Over the last eight years St Mary's church at Troston in
Suffolk has received a fair amount of media attention. Whilst the church was
already known for its really quite spectacular medieval wall paintings, much of
the new media attention has been focussed upon the regionally significant
collection of early graffiti to be found on the walls. Today was the turn of TV
presenter and generally sound chap Clive Anderson, who was there to film a
short section for a new documentary. You may not all rate him as a presenter,
and you may not all find him funny (although his take-down of Piers Morgan to
his face still ranks as one of the high points of modern television in my
eyes), but you have to admire his courage - for today he was subjected to four
hours in a cold church, listening to me rant on about how wonderful the
medieval graffiti there really is. And the graffiti at Troston REALLY is that
good. It has everything. Animals, people, faces, ships, dates and demons. Lots
of demons. It really is rather special.
However, it soon became apparent on today's trip that not everything was well with the Troston graffiti, and that something
very serious is taking place at the junction between the tower and nave. These
two images show the same wall only two years apart - the image on the left having been taken this morning. The fifteenth and sixteenth
century graffiti inscriptions (as well as later examples) are literally
crumbling to dust, and flaking from the walls. Having survived for over five
centuries something has changed, apparent by the very obvious damp levels
rising through the stonework. The result is a mass of mineral salts leaching
from the stonework, and some very serious delamination of the stone of the
tower arch on the north side.
Luckily the graffiti at Troston is well recorded, and has
been previously published - but that is all that will soon be left of this
regionally significant collection of medieval and Tudor graffiti. The published
record.
The problem of course is that this isn't just happening in
Troston church, but at dozens of other sites across the region. These
inscriptions are being lost at a fantastic rate. Some are being lost to
development, where the church undertakes 'improvements' without first surveying
for significant graffiti. Others are lost due to changes in the church
environment, often the result of poor maintenance and lack of funds to repairs
the churches. Sometimes the losses are just through carelessness.
However, it is wrong to blame the churches and
churchwardens. In most cases they are underfunded and over worked - with many
churches now looked after by a tiny team drawn from a tiny, and shrinking,
congregation. They are largely doing what they can with the resources that they
have available to them.
In terms of getting their graffiti recorded, particularly
prior to building works or renovations, a lot of churches have never even
considered the concept. It simply isn't on their radar. And why would it be?
They aren't experts in church archaeology, or buildings surveyors. They are
just a bunch of good people doing what they think is best - and they'd be as
horrified as anyone else out there if they thought they were doing long term
damage to the buildings they so very clearly love. So where then does the blame
lie - because it really is finger pointing time. Because I'm fed up with
walking into churches to find our history literally falling from the walls. I'm
fed up with picking up the fragments of the past from the floor; fragments that
didn't have to be there in the first place. I'm fed up with the look of horror
on the churchwarden's faces when you have to break it to them that their own
parish past is literally slipping through their finders, and that what they now
see before their eyes will be lost long before their own grandchildren ever
have a chance to see it for themselves.
So where then do the problems lie? Well, if we are honest
here, the main problem (and it certainly isn't the only one) lies with the
planning process. A lot of people may not realise it, but historic churches
don't actually have to follow the traditional planning process. Unlike us mere
mortals they don't have to apply for planning permission via the local
authority, and follow national planning legislation. Instead, due to an
agreement drawn up way back in the mists of time, churches have to submit their
plans to their local Diocese Advisory Committee (DAC), who will, if they are
satisfied, issue a document known as a 'faculty' (essentially the equivalent of
planning consent issued by a local authority). As part of the faculty process the
DAC should also issue guidelines and conditions - such as mitigation measures
based upon the likelihood of things like medieval wall paintings being present.
Unfortunately, even after nearly a decade of ranting on about the importance of
historic graffiti, you won't find too many DACs that give any thought, let
along conditions, relating to historic graffiti.
Now don't misunderstand me here. We do have some wonderful
DACs across the country, full of technical experts who really do their utmost
to preserve the historic environment. However, we have some really shockers
too. Truly. Horrifyingly corrupt. DACs that include barely any archaeological representation,
yet are loaded instead with architects. No doubt they are good architects, with
many years experience of working on churches, but these are also the same individuals
who are working with local parishes to draw up plans and schemes that are
eventually submitted to the DAC for approval. The same DAC that they sit upon.
The same DAC that all their architect mates sit upon. You'd be amazed at the
percentage of their schemes that get passed and have a faculty issued. Or maybe
you wouldn't. Indeed, there are a number of DACs across the country that need
completely disbanding - quite possibly with an axe - and being reformed.
Preferably with new members who don't have a financial interest in passing
their own, or their mates, schemes.
Sadly though it isn't just the DACs that are the problem.
The blame also lies slightly higher up the ladder, with those statutory
organisations who are meant to be issuing guidelines and advice when dealing
with historic fabric. There are guidelines issued for just about everything in
the historic environment - the care of wall paintings, care of monuments, care
of stained glass, etc, etc. Lots and lots of guidelines. You might think then
that, after nearly a decade of me and others banging on about historic graffiti,
and half a century after Pritchard published 'English Medieval Graffiti', someone
out there might have noticed that we have a rather massive corpus of early and
often unique material scattered across the walls of our churches and cathedrals
- and that it is at risk. That it is in danger of literally falling from the
walls. That some form of guidelines might be in order.
The reality is that historic graffiti, for however many
reasons, still isn't seen as a mainstream historic resource. It isn't seen as
something worth issuing guidelines for. It isn't seen, by the powers that be,
as important. Indeed, it can be argued that it just about the only area of true
heritage at risk in the UK that isn't receiving any special attention
whatsoever. There is no risk register, no guidance on protection, and certainly
no money available for recording or even archiving purposes. If a bat decided
to crap on it, that might be a different story, but as it stands any builder,
churchwarden, or even architect, can destroy it, or allow it to be destroyed,
at will.
Think about that for a moment. If this had been a medieval
wall painting that was falling off the wall, or that someone (God forbid) had
tried to repaint, then there would be an outcry. There would be guidelines and
processes, and quite possibly funding (I did say 'possibly'), to actually do
something about it. In this case there isn't even a process. It is, after all,
only graffiti.
