THE NINETEENTH-CENTURY RE-USE OF GRAVESTONES AT CHERHILL 



31 



1826, with headstone 32 significantly later, as Mary 

 Elizabeth Wright died in 1845. Another headstone, 

 41, shows some sign of modification, with the 

 thickness of the stone implying some adaptation. 

 Whether this alone would have been sufficiently 

 distinctive to have aroused modern attention 

 without the documentary evidence, however, is 

 doubtful. The inscription on the stone indicates that 

 it was erected following the death of Catharine 

 Clifford in 1838, with her husband Peter dying only 

 three years later in 1841. It is noteworthy that the 

 inscription states that 'He was 44 years Clerk of 

 this Parish'. This suggests that Peter Clifford, clerk 

 for such a long period when the vicar of Calne was 

 responsible for the care of Cherhill, may have been 

 a leading figure in the early re-use of headstones. 



The last memorial to be reused was headstone 

 44, following the death of Jonas Rivers in 1849. 

 This stone does convey an unusual appearance, 

 being both unusually thin for headstones of this 

 date, and because of its shape (Figure 3) . This is 

 distinctive and unusual within the churchyard, with 

 a flat top and shoulders. Another monument of 

 this form has been identified which indicates the 

 probable original date of the Rivers headstone. 

 Headstone 46 stands to the south of the Rivers stone 

 in the same row, and is in memory of Elizabeth, 

 wife of Charles Strong, who died in 1786. This 

 particular memorial has very well produced shallow 

 false relief foliage decoration at the top of the stone 

 (Figure 4) . The finely cut lettering is only on the 

 left side of the stone; evidently Charles Strong had 

 intended to be commemorated next to his wife but 

 for whatever reason was not added. The Rivers 

 headstone would have been easily prepared by 

 removing a relatively thin sliver off the face of the 

 stone; erosion may achieve this yet for the Strong 

 stone, as the top left corner has already flaked away. 



Re-used stones 30, 32, 41, and 44 had 

 footstones with initials which matched the newly 

 recorded names on the headstones. In the case of 

 the Rivers grave, this footstone 45 had the year of 

 death and an appropriate verse from the deceased 

 wife to the husband. It is noteworthy that the 

 adjacent Strong grave was also marked by a 

 footstone, in this case giving the initials and year of 

 death. The missing headstone 65 to William Flower 

 had a footstone at the eastern end of the grave, and 

 here a more complex picture emerges. Whilst 

 William Flower died in 1824, the footstone 66 was 

 inscribed 'S.F. 1733' (Plenderleath 1883, 341). It 

 would seem likely, therefore, that footstones as well 

 as headstones were often but not always re-used. 



Fig. 4. Headstone 46 to Elizabeth, wife of Charles Strong, 

 died 1 786, with same shaped top as headstone 44. Note 

 the false relief foliage decoration 



The incongruence between the headstone and 

 footstone dates and initials at the William Flower 

 grave gives some indication of the circumstances 

 in which headstone re-use could take place. The 

 earlier initials of 'S.F' on footstone 66 suggest that 

 it was already a Flower family grave (as was that 

 immediately to the north, with headstone 63 for 

 Sarah Flower, who died in 1796, aged 9 years, and 

 who had her own footstone 64, 'S.F 1796'). The 

 evidence from William Flower's burial place 

 indicates continued use of a family plot over a period 

 of a century, with the re-use of a stone that must 

 have still been in reasonable condition. Other 

 continued use of family burial plots may 

 alternatively have led to the complete replacement 

 of the memorial, something to which Plenderleath 

 may have not had an objection, and for which we 

 would now have no evidence unless replacement 

 was explicitly mentioned in the inscription. 7 

 Whether the other four examples of headstone and 

 footstone re-use were on graves already belonging 

 to the families now commemorated remains 

 unknown. 



CONCLUSIONS 



The re-use of headstones was probably never very 

 frequent or widespread, as implied by the indignation 

 of Plenderleath and the lack of any case law on the 

 subject. The replacement and restoration of 

 memorials was common enough, however, and is 

 sometimes explicitly recorded on the inscribed texts 

 (Mytum 2000, 127). Other forms of adaptation 

 could have occurred, and the Flower headstone re- 



