gnosall 2005

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

1/31

Project No 15

Gnosall Report 2005

by

Jan Holland

January 2008

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

2/31WAG Gnosall Report 2005 2

Table of contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Methodology........................................................................................................................................ 3

Area 1............................................................................................................................................... 3

Area 2............................................................................................................................................... 9

Discussion .......................................................................................................................................... 13

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 15

References..........................................................................................................................................17

Appendix............................................................................................................................................ 18

GNO 05 A1/T4 PLAN 18................ 19

GNO 04/A1/A1/EXT2 Deep Area Sondage PLAN 19.................20

GNO 05 A1/T4/ PLAN 20 .................21

GNO 05 A2/ SITE PLAN 2 .........22

GNO 05 A1/EXTENSION 2/ East Facing Wall SECTION 24........... 23

GNO05 /AREA 2/TRENCH 1 / SONDAGE 1/ East Facing Wall SECTION 25...........24

GNO05 / AREA 2/ TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /North Facing Wall SECTION 26 ..........25

GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /West Facing Wall SECTION 27 ..........26

GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /South Facing Wall SECTION 28 ..........27

GNO 04 A1/T4//SOUTH FACING SECTION 29..........28

Finds...............................................................................................................................................29

Acknowledgements. ..........................................................................................................................31

List of figures

Figure1 Geophysics (resistivity) of the field area ............................................................................. 3

Figure 2 Plan 19 .................................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 3 Section 24 ............................................................................................................................. 4

Figure 4 Trench 4 looking north........................................................................................................ 5

Figure 5 Plan 18 and photograph of Trench 4................................................................................... 5

Figure 6 Plan 20 .................................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 7 Section 29, South facing section of Trench 4..................................................................... 6

Figure 8 Aerial photograph of Selman Street. Courtesy of Google Earth...................................... 7Figure 9 Aerial photograph with tithe and geophysics superimposed ............................................. 8

Figure 10 Site Plan of Area 2 ............................................................................................................. 9

Figure 11 Area2 Trench 1 in relation to church ..............................................................................1 0

Figure 12 Area 2 Trench 1 Sections of sondage .............................................................................1 1

Figure 13 Area 2 Trench 1 and Trench 2.........................................................................................12

Figure 14 Plan of Trenches 2 & 3 ....................................................................................................12

Figure 15 Map of Gnosall Township showing the apportionments [8] ........................................14

Figure 16 1902 OS Map of Gnosall [1] ...........................................................................................14

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Introduction

Our previous two seasons at Parkside, a former vicarage built in 1854 to the east of Selman

Street in the Staffordshire village of Gnosall, were centred on the search for a 16th

century

vicars mansion of four small chambers built by Leonard Harcourt prior to 1549. We also

checked two anomalies showing on geophysics in the upper garden area as a dark c ircular

feature and a linear feature further south towards the ha-ha. Neither of these fea tures proved to

be significant in our search for the vicarage. The circular feature was probably due to a semi-

circle of trees removing moisture from the ground and the second feature may be geological as a

sandstone ridge was found across the trench. Our final season focussed on trying to pinpoint the

position of a dwelling, evidence for which was found in our excavation last year (2004) and also

to look at an area in the lower garden/field section where the geophysics shows a low resistance

area (figure 1), possibly a holloway leading towards the church. Large stones were also visible

in the area near the presumed holloway and these were examined by putting a trench across the

area. The pipeline evident in the geophysics of the area (fig 1) is of unknown origin as the

current owners were unaware of its existence. Unfortunately six weeks into the dig I broke my

elbow and forearm leaving me unable to continue as site director. Emma Hughes kindly took

over the overall site direction while Andy Pearsall directed Area 2.

Figure1 Geophysics (resistivity) of the field area

Methodology

Area 1

Area1/Area1/Extension 2

We removed the backfill and cleaned up the area to bring us back to the situation we had at the

end of our 2004 season. We then dug through the hard, sandy surface 127 to reveal a rubble

layer 131 , 0.49m deep which overlaid the natural sandstone 132 . This layer contained brick,

tile, plaster and mortar fragments. Plan 19 shows the interface of 127 and 131 while section 24shows rubble layer 131 between the sandy layers 127 and natural sandstone 132.. All plans and

sections, together with their keys are shown in the Appendix.

? holloway

Pipe line

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Figure 2 Plan 19

Figure 3 Section 24

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Having reached natural sandstone the trench was backfilled and we decided to open a new

trench to the south of the water pipe trench (Area 1/trench 4) to try and define the extent and

orientation of the building.

Area 1/Trench 4

A 2m x 1m trench was opened between the dahlia bed and the hedge (65.7E, 120.07N; 65.4E,

120.4N; 65.2E, 120.5N; 65.04E, 120.1N)

Figure 4 Trench 4 looking north

Topsoil 400 contained animal bone, tile, brick, glass and stone blocks in small amounts and pipe

stem fragments in larger numbers. Pipe stem bore sizes gave us a dating range of 1650 to 1720.

Small amounts of pottery e.g. black glaze ware, brown mottled ware and stoneware were also

present. Findings were similar to those in area 1/area1 and would suggest a connection with the

building in that area. The next layer 402 continued the similarity but also showed the presence

of charcoal (Plan 18).

Figure 5 Plan 18 and photograph of Trench 4

It would suggest that the building extended south to this point but was disrupted by the

excavation of the water pipe trench.

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Figure 6 Plan 20

Figure 7 Section 29, South facing section of Trench 4

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

7/31

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Figure 9 Aerial photograph with tithe and geophysics superimposed

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Area 2

In the second area of investigation, the lower garden/field area, the points of interest were the

route of the apparent Holloway and a spread of sandstone blocks found on a previous occasion.

The area grid was set using the same 100E/100N site co-ordinates used in the upper garden area.

Figure 10 Si te Plan of Area 2

Area2 Trench1

A trench 5m by 1m was opened in a roughly north south direction parallel to the boundary hedge(67.9E, 58.9N; 66.9E, 59.0N; 67.5E, 65.0 N; 68.5E, 64.9.0N).

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Figure 11 Area2 Trench 1 in relation to church

There was a 0.5m drop in contour from north to south along its length. The dry, dusty topsoil

500 contained pipe stems together with a number of pottery sherds covering a date range from

the sixteenth to the twentieth century. This was possibly plough soil or infill. The underlying

layer context 501 was a compacted sandy layer with rounded silicon pebbles and frequent

charcoal. There were few finds but some small pieces of black glazed ware, brown mottled

ware and pipe stems were present. The natural level 503 was sand with river washed gravel at a

depth of 98.0m OD. This compared well with the level of natural of 98.05m OD found in area1/trench 4. A 1m extension at the north end to investigate the ridge area showed a small rubble

spread. The extension was taken down a further 15 cm but appeared empty. Due to the intense

heat making the dig difficult it was decided to put a sondage at the southern end rather than dig

the whole trench. Several new contexts were uncovered including a charcoal layer and a small

plaster layer. Once natural 503 was reached sections were drawn and the trench was back-filled.

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Figure 12 Area 2 Trench 1 Sections of sondage

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Area2 Trench2

A second trench (1m by 2m) was opened east of Trench1 at co-ordinates (75.4E, 63.9N; 76.5E,

65.2N; 75.0E, 66.5N; 73.8E, 65.1N).

Figure 13 Area 2 Trench 1 and Trench 2

The trench was sited over an area where sandstone rubble had been found previously.

Sandstone fragments and rubble were present with sandstone blocks at the south end. There was

some pebble compaction at the 500/501 interface directly under the stone blocks. The trench

was extended a further 3m to investigate the ridge in this area. The central area leading to trench

3 appeared to contain nothing.

Area2 Trench3

The extension was designated trench 3 (73.8E, 65.1N; 72.2E, 63.0N; 71.8E, 61.8N; 72.8E,

61.5N; 73.0E, 62.3N; 74.5E, 64.4N). Sandstone fragments and masonry were again evident.

The areas of sandstone and rubble may have been connected with dry stonewalls. Evidence of a

sandstone wall was found in both A2/trench1 and A2/trench3. It was felt that no further

information could be gained from these trenches so the site was closed.

Figure 14 Plan of Trenches 2 & 3

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Discussion

The presence of a building on this site is supported both by the Tithe map evidence and the type

of finds we uncovered such as brick, plaster, mortar, nails, roof and floor tiles together with the

trappings of life such as pottery both for cooking and eating and glass for windows and drinking

vessels. Our final season s goal was to try to pinpoint the position and size of the house. We

managed to partially locate the building during our 2004 season when auger bores gave us the

east west location to within 1 m, but the northern limit was lost in demolition rubble and the

southern extent was not located because the water pipeline cut through. Our 2005 excavation

appears to show the southerly extent to be just south of the pipeline as it ran out in A1/Trench 4.The suggestion of a drive or pathway would also confirm that the building terminated near this

point. The current excavation did not add anything to our knowledge of the type of structure on

the site.

Our investigations into the holloway in the lower garden/field area gave no material indication

of one. The Tithe map and current aerial photographs show it to be the most likely route for

pedestrians to take to the church. If one stands at the end of the known holloway, facing the

church, the line of sight takes the route along the edge of the lower garden area. However, the

enclosure hedges may have destroyed the line of the original holloway. The geophysics results

show a high resistance area under the hedge with a definite low resistance channel immediately

adjacent to it. This would be consistent with a holloway in this area. The slag finds could

indicate some type of metalworking or kiln in the area or may have been to do with the building

of the road. The sandstone blocks in the lower garden area are almost certainly associated with

sandstone walls, probably used as field boundary markers. The tithe map (Figure 15) certainly

shows field boundaries on the property.

Looking at the documentary evidence, we know that Leonard Harcourt [2] had built a mansion

house of four little chambers for the vicars choral, worth 16d net per annum, and also gave a

barn and four butts of land in Gnosall. He was the lessee of Sukershall between 1521 and 1545.

The prebend was vacant by October 1551, and Sukershall was no longer standing by 1677. The

Victoria County History [7] states that in 1680, no houses near the church were mentioned.

However, it does mention several ancient stone walls incorporated in outhouses and farmyards

in Gnosall village particularly near the church. In some cases medieval stones have been reused.

An alternative site for the mansion may have been Suker s croft held by Roger Fowke in 1677.

This adjoined a house then standing by the churchyard with a garden, orchard, hemp butt and

voyd ground. ([3], [4]), could the house it adjoined be relevant to our search?;. The house was

named the Manor by 1851 [5]. Suker s croft field (QR410) is west of the farmyard of Manor

farm. The BUFAU excavation ( An Archaeological Evaluation in Gnosall ) states there was no

evidence prior to the 19th

century and no medieval pottery.

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


Figure 15 Map of Gnosall Township showing the apportionments [8]

Figure 16 1902 OS Map of Gnosall [1]

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


It is interesting to note that the word vicarage appears below St Lawrence church (in Figure

16). This area is west of Selman street.

The Victoria County History refers to a fine timber house, near the Duke s Head, probably

dating from the late 16th

century which was demolished in 1838. A contemporary drawing

shows a three storey front with a central projecting porch and two flanking gables. The

timbering of the gables had quadrant and other decorative designs and some lower panels were

filled with diagonal brick noggin. Nearby, another timber house, probably medieval, is shown.

It can be seen from the Tithe map [8] of Gnosall that the Duke s Head is fairly close to QR410

where a garden and orchard are also shown. Could the demolished building have been a

contender for the prebendal mansion?

On the other hand, we know from the 1837 tithe map that a building stood in the grounds of

Parkside, the description of the late demolished house would lend itself to the remains that we

found in our excavations. Was this building demolished early on when the prebends ceased to

function and the sale of the contents and structures were needed to swell the coffers of the

Bishop? The Victoria County History states that in 1839 a house fronting on the road

immediately to the east of the churchyard with barns and a garden attached was in the

occupation of the vicar. Parkside was built 50 yards further east in 1854.The outhouse range

and one of the garden walls contain ancient masonry and it is probable that the site was formerly

occupied by one of the prebendal manors or the sixteenth century house with its four littlechambers.[10] This does suggest a link with this area of land and the church.

Conclusion

We have had a fascinating and frustrating three years at Parkside. Our search for the mansion

house certified in 1549 as being built by Leonard Harcourt for the vicar choral of four small

chambers has not yielded any conclusive results. The documentary evidence poses rather a

dilemma as it could suggest that the vicars mansion stood either to the east or to the west of

Selman Street. However, it is almost certain that it did not survive for any great length of time

in its role as a vicars mansion. as theprebend was vacant by October 1551 and the prebendalhall was no longer standing by 1677. It would seem unlikely that the vicars lived there after the

prebend became vacant and certainly not after Sukershall was demolished.

It is difficult to see from the Tithe Map whether one or two buildings were present alongside the

road as the building crosses a field boundary and lies partly within field 419a. The grouping of

the buildings in the un-numbered area could certainly represent a house and barn. Unfortunately

most of the remains of the building facing the road were lost when the modern driveway was put

in place. Although stone rubble was found on the north east side of the original trench it was not

present as a recognisable feature. If there are indeed 2 buildings here, the building within field

419a may be the 19th

century vicarage and the building in the unmarked area, the lost vicars

mansion.

The Victoria County History [7] states that in 1680 no houses near the church were mentioned

but it is possible that a house stood on the Parkfield site prior to 1680, probably built of stone

and a later dwelling, possibly of timber frame construction with brick infill, replaced it. The

Victoria County History mentions ancient stone walls incorporated in outhouses and farmyards

in Gnosall village near the church which may be re-used stone from the original house. The

most common form of dwelling from the late 15th

century was a 2 or 3 bay hall house [9]. When

trees for crucks became rare, truss construction took ov er . Th e r e- used timbers in the

outbuildings are certainly suitable for this type of structure. The early houses in the village have

stone bases and wooden frames with diagonal brick noggin infill. Stone and brick finds on site

together with the cellar having a similar structure to that of St Lawrence cottage next door

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


supports the idea of a house in keeping with others in the vicinity and probably later than the

date of the vicars mansion. However, finds of window glass, floor tiles, pottery dating from

late medieval to modern times and clay pipe evidence from 1650 to 1850 suggests that a

dwelling has stood on this site for some considerable time. The lack of conclusive evidence

within our site boundaries does not rule out the easterly location for the mansion as artefacts in

the surrounding area i.e. re-used stone in surrounding walls and re-used timbers in outhouses

could support the theory that the house existed within the greater area of Parkside. Artefacts

covering the period of the prebendal manor or the vicar s mansion were found on the site but

they were few and far between. Subsequent demolition and rebuilding of properties has removed

the evidence necessary to give us a positive interpretation of the site as that of the vicars

mansion.

The stone rear wall of the old coach house could be taken as part of the barn for keeping hay, or

even as part of the mansion itself, our building to the front of the property may be simply a later

unrelated dwelling. We know that a vicar s house stoodhere in 1839 prior to the 1854 house that

still stands here but from the spread of artefacts it is difficult to determine how many other

houses stood on the same site. It would be interesting to look for further evidence around the old

coach house but our current investigation is concluded with no definite evidence for the

existence of the vicars mansion within our excavation site.

Archaeological evidence for the continuation of the old holloway from the cemetery to thechurch was not found although the tithe map and aerial photographs show the most likely route

to be along the east side of the hedge. This was backed up by the geophysics results which

showed a high resistance area under the hedge (moisture removed by the roots) and a definite

low resistance channel alongside (consistent with soft soil infill of the path).

The field boundaries shown on the tithe map were almost certainly delineated by sandstone

walls as evidenced by the sandstone blocks found in the lower garden area.

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


References

1. Staffordshire Sheet XLIII, Second Edition 1902

2. SHC 1915 (p105)

3. Ch.coun MS 123896

4. Gnosall (WSL) Gnosall QR 410) quoted in a History of Staffordshire: 115/116.

5. White, Dr Staffs (1857)

6. Tithe Maps & Appt, Gnosall (WSL) Gnosall QR Nos 410, 413, 415, 519.

7. Victoria County History 4 pp111-120

8. Tithe Map of Gnosall Township, 1837 (WSL)

9. Hanawalt 1986 p 35 www.tonygraham.co.uk/house_repair/wattle_daub/WD-2.html

10. Victoria County History 4 p132

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


.

Appendix

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

19/31

WAG Gnosall Report 2005 19

GNO 05 A1/T4 PLAN 18

ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:20

PLANNED BY: B RILEY

DRAWN BY: J HOLLAND

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES

BUT NOT EXPOSED

BRICK

+ GRID POINT

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

20/31


GNO 04/A1/A1/EXT2 Deep Area Sondage PLAN 19


PLANNED BY: E HUGHES

DRAWN BY: J HOLLAND

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUESBUT NOT EXPOSED

BRICK

TILE

MORTAR

REDUCED LEVEL

REDUCED LEVELS (m OD)

1 103.62

CONTEXT

131 rubble layer

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

21/31

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

22/31

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


GNO 05 A1/EXTENSION 2/ East Facing Wall SECTION 24

1 Metre section in SW corner

DATE: 19/6/2005ORIGINAL SCALE: 1:10

PLANNED BY: C WESTWWOD

S FOSTERDRAWN BY: S FOSTER

KEY


CHARCOAL

TILE

BRICK

PLASTER

CHALK

+ DATUM POINT 104.54m OD REDUCED LEVEL

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)1. 103.112. 103.583. 103.954. 104.43

5. 104.66. 104.757. 105.148. 104.53

9. 104.710. 104.8511. 105.1312. 104.87

13. 104.7414. 104.4115. 103.97

16. 103.717. 103.11

CONTEXTS101 topsoil, pebbles

102 darker, pebbles, moist

133 lens, plaster, fine, powdery

105 orange sandy deposit, evidence of burning

126 rubble layer, grey-white, roof tile, brick fragments,

mortar and plaster

130 brick layer and tile

127 sandy layer

131 rubble layer, brick, tile and plaster

132 natural red sandstone

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

24/31


GNO05 /AREA 2/TRENCH 1 / SONDAGE 1/ East Facing Wall SECTION 25


PLANNED BY:

DRAWN BY: E HUGHESA PEARSALL

ILLUSTRATED BY: A PEARSALL

KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES

BUT NOT EXPOSED

REDUCED LEVEL99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)1: 99.352 99.043 98.894 98.925 98.526 98.36

CONTEXTS500 loamy soil wit h small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm

501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles503 natural, sand with ri ver-washed gravel

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

25/31


GNO05 / AREA 2/ TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /No rth Facing Wall SECTION 26


PLANNED BY:



KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES

BUT NOT EXPOSED

+ DATUM POINT

REDUCED LEVEL99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)7 99.328 99.099 98.8810 98.8011 98.58

12 98.40

CONTEXTS500 loamy soil wit h small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles502 dry stone wall with rubble spread503 natural, sand with ri ver-washed gravel

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

26/31


GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /West Facing Wall SECTION 27


PLANNED BY:



KEY

FEATURE CONTINUES

BUT NOT EXPOSED

REDUCED LEVEL

99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

13 99.3514 99.1815 98.9316 98.7017 98.42

CONTEXTS500 loamy soil wit h small pebbles 0.05 to 5cm501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles

502 dry stone wall with rubble spread503 natural, sand with ri ver-washed gravel

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

27/31


GNO05 / AREA 2/TRENCH 1 /SONDAGE 1 /South Facing Wall SECTION 28


PLANNED BY: E HUGHES

A PEARSALL

DRAWN BY: A PEARSALL

KEY


REDUCED LEVEL99.99

REDUCED LEVELS (mOD)

18 98.88

19 98.0120 98.43

CONTEXTS501 very compacted orange sandy soil, frequent rounded silica pebbles502 dry stone wall with rubble spread

Natural

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

28/31

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

29/31

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005


A2/Trench 1 500 501 504

blackglazed ware fine 3 2

blackglazed ware coarse 3 1

burnt coarseware

brown mottled ware 13 8

yellow gl azed ware

brownware 4blue and white 6 1

earthenware

slipware 5 12

purpleware

manganese ware

stoneware 3 2

creamware 6

saltglaze 1

greenglaze(medieval)

white glaze 12

modern

china

green and white

earthenware non glazed 3 2

earthenware slip only

lustreware

pearlware

bone

11+rodent

skull

2

window glass 4 4

glass clear

glass green 2 4

glass blue

glass brown

pipe stem/bowl 21/2 4

tile roof 1

tile floor 6 3

brick

mortar

plaster

metal iron 3 2

metal other

slate

coal 1

shellslag 8 3 abundant

charcoal 5

burnt stone

silver cig paper

silver milk bottle top

salad sieve bowl

tooth

Terracotta pot 1

8/14/2019 Gnosall 2005

31/31

Acknowledgements.

I would like to thank the many members of the Wolverhampton Archaeology Group who gave up

their Sundays to come and dig. Without their enthusiasm and hard work, this excavation would

have been impossible. Martin, as ever, has toiled long and hard to set out this document on the

computer.

I should also like to thank Peter Gillard for his interest and help over the year and also to Mr and

Mrs Herbert for allowing us to return and dig on their property.

WAG Members

Emma Hughes, Assistant Site Director

Sue Foster

Carole Griffiths

Martin Holland

Chris Robinson

Sandra VintClive Westwood

Brian Perrett

Mike Durrant

Barbara Riley

Paul Hadfield

Andrew Pearsall

Brett Harrison

Copyright Notice.

The contents of WAG Projects are copyright and may not be copied or stored in an information

retrieval system without the prior permission of the WAG Chairman.

gnosall 2005

Documents