The sites of Killora and Killogilleen are largely typical of small Irish Medieval churches. As such, they represent the two chief, traditional burial grounds for the modern ecclesiastical parish of Craughwell and Ballymanagh. Although the standing remains at Killora appear to date to the late 15th to early 16th centuries, there is evidence for construction and alteration from at least the late 12th to early 13th centuries (Chapple 1995, 6-10) (Pl. 1). Similarly, the majority of Killogilleen appears to be of late 15th to early 16th century date, there is some evidence to suggest that an earlier phase of church building occurred during the late 12th to early 13th centuries (Pl. 2).

Some 181 gravestones were recorded from the graveyard of Killora, with directly dated examples ranged from 1619 to 1987. At Killogilleen 119 grave markers were recorded, ranging in date from 1654 to 1995. Of these 300 gravestones a portion were removed from the data set, generally because they did not contain an extant or legible date sufficient to categorise them by decade. As the survival rate of the earliest gravestones is somewhat sporadic, three further stones which date to before the 1740s were not included.[2] Finally, three gravestones were not included as they all date to the 1990s. This is because, although burials continue at both sites, the function of Killora has been largely superseded by the use of a new cemetery in Craughwell. Thus, stones of that decade have been excluded as they may lead to a bias in the sample. In total, some 55 gravestones were excluded, leaving a corpus of 245 grave markers on which the following analyses are based.

The first problem to be addressed in assembling the data set was to accurately assess the decade of construction of the marker stones. The major caveat in this procedure was the frequent delay in the erection of the gravestone after the initial burial. The reasons for this may be manifold, including financial, though more frequently it is one of engineering, in ensuring that the earth has sufficiently settled after inhumation to prevent the stone sinking or toppling forward.[3] In the most favourable circumstances, the gravestone may include a date of erection below the commemorative text. There are 14 recorded instances (6%) of such an erection date, spanning the period from 1795 to 1865. While one stone bears the same date for both erection and the primary memorial, the average hiatus is 9.43 years with a maximum gap of 23 years (see Grogan 1998; Smith 1993, 80).

More frequently, the date of gravestone construction was deduced from the primary inscription. This process was made somewhat simpler in that a substantial proportion of gravestones (37%, 90 cases) commemorated only a single individual. As the majority of stones commemorate more than one person, the estimation as to their decade of construction was made on the analysis of differing carving techniques in the script and on the order of commemoration. Although it is obvious from the foregoing that many stones may date from a significant period after the date of the primary memorial, it was decided not to arbitrarily re-date all other stones purely on this basis.

Fig. 1 graphs the rate of gravestone erection by decade for the two graveyards for which datable stones exist. From this it is obvious that there are distinct differences between cemetery usages at the two sites. In the first instance, Killora is characterised by a rising series of peaks during the 1810s, 1870s and 1970s with corresponding lulls in usage during the 1840s and 1930s. Although Killogilleen displays a similar peak during the 1970s, the primary period of grave marker erection appears in the 1790s and is relatively sustained until the 1810s, falling off sharply after this point.

Thus, it is in this relict framework of gravestone erection and survival that the rising and waning of individual styles and fashions in popular religion and culture must be observed. This situation is broadly similar to that observed from other parts of Ireland where the use of durable grave-markers did not begin to flourish until the 17th century, with a marked expansion during the first half of the 18th century (Longfield 1974, 4; McCormick 1983, 280; Grogan 1998, 41). The reasons for this sudden increase in grave marker production may be related to a number of factors, including the burgeoning of a relatively affluent middle-class of local merchants, craftsmen, farmers etc., keen to display their wealth and importance in long-lasting, public forms.

Fig. 2 graphs the percentages of recumbent slabs and table tombs between the two graveyards.[4] In general terms, a sharp increase in the use of (dated) recumbent slabs was observed in the period after 1760, culminating in the following decade. During the 1780s and 1790s their use falls off sharply, though still comprising c. 50% of all monuments erected. The 1800s saw a resurgence in popularity for the type, with a steady decline over following decades.[5] Examination of the corresponding graph, (Fig. 3) illustrates the situation for upstanding headstones within the two graveyards. A radical shift in memorial practice may be noticed between the two sites after 1750 when the use of headstones declines rapidly until the 1770s when all gravestones are recumbent slabs. By the 1790s the balance between headstones and recumbent slabs appears to have reached equilibrium, before falling away in the following decade. In general, from the 1810s onward, the use of the headstone as the preferred mode of commemoration regained popularity to the point of almost complete domination that it enjoys today.

While the foregoing may represent the overall picture for the combined graveyards, closer examination of the data for the individual sites indicates differential periods of utilisation. In the first instance the Killogilleen headstones, though fluctuating in popularity are a constant feature of the site, while only effectively appearing during the 1820s at Killora and rapidly rising to domination. Further analysis examining the occurrence of markers surmounted by a cross indicated a sharp increase at both sites from 1860 onwards, peaking around the 1910s and declining from the 1960s onwards. This is broadly comparable with the preliminary results from Mytum’s work at Clonmacnoise where such grave markers are first introduced during the 1840s, reaching the height of their popularity during the 1890s (Mytum 1996, 13).

An examination of the frequency and popularity of the most common introductory memorial phrases or rubrics was also carried out. The invocation ‘Pray for the soul of’ first appears in the 1750s, disappearing in the following decade before rising in popularity until the 1790s (Fig. 4). After this time the popularity of the rubric declines, with only a minor resurgence in the period from the 1860s to the 1920s. It is also obvious that the rubric ‘Sacred heart of Jesus have mercy on the soul of’ enjoys its major period of popularity from 1900 to 1920. Similarly, the use of ‘Sacred to the memory of’ also displays a well-defined span of popularity from the 1860s to the 1900s.

Conversely, the utilisation of ‘Erected by’, though falling during the 1840s, shows sustained levels of popularity from the 1770s to the 1960s. The use of this rubric is of particular interest as it, by implication, commemorates less the deceased in favour of the individual responsible for commissioning the memorial. It was also observed that the rubric ‘Lord have mercy on the soul of’ occurs on gravestones during the 1790s, reaching its apogee during the 1840s after which it declines, disappearing after the 1920s. Finally, the distribution of the rubric ‘In loving memory’ first appears in Killora and Killogilleen during the 1870s with a gradual increase over the next century to complete dominance during the 1980s.

It was next decided to examine the use of the ‘IHS’ monogram and its more quantifiable attributes. The monogram may be variously interpreted as Iesous a rendering of the Greek orthography for ‘Jesus’, Iesus Hominum Salvator (Jesus, saviour of mankind) or In Hoc Signo [Vince] (In this sign, conquer).[6] The monogram is easily the most popular single ideogram represented within the Craughwell series of gravestones and occurs in various styles on some 151 examples (62%). Fig. 5a & b illustrates the distributional frequency of the monogram between the two graveyards, showing its continuing popularity from the 1760s until its sudden decline after the 1860s. The ideogram slowly gained prevalence again until the 1930s, falling off thereafter. Individually, the two graveyards show markedly different distributions of the symbol with Killora displaying defined peaks during the 1770s, 1840s and 1910s. By contrast, the monogram remained highly popular at Killogilleen from the 1770s to the 1860s with a secondary peak culminating during the 1930s and 1940s.

However, the form of the monogram has changed markedly over time. The monogram with a cross (usually springing from the cross-bar of the ‘H’) first appeared in the 1760s and enjoyed a high popularity until the 1860s (P1. 3). After this time it disappeared almost completely from the repertoire of local sculptors. A minor but significant variation of an ‘IHS’ monogram with a cross where the ‘I’ was carved in the form of a ‘J’ appeared during the 1810s, peaking during the 1840s (Pl. 4).[7] During the 1860s a plain form of the monogram, without a cross, was introduced. Its popularity as a decorational symbol peaked during the 1810s and again during the 1940s.

The use of the entwined variant of the monogram spanned a similar range of popularity, being introduced at both sites during the 1870s (Pl. 5). However, its peak usage was confined to the 1910s and 1930s with a marked absence during the intervening period. The final attribute of the ‘IHS’ monogram analysed was the variety of shapes used to represent the cross-bar of the ‘H’. The most common of these is the use of the omega (Ω). In this context, the omega may be construed as a symbol of death or memento mori (Pl. 6). In a number of cases, the omega is inverted, so that the ‘loop’ is open towards the top (Pl. 7). Although it is merely speculation, it is possible to interpret this as a deconstruction of a death symbol, turning it into a symbol of life and resurrection.

An analogy for this activity may be seen in Medieval sculpture where dragons and other mythical and monstrous beasts are used as emblems of Satan, but are shown with knotted tails, indicating that they have been defeated by Christianity. The author cannot find any references to the omega being used in this manner in other areas of Ireland and the symbol may be peculiar to the west of Ireland. The omega is represented on 25 gravestones (17%). The symbol was introduced during the 1780s, enjoying its height of popularity during the 1810s. Over the next two decades its use declined, being briefly revived during the 1850s. Other designs appear sporadically from the 1790s to the 1980s, though their use is too irregular and infrequent to accurately discuss their true periods of fashion.

The use of hearts has a long history within Christian symbolism as a whole. Of the most common form, the one with the greatest longevity appears to be the plain, upright heart, which is popular from the 1780s to the 1940s, peaking in the 1880s and 1890s (Fig. 6a). The earlier examples are most usually in low false relief while later ones are frequently cut in high relief and display additional attributes including bands of thorns, gushing blood and puncture wounds to the heart (Pl. 8). However, this particular evolution of form may be as much the result of changes in fashion as developments in carving techniques and technology. Of particular interest is the occurrence of the inverted heart (Pls. 9 & 10).

The symbol may be interpreted as an image of death, similar to the use of the omega, mentioned above. Occasionally, the inverted heart occurs in conjunction with the inverted omega (e.g. Plate 7). However, the exact intention of such a combination must remain obscure. The symbol is most often found appended beneath the cross-bar of the ‘H’ in the ‘IHS’ monogram. The form enjoyed popularity from the 1780s to 1850s, especially at either end of the period. While these specific forms have waned, it is now frequently incorporated into representations of Christ (Pl. 11).

Figures 6 and 7 explore the occurrence of some of the most popular decorative symbols from the two graveyards. Among the most common of these symbols is the ‘INRI’ monogram (Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudaeorum) (Fig. 6b). It is usually found in association with a cross sprung from the ‘H’ of the ‘IHS’ monogram, divided on either side of the shaft. As a motif it was introduced during the 1790s and continued until 1860, with defined peaks during the 1830s and 1850s. Finally, the inclusion of flowers, of varying kinds, is a relatively minor and infrequent component of gravestone decoration from the 1790s to the 1940s. Among the most interesting use of the motif is found on one stone in Killora cemetery. The arrangement of the symbols presents an explicit narrative moving from the symbol of death or ‘memento mori’ (a skull and cross-bones)[8], the ‘last day’ (Archangel Gabriel with a trumpet), Judgement (a set of scales) and finally to salvation, symbolised by a rosette. Thus, the inclusion of a flower among the carved motifs may be taken as a symbol of the Christian belief in resurrection (Pl. 12a-d).

Taken together, we may observe a rural community whose conscious and unconscious actions in choosing the wording of gravestone inscriptions betrays some of their central ideas and concerns about how they perceive the workings of intra-family power and organisation, and indeed what constitutes the a family in the first place. Essentially, these ideas reflect the position of the father as head of the family, with wives and children taking up secondary roles. The concept of the family structure itself is clearly defined as a nuclear, linear unit where uncles, aunts, and various in-laws, or ‘external relations’ are accorded commemoration, but in a position inferior to that of the perceived head of the family and its core of ‘internal relations’, as viewed by the commissioning individual. From the beginning of the 20^th century, we see a slow democratisation entering, but not eclipsing, this view of the traditional family structure with predeceased wives being accorded the primary position within the inscriptions.

While the study of decorative motifs, either alone or in combination, allows us a glimpse at how individuals saw themselves within their communities, I would argue that an examination of non-chronological ordering within inscriptions presents us with a similar view into local society. Simultaneously, this approach allows us to examine something that other avenues of research are largely unable to: how individual families saw themselves and how they understood their internal organisation and power structures. While this trend towards non-chronological ordering of the inscription is a very minor element of the corpus as a whole, it still warrants further investigation to establish its wider temporal and physical distribution.

[1] This paper is partially based ‘Family Portraits: An analysis of 18^th to 20^th century gravestones from Craughwell, Co. Galway’ presented to the Ulster Historical Foundation conference at the Malone Lodge Hotel, Belfast 4^th October 2003 and a paper entitled ‘Sex and death’ presented to the Maynooth gravestones conference 2002. Additional material is taken from the author’s 2000 article ‘A statistical analysis and preliminary classification of gravestones from Craughwell, Co. Galway’ in the Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society Vol. 52, pp. 155-71.

[2] Ka. (Killora) 18 (1619), Kn. (Killogilleen) 114 (1654) & Ka. 8 (1701). The 1740s represent the earliest terminus of the unbroken sequence for the two graveyards.

[3] Longfield (1974, 9) notes a potential delaying factor in waiting for a peripatetic monumental sculptor to visit, while Grogan (1998, 43) adds the consideration of the time required to commission and prepare the gravestone.

[4] Owing to the fact that table tombs regularly collapse and their supports become buried etc. these two categories are included together.

[5] The reoccurrence of recumbent slabs during the 1960s and 1970s is not a resurgence of the earlier tradition, merely the presence of a number of small tablets placed in front of older, headstones.

[6] Walton (1980, 70) notes that while its origin may be derived from Greek, by the early 17th century it would have been generally understood as standing for Iesus Hominum Salvator.

[7] A plain ‘JHS’ monogram, without a cross springing from the cross-bar of the ‘H’ appears in neither graveyard. The ‘J’ may stand for Iesus where the Latin ‘I’ became transposed into English as a ‘J’.

[8] See McCormick 1983, 276-80 for a discussion of the origins of such mortality symbols. The stone depicted (Ka 170) is dedicated to the Cloonan and Joyce families. This stone bears the date of manufacture of 1839 and the sculptor’s name: Michael O’Kelly.

[9] In a further 13 cases (11.93%) one or more dates of death are not stated.

[10] There is only one stone within the two graveyards where a child alone is commemorated (Ka 70). The stone is particularly small (0.93m high x 0.51m wide) and commemorates Francy Cawley (d. 1884, age 4 years). It may be significant that of all the stones analysed, this is the only one to include a verse: ‘don’t pray for me for no sin I knew. But pray from my parents & I’ll pray for you’.

• Chapple, R. M. 1995 The Church of Prayers: gravestone inscriptions from the graveyard of Killora, Craughwell, Co. Galway. Galway.
• Chapple, R. M. 1997 Cillogcillín: gravestone inscriptions from the graveyard of Killogilleen, Craughwell, Co. Galway. Galway.
• Chapple, R. M. 2000 ‘A statistical analysis and preliminary classification of gravestones from Craughwell, Co. Galway’ in Journal of the Galway Archaeological and Historical Society Vol. 52, pp. 155-71.
• Grogan, E. 1998 ‘Eighteenth century headstones and the stonemason tradition in county Wicklow: the work of Dennis Cullen of Monaseed’ Wicklow archaeology and history 1, 41-63.
• Longfield, A. K. 1974 Some Irish churchyard sculpture. Ballycotton.
• McCormick, F. 1983 ‘The symbols of death and the tomb of John Forster in Tydavnet, Co. Monaghan’ Clogher Record xi, 273-286.
• Mytum, H. 1996 ‘Graveyard survey: a preliminary report on Clonmacnoise’ in IAPA Newsletter. No. 22, 12 - 14.
• Smith, D. A. 1993 ‘Humble stones: a study of four monumental masons’ Ulster Folklife 39, 73-80.
• Walton, J. C. 1980 ‘Pictorial decoration on east Waterford tombstones’ Decies 14, 67-83.