*as*the*forms*themselves. Identification*of*nonX Identification*sheets*of*nonXnative*invasive*species*available*to*download.*A* native*invasive*species recording*of*observed*INNS*allows*you*to*record*what*you've*seen*and*where. Recording*rainfall*and*other*meteorological*phenomena*around*you.*Either*record* your*weather*on*the*go*through*your*smart*phone*or*set*your*home/work/school* Weather*Observations* up*as*an*observation*site*recording*rain,*weather*type,*temperature*and*any*other* Website conditions*you*wish.*Then*see*your*reports*alongside*hundreds*of*others*in*your* area.

Equipment

Entry6Level

notepad,*pen*etc.

Comfortable

N/A

Beginner

Survey*Pack

Beginner

Survey*Pack

Beginner

Survey*Pack

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Simple*online*recording*process* and**ID*Sheets

Comfortable

Training*from*WaDCS* recommended

Field*Training

Comfortable

No*training*needed.

Simple*online*recording*process* and**ID*Sheets

Comfortable

No*training*needed.

Simple*online*recording*process* and**ID*Sheets

Beginner

No*training*needed.

Simple*online*recording*process

Beginner

No*training*needed*but*worth* contacting*Buglife*for*advice* Simple*online*recording*process* and*information*on*training* and**ID*Sheets courses*available

Beginner

Bug*Surveys

Take*part*in*a*wide*variety*of*insect*surveys*including*pollinator*hoverflies*and* giant*aphids*surveys.*Something*there*for*everyone.

Butterfly*Identifier

Record*the*butterflies*you*see*around*you*with*the*butterfly*identifier.*Clear*colour* photos*of*the*butterflies*and*a*simple*recording*online*form

No*training*needed.

Simple*online*recording*process* and**ID*Sheets

Beginner

Frogwatch

Report*your*amphibian*and*reptile*sightings*and*the*habitat*it*was*seen*in*to* Froglife.*Need*help*getting*a*pond*in*your*school*grounds?*These*are*the*guys*to* ask!

No*training*needed.

Simple*online*recording*process* and**ID*Sheets

Beginner

iSpot

Not*a*survey*however*provides*peer*to*peer*review*of*photographs*and*description* of*specimens*seen*in*the*field.*Gives*rapid*ID*for*unknown*species*and*builds*up* your*ability*and*knowledge*to*confidently*spot*things*yourself.*Mobile*App*also* available*turn*your*mobile*phone*into*a*tool*for*accessing*information*on*the*go.

Online*instructions

Simple*ID*and*recording*tool

Beginner

Online*instructions

Simple*ID*tool

Beginner

Online*instructions

Simple*ID*and*recording*tool

Comfortable

Online*instructions

Simple*ID*and*recording*tool

Comfortable

Online*instructions

Simple*ID*and*recording*tool

Beginner

Online*instructions

Simple*ID*and*recording*tool

Comfortable

Online*instructions

Simple*recording*and*reporting* tool

Beginner

Online*instructions

Simple*recording*and*reporting* tool

Beginner

Not*a*survey*however*provides*information*on*how*to*turn*your*mobile*phone*into* a*tool*for*accessing*information*on*the*go. Not*a*survey*however*provides*a*way*of*uploading*multiple*photographs*and* iRecord details*of*specimens*seen*in*the*field.*Mobile*App*also*available*turn*your*mobile* phone*into*a*tool*for*recording*on*the*go. Shorewatch*aims*to*save*information*about*Scotland's**archaeological*sites*before* they*are*lost*to*erosion.*The*website*contains*information*on*how*to*get*involved* in*the*project*and*explains*how*to*record*archaeological*sites.*There*are*pages* Shorewatch giving*details*of*some*of*the*current*projects*and*others*explaining*why*they*are* collecting*the*data,*who*it*is*for*and*where*records*will*go.*There*are*also*forms* and*guidance*notes*to*download*to*help*you*start*your*own*recording*project.* Provides*a*way*of*uploading*photographs*and*details*of*evidence*of*Ash*Dieback* Ash*Tag appearing*on*Ash*trees*around*the*country.*A*mobile*phone*app*and*a*pc*based* tool*allows*for*recording*on*the*go. Provides*a*way*of*uploading*photographs*and*details*of*evidence*of*Invasive*non* Native*Species*(INNS)*appearing*in*the*busy*ports*and*harbours*on*the*Clyde.*A* Clyde*Invasives*project danglebook*is*available*with*ID*pictures*as*well*as*detailed*pc*based*tools*allows*for* ID*on*the*go*and*upload*at*your*leisure*at*home. Provides*detailed*accessibility*information*for*trails*throughout*the*UK.*Each* mapped*trail*combines*photos*of*every*potential*hazard*and*details*on*surface,* Phototrails* gradient,*facilities*etc*so*you*can*ensure*the*trail*is*suitable*for*you*before*you*go.* Allows*user*additions*and*reporting. Wild*Knowledge

Squirrels*Survey

Scottish*Wildlife*Trust*is*collecting*information*on*the*distribution* of*red*and*grey*squirrels*right*across*Scotland.*This*allows*us*not*only*to*identify* areas*of*importance*where*habitat*management*or*grey*squirrel*control*will* benefit*red*squirrel*populations,*but*also*to*understand*natural*changes*in*their* populations.*The*data*will*be*shared*with*local*biological*records*centres*and*the* national*database*of*squirrel*records.*Please*help*us*by*reporting*your*sightings*of* red*or*grey*squirrels*in*each*new*place*where*you*see*them.

Dragonfly*survey Reptile*Survey

140

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Appendix 4: List of guidance freely available on the conservation and management of historic graveyards The list below only contains material that specifically deals with best practice in the conservation of historic graveyards within the UK, and in particular Scotland. It should be noted that wider literature dealing with the conservation of heritage more generally will also include relevant advice to assist graveyard conservation work (notably Historic Scotland’s A Guide to the Preparation of Conservation Plans and ‘Inform Guides’ series). Further information about these sources can be found on Historic Scotland’s Technical Conservation Knowledge Base website: http://conservation.historic-‐scotland.gov.uk/ The Archaeology Scotland website www.scottishgraveyards.org.uk has collated a wide range of guidance materials and information on graveyard recording, research, conservation and community projects and is an invaluable first port of call. 4.1 Guidance produced by Historic Scotland available from http://conservation.historic-‐ scotland.gov.uk/ includes: • The Practitioners’ Guide 2 The Conservation of Historic Graveyards, which can be freely consulted online at the Technical Conservation Knowledge Base: • A suite of eight electronic gravestone and graveyard electronic leaflets can be consulted on the Historic Scotland website http://www.historic-‐scotland.gov.uk/ o Working in a Scheduled or Listed Graveyard or Burial Ground o Good Practice in Maintaining a Historic Graveyard o Looking After Gravestones o Health & Safety Guide: Visitors and Owners o Health & Safety Guide: Works Teams, Volunteers and Volunteer Surveyors o Emergency Measures for Historic Memorials: A Short Guide for Cemetery Managers o Historic Scotland Grants in Relation to Graveyards or Burial Grounds o Abandoned Structures Within Graveyards Also available from http://www.historic-‐scotland.gov.uk are: • Carved Stones Scottish Executive Policy and Guidance • The Treatment of Human Remains in Archaeology 4.2 Guidance produced by the joint Archaeology Scotland and Historic Scotland initiative the Carved Stones Adviser Project is available from www.scottishgraveyards.org.uk and includes: • Sources of Financial Assistance for the Conservation of Scotland's Historic Graveyards • Researching Your Graveyard • What to do if you are concerned about a historic gravestone • An Introduction to Graveyard Recording • How to Fill Out the CSA Gravestone Recording Forms: Part 1 – Part 5 4.3 Guidance produced by the Carved Stones Adviser Project and the Moray Burial Ground Research Group available from www.scottishgraveyards.org.uk includes advice on dealing with: • Buried tombstones 4.4 Guidance produced by English Heritage is available from http://www.english-‐ heritage.org.uk and includes advice on: • Caring for Historic Graveyard and Cemetery Monuments Guidance and best practice

140

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Paradise Preserved: Registered cemeteries in date order with notes on principal reasons for designation and designers and architects • Commemorative Structures 4.5 Guidance produced by English Heritage and English Nature available from http://www.english-‐heritage.org.uk/ • Paradise Preserved 2nd edition 4.6 Caring for Gods Acre information sheets are available from http://www.caringforgodsacre.org.uk/ and includes advice on: • The Five Steps to Churchyard and Burial Ground Care • Caring for Grassland • Cutting Long Grass and Dealing with Grass Cuttings • Inspecting and Caring for Trees • Yews and Other Veteran Trees • Practical Management of Trees and Shrubs • Caring for Hedgerows • Helping Wildlife • Caring for Stone Walls 4.7 Tayside Biodiversity Partnership’s the Greener Kirk and Kirkyard Project leaflet available from http://www.taysidebiodiversity.co.uk/Projects/GreenGraveYard/GreenGraveYardIntro.pdf •

141

Appendix 5: Outline Graveyard Activity Plan

This outline activity plan sets out the potential for community engagement and volunteer activities in the future conservation of the CAVLP Graveyards. This activity plan should be read in conjunction with the outline conservation strategy set out in Chapter 7. Ideally, specific action plans will be developed for individual sites or for thematic projects. To maximise the value of volunteer work, projects should preferably be completed as part of a larger conservation process that aims to produce, consult on and implement conservation management plans for each of the graveyards. Additionally, a costed project programme, all relevant permissions, including statutory ones, and appropriate training should be in place before any activities commence.

for

•

• •

•

142

Deetz and Dethlefsen – C18th carvings C16th grave slabs. Scotland’s Rural Past project place name studies and oral history (wider built heritage). historicgraves.com oral history in for graveyards

John Young Phoenix Project (Stonehouse).

Bruce Bishop in ‘How Research Your Graveyard’.

Trade symbols MPhil dissertation Dundee, Christina MacDonald.

volunteer Good practice example of volunteer projects (where known)

Yes for desk-‐top study initially, with on-‐site work at 6A and after. This type of research not typically carried out by volunteer groups and specialist support will be needed from an archaeologist, landscape historian, architectural historian or local historian.

Yes for desk-‐top study initially, with onsite work at 6A and after. Participants may need guidance on best practice methods, but this type of research is often carried out by volunteer groups, which might be enlisted to offer support to other volunteers. The results of these activities will generate content for interpretation, promotional events, funding applications, educational materials and conservation plans.

Conservation Tasks (in bold are activities recommended in one or more of the Delivery: Potential Action Plan individual graveyard site action plans) involvement? reference

Thematic studies: war graves, Covenanters, weavers, millers, stonemasons, genealogy, geology, heraldry; Picture search; Analysis of graveyard and gravestone recording data (prosopography i , demographics, gravestone typology, chronology and development); Churchyard history ((key sources: lair, heritors, kirk session and mortcloth records, Grave diggers’ notebooks, newspapers).

1. Develop Outline Conservation Strategy

• •

•

• • • • • •

Place name studies; Oral history projects; Map regression; Historic Landscape Assessment; Landscape design; Chronological and spatial development of specific gravestone designs, including C18th carvings.

1 C DOCUMENTARY RESEARCH Other stages • tasks might be carried out: 6 A / 8 / 13 A

Make safe any structures (e.g. buildings or walls, gravestones) on a temporary basis to enable volunteer and other work group access. Erect barrier (fence of hedge) or up put up signage near any major drops in ground level where wall heights may be insufficient. Carry out any emergency arboricultural work to keep the public safe and orevent damage to heritage.

HEALTH AND SAFETY / STRUCTURAL SURVEYS •

•

for

volunteer

143

There are a large number of national schemes, such as Bug Count, Bee Walk etc. A list produced by The Conservation Volunteers organization is appended. Various workshops with Scottish Churchyards Lichens group, e.g Lichens workshop at PKHT http://www.fopkht.co.uk/blog-‐page-‐2

Example (where known)

Yes • Record, monitor and review natural heritage and management of sites for biodiversity, preferably under guidance of a professional. It is important to carry out, record and archive survey findings in a meaningful way and methods should be agreed with or directed by

Tasks (in bold are activities recommended in one Delivery: Potential for volunteers or more of the individual graveyard site action plans)

No Site risk assessments, emergency structural surveys and health and safety concerns need to be addressed before volunteers are on-‐site. This type of work should be carried out by a professional contractor/ council staff following best practice guidelines for historic graveyards. These actions are particularly important for sites where no memorial stability testing has taken place and where there has been no regular maintenance. Method statements will need to be assessed and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) stipulated. Welfare facilities and a first-‐aider with a first aid box should be available nearby or on site.

Conservation Tasks (in bold are activities recommended in one or more of the Delivery: Potential Action Plan individual graveyard site action plans) involvement? reference 2. Risk Assessment for the general public and for volunteers for specific tasks 3D

Conservation Action Plan reference

RECORDING HABITAT / NATURAL HERITAGE General wildlife and habitat survey including photographing, recording, drawing, sound recordings of bats/birds etc. • Lichens; • Moss / Bryophytes;

3. Surveys and initial preparation of site 3 A Other stages tasks might be carried out: 6A / 13 A / 13 B / 14

3 B Other stages tasks might be carried out: 6 A/ 12 A/ 13 A / 13 B / 14

• • • • • • • •

Birds; Butterflies Insects (Beetles and bees) Bat / Amphibians Reptiles Mammals Plants Trees

Photographic survey using GPS-‐enabled smart-‐ phones and cameras; Condition / Carved Stone Decay; Graveyard plan surveyed electronically; Gravestone rubbings; Location and recording of buried gravestones; Geophysical survey; Archaeological excavation; Laser Scanning.

•

a suitably qualified person and guided by the • relevant Council and Natural heritage agency. The need for full-‐scale specialist surveys, carried out by professionals, will be determined on a case-‐by-‐case basis and will • arise from the results of general surveys, the presence and potential of rare and protected • species and valuable habitat.

RECORDING GRAVESTONES Yes Participants may need guidance on best • Memorial Inscriptions; • Gravestone complete survey (materials, design, practice methods, but this type of research is often carried out by volunteers groups, who location etc.); might be enlisted to offer support to others. • Photographic survey; Guidance on survey and drawing methods may • Graveyard plan surveyed by hand; be required, also with help in identifying • Gravestone drawing. different types of stone and gravestone designs. Yes – with professional support • Participants will need professional guidance as this type of research not typically carried out by volunteer groups without specialist support. The results of these activities will generate content for interpretation, promotional events, funding applications, educational materials and conservation plans. Condition surveys can provide a baseline to monitor future changes in preservation. • • • • • • •

Crawfordjohn Memorial Inscriptions and Mortcloth Index by Janet Smith includes a SLC Churchyards and Cemeteries Habitat Action Plan and the results of the site lichen survey Caring for Gods Acre http://www.caringforgodsacre.org.uk/ The Yorkshire Living Churchyards Project http://www.ywt.org.uk/news/2011/11/2 4/yorkshires-‐living-‐churchyards-‐project Tayside Biodiversity Project Green Kirk and Graveyard Initiative http://www.taysidebiodiversity.co.uk/Pro jects/GreenGraveYard/GreenGraveYardInt ro.pdf

Collace; Perth and Kinross Heritage Trust (PKHT) Historic Churchyards Project. Motherwell Heritage Society Survey of St Patrick’s Graveyard, Dalzell Estate, lodged in the Motherwell Heritage Centre. Govan Old Parish Chuchyard gravestone survey by Catherine Cutmore.

GPS photography has been carried out by historicgraves.com and Friends of Glasgow Necropolis. Friends of Perth & Kinross photo/recording workshops. Archaeology Scotland Gravestone recording, including condition and carved stone decay survey. Moray Burial Ground Research Group Buried Tombstones Methodology.

144

3 C Other stages tasks might be carried out: 6A / 13 A / 13 B / 14

3 E

BUILDINGS RECORDING (including all structures e.g. Yes – with professional support. • walls, gates) Participants will need professional guidance as this type of research not typically carried out by volunteer groups without specialist support. The results of these activities will generate content for interpretation, promotional events, funding applications, educational materials and conservation plans. Condition surveys can provide a baseline to monitor future changes in preservation.

Clearance of vegetation weeding, moss, trimming grass around gravestones, etc. Remove extraneous modern material from sites (e.g. redundant signage, old fences, spoil heaps, traffic cones, litter which doesn’t involve any ground breaking works. Stage 1 of match up and record stonework fragments.

INITIAL SITE PREPARATION • •

•

Clynekirkton, Brora Heritage Society in HS Graveyards Conference Proceedings. Kinfauns, Rait; PKHT Historic Churchyards Project. Kinfauns Old Parish Church cleared of ivy by volunteers Cover of PKHT Annual Report http://www.pkht.org.uk/perch/reso urces/pkht-‐annual-‐report-‐2011-‐ 12.pdf

Westown Chapel recorded by volunteers; PKHT http://www.fopkht.co.uk/blog-‐ page-‐5

Yes – with professional support and after Stage 2 above. • Removal of ivy from gravestones, masonry on a Listed Building (or site) should be done under • professional guidance to Historic Scotland (HS) standards. An experienced professional should lead recording of stone fragments. Even the moving of small stones, requires training in lifting techniques should be professionally delivered.

145

•

• • •

Railing painting; Litter-‐picking; Removal of graffiti, (following HS Guidance); Clearing moss and grass cover.

Other works to be carried out solely by a specialist contractor include: stone match-‐up/repairs, metal work, concreting, installation and repair of grave furniture.

Repairs to Listed Buildings, following appropriate survey and assessment specified by a suitably qualified conservation professional, to be carried out / supervised by a suitably skilled contractor (stone mason experienced in the use of lime mortar) and as part of a repairs programme.

Boundary walls scope for some low-‐level raking out and re-‐point with lime mortar with suitably screened volunteers; Dry stone walling,; Fence building; Gravestone resetting vertical and horizontal stones. Simple repairs to gravestones and resetting is a potential training area (by a member of the NAMM) but will require detailed specifications to be drawn up in advance and should not be carried out on any historically or artistically significant gravestones.

Potential training events for volunteers/ community payback:

• • • •

146

Trainee mason scheme – Stirling Council and Abney Park.

HLF project London Cemetery.

USA case study.

Grave-‐slab resetting on Islay, Historic Scotland Graveyard Conference Proceedings.

Tower Hamlets Cemetery. PKHT Historic Churchyards Project Alyth, Meigle, Caputh, Gravestone repairs before & after.

Liberton Cemetery Edinburgh.

Example (where known)

• • •

•

Yes – with professional support and after Stage 2 above • Activities for volunteers (including corporate volunteers)/ • community payback under guidance of a professional and • after training:

Conservation Tasks (in bold are activities recommended in one or Delivery: Potential for volunteers Action Plan more of the individual graveyard site action plans) reference

REPAIRS AND ENHANCEMENT: BUILT HERITAGE (to be completed after Health and Safety assessments and local authority consultation). •

• • • • • •

•

Gravestone re-‐erect fallen stones, resetting, repairs, selective cleaning, stabilise stone decay. Ensure stones are earth-‐fast. Develop specifications for dealing with decayed stonework or stones with missing parts and exposed foundation. Re-‐position ex situ gravestones. Lift and record selected sunken stones. Walls (repointing, rake out and replace OPC with lime rebuilding dry stone walls). Repairs and painting railings, benches etc. Paths (building, resurfacing, edging). Buildings (roofs, rake out and replace OPC with lime repointing, secure from anti-‐social use) in phased stages as necessary. Removal of graffiti. Stage 2 of match up stonework and clear stone rubble from site. Add gates to improve access where needed. Install amenities (e.g. bins, benches, lighting etc.) as appropriate. Assess potential for alternative access. Fence off or up put up signage near any major drops in ground level where wall heights may be insufficient. Stop stock accessing graveyards.

12. Deliver Conservation Programme 12 A

12 B

12 C

Collecting local wildflower seeds; Planting of appropriate wildflower seeds / plugs, shrubs and hedging; Installation at and bird boxes to complement existing habitat options (e.g trees, walls, cracks in masonry, buildings); Conversion to amenity / wildflower meadow with mown paths as required; Replace turf around bases of stones.

• •

Path building Installing signage

•

PKHT Historic Churchyards project , Alyth, Meigle, Rait http://www.fopkht.co.uk/gallery-‐ friendso.html http://www.pkht.org.uk/perch/res ources/pkht-‐annual-‐report-‐2011-‐ 12.pdf PKC Perth in Bloom grow their own sedum and disadvantaged teenagers plant them. Loch Ore meadows, Fife and Scotia Seeds, Angus -‐scything demonstrations.

Logie Kirk, Blairlogie, planted wildflower plugs donated by the SWT.

Yes – with professional support and after Stage 2 Tower Hamlets aboveActivities for volunteers (including corporate volunteers)/ community payback under guidance of a Collace Churchyard, PKHT Historic professional and after training: Churchyards Project

Work should be coordinated by a heritage manager to protect the archaeological and built heritage interests.

•

Activities for volunteers (including corporate volunteers)/ / Community Payback to enhance biodiversity under guidance of a professional or after training: • Prepare & plant wild flower meadows (seeds or plants) Plant low growing perennials in kerb sets (e.g. sedum, thyme etc.). • Community groups scythe pathways through, cutting around monuments and gravestones by hand less frequently. • Replace turfs with or without wild flowers. • Weeding around monuments to help establishment of meadows. • Cutting back small saplings (less than 100mm diameter). Cutting back ivy to (following HS guidelines).

Yes – with professional support and after Stage 2 above. NATURAL HABITAT ENHANCEMENT (to be completed after Health and Safety assessments and local authority consultation.) • • •

• •

IMPROVE PHYSICAL ACCESS (to be completed after Health and Safety assessments and local authority consultation) Path building Signage to and through sites as appropriate

147

Yes, with professional and practical support. IMPROVE INTELLECTUAL ACCESS? (to be completed after Health and Safety assessments and local Participants may need guidance on best authority consultation practice methods, but research and design of Creating interpretative resources including printed (e.g. site interpretation material is often carried booklets, leaflets, content for signage) audio, video, digital (e.g. out by volunteer groups, which might be website, QR codes, apps) enlisted to offer support to others including • Delivering outreach activities and events (guided tours, self-‐ schools and further education groups. guided trails, workshops, talks). Cataloguing of images and photographs by volunteers, including development of website to share information of heritage of graveyards Manufacture/production by professionals to HS guidance Website development by web designer.

Conservation Tasks (in bold are activities recommended in one or more of the Delivery: Potential for volunteers Action Plan individual graveyard site action plans) reference 13 : Activity programme

This type of research not typically carried out On-‐site interpretation. Creating educational resources (teachers packs, handling by volunteer groups and specialist support will be needed from a biodiversity officer, boxes, trails, talks). archaeologist, landscape historian, architectural historian or local historian. Potential to link sites digitally and physically to other initiatives and access projects and attractions in the. vicinity, through input from NLC/SLC staff.

• •

PKHT Historic Churchyards leaflets http://www.fopkht.co.uk/newsev ents-‐frien.php Develop teaching packs for primary and secondary pupils –see www.pkht.org.uk Friends of PKHT put on an exhibition http://www.fopkht.co.uk/blog-‐ page-‐3

Example (where known)

•

148

TRAINING In addition to the areas already mentioned in 12A-‐ • Training workshop for recording built and natural heritage features • Training workshop for repairing built and natural heritage features • Training in maintaining website/ digital records • Training in leading guided walks on priority themes/ graveyards • Training in interpretation, best practice DDA etc.

MONITOR CONDITION AND USE Visitor survey. Condition survey.

PKHT Traditional masonry training video on http://www.youtube.com/watch?feat ure=player_embedded&v=kx9z2hte-‐ 18 Ochils Landscape Partnership have chainsaw training for volunteers Collace and Kinfauns guided walks led by volunteers; PKHT Historic Churchyard Project

Example (where known)

Good practice for the continuing evaluation of Edinburgh graveyards project surveys graveyard management.

Conservation Tasks (in bold are activities recommended in the individual Delivery: Potential for volunteers Action Plan graveyard site action plan) reference 14 Monitor and review 14

lives.

149

i Proposography; an investigation of the common characteristics of a historical group, whose individual biographies may be largely untraceable, by means of a collective study of their

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

Appendix 6: Living Kirkyards Event Questionnaire

1. Question 1: Are you interested in becoming involved with a graveyard project? Yes -‐ 4 Maybe -‐ 1 No -‐ 0 No Answer – 1

150

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

2. Question 2 -‐ What kinds of projects are you interested in? • Research

10 respondents indicated interest in Research activities. -‐ 6 respondents ticked only the Research box. -‐ 2 Respondents wrote 'All' for Subjects -‐ 1 Respondent wrote 'All' for Thematic -‐ 1 Respondent wrote 'All' for Sources Subject areas: Local history 3 / Social history 3 / Church history 2 / Architectural and art historical 1 / Family history 1 / Biography 0 / Graveyard management 1 Thematic studies: War graves 1 / Covenanters 1 / Trades 2 / Stonemasons / Geology 1 / Heraldry 0 / Symbols 2 / Lettering 1 /Place names 1 / Historic landscapes 2 / Landscape design 0 Sources: Images 1 / Maps 2 / Graveyard and gravestone recording data 2 / Newspapers 1 / Burial records 1 / Church records 1 / Oral histories 1 / Other – state • Recording: Built Heritage 6 respondents indicated interest in Recording: Built Heritage. -‐ 3 Respondents only ticked the Recording: Built Heritage box. Memorial inscriptions 2 / Gravestone recording 3 / Graveyard plan 3 / Photographic survey 1 / Gravestone drawing 0 / Carved stone decay 0 / Gravestone rubbings 0 / Locating buried gravestones 0 / Geophysical survey 0 / Archaeological excavation 2 / Buildings recording 0 • Recording: Natural Heritage 3 respondents indicated interest in Recording: Natural Heritage. -‐ 1 Respondent wrote 'All' for Recording Natural Heritage. -‐ 1 Respondent only ticked the Recording: Natural Heritage box. Trees 0/ Lichens 0/ Mosses 0/ Plants 1 / Birds 0/ Insects 0/ Bats 0/ Amphibians 0/ Reptiles 0/ Mammals 0/ Other – state • Practical Improvements: Built Heritage 6 respondents indicated an interest in Practical Improvements: Built Heritage. -‐5 respondents only ticked the Practical Improvements: Built Heritage box. General tidying 1/ Walls repointing 1/ Dry-‐stone wall building 0/ Painting ironwork 1/ Path building 0/ Gravestone cleaning 2/ Simple repairs 1/ Building repointing 1/ Other – state • Practical Improvements: Natural Heritage

6 Respondents indicated an interest in Practical Improvements: Natural Heritage. -‐3 respondents only ticked the Practical Improvements: Natural Heritage box. Clearance of overgrowth 3 / Sowing and managing wild flower grassland 2 / Installing nesting boxes 1 / Planting 1/ Other – state • Promotion & Education 2 respondents indicated an interest in Promotion & Education. -‐1 respondent only ticked the Promotion & Education box. Booklets 1/ Leaflets 1/ Content for signs 1/ Audio / Video / Website / Digital resources e.g. QR codes or apps / Teachers packs / Handling boxes / Trails 1/ Talks 1/ Guided tours 1/ Training workshops / Schools visits 1/ Other -‐ state

151

Conservation Strategy for CAVLP Historic Graveyards

3. Question 3: Do you have experience of this type of work before? Yes -‐ Graveyards: 2 Yes -‐ Other built heritage: 2 No : 3 No Answer-‐ 3 4. Question 4: Do you think you might need training or other support to carry out a graveyard project? Yes: 3 No: 1 No Answer: 6 5. Question 5: Ideally, how would you like to carry out your work? Existing group 1 / New Group 1/On my own 1/Don't mind 4/ No answer 2

152